The Jews are censured, who make their boast of the law and keep it not. He declares who are the true Jews.
N•vv also he shevveth that neither the levves could be saued by the knovvledge of the Lavv, of the vvhich they did so much bragge against the Gentils, seing they did notvvithstanding sinne as the Gentils did. 14 And therfore that the true levv is the Christian (though he be a Gentil) vvho by grace in his hart doeth the good vvorkes that the Lavv commaundeth.
1Wherefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou dost the same things which thou judgest.Per la qual cosa inesensabile se' tu, o uomo, chiunque tu sii, che giudichi. Imperocché nello stesso giudicare altrui, te stesso condanni: mentre le stesse cose fai, delle quali tu giudichi.FOR the vvhich cause thou art inexcusable ô man vvhosoeuer thou be that iudgest. For vvherein thou iudgest an other, thou condemnest thy self. for thou doest the same things vvhich `thou' iudgest.Propter quod inexcusabilis es, o homo omnis qui judicas. In quo enim judicas alterum, teipsum condemnas: eadem enim agis quæ judicas. 2For we know that the judgment of God is, according to truth, against them that do such things.Or noi sappiamo essere il giudizio di Dio secondo la verità contro di costoro, che fanno tal cose.For vve knovv that the iudgement of God is according to veritie vpon them that doe such things.Scimus enim quoniam judicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt. 3And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them who do such things and dost the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?E ti pensi tu forse, o uomo, il quale giudichi chi fa tali cose, e le fai, che sfuggirai il giudizio di Dio?And doest thou suppose this ô man that iudgest them which doe such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the iudgement of God?Existimas autem hoc, o homo, qui judicas eos qui talia agunt, et facis ea, quia tu effugies judicium Dei ? 4Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and patience and longsuffering? Knowest thou not that the benignity of God leadeth thee to penance?Disprezzi tu forse le ricchezze della bontà, e pazienza, e tolleranza di lui? non sai tu, che la bontà di Dio a penitenza ti scorge?Or doest thou contemne the riches of his goodnes, and patience, and longanimity, not knovving that the benignity of God bringeth thee to penance?an divitias bonitatis ejus, et patientiæ, et longanimitatis contemnis ? ignoras quoniam benignitas Dei ad pœnitentiam te adducit ? 5But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath, against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God:Ma tu colla tua durezza, e col cuore impenitente ti accumuli un tesoro d'ira pel giorno dell'ira, e della manifestazione del giusto giudizio di Dio,But according to thy hardnes and impenitent hart, thou heapest to thy self vvrath, in the day of vvrath and of the reuelation of the iust iudgement of God,Secundum autem duritiam tuam, et impœnitens cor, thesaurizas tibi iram in die iræ, et revelationis justi judicii Dei,
6Who will render to every man according to his works.Il quale renderà a ciascheduno secondo le opere sue.vvho vvil render to euery man according to his vvorkes.qui reddet unicuique secundum opera ejus: 7To them indeed who, according to patience in good work, seek glory and honour and incorruption, eternal life:A quegli, i quali costanti nel ben operare cercano la gloria, l'onore, e l'immortalità, (renderà) vita eterna:to them truely that according to patience in good vvorke, seeke glorie and honour and incorruption, life eternal.iis quidem qui secundum patientiam boni operis, gloriam, et honorem, et incorruptionem quærunt, vitam æternam: 8But to them that are contentious and who obey not the truth but give credit to iniquity, wrath and indignation.A quelli poi, che sono pertinaci, e non danno retta alla verità, ma ubbidiscono alla ingiustizia, ira, e indignazione.but to them that are of contention, and that obey not the truth, but giue credite to iniquitie, vvrath and indignation.iis autem qui sunt ex contentione, et qui non acquiescunt veritati, credunt autem iniquitati, ira et indignatio. 9Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil: of the Jew first, and also of the Greek.Affanno, ed angustia per l'anima di qualunque uomo, che male opera, del Giudeo prima, poi del Greco:Tribulation and anguish vpon euery soul of man that vvorketh euil, of the Ievve first and of the Greeke:Tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum, Judæi primum, et Græci: 10But glory and honour and peace to every one that worketh good: to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.Gloria, e onore, e pace a chiunque opera il bene, al Giudeo prima, poi al Greco:but glorie and honour and peace to euery one that vvorketh good, to the Ievv first and to the Greeke.gloria autem, et honor, et pax omni operanti bonum, Judæo primum, et Græco: 11For there is no respect of persons with God.Imperocché non è dinanzi a Dio accettazione di persone.for there is no acception of persons vvith God.non enim est acceptio personarum apud Deum. 12For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.Conciossiachè tutti quelli, che senza legge hanno peccato, periran senza legge: e tutti quelli, che con la legge hanno peccato, saran condannati dalla legge.For vvhosoeuer haue sinned vvithout the Lavv, vvithout the Lavv shal perish: and vvhosoeuer haue sinned in the Lavv, by the Lavv shal be iudged.Quicumque enim sine lege peccaverunt, sine lege peribunt: et quicumque in lege peccaverunt, per legem judicabuntur.
13For not the hearers of the law are just before God: but the doers of the law shall be justified.Imperocché non quelli, che ascoltan la legge, sono giusti dinanzi a Dio, ma que', che la legge mettono in pratica, saranno giustificati.For not the hearers of the Lavv are iust vvith God: but the doers of the Lavv shal be iustified.Non enim auditores legis justi sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis justificabuntur. 14For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law; these, having not the law, are a law to themselves.Imperocché quando le genti, le quali non hanno legge, fanno naturalmente le opere della legge, costoro, che legge non hanno, sono legge a se stessi:For vvhen the Gentiles vvhich haue not the Lavv, naturally doe those things that are of the Lavv: the same not hauing the Lavv, them selues are a lavv to them selues:Cum autem gentes, quæ legem non habent, naturaliter ea, quæ legis sunt, faciunt, ejusmodi legem non habentes, ipsi sibi sunt lex: 15Who shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them: and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another,I quali fanno vedere scritto ne' loro cuori il tenor della legge, testimone anche la loro coscienza, e i pensieri, che a vicenda tra di lor si accusano, od anche si difendonovvho shevv the vvorke of the Lavv vvritten in their hartes, their conscience giuing testimonie to them, and among them selues mutually their thoughtes accusing, or also defending,qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis, testimonium reddente illis conscientia ipsorum, et inter se invicem cogitationibus accusantibus, aut etiam defendentibus, 16In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel.Per quel di, nel quale giudicherà Iddio i segreti degli uomini per Gesù Cristo secondo il mio Vangelo.in the day vvhen God shal iudge the secretes of men, according to my Gospel, by IESVS CHRIST.in die, cum judicabit Deus occulta hominum, secundum Evangelium meum per Jesum Christum. 17But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the law and makest thy boast of God,Che se tu ti nomi Giudeo e sopra la legge riposi, e in Dio ti glorii,But if thou be surnamed a Ievv, and restest in the Lavv, and doest glorie in God,Si autem tu Judæus cognominaris, et requiescis in lege, et gloriaris in Deo, 18And knowest his will and approvest the more profitable things, being instructed by the law:È la sua volontà conosci, e addottrinato dalla legge distingui quel, che più giova,and knovvest his vvil, and approuest the more profitable things, instructed by the Lavv,et nosti voluntatem ejus, et probas utiliora, instructus per legem,
19Art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them that are in darkness,E ti confidi di essere guida de' ciechi, luce a' quei, che son nelle tenebre,presumest that thy self art a leader of the blinde, a light of them that are in darknes,confidis teipsum esse ducem cæcorum, lumen eorum qui in tenebris sunt, 20An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law.Precettore degli stolti, maestro de' pargoletti, come quegli, che hai nella legge la idea della scienza, e della verità.a teacher of the folish, a maister of infants, hauing the forme of science & of veritie in the Lavv.eruditorem insipientium, magistrum infantium, habentem formam scientiæ, et veritatis in lege. 21Thou therefore, that teachest another, teachest not thyself: thou, that preachest that men should not steal, stealest.Tu adunque, che insegni ad altri, non insegni a te stesso: tu, che predi, chi, che non dee farsi furto, rubi:Thou therfore that teachest an other, teachest not thy self: that preachest, men ought not to steale, thou stealest:Qui ergo alium doces, teipsum non doces: qui prædicas non furandum, furaris: 22Thou, that sayest men should not commit adultery, committest adultery: thou, that abhorrest idols, committest sacrilege:Tu, che dici, non doversi commettere adulterio, sei adultero: tu, che dai in abbominazione gli idoli, fai sacrilegio:that saiest men should not commit aduoutrie, thou committest aduoutrie: that abhorrest idols, thou doest sacrilege:qui dicis non mœchandum, mœcharis: qui abominaris idola, sacrilegium facis: 23Thou, that makest thy boast of the law, by transgression of the law dishonourest God.Tu, che ti fai gloria della legge, violando la legge disonori Dio.that doest glorie in the Lavv, thou by preuatication of the Lavv doest dishonour God. (qui in lege gloriaris, per prævaricationem legis Deum inhonoras. 24(For the name of God through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, as it is written.)(Imperocché il nome di Dio per cagion vostra è bestemmiato tra le genti come sta scritto.)For the name of God through you is blasphemed among the Gentiles, as it is vvriten.)(Nomen enim Dei per vos blasphematur inter gentes, sicut scriptum est.) 25Circumcision profiteth indeed, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.Imperocché la circoncisione giova, se osservi la legge: che se tu se' prevaricatore della legge, tu con la tua circoncisione diventi un incirconciso.Circumcision in deede profiteth, if thou obserue the Lavv: but if thou be a preuaricátour of the Lavv, thy circumcision is become prepuce.Circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem observes: si autem prævaricator legis sis, circumcisio tua præputium facta est.
26If then, the uncircumcised keep the justices of the law, shall not this uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?Se adunque uno non circonciso osserverà i precetti della legge: non sarà, egli questo incirconciso riputato come circonciso?If then the prepuce keepe the iustices of the Lavv: shal not his prepuce be reputed for circumcision?Si igitur præputium justitias legis custodiat, nonne præputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur ? 27And shall not that which by nature is uncircumcision, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law?E colui, che per nascita è incirconciso, osservando la legge giudicherà te, il quale con la lettera, e con la circoncisione trasgredisci la legge?and shal not that vvhich of nature is prepuce, fulfilling the Lavv, iudge thee, that by the letter and circumcision art a preuaricátour of the Lavv?et judicabit id quod ex natura est præputium, legem consummans, te, qui per litteram et circumcisionem prævaricator legis es ? 28For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly: nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh.Imperocché non quegli, che si scorge al di fuori, è il Giudeo: né la circoncisione è quella, che apparisce nella carne:For not he that is in open shevv, is a Ievv, not that vvhich is in open shevv, in the flesh, is circumcision:Non enim qui in manifesto, Judæus est: neque quæ in manifesto, in carne, est circumcisio: 29But he is a Jew that is one inwardly and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter: whose praise is not of men, but of God.Ma il Giudeo è quello, che è tale in suo segreto: e la circoncisione è quel la del cuore secondo lo spirito, non secondo la lettera: questa ha lode non presso gli uomini, ma presso Dio.but he that is in secrete, is a Ievv: and the circumcision of the hart, in spirit, not in the letter: vvhose praise is not of men, but of God.sed qui in abscondito, Judæus est: et circumcisio cordis in spiritu, non littera: cujus laus non ex hominibus, sed ex Deo est.
2:1
Witham
Wherefore thou art inexcusable, etc. He seems to give a general admonition to every one, both Jews and Gentiles, not to blame, judge, or condemn others, when perhaps he, or those of his religion, may be guilty of the like sins. Let him rather call to mind the just judgment of God, which, they that are sinners, cannot escape. Let him also reflect, that if God hath hitherto deferred to punish him, it hath been through the riches and abundance of his goodness, patience, and long-forbearance, or longanimity: that he must take care not to harden his heart any longer, lest he heap up to himself a fatal treasure at the day of judgment, when God will render to every one according to his works, and not according to his faith only, says St. Chrysostom, hom. V. (Witham)
2:5
Calmet
The apostle is evidently speaking to the converted Jews, and not to the Gentiles. For the Gentiles believed in certain judges in hell, who passed sentence on every one as soon as he departed out of life. This is what the learned call poetical theology, and considered as fabulous. But besides a particular judgment at the hour of death, the Hebrews believed in a general judgment of all men, or at least of all the just, in the valley of Jehosaphat; as may be seen in the prophets, and the books of Wisdom and Machabees. (Calmet)
2:9
Witham
Of the Jew first, and also of the Greek. That is, God, as a just judge, will not have any respect to their persons, but punish or reward both Jews and Gentiles, according to their good or bad works. And salvation is now offered to both. (Witham)
2:12
Witham
Whosoever have sinned without the law. That is, without the written law of Moses, against their reason and conscience, etc. And also those who being Jews, have sinned under this written law, shall be judged, even with greater severity, for having transgressed against the known law. (Witham)
2:14
Witham
When the Gentiles...do by nature, or naturally, that is, without having received any written law, these men are a law to themselves, and have it written in their hearts, as to the existence of a God, and their reason tells them, that many sins are unlawful: they may also do some actions that are morally good, as by giving alms to relieve the poor, honouring their parents, etc. not that these actions, morally good, will suffice for their justification of themselves, or make them deserve a supernatural reward in the kingdom of heaven; but God, out of his infinite mercy, will give them some supernatural graces, by which they come to know, and believe, that he will reward their souls for eternity. Such, says St. Chrysostom, were the dispositions of Melchisedech, Job, Cornelius the Centurion, etc. (Witham)
2:17
Witham
But if thou art called a Jew. In the common Greek copies, we read, behold, thou art a Jew, etc. St. Paul here turns his discourse particularly to the Jews, who valued themselves so much upon their law, their temple, and their ceremonies; and therefore are said to rest on the law, as if it were enough to be by profession a Jew. (Witham)
Calmet
But many manuscripts, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, St. Ambrose, Sedul., Theophylactus, etc. read it as in the Vulgate, ei su Ioudaios. (Calmet)
2:21
Witham
Thou, therefore, that teachest another, teachest not thyself, etc. St. Chrysostom (hom. vi.) takes these sentences as so many interrogations; dost thou teach thyself? dost thou not steal? dost thou not commit adultery? etc. (Witham)
2:22
Calmet
Idols, etc. The Jews, at the time of our Saviour, were free from idolatry, to which their ancestors had been so prone for so long a time. But to this evil had succeeded another, scarcely less heinous, viz. sacrilege, and a profanation of holy things. The greater part of the high priests bought their office. The priests permitted in the temple itself a kind of traffic, which caused our Saviour to declare to them, that they had made the house of his Father a den of thieves. And to favour their own avarice, they taught that it was lawful to defraud their creditors, and refuse to their parents the necessary succour, in the case of vows to give to the temple. St. Paul does not here reproach them for the profanations of the temple which they committed in the last siege of Jerusalem, for it had not then taken place; but he knew full will the dispositions of their hearts, and the little regard they had for the most sacred things. (Calmet)
2:24
Calmet
The apostle here only repeats the reproaches which the prophets had repeated so often before, that the Jews, by the contrast between their lives and the sanctity of their religion, had been the cause of that religion and worship being the ridicule and laughing-stock of the Gentile world. (Calmet)
2:25
Witham
Circumcision profiteth indeed, inasmuch as it was ordained by Almighty God, as were also the precepts of the law, which were to be observed before the publishing of the new law of Christ. See Galatians 5:6. But it was never profitable to the transgressors of the law. Nay, the uncircumcised Gentiles, who have complied with those natural precepts, which are also commanded by the law of Moses, shall judge and condemn those, who received the written law, and at the same time were transgressors of it. (Witham)
2:26
Witham
Shall not his uncircumcision (Literally, his praeputium [foreskin]) be reputed for circumcision? Nonne praeputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur? e peritome sou akrobustia gegonen. A translation may adhere to the letter too much; this seems literal enough. (Witham)
2:28
Witham
Nor is that circumcision, which is outwardly in the flesh. St. Paul distinguisheth two sorts of circumcision; that which is made in the flesh, according to the letter of the law, which is an outward circumcision; and a more necessary circumcision of the heart, and of the spirit, by which a man's interior is reformed, and by which his vices and disorders are cut off. The first circumcision would never avail a man any thing without the second. (Witham)
2:1
1. Thou that iudgest.) Such as by publike authoritie either spiritual or temporal haue to punish offenders, be not forbidden to iudge or condemne any for their offenses, though them selues be sometimes guilty in their conscience of the same or greater: yet may it be matter of aggrauating sinnes before God, Iudging other men. vvhen they vvil not repent of those offenses them selues, for the vvhich they punish others. but if they be open offenders them selues, in the same sort for vvhich they iudge other, they giue scandal, and thereby aggrauate their sinnes very much. Proprely here he forbiddeth to charge an other falsely or truely vvith these crimes vvhereof him self is as farre guilty or more then the other, as the Ievves specially did the Gentils, to vvhom he speaketh here.
2:4
4. Doest thou contemne?) This proueth that God offereth his grace and mercie to many, Gods long suffering is for our repentance. and by long patience and sufferance expecteth their repētance, differring their punishment of purpose that they may amend, and that he is not delighted in their perdition, nor is the cause of their sinne: but contrarievvise that they harden their ovvne hartes, and of their ovvne free vvil relect his grace and contemne his benignitie.
2:6
6. According to his vvorkes.) Though the holy Apostles special purpose be in this Epistle, to commend vnto the Gentiles that trusted so much in their moral vvorkes, the faith in Christ: yet lest any man should thinke or gather vntruely of his vvordes, Good vvorkes meritoriou⸢s⸣. that Christian mens vvorkes vvere not meritorious or the cause of Saluation, he expresly vvriteth, that God giueth as vvel euerlasting life and glorie to men, for and according to their good vvorkes, as he giueth damnation for the contrarie vvorkes. Li. de grat. & lib. arb. c. 8. And hovv so euer Heretikes fondly flee from the euidence of these places, yet S. Augustine saith, Life euerlasting to be rendered for good vvorkes according to this manifest Scripture, God shal render to euery man according to his vvorkes.
Good men also according to the merits of their good vvil shal haue their reward. Aug. •p. 4•.
2:7
Concordance Ps. 61, 13.
2:9
That is. the Gentile.
2:10
Concordance Deu. 10, 17. Act. 10. 34.
2:13
13. Not the hearers.) This same sentence agreable also to Christes vvordes (Mat. •, 21.) is the very ground of S. Iames disputation, that not faith alone, but good vvorkes also do iustifie. Therfore S. Paul (hovvsoeuer some peruersly conster his vvordes in other place) meaneth the same that S. Iames. And here he speaketh not properly of the first iustification, Aug. de Sp. & lit. c. 16. to. 3. vvhen an Infidel or il man is made iust, The first, iustification, vvithout vvorkes: the second, by vvorkes. vvho had no acceptable vvorkes before to be iustified by (of vvhich kind he specially meaneth in other places of this Epistle) but he speaketh of the second iustification or increase of former iustice, vvhich he that is in Gods grace, daily procedeth in, by doing al kind of good vvorkes, S. Paul speaketh of the first specially, S. Iames of the second. vvhich be iustices, and for doing of vvhich, he is iust in deede before God. and of this kinde doth S. Iames namely treate. Vvhich is directly against the Heretikes of this time, vvho not only attribute nothing to the vvorkes done in sinne and infidelitie, but esteeme nothing at al of al Christian mens vvorkes tovvard iustification and saluation, condemning them as vncleane, sinful, hy pocritical, Pharisaical: vvhich is directly against these & other Scripture, and plaine blaspheming of Christ and his grace, by vvhose spirit and cooperation vve doe them.
13. Shal be iustified.) Of al other Articles deceitfully handled by Heretikes, they vse most guile in this of Iustification: Against imputatiue iustice. and specially by the equiuocation of certaine vvordes, vvhich is proper to al contentious vvranglers, and namely in this vvord, Iustifie, Vvhich because they finde sometime to signifie the acquiting of a guilty man of some crime vvhere of he is in deede guilty, & for vvhich he ought to be condemned, (as by mans iudgement either of ignorance or of purpose often a very malefactor is deemed or declared and pronounced innocent) they falsly make it so signifie in this place and the like, vvheresoeuer man is said to be iustified of God for his vvorkes or othervvise: as though it vvere said, that God iustifieth man, that is to say, imputeth to him the iustice of Christ, though he be not in deede iust: or of fauour reputeth him as iust, vvhen in deede he is vvicked, impious, and vniust. Vvhich is a most blasphemous doctrine against God, making him either ignorant vvho is iust, and so to erre in his iudgement, or not good, that can loue and saue him vvhom he knovveth to be euill. True inherent iustice more for Gods glorie, & for the commendation of Christs merites. And a maruelous pitieful blindnes it is in the Churches Aduersaries, that they should thinke it more to Gods glorie, and more to the commendation of Christes iustice, merites, and mercie, to call and count an il man so continuing, for iust: then by his grace and mercie to make him of an il one, iust in deede, and so truely to iustifie him, or as the vvord doth here signifie, to esteeme and approue for iust in deede, him, that by his grace keepeth his lavv and commaundements. For, that the keepers or doers of the commaundements be iust and so reputed, it is plaine by the correspondence to the former vvordes, Not the hearers are iust, but the doers. Vvherevpon S. Augustine de Sp. & lit. c. 26. to. •. hath these vvordes, When it is said, The doers of the Lavv shalbe iustified, vvhat other thing is said, then. The iust shalbe iustified? for the doers of the Lavv verily are iust.
Concordance Mt. 7, 21.
Concordance Ia. 1, 22.
2:21
It is a shameful and damnable thing for preachers, teachers, or other guides of mens life, to commit the same things them selues which they reproue in other.
2:23
Concordance Es. 52, 5.
Concordance Ez. 36, 20.
2:24
It is a great sinne that by the i• life of the faithful, our Lordes name should be il spoken of amōg the misbeleuers, & many vvithdravven from the true religiō thereby.
2:25
Prepuce is the foreskinne not circumcised, & therfore signifieth the Gentiles, or the state and conditiō of the Gentiles: as circumcisiō, the Ievves and their state.
2:26
26. Keepe the iustices.) If a Gentile either novv since Christ, by his grace and faith, or any other before Christ, not of the stocke of Abraham, through the Spirit of God keepe the iustices of the Lavv, True iustice both in Ievv and Gentile, is by keeping the Lavv. he is iust no lesse then if he had been outvvardly circumcised, and shal condemne the circumcised Ievv not keeping the Lavv, vvithout vvhich, his outvvard Sacrament can not serue him, but shal be much to his condemnation, that hauing the Lavv and peculiar Sacraments of God, he did not keepe the Lavv, nor invvardly exercise that in his hart vvhich the outvvard signe did import. And al this is no more but to insinuate that true iustice is not in faith only or knovvledge of the Lavv, or in the name either of Ievv or Christian, but in doing good vvorkes and keeping the Lavv by Gods grace.
2:29
29. In spirit, not letter.] The outvvard ceremonies, Sacraments, threates, and commaundements of God in the Lavv, The letter, and the spirit. are called the letter: the invvard vvorking of God in mens hart, and enduing him vvith faith, The carnal, and spiritual Ievve. hope, and charitie, and vvith loue, liking, vvil, and abilitie to keepe his commaundements by the grace and merites of Christ, are called the spirit. In vvhich sense, the carnal Ievv vvas a Ievv according to the letter, and he vvas circumcised after the letter: but the true beleeuing Gentil obseruing by Gods grace in hart and in Gods sight, that vvhich vvas meant by that carnal signe, de sp. & lit. to. 3. is a Ievv according to the spirit, and iustified by God. Of the spirit and letter S. Augustine made a famous vvorke, very necessarie for the vnderstanding of this Epistle.
2:1
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.22
… for God is able to make him stand.” And again: “Wherefore thou art without excuse, O every man that judgest: for in that in which thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou doest the same things which thou judgest. But dost thou hope, who judgest those who do evil, and doest the same, that thou thyself shalt escape the judgment of God?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Chap. ii. ver. 1 . “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man; whosoever thou art that judgest; for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself.”
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 Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 43.10
… Moreover, if it were inconceivable that a man should condemn in another the wrong which he had himself done, the Apostle Paul would not have had occasion to say: “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.23
32. But it will be urged that it is written of heretics that "they are condemned of themselves." What then? are they not also condemned of themselves to whom it was said, "For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.16
… on his own, that he may not commit fornication. Nothing, however, is more unjust than for a man to put away his wife because of fornication, if he himself also is convicted of committing fornication. For that passage occurs to one: “For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”
2:2
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 2 . “For we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them who commit such things.”
2:3
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.15
15. This indeed is the very thing which Paul rebukes, when he says, “And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 3 . “And thinkest thou this” (4 mss. om. this), “O man, that judgest those which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 28
… But according to the hardness of thy heart and thy impenitent heart, thou treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render unto every one according to his works."
2:4
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Ephesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 11
The last times are come upon us. Let us therefore be of a reverent spirit, and fear the long-suffering of God, lest we despise the riches of His goodness and forbearance.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.37.1
… But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” “But glory and honour,” he says, “to every one that doeth good.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.6
… while to those who are contentious, and believe not the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, indignation, tribulation, and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil, on the Jew first, and (afterwards) on the Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that doeth good, to the Jew first, and (afterwards) to the Greek.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.11
… “Despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.6
… while to those who are contentious, and believe not the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, wrath, tribulation, and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil; on the Jew first, and on the Greek: but glory, and honour, and peace to every one that worketh good; to the Jew first, and to the Greek.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.11
… “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 On the Advantage of Patience 4
… But after thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who shall render to every one according to his works.”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.36
… “Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and patience, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath in the day of wrath and of revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
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, and Wisdom, and Word. Then again, on account of the divers manners wherein grace is given to us, which, because of the riches of His goodness,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.11
100. And what reason is there for putting off? Is it that you may sin yet more? Then because God is good you are evil, and “despise the riches of His goodness and long-suffering.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.15
… And though He may not bring the punishment upon thee instantly, be not confident on that account, but fear the more. So also Paul bade thee, saying, “Despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 4 . “Or despiseth thou the riches of His goodness and forbearance and long-sufferring; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 4
… but that we may not despair in our sins, but may repent. For “the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 38
… sin no more.” But if we suffer not punishment though continuing in the same courses, let us use for our charm that word of the Apostle, “The goodness of God leadeth [us] to repentance, but after [our] hardness and impenitent heart, [we] treasure up unto [ourselves] wrath.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 147.1
… you are a slave to lust; your glory is in your shame; you fatten yourself like a victim for the slaughter, and imitate the lives of the wicked, careless of their doom. “Thou knowest not that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance. But after thy hardness and impenitent heart thou treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 3.6
… but such is His goodness and unspeakable mercy that He chooses a man who, He perceives, will meanwhile be good, and who, He knows, will turn out badly, thus giving him the opportunity of being converted and of repenting. This is the Apostle’s meaning when he says,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 1.8
… men, taking thought of this, repent of their wickedness and reform, some, as the apostle says, “despising the riches of His goodness and long-suffering, after their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds:”
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,” such characters should afford us matter for the exercise of patience with pity, inasmuch as also the “patience of God leadeth them to repentance.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 25
… For not all treasure up for themselves, through the patience of God, wrath in the day of the wrath of His just judgment; but many are brought by the same patience of the Almighty to the most wholesome pain of repentance.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 26
… And (he should finally be counselled) not to despair of the amendment of any man whom he perceives to be living under the patience of God for no other reason, as the apostle
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 48
… who by Thy patience dost lead to repentance, although many according to the hardness of their heart and their impenitent heart treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath and of the revelation of Thy righteous judgment, who wilt render to every man according to his works;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 3.18
… Nor do we say that such offenses remain unpunished, unless those guilty of them correct themselves, if the patience of God leading them to repentance
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.14
Chapter 14.— 22. But we must not despair of the conversion of any man, whether situated within or without, so long as "the goodness of God leadeth him to repentance,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Correction of the Donatists 11
… long as he lives here, "the goodness of God," as the apostle says, "is leading him to repentance;" but if he deliberately, with the utmost perseverance in iniquity, as the apostle adds in the succeeding verse, "after his hardness and impenitent heart, treasures up unto himself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.14
… but he despises, i.e. he does not fear Him, as if feeling himself secure in consideration of His goodness. From this carelessness and ruinous security the Holy Spirit recalls us, when He says by the prophet, “My son, do not add sin upon sin, and say, The mercy of God is great ;” and, “Knowest thou not that the patience of God inviteth thee to repentance?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 21.20
… whether in the thought only, or also in the tongue, a very heinous and exceedingly ungodly word, who “when the patience of God leadeth him to repentance, after his hardness and impenitent heart treasureth up unto himself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 33.7
… “Or despisest thou the riches of His long-suffering and gentleness; not knowing that the forbearance of God leadeth thee to repentance? But thou, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up for thyself wrath against the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 94.3
… For He will come: He will come, and will judge those who continue in their wickedness, ungrateful for the prolongation of His mercy, for His long-suffering, treasuring up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 99.6
… Because it is “wonderful and holy.” Thy very Name is wonderful and holy. He is so preached as crucified, so preached as humbled, so preached as judged, that He may come exalted, that He may come living, that He may come to judge in power. He spareth at present the people who blaspheme Him, because “the long-suffering of God leadeth to repentance.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 101.2
… he goeth on to show to him the season of mercy: “Despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering?” And he did indeed despise them; but the Apostle hath made him anxious. “Not knowing,” he saith, “that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?”
2:5
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.33.15
… Those, on the other hand, who depart from Him, and despise His precepts, and by their deeds bring dishonour on Him who made them, and by their opinions blaspheme Him who nourishes them, heap up against themselves most righteous judgment.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 History of the Councils 2
… while their professed clergy, though claiming deference from their flocks, as teachers, were unbelievers on their own shewing, in that they were seeking what they had not. And the party of Ursacius, who were at the bottom of all this, did not understand what wrath they were storing up (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.15
… continuing, as thou dost, impenitent. This, however, is the very thing he means, when he says, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God. Who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 72
Seest thou perfect exactness, and that all for the same sins are not paying the same penalty? For moreover when we have had the benefit of long-suffering, and profit nothing, we shall endure worse things. And this Paul shows, where he says, “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up for thyself wrath.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 5 . “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 34
… nor yet many other such. Therefore doth He bear with them, calling all to repentance. But if they will not, but continue in the same, they shall hear Paul saying that “after their hardness and impenitent heart they treasure up unto themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation, and righteous judgment of God: (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 3
How is it then that God, “the righteous Judge, strong and patient” ( Ps. vii. 11 , Sept.), bears thus with men, and does not exact punishment? Here thou hast the cause, He is longsuffering, and thereby would lead thee to repentance. But if thou continuest in sin, thou “after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 9.4
… Yea, to be justly angry; for that it was not another nature of the race of darkness which sinned for me, as they affirm it to be who are not angry with themselves, and who treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath, and of the revelation of Thy righteous judgment.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.11
… to them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life; but unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.36
… “Little children, it is the last time.” The very time then when the gospel is preached, up to the time that the Lord shall be revealed, is the day in which men ought to give heed to these sayings: for to the same day, which shall be brought to a close by a day of judgment, belongs that very revelation of the Lord here spoken of.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 11
… mistake, whisperers as they are, and slanderers, and “hateful to God,” such characters should afford us matter for the exercise of patience with pity, inasmuch as also the “patience of God leadeth them to repentance.” For what is more detestable, and what more likely to “treasure up wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 25
… For not all treasure up for themselves, through the patience of God, wrath in the day of the wrath of His just judgment;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.3
3. In fear of which condemnation the Church prays in this Psalm, and says, “Reprove me not, O Lord, in Thine anger” ( ver. 1 ). The Apostle too mentions the anger of the judgment; “Thou treasurest up unto thyself,” he says, “anger against the day of the anger of the just judgment of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.12
… God then doth not “bring in anger every day,” that is, He doth not collect His ministers for vengeance every day. For now the patience of God inviteth to repentance: but in the last time, when men “through their hardness and impenitent heart shall have treasured up for themselves anger in the day of anger, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 94.5
… hear the Apostle; “but after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up into thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 101.2
… thou hast heard the season of mercy, on which account, “mercy and judgment will I sing unto Thee, O Lord:” “But thou,” saith the Apostle, “after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, who will render to every man according to his deeds.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 7.31
… For they are vouchsafed no swift and immediate remedy in this world, whose “hardness and impenitent heart,” being too much for punishment in this life, “heapeth up for itself wrath and indignation in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,” “where their worm dieth not, and their fire is not quenched.”
2:6
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Magnesians: Shorter and Longer Versions 11
… He also died, and rose again, and ascended into the heavens to Him that sent Him, and is sat down at His right hand, and shall come at the end of the world, with His Father’s glory, to judge the living and the dead, and to render to every one according to his works.
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 9
… See we, then, whether that which has another action be not another sword,—that is, the Divine word of God, doubly sharpened with the two Testaments of the ancient law and the new law; sharpened by the equity of its own wisdom; rendering to each one according to his own action.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 An Exhortation to Theodore After His Fall 1
… And these things are not merely sug gested by our own reasoning, but declared also by the divine oracles; for He Himself saith, “He shall reward every man according to his works.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 6, 7 . “Who will render to every man according to his deeds, to them who by patient continuance in well doing,” etc.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 28
… one says, “Thou shalt render to every man according to his work” ( Ps. lxii. 12 , LXX.); the other, “Who will render to every man according to his work.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 4.3
… And who is this but Thee, our God, the sweetness and well-spring of righteousness, who renderest “to every man according to his deeds,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.25
… In the height of the cross, against which the head is placed, we have an emblem of the expectation of recompense from the sublime justice of God, “who will render to every man according to his deeds; to them who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory, and honour, and immortality, eternal life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 17
… saved through faith,” added,” And that not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God.” And again, lest they should say they deserved so great a gift by their works, he immediately added, “Not of works, lest any man should boast.” Not that he denied good works, or emptied them of their value, when he says that God renders to every man according to his works;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 37.2.1
… But the Lord beholds and “foresees his day.” “What day?” That in which “He will render to every man according to his works.” For he is “treasuring up unto himself wrath against the day of wrath, and revelation of the just judgment of God.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 13.9
… “If ye be willing, and hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the land,” and how it is “not of him that willeth or runneth, but of God that hath mercy?” What too is this, that God “will render to every man according to his works;”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 123
… Hold fast then, my dear friend, to the apostolic doctrines, for “He that shall come will come, and will not tarry,” and “He shall render to every man according to his deeds,”
2:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 7 . “To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, eternal life.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 77
… so are those souls which fall back when near the end of their labors, and faint in the midst of the struggle. Wherefore Paul said, that glory, and honor, and peace, should meet those who ran their course with patient continuance in well-doing. A thing which Christ now effecteth in the case of the disciples. (
2:8
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
… 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,” and, “indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 8 . “But unto them that are contentious,” he says. Again, he deprives of excuse those that live in wickedness, and shows that it is from a kind of disputatiousness and carelessness that they fall into unrighteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile: for there is no respect of persons with God. For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Two Letters Written by Augustin to Valentinus and the Monks of Adrumetum 2.1
… and thus is accomplished that sentence of Scripture, “Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile: but glory, honour, and peace to every man that worketh good; to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”
2:9
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.14
… unfettered by the necessity of Judaical observances, (I mean Sabbaths, and circumcision, and divers purifications,) yet exhibiting all manner of wisdom and piety. And again, discoursing of such a worshipper, he observes, “Wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 9 . “Indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 56
… and therefore, even though there be in it a belief in the Lord, yet righteousness is not loved by it, but condemnation is feared. God’s children, however, exclaim, “Abba, Father,”—one of which words they of the circumcision utter; the other, they of the uncircumcision,—the Jew first, and then the Greek;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 9.17
… What the three measures, but all nations, on account of the three sons of Noah? Therefore the “six water-pots containing two or three metretæ apiece” are six periods of time, containing the prophecy relating to all nations, whether as represented in two sorts of men, namely, Jews and Greeks, as the apostle often mentions them;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 4.2
2. “When I called, the God of my righteousness heard me” ( ver. 1 ). When I called, God heard me, the Psalmist says, of whom is my righteousness. “In tribulation Thou hast enlarged me.” Thou hast led me from the straits of sadness into the broad ways of joy. For, “tribulation and straitness is on every soul of man that doeth evil.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 12.4
4. “May the Lord destroy all deceitful lips” ( ver. 3 ). He says “all,” that no one may suppose himself excepted: as the Apostle says, “Upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and of the Greek.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 83.5
… “Tyre” in Hebrew is called Sor; which whether it be interpreted straitness or tribulation, must be taken in the case of these enemies of God’s people in that sense, of which the Apostle speaks, “Tribulation and straitness on every soul of man that doeth evil.”
2:10
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 24
55. Furthermore man is “crowned with glory and honour,” and “glory, honour and peace” are laid up by promise “to every man that worketh good.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.13
… For how should it be so if they sinned without a law? but when he says, “without a law,” he does not assert that they had no law, but that they had no written law, though they had the law of nature. And again; “But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 10 . “But glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 59.2.5
… For just as alike they have been found in iniquity, so alike they will attain unto salvation. “Not only to Jews,” saith the Apostle, “but also even to Gentiles.”
2:11
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.7.4
… Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. And how shall we escape that declaration: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!” or this: “Is there respect of persons with God?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.8.4
… It is sufficient only to know this much, in order to demonstrate the impartiality and righteousness of God, that, conformably with the declaration of the Apostle Paul, “there is no acceptance of persons with Him,”
St Peter of Alexandria † AD 311 The Canonical Epistle, with the Commentaries of Theodore Balsamon and John Zonaras 7
… knowing, says he, that our and their Master is in heaven; and that there is no respect of persons with Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 23
… (d) “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respector of persons: but in every nation he that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, is acceptable to him.” ( v. 34, 35 .) That is, be he uncircumcised or circumcised. (c) This also Paul declaring, saith, “For there is no respect of persons with God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 11 . “For there is no respect of persons with God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 3
“I thank the Lord, who hath enabled me.” Observe how he thanks God even for that which was his own part. For he acknowledges it as a favor from Him that he was “a chosen vessel.” For this, O blessed Paul, was thy own part. “For God is no respecter of persons.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… it follows that such Gentiles as have the law written in their hearts belong to the gospel, since to them, on their believing, it is the power of God unto salvation. To what Gentiles, however, would he promise glory, and honour, and peace, in their doing good works, if living without the grace of the gospel? Since there is no respect of persons with God,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 49
… Or did the apostle perhaps deem it probable, because he had previously said that “with God there is no respect of persons,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.10
… “We confess,” say they, that baptism is necessary for all ages, and that grace, moreover, assists the good purpose of everybody; but yet that it does not infuse the love of virtue into a reluctant one, because there is no acceptance of persons with God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 19
… or certainly that Scripture is wrong which says concerning the immature death of the righteous man, “He was taken away lest wickedness should change his understanding, or lest deceit should beguile his soul.” Why, then, does God give this so great benefit to some, and not give it to others, seeing that in Him is no unrighteousness nor acceptance of persons,
Anonymous A Treatise Against the Heretic Novatian by an Anonymous Bishop 16
… Let us have in contemplation especially the day of judgment and retribution, and what must be believed by all of us, and firmly maintained, that “there is no acceptance of persons with God;”
2:12
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.27.1
1. As I have heard from a certain presbyter,
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.100
Paul to the Romans: “As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged also by the law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.13
… “Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.” And again; “As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 36
Let us not then any more bring in such old wives’ doctrines, and Jewish fables. Hear at least what Paul saith touching these things. “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 72
… And that what I say may be more clear, let one sin be set forth, fornication; and mark how many different punishments I find not from myself, but from the divine Scriptures. Did any one commit fornication before the law, he is differently punished; and this Paul showeth, “For as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law.”
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 6
Ver. 12 . “For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
… so the believer also, who leadeth a corrupt life, is so far from becoming, as such, an object of respect, that he is only the more one of scorn. “For as many,” it says, “as sinned without law, shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 31
… It is because the believers acknowledge their Master. And what is this to the purpose? when their life is impure, they will on this ground be punished more severely than the unbelievers. “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: but as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 9
… being justified freely by His grace.” ( Rom. x. 12; Rom. iii. 22–24 .) And on this head he treats profitably and very wisely throughout that Epistle. But in a former part of it he proves that they are worthy of still greater punishment. “For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 1.28
… “The hour cometh,” he says, “In which all that are in the tombs shall hear His voice, and shall come forth: they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done ill unto the resurrection of judgment.” And so the Apostle, in the same sense, because in the same Spirit, says to the Romans,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.14
… both of whom are spoken of thus by the apostle: "They that have sinned without law shall perish without law, and they that have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.12
… But sin is not imputed where there is no law.” Now what means the phrase “ is not imputed, ” but “ is ignored, ” or “ is not reckoned as sin? ” Although the Lord God does not Himself regard it as if it had never been, since it is written: “As many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 5
The excuse such as men are in the habit of alleging from ignorance is taken away from those persons who know God’s commandments. But neither will those be without punishment who know not the law of God. “For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 54.6
… In one way, therefore, will those be judged who have never heard that word, in another way those who have heard and despised. “For as many as have sinned without law,” says the apostle, “shall also perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 89.3
… Evidently they can, but not on that account can they escape damnation. “For as many as have sinned without the law, shall also perish without the law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.6
… Therefore the general term is sinner; either a transgressor of the Law, if he hath received Law; or only unjust without Law, if he hath not received the Law. Of both kinds speaketh the Apostle, and saith, “They that without Law have sinned, without Law shall perish, and they that in the Law have sinned, by the Law shall be judged.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 81.7
7. “Because it is a commandment for Israel, and a judgment for the God of Jacob” ( ver. 4 ). Where a commandment, there judgment. For, “They that have sinned in the Law, by the Law shall be judged.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.15
… For the Apostle saith, “The law worketh wrath;” and, explaining these words, he addeth, “For where no law is, there is no transgression:” thereby showing that not all are transgressors. For all have not the law. That all have not the law, he declareth more explicitly in another passage, “as many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law.”
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 7.15
… seeing that this is contrary to the prophet David where he says, But in hell who shall acknowledge thee ( Ps. vi. 6 )? And to the Apostle; As many as have sinned without law shall perish without law (
2:13
Tertullian † AD 220 On Exhortation to Chastity 7
… But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics. For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 3.97
In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: “Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss.” And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: “The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.” Also to the Romans: “Not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
St Dionysius of Alexandria † AD 265 Containing Various Sections of the Works 4.5
… Nor is a maker a father, if it is only a framer who is called a maker. For among the Greeks, they who are wise are said to be makers of their books. The apostle also says, “a doer ( scil . maker) of the law.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 De Sententia Dionysii. (Defence of Dionysius.) 20
… For the wider sense of the term Father we will work out in what follows. Neither is the Father a maker, if by maker is meant simply the artificer. For among the Greeks, philosophers are called “makers” of their own discourses. And the Apostle speaks of a “doer” ( ποιητής ) “of the law” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 To Those Who Had Not Attended the Assembly 4
… It makes our punishment heavier, if we continually hear the same things and do none of the things which are spoken. That the chastisement will be heavier, hear the statement of Christ. “If I had not come and spoken to them they had not sin: but now they have no cloke for their sin.” And the Apostle says “for not the hearers of the law shall be justified.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 64
… And for this reason, let me add, that they might not think the law would benefit them, He shows that this self-same thing condemns them, like as Paul also saith, “Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver 13 . “For not the hearers of the law are just before God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 5
… but humility, when one does this for the sake of things pleasing to God, and descends from his own proper station that he may perform something great and admirable. If we know these things, happy are we if we do them. For to know them is not enough. For Scripture says, “Not the hearers of a law, but the doers of a law shall be justified.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… To what Gentiles, however, would he promise glory, and honour, and peace, in their doing good works, if living without the grace of the gospel? Since there is no respect of persons with God, and since it is not the hearers of the law, but the doers thereof, that are justified,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 45
Now he could not mean to contradict himself in saying, “The doers of the law shall be justified,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 49
What then could the apostle have meant to imply by,—after checking the boasting of the Jews, by telling them that “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.2
… But we say, that by the law is effected that what God wills to be done is heard, but that by grace is effected that the law is obeyed. “For not the hearers of the law,” says the apostle, “are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 31.1
… And how shall we be able to fly to Him who made the world, unless we give ear to His law which is preached everywhere? And to give ear to it is but a small matter, unless we love it. For divine Scripture in making thee secure against offences doth not say, “Great peace have they who” hear “Thy law. For not the hearers of the law are just before God.
Pope St Gregory I the Great † AD 604 Register of the Epistles of St. Gregory the Great 14.16
… and, strong in sacred faith and Christian manners, enjoins what should be done to please God, and unceasingly follows and fulfils pontifical duties, thus observing the precepts of divine law; since (as says the Apostle) Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified (
2:14
Tertullian † AD 220 The Chaplet, or De Corona 6
Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman’s veil he says, “Does not even Nature teach you?” —as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires,
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 28
… Were they not constituted righteous in virtue of their fulfilling the law, “every one of them showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness?” For when a man “who has not the law does naturally the things contained in the law, he, not having the law, is a law unto himself.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.13
… and that they knew clearly what they ought to do; hear how he speaks; “For when the Gentiles who have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these having not the law, are a law unto themselves; which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 23
… What then? Was He “a respecter of persons” beforetime? God forbid! For beforetime likewise it was just the same: “Every one,” as he saith, “that feareth Him, and worketh righteousness, would be acceptable to Him.” As when Paul saith, “For when the Gentiles which have not the Law, do by nature the things of the Law.” (
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
Ver. 14 . “For when the Gentiles,” he says, “which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.2
2. There are three laws. One is that of the Hebrews, which the apostle calls the law of sin and death. The second is that of the Gentiles, which he calls the law of nature. "For the Gentiles," he says, "do by nature the things contained in the law; and, not having the law, they are a law into themselves; who show the work of the law written on their hearts."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 43
Now we must see in what sense it is that the apostle says, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves, which show the work of the law written in their hearts,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 44
… and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.” Who they are that are treated of in these words, he goes on to tell us: “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
If therefore the apostle, when he mentioned that the Gentiles do by nature the things contained in the law, and have the work of the law written in their hearts,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 47
… Sin, indeed, is contrary to nature, and it is grace that heals it,—on which account the prayer is offered to God, “Be merciful unto me: heal my soul; for I have sinned against Thee.” Therefore it is by nature that men do the things which are contained in the law;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 48
… if this is what is meant by the statement that “the Gentiles, which have not the law” (that is, the law of God), “do by nature the things contained in the law,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 49
What then could the apostle have meant to imply by,—after checking the boasting of the Jews, by telling them that “not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified,” —immediately afterwards speaking of them “which, having not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 2.9
… which show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another, in the day when the Lord shall judge the secrets of men.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.28
… There were not then indeed the same forms of law as now, but the choice of the will was taken for the rule of law, as the Apostle saith also in another place, “The Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 13.12
… Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, though they have not the law, are a law to themselves, as they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to these, and their thoughts within them either accusing or else excusing them, in the day in which God shall judge the secrets of men.”
2:15
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.10.4
… then is the conscience itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a witness against itself. And this, I think, was the opinion of the Apostle Paul himself, when he said, “Their thoughts mutually accusing or excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.15
… Therefore, each man must keep his own heart with all watchfulness; for when the Lord comes in the day of judgment, “He will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts,” “all the thoughts of men meanwhile accusing or else excusing them,”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 28
… Were they not constituted righteous in virtue of their fulfilling the law, “every one of them showing the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing them witness?”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 15.25
… who needs not examination or proofs, to condemn. Say not, In the night I committed fornication, or wrought sorcery, or did any other thing, and there was no man by. Out of thine own conscience shalt thou be judged, thy thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 15 . “Which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another.”
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 34
… the judgment-seat of Christ, that every man may receive the awards due to the body, according as he hath done, whether they be good or evil.” Moreover, the judgment will be not only for deeds, but for thoughts also, as the same Apostle saith, “Their thoughts mutually accusing or else excusing one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.26
… “For,” as it is written, “in the thoughts of the wicked His examination shall be conducted.” And the apostle says, “The thoughts accusing or else excusing, in the day in which God shall judge the hidden things of men, according to my gospel in Jesus Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
… Abraham, “in Abraham’s seed, which is Christ,” by following the faith of him who, without receiving the law written on tables, and not yet possessing even circumcision, “believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” Now what the apostle attributed to Gentiles of this character,—how that “they have the work of the law written in their hearts;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 48
… Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself a ransom for all.” Should those be strangers to His grace of whom we are treating, and who (after the manner of which we have spoken with sufficient fulness already) “do by nature the things contained in the law,” of what use will be their “excusing thoughts” to them “in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 5.13
… “Let them,” therefore, “fall from their own thoughts,” is, let them fall by their self-accusing thoughts, “their own conscience also bearing witness,” as the Apostle says, “and their thoughts accusing or excusing, in the revelation of the just judgment of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.9
… “He shall judge the people with justice”( ver. 8 ). This is the same as was said above, “He shall judge the world in equity.” Not as men judge who see not the heart, by whom very often worse men are acquitted than are condemned: but “in equity” and “with justice” shall the Lord judge, “conscience bearing witness, and thoughts accusing, or else excusing.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 58.1
… not because in hearts it had not been written, but because thou wast a deserter from thy heart, thou art seized by Him that is everywhere, and to thyself within art called back. Therefore the written law, what crieth it, to those that have deserted the law written in their hearts?
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 8.20
… according to that which He Himself says through the prophet: “But I come that I may gather them together with all nations and tongues;” and again: “Their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 7.4
… “Their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men according to my gospel.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.14
… As we premised, the intent of the mind brings a man either reward or condemnation, according to this passage: “Their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men;” and this too: “But I am coming to gather together their works and thoughts together with all nations and tongues.”
2:16
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.6
… He who is accurately to apprehend what it contains should be able to say with truth, “We have the mind of Christ, that we may know those things which are bestowed on us by God.” It is possible to quote one of Paul’s sayings in support of the contention that the whole of the New Testament is Gospel. He writes in a certain place:
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.14
In addition to what we have said, there is also this to be considered about the Gospel, that in the first instance it is that of Christ Jesus, the head of the whole body of the saved; as Mark says, “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” Then also it is the Gospel of the Apostles; whence Paul
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 5.4
… I will add to the proof of this an apostolic saying which has been quite misunderstood by the disciples of Marcion, who, therefore, set the Gospels at naught. The Apostle says:
Eusebius of Caesarea † AD 339 The Church History of Eusebius 3.4.8
8. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke’s Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, “according to my Gospel.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Life of Antony. (Vita Antoni.) 55
… and if he have sinned, let him cease from it; while if he have not, let him not be boastful. But let him abide in that which is good, without being negligent, nor condemning his neighbours, nor justifying himself, ‘until the Lord come who searcheth out hidden things
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 6.11
… The bodies of these youths, for instance, were free, though they were given over to the furnace, because they had before put off the slavery of sin. For this alone is liberty; and not an immunity from punishment, or from suffering anything fearful. But having heard of the furnace, call thou to mind the “rivers of fire,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 12.13
… which shew the work of the law written in their hearts.” But how without letters? “Their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing, or else excusing one another. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… “Only Luke is with me.” ( 2 Tim. iv. 10 .) And giving the Corinthians a charge concerning him, he says, “Whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all the Churches.” ( 2 Cor. viii. 18 .) Again, when he says, “He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve,” and, “according to the Gospel which ye received” ( 1 Cor. xv. 5, 1 ), he means the Gospel of this Luke.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans pref
… He probably did not think of its being applicable to the first motions of prevenient grace, intending himself the Evangelical gifts. This view of his meaning seems to solve the difficulties of his expressions, so far as is necessary in a writer more rhetorical than logical. Some passages in this Commentary bear on the point, as
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
Ver. 16 . “In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 4
… For of such a nature are the benefits which God has conferred upon us, that men were ashamed to ascribe them to God, and could not believe He had so far condescended. “According to my Gospel.” Thus he everywhere speaks in his Epistles, saying “according to my Gospel,”
2:17
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… 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;” and, “Thou makest thy boast of God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 24
And here He seems to me to be censuring the Jews chiefly, laying as they did the whole stress upon the doctrines, and taking no care of practice. For which Paul also blames them, saying, “Behold thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy boast of God, and knowest His will:”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
… “And knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent.” Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 52
… For the first without the last is nothing. “Behold,” saith St. Paul, “thou art called a Jew, and restest in the Law, and makest thy boast of God—thou therefore that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking of the Law dishonorest thou God?” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 2.10
… and if you believe it not, I still lament that you hunt through all sorts of ancient and antiquated documents for grounds for suspecting other men of perjury, while perjury, lasting and endless with all its inexplicable impiety, remains upon your own lips. Might not these words of the Apostle be rightly applied to you:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 13
… For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
2:18
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 3.18
… Truly now is the season to proclaim, “Who can utter the mighty acts of the Lord? who can show forth all His praise?” How many men have not only cast down, but also trodden under foot the images of God! For when thou throttlest a debtor, when thou strippest him, when thou draggest him away,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 20
“That ye may prove (things more expedient ( διαφέροντα ), and know
2:19
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 To Those Who Had Not Attended the Assembly 4
… “Thou art confident that thou thyself art a leader of the blind, a light of those who are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes: thou therefore that teachest another teachest thou not thyself?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 19 . “And art confident that thou thyself.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 8
For the Scriptures suggest to us what is to be done, and what is not to be done. For hear this blessed one elsewhere saying, “Thou art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in darkness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes.” (
2:20
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 12.1
… Let us confess the presence of Him who is both King and Physician. For Jesus the King when about to become our Physician, girded Himself with the linen of humanity , and healed that which was sick. The perfect Teacher of babes
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Holy Spirit 1
… and if any one were to term some individual a man, and yet were unable to produce evidence in his case of the foregoing signs of human nature, his terming him so would be a valueless honour. Thus, too, the Christian is marked by his Belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in this consists the form of him who is fashioned
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 20 . “An instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of knowledge and truth, which is in the Law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 8
In the Epistle to the Romans, he says somewhat on this wise, “Having the form of knowledge and of the truth in the law” (
2:21
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 2
… for I was an obedient son to my father, and beloved in the sight of my mother .’ For a just father brings up [his children] well, when he is diligent in teaching others in accordance with his own upright conduct, so that when he meets with opposition, he may not be ashamed on hearing it said, ‘Thou therefore that teachest others, teachest thou not thyself
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
For not to ourselves alone, should we be profitable, but to others also; since neither is the reward as great for him who guides himself aright, as for one who with himself adds also another. For as teaching without doing condemns the teacher (for “thou which teachest another,” it is said, “teachest thou not thyself”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 5
… Not this only, he says, is possible, but what is much more even than this. For not only is it possible without hearing to be a doer, but even with hearing not to be so. Which last thing he makes plainer, and that with a greater advantage over them, when he says, “Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
… “And knowest His will, and approvest the things that are more excellent.” Indeed this is a disadvantage, if without working: yet still it seemed to be an advantage, and so he states it with accuracy. For he does not say, thou doest, but knowest; and approvest, not followest and doest.
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 2.25
… Is this the fairness of a Christian? Is it thus that we are to observe the injunction of the Apostle, “Do nothing through faction or through vain glory”? But I might turn the tables on you and ask,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.55
… Thus it is written of some: "This people honor me with their lips, but their heart is far from me." To such the apostle says: "Thou that preachest that a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.9
… but he even put up with those who were manifestly bad, as was very well known to himself, who did not entertain a different view in consequence of the obscurity of the question, but acted contrary to their preaching in the evil practices of an abandoned life, as the apostle says of them, "Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.23
32. But it will be urged that it is written of heretics that "they are condemned of themselves." What then? are they not also condemned of themselves to whom it was said, "For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself?" But to these the apostle says, "Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 24.2
… Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the Law, through breaking the Law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 6.14
… thou art not of God. Therefore He saith in the Gospel: “Whoso shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven.” What is this breaking? What this teaching? A breaking in the deeds and a teaching as it were in words. “Thou that preachest men should not steal, dost thou steal?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.13
… This barrenness in the tree He cursed, when seeking fruit He found none. Leaves there were, and fruit there was not: words there were, and deeds there were not. See of words abundance, and of deeds barrenness. “Thou that preachest a man should not steal, stealest: thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, committest adultery.”
2:22
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
… “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?”
2:23
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 8.10
But that the honour which we pay to the Son of God, as well as that which we render to God the Father, consists of an upright course of life, is plainly taught us by the passage, “Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 1
… For not all those who call upon God, hallow God, since there are some who defile Him; yet not Him—that is impossible—but their own mind concerning Him; for He is holy, and has pleasure in the saints . And therefore the blessed Paul accuses those who dishonour God; ‘Transgressors of the law dishonour God
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 23 . “Thou that makest a boast in the Law through breaking the Law dishonorest thou God?”
2:24
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 13
… thereafter it ceased curatively to remove from Israel infirmities of health; since, as the result of their perseverance in their frenzy, the name of the Lord was through them blasphemed, as it is written: “On your account the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles:”
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 The Epistles of Cyprian 6.3
… For as the Jews were alienated from God, as those on whose account “the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Apology to the Emperor. (Apologia Ad Constantium.) 28
… Truly their false accusations against us have gained them much, that they should be able to commit iniquity, and to do such things as these in your time; so that the words of Scripture may be applied to them, ‘Woe unto those through whom My name is blasphemed among the Gentiles
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 23
… and they call such a friendship a brotherly affection, as if, forsooth, they could veil their own thought, which is inclined to evil, under a sacred term. It is owing to them that this pure and holy profession of virginity is “blasphemed amongst the Gentiles
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 46
These sayings are not contrary, nay, they are exceedingly in accord. For when the offence is with us, then woe unto us, but when not with us, not so. And again, Woe to (that man) through whom “the name of God is blasphemed.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 24 . “For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.” ( Is. lii. 5 ; Ez. xxxvi. 20, 23 .)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 6
… For if those who are among us are offended at these things, much more those who are without, finding numberless accusations and handles, when they see a man who is in good health and able to support himself, begging and asking help of others. Wherefore also they call us Christ-mongers. On this account, he means, “the name of God is blasphemed.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 9
… “For as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law” ( Rom. ii. 12 ); that is to say, more severely, as having for their accuser the law as well as nature. And not for this only, but for that they have been the cause that God is blasphemed among the Gentiles: “My Name,” He saith, “is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 123.15
… I do not care what people say of me.’ That was not the principle on which the apostle acted. He provided things honest not only in the sight of God but in the sight of all men; that the name of God might not be blasphemed among the Gentiles.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 50.7
7. “And the house was filled with the odor.” The world is filled with the fame of a good character: for a good character is as a pleasant odor. Those who live wickedly and bear the name of Christians, do injury to Christ: of such it is said, that through them “the name of the Lord is blasphemed.”
2:25
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 11.12
… As, then, when the Jew sins his circumcision shall be reckoned for uncircumcision, but when one of the Gentiles acts uprightly his uncircumcision shall be reckoned for circumcision,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.54
… And the combination and blending of the two; in such wise that his gentleness should not enervate, nor his severity exasperate? He gives laws for slaves and masters, rulers and ruled, husbands and wives, parents and children, marriage and celibacy, self-discipline and indulgence, wisdom and ignorance, circumcision and uncircumcision,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 25 . “For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the Law.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
Observe that here also he means by “the Circumcision,” not the rite, but the Jews; whenever he speaks of the rite, and wishes to contrast it, he adds the word “uncircumcision;” as when he says, “For circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou be a doer of the law; but if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 8
… but let him not do so, saith he: let him not so live as if he had become uncircumcised, that is, as if he had covered again with flesh the part that was bared, and ceased to be a Jew; as in another place he saith, “Thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of the Work of Monks 12
… For he did this in accordance with his free and openly declared sentence, in which he says, “Is any called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.” That is, let him not so live, as though he had become uncircumcised, and covered that which he had laid bare: as in another place he saith, “Thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 33
… truth enlightens the wise men, unbelief blinds the experts: carnal Israel understands not what it reads, sees not what it points out; refers to the pages, whose utterances it does not believe. Where is thy boasting, O Jew? where thy noble birth drawn from the stem of Abraham? is not thy circumcision become uncircumcision
2:26
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 26 . “Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the Law, shall not his uncircumcision be turned into circumcision?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.29
… Such a circumcised proselyte might have been addressed in the words of Paul: "Circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 46
… “If,” says he, “the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?”
2:27
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.13.1
1. And that the Lord did not abrogate the natural [precepts] of the law, by which man
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 27 . “And shall not the uncircumcision which is by nature judge?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
… For it held the rank of a bitter accuser, by making their sins bare: since that, which enjoins more to him who is not minded to obey at all, makes the offence greater. And this is why he does not say, the “motions of sins” which were produced by the Law, but which “were through the Law” (
2:28
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 26
… holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judæan by reason of the friendship of God. For “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly.”
Tertullian † AD 220 To His Wife i.2
… For the Law was (in due time) to supervene. (Nor was that enough:) for it was meet that causes for making up the deficiencies of the Law should have forerun (Him who was to supply those deficiencies). And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision.
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1-2.21
… but he is a Jew who is one ‘inwardly;’ and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 40
… “If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor.” Further, he averred that the same apostle made this statement most obviously on the subject of the resurrection of the flesh, when he also said that “he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 10
… iv. 4 .) In the same way in the Epistle to the Romans he does away with it, saying, “for he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 108.12
… Then entering Jericho she saw the city which Hiel founded in Abiram his firstborn and of which he set up the gates in his youngest son Segub. She looked upon the camp of Gilgal and the hill of the foreskins suggestive of the mystery of the second circumcision:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.10
… This saith also the Apostle, “He is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter, whose praise is not of men, but of God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 114.6
… For it is not your tongue, but a foreign one, which knoweth not how to praise God, to whom ye sing Allelujah. For “Judah” hath become “His sanctuary” in you; for “he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and by circumcision of the heart.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 21.36
… “For he is not a Jew which is so outwardly, nor is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a Jew which is one inwardly, and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit not in the letter, whose praise is not of men but of God,”
Pseudo-Clement The Recognitions of Clement 5.34
… It is not true. For we say, that he is a worshipper of God, who does the will of God, and observes the precepts of His law. For in God’s estimation he is not a Jew who is called a Jew among men (nor is he a Gentile that is called a Gentile), but he who, believing in God, fulfils His law and does His will, though he be not circumcised.
2:29
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 7.22
… God may therefore have commanded men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having enjoined anything contrary to the teaching of Christ; and He may Himself have destroyed before the eyes of those who were “Jews inwardly”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.1
… In the same manner, it appears to me that the whole people of Christ, when we regard it in the aspect of the hidden man of the heart,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.40
… Hence he is a great High-Priest, since He restores all things to His Father’s kingdom, and arranges that whatever defects exist in each part of creation shall be filled up so as to be full of the glory of the Father. This High-Priest is called, from some other notion of him than those we have noticed, Judas, that those who are Jews secretly
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 42
… but if I am uncircumcised, and remain in uncircumcision, much more in keeping the commandments shall I have life. For I have received the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not that of the letter in the mere ink, in which former there is praise, not of men, but of God.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 5.28
… What is this name? Israel, of course; for to Israel the prophecy was addressed. And now I ask, What is Israel to-day? The Apostle gives the answer:—They who are in the spirit, not in the letter, they who walk in the Law of Christ, are the Israel of God
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
Ver. 29 . “But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 6
… And He “is the head of all principality and power.” ( Eph. iii. 6 .) He that is above all, The Cause, is He not Consubstantial? Then he has added the benefit in a marvelous way; and far more marvelous than in the Epistle to the Romans. For there indeed he saith, “circumcision of the heart in the spirit, not in the letter” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Titus 2
… He shall not see it, though he practice virtue. For he saith, “They have their reward.” ( Matt. vi. 5 .) He then, who has no reward to receive, how shall he see the kingdom of heaven? I forbid thee not to desire glory, but I would wish it to be the true glory, that which proceeds from God. “Whose praise,” it is said, “is not of men, but of God.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 5.27
… Are these the thorns among which she is a lily, as it is said in the same Song? So far therefore, as the lily extends, so far does "the garden enclosed and the fountain sealed," namely, through all those just persons who are Jews inwardly in the circumcision of the heart
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 117.5
… of the promise are counted for the seed.” And the Gentiles were those to whom he said, “But if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Christ therefore is king of the Jews, but of those who are Jews by the circumcision of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 76.1
… But God is known in very deed in Judæa, if they understand what is Judæa. For indeed God is not known except in Judæa. Behold even we say this, that except a person shall have been in Judæa, known to him God cannot be. But what saith the Apostle? He that in secret is a Jew, he that is so in circumcision of the heart, not in letter but in spirit.
2:1
1. For which reason thou art inexcusable, O man whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself, etc. — that is to say, Because the Gentiles, who have not understood the gravity and punishments of sins, as was set forth at the end of the preceding chapter, are nevertheless worthy of death on account of the sins which they commit or to which they consent; for this reason you much more so, O Jews, who have understood from the Mosaic law the gravity of sins, and the punishments which God threatens to sinners; and who judge and condemn the Gentiles on account of their sins, and yet do the same things and perpetrate them, are worthy of death. The Jews implicated in the same vices as the Gentiles. The Apostle censured, in the preceding chapter, the Gentiles and the crimes of the Gentiles, by which they held the truth of God in injustice; here he censures the same, or rather with greater reason the Jews. For, as I said in the preceding chapter, verse 18, he proposed the thesis, namely that without faith and the grace of Christ all are subject to sins and the wrath of God: he proved it there by showing that the Gentiles were and are in sins and the wrath of God: here he proves the same, showing the same in the Jews, and from this concludes, in chapter III, that all both Gentiles and Jews need Christ and the faith and grace of Christ, that they may be justified and saved. Secondly, probably Maldonatus in his manuscript Notes: He refers, he says, Paul to verses 20 and 21 of chapter I: "So that they are inexcusable," etc., that is to say, Since God delivered over those who knew themselves, but did not glorify Him as God, to the passions of ignominy, them, I say, who hold the truth in injustice; it follows that they are inexcusable when they condemn others acting badly: for they themselves do similar things, or rather worse and more shameful things; but he changes the third person to the second, because he turns to them, and addresses and reproves them, for greater emphasis. Moreover, the Apostle still generally blames all destitute of faith and the grace of Christ, both Gentiles and Jews, as is evident from verse 9 up to verse 17, where he turns to the Jews.
2:4
4. Dost thou despise the riches of his goodness, and patience, and longsuffering? — By "riches of goodness" he calls the exuberant benignity of God. Thus Paul takes "riches" throughout by catachresis for abundance and plenty, as in chapter XI, verse 33: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom!" Thus elsewhere he calls "riches of glory, riches of grace," etc. And the profane writers take to ploutein for to euporein. The late vengeance of God, and the toleration of sinners. "The riches of the goodness of God," says Origen, "he can recognize who considers how many evils men daily commit on earth, and how almost all, declining and at the same time made useless, walk the broad and spacious way of perdition: if anyone considers how many daily blaspheme against God, and stretch out their tongues to heaven. Now what shall I say of frauds, of sacrileges and sins? If anyone therefore despises this goodness of God, and his sustenance, and patience, he is ignorant that through these he is called to repentance, but let not this dissolve us, and make us slow to conversion: because again his patience and sustenance have a certain measure." See Plutarch, book On the Late Vengeance of the Deity; where he treats that saying of Euripides concerning God: "He delays; for such is the nature of the Deity." Doth it lead thee to repentance? — In Greek eis metanoian se agein, that is, does it lead and impel thee to repentance? "Leadeth" therefore, that is, he wishes to lead and endeavors to lead, and as far as in him lies he leadeth. See canon 32.
2:5
5. According to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest up to thyself wrath. — "Thou treasurest up," says Bernard, Sermon On Triple Mercy, "to thyself treasures of wrath, in place of the treasures of mercy which thou despisest, and thou drainest the mercy of God into thyself." Most beautifully St. Augustine, in Psalm C, on those words, "I will sing of mercy and judgment to thee, O Lord," teaches from this passage of the Apostle that now is the time of mercy, but the time of judgment shall be in the future. A fine description of a hardened heart. Note: "A hard heart is," says Origen, "when the human mind, like wax bound fast by the cold of iniquity, does not receive the seal of the divine image." And most excellently St. Bernard depicts the same thing, Book I On Consideration to Eugenius: "What is," he says, "a hard heart? It is that which is not torn by compunction, not softened by piety, not moved by prayers, does not yield to threats, is hardened by scourges; it is ungrateful for benefits, unfaithful to counsels, cruel to judgments, shameless in base things, fearless in dangers, inhuman in human matters, rash in divine matters; forgetting the past, neglecting the present, not providing for the future. It is that to which of past things, except injuries alone, nothing whatsoever does not pass away, of present things nothing does not perish, of future things there is no foresight or preparation except perhaps for vengeance: and, that in brief I may embrace all the evils of this horrible evil, it is that which neither fears God nor reveres man." Note secondly: The Apostle here calls wrath vengeance, which, collected after the manner of a treasure, shall be brought forth and poured out entirely upon sinners on the day of judgment. St. Jerome gives a similar example: "Just as," he says, "he who gradually draws a bow gives time to another to flee; if he should not wish to flee, the arrow sent forth strikes all the more forcefully, the greater the time the drawing of the bow was made: so God, who has woolen feet but iron hands, avenges slowly indeed, but heavily; and inflicts all the heavier blows, the longer he has waited for the sinner." Hence St. Augustine, Homily 11 on John: "So great," he says, "is the suspension of vengeance as is the patience of divine mercy." On the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God. — The day of judgment is called the day of God's wrath, because then God shall be angry with sinners and shall punish them. See canon 33. It is also called the day of revelation, because then shall be revealed all both good and evil works of men, and the secrets of hearts shall be laid bare, as the Apostle says, I Corinthians IV, 5: "Until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the counsels of hearts."
2:6
6. Who will render to every one according to his works. — It is taken from Psalm LXI, 13: "Thou wilt render to every one according to his works." And Proverbs XXIV, 12: "He will render to man according to his works." And Matthew XVI, 27: "The Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels: and then will he render to every one according to his works." See what I said there. Good works are meritorious of glory. Note: From this passage Catholics prove that good works are meritorious of glory and eternal life; for if God will render to every one according to his works, therefore good works merit glory, and evil works hell. For to render a reward is to give a prize for labor and work due by justice. Thus God will render to every one, not only good for good, but also evil for evil, as is evident from what follows. But this would happen unjustly, unless works truly merited both reward and punishment. It is confirmed from the fact that the Apostle immediately adds: "To them indeed who according to patience of good work seek glory, and honor, and incorruption, life everlasting:"; therefore those who work with this patience merit eternal life. Heretics respond that God renders to every one according to his works, not as if works merit reward or punishment, but because works are signs of faith and infidelity, to which alone reward and punishment are attributed. But this is said without foundation, and against the mind of the Apostle, who here in express words says that God will give eternal life to those who do good works, and death to those who do evil. Moreover, it is asked why God gives eternal life to believers working good, and not to those working evil? If on account of faith alone, therefore he will also give it to those working evil, provided they believe; which is absurd. If on account of good works, therefore works are the cause and merit of eternal life.
2:7
7. To those indeed who according to patience in good work seek glory, and honor, and incorruption, eternal life. — Construe: He will render eternal life to those who by patience in good work seek glory, honor and incorruption. By "patience" he here calls perseverance in good works, which for the most part require great patience, on account of many adversities, contradictions and persecutions which are wont to befall the good. Thus Christ, Luke XXI, 19: "In your patience you shall possess your souls." And Hebrews X, 36: "For patience is necessary for you: that doing the will of God, you may receive the promise." By "glory" he calls the splendor of heaven, which will be in the blessed both in body and in soul; by "honor" truly, the dignity and excellence of the blessed, who will be as it were kings and priests of God forever, as he says in Apocalypse V, 10. By "incorruption" finally, the immortality of body and soul, which will be in the blessed after the resurrection. Note: Eternal life is given to those who "seek" glory, honor and incorruption; therefore it is lawful, indeed expedient and we ought to seek heavenly glory and blessedness. For this is to legitimately direct our works to their ultimate end, which is God and the enjoyment of God in heaven, in which our blessedness consists. Thus Christ, Matthew VI, 33: "Seek ye therefore first the kingdom of God, and his justice." And Colossians III, 1: "Mind the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God."
2:8
8. But to those who are from contention, and who do not acquiesce to the truth, but believe iniquity, wrath and indignation. — Those "from contention" are those who contend and litigate with God and God's truth, and oppose it; such were the Jews, who contended with the Apostles, and did not acquiesce to the truth of the Gospel, but stubbornly resisted it. In Greek it is from eritheia, that is from contention, ambition, or faction: for eritheia properly signifies ambition, faction and sedition, by which someone contends for his own advantage and honor, against truth and justice. "Believe iniquity," that is consent to iniquity, and follow and embrace it. Or: They believe to be honorable what is iniquitous, and lawful what is unlawful: as heretics do, who believe it lawful for monks and priests to take a wife, to eat meat in Lent, etc. Thus Isaiah V, 20: "Woe to you that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness." "Wrath and indignation." Supply, will be theirs, or will be rendered. Wrath and indignation of God are God's vengeance and retribution, which punishes sinners. But the Apostle adds soon after "tribulation and anguish," to signify a twofold punishment, namely of loss and of sense: of loss indeed, because they are deprived of God and blessedness; of sense truly, because they are tormented in hell with eternal torments.
2:9
9. Tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man working evil, the Jews first, and the Greeks. — "Tribulation and anguish" signify the most grievous and most bitter punishments, with which the impious will be tormented in hell. For tribulation is external affliction; anguish truly is internal anxiety and anguor of mind, by which someone is pressed and straitened, so that he knows not where to turn. In Hebrew tsarah signifies anguish, and tsar signifies narrow: for afflictions narrow and straiten the mind, so that it cannot dilate itself and breathe. "Upon every soul of man." It is a Hebraism, for: upon every man. Thus Genesis XII, 5: "The souls which they had made in Haran," that is men, or families and servants, whom they had acquired for themselves in Haran. Thus also elsewhere throughout. Or: Upon the soul, that is chiefly upon the soul: for the soul is the primary subject of the punishments of hell; the body truly is secondary, which will suffer punishments through the soul. "The Jews first, and the Greeks." The Jews first, because they were first called to the faith and grace of Christ, and first rejected it; therefore they will be punished first. For just as they were first called to grace, so they will be punished first, if they neglect grace. By "Greeks" he here understands all Gentiles, as we have said at chapter I, verse 16. For the Greeks were most celebrated among the Gentiles, on account of their wisdom and eloquence; therefore the Apostle by them signifies all Gentiles.
2:10
10. But glory, and honor, and peace to every one that worketh good, to the Jew first, and to the Greek. — The Apostle here repeats what he said in verse 7, but in a somewhat different manner. For there he said: "To them who according to patience in good works seek glory and honor and incorruptibility, eternal life:" but here he says: "Glory, honor and peace to every one that worketh good." In place of "incorruptibility" and "eternal life" he here puts "peace," because peace is the supreme good which the blessed obtain in heaven: for peace is the tranquility of order, as St. Augustine says, book XIX of the City of God, chapter 13. In heaven, moreover, there is the highest tranquility and order, because there nothing is disordered, nothing turbulent, but all things are in the highest peace and quiet. "To the Jew first, and to the Greek." By the same reason that the Jews will first be punished if they sin, so they will first be rewarded if they have worked well. For because they were first called to the faith and grace of Christ, they will also first receive the reward if they have faithfully served Christ. Thus Christ says in Matthew XIX, 28: "You that have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit in the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit upon twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel."
2:11
11. For there is no respect of persons with God. — He gives the reason why God will equally reward or punish Jews and Gentiles, namely because there is no respect of persons with God, but only of works. Respect of persons is when someone judges another worthy of reward or punishment, not on account of his merits or demerits, but on account of other things, such as kinship, friendship, riches, dignity, etc. This, however, does not apply to God, who is supreme justice, and who knows the hearts of all, and who judges according to the works of each one, not according to the person. Thus in Deuteronomy X, 17: "God great and mighty, and terrible, who accepteth no person, nor taketh bribes." And in II Paralipomenon XIX, 7: "For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons, nor desire of gifts." And in Job XXXIV, 19: "Who accepteth not the persons of princes, nor regarded the tyrant, when he contended against the poor: for they are all the work of his hands." And in I Peter I, 17: "And if you invoke as Father him who without respect of persons judgeth according to every one's work, in fear pass the time of your sojourning."
2:12
12. For whosoever have sinned without the law shall perish without the law: and whosoever have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law. — "Without the law" are the Gentiles, who did not have the written law, but only the law of nature. "In the law" are the Jews, who had the written law, namely the Mosaic law. The Apostle therefore wishes both, both Gentiles and Jews, to be judged by God, but by different laws: the Gentiles indeed by the law of nature, the Jews truly by the law of Moses. "Shall perish without the law," that is, shall be condemned to hell, even if they did not have the written law: for the law of nature is sufficient to condemn those who have sinned against it. For thus the Apostle proved in the preceding chapter, verses 19 and following, that the Gentiles knew God from the creatures, and yet did not glorify him as God: therefore they are inexcusable, and are justly condemned. "Shall be judged by the law," that is, the Jews shall be judged and condemned more severely, because they had the law of Moses, by which they knew the will of God, and yet sinned against it. Thus Christ says in Luke XII, 47: "That servant who knew the will of his lord, and prepared not himself, and did not according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes." And in John XV, 22: "If I had not come, and spoken to them, they would not have sin: but now they have no excuse for their sin." For the greater the knowledge of the will of God, the greater is the guilt of those who sin against it.
2:13
Against the solifidians. 13. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. — The Apostle proves what he had said, that the Jews are not excused from sin and punishment because they have the law of Moses: for it is not sufficient for justice and salvation to hear the law, but it is necessary to do it and observe it. Hence against the heretical solifidians, who require faith alone for justification, this passage is remarkable: for the Apostle openly teaches that not hearers, that is, not those who only hear the law and believe, but doers of the law, that is, those who fulfill the law by works, are made just before God, and consequently are justified, that is, are made just by justification. Calvin, in order to escape this weapon of the Apostle, responds that the Apostle speaks only of political justice, namely, so that someone may appear just before men: for external works are indeed required for this. But this is plainly false from the very words of the Apostle, in which he says of these justified ones: "They are just before God." God therefore (not men, as Calvin wishes) will judge them to be just, because they have done the law and the just works of the law, by which they have become truly just or more just before God and in the eyes and judgment of God; and consequently God will render to those not merely believing, but working good, as it were as a reward, glory and eternal life, as the Apostle said in verses 7 and 10. "To be justified therefore before God" is to become just before God, and to be declared just before God. For the Apostle in this verse explains 'to be justified' by 'to become just'; when therefore he says that not believers, but doers of the law are justified, it is plain that justice comes to man not from faith, by which one believes, but from works, by which one does the law. Secondly, the same is evident from this, that, as Beza himself confesses in chapter III, verse 20, it is repugnant to the justice of God that He should hold someone to be just who is not truly just: therefore the doer of the law must first be justified, that is, become just, before he can be declared just by God. You will say, that he becomes just and is made just through faith preceding works, which faith and justice through faith already received he afterwards declares and demonstrates as just through good works: so that justification properly takes place through faith, but the declaration of justification afterwards takes place through good works. But this cannot be said. First, because, as I have said, the Apostle takes justification and becoming just as the same thing, therefore when he says: "Doers of the law shall be justified," 'shall be justified' does not only mean: They will be declared just, but also means: They will truly become just and will be just. Secondly, this response is directly contrary to the words of the Apostle; for he says: "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." I conclude: but while someone only purely believes through faith, he is only a hearer, not a doer of the law: therefore if the believer, by the very fact that he believes, without works, indeed before works, is justified, it will be true that a hearer of the law, not however a doer of the law, is justified, the contrary of which the Apostle directly asserts here. Thirdly, because the Jews believed in God and in the law; and yet against them the Apostle turns this sentence, saying: "Not hearers, but doers of the law shall be justified." Therefore it is clear from the mind of the Apostle that we are justified not through faith alone, but through the works of faith. Beza objects, in the place already cited: If we are justified from works, therefore God does not justify us, but we ourselves make ourselves just through our works. I respond: First, the same thing can be inferred from Beza's special faith in this way: If by believing that Christ suffered for me, by this very fact I am justified; therefore I justify myself, for this believing is my act: for to believe is an act not of God, but of the man believing. I respond therefore secondly, by denying the consequence; for not man, but God infuses justice freely to man preparing himself for justice and repenting: man therefore who repents is said to dispose himself for justice; but God alone is properly said to justify him. But if man is already just, then through good works he indeed merits an increase of justice, that is, of charity and grace; but God alone infuses that very thing, and consequently God alone properly justifies him more. Justification is taken in three ways in Scripture. 13. For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. — Note that justification is taken in Scripture in three ways: First, it signifies to become just from a sinner; second, to become more just from one who is just; third, in a forensic manner, to be deemed and pronounced just or more just. In all these ways it is taken here (for this is an indefinite and general statement of the Apostle), but especially in the third way, for the Apostle here opposes 'to be justified' to 'to perish' and 'to be judged,' or condemned, in the preceding verse. First therefore "the doers of the law shall be justified," because the works of faith, fear, hope, and penance, which are done according to the precept of the law, dispose and prepare the sinner for justice, and thus dispositively and meritoriously of congruity make him just from a sinner and justify him. Second, because the works of charity and of every virtue, which are done according to the precept of the law, if they are done by one who is just from charity or grace, merit of condignity an increase of justice, and preserve and increase the justice of the just. Third, finally, because these same declare the one working to be just. For he who does justice or just works, he is just and is held to be just by all. Note that the Apostle presupposes these works to be done from faith and the grace of Christ; for he treats of the whole observance of the law, and of works truly good and acceptable to God unto eternal life, which cannot exist unless they are born from faith, as will be evident in chapter III, at the end. For the Apostle intends only to prove here that the mere knowledge of the law does not suffice for justice, but moreover there is required for it good action and observance of the law. Which is to be noted most carefully against the heretics, who wish faith alone, sitting at Rome, in this manner: If by believing that Christ suffered for me, by this very fact I am justified; therefore I justify myself: for to believe purely is my doing, not God's. I answer secondly, by denying the consequence: for although man in some way prepares and disposes himself for justice through faith, fear, hope, and penance, he is nevertheless not the principal cause of his justification, but God alone, who through Christ infuses grace and justice into man. From what has been said, it is evident that Calvin and Beza wrongly expound this passage of the Apostle in such a way, as if it were true in itself, yet nevertheless contains a condition and an impossible matter, that is to say, the Apostle: If anyone could do the law, he would be justified; but because no one can do the law, inasmuch as all are sinners, for this reason another justification must be sought, namely that we be justified not from works, but from faith in Christ, through which the justice of Christ is applied and imputed to us; and thus we become just, not by justice of works inhering in us, but by the justice of Christ imputed to us. For these are the three principles and axioms of Calvin. The first: "It is impossible for us to accomplish what the law commands." The second: "A legal promise annexed to an impossible condition proves nothing. Such is: If you are a doer of the law, you will be justified." The third: "Those who have made much progress above others (says Calvin, book III of the Institutes, chapter XIX, section 4) in the way of the Lord, if they look upon the law of the Lord, whatever they attempt or meditate in the way of works, they see to be cursed." Indeed, I would readily believe such to be the progress of Calvin and his followers in the way of the Lord. But this exposition is perverse, violent, inept, and blasphemous, and plainly overturns and perverts the statement and mind of the Apostle. For first, the Apostle here constitutes our justice not in hearing, nor in faith, but in the doing and fulfillment of the law of faith, as I have already shown: therefore if this justice, which consists in the observance of the law, is none, indeed impossible, there will be no justice at all in man, and justice will be impossible for man. This again is plainly evident from what Paul said in the preceding verses 5, 6, 9, to which he here looks back and refers himself: for there he said that God will render to each according to his works, namely, that to those who are according to patience of good work, he will render eternal life; and that glory, honor, and peace be to everyone who works good. For if to good work and to one working well, as it were as a reward, glory and eternal life are rendered, therefore justice is situated in good work: for eternal life is nothing but the reward and prize of justice. Secondly, this proposition: "The doers of the law shall be justified," is not conditional, as is evident, but assertive: just as therefore, if you say: Not spectators, but wrestlers and victors in the contest shall be crowned, I rightly infer from this proposition: that some can be victors, and can wrestle and conquer in the contest; so likewise, when the Apostle says: "Not hearers, but doers of the law shall be justified," rightly does it follow therefrom that some can be doers of the law, and can do and fulfill the law. Whence also the Apostle adds here, that "the Gentiles naturally do those things that are of the law." Thirdly, if this proposition of the Apostle is conditional, having an impossible condition, then it is impossible, and signifies an impossible thing. For when the condition is impossible, that also which requires this condition is impossible. As if I say: A man having wings can fly; this proposition is indeed conditionally true, but absolutely it is false and impossible. For since the condition, namely having wings, is impossible for man, it is also impossible for man to fly, which requires this condition, namely wings. In the same way therefore justice will be impossible for man, since the condition which the Apostle requires here, namely the doing of the law, is impossible for man, according to Calvin; and consequently, according to Calvin, this proposition of the Apostle: "The doers of the law shall be justified," will be simply and absolutely false. Fourthly, to say that for man, even aided by the grace of Christ, to fulfill the law is impossible, is a great blasphemy against God and against Christ: for this in fact is to say that God is a tyrant, inasmuch as He commands us impossible things; for the law of God, or that which God commands us to fulfill, according to Calvin is impossible for us. Again, this very thing is to say that Christ has not sufficiently redeemed us, and that the grace of Christ is weak and inefficacious for fulfilling the law, and for overcoming sin. Truly and in a Christian manner St. Augustine, and from him the Council of Orange and the Council of Trent, sess. VI, cap. XI: "God," he says, "commands not impossible things, but by commanding admonishes both to do what you can, and to ask for what you cannot, and He helps that you may be able."
2:14
14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, such Gentiles not having the law, are a law to themselves. — Paul here meets a tacit objection: How can the Gentiles, if they have not the law, sin against the law? He answers that they have another law naturally implanted in them, which they do, and against which they sin. Therefore they are a law to themselves, that is, in the manner of a law, by which they are condemned. For he returns to the verse as it were to the aim of this chapter and the preceding one, namely, to prove that both those who are under the law and those who have lived without the law, that is, both Jews and Gentiles, are sinners and have need of faith and the grace of Christ. You will say: How do the Gentiles naturally do those things that are of the law? I answer first that Zwingli and Numa, as he says, to Quirinus, cap. xcix; Jerome to Algasia, Quaest. VIII (St. Augustine also, cap. xxviii already cited, admits this exposition, although he prefers the former one), D. Soto, Cajetan and the recent writers throughout, understand this passage of the Apostle concerning Gentiles living in paganism; therefore it must be understood from the word naturally and which have not the law, namely the written law of Moses or of Christ (for Gentiles converted to Christ have the law of the Gospel, which is a fuller and more perfect law than the law of Moses given to the Jews), but only the law of conscience and the worm accusing and defending. This same thing, secondly, is evident from the fact that the Apostle here wishes to prove that both Gentiles and Jews need the grace and faith of Christ: therefore he understands both those who are without the faith of Christ, as if to say, Do not be proud, O Jews, against and above the Gentiles, on account of the Mosaic law, as if the hearers of the law were justified: for the Gentiles, not having the written law, have it naturally implanted, which directs and impels them, so that they perform many works of the natural law naturally, that is, by the guidance, light and power of nature. Without supernatural knowledge it is impossible to be justified. You will say with St. Augustine: A little before the Apostle said, "The doers of the law shall be justified;" but the Gentiles without faith cannot be justified: therefore when he calls them doers of the law, he does not understand them without faith, but converted to faith. I answer: "Doers of the law," namely of the whole law, "shall be justified;" but the Gentiles, although they do those things of the law which are easy, such as to honor parents, to give alms, to avoid theft and murder, nevertheless cannot do and fulfill the whole law without faith and the grace of Christ, both because they cannot fulfill the law of faith, hope, charity, and others which are supernatural, by nature and the powers of nature; and also because even the difficult laws of nature, such as, Thou shalt not covet, thou shalt love God more than thyself and any others whatsoever, if a grave temptation should arise, they cannot fulfill without the aid and powers of grace. For they cannot long resist a grave temptation by their own powers, but for this they need the grace of God. Where attend carefully: The Apostle does not say that the Gentiles do or fulfill the law; but "those things that are of the law," that is, some, namely the easier, precepts of the law do: but when he says that those who do are justified, he does not say "those things that are of the law," but the law, namely the whole and entire law. But this cannot be done without faith and the grace of Christ. Gentiles before the advent of Christ cannot fulfill some precepts of the law, not however all. Those doing the internal law are justified. 15 and 16. Who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to them, and their thoughts between themselves accusing or also defending one another, in the day when God shall judge the secrets of men, according to my gospel, by Jesus Christ. — For thoughts, in Greek it is λογισμῶν, that is, reasonings or disputations, "accusing," namely the man, even a Gentile, when he acts badly (as that pollution is a sin, conscience naturally dictates to man: because on account of it young men blush, are troubled, and in others they judge it to be a matter abhorrent from reason and natural honesty and shame, foul and base), and "defending" the man, when he acts well: by which namely thoughts and disputations conscience uses, so that it convinces the man that he has acted well or badly, which conscience is a witness beyond all exception, that the Gentiles have the law written in the mind; and this witness will appear most of all "in the day of judgment," where his own conscience will either excuse or accuse each one before God, who will judge "by" man "Jesus Christ." Thus Theophylactus. Note here a remarkable moral lesson. In the basilica of the human heart God has established a tribunal, and has engraved laws on its tablets with His finger; He has created reason as judge, conscience as prosecutor, thoughts as witnesses, which either accuse or defend the man himself as defendant. For Paul clearly signifies this by these words. And this is what Menander wished to convey, when he said: Βροτοῖς ἅπασι συνείδησίς ἐστι Θεός, that is, To all mortals conscience is God, that is, in the place and stead of God. And the Psalmist, Psalm IV, 6, when he says: "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us." Hence we read that God has referred to this judgment of man himself the causes: for David's own cause was presented to him under the appearance of another's lawsuit, and being asked to judge, he pronounced sentence against himself, saying: "As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this is worthy of death," II Kings XII, 5. And from Achab a similar stratagem arose a condemnation of death against himself, pronounced in these words: "This is thy judgment, which thou thyself hast decreed," III Kings xx, 40. And to what end, you will ask, these riddles? Namely, lest the craftiness of the human heart should exalt its own offense and find fault with God's justice, it was arranged that the guilty party himself, examining the gravity of sin free from bias, should decree punishment against himself according to his deserts. And this is what David wished for himself, when he protests: "To Thee only have I sinned, etc., that Thou mayest be justified in Thy words, and mayest overcome when Thou art judged," that is, I confess that I have sinned grievously, so that by this confession Thy justice may shine forth, and the mouths of detractors may be closed. Merit the faithful David openly confesses his offense: for sometimes the human heart, being crafty, dares to wish to lie even to God, as is seen in Jeremiah, cap. II, vers. 23: "How sayest thou: I am not polluted, after Baalim I have not walked? see thy ways in the valley," etc. And again, vers. 33: "Why dost thou endeavor to show thy way good? I will contend with thee in judgment, because thou hast said: I have not sinned," etc. And Peter says Acts v, 3: "Why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost?" And Ahaz to Isaiah, cap. vii, vers. 12: "I will not ask, said he, and I will not tempt the Lord." The impious Ahaz said he was well-pleasing to God, in that he would not tempt Him, when in truth he rather distrusted Him. And Saul glories I Kings xv, 20, saying: "Nay, but I have heard the voice of the Lord, and have walked in the way by which the Lord sent me, etc. And the people took of the spoils, sheep and oxen, that they might sacrifice to the Lord," etc. But he betrays himself below: "I have sinned, fearing the people, and obeying their voice." God therefore reveals and dispels these masked and false excuses of conscience, when He sets conscience before its own eyes, so that it may accuse and condemn itself, which it will do most of all on the day of judgment, and therefore the Apostle adds, saying: "In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men." Thus Prado, in cap. viii Ezekiel. Now if thus our conscience will accuse us, nay itself, on the day of judgment, consider how thy demons, thy sworn enemies, will accuse thee. Hear St. Augustine in Conc. ad catechum., tom. VI: "The adversary devil will be present, the words of our profession will be recited. And if such a one shall be found, that he departs from this life as a debtor: that adversary will exult in the sight of the most severe judge, declaring himself superior, and pleading such a cause before such a judge: Most justly, he will say, O judge, judge; justice and judgment are the preparation of Thy throne. Judge that he is mine, who would not be Thine; he is mine, with me he is to be damned. After his renunciation, why did he invade my garments? What was impurity doing with him, to whom he himself had renounced? What intemperance, what avarice, what anger, what else of mine? Finally, most justly, him fleeing from me, taking refuge with Thee, afterwards with mine, to which he had renounced, I seized, the invader I held fast. In my very possession, as it were, he was seized by me. What was he doing in the theater, he who had renounced base pleasures? He treasured up wrath for himself in the day of wrath. All these things of mine, after his renunciation, he invaded, he wished to be mine, and he coveted my judgments; judge most justly, because he whom Thou didst not disdain to redeem at so great a price, he himself afterwards wished to bind himself to me. Will he be able to open his mouth, who after his profession is found such, that he is justly delivered to the devil?" Whence he concludes: "See what you do, my sons, my brethren, see what you do, how you keep this profession of yours. We call to witness against you the judge Himself, and all the powers of heaven, who both hear us admonishing, and receive you professing, lest you receive grace in vain; but with an undivided heart, with all your strength renounce so pernicious an inheritance of the devil." According to my Gospel, — according as I am accustomed to evangelize and teach concerning the day of judgment and its punishments and rewards, instructed by Christ: thus Theophylactus. Hence learn, against heretics, that the Gospel pertains not only to the preaching of faith, grace, and salvation promised through Christ, but also to just judgment, whereby God will render to each one according to his works, as the Apostle here says.
2:17
17. But if thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law. — Supply from the preceding: And yet thou dost not thyself keep the law, nor observe it; for this reason thou shalt be condemned more severely, as if to say: If thou, O Jew, gloriest that thou art a Jew, and that thou art skilled in the law, so that thou restest in the doctrine of the law, and yet thou dost not thyself keep the law, dost not fulfill it, thou shalt surely be punished more harshly. For "but if," our Interpreter reads εἰ δέ. Thus also Origen, Ambrose and Theophylactus read it. Now the Greeks read ἴδε, behold, thus also Theodoret and Oecumenius read it, and thus the meaning is independent and absolute.
2:18
18. And thou approvest the things that are more profitable. — δοκιμάζεις τὰ διαφέροντα, which others translate, thou examinest those things which differ. But our Interpreter more plainly with Theophylactus translates, thou approvest the things that are more profitable: because, as Budaeus rightly noted, διαφέρειν sometimes means the same as συμφέρειν, that is, to be useful. 19 and 20. Thou art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, etc. Having the form of knowledge and of truth in the law. — "Having the form," in Greek μόρφωσιν, that is, formation, formula, rule of things to be done and believed, as if to say: Thou thinkest, O Jew, that thou hast in the law, by which thou mayest teach others the same law, the knowledge and worship of God, so that thou mayest form them unto virtue and piety. Thus Theophylactus.
2:21
21. Thou therefore that teachest another, teachest not thyself: thou that preachest that men should not steal, stealest. — Beautifully and truly St. Prosper: "To teach well and to live badly," says he, "what else is it than to condemn oneself by one's own voice?" And St. Bernard, book II On Consideration to Eugenius, before the middle: "A monstrous thing," says he, "is the highest rank and the lowest mind; the first seat and the lowest life; a boastful tongue and an idle hand; much speech and no fruit; a grave countenance and light deeds; great authority and wavering stability: a wrinkled face and a trifling tongue." The same Bernard, sermon 3 in the Vigil of the Nativity of the Lord, condemns that doctrine which is destitute of good works, and teaches that the only true knowledge is that which composes life and amends morals: "This knowledge," says he, "in the first degree works penance and sorrow, so that it converts laughter into mourning, song into lamentation, joy into sadness: and those things which greatly pleased thee before shall begin to displease thee, and thou shalt especially abhor those things which thou especially desired. For thus it is written: Because he that addeth knowledge, addeth also sorrow, so that sorrow following is the mark of true and holy knowledge. In the second degree, however, it works correction, so that thou no longer exhibitest thy members as instruments of iniquity unto sin, but restrainest thy appetite, slay luxury, depress pride and makest thy body serve holiness, which before served iniquity. For penance without correction shall not profit, as the Wise Man says: One building and one destroying, what profit is it to them except labor? For he that is washed by one dead, and toucheth him again, his washing profiteth nothing. But because these things cannot be maintained unless the mind, unwearied, watches and attends with much circumspection about itself, in the third degree it works solicitude, so that thou now beginnest to walk with thy God in solicitude and searchest from every side, lest by the slightest thing the aspect of that tremendous majesty be offended. In penance it is kindled, in correction it burns, in solicitude it shines, so that it is renewed within and without." In the Lives of the Fathers, book V, chapter x, Abba Pastor says: "If anyone teaches something and does not do what he teaches, he is like a well, which satisfies all who come to it and washes away their filth; but he himself cannot be cleansed, but all filth and uncleanness is in him."
2:22
22. Thou that abhorrest idols, committest sacrilege, — namely, while overcome by avarice, thou usurpest things consecrated to idols, or sacrificed to demons, against the law, as St. Chrysostom and Theophylactus say; or also while thou violatest vows, or stealest sacred things, or sellest and profanest them. For this is sacrilege, and he who does this is a sacrilegist.
2:25
25. Circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou keep the law. — "Circumcision profiteth," not by itself at least for justifying adults; but because it makes thee to be of the people of God marked, to whom God entrusted his words, as Paul says, in the following chapter, verse 2. For circumcision was first a distinctive sign of the people of God from other peoples, who were the heir of the word of God and of divine worship, and of true religion and piety. Secondly, it was a commemorative sign of original sin, which is poured forth into posterity through generation: for this generation, and consequently the pouring forth of original sin, takes place in that member which was circumcised. Thirdly, circumcision was a prefigurative sign of the Messiah, and likewise participative: for to the circumcised first the Messiah and the Gospel, as promised, were also revealed. Fourthly, it was a monitory sign of spiritual circumcision, namely, that they should cut away vices from their heart.
2:26
Doctrine destitute of good works is damnable. Threefold significance of circumcision. 26. But if thou be a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision, — that is to say, If thou violate the law, although thou be circumcised, thou art nevertheless in the same condition as if thou hadst the foreskin and hadst embraced gentilism. Here Paul reproves the arrogance of the Jews glorying in their circumcision. Thus Theophylactus. If therefore uncircumcision (that is, an uncircumcised Gentile) keep the justices of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? — that is to say, If a Gentile keep the law, then his lack of circumcision will not harm him, but rather will be reckoned as if he were circumcised, because the keeping of the law will avail him as much, nay even more, than circumcision avails the Jew: because, as Theophylactus says, true circumcision is the cutting away not of flesh, but of sins, or is the very true and good action cut off from vices; but uncircumcision is an evil and shameful action. Note that "uncircumcision" here in the latter place is taken properly for the state of being uncircumcised, but in the former place is taken for the uncircumcised one, that is, the Gentile. Thus also it is taken in verse 27, and often below. For by Hebraism the abstract is put for the concrete. See Canon 21. Add that the Jews, to the greater abomination of the Gentiles, called them not uncircumcised, but "uncircumcision"; but themselves, to the greater honour, called not circumcised, but "circumcision," as appears in Ephesians II, verse 11. Note secondly: The moral precepts are called here justices, in Greek δικαιώματα, that is, justifications of the law, because they prescribe what is equitable and just, and what makes a man just, as I said on Psalm CXVIII, at the beginning.
2:27
27. And it shall judge (that is, condemn) that which by nature is uncircumcision (that is, by race and birth uncircumcised, or a Gentile; thus in Galatians II, 15, it is said: "We by nature," that is, by race and descent, "are Jews"), fulfilling the law (namely, if it fulfil and complete the law), thee, who by the letter and circumcision (that is, thee, who hast the letter of the law and circumcision, and yet) art a transgressor of the law. Note the Graecism, "by the letter," that is, having the letter. For thus it is taken by the Greeks with διά. A similar instance is I Timothy II, 15: "She shall be saved by the generation of children," that is, she shall be saved by bearing children, "if she continue in faith," etc. Secondly, however, and better, take τὸ per properly here: because the bare letter of the law without the grace of Christ irritates concupiscence and sin, as Paul says in chapter vii, verse 13. Hence in II Corinthians iii, 6 and 7, he says the letter of the law kills, and calls the ministry of Moses in legislation "the ministration of death and condemnation:"; hence again, in I Corinthians xv, 56, he says that "the strength of sin" is the law. Thus therefore the Jew by the letter, or law, as it were by an occasion inciting, is a transgressor of the law. Note secondly: The Apostle is wont to call the Mosaic law γράμμα, that is, letter, or writing. First, because that law was written by God on tablets of stone. Secondly, because this law indicated Christ and led men to him: just as writing and letter indicate the thought of the writer, and the very thing which is written. Thirdly, because the law naked and separated from Christ was, as it were, γράμμα, that is, as it were a dead writing, which availed little or nothing for salvation; because namely it could only indicate the disease, namely sin and concupiscence lurking in our inmost parts, but could not heal it: nay rather it irritated and sharpened it the more, as I have already said. For this reason the Apostle opposes to this letter the spirit and the grace of Christ vivifying souls.
2:28
28. Not he who is a Jew outwardly (by external and public observance and profession of Judaism): nor that which is outwardly, in the flesh, circumcision. — Understand, here is the true Jew pleasing to God, here is the true circumcision pleasing to God.
2:29
A Jew signifies one confessing and praising God. A threefold sense of circumcision of the heart. 29. But he who is a Jew in secret, — namely, he who in heart and spirit, through the observance of the law, faith and grace, confesses Christ (who is the goal of the law, whom the entire law proclaims and professes). Understand, this man is truly a Jew before God, and a spiritual son of Abraham. He alludes to the name of the patriarch Judah (for from him, as patriarch, all his descendants were called Jews, not from Judas Maccabaeus, as some have thought); for in Hebrew he was called יהודה Jehuda, that is, confessing, or praising, namely God, Genesis cap. xxix, xxxv and xlix, vers. 8. Thus from Judah is born a Jew who confesses God in Christ, as the Messiah sent by God, who was born both from God and from Judah and the Jews: according to the promises made to Judah, Genesis xlix, 10. And circumcision of the heart, — which circumcises the heart, that is, the mind, from vices and passions, namely, this is the true and pleasing circumcision to God. See St. Cyprian, treatise On the Reason for Circumcision, tom. III. In spirit, not in letter. — First, Toletus explains it thus, as if to say: This circumcision of the heart is done "in spirit," that is, in the soul through the cutting away of vices; "not in letter," that is, not in the body, whose circumcision was commanded by the letter of the law. Second, this circumcision of the heart is done in spirit, that is, according to the spiritual sense of the law, not according to the literal sense, which concerns carnal circumcision. Thus St. Augustine. Third, this circumcision of the heart is done "in spirit," that is, by grace assisting and healing, not "by letter" teaching and threatening, that is, it is done through grace, not through law. Thus St. Augustine, On Spirit and Letter, cap. viii. This third sense is more genuine and more in keeping with the mind and manner of speech of the Apostle. For thus he himself speaks II Cor. III, 6. Fourth, more elegantly in accordance with the Greek, Maldonatus refers τὸ in spirit, not in letter, not to τὸ circumcision (for this is not done in letter, but in flesh), but to τὸ Jew, as if to say: Not he who is a Jew by written law and the letter of the law, but he who is a Jew in mind and spirit. For he calls being a Jew having the law. This is clear from the relative οὗ, that is, whose, as I shall now say. Whose (namely of the Jew, not of circumcision: for the Greek οὗ, since it is masculine, refers to Jew, not to circumcision) praise is not from men, but from God, — as if to say: The praise of such a hidden, internal and spiritual Jew is God, the knower of hearts. Thus Oecumenius. Or secondly, "whose praise is," whose praise is sought and expected from God, as if to say: He who strives to prove and please himself to God inwardly, not to men outwardly, who desires and seeks to be praised not by men, but by God, this man is truly a spiritual Jew, in the sense which I have stated vers. 28. Why did God not institute circumcision in another part of the human body? Hence tropologically St. Jerome (or rather Paulinus, as Erasmus wishes; or certainly Maximus of Turin, as Marianus wishes), epistle to Terasia, on true circumcision, which is found tom. IV of the works of St. Jerome, asks why God instituted circumcision not in the ear, finger or other visible part of the body, but in a member which is hidden. And he responds, and gives this reason: "The Lord figured that," he says, "which he afterwards revealed, lest we should do our justice before men; but in secret, before him alone, to whom nothing is hidden, and whom alone we know to be the rewarder of good deeds. Whence we ought to be Jews not in flesh openly, but in the secret of the heart, not in letter, but in spirit. For the letter is subject to our eyes, the spirit avoids our carnal sight, so that praise, according to the Apostle, may be acquired from God, not from men."
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
2:1
Postquam apostolus ostendit quod gentiles iustificati non sunt ex veritatis cognitione quam habuerunt, hic ostendit quod neque etiam Iudaei iustificati sunt ex his in quibus gloriabantur. Et sic utrisque est necessaria ad salutem virtus evangelicae gratiae. Primo ergo dicit quod Iudaei non sunt iustificati ex lege. Secundo, quod non sunt iustificati ex genere, de quo gloriabantur, cap. III quid ergo est amplius? Tertio, quod non sunt iustificati ex circumcisione, cap. IV quid ergo dicemus? Circa primum considerandum est quod Iudaei et gentiles, ad fidem conversi, se invicem iudicabant de priori vita. Iudaei enim gentibus obiiciebant, quod sine Dei lege viventes, idolis immolabant. Gentes autem obiiciebant Iudaeis quod, lege Dei accepta, eam non servabant. Primo ergo utrosque arguit de inordinato iudicio; secundo specialiter ostendit quod Iudaei non erant digni praemio, quia ea in quibus gloriabantur non sufficiebant ad salutem, ibi non enim auditores legis. Circa primum duo facit. Primo confutat humanum iudicium; secundo astruit et commendat divinum, ibi scimus enim. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit mutuo se iudicantes inexcusabiles esse; secundo assignat rationem, ibi in quo enim. Primo ergo concludit ex praemissis, dicens: propter quod gentiles veritatem de Deo cognitam in iniustitia detinuerunt, o homo, qui iudicas alium hominem, inexcusabilis es, sicut supra dixit: ita ut sint inexcusabiles. Addit autem omnis, quasi dicat, quicumque sis, sive gentilis sive Iudaeus, quia etiam gentilis de quo magis videbatur, non potest excusari per ignorantiam, sicut supra ostensum est. I Cor. IV, 5: nolite ante tempus iudicare. Deinde cum dicit in quo enim assignat rationem, excludendo causam excusationis. Primo, quidem ignorantiam; secundo, innocentiam, ibi eadem enim. Ignorantia quidem excluditur per iudicium. Quicumque enim iudicat aliquem quasi male agentem, demonstrat se cognoscere illud esse malum, et ex hoc ostendit esse condemnabilem. Et hoc est quod dicit: ideo (inquam) es inexcusabilis, in quo enim iudicas alterum quasi male agentem, teipsum condemnas, id est, ostendis te esse condemnabilem. Matth. VII, 1: nolite iudicare, et non iudicabimini. Non tamen credendum est, quod omne iudicium sit condemnationis causa. Est enim triplex iudicium. Unum quidem iustum, quod scilicet fit secundum regulam iustitiae. Sap. I, 1: diligite iustitiam, qui iudicatis terram. Aliud est iudicium non iustum, quod scilicet fit contra regulam iustitiae. Sap. VI, 5: cum essetis ministri regni eius, non recte iudicastis. Est autem tertium iudicium temerarium, contra quod dicitur Eccle. V, 1: ne temere quid loquaris. Quod quidem dupliciter committitur. Uno modo, quando aliquis procedit circa id quod est sibi commissum iudicium absque debita veritatis cognitione; contra id quod dicitur Iob XXIX, 6: causam quam ignorabam diligentissime investigabam. Alio modo, quando aliquis usurpat sibi iudicium de occultis, de quibus solus Deus iudicare habet; contra id quod dicitur I Cor. IV, 5: nolite ante tempus iudicare, quoadusque veniat dominus, qui illuminabit, et cetera. Est autem aliquid occultum, non solum quoad nos, sed secundum sui naturam, ad solam Dei cognitionem pertinens. Primo quidem cogitatio cordis, secundum illud Ier. c. XVII, 9 s.: pravum est cor hominis et inscrutabile, quis cognoscet illud? Ego dominus scrutans corda, et probans renes. Secundo, contingens futurum, secundum illud Is. XLI, v. 23: annuntiate quae ventura sunt in futurum, et dicemus quia dii estis vos. Et ideo, sicut dicit Augustinus, de sermone domini in monte: duo sunt in quibus temerarium iudicium cavere debemus: cum incertum est quo animo quidque factum fuerit, vel cum incertum est qualis quisque futurus est, qui nunc vel bonus vel malus apparet. Primum ergo iudicium non est condemnationis causa, sed secundum et tertium. Deinde cum dicit eadem enim, excludit aliam excusationis causam, scilicet innocentiam. Quasi dicat: ideo tu qui iudicas alios, teipsum condemnas, quia tu eadem agis quae iudicas, id est de quibus alios condemnas, et ita videtur quod contra conscientiam agis. Matth. VII, 3: quid autem vides festucam in oculo, et cetera. Est tamen sciendum quod non semper cum aliquis aliquem iudicat de peccato quod ipse committit per hoc ipsum semper sibi condemnationem acquirit, quia non semper mortaliter peccat sic iudicando, semper tamen suam damnationem manifestat. Si enim publice sit in peccato de quo alium iudicat, videtur scandalizare iudicando, nisi forte humiliter se simul cum illo reprehendat pro suo peccato ingemiscens. Si vero sit in eodem peccato occulte, non peccat iudicando alium de peccato eodem, maxime cum humilitate et conatu ad resurgendum, ut Augustinus dicit in libro de sermone domini in monte: primum cogitemus cum aliquem reprehendere necessitas nos cogit, utrum tale sit vitium, quod nunquam habuimus: et tunc cogitemus nos etiam habere potuisse, vel tale quod habuimus, et iam non habemus: et tunc tangat memoriam fragilitas communis, ut illam correctionem non odium, sed misericordia praecedat. Si autem invenimus nos in eodem vitio esse, non obiurgemus, sed congemiscamus et ad pariter condolendum invitemus. Deinde cum dicit scimus enim, astruit et commendat divinum iudicium. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ponit divini iudicii veritatem; secundo excludit contrariam opinionem, ibi existimas; tertio manifestat veritatem, ibi qui reddet unicuique. Dicit ergo primo: ideo dico quod teipsum condemnas cum eadem agis quae iudicas, scimus enim, id est pro certo tenemus, quoniam iudicium Dei est in eos qui talia agunt, id est imminet eis divinum iudicium. Iob XIX, 29: ultor iniquitatis est gladius, et scitote esse iudicium. Eccle. ult.: cuncta quae fiunt adducet Deus in iudicium.
2:2
Item scimus quod hoc iudicium est secundum veritatem. Ps. XCV, 13: iudicabit orbem terrae in aequitate. Hominis autem iudicium, etiam si iuste iudicet, non semper est secundum veritatem negotii sed secundum dicta testium, quae quandoque dissonant a veritate. Sed hoc non est in divino iudicio, quia, ut ipse dicit, Ier. XXIX, 23: ego sum iudex et testis. Non etiam fallitur falsis allegationibus, secundum illud Iob XLI, 3: non parcam ei quasi verbis potentibus et ad deprecandum compositis. Deinde cum dicit existimas autem, excludit opinionem contrariam, et primo ponit eam; secundo assignat causam, ibi an divitias; tertio improbat, ibi ignoras. Dicit ergo primo: ita dixi quod iudicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt, sed numquid, o homo, quicumque es, qui iudicas eos qui talia agunt, et tamen facis ea, superioris iudicium non times?
2:3
Existimas quia tu effugies iudicium Dei? Quasi dicat: si hoc existimas, falsa est aestimatio tua. Ps. CXXXVIII, 7: quo ibo a spiritu tuo? Et quo a facie tua fugiam? Iob c. XI 20: effugium peribit ab eis.
2:4
Deinde cum dicit an divitias, ostendit causam huius falsae aestimationis. Quia enim homo non statim punitur a Deo pro peccato, aestimat se non esse puniendum, contra id quod dicitur Eccli. V, 4: ne dixeris in corde tuo: peccavi, et quid accidit triste? Altissimus enim est patiens redditor. Et Eccle. VIII, 11: etenim, quia non profertur cito contra malos sententia, absque ullo timore filii hominum perpetrant mala. Attamen peccator ex eo quod centies facit malum, et per patientiam sustentatur, non debet contemnere, sed advertere quod est bonum timentibus eum. Et ideo hic dicit an contemnis, secundum illud Prov. XVIII, 3: impius, cum in profundum peccatorum venerit, contemnit. Divitias, id est abundantiam. Eph. II, 3: Deus qui dives est in misericordia. Bonitatis eius, per quam scilicet in nos diffundit bona, secundum illud Ps. CXLIV, v. 16: aperis tu manum tuam et omnia imples bonitate. Nam bonum diffusionis rationem importat secundum Dionysium. Thren. III, 25: bonus est dominus sperantibus in eum. Et patientiae, per quam, scilicet, sustinet graviter et ex malitia peccantes. Ps. VII, 12: Deus iudex iustus, et patiens, numquid irascitur per singulos dies? Et longanimitatis, per quam scilicet diu sustinet homines ex infirmitate peccantes, diu tamen in peccato permanentes. II Petr. ult.: longanimitatem domini nostri Iesu Christi, salutem arbitramini. Deinde cum dicit ignoras, improbat praedictam causam, scilicet contemptum divinae patientiae, et primo fructum divinae patientiae demonstrat; secundo, periculum contemptus, ibi secundum duritiam autem. Dicit ergo primo, mirum est quod contemnis, numquid igitur ignoras quoniam benignitas Dei differentis poenam ad poenitentiam te adducit? II Petr. c. III, 9: non tardat dominus promissis, sed patienter agit propter vos, nolens aliquos perire, sed ad poenitentiam reverti. Is. XXX, 18: expectat vos Deus ut misereatur vestri. Videtur autem apostolus, ut in Glossa dicitur, tres gradus peccatorum tetigisse. Primo quidem impunitatem sibi promittentium; secundo, contemnentium Dei bonitatem; tertio vero, ignorantium. Unde dicit Glossa: peccas, o homo, dum tibi impunitatem promittis; gravius peccas, quia contemnis, et gravissime peccas, quia ignoras. Sed videtur hoc esse falsum, nam ignorantia alleviat peccatum magis quam aggravet. Est igitur secundum quosdam intelligendum gravissime, id est periculosissime, quia qui ignorat peccatum, non quaerit remedium. Vel gravissime propter ignorantiae speciem, quae ad infidelitatem pertinet, quae est gravissimum peccatum. Unde dicitur I Cor. XIV, v. 38: si quis ignorat, ignorabitur. Vel gravissime in genere ingratitudinis. Augustinus: magis enim est ingratus qui beneficium non cognoscit, quam qui diminuit, quod est contemnere.
2:5
Deinde cum dicit secundum duritiam, ostendit periculum contemptus, dicens secundum autem duritiam, quia scilicet ob beneficia divinae bonitatis non emollitur. Eccli. III, 27: cor durum male habebit in novissimo, etc., cor impoenitens, quod scilicet ad poenitentiam non flectitur ex Dei patientia et longanimitate. Ier. VIII, 6: nullus est qui agat poenitentiam super peccato suo. Thesaurizas tibi iram, id est multiplicas tibi reatum poenae. Iac. V, 3: thesaurizastis vobis iram in novissimis diebus. Unde et hic sequitur in die irae, id est in die iudicii, de qua dicitur Sophon. I, 15: dies illa dies irae, quia scilicet nunc Deus vindictam non infert, quam tunc inferet, secundum illud Ps. LXXIV, 3: cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo. Et revelationis iusti iudicii Dei, quia tunc revelabitur iustitia divini iudicii, quod nunc non creditur esse, aut non videtur esse iustum. Is. LVI, 1: iuxta est salus mea ut veniat, et iustitia mea ut reveletur. Et quia Glossa hic dicit, quod per duritiam et cor impoenitens significatur peccatum in spiritum sanctum, quod est irremissibile, ideo oportet videre quid sit peccatum in spiritum sanctum, et quomodo sit irremissibile. Est igitur sciendum, quod secundum antiquos doctores Ecclesiae qui fuerunt ante Augustinum, scilicet Athanasium, Hilarium, Ambrosium, Hieronymum et Chrysostomum, peccatum in spiritum sanctum dicitur blasphemia, qua opera spiritus sancti spiritui immundo attribuuntur, ut patet Matth. XII, 31. Quod quidem dicitur irremissibile et in hoc saeculo et in futuro, quia pro hoc peccato puniti sunt Iudaei, etiam in hoc saeculo per Romanos et in futuro per Daemones. Vel quia non habet aliquam rationem excusationis, sicut habebat blasphemia, quam dicebant in Christum, inquantum erat filius hominis: secundum illud Matth. XI, 19: ecce homo vorax et potator vini. Ad quod poterant induci per infirmitatem carnis, sicut et in veteri testamento, quia filii Israel murmuraverunt pro defectu panis et aquae, ut legitur Ex. XVI, 2 s., quasi humanum fuit et facile remissibile, sed quod postea dixerunt coram idolo, ut Ex. XXXII, 4: isti sunt dii tui, Israel, qui te eduxerunt de terra Aegypti, peccaverunt in spiritum sanctum, scilicet, opus Dei Daemonibus attribuentes. Unde et eorum peccatum dicitur irremissibile, cum dominus subdit: ego autem in die ultionis visitabo peccatum eorum. Augustinus autem dicit peccatum in spiritum sanctum esse verbum vel blasphemiam, quam quis dicit contra spiritum sanctum, per quem fit remissio peccatorum, secundum illud Io. XX, 22 ss.: accipite spiritum sanctum, quorum remiseritis peccata, et cetera. Et hoc quidem corde scilicet ore et opere, dum aliquis perseverat in peccato usque in finem ultimum. Et sic finalis impoenitentia est peccatum in spiritum, de qua manifestum est esse irremissibile. Magistri vero sequentes dicunt peccatum in spiritum sanctum, scilicet quod committitur ex certa malitia, quae contrariatur appropriato spiritui sancto, scilicet bonitati, sicut et peccatum in filium Dei, quod est ex ignorantia, quae opponitur sapientiae, quae appropriatur filio. Et similiter peccatum in patrem potest dici quod sit ex infirmitate, quae contrariatur potentiae, quae est appropriata patri. Sic ergo peccatum quod est in patrem vel in filium, dicitur remissibile, quia ex hoc ipso peccatum videtur aliquam excusationem habere, quia ex ignorantia vel ex infirmitate committitur. Quod autem ex certa malitia committitur, nullam in se habet excusationis causam: et ideo dicitur irremissibile, quia non habet in se unde remittatur, licet quandoque Deus illud ex sua bonitate remittat, sicut quandoque ex sua virtute curat morbum qui est de se incurabilis. Et secundum hoc assignantur sex species peccati in spiritum sanctum, excludentes ea per quae peccatum remittitur. Quorum prima duo accipiuntur per respectum ad ea quae se tenent ex parte Dei, scilicet spes divinae misericordiae, cui opponitur desperatio, et timor divinae iustitiae, cui opponitur praesumptio. Alia vero duo accipiuntur ex parte hominis, scilicet, contemptus boni commutabilis, cui opponitur obstinatio, quae hic duritia dicitur, per quam scilicet aliquis firmat animum suum ad peccatum; et destinatio aversionis a Deo, cui opponitur cor impoenitens, quod scilicet numquam proponit per poenitentiam reverti ad Deum. Alia vero accipiuntur ex parte donorum Dei, quorum unum est fides, secundum illud Prov. XV, 27: per fidem purgantur peccata, et huic opponitur impugnatio veritatis agnitae. Aliud autem est charitas, secundum illud Prov. X, 12: universa delicta operit charitas, et huic opponitur invidentia fraternae gratiae.
2:6
Postquam, apostolus proposuit veritatem divini iudicii, exclusa contraria opinione, hic manifestat divini iudicii veritatem, et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi his quidem qui secundum patientiam. Proponit autem primo veritatem divini iudicii quantum ad duo, scilicet, quantum ad opera et quantum ad personas. Quantum ad opera quidem, quia in praesenti non reddit secundum opera, sed quandoque male agentibus gratiam largitur, sicut ipsi Paulo apostolo, qui prius blasphemus et persecutor misericordiam consecutus est, ut dicitur I Tim. I, 13. Sed hoc non erit in die iudicii, quando erit tempus secundum iustitiam iudicandi. Ps. LXXIV, 3: cum accepero tempus, ego iustitias iudicabo. Et ideo alibi dicitur: secundum opera manuum eorum tribue illis. Quantum ad personas attenditur veritas divini iudicii, quia retributionis aequalitas servabitur quantum ad omnes. II Cor. V, v. 10: omnes nos manifestari oportet. Videtur autem quod non sit secundum opera retributio futura, quia peccato temporali poena aeterna retribuetur. Sed dicendum est quod, sicut Augustinus dicit, XXI de Civit. Dei: in retributione iustitiae non consideratur aequalitas temporis inter culpam et poenam, quia etiam secundum humanum iudicium pro culpa adulterii, quae brevi hora committitur, infligitur poena mortis; in qua non attendit legislator moram occisionis, sed potius quod per mortem perpetuo excluditur a societate viventium. Et sic etiam suo modo homo pro culpa temporali punitur poena aeterna. Et ideo non est mirum si peccata commissa contra charitatem, per quam scilicet est societas inter Deum et homines, aeternaliter divino iudicio puniuntur. Et hoc quidem esse iustum ex tribus apparet. Primo ex infinita dignitate Dei in quem peccatur. Tanto enim quis gravius peccat, quanto maior est dignitas personae in quam peccatur, sicut plus peccat qui percutit principem, quam qui percutit privatam personam. Et sic cum culpa peccati mortalis sit quodammodo infinita, oportet quod ei infinita poena respondeat. Et sic cum non possit esse infinita secundum intentionem, relinquitur quod sit infinita secundum durationem. Secundo apparet ex voluntate per quam peccatur. Quicumque enim mortaliter peccat aversus ab incommutabili bono, finem constituit in bono commutabili, sicut fornicator in dilectione carnis, avarus in pecunia. Et quia finis per se appetitur, quicumque appetit finem, fertur in illud, volens illud semper obtinere, si aliquid aliud non obsistat. Unde ille qui peccat mortaliter, voluntatem habet perpetuo in peccato manendi, nisi forte per accidens, sicut quando timet poenam, vel aliquod aliud impedimentum. Unde conveniens est, ut ex quo homo secundum suam voluntatem peccatum perpetuo obtinendum appetit, quod aeternaliter pro illo puniatur. Deus enim qui est inspector cordis, praecipue ad voluntatem peccantis attendit. Tertio ex parte effectus peccati, qui est subtractio gratiae, ex qua sequitur quod homo, quantum est de se, perpetuo maneat in peccato, a quo exire non potest nisi per auxilium gratiae. Non est autem conveniens ut durante culpa cesset poena, et ideo in perpetuum durat poena. Quod autem dicitur reddere unicuique secundum opera sua, non est intelligendum secundum aequalitatem operum, quia praemium excedit meritum, sed secundum proportionem, quia bonis retribuet bona et melioribus meliora. Et eadem ratio est de malis.
2:7
Deinde cum dicit his quidem qui secundum patientiam, manifestat propositum, et primo quantum ad opera, secundo quantum ad personas, ibi in omnem animam. Quantum autem ad opera ostendit veritatem divini iudicii, primo quidem in bonis, secundo in malis, ibi his autem qui ex contentione. Circa primum duo consideranda sunt, scilicet meritum et praemium. Ad meritum tria concurrunt. Primo quidem patientia. Quod potest intelligi, uno modo, de patientia Dei, de qua supra dictum est: an divitias bonitatis et patientiae ut intelligantur illi esse secundum patientiam boni operis, scilicet dispositi, qui bene patientia Dei utuntur bene operando. Alio modo potest intelligi de patientia hominis, quod etiam intelligi potest dupliciter. Uno modo, secundum quod patientia importat tolerantiam adversorum cum aequanimitate cordis. Hoc autem necessarium est, quod aliquis a bono opere non desistat propter mala quae patitur, et hoc est quod dicit secundum patientiam boni operis. Iac. c. I, 4: patientia opus perfectum habet. Lc. c. XXI, 19: in patientia vestra possidebitis animas vestras. Secundo, potest intelligi patientia pro longanimitate, sive pro perseverantia, ut scilicet aliquis a bono opere propter taedium non recedat. Iac. ult.: patientes estote, fratres, usque ad adventum domini. Hebr. X, 36: patientia vobis necessaria est. Secundum est bonitas operis, quod quidem dicitur bonum secundum ordinem ad debitum finem et secundum quod convenit regulae debitae, quae est lex Dei et ratio humana. Gal. ult.: bonum facientes non deficiamus. Tertio tangitur rectitudo intentionis quaerentibus vitam aeternam, ut scilicet in malis quae homo patitur, vel in bonis quae agit, non quaerat aliquid temporale, sed aeternum. Matth. VI, 33: primum quaerite regnum Dei. Ex parte etiam praemii tangit tria, quorum primum est gloria, quae significat claritatem sanctorum, etiam intrinsecam, qua replebuntur in mente, secundum illud Is. c. LVIII, 11: implebit splendoribus animam tuam: et exteriorem, qua splendebunt in corpore. Matth. XIII, 43: fulgebunt iusti sicut sol in regno patris eorum. Ps. CXLIX, 5: exultabunt sancti in gloria. Secundo tangitur honor, per quem significatur sanctorum dignitas, et reverentia quae eis exhibetur ab omni creatura. Erunt enim reges et sacerdotes. Apoc. V, 10: fecisti nos Deo nostro regnum et sacerdotes. Et ulterius computabuntur inter filios Dei, secundum illud Sap. V, 5: ecce quomodo computati sunt inter filios Dei. Ps. CXXXVIII, 17: nimis honorati sunt amici tui, Deus. Tertio tangitur incorruptio, quia scilicet illa gloria et honor non erunt transitoria, sicut ea quae sunt in hoc mundo. I Cor. c. IX, 25: illi quidem ut corruptibilem coronam accipiant, nos autem incorruptam. Deinde cum dicit his autem, ostendit veritatem divini iudicii in malis, in quibus etiam tangitur culpa et poena. Et quantum ad culpam tanguntur tria, quorum primum est contentionis pertinacia. Quae quidem, primo, potest intelligi hominis ad Deum, beneficiis ad se vocantem, contra quem homo contendere videtur divinis beneficiis resistendo. Deut. XXXI, 27: adhuc vivente me et ingrediente vobiscum, semper contentiose egistis contra dominum. Secundo potest intelligi de contentione hominis contra fidem. II Tim. II, 14: noli verbis contendere. Tertio potest intelligi de contentione hominum ad invicem, quae contrariatur charitati, quae est mater virtutum. Iac. III, 16: ubi zelus et contentio, ibi inconstantia et omne opus pravum. Secundo ponitur duritia eorum, scilicet, qui non acquiescunt veritati. Quod potest, uno modo, intelligi de veritate fidei. Io. VIII, 45: si veritatem dico, quare non creditis mihi? Alio modo de veritate divinae iustitiae, cui non acquiescunt, veritatem divini iudicii non credentes. Ez. XVIII, v. 29: dixistis: non est aequa via domini. Tertio potest intelligi de veritate vitae, cui non acquiescunt, qui perverse vivunt. Io. III, 21: qui facit veritatem, venit ad lucem.
2:8
Tertio autem tangitur malitia in hoc quod dicit credunt autem iniquitati, vel quia consentiunt persuadentibus iniquitatem. Prov. c. XVII, 4: malus obedit linguae iniquae. Vel quia credunt impunitatem peccatorum, quae in divinam iniquitatem redundaret. Eccli. V, 4: ne dixeris, peccavi, et quid mihi accidit triste? Vel credunt iniquitati, id est infidelitati, scilicet doctrinae quae est contra fidem. II Thess. II, 11: iudicentur omnes qui non crediderunt veritati, sed consenserunt iniquitati. Ex parte autem poenae quatuor ponuntur, quae quidem dupliciter distingui possunt. Uno modo ut ira, id est poena et vindicta corporalis, intelligatur esse post iudicium. Soph. I, 15: dies illa, dies irae. Indignatio autem in iudicio, quando impii sibi ipsis indignabuntur, fit ex peccatis quae commiserunt Sap. V, 6: erravimus a via veritatis. Tribulatio autem et angustia pertinent ad animam separatam a corpore ante resurrectionem. Prov. I, 27: quando venerit super vos tribulatio et angustia. Vel alio modo possunt distingui, ut prima duo accipiantur ex parte Dei, cuius ira dicitur dispositio ad puniendum, quae est malis horribilis. Apoc. VI, 16: dicent montibus et petris: cadite super nos, et cetera. Indignatio eius refertur ad hoc quod peccatores indignos reputabit vita aeterna. Ps. XCIV, 11: quibus iuravi in ira mea, si introibunt. Alia vero accipiuntur ex parte hominis. Et tribulatio quidem dicitur a tribulo, qui pungit, unde ad tribulationem potest pertinere omne quod dolorem infert. Soph. I, 14: vox diei domini amara, tribulabitur ibi fortis. Angustia autem dicitur ex hoc, quod animus hominis angustiatur non valens invenire remedium contra mala quae timet, vel iam patitur. Dan. XIII, 22: angustiae mihi sunt undique, et quid eligam ignoro. Iob XXVII, v. 9: numquid clamorem illius audiet Deus cum venerit super illum angustia? Deinde cum dicit in omnem animam, ostendit veritatem divini iudicii quantum ad personas. Et primo proponit huius aequitatem; secundo rationem assignat, ibi non est enim personarum; tertio rationem manifestat, ibi quicumque enim.
2:9
Veritatem quidem divini iudicii quantum ad personas ostendit primo in malis, cum dicit in omnem animam hominis operantis id est contra omnem animam, quia sicut gloria sanctorum ab anima ad corpus devenit, ita reproborum poena primo et principaliter est in anima et secundo in corpore, quod propter defectum vel culpam animae resurget passibile. Ez. XVIII, 4: anima quae peccaverit, ipsa morietur. Dicit autem Iudaei primum et Graeci, quia Iudaeis maior poena debebatur tamquam cognoscentibus Dei voluntatem per legem. Lc. XII, 47: servus sciens voluntatem domini sui, et non fecit, etc., digne plagis vapulabit multis. Et similiter Christiani quantum ad idem peccatum, puta adulterium vel furtum, graviori poena puniuntur quam infideles. Hebr. X, 29: quanto magis putatis maiora mereri supplicia, qui filium Dei, et cetera. Sed quantum ad totam poenam, gravior est poena infidelium propter peccatum infidelitatis, quod est gravissimum. Unde dicitur I Petr. III, quod super incredulos ira Dei manet. Secundo manifestat in bonis, et ponit primo duo, quae supra dixit gloriam et honorem, tertium vero, scilicet pacem, ponit loco incorruptionis, quam includit pax, et multa alia comprehendit. Non enim potest esse pax hominis perfecta quamdiu aliquis timet se amissurum bona quae habet, sed tunc aliquis habet veram pacem cordis, quando habet omnia quae concupiscit et ea perdere non timet. Is. XXXII, v. 18: sedebit populus meus in pulchritudine pacis. Et in his etiam primatum Iudaeis attribuit, quia eis sunt primo promissa, et in eorum promissiones gentes introierunt. Io. IV, v. 38: alii laboraverunt et vos in labores eorum introistis. Deinde cum dicit non enim est acceptio, assignat rationem dictorum, quia scilicet non est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Act. X, 34: non est personarum acceptor Deus. Opponitur autem personarum acceptio iustitiae distributivae, per quam aliquis distribuit unicuique secundum dignitatem personarum; ergo acceptio est quando praeter dignitatem datur alicui plus vel minus. Tunc autem hoc fit praeter dignitatem, quando hoc fit non propter conditionem, sed propter personam quae facit ad causam. Hoc est enim causam accipere, scilicet quasi regulam operandi, sed propter personam, quasi ipsa persona accipiatur ut causa aliquid faciendi.
2:11
Puta si aliquis det alicui propter consanguinitatem plus de bonis patrimonialibus, non est acceptio personarum, quia consanguinitas est conveniens causa propter quam de talibus bonis debeat habere. Si autem propter consanguinitatem aliquis praelatus det alicui plus de bonis ecclesiasticis, potest hoc ad acceptionem personarum pertinere, si alia idoneitas non concurrat. Non enim consanguinitas est ratio conveniens distributionis bonorum spiritualium. Quia igitur Deus omnia convenientissima ratione facit, non cadit in ipsum personarum acceptio. Dicitur enim Sap. VIII, 1, quod disponit omnia suaviter. Sed videtur acceptor personarum, quia peccatorum quosdam in suis peccatis relinquit, quosdam ad se vocat. Sed dicendum quod personarum acceptio opponitur iustitiae, unde locum habet in his quae dantur ex debito, quod attendit iustitia. Deus autem non ex debito, sed gratis, peccatores ad poenitentiam vocat. Si enim ex operibus, iam non ex gratia, ut dicitur infra c. XI, 6, et Tit. III, 5: non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. In talibus autem beneficiis gratis datis non solum Deo, sed etiam homini, liberum est dare cui voluerit. Matth. XX, 15: an non licet mihi quod volo facere? Deinde cum dicit quicumque enim, exponit praedictam rationem. Quod enim non sit personarum acceptio apud Deum, patet per hoc quod omnes qui peccant puniuntur. Unde primo loquitur quantum ad illos qui legem non susceperunt, dicens, quod quicumque peccaverit sine lege, scilicet Moysi, accepta a Deo, sine lege peribit, id est condemnabitur, non propter legis transgressionem. Iob IV, 20: quia nullus intelligit, in aeternum peribunt. Secundo loquitur quantum ad illos qui legem scriptam acceperunt, et dicit quod quicumque peccaverunt in lege, id est, post legem scriptam, iudicabuntur per legem, id est, propter hoc quod transgressi sunt praeceptum legis. Io. XII, 48: sermo quem locutus sum vobis ille iudicabit eum in novissimo die. Quidam autem ex hoc modo loquendi occasionem erroris sumpserunt.
2:12
Quia enim apostolus non dicit, quicumque in lege peccaverit per legem peribit, sicut dixerat de his qui sunt sine lege quod sine lege peribunt, crediderunt quod illi qui post legem susceptam peccant, iudicentur aliqualiter, scilicet in praesenti, non tamen pereunt. Sed, sicut dicit Glossa quis Christianus dicat non perire Iudaeum si non credat in Christum, cum dominus dicat quod tolerabilius erit Sodomae in die iudicii quam eis? Ut habetur Matth. X, 15. Unde Ez. c. XVIII, 32: nolo mortem peccatoris. Utitur autem tali diversitate in loquendo, quia, ut Gregorius dicit in moralibus super illud Iob XXXVI, 6: iudicium pauperibus tribuit, quidam in futuro iudicio peribunt, sed non iudicabuntur, id est impii, qui sunt sine fide et lege Dei. Ps. I, 5: non resurgent impii in iudicio, quia scilicet non est locus disceptandi contra eum, qui totaliter alienus est a Deo. Io. III, 18: qui non credit, iam iudicatus est. Alii vero, qui lege Dei et fide suscepta peccant, ita peribunt, quod etiam iudicabuntur, quasi quadam disceptatione cum eis facta. Unde Ez. XXXIV, 17 dicitur: ecce ego iudico inter pecus et pecus, arietum et hircorum. Sicut et rex, ut Gregorius dicit, hostes condemnat absque audientia, cives autem cum diligenti audientia.
2:13
Postquam apostolus confutavit humanum iudicium, quo se gentiles et Iudaei mutuo iudicabant et divinum iudicium commendavit, hic procedit ad ostendendum ea, quibus Iudaei gloriabantur, eis non sufficere ad salutem et primo ostendit propositum, secundo solvit ea quae in contrarium dici possent III cap., ibi quid ergo amplius, et cetera. De duobus Iudaei gloriabantur, scilicet de lege et circumcisione, quae non erat ex lege Moysi, sed ex patribus, ut dicitur Io. VII, 22. Primo ergo ostendit quod lex audita sive recepta, non sufficiebat ad salutem. Secundo ostendit idem de circumcisione, ibi circumcisio quidem, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit, secundo manifestat propositum, ibi cum enim gentes. Circa primum proponit duo, unum excludendo, alterum asserendo. Excludit enim quod Iudaei opinabantur se per solum legis auditum iustificari. Unde dicit: ita dictum est, peccantes in lege iudicentur per legem; non enim auditores legis, ex hoc ipso quod legem audiunt, iusti sunt apud Deum et si apud homines iusti reputantur. Matth. VII, 26: qui audit verba mea et non facit ea, similis est viro stulto. Iac. I, 23: si quis auditor est verbi, et non factor, et cetera. Secundo astruit quod factores legis sunt iusti, cum dicit sed factores legis iustificabuntur. Matth. VII, 24: omnis qui audit verba mea et facit ea, assimilabitur viro, et cetera. Iac. I, 22: estote factores verbi, et non auditores tantum et Ps. CX, 10: intellectus bonus omnibus facientibus eum. Sed circa secundum videtur esse quod infra III, 20, dicitur: ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro coram eo. Non ergo aliqui ex hoc quod opera legis faciunt, iustificantur. Sed dicendum est quod iustificari tripliciter accipi potest. Uno modo potest accipi quantum ad reputationem, ut tunc aliquis iustificari dicatur, quando iustus reputatur. Ez. c. XVI, 51: iustificasti sorores tuas, scilicet per reputationem. Et secundum hoc potest intelligi factores legis iustificabuntur, id est, iusti apud Deum et homines reputabuntur. Secundo, per executionem iustitiae, inquantum scilicet opera iustitiae exequuntur. Lc. c. XVIII, 14: descendit hic iustificatus in domum suam, quia scilicet publicamus opus iustitiae fecerat confitendo peccatum. Et hoc modo verificatur quod hic dicitur factores legis iustificabuntur, scilicet legis iustitiam exequendo. Tertio modo potest accipi iustificatio quantum ad causam iustitiae, ut scilicet ille dicatur iustificari qui iustitiam de novo accipit, sicut infra V, 1: iustificati igitur ex fide, et cetera. Sic autem non intelligitur hic quod factores legis iustificentur, quasi per opera legis iustitiam acquirant. Hoc quidem esse non potest neque quantum ad opera caeremonialia, quae gratiam iustificantem non conferebant; neque etiam quantum ad moralia, ex quibus habitus iustitiae non acquiritur, sed potius per habitum iustitiae infusum huiusmodi opera facimus. Deinde cum dicit cum enim gentes, manifestat propositum. Et primo ostendit quod factores legis, etiam si non sint auditores, iustificantur; secundo, quod auditores legis sine legis observantia non iustificantur, ibi si autem Iudaeus. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit dignitatem eorum qui legem absque auditu observant; secundo manifestat quod dixerat, ibi qui, ostendunt opus legis; tertio probat ibi testimonium reddente illis. Circa primum tria tangit quantum ad gentiles.
2:14
Primo, carentiam legis, dicens cum enim gentes quae legem non habent, scilicet divinam, quam non acceperunt. Non enim gentibus data est lex, sed Iudaeis, secundum illud Eccli. XXIV, 33: legem mandavit Moyses in praeceptis iustitiarum, et haereditatem domui Iacob et Israel promissiones. Et Ps. CXLVII, 20: non fecit taliter omni nationi. Deut. XXXIII, 4: legem praecepit nobis Moyses, haereditatem multitudinis Iacob. Ex quo patet quod gentiles non peccabant non observando caeremonialia legis. Secundo commendat in eis legis observantiam, cum dicit naturaliter faciunt quae sunt legis, id est, quae lex mandat, scilicet quantum ad praecepta moralia, quae sunt de dictamine rationis naturalis, sicut et de Iob dicitur, quod erat iustus et rectus ac timens Deum et recedens a malo. Unde ipse dicit: vestigia eius secutus est pes meus, vias eius custodivi. Sed quod dicit naturaliter, dubitationem habet. Videtur enim patrocinari Pelagianis, qui dicebant quod homo per sua naturalia poterat omnia praecepta legis servare. Unde exponendum est naturaliter, id est per naturam gratia reformatam. Loquitur enim de gentilibus ad fidem conversis, qui auxilio gratiae Christi coeperant moralia legis servare. Vel potest dici naturaliter, id est per legem naturalem ostendentem eis quid sit agendum, secundum illud Ps. IV, 7 s.: multi dicunt: quis ostendit nobis bona? Signatum, etc., quod est lumen rationis naturalis, in qua est imago Dei. Et tamen non excluditur quin necessaria sit gratia ad movendum affectum, sicut etiam per legem est cognitio peccati, ut dicitur infra III, 20, et tamen ulterius requiritur gratia ad movendum affectum. Tertio ostendit eorum dignitatem, in hoc scilicet quod huiusmodi legem non habentes, ipsi sibi sunt lex, inquantum scilicet funguntur officio legis ad seipsos, instruendo se et inducendo ad bonum, quia, ut philosophus dicit Ethic., lex est sermo coactionem habens ab aliqua prudentia et intellectu procedens. Et ideo dicitur I Tim. I, 9, quod iusto lex non est posita, id est, exteriori lege non cogitur, sed posita est iniustis, qui indigent exterius cogi. Et iste est supremus gradus dignitatis in hominibus, ut scilicet non ab aliis, sed a seipsis inducantur ad bonum. Secundus vero gradus est eorum qui inducuntur ab alio, sed sine coactione. Tertius autem est eorum qui coactione indigent ad hoc quod fiant boni. Quartus est eorum qui nec coactione ad bonum dirigi possunt. Ier. II, 30: frustra percussi filios vestros, disciplinam non receperunt. Deinde, cum dicit qui ostendunt, ostendit quomodo ipsi sunt sibi lex, quod quidem accipere possumus ad similitudinem legis quae ab exteriori homine proponitur, quae scilicet consuevit ad infirmitatem et memoriam scripto tradi; et similiter illi qui legem observant absque exteriori auditu legis, ostendunt opus legis scriptum, non quidem atramento, sed, primo quidem et principaliter spiritu Dei vivi, ut dicitur I Cor. III, 3. Secundo, etiam humano studio, Prov. III, 3: describe ea in tabulis cordis tui, scilicet praecepta sapientiae. Unde et hic sequitur in cordibus suis, non Pergameno, aut tabulis lapideis, sive aereis. Ier. XXXI, 33: dabo legem meam in visceribus eorum et in corde eorum superscribam eam. Deinde, cum dicit testimonium reddente, probat quod dixerat, scilicet quod opus legis sit in cordibus eorum inscriptum per quaedam opera quae huiusmodi scriptum annuntiant.
2:15
Et, primo, ponit illa opera, quorum unum est testimonium conscientiae, quod tangit dicens testimonium reddente illis conscientia, quae quidem nihil aliud est quam applicatio cognitionis habitae ad iudicandum de aliquo opere, utrum sit bene vel male factum. Unde huiusmodi conscientia quandoque testimonium perhibet de bono, secundum illud II Cor. I, 12: gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae quandoque autem de malo Eccle. VII, 23: scit conscientia tua, quia et tu crebro maledixisti aliis. Non autem potest aliquis perhibere testimonium de aliquo opere, quod sit bonum vel malum, nisi per hoc quod habet legis notitiam. Unde hoc ipsum quod conscientia testimonium reddit de bono vel malo, est evidens signum quod in corde hominis sit opus legis descriptum. Aliud autem opus est accusatio et defensio, quae sine notitia legis esse non possunt. Et quantum ad hoc dicit et cogitationum, id est, cogitationibus, accusantium aut etiam defendentium, id est, accusantibus vel defendentibus, more Graecorum, qui genitivis loco ablativorum utuntur. Et hoc inter se invicem. Insurgit enim homini circa aliquod factum aliqua cognitio accusans, dum propter rationem aliquam cogitat se male fecisse. Ps. XLIX, 21: arguam te, et statuam contra faciem tuam. Is. III, 9: agnitio vultus eorum respondebit eis. Quandoque etiam insurgit aliqua cognitio defendens, dum per aliquam rationem cogitat se fecisse bene, secundum illud Iob XXVII, v. 6: non reprehendet me cor omni vita mea. Et inter hanc accusationem et defensionem locum habet testimonium conscientiae, cui statur. Potest et aliter legi, ut dicatur testimonium reddente illis conscientia ipsorum, quae scilicet conscientia non solum est operum, sed etiam cogitationum, de quibus scilicet homo conscientiam habet, sed primum melius est. Sed quia testimonium, accusatio et defensio in iudicio locum habent, agit, secundo, de huiusmodi iudicio, ostendens tempus cum dicit in die, quod dicit non ad designandum temporis qualitatem, sed absconditorum manifestationem. I Cor. IV, 5: illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum. Quandoque tamen dicitur nox propter incertitudinem horae illius. Matth. XXV, 6: media nocte clamor factus est. Dicuntur autem cogitationes accusantes vel defendentes in die iudicii, non illae quae tunc erunt, quia tunc unicuique manifesta erit salus vel damnatio, sed defensio vel accusatio cogitationum quae nunc sunt et testimonium conscientiae quod nunc est, repraesentabitur homini in illa die, virtute divina faciente, ut dicit Augustinus, II de Civit. Dei. Notitia autem illarum cogitationum quae remanent in anima, nihil esse aliud videtur, ut dicit Glossa, quam reatus poenae vel meritum ex eis consequens.
2:16
Ostendit etiam auctorem iudicii, dicens cum iudicabit Deus. Ps. XCV, 13: iudicabit orbem terrarum in aequitate. Determinat etiam de quibus erit iudicium, cum dicit occulta hominum, de quibus nunc homines iudicare non possunt. I Cor. IV, 5: illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum. Ostendit etiam doctrinam ex qua habetur fides de hoc iudicio, cum dicit secundum Evangelium meum, id est a me praedicatum. Matth. XII, 36: omne verbum otiosum, et cetera. Dicit autem Evangelium meum, quamvis non possit dicere Baptismum suum et sit utriusque minister, quia in Baptismo nihil operatur industria hominis, sed in Evangelio praedicando industria praedicatoris operatur, Eph. III, 4: prout potestis legentes intelligere prudentiam meam in ministerio. Postea ponit cui datum est iudicium, cum subdit per Iesum Christum, qui scilicet est constitutus a Deo iudex vivorum et mortuorum, ut dicitur Act. X, 42, et Io. V, 21 s.: pater omne iudicium dedit filio, qui scilicet in iudicio apparebit bonis et malis: sed bonis secundum gloriam divinitatis, Is. XXXIII, v. 17: regem in decore suo videbunt, malis autem secundum naturam humanitatis, Apoc. c. I, 7: videbit eum omnis caro.
2:17
Ostenso quod factores legis iustificantur etiam sine hoc quod sint auditores, quod pertinebat ad gentiles, hic ostendit quod auditores non iustificantur, nisi sint factores, quod pertinet ad Iudaeos. Primo ergo ostendit praerogativam Iudaeorum quantum ad legis susceptionem; secundo ponit eorum defectum quantum ad legis transgressionem, ibi qui ergo alium. Ponit autem eorum praerogativam tripliciter. Primo, quantum ad gentem cui data est lex; secundo, quantum ad legem, ibi et requiescis in lege; tertio, quantum ad legis effectum sive factum, ibi et nosti voluntatem eius. Quantum autem ad gentem dicit si autem tu Iudaeus cognominaris, quod est nomen honorabile, secundum illud Ps. CXIII, v. 2: facta est Iudaea sanctificatio eius. Io. c. IV, 22: salus ex Iudaeis est. Dicuntur autem Iudaei non a Iuda Machabaeo, ut quidam dicunt, forte propter hoc quod Iudas Machabaeus gentem illam in dispersione existentem congregavit et protexit, secundum illud I Mach. III, 2 s.: proeliabatur proelia Israel cum laetitia, et dilatavit gloriam populo suo. Invenitur enim nomen Iudaeorum ante Iudam Machabaeum, secundum illud Esther VIII, 16: Iudaeis nova lux oriri visa est. Et ideo dicendum est quod Iudaei denominantur a Iuda patriarcha, Gen. XLIX, 8: Iuda, te laudabunt fratres tui. Cum enim tempore Roboam decem tribus, ab eius regno se segregantes, vitulum aureum adorarent, in transmigrationem sunt ductae ab Assyriis, ut habetur I Reg. XVII. Nec de eorum reversione facit mentionem Scriptura, sed potius terra remansit occupata ab alienigenis, qui postmodum Samaritani sunt dicti. Duae autem tribus, scilicet Iudae et Beniamin, adhaerentes regno Roboam, perseveraverunt in cultu Dei. Et quamvis in captivitatem Babylonis fuerint ductae, postmodum tamen per Cyrum regem Persarum sunt reducti in terram suam, ut dicitur I Esdrae I. Et quia tribus Iudae maior erat, ab ea gens tota illa denominabatur. Et non solum illi qui erant ex tribu Beniamin, sed etiam de aliis tribubus revertentibus qui se illis adiunxerunt. Consequenter cum dicit et requiescis in lege, ponit eorum praerogativam quantum ad legem. Et primo quidem, quantum ad ipsam legem, cum dicit et requiescis in lege, quasi per eam certificatus in credendis et in agendis. Dubitans enim intellectu non quiescit, sed utrinque sollicitatur: qui autem sapientiae certitudinem accipit, mente quiescit. Sap. c. VIII, 16: intrans in domum meam conquiescam eum illa. Secundo, quantum ad legislatorem, cum subdit et gloriaris in Deo, id est, in cultu et notitia unius Dei. Ier. IX, 24: in hoc glorietur qui gloriatur, scire et nosse me. I Cor. c. I, 31 et II Cor. X, 17: qui gloriatur, in domino glorietur. Deinde, cum subdit et nosti, ponit praerogativam eorum quantum ad fructum legis: primo, quantum ad hominem respectu sui ipsius; secundo, respectu aliorum, ibi confidis. Ponit autem duplicem fructum.
2:18
Primum quidem respondentem gloriae, quam de Deo habebant, cum dicit nosti voluntatem eius, quid scilicet Deus velit nos facere. Infra XII, 2: ut probetis quae sit voluntas Dei. Secundum fructum ponit, qui respondet quiescenti in lege Dei, cum dicit et probas utiliora, id est, scis approbare eligendo non solum mala a bonis, sed etiam meliora a minus bonis. Unde quaerebat quidam, Matth. c. XXII, 36: quod est mandatum magnum? Et hoc instructus per legem. Ps. XXXIII, v. 12: beatus homo quem tu erudieris, domine, et de lege tua docueris eum. Consequenter ponit fructus per respectum ad alios, qui quidem tripliciter se habent ad notitiam legis. Quidam enim sunt omnino in legis ignorantia constituti. Uno quidem modo per defectum naturalis ingenii, sicut et homo corporaliter dicitur caecus per defectum interioris potentiae visivae. Is. LIX, 10: palpavimus ut caeci parietem. Huiusmodi autem hominibus non potest homo lumen scientiae praebere, ut ipsi per se videre possint quid sit agendum, sed praebet eis homo ducatum ut caecis, mandando eis quid facere debeant, quamvis mandatorum rationem non cognoscant, Iob XXIX, 15: oculus fui caeco de quibus tamen dicitur Matth. XV, 14: caeci sunt, et duces caecorum.
2:19
Alio modo sunt in ignorantia per defectum disciplinae, qui sunt quasi in tenebris exterioribus non illuminati per doctrinam, quibus sapiens praebere potest lumen disciplinae, ut intelligant quae mandantur, et hoc est quod dicit lumen eorum qui in tenebris sunt. Lc. I, 79: illuminare his qui in tenebris. Secundo autem tangit illos qui sunt in via perveniendi ad scientiam, quam nondum attigerunt. Et hoc, uno modo, per defectum plenae instructionis. Et hoc est quod dicit eruditorem insipientium, id est, eorum qui nondum sapientiam acceperunt, qui dicuntur erudiri, quasi erui a ruditate, quae a principio inest omnibus, cum primo instruuntur. Eccli. VII, 25: filii tibi sunt? Erudi eos. Alio modo per defectum aetatis, sicut sunt pueri. Et quantum ad hoc dicit magistrum infantium. Is. XXXIII, 18: ubi est doctor parvulorum? Tertii vero sunt qui iam sunt in scientia provecti. Et isti indigent a sapientibus informari, ut habeant sapientium dicta in auctoritate quasi quamdam regulam seu formam.
2:20
Et quantum ad hoc dicit habentem formam scientiae. II Tim. I, 13: formam habe bonorum verborum quae a me audisti. Et, Phil. III, 17: observate eos qui ita ambulant, sicut habetis formam nostram. Oportet autem eos qui sic informantur, auctoritate maiorum instrui, ut sciant quid sit in lege traditum, et ideo dicit scientiae. Sap. X, 10: dedit illi scientiam sanctorum. Et etiam ut sciant quid sit verus intellectus eorum quae traduntur in lege. Et quantum ad hoc dicit veritatis. Ps. XLII, 3: emitte lucem tuam et veritatem tuam. Deinde, cum dicit qui ergo alium doces, ostendit defectum eorum secundum transgressionem legis. Et, primo, hominis ad seipsum, cum dicit qui ergo alium doces, dirigendo ipsum ad bonum, teipsum non doces, dirigendo. Et potest legi vel interrogative, quasi cum quadam indignatione, vel remisse, quasi asserendo eorum malitiam et simile est in sequentibus. Iob IV, 3: ecce docuisti plurimos, et infra: nunc tetigit plaga, et defecisti. Secundo tangit defectum quantum ad proximum.
2:21
Primo quidem quantum ad res quae furto subtrahuntur, cum dicit qui praedicas non furandum, furaris? Is. I, 23: principes tui infideles, socii furum. Secundo, quantum ad personam coniunctam, quae per adulterium polluitur. Et quantum ad hoc dicit qui doces non moechandum, moecharis? Os. VII, 4: omnes adulterantes quasi clibanus. Ier. V, 8: unusquisque ad uxorem proximi sui. Tertio autem ostendit eorum defectum per comparationem eorum ad Deum, et, primo quidem, quantum ad hoc quod peccabant contra ipsius cultum.
2:22
Et quantum ad hoc dicit qui abominaris idola, cognoscens scilicet ex praecepto legis ea non esse colenda, sacrilegium facis, abutendo scilicet his quae pertinent ad divinum cultum. Quod quidem primo fecerunt in statu legis, Mal. I, 12: dicitis: mensa domini contaminata est, et postmodum blasphemando Christum. Matth. XII, 24: in Beelzebub principe, et cetera.
2:23
Secundo, quantum ad ipsam gloriam, cum dicit qui in lege gloriaris, per praevaricationem legis Deum inhonoras. Sicut enim legis observantia in bonis operibus est occasio videntibus, ut honorent Deum, ita etiam transgressio legis per mala opera occasio est videntibus blasphemandi. I Petr. II, 12: ex bonis operibus vos considerantes, glorificent Deum. E contra autem dicitur I Tim. VI, 1: quicumque sunt sub iugo servitutis, dominos suos omni honore dignos arbitrentur, ne nomen domini et doctrina fidei blasphemetur. Et ideo in Ps. CXVIII, 158 dicitur: vidi praevaricantes, et tabescebam.
2:24
Et ad hoc inducit auctoritatem, subdens nomen enim Dei per vos blasphematur inter gentes quia scilicet gentes videntes Iudaeorum malam conversationem, reputabant hoc provenire ex mala instructione legis a Deo traditae. Dicit autem sicut scriptum est, scilicet Is. LII, 5: dominatores eius inique agunt, et iugiter tota die nomen meum blasphematur, et Ez. XXXVI, 22, secundum aliam litteram, ubi nostra sic habet: non propter vos faciam, domus Israel, sed propter nomen sanctum meum, quod polluistis in gentibus. Deinde cum dicit circumcisio, ostendit quod nec circumcisio sufficit ad salutem eadem ratione qua nec lex, quia scilicet observantia legis sine circumcisione valet, sine qua tamen circumcisio non prodest, sicut superius dictum est. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo comparat circumcisionem ad Iudaeos circumcisos; secundo, ad gentes incircumcisas, ibi si igitur praeputium; tertio manifestat quod dixerat, ibi non enim qui in manifesto. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit qualiter circumcisio prosit; secundo, qualiter non prosit, ibi si autem praevaricator, et cetera.
2:25
Dicit ergo primo circumcisio quidem prodest quantum ad remissionem peccati originalis, unde dicitur Gen. XVII, 14: masculus cuius praeputii caro circumcisa, et cetera. Sed tibi adulto tunc finaliter prodest, si legem observes, sicut religiosis prodest professio, si regulam observent. Circumcisio enim erat quasi quaedam professio, obligans homines ad observantiam legis. Gal. V, 3: testificor omni circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor, et cetera. Quod autem apostolus dixit: si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit, loquitur quantum ad tempus post gratiam Evangelii divulgatum; hic autem loquitur quantum ad tempus ante passionem Christi, in quo circumcisio statum habebat. Secundo, ibi si autem praevaricator, ostendit quomodo circumcisio non prosit, dicens: si tu Iudaee adulte, praevaricator es legis, circumcisio tua praeputium facta est, id est, non plus valet tibi quam praeputium, quia non servas quod per circumcisionem profiteris, Ier. IX, 26: omnes gentes praeputium habent, domus autem Israel incircumcisi sunt corde quinimmo ex hoc sunt magis rei, quia non servant quod promiserunt. Displicet enim stulta et infidelis promissio, ut dicitur Eccle. V, 3. Deinde cum dicit si ergo praeputium, comparat circumcisionem ad gentiles, et hoc dupliciter. Primo quidem quantum ad hoc quod eius fructum habent gentiles observando legem. Unde dicit: si circumcisio prodest cum observatione legis, non autem sine ea, igitur, si praeputium, id est gentilis incircumcisus, custodiat iustitias legis, id est iusta praecepta legis, Ps.
2:26
CXVIII, 86: omnia mandata tua veritas, nonne praeputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur? Quasi dicat: fructum verae circumcisionis habebit. Ad hoc enim homo exterius circumciditur in carne, ut scilicet se circumcidat in corde. Ier. IV, 4: circumcidimini domino, et auferte praeputia cordium vestrorum. Secundo, ibi et iudicabit, etc., comparat circumcisionem gentili, eum ostendens propter observantiam legis Iudaeo praeferri.
2:27
Unde dicit et praeputium, id est gentilis incircumcisus, consummans, id est implens mandata legis, ex natura, id est per naturalem rationem, ut supra dictum est quod naturaliter quae sunt legis faciunt, iudicabit, per comparationem, te, scilicet Iudaeum circumcisum, qui es praevaricator legis, transgrediendo praecepta eius, per litteram, id est habentem legem litteris descriptam, et circumcisionem, scilicet carnis. Unde de hoc comparationis iudicio dicitur Matth. XII, 41: viri Ninivitae, et cetera. Deinde, cum dicit non enim qui in manifesto, etc. assignat rationem dictorum. Et primo ponit rationem; secundo probat eam, ibi cuius laus. Circa primum duo facit. Primo assignat rationem quare circumcisio vel Iudaismus sine legis observatione non prosit; secundo assignat rationem quare observantia legis prosit sine Iudaismo et circumcisione, ibi sed qui in abscondito. Dicit ergo quod ideo circumcisio praevaricantis legem sit praeputium et iudicatur a praeputio custodiente legem, non enim est verus Iudaeus ille qui in manifesto est Iudaeus, secundum carnalem generationem. Infra IX, 6: non enim omnes qui ex circumcisione sunt Israel, hi sunt Israelitae, sed qui filii sunt promissionis. Et similiter etiam non est vera circumcisio illa, quae est manifesta in carne. Illa enim est signum, ut dicitur Gen. XVII, 11: circumcidetis carnem praeputii vestri, ut sit in signum foederis. Non autem est signum verum, nisi ei respondeat signatum. Unde si quis Iudaeus esset transgressor foederis, non esset eius vera circumcisio, et ideo reputatur in praeputium. Deinde, cum dicit sed qui in abscondito, assignat rationem quare praeputium custodientis legem reputetur in circumcisionem et iudicet circumcisionem carnalem; quia scilicet ille vere est Iudaeus qui est in abscondito, id est, qui habet in affectu cordis mandata legis, quam Iudaei profitentur. Matth. VI, 6: pater tuus qui videt in abscondito, et cetera. Et similiter circumcisio vera est, quae est cordis in spiritu, id est, per spiritum facta, per quam superfluae cogitationes a corde praeciduntur. Vel in spiritu, id est per spiritualem intellectum legis, non litteralem. Phil. III, 3: nos sumus circumcisio, qui spiritu Deo servimus. Deinde cum dicit cuius laus etc., probat praemissam rationem. Manifestum est enim quod in omnibus iudicium divinum praeferendum est humano. Ea vero quae exterius apparent, sive sit Iudaismus, sive circumcisio, laudantur ab hominibus, sed ea quae sunt in abscondito laudantur secundum iudicium divinum, quia, ut dicitur I regum XVI, 7: homines vident quae apparent, Deus autem intuetur cor, et cetera. Unde relinquitur quod interior Iudaismus et circumcisio praevalet exteriori.
2:29
Et hoc est quod dicit cuius, scilicet interioris circumcisionis, laus non est ex hominibus, sed ex Deo. II Cor. X, 18: non enim qui seipsum commendat, et cetera.
2:1
Propter quod inexcusabilis es, o homo onmis, qui judicas. Hactenus gentilium peccata et vitia detexit Apostolus: nunc quadam insinuatione ac tacito nomine transit ad reprehensionem Judaeorum, qui gentiles tot vitiis contaminatos despiciebant ut immundos, ac Dei beneficiis^udicabant indignos. Idque significatur statim initio capitis. Kam qui referunt hunc lo- i cum ad principes et magistratus publica judicia exercentes (quae Graecorum est expositiu),nonsatis atteudissevidentur ad scopum apostoli. Vult enim ostendere omnes sub peccato esse. Quod cum de gentilibus jam docuerit, nunc de Judaeis, qui se judices gentilium faciebant, idipsum prosequitur, uti sequentia declarabunt. Estque haec Augustini sententia lib. de spir. et lit. c. 26., et in expositione quarundam propositionum hujus epist. Ex quibus etiam liquet non de publicis judiciis hic sermonem esse, sed de privatis: deinde nec eos apostuli mentem assecutos, qui haec verba connectunt cum extremis cap. praecedentis, tanquam ad eosdem utraque pertinerent, quum sint admodum diversi. Nam hic introducuntur qui illos damnabant. Ubi et illud animadverte: quomodo superius philosophos, qui gentilium erant praecipui, inexcusabiles ostendit Apostolus, ita nunc docere Judaeorum praecipuos, id est legisperitos ac magistros, nihilo magis apud Deum excusabiles inveniri. Cohaeret autem istud initium cum superioribus hoc modo. Quamvis tot et tanta sint peccata gentilium, tu tamen etiam 0 Judaee, qui illos contemnere et tuo judicio condemnare soles, inexcusabilis es, nec ullam praetexere potes peccatis tuis ignorantiam. Ratio sequitur:
In quo enim judicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas. In quo, iv m, Graecismus est pro eo quod Latine diceretur, hoc ipso quod.
Eadem enim agis quae judicas. Graeci codices habent 6 y.ohwy, qui judicas, scilicetalios. Quaelectio innommllis etiam Latinis reperitur. Annuit etSyriaca translatio. Sensus Apostoli est: Nam eo ipso,quo alium judicas peccatorem et morte dignum, consequenter etiam te condemnas. Eadem enim quae judicas in aliis (sive, tu qui judicas alios), ipse agis vel opere, vel voluntate saltem ac desiderio. Quod enim a quibusdam abstines, id facis timore poenae, quam lex minatur, aut amore laudis humanae, non autem amore justitiae. Liquet, apostolo eadem esse judicare et condemnare, cum alterum per alterum exponat, sicut et apud Luc. cap. 6. dicente Domino: NoUte judicare, et: Nolite condemnare. Itaque judicium condemnationis significatur, ut aliln saepissime in scripturis. Quanquam quod ait condemnas, in telligi debet non verbo sed facto, et, ut dictum est, ex consequenti: quatenus eadem agis quae judicas. Eodem recidit Aquinatis expositio: teipsum condemnas, id est condemnabilem (Stendis. Ex data jam explicatinne perspicitur illud propter fjuod, Graece dib, id est igitur, proinde, signifioare quidem illationem quandam ex superioribus, sed ita, ut supplenda sit probatio ex verbis subsequentibus, in qtio enim judicas etc. Quae res considerata submovet obscuritatem, ob quam nonnulli laborant in connectendo hujus capituli initio cum praecedentibus.
2:2
2. Scimus enim quoniam judicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia agunt. Enim, Graece autem, quemadmodum et legit Ambros. comm. Sensus: Scimus nos Judaei ex L^ge nobis a Deo tradita, certius quam gentiles qui legem non acceperunt, judicium a Deo exercendum secundum veritatem, id est juste et secundum merita operum, aljsque respectu personarum, adversus ens qui talia agunt, cujusmodi supra de gentilibus commemorata sunt.
2:3
3. Existimas autem hoc, o homo, qui judicas eos qui talia agunt, et facis ea; quia tu effugies judicium Dei? Ac si dicat: Vehementer falleris, o Judaee, si existimes aut speres te evasurum justum Dei adversus te judicium, qui alios peccantes tanquam aut doctor aut peritus legis judicas, cum ipse eadem facias. Imo sic judicando gravius tibi ipsi judicium accersis. Ostendis enim te non ex ignorantia peccare, sicut plerique gentilium, sed scientem prudentemque praevaricari legem. Continet autem haec pars cum superiori syllogismura, argumento a minori substructum, hujusmodi: Judicium Dei certissime futurum est adversus omnes qui talia faciunt. At tu talia facis, non quomodocumque, sed sciens ea esse peccata; quippe qui etiam alius facientes judicas: ergo tu nullo modo eflFngies Dei judicium, sed etiam gravius caeteris punieris. Subindicatur et hoc argumentum: 1 u tibi vendicas judicium in alios peccantes; justum igitur est et te, si peccaveris, a Deo judicari; praesertim cum tu falli })ossis, nec illud tui sit (.flicii, alios judicare: Deus autem infallibilis et incorruptibilis sit omnium judex. Obiter nota, sicut hic in Graeco synonyma sunt upccsasiv '/ai Ttotetv^ ita et Latina, agere et facere.
2:4
4. An diiitias bonitatis ejus et patientiae et longanimitatis contemnis? Pergit in objurgando Judaeo, hinc allegans Dei bonitatem qua abntebatur; inde severitatem proponens judicii divini, quo metuere debeat. In hac parte duplex Hebraismus est: alter in vocabulo dicitias, quo significatur abundantia et magnitudo: alter in phrasi, qua dicit divitias bonitatis et patientiae et longanimitatis, pro divite sive abundanti bonitate, patientia et longanimitate. Vox Graeca yorp-zo-zr^c,, quam interpres bonitatem, et mox benignitatem vertit, Syrus dulcedinem vocat, proprie significat eam virtutem, qua quis, ut definiunt philosophi, libenter ac sponte aliorum utilitatibus expositus est. Nam ab utilitate nomen habet. Patientia Dei in eo est quod malos tolerat, Graece avo/Ty; tametsi metaphorice Deo tributa. Longanimitas in eo, quod poenam in longimi tempus difFert. Addit enim aliquid ad patientiam. Haec autemcontemnere videtur, qui iis ad spem impunitatis et majorem peccandi licentiam abutitur. Itaque sensus est: An, o Judaee, ex magna et superabundanti benignitate et longanimi patientia Dei securitatem et impunitatem tibi promittens pennanes in peccatis?
Jgnoras quoniam benignitas Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit? Ignoras, Graece ayvoaiv ignorans. Et ita vertisse nostrum interpretem docent codices mss. probatiores, adstipulante etiam Cjqjriano in lib. de patientia, et lib. 3. testim. ad Quirin. c. 35., denique et Ambrosio commentatore: tametsi ea varietas non tam in sensu verbomm est, quam in pronuntiatione, Benignitas, Graece t6 /pr^atov^ adjectivum substantivatum, quam mudo '/ptpxo-crfza dixit. Sensus hujus partis est: Ctim certe ignorare non delieas benignitatem Dei te ducere (sic enim in Graeco est), id est invitare et provocare ad poenitentiam. Notandum benignitate, patientia etlonganimitate Dei vocari peccatores ad poenitentiam, sed communi et generali vocationis modo, qui consistit tum iu externis beneficiis, quae phirima praestita fuerant populo Judaico, ut haec praecipua, lex, doctrina, prophetae, Messias promissus atque exhibitus: tum quantum ad omnes, in obvia Dei cognitione ex creaturis, de qua cap. praecedenti: Deus enim illis manifestavit • denique in lege naturae omnium animis impressa, de qua post paululum. Verum toto hoc vocationis genere, nisi specialis et efficax accedat vocatio, homines abutuntur, etiam ad magis peccandum. Quare nihil hiclocus adjuvat eos, qui sentiunt omnibus hominibus gratiam a Deo dari vel offerri sufi5cientem. Quam opinionem (ut alia taceam) plane destruunt ea, quae Paulus in hac ipsa epistola disputat de gratuita Dei electioiae.
2:5
5. Secundum autem duritiam tuam et impoenitens cor, thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et revelationis justi judicii Dei. Quaedam Graeca particulam copulantem secundo repetunt: in die irae et revelationis et justi judicii Dei. Quomodo Theophjlactum legisse constat. Legit et Oecumenius, tametsi sensum reddit nostrae lectioni consentaneum. Revera namque secundo loco redundat ea particula, ac sensui officit. Thesaurizas, Graecum est {^r^aaupiCs^C^ id est colligis, accumulas instar thesauri. Ira more scripturae rursus pro vindicta posita est, sicut cap. praecedenti. Ac merito diem judicii vocat diem irae, quia tunc impiis nulla erit spes misericordiae, sicut nunc est dum vivunt. Eundem vocat diem revelationis justi judicii, Graece diY.airjy.pioiac,, id est diem, quo palam exercebitur justum in omnes judicium: quando non Siilum manifestabuntur omnibus omnium merita bona et mala, verum etiam manifeste constabit justum esse Dei judicium in omnes. In die, id est in diem, quemadmodum c. praeced. in similitudine, in mendacio. Sic Jacob. 5. in die occisionis. Sensus Imjus partis: Tu vero pro duritia tua et corde impoenitente, id est per hoc quod Dei bonitate te invitante non emolhris ad poenitentiam, sed magis obdurescis in peccatis; accumulas tibi quendam poenarum thesaurum apud justitiam Dei, iu tempus illud terribilis ac manifesti ejus judicii, quo thesaurus ille poenarum universus super te simul efiundetur.
2:6
6. Qui reddet unicuique secundmn opera ejus. Hoc enim est justum exercere judicium. Quaeres an redditurus sit unicuique secundum omnia ejus opera tam bona quam mala. Respondeo, secundum nmnia bona, quae non invenientur mortificata: et secundum omnia mala, quae non invenientur remissa. Nam et illa mortificata et haec remissa sic habebuntur in illo judicio, tanquam facta nunquam fuissent. Omnia quidem prorsus et bona et mala, quaecumque quis fecerit, in illo judicio proferentur in lucem, et (ut humano more loquar) examini subjicientur: sed omnes tam bonorum cassationes, quam malorum remissiones ac solutiones antea factae, in r.itiones imputabuntur. Circa eandem hanc partem ab Hugone Victorino septem moventur quaestiunculae, quarum explicationem qui volet ab ipso repetat.
2:7
7. lis quidem, qui secundum patientiam boni operis, gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem quaerunt, vitam aeternam. Pro quaerunt legendum arbitror quaerentibus. Sic enim habent omnes codicesmss., quos habere aut videre contigit Francisco Lucae diligentissimo verae lectionis in bibliis vulgatae versionis indagatori. Nec secus legunt plerique omnes hujus epistolae Latini expositores, tam ■ veteres quamrecentiores, suffragante etiam textu commentatoris Ambrosii et (rregorio lib. 28. Mor. cap. 6. Denique lectionem hanc omnino postulat Graecus contextus: licet alioqui dictio Graeca CtiZOugi ambigua sit ad verbumetparticipium. Nec obstat relativum qui, quod in Graeco non est, recte tamen positum ah interprete n':stro. Nam subauditur verbum substantium: iis quidem qui sunt secundum patientiam boni operis, sicut expressum habetur in altera parte sententiae: qui sunt ex contentione. Hac igitur lectione constituta, duplex estistius partis expositio, prout illud quaerentibus vel ad praecedentes accusativos, vel ad sequentes referri potest. Quae amphibolia aeque est in Graeco. Si cum praecedentibus construatur, erit hic sensus: lis qui in bona conversatione perseverantes, nec eam propter ulla adversa deserentes (hoc enim significat boni operis pa~ tientia, Graece 'j7:'jp.ovri, vocabulum a superiore diversum) gloriam et honorem apud Deum atque in Deo, et incorruptionem, id est immortalitatem quaerunt; reddet Deus vitam aeternam. Hunc sensum perhibent Origenes, Chrysostomus et Theophylactus. At si cum sequentibus, sensus est: lis qui perseverant in benefactis, et ex iis quaerunt vitam aeternam, reddet gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem, id est ipsam vitam aeternam. Sic fere Latini tractatores exponunt, et cum his Gregorius Romanus loco supra citato: ac praeterea Graecus Oecumenius, qui annotat hoc loco hyperbaton esse. Haec expositio germanior nobis videtur. Convenit enim ci;m eo quod paulo post dicitur: Gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum. Notandum est in scripturis gloriam et honorem saepe conjungi. Quamvis enim differant, quod gloria sit freqliens de aliquo fama cum laude; honor autem testimonium virtutis: in eo tamen conveniunt, quod virtutum opera consequi soleant. Unde merito numinantur haec duo, ubi de remuneratione virtutum ac bonorum operum agitur.
2:8
8. lis autem, qui sunt ex contentione, et qui non ao/uiescunt veritati, credunt autem iniquitati, ira et indignatio. Supple ex superioribus, reddetur a Deo. Poterat in Latino retineri idem verbum: qui non credunt veritati, credunt autem iniquitati: ut servaretur allusio vocum quae in Graeco est, aTcsiO^oDa'.^ Ttsi- {>oiJi£vol':;. Erasmus: Qui veritati quidem non obtemperant, sed obtemperant injustitiae. Porro sensus est: lis vero qui contentiosi sunt, nec acquiescunt veritati divinae, id est evangelio sibi annunciato, sive credenda spectes sive agenda: sed magis eligunt credere, id est acquiescere ct adhaerere injustitiae, et doctrinis, quibus injusfa et corrupta vita foveatur: iis, inquam, retribuetur a justo judice Deo indignatio et ira (hic enim est ordo in Graeco, Ou.uoc ■/«'- hj^i)^ '^^ ^st grave supplicium, quale ab animo irato exspectari solet. Contentionem dicit eorum qui sensa capitis sui non ratione, sed animi pertinacia defendunt. Quales ut plurimum erant Judaei, quorum ingenium hac voce perstringere videtur. Porro titus hic locus apertissime declarat id, quod ab haereticis negatur, Deum bene operantibus redditurum vitam aeternam, et quidem habito respectu ad opera, et juxta conditionem operum. Idem enim plane convincit vocabulum reddendi seu retribuendi.
2:9
9. Tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam hominis operantis malum. Hae voces tribulatio et angustia a quibusdam adjunguntur parti praecedenti. Volunt enim congeriem esse quatuor vocum pene idem significantium, qua divinam in impios ultionem Paulus exaggeret. At plerique novum versum hic faciunt; iu quo sit repetitio superioris antithesis sub aliis verbis et ordine converso. Nam alioqui pars sequens omnino suspensa remaneret et imperfecta; nisi suppleas cum Origene, id est, in omnem animam hominis etc. Verum si congeriem facere voluisset Apostolus, addidisset conjunctivam particulam, et tribulatio etc. In omnem animam hominis. Hebraismus; id est, in omnem hominem. Subauditur autem, ventura est, aut quid simile. Nec dixit: in omnem animam hominis injusti, sed operantis malum. Et mox omni opera-nti bonum. non autem, omni bono.<ive justo: quia retributio sive in bonum sive in malum proprie respicit opera, tanquam merita quaedam, non autem habitus, ut quibus propria ratio meriti non convenit.
Judaei primum et Graeci, id est tam Judaei quam gentilis: primum tamen ac praecipue Judaei, cum propter insignes illius populi praerogativas apud Deum, tum quia prius nblata ei fuit gratia evangelii: ut hoc pacto, qui poti<.r fuit in beneficiis, etiam principalior sit in poenis.
2:10
10. Gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti bonum. Gloriae et hnnori pacem adjungit, ut significet bene operantibus futuram omnium bonorum quietam, perpetuam, certam et securam possessionem. Hanc partem Origenes de iis exponit sive Judaeis sive gentilibus, qui in Christum non crediderunt, opera tamen fecerunt justitiae, misericordiae, temperantiae, caeterarumque virtutum: quos dicit non quidem habituros vitam aeternam, nec intraturos in regnum coelorum, eo quod fidem non habuerint: accepturos tamen, juxta Pauli sententiam, ex suis operibus in Dei judicio gloriam et honorem et pacem. Sed haec Origenis doctrina (quam tamen judicio lectoris submittit vel ipse, vel ejus interpres Eufiinus) caeteris ejus erroribus annumeretur. Constat enim sine fide Christi neminem posse bene vivere. Sed etsi in Christum non credens aliqua faciat opera bona, non ea tamen esse ejusmodi, quae gloriam et honorem et pacem apud Deum judicem mereantur-
Judaeo primum et Graeco. Istudadjicit etiam hoc bjco, ut gentem suam honoret, quam inpriori parte videbatur depressisse.
2:11
11. Non enim est acceptio personarum apud Deum. Acceptio personarum, Graece 'KpoaioTioAr^^''-'^- Laurentius et Erasmus personarum respectum dicere malunt. Sic Matth. 22. Non enim respicis personam hominum. Sensus: Deus in judicando non respicit cujusquam personam, quod, exempli gratia, vel Judaeus J sit, vel doctus, vel dives, vel potens, vel 1 nobilis, sed tantum respicit ad merita causae. Est enim personarum acceptio, quum in praemiis aut poenis ex justitia decernendis, A-el omnino in judiciis seu publicis seu ])rivatis praetermissa ratiune meriturum respicitur ad eas hominum quaUtates, quae nihil ad rem faciant, de qua judicandum sit. Neque enim locum habet acceptio personarum in iis, quae mere gratuita sunt, ut in eleemosynis: unde non est acceptor personarum Deus, quando ex universo hominum genere ali(;s eligit, alios reprobat; aliis dat gratiam, aliis non dat. Electio enim ad gratiam indebita est, ut et ipsa gratia. Notandum est autem hanc phrasim. qua quis dicitur acceptor personarum (quae quidem sacris literis peculiaris est), manasse ab Hebraeis, quibus accipere vel sumere faciem, vel respicere in faciem hominis dicuntur, qui eum propter aliquam qualitatem, quam in illo conspiciunt aut noverunt, ut propter potentiam, opulentiam, nobilitatem, consanguinitatem ita reverentur aut amant, ut propterea ab eo, quod verum, justum, rectum est, jixdicando deflectant. Hinc illa est ad judices increpatio Ps. 81.: Usquequo judicatis iniquitatem, et facies peccatorum sumitis? Unde et Pharisaei cum Herodianis Christo fallaciter assentantes dicebant: Nec enim vides in faciem hominum, sed in veritate viam Dei doces, Marci 12. Pro quo apud Matthaeum noster vertit, respicere personam. Quo pertinet, quod justitia solet coeca pingi: quia nimirum facies hominum non aspicit. Quoniam autem vox Gx-aeca TipOjOJTiov^ a qua compositum Tipoaw7toATj<|;ia personarum acceptio, significat et faciem et personam; inde factum, ut interpretesLatini modo faciem, modo personam accipere, sint interpretati, cum Hebraica dictio CD^jfi proprie tantum significet facies. Unde et Syrus interpretatur acceptionem facierum, hic et Jacob. 2.
2:12
12. Quicumque enim sine lege peccaverunt, sine lege peribunt. Graece et Sjre cum adjecta copula et peribunt, quam et habent Latina quaedam manuscripta pervetusta. Nec otiosa est copula. Nam quasi dicit: Qui av6;jiojg peccaverunt, avoiJLOJc: quoque peribunt.
Et quicumque in lege peccaverunt, per Jegem judicabuntur. In lege, id est, sub lege, accepta lege. Legem intelligit non quamcumque, sed scriptam seu positivam a Deo traditam. Alioqui sine lege peccare non contingit, cum peccatum non sit aliud quam legis alicujus transgressio. Quamquam et humana legislatio apud Graecos non admodum antiqua fuit. Quod inde colligitur, quia v6|jioc apud Homerum nusquam legitur. Verumtamen hic de lege divina sermonem esse constat; ut sensus sit: Quicumque peccaverunt non accepta lege scripta a Deo, peribunt, non tamen condemnante eos lege scripta, quam non acceperunt, sed sola lege naturae, contra quam peccaverunt. Qui vero lege a Deo sibi tradita contra eam peccaverunt, per eam ipsam legem condemnabuntur. Prius membrum competit in gentiles, posterius in Judaeos. Nec minus est judicari quam perire: quemadmodum sensisse videtur Hieronymus lib. 1. dialog. contra Pelag. cap. 9. negans eos perituros, qui in lege peccaverunt, sed tantum judicandos: nam judicium interpretatur de poena temp<iraria, perditionem de aeterna; tametsi declarat se loqui de credentibus in Deum. Verum hanc ipsius Hieronymi tacito nomine sententiam, velut a veritate alienam, et a mente Pauli dissentaneam bene corrigit Augustinus in explanatione Ps. 118. concione 5. ac plenius hujusmodi commentarium redarguit lib. de fide et op. cap. 23. Nam judicium constat intelligi in condemnationem et interitum. Ac potius significatur deterioris esse conditionis eos, qui per legem judicabuntur, quoniam, ut ait Aug., scientes peccaverunt: tantum abest, ut profuturum sit eis, legem audivisse.
2:13
13. Non enim auditores legis justi sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis justificabuntur. Sunt non esprimitur in Graeco, et suppleri potest erunt, ut respondeat alteri verbo justificabuntur. Pressius urgere nunc incipit Judaeos, qui legem acceperant et in ea gloriabantur, nec tamen eam observabant: sicque a justitia remotos et peccato subjectos esse ostendit. Prior pars hujus sententiae manifestum habet sensum hunc: Qui legem acceperunt, eamque noverunt ac diligenter audiunt, non eo ipso justi sunt, aut erunt apud Deum, id est, in judicio Dei. Vel intelHge cum exclusione, qui tantum sunt auditores. Nihil enim prodest audire legem, nisi facias. Nam audire hic non obedientiam significat, ut interdum alibi, sed audientiam solam. Posterior pars obscurior est et diflicultatera habet, ob id maxime, quia Pauli doctrina est in hac epistola, speciatim cap. sequenti, ex operibus legis neminem ju- stificari. Igitur pro hujus partis intelligentia primum illud praemoneo, factores legis intelligi, qui faciunt ea, quae lege praecipiuntur, sive legem acceperint, sive nun. Vult enim hoc commune esse etiam gentilibus, ut parebit ex versu sequenti. Deinde in hac parte repetendum ex priori membro, apud Deum. Factores legis Justificabuntur apud^ Deum. Non enim aliter constabit antithesis, quam facit Apostolus inter auditores legis et factores. Denique videndum, quid sit justificabuntur. Nam justificari, quemadmodum et justificare, non uno modo accipitur iu scripturis. Primo quidem ac propriissime justificari dicitur, qui ex injusto, vel non justo fit justus: et justificare, qui ex non justo justum facit. Ita accipitur iu sequentibus, caj). 3. Justificati gratis per gratiam ipsius. Et cap. 4. Credenti in eum, qui justificat impium. Item Gal. 3. Ex fide justificat geyites Deus, et alibi. Hinc verbale justificatio, id est, motus seu transitus ab injustitia ad justitiam. Secundo justificare est justitiam conservare, augere, perficere. Sic apud Jacob. cap. 2. Ex operibus Justificatur homo, et non ex fide tantum. Et Apoc. ultimo dicitur: {/ui Justus est, Justificetur adhuc. Atque haec vocari solet justificatio secunda. Unde et bona opera justificationes vocantur in scripturis, quod per ea soleat augeri et conservari justitia; ut Dan. 9. Neque enim in Justificationibus nostris, id est, confisi bonis nostris operibus, prosternimus preces nostras ante faciem tuam. Et Apoc. 19. Byssinum Justificationes sunt sanctorutn. Quanquam et Dei praecepta, quorum observatione justificantur homines, etiam persaepe justificationes dicuntur, praesertim apud Davidem in Psalm. 118. Sic et infra hoc cap.: Si praeputium Justificationes legis custodiat. Tertio justificare est justum ostendere, declarare, pronuntiare, sententiam pro aliquo dicere. Quae quidem acceptio hujus vocis in scripturis usitatissima est, ut Ps. 81. Humilem et pauperem Justificate. Isaiae 5. Justificatis impium pro muneribus. Matth. 12. Ex verbis tuis Justificaberis. Luc. 16. Vos estis, qui Justificatis vos coram hominibus. Ejusdem generis est, quum slguiticat excusare, defendere, ut Job 9. &i Justificare me voluero, os meum condemnabit me. Et Ecclesiastici 7. Non de Justifices ante Deum. Hinc justificatio pro apohigia, qua quis suae causae justitiam tuetur, ut Job 27. Justificationem meam, quam coepi tenere, non deseram. Item justum praedicare, facta alicujus ut bona et justa laudare. PsaL 50. Lt Justificeris in sermonibus tuis. Luc. 7. Et omnis populus audiens et publicani Justificaverunt Deum. Etiterum: Justificata est sapientia ab omjiibus filiis suis: quomodo magnificare Deum dicilur, qui eum magnum praedicat. Ut igitur ad Apostolum revertar, ejus verba, quae nunc tractamus, ahi aliter exponunt, juxta triplicem, quam attuli, significationem vocis justificari. Augustinus lib. de spiritu et lit. cap. 26. duobus modis interpretatur. Primum, juxta primam significationem. Factores legis Justificabuntur, id est, aliter non sunt factores legis, nisi justificati fuerint, hoc est, ex impiis justi facti. Ut, inquit, non Justificatio factoribus accedat, sed ut factores legis Justificatio praecedat. Et adhibet simile: velut si dicamus, homines creabuntur, scilicet ipsa creatione futuri homines. Sensus iste promptus quidem est ad conciliandum huncPauli locum cum ipsius doctrina, qua negat ex operibus legis quemquam justificari: verum nonnihil contortus est, deinde et alienus ab eo, quod Paukis nunc agit. Vult enim ostendere discrimen apud Deum, inter auditores legis et factores: quod illi non sint justi, hi vero justificentur. Id autem per hunc sensum non ostenditur. Quod ipse Augustinus animadvertens subjungit aliam expositionem juxta significationem tertiam verbi Justificari. Factores legis Justificabuntur, id est, qui legem factis observant, justi judicabuntur, declarabuntur, habebuntur a Deo; ut justificari apud Deum idem reipsa sit cum eo, quod in priori membro, justos esse apud Deum: sicut et iu praecedenti parte, peribunt et judicabuntur re et effectu idem valent. Porro neotericis quibusdam placet hoc loco secunda justificandi significatio. Dicunt enim Apostolum hic loqui de justificatione secunda, ut sensas sit: Factores legis justificabuntur, id est, homines exercendo bona opera, quae lex praescribit, accipient augTnentum justitiae, secundum id, quod sci-iptimi est: Qui justus est, justificetur adhuc. Itaque Paulum non esse sibi contrarium, quia cum alibi negat ex operibus hominem justificari, de prima loquitur justificatione, quae non ex operibus est, sed opera ipsa praecedit. Hic sensus veram continet doctrinam de augmento justitiae per bona opera. Sed tamen non convenit huic loco. Neque enim satis respondet priori membro. Deinde si illud vellet Paulus, dixisset quomodo Joannes in Apocalypsi: Justificabuntur adhuc, id est amplius. Nam justificari per se non sonat augmentum. Secundus igitur Augustini sensus omnino retiuendus ut germanior; non modo, quia nititur usitatissima phrasi scripturae, de qua jam diximus; verum etiam, quia antithesis, quam attendit Apostolus, per Imnc sensum optime explicatur, ac si diceret: non auditores legis, sed factores apud Deum justi reputabuntur, hoc est, vero judicio justi sunt; utpoLe justitiam, quae lege praecipitur, opere exercentes. Sic enim scriptum est 1 Joan. 3. Qui facit justitiam, justus est. Simile ilbid Salvatoris Luc. H. Beati, qui audiunt verbum Dei, et custodiunt illud. Nimirum ideo beati, quia justi Porro sensum hunc etiam caeteri passim interpretes tam Graeci quam Latini tradunt et amplectuntur. Neque pugnat hic sensus ullo modo cum ea Pauli doctrina, qua removet ab operibus justificationem. Ea namque doctrina accipienda est de operibus non a fide profectis: quum justificationis Initimn a fide sit, ut suo loco plenius exponetur. Hic autem illi sermo est de operibus vere bonis Deoque acceptis ad vitam aeternam; ut ex superioribus liquet. Hujusmodi vero esse non possunt, nisi ex fide emanarint. Nam et de hoc operum genere etiam agit Jacobus Apostolus, quum docet ex operibus hominem justificari, et non ex fide tantum. Sane videri potest idcirco Paulum hic tam diligenter commendare vohiisse bona opera, ut ad justitiam et vitam aeternam conducibilia ac necessaria; quo lectorem praemuniret, ne sequentem ipsius doctrinam, qua justificationem tradit ex fide sine operibus, male intelligendo oftendiculum pateretur, aut in errorem incurreret. Ilhid postremo notandum adversus sectarios, Paukim hic luanifeste agnoscere et commendare justitiam operum, eamque veram; cum dicit factures legis justificari apud Deum. Quod enim apud Deum, id est, Dei judicio tale est, id vere tale esse nemo, nisi impius dubitaverit. Ita Lucae 1. Erant Justi ambo ante Deum. Certe Paulus alibi, quum significare vult rei, de qua loquitur, veritatem et sinceritatem, dicere solet, ante Deum, coram Deo, ut 2 Cor. 2. Gah 1. Cor. 1. Quod si negent aliquos esse factores legis, coarguunt eos sequentia.
2:14
14. Cum enim gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter ea, quae (egis sunt, faciunt. Cum faciunt, male Erasmus, cum fecerint. Nam Graece est otav Tcoi'^ subjunctivus praesentis temporis. Itaque potius vertendum erat: cum faciant, ut quidam verterunt. Verum rectius noster interpres, cum faciunt. Nam adverbium oxav _, quando, nunc indicativum, nunc subjunctivum sibi adjungit eodem sensu. Naturaliter, Graece cp6aetj natura: quomodo vertit Ephes. 2. Eramus tiatura filii irae. Quae legem non habent, non est determinatio restringens, sed declarans. Est enim gentium epitheton legem non habere, sicut Judaeorum, habere legem. Ita 1 Cor. 9. Judaeos et gentiles suis epithetis designans, tUos vocat, qui sub lege, hos, qui sine lege, Graece avofjLOuc.
Ejusmodi legem non habentes, ipsi sibi sunt lex. Ejusmodi non ad legem referendum, quod nonnulli faciunt, sed ad personas, scilicet gentiles. Graece outoi, hi legem non habentes, sibi ipsi sunt lex. Porro hujus loci tres feruntur expositiones, quarum una erronea est, imo haeretica: reliquae duae sanum continent sensum. Pelagius in commentario, et apertius in epistola ad Demetriadem, cujus initium: Si summo ingenio, itemque Joannes Cassianus in collat. de protect. Dei, censent Apostoli Pauli in hoc loco doctrinam esse, quod ex gentibus quidam sine fide et gratia Christi per solas naturae vires fecerint ea, quae legis sunt, id est, ohservaverint et impleverint legem Dei. Et hos naturaliter justos vocat Pelagius. Quae doctrina damnata est in concilio Milevit. can. 5. Fuitque haec ipsa Pelagii haeresis, Dei praecepta sine ejus gratia servari posse, ut constat ex multis, quae adversus eam haeresim scripsit Augustinus: quam et diserte exprimit in libro de haeresibus. Alii nonnulli, inter quos Cajetanus, exponunt quidem hunc locum de gentilibus a fide Christi alienis, non tamen omnia, quae legis sunt, facientibus, sed aliqua: cujusmodi suuthonorareparentes, reddere depositum, justam ferre sententiam. Quae expositio nihil habet sanae doctrinae contrarium. Nam infideles posse facere quaedam opera moraliter bona, communis est et vera Theologorum sententia. Juxta quam Hieronymus quoque intelligendus est, scribens in Ezech. 29., ubi locum hunc Pauli refert ad ethnicos infideles. Caeterum de hujusmodi gentilibus, deque operibus ex sola facultate naturae profectis Apostolum loqui, ex eo probant, quia dicit eas gentes naturaliter, id est (ut illi interpretantur), ex naturae viribus ea, quae legis sunt, facere. Sed hoc argumentum facile evanescet audita veriore interpretatione. Est igitur tertius commentarius eorum, qui de gentibus fide Christi mediatoris imbutis, et per ejus gratiam ea, quae legis sunt, facientibus, sive Christi praecesserint adventum, sive secuti sint, Apostolum exponunt; velut inprimis Augustinus lib. de spir. et lit. cap. 26. et aliquot sequentibus, lib. 1. contra Julianum cap. 3. et lib. 4. cap. 3. et alibi. Item Prosper contra Cassianum cap. 22. Fulgentius de gratia Christi, cap. 25. et26. Et ante hos omnes commentator Ambrosius. Denique Latini posteriores: Hugo, Lombardus, Hervaeus, Aquinas, Carthusianus, aliique complures. Et ut ad Graecos transeam, primum Origenes de iisdem sensisse videtur. Dicit enim legem scriptam in eorum cordibus spiritu Dei vivi, respiciens nimirum ad locum 2 Cor. 3., qui ad fideles certissime pertinet. Chrysostomus quoque et eum secutus Theophylactus pro exemplis huc adferunt eos gentiles, qui Deo per fidem placuerunt: ut Melchisedec, Job, Ninivitas, Cornelium. Satis id ipsum indicat etiam Oecumenius, quum illud exponens, quod praecessit: pax omni operanti bonum, Judaeo primum et Graeco, dicit Graecum ibi intelligi verum Dei cultorem ac fidelem. Hunc autem cummentarium valde probabilem ac pene certum faciunt: primum scopus Apostoli, cui propositum erat ostendere sine fide Christi omnes esse sub peccato, tam gentiles quam Judaeos: quod et superiori capite de gentilibus late exsecutus est. Nec certe usquam alibi de gentibus a fide mediatoris alienis ita loquitur, ut tribuat eis aliquam veram legis observationem, sed ubique varia eis adscribit crimina, ut Ephes. 2. et 4. Coloss. tola cap. sequenti pronunciat illud cum Judaeis commune: Omnesdedinaverunt, simul inutiles facti sunt: non est, qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad u?tum. Deinde probat totius loci contextus, quem diligenter expendit Augustinus in lib. de spir. et lit. Nam proxime praecessit, factores legis justificari, videlictt sive Judaeos, sive gentiles, sive legem scriptam accepissent, sive non. Et quia dubitari piiterat de gentilibus, quomodo legem faciendo justificarentur, quum legem non accepissent, idcirco modum hac parte declarat, dicens: Cum enim gentes, etc. Certum est autem secundum fideiu catholicam, nuUos infideles fuisse justificatos aut justos apud Deum, etiamsi nonnulla, quae legis sunt, facerent: igitur nequesubsequens haec declaratio degentibus iniidelibusaccipipotest, sed desolisfidelibus est verificanda, cujuscumque temporisfuerint. Eodem omnino facit illa sententia praecedens: Gloria ethonoretpax omnioperanti bonum, id est, facienti ea, quae legis sunt. Si ergo gentilis sine fide facit ea, quae legis sunt, secundum Apostolum erit illi gloria et honor et pax, id est, ut jam supra expositum est, ipsa vita aeterna. Qua probatione ad refutandam istam de infidelibus expositionem utitur Fulgentius. Rursum pro fidelibus faciunt similes sententiae, quae hoceodem capite sequuntur, ut illa: Si igitur praeputium justitias legis custodiat, nonne, etc. Item: Judicabit id, quod ex natura est praeputium, legem consummans, te, qui per literam etc. Ex quibus omnibus collige, quodeadem sunt Apostolo sex ista, quae in hoc capite leguntur, operari bonum; esse factorem legis; facere ea, quae legis sunt; legem observare; justitias legis custodire; legem consummare. Atqui horum duo postrema sine controversia tribuit Apostolus gentibus ad fidem conversis: quartum tribuit Judaeis fidelibus: primum et secundum generaliter iis, qui coram Deo justi sunt, et gloriam apud Deum merentur. Quare et tertium, id est, facere ea, quae legis sunt, quod gentilibus attribuit, non aliis utique, praeterquam fidelibus attributum intelligi debet, iis, qui coraui Deo justi sunt. Adde, quod in sequentibus significat Apnstolus, eorum opera, de quibus hic dicit, quod, quae legis sunt, faciunt, remunerationem habitura in die judicii. Id enim volunt illa verba: In die cum judicabit Deus occulta hominum. At ea remuneratio non alia est quam vitae aeternae. Nam infidelium operabona, quoniam mortua sunt, nullam illic acceptura sunt remunerationem. Denique et illud admodvim suadet, quod gentilem justitias legis custodientem et legem consummantem, in fine cap. appellat Judaeum in abscondito, et justitiam ejus vocat circumcisionem cordis in spiritu, non litera: cujus lausnon ex hominibus, sed exDeo. Haec enim plane congruunt cum eo, quod hic dicit, gentes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter ea, quae legis sunt, facere; ut qui ostendant opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis: licet non habeant scriptum in tabulis, sicut habebant Judaei. Igitur ex his omnibus satis abunde liquet, de quibus gentibus hic loquatur Apostolus. Cur autem de gentibus haec verba superiori sententiae subjecerit, jam ante dicta est ratio. Cui et ista accedit, quia comparatione gentilium humiliare volebat Judaeos et peccatores ostendere, ut patet ex sequentibus. Verum adhuc instant Pelagius et Cassianus, negantes de fidelibus haec Apostoli verba accipi posse, qui loquitur de gentibus, quae legem non habent: fideles autem omnes, praeter legem naturae cunctis insitam, legem habent Christi; siciat et Paulus de se testatur dicens 1 Cor. 9., se sine lege non esse, sed esse in lege Christi. Primum respondeo: quamvis hoc argumentum videri possit aliquid habete momenti, quantum ad gentiles attinet Christianos, id est, eos, qui Christo nomen dederunt in baptismo: nihil tamen ad eos pertinere gentiles, qui Christi adventum praecesserunt, et tamen in eum venturum crediderunt; quos hic etlam comprehendi jam ante dixi. Nam his nullam a Christo legem datam fuisse, manifestum est. Deinde plenius ac generalius respondetur, nec omnino Christum ullam dedisse legem in tabulis aut membranis scriptam: at neque principaliter attulisse legem cperum, quam omnes a natura, Judaei insuper a Deo per Mosen acceperant; sed legem fidei. Non enim gentiles per operum legem traducti sunt ad fidem, quemadmodum Judaei, quibus sua lex paedagogus fuit ad Chvistum: sed nulla lege media vocati sunt ad fidem, ut ea, quae legis sunt, facevent. Denique lex Christi prr^eter legem naturae et fidem mysteriorum pauca continet servanda; magisque consistit iu spiritu ac dono gratiae, qualex impleatur, quam iupraeceptis, quae jubeanturimpleri. Sed nunc ad explicationem textus veniamus. Cum enim gentes, inquit, quae legem scriptam non acceperunt, naturaliter ac sine lege scripta faciunt ea, quae sunt legis scriptae, id est, ea, quae lege decalogi continentur, lii legem scriptam non habentes sibi ipsis sunt loco legis; dum sua sponte ac proprio judicio sine externo legis jubentis adminiculo et impulsu bonum operantur: atque hoc pacto completur in eis, quod dixi, factores legis justificari. Illud naturaliter Augustinus de spir. et lit. cap. 27. exponit, ex natura per gratiam reparata. Alii sic: naturaliter, id est, duce ac monstrante ipsa natura seu naturali lumine rationis, absque magisterio legis scriptae. S. Thomas utrumque commentarium adfert. Nec vero pugnant hi duo sensus. Neque enim duce natura possunt gentes ea, quae legis sunt, facere, nisi eadem natura per gratiam fuerit reformata. Cujus ratio est et ex parte luminis naturalis, quod peccato obscuratum cum sit^ non monstrat omnia agenda et vitanda; et ex partevoluntatis, quae ex peccato infirmitatem et malitiam contraxit, ut nec ea omnia, quae ratio naturalis agenda dictaverit, eligere possit, antequam fuerit per gratiam sanata atque adjuta. Nec aliud vult Augustinus, quum naturam interpretatur reparatam per gi'atiam. Non enim sentit hic in nomine naturae gratiam includi: sed gentesid, quod hic dicitur, facere non posse naturaliter, id est, per naturam, nisi gratia reparatam. Ex his jam liquet^ in verbis Apostoli naturam non gratiae, sed legi scriptaeopponi: et proinde cessare argumentum eorum, qui ex vocabulo naturaliter colligebant hic Apostolum agere de gentibus infidelibus. Sunt, qui vocem naturaliter sic exponant, sponte, libenter, ex animo, ut hoc opponat Apostolus illi modo, quo Judaei sub lege constituti legem observant, nempe serviliter et coacte. Ratiolocutionis patet, quia quae naturali fiunt impulsu, sponte et non coacte fiunt. Mihi tamen quod prius dictum est, magis germanum videtur. Utrique sensui bene quadrat, quod sequitur.
2:15
15. Qui ostendunt opuslegis scriptum in cordibus suis. Scriptum Graece ypaTi- TOV, nomen, non participium. Significatur enim ita scriptum ut permaneat. Ostendunt iaciendo ea, quae legis?uut, cum legem non acceperint. Per hoc enim declaratur, quod ipsi sibi sunt lex. Idipsum etiam signum est eos ex animo facere, tanquam opus legis habentes scriptum et impressum in cordibus. Scriptum autem a Spiritu Sancto, ut indicatur in fine cap., ubi circumcisionem nominat cordis, in spiritu non litera. Expressius autem alibi significatur, ut 2 Cor. 3., ubi Corinthios vucat Epistolam Christi, scriptam non atramento, sed spiritu Dei vivi, non in tabulis lapideis, sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus. QuopertinetiUud Jerem. 31.: Dabo legem meam in visceribus eorum, et in corde eorum scribam eam. Ad hunc modum diserte scriptionem hanc in cordibus exponit et probat Augustinus lib. de spir. et lit. cap. 26. Et huc etiam Origenis commentarium spectare^ jam ante diximus. Ita quoqueB. Ambrosius intellexisse videtur lib. de paradiso cap. 8., quum citans hunc locum dicit, nos Dei praeceptum cordibus nostris tenere impressum spiritu Dei vivi. Alii interpretantur Apostolum hic loqui de lege natuvae omnium animis impressa, cujus dictamen appellet opus legis scriptum in cordibus. Sed prior sensus magis est apostolicus, quem et tradit Thomas in commentario, eumque secutus Joannes Viguerius.
Testimonium reddente illis conscientia ipsorum. Testimonium reddente, Graece ou/iijiapTupouOTjc: contestante, ut legit Augustinus in expositione quarundam prop. Sed compositum videtur positum pro simplici. Testificante eorum conscientia. Nam illis in Graeco non est. Vide tamen, quae annotamus infra adillud cap. 8. Jpse enim spiritus testim07iium reddit spiritui nostro, ubi Graeceestidem verbum, quod hic. Qui partem hanc referunt ad eosdem gentiles, scilicet ea, quae legis sunt, facientes, exponunt ad hunc modum: in eo, quod faciunt ea, quae legis sunt, non sequuntur legem scriptam, quae eis non est data, sed suam ipsorum conscientiam (intellige Dei gratia reformatam), quae eis est loco legis, utpote testificans et dictans, quid agendum, quid fugiendum. Ita fere Oecumenius. Verum quia pars haec connexionem habet cum sequenti, quae non potest de solis justis accipi, videtur ipsa quoque referenda ad gentes in genere, maxime cum, ut dictum est, pronomen illis in Graeco non habeatur. Igitur ablativos absolute positos, qui Graecis genitivis respondent, crediderim exponendos rationaliter hoc sensu: habent enim omnino gentes, etsi legis expertes, conscientiam factorum suorum intus in animo, quae ipsis testimonium ingerit de iis, quae bene vel male fecerint. Unde consequenter addit Apostolus:
Et inter se invicem cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam defendentibus. Ablativos legimus ex correctione Romana, cum hactenus pervulgata codicum lectio fuerit, cogitationum accusantium aut etiam defendentium (pro quo excusantium legit Augustinus lib. 2. de serm. Domini in monte cap. 9.), retentis scilicet ex Graeco genitivis absolute positis, qui in ablativos mutandi erant, sicut factum est in parte praecedenti: Testimonium reddente conscientia, nisi forte interpres hos genitivos regi putaverit a praecedenti nomine conscientia: id enim conjiciuntnonnulli; sed non est probabile. Ablativos legunt Hieronymus lib. 5. Ezech. 16.; Ruffinus in expositione symboli ad articulum: Inde venturus est judicare, et in commentario Origenis; Augustinus lib. 20. de civit. cap. 26. et commentator Amb., necnon Concordantiae veteres uno et altero loco. Pro cogitationibus Graece est Xoyio- |JiU)V, quo vocabulo significantur non qualescunque cogitationes, sed quae fiunt ratiocinando ac disceptando; dum adhibito judicio rationis animus examinat aliquid, et de eo pronuntiat sitne verum an falsum, bonum an malum. Derivatur a verbo XciyiCso&at, quod sequenti capite exponit arbitrari. Sensus est: atque ex hoc testimonio conscientiae fit, ut, dum facta sua cogitando expendunt et inter se conferunt, ipsis suis cogitationibus vel accusentur propter mala facta, vel excusentur aclaudentur propter bona. Notandum plerosque lUud, aut etiam defendentibus, extendere ad cogitationes infidelium, quos scilicet defendit sive excusat aliquorum bonorum operum a se factor^m conscientia. Sed probabilius puto cum Oecumenio, eam partem tantum respicere bonos, de quibus dixerat: Cum enim gentes etc, idque Paulum significare voluisse addita vocula etiam, ac si diceret: cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam (quod ad bonos et ea, quae legis sunt, facientes attinet) defendentibus. Nam certe etsi infidelium bona quaedam sint opera, remunerationem tamen, ut supra dixi, non sunt acceptura in die judicii, de quo et antea locutus est, et nunc iterum loquitur.
2:16
16. In die cumjudicabit Deus occulta hominum. Pars ista cum proxime praecedente connecti potest hoc modo: quod quidem testimonium conscientiae accusantis vel etiam defendentis, etsi valeat plurimum in hoc saeculo, praecipue tamen locum habebit in diejudicii, quoDeusjudicaturus est de factis omnium hominum, etiam iis, quae nunc sunt occultissima. Vel in die juxta Stapulensem, id est, in diem judicii divini: sicut superius, in die irae. Nam illa cogitationum accusatio vel excusatio nunc quidem fit, sed respicit diem examinis ac judicii Dei. Nonnulli partem hanc, quod incommode cum proximis cohaereat, annectendam putant superiori verbo ostendunt, ac si nunc tempus exprimatur, quo ostensio illa futura sit, de qua dixerat: Qui ostendunt opus legus scriptum etc. Quae connexio mihi non probatur: nam illa ostensio fit per opera legi consentanea dmn exercentur. Unde nec dictum est ostendent, sed ostendunt. Magis placet, quod alius quidam admonet, jungendam esse cum verbo justificabuntur, et superioribus judicabuntur, peribwit, quae omnia sunt futuri temporis, et judicium divinum respiciunt.; ut sequentia ab illo loco: cum enim gentes etc. accipiantur velut parenthetice interjecta. Nam quo minus apte haec pars ad proxima referatur, aeque obstant praesentis temporis participia accusantibus et defendentibus.
Secundum Evangelium meum. Scilicet quod praedicandum mihi Christus tradidit. Hinc disce contra sectarios, ad Evangelium pertinere non solum annuntiationem gratiae Dei et salutis per Christum promissae, sed etiam justi judicii, quo Deus unicuique reddet secundum opera sua. Scribit Hieronymus in catalogo de Luca, quosdam suspicari, quitiescumque in Epistolis suis Paukis A.\c\i: juxta Evangelium meum, de Lucae significare volumine: sed eam suspicionem nec Hieronymus sibi probari significat, neque nos probamus. Evangelium enim suum Paulus non aliud intelligi vult, quam doctrinam Evangelicam, ut dixi, a se praedicatam; quod eam Christo revelante didicisset. Gal. 1.
Per Jesum Christum. Hoc adjungendum illi parti: cum judicabit Deus occulta hominum. Sensus enim est: Deum judicaturum per Christum hominem, qui constitutus est ah eo judex vivorum et mortuorwn, Actor. 10. Quemadmodum habet et symboli nostri contessio.
2:17
17. Si autem tujudaeus cognominaris. Hic jam aperte et expresso nomine sermonem ad Judaeum convertit, ac gravi accusatione eum urget, quod cum legem a Deo accepisset, eoque nomine sibi placeret, non tamenidpraestaret lege instructus, quod gentes sine lege. Atque in ea re inculcanda persistit usque ad finem cap. Est autem oratio splendida ac vehemens, et ad rem quam agit acccimmodata. Qua prius quidem recenset ea, quae videbantur in Judaeo praeclara, et in quibus gloriabatur; postea vero exiisipsis, quoniam tantis beneficiis non responderet, damnabilem eum ostendit. Si, inquit, tu Judaeus cognominaris, id est geris nomen Judaei, eoque nomine gaudes, et in eo gloriaris. Etenim revera honorificum erat appeUari Judaeum, sicut nunc \ ocari Christianum. Erat enim nomen illud et appellatio populi Dei, hoc est, a Deo peculiariter electi, et a caeteris gentibus ad ipsius cultum separati. Non enim fecerat taliter omni nationi, Psah 147. Cepit autem appellatio Judaeorum sub tempus captivitatis Babylonicae, postquam fl decem tribus abductae fuissent in Assyrios; cum anteacommuni nomine vocarentur filii Israel. Ac primum quidem ii soli, qui erant de regno duarum tribuum, hoc nomine vocabantur, a tribu videlicet principaliore, ut4Reg. 16. et 25. Item apud Jeremiam et Danielem. At in libru Esther, ubi frequens est nomen Judaeorum, accipitur generaliter ut omnes tribus comprehendat. Sic et deinceps apud Zachariam cap. 8. et in libris Macchabaeorum, atque in tota scriptura novi Testamenti. Et de hac generali nuncupatione Josephus intelligendus est, cimi dicit lib. 11. Antiq. Jud. cap. 5. tum primum eam inditam fuisse et populo et regioni (sciHcet ut regio Judaea vocaretur), quando a Babylonia sunt reversi. Ex his etiam constat eos vehementer falli, qui nomen Judaeorum a Juda Macchabaeo deductum volunt; quum fuerit faciie tribus saeculis antiquius. Quod ad initium attinet hujuspartls, varlantGraeci codices. Nam plerique, qui nunc extant, habent Idl, id est ecce tu Judaeus. Atque ita verterunt Erasmus et Faber, aliique neoterici. Jdque etiammavult F. Toletus. At interpres noster legit sl dz, si autem. Quomodo et in Origene Ruffinus vertit, et comm. Ambros. legit. Prior lectio reddit sententiam absolutam, posterior suspensam relinquit, quae tandem absolvitur ibi: Qui ergo alium doces etc. Eadem varietas exstat in Epistola Jacobi cap. 3. Si autem equis etc.
Et requiescis in lege. Haec quae sequuntur, tanquam bona quaedam commemorautur usque ad illud: Qui ergo etc. Nondum enim venit Apostolus ad reprehensionem, Non igitur sensus est: Qui spem salutis in lege collocas, nihil amplius quaerens, quasi iHa tibi satis sit ad justitiam. Hoc enim malum est. Sed rei^uiescis, sive ut alii vertunt, acquiescis in lege, hoc est oblectans iu lege, de ea tibi gratularis seu applaudis tanquam de insigni Dei beneficio, frequens es in ejus auditu et lectione. Sermo est de universa lege Mosaica, praecipue tamen de morali, ut ex sequentibus patet.
Et gloriaris in Deo. Hoc est, gloriaris verum Deum esse Deum tuum, qui te ad cultum suum ex omnibus mundi nationibus elegerit, et populum sibi peculiarem fecerit. Merito quidem hac in re gloriabatur Judaeus; erat enim magnum Dei beneficium; sed iUud non recte, quod in Deo non sicut oportet gloriaretur, vel plus sibi tribuendo quam deberet, vel non in Deum bona quaecunque accepisset referendo.
2:18
18. Et nosti voluntatem ejus. Ejus non est in Graeco, sed ab interprete additum ad explendum sensum. Ex lege nosti, inquit, quid Deus velit te facere et a quibus abstinere. Haec vocari solet voluntas signi, in praeceptis consistens.
Et probas utiliora instructus per legem. Id est, ex lege sic institutus es, ut noris bona a malis discernere, ac probe scias quid agere, quid fugere debeas. Hanc enim vim habere videtur quod in Graeco est 5ia'f£pov-a, q. d. differentia, pro quo legit Augustinus distantia, lib. de spirit. et lit. cap. 8. Porro differentia, id est meliora, bona prae malis. Quare minus placet, quod Err.smus vertit, eximia. Rectius alii meliora; sic tamen ut comparativus improprie sumatur, sicut apud Poetam: Video meliora proboque: deteriora sequor. Instructus Graece /aTri/^ou/jisvoc, participium praesentis temporis, quo significatur is, qui mysteriis alicujus religionis initiatur. Unde catechumeni apud Christianos. Se7isus: Legem habens in promptu, quae te quotidie docet ac instruit.
2:19
19. Confidis teipsum esse ducem coecorum, lumen eorum, qui in tetiebris sunt. In Graeco praefixa est conjunctio, et confidis. Quo intelligitur ilhid instructus per legem non sequentibus, sed praecedentibus annectendum esse. Seyisus: Arrogas tibi tantam legis scientiam, ut etiam coecis, id est, errantibus ducem te.praebere, et iis qui in tenebris sunt, id est ignorantibus, lumen d^ctrinae possis adferre. Confidere pro gloriari legitur etiam alibi, de quo vide commentarium ad illud 2 Cor. 3. Fiduciam autem talem habemus etc.
2:20
20. Eruditorem insipientium, magistrum infantium. Etsi plus est esse magistrum sive doctorem, Graece "^i^Jaa/.aAOV, quam eruditorem, Tiai^suTr/;, qui scilicet erudiendis tantum pueris adhibetur, quum magister etiam grandes et provectos habeat discipulos, hic tamen videatur confundi. Nam sicut eruditorem vocat insipientium, ita magistrum infantium, sive parvulorum, Graece vr^Tcitov, id est rudium et imperitorum. Transfertur enim haec vox ad animum. Quod in scriptura frequens est.
Habentem formam scientiae et veritatis in lege. Formam Graece ji6p'fwaiv, formationem. Quo nomine significat instituendifurmandique rationem, quam quis aliis praescribit. Habetur idem vocabulum 2 Timoth. 3,, ubi interpres vertit speciem. Habentes speciem quidem pietatis. Cujus loci veram inteUigentiam illic indagabimus. Quod autem hic dicit, tale est: Prt.fiteris te magistrum imperilorum, ut qui ex studio legis consecutus sis formam ac rationem, qua etiam alios scientia veritatis imbuere, ac morum praeceptis instruere queas. Causaliter enim haec pars connectenda cum praecedenti.
2:21
21. Qui ergo alium doces, teipsum non doces. Nunc ad accusationem ipsorum vertit bona quae dixerat; quia non iis utebantur ad eum finem, ut bene et juste viverent. Hanc partem cum sequentibus Chrysostomus, Theophylactus et aUt plerique legunt schemate interrogati;tuis. Alii vero enuuciative, ut adnotavit Oecumenius. Sensus tamen eodem recidit; nisi quod acrior et vehementior est objurgatio yjer interrogationem. Te ipsum non doces, id est non vivis ut doces, doctrinam tuam facto non ostendis. Nam turpe est doctori cum culpa redarguit ipsum. Unde sequitur: Quipraedicas nonfurandum, furaris ■
2:22
22. Qui dicis non moechandum, moecharis. Haec faciebat Judaeus non solum cupiditate et affectu, verum etiam ipso opere. Nam etsi lex manum cohibebat, non animum; in multis tamen eftervescens cupiditas erumpebat in actum externum. Etenim de manifesta violatione legis Apostolum loqui, patebit ex sequentibus.
Qui abominaris idola, sacrilegium facis. Sacrilegium hoc intelligi debet in participatione cultus idolorum, ut respondeat antitheto suo, qui abominaris idola. Committebat autem hujusmodi sacrilegium,Judaeus exponentibus Chr jsostomo et Theophylacto, quando cupiditate victus res idolis consecratas contra legem usurpabat. Id enim erat idolorum cultus participem fieri, Potest etiam intelligi in eo, quod gula aut hominum amicitia illecti mensas adibant idolothytis instructas. Nam et hoc ad idolorum culturam et daemonum societatem pertinere, Paulus docet 1 Cor. 10. Minus probabile quod Syrus interpres reddit: spolias domum sanctuarii, id est templum, nisi sacerdotes templi Hierosolymitani occulte de ejus thesauro furantes hic taxat; quod ipsum tamen non erat idolis participare. Idola more scripturae dicuntur simulacra falsorum deorum, vel quae ipsa pro diis coluntur. De qua voce plura ad illud 1 Cor. 8. Nihil est idolum in mundo.
2:23
23. Qui in lege gloriaris. Tanquam a Deo accepta; nec enim levis erat materia gloriandi, legem a Deo accepisse prae caeteris gentibus. Nam judicia sua non manifestavit eis, Psal. 147.
Per praevaricationem legis Deum inhonoras. Illum ipsum scilicet, a quo legem accepisti, Nam legis praevaricatio cedit in injuriam et ignominiam legislatoris. Tollitur enim per eam honor illi debitus, qui consistit in observatione legis ab eo latae: praesertim ubi transgressio est hominibus manifesta, qui per hoc Deo tuo sint obtrectaturi. Id enim hic significari, declarat probatio sequens.
2:24
24. Nomen enim Dei per vos blasphematur inter gentesyPer vos Graece di 6p,ac, propter vos. Et sensus est: Propter vos, id est vestra culpa, qui legem a Deo traditam palam violatis, male de Deo vestro gentes loquuntur, detrahentes honori et majestati ejus, qui habeat tam malos cultores, quasi eos vel negligat punire, vel non possit, vel etiam scelera approbet. Qua de re graviter expostulat Dominus apud Ezech. cap. 36.
Sicut scriptum est. Ad locum memoratum Ezechielis hanc Paali citationem referendam esse multi existimant. Sed rectius Origenes et alii referunt ad locum Jesaiae 52. Nam verba apprime conveniunt juxta versionem LXX. quae sic habet: Propter vos semper nomen meum blasphematur in gentibus. Jam ex his verbis satis apparet illa sujDcriora furaris, moecharis, sacrilegium facis, de externo opere accipienda esse. Nam propter solum affectum intus latentem non poterat infamari nomen Dei apud exteras nationes.
2:25
25. Circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem observes. Graece: Kam circumcisio quidem prodest, si legem facias seu exequaris. Aliud nunc removet, in quo gloriabantur Judaei, nempe circumcisionem, docetque eam nihilo magis quam superiora, si legem non observent, ipsis profuturam ad salutem: sed ita demum prodesse, si legem observent. Ubi quaestio occurrit, quomodo cum hac sententia non pugnent illae Gal. 5. et 6. et 1 Cor. 7., quibus dicitur neque circumcisionem valere quicquam, neque praeputium, sed fidem quae per charitatem operatur, et observationem mandatorum Dei. Respondent, Apostolum hic loqui de circumcisione pi'o tempore legis, alibi vero pro tempore revelatae gratiae. Unde iu utroque loco ad Galat. in Christo Jesu. Sed verior responsio est ex mentePauli (respicientis etiam ad tempus, quo haec scribebat, quando Judaeis nondum erant legalia prohibita), circumcisionem prodesse Judaeo legem observanti, quia circumcisione bene utitm-. Nam qui legem observat, circumcisionem, quam in carne accepit, transfert ad spiritum, di;m quod circumcisione carnis significatur, id est vitiorum amputatio et fuga, in ipso impletur. Nam circumcisio signum quoddam erat, Judaeum commonefaciens, cor esse circumcidendum, secundum illud Jerem. 4. Circumcidimini Domino, et auferte praeputia cordium vestrorum. Adde quod etsi Judaeo jam illicita facta fuisset circumcisio per sufficientem Evangelii pi'omulgationem, tamen adhuc proderat ei servanti legem circumcisio, quam infans acceperat, quatenus per eam admonebatur circumcisionis spiritualis, quam illa carnis circumcisio significabat. Sunt qui putent hic per synecdochen nomine circumcisionis totam legem acprofessionem Judaicam intelligi. Secundum quos sensus est: Religione ac professione Judaeum esse prodest, si, qui talis est, legem observet, atque id quod profitetur praestet. Quod tamen etiam secundum supradicta debet intelligi. Verum ea circumcisionis acceptio neque cum sequentibus admodum congrait, neque facile potest aliunde probari.
Si autem praevaricator legis sis, circumcisio tua praeputium facta est. Sin autem, inquit, legem non observes, sed transgrediaris, nihil tibi conferet tua circumcisio, nec omnino proderit Judaeum esse genere ac professione: sed eris tanquam non circumcisus, id est praeputiatus, gentilis; quasi dicat: Cii'Cunicisio tua tibi versa fuerit in praeputium. Est enimpraeputium ea pellicula, cujus amputatione fiebat circumcisio.
2:26
26. Si igitur praeputium justitias legis custodiat: nonne praeputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur? Erotemate Judaeum perurget comparatione gentilis. Nam praeputium priori loco metonjmice pro homine praeputiato, id est gentili incircumciso ponitur. Justitias legis Graece justificationes legis, id est mandata legis, quorum observatione justi sunt homines. Sensus est: Igitur e diverso si gentilis legem observet, justa opera exercendo; nonne perinde habendus erit, et apud Deum reputabitur ut circumcisus? quia nimirum rem circumcisione significatam exhibet opere. Est enim corde circumcisus, licet non carne.
2:27
27. Et judicabit id quod ex natura est praeputium, legem consummans, te, qui per litteram et circumcisionem praevaricator legis es? Haec posterior erotematis pars est instar conclusionis, qua tandem in Judaeum subtiliter retorquet judicium, quo gentilem Judaeus gravabat; ut vidimus initio hujus cap. Consummans Graece TsXoOoa, quod minus plene vertit Erasmus, si servaverit. Nam Graecum verbum TSActv perficere et implere significat. Sensus: Et nonne gentilis, quem tu judicare soles, etsi praeputium habens cum quo natus est, si legem observet ac perficiat,.sui comparatione condemnabit te, qui cum literam, id est, legem in tabulis scriptam habeas, et carne circumcisus sis, atque externa professione Judaeus; tamen huic professioni non respondes, sed legem acceptam praevaricans? Simili locutione dicit e diverso cap. 4., gentes per praeputium credere. Posset alioqui sic intelligi: per literam et circumcisionem praevaricator, id est occasione legisetcircumcisionis transgressor factus, quia lex iram operatur infra cap. 4., quomodo dictum est: litera occidit 2 Cor. 3.et: Virtus peccatilex. 1 Cor. 15. Notandum est a Syro interprete priorem partem ita reddi". Et judicabit praeputium quod ex natura sua perfecit legem; ut illud ex natura sua videatur Apostolus opponere vocibus, quas subjungit, perliteramet circumcisionem; sitque idem cum eo, quod supra dixit, gentes, quaelegem nonhabent, naturaliter eaquae legis sunt facere. lu quem sensum et Graeca accipi posse mihi videntur, etsi interpretatione minus prompta et commoda. Caeteram illud hic observa lector, quam saepe ac diversis verbis Apostolus repetat atque inculcet, hominem justificatum facere, servare, consummare legem Dei, ut intelligas quam sint ab Apostolico spiritu alieni novatores nostri, quum docent Dei praecepta homini etiam justificato et sub gratia constituto, esse ad observandum impossibilia. Quos proinde justo anathemate damnavit Synodus Trid. sess, 6. can. 18.
2:28
28. Non enim qui in manifesto, Judaeus est; neque quae in manifesto, in carne, est circumcisio. Docet quis Judaismus, et quae circumcisio hominem Deo commendet, atque ex eo probat versum praecedentem. Sensus est: Non enim qui genere aut professione externa et laominibus conspicua Judaeus est, is vere et coram Deo Judaeus est; neque circumcisio manifesta atque externa, quae fit in carne, vera est circumcisio. Non negat fieri posse, ut qui in manifesto Judaeus est, idem etiam vere et coram Deo Judaeus sit: ipse enim qui haec scribit Apostolus Paulus, et in manifesto Judaeus erat et coram Deo: sed negat ex eo verum Judaismum aestimanunm esse, quod in manifesto quis Judaeus sit: ac similiter de circumcisione.
2:29
29- Sed qui in abscondito, Judaeus est. Id est, qui Judaeus est in abscondito, ubi Deus videt, qui corde ac legis observatione ex corde profecta Judaeus est: ille demum verus est Judaeus, ad quam pertinent promissiones Abrahae factae.
Et circumcisio cordis in Spiritu, non litera. Quod ait: In spiriti^non litera: jucundius sonat in Graeco, sv ~vt''jiJ.ax'., rjj yp7'tj.;j.ar'.. Spiritum nonnulli humanum interpretantur, id est animam seu mentem. Augustinixs in expositione quarundam hujus Epistohie propositionum, per spiritum intelligere videtur sensura spiritualem legis, et per literam sensum literalem, qui est de carnali circumcisione, Atqui idem Augustinus in lib. de spiritu et litera cap. 8. spiritum interpretatur Spiritum sanctum, quam genuinam esse expositionem ostendit locus ejusdem Apostoli 2 Cor. 3., ubi similiter spiritum opponens literae, deSpiritu sancto se loqui manifeste declarat. Caeterum pars haec, ut superioribus respondeat, ita supplenda videtur: Et circumcisio cordis circumcisio est, nempe quae in spiritu, non in litera; ut hic sit sensus: et circumcisio, qua cor circumciditur a vitiis et concupiscentiis, ea demum vera Deoque placita circumcisio est, utpote quae spiritualis sit circumcisio, id est per Spiritum sanctum facta: non autem carnalis juxta literam legis Mosaicae. Potest etiam ilhid, z?i spiritu, non litera seorsum accipi, et referri ad utrumque, quod praecessit, Judaeum et circumcisionem, ut sensus sit: verum esse Judaeum, qui talis est'in spn'itu, non htera, id est qui secundum spiritum est Judaeus, non secun lum literam, modo jam explicato. Similiter quoque veram esse circumcisionem, quae talis est in spiritu, non litera.
Cujus laus non ex hominibus, sed ex Deo est. Cujus Graece o^, masculinum est vel neutrum. Itaquennnpotestpraecisead circumcisionem referri, quae etiam in Graeco foeminini generis est, 7t£p'.to,U7;. Proinde vel ad Judaeum referri debet, quod facit Augustinus in expositione: vel per sjllepsin ad utrumque, id est Judaeum et circumcisionem, hoc sensu: Qui Judaeus, et quae circumcisio spiritualis, laudem et commendationem habet, non apud homines, qui non vident nisi quae foris sunt conspicua; sed apud Deum, qui cor intuetur.
2:1
1. Propter quod inezcusabilis es, o homo omnis qui iudicas; in quo enim iudicas alterum, te ipsum condemnas; eadem enim agis quae iudicas (cum Amiat. lege : eadem enim agis [tu] qui iudicas «x vxo ajtà «pásoti, 6 xeivov cfr VV. LL.). Duplici modo particula propter quod (3:5) explicari potest : etenim si latinam praecedentis sententiae (1,32) lectionem sequimur, secundum quam ethnici non intellexisse dicuntur, peccatores.dignos esse morte, hic erit nexus : « illi iam, quamvis id non intelligerent , severis poenis a Deo sunt mulctati, multo magis ergo tu, qui de aliis iudicans ostendis te poenam a Deo statutam cognoscere, excusationem praetendere non poteris » (cfr. To/. etc.). Si vero lectionem graecam sequimur, iuxta quam ethnicos csse punitos enuntiatur, quia male agere voluerint, quamvis poenam divinitus statutam cognoverint, conclusionem a minore ad maius non habebimus (quae in verbis paulinis etiam non est indicata), sed a pari concluditur : « Poenis suis Deus ostendit ethnicos esse inexcusabiles, quia veritatem in iniustitia detinentes cognitam veritatem non sunt amplexi neque in vita sua exprimunt; à pari ergo omnis homo est inexcusabilis, qui aliorum iudicem se constituens eadem agit, quae in aliis condemnat; ethnicis enim similis veritatem, quam iudicio suo sese cognoscere profitetur, voluntate non amplectitur ». Quoniam autem in tota praecedente argumentatione Paulus docet, iram divinam super ethnicos revelatam esse, quia iuxta cognitam veritatem vitam suam non instituissent, dicere etiam licet, particulam propter quod ad totam superiorem pericopen referri (cfr Thom. Est. etc.). In controversia porro est, quisnam ille sit, quem Apostolus alloquitur (o Aomo omnis qui iudicas). Graeci (cfr CArys. Theod. Theoph. etc.) consentiente Cai. principes ac magistratus, et potissimum quidem romanos, qui tunc mundi imperium tenebant, intelligunt; sed haec sententia, quum de publico iudicio non agi clarum sit, hodie est derelicta. Pauci moderni superiorem argumentationem continuari putant, ita ut ethnici, immo Ethnicochristiani, qui ludaeos propter Legis transgressiones vituperaverint, intelligantur (cfr 4g. — Ho/fm. etc.); sed hi extra contextum vagantur. Neque iis assentimur, qui verba de solis Iudaeis interpretantur, quamvis haec explicatio hodie sit vulgatior (cfr Tol. Est. Nat. etc., Beel. Mai. Dr. Sch. etc. — Fr. Rück. God. Weiss etc.) ; procul quidem dubio Paulus his verbis ad Iudaeos iam transit eosque iam prae oculis habet , sed nulla prorsus est ratio, qua verba generali suo sensu privare cogamur. Melius igitur cum S. Aug., quem antiquiores Latini omnes (Haym. Gl int. Herv. Lomb. Thom. etc.) et aliqui iuniores ac moderni sequuntur (Just. Heith. MEv. Bisp.) dicemus : « omnis quum dicit, subintrat iam ut monstret non solum gentilem,sed etiam ludaeum, qui secundum Legem voluit iudicare de gentibus » !. Generali autem modo conclusionem suam proponit, ut ludaeos ad eam agnoscendam facilius adducat ex eaque, utpote iam concessa, postea (v. 17 sqq.) efficacius contra eos argumentetur. Reliqua sententia clara est : qui alterum udicat (xoívec), i; e. iudicis personam induens actiones aliorum reprehendit ac malas esse pronuntiat (cfr 18,3. 10. 13 etc.), se legem quandam, cui homines actiones suas conformare debeant, agnoscere profitetur; iudicio igitur suo sibi praeripit ignorantiae excusationem omnique in re, quam in altero reprehendit (iv à xgfvei;), semet ipsum condemnat (xasaxgívec) i. e. poena dignum proclamat, si eam ipse committat. Non plane eodem quidem sed simili modo, quo 1 Cor. 11,32, Paulus verba xpíivetv et xazaxpívstv inter se opponit, priore reprehensionem, altero sententiam damnatoriam significans. Alloquitur autem homines, quos ethnica crimina re imitari videt, quamvis illa ore vituperent; hinc acerbum illud : eadem enim agis, o iudex (& xgivov), pro quo hodierna Vu/g. mitius legit : « eadem enim agis quae iudicas »; singularem enim vim vocativus (vel potius nominat. pro vocat.) in fine sententiae habet. Iam quo cum iure eiusmodi iudex semetipsum condemnare dicatur, ex addita explicatione elucet :
2:2
2. scimus entm (c3zy«v 1p, vel iuxta alios : scimus autem oDayev 5E cfr VV. LL.), quoniam iudicium (x5 xetya sententia damnatoria) Dei est secundum veritatem 1n eos qui talia. (zà «ot129:2 SC. qualia ethnici 1,29 sqq.) agunt. Utrum cum plerisque graecis codd. particulam 3€ (autem) an cum Vu/g. et plerisque verss. particu- - lam xyáp (entm) praeferas, parum interest. Utraque explicationi adnectendae inservire potest, et quum in tali nexu prior adversativam, altera causalem vim fere totam amittant, levissima est differentia; altera tamen forte est praeferenda , quia simul confirmationi inservit. Verbo scimus porro Apostolus non solos Iudaeos aut Christianos, uti aliqui opinantur, sed omnes homines secum complectitur; omnibus enim, qui recta ratione utuntur (zc; ed q2v22ov, uti habet Theod.) persuasum est Dei iudicium esse verum et iustum (Joan. 8,16) atque in divino iudicio sine ulla personarum distinctione ferri sententiam secundum veritatem, i. e. talem qualem veritas et iustitia postulat, in eos qui talia (sc. ethnica crimina) faciunt (cfr 1,32). Duas quippe, iuxta quas iudicet, normas Deus non habet, sicut illi iudicantes videntur habere, quum ea quae in aliis reprehendunt sibi licere opinentur. Eandem potius normam, quam illi contra ethnicos facinorosos, ipse etiam contra ethnicorum censores iisdem criminibus onustos adhibet; quare eodem iudicio, quo illi nunc ethnicos reprehendunt, semet ipsos proclamant poena dignos coram Deo secundum veritatem iudicante. Sed homo, qui de proximis iudicat, locum quodammodo Dei, supremi legislatoris ac iudicis, sibi arrogat, ac si ipse legi illius non '^sit subiectus atque divino exemptus iudicio. Quae arrogantia quam stulta et absurda sit, Paulus ostendit cum admiratione interrogans :
2:3
3. existimas (Xcy(tr opinaris) autem hoc, o homo qui iudicas eos qui talia agunt et facis ea, quia tu effugies udicium Dei? Haud levi cum emphasi opinionem , quam iudicans ille, quum se solum a iudicio divino eximere videatur, (falsis) ratiociniis sibi de Dei iudicio formavit (427:v proprie rationibus perpensis aestimare , deinde pro rationum firmitate aut censere aut opinari), opponit communi totius generis humani certae persuasioni de iudicio illo, quod contra omnes peccatores a Deo secundum veritatem habitum iri in praecedente sententia asseruit (ci2xu:v). Haud satis recte autem multi cum CArys. in hacsententia argumentum a minore deprehendunt, quasi iudicium divinum humano opponeretur : « tuum iudicium non effugisti (v. 1. te ?psum condemnas) , quomodo ergo iudicium Dei effugies? » Neque enim ad vim pronominis ci (£u) in principio sententiae positi attendunt; ad illum autem, quem volunt, sensum exprimendum, omisso pronomine, dicendum erat : 7.27:7y, 2: c5 O:z5 5$ xgtya £xgs25x; (opinaris, quod De? iudicium effugies?) De eo autem, qui sese a divino iudicio exemptum fore non opinatus illa nihilominus, quae in aliis reprehendit, crimina perpetrare non dubitat, multo severius esse existimandum , altera interrogatio docet :
2:4
4. an (reclius : aut £,, scilicet si 3d non opinaris,) divitias bonitatis (755 Jenesiceses) eius et patientiae et longanimitatis contemnis? ignoras, quoniam benignitas (7x ,c2:2» S. Cypr. c. Iud. III. 35, A'* etc. : bonitas) Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit? Pro duabus interrogationibus, quas Vulg. Clem. hic exhibet, unam legamus oportet verbo finito ?gnoras participium ignorans substituentes; ita enim legendum esse cum omnibus graecis codd. et PP. omnibusque verss. (ctiam It. efr S. Cypr. l.c. Á''* etc.) probatiores quoque V«/g. codd. (Fuld. Amiat. Tol. ctc.) ac plerique antiquiores interpretes latini (Prin. Haym. Herv. Lyr. ete.) testantur. Ceterum hac textus mutatione sensus leviter tantum mutatur; impeditur tamen, ne quis cum G/. nonnullisque antiquioribus tres peccatorum classes distingui putet, corum qui iudicium divinum se effugituros sperent, eorum qui benignitatem Dci contemnant, eorumque qui eam ignorent (cfr 770m.). Namque participio adhibito clarius indicalur, ultimum membrum (ignorans, quoniam benignitas ctc.) velut rationem praecedenti addi, id quod etiam admittendum est, si quis lectionem ignoras retinere voluerit. Duo autem Apostolus, quae isti ethnicorum iudices forte praetendere possint, interrogationibus suis excludere vult; neminem quippe a divino iudicio exemptum iri docet, atque divinam misericordiam eo fine poenas peccati differre, ut peccator ad poenitentiam adducatur. Praeterea adnotetur oportet, Vulgatam idem graecum nomen (-7: 725,2-172::; eb oz yenoziv 1. q. 4 4er osinme, nam neutrum adiectivi, uti saepius, pro substantivo abstracto est usurpatum cfr 1,15 et ad 1 Cor. 1,95 n.) duobus latinis vocabulis diversae significationis (5onitas , benignitas) sine sufficiente ratione reddidisse. Antiqua versio idem quidem nomen (Ponitas) retinuit, melius autem alterum (benignitas) elegisset, quia non tam de bonitate, qua Deus in omnes homines bona sua diffundit (cfr TÀom. Est. Ag. etc.), quam de benignitate sermo est, qua hominibus, nullis eorum praeviis meritis impulsus, bona sua atque praesertim supernaturalia sua dona confert, immo etiam peccatoribus ipsis parcens ad peccata poenitentibus remittenda semper paratus est eisque gratias ad resipiscendum necessarias non negat!. Etenim de peccatoribus speciatim agi contextus demonstrat ac duo nomina addita evidenter confirmant (àvzyf, patientia sed 3,26 sustentatio, et uaxpo8ugla longanimitas sed 9,99 patientia) , quae inter se synonyma Deum peccatores non statim punire sed dissimulatis peccatis ad tempus tolerare eorumque poenitentiam patienter exspectare significant ?. d Quae tria nomina Paulus cumulat, ut qualis sit et quomodo se manifestet divina misericordia erga peccatores accuratius exponat; quam larga vero et abundans sit, ostendit de divitiis (zXo51o; cfr 9,93; 11, 33; Eph. 1,7. 18; 9,7 etc.), vel uti antiqua versio (cfr S. Cyr. l. c.) exhibuit, de opulentia divinae benignitatis et patientiae et longanimitatis loquens. Iamvero abundantem hanc Dei misericordiam peccator contemnit (xx-xpovetv despicere ac nihili aestimare) , qui sese iustum divinum iudicium subiturum esse sciens in peccatis suis perseverat, quasi ob poenae debitae vetardationem ac moram sibi etiam in futuro iudicio securitatem impunitatemque promittat. Quae temeraria spes non potest exoriri nisi ex voluntaria et culpabili ignorantia finis, quem Deus in exhibenda sua misericordia prosequitur; scire quippe homo potest ac debet, Deum sese benignum erga peccatores exhibere, non quia eorum peccata non videt, sed quia ea dissimulat propter pocnitentiam , i. e. ut poenitentiam agant (cfr Sap. 11,25), eumque patienter agere (yaxpc0s4:t)) propter peccatores, non quia eorum peccata non curat, sed quia homines perire non vult et omnes ad poenitentiam rcverti desiderat (2 Petr. 3,9). Interrogat igitur B. Paulus temerarios illos ethnicorum iudices, qui ipsi ethnicis vitiis erant dediti, num forte misericordiam divinam contemnant, quia (sua culpa) ignorent, quoniam benignitas Dei (3 wpno:i» x29 O::2 quidquid benignitatis in Deo est) ad poenitentiam eos adducat, quantum scilicet in se cst faciens ut ad poenitentiam perveniant, eos invitans, tempus eis concedens, auxilia quoque sive proxime sive remote saltem sufficientia eis offerens. enim ex eo, quod homo Deum ducentem non sequatur, concludere non potuisset, eum gratia sufficiente ad sequendum caruisse. Benignitatem igitur suam Deus erga peccatores exhibet, ut eos ad poenitentiam ducat; homo vero, qui eam contemnens in peccatis suis perseverat, graviorem poenam sibi attrahit; id Apostolus docet fini, quem Deus in misericordia sua manifestanda prosequitur, effectum opponens, quem misericordiae divinae contemtus producit :
2:5
5. secundum autem duritiam tuam et impoenitens cor thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae et revelationis iusti iudicii Dei,
2:6
6. qui reddet unicuique secundum opera eius. Cum Tol. inter modernos etiam Lachm. praecedentem interrogationem his verbis continuari censet; maiorem tamen vim habent, si asserlive, uti sua interpunctione Vulg. Clem. indicat, interrogationi opponuntur (24 i. q. vero vel verum); languida profecto esset oratio, si interrogatio usque ad v. 9. continuaretur. Recte autem Tol. ad verborum allusionem, qua oppositio augetur, nos attendere iubet : qui divitias seu thesaurum benignitatis divinae contemnit, is (hesaurum. irae divinae sibi ipse coacervat; atque similiter Dei benignitati ad poenitentiam ducenti opponitur durum et impoenitens cor peccatoris. Xx^»2275; (duritia), quae vox hic tantum in Novo Test. legitur (cfr Deut. 9,27 pro hebr. *&p) indolem animi significat, qui motioni gratiae divinae resistit eaque non flectitur, vel uti Orig. habet : « cor durum in Scripturis dici videtur, quum mens humana velut cera frigore iniquitatis obstricta signaculum imaginis divinae non recipit »!; sed cor, quod propter suam duritiam gratiam non accipit, etiam mutationem emendationemque omnem respuit manetque impoenitens (z4:-xvi«:; 222/12). lamvero obduratio et impoenitentia haec, uti patet, Deo tamquam auctori attribui non potest, quippe qui benignitate sua peccatores ad poenitentiam ducit, sed peccatoribus ipsis attribuatur oportet, qui misericordiam divinam contemnentes gratiarum oblatarum reicctione thesaurum divinae cui subiacent irae continuo augent (cfr ad 9,18). Itaque eorum duritia et impoenitentia est norma vel mensura ac simul causa (praepositio xa-x secundum vel pro causalitatem saepe connotat cfr Winer Gramm. Ed. 7. p. 376) thesauri irae, quem s/&i ?psis (2:20: (05i ipsi), non vero iis quos iudicant et despiciunt, nunc coacervant; quantum vero coacervaverint, cognoscent zn die irae et revelationis iusti tudicii Dei. Parum recte nonnulli illud in die (2v $uf£ez) cum verbo tAesaurizas coniungunt, ac si scriptum Sit ei; 4u£gav (in diem) : «in tempus iudicii praeparas tibi thesaurum » (Est. etc.) ; melius enim To/. et moderni fere cuncti illud cum substantivo tram connectunt , ut tempus indicetur, quo haec vindicta thesaurizata effundetur. Duobus porro nominibus Paulus illum diem, in quo. non iam misericordia sed iustitia divina regnabit, i. e. diem ultimi et universalis iudicii, designat priore maxime ad peccatores, altero ad omnes respiciens. Namque nomine prophetis Veteris Test. iam usitato (Soph. 2,2. 3. mimomx ni 4pspz épy*s Kopizo, Ezech. 22,9& oy: ov $wfox ópyZ; cfr etiam Apoc. 16,17 4 4u£ox d$ prXkw v4. ipyhs a2103) diem irae eum appellans, ut peccatores impunitatem sibi temere promittentes magis terreat, non sine emphasi idem vocabulum repetit (iram in die irae) omniaque, quae antiqui prophetae et Christus ipse de diei Domini terroribus praedixerant, eis in memoriam revocat (cfr Orig. qui hic allegat Am. 5,18 sqq. Joel. 1,18 sq.; 2,1sqq. SopA. 1,7. 1* sqq. Is. 13,9 etc.). Alterum nomen est universale : dies revelationis iusti udicii Dei (t9£px ázcxaxkóysog Gucaexpwias c9 0:25!) ; nunc quidem regnat divina misericordia atque iustitia quodammodo se occultat, ita ut aliqui, qui improbos bona fortuna frui nequedum poenas debitas luere, iustos vero opprimi atque beatitudine promissa nondum frui vident, de ea dubitent; suo tamen tempore « revelabitur iustitia divini iudicii, quod nunc non creditur esse aut non videtur esse iustum » (Thom. cfr Prim. etc.). Tunc autem revelabitur, quando Deus, uti Paulus Psalmistae (Ps. 61,13 cfr Prov. 21,12) verbis addit , reddet unicuique secundum opera eius. 118 SINE FIDE IESU CHRISTI NON HABETUR IusriTIA (1,18-3,20). opera sua », et Chrys. Apostolum ostendere dixit « non licere in fide sola fiduciam habere, quia in tribunali isto etiam opera examinanda sint ». In iusti ergo iudicii die iustus iudex reddet unicuique secundum eius opera :
2:7
7. iis quidem qui secundum patientiam boni operis gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem quaerunt, vitam aeternam;
2:8
8. iis autem, qui sunt ez contentione eL qui non acquiescunt (zctg... &xeioocv cfr ad 1,5) veritati, credunt (melius : obediunt zefisuévo;) autem iniquitati, ira et indignatio. In ultimis verbis v. 8 (ira et indignatio zzi, xai 00p;) leve apparet anacoluthon, quum pro nominativo, ad quem verbum (erit £;:x:) supplendum est, accusativus exspectetur, qui eodem modo a verbo reddet (&xc56c«) dependeat, sicut in v. 7. ab eodem verbo accusativus vitam aeternam (twi aiowcov) dependere dicendus est. Haud incongrue tamen Orig. (comparans Is. 50,11 et 1 Heg. 9, 30) coniicit, Apostolum in ultimo membro constructionem consulto mutasse, ut Deum non eodem modo sese ad poenam peccatoris habere insinuaret, quo ad sanctorum mercedem se habet. A Dei quippe, cuius proprium est misereri et parcere, voluntate tota bonorum operum merces est; nam bona opera ipsa vere dici debent ac sunt opera Dei ipsius, « cuius tanta est erga homines bonitas, ut eorum velit esse mcrita quae sunt ipsius dona » (Conc. Trid. sess. Vl. de iustif. cp. 16). At peccatoris mortem aeternam Deus non tam vult, quam permittit, sicut non vult illius peccata; mors illius aeterna potius est necessaria sequela peccatorum illius et ab ipsiusmet pervicaci voluntate dependet. Hunc in sensum cum Oec. etiam Just. adnotat : « Tacite subindicat Paulus, improborum supplicium et poenam non tam Dei praefinientis et iudicanlis voluntate quam ipsorum improbitate metiendam ; contra vero bonorum praemia ad divinam munificentiam tamquam eximia eius beneficia esse referenda ». Itaque Deus praeprimis dicitur reddere citam aeternam in dic iusti iudicii &is gui quaerunt gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem , dummodo haec bona quaerant secundum patientiam bon? operis. Tribus nominibus gloriae et honoris et incorruptionis (222a xai svi, xi 320g cía) tria vitae beatae bona designari ex ultimo clarissime elucet. '^z- 0xpcíx enim (Vulg. : incorruptio, It. cfr Tert. etc. : incorruptibilitas) statum significat illum , in quo aliquis corruptioni et interitui non est subiectus; usurpatur autem vel de corporis glorificati perennitatc et impassibilitate (1 Cor. 135,52. 50 sqq.) vel in genere de beata immortalitate (2 Tim. 1,10; EpA. 6,2&; cfr Sap. 2,93; 6,19) ac proinde bonum ordinis supranaturalis denotat. Itaque de gloria quoque et de honore huius vitae non agitur, sed de aeterna gloria, qua Deus beatos in coelo vestiet (8, 18. 21; 2 Cor. 5,17 etc.), et de honore, qui beatis est destinatus (v. 10; 1 Petr. 1,7) eisque exhibebitur, quando ab illis ipsis, a quibus nunc deridentur et despiciuntur, beati praedicabuntur (cfr Sap. 5,1 sqq.). At vita aeterna, quae integra fere his tribus bonis nominatis describitur (gloria enim visionem beatificam supponit), non omnibus eam quaerentibus reddetur, sed iis qui recta via eam quaerunt, nimirum secundum patientiam boni operis,"i. e. in bono opere permanentes seu perseverantes (xaxx óxcpuzvi» Épyou &ya029 1. q. ózcpfvevzeg &y Épyo àáya00), siquidem qui perseveraverit (5 ózopsivag;) usque in finem, hic salvus erit (Matth. 10,92; 94,13). 'Yzzuovf, enim (a izcpévev. permanere) virtutem illam plerumque significat, qua homo calamitatibus vexationibusque patienter toleratis ac fortiter superatis in fine suo persequendo perseverat!; genetivo autem (£oycu &ya0c?) res designatur, in quo perseveratur (cfr 1 7Aess. 1,3). Simili modo TÀom ?. . latinam vocem (patientiam) exponit : « hoc autem, inquit, necessarium est, ut aliquis à bono opere non desistat propter mala quae patitur, et hoc est quod dicitsecundum patientiam boni operis (cfr Luc. 91,19; lac. 1,4), vel ut aliquis a bono opere propter taedium non recedat (cfr Jac. 5,7; Hebr. 10.36) ». Bonum opus vero, in quo homo perseverare debeat, a Paulo intelligi opus supranaturaliter bonum, quod ex fide et caritate, procedat atque ex seminatione spiritualis gratiae velut fructus spiritus exoriatur (cfr ad Ga. 5,22), clarum est, quia de fine supranaturali quaerendo agit, quem solis naturae viribus homo ne cognoscere quidem, multo minus ergo persequi et attingere potest. Neque minus clare ex hoc loco patere recte monet Lap., « pium et sanctum esse operari intuitu aeternae mercedis, uti definivit Conc. Trid. sess. VI. de iustif. cp. 11. et c. 31 » (cfr ad 1 Cor. 9,23). lustis, quibus in iusti iudicii die Deus retribuet vitam aeternam, Apostolus nunc peccatores opponit, quibus in die irae erit tra et indignatio. Iuxta S. Isid. Pelus. (IV. 223) aliosque antiquos ze et 0252; (tra et indignatio) ita distinguuntur, ut 0,5:;, quam vocem Cic. latino excandescentia vertit, iram subito effervescentem et mox defervescentem, zeyí vero indignationem paullatim exortam sed diutius animo inhaerentem significet. Quae distinctio parum nos hic iuvat; namque simili modo, quo S. Ioannes (Apoc. 16,19; 19,15 5 0op5; 7; ipi3;), S. Paulus quoque duo nomina videtur cumulasse, ut vehementem iram vel potius gravissimam vindictam divinam describeret. Haec autem erit iis qui sunt ez contentione (zztz £x. &piüzia; d. q. xol; épiüsucyévetg efr 3,15; 5,16 : 8 ix xíozsug 1. q. 5 xtozcóov etc.), i. e. iis qui partium factionumque studio abrepti Deo renituntur, vel forte melius : iis qui sordido animo ad instar mercenariorum sua tantum bona caduca quaerunt aeternis bonis (v. 7) neglectis et contemtis !. Accuratius deinde iidem definiuntur (particula xí post genet. àpii:íz;, uti et post contentione, est epexegetica, i. q. scilicet) tamquam homines veritati non acquiescentes (&zei025v:e; non obedientes) credentes (zs055svz« obedientes cfr ad 1,5 p. 13 n. 2) autem iniquitati (x3, à3wíz iniustitiae); illos ergo designat, quosantea dixerat veritatem in iniustitia detinere (1,18). Ibi quidem de solis ethnicis locutus erat, quos sub ira Dei esse primoin loco demonstrare voluit; nunc ad alteram argumenti partem transiturus, ut Iudaeos incredulos quoque sub ira Dei esse ostendat, generali sententia omnes peccatores, sive ethnici sint sive Iudaei , complectitur. Cuncti quippe veritati cognitae reluctantur iniustitiisque dediti eam impediunt, ne virtutem suam exserat imperiumque suum in ipsorum vitam moresque extendat; quare omnes quoque peccatores, quicumque sunt, irae divinae sunt obnoxii. Lips. God. Weiss etc.) interpretantur, qui omnes consentiunt, accusativum Cw!» alovtov velut obiectum pendere a praecedentis versus verbo drmoóoocn (reddet... vitam aeternam), accusativos porro 902» xai vuchv. xal dpÜapcixv a participio txrooow regi (gloriam et honorem el incorruptionem quaerentibus, vel : iis, qui gloriam etc. quaerunt), demum locutione quasi adverbiali xa6* Gxopov3y fpyov dyatiov (secundum patientiam boni operis) modum definiri, quo gloria etc. quaerenda sit. Huic tamen constructioni, quae concinnitate et facilitate sua se commendat, Oec. et Euth. impeditiorem praeferunt, quum per hyperbaton accusalivos 3ófav xal vuv xal d98apolxv ad verbum drosoce trahant et accusativum Uu,» aliviov cum participio txcooew connectant, ut hic exoriatur sensus : « iis qui secundum patientiam boni operis quaerunt vitam aeternam, reddet gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem ». Eandem £st. quoque adoptavit; cur autem impeditiorem constructionem , eodem in universum sensu remanente, faciliori praeferamus, nulla profecto est ratio. Addamus autem oportet, antiquioribus Latinis similem interpretationem praeplacuisse, idque quia aliam lectionem sequebantur. Uti enim A'* Pel. etc., ita meliores quoque Vulg. codd. (Fuld. Amiat. etc.) et antiquioreslatini interpretes (/faym. Herv. Abael. Lomb. Thom. etc.; cfr quoque S. Greg. M. Moral. XXVIII. 12) legerunt : « his quidem, qui (sunt) secundum patientiam boni operis, jloriam et honorem et incorruptionem, quaerentibus vilam aeternam ». Ultima igitur verba (quaerentibus vitam aeternam) velut appositionem cum primis coniunxerunt, ut sensus esset : « his qui sunt secundum patientiam boni operis, scilicet quaerentibus vitam aeternam, (Deus reddel) ' gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem ». Sed hisce aliisque minoribus interpretum varietatibus immorari opus non est, quum hodierna Vulg. leclio sit planissima et graeco textui consona. 5. — Sine personarum acceptione Iudaei sicut ethnici iudicabuntur (2,9-16). tía ipsorum, et inter se invicem cogitatio- | rugojang ajzGw t34g Guvtiüfo:t; xal petabo nibus accusantibus, aut eliam defenden- | àXXXXov zv. Aoytogiw zatnyopoovzov 3 tibus, 16. in die, quum iudicabit Deus | xaX &mxoloyoonivev, 16. iv 7| 5uipa xpwst occulta. hominum, secundum evangelium | 6 Osóg tà xpurzà züw àvÜpzuv xazx t0 meum, per Iesum Christum. tüayvvÉóv uico 9k. Xptaxos !Insoó!. Quamvis Iudaeos incredulos sub ira divina esse, hac in parte demonstrare velit, Apostolus Iudaeos nondum nominavit sed generali tantum modo omnes secundum opera sua iudicatum iri atque pro suis quemque operibus aut aeternam vitam aut poenam aeternam accepturum esse asseruit. Universale iudicium Iudaei non negabant, atque ipsi quoque in iudicio duas classes distingui concedebant; sed in classe eorum, qui salvarentur, cunctos fore circumcisos sibi persugdebant, qui Legem scriptam accepissent et tamquam filii Abraham ad hereditatem Abrahae promissam ius haberent, in classe damnatorum autem fore reliquos. Quem errorem Paulus indicecte iam impugnavit simili fere modo, quo Dominus Nicodemum docuerat ([oan. 3,19-21) , duabus classibus secundum opera distinctis. Directe autem eundem impugnaturus nunc monet, ludaeum ab hoc iudicio non iri exemptum, sed non minus quam gentilem pro operum ratione aut poenam aut mercedem esse accepturum (9. 10), quum apud Deum nonsit partium studium (v. 11); quemadmodum enim ethnici peccatores, qui Legem scriptam non habeant ac proin iuxta eam iudicari non possint, propter peccata sua sint perituri, ita iudaicos quoque peccatores iuxta Legem suam scriptam damnatum iri, quum Legis scriptae possessio eos non sit iustificatura, sed eius observatio ad iustitiam requiratur (19. 13). Ne quis vero obiiciat, ethnicos igitur iustificari non posse, quia Legem scriptam non habeant, Apostolus addit et probat, ethnicos ipsos quoque legem habere, iuxta quam Deus eos sit iudicaturus (15-16). Arcte quidem alterum hoc membrum cum praecedente cohaeret, illudque quasi continuat; recte tamen ab eo distinguitur, quia Paulus nunc propius ad argumentum suum accedit atque Iudaeos nominans clarius iam ostendere incipit, quo spectaverit generalis illa argumentatio de homine, qui alios damnat, se ipsum vero salvum fore putat, quamvis iisdem peccatis sit onustus. Itaque sententias, quibus Deum bonis operibus mercedem, malis poenam retributurum esse asseruit (1. 8) , ita repetit, ut eas de omnibus hominibus, sive Iudaei sive ethnici sint, valere doceat ac simul innuat quodnam in iudicio privilegium ludaei sint habituri :
2:9
9. tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam » hominis operantis (xxzezyatcg£vov) malum, Iudaei primum et Graeci;
2:10
10. gloria autem et honor et pax omni operanti (ipyatzou£vo) bonum, Iudaeo primum et Graeco. Utraque in classe Paulus Iudaeos ponit et Graecos, i. e. ethnicos; sententiarum autem ordinem invertens a damnante incipit, quia in eo maxime errabant Iudaei illi iudicantes, quod sibi ob privilegia sua impunitatem promitterent, suis vitiis non obstantibus. Quem errorem destruens privilegia, quibus gloriantur, eis non aufert, sed peccatoribus ea oneri fore innuit (cfr CArys.). Tamquam membra enim populi illius, qui maioribus beneficiis a Deo sit ornatus, primum eos ac praecipuum quoddam ius ad poenam habere insinuat, sicut tamquam membra populi, cui promissiones messianicae sint factae, primum ac praecipuum ius ad eas habeant (cfr ad 1,16). Multi addunt, illo primum significari, graviores fore ludaeorum, quam ethnicorum, poenas ob perfectiorem suam legis cognitionem, iuxta illud Christi verbum : « Servus qui cognovit voluntatem domini sui et non fecit secundum voluntatem eius, vapulabit multis; qui autem non cognovit et fecit digaa plagis, vapulabit paucis » (Luc. 12,97 sq.; cfr Sap. 6,7 etc.); sed quomodo illo primum maior poenae gravitas designetur, equidem non video. Minus quoque placet, quod alii adverbium illud de tempore interpretentur; nam a ludaeis iudicium initium esse sumturum ex 1 Petr. &,17, quem locum allegant, non probatur. Neque recte demum aliqui duplici primum nihil significari putant, nisi statum Iudaeorum statu ethnicorum perfectiorem esse (7o/. etc.). In praecedente sententia (v. 8) gravitatem poenarum, quae cunctos manerent peccatores, significaturus eas a divina ira et indignatione processuras monuit; hic irae illius effectus nominat tribulationem et angustiam (üxuyw xa czsvz40píav), quae summae miseriae notionem exhauriunt, quia cxevzzve!a tantum esse afflictionis gradum declarat, ut felix ex ea exitus sperari non possit (8,35; cfr ad 2 Cor. 1,8; 6,4; 19,10). In praemio autem describendo duobus nominibus antea jam adhibitis (g/oria et honor) pro tertio (incorruptio) novum addit (paz), cuius significatio generalior est. « Neque enim, inquit Thom., potest esse pax hominibus perfecta, quamdiu aliquis timet se amissurum bona, quae habet; sed tunc aliquis habet veram pacem cordis, quando habet omnia quae concupiscit ». Cum A''? aliqui moderni quoque acath. (Rück. Mey. etc.) locutionem in omnem animam operantis malum urgent, ac si Paulus poenas in altera vita solam animam affecturas esse docuerit; cum TÀom. autem antiquiores nonnulli ex eadem concludere volunt, « reproborum poenam primo el principaliter in anima esse et secundo in corpore, quod propter culpam animae resurgat passibile »; sed neutrum recte dicitur. Sicut enim Haymo iam monuit, omnis anima (zàca vy, 921752 13,1; Act. 2,43 etc. cfr Levit. 7,27 etc.) vel omnis anima hominis (zàca duy, àvügezcu DT €D3 Num. 31,50. 46 etc.) per circeumlocutionem Hebraeis usitatam cunctos vel potius singulos homines denotat. Demum nonnulli ad diversitatem verborum xa-epyázesüat -3 xxxiv et ipyázeotot «5 i 1a02v attentos nos reddunt. Erronee tamen Just. cum Theoph. ideo priorem locutionem adhibitam esse censet, ut poena non simpliciter operanti malum sed in peccato sine poenitentia perseveranti denuntietur, dum nullum, quamvis exiguum, bonum sua mercede careat. Namque patientia seu perseverantia boni operis etiam ad mercedem requiritur (v. 1), atque xazspyázec02t, quod saepe de inhonestis actionibus usurpatur (1,97; 7,17. 20; 1 Cor. 5,3 etc.), non tam significat perseveranter operari, quam sollicite rem, praesertim arduam, perficere (7,18; 15,18; PAil. 9,12 etc.). Difficultatem igitur quandam connotat, ita ut diversa verborum significatione, quum iey2;:70z: notione difficultatis adiuncta careat, indicari videatur, difficiliores esse vias peccatorum quam vias corum, qui gratia divina adiuti in bonis operibus persevcrant (cfr Sap. 5,7). Ne vero ludaei mirentur, quod ipsi quoque, suis privilegiis non obstantibus, in iusto Dei iudicio poenas, si peccaverint, sint luituri, Apostolus eis id in memoriam revocat, quod Moyses iam eorum patribus, nisi praeputium cordis sui cireumcisuri essent, proposuerat :
2:11
11. non enim est acceptio personarum apud Deum (cfr Deut. 10,17; 2 Paral. 19,7; Iob. 34,19 ; Sap. 6,8; Eccli. 35,15 sq. etc.). Iustitiae opposita est acceptio personarum (sposuzo^nudix cfr ad 2 Cor. 1,11 p. 30 n.), quippe qua consideratio designetur externae conditionis hominum, quae ad rem iudicandam nihil facit, in sententia ferenda atque mercede aut poena distribuenda. Sensus ergo sententiae est, Deum utpote iudicem iustissimum in suo iudicio sola : merita causae intueri, ad alia vero non attendere, ita ut peccatori alicui non ideo parcat, Guik hic sit Iudaeus, neque alicui operanti bonum praemium deneget , quia hic sit ethnicus; aequaliter potius pro meritis peccatores, sive ex hac sive ex illa gente sint, damnabit, sicut in omni gente illi, qui ipsum timent et operantur iustitiam, ei sunt accepti (Act. 10,35). Clare quidem ac saepe in Vetere Test. haec veritas est annnntiata; nihilominus pharisaica superbia imbuti Iudaei illam respuebant et quia soli Legem scriptam a Deo acceperant, ethnicis ius ad mercedem negabant, quippe quae Legem observantibus esset promissa. Hinc Paulus adducitur, ut veritatem hanc, quae per se clara est, secundum utramque suam partem accuratius explicet atque Deum sine ullo partium studio Iudaeos et ethnicos aequaliter iudicaturum esse confirmet quum relate ad poenam peccatoribus infligendam (v. 12) tum relate ad mercedem iustis decernendam (v. 13 sqq.); itaque vv. 12. et 13., qui ambo causali particula (4? enim) introducuntur, inter se esse paralleli atque confirmando v. 11. pariter inservire recte dicuntur.
2:12
19. Quicumque enim sine lege (&v5y.os) peccaverunt, sine lege (cum Fuld. Amiat. etc. iuxta graecum textum adde : et) peribunt, et quicumque in lege (iv v5yo) peccaverunt, per legem tudicabuntur. Quid adverbio &v4g«o;, quod plerumque apud Graecos impie seu improbe significat (2 Mach. 8,17), Apostolus hoc in loco intelligat, altero membro opposito (iv v5.) clare docet, in quo nomine v5gcv, quamvis articulo careat, Legem mosaicam designari omnes concedunt. Sine Lege ergo ethnicos peccasse dicit, quatenus Legem mosaicam non habentes peccarunt (cfr ad 1 Cor. 9,21); omni tamen lege eos non caruisse statim diserte probabit (v. 1& sq.) et per se patet, quia actualia peccata commiserant (4422:cv), quae legem quam sint trangressi supponunt (&,15). Sicut autem sine Lege (avio;) peccaverunt, ita et peribunt sine Lege (xv5y.«o;) sc. mosaica; i. e. uti bene explicat Chrys., « sine illius Legis (mosaicae) damnatione solis naturae (s. naturalis legis) dictaminibus condemnabuntur ». Haud satis recte Vulg. Clem. contra graeci textus et meliorum codd. auctoritatem particulam et (xat) omisit, qua necessarius nexus inter z2 ávipo; &uaptsty et «b &vópeg &xcAetoüa indicatur; nemo quippe ad legem, quae ei lata non est, observandam obligatur neque ad eam iudicari aut damnari potest. Quapropter altero in membro additur, Iudaeos qui in Lege peccarunt, i. e. Legem mosaicam habentes peccarunt, per Legem eandem iudicatum, i. e. condemnatum iri (xoivsvy enim hic iterum ad condemnandi sensum contextu determinatur cfr ad v. 1). Duobus verbis (perire et iudicari) eandem poenam eamque aeternam designari, ex contextu apparet; illam enim Apostolus intelligit, quae ab ira et indignatione Dei procedens (v. 8) tribulatione et angustia (v. 9) omnem peccatorem, sive Iudaeus sit sive ;raecus, impleturus sit; mitiore tamen verbo (iudicari) de Iudaeis usus esse videtur, ne eorum animos offenderet; usque ad v. 17. enim, ubi diserte eos aggreditur, argumentationem suam praeparat. tholicis tractatoribus loquitur, qui in his Apostoli verbis aliter quam se res habet parum attendendo sapuerunt, ut dicerent illos perire qui sine Lege peccaverunt, hos autem qui in Lege peccaverunt, iudicari tantummodo, non perire, tamquam per poenas transitorias credantur esse purgandi » (in Ps. 118. serm. 25,3), atque saepius monet « hoc in loco nihil distare inter perire et iudicari, quum alio verbo hoc idem significatum sit; solere enim Scripturas iudicium pro aeterna damnatione ponere » (de fide et opp. 25, 42 sqq.). Toto contextu explicatio S. Hier. excluditur, et quum S. Aug. sententia in Gl. ord. sit recepta, ab antiquioribus interpretibus impugnatur (efr Lomb. Thom. etc.). Quemadmodum autem in puniendo, ita etiam in mercede decernenda Deus partium studio non ducitur : v. 12. per legem iudicabuntur... in die quum iudicabit etc.) aut cum v. 13. (factores leges iustificabuntur... in die quum iudicabit) aut cum initio huius v. (qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus... in die quum iudicabit etc.) coniungamus. Obiicitur utique participia esse praesent. temp. (cvygapzupoóong et xac oposvzov $, xxt &zokeycopfvov) ac proinde de futuro iudicio intelligi non posse, quia parum apte dicatur : « conscientia testimonium redd: in die quum iudica?it! Deus » etc. Sed ad hanc difficultatem removendam monuisse sufficit, participia praesentia, uti verbum finitum praes., haud omnino raro de futuris rebus usurpari, quae tam certo adventurae creduntur, ut quasi iam praesentes considerentur (cfr ad 1 Cor. 15,57 p. 515 et ad 2 Cor. 5,1 p. 139 sq.). Opus ergo non est, ut cum nonnullis coniiciamus, év $p£oz hic esse positum pro ei; u£zzv (cogitationes nunc accusant relate ad futurum iudicium, vel earum accusatio praesens valebit in die iudicii). Rectius dicemus, duo argumenta, quibus Apostolus suum assertum confirmat, non plane eiusdem esse ordinis, quum unum iam nunc manifestum sit, alterum in die iudicii manifestum reddatur. Quam ordinis differentiam ipsa constructio aliquo modo insinuat, quatenus secundum argumentum per genetivum absolutum (zoj5x0:»0539«5 x^) priori subnectatur, ut sensus sit : « ethnicos sibi ipsos esse legem ostendunt honesti nonnullorum mores, quibus lezem cordibus eorum esse inscriptam constat; id quod simul testabitur conscientia eorum in die iudicii certissime venturi. in quo ad se ipsos aut accusandos aut forte etiam defendendos aliis testibus praeler conscientiae suae dictamina in memoriam revocata non indigebunt »?. Ad reliquas vero interpretationes quod attinet, fieri non potest, ut aut vv. 6-15 aut vv. 13-15 aut vv. 15-15 parenthesin esse concedamus, quae nescio quem in finem argumentationi sit interposita. Nullum enim interruptionis cuiuscumque adest vestigium, neque ullus ex graecis aliisve antiquis interpretibus hic de parenthesi cogitavit. Revera omnia in tota hac pericope (5-16) tam apte inter se sunt connexa et tam arcte copulata, ut nullum membrum removeri aut seponi possit, quin tota corruat argumentatio. Itaque £n die quo Deus per Iesum Christum iudicabit occulta hominum et Dominus adveniens illuminabit abscondita tenebrarum ac manifestabit consilia cordium (1 Cor. 4,5), etiam testimonio conscientiae, quod nunc quidem latet tunc autem patebit, manifestum fiet, ethnicis legem non defuisse eosque proin factores Legis fieri potuisse. Difficultatem quandam verba interposita creant secundum evangelium meum (i. e. secundum praedicationem meam ; nam de Evangelio scripto, uti nonnullos olim putasse Hier. testatur, hic non agi omnes hodie consentiunt); siquidem quo pertineant non satis apparet. Illud utique certum est, his verbis non designari normam , secundum quam Deus iudicabit, id quod aliqui acath. coniecerunt (Calov. Umbr. Mey. etc.); legem enim sive scriptam sive naturalem fore normam Paulus clare iam dixit (v. 12 sq.), neque ulla excogitari potest ratio, cur in hoc contextu iudicium ad su evangelii normam habitum iri asseruerit, quippe quae a reliquorum Apostolorum norma non differat. Indicari tamen hac locutione aliquid videtur, quod ab ipso magis, quam a reliquis, doceatur ipsiusque praedicationi quasi sit proprium et essentiale. Atqui Deum aliquando de hominum operibus iudicaturum esse per Iesum Christum, cui Pater omne iudicium tradidit (loan. 5,92), cuncti Apostoli aequaliter docuerunt; quapropter coniicere licet, eum id maxime efferre voluisse, quod Deus occulta hominum sit iudicaturus. Etenim id revera saepius repetit (cfr 1 Cor. 3,13; &,5; 15,95; 9 Cor. 5,10 etc.), atque haec doctrina quasi cardo est huius argumentationis. Iudaei quippe incceduli secundum ea sola, quae in aperto erant, iudicabant omnesque ethnicos, quia eos Lege scripta carere videbant, tamquam exleges condemnabant factoresque Legis esse posse negabant; verum Deus, apud quem non est acceptio personarum (v. 11), ad ea quae externe in hominibus apparent non attendit sed ad ea quae interne in cordibus eorum latent. Utrum in aperto aliquis sit circumcisus et auditor Legis scriptae, an praeputiatus et Lege scripta carens, non curat; apud eum autem laudem meretur qui in abscondito est cireumcisus (i. e. cireumcisus corde) et qui legem divinam quomodocumque cognitam fideliter observat (cfr vv. 28. 29). Ab explicatione nostra, quam auctoritate quum graecorum antiquiorumque latinorum Patrum tum multorum iuniorum modernorumque interpretum niti diximus, in v. 14. multi iuniores Latini plane dissentiunt. Quorum antesignanus est S. Aug., qui licet explicationem a nobis adoptatam non plane reiiciat, immo velut probabilem habere videatur, alteram tamen absolute praefert, quam ab eo primi S. Prosp. . Ag. (c. collat. 10,2) et S. Fulg. Rusp. (ep. 17. seu de incarn. et gr. Chr. 15,88) receperunt, antiquiores deinde nonnulli (Lomó !. Thom. etc.) una cum nostra ita proposuerunt, ut utram praeferrent non indicarent, iuniores aliqui (Est. Nat. etc.) longe probabiliorem dixerunt, Baius demum, priore velut pelagiana reiecta, solam tenendam esse temerarie proclamavit !. luxta S. Aug. enim nostro in loco de gentilibus in genere non agitur, sed de solis ethnicis ad fidem Christi conversis. « Ideo dicuntur, inquit, sine Lege naturaliter ea quae Legis sunt facere, quia ez gentibus venerunt ad Evangelium, non ex circumcisione, cui Lex data est, et propterea naturaliter, quia ut crederent, ipsa in eis est per Dei gratiam correcta natura » (c. lulian. IV. 3,95) ; atque iterum (de spir. et lit. 26,86 sq.) : « si ergo gentes commemorans na/uraliter quae Legis sunt facientes et scriptum habentes opus Legis in cordibus intelligi voluit qui credunt in Christum, quia non sicut ludaei praemissa sibi Lege veniunt ad fidem, non est cur eos discernere conemur ab iis, quibus Deus per prophetam, promittens Testamentum Novum, dixit leges suas se scripturum in cordibus eorum (/erem. 31,33), quia et ipsi per insertionem , quam oleastro praestitam dicit, ad eandem oleam, i. e. ad eundem Dei populum, pertinent (Rom. 11,25) : potiusque concordat prophetico etiam hoc apostolicum testimonium , ut hoc sit pertinere ad Novum Testamentum, legem Dei non habere in tabulis sed in cordibus scriptum, i. e. in intimo affectu iustitiam Legis amplecti, ubi fides per dilectionem operatur (Ga/. 5,6)... Ac sic tale erit hoc quod de eiusmodi gentibus dicit Apostolus, quod opus Legis habent in cordibus scriptum , quale est illud ad Corinthios non in tabulis lapideis sed in tabulis cordis carnalibus » (2 Cor. 3,3). Notandum tamen est, quod iuniores, qui hanc Augustini sententiam se sequi dicunt, duplicem correctionem adhibent, qua ad nostram sententiam propius quidem accedunt, Augustini vero explicationem evertunt. Satis clarum enim est, S. Doctorem nomine gentium hic intelligere Ethnicochristianos, quatenus ludaeochristianis opponuntur; ac revera Apostolus interdum nomen hoc sensu usurpat, ubi nimirum ex contexta oratione dubitatio de eius vi exoriri nequit (11,13; 15,37; 16,&; Gal. 2,12 sqq. ; Eph. 3,1). Latius tamen illi iuniores nomen explicant « de gentibus fide Christi imbutis et per eius gratiam ea quae Legis sunt facientibus, sive Christi praecesserunt adventum sive secuti sunt » (Est. Nat. etc.); at testimonium non habent, quo significationem hanc nominis probent. Ubinam enim in tota Scriptura nomen gentium ita adhibetur, ut omnes ac solos illos ethnicos designet, qui quomodocumque sunt imbuti fide Christi? Porro S. Awg., quum ad Ier. 31,33 et 2. Cor. 3,3 provocet, legem cordibus inscriptam intelligit illam, quam Deus fidei ac gratiae infusione supranaturaliter cordibus fidelium inscribit; at iuniores isti (Est. etc.) sibi ipsis non constantes nomine gentium solos fide Christi imbutos designari volunt, legem tamen intelligunt a Deo auctore naturae omnibus hominibus inditam atque naturali rationis lumine omnibus innotescentem. Itaque iunioribus illis, quorum explicatio secum ipsa pugnat, praetermissis, contra S. Augustini sententiam praeprimis monemus, in tota hac priore epistolae parte de Ethnicochristianis, quatenus ludaeochristianis opponuntur, Apostolum non loqui. Totus enim in eo versatur, ut Judaeos, quamvis scriptam Legem habeant, non minus quam gentes, quae scripta Lege careant, sub peccato esse demonstret. Contesta igitur oratione nomen gentium de Ethnicochristianis interpretari prohibemur. Accedit quod gentes hae /egem supranaturaliter revelatam non habere dicantur, id quod de Ethnicochristianis, quum non minus, quam Iudaeochristiani, in Jege sint. Christi (1. Cor. 9,21), nullo modo dici potest. Praeterea alibi Paulus naturam opponit gratiae eamque corruptam esse docet, quum natura nos esse filios irae divinae dicat (EpA. 2,3); quo cum iure ergo hoc in loco idem nomen, nullo epitheto addito neque ulla adhibita cautione, de gralia vel potius de natura per gratiam reparata et elevata usur passe asseritur? Cur porro cum emphasi dixisse supponitur, Ethnicochristianos qui Legem non haberent per naturam gratia reparatam ea quae Legis sunt facere, ac si ludaeochristiani, quia Legem haberent, non per naturam gratia reparatam ea quae Legis sunt facerent? Demum si legitime concluditur, Ethnicochristianos, quia per gratiam ea quae Legis sunt faciunt, sibi ipsis esse legem, legitime quoque concluditur, Iudaeochristianos, quia per gratiam Legem implent, sibi ipsis esse normam agendi, neque ullo modo intelligitur, quid tota haec sententia hoc in loco sibi velit. Quamvis igitur doctrina, quam S. Augustinus locis allegatis proponit, per se sit vera, eam tamen paulinis verbis, quae explicare vult, doceri aut insinuari concedere non possumus. c.) — Maiore in culpa erunt Iudaei, quia peccatis Legem suam divinam contemtui gentium exponunt (2,17-24). venit, ut ludaeos quoque non minus, immo magis, quam ethnicos irae divinae obnoxios esse demonstret. Sententiam enim suam, non auditores sed factores Legis in iusto iudicio Dei iustificatum iri (». 13), contra eos vertit, quippe qui Legem divinitus acceperint quidem ac de illa glorientur, sed eam observare non curent. In ipsa tamen hac directa accusatione iterum magna cum cautione ac providentia procedens prius vera privilegia, quae Iudaeis competunt, agnoscit (17.18), iura deinde, quae sibi ipsis ob divinam suam Legem "uiüdicant: cum levi quadam ironia recenset (19.20), ut demum repugnantiam, quae inter eorum doctrinam et opera appareat, vividis interrogationibus (iuxta Vulg. autem assertionibus) carpat (21. 22), atque eos, quia peccatis suis divinum nomen ethnicis contemtibile reddant, maiore in culpa esse insinuet (23.24). Tota haec pericope constat unica fere sententia, quam anacoluthicam esse plerique recte tenent; hypotheticae enim protasi, quae quatuor priores versus complectitur (17-20), iusta deest apodosis. Nam ardore suo abreptus Paulus inde a v. 21. hypotheticam constructionem reliquit ac per epanalepticam particulam cv (ergo), quae haud raro perturbatae constructionis indicium est, protaseos argumentum alia forma repetens interrogationibus brevibus, quanta ludaeorum culpa sit, manifestat, quum factis doctrinam suam destruant !. Protasin inchoat a veris praerogativis Iudaeorum agnoscendis :
2:13
13. non enim auditores legis iusti sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis iustificabuntur. Quomodo haec sententia cum praecedentibus connectatur, in controversia est. Plerique interpretes quatuor sententias (11-15) , quae singulae particula causali (44g enim) introducuntur, ita inter se dependere censent, ut quavis posteriore proxime antecedentis ratio adnectatur; quare hoc versu Paulum volunt ostendere, Iudaeos peccatores per Legem revera iudicatum iri, atque statuunt iu hoc versu de solis ludaeis esse sermonem. Quae explicatio nobis non probatur, sed uti iam diximus, hunc versum praecedenti v. 12. parallelum esse atque velut confirmationem cum t. 11. immediate coniungendum esse! arbitramur (cfr Tolet. Beel. etc.). Duo enim Apostolus in superioribus asseruerat, ludaeos et ethnicos, qui malum operati essent, eadem ratione punitum iri, atque utrosque, si bonum operati essent, eadem ratione mercedem accepturos esse (9. 10). Utrumque ludaei Lege sua confidentes ac gloriantes negabant ; se ipsos propter Legem quam accepissent a poenis liberos fore confidebant, ethnicis autem, quia Lege scripta carerent, ius ad mercedem abiudicabant. Ideo Apostolus utrumque assertum unica illa ratione, quod Deus partium studio non ducatur, probat (v. 11), atque hoc argumentum relate ad poenas v. 12. accuralius explanat; reliquum ergo ei est, ut idem de praemiis praestet, quia haec assertionis pars non minus quam prior negabatur. Bene Tol. : « Quod si ad ludaeos (tantum) haec verba referuntur, tunc manet imperfectus paulinus textus; nam praecipua pars de operantibus bonum, manet sine explicatione et probatione sua. Adde, si ad solos Iudaeos haec pertinerent, dicendum erat : non auditores tantum sed simul factores, nempe qui audierint et servaverint Legem [vel potius dicendum erat : neque enim qui auditores tantum Legis sunt, iusti erunt apud Deum, sed qui Legis auditores simul et factores sunt, iustificabuntur]. At dum excluduntur auditores, quod proprium est Iudaeo , et exprimuntur factores, quod commune est ludaeo ac Graeco, haec verba utrique communia esse manifestum est, et huic expositioni consonant sequentia ». Quam apte, si haec explicatio admittitur, sequentia adnectantur, statim videbimus; antea singula huius sententiae vocabula sunt exponenda. Quoniam non tam legendis sacris suis libris, quam iis audiendis, quum singulis sabbatis pericopae quaedam Pentateuchi ct prophetarum in synagogis publice recitarentur (Act. 13,15; 15,21; Luc. 4,16 sq.), Iudaeorum vulgus Legem didicit, auditores Legis (zi &xg2xz2i v$yz22) hic Iudaei nominantur, quatenus Legem scriptam possidebant. Quominus vero locutionem istam generali sensu de omnibus, qui aliquam legem habeant (auditores legis alicuius), cum nonnullis modernis (Sch. God Weiss etc.) interpretemur, contextus prohibet. Immerito autem ad hanc interpretationem vindicandam omissio articuli ante v$pcu urgetur, siquidem de hac articuli omissione cum cerlitudine non constat (cfr VV. LL.), neque quidquam ex ca, si constaret, probaretur, quia sexcentis iu locis viaz; sine articulo de sola mosaica Lege intelligi potest ac debet (cfr v. 1*. 23. 25; 3,20. 21. 28. 31; 4,13. 14; 5,13. 20 etc.), quum quasi nominis proprii naturam in hac significatione induat. Auditoribus Legis opponuntur /actores Legis (ci owzat viuz»), quo nomine sacri scriptores contra usum loquendi profanorum (quibus matsty v1usv est legem ferre etzzenztz $222 i. q. legislator) eos designare solent, qui legem latam observant eique satisfaciant (Jac. 1,929; 8,11; 1 Mach. 9,6179). Haud. satis accurate porro Vtdg. in priore membro legit /usti sunt; in graeco quidem verbi tempus non est indicatum, sed quum duo futura immediate praecedant (peribunt, iudicabuntur), tertium. immediate sequatur (iuscificabuntur), dubium non est, quin futurum legi oporteat (/wst? erunt) atque in priore non minus quam in secundo membro de iudicio agatur futuro. Neque dubium est, quin duae locutiones iust& erunt apud. Deum et iustificabuntur (sc. ante Deum vel a Deo) unum idemque hic valeant; id enim duorum membrorum oppositio clare docet." l'ustificari autem hie non est custum fieri, sed fustum reputari vel potius declarari, siquidem de iudice iustificante agitur (cfr ad Gal. 2,16 p. 456 sq.), et de iustitia apud Deum Apostolus loquitur, ut veram ac propriam significet. Homines enim aliquem iustum reputare ac declarare possunt, qui iustus non est; at Deus, cuius iudicium est secundum veritatem (v. 2), eos solos declarare potest iustos, qui vere iusti sunt, non putata aliqua vel externe imputata iustitia , qualis erat illa, quam superbi Iudaei ob suam Legis cognitionem sibi ipsi attribuebant, sed iustitia propria et interna, quae habetur, quando homo gratia sanctificante infusa mundatus est ab omni peccato. Ab hac autem iustitia vera dependet salus ac vita aeterna (cfr ad 1,17); quapropter is qui in iudicio a Deo declarabitur iustus, dignus est vita aeterna eamque a iusto iudice recipiet. Itaque in nostra sententia (factores legis tustificabuntur) Apostolus re idem asserit, quod supra docuerat, Deum omni bonum operanti, ludaeo ac Graeco, redditurum esse vitam aeternam (v. 7. 10), sed illud assertum hic ex eo confirmat, quod in Deo non sit partium studium. Si enim in iudicio ad personale Iudaeorum privilegium, quod Legem scriptam possideant (i. e. auditores Legis sint), ita attenderet, ut ob hanc solam rationem in Legis observationem non inquirens eos declararet iustos, reliquis omnibus, qui Legem scriptam nou haberent, velut iniustis reprobatis, acceptor utique esset personarum; verum quia omnes factores Legis aequaliter, sive auditores eius fuerint sive non fuerint, iuxta promissionem Legi annexam declarabit iustos vitaque aeterna dignos, partium studio se non duci manifestat. Attamen sua sponte nunc exoritur quaestio, quomodo ii qui Legis auditores non sint eius factores esse possint. Cui quaestioni respondet Apostolus, ethnicos quoque, etsi mosaicam Legem non acceperint ac proinde eius auditores non sint, legem cordibus inscriptam possedisse. Antequam ad eius responsum exponendum transeamus, monuisse uvabit, hanc sententiam (factores Legis iustificabuntur) iuxta explicationem datam, quae inde a S. Augustini aetate inter catholicos communis est (cfr S. Aug. de spir. et liter. 26,55, Herv?. Thoi. etc., Tol., Salm. Est. etc. , Reith. Beel. Bisp. etc.), nullatenus cum reliqua doctrina paulina pugnare, iuxta quam ez operibus Legis nemo tustificatur (3,20 etc. ; Gal. 2,16 etc.; 9 Cor. 3,5 etc.). Probe enim consideretur oportet et diversa significatio, quam pro contexta oratione verbum tustificandi admittit (iustum facere et iustum declarare), et diversa ratio, qua aliquis mandata Legis implere potest. Verba nostra de iusto iudicio intelligenda esse diximus, quo Deus illos, qui gratia sanctifi-. cante ornati et auxiliis supranaturalibus adiuti secundum patientiam boni operis gloriam et honorem et incorruptionem quaesierunt (v. '), iustificabit, i. e. iustos vitaque aeterna dignos declarabit, eisque mercedem promissam secundum eorum opera reddet (cfr ad v. 6). Nequaquam autem verba nostra de prima impii iustificatione intelligere licet, qua ex iniusto fit iustus; gratis enim sine ullius operis praecedentis virtute aut merito prima iustitia a Deo confertur credentibus, uti Paulus postea fusius explicabit et in epistola ad Gal. fusius explicavit (cfr ad Gal. 92,16; 3,18 etc.). Itaque si impii atque peccatores nonnulla Legis mandata (id quod fieri posse Paulus non negat) sine fide ac gratia observent, haec eorum opera Legis ad eos iustificandos (i. e. iustos reddendos) non inserviunt; atque per se patet, eosdem etiam in iudicio, si eiusmodi opera afferant, a Deo non posse iustificari (1. e. iustos declarari), quia iusti non sunt, licet forte ab hominibus propter opera sua iusti habeantur. Ceterum diligenter consideretur oportet, Apostolum de condilionibus, quae requiruntur, ut Legis observatio praemio vitae aeternae digna a Deo reputetur, nostro in loco non disputare, quia ad praesentem quaestionem nihil faciunt. ld unum hic agit, ut contra incredulos Iudaeos, qui de sua Legis cognitione gloriabantur, Legem autem ipsi non observabant, Legis cognitionem sine eius observatione nihil prodesse inculcet. Clarissime tamen supponit, Deum in iudicio sententiam suam secundum opera esse laturum atque cos solos, qui Legem impleverint, iustos esse declaraturum. Quapropter magno in errore acatholici illi versantur, qui mere hypotheticam normam hic statui arbitrantur (Mey. etc. : factores legis iustificarentur, nisi iustificatio per fidem requireretur); neque enim hypothetice, sed assertive Apostolus loquitur. Neque minus longe a vero aberrant alii acath., qui Paulum censent primitivam divinae iustitiae normam (die Urnorm der góttlichen Gerechtigkeit) proclamare, sed interim non attendere, num aliqui possint esse factores Legis, quum postea (3,90) factores Legis esse posse diserte neget (1Veiss ctc.) ; ubinam enim docetur, primitivam divinae iustitiae normam esse abrogatam, et quomodo iustissimus ac sapientissimus Deus primitus ab hominibus aliquid postulare potuit, quod praestare nullo inodo potuerunt? Sed his similibusque effugiis, quae antiquiores acathi. iam excogitarunt (cfr quae Sa/m. Lap. aliique contra Calvinum, Bezam etc. disputant), immorari opus non est; de antiquiorum cathol. potius interpretatione pauca addamus. Plerique nimirum tres verbi iustificare significationes distinguunt : iustum facere , iustiorem facere (i. e. iustitiam augere cfr Apoc. 92,11, qui iustus est, tustificetur adhuc), iustum reputare ac declarare. lamvero primam quoque significationem aliquo modo nostrae sententiae convenire S. Aug. arbitratus est, sed eius explicatio tam est contorta !, ut a iunioribus fere sit praetermissa atque ipse ibidem alteram illam, quam secuti sumus, addendam censuerit. luniores plerique cum 7o. alias duas significationes quasi coniungunt, ut factores Legis iustificatum iri dicant, quatenus gratia sanctificante iam ornati bonis operibus a Lege praescriptis in iustitia accepta crescant ac tandem a iusto iudice propter bona sua opera iusti ac praemio digni declarentur. At recte Est. monet, ?ustificari per se non sonare augmentum iustitiae , ita ut dicendum fuisset : iustzficabuntur adhuc ; maxime autem ad contextum attendatur oportet, qui hoc in loco alteram illam significationem non admittit, licet per se verissimum sit, homines in gratia constitutos debere observatione legis divinae iustitiam conservare et augere, ut a iusto iudice iusti declarari possint (cfr Sa/m. Est. etc.). Ut argumentationem suam compleat Iudaeosque de Legis cognitione superbientes confundat, Apostolus ethnicos quoque in iudicio tamquam factores Legis iustificari posse ostendit; quamvis enim auditores Legis mosaicae non fuerint, eos Legis cognitione non esse destitutos monet :
2:15
15, quum (&zz» quando) enim gentes , quae legem non habent , naturaliter (eóz«v) ea quae legis sunt (zx «c9 v5pco) faciunt, eiusmodi (cum antiqua versione lege : Ai c5zac efr VV. LL.) zpsi sibi sunt ler; 15. qui (zwe; melius : quippe qui) ostendunt opus legis (2 £gyz» «c9 v$ycu) scriptum in cordibus suis, testimonium reddente (coyyapzogsósr; melius : simul testimonium reddente) illis conscientia ipsorum et inter se invicem cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam defendentibus , 16. in die, qua iudicabit Deus occulta hominum, secundum cvangelium meum, per Iesum Christum. Graeci interpretes in hac sententia explicanda magnam difficultatem non invenerunt; ab eo autem tempore, quo Pelagiani his verbis abuti coeperunt, ut homines solis naturae viribus legem universam implere posse, fidem autem gratiamque Christi ad eam facilius dumtaxat implendam iuvare demonstrarent, haud leves exortae sunt difficultates novis nonnullis interpretationibus, quae ad pelagianum errorem efficacius refellendum excogitatae, quia universae argumentationis apostolicae rationem sufficientem non habent, locum nostrum non tam illustrant quam obscurant. Quibus interim praetermissis Graecorum maxime sequimur planam facilemque expositionem (cfr Orig. Chrys. i. h. 1l. et ad pop. antioch. hom. 12,4, S. Cyr. Al. c. Iulian. III. M. 76,665. Theod. Dam. Theoph. Oec. Euth.), quacum latini quoque Patres plerique (cfr Tert. c. Marc. V. 13. de cor. mil. 6, S. Hilar. in Ps. 118 lit. 15,11, S. Amór. ad [ren. ep. 73,9 sq., S. Hier. ad Algas. ep. 121,8, in Matth. 22,8 ctc.) multique iuniores modernique (Herv. Thom?. Lyr. etc., Salm. Tolet. Pic. etc., Bisp. Ag. Sch. etc.) fere consentiunt. Iuxta quos ex ipso facto, quod inter elhnicos lege supranaturaliter revelata destitutos reperiantur, qui natura magistra praecepta Legis mosaicae moralia observent, Apostolus proxime colligit, ethnicos plane exleges non esse, sed eos, deficiente externo magisterio divino, sibi ipsos esse legem, i. e. in sua natura rationali et conscientia habere magistrum, qui praecepta Legis cis manifestet ac promulget; unde deinde sua sponte sequitur, eos tamquam factores Legis iustificari posse non minus quam ludaeos, qui cadem praecepta ex scripta sua Lege cognoscunt. Per se patet, ethnicos cunctos ob legem observatam hic non laudari, sed id unum supponi, inter eos inveniri qui illam observent; ea quippe coniunctionis zzz» (quando Vulg. : quum cum indic.) vis est ac potestas, ut rem vere fieri significet, sed cam frequenter fieri non connotet. Superiorem igitur suam descriptionem corruptionis ethnicae (1,25 sqq.) Paulus hic non infirmat, si aliquos vitiis illis caruisse ac legem observasse insinuat, contra vero aggravat reliquorum culpam, «quum eos lege non caruisse demonstret. l'orro appellatione gentes quae Legem non habent eadem ratione, qua supra locutione qui sine Lege peccarunt (v. 12), ethnicos universe describi, quippe quos Iudaei exleges (3v5u22;) appellarentquia Legem scriptam, sicut ipsi, a Deo nonaccepissent, ex contexta oratione evidens esse arbitramur, licet S. 44g. cum multis iunioribus, uti infra dicemus, altera in opinione fuerit. Consulto autem Apostolus hac circumloculione utitur, ut oppositio inter Legem non habere (wi, v5gzv £jev) et ea quae Legis sunt facere (zx «23 vigzo «otety) clarius appareat. Neque vero dicit Legem facere, quia de Lege loquitur mosaica, quae praeler praecepta moralia etiam continebat caerimonialia ac. politica gentibus prorsusignota neque unquam ab eis observata. Ipsam ergo rem et quasi essentiam Legis mosaicae hic intelligi vult, quam etiam mox opus Legis (xo £pycv xo3 vóycu v. 15) et praecepta Legis (zà &wawópaza voU vógcu Vulg. : iustitias legis v. 26) appellat; ad quam praeter praecepta moralia decalogo contenta certo quodam modo etiam caerimonialia et iudicialia pertinebant, quatenus nimirum externum Dei cultum atque exercitium iustitiae erga proximos praescribebant. Forma ipsa autem cultus illius ac politici status essentialibus Legis adnumerari nequit, nisi in quantum praefigurandae novae oeconomiae inserviebat; secus enim mutari non potuisset, cultum autem et statum politicum Iudaeorum decursu temporis, Deo ita disponente, in nonnullis esse mutatum historia populi électi docet. Plane erronee haud pauci acath., ne gentiles aliqui universam legem moralem implevisse dicerentur, locutionem «k «o5 vóptou xoutv explicarunt « ea facere quae lex facit »; lex quippe praecipit, docet, terret, punit etc., atque « haec quoque, inquiunt, gentiles faciunt in se ipsos et in alios, ubi rationis usu pollent et adolescunt » (cfr Beza, Cappel. Bech. Wetst. Elsn. Fl. Beck etc.); quid enim «x co) vopov woteiv significet, ex immediate praecedente ol Ttov tal toU vouxou (factores Legis) clare intelligitur. Quare paucis quoque illis modernis cath. assentiri non licet, qui ob eandem rationem verbum xotógt (faciunt) de conatu dictum putant : « qui ea quae Legis sunt facere conantur » seu nituntur (cfr /leith. Mai. etc.); factores Legis enim non sunt, qui eam implere student tantum et conantur, sed qui eam implent. Neque iuniorum multorum cath. sententia probari potest, qui (semper ob eandem rationem) locutionem s& o9 vógou (ea quae Legis sunt) non definite de iis, quae Legis essentiam constituunt et omnia implenda sunt, ut aliquis Legem implevisse recte dicatur, sed indefinite de nonnullis (scilicet facilioribus), quae ad Legem pertineant, interpretantur : « Apostolus, inquit Lap., non dicit gentes facere vel implere Legem, sed ea quae Legis sunt i. e. aliqua, puta faciliora, Legis praecepta facere » (similiter Cai. Soto, Perer. Suarez de grat. I. 8, 30 etc.). Namque locutio latina (ea quae Legis sunt) aeque parum, atque graeca (1& roi vóov) , eo sensu indefinita dici potest, ut nonnulla tantum et quidem faciliora sola Legis praecepta complectatur; quare Paulus, si id significare voluisset, aliam locutionem elegisset. Ceterum nostro & «oU vóuou, uti iam diximus, respondent «à £pyov xou vopou et ck Bxaubpara zoo vouov, quae dictiones profecto non sunt indefinitae ; nam infra (vv. 26. 27) Paulus gentiles, qui *X àxatopaza 100 vouov custodiunt, simpliciter asserit «5v vouov «sAeiv (Legem consummare),i. e. totam Legem implere (cfr Salm. etc.). Quae erronae explicationes originem suam potissimum debent erroneae interpretationi vocabuli naturaliter (ojse« per naturam), quod idem ac solis naturae viribus valere omnemque gratiam supranaturalem excludere putabatur, quemadmodum illud suo iam tempore Pelagiani, ut gratiae necessitatem ad opera bona negarent, interpretati sunt; at hac in sententia, si ad eius contextum attenditur, naturam non gratiae, qua lex impletur, sed revelationi, qua lex a ludaeis cognoscebatur, opponi manifestum est. Ad implendam enim legem quod attinet, ludaei ab ethnicis non differebant, quandoquidem utrique eadem ratione, ut eius impletione sese praemio aeterno dignos redderent, uti fide ita gratia Christi indigerent, quam non magis Lex mosaica, quamvis supranaturaliter esset revelata, Iudaeis, quam lex naturaliter cognita ethnicis praestabat. Etenim « Lex, inquit S. Aug. (de pecc. mer. etrem. [. 10,12 sq.), non potuit auferre peccatum, quae subintravit, ut magis abundaret peccatum : sive naturalis lex, in qua quisque iam ratione utens incipit peccato originali addere et propria, sive ipsa quae scripta per Moysen populo data est; si enim data esset Lex quae posset vivificare, omnino ex Lege esset iustitia; sed conclusit Scriptura omnia sub peccato, ut promissio ex fide Iesu Christi daretur credentibus (Ga/. 3, 91. 29)... Regnum mortis sola in quolibet homine gratia destruit Salvatoris, quae operata est etiam in antiquis sanctis, quicumque antequam in carne Christus veniret ad eius tamen adiuvantem gratiam, non ad Legis literam , quae iubere tantum, non adiuvare poterat, pertinebant » (cfr ad 2 Cor. 3,6 sqq. ; Gal. 2,16 etc.). Itaque si naturaliter hic idem valeret, quod sine gratia, argumentatio Apostoli esset infirma. Nam sine gratia etiam ludaei nonnulla suae Legis revelatae praecepta implere poterant atque « opera Legis », quae toties Paulusnihil prodesse dicit, omnia erant facta sine gratia. Quomodo igitur Paulus ex eo, quod ethnici aliqua praecepta sine gratia implevissent, concludere potuisset, eos sibi ipsis esse legem? De conditionibus ergo, sine quibus Lex vere ac fructuose impleri nequeat, Apostolus hic nou loquitur, quia prorsus eaedem erant in Iudaeis et in ethnicis neque a modo, quo lex coznoscitur, dependent. Quare bene adnotat 7Àom?. voce naturaliter non excludi necessitatem gratiae ad movendum affectum, « sicut etiam per Legem (mosaicam) est cognitio peccati et tamen ulterius requiritur gratiaad movendum affectum » (cfr etiam Herr. Tol. Salm. Picon. etc., Bisp. Sch. etc.). Sed ab illis conditionibus hic, uti supra (v. 6 sqq.), abstrahens vel, si mavis, illas in gentibus lege supranaturaliter data carentibus non minus, quam in ludaeis tali lege instructis, adesse posse supponens (uti revera in nonnullis piis ethnicis, ex. gr. in Cornelio centurione eiusque familia, adfuerunt Act. 10,1 sqq.), duo magisteria, quac legem doceant, inter se opponit, externum, sc. supranaturalem revclationem, cuius auditione Iudaei legem discebant, ct internum, sc. ipsam rationalem hominis naturam, qua sola ethnici quasi immediate ea quae Legis sunt edocebantur. Naturam igitur dumtaxat velut magistram considerat, quae quid bonum malumve sit ostendat (cfr 1 Cor. 11,15), atque naturaliter («5z:« per naturam) ea quae Legis sunt facere ei idem est quod natura magistra ac duce ea facere quae Legis sunt. Quam interpretationem Tert. (de cor. mil. 6) iam insinuavit : « Quaeris Dei legem? habes communem istam in publico mundi, Zn naturalibus tabulis, ad quas et Apostolus solet provocare, uti quum in velamine feminae Nec natura, inquit, vos docet? et quum ad Romanos natura facere dicit nationes ea quae Legis sunt et legem naturalem suggerit et naturam legalem » (i. e. legem esse naturae inditam et naturam esse legis magistram). Eandem Graeci tradunt, qui cum CArys. interpretantur : « quum dicit per naturam dicit per ratiocinia ez natura hausta (zzic ix. eóoseg Acvisyctz cfr Dam. Theoph. Oec. Euth.), atque similiter multi Latini iuniores : « naturaliter, i. e. naturali ratione suadente » (Herv.), « naturaliter, i. e. per legem naturae ostendentem eis, quid sit agendum » (TÀhom?.), « naturaliter faciunt, i. e. ex naturali dictamine rationis » (Lyr.) etc. Itaque quando gentiles natura sua rationali edocti praecepta legis observant, manifestum esse colligit Apostolus, quod Ai (c5:a Vulg. : eiusmodi :2:23:2. cfr VV. LL), quamquam legem non habere putentur!, Zpsi sibi sint ler, |. e. in se ipsis habeant normam ac regulam, iuxta quam diiudicare possint, quid velut bonum sit faciendum aut velut malum fugiendum. Quam recte autem eos sibi ipsos legem esse dixerit, duplici quasi argumento confirmat, ipsa nimirum eorum agendi ratione et conscientiae subsequentis testimonio quod in futuro iudicio sese sit manifestaturum. Praeprimis enim eos sibi ipsos esse legem dicit tamquam homines quz (zizvsz cfe 1,25. 32) ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis, quia morum suorum, qui praeceptis moralibus Legis mosaicae plane consonant, honestate sese rationem Legis in animis suis gerere manifestant. Nomine «5 £gy2v 223 v$pz», Sicut superiore zx -:9 vigz», ipsam quasi legis essentiam designari diximus; pulchre autem ibi, ubi de externis actionibus egit, Paulus pluralem posuit (ea quae legis sunt faciunt) , hic vero, ubi delege prout in animo est loquitur, singularem (opus legis) ponit. Neque enim singula praecepta, quae multa et varia in Lege mosaica exstabant, cordibus inscripta sunt, sed ad unitatem redacta in natura rationali reperiuntur. Haec quippe supremam boni malique normam exhibet, cui singulae actiones conformari debent et ex qua singula praecepta derivantur. Quam multorum mosaicorum praeceptorum unitatem alibi quoque insinuat, quum totam Legem in uno sermone dilectionis proximi impleri dicit (cfr ad Gal. 5,15). Minus recte aliqui illud in cordibus urgent, acsi Apostolus Legem mosaicam tabulis lapideis insculptam lege naturali tabulis cordis carnalibus inscripta inferiorem dicat; immerito enim ad 2 Cor. 3,3 appellant, quo in loco de lege naturali non agitur. Neque rectius alii illa dictione firmitatem et constantiam legis naturalis connotari volunt, quippe quae, quum animis sit inscripta, non nisi cum animis ipsis perire possit. Haec enim omnia a Pauli argumentatione aliena sunt, qui id unum agit, ut ethnicos lege non carere ostendat, licet a Iudaeis exleges putentur, sed legem naturalem legi supranaturaliter revelatae praeferre nec vult nec potest. Priori huic confirmationi ex ethnicorum moribus desumtae alteram addit ex eorum conscientia desumtam : (simul) testimonium reddente (cup papropoócns simul nimirum cum honesta vita) conscientia eorum. Quod testimonium quale sit, graphice describit : e£ inter se invicem cogitationibus accusantibus aut etiam. defendentibus. Particula et (xai) hic non est copulativa, quae tertium argumentum prioribus addat, sed epexegetica (i. q. et quidem), quae secundo argumento explicationem adiungit. Loquitur enim de conscientia consequente, « qua iudicamus quod eliquid quod est factum sit bene factum vel non bene factum, et secundum hoc conscientia dicitur excusare seu remordere » (S. Thom. Summ. I. qu. 79. a 13). Huius autem conscientiae dictamina (cogitationes Xzy15y25;) velut partes considerat coram iudice inter se invicem (usza$o àv cfr Act. 15,9; Matth. 18,15) litigantes, ita ut alia hominem ob male facta accusent, alia vero sed rariora (nam id particulae 5; xai aut etiam innuunt) eum ob bene facta defendant. Sive autem accusant, sive defendunt, semper testantur, hominem in se ipso habere normam, cui actiones conformandae sunt, ut supremo iudici placeant ab eoque approbentur. Parum recte multi acath. verba 4:222) AXWiev (fter se invicem) non de cogitationibus, quae a Paulo hic quasi in personas constituuntur, sed de ethnicis ipsis interpretantur, ac si unius cogitationes alterum accusent aut defendant, vcl bonorum cogitationes accusent malos et malorum cogitationes defendant bonos(Mey. Weiss. etc., Lips. etc.); nam peralteriusconscientiam nemo accusari aut absolvi potest (cfr 1 Cor. 10,29; quod enim ibi de praecedente conscientia asseritur, id etiam de consequente valet). Attamen quomodo conscientiae dictamina, quum sint interna, ab Apostolo velut confirmatio afferri possunt, quod ethnici sibi ipsi sint lex? Huic difficultati occurrit tempore indicato, quo dictamina illa omnibus patebunt : in die quum iudicabit Deus occulta hominum , secundum evangelium meum, per Iesum Christum. Quo quidem haec verba pertineant, inter iuniores ac modernos interpretes in controversia versatur, sed nulla est ratio, cur ea ab immediate precedentibus separemus, ut ea, sicuti a multis proponitur, aut cum v. 5. (thesaurizas libi iram in die irae... qua die iudicabit etc.) aut cum
2:17
17. sí autem tu Iudaeus cognominaris, et requiescis in lege, et gloriaris in. Deo,
2:18
18. et nosti voluntatem (eius)?, et probas utiliora , instructus per legem... Prima praerogativa est nomen ipsum, quo a reliquis populis distinguuntur : Judaeus cognominaris. Carpunt aliqui acath. (Fr. etc.) latinum interpretem , quod graecum izzvcpazsoy verterit cognominare , quia nomen nationis haud apte pro cognomine habeatur; at licet compositum ézzvcep.ázev, maxime ab Alexandrinis, haud raro pro simplici ivegalsw (i. q. N3p Gen. 5,26 ctc.) usurpetur, hic tamen propriam cognominandi significationem retinet : « Hoc enim nomen , inquit TAeod., olim commune erat et veneràbile, et ideo non dixit nominaris sed cognominaris », atque similiter CArys. « honorificentissimum erat nomen, uti hodie nomen Christiani «. Revera nomen Judaei, quod ante exsilium babylonicum raro ad regni meridionalis incolas designandos adhibebatur (ler. 32,12 etc.), post exsilium omnibus quidem Israelitis commune factum est, sed non tam gentem nationemque quam religionem indicabat, ita ut veri Dei cultores atque membra populi a Deo electi ab omnibus aliis distinguat. Neque improbabile est, Paulum ad etymologicam simul significationem (rw Jaus vel potius /audatus cfr Gen. 89,8; 29, 35) respexisse. Summum beneficium Iudaeo tributum erat Lex, in qua requiescere poterat, quum sine labore et haesitatione quid faciendum fugiendumve esset ex ea cognosceret, « quasi per eam certificatus in credendis et agendis; dubitansenim intellectu non quiescit, sed utrimque sollicitatur; qui autem sapientiae certitudinem accepit, mente quiescit » (Thom. cfr Theod. Theoph. Oec!. EutÀ?. A'** Herv. etc., Cai. Tol. Est. e&c., MEv. Mai. Ag. Sch. elc. — Fr. God. etc.). Cave autem, ne cum Chrys. nonnullisque iunioribus ac modernis (Oec?. Euth!. Iust. Lap. Reith. Bisp. etc.) verbis requtescis in lege connotari censeas, ludaeos Legis possessione contentos observationem eius nezlexisse. Sinistram enim hanc notionem verbum izavazajscóx: adiunctam non habet, nequedum Paulus ad vituperium transit, sed veris Dei beneficiis recensitis sibi viam ad vituperium aperit. Id tertium quoque membrum docet (gloriaris in Deo), quatenus iure merito Iudaei gloriari poterant, quod a Deo essent in populum sibi peculiarem electi atque singularibus donis ditati, quibus Deus sese eis prae ceteris populis propitium demonstraverat. Quibus tribus praecipuis praerogativis Paulus duas adiungit, quae ex Legis possessione sua sponte profluunt. Namque tamquam xa-r7:5pivog 8x viuo, l. e. tamquam vir qui viva voce instruitur (haud recte Vulg. exhibet partic. perf. instructus, nam non legitur xa:«712ívz; uti Act. 18,925) ez lege, quam in synagogis semper praelegi audit (cfr v. 13 auditor Legis) cognoscit voluntatem, (uti per se patet : legislatoris Dei, ita ut pronomen 23:5 eius impune omitti potuerit) e/ probat utiliora (Eexwpazei; «x Qugfgzvza, S. Aug. de spir. et lit. 8,13: probas distantia). Ultima verba duplicem explicationem admittunt ; quodsi 22x«.a;sv consueto suo sensu explorandi (12,2; 1 Cor. 3,13; 11,98 etc.) sumitur, «x &zzfezv-z intelligenda sunt ea quae inter se differunt, uti bonum et malum, licitum et illicitum : qui Lege instiiuitur, ex ea etiam in difficilioribus quaestionibus discernere discit inter ea, quae facere conveniat aut non conveniat ; sin vero 22xuzety sensu derivato approbandi (1,98; 1 Cor. 16, 3 etc.) sumitur, «x &c£- pzv:x, quum Ziuséosw eliam significet excellere ac praestare (Mat/A. 6,96; 10,31; Luc. 12.7. 2* etc.), recte intelliguntur praestantiora , ita tamen ut comparatio sit impropria ac praestantiora opponantur deterioribus. Utra explicatio hic praeferatur, haud multum interest, quum utraque contextui consentiat neque magna inter eas sit differentia ; ex loco parallelo (PAZ. 1,10) autem nihil certi potest definiri. In altera protaseos parte Apostolus iura recenset, quae Iudaei ob praerogativas suas sibi erga ethnicos arrogare solebant, quum eis sese velut magistros obtruderent mare et aridam circumvagantes , uti Dominus pharisaeis obiecit (MattA. 93,15), ad proselytos conquirendos :
2:19
19. confidis (cum A''? lege : confidisque «éxoá; xc) teipsum esse ducem caecorum , lumen eorum qui in teneóris sunt,
2:20
20. eruditorem insipientium, magistrum infantium, habentem formam scientiae et veritatis in lege. Haud sine ironia quatuor illos titulos accumulat; quin etiam acerbam esse ironiam apparet, si consideratur, iuxta prophetam titulos istos per se soli Messiae competere, quem ludaei reiecerant, quamvis advenisset « lux gentium, ut aperiret oculos caecorum et educeret de conclusione vinctum , de domo carceris sedentes in tenebris » (Is. 52,6.7; 49,6 etc.). Argute pro more suo Zhom. quatuor nominibus quatuor classes eorum, qui ignorantia Legis laborant distinguit, prout nimirum alii in perfecta ignorantia degant, vel ob defectum naturalis ingenii (caec?) vel ob defectum necessariae institutionis (sedentes in tenebris), alii in via quidem ad scientiam sint sed eam nondum attigerint, vel ex defectu sufficientis instructionis (insipientes), vel ex defectu aetatis (infantes). Argutius deinde Cai. quatuor has classes quatuor praerogalivis antea enumeratis (enumeratur autem quinque) opponi vult; atque vix minus argute aliqui moderni progressum institutionis insinuari arbitrantur : ethnicum caecum ludaeus manu ducit ad revelationem , qua discussis £eneóris oculos ei aperit, ut /umen videat, deinde eum ezidit, ut sapere incipiat, ac demum proselytum (Iudaei proselytos dicuntur infantes appellasse) plenam veritatem docet. At Apostolum de his argutiis cogitasse mihi non persuadeo; cum Crys. aliisque multis polius arbitror, eum nominibus illis esse usum, quibus Iudaei ipsi uti solebant. Quemadmodum enim ethnicos, quia Legem mosaicam non observarent, appellabant peccatores aut iniustos, ita eosdem, quia eam ignorarent, aut caecos aut in tenebris sedentes aut insipientes aut infantes appellabant, variis ignorantiae gradibus non distinctis. Porro titulos illos Iudaei sibi arrogant, quia ipsi habeant formam (u5ggwzw) scientiae et veritatis in lege. Nomen pezosts bis tantum in N. T. legitur; quia autem semel (2 Tm. 3,5 « habentes speciem yiz- 2w» pietatis, virtutem autem eius abnegantes ») apparentiam externam, cui nihil veri subsit, significat, antiquitus nonnulli (cfr Theoph. Oec.) candem significationem hic retinuerunt. « Sed qui formam , inquit Just., accipiunt pro imagine, uti opponitur rei veritati, quasi scientiae ac veritatis speciem habeant, non ipsam veritatem ac scientiam, ab instituto Apostoli nimium quantum recedunt »; neque enim ludaei, quia apparentiam veritatis, sed quia ipsam veritatis expressionem ac veram eius imaginem in Lege possidebant, sibi ius docendi arrogarunt. Iuxta Tol. aliosque paucos « scientia ad mores seu agenda, veritas ad fidem seu credenda refertur »; contra iuxta PAot. (cfr Oec.) forma scientiae ad intelligentiam, forma veritatis ad operationem refertur; utrumque, ut patet, sine sufficiente fundamento asseritur. Rectius, opinor, Beel. : « scripsit scientiae et. veritatis, quia scientia, illa, quae ex Lege hauritur, verztas est ». Unde cum Euth. hic figuram £v &x 3votv agnoscere licet, ut «zc &Av0e(ag xai «2s 1voctug positum sit pro cz; &Àv8wz; Yvócsug, veritatis autem notio, quia summi est momenti, substantivo declaretur. Sequitur apodosis, quam anacoluthice adnecti diximus; Apostolus enim videtur scribere voluisse : « si autem tu Iudaeus (in oppositione ad ethnicum, qui obscuram tantum Legis cognitionem ex natura sua rationali haurit) tanta Legis scientia a Deo es ornatus, ut teipsum alios docere posse confidas, manifestum est, te in iusto iudicio divino non iri iustificatum , nisi ipse feceris, quae alios docere vis ». Verum hypothetica constructione relicta summam protaseos hypotheticae participio et particula epanaleptica (5 cóv &izdexov &vepcv docens ergo alium) quasi resumens dura increpatione sententiam continuat. Quantopere enim opera contradicant doctrinae ostendens satis clare ostendit, maiorem esse eorum culpam, quum perfectiore sua Legis cognitione non obstante eadem praecepta transgrediantur, quae ethnicis inculcare velint ; unde sua sponte sequitur, eos in iudicio nequaquam iustificatum iri, quoniam sub ira Dei sint. Apodosin « posse legi vel interrogative, quasi cum quadam indignatione, vel remisse quasi asserendo eorum malitiam » TAom. adnotat; cum Chrys. autem duriorem interrogationis formam omnino praeferimus :
2:21
21. qui ergo alium doces, teipsum non doces? qui praedicas non furandum, furaris?
2:22
92 qui dicis non moechandum , moecharis? qui abominaris idola, sacrilegium facis? (maiorem vim textus graecus habet qui subiecta sententiarum participiis exprimit : & cÓy 2izxov , 5 xnejsse» eic.) Primum membrum universale totam agendi rationem Iudaeorum cum eorum Lege pugnare docet; ita enim vivunt, ac si Lex illis dumtaxat ad alios docendos sit data. Duobus sequentibus crimina notantur (furtum, quo omnes species fraudis iniustitiaeque in exercendis mercaturis, et adulterium, quo omnes species impudicitiae comprehendi videntur), quae inter ludaeos frequentiora fuisse satis constat; celeberrimos eorum rabbinos (R. Akiba, R. Eleasar etc.) adulteros fuisse ipse Thalmud testatur (cfr Reit. — God.). Quodnam vero crimen quarto membro notetur, difficilius est dictu; praeferenda est, ni fallor, CArys. aliorumque Graecorum sententia , qui Iudaeos accusari censent, quod idolorum fana expilare soleant, quamvis severissime eis prohibitum sit, « ne concupiscant argentum et aurum, de quibus facta sint idola, neve ex eis quidquam sibi assumant aut in domum suam inferant » (Deut. 7,25.26), « sed amatae pecuniae tyrannis, inquit, hanc quoque conculcarelegem vobis persuasit » (CArys.). Quodsi contra hanc interpretationem obiicitur, expilationem fani alicuius idolorum non potuisse a Paulo vocari sacrilegium, recte respondetur, graecum verbum iísgosvA^ctv significare templum spoliare (iepzv cJ^3y) atque Apostolum, quum templa ista idolis dedicata fuisse in subiecto innueret, satis praecavisse, ne quis verbum de sacrilegio proprie dicto intelligeret. Sicuti prioribus membris, hic quoque oppositionem tantum inter doctrinam et opera Iudaeorum maauifestare voluit : docebant enim tam abominanda esse idola, ut ea aspicere aut tangere non liceret, sed ea aspicere et tangere non verebantur, quando eorum templa exspoliabant. Huius criminis autem reos aut saltem suspectos passim fuisse Iudaeos illius temporis ex Act. 19,31-37 et ex Fl. los. Antiq. IV. 8,10 colligitur. Cum 4'r? et Pe/. tamen multi iuniores ac moderni propriam sacrilegii definitionem retinere malunt; unde illud Iudaeorum crimen hic notatum inveniunt, quo aut iis abutantur, quae ad divinum cultum pertineant (TAom.), aut quo tributa templo ierosolymitano debita non solvant vel dona templo illi destinata diripiant, aut demum quo Christum esse verum Messiam negent (A'*") vel Dco non dent gloriam quae ei competat etc. (uae omnia ideo iam parum apte hic afferuntur, quia oppositionem inter subiectum et praedicatum, quae in prioribus membris adest, prorsus auferant; neque enim legitur : qui solum templum ierosolymitanum esse praedicas, sacrilegium committis, neque : qui soli vero Deo gloriam competere doces, sacrilegium facis etc. Praecedentibus interrogationibus quasi respondens Apostolus tantum abesse nunc asserit, ut Iudaei velut Legis divinae factores iustificari possint, ut continuis suis transgressionibus legislatorem Deum contemtui ethnicorum exponentes criminis gravissimi sint rei :
2:23
23. qui in lege gloriaris, per praevaricationem legis Deum inhonoras (&«yázex; ignominia afficis ac vilipendis). Multi interrogationes continuari censent, ita ut v. 93. sit parallelus vv. 21.22 arcteque, cum eis connectendus; at diversa est constructio (subiectum enim non jam participio sed sententia velativa exprimitur : 2; iv v/yo xxvy3oa)) atque huic sententiae confirmatio quaedam (v. 2*) additur; quare rectius assertive eam legimus, ut diserta sit exprobratio clariusque appareat, quam gravis sit Iudeorum culpa. Lex divinitus data Iudaeis non tantumsummo beneficio erat, quum in ea certum haberent ducem, cui confidere possent, sed etiam summo honori , id quod ipsi n ea gloriantes agnoscebant; verum pro duro et ingrato suo animo beneficio illo ipso, quod honori sibi esse sciebant, abutebantur, ut benefactorem suum ignominia afficerent. Omne quidem peccatum , quod deliberata legis perfecte cognitae transgressione committitur, est contemtus uti legis ita etiam legislatoris; qui contemtus eo gravior erat in ludaeis, quo magis Legem suam celebrabant. Publice quippe eam transgredientes sese legislatorem suum vilipendere ostendebant ethnicosque alliciebant, ut eadem ratione eum . contemnerent : « sicut enim legis observantia in bonis operibus est occasio videntibus, ut honorent Deum, ita etiam transgressio legis per mala opera eis est occasio blasphemandi ». (TÀom.) De hoc autem scandalo sese loqui Paulus docet addens :
2:24
24. nomen enim Dei per vos (lege : propter vos &/ opas) ólasphematur inter gentes, sicut scriptum est. Qüod dictum ex Ezech. 36,90 («. polluerunt nomen sanctum .meum quum diceretur de eis : populus Domini iste est et de terra eius egressi sunt ») allegari cum Pe/. pauci parum recte arbitrantur, quia verba plane differunt; cum Chrys. autem et A'r? plerique iure tenent, illud ex Is. 52,5 desumtum esse, ubi iuxta LXX legitur: &' iy; |i mavibg t» Lvcga (haxogngstzat iv volg Eüveoty (Vulg. cum Mass. consentiens verbis 2/' óua; propter vos et àv «ctg &üveoty in gentibus omissis : « et iugiter tota die nomen meum blasphematur »). Attende porro, eo in loco (uti eliam apud.EzecA.) Deum dici blasphemari inter gentes propter ludaeos, quia ethnici populum Israel subiugare et in captivitatem abducere potuerint, ita ut Iahve, Deus Israel, a diis Assyriorum et Babyloniorum videatur esse devictus. Quare dicendum est, Paulum ista verba non allegasse, quasi in iis vaticinium blasphemiarum, de quibus ipse loquitur, deprehendisset, sed eum prophetae dictum suo argumento accommodasse (cfr Comment. in 9 Cor. p. 228; Introd. gener. p. 556; Comp. Introd. p. 135). Ceterum verum est, peccata ludaeorum indirectam saltem causam blasphemiarum fuisse, quas propheta commemorat, quia ob continuam Legis praevaricationem filii Israel a Deo in hostium manus traditi sunt. $.) — Praerogativae Iudaeorum eos ab ira divina tueri nequeunt (2,25-3,8). a.) Circumcisio enim sine legis observatione inutilis est, (2,25-29). Iudaeos iustum Dei iudicium non esse eífugituros sibique ob Legis divinae cognitionem, quum illius factores non essent, securitatem impunitatemque incassum frustraque promittere, B. Paulus ita in superiore pericope (1-21) demonstravit, ut eos ob perfectiorem Legis cognitionem, qua gloriabantur, maiori culpae, quam ethnicos , obnoxios esse insinuaret. At aliud eis reliquum erat effugium; praerogativas enim suas, ac praesertim circumcisionem, praetendere poterant, qua populi electi, cui datae erant promissiones, membra effecti certum ius ad salutem messianam sibi vindicabant. Revera tantum tribuerunt circumcisioni, ut eorum rabbini nullum circumcisum in gehennam descensurum esse docerent, quin etiam Iudaeorum a fide sua apostatarum, priusquam in gehennam mitterentur, praeputia per angelum adductum iri dicerent (cfr Schoettgen Horae hebr. i. h. 1., Eisenmenger Entdecktes ludenthum II. p. 339 sqq.). Hanc igitur superstitionem Apostolus, ut thesin suam de absoluta fidei evangelicae ad salutem necessitate contra ludaeos stabiliret, destruere debuit. Quem in finem circumcisionem sine Legis observatione inutilem esse monens (v. 25), Legis observationem incircumcisis in circumcisionem repufatum iri (26. 27) docct, quandoquidem Deus non carnis sed cordis circumcisionem requirat (28. 29). Quis novae huius sectionis cum praecedente sit nexus, in Vulgata nostra non indicatur; verum primigenius textus (cfr VV. LL.) causali particula ;x? inserta cam superioris esse confirmationem innuit. Confirmat autem Iudaeos propter peccata sua sub ira esse Dei atque acterno interitui obnoxios; nam, inquit,
2:25
25. circumcisio quidem , qua te iram divinam avertere posse forsitan confidas, prodest, si legem observes; si autem praevaricator (seu transgressor cfr Iac. 2,9.11 «apa&ácus) legis sis, circumcisio tua praeputium facta est. Loquitur autem Apostolus, uti patet, de veteris oeconomiae circumcisione, quam Deus Abrahamo iam praeceperat velut signum foederis promissionum , quod cum eo eiusque posteris pepigit (Gen. 17,9 sqq.), quae vero cessare debuit, quamprimum in novo foedere promissiones divinae impletae sunt. Quare Paulus contra Iudaeochristianos , qui eam etiam in fidei gratiaeque foedere necessariam praedicabant, eam nihil valere, immo nocere asserens (cfr ad Gal. 5,2 et 1 Cor. 7,19) sibi non contradicit, quando eam prodesse hic docet, si cum Legis observatione sit coniuncta. Circumcisio quippe constituit hominem membrum populi a Deo electi eumque participem fecit benedictionum promissionumque veteris foederis, sed simul eum ad conditiones foederi appositas implendas, i. e. ad Legis universae observationem , quippe a qua omnes dependerent promissiones, adstrinxit (Lev. 18,5; Deut. 27,96; cfr Gal. 5,3). Iuxta suam ergo institutionem circumcisio in nuda praeputii ablatione non erat sita, sed praeputii, utpote rei immundae, ablatio signum ac symbolum erat internae animi mundationis per Legis observationem seu, uti sacri Vet. Test. scriptores iam loquuntur, circumcisionis cordis (Deut. 10,6; 30,6; Jer. &,&; cfr Lev. 26,&1 etc.). Sua autem circumcisione homo, ut promissionum divinarum particeps fieret, Deo fidem obedientiamque spondebat, quare haud immerito Thom. eam appellat « professionem quandam obligantem ad observationem Legis ». Iam vero hanc circumcisionem, in qua signum cum suo significato erat coniunctum , Paulus prodesse dicit singulas eius utilitates postea expositurus (3,1.2; 9,&.5); sin vero circumcisio cordis desit et continua Legis transgressione animus polluatur, ablationem praeputii nihil amplius significare innuens circumcisionem iam naturam praeputii induisse addit. Circumcisos filios Israel, si incircumcisi sint corde, in eadem fore damnatione eandemque poenam subituros esse , atque gentes praeputiatas, propheta quoque iam docuerat (lerem. 9,95.96 cfr Knabenb. Comm. in lerem. p. 146 sq.). Quoniam porro circumcisio totam suam vim et utilitatem ex Legis observatione habet, et Legis observatio ratio est obtinendae salutis, Apostolus nunc a contrario concludit :
2:26
26. si ?gitur praeputium iustitias (3X &xatdgaza 1. q. praecepta) legis custodiat , nonne praeputium illius in circumcisionem reputabitur (si; zspvzpX XoqwÜ0dcsta))? In. priore membro praeputium (1, àxgzfusxíz) per metonymiam pro concreto, uti saepius (3,30; 4,9; Gal. 2,7 etc.) adhibetur, ut sit idem quod praepu(tatus, quare in altero membro pronomen 23:23 (2//us) ponitur ac si scriptum sit à àxo2£os-cz. Fieri autem posse supponit Paulus, ut praeputiatus (utique gratia divina adiutus, cfr ad v. 154) totam Legem (xà Bua zai $23. v4g») observet (haec enim est vis particulae £z» cum coniunct., ut rem quidem vere futuram esse non asserat, sed eam fieri posse concedat); quodsi hoc revera fiet, tunc praeputiatus re et veritate id habet, quod ablatio praeputii in Iudaeo significat ideoque etiam a iusto iudice reputabitur velut circumcisus. Praeputium eius non obstabit, quominus vitam aeternam obtineat, et quum corde circumcisus sit, licet non carne, iis adnumerabitur, quibus promissiones factae sunt. De Ethnicochristianis hic non agi, quamvis multi id arbitrentur, contexta oratio satis docet; unde recte 7Aom. sermonem esse ait de « gentili incireumciso, qui iustitias Legis, i. e. iusta Legis praecepta, custodiens habiturus sit fructum verae circumcisionis », atque To/. bene hinc confirmari asserit, « omni operanti bonum, i. e. servanti Legem, fore gloriam honorem et pacem, ludaeo primum et Graeco, circumciso et incircumciso » (v. 10). Quibus praeierat CArys. monens : « gentilem iterum dicit eum, qui idololatra quidem sit, sed pius ac virtute praeditus, a legalibus autem observationibus liber ». Priorem suam conclusionem Apostolus per interrogationem proposuit; affirmativo autem responso, quod exspectat et ipsi ludaei dare debent, alteram nunc addit conclusionem, qua pocnam circumcisorum Legis transgressorum annuntiat :
2:27
27. e£ iudicabit id, quod ex natura est praeputium, legem consummans , te qui per literam et circumcistonem praevaricator legis es. Cum hodierna Vulg. multi moderni quoque interpretes praecedentem interrogationem quasi continuari censentes particulam interrogativam z57: (nonne) ante v2»: (/udicabit) supplent; qua constructione sententiae sensus quidem non mutatur, sed pondus ac gravitas minuitur. Cum Graecis ergo aliisque multis, iunioribus et modernis, assertivam formam praeferimus atque particulae xaí (et), qua responsum affirmativum continuatur, vim intendendi et augendi tribuimus (cfr Beel.) : Utique praeputium illius in cireumcisionem reputabitur, imino praeputium te circumcisum iudicabit. Singularem quoque vim verbum »ztct (iudicabit) loco suo in principio sententiac obtinet, siquidem legem talionis innuit, iuxta quam ludaeorum non minus quam ethnicorum (cfr ad 1,95. 28) poena peccatis respondebit : non obstantibus suis Legis transgressionibus iudicabant ludaei ethnicos, ideo ipsi ab ethnicis iudicabuntur. Nulla autem est ratio, cur verbum iudicandi hic nativo sao sensu privetur, id quod a multis fit, qui locum hunc de comparationis iudicio interpretantur, quatenus iudaici Legis transgressores, si cum ethnicis Legis factoribus comparentur, poenis digni ostendantur (cfr Math. 19,41); quin etiam toto contextu haec interpretatio excluditur. Toto enim in hoc capite Apostolus de ultimo iudicio loquitur (vv. 2,5 sqq. 12. 13. 16. 26.), in quoiuxta eius doctrinam omnes sancti cum Christo et in Christo capite suo mundum vere ac proprie iudicabunt impiosque condemnabunt (cfr Comment. in 1 Cor. p. 131 sqq.). Praeterea sine ullo dubio Apostolus ad iudicium respicit, quod Iudaei ob meliorem suam Legis cognitionem de ethnicis sibi arrogabant; atqui illud non erat comparationis iudicium, sed verum ac proprium iudicium sibi attribuebant. Itaque ut Iudaeorum superbiam confundat, Apostolus eis poenam annuntiat, qua ignominiosiorem vix sibi fingere potuerunt : ab iis ipsis, quos hodie ob Legis scriptae defectum velut caecos et insipientes et infantes despiciunt (v. 20) et ob praeputium velut impuros peccatores respuunt et condemnant, in futuro iudicio iudicabuntur et condemnabuntur. Quam ignominiam non parum auget descriptione ethnici iudicis una ex parte et altera ex parte commemoratione beneficiorum Iudaeis collatorum. Ethnicum enim, quum vocatur $ ix qócec5 àxpcfocza (id quod ex natura est praeputium 1. e. qui natalibus, vi nativitatis suae ex parentibus ethnicis, est praeputiatus), tacite opponit ei qui natura quidem Judaeus est (e$ssc "Tco22t2; efr Gal. 2,15) sed cuius circumcisio propter Legis transgressionem praeputium facta est (v. 25). Duo quippe , uti Chrys. ait, distinguit praeputia, unum quod quia ex natura est culpa caret, alterum quod ex voluntate et peccato ortum suum trahens culpabile est. Male cum Syro nonnuli acath. (Koppe Olsh.) vocabula ix gjcsoz , quae inter articulum et suum substantivum sunt posita, cum sequentibus zzv v$yzv «£4c9cz connectunt, ut sensus exoriatur : praeputium quod ez natura (i. q. naturaliter cfr v. 1&4) legem consummat; haec enim explicatio scriptum esse supponit : 4; àxpc£oozia (4) &x. goose zb» v $uev 5£Ac9ca. Participium autem «5v vipzv «62902 hypothesin exprimit, qua impleta homo iudex esse potest : « homo natalibus suis praeputiatus, s? Legem (sc. universam zv v£gzv) consummet, i. e. perfecte impleat, iudicabit ». Altera deinde ex parte Paulus Iudaeum qui iudica- ' bitur appellat z25 &à yesugazos xi zeptcoyzs capafárny viyco (per literam et circumcisionem praevaricatorem legis). Quemadmodum ergo in ethnico Legis factore illud commemoratur, quo a Legis observatione averli ac retineri videtur, ita in iudaico Legis transgressore illa praedicantur, quibus ad fidelem Legis observationem incitari debuit : accuratior sc. cognitio Legis, quam scriptam acceperat (voaygax litera i. q. vius veypappíves lex scripta), ac strictior obligatio, quam circumcisio ci imposuit. Praepositio 2: cum genet. autem hic, uti saepe, statum indicat, in quo aliquis collocatus agit (&,11 etc. cfr ad 2 Cor. 3,11; 2,4; 5,7 etc.) : ludaeus in statu Legis et circumcisionis degens, his divinis beneficiis non obstantibus, Legis praevaricator est. Litera (yeiaga), quum hoc in loco non, uti alibi (v. 29; 7,6; 2 Cor. 3,6. 1), spiritui opponatur, solum divinum illud beneficium in memoriam revocat, quod Iudaei ex Lege scriptacum certitudine divinam voluntatem cognoscant (cfr ad v. 17), sed non connotat, uti in aliis illis locis , Legem praeceptis suis dumtaxat viam monstrare, vires vero ad eam ambulandam non praestare. Quapropter etiam praepositioni àuz c. genet. significationem instrumentalem attribuere non licet, ac si Apostolus dicere voluerit, ludaeos per Legem, utpote per occasionem incitantem, quum eis peccati cognitionem daret, factos esse transgressores Legis (Lap. Est?.); ut enim taceamus, hanc explicationem nullo modo ad alterum membrum (per circumcisionem) quadrare, clarum est, illa admissa culpam Iudaeorum potius minui quam augeri ac proin totam sententiam sua vi et gravitate privari. Simili demum modo, quo supra (v. 11), Paulus generali consideratione doctrinam suam confirmat : mirari ludaeis non licet, quod praeputiatus Legis factor iudex futurus sit in ultimo iudicio et condemnaturus circeumcisum Legis transgressorem, quia Deus, apud quem non est acceptio personarum, ad externam rei apparentiam non attendit, sed internam rei veritatem solam respicit et ap probat.
2:28
28. Non enim qui in manifesto , Iudaeus est , neque quae in manifesto , 1n carne, est circumcisio;
2:29
99. sed qui in abscondito Iudaeus est, et circumcisio cordis , in spiritu non litera; cuius laus non ez hominibus sed ex Deo est. Aliquantulum obscurius, quia brevius, Apostolus loquitur, quum in duobus prioribus membris subiecta ex praedicatis complenda, in tertio et quarto praedicata ex subiectis supplenda relinquat. Completa ergo sententia haec fere est : Non entm ludaeus, qui in manifesto est (i. e. qui nomine, circumcisione aliisque rebus externis Iudaeus esse apparet), Judaeus est verus, neque circumcisio, quae in manifesto (i. e.) in carne apparet, est circumcisio vera; sed qui in abscondito (i. e. per cordis circumcisionem) Judaeus est, is est verus ludacus, et circumcisio cordis (quae fit) in spiritu non in litera (i. c. quae fit per Spiritum gratia sua adiuvantem et sananlem, non iuxta nudam literam Legis, quae solam externam carnis circumcisionem diserte praecipit), vera est circumcisio; cuius (sc. veri Iudaei, qui esse potest sine externis Iudaismi signis) laus non ex hominibus (qui internum hominis statum ignorant) sed ez Deo est, qui iudicabit occulta hominum per Iesum Christum (v. 16). Sensus vero sententiae clarus est : Vera ludaismi ratio in externis ritibus caerimoniisque non est sita, sed in interno statu, quem ritus illi ac caerimoniae significant. Quapropter a Deo cordium scrutatore is solus tamquam membrum populi electi, cui datae sunt promissiones, agnoscitur, in quo interna illa adesse videt, etsi forte externa signa desint; contra vero ii, in quibus nuda signa externa sunt, ab eo pro veris ludaeis haberi nequeunt. « Neque enim, inquit Thom., verum signum est, nisi ei respondeat signatum ». Verba circumcisio cordis in spiritu non litera cum S. Aug. (de spir. et lit. 8,13) explicavimus, quem plerique iuniores sequuntur nomine spiritus intelligentes S. Spiritum, « qui vitia rescindit » (Syr.), « per quem superfluae cogitationes a. corde reciduntur » (TAÀom. cfr Iust. Est. Lap. eic., M Ev. Ag. Dr. etc. — Mey. PAil. Weiss God. etc.); eandem explicationem ex Graecis CArys. Oec. Theoph. saltem innuunt; EutA. diserte proponit. Alteram explicationem S. Aug. (expos.) affert, « ut secundum spiritum, non secundum quod habet litera, lex intelligatur; quod utique contigit illis qui circumcisionem magis carnaliter quam spiritualiter acceperunt ». Verum nec verbis neque contextui satis respondet; unde a multis quidem iunioribus commemoratur, & paucis (Herv. Cai.) autem etiam approbatur. Tertia est expositio, quae spiritum hic carni opponi atque nomen cordis accuratius definire supponens spiritum intelligit humanum (To/. etc., Mat. etc. — Beza Ros. etc.); at plane superflua esset haec appositio, quia quid circumcisio cordis esset, ludaeis ex Veteris Test. doctrina satis erat cognitum (Deut. 10,16; 30,6; Jerem. ^,4) ; praeterea oppositio non tam est inter carnem et spiritum, quam inter spiritum et literam (cfr ad 2 Cor. 3,6). cor? 8. Et non (sicut blasphemamur, et si- | zwXbg xplvogat; 8.-xat pij xafüg fAiaeut aiunt quidam nos dicere) faciamus mala, | oonpobysÜa, xaÜcg qoaxolv tte $pae Aut veniant bona : quorum damnatio iusta | yetv, Utt xoujooptv vk xaxd, íva EA0 est. rà 3[a0d; àv 1b xgipa Évótxóv Eatty !. Quae Apostolus de circumcisione disputavit (2,25-29) , omnia eo spectabant, ut vanam fiduciam destrueret, qua carnales ludaei ob merum externum signum se iudicium effugituros esse sperabant; circumcisionis vero, prout a Deo erat instituta, utilitatem accuratius quidem non exposuerat, diserte tamen agnoverat. Verum quia simul docuerat, circumcisos et praeputiatos, qui malum operati essent, easdem luituros esse poenas et eandem, si bonum operati essent, mercedem esse obtenturos (2,9. 10), immo addiderat, cordis circumcisionem in ethnicis supplere posse carnis circumcisionem atque ethnicos Legis factores fore iudices Iudaeorum Legis trangressorum , facile aliquis colligere potuit, iusta eius doctrinam distinctionem omnem Iudaeorum et ethnicorum plane destrui neque Iudaeos, quamvis populum a Deo electum constituerent, ullo modo ethnicis praestare. Iam vero hanc obiectionem, quam praevidit, B. Paulus pro transitu adhibet, ut ad alterius effugii, quod ludaci in suis praerogativis forsitan invenire velint, refutationem veniat. Obiectioni enim respondens Iudaeos ethnicis omnem in modum praestare agnoscit, ac velut praecipuum eorum ornamentum affert, quod promissiones divinae eis sint concreditae (1. 29), quum tantum absit, ut praesens ludaeorum infidelitas fidelitatem , qua Deus stat suis promissis, tollat, ut eam splendidius manifestatura sit (3. 4). Fusius hanc quaestionem hic non tractat postea accuratius eam explicaturus (cfr 9,6 sqq.); attamen a pari concludi non posse addit, Deum peccata Iudaeorum, quia divinae gloriae manifestandae inserviant, non esse puniturum (v. 5); nam si haec conclusio esset legitima, Deus potestate iudicandi ac puniendi plane privaretur, quandoquidem omnes peccatores eandem excusationem, suis peccatis clarius manifestatam esse Dei gloriam, praetendere possint (6. 7); quin eliam sequeretur, iuxta abominandam doctrinam, quam aliqui adversarii ab ipso proponi calumnientur, facienda esse mala ut eveniant bona (v. 8.). Quoniam Apostolus contra iudaizantes pseudapostolos semper magna cum vi defendit, Ethnicochristianos fratribus suis, qui ex circumcisione crediderant, omni ex parte pares aequalesque esse, quia nimirum in Christo Iesu neque circumcisio quidquam valeat neque praeputium (Gal. 5,6; 6,15 etc.), mirum non est, quod timuerit, ne superiora sua verba ab adversariis malum in sensum detorquerentur, ac si circumcisionem etiam in vetere oeconomia nihil valuisse significarent. Quare sibi ipse hanc sententiam velut sequelam quandam doctrinae suae obiicere maluit, ut eam, praerogativis Iudaeorum diserte agnitis, immerito sibi affingi doceret :
2:1
διό lie à ce qui précède. Puisque les païens sont coupables de n'avoir pas suivi la vérité, toi qui juges, et qui par conséquent eslimes en savoir davantage, tu es inexcusable si tu tombes dans les mêmes fautes. Il était fréquent, dans la diatribè stoïcienne, de faire intervenir un interlocuteur. Dans Épictète souvent ἄνθρωπε où ὦ ἄνθρωπε | Diss. II, 17, 38). Ce personnage fictif était quelconque. C'est l'impression que fait d'abord celui que Paul interpelle; mais on ne tarde pas à s’apercevoir qu'il s'adresse à un représentant du judaïsme. Il ne le nomme pas tout d'abord pour ne pas l'effaroucher et gagner son assentiment, jusqu'au moment où il se dévoile, v. 17, un peu comme Nathan disant à David : tu es cet homme (11 Sam. χα, 7). D'après Cornely, Paul s'adresse à tout le monde, païens et Juifs, sauf à prendre les Juifs plus directement à partie au v. 17. Mais ce sont bien les Juifs qui s'étaient érigés en juges sévères du paganisme : Aut quando non peccaverunt in conspectu tuo qui habitant terram? (IV Esd. πὶ, 85), et, dès le début, Paul suppose chez le censeur des raisonnements par rapport à Dieu qui ne pouvaient appartenir qu’à des Juifs, d’ailleurs mal avisés. — Noter la nuance de κρίνειν et de χκαταχρίνειν. Paul ne prétend pas que tous les Juifs commettent tous ces excès, il suffit qu'un bon nombre commette des fautes graves. La Ve.-Clém. a quae judicas; quae devrait être changé en qui avec WW.
2:3
οἴδαμεν, langue commune pour ἴσμεν. D'après la lecon du grec au chap. précédent (1, 32) cette connaissance est un bien commun à toute l’humanité : nous tous, en tant qu'hommes, savons. οἴδαμεν δέ est plus autorist que οἴδαμεν γάρ {V.), et convient mieux pour le sens. C'est le début d'une chaîne de raisonnements, non la conséquence de ce qui précède. Le prédicat de 2522 n'est pas ἔστι (nous savons qu’il existe un jugement), mais χατὰ ἀλήθειαν, c'est-à-dire nous savons que le jugement se règle sur la vérité ou la réalité des faits, menaçant ceux qui commettent le mal. Pour le moment le jugement n’est que suspendu sur leur tête. La Κρ. ἃ enim après scimus, répondant au grec γάρ assez soutenu. Avec cette lecon, Paul se placerait sur le terrain du judaïsme, mieux instruit de la justice de Dieu. 3) Si donc tu continues à pécher, ce ne peut être qu'à cause d'une étrange aberration qui doit avoir son origine dans l’une ou l’autre erreur. D'abord penserais-tu sérieusement que tu échapperas au jugement de Dieu? L'hypothèse n'est pas soutenable; mais elle serait encore plus absurde s'il s’agissait d’un homme quelconque qui aurait personnellement la prétention d'échapper au jugement. Le Juif pouvait alléguer les privilèges promis à Israël. Les rabbins n’hésitaient pas à menacer les Juifs coupables de la Géhenne, mais on espérait que tout s'arrangerait et on maintenait le principe que « tout Israël a part au monde à venir » (Sank. x, 1). Cependant Paul n'insiste pas sur une erreur aussi grossière; puisque le Juif juge ceux qui commettent ces actes, il sait donc qu'ils sont coupables et qu'il sera jugé lui aussi pour les avoir commis.
2:4
Serait-ce donc qu'il se fait illusion sur les raisons du délai qui lui est accordé? Même tournure vi, 3; I Cor. 1x, 6, pour presser vivement l'adversaire (cf. Éricr. Diss. I, 6, 32 : à τί oe.…). Si l'erreur spéculative est moindre dans cette seconde hypothèse, elle suppose une basse disposition morale. Auprès de certains caractères, la bonté n'engendre que le mépris; ils s'imaginent qu'on les ménage par faiblesse ou parce qu'on a besoin d'eux. Qui connaîtrait Dieu sans Israël? Il est dans l'intérêt du Maître de ménager ce fidèle serviteur. — Au contraire, d’après Paul, ce qui vient de Dieu est comme un écoulement de sa plénitude, de la richesse de sa bonté, il tolère avec patience, il attend pour punir. C'est cette bonté que le Juif méprise; il ignore ou plutôt méconnaît — car il ne devrait pas s'y tromper — qu'elle le pousse à faire pénitence comme tant de prophètes l'ont demandé. L’Apocalypse de Baruch (xxr, 20) précise le mobile auquel obéissent les prévaricateurs : Znnotescat potentia tua illis qui putant longanimitatem tuam esse infirmitatem, mais les coupables sont les païens. Tandis que d'après le grec ἀγνοῶν, l'ignorance coupable du Juif explique ou du moins accompagne son mépris, la Vg.-Clém. en écrivant ignoras, suppose une troisième question; lire igrorans avec WWW. Au début, lire aut plutôt que an (Vg.-Clém. et WW.).
2:5
La dureté, probablement de la tête, puisque le cœur est nommé ensuite, du col qui ne veut pas se courber. Le reproche était bien connu des Juifs ἐπίσταμαι ... τὸν τράγηλόν σου τὸν σχληρόν IDE. xxx, 37), σὴ ἐπιδλέψης ἐπὶ τὴν σχληρότητα τοῦ λαοῦ τούτου (Dt. 1x, 27). Origène : Cor durum … cum mens humana velut cera frigore iniquitatis obstricta signaculum ünaginis divinae non recipit … intellectus vero bonus per crassitudinem cordis ercluditur. — θησαυρίζειν se dirait plutôt des bonnes œuvres qui sont un trésor dans le ciel (Mt. νι, 20); ici il est ironique, répondant à πλούτου v. 4. Les richesses de la bonté méprisée se changent en trésors de colère. Le jour du jugement est nommé le jour de colère (sans art., comme une sorte de mot composé), et non pas le jour du jugement, ἡμέρα χρίσεως (aussi sans art. Mt. x1, 12, etc), parce quil entre dans la perspective à propos du coupable (Is. ΧΠῚ, 9 : ἡμέρα Κυρίου... ἀνίατος θυμοῦ καὶ ὀργῆς), mais, pour le ramener à son caractère complet, Paul ajoute qu'il révélera combien Dieu est un juste juge; en eflet διχαιοχρισία n'est pas tout à fait la même chose que δικαίας κρίσεως (II Thess. 1, 5), marquant plus encore le caractère du juge que celui du jugement. SH. qui font cette remarque citent le mot dans les Z'estaments des XII patriarches, Lévi, in, 2; xv, 2, et dans la Quinta des Hexaples (Os. vi, 5); Lietzmann ajoute OP. "71, col. 1, 1. ἃ: εὔελπις ὧν τῆς τοῦ σοῦ μεγέθους δικαιοχρισίας τυχεῖν (303 ap. J.-C.).
2:6
Paul exprime la justice de Dieu par une citation du Ps. 1x1 [Lxn] : ὅτι σὺ ἀποδώσεις ἐχάστιν χατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, qui marque le futur, plutôt que de Prov. XXIV, 12 : ὃς ἀποδίδωσιν ἑκάστῳ κατὰ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ, C'est le principe fondamental de la sanction morale, dans le N. T. comme dans l'Ancien, et il ne faudra pas oublier que Paul lui-même l’a posé quand il discutera la valeur relative de la foi et des œuvres. Ici il oppose au Juif la nécessité de conformer sa vie à sa doctrine : au jour du jugement on sera jugé d’après les œuvres. Or il n'était pas disposé à faire en faveur du chrétien une exception qu'il refuse au Juif (Gal. νι, 7 ss.; I Cor. nr, 13-15; 1x, 17; IT Cor. v, 10; 1x, 6 ss. ; Eph. vi, 8; Col. πι, 24). Le bon sens païen n’admettait pas non plus qu'un voleur initié à Éleusis fût plus heureux dans l'autre vie qu'un homme vertueux non initié (Droc. Larrce, VI, 39). Le protestantisme moderne n'oserait s'approprier certaines paroles de Luther sur les œuvres; les luthériens prétendent seulement qu'on est sauvé secundum testimonium operum, non propter opera, i. e. propler meritum operum (apud Weiss), ce qui n’a rien à faire ici. Plus tard Paul comparera la foi et les œuvres de la Loi par rapport à la justification, question bien différente.
2:7
Joindre ζυτοῦσιν à τοῖς μέν, tandis que ζωὴν αἰώνιον dépend de ἀποδώσει. Il est étonnant qu'Euth. s'y soit trompé en glosant : τοῖς μὲν #a0” ὑπομονὴν ἔργου ἀγαθοῦ ζητοῦσι ζωὴν αἰώνιον, δόξαν καὶ τιμὴν χαὶ ἀφθαρσίαν ἀποδώσει. — ὑπομονή se dit ordinairement du support des choses pénibles; le devoir est lourd, il faut y persévérer; cf. patientia animi et corporis (Crc.), l'exercice de l'esprit et du corps. — δόξα et τιλή sont des altributs de Dieu, nrais comme ἀφθαρσία est un bien que l'homme recherche pour lui-même, car il ne prétend pas rendre Dieu immortel, il en est de même de honneur et gloire; les trois termes sont le but des désirs du juste. C'est donc la gloire et l'honneur auxquels il participera auprès de Dieu. Sur ce sens de δόξα, cf. Ps. Sal. π΄, 35; pour ἀφθαρσία dans le sens d'immortalité, Sap. 1, 28 et IV Macch. 1x, 22; xvir, 12 : ἀρετὴ à ὑπομονῆς δοχιμάζουσα" τὸ νῖχος ἐν &obapoix. — δόξα et τιμή ensemble dans I Pet. 1, 7. On lira volontiers quaerentibus au lieu de quaerunt (avec WW..), mais alors qui n’est-il pas de trop avant secundum etc.?
2:8
La phrase commence comme au v. précédent, mais se termine par une anacoluthe, ὀργή et θυμός au nomin., sous-entendu « les menacent ». [ἃ phrase est ainsi plus vivante: elle rebondit au lieu de se traîner derrière un verbe éloigné. ἐριθεία, d'après Cornely un esprit mercenaire, parce que le mot vient de ἐριθεύω « travailler à gages ». Mais on peut admettre un autre ἐριθεύω dérivant bien ἃ ἔρις, au moyen « intriguer » (Aristote, Pol. V, πι, 9). D'ailleurs ce qui importe ici c'est moins l’étym. que l'usage de Paul, où ἐριθεία signifie esprit de dispute, brigue, contestation (11 Cor. x11, 20; Gal. v, 20; Phil. 1. {7:π|, 8; cf. Jac. in, 14. 146). Il est même probable qu'on lui attribuait comme étym. populaire ἐρεθίζω qui dans Dt. xxt, 20 traduit marah, « se révolter, se montrer indiscipliné ». Cela s’appliquerait de préférence aux Juifs, non à cause des brigues dont Paul avait été victime, mais à cause de leur attitude constante envers Moïse et les Prophètes; cf. Act. vir, 52 : σχληροτράγηλοι καὶ ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίαις … ἀεὶ τῷ πνεύματι τῷ ἁγίῳ ἀντιπίπτετε, passage qui rappelle Rom. τι. Cet esprit de chicane est le principe de la désobéissance envers la vérité, que cependant les Juifs se targuaient de mieux connaître- L'antithèse de la vérité serait l'erreur, mais Paul marque aussitôt la chute morale, en opposant l'injustice à la vérité, comme dans 1, 18. L’injustice, c'est-à-dire la désohéissance générale aux règles de la morale, est personnifiée comme la vérité: ce sont comme deux chefs dont on suit les éténdards. — θυμός est la colère déchaïnée. Credunt est corrigé par Corn. en obediunt; sunt est omis s par WW.
2:9
Ce verset et le suivant reprennent la mème pensée dans l’ordre inverse, en partant du point où l'on est arrivé, le châtiment, pour revenir à la récompense. Le but de cette insistance est d'appliquer les principes aux deux yrandes catégories des gentils et des Juifs. Le texte continue par le singulier, en sous-entendant « attendent » ou « menacent », comme au v. précédent (ἔσται). — ὑλίψις οἱ στενοχωρία formaient une paire : Dt. xxvin, 53. 55. 57; Esd. 1, 1; 15. vin, 22; xxx, 6; on est serré, ct par conséquent tenu à l’étroit. Τοῖ il s’agit d'une peine spirituelle, qui fait de même sentir son effet de l'extéricur à l'intérieur. — ψυχή complété par ἀνθρώπου n'est pas synonyme de « homme » ; c'est sur l’âme que s'abat [ὁ châliment. Pour « faire » le mal, Paul dit κατεργαζέσθαι, peut-être pour marquer une application particulière, une forte inclination de la volonté. — πρῶτον parce que le Juif a abusé de ses privilèges (Corn.), ou parce qu'il s'est cru le droit de juger les autres (Zips.). ou plutôt enfin parce que ses mauvaises actions sont plus coupables, étant accomplies malgré une lumière meilleure.
2:10
δύξα οἱ ru reviennent comme au v. 7. L’immortalité est remplacée par la paix, accordée elle aussi par Dieu. Le Juif est encore le premier, non à cause de ses privilèges, car Dieu ferait acception de personnes, mais parce que ses actions sont plus parfaites, étant accomplies d’après une révélation plus parfaite, plus en vue de Dicu, plus conscientes que celles des gentils.
2:11
Le principe se trouvé énoncé bien souvent dans l'A. T.; cf. aussi Ps. Sal. 11, 19 : ὁ θεὸς χριτὴς δίχατος 22! οὐ θαυμάσει πρόσωπον. Le danger des sociétés fortement hiérarchisées comme l'Orient est qu'il soit diflicile aux petits d'obtenir justice; on tranche la cause d’après l'importance des parties. Dieu ne juge que d'après les faits; c’est dire plus nettement que son jugement est xata ἀλήθειαν, v. 2. Si donc le Juif passe le premier dans la récompense ou dans le châtiment, c’est qu'il est en réalité plus méritant ou plus coupable; ce n'est pas parce que Dieu est disposé à lui faire un passe-droit ou à lui refuser justice.
2:12
On pouvait se demander comment les gentils et les Juifs, vivant d'après des principes si différents, seraient appelés à comparaître devant le même tibunal. N'étant pas soumis à la même loi, ils n'avaient pas commis les mèmes fautes; d'après quelle norme seront-ils jugés? Mais Paul ἃ déjà indiqué très clairement (1, 32, d’après le texte grec) comment les païens euxmêmes savaient que certaines choses étaient interdites par Dieu sous peine de mort; il a insisté sur la responsabilité qu'ils avaient encourue en refusant de rendre à Dicu l'honneur qui lui était dû (τ, 18-28,, en violant même les lois de la nature. Ils peuvent donc ètre jugs, même s'ils n’ont pas été éclairés par la loi de Moïse, ni soumis à son empire. C'est de cette facon qu'ils Sont ἀνόμως, non pas dépourvus de toute règle de conduite, mais de celle qui δὲ écrite dans la Loi. Ils ont péché et ne sont pas excusables (αι, 20); ils périront donc, c'est-à-dire qu'ils seront exclus du salut ou de la vie éternelle, étant objet de colère. en proie à l'angoisse et à l’aflliction. Pour ceux qui ont péché sous l'empire de la Loi, ils seront naturellement jugés d’après la Loi. Le mot νόμος, sans article. peut très bien signifier la Loi juive, la Loi par excellence, comme dans un bon nombre de cas. La Vy.-Clém. omet à tort et devant peribunt; καί marque bien la suite logique et comme l’apodose.
2:13
Paul explique ensuite 1° comment les Juifs peuvent être condamnés quoique ayant reçu la Loi (v. 13); 2° comment les gentils peuvent être sauvés quoique ne l'ayant pas reçue (v. 14. 15. 16). Le premier point est clair : une loi est donnée pour être pratiquée; on ne satisfait pas le Législateur pour l'avoir entendu lire. Si on la lisait aux Juifs à chaque sabbat, c'était certes pour leur en inculquer la pratique. Ce point n’était pas contesté par le judaïsme. Éléazar de Galilée disait au roi Izate converli au judaïsme, mais hésitant à se faire circoncire : où γὰρ avaytvwsxe σε δεῖ μόνον αὐτούς (τοὺς νόμους), ἀλλὰ καὶ πρότερον τὰ προςτασσόμενα ποιεῖν ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν (Jos. Ant. XX, 11, 4). Pour Siméon, fils de Gamaliel Ier, dont parle Josèphe (Bell. VI, nr, 9 et Vita, 38) et par conséquent contemporain de saint Paul, l'essentiel n’est pas ‘étude (de la Loi). mais les œuvres (4both, 1, 17 : 5yn NT TD ΝΟῚ nées ΝῸΝ). Malgré l'estime exagérée qu’on avait pour la connaissance de la Loi, on tenait qu'elle était inférieure à la crainte de Dieu, ou plutôt que l'une ne devait pas aller sans l’autre, selon la belle expression de Rabbi Éléazar ben ‘Azaria, un peu après saint Paul : « Sans la sagesse il n’y a pas de crainte (de Dieu), et sans la crainte (de Dieu) il n'y a pas de sagesse » (Aboth, nr, 17 et cf. x, 9. 45; 1v, 5; vi, 4; Apoc. Baruch, xLv1, 4. 5). — Cornely suppose un futur après δίκαιοι, mais Lipsius sous-entend εἰσίν, ce qui justifie la Vg. En effet il n'est pas nécessaire que δίκαιοι soit strictement parallèle à διχαιωθήσονται, Les auditeurs ne sont pas tenus pour justes auprès de Dieu en ce moment; tandis que ceux qui auront pratiqué la loi serontreconnus justes. Paul continue à parler du jugement futur sans aucune allusion à la justification et à la manière dont elle se produit dans l'âme. Dans ce casil est très clair que δικαιωθήσονται doit s'entendre d’une reconnaissance par le juge. Augustin n'a pu soutenir le sens de « rendre juste » qu'au moyen d'une exégèse dont Cornely dit qu'elle ne tient pas compte du contexte et change arbitrairement les mots.
2:14
Le second point (cf. sur v. 13} était plus difficile à admettre pour un Juif. Comment un gentil pouvait-il être sauvé sans la Loi? Le judaïsme répondait volontiers que les gentils étaient déjà en faute pour n’avoir pas voulu recevoir la Loi; leur refus n’empéchait pas qu’ils fussent coupables de ne pas en observer les préceptes. Ils devaient donc eux aussi être jugés d'après la Loi : Quia unusquisque ex habitatoribus terrae sciebat cum inique agebat, et legem mean non noverunt propter superbiam suam..…. et de his omnibus finis eorum redarguet eos, et lex tua quam transgressi sunt, retribuet illis in die tuo (Apoc. Bar. xLvint, 40. 47). Paul admet la culpabilité des gentils, mais ne leur reproche pas d'avoir méconnu la Loi. Il suppose comme un fait qu'ils n'ont pas la Loi pour règle expresse, mais que néanmoins ils en remplissent dans certains cas les obligations essentielles. ὅταν marque plus qu'une possibilité (quando). D'autre part ἔθνη est moins que τὰ ἔθνη; ce sont des gentils, non pas tout l'ensemble des gentils; et cependant c'est plus que s'il y avait ἐθνιχοί, quelques gentils individuellement. Dans ce cas les gentils agissent φύσει, Il serait tout à fait contraire au contexte de traduire « par les forces de la nature ». Paul ne s'inquiétant pas 101 du principe des actions, mais de leur norme extérieure. La nature, c'està-dire la lumière de la raison naturelle, à défaut de la Loi, a dit aux gentils ce qu'ils devaient faire et éviter. Thomas : naturaliter faciunt quac sunt legis, id est quae lex mandat, scilicet quantum ad praecepta moralia, quae sunt de dictamine rationis; sicut et de Job dicitur Job 1, quod erat justus…. C'était aussi l'exégèse de Tertullien (De cor. mil, vi}, de Chrysositome, et c'est toujours demeuré l'exégèse des Grecs. Les Pélagiens s'étant servi de naturaliter pour appuyer leur thèse. saint Augustin (c. Zulianum, IV, ut, 25) a répondu qu'il s'agissait de la nature réformée par la grâce, et cette fausse interprétation a été donnée par Baïus comme la seule vraie (cf. parmi les propositions condamnées de Baïus la 22e). Les protestants s'en sont longtemps prévalus. Aujourd'hui tous les exégètes sont d'accord : les gentils, quoique n'ayant pas de Loi écrite, ont en eux-mêmes le principe de l'obligalion, cette loi naturelle que Sophocle (Antigone) et Cicéron (Pro Milone) ont exprimée d’une manière admirable. Cornely estime que μὴ ἔχοντα, μὴ ἔχοντες n'est pas synonyme de οὐχ ἔχοντα, οὐχ ἔχοντες. Le second signifierait qu'ils n'ont réellement pas de loi, le premier qu'ils sont censés u'avoir pas de loi, quand en réalité ils en ont une. Cette subtilité manque de base, car la koinè à constamment employé μή devant le participe. Réellement les gentils n'ont pas de loi codifiée à la façon de la loi de Moïse.
2:15
οἵτινες, quippe qui; Cf. 1, 25: liant à ce qui précède plus que qui. τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου, l'action commandée par la Loi pour le cas présent (Lips.), plutôt que l'essentiel de la Loi, que Paul ramène ailleurs (Gal. v, 14) à un seul point (Corn.).— γραπτὸν est prédicat. Ils prouvent donc par la rectitude de leur conduite que la solution du cas qui se présente est clairement indiquée dans leur intérieur comme si elle était écrite sur un manuscrit (cf. II Cor. mr, 1-8). Ce qui suit est très difficile. D'après les uns (Corn., Jül., Lietz.}, il n'v ἃ qu'un témoignage, celui de la conscience, et Paul explique en quoi il consist: les pensées ont comme une lutte entre elles, les unes condamnant, les autres parfois (ἢ καὶ) absolvant. L'intérèt de cette explication (Jäl.) est de montrer au Juif qu'il se livre dans l'âme du gentil un véritable débat de conscience il n'agit pas en animal qui suit simplement l'instinct. D'autres {Zips., SH, täht) font remarquer l'opposition entre αὐτῶν placé avant τῆς συνειδήσεως et μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. Il y a deux garanties de la certitude de la loi naturelle : da conscience de chacun, le verdict que les hommes portent les uns sur les autres, μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων. L'objection de Cornely que nul n’est condamné ou absous par la conscience d’un autre ne porte pas; il est certain que l'accord des hommes sur le bien et sur le mal est une preuve de la réalité de l’obligation naturelle. Mais on est étonné de l'expression λογισμοί; d'ordinairele verdict des hommes sur la conduite des hommes s'exprime extérieurement; or des λογισμοί sont plutôt des pensées. Le premier système est donc plus conforme au sens des mots; quant à la construction, elle n’est pas décisive; καί devant μεταξύ peut étre explicatif. WW. lisent cogitationum accusantium aut etiam defendentium, ce quin'est qu'un calque maladroit des génilifs grecs. Si c’est bien le texte de la Mg. hiéronymienne, il faudrait lui préférer le texte corrigé de la Vg.-Clém. Mais Jérôme n'a-t-il pas corrigé lui-même de cette façon puisqu'il lit : Znter se cogitationibus accusantibus sive defendentibus (sur Ez. xvi, M. XXV, c. 151)?
2:16
Le lien avec ce qui précède est difficile à indiquer dans les deux explications du v. précédent, mais surtout dans la seconde, car le témoignage des hommes se jugeant les uns les autres ne peut vraiment pas être transporté au jour du jugement comme le dit Lipsius; ce ne peut être qu'une preuve actuelle de l'existence d’une loi écrite. Dans le premier système, on ne voit pas comment le témoignage de la conscience qui s'associe (συνμαρτυρούσης) à celui de la raison peut être renvoyé au jour du jugement {contre Corn.). Il faut donc reconnaître que la pensée a évolué, mais l'évolution est plus naturelle du témoignage secret de la conscience et des pensées au jugement des choses secrètes que du verdict des autres — qui est censé connu extérieurement — à ce même jugement. Avant le verset 16 il faut donc supposer une petite pause; le v. 16 est la conclusion de toute la petite péricope qui commence au v. 14. L'existence de la loi naturelle prouvée, les gentils sont donc, comme les Juifs, dans les conditions normales pour être jugés. ἐν ï ἡμέρᾳ (Soden ἐν ἡμέρα ὅτε) doit s'entendre un peu comme ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ὀργῆς [V. 5}, « en vue du jour où Lire χρινεῖ (au futur) plutôt que χρίνει (Nestle, Soden). Dieu jugera « les choses secrètes ». Cela convient au juge omniscient. Si Paul le dit ici, c’est que les fautes des gentils étant commises à l'encontre d'une loi non écrite ne peuvent être convaincues de culpabilité que par qui pénètre le secret des cœurs. Aux Juifs il suffisait d'opposer le texte de la Loi, même pour une faute secrète: tu ne désireras pas; il savait done que le mauvais désir est interdit. Pour convaincre le gentil, il faudra lui opposer le témoignage de sa conscience. Je vois ici un indice que Paul ἃ surtout voulu mettre en lumière ce débatintérieur. — Sur quoi porte κατὰ τὸ εὐαγγέλιόν μου" D'après Corn. cette modalité de l'évangile de Paul c’est le jugement des choses cachées, sur lequel ül insistait volontiers (cf. 1 Cor. ur, 13; 1v, 3: νιν, 25: II Cor. v, 10]. Mais les autres apôtres ne savaient-ils pas cela? C'est donc plutôt que les gentils euxmêmes seront jugés par Jésus-Christ. Comme Paul a mis en relief leur appel à l'évangile sans l'obligation de pratiquer la Loi, il déclare aussi que vivant sans la Loi, ils n'étaient pas moins justiciables du Christ,
2:17
Il y a ici une protase qui n'a pas d'apodose. On admet que le v. 21 en tient lieu avec une anacoluthe. L'irrégularité est d'autant plus excusable que les versets 17-20 ne sont que la description du sujet qui entre ici en scène, mais dont la conduite n'est révélée qu'au v. 21. L'anacoluthe serait bien adoucie ou même disparaîtrait si l'on Jisait ‘à: au lieu de εἰ δέ, l'ield (Votes...) fait remarquer qu'un écrivain soigneux, dans le cas de l'anacoluthe, aurait dû écrire au v. 21 σὺ οὖν ὁ διδάσχων. Aujourd’hui « Juif » est censé moins flatteur qu’Israélite, mais il n’en était pas ainsi au temps de 5. Paul. Depuis 14 division des deux royaumes, Israël, comparé à Juda, avait marqué moins de fidélité. Juda avait le Temple. Ce qui restait d’Israélites s'était concentré autour de Jérusalem et du Temple restauré. Le terme de Ἰουδαῖος était donc fort honorable, quoiqu'il indiquit moins le rapport à l'ancôtre commun de tout le peuple. Depuis que les Grecs étaient entrés en contact avec les Juifs, leur nom désignait la nation (Ἴσραηλείτης seulement 9 fois dans Le N. T.) comme nation, selon la manière de voir de tout le monde, et de plus comme une race bien supérieure par son antiquité, par sa religion et sa moralité, d'après leur propre opinion. — Ἐπονομάζεσθαι signifie être surnommé dans Thuc. ct Plat., mais aussi simplement « être nommé ». On voit cependant ici que, pour le Juif, c'est un titre d'honneur. νόμῳ sans article; d'après Cornely, Lipsius, la Loi mosaïque. Ce serait le sens, si Paul ne revenait aux vv. 18 et 20 sur la Loi (avec l’art.). On peut donc penser avec SH. qu'il s'agit d'une loi en général. C'est la pensée de Josèphe (Contre Apion, 11, xv, 151) : τοῦτ᾽ ἂν εἴποιμι ποῶτον, ὅτι τῶν ἀνόμως καὶ ἀτάκτως διούντων οἱ τάξεως χαὶ νόμου χοινωνίας ἐπιθυμηταὶ γενόμενοι χαὶ πρῶτοι χατάρἔαντες εἰχότως ἂν ἡμερότητ' χαὶ φύσεως ἀρετῇ διενεγχεῖν μαρτυρηθεῖεν, Donc mème opposition entre ceux qui vivent ἀνόλως et ceux qui possèdent une loi. C’est le seul moyen de mettre un terme à l'anarchie, c'est le fondement sur lequel repose l'édifice social. Le Juif s'est toujours appuyé sur une loi qui de fait est une loi divine. Aussi ne cherche-t-il pas à la modifier (Contre Apion, II, xx, 183). Fier de sa race, de sa loi très ancienne et très durable, le Juif se glorifie (καυγᾶσαι pour 2x4) encore en Dieu qu'il est le seul à connaître et qui l’a choïsi pour son peuple par une alliance unique.
2:18
τὸ θέλημα seul indique la volonté de Dieu {F'y.-Clém. ajoute eius pour la clarté); cf. 1 Cor. xvr, 12. La suite montre que cette volonté n'est pas la Providence qui conduisit les Juifs dans l'histoire et qu'ils auraient pu connaître par les prophètes, mais la décision arrètée qui règle la situation des Juifs par la Loi. Grâce à la Loi, dans laquelle le Juif est instruit constamment parce qu'il l'entend lire et commenter (le présent χατηχούμενος, et non pas χατηχημένος comme Act. xvut, 25), il n’a pas besoin d’iuterroger la voix plus obscure de sa conscience pour savoir τὰ διαφέροντα, ce qu'il importe de faire, le bien et non le mal (cf. Phil. 1, 10) ou comme dit Euth. διακρίνεις τὰ διαφέροντα ἀλλήλων" Οἷον χαλὸν καὶ χαχόν, ἀρετὴν καὶ χαχίαν. Le texte de la Vg. probas utiliora peut être maintenu, quoique δοχιμάζεις signifie plutôt « tu discernes » que « tu approuves »; utiliora est à peu près synonyme de praestantia (Pes.}; cf. Orig. : ta ut non solum quae sint bona scias, verum etiam quac sint meliora et utiliora discernas; pseudo-Primas. Quia per naturam, licet infirmam, utilia multa probantur, per legem utiliora. Eius après voluntatem doit être rayé avec WW.
2:19
πέποιθάς τε est une conséquence de ce qui précède, comme le prouve τε, la phrase est toujours suspendue. Il eût été très légitime d'espérer que la Loi serait une lumière pour le monde, et naturellement par les Juifs, τοὺς υἱούς σου, ὃι’ ὧν ἤμελλεν τὸ ἄφθαρτον νόμου φῶς τῷ αἰῶνι δίδοσθαι (Sap. xvint, 4); aussi Paul, qui blâme le Juif, a-t-il soin de mettre l'accent sur σεαυτόν. C’est lui-même qui se donne pour un guide et une lumière. Cette présomption est réprouvée, non le soin spécial de faire des prosélytes, qui est exprimé d'une facon semblable Mt. xv, 11 τυφλοί εἰσιν ὁδηγοὶ τυφλῶν, cf. Mt. xxinr, 16. 24. Le Juif estime, non sans raison, que les païens sont privés de lumière; il entend de la nation et de chacun de ses membres ce qu'avait dit Isaïe : ἀνοῖξαι ὀφθαλμοὺς τυφλῶν (Is. xLi1, 6), εἰς φῶς ἐθνῶν (Is. xLIX, 6), sans prendre garde que ces textes devaient s'entendre d’un Serviteur unique de Dieu, et que d'ailleurs nul ne peut être un guide sûr qu'à la condition de conformer sa vie à ses principes. La Vg.(Clém. et WW., très peu de mss. ont con/idens) a écrit confidis sans le faire précéder de et, comme pour les verbes précédents, et comme il est en grec; elle a donc résolu l'anacoluthe ici par une sorte d’apodose.
2:20
Il ne faudrait pas distinguer avec trop de précision le παιδευτὴν ἀφρόνων, comme directeur d'un cours d'adultes, du διδάσκαλον νηπίων ou maître d'école pour enfants; les deux expressions sont à peu près synonymes quant au docteur; il enseigne tous ceux qui en ont besoin, ou parce qu'ils ont toujours besoin qu'on leur apprenne les choses, perpétuels enfants, ou parce qu'ils sont encore enfants. Le païen devrait toujours recourir au Juif comme à son maître, parce qu'il possède dans la Loi comme l'incarnation de la science, religieuse et morale, ct de la vérité, ce qui est encore mieux. Il ne faut donc pas entendre par hendiadyn comme Euth. τῆς ἀληθινῆς γνώσεως. — μόρφωσις dans 11 Tim. nr, 5 indique l'affectation, plutôt que la réalité. Comment l'entendre ici? car la Loi contient vraiment la connaissance et la vérité. Oui, mais l'erreur du Juif consiste à croire que, parce qu'il les possède dans la Loi, il les incarne en lui-même, ce qui ne peut ètre vrai. Peut-être Paul a-t-il choisi μόρφωσις plutôt que μορφή pour souligner l'ironie de sa formule (cf. SIL. note de Lightfoot). Les expressions de Paul sont très fortes, avec une pointe de moquerie, que les philosophes épargnaient encore moins à leurs adversaires dans la diatribè. Sans doute les Juifs n’ont jamais émis ces prétentions d'une façon aussi crue, mais elles étaient certainement dans leur pensée. Ils reconnaissaient avec peine la supériorité des Grecs dans les lettres, des Romains dans le droit, et ils ne manquaient pas de prouver, comme Josèphe à Apion, qu'en somme leur Loi était plus sage que toutes les autres. Lorsque Philon dit que le sage est un roi, ou plutôt le prince des princes, et le roi des rois, qui paraît au sommet d'une ville, qui est la tête du genre humain, il raisonne d'après les formules stoïciennes, mais sa pensée va au Juif et aux Juifs (ef. Le Messianisme... p. 32 s.). On peut citer IV Esd. : numquid meliora facit Babilon quam Sion? Aut alia gens cognovit te praeter Israel? lin, 311. Et si propter nos creatum est saeculum, quare non haereditatem possidemus nostrum saeculum (νι, 59). Israël est nécessaire au monde, et un peu à Dieu aut quomodo dicetur de laudibus tuis? aut cuinam explicabitur quod est in lese tua? Anne mundus revertetur ad naturam suam, et seculum redibit ad silentium pristinum ? (Apoc. Baruch, im, 6 s.). Les Juifs n'étaient pas d’ailleurs à cette époque les seuls prédicateurs de morale qui se donnaient la mission d'éclairer le monde. Le cynique, d’après Épictète (III. 22, 231, est un messager de Zeus envoyé aux hommes pour leur dire qu'ils sont égarés; il les traite d’aveugles : ὡς τυφλοὶ ἄνω χαὶ κάτω χυλίεσῆε" ἄλλην ὁδὸν ἀπέργεσθε... (III, 22, 26). Dion Chrysostome croyait avoir une semblable mission (Or. XXXII, p. 404 et p. 407 Teubner).
2:21
ΠῚ y avait incontestablement quelque chose de juste dans l’idée que le Juif était la voix qui parlait de Dieu au monde. Mais Paul veut prouver que lui aussi ἃ besoin de la grâce de Jésus-Christ. À quoi sert ce prédicateur de vertu qui ne la pratique pas ? C'est à la pratique qu'échouaient ordinairement tous ces docteurs de morale; le philosophe lui aussi pratiquait-il les vertus qu'il préchait? Le Juif ne se fait donc guère la leçon à lui-même, puisqu'il n a pas l'air de savoir ce qu'il faut éviter! — κηρύσσων, proclamant bien haut, en s'adressant au public {Lpicr. : xnpaser … πρὸς πάντας, I, 29, 64), presque précher. Le vol et l’adultère sont prohibés par le Décalogue. Paul les choisit probablement comme des fautes universellement réprouvées, d'autant plus étonnantes pour un homme qui discerne et qui devrait pratiquer τὰ διαφέροντα. Rien n'empêcherait de mettre dans la Vg. les points d'interrogation admis par 1.5 éditeurs du grec. Ils sont dans WW. ed. minor pour ce verset et le suivant. 22, Après l’adultère, le crime de ἱεροσυλεῖν, « piller les temples ». On n'eût pas toléré cela de la part des Juifs, et, entrepris par eux, le pillage d'un temple pouvait du moins se colorer du prétexte spécieux de religion. Mais dans les dernières guerres civiles ou les campagnes en Asie, il y eut sans doute plus d'un pillage à main armée. Les Juifs y participaient, surtout comme receleurs.— ἱεροσυλία s'entendait aussi d'un vol sacrilège. Les fouilles d'Égypte ont prouvé qu'on volait beaucoup les tombeaux dans l'antiquité, et sans doute aussi les temples. Les voleurs ne trouvaient pas facilement à écouler leurs larcins parmi les païens qui pouvaient avoir des scrupules et les dénoncer. Les Juifs devaient regarder ces vols avec une certaine satisfaction et se prêter au recel. C’est sans doute parce qu'ils en étaient soupconnés que Josèphe ἃ tourné le précepte de Dt. vu, 26 dans le sens d'une prohibition formelle de manquer de respect aux dieux étrangers et de voler les temples : Βλασφημείτω δὲ μηδεὶς θεοὺς οὺς πόλεις ἄλλαι νομίζουσι" urôè συλᾶν ἱερὰ ξενικά, (Ant. IN, vur, 10 [207]). Le γραμματεύς d'Éphèse (Act. χιχ, 87) éprouve le besoin de dire que les Juifs incriminés par la foule ne sont ni ἱερόσυλοι ni βλασφημοῦντες (S/7.). Paul reproche à son Juif d'être inconséquent avec ses principes : il a les idoles en abomination et affecte d'éviter leur contact (Traité ‘Aboda Zara, dans les Talmuds), mais quand il s’agit de son petit profit, il n'est plus si dégoûté. D'ailleurs les principes de la Loi étaient clairement applicables à ce cas : τὰ γλυπτὰ τῶν θεῶν αὐτῶν χαύσετε … οὖχ ἐπιθυμήσεις ἀργύριον χαὶ γρυσίον ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν … καὶ οὐχ εἰσοίσεις βδέλυγμα εἰς τὸν οἶκόν σου (Dt. vir, 25 5.). sacrilegium facis de Vg. est trop vague. 1 va sans dire que Paul ne parle que des faits. Il ne prétend pas que le Judaïsme officiel se soit post une règle de l'hypocrisie. Les rabbins eux aussi ont condamné avec énergie ceux dont l'intérieur ne répondait pas à l'extérieur, 122 T24n FN. Mais dans l'ensemble les Juifs n'étaient pas assez pénétrés du sentiment de leurs fautes, et trop portés à se juger supérieurs aux païens. Et cependant en réalilé, parce qu'ils abusaient des dons de Dieu, ils valaient encore moins qu'eux.
2:23
Ce verset n'est plus une question (avec Cornely, Lipsius, SH., etc. contre Vestle, Soden, WW.), car le parallélisme cesse ici; ὃ avec le partic. est remplacé par ὅς avec la 2° pers. du temps défini. C'est bien plutôt la conclusion de tout ce qui précède. Par la contradiction qui éclate entre ses principes Οἱ 565 œuvres, le Juif déshonore la Loi dont il est si fier, et même Dieu dont il se donne volontiers comme le représentant. Les Juifs”savaient très bien que tout crime reproché à un Juif était aussi reproché à sa religion. Solidarisés avec elle, les gens vertueux agissaient bien pour « sanctifier » le nom du Dieu d'Israël, les autres prenaient soin de cacher leurs fautes pour éviter qu'il fût « profané » (Le Messianisme.… p.115. Mais ces fautes ne pouvaient toujours demeurer ignorées.
2:24
La pensée du v. 23 est appuyée sur un texte d'Isaïe qui la rend bien, si l'on s'en tient au texte des LAXX, sans s'attacher au contexte prochain dt ὑμᾶς διὰ παντὸς τὸ ὄνομά nov βλασφημεῖται ἐν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν... (fs. Lu, 5). La même pensée dans Ézéchiel {xxxvr, 20). Les Juifs vaincus, le vainqueur associait leur Dieu à leur déshonneur, et l’outrageaient à cause de leur défaite. Dieu est irrité de cette conduite des nations et s’en vengera en restaurant Israël. Paul ne prétend pas faire l'exégèse précise du passage, mais ciler une expression très forte qui va bien à son sujet. Cela n'avait rien d’étrange, car les Juifs admettaient sans hésiter la valeur absolue des textes et s'en servaient couramment de la sorte dans leurs argumentations. Paul ἃ omis διὰ παντός, qui eût pu paraître exagéré dans l'application qu'il donne au texte. δι᾽ ὑμᾶς, qui dans les LXX signifiait simplement « à cause des circonstances où vous êtes mélés », signifie ici « par suite de votre conduite ». Il est vrai que Cornely trouve encore une faute éloignée des Juifs dans Isaïe; s'ils n'avaient été infidèles, ils n'auraient pas été vaincus. Mais Paul ne raisonne pas ici avec cette subtilité. D'après SH., le mot καθὼς γέγραπται est renvoyé à la fin pour suggérer que la citation est libre. La parenthèse de la Vg.-Clém. est rayée par WW. Elle n'a guère de raison d'être. Per vos {WW. et Clém.) est absolument à remplacer par propter vos.
2:25
γάρ lie cette péricope à ce qui précède, probablement parce que la circoncision elle-même est un commandement de la Loi. Le Juif pouvait alléguer qu'il y avait du moins dans la Loi un point qu'il accomplissait toujours et qui lui conférait des privilèges indélébiles, la circoncision. Le circoncis en ellet ne pouvait descendre dans la Géhenne à moins qu'il n'ait pratiqué l'opération que Paul nomme ἐπισπᾶν (1 Cor. vu, 18) pour la rétracter autant que possible (Ὁ. ‘Zrubin, 19). D'autres admettaient pourtant que les grands criminels juifs étaient condamnés à la Géhenne; mais alors l'opération était pratiquée préalablement par Abraham ou par Dieu lui-même (Weber, p. 266; #42). Aucun rabbin, semble-t-il, ne fut assez pénétré de l'importance de la loi morale en elle-même pour tenir le langage que tient ici s. Paul. — Il reconnaît d’ailleurs l'avantage de la circoncision qui faisait de chaque enfant un membre du peuple de Dieu; mais elle l'engageait aussi à pratiquer la Loi. S'il la transgressaji, il n’était plus fils de l'alliance, il était redevenu païen. Évidemment Paul ne raisonne pas avec un judéo-chrétien des avantages ou des inconvénients de la circoncision. Son Juif est même moins une personne concrète qu'un type; c'est le judaïsme lui-même qui est sur la sellette. La ΓΚ. n’a pas traduit γάρ; lire nam circumcisio quidem, etc.
2:26
La seconde proposition est encore plus hardie. Les Rabbins enseignaient qu'un Juif coupable pourrait être condamné à la Géhenne, mais ils n’eussent pas concédé qu'un païen pouvait être sauvé en pratiquant la loi naturelle. Aussi Paul exprime-t-il cette opinion si nouvelle par une interrogation. Néanmoins la réponse est évidemment aflirmative. Ἐάν avec le subj. peut indiquer un fait réalisé, maïs plus naturellement une hypothèse, et c'est bien le cas ici; la question est théorique. Les δικαιώματα τοῦ νόμου contenaient en première ligne le culte d'un seul Dieu. Paul nous a dit que le païen pouvait le connaître; en lui rendant son hommage, il cessait d’être païen. On lui en tiendra compte, c'est-à-dire Dieu, au jour du jugement. La phrase n’est pas très correcte; αὐτοῦ après ἀχροδυστία prouve que ce mot est pris la seconde fois dans son sens naturel, tandis que le premier ἀχροδυστία était pour « celui qui a le prépuce
2:27
καί marque la conséquence; ce n'est pas une nouvelle interrogation, c'est une réponse à cette interrogation, qui pousse les choses plus loin. Non seulement on tiendra compte au gentil de ses œuvres, mais encore il jugera le Juif transgresseur. À la lettre c'est toujours une comparaison entre la circoncision et le prépuce. — ἐκ φύσεως ἃ étonné, puisque le prépuce est naturel à tous; on a donc joint ces mots à τελοῦσα, comme s'il y avait φύσει, cf. π, 14. Mais il faut au contraire les joindre à ἀκροδυστία puisque l'article à 165 précède. Garder le prépuce, c'est se conformer à la nature. Ceux-là, en observant la Loi, la conduisent à son terme (τελοῦσα), réalisent son but. — διά « au travers de », c'est-à-dire au milieu de telles circonstances, comme 1v, 11. 1] suffisait de dire qu'au jour du jugement l’un serait reconnu juste, l’autre condamné, d'autant que le judaïsme a toujours eu grand soin de réserver le jugement à Dieu. Il est donc assez probable que Paul est ici l'écho de Jésus (cf. Mt. χα, 41); les gens de Ninive condamneront (καταχρινοῦσιν) cette génération; χρινεῖ doit avoir ici le sens de condamner. C'est une réponse au v. 1, χρίνων, 2pivste, celui qui juge (pour condamner), sera jugé. Déjà Jésus avait dit : ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίματι χρίνετε χριθήσεσθε (Mt. vu, 1). Dans la Vg. supprimer id avec W\\. et l'interrogation à la fin. Per doit être interprété in statu litterae etc.
2:28
Ἰουδαῖος est attribut, comme ensuite περιτομή, sous-entendu ἔστι que la Vg.-Clém. a exprimé (WW om.).
2:29
Après Ἰουδαῖος, sous-entendre ἰουδαῖός ἐστι, οἱ de même après καρδίας, sous-entendre περιτομή ἐστι. Le vrai Juif est celui qui ἃ intérieurement les vertus que suppose sa foi religieuse; la vraie circoncision est celle du cœur; l'opposition était déjà marquée entre la circoncision de la chair et celle du cœur par Jérémie {ix, 26) : τὰ ἔθνη ἀπερίτμητα σαρχί, καὶ πᾶς οἶχος Ἰσραὴλ ἀπερίτμητοι καρδίας αὐτῶν. La circoncision était regardée comme le retranchement d’une impureté naturelle, et rendait apte à faire partie du peuple de Dieu. Un cœur incirconcis est donc un cœur souillé. Au contraire la circoncision du cœur purifie l'âme; c'est une circoncision de l’ordre de l'esprit (ἐν πνεύματι, Thom. : per spiritum facta), non plus l'accomplissement d'une formalité légale écrite (οὐ γράμματῃ. L'Apôtre explique donc simplement ce qu'il faut entendre par la circoncision du cœur; il ne fait pas allusion à l'action de FEsprit-Saint (contre Corn.|; car où serait l'opposition entre l’Esprit-Saint et la lettre? où se rapporte au Juif qui est en tête de la phrase les deux fois (v. 36 et 29). Manifestum est enim, dit 8. Thomas, quod in omnibus judicium divinum pracferendum est humano. Ea vero quae erterius apparent, sive sit Iudaismus, sive circumcisio, laudantur ab hominibus; sed ea quae sunt in abscondito, laudantur secundum judicium divinum : quia ut dicitur 1 Reg. xv. homines vident quae apparent, Deus autem intuetur cor. Unde relinquitur quod inierior Iudaismus et circumcisio pracvalet exteriori. Peut-être Paul a-t-il choisi 16 mot ἔπαινος « louange », à cause du sens étymologique du nom du patriarche Juda (Iehouda, louange). Par ce principe incontestable que Dieu n'estime que la vertu véritable, celle de l'intérieur, du cœur et de l'esprit, Paul préparait sa théorie du véritable Israël donnant aux chrétiens qualité pour revendiquer dans le sens spirituel tous les privilèges attribués à Israël par l'A. T. Au reste la maxime de Paul ἃ fini par trouver place dans la littérature juive. L'auteur du Nissakhôn (de 1399) a écrit : « celui dont la foi n’est pas droite, sa circoncision n'en fait pas un juif, et celui dont la foi est droite, celui-là est Juii. quoiqu'il ne soit pas circoncis » (Pugio fidei, fol. 140). Dans la Vg.-Clém., est après Zudaeus, introduit pour la clarté, n’est pas ΝΌΤΕ 508 LE SALUT DES GENTILS. — La thèse de Paul dans ce deuxième chapitre était certainement de nature à froisser le judaïsme ofliciel. Non qu’il ait déjà dit ouvertement que, depuis Jésus-Christ, la Loi ne servait plus de rien. Il n'en est encore qu'à comparer la situation des gentils à celle des Juifs. Et il ne préfère pas non plus aux Juifs les gentils auxquels il a si fortement reproché de n’avoir pas voulu rendre à Dieu le culte qui lui était du. Il ne dit même pas, comme Chrysostome l'a remarqué finement, qu'un bon gentil est supérieur à un bon Juif. Il dit seulement qu'un bon gentil est supérieur à un mauvais Juif, et c’est même lui qui est le véritable Juif, celui qui plaît à Dieu. Les bons Juifs valent mieux que les bons gentils, mais les mauvais Juifs sont encore plus coupables que les mauvais gentils, et les bons gentils jugeront les mauvais Juifs, parce que le jugement sera rendu selon les œuvres de la loi morale. Mais saint Paul ne dit pas pour autant que ce bon gentil est un sentil idolâtre, et il est quelque peu étrange que Cornely ait prêté cette opinion à Chrysostome (p. 151). Ce saint docteur dit au contraire expressément : « il parle d'un gentil qui ne soit pas idolâtre, mais craignant Dieu et vertueux et (cependant) affranchi des observances légales » ( P. G. LX, 437). Et cela paraît être en parfaite harmonie avec ce qui précède. La masse des gentils était tombée dans le péché et le vice parce qu'elle avait refusé de reconnaître le vrai Dieu que lui révélait la nature; le gentil observateur de la loi morale révélée à sa conscience par la nature devait être aussi un adorateur du vrai Dieu. Cette adoration était mème le principe de sa vie morale. Et en fait Paul devait avoir entendu parler de cette catégorie de gentils qui se rapprochaient du judaïsme par la confession d’un Dieu unique, sans franchir le pas de la cireoncision (cf. Le Messianisme... p. 275 ss.). Même entendue ainsi, en supposant un gentil qui avait reconnu l'unité de Dieu, et même rendu hommage au Dieu d'Israël, la thèse de Paul était trop libérale pour les Juifs. Il serait aisé de citer les textes qui prouvent que le salut était regardé comme impossible sans la circoncision. Pour être tout à fait exact, il faut ajouter que les exigences ont été croissant, à mesure que le judaïsme a senti la nécessité de fortifier sa barrière et de poser plus crûment son dilemme : ou circoncis, ou damné. Au temps de saint Paul on eût pu rencontrer tel juif disant que le principal était d'honorer Dieu. Il est vrai que c'était dans un cas de nécessité et par politique (Jos. Ant. XX, 11, 4; cf. Le Messianisme.…. p. 280 ss.). De sorte que c'est sûrement d’après ses lumières comme chrétien, et probablement en suivant l'enseignement de son Maître (ef. sur πα, 27), que Paul s’est élevé à cette hauteur morale. D'ailleurs il n’a parlé ici que de la règle objective de la morale, écrite ou non écrite, sans faire entrer en ligne explicitement les principes subjectifs de l’action, la volonté et la grâce, la grâce étant d'ailleurs supposée par l'action divine conduisant à la pénitence {1r, 4), et le libre arbitre sauvegardé par la responsabilité, condition des châtiments et des récompenses. La doctrine était assez claire, et profondément pénétrée «le cette idée que la religion positive doit aboutir aux œuvres, faute de quoi elle n’est qu'un scandale pour ceux du dehors, et un motif en plus de condamnation pour ceux qui oseraient se réclamer d'elle. Les anciens Pères latins l'avaient entendu ainsi, et les Pères grecs ne l'ont jamais mais désireux de prévenir et de rendre ineflicaces les objections pélawiennes, il allirma que Paul, parlant des wentils, avail en vue les gentils convertis au christianisme : /deo dicuntur sine Lege naturaliter ea quae Legis sunt facere, quiu ex gentibus venerunt ad Fvangelium, non ex circumecisione, cui Lex data est, et propterea nuturaliter, quia ut crederent, ipsa in eis est per Dei gratiam correcta natura (C. Julian. IV, ur, 25). Gràce à l'autorité d'Augustin, ce contresens acquit droit de cité dans l'exégèse latine, et exercça une influence très fâcheuse au temps de Luther et ensuite de Baïus. Il est définitivement exclu de l’exégèse catholique, et les protestants ont été les premiers à y renoncer.
2:2
… Polycarp in the Church of Smyrna (Ad Polyc., prologue); the bishop of Philadelphia is mentioned (Philadel. 11, "quem episcopum cognovi"), though his name is passed over in silence; Ignatius himself presents himself as the sole bishop of Antioch (Rom. 2, 2, 9, 1), and indeed holds that in every part of the world, wherever a Church has been founded, there is a bishop (Eph. 3, 2; v. ORDINE E ORDINAZIONE). …
2:3
… This is the most frequent sense in the New Testament: "This man (the publican) went back justified to his house" (Lk. 18:14 and above all Rom. 2:3; 3:24, 26, 28 and Gal. 3:8, 24: "Ex fide iustificat gentes Deus"; "Lex paedagogus fuit in Christo ut ex fide iustificemur"). …
2:4
The name C., which characterized the faith of Jesus' disciples, was misunderstood by the pagans who, with itacism contributing to this, took it to mean χρηστός "good," "kindly," an adjective not rare in the New Testament (Mt. 11:5; Lk. 5:39; Rom. 2:4; Eph. 4:32; etc.). …
… In Sacred Scripture the term is used to signify the great patience of the Lord in bearing offenses, of which one must not take advantage, as St. Paul suggests (Rom. 2:4), admonishing the sinner not to despise the riches of the patience and longanimity of God. As defects contrary to longanimity one must note the same as those of patience, namely, by …
2:6
All the angels will be judged (I Cor. 6, 3; II Pt. 2, 4; Jude 6) and all men (Mt. 25, 32; Rom. 14, 10; II Cor. 5, 10; Rev. 1, 7) concerning their thoughts (I Cor. 4, 5), their words (Mt. 12, 36), their deeds (Rom. 2, 6) and their omissions (Jas. 4, 17; Eccles. 12, 14).
… 6:8). "Each will receive his wages according to his own labor" (1 Cor. 3:8) and "from the Lord the recompense of the inheritance" (Col. 3:23) "on the day of the Revelation of the just judgment of God, who will render to each according to his works" (Rom. 2:6-7). The justified are like athletes competing in a race: "Run in such a way as to make the prize your own, which will be an incorruptible crown" (1 Cor. 9:24-25): "I have fought the …
2:7
… etc.), with a new moral legislation (Matt. 5-6); it requires a spiritual rebirth (John 3:3-8; Rom. 6, etc.; cf. Médebielle, coll. 517-25; Bonsirven, pp. 213-306). It is the same "eternal life," here below the life of Grace, the life of glory in heaven (Rom. 2:7-10; 5:2 ff., 17; 6:4, 22 f., etc.; cf. J.-M. …
… St. Paul several times enumerates the sins that exclude from the kingdom of God (Rom. 2, 7-9; I Cor. 6, 9-10; Gal. 5, 19-21; Eph. 5, 5) and recalls to the Thessalonians' minds the otherworldly justice, by which the persecuted will find consolation and the persecutors …
… The wicked are on the road to it (Ps. 9:18; 30:18; 54:16), as are the shameless woman and her accomplices (Prov. 2:18; 7:27); there are heaped up those who forget God, sinners (ibid. 9:18; 21:16), despisers of the Law (Eccl. 41:11). It appears ever more as the "wages" of sin (cf. Rom. 2:7; 5:12, 21; 6:23), in opposition to the "life" reserved for the good (Prov. 3:18; 8:35; 9:6; 12:2; 16:21); to the f. that is below is opposed "the way of life" that leads on high …
2:9
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).
… Graecus) is equivalent in the New Testament to "pagan" (John 7:35; Acts 11:19; 14:1; 18:4; Rom. 1:14, 16; 2:9 ff.; 3:9; Gal. 3:28) as opposed to Ἰουδαῖος; οἱ Ἕλληνες is equivalent to τὰ ἔθνη (cf. Acts 13:47), with explicit reference to the Greco-Roman cultural world. …
… Thus it often indicates life itself, sometimes the living being (Mk. 3, 4; Rom. 2, 9; etc.) and even seems simply to replace the reflexive pronoun (Mt. 10, 39; cf. Lk. 9, 24-25; etc.).
2:11
… It is therefore defined as: «Iniustitia qua praefertur persona personae propter causam indebitam» (Van Espen, Ius ecclesiasticum, p. 11, th. 31, c. 1, n. 1). The origin of the expression is biblical (Rom. 2:11; Col. 3:25). The Septuagint, translating the Hebrew ndia "intueri faciem," renders it with the Greek word προσωποληψία, "acceptio personae."
2:12
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.). …
2:13
… communicated through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3:19; cf. Hebr. 2:3), whence it is the chief boast of Israel (Rom. 9:4), led by it, as by a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3:24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ (Col. 2:16), in whom it has found its own fulfillment (τέλος; Rom. 10:4). On the other hand, the L. is accused …
2:14
Augustine of Hippo, Saint, Bishop of Hippo
… Dei, V, 12). Moreover, it is particularly to be noted that with the Pelagians the question was of the complete and total virtue that constitutes the just man: A. concedes that grace is not necessary for some good act and allows that St. Paul's saying (Rom. 2, 14) that the Gentiles observe naturally the precepts of the law be understood in this sense (although he prefers another) (De spiritu et littera, 28, n. 48).
… Nevertheless he vindicates the binding force of the natural law and of the dictate of conscience (ibid. 2, 14, 15). Finally in the letters lists of long moral recommendations are not rare (cf. I Thess. 5, 14, 19-22; Rom. 12, 8-15). In general, however, P. insists much more on the positive …
2:16
… Then he will say also to those at his left: depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels..." (Mt. 25, 31-46; cf. Mk. 13, 26-27; Lk. 21, 27). The Apostles echoed the Master's teaching (Acts 10, 42; 17, 31; 24, 25; Rom. 2, 16; 14, 10; I Cor. 3, 4; 4, 5; II Cor. 5, 10; II Tim. 4, 15; II Thess. 2, 5; II Pt. 2, 9; Jude 15; Rev. 20, 12).
… Speaking of the afterlife, P. dwells on the final resurrection, which had its meritorious and formal cause in that of Christ, head of the Mystical Body (Rom. 4:25; 1 Cor. 15:12-58). The Universal Judgment follows (cf. 2 Cor. 5:10; Rom. 2:16; 2 Tim. 4:1). The fate of sinners is barely touched upon (cf. 2 Thess. 1:5 ff.) by P., who dwells so much on the happiness of the just. …
… In fact the oral catechesis, however much attested by the sources in different types (Paul spoke of his «ways»: I Cor. 4, 17; of his «gospel» and «type of doctrine»: Rom. 2, 16; 6, 17), was not bound to be so stereotyped as to preserve unaltered in secondary matters certain expressions, and to allow itself so many liberties in certain others, where a closer …
2:18
… τὴν ὁδὸν τοῦ Κυρίου (Acts 18:25); by St. Paul, who speaks in the assembly (ἐκκλησία) in order to instruct (ἵνα κατηχήσω, I Cor. 14:19) and wills that he who is instructed (ὁ κατηχοῦμενος) communicate with him who catechizes (τῷ κατηχοῦντι, Gal. 6:6); Rom. 2:18 means religious instruction in general. …
2:27
… Therefore one must know nothing, not even Christ, according to the flesh (II Cor. 5:16; J. Dupont [v. bibl.], pp. 180-86). The "letter-spirit" antinomy (Rom. 2:27-29; 7:6; II Cor. 3:6, 7, 17) is transposed to worship "in spirit" as opposed to external Jewish worship (Io. 4:24).
2:29
… The New Testament, whose characteristic task is the spiritualization of worship (John 4:23; Acts 7:48; Rom. 2:29), transposes the Mosaic cultic institutions into the messianic-celestial sphere. …
… concupitum aliquid contra legem aeternam (St. Augustine, Contra Faustum, 20, 27: PL 42, 418). This is indeed the aspect of sin most frequently recalled in Revelation (cf. Gen. 39, 9; 13, 13; 38, 10; Ex. 33, 23; Jud. 10, 7; 19, 25; Rom. 5, 19; 2, 29; 4, 16; etc.). …
… and spirit is also described by Gal. 5:16-17 ("the flesh has desires opposed to those of the spirit," and vice versa); 6:8. With the flesh are connected the Mosaic law with the "letter that kills" (II Cor. 3:6), Judaism and its external circumcision (Rom. 2:29; Gal. 4:20), sin, death; with the spirit, faith in Christ, holiness, life. …
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.