He commends the faith of the Romans, whom he longs to see. The philosophy of the heathens, being void of faith and humility, betrayed them into shameful sins.
The foundation of his Apostleship being laid, 〈◊〉 he highly commendeth the Romanes, and protesteth his affection tovvardes them. and so cōming to the matter, saith, our Christian Catholike doctrine (that teacheth al to beleeue) to be the vvay to saluation: 118 because the Gentiles (first of al) could not be saued by their Philosophie, vvhereby they knevv God, for so much as they did not serue him, but Idoles he therfore iustly permitting them to fall into al kind of most damnable sinne.
1Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God.Paolo, servo di Gesù Cristo, chiamato Apostolo, segregato pel Vangelo di Dio,PAVL the seruant of IESVS CHRIST, called to be an Apostle, separated into the Gospel of God,Paulus, servus Jesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei, 2Which he had promised before, by his prophets, in the holy scriptures,Il qual (Vangelo) aveva egli anticipatamente promesso per mezzo de' suoi profeti nelle sante scritture,vvhich before he had promised by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures,quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis 3Concerning his Son, who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh,Risguardante il Figliuol suo (fatto a lui del seme di Davidde secondo la carne,of his sonne, (vvho vvas made to him of the seede of Dauid according to the flesh,de Filio suo, qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem, 4Who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead:Predestinato Figliuolo di Dio per (propria) virtù secondo lo spirito di santificazione per la risurrezione da morte) Gesù Cristo Signor nostro:vvho vvas predestinate the sonne of God in povver, according to the spirit of sanctification, by the resurrectiō of our Lord IESVS CHRIST from the dead,qui prædestinatus est Filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum Jesu Christi Domini nostri: 5By whom we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith, in all nations, for his name:Per cui ricevuto abbiamo la grazia e l'Apostolato presso tutte le genti affinchè alla fede nel nome di lui ubbidiscano,by vvhom vve haue receiued grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith in al Nations for the name of him,per quem accepimus gratiam, et apostolatum ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus pro nomine ejus, 6Among whom are you also the called of Jesus Christ:Tra le quali siete anche voi chiamati di Gesù Cristo:among vvhom are you also the called of IESVS CHRIST:)in quibus estis et vos vocati Jesu Christi: 7To all that are at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints. Grace to you and peace, from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ.A tutti que' che sono in Roma, diletti di Dio, chiamati santi: grazia a voi, e pace da Dio padre nostro, e dal Signore Gesù Cristo.to al that are at Rome the beloued of God, called to be saincts. Grace to you and peace from God our father, and our Lord IESVS CHRIST.omnibus qui sunt Romæ, dilectis Dei, vocatis sanctis. Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Jesu Christo.
8First, I give thanks to my God, through Jesus Christ, for you all: because your faith is spoken of in the whole world.E primieramente grazie rendo al mio Dio per Gesù Cristo a riguardo di tutti voi: perché per la vostra fede vien celebrata pel mondo tutto.First I giue thankes to my God through IESVS CHRIST for al you, because your faith is renoumed in the vvhole vvorld.Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Jesum Christum pro omnibus vobis: quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo. 9For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make a commemoration of you:Imperocché è a me testimone Dio cui in servo col mio spirito in evangelizzando il suo figliuolo, come di continuo fo memoria di voiFor God is my vvitnes, vvhom I serue in my spirit in the Gospel of his Sonne, that vvithout intermission I make a memorie of youTestis enim mihi est Deus, cui servio in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii ejus, quod sine intermissione memoriam vestri facio 10Always in my prayers making request, if by any means now at length I may have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you.Sempre nelle mie orazioni, chiedendo, che, se mai finalmente una volta mi sia concesso nella volontà di Dio un felice viaggio a voi io ne venga.alvvaies in my praiers, beseeching, if by any meanes I may sometime at the length haue a prosperous iourney by the vvil of God, to come vnto you.semper in orationibus meis: obsecrans, si quomodo tandem aliquando prosperum iter habeam in voluntate Dei veniendi ad vos. 11For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual grace, to strengthen you:Conciossiaché bramo di vedervi, affin di comunicare a voi qualche parte di grazia spirituale per vostro conforto:For I desire to see you, that I may imparte vnto you some spiritual grace, to confirme you:Desidero enim videre vos, ut aliquid impertiar vobis gratiæ spiritualis ad confirmandos vos: 12That is to say, that I may be comforted together in you by that which is common to us both, your faith and mine.Viene a dire, per consolarmi insieme con voi per la scambievole fede e vostra, e mia.that is to say, to be comforted together in you by that vvhich is cōmon to vs both, your faith and mine.id est, simul consolari in vobis per eam quæ invicem est, fidem vestram atque meam. 13And I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that I have often purposed to come unto you (and have been hindered hitherto) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.Or io non voglio, che siavi ignoto, o fratelli, come feci spesso risoluzione di venir da voi per far qualche frutto anche tra voi, come tra le altre nazioni, ma sono stato fino a quest'ora impedito.And I vvil not haue you ignorant (brethren) that I haue often purposed to come vnto you (and haue been staied hitherto) that I may haue some fruite in you, as also in the other Gentiles.Nolo autem vos ignorare fratres: quia sæpe proposui venire ad vos (et prohibitus sum usque adhuc) ut aliquem fructum habeam et in vobis, sicut et in ceteris gentibus.
14To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor.Sono debitore ai Greci, e ai Barbari, ai saggi, e agli stolti:To the Greekes and the Barbarous, to the vvise and the vnvvise I am detter.Græcis ac barbaris, sapientibus, et insipientibus debitor sum: 15So (as much as is in me) I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are at Rome.Così (quanto a me) sono pronto ad annunciare il Vangelo anche a voi che siete in Roma.so (as much as is in me) I am ready to euangelize to you also that are at Rome.ita (quod in me) promptum est et vobis, qui Romæ estis, evangelizare. 16For I am not ashamed of the gospel. For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth: to the Jew first and to the Greek.Imperocché io non mi vergogno del Vangelo. Conciossiachè egli è virtù di Dio per dar salute ad ogni credente, prima al Giudeo, e poi al Greco.For I am not ashamed of the Gospel. For it is the povver of God, vnto saluation to euery one that beleeueth, to the Ievve first and to the Greeke.Non enim erubesco Evangelium. Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Judæo primum, et Græco. 17For the justice of God is revealed therein, from faith unto faith, as it is written: The just man liveth by faith.Imperocché la giustizia di Dio per esso si manifesta di fede in fede: conforme sta scritto: il giusto vive di fede.For the iustice of God is reuealed therein by faith into faith: as it is vvritten: And the iust liueth by faith.Justitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem: sicut scriptum est: Justus autem ex fide vivit. 18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men that detain the truth of God in injustice:Imperocché si manifesta l'ira di Dio dal cielo contro ogni empietà, e in giustizia degli uomini, come quegli, i quali la verità di Dio ritengono nell'ingiustizia:For the vvrath of God from heauen is reuealed, vpon al impietie and iniustice of those men that deteine the vertitie of God in iniustice:Revelatur enim ira Dei de cælo super omnem impietatem, et injustitiam hominum eorum, qui veritatem Dei in injustitia detinent: 19Because that which is known of God is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it unto them.Conciossiachè quello, che di Dio può conoscersi, è in essi manifesto. Dappoiché Dio lo ha ad essi manifestato.because, that of God vvhich is knovvē, is manifest in them. For God hath manifested it vnto them.quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis. Deus enim illis manifestavit.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made. His eternal power also and divinity: so that they are inexcusable.Imperocché le invisibili cose di lui, dopo creato il mondo per le cose fatte comprendendosi, si veggono: anche l'eterna potenza, e il divino essere di lui, onde siano inescusabili.For his inuisible things, from the creation of the vvorld are seen, being vnderstoode by those things that are made: his eternal povver also & Diuinitie: so that they are inexcusable.Invisibilia enim ipsius, a creatura mundi, per ea quæ facta sunt, intellecta, conspiciuntur: sempiterna quoque ejus virtus, et divinitas: ita ut sint inexcusabiles. 21Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God or given thanks: but became vain in their thoughts. And their foolish heart was darkened.Perché avendo conosciuto Dio, noi glorificarono come Dio né a lui grazie rendettero: ma infatuirono ne' loro pensamenti, e si ottenebrò lo stolto lor cuore:Because, vvhereas they knevve God, they haue not glorified him as God, or giuē thankes: but are become vaine in their cogitations, and their folish hart hath been darkened.Quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt: sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum: 22For, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.Imperocché dicendo di esser saggi, diventarono stolti.for, saying them selues to be vvise, they became fooles.dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. 23And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts and of creeping things.E cangiarono la gloria dell'incorruttibile Dio per la figura di un simulacro di uomo corruttibile, e di uccelli, e di quadrupedi, e di serpenti.And they changed the glorie of the incorruptible God, into a similitude of the image of a corruptible man, and of foules and foure-footed beastes and of them that creepe.Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentium. 24Wherefore, God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness: to dishonour their own bodies among themselves.Per la qual cosa abbandonagli Iddio ai desiderj de' loro cuore, alla immondezza: talmente che disonorassero in se stessi i corpi loro:(For the vvhich cause God hath deliuered them vp vnto the desires of their hart, into vncleannesse, for to abuse their owne bodies among them selues ignominiously.)Propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam, ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetipsis:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.Eglino, che cambiarono la verità di Dio per la menzogna: e rendettero onore, e servirono alla creatura piuttosto, che al Creatore, il quale è bene detto ne' secoli. Così sia.vvho haue changed the veritie of God into lying: and haue vvorshipped & serued the creature rather then the creator, vvho is blessed for euer. Amen.qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium: et coluerunt, et servierunt creaturæ potius quam Creatori, qui est benedictus in sæcula. Amen. 26For this cause, God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature.Per questo gli diede Dio in balìa di ignominiose passioni. Imperocché le stesse loro donne l'ordine posto dalla natura cambiarono in disordine contrario alla natura.Therfore God hath deliuered them into passions of ignominie. For their vvomen haue changed the natural vse, into that vse that is contrarie to nature.Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiæ: nam feminæ eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam. 27And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts, one towards another: men with men, working that which is filthy and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.E gli uomini similmente, lasciata la natural unione della donna, ne lor desiderj arsero scambievolmente, facendo cose obbrobriose l'un verso l'altro, e riportando in se stessi la condegna mercede del proprio errore.And in like maner the men also, leauing the natural vse of the vvoman, haue burned in their desires one tovvard an other, men vpon men vvorking turpitude, & the revvard of their errour (vvhich they should) receauing in themselues.Similiter autem et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes, et mercedem, quam oportuit, erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes. 28And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.E siccome non si curarono di riconoscer Dio: abbandonogli Iddio a un reprobo senso, onde facciano cosa non convenevoli,And as they liked not to haue God in knovvledge: God deliuered them vp into a reprobate sense: to doe those things that are not conuenient:Et sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum, ut faciant ea quæ non conveniunt,
29Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness: full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity: whisperers,Ricolmi di ogni iniquità, di malizia, di fornicazione, di avarizia, di malvagità, pieni di invidia, di omicidio, di discordia, di frode, di malignità, susurroni,replenished vvith al iniquitie, malice, fornication, auarice, vvickednes, ful of enuie, murder, contention, guile, malignitie, vvhisperers,repletos omni iniquitate, malitia, fornicatione, avaritia, nequitia, plenos invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, malignitate: susurrones, 30Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,Detrattori, nemici di Dio, oltraggiatori, superbi, millantatori, inventori di male cose, disubbidienti ai genitori,detractours, odible to God, contumelious, proude, hautie, inuentours of euil things, disobedient to parents,detractores, Deo odibiles, contumeliosos, superbos, elatos, inventores malorum, parentibus non obedientes, 31Foolish, dissolute: without affection, without fidelity, without mercy.Stolti, disordinati, senza amore, senza legge, senza compassione.folish, dissolute, vvithout affection, vvithout fidelitie, vvithout mercie.insipientes, incompositos, sine affectione, absque fœdere, sine misericordia. 32Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death: and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.I quali conosciuta avendo la giustizia di Dio, non intesero, come chi fa tali cose, è degno di morte: né solamente chi le fa, ma anche chi approva coloro, che le fanno.Who vvhereas they knevv the iustice of God, did not vnderstand that they vvhich doe such things, are vvorthie of death: not only they that doe them, but they also that consent to the doers.Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellexerunt quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte: et non solum qui ea faciunt, sed etiam qui consentiunt facientibus.
1:1
Called to be an apostle,[Ver. 1. Vocatus, kletos Apostolos. Also ver. 6. and 7. kletoi.] or a called apostle. That is, not only having the name of an apostle, but having his call to this high function, and his mission from God.
Witham
Separated unto the gospel of God. He means that he was separated from others, and appointed by the Holy Ghost to preach the gospel, as we read Acts 13:2. when the Holy Ghost to those of the Church at Antioch, said, Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work unto which I have taken them. (Witham)
1:2
Witham
Which he had promised before, etc. That is, God before, in the Scriptures, promised the blessings, which are now come by the preaching of the gospel, and that they should come by his Son. (Witham)
1:3
Witham
Who was made to him of the seed of David, according to the flesh. The sense is, that God promised, that he who was his true and only Son from eternity, should also become his son, as man; that the same son should be man, as well as God, when the word was made flesh, or when that divine person should be united to our human nature. Thus the same person, who was his only begotten Son from eternity, being made man, and of the seed of David, by his incarnation, was still his Son, both as God, and also as man. (Witham)
Calmet
The Greek text has not the particle ei, (to him) but only tou genomenou ek spermatos David. But St. Irenaeus, (lib. 3:chap. 18.) St. Ambrose, St. Jerome read, Qui factus est ei. And also St. Augustine in his unfinished exposition of the epistle to the Romans; though before in his book against Faustus, (lib. xi. Romans 14.) he reads it otherwise. (Calmet)
1:4
Witham
Who was predestined[Ver. 4. Qui praedestinatus est. St. Chrysostom, om. a. p. 7. Ed. Sau. ti oun estin oristhentos; deichthentos, apophanthentos.] the Son of God. The learned bishop of Meaux, Bossuet, in his second Pastoral Instruction, in which he condemned the French translation of Mons. Simon, (p. 127.) takes notice, that according to St. Paul, and the constant doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, Christ as man, or the human nature of Christ united to his divine person, was predestinated without any precedent merits, by a free and liberal predestination of God's goodness. (Witham)
Challoner
Christ, as man, was predestinated to be the Son of God; and declared to be so (as the apostle here signifies) first by power, that is, by his working stupendous miracles; secondly, by the spirit of sanctification, that is, by his infinite sanctity; thirdly, by his resurrection, or raising himself from the dead. (Challoner)
1:5
By whom, that is by this same Jesus Christ, God and man, we, I and the rest of the apostles, have received this grace and apostleship, this mission and commission from him, of preaching his gospel, and teaching his doctrine.
Witham
For obedience to the faith in all nations; that is, to bring all nations to the obedience and profession of his new law and doctrine. (Witham)
1:6
Witham
Among whom are you also the called of Jesus. That is, you also are a part of those, who by his mercy, are called to this faith and belief in him. All beginning from those words in the third verse, who was made to him, etc. till the end of the sixth verse, are to be taken as within a parenthesis, which is not unusual in the style of St. Paul. Then he goes on after this long parenthesis. (Witham)
1:7
1:8
Witham
In the whole world. That is, to all, or almost all the Roman empire. (Witham)
1:9
Witham
God is my witness. I call God to witness. It is an oath. (Witham)
1:14
Witham
I am a debtor. That is, I am bound to preach the word of God to all. (Witham)
By Greeks, in this place, are understood the Romans also, and by Barbarians, all other people who were neither Greeks nor Romans. The Greeks called all barbarians, who did not speak the Greek language, even the Latins themselves. But after the Romans became masters of the world, they were excepted, through policy, from the number of barbarians, and particularly after they began to cultivate the science of the Greeks. Graecia victa ferum victorem cepit, et artes Intulit agresti Latio.
Calmet
St. Paul says, that he is a debtor both to Greeks and barbarians, to the wise, the philosophers, those who pass for sages amongst the pagans, and to the simple, ignorant, unlettered class of mankind: not that he had received any thing at their hands, but because it was his duty, in quality of apostle, to address himself to the whole world, and preach to the great and to the small, to the learned and the unlearned. (Calmet)
1:15
St. Paul was even anxious to go and deliver the word to the Romans. Hence Mat. Polus, in his reflections on this verse, puts the following words into the mouth of the Apostle: Lucifuga non sum: ostendi id Antiochiae, Athenis, Ephesi et Corinthi: paratus sum et in illa splendidissima urbe Roma ostendere.
1:16
For it is the power of God unto salvation to every one; that is, it brings powerful helps to all, both Gentiles and Jews, in order to their salvation.
Witham
To the Jew first, inasmuch as the gospel is to be first preached to the Jews. (Witham)
Calmet
The promises of salvation were first made to the Jews. Jesus Christ preached to the Jews only, and forbad his disciples, during his life-time, to preach to any other nation. And after his resurrection, when they had full powers to preach every where, they did not turn to the Gentiles, till the Jews had refused to hear them. A miracle was necessary to determine St. Peter to communicate the gospel to the uncircumcised; and St. Paul, in every place, first addressed himself to the Jew, and then to the Gentile. The apostle here sweetly endeavours, in an indirect manner, to silence the presumption of the Romans, who seemed to raise themselves above the Jews, and believed they had merited the grace of vocation to the faith. (Calmet)
1:17
For the justice of God. He does not here mean that justice, by which God is just in himself, but that justice, or sanctification, which he communicates to men, and by which they are justified and sanctified.
Witham
From faith to faith. That is, by faith, and an increase in faith, inasmuch as, by increasing in faith, we advance in virtues; as it is written, (Habacuc 2:4.) the just man liveth by faith; including the love of God, hope, and other virtues. (Witham)
1:18
Witham
For the wrath of God is revealed, etc. He begins to speak of the heathens, and of the wicked world, whose sins God punisheth from time to time with visible chastisements of plagues, famines, wars, etc. and that because they detain the truth of God in injustice, or in iniquity, that is, because they have not honoured God, even according to the knowledge which he has given them of him, especially their philosophers. (Witham)
1:19
Witham
That which is known of God. Or may be easily known of God, is manifest in them. The light of reason demonstrates to them the existence of one God, the maker and preserver of all things. This is made known to them from the creation of the world, or from the creatures in the world: the Creator may be discovered by the creatures, and as St. Chrysostom here says, every Scythian, every barbarian, may come to the knowledge of God by the wonderful harmony[Ver. 20. St. Chrysostom, hom. ii. p. 20. tes panton armonias salpiggos, lamproteron booses.] of all things, which proclaims the existence of God louder than any trumpet: but having known him, they did not glorify him; they acted contrary to their knowledge, abandoning themselves to idolatry, and the vain worship of many gods, and to all manner of vices and abominations against the light of reason. (Witham)
1:24
Witham
Wherefore God gave them[Ver. 24. to de paredoken, entautha eiasen esti.] up, etc. That is, as St. Chrysostom says, permitted them, in punishment of their wilful blindness, to fall into the foulest, most shameful, and unnatural sins of uncleanness here described. (Witham)
1:26
Challoner
God delivered them up. Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins. (Challoner)
1:27
Witham
Receiving in themselves the recompense...due to their error. That is, were justly punished for their wilful blindness and error, by which they had worshipped and adored creatures, instead of the Creator, idols instead of the one true God. (Witham)
1:29
Witham
Being filled with all iniquity. He passeth to many other sins and crimes of the heathens. (Witham)
1:30
Witham
Hateful[Ver. 30. Deo odibiles. theostugeis.] to God. The Greek may also signify, haters of God. (Witham)
Menochius
theostugeis means either haters of God, or hated by God. (Menochius)
Calmet
Disobedient to parents. The Greek literally signifies, Not listening to the advice of their parents; who rise up against them, and refuse to obey. (Calmet)
1:31
Witham
Dissolute, rude[Ver. 31. asunthetous. See 2 Timothy 3:3.. aspondous, sine foedere.] in their manners, and behaviour. Some, from the Greek, understand breakers of their word; but this would be the same as without fidelity, which we find afterwards in the same verse. (Witham)
1:32
This passage in the present Greek versions is rather different from the Vulgate: but the text of the Vulgate is conformable to the most ancient Greek manuscripts, of which some are more than twelve hundred years old. Oitines to dikaioma tou theou epignontes ouk enoesan oti oi ta toiauta prassontes axioi thanatou eisin, ou monon de oi poiountes auta, alla kai oi suneudokountes tois prassousin. See Var. Lect. Mill. in hunc locum et Prolegom. 41. 42.
1:4
Predestinated, etc.... Christ as man, was predestinated to be the Son of God: and declared to be so (as the apostle here signifies) first, by power, that is, by his working stupendous miracles; secondly, by the spirit of sanctification, that is, by his infinite sanctity; thirdly, by his ressurection, or raising himself from the dead.
1:26
God delivered them up.... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.
1:1
In the liturgy The Epistle vpō Christmas eue.
Concordance Act. 13. 2.
1:2
• Faith must not be subiect to sense, reason, arguing or vnderstāding, but must cōmaund & be obeied in humilitie and simplicitie.
1:5
〈Greek〉.
S. Augustine vseth this place and the like agaīst Heretikes, vvhich vvould dravv the common Catholike faith of al natiōs, to some certaine countries or corners of the world. Aug. ep. 161.
1:7
7. Grace to you and peace.] Apostolical salutation or blessing. It is a kind of blessing rather then a prophane salutation, proper to the Apostles, of greater vertue then the benedictions of the fathers in the old Testament. The holy fathers of the Church seemed to absteine from it for their reuerence to the Apostles. Epiph. h• res. 6•. The Manichees (August. cont. ep. fund•. c. 5. •.) and other Heretikes (as also these of our time) because they vvould be counted Apostles, The same vsed of Heretikes. often vse it.
•. Your faith venoumed.] The holy Doctors vpon these vvordes of the Apostle, and specially by our Maisters promis made to Peter, The Romane faith highly cō mended. that his faith should not faile, Luc. 22. giue great testimonie for the prouidence of God in the preseruation of the Romane faith. S. Cyprian thus: ep. 55. nu. 6. They are so bold to cary letters from prophane Schismatikes to the chaire of Peter and the principal Church vvhence Priestly vnitie rose: not considering the Romanes to be them vvhose faith (the Apostle being the commender) vvas praised, It can not false, not be corrupted. to vvhom misbel•••• can not haue accesse. So. S. Hierom Apolog. adu. Ru••. li. 3 c. 4. to. 2. Knovv you, that the Romane faith commended by the Apostles mouth, vvil receiue no such deceites, nor can be possibly changed, though an Angel taught othervvise, being fensed by S. Paules authoritie. Againe ep. 63 ad Par•mach. & Oceanum. c. 4. to. 2. Whatsoeuer thou be that auouchest nevv sectes, I pray 〈◊〉 haue respect to the Romans ••res. spare the faith which was praised by the Apostles voice. Pro••. li. 2. Com. in ep. ad Gal. And in an other place: Wilye knovv ô Paula and Eusto•hium, The Romane statiōs, a token of greater faith and deuotion. hovv the Apostle hath noted euery prouince vvith their proprieties? the faith of the people of Ro•• is praised. Where is there so g•ea•concourse to Churches and Martyrs sepulchres? Where soundeth Amen like thunder from heauen, or vvhere are the temples (void of Idols) so shaken as there? Not that the Romanes haue an other faith then the rest of the Christian Churches, but that there is in them more deuotion and simplicitie of faith. In an other place the same holy Doctor signifieth that it is al one to say, The Catholike and Romane faith al one. the Romane faith, and, the Catholike. Apolog. 1 adu. Ruff. c. 1. So doth S. Cyprian ep. 〈◊〉. num. 1. ad Antonianum: and S. Ambrose de •bitu fratris, in med. Vvherevpon, this vvord, Romane, is added to, Catholike, in many countries vvhere Sectes do abound, for the better distinction of true beleeuers from Heretikes: vvhich in al ages did hate and abhorre the Romane faith and Church, as al malefactors do their Iudges and correctors.
1:9
9. Serue in spirit.] Diuerse Heretikes vvhen they heare that God is a spirit, and must be serued and adored in spirit, Hovv God is serued in spirit. imagine, that he must be honoured only invvardly, vvithout ceremonies and external vvorkes: vvhich you see is othervvise, for that the Apostle serued God in spirit, by preaching the Gospel. To serue God then in spirit, is to serue him vvith faith, hope, and charitie, and vvith al vvorkes proceding of them: as to serue him carnally, is vvith vvorkes external, vvithout the said internal vertues.
9. A memorie of you.] A great example of charitie for al men, specially for Prelates and Pastors, not only to preach, Praies for conuersion of soules. but to pray continually for the conuersion of people to Christes faith: Vvhich the Apostle did for them vvhom he neuer knevv, in respect of Gods honour only and the zeale of soules.
〈Greek〉
He praieth without intermission that omitteth no day certaine times of praier. Aug. heres. 57.
1:11
The Romanes vvere conuerted and taught by S. Peter before. therefore he vseth that speach, to confirme them in their saith. Author Com. apud Hierony. Theodoret. in 16. Rom. & Chrys.
1:12
12. Worthy of death.] Sinnes mortal and venial. Here you see vvhy the Church taketh some sinnes to be deadly, and calleth them mortal: to vvit, because al that doe them, are vvorthy of damnation: others be venial, that is to say, pardonable of their ovvne nature and not vvorthy of damnation.
1:15
15. To euang•liza.] The Gospel is not only the life of our Sauiour vvritten by the foure Euangelistes, The Gospel is not only the written word. nor only that vvhich is vvritten in the nevv Testamēt: but theis vvhole course of preaching and teaching the faith. Vvhich faith commeth ordinarily of preaching and hearing, and not of vvriting or reading. And therfore S. Paul thought not him self discharged by vvriting to the Romanes, but his desire vvas to preach vnto them: for that vvas the proper commission giuen to the Apostles, Mat. 28. to preach to al nations. The Apostles vvriting, and preaching, vvhether more necessarie, and hovv. The vvriting of the bookes of the Testament, is an other part of Gods prouidence, necessary for the Church in general, but not necessarie for euery man in particular: as to be taught and preached vnto, is for euery one of age and vnderstanding. And therfore S. Peter (vvho vvas the cheefe of the Commission) vvrote litle: many of them, vvrote nothing at al: and S. Paul that vvrote most, vvrote but litle in comparison of his preaching: nor to any but such as vvere conuerted to the faith by preaching before.
1:17
17. Liueth by faith.] In the 10. to the Hebrevves, he shevveth by this place of the Prophete (Abacue's) that the iust though he liue here in peregrination, and seeth not presently nor enioyeth the life euerlasting promised to him, yet holdeth fast the hope thereof by faith. In this place he applieth the Prophetes vvordes further to this sense, The Catholike or Christian •aith with good vvorkes iustifieth, & vvithout this faith, no vvorkes whatsoeuer. That it is our faith, that is to say, the Catholike beleefe (saith S. Augustine li. • cont. •. ep. Pelag.) Which maketh a iust man, and distinguisheth betvvene the iust and vniust, and that by the lavv of faith, and not by the lavv of vvorkes. Vvhereof it riseth, that the Ievv, the Heathen Philosopher, and the Heretike, though they excelled in al vvorkes of moral vertues, could not yet be iust: and a Catholike Christian man liuing but an ordinarie honest life, either not sinning greatly, or supplying his faults by penance, is iust, And this difference riseth by faith, not that faith can saue any man vvithout vvorkes, For it is not a reprobate faith that vve speake of, (as the holy Doctor saith) but that vvhich vvorketh by charitie, and therfore remitteth sinnes and maketh one iust. See S. Augustines place.
He meaneth not Gods owne iustice in him self, but that iustice vvhervvith God endueth man vvhen he iustifieth him. Aug. de Sp. & lit. c. 9. Whereby you may gather the vanitie of the Heretical imputatilue iustice.
Concordance Abac. 2, 4.
1:18
18. Is reuealed.] Not only faith. By al the passage folovving you may see, that the Gospel and Christs lavv consisteth not only in preaching faith, (though that be the ground, and is first alvvaies to be done:) but to teach vertuous life and good vvorkes, and to denounce damnation to al them that commit dealdy sinnes and repent not. And againe vve see that not only lacke of faith is a sinne, but al other actes done against Gods commaundements.
1:23
Lo these and the like are the Images or Idols so often condē ned in the scriptures, and not the holy Images of Christ and his Saincts.
1:24
Eph. 4, 19. he saith, They haue deliuered or giuen vp them selues to al vncleannesse. By vvhich cōferēce of scripture vve learne that them selues are the cause of their ovvne sinne and damnation, God of his iustice permitting & leauing them to their ovvne vvil, and so giuing them vp into passions &c.
1:25
〈Greek〉
1:26
26. Hath deliuered them vp.] God is not the author of sinne. As he saith here, God deliuered them vp, so to the Ephesians (c. 4, 19) he saith of the same persons and things, They deliuered them selues vp to al vncleannesse. So that it is not meant here that God doth driue, force, or cause any man to sinne, as diuers blasphemous Heretikes do hold: God punisheth sinne by permitting men to fall further and further. but only that by his iust iudgement, for their ovvne deseruing, and for due punishment of their former greuous, offenses, he vvithholdeth his grace from them, and so suffereth them to fall further into other sinnes. As, for their crime of Idolatrie, to suffer them to fall into vnnatural abominations: as novv for heresie, he taketh his grace and mercie from many, and so they fall headlong into al kind of turpitude as contrarievvise, for il life, he suffereth many to fall into heresie. And for Christes sake let euery one that is entangled vvith the ldolatrie of this time, that is to say, vvith these nevv sectes, looke vvel into his ovvneconscience, vvhether his forsaking the true God, may not come vnto him for a punishment of his former or present il life vvhich he liueth.
1:1
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.3
… an apostle of Jesus Christ, predestinated unto the Gospel of God, which He had promised by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God with power through the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 14
… For this you had been bound to read, even if not in an Epistle, yet impressed upon the very character of the apostle, by (his) modesty more clearly than by the instrumentality of a pen: not to steep, to wit, Paul, the “apostle of Christ,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.4.2
… called to be an apostle, set apart to the Gospel of God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead of Christ Jesus our Lord,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.6
“ All things were made through Him. ” The “through whom” is never found in the first place but always in the second, as in the Epistle to the Romans,
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.20
… For that reason would needs take precedence of Him, without which not even He Himself had come into being. Paul, for instance, ‘separated an Apostle for the Gospel, which the Lord had promised afore by the Prophets
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.4
… and He Whom we serve is Jesus the Christ . For Him the Apostle Paul even exults in serving, saying, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.16
104. Thus Paul forbids me to worship a creature, and admonishes me of my duty to serve Christ. It follows, then, that Christ is not a created being. The Apostle calls himself “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.9
… “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God.” For, according to the order of human usage, he ought to name the Father first. The Apostle also was ignorant of their order, who says: “Paul the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 8
… when, in writing to the mighty city, to her who was mistress of the world, and prided herself upon her high dignities, Paul set down as equivalent in dignity, nay, as far greater, yea incomparably greater than consulship, or kingly name, or than the empire of the world, this title, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 1
… “The servant of Christ,” this is truly a free man in respect to sin, and being a genuine servant, he is not a servant to any other, since he would not be Christ’s servant, but by halves. And in again writing to the Romans also, he says, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Titus 1
That is, not now upon a change of mind, but from the beginning it was so foreordained. This he often asserts, as when he says, “Separated unto the Gospel of God.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of the Work of Monks 30
… or let them obey the Apostle, as dear children: yea rather, let them do both, because both accord. For things contrary to his Lord, Paul the servant of Jesus Christ would never advise.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean 1.19
… be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which He promised aforetime by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was made unto Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness from the resurrection from the dead of our Lord Jesus Christ."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.2
… Let us then hear what Paul says of the prophets. His words are: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which He had promised before by His prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 15.2
… When the apostle calls himself a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, this is the new honey. But when he adds, "which He promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 23.1
… I replied, Which Jesus do you mean? for in the Hebrew it is the name of several people. One was the son of Nun, the follower of Moses; another was the son of Josedech the high priest; again, another is spoken of as the son of David;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.31
… a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God (which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures) concerning His Son, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated the Son of God in power, according to the Spirit of sanctification by the resurrection of the dead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 4.2
2. But he who is of a right understanding, fulfils both, and will obey in both the Universal Lord of all, who would not condemn the slothful servant, if he commanded those things which could by no means be done. For give ear to “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 105.8
… “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called [to be] an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, who was made for Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… to my gospel.” And, when writing to the Romans, at the very outset he calls attention to the Davidic kin, for he says “Paul a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God which He had promised before by his prophets in the holy scriptures concerning His Son which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… But it is unnecessary to say more on this point. The opening of every one of his letters is distinguished by the divine Apostle with this address. At one time it is “Paul a servant of Jesus Christ called to be an apostle.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 28
… And reading in the Epistle to the Romans, “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called an Apostle, separated unto the Gospel of God , which He had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scripture concerning His son, who was made unto Him of the seed of David after the flesh
1:2
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 7.24
… them, in that He has been hallowed to be the Son, as the blessed Paul says, who teaches us of this sanctification:— Which He had promised afore by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son, Which was made of the seal of David according to the flesh, and was appointed to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of sanctification
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4
For whence do Marcion and Manichæus receive the Gospel while they reject the Law? For the New Testament arose out of the Old, and bears witness to the Old; if then they reject this, how can they receive what proceeds from it? Thus Paul was an Apostle of the Gospel, ‘which God promised afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 2 . “Which He promised afore by His Prophets in the Holy Scriptures.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 13.3
… but this is the Christ in whom the Gentile nations believe, with whom, according to you, Hebrew prophecy should have no weight. They receive the gospel which, as Paul says, "God had promised before by His prophets in the Holy Scriptures of His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh."
1:3
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Smyrnæans: Shorter and Longer Versions 1
… For I have observed that ye are perfected in an immoveable faith, as if ye were nailed to the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, both in the flesh and in the spirit, and are established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.22.1
… in the Epistle to the Galatians, declares plainly, “God sent His Son, made of a woman.” And again, in that to the Romans, he says, “Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Flesh of Christ 22
… Then, again, there is Paul, who was at once both a disciple, and a master, and a witness of the selfsame Gospel; as an apostle of the same Christ, also, he affirms that Christ “was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh,”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 27
… Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.4.2
… For it is held as certain, that everything which is said to be a work of the spirit is (a product of) the will of the spirit, and everything that is called a work of the flesh (proceeds from) the will of the flesh. What else then, besides these, is that will of the soul which receives a separate name,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.4
… while yet they were in agreement with each other in the different things they wrote. Statements which are verbally contrary to each other, are made about our Lord, namely, that He was descended from David and that He was not descended from David. The statement is true, “He was descended from David,” as the Apostle says,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.17
… some indeed come as to Him “who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh;”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 1.7.15
17. Thus far Africanus. And the lineage of Joseph being thus traced, Mary also is virtually shown to be of the same tribe with him, since, according to the law of Moses, intermarriages between different tribes were not permitted.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… saying namely, that the body is not newer than the Godhead of the Word, but was coeternal with it always, since it was compounded of the Essence of Wisdom. Or how did men called Christians venture even to doubt whether the Lord, Who proceeded from Mary, while Son of God by Essence and Nature, is of the seed of David according to the flesh
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.23
… Gabriel too testifies plainly to Mary, saying, And the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David . Paul also saith, Remember Jesus Christ raised from the dead, of the seed of David, according to my Gospel : and in the beginning of the Epistle to the Romans he saith, Which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 14
… Let no heretic ever persuade thee to speak evil of the Resurrection. For to this day the Manichees say, that, the resurrection of the Saviour was phantom-wise, and not real, not heeding Paul who says, Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh ; and again, By the resurrection of Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 37
… The serpent deceived them both; and one was not found to be the stronger and the other the weaker. But dost thou consider the better? Christ saves both by His Passion. Was He made flesh for the Man? So He was also for the woman. Did He die for the Man? The Woman also is saved by His death. He is called of the seed of David;
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.4
34. We have learnt, then, that He was made man, and that His being made must be referred to His manhood. Furthermore, in another passage of Scripture, you may read: “Who was made for Him of the seed of David,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 3 . “Concerning His Son which was made of the seed of David, according to the flesh.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 3
… And if any one will go through all the sermon from the beginning, he will find what I say very observable, for he (Peter) calls Him “Man,” and dwells on the accounts of His Passion, His Resurrection, and His generation according to the flesh. Paul too when he says, “Who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.10
… Such a nature, then, I thought could not be born of the Virgin Mary without being mingled with the flesh; and how that which I had thus figured to myself could be mingled without being contaminated, I saw not. I was afraid, therefore, to believe Him to be born in the flesh, lest I should be compelled to believe Him contaminated by the flesh.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.31
… For its title is, “A Psalm of David, in the day that the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul.” For of whom is David the type, but of Him who, according to the flesh, was born of the seed of David?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.7
… hath rent the kingdom from Israel out of thine hand this day,” reigned forty years over Israel,—that is, just as long a time as David himself,—yet heard this in the first period of his reign, that we may understand it was said because none of his race was to reign, and that we may look to the race of David, whence also is sprung, according to the flesh,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.8
… and let him not dare to think that God either promised this falsely, or was unable to foreknow that Solomon and his house would become what they did. But we ought not to be in doubt here, or to see the fulfillment of these things save in Christ our Lord, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.28
… children of Israel return, and seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and shall be amazed at the Lord and at His goodness in the latter days.” Nothing is clearer than this prophecy, in which by David, as distinguished by the title of king, Christ is to be understood, “who is made,” as the apostle says, “of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 12.6
… But yet the apostle says to the Romans, “Concerning His Son who was made to Him of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 38
… Is it that He made Him, since our Lord Jesus Christ, though as God “all things were made by Him,” yet as man was Himself made; as the apostle says, “who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 11.1
1. Faustus said: Assuredly I believe the apostle. And yet I do not believe that the Son of God was born of the seed of David according to the flesh,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 2.2
… But seeing that the Apostle Paul unmistakably tells us that “Christ was of the seed of David according to the flesh,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.20
… But if all things were made by that Wisdom, “which reacheth from one end to another mightily, and sweetly ordereth all things,” then were they also made by the Son of God to whom He Himself as Son of Man was afterwards to be subject; and the Apostle says that He is the Son of David, “who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 2.11
… Now hear how that this was the work of the Son also. “Who when He was in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant.” “When the fulness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,” who was “made His Son of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 8.9
… the same both the Creator of Mary and created from Mary. Marvel not that He was both son and Lord. For just as He is called the son of Mary, so likewise is He called the son of David; and son of David because son of Mary. Hear the apostle openly declaring, “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 48.3
… For as He was passing by one day, two blind men, who were sitting by the wayside, cried out, “Have mercy upon us, thou Son of David.” And on hearing these words He had mercy on them. He stood still, healed, enlightened them; for He owned the name. The Apostle Paul also says, “Who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 111.2
… let us now look at this one point, as far as we are able, what it is that He was pleased to promise when He said, “I will that they also whom Thou hast given me be with me where I am.” As far as pertains to the creaturehood wherein He was made of the seed of David according to the flesh,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 10.15
… and Son, in that He was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh. For He doth not say, Christ is not David’s Son, but if ye already hold that He is his Son, learn how He is his Lord: and do not hold in respect of Christ that He is the Son of Man, for so is He David’s Son;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 47.7
7. “Sing praises to our God, sing praises” ( ver. 6 ). Whom as Man mocked they, who from God were alienated. “Sing praises to our God.” For He is not Man only, but God. Man of the seed of David,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 51.2
… I will say then not what I will, but what I am obliged; I will say not as one exhorting to imitation, but as one instructing you to fear. Captivated with this woman’s beauty, the wife of another, the king and prophet David, from whose seed according to the flesh the Lord was to come,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.3
3. What then is, “Understanding to David himself”? David indeed was, as we know, a holy prophet, king of Israel, son of Jesse: but because out of his seed there came for our salvation after the flesh the Lord Jesus Christ,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 57.3
… For in them Saul was, in Christ David was. For Christ, as saith the Apostolic Gospel, is, as we know, as we confess, of the seed of David after the flesh;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.12
… but, “Moses did as the Lord commanded Moses,” as if one person were the Moses whom He commanded, and another person the Moses who did, whereas it is the very same. In the New Testament such expressions are most difficult to find.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
… For so are we taught by the wise Paul “Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen,” and again “Concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… but as of one, and to thy seed which is Christ,” and writing to Timothy he says “Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel.” And to the Romans he writes “Concerning His son Jesus Christ…which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 34
… so that, as it profited us all that the apostle Thomas, after the Lord’s resurrection, handled the traces of the wounds in His flesh, so it was of advantage to us that His infancy should be attested by the visit of the wise men. And so the wise men saw and adored the Child of the tribe of Judah, “of the seed of David according to the flesh
1:4
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 27
… Thus does the apostle also teach respecting His two substances, saying, “who was made of the seed of David;” in which words He will be Man and Son of Man. “Who was declared to be the Son of God, according to the Spirit;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.17
… some indeed come as to Him “who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh;” but others come to Him who “was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness;”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… for he says not, ‘God Himself is the power,’ but ‘His is the power.’ Very plain is it to all that ‘His’ is not ‘He;’ yet not something alien but rather proper to Him. Study too the context and ‘turn to the Lord;’ now ‘the Lord is that Spirit
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.16
… or if simply He be a creature, then let Him be assigned the same condition as the rest one with another, and let them as well as He be said every one of them to be ‘a creature but not as one of the creatures, offspring or work, but not as one of the works or offsprings.’ For ye say that an offspring is the same as a work, writing ‘generated or made
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 28
70. I am ashamed to add the rest. You expect to be glorified together with Christ; (“if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified together;” ) but you do not glorify the “Spirit of holiness”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 8.10
… You say that the Holy Ghost is a creature. And every creature is a servant of the Creator, for “all are thy servants.” If then He is a servant, His holiness is acquired; and everything of which the holiness is acquired is receptive of evil; but the Holy Ghost being holy in essence is called “fount of holiness.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 17.5
5. Thou wilt find many other titles of the Holy Ghost besides. Thus He is called the Spirit of Holiness, as it is written, According to the Spirit of Holiness
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.4
… you think that, unless the Son of God prefers a request, even His Will cannot be done. Again, the devil thinks that the Son of God is to be esteemed from His power,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 29
… “Who are His witnesses,” he says, “unto the people”—the people that slew Him. Who would never have been so, were they not strengthened by a Divine Power: for they would never have borne such witness to blood-thirsty men, to the very persons that killed Him. But, “He hath raised up Jesus again: This day,” he says, “I have begotten thee.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 4 . “And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of Holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, even Jesus Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 17
… That He is Lord then, is plain from the resurrection. And this he said at the beginning even of the Epistle. “Which was declared to be the Son of God with power ... by the resurrection from the dead.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 23
… of both which things He spake darkly when He said, “Destroy this Temple, and I will rear it up in three days.” And this St. Paul declares to be no small proof of His Godhead, when he writes, “Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the Resurrection from the dead.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.7
7. Give heed then to the Lord confessing; “I confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth.” I confess to Thee, that is, I praise Thee. I praise Thee, not I accuse myself. Now as far as the taking of very man is concerned, all is grace, singular and perfect grace. What merit had that man
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.18
… For He Himself was glorified and is glorified, but His glory was not manifested nor confirmed to us. Also that which the apostle said, Declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead
1:5
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
17. When , then, the apostle “thanks God through Jesus Christ,” and again says that “through Him” we have “received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 29
… I am sure that we shall do the truth a wrong if we refuse to number that soul with the people of God, shining as it did like a beacon in the Church of God; for by the fellow-working of the Spirit the power which he had over demons was tremendous, and so gifted was he with the grace of the word “for obedience to the faith among…the nations,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 5 . “By Whom we have received grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith.”
1:6
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 42.9
… Among whom are ye also called to be Saints,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 6 . “Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ.”
1:7
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 13
… I will therefore not speak of gods at all, nor of lords, but I shall follow the apostle; so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “ God ,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “ Lord .”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… Therefore, when He made His promise to the saints, He thus spoke; ‘I and the Father will come, and make Our abode in him;’ and again, ‘that, as I and Thou are One, so they may be one in Us.’ And the grace given is one, given from the Father in the Son, as Paul writes in every Epistle, ‘Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.25
… Which the Apostle also did when he said, ‘Grace unto you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.12
126. Therefore since the calling is one, the grace is also one. Lastly, it is written: “Grace unto you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
Ver. 7 . “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… but he does the same with the Father also, at least in his Epistle to the Philippians ( c. ii. 6 ), he says, “Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God”; and again to the Romans, “Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 75.1
… but on earth where sedition reigns, and war and discord hold sway, peace must be gained by prayer, and it is to be found not among all but only among men of good will, who pay heed to the apostolic salutation: “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 12
… In the salutation with which he begins every epistle, he prays: “Grace be to you, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… to be an apostle.” At another “Paul called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ.” At another “Paul a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ.” And suiting his benediction to his exordium he deduces it from the same source and links the title of the Son with God the Father, saying “Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.”
1:8
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 28
… is the Christ.” Wherefore he also exhorts us to believe in the name of His ( the Father’s ,) Son Jesus Christ, that “our fellowship may be with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.” Paul, in like manner, everywhere speaks of “God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.” When writing to the Romans, he gives thanks to God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.20
… And further also the saying, “That the world may believe that Thou hast sent Me,” twice spoken in the Gospel according to John, does not refer to the things that are superior to men, but to men who need to believe that the Father sent the Son into the world here. Yea, and also in the Apostle, “Your faith is proclaimed in the whole world.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 30.2
… but this is read of among us as the ancient severity, the ancient faith, the ancient discipline, since the apostle would not have published such praise concerning us, when he said “that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
17. When , then, the apostle “thanks God through Jesus Christ,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 6.13
… These had fought and conquered, but the vanquished party gave thanks, that the sight of the fire had not terrified them, but that the hope in their Lord had comforted them. And He names the God of the whole world after the three youths, not at all circumscribing His sovereignty, but inasmuch as these three youths were equivalent to the whole world.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 55
… Had they been confident, they would at any rate have done this, so that he should not have it in his power to make out his story in his own way, and besides they shrank from coming. And by their many times attempting they showed * * ( f ) “As for this sect, it is known to us,” say they, “that it is everywhere spoken against.” ( v. 21, 21 .)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
… 4 .) And several other like things besides. Since then he had often made his language somewhat harsh, he now speaks kindly ( θεραπεύει) . And what he said in the beginning, that he doth in the end also. At the beginning he said, “I thank my God for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 37
… iv. 17 .) And again, “God is not a God of confusion, but of peace, as in all the Churches of the saints.” (c. xiv. 33 .) And here, “What? was it from you that the word of God went forth? or came it unto you alone?” i.e., “neither first, nor alone are ye believers, but the whole world
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 2
… for on account of others, too, we receive many blessings: for had there been found in Sodom ten righteous only, they had not suffered what they did. So then let us give thanks also for the confidence of others [toward God]. For this custom is an ancient one, planted in the Church from the beginning. Thus Paul also giveth thanks for the Romans, (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.36
… Why, after nearly four hundred years, do you give such teachings as these to the Latin people with their peaceable and simple minds! Why do you inflict on unaccustomed ears new-sounding words, which no one finds in the writings of the Apostles? I beseech you, spare the ears of the Romans, spare that faith which the Apostle praised.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 15.1
… the seamless vest of the Lord, “woven from the top throughout,” since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover “the sealed fountain” and “the garden inclosed,” I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 63
… Truly, “whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.” Still I would assure you that nothing is more my aim than to maintain the rights of Christ, to keep to the lines laid down by the fathers, and always to remember the faith of Rome; that faith which is praised by the lips of an apostle,
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 84.8
… While you gather other men’s faulty statements out of their books merely to defend Origen in his error, you extol this latter to the sky and will not allow that he has erred at all. Whosoever you are who are thus preaching new doctrines, I beseech you, spare the ears of the Romans, spare the faith of a church which an apostle has praised.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 127.9
… Next followed the confutation set forth by my supporters, which destroyed the case of the Pharisees and threw them into confusion. It was then that the holy Marcella, who had long held back lest she should be thought to act from party motives, threw herself into the breach. Conscious that the faith of Rome—once praised by an apostle
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 130.16
16. I have all but passed over the most important point of all. While you were still quite small, bishop Anastasius of holy and blessed memory ruled the Roman church. In his days a terrible storm of heresy came from the East and strove first to corrupt and then to undermine that simple faith which an apostle has praised.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.9
… But, as I have just said, he entirely failed. For the most blessed Pope Zosimus recollected what his predecessor, who had set him so worthy an example, had thought of these very proceedings. Nor did he omit to observe what opinion was entertained about this man by the trusty Romans, whose faith deserved to be spoken of in the Lord,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 113
… Besides all this, she has achieved her present sovereignty, and has given her name to her subjects. She is moreover specially adorned by her faith, in due testimony whereof the divine Apostle exclaims “your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 52
… And besides this she has created an empire which is still predominant and has imposed her own name upon her subjects. But her chief decoration is her Faith, to which the Divine Apostle is a sure witness when he exclaims “your faith is proclaimed in all the world
Anonymous A Treatise on Re-Baptism by an Anonymous Writer 9
… and for the third time, cursing and swearing, he affirmed that he knew not the man, and not once, but frequently, denied Him.
Anonymous The Teaching of Simon Cephas in the City of Rome 1
… Whichever of you shall restore to life this dead person, he is true, and to be believed in and received, and we will all follow him in whatsoever he saith to us. And they said to Simon the sorcerer: Because thou wast here before Simon the Galilæan, and we knew thee before him, exhibit thou first the power which accompanieth thee.
1:9
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 9 . “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the Gospel of His Son.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
… Do not ye then be exasperated, since it is not I that raise myself up, but it is God that enjoins it. And as he there says, “whom I serve in the Gospel of His Son” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 2
… it is a matter to which we proceed voluntarily. We are distrusted, it will be said. True, distrusted we are, because we choose it. For we might, if we would, be trusted more upon our character, than upon our oath. Why, tell me, is it that we do not trust some, no, not on their oath, whilst we deem others trustworthy even independently of oaths.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 3
Never was anything equal to the yearnings of the Apostle, never anything like the sympathy and the affectionateness of the blessed Paul, who made his every prayer in behalf of whole cities and peoples, and writes the same to all,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 33
… Who then are “the true worshipers”? Those who confine not their service by place, and who serve God in spirit; as Paul saith, “Whom I serve in my spirit in the Gospel of His Son”: and again, “I beseech you that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, acceptable unto God, your reasonable service.” (
Sulpicius Severus † AD 420 The Doubtful Letters of Sulpitius Severus 1.1
… and I would have felt this still more strongly had you not sent me a letter. Should I not, then, enjoy the company of such a sister? But I call your salvation to witness, that I have very often wished to come to you, but have up till now been prevented, through the opposition of him
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 10
… This spirit is also called the mind, regarding which an apostle speaks thus: “With the mind I serve the law of God.” Which apostle likewise expresses himself thus in another passage: “For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.23
… So, in the discourses of the apostle which are recorded, he never used an oath, lest he should ever fall unawares into perjury from being in the habit of swearing. In his writings, on the other hand, where he had more leisure and opportunity for caution, we find him using oaths in several places,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.17
… which I write unto you, behold, before God I lie not;” and again, “The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.” Of like nature also is that asseveration, “For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of His Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers.”
1:10
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… shall do valiantly, and, “My praise shall be continually of ( ἐν ) thee;” and again, “In thy name will I rejoice.” In Paul we read, “In God who created all things,” and, “Paul and Silvanus and Timotheus unto the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father;” and “if now at length I might have a prosperous journey by ( ἐν ) the will of God to come to you;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 10, 11 . “Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto you.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 30
As he had said at the beginning, “If by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey, by the will of God, to come unto you” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… i. 20 .) As also the Prophet does not deem it improper to apply to the Father the expression “in whom,” which belongs to the Spirit, when he says, “In God we shall do valiantly.” ( Ps. lx. 12 .) And Paul, “Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey, in the will of God, to come unto you.” (
1:11
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans the-argument
… ix. 2 ): whence he shows that they were the first he had spoken to about this. This Epistle then is later than those, but prior ( πρώτη ) to those from Rome; for he had not as yet set foot in the city of the Romans when he wrote this Epistle, and this he shows by saying, “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 11 . “That I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
… i. 8 .) So in the end of the Epistle also, “For your obedience hath reached unto all.” ( ib. xvi. 19 .) And as in the beginning he wrote, “For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end that ye may be established; that is, that I may be comforted together with you” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 13
… And indeed every where one may see how he is inflamed toward the faithful, by selecting words out of every Epistle. For to the Romans he saith, “I long to see you;” and, “oftentimes I purposed to come unto you;” and, “If by any means now at length I may be prospered to come unto you.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
You see that this explains the word “abide with you.” Behold his humility. Having said, “for your progress,” he shows that it was for his own profit too. This also he does, when he writes to the Romans, and says, “That is, that we may be comforted together in you.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.9
… though hampered by fightings without and fears within; desiring to depart and to be with Christ; longing to see the Romans, that he might have some fruit among them as among other Gentiles;
1:12
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 13
Again , my beloved brethren, I am ready to notify to you the saving feast , which will take place according to annual custom. For although the opponents of Christ have oppressed you together with us with afflictions and sorrows; yet, God having comforted us by our mutual faith
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 12 . “That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 22
For when a soul finds one that shares the same sufferings with itself, it is refreshed and recovers breath. This we may see both in the case of Faith, and in the case of affliction: “that there may be comfort for you
1:13
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Concerning Lowliness of Mind 4
… in order that I might have some fruit also among you, as among the rest of the Gentiles too. Both to Greeks and barbarians, both to wise and those without understanding I am a debtor.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 13 . “Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I desired to come unto you (but was let hitherto).”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
… As he said in the beginning, “as among the other Gentiles also, I am a debtor to Greeks, and also to barbarians, to wise, and to foolish.” (
1:14
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.54
… And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity sufficiently declare that they are debtors
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 4
… For we see our calling, not that no wise man according to the flesh, but that not many wise according to the flesh. But Paul, in his preaching of the Gospel, is a debtor
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans the-argument
… “Because of the grace of God,” he says, “which is given unto me, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ” ( ib. 15 , 16 ): wherefore also he says in the beginning: “I am a debtor; as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also;” for what is said—as that they are “able to exhort others also” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
… “that I might have some fruit.” And not fruit, simply, but “some fruit.” Again, depreciating his own share therein just as he had said above, “that I may impart some gift.” And then to repress them too, as I said also before, he says, “even as among other Gentiles.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 29
“Because of the grace that is given me of God.” As he said at the beginning, “I am a debtor.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 87.1
… What your reason for this separation is I do not know. For it is not disputed that the party of Donatus is wholly unknown to a great part of the Roman world, not to speak of the barbarian nations (to whom also the apostle said that he was a debtor
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.27
… would rather follow that their belief in one would imply of necessity opposition to the other,—you could not have said this if you had turned your mind’s eye for a moment to see men all the world over, when they are not blinded by a contentious spirit, learned and unlearned, Greek and barbarian, wise and unwise, to whom the apostle called himself a debtor,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 18
… “I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.16
… Because the sun endureth, that is, because the wise man endureth as the sun, a foolish man is changed like the moon, is one as yet carnal, as yet unwise, to be forsaken? And where is that which hath been said by the Apostle, “To the wise and unwise a debtor I am”?
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 3.6
… 27 ). The former are for the most part converted by arguments of reasoning; the latter sometimes better by examples. Those it doubtless profits to lie vanquished in their own allegations; but for these it is sometimes enough to get knowledge of the praiseworthy deeds of others. Whence also the excellent teacher, who was debtor to the wise and foolish (
1:15
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 49
… This explains why the saint was zealous to preach as far as Illyricum, and not to shrink from proceeding to Rome
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 15 . “So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also.”
1:16
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 Homilies on the Psalms 53.5
… He was crucified from weakness, yet He liveth by the power of God , and again: For I am not ashamed of the Gospel: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 8
… At one time it uses terms descriptive of His nature, for it recognises the “name which is above every name,” the name of Son, and speaks of true Son, and only begotten God, and Power of God,
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Hexæmeron 9.1
… For me grass is grass; plant, fish, wild beast, domestic animal, I take all in the literal sense. “For I am not ashamed of the gospel.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 28
… for they were not only ordained by the Spirit, but sent forth by Him likewise. “And when they were come to Salamis, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews.” Do you mark how they make a point of preaching the word to them first, not to make them more contentious?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 16 . “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 19
… For they ought to have been first admitted, and then we. And this was why he said, “For it is the power of God unto salvation unto every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 3
… The one event no less than the other gives you boldness. Note how he brings this forward in his own person, which he does in many places, as in the Epistle to the Romans; “For I am not ashamed of the Gospel.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 10
… And this, moreover, is marvelous in the Preaching, when it is thus raised up and increased by the sufferers themselves, and not by the persecutors. Where hath any seen such contests as this? He that suffereth ill, conquers; he that doeth ill, is worsted. Brighter is this man than the other. Through bonds the Preaching entered. “I am not ashamed” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… We must look at the previous context. First, then, referring to the gospel, he says, “It is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.22
… That indeed was glory: the brave gladly received it, and so received it as that they blushed not at all for the Lord’s name. For fearlessness had covered the face of them, having the effrontery of Paul, saying, “for I blush not because of the Gospel: for the virtue of God it is for salvation to every one believing.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 124
… It is in reference to this humility that the Apostle says, “For I do not blush for the Gospel
1:17
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.34.2
… To this effect also Paul, His apostle, says in the Epistle to the Romans, “But now, without the law, has the righteousness of God been manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; for the just shall live by faith.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Treatise on Christ and Antichrist 64
… And Esaias speaks thus: “Come, my people, enter thou into thy chamber, (and) shut thy door: hide thyself as it were for a little moment, until the indignation of the Lord be overpast.” And Paul in like manner: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth of God in unrighteousness.”
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 6.3
… Then they who were saved by the Son were saved by the Power of the Father, and they who are judged by Him undergo judgment by the Righteousness of God. For “Christ,” as the Apostle says, “is the Righteousness of God
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
Ver. 17 . “For therein is the righteousness of God revealed.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 7
Do not be troubled, he means, because it has but now been given, nor be affrighted as though at a thing new and strange. For of old both the Law and the Prophets foretold it. And some passages he has pointed out in the course of this argument, and some he will shortly, having in what came before brought in Habakkuk as saying, “the just shall live by faith” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but “righteousness. Therein” (he says) “is the righteousness of God revealed.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 14
… “grace for grace,” saith he. What grace, for what? For the old, the new. For there was a righteousness, and again a righteousness, (“Touching the righteousness which is in the law,” saith Paul “blameless.”) ( Philip. iii. 6 .) There was a faith, there is a faith. (“From faith to faith.”) (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 188.13
… for us to tell how greatly we desire to find in the writings of these men, whose works are read by very many for their pungency and eloquence, the open confession of that grace which the apostle vehemently commends, who says that “God has given to every man the measure of faith,” “without which it is impossible to please God,” “by which the just live,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.26
… nature was condemned in them, with the exception of the one Mediator and those who have been baptized, and are as yet infants, “there is none clean from stain, not even the babe whose life has been but for a day upon the earth.” But if it be replied that those who offer in faith may be said to offer in righteousness, because the righteous lives by faith,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.3
… but on account of the great infirmity of flesh and blood it is even said to be now dead, in a certain place in the Scriptures, namely, where the apostle says, that “the body is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because of righteousness.” Now this life is wrought by faith, “since the just shall live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.20
… This question has been already treated of in former books; and we found, that no one loves what he is wholly ignorant of, but that when things not known are said to be loved, they are loved from those things which are known. And now we so conclude this book, that we admonish the just to live by faith,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 14.2
4. Wherefore since, as it is written, “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight;” undoubtedly, so long as the just man lives by faith,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 20
… and they strive by the most acute, but most audacious arguments, to show that, even though a man’s opinion should by chance be true, yet that there is no certainty of its truth, owing to the impossibility of distinguishing truth from falsehood. But with us, “the just shall live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 1
1. Inasmuch as it is a position, written and established on the most solid foundation of apostolic teaching, “that the just lives of faith;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.14
14. And if the righteous men of old, who saw in the sacraments of their time the promise of a future revelation of faith, which even then their piety enabled them to discern in the dim light of prophecy, and by which they lived, for the just can live only by faith;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 56
… “If any one of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given to him. Let him, however, ask in faith, nothing wavering?” This is the faith by which the just man lives;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 65
Forasmuch, however, as an inferior righteousness may be said to be competent to this life, whereby the just man lives by faith
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.53
… This righteousness, however, the apostle counted as “dung” and “loss,” in comparison with the righteousness which is the object of our hope, and which we ought to “hunger and thirst after,” in order that hereafter we may be satisfied with the vision thereof, enjoying it now by faith, so long as “the just do live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.37
… For, that he was born in the flesh, although no hindrance after the remission of his guilt to his fruit, still remains hidden, as it were, in the seed of the olive, even though, because of the remission of his sins, it in no respect injures the oil—that is, in plain language, his life which he lives, “righteous by faith,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.7
… For “everything which is not of faith is sin.” And thus the good will which withdraws itself from sin is faithful, because the just lives by faith. And it pertains to faith to believe on Christ. And no man can believe on Christ—that is, come to Him—unless it be given to him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 45.15
… Therefore, He saith, “I am come that they may have life,” that is, faith, which worketh by love; by which faith they enter the fold that they may live, for the just liveth by faith:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 50.6
… From his calling it “pistici,” we ought to infer that there was some locality from which it derived its preciousness: but this does not exhaust its meaning, and it harmonizes well with a sacramental symbol. The root of the word [“pure”] in the Greek is by us called “faith.” Thou wert seeking to work righteousness: the just shall live by faith.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 68.3
3. But why is it that He went away to make such preparation, when, as it is certainly we ourselves that are the subjects in need of preparation, His doing so will be hindered by leaving us behind? I explain it, Lord, as I can: it was surely this Thou didst signify by the preparation of those mansions, that the just ought to live by faith.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 95.2
… but that they believed what they did not see, namely, the Son of God. But after His servant-form was itself also withdrawn from their view, then in every respect was the word truly fulfilled, “The just liveth by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 4.8
… At present, while we are on pilgrimage, “we walk by faith, not by sight,” or, actually beholding. Therefore also our righteousness is “by faith, not by sight.” Our righteousness shall be perfect, when we shall see by actual beholding. Only, in the meanwhile, let us not leave that righteousness which is of faith, since “the just doth live by faith,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.11
… not one of them shall be broken.” Of how many righteous have the bones under persecution been broken? Finally, “The just shall live by faith,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.11
… The wood of the Cross deserving of insults hath seemed to enemies, and before the wood itself standing they were wagging the head, and saying, “If Son of God He is, let Him come down from the Cross.” He was stretching forth His hands to a people unbelieving and contradicting. For if just he is that of faith liveth,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.15
… and the death of one is the life of another. For if spiritually blood runneth from those that within are dead, do thou, seeing such vengeance, wash therein thy hands; for the future more cleanly live. And how shall he wash his hands, if a just man he is? For what hath he on his hands to be washed, if just he is? “But the just man of faith shall live.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.8
… but they were, so to speak, of works: because they did not, as they bended and shot their bows (which are outward actions, as of the works of the law), so guide their heart also, wherein the just man doth live by faith, which worketh by love; whereby men cleave to God, who worketh in man both to will and work according to good will.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 94.24
24. Let therefore the righteous bear with the ungodly; let the temporal suffering of the righteous bear with the temporal impunity of the wicked; for “the just shall live by faith.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 105.6
… he addeth, “and the Word that He commanded unto a thousand generations.” What meaneth “commanded”?…The command then was faith, that the righteous should live by faith;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 132.9
9. “Let Thy priests be clothed with righteousness, and let Thy saints sing with joyfulness” ( ver. 9 ). When Thou risest from the dead, and goest unto Thy Father, let that royal Priesthood be clothed with faith, since “the righteous liveth by faith;”
1:18
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.27.4
… so also is it the case at present, that “a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.” And as the wrath of God did then descend upon the unrighteous, here also does the apostle likewise say: “For the wrath of God shall be revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of those men who hold back the truth in unrighteousness.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.3
… but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 5.7
… but what then? “The death of sinners is evil.” And justly so; for after the departure from this life, there is an intolerable punishment; undying vengeance, the envenomed worm; the fire unquenchable, the outer darkness, the chains indissoluble; the gnashing of teeth, the tribulation, and the anguish, and the eternal justice.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 9.4
… Having said that, “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
… “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law;” where his discourse is of those who lived in the time before the law; and, “As many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law,” speaking of all after Moses. And, “That the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 31
… 17 .) ( c ) See how covertly he puts the accusation “in that He did good,” etc. And yet if God did this, He could not have “let them alone;” on the contrary, they ought to be punished, for that, enjoying so great benefits, they had not acknowledged Him, not even as their feeder.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
These things he says, with an aim at the rulers, inasmuch as that city then had the rule of the world put into its hands.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 7
Ver. 21 . “But now the righteousness of God without the Law is manifested.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 10
… ix. 27 ); and he who had been so approved is afraid lest he should become disapproved: what pardon shall we have who are already disapproved, if we have no fear, but fulfill our Christianity as a custom, and for form’s sake. Let us then fear, beloved: “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 23
Perhaps some are even disgusted and laugh. For this very cause ought we to make our lamentations the more intense, because we are so mad and beside ourselves, that we do not know that we are mad, but laugh at things for which we ought to groan. O man! “There is wrath revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.19
… and so they fell upon deceitful spirits, through whom it came to pass, that “they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 19
… but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools; and they changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to four footed beasts, and to creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 2
… because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him are from the creation of the world clearly seen—being understood by the things that are made—even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are inexcusable.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 18.3
… still more strange is it that there should even be found some “wise and prudent” men who were able to know Him. “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.1
… For that even they saw (as far as can be seen by man) the Creator by means of the creature, the Worker by His work, the Framer of the world by the world, the Apostle Paul is witness, whom Christians ought surely to believe. For he said when he was speaking of such; “The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness.”
Socrates Scholasticus † AD 440 The Ecclesiastical History of Socrates Scholasticus 3.16
… And for these reasons they have become useful to all lovers of real piety: nevertheless they themselves were not acquainted with the Head of true religion, being ignorant of the mystery of Christ which ‘had been hidden from generations and ages.’ And that this was so, the Apostle in his epistle to the Romans thus declares:
1:19
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.47
… But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that “although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.” And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too, that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these words: “For God showed it unto them;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 4.30
… but in the spirit of truth, we testify of certain Greek philosophers that they knew God, seeing “He manifested Himself to them,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.22
… And this is what Paul said, ‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shewed it unto them: for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.19
… : and again, As ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification . Remember also the Scripture, which saith, Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge : and, That which may be known of God is mani festin them
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Ver. 19 . “Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath showed it unto them.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
… And what sense is this? In saying, that “till the Law sin was in the world,” what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 56
… as when He saith, “For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind” ( ver. 39 ); and yet it was not for this He came, that those who saw might be made blind. And again Paul, “Because that which may be known of God is manifested in them, that they may be without excuse” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 8.6
… Therefore that which is known of God He manifested to them when His invisible things were seen by them, being understood by those things which have been made; also His eternal power and Godhead by whom all visible and temporal things have been created.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 8.10
… For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, also His eternal power and Godhead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 18.3
… “For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness, and unrighteousness of men who hold the truth in unrighteousness.” Perhaps thou dost ask, what truth do they hold in unrighteousness? “Because that which may be known of God is manifest among them.” How is it manifest? He goes on to say, “For God hath manifested it to them.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.2
… Hath God spoken to any one of them? Have they received the Law as the people of the Israelites by Moses? Whence then do they detain the truth, though it be even in this unrighteousness?” Hear what follows, and he shows. “Because that which can be known of God,” he says, “is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it unto them.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 14.3
… so that they are without excuse.” Why without excuse? “Because, knowing God” (he said not, “because they knew Him not”), “they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened: professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
1:20
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 18
… It is a fact, that these truths are learned by means of palpable forms; in other words, invisible things are discovered by the help of visible ones, even as the apostle tells us in his epistle: “For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen from the creation of the world, being understood by the things that are made;”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 1.12
… And so upon this ground of inactivity and lack of works he is guilty both of impudence and malignity: of impudence, in aspiring after a belief which is not due to him, and for which he has provided no foundation;
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.25
… For He conceals by His preparatory apparatus of prophetic obscurity, the understanding of which is open to faith (for “if ye will not believe, ye shall not understand” ); and He had offenders in those wise and prudent ones who would not seek after God, although He was to be discovered in His so many and mighty works,
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.16
… He, as I suppose, who from the beginning of all things has given to man, as primary witnesses for the knowledge of Himself, nature in her (manifold) works, kindly providences, plagues, and indications (of His divinity),
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Hermogenes 45
… Now these things were not necessary to Him, if He had been perfect by simply appearing and approaching. They are, however, His “invisible things,” which, according to the apostle, “are from the creation of the world clearly seen by the things that are made;”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 The Refutation of All Heresies 5.2
… men with men working that which is unseemly”—now the expression that which is unseemly signifies, according to these (Naasseni), the first and blessed substance, figureless, the cause of all figures to those things that are moulded into shapes,—“and receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.47
… so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.59
… who perished in the deluge are by no means removed out of the so-called “world.” And yet, indeed, if we have regard to the words, “Looking not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen;” and also to these, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.37
… “The invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.18
… and when they see clearly “the invisible things of God Himself from the creation of the world, which are perceived through the things that are made;”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 3
… And since by the gaze of our eyes we cannot see Him, we rightly learn of Him from the greatness, and the power, and the majesty of His works. “For the invisible things of Him,” says the Apostle Paul,” from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by those things which are made, even His eternal power and godhead;”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Life of Constantine 2.56
… With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.56
… Remember, too, that the Apostle does not keep silence on the question, whose Godhead it is, which dwells fully in Christ in bodily fashion, for he says, For the invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made, even His everlasting power and divinity
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 35
… but as I said above, He so ordered Creation that although He is by nature invisible He may yet be known by His works. 3. And I say this not on my own authority, but on the strength of what I learned from men who have spoken of God, among them Paul, who thus writes to the Romans
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, ‘Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever ;’ while silencing the Greeks, he has said, ‘The visible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.16
… and on the fifth, He created the race of living things in the sea, and of birds in the air; and on the sixth, He made the quadrupeds on the earth, and at length man. And ‘the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.18
… natural to Him, and co-existent in Him ingenerately, is something besides, generative indeed of Christ, and creative of the whole world, concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans thus,—‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.19
49. And from the visible creation, we clearly discern that His invisible things also, ‘being perceived by the things that are made
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of Arian Opinions 1
… concerning which he teaches in his Epistle to the Romans, thus, ‘The invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made, even His eternal power and divinity’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
… ‘In the beginning was the Word,’ and, ‘He was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world;’—the being Lord, for, ‘The Lord rained fire and brimstone from the Lord,’ and the Father says, ‘I am the Lord,’ and, ‘Thus saith the Lord, the Almighty God;’ and of the Son Paul speaks thus, ‘One Lord Jesus Christ, through whom all things’ (
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Hexæmeron 1.6
… since by the sight of visible and sensible things the mind is led, as by a hand, to the contemplation of invisible things. “For,” as the Apostle says, “the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 189
… as, for instance, “in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” And again; “for the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 235.1
… then we learn the characters and their pronunciation, and last of all we get the distinct idea of the force of the letter. But in our belief about God, first comes the idea that God is. This we gather from His works. For, as we perceive His wisdom, His goodness, and all His invisible things from the creation of the world,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.11
… but to reap what advantage we can from them for our life and enjoyment, while we avoid their dangers; not raising creation, as foolish men do, in revolt against the Creator, but from the works of nature apprehending the Worker,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… and especially in this, that He is God and the truth, that is to say, God in truth, ever being what He is conceived to be and what He is called, Who never at any time was not, nor ever will cease to be, Whose being, such as it is essentially, is beyond the reach of the curiosity that would try to comprehend it. But to us, as saith the word of Wisdom,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Holy Trinity, and of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit 1
… as,—“In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead ”; and, elsewhere,—“The invisible things of Him from the foundation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.3
13. For oftentimes it is convenient to estimate from our own words those things which are above us, and because we cannot see those things we draw inferences from those which we can see. “For the invisible things of Him,” says the Apostle, “from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by those things which are made.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.10
62. Hear now another argument, showing clearly the eternity of the Son. The Apostle says that God’s Power and Godhead are eternal, and that Christ is the Power of God—for it is written that Christ is “the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.8
81. And therefore we do declare the Son to be Eternal Power;
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Mysteries 3
… “That the invisible things of God, since the creation of the world, are understood through those things which have been made; His eternal power also and Godhead are estimated by His works.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 2.3
… And that he has made it thus beautiful and vast hear a certain one saying, “From the vastness and beauty of the creatures, the originator of them is proportionably seen.” Hear too Paul saying, “For the invisible things of Him, since the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 9.4
… “God,” saith he, “hath shewed it unto them.” In what manner? By the sending of what kind of prophet? what evangelist? what kind of teacher? if the holy Scriptures were not yet given. “The invisible things of Him,” says he, “from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal Power and Godhead.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 10.10
… But God so commanded it for the sake of our race; for since it was to nurture a corruptible man, it was necessary itself should also be of the same character; for of course corruptible bodies were not to dwell in an incorruptible creation. But, nevertheless, he tells us, it will not remain so. “The creature
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.4
… explaining how “the heavens declare the glory of God;” and what the meaning of that is, which is said by Paul; viz. “That the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… Search after the origin of evils, and do not blaspheme God. And how do I blaspheme? says he. When you make out that evils have a power equal to God’s; a power uncreated. For, observe what Paul says; “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Ver. 20 . “For the invisible things of Him from the Creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things which are made.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 26
… cxix. ) on every side, and not even to fancy that ignorance will be an adequate excuse. For there is such a thing, there certainly is, as being punished for ignorance, when the ignorance is inexcusable. Since the Jews too were ignorant, yet not ignorant in an excusable way. And the Gentiles were ignorant, but they are without excuse. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 5
… For if the power of God is since “the creation of the world clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
[5.] But men careless of their salvation give heed to none of these things; so great an evil is it to be in love with precedence. This has been the mother of heresies, this has confirmed the impiety of the heathen. For God desired that His invisible things should be understood by the creation of this world (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 56
… quench the sun, and you destroy and confound all things; quench the eyes, and the feet, the hands, the soul, are useless. When these are disabled, even knowledge is gone, since by means of these we know God. “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.10
… And I said, “Is Truth, therefore, nothing because it is neither diffused through space, finite, nor infinite?” And Thou criedst to me from afar, “Yea, verily, ‘ I Am that I Am. ’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.17
… for that the body which is corrupted presseth down the soul, and the earthly dwelling weigheth down the mind which thinketh upon many things. And most certain I was that Thy “invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even Thy eternal power and Godhead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.20
26. But having then read those books of the Platonists, and being admonished by them to search for incorporeal truth, I saw Thy invisible things, understood by those things that are made;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.6
8. Not with uncertain, but with assured consciousness do I love Thee, O Lord. Thou hast stricken my heart with Thy word, and I loved Thee. And also the heaven, and earth, and all that is therein, behold, on every side they say that I should love Thee; nor do they cease to speak unto all, “so that they are without excuse.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.21
… and good cattle, which neither if they eat, shall they over-abound, nor if they do not eat, have they any want; and good serpents, not destructive to do hurt, but “wise” to take heed; and exploring only so much of this temporal nature as is sufficient that eternity may be “clearly seen, being understood by the things that are.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 102.5
… For myself, and for all who along with me labour to understand the invisible things of God by means of the things which are made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 8.12
… “Because that which is known of God, has been manifested among them, for God hath manifested it to them. For His invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by those things which have been made, also His eternal power and Godhead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 22.29
… it is thoroughly credible, that we shall in the future world see the material forms of the new heavens and the new earth in such a way that we shall most distinctly recognize God everywhere present and governing all things, material as well as spiritual, and shall see Him, not as now we understand the invisible things of God, by the things which are made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 1.4
… Such is a picture of our condition in this life of mortality. We have wandered far from God; and if we wish to return to our Father’s home, this world must be used, not enjoyed, that so the invisible things of God may be clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.15
… the invisible and intelligible God, not only the Father, but also the Son and the Holy Spirit, “of whom are all things, and through whom are all things, and in whom are all things;” although “the invisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.16
21. These people also blame us for believing the resurrection of the flesh, and rather wish us to believe themselves concerning these things. As though, because they have been able to understand the high and unchangeable substance by the things which are made,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 6.10
… and is fashioned in some form, as are the figures or qualities of bodies, and the various learning or skill of souls; and seeks or preserves a certain order, as are the several weights or combinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. When therefore we regard the Creator, who is understood by the things that are made
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.2
3. We shall have tarried then long enough among those things that God has made, in order that by them He Himself may be known that made them. “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 15.20
… We have reasoned also from the creature which God made, and, as far as we could, have warned those who demand a reason on such subjects to behold and understand His invisible things, so far as they could, by those things which are made
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 20.19
… but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 2.15
… For it is not of such a nature as that it can ascend into the heart of man; but the heart of man must itself ascend to it. Let us consider the creatures (“for the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 18.3
… “Because that which may be known of God is manifest among them.” How is it manifest? He goes on to say, “For God hath manifested it to them.” Dost thou still enquire how He manifested it to them to whom He gave not the law? How? “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.2
… “Because that which can be known of God,” he says, “is manifest in them; for God hath manifested it unto them.” Manifested it unto them to whom He hath not given the Law? Hear how He hath manifested it. “For the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 2
… but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” How darkened? It follows, when he says more plainly: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 14
… Set aside corruption, reject from the eye of the mind all carnal passions, and behold “the invisible things of God understood by the means of the things that are made.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 42.7
… I seek His Substance in my own soul, and I find it not, yet still I have thought on these things, and wishing to “see the invisible things of my God, being understood by the things made,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 100.6
6. Be therefore like Him in piety, and earnest in meditation: for “the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 145.3
… When we lift the gaze of our eyes even to the heaven, and then recall it from sun, moon, and stars to the earth, and there is all this space where our sight can wander; beyond the heavens who can extend the eyesight of his mind, not to say of his flesh? So far then as His works are known to us, let us praise Him through His works.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 148.10
… All these things then praise Him, whether in stillness or in motion, whether from earth below or from heaven above, whether in their old state or in their renewal. When thou seest all these things, and rejoicest, and art lifted up to the Maker, and gazest on “His invisible things understood by the things which are made,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 23.3
… convenient for us while living in this world, either for purposes of life, or for remedies for the body, or by reason of some unknown usefulness, or else they are indeed “very good,” because they enable us “to see the invisible things of God from the creatures of the world, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 19
… By day and by night His voices are heard, and the beauty of the things made by the workmanship of the One God ceases not to instil the teachings of Reason into our hearts’ ears, so that “the invisible things of God may be perceived and seen through the things which are made,” and men may serve the Creator of all, not His creatures
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.11
… Indeed, it is possible to understand by every tree the knowledge of the divine power derived from created things. In the words of the divine Apostle, For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 2.21
… so that, like persons going to set out on a journey, we may be filled with good works as with abundant provision, so that we may be able to come to the kingdom of God, as to a very great city. For to those who think aright, God is manifest even by the operations of the world which He hath made, using the evidence of His creation;
1:21
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.33.1
… this sort truly receiving the Spirit of God, who was from the beginning, in all the dispensations of God, present with mankind, and announced things future, revealed things present, and narrated things past—[such a man] does indeed “judge all men, but is himself judged by no man.” For he judges the Gentiles, “who serve the creature more than the Creator,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.47
… But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that “although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 4.30
… and professing themselves to be wise, they became foolish, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.47
… things of which Celsus speaks, and who profess a philosophy founded on these principles, that they, “when they knew God, glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations;” and notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with which God had enlightened them, “their foolish heart” was carried away, and became “darkened.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Exhortation to Martyrdom, Addressed to Fortunatus 1
1. That idols are not gods, and that the elements are not to be worshipped in the place of gods.
St Methodius † AD 311 The Banquet of the Ten Virgins; or Concerning Chastity 8.14
… Now certainly the wretched ones were overwhelmed in the chaos of error, “because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened;”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 3
… but men, having despised and rejected the contemplation of God, and devised and contrived evil for themselves (as was said in the former treatise), received the condemnation of death with which they had been threatened; and from thenceforth no longer remained as they were made, but
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Hexæmeron 1.3
… if they cannot conceive that a whole, of which the parts are subject to corruption and change, must of necessity end by itself submitting to the fate of its parts? But they have become “vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Three Homilies Concerning the Power of Demons 2.3
… In no wise, but them who were unable to use the medicine rightly. Whence then is this which leads us to the knowledge of God, a cause of impiety? “The wise” saith he “were darkened in their understandings, and worshipped and served the creature more than the creator.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 10.6
… For as a proof that it is not for its beauty they have made a deity of it, but by reason of their own folly, why do they adore the ape, the crocodile, the dog, and the vilest of animals? Truly, “they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
… for each individually and all in common are punished. What will be the new thing then? That the chastisement will be greater, and common to all, and not by the same rules. For now what takes place is for correction; but then for vengeance.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 1.18
… Wilt Thou keep silence for ever? And even now Thou drawest out of this vast deep the soul that seeketh Thee and thirsteth after Thy delights, whose “heart said unto Thee,” I have sought Thy face, “Thy face, Lord, will I seek.” For I was far from Thy face, through my darkened
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.3
… This way, by which they might descend to Him from themselves, they knew not; nor that through Him they might ascend unto Him. This way they knew not, and they think themselves exalted with the stars and shining, and lo! they fell upon the earth, and “their foolish heart was darkened.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.4
… For unhappy is the man who knoweth all those things, but knoweth Thee not; but happy is he who knoweth Thee, though these he may not know. But he who knoweth both Thee and them is not the happier on account of them, but is happy on account of Thee only, if knowing Thee he glorify Thee as God, and gives thanks, and becomes not vain in his thoughts.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls.” “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.1
… I had surmounted it, and by the united testimony of Thy whole creation had found Thee, our Creator, and Thy Word, God with Thee, and together with Thee and the Holy Ghost one God, by whom Thou createdst all things. There is yet another kind of impious men, who “when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 101.2
… so that, professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds and four-footed beasts, and to creeping things, or who, though not wholly or at all devoted to the worship of images, nevertheless worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 8.10
… neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 8.23
… Now it was with reference to such that the apostle said, that “knowing God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.1
… and also that the happy life which all men desire cannot be reached by any who does not cleave with a pure and holy love to that one supreme good, the unchangeable God. But as even these philosophers, whether accommodating to the folly and ignorance of the people, or, as the apostle says, “becoming vain in their imaginations,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.28
… possessed by pride,—“they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images, “and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 2.18
… but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.17
… the resurrection of the dead, ought we to consult those philosophers, who have understood as much as they could the eternity of the Creator, in whom “we live, and move, and have our being.” Since, knowing God through those things which are made, they have not glorified Him as God, neither were thankful but professing themselves wise, they became fools.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.1
… I shall only add this, that if the Hebrew prophets knew and preached Christ, and yet lived such vicious lives, what Paul says of the wise men among the Gentiles might be applied to them: "Though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor were thankful; but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.93
… but they became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise they became foolish, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 19
… themselves, and “think themselves to be something, when they are nothing.” Such men, indeed, darken themselves in that swelling pride, the foot of which the holy singer prays that it may not come against him, after saying, “In Thy light shall we see light;” from which very light of unchanging truth they turn aside, and “their foolish heart is darkened.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 20
… Now just as those who come to know the Creator through the creature received no benefit towards salvation, from their knowledge,—because “though they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, nor gave Him thanks, although professing themselves to be wise;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 22
… By it their foolish heart is darkened, who, although knowing God, glorified Him not as God, by giving Him thanks.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” Then he goes on to speak of the ungodly, who by reason of their pride profit not by the knowledge of God, since they did not glorify Him as God, neither were thankful.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… Is no punishment due to them of whom the apostle says: “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.8
… As to thyself, and all that is thine, thou art altogether dark. For what else is it to be a fool, but to be dark in heart? He saith of them at last, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” Before they professed this, what do we find? “And their foolish heart was darkened.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.2
… “The invisible things of Him,” that is God, “are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made; His eternal Power also and Godhead; so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 98.7
… For such are those of whom the apostle says, “Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 36.16
… “Have fallen.” Whereby did they first fall? By the foot of pride. Hear the foot of pride. “When they knew God, they glorified Him not as God.” Therefore came against them the foot of pride, whereby they came into the depth. “God gave them over to their own hearts’ lusts, to do those things which are not convenient.”
1:22
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 3.73
… confound the wise,” calling, in a general way, wise all who appear to have made advances in knowledge, but have fallen into an atheistic polytheism, since “professing themselves to be wise they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 2
… Therefore, ‘professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the corruptible image of man, and birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 38
… he yielded to the baleful fruit; and for his sin he was banished, at once from the Tree of Life, and from Paradise, and from God; and put on the coats of skins…that is, perhaps, the coarser flesh, both mortal and contradictory. This was the first thing that he learnt—his own shame;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 2
… So that hereupon, according to these men, God gave them their subsistence. Let there be a city of wicked men; will it stand? But let them be wicked, not only with regard to the good, but towards each other. Why, it is impossible such a city should stand. Truly, “professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Ver. 22 . “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.3
… but Truth, the Artificer of the creature, they seek not with devotion, and hence they find Him not. Or if they find Him, knowing that He is God, they glorify Him not as God, neither are they thankful, but become vain in their imaginations, and say that they themselves are wise,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 8.1
… but Thy right hand held me up, and bore me away, and Thou placedst me where I might recover. For Thou hast said unto man, “Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom;” and desire not to seem wise, because, “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 19
… but it was foolish rather, because they did not glorify Him as God, or give Him thanks; for “He said unto man, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom.” So by this conduct, while “professing themselves to be wise” (which can only be understood to mean that they attributed this to themselves), “they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 3.7
… if the words in which the Apostle expresses his detestation of those, “who, professing themselves to be wise became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like unto corruptible man,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 17.8
… Either there was none, or it lay hid, that it might be revealed to us. Why did the Lord exult? “Because it was revealed unto babes.” We must be little babes; for if we would wish to be great, “wise and prudent” as it were, it is not revealed unto us. Who are these great ones? The wise and prudent. “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.2
… so that they are without excuse. Because that when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.” They are the Apostle’s words, not mine: “And their foolish heart was darkened; for professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 The Book of Pastoral Rule 1.11
… but, if it attributes to itself the whiteness of righteousness or wisdom, it excludes itself from the light of knowledge from above, and by so much the more fails entirely to penetrate the clearness of the true light, as it exalts itself within itself through arrogance; as of some it is said, Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools (
1:23
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.47
… “darkened.” Thus we may see how those who accounted themselves wise gave proofs of great folly, when, after such grand arguments delivered in the schools on God and on things apprehended by the reason, they “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.3
… and thus did not know Christ to be a creature when he named Him the Creator; and forbade the worship of a creature, warning us that the Creator alone is to be served, and saying, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and served the creature, passing by the Creator Who is blessed for ever and ever
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… ‘Hadst thou a son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.’ In such language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God’s glory ‘into an image made like to corruptible man
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 28
… For such honours were the fitting due of such gods. And before now men have insulted themselves by worshipping monsters, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Ver. 23 . “And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.3
… and by this, with most perverse blindness, they desire to impute to Thee what is their own, forging lies against Thee who art the Truth, and changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
15. And therefore also did I read there, that they had changed the glory of Thy incorruptible nature into idols and divers forms,—“into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.19
… And those distinguished philosophers of the heathen who have been able to understand and discern the invisible things of God by those things which are made, have yet, as is said of them, “held down the truth in iniquity;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Faith and the Creed 7
… Nor, again, when it is thus said in express terms that the Father sitteth, are we to fancy that this is done with bended knees; lest we should fall into that profanity, in [dealing with] which an apostle execrates those who “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of corruptible man.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… “For giving themselves out as wise, they became fools.” This is a grievous penalty, if one only understands it; and from such a penalty only see to what lengths they ran: “And they changed,” he says, “the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 91.3
… Because “they changed,” he says, “the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of creeping things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 106.17
… 20 ). He saith not “into” the likeness, but “in” the likeness. It is such a form of speech as where he said “and they believed in His words.” With great effect in truth he saith not, they changed the glory of God when they did this; as the Apostle also saith, “They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man:”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 10.5
… And against this mistake of theirs this text may be used: “And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man.”
1:24
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 5.32
… But since those who wandered away from the east were delivered over, on account of their sins, to “a reprobate mind,” and to “vile affections,” and to “uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.47
… God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” As, then, they lived in a way unworthy of the knowledge which they had received from God, His providence leaving them to themselves, they were given “up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their own bodies,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.16
… Thus, in fact, you may read: “God gave them over to the lusts of their own heart, that they might one with another dishonour their bodies, they who changed God’s truth into a lie, and worshipped and served the thing created rather than the Creator, Who is God, blessed for ever.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Ver. 24 . “Wherefore also God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 3.8
… and iniquity gives itself the lie, either by corrupting or perverting their nature, which Thou hast made and ordained, or by an immoderate use of things permitted, or in “burning” in things forbidden to that use which is against nature;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 143.10
… In like manner, those who think that each soul flows of its own accord into its body take the words “God gave it” in the sense in which it is said, “He gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 21.2
… Hence he says again, "For this cause God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart, to uncleanness, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves;" and immediately after, "For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;" and again, "And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 54
… The ungodly man, however, is not aware that he is being punished, except when he unwillingly discovers by an open penalty how much evil he has willingly committed. This is just what the apostle says of certain men: “God hath given them up to the evil desires of their own hearts, . . .to do those things that are not convenient.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… “Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 7
… indeed, God “makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy.” Now it is on this account that, after saying, “He is my God, His mercy shall go before me,” he immediately adds, “My God will show me vengeance upon my enemies.” That therefore happens to them which is mentioned in Scripture, “God gave them up to the lusts of their own heart.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 42
… “And He turned their heart to hate His people, to deal subtilly with His servants.” Observe, likewise, what is written in the letters of the apostles. In the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans occur these words: “Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.13
… evangelists in their recollections, and has raised them to so commanding a position of authority in the sublime edifice of His Church, that those very things which are capable of presenting the appearance of contradictions in them become the means by which many are made blind, deservedly given over to the lusts of their own heart, and to a reprobate mind;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 6.8
… Then let there be in you charity, my brethren; let it be in you, and then set your minds at rest: even when the thing ye ask for is not given you, your prayer is granted, only, ye know it not. Many have been given into their own hands, to their own hurt: of whom the apostle saith, “God gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 55.24
… 23 ). The pit of corruption is the darkness of sinking under. When blind leadeth blind, they both fall into a ditch. God bringeth them down into the pit of corruption, not because He is the author of their own guilt, but because He is Himself the judge of their iniquities. “For God hath delivered them unto the desires of their heart.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.12
… burned through is thy vest; thou bearest in thought adultery, and whole then is thy soul? But these punishments few men do see: therefore them the Spirit of God doth exceedingly recommend to our notice. Hear the Apostle saying, “God hath given them up unto the lusts of their heart.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.28
… For neither when that cometh to pass of which the apostle speaketh, “God gave them over into the lusts of their heart, that they should do things which are not convenient,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 81.16
… 12 ). Behold the press: the orifices are open, the lees run. “And I let them go,” not according to the healthfulness of My commands; but, according to the affections of their heart: I gave them up to themselves. The Apostle also saith, “God gave them up to the desires of their own hearts.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 107.9
… “And He led them astray in the pathless place, and not in a way.” Those above in the way, those directed to a city, and finally led thither, not led astray; but these, where there was no way, led astray. What is, “Led them astray”? God “gave them up to their own hearts’ lusts.”
1:25
Aristides † fl. AD 125 The Apology of Aristides the Philosopher. Translated from the Syriac 1
The Barbarians, then, as they did not apprehend God, went astray among the elements, and began to worship things created instead of their Creator;
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 2.9
… These [heretics now referred to], being the disciples of those mentioned, render such as assent to them worse than the heathen. For the former “serve the creature rather than the Creator,”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 26
… on a general condition once for all made to man, “sending rain on the good and on the evil, and making His sun to shine on the just and on the unjust!” Happy, no doubt, is faith, if it is to obtain gifts which the enemies of God and Christ not only use, but even abuse, “worshipping the creature itself in opposition to the Creator!”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 6.4
… And although some may appear to have risen above such practices, nevertheless they will be found to have changed the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and serve the “creature more than the Creator.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.11
… and blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord, and his hope shall be in God.” Concerning this same thing in Deuteronomy: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” Of this same thing to the Romans: “And they worshipped and served the creature, forsaking the Creator. Wherefore also God gave them up to ignominious passions.”
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Life of Constantine 2.56
… With regard to those who will hold themselves aloof from us, let them have, if they please, their temples of lies: we have the glorious edifice of thy truth, which thou hast given us as our native home.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 8
… so the men of former time, having lost their reason, and plunged into the lusts and imaginations of carnal things, and forgotten the knowledge and glory of God, their reasoning being dull, or rather following unreason, made gods for themselves of things seen, glorifying the creature rather than the Creator
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 47
… and instead of the real and true God deified things that were not, “serving the creature rather than the Creator
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 10
… For not only did they grave idols for themselves, instead of the truth, and honour things that were not before the living God, “and
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 1.4
… And of what use are the Scriptures to the Arians also, and why do they bring them forward, men who say that the Word of God is a creature, and like the Gentiles ‘serve the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 To the Bishops of Egypt 2
… And the Apostle blames the Gentiles, because they worship the creatures, saying, ‘They served the creature more than’ God ‘the Creator
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.1.2
… and the other he has rivalled in her dance, reeling and frolicking in his blasphemies against the Saviour; till the victims of his heresy lose their wits and go foolish, and change the Name of the Lord of glory into the likeness of the ‘image of corruptible man
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.15
… Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy footstool .’ For it was fitting that the redemption should take place through none other than Him who is the Lord by nature, lest, though created by the Son, we should name another Lord, and fall into the Arian and Greek folly, serving the creature beyond the all-creating God
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.9
… If it were right to believe that the Son was created, how was it that the Truth in delivering to us this mystery bade us believe in the Son, and not in the creature? and how is it that the inspired Apostle, himself adoring Christ, lays it down that they who worship the creature besides the Creator are guilty of idolatry
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.5
… “The Spirit of God hath made me”? In one short verse he showed Him to be both Divine and Creator. If, then, the Spirit is Creator, He is certainly not a creature, for the Apostle has separated the Creator and the creature, saying: “They served the creature rather than the Creator.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 3.18
… Also, no one forgives sins except God alone, for it is also written: “Who can forgive sins but God alone?” And one cannot be the Creator of all except he be not a creature, and he who is not a creature is without doubt God; for it is written: “They worshipped the creature rather than the Creator, Who is God blessed for ever.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 3.11
83. Again, the Apostle himself, by declaring that no worship is to be rendered to a created existence, has shown that the Son has not been created, but begotten, of God.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.2
… for it is written: “Whatsoever things I do, He doth.” And since the work of the Father and of the Son is one, it is well said of the Father and the Son, that God worked alone; wherefore also when we speak of the Creator, we own both the Father and the Son. For assuredly when Paul said, “Who served the creature more than the Creator,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 53
… Amen;” begins the subject again on which he was writing. And again in another place when he had said, “They worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever: Amen;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 3
Hence he shows, that even of the perversion of the laws it was ungodliness which was the cause, but He “gave them up,” here is, let them alone.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 18
Thou hast seen that the expression is no hyperbole. Wouldest thou hear again another argument, to teach you how covetousness is idolatry, and more shocking than idolatry? Idolaters worship the creatures of God (“for they worshiped,” it is said, “and served the creature rather than the Creator”) (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… Let us not then confound the creation with the Creator, lest we too hear it said of us, that “they served the creature rather than the Creator” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 109.1
… We, it is true, refuse to worship or adore, I say not the relics of the martyrs, but even the sun and moon, the angels and archangels, the Cherubim and Seraphim and “every name that is named, not only in this world but also in that which is to come.” For we may not serve the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 5.3
… perverse blindness, they desire to impute to Thee what is their own, forging lies against Thee who art the Truth, and changing the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things, —changing Thy truth into a lie, and worshipping and serving the creature more than the Creator.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… And verily these books came from thence. But I set not my mind on the idols of Egypt, whom they ministered to with Thy gold, “who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.11
… for such are borrowed from every created thing. Nor is there any reason for our incurring the sentence of condemnation which is pronounced by the apostle on some who worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 4.29
… because even they themselves, although they perceived that these things were vain, yet thought that the religious worship which is due to God should be paid to the nature of things which is established under the rule and government of the one true God, “serving,” as saith the apostle, “the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for evermore.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.6
… and therefore absolutely equal with the Father and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinity consubstantial and co-eternal. But that the Holy Spirit is not a creature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, where we are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 16
… For “they serve the creature more than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Morals of the Catholic Church 24
44. What of justice that pertains to God? As the Lord says, "Ye cannot serve two masters," and the apostle denounces those who serve the creature rather than the Creator,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 14.10
… Are these not the doctrines of lying devils, which teach that Christ, the Truth itself, was a deceiver? Besides, the Manichæans openly teach the worship, if not of devils, still of created things, which the apostle condemns in the words, "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 18.5
… And in the same way, the fathers observed the rest of the Sabbath, not because they worshipped Saturn, but because it was incumbent at that time, for it was a shadow of things to come, as the apostle testifies. The Gentiles, of whom the apostle says that they "worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 20.19
… so that this very explanation of their idolatry, on which the more enlightened Gentiles were wont to pride themselves as a proof of their superiority, shows the truth of the following words of the apostle: "They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 36
… For it is evil to use amiss that which is good. Whence the apostle reproves certain ones as condemned by divine judgment, "Who have worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… a fact which sets forth in a clearer light the words which follow: “Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.” “For this cause,” says he, “God gave them up unto vile affections.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2.11
… wherefore made He those things but for your enjoyment? And men drink themselves drunken, and perish, and forget their own Creator: while not temperately but lustfully they use the things created, the Creator is despised. Of such saith the apostle: “They worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 14.7
7. “For God is in the just generation.” It refers to what went before, so that the sense is, “shall not all they that work iniquity know that the Lord is in the just generation;” that is, He is not in them who love the world. For it is unjust to leave the Maker of the worlds, and “serve the creature more than the Creator.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 115.6
… One sentence of the Apostle, therefore, testifieth to their punishment and condemnation; “Who,” he saith, “have changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever.”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.7
The sun and the moon, moreover, suffer eclipse, and this demonstrates the folly of those who worship the creature in place of the Creator
1:26
Tertullian † AD 220 The Chaplet, or De Corona 6
… Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is unnatural,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 1.9
… And I beg you not to wonder at the things that persons of this kind speak: the offence of their mouths in words is the least of which they are guilty.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) 26
… While men, denying their nature, and no longer wishing to be males, put on the guise of women, under the idea that they are thus gratifying and honouring the Mother of their so-called gods. But all live along with the basest, and vie with the worst among themselves, and as Paul said, the holy minister of Christ
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Incarnation of the Word 4
… Cities were at war with cities, and nations were rising up against nations; and the whole earth was rent with civil commotions and battles; each man vying with his fellows in lawless deeds. 8. Nor were even crimes against nature far from them, but, as the Apostle and witness of Christ says: “For their
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.7
… For we have learnt from the mighty utterance of Paul that it is the distinguishing feature of idolatry to worship and serve the creature more than the Creator
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 4
… But ye have even made our race dishonored below things irrational, by such indignities inflicted upon and by each other. Whence then were these evils born? Of luxury; of not knowing God. For so soon as any have cast out the fear of Him, all that is good straightway goes to ruin.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 26
And again, Paul rebuking the unclean among the Romans thus aggravates the accusation, saying, that their usage was not only against the law of God, but even against nature. “For they changed the natural use into that which is against nature.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 69.3
… You argue that as his marriage was not a sin it was not done away with at his baptism. This is news to me indeed, that what in itself was not a sin is to be reckoned as such. All fornication and contamination with open vice, impiety towards God, parricide and incest, the change of the natural use of the sexes into that which is against nature
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.23
… He who is not scandalized at the apostle’s censure of the horrible wickedness of the women who “changed the natural use into that which is against nature,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Good of Marriage 11
… For necessary sexual intercourse for begetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. But that which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, but lust.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… and out of the self-same punishment sins, more numerous and more severe, arise. “For even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature; and likewise the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 42
… In the Epistle of Paul, the Apostle, to the Romans occur these words: “Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts;” and a little afterwards: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 12.21
… And departing they left him in great diseases.” You see how the consequence of pride was that he was given over to shocking and filthy passions. For he who is puffed up with pride and has permitted himself to be worshipped as God, is (as the Apostle says) “given over to shameful passions and a reprobate mind to do those things which are not convenient.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 3.20
… And the words of the Apostle most assuredly teach us this, when he says: “For this cause God delivered them up to shameful passions:” and again: “Because they did not like to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 6.11
… “Wherefore God gave them up to vile passions and a reprobate mind:”
1:27
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.49
… while those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is unseemly.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 3
… Why now spake he thus? Such is the manner of Paul, not to make much account of his phrases, but indifferently to put down words of evil sound, even in matters of good meaning. As also in another place he saith, “Bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ.” ( 2 Cor. x. 5 .) And again he hath put “the recompense” for punishment,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… and likewise the men also, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly.” Then, to show that these things were so sins themselves, that they were also the penalties of sins, he further says: “And receiving in themselves that recompense of their error which was meet.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.34
I request your attention now to the following words. He says, “That children, however, who are conceived in wedlock are by nature good, we may learn from the apostle’s words, when he speaks of men who, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust, men with men working together that which is disgraceful.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.35
… not only those who are born in adultery, but likewise such as are born in wedlock, unless they be regenerated in the second Adam, which is Christ. As to what the apostle says of the wicked, that “leaving the natural use of the woman, the men burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly;”
1:28
St Justin Martyr † AD 165 Dialogue with Trypho 121
… ‘His name shall rise up for ever above the sun; and in Him shall all nations be blessed.’ But if all nations are blessed in Christ, and we of all nations believe in Him, then He is indeed the Christ, and we are those blessed by Him. God formerly gave the sun as an object of worship,
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.29
… “In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of them that believe not, lest the light of the glorious Gospel of Christ should shine [unto them].” And again, in that to the Romans: “And as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things that are not convenient.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 2
Reprobate in your very mind, ) to death’s
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.48
… But among Christians, those who maintain a perpetual virginity do so for no human honours, for no fee or reward, from no motive of vainglory; but “as they choose to retain God in their knowledge,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 13
… They soon stumble at them, so that, being untried in the faith, they are given over to a reprobate mind, and do those things which are not seemly
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
… On the contrary, they trembled, and recognised nothing less than that it was being uttered from a holy Temple. How then can the impious fail to fear lest ‘as they refused to have God in their knowledge, they may be given up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.19
… : and again, As ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification . Remember also the Scripture, which saith, Even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 39.5
… nor that such a change in their glory and their first natures should have taken place. This is the meaning of their persecution of the creature. For this God’s Image was outraged; and as we did not like to keep the Commandments,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 13
Whenever then ye hear, that “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 8
Wherefore then, saith one, doth not God reprove the aid from such sources? He hath many times reproved, and yet hath not persuaded thee; He now leaveth thee to thine error, for It saith, “God gave them up unto a reprobate mind.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 68
… Thus, in the case of Pharaoh, He is said to have hardened his heart, and so it is with those who are at all contentious against the words of God. This is a peculiar mode of speech in Scripture, as also the, “He gave them over unto a reprobate mind” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 13.11
… We should prove that the apostle recognizes this principle when he says of some persons, "God gave them up to the lusts of their own hearts, and to a reprobate mind, to do things not convenient;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 21.9
… To the same purpose are the words, "Evil communications corrupt good manners;" and when he speaks of a man deceiving himself, "Whoever thinketh himself to be anything, when he is nothing, deceiveth himself;" or again, in the passage already quoted of the judgment of God, "God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 24
… being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, odious to God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 42
… “Wherefore God gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts;” and a little afterwards: “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections;” again, in the next passage: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.19
… Because, although there are some which are in such wise sins as that they are also the penalties of sins, whence it is said, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.6
… so that by hell the Psalmist would mean that blindness of soul which overtakes and enwraps the sinner, that is, the dying. “As they did not think good,” the Apostle says, “to retain God in” their “knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.8
… But if anger in that place intimate the day of judgment, how can it be understood now? Is it a beginning of it, that men here suffer pains and torments, and above all the loss of the understanding of the truth; as I have already quoted that which is said, “God gave them over to a reprobate mind”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.17
… And then follows, “Let the sinners be turned into hell” ( ver. 17 ): that is, let them be given into their own hands, when they are spared, and let them be ensnared in deadly delight. “All the nations that forget God.” Because “when they did not think good to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 14.2
… “They are corrupt, and become abominable in their affections:” that is, whilst they love this world and love not God; these are the affections which corrupt the soul, and so blind it, that the fool can even say, “in his heart, There is no God. For as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 36.9
9. “Thy Judgments are like the great abyss.” The abyss he calleth the depth of sin, whither every one cometh by despising God; as in a certain place it is said, “God gave them over to their own hearts’ lusts, to do the things which are not convenient.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 106.23
… 29 ). As if He had deferred the lifting up of His hand which was to cast them down in the desert, and to cast out their seed among the nations, and to scatter them in the lands; as the Apostle saith: “And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowl edge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 18.16
… For although it is certain that God cannot be the author of envy, yet it is fair and worthy of the divine judgment that, while good gifts are bestowed on the humble and refused to the proud and reprobate, those who, as the Apostle says, deserve to be given over “to a reprobate mind,”
1:29
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 29 . “Being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.9
… Do not keep back your hearts within your hearts: “Pour out before Him your hearts.” That perisheth not which ye pour out. For He is my Taker up. If He taketh up, why fearest thou to pour out? “Cast upon the Lord thy care, and hope in Him.” What fear ye amid whisperers, slanderers hateful to God,
1:30
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 67.9
… “Whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, injurious, proud, boasters of themselves, inventors of evil things, who, although they knew the judgment of God, did not understand that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only they which commit those things, but they also which consent unto those who do these things.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 On the Symbols 'Of the Essence' And 'Coessential.' 1
33. But since they are thus minded both towards each other and towards those who preceded them, proceed we to ascertain from them what absurdity they have seen, or what they complain of in the received phrases, that they have proved ‘disobedient to parents’ (
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… For what is so manifestly shewn to be evil, it is not necessary to waste time in exposing further, lest contentious persons think the matter doubtful. It is enough merely to answer such things as follows: we are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this. But lest the ‘inventors of evil things
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 60
… For as the latter, when refuted on all sides, kept devising excuses to their own hurt, if only they could deny the Lord and bring upon themselves what was prophesied against them, in like manner these men, seeing themselves proscribed on all hands, and perceiving that their heresy has become abominable to all, prove themselves ‘inventors of evil things
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
… And this again is like men that are full purposed and in earnest, not those that are hurried away and forced out of their course; and after mentioning the several kinds of maliciousness, and showing that here too they stood against nature itself (for he says, “disobedient to parents”), he then goes on to the root of the great pestilence, calling them,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 11
… If, on the other hand, there are any who, blinded by insensate spite, rejoice that we have committed a mistake, whisperers as they are, and slanderers, and “hateful to God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.24
24. To take, for instance, this saying of the ancients, "Thou shalt love thy neighbor, and hate thine enemy," how does Faustus make out that this is peculiar to Moses? Does not the Apostle Paul speak of some men as hateful to God?
1:31
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 31 . “Without natural affection, implacable.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.9
… but it was not so with the Lord Jesus, for even His infirmity was the consequence of His power. But so long as we wear the infirmity of this life, we are rather worse men than better if we have none of these emotions at all. For the apostle vituperated and abominated some who, as he said, were “without natural affection.”
1:32
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 35
… For they that do such things are hateful to God; and not only they that do them, but also those that take pleasure in them that do them.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.14
… from the way in which he laid down laws; from the way in which he set up the tribunals of justice. With the view of making this more plain, Paul spoke of those who were living in wickedness. “Who, knowing the ordinance of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but also consent with them that practise them.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 32 . “Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 25
… ( 1 Kings xxi. 23, 25, 29 .) And therefore thou, when thou art the author of destruction to others, wilt suffer more severely than those who have been subverted by thee. For sinning is not so ruinous as leading others also into the same. Wherefore he speaks of those who “not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 1
… And if we see any one entering into a tavern indecently; nay, if we see him drunk, or guilty of any other unseemly action, we do not restrain him, we rather join him in it. Whence Paul has said: “They not only do these things, but have pleasure in them that do them.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 42
… but when thou feedest thine uncleanness by stripping orphans and wronging widows, consider how great a fire is prepared for those who dare such things. Hear what Paul saith, “Who not only do these things, but also have pleasure in them that do them.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.108
Chapter 108.— 244. Petilianus said: "By this sentence, again, the apostle places in the same category those who have fellowship in the consciousness of evil. ‘Worthy of death,’ he says, ‘are both those who do such things, and those who consent with those that do them.’"
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Pope Callistus 2.1
… of which crime the craft is hateful, not only among Christians, but even among the heathen, and it is forbidden by foreign laws. And therefore the laws not only of the Church, but of the world, condemn those who are guilty of this crime; and not only those indeed who actually conspire, but those also who take part with such.
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Pope Fabian 1
… Such persons, therefore, are in all things to be guarded against, and are not to be received, because, according to the apostle, not only those who commit such things are condemned, but also those who consent with those who do them.
1:1
1. Paul. — Concerning this name many bring forward much here. First, some think this name to be Greek, and to signify rest, or rather quiet, derived from παύειν, that is from ceasing. Just as on the contrary Saul (says Ambrose) signifies restlessness: for σάλος to the Greeks is the same as commotion. For Saul was restless, a disturber and persecutor of the Church. Secondly, St. Jerome, in the Book of Hebrew Names, wishes the name Paul to be Hebrew and to signify wonderful: for this is what the Hebrew פלא pele signifies, whence Paul. Others interpret Paul as a workman, from the root פעל paal, that is he worked. Thirdly, others think the name Paul to be mixed from Hebrew and Greek and to signify the mouth of a trumpet, or rather the mouth of a pipe, as if it were compounded from פה pe, that is mouth, and αὐλός, that is pipe. Again St. Damasus, in a Poem concerning St. Paul, thinks that Paul changed the name Saul into Paul in baptism. But this is contradicted by the fact that after chapter IX of Acts, where Paul is baptized, he is always called Saul, until chapter XIII. Therefore after baptism he retained the name Saul for a long time: therefore he did not assume the name Paul in baptism. Finally Origen thinks that Paul was of two names, and that in circumcision both the name Paul and the name Saul were imposed upon him, just as Matthew was called Levi. But I answer and say: It is more true that Paul is a Latin and Roman name. Again Saul assumed this name Paul in Acts XIII, 9, where with Barnabas he was set apart and designated Apostle of the Gentiles, namely, as soon as he began to preach to the Gentiles, namely to Paul, Proconsul of Cyprus, into whom he first fell among the Gentiles and converted him: so that to him and to other Gentiles Paul, as a Roman citizen, might also by his name more easily insinuate himself, Paul, I say, who wished to become all things to all men, that he might gain all; for this reason on the occasion of Sergius Paul, as I said, he changed the Jewish name Saul into the Roman name Paul by a light change of one letter. That this is so is conjectured from the fact that until his apostolate to the Gentiles and the conversion of Sergius Paul, he is always called Saul, or Saul, from Saul the first king of his tribe Benjamin, because he was living among the Jews: but after that conversion of Sergius Paul he is always called Paul, because thenceforth he acts among Romans and Gentiles, as a teacher and Apostle of the Gentiles. Thus St. Augustine, book VIII of the Confessions, chapter III; St. Jerome, in the epistle to Philemon, Bede and Salmeron here, and Lorinus in chapter IX of Acts, verse 18. Therefore Sergius Paul did not impose his own name Paul upon Saul from friendship, as some wish; just as Josephus confesses that he received the name Flavius from the family of Flavius of Titus and Vespasian: but rather Sergius Paul, as a catechumen and disciple, ought to have received the name from Paul, as from his master: just as St. Cyprian assumed the name Caecilian from Caecilian the presbyter, by whom he was baptized: but only on the occasion of that Paul, who bore a name akin to his, whom Paul first converted from among the Gentiles, he willingly assumed the name Paul among the Gentiles. Hence it is clear that the etymology of Paul is Latin, and that Paul is the same as small, tiny, little. Whence also from the small stature of Paul the name adhered to the Aemilian family, as Sigonius is the author in the Book of Roman Names, as if Paul should say: I was once Saul to the Jews, now I am Paul, a Roman, to you Romans: once before Christianity I was tall and proud, as another Saul; now made a Christian I am small Paul; small, I say, both in body, and more in humility of spirit. Thus St. Thomas and St. Augustine, book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter VII. And in Psalm LXXII: "Paul," he says, "first Saul, afterwards Paul, that is first proud, afterwards humble. For Saul, whence the name Saul was said, you know that he was a proud and unbridled king. Not as if the Apostle changed his name for himself with any boasting; but from Saul he became Paul, from proud he became small. For Paul is small." And book I On the Words of the Lord, sermon 13: "You are yourself Paul, in yourself small, in the Lord great; in yourself weak, in the Lord most strong. You will be exalted, because you are not ungrateful." Wherefore, although St. Jerome, in the place already cited, judges the name of Paul to be a name of victory and triumph, and this name can indeed be understood in this way as a matter of fact; yet this is not the true reason for this name according to the mind and intention of Paul, who, as I have said, assumed the name Paul not so much from a desire of sublimity as from a desire of familiarity and humility. I shall set down here the words of St. Jerome, because they are beautiful: "Just as Scipio, having subdued Africa, assumed for himself the name Africanus, and Metellus, having conquered Crete, brought back the cognomen Creticus, and Roman Emperors even now are called from the subjugated nations Adiabenicus, Parthicus, Sarmaticus; so also Paul, sent to preach to the Gentiles, first from the spoils of the Church under the proconsul Sergius Paulus, brought back the trophies of his victory and raised the standard, so that he was called Paul from Saul." More aptly St. Augustine, sermon 25 On the Saints, vol. X: "Paul suffers what Saul had done. Saul stoned, Paul was stoned. Saul afflicted Christians with rods, Paul for Christ received five times forty stripes save one. Saul persecuted the Church of God, Paul was let down in a basket. Saul bound, Paul was bound. And while Paul raging sought to diminish the number of Christians, he himself also was added to the number of Confessors." The Apostle therefore, as he himself says, "his bodily presence was weak." For he was by name and body Paul, that is, small; but in genius, spirit, virtue and deeds great. "For the spirit is not measured by the body," but transcends the body. Beautifully and truly the Wise Man, Eccles. XI, 3: "Small, μικρά, that is, the least, among flying creatures is the bee, and the first (πρωτεῖον, the first place, the principality) of sweetness has the fruit thereof." Thus small in body, but lofty in spirit was St. Jerome, as his Life has it among Ribadeneira and others. St. Augustine hinted at the same of himself, hom. On the Transfiguration of the Lord: "I beseech you, by the Lord, let not the foulness of a little man offend you, so long as on any occasion it wipes away the filth of sinners from your hearts." And sermon 6 among the common: "I beseech you, brothers, etc., that you pray for me, small and little," etc. St. Antoninus, a prodigy of memory, equally of holiness and miracles, received his name from his small stature: for he was called Antonius. Surely as the Poet says, Greater virtue reigned in a small body. (Greater virtue reigned in a small body.) And on the contrary: No grain of salt in so vast a body. (No grain of salt in so vast a body.) And Cicero: "Whoever has the strongest body is furthest removed from wisdom." Experience commonly teaches that great minds dwell in small bodies. For virtue united is stronger than itself divided. But the virtue of the soul in a small body is united, in a large body it is divided and dispersed. And for this reason naturally in small bodies magnanimity is easier than in large ones, humility more difficult. Elegantly and heartily St. Gregory Nazianzen, writing to Nicobulus, who was reproaching Alypiana, the wife of his Alypius, the daughter of Gorgonia, Gregory's sister, for her small stature, thus replies, epistle 153: "Alypiana among us you assail with jests as small and unworthy of your height, O great and vast and gigantic both in form and in strength. Now at last I understand that the mind is not subject to measure, and that rocks are superior to pearls, and ravens more august than nightingales. You indeed enjoy your greatness and your cubits." Then he adds: "But if you add to this also that she is bent for the sake of prayer, and through great agitations of mind has perpetual familiarity with God; what will you boast of here concerning your bodily sublimity and measure? See timely silence, hear her speaking, observe how not unkempt she is, how as a strong and vigorous woman, what usefulness she brings to domestic affairs, how loving to her husband, and then you will say that Laconian saying: Certainly the spirit falls in no measure, and one ought to have eyes fixed on the external man directed to the internal. Thus you will cease to mock her as small, and you will judge your marriage fortunate and happy." Servant of Jesus Christ. — "Servant," namely an honorable one, who in Hebrew is called משרת mescaret, that is, minister, concerning which I shall say more at Philip. cap. I, vers. 1. Called Apostle,—that is, called to the apostolate, an Apostle by calling. For in Greek it is not the participle κεκλημένος, that is, called, named; but the noun κλητός, that is, one called forth. Whence the Syrian translates it קריא ושליחא karia vaschelicha, that is, one called forth and Apostle, as if to say, Called forth by God and His Apostle. Thus St. Chrysostom. So the Spanish boast that they are criados del Rey, that is, servants of the King, called forth by the King, ones called forth by the King. Whence, according to Hesychius, one called is said to be noble. He alludes to Isaiah XLVIII, 12, where for what we have: "Hear, O Israel, whom I call," in Hebrew it is מקראי mecorai, that is, called of me, as Aquila, Symmachus, Vatable and others translate it: for Israel was a type of St. Paul and the faithful. See the things said there. Again Paul here alludes by the Hebrew and Syrian name scelicha, that is, Apostle, to his former royal name Saul. For Saul in Hebrew signifies called and sought, namely by God for the kingdom, just as this our Saulus from the same tribe of Benjamin is called and sought for the apostolate: and it is a Hebrew paronomasia, as if to say, Paul: Who once was Saulus or Saul; now I am scelicha, that is, called to the legation and Apostolic office. In like manner in the word karia, that is, called, he alludes to the twelve princes called by God and Moses, that they should preside over the twelve tribes, Num. I, 16, as I said there. Wherefore the exposition of Anselm is here beside the point, in which he thinks that Paul calls himself not Apostle, but called Apostle out of a desire for humility, as if to say, I do not call myself Apostle, but by others I am called and said to be Apostle: just as St. Bernard from humility wished to be called and named not Abbot, but called Abbot of Clairvaux: for the Greek text is opposed to this exposition, as is evident from what has been said. Note first: Acts IX, Paul was called by Christ an Apostle, that is, a legate, sent by Christ throughout the whole world to evangelize and teach the Gentiles, to found and govern the Churches of Christ, concerning which I shall say more, verse 5. Note second: Besides the twelve Apostles, who in Matt. X, were called and sent by Christ while living on earth to preach the kingdom of God, the name Apostle was extended also to Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Luke, Mark and others, who were allotted almost the same office as those first twelve called by Christ. Whence St. Jerome, in cap. I to Titus, verse 1, regarding the title of Apostle in Paul and the Apostolic dignity, says: "What Paul says of himself, And an Apostle of Jesus Christ, seems to me to be such as if he had said, Prefect of the praetorium of Augustus Caesar, master of the army of Tiberius. For just as the judges of this age, that they may appear more noble, derive their titles from the kings whom they serve and from the dignity in which they are puffed up; so also the Apostle, claiming for himself a great dignity among Christians, marked himself out as an Apostle by the title of Christ, so that from the very authority of the name he might strike fear into his readers, indicating that all who believed in Christ ought to be subject to him." For the Apostles received from Christ authority and dominion over the whole world and over all the faithful. Note thirdly: Paul is accustomed to insinuate himself at the beginning of his epistles by this Apostolic name, as it were by the title of his office, dignity and profession. For just as kings and princes preface their documents: We Albert, by the grace of God Archduke of Austria, Duke of Brabant, etc.; so Paul: "I Paul, by the grace of God and by the calling of Christ an Apostle;" not however through myself, or through friends, or through lay power intruded into the apostolate; for this is proper to pseudo-apostles and heretics, as St. Cyprian teaches, in the book On the Unity of the Church: "Those are," he says, "who of their own accord set themselves over rash assemblies without divine dispensation, who constitute themselves as superiors without any law of ordination (note the name of Ordination, which is indeed received not from magistrates, but from Christ Jesus and his vicars the Bishops, by the imposition of hands in the ancient rite in the sacrament of Orders), who, with no bishop giving it, assume for themselves the name of Bishop." Indeed St. Paul, Hebrews V, 4: "Neither, he says, does anyone take this honor to himself, but he that is called by God, as Aaron was." And Jeremiah concerning false prophets, intruding themselves through friends or kings, thus speaks rebuking and blaming them, chapter XXIII, 21: "I sent not the Prophets, and they ran; I spoke not to them, and they prophesied." For just as it is the magistrate's office to ordain civil matters and civil prefects; so it is the Bishops' office to ordain sacred things and sacred Prelates: for this is the hierarchical order of the Church instituted by God. "It is written," says Ambrose, book V, epistle 33 to Marcellina his sister: "What is God's, to God; what is Caesar's, to Caesar; to the Emperor belong palaces, to the priest the Church: the right over public walls is committed to you, O Emperor, not over sacred things." And Hosius to Constantius: "To you," he says, "God committed the Empire; to us he entrusted the things of the Church." Segregated unto the Gospel of God,—as unto a difficult and sublime matter, which transcends all the measure and reason of nature. The Holy Spirit seems again to allude to the Hebrew etymology of the name Paul. For just as Saul, or Saulus, signifies called and requested for the office of Apostle, so פלא pele (whence Paul), signifies difficult, excellent, wonderful, and therefore segregated from the common people. The same is indicated by the Greek ἀφωρισμένος; for ἀφορίζειν signifies to set apart something and segregate it as exceptional, namely as a chosen instrument, such as Paul was. Whence also physicians call ἀφορισμούς selected, rare and exceptional sayings. Thus Christ, Isaiah IX, 6, is called פלא pele, that is wonderful, exceptional, segregated. And the angel announcing to Manoah the birth of Samson, Judges XIII, 18: "Why, he says, do you ask my name, which is wonderful," in Hebrew, which is פלא pele.
1:2
2. Which he had promised before by his Prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning his Son.—As if to say: The Gospel is not new, not recently invented, or fabricated from my brain or that of any other man, but was instituted and decreed by God from eternity, and therefore was already promised long ago through all the holy Prophets as a rare, wonderful, salutary, divine, most certain and most true thing; inasmuch as it was confirmed and corroborated over the course of so many centuries: for truth is the daughter of time, as Cicero says, book II of On the Orator.
1:3
3. Who was made to him of the seed of David according to the flesh.—The Syrian, Valla and Erasmus translate, who was begotten, or who was born. But our Interpreter translates better, who was made: for in Greek it is not γενηθέντος, or γεννωμένου from γεννάω, that is, I beget; but γενομένου from γίνομαι, that is, I become. Whence St. Cyril, book XI of the Treasury, about the middle, says that the whole Holy Trinity is said and is ἀγένητον, that is uncreated, unmade, or not created, not made; but the Father alone is and is called ἀγέννητον, that is unbegotten, and thus the Fathers interpret Christ here not as born, but as made; as Tertullian, Against Praxeas; Irenaeus, book III, chapter XXXII; St. Augustine, book II On the Trinity, chapter V. For the word made more signifies the human nature of Christ against Marcion, and that Christ did not bring it from heaven into the Virgin, as Valentinus wished; but in the Virgin, and...
1:4
4. Who was predestined to be the Son of God. — "Who was predestined," in Greek ὁρισθέντος, which the Syriac and Greek versions render aptly and clearly as "who was declared and known to be the Son of God." Thus Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Origen, and Theodoret; indeed Toletus thus expounds the Latin "predestined," or "defined," namely not as to the thing itself, but as to the knowledge of men, so that "predestined" is the same as "certified," certainly known to men, as if to say: Christ was demonstrated and declared before other Saints, who are adoptive sons of God, that He alone is the natural Son of God. But this is to torture the Latin word "predestined" into "pre-demonstrated" or "declared." Wherefore in this sense Ambrose more rightly supplies here the word "to be declared," when he thus expounds: Christ, hidden in the Incarnation, was predestined, that He might be declared the Son of God in the Resurrection. Secondly, more correctly and more profoundly our Translator, whatever Calvin may object, renders the Greek ὁρισθέντος as "who was predestined," and thus read St. Irenaeus, lib. III, cap. XXXII; Hilary, lib. VII De Trinit.; Augustine, lib. De Praedest. Sanctorum, cap. XV; Ambrose and others. For the Greek ὁρίζειν, although among profane authors it often signifies "to declare," yet according to St. Dionysius, lib. De Divinis Nomin., cap. V, throughout Scripture it signifies "to define," "to constitute," "to predestine," as in Acts II, 23: "Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God," in Greek ὡρισμένῃ βουλῇ. Acts X, 42: "He it is who hath been appointed judge of the living and of the dead," in Greek ὡρισμένος κριτής. Acts XVII, 26: "Determining appointed times," in Greek ὡρισμένους καιρούς. Add further: Although Origen, Jerome, Tertullian, Cyril, Theodoret, Chrysostom, and Oecumenius read in the Greek ὁρισθέντος, which is to the letter "was destined," namely from eternity: which in reality is the same as what our Translator renders, "was predestined," yet others, such as Ambrose, Augustine, Irenaeus in the places already cited, and Epiphanius, heresy 54, at the end, and Athanasius, lib. III De Assumpt. hominis, clearly read in the Greek προορισθέντος: but this to the letter is the same as "was predestined," not however "was pre-declared." For thus it cannot be rendered here, as is evident from what follows; for the word "pre" would introduce a false sense. Note here: Origen thinks that Christ alone is said to be ὁρισθέντα, that is "destined," because before man was born, He was God and the Son of God: but we are said to be προορισθέντας, that is "predestined," because we were not before we were born. But this distinction is more subtle than true and solid; for "destined" here is the same as "predestined," as I have already said. Wherefore Origen does not rightly expound this passage thus, as if Paul said: Christ, being the Son of God, was destined to be the prince and firstborn from the dead, namely, that He might exercise divine power over them and give them the Spirit of sanctification and vivification. The sense of the Apostle therefore is, as if to say: The man Christ, who was made of the seed of David, or to whom was given the essence and existence of human nature, was predestined to this end, that He might subsist in the person of the Son of God; that is, Jesus was predestined to this end, namely that He who was to be according to the flesh the son of David, the same according to hypostasis should be the Son of God: this is, it was predestined that this man, who is called Jesus, and is the son of David, should at the same time be the Son of God, because namely it was predestined that this man should be assumed by the Son of God, and hypostatically united to Him, so that He should be at once man and God, or the son of man and the Son of God. Thus St. Augustine, De Praedestin. Sanctor., cap. XV; Anselm, Council of Toledo XI, cap. 1, and throughout the Scholastics, III part., Quaest. XXIV. You will say: The pronoun "who" refers to the Son of God, who preceded. But the Son of God is not predestined to become the Son of God, because He was always the Son of God. Thus Calvin. I answer: The pronoun "who" refers to the Son of God, not formally, but materially, namely not inasmuch as He is the Son of God, but inasmuch as He was made according to the flesh of the seed of David, as preceded, that is, it refers to this man Christ, who was assumed by the person of the Word, and is the Son of God. For this man was not from eternity the Son of God, but was predestined to be the Son of God, just as in time He was made the Son of God. Note here that Holy Scripture speaks of Christ in such a way that it now speaks of His divinity, then immediately passes to His humanity, and again returns to His divinity. Hence it comes about that Scripture attributes to Christ properties which are proper to God, and immediately ascribes to Him other things which pertain only to man. This is clearly seen in Hebrews I, 2, where the Apostle speaks thus: "In these last days God hath spoken to us by His Son, whom He hath appointed heir of all things." Behold here he speaks of the Son as He is man; and immediately he speaks of the same one as He is God. For he adds: "By whom also He made the world, who being the brightness of His glory;" and again he returns to the same Son as He is man, when he immediately subjoins: "Making purgation of sins, sitteth on the right hand of the majesty on high." You will say secondly: This man includes not only the human nature of Christ, but also the person, which is the Word; and the relative pronoun who cannot refer to the human nature: for thus it would have to be said, which; therefore it refers to the person: but in Christ there was no other person than the divine person of the Word; this, however, could not have been predestined to union with the Word. For thus it would have been predestined that the same should be united with the same, or that the same should be united with itself: which is impossible. Whence the Doctors commonly say that only the human nature was predestined and elevated to this union with the Word. This is the argument of Toledo, by which he endeavors to prove that predestined here ought to be explained as declared. I answer: The relative pronoun who refers to the human nature of Christ in the concrete, that is to this man, not subsisting, but existing from the seed of David. For although the same materially subsists in the person of the Son of God, as has been said before; yet in this new proposition, the mind presccinds from that, namely from this subsistence and person of the Word, and conceives only this man existing, not however subsisting or personated, until the predicate Son of God is added. Thus it happens in every essential proposition; for in it the subject is always the same in reality as the predicate, but distinct in concept and as it were prescribed; as man is an animal, a lion is a brute. I answer secondly: The pronoun who can refer to the person of this man, or to this suppositum of the humanity of Christ confusedly, abstracting from the fact that it is the same suppositum of the divinity of the Son of God: for although in reality the same suppositum in Christ is of the humanity and divinity, yet in our concept, which we express through this enunciation, one can be conceived apart from the other, and thus as it were separated and prescribed; so that namely I conceive this same suppositum in the subject only insofar as it is the suppositum of humanity; in the predicate, however, I conceive the same, insofar as it is the suppositum of divinity, or of the Son of God; so that the sense is, it was predestined that the person of Christ the man should not be human, as it is in other men, but that it should be the same as the person of the Son of God. Thus subtly and learnedly teaches Francis Suarez, III part., Question XXIV. And in this sense it is clear that not only the human nature of Christ, but also the person in a confused manner, or in the abstract, was predestined, as Suarez and St. Thomas teach in the same place. Finally, St. Thomas notes, III part., Question XXIV, and the Scholastics, that this predestination of Christ was the means, the end, and the exemplar of our predestination: because, as Augustine, On the Predestination of the Saints, chapter XV, says: "That grace is given from the beginning of his faith to every man who is Christian, by which grace that man from his beginning was made Christ. By the same Spirit was he also born anew, by which He was born. By the same Spirit is wrought in us the remission of sins, by which it was wrought that He should have no sin:" namely, both to Christ and to every Christian this is given without any merits of his own, from the mere grace of God. In the power according to the spirit of sanctification from the resurrection of the dead of Jesus Christ our Lord. — First, St. Chrysostom and the Greeks explain this thus, as if to say: Christ was declared to be the Son of God, first, in, that is from, the power of miracles; secondly, because He gave the Holy Spirit; thirdly, from the resurrection from the dead, because from thence as it were the Lord of death rose again. Secondly, Theodoret and Toledo explain it thus, as if to say: Christ was declared to be the Son of God, through the power conferred by the Holy Spirit and sanctifying the Apostles, by which with wonderful signs and deeds they confirmed the resurrection of Christ: but this was done after the Lord Himself rose from the dead. To this pertains the exposition of Ambrose: Christ, he says, was predestined through the Holy Spirit, that He might be manifested to be the Son of God, in the power by which He rose from the dead. But our Interpreter, as I have said, translates it not as "declared," but as "predestined." The sense of our version, therefore, is this: Christ "was predestined to be the Son of God in power," that is, with divine power (for in Greek it is δύναμις, not ἀρετή, and "in" is put for "with"; thus the Hebrews often take ב for עם), so that, although He was the Son of David according to the flesh, which is fragile and weak, He nevertheless possessed both the power and the divine hypostasis; namely, so that through this power, this man united to the Word would work miracles, remit sins, sanctify men: which power He had according to, that is, through, and from the divine nature, which is "the Spirit of sanctification," that is, the source of all holiness; or more plainly, from the Holy Spirit, who accomplished this whole work of the union of man with God in Christ, and sanctified Him in such a way that He gave Him the power to sanctify all men, which power of the Holy Spirit was shown most of all, and was most evident "from the resurrection" from the dead, that is, in the resurrection, by which Christ raised Himself and other dead. Whence Christ said of it then, Matt. XXVIII: "All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." And John, Apoc. V: "The Lamb that was slain is worthy to receive power and divinity and wisdom." Thus St. Augustine and interpreters everywhere. Some also explain it thus: Christ was predestined to be the Son of God "in power," that is, in the hypostatic union, which was a most excellent work of the power and might both of God the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or sanctifying: through which powerful union God Himself and the Holy Spirit brought about the resurrection of the dead, and caused Christ and other Christians to rise from the death of the body to blessed life, and sinners from the death of sin to the life of grace. This exposition is more subtle; yet it follows and coheres with the former, which is plainer and more solid. Note here first, that there are ellipses here: for the words "had," "was evident" must be supplied. See can. 37. Note secondly, that "resurrection," in Greek ἀνάστασιν, can here be taken both passively, in which Christ rose, and actively, in which Christ caused Himself and others to rise. Thus Ambrose. Note thirdly the Hebraism, "of Jesus Christ our Lord," that is, of Him or His: for the Hebrews, in place of a demonstrative pronoun, often repeat the preceding name. Paul therefore adds here τὸ Jesus Christ, both to express and teach that this name is proper to the Son of God, of whom he has spoken; and because he always held this most sweet name of the Saviour in delight, and consequently in his heart and mouth. Finally, St. Anselm and from him Salmeron, probably, plainly and easily explain this passage thus, that Christ is said here to be "predestined to be the Son of God," not simply and absolutely, but with an addition, namely, "in the power of the resurrection," that is, predestined to rise again; "in power," that is, in the power, glory and majesty of immortality; so that then, as it were, He would be seen to be fully and perfectly regenerated and reborn as the glorious and immortal Son of God, as if Paul said: It was predestined and determined by God that Christ as man should be the Son of God, not in weakness and humility, such as He appeared at first being born, living and dying, but in the power and glory of the resurrection; so that, namely, He would rise from the dead and be the immortal Son of God, and would show forth the glory of the Godhead through His body: which was accomplished through the Holy Spirit and sanctifying; who, as in the incarnation He sanctified the soul of Christ through grace and glory, so in the resurrection He sanctified the body of Christ through immortality and glory, and consequently sanctified the whole Christ fully and perfectly. "Christ," says Anselm, "who was predestined according to the flesh (since God from eternity predestined that His Word should become flesh, which He also raised up and glorified), was predestined to be the Son of God in the power of immortality and might, concerning which after the resurrection He says: All power is given to Me in heaven and in earth." For since He Himself says of the elect that they are sons of God because they are sons of the resurrection, why not He Himself rather, who "according to the Godhead is naturally always the Son of God, in the resurrection according to the humanity is said to have become the Son of God?" Whence also the Father, raising up His Son, said to Him: "Thou art My Son, this day have I begotten Thee," Acts XIII, 33. This sense appears plain and specious, and avoids the difficulties concerning the predestination of Christ mentioned a little before; but it somewhat restricts, deflects and weakens the general words of the Apostle, namely, that Christ is the Son of God not absolutely, but in the power and glory of the resurrection, and that He had the Spirit of sanctification only then, which the Apostle here attributes to Him absolutely. The former explanation, therefore, already mentioned, although somewhat more difficult, yet appears to be more genuine, and from the mind and phrase of the Apostle, and more sublime, solid and universal.
1:5
5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship to the obedience of faith in all nations for his name's sake. — Maldonatus in his manuscript notes which I saw at Rome, holds this to be a hendiadys: "grace and apostleship," that is, the grace of apostleship, and rightly so. Hence also from verse 1 of almost all the epistles of St. Paul, with St. Chrysostom and Origen, a note against Calvin and Erasmus, that apostleship does not merely signify legation and mission, or the function of mission and legation, as its etymology sounds, but also signifies office, power and the first and highest dignity in the Church. For just as now a Legate of the Supreme Pontiff is called a Nuncio, or Apostolic Legate; and this is a great dignity: so likewise the Apostles were called and in fact were legates of Christ, Matt. XXVIII, 19, and by this very fact they obtained the highest authority in the Church: "For we are ambassadors for Christ," says Paul, II Corinth. V, 20. The Apostles therefore were first from Christ, they held the place of Christ, and represented the person of Christ: just as the king's legate represents the king himself. Although therefore all the Apostles were subject to St. Peter, as to the Pontiff and head of the Church, and ought to obey him; nevertheless they had equal power with him: First, to preach the Gospel throughout the whole world, "to the obedience of faith in all nations," that is, so that faith may be obeyed by all nations, namely, so that the Apostles by their preaching might induce all nations to submit themselves, believe and obey the Gospel. Thus St. Chrysostom and others. Second, to found churches everywhere, that is, to create Bishops and Priests, to institute the rite of sacred things and Sacraments, and to arrange the whole order of the Church. Third, to command, forbid, and punish any of the faithful. Add fourth, to write canonical books. Whence Paul prefixes this title of his dignity and power to his epistles, saying: "Paul called an Apostle;" as now the Legates of the Pontiff do, saying: "We Octavius by the grace of God Apostolic Legate." You will say: If in these four duties all the Apostles were equal to St. Peter, how then was Peter the head of them and of the whole Church? I answer: because St. Peter could command the other Apostles as if superior; and, if they erred, it was Peter's part to correct them; and, if they disagreed, it was his to settle their disputes, and moreover to distribute burdens and provinces to each. Thus St. Cyprian, lib. On the Unity of the Church. So episcopacy, or the episcopate, is not merely a function, but also the very episcopal dignity, or prelacy itself. Whence in Psalm CVIII it is said: "Let another take his bishopric," where in Hebrew it is פקדתו pekuddato, that is, let another take his prefecture. Some refer this to obedience. Whence the Syriac version renders it, so that all nations obey the faith of his name. But more aptly you would refer this to "we have received apostleship," as if to say, In the name and stead of Christ we have received apostleship, and we exercise legation. Thus Ambrose, or, as Chrysostom and Theophylactus: "We have received apostleship for his name's sake," that is, for the glory and faith of the name of Christ to be propagated and made known.
1:6
6. In which you also are called of Jesus Christ. — "Called," that is, called ones, as it were servants or children of Jesus Christ. Thus the following verse: "Called to be saints," he says, that is, called to holiness, called to Christianity, so that they may be holy. For all Christians are holy by calling, because they are called to holiness; and, if they wish to correspond to their calling, they ought to strive for holiness, and to be holy. See what is said, verse 1.
1:7
7. To all who are in Rome. — There is here a hyperbaton and a disordered arrangement. For these words are to be referred to the beginning of the chapter: "Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ;" whence some intercept all from verse 2 hitherto by parenthesis and read it thus. See canon 37. Then the verb "wishes" or "prays" is to be understood here, as if to say, "Paul wishes that to all who are in Rome, grace and peace," understand again, may be fulfilled, or multiplied; or certainly when he says, "Paul to all who are in Rome," understand, writes this epistle. Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. — Tertullian notes, book V Against Marcion, chapter V, that the Jews, whom Christ followed, had this greeting: שלום לכם schalom lachem, peace to you, that is, may all things prosperous and favorable be to you. But the greeting of the Apostles was this: "Grace and peace to you," because they were heralds of grace brought through Christ. The same Roman Pontiffs and preachers have followed, and men of Religion in their sermons and epistles prefix grace, peace; the Pontiffs also the Apostolic blessing. Note secondly: "Grace" is not only the benevolence and favor of God (as Beza wishes), but also that which follows from Him, as being not empty, but liberal and efficacious, namely grace and every gratuitous benefit of God, by which man is directed to salvation: such as faith, hope, charity, virtues, their increases, remission of sins, illuminations of the intellect, impulses of the will to a pious life, good works, perseverance in them and finally eternal life itself. "Peace" moreover is here understood as that which the just soul has with God; likewise peace of conscience, so that the conscience, formerly disturbed by the thought of its sins and by fear of the wrath of God, now that sins are remitted through the grace of God, may be in quiet, and quiet may serve God. Morally St. Chrysostom notes, in II Timothy I, 1, that Paul's greetings are not only signs of benevolence, but also causes of blessing and grace. "It is enough," says Chrysostom, "that Paul's greeting alone fill with grace him who is thus greeted." For the greetings of the Saints are silent prayers and blessings, powerful and efficacious, which obtain from God those good things which the Saints beseech for those whom they greet: whence Christ, Matthew X, commanded the Apostles to pray well and bless their hosts with their greeting: "Entering," He says, "into the house, salute it, saying: Peace be to this house." And lest you think this merely a verbal and ceremonial greeting, He adds its fruit and efficacy, saying: "And if indeed that house be worthy, your peace shall come upon it." So great is it to be greeted by the Saints. Thus the Blessed Virgin with her greeting filled Elizabeth and John the Baptist with the Holy Spirit, Luke I, 44. See here how powerful, how desirable and to be sought after is the greeting of the Saints.
1:8
8. First indeed I give thanks to God. — St. Gregory of Nazianzus, in his Apology, says: "The best order of every beginning and discourse and matter is to begin from God and to end in God," so that we may sing to God: "From thee the beginning, in thee it shall end." Through Jesus Christ, — as our mediator, from whom faith, grace and all good things, for which we give thanks to God, come to us, says Ambrose; and as our high priest, by whose oblation all our offerings are pleasing to the Father, says Origen; and consequently our thanksgiving also is pleasing to the Father through Christ, who as Pontiff offers it to the Father. For all of you: because your faith is announced in the whole world. — That is to say, I give thanks to God, whose grace is your faith. For that you have believed in Christ was not accomplished by you, but by the grace of God. Again I give thanks to God, because by his grace it came to pass that your faith, that is, the fame, excellence and constancy of your faith, namely that you, who are the masters of affairs at Rome, have believed the Gospel, and in it persevere and make progress generously: it is spread throughout the whole world subject to the Romans, or wherever the name of the Romans is celebrated, says Chrysostom and Theodoret. That this judgment and praise of Paul concerning the Romans pertains not only to the Romans of that time and age, but also to their posterity, Jerome teaches in book III Against Rufinus, chapter IV: "To the Romans," he says, "praised by the Apostolic mouth, treachery has no access," nor has it had from the time of St. Jerome until now: for never up to our own times has heresy occupied Rome as it has other cities. Truly Tertullian, in the book On the Prescription Against Heretics, chapter XXXVI: "You have," he says, "Rome, from which authority is also at hand for us: that Church so blessed, to which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood." Wherefore St. Jerome, in the preface to book II on the epistle to the Galatians: "Do you wish to know," he says, "O Paula and Eustochium, how the Apostle has marked each province with its own properties; even to this day the same traces of virtues or errors remain. The faith of the Roman people is praised: where else is there such zeal and frequency of running to churches and to the tombs of Martyrs? where does Amen resound so like the likeness of heavenly thunder, and the empty temples of idols shake? Not that the Romans have another faith than this which all the Churches of Christ have, but that devotion in them is greater, and simplicity in believing." Moreover St. Cyprian says something further, namely that these things were spoken prophetically by St. Paul, foreseeing the constancy of the Romans in faith in future ages. For thus he says in epistle 57 to Cornelius, where he praises the strength of faith of him and the Roman people in the time of the persecution of Decius: "While there is one mind and one voice among you, the whole Roman Church has confessed; the faith shone forth, dearest brothers, which the Blessed Apostle proclaimed of you, and by the proclamation of your future merits, while he praises the parents, he provoked the children." St. Chrysostom proceeds further here, and presses the meaning of "is announced," when Paul says: "Your faith is announced in the whole world," namely that just as the Roman Church, with Peter and Paul preaching, had believed, so in the manner of that as a mother, the other Churches and nations ought to believe what she had believed. "Paul did not say," says Chrysostom, "it is made manifest, but, Your faith is announced; making clear that nothing is to be added to or taken from what is said. It is the work of angels or messengers to carry only those things which are said: for which reason a priest is called an angel, because he announces not his own things, but only those which he has received from him by whom he is sent: although Peter preached elsewhere; but Paul considers his deeds to be his own." Hence "Roman" among the ancients, not only among the orthodox but also among heretics, was the same as Catholic. Thus Jocundus the Arian to King Theodoric: "If you slay Armogasten with the sword," he says, "the Romans will proclaim him a martyr;" Romans, that is, Catholics. So Victor of Utica relates in the persecution of the Vandals, where he also commemorates another martyr, who, being asked about the faith by these same Arians, replied, "I am Roman;" Roman, that is, Catholic. In like manner Ricimer the Goth and Arian writes to the Ligurians: "If he is Catholic, he is Roman." Theodosius also the Emperor, in a letter to Acacius of Beraea: "It is fitting," he says, "that you be approved priests of the Roman religion." The true and just cause of this nomenclature, as well as of the preeminence and constancy of the Roman Church, is that St. Peter transferred his episcopate from Antioch to Rome, and in the Roman Church with the episcopate, he also established and placed there the primacy itself and the very rock of faith and the Church; and this "by divine counsel," says St. Leo, sermon 1 On the Nativity of St. Peter and Paul, namely so that the Gospel and faith from Rome, as from the head and citadel of the empire, might be diffused most swiftly throughout the whole world and, once diffused, be preserved. For Rome was ἐπιτομή τῆς οἰκουμένης, as it were an epitome and compendium of the whole world: for inhabitants of all nations dwelt in Rome: whence Polemon in Galen calls the Roman people ἐπιτομὴν τῆς οἰκουμένης. Other ancients call Rome παμβασίλεια, the dwelling place of virtues, the head of the world, the queen of cities, the mother and nurse of heroes, the fatherland of laws, the goddess of lands and peoples, our common fatherland, the fatherland of all, which, as the Poet sings, Aeneid VI, Hath equalled empire to the earth, and minds to Olympus high. Remember, Roman, to rule the peoples with empire. (Hath equalled empire to the earth, and minds to Olympus high. Remember, Roman, to rule the peoples with empire.) Whence also fittingly Rome, in Greek ῥώμη, strength, but in Hebrew sublimity and loftiness from the root רום, that is, high, exalted, was significant, as St. Jerome noted, book II Against Jovinian, where he thus addresses Rome: "I shall address you, who by the confession of Christ have blotted out the blasphemy written on your forehead, mighty city, city mistress of the world, city praised by the voice of the Apostle, interpret your name: Rome is either a name of strength among the Greeks, or of sublimity according to the Hebrews." Wherefore from the Roman Church, as from a matrix, the other Churches and nations ought to believe what she believed. That the truth of faith and Apostolic tradition should be sought, St. Irenaeus teaches, book III, chapter III: "Since," he says, "it is very long in such a volume to enumerate the successions of all Churches; the greatest and most ancient, known to all, founded and established at Rome by the most glorious two Apostles Peter and Paul, showing the tradition which she has from the Apostles and the faith announced to men, coming through the successions of Bishops even to us, we confound all those who in any way whatsoever, either through their own evil pleasure, or vain glory, or through blindness and evil opinion, gather together otherwise than is fitting. For to this Church, on account of its more powerful principality, it is necessary that every Church, that is, those who are faithful everywhere, should resort, in which the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by those who are everywhere."
1:9
9. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit, etc. — Paul here shows his remarkable affection toward the Romans, so that he might thus more easily insinuate and instill himself and his matters into them. This affection was the cause exciting Paul to give thanks to God for the faith of the Romans. For this cause is signified by the causal word "for." Whom I serve, — whom (God) I worship with latria; for in Greek it is ᾧ λατρεύω, which word by the usage of the Church signifies the worship owed to God alone, as to the Lord of all. Thus St. Augustine, book X On the City of God, chapter I. In like manner δουλεία is given to the Saints by theological usage: and yet dulia does not eliminate latria, but rather includes it. For just as the love of neighbor does not hinder, but rather includes and is referred to the love of God; so also dulia and honor of the Saints is referred to the honor of God; so that He, who is wonderful in His Saints, may be honored in them; just as a king is honored when his princes and friends are honored, namely with a lower honor than is the honor by which the king is honored in his own person. Note "whom (namely God) I serve," in Greek λατρεύω, with great reverence and solicitude indeed; and therefore he adds saying: "In my spirit;" for they wish λατρεύειν to be derived from λα, which particle augments in composition, and τρεῖν, which means to tremble. In my spirit, — that is to say, I serve God and worship God in spirit and mind, not in Jewish ceremonies. For thus Christ commanded the Father to be adored in spirit and truth, John IV, 23: thus Origen, Chrysostom, Theophylactus. Secondly, not badly do others by τὸ πνεῦμα, or spirit, here understand the vital spirit, that is to say, Paul: I expend my life and all my spirits, my sweat and blood to God, even to the last breath I serve God, and for Him I labor and contend.
1:10
10. How then I may at some time have a prosperous journey in the will (that is, by the will) of God to come unto you, etc.
1:12
12. That is, to be comforted together in you, through that faith which is mutual. — For "to be comforted together," in Greek it is συμπαρακληθῆναι, that is, that we may together receive consolation and joy, through the mutual communication of faith. Thus Chrysostom and Theodoret. Secondly, more aptly Origen refers "to be comforted together" to "to be confirmed," as if to say: I desire to see you that I may confirm you by instructing and teaching you in the faith of Christ; and let this confirmation of mine become our mutual consolation, from our common faith, mine and yours, now increased and confirmed by me. This sense is gathered from the following verse. Whence also it is evident that our Interpreter better renders συμπαρακληθῆναι as "to be comforted together" than Bucer and Beza, who render it "to exhort one another"; for the Apostle did not wish to receive exhortation, but to give it to the Romans, as the following verse says. By which he tacitly presses down the pride of the Romans, says Chrysostom, and insinuates that they need his instruction and admonitions: but he wished both to give consolation to the Romans, and in turn to receive it from them.
1:13
13. Thus (as far as in me) I am ready to preach the gospel to you also, — as if to say: Therefore as far as it concerns me, readiness is present to me; and as the Syrian renders it, מרחפט merchappat, to preach the gospel to you.
1:14
14. To Greeks and Barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise I am a debtor. — "Barbarian" is a Greek word, and made by the Greeks through onomatopoeia. A barbarian therefore, to the Greeks devoted to wisdom and eloquence, was called everyone who spoke a language other than Greek, and for this reason even the Romans were barbarians to the Greeks: whence Paul here, who had hitherto lived among the Greeks, in the manner and phrase of the Greeks, opposes barbarians to Greeks. Thus also Cicero, in book II of On Divination, divides all nations into Greeks and Barbarians. Whence also Plautus in the prologue of the Asinaria calls the Latin language barbarous. Of which again I shall speak at I Corinthians XIV, 11. Chrysostom and Theophylactus note here the modesty of Paul, in that he says: "I am a debtor," as if to say: An irrefusable debt of preaching the gospel lies upon me. For this office of preaching has been entrusted and committed to me by God. Whence at I Corinthians IX, 16, he says: "Woe is me, if I preach not the gospel!"
1:16
16. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel, — as the Jews are ashamed, who despise the Gospel concerning Christ crucified and the Saviour, and hold it for a scandal; and the Gentiles who laugh at it as foolishness, I Corinthians I, 23. Tertullian, book V Against Marcion, chapter XIII, reads: "For I am not ashamed of the Gospel." This utterance of Paul was generously and fittingly used by the most illustrious Palatine, Paul Kostka, brother of the Blessed Stanislaus Kostka, as is related in his Life; who, after his parents died, being heir to vast and noble estates, following his brother, despised all his possessions for the love of Christ and distributed them to the poor: indeed he also built and endowed a hospice, among other things, in which he himself wished to live, die and be buried among the poor, so that he might follow Christ the poor and His Gospel, which declares the poor blessed, as closely as possible as a poor man, emulating the ancient example of St. Paula of Rome, and therefore ordered his tomb to be inscribed among them: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel." Signifying that a life of want to himself, though ignoble to the world, was willingly chosen, because he had devoted himself to the school and book of Christ, not of the world: nor did he count it shameful to himself, but glorious, because the heavenly Master had shown it forth and made it desirable and glorious both in deed and word. Wherefore he obtained great fame for holiness among the Princes of Poland, and moved them with a similar pious sense of evangelical poverty and perfection. Indeed St. Ambrose finely says, book I of the Duties, chapter XXX: "No one," he says, "ought to be ashamed if from being rich he becomes poor, while he gives to the poor; because Christ became poor, though He was rich, that He might enrich us by His poverty." A worthy utterance therefore for a Christian prince: "I am not ashamed of the Gospel." For the power of God is unto salvation to every one that believeth, — that is to say, the Gospel, that is not the mere word or writing of the Gospel, but the preaching and faith, or rather the thing preached through the Gospel, namely the death of Christ, His merits, the Sacraments, precepts and promises; although these are shame, scandal and mockery to the unbelieving, yet to us they are the power and might of God; for in Greek it is δύναμις, by which God mightily works salvation in believers, that is faith, justice and eternal life. Luther objects: Therefore faith alone saves and justifies. I answer, I deny the consequence. Faith—but first you must ask what justice of God is meant here. Origin, Ambrose and Chrysostom answer that it is understood to be that by which God is just in Himself: namely, that by which He justly renders reward to the just, punishment to the impious and unjust, as Origin wishes; or, as Ambrose says, that by which He is just in Himself, that is, truthful in His promises; or, as Chrysostom says, that by which He is just in Himself, that is, good and benign to men because of Christ. Secondly, Theodoret: The justice of God, he says, is that by which Christ, by the rigour of justice, satisfied God the Father for us. Thirdly, genuinely and most fittingly, St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter ix: The justice of God, he says, is divine justice, not Jewish, not philosophical, by which namely God justifies us through Christ, and by which He truly makes us just in the eyes of God: this justice is revealed and clearly taught in the Gospel of Christ. In a similar way "salvation" is taken, Psalm III, 9, where it is said, "Salvation is of the Lord," by which namely He makes us safe, that is to say, it is the Lord's to save and to give us salvation. Note here in passing that this sentence of the Apostle can also be extended to the salvation of the body; for it is generally true: for the Gospel is the power and instrumental cause of salvation and life not only future, but also present, and that not only by word, but also by writing. For, as St. Augustine teaches, tract. 7 on John, the written codex of the Gospel, when applied to the sick, heals their diseases. "When your head aches," he says, "we praise you if you apply the Gospel to your body and do not run to a bandage." St. Thomas gives the reason, II II, Question XCVI, article 4: "The Word of God," he says, "is of no less efficacy than the relics of the Saints, but we use relics for salvation; therefore in like manner, indeed in greater measure, it is lawful to use the written Word of God, or the Gospel, for the same purpose." Hence the custom has prevailed among the faithful of carrying and bearing about the Gospel of St. John against poisons, sorceries, diseases and other evils. But the Apostle properly speaks here not of bodily, but of spiritual salvation, which the Gospel procures not only by voice and preaching, which the Apostle properly intends here, but also by writing. Hence we sing of Blessed Cecilia: "The glorious virgin always bore the Gospel of Christ in her breast." Namely, that through it she might procure for herself strength for martyrdom, and to convert her husband and other enemies of the faith to the faith: which indeed came to pass. Hence also in the Life of St. Barnabas the Apostle we read that his body was found under the Emperor Zeno in Cyprus, having at his breast the Gospel of St. Matthew, written by the hand of Barnabas himself: for it appears that Barnabas wished to be buried with this Gospel, that he might have it as it were a heavenly pledge of the resurrection promised by the Gospel. But the Apostle, as I have said, speaks here of the Gospel not as writing, but as preaching. To the Jew first (because the Gospel was first and chiefly announced by Christ and the Apostles, Matt. X, 5, to the Jews, to whom Christ was promised) and (that is, then) to the Greek,—that is to the Gentile: for since the Greeks after Alexander propagated their language most widely with their kingdom, hence Greek is the same as Gentile. Thus St. Augustine, epistle 200. Note: The conjunction and here signifies then, or secondly: for it is opposed to first. See Can. 23.
1:17
17. For the justice of God is revealed therein (in the Gospel). From faith to faith.—First, St. Anselm expounds this in three ways: first, from the faith of one God, to the faith of the Trinity; second, from the faith of the first coming of Christ to save, to the faith of his second coming to judge; third, from the faith of the humanity of Christ to the faith of his divinity. Second, St. Augustine, in the book On the Spirit and the Letter, chapter xi: From faith, he says, of those preaching, to the faith of those hearing and believing. Third, St. Thomas: "From faith to faith," that is, he says, through the faith of Christ necessary in every age for salvation, as if to say, From the faith of the fathers, to the faith of the descendants. Fourth, St. Ambrose: From faith, he says, of God promising, to the faith of man believing God's promises. Fifth, Theodoret and Oecumenius: From faith, they say, of things past in Christ, to the faith of things future in us. Sixth, more aptly Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Toletus: From faith, they say, of the Old Testament obscure, to the clear faith of the New Testament, to which that old faith leads us as a pedagogue. Seventh, Bede: From faith, he says, here obscure, to faith, that is to clear vision in heaven. Thus also St. Augustine, book II Questions on the Gospels, chapter xxxix. Eighth, and most aptly, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Adam and Pererius: "From faith," they say, "beginning and imperfect, to faith" advancing, perfect, formed by charity, or in like manner increasing, either intrinsically in itself, or extrinsically through charity into other virtues, which faith excites, as if to say, In the Gospel is revealed true justice, which is and advances from faith to faith, that is, which begins, is nourished, increases through faith daily growing, until it leads the believer to salvation, which is the power of the Gospel, as was said before. And this sense coheres most excellently with what follows: "As it is written, But the just shall live by faith;" as will appear there: and this is a most simple and most frequent Hebraism. For thus the Hebrews signify the progress and increase of a thing, through the doubling of the thing by means of the preposition "in"; as in Psalm LXXXIII: "They shall go from strength to strength," that is, they shall go in progress and increase of all strength. In like sense, II Cor. II, 16, it is called "a savour of death unto death, and a savour of life unto life." And chapter III, last verse: "We are transformed," he says, "from glory to glory," that is to greater glory. Thus in this epistle, chapter vi, 19: "You have yielded," he says, "your members to serve iniquity unto iniquity," that is to the increase of iniquity, so that from one crime you might rush into another. This same phrase occurs elsewhere throughout. As it is written (Habakkuk II, 4): But the just shall live by faith,—as if to say, The life of grace, by which the just lives, first, begins from faith alone; second, grows and is perfected by faith, though not by faith alone, but growing into living faith of grace and charity, through the observance of the commandments, that you do those things which faith commands. For otherwise it would imply living without life, or faith without life. Just as therefore it is said in Proverbs IV, 23, that life proceeds from the heart, that is that man lives from the heart and draws life, because namely the heart is the root of life, and is in man the first living and the last dying; yet by this the brain, lung, liver, stomach and the rest are not excluded, from which also man lives and draws his life: thus likewise it is said that the just lives by faith, because faith is the beginning, root and as it were the heart of the life of spiritual grace; yet by this hope, charity and other virtues are not excluded, from which also the just lives. See can. 2 and 3. Paul here cites the prophet Habakkuk, who in chapter I, having grievously complained of the prosperity of the impious, namely that the impious Chaldaeans were most fortunate in victories and empires, and therefore tyrannically dominated the people of God, that is the Jews, and that God seemed to neglect His own pious and faithful people, and thus human affairs; God answers him in chapter II, that He will shortly show forth His providence and judgment, namely that He will send Cyrus, who will subdue and overthrow the impious Babylonians, and will free and save the pious Jews, as Antonius Guevara rightly noted there, and is evident from verse 5 and following. But under Cyrus, allegorically Christ is understood, and the Holy Spirit intends chiefly to signify Him by these things, who, with Babylon, that is the kingdom of impiety and the devil, overthrown, will thence draw forth and save the true spiritual Israelites, that is the faithful Christians: "If he make a delay, says Habakkuk II, 3, wait for him: because he shall surely come (namely God the just judge and avenger, both of the impious, such as the Babylonians, and of the pious and faithful, such as the Jews, through Cyrus, and far more truly through Christ), and shall not tarry. Behold, he that is incredulous, his soul shall not be upright in him: but the just shall live in his faith." For St. Paul explains these words allegorically of Christ, Hebrews x, 37, while he exhorts them to constancy in faith from Christ's second coming to judgment: "Yet a little while, says he, and he that is to come (in Greek ὁ ἐρχόμενος), shall come," etc. For Christ is wont to be called ὁ ἐρχόμενος, that is he that is to come, as our Interpreter renders it: as is evident from Apocalypse I, 4; Matthew XI, 3; John I, 15; Acts XIX, 4. Hence it follows, first, that Habakkuk speaks of faith in general, by which we believe God in any matter, and by which the Jews properly believed God through Habakkuk and other Prophets, promising liberation from the Babylonian captivity through Cyrus. For by this faith in God, any just man begins, continues and makes progress in living piously, justly, holily, peacefully and divinely; while in any tribulation and misery, by this faith and hope in God, he sustains, preserves and increases the life of his soul. He therefore says: "The just shall live by faith," that is to say, He who is incredulous and unjust displeases God, and consequently shall not live the true, right, peaceful and happy life of faith, grace, present justice and future glory, because he has me as his enemy; and because he places and fixes his hope and fear not in God, but in men and in human protections and created things; hence he will be restless, will live miserably, and will always be agitated by them: but the faithful and just man, who has believed God and these prophecies of mine from God concerning the liberator Cyrus and his antitype Christ, he shall live a life that is right, pleasant, quiet, happy, holy and undisturbed; because in God, who is true life, and fixed by faith and hope in God's promises, he will be dear to God and will be the care of God. It follows secondly, that the Apostle rightly applies this sentence of the Prophet, "The just shall live by faith," to faith in Christ: both because true faith is that which God has sanctioned and instituted; and God has now sanctioned that true faith is faith in Christ the redeemer; and because faith concerning Cyrus represented allegorically faith concerning Christ. For the Holy Spirit intends through Cyrus, and through Cyrus's liberation, to represent Christ and Christ's redemption by which Christ imparts to His faithful ones life, justice, grace and glory; so that in Christ this sentence is most truly, "The just shall live by faith (in Christ).". It follows thirdly, that it is the same whether you read absolutely with Paul, "The just shall live by faith;" or read, "in his faith," as the Hebrew, Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion have it; or read, in my faith, as the Septuagint renders it; for they read in the Hebrew אמונתי emunati, while others read אמונתו emunato, that is in his faith. For faith which is faith in itself is ours subjectively, because it inheres in us; but God's objectively, because it has God as its object. For one believes Christ to be the redeemer, because God has said and revealed this. It follows fourthly that Habakkuk speaks of the life not of the body, but of the soul; not natural, but supernatural, namely of grace and justice, by which the just man, insofar as he is just, lives. For St. Paul explains this sentence of the Prophet concerning that life here, indeed the Prophet himself does so: for he opposes these two things, namely "to live," which he attributes to the just man and to faith, and "not to have a right soul," or to displease God, which he attributes to the unbeliever and the unjust; for he says: "He that is an unbeliever, his soul shall not be right in itself," for which the Septuagint translates, shall not please (that is, shall displease) my soul; but the just man shall live in his faith. Therefore by the contrary, by living he understands having a right soul, by which you please God; thus namely, that from this you may dare to hope for aid, deliverance and salvation from God as from a friend and benevolent one, both bodily through Cyrus, and rather spiritual through Christ. It follows fifthly that Habakkuk and the Apostle speak both of the beginning of supernatural life, or of the first justification, and of the second justification, or of the increase of justice and spiritual life, as will be evident at Hebrews x, 38. For this sentence, "The just shall live by faith," is general and universal, pertaining both to Jews and to Christians; both to sinners, who are first justified, and to those who are already justified. For all their spiritual life begins, is preserved and grows through faith. Although therefore Habakkuk applies this sentence literally to the Jews captive in Babylon, believing God promising Cyrus as their liberator; yet he brings it forward as a general sentence, and a certain common axiom or proverb: which therefore is rightly applied by Paul to Christians as well. Add that those Jews were types of Christians. Again, those Jews, by that faith of theirs so called, were not only preserved in the life of grace and justice received, but by the same faith began and disposed themselves to this life, if they were not yet justified. For by believing and hoping in God the liberator and protector, they gradually approached God, and disposed themselves to the grace and friendship of God, especially as the faith of Christ drew near, who was here foreshadowed through Cyrus. Wherefore Paul rightly applies this sentence both to the already just and to those still to be justified. In a similar way he applies to both that from Genesis xv: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice," as I shall say at chapter IV, verse 3. Finally, since in the Hebrew it is said, "The just in his faith shall live," "his" signifies the cause both beginning and preserving life; for the sense is: The just continues to live in his faith, as he began to live in the same. Thus we say: An animal lives by its heat, that is, continues to live as it began. This man lives in his baseness, that is, continues to live in the same baseness in which he began to live; the same, I say, generically, although in the individual, indeed often in another and different species of baseness in which he continues to live, from that in which he began to live. In the same way, always "The just in his faith shall live," that is, the just, as he began, thus continues to live in the same faith, the same, I say, as to the formal and generic object, which is to believe God, although as to the material and specific objects, often another faith is that which begins, another that which continues the life of grace and justice. For the faith which begins justice is properly and proximately faith in Christ the redeemer; but the faith which continues and increases justice can be any other faith, as here was the faith by which the Jews believed God promising liberty through Cyrus. Generically therefore it is true, "The just in his faith shall live," that is, the just man believing and hoping in God begins to live spiritually, begins to have a right soul, by which he may please God: and again, proceeding and making progress in this his faith and hope in God, he likewise proceeds and makes progress in spiritual life, in the rectitude and justice of the soul, in the grace and friendship of God, so that he may please God more and more.
1:18
18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and injustice of those men who hold the truth of God in injustice. "For" is put for "but," and γάρ for δέ, says Maldonatus in his manuscript Notes. But you should better take it properly and causally. For the Apostle here proves what he said, namely that the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, and that the justice of God is revealed in it: that is, he proves that Christ and Christ's Gospel and faith are necessary for justice and salvation. That he intends to prove this is evident from the causal word "for," which signifies that he here brings forth the reason and cause of those things which he had said immediately before, as if to say: I rightly said that true justice is revealed through Christ's Gospel, and that it is the power of God unto salvation: because on the contrary both in the same Gospel and by experience, and especially it will be revealed in the day of judgment, the ungodliness and injustice of unfaithful men; it will be revealed, I say, that all men who were destitute of faith in the Gospel held the truth of God in injustice, and therefore are sinners, impious and unjust, and consequently are liable to God's wrath and eternal vengeance. Thus St. Chrysostom, Theodoret and Oecumenius. This is the sentiment of the Apostle, as it were his general thesis, and the first principle, from which he proves that all men, as sinners, have needed Christ the Redeemer, and Christ's Gospel and faith. But he proves this thesis by induction; namely, that all Jews without faith in Christ held the truth of God in injustice, and are sinners, he proves in the following chapter; but that all Gentiles held the truth of God in injustice, and are liable to God's wrath, he proves here in the following verses, from the fact that all worshipped idols; all, I say, not only the simple and common people, but also the wise and Philosophers, whom he attacks most severely and sharply here. And thence in chapter III, verse 23, he concludes that all, both Jews and Gentiles, have absolute need of faith and the grace of Christ for justice and salvation, which is the scope of this whole discourse of Paul, and therefore of this whole epistle. Who hold the truth of God in injustice. — Note: He does not say: Who hold the truth of God in error and ignorance, although this too would have been true; for men before Christ attached many errors to God, as that God is corporeal, acts by fate, does not care for human affairs; but Paul says: "Who hold the truth of God in injustice," because namely most men before Christ, although they acknowledged the truth of God, namely that there is one true God, the maker and ruler of all things; yet they did not worship this God, but most unjustly gave to creatures and idols the just worship owed to God. Therefore, as it were they imprisoned the truth and held it fast with the chains of wicked will, lest it should go forth into effects and works conformable to the truth known; and thus they did violence to it and inflicted upon it the greatest injury. Thus St. Chrysostom and St. Augustine, sermon 55 On the Words of the Lord according to John. These therefore, as it were, held the judge in bonds, and did not permit the legislator rightly to dictate to their mind impressed by God, namely the dictate of right reason and truth. Every sinner does the same tropologically, when he acts and sins against the dictate of truth and reason. Whence St. Basil, in the Shorter Rules, question 65, asks: "How does anyone hold the truth in injustice?" and answers: "Whenever, having been given good things by God, he abuses them for his own desires, which vice the Apostle denied to have been in himself, when he said: For we are not, as many, adulterating the word of God. And: Neither have we been at any time in speech of flattery, as you know, nor in speech of avarice (God is witness), nor seeking glory from men, neither from you, nor from others."
1:19
19. Because that which is known of God is manifest in them: for God hath manifested it unto them. — Here Paul meets an objection. For someone will say, The Gentiles did not suppress the truth of God in injustice, because they did not know it: whence would they have known the true God? The Apostle responds, and plainly asserts that they were able to know God and the truth of God, and indeed actually did know it. Because this truth is naturally open and manifest, and nature itself teaches and dictates it. God therefore through the light of nature manifested this truth to them, which truth they themselves in their malice suppressed in injustice. Paul therefore says: "That which is known of God," in Greek γνωστὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ, that is, that which is naturally knowable concerning God, such as, that God is one, eternal, the principle and avenger of the world. Is manifest in them. — "In them," that is, in them, in their mind, intellect, conscience. The Syriac version renders it ידיעתה דאלהא גליא הי בהון idiata dalaha galia hi behon, that is, the knowledge of God is made manifest in them, and this, as Chrysostom rightly says, hom. 9 ad Popul., not through angels, not through Prophets, not through Evangelists; but because the invisible attributes of God the Creator are understood and perceived from the creature. Thus also the other Fathers to be cited presently. Anselm alone, with some more recent writers, adds that God manifested this truth, or himself, to the Gentiles through a light not only natural, but also supernatural, as if without supernatural light and without faith the Gentiles could not through natural light alone know that there is one true God. But this is contrary to the mind of the Apostle and the Fathers, who assert that God manifested himself to the Gentiles through creation and created things. For from these the Gentiles through the light of nature were able to know and ought to have known God the Creator. Some add, "in them," that is, they say, in their soul and mind, and thus the power and majesty of God shines forth and is known in the whole man especially; for man is a mirror and image of God. But this is too narrow. For the Apostle adds that the Creator can be known from any creature in general.
1:20
20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, his eternal power also and divinity. — You will ask, what are these invisible things of God, and what is God's power and divinity? Origens answers first: God's "invisible things," he says, are angels; God's "power" is the potency by which God rules all things; "divinity" is the essence of God, which contains all things. But there is no discourse here about angels, but only about God: for it preceded, "That which is known of God"; and it follows: "His eternal power also and divinity" (namely, of God). Secondly therefore, St. Thomas explains and distinguishes these three things thus: "Invisible things," he says, of God is the invisible divine essence, which is known by way of negation; "power" of God is the power of God, which is known by way of causality; "divinity" is to be the ultimate end and supreme good, toward which all things tend, which is known by way of excellence. But this is a more subtle than solid exposition: for divinity is nothing other than the divine essence. Thirdly, St. Ambrose, book II On the Holy Spirit, chapter II, and Cyril, book I of the Treasury, chapter v, and Anselm here explain thus: "Invisible things" is the invisible Father, "power" is the Son, "divinity" is divine goodness, which is attributed to the Holy Spirit. But this is accommodative: for literally, it is certain that the Philosophers did not know the Holy Trinity from creatures; and without faith, light and supernatural revelation it cannot be known; yet given faith, man can notice in creatures certain traces and as it were shadows of the Holy Trinity. What therefore the Platonists obscurely and thinly knew about God and God's Word, and what Trismegistus said: "The Monad generated a monad, and reflected in itself its ardor," that is, the Father generated the Son, and by reflecting himself in love spirated the Holy Spirit, all of this they learned from Moses and the Hebrews, as Eusebius teaches, book X of the Preparation for the Gospel, chapter 1; book XIII, chapter x: hence Plato was also called the Attic Moses. I say therefore: "Invisible things" of God are the spiritual attributes of God, such as eternal being, immensity, omniscience, supreme goodness, greatness; "power" of God is the potency by which God almighty is the efficient cause of all things, ruling and providing for them; "divinity" is the essence of God and majesty, namely that God is the first most perfect being, on which all things depend, from which all goods are sought, and all evils are averted; that God is the ultimate end of all things and blessed, especially of human things, and therefore is to be worshipped with latria, with prayers, vows, sacrifices, thanksgiving. Note here: "Power" as the potency of God is also contained among the invisible things of God: for it is equally, like the others, an attribute of God; yet Paul expresses it before the others here, because among the others it shines forth and gleams most of all in creation and created things. Thus, Mark xvi, 7, the angel says to the women: "Go, tell his disciples, and Peter"; not because Peter was not a disciple, but because among the disciples of Christ he stood out as it were as the first. You will say: I Corinthians I, 21, the contrary of this opinion is said, namely that the world in the wisdom of God did not know God. I answer: Paul speaks there of practical knowledge of God, which is joined with the love and worship of God, not however of speculative knowledge. Secondly: Even speculatively the world did not know many attributes of God, because it turned its mind from him and was blinded by vices: yet it could have and ought to have known them. From the creation of the world by the things that are made are clearly seen, being understood. — By "creation of the world," Anselm understands man, who is lord, a participant, knot and bond of all creation. For man from himself, and from his parts and powers both of body and soul, can especially know his creator God. Secondly, more plainly, more generally and better Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylactus and St. Augustine, tract. 2 in John, by "creation of the world" understand the fabric and creation of the world, or rather the things themselves created in the world, or the world itself, which is a creature of God. For the Greek κτίσις signifies both, namely both creature and created things, and the creation itself. Note: The word "understood" signifies that there is need of discourse, comparison and inference, so that through sensible works and created things we may ascend to the knowledge of the invisible things of God. And this is what is said in Wisdom XIII, 5: "From the greatness of the beauty and creature the Creator of them may be seen understandably (in Greek ἀναλόγως, that is by analogy)." The Syriac translator renders it besachala, that is, they are perceived and seen by the intellect, which things are invisible to the eyes of the body. A beautiful paronomasia the Greek language likewise insinuates; for they have, τὰ ἀόρατα νοούμενα καθορᾶται, that is, invisible things are seen, namely through creatures, as it were διὰ κατόπτρου, that is through a mirror. Hence it is evident first, that God's existence is not self-evident, namely from the terms themselves: just as when the terms are known, it is self-evident that one and two make three; but in order that someone, namely, may know that God exists, there is need of discourse, namely from those things which have been made, inferring from them God the maker. Thus Scotus and St. Thomas I part. Question II, art. 1. Whence St. Bernard, serm. 31 in Cant.: "Such, he says, is this variety of forms, and the multitude of species in created things; what are they, if not rays of divinity? showing indeed that truly He exists from whom they are; yet not defining at all what He is: so that you see something of Him, but not Him Himself. But when from Him whom you do not see, you see other things, you know without doubt that He exists whom you ought to seek: so that grace may not defraud the seeker, nor negligence excuse the ignorant. But this kind of seeing is common. For it is at hand, according to the Apostle, for everyone using reason to perceive the invisible things of God through those things which have been made, understood." Hence the same, lib. De Interiori domo, cap. XII and XIII, teaches that the mirror for seeing God is the soul contemplating itself: "In vain, he says, does one raise the eye of the heart to see God who is not yet fit to see himself. For it is necessary first that you know the invisible things of your spirit, before you can be fit to know the invisible things of God. And if you cannot know yourself, do not presume to grasp those things which are above you. The chief and principal mirror for seeing God is the soul contemplating itself." Second, from this place, and from Wisdom XIII, 5, it is evident that by natural light it can be known that God exists, that He is one, that He is free, that He has providence not only in universal, but of each man in particular. For to such alone are graces to be rendered by each one, which the Apostle urges here, in the following verse. Thus St. Chrysostom, Ambrose, Bede, Anselm and St. Dionysius, cap. vii De Divin. Nomin., and St. Augustine De Spiritu et Litt., cap. XII. The same the Gentiles themselves learned and taught by experience: for Trismegistus said the world is the book of divinity and mirror of divine things, in which truly God expressed and painted Himself, as it were the greatest Apelles. In this alone St. Antony strove, as Athanasius testifies, and other dwellers of the desert: nor St. Bernard alone, St. Francis and other Saints; but also Plato, Socrates, Aristotle and all Philosophers. Orpheus likewise acknowledged and taught the same, when he says: "The machine of the world is music and admirable harmony, proclaiming and praising God; for the heavens declare the glory of God." This also is the music of the spheres, which Pythagoras proclaimed. Whence Philo, lib. De Unitate Dei, and duplici templo, calls the world the temple of God: "The temple of God, he says, another, the highest and true one is to be esteemed, namely this whole universe, whose sanctuary is heaven, the most excellent in all the nature of things; but the offerings are the stars; the priests and keepers are the angelic powers, by reason of sincerity similar to unity: but the other temple is manufactured," etc. See on this matter St. Chrysostom discoursing beautifully, hom. 9 ad Popul., and St. Basil, in princip. Parabol. Salomonis; Anselm here; Bernard, at the beginning of lib. V De Consider.; the author of Soliloq., cap. XXXI, tom. IX of the works of St. Augustine, and Prosper, lib. De Vocat. Gent. cap. 1, which book is falsely ascribed to St. Ambrose: "What testimony is it, Prosper says, which has always served the Lord, and never been silent concerning His goodness and power, except the very inexpressible beauty of the whole world, and the rich and ordered abundance of His inexpressible benefits? through which certain tables of eternal law were presented to human hearts, so that in the pages of the elements, and in the volumes of times, the common and public doctrine of divine institution might be read. "The heaven therefore, the sea, the earth and all things in them, by the harmonious concert of their kind and order protested the glory of God, and by perpetual proclamation spoke the majesty of their author: and yet the greatest number of men understood not this voice," etc. Hence truly and piously St. Augustine: "The heavens, he says, and the earth cry out, O Lord, that we love Thee;" and, "Thou hast made us, O Lord, for Thee, and our heart is restless until it rests in Thee." Thus he himself, lib. I Confess. I.
1:21
21. When they knew God, they glorified him not as God, nor gave thanks (to God for the fabric of the world, and for his creation and preservation of himself and all things for his use), but became vain (in Greek ἐματαιώθησαν, that is, they became vain and empty) in their thoughts. — In Greek διαλογισμοῖς, that is, in inquiries and discourses, which they made from creatures concerning God the creator; because namely, abandoning these, they turned aside to the worship of vain idols, which were not God. Thus St. Chrysostom, Origen, Theodoret. Secondly, they "became vain" in their thought and knowledge of God, because they did not pursue the end and fruit of the knowledge of God, which is action (concerning which matter St. Bernard discourses beautifully in sermon 36 on the Canticles) honest and the worship of God. Hence "and the foolish heart of them was darkened," and so they became foolish, because they rejected the true wisdom, which consists in practice and piety, and most foolishly held and worshipped idols as gods. Thirdly, from St. Augustine Anselm says, "they became vain," that is, they grew proud in this knowledge of God. But the first sense is the best, and the genuine one in this place. For thus Paul himself explains it, verse 23.
1:23
23. They changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, etc. — As if to say: These wise men, blind and foolish, the glorious name of divinity, the worship and confession which they ought to have rendered and exhibited to the immortal God, they converted and placed "in the likeness" (for the Greek ἐν ὁμοιώματι can properly be taken for "in the likeness"), or "into the likeness" (taking ἐν for "in," as it is often taken), that is, the assimilation "of the image of man," that is into the image of man, not natural, but made and assimilated by art, as if to say: These wise men worshipped idols in place of God. Thus St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus and Oecumenius. Wherefore Erasmus and Beza do not rightly expound it thus, "into the likeness" or assimilation: because, they say, the Gentiles assimilated the incorporeal God to corporeal things, namely to man, oxen, crocodiles, because in these... Of birds, and four-footed beasts, and serpents. — For that the ancients worshipped birds, serpents, cats, crocodiles, and even garlic, leeks and herbs, and indeed sewers, drains, plague, fever, and other things more absurd than these, as gods, St. Augustine teaches at length, lib. III De Civit., cap. XII, and lib. IV, cap. X and seq., and lib. XVIII, cap. XV. Whence also Juvenal, in his penultimate satire, ridicules the Egyptians because they worshipped their leeks as if they were divine powers, thus: Leeks and onions it is impious to violate and break with the bite. O holy nations, for whom these are born in gardens as divine powers! (Leeks and onions it is impious to violate and break with the bite. O holy nations, for whom these are born in gardens as divine powers!) Where note: Many Gentiles thought that the very wooden and stone idols were gods; some, however, more wise, such as the Philosophers, knew that the idols themselves were not gods, and that only in the idols themselves were gods represented: nevertheless all, both these and those, did not worship the true God in the idol, as if in an image, as Calvin wishes, but the idols themselves, as if they were God or some divine power, and believed they ought to be worshipped; and this, because they thought the idol was the body of God, or was a simulacrum of God, and that God was similar to the idol, and had similar members, or was the place and seat of God, to which God naturally adhered and was present. Finally, all believed that the idol had something of divinity, so that when they went to it, they thought they went to the gods, as Cicero says, lib. I De Natura Deorum; and this because they saw the idol speak and give oracles. Except here a few of the wisest Gentiles, who worshipped idols not from the heart, but from fear of their laws, and in order to keep the people in duty by fear of the gods, as Cicero testifies in the same place. They sinned therefore first, because they worshipped a demon as if it were the soul of the idol in place of God, and from false oracles, evil counsels, and its own confession, and other circumstances, they could and ought to have recognized that it was not God, but a demon. They sinned secondly, because they worshipped, appeased, and invoked the idols themselves as if they were something of God; for this, whatever Calvin may deny, is most clear from Psalm CXIII, Baruch VI, and Wisdom XIV. The Fathers teach the same thing expressly, Tertullian, Lactantius, Justin, Athanasius, Athenagoras, Cyprian and others, who everywhere ridicule the Gentiles because they worship stones and wood as gods, as the Indians and Japanese still do. Therefore nothing in common has the idol with the images of Christians, which have nothing of divinity, but only the bare reason of an image, which is to represent its prototype, as St. Basil and Damascene teach. Note secondly: Although Catharinus hopes well and thinks well of the salvation of Socrates and Plato, nevertheless Xenophon and Plato teach that Socrates sacrificed to the Greek gods, and among other things a cock to Aesculapius. Thus Plato thought the same gods ought to be worshipped, because the law of the Gentiles so commanded, as Eusebius testifies, lib. XIII De Praepar. Evang., cap. VIII and XI. Thus also Seneca praises sacrifices, not as if pleasing to the gods, but because commanded by the laws, as St. Augustine testifies, lib. VI De Civit., cap. X. The same Plato, in the Epinomis, attributed divine worship to the heavens, stars and demons. Finally, Trismegistus teaches that the simulacra of demons ought to be worshipped, so that they may do good, says St. Augustine, lib. VIII De Civit., cap. XXIII. That the same ought to be worshipped from fear of political laws Cicero taught, lib. I De Natura Deorum. Behold to what human weakness and blindness, even if learned, falls, if it abandons God and is abandoned by God, so that the Apostle rightly thunders against them thus.
1:24
24. For this cause God delivered them up to the desires of their hearts, unto uncleanness. — "For this cause," that is to say, just as they delivered the glory of God to serpents and other unclean and ignominious creatures, so also God delivered them to uncleanness, "that they may be dishonoured," in Greek τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι, that is, that they may be afflicted with ignominy "in their bodies." Note: God delivered them thus, not properly by sending or impelling them to evils, as Calvin wishes: for this is a blasphemy far too evident and atrocious against God and His infinite goodness and holiness; but God delivered them into sins, because He permitted them to their own concupiscence, to the demon and to occasions of sin, so that by fornication and adultery they might dishonour their body. Whence Psalm LXXX, the Lord Himself explaining this matter says: "I sent them away according to the desires of their heart, they shall walk in their own inventions." Thus St. Augustine, book V Against Julian, chapter III, and On Grace and Free Will, chapter XXI, teaches that God delivers sinners into depraved desires, when He not only does not apply grace, but also places occasions and stumbling-blocks of sinning (although for another and pious end), into which He foresees they will fall more gravely and shamefully through their own malice, but does not predetermine, predestine or impel them. Such occasions are riches, honours, delights, with which God loads the impious, so that they might use them well; yet He knows they will not do so, but will abuse them for sins. See canons 14 and 15. Beza objects: God as a judge delivers the impious to the executioner, namely to sin; therefore He does not merely permit, but positively delivers them to sin. It is answered: Man permits sins in one way, God in another: man negatively, God positively: because God holds the wills of all men most tightly in the hand of His omnipotence, as it were a wolf or beast constrained by a rope, which He must positively loosen so that it may act wickedly. Whence this loosening and permission is rightly called an action and delivery, especially when it is done by God as an avenger, to punish a preceding sin, as I said in canon 21. Hence theologians teach that sins following are punishments of preceding sins. Thus the Master of the Sentences, in II, distinction 36, and Augustine, book Against Julian, chapter V, where he thus says: "Crimes are avenged by crimes, and the punishments of sinners are not only torments, but also increases of vices." And in Psalm LVII, in that passage, Fire hath fallen upon them: "Between," he says, "the first sin of apostasy and the final punishment of eternal fire, the things in the middle are both sins and punishment of sin." And a little earlier, in that passage of the same psalm, Iniquity your hands have wrought, he teaches that there is a certain connection of sins among themselves, and as it were a chain, in which some are the cause of following sins, others the punishment of preceding ones, concerning which matter see also St. Gregory, book XXV of the Morals, IX.
1:25
25. They changed the truth of God into a lie, — that is, into a false and lying idol; for εἴδωλον in Greek is a vain, empty, shadowy, deceitful and false thing; and thus idols lie in claiming to be gods, and are deceitful shadows of gods: on which I shall say more at I Corinthians VIII.
1:26
26. Therefore God delivered them up to passions of ignominy. — In Greek, εἰς πάθη, that is, to shameful and base lusts, so that namely against nature not only males and pathic boys with males; but, as follows, also females with females, all transcending the bounds of nature and decency, have been mingled together. Thus Ambrose, Theodoretus, Anselm and others. This perverse and insane lust is called πάθος, not only because in it the active lust corresponds perversely as passive; but also because this passion is so vehement that a man immersed in it is so absorbed by it that he seems rather to suffer than to act, and is like a horse neighing to a mare and raging toward her. Now indeed the Gentiles, not only plebeians, but also Philosophers, and namely Socrates, labored under this infamous vice of pederasty, as Philo relates, lib. II De Vita contemplat. Indeed Laertius also, in the Life of Socrates, relates that he was accused in the judgment by which he was condemned to death by two hundred eighty votes, first, that he rejected the ancestral gods and introduced new demons; secondly, that contrary to law and justice he corrupted youths. Laertius ascribes the same vice to Plato, Gellius, lib. XVIII, cap. II, and lib. XIX, cap. XI, and Plutarch, lib. De Educandis liber., near the end: although Cardinal Bessarion, the defender of Plato, attempts to purge him of this vice, lib. IV in Calumniatorem Platonis, cap. II. St. Chrysostom adds that Solon and other Philosophers not only practiced pederasty, but also praised it as if honorable and sanctioned it by laws, and decreed that free men could practice it, but not slaves; as if pederasty befits not slaves, but free men only, and is itself a free and liberal art. Our age has also seen and brought forth such monsters born from heresy. Against these St. Chrysostom and the Fathers often thunder. Finally, so that you may see this sentence of the Apostle to be most true, and that Philosophers were most impure and most filthy, hear from Diogenes Laertius alone, the emblems of individual ones concerning this matter in order. Periander, he says, abused his own mother Crates, lib. I. Socrates was in the pleasures of Alcibiades, lib. II. Theodorus says the wise man will consort with harlots publicly without shame and suspicion. Phaedo, captured by enemies, devoted himself to infamous gain. Stilpo, besides his wife, kept Micarete as a concubine. Menedemus is noted to have been too familiar with his lover Asclepiades. Aristippus, lib. IV De Antiquis deliciis, says Plato was captivated by love of Stella the astrologer and Dion: others add Phaedrus, others even Alexis. Laertius has more about him, lib. III. Bion of Borysthenes openly consorted with Theodota and Phyleta, harlots: likewise he shamefully loved two youths, Demetrius and Myrleanus Leochares. Whence he was also called by Ariston of Chios, Corruptor of youths. He likewise adopted youths, so that he might abuse them, lib. IV. Aristotle loved the concubine of Hermias, and sacrificed to her, lib. V. Demetrius Phalereus, who was honored with 360 bronze statues, was shamefully used by Cleon. Antisthenes said the wise man would consort with the most beautiful women, lib. VI. Diogenes said women and children ought to be common. Zeno established common wives in the republic, lib. VII. Chrysippus, in his book On the Republic, orders congress with mothers, daughters and sons. Eudoxius was in the pleasures of Theomedon the physician, lib. VIII. Epicurus had Leontia and Themista, harlots, and Pithocles, a handsome youth, in his pleasures, lib. X. Let our politicians and naturalists now go forth and proclaim these Philosophers as upright men, and canonize them as saints and blessed, whom the slaves of unspeakable lust Asmodaeus authorized, and consigned to Orcus. Excellently St. Bernard, against Peter Abelard platonizing, epist. 109 to Pope Innocent: "Where," he says, "while he labors much, how he makes Plato Christian (Abelard) proves himself a Gentile." Their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. — Note that by a diabolical invention women, like men, engage actively with women. Seneca teaches this and more in epistle 95: "Women," he says, "when they have equalled the license of men, have also equalled the vices of male bodies: they keep vigil no less, they drink no less, they provoke men with oil and wine, and in lust they yield to no males, though born to suffer. May the gods and goddesses utterly destroy them, so perverted have they devised a kind of immodesty, approaching men." These women are called by the Greeks Tribades, that is, frictrices, of whom Tertullian makes mention in the book On the Cloak. Whence τριβαδικὴ ἀσέλγεια is called that insane and nefarious lust of tribades, whose inventress is believed to have been Philaenis, and on account of this Sappho has a bad reputation. Lucian, that most impure writer, treats of these in the dialogues Clonarium and Leaena. I have written this unwillingly, so that confessors may know how great is the abyss of lusts, and may know that women too, like men, commit the sin of effeminacy, as Galen the physician and experience teach; and just as they practice this in themselves, so they practice the same in others in unspeakable ways. Receiving in themselves the reward (which was fitting) of their error. — For "reward," in Greek it is ἀντιμισθία, that is, recompense, or reward according to merit; so that because against the order of nature with ignominy to the Creator, abandoning him they turned themselves to the idolatry of the creature, for this reason they have been justly permitted by God to invert the order of nature likewise in the act of generation, and to disgrace themselves with shameful lust. Thus Anselm. Furthermore, that idolatry is the cause of lust and obscenity, the Wise Man also teaches, chapter IV, verse 12: "The beginning," he says, "of all fornication is the seeking out of idols, and the invention of them is the corruption of life;"; and this first, because idols were worshipped with those ceremonies which would impel men to all obscenity, as is evident from the sacred rites of Priapus, Venus, and Bacchus. And this God permitting as a punishment for idolatry, as Paul says here. Second, because idolaters, as Ambrose says here: "Worshipping God as careless, and through this as negligent, have been more dulled, and made more ready to commit all evils." For concupiscence is inflamed when it does not fear God as avenger. But who would fear a wooden or stone god? Third, because, as St. Athanasius says in the Oration Against Idols: "Idolatry was instituted by the desire of those who, full of debaucheries and shameful acts, are represented in images." For when Jupiter the adulterer is worshipped as a god, who would not think it permissible, indeed beautiful, to commit adultery, in that he would be similar to his god in this respect? St. Athanasius adds: "And almost all cities abound in all lusts, on account of the savagery of morals which they behold in their gods; nor is there in this kind of gods one whom you could call chaste. Formerly indeed Phoenician women prostituted themselves before idols, dedicating their gain to the deities, persuaded that they would propitiate them by harlotry, and that prosperity of affairs would arise from this." The same was done by Babylonian, Syrian, Median, Persian, Lydian and other virgins, as I said on Baruch VI, 42. St. Athanasius continues: "Men too, renouncing their sex, no longer bearing themselves as males, have affected the nature of women, as if they would thus do something honorable and pleasing to the mother of the gods. But all live in the most shameful ways, and seem to undertake a contest among themselves in depravity, and, as St. Paul said, Their women have changed the use." Hence it is clear that the punishment of infidelity, impiety and heresy is monstrous lusts, and the cause of this matter is: First, because where there is no faith, there is no grace of God; where there is no grace of God, there is no chastity, but all concupiscence: so that Luther rightly said that intercourse is as necessary to man as food, and this axiom resounds throughout the Novations, that chastity is impossible, because it is truly impossible for Luther and heretics. Truly therefore St. Jerome said, in book II of the Commentary on Hosea chapter IX: "It is difficult to find a heretic who loves chastity, even if he commends it in words and makes a show of it." Second, because heresy and infidelity arise from pride, and the punishment of pride is lust, just as the reward of humility is chastity. Whence the most efficacious remedy for chastity is humility. For this is a just ordinance of God, that if the mind subjects itself to God and to those to whom it ought, it may also have its body subject to itself: but if it will not subject itself to God and to God's vicars, it may also feel its own body rebellious against itself, as St. Gregory most beautifully teaches, lib. XXVI Moral., XII: "Thus, thus, says he, the proud were justly smitten with retribution, so that, because in their pride they prefer themselves to men, in their lust they debase themselves even to the likeness of beasts; for man when he was in honour understood not, he is compared to senseless beasts, etc. God therefore sees within what exalts the mind, and for this reason permits to prevail without what may cast it down; therefore through the keeping of humility the purity of chastity is to be preserved. For if the spirit is piously pressed down under God, the flesh does not unlawfully lift itself above the spirit: and conversely. Whence also that first disobedient Adam, as soon as he sinned in pride, covered his shameful parts." Thus that virgin, of whom Palladius in the Lausiac History, cap. XXXIV, was possessed by the demon of pride, was abandoned by the angel of temperance, and fell shamefully.
1:28
28. As they did not approve (in Greek οὐκ ἐδοκίμασαν, that is, it did not please them, it did not seem good to them, they did not care) to have God in knowledge (that is, as Ambrose says, to believe that God cares for our affairs; or, as others say, to have God before their eyes, so that they might intend to please and serve Him. But more simply and properly St. Chrysostom, Theodoret and Toletus explain it thus, as if to say: Just as they did not care to know the true God truly, so as to think rightly of Him, but adhered to idols, and acknowledged and worshipped them as God; so likewise justly) God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, that they should do those things which are not fitting. — For, as St. Gregory teaches, lib. XXV Moral., IX: "Those who err in the knowledge of God are justly delivered up that they may err likewise in their deeds;" those who do not keep their mind and reason from error expose themselves to wicked thoughts and vices, both because, when the guide errs, the companions err: and knowledge is the guide of action; and because, receding from God, they recede from virtue and grace; and because where there is no knowledge of God and fear, there unbridled concupiscence holds sway. Note: Paul calls "reprobate sense" a disapproved and perverse mind, which approves what should not be approved, and disapproves and rejects what should be approved (for this is what the Greek ἀδόκιμος means), for example, which judges and approves softness, fornication, vengeance, drunkenness to be things to be desired and pursued; and finally, when the mind through the habit of sinning is blinded, it judges these very things scarcely to be sins, and to be lawful. The whole elegance of this passage consists in the paronomasia and antithesis of the verb δοκιμάζειν and the epithet ἀδόκιμον, as if to say: Because they rejected the knowledge and worship of God, hence they were delivered up to a reprobate and perverse mind: ἀδόκιμος therefore signifies that they were not without judgment, as Beza translated it (for this is less evil, and often natural), but that they had a perverse, distorted and warped judgment, by which they judged unspeakable crimes to be lawful and honourable.
1:29
29. Filled (that is, that they should be filled: for "filled" depends on the verb "delivered up," as if to say: By this very fact that God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, it came to pass that they were filled, and were filled) with all iniquity, malice and wickedness. — For "wickedness," the Greek is κακοηθεία, which, as Aristotle says, is a vice by which all things are taken in the worse sense: others translate it as harshness of character; but this is signified by the word of rough composition which follows. The Syriac translator renders it as fraud.
1:30
30. Hateful to God. — θεοστυγεῖς, that is, hateful to God, or haters of God, from whom God abhors, or who execrate God. St. Cyprian, epist. 68, reads as abhorring God, for στυγέω means to abhor; whence Styx, the marsh of hell, was so called from horror. Proud. — ὑπερηφάνους, that is, glorious and boastful.
1:31
31. Uncomposed. — ἀσυνθέτους, that is, uncivil, barbarous in manners, alien from all honest society and intercourse, turbulent, who cannot be composed with others in a city or family. Thus from Demosthenes in Suidas. Œcumenius translates it, separating themselves from all, that is, hating all and opposing them. Without affection. — ἀστόργους, that is, inhuman, who, as Theophylactus, Œcumenius and the Syriac say, love no one and have no friend. Thus in India toward Peru, certain Indians called Uri are such that they flee from men so much that when asked who they are, they answer that they are not men, but Uros, as the eyewitness Joseph Acosta relates, lib. II De Novo Orbe. Such was he of whom the Satirist says, "neither loves nor is loved by anyone." Again ἀστόργους can be translated, without piety, that is, impious toward parents and relatives. Without covenant, — that is, covenant-breakers. The Apostle here condenses a synathraesmus, by a heap of things, to show how great an evil is the ignorance and neglect of God, and into how many and how great crimes the Gentiles have fallen through this neglect of God. Without mercy, — that is, merciless and cruel, who in Hebrew are called אכזרי aczari. The Syriac translates it, with whom there is no covenant, no charity, no peace, no mercy finally in them. These therefore are the fruits of idolatry, infidelity and heresy.
1:32
32. Who when they had known the justice of God, understood not (would not understand, consider, and practically persuade themselves), that they who do such things are worthy of death: and not only they who do them, but also they who consent to those doing them. — Kemnitius, Valla, Erasmus and Faber here wish our text to be corrupted, because the Greek has thus: εἴτινες τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπιγνόντες ὅτι οἱ τὰ τοιαῦτα πράσσοντες ἄξιοι θανάτου εἰσίν, οὐ μόνον αὐτὰ ποιοῦσιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ συνευδοκοῦσι τοῖς πράσσουσι, that is, who when they had known the justice of God, namely, that they who do such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also consent to those doing them. For this consenting is greater and worse than doing. For it proceeds from malice, whereas doing often springs from mere weakness. Thus also St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus and Œcumenius read and explain it. But that the Greek exemplars have varied and have long varied is evident from Œcumenius, Origen and certain manuscripts. Again our Interpreter is in all respects agreed with by Ambrose, Sedulius, Haymo, Anselm, Hesychius, lib. VI in Levit. XX; Symmachus Pope, in Apologet. contra Anastasium Imper., and St. Cyprian, lib. I, epist. 4. Finally our reading is plainer and easier to understand, and therefore more probable. For the Apostle seems here to censure the wiser Philosophers, who, although they knew that the worship of idols and the other vices already mentioned were evil, and did not perpetrate them indiscriminately, nevertheless approved those things done by others, or dissembled them, either from fear of laws, or from love of pleasing themselves and fear of displeasing them. See the words of vers. 23.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
1:1
Haec epistola in duas partes dividitur scilicet: in salutationem et epistolarem tractatum, qui incipit ibi primum quidem, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo describitur persona salutans; secundo personae salutatae, ibi omnibus qui sunt Romae; tertio salus optata, ibi gratia vobis, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo describitur persona auctoris; secundo commendatur eius officium, ibi quod ante promiserat, et cetera. Persona autem scribens describitur a quatuor. Primo quidem ex nomine, cum dicit Paulus. Circa quod tria consideranda sunt. Primo proprietas eius. Hoc enim nomen, secundum quod his litteris describitur, non potest Hebraicum esse quia apud Hebraeos non invenitur hoc elementum p, sed potest esse Graecum vel Latinum. Si tamen aliquod elementum ei propinquum sumatur, id quod est p potest esse Hebraeum. Secundo, consideranda est eius significatio. Secundum enim quod potest Hebraeum esse idem est quod mirabilis vel electus; secundum autem quod est Graecum idem est quod quietus; secundum vero quod est Latinum idem est quod modicus. Et haec quidem ei conveniunt. Electus quidem fuit quantum ad gratiam, unde Act. IX, v. 15: vas electionis est mihi iste. Mirabilis fuit in opere, Eccli. XLIII, 2: vas admirabile opus excelsi. Quietus in contemplatione, Sap. c. VIII, 16: intrans in domum meam conquiescam cum illa. Modicus per humilitatem, I Cor. X, 9: ego autem sum minimus apostolorum. Tertio, considerandum est quando sit hoc nomen apostolo impositum cum tamen ante Saulus vocaretur, ut habetur actibus IX. Circa hoc triplex est opinio. Hieronymus dicit quod cum prius vocaretur Saulus postmodum voluit vocari Paulus, propter quoddam insigne suum quod fecit, scilicet quia convertit Sergium Paulum proconsulem, ut habetur Act. XIII, 7, sicut Scipio dictus est Africanus quia devicit Africam. Alii vero dicunt quod hoc nomen impositum est sibi propter profectum virtutum qui ex hoc nomine signatur, ut dictum est. Imponuntur enim divinitus quibusdam nomina a principio nativitatis ad designandum gratiam quam a principio consequuntur, sicut patet de Ioanne Baptista, Lc. I, 13; quibusdam vero mutantur nomina ad designandum profectum virtutis eorum, ut Chrysostomus dicit, sicut patet de Abraham et de Petro. Alii vero dicunt, et melius, quod Paulus fuit a principio binomius. Consuetum enim erat apud Iudaeos ut simul cum nominibus Hebraicis assumerent sibi nomina illarum gentium quibus serviebant, sicut Graecis servientes nominabantur nominibus Graecorum, ut patet de Iasone et Menelao. Hoc autem nomen Paulus ab antiquo celebre fuit apud Romanos, et ideo, cum diceretur Saulus secundum Hebraeos, vocatus est etiam Paulus secundum Romanos, quo nomine non videtur usus nisi postquam coepit gentibus praedicare. Unde, Act. c. XIII, 9, dicitur: Saulus qui et Paulus. Et hoc magis approbat Augustinus. Secundo describitur persona scribentis ex conditione, cum dicit servus Christi. Videtur autem esse abiecta conditio servitutis si absolute consideretur. Unde et sub maledicto pro peccato infligitur, Gen. IX, 25: maledictus Chanaan puer, servus servorum erit fratrum suorum. Sed redditur commendabilis ex eo quod additur Iesu Christi. Iesus enim interpretatur salvator, Matth. c. I, 21: ipse salvum faciet et cetera. Christus interpretatur unctus, secundum illud Ps. XLIV, 8: unxit te Deus, Deus tuus, etc., per quod designatur dignitas Christi et quantum ad sanctitatem, quia sacerdotes ungebantur ut patet Ex. XXIX, 7; et quantum ad potestatem, quia etiam reges ungebantur ut patet de David et de Salomone; et quantum ad cognitionem, quia etiam prophetae ungebantur ut patet de Eliseo. Quod autem aliquid subiiciatur suae saluti et spirituali unctioni gratiae, laudabile est, quia tanto aliquid est perfectius quanto magis suae perfectioni subiicitur, sicut corpus animae et aer luci, Ps. CXV, 16: o domine, quia ego servus tuus sum. Sed contra est quod dicitur Io. XV, v. 15: iam non dicam vos servos sed amicos. Sed dicendum quod duplex est servitus. Una timoris, quae non competit sanctis, Rom. VIII, 15: non accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore, etc., alia humilitatis et amoris, quae sanctis convenit secundum illud Lc. XVII, 10: dicite: servi inutiles sumus. Cum enim liber est qui est causa sui, servus autem qui est causa alterius, sicut ab alio movente motus: si quis sic agat causa alterius, sicut ab alio motus, sic est servitus timoris, quae cogit hominem operari contra suam voluntatem; si vero aliquis agat causa alterius, sicut propter finem, sic est servitus amoris, quia amicorum est bene facere et obsequi amico propter ipsum, ut philosophus dicit in IX Ethic. Tertio commendatur a dignitate cum dicitur vocatus apostolus. Dignitas apostolatus est praecipua in Ecclesia, secundum illud I Cor. XII, 28: quosdam quidem posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum apostolos. Apostolus enim idem est quod missus, secundum illud Io. XX, 21: sicut misit me pater et ego mitto vos, scilicet ex eadem dilectione et cum eadem auctoritate. Dicit autem vocatus apostolus ad designandum gratiam, id est vocatus ad hoc quod sit apostolus; Hebr. V, 4: nemo assumit sibi honorem, etc.; vel ad designandum excellentiam, ut sicut urbs antonomastice vocatur ipsa Roma, ita apostolus vocatur Paulus, secundum illud I Cor. XV, 10: abundantius illis omnibus laboravi; vel ad designandum humilitatem, ut sit sensus: non audeo me dicere apostolum sed homines me ita vocant. Sic, I Cor. XV, 9, non sum dignus vocari apostolus. Quarto describitur persona scribentis ex officio cum dicit segregatus in Evangelium Dei. Segregatus, inquam, vel per conversionem ab infidelibus, secundum illud Gal. I, 15: cum autem placuit ei qui me segregavit ex utero matris meae, scilicet synagogae; vel segregatus per electionem ab aliis discipulis, secundum illud Act. XIII, 2: segregate mihi Saulum, et cetera. Evangelium autem idem est quod bona Annuntiatio. Annuntiatur enim in ipso coniunctio hominis ad Deum, quae est bonum hominis, secundum illud Ps. LXXII, 28: mihi autem Deo adhaerere bonum est. Triplex autem coniunctio hominis ad Deum annuntiatur in Evangelio. Prima quidem per gratiam unionis, secundum illud Io. I, 14: verbum caro factum est. Secunda per gratiam adoptionis, prout inducitur in Ps. LXXXIX, 6: ego dixi: dii estis et filii excelsi omnes. Tertia per gloriam fruitionis, Io. XVII, 3: haec est vita aeterna. Is. LII, 7: quam pulchri super montes pedes annuntiantis. Haec autem Annuntiatio non humanitus sed a Deo facta est, Is. XXI, 10: quae audivi a domino exercituum, Deo Israel, annuntiavi vobis. Unde dicit in Evangelium Dei.
1:2
Descripta persona scribentis, hic commendatur negotium sibi commissum scilicet Evangelium, cuius, in praemissis, duplex commendatio posita est, quarum una pertinet ad utilitatem quam habet ex materia, quae significatur ex ipso Evangelii nomine, ex quo datur intelligi quod in eo bona annuntientur; alia vero ex auctoritate quam habet ex parte auctoris quae est expressa in eo quod dictum est Dei. Utramque ergo commendationem prosequitur apostolus: primo quidem illam quae est ex parte auctoris, secundo illam quae est ex parte materiae, ibi de filio suo. Circa primum commendatur Evangelium quadrupliciter. Primo quidem ex antiquitate quod fuit necessarium contra Paganos qui Evangelio detrahebant quasi post longa tempora subito eius praedicatio esset exorta. Et ad hoc excludendum dicit quod ante, quia licet ex tempore certo praedicari inceperit, ante tamen pronuntiatum fuit divinitus. Is. LXVIII, v. 5: antequam venirent indicavi tibi. Secundo, ex eius firmitate quae designatur in hoc quod dicit promiserat, quia ipse ante promisit qui non mentitur. Act. XIII, 32: nos vobis annuntiamus eam quae ad patres nostros repromissio facta est. Tertio, ex dignitate ministrorum sive testium cum dicit per prophetas, quibus ante fuerat revelata quae sunt completa circa verbum incarnatum. Amos III, 7: non faciet dominus Deus verbum, scilicet incarnari, nisi revelaverit secretum ad servos suos prophetas. Act. X, 43: huic omnes prophetae, et cetera. Signanter autem dicit suos. Sunt enim aliqui prophetae spiritu humano loquentes, secundum illud Ier. XXIII, 16: visionem cordis sui loquuntur non de ore domini. Unde dicit ad Titum I, 12: dixit quidam ex illis proprius illorum propheta. Sunt etiam quidam prophetae Daemonum qui immundo spiritu inspirantur, sicut prophetae quos interfecit Elias, ut dicitur III Reg. XVIII, 40. Sed prophetae Dei dicuntur qui divino spiritu inspirantur. Ioel II, 28: effundam de spiritu meo, et cetera. Quarto, ex modo tradendi quia non solum sunt huiusmodi promissa verbo edicta, sed litteris scripta, unde dicit in Scripturis. Hab. II, 2: scribe visum et explana illum. Non autem consueverunt scribi nisi magna quae sunt digna memoria et quae oportet ad posteros devenire. Et ideo ut Augustinus dicit, XVIII de civitate Dei, tunc inceperunt scribi prophetiae de Christo per Isaiam et Oseam, quando Roma est edita sub cuius imperio Christus erat nasciturus et fides eius gentibus praedicanda. Io. V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas, et cetera. Addit autem sanctis, ad differentiam Scripturarum gentilium. Dicuntur autem sanctae, primo quidem, quia, ut dicitur II Petr. I, 21: spiritu sancto inspirati, II Tim. III, 16: omnis Scriptura divinitus inspirata; secundo quia sancta continent, Ps.: confitemini memoriae sanctificationis eius; tertio quia sanctificant; unde Io. XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate. Sermo tuus veritas est. Unde dicitur I Mach. c. XII, 9: habentes solatio sanctos libros qui in manibus, et cetera. Secundo, prosequitur commendationem quae sumitur ex bonis in Evangelio denuntiatis, quae pertinent ad materiam Evangelii, quae est Christus, quem quidem commendat tripliciter: primo quidem ex origine, secundo ex dignitate sive virtute, ibi qui praedestinatus. Tertio ex liberalitate, ibi per quem accepimus. Originem autem Christi describit dupliciter. Primo quidem aeternam cum dicit de filio suo, in quo excellentiam Evangelii designavit. Nam mysterium generationis aeternae ante erat valde absconditum unde Salomon dicit quod nomen eius et nomen filii eius si nosti? Sed in Evangelio patris testimonio est declaratum. Matth. c. XVII, 5: hic est filius meus dilectus. Convenienter autem filius Dei materia sanctarum Scripturarum esse dicitur, quae divinam sapientiam exponunt secundum illud Deut. IV, 6: haec est sapientia vestra et intellectus coram populis. Filius autem dicitur esse verbum et sapientia genita, I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Sed circa hanc filiationem tripliciter aliqui erraverunt. Quidam enim dixerunt eum filiationem habere adoptivam, sicut Photinus qui posuit Christum initium sumpsisse ex Maria virgine quasi hominem purum, qui, per vitae meritum, ad hanc celsitudinem pervenit ut, prae ceteris sanctis, filius Dei diceretur. Sed secundum hoc Christo non competeret descensus ad humanitatem sed magis ascensus ad divinitatem contra id quod dicitur Io. c. VI, 51: descendi de caelo. Quidam vero posuerunt huiusmodi filiationem solummodo nuncupativam sicut Sabellius dixit ipsum patrem incarnatum et ex hoc filium nominari, ita quod eadem sit persona et solum nomina sint diversa. Sed secundum hoc non competeret filio mitti a patre quod falsum est cum ipse dicat, Io. VI, 38, se descendisse ut faciat voluntatem eius qui misit eum. Alii vero posuerunt, sicut Arius, huiusmodi filiationem esse creatam ita quod filius Dei sit excellentissima creatura ex nihilo tamen producta postquam prius non fuerat. Sed secundum hoc omnia non essent per ipsum facta, contra id quod dicitur Io. I, 3. Oportet enim esse non factum per quem facta sunt omnia. Et haec tria excluduntur per hoc quod signanter addit suo, id est proprio et naturali. Dicit enim Hilarius: hic verus et proprius est filius origine et non adoptione, veritate, non nuncupatione, nativitate, non creatione; procedit enim a patre sicut verbum a corde, quod pertinet ad eandem naturam praesertim in Deo, in quo non potest aliquid accidentaliter advenire. Unde ipse dicit Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus. Quod dicit unum liberat te ab Ario; quod dicit sumus liberat a Sabellio, ut Augustinus dicit. Secundo tangit temporalem originem cum dicit qui factus est. Ubi statim videntur patrocinium sui erroris assumere tres praedicti errores per hoc quod dicit qui factus est ei. Non enim confitentur aeternum sed factum. Sed per ea quae adduntur tollitur eorum intentio. Quia enim dicit qui factus est ei, excludit dictum Sabellii. Non enim potest esse filius factus patri si sit eadem persona cum ipso, sed per incarnationem erit filius virginis. Quod vero subdit ex semine David, tollit intentionem Photini. Si enim per adoptionem esset factus Dei filius non diceretur factus esse ex semine David sed magis ex spiritu, scilicet qui est spiritus adoptionis filiorum, ut dicitur Rom. VIII, 15, et ex semine Dei, ut dicitur I Io. III, 9. Quod vero sequitur secundum carnem, tollit intentionem Arii qui ponit eum factum non solum secundum carnem sed etiam secundum divinam naturam. Est etiam considerandum ulterius quod circa ipsum incarnationis mysterium multipliciter aliqui erraverunt. Nestorius enim posuit unionem verbi ad hominem esse factam solum secundum inhabitationem, scilicet prout filius Dei hominem illum inhabitavit excellentius caeteris. Manifestum est enim quod alia est substantia inhabitantis et inhabitati, sicut hominis et domus; secundum hoc ponebat aliam esse personam vel hypostasim verbi et hominis, ita quod alius esset, secundum personam, filius Dei et alius filius hominis. Sed hoc manifeste apparet falsum esse, per hoc quod apostolus, Phil. II, 7, unionem huiusmodi vocat exinanitionem. Pater autem et spiritus sanctus inhabitant homines secundum illud, Io. XIV, 23: ad eum veniemus et apud eum mansionem faciemus. Sequeretur igitur quod pater et spiritus sanctus essent exinaniti, quod est absurdum. Hoc ergo excluditur per hoc quod apostolus dicit de filio suo, qui, scilicet filius Dei, est factus secundum carnem, id est habens carnem, ex semine David. Qui modus loquendi locum non haberet si haec unio facta esset solum secundum inhabitationem. De aliis enim, quos verbum inhabitat, non dicitur quod verbum factum est hic vel ille, sed quod factum est ad Ieremiam vel Isaiam. In hoc ergo quod apostolus cum dixit: de filio suo, addidit qui factus est ei ex semine David, manifeste excludit errorem praedictum. Rursus aliqui alii, licet duas personas non concedant in Christo, concedunt tamen duas hypostases vel duo supposita quod in idem redit, quia nihil aliud est persona quam hypostasis et suppositum rationalis naturae. Cum ergo sit una solum hypostasis et unum suppositum in Christo, quod est suppositum vel hypostasis verbi aeterni, non potest dici quod illa hypostasis sit facta filius Dei, quia non incepit esse filius Dei. Et ideo non proprie dicitur quod homo sit factus Deus vel filius Dei. Sed tamen, si inveniatur ab aliquo doctore dictum exponendum est sic: factum est, ut homo esset Deus. Secundum hoc proprie dicitur Dei filius factus est homo quia semper non fuit homo. Et ideo legendum est quod hic dicitur ut ly qui accipiatur ex parte subiecti, ut sit sensus: qui, filius Dei, factus est ex semine David; non autem ex parte praedicati, quia sensus esset quod aliquis existens ex semine David, factus est filius Dei: quod non dicitur vere et proprie, sicut dictum est. Fuerunt autem alii qui posuerunt unionem esse factam secundum conversionem verbi in carnem, sicut dicitur aer fieri ignis. Unde Eutyches dixit quod etiam ante incarnationem fuerunt duae naturae, post incarnationem vero una. Sed hoc est expresse falsum quia, cum Deus sit immutabilis, secundum illud Mal. c. III, 6: ego Deus et non mutor, non potest in aliquid aliud converti. Unde cum dicitur factus est non intelligitur secundum conversionem sed secundum unionem, absque divina mutatione. Potest enim aliquid de novo dici relative de aliquo absque eius immutatione, puta: aliquis, immobiliter sedens, fit dexter, per mutationem eius qui transfertur. Et sic Deus dicitur ex tempore dominus vel creator per mutationem creaturae; et eadem ratione dicitur de novo factus, secundum illud Psalmi: domine refugium factus es nobis. Quia igitur unio relatio quaedam est, per mutationem creaturae Deus dicitur de novo factus homo, scilicet unitum in persona humanae naturae. Fuerunt enim et alii qui dixerunt animam Christum non habuisse sed ibi fuisse verbum loco animae: scilicet Arius et Apollinaris. Contra quos est illud Io. X, 18: nemo tollit animam meam. Quod vero dicitur secundum carnem non excluditur a Christo anima, sed caro ponitur pro toto homine, secundum illud Is. XL, 5: videbit omnis caro, et cetera. Quaeritur autem, cum nos confitemur Christum natum ex virgine, quare apostolus dicat eum esse factum ex muliere. Et dicendum quod illud nascitur quod naturali ordine producitur, sicut fructus ex arbore vel proles a parente. Quod autem ex voluntate agentis producitur, non secundum naturae ordinem, sicut domus ab artifice, non potest dici nasci, sed factum. Quia igitur Christus ex virgine processit naturali ordine quantum ad aliquid, scilicet quod conceptus est ex foemina, spatio novem mensium, dicitur natus; quia vero quantum ad aliquid, non naturali ordine, sed sola virtute divina processit, absque virili semine, dicitur factus. Eva autem dicitur ex Adam facta non nata, Isaac autem ex Abraham natus non factus. Item, quare specialiter dicitur ex semine David et non ex semine Abrahae, cui promissio facta fuit de Christo, secundum illud Gal. III, 16: Abrahae factae sunt promissiones. Et dicendum est quod factum est ad dandam spem veniae peccatoribus, quia David peccator fuit ex cuius semine nascitur Christus, Abraham vero iustus; ad commendandam etiam dignitatem regiam Christi Romanis, regnum gentium tenentibus. Excluditur etiam per verba ista triplex error Manichaeorum. Primo quidem, quod dicunt non eumdem esse Deum veteris testamenti et qui est pater domini nostri Iesu Christi, quod excluditur per hoc quod dicit apostolus: quod Deus ante promiserat per prophetas suos de filio suo in Scripturis sanctis, scilicet: veteris testamenti. Secundo vero, quod damnant Scripturas veteris testamenti, quas apostolus hic dicit sanctas. Non enim aliae Scripturae fuerunt sanctae ante Evangelium.
1:3
Tertio, quod dicunt Christum habuisse carnem phantasticam, quod excluditur per hoc quod dicit Christum factum ex semine David secundum carnem ei, id est ad gloriam patris, secundum illud Io. VIII, 50: ego gloriam meam non quaero sed gloriam eius qui misit me.
1:4
Commendata origine Christi, hic commendat virtutem ipsius et ponit tria: primo, praedestinationem, cum dicit: qui praedestinatus est; secundo, dignitatem seu virtutem, cum dicit filius Dei in virtute; tertio, signum sive effectum, cum dicit secundum spiritum sanctificationis. Circa primum considerandum est quod nomen praedestinationis a destinatione sumitur. Dicitur enim praedestinatus quasi ante destinatus. Destinatio autem dupliciter sumitur. Quandoque pro missione: dicuntur enim destinati qui ad aliquid mittuntur, secundum illud I Mach. I, 14: destinaverunt aliqui ex populo, et abierunt ad regem. Quandoque vero destinare idem est quod proponere, secundum illud II Mach. VI, 20: destinavit, Eleazarus, non admittere illicita. Haec autem secunda significatio a prima derivari videtur. Sicut enim nuntius, qui mittitur, ad aliquid dirigitur, ita, quod proponimus, ad finem aliquem ordinamus. Secundum hoc igitur praedestinare nihil aliud est quam ante in corde disponere quid sit de re aliqua faciendum. Potest tamen aliquis de futura re, seu operatione, disponere: uno modo, quantum ad ipsam rei constitutionem, sicut artifex disponit qualiter debeat facere domum; secundo modo, quantum ad ipsum usum vel gubernationem rei, sicut aliquis disponit qualiter debeat uti suo equo: et ad hanc secundam praedispositionem pertinet praedestinatio, non ad primam. Id enim quo aliquis utitur refert in finem quia, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de doctrina Christiana: uti est referre aliquid in finem quo fruendum est. Sed cum res in seipsa constituitur, non dirigitur ex hoc ipso in aliud. Unde praedispositio constitutionis rei, proprie praedestinatio dici non potest. Ergo idem est negare praedestinationem quod negare praeordinationem divinam ab aeterno de iis quae sunt fienda in tempore. Sed quia omnia naturalia pertinent ad constitutionem rei ipsius, quia vel sunt principia ex quibus res constituitur, vel ex huiusmodi principiis consequuntur, consequens est quod naturalia proprie sub praedestinatione non cadant; sicut non dicimus proprie quod homo est praedestinatus habere manus. Relinquitur ergo quod praedestinatio dicatur proprie eorum solum quae sunt supra naturam, in quae rationalis creatura ordinatur. Supra autem naturam rationalis creaturae est Deus solus, cui unitur rationalis creatura per gratiam. Uno modo, quantum ad actum ipsius Dei, puta cum per gratiam prophetiae communicatur homini praecognitio futurorum, quae est propria Deo: et huiusmodi dicitur gratia gratis data; alio modo quantum ad ipsum Deum, cui unitur rationalis creatura, communiter quidem, secundum effectum dilectionis, secundum illud I Io. IV, 16: qui manet in charitate in Deo manet et Deus in eo, quod quidem fit per gratiam gratum facientem, quae est gratia adoptionis; alio modo, quae est singularis Christo, per unionem in esse personali: et haec dicitur gratia unionis. Sicut ergo hominem esse unitum Deo, per gratiam adoptionis, cadit sub praedestinatione, ita etiam esse unitum Deo, per gratiam unionis in persona, sub praedestinatione cadit. Et quantum ad hoc dicit qui praedestinatus est filius Dei. Et ne hoc referatur ad filiationem adoptionis, additur in virtute, quasi diceret: praedestinatus est ut sit talis filius, ut habeat aequalem, imo eamdem virtutem cum Deo patre. Quia, ut dicitur Apoc. V, 12, dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere virtutem et divinitatem. Quinimmo ipse Christus est Dei virtus, secundum illud I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Unde, Io. V, 19: quaecumque pater facit haec et filius similiter facit. Respectu vero gratiae gratis datae, non dicitur aliquis praedestinari simpliciter, quia gratia gratis data non ordinatur directe ad hoc quod ille, qui eam recipit, ad finem ultimum dirigatur, sed ut per eam alii dirigantur, secundum illud I Cor. XII, 7: unicuique datur manifestatio spiritus ad utilitatem. Manifestum est autem quod id quod est per se est mensura et regula eorum quae dicuntur per aliud et per participationem. Unde praedestinatio Christi, qui est praedestinatus ut sit filius Dei per naturam, est mensura et regula vitae et ita praedestinationis nostrae, quia praedestinamur in filiationem adoptivam, quae est quaedam participatio et imago naturalis filiationis, secundum illud Rom. VIII, 30: quos praescivit et praedestinavit conformes fieri imagini filii sui. Sicut igitur homo Christus praedestinatus non est propter merita praecedentia, sed ex sola gratia, ut sit filius Dei naturalis, ita et nos ex sola gratia, non ex meritis, praedestinamur ut simus filii adoptivi, secundum illud Deut. IX, 14: ne dicas in corde tuo, cum deleverit eos dominus Deus tuus in conspectu tuo: propter iustitiam meam introduxit me Deus ut terram hanc possiderem. Est igitur manifestum ad quid sit ista praedestinatio, scilicet ad hoc quod aliquis sit Dei filius in virtute. Sed restat inquirendum quis est iste qui est ad hoc praedestinatus. Cum autem praedestinatio antecessionem importet, videtur quod ille, qui est praedestinatus ut sit filius Dei in virtute, non semper fuerit filius Dei in virtute. Non enim videtur esse praedestinatio de eo quod semper fuit, quia hoc non potest antecessionem habere. Si igitur poneremus, secundum Nestorium, quod persona filii hominis esset alia a persona filii Dei, nulla esset dubitatio quia possemus dicere quod persona creata filii hominis non fuit ab aeterno, sed ex tempore incoepit esse filius Dei in virtute. Et simile est si quis dicat quod est alia hypostasis, vel suppositum, filii Dei et filii hominis. Sed haec aliena sunt a fide ut supra dictum est. Cum igitur non solum sit eadem persona filii Dei et filii hominis, sed etiam hypostasis et idem suppositum, ratione cuius non potest dici vere et proprie quod filius hominis est factus filius Dei, ne aliquod suppositum creatum intelligatur esse, de quo, de novo, praedicatur filius Dei. Pari ratione videtur quod non possit dici filius hominis esse praedestinatus filius Dei quia filius hominis supponit suppositum aeternum quod fuit semper filius Dei. Unde antecessio, quam importat praedestinatio, locum non habet. Propter hoc igitur Origenes dicit quod littera non debet esse: qui praedestinatus est, sed: qui destinatus est filius Dei in virtute, ut nulla antecessio designetur. Et secundum hoc planus est sensus; quia Christus destinatus, id est, missus est a Deo patre in mundum, tamquam verus filius Dei in virtute divina. Sed quia communiter omnes libri Latini habent qui praedestinatus aliter alii hoc exponere voluerunt secundum consuetudinem Scripturae in qua dicitur aliquid fieri quando innotescit, sicut dominus post resurrectionem dicit, Matth. ultimo: data est mihi omnis potestas, quia post resurrectionem innotuit talem potestatem sibi esse datam ab aeterno. Sed secundum hoc quod dicit praedestinatus non proprie accipitur, quia praedestinatio est de eo quod pertinet ad gratiam; non autem in hoc gratia Christo facta est quod eius virtus divina innotuit, sed potius nobis. Et ideo etiam in Glossa dicitur quod secundum hunc sensum praedestinatus large ponitur, pro praescito, ut sit sensus: Christus praedestinatus est, scilicet ab aeterno praescitus, ut innotesceret ex tempore esse filius Dei in virtute. Unde quidam alii praedestinationem ad ipsam unionem referentes, non attribuerunt eam personae sed naturae, ut sit sensus: qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute, id est, cuius natura praedestinata est ut sit ei unita, qui est filius Dei in virtute. Sed haec etiam expositio impropria est et extorta. Cum enim praedestinatio importet ordinem in finem, eius est praedestinari cuius est per suam operationem ordinari in finem. Agere autem propter finem non est naturae sed personae. Ideo, si proprie accipiatur, oportet quod praedestinatio attribuatur ipsi personae Christi. Sed quia persona Christi subsistit in duabus naturis, humana scilicet et divina, secundum utramque potest aliquid dici de eo. Sicut enim de homine potest aliquid dici secundum corpus, ut tangi et vulnerari, aliquid autem secundum animam, ut intelligere et velle, ita et de Christo potest aliquid dici et secundum divinam naturam sicut ipse de se dicit Io. X, 30: ego et pater unum sumus aliquid secundum humanam naturam, sicut cum dicimus eum crucifixum et mortuum. Et hoc modo dicitur esse praedestinatus secundum humanam naturam. Quamvis enim ipsa persona Christi semper fuerit filius Dei, tamen non semper fuit, ut existens in humana natura, esset filius Dei, sed hoc fuit ineffabilis gratiae. Est autem alia ratio de hoc participio factus, quod designat actum realem, et de hoc participio praedestinatus, quod designat actum animae. Anima enim, secundum suum intellectum et rationem, potest distinguere ea quae sunt secundum rem coniuncta. Potest enim aliquis de pariete albo cogitare et loqui seorsum quidem quantum ad hoc quod est paries, seorsum autem ex hoc quod est albus. Ita etiam in praedestinatione. Nam praedestinatio potest attribui personae Christi secundum quod subsistit in humana natura, licet non attribuatur ei secundum quod subsistit in divina. Unde et apostolus prius filium Dei incarnatum esse praemiserat, et postea ei praedestinationem attribuit, ut intelligatur praedestinatus esse secundum quod factus est ex semine David secundum carnem. Et sic a filio Dei, explicando incarnationis mysterium, descendit ad carnem, et a carne, secundum praedestinationem, ascendit ad filium Dei, ut ostendatur quod neque gloria divinitatis impedivit infirmitatem carnis, neque infirmitas carnis diminuit maiestatem Dei. Quaeritur autem in Glossa, primo quidem, utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit filius Dei. Et videtur quod sic. Quia hic est Christus, qui praedestinatus est ut sit, sed secundum quod homo est praedestinatus ut sit; ergo, secundum quod homo est filius Dei. Et dicendum quod si ly secundum quod denotat unitatem suppositi: verum est quod secundum quod homo est filius Dei, quia unum est suppositum Dei et hominis. Si autem designat conditionem naturae vel causam, falsum est; non enim ex natura humana habet ut sit filius Dei. In argumento autem est fallacia compositionis et divisionis. Ex eo quod ly secundum quod potest determinare participium praedestinatus, et sic verum est quod, secundum quod homo, est praedestinatus; vel potest determinare ipsum esse filium Dei ad quod ordinatur praedestinatio, et sic falsum est. Non enim praedestinatus est ut secundum quod homo sit filius Dei: et in hoc sensu procedit ratio. Secundo quaeritur utrum Christus, secundum quod homo, sit persona. Et dicendum quod si ly secundum quod referatur ad ipsum suppositum hominis, concedendum est quod ipsum suppositum hominis est persona divina. Si vero designet naturae conditionem vel causam, sic Christus secundum quod homo non est persona, quia humana natura non causat novam personalitatem in Christo. Adiungitur enim digniori in cuius personalitatem transit. Item obiicitur de hoc, quod Glossa dicit, quod qui suscepit et quod suscepit est una persona. Id autem quod suscepit filius Dei est humana natura, ergo humana natura est persona. Et dicendum est quod huiusmodi locutiones sunt exponendae, ut sit sensus: quod ille qui suscepit et natura quam suscepit, uniuntur in una persona. Quarto quaeritur utrum hoc sit verum: homo est assumptus a verbo. Et videtur quod sic, secundum illud Ps. LXIV, 5: beatus quem elegisti et assumpsisti. Et dicendum est quod cum homo supponat suppositum aeternum, non potest proprie dici quod homo sit assumptus a verbo. Non enim assumitur idem a seipso sed exponendum est, sicubi inveniatur, homo assumptus, id est, humana natura. Quinto quaeritur utrum haec sit vera: iste homo semper fuit. Et dicendum est hanc esse veram propter hoc quod homo supponit aeternum suppositum, unde Hebr. ultimo dicitur: Iesus Christus heri et hodie, ipse et in saecula. Non tamen cum reduplicatione est vera huiusmodi propositio. Non enim ille homo, secundum quod homo est, semper fuit, sed secundum quod est filius Dei. Sic igitur patet et de praeordinatione et de virtute filii Dei. Restat tertium, scilicet de signo, quod tangitur in eo quod subditur secundum spiritum, et cetera. Est enim proprium virtutis divinae per collationem spiritus sancti sanctificare homines, Lev. XX, 8: ego dominus qui sanctifico vos. Ipse etiam spiritum sanctum solus dare potest secundum illud Is. XLII, 5: haec dicit dominus Deus creans caelos, et infra: dans flatum populo qui est super terram et spiritum calcantibus eam. Ex hoc igitur apparet Christum habere virtutem divinam, quia ipse dat spiritum sanctum, secundum illud: Io. XV, 26: cum venerit Paraclitus quem ego mittam. Eius etiam virtute sanctificamur, secundum illud I Cor. VI, v. 11: sed sanctificati estis, sed iustificati estis in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi et spiritu Dei nostri. Dicit ergo quod Christus sit filius Dei in virtute, apparet secundum spiritum sanctificationis, id est secundum quod dat spiritum sanctificantem, quae quidem sanctificatio incoepit ex resurrectione mortuorum Iesu Christi domini nostri, id est ex mortuis secundum illud Io. VII, 30: nondum erat spiritus datus quia nondum Iesus fuerat glorificatus: quod non est sic intelligendum quod nullus, ante Christi resurrectionem, spiritum sanctificantem acceperit, sed quia ex illo tempore, quo Christus resurrexit, incoepit copiosius et communius spiritus sanctificationis dari. Potest etiam intelligi quod hic designentur duo signa virtutis divinae in Christo. Primum quidem ex hoc quod dicit secundum spiritum sanctificationis, sive intelligatur secundum sanctificantem spiritum, sicut dictum est, sive intelligatur secundum hoc quod ipse, per spiritum sanctum, est in utero virginali conceptus, quod est signum divinae virtutis in ipso, secundum illud Lc. c. I, 35: spiritus sanctus superveniet in te, et postea sequitur: ideoque et quod ex te nascetur sanctum, vocabitur filius Dei. Secundum autem signum virtutis divinae est resuscitatio mortuorum, secundum illud Io. V, 21: sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, sic et filius. Est ergo sensus quod apparet Christum esse filium Dei in virtute ex resurrectione mortuorum, id est ex hoc quod mortuos fecit secum resurgere, secundum illud Matth. c. XXVII, 52: multa corpora sanctorum qui dormierant surrexerunt, et tandem faciet omnes resurgere secundum illud Io. V, 25: omnes qui in monumentis sunt audient vocem filii Dei, et, qui audierint, vivent. Vel potest intelligi de spirituali resurrectione mortuorum, quae est a peccatis, secundum illud Eph. V, 14: surge qui dormis et exurge a mortuis. Dicuntur autem mortui Iesu Christi qui ab ipso resuscitantur, sicut et infirmi alicuius medici a quo sanantur. Possunt autem haec duo signa ad duas praecedentes clausulas referri hoc modo: qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem, et hoc secundum spiritum sanctificationis ex quo, scilicet caro eius, concepta est; qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute, et haec apparent in resurrectione mortuorum, et cetera. Sed prima expositio est melior.
1:5
Postquam commendavit Christum ab origine et virtute, hic commendat ipsum ex liberalitate, quae ostenditur ex muneribus quae fidelibus contulit. Ponitur autem duplex munus. Unum quidem commune omnibus fidelibus, scilicet gratia per quam reparamur, quam quidem a Deo per Christum accepimus, unde dicit per quem accepimus, omnes fideles, gratiam. Io. I, 17: gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est, et infra: per quem accessum habemus in gratiam istam in qua stamus. Conveniens est enim ut sicut per verbum Dei omnia ista facta sunt, ut habetur Io. I, v. 3, ita et per ipsum, sicut per artem omnipotentis Dei, omnia instaurentur: sicut et artifex eadem arte reparat domum qua condidit. Col. I, 20: per eum placuit Deo reconciliare omnia sive quae in caelo sive quae in terra sunt. Aliud autem est munus spirituale collatum apostolis quod tangit subdens et apostolatum, quod est praecipuum inter ecclesiasticos gradus. I Cor. XII, 28: et quosdam quidem posuit Deus in Ecclesia primum quidem apostolos. Apostolus autem idem est quod missus. Sunt enim a Christo missi quasi eius auctoritatem et vicem gerentes, Io. XX, 21: sicut misit me pater et ego mitto vos, id est cum plenitudine auctoritatis. Unde ipse Christus apostolus nominatur Hebr. III, 1: considerate apostolum et pontificem Iesum Christum. Unde et per ipsum, tamquam principalem apostolum sive missum, alii sunt secundario apostolatum consecuti. Lc. VI, 13: elegit duodecim quos et apostolos nominavit. Praemittit autem gratiam apostolatui tum quia non ex meritis sed ex gratia apostolatum sunt consecuti, I Cor. XV, 9: ego sum minimus apostolorum qui non sum dignus vocari apostolus; gratia autem Dei sum id quod sum; tum etiam quia apostolatus digne haberi non potest nisi praehabita gratia sanctificante, Eph. IV, 7: unicuique nostrum data est gratia, et cetera. Describit autem hunc apostolatum, primo quidem, ex utilitate cum subdit ad obediendum fidei, quasi diceret: ad hoc sumus missi ut faciamus homines fidei obedire. In his obedientia locum habet quae voluntarie facere possumus. His autem quae sunt fidei voluntate consentimus, non ex rationis necessitate, cum sint supra rationem, nullus enim credit nisi volens, ut dicit Augustinus, et ideo circa fidem locum habet, infra VI, 17: obedistis ex corde in eam formam doctrinae in quam traditi estis. De hoc fructu dicitur Io. XV, 16: posui vos ut eatis, et cetera. Secundo, describitur ex amplitudine cum subditur in omnibus gentibus, quia non tantum in una gente Iudaeorum, sed ad instructionem omnium gentium sunt directi. Matth. ultimo: euntes docete omnes gentes. Specialiter Paulus in omnes gentes apostolatum acceperat, ut ei competere possit quod dicitur Is. XLIX, 6: parum est ut sis mihi servus ad suscitandum tribus Iacob et faeces Israel convertendas; dedi te in lucem gentium. Tamen ab eius apostolatu exclusi non erant Iudaei, praesertim qui inter gentes habitabant; infra XI, 13 s.: quamdiu quidem ego sum gentium apostolus, ministerium meum honorificabo, si quomodo ad aemulandum provocem carnem meam et salvos faciam aliquos ex ipsis. Tertio, ex plenitudine potestatis, cum subdit pro nomine eius, scilicet vice et auctoritate ipsius. Sicut enim Christus in nomine patris venisse dicitur, Io. XX, 21, quasi plenam patris potestatem habens, ita et apostoli in nomine Christi venisse dicuntur, quasi in persona Christi. II Cor. II, 10: nam et ego quod donavi, si quid donavi, propter vos in persona Christi. Vel per hoc describitur ex fine, ut sit sensus: pro nomine eius dilatando, non pro aliquo terreno fructu sibi quaerendo. Act. c. IX, 15: vas electionis est mihi iste ut portet nomen meum, etc., unde ad hoc fideles hortabatur dicens: omnia in nomine Iesu Christi agite. Quarto ex potestate super illos quibus scribebat qui praedicto apostolatui erant subiecti unde subdit in quibus, id est inter quas gentes, nostro apostolatui subiectas, estis et vos, scilicet Romani, quamvis sublimes. Is. XXVI, 5 s.: civitatem sublimem humiliabit, conculcabit eam pes pauperis, scilicet Christi, gressus egenorum, id est apostolorum, specialiter Petri et Pauli, II Cor. c. X, 14: usque ad vos pervenimus in Evangelio Christi.
1:6
Subdit vocati Iesu Christi, secundum illud Os. I, 9: vocabo non populum meum; vel: vocati ut sitis Iesu Christi, infra VIII, v. 30: quos praedestinavit hos et vocavit; vel: vocati Iesu Christi, id est dicti a Iesu Christo, Christiani, Act. XI, 26: ita ut cognominarentur primum Antiochiae discipuli Christiani. Consequenter describuntur personae salutatae, et primo, ex loco cum dicit omnibus qui sunt Romae. Signanter autem omnibus scribit quia omnium salutem cupiebat; I Cor. VII, 7: volo omnes homines esse sicut meipsum; Act. XXIII, v. 11, dictum est ei: oportet te et Romae testificari. Secundo, describuntur personae salutatae ex gratiae dono, ibi dilectis Dei. Circa quod primo ponitur gratiae origo, quod est Dei dilectio. Deut. XXXIII, v. 3: dilexit populos, omnes sancti in manu illius sunt. I Io. IV, 10: non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, scilicet prius, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos. Dei enim dilectio non provocatur ex bono creaturae, sicut dilectio humana, sed magis ipsum bonum creaturae causat, quia diligere est bonum velle dilecto: voluntas autem Dei est causa rerum, secundum illud Ps.: omnia quaecumque voluit fecit. Secundo, ponitur vocatio cum subdit vocatis. Quae quidem est duplex. Una exterior, secundum quam vocavit Petrum et Andream, Matth. IV, 18. Alia autem est vocatio interior, quae est secundum interiorem inspirationem, Prov. I, 24: vocavi et renuistis. Tertio, ponit gratiam iustificationis cum dicit sanctis, id est per gratiam et sacramenta gratiae, sanctificatis. I Cor. VI, 11: sed abluti estis, sed sanctificati estis, ut sitis dilecti a Deo, vocati ad hoc quod sitis sancti. Deinde ponuntur bona quae eis optat, quae sunt gratia et pax. Quorum unum, scilicet gratia, est primum inter Dei bona, quia per eam iustificatur impius, infra III, 24: iustificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Aliud autem, scilicet pax, est ultimum quod in beatitudine perficitur. Ps.: qui posuit fines tuos pacem. Tunc enim erit perfecta pax, quando voluntas requiescet in plenitudine omnis boni, consequens immunitatem ab omni malo. Is. XXXII, v. 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. Et sic per haec duo bona, alia media intelliguntur.
1:7
Ostendit etiam consequenter unde sint huiusmodi bona expectanda, cum subdit a Deo patre nostro. Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est, descendens a patre luminum. Ps. LXXXIII, 12: gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus. Addit autem et domino Iesu Christo quia, ut dicitur Io. I, 17, gratia et veritas per Iesum Christum facta est. Ipse etiam dicit, Io. XIV, 7, pacem meam do vobis. Quod autem dicit Deo patre nostro, potest teneri essentialiter pro tota Trinitate, quae dicitur pater, quia nomina importantia relationem ad creaturam, communia sunt toti Trinitati, sicut creator et dominus. Addit autem et domino Iesu Christo, non quod sit alia persona a tribus, sed propter humanam naturam, per cuius mysterium ad nos dona gratiarum perveniunt. II Petr. c. I, 4: per quem maxima et pretiosa nobis promissa donavit. Vel potest dici quod hoc quod dicit Deo patre nostro, tenetur pro persona patris, quae secundum proprietatem dicitur pater Christi, sed secundum appropriationem pater noster. Io. XX, 17: ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum. Tangitur autem persona filii cum dicitur et domino Iesu Christo. Persona autem spiritus sancti expresse non ponitur, quia intelligitur in donis eius, quae sunt gratia et pax; vel etiam quia intelligitur in duabus personis patris et filii, quarum est unio et nexus.
1:8
Praemissa salutatione, hic apostolus epistolarem tractatum incipit, in quo: primo ostendit affectum suum ad eos quibus scribebat ut reddat auditores benevolos, secundo, instruit eos de veritate gratiae Christi, ibi virtus enim Dei est. Ostendit autem affectum ad eos tripliciter: primo quidem ex gratiarum actione, qua de eorum bonis gratias agit, secundo ex oratione, quam pro eis ad Deum fundit, ibi testis enim est mihi Deus, tertio ex desiderio visitationis eorum, ibi obsecrans si quo modo. Circa primum tria oportet considerare. Primo quidem gratiarum actionis ordinem, cum dicit primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo. Necesse enim est ut in omnibus gratiarum actionem praemittamus, secundum illud I Thess. ultim.: in omnibus gratias agite. Non enim est dignus beneficium consequi qui de acceptis beneficiis gratias non agit. Sap. XVI, 29: ingrati spes tamquam hybernalis glacies tabescet, et Eccle. I, 7: ad locum unde exeunt flumina revertuntur, quia ad principium unde proveniunt beneficia revertuntur, scilicet per gratiarum actiones, ut iterum fluant, scilicet per iteratam beneficiorum exhibitionem. In omnibus autem, quae petimus vel agimus, divino beneficio indigemus, et ideo, ante omnia, debet gratiarum actio praemitti. Secundo, designat personas tres, quarum una est persona cui fit gratiarum actio, quam designat dicens Deo meo, scilicet cui debetur gratiarum actio de omnibus bonis, quia ab eo fluunt. Iac. I, 17: omne datum optimum et omne donum perfectum desursum est, et cetera. Et quamvis sit Deus omnium per creationem et gubernationem, secundum illud, infra X, 12 dominus omnium, specialiter tamen dicitur esse Deus iustorum tripliciter: primo quidem secundum specialem curam quam de eis gerit, Ps. XXXIII, 16: oculi domini super iustos, et alibi dicit: dominus illuminatio mea. Secundo per specialem cultum, Ex. XV, 2: iste Deus meus, et glorificabo eum. Tertio quia eorum praemium, Gen. XV, 1: ego dominus merces tua magna nimis. Secunda persona est mediatoris, quam tangit dicens per Iesum Christum. Eodem enim ordine debet gratiarum actio in Deum recurrere quo gratiae a Deo in nos deveniunt, quod quidem est per Iesum Christum, infra V, 2: per quem accessum habemus per fidem in gratiam istam in qua stamus. Tertia est persona illorum pro quibus gratias agit, quam designat subdens pro omnibus vobis, quia scilicet eorum gratias quasi suas reputat, propter vinculum charitatis, quasi diceret: maiorem horum non habeo gratiam quam ut audiam, et cetera. Signanter autem dicit pro omnibus vobis, quia scilicet omnibus placere desiderat, I Cor. c. X, 33: sicut et ego per omnia omnibus placeo, et omnium salutem cupit, secundum illud I Cor. VII, 7: volo omnes homines esse sicut meipsum. Tertio, ponit materiam gratiarum actionis cum subdit quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo. Agit quidem gratias de fide eo quod est bonorum omnium spiritualium fundamentum. Hebr. XI, 1: est autem fides sperandarum substantia rerum. Commendantur autem Romani de fide, quia fidem de facili susceperant, et in eadem firmiter permanebant, unde et usque hodie apud eos plurima fidei signa ostenduntur in visitatione sanctorum locorum, ut Hieronymus dicit super epistolam ad Galatas. Nondum tamen perfectam fidem habebant, quia aliqui eorum praeventi erant a pseudo apostolis ut crederent legis caeremonias Evangelio iungendas. Gaudet autem et gratias agit de eorum fide non solum propter eos, sed propter utilitatem inde consequentem, quia scilicet eorum exemplo, qui erant domini gentium, aliae gentes provocabantur ad fidem, quia, ut dicit Glossa, prompte facit inferior quod videt fieri a superiori: propter quod admonentur praelati ut fiant forma gregis ex animo. I Petr. ultim. Consequenter cum dicit testis enim, etc. ostendit affectum suum ad eos ex oratione quam pro eis fundit. Et quia orationis negotium in secreto agitur coram Deo, secundum illud Matth. VI, 6: tu autem cum oraveris intra in cubiculum tuum et clauso ostio ora patrem tuum, Dei testimonio probat se pro eis orare. Primo ergo inducit testem, secundo manifestat supra quod testimonium inducat, quod sine intermissione. Testem autem inducit cum dicit testis est mihi Deus sub cuius testimonio omnia aguntur. Ier. XXIX, 23: ego sum iudex et testis. Et ut iustum testem non frustra se invocare ostendat ponit consequenter quomodo sit ei coniunctus. Primo quidem quantum ad servitium cum dicit cui servio, scilicet per latriae cultum. Deut. VI, 13: dominum Deum tuum adorabis et illi soli servies.
1:9
Secundo quantum ad modum serviendi cum dicit in spiritu meo, quasi dicat: non solum in exteriori servitio corporali, sed praecipue interius secundum spiritum. Io. IV, 24: spiritus est Deus et eos qui adorant eum in spiritu et veritate adorare oportet. Vel in spiritu scilicet in spiritualibus observantiis non in carnalibus sicut Iudaei. Phil. III, 3: nos sumus circumcisio qui spiritu servimus Deo. Tertio quantum ad officium in quo servit scilicet in Evangelio filii eius, secundum illud, supra eodem: segregatus in Evangelium. Quod quidem est filii Dei tripliciter: uno modo quia est de ipso, Lc. II, 10: evangelizo vobis gaudium magnum, alio modo quia est ab ipso praedicatum ex proprio officio, Lc. IV, v. 43: quia et aliis civitatibus oportet me evangelizare regnum Dei, quia ideo missus sum, tertio quia est ab eo iniunctum, Mc. ultim.: praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae. Sed, secundum Augustinum, cum idem sit testis enim est mihi Deus quod iuro per Deum, videtur apostolus facere contra id quod dominus dicit Matth. V, 34: ego dico vobis non iurare omnino; Iac. ultim.: ante omnia autem fratres mei nolite iurare. Sed, sicut dicit Augustinus, intellectus sacrae Scripturae ex actibus sanctorum intelligitur. Idem enim spiritus quo sacrae Scripturae sunt editae, secundum illud II Petr. I, 21: spiritu sancto inspirati locuti sunt sancti Dei, sanctos viros ad operandum inducit; infra c. VIII, 14: qui spiritu Dei aguntur hi sunt filii Dei. Ex hoc ergo quod Paulus iurasse invenitur, ostenditur verbum domini et apostoli Iacobi non sic esse intelligendum quasi iuramentum sit omnino illicitum, sed quia ad hoc homo niti debeat ut, quantum ex ipso est, iuramento non utatur, tamquam quodam bono et per se appetibili, tum propter periculum quod imminet ex frequenti iuratione ne homo labatur in periurium propter labilitatem humanae linguae, secundum illud Eccli. XXIII, 9: iurationi non assuescat os tuum, nam multi, etc., tum etiam quia contra reverentiam Dei facere videtur qui ipsum, absque necessaria causa, testem inducit. Unde Eccli. XXIII, 10: nominatio Dei non sit assidua in ore tuo. Unde nec apostolus iurasse invenitur nisi scribendo, quando homo cum maiori deliberatione et cautela loquitur. Est autem quandoque necessarium iuramentum ut fides verbo dicentis adhibeatur, quod quandoque utile est etiam ei qui audit. Et sic apostolus iurat propter utilitatem auditorum quibus erat utile ut ei crederent, quasi non quaerens quod sibi utile est sed multis, ut salvi fierent. Unde quod dominus dicit, Matth. V, 37: quod amplius est, scilicet quam simplex verbum, a malo est, non est intelligendum a malo eius qui iurat sed eius qui exigit iuramentum; non quidem a malo culpae nisi in casu quando existimat quis eum a quo exigit iuramentum esse falsum iuraturum: tunc enim est grave peccatum, ut dicit Augustinus; sed intelligit esse a malo poenae, scilicet ignorantia, qua nescimus an sit verum quod dicitur nobis. Est autem duplex modus iurandi: unus quidem per simplicem attestationem, sicut cum dicimus per Deum vel testis est mihi Deus et hoc modo apostolus iurat hic; alius autem per execrationem, quando scilicet aliquis implorat divinum testimonium secundum aliquam poenam sibi infligendam si mentitur, secundum illud Ps. VII, 5: si reddidi retribuentibus mihi mala, et cetera. Et hoc etiam modo apostolus iurat, II Cor. I, 23: testem Deum invoco in animam meam. Consequenter hic ponit id supra quod eum testem invocat dicens quod memoriam vestri facio semper in orationibus meis, quae sunt sine intermissione, scilicet quia semper in orationibus suis pro eis orabat, propter utilitatem communem quae ex eorum conversione proveniebat. I Reg. c. XII, 23: absit hoc peccatum a me in domino ut cessem orare pro vobis. Quod autem dicit memoriam vestri facio, dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo sic: memoriam vestri habeo, secundum illud Ps. CXXXVI, 6: adhaereat lingua mea faucibus meis si non meminero tui. Alio modo memoriam vestri facio, scilicet orationem Deo, qui respicit orationes humilium. Et sic dum sancti pro aliquibus orant, quodammodo divino aspectui proponuntur, sicut et cetera sanctorum facta. Unde, III Reg. XVII, 18 dixit mulier ad Eliam: ingressus es ad me ut rememorarentur iniquitates meae, quasi illud sit in memoria et in oculis Dei quod contra iustos agitur. Quod autem dicit orationes sine intermissione se habere, congruit ei quod dicit II Thess. ultim.: sine intermissione orate, et, Lc. XVIII, 1: oportet semper orare et numquam deficere. Quae quidem possunt intelligi tribus modis. Uno modo quantum ad ipsum actum orandi: et sic semper vel sine intermissione orat qui statutis temporibus et horis orat. Act. III, 1: Petrus et Ioannes ascendebant in templum ad horam orationis nonam. Alio modo quantum ad finem orationis, qui est ut intellectus noster ascendat in Deum; et sic tamdiu homo orat quamdiu totam vitam suam in Deum ordinat. I Cor. X, 31: sive manducatis sive bibitis, et cetera. Tertio quantum ad causam: dum enim aliquis agit unde alii pro eo orent, ipse orare videtur, ut patet in his qui dant eleemosynas pauperibus, qui pro eis orant. Eccli. XXIX, 15: conclude eleemosynam in sinu pauperis, et cetera. Sic ergo continuanda est littera: gratias ago pro vobis, quia bona vestra reputo quasi mea, quod patet ex hoc quod pro vobis oro, sicut pro meipso. Deinde cum dicit obsecrans, etc. probat affectum suum ex desiderio visitationis. Et primo ponit desiderium, secundum propositum exequendi, ibi nolo autem vos ignorare, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit desiderii signum, secundo desiderii causam, ibi desidero enim. Signum autem desiderii est oratio quam pro hoc faciebat. Ex hoc autem signum ostenditur desiderii huiusmodi primo quidem intensum, per hoc quod dicit obsecrans, quasi ob sacra contestans, sicut pro aliquo magno quod mea merita excedit. Prov. XVIII, 23: cum obsecrationibus loquitur pauper et dives effabitur rigide. Quod autem intense desideratur magnum desideranti videtur. Secundo, ostenditur esse anxium cum dicit si quo modo. Quae enim anxie aliquis desiderat quaerit adipisci quocumque modo, sive facili sive laborioso, Phil. I, 18: quid enim? Dum omni modo, sive per occasionem sive per veritatem, Christus adnuntietur: et in hoc gaudeo sed et gaudebo. Tertio, ostenditur esse diuturnum in hoc quod dicit tandem aliquando, scilicet post longa desideria. Iusti enim non ad horam sed perseveranter afficiuntur. Prov. XVII, 17: omni tempore diligit qui amicus est.
1:10
Quarto, ostenditur esse rectum ex hoc quod est divinae voluntati conforme, unde subdit prosperum iter habeam, et hoc in voluntate Dei, id est secundum voluntatem eius, secundum quam solum aliquid reputo prosperum, sicut et dominus dicit Lc. XXII, v. 42: non mea voluntas sed tua fiat. Deinde cum dicit desidero enim, etc., ostendit desiderii causam, quae quidem est duplex.
1:11
Una, utilitas eorum qui erant visitandi, unde dicit desidero enim videre vos. Phil. c. I, 8: cupio omnes vos esse in visceribus Iesu Christi. Et hoc non in vanum, sicut est in amicitia saeculari, sed ut impartiar, id est tradam, vobis aliquid gratiae spiritualis, non tamquam auctor gratiae sed sicut minister, I Cor. IV, 1: sic nos existimet homo ut ministros Christi. Et hoc ad confirmandum vos, scilicet in fide quam suscepistis, Lc. XXII, 23: et tu aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos. Impartitur autem gratiam minister multipliciter, tum per administrationem sacramentorum gratiae, I Petr. IV, 10: unusquisque sicut accepit gratiam in alterutrum illam administrantes, etc., tum per exhortationem sermonum, Eph. IV, 29: omnis sermo malus ex ore vestro non procedat, sed si quis bonus est ad aedificationem fidei, ut det gratiam audientibus.
1:12
Secunda causa est mutua consolatio, quae consideratur in convictu amicorum, unde subdit id, scilicet me videre vos et impartiri gratiam, et me simul consolari cum vobis per eam quae invicem est fidem vestram atque meam. Ad mutuam enim consolationem redit, si unanimes in fide reddamur. II Cor. VII, 6-7: qui consolatur humiles consolatus est nos Deus in adventu Titi. Non solum, et cetera.
1:13
Deinde cum dicit nolo autem vos ignorare, ne videatur esse vanum desiderium, subdit propositum prosequendi. Et primo proponit propositum, secundo ostendit causam propositi, ibi ut aliquem fructum, tertio concludit propositi promptitudinem, ibi ita quod in me. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit propositum, secundum impedimentum, ibi et prohibitus sum, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: non solum desidero vos videre sed etiam proposui ad hoc operam dare, et hoc, fratres, nolo vos ignorare quia saepe proposui venire ad vos, ut dilectionem meam ostenderem, non solum verbo et lingua sed etiam opere et veritate, ut dicitur I Io. c. III, 18. Secundo tangit obstaculum impediens eum ab isto proposito exequendo, dicens prohibitus usque adhuc, etc., et hoc vel a Diabolo qui nititur impedire praedicationem ex qua provenit salus hominum, Prov. XXV, v. 23: ventus Aquilo dissipat pluviam, id est doctrinas praedicatorum, vel ab ipso Deo secundum cuius nutum dispensantur praedicatorum itinera et verba, Iob XXXVII, 11 s.: nubes, id est praedicatores spargunt lumen suum, quae lustrant cuncta per circuitum, quocumque voluntas gubernantis duxerit. Unde et Act. XVI, 6 dicitur: transeuntes autem Phrygiam et Galatiae regionem, vetati sunt a spiritu sancto loqui, et iterum: tentabant ire in Bithyniam, et non permisit eos spiritus Iesu. Utrumque autem horum vult apostolus eos non ignorare propter eorum utilitatem, ut scilicet cognoscentes affectum apostoli devotius eius verba suscipiant et impedimentum visitationis eius imputent suae culpae et sic corrigantur. Nam in poenam culpae dicitur Is. V, v. 6: mandabo nubibus meis ne pluant super eam imbrem. Deinde ponit causam duplicem propositi, quarum prima est utilitas, unde dicit ut aliquem fructum habeam in vobis sicut in ceteris gentibus quibus, scilicet, praedicavi. Quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo quasi dicat: ut faciam aliquem fructum in vobis per meam praedicationem. Io. XV, v. 16: ut eatis et fructum afferatis. Alio modo quasi ex eorum conversione ei fructus accrescat, secundum illud Io. IV, 36: qui metit mercedem accipit et fructum congregat in vitam aeternam. Alia autem causa est debitum quod sibi imminebat ex suscepto officio. I Cor. IX, v. 16: si non evangelizavero vae mihi, et cetera. Et quia universalem gentium apostolatum susceperat, omnibus se asserit debitorem, secundum illud I Cor. IX, 19: cum essem liber ex omnibus omnium me servum feci. Et ideo duplicem diversitatem ponit.
1:14
Una quidem secundum diversitatem gentium cum dicit Graecis ac barbaris. Dicitur autem aliquis barbarus dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quid, qui scilicet est extraneus quoad aliquem, secundum illud I Cor. XIV, 11: si ergo nesciero virtutem vocis, ero ei cui loquar barbarus. Alio modo simpliciter, qui scilicet est quasi extraneus a communitate hominum, in quantum ratione non regitur. Unde proprie barbari dicuntur qui ratione non reguntur, secundum quod dictum est II Mach. XV, 2: ne ita ferociter ac barbare feceris, id est inhumane. Et quia Graeci fuerunt primi legum inventores, omnes gentiles, qui humanis legibus reguntur, nominat Graecos. De Iudaeis autem, qui divinis legibus regebantur, mentionem non facit, quia non erat institutus apostolus Iudaeorum sed gentilium. Gal. II, 9: ita ut illi in circumcisis, nos autem in gentibus.
1:15
Ex utraque autem causa concludit promptitudinem voluntatis cum subdit ita quod in me, id est quantum ad me pertinet dummodo aliunde non impediar, promptum est etiam vobis, qui Romae estis, evangelizare. Ex. XXXV, 20: egressaque omnis multitudo filiorum Israel de conspectu Moysi obtulit mente promptissima atque devota. Et excludit impedimentum promptitudinis, scilicet erubescentiam, propter quam multi ea praetermittunt quae alias facerent prompte.
1:16
Et hoc est quod subdit non enim erubesco Evangelium, quod quidem infidelibus apud quosdam erubescibile videbatur, propter id quod dicit I Cor. I, 23: nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam. Non est autem secundum rei veritatem erubescendum propter id quod sequitur: ipsis autem vocatis Iudaeis atque Graecis, Christum Dei virtutem et Dei sapientiam. Unde dicitur Lc. IX, 26: qui erubuerit me et meos sermones, hunc filius hominis erubescet. Et inde est quod baptizati liniuntur chrismate in fronte signo crucis, ubi est sedes verecundiae, ne scilicet Evangelium erubescant.
Postquam apostolus Romanos fideles, quibus scribebat, sibi benevolos reddidit ostendendo affectum suum ad eos, hic incipit instruere eos de his quae pertinent ad evangelicam doctrinam in quam se segregatum praedixerat. Et primo ostendit virtutem evangelicae gratiae, secundo exhortatur ad executionem operum huius gratiae, XII cap., ibi obsecro itaque. Circa primum duo facit: primo proponit quod intendit, secundo manifestat propositum, ibi revelatur enim. Circa primum tria facit: primo proponit virtutem evangelicae gratiae, secundo exponit ibi iustitia enim, tertio expositionem confirmat ibi sicut scriptum est. Dicit ergo primo: ideo Evangelium non erubesco, quia, quamvis ut dicitur I Cor. c. I, 18, verbum crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia sit, nobis tamen virtus Dei est. Virtus enim Dei est. Quod potest intelligi dupliciter: uno modo, quia virtus Dei in Evangelio manifestatur secundum illud Ps. CX, 6: virtutem operum suorum adnuntiavit populo suo; alio modo, quia ipsum Evangelium in se Dei virtutem continet, secundum illud Ps. LXVIII, v. 34: dabit voci suae vocem virtutis. Circa quam virtutem tria sunt consideranda. Primo quidem ad quid se ista virtus extendat, et hoc designatur cum subditur in salutem. Iac. I, 21: in mansuetudine suscipite insitum verbum quod potest salvare animas vestras. Quod quidem fit tripliciter: uno modo, in quantum per verbum Evangelii remittuntur peccata; Io. XV, 3: iam mundi estis propter sermonem quem locutus sum vobis. Secundo, in quantum per Evangelium homo consequitur gratiam sanctificantem; Io. c. XVII, 17: sanctifica eos in veritate. Sermo tuus veritas est. Tertio, in quantum perducit ad vitam aeternam; Io. VI, 69: verba vitae aeternae habes. Secundo, per quem modum Evangelium salutem conferat, quia per fidem, quod designatur cum dicitur omni credenti. Quod fit tripliciter: primo per praedicationem; Mc. ultim.: praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae; qui crediderit et baptizatus fuerit salvus erit. Secundo per confessionem; infra X, 10: oris confessio fit ad salutem. Tertio per Scripturam, unde etiam verba Evangelii scripta virtutem salutiferam habent, sicut beatus Barnabas infirmos curabat, Evangelium superponendo. Cavendae sunt tamen superstitiones characterum, quia hoc est superstitiosum. Unde, Ez. IX, 6, illi salvati sunt in quorum frontibus est scriptum thau, quod est signum crucis. Tertio, quibus Evangelium fit in salutem, quia tam Iudaeis quam gentibus. Non enim Iudaeorum tantum Deus est sed et gentium, infra III, 29, et ideo subdit Iudaeo primum et Graeco. Per Graecum omnem gentilem intelligens, eo quod a Graecis gentilium sapientia est exorta. Sed, cum infra X, 10 dicatur non est distinctio Iudaei et Graeci, quomodo hic Iudaeo primum? Dicendum est ergo quod quantum ad salutis finem consequendum non est distinctio inter eos, aequalem enim consequuntur mercedem utrique, sicut pro labore etiam in vinea, priores et posteriores, eundem denarium acceperunt, ut dicitur Matth. XX, 1-16. Sed quantum ad ordinem salutis Iudaei sunt primi, quia eis promissiones sunt factae, ut infra III, 2, et in eorum gratiam sunt gentiles assumpti, ac si ramus oleastri inseratur in bonam olivam, ut infra XI, 24. Ex his etiam salvator noster natus est. Io. IV, 22: salus ex Iudaeis est. Exponit autem consequenter quomodo Evangelium sit in salutem cum dicit iustitia enim Dei revelatur in eo ex fide in fidem. Quod quidem dupliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo de iustitia qua Deus iustus est, secundum illud Ps. X, 8: iustus dominus et iustitias dilexit. Et secundum hoc, sensus est quod iustitia Dei, qua scilicet iustus est servando promissa, in eo revelatur, scilicet in homine credente Evangelio, quia credit Deum implesse quod promisit de Christo mittendo; et hoc ex fide, scilicet Dei promittentis Ps. CXLIV, 13: fidelis dominus in omnibus verbis suis. In fidem scilicet hominis credentis. Vel, alio modo, ut intelligatur de iustitia Dei, qua Deus homines iustificat. Nam iustitia hominum dicitur qua se homines, propriis viribus, iustificare praesumunt, infra c. X, 3: ignorantes Dei iustitiam et suam quaerentes statuere, iustitiae Dei non sunt subiecti. Quae quidem iustitia revelatur in Evangelio, in quantum per fidem Evangelii homines iustificantur secundum quodcumque tempus, unde subdit ex fide in fidem, id est ex fide veteris testamenti procedendo in fidem novi testamenti, quia ab utroque homines iustificantur et salvantur per fidem Christi, quia eadem fide crediderunt venturum qua nos venisse credimus; et ideo dicitur II Cor. c. IV, 13: habentes eamdem speciem fidei credimus propter quod loquimur. Vel potest intelligi ex fide praedicatorum in fidem auditorum, infra X, 14: quomodo credent ei quem non audierunt? Vel ex fide unius articuli, in fidem alterius, quia ad iustificationem requiritur omnium articulorum fides. Apoc. I, 3: beatus qui legit et audit verba prophetiae huius. Alio modo potest intelligi ex fide praesenti in fidem futuram, id est in plenam visionem Dei, quae quidem dicitur fides ratione certae et firmae cognitionis, haec autem ratione evangelicae cognitionis. I Cor. XIII, v. 12: videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate tunc autem facie ad faciem.
1:17
Probat autem hanc expositionem cum subdit sicut scriptum est iustus autem meus ex fide vivit. Quod quidem accipitur secundum litteram Lxx. Nam in littera nostra, quae est secundum Hebraicam veritatem, dicitur iustus ex fide sua vivit. Dicitur autem iustus meus, scilicet a me iustificatus et apud me iustus reputatus, infra IV, 2 s.: si autem Abraham ex operibus legis iustificatus est, habet gloriam sed non apud Deum. Quid enim Scriptura dicit? Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Unde ex hoc subditur ex fide vivit, scilicet vita gratiae. Gal. II, 20: quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo filii Dei. Quatuor autem hic considerare oportet circa fidem. Primum quidem quid sit fides. Importat enim assensum quemdam cum certitudine, ad id quod non videtur, ex voluntate, quia nullus credit nisi volens, ut Augustinus dicit. Et secundum hoc differt credens a dubitante, qui in neutram partem assentit; differt etiam ab opinante qui assentit in unam partem, non cum certitudine sed cum formidine alterius; differt etiam a sciente qui per certitudinem assentit ex necessitate rationis. Et secundum hoc fides est media inter scientiam et opinionem. Secundo considerandum est an fides sit virtus. Et manifestum est quod non est virtus si accipiatur pro eo quod creditur secundum illud fides Catholica haec est ut unum Deum in Trinitate. Si autem accipiatur pro habitu quo credimus, sic quandoque est virtus, quandoque non. Est enim virtus principium actus perfecti. Actus autem, ex duobus principiis dependens, non potest esse perfectus si alteri principiorum desit sua perfectio: sicut equitatio non potest esse perfecta si vel equus bene non vadat, vel sessor equum ducere nesciat. Actus autem fidei, qui est credere, dependet ex intellectu et voluntate movente intellectum ad assensum; unde actus fidei erit perfectus si voluntas perficiatur per habitum charitatis et intellectus per habitum fidei, non autem si habitus charitatis desit; et ideo fides formata charitate est virtus, non autem fides informis. Tertio considerandum est quod idem numero habitus fidei, qui sine charitate erat informis, adveniente charitate fit virtus; quia, cum charitas sit extra essentiam fidei, per eius adventum et recessum non mutatur substantia eius. Quarto considerandum est quod sicut corpus vivit per animam naturali vita, ita anima vivit per Deum vita gratiae. Primo autem Deus animam inhabitat per fidem, Eph. III, 17: habitare Christum per fidem in cordibus vestris. Nec tamen est perfecta habitatio nisi fides per charitatem sit formata, quae per vinculum perfectionis nos unit Deo, ut dicitur Col. III, 14. Et ideo, quod hic dicit ex fide vivit intelligendum est de fide formata. Deinde cum dicit revelatur enim ira Dei, probat quod dixerat, scilicet virtutem evangelicae gratiae esse omnibus hominibus in salutem. Et primo ostendit quod est necessaria ad salutem; secundo quod est efficax sive sufficiens, V cap., ibi iustificati ergo ex fide. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit virtutem evangelicae gratiae esse necessariam ad salutem gentibus, quia scilicet sapientia, de qua confidebant, salvare eos non potuit; secundo ostendit quod fuit necessaria Iudaeis, quia scilicet circumcisio et lex et alia in quibus confidebant, eis salutem non attulerunt. II cap. ibi propter quod inexcusabilis es. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi quia quod notum est Dei. Proponit autem tria. Primo quidem poenam dicens: recte dico quod in eo iustitia Dei revelatur, revelatur enim in eo ira Dei, id est vindicta ipsius, quae dicitur ira Dei secundum similitudinem hominum irascentium, qui vindictam quaerunt extra. Tamen Deus vindictam infert ex animi tranquillitate. Sap. XII, 18: tu autem dominator noster cum tranquillitate iudicas. Et de hac ira Dei dicitur Io. III, 36: qui incredulus est filio non videbit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super eum. Hoc autem dicitur quia quidam philosophi dicebant a Deo non esse poenas peccatorum, contra id quod dicitur in Ps. XCIII, 10: qui corripit gentes non arguet? Unde additur de caelo, quia credebant circa caelestia eius providentiam occupari, ita quod ad res terrenas non se extenderet. Iob XXII, 14: circa cardines caeli perambulat, nec nostra considerat. Sed, sicut in Ps. ci, 20 dicitur, dominus de caelo in terram prospexit. Vel dicitur de caelo eorum iniquitatem demonstrare, quia maxime ex magnitudine caeli creatoris virtutem intelligere debuerunt. Iob XX, 27: revelabunt caeli iniquitatem eius. Vel de caelo venturi ad iudicium. Act. c. I, 11: quemadmodum vidistis eum ascendentem in caelum, ita veniet. Secundo ponit culpam pro qua poena infligitur. Et primo quidem culpam, quae contra Deum committitur cum subdit super omnem impietatem. Sicut enim pietas dicitur cultus qui Deo exhibetur, tamquam summo parenti, sic impietas dicitur peccatum quod est contra cultum divinum. Ez. XVIII, 28: impietas impii super eum erit. Secundo, ponit culpam quae committitur in homine cum dicit et iniustitiam. Nam iustitia est per quam homines sibi invicem ratione conveniunt et communicant. Iob c. XXXV, 8: filium hominis adiuvabit iustitia tua.
1:18
Tertio ponit cognitionem quam de eo habuerunt, cum subdit hominum eorum qui veritatem Dei, id est veram de Deo cognitionem, detinent in iniustitia, quasi captivatam. Nam vera Dei cognitio quantum est de se inducit homines ad bonum, sed ligatur, quasi captivitate detenta, per iniustitiae affectum, per quam, ut Ps. XI, 1, diminutae sunt veritates a filiis hominum. Deinde cum dicit quia quod notum est, manifestat propositum, ordine tamen retrogrado. Primo enim consentit quod sapientes gentilium de Deo cognoverunt veritatem; secundo, ostendit quod in eis impietas et iniustitia fuerit, ibi ita ut sint inexcusabiles; tertio quod iram Dei incurrerunt, ibi qui cum iustitiam Dei. Circa primum tria facit. Primo, quid de Deo cognoverunt; secundo, ostendit a quo huiusmodi cognitionem acceperunt, ibi Deus enim illis; tertio, ostendit per quem modum, ibi invisibilia enim. Dicit ergo primo: recte dico quod veritatem Dei detinuerunt, fuit enim in eis, quantum ad aliquid, vera Dei cognitio, quia quod notum est Dei, id est quod cognoscibile est de Deo ab homine per rationem, manifestum est in illis, id est manifestum est eis ex eo quod in illis est, id est ex lumine intrinseco. Sciendum est ergo quod aliquid circa Deum est omnino ignotum homini in hac vita, scilicet quid est Deus. Unde et Paulus invenit Athenis aram inscriptam: ignoto Deo. Et hoc ideo quia cognitio hominis incipit ab his quae sunt ei connaturalia, scilicet sensibilibus creaturis, quae non sunt proportionata ad repraesentandam divinam essentiam. Potest tamen homo, ex huiusmodi creaturis, Deum tripliciter cognoscere, ut Dionysius dicit in libro de divinis nominibus. Uno quidem modo per causalitatem. Quia enim huiusmodi creaturae sunt defectibiles et mutabiles, necesse est eas reducere ad aliquod principium immobile et perfectum. Et secundum hoc cognoscitur de Deo an est. Secundo per viam excellentiae. Non enim reducuntur omnia in primum principium, sicut in propriam causam et univocam, prout homo hominem generat, sed sicut in causam communem et excedentem. Et ex hoc cognoscitur quod est super omnia. Tertio per viam negationis. Quia si est causa excedens, nihil eorum quae sunt in creaturis potest ei competere, sicut etiam neque corpus caeleste proprie dicitur grave vel leve aut calidum aut frigidum. Et secundum hoc dicimus Deum immobilem et infinitum et si quid aliud huiusmodi dicitur. Huiusmodi autem cognitionem habuerunt per lumen rationis inditum. Ps. IV, 6: multi dicunt quis ostendit nobis bona? Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui domine.
1:19
Deinde cum dicit Deus illis manifestavit, ostendit a quo auctore huiusmodi cognitio eis fuerit manifestata, et dicit quod Deus illis manifestavit, secundum illud Iob c. XXXV, 11: docet nos super iumenta terrae. Ubi considerandum est quod unus homo alteri manifestat explicando conceptum suum per aliqua signa exteriora, puta per vocem vel Scripturam, Deus autem dupliciter aliquid homini manifestat. Uno modo, infundendo lumen interius, per quod homo cognoscit, Ps. XLII, 3: emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam. Alio modo, proponendo suae sapientiae signa exteriora, scilicet sensibiles creaturas. Eccli. I, 10: effudit illam, scilicet sapientiam, super omnia opera sua. Sic ergo Deus illis manifestavit vel interius infundendo lumen, vel exterius proponendo visibiles creaturas, in quibus, sicut in quodam libro, Dei cognitio legeretur.
1:20
Deinde cum dicit invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi, etc., ostendit per quem modum huiusmodi cognitionem acceperunt. Ubi, primo considerandum est quae sunt ista, quae de Deo cognoverunt. Et ponit tria. Primo quidem invisibilia ipsius, per quae intelligitur Dei essentia, quae, sicut dictum est a nobis videri non potest. Io. I, 18: Deum nemo vidit unquam, scilicet per essentiam, vita mortali vivens. I Tim. c. I, 17: regi saeculorum immortali, invisibili. Dicit autem pluraliter invisibilia quia Dei essentia non est nobis cognita secundum illud quod est, scilicet prout in se est una. Sic erit nobis in patria cognita, et tunc erit dominus unus et nomen eius unum, ut dicitur Zac. ult. Est autem manifesta nobis per quasdam similitudines in creaturis repertas, quae id quod in Deo unum est, multipliciter participant, et secundum hoc intellectus noster considerat unitatem divinae essentiae sub ratione bonitatis, sapientiae, virtutis et huiusmodi, quae in Deo unum sunt. Haec ergo invisibilia Dei dixit, quia illud unum quod his nominibus, seu rationibus, in Deo respondet, non videtur a nobis. Hebr. XI, 3: ut ex invisibilibus invisibilia fierent. Aliud autem quod de Deo cognoscitur est virtus ipsius, secundum quam res ab eo procedunt, sicut a principio; Ps. CXLVI, 5: magnus dominus et magna virtus eius. Hanc autem virtutem philosophi perpetuam esse cognoverunt, unde dicitur sempiterna quoque virtus eius. Tertium cognitum est quod dicit et divinitas, ad quod pertinet quod cognoverunt Deum sicut ultimum finem, in quem omnia tendunt. Divinum enim bonum dicitur bonum commune quod ab omnibus participatur; propter hoc potius dixit divinitatem, quae participationem significat, quam deitatem, quae significat essentiam Dei. Col. II, 9: et in ipso habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis. Haec autem tria referuntur ad tres modos cognoscendi supradictos. Nam invisibilia Dei cognoscuntur per viam negationis; sempiterna virtus, per viam causalitatis; divinitas, per viam excellentiae. Secundo, considerandum est per quod medium illa cognoverunt, quod designatur cum dicit per ea quae facta sunt. Sicut enim ars manifestatur per artificis opera, ita et Dei sapientia manifestatur per creaturas. Sap. XIII, 5: a magnitudine enim speciei et creaturae cognoscibiliter poterit creator horum videri. Tertio, ostendit quomodo per ista cognoscatur Deus, cum dicit intellecta conspiciuntur. Intellectu enim cognosci potest Deus, non sensu vel imaginatione, quae corporalia non transcendunt; Deus autem spiritus est, ut Io. c. IV, 24 dicitur; Is. LII, 13: ecce intelliget servus meus. Quarto, potest designari a qua, per hunc modum, Deus cognoscatur, cum dicitur a creatura mundi. Per quod, uno modo, potest intelligi homo, Mc. ult.: praedicate Evangelium omni creaturae, vel propter excellentiam hominis, qui ordine naturae minor est Angelis sed excellit inter inferiores creaturas, secundum illud Ps. VIII, 6: minuisti eum paulo minus ab Angelis, omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius, oves et boves, etc., vel quia communicat cum omni creatura: habet enim esse cum lapidibus, vivere cum arboribus, sentire cum animalibus, intelligere cum Angelis, ut Gregorius dicit. Alio modo potest intelligi de universali creatura. Nulla enim creatura, ex propriis naturalibus, potest Dei essentiam in seipsa videre. Unde et de Seraphim dicitur Is. VI, 2 quod duabus alis velabant caput. Sed, sicut homo intelligit Deum per creaturas visibiles, ita Angelus per hoc quod intelligit propriam essentiam. Potest autem aliter intelligi per creaturam mundi, non ipsa res creata sed rerum creatio, ac si diceretur: a creatione mundi. Et tunc potest dupliciter ordinari. Uno modo quod intelligatur quod invisibilia Dei intelliguntur per ea quae facta sunt a creatione mundi, non solum per ea quae facta sunt tempore gratiae. Alio modo quod intelligatur quod a creatione mundi homines incoeperunt Deum cognoscere per ea quae facta sunt. Iob XXXVI, 25: omnes homines vident eum. Glossa autem dicit quod per invisibilia Dei intelligitur persona patris. I Tim. c. ult.: quem nullus hominum vidit, et cetera. Per sempiternam virtutem, persona filii secundum illud I Cor. I, 24: Christum Dei virtutem. Per divinitatem, persona spiritus sancti cui appropriatur bonitas. Non quod philosophi, ductu rationis, potuerint pervenire, per ea quae facta sunt, in cognitionem personarum quantum ad propria, quae non significant habitudinem causae ad creaturas, sed secundum appropriata. Dicuntur tamen defecisse in tertio signo, id est in spiritu sancto quia non posuerunt aliquid respondere spiritui sancto, sicut posuerunt aliquid respondere patri, scilicet ipsum primum principium, et aliquid respondere filio, scilicet primam mentem creatam, quam vocabant paternum intellectum ut Macrobius dicit in libro super somnium Scipionis.
Postquam apostolus ostendit veritatem Dei fuisse a gentibus cognitam, hic ostendit eos obnoxios culpae impietatis et iniustitiae. Et primo ostendit hoc quantum ad culpam impietatis, secundo quantum ad culpam iniustitiae, ibi et sicut non probaverunt, et cetera. Posset autem aliquis credere eos a culpa impietatis excusari propter ignorantiam, sicut apostolus de se dicit infra I Tim. I, 13: misericordiam consecutus sum, quia ignorans feci, primo ergo ostendit gentiles non esse excusabiles, secundo ponit eorum culpam, ibi et mutaverunt gloriam. Circa primum considerandum est quod tunc ignorantia culpam excusat quando sic procedit et causat culpam, quod non causatur a culpa. Sicut cum aliquis, adhibita diligentia debita, dum credit percutere hostem, percutit patrem. Si vero ignorantia causetur ex culpa, non potest subsequentem culpam ignorantia excusare. Unde si quis per ebrietatem homicidium committit, non excusatur a culpa, quia peccavit se inebriando, unde secundum philosophum meretur duplices mulctationes. Primo igitur proponit quod intendit, dicens ita, quod est Dei, notum est eis, ut sint inexcusabiles, id est ut per ignorantiam excusari non possint Iac. IV, 17: scienti bonum et non operanti peccatum est illi. Infra c. II, 1: propter quod inexcusabilis est. Secundo ibi quia cum cognovissent, etc., probat quod dixerat. Et primo, ostendit quod prima eorum culpa ex ignorantia non processit, secundo quod ex hac culpa est ignorantia subsecuta, ibi sed evanuerunt. Quod autem prima eorum culpa non fuerit ex ignorantia, ostenditur per hoc quod Dei cognitionem habentes ea non sunt usi ad bonum. Dupliciter autem Deum cognoverunt. Uno modo sicut omnibus super eminentem, et sic ei debebant gloriam et honorem quae superexcellentibus debetur.
1:21
Isti ideo dicuntur inexcusabiles quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, vel quia ei debitum cultum non impenderunt, vel quia virtuti eius et scientiae terminum imposuerunt, aliqua eius potentiae et scientiae subtrahentes, contra id quod dicitur Eccli. XLIII, v. 37: glorificantes dominum quantumcumque potueritis. Secundo, cognoverunt eum sicut omnium bonorum causam. Unde ei in omnibus gratiarum actio debebatur, quam tamen ipsi non impendebant, sed potius suo ingenio et virtuti suae bona sua adscribebant; unde subdit gratias non egerunt, scilicet domino, I Thess. ult.: in omnibus gratias agite. Deinde cum dicit sed evanuerunt, ostendit quod in eis ex culpa est ignorantia subsecuta. Et primo ponit intentum, secundo manifestat propositum, ibi dicentes. Primo ergo proponit culpam quae est ignorantiae causa cum dicit evanuerunt. Vanum enim dicitur quod non habet stabilitatem seu firmitatem. Solus autem Deus de se est immutabilis. Mal. III, 6: ego Deus et non mutor. Et ideo tunc solum mens humana est a vanitate libera quando Deo innititur. Cum autem, praetermisso Deo, innititur cuicumque creaturae, incurrit vanitatem. Sap. XIII, 1: vani sunt omnes homines in quibus non subest scientia Dei, etc.; Ps. XCIII, v. 11: dominus scit cogitationes hominum quoniam vanae sunt. In cogitationibus suis evanuerunt, in quantum in seipsis, et non in Deo, fiduciam habebant, sibi et non Deo bona sua adscribentes, secundum illud Ps. XI, v. 5: labia nostra, et cetera. Secundo ponit ignorantiam subsecutam dicens et obscuratum est; id est, per hoc quod obscuratum est, factum est cor eorum insipiens, id est lumine sapientiae privatum, per quam homo vere Deum cognoscit. Sicut enim qui oculos corporales a sole materiali avertit, obscuritatem corporalem incurrit, ita ille qui a Deo avertitur, de seipso praesumens et non de Deo, spiritualiter obscuratur. Prov. XI, 2: ubi humilitas, per quam scilicet homo se Deo subiicit, ibi sapientia; ubi superbia, ibi contumelia. Matth. c. XI, 25: abscondisti haec a sapientibus, secundum quod scilicet eis videbatur, et revelasti ea parvulis, id est humilibus. Et de his habetur Eph. IV, 17 s.: gentes ambulant in vanitate sensus sui, tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum. Deinde cum dicit dicentes, exponit quod dixerat.
1:22
Et, primo, qualiter in cogitationibus suis evanuerunt, cum dicit dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. Dicentes, id est sapientiam sibi a seipsis adscribentes. Is. V, v. 21: vae qui sapientes estis in oculis vestris. Is. XIX, 11: quomodo dicetis Pharaoni: filius sapientium ego, filius regum antiquorum? et cetera. Secundo, exponit quod dixerat et obscuratum est insipiens cor, cum dicit stulti facti sunt, quasi contra divinam sapientiam agentes. Ier. X, 14: stultus factus est omnis homo a scientia sua, de qua scilicet praesumebat.
1:23
Deinde cum dicit et mutaverunt gloriam, ponit peccatum impietatis gentilium. Et primo quanto ad hoc quod peccaverunt contra Dei gloriam, secundo quomodo contra veritatem naturae ipsius, ibi qui commutaverunt veritatem. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit impietatis culpam, secundo poenam, ibi propter quod tradidit. Culpa quidem eorum fuit quod, quantum in ipsis erat, honorem divinum in alium transtulerunt, secundum illud Ier. II, v. 11: populus meus mutavit gloriam suam in idolum. Primo ergo ponit id quod mutaverunt, secundo id in quod mutaverunt, ibi in similitudinem. Circa primum, tria sunt attendenda ex parte Dei. Primo, quidem ipsius gloriam, quam tangit dicens et mutaverunt gloriam, quod potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo de gloria qua homo Deum glorificat, ei cultum latriae exhibendo. I Tim. I, 17: soli Deo honor. Hanc igitur mutaverunt, cum cultum Deo debitum exhibuerunt aliis. Alio modo potest intelligi de gloria qua Deus in se gloriosus est, quae est incomprehensibilis et infinita. Prov. c. XXV, 27: perscrutator maiestatis opprimetur a gloria. Quae quidem gloria, nihil est aliud quam ipsa claritas divinae naturae; lucem enim inhabitat inaccessibilem, I Tim. ult. Hanc autem mutaverunt, dum eam aliis attribuerunt. Incommunicabile enim nomen lignis et lapidibus imposuerunt, ut dicitur Sap. c. XIV, 21. Secundo, notatur incorruptibilitas, cum dicit incorruptibilis. Ipse enim solus perfecte incorruptibilis est, qui est omnino immutabilis; omnis enim mutatio quaedam corruptio est. Unde dicitur I Tim. ult.: solus habet immortalitatem. Tertio, notatur naturae sublimitas, cum dicitur Dei, ut enim in Ps. XLVII, 2 dicitur: Deus magnus dominus. Ex parte vero eius in quod mutaverunt, tria correspondentia ponuntur. Nam, contra gloriam dicit in similitudinem imaginis, id est in similitudinem alicuius rei per modum imaginis ab aliquo expressae. Manifestum enim est quod similitudo imaginis est posterior illa re cuius est imago. Gloria autem, sive claritas Dei, est principium omnis speciei et formae; et sic dum Dei gloriam in similitudinem imaginis mutaverunt, converterunt primum in ultimum. Sap. XIV, 15: acerbo luctu dolens pater, cito sibi rapti filii fecit imaginem. Contra id quod dixerat incorruptibilis, dicit corruptibilis. Ps. XXIX, 10: quae utilitas in sanguine meo dum descendo in corruptionem? Scilicet quod est amplius iam corruptum sive mortuum? Sap. XV, 17: cum sit mortalis, mortuum fingit, manibus iniquis. Contra id quod dixit Dei, ponit hominis. Iob XXXII, 21: non accipiam personam viri et Deum homini non aequabo. Et, quod est abominabilius, homo gloriam Dei transtulit non solum in hominem, qui est ad imaginem Dei sed etiam ad ea quae sunt infra hominem, unde subdit et volucrum quantum ad volatilia, et quadrupedum quantum ad gressibilia, et serpentium quantum ad reptilia. Praetermittit autem pisces tamquam magis ab humana conversatione seiunctos. Haec autem omnia sunt a Deo homini supposita. Ps. VIII, 8: omnia subiecisti sub pedibus eius. Ez. VIII, 9: ingredere et vide abominationes pessimas quas isti faciunt hic. Et ingressus vidi; et ecce omnis similitudo reptilium et animalium et cetera. Est autem notandum quod, sicut dicit Glossa, ab adventu Aeneae consueverunt in Italia imagines hominum coli, puta Iovis, Herculis et similium. Sed tempore Caesaris Augusti, devicta Aegypto, eorum cultum Romani assumpserunt qui imagines animalium colebant, propter figuras animalium, quae notantur in caelo, quibus Aegypti, tamquam astrologiae dediti, cultum divinitatis impendebant. Unde et dominus filios Israel in Aegypto nutritos ab huiusmodi cultu removet dicens Deut. IV, 19: ne forte elevatis oculis ad coelum videas solem et lunam et omnia astra caeli, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit propter quod tradidit, ponit poenam huiusmodi culpae respondentem. Circa quod considerandum est quod homo medium locum obtinet inter Deum et animalia bruta, et cum utroque extremorum communicat: cum Deo quidem, secundum intellectualitatem; cum animalibus vero brutis, secundum sensualitatem. Sicut igitur homo, id quod est Dei, mutavit usque ad bestias, ita Deus, id quod est divinum in homine secundum rationem, subdidit ei quod est brutale in ipso, scilicet desiderio sensualitatis, secundum illud Ps. XLVIII, 21: homo cum in honore esset non intellexit, similitudinem scilicet divinae imaginis propter rationem, comparatus est iumentis insipientibus.
1:24
Hoc est ergo quod dicit propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis, ut eorum ratio subderetur desideriis cordis, scilicet sensualis affectus, de quibus dicitur infra XIII, 14: carnis curam ne feceritis in desideriis. Quod quidem est contra naturalem ordinem hominis, secundum quem ratio appetitui sensibili dominatur. Gen. IV, 7: sub te erit appetitus eius, et tu dominaberis illius. Inducit ergo homines in desideria cordis eorum sicut in manu dominorum crudelium. Is. XIX, 4: tradam Aegyptum in manu dominorum crudelium. Praecipue tamen circa appetitum sensitivum bestialis quaedam deordinatio pertinet ad peccata carnalia. Nam delectationes tactus, circa quas sunt gula et luxuria, manifeste sunt communes nobis et brutis. Et ideo sunt magis exprobrabiles quasi magis brutales, ut dicit philosophus in III Ethicorum. Et hoc designatur cum subdit in immunditiam quae ad peccata carnalia pertinet, secundum illud Eph. V, 5: omnis fornicator aut immundus, quia scilicet homo, per huiusmodi peccata, maxime convertitur et trahitur ad id quod est infra ipsum. Unumquodque enim dicitur esse impurum sive immundum ex commixtione vilioris, sicut argentum ex commixtione plumbi. Unde exponens subdit ut contumeliis, id est turpibus et immundis actibus, afficiant, id est inficiant, corpora sua in semetipsis, id est non quasi ab aliis coacti, puta a barbaris, sed a semetipsis hoc agunt, propria sponte. Infra IX, 21: an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eodem luto facere aliud vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam? Scilicet in turpem usum. Sed cum huiusmodi immunditia sit peccatum, videtur quod Deus in eam homines non tradat, quia, ut dicitur Iac. I, 13: Deus intentator malorum est. Dicendum est quod Deus non dicitur tradere homines in immunditiam directe, inclinando affectum hominis ad malum, quia Deus omnia ordinat in seipsum, Prov. XVI, v. 4: universa propter se operatus est dominus, peccatum autem est aliquid per aversionem ab eo. Sed indirecte tradit homines in peccatum, in quantum iuste subtrahit gratiam per quam homines continebantur ne peccarent; sicut si aliquis alicuius substentaculum tolleret, diceretur facere casum eius. Et per hunc modum primum peccatum est causa sequentis peccati, sequens vero est poena prioris. Ad cuius evidentiam sciendum est quod unum peccatum potest esse causa alterius indirecte et directe. Directe quidem, in quantum ex uno peccato inclinatur ad aliud, quod fit tripliciter. Uno modo secundum rationem causae finalis; sicut cum quis ex avaritia vel invidia incitatur ad homicidium committendum. Secundo, secundum rationem causae materialis; sicut gula inducit ad luxuriam, ministrando materiam. Tertio, secundum rationem causae moventis; sicut cum ex multis actibus alicuius peccati generatur habitus ad simile peccatum inducens. Indirecte autem, sicut primum peccatum meretur exclusionem gratiae, qua subtracta, homo ruit in aliud peccatum. Et sic primum peccatum est causa secundi indirecte sive per accidens, sicut removens prohibens. Sed notandum est quod peccatum, in quantum huiusmodi, non potest esse poena, quia poenam contra voluntatem patimur, peccatum autem est voluntarium, ut Augustinus dicit. Sed quia peccatum habet quaedam adiuncta, quae sunt contra voluntatem peccantis, ratione eorum peccatum dicitur poena praecedentis peccati. Hoc autem est, uno modo, aliquid praecedens peccatum, sicut subtractio gratiae ex qua sequitur ut homo peccet. Alio modo, est aliquid adiunctum ipsi peccato, vel interius sicut est inordinatio animi, unde Augustinus dicit in I confessionum: iussisti domine, et sic est ut poena sibi sit omnis inordinatus animus; sive quantum ad exteriores actus, quibus difficultates ac labores adiunguntur, secundum illud quod dicunt impii Sap. V, 7: ambulavimus vias difficiles, et cetera. Tertio, quantum ad id quod sequitur peccatum sicut est remorsus conscientiae, infamia et similia. Deinde cum dicit commutaverunt, ponit culpam impietatis quam commiserunt contra veritatem divinae naturae. Et primo ponit culpam, secundo poenam, ibi propterea tradidit. Divina autem natura potest considerari dupliciter. Uno modo secundum quod est ratio cognoscendi, ut veritas prima, et quantum ad hoc dicit quia commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium. Quod quidem potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo quia veram cognitionem quam a Deo acceperunt, perversa ratione ad falsa dogmata converterunt, sicut cum dixerunt idola esse deos, vel Deum non esse omnipotentem, vel omniscientem. Ier. IX, 5: docuerunt linguas suas loqui mendacium. Alio modo veritatem Dei in mendacium mutaverunt quia divinitatis naturam, quae est ipsa veritas, attribuerunt idolo, quod est mendacium inquantum non est Deus, ut dicitur Ier. XVI, 19 s.: vere mendacium possederunt patres nostri, vanitatem quae eis non profuit. Numquid faciet homo sibi deos, et ipsi non sunt dii? Alio modo potest considerari divina natura secundum quod est principium essendi omnibus per creationem: et sic debetur ei ab homine, interius quidem, cultus secundum pium affectum, Io. IX, 31: si quis cultor Dei est, etc., exterius vero, debetur ei servitus latriae, secundum illud Deut. VI, 13: dominum Deum tuum adorabis, et illi soli servies. Unde subdit, contra eos scilicet, coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius, et cetera. Colebant enim caelestia corpora et aerem et aquam et alia huiusmodi, secundum illud Sap. XIII, 2: aut ignem, aut spiritum, aut citatum aerem, et cetera. Et in hoc improbat sapientes gentilium qui, quamvis numquam in imaginibus aliquid numinis esse crederent, sicut sectatores Hermetis credebant, neque ea quae a poetis fabulose dicebantur de diis crederent esse vera, creaturis tamen aliquibus cultum divinitatis impendebant ex quibus rationem fabularum assignabant. Sicut Varro posuit totum mundum esse Deum propter animam eius, dicens quod toti mundo, et omnibus partibus eius, divinitatis cultus impendi potest, scilicet aeri quem vocabant Iunonem, et aquae quam vocabant Liaeum, et sic de aliis. Platonici etiam posuerunt quod omnibus substantiis rationalibus, quae sunt supra nos, cultus divinitatis debetur; puta Daemonibus, animabus caelestium corporum, intelligentiis, id est substantiis separatis. Quamvis autem iis, quae supra nos sunt, aliquam reverentiam exhibere debeamus, non tamen cultum latriae, quae potissime in sacrificiis et oblatione consistit, per quam homo profitetur omnium bonorum Deum esse auctorem, sicut in quolibet regno aliquis honor supremo domino exhibetur quem non licet transferre in alium. Et ideo subdit qui est benedictus, idest cuius bonitas est manifesta, sicut enim dicimus benedicere Deum in quantum eius bonitatem corde recognoscimus et ore confitemur. Eccli. XLIII, 33: benedicentes Deum exaltate illum quantum potestis. Addit autem in saecula, quia eius bonitas est sempiterna ab alio non dependens, sed omnis boni principium. Et ex hoc sibi debetur omnis latriae cultus. Addit autem amen ad omnimodam certitudinem asserendam. Is. LXV, 16: qui benedictus est super terram benedicetur in Deo. Amen, quod idem est quod verum, vel fiat. Videtur autem apostolus triplicem theologiam tangere gentilium. Primo quidem civilem, quae observabatur a pontificibus in adoratione idolorum in templo; et quantum ad hoc dicit: et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei. Secundo theologiam fabularem, quam poetae tradebant in theatris; et quantum ad hoc dicit: qui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium.
1:25
Tertio theologiam naturalem, quam observaverunt philosophi in mundo, partes mundi colentes; et quantum ad hoc dicit: et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori.
1:26
Posita culpa impietatis, secundum quam contra naturam divinam peccaverunt, ponit poenam, qua scilicet ad hoc reducti sunt ut contra suam naturam peccarent. Et primo ponit poenam, secundo exponit, ibi nam feminae, tertio eius convenientiam ostendit, ibi et mercedem. Dicit ergo primo propterea, scilicet quia Dei veritatem in mendacium mutaverunt, tradidit illos Deus, non quidem impellendo in malum sed deserendo, in passiones ignominiae, id est peccata contra naturam, quae dicuntur passiones, secundum quod proprie passio dicitur ex eo quod aliquid trahitur extra ordinem suae naturae, puta cum aqua calefit aut cum homo infirmatur. Unde quia per huiusmodi peccata homo recedit ab ordine naturali, convenienter dicuntur passiones, infra VII, 5: passiones peccatorum. Dicuntur autem passiones ignominiae quia non sunt nomine digna, secundum illud Eph. c. V, 15: quae aguntur in occulto ab eis turpe est dicere. Si enim peccata carnis communiter exprobrabilia sunt quia per ea homo deducitur ad id quod est bestiale in homine, multo magis peccatum contra naturam, per quod etiam homo a natura bestiali decidit. Os. IV, 7: gloriam eorum in ignominiam commutabo. Deinde cum dicit nam feminae eorum, etc., exponit quod dixerat, et primo quantum ad feminas, secundo quantum ad masculos, ibi similiter autem masculi. Dicit ergo primo: ideo illos dico in passiones ignominiae traditos, nam feminae eorum mutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum qui est contra naturam. I Cor. c. XI, 14: nec ipsa natura docet vos. Is. XXIV, v. 5: mutaverunt ius, dissipaverunt foedus sempiternum, id est ius naturale. Est autem considerandum quod dupliciter est aliquid contra naturam hominis. Uno modo contra naturam differentiae constitutivae hominis, quae est rationale; et sic omne peccatum dicitur esse contra naturam hominis, inquantum est contra rationem rectam. Unde et Damascenus dicit in II Lib. quod Angelus peccans versus est ex eo quod est secundum naturam in id quod est praeter naturam. Alio modo dicitur esse aliquid contra naturam hominis ratione generis, quod est animal. Manifestum est autem quod, secundum naturae intentionem, commixtio sexuum in animalibus ordinatur ad actum generationis, unde omnis commixtionis modus, ex quo generatio sequi non potest, est contra naturam hominis inquantum est animal. Et secundum hoc dicitur in Glossa naturalis usus est ut vir et mulier in uno concubitu coeant, contra naturam vero ut masculus masculum polluat et mulier mulierem. Et eadem ratio est de omni actu coitus ex quo generatio sequi non potest. Deinde cum dicit similiter autem, exponit quantum ad mares, qui, scilicet, relicto naturali usu feminae exarserunt, id est, extra terminos naturae arserunt, secundum illud Ps.
1:27
CXVII, 12: exarserunt sicut ignis in spinis: et hoc in desideriis suis, scilicet carnalibus, invicem masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes. Ez. XVI, 37: nudabo ignominiam tuam coram eis, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit et mercedem, ostendit hanc poenam convenientem esse culpae, dicens recipientes in semetipsis, id est in deformatione suae naturae, mercedem erroris sui, scilicet quo Dei veritatem in mendacium commutaverunt, mercedem, id est retributionem, quam oportuit scilicet eos recipere, secundum iustitiae ordinem, ex qua debitum erat ut qui in Dei naturam iniuriosi fuerant, id quod est proprium sibi, creaturis attribuendo, in sui natura contumeliosi existerent. Et quamvis merces proprie videatur in bonum sonare, tamen hic sumitur pro quacumque retributione, etiam in malis, secundum modum quo dicitur infra VI, 23: stipendia peccati mors. Mich. I, 7: mercedes eorum igni comburentur. Est autem notandum quod satis rationabiliter apostolus vitia contra naturam, quae sunt gravissima inter peccata carnalia, ponit idololatriae poenam, quia simul cum idololatria incepisse videntur, scilicet tempore Abrahae, quando creditur idololatria incoepisse. Unde et tunc primo leguntur in Sodomitis punita fuisse, ut Gen. XIX. Simul etiam idololatria crescente, huiusmodi vitia creverunt. Unde dicitur II Mach. IV, 12 s., quod Iason ausus est sub ipsa arce optimos quosque epheborum in lupanaribus ponere. Erat autem hoc non initium sed incrementum quoddam et profectus gentilis et alienigenae conversationis. Deinde cum dicit et sicut non probaverunt, ostendit eos iustitiae fuisse subiectos. Et primo ostendit ex qua priori culpa in haec peccata devenerunt, secundo enumerat horum peccatorum differentias, ibi repletos omni iniquitate.
1:28
Culpam autem praecedentem ponit, cum dicit et sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia. Quod potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, quia quamvis lumine rationis per creaturas visibiles veram Dei cognitionem habere potuerunt, tamen ut liberius possent peccare, non probaverunt, id est non approbaverunt, ut ipsi haberent Deum in sui notitia. Iob XXI, 14: recede a nobis: scientiam viarum tuarum nolumus. Alio modo, potest intelligi quod ipsi non probaverunt quod Deus in sui notitia haberet facta humana, secundum illud Ps. XCIII, 7: dixerunt: non videbit dominus, nec intelliget Deus. Et secundum hunc sensum convenienter huic culpae respondet poena cum subditur tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum. Dicitur autem hic sensus hominis non exterior, quo sensibilia cognoscuntur, sed interior, secundum quem iudicat de agendis, secundum illud Sap. VI, 16: cogitare de illa sensus est consummatus. Dicitur autem sensus reprobus quo aliquis reprobandum iudicium habet de agendis, secundum illud II Tim. III, 8: homines mente corrupti, reprobi circa fidem. Ier. VI, 30: argentum reprobum vocate eos. Et ideo subdit ut faciant ea quae non conveniunt, id est ea quae a recta ratione discordant. Sap. III, 11: inutilia opera eorum sunt. Est autem conveniens ut qui contra Dei notitiam peccaverunt, vel eum cognoscere nolentes, vel eum cognoscere non arbitrantes, in perversitatem sensus traderentur. Unde et Sap. XIV, 31 dicitur: peccantium poena perambulat semper in iustorum praevaricationem. Deinde cum dicit repletos, etc., enumerat huiusmodi inconvenientia opera.
1:29
Et primo, ponit id quod est generale, dicens repletos omni iniquitate, quia ut dicitur I Io. III, 4, omne peccatum est iniquitas. Sicut enim omnis virtus, inquantum exequitur praeceptum legis, habet rationem iustitiae, ita etiam omne peccatum, inquantum a regula legis divinae discordat, habet rationem iniquitatis. Et sic in sacra Scriptura praecipue peccata arguuntur. Dupliciter autem eorum culpam exaggerat. Primo quidem intensive per hoc quod dicit repletos. Ille enim videtur repleri iniquitate cuius affectus est totaliter ad peccandum dispositus, secundum illud Ps. XIII, 3: quorum os maledictione et amaritudine plenum est. Secundo extensive quia scilicet non tantum in uno peccaverunt sed in omnibus. Sap. XIV, 27: infandorum idolorum cultura omnis mali causa est. Consequenter cum dicit malitia, enumerat peccata in speciali. Et primo quantum ad transgressionem, quae opponitur praeceptis negativis, secundo quantum ad omissionem, quae opponitur praeceptis affirmativis, ibi superbos. Circa primum duo facit: primo ponit peccata quibus aliquis deterioratur in seipso, secundo peccata quibus aliquis fit nocivus proximo, ibi nequitia. Circa primum, ponit quidem id primo quod est generale cum dicit malitia, quae est habitus vitiosus, virtuti oppositus. Unde ex malitia peccare dicuntur qui ex habitu peccant. Ps. LI, 3: quid gloriaris in malitia? In speciali ponit peccatum quo quis deordinatur circa appetitum corporalium delectationum, cum dicit fornicatione. Quamvis enim fornicatio proprie sit cum meretricibus, quae iuxta fornices, id est arcus triumphales, se publice prostituebant, tamen hic sumitur pro omni illicito concubitu. Tob. IV, 13: attende tibi fili mi ab omni fornicatione. Secundo, ponit vitium per quod quis deordinatur circa appetitum rerum exteriorum cum dicit avaritia, quae est immoderatus appetitus habendi. Hebr. ult.: sint mores sine avaritia, contenti praesentibus. Deinde ponuntur peccata quae tendunt ad nocumentum proximi. Et primo ponit id quod est generale cum dicit nequitia, dum scilicet attentat aliquis quod nequit implere; quod maxime contingit circa nocumenta proximorum, quibus non potest aliquis aliquando pro voto nocere. Ps. VII, 10: consumetur nequitia peccatorum. Consequenter ponit radicem horum peccatorum dicens plenos invidia, quae est dolor de alieno bono, ex quo aliquis incitatur ad nocendum alteri. Sap. II, 24: invidia Diaboli mors introivit in orbem terrarum. Postea ponuntur nocumenta et primo manifesta, et quantum ad facta, cum dicit homicidiis, quae sunt praecipua nocumenta. Os. IV, 2: maledictum, mendacium et homicidium, furtum et adulterium inundaverunt. Dicit autem pluraliter homicidiis, quia homicidium non solum consistit in opere sed etiam in voluntate. I Io. III, 5: qui odit fratrem suum homicida est, qui scilicet odit ad occidendum. Et quantum ad verba, cum dicit contentione. Est autem contentio impugnatio veritatis cum confidentia clamoris. Prov. XX, v. 3: honor est homini qui se separat a contentionibus. Deinde ponit nocumenta occulta et, primo, illud quod est generale, cum dicit dolo, quando scilicet aliud simulatur et aliud agitur. Ier. IX, 8: sagitta vulnerans lingua eorum, dolum locuta est; in ore suo pacem cum amico suo loquitur et occulte ei ponit insidias. Post haec ponit radicem interiorem horum nocumentorum, cum dicit malignitate, quae importat malum ignem, id est malum affectum in corde secundum illud Ps. XXVII, 3: loquuntur pacem cum proximo suo mala autem in cordibus. Ps. V, 6: non habitabit iuxta te malignus. Consequenter ponit nocumenta occulta, quae praecipue fiunt verbis, cum dicit susurrones, qui scilicet occulte susurrant in auribus hominum ad seminandas inter eos discordias. Eccli. XVIII, 15: susurro et bilinguis maledictus in populo; multos enim turbavit pacem habentes. Detractores, qui scilicet detrahunt famae alicuius occulte, id est eo ignorante mala dicentes de eo. Eccle. X, 11: si mordeat serpens in silentio nihil eo minus habet qui occulte detrahit. Et ne putentur ista peccata esse levia, quia solo ore committuntur, subdit Deo odibiles. Impugnant enim id maxime quod Deus in hominibus amat, scilicet mutuum amorem. Io. XV, 12: hoc est praeceptum meum ut diligatis invicem. Unde dicitur Prov. VI, 16: sex sunt quae odit Deus et septimum detestatur anima eius, scilicet qui seminat inter fratres discordias. Addit autem contumeliosos, qui scilicet mala in faciem inferunt. I Tim. I, 13: qui prius fuit blasphemus et persecutor et contumeliosus. Sic ergo haec tria vitia in materia conveniunt, quia omnes mala dicunt de proximo. Differunt autem in fine, nam susurro intendit discordiam, detractor infamiam, contumeliosus iniuriam. Consequenter ponit peccata quae pertinent ad omissionem, et primo ponit radicem horum peccatorum cum dicit superbos. Dicuntur enim superbi quasi super se euntes per inordinatum appetitum excellentiae, volunt enim praeesse, non subesse alienae regulae, et ideo praecepta omittunt. Eccli. c. X, 15: initium omnis peccati superbia, quod verum est quantum ad aversionem a Deo, non quantum ad conversionem ad bonum commutabile. Dicitur enim I Tim. ult. quod radix omnium malorum est cupiditas. Secundo ponit processum superbiae, ex quo primo in corde nascitur elatio, ut scilicet homo se super alios efferat. Lc. c. XVIII, 11: non sum sicut ceteri hominum. Unde dicitur contra elatos illud Ps. CXXX, v. 1: neque elati sunt oculi mei. Secundo ex superbia in opere nascitur novitatum praesumptio, et quantum ad hoc subdit inventores malorum; quia enim bona iam a Deo et ab hominibus sunt instituta, consequens est ut ipsi de novo adinveniant mala. Is. III, 8: adinventiones eorum contra dominum. Consequenter ponuntur ipsae omissiones.
1:30
Et primo respectu superiorum; unde, quantum ad parentes, dicit parentibus non obedientes. Contra id quod dicitur Eph. c. VI, 1: filii obedite parentibus vestris in domino. Quantum autem ad Deum dicit insipientes, id est contra divinam reverentiam agentes. Iob XXVIII, 28: ecce timor domini ipsa est sapientia et recedere a malo intelligentia. Secundo, ponit omissionem quantum ad seipsum. Cum dicit incompositos, in habitu et in incessu. Eccli. XIX, 27: amictus corporis et risus dentium et ingressus hominis, enuntiant de illo. Quidam tamen inculpantur Is. III, 16 de hoc quod composito gradu incedebant, quia illa compositio excedebat modum communem hominum, inter quos conversabantur.
1:31
Tertio, ponit omissionem quantum ad pares ad quos debemus habere, primo, affectum in corde; contra quod dicit sine affectione. Prov. XII, 10: viscera impiorum crudelia. II Tim. III, 2: erunt homines seipsos amantes, scilicet et non alios. Secundo, debet homo eis exhibere socialem conversationem; contra quod subdit absque foedere, quo scilicet aliis socialiter non convivunt. Iud. XVIII, 27 s. Percusserunt eos in ore gladii eo quod cum nullo hominum haberent quicquam societatis et negotii. Eccle. IV, 10: vae soli quoniam cum ceciderit, et cetera. Quarto, quantum ad inferiores, subdit sine misericordia, quam debemus miseris exhibere. Iac. II, 13: iudicium sine misericordia fiet illi qui non facit misericordiam, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit qui cum iustitiam, ostendit eos esse obnoxios irae, sive vindictae divinae. Circa quod tria consideranda sunt: primo, naturalis eorum affectus quia, cum cognoscerent Deum iustum et omnes alias perfectiones habentem, non crediderunt quod pro peccatis poenam inferret. Soph. I, 12: dicunt in cordibus suis: non faciet dominus male.
1:32
Et hoc est quod dicit qui cum iustitiam Dei cognovissent, non intellexerunt. Secundo poena peccatis eorum debita, cum dicit digni sunt morte. Infra c. VI, 23: stipendia peccati mors est. Dignum est enim quod anima, quae deserit Deum, a corpore suo deseratur per mortem corporalem, et finaliter deseratur a Deo per mortem aeternam, de qua dicitur in Ps. XXXIII, 22: mors peccatorum pessima, et, Apoc. XX, 6: in his mors secunda non habebit potestatem. Tertio considerandum est quibus talis poena debetur. Et, primo, his qui talia agunt, scilicet praedicta peccata, secundum illud Ps. V, 7: odisti omnes qui operantur iniquitatem, perdes omnes qui loquuntur mendacium. Et non solum illis qui faciunt sed etiam his qui consentiunt facientibus. Et hoc dupliciter. Uno modo directe, vel laudando peccatum, secundum illud Ps. IX, 24: laudatur peccator in desideriis animae suae, vel etiam praebendo consilium et favorem, secundum illud II Par. XIX, 2: impio praebes auxilium. Alio modo indirecte, quando non reprehendit aut impedit quocumque modo, si potest, et praecipue si ex officio incumbat, sicut peccata filiorum imputantur Heli, sicut patet I Reg. III, 13. Haec autem specialiter apostolus dicit propter quosdam sapientes gentilium, qui, et si idola non colebant, tamen colentibus non resistebant.
1:1
Paulus. Nomen suum epistolae praefigit Apostolus more illius saeculi, potissimum Romano: tum ut additis epithetis, cujusmodisunt, servus etApostolus Christi, conditionem suam atque officium statim in fronte epistolae praetendat iis ad quos scribit. Hunc autem morem observat et in caeteris epistolis, excepta ea, quae scripta est ad Hebraeos. Quod quare in ea factum non sit, illic ratio vestigabitur.
Servus Jesu Christi. Jesus (quod Hebraice scribitur yVi^'^) pvoprium nomen est illius hominis, qui ex Maria virgine natus idem est filius Dei. Quod nomen vocatum est ab angelo priusquam in utero conciperetur, Luc. 2., dicente videlicet ad Joseph virum Mariae: Vocabis nomen ejus Jesum: id est, Graece, acDTf^pa; Latine, Salvatorem. Ipse enim salvum faciet populum suum a peccatis eorum. Matth. 1. Et non est in alio aliquo salus. Nec enim aliud nomen est sub coelo datum hominibus, in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri. Actor. 4. Idem homo dignitatis nomine Christus vocatur. Nam qui Hebraice n''^*^ ^"'^^ schin denso (propter quod a Joanne cap. 1. et 4. Evangelii iizojiaz scribitur, sigma geminato), Graece ypioxbc, dicitur, alias ■rjAsip,jiev&(; ^ unctus Latine. Quo nomine quum alii multi tempore veteris legis honorati fuerint, ut reges, sacerdotes, prophetae; quod oleo materiali ad haec olficia soleant inungi: proprie tamen ac perpetua consuetudine scripturae novi testamenti Jesus Dominus significatur; ille nimirum homo, qui propter unionem in se divinae naturae cum humana, Spiritu sancto unctus est invisibiliter, ita ut simul esset, ac prae omnibus aliis, et rex, et sacerdos, et propheta, donisque gi-atuitis ad haec officia pertinentibus instructissimus. Unde et in eo vocabulo solet intelligi hypostasis, in quam duae naturae, divina et humana, conveniunt. Illud obiter adjicio, Graecos haec duo sacra nomina breviate scribere solere cum vu-gula superducta, in hunc modum, Ify^, XPC, vel literis majusculis IH~1, XV~^j atque idem postea servatis Graecis characteribus fecisse Latinos. Hinc factum, ut in hodiernum usque diem Latini lileris revera Graecis, quas imperiti Romanas putant, eadem nomina pingant hoc modo: IH~S, XP^S. Quod moneo, non ut scriptura mutetur, sed ut ejus origo noscatur. Porro servum Jesu Christi se vocat apostolus, vel generali ratione redemptionis nostrae per Christum, qui ob id in symbolo fidei et per omnem novi testamenti scripturam Dominus noster vocatur: vel potius ratione speciali propter ministerium verbi, in quo serviebat Christo Domino. Quam servitutem significat quum dicit de Timotheo, Philip. 2. Sicut patri filius mecum servivit in evangelio. Unde et ejusdem epistolae initio Timotheum sibi in hoc genere servitutis adjungit: Paulus et Timotheus servi Jesu Christi. Hujusmodi porro ministerium maxime erat apostolatus, de quo sequitur.
Vocatus Apostolus, id est, vocatione apostolus. Nam vocatus in Graeco non participimii, sed nomen est, xAr^zoc,: ac si dicat vocatium aut vocatitium. Per hoc autem significat se non usurpasse sibi munus aut nomen apostoli: sed ad id vocatum fuisse a Christo, et quidem vocatione immediata, quemadmodum et caeteri vocati erant, de quibus dicitur Marc. 3. Vocavit ad se quos voluit ipse. De vocatione Pauli ad Apostolatum, quando et quomodo contigerit, legenda est historia Actor. 9. 11. et 13. et consulendi commentarii super eo, quod scribit ipse ad Galat. 1. se e^angelium suum non ab homine accepisse, neque didicisse, sed per revelationem Jesu Christi.
Apostolus, si solum nominis etymon spectemus, legatum seu nuncium in genere significat, id est, eum qui mittitur cum mandatis, ut accipitur Joan. 13. Neque apostolus major est eo qui misit illum. Verum i;su scripturae s. soli illi dicuntur Apostoli, qui tanquam legati missi sunt a Christo Domino ad praedicandum evangelium, accepta ab eo omni potestate, quae ad fundandas et regendas ecclesias pertineret. Tales fuere duodecim illi, quos Dominus ex omnibus discipulis suis electos, apostobis nominavit Luc. 6. Non autem illi sive septuaginta secundum Graecos codices, sive septuaginta duo secundum Latinos; tametsi ipsi etiam missi ad evangelmm praedicandum Luc. 10. Talis item Matthias in locum Judae proditoris post Domini in coelos ascensionem subrogatus. Tales etiam Paulus et Barnabas divinitus ad opus apostolicum designati Actor. 13. Quod nomen deinde ad paucos alios extensum, ut ad Silam, 'Jimotheum, Lucam, Marcum, Andronicum et Juniam, qui partim in sacris literis, partim in officiis divinis Apostolorum vocabulo honorantur: licet perfecta nominis apostolici ratio in eos haud omnino quadret. Etenim non omnes EvangelisLas, nec omnes Pastores et Doctores esse Apostolos, si proprie de Apostolis loquendum sit, praeter id quod jam dixi de septuaginta discipulis, ostendit etiam illud Ephes. 4. Et ipse dedit quosdam quidem Apostolos, alios vero Evangelistas, alios autem Pastores et Doctores. Attamen etiam 70. discipulos generali vocabulo Apostolorum honoratos fuisse, probat illud 1 Cor. 15. Deinde Apostolis omnibus, qua parte 70. discipulos comprehendi valde probabile est: ut ibi docebimus. Erant autem praeterea qui dicebantur apostoli ecclesiarum, id est, legati ab ecclesiis missi, quorum mentio 2 Cor. 9. Quo sensu Epaphroditus Philippensium Apostolus vocari videtur. Phil. 2.
Segregatus in Evangelium Dei. Id est peculiariter delectus ad praedicandum Dei Evangelium. Delectus, inquam, a Spiritu sancto: qui responsum hujusmodi dedit Ecclesiae Antiochenae, Actor. 13. Segregate Imihi Saulum et Barnabam in opus ad quod assumpsi eos. Verum homines segregant in tempore, Deus autem ab aeterno. Id quod Hieronymus significavit epist. 15. ad Marcellam, dicens, Deum ante constitutionem mundi separasse Pauhim in evangelium filii sui. Quo pertinet, quod sanctus Ambrosius non segregatum, sed praedestinatum legit, citans hunc locum libr. de incarnationis Dom. sacramento, c. 6. Evangelium Graecis l)onum laetumque nuncium significat: et usurpatur interdum etiam apud Latinos pro mercede, quae datur laetum adferenti nuncium. Qua significatione legitur etiam apud LXX. 2 Reg. 4. Davide dicente de eo, qui Saulis mortem ipsi nunciaverat: Cui oportebat me dare evangelia. Verum usu Scripturae Evangelicae et Apostolicae contrahitur ad significandum laetissimum illud nuncium, et omni acceptione dignum, de redemptione et salute generis humani per Christum: quo tamen simul comprehenditur annunciatio totius legis Christianae. Sic enim Apostolis, quando missi sunt ad praedicandum Evangelium omni creaturae, dictum est a Domino Matth. ult. Docentes eos servare omnia quaecumque mandavi vobis. Accipitur et pro libro continente gesta Christi Salvatoris, quo modo quatuor esse dicuntur evangelia: sed ea acceptio non est hujus loci. Porro evangelium Dei dicitur, tanquam mittentis. Sentit enim se missum a Deo apostolum cum evangelio, sicut legatus a principe cum mandatis mitti dicitur. Intelligit autem Deum Patrem, ut probant sequentia.
1:2
2. Quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos in scripturis sanctis. Facit hoc ad evangelii commendationem et confirmationem, quod jam olim a Deo per prophetas ab ipso inspiratos, quorum oracula literis consignata haberentur, promissum esset; ne videretur res nova et commentitia. Scripturae sanctae xax z^oyj^v dicuntur scripturae divinitus inspiratae, id est verbum Dei scriptum, quo nihil sanctius est. In his promisit, quatenus in his scriptae, et, ut dixi, consignatae sunt ejus promissiones.
1:3
De filio suo. Refertur haec pars vel ad evangeliwn Dei, ut hac parte significetur evangelii materia, quod vult Cajetanus: vel ad verbum promiserat. Nam Christum Dei filium a Patre fuisse promissum, universa novi testamenti scriptura loquitur.
3. Qui factus est ei ex semine David secundum carnem. Factus Valla putius vertendum putat, genitus. Idque secutus est Erasmus. At minus bene. Nam Graece est ysvojiilvou^ quod non significat genitum, sed factum: licet etiam genita comprehendat. Idem verbum Gal. 4. Factum ex muliere, factum sub lege. Nec aliter eo loco Erasmus. Pronomen ei neque in Graeco est, neque in Sjriaco, sed neque in omnibus Latinis. Tertullianus quoque locum hunc allegans lib. adversus Praxeam c. 27. partem hanc non addit, ut nec Ambrosius loco ante citato. Ac sententiae videtur etiam obstare: vult enim Apostolus eum qui ab aeterno est filius Dei, in tempore factum esse ac genitum secundum carnem, id est, secundum humanam naturam, ex semine et posteritate David. Hoc autem modo non est genitus patri Deo, sed matri homini: quia secundum naturam creatam non est filius Dei, sed filius hominis. Synecdochice per cavnem humana natura significata est: ideo fortasse- quod non anima, sed sola caro sit ex traduce. Caeterum ex hoc loco bene docet Augustinus lib. 2. de consensu Evang. c 1. B. Virginem Mariam ex stirpe David genus duxisse, cum genealogia Christi, quam Matthaeus contexuit, tantum id de Josepho directe probet. Quanquam sunt et alia loca satis multa, quae directe id probant de Christo; ut Luc. 1. angelo dicente: Dabit ei Dominus Deus sedem David jyatris ejus, et ubicumque ei legimus acclamatum, etiam a pueris, ^Uo David Matth. 21. Erat enim res notoria, quam nec adversarii ejus in dubium revocabant.
1:4
4. Qui praedestinatus est filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis ex resurrectione mortuorum Jesu Christi Domini nostri. Redit ad exponendam divinam Jesu Christi naturam. Quomodo Christus dicatur praedestinatus filius Dei, cum fuerit Dei filius ab aeterno, ad id autem, quod ab aeterno fuit, nulla sit praedestinatin, sed ad sola futura: disputant Theologi in 3. Sent. dist. 7. ac recte docent, Christum dici posse praedestinatum filium Dei, quatenus ab aeterno decretum ac praeordinatum est a Deo, ut ia tempore hic homo, qui est Christus, esset filius Dei. Quamvis enim propter unitatem personae conti'a Nestorium nobis certissime tenendum sit, hunc hominem semper et ab aeterno fuisse Dei filium; non tamen ab aeterno verum fuit dicere, hic homo est filius Dei. Nam unio Verbi cum carne facta est in tempore. Hoc igitur, quod in tempore factum est, effectus fuit divinae praedestinationis, ideoque praedestinatum recte dicitur. Et in hunc sensum plerique commentatores Latini interpretantur haec Pauli verba: Qui praedestinatus est filius Dei. Nec diversum est quod Thomas dicit, praedestinationem hinc attribui personae Christi, prout subsistit in humana natura. Unde et Apostolus, inquit, prius filium Dei incarnatum esse praemiserat, et postea ei praedestinationem attribuit, ut intelligatur praedestinatus esse, secundum quod factus est ex semine David secundum carnem. Haec ille post longam disquisitionem sensus Paulini, In quam sententiam conveniunt et ea, quae de Christi praedestinatione, tanquam praeclarissimo nostrae praedestinationis exemplari, disserit Aug. lib. de praedest. sanct. c. 15. Et tract. 104. super Joannem. Quod vero nonnulli praedestinatum interpretantur praedemonstratum, id est, prae omnibus aliis, qui filii Dei dicuntur, declaratum filium Dei, quum ipse sit naturalis Dei filivis, caeteri tantum per adoptionem: id quamvis coactum mihi videatur, ad sensum tamen Graecorum appropinquat. Sciendum est enim Graecam vocem optaOsvTO^^ quae legitur hoc loco, non significare praedestinatum, ant praedefinitum, sed simpliciter definitum, determinatum, decretum. Ruffinus Origenis interpres destinatum vertit: addens inter alia etiam haec de suo: Quamvis enim in Latitiis exemplaribus praedestinatus soleat inveniri: tamen quod irterpretatio?iis veritas habet, destinatus scriptum est, non praedestinatus. Sic ille. Tertullianus quoque definitum legit seu vertit loco superius citato. Sumitur autem interdum vox Graeca pro eo, quod est declaratum, seu confirmatum. Ita accepit hoc loco Syrus interpres, dum vertit agnitum. Eadem significatione acceperunt Chrysostomus et caeteri post eum Graeci tractatores. Qui quidem verba Apostoli ad hunc modum exponunt: Idem ille, qui factais est ex semine^ David secundum carnem, quem proinde constat verum hominem fuisse; etiam declaratus est et certissimis augumentis comprobatus esse filius Dei. Ea argumenta sequuntur. Primum, m virtute, id est, per potentiam miraculorum. Deinde, secundum spiritum sanctificationis, sive, ut in Graeco est, dyicoauvTyC sanctitatis, id est, per Spiritum sanctum, quem videlicet in se credentibus per evidentia signa multipliciter impertitus est: primum Apostolis in die Pentecostes, deinde et aliis fidelibus. Nam illud secundum spiritum interdum idem valere, quod, per spiritum, manifestum est ex 1 Cor. 12, ubi quod dixerat per Spiritum, ita repetit, secundum eundem Spiritum. Tertio: Ex resurrectione mortuorum, sive a mol-tuis. Nempe quia semetipsum, sicut praedixerat, a morte ad vitam suscitavit. Haec Graecorum expositio satis expedita et facilis est, et probe quadrat instituto Pauli. Deinde veram ac germanam esse id arguit, quod et alibi Paulus eadem haec argumenta proferat, quibus declarata sit et confirmata fidei veritas, ut 1 Cor. 2. Praedicatio mea apud vos in ostensione Spiritus et virtutis. Gal. 3. Qui tribuit vobis Spiritum, et operatur virtutes in vobis. 1 Thessal. 1. Evangelium nostrum non fuit ad vos in sermone tantum, sed in virtute et in Spiritu sancto. Hebr. 2. Quae salus in nos confirmata est, contestante Deo signis et portentis, et variis virtutibus, et Spiritus sancti distributionibus. Item hujus epistolae c. 15. In virtute signorum et prodigiorum, in virtute Spiritus sancti. Resurrectionem vero Christi pro argumento veritatis Evangelii ab eo traditi passim adferunt Apostoli, nominatim Petnis Act. 2. omnium nomine dicens: Hunc Jesum resuscitavit Deus, cujus omnes nos testes sumus. Quod vero quidam ex resurrectione mortuorum interpretantur a resurrectione, id est, post resurrectionem Christi a morte, ut tempus significetur, ex quo ceperit Christus declarari filius Dei, non probo: quod et peregrina expositio sit, et Graeco textui minus respondeat. Nam tempori significando in scriptura Graeca novi testamenti non solet servire praeposito e^, quae hoc loco habetur, sed «710, Vide Matth. 9. 15. 17. 22. et Joan. 19. in quibus locis latine ex illa hora, ex illa die. Item Luc. 1. 5. 7. 12. et 2 Cor. 5. ubi Latine ex hoc, ex quo. Porro Latinorum interpretatio praeter eam difiicultatem, quam parit hic sermo, Christum praedestinatum esse Filium Dei (quod certe in scripturis alibi non legitur), etiam in explicanda syntaxi et sensu verborum sequentium: In virtute, secundum spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, multum laborat, nec tamen lectoris animo satisfacit. Quocirca nec Imc adscribendam putavi. Petat qui volet ex aliorum commentariis. Sed contra Graecorum expositionem unus adfertur scrupulus. Ajuut enim Graecum verbum opiZ^iv, etsi significet interdum ostendere seu declarare, nusquam tamen in sacris literis ea significatione reperiri; sed semper accipi pro eo, quod est finire seu definire, statuere seu constituere, ut Act. 2. Hu7ic definito consilio et praescientia Dei traditum. Et 10. Qui constitutus est a Deo judex vivorum et mortuorum. Et 17. Definiens statuta tempora. Cui objectioni breviter responderi potest, nec quidem hoc loco eam vocem aliter accipi a Graecis, nisi quod definitionem referunt non ad rem, sed ad hominum notitiam; ut is qui factus est homo, dicatur definitus filius Dei per miracula, et caetera quae dicta sunl:, quia definite certoque cognitus, et ut ita dicam, certificatus. Hoc enim sensu Theodoretus hanc rem dilucide et bene explicat. Neque vero alienum est a consuetudine v^scripturae, ixt aliquid factum dicatur tunc quando innotuit. Sic enim etiam de filio Dei dicitur Heb. 1. Tanto melior angelis effectus. Deinde et regeritur objectio. Nam nec usquam in scripturis idem verbum opiCstv significat praedestinare [ nec vero interpres usquam alibi sic vertit: sed ubicumque extra hunc lccum praedestinare legimus, Cxraece est TipoopiCs^v. Denique non solum Origenes, sive in ejus commentario vertendo RufEnus, significatione distinguit haec duo opiQtiv et T^pooptCstv: verum etiam S. Hieronymus horum discrimen tradit in Comment. epist. ad Ephes. exponens illud cap. 1. Qui jyraedestinavit nos in adoptionem filiorum.
Resurrectionem mortuorum interpretati sumus resurrectionem a mortuis, vel ex mortuis. Quae phrasis Hebraea est in scripturis usitatissima, ut a mortuis resurgere dicantur qui a morte redeunt ad vitam. Fateor sane resurrectionem mortuorum alibi nusquam inveniri positam pro resurrectione a mortuis, sed semper accipi proprie pro resurrectione eorum qui mortui erant. Unde quidam resurrectionem mortuorum hic intelligunt Christi et aliorum, quos ille a morte suscitavit. Verum arbitror idcirco Paulum hoc loco dixisse mortuorum, et n(.n ex mortuis, quum tamen non aliud dicere vellet, ne ejusdem praepositionis repetitione sermonem redderet inconcinnum, dicendo 16 avaaxaocwr ix >^B-/,r)^\i, ex resurrectione ex mortuis. Erasmus obscuritatem ita conatus est tollere: Ex eo quod ressurrexit a mortuis. Jam quod sequitur Jesu Christi Domini nostri. Plerique tam Cxraeci quam Latini nectunt cum eo, quod proxime praecedit, atque hunc sensum faciunt, ex resurrectione Jesu Christi Domini nostri a mortuis, quomodo Petrus locutus est 1. Epist. 1. Per resurrectionem Jesu Christi ex mortuis. Potest tamen per hyperbaton (schema Paulo non infrequens) referri ad illud remotius, de filio suo, qui factus est ex semine David, qui praedestinatus est filius Dei. Nec enim obstat diversus casus in nostra versione. Nam haec omnia in Graeco ejusdem casus sunt, genitivi; et Latine per ablativum reddi poterant, hoc modo: De filio suo facto ex semine David, declarato filio Dei Jesu Christo Domino nostro. Haec constructio Syriacae versioni consentanea est. Eandem Valla, Stapulensis, Cajetanus et plures alii probant; non abnuente Erasmo: ut quidem etiam mihi probabilis videtur. Juxta quam hic demum exprimit Apostolus nomen proprium ejus, de quo loqui ceperat, dicens, de filio suo, addito secundum morem suum nomine potestatis quum ait.■* Domino nostro, de quo paulo post dicemus.
1:5
5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et apostolatum. Supra se dixit vocatum Apostolum. Nunc autorem vocationis exprimit, dicens se apostolatum accepisse per Christum, id est, Christo vocante atque mandante. Accepimus, id est, accepi. Sic autem loquitur vel modestiae causa (nam species arrogantiae est rem magnam sibi singulariter adscribere), vel quod decor sermonis id postulet. Particula et expositive sumitur, nam gratiam appellat ipsum apostolatum, sicut et Eph. 3. cum ait: 3Iihi omnium sanctorum minimo data est gratia haec etc. Itaque sensus est: A quo Jesu Christo collatum mihi est gratuitum hoc beneficium, quod est Apostolatus, id est, munus ac dignitas apostolica. Neque enim apostolatus nomine nudam functionem apostolici muneris intelligere debemus, ut vult Erasmus; sed ipsam hujusmodi functionis exercendae potestatem cum dignitate conjunctam: quomodo diserte apostolatum exponunt Origenes et Chrysostomus. Nam et episcopatus nomine in eo quod dicitur Psab 108. Episcopotum ejus accipiat cdter, ccmstat tam ex Graeco vocabub), quo usi sunt interpretes LXX quam ex Hebraeo, potestatem seu praefecturam, quae cum dignitate geritur, significari.
Ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus. Ad obediendum fidei, Graece: ad obedientiam fidei. Fidem metonymice posuit pro doctrina fidei: quemadmodum et Lucas Act. 6. dicens: Multa turba sacerdotum obediebat fidei. Sensus: Ut gentes ubique recipiant evangelii doctrinam, credant evangelio. Hanc vocat obedientiam; quia quamvis fides sit in intellectu, tamen ad eam suscipiendam necessaria est obedientia, et humilis submissio voluntatis. Sic 2 Cor. 10. loquens de officiis apostolatus sui, dicit se in captivitatem redigere omnem intellectumin obsequium {Graece UTraxoTjv), obedientiam Christi. Potest illud, in omnibus gentibus, etiam non incommode construi cum apostolatu: quod fecit Sjrus interpres. Nam apostolatum Paulus accepit non ad unum aliquem populum, sed ad omnes gentes. Quanquam praepositio Graeca Iv priorem sensum magis optat.
Pro nomine ejus. Haec pars omnino referenda est ad apostolatum, ut sensus sit: Accepi legationem banc obeundam nomine et vice Christi, cujus sum Apostolus: secundum illud 2 Cor. 6. Pro Christo legatione fungimur. Quo loco eadem est praepositio iJTtsp; nec aliter bie interpretanda, quod fecit Erasmus, dum vertit, sub ipsius nomine.
1:6
6. In quibus estis et vos vocati Jesu Christi. Id est, in quarum gentium numero etiam vos estis, utpote jam vocati Jesu Christi, hoc est gratuita Dei vocatione facti fideles Jesu Christi. Nam et hoc loco vocati nomen * est, non participium. Intelligitur vocatio non externa et communis illa, quae in multis frustratur, de qua dicitur in evangelio Matth. 20. Multi vocati, sed qua efficaciter homines vocantur ad fidem, sanctitatem, salutem: quae est vocatio secundum propositum seu praedestinationem divinam: quomodo vocem hanc et in pat-te sequente, et cap. 8. hujus epistolae, et passim alibi Paulus usurpat.
1:7
7. Omnibus qui sunt Romae. Potest etiam verti, omnibus qui estis Romae: quemadmodum vertit Erasmus non male, quia praecessit: in quibus estis et vos.
Dilectis Dei, vocatis sanctis. Subaudi, scribit hanc epistolam. Nam sermo hucusque suspensus hic absolvitur. Dilectis et vocatis rursus in Graeco nomina sunt, non participia, ayaTiYjToTc:^ xXtjtoTi^. Sensus est: Amicis Dei, ac gratuitae vocationis ejus beneficio sanctis. Graeca vox ayaTiTyTOg quam vim habeat, infra commodius explicabitur ad illud cap. 11. Carissimi propter patres. Id solum hic moneo, nostrum interpretem tribus modis eam vocem reddere Latine, dilectum, carissimum, dilectissimum: ne quis in his distinguendis inaniter laboret. Sanctos autem, hoc est vera praeditos sanctitate vocat Romanos fideles, non quia omnes et singuli sancti erant, sed quod Ecclesia Romana ad quam scribit, ut et alia quaecumque particularis ecclesia, sit sanctorum coetus et congregatio. Nam sancti in unaquaque ecclesia sunt praecipua ejus membra. Propter quod non solum ecclesia universalis, verum etiam quaeHbet particularis vere sancta dici potest. Quare non est necesse (quod quidam faciunt) sanctos hoc loco et aliis similibus interpretari eos, qui per baptismum semel sanctificati sunt, etiamsi ab illa sanctitate jam exciderint. Hoc enim pacto sancti dicerentur, vel Romani vel alii, etiamsi nuUus inter eos vere sanctus, id est, justus esset: imo sancta diceretur universalis ecclesia, tametsi nullus in ea vera sanctitate et justitia praeditus esset. Quod est omnino absurdum.
Gratia vobis et pax. Post epigraphen solemni more exorditur epistolam a sabitatione, qua bene precatur iis ad quos scribit. Est autem haec apustolica per epistolas salutandi formula; qua et Petrus in utraque epistobi, et Joannes in secunda et Judas usi sunt. Verbum quod hic desideratur, suppleri potest ex jam dictis apostoLirum Petri et Judae epistolis: id autem est, multiplicetur, sive quod idem est, adimpleatur. Est enim idem in Graeco vocabulum 7:Xir]^uv&etifj. Quod autem verbum addatur in secunda Joannis, suo loco videndum. Legitur et apud Danielem cap. 6. in edicto Darii regis haec salutatio: Pax vobis multiplicetur. Porro dictiones haec gratia et pax peculiarem habent usum in sacris literis. Et quamvis gratia, Graece y,0-^K, nonnunquam sonet favorem, ut Luc. 1. Invenisti gratiam apud Deum: plerumque tamen significat gratuitum Dei beneficium, conducens ad aeternam hominis salutem, ut sunt fides, spes, charitas, remissio peccatorum, justificatio, virtutes atque earum augmenta, bonorum operum perseverantia, et ipsa vita aeterna; quae omnia sunt dona a gratia prioris modi, id est, a favore seu benevolentia Dei profecta: atque eadem omnia recte comprehenduntur nomine gratiae novi testamenti. Pax Hebraeis interdum successum et prosperitatem significat, ut Psalm. 118. Pax multa diligentibus legem tuam, et non est illis scandalum. Et Jerem. 29. Quaerite pacem civitatis, ad quam transmigrare vos feci, et orate pro ea ad Dominum: quia in pace illius erit pax vobis. Interdum simpliciter salutem, ut 2 Reg. 18. Estne pax puero Absalom? id est, estne salvus? Nam significatio successus et prosperitatis ibi locum non habet. Utuntur autem Hebraei, cum sahitant quempiam, ut: pax tibi, sive pax tecum. Ita David per nuncios Nabal 1 Reg. 25. Sit fratribus meis et tibi pax, et domui tuae pax, et omnibus quaecumque habes, sit pax. Pro quo Graeci dicunt X^^P^- Latini, ave, salve. Estque verosimile angelum Hebraea lingua salutantem beatam virginem Luc. 1., et mulieres Matth. ult. Hebraico more dixisse: Pax tecum; Pax vobiscum, ubi evangelista Graece scripsit XOtTps, ^^'P^'^^- ^^'^- Avete. Sic enim et Christus suos discipulos salutasse legitur Luc. 24. et Joan. 20. dicens: Pax vobis: adeoque praecepit, ut ea Balutandi forma uterentur. Dicite, inquit, pax huic domui. Luc. 10. Verum quia Chrisus pacem suis optavit et dedit, non eam quae in successu rerum temporalium intelligitur, sed quae in bonis vere salutaribus consistit (unde et Joan. 14. cum dixisset: Pacem relinquo vobis, pacem meam do vobis; adjecit: Non quomodo mundus dat, ego do vobis), idcirco consentaneum est hanc apostolicam salutationem similiter interpretari de pace, quae sit hominibus in Deo, et cum Deo. Sive igitur pacis nomine salutem accipiamus, sive prosperum rerum successum, sive (quomodo solet a nostris definiri) quietam et securam bonorum possessionem: ea bona sunt hic intelligenda, quae ad vitam conducunt aeternam, id est, spiritualia, quae gratiae nomine supra dixunus comprehendi, non autem temporalja, nisi quatenus illuc etiam provehant. Itaque pax intelligitur hominum in iis bonis quae per gratiam significantur, et, ut semel dicam, in Deo solida et imperturbata quies atque tranquillitas. Quod ergo nonnulli pacem interpretantur hoc loco reconciliationem cum Deo, qua fit, ut qui per peccata prius erant inimici ac gehennae obnoxii, remissione peccatorum accepta, animum gerant a perturbationibus ac teiToribus, quos mala conscientia adferebat, liberum atque pacatum; de qua pace dicitur infra cap. 5. Justificati ex fide pacem habemus ad Deum: ii non integre, sed solum ex parte vim hujus vocis, ut a Christo et Apostolis ejus iu salutationibus usurpata est, exposuerunt. Porro multiplicatur iis gratia et pax, quibus memorata gratiae et pacis dona accumulantur et augentur in dies.
A Deo Patre nostro et Domino Jesu Christo. Potest ex Graeco textu, si nuda ejus verba consideremus, etiam sic verti: A Deo patre nostro et Domini Jesu Christi. Sed multo melius se habet nostra versio, quae et aliorum interpretum est; et omnino retinenda. Neque enim Apostolus prius diceret Deum patrem nostrum, et deinde patrem Jesu Chi-istij sed contra potius: quomodo ipse Dominus apud Joan. 20. Ascendo ad patrem meum et patrem vestrum. Estque haec apostolica salutandi formula, quam in omnibus ejus epistolis, una aut altera dempta, videre est; qua gratiam precatur iis ad quos scribit, a Deo patre, et Christo Domino. Patre nostro, id est, cujus nos filii sumus per gratiam, a quo proinde gi-atiarum et pacis accessionem merito vobis precor. Quod sequitur, et Domino Jesu Christo, quidam sic exponunt: a Domino Jesu Christo ut homine: quippe qui nobis illa bona per suam crucem promeruit. Sensus quidem verissimus: sed sciendum est ad meritum Christi significandum Paulum, imo Apostolos dicere solere, in Christo, vel per Christum; ut in ea parte quae hic proxime sequitur. Itaque magis apparet hunc esse sensum: A Christo autore et largitore, aeque ut a Deo patre. Unde Graeci commentatores et Cjrilhis Hb. 12. thesauri cap. 1. ex his Apostoli verbis ostendunt Christi divinitatem et cum patre aequalitatem. Verum objicit Arianus: Si Christus aequaliter esset Deus cum patre, non distingueret Apostolus sermonem suum, ut patrem quidem Deum vocaret, Christum autem Dominum. Cui respondeo: Non magis esse consequens ex apostolico sermone, Christum non esse Deum; quam, patrem non esse Dominum. Sicut enim alterum de filio tacet, ita et alterum de patre. Quod si de patre tacetur alterum, sine ejus praejudicio; cur non et alterum de filio? Tantum reddenda ratio, cur Domini vocabulum proprie Christo tribuat. Ea nimirum est, quia Christus in assumpta carae pretio sui sanguinis nos e servitute diaboli redemit, sibique vendicavit in populum peculiarem; cujus prohide ipse, quatenus homo, Dominus pleno jure effectus sit. Hinc passim in Apostolicis literis honoris causa Dominus appellatur. Est igitur in verbis Apostoli insinuatio quaedam utriusque naturae in Christo: divinae quidem, cum dicit, a Christo; sicut dictum erat, a Patre: humanae autem, in vocabulo Domini, juxta rationem assignatam. Vide quae commentabimur ad illud Eph. 4. Vnus Dominus, unus Deus.
1:8
8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Jesum Christum pro omnibus vobis, Graece, super, aut: de omnibus vobis, id est, ob beneficia vobis unpensa. Notandum in Paulo Apostolo, quod in omnibus fere suis epistolis salutationi statim subjungit gratiarum actionem pro beneficiis a Deo collatis in eos ad quos scribit. Quod et Petrus facit in 1. epist. Faciunt autem hoc, tum ut gratiam Dei in omnibus commendent (nam gratiarum actio gratiae confessio est et commendatio), tum quia grata i-ecordatio bonorum acceptorum dignos efficit ad impetrandum ampliora. Illud per Jesum Christum, vel ad ipsam gratiarum actionem lefertur, vel potius ad id quod in gratiarum actione continetur, id est, ad beneficia pro quibus gratias agit, quale est illud quod subjungit:
Quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo. Annuntiatur, id est, divulgatur. In universo mundo, hyperbole est, tam vulgo, quam sacrae Scripturae frequentata. Nam sensus est: fama fidei vestrae multum lateque per varias mundi partes diffunditur. Etenim Romani jam ante fidem Christi susceperant, idque Petro Apostolo praedicante: quemadmodum hoc loco testatur Chrysostomus. Caeterum non tam propter annuntiationem fidei, quam propter ipsam fidem annuntiatam gratias Deo se agere significat Apostohis. Sic enim in aliis epistolis pro fide, caritate, bonis operibus et profectu pietatis eoriun, ad quos scribit, Deo gratias agit: tametsi ipsa quoque annuntiatio et celebratio fidei beneficium Dei erat gratiarum actione dignum. Itaque sensus est: Gratias ago Deo pro fide vestra, quae tanta est, ut fama ejus universum mi:ndum pervagetur. Hinc quoque disce, fidem esse donum Dei per Christum; quod etiam ex hoc loco docet Prosper contra coll. cap. 36. et lib. 1. de voc. gent. cap. 23.
1:9
9. Testis enim mihi est Deus. Graece non mihi^ sed meus. Propter quod negat Cajetanus Paulum hic jurare, eo quod non invocationem, sed narrationem sonet, Deus est testis meus. Sed melius S. Ihomas aliique Patres in commentariis, et S. Aug. lib. 1. de serm. Domini in monte invocationem divini testimonii, et proinde juramentum hic agnoscunt, Neque enim interest, sive dicatur meus, sive mihi Deus est testis, aut sit testis: modo sit voluntas adhibendi Deum testem. Eodem prorsus modo loquitur Paukis Philip. 1. Sed nec ibi quisquam, ne Cajetanus quidem, negat eum jurasse. Jurat ergo Paulus non temere, nec sine justa necessitate (quod sohmi juramentum Christus prohibet Matth. 5. De quo vide commentarium nostrum Jacob. 5.): sed quod sciret, ad stabiliendam suae praedicationi fidem et autoritatem plurimum referre, si Christiani, qui Romae erant, quorum muhi Judaei, Paulo alioqui parum aequi, de ipsius pia solicitudine, quam erga eos gerebat, bene essent persuasi. Refertur enim hoc juramentum ad illud sequens: Quod sine intermissione memoriam vestri facio etc.
Cui servio in spiritu meo, in Evangelio filii ejus. Cui servio, scilicet cultu divino, quem significat Graeca vox Aatpc''a in plerisque scripturae locis, et maxime in illo praecepto: Soli Deo servies. Similiter loquitur Act. 27. Astitit mihi Angelus Dei, cui deservio. Latinius diceretur, quem colo. In spiritu meo, id est, cultu intemo et spirituali, qui consistit in fide, spe et charitate; et non tantum cultu exteriori, ut faciunt carnales Judaei. Vel sic: In spiritu meo, id est, cum animi sincera promptitudine et alacritate. In Evangelio filii ejus, subaudi, anrunciando, praedicando, propagando. Vel sensus est: in negotio evangelii.
Quod sine intermissione memoriam vestri facio semper in orationibus meis. Sine intermissione, ad memoriam faciendam: semper, ad orationes referendum; sic enim etiam ad Tim. scribit 2. epist. 1. Gratias ago Deo, quod sine intermissione habeam tui memoriam in orationibus meis nocte ac die. Non solum ergo significat se, quoties oraret, Romanoram apud Deum meminisse, eosque Deo commendare, verum etiam juxta id, quod alibi praecipit 1 Thess. 5., semper orare. Sunt autem eadem Apostolo, semper, sine intermissione, nocte ac die. Porro semper orat, juxta Augustinum haeresi 57. qui nullo die intermittit certa orandi tempora. Aut, secundum alios, qui frequenter et quasi assidue orat, sive is certa et constituta habeat orandi tempora, sive non. Quae expositio simplicior est et verior. Nam Christus Luc. 18. dicens: Oportet semper orare: et Apostolus 1 Thess. 5. Sine intermissione orate, loquuntur ad omnes: nec tamen omnes tenentur ad certa orandi tempnra. Est igitur hyperbole, qua frequentia cum studio significatur: qualis Luc. 2. de Anna prophetissa, quae non discedebat de templo jejuniis et obsecrationibus serviens nocte ac die, et cap. 27. de Christi discipulis: Et erant semper in templo, laudantes et benedicentes Deum.
1:10
10. Obsecrans si quomodo tandem aliquando prosperum iter habeam in voluntate Dei veniendi ad vos. Haec congeries adverbiorum, si quomodo, tandem, aliquando, significat ardens desiderium ac votiun Pauli ad consequendum id quod scribit, hoc est, ad visendum Romanos. Iti voluntate Dei, id est, per voluntatem Dei, Deo volente. Soisus: Obsecrans Deum inter alia, ut juxta vehemens animi mei desiderium ipsi placeat iter meum quamprimum ad vos dirigere et prosperare. Unde sequitur:
1:11
11. Desidero enim videre vos, id est, vobis adesse. Ut aliquid impertiar vobis gratiae spiritualis. Graece, ut aliquod tradam donum vobis spirituale. Est enim)^a'pia^a, quod de iis donis accipi solet, quae dantur ad aliorum utilitatem; de quibus hujus epistolae c. 12. et 1 Cor. 12., tametsi potest etiam ad alia extendi. Causa tanti mei desiderii non alia est, inquit, quam ut supra ea, quae jam accepistis, aliquid adhuc donorum seu gratiarum spiritualium vobis per meum ministerium impertiar.
Ad confirmandos vos. Graece: ad confirmari vos, id est, quo fiat saltem ut confirmemini in donis acceptis.
1:12
12. Id est, simul consolari in vobis per eam quae invicem est fidem vestram atque meam. Consequenter vertendum erat: id est (Graece id autem est), ad simul consolandum; quia praecessit, ad confirmandos vos: nisi (quod quibusdam placet) haec pars ad verbum desidero referatur; desidero videre vos, id est, simul consolari in vobis. Verum multo meliore sensu refertur ad proxima. Mitigat enim Apostolus hac expositione et quasi corrigit, quod de confirmandis Romanis dixerat, verbumque confirmandi mutat in consolandi. Deinde sic loquitur tanquam ipse vicissim a Romanis fructum aliquem accepturus sit spiritualem. Quae omnia faciunt ad benevolentiam conciliandam. Sensus: Id volo, ut communem atque una vobiscum consolationem seu recreationem capiam ex mutua communicatione fidei vestrae et meae. Porro non est inepta expositio. Siquidem ipsa confirmatio fidei Romanorum futura erat Paulo, simul et illis, materia consolationis et gaudii. Sunt qui verbum Graecum aojjiTcapa- "KXribrivoii exponunt de mutua exhortatione. Nam et hanc significat. Ita sensus erit: ut mutua fidei communicatione invicem exhortemur. Quomodo dicit 1 Cor. 14. Potestis omnes per singulos prophetare, ut omnes discont et omnes exhortentur. Sensus non improbandus, quo declaratur insignis Pauli modestia: qui paratus sit etiam aliorum exhortationes audire, et ex iis fructum sibi speret. Obiter admoneo nonnullam esse in Graeco textu diversitatem. Nam plerique codices habent: xotj-co 5e saxi au|j,7iapaxXr;{^f;vat. Laurentius vero sie legit: touto dk st(; t6 ou|Ji7iapaxXrj&^vat^ juxta quam posteriorem lectionem non poterit omnino pars ista ad verbum desidero referri.
1:13
13, Nolo autem vos ignorare fratres, quia saepe proposui venire ad vos. Quia pro quod, Graece OTi, fere perpetuum nostro interpreti. Quod semel admonuisse sufiiciat. Excusat Apostolus, cur desiderio nondum satisfecerit, docens conati;m sibi non defuisse, sed facultatem. Id enim est quod sequitur:
(Et prohibitus sum usque adhuc.J Parenthetice legendum est. Et copulativa conjunctio ponitur pro adversativa, sed vel etsi. Prohibitus, id est, impeditus. De hoc impedimento, quale fuerit, habemus infra cap. 15., ubi commemorat Apostolus se praedicando in aliis regionibus Evangelio occupatum, eaque occupatum, plurimum impeditum fuisse, quominus adhuc Romanos inviseret.
Ut aliquem fructum habeam et in vobis, sicut et in caeteris gentibus. Conjunctionem et priori loco male quidam codices omittunt: habetur enim in Graecis et Syris et Latinis castigatioribus, nec non in textu com. Amb. Referenda est haec pars ad illud superius, proposui venire ad vos. Significat enim causam finalem desideratae suae profectionis ad illos, id est, fructum ex iis colligendum evangelii praedicatione, sicut jam collegerat ex aliis gentibus. De quo fructu Dominus Joan. 15. Elegi vos, inquit, et posui vos, ut eatis et fructum afferatis, et fructus vester maneat. Hic ergo fructus est fides et salus populorum. Hunc fructum Paulus suum vocat, dicens: ut aliquem fructum habeam: quia licet totus esset Domini, suo tamen ministerio coUigendum sperabat, ac Domini lucrum suum reputabat.
1:14
14. Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus et insipientibus debitor sum. Potsst sic verti: Graecis aeque ac barbaris, sapientibus aeque et insipientibus debitor' sum; velhocmodo: Tani Graecis quam barbaris, tam sapientibus quam insipientibus. Haec dicit, ne forte Romani cogitarent se neque barbaros esse, neque rudes et insipientes, qui Paulo doctore egerent. Graecorum nomine Romanos etiam, id est, Latinos, comprehendit. Nam caeteri omnes populi propter incultiorem sermonem barbari a Graecis et Romanis vocabantur. Sapientes intelligit eos, qui vulgo sapientes dicebantur, id est, saeculari pbilosopbia imbutos; insipientes vero qui ea sapientia carebant. Aut generaliter sapientes, doctos; insipientes, indoctos. Quibus omnibus Paulus se profitetur debitorem ex injuncto sibi munere apostolatus: debitorem, inquam, annunciandi et docendi Evangelii. Hanc enim doctrinam nec Graeci, nec Pbilosopbi perceperant.
1:15
15. Ita (quod in me) promptum est et vobis qui Romae estis evangelizare. Pro ita, multi codices babeut itaque, et Graece quidem est ouxin, sic, ita, sed hoc loco vim habet illationis et per itaque exponendum, ut sit sensus: Et ideo quantum in me est, modo cessent impedimenta, animi promptitudo mihi adest, id est, promptus et paratus sum etiam vobis Romanis coram evangelizare. Promptum, iipoi^ufxov _, id est promptitudo, Graecismus est, ut et sequenti cap. XpTfjaToy^ id est, benignitas. Particula, quod in me, Graece, xo xat s;j.e^ quadam antithesi respondet ei quod supra dixit: In voluntate Dei, quasi dicat: Ego quidem vebemeuter volo; modo ea sit etiam Dei voluntas. Evatigelizare, quod Graece dicitur ebayye/a^Csiv et coa-c^sAiQso^ai, idem est quod bonum ac laetum nuncium adferre. Quibus verbis Graecis in hac quidem significatione primum usi fuerunt LXX. interpretes, interdum generaliter, ut 2 Reg. 18., alias autem ac multo frequentius specialiter, ad significanda laetissima novi Testamenti promissa, ut Psal. 67. et Inde manavit horum verborum usus ad Apostolos, ejusdem novi Testamenti promulgatores; in quorum scriptis passun Guil. Estll Comm. Tom. I. occurrunt hac speciali significatione. Unde et verbale Evangelista. Notandum quoque, verbum medium £oayy£Ai'C£a^at non active solum usurpari, ut hic et alias saepe, sed interdum etiam passive, ut Matth. 11. Luc. 7. Hebr. 4.
1:16
16. Non enim erubesco Evangelium. Graeca addunt Christi. Verum Tertullianus eo non addito sic legit: Non enim me pudet Evangelii lib. 5. adversus Marcionem cap. 13. Sjrus quoque interpres non agnoscit, ut nec Latinorum commentarii. Evangelium vocat hoc loco Paulus vel Evangelii praedicationem, vel ipsam rem praedicatam, ut Christum crucifixum, ac si diceret: Quamvis Christum esse crucifixum, et hoc ipsum palam praedicare pro evangelio, probrosa res et stulta videatur, non tamen illius me pudet. Ratio sequitur:
Virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti. Hic jam aggreditur Apostolus materiam hujus Epistolae principalem, de qua in argumento diximus; eamque totam hac ipsa sententia brevissime complexus est. Virtus, Graece d6v(xni<z, id est, potentia. Porro sakis hominis secundum scripturam intelligitur non tantum in vita aeterna, quae est, consummata salus; sed etiam in ejus justificatione, quae est sakxs inchoata, et habetur in hac vita. Quo sensu dicit ad Ephes. 2. Gratia estis salvati per fidem. Et ad Tit. 3. Non ex operibus justitiae, quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Sic autem generaliter salutem accipi hoc loco, manifestum est ex iis, quae statim sequuntur. Syi-us interpres salutem hic et alibi vitam exponit, sed aeque generaU significatione, quomodo saepe apud Joannem accipitur. Sensus verborum est: Evangelium, id est evaugeUca praedicatio seu doctrina per divinam virtutem efficax est ad praestandam salutem, id est justitiam et vitam aeternam, cuilibet credenti: quia nimirum Deus EvangeHo velut instrumento vuk uti ad salvandum homines, quibus Evangelium praedicatur. Placuit enim divinae sapientiae, ut ait idem Apostolus 1 Corinth. 1., per stultitiam praedicationis salvos facere credentes. Unde et ibidem affirmat: Verbum crucis iis, qui salvi fiunt, esse Dei virtutem. Dicit autem, omni credenti, non quod omnis quomodocunque vere credens Evangelio salutem aut justitiam consequatur, ut ex hoc loco et similibus male colligunt haeretici: sed quia fides, qua creditur Evangelio, medium est, per quod Deus ordinavit homines justitiam et salutem adipisci. Quam et certissime consequentur, si faciant et persistant in eo, quod fides monstrat faciendum. Alii credentem intelligunt corde perfecto, id est, qui non solum fidem ad- Mbeat verbo praedicationis, sed praeterea facere paratus sit ea, quae fides monstrat facienda: quod est obedienter credere. Quae expositio consentanea est aliis scripturae locis, tam apud hunc Apostolum, quam alibi; velut Joan. 3. Ut omnis qui credit in eum, non pereat, sed habeat vitam aeternam. Et cap. 7. Qui credit in me, sicut dicit scriptura, flumina de ventre ejus fluent aquae vivae. Juxta hunc igitur intellectum absoluta sententia est, Evangelium adferre salutem omni credenti: ut fides intelligatur non qualiscumque, sed formata bona et efficaci voluntate faciendi quod Evangelium praescribit. De qua re plenius infra ad illud: Justus autem ex fide vivit.
Judaeo primum et Graeco, hoc est, Judaeo imprimis, deinde et Graeco. Nam copula pro particula ordinis Hebraeo more posita est. Graecum intelligit gentilem quemcunque, etiam barbarum. Non enim barbaro, ut paulo ante, sed Judaeo Graecus hic opponitur. Ratio tam generalis acceptionis est, quod lingua Graeca per gentes maxime esset communis: adeo ut etiam apud barbaros ejus usus plurimum invaluisset. Judaeorum vero nomine etiam proselyti comprehenduntur. Dicit autem primum Judaeo, vel quia prius tempore annunciatum est Evangelium Judaeis quam gentibus, ut exponit Chrysostom., vel primum, id est potissimum, quia promissio salutis per Christum dandae non gentibus, sed Judaeis facta fuerat. Hunc sensum confirmant ea, quae passim de Judaeorum praerogativa dicuntur in hac epistola, ut cap.
1:17
17. Justitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem. Particulam in eo ad credentem refert Ambros. commentator. Verum alii multo rectius ad Evangelium. Probat enim Paulus Evangelium esse Dei virtutem in salutem omni credenti, quia in eo, scilicet Evangelio, revelatur justitia Dei ex fide. Dicit autem revelatur ctTioxaXuTtTSTai, quia de mysterio loquitur ab humanis sensibus abscondito. Dei justitiam veteres quidam interpretati sunt eam justitiam, qua Deus ipse justvis est, et fidelis in promissis. Theodoretus justitiam Christi hominis intellexit, qua nobis redemptionem et salutem promeruit. Sunt et qui Christum ipsum Dei justitiam interpretentur. Verum si expendamus ea quae sequuntur, et attendamus ad scopum Apostolicae doctrinae, nec non ad similia loca scripturae, praesertim apud hunc eundem Apostolum; certo comperiemus, justitiam Dei non eam in~ telligi, qua Deus aut Christus justus est, nec Deum aut Christum ipsum, sed justitiam, qua justus est homo. Quae quidem justitia Dei vocatur duplici ratione: vel quod a Deo sit, ut justitia Dei dicatur qua Deus hominem donat, induit et afficit, dum eum justificat; sic enim loquitur Apostolus Philipp. 3. Et inveniar in illo non habens mectm, justitiam, quae ex lege est: sed illam quae ex fide est Christi, quae ex Deo est justitia in fide. Hanc rationem adfevunt hoc loco Chrysost, Theophylact. aliique Graeci, nec non Aug. lib. de spir. et lit. c. 9. et 11. Simili ratione dictum est Psalm, 3. Domini salus, id est ea quae est a Domino. Item Psalm. 59. et 107. salus hominis, quae est ab homine: ut Hieronymus ex Hebraeo interpretatur. Vel justitia Dei dicitur, id est vera justitia, qua nimirum quis vere coram Deo justus constituitur. Veram enim justitiam qui habent, more scripturae coram Deo vel ante Deum justi dicuntur: ut Noe Genes. 7., Zacharias et Elizabeth Luc. 2. Rationem hanc confirmant etiam quae dicuntur infra de justitia et justificatione coram Deo, ut cap. 2. Non auditores legis justi sunt apud Deum. Et cap. 3. Ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram illo. Ubi et gloriam Dei vocat, quae coram Deo est, quemadmodum illic declarabitur. Utraque ratio valde bona est: tametsi posterior meo judicio magis ab Apostolo spectata. Sequitur ut exponamus illam partem, ex fide in fidem. Cujus obscuritas plurimas peperit interpretationes: maxime quod ea phrasis nusquam exstet alibi in tota scriptura sacra. Nam et illud dubitatur, ciim quo conjungi et construi debeat haec pars, utrum cum verbo proximo revelatur, ut multis visum est; an vero cum justitia Dei. Igitur multi sensum reddiderunt hujusmodi: Justitiam Dei revelari ex fide veteris testamenti in fidem novi, ex fide prophetarum in fidem Apostolorum, ex fide patrum in fidem filiorum. Tertullianus loco supra citato: Ex fide legis in fidem Evangelii. Haec enim omnia fere idem vokmt, nempe, justitiam Dei, quam in veteri Testamento umbris et figuris latentem tenuerunt antiqui patres, et praedicaveruntprophetae, eandem nunc remotis figuris ac discussis umbris revelari nobis filiis per praedicationem Apostolorum: ita ut quae illi crediderunt ventura, nos jam credere debeamus exhibita. His expositionibus affine videri cuipiam posset, quod Oecumenius ex Acacio deprompsit: Judaeo quidem ex fide legis in fidem quae per Christum est: Graeco autem ex fide naturali, in eandem Jesu Christi fidem. Verum facessat hoc glossema cum autore suo Acacio homine Ariano. Nullam enun fidem praeter eam, quae in Christo est, Apostolicae literae commendant. Sedulius ita exponit: Ex fide Dei promittentis, in fidem hominis credentis. Item aliter: Ex fide Judaei, in fidem gentilis. Et aliter: Ex fide praedicantium, in fidem credentium. Quorum primum accepit ex comment. Ambrosii; secundum ex comment. Pelagii; tertium ex Augustini libro de spnitu et litera cap. 11. Idem Augustinus lib. 2. quaest. Evang. cap. 39. reddit hunc sensum: Ex fide verborum, quibus nunc credimus, quod nondum videmus, in fidem rerum, qua in aetemum, quod nunc credimus, obtinebimus. Sunt praeterea, qui sic exponant: Ex fide praeteritorum in fidem futurorum: quoniam videlicet non satis sit credere Chi-istum pro nobis natum, passum, resurrexisse, nisi credamus etiam nos in illo debere renasci, et ei compati, et cum eo resurgere. Rursus alii sic: Ex fide in fidem, id est ex fide cujusvis temporis atque aetatis. Putant enim similem esse phrasim cum illa, a generatiotie in generationem, id est, per omnes generationes. Notandum autem, expositiones jam datas fere in eo convenire, quod hanc partem ex fide in fidem referant ad verbum revelatur. Atqui ad ijistitutum Apostoli multo est accommodatius, ut referatur ad justitiam Dei. Hanc enim docet esse ex fide, idque per Evangelium mundo annuntiari. Tantum iHud difficultatem habet, cur non contentus dixisse ex fide, addere voluerit in fidem, vel ad fidem. Utrumlibet enim verti potest ex Graeco. Nonnulli vero sic ordinant et exponunt: Justitia Dei, quae est ex fide, per Evangelium revelatur in fidem, sive ad fidem, scilicet multorum, id est hoc fructu, ut multi credant et justificentur. Sed ea divulsio mihi satis violenta videtur. Prorsus enim apparet haec in syntaxi coujungenda esse: ex fide in fidem; sicut omnes fere conjungunt. Est autem probabilis sensus, quem adfert Joannes Hesselius scribens in 1 Petr. 1., ut justitia dicatur esse ex fide in fidem, videlicet Dei, id est ex fide qua creditur Deus fidelis in promissis: de qua fide dicitur infra cap. 3. Nunquid increduUtas illorum fidem Dei evacuabit? Sic enim et Petrum dixisse, nos custodiri per fidem in salutem, id est per eam fidem, qua salutem venturam credimus. Cui sensui non male quadrat subjunctum ex Propheta testimonium, quo dicitur justus vivere ex fide, scilicet promissionum Dei. Nihilominus illa nobis admodum probatur interpretatio, quam suppeditant TheopLylactus et Oecumenius, quamque Sasboldus, Pererius, Emanuel et alii libenter amplectuntur. Ea quidem hujusmodi est: Ex fide in fidem, id est ex fide promovente ac subinde augescente, ut sit Hebraismus, qualis in Psalm. 83. Ibunt de virtute in virtutem, id est subinde majora capient suae virtutis seu fortitudinis augmenta. Nam in Graeco forma sermonis plane eadem est, Ex Suvajxeox; etq Suvajxiv et ex TttoTecuQ sic TiiaTtv, Simile et illud Psalm. 143. Promptuaria eorum plena, eructantia ex hoc in illud, id est aliam post aliam fructuum speciem copiose subministrantia. Hanc vero expositionem intentioni Paulinae congruere, docet ac declarat subjuncta ejus probatio ex Propheta dicente: Justum ex fide vivere: tanquam non satis sit ad justitiam, semel credidisse, sed oporteat justitiam adeptam semper ex fide nutriri. Itaque nobis videtur totius sententiae hunc quam maxime probabilem sensum reddi posse. Vera justitia, qua quis coram Deo justus est, in Evangelio, id est per Evangelii praedicationem, nunc passim omnibus revelatur, et clare annuntiatur: ea inquam justitia, quae non ex lege, ut Judaei putant, neque ex viribus natiu-ae, ut Graeci, sed ex fide comparatxir, et ex fide continuo nutriri, conservari, augeri et perfici debet. Hanc sententiam sic intellectam optime probat Apostolus per id quod sequitur:
Sicut scriptum est, apud Prophetam Habacuc cap. 2. Justus autem ex fide vivit. Rectius in futuro vivet. Sic enim multi iidemque meliores habent codices, Graecis etiam et Syris adstipulantibus. Nam et apud ipsum Prophetam in Hebraeo futuri temporis verbum habetur. Et LXX. quoque interpretes futurum reddiderunt. Eademque lectio est in Graeco ad Galat. 3. et ad Heb. 10., quibus locis eadem scriptura citatur, Quamvis autem ea vera sic lectio, non tamen sensus est, eum qui justus est, postea victurum, ut justitia praecedat, vita sequatur: quomodo commentans Ambrosius exposuit, vitam intelligens futuri saeculi. Nam alioqui et id, quod apud Prophetam proxime antecedit: Qui incredulus est, non erit recta anima ejus in semetipso, similiter exponendum esset, ut quis prius incredulus sit, ac postea animam habeat non rectam: quud et falsum esse constat, et alienum a mente Prophetae. Sed verbo futuri temporis usus est, vel quia tanquam Propheta de futuris loquebatur, ac si diceret: Futurum est ut justus ex fide vivat, dum promissionem exspectat: vel quia futurum tempus servit continuationi ac perpetuitati significandae. Nam justus ita vivit ex fide, ut ex ea vivere non desinat, uti mox docebimus. Jam nec magni momenti est ea diversitas, quod cum Hebraea veritas habeat in, id est, ex fide sua, et LXX. verterint, ex fide mea, Paulus hoc loco et in epistola ad Galatas absolute dixerit: ex fide. Facile enun pronomen sua subauditur. Cur autem LXX. pro sua, meam reddiderint, rationem apud Hieronjmum require in commentario super Habacuc: tametsi recte dicitur tnea, id est Dei (Deus enim loquitur), quia fides est, qua Deo creditur, et quae nemini nisi Dei munere contingit. Quanquam quod eodem loco post multa dicit Hieronymus, Apostolum in hac ad Romanos epistola citasse testimonium Prophetae juxta LXX. versionem, ejusque rei rationem reddere conatur, memoria lapsum arbitror, ut in hac epistola scriptum putaret, quod legerat in epistola ad Hebraeos. 'Nam in ea maxime solet Apostolus citare veteris scripturae testimonia secundum LXX., licet in Graecis hoc testimonium nunc non ita habeatur. Accedit autem quod in Latinis legitur: Justxis autem meus ex fide vivit. Sed ea res suo loco discutietur. Ut autem ad sensum Prophetici testimonii veniamus, Cajetanus quidem ita distinguit et exponit: Qui ex fide justus est, is vivet vita salutis aeternae. Cujus distinctionis etiam Hieronymus meminit in comm. epist. ad Galatas. Verum ea distinctio 'primum quidem haud congruit iis, quae a Propheta dicuntur, nt cuivis legenti manifestum est: deinde et a mente Pauli aliena est. Xon enim hoc loco, ut nec aliis in quibus hoc testimonium citat, intendit duos introducere justos, unum qui sit justus ex fide, et proinde victurus; alterum qui non ex fide, sed aliunde justus sit, ideoque non victurus. Sed simpliciter justum nominat docetque unde qui justus est vivat, id est justitiae vitam habeat, scilicet ex fide. Sic enim distincte loquitur Gal. 2. Quod autem nunc vivo in carne, nempe vitam justitiae, in fide vivo filii Dei. Estque similis locutio, cum dicimus aliquem spe vivere, ali, sustentari. Tenenda igitur est distinctio, quam communiter omnes tradunt, sententiam ita ordinantes: Justus vivit ex fide. Sensus autem est hujusmodi: Justus in quantum justus est, vivit ex fide: ut qui vitam justitiae neque adipisci potuerit nisi per fidem; neque retinere eam possit, et in ea permanere; neque in ea crescere et proficere, nisi per fidem. Ac breviter: Tota vita justi, qua justus est, ex fide est: quia tota ejus justitia ab initio usque ad finem ex fide est. Ex quo sensu liquet justitiam hic non eam solam intelligi, qua quis ex impio fit justus, quam nulla prorsus antecedunt bona merita, et quae prima justitia vocatur: sed eam praeterea comprehendi, qua quis in accepta justitia progreditur ac proficit, quam vocant secundam justitiam. Et certum est Apostolum in hac sua disputatione, qua praecipue de prima justitia agere videtur, etiam de secunda admiscere sermonem: velut cum docet Abraham ex fide justificatum esse, quia scriptum est: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam. Jam ante enim justus erat: quemadmodum et Phinees, de quo dicitur Psalm. 105. Stetit Phinees et placavit: et re~ putatum est ei in justitiam. Tale est et ilhid Matathiae 1 Mach. 2. loquentis de Abraham per jussionem immolandi filii tentato, quando procul dubio justus erat. Abraham, inquit, nonne in tentatione inventus est fidelis, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam? Quin ipse Apostolus Heb. 10. citans hanc prophetae sententiam, manifeste refert eam ad conservationem justitiae. Sic et Petrus 1. Epist. 1. dicit per fidem nos custodiri, id est, in accepta justitia conservari, in salutem. Quae cum ita sint, nihil est quod nos cogat testimonium prophetae mentemque Pauli restringere ad eum solum, qui ex peccatore justus futurus sit, et cum quibusdam hunc sensum reddere: qui peccator est, et justus esse desiderat, vitam gratiae per fidem accipiet, Satis enim jam liquet ex dictis, latius hanc patere sententiam, ac necessario debere extendi ad omnem hominem justum, quantumcunque etiam in hac vita fuerit justificatus. Quamdiu enim justus per fidem ambulat, ex fide vivit. Et sane perabsurdum est sentire, quod peccator ex fide victurus sit, ut justificetur: idem autem justificatus deinceps ex fide vivere desinat. Porro quae fides hic intelligatur, jam superius ex parte diximus ad illud: omni credenti. Plenius autem idipsum nunc explicantes dicimus, eam intelligi fidem, qua creduntur vera esse quae divinitus revelata et promissa sunt, atque illud imprimis, a Deo justificari impium per gratiam ejus, per redemptionem quae est in Christo Jesu. His enim verbis fidem justificantem exponit Synodus Tridentina sess. 6. cap. 6. Sed quia secundam justitiam diximus etiam liic comprehendi, addendum est: qua credimus etiam justum a Deo justificari progressu quodam et incremento justitiae, per gratiam ejus etc. Notandum deinde, sic Apostolum de fide loqui in hac epistola, ut etiam spem atque fiduciam remissionis peccatorum ac justitiae consequendae, caeterorumque bonorum, quae a Deo promissa sunt, inckidat, etiam cum bona voluntate placendi Deo et implendi mandata ejus. Expendantur quae de fide disserit iufr, c. 3. et 4. ac rursus cap. 9. 10. et 11. His enim locis nusquam a fiducia et bona voluntate eam sejungit; tanquam haec simul uno fidei nomine complectens. Quod quidem Prophetae locus hic citatus manifeste etiam docet, quemadmodum facile patebit locum ipsum diligenter examinanti. Neque tamen negandum, quod sectarii negant, alias saepe fidem pro simplici credulitate et persuasione, qua revelatis a Deo mysteriis assentimur, accipi. Loca enim sunt apertissima 1 Cor. 13. Jacob. 2. Joan. 12. atque etiam Heb. 11. et alibi. Sicut ergo ex his locis constat esse aliquam fidem informem et mortuam; ita in illis commendatur nobis fides excitata et viva, ut quae non tantum cum spe et fiducia sit conjuncta, verum etiam bona voluntate formata, sicut ante diximus. Ex hac igitur fide vivit justus, quia quod justus est ac juste operatur, et in justitia proficit ac perseverat, habet ex hac fide tanquam initio, fundamento et radice, denique ut ex causa impetrante: quemadmodum id per singula declarabitur infra ad illud cap. 3. Arbitranmr enim justificari hominem per fidem. Hujus autem doctrinae ratio potissimum referenda est ad consilium et voluntatem Dei, qua sapientissime sic ordinavit, ut nemo post lapsum peccati restitueretur in statum justitiae, nisi qui crederet in ipsum, et iu Christum mediatorem ac redemptorem. Vult enim beneficium redemptionis et justificationis agnosci per fidem, ipsaque fide apprehendi. In cujus rei typum olim vulnerati morsibus serpentum non sanabantur, nisi qui serpentem aeneum, quem Moses erexerat pro signo, oculis aspexissent. Num. 21. Sic enim per Christum in cruce exaltatum nemini vitam ac salutem contingere, nisi qui credat in ipsum, id est, fidei oculis eum aspiciat, Christus ipse docet Joan. 3. Porro si quaeras, an Paulus adducat testimonium Prophetae in sensu literali, an mystico, an, ut quibusdam visum est, extensivo: primum respondeo sententiam Prophetae generalem esse de fide promissorum Dei: quae ita placet Deo, ut ad justitiam homini reputetur. Unde recte specialiter applicatur sententia ad fidem sahitis promissae per Christum mediatorem. Verum ilhid addo, Prophetam procul dubio vaticinari de Messia venturo, quum dicit, quia veniens veniet et non tardabit; item loqui de fide in Messiam promissum justificante, quum dicit: Justus autem in fide sua vivet. An autem hic sensus Prophetae literalis sit, an vero superliterahs, id est mysticus, non adeo refert, dummodo fateamur a Spiritu sancto, et quidem principaliter esse intentum.
1:18
18. Revelatur enim ira Dei de coelo super omnem impietatem et injustitiam hominum, eorum qui veritatem Dei in injustitia detinent. Apostolus constituta generali propositione, qua continetur argumentum totius epistolae, nempe justitiam ex fide quaerendam esse, aliam nunc propositionem assumit, ex qua ad priorem illam confirmandam procedat. Ea hujusmodi est: Omnes homines esse impios, injustos, peccatores, et per hoc irae Dei subjectos. Quod intellige, praeveniendo fidem, de qua jam agitur. Hanc vero propositionem expHcat partitione, qua eam rem docet primum de gentibus, hoc capite: deinde de Judaeis, cap. 2. et 3., ubi demum ad principale redit institutum de justitia petenda ex fide; atque id ex praemissis hoc fere modo colligit: Si omnes, tam qui legem bene vivendi a Deo acceperunt, ut Judaei, quam qui studio sapientiae operam dederunt, ut Graeci, peccato et irae Dei sunt obnoxii, non ergo ex lege neque ex operibus exspectanda est justitia, sed gratis habetur per fidem, quae est in Christo. Jam igitur ad explicationem verborum Apostoli veniamus. Revelatur ira Dei per Evangelii praedicationem, dum in eo annunciantur hominibus poenae, quas Deus impiis et peccatoribus comminatur. Est enim ira Dei non tantum in percutiendo, verum etiam in comminando. Nam qui irascitur, interdum non percutit, sed tantummodo comminatur, inquit Hieronymus in comm. super Habacuc 3. hunc praesentem locum adducens. Quocirca Cajetanus iram Dei exponit justitiam Dei vindicativam, ad quam pertinent etiam comminationes. Quamvis et ipsa vindicta secundum Aquinatem recte intelligitur, non quidem praesens, sed impendens et parata. IUud, de coelo, quanquam jungi possit cum verbo revelatur, multo tamen rectius refertur ad illam partem, ira Dei, subaudito participio ventura, ut sit sensus: Per Evangelium anuunciari vindictam Dei coelitus superventuram et exercendam in impios Christo judice, quando descendet in ftamma ignis dantis vindictam, ut dicitur 2 Thess. 1. Hinc etiam disce praedicatione Evangelii non solum contineri doctrinam gratiae salvantis, sed etiam justitiae vindicantis: secus quam novi quidam tradunt dogmatistae.
Impietas et injustitia sic dififerre videntur, quod impietatis nomine intelligatur quicquid committitur adversus cultum ac religionem Dei; injustitia vero caetera omnia peccata comprehendat: licet haec duo fere confundat Apostolus iu sequentibus hujus epistolae, ubi de peccatoris justificatione disserit. Quicunque enim coram Deo justus non est, is Apostolo injustus et impius dicitur, id est peccator. Porro veritatem Dei in injustitia detinent, qui veram, quam de Deo assecuti sunt notitiam, per injustitiam, id est pravitatem suae vokintatis supprimunt, ac veluti caplivam intra se tenent; dum vel non communicant eam aliis, vel non ostendunt per opera pietatis, sicut ille qui dicit Jacobi 2. Ego ostendam tibi ex operibus fidem meam: sed magis ad conditoris injuriam divinos honores creaturis tribuunt. Haec de Graecorum Philosophis dicit: quorum etsi quidam, ut mox dicetur, ad unius Dei notitiam philosophando pervenerint, ut Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristoteles et alii: quibus adde Hermetem Trismegistum sacerdotem et philosophum Aegyptum, Senecam philosophum et Senatorem Romanum Paulo fZ^JY/^^QVOV: nemo tamen omnium Deum cognitum aut coluit ut debuit, aut colendum praedicavit. Ex quibus Plato ne quidem evulgandam putavit eam quam perceperat unius Dei notitiam: sed iis solis communicabat, quibus, ut amicis ac sapieutioribus, anhni sui sententiam auderet aperire: quemadmodum ex ipsius scriptis ostendit Eusebius lib. 11. Praepar. Evang. cap. 9. Quo pertinent etiam haec ipsius verba Platonis in Timaeo: Parentem et opificem universorum jieque invenire facile, neque inventum in vulgus promulgare tutum est. Igitur metu vulgi veritatem Dei apud se suosque paucos detinuit hic tantus philosophus. Quod autem hic apud Graecos, id apud Latinos Seneca: de cujus simulatione metu legum expressa, vide quae ex ipsius scriptis adfert Augustinus lib. 6. de Civit. Dei, cap. 10., ita tandem de eo concludens: Sed iste, qui illust)ns populi Romani senator erat, colebat quod reprehendebat; agebat quod arguebat; quod culpabat adorabat; idque propter leges civium, moresque hominum, videlicet eo damnabilius, quod illa, quae mendaciter agebat, sic ageret, ut eum populus veraciter agere existimaret. Haec Augustinus. Qui et in lib. de vera Rei cap. 6. philosophos iq universum notat, quod eadem sacra susciperent cum populis, et de deorum natura ac summo bono diversas in scholis sententias traderent. Quod ad textum attinet, ubi nos habemus veritatem Dei, in Graeco quidem et Syiiaco non additur Dei, nec in Graecorum commentariis legitur: ut nec apud Tertullianum citantem hunc locum lib. 5. adversus Marc. Recte tamen intelligitur. Nam de veritate, qua Deus agnoscitur Apostolum loqui palam est ex sequentibus.
1:19
19. Quia quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis. Graece: quia notum Dei, vel: eo quod notum Dei etc. Quanquam notum, Graece yvojaxov, etiam verti potest cognoscibile, ut sensus sit: Propterea quod ea, quae de Deo naturali lumine intellectus ab homine cognosci possunt, fuere in illis, id est, apud illos manifeste et evidenter cognita: cujusmodi suntDeum esse unum, aeternum, mundi principem et gubernatorem, actum purum, et similia. Non defuerunt, inquit, inter illos qui haec cognoscerent, tametsi alii plus, alii minus. Quidam volunt in praepositionem redundare, ac si tantum dixisset manifestum est illis, quemadmodum redundat apud Petrum 1. epist. 1. cum dicit: haereditatam conservatam in vobis. Quod quidem non improbabile est. Convenit enim cum eo quod sequitur: Deus enim illis manifestavit. Dicit autem: quod notum seu cognoscibile est, ad differentiam eorum, quibus cognoscendis non sufficit naturale lumen humanae mentis; quale est mysterium Trinitatis, male his, quae per naturam de Deo cognosci possunt, a Pelagio annumeratum. Sciendum tamen etiam sic verti posse, quia notitia Dei manifesta est eis, quomodo vertit Stapulensis, ut concretum sit positum pro abstracto, veluti supra promptum, id est, promptitudo. Jara ex eo, quod dicit manifestum est illis vel in illis, rursus colligi potest, ut bene colligit Cajetanus, ea quae philosophi de Deo noverunt, demonstratione illis cognita fuisse. Nam quae sola fide cognoscuntur, non evidentiam, sed obscuritatem habent. Ne tamen etiam illius naturalis boni principium in seipso quis statuat aut quaerat, ita subjungit:
Deus enim illis manifestavit. Non dicit revelavit, quasi infuso lumine fidei, sed manifestavit, id est, manifesto et evidenter eos cognoscere fecit, scilicet per lumen naturae, ut jam dictum est, et verbis sequentibus explicabitur. Simile est ilhid Psal. 93. Qui docet hominem scientiam. Neque enun dubitandum, quin omne bonum tam intellectus quam voluntatis, etiam quod ex solis naturae viribus absque speciali auxilio Dei provenit, auton Deo sit tribuendum, et pro eo sint agendae Deo gratiae. Siquidem et bona corporis, ut sanitas, robur, pulchritudo, et caetera hujusmodi in Deum autorem et largitorem cmn gratiarum actione referenda sunt. Quare non est necesse (quod quidam volunt) hic intelligi notitiam vires naturae excedentem. Siquidem imperfecta Dei et proprietatum ejus notitia, quam ex mundi contemplatione perceperunt homines magnis ingeniis praediti, rerumque cognoscendarum studiosi, ex eo, quod in natura post corruptionem peccati mansit reliquum, haberi potuit. Quoniam revera, ait Aug. lib. de spiritu et lit. cap. 12., sicut magna ingenia quaerere perstiterunt, sic invenire potuerunt. At nihilominus eadem ista quahscunque Dei notitia Dei ipsius beneficio tota adscribenda fuit. Quod idem Doctor in lib. 2. de civit. Dei cap. 7. testatur his verbis: Et quidam eormn (de philosophis agit) quaedam magna, quantum divinitus adjuti sunt, invenerunt: quantum autem humanitus impediti sunt, errarunt. Sed de ea re plura et ex professo ad dist. 3. lib. 1. sent.
1:20
20. Invisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur. Male quidam codices, intellectus: nam Graece est voo6ueva participium temporis praesentis. Illud vero a creatura mundi, quidam vertendum putant o creatione mundi^ id est, a mundo condito, a mundi initio. Nam Graeca vox xxtaig ambigua est ad creaturam et ad creationem. Et Aug. lib. 8. de civit. Dei cap. 9. et 11. legit a constitutione mundi. Sed ea versio mihi non probatur: primum, quia vocabulo y.T''astoc scriptura vix usquam utitur pro creatione. Tantum est, qui a Laurentio profertur, locus Heb. 9. Tahemaculum non manufactum, id est, non hujus creationis. Alias semper pro creatura, id est, rebus creatis sumitur: ut hoc ipso cap. Servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori. Et cap. 8. quinquies. Quum autem significare vult mundi creationem, dicit xaxaPoXr/; xOjIjioo, quod interpres fere reddit constitutionem mundi. De qua phrasi vide quae adnotamus ad Eph. 1. Deinde quia versioni ilH ac sensui non quadrat verbum praesentis temporis, conspiciuntur. Nam dicendum erat: ab initio mundi conspecta sunt. Adde quod plenior est sententia magisque ser^dens instituto Pauli, si creaturam, id est, res ipsas creatas intelligamus, ut sensus sit: Invisibilia Dei, id est, attributa seu proprietates Dei, quae corporeis oculis aspici nequeunt, mente conspiciuntur ex universa hac creatura visibiU, quae mundus dicitur; dum intelliguntur ex iis quae facta sunt (Graece Tol^r 7iO'.'/5|Jia3t) ^ id est, per opera sensibus nostris exposita, tanquam per suos eifectus. Nam ex operis praestantia cognoscitar ars, ingenium et sapientia opificis. Hanc Dei cognoscendi rationem pulcre nobis tradit scriptura, Psahn. 18. et Sap. 13. Quidam per invisibilia angelos acceperunt. Quam expositionem, ut ab instituto Pauli alienam, merito rejicit Theophylactus.
Sempiterna quoque ejus virtus et divinitas. Graece: Sempiternaque ejus virtus etc. Quod ita verti potest: tam sempiterna ejus virtus quam divinitas. Nam exegetice pars haec addita est, qua nimirum exponit Apostolus quae dixerat invisibilia: quemadmodum et Graeci interpretes intellexerunt. Tria vero speciatim recenset: Sempiternitatem, virtutem seu potentiam, et divinitatem. Nam cujus virtus sempiterna est, ipsum quoque sempiternum est. Sempiternitas autem proprie est accipienda, scilicet ejus quod nec cepit unquam, nec esse desinet. Potentia quoque absoluta et illimitata, quam omnipotentiam vocamus. Divinitatem Theophylactus interpretatur majestatem. Videtur Apostolus hoc vocabulo, ne longam texeret sei-tem idiomatum divinorum. vohusse comprehendere caetera, quae audito Dei nomine statim in animum cadere solent, ut quod sit summe bonus, justus, sapiens, omnium habens providentiam; item quod incorporeus et immaterialis et actus purus, ideoque ipse immutabilis, omnia movens, et omnia in omnibus operans. Haec enim aut omnia, aut pleraque, saltem imperfecte nota philosophis fuere. Et quidem de justitia Dei ab iis cognita, habes in fine capitis: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent etc. Notandum autem, epitheton sempiterna per syllepsin posse etiam ad divinitatem extendi: ut sit verae deitatis significatio, quae utique vera non est, nisi sit aetema. Quod proinde dictum videatur ad differentiam falsae divinitatis attributae multitudini deorum gentilium, quorum omnium origines referuntur. Patrum quispiam, ait Theophylactus, sempiternam potentiam filium dixit, divinitatem autem Spiritum sanctum. Quod non est recipiendum. Constat enim, ex contemplatione creaturae non posse perveniri in notitiam phirium personarum iu Deo. Caeterum ilhid de philosophis quaeri potest, an cognoverint Deum esse mundi creatorem. Equidem puto non defuisse qui cognoscerent. Pertinet enim hoc ad omnipotentiam Dei, quam hic vocat dtjyoLixiv, virtutem. Nam et Jovis apud ethnicos poetas epitheton erat omnipotens. Deinde quia dixit a creatura mundi, id est, ex rebus ab illo creatis, ex opificio mundi. Estque haec Augustini sententia in expositione propositionis tertiae hujus epistolae: Sapientes gentium invenisse creatorem. Apertius autem id docet autor Aponius, dum lib. 4. comm. in Canticum Salomonis exponens illud cap. 2. Per capreas cervosque camporum, ita scribit: Cervi videntur inteUigi, qui in ipsa philosophia suae velocitate doctrinae non multos, sed unum Deum invisibilem, immensum, inaestimabilem, omniumque creatorem, totum ubique mundum implentem confessi sunt. Haec ille. Quod et ratione probatur. Nam etsi scirent naturaliter ex nihilo nihil fieri posse: sciebant tamen mundum non esse a seipso, ideoque factum ab eo, cujus tanta virtus esset, ut etiam ex nihilo faceret exstare quae vellet. Et huc certe plurimum accessit Aristoteles, quando coeli ac mundi totiusque naturae causam efficientem esse docuit mentem aeternam, omnia moventem, ipsam immobilem, hoc est, Deum: ut lib. 2. Metaph. cap. 2. et lib. 12. cap. 7. Itemque lib. 2. Phys. cap. 6. et lib. 8. cap. 2. Haec vero efficiens causa non alia fingi potest, quam vel creans, vel continua creatione conservans, ita ut ipsius etiam materiae causa sit. Qui enim mundum, id est, universum dicit, etiam materiam ipsam comprehendit.
Ita ut sint inexcusabiles. Ita, in qtiibusdam codicibus abest. Potuit autem haec pars ex Graeco sic verti: In hoc ut sint inexctisabiles: sed sensu consecutivo, quo significetur cognitionem illam, quam de Deo philosophi acceperunt ex rebus creatis, reddere eos inexcusabiles in judicio Dei. Cujus ratio sequitur:
1:21
21. Quia cum cognovissent Deum. Graece: 816x1 yvovrsc xov ^sov^ propterea quod cognitum Deum, vel, cum cngnoverint Deum.
Non sicut Deum glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt. Pro gratias egerunt, Erasmus vertere maluit, grati fuerunt. Sed Graece est verbum zhyjxpiarr]aoiv, quod procul dubio significat gratias egerunt. Quod et huic loco melius convenit. Tale igitur est, quod Apostolus dicit: Sicut naturali rationis lumine pervenerunt in veram Dei notitiam; ita clare dicat eadem ratio, Deum cognitum glorificandum esse, eique gratias agendas. Quocirca inexcusabiles sunt, qui haec non fecerint. Deum glorificare ut Deum, est Deum laudibus sibi debitis, hoc est divinis, celebrare. Est enim gloria (definiente Augustino q. 31. inter 83.) frequens de aliquo fama cum laude. Gratias agere Deo, est beneficia a Deo accepta per agnitionem et laudem in ipsum referre. Respicit autem Apostolus praecipue ad illud beneficium, quod est Deum cognovisse: de quo jam dixerat, Deus illis manifestavit. Quamquam nihil vetat cum isto caetera quoque cognita ab ipsis beneficia Dei comprehendere: quum non unius tantum, sed omnium fuerint ingrati. Quis enim philosophorum, qui Deum cognoverunt, cum tam multa scripserint, quae adhuc extant, et alia phira, quorum inscriptiones et argumenta prodita sunt a Diogene Laertio: quis, inquam, eorum legitur scripsisse Deo laudes eucharisticas? Exstant quidem in laudes Deorum hymni poetarum ethnicorum, Homeri, Orphei, Pindari, Horatii, qui tamen et ipsi philosophati feruntur. At in laudem veri Dei psalmus aut hjmnus aut quidquam tale a quoquam illorum compositum, nusquam invenitur. Sed quaeret aliquis, an sint excusabiles, qui Deum non cognoscentes non eum glorificaverunt: quippe cura glorificare non potuerint incognitum. Respondeo non esse prorsus excusabiles. "NTam cognoscere eum potuerunt et debuerunt ex rebus creatis, uti praeclare docet autor libri Sapientiae, cap. 13. Unde et passim in Psalmis et alibi Scriptura culpat eos tanquam impios, qui Deum non noverunt. Et Augustinus lib. 10. Confess. cap. 6. ita ad Deum loquitur: Coelum et terra et omnia, quae in eis sunt, undique mihi dicunt ut te amem, nec cessant dicere omnibus, ut sint inexcusabiles. Sic ille. Caeterum excusabiles dici possunt aliqua ex parte,' propter ignorantiam scilicet, atque aliorum comparatione, quibus Dei notitia divina manifestatione contigit. Qui proinde quo minus cognitum colerent et glorificarent, nihil praetexere potuerunt impietati suae et ingratitudini.
1:22
Dices, non potuisse eos gratias agere et glorificare sine speciali auxilio gratiae Dei, ut nec super omnia diligere: atque illud auxilium non omnibus dari. Unde et Augustinus loco memorato, cum dixisset coelum et terram omnibus praedicare ut Deum ament, adjecit: Altius autem tu misereberis cui misertus eris. Alioquin coelum et terra surdis loquuntur laudes tuas. Respondeo, ad multa teneri homines, quae non possunt sine speciali auxilio Dei; et talia sunt omnia opera pietatis. Nec vero consequens est, si id non potuerunt absque Dei auxilio, simpliciter non potuisse. Nam posse naturae est, ut docetAugustinus lib. degratiaCbristi: gratia vero specialis auxilii non datur ut possimus, sed ut faciamus. Potest quidem etiam dici, pbilosopbos potuisse per vires naturae Deum cognitum, ut Deum, aliquatenus laudare et glorificare, et gratias agere: non tamen ita ut oportuit, hoc est, non eo vohmtatis affectu, quo ad veram justitiam appropinquarent. Quamquam nec omnino, ne steriHter quidem philosophos illos, qui Deum cognoverunt, etiam glorificasse Deum usquam legitur, ut jam dixi. Sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis. Cogitationibus, id est, disquisitionibus, seu ratiocinationibus. Tale quid idem significat Graeca vox ^taXoyiojj.O'::. Sensus est: Dum contenti sua subtili inquisitione, et quam inquit-endo ac ratiocinando consecuti erant Dei cognitione, non tamen eum glorificaverunt nec gratias egerunt, vani facti sunt; quia finem illius cognitionis, qui consistit in vero Dei cultu et pietate atque in vera beatitudine, non sunt assecuti. Vanum enim et frustraneum illud dicitur, quod finem suum non assequitur. Et obscuratum est insipietis cor eorum. Obscuratum est, Graece soxoTtoOir]. Obtenebratum est. Sensus: Et mens eorum ex culpa tantae impietatis et ingratitudmis insipiens, stolida, et ut Graeca vox ao'jvstog sonat, expers intelligentiae effecta, multis errorum tenebris involuta est. Cor in scripturis figurate, sed usitatissime nunc intellectum, nunc vohintatem significat. Voluntatem, quoties correctum, pravum, moUe, durum, mundum, immundum, vocatur. Intellectum vero seu mentem, quoties docile, sapiens, intelligens, illuminatum, et contra stultum, insipiens, obtenebratum, excoecatum dicitur, ut hoc loco: quemadmodum paulo post illis verbis: in desideria cordis eorum, et cap. seq. ubi legimus cor impoenitens, accipitur priori modo. Dico figurate; sive ea metaphora sit rei corporeae ad incorpoream et spiritualem, eo quod in mente sit principatus vitae rationalis, sicut in corde vitae animalis. Quo respexisse putant Sapientem, cum ait Prov. 4. Omni custodia serva cor tuum, quia ab ipso vita procedit; sive potius metonymia, juxta eum modum quo continens ponitur pro contento, propterea quod sensus communis et vis imaginativa, quae rationali parti proxime subserviunt, ipsum cor velut organum sibi vendicent, ideoque menti sedes in corde fuerit antiquitus assignata. Quod quidem sentit Aristoteles, et varie probat compluribus locis, potissimum libro de sensu et sensili', et hb. 3. de partibus anim. cap. 4. refellens eos, qui cerebro sensuum principatum deferunt (quae fere medicorum sententia est), quod ille sensationi ineptum ostendit. Ejusdem opinionis Stoicos ad unum fuisse tradit Plutarchus lib. 4. de placitis philos. cap. 4. Huic Aristotelis et Stoicorum sententiae multum videntur favere sacrae literae, quae cogitationes ubique cordi tribuunt, nusquam cerebro, nec omnino capiti: non alia quantum apparet ratione, quam quia in corde effinguntur, ut ait philosophus, rerum imagines. Scripturae passim obviae sunt: Vt quid cogitatis mala in cordibus vestris? Ex abundantia cordis os loquitur. De corde exeunt cogitationes malae. Matth. Quin et apud Latinos, eosque profanos autores cor pro animo sumitur, ut quum dicunt: Haec res miM cordi est. Unde cordati, et (compositis nominibus) excordes, vecordes, socordes et concordes dicti sunt. Estque hujus rei signum naturale, quod poenitentes non caput, sed pectus tundimus, sub quo cor situm est; tanquam culpam a corde profectam agnoscentes. Confirmant banc sententiam Christiani doctores, nominatim Hieronymus in comment. Matthaei, quum ad illa verba: De corde exeunt cogitationes malae, sic infert: Ergo animae principale non secundum Platonem in cerebro, sed juxta Christum in corde est. Et ante eum Tertullianus tum lib. de resurrect. carnis cap. 15. ubi principale, qviod '^YSjJiovixov appellant Graeci, cordi consecrat; tum maxime lib. de anima cap. 15., quo loco recitatis facile decem de hegemonico veterum philosophorum opinionibus, eam solam recipit, et scripturis divinis consentaneam esse docet, qixae sedem illi in corde constituit. Quamqvtam alii hanc rem in dubio relinqixere malunt, ut Lactantius lib. de opificio Dei cap. 16., Theodnretus serm. 3. de providentia, Philo Judaeus lib. de sacrificiis Abel et Cain; et altero, de eo quod deterius priori insidietur. Porro Gregorius Nyssenus etsi sermone 1. de resurr. Christi cum iis sentire videatur, qui sedem mentis in corde ponunt; attamen lib. de creatione hominis cap. 12. nec cordi nec cerebro principale hominis assignandum putat, nec proprie cuiquam aliarum partium, sed aeque per omnes diffundi juxta suum cujusque temperamentum. Qui vero de philosophia scribit (ut vel hinc intelligas a Njsseno diversum esse) lib. 4. cap. 6. et 7. ex professo docet, interiores vires imaginativam, cogitativam et memorativam, quae menti proxime subserviunt, in cerebro sua sensoria singulas habere, totidem ventriculis, ut hDquitur, inter se disjuncta. Quin et Ambrosius lib. de Noe et arca cap. 7. mentem in capite locatam scribit secundum plurimorum sententiam, et maxime Salomonis, qui ait: Oculi sapientis in capite ejus. Ecclesiastae 2. Quod et suis deinde verbis probabile facere conatur. Sane haec plurimorum etiam hodie sententia est, existimantium scripturam sacram cordi cogitationes adscribere tantummodo propter analogiam vitae spiritualis ad vitam animalem, cujus principium a corde est. Quam rationem supra priori loco indicavimus. Hanc de corde problematicam disputationem nolui intactam relinquere; quod ad intelligentiam tropi in scriptura frequentissimi momentum habere videretur.
22. Dicentes enim se esse sapientes, stulti facti sunt. Conjunctio enim non est in Graeco, nec in omnibus codicibus Latinis: nec eam addit Augustinus, hujus loci verba referens lib. de spiritu et lit. c. 12. Quidam ita vertunt: Cum se putarent, cum se crederent esse sapientes. At Graece est ^aaxoVTsg, id est, dicentes, ut noster interpres vertit: idque rectius se habere etiam Genevensis catena testatur: tametsi cpaaxsiv non simpliciter est, dicere, sed palam et in vulgus dicere, ex quo fama oriatur. Hinc enim deducitur cp>jfJi>3 fama. Sensus igitur est: Cum apud homines profiterentur se sapientes, ac sibi arrogarent magnam sapientiam, videlicet ob rerum arcanarum et sublimium cognitionem, a qua dlci solent homines sapientes; stulti facti sunt, id est longissime a vera sapientia, quae in vera erga Deum pietate consistit, aberraverunt, ad extremam stultitiam et insipientiam delapsi. Sunt qui in pronomine se emphasin statuant hoc sensu: Dicentes se esse sapientes, id est, hoc ipsum quod sapientes erant, sibi tribuentes, non autem Deo acceptum referentes. Ita quidem etiam Augustinus loco jam citato, et alibi. Verum sciendum est pronomen se non exprimi in Graeco: tametsi necessario reddendum fuit ab interprete Latino. Non potest autem emphasis intelligi in voce non expressa. Quaeret aliquis an illi vere fuerint sapientes. Respondeo non fuisse, si sapientem intelligas eum, qui absolute talis dicitur: praesertim juxta loquendi consuetudinem scripturae sacrae tam veteris quam novi testamenti, quae passim sapientem eum vocat, qui Deum novit et timet, et mandata ejus observat. Hic enim causam altissimam, quae Deus est, ita contemplatur, ut juxta regulas ab eo praescriptas vitam et actiones suas instituat. Quod est vere et absolute sapientem esse; quemadmodum bene docet S. Thomas 2. 2. q. 45. Quo fit, ut sapientia vocetur ipsa pietas seu timor Domini Job. 28. Ecce timor Domini ipsa est sapietitia. Ubi LXX. Ecce pietas, ^zooi^zia, est sapientia. Quo circa non solum o6<poi revera non fuerunt illi sapientiae professores; sed nec 91X600901^ quo velut modestiore vocabulo Pythagoras se suosque discipulos primus appellari voluit. Ratio manifesta est, quia veram sapientiam non solum non habuerunt, sed nec amarunt.
1:23
23. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudijiem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium. Et pro etenim Hebraeo more. Declarat enim, in quo stulti facti sint, nempe in eo, quod gloriam iini immortali et incommutabili Deo propriam transtulerunt primum ad hominem mortalem, deinde ad bestias, ut volucres, quadrupedes, serpentes, denique ad horum simulacra: transtulerunt, inquam, honores uni Deo debitos, id est divinos his omnibus attribuentes. Serpentium Graece IpTiSTdiv^ id est reptilium. Quo nomine etiam pisces comprehenduntur Gen. 1. Estque eadem significatio vocis Syriacae. Porro haec quae Paulus enumerat, et horum simulacra pro diis habita fuisse, et cultu publico ac sacrificiis venerata ab ethnicis, nec solum a vulgo, verum etiam ab iis, qui inter illos sapientiae professione eminebant; ex antiquitatis historia tam profana quam sacra et ecclesiastica, facile est docere. Nec refert, si forte quidam eorum non ex animo, sed errori populari sese accommodantes cultum his rebus adhibuerint; ut qui philosophando jam didicissent non esse Deum nisi unum. Tanto quippe majoris ingratitudinis rei, quod eum, quem ipsius beneficio cognovissent unum verum Deum, suis privarint honoribus, gloriam et cultum proprie ei debitum alio transferentes. Quod vel ipsum Platonem non modo fecisse, sed et docuisse constat. Nam in libris de legibus et de republica diis, daemonibusque et heroibus sacra et caeremonias fieri jubet. Cujus doctrinae Platonicae etiam Augustinus meminit lib. 8. de civit. Dei cap. 12. Quin et Socrates cum in judicio periclitaretur, gallum Aesculapio pro salute sacrificari jussit. Quod a multis traditum est, et a Chrysostomo refertur in hujus loci commentario. Vide etiam quae supra versu 18. de Seneca, et universe de philosophis ex Augustino adnotavimus. Sed ad textum Apostoli pressius examinandum redeo. Quod ait: Et mutaverunt gloriam Dei in similitudinem imaginis etc. allusio est ad versum PsaL 105. Et mutaverunt gloriam suam in similitudinem vituli. Cui simile ilhid Jerem. 2. Populus meus mutavit gloriam suam in idolum. Quibus quidem locis gloriam suam, intellige gloriam populi, id est Deum ipsum, idque juxta fontem Hebraicum: cum alioqui in Psalmo apud LXX. legatur: Et mutaverunt gloriam ejus, scilicet Dei: quomodo et hic dicitur, gloriam Dei: ut dubium non sit quin ad eum Psalmi versiculum, ut est in Graeco, Paulus respexerit. Sed haec relativi diversitas in Hebraeo et Graeco summam rei non mutat. Alterum enim ex altero sequitur. Nam Israelitae hoc ipso, quo gloriam suam, id est, Deum suum pro idolo commutaverunt, ipsius Dei gloriam ad idohim transtulerunt. Dicebatur autem Deus gloria et decus illius populi, quia populus j)er illum gloriosus erat ac celebris: eoque derelicto semper fuit expositus ignominiae. Jam et illud: in similitudinem imaginis etc. nonnullam obscuritatem habet, tum quia Graece est m simUitudine, tum quod non appareat, quae dicatur similitudo imaginis, cum ipsa imago sit alterius similitudo. Sed dicendum, recte et ad mentem Apostoli interpretem vertisse in similitudinem casu accusativo: ut in Graeco £V pro sic positum sit. Scribit enim Apostolus, quod in Psalmo legerat sv Lixoi(ji\i.axi, in similitudine, pro quo ex Hebraeo vertunt, in formam, exemplar, similitudinem. Quod si observasset Erasmus, non ad ahenum sensum Apostoli verba detorsisset, vertendo per imaginem etc. Debuisset enim et inferius, ubi plane similis est sermo, sic vertere: ()ui commutarunt veritatem ejus per mendacium; quod vidit sibi non esse faciendum. Porro similitudo imaginis Hebraismus est, pro imagine simili seu repraesentante, ut sensus sit: Sapientes illos gloriam veri Dei transtulisse in creaturas, non quomodocumque, sed in simulacra creaturas repraesentantia, ut homines, volucres etc. Non solum enim has creaturas, verum, quod absurdius est, earum idola seu simulacra lignea et saxea pro diis cohierunt. Hic locus et alii innumeri, qui sunt in scripturis utriusque testamenti, palam redarguunt Joannis Calvini et sequacium ejus calumniam; qui ut invidiam faciant imaginibus Chi-isti et sanctorum, quas ecclesia catholica habet in veneratione, dicunt gentilibus nunquam in mentem venisse, ut inanimata simulacra Deos putarent ac divinis honoribus afficerent. Nam si ita est, quomodo Paulus affirmat eos commutasse gloriam Dei in icones sive imagines hominum, volucrum, quadrupedum, serpentium? Et quid volunt Prophetae, David, Jesaias, Jeremias et alii, qui dementissimam illam gentilium stultitiam, seu verius insaniam, toties traducunt atque irrident? idque verbis adjCO claris et apertis, ut nihil clarius aut apertius dici queat. Sit igitur hoc secundum scripturas indubitatum: gentiles a veri Dei notitia alienos, variisque cupiditatibus immersos, justo Dei judicio fuisse permissos in eam mentis caecitatem cadere, qua non solum homines, de quibus praeclara sentiebant, aut coelestia corpora, solem, lunam, astra, denique et bestias rationis expertes, verum etiam ipsa horum omnium simulacra, manibus humanis fabrefacta, pro diis haberent et colerent. Quanquam hac in re non omnium gentilium idem aut aeque gravis error fuit. Erant enim qui plus aliquid saperent supra vulgus hominum. Unde et triplicem gentilium quae dicebatur theologiam distinguunt orthodoxi scriptores: civilem, quae per Pontifices celebrabatur in templis; fabularem, quam Poetae repraesentabant in theatris; et naturalem, quam philosophi tradebant in scholis. Quae gentilis theologiae genera post Augustinum passim de his agentem in libris de Civit. Dei, docte explicat Thomas in hujus loci commentario sub finem septimae lectionis, et in 2. q. 94. art. 1.
1:24
24. Propter quod tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam. In desideria cordis eorum. Graece: sv xaTg S7it&u|jitatg xoiv xap- Siwv auTuiv^ in desideriis seu cupiditatibus cordium eorum. Quod Erasmus vertit: per cupiditates cordium suorum. Addit enim Apostolus diversa praepositione et casu etg axaOapatav, in vel ad immunditiam. Sed quia praepositionibus ev_, eic^ iixl^ non proprie semper utitur, sed earum significationem aliquando confundit, ut alibi videbimus; hinc alii meo judicio rectius, et ad Apostoli sensum accommodatius ita ver- •tunt: Tradidit illos Deus cupiditatibus cordium suorum ad immunditiam. Ostendit autem, in quae et quam turpia peccata fuerint prolapsi merito suae ingratitudinis et idololatriae memorati sapientes. Recte vero ex hoc scripturae loco, et ex aliis similibus docet Augustinus, aliique post eum Theologi, quaedam sic esse peccata, ut sint etiam poenae peccatorum. Augustini loca sunt lib. 5. contra Julianum cap. 3. et lib. de natura et gratia cap. 22. et alibi. Sed cum omnis poena peccati sit a Deo, atque hic etiam expresse dicatur Deus quosdam tradidisse in desideria cordis eorum in immunditiam, et ut pavilo post sequitur, in possessiones ignominiae, et in reprobum sensum: quaestio est, cur ex hac doctrina non sit consequens Deum esse peccatorum et flagitiorum, cujusmodi hic referuntur, autorem. Quod ex his atque aliis scripturis statuere conati sunt veteres ac novi haeretici, non sine grandi injuria ac blasphemia in Deum. Nam et Apostolorum tempore fuisse, qui ex Pauli scriptis male intellectis hunc errorem hausissent, apparet ex epistola beati Jacobi, in qua cap. 1. tam studiose fideles advei"sus eum errorem munit, admonens ne peccatorum tentationes et incitamenta Deo adscribant, sed suae potius concupiscentiae; in Deum autem non nisi quae bona sunt referant, alioqui graviter erraturos. Igitur ut ad Paulum revertar: Respondeo, praesentem locum nihil istis patrocinari. Nam tradere hominem in aliquod malum culpae vel poenae (quae phrasis est in scriptura frequens) non aliud est quam hominem ejusmodi malo exponere, videlicet deserendo, non protegendo, non eripiendo: vel etiam occasiones et ofiendicula ponendo: denique quomodolibet permittendo ac permittere volendo, ut in ejusmodi malum incidat: sive is, qui sic traditur, aliquo praecedente peccato id commeruerit, sive non. Nam Deus filium suum innocentissimum in mortem tradidit, nec omnino fieri potest ut quis alterum occidat, nisi Deus eum tradat in manus illius, teste Augustino quaest. 79. in Exod. Et quod attinet ad traditionem in peccata, Ecclesiaticus, utique justus, Deum sic orat, c. 23. Extollentiam oculorum meoi-um ne dederis mihi. Et iterum: Animae irreverenti et infrunitae ne tradas me. Imo omnium justorum quotidiana oratio est: Ne nos inducas in tentationem. Quod quid est aliud, quam, ne tradas nos in tentationem? Quare et hoc loco non putamus in vocabulo tradidit includi respectum aliquem ad meritum peccati praecedentis. Hoc enim seorsim significatur causali dictione praeposita, propter quod, propterea. Et infra illis verbis: Sicut non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia. Quamquam fatemur, ubi scriptura sic loquitur, plerumque sermonem esse de traditione quae fit ob culpam praecedentem. Ita Stephanus Act. 7. de filiis Israel, qui vitulum sibi ad cultum erexerant: Et tradidit eos, inquit, servire militiae coeli, ut nimirum peccatum sequens esset poena prioris. Quod ergo dicit Apostolus, tale est: Deum peccatis illis philosophorum supradictis ofi"ensum ita eos auxilio suo destituisse, et cupiditatibus ipsorum pennisisse, ut in immunditiae peccata ac foedas libidines, de quibus in consequentibus plura, proni ac praecipites irent. Sensum locutionis probat orthodoxorum Patrum Cluysostomi et aliorum interpretatio, qui traditionem hanc, sicut et illam inductionem, passim exponunt per haec verba, sinere, permittere, deserere, auxilium gi'atiae subtrahere vel non impartire: interdum addentes etiam positivam aliquam actionem, non respicientem peccatum, sed res secundum se bonas, quarum Deus autor est, quae tamen hominibus ad mala propensis esse solent occasiones et irritamenta peccandi. Quod etsi non adderent, per se tamen satis intelligitur. Nobis enim, in quibus assidue caro concupiscit adversus spiritum, peccatorum occasiones ac tentationes etiam externae nusquam non sunt obviae; mundus enim laqueorum plenus est. Quamquam aliis plures, aliis pauciores objiciuntur occasiones, Deo vel propter hominum merita, vel alias ob causas in ipso absconditas, ita disponente. Cur autem ad hunc modum loquatur scriptura, ut Deum dicat vel tradere homines in peccata, vel inducere in tentationem; ea ratio est, quia qui subducit auxilium malo superando vel evadendo necessarium, aut id non praestat cum possit, tradidisse videtur et induxisse in malum. Et ita loqui solent homines de hominibus, quibus iu culpam imputatur, si periclitantibus opem aut non ferant, aut subtrahant. At vero Deus sensu jam explicato tradens homines in peccata, atque in tentationem inducens, neque culpandus est, quia nihil cuiquam debet, neque peccatorum autor dicendus, quia non ipsa peccata operatur, sed ea bona, quibus in malum suum homines abutuntur. Operatur etiam actiones malitiae substratas, ut Theologi loquuntur: sed et illae bonae sunt, et de iis hic non est sermo. Dices: Autor est Deus omnis poenae: si ergo quaedam peccata sunt etiam poenae peccatorum, consequens est, ut etism peccatorum autor sit. Bespondeo, quemadmodum id non sequitur ex eo, quod omnis actionis autor est Deus, licet quaedam actiones peccata sint, ita nec sequitur ex eo, quod autor est omnis poenae, licet quaedam poenae sint peccata. Nam sicut omnis actionis autor est, ut actio quaedam est, non ut peccati deformitatem habet: ita autor est omnis poenae, quatenus justae punitionis habet rationem, non quatenus etiam peccatum esse contingit. Atque id est quod docet Augustinus lib. de praedest. Sanct. cap. 10. Etsi sunt, inqtiit, quaedam, quae ita peccata sunt, ut poenae etiam sint peccatorum, unde dictum est: Tradidit illos Deus etc^ non ibi peccatum Dei est, sed judicium. Haec enim verba significant, idcirco peccata quaedam esse poenas peccatorum, quia praeter malitiam culpae, quae non est a Deo, invenitur in illis bonum justae vindictae, quod haud dubie a Deo est. Quomodo autem inveniatur, explicat sanctus Thomas in commentario. Et in universum hac de re disputant scholastici doctores in 2. sent. dist. 36. Jam ex his intelligi potest, quo sensu B. Augustinus contra Julianum scribens loco citato, reprehendat haec illius haeretici verba: Cum desideriis suis traditi dicuntur, relicti per divinam patientiam intelligendi sunt, non per potentiam in peccata compulsi. Non enim sentit aut dicit homines per divinam potentiam in peccata compelli: sed eatenus verba Juliani reprehendit, quod ille in Deo homines suis desideriis tradente solam agnosceret patientiam derelinquentis, non etiam potentiam operantis; cum Apostohis hujus epist. c. 9. simul utrumque posuerit, dicens: Si volens Deus ostendere iram, et demonstrare potentiam suam, attulit in multa patientia vasa irae, quae perfecta sunt in perditionem. Potentiam vero vult agnosci in eo, quod circa peccatores operatur quaedam sive prospera sive adversa, sive qualiacumque, quibus ut occasionibus aut offendicuKs eos gravius ac turpius impingere contingat: non in eo quod in peccata proprie compellat. Hunc enim modum tradendi diserte exchidit et damnat alibi, quum dicit Deum tradidisse peccatores suis desideriis, non cogendo sed deserendo, ut serm. 9. de diversis cap. 9. et lib. de natura et gratia cap. 23. nec non lib. 1. contra 2. epist. Pelag. cap. 18., ubi Juliani verbis, quibus dixerat: Nec ex Dei potentia vel in malum vel in bonum invitum aliquem cogi: sed propria voluntate aut bonum facere aut malum, haec sua verba opponit: Nec ex Dei potentia vel in malum vel in honuminvitum aliquem cogi: sed Deo deserente pro meritis ire in malum, et Deo adjuvante sine meritis converti ad bonum. Scripsit autem haec Augustinus post illa, quae ex libro 5. contra eundem Julianum scripto proferebantur: ut proinde mentem suam de eo, quod prius scripserat, in his posterioribus explicare voluisse existimandus sit.
Ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetipsis. Pro contumeliis afficiant, in Graeco unum verbum compositum est azindQeob-aiy quod alibi vertit interpres inhonorare vel exhonorare, id est ignominia seu turpitudine afficere. Quod sequitur, in semetipsis, additum videri potest ad significandum expressius, quod eam contumeliam ipsi sibimet inferant, et a semetipsis patiantur: cum alioqui soleant alii alios afficere contumeliis, et ab aliis eas pati. Sic infra: Mercedem quam oportuit erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes. Graece ev eaoTolg. Aliis tamen placet ev lauxolg positum pro Iv aXXi^XoiQ^ id est inter se, mutuo, scilicet eo modo, quem mox ipse Apostolus apertioribus verbis exponit. Atque ita vertit Erasmus. Nec aliud sibi vult versio quaedam vetus, inter semetipsos, quae legitur apud S. Ambrosium lib. 1. de fide ad Gratiam. cap. 7. Sed et com. Amb. etsi legat: in semetipsis, exponit tamen de iis qui corpora sua dehonestant invicem, Sane constat eam acceptionem pronominis illius reciproci Paulo non esse inusitatam. Sic Eph. 4. et Cob 3. donantes invicem. Graece eautolt;. Porro quamvis secundum Apostolum 1 Cor. 6. Omnis qui fornicatur in corpus suum peccat, ipsumque dehonestat et contumelia afficit, nimirum ob foeditatem libidinis, qua illud commaculat; maxime tamen et singuhxri quodam modo id faciunt, qui naturalem Veneris lasum praepostera libidine pervertunt. Fuit autem haec congruens poena peccato, ut qui Deum gloriadebita defraudassent, ipsi e diverso turpissimam in seipsis et a seipsis ignominiam paterentur.
1:25
25. ()ui commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium. Dei Graece ejus. Causam repetit, cur sic derelicti et traditi fuerint a Deo. In mendacium. Graece in mendacio, quod et in Latinis quibusdam codicibus legitur. Sed idem significatur. Ita superius in similitudinem, quod Graece erat, in similitudine. Rectius igitur hoc loco vertit Erasmus: Qui commutarunt veritatem ejus mendacio. Sensus enim est: Quia veritatem Dei, id est ea quae de Deo cognoverant, ut aeternitatem, omnipotentiam, ipsamque omnino divinitatem, transtulerunt ad idola, colentes ea pro diis, et attribuentes quae divina sunt. Mendacii nomine idolum hic et alias saepe in scripturis appellatur, ideo quia idolum nihil minus est quam id quod dicitur, scilicet Deus. Etenim hac ratione idolum nihil est. 1 Cor. 8.
Et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori. Coluerunt, Graece locplaoO^yjOav^ id est religiose venerati sunt. Significatur enim ea veneratio, quae haberi solet rebus majestate praecellentibus. Et servierunt servitute seu cultu divino, Graece, sXaxpcUoav. Creaturae potius quam creatori, Graece creaturae praeter eum qui creavit, id est creaturae, relicto creatore, quemadmodum citat hunc locum Cyprianus lib. 3. testimon. ad Quirinum cap. 10., sive praeterito creatore, quomodo citat Hilarius lib. 12. de Trinit. Non enim siguificatm- comparatio, quasi cokierint utrumque, magis autem creaturam, sed quod creaturam coluerint, non creatorem. Quidam sic exponit: praeter creatorem, id est contra creatoris mentem ac legem. Sed is mentem Apostoli non assequitur.
Qui est benedictus in saecula. Benedictus, suAoyy^T^c^, nomen est non participium. Erasmus Liudanduni interpretatur. Vocabulum est scripturis sacris peculiare, ductum a verbo suAoysIv^ id est laudare cum gratiarum actione, atque, ut Tacitus loquitur, hiudibus gratiisque venerari. Quod uno itidem verbo Latino Graecum exprimentes dicimus benedicere: licet hac significationepriscisEomauis ignoto. Nam illis benedicere erat bene precari, ut, videbimus infra ad illud cap. 12. Benedi^ cite persequentibus vos. Igitur sensus est: Qui tanquam Deus omnium rerum creator, et omnium nobis bonorum autor, jure laudandus et praedicandus est per omnia saecula, id est omni tempore. Nam saeculum, Graece aicov^ significat longum tempus, quale est centum annorum. Et saecula, atwvsg plurali numero, universum tempus atque ipsam aeternitatem in scripturis significare solent, praesertim addito genitivo saecidorum, qui in fine hujus epistolae et alibi saepe additur ad expressiorem aeternitatis significationem.
Amen. Vox est Hebraea, passim omnibus nota et a Christo Domino frequentata, quam Paulus sexies posuit in hac epistola. Adhibetur autem ad confirmationem et approbationem ejus quod dicitur: ac idem valet quod adverbium vere, aut verbum fiat, verum sit ac firmum. Utitur eo Christus in Evangeliis (apud Joannem semper geminatu) tanquam adverbio asseverandi: idque initio sententiarum, quas vult confirmare, dicendo: Amen, id est vere, dico vobis. Et quidem hoc ei peculiare fuisse videtur. Nam alibi in scriptura utriusque testamenti usurpatur pro clausula sermonis autecedentis, qua cum optatione quod dictum est approbatur. Unde est illud de non intelligente 1 Cor. 14. Quomodo dicet Amen super tuam benedictionem? Ita accipitur hoc loco. Nam sensus est: Ut vere laudandus est in omnem aeternitatem; ita fiat, in aeternum laudetur. Hanc ejus vocis significationem reddideruntLXX. interpretes Graeco verbo ysvotxo^ id est fiat. Quod geminatum legitur in fine Psahnorum 40. chus et Theodotio fideliter, sive vere interpretati sunt, teste Hieronymo in fine comment. epistnlae ad Galatas. Interdum quoque epitheton est Christi filii Dei ut Apoc. 3. Haec dicit Amen, testis fidelis et verus. Graece 6 Afxv^v^ lUe Amen, ac si dicat: Haec dicit ipsa veritas.,
1:26
26. Propterea tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae. Repetit et pluribus declarat, in quae dedecorosa flagitia prolapsi sint supradicti sapientes in punitiuuem peccati, quo servierunt creaturae potius quem creatori. Passiones, Graece r^d^&Ti, quas alii cupiditates, alii affectus vertere mahxerunt. Nam passiones hac quidem significatione Valla negat probe dici: sed et Erasmus aversatur velut novum et fictitium vocabulum. Atqui tempore B. Augustini non erat novum. Utitur enim ipse, autorem citans Apulejum, lib. 9. de civ. Dei cap. 4. Atque eo libentius utitui-, quod et Graecam vocem et rem ipsam magis exprimat: etsi non ignuraret quosdam, ut Ciceronem, perturbationes, alios, ut Quintilianum, affectus vocare ea quae Graecis Tid^r^ dicuntur. Usurpat autem et Hieronymus non solum passionis, sed et prupassionis vocabula in comment. Matth. cap. 5. et 26. Nec enim inveniebat alia Latina aptiora, quibus Graeca Tzd^OQ et Ttpo7:a'&£'.av commutaret. Unde est illud ejusdem in diaconum: Quid patitur mensarum et viduarum minister? epistola 85. ad Evagrium. Sane in hoc loco Apostoli nihil siguificautius nomine passionis. Qui enim illaturpia agunt, adeo se totos illis dedunt atque inunergunt, ut pati magis quam ageve videantur. Has autem vocat passiones iguomiuiae, id est passiones ignominiosas ac pudendas. Hebraeis enim familiare est substantivum gignendi casu ponere loco epitheti.
Nam foeminae eorum immutaverunt naturalem usum in eum usum, qui est cordra naturam. Graece, praeter naturam. Sed id tantundem valet, sicut et infra cap. 16. praeter doctrinam quam didicistis, id est contra eam doctrinam. De qua significatione Graecae praepositionis Tiapa plenius acturi sumus ad illud GaL 1. praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis, et: praeter id quod accepistis. Naturalis usus corporum, de quo agit Apostolus, est ea conjunctio ad quam natura inclinat, et ex qua nata est sequi generatio. Haec autem non est nisi maris et foeminae, eaque membris ad hoc a natura deputatis. Omnis igitur usus illorum membrorum ad Venerem ab hoc diversus, contra naturam est, non solum qua homines, sed etiam qua animalia sumus. Quocirca genus hoc libidinis plusquam bestiale est. Quaeres cur foeminei sexus hic meminerit, cum de philosophis ageret? Idcirco^ ni fallor, ut ostendat, punitionem et exempla virorum redundasse etiam in foemiuas. Id enim insinuat Graeca lectio: Nam et foeminae eorum etc., quasi dicat, culpa virorum etiam ad foemiuas turpitudinem manasse, quod in Sappho poetria notatur: tametsi mox redit ad viros.
1:27
27. SimiHter autejn et masculi, relicto naturali usu foeminae. Graece oiioiwg Tc, similiterque. Interpres pro xs, legit dk. 8ed ad sensum nihil pene facit ea varietas. Suntque codices qui neutrum habeant.
Exarserunt in desideriis suis in invicem. Graece non est, in desideriis suis, sed: ev x^ ope^st auxtov^ w appetentia sui ipsorum, id est mutua, quod explicatur parte subjuncta in invicem, sive alius in alium. Et amplius per id quod sequitur.
Masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes. Graece xa-repyaCo/ASvot^ quod non simpliciter est, operantes, sed studiose et impense operantes, ut Graeci interpretantur. Erasmus vertit, foeditatem perpetrantes. Porro videri cuipiam posset Apostolum hac parte, similiter autem etc. non speciatim loqui de philosophis, sed in genere de sexu masculino, qui in illa coeca gentiUtate erat hoc iufandae libidinis vitio vehementer corruptus. Putant etiam nonnulli Pauhim hic et in versu praecedente respicere ad obscoenitatem sacrorum gentilium, velut Liberi patris et Cybeles, in quibus, ut referunt historici, turpia quaedam et nefanda sub velamine mysteriorum agebantur. Verum ut etiam hic locus de philosophis intelb'gatur, postulat series disputationis: nec ad diversos referri permittit hoc, quod deinceps sequitur, de mercede reddita illis, qui non probaverunt Deum bahere in notitia. Nisi forte quis indignum putet de philosophis, praesertim iis quurum sanctior erat professio, tam foeda suspicari. Sed non putabit, qui fidem habeat antiquis et fide dignis autoribus. Etenim Socratem illum inter philosophos laudatissimum hujus criminis, id est obscoeni adolescentum amoris, reum faciunt non solum nostri, ut TertulHanus iu Apol. adversus gentes cap. 46. et lib. de anima cap. 1., Gregorius quoque Nazianzenus orat. 1. adversus Julianum, et in carmine de virtute: verum etiam Athenaeus scriptor ethnicus lib. 13. Deipnosophistarum, ut taceam Lucianum, qui Socratem hoc nomine saepe insectatur, praecipue et apertissime in dialogo, cui titulus Amores. Et quidem Athenaeus etiam Aristotelem atque Zenonem cum sua Stoicorum familia turpitudinis hujus insimulat. Nec Zeuoni hac iu re pepercit Diogenes Laertius, etsi ipse quoque philosophus: imo nec Platoni, quamvis tam sublimiter erudito, ut divinus agnominaretur: tametsi Platonem ipsi sui dialogi, ut ab eo conscripti sunt, satis suspectum faciunt. De quo praeterea refert Theodoretus in li1)ro de legibus, qui est de Graecanicarum aftectionum curatione nonus, eum inter alia multa turpia et absurda, quae legibus statuit, etiam istam puerorum quam vocant epcoTtxryV usque adeo laudasse, ut huic amori praemium apud caelites promitteret. Atque hic scilicet ille divmus est Plalo, tot tantisque suorum encomiis celebratus. Addo quod de Lycurgo commemorat eodem libro Theodoretus, et quod de Solone Chrysostomus in commentario; nempe eos lata lege Venerem hujusmodi suis popuHs permisisse, nisi quod servos ab hoc beneficio Solon exclusos voluit. Qui duo quanquam non philosophi professione fuere, sed legislatores officio, leges tamen eorum philosophi laudaverunt: quorum itidem multos libros hocce morbo refertos inveniri, testatur idem Chrysostomus; denique quos in universum accusat hoc crimineLucianus. Pudet haec attingere; sed tamen necesse fuit propter aliquam hujus loci, quem exponimus, illustrationem.
Et mercedem quam oportuit erroris sui in semetipsis recipientes. Id est, retributionem errori et peccato suo condignam et congruentem velut quadam talionis lege in suis ipsorum corporibus recipientes. Congruentiam hujus poenae jam superius explicavimus. Eam tamen paulo aliter explicat Ohrysostomus scribens in Ps. 124. quia, inquit, sicut commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium, ita traditi sunt, ut naturalem usum commutarent in eum qui est contra naturam. Pro mercede, Graece est dictio composita aVTt|Jiia^''aj q. d. compensationem, id est mercedem meritis respondentem. Hic ergo jam manifestius significat apostolus hujusmodi peccata fuisse praecedentium peccatorum poenas. Dicit, erroris sui, quia licet Deum vere cognovissent, in eo tamen errabant gravissime, quod honores divinos putarentvel saltemper simulationem exbibendos esse creaturis et earum simulacris.
1:28
28. Et sicut non prohcwerunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum. Graece in reproham mentem, quomodo citat Augustinus lib. de praedest. Sanct. cap. 10. et alibi. Notanda antithesis cum allusione vocum inter probaverunt et reprobum, quae magis apparet in vocabulis Graecis ISoxijjaaav et a.^joyd\s.w. Sensus: Et sicut non probaverunt neque aestimaverunt beneficium a Deo acceptum, quud erat Deum habere in notitia, id est Deum cognovisse: sed magis illud ingratorum hominum more parvi pendere visi sunt, quia cum Deum nossent, non eum ut dignus erat honorarunt: ita vicissim in poenam tantae ingratitudinis tradidit illos Deus in reprobam mentem, id est, permisit eos sibimetipsis: qu(» factum, ut mentem induerint judicii prorsus depravati, quam proinde nemo probet, sed omnes ut vilem et improbam contemnant.
Ut fociant ea quae non conveniunt. Eventus significatur, non causa finalis. Nam sensus est: ita ut faciant ea, quae facere non convenit, id est ea quae ma- xime homines dedecent, utpote res turpis- simas. Fif^ura est scripturis frequens, qua minus dicitur, plus intelligitur: ut Nehem. 5. Non est bona res quam facitis, id est valde mala.
1:29
29. Repletos omni iniquitate. Ne putes uni vitio ignominiosae ac nefariae libidinis fuisse obnoxios, ostendit Apostolus, in universum eos moribus fuisse corruptissimis, idque congerie vitiorum, quae hic deinceps enumerat. In quibus ordinem quaerere, quod quidam faciunt, arbitror esse supervacaneum. Pro repletos, verti et potest repleti, idque fortasse rectius, ut bene monet Erasmus. Referendum enim potius ad verbum faciant, quam ad tradidit. Nam prius erat tradi, quam his vitiis repleri. Idem judiciimi de caeteris accusativis in hac vitiorimi enumeratione sequentibus, ut plenos invidia, contumeliosos, superbos etc. Pro iniquitate, Graece est a6r/.''a in^ justitia. Hanc primo loco ponit ut vitium generale, justitiae item generali opposi- # tum: cujus deinde varias species subjicit. | Quanquam nihil vetat injustitiam speciali justitiae oppositam intelligi, qua tranquillitas reipublicae plurimum laeditur, et quae Graeco nomine propriissime significatur. Dicit autem repletos omni injustitia, id est omni genere injustitiae. Nam et specialis injustitia per varias species difiimditur.
yialitia. Id est nocendi studio, quod diabolicimi est vitium; Graece TCOvr^p''a. Unde diabolus per antonomasiam malus, Graece Tiovr^poCj passim in scriptura novi testamenti vocatur.
Fornicatione. Quo nomine comprehenditur omnis illicitus concubitus viri cum foemina. Notandum haec duo malitia et fornicatione in textu Graeco et Syriaco leo-i ordine commutato. Sed id potuit accidisse ex similitudine Graecarum vocum Tiopv£''a^ 7iovr^p''a.
Avaritia. Graece, Tzlzwziia. Qua voce significatur studium plus quam sibi competat habendi, usurpandi, occupandi, quasi dicas plurishabentiam: nec id sokm in divitiis, sed etiam in honoribus, aliisque rebus. Nam et ad libidines transfertur interdum, ut Eph. 4. Quomodo etiam hoc loco accipi potest non inepte.
Nequitia. Graeca dictio xaxta fere idem significat quod ea, quam paulo ante malitiam vertit interpres. Apte tamen distinguitur, quod TCOVTjpia versutiam, id est fallax nocendi studium, xaxfa perversitatem animi proprie significare videntur.
PJenos invidia, homicidio. Ut similis soni sunt voces iu Graeco aOovou^ cpovou^ ita vitia cognata, quoium alterum oritur ex altero, juxta illud Sap. 2. Incidia diaboli mors intravit in orbem terrarum. Et 1 Joannis 3. Omnis qui odit fratrem suum, homicida est: scilicet aut re aut voluntate Quare et hic sub homicidio voluntatem occidendi comprehende. Nam hi, de quibus Apostohis loquitur, ut invidia pleni erant, ita voluntate erant h^.micidae; caeterum ab opere perpetrando legibus deterriti.
Contentione, dolo. Haec quoque vitia cum invidia et homicidio generis sunt ejusdem. Contentio est cum quis certat studio vincendi, non amore veritatis. Dolus machinatio est ad fallendum.
Mcdignitate, scilicet ea, quae in moribus apparet. Id enim significat vox Graeca xaxoT^Osta^ quam possis morositatem, seu morum asperitatem ac difiicultatem dicere.
1:30
30. Susurrones, detractores. Significantur ii, qui proximos occulte mordent, illi ut solvant amicitiam, isti ut lacerent famam. Vitia linguae plus satis nota, ac nimium frequentia.
Deo odibiles. Hanc partem glossa quaedam annectit parti praecedenti, tanquam sentiatapostolusdetractores esse Deo odibiles. Sed melius seorsim legitur, ut caetera vitia hic enumerata. Graece una dictio est ^BO'ZVJ'(S.~<.'Z, quae tam significat eos quibus Deus exosus est, quam qui exosi Deo. Prior significatio magis quadrat huic loco. Referuntur enim vitia hominum, non Dei erga homines aftectus. TJnde Cyprianus epist. 68. legit abhorrentes Deo, id est, quibus Deus est horrori, nimirum prupter justitiam qua vindicat in malos. Itaque parit hoc vitium scelerata conscientia. Reddunt hunc sensum etlam Graecorum scholia. At Theophjlactus utrumque sensmn nude proposuit.
Contumeliosos, Graece uPpiOTag^ quo voce fere significatur contumelia facti, ut est huminum ferocium, qui alios per vim opprimunt. Cyprianus legit injuriosos.
Superbos. Non solum in eo superbos, quod Deum cognitum non sicut Deum glorificaverunt aut gratias egerunt, sed se sapientes esse dixerunt; quod eorum peccatum supra commemoratum fuit ab apostolo: verum etiam quod sapientiae nomine sese caeteris hominibus praeferentes, eam animi superbiam externo fastu morum ostenderent, adeo ut de hoc vitio etiam apud vulgus male audirent. Atque istud huc loco proprie significatum videtur. Eodemque pertinet quiid sequitur:
Elatos. Graece aAaCovac;^ pro quu Cyprianus legit jactantes sui. Latini vocant gloriusos, qualis ille miles apud Terent. Elatos et superbos habes etiam 2 Tim. 3. positos in serie magnorum vitiorum.
Inventores malorum. Id est, qui non contenti vitiis, flagitiis, aliisve excessibus, quos alii jam ante invenerunt, etiam ipsi nova luxus ac libidinum genera modosque excogitant. Putest etiam intelligi de malis, id est nocumentis ac nocendi instrumentis, quibus alii laeduntur.
Parentibus non obedientes. Graece aTai^zTKZ, inobedientes, immorigeri, refractarii, qui monitis nolunt acquiescere. Graeca vox sonat, ac si dicas impersuasibiles, qua passim in scriptura significantur increduli. Sed hic propter adjunctum dativum parentibus obedientiae opponitur. Addidit hanc partem Apostolus, qua doceat illorum malitiam eo progressam, ut adversus ipsam naturam pugnarent, non solum in turpitudine voluptatuui, quod jani dictum est, verum etiam in detrectando honore et obsequio parentibus debito. Sed et huc vitium posuit 2 Tim. 3. inter ea, quibus tempora redduntur periculosa.
1:31
31. Insipientes. Vux Graeca, quam et ante habuimus, ubi insipiens cor eorum, significat inteliigeutia destitutos; id est non recto rationis judicio utentes. Tn quod vitium fere incidunt qui venerunt in consuetudinem peccandi.
Incompositos. Hoc est, inquit Theophylactus, in foedere non permanentes, foedifragos. Compositionem ergo eam intelligit, fjuae est in pactis et conventis. Atque id secutus Erasmus vertit poctorum haudyuaqumn tenoces: sed quia mox sequitur ahs'jue foedere, possunt hic accipi qui moribus sunt inurbanis et incompositis, et ab humanitate alienis. Nam et illud vox Graeca.significat. Estque etiam hic in Graeco observanda grata vocum alhisio hujus et praecedentis, aiwi- TOug_, aa'jv&etouc: qua nimirum innuere voluit vitiorum 'affinitatem. Nam stultitia statim in mores redundat.
Sine affectione, absnue foedere, sitie misericordia. In Graeco sunt singula nomina, azzopyouc, a^^izovdouQ, avzXerniova.(Z, quorum duo priora conjunxit etiam 2 Tim. 3. Et quidem aoropyoi Graecis dicuntur, qui nullo tanguntur pietatis aut charitatis affectu, qualis naturaliter esse solet inter parentes etliberos, atnue alios sanguine vel simili necessitudine constrictos. "AoTiovSo'. dicuntur, qui fidem et foedera non servant. Quanquf.ra etiam intelligi possunt implacabiles, qui semel offe.usi reconciliationem non admittunt. Nam et hi Graeca voce significantur. Utraque certe significatio praesenti loco bene quidrat. AvzAerjiiovsfz, id est immisericordeS; immites: qui non commoventur alienis miseriis, sive ut eas benigne sublevent, sive ne eas injuste vel crudeliter inferant. Quidam suspicantur Apostolum haec duo, sine affecfione et sine misericordia (quae vitia sunt admodum inter se cognata) huc adscripsisse propter Stoicos philosophos, qui lino.^ZKav docuerunt, id est passionum sive affectionum -^'acuitatem: nescientes virum bonum passionibus uti debere ut stimulis ad opera virtutum. Qua de re Aug. consule lib. 14. de civ. Dei c. 9.
1:32
32. Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non inteUexerunt, quoniam qui talia agunt digni sunt morte: et non solum qui en faciunt, sed etiam oni consentiunt facientibus. Sic codices Romanae correctionis: tametsi plerique alii sine conjunctione legunt: Digni sunt mortef non solum qui ea faciunt^ sed etiam etc. Caeterum a Latinis tam Graeca quam Syriaca non parum discrepant. Sic enim habent: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, quia qui talia agunt digni sunt morte, non solum ea faciunt, sed etiam consentiunt facientibus. Justitiam, Graece diy.aioiixa justificationem. Sed saepe pro justitia ponitur. Tn hunc autem modum Graecos 'omnes interpretes olim legisse, quamvis apud nonnullos textus iiTepserit vulgatae versionis Latinae (quod dico potissimum propter Origenem), patet ex eorum commentariis. Oecumenius ita utriusque meminit lectionis, ut eam, quae Latinorum est codicum, ex professo refellat. Cajetanus affirmat in Latinis literam esse corruptam. Sane constat, etiam Latinos quosdam olim legisse prorsus aut propemodum quomodo Graeci Nam Cjprianus loco superius citato, juxta fidem multorum exemplarium mss, sic verba apostoli recitat: Qui cum justitiam Dei cognovissent, non tantum faciunt mala, sed et consentiunt eis qui haec agunt: deinde subjungit, quoniam qui talia, inquit, ogunt, digni sunt morte. Quae lectio Graecis consonat, eo sohim excepto, quod ordinem sententiae paulum immutet, verba quaedam e medio sublata collocans in fine. 4 Augustinus quoque in expositione qua- * rundam propos. hujus epist. juxta codices antiquiores ita legit: Non solum ea faciunt, sed etiam consentiunt facientibus. Atque eara lectionem subjuncta ejus expositio cnnfirmat. ItemSymmachusPapa locum hunc adversus Anastasium imperatorem profert, ut doceat gravius esse consentire quam facere. Quod ex hoc loco nequaquam habetur, nisi legamus ut Graeci. Secundum hos igitur planus est sensus hujusmndi: Qui philosophi et sapientes cura praeter alia, ouae de Deo didicerunt, etiam justitiam Dei cognovissent, secundum (juam digni suntmorte qui talia, quae jam commemorata, agunt; non solum tamen ipsi ea faciunt, quae in multis ignorantiae ant infirmitati poter?,nt imputari; verum etiam consentiunt ahis talia facientibus, id est ea in aliis suo consensu, adulatione et autoritate fovent. Hoc enim absque dubio majoris erat malitiae, quam si ipsi solum talia perpetrassent. Nam is qui facit, semel peccat: qui facientibus consentit, bis peccat, in se, et in alio, cujus peccatum consentiendo, vel etiam fovendo facit suum: eoque magis,.si illum avertere debebat a peccato. Quod sane eorum erat, qui se sapientes in populo profitebantur. Sensus Latinae lectionis est: philosophos etsi justitiam Dei cognovissent, malitia tamen sua excoecatos non eam ante oculos habuisse, nec considerasse, quod exigente Dei justitia morte digni sunt qui talia faciunt: nec solum qui talia faciunt, sed et qui consentitint facientibus, etiamsi forte per se ipsi quaedam talia nec faciant, nec facere vellent. Notandum autem lectionem Latinam a Graeca non diflFerre mutatione aliqua verborum, sed tantum additione. Haec enim amplius habet, non intellexerunt, et qui duobus locis, et in Romanis voculam et. Equidem addita putarim vel ab interprete, vel potius ab alio vel aliis postea: quod alioqui sententia videretur absurditatem continere: cum vulgi judicio gravius peccent qui faciunt, quam qui consentiunt. Quam rationem lectionis a nonnullis etiam Graecis immutatae, suis in scholiis adfert Oecumenius. Porrophilosophos, quiDeum cognoverunt, etiam justitiam Dei cognovisse, qua scelera non dimittit impunita, liquet ex eorum scriptis, nominatim Platonis, qui in dialogo 9. et 12. de legibus, affirmat impios maxima suorum scelenim post mortem supplicia manere.
1:1
1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium Dei. Ex antiquo more, uti Phot. (cfr Oec.) ad Act. 23,96 appellans iam monuit, nomen suum (Paulus) primo in loco ponit; illud autem in omnibus epistolis adhibet, quod iuxta S. Hier. (in Philem. 1) « ad praedicationem gentium missus à primo Ecclesiae spolio, proconsule Sergio Paulo, velut victoriae suae trophaea retulerat » et quo inde a prima illa inter ethnicos expeditione apostolica non minus inter ludaeochristianos (Act. 15,25; 2 Petr. 3,15) quam inter gentes conversas semper nominabatur. In reliquis inscriptionibus (exceptis 1,2 TAess.) nomini suo solum Apostoli vel servi Iesu Christi titalum adiungit, in hac autem munus suum (tribus appellationibus accuratius definit & generaliore (servus Iesu Christi) exorsus. Cum Chrys. Graeci tres servitutis modos (ratione creationis, fidei, muneris) distinguunt, qui omnes Paulo conveniant, sed quisnam ex his nostro in loco maxime sit intelligendus non inquirunt. Latini vero duos distinguere solent; sicut enim in V. T. nomine nf" 723 (2:9Ae; Kupio servus Domini) et illi appellantur, qui praeceptorum divinorum ac praecipue Legis mosaicae observatione se Domino subiectos esse profitentur (i. q. cultor Domini Ps. 105,6; 135,1 'etc.), et illi, qui ad divinum aliquod mandatum exsequendum electi specialiore modo Domino sunt subiecti (i. q. minister Domini, uti Moyses Deut. 35,5 etc., prophetae An. 3,1 etc., alii), ita etiam in N. T. nomen 223Aoq 'Inoc9 Xgu-c9 (servus Iesu Christi) et omnibus Christianis attribuitur, qui fide et baptismo ex satanae dominio egressi Christo sese subiecerunt (EpA. 6,6 etc.), et illis, qui muneribus a Christo sibi col-. latis fungentes eminentiore modo ei tamquam domino suo serviunt (2 Tim. 2,2*; Gal. 1,10; Col. 4,12 etc.). Cum antiquioribus Latinis (cfr A'e* Pel. etc., Thom. Lyr. etc.) iuniores quoque nonnulli priorem sensum hoc in loco praeferunt : « servum Iesu Christi, inquit Tol., sese vocat utpote fidem christianam profitentem, ac si diceret : nomine : Paulus, professione Christianus sum; hoc maxime ideo dicit, ut sea Lege illa vetere exutum et ludaismum, cuius prius erat acerrimus defensor, reliquisse Christumque se amplexum esse significet ». At « propter ministerium verbi, in quo serviebat Christo Domino » (Est.), potissimum appellationem illam esse usurpatam , moderni fere omnes censent, idque recte, uti videtur; siquidem interdum Paulus ipse (PAil. 1,1) et alii Apostoli (Iac. 1,1; Iud. 1) hoc solo titulo sese in epistolarum inscriptionibus designant, in quibus sine ullo dubio auctoritatem suam asserere volunt. Neque vero hac specialiore admissa significatione tautologia exoritur, id quod Tol. insinuat nonnullique acath. (Fr. Rück. etc.) obiiciunt; nam secunda appellatio vocatus Apostolus (xAzsss &xóotoAcc) idem, quod prior, nequaquam valet, sed eam explicat accuratiusque determinat. Ministerii quippe ratione etiam adiutores Apostolorum appellabantur servi Christi (Timotheus PAil. 1,1, Epaphras Co/. &,19 et 1,7, alii); ab his igitur ut sese distinguat, Paulus altero membro ministerium sibi commissum idem illud esse docet, quo Duodecim fungebantur, quos Dominus in terris agens praeordinatos resurrectionis suae testes elegerat Evangeliumquesuum in universo mundo annuntiare iusserat (Act. 10,&1 sq.; MattA. 28,18 etc.). Quibus sese parem esse clarius significat, quum non nude Apostolum, quippe quod nomen et ipsum latiorem significationem admittat, sed vocatum Apostolum sese dicit (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,1), sollemniore formula eam apostolatus sui originem insinuans, quam contra adversarios suos iudaizantes alibi diserte sibi vindicare debuerat (cfr ad Ga/. 1,1 : « Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem, sed per Iesum Christum et Deum Patrem, qui suscitavit eum a mortuis »). Quemadmodum Duodecim ad apostolatum proprie dictum a Domino ante eius ascensionem immediate vocati et praeparati et missi sunt, ita Paulus quoque immediata glorificati Domini vocatione constitutus est Apostolus praedecessoribus suis omni ratione par et aequalis : immediatus, uti illi, testis resurrectionis Christi, quem resuscitatum oculis suis viderat (1 Cor. 9,1; 15,8), immediate ab ipso Domino Evangelium, quod evangelizavit, didicerat (Gal. 1,19 sqq.) praedicandique Evangelii missionem acceperat (Act. 26,16 sqq. ; 22,91 etc.). Haud recte Aug. adiectivum vocatus ad prius membrum trahit (servus Iesu Christi vocatus) Paulique ingressum in Ecclesiam indicatum videt; neque rectius Syr. adiectivum illud pro substantivo habet, ita ut quatuor membra adsint (servus Iesu Christi, vocatus i. e. vir christianus, Apostolus, segregatus in Evangelium); eum enim , quem secuti sumus, verborum nexum esse admittendum ex 1 Cor. 1,1 clare apparet. Muneris porro divinitus accepti quasi definitionem Paulus tertio in membro addit : segregatus in Evangelium Dei, quod etc. (&gepwpévz; elc e)mt£acy Ocov, 6 x74. !). De eiusconversione ad fidem («segregatus & grege synagogae » Aug. Gl. int. ; « segregatus per conversionem ab infidelibus » TÀom.! etc.) haec verba non recte explicari, eorum nexus cum praecedentibus satis iam docet. CumS. Irenaei interprete, qui vertit : « praedestinatus in Evangelium Dei » (S. Iren. c. haer. III. 16,5) et Chrys.interpretes graeci consilium Dei aeternum, quo Paulus ad munus apostolicum electus est, hac locutione indicari volunt (TAeopA. Euth. ete.) ; latini vero plerique de revelatione, qua S. Spiritus eodem verbo ágopíz;ev usus Saulum et Barnabam ad missionem inter gentes segregari iussit (Act. 13,2), sermonem esse censent (Pel. Sed. etc., Herv. Thom.? Lyr. etc., Cai. Tol. Est. [ust. etc., M Ev. Ag. etc.). De praedestinatione autem non agi, verbum agcgítevv docet, quod cum «googltew (8,29. 30; 1 Cor. 9,7 etc.) confundere non licet, et altera explicatio arctior est. Cum nonnullis ergo modernis (FHeith. Sch. etc. — God. etc.) rectius dicemus, Paulum omnibus illis divinis beneficiis naturalibus et supranaturalibus, quibus ad gentium apostolatum praeparatus et idoneus factus est, a reliquis hominibus, et certo quodam modo etiam &b aliis Apostolis, segregatum esse (cfr ad Ga/. 1,15, ubi verba « qui me segregavit [xzópwsv] ab utero matris meae » eundem sensum habent). Neque tamen in participio segregatus praecipua vis huius membri est sita, sed in indicatione finis, in quem est segregatus : in Evangelium Dei; huius enim finis descriptione Paulus ostendere vult, se officii sui terminos non egredi, quando Romanis, licet eis facie sit ignotus, tam gravem epistolam pro auctoritate scribat. Nomine Evangelii hoc in loco non tam ipsa doctrina evangelica, quam eius annuntiatio, uti saepe (cfr v. 9. 16; 15,16; 2 Cor. 2,19; 1 Thess. 1,5etc.), aptius intelligitur. « Evangelium, inquit TAeod. nominis rationem simul explicans, praedicationem (:» x£gv;«x) appellat, utpote quae multorum bonorum largitionem promittat; annuntiat (e)rpyeA/sezat) enim Dei reconciliationem, cladem diaboli, peccatorum remissionem, mortis destructionem, resurrectionem mortuorum , aeternam vitam ». Genetivo Dei autem praedicationis argumentum, acsi Evangelium Dei significet evangelicam doctrinam de Deo (Chrys. etc.) , non significatur, siquidem eius argumentum esse Christum statim (v. 3) additur, sed primus eius auctor indicatur. Divinam nimirum praedicationis, ad quam est electus, ac proin muneris apostolici, quo fungitur, originem Paulus asserere vult. Pro Christo quidem legatione fungitur eius rem gerens ac vicem explens, Dei autem legatus est, qui in eo posuit verbum reconciliationis et per eum exhortatur ac docet (cfr ad 2 Cor. 5, 19. 20); velut legatus igitur, qui ad divina mandata hominibus annuntianda est constitutus , Romanis scribit. Maiorem autem epistolae suae conciliaturus auctoritatem muneris sui, vel si mavis praedicationis suae, divinam originem divina eius promissione commemorata confirmat (v. 2) eiusdemque sublimi eius . argumento summatim proposito (3. &) singularem gravitatem commendat!. Segregatum enim sese dicit in Evangelium Dei,
1:2
2. quod ante promiserat per prophetas suos tn scripturis sanctis
1:3
3. de Filio suo etc. ?. Quamvis argumentum Evangelii (Christi adventum, res gestas, mortem, resurrectionem, vicariam satisfactionem etc.) per Veteris Test. prophetas praedictum esse nemo neget Christianus, errant tamen, qui ex hox v. 2. colligunt, nomine Evangelii Dei (v. 1) doctrinam evangelicam esse designatam ; nam praedicatio ipsa quoque Evangelii per prophetas est promissa, ac Paulus in hac nostra epistola (10,12 sqq.), allegatis Isaiae, Davidis, Moysis testimoniis (Is. 52,7 ; 53,1; 65,1; Ps. 18,5; Deut. 32,91), quibus si opus fuisset alia multa addere potuisset, eam ita esse promissam demonstrat, ut omnibus, gentibus non minus quam Iudaeis, futura sit communis. Hanc vero promissionem non eo fine commemorat, ut «contra Iudaeos maxime » « novitatis invidiam depellat seque non novarum rerum praedicatorem esse ostendat » (To/. cfr CÀrys. Theod., quibuscum iuniores plerique consentiunt); neque enim contra Iudaeos hocin loco disputat neque contra iudaizantes verifatem praedicationis vindicat, sed romanis Christianis scribit, quibus, quum plerique essent ethnici conversi, doctrinae aut praedicationis novitas per se non potuit creare difficultatem. Licet igitur ex his verbis consensus revelationis per prophetas annuntiatae cum praedicatione evangelica rectissime colligatur, ad hunc consensum tamen asserendum non sunt addita; sed divinis praedicationis evangelicae promissionibus commemoratis Paulus, uti iam diximus, divinam muneris, ad quod est segregatus, originem comprobat auctoritatemque demonstrat. Idem quippe Deus est, qui olim per prophetas suos evangelicam praedicationem promisit et nunclegatis suis missis promissionem implet; idem, qui olim per os prophetarum suorum soli populo Israel locutus est (Luc. 1,70)et nunc per os Apostolorum suorum omnibus populis laeta annuntiat; quantae quoque dignitatis praedicatio illa est, quam Deus non semel aut per unum sed repetitis vicibus per prophetas suos promitti ac sacris in Scripturis consignari voluit, et quanta dignitas eorum, quibus divina haec praedicatio commissa est!! .Nomen prophetarum latiore sensu sumi, ut omnes sacros auctores designet, in quorum libris promissiones Dei consignatae sunt, plerique recte tenent, quum Apostolus ipse (10,19 sqq.) ad promissiones has probandas etiam Moysis ac Davidis verbis utatur. Dei autem prophetas (per prophetas swos) eos appellans Dei interpretes eos fuisse significat?, qui non propria voluntate sed Spiritu S. inspirati promissiones attulerint (2 Petr. 1,20), quum idem Deus, qui novissime diebus istis nobis locutus est in Filio, multifariam multisque modis olim patribus locutus sit in prophetis (Hebr. 1,1. 2). Quam divinam promissionum auctoritatem ut confirmet, eas ?n Scripturis sanctis (iv Y0x2315 &ylax; ?) consignatas esse addit; namque sanctae quodam modo quidem Scripturae vocari possunt, quia sancta, puram nimirum doctrinam revelatam, continent atque veritate, quam docent , lectorem sanctificant (cfr TAom.) ; proprio tamen sensu sanctae sunt, quia non hominem sed Deum ipsum habent auctorem (cfr Conc. Vatic. sess. 3. Constit. de fide cp. 2). Simili modo alibi eas vocat zà iegx esp yaza (sacras literas) , ut utilitatem explicet, quam ob divinam suam inspirationem habent; eas enim ad salutem instruere et ad docendum etc. utiles esse ex eo colligi vult, quod sint 0:2zveucza: (2 Tim. 3,15. 16). A divina origine ad sublime argumentum praedicationis evangelicae transit, ut eam summae dignitatis ac gravitatis esse clarius appareat; praedicationem enim Deus promiserat 3. de Filio suo, qui factus est (ei) ez semine David secundum carnem,
1:4
&. qui praedestinatus (lege : definitus cfr VV. LL.,i. e. aut : constitutus cfr Act. 10,12 aut declaratus cfr Chrys.) est Filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis (&ywuocóvas melius : sanctitatis cfr 1 Thess. 3,13) ez resurrectione mortuorum Iesu Christi Domini nostri. tione mortuorum, cuius causa efficiens est Christus » (cfr Áter Zhom.); sed hic sensus, quamvis per se haud improbabilis sit, constructioni non congruit, quia dvdavaei, a profanis quidem scriptoribus interdum , sed nusquam in Novo Test. sensu activo et transitivo (i. q. £yepa« resuscitatio) adhibetur, neque proinde duplicem genetivum (alterum subiecti, alterum obiecti) admiltit. Quare cum Cai. E'st. etc. moderni fere omnes (Jleith. Mai. Beel. Bisp. LR. Sch.) alteram constructionem indicatam iure praeferunt et ablativum (Jesu. Christo Domino nostro) legere malunt. Completum evangelicae praedicationis argumentum est Filius Dei, qui forma servi accepta sese humiliavit, factus obediens usque ad mortem, sed exaltatus est a Patre, et primogenitus ex mortuis nunc est in gloria Dei Patris, Iesus Christus Dominus noster (cfr PA. 2,5 sqq.). Hunc Dei Filium secundum duplicem suum statum, humiliationis (v. 3) et exaltationis (v. 4) Paulus describit, ut eum in fine sententiae illo nomine designet, quo suprema eius dignitas praedicatur. Sed singula videamus. Praedicationem Deus promiserat de Filio suo (zsp: :25 Y:zo 23:25), atque iure To/. ad articulum graecum nos attendere iubet, qui « Filium Dei unicum ipsi aequalem et consubstantialem indicet ». Re enim vera articulo non minus clare, quam similibus locutionibus £ Osss «5» &aoc00 Yizv z£y525 (8,3 Deus suum ipsius Filium mittens), -25 i3i£y Yio3 cix ées(cavo (8,32 proprio Filio non pepercit) Apostolus ab omnibus aliis, qui creationis aut muneris aut adoptionis ratione improprie filii Dei appellantur, eum ita distinguit, ut solus « «unigenitus Filius qui est in sinu Patris » (oan. 1,18) intelligi possit. Contra quae, Socinianorum opinione adoptata, multi moderni acath. asserunt, zzv Yiüw «c0 Occ5 esse nudam Messiae appellationem omni emphasi destitutam et inter ludaeos usitatam, quae ex Ps. 2,5 et 2 [ieg. 1,1* desumta Messiam tamquam vicarium quidem Dei theocraticumque regem designet, altiorem autem ac vere divinam naturam ei non adscribat! (cfr Gr. Lexic., Fr. de W. etc.). Quae assertio falsa est; licet enim a fidelibus, qui divinam Redemtoris nostri naturam profitentur, nomina Cristus (Messias) et Filius Dei promiscue usurpentur, Iadaeis tamen incredulis, qui carnalem quandam Messiae velut potentissimi reipublicae suae restauratoris ac regis ideam sibi finxerant, appellationem Fz/i: Dez ad suum Messiam designandum usitatam fuisse nullo testimonio, neque scripturistico neque profano, demonstratur. Quam vero notionem Paulus, qui in omnibus suis epistolis divinitatem Iesu Christi diserte docet (cfr ad 9,5), appellationi Fi/ii Dei (o0 Yico 100 O«c5) attribuat, ex duobus potissimum locis apparet (Col. 1,13- 17; Hebr. 1,2. 3), in quibus eum non tantum « imaginem Dei invisibilis », « splendorem gloriae ac figuram substantiae Dei » appellat, sed etiam « omnia per ipsum et in ipsum (ci; a)xóv, minus accurate Vulg. : in ipso) esse creata » asserit, « ipsum ante omnia (x5 «&vcov Vulg. : snte omnes) esse et omnia in ipso constare », eum « omnia portare verbo virtutis suae » etc. Quibus omnibus, dummodo vocabulis genuinus suus sensus relinquatur, Filium Dei esse personam vere ac proprie divinam procul dubio docetur, atque omnes explicationes modernorum rationalistarum, qui nomine hoc dumtaxat maiorem ethicam Iesu perfectionem, aut intimiorem eius cum Deo familiaritatem, aut etiam nescio quam sublimiorem naturam a Deo proximam (neque tamen divinam) indicari volunt, funditus evertuntur. Ceterum etiam nostro in loco se illo nomine divinam personam significare, Paulus verbis proxime sequentibus, quibus statum humiliationis eius innuit, satis docet : qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem (significantius ex graeco : de Filiosuo facto ez semine David secundum carnem). Nam « addendo secundum carnem, inquit Aug. , servavit divinitati dignitatem suam », atque clarius TAeod. :« Additio locutionis secundum carnem innuit eum Dei et Patris vere esse Filium secundum divinitatem; neque enim in iis, qui id sunt solum, quod esse conspiciuntur, invenitur illud secundum carnem... hoc autem in loco, quoniam Deus Verbum incarnatus (35 ivav6puzica; Ot; A^yc;) non solum homo est, sed etiam Deus aeternus (Oc; zpoxwiv; i. q. 5 «e» «ov aiàvoy) , B. Apostolus, quum seminis David meminisset, necessario addidit secundum carnem, ut aperte nos doceret, quomodo quidem Dci Filius sit, nomen autem filii Davidis acceperit ». Duas revera naturas Paulus distinguit, unam quae Filio Dei per se competit, divinam, alteram quam assumsit, humanam, at unam solam personam eamque divinam agnoscit, quum Filius Dei assumta carne factus sit ex semine David, ita ut idem, qui Filius Dei ab aeterno erat, in plenitudine temporis factus ex muliere (Ga/. &,4), quam ez semine David fuisse Pauli discipulus satis clare insinuat! et Aug. (de cons. Evang. II. 2,4) ex nostro loco iure colligit, filius David esse coeperit. Neque enim secundum diviuitatem , sed secundum carnem (xax& cápxa) factus est, i. e. secundum humanam naturam. Nam vox cáp5, quae proprio sensu solas molliores corporis partes ab ossibus (Luc. 25,39 etc.) et a sanguine (Matth. 16,17 etc.) distinctas significat, synecdochice interdum quidem humanum? corpus ab anima separatum (Act. 2,26. 31), frequentius integram naturam humanam totumque hominem vivum designat (Matth. 24,92 etc.), aliquoties eius imbecillitatem fragilitatemque (Ecclt. 16,17; Matt. 25,92 sq.), saepius eius inclinationem ad malum (cfr Comment. in 1 Cor. p. 69) connotans. In formula demum xa: cápxa aut de humanae naturae origine (&,1; 9,3. 5; 1 Cor. 10,18; Gal. 4,23. 29; Col. 3,22) usurpatur aut hominem ad terrestria vel ad malum inclinari significat (8,1. &. 5. 12. 13; 1 Cor. 1,26; 2 Cor. 1,17; 5,16; 10,2. 3; 11,18). Qua ultima notione, uti per se patet, seclusa sensum originis naturaeque humanae hic voci esse tribuendum, communis est sententia quum Patrum contra Appollinaristas disputantium tum omnium interpretum, paucis exceptis rationalistis. Quibus mirantibus, quod Paulus ad integrae naturae humanae originem significandam solius carnis meminerit, recte respondetur idem quod Patres ad Joan. 1,18 observarunt, « more suo Scripturam, ut Christi humilitatem magis ostenderet, ne carnis nomen quasi indignum aliquid refugisse videretur, carnem pro homine posuisse » (S. Aug. de gratia Novi Test. ep. 150,12; cfr de octog. trib. quaest. 80,2), et « alio modo Dei erga nos caritatem clarius manifestari non potuisse , quam carnis mentione facta, quandoquidem propter nos usque ad id, quod in homine inferius est, descendit; carnem enim animo viliorem esse a nullo prudente negari » (S. Gregor. Naz. ad Cledon. ep. 101. M. 37,189). Simili igitur modo, quo loannes (1,18), Paulus brevissima sententia totum incarnationis mysterium complectitur multiplicesque haereticorum (Docetarum, Valentinianorum, Arianorum, Apollinaristarum, Nestorianorum, Eutychianorum aliorumque si qui sunt) errores in antecessum convellit (cfr TÀom.). Asyndete descriptio exaltationis Filii Dei incarnati adnectitur : &. qui praedestindtus est (melius : declaratus est) Filius Dei in virtute secundum spiritum sanctificationis (vel : sanctitatis) ex resurrectione mortuorum (zspi «o9. Yizo... «c9 $p«o0ü£vcog Yico Osoó £v 8uydyet xazà mveU ga &ávtucóvrg b &vaccáceoq vexpóy). Quam sententiam non solum « ob dictionum complexionem », uti Chrys. iam monuit, sed ob iucertam quoque singulorum fere vocabulorum significationem magna laborare obscuritate, interpretum dissensus docet. Quamquam enim de exaltatione Filii Dei incarnati agi tantum non omnes consentiunt, multas tamen et diversissimas eius explicationes antiqui non minus quam iuniores modernique proposuerunt. Quas quum omnes recensere &c diiudicare non vacet, primo in loco eam, quam praeferendam ducimüs, exponemus et vindicabimus; deinde ex reliquis praecipuas addemus, quae auctorum suorum nominibus commendantur. Hic autem probabilior esse sensus videtur : « Filius Dei, qui (sese exinaniens) factus est filius David secundum humanam naturam , (a Patre exaltatus) declaratus (vel si mavis : constitutus) est Filius Dei in virtute (i. e. Filius Dei potens, virtutem potestatemque divinam exserens) secundum divinam suam naturam, idque per resurrectionem mortuorum ». Haec igitur sententiola priori ita est parallela, ut membra accurate inter se respondeant; novo tamen membro adiecto (ex resurrectione mortuorum) indicatur factum, quo Christus cognitus (aut constitutus) est Filius Dei potens!. Sed de singulis vocabulis agamus Sponte Primum quidem verbum (:25 $21:0£v:2;), si Vulg. lesionem praedestinatus (de qua cfr p. &5) praetermittamus, difficultatem non creat, etsi multiplices eius interpretationes sunt propositae (Tert. - definitus, Hil. et Orig. : destinatus, Cyr Alex. : constitutus, Chrys. : ostensus, indicatus, declaratus, ab omnibus agnitus [2c86veoc, &xegavübvtos , xp 0£vxos, &peAeqv0fvzez;], Syr. : cognitus etc.). Omnes enim ad duas significationes declarandi et constituendi facile revocantur, quae ambae et verbo éziz«v competunt, et nostrae sententiae tam apte conveniunt, ut utra sit praeferenda cum certitudine dici nequeat. 'OpGev nimirum, quod ab 22:5 (finis, limes) derivatum latino definire etymologice plane respondet, etiam significatione eidem fere congruit; simili quippe modo interdum nudum intellectus iudicium exprimit, quo quinam legitimi limites rei alicuius szn/ exponitur (definire vel declarare, quid res aut etiam persona aliqua s?£) , interdum actum voluntatis simul includit, quo debiti limites alicui rei cum auctoritate assignantur (definire vel decernere, quid res aut etiam persona esse debeat et consequenter efficere ut talis sit, vel talem eam constituere). Secunda significatio in Novo Test. vulgatior est!; priorem tamen, cuius nullum quidem certum exemplum in Novo Test. exstat sed haud pauca in profanis libris inveniuntur?, nostro in loco cum plerisque PP. graecis (Chrys. Theoph. Dam. etc.) multi interpretes (Tol. Est. Nat. Pic. etc., Beel. Mai. Bisp. etc. — W. Wetst. de W. etc.) admittere malunt, ut sensus sit : « Filius Dei incarnatus, qui in sua exinanitione non agnoscebatur, palam declaratus est Filius Dei in sua glorificatione ». Ad quem sensum proxime accedunt aliqui moderni acath. (Gr. Lex. Fr. etc.), qui constituendi verbo potius quam sensu retento explicant : « Quamvis ante resurrectionem Filius Dei esset, Christus tamen hoc insigni facto talis palam znter homines constitutus ac manifestatus est ». Attamen si cum zfug.?, quem iuniores multi recte sequuntur (Herv. Thom. Lyr. Dion. etc., Cai. Salm. Iust. etc., Reith. Ag. Sch. etc. — Weiss Lips. etc.), verba in virtute (iv &uvXyso) cum nomine Filius Dei arcte connectimus, ut ei pro adiectivo vel appositione quadam sint (Filius Dei potens), nihil obstat, quominus propriam constituendi significationem verbo zz:z:» relinquamus. Quemadmodum enim Christus, elsi a primo conceptionis momento vi hypostaticae suae unionis . cum Verbo iure iudicandi perfecto potiretur, inde a resurrectione sua iudex vivorum ac mortuorum constitutus esse (opwyévoz), i. e. « usum et exercitium huius potestatis accepisse » (Lap.) vel potius illud ius actu exercere coepisse a S. Petro dicitur (Act. 10,842), ita etiam in sua glorificatione, quando ei data est omnis potestas in coelo et in terra (Matth. 28,18 cfr Act. 2,36), constitutus est Filius Dei in virtute, quatenus nunc eam potestatem, quam etiam in exinanitione sua possedit sed paucis tantum radiis pro temporum opportunitate manifestavit, iuxta Patris decretum perfecte ac plene exercet nomine donatus, quod est super omne nomen (PA. 2,9). Utraque igitur verbi épitev significatio apta est, dummodo appositio iy Bovápeu Sicuti decet, arcte nomine Yi Occo connectatur. Cete- ' rum haec dictio diversimode explicatur. Perperam cum Petavio (de Trinit. III. 3,9; de Incarn. XI. 13,5) nonnulli eam interpretantur : secundum divinam naturam, ut praecedenti xaxx cápxa (secundum humanam naturam) respondeat; neque enim usquam in Scripturis substantivum 3óvay; significat « divinam naturam », neque praepositio &v ullibi idem est quod secundum. Cum Graecis (CArys. Theod. etc.) multi locutione év 2uv&ápex rem designari putant, qua Christus demonstratus sit Filius Dei, nimirum virtute signorum, quae aut ipse in terris degens fecerit aut, uti alii volunt, nunc in coelum elevatus per Apostolos faciat (cfr Tol. Est. etc.); at &óvayus, si nude ponitur neque contextu ad hanc significationem aperte determinatur, pro 2ivagig tàv ovyuslev xai cepávov (15,19 : virtus signorum et prodigiorum) adhiberi non solet. Haud rectius iuniores modernique locutionem illam ad participium ágw0£vxoc trahunt sensuque adverbiali (i. q. potenter cfr 2 Thess. 1,11) exponunt : « qui potenter, i. e. evidenter, declaratus et Filius Dei » (Mai. Bssp. etc. — Beng. Rück. God. etc.); nam si id dicere voluisset, Paulus aliud, opinor, vocabulum elegisset, quod ad demonstrandi notionem magis quadrat (*jvaxjpi; nimirum vim, quae demonstrationi inest, non significat, sed vim, qua aliquid agitur vel producitur), aut saltem verba àv 2»váyet, quae iuxta hanc explicationem singulari emphasi praedita essent, participio £p0£vcc; praemisisset : «c9 iv $uváye ópiÜü£vtcs. Verba porro xa:à zveopa &qwcóvgg (secundum spiritum sanctitatis) prioribus xazà cápxa (secundum carnem) ita. respondere, ut divinam naturam Christi significent, cum nonnullis PP. (Orig. Tert. c. Prax. 97, A*'r Aug.) iunioribusque interpretibus (lust. Lap!. etc., Reith. Mai. Bisp. Sch. etc. — Goeb. Weiss. etc.) censemus. Animadvertatur tamen oportet, praepositionem xaza in duobus membris oppositis propter participiorum (:23 vevepévzo, «c9. ipu0£v-2;) differentiam sensu non plane eodem (vicino tamen) esse adhibitam : secundum carnem, i. e. quod attinet ad naturam eius humanam, Filius Dei factus est filius David, sed secundum spiritum sanctitatis , i. e. prout decuit naturam eius divinam et ab ea postulabatur, constitutus (vel declaratus) est Filius Dei potens in sua glorificatione. Contra quam explicationem obiicitur : « Spiritus sanctificationis in Scripturis Spirigm Sanctum significat, nec divinitas tali voce umquam in Scripturis designatur » (Tolet. Beel. etc. — God. etc.); at immerito. Praeprimis enim nomen zveopa &vtocóvrg in toto Novo Test. non legitur nisi hoc in loco, Spiritus S. autem ab Apostolo vulgo vocatur (z) £v IIveoya. (Sanctus Spiritus cfr 5,15; 9,1; 15,17 ; 15,13. 16. 19. etc.); quapropter iure asserimus, Paulum idem nomen hoc in loco adhibiturum fuisse, si Spiritum S. designare voluisset, eum autem nomen prorsus inusitatum elegisse!, ne quis de Spiritu S., tertia SS. Trinitatis persona, agi putaret. Praeterea aliis quoque in Scripturae locis divina Christi natura nomine zveópaxog (spiritus) designatur, maxime ubi humana eius natura (caro) a divina (spiritus) distinguenda erat? (cfr 1 T?m. 3,16; 1 Petr. 3,18), atque eundem loquendi usum in apostolicorum aliorumque Patrum operibus deprehendimus?. Si autem divina Christi natura zveoya vocari potest, pro- 1. Etiam in Vetere Test. Alexandrini iam hebr. ** vip 175, licet graeco xveüga &vuoaivnz fecto nihil impedit, quominus etiam zveipa &vwcivrs (spiritus sanctitatis) vocetur, quum fons et origo sit omnis sanctitatis. Quae quum ita sint, nobis non probantur eorum sententiae, qui hic de Spiritu Sancto agi arbitrantur, quippe qui vel « sanctificaverit Christum ab ipso exordio conceptionis » (Herv!. Lap?. etc.) vel « operatus sit conceptionem eius in utero virginis » (Herug. Ag. etc.), vel datus sit fidelibus per Christum glorificatum (Chrys. etc., Thom. etc., Tol. etc.). Prorsus absona autem multorum acath. recentiorum (de W. Ew. Hofm. etc.) explicatio est, qui in homine Christo duas quasi partes, inferiorem et superiorem hominem, simili modo quo in nobis, distinguentes Christi animam gratiis ornatam nomine spiritus sanctitatis designari volunt. Ultimo sententiolae membro (££ &vaecáseug vexpüv ex resurrectione mortuorum) illud indicatur factum, quo Christus declaratus vel constitutus est « Filius Dei in virtute ». Plerique quidem antiqui et moderni haec verba de resurrectione Christi directe et immediate interpretantur, ac si àvzszact; vexpóv idem sit quod &vácvasíe vtvog Ex. vexpàv (resurrectio alicuius a mortuis) atque praepositio ix euphoniae causa (i£ &vac:icses éx vexpüv) Sit omissa; at id perperam fieri iam diximus (p. 34.), siquidem in toto Novo Test. ac maxime in sermonibus epistolisque paulinis &v4svact; vsxpàv semper universalem omnium hominum autsaltem omnium iustorum resurrectionem significat (cfr Ma:tÀ. 93,31; Act. 17,32 ; 93,6; 94,15. 21; 26,93; 1 Cor. 15,12. 13. 21. 42; Hebr. 6,2) atque eundem sensum universalem habet 1; &v&cvxot; àx. vexpóv, nisi genetivo ad unam personam determinetur (Act. 4,2). Quare eodem sensu in nostro loco sumatur oportet, ita tamen ut indirecte ac mediate resurrectionem Christi designet, utpote. quae universalis iustorum resurrectionis initium et causa exemplaris et pignus sit eamque quasi includat. Iustorum utique resurrectionem velut futuram exspectamus, sed sicut messis inchoata dicitur, quamprimum ex agro primitiae frugum sunt collectae, ita universalem resurrectionem inchoatam esse iurc dicimus, quando Christus primus ex resurrectione mortuorum (Act. 96, 93) resurrexit tamquam primitiae. dormientium (cfr. Comment. in 1 Cor. p. 567). In sua nimirum resurrectione nos formam et pignus nostrae gloriosae resurrecfionis ita habere voluit, ut una sine altera negari non posset et Apostoli in ipsius resurrectione certissimum haberent argumentum, quo resurrectionem universalem ex mortuis probarent et annuntiarent (cfr ad 1 Cor. 15,19; Act. 4,2). Quin etiam resurrectio iustorum quodam modo resurrectione Christi iam terminata dici potest; namque Christus resurgens se completam de morte victoriam retulisse demonstravit (cfr ad 1 Cor. 15,58) atque iusti, utpote membra corporis Christi, cum capite suo iam convivificati et conresuscitati et consedere in coelestibus facti dicuntur (EpA. 2,5. 6), quatenus gloriosae suae ressurrectionis, etsi futura sit, iam nunc acquisitum ius possident eiusque arrham in capitis sui glorificatione acceperunt (cfr ad :
1:9
9 Cor. 5,1). De hac universali autem iustorum resurrectione, quae in Christi resurrectione est inchoata , praeformata , quasi inclusa , eamque necessario supponit, Apostolus loqui maluit, quia divinam Filii Dei glorificai virtutem ac potentiam clarius evidentiusque, quam sola Christi resurrectio, demonstrat!. Quia vero haec non nisi indirecte ac mediate indicata est, quamvis eam quoque intelligi Apostolus omnino vellet, haud satis apte mult interpretes (TAeod. etc., Tolet. etc., Reith. ec. — Lut. Ros. etc.) praepositioni àx non tam causalem (i. q. per resurrectionem) quam temporalem (i. q. post) significationem attribuunt. ) Demum descriptionem argumenti praedicationis evangelicae terminat illud universum nomine completo Filii Dei incarnati ac glorificati comprehendi insinuans; praedicationem quippe esse ait de Iesu Christo Domino nostro (cfr p. 35). Iesus (Salvator) appellatus est Filius Dei in sua incarnatione, quia venit, ut salvaret populum suum a peccatis eorum (Luc. 1,31; Matth. 1,21); Christi (Messiae, Uncti) nomen gerit tamquam rex, qui populo Israel per prophetas annuntiatus ex semine David oriundus thronum patris sui obtinuit etin domo lacob in acternum regnabit (Luc. 1,32; Matt^. 2,6); insua glorificatione autem, quando data ei est omnis potestas in coelo etin terra, Dominus (K5gw;, quo nomine Alexandrini nomen Dei essentiale 15»? semper reddunt) esse apparuit, Dominus scilicet uti patris sui David (Ps. 169,1; Matt^. 92,541 sqq.), ita Dominus noster, nomen adeptus, quod est super omne nomen, ut omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris (PA. 2,10. 11). sanctificationis ez [i. e. post] resurrectione mortuorum in Evangelium Dei, quod promisit per prophetas suos in Scripturis sanctis de Filio suo, qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem et declaratus est Filius Dei in virtute [i. e. Filius naturalis] » etc). Graeci omnes, exceptis Orig. et Cyr. Alez., verbo op(Qttv sensum declarandi vel demonstrandi tribuunt, sed in reliquis membris exponendis inter se dissentiunt. Cum Clirys. plerique (Dam. Oec. Theoph. E'uth.) tria argumenta indicari censent, quibus Christus demonstretur Filius Dei : miraculis ab eo patratis (in virtute), Spiritu S. Apostolis et fidelibus misso (secundum spiritum sanctilatis), resurrectione sua (er resurrectione mortuorum). Unum vero argumentum tribus membris describi Z'heod. arbitratur : « demonstratus est Filius Dei , inquit, per virtutem, quae a S. Spiritu exseritur, post Domini Iesu Christi resurrectionem ». Media inter Chrys. et Theod. via quasi incedens Syrus interpretatur : « qui cognitus est Dei Filius per virtutem et per S. Spiritum, postquam resurrexit à mortuis ». Inter iuniores ac modernos alii cum Chrys. (Est. Pic. M Ev. etc.), alii cum Theod. (Tolet. Beel. etc.) consentiunt, unus alterve ad Syrum prope accedit (/Vat.). Contra omnes autem praeter ea, quae in singulorum membrorum expositione iam adnotavimus, iure merito obiicitur, quod accuratam trium praepositionum iv xa: ét significationem negligant; neque enim omnes tres eodem sensu explicare licet, neque intelligitur, quomodo 3óvapuc xatà xveupa. significare dicatur virtutem a S. Spiritu exsertam. immo novam creat difficultatem, quum verbo significationem tribuat, quae nec latino praedestinare nec graeco ngoopliew competit. Retinere tamen latinam lectionem poteris, si cum Saím. tertiam Augustini sententiam secutus interpretaris : « Filius Dei, qui filius David factus sese exinanivit, praedestinatus est, ut esset. Filius Dei in virtute », i. e. ut glorificatus, sicut divinam eius naturam decuit, in sua resurrectione acciperet nomen quod est super omne nomen. Quae sententia ab ea, quam praetulimus, haud multum recedit; longius ab ea recedit Cai., quamvis recte moneat sensum non esse, « quod decretus sit Filius Dei, sed quod decretus sit Filius Dei in potentia »; duo enim ultima membra haud recte interpretatus de solo glorioso Chrisli reditu ad iudicium sermonem esse arbitratur '. Sed haec de variis antiquorum sententiis sufficiunt; plura exhibent Salm. et Tol.; recentiorum autem modernorumque praecipuas explicationes antea: jam adumbravimus. In sua exinanitione Filius Dei, factus ex semine David, tamquam Messias filiis Israel promissus proxime advenerat ad solas oves quae perierant domus Israel Apostolosque suos ad Evangelium praedicandum missos in viam gentium abire vetuerat (Matth. 15,9&; 10,6); in su& glorificatione autem , declaratus Filius Dei in virtute, quum, post resurrectionem omnem potestatem in coelo et in terra accepisset, Apostolos suos in universum mundum exire omnibusque gentibus Evangelium praedicare iusserat (Ma/th. 28,18 sqq. etc.). Hinc intelligitur, cur B. Paulus in inscriptione argumentum evangelicae praedicationis describens de duplici Christi statu loquatur; viam enim sibi aperit ad fontem indicandum auctoritatis, qua ecclesiae sibi ignotae literas has dare non vereatur. Itaque eandem sententiam continuans pergit : 5. per quem (Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum, definitum Filium Dei in virlute) accepimus. gratiam et. apostolatum ad obediendum fidei (di ünaxchy misso; ad obsequium fidei sc. efficiendum) in omnibus gentibus pro nomine cius , 6. in quibus estis et vos vocati Iesu Christi. De se ipso solo in hac inscriptione loquitur atque hic quoque suam solius auctoritatem demonstrare vult; quapropter pluralem (accepimus) haud recte aliqui ita explicant, ut alios Apostolos includi dicant. Multo longius aberrant, qui omnes eius discipulos aut, omnes fideles includi censent, siquidem hi universalem illam missionem, quam sibi attribuit, non acceperant. Porro utrum primis verbis (per quem av c2) Christum cum Orig. et A'r?. velut mediatorem et causam meritoriam graliae et apostolatus, an cum Chrys. etc. velut auctorem primariamque causam eius designari dicamus, parum interest; utrumque enim recte dici potest! neque certa adest ratio, qua unam potius quam alteram significationem admittere cogamur. Neque per se multum refert, utrum vocabulis gratiam et apostolatum duo beneficia Paulo concessa distingui cum plerisque PP. dicamus?, an cum CArys. eiusque sectatoribus (efr Oec. Theoph. Euth.) unum solum indicari teneamus (sive per bendiadyn : gratiam apostolatus, sive admisso epexegetico usu particulae xa melius : gratiam et quidem apostolatum, cfr ad 29 Cor. 8,5), . quia utraque explicatio aptum praebet sensum. Qui tamen finem perpenderit, ob quem Paulus totam hanc sententiam addat (nimirum ut ostendat, undenam ius habeat Romanis cum aucoritate scribendi), is interpretationem Chrys. praeferre non dubitabit (cfr Est. ust. Lap. etc., Reith. Deel. Bisp. Mai. etc.). Etenim gratiae, quae ei cum omnibus Christianis aut cum omnibus apostolicis viris communis fuit, commemoratio ad hoc ius stabiliendum nihil contulit; quam aptissima vero fuit commemoratio apostolatus gentium ei concrediti, quem alibi quoque gratiam sibi singulariter datam dicit (EpA. 3,8; Gal. 1,15.16) et in hac ipsa epistola ad audaciam, qua scripsit, velut excusandam affert (15,15. 16). Neque vero sine ratione constructionem illam minus usitatam elegit (grattam et quidem apostolatum pro gratiam apostolatus), ut disertius clariusque doceret, apostolatum suum esse donum plane gratuitum, ad quod obtinendum laboribus conatibusque suis nibil ipse contulisset (cfr Chrys.). lam muneris accepti finem proximum describit, ut illud etiam ad Romanos extendi insinuet ; proxime enim illud accepit ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus, vel clarius iuxta graecum (£i; 9x4: zi2::0; &y «Xa «2l; £üveow) : ad obedientiam fidei in omnibus gentibus cfliciendam. In locutione oraxci; zíczeeg (quae infra 16,26 revertitur) genetivum zíczeog non esse subieclivum , uti antiquiores acath. multi voluerunt (obedientia, quam fides producit, vel : in quam fides tendit, cfr Bez. Grot. e&c.), neque appositivum, uti moderni plerique acath. tenent (obedientia quae est fides, vel : obedientia in fide consistens, cfr Beng. paret, si una ex parte similes locutiones comparantur (0raxot, «o0 Xptcoo obedientia Christo debita 9 Cor. 10,5; ózaxci; «4; &Av0e(ag obedientia ' veritati debita (Vulg. haud recte : obedientia caritatis] 1 Petr. 1,92), et altera ex parte attenditur, fideles dici fidei vel Evangelio obedivisse (10,16; Act. 6,7; 29 Thess. 1,8), incredulos vero inobedientes fuisse Evangelio vel verbo (àze:0:tv 1 Petr. 4,17 ; cfr Joan. 3,36; Act. 18,2 etc. !). Ac profecto, uti egregie TAom. adnotat, « in his obedientia locum habet, quae voluntarie facere possumus; his autem, quae sunt fidei, . voluntanre assentimus, non ex rationis necessitate, quum sint supra rationem : nullus enim credit nisi volens, ut dicit Aug.; et ideo circa fidem obedientia locum habet ». Quae quasi explicans Soto : « usus est Apostolus, inquit, verbo obedire, ut quantum esset inter fidem et humanas disciplinas discrimen explicaret; hae namque, quum naturali '.- mentis acie et lumine cernantur, compellere evincereque possunt intellectum; fides autem invisibilium divinorum, quae nisi per lucem mortalium oculis inaccessam conspecía esse nequeunt, non argumentorum vi syllogismorumque acumine demonstratur, sed voluntario obsequio facitaque auscultatione suscipitur ». Eandem explicationem Graeci tradunt, si Paulum apostolatum accepisse dicunt, ut « qui instituantur, credentes obediant sine ulla contradictione »; « quando enim Dominus aliquid pronuntiat, auditores curiose scrutari vel indagare non debent, sed solum accipere » (Chrys. Theoph. etc.). Obiiciunt quidem moderni acath., iuxta hanc interpretationem nomen «:- extus significare hoc in loco doctrinam fidei, quo sensu in Novo Test. non adhibeatur; at haud paucae sunt Novi Test. sententiae, quae, nisi hic sensus admitlitur, vix ac ne vix quidem apte exponi possunt (Act. 6,7; Iudae 3. 20; 1 Tim. 15. 19; 2,7 etc.), et undenam Patres, apud quos hic sensus fi requentissimus est (catholica fides, orthodoxa fides etc.), eum hauserunt, nisi ex Novo Test.? Haud satis recte nonnulli cum 7AeophA. et Thom. verba in omnibus gentibus (£v xàaw «zt; Eüvecw , inter omnes gentes) ad nomen apostolatum trahunt (apostolatum inter omnes gentes accepimus ad fidei obedientiam efficiendam). Licet enim sensus sitaptus, nulla adest ratio, cur - verborum ordinem invertamus , qui eundem fere sensum exhibet (apostolatuni accepimus, ut fidei obedientiam inter omnes gentes efficeremus); quin etiam ordinem invertere non licet ; quia locutio àzooecoA, iv «&cw £üvecw (apostolatus infer gentes) parum commoda est ac potius exspectatur àzcoxoi, ei; (ad) «&vxa zx &0vv, (cfr 15,16 ; 16,26 etc.). Nomine autem gentium hic, uti plerumque in epistolis paulinis (2,15. 94; 3, 99; 9,94. 30; 11,11 sqq. etc.; 1 Cor. 1,93; 5,1; 10,90 etc.), ethnicas nationes Iudaeis exclusis intelligi, communior est ac certa sententia. Qui vero Paulum ad [Iudaeos quoque esse missum ludaeisque in dispersione degentibus Evangelium annuntiasse monent (Act. 9,15; 13,13 elc.) , ut Iudaeos illos nomine hic comprehendi demonstrent (7/Aom. Beel. etc.), ii non satis attendunt, eum haud semel de Evangelio praeputii sibi concredito ac de gentium apostolatu, qui sibi prae ceteris Apostolis sit commissus, gloriari (Gal. 2,7 sqq. ; Eph. 3,8 etc.). Clarum quoque est, vocabulum omnes a Chrys. eiusque sectatoribus nimium premi, si ad illud explicandum, quum Paulus ad omnes gentes non pervenerit, eum hic simul de sociis suis ac reliquis Apostolis, per quos ad alias nationes pervenerit, immo de suis epistolis, per quas etiam post suam mortem ubique terrarum praedicet, loqui volunt. Apostolatum universalem quidem acceperat, qui omnes omnino gentes convertendas complectcbatur; munere suo autem fungi debuit inter omnes illas gentes, ad quas a Spiritu S. ductus iuxta divinae providentiae dispositionem (cfr Comment. in 9 Cor. et Gal. p. 422. nota) pervenit. Fini proximo ultimum fiaem muneris sui adiungit : pro nomine eius Armip «99 lviga-eg a&5:29 in commodum nominis eius) i. e. ad maiorem nominis eius (Christi) gloriam et honorem, ut eius nomen scilicet ubique cognoscatur ac glorificetur (efr PAil. 2,9-11). Iterum ab interpretibus quaestio agitatur, utrum haec verba eandem sententiam continuent ae proin cum immediate praecedentibus sint connectenda (apostolatum accepimus, ut omnes gentes ad maiorem Iesu gloriam fidei subiiceremus), an potius ad nomen apostolatum sint trahenda (ut obedientiam fidei inter omnes gentes efficeremus , apostolatum accepimus ad maiorem Iesu gloriam). Sed quaestio non est magni momenti, quum sensus sententiae, sive haec, sive illa constructio praefertur, vix mutetur; prior tamen nexus, utpote concinnior ac stylo paulino congruentior, a plerisque hodie iure praefertur, licet secunda forsitan accuratius respondeat verbis Domini : « vas electionis est mihi iste , ut portet nomen meum coram gentibus » etc. (Act. 9,15; cfr 9 Thess. 1. 12 etc.). Ceterum secunda omnino praeferenda esset, si altera verborum pro nomine eius explicatio ab A'r? proposita et ab haud paucis - 'adoptata (Prim. Sed!. Haym. etc., Thom. Dion. etc., Est. Pic. Lap. etc., M Ev. etc. — Beng. etc.) teneri posset, iuxta quam idem significant, quod vice eius (cfr 2 Cor. 5,20 : « pro Christo [o0zip Xpw:co] legatione fungimur »); sed quomodo haec explicatio probabilis reddatur, non video, quandoquidem iip «c9 à»5y.axcc a3c5 non est idem quod 0z à Demum innuit, quo tota haec muneris sui descriptio spectaverit : in quibus estis et vos, vocati Iesu Christi. Romana quoque ecclesia, 'quum ex ethnicis conversis fere tota sit collecta, non minus quam aliarum gentium ecclesiae, ad eum, utpote gentium Apostolum , pertinet ideoque admirari nequit, quod ab eo tam gravi epistola erudiatur et admoneatur. Inter ethnicos quidem, ut eos fidei subiiciat, Paulus apostolatum suuin exercet ; sed his ethnicis etiam Romanos, quamvis fidei ' sese iam subiecerint, adnumerat, quia antca ethnici fuerant. Simul tamen eos ab aliis ethnicis distinguit eos vocatos Iesu Christi appellans. Quae verba velut appositio pronomini vos sunt addita, ita ut minore: interpunctione ab eo separanda sint (vos, vocati Iesu Christi, i. e. vos, qui iam estis vocati) ; neque enim recte pro vocativo habentur, uti aliqui volunt, quia in hac inscriptione vocativo non est locus, neque immediate cum verbo estis connecti possunt (inter quas etiam vos vocati estis), quia significaretur, alias gentes iam omnes vocatas esse (cfr To/.). Haud apte TAom. locutionem vocati Iesu Christi explicat « vocati a Iesu Christo »; nam quamvis ex parte grammaticae contra hanc explicationem nihil possit obiici, Paulus tamen vocationem ad fidem Deo Patri appropriare solet (8,29. 30; 1 Cor. 1,9; 7,15. 17; Gal. 1,15 etc.);. quare rectius Es/. : « gratuita Dei vocatione facti fideles Iesu Christi ». Vi efficacis suae vocationis membra corporis Iesu Christi sunt facti; unde sequitur, ut etiam audire debeant eum, qui vi efficacis suae vocationis factus est Apostolus Iesu Christi. Pulchre igitur hoc membrum (vocati Iesu Christi) superiori (vocatus Apostolus) respondet longamque dignitatis auctoritatisque apostolicae descriptionem, qua Paulus suum Romanis scribendi ius asseruit, apte terminat. Pro antiquorum more nomini suo subiungit designationem corum, quibus epistola est destinata ; salutationem vero, quam Graeci Latinique eadem in sententia addere solent (II»3:ov 'Agz:z s zpázzet A6yat, Zevcogóy T'gjXAo yafpsw Scil. ^éyec, M. Cicero salutem dicit P. Lentulo Procos., Cicero Attico salutem) Apostoli omnes, excepto S. Iacobo, nova sententia addunt (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,3) spiritualia bona fidelibus precantes : Paulus... 7. omnibus, qui sunt Romae, dilectis Dei, vocatis sanctis. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo. Cum emphasi omnibus qui sunt Romae fidelibus epistolam inscribens non tam inter nobiles divitesque et inter servos ac pauperes nullum discrimen a Deo agnosci docet (cfr Chrys. Theod. etc., Tolet. etc.), neque inter eos, qui Romae stabilem habebant sedem, atque advenas, qui pro tempore in urbe commorabantur, aut inter eos quos ibi cognitos habebat (cfr 16,3 sqq.), et alios sibi ignotos distinguit, ut multi moderni censent, quam potius praeter ethnicos conversos, quos in praecedente membro allocutus erat, etiam Iudaeochristianos ad ecclesiam romanam pertinere insinuat. lllo igitur omnibus addito prohibet , ne hi solis suis fratribus praeputiatis, qui longe maximam ecclesiae illius partem constituebant, epistolam destinatam arbitrentur. Honorificis autem nominibus, uti solet (cfr ad Gal. 1,2), ecclesiam cui scribit exornat omnes fideles appellans dilectos Dei (&ya- *1«:0)g Ocos cfr 1 Thess. 1,5 : &2:Agot Tj yacmu£vot 0cb Ocot fratres dilecti a Deo) et vocatos sanctos. Ad priorem appellationem Aug. bene adnotat : « non ait : diligentibus Deum, sed : dilectis Dei; prior enim dilexit nos (1 Joan. 4,10) ante omnia merita, ut et nos eum dilecti diligeremus ». Quibus non minus bene 7/om. addit : « Dci enim dilectio non provocatur ex bono creaturae , sicut dilectio humana, sed magis ipsum bonum creaturae causat ; quia diligere est bonum velle dilecto, voluntas autem Dei est causa rerum »!. A caritate igitur, qua Deus eos amplectitur, fideles uti omnia bona, ita imprimis id habent, ut sint tocati sancti. « Quum enim dixisset : dlectis Dei, inquit Chrys., Paulus statim subiungit vocatis sanctis, ut divinam caritatem ostendat esse fontem omnium bonorum »; nam haec omnia vocatione ad fidem quasi continentur. « Vocatis sanctis aulem , Aug. pergit, non ita intelligendum est, tamquam ideo vocati sint, quia sancti erant, sed ideo sancti effecti , quia vocati sunt » ; vocati sancti ergo idem est quod vocatione sancti, i. e. vi vocationis sancti. Porro « sanctos, inquit iterum CArys., omnes fideles vocat »; neque enim ad singulorum mores conscientiaeque statum in hac appellatione attendit, sed id beneficium consideret, 1. Egregie Just. quoque : « Nihil praestabilius in hac vita mortali optari polest, quam ut quis a Deo diligatur, cuius amor acluosus est et efficax, quique coelestia et divina bona largitur. Antevertit enim quidquid est in creaturis boni vel laudabile, nec diligit benevolentia dignos, sed ipsa sua benevolentia dignos facit. Quocirca recte subdit vocatis sanctis ; divinus . quod vi efficacis suae vocationis omnes fideles consecuti sunt, utpote sanctificati in Christo Iesu, i. e. « baptismo ab omni immunditie purgati, a mundo hoc segregati, divino servitio consecrati et tamquam Christi membra Deo sanctissimo intime coniuncti » (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,2. 30; 6,11). Formula, qua Apostolus Romanis bona spiritualia omnia precatur, eadem est, quam in aliis epistolis iam explicavimus (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,3; Gal. 1,3); quare ea tantum addemus quibus 7/Aeod. hane particulam claudit : « Hisce, inquit, epistolae inscriptionem perfecit : Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, omnibus qui sunt Romae dilectis Dei , vocatis sanctis ; gratia vobis et pax a Deo Patre nostro et Domino Iesu Christo. Alia vero omnia inseruit, docens, a quonam praedicator sit constitutus et quaenam praedicare iussus sit et quibusnam haec offerre sit destinatus. Eis porro primum quidem' Dei gratiam precatur; per hanc enim quicumque crediderunt salutem sunt consecuti; deinde pacem, per quam omnem rectam virtutis actionem significat; cum Deo enim pacem habet, qui evangelicam vitae institutionem amplectitur ac sedulo eum in omnibus colit et observat. Horum autem donorum non solum Patrem sed etiam Filium largitorem esse ostendit : a Deo Patre nostro enim, inquit, e£ Domino Iesu Christo; per quae nos aperte docet Patris et Filii aequalitatem ». Idem argumentum ad Patris Filiique aequalitatem demonstrandam praeter CArys. aliosque graecos interpretes contra Arianos urgent S. A/Aan. c. Arian. Or. 3,11. 13; S. Cyr. Alex. Thesaur. de Trin. Ass. 12 (M. 75,192), alii. 2. — Gratiarum aclio et caplatio benevolentiae (1,8-15). beam et ín vobis, sicut et in ceteris genti- | a/& xal lv üpiv xaBug xal dv toig Aotroiq bus. 14. Graecis.ac barbaris, sapientibus | Eüvcot, 14. "EXAzo(v t€. xat fap6dpou, et insipientibus debitor sum : 15. ita (quod | aogotg re xal dvojtow óytdtre slyl- 15. in me) promptum est et vobis, qui Romae | o9to 1b xat! igi zpóluuov xai Üpiv roig dv estis, evangelizare. Póus cjavy:sX(sao0a: 1. Pro more a gratiis Deo agendis Paulus exorditur fidem Romanorum in toto orbe celebratam grata memoria recolens (v. 8.). Quod ne mirentur fideles, quibus erat ignotus, bonam suam erga eos voluntatem ma- Difestat, quae et ex continuis suis precibus pro eis (v. 9) et ex continuo suo eos adeundi desiderio eluceat (10-129). Quod desiderium, cui hucusque satisfacere prohibitus sit (v. 13), ex ipsa sua ,vocatione derivans, qua omnibus debitor factus etiam Romanis fructum quendam spiritualem afferre cogatur (15. 15), ad ipsum tractatum viam sibi aperit. Quoniam piam animam decet, uti habet CArys., omnium operum verborumque bonorum primitias Deo offerre eique non solum de suis ipsius sed etiam , animo ab omni invidia vacuo, de aliorum recte factis gratias agere, Apostolus omnes suas epistolas, una excepta (cfr ad Ga/. 1,6), & sollemni quadam gratiarum actione incipit. Quem morem eo minus hic negligere ei licuit, quo maius fuit beneficium-ecclesiae romanae divinitus collatum. « Neque enim de imperio, de potentia, de gloria Romanorum gratias agit (haec enim nihili habenda sunt), sed de iis quae vere bona sunt, de fide eiusque aperta professione » (CArys.), « non quod aliam babeant Romani fidem, nisi hanc quam omnes Christi ecclesiae, sed quod devotio in eis maior sit et simplicitas ad credendum » (S. Hier. in ep. ad Gal. Prooem. l. 2), et quod « ad eos perfidia non habeat accessum » (S. Cypr. ad Corn. ep. 19,15. M. 3,821); siquidem « hanc laudem virtutis et roboris firmitatem iam tunc in spiritu Apostolus praevidebat et futurorum praeconio merita eorum contestans, dum parentes laudat, filios provocabat » (S. Cypr. ad Corn. ep. 13,92. M. 3,831). Exorditur igitur : 8. prámum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum pro (oz£p, vel : de zegt) omnibus vobis, quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo. Particula zpóxov uév (próimum quidem) solitarie est posita, deficiente altero membro (eta &£ deinde autem), quia . Apostolus ardore suo abreptus cogitationem, quam in mente habuit, postea alia forma, uti saepius (cfr ad 1 Cor. 11,18), declarat. Orig. quidem eam v. 13. addi suspicatur (nolo autem vos ignorare etc.) ; rectius vero alii eam iam v. 10. sequi censent, ut gratiarum actioni de Romanorum fide respondeat precatio, qua Paulus, ut Romanis fructum quendam . spiritualem afferre sibi contingat, a Deo efflagitat. Particulam yév (quidem) vero plane negligunt, qui locutionem primum quidem idem significare volunt, quod imprimis, seu : ut dicendi initium factam etc. Paulumque alterum membrum addere voluisse negant (Tolet. [ust. etc.). Porro multorum ingentiumque, quae ipse a divina bonitate consecutus est, beneficiorum memor « eum qui cunctorum Deus est sibi quasi proprium vindicat » (Oec. cfr Chrys. etc.) magnoque cum caritatis affectu Deo suo de beneficio aliis collato gratias agit, quia illud quasi sibi . ipsi collatum considerat (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,&). Perperam vero A^** adnotat : « gratias agere se dicit Deo suo dumtaxat , quia adhuc illorum (sc. Romanorum) Deus non erat plene »; fidem nimirum Romanorum, quam Paulus ubique terrarum celebrari dicit, A'*r foedo errore vitiatam fuisse sine causa, ut diximus (p. 9 sq.), ac falso supponit. Gratias deinde agit Deo suo per Iesum Christum, quia eodem ordine, inquit Thom. , debet gratiarum actio in Deum recurrere, quo gratiae & Deo in nos deveniunt, quod quidem est per Iesum Christum »; neque minus bene Orig. explicat : « agere Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis offerre et ideo addit per Iesum Christum velut per pontificem magnum (efr Hebr. 13,15); oportet enim scire eum, qui vult offerre sacrificium Deo, quod per manus pontificis debet offerre (Hebr. 8,3) v. iuniores nonnulli acath. eam torquent, quia Christianos sine ullo mediatore preces suas Deo, utpote patri suo, debere offerre ex paulinis quibusdam locis (tom. 8, 15; Gal. 4, 6) perverse explicatis colligunt. Alii igitur verba per Jesum Christum cum praecedentibus (Deo meo) arcte connectunt sensumque esse volunt: « ei gratias ago, qui nunc per Iesum Christum est meus Deus » (Kop. etc.); sed haec interpretatio locis parallelis (7, 95; Col. 3, 17; Hebr. 43, 45) excluditur. Alii verba quaedam esse omissa arbitrarie supponunt (« Deo gratias ago secundum gratiam mihi collatam per Iesum Christum ». Koelln. etc.), aut non minus arbitrarie, admisso hyperbato, ad eum fere sensum perveniunt, quem Mopsu. iam sibi finxit ( « gratias ago Deo de vestra fide, quam per Christum operatus est » Aück. etc.); alii illa cum verbo gratias ago quidem connectunt, sed explicant : « per Christum factum est, ut gratias agam Deo » aut : « gratias ago Deo, quum Iesus Christus optime de genere humano meruerit » (Fr. etc). Quibus similibusque interpretationibus, quae dumtaxat ad errorem tuendum sunt excogitatae, immorari operae pretium non est. Per Christum enim, mediatorem nostrum, accessum habemus ad Patrem (5,4. 2; Eph. 2,18); sicut per Christum omnia 8 Patre accipimus, ita per eum omnia a Patre petere debemus, si de precum nostrarum efficacia certi esse volumus (Joan. 16,23), ac per eum de acceptis beneficiis gratias agere nos decet, ut nostrae gratiarum actiones Patri acceptiores gratioresque sint. Haec nos docet Ecclesia, quae ipsa cum Paulo omnes suas orationes, sive a Deo aliquid petit, sive eum laudibus celebrat, sive ei gratias agit, Deo Patri per Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum offerre semper consuevit. Pro omnibus autem (zio závzov l1. e. omnium gratia, minime vero : omnium loco) vel de omnibus (zepi závcwvi. e. relate ad omnes) gratias Deo referens non tam singulorum mores, uti insinuat Orig., quam totius ecclesiae romanae statum Paulus considerat, id quod ex verbis additis elucet, quibus causam suae actionis gratiarum indicat : quia fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo ; neque enim tam singulorum, quam universi coetus fides celebrabatur. Hyperbolice porro zn universo mundo (cfr 1 Thess. 1,8 in omni loco) fidem romanam celebrari asserit, ut in dissitis ac remotissimis regionibus, ubicumque ' ecclesiae erant exortae vel fideles degebant, cognitum iam fuisse significet, non tantum Romae Evangelium cum fructu esse annuntiatum, sed etiam romanos neophytos sincera sua fide ardoreque, quo eam profitebantur, excellere aliisque fidelibus praelucere. Recte Thom. ; « commendantur Romani de fide, quia eam de facili susceperant et in eadem firmiter permanebant » (cfr CArys. etc.). Parum recte vero nonnulli id unum significari volunt, rumorem quendam de nova ecclesia Romae exorta in omnes provincias esse perlatum (Orig !. Theod. A'tr etc. — Lips. etc.), aut Paulum esse gavisum, quod Romanorum fides a fide in reliquo orbe annuntiata non differret (Orig?.). Magnam enim laudem haec verba (uti similia 15,1&; 16,19) sonant clareque . docent, iuxta Pauli sententiam fidem Romanorum puram sinceramque fuisse ac dignam, quae in omnibus ecclesiis celebraretur omnibusque exemplo esset. Hoc sensu Patres verba illa allegare et explicare solent (p. 52), neque immerito addunt, Paulum de eorum fide gratias Deo egisse « non solum propter eos, sed etiam propter utilitatem inde consequentem, quia sc. eorum exemplo, qui erant domini gentium, aliae gentes provocarentur ad fidem; quia uti dicit G/., prompte facit inferior, quod videt fieri a superiore ». Ceterum Paulus de omnium, i. e. de totius ecclesiae romanae, loquitur fide; cave igitur, ne cum Aug. A'r? etc. tibi persuadeas, Romanos « nondum habuisse perfectam fidem, quia aliqui eorum praeventi erant a pseudapostolis, ut crederent Legis caeremonias Evangelio iungendas » (TAom.). Gratiarum sua actione Apostolus clare manifestavit, quanta cum caritate Romanos, licet sibi essent ignoti, amplecteretur; ne tamen de hac caritate, quam opere eis nondum exhibere ac probare potuerat, neophyti dubitent, iureiurando eam confirmat : 9. testis enim mihi est Deus, cui servio in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii eius, quod sine tntermissione memoriam vestri facio,
1:10
10. semper in orationibus meis obsecrans!, si quomodo tandem aliquando prosperum iter habeam in voluntate Dei veniendi ad vos; postrema sententiae pars iuxta graecum textum (etzuq 42v, «2: e)zju06ocuat bv c ÜsX(gazt 29 Osz5 (ety zp3; 0y3;) accuratius simul et clarius huncin modum redditur : si | forte tandem aliquando contingat mihi? in voluntate Dei (seu per voluntatem Dei, vel : Deo volente) venire ad vos (vel : ut veniam ad vos). Uti saepius, si de internis rebus agitur, quarum testes idonei esse nequeunt homines (2 Cor. 1,93; PAil. 1,8; 1 Thess. 2,5), Paulus etiam continuae suae gratiarum actionis « non hominem aliquem, sed Deum ipsum, cordium scrutatorem, testem appellat » (CArys.); quin etiam, ut assertionis suae veritatem sanctiore iuramento confirmet, testi huic sese, utpote « vocatum Apostolum ac segregatum in Evangelium Dei » (v. 1), totam suam vitam consecrasse addens fieri non posse insinuat, ut eum citet mendacii testem. Tamquam sacrum enim ac vere sacerdotale ministerium considerat praedicationem suam evangelicam, quippe qua gentes conversas Deo velut hostias praeparet (cfr ad 15,16); ideo ait : cui servio (Aaxpsóo), i. e. religiosum cultum exhibeo, zn Evangelio Filii etus, per ipsam nimirum praedicationem evangelicam de Filio Dei incarnato ac glorificato (vv. 3. 4). Quoniam veroomnis religiosus cultus sit oportet internus, adiungit in spiritu meo (i. e. « in affectu mentis meae, quia non per simulationem ei famulatum exhibeo, sed quidquid foris boni in eius servitio operor, hoc intus in voluntate cordis similiter facio » Herc.) , ut sese non labiis tantum, sed toto suo animo per S. Spiritum elevato Deum evangelica sua praedicatione glorificare significet. Alibi quidem (iuxta textum rec. et Vulg. Phil. 3,3) locutione zvsóyaz Oeo Aazpsistv (spiritu servire Deo) spiritualem Christianorum cultum carnalibus Iudaeorum ritibus opponit; sed nulla est ratio, cur eandem oppositionem hoc in loco admittamus, licet haud paucis haec explicatio placuerit (CArys?. Oec3. Theoph. ete., Thom?. Lyr. eic.). Multo minus autem aliae explicationes, quae variae propositae sunt (in spiritu meo i. e. per gratiam S. Spiritus (CArys!. Oec!. etc.] aut : secundum datam gratiam [TAeod. Oec?. Euth.] etc.), nobis probantur, quia apostolico loquendi usui non consentiunt. Neque tantum gratiarum actionibus suis sese assidue (àzusizzo«) eorum coram Deo memorem esse iureiurando asserit, sed etiam precationibus, quibus semper (závz2:s), quoties Deum orat (in orationibus meis), ab eo petit, ut sibi Romam venire feliciter contingat. Quamvis autem Romanos videre iam & multo tempore ardenter desideret (id quippe adverbiis £y z«:£ tandem aliquando innuit) neque dubitet, quin eis suo adventu magnam utilitatem sit allaturus (15,29), magna cum moderatione tamen desiderium suum Deo semper proponit. Etenim dumtaxat in voluntate Dei (iv «à 9eXfgazt c9 O:c2), i. e. Deo positive volente, se iter illud ingredi velle diserte in precibus suis protestatur eamque precationis formulam eligit, qua se metuere connotans, ne Deus aliud statuerit, sc totum hoc negotium voluntati divinae committerc significat : 2:24svcz sic ug... e)e200fszpa , obsecrans si forte (minus apte Vulg. : si quo modo) mihi contingat etc!. Causam deinde desiderii sui addit, ut qua cum caritate Romanos diligat clarius exponat : v. 10 in voluntate Dei). Qua in explicatione id creat difficultatem, quod adiectivum neutrius generis non nisi cum articulo pro substantivo adhiberi soleat. Hinc alii verba «2 xa:' ig£ subiectum, «0p» praedicatum sententiae esse volunt : « quidquid in me est, id promptum est eliam vobis praedicare »; scd locutio zz xa-' ig£ non significat : quod tn me est, sed : quod ad me attinet, nec proin potest esse subiectum. Quare vocabula 3 xzz' ipi z5:00ycv rectius ita connectuntur, ut adiectivum «$ «e£0vyc» quidem pro subst. 4 z52:075:z sit positum (cfr ad 2,4), locutione xz' i44 autem pronomen possessivum cum emphasi suppleatur (cfr EpA. 15,1 «5» x20 ' oj.à; ziezo Vulg. recte : fidem vestram; Áct. 11,98; 18,25) : « mea quidem propensio ad Evangelium vobis quoque praedicandum adest, dummodo id Deo placeat ». Tribus istis explicationibus sensus vix variatur et iuxta omnes tres Paulus propensionem suam Romam veniendi ex obligatione derivat, qua omnibus vi vocationis suae Evangelium afferre tenetur. Inter modernos aliqui verba àüutv «ct; & "Pops, c)zv. (vobis qui Romae estis) lato sensu de omnibus Romanis, Christianis et ethnicis, intelligenda esse censent (cfr Beel. etc. — God. etc.), quia Paulus infidelibus quoque Romae praedicare novisque membris ecclesiam romanam augere voluerit et quia verbum «ejizy:7:50z: de prima tantum Evangelii annuntiatione usurpetur. Quae haud recte dicuntur; procul enim dubio verbum :52zqe^so0x« etiam de annuntiatione doctrinae adhibetur, quae fidelibus traditur (15,20; Gal. 1,8. 9), atque Paulus infideles, quibus haec epistola non est destinata, compellare non potuit. Solos fideles alloquitur et, quum ipse Romam venire nondum possit, hac ipsa epistola Romanis evangelizat obligationique, qua erga eos tenetur, pro viribus satisfacit. Totam quippe doctrinam de gratuitate et universalitate iustificationis per fidem in Christum obtinendae, quam « Evangelium suum » appellare solet, eis exponit, atque statim iam ad eam exponendam transit. 2 : i] DE IUSTIFICATIONIS GRATIA OMNIBUS AC SOLIS CREDENTIBUS OBLATA (1,16-11,86). Tractatus totius thema et divisio (1,16-17). 1,16. Non enim erubesco Evangelium. 1,16. O3 yàp ixawóvepat zo eooyyfIiov: Virtus enim Dei est in. salutem omni cre- | 9óvagig yàp. OroU. dativ el; ovtrplav ravrl denti , Iudaeo primum et Graeco. 17, lusti- | ti rxovtóovtt, "lovó2üo :& xoi *EXXAnvi. 17. tía. enim Dei in eo recelatur ex fide in | Guatosóvr, qàp O:o3. iv a3: droxoAUricat fidem : sicut scriptum est : Iustus autem ex | lx lattos tl; elottv, x0; víiypantav 'O fide vicit, 93 S(xatog ix. (atto Cjotrat !. Postquam neophytis auctoritatem suam apostolicam, quae eorum quoque ad ecclesiam pertingeret, demonstravit eorumque animos caritate sua manifestata sibi conciliavit, Paulus ad argumentum , quod tractandum sibi proposuerat, orationem non minus pulchro quam apto transitu convertit. Gentium enim Apostolus constitutus earumque omnium vi vocationis suae debitor factus promptum quidem paratumque sese declaraverat ad Evangelium Romanis quoque annuntiandum ; at tamdiu iter romanum retardaverat, ut suspicari aliquis potuerit, eum pudore quodam retineri, « quominus in civitate omnium prima, ubi sedes erat imperii atque nobilitas, sapientia , doctrina, divitiae residebant, praedicare auderet » (Tolet.). Gentibus enim, quae huius mundi sapientiam quaerunt, Evangelium stultitia est (cfr 1 Cor. 1, 18 sqq.), idque Paulus ipse erat expertus, quando in celeberrimis Graeciae civitatibus Evangelium annuntiaverat, Athenis repulsam passus ac velut seminiverbius despectus (.1cf. 17,18 sqq.), Corinthi non nisi plurimis maximisque superatis difficultatibus (.1c/. 18,9) victoriam tandem inter eos fere solos consecutus, qui sapientia et nobilitate ct potentia huius mundi destituti erant (cfr 1 Cor. 1,26 sqq.). Hac igitur suspicione, quam forte per adversarios suos spargi audierat, pro transitu utitur; ut illam enim reiiciat, paucissimis verbis, quid de evangelicae praedicationis divina efficacitate et universali necessitate sentiendum sit, complectens eadem brevi sententia universum argumentum, quod in dogmatica epistolae parte explanaturus est, proponit :
1:11
11. desidero enim videre vos, ut aliquid impertiar vobis gratiae spiritualis ad confirmandos vos, vel accuratius iuxta graecum (iva «x pexa20 zápwua plv xveugatuxhv el, vo ovqpvyOnvat bópac) : ut aliquod communicem donum vobiscum spirituale, ut vos confirmemini. Graecum verbum yeca35vas latino impertiri !, quo Vulg. utitur, multo significantius est; proprie enim significat « id quod ali- . quis accepit cum altero communicare ». Unde egregie Chrys. « indicat, inquit, se non sua dare illis, sed quae accepit tradere », atque similiter TAeod. ; '« communico enim ex iis quae accepi ». Tamquam minister igitur illius, a quo omnia sua accepit, et tamquam dispensator mysteriorum Dei (1 Cor. $,1) Romanis dona divina afferre desiderat. Quae dona designat nomine yápuwpá «t xvevp.azixóv, quo gratias gratis datas hic intelligendas esse, nonnulli cum 7o/. haud recte censent; xápiua enim, quamvis a scriptoribus ecclesiasticis plerumque et interdum quoque in Novo Test. de gratiis in aliorum utilitatem concessis adhibeatur (12,6; 1 Cor. 129,&. 9. 28. 30. 31; 1 Petr. &,10), per se omne divinae caritatis donum significat, quum temporale (2 Cor. 1,10. 11) tum praecipue spirituale, quod ad propriam illius, qui illud accipit, vitam supernaturalem pertinet (5,16; 6,93; 11,99; 1 Cor. 1,7; 7,1 etc.). Qua ultima significatione nomen hoc in loco intelligendum esse, non tam ex epitheto (zvsugazuxóv spirituale), quo proxime nihil nisi donum esse a Spiritu sancto significatur, quam ex fine apparet, ad quem illud cum eis communicare Paulus desiderat : ad confirmandos vosi. e. ut confirmemini in vera fide; augmentum igitur fidei eis sua praedicatione afferre vult. Bene TAeod. : « Quia Romanis magnus Petrus doctrinam evangelicam iam tradidit, Paulus necessario addidit : ut vos confirmemint ; non aliam enim, inquit, doctrinam vobis afferre, sed eam quam accepistis confirmare et arbores iam plantatas irrigare volo ». Neque vero probari potest A'*", qui ex his verbis collegit, Romanos eousque non nisi carnalem de Christo doctrinam accepisse, Paulum vero eis spiritualem tradere voluisse; carnalis enim doctrina spirituali non confirmatur, sed destruitur. Neque satis recte Tolet. : « Attende Pauli moderationem ; errabant cnim Romani in aliquibus, ut ex hac epistola patet et indigebant institutione [scilicet qua errores corrigerentur]; ne tamen eos tamquam pusillos terreret, confirmationem eam appellat »; mira scilicet esset « moderatio », qua Paulus, vel potius S. Spiritus, vocabulis alienam, quae eis non competit, significationem attribueret et de confirmatione loqueretur, si correctionem vel emendationem intelligi vellet. Vocabulis quippe proprius ac genuinus sensus relinquatur oportet, quamdiu id fieri potest; atqui nihil omnino hoc in loco obstat, quominus id fiat, quum nihil in tota epistola legatur, quo Romanos circa fidem errasse probatur. Immo vero proprium sensum postulat explicatio, quam Apostolus ipse verbis suis addit :
1:12
19. d est (:c3vo 84 &exw hoc autem est) simul consolari (vel potius : corroborari cuyzapaxXn0nva) in vobis per eam, quae invicem est, fidem vestram atque meam. Neque enim mutua sua fide Romani et Paulus se invicem consolari vel potius corroborare potuissent, si alterutrius fides erroribus esset deturpata. Quo explicatio illa spectet, haud plane quidem constat. Cum TAeod. enim multi totam sententiam praecedentem explicari censent, ita ut infinitivus consolart vel corroborari praecedenti videre parallelus sit eademque ratione a verbo desidero pendeat; cum CArys. autem haud pauciores sola verba ad confirmandos vos (si; * acoge Ozvxt p3;) explicari arbitrantur, ita ut infinitivus consolari seu corroborari (quem Vulg. retinuit) praecedenti ezzc0z2: (quem Vg. gerundivo reddidit) respondeat et a praepos. si; dependeat. Sed haec quaestio grammaticam constructionem potius quam sensum attingit; namque praecedentis sententiae vis tota est in indicando fine, ob quem Apostolus Romanos videre desiderat (ut vos confirmemini); quare illi quoque, qui totam sententiam explicari dicunt, potissimum tamen ad finem illum explicationem pertinere fatentur. lam vero sunt, qui hac explicatione priora mitigari et quasi corrigi teneant; Paulum enim, ne arrogantiae accusarctur, quod se Romanos confirmare velle dixisset eosque vacillare insinuasset, verbum confirmandi in consolandi mutasse censent seque neophytis exaequasse, quum se ab iis vicissim fructum spiritualem accepturum esse adderet; hac autem ratione eum Romanorum benevolentiam sibi conciliare voluisse (cfr Chrys. Theoph. etc., Est. Pic. eic., M Ev. Bisp. etc.). Quae non omni ex parte recte dici videntur; benevolentiam quidem neophytorum addita explicatione sibi conciliare studet, at nihil dixerat, quod correctione aut mitigatione indigeret, neque eos vacillare suppo- ' suerat. In fide enim confirmantur illà quoque, qui non vacillantes ad perfectiorem doctrinae revelatae scientiam et intelligentiam adducuntur. Addit autem quaedam, quibus antea dicta non mutans universum finem suum clarius exponat; Romam enim venire desiderat, ut praedicatione sua neophytos in fide confirmet, ipse vero simul ardore neophytorum delectetur et corroboretur, atque hac ratione fides mutua utrisque, Apostolo et neophytis, profectum spiritualem afferat. ^« Ad maiorem fidei perfectionem (xAxogoplav «$ xlovsos), inquit Oec?., utrisque prodest, quando praedicator auditorum animos extraordinario modo ad fidei obedientiam attrahi videt (robustior enim ad praedicandum redditur) et quando discipuli concionatorem magna cum boni successus spe tradere fidem audiunt ». Haud dissimiliter Chrys. Theod. aliique multi eam intelligunt Pauli consolationem vel corroborationem, quae ex cognito fidei incremento neophytorum exoriatur. Difücultatem quandam ambiguitas verbi evjxaoaxa)aiv creat, quod aeque ac rapaxaMuaiv, a quo derivatur (cfr ad 2 Cor. 4, 4) varias sifigniflcationes admittit : simul rogare vel docere vel exhortari vel consolari vel confirmare. Quamnam Graeci hoc in loco praetulerint, difücile est dictu, quia vocabulum nagaxe)atv eiusque derivata in suis explicationibus retinent heque accuratius illud definiunt. Cum Vulg. Latini plerique verbo consolandi utuntur, pauci ezhortandi verbum praeferunt; neutrum tamen, si proprio suo sensu sumuntur, satis aptum est. Romanos enim eo tempore calamitate quadam afflictos fuisse, ut solatio indigerent, ex nostra epistola non apparet; exhortandi autem notio Romanis quidem congruit at non Apostolo, quem neophyti exhortari non potuerunt. Retineri tamen potest consolandi verbum, si consolationem illam spiritualem intelligis, quae habetur omni fidei spei caritatisque incremento, laetitiamque illam supernaturalem, quae animum ad salutis studium coelestiumque rerum amorem solet incitare. Si vero attendimus, verbum ermptzev (ürmum reddere, confirmare) nostro evysapoxadlety quasi explicari atque Paulum alibi quoque duo verba ervap(Gev et mapaxoYdtv velut synonyma coniungere (1 Thess. 3,2; 2 Thess. 2,16), a vero non aberrare nobis videmur, si latinum verbum corroborare praeferimus, corroborationem, uti patet, intelligentes supernaturalem, quae incremento gratiae sanctificantis virtutumque infusarum obtinetur (cfr Zteith. Mai. etc.). Quam significationem, ni fallor, S. Basil. M. (Reg. brevius tract. 226) insinuat, si nostrum locum allegans ait, Scripturam verbo ragaxeXiv uti rox; «ó euuGioi- Ue t)». xapbíav elc ibeseós zc dife(ae (cfr Col. 2 i plena enim ac perfecta fide corroboratur cor. Accuratius iam explicat, quod supra (v. 10. iandéji aliquando) innuerat, se iam diu desiderium Romam veuiendi fovisse :
1:13
13. nolo autem ' eos ignorare, fratres, quia saepe proposui venire ad vos — et prohibitus sum usque adhuc — ut aliquem fructum habeam et in vobis , sicut et in ceteris gentibus. Haud levis momenti esse illud, quod addere vult, ipsa formula indicat, qua illud affert : no/o autem (3: metabat.) vos tgnorare (efr 11,25; 1 Cor. 10,1; 19,1; 2 Cor. 1,8; 1 Thess. 4,13). Ex ipsa quippe sua vocatione ad gentium apostolatum desiderium suum exoriri demonstrat , quum inter Romanos non minus, quam inter alias gentes, quibus jam Evangelium attulit (15,15 sqq. 23 sqq.), fructum aliquem spiritualem sese expetere dicat, quia omnibus gentibus debitor sit (v. 14). Quis vel quid eum impedierit, quominus propositum suum exsecutioni mandaret, non addit; quia a S. Spiritu in suis itineribus dirigi solebat (cfr Comment. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 422 n.), interdum autem satanae machinationibus, Deo id permittente, a propositis suis exsequendis retinebatur (1 TAess. 2,18; cfr 2 Cor. 12,7), aliqui hic quoque aut cum CArys. de Spiritu S. iter directe (cfr Act. 16,6. 7) impediente, aut cum S. Basil. M. (Reg. brevius tract. 275) de satana agi arbitrantur. At multitudine laborum, quos in Oriente subeundos habuerat, iter suum romanum esse retardatum, Paulus infra (15,92) diserte tradit; unde idem impedimentum hoc in loco intelligatur oportet. Quia autem S. Spiritus ei labores illos assignaverat, ab illo indirecte impeditus dici potest ac debet. ] Verba e/ prohibitus sum usque adhuc parenthesis uncis a Vulg. Clem. recte includuntur; sententia enim finalis, quae sequitur (ut aliquem fructum habeam [rectius : haberem] et in vobis etc.) ab illis non dependet, sed causam exponit, cur Apostolus Romam venire saepe proposuerit; ad aptum vero sensum non perveniunt, qui (uti olim iam aliqui Graeci teste Oec.) finem prohibitionis indicari volunt. Eandem porro desiderii sui rationem vv. 11. 12. iam expresserat eamque per metaphoram quandam satis usitatam (cfr 1 Cor. 3,6 sqq. etc.) nunc repetit, agricolae sese comparans, qui agrum sibi assignatum colit proxime quidem, ut ager domino suo divitem fructum producat, sed etiam ut ipse de cius fructu participet (cfr 1 Cor. 9,7. 10). Ager ei assignatus, quem planfare et irrigare debet, omnes gentes sunt, quas Evangelii praedicatione ad fidem adducere et in ea confirmare vi vocationis suae apostolicae tenetur; Romani ab aliis operariis adducti quidem ad fidem iam sunt, at irrigatoris munere inter eos fungi eosque confirmare desiderat, ut ex ista quoque agri parte fructum sibi acquirat. Irrigator enim non minus, quam plantator, secundum suum laborem mercedem accipit et de fructu participat (1 Cor. 3,8; 9,10). Quem in sensum ex Oec. bene Just. adnotat « Paulum non dixisse : ut aliquem fructum pariam, sed : habeam, ut nimirum ostenderet, audientium profectum esse docentis fructum, sive quia id facit caritas (qua aliquis de alterius profectu spirituali quasi de suo ipsius gaudet), sive quia is docendi praedicandique labor non potest non magnum praeconi Evangelii afferre fructum ». Fructum igitur inter Romanos quoque sibi acquirere vult, quemadmodum illum inter reliquas gentes , nulla excepta (£v «2tg Actzets £0veow), partim iam acquisivit, partim sibi acquirere proposuit (cfr 15,94. 98). Quod studium ethnicos populos (de his solis, Iudaeis exclusis, iuxta contextum agitur) universos complectens ex amplitudine muneris exoritur, quo gentium Apostolus constitutus omnibus gentibus sine ulla exceptione iuxta divinam voluntatem Evangelium afferre tenetur :
1:14
14. Graecis ac barbaris, sapientibus et insiptentibus (1. e. non sapientibus) debitor sum. Sicut missus est evangelizare ac tam gravi praecepto ad annuntiandum Evangelium est obligatus, ut poenam gravem sibi attraheret, si ab illo propagando sese abstineret (cfr 1 Cor. 1,17; 9,16), ita omnibus quoque gentibus illud annuntiare est iussus. Duplici membro universitatem gentium describit, quibus vi muneris et officii est debitor, in priore linguae maxime vel cultus humanitatisque, in altero scientiae ac doctrinae ratione habita. Graecis omnes populi, qui aliis linguis moribusque utebantur, barbari erant; quare si nomina stricto suo sensu sumuntur, cum nonnullis dicendum est, Romanos barbaris a Paulo adnumerari. At nihil vetat, quominus latiore sensu illa interpretemur !, ita ut in primo membro nationes cultae incultis, in altero doctae indoctis opponantur, atque in utroque Romani, quibus scribit, priori classi cultarum et doctarum nationum accenseantur. Recte enim Chrys. sua interpretatione insinuat, eo tendere Apostolum, ut dignitatis excellentiaeque discrimen inter nationes hac in quaestione nullum esse moneat; omnibus evangelicam doctrinam aeque esse necessariam seque omnibus eodem modo esse debitorem. Quod vero alii censent, in priore quidem membro de nationibus, in altero autem de singulis istarum nationum personis agi, id mihi non probatur, quum sequenti sententiae minus congruat. Concludit enim :
1:15
15. ita — quod in me — promptum cst et vobis, qui Romae estis, evangelizare. Particulam ifa (22:e;) hic habere vim illativam (i. q. itaque), plerique recte consentiunt; conclusionem autem ex v. 13. (saepe proposui venire ad vos) non infert, uti Tolet. cum nonnullis censet, sed ex sententia immediate praecedente. Quia omnibus praedicare tenetur gentibus, promptissimus est etiam Romanis praedicare; postquam enim per tot annos ab Ierusalem per circuitum usque ad Illyricum (15,19) maxime inter barbaros Evangelium propagavit, Romam quoque videre desiderat (Act. 19,91), ut in imperii capite et centro, quo omnibus ex provinciis gentiles confluant, aliquid ad Evangelii profectum, si ita Deo placuerit; conferre possit. Quae legitima verborum «4» xat' igi zp202pov sit constructio, non constat. Alii (cum Vulg.) verba «» xaz' i£ ab adiectivo zp:0uycv ita separant, ut hoc pro substantivo xp:024í(a (promptitudo, promptus animus) positum atque sententiae subiectum esse dicant : « quod ad me attinet, propensio vobis quoque praedicandi adest, dummodo scilicet haec sit Dei voluntas » (cfr
1:16
16. non enim erubesco Evangelium; virtus enim Dei est in salutem omni credenti, Iudaeo primum et Graeco. Prior sententiola, quae particula causali (enim) praecedenti arcte adnectitur, praefationem epistolae terminat : « vobis Romanis quoque praedicare paratus sum; neque enim praedicationis evangelicae, quamvis a sapientibus huius mundi contemnatur ac vilis reputetur, me pudet »; altera vero sententia, quae rationem cur Evangelium non erubescat adiungit, ipsam praedicationem quasi exorditur suspicionemque illam fundamento carere probat. Nomine Evangelii iuxta contextum non tam docirina, quam annuntiatio evangelica intelligi videtur (cfr ad v. 1 p. 31), res praedicatae tamen simul comprehenduntur, quandoquidem potissimum ob suum argumentum praedicatio contemnebatur. Ratio vero , ob quam de ea non erubescendum esse docet, eadem utique est, quam Corinthiis quoque indicavit (1 Cor. 1,18 : « verbum enim crucis pereuntibus quidem stultitia est, iis autem qui salvi fiunt, t. e. nobis, Dei virtus est »), iis autem proponitur verbis, quae singula excellentiam Evangelii praedicant. Praeprimis enim Evangelium vocatur virtus Dei (2óvaya; Occo), i. e. res qua Deus suam potestatem manifestat, vel potius res, quae a Deo per eam operante suam habet efficacitatem ideoque omnem humanam sapientiam infinite superat. Deinde efficax Dei instrumentum dicitur ad salutem (si; cwzrzíxy) , quam nulla humana aut creata virtus producere potest. Salus enim intelligitur supranaturalis ,- quae, si in sua consummatione spectatur, ipsa est vita ac gloria aeterna, in sua inchoatione autem hac in terra in eo est sita, ut homo remissis peccatis liber sit ab ira Dei, et gratia sanctificante ornatus ius habeat ad gloriam vitamque aeternam (3.9 sqq.), quin etiam hanccerta firmaque spe, quae ob divinam fidelitatem falli nequit, iam possideat (cfr ad 9 Cor. 5,1). Tertio demum virtutis salvificae suae extensione Evangelium eminet, quum omni credenti (avi à z2::22v3)) in salutem esse dicatur. Quibus verbis efficacitatis universalitas asseritur, sed etiam restringitur; siquidem omnibus hominibus sine ullo personarum discrimine, quum omnibus sit destinatum , per se potest quidem salutem praestare, sed eam revera credentibus tantum omnibus praestat. Iuxta divinam enim ordinationem Evangelium, ut divinam suam efficacitatem in aliquem exserat, fidei obedientia ab eo recipiatur oportet, atque fides, qua evangelicae praedicationi creditur, « est salutis humanae initium , fundamentum et radix omnis iustificationis, sine qua impossibile est placere Doo et ad filiorum eius consortium pervenire » (Conc. Trid. sess. VI. de iustif. cp. 8). Recte autem Tolet. adnotat, Evangelii non solum efficacitatem, sed etiam necessitatem universalem asseri. Ad mentem enim Pauli, id quod ex tota eius argumentatione elucet (licet his verbis minus clare sit expressum), Evangelium ita dicitur efficax salutis, ut sine illo nemo eam assequatur. : Quemadmodum antea (v. 14) de apostolici sui muneris amplitudine disserens, ut illud ad omnes omnino gentes ethnicas extendi assereret, duas earum classes, Graecos ac barbaros, distinxit Graecorumque nomine cultiores nationes incultis indoctisque opposuit, ita hic de universali Evangelii efficacitate agens, ut eam ad universum genus humanum extendi moneat, in duas classes illud distribuit : Iudaeos et Graecos, et nomine Graecorum, uti plerumque (p. 62 n.), omnes illos, qui supranaturalem revelationem (nisi in Adamo) non receperant, populo electo Iudaeorum opponit; ipso igitur contextu nomen Graeci diverso sensu duabus his in sententiis sumendum esse edocemur. Quamvis autem omnibus credentibus, sive ex Judaeis venerunt sive ex Graecis, Evangelium sit salutis vere efficax, discrimen tamen quoddam inter duas classes intercedere Paulus innuit, quum Judaeo primum ('Iz52aio xpüzov) ad salutem illud esse dicat. Soli enim enumerationi adverbium «pócov inservire, id quod pauci moderni censent (Mai. etc.), nemo facile admiserit, quia in duorum membrorum enumeratione parum apte eiusmodi adverbium ponitur; ordinem potius quendam hic, uti iun loco parallelo (2,9. 10), indicari reliqui recte tenent. Qui non est temporis, uti multi cum CArys. volunt, quatenus Iudaeis prius quam ethnicis et a Domino et ab Apostolis Evangelium sit oblatum (haec enim explicatio ad locum parallelum non quadrat, siquidem ludaeos ante ethnicos iudicatum iri poenamque aut mercedem ante eos esse accepturos nusquam docetur), sed iuris, ut ita dicamus, ac privilegii cst ordo. Namque Iudacis non tantum propter divinam misericordiam eadem ratione, qua aliis omnibus, nationibus, salus tribuitur, sed propter fidelitatem Dei, qui eis salutem messianam promiserat , speciali quodam iure eam obtinebunt (cfr ad 15,8. 9). Quem in sensum bene Thom. : « Quantum ad salutis finem consequendum non est distinctio inter ludaeum et Graecum (10,12) ; aequalem enim consequentur mercedem utrique, sicut pro labore etiam in vinea priores et posteriores eundem denarium acceperunt (Matth. 20,9. 10); sed quantum ad ordinem salutis ludaei sunt primi, quia eis promissiones sunt factae et in eorum gratiam gentiles sunt assumti (11,11 sqq.) ». Quare adverbium zpà:c» latino imprimis, praecipue a nonnullis recte redditur (Tol. Est. etc.). Mirum in modum Cai. praeeunte, ut videtur, Or:g. et sequente uno alterove moderno acath. (Klosterm.), adverbium ad utrumque nomen Zudaeo et Graeco trahit, ut eos a reliquis nationibus disinguat, atque duplicem ordinem exsecutionis significari censet, priorem Iudaeos inter et Graecos , alterum inter Iudaeos Graecosque et barbaros; a ludaeis praedicationem initium sumere debuisse, ut deinde ad Graecos transiret et ab his ad barbaros perveniret. Quae explicatio nec verbis congruit nec doctrinae Pauli, qui Graecos « quia sapientiam quaerant » nusquam aliis gentibus praefert. Antequam thesin suam in tractatu dogmatico demonstrare incipit, eam explicationis gratia aliis verbis quasi repetit et doctrinae Test. Veteris consonare insinuat :
1:17
17. ?ustitia enim Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est : Iustus autem ez fide vivit. Quorum verborum sensus ac.nexus est : Evangelium in salutem esse omni credent dicitur, quatenus salutis viam a Deo stabilitam sed in vetere oeconomia occulte tantum indicatain clare docet; revelat quippe, iustitiam, quae salutis aeternae est necessaria conditio, vel potius quae ipsa iam est salus inchoata, ex fide evangelica esse et a Deo credentibus concedi, ita ut iuxta prophetae verba iustitia ac vita sint ex fide (cfr 3,91. 22). Sed singula inspiciamus. Iustitia Dei a nonnullis antiquis, paucis modernis acath. consentientibus, intelligitur divinum attributum, quo Deus aut « nullum, sive Iudaeus sive Graecus sive barbarus venerit, a salute excludit » (Orig.), aut « illud quod promisit etiam dedit » (A'rSed !. TAom!. etc.), aut peccata non nisi propter Christi vicariam satisfactionem remittit (Theod. — Steng. Ust. etc.); sed hae explicationes, licet 2vau263vr, Oez5 aliquoties, etiam in nostra epistola (3,5. 25. 26), attributum divinum significet, huius loci contextui non consonant. Ad quem attendentes cum Chrys. e& Aug. iuniores ac moderni interpretes! tantum non omnes genetivo Dei non subiectum, cui inhaereat iustitia, sed auctorem, & quo originem trahat, designari tenent docentque non iustitiam , qua Deus iustus est, sed qua homines iustos facit, hic intelligendam esse. Quam interpretationem Patres tridentini approbantes, quum de iustificationis causis agunt, unicam eius causam formalem esse dicunt « tustitiam Dei, non qua ipse iustus est, sed qua nos iustos facit, qua videlicet ab eo donati renovamur spiritu mentis nostrae et non modo reputamur sed vere iusti nominamur et sumus iustitiam in nobis recipientes » (Conc. Trid. sess. VI. de iustif. cp. T). Est igitur tustitia Dei hoc in loco donum divinum illud, quo homo ex eo statu, in quo nascitur filius irae divinae, in statum gratiae et adoptionis filiorum Dei transfertur atque « ex iniusto fit iustus et ex inimico amicus, ut sit heres secundum spem vitae aeternae » (Conc. Trid. l. c. et cp. 4). Itaque re iustitia Dei hic idem est, quod salus inchoata, de qua in praecedente sententia proxime sermo erat. Hanc locutionis interpretationem genuinam esse quum verba prophetae docent ab Apostolo confirmationis gratia addita, quippe ex quibus de dono agi eluceat, quo homo iustus constituitur et vitam aeternam obtinet, tum loci paralleli confirmant, in quibus zustitia Dei per fidem Christi esse (3,22) et homini conferri insinuatur (cfr ad 2 Cor. 5,21) , aut velut iustitia, quae ez Deo sit, propriae hominis iustitiae opponitur, illi nimirum, quam suis ipsius viribus confisus homo operibus Legis sibi acquirere conatur (10, 3; cfr PÀil.3,9 : 3; &gov Gp» Gousoóvry cli» Ex vipoo, &AX ct Pix ioco Xpisten , «ijv £x Oeon Buxatesóvay Exi ci] slove i. e. iustitiam, quae ex Deo est et in fide fundatur). Sunt qui genetivum G«o5 dicere malint obiectivum, ut 3watocóvy, 8c25 sit idem quod Suaiccivr, &orziev «c9. Ocob , 1. e. iustitia coram Deo, quae sc. coram eo valeat (cfr To/. Est. eic., qui ad locutiones 2txai:900at ivoziov eco vel zapx «à. Osó tustificari coram Deo, apud Deum, respiciunt 3,20; Gal. 3,11 etc.). Quae explicatio inepta quidem non est, dummodo cum catholicis illis interpretibus arceas acatholicorum errorem de iustitia, quae hominem vere iustum non faciat sed ei externe tantum imputetur. Locis tamen parallelis prior explicatio omnino commendatur ac praeterea evidens est, iustitiam homini a Deo collatam coram Deo valere. Haec porro iustitia Dei in eo, i. e. in Evangelio, revelari (&zoxx72z:622:) dicitur; A^" quidem pronomine in eo illum « qui credit, sive Iudaeus sit sive Graecus » intelligere vult, sed contextum non perpendit, quum Apostolus quae sit Evangelii virtus salvifica explicet. lam vero in vetere oeconomia plane ignotum non erat, iustitiam, qua ad vitam aeter- ' nam pervenitur, esse ex fide (venturi Messiae), siquidem Apostolus verba prophetae statim allegat, quibus haec doctrina insinuetur; postea quoque eam a Lege et prophetis testificatam esse diserte dicit (3,21), quin etiam tota sua expositione de Abrahae iustificatione (&,1 sqq.) innuit omnes veteris oeconomiae iustos non nisi venturi Messiae fide iustitiam ac salutem obtinuisse. At obscure tantum ante Christi adventum haec doctrina erat proposita, atque Lex, quum suis observatoribus vitam promitteret, aliam viam ad salutem docere ethnicosque, qui Legem non habebant, a salute excludere videbatur (cfr ad Ga/. 3,11. 12). Quod igitur Legis tempore velamine quodam erat obtectum, id nunc in Evangelio clare et manifeste proponitur (3,21), iustitiam non esse ex Lege sed ex fide, et omnibus credentibus, sive Iudaeis sive Graccis, conferri. Clarum autem est, Evangelium virtutem esse ad salutem, quia non tantum docet, iustitiam, quae ad vitam aeternam perducit, esse donum Dei, sed etiam omnia continet, quae credens homo iustificatur, atque simul viam monstràt, qua ad iustitiam pervenit. Viam enim hanc Apostolus indicat duobus membris additis : ez fide in fidem (ix. zíscso ei; xíszw), quae cum verbo revelatur immediate nou sunt conneclenda, neque unum ab altero dependent, sed velut appositiones adiectivae ad subiectum iustitia Dei pertinent ct inter se sunt parallela : « iustitia Doi, quae est ez fide et quae est in fidem, revelatur in Evangelio ». Inserto autem verbo revelatur Apostolus appositiones illas a suo substantivo separavit, ut in hoc proxime totam attentionem legentis convertens iustitiam a Deo esse et conferri, neque propriis hominis viribus acquiri, clarius indicaret. Quis vero appositionum sit sensus, loco parallelo edocemur, in quo Paulus iustitiam Dei nunc manifestatam iisdem duobus membris appositis describit, secundum autem clarioribus verbis enuntiat : « iustitia autem Dei per fidem Iesu Christi in omnes credentes; non enim est distinctio » (3,21. 29. Buxatzoóvr 88 Osc$ Bu m(ctsug 'lnoco Xpwzs) elg rávcag «29$ wtotedovta;). Iustitia igitur ex fide vel per fidem, minime vero ex operibus Legis, uti Iudaei autumabant, nec ex similibus operibus naturalibus, uti ethnici volebant, exoritur, siquidem fides in Christum est « fundamentum et radix omnis iustificationis »; confertur vero in fidem vel in omnes credentes sine ulla personarum distinctione, non quasi sola fides ad iustificationem sufficiat, sed quia fides uti prima, ita maxime necessaria dispositio est, sine qua fieri nequit, ut quis placeat Deo et iustus sit coram eo. Aeque parum autem haec duo membra sunt tautologica, ac si alibi promissio « ez fide Christi dari credentibus » dicitur (cfr ad : Gal. 3,92); in credentes scilicet Deus confert iustitiam non respiciens ad Iudaeorum opera Legis aut ad similia gentilium opera, sed unice attendens ad fidem, ut ez fide et per fidem sit iustitia. Nostro autem in loco pro concreto in omnes credentes Paulus abstractum in fidem videtur elegisse, ut non tantum expressius doceret, fidem esse conditionem, sine qua donum iustitiae nequeat obtineri, quae vero, si adsit, hominem ad illud recipiendum disponat, sed efficacius quoque moneret, ex parte personarum, si fides adsit, non esse distinctionem, quia ad opera Legis etc. in dono iustitiae concedendo non attendatur. Itaque duobus his membris explicantur ultima verba praecedentis sententiae : omni credenti, Iudaeo ac Graeco. quibus nunc credimus quod non videmus, in fidem rerum, qua in aeternum quod nunc credimus obtinebimus » (Quaest. evang. 1I. 39. cfr Sed ?. Thom *. etc.); Herv. duabus prioribus tres alias adiecit: « ex fide primi adventus Domini in fidem secundi, ex fide primae resurrectionis in fidem secundae, ex fide humanitatis Christi in fidem divinitalis eius »; 7Àom?. quoque cum aliis novam affert : « ex fide unius articuli in fidem alterius, quia ad iustificationem requiritur omnium articulorum fides ». Quas omnes ac similes multas, quae excogitatae sunt, satis arbritrarias esse neque contextui adaptari clarum est. Contextui quidem aliae duae expositiones, quae a iunioribus ac modernis nonnullis proponuntur, aptius concordant, sed aliis difficultatibus laborant. Aliqui enim prius solum membrum (ez fíde) ad definiendam iustitiam inservire, altero (in fidem) finem revelationis indicari volunt hoc modo : « iustitia ex fide revelatur (vel : iustitia revelatur esse ex flde) in fidem, i. e. ut habeatur fides, ut sc. omnes credant et iustificentur » (cfr Est'. etc., Ag. — . Fr.etc.);recte vero E'st. ipse iam monuit, violentam esse hanc membrorum divulsionem, atque addere potuit, sensum per se esse parum aptum, siquidem revelationem alicuius rei fleri, ut fides ei habeatur, per se intelligitur. In deterius porro nonnulli acath. ( Weiss etc.) hanc explicationem mutarunt , quum in priore membro fidem, qua Evangelium recipitur, in altero fidem (vel potius fiduciam) suam iustificantem invenirent. Ut enim errorem illum fiduciae iustificantis praetermittamus, in tam brevi sententiola eidem vocabulo duas significationes diversas sine necessitate attribuere non licet. Ob eandem rationem nobis altera quoque sententia non probatur, quae ab Oec !. et Theoph. proponitur et a Lyr. Est. multisque iunioribus approbatur (cfr Per. Sa Lap. Vat. Pic. etc. M Ev. etc.); verba enim ez fide in fidem per hebraismum (cfr Ps. 83, 8 ix Suvdpaux, «lc Sovapiv 'n-5x 512) significare coniiciunt : « ex fide promovente ac subinde augescente » aut « ex fide incipiente et imperfecta in fidem perfectam caritate formatam proficiente », ut totius sententiae sensus sit : « [n Evangelio vera iustitia revelatur, quae incipit, alitur, augescit per fidem in dies crescentem, donec credentem ad salutem perducat » (Lap.). Evangelium ergo virtus Dei est in salutem omni credenti, quandoquidem iustitiam Dei, qua sola homo aeternae vitae capax redditur atque hac in terra iam salute inchoata fruitur, ex fide in Christum esse et in solos et omnes credentes sine ulla ludaeorum ac Graecorum distinctione conferri revelat. Neque vero nova est haec doctrina neque nunc tandem, postquam Evangelium praedicari coeptum est, valere incepit, sed antea quoque et quidem ipsius Legis tempore iam valuit, quamvis haec observatoribus suis vitam promittere videretur; quare temporis quoque ratione universalis est omnesque omnium temporum homines complectitur. Quod ut ostendat thesinque suam generalem esse neque exceptionem admittere probet, Paulus velut divinitus inspirata (sicut scriptum est) verba prophetae (Hab. 2,&) allegat, qui sub Lege constitutus nullo discrimine facto asseruit : Iustus autem ez fide vivit. lisdem verbis Paulus contra iudaizantes Galatarum seductores demonstravit, hominem ex operibus Legis non iustificari sed ex fide in Christum. Quem locum interpretantes exposuimus, quis illorum verborum in suo contextu sit sensus et quanto cum iure ab Apostolo in quaestione de iustificationis natura et origine adhibeantur (Comment. in epp. 2. Cor. et Gal. p. 485 sq.); quibus hic pauca pro complemento addimus. Praeprimis enim ex nostro loco clarius elucet, verba ex alexandrina versione allegari, siquidem particula 2£ inserta, quum huius loci nexui indicando non inserviat et in textu hebraico particula copulativa 1 habeatur, apte explicari nequit, nisi ex alexandrina versione retenta conceditur ( 8 26a; éx «ío:so; uzo Qhsetat mw dnzj4zl p'TYy. Deinde clarius quoque hic apparet, a vero illos interpretes aberrare, qui Apostolum illud ix zícxeo; velut appositionem cum subiecto coniunxisse (zustus ez fide i. q. qui ex fide iustus est) atque ita a genuino prophetae nexu et sensu recessisse sibi persuadent. Namque iuxta nostrum contextum Apostolus proxime demonstrare vult, salutem seu vitam esse ex fide evangelica; unde illud ix istos eadem ratione, qua propheta, ad praedicatum (25:22) traxisse dicendus est, etiamsi indirecte simul sequatur, iustitiam quoque , sine qua vita ac salus non obtinetur, ex fide esse, si vita ipsa est ex fide. Demum hac allegatione extra controversiam poni patet, tum /idem, ex qua iuxta Apostolum est iustitia ac salus, esse illam, qua homo ob auctoritatem Dei revelantis ac promittentis omnia, quae divinitus revelata et promissa sunt, vera esse tenet iisque firmo mentis assensu inhaeret, tum iustitiam, quae credenti tribuitur, esse donum animo inhaerens, quo ex iniusto fit iustus atque hoc nomine deinceps iure vocatur. Dc fiducia enim divinae misericordiae peccata propter Christum remittentis (uti acatholici suam fidem iustificantem definiunt) propheta non loquitur neque de iustitia cogitare potuit, quae externe tantum imputata hominem in pristino suo iniustitiae mortisque spiritualis statu relinquat. Unde consequitur, in praecedente sententia locutiones zustitia Dei et ez fide in fidem codem sensu esse interpretandas neque alias eis posse attribui significationes. Itaque doctrina, quam Apostolus vv. 16. 17 velut argumentum in hac epistola tractandum sibi proposuit, haec est : Evangelium solum ad iustitiam ac proin ad salutem omnibus, quum Iudaeis tum Graecis, qui illud fidei obedientia recipiunt, conferendam efficax est, neque quisquam alia ratione ad vitam aeternam pertingere potest; seu aliis verbis : fides evangelica, quae ipsa est gratuitum divinae misericor- . diae donum, hominibus unica est salutis via, at omnibus quoque sine ulla distinctione est aperta. Primo autem in loco thesin hanc ita demonstrat (1,18-^,25), ut Eyangelium omnibus ad salutem esse necessarium appareat. Neque enim naturalem veritatis cognitionem gentibus neque Legem supernaturaliter revelatam Iudaeis ad salutem suffecisse, fide autem in Evangelio revelata omnes ad veram iustitiam et vitam pervenire posse ostendit. Eandem deinde thesin fructibus proprietatibusque iustitiae, quae ex fide est, enumeratis descriptisque ita erplanat et commendat (5,1-8,39) , ut quanta sit Evangelii virtus ad salutem conferendam clarius illucescat. Demum eam ab obiectionibus quibusdam vnd?cat (9,1-11,36), quum eam, non obstante Iudaeorum infidelitate ac rebellione, cum promissionibus patriarchis divinitus datis non tantum non pugnare sed amice consonare declaret. Itaque in prima sectione verba illa v. 17 : zustitia Dei revelatur in Evangelio, omni ex parte perpendit exponitque; in a/tera sectione verba v. 16 : Evangelium virtus Dei est in salutem omni credenti , accuratius explanat ; in £ertia sectione autem ad verba : ludaeo primum et Graeco, respiciens doctrina sua ius praecipuum, quod Iudaei sibi ad salutem messianicam ob promissiones acceptas attribuunt, nequaquam laedi docet. Ipsa ergo theseos suae enuntiatione Apostolus divisionem tractatus sui dogmatici quodammodo adumbravit (cfr Caz.). Hanc autem partis dogmaticae tripartitionem 770m. in suo commentario iam proposuit eamque velut aptiorem praeferimus reliquis divisionibus, quarum praecipuas recensuimus in Introd. spec. in singulos Novi Test. libros p. 463 sq. QUID EVANGELIUM AD SALUTEM OMNIBUS CONFERENDAM VALEAT SEU DE IUSTITIA FIDEI GRATUITA ET UNIVERSALI (1,18-4,25). Solum Evangelium omnibus hominibus, sivc Graecis sive Iudaeis, salutem conferre, Apostolus historica quadam expositione demonstrare aggreditur. Universum enim genus humanum iuxta duas leges, quae ante Evangelii revelationem vigebant, in duas quasi classes distribuit, atque praeprimis ethnicos, qui legem naturalem habent (2,14), sua ipsorum culpa in idololatriam ostendit prolapsos, qua divinam iram sibi attraxerint et turpissimis criminibus sese immerserint (1,18-39). A quo tristi spectaculo ad Judaeos, qui de sua Lege revelata gloriantes peccata ethnica severe iudicabant, oculos convertens eos iisdem peccatis, quae in ethnicis condemnabant, invenit deditos (2,1-3,8). Unde constare concludit, «wtrosque, Iudaeos non minus quam ethnicos, sub peccato esse atque Legem mosaicam, quamvis hominem in peccati cognitionem adduceret, eum ad iustitiam non adduxisse (3,9-20). Cui historicae expositioni, quae argumentum negativum quoddam constituit, quum veritati naturali ac Legi mosaicae virtutem iustificandi salvandique neget, positivam argumentationem adiungit, qua nunc in Evangelio viam ac rationem manifestatam esse docet, qua omnes homines eodem modo veram iustitiam obtinere possint, viam nimirum fidei in Iesum Christum (3,91-30); hanc autem viam etiam in Lege mosaica iam esse indicatam ostendens concludit, Deum erga omnes, Iudaeos ac Graecos, infinitam suam caritatem manifestasse (3,31-4,95). Duas igitur totius demonstrationis. partes apte distinguimus, quarum prior negativa (1,18-3,20) omnes homines fide evangelica destitutos iustitia, quae coram Deo valeat hominemque ad salutem adducat, pari modo carere (ribus memóris probat, altera positiva (3,21-&,95) iuslitiam hanc omnibus per fidem evangelicam in Iesum Christum gratis obtineri duobus membris ostendit . S 1. — Argumentatio negativa. Sine fide Iesu Christi nulla habetur iustitia. (1,18-3,90). 4. — Ethnici ob idololatriam ac peccata sua irae divinae obnoxii sunt (1,18-32). Thesi suae B. Paulus argumentationem arcte adnectit; Graecis quoque, i. e. ethnicis omnibus qui solam legem naturalem habent, solum Evangelium viam salutis monstrare asseruerat (v. 16); id autem ex praesente eorum statu probat, qui eos irae divinae subiacere revelet (v. 18). Quae ut explicet, ante omnia causam aperit, qua iram Dei sibi attraxerint (19-93), ac deinde qui huius irae sint effectus describit, turpissimis, quibus immersi sint, criminibus enumeratis (24-32). Universam quippe ethnicorum nequitiam tamquam manifestum signum considerat irae, qua Deus eos ob idololatriam puniverit et puniat.
1:18
1.) — Veritatem in iniustitia detinentes ethnici in idololatriam sunt prolapsi (1,18-23). Magna cum vi iustitiae salutisque revelationi, quae habetur in Evangelio, Apostolus opponit irae divinae revelationem, quae habetur in statu eorum, qui Evangelio non subiecti illam ipsam veritatem , quam videre potuerunt, peccatis suis obruerunt (v. 18). Creatione sua enim Deus sese hominibus tam clare manifestavit, ut ab eis sine eorum culpa ignorari nequeat (19. 20); sed cognito Deo homines debitum cultum non exhibentes in mentis caecitatem prolapsi ad stultam idololatriam pervenerunt (21-23). A gravissima assertione Paulus argumentationem exorditur integrum mundum ethnicum irae divinae obnoxium ac proinde a salute exclusum esse ostendens : 18. revelatur enim ira .Dei de coelo super (melius : contra àzi) omnem impietatem ct. iniustitiam hominum eorum , qui veritatem (Dei) in iniustitia detinent. Sententia omnino generalis esse atque Iudaeorum non minus quam ethnicorum impietatem complecti a nonnullis creditur (Cai. etc.); at de solis ethnicis eam agere, sequens descriptio eorum, qui veritatem in iniustitia detinent (v. 19 sqq.), satis docet. Quare etiam quis huius sententiae cum. praecedentibus sit nexus dubitari nequit. Praeter Evangelium nimirum, in quo verae iustitiae, qua homo Deo acceptus est, ratio aperitur, aliam salutis viam ethnicis non patere, Paulus ex praesente eorum statu tristissimo desumit, quippe qui evidens sit signum irae divinae sub qua degant. Nomine irae Dci per anthropomorphismum quendam designari iustitiam Dei vindicativam, qua ordinem peccatis hominum perturbatum severis suis sed iustis poénis restaurat , omnes consentiunt; de quanam autem vindicta, seu irae revelatione, hic agatur, interpretes dissentiunt. Antiquiores ac moderni multi ex praecedente sententia verba 2n eo (iv ajzo sc. ESxr1:*:0) in hanc transumentes aut de ultimo iudicio, de « die irae et revelationis iusti iudicii Del » * (2,5 cfr 2 Thess. 1,7 sqq. etc.) aut saltem de aeternis poenis, sermonem esse volunt, quae in Evangelio aut etiam in Vetere Test. contra omnes peccatores ac maxime contra idololatras denuntientur (cfr Prim. Herv. Lomb. Thom. etc., Tol. Est. Iust. Lap. etc., Mai. M Ev. Beel. Dr. Ag. ete. — Grot. Beng. Seml. Umbr. etc.). 4 quibus haud longe recedunt alii nonnulli, qui cum Graecis (Chrys. Theod. etc.) illud n eo quidem non supplent, sed praesenti &zczxaAózzeza. (revelatur) sensum futuri tribuentes de iisdem poenis locum interpretantur (ReztÀm. etc. — Phil. Ew. etc.). Alii demum non de externa revelatione omnibus manifesta , sed de interna quadam, qua conscientiae stimulis singuli vindictam Dei cognoscant, agi arbitrantur (A'*r Pe/. etc. — Wo/f etc.). Quae interpretationes omnes, quum Paulum non satis accurate locutum esse supponant, nobis non probantur; nihil quippe supplendum neque significatio parum usitata vocabulis tribuenda est, dummodo ad contextum attendatur. Clare enim Apostolus indicat, quamnam irae divinae revelationem in mente habueérit, quando inde a v. 24. tristissimum statum describere incipit, in quem ethnici a Deo sunt traditi, quia sua ipsorum culpa in idololatriam erant prolapsi. Ingens illud iniquitatis ac nequitiae mare, in quo gentes omnes ethnicae prostratae iacent, apertissime revelat, quanta contra eas fuerit ac sit ira Dei, qui suis subtractis gratiis eas pessimis desideriis passionibusque ignominiae reliquit (vv. 24. 26). Quae revelatio de coelo fieri dicitur, ubi Deus residens ordini a se stabilito invigilat perturbatumque poenis quasi desuper missis restaurat, atque praesente tempore (azexaAózzsza« revelatur) euuntiatur quia continua est et nunc quoque perdurat, licet dudum antea initium habuerit. Causa vero huius revelationis es omnis ?niquitas et iniustilia gentilium, quae quum gratiarum subtractione puniantur in immensum crescunt ac nunc iam omnium in oculos sese ingerunt. Duo nomina ZAom. ita distinguit, ut priore (xc££eux ?mpietas) omne peccatum contra cultum Deo debitum, altero (à2uía iniustitia) omne peccatum contra homines designetur, quorum iura laedantur; Est. vero cum aliis secundo omnia peccata , quae non sint contra cultum divinuni, comprehendi censet. At latissime patet utriusque nominis significatio; quare rectius dicemus utroque omnia peccata designari sed diversa ratione. Omne enim peccatum , quatenus est contemtus voluntatis divinae, est impietas, et quatenus est laesio recti ordinis a Deo stabiliti, est iniustitia. Contra omnem autem impietatem et iniustitiam revelari iram Dei Paulus dicit ad multiplices impietatis iniustitiaeque species attendens (cfr CArys. etc.), quas ad tristem ethnicorum conditionem delineandam mox enumerabit. Quod vero eum omnem impietatem et iniustitiam, sive Iudaeorum sit sive ethnicorum , notare aliqui censent, id nobis non probatur, quia ex v. 19 sqq. evidenter elucet, eum de solis ethnicis hic cogitasse. Hinc etiam genetivum Aominum eorum , qui veritatem ?n. iniustitia detinent (àv0pdzov tv ti,» dAf suy £v á2uxía xacey2vzuv) , quamvis eum per se de ludaeis quoque incredulis apte intelligi posse fateamur atque postea (2,8 sqq.) ad eos extendi omnino concedamus, hic de solis ethnicis interpretandum esse tenemus. Ad verba ipsa quod attinet, de veritate religiosa ac proxime quidem de vera Dei cultusque Deo debiti notitia sermonem esse, tv. 19. 20 docent; genetivus Dei igitur & Latinis plerumque insertus, etsi graecorum codd. aliarumque versionum auctoritate genuinus non esse probatur (cfr VV. LL.), bonum glossema iure dicitur. Verbum xa-£j:w (detinere) sensu retinendi ac possidendi (1 Cor. 7,30; 11,2; 15,2 etc.) a nonnullis sumitur : « qui veritatem in (seu cum) iuiustitia tenent », i. e. qui verum Dcum cognoscunt quidem, sed nihilominus improbi sunt. Philosoplios scilicet significari putant ethnicos, qui veram, quam de divinis rcbus sibi paraverant, scientiam neque cum aliis communicaverunt neque ipsi vita moribusque suis expresserunt (cfr Es/. etc.). Attamen Paulus ethnicos veram Dei notitiam sua ipsorum culpa non habere statim indicat (v. 91 sq.); verbum xazéysv ergo sensu inhibendi et impediendi (Luc. 4,42; 2 Thess. 2,6 7. etc.) sumit, ut sensus sit : veritatem sponte quasi se eis offerentem mentibusque eorum illucescentem velut captivam reprimunt impediuntque, ne clare cognita virtutem suam exserens vitam moresque ipsorum regat ac modcretur. sensibilibus indicans et clamans veri Dei notitiam attendere volentibus, ut docuit Paulus Act. 14,16 sq.; huic tamen efficacissimo testimonio veritatis Dei percipiendae non inclinaverunt aures nec veritati sese prodenti locum dederunt; ideo detinuisse et cohibuisse veritatem dicti sunt. Conceperunt quidem aliquam scintillam in se huius veritatis; nam omnes noverunt Deum esse; et multi eorum, qui inter ipsos rerum contemplationi studebant et philosophi dicebantur, multas scintillas receperunt, nam multa vera de Deo senserunt, eius aeternitatem , immortalitatem , immobilitatem . aliaque cognoscentes ; nemo tamen eorum testimonio divino et magisterio creaturarum plenas aures praestitit neque Dei notitiam assecutus est, sed veris multa miscuerunt falsa , talem Deum censentes, qualis non est. Idcirco omnes illi veritatem Dei detinuerunt, quam potuissent ex rebus sensibilibus, quae ante eorum oculos versabantur, addiscere. » Neque vero mentis animique imbecillitas ethnicis impedimento est, ne veritatem plene cognoscant, sed in iniustitia (iv &Xxxía), l1. e. per suam iniustitiam, veritatem detinent. Ignorantia igitur eorum vere est culpabilis ac tota idololatria, quae ex hac ignorantia est exorta, ultimam suam radicem habet in voluntate perversa, quae per iniustitiam, i. e. per multiplicia peccata, sese manifestat. 'A2uía (iniustitia) lato suo sensu, uti immediate antea, intelligatur oportet; hodiernorum autem nonnullorum interpretatio, qui £v &3xxí hic idem esse volunt quod a2ízo; (iniuste), haud apta est, quia veritas iuste detineri nequit. De ethnicorum ergo philosophis, qui Deum verum cognoverint quidem sed neque ipsi coluerint neque colendum aliis praedicaverint , Paulus proxime non loquitur, sed sententia eius est generalis atque omnes complectitur idololatras, sapientes et insipientes (cfr To/. Iust. Lap. etc., Reith. Mai. Bisp. etc. — God. Weiss etc.). Quam interpretationem esse genuinam sequentia confirmant; quae enim generali sententia proposuit, ea singillatim Paulus nunc explicat primo in loco docens ethnicos omnes veram Dei notitiam ex creaturis haurire potuisse ac debuisse (19.20), sed eos veritatem in iniustitia detinuisse (21-23), ita ut Deus summa cum iustitia eos omnes in tristem illum statum, in quo iacent, delabi permiserit (24 sqq.). Praeprimis Deus se ethnicis ita manifestavit, ut ab eis cognosci potuerit ac debuerit :
1:19
19. quia (Zz«, melius : nam) quod notum est Dei , manifestum est in illis : Deus enim illis manifestavit. Cum Vulg. Clem. etiam. graeci textus editores critici (Lachm. Tisch. W H.) sola virgula vr. 18. et 19. separant, antiqui autem interpretes graeci (Chrys. Theod. etc.) a particula 2:5: v. 19. novam sententiam incipiunt, idque aptius. Nam sensu eodem fere manente sermo facilius commodiusque currit, si antiquiorum constructio admittitur; neque obstat particula Zi (i. q. ux «c3:2 $2 propterea quod), quippe quae aliquoties idem valeat quod «i2 (nam cfr 3,90; 8,7; 1 Thess. 2,18; Act. 18,10 etc.; vide Fritzsche i. h. 1.) ac novae argumentationi introducendae inserviat : nam quod notum est. Dei (-5 4woszt» «25. O2») manifestum est in illis. Latinus interpres eam adiectivi svwc-i; significationem relinuit (notus), quae sola in Novo Test. et in alexandrina versione est usitata!; eandemque Syrus quoque et plerique Graeci (CArys. Theod. Dam. Oec!. Theoph!. Euth.) secuti sunt, quibus x» yvoszzv 4:9 Osz9 est idem quod j, vào; «c9 Occo , vel uti accuratius habet Euth. : d zc d zip) co) Ívse; Oscv (scientia de vero Deo; cfr A''r : notitia Dei). Quoniam vero apud classicos scriptores yvu5-:; plerumque significat cognoscibilis, plurimi iuniores ac moderni cum Orig. (« quod notum est Dei, id est quod agnosci de Deo potest per coniecturam creaturae ») hanc significationem praeferunt (cfr Oec?. Theoph?, Sed. Est. Lap. Nat. Pic. etc., MEv. Bisp. Mai. Sch. etc. — Rück. God. Weiss etc.); quin etiam Origenis explicatio ex Sedu/., ut videtur, in Gl. int. recepta effecit, ut multi latinum quod notum est in eundem sensum traherent (cfr Herv. Lomb. Thom. Dion. etc.). Attamen quum omnia, quae de Deo cognoscibilia sunt, ethnicis non essent manifesta, interpretes illi omnes additionibus quibusdam (« per coniecturam creaturae »; TAom. : « per rationem »; Herr. : « naturali ingenio »; moderni : « sine supranaturali revelatione » etc.) verba Pauli non tam explicare quam limitare ct quasi corrigere coacti sunt. Interrogare quoque licet, annon tautologice dicatur : « quod cognoscibile est de Deo, id manifestum est, i. e. cognosci potest » ?. Melius igitur cum plerisque Patribus graecis neutrum adiectivi hic, uti saepe, pro substantivo adhibitum esse dicemus (2,8; 8,3; 9,22 ctc. ; cfr Comment in 1 Cor. p. 45. n. 2), ut «» 43:2» «c2 0:25 (notum Dei) sit pro 4 1vós 729 8:25 (notitia Dei, obiective sumta) eaque complectatur, quae ad veri Dei cognitionem pertinent ac vulgo iis, qui ratione sua utuntur, cognita sunt (cfr A' Haym. etc., Cat. Tol. lust. Heith. Beel. LR. Dr. — Fr. de W. Lips. etc. Sed male Abael. : « Quod modo de natura divinitatis revelatum est per Legem scriptam , id etiam sine scripto per naturalem rationem manifestum ante fuerat »). Neque mirum est, quod Apostolus, qui saepe de mysteriis divinis loquitur, quae rationi creatae impervia sine Spiritus S. revelatione cognosci non possunt (11,33 sqq.; 1 Cor. 2,7sqq. ; Eph. 3,8 sqq. etc.), hisce nomine 520 1ww0:c9 (noti) ea quasi opponat, quae nullum hominem, dummodo oculos mentis suae aperire voluerit, possunt latere (cfr ReitA.). Haec igitur, quae ad veri Dei cognitionem pertinent eamque constituunt, iuxta Paulum Zn ?is (sc. ethnicis) , 1. e. in eorum mentibus cordibusque, sunt manifesta (2,15), seu clara et aperta coram eis iacent , ita ut ab illisfacillimo negotio apprehendantur, siquidem Deus ea i//is manifestavit, clare et plane proposuit. Ad contextam orationem non satis attendunt, qui cum Est. verba &» a5zciz (in ?is) explicant Znter illos, ut solis philosophis ethnicis illa cognita fuisse ostendant. De ea enim Dei cognitione Paulus loquitur, quam omnes ethnici habere potuerunt ac debuerunt; namque omnes excusatione carere atque irae divinae obnoxios esse demonstrare vult. Deum autem revera omnibus ethnicis ea, quae ad sui cognitionem necessaria sunt, manifestasse probat addens :
1:20
90. znvisibilia enim ipsius a creatura mundi per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna (quoque) eius virtus et divinitas, ita ut sint inezcusabiles (siz «x elvat ajo) &vazchoá:so;). Quae Lystrensibus olim dixerat : « Deus semetipsum sine testimonio non reliquit benefaciens de coelo » (Act. 15,17), ca hic explanat. Universae scilicet res creatae, quippe ex quibus intellectus humanus discurrens ad earum auctorem invisibilem assurgere certaque scientia eum cognoscere ac mentis oculis quasi videre possit, perenne testimonium sunt, quo Deus semet ipsum, suam exsistentiam infinitamque suam perfectionem , omnibus tam clare manifestavit manifestatque, ut quamvis lucem inhabitet inaccessibilem , ab hominibus plane ignorari sine eorum culpa nequeat. « Ex magnitudine enim et pulchritudine creaturarum per analogiam (i. e. per conclusionem quandam) earum creator conspicitur » *. Invisibilia Dei Apostolus attributa Dei vocat, vel si mavis eius essentiam, prout hac in terra rationis lumine cognoscitur : « Dicit autem pluraliter invisibilia, quia Dei essentia non est nobis cognita secundum illud quod est, sc. prout in se est una (sic erit nobis in patria cognita); est autem nunc manifesta nobis per quasdam similitudines in creaturis repertas, quae id, quod in Deo unum est, multipliciter participant; et secundum hoc intellectus noster considerat unitatem essentiae divinae sub ratione bonitatis, sapientiae, virtutis et huiusmodi quae in Deo non sunt. Haec ergo invisibilia ipsis dixit, quia illud unum quod his nominibus seu rationibus in Deo respondet, non videtur a nobis » (Thom.). Quamvis vero invisibilia sint, ita ut per se et in se a mente creata attingi nequeant, Paulus tamen illa a creatura mundi (xx xiisto; xicyo)), i. e. inde a mundi creatione conspici vel potius videri, immo clare videri (xaz29c02:), pulchro oxymoro asserit (2x à$5pzza 25225... va0z-. gàzax)!. Ne quis vero invisibilia Dei nunc iam sensibus perspici aut quasi immediate in creaturis deprehendi putet, oxymoron suum mitigat et explicat, quum ea videri moneat «ct; «evgaow vosóusva (per creaturas intellecta). Actu nimirum intellectus sui (x09 v25;) homo per ca quae facta sunt ascendit ad eorum primam causam. Ut quid nomine invisibilium Dei sit intelligendum, clarius innotescat, explicationis gratia addit : sempiterna eius virtus et divinitas. Etenim ex creaturis visibilibus, quae hodie exortae cras disparent continuisque mutationibus subiacent, intellectus proxime concludit, esse virtutem altiorem, qua omnia producuntur et in sua exsistentia dependent, eamque necessariam ac proinde sempiternam. « Quia enim ea, quae ad esse sunt producta, corruptibilem habent naturam et in tempore ad exsistentiam vocata sunt, eorum creator incorruptibilis sit oportet et sempiternus » (Cyr. Alezx.). Neque vero sempiternam creatoris potentiam solam homo ex iis quae facta sunt colligit, sed similiter aeternam cius maiestatem, quatenus omnium rerum creatarum non tantum est principium sed etiam supremus dominus, cuius omnes sunt et a quo omnes reguntur, finisque ultimus, propter quem omnes sunt et ad quem omnes tendunt, aeternam eius sapientiam, quum omnes res aptissime disponat et ad fines praestitutos dirigat, aeternam eius bonitatem, quum nobis continuo benefaciat de coelo dans pluvias et tempora fructifera omniaque nostro usui concedens, aeternam eius iustitiam aliaque attributa, quae Apostolus, ne singula enumerare cogatur, nomine sempiternae divinitatis! comprehendit. Iure igitur his verbis paulinis nixa « Ecclesia tenet ac docet, Deum rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse » (Conc. Vatic. sess. 3. Const. de fide cp. 2). Quia autem Deus tam clare se manifestavit creatione, ut non cognosci nequeat, dummodo homo rationis suae lumine uti voluerit, sua sponte sequitur, ethnicos excusationem nullam praetendere posse, qui veritatem detinuerunt, aut juci mentibus eorum sese offerenti aditum praecludentes aut scintillas lucis acceptas opprimentes et quasi exstinguentes; suam ignorantiam suosque errores Deo attribuere non possunt, sed suae tantum ipsorum iniustitiae. Hanc sequelam Paulus ultimis verbis sententiae (zta « sint Inezcusabiles eic «5 sla advob àvaoAorfscoz) addit, ut eam sequentibus vv. 91-23 exponat. ad Marc. 16,13 et Col. 4,93 respicientibus xxíe« xósuov erat aut homo a quo Deus cognoscatur (A*" Haym. Herv. Lomb. T'hom !. Lyr. etc.) aut omnis intellectus creatus (ZÀhom?. Cai. etc.), interpretationem velut obsoletam neque verbis satis consonam relinquamus. Pro duplici enim vocabuli sensu, quippe quod aclive creationem (actum creandi) et passive creaturam (rem creatam)signilficet, duplex iam antiquitus erat et hodie est loci interpretatio. Quoniam in Novo Test. atque etiam, ut videtur, in alexandrina versione x:ie« semper est id quod xxícua (res creata) neque tantum de singulis rebus creatis (4,25; 8,39) aut de certo earum genere (de iis quae intellectu carent 8,19 sqq.; de genere humano Marc. 15,16; Col. 4,13), sed etiam de earum universitate usurpatur (Marc. 10,6; 13,19 etc.) multi eandemsigniflcationem hoc in loco retinuerunt, ut locutione dnzà xrícte xocuov universitas creaturarum, quae mundum constituit, velut fons indicetur, ex quo homo cognitionem Dei quasi hauriat (Cai. Est. Nat. etc., Jteithm. Ag. eic.). Quae explicatio per se apta est, sed tautologia quaedam exoriri videtur, quum addatur vois xotjuactw ( per ea quae facta sunt, vel ut vertit Tert. de anim. 18 : factitamentis) ad cognitionis instrumentum indicandum. Quapropter eam explicationem praeferimus, quam Zert. et Aug. suis versionibus indicarunt, atque nomen x:iet; hoc in loco, ubi cum genet. xósgov coniungitur, de actu creandi adhibitum dicimus : « invisibilia eius, hoc est : invisibilia Dei, a constitutione mundi, i. e. ex quo constituit mundum, per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur » (S. Aug. serm. 241,1; cfr Zhom?. Tolet. lust. Pic. etc., M Ev. Mai. Beel. Bisp. etc.). Quod enim Est. obiicit, huic explicationi non quadrare verbum praesentis temp. conspiciuntur, sed dici debuisse conspecta sunt, id profecto nemini difficultatem creaverit. Difficultas quaedam demum est in ultimis verbis tic «o slvat ajtobc àvamoAoqí*o«, siquidem graeca constructione (ss c. inf.) finis indicari videtur atque sensu finali sententia ab hodiernis multis exponitur. At Orig. et Chrys. sensum consecutivum iam praetulerunt: « neque enim, ut ethnicos excusatione privaret, doctrinam tantam in medium posuit, sed ut ipsum cognoscerent; quum autem essent ingrati, se ipsi defensione privarunt » (Chrys.), cundemque moderni cath. longe plurimi tuentur, idque recte. Dici quidem potest, Deurn, quum eo fine omnia crearet, ut a creaturis intellectualibus clare cogrosceretur, simul etiam nulli excusationem ignorantiae relinquere voluisse; a& Apostolo nulla fuit ratio, cur finem hunc secundarium, qui totus quantus a primario dependet, tanta cum vi efferret. Neque desunt loci, in quibus «i; c. infin. ea ratione adhibetur, ut non nisi coactissime sensu finali exponi queat (7,5; 2 Cor. 8,6; Hebr. 11,3 etc.) '. Ad alteram argumentationis partem transiens Paulus ostendit, quomodo ethnici veram de Deo scientiam, quam ex creaturis haurire potuerunt ac debuerunt atque in maioribus suis etiam cognoverant, in iniustitia detinuerint ac detineant : 91. guia (3i£x lege : nam cfr p. 78 sq.) quum cognovissent Deum , non sicut Deum glorificaverunt , aut gratias egerunt, sed evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum. Proxime quidem particula 2z hanc sententiam cum immediate praecedentibus verbis (ut sint inezcusabiles) connectit ; maiore tamen interpunctione ab eis separari debet, quia Apostolus ad v. 18 revertitur ultimum eius membrum expositurus, atque v. 91. quasi parallelus est versui 19., qui alterum eiusdem v. 18 membrum exponens ethnicos veritatem quam detinerent cognovisse ostendit; recte ergo Beng. « hoc à, inquit, reassuimitur ex v. 19 ». Iuxta Apostolum idololatria non est prior quidam generis humani status, ex quo homo, uti hodie multi philosophastri somniant, magno cum labore ac propriis suis viribus ad monotheismum ascenderit; « neque enim (idola) erant ab initio neque erunt in perpetuum, nam vana opinione (seu : stultitia x:vz2-£íz) hominum in mundum venerunt » (Sap. 15,15). Deus potius inde a constitutione mundi tam clare suis operibus sese hominibus manifestavit, « ut creaturae rationali iam ratione utenti non omnino ac penitus posset abscondi; exceptis enim paucis, in quibus natura nimium depravata est, universum genus humanum Deum huius mundi fatetur auctorem » (S. .1wg. in loan. tr. 106,4). Ad illud igitur tempus respiciens, quo universum humanum genus Deum verum cognovit, Paulus originem idololatriae, quae eius aetate quasi universalis erat, ita describit, ut simul insinuct, eadem via singulos quoque homines continuo a vero Deo deficere et veritatem in iniustitia detinentes ad idolorum cultum pervenire. Etenim si totam descriptionem, quae sequitur (vv. 21-23; attende ad aoristos), consideramus, dubitare non licet, quin de facto quodam loquatur primamque generis humani defectionem ad idola prae oculis habuerit; ex praecedentibus autem sententiis (vv. 18-20; attendead praesent.) non minus clare apparet, eum de suae quoque aetatis gentilium culpabili defectione loqui. Quare dicendum est, eum in generalis illius Jefectionis olim factae descriptione viam delineare voluisse, qua singuli ad idololatriam etiam nunc perveniant. Nihil autem adest, quod nos cum nonnullis dicere cogat, eum de solis ethnicorum philosophis aut saltem de iis praecipue agere; de ethnicis generatim loquitur inter doctos et indoctos non distinguens. Itaque idololatriam non in intellectus ignorantia aut errore, sed in voluntatis perversitate primam suam: radicem habuisse et habere docet : homines nimirum, postquam verum Deum cognoverunt (»vivzsc t2» Ocóv, alii minus apte : quamquam cognoverunt vel cognoscunt), hac veritate in vita sua regi ac gubernari noluerunt Deumque cognitum tamquam verum Deum non agnoverunt; neque enim ei gloriam laudemque primo rerum omnium principio supremoque omnium Domino debitam detulerunt neque ei gratias supremo benefactori ac. provido patri debitas egerunt. Duobus verbis (i3554e2» glorificaverunt, viyzgíctuox» gratias egerunt) universum cultum, internum et externum, qui Deo debetur, describit. Priore omnes actus internos externosque (amoris, reverentiae, adorationis, obedientiae etc.) complectitur, quibus Creatoris suprema excellentia supremumque dominium agnoscitur atque laesus quoque eius honor reparatur; altero illos actus internos externosque comprehendit, quibus creatura rationalis, sua vilitate et indignitate agnita, omnia sua bona a Creatore velut supremo suo benefactore sese accepisse ac proinde iuxta eius voluntatem adhibere debere profitetur. Quem cultum Deo cognito negantes veritatem in iniustitia detinuerunt, quum unica huius negationis causa esset eorum superbia, qua sese Deo esse infinite inferiores et ab eius beneficiis plane dependere noluerunt agnoscere. Ex hac autem eorum culpa est ignorantia, quae subsecuta est, et qui voluntate sua Deum repulerant, etiam intellectu de eo errare stultaque de eo commenta sibi fingere coeperunt : evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis ($4xz2w)0nozv &v ccs Sur- Aepwpotg), « quatenus in se ipsis [aut aliis in rebus] fiduciam habebant, sibi et non Deo bona adscribentes » (TAom.). Mázatat (vani i. e. veritate vacui ideoque stulti) in pulcherrimo libri Sapientiae loco, ad quem Paulum respexisse ipsi acatholici hodie fatenwur (cfr Bleek Stud. u. Krit. 1853. p. 340, Lange, Weiss, Lips. etc.), omnes homines vocantur, in quibus non subest scientia Dei et qui ex bonii, quae viderunt, eum qui est (-z» 2v:x qui per se ac necessario est, i. e. Ueum 1») intelligere non valuerunt (Sap. 13,1). Eodem sensu Apostolus verbum ga:2:2202:, quod in hoc solo Novi Test. loco legitur, adhibrisse recte dicitur : Quoniam verum Deum agnoscere noluerunt, homine utpote veritatem detinentes eaque consequenter destituti, tani i. e. stulti facti sunt in cogitatis suis, aut non amplius de Deo cogitantes aut vanas inanesque ideas de Dco sibi formantes. Quum idola ab Alexaxdrinis interdum «X yizz:z (res vanae, quia in se nihil sunt, efr 1 Cor. 8,&; hebr. m52a Deut. 23,21; 3 Reg. 16,13 etc. ; eodem nomine Paulus utitur Act. 15,15) appellentur atque verbum 222:22502t semel vel lis idem eis esse videatur quod idola colere (& Reg. 171,15; lerem. 2,5),aliqui etiam in hoc loco verbum eodem sensu interpretantur (Mat. Bisp. Sch. etc. — Beng. God. etc.), verum haud satis recte; nam Apostohs describere vult, qua ratione humanum genus pedetentim ac gradatim ad idololatriam sit devolutum , verboque yazat22c0x. primum quasi gradum scalarum indicat, quibus intellectus ad tantam descenderit stupiditatem , ut vilissimas quasque creaturas pro diis haberet. Quae vero historice de primo ethnicismi ortu narrat, ea semper valere insinuat. Omnibus quippe hominibus, qui sana ratione utuntur, ex creatarum rerum consideratione idea supremi earum auctoris et domini sua velut sponte sese offert, atque simul cognoscunt, se huic auctori ac domino, licet imperfecte dumtaxat cognito, laudes gratiarumque actiones debere. Quodsi voluntas huic praecepto pareret obediretque, homo.ad clariorem et perfectiorem Dei cognitionem paullatim perveniret. Fieri autem solet, ut voluntas veritatem illam cognitam arceat ac reprimat; unde consequitur, ut intellectus deinde in suis cogitationibus a vero deficiens non tantum ad pleniorem Dei cognitionem non ascendat , sed illa quoque, quae iam percepit, erroribus corrumpens vanus i. e. stultus fieri incipiat. À quo primo gradu genus humanum ad alterum mox descendit : et obscuratum est insipiens cor eorum (xai &cxscíaUr 4, ácóvezog abzüv xag- $ía). Cor in Scripturis, si figurate adhibetur, animum significat atque interdum de sola voluntate, interdum de solo intellectu usurpatur; ad quem ultimum sensum hic adiectivo àsjve-o; (non intelligens, insipiens) determinari recte dicitur. Mens, quae ob voluntatis Deo cognito debitum cultum negantis perversitatem a veritate deficiens res divinas non amplius percepit neque ad eas amplius attendit, densioribus deinde tenebris obruta est (£zx2-(z05). « Sicut enim, inquit 7/on., ille-.qui oculos corporales a sole materiali avertit, obscuritatem corporalem incurrit, ita ille, qui a Deo avertitur de se ipso praesumens et non de Deo, spiritualiter obscuratur ». Deus quippe lux vera est eiiam in ordine naturali, neque unquam mens, quae in lucis huius radiis non ambulat, alias res recte videre ac diiudicare poterit. Quare gentes, quum ambulare coepissent in vanitate sensus sui alienatae a vita Lci per ignorantiam, tenebris obrutae sunt; atque hodie quoque hominc, licet eruditissimi esse videantur, obscuratum habeant intellectum necesse est, quamprimum veram Dei notionem in iniustitia detinere cocperunt (cfr Eph. &,17. 18). . Neque vero hic infimus erat stultitiae gradus, ad quem efhnici descenderant :
1:22
22. dicentes (enim) se esse sapientes stulti facti sunt,
1:23
93. et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium — vel accuratius ex textu graeco : iactantes (seu falso dictitantes cizxzvzs; cír Act. 94,9; 25,19) se esse sapientes brutis similes redditi sunt. (30g3»- 6r2x») et commutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei cum similitudine imaginis etc.!. Particula causalis (enim), quae neque in aliis verss. neque in textu primogenio neque a S. Aug. (de spir. et lit. 12,19) neque in omnibus latinis codd. legitur, iure merito a modernis praetermittitur (cfr Cai. Iust. Est. etc.); a librario videtur inserta, qui praecedentem sententiam explicari putavit, sed Paulus novum membrum (et quidem asyndete ob maiorem emphasin) prioribus addit, quo supremam ethnicorum stupiditatem describat et demonstret. Ultimum autem hunc gradum in eo videt, quod ethnici, quum idololatrico suo cultu non obstante de sua sapientia glorientur, ipsas ignorantiae errorumque tenebras, quibus obruuntur, lucem esse sibi persuadeant. Multi quidem interpretes v. 22. de philosophis ethnicis agere arbitrantur, sed ad intimum vv. 22. et 23. nexum non satis attendunt. Illi enim, qui sapientiam suam iactabant, idololatriam introduxisse dicuntur, atqui philosophi eam non introduxerunt. Quodsi moderni nonnulli, ut eandem interpretationem tenere possint, v. 22. pro parenthesi sumunt et v. 93. cum v. 21. immediate connectunt, sufficientem novae suae constructionis rationem non habent. Uti in tota hac pericope, in his quoque sententiis de paucis quibusdam hominibus Paulus non loquitur, sed de universis populis ethnicis suae aetatis; immo illas ipsas nationes, quae cultissimae eruditissimaeque credebantur seseque ipsas ob maiorem ingenii cultum diligentiusque literarum artiumque studium aliis feris babarisque populis praeferebant, stultas atque brutis similes dicit, quia quam densae essent tenebrae, in quibus versabantur, non videntes sese in luce ambulare iactabant. Ac profecto temporis illius populi quamvis humani ac docti, Aegyptii, Graeci, Romani, vere stupidos in rebus religiosis sese exhibuerunt : illud enim quod summum ac perfectissimum cognoverant, gloriam incorruptibilis Dei, i. e. scm90 SINE FIDE IESU CIIRISTI NON HABETUR IUSTITIA (1,18-3,20). piternam virtutem et divinitatem Dei, quae in creatione se eis manifestaverat, commutaverant cum infimo et vilissimo, cum imaginibus omni vita et sensu et virtute carentibus, quas sibi ipsi finxerant similes hominibus corruptibilibus aut etiam brutis animalibus. Ab initio quidem ethnici, quando debitas laudes gratesque Creatori negantes in cogitationibus suis evanuerant, illas creaturas, in quibus potentia aliaque attributa Dei clarius sese manifestant, «.ignem aut spiritum aut citatum aerem aut gyrum stellarum aut nimiam aquam aut solem et lunam pro rectoribus mundi diisque habere » coeperant (Sap. 13,2), atque crescente intellectus obscuritate cum voluntatis perversitate etiam ad aliarum creaturarum viventium cultum transierant, hominum quos aut amabant aut timebant, animalium, quae illis aut periculosa aut utilia erant. Sed his quasi intermediis gradibus neglectis Paulus solum infimum et abiectissimum statum eorum considerat, qui in rebus mortuis inanimisque spem suam ponentes « deos appellaverunt opera manuum suarum, aurum et argentum, arlis inventionem aut similitudines animalium, aut lapidem inutilem, opus manus antiquae » (Sap. 13,10); ad hunc enim etiam Graeci Romanique erant delapsi. Procul dubio aliqui inter eos puriorem augustioremque ideam Dei sibi efformabant, at populus universus, non tantum rudis plebecula sed illi quoque plerique, qui liberalium artium studiis eruditi erant, eadem ratione, qua olim filii Israel in deser:o (Exod. 22,4), statuis ipsis cultum soli Deo debitum exhibebant neque hacin re ab antiquis Chananaeis, Aegyptiis, Babyloniis etc. differebant, quos Veteris Test. scriptores idololatriae proprie dictae saepissime accusant!. Probe autem consideretur oportet locutio qua Paulus utitur : sénilitudo imaginis (35ziopa. six:vcz simulacrum simile imagini) corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium : non veros homines aut vera animalia sub figuris illis colebant, sed simulacra ipsa, quae ad imaginem hominis aut animalis alicuius mox perituri sibi effinxerant, infinitae maiestati Dei aeterni praeferebant!. Romani - et Graeci plerumque quidem statuas humanas in suis templis venerabantur; verum eo tempore, quo Paulus scripsit, Romae etiam Aegyptioruni dii, quorum statuae aut capita variorum animalium gerebant aut animalia varia repraesentabant, sua sacra habebant?. 2.) — Deus ethnicos ob idololatriam in turpissima crimina ruere permisit (1,24-32). runt, quoniam qui talia agunt, digni sunt | zpíosovz:g Gztot Üzvároo clsiv, o) uóvov morte : et non solum qui ea faciunt, sed | a3zX zetodvzsg, GXXà xal GuveuDoxoUvi:g tol; etiam qui consentiunt facientibus. zpássoust !, Densissimas intellectus tenebras, in quas ethnici sua ipsorum culpa, quia Deo cognito negaverant debitum cultum, devoluti erant, describens Paulus simul satis insinuavit, eos in Deum verum suo infinitae maiestatis contemtu gravissime offendisse, cultuque suo idololatrico divinam iram provocasse. Quam gravibus autem poenis divina ira sese manifestaverit, nunc describere incipit. Ipsam quidem intellectus obscuritatem, in quam prolapsi erant, poenam quamdam primae defectionis a Deo iam fuisse innuere videtur verbis passivis adhibitis (igazau»0ncx» vani facli sunt, icxzícór, obscuratum est, àpopsv0rnczv brutis similes redditi sunt). Revera crescens rerum divinarum ignorantia, quum Deus maiore dato lumine eam non impediret, velut poena crescentis perversitatis voluntatis considerari potest ac debet. At turpia horrendaque flagitia, quibus ethnici passim erant dediti, completamque quae inter eos invaluerat morum corruptionem poenam veram ac proprie dictam fuisse docet cum Sapiente consentiens, qui turpibus foedisque ethnicorum moribus simili modo descriptis « infandorum idolorum cultum dixit esse omnis mali causam et initium et finem » (cfr Sap. 15,92-31)!. Duplex autem crimen, quo ethnici divinam iram provocaverant, Paulus notaverat, nczatum vero Deo cultum et subsecutam idololatriam ; ordine inverso nunc poenam, qua divina ira in eis sese manifestavit , iuxta talionis legem duplici crimini respondere ostendit ab idololatriae poena incipiens (25-97) et ad negati cultus poenam transiens (28-32). Namque quia ethnici maiestatem divinam contumelia affecerunt vilia idola ei praeferentes, Deus (subtractis suis gratiis) permisit, ut semet ipsos dehonestarent (24. 95) passionibus ignominiosis et naturae repugnantibus dediti (26. 27); et quia Deum cognitum agnoscere noluerunt, Deus (substractis suis gratiis) permisit, ut suae ipsorum conscientiae dictamina non agnoscentes (v. 28) in omnis generis peccata ruerent (29-31), quamvis his peccatis sese poenam morlis aeternae merere scirent (v. 32). Summa ignominia ethnici divinam maiestatem affecerunt vilibus simulaeris cultum soli Deo debitum exhibentes;
1:24
2&. propter quod tradidit illos Deus in. desideria cordis eorum, in immunditiam (accuratius iuxta textum graecum : in desideriis cordium eorum in immunditiam, £y éciÜouíatg «Qv xxpAwv ajców si; xxaxgÜxcixv), ut contumeliis afficiant corpora sua in semetipsis. « Considerandum est, inquit Thom. (i. h. 1.), quod homo medium locum obtinet inter Deum et animalia bruta et cum utroque extremorum communicat, cum Deo quidem sccundum intellectualitatem, cum animalibus vero brutis secundum sensualitatem. Sicut igitur homo id quod est Dei mutavit ad bestias, ita Deus quod est divinum in homine, sc. rationem, subdit ei quod est brutale in ipso, sc. desiderio sensualitatis...; quod quidem est contra naturalem ordinem hominis, secundum quem ratio sensuali appetitui dominatur ». [usto igitur Dei iudicio « homo, sicut per idololatriam pervertit ordinem divini honoris, per peccatum contra naturam propriae naturae confusibilem perversitatem patitur » (S. ZÀom. Summ. ll. 9 qu. 94 a. 3. ad 3), et turpissima impudicitiae peccata, quibus semet ipsos contaminaverunt ethnici, Deus crimini punitionem assimilans voluit esse poenam cultus idololatrici, quo divinam maiestatem dede- omnia ordinat ad se ipsum, peccatum autem est aliquid per aversionem ab €0), sed indirecte tradit hominem in peccatum, in quantum iuste subtrahit gratiam, per quam homines continebantur; sicut si aliquis alicuius sustentaculum tolleret, diceretur facere casum eius. Et per hunc modum primum peccatum est causa sequentis peccati, sequens vero est poena prioris » '. Similiter S. Aug. (serm. 57,9) : « Ira iudicis donavit quosdam concupiscentiis suis; quomodo tradidit? Non cogendo, sed deserendo »; et iterum (c. Iulian. V. 3,12) : » Quum ergo dicitur homo tradi desideriis suis, inde fit reus, quia desertus a. Deo cedit eis atque consentit; vincitur, capitur, trahitur, possidetur; et flt ei peccatum consequens praecedentis poena peccati ». Animadvertatur tamen oportet, consequens peccatum non esse poenam ratione culpae ac malitiae, quia haec non est a Deo sed a sola voluntate peccante, verum ratione indirectae suae causae, i. e. negationis seu subtractionis gratiarum, ex qua fit ut homo peccet, atque etiam ratione suorum effectuum, inordinationis scilicet animi, angorum conscientiae, infamiae etc., quibus homo sibi ipsi aliisque detestabilis redditur (Ztom. efr Summ. theol. II. 4 qu. 87. a. 2). Iuxta Vulg. Deus idololatras tradidit in desideria cordium suorum in immunditiam, i. e. tradidit eos cupiditatibus suis, quibus ad immunditiam ducerentur (cfr Est. Disp.); quae interpretatio defendi quidem potest, si graeca praepositio i» hie pro hebraico 5 usurpata supponitur. Verum Apostolus verbum «zzg22:2:vx: eum praep. si; (ev. 96. 28 etc.) aut cum dativo (EpA. 4,19) construere solet; quam constructionem hic quoque praeferentes vertere malumus : tradidit eos in immunditiam, atque locutione zn desideriis cordium corum (iv £zc- 0upíat; tv xxo2uv ajzov) statum describi censemus, in quo degebant, quando traditi sunt. Crescentibus enim intellectus tenebris etiam perversae cordis cupiditates creverant iisque velut capti et irretiti, quando Deus gratias suas illis subtraxit, in immunditiam irruerunt. Immunditia porro (x«x9xpsi;) hic, uti semper apud Paulum (6,19; 2 Cor. 12,21; Gal. 5,19: Eph. 4,19; 5,3) idem valet quod impudicitia, quippe qua totus homo polluatur; explicationis gratia autem Apostolus, ut Deum iuxta talionis legem poenam crimini assimilare significaret , addere voluit, idololatras, qui divinam maiestatem ignominia affecerant, traditos esse in immunditiam, ut contumeliis afficiant (melius : afficerent , vel etiam : ut dehonestarent «25 à-wáec0xx) corpora sua tn semet ipsis. Impudicitia proxime quidem, uti alia peccata, animum foedat dehonestatque, proprium tamen illum characterem habet, ut ipsum corpus, quum peccator illo ad finem non debitum utatur, commaculet eique iniuriam inferat (cfr ad 1 Cor. 6,18); si autem simplex iam fornicatio corpori foedam maculam inurit, quanto foediorem et turpiorem peccata contra naturam ei inurunt. De his quippe, uti ex sequentibus vv. 96. 27 apparet, Paulus loquitur, atque ad ea significanda hic iam illud zn semet tpsis (vel uti legit S. Amór. de fide I. 16 103 : nter se ipsos) addit innuens mares cum maribus atque feminas cum feminis impudica facere et pati. Iuxta nonnullorum sententiam Paulus nomine &àxzpüxsíx; peccata impudicitiae in genere designavit, ut gradatione quadam ad peccata contra naturam (vv. 26. 27) progrederetur (cfr To/. — Weiss). Verum gravissimo idololatriae crimini (v. 23) gravissimam poenam opponi decuit; quare rectius reliqui eum iam v. 24. de peccatis contra naturam agere censent. Revera tam gravis ei haec poena visa est, ut crimen, quo ethnici eam commeruissent, repetendum duceret : Deus enim eos inimmunditiam tradidit tamquam homines,
1:25
25. qui (cixws; tales qui, quippe qui) commutaverunt veritatem Dei in mendacium (lege : cum mendacio iv v$s53e«v cfr ad. v. 23), et coluerunt et servierunt creaturae (tij xx(cec) potius quam Creatori (lege cum S. Cypr. c. Iud. HI. 10 : relicto Creatore, aut cum S. Hil. de Trin. XII. 3 : praeterito Creatore, «api tbv xtíoxvca) , qui. est benedictus in saecula; amen. Duo crimina ethnicorum hic notari cum haud paucis 7o. putat, « unum ad intellectum pertinens, quod veri Dei notitia derelicta erroribus eam obscuraverint, alterum ad voluntatem pertinens, quod Dei veri cultu relicto creaturas coluerint ». Cum TAeod. tamen aliisque Graecis (cfr Oec. Euth.) hodie fere omnes de uno solo crimine eum loqui illudque quum tropice tum proprie indicare rectius tenent, quum haec sententia praecedenti v. 23. accurate respondeat. « Veritatem | Dei, inquit Theod., vocat eum qui vere Deus nominatur, mendacium autem appellat idolum manu factum ». Saepe a prophetis idola nomine ^c (ys93e; mendacium) designantur (Is. 44,90; Ier. 13,95; 16,19 etc.). utpote quae nihil sint sed mentito nomine dii appellentur; veritas Dei autem, quamquam significare potest veritatem de Deo s. veram Dei notitiam (cfr v. 18) aut veritatem, quae a Deo procedit, hic tamen praecedenti gloria Dei (v. 23) respondet, ut re sit idem quod 5 27z- Bvz; Os; (verus Deus) : Deum igitur, qui natura sua est veritas, commutaverunt cum iis, qui natura non sunt dii (Ga/. 5,8) sed hoc nomen mentiuntur. Secundo membro prius explicatur atque simul completur; quandoquidem eos verum Deum cum idolis commutasse ex eorum cultu apparet, quem non Creatori sed creaturis in universum (73, xzíoe) exhibuerunt. luxta. Vulg. versionem aliquis putare potest, ethnicos vituperari, quod vero Deo minorem cultum quam idolis exhibuerint; at hunc non esse sententiae sensum totus contextus clamat; praepositio zxe €. acc. igitur hic exclusionem, quin ctiam oppositionem quandam denotat (cfr v. 26. z2x2x 952v contra naturam; 5,18; 16, 17; Gal. 1,8 etc.) : excluso Creatore, immo contra eum : tantum abfuit, ut ex creaturis Creatorem cognovissent, ut eis cultum exhibentes Creatorem iniuria afficerent. Duobus verbis autem (i2:23:2052x» coluerunt vel venerati sunt e& &A&z9s23xv servierunt, quae et in graeco textu et in latino contra accuratam grammaticam eodem cum casu coniunguntur) universum cultum ita designari, ut priore internus altero externus exprimatur, iuniores Graeci (Theoph. Euth.) consentientibus nonnullis modernis haud immerito adnotarunt. Tanto ethnicorum crimine commotus B. Apostolus, ut pro sua parte iniuriam Deo illatam quasi revellat ac deprecetur, in doxologiam prorumpit : qui est benedictus (sYkoynz5; cum gratiarum actione celebrandus, cfr ad 2 Cor. 1,3) in saecula, amen. Satis ieiune vero Chrys. (cfr etiam Theoph. Oec. Euth.) doxologiam addi arbitratur, ut divinam maiestatem illis contumeliis damnum non esse passam significetur : « verum hoc illi non nocuit; est enim in saecula celebratus » (Chrys.) vel iuxta Oec. : « eodem enim modo mansit celebratus in saecula ». A criminis repetitione ad poenae descriptionem revertitur. Mirum est, quod iuniores interpretes, qui in praecedente errorum et idololatriae expositione de ethnicis philosophis agi putarunt, hac criminum enarratione ad opinionem suam corrigendam non sint adducti , sed magna cum operositate ex antiquis scriptoribus flagitia philosophorum et doctorum conquisierint, ut paulinam descriptionem veritati consonare ostenderent (cfr Est. Lap. etc., Ag. etc.). At si de solis viris doctis philosophisque aut de iis potissimum egisset, iure Paulus satis magnae exaggerationis accusaretur; verissimam autem eius descriptionem esse, si mores ethnicos in genere notasse dicitur, demonstratione non indiget. Antiquorum enim poetarum, historicorum , philosophorum opera omnia id luculentissime testantur, atque quae moderni viatores de huius aetatis ethnicis referunt, ea priscum testimonium confirmant. In horrenda igitur sua descriptione ad solos doctos aut ad solos indoctos non respicit neque, id quod per se patet, omnes ac singulos omnibus illis criminibus infectos esse significat, sed illa crimina ac peccata recenset, quae passim ab ethnicis tam aperte perpetrabantur, ut pro criminibus aut peccatis vix ac ne vix quidem haberi viderentur (cfr ad 3,9). Quomodo igitur Deus eos in immunditiam tradiderit (v. 94) explicaturus pergit :
1:26
26. propterea (quia verum Deum cum idolis commutarunt et relicto Creatore creaturis servierunt) tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiae, ei; ziUn X«pix; d. q. sl; záÓm Xupátzov:a (nam ázpíag est genetivus qualit.) in animi affectiones, quae ignominia afficiunt, seu in libidines ignominiosas. Nomen zzíx; satis clare insinuat, ultimum v. 2 membrum (:25 xzti3;:7021 77, ut ignominia afficiantetc.) exponi ; ea quippe iusta est poena , ut illi qui creaturis servientes Deo ignominiam intulerunt, subtractis gratiis permissi sint servire libidinibus, quibus ipsi ignominia afficiuntur. Ceterum cum Haym. aliisque antiquioribus Latinis haud male TAom. ad latini nominis ?gnominiae etymologiam (in-gnomen, i. q. nomen) respiciens monet, Apostolum passiones istas nomine suo proprio non appellasse, quia eo essent indignae: « si enim peccata carnis communiter exprobrabilia sunt, quia homo per ea deducitur ad id quod est bestiale in homine, multo magis peccatum contra naturam, per quod homo etiam a natura bestiali decidit ». Ac profecto ne ab iis quidem, quae iuxta 1mpurum quendam poetam inter animalia cuncta non inveniuntur (Ovid. Met. IX. 732), ethnici passionibus ignominiae abrepti abhorruerunt nam feminae eorum mulaverunt naturalem usum in eum (usum) qui est contra naturam (sig vi» «apk qómw); 2". similiter et masculi, relicto naturali usu feminae, ezarserunt in desideriis suis (àv. «3; àpéGe a)-àv in cupidine sua) Zn invicem, masculi in masculos turpitudinem operantes et mercedem (xiv &vnwac0íav aequalem compensationem), seu retributionem), quam oportuit, erroris sui in semet ipsis recipientes. De illegitimo concubitu agens Apostolus haud sine contemtu viros mulieresque illis desighat nominibus, quibus etiam in animalibus sexus distinguuntur (ai 04Xewx , cl dposve; feminae, mares). Quoniam autem commune utrique sexui erat peccatum (nam et feminae gloriam Dei cum idolis commutarant), utriusque quoque ponit probrosam poenam a feminis, opinor, ideo incipiens, quia immanitas ac foeditas libidinis istius in iis, quibus natura maiorem indidit pudorem, maiorem horrorem excitat, quam si in viris consideratur. Porro sicut omnc peccatum, quia contra rectam rationem est, contra naturam esse rectc dicitur, ita omnis quoque concubitus illegitimus contra naturam dici potest; nimis late tamen S, Athan. (orat. c. gent. 26) priora verba de meretricibus intelligit, quae in idolorum templis corpora sua prostituebant. Quum sexuum commixtio ad generationem a natura sit ordinata, rectius cum S. Aug. iuniores plerique naturalem usum appellari censent eum, « unde natura humana potest nascendo subsistere » (c. Iulian. III. 20,50) vel « qui fit membris ad hoc creatis, ut per ea possit ad generandum sexus uterque misceri » (de nupt. et concup. II. 20,35). Proxime tamen ac proprie Apostolus prioribus verbis, uti ex contexta oratione elucet, immundiora et sceleratiora illa denotat flagitia, quibus feminae inter se coeuntes corpora sua contaminant. Lesbium olim illud scelus vocabatur, quia maxime Lesbides ei indulgere perhibebantur, sed illud alibi quoque fuisse satis diffusum antiqui Scriptores testantur!. lure merito autem Chrys. Pauli prudentiam admiratur, qui ut caste simul loqueretur et lectorum animos perstringeret, scelus illud contra naturam esse dumtaxat significavit, « naturae nomine accusationem augens et quasi involucro quodam illa appellatione utens, ut castus esset loquendi modus ». Multo magis inter Graecos Romanosque diffusum erat alterum crimen , quod clarioribus quidem significat verbis sed cuius foeditatem simul clarius docet, quum mares pro suo libidinis aestu in invicem exardescentes et in maribus turpe suum facinus (z;» àcynyczóvq») exercentes aequalem quam decuit poenam erroris sui (zzz zAxvmz ajz0»), i. e. idololatriae suae, in semet ipsis solvisse dicit. « Proportionatam , inquit To/., Dei vindictam fuisse idololatriae et errori illorum docet; poenam condignam errori suo receperunt in se et in suis corporibus; ordinem enim inverterant cum ignominia Deo illata , quum relicto Creatore ad creaturam se converterent; iusta ergo et proportionata est compensatio , ut permittantur etiam ordinem naturae invertere cum dedecore et ignominia propria ipsorummet ». Eadem ratione tantum non omnes ultima verba recte exponentes nomine zAv;z non intellectus sed voluntatis a recto tramite aberrationem (cfr Jac. 5,20; Sap. 1,12), ipsum nimirum, cui dediti erant, simulacrorum cultum, designatum vident. praeoptarent, ne haec paterentur. Nihil enim est, nihil omnino, hac contumelia gravius etc. » Sequitur alterum argume ntationis membrum, quo poena describitur impietatis, qua ethnici Deum cognitum agnoscere nolentes debitum cultum ei negarunt (v. 91). Pro more Apostolus ab initio (v. 98) totum argumentum proponit, ut illud vv. 29-31 explanet atque ultimo v. 32, criminis ratione accuratius explicata, confirmet.
1:28
98. Et sicut (xa0oz) non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia (iv Exepvoost), tradidit illos Deus in. reprobum sensum (vel melius cum S. Aug. de praed. Sanct. 10,19 etc. : in reprobam mentem si; à25xwov v29v), ut faciant ea quae non conveniunt. Comparativa particula (xa0o; sicut) iterum poenam crimini respondere eiusque aequalem compensationem esse docet; neque vero poenam et crimen dumtaxat comparat, sed particulae simul, uti saepe (cfr ad 1 Cor. 1,8), causalem vim attribuenscrimen causam poenae esse innuit. Crimen porro eorum erat, quod non probaverunt , i. e. exploratione facta dignum non tudicarunt (zx. &Bzxípacav 1l. q. Sbxipov coy. &qucav cfr 1 Thess. 2,4; 1 Cor. 16,3) Deum, quem dágnoscerent accuratiusque cognoscere studerent. Non tam omissi igitur, quam negati cultus divini eos accusat, ac bene CÁrys. : « non per ignorantiam admissa sed meditata eorum facinora esse insinuat ». Apud antiquiores Latinos duae huius membriinveniuntur interpvetationes : alii enim cum 4'*? explicant : « ethnici non approbarunt, Deum scire et curare res humanas » (cfe Herv!. Thom?. etc.); alii cum Pel. : « non curarunt, ut Deum prae oculis habentes a peccatis se abstinerent » (cfr Prém. Haym. Herv?. Thom. Lyr. etc.); sed prior neque verbis neque contextui consonat, altera haud satis est accurata. Similiter inter modernos duplex invenitur explicatio; alii enim locutionem iv éxepvozet idem. significare censentes quod iv vàzet, atque verbo £z retinendi significationem attribuentes sensum esse volunt : « ethnici operae pretium non habuerunt, Deum in sua cognitione retinere » (cfr Beel. M Ev. Mai. etc. — Fr. Rück God. Lips. etc.). Rectius autem alii inter 4vàsw et izizvosv distinguunt; sicut enim verbum izewvozxse Significat accurate cognoscere ac simul agnoscere, ita iz; quoque accuratam designat cognitionem, quae voluntatem ad veritatem cognitam amplectendam simul inclinat; unde a Vulg. haud male latino agnitio interdum redditur !. Simplici igitur Dei cognitioni, quam ethnici habuerunt (*v2vzsz «2v Os&v v. 21), Paulus opponit accuratiorem cognitionem agnitionemque (zzv iz&rvosw), quam habere operae pretium non duxerunt. Si Deo cognito cultum debitum exhibuissent, ad accuratam eius cognitionem paullatim pervenissent ; sed quia id facere noluerunt, evanuerunt in cogitationibus suis et a Deo traditi sunt Zn sensum reprobum vel in mentem reprobam. Paronomasia sua (25 222 (y. a0xv... elg àAbxucv ve)v) Apostolus aequalem retributionem iuxta talionis legem esse insinuat. 'A25x1poz vc9; (mens reproba) autem a TAom. recte definitur ille, « quo aliquis reprobandum iudicium fert de agendis », et a Tol. similiter explicatur « quasi non habens probationem [i. e. probandi facultatem], quia probat non probanda »; quatenus nimirum « multa iudicat licita, quae licita non sunt, et multa dicit iniqua, quae iusta sunt ». Mens igitur intelligitur ad id, quod faciendum est, diiudicandum inepta (cfr Tit. 1,16 ze; zx» £pyc» X;xüt à$buga ad omne opus bonum reprobi i. e. inepti). Idem fere manet sensus, si cum modernis plurimis vz2» 25x12» sensu passivo interpretaris « mentem non probatam » (scilicet Deo) seu perversam, cuius iudiciis fides haberi nequit. Ex hac autem mente reproba, in quam ethnici traditi sunt, consequitur ut ea faciant quae non conveniunt , zx y, ya8fxzvsx i. e. quae non convenire mens cognoscere debuit ac per se etiam cognoscere potuit. Aequalis igitur compensatio in eo adesse apparet, quod ethnici, quia cognitum Deum agnoscere noluerunt, etiam rationis suae practicae dictamina non amplius agnoscant iisque dirigi renuant; neque enim de legum moralium ignorantia theoretica sed practica sermonem esse, ex v. 32 constat. Longa serie (29-31) flagitia ethnicorum recensens Paulus, uti in similibus catalogis (cfr 13,13; 1 Cor. 6,9. 10; 9 Cor. 12,20. 21; Gal. 5,19-91; Eph. 3,3-5), neque omnia nullo omisso enumerare neque singula iuxta artis regulas disponere curat, sed externo quodam ordine contentus multis variisque cumulatis ostendere vult, quanta sit ethnicorum morum corruptio et quam ampla scelerum messis ex una radice, ex defectione nimirum a vero Deo, sit exorta. Quatuor autem classes, si ad externam enumerationis formam attendimus, distinguere licet ; quatuor quippe priora (vel iuxta Vw/g. quinque) vitiorum nomina a participio zsz^vecgévcog (repletos) et quinque insequentia ab adiectivo usozoóg (plenos) dependent; tum septem sequuntur, quae ab ultimis quinque (vel iuxta Vulg. sex) ita discernuntur, ut priora scelus adesse affirment (d0oguzaz-igsupszàz xxxv, susurrones — inventores malorum), alia virtutem adesse negent (42v:22v àzsiüstz 77. parentibus non obedientes etc.). Ad constructionem id quoque adnotamus, interpretem vulgatum non satis accurate ex graeco textu accusativos (repletos , plenos ctc.) transumsisse ac multo aptius antiquam versionem latinam nominativum adhibuisse (repleti, pleni etc.; cfr S. Cypr. ad cler. et pleb. Hisp. ep. 68,9. M. 3,1035). Iuxta hodiernam enim Vulg. accusativi illi dependere nequeunt, nisi a verbo tradidit, ita ut dicendum videretur, Deum ethnicos in reprobum sensum tradidisse velut viros repletos (i. e. quia essent repleti) omni iniquitate etc. ; at iuxta primitivum textum accusativi pertinent ad infinitivum zz«tv, quem nostra Vulg. verbo finito (ut faciant) reddidit, ita ut scelera enumerata non causa, sed sequelae vel effectus mentis reprobae a Paulo dicantur (cfr Tol. Est. etc.). Deus igitur ethnicos in reprobum sensum ita tradidit, ut inhonesta facientes sint
1:29
29. repleti omni iniquitate, malitia, (fornicatione,) avaritia, nequitia, — pleni invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, malignitate —
1:30
30. susurrones, detractores, Deo odibiles (iuxta S. Cypr. : abhorrentes Deo), contumeliosi, superbi, elati (S. Cypr. : iactantes sui), inventores malorum, — 31. parentibus non obedientes , insipientes , incompositi , sine affectione, (absque foedere) sine misericordia. Qua in enumeratione gravissimis criminibus, uti recte Chrys. monet, nonnulla intermixta sunt, quae leviora videntur ac pro indifferentibus fere haberi solent; at omnia ponens Apostolus clarius ostendit, quanta sit ethnica perversitas. Neque enim de hominibusloquitur, qui ad unum aut alterum ex his peccatis raro abripiuntur, sed de illis, qui contracto habitu ea velut aquam bibunt, quorum universa vita est perversa « quorumque affectus totaliter ad malum est inclinatus » (cfr TÀom.); nam hi soli iis dici possunt repleti aut pleni, atque hi soli & peccatis, quibus sine pudore indulgent, cognominantur (susurrones etc.). inter se differant interpretes non consentiunt. Iuxta Z'heoph. etc. (cfr ad 1 Cor. 5,8) malus (xax&) vocatur, quicumque vitiis indulget, nequam (xovng&), qui cum hypocrisi et dolo se eis tradit. Inter iuniores ac modernos alii zovnpía studium nocendi, xaxía animi perversitatem et inclinationem ad malum significari volunt (cfr Zol. Est. Heith. — Beng. Mey.), alii contra priore perversitatem et altero nocendi studium designari arbitrantur (de W. God. etc.), alii utrumque de nocendi studio interpretantur (Zeel. Mai. etc.), alii alias distinctiones faciunt. Fatendum autem est, duo nomina accurate distingui non posse, quia et sacri et profani scriptores ea promiscue usurpant ; Paulus autem tria nomina illa generalia posuit, ut ethnicos omnis generis vitiis inquinatos esse assereret. In secunda classe animi contra proximum infensi vitia quinque recensentur; duo prima, «6óvoc, qóvo; (invidia homicidium) propter homophoniam coniuncta sunt (cfr Gal. 5,21). Uti autem prius (invidia), ita etiam secundum (homicidium) ad animum infestum referri potest, si non tam ipsa operis perpetratio, quam eius desiderium spectatur; unde hic saevitiam potius crudelitatemque significat, quam inter ethnicos summam fuisse et esse constat, quum in ipsis eorum sacrificiis caedes mutilationesque hominum essent ac sint frequentissimae. " Eg« (contentio), quod nomen saepe cum to ab Apostolo coniungitur (13,13; 4 Cor. 3,3; 9 Cor. 12,12; Gal. 5,20) rixarum studium designat, quod ex invidia exoriri solet (cfr S. Basil. Reg. brev. expl. 66); 8ó1oc (dolus) autem Zasilio (1. c. 77) est sedula ad struendas insidias opera, et xaxoj0ex (malignitas) eidem quidem est « prima et occulta morum corruptio », ab aliis vero iuxta Aristot. (Rhet. II. 3) vitium illud esse rectius definitur, quo omnia in deteriorem partem accipiuntur et explicantur. Duo priora tertiae classis vitia cum praecedentibus arcte cohaerent: susurrones (Viupwzat) et detractores (xaxáAaXot) ita recte distinguuntur, ut priores clanculum et occulte, alteri palam et aperte calumnias spargant (cfr 2 Cor. 12,20). Quid vero tertium nomen (6soszvyeic) hic significet, in controversia est. Apud profanos scriptores nomen habet sensum passivum (qui a Deo odio habentur) eundemque hodierna Vulg. (deo odibiles) et Syr. exprimunt ac multi moderni retinent (Zisp. Sch. etc. — Fr. Goeb. Weiss etc.); verum non intelligitur, quid in hac vitiorum enumeratione nomen velit, quo omnium peccatorum effectus enuntiatur; omnia quippe hominem reddunt Deo exosum. Quare aliqui illud velut adiectivum praecedenti substantivo addunt (xaxdAa2.ot 0coczuye, detractores Deo erosi); melius tamen activum sensum (i. q. Dei osores, Deum odio habentes) ei attribuemus, ut summa impietas notetur. Ita enim cum antiqua versione latina (Deo abhorrentes) nomen interpretati sunt quum iuniores Graeci (Theod. 7| heoph. Oec. Euth. cfr etiam Suid.), tum S. Clem. Rom., Pauli ipsius immediatus discipulus, qui nostrum locum imitatus substantivum 6cocrvyíz ita adhibet, ut odium in Deum explicari debeat *. Neque obstat profanorum usus, siquidem Paulo 1. S. Clem. Rom. (1 Cor. 35) abiicere nos iubet « omnem iniustitiam et iniquitatem, ava- activum sensum, quum vocabulo per se non repugnet (cfr fiporosvop/« qui hominibus exosus est, et qui homines odit, 6:op:w/« qui exosus est Deo, et qui Deum odit), cum eo coniungere licuit. Tria sequentia nomina varias superbiae species declarant : 66ptezat (contumeliosi, iuxta S. Cypr. : iniuriosi) sunt illi, qui superbia tumentes contumeliis iniuriisque alios lacessunt (4. Tim. 4, 43); óxepijoave (superbi) illi, qui propter opinata sua bona prae aliis eminere iisque praeferri volunt (cfr Jac. 4,6; 4 Petr. 5,5) ; dàatoves (elati, iuxta S. Cypr. : iactantes sui) sunt vani iactatores, qui insolentius se suaque praedicare solent (2 Zim. 3,2; cfr Jac. 4,16; 4 Joan. 9,16). Quibus adduntur igrupevol xax&v (inventores malorum), qui vitiis quae norunt non contenti alios modos studiose excogitant, quibus passionibus suis pravis perversisque satisfaciant. In quarto ordine primum locum tenent filii parentibus non obedientes; sequuntur doóvevot et, doóvésvoc. (insipientes, incompositi), de quorum definitione iterum non constat. Parum recte, ut videtur, Euth. ácvvérow dicit devvetàfrow, j. e. eos quibus, utpote conscientia fere destitutis, nihil religioni est ; alii eos significari volunt, qui ab intelligentia vel mente (cóveeu) se regi non sinunt, sed inconsiderate ac temere agunt (Tol. Beel. etc.); rectius vero hebraicum 523 (stultus i. q. impius Sap. 1,5; Eccle. 15,7) comparantes nomen de impietate interpretabimur (cfr v. 21; 10,19). 'AcUv6rzot , qui propter nominis homophoniam devo; addi videntur, non tam sunt incompositi, qui moribus sunt inurbani ac rudes alienique ab humanitate (Tol. E'st. etc.), quam foedifragi (cvvtiüecóo: pacisci), qui pactum initum non servant (Theoph. Euth*.) aut instabiles sunt in amicitia (Z'uth?.). Caritatis demum defectum tria ultima nomina ostendunt : deropyox (sine affectione), 'qui erga filios aut alios consanguineos amoris (eum enim proxime f, eropyf significat) sunt expertes, derov5« (sine foedere), qui foederis (cxovó4) expertes sunt et foedera inire detrectantes in inimicitiis implacabiles persistunt (ceterum hoc nomen a multis testibus omittitur; forte velut glossa ad davv- 9£row adscriptum ex margine in textum irrepsit); dveAerpove; (sine misericordia), qui pauperum debiliumque non miserentur, quod vitium quantopere fuerit propagatum ex modo, quo servi passim tractabantur, satis constat. Quemadmodum Paulus de immunditia loquens crimen ipsum, propter quod velut poena a Deo esset permissa, repetendum duxit (v. 25. cfzwe; ueváAAaia» xA. tamquam homines qui commutaverunt etc.), quamquam illud antea iam indicarat, ita hic quoque post descriptam corruptionem morum omnimodam repetit crimen, cuius poenam Deus eam esse voluit. Superiora enim verba (v. 28 non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia) quasi explicans ethnicos sceleribus enumeratis indulsisse dicit tamquam homines 32. qui (cizvez tales qui) guum | iustitiam (vel potius : iudicium aut decretum z» &xatopa 1. q. ph) Dei cognovissent , quod qui talia agunt digni sunt morte, non tantum ea faciunt , sed etiam consentiunt facientibus. Hac ratione cum omnibus fere graecis codd., praecipuis verss. (Syr. Copt. Arm. Aeth.), omnibus graecis interpretibus (Chrys. Theod. Dam. Theoph. Oec. Euth.) sententiam legendam esse censent aliqui iuniores (Ca. Cathar. Iust. [in paraphr.] Est. etc.) et moderni plerique (Reith. Mai. Beel. Bisp. LR. ScA.). Culpam igitur ethnicorum (de omnibus enim agitur, non de solis philosophis, quos Cai. Est. etc. iterum solos intelligi volunt) Paulus ex eo aggravat, quod Deum mortis poenam contra eos, qui praedicta crimina essent commissuri, decrevisse sciverint atque hac scientia sua non obstante non tantum ipsi ea commiserint sed alios quoque eadem committentes laudaverint illisque plausum dederint. Velut homines ergo eos depingit, qui suae conscientiae dictamina non agnoscant, quandoquidem ea, quae aeternae mortis supplicio digna esse cognovcrunt, in aliis quoque laudant approbantque. Interrogantibus vero, num ethnici talem poenam a Deo statutam esse revera sciverint, respondemus, omnes homines legem, qua vitia illa prohibentur, cordibus inscriptam habere (2,14 sqq.) atque ex divina iustitia, quam ignorare nequeunt, sua sponte concludere, Deum violatores huius legis esse puniturum gravissimis poenis. Ac profecto notum est ex antiquorum poetarum philosophorumque libris, quam diris suppliciis homines scelestos apud inferos puniri Graeci, Romani, Indi etc. passim crediderint, atque nota quoque sunt, quae Aegyptii, Persae aliique de severo iudicio post mortem subeundo docuerunt et quae ipsi barbari de divina iustitia crimina gravia gravibus poenis ulciscente et olim senserunt (cfr ex. gr. Act. 28,4) et hodie sentiunt !. Quamvis igitur mortis (aeternae) nomine, quo Paulus utitur, ethnici poenas illas designare non sint soliti, iure tamen dicuntur cognovisse, quin etiam accurate cognovisse (izvpyivzs; efr v. 298. £y ézvrvócz), legis violatores eorumque approbatores esse morte (aeterna) dignos. Iuxta graecum igitur textum clare apparet criminis ac poenae proportio : suam scientiam in iniustitia detinentes Deum cognitum agnoscere noluerant, ideo Deus suas gratias eis subtrahens permisit, ut dictamina suae conscientiae clare quidem cogno- Scentes sed ea non agnoscentes omnibus vitiis indulgerent. Integra autem morum corruptio ethnicorum ignominiosaeque eorum passiones iram divinam manifestant, sub qua degunt (cfr ad v. 18). exhibet : « qui cognoscentes (exvytwóoxovzsc) decretum Dei, quod talia agentes digni morte sint, non solum ea facientes sed etiam consentientes facientibus »; qua in sententia quum verbum aliquod finitum deesse pateat, ad illud substituendum librarii aliqui inseruerunt oix £ywecav (non cógnoverunt) vel oix évércav vel ox cwzx«v (non intellexerunt). Ex non intellecta Pauli sententia ergo corruptio lectionis genuinae videtur exorta. Ceterum omnes graeci interpretes magna cum sollicitudine ostendunt, qua ratione approbatio peccati alieni proprio peccato dicatur gravior. Monent enim, peccatorem interdum vehementiam passionis, qua sit abreptus, ad culpam minuendam afferre posse, ea vero excusatione carere approbatorem, qui deliberate alterius peccatum laudat (Chrys.), peccatorem quoque saepe facilius quam approbatorem ad resipiscendum adduci (S. /sid. Pel. l. c. Oec. etc.), peccatorem deinde sibi soli nocere, laudatorem alios ad similia peccata allicere (Theod. etc.). Quando S. Paulus haec verba scripsit, de Romanorum forsitan Graecorumque diis cogitaverit, qui summis, quae perpetrasse credebantur, criminibus non obstantibus templa ac sacra sua innumera habebant, aut etiam de pessimis illius aetatis imperatoribus, Tiberio, Caligula, Claudio, qui ipsi quoque velut numina colebantur. Ipso suo cultu igitur ethnici crimina, quae damnabat eorum conscientia, laudabant et approbabant idque eo magis, quia peccata quaedam (uti occisiones hominum, prostitutiones mulierum etc.) partem cultus constituebant. 2. — Iudaei similiter ob peccata sua divinae irae sunt obnoxii (2,1-3,8). Omnibus ethnicis, quum sub ira divina degant neque quidquam quo eam avertant in sua religione habeant, aliam salutis viam praeter eam, quae in Evangelio revelata est, non patere ex Pauli argumentatione elucet; sed de ludaeis quid sentiendum est, quos Deus peculium sibi de cunctis populis elegerat multisque beneficiis ditaverat? Eos quoque eandem viam ingredi debere Apostolus asseruerat (1,16) atque nunc eo maiore cum diligentia demonstrare aggreditur, quo magis Iudaei ipsi hane necessitatem addubitabant vel potius negabant. Quem in finem eos coram divino tribunali constituens ostendit eos ethnicis quodam modo peiores esse, quoniam divinam legem clarius cognoscentes moribus suis ethnicos imitentur iisdem vitiis dediti , quae in illis damnent (2,1-21); ne vero privilegia divinitus accepta praetendant, ea sine legis observatione nihil eis prodesse docet (2,25-3,8). Duo igitur argumentationis huius membra apte distinguuntur, quorum prius est tripartitum; ne enim directa accusatione animos ludaeorum irritet, Paulus argumentum suum quasi dissimulans ab asserendo divino iudicio exorditur, quod nemo effugere possit et in quo singuli secundum opera sua mercedem aut poenam aeternam sint accepturi (2,1-8). Propius deinde ad argumentum suum accedens Iudaeos et ethnicos sine personarum distinctione iudicatum iri monet iuxta eam normam, quam ludaei in sua Lege scripta, ethnici in lege cordibus suis insculpta possideant (2,9-16). Quibus praemissis Iudaeos diserte alloquens maiorem eorum culpam esse docet, quia de Legis scientia quidem gloriantes aliorum esse duces velint, sed eadem peccata committentes efficiant, ut divinum nomen inter gentes blasphemetur (2,17-24). Alterum argumentationis membrum est bipartitum ; sine Legis enim observatione neque circumcisionem Iudaeis prodesse ostendit (2,25-99) neque alia privilegia, quae eis competere non negat (3,1-8).. 1.) — Coram iusto Dei iudicio Iudaei maiore in culpa erunt quam ethnici (2,1-24). a. — Omnes a iusto iudice secundum opera sua iudicabuntur (2,1-8). Ob horrendam suam idololatriam morumque corruptionem gentes a Iudaeis severe iudicabantur ac velut peccatores contemnebantur ; verum in sua ethnicorum vitiorum enumeratione Apostolus haud pauca recensuerat, quibus Iudaei vix minus quam gentiles indulgebant. Quare severum eorum iudicium aptam ei praebuit occasionem ostendendi, eos quoque sub ira divina degere privilegiisque suis ab ea non eximi nec liberari. Magna autem cum prudentia, ut superbiae eorum parcat, a generali sententia exorditur, quae ex superiore argumentatione legitime colligitur, omnem scilicet hominem, Iudaeo non excepto, inexcusabilem esse coram iusto Dei iudicio, si aliorum iudicem se constituens eadem faciat, quae in aliis condemnet (1. 2). Quo principio stabilito neminem sperare posse monet, se divinum iudicium esse effugiturum, licet Deus ob suam misericordiam illud differat (3. 4), eum potius, qui tali spe nixus in peccatis perseveret, graviorem poenam sibi attrahere (v. 5), quum Deus omnes iuxta eorum opera iudicaturus (v. 6) singulisque pro eorum meritis aut mercedem aeternam aut aeternam poenam distributurus sit (7. 8). Aliquid miri habet, quod Apostolus Christianis scribens generalem hanc considerationem praemittere voluerit, antequam Iudaeos incredulos sub ira divina esse ostenderet ; nulla enim introductione praemissa de divina ethnicorum punitione egerat (1,18 sqq.). Attamen in reliqua quoque epistola diligentissime semper cavet, ne Iudaeorum animos offendat, atque summam suam erga eos caritatem haud semel manifestat (cfr 9,1-5; 10,1. 2 etc.). Divina quippe dona sine poenitentia esse sciens Iudaeos incredulos, quamvis ad tempus essent inimici Dei, propter patres tamen, in quibus erant vocati, Deo esse carissimos atque iuxta divinam voluntatem aliquando esse ad fidem perventuros non ignoravit (cfr 44,28 sqq.). Hanc ob causam hic quoque, ubi eos ethnicis similes factos esse detnonstrare debuit, cautissimus est, ne verbis eos laedat et ab amplectendo Evangelio avertat, neque ad eorum perversitatem directe demonstrandam transit, antequam eorum animos ad eam clarius cognoscendam et agnoscendam praeparavit.
1:1
Παῦλος. On dirait que le nom de Paul est donné pour la première fois à Saul en Chypre en présence du proconsul Sergius Paulus (Act. xt, 9). Il est très probable qu'il a pris le cognomen du proconsul lui-même: le fait était anormal, mais M. Dessau en a fourni un exemple précisément en Chypre (Der Name des apostels Paulus, dans Hermes, t. XLV, p. 347-868; cf. RB. 1910, p. 605). — L'expression δοῦλος cst sémitique. Les Grecs avaient des esclaves des dieux, maïs qui étaient vraiment les serviteurs d'un dieu, attachés au service d'un temple. f::650%x0! (hommes et femmes). C'est dans ce sens que Ion est τοῦ θεοῦ... δοῦλος (ur. /on. 309), et qu'il sert Apollon, Φοίδῳ δουλεύσω (Jon, 182). Chez les Grecs la différence juridique entre un esclave et un homme libre était essentielle: on ne disait pas servir (δουλεύω) pour rendre un culte; par exception et dans un sens comique Βαχγίῳ δουλεύσομεν (Evr. Cycl. 709). Au contraire, chez les Hébreux, un ‘ébéd, esclave ou serviteur, se disait, par rapport au roi, mème de ses officiers, et ‘abad signifie servir Dieu ou lui rendre un culte. Aussi Moïse (Jos. χιν, 17 [A]j), Josuëé (Jos. χχιν, 29), David et les prophètes (Am. ur, 71, sont-ils les serviteurs de Iahvé, et aussi bien tous les Israélites (Dt. xxxn. 36; Is. xLH1, 19). Les LXX avaient rendu par δοῦλος et le mot avait passé dans le grec des Juifs {Sap. 1x, 5). En prenant ce titre, Paul ne se range pas d'emblée parmi les prophètes ; tous les chrétiens sont serviteurs de Dieu. Ce qui est très remarquable, c’est qu'il se dise serviteur de Jésus-Christ, comme on disait serviteur de Iahvé ou de Dieu, et que Jésus ne soit jamais nommé δοῦλος par rapport à Dieu, quoiqu'il en ait pris la forme (Phil. 11, 71, tandis que David même, lorsqu'il représentait le Messie, avait conservé ce titre dans zéchiel : ὁ δοῦλός μου Δαυὶδ ἄρχων ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν (ΕΖ. xxxvi, 243; cf. xxxIv, 28). Les relations avec Jésus-Christ sont donc les mêmes qu'avec Dieu. C'est ici que pour la première fois « serviteur de Jésus-Christ » est en tète d’une épiître : cet usage reparaît Phil. τ, 1; Jac. 1, 1; Jud. 1; 11 Pet. 1, 1. Il est difficile de décider entre Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ et Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ (certain d'après Soden). En soi, dans la première tournure Χριστός a mieux conservé son sens appellatif, «16 Messie Jésus ». Maïs en fait les premières épîtres de Paulont déjà le second ordre (1 Thess. τ, 1; II Thess. 1, 1. 2; Gal. 1, 1) sans doute critique sérieux. Χριστός était donc déjà employé comme la moitié d'un nom propre, qu'il soit placé devant ou après. Dans l’ensemble, Paul paraît avoir préféré la première tournure à moins qu'il n'ajoute Κύριος, et c'est probablement grâce à son influence qu on la retrouve encore dans les épitres de saint Ignace (Liets.\, tandis que Jésus-Christ ἃ prévalu partout, comme il était naturel chez les gentils, peu soucieux d'insister sur le sens appellatif de Messie. χλητὸς ἀπόστολος, La notion de l'appel divin pour remplir une charge ou exercer certains actes est prépondérante dans la religion asswro-babylonienne (Dnonur, La religion assyro-bab. 150-155). Le roi surtout était choisi par un dieu, et appelé, son nom prononcé; il était l'objet de l'appel divin, nibit (de Bêl, par exemple), qui répond assez à 1565. L'importance de l'appel tient sans doute chez les Sémites à l'importance du nom, et ne se retrouve pas chez les Grecs. Iahvé ἃ prononcé le nom de Cyrus, quoiqu'il fût païen, et l'a désigné pour son œuvre (15. xzv, 8. 4). De la même manière les gentils ont été appelés à entrer dans le christianisme et Paul ἃ été appelé à l'apostolat. La même alliance de mots ne revient que I Cor. 1, 1. Cet appel fut entendu par Paul sur le chemin de Damas (Act. 1x, 5 ss.). La notion d'appel étant iraditionnelle dans l'A. T., ce serait une erreur de méthode que d'imaginer une dépendance de Paul par rapport aux mystères parce qu'on lit dans Apulée que les prètres étaient choisis par la déesse Isis : et sacerdotem qui sacra debeat ministrare eiusdem providentia deligi.… ce n'est pas comme simple initié mais comme futur prêtre que Lucius est appelé : me quoque oportere caeleste sustinere praeceplum, quanquam praecipue evidentique magni numinis dignatione iam dudum felici ministerio nuncupatum destinatumque (Mét. XI, 21). Dans l'évangile on distingue les xAnzot et les ἐχλεχτοί, tous les appelés ne sont pas élus (Mt. xx, 16); Paul ne semble pas mettre de distinction entre les deux mots, parce qu'il parle d'un appel de Dieu efficace; cf. vin, 28 ss. Ici d'ailleurs il s'agissait de marquer le droit de l’aul à l'apostolat, fondé sur l'appel de Jésus-Christ et de Dieu le Père (Gal. τ, 1). ἀπόστολος, dans la langue attique, signifiait « amiral ». Mais dans l'ancienne langue ionienne, c'était simplement un messager (Hér. 1, 21), et ce sens se perpétuait dans la Koënè (III Regn. χιν, 6; οἵ, Symm. Is. xvunt, 2). Il est donc assez naturel que Jésus ait nommé Apôtres les disciples qu'il avait envoyés (ἀποστέλλειν) pour annoncer le règne de Dieu. Le sens de cette étymologie est très indiqué dans Mare {π|, 14 et vi, 71. M. Harnack a soutenu que le titre d'Apôtre existait déjà dans le judaïsme, et que l'institution de l'apostolat judaïque avait servi comme de prototype à l’apostolat chrétien. Il est certain qu'au ive siècle les Juifs possédaient une institution de ce genre. Leurs ἀπόστολοι recueillaient les cotisations. formaient comme le conseil du Patriarche, portaient ses lettres encycliques dans la Diaspora, s'assuraient par eux-mêmes de l'exécution de ses ordres (EusèBe, sur Is. xvin, 1 $. ἀποστόλους δὲ εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν ἔθος ἐστὶν Ἰουδαίοις ὀνομάζει!» τοὺς ἐγχύχλια γράμματα παρὰ τῶν ἀρχόντων αὐτῶν ἐπιχομιζομένους. ΕἰρΙΡΗ. Hacres. XXX, Ὁ et11. Jér. [ad Ο αἱ. τ, 1] : Usque hodie a patriarchis Judaeorum apostolos mitti. Cod. Theod. XVI, vu, 44). Les auteurs cités regardent les ἀπόστολο: des Juifs comme les successeurs de ces envoyés des autorités juives de Jérusalem dont parle le N. T. (Act. vin, 2; χη, 4 5. ; XXVI, 10 5.; xxvinr, 21), et cela est certainement exact. Dans ce sens Paul a été un ἀπόστολος juif avant de devenir un apôtre de Jésus- Christ. Mais il est non moins certain que l'institution juive ἃ pris de la consistance avec l’organisation du patriarcat juif de Tibériade, et il est très probable que les envoyés juifs du τὸς siècle ne portaient pas le nom d’àxcστολοι, puisque aucun texte ne le leur confère, et que 5. Justin ne le leur donne pas dans des textes où il insiste cependant sur le caractère systématique des commissions juives (Dial. xvn; cf. cv, cxvu). Tout ce qu'on peut conclure d'Eusèbe et des autres, c’est que le titre α᾽ ἀπόστολο: n'était point nouveau de leur temps. M. Harnack prétend que les Juifs ne l'auraient pas pris après qu'il aurait eu un sens chrétien. Gette raison n'est pas décisive parce que dès le second siècle les chrétiens n'avaient plus d'apôtres. Et Paul se serait-il glorifié du titre d’apôtre s’il n'avait fait qu'en transformer le sens? Les apôtres de Jésus sont avant tout les messagers de la bonne nouvelle, sens emprunté directement à la racine du mot, et sans doute à l'usage de la koinè ; les Juifs qui avaient leurs messagers leur ont donné aussi le nom d'apètres; ce sont deux emplois parallèles non coordonnés du même terme grec. L’apostolat chrétien aurait existé, et même sous ce nom, quand bien même il n'y aurait pas eu d’apôtres juifs, qu'ils se soient nommés ou non ἀπόστολο: dès le rer siècle; peut-être cependant est-ce l'usage des cotisations juives qui a inspiré aux apôtres la pensée de charger Paul de recueillir des aumônes pour Jérusalem (cf. ΒΑΤΊΕΡΟΙ,, L'Église naissante, p. 46 ss., contre HanxaACK, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums.. 2° éd. p. 274). ἀφωρισμένος. Les Pères grecs ont vu dans ce mot une allusion à la prédestination divine, comme Gal. 1, 15. Cette idée de choix s’exprimait en assyrien par le terme wtt, littér, « regarder de préférence aux autres » (DHoRME, La religion ass.- pe 450); le futur roi était discerné parmi les autres avant d'être die par la divinité. Dans ce sens, Paul aurait écrit ἀφωρισμένος avant χλητός, Il vaut donc mieux dire avec les Latins que Paul a été mis de côté par Dieu quand il a reçu sa révélation. Dans tous les cas du N. T. {sauf Gal. 1, 15}, ἀφορίζειν signifie un triage réel effectué entre des êtres de nature ou de qualités différentes (Mt. χπὶ, 49; II Cor. vi, 17), et se dit spécialement des personnes réservées à l’apostolat (Act. xnr, 2). On ne voit pas pourquoi Cornely l’entend de la préparation de Paul par des dons naturels et surnaturels; cette préparation ne contient pas l’idée de séparer, mettre de côté. Il est peu probable que Paul aït fait allusion à son Pharisaïsme antérieur (Φαρισαῖοι — ἀφωρισμένοι, PREUSCREN, Lict.). εἰς de destination, 11 Thess. 11, 13. L'article fait défaut devant εὐαγγέλιον, négligence qui ne s'explique pas seulement par la construction sémitique, mais qui est fréquente dans la Koinè; il faut donc se garder de tirer des conclusions trop rigoureuses de l'emploi ou de l’omission de l'article (Zretz.). εὐαγγέλιον, proclamation d'une bonne nouvelle, terme employé pour l’avènement de ἃ. Julius Verus Maximus comme César (Drissuanx, Licht vom Osten, 267}, a encore ici son sens primitif. Le gén. Θεοῦ ne peut signifier que la bonne nouvelle a Dieu pour objet, puisque cet objet est le Fils de Dieu (v. 3). Dieu est donc plutôt l’auteur de l’évangile, celui qui l'a préparé; saint Thomas : alia vero (commendatio) ex auctoritate quam habet ex parte auctoris, quae est expressa in eo quod dictum est, Dei). Parmi tant de bonnes nouvelles, il en est une qui ne trompe pas, celle que Dieu a résolu de promulguer. Peu de mots sont aussi clairement de frappe paulinienne que le mot « évangile » (cf. Comm. s. Marc). I se trouve quatre lois dans Mt., huit fois dans Me., deux fois dans Actes, de plus I Pet. 1v, 17; Apoc. χιν, 6, et soixante fois dans les épitres paulines (pas Hebr.). Si Paul ἃ connu l'usage profane du mot, il est clair qu'il s'est inspiré pour l’idée de l'A. T.; en effet si le nom ne se trouve que trois fois et au pluriel (II Regn. 1v, 10 [au sens d'étrenne}; II Regn. xvur, 22. 25}, le verbe εὐαγγελίζειν se trouve une vingtaine de fois, et spécialement à propos du salut promis par Isaïe (Is. xz, 9; Lu, 7; Lx, 6; Lxt, 1). Les Sémites pouvaient avec un radical simple exprimer « la bonne nouvelle »; l'équivalent grec était déjà fourni par les LXX. Saint Paul était plus frappé de l'accomplissement de la prophétie que de l'emploi, probablement très rare, de ce mot à propos des Césars. WW. lisent Christi Iesu.
1:2
ποοεπηγγείλατο, seulement encore IT Cor. 1x, 5 dans le N. T., marque fortement l’antériorité de la promesse divine; d’ailleurs le mot est d'usage profane (Dion Cassius). C'est Dieu qui ἃ parlé dans les Ecritures Saintes; il s'agit d'une prévision de l'avenir. Le mot prophètes ne signifie donc pas ici les interprètes de la divinité, au sens que le mot avait dans les sanctuaires grecs, par exemple à Delphes, mais ceux qui annoncent l'avenir. D'autre part ce ne sont pas non plus seulement ceux que nous nommons les grands ou les petits prophètes; tous les écrivains de l'A. T. pouvaient être prophètes dans ce sens (cf. Jude, v. 14).
1:3
Ces deux versets ont une grande importance et ont été diversement interprétés. Leur contenu est comme le résumé de l'évangile que prèche Paul, et qui a été prédit par Dieu. La prédiction et la prédication actuelle ne supposent pas la même clarté (Eph. nr, 5). Quoique l'évangile soit ici énoncé aussitôt après la mention de sa prédiction par les prophètes, son contenu se rapporte directement à l’enseignement plus clair de Paul luimême. 1] a pour objet le Fils de Dieu. La clef de tout le passage est dans les premiers mots περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ qui nous montrent le Fils de Dieu constitué personnellement dans un état antérieur aux deux sortes de manifestations exprimées dans les deux membres de phrase qui suivent. La personne dont il s’agit est le Fils de Dieu avant toute relation avec l'humanité; le titre de Fils de Dieu n'est donc nullement messianique. « Son Fils à lui », comme s'exprime Paul (44e. le fils de lui), marque même mieux que le terme « Fils de Dieu » sa relation naturelle et unique avec Dieu. τοῦ γενομένου commence un membre de phrase qui a son parallèle au v. 4, γενομένου se trouvant spécialement en opposition avec δρ'σθέντος. γίνομαι marque le devenir par opposition à l'être immuable, un changement d'état, la naissance. Le Fils est né de la race de David. Paul regarde le fait comme acquis; l'opinion universelle des Juifs était bien que le Messie devait être fils de David; c'était pour eux son titre le plus caractéristique (cf. Le Messianisme.… Ρ- 216), conciliable, comme on le voit dans Luc (r, 27 et 35), avec la conception virginale. Mais loin que ce füt son titre de gloire pour Paul, il ajoute χατὰ σάρκα. Quoique ces mots soient opposés à χατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης (v. 4), il ne s’agit point ici de l'opposition entre la chair et l'esprit au sens moral, que nous retrouverons dans l'épitre (νι, 12 etc.). κατὰ σάρκα après ἐχ σπέρματος indique clairement la nature humaine, telle que pouvait la posséder tout descendant de David. Paul affectionne cette expression pour désigner la descendance naturelle (1v, 1; 1x, 3. 5; 1 Cor. x, 18; Gal. 1v, 23. 29. Cf. 1x, 9, les fils de la chair). En grec, σάρξ ne signifie que la chair ou le corps, par opposition à l'âme, mais ce mot, chez les LXX, traduisait LE dont le sens est plus étendu et qui s'applique à tout ce qui est faible, ayant pour opposé la nature divine spirituelle (Gen. vi, 3), et spécialement à la nature humaine telle qu'elle se trouve dans tous les hommes : νῦν ὡς σὰρξ ἀδελφῶν ἡμῶν σὰρξ ἡμῶν, ὡς υἱοὶ ἡμῶν υἱοὶ αὐτῶν (Neh. v, 5). ὁρισθέντος est difficile. ὁρίζειν signifie proprement, comme l'étymologie l'indique, « limiter ». De ce sens est venu tout naturellement celui de définir la définition circonscrit l'objet dans la sphère de l'intelligence. Il est certain aussi que la définition fait connaître l’objet : definitio … quae quasi involutum evolvit id, de quo quaeritur (Cac. Top. 11, 9); maïs, en fait, on ne peut citer aucun exemple de ὁρίζειν dans le sens de déclarer; ceux que cite Cornely ne vont pas plus loin que définir. Il est vrai que Chrys. a entendu de cette façon : « montré, manifesté, jugé tel, reconnu par tout le monde » : δειχθέντος, ἀποφανθέντος, κοιθέντος, éuohoynüévros, et de même Théodoret et les autres Grecs. Mais, dans le silence de la littérature et des écrits de la £oinè maintenant connus, on n'ose s'appuyer sur l'exégèse du 1v° siècle pour fixer le sens du mot au 1°", d'autant que l'interprétation de Chrys. a pu lui être suggérée comme supprimant toute difficulté dogmatique. Il est au contraire certain que δρίζειν s'est développé dans le sens de fixer (papyrus, très souvent), déterminer, régler, constituer (cf. les dictionnaires et l'index de DrrrexserGer, Sylloge), le seul qui paraisse dans le N. T. On trouve spécialement « constituer » en parlant du Sauveur, Act. x, 42 : οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ὡρισμένος ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ χριτὴς ζώντων καὶ νεχρῶν, où Jésus est établi par Dieu Juge des vivants et des morts, et Act. xvir, 31 : μέλλει χρίνειν... ἐν ἀνδρὶ ὦ ὥρισε, Le N. T. va même jusqu'au sens de décrété par la volonté divine (Le. xx, 22; Act. n, 23). Ici le sens de décrété convient moins que celui de constituer, puisqu'il s’agit d'une personne. On décrète de faire telle chose, on constitue une personne dans une dignité. Le sens de constituer est une via media entre « manifesté » qui ne dit pas assez, et « prédestiné » qui dit trop. ὁρισθέντος, leçon unique des mss., ne peut signifier « prédestiné », qui serait προορισθέντος, qu'Eusèbe reprochait à Marcel de lire en corrompant le texte : ὁ δέ, οὐχ οἷδα ποία διανοίᾳ, κἀνταῦθα διαστρέφει τὴν ἀποστολικὴν λέξιν᾽ ἀντὶ τοῦ δρισθέντος ποιήσας προορισθέντος (Ρ. G. XXIV, c. 737; dans l'édition de Klostermann, p. 11; cf. p. 12). C'est probablement par une erreur de mémoire ou par une traduction d’après le latin qu'on trouve προορισθέντος dans Épiphane (P. G. XLI, c. 969). Chez les Latins, destinatus (Iliz. Trin. vu); definitus (TerT. Praz. xxvu); Orig:-lat: IV, 465 : quamvwis enim in latt. exemplaribus praedestinatus soleat inveniri, tamen secundum quod interpretationis veritas habet, destinatus scriptum est, non praedestinatus. Saint Jérôme lui-même (7π Æph. 1, 5) a rejeté nettement pour ὁρισθέντος le sens de prédestiné qu'il reconnaît à προορίσας. Il prétend seulement que le latin ne saurait rendre cette différence : Differentiam vero Graeci sermonis προορίσας et ὁρισθέντος Latinus sermo non explicat, ce qui l’autorisa sans doute à conserver praedestinatus, à la condition de l’entendre autrement que « prédestiné Le P. Cornely a montré que le sens propre de prédestiné n'est appuyé chez les Pères que par l’une des quatre opinions de saint Augustin. L'explication qu'en ἃ donnée saint Thomas conserve en elle-même toute sa valeur comme doctrine théologique, mais n’est pas contenue expressément dans notre passage. Le sens de constituer étant reconnu le plus vraisemblable, on ne peut en conclure que l'Étre en question a été précisément constitué. Fils de Dieu. puisqu'il l'était déjà (v. 3). On ne saurait donc citer ici σὲ γὰρ Θεὸν ὥρισε Δαίμων (4nth. XII, 158). Maïs il a pu être constitué Fils de Dieu par rapport aux hommes, c'est-à-dire que son esprit de sainteté lui donnait droit à être un Messie qui fût vraiment Fils de Dicu, et cette constitution suit la résurrection, en tant qu'elle constitue « en puissance ». La relation du Christ avec Dicu est antérieure à la résurrection et même à l'incarnation (οἵ, Phil. 11, 5 S.), mais ar la résurrection est pour lui la cause d’une exaltation (cf. Phil. n, 9 5.) dans son humanité. Cette œuvre de Dieu est ici caractérisée par ἐν δυνάμει, que l’on peut rapporter soit à δρισθέντος (SH.) soit à υἱοῦ Θεοῦ (Cornely, Lipsius). La seconde manière est la plus naturelle si ὁρισθέντος signifie constitué il sera constitué Fils de Dieu puissant, c'est-à-dire exerçant sa puissance, par opposition à son état d’humiliation dans la chair. Pour ë, ὀυνάμει, « investi de puissance », on peut citer Mec. rx, 1; Le. 1v, 36; [ Cor. xv, 43; Col. 1, 29; I Thess. 1, 5. Ce sens nous parait donc plus sûr que de joindre ἐν δυνάμει à ὀρισθέντος (d'après II Cor. χπι, ἀλλὰ ζῇ ἐκ δυνάμεως Θεοῦ), d'autant qu’alors δρισθέντος devrait signifier ou bien que Jésus ἃ été constitué purement et simplement Fils de Dieu, ce qu'il était déjà, ou bien que Jésus ἃ été déclaré Fils de Dieu {avec puissance) (declared with might SH.); mais nous avons Πρ (Ὁ le sens de déclarer. κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης est particulièrement difficile. Ce terme n'étant employé qu'ici dans le N. T., on ne peut le regarder commé un simple sémitisme pour πνεῦμα ἅγιον, Paul semble avoir voulu éviter l'expression toute faite d'Esprit-Saint. Le mot ἁγιωσύνη qui se trouve quatre fois dans l'A. Τὶ (il n'existe pas au temps du N. T. dans la littér. profane) signifie sainteté, trois fois en parlant de Dieu (Ps. xev [xevil, δ; xevr [xevi], 12; cxziv [exzv], 51, comme un de ses attributs, une fois en parlant du Temple (II Macc. nr, 42). Dans Paul, s’il paraît avoir le sens de sanctification (IE Cor. vu, 1), il a aussi celui de sainteté (I Thess. m1, 13). Le contexte ici indique plutôt la sainteté, car après la résurrection il ne peut être question d’un changement dans le Christ. C'est done un esprit très spécialement saint, ce n'est pas l'Esprit- Saint. Le terme entier ne se retrouve que dans le Testament des XIT patriarches (Lévi, xvinr, 11) : χαὶ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἔσται ἐπ᾽ αὐτοῖς en parlant des élus au Paradis, sans qu'on puisse déterminer si le passage est juif ou chrétien. Quoi qu'il en soit, il ne s'agit pas d'un terme technique, et son sens ici dépend de la pensée de Paul, manifestée par le contexte. On peut l'entendre de deux façons. 1° En suivant le sens de manifesté pour δρισθέντος, le v. 4 est en parallélisme avec le v. 3 comme un simple développement historique. Après l’huiniliation, la manifestation glorieuse du Christ. L'Esprit de Sainteté y a coopéré, par les dons accordés aux premiers fidèles. Cette interprétation se heurte à une triple difficulté : a) ὁρισθέντος ne signifie pas manifesté; δὴ) l'esprit de sainteté n’est pas l'Esprit-Saint; c) χατὰ πνεῦμα opposé à κατὰ sépxx qui est intrinsèque à Jésus doit être plus qu'un don provenant de Jésus ou accordé à son occasion. 2° On admet donc que le πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης est une qualité inhérente au Christ, sa sainteté suréminente. χατὰ πνεῦμα est évidemment en opposition avec κατὰ σάρχα. Si κατὰ σάρχα indique la nature humaine qui a fait du Fils de Dieu un descendant de David, κατὰ πνεῦμα indique nécessairement l'autre être propre du Christ, celui qu'il avait tout d’abord et qui l'autorise à être constitué Fils de Dieu aux yeux de tous. Il n’y a qu'une difficulté à cette interprétation, c'est qu'elle paraît revenir au point de départ, au lieu de développer seulement la situation historique du v. 8. Mais est-il évident que le v. 4 n’est que le développement historique parallèle du v. 3, le côté de vie glorieuse succédant au côté de l'existence humaine ? Oui, si δρισθέντος ne dit rien de plus qu'une manifestation ; non, si ee terme indique une constitution conforme à la nature des choses. Le Fils de Dieu étant devenu homme, a connu des jours de gloire après sa vie; mais ce n’est pas seulement ce que Paul veut dire. Qu'en résulte-t-il pour le Christ lui-même? Après la résurrection, quel est-il? il demeure Fils de Dieu, il est défini, établi Fils de Dieu investi de puissance, comme il convenait à sa nature propre. Cette nature ne peut être que la divinité. Mais Paul ne prononce pas le mot. On ne peut pas conclure la divinité du seul terme d'esprit, car tout ce qui est esprit n’est pas nécessairement synonyme de nature divine. Cependant l'opposition de chair et d’esprit, d'après certains passages de l'A. T. (Gen. νι, 8; Ps, Lvi [Lv] 5; Lxvin [exvu] 39; Job, x, 4; 15. xxx1, 3), met sur la voie de cette conclusion. Et il s’agit de celui qui tout d'abord ἃ été nommé le Fils de Dieu. De sorte que πνεῦμα serait bien une allusion à la nature divine, non pas ρὲ verborum, pourrait-on dire, mais parce que l'esprit est nature divine chez celui qui est à la fois esprit et Fils de Dieu. Ainsi l'opposition des deux versets se résout. On descend et on remonte. Le Christ, devenu fils de David selon la chair, après la résurrection est constitué selon sa nature spirituelle antécédente Fils de Dieu : non pas constitué dans la nature divine, mais dans le rôle de Fils de Dieu dans sa puissance. D’après saint Thomas, si on lit destinatus, planus est sensus. Or destinatus répond assez bien à ὁρισθέντος. ἐξ ἀναστάσεως vexpüv ne fait pas allusion à la résurrection générale des morts, comprenant celle du Christ (contre Cornely}, mais à la résurrection propre du Christ, puisqu'il s’agit d’un événement déjà acquis. La préposition ἐξ pourrait se traduire « par suite de », « en vertu de », ou simplement « à la suite de ». D'après ce qu'on vient de dire, c’est la nature propre du Christ qui le définit Fils de Dieu, qui l’établit dans sa puissance ; la résurrection n’est donc pas la cause de sa gloire; elle en est plutôt la manifestation. D'autre part l'exaltation n’est pas consécutive à la résurrection, qui en est déjà le premier acte. ἐξ marque donc moins que la causalité et plus que la postériorité : une concomitance bien adaptée. Paul nous montre donc d’abord le Fils de Dieu antérieur à toute manifestation historique. Déjà comme tel il est le sujet de son évangile, mais l'évangile s'intéresse à ce qu'il a été dans l'histoire. Il est devenu fils de David par la nature humaine, et rien n'indique que cet état ait été complètement transitoire; cependant il ne marquait pas assez ce qu'est le Christ pour la foi. Conformément à la nature spirituelle très sainte qui était en lui, il a été fixé par la résurrection dans l’état définitif de Fils de Dieu rayonnant dans sa puissance, étant ainsi Jésus-Christ notre Seigneur. Car c'est par là Jésus-Christ ou Messie par son incarnation, devenu le Seigneur des fidèles à sa résurrection. Dans l'interprétation qui précède on ἃ cherché à éviter les difficultés des principaux systèmes proposés. L’explication rationaliste la plus radicale traduirait ainsi : Pour ce qui est du Fils de Dieu, c’est un fils descendant de David selon la chair qui a été constitué ensuite Fils de Dieu à cause de sa sainteté. Maïs on n'obtient ce sens qu'en niant la préexistence du Fils de Dieu, devenu fils de David, préexistence qui n'est pas seulement indiquée ici clairement, mais qui fait partie de la doctrine la plus avérée de Paul (Phil. 1, 5-11) et dans cette épiître même (vin, 3). Il serait spécialement contraire à la doctrine de Paul de prétendre que Jésus est devenu Fils de Dieu à son baptême, puisqu'il l'est déjà avant de devenir homme (1, 3 et vin, 3). Lietzmann qui reconnait ce point, entend comme Holtzmann l'esprit de sainteté de la nature spirituelle du Christ; de même Lipsius. Mais tandis que Lipsius ne précise pas en quoi consiste cet esprit; cette nature, d'après Holtzmann, aurait remplacé la raison dans le Christ incarné, et d'après Lietzmann, aurait été délivrée de la chair à la résurrection. Ce sont là des inductions de fantaisie. Parmi les systèmes catholiques, celui qui se tient le plus strictement au parallélisme historique est celui de Chrys., légèrement modifié dans le résumé de Théodoret : ὅτ: χατὰ σάρχα τοῦ Δαδὶδ ypnuarious υἱός, ὡρίσθη χαὶ ἀπεδείχθη τοῦ Θεοῦ υἱὸς διὰ τῆς ὑπὸ τοῦ παναγίου πνεύματος ἐνεργουμένης δυνάμεως μετὰ τὴν ἐχ νεχρῶν ἀνάστασιν. Saint Thomas entend ainsi la troisième partie, le signe Quod Christus sit Filius Dei in virtute Apparet secundum spiritum sanctificationis, id est secundum quod dat spiritum sanctificantem. Mais on peut opposer à ce système 1° que s’il tient compte du parallélisme général entre les deux membres de la phrase, il ne marque pas assez l'opposition voulue entre les termes eux-mêmes; 2 qu'il entend ὁρισθέντος dans le sens de manifesté, qu'il n'a nulle part ailleurs; 3° qu'il entend le πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης de l'Esprit-Saint, tandis que ce ne peut être qu'une qualité inhérente au Christ, sinon sa nature même, d'autant que si Paul avait voulu parler de l'Esprit- Saint, il eût plutôt dit πνεῦμα ἅγιον. Cornely hésite entre déclarer et constituer pour δρισθέντος. Il entend le πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης de la nature du Christ, avant l'incarnation. Origène s'en était presque tenu au propre sens des termes : Factus est autem sine dubio id quod prius non erat secundum carnem. Secundum spiritum vero erat prius, et non crat quando non erat. Ambrosiaster prononce le mot de divinité : μην qui erat Dei filius secundum spiritum sancium, id est, secundum Deurm (quia Deus spiritus est, et sine dubio sanctus est). C'est aussi ce que fait le P. Cornely qui interprète secundum spiritum sanctificationis par secundum divinam suam naturam. C'est à cette opinion que nous nous sommes rangé, en distinguant ce qui résulte des termes de Paul et ce qu’on peut conclure de leur rapprochement. Dans la Vg. praecdestinatus d’après Cornely serait à changer en definitus qui laisserait libre le choix entre constitutus et declaratus. Quant à Jesu Christi Domini nostri (même WW.), le sens exige évidemment Jesu Christo domino nostro en apposition avec de Filio suo (Corn.}.
1:5
L'objet de l’évangile étant déterminé, Paul en vient au droit et à l'obligation qu'il ἃ de le prêcher. D'après Zahn, il se range ici parmi les Apôtres qui devaient prêcher à tous, Juifs et gentils, à toutes les nations, de sorte qu’il ne résulterait pas de ce passage que les Romains appartenaient surtout aux gentils. Mais il est beaucoup plus probable qu'il parle ici de sa fonction spéciale d’apôtre des gentils. à οὔ, par Jésus-Christ ressuscité, dont l’action sur Paul a été particulièrement directe et sensible. ἐλάδομεν ne peut s'entendre de tous les chrétiens qui ont bien reçu la grâce, maïs non l'apostolat, ni de tous les apôtres que rien ne désigne. Il est certain que Paul a employé le pluriel pour le singulier à la manière des écrivains IT Cor. τ, 12 ss.; I Cor. ix, 11 ss., avec alternance du singulier, et dans Rom. 11, 7-8. C'est le cas ici, quoique le singulier paraisse seul dans le début, parce que le pluriel a quelque chose d’officiel qui convient à la déclaration d'autorité. χάριν za ἀποστολήν n’est pas la grâce de l’apostolat (par hendiadyn, Chrys.); ou en apposition, la grâce qui est l’apostolat (Corr.), mais la grâce et l'apostolat. Paul a d'abord trouvé grâce dans sa conversion que les Romains ne pouvaient ignorer. — Dans le grec du temps, ἀποστολή « envoi » était le nomen actionis de ἀποστέλλω (Moulton et Millisan), tandis qu'ici c'est la fonction de l'äxésroos, Dans εἰς ὑπαχοὴν πίστεις, le mot ὑπαχοή semble exiger un objet, indiquant à qui on obéit, comme 11 Cor. x, 5; 1 Pet. 1, 22; Act. vi, 7 ὑπήχουον τῇ πίστει (Corn., Lietz.}. La foi ne signifierait pas précisément un corps de doctrines bien coordonné, mais cependant une proposition faite à l'intelligence (SH.). L'intelligence se rend à l'autorité de Dieu; elle ne juge pas par elle-même les vérités qui lui sont proposées, elle obéit. Ces idées sont bien pauliniennes. Mais πίστεως peut être le gén. subj. : l’obéissance qui est l’adhésion de la foi, et ce sens paraît plus probable en tête de l'épître qui va précisément exposer la valeur de la foi qui est l'adhésion au christianisme (Ἀπ). ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν. Les ἔθνη sont toujours les gentils comme distincts des Juifs, et que Paul dise πάντα τὰ ἔθνη n’y change rien (cf. xv, 11). 1] dit πᾶσιν parce que sa mission s'étend en droit à tous les gentils et qu'il voudrait en fait l'exercer sur tous; il fallait une expression universelle pour embrasser aussi les Romains. Paul allègue donc ici son droit propre, Gal. u, 7. ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, pour que Jésus soit connu tel qu'il vient d'être défini, et par suite révéré comme le Seigneur. — La Vg. ad obediendum fidei est pour le sens objectif. Le sens subjectif serait ad obediendum per fidem. Ce que propose Corn. comme plus clair ad obedientiam fidei in omnibus gentibus cfjiciundam laisserait au contraire subsister l'équivoque.
1:6
ἐν οἷς entendu (Zahn) du domaine entier de l'humanité, Juifs et gentils, ne signifierait plus rien. Nous avons donc ici une preuve que la communauté de Rome appartenait de jure au monde des gentils. χλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, non pas appelés par Jésus-Christ, mais appelés faisant partie des fidèles de Jésus-Christ (gén. de possession). Paul ne veut pas dire par καὶ ὑμεῖς que les Romains sont appelés comme lui-même, mais qu'eux aussi ont eu le bonheur d’être appelés. Il y ἃ une légère coupure non pas avant, mais après xa ὑμεῖς.
1:7
Paul indique enfin à qui il s'adresse; le v. 7 eût pu se placer après le v. 1, sans la parenthèse amenée par le mot εὐαγγέλιον, Sur l’omission de ἐν ‘Péun par certains mss. (G 9), cf. Zntroduction, chap. vu. Paul veut dire aux fidèles de Rome quelque chose d'agréable. Mais pénétré comme il l’est en écrivant cette lettre de l'autorité du choix divin, il les nomme aimés de Dieu (cf. I Thess. 1, 4 ἀδελφοὶ Ayxrnuévo: ὑπὸ θεοῦ) avant de répéter qu'ils sont appelés, mot qui revient pour la troisième fois. xAnvoïs ἁγίοις doit avoir le même sens que dans 1 Cor. 1, 2 où ces mots sont précédés de ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ qui les expliquent. De mème que les Israélites étaient un peuple saint (Dt. vu, 6; xiv, 2. 21: xxvr, 19; xxvin, 9; οἵ. Ex. x1x, 6) parce que Dieu en avait fait son peuple, les chrétiens, groupés par un appel, par une vocation spéciale, sont saints comme appartenant à Jésus- Christ, et, de plus, comme participants à sa vie, ainsi que Paul l'expliquera plus loin. Si en effet la sainteté a tout d’abord signifié surtout ce qui est séparé du profane, l'idée avait pris un sens positif marquant la perfection. La littér. profane n'applique pas cet adjectif aux hommes. Χάρις καὶ εἰρήνη avec le verbe sous-entendu, paraît être une création de Paul. Du moins cette formule qu'il affectionne (toutes les épitres, sauf I et II Tim.) ne se retrouve nulle part avant lui. La lettre des Juifs dans II Macc. 1, 1 y prélude cependant en joignant au yaig:w grec εἰρήνην ἀγαθήν qui répond au Dow hébreu, si fréquent dans les inscriptions nabatéennes, où il ne signifie plus guère que « salut! ».On pourrait done supposer qu'il n'y a ici que Ja fusion de deux modes courants de saluer, si Paul ne leur avait donné une signification religieuse. A l'exemple de Noé {Gen. vr, 8), tout bon Israélite espérait trouver grâce devant le Seigneur, c'est-à-dire lui être agréable et être assuré de sa faveur, et la paix était un de ses dons les plus précieux (Ps. Lxxxv [zxxxiv], 8; exix [exvim], 165), surtout s'il s'agissait de la paix faite avec Dieu (15. Lin, 5). La paix ajoute à la grâce la stabilité. Ces faveurs éminentes viennent toujours de Dieu le Père, mais aussi désormais du Seigneur Jésus-Christ. Jésus est sur le mème rang que Dieu, distinet de lui cependant en quelque manière, l'un est le Père, l’autre le Seigneur (οἵ, I Cor. vui, 6), et, comme Paul vient de le dire, le Fils.
1:8
Πρῶτον μέν, comme πρὸ μὲν πάντων (T'ebtynis, 412, fin. du πιὸ 5.) ou πρὸ τῶν ὅλων (Tebt. 418, τ 5.} ou πρὸ μὲν πάντων εὔχομαί σε ὑγιαίνειν (BU. 423, οἵ. Fayoum, 127). En pareil cas μέν n'est pas suivi de δέ, pas plus dans les papyrus qu'ici. Il n’y ἃ donc pas à chercher une sorte d'apodose au v. 10 (contre Cornely, Lipsius). Dans les papyrus, l'expression de la prière est plus fréquente que celle de la reconnaissance, qui domine dans Paul (1 Cor. τ, &; Phil. 1, 3; Col. 1, 3; I Thess. 1, 2; II Thess. 1, 3; II Tim. τ, 8; Philém.. 4); on peut cependant citer, quoique l'action de grâces soit moins au début, Hib. pap. "79, vers 260 av. J.-C. : τοῖς θεοῖς πολλὴ χάζρι]ς; Kenyon, 30; BU. 423. L'adj. possessif après θεός est très rare dans le N. T. Paul dit « mon Dieu» {dans le même contexte Phil. 1, 3; Philém. 4; peut-être 1 Cor. 1, 4 et dans un autre contexte Phil. 1v, 49), comme les psalmistes, avec un sentiment très profond de ses relations intimes avec l’Étre suprême et infini. Il est probable qu'on ne trouverait pas cette alliance de mots chez les écrivains profanes (sur le dieu d’une personne chez les Sémites, cf. ΚΕ δ. p. 82. 117. 462). Par διὰ Ἰησοῦ, Paul reconnaît Jésus comme médiateur entre lui et celui que cependant il appelait son Dieu (ef. vir, 25). I] expliquera plus loin comment par Jésus on pénètre auprès du Père (ν, 1-2). Origène : Agere autem Deo gratias, hoc est sacrificium laudis offerre, et ideo addit per Jesum Christum; selut per pontificem magnum. ὃ. Thomas : Fodem enim ordine debet gratiarum actio in Deum recurrere quo gratiae a Deo in nos deveniunt, quod quidem est per Jesum Christum. Πίστις marque ici l'adhésion des Romains au christianisme; Ambrosiaster quod cum Romani regnarent in mundo, subjecerint se fidei Christianae, quae prudentibus saceculi humilis et stulta videtur (cf. Orig.). I] ne faut ni restreindre la portée de cet éloge ni l'exagérer (ef. 1 Thess. 1, 8). D'après Cornely la foi des Romains ttait supérieure à celle des autres et leur servait de modéle; il cite pour cela s. Thomas dont il écourte le texte, car s. Thomas ajoute : Nondum tamen perfectam fidem habebant (cf. Chrys.). Paul ne dit ni que cette foi était supérieure à celle des autres, ni qu'elle fût encore imparfaite. D'ailleurs la conversion d’un groupe de Romains avait plus d'importance, et la renommée s'en est répandue sans doute plus vite dans le monde dont Rome était la capitale. C'était certes un sujet de rendre grâce à Dieu. D'autre part περὶ πάντων indique bien que dans l’ensemble la communauté de Rome était unie dans la mème foi irréprochable. περί n’est pas pour ὑπέρ dans le sens de « pour », puisque le verbe n'est pas « prier mais « rendre grâce ». Si ὑπέρ s'emploie couramment dans la koinè pour περί, C'est qu'il a pris le sens de περί. La Vg. pro omnibus suppose ὑπὲρ πάντων (recension antiochienne), qui pourrait signifier « au nom de tous »; περὶ πάντων est : de omnibus, relate ad omnes.
1:9
Paul affectionne cette attestation solennelle (IT Cor. 1, 23; Phil. τ, 8; 1 Thess. n, 5. 10; cf. II Cor. x1, 81; Gal. v, 3; Rom. 1x, 1). Dieu était ici le seul témoin, puisque Paul, inconnu des Romains, parlait d'eux à Dieu dans ses prières. λατρεύω n'a pas toujours le sens précis de servir Dieu par le culte (λειτουργεῖν) : toute λειτουργία est une λατρεία, mais toute λατρεία n’est pas une λειτουργία. La définition de s. Aug. (De εἰν. Dei, x, 1. 2) est donc trop étroite : λατρεία secundum consuetudinem, qua locuti sunt qui nobis divina eloquia condiderunt, aut semper, aut tam frequenter ut paene semper, ea dicitur servitus quae pertinet ad colendum Deum. Ici le service que Paul rend à Dieu, c’est de prêcher l'Évangile, quantum ad officium in quo servit (Thom.}, comme tout le monde l'entend. Mais ἐν τῷ πνεύματί μου est moins clair. Thomas propose deux explications : non solum in exteriori servitio corporali, sed praectipue interius secundum spiritum (SI, Corn. etc.), ou bien : in spiritu, id est in spiritualibus observantiis, non in carnalibus, sicut Judaci (Lipsius qui cite 1, 28). Le premier sens doit être préféré, parce que Paul dit « dans mon esprit »; le principal appui de la seconde opinion serait Phil. πὶ, 3, cité par Thomas, mais le texte critique est différent de celui de la Fg., πνεύματι θεοῦ λατρεύοντες et non spiritu servimus Deo. Paul n’est point encore entré dans la question spéciale de l'épitre ; il s'en tient à des idées générales intelligibles à tous. — τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ indique que le Fils de Dieu est l’objet de l'évangile; gén. objectif et non plus gén. d'auteur comme v. 1. — ὡς est pour ὅτι (Va. quod), d'après Lietz., mais cet usage est limité (Moulton, 211); il faut donc laisser à ὡς son sens propre. Dieu n'est pas seulement témoin que Paul prie; il voit comment la pensée des Romains lui est toujours présente. μνείαν ποιοῦμαι, faire mémoire de quelqu'un dans la prière, déjà Pap. Brut. Mus. 42, 6 : σοῦ διαπαντὸς μνείαν ποιούμενοι, en 168 av. J.-C.; cf. Μνίαν σου ποιού-- μενὸς παρὰ τοῖς [ἐν]θάδε θεοῖς (BU. (11), 632, 5 s.), du ne siècle ap. J.-C. Non seulement on citait les noms dans la prière, mais on les inscrivait dans les sanctuaires {proscynèmes), « comme une prière perpétuelle » (Brit. Mus. Pap. 854, 12). — Thomas : Εἰ sic dum sancti pro aliquibus orant, quodammodo divino aspectui proponuntur. I} n'est pas inutile d’avoir constaté l'usage profane; il prouve qu'il faut faire une pause après ποιοῦμαι, Tout d’abord Paul a sans cesse les Romains dans sa pensée devant Dieu, il les lui. recommande en général. Cette ponctuation évite la redondance pénible si ἀδιαλείπτως et πάντοτε se rapportaient au même objet (d'après Corn., avec les Grecs contre les Latins).
1:10
πάντοτε se rapporte en effet à δεόμενος : chaque fois que Paul prie il fait une demande particulière de venir à Rome. Après Geousvos on attendrait ὅπως, ou, dans le style de la koënè, ἵνα, tandis que εἴ πὼς marque une prière particulièrement soumise à la volonté de Dieu. Paul lui expose un désir, mais un désir ancien, ἤδη ποτέ « maintenant enfin »; Cf. Phil. 1v, 10 — ποτέ ne donne pas tout à fait à ἤδη le sens du passé comme dans Homère, mais indique qu'il est bien temps. Lietz. cite Épictète, III, 24, 9 οὐκ ἀπογαλαχτίσομεν ἤδη ποθ᾽ ἑαυτούς; — Le passif dans εὐοδέω indique déjà l'action divine, comme la causalité toujours présente quand une autre n'est pas marquée (cf. Le Messianisme... 43); ἐν τῷ θελήματι τοῦ θεοῦ, qu'il faut joindre à εὐοδωθήσομαι, accentue la dépendance vis-à-vis des desseins de Dieu. Le sens primitif du verbe, « avoir un chemin facile », et non pas simplement « réussir », est parfaitement compatible avec ἐλθεῖν, en sous-entendant ὥστε. Dans Vg. si quomodo, ou plutôt si forte. Elle a gardé le sens étymologique, prosperum iter habeam, mais ἃ négligé la nuance du passif. Érasme : prosperum iter contingat, volente Deo, ut veniam ad vos.
1:11
γάρ spécialise la pensée. — μεταδιδόναι est assez bien traduit par impartiri (Vg.) qui signifie faire part de, communiquer {contre Cornely). Paul veut transmettre aux Romains ce qu’il a reçu, quelque grâce spirituelle, non point au sens des charismes, ou grâces gratis datae, mais au sens de la grâce intérieure, c’est-à-dire plutôt au sens du mot dans notre épître (v, 15. 16; νι, 23) qu'au sens des charismes dans 11 Cor. x. A tout le moins il s'agirait d’un des charismes meilleurs de II Cor. x11, 31, qualifié ici de spirituel. Que les Romains aient eu besoin d’être fortifiés par un Apôtre, cela n'indique pas que leur foi ait été mal assise ou mélée de doctrines suspectes, mais enfin ils pouvaient encore gagner beaucoup. Un latin plus littéral que Vg. : ut aliquod impertiar donum vobis spiritale.
1:12
Cependant l'\pôtre parait craindre d'avoir montré trop d'assurance sur un terrain qui n'est pas le sien. Il explique sa pensée (τοῦτο dé ἐστιν, comme vu, 48) en lui donnant une tournure encore plus modeste; συνπαραχληθῆναι est donc non pas tant dépendant rigoureusement de εἰς τό, que rattaché comme une explication à l'idée exprimée par στηριχηῆναι, Le P. Cornely, toujours très soucieux de mettre dans un relief que n'a connu aucun exégète les vertus des Romains, suppose que συνπαραχληθῆναι signilic corroborart, être fortifié. Mais παραχαλέω ne signilie gutre qu’exhorter ou consoler. Ici l'idée de consolation est seule possible puisque l’objet en est une foi mutuelle. Quelque haute idée qu'il ait euc des Romains, Paul ne pouvait oublier son role d'Apôtre. — ἐν ἀλλήλοις au lieu de ἀλλήλων qui cadrerait mieux avec ὑμῶν τε χαὶ ἐμοῦ, mais qui dépeindrait moins bien; ils constatent la foi les uns dans les autres; c'est la même, quoique non pas au même degré.
1:13
οὐ θέλω ὃὲ ὑμᾶς ἀγνοεῖν, tournure favorite de Paul, x1, 25; I Cor. x, 1; χα, 1; Π Cor. 1, 8; I Thess. iv, 13, et toujours avec ἀδελφοί, cf. πιστεύω σε μὴ ἀγνοεῖν ἢ. Tebt. τι, 314, 3 (n° 5. ap. J.-C.), dans Moulion et Milligan. Ce v. et le suivant mettent en jeu son activité propre, comme les précédents la dispensation de Dieu; les deux choses sont évidemment coordonnées, mais Paul tient à marquer ses dispositions personnelles. — καὶ ἐκωλύθην ἄγο!: τοῦ δεῦοο est vraisemblablement une parenthèse; Lietz. préfère supposer qu'après à:5:0 la pensée évolue librement comme il arrive dans les lettres. — Il ne faut pas chercher une cause surnaturelle immédiate de l'obstacle, comme si Paul avait été arrêté par l'inspiration de l'Esprit-Saint icf. Act. χνι, 6) ou entravé par Satan (1 Thess. π΄. 18; ef. II Cor. xu, 7); ila été empéche par la multitude de ses travaux (xv, 22; Corn.). La métaphore du fruit spirituel est fréquente dans saint Jean. Paul se proposait sans doute non seulement d'arroser (1 Cor. ur, 8; 1x, 10] l'Église de Rome, mais encore d'y faire des plantations nouvelles par la conversion des gentils. Dans Vg, au lieu de Labeam, lire haberem. 1%} Ordinairement dans le N. T., et spécialement dans notre épitre, les Hellènes sont les païens par opposition aux Juifs. Ici les païens viennent d’être qualifiés ἔθνη, et les Ἕλληνες en sont une partie, par opposition aux barbares. À l'origine c'était une distinction de langue; mais il serait étrange que cette distinction ait persévéré avec ce sens sous l'Empire romain, d’une part parce que les Romains eussent été ainsi compris parmi les Barbares, d'autre part parce qu'on parlait grec partout dans l'Empire, si ce n'est précisément en Occident. Ainsi Hellènes doit signifier les peuples de culture gréco-romaine, et les grandes villes; les barbares sont tous les autres. Sur cet emploi des mots, cf. Ῥεῦτ. Mor. 113 A et surtout. δέν. De ira, II, 2: nulla gens est, quam non ira instiget, tam inter Graios quam barbaros potens, qui marque aussi une différence dans le degré de culture (cf. De ira, III, 17). La seconde division, σοφοῖς καὶ ἀνοήτοις, semble plutôt applicable aux individus. Même chez les peuples civilisés on pouvait trouver des personnes avisées et des gens obtus. — ὀφειλέτης n'indique pas une dette au sens strict, mais une obligation morale; cf. Rom. vu, 42; xv, 27; Gal. v, 8. et Sopu. Ajax, 590.
1:15
οὕτως presque comme itaque (Ambrst.). — D'après beaucoup de modernes τὸ … πρόθυμον serait pour ἡ προθυμία, cf. Jos. Ant. IV, vit, 13; II Macc. ν, 26; κατ᾽ ἐμέ serait pour l'adject. poss., cf. Act, χνπι, 15; xxvI, 8; Eph. 1, 15; on sous-entend ἐστίν (Corn., Lipsius, Liets., Preuschen). Les exemples sont peu probants; aussi d'autres font de τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ le sujet et de πρόθυμον l’attribut. De cette façon τὸ κατ᾽ ἐμέ prend une importance spéciale : « pour ce qui me regarde », si, de son côté, Dieu y consent. On objecte qu'il eût fallu mettre πρόθυμος, Car τὸ xar’ ἐμέ ne signifie pas « ce qui est de moi » (est prêt), mais « pour ce qui me regarde » (je suis prêt). Mais pour répondre à l’objection il suffit de sous-entendre ἐστί et de mettre τὸ zar°’ ἐμέ entre parenthèses comme a fait la Κα. dont le texte est à conserver.
1:16
L'interprétation la plus commune met l'accent sur παντί, et fait deux catégories des Juifs et des gentils, les Juifs ayant un privilège sur les gentils. D'où l'idée principale serait que l’évangile contient le salut pour tous, sans distinction de Juifs et de gentils, en maintenant cependant en faveur des premiers une sorte de privilège inexpliqué. Mais Cajetan avait déjà compris que Juifs et gentils étaient ici sur le même pied, et ce système repris par Klostermann, Zahn et Kühl nous paraît beaucoup plus conforme au contexte; l'accent est donc sur πιστεύοντι, sur la foi qui s'impose à tous. C’est dans ce sens que nous expliquons les détails. où γὰρ ἐπαισχύνομαι montre bien que Paul ἃ dans la pensée sa théorie de 1 Cor.1, 18 s.; 11, 4. À la pensée de prêcher à Rome, il eût pu éprouver une certaine confusion; c'était le théâtre splendide où tous les orateurs et les poètes sc donnaient rendez-vous et se recrutaient un public pour leurs lectures et déclamations. Paul sait très bien qu’il ne peut pas lutter avec eux pour les grâces du style. Cependant il ne rougit pas de l'évangile, parce que la force de l’'évangile n’est pas dans la manière élégante dont il est présenté. — τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, d'après les uns la prédication de l’évangile; d'après les autres le contenu de l’évangile. C’est probablement tout un pour Paul, un λόγος qui est à la fois pensée et parole : 6 λόγος γὰρ ὃ τοῦ σταυροῦ τοῖς μὲν... τοῖς δὲ σωζομέvots ἡμῖν δύναμις Θεοῦ ἐστιν (1 Cor. 1, 18). L'évangile est une puissance nouvelle qui va à la conquête du monde, puissance divine, c’est-à-dire qui tient son eficacité de Dieu. Les vérités qu’il propose sont de nature à assurer le salut pour quiconque croit. σωτηρία. On s'est beaucoup préoccupé, depuis quelques années, de l’idée de salut dans le monde hellénistique, et l’on a insisté, plus ou moins fortement, sur l'influence qu’elle a pu avoir sur le christianisme, A l'origine le salut est la délivrance de tout péril qui menace, guerre, maladie, périls de mer, fléaux divers, surtout la mort. C'est surtout pour être délivré de ces périls qu'on a recours à la divinité. Elle est donc naturellement gwzp Où σώτειρα, que le nom soit détaché comme nom propre, ou qu'il soit employé comme épithète, ce qui fut le plus fréquent. Lorsque, vers la fin du vie siècle avant J.-C., on commença à se préoccuper davantage des périls qui attendaient l'âme après la mort, et du secours qu’on pouvait attendre de certaines divinités, il était naturel que le salut prit une nuance eschatologique. Cependant, en fait, ni le verbe σῴζειν ni l'épithète de « Sauveur » ne furent employés très ouvertement dans ce sens. IL est faux que l'épithète ait été en usage de préférence pour les dieux infernaux comme le prétendait Wobbermin (Religionsgeschichiliche Studien sur Frage der Beeinflussung des Urchristentums durch das antike Mysterienwesen, p. 25 et 105); elle fut appliquée quoique rarement à la Koré d'Éleusis, mais jamais à Déméter (art. Soteira, dans Roscner). On croit que Posidonius (ir siècle av. J.-C.) a employé σῴζειν au sens eschatologique (WVExDLaxD, Arch. Gesch. Phil. I, p. 208), mais σωτηρία dans ce sens ne se trouve que dans la littérature hermétique, c'est-à-dire tout au plus au πὸ siècle ap. J.-C. Ainsi que Paul, Hermès regarde le déluge de l'ignorance comme l'obstacle au salut : à γὰρ τῆς ἀγνωσίας χαχία ἐπιχλύζει πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν μὴ ἐῶσα ἐνορμίζεσθαι τοῖς τῆς σωτηρίας λιμέσι (Corp. Herm. VII, 1 s.; cf. IX, 5). Les Hymnes orphiques parlent souvent de σωτῆρες, σωτήριοι, σῴζειν (11, 15; IX, 12; XIV, 8 etc. cités par Wohbermin, op. ἰ. p. 48, note 2), mais dans un sens très vague, et on ne saurait les dater d'avant l'ère chrétienne. C’est seulement au temps de l'empire que l'idée du salut prit corps dans les mystères. Encore est-il que le salut consiste à obtenir l’immortalité bienheureuse, à échapper aux périls de l'enfer ou aux embüches des démons, à se purifier par les rites et l’ascèse, non à être délivré du péché par le pardon (même RerTzENsTEIN, Poimandres, p. 180, note 1). D'autre part, depuis les successeurs d'Alexandre, on s'était accoutumé en Orient à décerner aux souverains l'épithète de σωτήρ, qu'on appliqua à l'empereur, mais naturellement sans aucune nuance eschatologique ou morale (WENDLAND, σωτήρ, dans ZNTW. 1904, p. 335 ss.), ce qui prouve bien que le paganisme continuait à envisager le salut dans l'ordre temporel. Les LXX devaient emprunter à l’hellénisme un terme correspondant à l'hébreu τὴ. Chez les Hébreux aussi la délivrance s'entendait des maux physiques qui menacent la vie (Jud. xv, 18; I Regn. x1, 9. 13). Ordinairement il s'agissait du salut de la nation, comme pour la Salus romaine. C'est le thème des Juges : Dieu intervient périodiquement pour sauver (Jud. τι, 16 ss.); de là le caractère religieux du salut de la nation (Is. xzvr, 13; LI, 10) qui suppose la pénitence et la fidélité, Le sens moral est donc antérieur chez les Juifs au sens eschatologique pur. D'ailleurs le « salut » était tout indiqué pour marquer les temps messianiques, et spécialement s’il s'agissait d'échapper aux périls des derniers temps ou à la perte définitive pour posséder la vie éternelle (εἰς σωτηρίαν opposé à εἰς ἀπώλειαν, Ps. Salom. xvi, 5; cf. mi, 6; x, 9; χιι, 7; χν, 8; cf. salutare meum, IV Esdr. vi, 25; 1x, 8). Le développement des idées et des termes est donc parfaitement logique au sein du judaïsme; il attendait le salut du Messie (Le. 1, 68. 71. 77), qui devait done être le Sauveur (1.6. 11, 11), surtout dans l’ordre moral {Mt. 1, 21). Qualifier Jésus de Sauveur par opposition à Auguste, c’eût été le diminuer, non le grandir, restreindre son rôle au bonheur de ce monde. Et cependant emprunter l’idée du salut aux mystères, c'eût été nier que le salut était déjà commencé par le Messie. Or, ainsi que d'autres réalités à la fois messianiques et eschatologiques, le règne de Dieu, la vie, on peut dire du salut qu'il est commencé et actuel (II Cor. 1, 6; νι, 2; vu, 10; Eph. τ, 13; cf. Rom. vu, 24), ou qu'ilest à venir et définitif (Rom. x, 11; Phil. 1, 19; IX Tim. nr, 10; cf. Rom. v, 9; I (ον. αἰ, 15; v. 5). Ici il s'agit du salut définitif auquel la vertu de Dieu conduit ceux qui croient, la délivrance de la mort spirituelle et l'acquisition de la vie éternelle (cf. Ueber σώζειν und seine Derivata im Neuen Testament, par W. Wagner, ZNTW. 1905, p. 205 ss.). — πρῶτον est omis par B Gg Terr. Ade. Mare. V, 13. L'omission est peutêtre due à Marcion (Soden) auquel le privilège des Juifs devait paraître insupportable; οἵ, Introduction, ch. vu. πρῶτον étant certain, on peut entendre la phrase de deux manières. a) En traduisant : « à commencer par le Juif et le Grec ». C’est, semble-t-il, ce qu'exige la grammaire. En grec τε... χαί marque l'union intime des deux objets ainsi rapprochés (Küaxer-Gerx., II, 2, p. 249), alors même qu'il y ait naturellement entre eux une certaine opposition, ἀγαθά τε χαὶ χαχά, « les bonnes choses aussi bien que les mauvaises ». Donc, qu'on soit disposé comme les Juifs à traiter l'évangile de scandale, ou qu'on le traite de folie comme les gentils, il n'en est pas moins la puissance de Dieu, et c’est pour cela que Paul n’en rougit pas. De cette facon on prend Ἕλλην dans le même sens qu'au v. 14, c'est-à-dire les Grecs comme représentants de la culture, tandis que, dans l'opinion commune, Ἕλλην aurait ici un autre sens, celui de gentils opposés aux Juifs: On ne saurait objecter que Paul n’a pu constituer un privilège en faveur des gens cultivés (Corn.). De cela il n’est pas question. Paul dit seulement que le devoir de croire s'impose tout d’abord, et même aux gens les plus cultivés; aux Juifs (dans le sens johannique) fiers de leur connaissance des Écritures’ et aux Grecs fiers de leur esprit. Zahn cite comme phrase analogue Eus® “Ποῖος. proph. VIT, 26 : αὐτῷ τε πρότερον τῷ λαῷ) χαὶ τοῖς τὴν: πόλιν ἐνοιχοῦσι πολίταις ἔπειτα Où χαὶ τῷ ναῷ, Il est vrai que dans ce cas l'opposition est clairement exprimée, mais à propos du texte de Paul il va sans dire que si Juifs et gentils sont tenus de croire, les autres aussi; Paul se doit à tous, mais il ne craint pas d'affronter ceux qui sont redoutables par leurs prétentions et de leur indiquer, à eux les premiers, leur devoir de croire. Le capitulum du cod. Amiatinus (avec K M O V Z ap. WW.) : de gentibus grecis ac barbaris et primatu iudaeorum atque grecorum, suppose la traduction indiquée par la grammaire. Erasme : judaeo primum simul et graeco. ὁ) L'usage ordinaire de τε ... χαί n’est pas décisif. On ne peut dans l'explication de ce passage se soustraire à l’analogie de τι, 9. 10. D'autant que d'après Paul c'est par un dessein de Dieu que l’évangile a été proposé d'abord aux Juifs. Dans toutes ses considérations sur la vertu de l'évangile, Paul tiendra toujours compte des faits historiques qui l'ont précédé. Nous n'hésitons donc pas à suivre l’opinion commune qui joint πρῶτον au Juif seul, mais en insistant sur le sens chronologique du mot.
1:17
Sur δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, cf. RB. 1914, p. 321-343 et 179 ss. Ce peut être la justice qui appartient à Dieu (gén. possessif) ou la justice qu'il donne à l'homme (gén. de l’auteur). Si ce passage était isolé dans la doctrine de Paul, on préférerait le premier sens : 1) c'est le sens des mots dans l’A.T., spécialement quand il y a révélation, ἀπεκάλυψεν τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ (Ps. xevir [xeviu], 2) ; 2) la colère de Dieu qui se révèle (v. 18) est en parallélisme avec la justice de Dieu; or cette colère est bien la colère propre à Dieu; 8) la manifestation de la justice doit correspondre à la manifestation de la colère, c'est l'œuvre de Dieu; 4) on pourrait ajouter que dans cette même épître il est question de la justice attribut de Dieu (ur, 5). Le sens serait donc que la justice, attribut de Dieu, se manifeste dans l'Évangile. Mais comment? — par la foi de ceux qui croient. Donc l'homme est par sa foi acteur dans cette manifestation. Comment Paul l'entend-il ? Il l'a expliqué très clairement, en opposant la justice de l’homme, appuyée sur la loi, et la justice qui vient de la foi au Christ; or celle-ci est précisément la justice qui vient de Dieu : μὴ ἔγων ἐμὴν δικαιοσύνην τὴν ἐκ νόμου, ἀλλὰ τὴν διὰ πίστεως Χριστοῦ, τὴν ἐχ θεοῦ δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ τῇ πίστει (Phil. πὶ, 9). Ce passage, très clair, donne la clef de τι, 22, dans notre épitre, où se trouve le terme δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ, ce qui nous permet de remonter à 1, 17. La justice de Dicu est donc la justice donnée par Dieu à l’homme, qui ἃ sa racine dans la foi; elle est révélée non pas précisément par la foi. mais dans le fait de l'évangile, ἐν αὐτῷ, parce que ce don de Dieu, d’abord caché, est maintenant révélé au monde (cf. mm, 21 5.1. Cette interprétation de la justice subjective, proposée par Aug. et Chrys. (cf. Cornely), Thomas (ici alternative avec l’autre interprétation}, est aujourd'hui très commune (Cornely, Lipsius, Titius, Lietz., Zahn, contre Tobae, Kühletc.). Schaefer et SIT. ont essayé de combiner les deux sens : mais comment le même mot peut-il signifier dans le même contexte un attribut de Dieu et un don de Dieu {Corn.}? Il est d'ailleurs bien évident que la justice de l'homme procède de la justice de Dieu. On répondra donc aux arguments d'abord proposés que Paul ne s’est pas tenu au sens normal du mot d'après l'A. T., au moment où il inaugurait une théologie fondée sur le fait nouveau de l’évangile ; le passage cité (ni, 5) ἃ gardé Le sens ancien d’ailleurs parfaitement justifié en soi; c'est une question de contexte. Le rapprochement avec le v. 18 est plus apparent que réel; l'idée de justice doit être expliquée d'après le concept de Paul, non d’après une antithèse incomplète. D'ailleurs Cornely ne saurait prétendre que l’exégèse du v. 17 est tranchée par l'autorité du Concile de Trente, qui n’a pas entendu expliquer ce verset en disant que la cause formelle de la justification est iustitia Dei, non qua ipse iustus est sed qua nos iustos facit (Sess. VI, cap. 5); le concile condamnait une doctrine protestante, certainement contraire à la doctrine de Paul, sans prétendre fixer l'exégèse de notre verset, auquel il ne fait aucune allusion. D'après Luther, tous les docteurs à l'exception de 5. Augustin ont entendu cette justice au sens que Dieu est juste et qu'il punit ceux qui sont dans le péché. Le P. Denifle a montré que tous les docteurs l'ont entendu au contraire de la justice qui nous justifie, et a fourni comme preuve soixantesix extraits (Die abendländischen Schriftausleger bis Luther über iustitia Dei (Rom. 1, 17) und iustificatio). — ἐχ πίστεως εἰς πίστιν se rapporte plus à διχαιοσύνη qu'à ἀποχαλύπτεται, La justice donnée par Dieu à l'homme suppose chez lui la foi. Quant au sens de ἐχ et de εἰς, c'est un hébraïsme, comme ἐκ δυνάμεως εἰς δύναμιν (Ps. ΤΥΧΧΧΠῚ [Lxxx1v], 8), de même que ἐκ θανάτου εἰς θάνατον … ἐκ ζωῆς εἰς ζωήν (II Cor. τι, 16), pour marquer un progrès croissant et constant (Caimet, SH.; Lipsius etc.) Il faut donc l'entendre dans un sens très large, et surtout ne point opposer la foi à la foi comme l'Ancien Testament au Nouveau, la fidélité de Dieu à l'adhésion de l’homme, ou entendre in fidem comme in omnes credentes {Corn.), ou encore : de la foi de l’assentiment à la confiance du salut (Weiss). En un mot : la justice de Dieu, le pardon, la grâce de Dieu, se manifestent dans l’évangile, et la foi, qui en est le principe, grandit sans cesse. Puisque Paul vient de dire que la justice de Dieu est révélée dans l’évangile, il ne prétend pas que l'A. T. contenait la même vérité d'une façon aussi explicite. Calmet : « Habacue, dont ce passage esttiré, voulait dire que ceux des Juifs qui croiraient en Dieu, et qui mettraient leur confiance en ses promesses, seraient délivrés de la captivité de Babylone. Saint Paul en fait l'application aux Justes du Nouveau Testament... La captivité de Babylone était la figure de l'état du péché... La foi des Israélites était le symbole de celle des bons Chrétiens. » C’est la seule mänière raisonnable d'entendre cette citation. Il est clair que l’ancien prophète ne parlait nullement en termes exprès de la vie éternelle {contre Corn. et Knab.). Dès lors il importe assez peu que Paul ait eu l'intention de se tenir de plus près au texte du prophète et ait ponctué : le juste — vivra de la foi, ou qu'il ait ponctué” celui qui est juste en vertu de la foi, — vivra. Ce second sens correspond mieux à l'argumentation qui précède et parait indiqué Gal. nt, 11. Paula suivi les LXX, en conservant δέ qui n'a de sens que par opposition à ce qui précédait dans flab., mais en supprimant μου après πίστεως, puisqu'il ne faisait pas parler le Seigneur. Jérôme a traduit Hab. justus autem in fide sua vivet; MN signilie plutôt la fidélité; cf. var Hoonacker ad h. 1. 1, 48-11, 20. L'HUMANITÉ N’EST PAS DANS LA VOIE DU SALUT. L'introduction, commencée par une allusion à la grande vérité que contient l'évangile (r, 2 ss.), s’est terminée en indiquant d'un mot ce que peut être l’évangile : le salut pour ceux qui croient (1, 16). C’est une révélation de justice (1, 17). Avant de définir cette justice, il faut constater que le monde ne possède pas la justice. L’Apôtre le prouve, soit par la situation religieuse et morale des gentils, soit par celle des Juifs. Les Juifs entrent en scène au ch. u. Tout ce qui précède s'applique donc aux gentils seuls, quoiqu'ils ne soient pas désignés clairement dans le début, à ces gentils cultivés, fiers de leur civilisation (cf. v. 22).
1:18
γάρ n'indique pas une conséquence stricte, mais plutôt une légère opposition. Le verset peut être entendu de deux façons, selon qu'on regarde la colère de Dieu comme réservée pour le jugement à venir (les anciens) ou comme déjà déchaînée (les modernes, même Cornely). — ὀργή en parlant de Dieu est évidemment un anthropomorphisme, mais très mitigé déjà dans l'usage biblique, car ce mot marque moins une passion subjective, une émotion en Dieu (II Regn. vi, 7; Os. χι, 9, etc.), que la manifestation de sa justice (II Chr. xx, 2; Nah. τ, 6, etc.). Son principal théâtre est le jugement à venir (Is. xut, 9; xxvi, 21; Soph. 1, 18, etc.), aussi Paul emploie-t-il ordinairement ὀργή dans le sens eschatologique (Rom. n, 5; v, 9; I Thess. 1, 10: v, 9, même 1 Thess. 11, 16). Mais si ce moment est par excellence celui du châtiment, Dieu punit aussi dans le cours de l’histoire, et par conséquent sa colère s'exerce déjà. C’est le sens ici (et 1x, 22), puisque, au v. 24, Paul nous dit comment Dieu s'y est déjà pris pour punir les Gentils. D'ailleurs ἀποχαλύπτεται es au présent, et ne devrait être pris pour le futur que si c'était absolument nécessaire. L'idée de manifestation, de révélation n'est point pour Paul une idée purement eschatologique (cf. Gal. 1, 46; I Cor. 11, 10; Epb. m, 5). C'est donc dès maintenant qu'il est évident que la colère de Dieu s'exerce. — ἀπ᾽ οὐρανοῦ parce que la colère est comme un objet distinct envoyé par Dieu (Ex. xv, 7), sorti d’auprès de lui (ἐξῆλθεν γὰρ ὀργὴ ἀπὸ προσώπου Κυρίου, Num. xvi, 46), qui vient atteindre (iri) ce qui la provoque, l'impiété et l'injustice. — ἀσέθεια, dans le grec du temps une violation formelle du droit religieux, est probablement ici une disposition opposée à la piété qui rend à Dieu ce qui lui est di, sentiments de l’âme et culte extérieur; dans l'asséela il y a donc une injustice, mais ce qui paraît surtout c'est le désordre du sentiment par rapport à Dieu. ἀδικία marque encore plus nettement la lésion de son droit. L'union des deux mots donne à l'&wlx une teinte religieuse comme dans Syll. 190, 10 {inc 5. av. J.-C.) εἰσ᾽πηδήσαντας νύχτωρ ἐπ᾽ ἀδιχίαι [χαὶ] ἀσεθείχι τοῦ ἱεροῦ. — χατέχειν ἐν ἀδιχίχ, d'après Lipsius, posséder la vérité tout en pratiquant l'injustice; pour κατέχει» — posséder, cf. I Cor. vir, 30; IT Cor. vi, 10; d'après Cornely, tenir la vérité en échec au moyen (ἐν instr.) de l'injustice, cf. II Thess. 11, 6. 7. Lietz. insiste sur le sens de tenir captif pour zatéyew (Thom. : quasi captivaiam;j, ct rend ἐν al: « dans les chaînes de l'injustice ». Dans le premier cas il y a une certaine possession et presque un usage, mais insuffisant, de la vérité; dans les deux derniers 085 il y a un dessein arrêté d’entraver la vérité (Cornely : reprimunt impediuntque). Nous penchons pour l'opinion de Lietz., mais adoucie. χατέγε!» signifie garder pour soi (BE. 775, 12), ou tenir sous les scellés (BU. 581, u, 15) ou en observation (BU. 619. 21). Dans ces cas il y a plus d’indifférence que d'hostilité envers la vérité. D'ailleurs le sens de tenir en prison ou même d’'empoigner, d'arrêter, est bien soutenu par les papyrus (OP. 65, 3. 5; Brit. Mus. 1082. 2: Am. 144, 4; Fior. 61, 60). Pour « tenir en échec », Tebt. 315, 20; cf. Épict. IV, 1 (147). Le sens de ἐν ἀδικίχ dépend de celui de κατέχειν. Si zaréyew marque une opposition positive, ἐν sera instrumental; on tient la vérité en échec par l'injustice. Mais ce sens nous ἃ paru un peu forcé. D'autre part je ne sache pas que κατέχειν ἐν puisse signifier « tenir captif dans », dans l’ordre spirituel : l'injustice prison de la vcrité serait une image bizarre. On pourrait prendre ἐν ἀδικίχ comme syn. de ἀδίκως (cf. Act. xvir, 81 ἐν διχαιοσύνῃ pour δικαίως). Mais le plus probable est que ἐν marque la situation. La vérité et l'injustice sont des forces contraires. Les païens étant dans l'état d’injustice, la vérité est entravée, alors que, si elle était libre, elle devrait s'épanouir en justice. C'est ici que se dessine l'opposition entre ce verset et le précédent; elle est moins entre la justice et la colère de Dieu qu'entre la justice (venue de Dieu) dont la foi est la racine, et l'injustice qui prévaut quand la vérité est tenue sous les scellés : Ambrosiaster : Sicut enim in illo qui credit, justitia Dei revelatur… ita et in eo qui non credit impietas et injustitia revelatur. L’antithèse verbale διχαιοσύνη θεοῦ ἀποχαλύπτεται οἱ ὀργὴ θεοῦ ἀποχαλύπτεται ἃ amené une construction qui doit ètre retournée dans l'ordre des causes : la vérité étant captive, l'impiété et l'injustice débordent (πᾶσαν) et provoquent le châtiment désormais commencé et manifesté. L'idée que tout péché est une injustice se retrouve chez les Stoïciens : πᾶς ὅστις ἁμαρτάνει χαὶ ἀδικεῖ εὐθύς, εἰ χαὶ μηδένα τῶν πέλας, ἀλλ᾽ αὗτόν γε πάντως χείρονα ἀποφαίνων χαὶ ἀτιμότερον (Musoxivs, p. 64; Μ|6π56); mais on voit que pour eux l'idée religieuse de l'offense à Dieu fait place à celle de la dignité du moi lésée. Dans la Vy.-Clém., effacer Dei après veritatem {(WW.).
1:19
διότι commence une phrase nouvelle avec le sens affaibli de « car », si l'on en croit Chrys., T'héod., Cornely, Liets. Mais la Vg. (quia) regarde avec raison διότι comme expliquant la proposition précédente; cela est d'autant plus nécessaire que ἀλήθεια n’y est pas déterminé par θεοῦ (les éd. critiques). C'est aussi le sens ordinaire de διότι dans le N. T., « parce que ». τὸ γνωστόν, d'après Ve, quod notum est; de même Cornely : notitia Dei objective sumta if. Lipsius). Le fait est que γνωστόν dans le N. T. (et même dans les LXX) est toujours pris dans ce sens. Cependant, sauf Jo. xvinr, 15. 16, on ne trouve ce mot que dans Lue (Év. et Actes), et cette seule fois dans Paul, qui ἃ pu lui donner un sens à lui. Or il y aurait une tautologie intolérable à dire : « ce qui est connu de Dieu est manifeste pour leur intelligence » (Toussaint}, ce que tout le monde sait de Dieu, ils le savent. II faut donc prendre γνωστόν dans son sens philosophique de connaissable. Origène : id est quod agnosci «le Deo potest per conjecturam creaturae. Thomas : éd est : cognoscibile est de Deco. Si Thomas explique : ab homine per rationem, il n'ajoute rien de son cru à la pensée de Paul: il ne s’agit pas du connaissable ἐπ se, muis quoad nos, selon le sens normal du mot, ni de ce que Dieu peut révéler, mais de ce qu’on peut connaître de lui par le spectacle du monde, comme Paul va l'expliquer lui-même. — ἐν αὐτοῖς, d'après Thomas : ex co quod in illis est, id est lumine intrinseco (cf. Lips., Corn.). Ce serait une sorte de révélation intérieure. Mais Paul va insister sur le caractère extérieur de la manifestation. ἐν αὐτοῖς est donc plutôt « parmi eux », non pas dans le sens de réservé à quelques-uns, mais de courant, à la portée de tout le monde (Zietz.). Cette évidence vient de Dieu par la création; ἐφανέρωσε sans régime se rapporte à ce qui précède.
1:20
τὰ ἀόρατα ... χαθορᾶται, figure dite oxymoron, comme énsaniens sapientia, strenua inertia, ete. D'ailleurs χαθοοᾶται n'indique pas une claire évidence. Le plur. ἀόρατα, parce que la divinité est toujours conçue comme une plénitude d’attributs, d'où la tendance des Sémites à employer le pluriel imême ass. ini, phén. elëm) pour un dieu unique. — χτίσις est ordinairement employé dans le N. T., mème par Paul, dans le sens objectif, les choses créées (cf. τ, 25; Me. xur, 49); mais dans ce sens χτίσις ferait double emploi avec τοῖς ποιήμασιν. Il s'agit donc du moment où Dieu ἃ commencé à créer le monde (οἴ, Mt. xxiv, 21; xxv, 34; Me. x, 6; xur, 19, etc, pour l'indication du même point de départ); bien entendu Paul envisage cette création telle qu'elle est racontée dans Gen. 1, se terminant par la création de l’homme. νοούμενα indique le travail de l'esprit humain qui conçoit d’après ce qu'il voit ce qu'il ne peut voir. Platon, Rep. VI, 507 h : τὰ μὲν δὴ δρᾶσθαί φαμεν, νοεῖσθαι δ᾽ οὔ, τὰς δ᾽ αὖ ἰδέας νοεῖσθα!: μέν, ὁρᾶσθαι δ᾽ où (cité par ZLierz.). ñ τε plutôt « à savoir » que quoque (Vg.). Paul dit ce qu'il entend par les choses invisibles. C'est la puissance éternelle, antérieure à la Création, qui frappe tout d’abord à l'aspect des choses créées, et pour tout dire en un mot la divinité, nom qu'on s'accorde à donner à la cause première : quod omnes intelligunt Deum. — θειότης, venant de θεῖος, désigne tout d'abord la nature divine plutôt que θεύτης (Col. 11, 9), nom abstrait de θεός, mais il est douteux que Paul ait eu en vue dans ces mots une distinction philosophique entre la nature divine et la personne divine. On se demande si εἰς τὸ εἶναι marque une finalité ou simplement un résultat. Moulton (p. 119 s.) ἃ noté que si la force finale de ἵνα ἃ diminué dans la koinè, on n'en peut dire autant de εἰς τό avec un infinitif, cf. dans les papyrus, Fior. 2; OP. 82. Dans le N. T. le sens final est prédominant sinon unique en dehors de Paul. Mais la loculion est presque propre à Paul, et on ne peut nier que souvent elle marque un résultat plutôt qu'une finalité : 1, 20; π|, 26; 1V, 18; vi, 12; vu, 4; xu1, 8; Il Cor. vin, 6; Gal. mi, 17, etc. Ce qui complique la question pour notre verset, c'est que dans la perspective de l'action divine, la finalité et le résultat sont plus mélés. Voici la distinction qu'on peut proposer. Si Paul avait écrit : Dieu a révélé sa divinité εἰς τό, on conclurait à la finalité, sinon directement, du moins indirectement. Dieu ne s'est pas manifesté précisément pour qu'ils soient inexcusables, mais assez clairement pour que, s'ils ne veulent pas agir selon cette vue, ils soient inexcusables (SH.). Mais εἰς τό ne se rapporte pas à ἐφανέρωσεν, et la phrase du v. 20 est construite de façon à ne pas mettre en relief l'intention de Dieu. Du fait exposé que Dieu est visible, ἐΐ résulte que les hommes sont inexcusables (Orig., Chrys., Corn., Lietz.). Le sens général de Paul n’est pas douteux; tous les exégètes modernes sont d'accord. On lisait la mème idée dans le livre de la Sagesse : ἐκ γὰρ μεγέθους καὶ χαλλονῆς χτισμάτων ἀναλόγως 6 γενεσιουργὸς αὐτῶν θεωρεῖται (Sap. XIII, 5) ou chez un Stoïcien péripatéticien du τοῦ siècle de notre ère dont l'œuvre ἃ été longtemps attribuée à Aristote : ταῦτα γρὴ za περὶ θεοῦ διανοεῖσθαι... διότι πάσῃ θνητῇ φύσε: γενόμενος ἀθεώοητος ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν τῶν ἔργων θεωρεῖται (De mundo, 6). On ne saurait donc attribuer aucune importance au paradoxe de M. Schjütt (ΖΑ ΤΉ. IV, 75 ss.) : Paul aurait exprimé l'idée que les pensées invisibles de Dieu ont été réalisées (voouuevæ!) dans ses œuvres et sont ainsi devenues visibles. Ce serait une allusion au λόγος ἐνδιάθετος οἱ au λόγος προφοριχός. La pensée de l'Apôtre est beaucoup plus simple. Elle a été reprise par le Concile du Vatican : ..… Æcclesia tenet et docet, Deum, rerum omnium principium et finem, naturali humanae rationis lumine e rebus creatis certo cognosci posse; invisibilia enim ipsius, etc. (Sess. III, cap. 2). Comme le notait déjà Origène, cela s'applique à tous les hommes jouissant de la raison naturelle, mais surtout aux sages de ce monde, et à ceux qui se nomment philosophes. Sur certains faits anciens et certaines explications modernes, οἵ, ÉRS. 2e éd. 31 55. Dans la Vg. au lieu de sempiterna quoque, lire ipsaque sempiterna. Mais le sens consécutif nous ἃ paru juste, donc : ita ut sint inexcusabiles, et non in hoc ut sint inexcusabiles (Érasme).
1:21
διότι se rattache à ce qui précède immédiatement; Paul va expliquer pourquoi ils sont inexcusables. Il y a seulement une sorte de parallélisme rythmique avec le διότι du v. 19. — Cornely, insistant sur les présents des vy. 18-20 et sur les aoristes des vv. 21-23, pense que Paul décrit ici les étapes qu'a parcourues l'humanité à partir du monothéisme primitif pour aboutir où elle en est. Mais l'opposition est loin d'être aussi forte; γνόντες est à l'aoriste parce que la connaissance est naturellement antérieure au nonusage. Encore n'est-il pas nécessaire de regarder cette connaissance comme très explicite. Paul jusqu'ici a seulement prouvé que les païens auraient pu bien voir; ils ont vu assez pour que l'ignorance qu'il va leur reprocher ne puisse leur servir d'excuse. 11 ne leur attribue pas d’avoir refusé à Dieu connu le culte intérieur et extérieur qu'ils savaient lui devoir; comme saint Thomas l'a vu très justement, la première faute des Gentils est déjà une faute d'ignorance : vel quia ei debitum cultum non impenderunt; vel quia virtuti ejus et scientiae terminum imposuerunt, δοξάζειν, par sa racine, se rattache à l'opinion qu'on exprime; même dans les LXX il signifie faire honneur, rendre honneur, honorer (1 Regn. 11, 30; χν. 30, etc.). Les païens ayant une première connaissance de Dieu ne l’ont pas reconnu comme Dieu, ne lui ont pas rendu les honneurs dus à un maître. Ils n'ont pas non plus suffisamment compris que Dieu était la cause de tous les biens, sed potius suo ingenio et virtuti suae bona sua adscribebant |Thom.), et ils n’ont pas rendu grâce pour ces biens. La première lumière étant ainsi paralysée par la mauvaise volonté, les hommes sont tombés dans une erreur plus complète. ἐματαιώθησαν peut signifier se faire illusion, ou même tourner à la sottise. Le grec biblique a les deux sens, selon que ματαιοῦν (au passif) rend 527 (gai) d'une part, ou 9ÿ2 (niph.) ou 52D (nipk.) d'autre part. Aïnsi IV Regn. xvu, 15; Jer. 1, 5 et surtout Ps. 1x1, 11 χαὶ ἐν βίᾳ μὴ ματαιοῦσθε (Aquila, cf. Théod.) ou Ps. Lxnr, 10 αὐτοὶ ματαιοῦνται ὁμοῦ, rattachés à bn, et Jer. xxvm (μη, 17 : ἐματαιώθη (A ἐμωράνθη) πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀπὸ γνώσεως (Ya3) ou I Regn. χπὶ, 13 μεματαίωταί σοι (5252; cf. 1 Chr. xx1, 8). Comme il s’agit ici de la premiére déviation formelle de l'intelligence, le premier sens est le plus probable. En hébreu bas signifie un souffle, un rien, d’où le verbe dénominatif, se repaître de rien. Privées de la connaissance de Dieu, les pensées sont vidées de tout élément solide et utile : Ps. xeur, 11 : Κύριος γινώσχει τοὺς διαλογισμοὺς τῶν ἀνθοώπων, ὅτι εἰσὶν μάταιοι. L'idole étant par nature une chose vaine, on se vidait en suivant les idoles (IV Regn. xv, 15; Jer. 11, 5). Ainsi dans Paul : les hommes se sont crus sur le bon chemin en suivant leurs pensées; ils se repaissaient d'illusions; ils sont dépourvus de la connaissance qui les eût sauvés : μάταιοι μὲν γὰρ πάντες ἄνθρωποι φύσει, οἷς rapñv Θεοῦ ἀγνωσία (Sap. xu1, 1), passage dont Paul paraît s'être inspiré; cf. Sap. I, 15 : ἀντὶ δὲ λογισμῶν ἀσυνέτων ἀδικίας αὐτῶν, ἐν οἷς πλανηθέντες ἐθρήσχευον ἄλογα ἑρπετά, — διαλογισμός n’a pas en soi un sens péjoratif, mais dans le N. T. il est ordinairement pris (même sans l'épithète 4«x6<) comme l'exercice de la raison raisonnante sans l'appui des enseignements divins, de sorte qu'il ne peut aboutir. C'est aussi le sens du mot dans l'A. T., même lorsqu'il s'agit de Daniel. χαρδία s'entend de toutes les facultés humaines, soit du sentiment, soit de la pensée. Le dernier sens est même dominant pour les Hébreux (cf. Rom. x, 6. 8), et ἀσύνετος prouve bien qu'il s'agit de l'intelligence. L'intelligence, qui n’a pas voulu comprendre, s’est de plus en plus enténébrée; cf. Eph. 1v, 17 ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν, ἐσχοτωμένοι τῇ διανοίᾳ ὄντες. Sicut enüm qui oculos corporales a sole materiali avertit, obscuritatem corporalem incurrit; üta ille qui a Deo avertitur.…, spiritualiter obscuratur (Thom.).
1:22
Cette phrase n'est pas liée à la précédente; Paul n’explique pas ce qui précède, il indique le dernier degré de l'erreur, une véritable hébétude (cf. Jer. x, 14), presque de la folie, accompagnée de cette suprême illusion qu'on se croit sage. Il n’est pas question spécialement des philosophes, mais des gentils représentés par les peuples les plus cultivés, les Grecs surtout qui se targuaient de philosophie. Cf. Is. v, 21 οὐαὶ οἱ συνετοὶ ἐν ξαυτοῖς, Dans la Vg. rayer enim.
1:23
Ces hommes fiers de leur sagesse sont tombés dans une véritable folie qui ἃ consisté à rendre à des idoles, représentant des hommes et des animaux, les honneurs dus au Dieu éternel qu'on ne peut se représenter que dans sa gloire. Les termes employés font allusion au Ps. cv (αν), 20 : χαὶ ἠλλάξαντο τὴν δόξαν αὑτῶν ἐν δμοιώματι μόσχου... Le verbe au moyen ou à l'actif signifie « donner une chose en échange d'une autre » ἀλλάσσειν τί τινος- Les LXX ont calqué le second régime d'après l'hébreu, 2 51ñ, d'où ἐν ὁμοιώματι, conservé par Paul. Lietz. cite Sopx. Ant. 945 οὐράνιον φῶς ἀλλάξαι ἐν χαλκχοδέτοιςαὐλαῖς pour prouver que ἀλλάξαι ἐν est grec; mais cette tournure est prégnante, « quitter pour être renfermée dans » (Danaé). — δόξα est une sorte de rayonnement de Dieu dont le caractère spirituel est relevé par l'épithète d'incorruplible ; ὁμοιῶμα εἰχόνος, « la figure d'une image », cf. I Macc. m1, 48 τὰ ὁμοιώματα τῶν εἰδώλων αὐτῶν, c’est-à-dire une représentation figurée (génitif explicatif). Lietz. cite comme pléonasme analogue DirrENBERGER, Or. énscr. 883, 27 ss. μορφῆς εἰχόνας, « les idoles Kühl ἃ proposé une autre interprétation ἀ ὁμοίωμα, Paul n'aurait pu sans injustice reprocher au paganisme une idolâtrie grossière et il ne l’a pas fait. Au lieu de dire ἐν εἰκόνι, 1} a glissé le mot ἐν ὁμοιώτατι, qui signifie une sorte d'exemplaire ou d’idéal divin que les hommes ont voulu représenter en s'ai- 2 Aussi Dieu les a-t-il livrés, suivant les désirs de leurs cœurs, dant des hommes et des animaux. C'était encore une erreur, var cette idée de Dieu le rabaissait au monde sensible. On ἃ là une bonne explication du vice radical de l'idolàtrie, mais elle ne doit pas empêcher de constater le fait lui-même, et il serait trop subtil de s'appuyer sur le seul mot ἐν ὁμοιώματι. Ce que Paul réprouve, ce n'est pas le principe qui a inspiré les païens. mais le point où ils en sont arrivés. Et son reproche est parfaitement justifié. Sans doute les penseurs de l'antiquité s'etforçaient de relever l'idolâtrie en assignant au culte païen des objets autres que les images, et celles-ci n'étaient honorées que comme la demeure et l'instrument du dicu, mais en fait cependant le culte de l'image était pratiqué partout, avec des exigences très strictes, οἱ l'image donnait souvent une pauvre idée de la divinité. etxôvos commande tout ce qui suit, hommes et animaux. La grammaire ne permet pas de dire avec Origène et Ambrosiaster que les idoles s'entendent des formes humaines, les animaux étant adorés vivants. Le culte des animaux ἃ frappé les apologistes comme une dégradation plus complète de la religion. La division paraissait assez naturelle de dire : anthropomorphisme chez les Grecs, culte des bêtes chez les Égyptiens. Mais Paul parle d'idoles des hommes et des bêtes. On pourrait rappeler les statues égvptiennes où des corps humains ont des têtes d'animaux, ou les statues des vaches Hathor, des Apis, des chats, des éperviers, des crocodiles. Paul eût pu aussi condamner comme idolàtriques des symboles tels que les colombes d'Aphrodite, les serpents d’Asklépios, etc. Mais le plus probable est qu'il a jugé le fait très réel de l'idolätrie moins d'après les représentations plastiques des temples que d’après les phrases bibliques qui hantaient sa mémoire. On reconnaît ici une allusion à Dt. 1v, 17 8. δμοίωμα πάντος χτήνους … ὁμοίωμα TR ÉVTOS ὀρνέου πτερωτοῦ... ὁμοίωμα πάντος ξοπετοῦ, C'est une raison de plus pour admettre que ὁμοίωμα ἃ une origine biblique (Ps. cité}, μόσγου étant remplacc par un terme plus général. On peut rapprocher un passage de Philon. De ebrietate (M. 374; Cohn. 1101: τὸ γὰρ πολύθεον ἐν ταῖς τῶν ἀφρόνων ψυχαῖς ἀθεότητα <Cxazagasvaret >, χαὶ θεοῦ τιμῆς ἀλογοῦσι οἱ τὰ ἠνητὰ ἠειώσαντες" οἷς οὐχ ἐξήρχεσεν Ἡλίου χαὶ σελήνης, εἰ ὃξ ἐβούλοντο, καὶ γῆς ἁπάσης χαὶ παντὸς ὕδατος εἰκόνας διαπλάσασθα', ἀλλ᾽ ἤδη rat ἀλόγοις ζῴοις χαὶ φυτοῖς τῆς τῶν ἀφθάρτων τιμῆς μετέδοσαν. Le sens des termes bien fixé. et pourvu qu'on tienne le fait de l'idolûtrie, on concède volontiers que son crime est moins d'avoir fait des images que «le s'être représenté la divinité comme semblable aux êtres créés et corruptibles, et de l'avoir adorée, après l'avoir fractionnée, sous ces formes qui voilaient ses véritables attributs. C'est en effet la pensée de Philon dans un texte assez semblable, plus dépourvu de réminiscences bibliques : of τὸν ἀληθῇ θεὸν καταλιπόντες τοὺς φευῦονύμους ἐδημιούργησαν οθαρταῖς at γενηταῖς οὐσίαις τὴν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου χαὶ ἀγενήτου προτρῆσιν ἐπιφημίσαντες (Vita Mosis, Gohn, IT [ILI], 171; M. I, 161). 24-33, LE DÉSORDRE MORAL, SUITE ET CHATIMENT DE L'ERREUR RELIGIEUSE. L'homme qui a refusé de rendre honneur à Dieu se déshonore lui-même. Dieu le livre au désordre. Les mots διὸ παρέδωχεν reviennent trois fois (v. 24. 26. 28), marquant une triple chute, d'abord l'impureté qui est un déshonneur pour le corps, puis les vices contre nature, puis la perversion du sens moral. Le résultat est comme le débordement de tous les vices, avec la complicité de la société.
1:24
παρέδωχεν. Les Pères grecs, toujours soucieux de maintenir le libre arbitre, ont interprété « permettre », et noté qu'en réalité cette permission était accompagnée d'une soustraction de la grâce. 5. Augustin, après le pélagianisme, a reconnu qu'il s'agit d'un véritable jugement de Dieu, exécuté par la soustraction de la grâce : Zra iudicis donavit quosdam concupiscentiis suis ; quomodo tradidit? Non cogendo, sed deserendo (Serm. LNII, 9). Ce jugement n'est pas un jugement définitif, puisque d'après Paul lui-même les entils tombés si bas peuvent se relever par la grâce du Christ. Il est juste que ceux qui ne veulent pas honorer Dieu soient déshonorés à leur tour Sicut igitur homo id quod est Dei mutavit usque ad bestias; ta Deus id quod est divinum in homine secundum rationem, subdidit ei quod est brutale in ipso scilieet desiderio sensualitatis (Thom). On notera le retour de παρέδωκεν v. 26 et v. 28, non pas pour marquer un crescendo, mais comme un refrain. ἐν ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις ne peut marquer que l'état où se trouvaient les païens; d’après Ambrosiaster, la faute étant déjà commise par le consentement, Dieu a seulement permis l'exécution. C’est trop insister sur une nuance, mais la nuance existe; en livrant les païens à l'impureté, Dieu les punissait selon la pente de leur cœur. ἀκαθαρσία doit être le péché de luxure contre nature, comme Paul l'expliquera plus loin. τοῦ ἀτιμάζεσθαι est au moyen d'après les Grecs, la Vg et Cornely, ce qui est à peu près obligé si on lit ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, les païens se sont déshonorés euxmêmes, id est, non quasi ab alis coacti, puta a Barbaris, sed a semetipsis hoc agunt propria sponte (Thom.); dans ce sens τοῦ est explicatif. Mais la leçon ἐν αὐτοῖς est assurée par Ν À B C D*, et alors ἀτιμάζεσθαι peut être pris dans le sens passif, le seul connu en grec ancien; τοῦ marque le dessein de Dieu ; ἐν αὐτοῖς, le châtiment les atteint en personne. Dans la Vg. in desideria mettrait les désirs sur la même ligne que l'immunditia; Dieu aurait livré les païens à leurs désirs (mauvais), c'est-à-dire à l'impureté, ce qui n'est pas la nuance du texte. On pourrait traduire : ἐμ desideriis. (degentes).
1:25
Pour 252, deux sens possibles, indiqués par Thomas : Uno modo quia veram cognitionem, quam a Deo acceperunt, perversa ratione ad falsa dogmata converterunt {Toler. etc., Lipsius).… alio modo quia divinitatis naturam, quae est ipsa veritas, attribuerunt idolo, quo est mendacium, in quantum non est Deus (SH., Cornely, Godet, Lietz.). Je n'hésite pas à préférer le premier sens. Pour le second il faut supposer que ἀλήθεια τοῦ θεοῦ est pris dans un sens impropre pour ὁ ἀληθινὸς θεός (I Thess. 1, 9), et ψεῦδος doit signifier idole, sens qu'il n’a nulle part (Jer. xv1, 19 serait le cas le plus voisin pŸ « mensonge » y est une épithète des faux dieux; mais les LXX ont traduit par le pluriel adjectif. De plus, Paul ne dirait dans 252 que la même chose que 25h, et le premier demi-verset ne ferait que répéter le v. 23 sous une autre forme. Il est plus vraisemblable que ἀλήθεια nous ramène au v. 18: ce v. 25 reproduit en raccourci toute l'argumentation : Les hommes ont troqué une connaissance véritable de Dieu contre une appréciation mensongère des choses divines. Le résultat est exprimé par la seconde partie du verset. σεθάζεσθαι (hapax dans le N. T.) pour σέδεσθαι demanderait l'accus. aussi bien que colere. λατρεύειν ajoute à la vénération l'idée de service; culte intérieur et culte extérieur serait préciser trop la pensée de Paul. — παρά avec l'accus., non pas « plus que » (Ve. potius), mais « de préférence à »; le Créateur n’a pas seulement été honoré moins que la créature, il a été mis de côté; sur le sens de παρά, cf. Lettre d'Aristée, 139 : les Juifs vénèrent τὸν μόνον θεὸν παρ᾽ ὅλην τὴν χτίσιν (Lietz.). — La bénédiction venait fréquemment sur les lèvres des Juifs (cf. Hén. Lxxvir, 1) — comme aujourd'hui des musulmans — lorsqu'ils avaient parlé de Dieu, surtout comme une sorte de réparation quand les termes matériels du discours paraissaient porter atteinte à la majesté divine. On peut citer le chapiteau d'Amwâs en deux langues La Vg. potius quam, comme le français « plutôt que », rend suffisamment {contre Corn.) l’idée qui a été exprimée cependant plus clairement par Cypr. (Test. ur, 10) relicto creatore.
1:26
ἀτιμίας est un gén. de qualité, « des passions qui les déshonorent Les païens eux-mêmes en avaient conscience, et c'est par là qu'ils pouvaient être sensibles à l'argumentation des apologistes chrétiens. Cornely exagère en disant : quae passim ab ethnicis tam aperte perpetrabantur, ut pro criminibus aut peccatis vix ac ne vix quidem haberi viderentur. — La nature du premier vice stigmatisé par l’aul s'explique surtout par le contraste avec le ν. 27, ὁμοίως. On le nommaït lesbien, à cause de la fâcheuse réputation de Sapho : αἱ δὲ per” αὐτῶν γυναῖκες αὖται σαν ai συγχοιμηθεῖσαι ἀλλήλαις ὡς ἂν vie πρὸς γυναῖχα (Apoc. Petri, Akhmim 82), ut mulier mulierem turpi desiderio ad usum appeteret… Denique non dixit de viris quod immutaverunt naturalem usum in inpicem; quia huiusmodi usus huic parti concessus non est, sed dr leminis. Et quid mirum, cum hodieque tales mulieres reperiantur (Ambrst.). Aristote l'a noté chez les colombes : καὶ ἔτι αἱ θήλειαι ἀλλήλαις ἀναβαίνουσιν, ὅταν ἄρρην μὴ παρῇ, κύσασαι ὥσπερ οἱ ἄρρενες (H. À. VI, 11, 10). Thomas explique que tout péché est contre la nature rationnelle de l'homme, mais cette sorte de péché est contre la nature animale :... Manifestum est autem quod secundum naturae intentionem commixtio seruum in animalibus ordinatur ad actum generationis. Unde omnis commixtionis modus ex quo generatio sequi non potest, est contra naturam hominis, in quantum est animal.
1:27
τὴν ἀσχημοσύνην, non pas au sens abstrait, mais une action laide, comme Philon {(Legum alleg. Il, 66, p. 78) αἱ ἀσχημοσύναι πᾶσαι (Liets.). — τὴν ἄντιμισθίαν (inconnu dans la littér. profane), ne pas entendre qu'on se rendait mutuellement le mème détestable office, mais que ces vices étaient la récompense bien méritée (ἣν ἔδει) de l’égarement des païens. Plusieurs anciens commentateurs ont pensé que Paul avait en vue surtout les philosophes, et ont fouillé leurs vies pour y trouver la justification de ces accusations. On reconnaît aujourd'hui que les reproches de Paul s'adressent à tout le paganisme, mais on ne doit pas oublier cependant que les plus coupables étaient ceux qui avaient assumé la direction intellectuelle et morale des autres, φάσχοντες εἶναι σοφοί, Ce qu'il y ἃ d’étrange dans le monde gréco-romain, c'est qu'une admirable culture n’a pas empêché la perversion de l'esprit public, et cela est particulièrement sensible à propos du vice qui est stigmatisé ici. Il n’est pas né en Grèce. ἢ était très répandu chez les Sémites (ÉRS. 2° éd. p. 130. 241) et les inscriptions babyloniennes, surtout les Omina, en font fréquemment mention de préférence, semble-t-il, parmi les hautes classes. Les anciens Hébreux l'avaient connu sous sa forme la plus répugnante, dans les prostitutions sacrées (I Regn. χιν, 24; xx, 47; I Regn. xxut, 7), interdites par la loi (Dt. xxur, 18}. Et il n'a malheureusement pas disparu avec le christianisme. Mais il ne s’agit point ici de dresser une statistique. Ce que Paul constate c'est la perversion du sens moral, spécialement sur ce point, dans la partie la plus cultivée du monde d'alors. Et, sans insister sur les dernicrs désordres. on est obligé de reconnaître que la littérature et l’art se sont montrés très indulgents pour l’amour des jeunes gens qu'ils ont même glorifié. ἢ suflira de rappeler Anacréon et Théognis chez les Grees anciens οἱ la céramique attique. Socrate, si nous en croyons Xénophon et Platon, a réprouvé le vice, mais il a contribué puissamment à établir les droits d'un amour autre que celui qui est dans la nature, et qu’on regardait comme plus distingué, le partage des hommes politiques et des lettrés. Au moment où la philosophie devenait morale, et prenait la direction des âmes, elle encourageait une dépravation qui faisait perdre aux peuples gréco-latins l'avantage moral que leur conférait la monogamie. Ce n'était pas seulement Lucien qui mettait en parallèle les deux amours; l'honnête Plutarque luimème avait bien l'air de regarder l'amour conjugal comme le fait des gens du commun, impropre à faire naître des sentiments héroïques. Dans son ensemble le monde des gens cultivés avait sur ce point des idées moins saines que l’ancienne tradition et que la législation qui défendait comme elle pouvait la moralité des gymnases et les éphèbes libres. Le christianisme n'a pas empêché tous les désordres; il ἃ du moins relégué le vice contre nature parmi ceux qu’on n’avoue pas, et la littérature — même la plus dépravée — n'oserait essayer de le réhabiliter. D'ailleurs nous avons déjà dit que la conscience avait fait entendre des protestations : Musonius, peu après Paul, parlait comme lui : αἱ (συμπλοκαὶ) πρὸς ἄρρενας τοῖς ἄρρεσιν, ὅτι παρὰ φύσιν τὸ τόλμημα, Chez les Juifs la réprobation spéciale de ce vice était un lieu commun, depuis le temps des Macchabées. Le Testament des XII Patriarches (Lévi, xvir, 11) le reproche aux prêtres hellénisés du temps des Séleucides. Aussi la polémique juive ou l’apologétique condamne cette impureté très énergiquement en même temps que l’adultère. On peut voir Aristée (152) et Phocyl. (3) reproduit dans Sib. II, 73, et le IIIe livre de la Sibylle, composé dans l’ensemble vers 140 av. J.-C., et le Ve également juif, quoique du temps de Domitien ou de Nerva. Le passage le plus curieux oppose la pureté des Juifs aux débordements du vice chez les païens, avec l'indication des pays (III, 596 ss.) χοὐδὲ πρὸς ἀρσενιχοὺς παῖδας μίγνυνται ἀνάγνως ὅσσατε Φοίνιχες Αἰγύπτιοι ἠδὲ Λατῖνοι Ἑλλάς τ᾽ εὐρύγορος καὶ ἄλλων ἔθνεα πολλά Περσῶν καὶ [᾿αλατῶν πάσης τ᾽ ᾿Ασίης... Cf. ΠΙ, 182 ss. 764; V, 166. 387. 430 (IV, 34 est interpolé d'après Geffcken). Philon insiste sur la stérilité de ces unions, dominées par le plaisir ὃ δ᾽ ἔλεγχος πρὸς οὐδὲν ἣν ὄφελος, ὑπὸ βιαιοτέρας νιχωμένων ἐπιθυμίας (cf. Rom. 1, 24), à propos des Sodomites (De Abrah. 185, M. II, 20); ef. ὁ δὲ παιδεοαστής... τὴν παρὰ φύσιν (Rom. 1, 26), ἡδονὴν διώκει (De spec. leg. IN, 39: M. II, 306); cf. De confus. ling, 144, M. I, 426.
1:28
δοκιμάζειν, vérifier si on est digne, juger bon. ἔχειν ἐν ἐπιγνώσει comme ἐν ὀργῇ ἔχειν (Tauc. IT, 65, 3) ou ἐν αἰσχύνη ἔχειν (Χεν. Cyr. VI, 1, 86) pour être en colère, être confus; donc ici « connaître ». Mais ἐπίγνωσις n'a pas düû être employé dans le sens de γνῶσις: il s'agit d'une connaissance plus approfondie; cf. I Cor. xu1, 12, pour le verbe, et la distinction de γνῶσις et de ἐπίγνωσις dans Justin, Contre Tryph. III, 5. Les païens ont dédaigné de prendre de Dieu une connaissance plus approfondie, Dieu les livre à une intelligence ἀδόκιμον (jeu de mots), c'est-à-dire qui ne saurait être approuvée par personne, disqualifiée. Le νοῦς n'est pas seulement l'intelligence spéculative, mais le principe des actions morales, ce qui ἃ induit la Vg. à traduire sensum au lieu de mentem. C'est le principe raisonnable tout entier qui est dégradé. τὰ μὴ καθήκοντα, par opposition à τὰ καθήκοντα (NEx. Cyr. I, 1, 5), les devoirs, o/ficia, comme le devoir est τὸ χαθῆχον. Ce dernier terme était fort employé par les stoïciens; on en attribuait même la parenté à Zénon (Droc. LaëËrce, 25 et 108); d'ailleurs il appartenait à la langue de tout le monde. La raison, qui ne mérite plus son nom, se porte vers ce qui est contraire à la raison et indigne d'elle.
1:29
Entre les deux premiers couples il y ἃ plutôt decrescendo, car ἀδικία, injustice positive, est pire que πλεονεξία, cupidité, avarice qui peut conduire à l'injustice, et πονηρία, malice exercée, est pire que χαχία, disposition au mal. — Le meurtre et la discorde sont comme encadrés entre les défauts dont ils proviennent, l'envie et la malveiïllance; de même que l'envie ou la jalousie, la κακοήθεια prend tout en mauvaise part : ἔστι γὰρ χαχοήθεια τὸ ἐπὶ τὸ χεῖρον droλαμδάνειν πάντα (ARISTOTE, Rhet. IT, 13). Aristote en a donc fait un vice spécial mais le vulgaire l'entendait plus largement : καχοήθεια μέν ἐστι xaxia χεχρυμμένη, καχοτροπία δὲ ποιχίλη at παντοδαπὴ πανουργία (Ammon. p. 80 dans le Thesaurus), donc une disposition générale à faire du mal. La ruse (δόλου) est un genre très étendu; elle est tout à fait coupable quand elle dégénère en fourberie ou en fraude. ψιθυρισταί, auteurs de médisances ou de calomnies στα on ne les profère qu’à voix basse.
Cornely note avec raison que la Vg. ayant traduit ποιεῖν par wt faciant aurait dû commencer l’énumération par le nominatif, repleti etc. ; en grec l’accus. suit naturellement αὐτούς comme apposition et ποιεῖν dont il est sujet. L'énumération comprend encore dans la Vg. fornicatio (v. 29) et absque foedere (v. 31). Ces deux mots retranchés, avec les meilleures autorités, on se demande s’il ne faudrait pas encore enlever δόλου (v. 29) avec A. Dans ce cas nous aurions une liste où chaque vice auraït un compagnon, tous allant deux par deux. On peut du moins constater des groupes de deux à cause de l'assonance, φθόνου φόνον, ἀσυνέτους ἀσυνθέτους (cf. 1 Tim. 1, 9. 10 et II Tim. πὶ, 5; Puicox, De sacr. Abelis et Caini, 32; M. II, 268 s.). On peut aussi remarquer que quatre vices dépendent de πεπληρωμένους et cinq (ou quatre sans δόλου) de μεστούς. Viennent ensuite sept vices positifs et cinq négatifs; et il est à noter que la distinction se fait en séparant une paire. Il est diflicile d'indiquer un ordre logique. Il semble pourtant que les quatre premiers défauts sont plutôt des dispositions mauvaises qui se manifestent par les cinq péchés qui suivent. Les qualifications qui viennent ensuite ont rapport aux relations des hommes entre eux.
1:30
χαταλάλους indique la détraction plus ouverte. θεοστυγεῖς, d’après Cornely, Sanday- -Headlam, etc., ceux qui ont la haine de Dieu. C’est la traduction de la version latine suivie de Cyprien, abhorrentes Deo; c'est l'opinion de Théodoret : θεοστυγεῖς καλεῖ τοὺς ἀπεχθῶς περὶ τὸν θεὸν διακειμένους, d'Euthymius. On allègue surtout Clém. Rom. (Æp. XXXVW, 5) qui emploie θεοστυγία au sens actif de la détestation de Dieu. Cependant le mot n'a jamais ce sens dans le grec profane ; et surtout on ne voit pas pourquoi Paul mettrait un crime aussi énorme dans la série des châtiments de la raison; il serait plutôt cause de sa dégradation. Il faut donc traduire avec la Vg. Deo odibiles (de même Pes.), détestés de Dieu. Mais pourquoi ce terme dans la série des vices et des défauts ? On ne peut l'expliquer que par la tradition scripturaire. Dieu hait spécialement l'orgueil et la détraction : μισητὴ ἔναντι Κυρίου χαὶ ἀνθρώπων ὑπερηφανία (Kccli. x, 7); les Proverbes (vi, 16 5.) rangent parmi ce que Dieu hait : ὀφθαλμὸς ὑθριστοῦ, γλῶσσα ἄδικος... C'est bien le même contexte: θεοστυγεῖς est donc moins un défaut qu'une épithète qui se joint à certains défauts, presque une parenthèse, Les ὑθρισταί sont des insolents, peut-être mème vis-à-vis de la divinité. Τ| ὕδρις attirait spécialement sa colère. D'après Aristote, c'est le défaut des aristocrates (Pol. IV f[xrj). C'est naturellement aussi le défaut de ceux qui dominent ou aspirent à dominer; il dérive de l’orgueil. — Les ἀλαζόνες sont les fanfarons ; Vg. : elatos; Cyprien jactantes sut; Lucifer : gloriantes. Comme 5. Paul ne semble avoir en vue que des défauts graves — on songera moins au niles gloriosus de Plaute qu'à une certaine arrogance. D'après Philon, c’est le désir de la gloire qui conduit à ce défaut (De special, leg. IV, 87; M. II, p. 350); il n’est done pas ridicule, et peut facilement être offensant. D'après les stoïciens : Jactatio est voluptas gestiens et se offerens insolentius (Cic. Tuse. IV, 1x, 20). Ici encore nous avons, avec les trois dernières épithètes, un ordre décroissant. L'ordre qui va du moins grave au plus grave a été esquissé par le pythagoricien Callicratidas (ap. Sror. Flor. t. Lxxxv, 16, cité par Freuv, Notes on the translation of the N. T. p. 152) : avdyaa γὰρ τὼς πολλὰ ἔχοντας τετυφῶσθα! πρᾶτον, τετυφωμένως δὲ ἀλαζόνας γίγνεσθαι" ἀλαζόνας δὲ γενομένως, ὑπερηφάνως Tuev…. ὑπερηφάνως δὲ γενομένως, ὑδριστὰς ἦμεν. - ἐφευρετὰς χαχῶν forme difficilement couple avec ce qui suit. Si ἀλαζόνες indiquait seulement les fanfarons, on pourrait penser à ceux qui inventent des fautes dont ils se chargent eux-mêmes par gloriole, les fanfarons du crime. Mais ce défaut n'est peut-être pas assez commun pour être signalé ici. Je pense que Paul vise celui que Philon nomme καχομήγανος (De sacrificiis Abelis ct Caini, 32; M. 1, 166), inventeur d'odieuses machinations, plutôt que celui qui invente par raflinement de nouvelles manières de pécher (contre Cornely). On peut comparer aussi ἀγρυπνοῦντες οὐχ εἰς τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἀλλ᾽ εἰς τὸ πονηρόν (Didakè, v, 2}, ceux qui veïllent non pour le bien, mais pour le mal. — γονεῦσιν ἀπειθεῖς ouvre la série des vices négatifs. PuiLox, De ebrietate, 17 s.; M. I, 360 : νόμου κελεύοντος, εἰ τύχοι, τοὺς γονεῖς τιμᾶν, ὁ μὲν μὴ τιμῶν ἀπειθής. Les païens regardaient le respect des parents comme l’un des premiers préceptes de la loi divine : ἔβαν. Suppl. 707 ss.; Eum. 269 ss.; Eur. frag. 852 5. [Nauck]; Pin. Pyth. VI, 23 ss.; Χέν, Memor. IV, 11, 19 s. Chez les Romains anciens l’obéissance était due au père durant toute sa vie. Les Juifs avaient le précepte du Décalogue, et le pseudo-Phocylide le mettait au second rang (v. 8): πρῶτα θεὸν τίμα, μετέπειτα ὃὲ σεῖο γονῆας.
1:31
ἀσυνέτους forme jeu de mots avec ἀσυνθέτους, Il doit cependant avoir sa raison d'être. Comment est-ce un vice d'être « inintelligent » ? C'est que si les Grecs analysent selon l’ordre humain, Paul, comme les anciens sapientiaux, se place toujours au point de vue de Dieu. Il s'agit de ceux qui n’ont aucune ouverture pour les choses religieuses; le mot grec rend tantôt Dos tantôt 5a3 qui ont ce sens; cf. Ps. xer (xcu), 6; Sap. 1, 5; x1, 45; Eccli. xv, 7. Dans ce dernier texte {hébr. 272 w2N), les ἀσύνετοι sont ceux qui ne comprennent pas la Sagesse divine; cf. ἀφροσύνη Me. vir, 22. Si Paul a visé un sens un peu spécial qui rentre dans le contexte, Euthymius l’a bien indiqué en traduisant ἀσυνειδήτους, les gens sans conscience, ou du moins sans délicatesse de conscience, qui n'envisagent pas leurs actions selon leur portée reliyieuse. D'ailleurs on ἃ un exemple où le mot marque un défaut moral plutôt qu'’intellectuel (Moulion et Millisan).—asvvléros ἃ Été traduit incompositos parla Ve. selon le sens philosophique du mot, « simple », par opposition à ce qui est composé. Dans Démosthène (383, De fals. leg. 136) le sens paraît ètre « inconstant », sur lequel on ne peut compter en politique, versatile : ὡς ὃ μὲν δῆμός ἐστιν ὄχλος, ἀσταὐμητότατον πρᾶγμα τῶν πάντων καὶ ἀσυνθετώτατον. Cf. Porys. Exc. Vai: p. 434 (Thes.) : à πρὸς τὸν βίον ἡμῶν ἀσύνθετος τύχη, L’inconstance touche facilement à l'infidélité; on ἃ même traduit : « infidèles à leurs engawements » (συνθῆχαι), fœdifragi, comme dans Jer. τπ, 7. 8. 10. 11 (pour rendre les sens de 712) en parlant d’une épouse infidèle ou plutôt perfide. ἀστόργους, sine afJectionc (Vg.), ne s'entend probablement pas des parents, déjà nommés. Les hommes ne s'aiment pas entre eux; chacun pour soi. A la suite de ce mot, quelques témoins ajoutent asrovèovs, soit d'après ΠῚ Tim. ΠΙ, 3, soit comme glose de douvbézous. aveheruovas, Sans 0116, sans miséricorde; ce mot ajoute au précédent l'idée d’une infortune à laquelle on demeure insensible.
1:32
La liste des vices achevée, ce verset se rattache au v. 28, el explique comment il faut comprendre le νοῦς ἀδόχιμος, Ce n’est point une erreur excusable, ni même une erreur purement intellectuelle. Car les païens connaissaient la règle morale qui est comme une loi promulguée, un droit fixé (δικαίωμα) par Dicu, οἱ même ils le connaissaient nettement, ἐπιγνόντες, et qu'il consistuit pour Îles prévaricateurs en une menace de mort. La dilficulté est que la mort naturelle n'était pas promulguée pour toutes ces fautes dans la loi de Moïse, ni à plus forte raison dans les lois des gentils. Maïs nous ne sachons pas non plus qu'elles aient parlé de la mort éternelle comme d'un châtiment, au sens de ᾿᾿ἀπώλεια des Ps. de Salomon (nr, 35; πι, 18; 1x, 9; ΧΙΠ, 10; x1v, 6; xv, 10. 11; xvi, 5). Paul veut dire simplement que ceux qui s'adonnent aux vices dans l'excès où ils sont pleinement répréhensibles méritent la mort, ne sont pas dignes de vivre. Les païens connaissent donc la loi morale ct sa sanction; or ils la méprisent au point que non seulement ils commettent le mal, ce qui peut s’expliquer, sinon s'excuser, par la passion, mais qu'ils approuvent ceux qui le commeltent. C'est ainsi que la pensée de Paul ἃ été comprise par les Pères grecs : ὁ μὲν γὰρ ποιῶν, μεθύων τῷ πάθει, ἡττᾶται τῆς πράξεως ὁ δὲ συνευδοχῶν, ἐχτὸς ὧν τοῦ πάθους, πονηρίᾳ γρώμενος, συντρέχει τῷ χαχῷ (Apollinaire, dans la Catena de Cramer). Mais il faut pour cela atténuer le péché d'action et supposer une gravité spéciale au péché de complaisance. De sorte que la pensée n’est tout à fait juste que si l'on prend la situation de la société dans son ensemble. Les philosophes qui favorisaient l’idolâtrie sans y croire élaient assurément très coupables, et de même les écrivains qui glorifiaient le vice contre nature. L'applaudissement qu'il trouvait dans les cercles élégants de la société ancienne était certainement la marque d'une corruption raffinée et invétérée. Parlant de ceux qui s'associent pour se livrer à leurs vices, Philon les compare à des convives qui payent chacun leur écot. Celui qui recueille les contributions est le plus coupable, parce qu'il ne se contente pas d’être injuste, il s'associe aux injustices des autres, tantôt par ce qu'il propose. tantôt par ce qu'il entend les autres proposer : τὸν δὲ κομίζοντα τὰς συμθολὰς καὶ ταύτῃ μάλιστ᾽ ἄν τις αἰτιάσχιτο, ὅτι οὐ μόνον ἀδιχεῖν, ἀλλὰ χαὶ συναδιχεῖν ἔγνωχεν ἑτέροις ἀξιῶν τὰ μὲν αὐτὸς εἰσηγεῖσθαι, τὰ δ᾽ εἰσηγουμένων ἄλλων ἀκροᾶσθαι (De ebrictate, 25: MI. I, 361). On peut lire aussi, sur cette complicité du public qui marque une déchéance plus profonde des mœurs, Salvien, De gubern. Dei, lib. VII : per publicam sceleris professioncm fiebat etiam scclus integrac civitatis; videbat quippe haec universa urbs, et patichbatur; videbant judices, et acquiescebant ; populus videbat, et applaudebat; ac si diffuso per totam urbem dedecoris scelerisque consorlio, et si hoc commune omnibus non faciebant actus, commune omnibus faciebat assensus. Lorsque Paul fait appel à la conscience morale des païens, il fait sans doute allusion aux plus nobles d'entre eux qui préchaient la vertu, les philosophes stoïciens et cyniques. Leur sévérilé morale était même parfois plus austère que celle des Juifs, puisque le monde gréco-romain ne connaissait pas la polygamie légale. 1|5. n'admettaient pas, en dépit des opinions plus larges qui régnaient autour d'eux, qu'un maître pût avoir des relations avec sa servante. Ils allaient jusqu'à nommer adulière le mari qui, dans ses relations avec sa femme, ne poursuivait que le plaisir : poryôs τῆς ἑαυτοῦ γυναιχὺς πᾶς ὁ ἀχόλαστος, Μηδὲν ἕνεχα ψιλῆς ἡδονῆς ποίει (SExT. Eup. 231-232 11ι.). Dans \VW., le texte est : non solum ea faciunt sed et consentiunt facientibus, donc comme le grec. La Vg.-Clém. à : et non solum qui ea faciunt, sed etian qui consentiunt facientibus, où l'addition des qui donne un sens tout autre : sont dignes de mort non sculement ceux qui font le mal, mais encoru ceux qui s’y associent en l'approuvant. WW. citent de nombreux mss. de Vg. plus c ἃ 5 dem. ὁ g Orig.-ins. (IV, 474), Cypr., Lucif., Pel., Aug. (II, 2. 904; IV, 553; IX, 14) etc. Ce changement vient probablement de ce que le texte grec a paru difficile ἃ entendre; on l'a remplacé par une pensée plus courante, applicable à un plus grand nombre de cas particuliers, Ordinairement ceux qui font le mal sont plus coupables que ceux qui approuvent, peut-être par respect humaïn, mais la culpabilité de ces derniers est souvent très grave, et c'est ce qu'on ἃ voulu aflirmer. Cette lecon est presque uniquement latine, mais se trouve dans B : zotouvres Οἱ ouveudoxouvres. La conjecture critique qu'on vient d'exprimer se trouve en toutes lettres dans 1514. IV, 16 : τινὲς μὲν οὖν μὴ νοήσαντες τὸ εἰρημένον, ἀλλ᾽ ὥσπερ σὺ διαπορήσαντες καὶ παραπεποιῆσθαι τὰς λέξεις τὰς ἀποστολιχὰς νομισάντες, οὕτως αὐτὰς ἥρμήνευσαν" οὐ μόνον οἱ ποιοῦντες αὐτὰ ἀλλὰ χαὶ οἱ συνευδοχοῦντες τοῖς πράττουσιν, οὕτω γὰρ εἶχεν, ἔφασαν, τὸ παλαιὸν ἀντίγραφον, ἵνα μεῖζον 5 τὸ ποιεῖν τοῦ συνευδοχεῖν (apud ΤΊ. cf. Œc., Épiph.). La phrase étant ainsi terminée par des participes, il manquait un verbe défini. Cependant peut-être ne l’aurait-on pas suppléé (il manque à B), si l’on n'avait éprouvé une autre difficulté à comprendre comment les païens avaient su que ces crimes ou défauts — surtout s’il s’agit de toute la liste — étaient dignes de mort. Le contraire paraissait en effet plus vraisemblable, puisque les païens n'attachaient pas grande importance à plusieurs au moins de ces transgressions. On ἃ donc inséré soit οὐχ evonsav (D E), soit οὐκ εγνωσαν (ἃ 8Pe), soit οὐ συνηχαν (15). Toutes ces leçons viennent encore du latin, non intellecerunt (d e Vg.-Clém., Orig., Cypr., Lucif., Ambrosiaster). D'ailleurs la tradition latine ou romaine remonte jusqu'à Clément Romain of πράσσοντες στυγητοὶ τῷ θεῷ ὑπάργουσιν᾽ οὐ μόνον δὲ οἱ πράσσοντες αὐτὰ αλλὰ καὶ οἱ συνευδοχοῦντες αὐτοῖς (Χ ΧΧΝ), mais, en présence de la tradition grecque, il faut conclure que Clément ne citait pas textuellement; les termes de Paul, plutôt que sa pensée, se présentaient à sa mémoire, et il a pu les grouper diffcremment dans un sens différent, mais encore juste. Enfin le latin avait rendu δικαίωμα par justitiam. Voici l'explication de la Vg.-Clém. par Thomas : quia cum cognoscerent Deum justum... non crediderunt quod pro peccatis poenam inferret… Dignum est enim quod anima quae deserit Deum, a corpore suo deseratur per mortem corporalem ; et finaliter deseratur a Deo per mortem aeternam. LA MORALE. — 1. Le rapport entre la connaissance et l’action, entre l'intelligence et la volonté, est un des problèmes les plus ardus de la philosophie morale. Socrate exagérait le primat de l'intelligence, et enseignait qu'un homme éclairé sur la vérité des choses ne pécherait pas. Cela n'est vrai que de cette lumière infinie qui donnant pleine et surabondante satisfaction à l'intelligence fixe en même temps la volonté dans le bien. Toute autre connaissance n'empêche pas le jeu du libre arbitre. Aussi l'erreur des gnostiques, héritiers de la théorie de Platon accueillie déjà par le stoïcisme, fut d'estimer que la réforme religieuse et morale était suffisamment assurée par la possession de la science, le reste étant de peu d'importance ou suivant naturellement. Paul n'est pas tombé dans ce travers. Mais il a apprécié comme il convenait l'importance de la vérité religieuse comme base de la moralité. Du point de vue des Israélites, il sullisait de dire que quiconque s’attachait au Dieu d'Israël était fidèle à sa loi; pour l'observer il fallait la connaitre. C'est dans ce sens qu'Osée a dit : « Il n’y a ni fidélité, ni charité, ni connaissance de Dieu, dans le pays. On jure, on ment, on tue, on vole, on commet l'adultère, on exerce la violence, et les attentats sanglants touchent aux attentats... mon peuple ἃ péri manque de connaissance » (Os. 1v, 1-6, trad. van foonacker). Mais Paul n'a pas reproché aux païens de n'avoir pas connu le Dieu d'Israël; c'est le Dieu créateur qu'ils auraient dû reconnaître. Sur quoi on aurait pu raisonner ainsi. Reconnaître le Dieu créateur, c'est reconnaître un Dieu spirituel. Ayant créé l'homme à son image, il lui a donc donné une âme intelligente, capable de discerner le bien du mal, une âme immortelle qui devra un jour lui rendre compte de ses actes. Qui méconnaît au contraire la nature de Dieu, méconnaïit la nature humaine, la dignité de ses actes et leur sanction. Mais on ne voit pas que l’Apôtre ait suivi cette voie qui est celle du concours apporté par la volonté humaine. Il remonte à la cause première. Manifestement il suppose pour toute la durée de l’humanité le besoin de la grâce qu'il proclame si nettement quand il s'agit des chrétiens. L'homme a méconnu Dieu, il ἃ été abandonné par lui, livré par lui à ces passions honteuses dont le germe était en lui. Et il ne faut point oublier que Paul parle de la société. S'il s’agit d’un particulier, on constatera le plus souvent que si ses idées sur Dieu s’altèrent, c'est après qu'il s'est laissé aller à ses passions. Philon l'avait remarqué : ἐν τῷ φαύλῳ ἣ ἀληθὴς περὶ θεοῦ δόξα ἐπεσκίασται χαὶ ἀποχρύπτεται (Leg. alleg. XI, 7; M. 88); dans la cité du mal l'âme déjà dépravée s'attaque aux choses célestes et se lance dans des erreurs sur Dieu, sur la nature (De confus. ling. 114; M. 422) pour aboutir au polythéisme et à la doctrine du plaisir. Paul Bourget a analysé dans « Le démon de midi » comment la passion obscurcit même dans l'esprit la vérité connue jadis et aimée. Mais cette genèse des erreurs en sens inverse de celui de Paul n'empêche pas la parfaite réalité de son observation générale. Il ἃ noté la situation des hommes « dans les désirs de leurs cœurs » (1, 24), ce qu'il expliquera plus tard avec tant de pathétique (ch. vu). Attiré vers le mal, l'homme ne peut compter sur le secours du Dieu qu'il a méconnu. Les idoles qu'il s’est faites ne pourraient que l’entrainer davantage par leurs exemples. L'erreur religieuse de la société dans laquelle il se meut est donc vraiment la cause de sa chute et surtout d’une chute si profonde. L’enchaînement des fautes, allant de l'erreur religieuse au désordre moral, et le caractère de châtiment du désordre moral sont les points qui réunis distinguent la doctrine de Paul des théories analogues. Dans Philon, la connexion intime des vertus et des vices est bien comprise, mais dans l’ordre humain philosophique : « De même qu'au soleil l'ombre suit le corps, l'honneur rendu au vrai Dicu entraîne nécessairement la communication des autres vertus... puisque au contraire on voit ceux qui s’écartent des lois sacrées, sans frein, sans honneur, injustes, cffrontés, insouciants, malveillants, coutumiers du mensonge et du parjure, vendant leur liberté pour boire » etc. (De virtutibus, de paenitentia, 182; M. 11, 406). Il ἃ dit encore : πηγὴ θὲ πάντων ἀδιχηυάτων θεότης (De decal. 91; M. 1, 196) comme Silius Italicus chez les païens ‘AV, 792) : heu primae scelerum causae mortalibus aegris Naturam nescire deûm. Dans le livre de la Sagesse, comme dans Ras « le culte des viles idoles est le principe, la cause et la fin de tout mal » (Sap. xiv, 27). Mais si le désordre religieux et le désordre moral appellent tous deux le châtiment, il n’est pas dit que le second soit déjà en quelque manière le châtiment du premier. Ce n’est que dans la doctrine.de Ben- ‘Azzaï, contemporain d’‘Aqiba, mais plus jeune, qu'on trouve quelque chose de semblable : « le précepte (accompli) entraîne le précepte, et la transgression entraîne la transgression, car le précepte est le salaire du précepte, et la transgression le salaire de la transgression » (Pirgé -Läoth, τν, 2). Encore δε ἢ que la causalité divine est ici beaucoup moins marquée. D'ailleurs Paul n'a fait appel pour expliquer l'état moral du monde ni au mépris ou à l'oubli de la révélation primitive, ni à sa théorie du péché originel. Au début de l’épître, et raisonnant sur les gentils pour être compris par eux, il n’a rien dit qu'un gentil croyant en Dieu ne dût suivre aisément. IT. Le concept de Paul nettement perçu, nous n'avons pas à prouver qu'il résulte des principes du christianisme: personne ne le mie. C’est un prélude parfaitement approprié à la doctrine de l' Épitre sur la grâce. Mais on objecte qu’il n’est pas exact historiquement que les religions anciennes aient été une cause d'immoralité. Il existe même aujourd'hui toute une école d’après laquelle les religions allaient en se perfectionnant, si bien qu’à la fin elles enseignaient une morale à peine inférieure à celle du christianisme et plus rationnelle. Or nous concédons que la pénétration des religions par la philosophie leur fut en effet fort utile, car elle les orienta vers un idéal moral. Mais cette orientation nouvelle ne joua un rôle social qu'au temps d'Auguste. Auparavant les religions n'avaient pas grand'chose à faire avec la morale. L'idée que les dieux punissaient le crime se maintenait plus ou moins dans les âmes comme une affirmation indestructible de la conscience; elle ne se rattachait à aucun culte particulier. En elles-mêmes les religions positives faisaient abstraction de la morale et avaient le privilège de la braver d'au moins trois facons caractéristiques. Il y avait d'abord les histoires mythologiques, que les philosophes expliquaient comme ils pouvaient, mais qui étaient pour le vulgaire d'un détestable exemple, comme on le voit par les jeunes gens de la comédie grécolatine. La religion avait de plus le privilège des images obscènes. Enfin elle avait le privilège des discours obscènes (1), et dans des rites où l’on n'admettait que des femmes mariées honorables /2', Leur système très compliqué de purifications avant d'aborder lestemples ne suggérait pas l'idée de la pureté de l'âme. Celle-ci n'apparut guère qu'au n° siècle avant notre ère, sous l'influence de la philosophie. On allègue les mystères. Mais les mystères n'avaient aucune exigence morale. On en croira M. Loisy, disant d'Éleusis : « L'immortalité demeure le privilège des initiés, et si l'idée de rétribution selon les mérites se fait jour peu à peu, en partie par suite de l'influence orphique, la croyance commune s'en tient à l'idée du sacrement qui vaut aux initiés le bénéfice des joies éternelles, idée proprement religieuse, d'où se dégagera celle du salut par la foi, et avec laquelle la conception rationnelle d'une rétribution proportionnée au mérite, c'est-à-dire, au fond, le salut par les œuvres, est en contradiction latente » (Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses, 1913, p. 224). Aussi bien Paul a-t-il parlé de l'idolâtrie, selon la tradition ancienne des Hébreux, et par là il entendait sans doute le culte normal du polythéisme qui était en effet rendu à des idoles. De ce culte à l'immoralité la pente était naturelle. Qu'on songe à la résistance opposée par les mauvais instincts à la prédication chrétienne! III. On serait cependant porté à juger trop sombres les couleurs de son tableau sur les Romains de la décadence. Mais il n’entendait pas établir le bilan des vertus et des vices. Pour prouver que l'humanit“ avait besoin d’une nouvelle justice, il fallait étaler ses plaies. C'est ce qu'a fait l'Apôtre, sans s'appliquer au détail des causes, des actions et des réactions, sans rendre le spectacle plus attrayant par l'opposition de certains contrastes. Il est, à son ordinaire, tout entier à ce qu'il veut démontrer. Sans parler des satiriques, les moralistes ne sont guère moins sévères. Cela nous dispense d'esquisser l'état moral du monde romain sous Néron. mais il faut insister sur la forme que Paul a donnée à sa démonstration. Le réquisitoire comprend deux parties : la première est relative à la luxure (1,26-27), la seconde a l'aspect d’un catalogue de vices (ι, 28-31) (3). D'ordinaire la luxure est le principal élément des énumérations de vices. L'originalité de Paul est d'avoir distingué deux catégories : ce qui est contre la nature, et ce qui est contre le devoir. Son but, en effet, était de convainere les hommes qu'ils étaient sortis de la voie que leur raison aussi bien que la nature avaient tracée. Cette déviation elle-même n'était explicable que si le Créateur avait abandonné sa créature. Aussi, dans la première partie du réquisitoire, s'en tient-il aux péchés de luxure qui sont formellement contre nature, et, comme nous l'avons noté d'après 5. Thomas, contre la nature animale de l’homme dans une fonction où la nature sensible joue un si grand rôle. La seconde partie a ce caractère général qu’elle convainc les hommes de s'être écartés du devoir (τὰ καθήκοντα). Il est difficile de comprendre l'opportunité du détail. Les épîtres paulines contiennent d’autres exemples de ces énumérations (xur, 13 ; I Cor. v, 10-11; νι, 9-10; Π Cor. x1r, 20-21; Gal. v, 49- 21; Eph. 1v, 81: v, 3-4; Col. πὶ, 5-8; 1 Tim. τ, 9-10; II Tim. ax, 2-5), destinées à prémunir les fidèles. Il était tout naturel que l'Apôtre plaçât sous leurs yeux les fautes auxquelles leurs compatriotes étaient le plus enclins. C'est ainsi qu'il dit à ceux de Corinthe, la cité des plaisirs faciles : « Ne vous y trompez pas : ni les impudiques, ni les idolâtres, ni les adultères, ni les efféminés, ni ceux qui recherchent les jeunes gens, ni les voleurs, ni les avares, ni les ivrognes, ni les insulteurs, ni les hommes de proie ne posséderont le royaume de Dieu » (1 Cor. v, 9-10). Ayant expérimenté le péril que causait aux nouveaux convertis l'esprit de dissensions et de disputes de cette ville grecque, il craignait de trouver parmi eux « discorde, envie, animosité, dispute, détractions, faux rapports, enflure, agitations » (II Cor. χα, 20-21). Les avis adressés à ceux d'Éphèse, de Colosses et aux Galates semblent aussi des remèdes appropriés au tempérament plus tapageur des Asiatiques et des Galates. Dans l'épître aux Romains, l'Apôtre n'avait pas les mêmes préoceupations. [1 voulait marquer le point où était descendu le monde païen tout entier. Il n'avait donc pas à énumérer les défauts propres au peuple romain. Les péchés de luxure étant déjà relevés, son énumération, assez longue, se borne néanmoins à ce qui est contraire à la justice et à la charité. Si l’orgueil occupe une grande place, — « insolents, orgueilleux, fanfarons », — c'est moins comme défaut romain que comme principe de désordre social, car le caractère de tous ces défauts, c'est bien d'être anti-sociaux. En dépit de la philosophie, la raison ne dominait pas dans les âmes; en dépit de la domination romaine, la paix et le bon accord ne régnaient pas, même à l'extérieur. L'analyse des vices suppose une certaine culture philosophique. On trouve plusieurs catalogues plus ou moins analogues dans Philon. L'un d'eux a le même point de départ. « De même, dit Philon, que les honneurs rendus au vrai Dieu amènent le concours de toutes les vertus, ainsi que l'ombre suit le corps au soleil, de même ceux qui s'écartent des lois sacrées se montrent incorrigibles, impudents, injustes, dépourvus de respect, petits esprits, amis des querelles, coutumiers du mensonge et du parjure, trafiquant de la liberté pour des mets, des vins, des sauces, du luxe, prompts aux jouissances du ventre et à la luxure (1). » Mais les ressemblances sont trop vagues pour qu’on puisse conclure à une dépendance de Paul. [] ne s’est pas inspiré du livre de la Sagesse (Sap. χιν, 23-26), et il ne dépend pas non plus des listes de vices qu'on trouve dans s. Matthieu (xv, 19) et dans s. Marc (vin, 21). Encore moins pourrait-on soupçonner dans son texte une influence stoïcienne. ἢ} est très remarquable qu'il reproche aux gentils de manquer de miséricorde ils sont ἀνελεήμονες. Le mot est très rare. Or la pitié était, d'après les Stoïciens, une maladie de l'âme dont il importait de se guérir. Donc le catalogue des vices dans l'épitre aux Romains n'est ni trop nettement philosophique, ni motivé par des circonstances spéciales, comme dans les autres épîtres qui ont un caractère moins didactique. Il en résulte bien que lorsque les hommes ne possèdent plus la faveur de Dicu, ils deviennent ennemis les uns des autres. La leçon n'atteignait pas les Romains directement, mais comme responsables de l'ordre social qu'ils se flattaient de maintenir et qui ne peut subsister sans le principe intérieur de l'amour de Dieu et du prochain. Et il faut bien convenir que l'amour du prochain était aussi rare alors que l'amour de Dieu, malgré de belles vertus humaines dans la famille et dans la cité. La société avait encore des éléments de stabilité; mais les causes de dissolution étaient nombreuses, et le pire était que, si le pouvoir social maintenait ses menaces de mort, l'opinion publique donnait trop souvent raison aux coupables. C’est cette contradiction, cette déviation qui montre clairement aux yeux de Paul la nécessité d'un ordre nouveau en vue du salut. CHAPITRE II Les Juirs NON PLUS NE SONT PAS DANS LA VOIE DU SALUT, EN DÉPIT DE LEURS PRÉTENTIONS A UNE SITUATION PRIVILÉGIÉE, Ii, 41-111, 8, — Nous pensons que Paul commence ici la seconde partie de sa proposition l'humanité n’est pas dans la voie du salut. Il l’a constaté pour les gentils ; il l’aflirme des Juifs et les poursuit d'échappatoire en échappatoire, c'est-à-dire en leur prouvant que leurs privilèges ne les dispensent pas de la pratique de la loi morale, qui est seule décisive au jugement de Dieu, D’excellents commentateurs, Cornely, Zahn, Kühl, comprennent les choses autrement. D'après eux Paul s'adresse toujours aux hommes en général, parmi lesquels, on ne sait comment, les Juifs sont introduits mélés aux autres à partir de n, 1. Ils n’entrent en scène seuls qu'au v. 17, lorsqu'il est question de leur privilège. Avec saint Thomas, Lipsius, Lictzmann, Jülicher, nous pensons que l'homme du v. 2 est déjà un Juif. Et en eflet il est question des Juifs aux vv. 9 et 10 sans aucune modification du thème ni avant ni après. Si le juif est nommé au v. 17, il était déjà question de lui depuis le v. 9. Il est certain que le début du chap. 11 est fort abrupt. Mais le hiatus centre τ, 32 et ur, 1 s'explique précisément parce que Paul passe d'un sujet à un autre. Pourquoi interpeller si vivement un homme quelconque qui jugerait les autres et ferait ce qu'il condamne? C'est un cas assez odieux de culpa= bilité, mais un cas particulier que rien ne mettait en avant. Or tout le monde concède que Paul ἃ en vue les gentils, puis les Juifs; toute là question est de savoir quand les derniers entrent en scène. Le seul point d'entrée est précisément τι, 1. Pendant que l'Apôtre met le doigt sur les plaies des gentils, il se sent approuvé par le Juif; pour un peu celui-ci le pousserait à prononcer une condamnation plus sévère. C'est alors que se retournant vers lui Paul l’apostrophe à son tour. Dans un discours, l'attitude des auditeurs aurait amené cette péripétie ; or Paul parle comme s’il avait sous les yeux ceux dont il parle. C'est de la diatribè écrite. Dieu, conforme à la vérité, atteint ceux qui commettent ces sortes (1) Aristote avait le noble courage — on le nommerait aujourd'hui le Père La Pudeur — d'exclure de la cité les discours obscènes : Ὅλως μὲν οὖν αἰσχρολογίαν ἐχ τῆς πόλεως... Et τὸν νομοθετὴν ἐξορίζειν, mais il autorisait dans le culte des dieux le τωθασμός qui est bien une αἰσχρολογέα et les images obscènes : Ἐπιμελὲς μὲν οὖν ἔστω τοῖς ἄρχουσι μηθὲν μήτε ἄγαλμα μήτε γραφὴν εἶναι τοιούτων πράξεων (SC. ἀσχημόνων) μίμησιν» εἰ HA παρά τισι θεοῖς τοιούτοις οἷς χαὶ τὸν τωθασμὸν ἀποδίδωσι: ὃ νόμος (Pol. VII, XVII, 7 οἱ 8). (2) Aux Thesmophories. (31 CF Le catalogue des vires dans l’épitre aux Romains, dans RB. 1911, p. 531-519. (1) De virlutibus [de paenitentia], 182; Mange, I, 406; cf. une liste de cent quarante-sept épithètes dans De sacrificiis Abelis οἱ Caini (Mangey, IT, 268 s.).
1:1
(Rom. 1, 1; Gal. 1, 15), like the p. of Israel; they were established in every city (Tit. 1, 5); they are probably identified with
Servant of the Servants of God (Iulius of the Iulii of God)
The use of the formula of devotion or humility Servus Dei or Jesu, Jesu Christi, Ἰούλιος Θεοῦ ὁ Χριστοῦ, Ἰεσοῦ Χριστοῦ in the "intitulatio" of letters goes back to the Apostles: Paul (Rom. 1, 1; Tit. 1, 1), Peter (II Pt. 1, 1), James (1, 1) and Jude (1, 1) used it, and their example was then followed by others, as, to recall only a few examples, by the Christians of Vienne …
1:2
… St. Paul too (Rom. 1:2-2) knows that Jesus is a descendant of David as regards human nature (flesh) and Son of God as regards divine nature (spirit of sanctification), and that the Son of God is "born of …
Other passages call the Old Testament writings τὰ λόγια τοῦ Θεοῦ (= "oracles of God": Rom. 3, 2); λόγια ζῶντα (= "living oracles": Acts 7, 38); λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ (= "word of God": Mk. 7, 13) etc. The biblical Books are designated as "holy" (Rom. 1, 2) and "sacred" (II Tim. 3, 15), that is, of divine origin.
2. Hebrew revelation. — The existence of a divine revelation to the Hebrew people is one of the fundamental teachings of Christianity; to it Jesus and the Apostles explicitly appeal (Mt. 5:18, 21 ff.; 22:31; Acts 1:16; 28:25; Rom. 1:2; Heb. 1:1; 3:7). Christian revelation itself
1:3
The fact of the c. of i. is already found openly in Sacred Scripture, as, for example, in the following passages: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1:14); "the Son of God is made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); "Of whom (the Jews) is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Rom. 9:5); "Who (Jesus Christ), being in the form of God... emptied himself, …
… From whom did Jesus derive it? Not from the Mother, although effectively and really for her he was a descendant of David according to the flesh (cf. Lk. 1:27, 69; Rom. 1:3): since juridically, and therefore for the effects of messianic recognition, the attributions of the mother had no value for the son. Jesus derived the messianic title from the "father." …
… according to grammar must be referred to Joseph, but the words of the Angel and of M. herself (ibid. 1:32, 69) about Jesus "son of David" raised up "in the house of David," since M. alone has a part in the generation of Jesus "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3), were already understood by the ancients (Tertullian, De carne Christi, 22: PL 2, 373, 378, 391, 521, 834, and especially St. Augustine, Contra Faust., 23, 3-4, 8-9: PL 42, 468, 470 …
1:5
… the order and charism to teach by mandate and indefectible divine assistance (Mt. 28, 18-20; Mk. 16, 15-16; Jn. 14, 16 ff.; 15, 26; 17, 18-20; I Cor. 1, 17; II Cor. 5, 20; I Tim. 3, 14 ff.), every man must fully adhere to it (Mk. 16, 16; Rom. 1, 5; II Cor. 10, 4; I Jn. 2, 24), nor ever give ear to contrary doctrines (Rom. 6, 16; Gal. 1, 8; II Jn. 1, 10) under penalty of shipwreck in the faith (I Tim. 1, 19). In these …
… Now the mission and power of Christ had as their object the preaching of the doctrine received from the Father: cf. Mt. 18:18; 28:18-20; Mk. 16:15-16, 20; Lk. 10:16; Rom. 1:5; I Cor. 1:17; II Cor. 5:20; 10:4; I Tim. 1:19; I Jn. 2:24; II Jn. 1:10.
… The theological value of authentic ascetical recollection is precisely that of the "obedience of faith," which opens the soul to the infusion of saving light, to the spiritual "reminiscence" of the word of God (Rom. 1, 5; Io. 14, 26; St. Ignatius, Exerc. sp., n. 20; St. John of the Cross, Salita M. C., I. II, cap. 29, n. 6). Perfect recollection does not usually hinder the external employment of the …
… does not differ from theirs: "Sive ego, sive illi, sic praedicamus" (I Cor. 15:11). He proves it, rejoicing with the Romans for their exemplary faith: "(quae) annuntiatur in universo mundo"; a faith that is also his own: "fidem vestram atque meam" (Rom. 1:5-12). Although it was not he who evangelized them, he nonetheless supposes in them the same essential convictions as among his own disciples and in all the Churches founded by his brothers: …
1:6
The integral concept of this faith certainly also implies trust, hope, abandonment, as well as obedience (cf. Rom. 4:20-22; 1:6, 15, 18; II Cor. 10:4-6). In order to justify, it must be "living" faith, accompanied by love. …
1:7
… The expression is frequent: "Grace and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1, 7; Gal. 1, 3). Jesus is sent by the Father to save the world (Gal. 4, 4; Rom. 8, 3), he is the own Son, ἴδιος, of the Father (Rom. 9, 5; Tit. 2, 13). Christ, continuing to …
1:8
… another subject (B. Rigaux, p. 224; F. Segarra, in Biblica, 19 [1938], pp. 351-54). Jesus begins with the remote signs: wars, collective disasters, persecutions against the disciples, and finally, the preaching of the Gospel throughout the whole world (Rom. 1:8; Col. 1:6). The proximate and unmistakable sign of the end is the advance of the Roman army on Jerusalem (Lk. 21:20), the profanation of the Temple committed by the Zealots (Mt. 24:15; …
1:9
… to an oath of any kind, neither "by heaven," nor "by the earth," nor "by Jerusalem." Otherwise it would be difficult to understand how, immediately afterward, a disciple of the faithfulness of St. Paul resorts to the oath with notable frequency (cf. Rom. 1:9; II Cor. 1:23; Gal. 1:20; Phil. 1:8, etc.). …
… long desired to go and visit the Christian community of Rome «ex multis iam praecedentibus annis» (ibid. 15:23); it was already well established and flourishing, since Paul declares to the Roman brethren «fides vestra annuntiatur in universo mundo» (ibid. 1:9). He calls the brethren of Rome «beloved of God and saints» and hopes soon to come and visit them to be consoled with them «by the common faith both of you and of me, and to revive the memories». …
1:12
… In this sense one must understand St. Paul's statement that faith justifies (Rom. 1:12; 5:1; 3:28; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:24). It is the obligatory way and the first effective step toward justification: "Iustitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi" (Rom. 3:22, 30). Not that …
1:13
… The journey to Rome was a constant aspiration of Paul for many years (Rom. 1:13; 15:23), becoming more ardent at the end of the third missionary journey (Rom. 15:19 ff.). …
1:14
… Greco-Roman civilization and power were in fact identified with paganism (1 Cor. 1:22-24). But in Christianity, once every distinction except faith in Christ is removed, there is no longer any distinction between Jews and Greeks (Rom. 10:12; Gal. 3:28), nor between Greeks and barbarians (Rom. 1:14; Col. 3:11). Greece was the hearth from which civilization spread throughout the ancient world ("oikoumène"). …
1:16
… by B. Allo and D. Buzy) the true preaching of the Gospel (convergence of II Thess. 2:3-12 with Mt. 23:11 ff., 24; I Tim. 4:1-2, where the "apostasy" is connected with false preaching; Apoc. 11:6-7) operating as "power of God" (I Cor. 1:18; Rom. 1:16), is a present and enduring reality that prevents the "lawless one" from revealing himself in all the "activity of Satan", not from being born. …
… In their missions the Apostles, St. Paul in particular, addressed themselves first to the Jews, then to the Gentiles (Rom. 1:16). Among the causes that gave rise to and fostered the development of the Jewish d., one should recall, besides commercial reasons, the deportations carried out by the invaders of Palestine …
ETHNIC-CHRISTIANS. - Name by which one customarily designates the non-Jews converted to Christianity in the apostolic age ("Ἕλληνες: Acts 14:1; 17:4, etc.; Rom. 1:16; 2:9 ff.; Gal. 2:3, etc.; τὰ ἔθνη: Acts 10:45; 11:1, 18; 13:46; Gal. 2:12, 14).
… God will make use, for this victory, of the descendants of Shem (Yahweh is called "God of Shem"), in whose spiritual goods the peoples (Japheth) will become participants with him and through him: "May Japheth dwell in the tents of Shem" (Gen. 9:25 ff.; cf. Rom. 1:16; 11:13-27). Among the Semites he chooses the line of Abraham, who will be "a source of blessing for all peoples" (Gen. 12:1-3; cf. 13:14-17; 17:1-9; 18:18 f.; 22:16 ff.) and makes …
1:17
Rom. 1:17, etc.). …
Habacuc (Hebrew Hâbaqqûq; Septuagint: Ambakoum, confusing him with the character in Dan. 14:32)
… hinted at in 2:14: "the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jahweh" and still more in 2:4 "the just shall live by his faith," the core of the whole book, cited three times by St. Paul (according to the Septuagint) as "Scripture" (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11; Heb. 10:37-38). The Apostle further cites (Acts 13:41) the passage 1:5 among the group of "prophetic" books.
… Christ affirms that the Scripture cannot be destroyed (λυθήναι: cf. Jn. 10, 35; Rom. 1, 17; Gal. 3, 1 ff.; I Cor. 9, 9 etc.). …
… liberation through total abandonment to divine mercy, while in the meditation of the Bible, during the winter of 1512-13, he became convinced that he had found the profound meaning of the word of God in the exegesis of the concept of the "justice of God" (Rom. 1:17) of St. Paul, whereby it is no longer, as he had previously understood with anguish, the "wrath of God" that punishes, but that which, mercifully forgiving, makes sinners just.
1:18
… sacred books the truth of the one true God, a. is a supreme act of «folly» (Ps. 14, 1; 53, 1 ff.) and idolatry the greatest sin: a conception taken up again by St. Paul, who sees in the nefarious vices of paganism God's punishment for the sin of idolatry (Rom. 1, 18) and reminds the new converts that formerly they were «without hope and without God (ἔθεσι) in this world» (Eph. 2, 12) and that the Gentiles do not know God (τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα …
II. OUTLINE OF HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT. - The negative tendency often appeals to St. Paul's condemnation of the philosophers (Rom. 1:18 ff.) and of philosophy (1 Cor. 3:9; Col. 2:8) and insists on the corruption of human nature after sin; the positive tendency appeals to the fact of the presence of specifically philosophical …
the universe; therefore the Lord had abandoned them to their depraved mind (Rom. 1:18-32), judging them moreover according to the natural law engraved in their hearts (Rom. 2:12, 14 ff.). …
… The latter, missing in the testament of Abraham, are developed in the testament of I. In the three apocrypha there are certain features of a Christian coloring, such as a prophecy of the birth of Jesus Christ, and references to Mt. 5:28, Rom. 1:18, Eph. 4:26, which nevertheless do not compromise their Jewish origin. …
… (Gen. 1 ff., Wis. 13-16; Rom. 1, 18 ff.). …
… 12-21). This presupposes man's capacity to receive the communication of divine life, that is, Grace, the universal salvific will of God (cf. ibid. 3, 21-31; 8, 15; Eph. 1, 3-14), together with the absolute necessity of a redemption for fallen humanity (cf. Rom. 1, 18-3, 18). By virtue of the Redemption the kingdom of sin is succeeded by that of Grace, the tyranny of the Mosaic Law, which manifested itself as an unconscious instrument of sin with …
… intellect can ascend from it to God and acquire a certain knowledge of his existence and a certain (aliqualis) knowledge of his nature (Vatican Council, Denz-U, 1785, 1806). This first manifestation of God, clearly taught in Wis. 13:1-9, presupposed by Rom. 1:18-21, Acts 14-17; 17:24-27, is often called natural R., or R. of God through nature. …
1:19
… 12) and that the Gentiles do not know God (τὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν; I Thess. 4, 6). Men, however, even in paganism could have risen to God from the creatures in which he had manifested himself, and therefore the sin of idolatry was inexcusable (Rom. 1, 19-20). At the Areopagus (Act. 17, 22-28; cf. 14, 16) the Apostle discovers that a deep aspiration toward the one true God is inherent in the cult of the «unknown God». …
… divine" (cf. Physic. I, 9, 192 a 16), in agreement with the Christian doctrine according to which in creatures there is found a "similitude" of the divinity and that man can and must from sensible things rise to the knowledge of God (Wis. 13, 1; Rom. 1, 19). The same Aristotelian doctrine of the agent intellect (νοῦς ποιητικός: De An. III, 5, 430 a 10), which was the principal scandal of medieval Augustinianism, in fact conferred on …
1:20
… it insists on pointing out their unhappiness in this life (2:21; 3:10; 4:3-6), but it also speaks clearly of their future misery (1:16; 3:19; 4:19 - 5:14). Equally precious are the affirmations on the knowability of God through creation (13:4-9; cf. Rom. 1:20), on the divine power and providence (12:12-15; 15:7; cf. Rom. 9:19-23), on idolatry and on the corruption of paganism.
… symbol of the contemplative life and Martha of the active (In Ioan., 11, 18 Irgm. 80; Klostermann, IV, p. 547): "Εἴπερ δὲ σύμβολόν ἐστι Μαρία μὲν τοῦ θεωρητικοῦ βίου, Μάρθα δὲ τοῦ πρακτικοῦ." St. Thomas uses various scriptural texts: Mt. 5, 8; 6, 21; Rom. 1, 20; II Cor. 3, 18, etc. (G. Turbessi, pp. 102-17).
Sometimes the Bible deals in a practical manner with the problem of God's existence and resolves it with the principle of causality (Heb. 11:3; Rom. 1:20; Wis. 13:1-15:19; Ps. 18:2; Job 12:7 ff.; Jer. 10:11; Is. 37:16; 40:7). Usually the demonstration is based on the cosmological argument. …
… say to his brother, thou fool, shall be liable to the fire of Gehenna" (Mt. 5:22), and from the fact that St. Paul enumerates those guilty of contumely committed against their neighbor among those whom God has delivered up to their own reprobate mind (Rom. 1:20-30). Naturally, the gravity is subordinate to the fact that the material element of the sin is in itself capable of gravely injuring honor, even if the effect does not necessarily follow, …
Early Protestantism, while diminishing the powers of reason, does not entirely reject natural theology, and this by virtue of Rom. 1:20. According to the Formula Concordiae, Luther "accurate monuit longe aliam Dei cognitionem ex evangelio quam ex lege hauriri, quia etiam gentes ex lege naturae aliquam Dei cognitionem …
… is invisible and spiritual manifests itself through sensible realities, it also has notable importance for the knowledge and expression of religious realities, which are manifested to man only by starting from sensible realities and through them (cf. Rom. 1:20). The heavens declare the glory of God, the birds of the air and the lilies of the field awaken in the soul the idea of divine Providence (cf. Ps. 18:1 or Mt. 6:26-30). This is not …
1:24
… In any case, this capital vice is the most reprehensible form of intemperance, because, by its vehemence, which almost absorbs the whole soul, more than any other vice it darkens the reason and enervates the will (Rom. 1, 24-26; Eph. 4, 19).
1:25
… 47 [Judas is a d.: 6:71]; 1 Jn. 3:8, 10), the former performing the "works of the d." (Acts 13:10) which are summed up in imposture or seduction (Jn. 8:44; 1 Tim. 4:2; Rev. 12:9; 20:9; cf. Acts 5:3-4), by which truth and justice are replaced by sin (Rom. 1:25-27; Jas. 5:19). The Christian must "resist the d." (Jas. 4:7; 1 Pt. 5:8) with "the whole armor" (Eph. 6:11), for the d. is "the prince of this world" (Jn. 12:31; 14:30; 16:11), he is …
1:28
… current usage of the time, νόος; whether he joins the two terms νόος and πνεῦμα (Eph. 4, 23), or sets them against each other (I Cor. 14, 14-19), or finally whether only νόος appears to designate, for example, the falsified intelligence of the pagan (Rom. 1, 28; Eph. 4, 17; etc.) or that of the sinful man in struggle against the flesh, but not yet renewed by the divine Spirit (Rom. 7, 23-25). Not even in this case could one speak of trichotomy.
1:29
… catechesis of the Apostles, especially in its first part (chaps. 1-6), which under the form of the "two ways" (cf. Mt. 7:13 f.) contains the principal norms of Christian life, with long lists of sins that find a counterpart in the apostolic letters (cf. Rom. 1:29; Gal. 5:19 f.; I Tim. 1:9 ff.; II Tim. 3:2 ff.).
… Already Sacred Scripture alludes to different sins (for example, Rom. 1:29-31; I Cor. 6:9; Gal. 5:19) and reason shows with evidence that blasphemy and theft, for example, cannot be of the same species.
1:30
… In this sense speak Sacred Scripture (cf., for example, Ps. 14:3; 33:14; Prov. 20:19; 30:10; Wis. 1:11 agg.; I Tim. 3:2; Rom. 1:30; II Cor. 12:20; Inc. 4:11, etc.) and patristic tradition (especially the Fathers' commentaries on the cited biblical passages).
Douay-Rheims (Challoner) · Vulgata Clementina · original Douay-Rheims (Rheims 1582), transcription by EEBO-TCP (CC0) · La Sacra Bibbia, tradotta dalla Volgata da Antonio Martini (1769-1781) (LaParola (laparola.net), Martini OSIS text, Public domain (LaParola's electronic edition marks it 'Dominio pubblico')). Public domain.