Abraham was not justified by works done, as of himself, but by grace and by faith. And that before he was circumcised. Gentiles, by faith, are his children.
That Abraham vvas not iustified by his ovvne povver, but by Gods grace, in vvhom he beleeued (6 vvhich is a vvay for the sinner also to come to iustice.) 9 And that, seing he vvas not as then circumcised, not only the circumcised lovv, but also the vncircumcised Gentil may by beleeuing the Christian faith, come to iustice, as Abraham did: 〈◊〉 specially considering also, that Abraham vvas promised to be Father of the vvhole vvorld, and not only of the Ievves, to vvhom onely the Lavv vvas giuen: and that, not to fulfil the promise, but for an other cause.
1What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh?Che di cui noi adunque, che abbia secondo la carne guadagnata Abramo, padre nostro?VVHAT shal vve say then that Abraham did finde, our father according to the flesh?Quid ergo dicemus invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundum carnem ? 2For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.Dappoiché, se Abramo è stato giustificato per mezzo delle opere, egli ha, onde gloriarsi, ma non appresso a Dio.For if Abraham vvere iustified by vvorkes: he hath glorie, but not vvith God.Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum. 3For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God: and it was reputed to him unto justice.Imperocché cosa dice la Scrittura? Abramo credette a Dio: e fugli imputato a giustizia.For vvhat saieth the Scripture? Abraham beleeued God, and it vvas reputed him to iustice.Quid enim dicit Scriptura ? Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatam est illi ad justitiam. 4Now to him that worketh, the reward is not reckoned according to grace but according to debt.Or a colui, che opera, la ricompensa non è imputata per grazia, ma pei debito.But to him that vvorketh, the revvard is not imputed according to grace, but according to dette.Ei autem qui operatur, merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. 5But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose of the grace of God.A chi poi non fa le opere, ma crede in colui, che giustifica l'empio, gli è imputata la fede a giustizia secondo il proponimento della grazia di Dio.But to him that vvorketh not, yet beleeueth in him that iustifieth the impious, his faith is reputed to iustice according to the purpose of the grace of God.Ei vero qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui justificat impium, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam secundum propositum gratiæ Dei. 6As David also termeth the blessedness of a man to whom God reputeth justice without works:Conforme anche Davidde chiama beato l'uomo, cui Dio imputa la giustizia senza le opere:As Dauid also termeth the blessednes of a man, to vvhom God reputeth iustice vvithout vvorkes,Sicut et David dicit beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus: 7Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven: and whose sins are covered.Beati coloro, a' quali sono state rimesse le iniquità, e i peccati, de' quali sono stati ricoperti.Blessed are they, vvhose iniquities be forgiuen, and vvhose sinnes be couered.Beati, quorum remissæ sunt iniquitates, / et quorum tecta sunt peccata.
8Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.Beato l'uomo, cui Dio non imputò delitto.Blessed is the man to vvhom our Lord hath not imputed sinne.Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum. 9This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice.Questa beatitudine adunque è ella solamente pe' circoncisi, ovvero anche per gli incirconcisi? Imperocché noi diciamo, che fu ad Abramo imputata a giustizia la fede.This blessednes then doth it abide in the circumcision, or in the prepuce also? For vve say that vnto Abraham faith vvas reputed to iustice.Beatitudo ergo hæc in circumcisione tantum manet, an etiam in præputio ? Dicimus enim quia reputata est Abrahæ fides ad justitiam. 10How then was it reputed? When he was in circumcision or in uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.Come adunque fu ella imputata? Dopo la circoncisione, o prima della circoncisione? Non dopo la circoncisione, ma prima di essa.Hovv vvas it reputed? in circumcision, or in prepuce? Not in circumcision, but in prepuce.Quomodo ergo reputata est ? in circumcisione, an in præputio ? Non in circumcisione, sed in præputio. 11And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the justice of the faith which he had, being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, being uncircumcised: that unto them also it may be reputed to justice:Ed egli ricevette il segnacolo della circoncisione, sigillo della giustizia ricevuta per la fede, prima della circoncisione: onde divenisse padre di tutti i credenti incirconcisi, affinchè sia ad essi pure imputata a giustizia (la fede):And he receiued the signe of circumcision, a seale of the iustice of faith that is in prepuce: that he might be the father of al that beleeue by the prepuce, that vnto them also it may be reputed to iustice:Et signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum justitiæ fidei, quæ est in præputio: ut sit pater omnium credentium per præputium, ut reputetur et illis ad justitiam: 12And he might be the father of circumcision; not to them only that are of the circumcision, but to them also that follow the steps of the faith that is in the uncircumcision of our father Abraham.E padre sia dei circoncisi, di quegli, i quali non solamente hanno la circoncisione, ma di più seguono le vestigia della fede, che fu in Abramo padre nostro non ancor circonciso.and might be father of circumcision, not to them only that are of the circumcision, but to them also that folovv the steppes of the faith that is in the prepuce of our father Abraham.et sit pater circumcisionis non iis tantum, qui sunt ex circumcisione, sed et iis qui sectantur vestigia fidei, quæ est in præputio patris nostri Abrahæ.
13For not through the law was the promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be heir of the world: but through the justice of faith.Imperocché non in virtù della legge fu promesso ad Abramo, ed al seme di lui, che sarebbe crede dell'universo, ma in virtù della giustizia della fede.For not by the Lavv vvas the promisse to Abraham, or to his seede, that he should be heire of the vvorld: but by the iustice of faith.Non enim per legem promissio Abrahæ, aut semini ejus ut hæres esset mundi: sed per justitiam fidei. 14For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void: the promise is made of no effect.Imperocché se gli eredi son quelli, che vengono dalla legge, fu inutile la fede, è abolita la promessa.For if they that are of the Lavv, be heires: faith is made voide, the promisse is abolished.Si enim qui ex lege, hæredes sunt: exinanita est fides, abolita est promissio. 15For the law worketh wrath. For where there is no law, neither is there transgression.Conciossiachè la legge produce l'ira. Attesoché dove non è legge, non è prevaricazione.For the Lavv vvorketh vvrath. For vvhere is no lavv, neither is there preuarication.Lex enim iram operatur. Ubi enim non est lex, nec prævaricatio. 16Therefore is it of faith, that according to grace the promise might be firm to all the seed: not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,E però dalla fede è la promessa, affinchè (questa) sia gratuita, e stabile per tutta la discendenza, non per quella solamente, che è dalla legge, ma per quella ancora, che è dalla fede di Abramo, il quale è padre di tutti noi.Therfore of faith: that according to grace the promisse may be firme to al the seede, not to that only vvhich is of the Lavv, but to that also vvhich is of the faith of Abraham, vvho is the father of vs al, (as it is vvritten:Ideo ex fide, ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini, non ei qui ex lege est solum, sed et ei qui ex fide est Abrahæ, qui pater est omnium nostrum 17(As it is written: I have made thee a father of many nations), before God, whom he believed: who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things that are not, as those that are.(Come sta scritto: ti ho stabilito padre di molte genti) a somiglianza di Dio, cui credette, il quale da vita a' morti e chiama le cose, che non sono, come quelle, che sono:For, a father of many nations haue I appointed thee) before God, vvhom thou didst beleeue', vvho quickeneth the dead: and calleth those things that are not, as those things that are.(sicut scriptum est: Quia patrem multarum gentium posui te) ante Deum, cui credidit, qui vivificat mortuos, et vocat ea quæ non sunt, tamquam ea quæ sunt:
18Who against hope believed in hope; that he might be made the father of many nations, according to that which was said to him: So shall thy seed be.Il quale contro speranza credette alla speranza di divenir padre di molte nazioni secondo quello, che a lui fu detto: così sarà la tua discendenza.Vvho contrarie to hope beleeued in hope: that he might be made the father of many nations, according to that vvhich vvas said to him: So shal thy seede be, as the starres of heauen, and the sand of the sea.qui contra spem in spem credidit, ut fieret pater multarum gentium secundum quod dictum est ei: Sic erit semen tuum. 19And he was not weak in faith. Neither did he consider his own body, now dead (whereas he was almost an hundred years old), nor the dead womb of Sara.E senza vacillar nella fede non considerò né il suo corpo snervato, essendo egli di circa cento anni, né l'utero di Sara già senza vita.And he vvas not vveakened in faith: neither did he cōsider his ovvne body novv quite dead, vvhereas he vvas almost an hundred yeres old, and the dead matrice of Sara.Et non infirmatus est fide, nec consideravit corpus suum emortuum, cum jam fere centum esset annorum, et emortuam vulvam Saræ. 20In the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust: but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God:Né per diffidenza esitò sopra la promessa di Dio, ma robusta ebbe la fede, dando gloria a Dio:In the promisse also of God he staggered not by distrust: but vvas strengthened in faith, giuing glorie to God:In repromissione etiam Dei non hæsitavit diffidentia, sed confortatus est fide, dans gloriam Deo: 21Most fully knowing that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform.Pienissimamente persuaso, che, qualunque cosa abbia promesso, egli è potente ancora per farla.most fully knovving that vvhatsoeuer he promised, he is able also to doe.plenissime sciens, quia quæcumque promisit, potens est et facere. 22And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice.Per lo che eziandio fugli imputato (ciò) a giustizia.Therfore vvas it also reputed him to iustice.Ideo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. 23Now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice,Or non per lui solo fu scritto, che fugli imputato a giustizia:And it is not vvritten only for him, that it vvas reputed him to iustice:Non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum quia reputatum est illi ad justitiam: 24But also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead,Ma anche per noi, ai quali sarà imputato il credere in colui, che risuscitò da morte Gesù Cristo nostro Signore;but also for vs, to vvhom it shal be reputed beleeuing in him, that raised vp IESVS CHRIST our Lord from the dead,sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis, 25Who was delivered up for our sins and rose again for our justification.Il qual fu dato a morte per i nostri peccati, e risuscitò per nostra giustificazione.vvho vvas deliuered vp for our sinnes, and rose againe for our iustification.qui traditus est propter delicta nostra, et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram.
4:1
The apostle proves what he had advanced in the last chapter, that the Jews cannot be justified by the works of the written law, nor by any works, unless joined with faith in the Messias, their Redeemer. This he shews by the example of Abraham, who is said to have been justified by believing; 2. and this was before he was circumcised; 3. and long before the law of Moses. Justification was then given without the works of that law.
Witham
What advantage shall we say, then, that Abraham hath found, who is our father according to the flesh? This seems the true construction and sense: rather than what did he find according to the flesh, as some expound it. (Witham)
4:2
Witham
If Abraham were justified by works, or by his own works, he might have glory, and be commended by men, who judge only according to outward appearances; but not with God: that is, he could not be truly justified, so as to deserve a reward in heaven, without faith and the grace of God. (Witham)
Challoner
Not with God. Whatever glory or applause such works might procure from men, they would be of no value in the sight of God. (Challoner)
4:3
Witham
For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice.[Ver. 3. Et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, kai elogisthe auto eis dikaiosunen. The Greek word is sometimes translated in the Vulgate Latin, by imputare, or accepto ferre.] The Scripture, therefore, teacheth us that he became just by his faith. And as he had this faith by the grace of God, grace was the cause of his justification, and not any works without grace. And when it is said, it was reputed to him, we must not understand an imputation of being just without a true and interior justice: for to be reputed just in the sight of God, who sees the heart, and sanctifies the soul by his interior grace, is the only true justice that can make a man acceptable to God. As not to have our sins imputed in the sight of God, is to have them forgiven, and to be free from our sins. (Witham)
Challoner
Reputed, etc. By God, who reputeth nothing otherwise than it is. However, we may gather from this word, that when we are justified, our justification proceedeth from God's free grace and bounty; and not from any efficacy which any act of ours could have of its own nature, abstracting from God's grace. (Challoner)
4:4
Witham
Now to him that worketh, etc. a reward may be looked upon as due for his works, and not bestowed upon him as a free gift; but when it is said he believed and was justified, (this belief or faith was always a liberal gift of God) and when no mention is made of his works, it appears that such a justification and sanctification are not from the works of the written law, nor from any works he could do of himself, but that they are according to the purpose, or decree of grace. (Witham)
Challoner
Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt, due to his own performance; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength; but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God's grace. (Challoner)
4:5
Calmet
Abraham, before his vocation, was an idolater, according to Josephus; (Jewish Antiquities, lib. 1:chap. + \fr 4:5 Abraham, before his vocation, was an idolater, according to Josephus; (Jewish Antiquities, lib. 1: ch. VIII.) according to some of the Rabbins, and as the Scripture itself seems to insinuate, Josue 24.; Isaias 43.; Wisdom 10.; Judith 5.; Judith 8.) according to some of the Rabbins, and as the Scripture itself seems to insinuate, Josue 24.; Isaias 43.; Wisdom 10.; Judith 5. He did not then merit his vocation to the faith by his works. But when God had called him, and made him depart from his country, when he promised to him an innumerable posterity, Abraham believed in his promises, and it was reputed to him unto justice, that his faith and his justice were the pure gift of God. His faith was not a dead and speculative faith only, but an active faith, a faith animated by charity, as appears from the sequel of his life. (Calmet)
4:6
Witham
As David, etc. That is, David accounted a man happy in being justified by God's grace, and not by his own works, when he said: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven by the mercies of God, and whose sins are covered; that is, covered so as to be no more, even in the sight of God. (Witham)
4:7
Challoner
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity. (Challoner)
Estius
When it is said that the sins of man are covered, we must not imagine that they still remain, but on account of the goodness of God will not be punished, as the Lutherans contend; for the justice of God could not suffer this: but by it we must understand that they are entirely blotted out, and neither exist, nor are considered any longer by God. Still, we must not conclude that man is blessed, as soon as sin is remitted; since the same psalmist, in another place, ascribes happiness to man when he walks in the law of the Lord, and when he keeps judgment and does justice. (Psalms i; cv; and cviii.) And our Saviour says, If you know these things, blessed shall you be if you do them. (St. John xiii.) (Estius)
Haydock
Moreover, if sins were never blotted out, but only covered, why did the royal prophet pray to the Almighty, saying: blot out all mine iniquities; and in different parts of the 50th psalm and psalm cviii, speaking of the egregious sinner, he says: let the sin of his mother not be blotted out; which would mean nothing at all, if sins were never blotted out? (Haydock)
4:8
Challoner
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. That is, blessed is the man who hath retained his baptismal innocence, that no grievous sin can be imputed to him. And likewise, blessed is the man who, after falling into sin hath done penance, and leads a virtuous life by frequenting the sacraments necessary for obtaining the grace to prevent a relapse, that sin is no more imputed to him. (Challoner)
4:9
Witham
This blessedness, by which a man's sins are forgiven, and his soul truly justified, was promised, and is given to the uncircumcised Gentiles, as well as to the circumcised Jews, by the faith and grace of Christ; as Abraham was justified, when he was in the state of uncircumcision. (Witham)
4:10
Calmet
In effect, Abraham received circumcision a year only before the birth of Isaac; whereas he had received the promises and justification more than 25 years before, when the Almighty caused him to depart from Mesopotamia. (Calmet)
Menochius
Therefore he was justified by faith and grace, which is common both to the circumcised and uncircumcised. (Menochius)
4:11
Witham
And he received, after he was justified, circumcision, as a seal of the justice of faith, which he had before when he believed. Circumcision, therefore, in Abraham, was as a seal and testimony of the justice which he had already by faith: though circumcision was chiefly given to Abraham and his posterity, as a sign or seal of that alliance which God made with Abraham, and his seed, to shew he had made choice of them for his elect people. (Witham)
4:12
Witham
And might be the father of circumcision. The apostle here tells them that Abraham is the father of all true believers, uncircumcised as well as circumcised, and all that believe in Christ, his seed, in whom God promised to bless all nations, are the spiritual sons of Abraham, and partake of the blessings promised to him in his posterity: nor can the circumcised be his true and spiritual children, unless they follow the footsteps of his faith, by which he was justified, when he believed the promises which God made to him before that circumcision was instituted; to wit, that he and Sara should have a son, when they were naturally past the age of having children, and that in his posterity all the world should be blessed, that is, in Christ. (Witham)
4:13
Calmet
Of the world, etc. By the world, some understand the land of Chanaan, which is sometimes meant by the whole earth, particularly in the times of David and Solomon, when they ruled over the neighbouring nations. But others think that the apostle alludes to the passage of Genesis, where the Almighty promises that in his (Abraham's) seed, all the nations of the earth should be blessed; which promise extends much beyond the narrow limits of Chanaan. In fine, it may be understood in a spiritual sense, of his dignity of father of all the faithful; which makes him, in a manner, master of the whole world, since his spiritual children, spread through the whole world, have the universe for their inheritance. (Calmet)
Haydock
Postula a me, et dabo tibi Gentes haereditatem tuam et possessionem tuam terminos terrae. (Psalm 2:8.) (Haydock)
Witham
It was by Christ that Abraham was to be heir of the world, in as much as the spiritual kingdom of Christ should be spread over all the world. And this of one who was of the seed of David, being heir of the world, was not by the law, or by virtue of the law, which was not given to Moses till 400 years after. (Witham)
4:14
Witham
For if they, who are of the law, be heirs: faith is made void, the promise is made of no effect. That is, if the Jews, who are under the law, are the only heirs of the blessings promised, it will follow that the faith which Abraham had before the circumcision, and before the law, was of no value, which I have shewn to be false. And, secondly, it will follow that the promise made to him, that in him all nations should be blessed, is also null. (Witham)
4:15
Witham
For the law worketh wrath, not of itself, nor by the intention of the lawgiver, but in as much as it is the occasion of greater punishments, when persons transgress it knowingly. (Witham)
Challoner
The law abstracting from faith and grace, worketh wrath occasionally, by being an occasion of many transgressions, which provoke God's wrath. (Challoner)
4:16
Calmet
There are two kinds of children of Abraham, to whom alone these promises are made; the one is according to the flesh, the other according to the spirit. The former of these had no more part in the promises made to him and his seed than the Gentiles, unless they imitated the fidelity and obedience of their father. (Calmet)
4:18
Witham
Who, against hope, believed in hope, or with hope. That is, Abraham, against all probability of human hopes, still hoped in God, says St. Chrysostom, that he should have a son by Sara: and in this, he was not weak in faith. Therefore it, that is, is great faith, was imputed to him unto justice: and also our faith shall be imputed to us unto justice, or make us truly just, by believing in Christ, etc. (Witham)
4:19
Effete, through old age, nenekromenon.
4:25
Calmet
The eternal Father delivered his Son to death, to expiate our offences; he raised him from the dead for our justification. His death is our redemption; his resurrection is the principal object of our faith. Our faith in the resurrection, is imputed unto justice, as was the faith of Abraham in the promises of God. The apostle here seems to refer our faith and justification only to the resurrection, not to the exclusion of other mysteries of religion, which are all, and every one of them, the objects of our faith. But the resurrection is, as it were, the zeal and consummation of the rest; it eminently includes in itself all the others. (Calmet)
4:2
By works.... Done by his own strength, without the grace of God, and faith in him. Not before God.... Whatever glory or applause such works might procure from men, they would be of no value in the sight of God.
4:3
Reputed, etc.... By God, who reputeth nothing otherwise than it is. However, we may gather from this word, that when we are justified, our justification proceedeth from God’s free grace and bounty; and not from any efficacy which any act of ours could have of its own nature, abstracting from God’s grace.
4:4
To him that worketh.... Vis., as of his own fund, or by his own strength. Such a man, says the apostle, challenges his reward as a debt due to his own performances; whereas he who worketh not, that is, who presumeth not upon any works done by his own strength, but seeketh justice through faith and grace, is freely justified by God’s grace.
4:7
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.... That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity.
4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin.... That is, blessed is the man who hath retained his baptismal innocence, that no grievous sin can be imputed to him. And, likewise, blessed is the man, who after fall into sin, hath done penance and leads a virtuous life, by frequenting the sacraments necessary for obtaining the grace to prevent a relapse, that sin is no more imputed to him.
4:9
4:14
Be heirs.... That is, if they alone, who follow the ceremonies of the law, be heirs of the blessings promised to Abraham; then that faith which was so much praised in him, will be found to be of little value. And the very promise will be made void, by which he was promised to be the father, not of the Jews only, but of all nations of believers.
4:15
The law worketh wrath.... The law, abstracting from faith and grace, worketh wrath occasionally, by being an occasion of many transgressions, which provoke God’s wrath.
4:1
1. Abraham.] The Apostle disputing in this chapter, as before, against them that thought they might be iustified by their vvorkes done vvithout the grace of Christ and faith in him, Abrahams Workes before faith. proposeth Abraham for an example, and proueth that he had no iustice nor estimation of iustice before God by any vvorkes done before he had faith, or that proceded not of faith and Gods grace.
4:2
2. By vvorkers.] If Abraham did any commendable vvorkes before he beleeued Christ, as many Philosophers did, Iustice before men, and iustice before God. men might count him iust therfore, but in Gods sign (vvho accepteth nothing vvithout faith in him, or that procedeth not from his grace) he should neuer haue had the estimation of a iust man. Therfore God in the Scriptures reputing him as a iust man, giueth the cause therof, saying. Abraham beleeued God, and it vvas reputed to him for iustice.
4. To him that vvorketh.] Not vvorkes, but mere grace is cause of our first iustificatiō. That is to say, He that presumeth of his ovvne vvorkes as done of him self vvithout faith, Gods helpe, and grace: and saying, that grace or iustification vvere giuen to him for his vvorkes: this man doth chalenge his iustification as dette, and not as of fauour and grace.
Concordance Gen. 5, 6.
4:3
Concordance Gal. 3, 6.
Concordance Ia. 2, 23.
4:4
〈Greek〉
4:5
5. To him that vvorketh not] He vvorketh not (in this place) that hath no vvorkes or alleageth not his vvorkes done in his infidelitie as cause of his iustification, but faith in Christ, and that proceding of mere grace. Vvherevpon S. Augustine saith: Knovv thou that faith found thee vniust. And if faith giuen to thee, made the iust, it found thee a vvicked one vvhom it might make iust. If it found thee vvicked, and of such an one made thee iust, vvhat vvorkes hadst thou being then vvicked? None couldest thou haue (nor canst haue) before thou beleeudst. Beleeue then in him that iustifieth the impious, that thy good vvorkes may be good vvorkes in deede. August. in Psal. 31.
〈Greek〉
4:6
6. As Dauid termeth.] The Protestants for, 〈Greek〉 termeth, translato, describeth, for that they vvould haue the ignorant beleeue, Heretical translation. the vvhole nature & definition of Iustification to be nothing els but remission of sinnes, and no grace or inherent iustice giuen from God at al. Vvhen the Apostle vvould say nothing els, but that in the first justificatiō God findeth no good vvorkes or merites to revvard, but only sinnes, to forgiue vnto such as haue faith in him.
Concordance Ps. 31, 1.
4:7
7. Couered. 8. not imputed.] Vvhat is, Sinnes couered or not imputed. You may not gather (as the Heretikes doe) of these termes, couered, and not imputed, that the sinnes of men be neuer truely forgiuen, but hidden only, for that derogateth much to the force of Christes bloud and to the grace of God, by vvhich our offences be truly remitted. Io. 1, 29, 2 Cor. 6, 11. He is the Lambe that taketh avvay the sinnes of the vvorld, that vvasheth, and blotteth out our sinnes, therfore to couer them, or, not to impute them, is, not to charge vs vvith our sinnes, Apoc. 1, 5. because by remission they be cleane taken avvay: othervvise it vvere but a •eined forgiuenesse. See S. Augustine in psal. 3• enarrat. •.
4:9
The vvord. Reputed. doth not diminish the truth of the iustice, as though it vvere reputed for iustice, being not iustice in deede, but signifieth, that as it vvas in it self, so God esteemed & reputed it, as the same greeke vvord must needes be taken v. 4. next going before, & 1 Cor. 4, •. and els where.
4:11
11. A seale.] The Heretikes vvould proue hereby, that the Sacraments of the Church giue not grace or iustice of faith, but that they be notes, markes, and badges only of our remission of sinnes had by faith before: The Sacramēts are not mere markes, but causes of iustification. because Abraham vvas iust before, and tooke this Sacrament for a seale thereof only. To vvhich must be ansvvered, that it folovveth not that it is so in al, because it vvas so in the Patriarch, vvho vvas iust before, and vvas therfore as it vvere the founde: of Circumcision, or he in vvhom God vvould first establish the same: no more then it folovveth that, because the Holy Sacrament of the Altar remitted not sinnes to Christ nor iustified him, therefore it hath that effect in none. Looke S. Augustine de baptismo contra Donatistas li. 4. c. 24. Vvhere you shal see that (though not in Abraham) yet in Isaac his sonne, and so consequently in the rest, the Sacrament vvent before, and iustice folovved.
Our Sacraments of the nevv Lavv giue ex opere operato that grace and iustice of faith vvhich here is commended. vvhereas circū cisiō vvas but a signe or marke of the same.
Concordance Gen. 17, 10.
4:16
Concordance Gen. 17, 4.
4:17
he beleeued,
4:18
Concordance Gen. 15, 5.
4:24
24. For vs, to vvhom it shal be reputed.] By this it is most plaine against our Aduersaries, that the saith vvhich vvas reputed for iustice to Abraham, vvas his beleefe of an Article reuealed to him by God, that is to say, his assent and credit giuen to Gods speaches: as in vs his posteritie according to the spirit, By vvhat faith vve are iustified. it is here plainely said, that iustice shal be reputed to vs by beleeuing the Articles of Christes death and Resurrection, and not by any fond special faith, fiducia or confidence of eche mans ovvne saluation, to establish the vvhich fiction, they make no account of the faith Catholike, that is, vvherevvith vve beleeue the Articles of the faith, vvhich only iustifieth, but call it by contempt, an historical faith: so as they may terme Abrahams faith, and our Ladies faith, of vvhich it vvas said, Luc. 1, 45. Beata quae credidisti, Blessed art thou that hast beleeued. And so in truth they deny as vvel the iustification by faith, as by vvorkes.
4:1
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 40
… 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,” and that according to the letter the law has in it no advantage.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 5
… For when the head is disordered, what avails the rest of the body? and if faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. If God despises His own for our sakes, much more ought we to despise our own for His sake.
4:2
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 40
… And again he adduced the statement, that “Abraham has glory, but not before God;”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 32
… But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus we shall be saved, even as they.” ( v. 11 .) How full of power these words! The same that Paul says at large in the Epistle to the Romans, the same says Peter here. “For if Abraham,” says (Paul), “was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 5
… For he showed that his words were worthy of credit, and it was a very great proof of his intimacy with God. There is no one thing so good as to be the intimate friend of God. “For if,” says the Scripture, “he [Abraham] was justified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not toward God.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 3
… Hence they say, “The Romans will come and take away both our place and nation.” ( John xi. 48 .) What fear was this that agitated them, but that of man? But it is worthy of enquiry, how one so skillful in the law as Paul could be ignorant? For it is he who says, “which He had promised before by His holy prophets.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 82.1
… For what is doxa ( δόξα ) in Greek, is in Latin glory. I have thought it worth while to mention this, because the apostle says, “If Abraham was justified by works, he hath glory, but not before God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.8
… Therefore from my lodging I shall remove, from my Heavenly home I shall not remove. “In God is my salvation and my glory” ( ver. 7 ). Saved I shall be in God, glorious I shall be in God: for not only saved, but also glorious, saved, because a just man I have been made out of an ungodly man, by Him justified;
4:3
St Barnabas † AD 61 The Epistle of Barnabas 13
… If then, still further, the same thing was intimated through Abraham, we reach the perfection of our knowledge. What, then, says He to Abraham? “Because thou hast believed, it is imputed to thee for righteousness: behold, I have made thee the father of those nations who believe in the Lord while in [a state of] uncircumcision.”
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 10
… so shall thy seed be. And Abram believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.5.3
3. And teaching this very thing, He said to the Jews: “Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day; and he saw it, and was glad.” What is intended? “Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.8.1
1. Vain, too, is [the effort of] Marcion and his followers when they [seek to] exclude Abraham from the inheritance, to whom the Spirit through many men, and now by Paul, bears witness, that “he believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 4 . “For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.23
… Finally, the authority of this book condemns those like Aratus or Eudoxus, or any others who boast that they have found out and written down the complete number of the stars. Here, indeed, is set down that sentence which the apostle quotes in order to commend the grace of God, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for righteousness;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 33.5
… And what are we to make of the Apostle Paul? Is there any idea of justification after death in his praise of Abraham, when he says that before he was circumcised he believed God, and that it was counted to him for righteousness?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.14
… But you not only close your ears in disbelief against what is said, but you even thrust out your tongues in madness to speak against what is already being done. Abraham heard the promise, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed," and "he believed, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 54
… for the apostle declares, “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.” Well, now, the former is the faith about which we inquire, Whether it be in our power? even the faith by which we believe God, or believe on God. For of this it is written, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 55
… Lastly, the same love, “which believeth all things,” does not believe every spirit. Accordingly, charity believes all things no doubt, but it believes in God. Observe, it is not said, Believes in all things. It cannot therefore be doubted that the faith which is commended by the apostle is the faith whereby we believe in God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 35
… And when He promised, “Abraham believed Him, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.”
4:4
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 4 . “For to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 17
… this, I say, is election of grace which goes before all good merits of men. For if it be to any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given, but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace; where “reward,” as the same Apostle saith, “is not imputed as grace, but as debt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.43
… Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth no sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 33
… Well, now, has he not pointedly so defined grace as to show that it is so called because it is bestowed gratuitously? These are his own very words: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works; otherwise grace is no more grace.” In accordance with this, he says again: “Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 11
… For, as the apostle most expressly says, to them who receive reward according to merit “the recompense is not reckoned of grace but of debt.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 19
… If eternal life is rendered to good works, as the Scripture most openly declares: “Then He shall reward every man according to his works:” how can eternal life be a matter of grace, seeing that grace is not rendered to works, but is given gratuitously, as the apostle himself tells us: “To him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.17
… Let no man glory in his own works: but “he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.” With Thy grace he is satisfied, when he is satisfied: let him not say that grace was given for his own merits. If it is called grace, “it is gratuitously given;” if it is returned for works, wages are paid.
4:5
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 2
… For since it is possible to be saved, yet not without shame (as many are saved of those, who by the royal humanity are released from punishment), that no one may suspect this upon hearing of safety, he adds also righteousness; and righteousness, not thine own, but that of God; hinting also the abundance of it and the facility.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 5 . “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.2
… For when I am wicked, to confess to Thee is naught but to be dissatisfied with myself; but when I am truly devout, it is naught but not to attribute it to myself, because Thou, O Lord, dost “bless the righteous;” but first Thou justifiest him “ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.34
… But when Thou didst begin to execute in time the things predestinated, that Thou mightest make manifest things hidden, and adjust our disorders (for our sins were over us, and we had sunk into profound darkness away from thee, and Thy good Spirit was borne over us to help us in due season), Thou didst both justify the ungodly,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 1.12
… for, “Whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” Of Him accordingly it is said, that He justifieth the ungodly;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.3
… For as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the body dies when the soul leaves it; whereby the former becomes foolish, the latter lifeless. For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewing of life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by which men believe on Him who justi fies the ungodly;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.5
… Do we then maintain that, even when spiritual grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said, that "He justifieth the ungodly?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.4
9. Augustin answered: Christ is not faithless, from whom the faithful man receives not guilt but faith. For he believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may be counted for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.15
… But the tongues which have deceived are the tongues of those who, whilst they are acquainted with their own deeds, not only say that they are just men, but that they are justifiers of men, which is said of One only "that justifieth the ungodly,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.36
… For behold in our case who assert with the eloquence of truth that the man who believes is not justified by him by whom he is baptized, but by Him of whom it is written, "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.42
… Will it then be urged that, even where spiritual grace is dispensed to those that believe by the hands of a holy and faithful minister, it is still not the minister himself who justifies, but that One of whom it is said, ‘He justifieth the ungodly’?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.49
… But prevail upon yourselves to say what is said by Truth and by the Catholic Church, that not only when the minister of baptism is evil, but also when he is holy and good, hope is still not to be placed in man, but in Him that justifieth the ungodly, in whom if any man believe, his faith is counted for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.50
… man:" and "Cursed be every one that trusteth in man;" and that, "Salvation belongeth unto the Lord;" and that, "Vain is the help of man;" and that, "Neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase;" and that He in whom men believe justifieth the ungodly, that his faith may be counted to him for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.54
… sacrament he is something, but for purifying and justifying he is nothing, seeing that this is not accomplished in the inner man, except by Him by whom the whole man was created, and who while He remained God was made man,—by Him, that is, of whom it was said, "Purifying their hearts by faith;" and "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Correction of the Donatists 9
… for why should he not do so, when the apostle says, "To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.18
… Be ye justified by me, as I also am by Christ;—since there may be, and indeed actually are and have been, many who were righteous and worthy of imitation; but no one is righteous and a justifier but Christ alone. Whence it is said: “To the man that believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 11
… For He extendeth His mercy to them that know Him, and His righteousness to the upright in heart.” He does not, indeed, extend His mercy to them because they know Him, but that they may know Him; nor is it because they are upright in heart, but that they may become so, that He extends to them His righteousness, whereby He justifies the ungodly.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 54
… even the faith by which we believe God, or believe on God. For of this it is written, “Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.” And again, “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 56
… “If any one of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given to him. Let him, however, ask in faith, nothing wavering?” This is the faith by which the just man lives; this is the faith whereby he believes on Him who justifies the ungodly;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 59
… So we do not take away free will, whilst our soul blesses the Lord and forgets not all His recompenses; nor does it, in ignorance of God’s righteousness, wish to set up one of its own; but it believes in Him who justifies the ungodly,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 1
… Now, the man who understands this understands why he is a Christian. For “If righteousness came by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.” If, however He did not die in vain, in Him only is the ungodly man justified, and to him, on believing in Him who justifies the ungodly, faith is reckoned for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 3
… What is grace? That which is freely given. What is “freely given”? Given, not paid. If it was due, wages were given, not grace bestowed; but if it was reply due, thou wast good; but if, as is true, thou wast evil, but didst believe on Him who justifieth the ungodly
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 19
… And when the soul lives in unrighteousness, that is its death; when again it becomes righteous, it becomes partaker of another life, which is not what itself is, inasmuch as by rising up to God, and cleaving to God, of Him it is justified. For it is said, “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 29.6
… For even the devils believed Him, but they did not believe on Him. Again, moreover, of His apostles we can say, we believe Paul; but not, we believe on Paul: we believe Peter; but not, we believe on Peter. For, “to him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted unto him for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 53.10
… For the mere syllables of Christ’s name, and the Christian sacraments, are of no profit, where faith in Christ is itself resisted. For faith in Christ is to believe in Him that justifieth the ungodly;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 54.3
… for it is not an apostle that justifieth the ungodly. But to him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 72.2
… Is it that one is not to be reckoned among believers in Christ, who shall not do greater works than Christ? It were hard, unreasonable, intolerable, to suppose so; that is, unless it be rightly understood. Let us listen, then, to the apostle, when he says, “To him that believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.5
… Or does the Psalmist pray thus not against men, but against the devil and his angels, whose possession sinners and the ungodly are? He then does not pray against him in wrath, but in mercy, whosoever prays that that possession may be taken from him by that Lord “who justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 7.10
… but the former removes them from sickness into health, the latter preserves them in this health. Therefore there the help is merciful, because the sinner hath no desert, who as yet longeth to be justified, “believing on Him who justifieth the ungodly;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 34.25
25. But because there are many kinds of sinners, and not to be a sinner is difficult, or perhaps in this life impossible, he added immediately, of what kind of sinners the death is worst. “And they that hate the righteous one” (saith he) “shall perish.” What righteous one, but “Him that justifieth the ungodly”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 35.11
… not one of them shall be broken.” Of how many righteous have the bones under persecution been broken? Finally, “The just shall live by faith,” and “Christ justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 40.25
“And say continually, the Lord be magnified.” For even if the sinner becometh righteous, thou shouldest give the glory to “Him who justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 45.23
… Whencesoever the Gentiles came, they came from their father the devil; but they have renounced their sonship to the devil. “Forget also thine own people, and thy father’s house.” He, in making thee a sinner, begat thee loathsome: the Other, in that “He justifies the ungodly,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 51.18
… Wherefore? That believing on Him that justifieth an ungodly man, their faith may be counted for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 52.12
… “Hast done” what? except these very things which above have been spoken of, that like an olive fruit-bearing in the house of God, I should trust in the mercy of God for everlasting and world without end? Thou hast done: an ungodly man cannot justify himself. But who is He that justifieth? “Believing,” he saith, “on Him” that justifieth “the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.37
… because without the merits of good works through faith the ungodly is justified, just as the Apostle said, “To one believing in Him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.4
… For mine is what? Iniquity hath gone before. And when I shall be righteous, Thine own righteousness it will be: for by righteousness given to me by Thee I shall be righteous; and it shall be so mine, as that it be Thine, that is, given to me by Thee. For I believe on Him that justifieth an ungodly man, so that my faith is counted for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.14
14. “My mouth shall tell out Thy righteousness” ( ver. 15 ): not mine. From thence I will add to all Thy praise: because even that I am righteous, if righteous I am, is Thy righteousness in me, not mine own: for Thou dost justify the ungodly.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.7
… For when the spirit of man doth work together with the Spirit of God working, then there is fulfilled that which God hath commanded: and this doth not come to pass, except by believing in Him that doth justify an ungodly man.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 99.8
8. “O magnify the Lord our God” ( ver. 5 ). Magnify Him truly, magnify Him well. Let us praise Him, let us magnify Him who hath wrought the very righteousness which we have; who wrought it in us, Himself. For who but He who justified us, wrought righteousness in us? For of Christ it is said, “who justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 104.42
… If it is yours, He saith, and not Mine, it is obstinacy, not courage. “For we are His workmanship,” saith the Apostle, “created unto good works.” From His Spirit we have received grace, that we may live unto righteousness: for it is He that justifieth the ungodly.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 109.4
… the two last belong to the wicked, and the latter of the two is the worse; the two middle to a sort of middle class of persons, but the first of these borders upon the good, the latter on the bad. We should remark these things in the holy Scriptures. Our Lord Himself returneth good for evil, who “justifieth the ungodly;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 111.3
… for “where sin abounded, there did grace much more abound.” But perhaps a man would deserve justification from works. “Not,” saith he, “of works, lest any man boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works.” For a man worketh not righteousness save he be justified: but by “believing on Him that justifieth the ungodly,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 115.1
1. “Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto Thy Name give the praise” ( ver. 1 ). For that grace of the water that gushed from the rock (“now that rock was Christ” ), was not given on the score of works that had gone before, but of His mercy “that justifieth the ungodly.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 139.15
… For by God is made a certain strength of patience, of which is said in another Psalm, “But my soul shall be subjected to God, for of Him is my patience.” …Wherein dost thou glory? “In tribulations, knowing that tribulation worketh patience.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 23.10
… know by experience that through the hindrance of the burden of the flesh they cannot by human strength reach the desired end, nor be united according to their heart’s desire with that chief and highest good, but that they are led away from the vision of it captive to worldly things, they betake themselves to the grace of God, “Who justifieth the ungodly,”
4:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 7 . “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.”
4:9
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 9 . “Cometh this blessedness then” (which is the greater thing) “upon the circumcision or upon the uncircumcision?”
4:10
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.24
… Not that there was no justification by faith before circumcision; for even when he was still in uncircumcision, Abraham was himself justified by faith, being the father of those nations which should also imitate his faith.
4:11
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 3
But Abraham, (you say,) was circumcised. Yes, but he pleased God before his circumcision; nor yet did he observe the Sabbath. For he had “accepted”
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 5.3
… But how are we children of faith? and of whose faith, if not Abraham’s? For since “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness;” since, also, he deserved for that reason to be called “the father of many nations,” whilst we, who are even more like him
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Apparel of Women ii.2
… For, albeit comeliness is not to be censured , as being a bodily happiness, as being an additional outlay of the divine plastic art, as being a kind of goodly garment of the soul; yet it is to be feared , just on account of the injuriousness and violence of suitors: which (injuriousness and violence) even the father of the faith,
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 6
… In like manner, too, if you have involved yourself in digamy, you are not the son of that Abraham whose “faith” preceded in monogamy. For albeit it is subsequently that he is called “a father of many nations,” still it is of those (nations) who, as the fruit of the “faith” which precedes digamy, had to be accounted “sons of Abraham.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 6.2
… “Have you not read,” He says, “what is said by God at the Bush, I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” If, then, God is not ashamed to be called the God of these men, and if they are counted by Christ among the living, and if all believers are sons of Abraham,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 5.5
… And having bound his son, and laid him on the wood, he did in purpose offer him, but by the goodness of God in delivering to him a lamb instead of his child, he received his son alive. Being faithful in these things, he was sealed for righteousness, and received circumcision as a seal of the faith which he had while he was in uncircumcision
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 11 . “He received it,” he says, “a sign and seal of the righteousness that was by the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 35.4
4. Why did Abraham receive circumcision as a seal of his faith? (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.47
… that he might be the father of circumcision not only to those who are of the circumcision, but also to those who follow the footsteps of the faith of our father Abraham in uncircumcision."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.29
… resurrection, the apostle says, "He died for our offenses, and rose again for our justification." And because this resurrection by faith in which we are justified was prefigured by the circumcision of the eighth day, the apostle says of Abraham, with whom the observance began, "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 4.24
… Yet the apostle says of Abraham himself, that "he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith," having already believed in his heart, so that "it was counted unto him for righteousness."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.35
The Scripture does not inform us whether before Abraham’s time righteous men or their children were marked by any bodily or visible sign. Abraham himself, indeed, received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith.
4:12
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.7.2
… As Paul does also testify, saying that we are children of Abraham because of the similarity of our faith, and the promise of inheritance.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 12 . “Which he had being yet uncircumcised.”
4:13
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.13
… “For the promise that he should be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but by the righteousness of faith. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression.”
4:14
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 14 . “For if they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
… For if this was done with respect to the promise made to Abraham, much more with respect to grace. And this Paul hath declared, saying, “If they which are of the Law be heirs, faith is made void—because the Law worketh wrath.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.7
… “For if they who are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect: because the law worketh wrath: for where there is no law, there is no transgression.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.10
… was able to confer eternal life on the prophets and patriarchs, and all saints who kept its commandments,” the apostle replies, “If righteousness be by the law, then has Christ died in vain.” “If the inheritance be by the law, then is it no more of promise.” “If they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise is made of none effect.”
4:15
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 15 . “Because the Law worketh wrath: for where no Law is, there is no transgression.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
… And what sense is this? In saying, that “till the Law sin was in the world,” what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
Even before this he had been saying, that “the motions of sins, which were by the Law did work in our members” ( ver. 5 ): and, “sin shall have no dominion over you, for ye are not under the Law.” ( vi. 14 .) And that “where no law is, there is no transgression.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.27
… “In the day ye eat thereof, ye shall surely die.” Whence it is written in the book called Ecclesiasticus, “All flesh waxeth old as doth a garment. For the covenant from the beginning is, Thou shall die the death.” Now, as the law was more plainly given afterward, and the apostle says, “Where no law is, there is no prevarication,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 7
… unto these the Law therefore entered, that in them the offense might abound. The prohibition in creased the lust, and made it unconquered: that there might be transgression also, which without the Law was not, although there was sin, “For where there is not Law, neither is there transgression.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 15.8
… "It entered, that the offence might abound; but where sin abounded, grace has much more abounded." Not that the law is sin, though it cannot give life without grace, but rather increases the guilt; for "where there is no law, there is no transgression."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 6
… In some strange way the very object which we covet becomes all the more pleasant when it is forbidden. And this is the sin which by the commandment deceives and by it slays, whenever transgression is actually added, which occurs not where there is no law.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 13
… “He did not the like to any nation, nor His judgments has He displayed to them.” And yet, they thought they were fulfilling the law of God by their righteousness, when they were rather breakers of it all the while! Accordingly, it “wrought wrath”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 24
… In which class do we place that which is thus spoken of: “The law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no transgression?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.9
… but not that whereby He endows and assists us to act, since the knowledge of the law, unless it be accompanied by the assistance of grace, rather avails for producing the transgression of the commandment. “Where there is no law,” says the apostle, “there is no transgression;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 3.3
This is what we say; this is that about which they object to us that we say “that the law was so given as to be a cause of greater sin.” They do not hear the apostle saying, “For the law worketh wrath; for where no law is, there is no transgression;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 22
… for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” Observe, he says “ the knowledge ,” not “the destruction,” of sin. But when a man knows sin, and grace does not help him to avoid what he knows, undoubtedly the law works wrath. And this the apostle explicitly says in another passage. His words are: “The law worketh wrath.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 75.2
… Attend to the Apostle; “The Law entered that sin might abound; but where sin abounded, grace hath much more abounded.” What is, “The Law entered that sin might abound”? As in another place he saith, “For where there is no law, there is no transgression.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.6
… for not unjust he is not, that transgresseth the Law: but every one that transgresseth the Law is unjust, not every unjust man doth transgress the Law. For, “Where there is not a Law,” saith the Apostle, “neither is there transgression.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 86.18
18. “O God, the transgressors of the law have arisen up against me” ( ver. 14 ). Whom calleth he transgressors of the law? Not the Pagans, who have not received the law: for no one transgresseth that which he hath not received; the Apostle saith clearly, “For where there is no law, there is no prevarication.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.15
… In the Latin version many different renderings are given of the Greek ἐλογισ€μην; but this passage hath a deep meaning. For the following words, “Therefore have I ever loved Thy testimonies:” make it far more profound. For the Apostle saith, “The law worketh wrath;” and, explaining these words, he addeth, “For where no law is, there is no transgression:”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 17.30
… “for where there is no law there is no transgression.”
4:16
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 16 . “Therefore it is of faith,” he says, “that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 51
“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace, to the end the promise might be sure.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 40
… not to that only which is of the law,”—that is, which comes from the Old Testament into the New,—“but to that also which is of faith,” which was indeed prior to the law, even “the faith of Abraham,”—meaning those who imitate the faith of Abraham,—“who is the father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee the father of many nations.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.19
… which grace is the effect of that predestination. Therefore when God promised to Abraham in his seed the faith of the nations, saying, “I have established thee a father of many nations,” whence the apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith, that the promise, according to grace, might be established to all the seed,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.21
Certainly, when the apostle says, “Therefore it is of faith that the promise may be sure according to grace,”
4:17
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Philippians 10
Darest thou, then, who didst fall “as lightning” from the very highest glory, to say to the Lord, “Cast thyself down from hence [to Him] to whom the things that are not are reckoned as if they were,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.7
… The Apostle, however, appears to count the things which are not, not among those which have no existence whatever, but rather among things which are evil. To him the Not-being is evil; “God,” he says,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 5.6
6. Let us see, then, how Abraham is the father of many nations
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 42.6
… For it was much more improbable that, from that condition, it should reach its present development, than that, as it now is, it should attain to the height of renown. For ever since it began to be gathered together, by Him Who quickeneth the dead,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.16
… How then were those made which are future, unless it is that His active power and knowledge contains within itself the number of all the ages? For just as He calls the things that are not as though they were,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 17 . “As it is written,” he says, “I have made thee a father of many nations.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… See ye to what daring the argument has carried them, when once the truth has been unsettled? Why did not the Evangelist say, that He was made from things that were not, as Paul declares of all things, when he says, “Who calleth those things which be not as though they were”; but says, “Was in the beginning”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 42
… For when the loaves had not yet appeared, that thou mayest learn, that things that are not are to Him as though they were, (as Paul saith, “who calleth the things that be not as though they were”—
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 25
… For they were in harmony; being opposed indeed according to human calculations, but in harmony [when viewed] by Faith. And how this was, the Apostle himself has taught us, by saying, “accounting that God was able to raise Him up, even from the dead.” By the same faith (he means) by which he believed that God gave what was not,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 29
… But the number of the citizens, whether as it now is or as it shall be, is present to the thoughts of the great Creator, who calls those things which are not as though they were,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Concerning the Nature of Good, Against the Manichæans 26
Because therefore God made all things which He did not beget of Himself, not of those things that already existed, but of those things that did not exist at all, that is, of nothing," the Apostle Paul says: "Who calls the things that are not as if they are."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 19.3
… thinkest thou that it is a like labour for God to observe thee, who did not labour to create thee? Doth not He fix His eye upon thee, who made thine eye? Thou wast not, and He created thee and gave thee being; and doth not He care for thee now that thou art, who “calleth those things which be not as though they were”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 105.7
… For we were chosen in the same way as He was glorified; inasmuch as before the world was, neither we nor the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, were yet in existence. But He who, in as far as He is His Word, of His own self “made even those things which are yet to come,” and “calleth those things which are not as though they were,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 105.10
… Or meaneth it, as is more credible, He said there should be famine; so that calling be the same thing as mentioning by name; mentioning by name, as speaking; speaking, as commanding? Nor doth the Apostle say,
4:18
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 8.4
4. Who is there who knows not the Abraham and Sarah of these our latter days, Gregory and Nonna his wife? For it is not well to omit the incitement to virtue of mentioning their names. He has been justified by faith, she has dwelt with him who is faithful; he beyond all hope has been the father of many nations,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 18 . “Who against hope believed in hope, that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 17
… And being not weak in faith, he considered his own body now dead, and the deadness of Sarah’s womb. He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; and being fully persuaded that what He had promised He was able also to perform” (
4:19
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 14
… What remission of sins, what renewal of life, is there in the sea? What spiritual gift is there through Moses? What dying
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 5.5
… In like manner, therefore, as he was justified be thou justified also. In his body he was already dead in regard to offspring, and Sarah his wife was now old, and there was no hope left of having children. God promises the old man a child, and Abraham without being weakened in faith, though he considered his own body now as good as dead
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 19 . “And being not weak in faith, he considered his own body now dead.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 25
… For they were in harmony; being opposed indeed according to human calculations, but in harmony [when viewed] by Faith. And how this was, the Apostle himself has taught us, by saying, “accounting that God was able to raise Him up, even from the dead.” By the same faith (he means) by which he believed that God gave what was not,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 36
… For He did not promise them to Abraham because He foreknew that of themselves they would be good. For if this were the case, what He promised was not His, but theirs. But it was not thus that Abraham believed, but “he was not weak in faith, giving glory to God;” and “most fully believing that what He has promised He is able also to perform.”
4:20
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Persecution in Egypt 1
… such as the great Daniel had after his temptations and the manifold conspiracies of the courtiers against him; such as Paul now enjoys, being crowned by the Saviour; such as the people of God everywhere expect. They, seeing these things, were not infirm of purpose, but waxed strong in faith
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 20 . “But he staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.6
Care must be taken, brethren, beloved of God, that a man do not lift himself up in opposition to God, when he says that he does what God has promised. Was not the faith of the nations promised to Abraham, “and he, giving glory to God, most fully believed that what He promised He is able also to perform”?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 94.18
… Nay, it is understood He fashioned the eye, made the eye. And is He not a potter when He makes men frail, weak, earthly? Hear the Apostle: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels.” …Behold our Lord Himself, how He showeth Himself a potter.
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 26
… nor are they only Israelites whom blood and flesh begot, but the whole body of the adopted enter into possession of the heritage prepared for the sons of Faith. Be not disturbed by the cavils of silly questionings, and let not the effects of the Divine word be dissipated by human calculation; we with Abraham believe in God and “waver not through unbelief
4:21
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Letters 2
… But inasmuch as, since we composed that written defence of our conduct, again some of the brethren who are of one mind with us begged us to make separately with our own lips a profession of our faith, which we entertain with full conviction
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
Ver. 21 . “And being fully persuaded that what He had promised, He was able also to perform.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 4
In everything then yield we to Him: for this is to glorify God, not to demand of Him an account of what He doeth. In this way too did Abraham give glory to God; “And being fully persuaded,” we read, “that what He had promised, He was able to perform.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.19
… Otherwise the fulfilment of God’s promises would not be in the power of God, but in that of men; and thus what was promised by God to Abraham would be given to Abraham by men themselves. Abraham, however, did not believe thus, but “he believed, giving glory to God, that what He promised He is able also to do.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 33
… were ignorant of thee, shall run together unto thee .” This day “Abraham saw and was glad ,” when he understood that the sons of his faith would be blessed in his seed that is in Christ, and foresaw that by believing he should be the father of all nations, “giving glory to God and being fully assured that What He had promised, He was able also to perform
4:22
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Answer to Eunomius' Second Book 1
… For leaving behind him the curiosity that arises from knowledge, Abraham, says the Apostle, “believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness
4:23
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.43
… “Now, it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on Him that raised up Jesus Christ our Lord from the dead; who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”
4:24
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.10
… Again, our likeness with the Son is discovered, and a certain unity with Him in the flesh, because that, like as the Son of God was quickened in the flesh by the Father, so also is man quickened; for thus it is written, that as God raised Jesus Christ from the dead, so we also, as men, are quickened by the Son of God.
4:25
Tertullian † AD 220 Scorpiace 7
… “If God spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us, how did He not with Him also give us all things?” You see how divine Wisdom has murdered even her own proper, first-born and only Son, who is certainly about to live, nay, to bring back the others also into life. I can say with the Wisdom of God; It is Christ who gave Himself up for our offences.
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.20
55. To give a witness then, and for our sakes to undergo death, to raise man up and destroy the works of the devil
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 9
Ver. 25 . “Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.2
… For since, as the apostle wrote, “He was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.17
29. But in the flesh itself, the faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, “If thou shalt believe,” he says, “in thine heart, that God hath raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved;” and again, “Who was delivered,” he says, “for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 5.4
… for being the Son of God by whom we were made, He also by His incarnation became the Son of man, that He might die for our sins, and rise again for our justification.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.29
… "If thou con fess with thy mouth," says the apostle, "that Jesus is the Lord, and believest in thy heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Again, because we are justified by faith in Christ’s resurrection, the apostle says, "He died for our offenses, and rose again for our justification."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.7
… For I believe, not in the minister by whose hands I am baptized, but in Him who justifieth the ungodly, that my faith may be counted unto me for righteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.24
… For it was through this same faith in Christ, who was to come in the flesh, and was to die for us, and on the third day (which coming after the seventh or Sabbath day, was to be the eighth) to rise again, that even holy men were saved of old. For “He was delivered for our offences, and raised again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.56
… Now, then, let the apostle, who says that Christ was delivered up for us all, also tell us why Christ was delivered up for us. “He was delivered,” says he, “for our offences, and rose again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.32
… Forasmuch, then as our Lord descended to this life, and “the Word was made flesh, that He might be delivered for our sins, and rise again for our justification,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 94.6
… But when our hope shall be completed, then shall our justification be completed also. And the Lord who was to complete it showed us in His Own Flesh (that is, in our Head), Wherein He rose again and ascended to the Father, what we ought to hope for. For that thus it is written, “He was delivered for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 8.4
… He has freed her from the bondage of the devil: He died for her sins, and is risen again for her justification.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 11.2
… And said He, I am He. On hearing this saying, they went backward, and fell to the ground.” In this, that in answering them He threw them to the ground, He showed His power; that in His being taken by them He might show His will. It was of compassion, then, that He suffered. For “He was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 62.4
… That word! expressing not so much the punishment of the traitor as the reward awaiting the Redeemer! For He said, “What thou doest, do quickly,” not as wrathfully looking to the destruction of the trust-betrayer, but in His own haste to accomplish the salvation of the faithful; for He was delivered for our offences,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2.1
… Yet most of all must those things be commended to our memory, which are of most force against heretics; whose insidious designs cease not to circumvent all that are weaker and more negligent. Remember that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ both died for us, and rose again; died, to wit, for our offenses, rose again for our justification.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 57.6
… Confidence hath been engendered by experience: “to God,” he saith, “who had done good to me.” If before that I was seeking Him, He did good to me, when I cry shall He not hearken to me? For good to us the Lord God hath done in sending to us our Saviour Jesus Christ, that He might die for our offences, and rise again for our justification.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 118.6
… For bees make honey in the hives: while our Lord’s persecutors, unconscious as they were, rendered Him sweeter unto us even by His very Passion; so that we may taste and see how sweet is the Lord, “Who died for our sins, and arose for our justification.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 138.4
… Of Abraham was born Isaac; over that house God was magnified; then Jacob; God was magnified, who said, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” Then came his twelve sons. The name of the Lord was magnified over Israel. Then came the Virgin Mary. Then Christ our Lord, “dying for our sins, rising again for our justification,”
4:1
1. WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY ABRAHAM TO HAVE FOUND? — that is to say, What justice, or of faith, or of works of the law shall we say Abraham found, that is, received? and, as the Syriac has it, obtained? for this in Hebrew is מצא matsa, that is, to find. Thus it is said in Luke I, and elsewhere: "Thou hast found grace with God," that is, thou hast obtained and acquired the favor and benevolence of God. In the first verses of this chapter certain things must be supplied; supply and connect them therefore thus: "What then shall we say Abraham our father to have found according to the flesh?" (for thus the Greek has it, so that the word found in Latin must be transposed and joined with according to the flesh), as if he said: What fruit found he, that is, what did Abraham obtain from circumcision of the flesh, and from ceremonies touching the bare flesh? understand, nothing. The reason for this answer he gives immediately in verse 2, saying: "If indeed Abraham was justified by works (by his circumcision and that of his), he hath glory, but not with God:" that is, if indeed from works of the flesh already mentioned he had obtained justice, he would have had glory, but not with God; now however it is certain that he had glory even with God, for it is written: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." Therefore not from works of the flesh, but because he believed, that is, from faith, he obtained justice. Hence therefore it is clear that the Apostle speaks chiefly of ceremonial works. Yet works can be taken generally, whatsoever things are done by the powers of nature alone without faith and the grace of Christ, as interpreters commonly expound, as I shall say in verses 4 and 5, for the Apostle excludes these from the matter of justification.
4:2
2. IF INDEED ABRAHAM WAS JUSTIFIED BY WORKS, HE HATH GLORY, BUT NOT WITH GOD. — that is to say, If Abraham has only that justice which is from works of the law or of nature, faith being set aside, certainly it is small and political, having only glory and praise of justice among men, who see and admire external works; but not with God, who sees and esteems the internal mind and faith, and places true justice in that.
4:3
3. FOR WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURE? — Paul proves from Scripture, Genesis XV, that Abraham obtained righteousness and glory with God, not from the works of the law, but from faith. ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD — promising to him and to Sarah, his wife, both old, barren, infirm and impotent for generation, seed, that is, posterity, both carnal from Isaac, and spiritual from Christ, of believers and Christians. Whence this believing "was reputed to him unto justice," because this act of faith in Abraham was most heroic, as will appear verse 18. AND IT WAS REPUTED TO HIM UNTO JUSTICE. — Genesis XV, 6, in the Hebrew is found ויחשבה לו צדקה vajacschebeha lo tsedaka, that is, and he reputed it, namely faith, God to him unto justice: not as if the justice of Christ, that is adhering to Christ, through faith were imputed to Abraham and to us, and made us formally just, but only denominated us, as the Novatians feign. For thus Scripture would have said: God imputed to Abraham the justice of Christ; but now it says the contrary, namely that God imputed to him Abraham himself faith, not of Christ, but of Abraham himself, unto justice. The sense therefore of this phrase is: Faith both of Abraham and of ours, which from its nature, as it is an act of man, is not justice, nor can produce or generate justice, is nevertheless accepted by God unto justice both to be given to Abraham and to us; so that namely on account of this faith, God bestows upon Abraham and upon us justice and infuses it, and reckons us just, friends and sons of His. And this is what the Apostle adds verse 5: "According to the purpose of the grace of God," that is according to the gracious, benevolent and liberal will of God, which ordained that through the act of faith formed, that is through contrition, grace and justice should be given without works, that is without the merit of works: for it is said to be reputed when that which in itself is not such is reckoned as such, as an act is said to be reputed for a deed. Thus the Council of Trent, session VI. Where note plainly it is one thing to impute faith unto justice, or for justice, another thing to impute justice, as will appear verse 6. Others thus explain it, as if Paul said: Abraham's faith was reputed to him for justice, namely inchoate, that is for the way and disposition unto justice. But because St. James, chapter II, 23, adds: "And he was called the friend of God," for this reason, justice here is to be understood not inchoate, but complete. You will say: Abraham was already just, and by this believing, he only became more just and more holy; how then does the Apostle conclude: If Abraham was made more just from faith, therefore it is necessary that the impious and sinner be likewise justified by faith and become just? For the reason of the first justification is different, the reason of the second is different: and sinners are justified in one way, the just in another way, when they become more just. Some answer by denying that Abraham was just: thus Anselm and St. Augustine, preface to Psalm XXXI. But that Abraham was already just at that time is sufficiently clear from Genesis XV, 1; Hebrews XI, 8, and the same is taught everywhere by other interpreters. Whence Pererius answers secondly, that here is an argument from the lesser to the greater: If Abraham, already just, obtained an increase of justice not through the works of the law, but through faith, by which he believed God promising great posterity of seed, Genesis XV, therefore much more can we not obtain the beginning of justice, or the first justification, by the powers of nature, but by grace alone and faith already proposed in Christ and through Christ, as verse 5 and the following explain Paul. This exposition is probable. Thirdly and best, Toletus answers: these words "Abraham believed," etc., are to be referred not only to the immediately preceding, but to all the antecedent, Genesis XII and XIII. For Scripture wishes to establish Abraham, who is the father of believers and the just, as an exemplar of justification, both of the impious, as Paul teaches here, verse 5, and of the just, as Paul teaches, verse 20 and seq., and James, chapter II, verse 23. Scripture wishes therefore to say and assert that Abraham was both first justified through faith, when he first believed God, and secondly justified, that is, made more just, and grew in the justice accepted, through faith, by which secondly and thereafter he believed God speaking, saying, promising and commanding. Note that in Abraham there was not naked faith, but faith hoping, loving, invoking, obeying, and clothed with the works of charity and obedience, by which he followed God calling, journeying so long a time through so many labors in Chanaan, and by which he afterwards offered to God his son Isaac in holocaust, as St. James teaches, II, 23; and Paul, Hebrews XI, 8; and Moses, Genesis chapter XII, verse 1 and seq. You will say: Abraham here did not believe by his faith in Christ, but in God promising him seed; how therefore does the Apostle infer from this faith of Abraham, by which he himself was justified, that faith in Christ is required for our justification? I answer, that Abraham even in his first justification believed in Christ. For although Moses does not express this in Genesis, nevertheless from this and other passages of Paul, and from the Gospels, it is certain. For the Evangelists and Paul teach everywhere that no one after the fall could be justified without faith in Christ the propitiator. In the second justification, however, it is not necessary that Abraham explicitly believed in Christ in act, just as neither is this now necessary in our second justification. Again, from the faith of Abraham in God promising seed, the Apostle rightly infers our faith in Christ, because faith already required by God for righteousness is faith in Christ; but in Genesis XV, God required and demanded from Abraham only faith in his seed. Add that Abraham, when he believed in this seed, implicitly believed in Christ, who was first, indeed the principle and end in this seed of Abraham promised. Finally, to believe that from such impotent parents, namely Abraham and Sarah, such a seed would be born, both carnal and spiritual, which Abraham believed, was a difficult act of faith and most ample, tacitly embracing all other things to be believed. Whence it is rightly proposed both by Moses and by Paul as an exemplar of faith, even justifying in the first place. You will ask, whether Paul here speaks of the same justification of which James speaks, cap. II, vers. 23, when he says Abraham was justified by works. Toletus and some others deny this: for they think Paul speaks of the first justification, which is not from works, that is from the merit of works: but James speaks of the second justification, or of the increase of justice; for we merit this through good works. But it is better judged by others, that both Paul and James speak of both justifications, namely the first and the second. First, because each produces the example of Abraham's justification: but this justification of Abraham must be taken both as first and as second, as I showed a little before. Second, because James brings forth the example of Rahab, who was impious and a harlot. Therefore since he says that she obtained righteousness like Abraham, he understands the first. Gabriel Vasquez proves this at length from the testimony of St. Augustine and other Doctors, tom. II, in I-II, disp. 210, cap. VIII. Paul therefore, when he excludes works from justification, understands works done by the powers of nature, as I said cap. III, vers. 30. But James, when he requires works for justification, understands works done from faith and grace: for these are required for both justifications; because the ratio is equal for both acquiring and increasing justice, but there is a difference in the manner: for the first justification works only dispose, the second they merit, not insofar as they are works of man or of nature, but insofar as they are done from the faith and grace of Christ (for thus they are not works of man, but of Christ and God). Whence Paul includes them under faith. And this is the reason why both the second and the first justification is said to be done freely. For just as we were made just freely, so also we are said to be justified freely, because we freely received faith and grace, by which we merit the second justice, that is the increase of justice: "For what else," says St. Augustine, "does God do when he crowns our works, than crowns his own gifts?" In which sense the Apostle also calls eternal life, which nevertheless we merit, grace, cap. VI, vers. last. Finally, from this Theologians teach that the act of faith is meritorious in a justified man, as it was in Abraham.
4:4
4. BUT TO HIM THAT WORKETH, THE REWARD IS NOT RECKONED ACCORDING TO GRACE, BUT ACCORDING TO DEBT. 5. BUT TO HIM THAT WORKETH NOT (that is, who does not bring forth his works done by the powers of his nature, nor seeks or hopes from them justice, as a reward due to them), YET BELIEVETH IN HIM THAT JUSTIFIETH THE UNGODLY, HIS FAITH IS REPUTED TO JUSTICE (that is, here he is justified by faith, as I said vers. 3) ACCORDING TO THE PURPOSE (that is, the liberal decree) OF THE GRACE OF GOD. — I shall say more about this purpose cap. VIII, vers. 28. This is the argumentation of the Apostle: Abraham was justified freely by faith, because namely he believed God, who by his grace justifies the ungodly; not, however, because he worked well by his own strength, or because he merited this justice by his good works: therefore also now this justification comes to the ungodly and sinners, not from their works and merits, but freely from faith in Christ, whom God proposed to us as redeemer and propitiator. For what is given through faith and grace is not a reward, but grace: but what is given for works or for the merit of works is a reward, not grace. Since therefore the justification of Abraham and of us comes freely through faith, it follows that it does not come from works, so that it would be a reward of our works and merits.
4:6
6. JUST AS DAVID ALSO SAYS (Psalm XXXI, 1) BLESSED IS THE MAN (in Greek μακαρισμόν, that is, blessedness, namely justification, of that man, that is, that man is blessed and just), TO WHOM GOD IMPUTETH JUSTICE (in Greek λογίζεται, that is, reckons, accounts, ascribes) WITHOUT WORKS, — that is, not from the virtue or merit of works, but from His own grace. Note that these three things are the same to the Apostle, namely to be reckoned, imputed and accounted justice, and that he uses this phrase because the principal effect of justice is to please God, to be grateful and acceptable to God, to be reckoned by God as a friend, just and holy. For God, justifying freely, remits sins and accepts man into His friendship, and therefore infuses inherent justice into man, just as a munificent king, whom he makes a Knight his companion, gives him a golden fleece: and this is evident from the fact that in verses 3, 4, 5, the Apostle says that faith, which certainly inheres in man, is imputed, that is, accounted, unto justice; and to him that worketh, reward is imputed, that is, reckoned as a debt; because truly by the judgment and reckoning of all, reward is owed to the worker, promised to the work. Whence Budaeus: λογίζεσθαι, he says, is an arithmetical word, just as ἁρμόζειν is of musicians, ἀναλογεῖν of geometers: for λόγος signifies reason and reckoning. Just as therefore reward, which is reckoned and numbered to the digger or reaper, is reward not by the imputation or estimation of the one reckoning, but by the proper reckoning, reason and estimation of the labor; so likewise justice reckoned and numbered to us by God is not by the mere imputation of the one reckoning, but by itself and its own intrinsic reason, reckoned, estimated, and is in reality true and real justice. Secondly, the same is evident from the fact that in verse 8, the Apostle says in like manner that sins are imputed to man. For it is certain, as Calvin testifies, that sins truly inhere in the sinful man. Thus the violation of a vow is said to be reckoned as sin, Deuteronomy XXIII, 21; and in Deuteronomy XXIV, 15, the withholding of another's wages is said to be reckoned as sin. But it is clear that these are not merely reckoned, but are also truly in themselves sins. For God, who judges justly, cannot reckon as sin and as it were punish any work which is not truly in itself sin. Whence it is evident that this justice, which God reckons, imputes and accounts to us, is not the justice of Christ imputed to us: for this is extrinsic to man; but our justice is intrinsic and inherent to us, just as sin, when we sin, is intrinsic to us and intimately inheres. Yet this justice is said to be reckoned or imputed to us by God, because God truly reckons, imputes and estimates in man that which is in man and exists, not that which is not in him, but is thought to be in him and is feigned. For God is the truest estimator and weigher of all justice and sin, virtue and vice. Therefore for God to impute justice to anyone is for God to estimate that he is just, because namely God has forgiven him his sins and has infused inherent justice. You will say: If it is so, why then does Paul not clearly express this here? Why did he not say that justice inheres in us, rather than that it is reckoned? I answer: Paul uses the word of imputing so many times here because Moses had used it in the faith of Abraham: for this faith of Abraham, as Moses says, was reckoned unto him for justice. For the Apostle presses hard here this example of Abraham's faith and justification, and therefore insists stubbornly on the words of Moses: but to Abraham it is not said that the justice of Christ was imputed, but his own faith, as is evident from the very words of Moses and Paul. Therefore the Novatians have nothing here for their imputed justice of Christ: nay rather the contrary is proved from this. For the faith of Abraham was not imputed to him in itself, as if this faith were proper to Christ or to some other; but to Abraham it was imputed by God, because this faith of Abraham was his own, not another's, not imputed, and truly and properly inhered in him; but this faith is said to be imputed to him unto justice, because by reason and respect of the faith which God accepted, He gave and granted him justice. For λογίζεσθαι, from λόγος, signifies to estimate something with reason, or for some reason. Thus here God estimated, accepted, held Abraham just, and by accepting made him just and infused inherent justice into him, by respect and reason of his faith, because namely he himself believed God promising a thing so new, difficult, naturally impossible and incredible: which so pleased God that He accepted him into His friendship, and deigned him with His grace and justice. And this is the reason why Moses in the justification of Abraham used the word חשב chasab, or λογίζομαι, that is, to estimate, to impute.
4:7
7. BLESSED ARE THEY WHOSE INIQUITIES ARE FORGIVEN. — Namely by gratuitous remission, not by the merits of works: for this is what Paul wishes to prove, and this properly is to remit offences and sins; namely to forgive them freely. AND WHOSE SINS ARE COVERED. — "Covered," not as if sins remain in the just and lie hidden, as Calvin wishes; or because God, by dissimulating, does not impute them to punishment, as Luther wishes. For this is not permitted by the perspicacious and integral justice of God. But "covered," that is, obliterated, buried; so that they are not, nor exist any longer, just as a chasm of the earth is covered by earth thrown in, and nakedness is covered by garments, and black stains are covered and removed by white colour applied. Thus David explains himself, Psalm L, when he says: "Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, O Lord, and I shall be cleansed; thou shalt wash me, and I shall be made whiter than snow." For what is thus so completely covered that God does not see it, this is completely non-existent. Thus St. Augustine, book I Against Two Epistles of the Pelagians, chapter XIII: "Covered," he says, "are sins, not as if they are there covered and live, but they are covered and abolished. If God covered sins, He did not wish to notice; if He did not wish to notice, He did not wish to take cognizance, did not wish to punish, did not wish to acknowledge; He preferred to pardon; if He pardoned sins, therefore He took them away. Thus also Nazianzen, oration on Holy Baptism, and Gregory, in Psalm II penitential, say sins are covered by God in justification, in that manner in which wounds are covered by a physician with a plaster, by which they are completely healed and abolished, so that they nowhere appear. Origen also here and Theodoret, in Psalm XXXI, say to cover sin means to eradicate sin so completely that not even a trace remains. origen notes here and St. Ambrose, book II On Penance, chapter V, that sin is remitted through penance, but covered through good works. Whence also St. Gregory, homily 4 on Ezekiel: "Sins," he says, "we cover when we place good deeds over evil deeds: when therefore we renounce the evils which we have done, and choose the goods which we do, we as it were draw a covering over that thing which we are ashamed to see." This sense is tropological. Secondly, St. Jerome, in Psalm XXXI, says sins are covered because sins, he says, which are here deleted through penance, will not be manifested on the day of judgment, but will be covered and hidden. But this must be understood rightly; for on the day of judgment all the works of each will be revealed and judged. Whence also sins, although remitted through penance, will then be manifested (for this is required by the public, full and exact judgment of God and Christ both concerning sins and concerning their penance). They are said to be covered, however, because through penance they are covered and forgiven they will be declared; and so to the penitent they will not redound to ignominy, but to praise and glory. Thirdly, Gregory Nazianzen, oration on Holy Baptism... Fifthly, St. Jerome, in Psalm XXXI: Sins, he says, are remitted through baptism, covered through charity, not imputed through martyrdom. Fourthly, others with Ambrose in the Apology of David, chapter IX, say sins are remitted through baptism, but covered through confession and penance. The same Ambrose, ibid. chapter XXIII, asserts sins are remitted by reason of grace, covered by reason of charity, deleted by reason of the blood of Christ. Fifthly, and genuinely, sins are said to be remitted through God's forgiveness, but covered through the infusion of justice, that is of grace and charity: for these are spiritual and most beautiful garments, by which the nakedness of the soul induced by sin is covered and adorned. For this is that first robe with which the prodigal son was clothed, Luke XV; for this is the wedding garment, of which Christ speaks, Matthew XXII: "Friend, how camest thou in here not having a wedding garment?"
4:8
8. BLESSED IS THE MAN TO WHOM THE LORD HATH NOT IMPUTED SIN. Note that "hath not imputed" is not to be understood as if a man sins, and yet God does not impute this sin to him, for this involves a contradiction. The sense therefore is: Blessed is the man to whom God hath forgiven sin, and consequently no longer imputes it to him; and whom God thereafter protects lest he commit sin which He might impute to him: for the nature of sin consists in this, that it is an offense against God, and that God imputes it to us as guilt and punishment, especially eternal punishment. I say eternal: for when guilt is remitted, God requires just satisfaction for temporal punishment, which He wishes the sinner to undergo. To him therefore to whom God doth not impute the offense as guilt, He thereby forgives and removes it from him. Thus Blessed Justin, at the end of his Dialogue against Trypho: "Blessed," he says, "is he to whom the Lord shall not impute sin, that is, to whom He shall remit sins when he repents: but not as you deceive yourselves by preaching, that even if they have been sinners, provided they know God, God will not impute sins to them." Nazianzenus notes, in his oration on Holy Baptism, that God doth not then impute sin, when He doth not reckon as guilt a work that is vicious in itself, on account of the ignorance or right intention of the one acting. Secondly, St. Augustine, in the book On Loving God, chapter XII, asserts that to remit sins is not to avenge them; but to cover sins is not to reproach them; but not to impute sins is plainly and from the heart to forgive them, namely when God so loves him who hath sinned as if he had never sinned. Thirdly, Origen: "Sins," he says, "are remitted when the sinner turns away from them through repentance; they are covered when they are buried under good works; they are not imputed when the whole root of sin is plucked out from the soul." The same also Nazianzenus hath above. Fourthly, Lyra: "Not to impute sins," he says, "is not to reckon them unto eternal punishment, but to remit and forgive both the guilt and the eternal punishment." Sixthly and truly, for God not to impute sin to anyone is for that person not to have sin: for from the fact that one hath not sin, but avoids and guards against it, it follows that God cannot impute sin to him. For the Psalmist here sets forth two beatitudes of the just man. The first is that of which he says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered," as if to say, Blessed are they who are cleansed from sins, justified, and clothed and covered with the garment of charity. The second, when he immediately adds: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin," as if to say, Blessed, nay rather more blessed, is he who, after he hath been cleansed from sins, thereafter lives justly, and with all diligence avoids sins, so that he doth nothing evil which God might impute to him as sin.
4:9
9. DOTH THIS BEATITUDE THEREFORE REMAIN IN CIRCUMCISION ALONE, OR ALSO IN UNCIRCUMCISION? In Greek there is not the word "remains," but only ἐπὶ τὴν περιτομὴν ἢ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀκροβυστίαν, that is, in circumcision, or also in uncircumcision; supply, doth this beatitude fall upon and belong to? as if to say, Doth this justice, which, as David testifies, makes us blessed, and which is the beginning of beatitude, pertain to the circumcised alone, namely the Jews, or also to the uncircumcised, namely the Gentiles? This question of the Apostle, after the Hebrew manner, is not a question, but a sharp and vehement assertion and conclusion, as if to say, From the words cited from David, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin," you can clearly conclude, O Jews, that this beatitude and justice of his pertaineth not to the circumcised alone, but also to the Gentiles, both because his words are indefinite and general, and suit both a Gentile man and a Jew; and because he saith that our beatitude and justice are situated, not in the works of the law, which you arrogate to yourselves, O Jews, but in the liberal clemency and forgiveness of God, who freely remitteth sins to us. Justification therefore is the work not of the law, which you claim for yourselves, O Jews, but of grace, which is common to all, both Gentiles and Jews. WE SAY THEREFORE THAT FAITH WAS REPUTED TO ABRAHAM FOR JUSTICE. This is the second reason by which Paul proveth that justice pertaineth not to the Jews alone, but also to the Gentiles: for he proveth this his conclusion, which is the scope of the whole epistle, not only by the testimony of David, but also of Abraham. Now this is the reasoning of the Apostle: Abraham before the law, nay before circumcision, was justified, not from circumcision and other works of the law, as being things which did not yet exist, but from faith: whence also he afterwards received circumcision, that it might be a sign of the justice accepted through faith: therefore this justice is not from the law and circumcision, nor for the law and circumcision alone, but for all who follow the faith of Abraham.
4:10
10. HOW THEN WAS IT RECKONED? IN CIRCUMCISION, OR IN UNCIRCUMCISION? NOT IN CIRCUMCISION, BUT IN UNCIRCUMCISION. "How," that is, in what state, namely of circumcision or uncircumcision, of Judaism or Gentilism, as the Apostle here explains himself, as if to say: Was Abraham circumcised or uncircumcised when he was justified? It is certain that he was uncircumcised: therefore the justice of Abraham pertains not only to you, O Jews, but also to the uncircumcised Gentiles. Again therefore Abraham was justified, not from circumcision, nor from the works of the law, from which you, O Jews, say that all justice must be sought, but from faith and grace which is common to both the uncircumcised and the circumcised. You see here the Apostle everywhere wishing to exclude from justification works and ceremonies of the law, but not however works which flow from faith and the grace of Christ.
4:11
11. AND HE RECEIVED THE SIGN OF CIRCUMCISION, A SEAL OF THE JUSTICE OF FAITH, WHICH IS IN UNCIRCUMCISION. The Apostle continues his assertion, and tacitly proves it, as if to say: So far was Abraham justified in or from circumcision, that he received circumcision after justice, so that it might be a sign of the justice which he had obtained through faith before circumcision, when he was still uncircumcised. Note, from Genesis XVII, that circumcision was primarily a sign of the covenant which God made with Abraham, by which He ordained that in his seed, namely Christ, all nations should be blessed. Secondly, circumcision was a sign distinguishing the descendants of Abraham from other nations. Thirdly, circumcision, as the Apostle here says, was "a seal of the justice of faith," that is it was a seal by which was closed and hidden as it were a great secret, the justice of faith to be revealed through Christ, as Origen says. Fourthly, and properly according to the mind of Paul here, of St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Theophylact, Oecumenius, Augustine (lib. II On Marriage and Concupiscence, cap. II), and Cyril (lib. IV on John, li): circumcision was a seal, in Greek σφραγίς, which corresponds to the Hebrew חותם chotam, that is a seal of justice, by which namely God testified to Abraham that justice was certain and legitimate, justice, I say, obtained before through faith, when he was still uncircumcised. Where note: Although in Abraham the matter was thus, in his descendants however it was otherwise: for in them circumcision was not a seal of justice received, but rather to be received. WHICH IS IN UNCIRCUMCISION. — He adds this, so that he might signify that Abraham was designated through uncircumcision to be the father of all nations (for these have uncircumcision), that is uncircumcision itself signified that he would be the father of all nations, just as circumcision signified that he would be the father of the Jews, inasmuch as they were likewise circumcised. See a similar passage cap. VI, vers. 4, and cap. VII, vers. 4. THAT HE (Abraham) MIGHT BE THE FATHER OF ALL BELIEVERS THROUGH UNCIRCUMCISION, — that is of all remaining in uncircumcision, of all the uncircumcised, namely of all Gentiles, so that their faith might be reckoned to them unto justice, and from their faith they also might be justified, just as Abraham was justified from his faith. Note: Abraham is called the father of believing Gentiles, not in a natural and carnal sense, but in a spiritual and mystical sense: namely because he gave to all of them an illustrious example of faith. Again, because to his descendants according to faith and spirit, namely to those who would imitate the faith of Abraham, blessing, justice and salvation were promised by God; and Abraham first among all the fathers received this promise from God, and accepted it in the name of all his descendants: all, I say, both Gentiles and Jews. For Abraham, when he received this promise, was uncircumcised and a Gentile.
4:12
12. AND LET HIM BE THE FATHER OF CIRCUMCISION, NOT ONLY TO THOSE WHO ARE OF CIRCUMCISION, BUT ALSO TO THOSE WHO FOLLOW THE FOOTSTEPS OF THE FAITH, WHICH IS IN THE FORESKIN OF OUR FATHER ABRAHAM. That is to say, as Anselm says: "And let him be the father of circumcision," that is, of the circumcised, namely the Jews; and not only of these, but also of all believers, even if they are not circumcised, who follow the faith of Abraham: so that it is a repetition of the previous sentence, embracing both posterity of Abraham, namely, Gentiles and believing Jews, whose spiritual father is Abraham. Secondly, St. Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Oecumenius and Toletus thus expound it, that is to say: That Abraham be "the father of circumcision," that is, of the circumcised, not of those who have only the outward circumcision in the flesh, but of those who together with the circumcision of the flesh also follow the footsteps of the faith of Abraham. For if they do not follow this faith of his, although they be circumcised in the flesh, they will not be reckoned to have Abraham as their father. For, as the Apostle says, cap. IX, vers. 8: "Not they that are the children of the flesh, are the children of God, but they that are the children of the promise, are counted for the seed." But this sense does not sufficiently correspond to the words of the Apostle, and plainly inverts and transposes the little word only. Thirdly therefore, plainly and genuinely, the Apostle seems here to take circumcision properly, not however metonymically, for the circumcised themselves. For thus he ought to have said: And let him be the father of believers through circumcision, as he said: "That he might be the father of believers through the foreskin;" but now he does not speak thus, but changes the phrase saying: "And let him be the father of circumcision." The father therefore, that is, the author and institutor of circumcision, that is to say, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, so that he himself might be the seal of justice received through faith, when he was still uncircumcised. Whence it came to pass that Abraham was the father of believing Gentiles, he was also the father, that is, the author and institutor of circumcision; circumcision, I say, which was the sign of the covenant made between God and Abraham and his posterity, by which God testified that he would be the father, protector and friend of Abraham and his posterity, and that he would bless them, justify them and save them, as he had blessed, justified and saved Abraham. Moreover circumcision was such a sign, "not only to those who are of circumcision," that is, not to Jews alone, "but also to those (Gentiles) who follow the footsteps of the faith, which is (that is, which was and appeared) in the foreskin of our father Abraham," when namely Abraham was still uncircumcised and a Gentile. For by these words the Apostle explains why circumcision was given to Abraham uncircumcised as a seal of justice, namely to signify that, as Abraham before circumcision was justified and blessed through faith, so also all who would imitate the faith of Abraham; even if they were not circumcised, would be justified and blessed through faith. Paul, says Cyril, lib. IV in Joan., cap. li: "He asserted that circumcision was given to him as a sign of the faith which Abraham had in his foreskin: for he wished to show that the calling and justice of faith was prior and superior to every legal commandment, so that he might more easily persuade the Hebrews not to think the justice of faith a transgression of the law, but a certain return and recourse to the former state of man." Where note, that under circumcision the Apostle understands the whole old law and all the ceremonies and works of the law, because circumcision was the beginning and profession of all these: just as now baptism is the profession of Christianity and of the whole law of the Gospel. Therefore, when the Apostle excludes circumcision from the justice of Abraham and his posterity, by this very fact he excludes all the works of the law and all the ceremonies from justice. As vers. 4, he called ἐργαζόμενον him who observes circumcision and other ceremonies of the law, so now he calls πίστιν and πιστεύοντα, him who believes and has faith and moral works, even if he does not have ceremonial ones.
4:13
13. FOR NOT THROUGH THE LAW WAS THE PROMISE TO ABRAHAM. Supply, it came to pass, but before the law and before circumcision; for he received circumcision in Gen. XVII, but the promise he received in Gen. XII, although it was repeated after circumcision, Gen. XXII. Now the promise is this, which follows: "That he should be the heir of the world." The Apostle proves here what preceded, namely that Abraham is the father of all believers, even of the uncircumcised, and consequently that justice comes to us not through circumcision and the law and the works of the law, but through faith. He proves this same thing from the promise made to Abraham, by this argument: Abraham was promised a blessing, that is, the justice and salvation of all nations, not through the law and circumcision, but before it, from the fact that he believed God; therefore the descendants of Abraham will also become partakers of this promise, blessing and justice, not through the works of the law, but through faith. For God willed to establish this justice in faith, not in the law; and in faith, not in the law, indeed before the law, Abraham received this justice, that he might be an example to his descendants, signifying that they, not from the law, but from faith likewise were to be justified. THAT HE SHOULD BE THE HEIR OF THE WORLD,—namely that in his seed all nations should be blessed. For this is the promise made to Abraham, Gen. XXII, 18, so that namely Abraham's faith, blessing and son, namely Christ, should subdue all nations to himself, and thus the kingdom of Christ should be extended through all nations, as it is said in Psal. II, 8: "Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thy inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession." Thus Chrysostom, Theophylactus. So therefore Abraham is the heir of the world, because he has the whole world as his children, and thus as it were possesses the entire world, but through his son, namely through Christ, and through "the justice of faith," that is, accepted through faith. For this faith and justice of Abraham and Christ pervaded and occupied all nations, and this is the promise, blessing and inheritance of Abraham, namely the Church spread throughout the whole world, which is the kingdom of the faithful, in which Christ is king, and Abraham is father and patriarch. Note here the just and ample reward of Abraham's faith and obedience. For Abraham believed and obeyed God calling him out of Ur of the Chaldees, and for God he left the small inheritance which he had in Ur, but in exchange for it he received the inheritance of all Canaan, indeed of the whole world. So liberal is God, and so magnificently does he reward his own.
4:14
14. IF INDEED THOSE WHO ARE OF THE LAW ARE HEIRS: FAITH IS MADE VOID, THE PROMISE IS ABOLISHED. "Heirs," namely both of the promise and of the blessing of Abraham already mentioned. Note: The word "heirs" can be taken either actively and properly; or passively, so that it means the same as the very hereditary possession itself, namely the people promised as an inheritance to Christ and Abraham, as preceded. Yet it is more aptly taken in the former way, namely actively. The Apostle urges and presses hard both here and in Gal. III, 18, that justice comes to us from faith, not from the law and the works of the law: because if it were obtained through the law, not through faith, there would follow a great absurdity, namely that the faith and promise of Abraham would be abolished and abrogated; for Abraham was promised a blessing, not from the law, as being before the law, but from faith, because namely he believed God promising. Again, if justice is given from the law, therefore not from the promise: for the law and the promise are opposed, the law and faith are opposed (for faith corresponds to the promise, and is the acceptance and application of the promise), because the promise is free and liberal, and what is promised is given liberally, gratuitously and from grace; but what is given from the law and the works of the law is given not gratuitously, nor from grace, but from justice and the merit of works.
4:15
15. FOR THE LAW WORKETH WRATH. This verse does not seem to cohere directly with the preceding one, and therefore is to be referred more remotely to verse 13, after the Hebrew manner. For it gives the reason why the promise to Abraham, that is, the promised salvation and justice, could not be obtained through the law: because namely the law is so far from promising an inheritance, that it rather worketh wrath. This is a new reason proving that justice does not come to us through the law, because namely the law does not work justice, but wrath: because namely the law is the cause and occasion, not of blessing, not of justice, not of inheritance, but of transgression and consequently of curse, wrath and divine vengeance: for if there were no law, there would be no transgression of the law; and because the law, as it were by antiperiastasis, inflames concupiscence: for we always strive toward what is forbidden, understand, unless the law is joined with faith and grace which may aid the law and restrain concupiscence: which is what the Apostle intends. For the scope is to show the necessity of faith and the grace of Christ, and to lead to it both Jews and all men, so that they may attain justice and salvation.
4:16
16. THEREFORE FROM FAITH, THAT ACCORDING TO GRACE THE PROMISE MAY BE FIRM. The Apostle deduces and concludes this verse from verse 14, as if to say: From the law the inheritance and justice of Abraham cannot come to us; for thus faith and the promise of God would be abolished; therefore it comes to us from faith, namely through Christ, not through Moses, and this "that according to grace the promise may be firm:" or, as the Greek, Syriac, and certain Latin manuscript codices have it, that according to grace, that the promise may be firm, as if to say: Therefore justice comes to us from faith, so that it may be gratuitous to us, and may be from grace, not from debt and justice, so that consequently the promise may be firm, by which God, as He liberally promised through grace, so through grace freely and liberally bestows and gives us this justice. Note: When the Apostle says: "That the promise may be firm," he does not understand the promise of the remission of sins in particular, by which the heretic believes by divine faith that his sins are remitted to him through faith and penance; for the words of the Apostle contain nothing of the sort, but this is a gloss which the Novatians add; a gloss, I say, of Orléans, which perverts the text. For, to pass over other things, it is not certain to anyone that he has such an act of divine faith or penance; for he can believe by natural faith, not divine, and be acted upon by the spirit of nature, or of a demon, thinking himself to be acted upon by the Holy Spirit. Nay, without a special revelation of God it cannot be certain to anyone that he believes by divine faith: much less can it be certain to anyone through such an act, which is uncertain to him, that his sins are remitted to him. Therefore the Apostle speaks of the promise made to Abraham in general, namely that in his seed all nations would be blessed, that is, would be justified and saved, not only Jews born of him carnally, but also Gentiles, who are born spiritually from him through faith; because they imitate Abraham as a father in faith. For he wishes to say only this, that this blessing, that is, justice through faith, was promised not only to Jews, the carnal children of Abraham, but also to Gentiles, the spiritual children; but he does not wish to say that to me, to you, to this one in particular justice was promised; but only in general and only under a condition, and by consequence of this syllogism: "To all who believe and imitate the faith of Abraham, blessing is promised, that is, justice; but I believe; therefore justice is promised to me." Where the major premise is of faith: but the minor is not certain by faith, but only certain by a certain moral and conjectural certainty, and consequently neither is the conclusion of faith, but only conjectural. LET THE PROMISE BE FIRM TO ALL THE SEED (the posterity of Abraham), not to him who is of the law only (not to the Jew alone), but also to him (the Gentile) who is of the faith of Abraham, (who as a genuine son pursues the faith of Abraham his father) WHO IS THE FATHER OF ALL OF US, — both of Gentiles and of Jews. He is, I say, a father not by propagation of flesh, but of faith and spirit. For when we imitate the faith of Abraham, then Abraham himself through Christ pours forth his justice, grace and spirit into us as into his sons, and adopts and takes us to himself.
4:17
17. AS IT IS WRITTEN (Genesis XVII), BECAUSE I HAVE MADE THEE A FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. "I have made," that is, I will make and establish thee: for in the manner of prophetic speech, on account of the certainty of the future thing, the past tense is put for the future. BEFORE GOD TO WHOM HE BELIEVED. — First, Oecumenius refers these words to "as it is written," as if to say: As it is written before God, that is, in the sight of God, to whom faith commends us; or, as it is written from the person of God. Second, Origen thus explains it: "Before God," that is, by God Abraham was made our father. Third, Anselm: "before God," he says, because Abraham by faith was made a father, which faith is evident to the eyes of God, not of men. Fourth, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret and Theophylact explain the Greek κατέναντι as over against, opposite to, that is, by way of example and likeness. For painters set this before themselves over against and propose it, when they wish to express it, as if Paul said: By way of example and likeness of God, who is the universal father of all, Abraham likewise was made a father of many nations. Fifth, others thus explain it: "I have made thee a father before God," that is, a spiritual father by spiritual generation and kinship, which has place before God, and renders us pleasing to God. But this is more remote and obscure. Sixth, therefore most plainly: "I have made thee a father before God," that is, in the foreknowledge and immutable, certain and irrevocable decree of God; for Abraham was not yet actually a father of many nations, but only in the foreknowledge and predestination of God. Whence Paul, explaining this, adds: "Who calleth those things that are not, as those that are." Thus St. Augustine on Psalm CV. WHO QUICKENETH THE DEAD. — "The dead," that is, sinners, says Anselm: but this is mystical. Second, Ambrose: "The dead," he says, that is, those weak for generation, old men, feeble, almost dead and lifeless, such as were Sara and Abraham, when they begat Isaac. Third, St. Chrysostom: Properly, he says, God quickeneth the dead, when He raiseth them from death. For by these words Paul commends the omnipotence of God, as if to say: As God is able to raise the dead, so He is able to make it that the Gentiles, born in paganism, be spiritually reborn through faith, and become sons of Abraham, and this Abraham believed, when he believed God saying: "I have made thee a father of many nations." Fourth, Toletus thinks the Apostle here looks back to the faith of Abraham, by which, being commanded to immolate his son Isaac, he believed that God would raise him from death after he had immolated him. But Paul does not treat here of this faith of Abraham, nor does Moses in Genesis XVII, but only of the faith by which Abraham believed God first promising that Isaac would be born to him from Sara, as is evident from the words of the Apostle, especially those following, and from Genesis XVII: for the immolation of Isaac was commanded later, Genesis chapter XXII. The third sense of St. Chrysostom therefore seems to be more literal and apt. Yet he alludes to Isaac, whom Abraham immolated, believing that God could raise him from the dead, as the same Paul explains in Hebrews XI, 19; which resurrection was a sign of the resurrection of Christ, by whose faith we were to be justified, as he says in verse 24. For although in Genesis XVII Isaac had not yet been actually immolated and raised, he was nevertheless immolated and raised in the foreknowledge and predestination of God; and through him Abraham was to be a father of many nations. AND CALLETH THOSE THINGS THAT ARE NOT, AS THOSE THAT ARE. — First: God, says Anselm, calleth the Gentiles, "which are not," because they were vile and of no account, being infidels, most remote from God the first being, that they may be noble and faithful, adhering to God the first being. Second, Ambrose: God, he says, calleth the Gentiles "which are not" seed, that they may be seed and people of Abraham. Third, Pererius: God, he says, from eternity chose and predestined men who were not to eternal life, as if they actually were and as if they had been from eternity. Fourth, others thus explain it, as if Paul said: God sees so clearly and distinctly those things which are not, but are far in the future, just as He sees and knows those things which already actually are. "Calleth" therefore, that is, sees and knows, so that He is able to call them. Hence it is said in Ecclesiasticus XXIII: "Before the Lord God all things were known before they were created; so also after their perfection He beholdeth all things." Fifth, most plainly and best, God "calleth those things that are not, as those that are," because God hath equal dominion over those things which are not, and over those things which are, and maketh those things which are not to be: for example, here He maketh that the Gentiles, which were not, be sons of Abraham. Note here: God's calling is creating and making; for all possible things, although they do not yet exist in act, nevertheless are and lie hidden in God's omnipotence as in power and seed, and when God by His command draws them forth from there, by this very act He makes them to be: for God's speaking and calling is efficacious, and is the same as our making. Thus St. Chrysostom. Whence the Greek καλοῦντος τὰ μὴ ὄντα ὡς ὄντα can be translated, who calls those things which are not, as if they were. Thus St. Augustine in Psalm CV. So God from darkness and the treasures of His power calls (as the Prophets speak) famine, the sword, drought, while He makes them to be, and while He sends them forth as it were servants and lictors to the world and to men. From this indeed the metaphor was taken: as if God, calling forth famine, plague, the sword, were to say: You famine, as a satellite come and punish such impious men; you sword, as a lictor be present, go, strike Flanders; you hail, be at hand, strike France. This is signified by the Hebrew קרא kara, that is, he called. Thus "the stars," says Baruch, chapter III, 34, "gave light in their watches (that is, in their stations and vigils: for the stars are as it were soldiers of God, always keeping watch at His service) and being called they said (not by word, but by deed and in fact), we are here." And from this God is called Sabaoth, that is, of hosts, because all angels, stars, any creatures whatsoever, even if not existing, are an army to God obedient to His nod and fighting for Him.
4:18
18. Who (Abraham) against hope (of nature and of natural generative power) in hope (that is, in the thing hoped for of grace and divine promise) BELIEVED, SO THAT (namely) HE BECAME THE FATHER OF MANY NATIONS. Note: Just as to hope for desperate things is to hope against hope, so also to believe in future things of which there is no hope is to believe against hope, namely that to the aged Abraham and barren Sarah Isaac would be born, because God himself promised this. Thus Theophylactus, Anselm and Theodoret. Note, how great a faith and hope God exacted from Abraham, and how great a faith Abraham displayed, so that he merited to be called the father of faith and hope: namely, that he should believe against hope in hope, that he should hope and believe in things which were naturally impossible, that contrary to all the judgment of physicians and natural philosophers, rising above the powers of nature with heroic faith toward God and His omnipotent promise, he should persuade himself most certainly that from the barren and aged Sarah there would be born to him offspring promised by God; and by this faith he merited and obtained not only this offspring, but all God's blessing. So pleasing was this faith and hope in itself to God: whence he proposes it to us here in Abraham, as it were in a mirror to be imitated, and this first, in matters and articles of faith which transcend our understanding and the power of nature, for example, God commands that it be believed that He is one God in essence, and yet three in persons: He commands that it be believed that the body of Christ is really present in the Eucharist, even if sight and sense tell us otherwise. Here the faithful man against the hope of nature will believe in the hope of divine omnipotence, so that he may transcend the weakness of the dictate of eyes, ears, imagination and natural judgment, and raising himself to God will most firmly believe that which He himself, who is the first and infallible truth, who can neither lie nor deceive, said: namely, "I and the Father (likewise and the Holy Spirit) are one: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you; This is my blood," etc. Secondly, and more to the mind of the Apostle, in difficult matters, in grave temptation and tribulation, in persecution, in infamy, in sicknesses, death, and martyrdom, in undertaking an apostolate to the Indians, English, Dutch, if anyone should be sent to them, and conscious of his own natural weakness should tremble, let him believe against hope in hope; let him think that many things above nature are to be done and endured by a Christian man; let him think that grace surpasses and transcends nature; let him think that God, who once sent and by sending made Apostles and Prophets, will also send him and by sending will make him an Apostle, and let him say: I can do all things, not in myself, but in Him who strengthens me. Supported and strengthened by this hope the Apostles subdued the world to Christ; by this hope the Martyrs overcame all tortures and tyrants; by this hope most tender maidens, Sts. Agnes, Agatha, Febronia and countless others, overcame flesh and world, and all the temptations and torments of the devil. This hope is lacking in many, and therefore they creep on the ground, nor do they rise to great things: the root of this evil is weakness of faith, because they do not apprehend and believe in a living way, and do not fully persuade themselves that God is omnipotent, that God allows no one to be tempted above his strength, that God is the most faithful protector of His own, that God cares for us more than father, mother, etc. And indeed it is no small injury to God to have so small an opinion of His goodness, power, providence and paternal care; when the Wise Man admonishes, "Think of the Lord in goodness," that is to say, Think well, piously, holily of God's providence, clemency and other attributes; not badly and impiously with Epicureans and Atheists, not timidly and narrowly with the timid and fainthearted. For God wills to be held by us as supremely good and merciful, equally as almighty; He counts it an honor when such as He truly is, He is believed, hoped in, and worshipped by us: just as a king wills to be held by his subjects as most merciful, and that he exercise toward all royal munificence. Great therefore and most pleasing obedience, reverence and honor do we render to God, when we hope great things from Him, when we place great confidence in Him in all things however difficult, and then He gives great things and works great things. For who has hoped in Him and been confounded? See how great things God has done through Athanasius, Gregory, Vincent, Lawrence: indeed through yourself also from time to time; therefore, O man of little faith, in this temptation, in this difficulty, why do you doubt, why do you fear? God is present, God rules and feeds you. Indeed, for a Christian, especially one who is noble and aspires to great things, hope must be greatly stirred up, so that he may often believe against hope in hope; and he should know that hope can never be too great, nor can so much be hoped from God that God does not wish more to be hoped from him, and thus he will do wonders beyond strength, beyond nature. "Do you not know," said St. Ignatius, "how great strength hope in God has. Hope which is seen is not hope." St. Xavier had armed himself with such hope that in the most difficult matters he feared nothing except distrust of God's aid; with this hope he invaded India relying on God alone, with this hope he traversed the whole East by evangelizing; with this hope in the eleven years in which he lived there, how great, how stupendous things, beyond strength, beyond human prudence, did he undertake and happily accomplish for the glory of God? Truly St. Bernard, sermon 15 on the Psalm, He that dwelleth: "Hope in him (God)," he says, "all the congregation of the people: for whatever place your foot shall tread upon, it shall be yours: your foot is indeed your hope, and however far it shall proceed, it shall obtain. If only it be fixed in God entirely, so that it be firm and does not waver. What should he fear the asp or basilisk? why should he be terrified at the roaring of a lion or the hissing of a dragon? Because he hath hoped in me, I will deliver him; moreover, being delivered, lest he have need to be delivered again, I will protect him and preserve him, if only he shall know my name, lest he attribute to himself that he has been delivered, but give glory to my name." But St. Augustine, on that passage of Psalm 102, For according to the height of the heaven above the earth, he hath made his mercy mighty towards them that fear him, etc., beautifully declares by the example of heaven far surpassing and transcending the earth, how much the care and providence of God concerning us transcends all thought and hope, and consequently how much we ought to raise and expand our hope in it. "The Lord hath confirmed," he says, "his mercy towards them that fear him, according to what? according to the height of the heaven above the earth. What did he say? if heaven can ever depart from the protection of the earth, then God can ever fail to protect them that fear him. Attend: heaven everywhere and on all sides protects the earth, and there is no part of the earth which is not protected by heaven. Men sin under heaven, they do all evil under heaven, yet they are protected by heaven. Hence light to the eyes, hence air, hence spirit, hence rain to the earth for fruits, hence all mercy from heaven. Take away the aid of heaven from the earth, it will immediately fail: as therefore the protection of heaven remains over the earth, so the protection of God remains over them that fear him. Do you fear God? above you is his protection."
4:19
19. AND HE WAS NOT WEAK IN FAITH, NOR DID HE CONSIDER HIS BODY NOW DEAD. In Greek νενεκρωμένον, that is, mortified, exhausted in strength and unfit for begetting offspring. You will say: How then did Abraham afterwards beget sons from Cetura? Augustine answers, Questions XXXV in Genesis, that Abraham's body was dead with respect to Sarah the old woman, but not with respect to Cetura the younger. Second, St. Thomas answers, that Abraham was truly then impotent on account of old age for begetting from any woman, but by divine miracle the power was restored to him, by which he could raise up and beget offspring from Sarah, Cetura and any other woman. The former explanation is the truer, as I have shown in Genesis XVII, 17.
4:20
20. HE DID NOT WAVER IN THE PROMISE OF GOD EITHER. In Greek, οὐ διεκρίθη, that is, he did not judge, he did not inquire, namely how indeed it could be done. You will say: Abraham, Gen. XV, 8, having heard this promise of God, asks and desires that it be confirmed by a sign, saying: "How shall I know that I shall possess it (Canaan)?" Therefore it seems that Abraham wavered and doubted concerning God's promise. I answer: Abraham there does not doubt concerning the thing and substance of the divine promise; for a little before in the same place, verse 6, it is said: "Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice." But he only desires to know the manner to be observed in its execution, and wishes that some likeness of that which he had believed be shown to him. Thus St. Augustine, Chrysostom and Theodoret in Genesis XV. Second, as Rupertus and Tostatus there, by these words Abraham desires and asks that God confirm his promise, and that none of his descendants irritate it by their merits and revoke it. Third, Abraham asks for a sign, says Cajetan, there not for himself, but for his descendants, namely that they themselves might believe more firmly that which Abraham already believed firmly. Hence it is clear that justifying faith is not confidence, which is in the will, but is assent and an act of the intellect: because by this faith, as Paul says here, Abraham "did not consider his own body now dead, and most fully knew that whatsoever God had promised, he was able to do." Then he does not call his act trusting, but believing God promising posterity. You will say: How then does Paul say of this faith of Abraham that "he did not waver in distrust?" for this is opposed to confidence. I answer: "Distrust" here is the same as unbelief; for in Greek it is ἀπιστία. Whence the Syriac translates, nor did he doubt concerning God's promise as one lacking faith. Distrust is understood in the same sense at Ephes. V, 6. Concerning which more there.
4:21
21. GIVING GLORY TO GOD, MOST FULLY KNOWING THAT WHATSOEVER GOD HAD PROMISED, HE WAS ABLE TO DO. For most fully knowing, in Greek it is πληροφορηθείς, that is, most fully persuaded, concerning which I shall say more at cap. XIV, verse 5, as if to say: Abraham gave glory to God and glorified God by his faith, namely by this very thing, that he fully persuaded himself that God both could and would fulfill his promises, however great. For he glorifies God who thinks, believes and proclaims concerning God and God's power and faithfulness as is fitting. Note: When Paul says: "He was able to do," it is a meiosis signifying, both he was able and he will do; for Abraham believed both, concerning which phrase I shall say more II Cor. IX, 8. Where observe, Paul says: "He was able," not however, "He is truthful," or "He is wise," or "He is faithful," because divine power before other attributes of God is to be set before human weakness in difficult matters, so that transcending nature and all human aids, man may raise himself up to God and God's power, and from it certainly hope for help and the promised thing. "Therefore," says Fulgentius, lib. I to Monimus, "in God's promises there is no falsehood, because in the doing there is no difficulty for the omnipotent." Hence the Fathers teach that in temptations and in afflicted and difficult matters, one must flee not to men, but to prayer and God, so that we cast the anchor of hope, not into the sea, but into heaven, and thus the ship of our soul will be safe and fixed from all the surge and storm of tempests. Hence it is clear that we, like Abraham, ought to seek and obtain justice not from circumcision, law and Moses, but from faith and Christ.
4:25
Note: Here and elsewhere the Apostle inculcates that the resurrection of Christ is to be believed by faith, because this was an article then incredible to the world, and because this article is most necessary, and as it were a compendium of the others: for he who believes it believes that Jesus is the Christ and the Messiah, God and man, the saviour of the world, who died and rose again for our sins and our salvation. Thirdly, because faith and hope in the resurrection most excite us to live well and in a Christian manner, and to endure all hardships. 25. WHO WAS DELIVERED UP (then by Judas and the Jews, rather by the eternal Father, unto death and the cross) FOR OUR SINS, AND ROSE AGAIN FOR OUR JUSTIFICATION. Note: Christ in his passion accomplished all the merit, price and ransom of our redemption; wherefore by his resurrection he did not merit our justification. You will say: How then is it said here that "Christ rose again for our justification"? The Commentary ascribed to Ambrose answers, that the sense of the Apostle is, as if to say, Those who were baptized before the passion of Christ received remission of sins only then; but after the resurrection of Christ and the sending of the Holy Ghost they were justified. But this is an error, which sufficiently shows that these commentaries are not Ambrose's. I answer with Francis Suarez, III part., Quest. LVI, that the preposition "for" can here signify four causes, first, the material or objective cause. Thus Cajetan and Adam, as if to say, "Christ rose for our justification," namely because through faith in his resurrection, by which we began to believe that Christ is the Son of God and the redeemer of the world, we were led to justification, and because Christ himself by his resurrection, strengthening faith in his passion and divinity, and sharpening our hope, procured our justification. Secondly, as St. Anselm, Origen and St. Thomas, the preposition "for" can signify an exemplary cause; as if to say, Christ died, that by his example we might die to sins; and he rose, that we might rise to newness of life: Christ rose therefore to this end, that he might give us a type and example of the resurrection of the soul. Thirdly, the "for" can signify an efficient cause; for, as St. Thomas teaches, III part., Quest. LVI, art. 2, the resurrection of the humanity of Christ is an instrument of his divinity, effecting our justification: an instrument, I say, not physical, as some wish: for the resurrection, which has passed through so many ages, how can it now act, influence and work physically? but moral, because namely God destined the resurrection of Christ for our justification, and decreed that he would not justify us except after it, and as it were through it, just as a king who promised his subjects, through the coronation of his son, certain privileges, grants them only after it, and as it were through it; and in this sense it is said John VII, 39: "The Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified." Fourthly, and most excellently, the preposition "for" signifies a quasi-meritorious cause: for Christ completed his office and the merit of his passion in the resurrection, as it were in its term: for the resurrection was the term and completion of the passion, of the merits and of the whole economy of Christ. Wherefore the resurrection and passion are reckoned one work of redemption, and one complete moral action of Christ, by which at once and once for all Christ merited both the remission of sins and our justification: but on account of the similarity the Apostle aptly attributes remission to the passion, as it were to satisfaction; but justification to the resurrection, because through the resurrection, which Christ obtained by his merits and his own power, he became the full redeemer and justifier: as being the victor over death, and consequently the victor over the kingdom of sin and injustice, which was the cause of death, and then at the same time he brought in his kingdom of life, holiness and justice. Wherefore after the resurrection he sent the Holy Ghost the justifier, and sent also the Apostles, who by the power of his word and the holy Sacraments instituted by him would justify us. Add, that unless Christ by his resurrection had conquered death, he would have been weak and inefficacious in conquering and subduing sin altogether, which is the cause of death, and which remains as it were bound and attached to its effect death, and consequently Christ would have been weak and powerless to justify us. Wherefore the Syrian version translates, he rose that he might justify us. On which matter I shall say more I Cor. XV, 17. Finally the "for" signifies a final cause and a mutual one. For Christ rose to this end, that he might send the Apostles and the Holy Ghost, who would justify us, and conversely the end of our justification is, that the resurrection of Christ be praised and celebrated, or Christ rising, who is its cause and author. Christ therefore dying and rising, and raising us with him, was a phoenix; to which therefore you may rightly assign that enigma of the phoenix: Life to me is death, I die if I begin to be born. But fate comes first, before the origin of joyful light. Thus I call the shades alone my parents.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
4:1
Postquam apostolus exclusit Iudaeorum gloriam quam habebant in lege, per eam se gentibus praeferentes, hic excludit eorum gloriam quantum ad circumcisionem. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo resumit quaestionem quam supra posuerat, dicens quae est utilitas circumcisionis? Et quia Abraham primus mandatum de circumcisione accepit, ut dicitur Gen. XVII, 10, ideo quaestionem iterat in persona ipsius Abrahae dicens: si ita est quod Deus iustificat praeputium, sicut et circumcisionem, quid ergo dicemus invenisse utilitatis Abraham patrem nostrum secundum carnem? Id est secundum circumcisionem carnalem et secundum alias observantias carnales? Videtur esse inconveniens si dicatur quod nihil utilitatis invenerit, cum dicatur Is. XLVII, v. 17: ego dominus docens te utilia. Secundo, ibi si enim Abraham, etc., respondet propositae quaestioni. Et duo facit. Primo ostendit quod Abraham non hoc invenerit per circumcisionem, et caetera legis opera, quod per eam iustificaretur, sed magis per fidem. Secundo commendat fidem ipsius, ibi qui contra spem, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit propositum, ratione accepta ex parte divinae acceptationis; secundo, ratione divinae promissionis, ibi non enim per legem, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit quamdam conditionalem; secundo probat destructionem consequentis, ibi quid enim dicit Scriptura, et cetera. Tertio, probat ipsam conditionalem, ibi sicut et David, et cetera.
4:2
Circa primum intendit apostolus sic argumentari: si Abraham iustificatus esset ex operibus legis, non haberet gloriam apud Deum; ergo non ex operibus iustificatus est. Proponit ergo conditionalem dicens: quaesitum est quid Abraham invenit secundum carnalem circumcisionem, et manifestum est quod hoc non invenit ut iustificatus sit ex operibus legis, ita scilicet quod eius iustitia in operibus legis consistat; habet quidem gloriam, scilicet apud homines, qui exteriora facta vident, sed non apud Deum qui videt in occulto, secundum illud I Reg. XVI, 7: Deus autem intuetur cor. I Cor. III, 21: nemo vestrum glorietur in hominibus, et cetera. Unde contra quosdam dicitur Io. XII, 43: dilexerunt magis gloriam hominum quam Dei. Sed contra hoc potest obiici, quia ex consuetudine operum exteriorum generatur interior habitus, secundum quem etiam cor hominis bene disponitur, ut sit promptum ad bene operandum et in bonis operibus delectetur, sicut philosophus docet in II Ethicorum. Sed dicendum est quod hoc habet locum in iustitia humana, per quam scilicet homo ordinatur ad bonum humanum. Huius enim iustitiae habitus per opera humana potest acquiri, sed iustitia quae habet gloriam apud Deum, ordinatur ad bonum divinum, scilicet futurae gloriae, quae facultatem humanam excedit, secundum illud I Cor. II, 9: in cor hominis non ascendit quae praeparavit Deus diligentibus se. Et ideo opera hominis non sunt proportionata ad huius iustitiae habitum causandum, sed oportet prius iustificari interius cor hominis a Deo, ut opera faciat proportionata divinae gloriae. Deinde cum dicit quid enim, etc., destruit consequens quod fuit negativum, probando affirmationem oppositam, scilicet quod Abraham habebat gloriam apud Deum. Et hoc probat per auctoritatem Scripturae, quam primo apostolus ponit; secundo exponit, ibi ei autem et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dico Abraham sic iustificatum esse quod habet gloriam apud Deum, quid enim Scriptura dicit? Gen.
4:3
XV, v. 6: credidit Abraham Deo promittenti sibi seminis multiplicationem. Eccli. II, 6: crede Deo, et recuperabit te. Et reputatum est illi, scilicet a Deo, ad iustitiam. I Mach. II, 52: Abraham in tentatione inventus est fidelis. Et sic patet quod apud Deum, a quo est ei reputatum ad iustitiam quod credidit, gloriam habet. Est autem considerandum quod iustitiam quam Deus reputat scriptam expressit non in aliquo exteriori opere, sed in interiori fide cordis, quam solus Deus intuetur. Cum autem dicatur triplex esse actus fidei, scilicet credere Deum, Deo, et in Deum, posuit hunc actum qui est credere Deo, qui est proprius actus fidei, eius speciem demonstrans. Nam credere in Deum, demonstrat ordinem fidei ad finem, qui est per charitatem; nam credere in Deum, est credendo in Deum ire, quod charitas facit. Et sic sequitur speciem fidei. Credere autem Deum, demonstrat fidei materiam, secundum quod est virtus theologica, habens Deum pro obiecto. Et ideo hic actus nondum attingit ad speciem fidei, quia si aliquis credat Deum esse per aliquas rationes humanas et naturalia signa, nondum dicitur fidem habere, de qua loquimur, sed solum quando ex hac ratione credit quod est a Deo dictum, quod designatur per hoc quod dicitur credere Deo; et ex hoc fides specificatur, sicut et quilibet cognoscitivus habitus speciem habet ex ratione, per quam assentit in aliquid. Alia enim ratione inclinatur ad assentiendum habens habitum scientiae, scilicet per demonstrationem, et alia ratione habens habitum opinionis, scilicet per syllogismum dialecticum.
4:4
Deinde cum dicit ei autem qui operatur, etc., exponit praedictam auctoritatem quantum ad hoc quod dicit reputatum est illi ad iustitiam, et cetera. Et tangitur in Glossa duplex horum verborum expositio. Prima est secundum quod referentur ad finalem mercedem, de qua primo ostenditur qualiter se habeat ad opera, secundo qualiter ad fidem, ibi ei vero qui non et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, quod ei, qui operatur, scilicet opera iustitiae, merces, aeternae retributionis, de qua dicitur Is. XL, 10: ecce merces eius cum eo, non reputatur secundum gratiam tantum, sed secundum debitum, secundum illud Matth. XX, 13: nonne ex denario convenisti mecum? Sed contra est quod dicitur infra VI, 23: gratia Dei vita aeterna. Et infra VIII, 18: non sunt condignae passiones huius temporis ad futuram gloriam. Sic igitur illa retributio non fit secundum debitum, sed secundum gratiam. Sed dicendum est quod opera humana possunt considerari dupliciter. Uno modo secundum substantiam operum, et sic non habent aliquid condignum, ut eis merces aeternae gloriae reddatur. Alio modo possunt considerari secundum suum principium, prout scilicet ex impulsu Dei aguntur secundum propositum Dei praedestinantis; et secundum hoc eis debetur merces praedicta secundum debitum, quia, ut infra VIII, 14 dicitur: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt filii Dei; si autem filii, et haeredes.
4:5
Deinde cum dicit ei vero, etc., ostendit qualiter se habeat merces aeterna ad fidem, dicens ei vero qui non operatur, scilicet exteriora opera, puta quia non habet tempus operandi, sicut patet in baptizato statim mortuo, credenti in eum qui iustificat impium, scilicet in Deum, de quo dicitur infra, VIII, 18. Deus qui iustificat, reputabitur fides eius, scilicet sola sine operibus exterioribus, ad iustitiam, id est, ut per eam iustus dicatur, et iustitiae praemium accipiat, sicut si opera iustitiae fecisset, secundum illud infra, X, 10 corde creditur ad iustitiam, et hoc secundum propositum gratiae Dei, id est, secundum quod Deus proponit ex gratia sua homines salvare. Infra VIII, 28: his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt sancti. Eph. I, 11: qui operatur omnia secundum consilium voluntatis suae. Alia expositio est ut hoc referatur ad hominis iustificationem. Dicit ergo ei autem qui operatur, id est, si aliquis per opera iustificetur, ipsa iustitia imputaretur quasi merces non secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. Infra XI, 6: si autem gratia, iam non ex operibus, alioquin gratia iam non est gratia. Ei vero, qui non operatur, ut scilicet per sua opera iustificetur, credenti autem in eum qui iustificat impium, computabitur haec eius fides ad iustitiam secundum propositum gratiae Dei, non quidem ita quod per fidem iustitiam mereatur, sed quia ipsum credere est primus actus iustitiae quam Deus in eo operatur. Ex eo enim quod credit in Deum iustificantem, iustificationi eius subiicit se, et sic recipit eius effectum. Et haec expositio est litteralis, et secundum intentionem apostoli, qui facit vim in hoc quod in Gen. XV, 6 dictum est reputatum est illi ad iustitiam, quod consuevit dici, quando id, quod minus est ex parte alicuius, reputatur ei gratis, ac si totum fecisset. Et ideo apostolus dicit quod haec reputatio locum non haberet, si iustitia esset ex operibus, sed solum habet locum secundum quod est ex fide. Deinde cum dicit sicut et David, probat conditionalem praemissam ex auctoritate Psalmi. Cuius primo praemittit sensum; secundo ponit verba eius, ibi beati quorum; tertio excludit falsum intellectum, ibi beatitudo, et cetera.
4:6
Dicit ergo: sicut et David dicit, id est asserit, beatitudinem hominis esse illius, scilicet, cui Deus fert, id est dat, iustitiam; accepto, id est gratis, sine operibus praecedentibus. Tit. III, 5: non enim ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos. Beatitudo autem hominis est a Deo, secundum illud Ps. XXXIX, 5: beatus vir cuius est dominus Deus spes eius. Sic igitur manifestum est illum habere gloriam apud Deum, qui non ex operibus legis iustificatur, ut dictum est. Deinde cum dicit beati quorum, etc., ponit verba David praedictam sententiam continentia, et dicit eos esse beatos quorum remittuntur peccata. Et sic patet quod non habuerunt prius bona opera ex quibus iustitiam seu beatitudinem consequerentur. Est autem triplex peccatum, scilicet originale, actuale mortale et actuale veniale.
4:7
Primo ergo quantum ad originale dicit beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates. Ubi considerandum est quod peccatum originale iniquitas dicitur, quia est carentia originalis iustitiae, per quam secundum aequitatem ratio hominis subiiciebatur Deo, inferiores vires rationi, et corpus animae; sed per peccatum originale haec aequitas tollitur, quia postquam ratio desiit esse subiecta Deo, inferiores vires rationi rebellant et corpus ab obedientia animae subducitur per corruptionem et mortem. Unde in Ps. l, 7: ecce enim in iniquitatibus conceptus sum. Utrobique autem peccatum originale pluraliter significatur. Vel propter plures homines, in quibus multiplicatur originale peccatum, vel potius quia virtute continet in se quodammodo omnia peccata. Huiusmodi autem peccatum originale remitti dicitur, quia transit reatus superveniente gratia, sed remanet actu, remanente fomite sive concupiscentia, quae non tollitur totaliter in hac vita, sed remittitur, sive mitigatur. Secundo, quantum ad actuale mortale, dicit et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Dicuntur autem peccata tegi divino conspectui, inquantum non inspicit ad ea punienda. Ps. LXXXIV, 3: operuisti omnia peccata eorum.
4:8
Tertio, quantum ad veniale, dicit beatus vir cui non imputavit dominus peccatum, ut scilicet per peccatum intelligantur peccata venialia, quae, licet levia sint, tamen per multa homo separatur et elongatur a Deo. II Paral. XXX, 18 s.: dominus bonus propitiabitur cunctis, qui in toto corde requirunt illum, et non imputabitur illis quod minus sancti sunt. Possunt autem et haec tria aliter distingui. Sunt enim in peccato tria, quorum unum est offensa Dei, et quantum ad hoc dicit beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, secundum quod homo dicitur remittere offensam sibi factam. Is. XL, 2: dimissa est iniquitas illius. Aliud autem est ipse actus inordinatus culpae, qui non potest non fuisse factus ex quo semel perpetratus est, sed tegitur manu misericordiae divinae, ut quasi pro non facto habeatur. Tertio vero est reatus poenae et quantum ad hoc dicit beatus vir cui non imputavit dominus peccatum, scilicet ad poenam. Deinde cum dicit beatitudo ergo etc., excludit falsum intellectum auctoritatis praedictae. Posset enim Iudaeus sic intelligere quod praedicta gratia remissionis peccatorum non fieret nisi circumcisis.
4:9
Ad hoc ergo excludendum, primo apostolus quaestionem movet dicens beatitudo haec, qua scilicet Deus dat iustitiam sine operibus, manet tantum in circumcisione, id est habet locum solum in circumcisis, an etiam in praeputio, id est in gentibus? Manifestum est quod in utrisque, secundum illud quod dicit infra X, 10: idem dominus dives in omnes, et cetera. Secundo, ibi dicimus enim, ad hoc ostendendum assumit auctoritatem Scripturae, quasi dicat, hoc ideo quaero: dicimus enim, etc., quod reputatur fides Abrahae ad iustitiam, Gen. XV, 6.
4:10
Tertio ex hac auctoritate concludit solutionem praemissae quaestionis, sub interrogatione tamen, dicens quomodo ergo reputata est? Scilicet fides Abrahae ad iustitiam, in circumcisione, id est, quando erat circumcisus, an in praeputio, id est quando erat incircumcisus? Et respondet non in circumcisione, sed in praeputio. Et hoc manifestum est ex serie narrationis Scripturae. Nam Gen. c. XV, 6 legitur, quod fides reputata est Abrahae ad iustitiam, circumcisionem autem accepisse legitur Gen. XVII, 23 s. Si igitur Abraham, adhuc incircumcisus existens iustificatus est per fidem, manifestum est quod iustitia fidei, per quam gratis remittuntur peccata, non est solum in circumcisione, sed etiam in praeputio, id est, in gentilitate.
4:11
Ostenso quod beatitudo remissionis peccatorum non solum est in circumcisione, sed etiam in praeputio, exemplo Abrahae qui tempore praeputii est iustificatus, hic respondet cuidam obiectioni. Posset enim aliquis dicere: si Abraham iustificatus est ante circumcisionem, ergo sine causa et frustra circumcisus est. Ad hanc ergo obiectionem excludendam primo proponit, quod circumcisio non erat causa iustitiae, sed signum; secundo ostendit quid ex hoc signo consequatur, ibi ut sit pater, etc.; tertio ostendit modum quo consequatur non his tantum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit circumcisionem esse signum. Gen. c. XVII, 11: circumcidetis carnem praeputii vestri, ut sit in signum foederis inter me et vos. Secundo ostendit cuius rei sit signum, dicens, quod sit signaculum iustitiae fidei, id est quae est per fidem, quae, quidem fides, est in praeputio, id est quam Abraham habuit adhuc incircumcisus existens. Dicitur autem signaculum dupliciter. Uno modo quasi expressum signum habens similitudinem rei signatae, secundum illud Ezech. XXVIII, 12: tu signaculum similitudinis, et cetera. Habet autem circumcisio expressam similitudinem cum fide Abrahae, primo quidem, quantum ad rem creditam. Credidit enim multiplicationem sui seminis, et ideo congruenter accepit signum in membro generationis. Secundo, quantum ad effectum huius fidei, quae est remotio culpae, quae signatur per remotionem superfluae pelliculae. Alio modo signaculum dicitur signum aliquid occultans quod revelandum est amicis, sicut patet de sigillo; et secundum hoc dicitur Apoc. V, 9: dignus est agnus qui occisus est accipere librum et aperire signacula eius. Claudebatur ergo sub signaculo circumcisionis secretum incarnationis Christi ex semine Abrahae. Consequenter ostendit quid consequatur ex dictis. Consequitur enim ex hoc quod Abraham in praeputio iustificatus per fidem, postea circumcisionem accepit, ut sit pater non solum circumcisorum, sed etiam credentium in praeputio. Et hoc est quod dicit ut sit pater, id est ex praedictis consequitur, quod Abraham sit pater omnium credentium per praeputium, id est qui sunt in statu praeputii. Vel Abraham sit pater per praeputium, id est per id quod habuit in praeputio, ut reputetur et illis ad iustitiam, hoc scilicet quod credunt, sicut reputatum est Abrahae. Et de hac paternitate dicitur Matth. III, 9: potens est Deus de lapidibus istis, et cetera.
4:12
Et sit pater circumcisionis, id est circumcisorum, qui ex eo originem ducunt. Unde Io. VIII, 39: pater noster Abraham est. Deinde ostendit per quem modum sit pater etiam incircumcisorum, quia per imitationem. Et hoc est quod dicit ut sit, inquam, pater non his tantum qui sunt in circumcisione, id est qui sunt circumcisi, sed etiam his qui sectantur vestigia fidei patris nostri Abrahae, qui est in praeputio, id est, quam Abraham habuit adhuc incircumcisus. Io. VIII, 39: si filii Abrahae estis, opera eius facite. Et quia hic de circumcisione fit mentio, oportet circa ipsam tria considerare, scilicet quare sit instituta, quam vim habuit et quare sit mutata. Circa primum considerandum quod circumcisio, sicut et aliae legis caeremoniae, est propter duo instituta. Primo quidem propter cultum divinum, ad quem homines secundum huiusmodi caeremonialia disponebantur. Et secundum hoc circumcisio habet triplicem institutionis causam, quarum prima est ad significandum fidem et obedientiam qua Abraham se Deo subiecit, ut scilicet illi qui circumcisionem acciperent Abrahae traditam, fidem et obedientiam ipsius observarent. Dicitur enim Hebr. IV, 11: fide Abraham circumcisus est; et ideo facta est circumcisio in membro generationis ad significandum fidem ipsius circa prolem futuram, ut dictum est. Secunda est ad exprimendum in signo corporali id quod spiritualiter erat faciendum, ut scilicet sicut a membro generationis, quod principaliter concupiscentiae deservit, abscindebatur superflua pellicula, ita etiam a corde hominis omnis superflua concupiscentia tolleretur, secundum illud Ier. IV, 4: circumcidimini domino, et auferte praeputium cordium vestrorum, et cetera. Tertia est ut per hoc signum populus ille Deum colens, ab omnibus aliis populis distingueretur. Et inde est quod mandavit dominus circumcidi filios Israel, qui inter alias nationes erant habitaturi, qui prius in deserto solitarii manentes circumcisi non erant. Alia autem ratio circumcisionis et omnium caeremonialium accipitur per comparationem ad Christum, ad quem comparatur, sicut figura ad veritatem et membra ad corpus, secundum illud Col. II, 17: quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi. Sic igitur per circumcisionem corporalem significatur circumcisio spiritualis fienda per Christum. Primo quidem in animam, quantum per ipsum peccatorum reatus et concupiscentiae praescinduntur. Col. II, 11: in quo, Christo, circumcisi estis circumcisione non manufacta, in expoliatione corporis carnis, sed in circumcisione domini nostri Iesu Christi. Secundo vero quantum ad corpus, quando scilicet etiam in resurrectione ab electorum corporibus omnis passibilitas et mortalitas auferetur; et ideo circumcisio fiebat octavo die, quia significat octavam aetatem resurgentium: nam septima est quiescentium in Christo. Sex autem aetates sunt quibus saeculum currit. Unde et circumcisio facta legitur cultellis petrinis Ios. V, 2 et Ex. IV, 25, ad significandum quod spiritualis circumcisio fienda erat per petram, qui est Christus, ut dicitur I Cor. X, 4. Non tamen hoc generaliter observabatur, quod necesse esset circumcisionem fieri cum petra. Circa secundum vero est sciendum, quod sicut hic Glossa dicit, et est Bedae, idem salutare curationis auxilium circumcisio in lege contra originalis peccati vulnus praebebat, quod Baptismus agere tempore revelatae gratiae consuevit. Ex quo patet quod virtus circumcisionis se extendebat ad deletionem originalis peccati. Quidam tamen dicunt quod gratia in circumcisione non conferebatur: non enim potest esse Dei gratia sine iustitia. Argumentatur autem Apost. Gal. II, 21: si iustitia est per legem, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est, id est sine causa. Et eodem modo argumentari possumus: si ex circumcisione est gratia iustificans, Christus gratis mortuus est; sed hoc non potest esse, nam remissio peccati numquam fit sine gratia. Tit. III, 7: iustificati igitur gratia ipsius, et cetera. Et ideo alii dicunt quod in circumcisione dabatur gratia, quantum ad effectus privativos, scilicet remotionis culpae, non autem quantum ad effectus positivos, puta operationem iustitiae. Sed hoc etiam conveniens non videtur; effectus enim positivi alicuius formae ordine naturae praecedunt effectus privativos. Non enim lumen pellit tenebras nisi per hoc quod illuminat. Et ita gratia per hoc culpam pellit, quod iustificat. Remoto autem priori, removetur posterius. Et ideo melius dicendum est quod circumcisio ex ipso opere operato non habebat virtutem effectivam, neque quantum ad remotionem culpae, neque quantum ad operationem iustitiae: sed erat solum iustitiae signum, ut hic apostolus dicit, sed per fidem Christi, cuius circumcisio signum erat, auferebatur peccatum originale et conferebatur auxilium gratiae ad recte agendum. Circa tertium vero manifestum est iam ex dictis, quare oportuit circumcisionem mutari. Nam circumcisio erat signum futuri. Non autem idem signum convenit praesenti, sive praeterito et futuro: et ideo Baptismus est signum praesentis gratiae qui copiosiorem et utiliorem effectum habet gratiae, quia quanto agens est propinquius et praesentius, tanto efficacius operatur. Deinde, cum dicit non enim per legem, etc., ostendit propositum, scilicet quod circumcisio sive quodcumque opus legis non iustificet ex divina promissione. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat propositum, ibi si enim qui ex lege, et cetera.
4:13
Supponit ergo apostolus, primo, ex auctoritate Genes. promissionem factam Abrahae et semini eius, ut haeres esset mundi, id est, ut omnes gentes mundi in ipso benedicerentur, secundum illud Gen. XII, 3: in te benedicentur, et cetera. Dicit autem ac semini eius; quia huiusmodi promissio et si in ipso non est completa, complenda tamen erat in semine eius. Dicitur enim Gen. XXII, 18: benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae. Hoc autem semen principaliter intelligitur Christus, secundum illud Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius. Non dicit, in seminibus, quasi in multis: sed in semine, quasi in uno, et cetera. Quia scilicet in uno in quo completur, ostenditur, ut sit haeres mundi, secundum illud Ps. II, 8: postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam. Secundario autem completur in illis, qui per gratiam Christi sunt spiritualiter semen Abrahae. Infra IX, 8: qui filii sunt promissionis aestimantur in semine. Qui etiam per Christum sunt haeredes mundi, inquantum omnia in gloria electorum cedunt. I Cor. III, 22: omnia vestra sunt, et cetera. Circa hanc promissionem unum negat, et unum asserit. Negat huiusmodi promissionem esse factam per legem. Quod quidem non dicitur propter ipsam promissionem, quia tempore promissionis lex data non erat, sed propter promissionis impletionem, ut sit sensus, quod talis promissio facta erat Abrahae, non quasi implenda per legem, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. c. VII, 19: nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Aliud autem astruit, quod scilicet huiusmodi promissio sit implenda per iustitiam fidei, quia, sancti per fidem vicerunt regna Hebr. XI, 33. Deinde cum dicit si enim, etc., ostendit propositum. Et primo quantum ad hoc, quod promissio non sit implenda per legem; secundo quantum ad hoc, quod sit implenda per iustitiam fidei, ibi ideo ex fide, et cetera. Circa primum ponit talem rationem: si promissio facta Abrahae esset implenda per legem, fides Abrahae credentis promissioni, esset inanis, quia promissio ei facta aboleretur; sed hoc est inconveniens, ergo et primum. Circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit conditionalem; secundo probat eam, ibi lex enim, et cetera. Destructio autem consequentis est manifesta. Dicit ergo primo quod promissio non est facta per legem. Si enim qui ex lege sunt, hi sunt haeredes, id est, si ad hoc quod aliqui haereditatem promissam participent, requiritur quod ex legis observantia hoc consequantur, exinanita est fides, id est, vacua facta est fides qua Abraham credidit Deo promittenti, ut dicitur Genesis XV, 6. Et hoc est inconveniens, secundum quod dicitur I Cor. XV, v. 14: si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est praedicatio nostra, et cetera. Et quare sit inanis, ostendit subdens abolita, id est cassata, est promissio, quia non consequitur suum effectum. Contra id quod dicitur Hebr. XI, 11: fidelem credidit eum esse qui repromiserat, et hic infra in praesenti cap. dicitur: quaecumque promisit Deus, potens est, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit lex enim, probat conditionalem praemissam per effectum sive eventum legis. Et primo proponit legis effectum sive eventum; secundo, probat, ibi ubi enim non est lex, et cetera.
4:14
Probat autem conditionalem sic: si aliqua promissio sit implenda per id quod impletionem promissionis impedit, talis promissio aboletur et fides credentis exinanitur; sed lex impedit consecutionem haereditatis, lex enim iram operatur: ergo si per legem sit adimplenda promissio, exinanita est fides, abolita est promissio. Dicitur autem lex operari iram, id est vindictam, quia per legem facti sunt homines digni Dei vindicta. IV Reg. XXII, 13: magna ira domini succensa est contra nos, quia non audierunt patres nostri verba libri huius, scilicet legis, et cetera. Posset autem aliquis intelligere quod lex iram operatur quantum ad caeremonialia tempore gratiae observata, secundum illud Gal. V, 2: si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit. Sed quod hic dicitur, intelligendum est etiam quantum ad moralia, non quidem quod legis praecepta moralia praecipiant aliquid, quod qui observant dignos ira Dei efficiat, sed occasionaliter, quia praecipit et gratiam adimplendi non praebet, secundum illud II Cor. III, 6: littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat, quia scilicet interius adiuvat infirmitatem nostram, ut dicitur infra VIII, 26.
4:15
Deinde cum dicit ubi enim non est lex, etc., ostendit qualiter iram operatur, dicens ubi non est lex, non est praevaricatio, quia et si aliquis, lege non data, peccare possit contra id quod naturaliter iustum est faciendo, non tamen praevaricator dicitur, nisi legem transgrediens. Ps. CXVIII, 158: vidi praevaricantes et tabescebam, et cetera. Et tamen omnis peccator potest dici praevaricator, inquantum legem naturalem transgreditur. Ps. CXVIII, 119: praevaricantes reputavi omnes peccatores terrae. Gravius est tamen transgredi simul legem naturae et legem scriptam, quam solam legem naturae. Et ideo lege data sine gratia adiuvante, praevaricatio crevit, et maiorem iram promeruit.
4:16
Ostenso quod promissio facta Abrahae et semini eius non sit implenda per legem, hic ostendit quod sit implenda per fidem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo ostendit per quid sit huiusmodi promissio adimplenda; secundo ostendit in quibus sit adimplenda, ibi omni semini, etc.; tertio a quo sit implenda, ibi qui vivificat mortuos, et cetera. Primo ergo concludit propositum quasi ex divisione. Videtur enim necessarium esse quod promissio adimpleatur vel per fidem, vel per legem: non autem per legem, quia promissio aboleretur, unde concludit ideo ex fide, scilicet consequimur promissionem, ut haeredes simus mundi. Io. V, 4: haec est victoria quae vincit mundum, et cetera. Et hoc confirmat per contrarium medium ei quod supra assumpserat. Dictum est enim quod si iustitia ex lege esset, promissio aboleretur; sed si sit ex fide, remanet firma promissio propter virtutem divinae gratiae iustificantis hominem per fidem. Et hoc est quod dicit ut promissio Dei sit firma, non quidem per operationes hominum quae possunt deficere, sed secundum gratiam quae infallibilis est. II Cor. XII, 9: sufficit tibi gratia mea, et cetera. II Cor. I, 20: quotquot sunt promissiones, in illo, scilicet Christo, sunt, id est, veritatem habent. Deinde cum dicit omni semini, etc., ostendit in quibus impleatur praedicta promissio. Et primo proponit quod intendit, et dicit quod praedicta promissio sic implenda per fidem, est firma per gratiam. Omni semini, id est, omni homini qui fuerit qualitercumque semen Abrahae. Eccli. XLIV, 11 s.: cum semine eorum permanent bona, haereditas sancta nepotes eorum. Secundo, ibi non ei, etc., exponit quod dixerat omni semini. Est enim quoddam semen carnale, secundum illud Io. VIII, 33: semen Abrahae sumus. Est aliud semen spirituale, secundum illud Matth. III, 9: potens est Deus de lapidibus his, id est de gentibus, suscitare filios Abrahae; solum autem semen Abrahae carnale legem servavit, sed fidem eius etiam imitatur semen spirituale. Et sic, si per solam legem esset promissio, non impleretur in omni semine sed solum in carnali. Quia vero impletur per fidem quae est omnibus communis, planum est, quod impletur in omni semine. Tertio, ibi qui est pater, etc., probat quod supposuerat, scilicet quod semen Abrahae sit non solum quod est ex lege sed etiam quod est ex fide, per auctoritatem Scripturae, cuius, primo, ponit sensum, dicens, qui, scilicet Abraham, est pater omnium nostrum, id est, omnium credentium, sive Iudaeorum, sive gentilium. Supra, eodem: ut sit pater omnium credentium. Is. LI, 2: attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum. Secundo inducit auctoritatem, dicens sicut scriptum est, Gen. XVII, 4, quia patrem multarum gentium posui te. Littera alia habet, constitui te, quod sensum non variat. Eccli. XLIV, 20: Abraham magnus pater multitudinis gentium. Tertio, ibi ante Deum, etc., exponit quod dixerat. Sic enim dictum est posui te quasi iam esset impletum quod longe postea erat implendum: sed quae sunt futura in seipsis, in Dei providentia sunt praesentia, secundum illud Eccli. XXIII, 29: domino Deo nostro, antequam crearentur, omnia sunt agnita, sic et post perfectum respicit omnia. Et ideo apostolus dicit quod hoc quod dictum est, posui te, intelligendum est ante Deum, id est, in eius praesentia, cui credidisti. Crediderat enim Abraham Deo futura praenuncianti, ac si videret praesentia, quia, ut dicitur Hebr. XI, 1: fides est sperandarum substantia rerum, argumentum non apparentium. Deinde cum dicit qui vivificat mortuos, etc., ostendit a quo sit implenda huiusmodi promissio, dicens qui, scilicet Deus, vivificat mortuos, id est, Iudaeos, qui erant mortui in peccatis, contra legem agentes, vivificat per fidem et gratiam, ut promissionem Abrahae consequantur. Io. V, 21: sicut pater suscitat mortuos et vivificat, et cetera. Et vocat ea quae non sunt, id est, gentiles vocat, scilicet ad gratiam, tamquam ea quae sunt, id est, tamquam Iudaeos. Infra c. IX, 25: vocabo non plebem meam, et cetera. Significat autem gentiles per ea quae non sunt, quia erant omnino alienati a Deo. Sicut I Cor. XIII, 2 dicitur: si charitatem non habuero, nihil sum. Et sic per huiusmodi vocationem implebitur promissio Abrahae etiam in gentilibus. Vel quod dicit et vocat ea quae non sunt, non intelligitur de vocatione temporali, sed de vocatione praedestinationis aeternae, quia vocantur et eliguntur etiam qui non sunt ac si essent. Eph. I, 4: eligit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem. Et de hac vocatione dicitur infra IX, 12: non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est, quia maior serviet minori. Vel, vocationem hic dicit simplicem Dei notitiam vel cognitionem, qua cognoscit futura, quae non sunt in actu sicut praesentia. Et hoc modo vocatio in Ps. CXLVII, 4 accipitur, cum dicitur: qui numerat multitudinem stellarum, et cetera. Et secundum hunc sensum quod hic dicitur, inducitur propter id quod supra dictum est ante Deum cui credidisti. Duo enim videbantur obstare ei quod dictum est patrem multarum gentium posui te. Quorum unum erat, quia ipse idem Abraham erat quasi emortuus prae senectute, ut infra dicetur. Et contra hoc dicit qui vivificat mortuos. Aliud autem est, quia illae multae gentes nondum erant.
4:17
Et contra hoc subdit et vocat ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt. Deinde cum dicit qui contra spem, commendat fidem Abrahae. Et primo ostendit magnitudinem fidei eius; secundo, efficaciam vel fructum eius, ibi ideo et reputatum est, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit magnitudinem fidei Abrahae quantum ad promissionem seminis multiplicandi; secundo, quantum ad repromissionem seminis exaltandi, ibi in repromissione, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit fidem eius fuisse magnam; secundo ostendit eam fuisse firmam, ibi et non infirmatus est in fide, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit magnitudinem fidei Abrahae, dicens qui, scilicet Abraham, in hanc spem credidit, ut fieret pater multarum gentium, sed contra aliam spem. Circa quod considerandum est quod spes importat certam expectationem boni futuri, quae quidem certitudo est quandoque ex causa humana sive naturali, secundum illud I Cor. IX, 10: debet in spe qui arat, arare. Quandoque vero certitudo expectantis est ex causa divina, secundum illud Ps. XXX, 2: in te, domine, speravi, et cetera. Hoc ergo bonum, quod Abraham fieret pater multarum gentium, certitudinem habebat ex parte Dei promittentis, sed contrarium apparebat ex causa naturali sive humana. Ideo dicit qui contra spem, causae naturalis vel humanae, credidit in spem, scilicet divinae promissionis.
4:18
Quam quidem secundo ponit dicens secundum quod dictum est ei, scilicet Gen. XXII, 17: sic erit semen tuum sicut stellae caeli et sicut arena maris. Utrumque autem horum inducitur propter similitudinem innumerabilis multitudinis. Nam, quantum ad stellas, dicitur Deut. I, 10: dominus Deus vester multiplicavit vos, et estis hodie sicut stellae caeli. Quantum ad arenam, dicitur III Reg. IV, 20: Iuda et Israel innumerabiles sicut arena maris sunt. Potest tamen aliqua differentia inter utrumque attendi, ut stellis comparentur iusti, qui fuerunt ex semine Abrahae, Dan. XII, 3: qui ad iustitiam erudiunt plurimos, quasi stellae in perpetuas aeternitates. Arenae autem comparantur peccatores, quia fluctibus mundi quasi cuiusdam maris opprimuntur, Ier. V, v. 22: posui arenam terminum maris. Deinde cum dicit et non infirmatus est, ostendit firmitatem Abrahae, quam primo proponit dicens et non infirmatus est. Sicut enim temperantia ostenditur non esse infirma, quae magnis concupiscibilibus non vincitur, ita fides ostenditur non esse infirma, sed fortis quae a magnis difficultatibus non superatur. I Petr. V, 9: cui resistite fortes in fide. Secundo, ibi nec consideravit, etc., ponit difficultates ex quibus ostenditur fides eius non fuisse infirma.
4:19
Et primo quidem ex parte ipsius Abrahae, cum dicit non consideravit, scilicet ad discernendum promissionem, corpus suum emortuum, scilicet quia iam mortificata erat in eo vis generativa propter senectutem, unde dicit cum iam fere centum annorum esset. Abrahae enim centenario existenti natus est Isaac, ut habetur Gen. XXI, 5. Per annum autem ante fuerat sibi filius promissus, secundum illud Gen. XVIII, 10: revertens veniam ad te tempore isto, et erit Sarae filius. Sed videtur quod non fuit corpus eius emortuum quantum ad vim generativam, quia etiam post mortem Sarae duxit Cethuram uxorem, quae genuit ei filios, ut dicitur Gen. XXV, 1. Dicunt ergo quidam quod mortua erat in eo vis generativa quantum ad hoc, quod ex muliere antiqua generaret, non quantum ad hoc quod generaret filium ex iuvencula. Solent enim senes ex iuvenculis mulieribus prolem gignere, non autem ex antiquis, quae sunt minus aptae ad concipiendum. Sed melius dicendum videtur quod Abrahae miraculose restituta erat vis generandi et quantum ad Saram et quantum ad omnes mulieres. Secundo ponit difficultatem ex parte uxoris, cum dicit et emortuam vulvam Sarae, scilicet non consideravit ut discrederet. Dicit autem emortuam quantum ad actum generandi, tum propter sterilitatem, tum propter senectutem. Iam enim desierant ei fieri muliebria, ut dicitur Gen. XVIII, 11. Et ideo Is. LI, 2 ubi dicitur: attendite ad Abraham patrem vestrum et ad Saram quae vos peperit, ut ostenderet utriusque mortificationem et frigiditatem, praemisit dicens: attendite ad petram unde excisi estis, et ad cavernam laci de qua praecisi estis.
4:20
Deinde cum dicit in repromissione etiam Dei, etc., commendat fidem Abrahae quantum ad iteratam promissionem de seminis exaltatione. Et primo ponit fidei firmitatem; secundo, firmitatis causam, ibi dans gloriam Deo. Dicit ergo primo in repromissione etiam Dei, id est, in iterata eius promissione, vel de seminis multitudine quam promisit, primo quidem Gen. XV, 5, dicens: suspice caelum et numera stellas si potes, et infra c. XVII, 4: eris pater multarum gentium, et iterum infra XXII, 17: multiplicabo semen tuum sicut stellas caeli. Vel intelligendum est in repromissione Dei, id est, in iterata promissione de exaltatione seminis eius, quia cum dixisset: multiplicabo semen tuum, statim subdit: possidebit semen tuum portas inimicorum tuorum, et benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae. In hac quidem Dei promissione non haesitavit, id est, non dubitavit diffidentia, scilicet, quod diffideret de veritate divinae repromissionis. Iac. I, 6: qui haesitat similis est fluctui maris, et cetera. Sed confortatus est fide, id est, fortiter fidei adhaesit. I Petr. ult.: cui resistite fortes in fide. Consequenter cum dicit dans gloriam Deo, assignat rationem firmitatis fidei eius dicens: confortatus est, inquam, fide, dans gloriam Deo, in quantum scilicet consideravit omnipotentiam eius. Ps. CXLVI, 5: magna virtus eius, et cetera.
4:21
Unde et hic subditur plenissime sciens quia quaecumque promisit Deus, potens est et facere. Sap. XII, 18: subest tibi enim cum volueris posse. Ex quo patet quod quicumque non est firmus in fide Dei, quantum est in se divinae gloriae derogat vel quantum ad eius veritatem, vel quantum ad eius potentiam. Deinde cum dicit et reputatum est ei, commendat fidem Abrahae quantum ad eius effectum.
4:22
Et primo ponit effectum quem in ipso habuit, dicens: ideo, scilicet quia Abraham tam perfecte hoc ipsum credidit, reputatum est illi ad iustitiam. Mach. II, 52: et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam. Secundo ostendit effectum, quem fides eius habet etiam in aliis. Et circa hoc tria facit.
4:23
Primo ponit similitudinem effectus, dicens non autem scriptum est tantum propter ipsum, quia reputatum est illi ad iustitiam, ut scilicet reputemus quod soli Abrahae fides ad iustitiam reputata sit, sed, scriptum est, propter nos, quibus reputabitur, scilicet fides, ad iustitiam. Infra XV, 4: quaecumque scripta sunt, ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Sic ergo scriptum est propter eum ut sit nobis in exemplum, et propter nos ut sit nobis in iustificationis spem. Secundo, ibi credentibus in eum, ostendit similitudinem fidei. Reputata est enim ad iustitiam fides Abrahae credenti, quod corpus suum emortuum, et emortua vulva Sarae posset vivificari ad filiorum procreationem.
4:24
Reputabitur, et nobis, credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit dominum nostrum Iesum Christum a mortuis: et in Deum patrem, cui ipse dicit in Ps. XL, v. 11: tu autem, domine, miserere mei et resuscita me. Et quia eadem est virtus patris et filii, ipse etiam in propria virtute surrexit. Quod autem haec fides iustificet, habetur infra X, 9: si confitearis in ore tuo dominum Iesum, et in corde tuo credideris quod Deus illum suscitavit a mortuis, salvus eris. Tertio, ibi qui traditus est, etc., assignat causam quare fides resurrectionis Christi iustificet, dicens qui, scilicet Christus, traditus est, scilicet in mortem, a Deo patre, infra VIII, 31: proprio filio suo non pepercit Deus, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum; et a seipso, Eph. V, 25: tradidit semetipsum pro nobis; et a Iuda, Io. XIX, v. 11: qui me tradidit tibi maius peccatum habet; et a Iudaeis, Matth. XX, 19: tradent eum gentibus ad illudendum.
4:25
Et resurrexit propter iustificationem nostram, id est, ut nos resurgendo iustificaret. Infra VI, 4: quomodo Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam patris, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. Et quod propter delicta nostra sit traditus in mortem, manifestum videtur ex hoc quod sua morte meruit nobis deletionem peccatorum, sed resurgendo non meruit, quia in statu resurrectionis non fuit viator, sed comprehensor. Et ideo dicendum est quod mors Christi fuit nobis salutaris, non solum per modum meriti sed etiam per modum cuiusdam efficientiae. Cum enim humanitas Christi esset quodammodo instrumentum divinitatis eius, ut Damascenus dicit, omnes passiones et actiones humanitatis Christi fuerunt nobis salutiferae, utpote ex virtute divinitatis provenientes. Sed quia effectus habet aliqualiter similitudinem causae, mortem Christi, qua extincta est in eo mortalis vita, dicit esse causam extinctionis peccatorum nostrorum: resurrectionem autem eius qua redit ad novam vitam gloriae, dicit esse causam iustificationis nostrae, per quam redimus ad novitatem iustitiae.
4:1
1. Quid ergo dicemus invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundum carnem? Invenisse, id est, consecutum esse, phrasi Hebraea, qua alibi invenire gratiam, misericordiam, sapientiam, vitam. Duas quaestiones initio capitis superioris sibi fecerat Apostolus: quarum posteriorem de utilitate circumcisionis, huc usque dilatam, nunc repetit aliis verbis; idque sujjradictorum occasione, maxime ejus, quod docuerat, Deum sine discrimine justificare tam praeputium, quam circumcisionem: ex quo sequebatur ad justitiam nihil interesse, sitne quis circumcisus, an non. Ubi jam locum habet quaestio: Quae igitur utilitas circumcisionis? Quoniam vero Abraham primus mandatum circumcisionis accepit, idemque justus ac Dei amicus praedicatur in scripturis; ideo quaestionem resumit in persona Abrahae, quod fatendum videatur, eum fuisse justificatum per circumcisionem. Nam dicere poterat Judaeus, quid ei profuit circumcisio, si non ad justitiam? Valde enim magni faciebant circumcisionem Judaei; ut etiam quidam ex eis dicerent ad gentiles: Nisi circumcidamini, non potestis salvari. Act. 15. Porro quaestioni Paulus ita respondet, ut doceat non ex circumcisione, sed ex fide justificatum fuisse Abraham: nec tamen inutile fuisse circumcisionis signum. Quamquam non instituit hic agere de lege caerimoniali, quae data fuit longe post Abraham; sed solum de circumcisione, quae, sicut ait Dominus Joan. 7. Non ex Mose erat, sed ex patribus: licet institutis legalibus sub Mose ceperit annumerari. Nam de legalibus in universum, quod nihil ad justitiam conferant, alibi docet Apostolus ex professo: ut in epistolis ad Galatas et ad Hebraeos. In Gi-aeco hic est ordo verborum: Quid ergo dicemus Abraham, patrem nostrum invenisse secundum carnem? ut illud secundum carnem referendum videatur ad verbum invenisse. Quod quidem voluit Syrus interpres, dum ita vertit: Quid igitur dicimus de Abraham, principe patrum, quod invenit in carne? Quin et Latini quidam, ut commentator Ambros., Aquinas et Cajetanus sic interpretantur, ut secundum carnem referant ad invenisse. Juxta quam seu lectionem, seu constructionem, sensus erit: Quid dicemus Abraham, patrem nostrum, consecutum fuisse per circumcisionem cai-nis? At noster interpres, qui verba transposuit, hunc videtur sensumfacerevoluisse: Quid dicemus Abraham, qui pater noster est secundum carnem, id est, secundum carnalem propagationem (loquitur enim Apostolus ex persona suae gentis), adeptum fuisse per hoc, quod fuit circumcisus? Nam de circumcisione moveri quaestionem sequentia docebunt. Ita quoque Chrysostomus, ejusque sequaces, et Photius exponunt, agnoscentes hyperbaton in textu Graeco. Faventque huic constructioni et sensui alia loca apud Paulum, ut hujus epistolae cap. 1.: Ex semine David secundum carnem. Et infra cap. 9.: quisunt cognati mei secundum carnem. Ac rursum: Ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem. Etl Cor. 10.: Videte Israel secundum carnem.
4:2
2. Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus est, habet gloriam, sed non apud Deum. Male quidam codices: ex operibus legis, addito scilicet vocabulo legis, quod nec in Graecis est, nec in Syriacis, nec in melioribus Latinis. Sed nec erat ratio ciar adderetur, quum sermo esset de Abraham, cujus tempore^lex nondum erat data. Legit quidem commentator Ambros. et exponit; sed usus mendoso textu, quemadmodum et Aquinas, et alii quidam. Gloriam, Graece y.a(tyri\xa, gloriationem. Proinde clarius alii verterunt: habet, quod glorietur. Porro vocula enim non causalis est hoc loco, sed suppletiva, qua responsionem aggreditur. Ac primum docet, quid non fuerit consecutus Abraham per circumcisionem, deinde quid consecutus. Negat consecutum fuisse justitiam, quia non ex operibus justificatus est. Id vero probat hoc modo: Si Abraham ex operibus justificatus est, et non ex fide, habet, unde glorietur, unde se jactet apud homines, tanquam justum, sed non apud Deum; quia talis justitia (quod in superioribus demonstravi) non est justitia Dei. Atqui in confesso est. Abraham habuisse gloriam apud Deum: non igitur ex operibus justificatus est. Hancenimargumenti conversionem ex opposito consequentis Paulus intendit. Ubi tamen non hoc sentit, eum, qui ex operibus justificatus videtur, merito posse gloriari de sua justitia apud homines; sicut hanc partem nonnialli accipiunt. (Neque enim ea vera justitia est.) Sed per concessionem dicit habet, id est habeat gloriam; ut sensus sit: Etsi forte, quod nunc non discutio, de sua operum justitiaapud hominesgloriari possit, qui tantum vident ea, quae foris sunt; haudquaquam tamen, habet, unde glorietur apud Deum, qui videt abscondita cordis: Nam ex operibus legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram illo supra cap. 3. Estque eadem ratio de caeteris operibus non a fide profectis; ac de ipsa circumcisione, ut erat signum et observatio quaedam externa, quamvis a Deo instituta. Interpretamur Apostolum de operibus, quae non sunt ex fide, sed fidem praeveniunt, et contraeam distinguuntur. De talibus enim Apostolo praesens instituta est disputatio. Nec alioqui causae ejus serviret exemplum Abrahae; ut quem ex operibus a fide profectis vere et coram Deo justificatum fuisse, testatur ac docet Apostolus Jacobus cap. 3. Quod ipsum et Christus significavit dicens: Si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite, Joan. 8. Consule, si lubet, Augustinum in praefat. suae enarr. in Psalm. 31., ubi pulchre et diserte explicat, de quibus operibus haec Pauli doctrina sit accipienda, simulque eam cum doctrina Jacobi, qua justificationem ex operibus asserit, docte conciliat, adhibita distinctione operum, quam diximus.
4:3
3. Quid enim dicit Scriptura? Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Si non ex operibus Abraham justificatus est, quaererepoterat (Judaeus), quomodo igitur justus in scripturis praedicatur? Respondet et docet Apostohis ex fide justificatum fuisse: simul ut eo exemplo tanti patriarchae probet ac suadeatprincipalem propositionem, qua dixerat, justificari hominem perfidem sine operibus legis. Si enim Abraham ex fide, et non ex operibus, justificatus est; quem tamen scriptura tanquam egregie justum describit, atque in exemplum justitiae nobis proponit: igitur nos quoque non ex operibus, sed ex fide justitiam exspectare debemus. Hanc ratiocinationem Paulo propositam esse, liquet ex contextu totiiTS capitis, et maxime ex eo, quod sub finem vehiti concludendo dicit: Non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum, sed et propter nos etc. Porro scriptura, quam adducit Paulus in testimonium, habetur Gen. 15. Quo quidem scripturae loco quamvis nondum Abraham, sed Abram vocatur: Paulus tamen scripsit Abraham, quod nomen ilH postea Deus indidit, quodque tritum erat ore Judaeorum et auribus gratum. Circa eandem scripturam notandum, ne cui scrupuhim faciat, quod in Hebraeo legitur: Credidit in Dominum seu Deum, nihil diversum significari, sed sensum esse eundem. Nam hebraeo sermone credere in aliquem vel in aliquo, idem est, quod illi ipsi credere, fidem adhibere. Sic Exodi 14. Hebraice: Crediderunt in Dominum et in Mosen servum ejus. Quod Hieronymus bene vertit: Crediderunt Domino et Mosi servo ejus. Itera 1 Reg. 22. Hebraice: Et credidit Achis in David. Hieronymus: Credidit ergo Achis David. Nec aliter in Genesi et Exodo verterunt LXX. Quare et Paulus in hoc capite, credereDeo, et credere in Deum, usurpat pro iisdem. Jam quod nos passive legimus, reputatum est ei ad justitiam: active quidem in Hebraeo legitur: reputavit illud ei justitiam; sed nulla sensus diversitate, nisi quod ilhc expressius significatur persona reputans, scilicet Deus. Visum autem fuit Pauli). quemadmodum et Jacobo cap. 2. sententiam hanc citare, sicut habetur apud LXX., quorum erat receptissima versio: maximequodita etiam in Hebraeo legatur Psalm. 105. Unde etiam apparet, haud recte ex Hebraeo vertisse Pagninum: Imputavit illud sibi ad justitiam, id est, Abraham sibi ipsi. Quod omnino aHenum est a sensu utriusque Apostoli, atque ipsius Mosis, qui sanctum patriarcham non suo, sed Dei judicio justificatum dicere voluit. Praeter haec observandum, vulgato interpreti tria haec verba, reputare, imputare, et accepto ferre, quae hoc capite leguntur, prorsus ejusdem esse significationis; ut quibus unum idemque verbum Graecum Ao-(iC,SG^ai tam activa, quam passiva significatione respondeat. Nec vero, ut Erasmus in paraphrasi exponit, et alii quidam existimant, illud ex mente Apostoli dicitur reputari pro aliquo vel ad aliquid, quod cum vere tale non sit, ex sola reputantis aut imputantis benignitate pro tali habetur; ut siquisbabeat pro soluto, quod vere non est solutum. Hoc enim adferunt pro exemplo. Sed ea falsa esset reputatio, quae in Deum cadere non potest. Etenim hoc pacto non esset vere justus ille, cui fides ad justitiam imputatur. Quare nec Abraham, cui credidisse Deo reputatum est ad justitiam, ea fide vere justus fuisset. Quod et scripturis et ipsi Apostolo repugnat. Ac cei-te non parum favere videretur ea expositio novo dogmati haereticorum de justitia imputativa. Dicunt enim hominem etsi non vere justum, tamen coram Deo justum haberi; quia fides, qua credit sibi propter Christum remissa peccata, imputatur ei pro justitia. Quam doctrinam meritodamnavitEcclesia in synodo Trid. sess. 6. et 7. et canon. 11. Itaque secundum scripturas dicimtis illud reputari ad aliquid, quod vera aestimatione, veroque judicio tale habetur. Sic enim dictum est: Credidit Abram Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam: quia fides illa, qua Deo credidit promittenti sibi semen sicut stellas coeli, erat verum et insigne opus justitiae, Deo gratissimum. Sic de eodem patriarcha scriptum est lib. 1. Macchab. 2., quod in tentatione inventus est fidelis, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam. Item de Phinees sacerdote Psalm. 105. Stetit et placavit, et cessavit quassatio: et reputatum est ei in justitiam. Haec quippe erant opera vere justa. Sic et ab Augustino dictum est in tractatu de urbis excidio cap. 3., quod beatus Job sustinuit tribulationem: et deputatum est illi ad magnam justitiam: quia nimirum illa sustinentia Job magnae justitiae opus fuit. Quae res confirmatur etiam ex contrario. Nam more scripturae etiam mala opera reputari dicuntur in peccata; ut violatio voti, et detentio mercedis debitae, Deuter. 23. et 24. Haec autem constat vere peccata esse, eaque mortifera. Neque Deus, qui juste et secundum veritatem judicat, in peccatum reputaret, et tanquam peccatum puniret opus aliquod, quod vere peccatum non esset. Quare et in bonis eadem est retinenda istius vocabuli significatio, etiam hoc loco, ubi docetur, fidem reputari ad justitiam. Et ita Cjpr. in Epist. ad Caecil. lib. 2. EpistoL 3. hanc reputationem explicat. Si Abraham, inquit, Deo credidit, et deputatum est ei ad justitiam, utique quisquis Deo credit, et fide vivit, justus invenitur. Ubi vides eadem esse Cypriano, deputari cuipiam fidem ad justitiam; et eum per fidem justum inveniri. Nec vero hunc scripturae sermonem ab Apostolis repetitum, quo dicitur fides Abrahae deputata ad justitiam, patres orthodoxi unquam aliter quam de vera justitia acceperunt. Quod autem objiciunt, in rationibus imputari tanquam sohita, non solum quae vere soluta sunt, verum etiam quae non soluta, sed remissa: Resp. id improprie dici, quo significetur debitorum condonatio; quae cum facta fuerit, jam non est, quod solvi debeat. Alioqui vere et proprie nec reputari, nec haberi potest pro soluto, quod non est solutum: nihilo magis quam habere possis pro vir(i bono, quem scias esse nebulonem. Caeterum quomodo sit hoc ipsum intelligendum, quod hic ex professo docet Apostolus, fidem reputari ad justitiam, cum fides non sit ipsa hominis justitia, paulo post explicabitur. At circa praesentem locum duplex occurrit dubitatio. Nam videri potest exemphim Abrahae, de quo scriptum est: Credidit Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam, non bene, nec apposite introductum ab Apostolo ad probandam impii justificationem ex fide Christi: Primum, quia Abraham non tunc demum, quando hoc credidit, quod de eo scriptura commemorat, justificatus fuit: sed inde ab initio vocationis suae, quando dictum est ei: Egredere de terra tua etc. Genes. 12,, describitur ut vir justus, utpote fidelis et obediens Deo, et ut talis laudatur Heb. 11. et alibi. Deinde, quia scriptura non loquitur illic de fide Christi propitiatoris, sed de ea solum fide, qua promittenti Deo credidit Abraham, semen suum futurum sicut stellas coeli. Ad priorem dubitationem responsio quorundam est, verba citati a Paulo testimonii de prima Abrahae justificatione esse intelligenda: non tamen referenda ad solam promissionem Dei proxime praecedentem, sed etiam ad alias superiores, quibus jam ante et ab initio credidit. Nam ^de Abraham obedivit in locum exire, quem accepturus erat in haereditatem. Hebr. 11. Haec responsio mihi certe violenta videtur et improbabilis. Planus enim scripturae textus postulat, ut verbum credidit praecise referatur ad promissionem proxime narratam; neque patitur, ut ad alias longe praemissas post multa intermedia retrahatur. Tum et ratio obsistit. Nam si de prima justificatione sermo est, jam omnino non poterit referri verbum credidit ad promissionempraesentem, sed ad illam solam referendum erit, quae facta fuit Abrahae nondum justificato. Itaque non stat, ut ad hanc simul et priores referatur. Proinde verior ac textui Mosaico magis consentanea responsio est: Abraham tunc, quando hoc credidit, quod ibi Moses ei promissumnarrat, justificatum fuisse: non quod tunc ex impio justus factus fuerit; sed quia ea fide tanquam insigni opere justitiae declarata fuit et aucta ejus justitia: auctam dico ea justificatione, quae secunda vocatur. Nam etiam multo post, quando filium suum obtulit, eandem scripturam impletam fuisse, Jacobus in epistola sua testatur cap. 2. Jam si Abraham antea justus, adhuc justificatur ex fide et per gratiam fidei, non autem ex operibus: majori igitur ratione (quod in fine capitis Apostohis concludit) ex impio justus quis primum efficitur per fidem et non per opera. Adde quod Apostoli doctrina de justificatione generalis est, etiam secun-
enil. £s tii Comm. Tom. 1. dam justificationem comprehendens, uti cap. 1. et 3. satis est ostensum. Ad posteriorem dubitationem responderi potest, Abraham divinae promissioni credentem, non solam attendisse carnalem posteritatem, sed praecipue spectasse unum illud semen, inquo, sicut ei promittitur Gen. 12., benedicendae erant omnes familiae terrae; id est Christum, ex ipsius posteritate nasciturum. Nam propter hoc semen, quod est Christus, omnia illa de carnali posteritate promissa dabantur. Verum quia in promissione, quae habetur Genes. 15. (ex quo loco praesens testimonium desumptum est), nulla fit mentio seminis, in quo gentes sint benedicendae, sed tantum posteritatis carnalis; velut etiam toto hoc capite non aliam fidem Abrahae, quae ei reputata fuerit ad justitiam, urget Apostolus, quam qua contra spem in spem Deo promittenti credidit (ut infra dicitur), se futurum patrem multarum gentium; idcirco respondent alii, fidem illam Abrahae, licet non fuerit de Christo, ut objecto, tamen innixam fuisse fidei seu fiduciae de Christo, saltem tacite atque implicite, si nondum expressam de eo revelationem acceperat. Sed haec responsio principium petere videtur. Hoc ipsum enim probandum erat, Abrahae fidem, qua credidit Deo promittenti sibi semen sicut stellas coeli, innixam fuisse fidei, quam habebat de Christo; et ex hoc fundamento valuisse ei ad justitiam. Simplicior mihi responsio videtur, si dicamus satis esse Paulo, ab exemplo Abrahae, qui ex fide, qua Deo credidit, justificatus fuisse scribitur, qualecumque fuerit illius fidei objectum, ostendisse, idque apud Judaeos, quibus omnia facta Abrahae erant veneranda, quod non debeat absurda videri doctrina Evangelica, sed iis, quae de Abraham, sanctissimo eorum patriarcha, leguntur, admodum consona, qua docetur impium justificari ex fide: cum illud exemplum clare doceat, esse rem Deo ad justitiam hominis valde gratam et acceptam, si verbis illius indubitata fides adhibeatur. Haec responsio coUigi potest ex fine capitis, iibi Paulus exemplum Abrahae credentis suo applicans instituto, solum hoc dicit: Non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum, quia reputatum est illi: sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur, credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit J esum Christum etc. Quibus verbis Abrahae quidem non aliam attribuit fidem, quam de qua egerat in superioribus: et tamen hoc scriptum esse dicit propter nos, per fidem^ qua in Christum crederemus, justificandos: ue videlicet incredibile Judaeis videatur, hominem justificari ex fide Jesu Christi, quum et Abraham patrem suum legant ex fide justificatum. Huc facit, quod Heb. 11. dicitur Noe ejus justitiae, quae per fidem est, haeres fuisse institutus, id est, per fidem justificatus. Hanc enim fidem exponit eo loco Paulus, non qua credidit in Christum, sed qua Deo credidit praedicenti futurum mundi dihxvium •, ita ut propter hanc fidem etiam de ipso dici potuerit: Credidit Noe Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam. Sciendum tamen, tam in hac fide Noe, quam in illa Abrahae, contineri fidem Dei remuneratoris, de qua dicitur in eodem loco: qaod credere oportet Deum esse, et inquirentibus se esse remuneratorem. Ac rursus in fide Dei remuneratoris recte inclusam intelligi fidem mediatoris; quemadmudum illic ostendetur. Unde hac ratione dici potest, tacitam esse Apostoli mentem, quod Abraham et Noe per fidem mediatoris justi fuerunt declarati, justitiaeque profectum et incrementum adepti. Ex quo consequenler intelligendum relinquatur, iisdem primam quoqiTC justificationem ex fide mediatoris Christi contigisse. Nam si progressus justitiae ex fide est, ubi tamen opera inveniuntur; quanto magis initium justificationis, quod opera praevenit, ex fide erit? Pertinent huc et caeterorum antiquorum exempla, quos per fidem Deo placuisse, ac justitiae testimonium consecutos fuisse, longo ordine Paulus eodem loco recenset: non utique loquens de fide mediatoris; sed de fide dictorum et promissorum Dei in genei^e, in qua tamen contineretur fides de Deo, quod inquirentibus se remunerator sit: proinde et fides mediatoris, ea ratione et sensu, qui suo loco declarabitur: nti dictum est de fide Noe et Abraham.
4:4
4. Ei autem, qui operatur, merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed secundum debitum. In eo, quod dixit, fidem Abrahae fuisse ei reputatam ad justitiam, sonat gratia: quia fides promissorum Dei gratiae innititur. Quo argumento nunc docet, Abraham non ex operibus justificatum fuisse. Pugnant enim, ex operibus et gi-atta, secundum ilhid infra cap. 11. Si gratia, jam non ex operibus: alioquin gratia jam non est gratia. Porro sumptio generaiis est de qi;olibet operario, qui opere suo mercedem acquirit, ut arando, texendo, aedificando; quemadmodumrecte exponunt Augustinus in propositionibus hujus k)ci, et Graeci tractatores: ut sensus sit: Operi respondet merces, videlicet ex conventione; merces autem non aestimatur ut gratuita, sed ut debita. Nam merces significat id, quod pro opere debetur. Hinc colligendum relinquit: quod si Abraham ex operibus justificatus fuit, non igitur gratis justificatum fuisse. Cujus quidem consequentis falsitatem ex scriptura jam allata ostendit per ea, quae sequuntur. Quidam extremam partem sententiae supplent hoc modo: Sed secundum debitum rependitur. Negant enim convenienter dici: merces imputatur secundum debitum, eo quod imputatio importet aliquid gratuitum. Verum si bene consideretur significatio verbi imputari, Graece Xo^(iC,z3^ai, prout superius a nobis exposita est, facile intelligetur, non incongruam neque abusivam esse hanc locutionem. Significatur enim, mercedem vera aestimatione judicari debitam et non gratuitam.
4:5
5. Ei vero, qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum, qui Justificat impium, reputatur fides ejus ad justitiam. Credenti autem in eum. Erat et hocparticipium 7i:'.aT£6ovTi_, sicuti praecedens.a^rj ipyaCo.asvo)^ non operanti, resolvendum in verbum, hoc modo: Ei vero, qui non operatur, sed credit in eum etc. Hic manifeste jam Apostolus opponit operantem credenti. Unde liquet eum etiam in superioribus intellexisse operantem, non illiim, qui credit, aut exfide operatur; sed qui operatur non credens in eum, qui justificat hominem, id est, justitiam ab eo non exspectans. Quare fides ad id genus operum non pertinet, sed iis opponitur. Nam qui credit in eum, qui justificat impium, si credit, ut oportet, etiam ipsam fidem, quae justificationis initii;ra est, se credit habere ex ipsius justificantis beneficio. /wpmrn vocat peccatoi'em in genere. Sunt enim eadem fere in scripturis, maxime in disputatione Paulina de justificatione, quatuor ista: afiaptojAog^ aos^TjC^ aStxoc^ avojjicig^ id est, peccator, impius, injustus, iniquus. Porro fides, qua quis credit in eum, qui peccatorem justificat, et ab eo justitiam per Christum exspectat, reputari dicitur ad justitiam; non quia Dei benignitate pro justitia reputatur, cum non sit justitia, quemadmodum sectarii volunt, suam ex hoc loco male intellecto justitiam construentes, quam vocant imputativam. Esset enim haec falsa reptitatio. Nec vero, quia reputatur pro justitiae perfectione, quam erat habiturus homo, si non peccasset; quod sentit Hugo Victorinus quaest. 101., siquidem nec ea reputatio veritati responderet: sed juxta supradicta, quia fides vera justitia est, saltem secundum inchoationem. Nam ejusmodi fides a peccatdre concepta initium est justitiae et renovationis ejus, et quidem tale, quod ipsam justitiam apprehendat, et ex quo, velut semine, tota justitia progerminet. In homine autem justo eadem fides simpliciter justitia est, sicut et caetera bona justorum opera; quomodo etiam illa fides Abrahae, qua divinis promissis credebat, simjiliciter justitia erat, nimirum actualis, ab habituali et inhaerente justitia procedens. Erat enim opus justitiae Deo gratissimum. Nam et opera justitiae passim in sacris literis justltla vocantui. Sic autem Deus ipsam fidem re]iutat ad justitiam, ut nihil sine ea ad justltiani reputet, sed caetera per eam et propter eam. Fidem vero intellige sperantem, diligentem, invocantem, obedientem, utalibi declaratum. Unde Augustinus tractat. 29. in Joannem, cum adduceret hanc Apostoli sententiam: Credenti in eum, qui justificat imjnum etc. (^mid est, inquit, credere in eum? Credendo amare, cre~ dendo diligere, credendo m eum ire, et ejus membris incorporari. Denique addit, eam intelligi fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur, Dicitur autemDeus impium justificare, nonsolaremissionepeccatorum, quae doctrina est haereticorum; sed donis gratuitis et gratificantibus mentem ejus renovando, quorum primum est ipsa fides. Unde quamvis absolute nemo justus aut justificatus dici debeat, priusquam acceperit peccatorum remissionem et spiritum adoptionis filiorum Dei, tamen inchoatione quadam talis interdum quis dicitur, cum primum credit, ea videlicet fide, de qua nunc agitur. Ita Augustinus enarrans Ps. 110. Justitiam, inquit, homo non operatur, nisi justificatus. Credens autem in eum, qui justificat impium, a ^de inczpzi (operari justitiam), ut bona opera non praecedetitia, quod meruit, sed consequentia, quod accepit, ostendant. Haec ille. Namquod de confessione peccatorum, quae fidei comes est, subjungit: Nondum quidem opus est justitiae, sed delicti improbatio, non negat eam opus esse justitiae inchoatae, sed justitiae simpliciter, quam non habet is, cui nondum sunt dimissa peccata. Alioqui peccatorum confessionem inter operabona et sahitaria numerandam esse, idem Augustinus testatur tract. 12. super Joannem, his verbis: Cum ceperit tibi displicere, quod fecisti, inde incipiunt bona opera tua, quia accusas mala opera tua. Initium operum bonorum confessio est operum malorum. Haec ibi.
Stcundum propositum gratiae Dei. Haec chiusula non est in textu Graeco, neque SyrIaco> sed neque in omnibus reperitur Latinis; tametsi commentator Amb, PeL-iglus et Sedulius legunt et exponunt. Ex quo constat, vetustam esse hanc lectionem. Verum sive Panlns, sive quis alius adscripserit, addita est, ut evidentior esset antithesis istius partis: Ei, qui non operatur, credenti autem etc, cum praecedenti, in cjua dictum erat, mercedem operanti non imputari secundum gratiam. Nam sensus est: fidem reputari ad justitiam, et ex ea justificari hominem, non quodhic justificandi modus ad primam naturae pertineat institutionem, sed quia Deus gratioso decreto sic ab aeterno ordinavit; quo et ipsam fidem gratis dare constituit. Hac enim ratione dictum est capite praecedenti, gratis et per fidem nos justificari.
4:6
6. Sicut et David dicit beatitudinem hominis, cui Deus accepto fert justitiam sine operibus. Aliud adducit ex Psahnis testimonium, non quo probet ex fide justificari hominem, quod superiori testimonio fecit, sed quo doceat sine operibus, id est, sine ullo operum merito justitiam homini provenire, et proinde gi-atis. Simul autem insinuat, se versari in quaestione apud phih)Sophos gravissima et celeberrima de beatitudine hominis. Nam omnis sci-iptura justum vocat beatum, videlicet ea beatitudine, quae haberi potest in hac vita, et quae gradus est ad perfectam beatitudinem, ac semen illius. Pro beatitudine tum hic, quam paulo post, in Graecp est,uaxapiajjLog^ id est, beatificatio, quo vocabulo ipsa justificatio significatur. Et sensus est: simili modo etiam David in PsaL 31. dicit et pronuntiat hominem beatificari seu justificari, cui Deus imputat justitiam, id est, quem Deus suo judicio justum reputat absque merito operum ejus, dum scilicet nullam facit operum mentionem, sed tantum peccatorum praecedentium et gratuitae eorum remissionis. Ait enim:
4:7
7. Beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata. Idem utroque membro significatur more scri])turae. Sic Psal. 84.: Remisisti iniquitatem plebis tuae, operuisti omnia peccata eorum. Et Nehem. 4.: Ne operias iniquitatem eorum, et peccatum eorum coram facie tua non deleatur. Igitur operta seu tecta Deo dicuntur peccata, non quod permaneant, et tamen Deo dissimulante non imputentur ad poenam, uti contendunt Lutherani; id enim justitia Dei nuUo modo patitur. Sed quia vere remissa sunt ac deleta, ut jam neque sint actu, neque reatu. Nam actum peccati ipse Psalmistes excludit, mox adjiciens: Nec est in spiritu ejus dolus. Hoc enim dicitur propter veram et sinceram hominis a peccato ad Deum conversionem. Quocirca non est consequens ex hoc loco, beatitudinem, id est, justitiam hominis consistere in sola remissione peccatorum, cum alibi idem Psalmista beatos vocet, qui ambulant in lege Domini, quique custodiunt judicium et faciunt justitiam, Psal. 1. et 118. et 105., imo et Christus dicat suis discipulis: Si haec scitis, beati eritis, si feceritis ea, Joan. 13. et Apostolus Jacobus cap. 1. de factore operis: Hic beatus in facto suo erit. Itaque nomine remissionis peccatorum tota hominis renovatio comprehensa debet intelligi.
4:8
8. Beatus vir, cui non imputavitdominus peccatum. Multi codices habent futurum, imputabit. Quae lectio cum Hebraeo convenit. In Graeco subjunctivus est ko^iOTiXai, id est, imputaverit; tametsi ad sensum non refert, quid horum legatur. Generalis enim sententia est, pertinens ad omne tempus. Dicitur autem Deus peccatum non imputare, quia, cum delet ac remittit homini peccatum, non jam eum amplius habet pro peccatore; quippe qui peccato remisso jam peccator esse desierit. Quare nec hic versus, cujus sensus convenit Q.iim praecedenti, quicquam adjuvat illam sectariorum imputativam justitiam. Nec sane in eara competit nomen beatitudinis. Nam quomodo beatus, qui adhuc est in peccatis suis? Nihilo magis, quam si sanum dicas ac reputes eum, qui morbo manet implicitus. Ex his iisdem Psalmi versibus impugnanthaeretici satisfactiones poenitentium. Si enim, inquiimt, tecta sunt Deo justificati hominis peccata, et non imputat ei Dominus peccatum, nihil igitur ei pro peccato restat in Dei judicio solvendum. Sed falluntur. Neque enim ita dicitur Deus tegere et non imputare peccatum, quod remittit, ac si nulla restet poena, quae solvatur, cum ab ipso Davide, qui haec scripsit, non leves exactae fuerint poenae temporales ob commissum adulterium et homicidium, etiam postquam audivit a Propheta: Transtulit Dominus peccatum tuum. 2 Reg. 2. De qua re vide, quae scribit Augustinus lib. 22. contra Faustum cap. 67., et in inchoata expositione hujus epistolae ad illud: gratia vobis et pax; itemque in enarratione Psakai 50., ubi de Davide inter alia dicit: Agnoscens culpam suam amplexus est poenam suam. Verum tegere peccatum et non imputare dicitur Deus, quia non aspicit, nec imputat illud ad eam poenam, quae peccatu proprie respondet, id est, ad supplicium mortis aeternae, de qua infra cap. 6.: Stipendia peccati mors. Nam quod ad temporales attinet poenas, de Deo scriptum est: Flagellat omnem filium, quem recipit. Heb. 11.
4:9
9. Beatitudo ergo haec in circumcisione tantum manet, an etiam inpraeputio? Reflectit sei-mouem ad principale institutum, id est, ut doceat Dei justitiam ex fide tam gentilibus, quam Judaeis, esse prppositam. Hae duaevoces, tantum manet, nec in Graecis habentur cudicibus, nec in Syriacis, sed nec in omnibus Latinis, quorum tamen plures adverbio, paucioresverbo carent. Addita videntur sive ab interprete, sive ab alio quopiam ad explendam sententiam alioquiiraperfectam. Graeci commentatores subaudiunt verbum venit aut devenit, atque hoc supplevit Erasmus. Nam in Graeco sunt quarti casus, in circumcisionem, in praeputium, ut sit sensus: haec beatificatio seu justificatio, de qua David loquitur, tantumne contingit Judaeis circumcisis, an etiam pervenit ad gentiles non circumcisos? Ad hanc quaestionem explicandam rursus considerat lociun scriptm-ae de Abraham, ita subjungens:
Dicimus enim, quia reputata est Abrahae fides ad justitiam. Dicimus, id est, jam paub) ante diximus ipsisverbis scripturae: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Vel dicimus, id est, hic jam repetimus Abrahae fidem reputatam ei fuisse ad justitiam. Repetit autem, ut responsionem paret interrogationi, quam fecit.
4:10
10. Quoynodo ergo reputata est? in circumcisione, an in praeputio? Illud quomodo ad qualitatem seu conditionem personae referendum. Sensus enim est: qualis et quo in statu erat Abraham, quando ei fides ad justitiam reputata est? Num circumcisus jam erat, au adhuc praeputiatus? Quem sensum Graeca manifeste vokiut^ quae sic ad verbum, in circumcisione existente, sciUcet Abraham, an in praeputio? Sequitur responsio:
Non in circumcisione, sed in praeputio. Hoc est, nondum circumciso, sed adhuc habenti praeputium. Id ex historia Genesis perspicuum est, quae circumcisionem ejus postea factam discribit, cap. 17.
4:11
11. Et signum accepit circumcisionis, signaculum justitiae fidei, quae est in praeputio. His jam verbis continetur responsio ad illam iuterrogatiouem capitis praecedentis: Quae utilitas circumcisionis? Graeca nonuuna habent TicpiTO/jLr^v, circumcisionem accusandi casu, sed id sensum non variat. Quae est in praeputio. Verbum in Graeco non exprimitur, ac potius supplendum: quae fuerat in praeputio. Postulat enim hoc Pauli seuteutia. Quaeritur autem, quo respiciat relativum quae, num ad justitiam fidei, an ad fidem. Est enim id ambiguum tam in Graeco, quam in Latino. Sane videtur potius ad justitiam fidei referendum. Nam dicere vult Apostolus circumcisionem in Abrahamo fuisse signaculum ejus justitiae, quam prius acceperat ex fide. Quippe sensus hujusmodi est: AViraham jam ante justificatus per fidem, postea accepitsignum circumcisionis, id est, ipsam circumcisionem, quae pro signo data fuit illi et ejus posteritati. Accepit, inquam, circumcisionem, quae esset signacukim, id est, sigilkim ejus justitiae, quam perceperat ex fide tunc, quando adhuc erat in praeputio, id est, uoudum circumcisus. Quaeres, cujus rei signum fuerit circumcisio. Respondeo signum fuisse principaliter institutum ad significandum foedus, quod pepigit Deus cum Abraham et ejus posteritate, quemadmodum patet ex historia Genes. 17. Consequenter autem et secundario signum fuissej quo discernerentur Abrahae posteri a caeteris gentibus, tametsi, ut hic dicitur, in ipsoAbraham etiam sigillum justitiae fuit, ejus scilicet, quae praecessit. Nam Graeca dictio acppay-C quam interpres vertit signaculum, proprie significat sigilhim, quo aliquid obsignatur. Quae quidem obsignatio fieri sulet ob duas causas, vel ut clausum sit et secretum id, quod obsignatur, vel ut ratum sit ac firmum. Itaque vel significat Apostolus circumcisione vehit sigillo clausam et occultatam orim fuisse justitiam fidei, tempore Evangelii revelandam, juxta illud cap. 1.: Justitia Dei in eo revelatur ex fide, et iUud cap. 3.: Nunc autem sine lege justitia Dei manifestata est. Quae est Origenis expositio. Vel sentit circumcisionem Abrahae datam ut sigillum, quo praecedens ejus justitia comprobaretur, ratificaretur, certaque ac firma redderetur. Hoc fere modo Cluysostomus, aliique Graeci, consentientibus etiam Latinis, exponunt, idque magis ad sensum Apostoli, qui loquitur hic non de justitia fidei iu genere, sed de justitia Abrahae, quae per circumcisionem ejus non fuit occultata, sed potius declarata simul et confirmata. Nam propterea Deus pactum inire dignatus fuit cum Abraham, dato ei signo circumcisionis, quoniam Deo jam ante placuerat per justitiam. Neque vero hic agitur de circumcisione, ut erat actus quidam moralis obedientiae in Abraham circumcidente se, sed ut erat signum et observatio quaedam externa, divinam habens instituti.mem, quomodo Judaei de circumcisione bjquebantur, utiHtatem ejus ac necessitatem praedicantes. Igitur ex hoc loco, sicut et ex Epistola ad Galatas, recte docetur circumcisionem, quatenus ad observationes veteris populi pertinebat, perinde ut veteris legis sacramenta, gratiam non contulisse. Vult enim Apostolus, justitiam nec Abrahae, proinde nec ejus pusteritati, id est, Judaeis contigisse ex circumcisione, sed quibus contigit eam habuisse ex fide, sicut Abraham. Caeterum an circumcisio, ut ex fide suscepta, vim habuerit justificandi, sicut novae legis sacramenta, disputatur proble matice iu 4. Sent. dist. 1. Neque pars negativa ex eo statui posse videtur, quod, ut hic dicitur, Abraham ni>n fuerit adeptus justitiam ex circumcisione. hoc enim ideo, quia jam ante justus erat. Quod etiam in baptismo novae legis sacramento potest accidere, quemadmodum de Cornelio centurione docet Augustinus lib. 4. contra Dou. cap. 24.: Sicut, inquit, in Abraham praecessit fidei justitia, et accessit circumcisio signaculum justitiae fidei, ita in Cornelio praecessit sanctificatio spiritualis in dono Spiritus sancti, et accessit sacramentum regenerationis in lavacro baptismi. Sic ille. VeruTutamen objicere posset Judaeus et dicere: etsi Abraham non fuerit justificatus ex cncumcisioue, nos tamen ex circumcisione justificamur. Ac rursum; etsi prima justificatio non contigit Abrahae ex circumcisione, secunda tauieu contingit, quemadmodum Cornelio et cuicumque Cliristiauo, aute baptismum justificato, per baptismum accedit augmentum justitiae. Jam enim ex superioribus patet n>in solum de prima justificatione Pauhun agere, cum docet hominem ex fide justificari, non ex operibus legis, sed de tota hominis justitia disserere. Propter hujusmodi argumenta dissolvenda, nec non propter alia, quae ab aliis adferantur, admodumprobabile fit, signum circumcisionis ex divina institutione nihil ad justitiam valuisse, sed nudum fuisse signum foedei-is, quod Deus iniit cum Abraham, ejusque posteritate. Quae significatio sola in Genesi est expressa. Si enim ille, cui prim.i data est circumcisio, nihil ex ea con^ecutus est justitiae; consequens apparet nec caeteros ex ea justificari potuisse, praesertim cum nec usquam alibi scriptura tale quid inveniatur circumcisioni tribuere. Estque ea sententia Chrjsostomi et Graecoium, qui post eum scripserunt; imo et patrum quorundam antiquiorum, ut Irenaei, Justini, Tertulliani, Cypriani atque aliorum, quorum testimonia citata videre est ab iis, qui de liac quaestione ex professo disputant. Nec facile quemquam reperias Augustino priorem, qui in signaculo circumcisionis virtutem agnoscat animas a peccato mundandi, tametsi haec opinio post Augustinum, eoque, ut apparet, auture, multum apud Latinos fuerit recepta. it sit pater omnium credentium per praeputium. Ut sit, ut esset. Per praeputium, id est, manente praeputio, quamvis habeant praeputium. Sic usus est praepositione 5ta cap. 2.: qui per literam et circumcisionem praevaricator legis es.
Ut reputetur et illis ad justitiam. Graece, ut reputetur et iUis justitia. Quod convenit cum eo, quod diximus inHebraico legi: reputavit illud ei justitiam. Itaque subauditur fides. Et sensus est: idcirco justificatum fuisse Abraham, cum adhuc esset in praeputio, ut exemplo fidei suae, quae ei reputata fuit ad justitiam, pater esset omuiura eorum, qui credituri erant, etsi praeputium habentes et in eo manentes, id est, gentilium, ut nimirum etiam illis sua fides reputarctur justitia, id est, ad justitiam, dum scilicet ex fide justificantur.
4:12
12. Et sit pater circumcisionis. Et sit, et esset, tametsi verbum in Graeco non reperitur. Noti iis tantum, quisunt ex circumcisione, sedetiis, qui sectantur vestigia fidei, quae est in praeputio patris nostri Abrahae. Graece: iis, qui non ex circumcisione solum, sed et incedunt vestigiis fidei, quae (fuit) in praeputio patris, etc. Ex quo satis apparet, hanc partem ad solos Judaeos carne circumcisos, fideles tamen, pertinere; sicut pr;iecedens tantum pertinebat ad gentes credentes, etsi carne incircumcisos. Vult enim ostendere P;iulus Alraham esse patrem omnium credentiuiu, gentilium aeque ac Judaeorum..Sensus igitur hujus posterioris partis est: ideo.A.braham, cum justificatus esset in praeputio, tamen adhuc accepisse ju^titiae signacuhim circumcisionem, ut esset pater circumcisionis, id est, Judaeorum, siveipsis Judaeis: iis, inquam, qui non tantum carne circumcisi sunt, tanquam hoc eis sufiiciat, ut filii sint Abra - liae; verum etiam fidem habent, qua sectentur vestigia, hoc est, exempla fidei, quae fuit in praeputio patris nostri Abrahae, id est, quae fuit in Abraham etiam ante circumcisionem, quando adhuc erat praeputiatus. Ut hic sensus etiam vulgatae lectioni sit accommodvis, transponenda est vocula tantum, necnon cunjunctio et, ut ita legas: Non iis, qui tantum sunt ex circumcisione, sed iis, qui et, id est, etiam, sectantur vestigia fidei etc.
4:13
13. Non enim per legem promissio Abrahae aut semini ejus, ut haeres esset mundi; sed per justitiam fidei. Ut haeres esset mundi, Graece, xo xXr^povo.uov abxbv clvai TO~j y.6oixo\), id est, haeredem eum esse mundi. Est enim expressio promissionis Abrahae factae. Alio nunc ac novo utitur argumento Pauhis ad probandumid, quod instituit, ex fide justitiam omnibus esse propositam gentilibus aeque ac Judaeis Poterat eulm Judaeus dicere: Si non ex circumcisione justitia est, saltem ex lege. Doc>>t igitur Apostohis id, quod praecedenti capite docuit, ex lege non esse justitiam. Sed, ut dixi, novo id agit argumento, sumpto nimirum ex promissione benedictionis omnium gentium, Abrahae facta multo aute h^gem latam. "Quo etiam utitur in Epistok ad Galatas cap. 3. Porro supplendum est hoc loco verbum, facta est, aut fiet, contigit, aut continget. Nam si promissio proprie accipitur, ea olim facta fuisse significatur; si vero iraprojrie pro re promissa, quomodo frequenter accipitur iu sacris literis, ut Galat. 3. et aliquoties in Epistola ad Hebraeos, tum significatur futura. Qui promissionem hoc posteriori modo accijnnut, ita partem hanc exponunt: res Abrahae promissa, scilicet ipsum et semen ejus fore uuindi haeredem, non est exhibenda per k^gent, sed per jnsiitiam fidei. _ Verum melius se habet, ut proprie promissio sumatur, atque hic sit sensus: non enim per legem obtinuit Abraham de semine suo illam a Deo promissionem, qua promisit eum fore haeredem mundi. Siquidem illa ei facta est, iit in Epistola ad Galatas dicitur, annis quadringentis et Iriginta ante legem; sed eam accepit per justitiam ex fide partam, quae fuit in ejus praeputio; de qua justitia dictum: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam. Ut hujus argumenti vis appareat, supponendum est Abrahae non fuisse factam promissionem cum aliqua conditione, sed absolute; ut constat ex scripturis, quae promissionem ei factam commemorant. Propter quod et lex tanto tempore post data fuit, nec ipsi, sed ejus posteris. Unde intelligitur prorsus gratuita promissio. Quod ergo Deus sine conditione promisit, sine lege donat et implet, quemadmodum docet Prosper lib. 1. de vocat. gent. cap. 9. Hinc et filii novi Testamenti filii promissionis vocantur; infra cap. 9. et Gah 4. Quidam Apostoli verba sic ordinanda putant: non enim promissio Abrahae aut semini ejus, ut per legem haeres esset mundi, sed per justitiam fidei. Verum hac metathesi particulae per legem non opus esse, satis patet ex utroque sensu jam dato. Caeterum videtur Apostohis, cum dixit: Abrahae aut semini ejus. alhidere voluisse ad duas promissiones, quarum prior est Gen. 12.: In te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae; posterior Gen. 22.: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes terrae. Quarum tamen eadem est sententia, scilicet Abraham ratione seminis sui, id est, Christi ex eo nascituri (sicut ipse Paulus interpretatur ad Galat. 3.), futurum tdtius mundi haeredem seu possessorem; id est, Christi regnum per omnes gentes propagandum esse, et per hoc eas omnes in ipso benedicendas. Nam Christum mundi haeredem etiam Psahnista canit, in persona Dei Patris dicens: Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam, et possessionem tuam ter~ minos terrae, Psah 2. De quo rursus Apostolus Heb. 1.: Quem constituit haeredem universorum.
4:14
14. Si enim, qui ex lege, haeredes sunt, exinanita est fides, abolita est promissio. Exinanita est. Graece, xsxsvtoxai, inanis et irrita facta est. Idem verbum legitur 1 Cor. 1., ubi nos habemus, et non evacuetur crux Christi. Ratiocinatur Apostolus ad absurdum deductione. Quod argumentum duobus modis explicari potest, prout illud, qui ex lege, bifariam intelligitur. Prior explicatio est: si enim soli, qui ex lege sunt, id est, Judaei, quibus lex data est, haeredes sunt, id est, pertinentes ad haereditatem Abrahae promissam, ut ipsi vohint; igitur inanis redditur fides, quae praecessit legem, et consequenter irrita fit promissio Abrahae facta, quae et ipsa legem praecessit. Juxta hunc sensum nota relativam oppositionem inter haeredes et haeredem, quem prius dixerat. Haeredem enim vocat active et proprie eum, qui percipit aut percepturus est haeieditatem; haeredes vero passive, qui sunt ipsa possessio haereditaria, id est, populus Christo in haereditatem promissus. Altera expositio, secundum quam particula, qui ex lege, sumitur, ut illa Gal. 3., qui ex operibus legis, aut certe formaliter, quatenus ex lege, est hujusmodi: si ilH demum haeredes sunt promissionis Abrahae factae, et pi-omissae benedictionis participes, qui ex lege sunt, ut justificante, id est, ex lege justitiam sibi parant, sequitur absurdum, nempe fidem, sive ipsius Abrahae credentis promissioni, sive potius nostram, qua per Christum justitiam exspectamus, esse rem inanem, adeoque pr< missionem Abrahae factam abolitam esse et irritam; non sohim quod hac ratione effectus, id est, res promissa a lege pendeat, non a promissione, verum quod omnino frustretur effectu, ut quem nemo per legem consequi possit, propterea quod lex ad justitiam et sui observationem neminem perducat. Hunc sensum esse germaniorem probat illa sententia similis Gal. 3.: Si ex lege haereditas, jam non ex promissione. Deinde et ostendit ratio subjuncta de lege iram operante. Quod autemnonnullifidem hic interpretantur ipsius Dei, id est, veracitatem in praestandis promissis, ut eadem sint exinaniri fidem, et aboleri ejus promissionem, sitque posterius explicatio prioris; aliis non probatur, ac merito. Nam huic parti, exinanita est fides, statim post opponit illam, ideo ex fide; ubi fidem hominis in Deum intelligi, non est dubium.
4:15
15. Lex enim iram operatur. Probatio est ab effectu et eventu legis (ait Thomas), qui est iram operari; tanquam dicat Apostolus: Adeo ex lege non obtinetur haereditas seu benedictio, ut lex potius iram operetur, id est, poenam augeat et maledictionem adferat. Hoc autem lex non per se facit et ex sua institutione, sed ex occasione; sicut docetur infra cap. 7., quomodo et Christus dicitur positus in ruinam multorum Luc. 2., et Apostoli quibusdam erant odor mortis in mortem 2 Corinth., 2., videlicet per occasionem. Sic igitur et lex iram operatur, idque triplici ratione. Primum, quia, si lex non esset, nec esset transgressio legis. Unde docet Auguetinus Epist. 88. pejorem esse, qui legem habetcummalavoluntatate, quamsi legem non haberet. Nam caeterk paribus gravius peccant scientes quam ignorantes, Luc. 12. et Jac. 4. Secundo, quia legis occa- Bione augetur in homine concupiscentia, dum ex inclinatione naturae curruptae magis semper nititur in vetitum, fitque ei dulcius, qudd prohibetur. Pluribus id declarat Apostolus infra cap. 7. Ac de eo vide Sanctum Augustinum de spiritu et litera cap 4. Tertio^ quia lacile sibi promittit homo legis acceptae impletionem, atque ex ea justitiam, non cogitans de necessario Dei auxilio: quemadmodum illi, qui lege audita dicebant: Omnia, quae locutus est Dominus, faciemus, et erimus obedientes, Exod. 24. Deinde in se confidit ac sibi placet tanquam justus, dum legem aliquatenus ac vel opere vel specie extema, Pharisaeorum more, observat; itaque per hoc redditur supevbus et hypocrita. Rationis hujus meminit Augustinus lib. 3. contra duas epistnlas Pelag. cap. 7. Et hi quidem effectus sunt legis a fide et gratia separatae, sicut de ea nunc Apostolus disputat. Quocirca male contendunt sectarii hic ostendere, quod nemo etiam justificatus legem impleat. Quae eorum doctrina et scripturis apertissime adversatur, et in Christum ejusque gratiam, quae data est, ut lex impleatur, vehementer injuriosa est. Caeterum Apostolus hoc loco primum modum praecipue consideravit, ut patet ex eo, quod sequitur: JJhi enim non est lex, nec praevaricatio. Graece, Tiapapaaig^ transgressio. Cajetanus ita supplet: nec praevaricatio imputatur ad poenam, haud recte. Nam qui fieri potest, ut praevaricatio ad poenam non imputetur? Dicitur quidem sequenti capite: Peccatum non imputabatur, cum lex non esset. Sed hoc sensu: non imputabatur ad praevaricationem. Non enim idem est peccatum et praevaricatio. Quare non aliud hic supplendum, quam quod in priori membro expressum est: Ubi non est lex, nec est praevaricatio, sive transgressio, id est, ubi lex non est, locum non habet transgressio; quemadmodum et contra: ubi lex, ibi transgressio. Hoc enim Apostolus intelligendum relinquit, quo probet, quod dixit: Lex iram operatur. Transgressionem a\item vocat, quum sciens quis peccat, ut contingit maxime, dum peccatur adversus legem verbo aut scripto diserte positam, ut ignorari non possit. Siquidem lex naturalis cbscurata erat, ideoque nec attendebatur. Unde gentiles, qui eam solam Dei legem habebant, id est, naturalem, sine lege esse, et sine lege peccare, atque etiam sine lege puniri, Apostolo dicuntur Rom. 2. et 1 Cor. 9. Quare nec praevaricatores censebantur, eodem Apostolo dicente cap. 5.: ijuod non peccaverunt in similitudinem praevaricationis Adae. Nam et Adam legem habuit sibi datam a Deo praecipiente: De ligno scientiae hom et mali ne comedas, Gen. 2. In quo praecepto rationem legis fuisse qui negant, satis ex hoc loco redarguuntur.
4:16
16. Ideo ex fide, ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini. Quidam codicus ut repetunt hoc modo: ut secundum gratiam, ut firma sit jyromissio etc. Quod Graecis consentaneum est, quae ita sonant: ut secundum gratiam, ad hoc ut firma sit promissio. Annuit et Syrus paraphrastes. Procedit argumentatio Pauli a divisione hoc modo: Aut per legem implenda est promissio Abrahae facta, aut per fidem; atqui per legem non impleri jam ostensum est, restat igitur, ut ex fide et per fidem impleatur Quod con" sequens hic amplius jam coafirmat ex duobus omnino statuendis et agnoscendis in Uei promissinne, quae sunt gratia et universalis atque omnimoda firmitas. Ideo, inquit, ex fide, ut promissio agnuscatur gratuita et indebita. Et rursum, ut promissio firmetur ac rata sit super universum semen Abrahae, id est, tam ad gentiles quam ad Judaeos extensa, ut qui omnes in semine Abrahae computantur. Nam si ex lege promissio finnanda erat, ea pars seminis Abrahae, cui lex non est data.a promissa benedictloue excluderetur. Notandum tamen has duas rationes ita accipi posse, ut pri r ad posteri'. em referatur; id quod Graeca lectio videtur exigere. Tum sensus erit: ideo promissionem ex fide implendam, ut secundum gratiaui implonda agnoscatur, et ideo secimdum gratiam, ut firma sit super universum semen Al.r.abac. ConsiderarUDt buuc ordinem The)pbyb.'ctus et Oecumenius.
Non ei, <]ui ex lege est, solum, sed et ei, qui ex fide est Abrahae. Qui potius quod utroque b)Co. Nam reiertur ad semen. Quod enim dixit: omni semini, id est, toti seminij explicat per distributionem. Et sensus est: firmam et ratam effici promissionem non tantum ei semini, quod ex lege est, id est, Judaeis, quibus lex data fuit, sed et ei, quod ex fide est Abrahae, id est_, gentilibus, qui licet secundum carnem non sint progeniti ex Abraham, neque legem acceperint, sunt tamen Abrahae semen per imitationem fidei. Oecumenius extremam dictionem Abrahae jungit cum semine, ubi dictum est omni semini, et facit hyperbaton. Quod non est improbabile; ut illud ex fide sit absolutum, sicut illud ex lege. Notandum quoque eam partem, qui ex lege, non hic eodem modo sumi, quo supra, cum dixit: Si enim, qui ex lege, haeredes sutit, secundum probabili)rem illius loci expositionem. Nec mirum. Nam et sub lege esse non uno modo semper apud Paulum accipitur, ut patet expendenti loca 1 Cor. 9. GaL 4. et 5. et hujus epistolae cap. 6. Hic ergo dicuntur, qui ex lege, id est, qui legem acceperunt, ut antithesis constet; quomodo passim, qui ex circumcisione, id est^ circumcisi. Illud etiam, qui cx fide, exponendum cum exclusione prioris partis, qui ex lege. Quod liquet ex sensu dato, q. d. qui quamvis non sint ex lege, sunt tamen ex fide, sicut illi.
Quipater est omnium nostrum. Pater per fidem, omnium nostrum, id est, non solum Judaeorum, sed et gentium. I'nde sacerdos ad altare, omnium fidelium nomine loquens, Abraham patriarcham nostrum vocat. Sequitur probatio.
4:17
17. (Sicut scriptum est, quia patrem multarum gentium posui te). Id est, constitui te, videbcet praeordinatione ac propositu certissimo. Hoc quidem ad literam de carnali posteritate dictum est, quemadmodum satis apparet inspicienti locum scripturae Genes. 17., atque etiam de ea impletum est. Nam et carnalis Abrahae posteritas longe sese extr^ gentem Israeliticam protulit, ut ad Ismaelitas siveAgarenos, qui se Saracenos appellant: item ad Madianitas et alios, quos enumerat scriptura Gen. 25. Denique et ad Idumaeos. Minime tamen dubium, quin mystico et sublimiori sensu pertineat ea promissio ad semen spirituale, quod futurum erat multo numerosius semiae carnali, id est, ad populos fideles, quorum Abrabara pater erat exemplo fidei. Verumtamen et illud sciendum, promissionem paternitatis spiritualis mubaruni gentium, Abrahae factam, ex ordinatione (livina non fuisse praestandam, nisi interveuieute generatione carnali, qua futumm erat, ut Christus (iii quo benedicendae erant omnes gentes) ex eo secxiudum carnem nasceretur, subservivitimplendae promissioni paternitatis ac seminis spiritualis.
Ante Deum, cui credidit. Quidam cudices, credidisti. 8ed tertiam personam ex Graecis et melioribus Latinis restituere correctores Romani, suffragantibus item Graecorum commentariis, tametsi commentator Amb. credidisti legit et exponit. Neque enim haec pars annectenda est testimonio proxime citato cx Genesi. Nam illic tale nilul additur. Sed referenda ad illud: Qui pater est omnium nostrum; ut citatio media parentbetica sit. Est autem secundum Latinos hic sensus: Abraham esse patrem omnium nostrum, UvU paternitate carnali, quae est coram hominibus, sed spirituali, quae est coram Deo, cui crediderat. Dicitur haec paternitas esse coram Deo, quia fundata est in fide, quae hominem Deo commendat. Graeci vero sic expununt: Qui pater est omnium nostrum ad exemplum Dei, vel instar Dei (his enim modis vertunt Graecurum interpretes)j cui credidit; ut, sicut Deus est umuium pater creatione, sic Abraham fieret omnium pater exemplo fidei. Non enim in Graeco est adverbium IjiTtp&aUsv aut Ivaj-iov^ id est, ante, coram, in conspectu, quibus in hac significatione passim utitur scriptura Graeca, sed xaTevavti^ id est, ex adverso, e reginue; quod legitur Marci 11. et 12. et Luc. 19., quumodo, quod pingitur, e regione sui exemplaris statuitur. Quamvis et in priori significatione reperitur interdum.
Qui vivificat mortuos, et vocat ea, quae non sunt, tanquam ea, quae sunt. Prius membrum hujus partis plerique referunt ad mii-acuhim rei gestae, quando Deus ad generandum vivificat emortuum corpus Abrahae 'it conjugis ejus. Qua de re sermo est pauli) inferius. Alii utrumque membrum referunt ad eosdem, scilicet gentiles. ]'utant enim Paulum hac parte velle ostendfre, quomodo Aliraham factus sit pater etiam gentilium, et quomodo geutiies facti ejus filii. Itaque secundum eos sensus est: qui Deus homines spiritualiter mortuos, id est, nihil vitae spiritualis habentes, vivificat per fidem, quique non filios Abrahae vocat et facit filios Abrahae per eandem fidem. Huic expositioni coaptant scripturas Matth. 4.: Potens est Deus de lapidibus istis suscitare filios Abrahae. Coloss. 2.: Et vos, cum essetis mortui in delictis, et praeputio carnis vestrae, convivificavit cum illo. Et hujus epistolae cap. 9. ex Osee Propheta: Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam. Hoc enim quid aliud est quam vocare ea, quae non sunt, tanquam ea, quae sunt, sive ut alii vertunt; tanquam siiit? quod ad verbum est in Graeco: vocare non entia tanquam entia. Gratus quidem hic sensus propter allegoriam, non tamen videtur a Paulo spectatus. Adjicit enim hanc partem, non qua significet, quid fecerit aut facturus sit Deus, sed ut duobus vekit epithetis (sunt enim in Graeco participia Deo cohaerennuens etiam hoc ipsum de Deo Abraham credidisse. Nam mortu s ad vitam revocare, et ex nihilo res producere, quod est vocare non entia tanquam entia, nai nisi infinitae virtutis, id est, divinae sunt opera. Nobiscum sentit in hac expositione Fr. Toletus, qui etiam subtiliter observat, in priori membro Paulum respicere ad fidem Abrahae, quando jussus est immolare filium suum Isaac, videlicet arbitrans, quia et a mortuis suscitare pote7is est Deus, ut de eo dicitur Heb. 11.; in secundo autem membro ad fidem pi-ioris temporis, quando credidit sibi filium ex Sara nasciturum. De qua nde continuo subjungit: Qui contra spem in spem credidit. Quod ad syntaxin;ittinet hujus loci, scias ex Graeco textum sic ordinandum: Ante Deum, cui credidit, vivificantem mortuos et vocantem, etc., non autem sic: Ante Deum, cui credidit vivificanti mortuos et vocanti, etc.; licet utraque structura sensum fere eundem pariat. Hanc porro sententiam illustrant, quae jam deinceps de Abraham et iu ejus fidei commendationem directe dicuntur.
4:18
18. Qui contra spem in spem credidit. Graece qui praeter spem in spe, vel sub spe, credidit. Sed et apud Latinos Pelagium, Primasium et Hugonem legitur auferendi casu, in spe, ut verisimile sit itavertisse nostrum interpretem. Qui etiam illud recte, contra spem. Nam eam vim habet Graecum Tiapa^ tum hic, tum passim alibi, quemadmodum et Latinum praeter. Ita nimirum illud accipiendum ad Galatas 1.: praeterquam quod evangelizavimus vobis; et iterum: praeter id, quod accepistis, quemadmodtim eo loco plenius ostendemus. Sensus est: qui praeter spem^ id est, cum prius non speraret, sed magis desperaret sibi sobolem ex Sara; vel potius, praeter spem naturae, id est, contra quam ex natura sperari potuit, quia res erat naturaliter impossibilis, credidit divinae promissioni, spemque certam ex ea concepit. Credidit, inquam, quodsequitur:
Ut fieret pater multarum gentium. Id est, se futurum patrem multarum gentium. Quidam ad spem referunt hoc sensu: credidit, sperans se fore patrem multarum gentium. Sed prior constructio texlui magis congruere videtur, eamque vult etiam Sjriaca translatio.
Secundum quod dictum est ei, sic erit semen tuum. In Graeco non additur ei, sed tamen intelligitur. Potest et sic verti: secundum quod dictum fuerat, scilicet multo ante. Nam illud: sic erit semen tuum, non legitur dictum Genes. 17., quo loco describitur pmmissio Abrahae facta, quando nonaginta novem erat annorum; sed Genes. 15. Veruuitamen Abraham intelligebat, \\i\ debuit, primam illam promissionem praecipue in Isaac, sibi postea ex Sara pr.imisso, cumplendam esse. Hic sequitur in multis libris: sicut stellae coeli et arena maris. Sed non est in Graeco, nec Syriaco, nec legitur apud veteres interpretes. Latini quoque meliores codices, quos merito secuti sunt epanorthotae Romani, non habent; ut dxibiumnuusit additum esse a quopiam, qui orationem incompletam voluerit absolvere. tametsi nec in Genesi a Deo promittente quicquam adjungitur. Tantum praecesserat illud Dei ad Abraham: Suspice coelum et n,umera stellas, si potes. Tum sequitur: sic erit semen tuum, scilicet sicut stellae innumerabiles.
4:19
19. Et non infirmatus est fide. In Graeco continua est oratio cum parte sequenti: et non infirmatus fide non consideravit etc, id est, nullam passus infirmitatem aut vacillationem fidei circa promissionem divinam.
Nec consideravit corpus suum emortuum. Graece, jam emortuum, id est, prae senio jam efi^oetum et impotens ad generandum.
Cum jam fere centum esset annorum. Dictio jam huc translata ex parte proxime praecedenti. Quod et volunt codices meliores mss., et signat castigatio Lovaniensis. Dicit autem fere centum annorum, id est, uno minus. Habebat enim annos nonaginta novem.
Et emortuam vulvam Sarae. Graece, et mortificationem seu mortalitatem matricis Sarae. Sensum tamen optime reddidit interpres, approbante Erasmo. Ad hujus loci pleniorem intellectum tres explicandae sunt quaestiones, quarum Prima est, quomodo dicat Apostolus Abrahae corpus emortuum fuisse, cum is adhuc postea ex Cethura conjuge, quam, Sara mortua, duxit, filios procreant. Ad hanc quaestionem respondet Augustinus lib. 16. de civit. Dei cap. 28. et quaest. 35. super Genesim: emortuum fuisse ejus corpus respectu Sarae vetulae, quod ex ea naturaliter suscit.are sobolem non potuerit; non autem respectu ejus, quae esset aetate adhuc vigente, qualis erat Cethura. Verum haec responsio non videtur satisfacere. Nam eo pacto etiam vir juvenis dicetur habere corpus emortuum, quoniam vetulam impraegnare non possit. Quare potius cum aliis plerisque dicendum, Abraham tUo tempore fuisse pr;ie senio simpliciter impotentem ad generandum. Sed divino miraculo redditam ei virtutem generandi, qua deinceps nun so- 1 lum ex Sara per simile miraculum jam foecunda, verum ex quacumque muliere ad concipiendum apta, posset filios suscipere. Quae responsio scripturis etiam valde consentanea est. Nam praeter hunc locum, ubi expresse tam de Abraham quam de Sara dicitur, quod corpus habuerint emortuum (ut eodem sensu necesse sit de utroque intelligi), etiam scriptura Genesis ita loquitur, ut satis declaret in utroque divinam virtutem aliquid supra naturam operatam fuisse. Refert enimcap. 17. Abraham audita Dei promissione dixisse: Putasne centenario nascetur filius, et Sara nonagenaria pariet? Deinde cap. 18.: Erant, inquit scriptura, ambo senes, provectaeque aetatis. Quae utique est aperta significatio impedimenti in utroque conjuge: ut proinde Chrysostomus homilia 40. super Genes. de eis dicat: quod 7iihil a lapidibus differebant, quantum ad generationem attinet. Sed et Apostolus ad Hebr. 11. cum dixisset: Fide et ipsa Sara sterilis virtutem in conceptione seminis accepit, de Abraham ita subjungit: Propter quod et ab uno orti sunt, et hoc emortuo, tanquam sidera coeli etc. Satis igitur cx his liquet, scripturam non solum in Sara ponere miraculum, verum etiam in Abraham. Et in illa quidem duplex, quod et sterilis et vetula concipere potuerit; in illo autem simplex, quod, senex cum esset, ideoque ob frigiditatem seminis ad generandum ineptus, sobolem suscitare potuerit, non solum ex Sara, verum etiam, ut dictum est, ex aliis feminis, videlicet in eo perseverante gignendi virtute semel reddita; quomodo foecunditas semel data permansit in Anna, matre Samuelis, ut et alios post illum filios gigneret, secundum id, quod ipsa cecinit: Donec sterilis peperit plurimos. 1 Reg. 2. Secunda quaestio. Cum scriptuva testetur Abraham post annum aetatis centesiraxim adhuc vixisse septuaginta quinque annos, Genes. 25., qui verisimile est, eum centenarium adeo fuisse senem, ut ad generandum esset, quemadmodum dictum est, simpliciter ineptus? Nam hodie certe, qui vivere possunt annos nonaginta (ut sumamus tempus quasi dimidium netatis Abrahae), nequaquam ad gignendum prolem inepti censentur anno suae aetatis quinquagesimo. Et tamen in his eadem est aetatis proportio. Haec difficultas movit Augustinum, cur minus probaret praecedentis quaestionis eam solutionem, quam dedimus, quamque fatetur ab aliis ad ferri solitam. Quidam respondent: quemadmodum nunc alii aliis citius senescunt ac decrepiti fiunt, ut generare non possint, ita tunc Abrahae contigisse vel ex naturae defectu, vel quod laboribus essent ei vires exhaustae. Non placet haec responsio, quia scriptura tam in Genesi, quam hoc loco,gignendiimpotentiamsimpliciterrejicit in aetatem, eo quod centum esset annorum; tanquamea aetas i]lotempore,saltem ut plurimum, inepta fuerit generationi. Proinde aliter respondendum existimo, patres illos antiqui temporis post mediam aetatem longam vixisse senectutem, ita ut aetas deficiens longe diuturnior in illis esset, quam accrescens. Exemplo sitlsaac, qui vixit annos centum octogintaGen. 35. Cui tamen aetatis anno, juxta peritorum supputationem, centesimo vigesimo aut circiter, prae senectute caligaverunt oculi, sic ut videre non posset: quando et filiis suis, tanquam non diu victurus, benedixit Genes. 27. Et tamen annos adhuc supervixit sexaginta: ut appareat totum tempus senectutis ejus fuisse non multo minus centum annorum; ac proinde majus tota reliqua aetate. Id autem et in aliis similiter se habuisse, argumento est, quod Gen. 11. quidam leguntur genuisse filios anno suae aetatis tricesimo, quorum alii ducentis, alii trecentis, alii quadringentis annis vixerunt. Ex quo intelligas, quam breve fuerit illis tempus aetatis crescentis comparatione reliqui temporis vitae: Deo nimirum sic ordinante, causasque naturales dirigente (neque enim arbitror in ea re miraculum ponendum), ut diu superstites essent divinorum operum testes ad rudem adhuc et raram posteritatem; simul ut eam artibus et legibus ad vitam politicam Deique cultum spectantibus sujBficienter instituerent, donec, humano genere satis multiplicato, necessitas ejusmodi cessaret. Tertia quaestio est de eo, quod negat Apostolus Abraham considerasse corpus suum emortuum, et emortuam vulvam Sarae; cum scriptura jam ante citata testetur ipsum audita promissione filii ex Sara, risisse atque dixisse in corde suo: Putasne centenario nascetur filius, et Sara nonagenaria pariet? Quae verba sunt bene considerantis horum utrumque, etiam cum quadam, ut apparet, diffidentia seu fidei infirmitate. Respondet Cajetanus, Abraham ab initio non percepisse, revelationem esse assertivam, ideoque secum in animo contulisse imj^edimenta naturae tam in se, quam in Sara, non dubitando de promissione, sed percontando sensum divinorum verborum, an vere ad significandum hoc, quod sonabant, dicta essent. Sed haec responsio non videtur bona. Nam Pauli doctrina est hoc loco et Heb. 11., Abraham statim et incunctanter, audita Dei j)romissione, plenam ei fidem adhibuisse. Idem liquet ex aliis promissionibus Abrahae factis Genes. 12. 13. 15., quas ille.statim, ut audivit, recepit. Nec non expraeceptis ipsi datis a Deo, tametsi duris et arduis C4en. 12. 21. et 22., quibus ille confestim paruit; ut non minus obedientia ejus, quam fides, in scripturis commendetur. Accedit, quod verba promissionis, de qua nunc agitur, nullam habebant obscuritatem, ut proinde sensum eorum percontari Abraham minime debuerit, sicut nec in aliis fecerat. Dicendum igitur, Abraham, ex sententia Pauli, non considerasse suam et uxoris senectutem et gignendi impotentiam, sic ut propterea diffideret, aut assensum ac fidem differret adhibere divinae promissioni: sed, — quemadmodum cap. 15. Genesis, posteaquam dictum esset de eo, quod credidit Deo, et reputatum est ei ad justitiam, narratur quaesivisse modum adimplendae promissionis divinae, dicens: Unde scire possum etc, sicut et B. Virgo Maria, audito nuncio partus dominici, modum quaesivit dicens: Quomodo fiet istud? — ita cap. 17. post auditam et fiima fide susceptam Dei promissionem, non utique dubitando, nec (ut vult Cajetanus) sensum verborum, quae planautique et perspicua erant, percontando, sed potius rei promissae magnitudinem admirando, dixit: Numquid centenario nascetur filius? — ac si diceret: Numquid rem tantam et a saeculis inauditam facturus es mea causa? Respondent ad hunc modum Ambrosius libro 1. de Abraham cap. 4. et libro 2. cap. 11., et Augustinus libro 16. de civit. Dei cap. 26. et 31. Nam et illud, quod objici poterat, Abraham, audita promissione, velut desperantem de filio, qui ex Sara promittebatur, dixisse Deo: Utinam Ismael vivat coram te, existimandum est non ulla diffidentia dictum, sed ex humilitate, qua se indignum reputabat tam grandi miraculo, quod promittebatur, quasi diceret: Multum ac satis mihi praestiteris, si factam olim promissionem adimpleas in Ismaele. Constat enim, Abraham se valde humiliasse coram Deo, ut Genes. 18. Non desunt, fateor, inter Patres, qui videantiTr aliquid incredulitatis seu dubitationis in praedictis verbis sancto Patriarchae adscribere, ut Basilius homil. de patientia, Chrysostomus homil. 40. in Genesin, et Hieronymus lib. 1. dial. contra Pelag. cap. 10. et lib. 3. cap. 5. Sed illi sententiae resistunt non solum Ambrosius et Augustinus, quos jam citavimus, verum et omnes hxijus loci commentatores, ac praecipuus inter eos ipse Chrysostomus, cuju.'^ verba mox referam. Denique manifeste contradicit illi suspicioni hic ipse locus Paulinus. Unde adhuc sequitur»
4:20
20. Jn repromissione etiam Dei non haesitavit diffidentia. Graece: ad promissionem autem Dei non haesitavit incredulitate. Sed et commentator Ambrosius non etiam, sed vero legit, ut Graece particula 5s sumatur adversative. Pro verbo haesitavit, quod in Graeco est SiExptO^rj^ quidam malunt disceptavit, aut disquisivit. Ac posset videri hic sensus: Quamvis Abraham, audita promissione, quaesiverit ac quasi disceptaverit, dicens Deo: Putasne centenario nascetur filius, et Sara n07iagenaria pariet? non tamen id fecit ex incredulitate, sed ex admiratione, sicut jam dictumest. Verum optime redditum a nostro interprete: haesitacit, quamvis haesitatio non sine disceptatione fieri soleat. Sic enim et Erasmus vertit et alii. Vide, quae de Graeci verbi significatione annotamus infraad illud cap. 14. Qui autem discernit, si manducaverit, damnatus est, ac rursus adillud Jacobi 1. Postulet in fide nihil haesitans. Ergo quod additum est, incredulitate, non est restringentis, sed declarautis. Nam haesitatio, seu dubiratio de Dei promissis esse non potest sine incredulitate. Sensus igitur est: Nulla laboravit incredulitate, ut ad promissionem Dei auditam haesitaret. Expendit haec Apostoli verba Chrysostomus, ita loquens: Non dixit illum non incredulum fuisse, sed non haesitavisse, hoc est, ne animo quidem suspenso, ancipiti ac dubio fuisse. En apertam Chrysostomi de fide Abrahae sententiam. Quare quod in expositione Genesis aliter sensisse visus est, id puta eum hic tacite retractasse. Quosdam oflfendunt hae voces tanquam parum T.atinae, repromissio et repromittere, quibus noster interpres pro simplici promissione passim utitur. Sed interpretem satis defendit usus vulgaris horum vocabulorum apud veteres ecclesiae scriptores, etiam praeci})Uos, ut Hieronymum et Augustinum; quandoquidem et Suetonius invenitur repromittendi vocabuhim alicubi sic usurpasse.
Sed confortatus est fide. Id e«t finna ac robustafide suscepit Dei promissionem. Pars haec adversativa est ejus, quod.supra dixit: Et non infirmatus est fide.
Dans gJoriam Deo. Gloriam Deo tribuit Abraham credens ac profitens eum omnipotentem, et in promissis veracem Per haec enim laudatur et ghirificatur Deus. Huc adcersus iUns positum est (ait Augustinus in expositione propositionis 25.), qui gloriam suam de operibus legis coram hominibus quaerebant.
4:21
21. Plenissime sciens, quia ouaecumque promisit Deus, potens est et facere. Plenissime sciens, Graece7iAirjpocp&prji>£i(;, id est, plenitudinem consecutus, videlicet persuasionis seu fidei. Tale quid enim intelligeiidnm postulat subjecta materia, cum alias etiam ad alia referatur Graecum verbum TtATjp&cpopsla&at^ quemadmodum latius ostendemus infra ad illud cap. 14.: Unusquisque in suo sensu abundet. Erasmus vertit: certa persuasione concepta. Quod sequitur, quaecumque promisit, Graece est, & iTtrjjBX-col'., quod promisit, ut leg;unt Ambrosius commentator et Primasius, quemadmodum et vertunt neoterici quidam. Quod enim Erasmi versio habet, qui promiserat, probari non potest, nisi forte in ejus codice (quod non pixto) scriptum fuerit, &c STCTgyYsXtat. Verum scito, Graecum verbum esse praeteritum passivum, ut proinde vertendum videatur, quod promissum est, ut etiam Erasmus admonet in annotationibus. Nam in activa significatione apud autores haud temere reperias, nec quidem in sacris literis. Siquidem activa promissio fere semper exprimitur aoristo verbi medii, ItitjyyzO.aIO, promisit. Legitur autem idem verbum, quod hoc loco, in epistolis ad Galat. 3. et ad Heb. 12. Sed illis quoque locis expositioneln passivam convenire docebimus, cum ilhic usqi:e pei'ventum erit; tametsi hic ad sensum non interest, active exponas an passive. Sensus enim Apostoli est: Plena ac certissima fide persuasum habens, Deum sua promissa seu, quaecumque promisit, praestare posse. Nominat autem potentiam Dei, non veracitatem: quia supposita fide potentiae non erat diflicile credere, Deum facturum, quod promiserat. Longe enim facihus creditur veracem esse Deum, quam omnij>. tentem. Sed quaeres, quid magnum, si credidit Deum omnipotentem; cum id credant omnes Christiani, boni et mali? Quaestio est apud Hugonem numero HL ejusdemque haec responsio: Tunc illud credere magnum erat, quando paene universus orbisin cultura daemonum errabat, nec adhuc fides unius Dei praedicata fuerat, aut scripturis manifeste declarata, sicut modo. Sic ille. Cui tamen responsioni etiam hoc addimus, laudari in Abrahamo fidem omnipotentiae Dei, non qualemcumque, sed promptam, devotam et obedientem, qualis in paucis reperitur.
4:22
22. Ideo et reputatum est illi ad justitiam, scilicet eadem ratione, qua et prius fides promissionis ei reputata fuerat ad justitiam. Genes. 15. Hinc manifestum est, ea locutione non significarj primam justificationem. Quoties enim credidit Abraham Deo, toties ei fides ad justitiam reputata est. Nam, ut supra dictum est, etiam obedientia, per quam multo post in tentatione inventus est fidelis, reputata est ei ad justitiam, attestante scriptura 1 Machab. 2. et Jac. 2.
4:23
23. Non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum. Graece: Non scriptum est autem propter ipsum solum. Ut dictio solum, Graece ^jiovov^ tam nomen adhaerens pronomini ipsum, quam adverbium esse possit.
Quia reputatum est illi ad justitiam. In Graeco non additur ad justitiam. Sunt et Latini codices, qui non habeant. Sensus tamen postulat, ut intelligatur, videlicet repetendum ex parte praecedenti; quemadmodum et in eo, quod mox sequitur.
4:24
24. Sed et propter nos, id est, nostrae doctrinae causa. Quaecumque enim scripta sunt, ait infra cap. 15., ad nostram doctrinam scripta sunt. Cujusmodi sunt maxime facta sanctorum Patriarcharum.
Quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum, Dominum nostrum, a mortuis. Reputabitur, subaudi ad justitiam. Christum non est additum in Graeco. A mortuis, sive e mortuis, Hebraismus est. Syriace de inter mortuos, id est e statu vel e numero mortuorum, a morte. Sensus periodi: Quod scriptura dicit Abraham Deo credidisse, idque ei reputatum fuisse ad justitiam, non tantum scriptum est propter ipsius laudem, ut ejus justitia celebraretur apud posteros, verum etiam nostri causa, id est ut in Abraham haberemus formam quandam nostrae justificationis, atque sckemus, etiam nobis credentibus ipsum credere, hoc est fidem nostram ad justitiam reputatum iri. Jam quae sit vis collectionis Paulinae: fides reputata fuit Abrahae ad justitiam, ergo et nobis ad justitiam reputabitur, cum utriusque fidei non sit idem objectum, satis explicatum arbitror sujierius ad scripturam ex Gen. citatam: Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam. Illud adhuc quaeri potest, quomodo ex eademPauli collectionenonsitconsequens, fidem peccatoris credentis in eum, qui justificat impium, esse simpliciter justitiam, si simpliciter justitia fuit fides Abrahae Deo credentis, in qua, sicuti dictum est, forma quaedam fuit nostrae justificationis. Resp. similitudinem constare salva proprietate utriusque justificationis, secundae videlicet et primae. Nam fides, qua justificatur is, qui jam justus erat, ut Abraham, a spiritu sancto procedit inhabitante, ideoque simpliciter est justitia. Quod non perinde dici potest de fide peccatoris in eum, qui justificat impium, credentis. Non enim proficiscitur ea fides ab inhabitante spiritu, sed tantum movente, donec ille sic credens, ipsa fide eum promovente, gratiam adopticniis assecutus fuerit. Esse tamen ejusmodi fidem inchoative justitiam ejusque partem, secundum ea, quae dicta sunt capite superiori, non est, cur ambigatur. Postremo quaeres, cur Apostolus solam hic exprimat fidem resurrectionis Christi. Resp. vel quia in hoc articulo tacite continetur etiam fides incarnationis et mortis, nemo enim resuscitatur ad vitam, nisi mortuus, et nemo moritur nisi natus; vel quia resurrectio Christi credita spem nostram, quam in Christo habemus, maxime erigit et confirmat.
4:25
25. Qui traditus est propter delicta nostra. Traditus in mortem, idque a patre, de quo infra cap. 8.: Qui etiam proprio filio non pepercit, sed pro nobis omnibus tradidit illum. Propter delicta sive peccata nostra abolenda.
Et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram. Resurrexit, Graece rjyspQ^rj suscitatus est. Tum in eo variant Graeca, quod alia legunt ^txatcuoiv^ justificationem, alia SixaioauvrjV^ justitiam: tametsi res eodem recidit, ut ex sensu patebit. Quem ut assequamur Illud primo sciendum est, omne meritum Christi salvatoris in passione ejus et morte completum fuisse, et proinde sua resurrectione eum nihil meruisse, uti nec adscensione in coelum ac caeteris, quae egit post passionem et mortem. Quae doctrina est omnium Theologorum. Quocirca hac parte significare non potest, Christum resurgendo meruisse nostram justificationem, sicut patiendo meruit delictorum nostrorum remissionem. Videndum ergo, quo sensu dicatur resurrexisse propter justificationem nostram, et omnino, quis totius pericopes sensus sit. Laborant enim in eo reddendo interpretes. Ac primum illud recipi nullo modo potest, quod Pseudambrosius in hunc locum commentatur. Dicit enim eos, qui ante Domini passionem baptizati fuerunt, solam accepisse remissionem peccatorum, (quorum zelo, inquit, satanas occidit salvatorem); post resurrectionem vero tam eos, qui prius, quam qui postea baptizati sunt, omnes justificatos esse per datam formam fidei Ti initatis. Et id Paulum existimat hoc loco significare voluisse. Sed hoc commentario, velut parum sano, repudiato, alios audiamus. S. Thomas dicit, mortem et resurrectionem Christi hic considerari, non ut meriti rationem habent, id enim resurrectioni non competere, sed ut salutares nobis fuerunt per modum cujusdam efficientiae, sicuti fuerunt et caeterae omnes actiones ejus et passiones, utpote ex virtute divinitatis provenientes, cujus humanitas ipsius erat instrumentum. Sed quoniam, inquit, effectus aliquo modo sirniUtudinem habet suae causae, mortem Gnil. Eatll Comm. Tom. I. Christi, per quam in eo exstincta est mortalis vita, dicit Apostolus esse causam exstinctionis peccatorum nostrorum; resurrectionem autem ejus, qua rediit ad novam vitam gloriae, dicit esse causam justificationis nostrae, per quam redimus ad novitatem Justitiae. Sic ille. Verum huic expositioni videtur obstare, quod a Paulo non nominantur actiones humanitatis Christi, sed actiones Patris, traditus est, suscitatus est, scilicet a patre. Aliorum expositio est, mortem et resurrectionem Christi hic considerari tantum ut causam exemplarem. Sic enim loquuntur, tanquam Christus moriens exemplum nobis dederit, ut nos quoque moriamur peccatis, resurgens vero exemplum dederit, ut et nos a morte peccati resurgamus ad novitatem vitae. Equidem typum seu figuram dicere malim, quam exemplar. Nam Christus ipse non est mortuus vitae peccati, neque resurrexit in vitam justitiae: sed ejus mors et resurrectio corporalis fuit typus ac figura nostraemortis etresurrectionis spiritualis, mortis quidem, qua peccatis morimur, resurrectionis autem, qua re.suscitamur ad justitiam: quemadmodum et pluribus exhortando declarat Apostolus infra cap. 6. Recte vero dixeris Christi resurrectionem esse causam exemplarem nostrae resurrectionis, qua corporaliter resurgemus ad vitam immortalem. Quo sensu accipiendum, quod de eo canit ecclesia in praefatione paschali: qui mortem nostram moriendo destruxit, et vitam resurgendo reparavit. Qua etiam ratione primitiae dormientium Christus vocatur 1 Cor. 15. Verumtamen et huic jam dictae expositioni (quamvis eam suppeditent Augustinus serm. 141. de tempore, et Thomas 3. quaest. 56. avi. 2.) non parum obsistit, quod Paulus non dixit, mortuixs est, sed traditus est, nec addidit, ut nos moriamur peccato, sed simpliciter dixit, propter delicta nostra. Porro Cajetanus sic interpretatur: Qui traditus est morti propter delicta nostra delenda, resurrexit autem propter justificationem nostram, id est, resurrexit, ut crederemus, et credentes justificaremur: quia nisi homo ille mortuus resurrexisset a morte ad vitam immortalem, mundus in eum non crederet. Sed quia resurrexit, credidit mundus, et per hoc pervenit ad mundum justificatio. Sensus liic etiam Sasboldo et Pererio probatur, potestque ad ejus confirmationem adduci, quod scribit Petrus 1. epistolae 1.: Qui regeneravit nos in spem vivam per resurrectionem Jesu Christi ex mortuis. Et infra: Qui suscitavit eum a mortuis et dedit ei gloriam, ut fides vestra et spes esset in Deo. Est et alia expositio, quam huc adfert F. Toletus, ac legitimam censet: ideo videlicet dictum, resurrexisse Christum propter justificationem nostram, quia, quamvis in morte Christi pretium esset persolutum pro redemptione generis humani, tamen applicatio pretii ad hominum justificationem generaliter non erat futura (Deo nimirum sic oi-dinante), nisi post resurrectionem Christi, missis in mundum Apostolis annunciatoribus salutis: et idcirco Christum tam cito resurrexisse, ne remedii salutaris applicatio dilata multorum hominum damnationis esset occasio. Probabilis est haec expositio, quemadmodum etproximepraecedens. Mihi tamen simplicius ac magis germanum videtur, si singula membra suum proprium habeant sensum, accommodatum consuetudini sermonis Apostolici: ut traditus in mortem Chi-istus dicatur propter peccata nostra, id est, ut sua morte poenam peccatis nostris debitam aboleret: resurrexisse vero propter justitiam nostram, id est, ut sua resurrectione typum quendam nobis praeferret resurgendi ad justitiam, seu vitae novitatem, secundum ea, quae dicuntur infra cap. 6., vel certe, ut nobis reconciliatis ipse jam redivivus et immortalis justificationem nostram, qua scilicet mens nostra renovetur de die in diem, et quae inde sequitur salutem, apud Deum promoveret, secundum id, quod dicitur capite sequenti: Si enim, cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii ejus, multo magis reconciliati salvi erimus in vita ipsius. Ubi postremo et illud observa contra sectarios justitiam nostram in sola remissione peccatorum constituentes: Apostolum diserte distinguere haec duo, deletionem peccatorum et justitiam, id est, vitae novitatem, velut justificationis nostrae partem praecipuam.
4:2
2. s? entm Abraham ez operibus iustificatus est, habet gloriam (£e xaóynya habet gloriandi materiam, seu : habet unde glorietur); sed non apud Deum (melius : ad Deum xg»; 8:5»);
4:3
3. quid enim dicit Scriptura? Credidit Abraham Deo et reputatum est (£Xoyic0r) ili ad iustitiam. Aptissimus igitur et arctissimus iuxta nostram interpretationem est nexus inter vv. 1. et 2., atque particula causalis yap (enim) in principio v. 2. suum habet locum, quia responsum in ipsa quasi interrogatione (v. 1) contentum iam probatur. Illi vero, quos interrogationi negative respondere diximus, aut omnem fere nexum tollunt, quum particulam ya? mere « suppletivam » esse (Est. etc.), i. e. nihil significare, asserant, aut varia supplere cogantur, ut ad causalem nexum perveniant (cfr ex. gr. Bisp. : « nihil iuxta carnem invenit; num forte invenit iustitiam? Minime vero; si enim ex operibus » etc., aut Mai. : « nihil iuxta carnem invenit; nam iustitiam hac via non invenit; si enim ex operibus » etc.) ; verum lam aenigmatice Apostolus non argumentatur. Similiter in vv. 2. et 3. inter se connectendis multi antiqui et moderni magnam inveniunt difficultatem variaque iterum supplent, ut causalem coniunctionem p in principio v. 3 positam explicent. Nexus tamen in aperto est neque ullum supplementum postulat, dummodo ad concisum loquendi modum Apostoli attendatur. Namquein v. 2. Maiorem et Minorem legitimi syllogismi habemus, atque in v. 3. additur Minoris probatio, quae deinde tv. 4. 5 accuratius exponitur. Syllogismus autem cum sua probatione est hie : « Si Abraham ex operibus iustificatus cst, gloriari potest; atqui non potest gloriari ad Deum (v. 2); nam Scriptura testatur, fidem ei reputatam esse in iustiliam (v. 3). i. e. eum iustitiam non accepisse velut mercedem operibus suis debitam (v. 4) sed velut gratuitum donum Dei, in quem credidit » (v. 5). Singula diligentius inspiciamus. Obiter tantum praenotamus, Apostolum hic de operibus Abrahae (non de Legisoperibus eius) loqui, quia in eo, quum ante Legem degeret, de Legis operibus proprio sensu sermo esse nequit; ceterum eiusdem generis opera intelligit, quae opera Legis in iis appellat, qui sub Lege constituti sunt (cfr ad 3,20). Neque igitur S. Paulo S. Iaco- ' bus contradicit asserens, Abrahamum ex operibus esse iustificatum et non ez fide tantum. Nam Iacobus de operibus loquitur, quibus fides cooperabatur et consummabatur, i. e. viva et per caritatem informata demonstrabatur (cfr [ac. 2,17 sqq.) ; Paulus vero, quum opera opponat fidei, eiusmodi opera a iustificatione excludit, quae aute fidem et sine fide facta ordinis sunt mere naturalis, fidem vero ad iustificationem requirit, quae non mortua est sed per caritatem operatur (Ga/. 5,6). Itaque « Iacobus contra eos, qui nolebant bene operari de sola fide praesumentes, ipsius Abra&hae opera commendavit, cuius Paulus fidem commendavit » contra eos, qui de operibus suis mere naturalibus praesumentes talium operum virtute ac merito se iustitiam obtenturos confidebant (cfr S. Aug. in Ps. 31 enarr. 2,3-6). Maiorem difficultatem plerisque creat totius v. 2. constructio; CArys. sententiam iam dixit obscuram, sed obscuritas ex eo potissimum exoritur, quod tantum non omnes antiqui et moderni ultima eius verba (sed non apud Deum) pro secunda apodoseos parte habeant, qua explicetur, cuiusnam generis sit gloria Abrahami, si ex operibus iustificatus supponatur : « Gloriam habet apud semet ipsum (vel iuxta alios : apud homines, vel etiam : parvam etc.) sed on apud Deum ». Verum haec obscuritas disparet, si cum nonnullis (cfr Reith. Beel. Sch. etc.) ultima illa verba pro completa sententia sumamus, quae, uti iam diximus, velut Minor praecedenti Maiori subiungatur. Qua admissa constructione obscuritas illa sola remanet (si obscuritas dici potest), quae aliis quoque in sententiis interdum ex Apostoli conciso, vel potius elliptico, dicendi genere enascitur (cfr ad 2,28). In Minore nimirum post verba &XM c) (sed non) ex Maiore supplenda sunt verba £ye xaóyxya (Aabet unde glorietur), ut hic sit completus syllogismus: « Si AóraAham ez operibus iustificatus est, habet unde glorietur; at non habet unde glorietur apud Deum (zg2; Osz» S. Aug. l. c. significantius: ad Deum, i. e. adversus Deum); ergo ex operibus iustificatus non est ». Pro more conclusionem, utpote evidentem, Paulus diserte non enuntiat; neque Maiori ullam probationem addit, quia illam certam claramque esse censet. Re enim vera nemo illam in dubium vocabit, qui consideraverit, hominem de re, quam suis ipsius viribus debet ac velut mercedem suis operibus debitam accipit, legitime gloriari idque etiam apud vel ad eum, qui mercedem illam solvere tenetur neque sineiniustitia retinere potest ; homini autem gloriari non licere de re, quam sine ullis suis meritis velut beneficium mere gratuitum accipit,:atque multo minus ei de eiusmodi dono gloriari licere ad benefactorem suum, a quo illud gratis accipit (cfr 1 Cor. 4,7). Iamvero Iudaei, quos Paulus impugnat, naturalibus suis viribus ad iustitiam , quae coram Deo valeat, pertingere volebant iustitiamque veram pro mercede suis Legis operibus debita habebant. Ex illorum igitur sententia. ponit Maiorem et cum illis, ut efficacius eos confutet, interim supponit, hominem operibus suis naturalibus veram iustitiam obtinere posse. Eam quippe hypotheticarum sententiarum formam adhibet (e à3uxa0505, £yet), quae hypothesin esse possibilem insinuat : « Si Abraham, uti vos dicitis, suis ipsius operibus veram iustitiam adeptus est, necessario sequitur, eum de sua iustitia, quam solis suis viribus debet et velut legitimam suorum operum mercedem accepit, non tantum apud homines sed etiam ad ipsum Deum iure gloriari, a quo iustificatus esse supponitur ». At hanc ludaeorum hypothesin falsam esse apparet, quia necessaria illa sequela in Abrahamo non adfuit, uti in Minore additur: atqui non habet unde glorietur ad Deum. Utrum ad homines gloriari potuerit necne, Paulus non inquirit, quia ad eius argumentationem nullius erat momenti; sed eum non habere, unde ad Deum glorietur, statim probat, quum ex Scripturis ostendat, eum iustitiam tamquam gratuitum donum a Deo accepisse. apud Deum); quin etiam scribere debuisset : ei d£. £pyov. £etxaio)0n, elyev dv (si ex operibus, iustificatus esset, haberet gloriam), siquidem iuxta hanc explicationem de re non vera agitur. Denique illi, qui v. 3 probari putant, Abrahamum ex fide esse iustificatum et ideo gloriari potuisse, non satis considerant, quae alibi Paulus docet : « Gratis estis salvati per fidem, et hoc non ex vobis (Dei enim donum est), non ex operibus, u! ne quis glorietur » (Eph. 2,8); iustificatio ergo ex fide, quia gratuitum est Dei donum, homininon potest esse materia gloriandi ad Deum; sicut vita aeterna quoque, quamvis tamquam merces iis, qui bene operati sunt, iuxta promissionem Dei tribuatur, non est matería gloriandi ad Deuin, quia opera ipsa, quibus tamquam merces attribuitur, gratis nobis donantur a Deo, quippe « qui nostra velit esse merita quae sunt ipsius opera » (cfr Conc. trid. sess. 6. de iustific. c. 16). Alteram interpretationem Graeci vulgo sequuntur, haud meliorem tamen, ni fallor, licet verbum éuatobv hic, uti in reliqua epistola, de vera iustitia quae coram Deo valeat recte intelligant. Etenim ostendi arbitrantur, Abrahamo ex fide iustificato maiorem fuisse gloriandi causam , quam Abrahamo ex operibus iustificato, quia operantis gloriatio in ipso terminetur, credentis autem gloriatio tota ad Deum tendat. « Duae, inquit Chrys., sunt gloriandi causae (xavyápata), una ab operibus, altera a fide; quum ergo Paulus dicit : si ex operibus iustificatus est, habet causam gloriandi sed non ad Deum, ostendit illum etiam a fide causam gloriandi eamque multo maiorem habere posse ;... qui enim inoperibus gloriatur, suos ipsius labores proferre potest; qui vero de sua fide in Deum gloriatur, multo excellentius gloriandi studium prodit, quum Deum glorificet et celebret ». Quae quasi explanans Theod. : « Bonorum operum perfectio operantes ipsos coronat, Dei autem benignitatem non manifestat; fides vero utrumque revelat, credentis affectum in Deum et Dei ipsius benignitatem, qui fidem approbans credentem declarat victorem » (similiter Dam. Phot. Oec. Theoph. Euth.). Qua in explicatione Graeci cum antiquioribus Latinis contra Pauli doctrinam (Eph. 2,8.9) erronee supponunt, homini de sua fidei iustitia «d Deum gloriari licere. Erronee quoque de eiusmodi operibus hic agi admittunt, quae ex gratia, ac proinde ex fide, procedant; nam illa ad veram iustitiam conferre insinuant. Cum S. lacobo igitur de illis Abrahae operibus loquuntur, quibus eius fides cooperabatur quibusque consummabatur; Paulus autem de operibus loquitur, quae mere naturalis sunt ordinis, fideique ipsi opera illa opponit. Demum haec explicatio non minus, quam prior, nexum cum sequentibus negligit. Mediam quandam viam inter duas illas explicationes Zolet. tenere conatur. Triplicem enim iustitiam distinguens (falsam, veram sed imperfectam, perfectam) Paulum de vera sed imperfecta, quam Abraham ex operibus habuerit, iustitia loqui censet. Unde hanc sententiae explicationem dicit esse « manifestam » : « Si non aliam Abraham habuit iustitiam, quam quae ex operibus est, profecto nihil eximii habuit, quoniam gloriatio eius apud homines esse potuit, quia aliqua iustitia est, sed non apud Deum, quia imperfecta est et a peccato non liberat neque reconciliat Deo; hoc enim fides efficit, sicut Scriptura dicit : credidit Abraham » etc. Ubinam aulem Paulus triplicem illam iustitiam distinguat, Tolet. non indicat neque potest indicari. Ceterum iisdem difficultatibus, quibus prima laborat, eius quoque interpretationem premi patet. Itaque syllogismi sui Minorem (Abrahamum non habuisse, unde gloriaretur ad Deum de sua iustitia) Apostolus ex eo probat, quod Scri- - ptura, quum operibus eius praetermissis eum ex fide iustitiam adeptum esse testetur, iustitiam ei collatam donum Dei plane gratuitum esse insinuet, de quo (iuxta 1 Cor. 3,7 et Eph. 2,8. 9) gloriari nequeat : Credidit autem Abraham Deo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam. Verba Gen. 15,6, quibus de eodem argumento alibi quoque (cfr ad Gal. 3,6) utitur (uti similiter Jac. 2,93), pro more allegat iuxta alexandrinam versionem (ézx(cceucev 32 'A6gaxy. xà Oeo xxt &Acqíot ato el; Scxat200v$»!), quae a primigenio textu constructione tantum secundi membri discedit, quatenus pro activa (reputavit [sc. Deus] eam [sc. fidem] i/li iustitiam, vel : ia iustitiam), sensu non mutato, passivam elegit. Praecipua sententiae vis verbo credidit (izíctevcev) inest, id quod ex addita explicatione (vv. &. 5) satiselucet, in qua credens operanti opponitur. Fides autem haec iuxta Geneseos contextum proxime ad praedictionem illam refertur, qua Deus Abrahamo conquerenti, quod filium non haberet hereditatemque suam servo relicturus esset, filium heredem numerosamque progeniem promisit (« Suspice coelum etnumera stellas, si potes ; sic erit semen tuum. Credidit Abram » etc.). Attamen simili modo, quo Iacobus eadem verba allegans simul alios Geneseos locos, quibus Abrahae fides demonstrabatur, prae oculis habuit (Jac. 2,91 cfr Gen. 22,1 sqq.), ita Paulus quoque, licet hoc solum testimonium alleget, alia simul comprehendere videtur. Namque infra (v. 17 sqq.) fidem, quae patriarchae in iustitiam reputata sit, accuratius describens non tantum similem praedictionem de numerosa progenie postea factam allegat (v. 17 cfr Gen. 17,&?), sed praccipue ad 1.Ia alexandrinac versionis codd. quidem legitur : xai ixisttuctv (ef credidit, uli in bebr. Tom) alcum paulina lectione énícvtuasv $£ (credidit autem) non tantum Jac. 2,23 sed etiam antiquiores PP., ubi Geneseos verba allegant, consentiunt (cfr S. Clem. Rom. 1 Cor. 10; S. Iust. c. Trypbh. 92; S. [ren. c. haer. 1V. 5,3; Orig. in Ioan. tom. XIX. 1). Quoniam praeterea duo antiquissimi codd. alexandrini (B N) iu hoc Geneseos loco deticiunt, baud immerito Tisch. coniicit, aetate Chrisli etiam in alexandrina versione verba eo modo adfuisse, quo a Paulo et lacobo citantur; nulla enim eis potuit esse ratio mutandae particulae. Quod si aliqui moderni acath. (Weiss etc.) arbitrantur, Paulum particulam mütasse, ut. verbum éxnicttustv maiore cum vi in principio sententiae poneret, non attendunt eum omissione particulae idem obtinere potuisse. Eam autem, licet ad argumentationem necessaria non sit, retinens se fideliter sacra verba transcribere innuit. 2. Hac occasione Deus patriarchae nomen, quod eo usque gesserat (4bram), in alterum modum, quo Abraham promissioni nativitatis Isaaci crediderit, attentionem legentium convertit (v. 19-21 cfr Gen. 17,15 sqq.). Eadem ratione altero in loco iisdem verbis Gen. 15,6 allegatis statim primam praedictionem Abrahae factam addit, ex qua simul argumentetur (Gal. 3,6. 8; cfr Gen. 12,3). Quare non de solo fidei actu, qui Gen. 15,5. 6. commemoratur, sed de tota fide, qua inde a prima sua vocatione (Gen. 12,1) patriarcha semper intellectum voluntatemque auctoritati Dei revelantis, promittentis, praecipientis subiiciebat, Paulum cogitasse censemus, ut eam initium et fundamentum et radicem totius iustitiae Abrahae fuisse insinuaret. Uti ex fide, qua Deo ipsum vocanti et ex patria exire iubenti sese subdidit, prima iustitia erat, quae nondum iustificato collata est, ut iustus fieret, ita ex fide etiam erat iustitiae augmentum, quod postea novis revelationibus credenti et ex fide formata operanti collatum est, ut iustior fieret. Hoc sensu Salm. bene ait « Apostolum non inquirere, quando Abraham iustificatus sit coram Deo; quum autem ibi (Gen. 15,6) asseratur iustus ex fide, sequitur quod iustificatus erat gratis ex fide et non ex operibus praecedentibus ». Quod si quis censeat, Paulum magis ad primam iusüficationem Abrahae, lacobum magis ad crescentem eius iustitiam attendisse, non reluctabor, quia Paulus revera statim (v. 5 sqq.) se de impii iustificatione proxime loqui ostendit. Nihilominus utriusque doctrinam de iustificatione generalem esse arbitror, ita ut ct primam iustificationem iustitiaeque augmentationem complectatur. Nostra tamen verba, quamvis iuxta proximum contextum ad unum fidei actum restringi videantur, ambo ad integram Abrahae fidem designandam elegerunt, quia de singulis eius actibus vera sunt atque brevissime una cum fide, quae iuxta obiectum suum formale (auctoritatem Dei loquentis) semper eadem in Abraham fuit, fructum quoque (iustitiam quae coram Deo valeat) indicant, quem Deus credenti velut donum gratuitum concessit (cfr Reith. Mai.). Haud multum ab hac explicatione iuniores aliqui recedunt, qui verba Gen. 15,6 hic a Paulo « non tantum ad immediate praecedentia sed ad omnia antecedentia (etiam Gen. 19,1 sqq. 7 sqq.; 13,14 sqq.) referri » dicunt; « velle enim Scripturam asserere, Abrahamum tam primo iustificatum esse per fidem, quum primo (Gen. 12,4 sqq.) Deo credidit, quam secundo iustificatum, i. e. iustiorem factum esse, per fidem, qua secundo et deinceps credidit Deo loquenti » (Lap ?. cfr Zol. etc.). Arctior tamen haec explicatio est; neque enim ad sola antecedentia Paulus respexisse dicendus est, qui in fidei Abrabae descriptione ad sequentes quoque probationes fidei alludit (cfr vv. 17 sqq.). Longius multi alii iuniores ac moderni recedere videntur, quum Paulum de solo actu fidei Gen. 15,6 commemorato cogitasse asserant. Ac profecto pauci quidam ex eis longissime recedunt; verba enim de prima iustificatione ita explicant, ut patriarcham, quamvis iam saepiusantea fidem suam probasset, gratiam iustificantem non nisi in tertia vel quarta hac fidei probatione accepisse arbitrentur; ita praesertim Ag. (p. 209-221), qui fuse hanc sententiam propugnat ac Patres quoque eandem tenuisse parum recte censet; praeter Orig. enim, qui similem sed non eandem tenet, nullus Pater ei favet; contra vero communis eorum, uti omnium fere interpretum, doctrina est, Abrahamum iam in prima sua vocatione iustitiam fidei accepisse, id quod multi ex Hebr. 11,8 iure merito comprobant (cfr Lap. Tol. lust. Est. etc.). Alii vero, quamvis testimonium Gen. 45,6 de uno actu fidei ibi commemorato intelligant, verbis potius quam re a nobis dissentiunt. Nam in Gen. 15,6 sermonem esse tenent de augmento iustitiae, quod Abrahamo credenti collatum sit, Paulum autem verbis illis velut argumento a minore ad maius uti : « Si Abraham iam iustus augmentum iustitiae non ex operibus sed ex fide et per gratiam fidei accepit, ergo multo magis prima iustitia obtineri nequit viribus naturae, sed debetur fidei ac gratiae » (Lap?! Perer. Est. Pic. M Ev. etc.). Concedunt igitur sensu generaliore, quam quem in Geneseos loco iuxta proximum contextum habere videntur, Paulum verba adhibuisse, quum ex illis per sensum consequentem ad primam iustificationem concludi vellet; simili autem modo nos dicimus, Paulum illis in verbis uti integram fidem ita integram iustitiam Abrahae (si vis, per sensum consequentem) designatam vidisse. Fides ergo Abrahamo dicitur reputata in iustitiam (&XoyicOr, sig à xaxwcjvmy), i. e. & benignissimo Deo ita acceptata, ut illius respectu altius donum (iustitiam) ei conferret et in eius rationes inferret. « Fidem reputari in iustitiam idem est, quod fidem, quae per se iustitia non est neque iustitiam facit, a Deo acceptari ad iustitiam communicandam, quatenus haec formaliter consistit gratia et caritate per Spiritum S. diffusa » (Tol.). Etenim locutio Ae:502! «( «t, quam. Vulg. hic eodem in contextu variis verbis reddit (alicui aliquid reputare cfr vv. 3. 5. 9. 10 etc., vel imputare cfr vv. 4.8, vel accepto referre cfr v. 6), proprie significat « alicui aliquid in rationes referre » velin rationibus notare (anrechnen, mettre sur le compte de qqn). Additis autem verbis si; «x (ad aliquid) per hebraismum quendam ab Alexandrinis et Novi Test. scriptoribus pretium quasi indicatur, quo res, quae reputari dicitur, a reputante aestimatur et acceptatur quodque ideo in rationes infertur. Porro iustitia prohibet, ne res minoris, quanti in se valet, aestimetur; unde reputans illud saltem pretium, quo res vulgo aestimatur, in rationibus notare ex iustitia tenetur; ex benignitate tamen altiore pretio illam aestimare atque altius hoc pretium in rationes referre ei utique licet; gratuitum enim hoc est donum, quod alteri facit. Iamvero id in Abrahae iustificatione accidisse (ac similiter in omnium nostrum iustificatione accidere) Paulus illis Geneseos verbis indicatum videt. Abraham Deo numerosam sibi progeniem praedicenti ac promittenti credidit, atque Deus hunc fidei actum in rationes patriarchae retulit; attamen pro sua benignitate ac misericordia (ad futuram propitiationem Filii sui incarnati prospiciens) actum illum altiore pretio aestimavit acceptavitque, quum pro illo, licet nec iustitia esset nec iustitiam promereretur, iuxta Scripturae testimonium iustitiam in rationibus patriarchae notaret. Atqui Deus in hominis rationes nihil referre potest nisi quod hic possidet; unde ex Geneseos verbis rite colligitur, Deum ex mera benignitate Abrahamo respectu fidei illius iustitiam tamquam donum gratuitum contulisse, seu eius fidem acceptasse tamquam aptam dispositionem, ut ei gratiam iustificantem et caritatem per Spiritum S. gratis infunderet. Hac autem formula (/ides imputatur ad iustitiam) praecavetur, ne quis fide iustitiam mereri sibi persuadeat, id quod facile aliquis putare potuisset, si pro fide rependi tustitia diceretur. Ex Dei enim benevolentia omnino gratuita confertur credenti iustitia. Hoc sensu S. Paulum verba Geneseos intellexisse et ab omnibus intelligi voluisse clare apparet, quum in explicatione addita mercedi, quae operibus debeatur operantibusque secundum debitum ex iustitia in rationes referatur, iustitiam credentibus gratis collatam opponit, ut clarius doceat Abrahamum non habuisse, unde de sua iustitia ad Deum gloriaretur :
4:4
&. ei autem qui operatur (zà 8$ &pqassaí£vo) merces non imputatur (cy(;eza) secundum gratiam sed secundum debitum;
4:5
5. ei vero qui non operatur, credenti autem (xà 23 (3, &gyatopfvo , «- ozeózvzt &£, clarius ac melius : et vero qui non operatur sed credit) in eum, qui tustificat impium , reputatur (kso) fides etus ad iustitiam (secundum propositum gratiae Dei). Quia in his sententiis 2 £pyatspsvo; eL ó zwzeóov (operans et credens) inter se opponuntur, verbum épyazsc02: (operari) hic a Paulo velut terminum technicum adhiberi cum plerisque dicamus oportet (cfr A'*" etc., Chrys. etc., Thom. etc., Tol. etc.). simili modo, quo substantivum £zyaz (opera) in tota hac argumentatione de operibus naturalibus adhibet, quibus ante fidem et sine fide aliquis iustitiam obtinere studet. Operans igitur hic significat eum, qui operibus naturalis ordinis occupatur in iisque versatur, ut iustitiam acquirat; cuiusmodi erant, uti ex Evangeliis satis constat , Pharisaei, qui totum suum studium in externa Legis observantia collocabant de eaque quasi de iustitia gloriabantur. Cum S. Aug. (expos. n. 21) quidem nonnulli iuniores ac moderni « de quolibet operario, qui opere suo mercedem acquirit, ut arando; texendo, aedificando » (Est. etc., Beel. etc.) Paulum in priore sententia loqui censent, sed ad manifestam operantis et credentis oppositionem non attendunt. Ad communes tamen operiarios Apostolus alludit, quatenus iis, qui naturalibus suis viribus iustitiam obtinere nituntur, eodem modo quo omnibus operariis, mercedem ex iustitia in rationes referri dicit. Communibus operariis similes ius habent ad mercedem, quae eis proinde secundum gratiam, i. e. ex benevolentia et benignitate, in rationes referri non potest, sed secundum debitum, i. e. ex commutativa iustitia, in eas inferri debet. Quia autem ius ad eam habent eamque sibi ipsi suis viribus acquisiverunt, de ea etiam gloriari possunt ad ipsum illum, qui eam solvere ex iustitiae lege tenetur. Aliter vero res in eo se habet, qui non operatur sed credit, i. e. qui operibus naturalibus (seu operibus Legis) quidem caret neque in eiusmodi operibus versatur aut confidit, ut iustitiam obtineat, sed fidem habet Deo loquenti, et ex fide iustitiam se obtenturum esse sperat credens in eum qui iustificat impium. Huic enim, quum operatus non sit, merces in rationes ex iustitia referri nequit, sed fides, qua confortatus de divina potentia non dubitans Deo dat gloriam (cfr v. 19 sqq.), ex divina benignitate reputatur ad iustitiam , i. e. & Deo tanti aestimatur, ut credenti gratis det donum multo perfectius, gratiam sc. iustificantem, quippe ad quam ne ipsa quidem fides perse ullum ius tribuat, nisi ex benigua voluntate Dei, qui ob praevisam Christi satisfactionem cunctos in Christum credentes iustificare decrevit. Bene Thom. : « Credenti in eum, qui iustificat impium , computabitur haec eius fides ad iustitiam non quidem ita, quod per fidem iustitiam mereatur, sed quia ipsum credere est primus actus iustitiae, quam Deus in eo operatur; ex eo enim, quod credit in Deum iustificantem, iustificationi eius subiicit se et sic recipit eius effectum. Et haec expositio est literalis e& secundum intentionem Apostoli, qui facit vim in hoc quod Gen. 15. dictum est : reputatum est illi ad iustitiam, quod consuevit dici, quando id, quod minus est ex parte alicuius, reputatur ei gratis ac si totum fecisset ». Itaque iis, qui ex fide iustificati sunt, de iustitia accepta, utpote de gratuito dono divino, ad Deum gloriari non licet; Abraham igitur, iuxta Scripturae testimonium gratis iustificatus ex fide, non habuit unde ad Deum gloriaretur (v. 2), atque lege fidei omnis gloriatio exclusa est (3,27). Verba in Vulg. addita : secundum propositum gratiae Dei (xazà ziv «pi0sew «2, 4&ptvog 100 Occo) genuina quidem non esse videntur (cfr VV. LL.), sensum tantum verbi Acyttezax (reputatur), quod ad Pauli mentem benignitatem Dei gratis homines ex fide iustificantis connotat, clarius declarant. Gratiosum quippe decretum (rp56en, propositum i. q. decretum cfr ad 8,98; 9,11 etc.) in memoriam revocant, quo Deus ab aeterno homines gratis iustificare statuit per fidem in Christum. Apte quoque praecedenti xazx àgeAx pa (secundum debitum) opponuntur, ita ut ceu optima glossa in latino textu, in quo inde a primis fidei temporibus leguntur, iure merito retineantur. Supra (3,21) Apostolus doctrinam de iustitia Dei, quae non operibus sed fide acquiratur, a lege et prophetis testificatam dixerat duobus nominibus universas Veteris. Test. Scripturas significans (cfr Matth. 5,171 ; 7,12; 22,40 etc.). Ex priore earum parte, ex Lege, i. e. ex libris mosaicis, exemplum Abrahae attulit fide sine operibus iustificati; ex altera earum parte, ex prophetis, quod nomen hic latiore sensu sumitur, alterum testimonium nunc addit ad canticum quoddam Davidis provocans, quem S. Petrus quoque prophetam (strictiore sensu) appellaverat (Act. 2,30). Davidem vero prae aliis S. Paulus ideo forsitan citaverit, quia auctoritate Abrahamo vix inferior a Iudaeis habebatur. Intime quidem v. 6. cum praecedente v. 5. connectitur atque statim (v. 9) Apostolus ad Abrahami iustificationem revertitur, ut ex ea universalitatem iustitiae, quae ex fide est, demonstret ; nihilominusvv. 6-8 haud satis recte a nonnullis pro parenthetica confirmatione earum habentur, quae de Abrahamo dicta sunt. Novum enim constituunt argumentum, quo veteris oeconomiae cum nova consensus in doctrina de iustificatione probatur. Is nempe Paulo est mos argumentandi, ut varia, quae affert, testimonia arcte inter se connectat. Itaque ut iustitiam gratuitum donum Dei esse ex veteribus Scripturis confirmet, Davidem cum sua explicatione verborum Gen. 15,6 consonare monet :
4:6
6. sicut et David dicit beatitudinem hominis (Xév& -» yaxzpwyuóv. 25 àv0pÀzcv»), cui Deus accepto fert (c1i;s::x imputat) iustitiam sine operibus. — Formula X£yev «»v yaxapteu£v zw; (dicere beatitudinis praedicationem in aliquem, i. e. celebrare beatitudinem alicuius) granditate sola verborum a simpliciore locutione uaxapiewv xtvá (beatum praedicare aliquem) differt; grandiorem autem plenioremque formulam Apostolus forsitan elegerit, ut beneficii a Deo gratis collati magnitudinem dignitatemque efferret. Tota autem vis est in sententia relativa, qua homo describitur, quem David beatum, ac proin etiam iustum coram Deo, dicit. Pseudoreformatores ex ea potissimum collegerunt, iustitiam non esse donum divinum homini inhaerens, quo formaliter renovetur mente cordis sui et ex iniusto fiat vere iustus, sed hominem externe tantum iustum dici ab ipsius Christi iustitia, quam per fidem (vel potius per fiduciam) suam velut per manum apprehendat quamque Deus deinde ei externe imputet, ita ut pro iusto habeatur quamvis peccator maneat, quum peccata eius non vere deleantur, sed dumtaxat obtegantur neque amplius imputentur!. Ac profecto Deus nostro in loco homini imputare iustitiam (Vc 02x xatosóvry in rationes referre iustitiam) dicitur; sed quid haec verba significent (ut praetermittamus de imputatione «7; Buatecóvas Xpwrz0 nihil dici), ex toto contextu evidens est. Namque inepta constructio esset, si verba nostra (Deus homini imputat iustiliam sine operibus) alium exhiberent sensum atque immediate praecedentia, quibus coniunctione xa0ázep (sicut) plane consonare ac respondere significantur (ei qui non operatur sed credit, reputatur fides ad iustitiam) ; atqui iustitiam esse donum credentibus gratis collatum, ista verba sonant, ergo idem nostra sonant, nec plus nec minus. Fidem quidem nostris in verbis Paulus non nominat, quia in verbis Davidis quae allegaturus est diserte non nominatur, sed eam subintelligendam esse (iustitiam ex fide sine operibus) ad unum omnes consentiunt. Illud tamen sine operibus, quod etiam in verbis davidicis non est expressum, addendum duxit, quia id maximae ei curae est, ut iustitiam gratis donari, minime vero operibus naturalibus mereri, vetere testimonio comprobet. Demum iustitiam in rationes referri directe dicit, quia eam antea a. Deo gratis dari debere, ut in rationes referri possit, per se clarum est. Quod vero Deus « iustitiam quae ipsa non adsit » (eine an sich nicht vorhandene Gerechtigkeit) in rationibus notasse dicatur, id aliqui moderni acath. (Weiss etc.) absurdissime ex suis addunt. Quomodo Deus iustissimus ac veracissimus hominem, qui vere iustus non est, iustum declarare potest? Num forte Deus res non videt, sicuti sunt, hominemque qui iustus non est iustum esse erronee putat? Quibus praetermissis ad Davidis verba transeamus a Paulo allegata :
4:7
7. Beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata ;
4:8
8. beatus vir, cui non imputavit (Xcylortax Amiat. etc. : imputabit) Dominus peccatum. Verba haec ex Ps. 31,1. 2 desumta sunt, quem David iuxta omnium fere interpretum (rationalistis, uti patet, exceptis) sententiam composuit, postquam a Nathano propheta admonitus de duplici suo crimine poenitentiam egerat remissionemque peccatorum suorum invenerat (2 Reg. 12,1. sqq.). Quoniam nec fides nec opera in eis diserte commemorantur, ac de sola remissione peccatorum sermo est, aliquis mirari poterit, quod Paulus ex iis probare velit « Deum homini imputare zust/tiam non ez operibus ». Attamen praeprimis animadvertatur oportet, Paulum supponere, uti docet Ecclesia, peccata non remitti nisi gratiae sanctificantis infusione. In hoc enim ordine, in quo per gratiam Dei degimus, non potest esse homo, qui eodem temporis momento et peccato careat et iustitia, neque inter statum peccati et statum gratiae tertius quidam status intermedius habetur. « lustificatio, uti egregie Bellarm. (de iustific. . II. 6) ait, motus quidam est de peccato ad iustitiam et nomen accipit & termino ad quem ducit, uti omnes alii similes motus, illuminatio, calefactio etc.; non igitur potest intelligi vera iustificatio, nisi aliqua praeter remissionem peccati iustitia acquiratur; quemadmodum nec vera erit illuminatio nec vera calefactio , si tenebris fugatis vel frigore depulso nulla lux nullusque calor in subiecto corpore subsequatur ».Similiter alibi (in Ps. 31,1.2) : « Sicut sol corporalis non expellit tenebras nisi lucem infundat, sic etiam sol iustitiae et Pater hominum non remittit peccata nisi per gratiam sive iustitiam quam infundit ». Deinde perpendatur oportet, peccatorem in se nihil invenire, unde Deo offenso satisfaciat neque opera eius Deo placere posse. Quodsi omnia iam opera naturalia obtinendis gratiis supranaturalibus per se omnino imparia sunt, multo minus peccatorem. operibus suis naturalibus remissionem criminum suorum obtinere evidens est. David autem Deo, qui per prophetam ei magnitudinem peccatorum commissorum ob oculos posuit gravesque poenas annuntiavit, credidit et poenitentia commotus magna cum contritione confessus est : peccavi Domino (2. Reg. 12,7-13) : en fides aliaeque dispositiones requisitae, quae sua sponte (nisi obex ponatur) ex fide exoriuntur. Unde de David quoque dicere sacer scriptor potuisset : « credidit David Deo et reputatum est ei ad iustitiam ». Nam statim postquam poenitens, intellectu voluntateque auctoritati Dei per prophetam loquentis submissis, se Domino peccasse confessus est, audire meruit : « Dominus transtulit (v271 remisit, Alez. : xapstifacev removit) peccatum tuum ». Tribus porro nominibus synonymis peccatum in textu primigenio designatur (7&2 rebellio, Alez. : à! &voyíax iniquitates, nwon Alez. : al &ápzpzía. peccata, yz pravitas Alex. : &yapcvía peccatum) ac similiter tribus verbis synonymis declaratur remissio (x23 auferre, Alez. &giévas remittere; n02 tegere, Alex. izwakizcew velare vel obtegere; acn xb Alex. cj Xov (teat non imputare), quin quartum quoque membrum Psalmista addiderat : nec est £n spiritu eius dolus. Quatuor igitur stichis synonymis David gratiam a Deo acceptam describit atque duobus affirmativis opponit duos negativos, ut nihil iam peccati remansisse significet. Remissum est peccatum, et ideo non tmputatur, alque tectum dicitur, quatenus plane abolitum neque amplius 2n spiritu adest. Etenim S. Just. (c. Tryph. 141) contra Iudaeos iam monet, verba Psalmistae (cut Deus non imputabit peccatum) « hanc habere vim, ut is qui peccatorum poenitentiam agat eorum remissionem (&oeow) a Deo accipiat, nequaquam vero, quemadmodum Iudaei sibi persuadeant, ut Deus illis, etiamsi peccatores maneant, non sit imputaturus peccatum, dummodo Dominum agnoscant ». Ad alterum vero membrum (quorum tecta sunt peccata) quod attinet, S. Aug. (Quaest. in Heptat. II. 108) peccata per confessionem exprimenda esse docet, « ut per gratiam quae data est Ecclesiae, aboleantur, hoc est tegantur, unde dicitur : beati quorum tecta sunt peccata »; atque clarius alibi (in Ps. 31 enarr. n. 9) : « Cooperta sunt peccata, tecta sunt, abolita sunt; si texit Deus peccata, noluit advertere, si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere; si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire; noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere. Nec sic intelligatis, quod dixit : peccata cooperta sunt , quasi ibi sint et vivant. Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? Ut n6n viderentur; quid enim erat Dei videre peccata, nisi punire peccata? » etc. Quibuscum consentiens Euseb. Caes. (in Ps. 31,1) : « Tanto studio et liberalitate Deus erga poenitentes utitur, ut non solum remittat sed etiam tegat corum peccata et ne vestigium quidem eorum relinquat » (xai wx2i Vyvg voócov xx:xAeizew). Alia similia testimonia plurima, quibus genuinus sensus locutionum peccata tegere et peccatum non imputare declaratur, afferre supersedemus, quia per sc clarum est, Pseudoreformatorum explicationem, qui peccata ita (egi et non impulari dixerunt, ut eorum poenis condonatis secundum reatum culpae remaneant, cum sana ratione non minus quam cum divina revelatione pugnare. Id unum adnotemus, iuxta 770m. tria in peccato posse distingui, offensam Dei , quae remittatur, ipsum inordinatum, quo reatus culpae inductus est, actum, qui, quum semel sit factus, infectus fieri nequeat sed tegatur manu misericordiae divinae, ut quasi pro non facto habeatur, reatum. poenae, cuius respectu peccatum dicatur non imputari scilicet ad poenam. Alii aliter distinguere malunt sed omnes, ni fallor, subtilius quam verius, quum suas distinctiones scholasticas in poetica verba P"salmistae ingerant. A vero procul recedunt, qui in primo membro de peccatis gravibus, quae remittantur, in secundo de venialibus, quae tegi dicantur quia cum gratia sanctificante in animo adesse possint, in tertio de gratia, qua protegente homo deinceps in peccata Quemadmodum exemplo Abrahami ac Davidis verbis Apostolus iustitiam esse donum gratuitum, quod credentibus conferretur, demonstravit, ita iisdem testimoniis universalitatem illius nune probat. Etenim illam non ad solos circumcisos sed ad praeputiatos quoque pertinere ex Psalmi loco allegato concludit (v. 9) et Abrahami exemplo confirmat, quippe qui ante circumcisionem sit iustificatus ex fide et circumcisionem in confirmationem iustitiae ex fide obtentae acceperit (10. 11*). ut eum omnium credentium, quum praeputiatorum tum circumcisorum, patrem esse appareret (11". 12). Revera promissiones quoque Abrahae seminique eius factas Legi non alligari addit, sed iustitiae fidei (v. 13); si enim Legi alligatae essent, iam dicendae essent abolitae, quia Lex iram operetur (15. 15). Fidei autem Deus eas ideo alligavit, ut firmae rataeque manerent toti semini Abrahami, i. e. non Iudaeis tantum sed etiam ethnicis credentibus (v. 16). Simili modo, quo superiorem (cfr ad v. 1), hanc quoque sectionem ab interrogatione Apostolus exorditur, quae ex praecedentibus sententiis colligitur et novae argumentationis summam indicat. Nam ex davidico testimonio concludit, iustitiam quam Deus credentibus gratis confert, universalem esse; conclusionem autem per modum interrogationis proponit, quae quid respondendum sit, ipsa satis clare innuit :
4:9
9. beatitudo (8 yxxagispz) ergo haec in. circumcisione (tantum manet) an etiam in praeputio? vcl clarius et accuratius ex textu primigenio : beatitudinis ergo praedicatio haec, qua sc. David beatum dicit hominem cui Deus imputat iustitiam sine operibus (v. 6), ad circumcisionemne (i. e. ad circumcisos) a» etiam ad praeputium (i. e. ad praeputiatos) pertinet? Ex particula za: (etiam) secundo interrogationis membro inserta (5 «xi izi cq x«ciíozi2v) apparet, in priore membro locutionem ézi 5» «ipeo (ad circumcisionem) exclusive esse sumtam , ita ut adverbium pv» (tantum), quod cum paucis graecis multi latini codd. addunt (cfr VV. LL.) per se sit superfluum, licet velut bona glossa retineri possit. In textu graeco verbum deest, sed facillime supplemus éy£vszz cum S. Clem. Rom., qui nostrum locum imitatus scripsit: $ uaxaxptspiz cocci Pyfoilo dizi i02 DkWene[ufvcog x:À (haec beatitudinis praedicatio ad electos f«ctet est, vel pertinet 1 Cor. 50), nisi quis forte cum Theoph. supplere maluerit zix:« (cadit in) vel cum Oec. 328:v (venit) vel cum modernis A£yexax (dicitur v. 6) aut écxiv etc. Quae supplementa omnia sunt apta; quod autem iuniores librarii latini minus apte verbum manet suppleverint (cfr VV. LL.), id ex eo provenit, quod in latina versione paxapwpgóg haud recte latino beatitudo reddatur (significat enim 5eatificationem i. e. beatitatis praedicationem, cfr ad Gal. &,15) et praepositio ézi c. accus. non accurate latino in c. ablat. declaretur. Hinc factum est, ut multi totum sententiae sensum non sint assecuti. Neque enim viderunt, Apostolum, qui ex Abrahami iustificatione et ex Davidis testimonio gratuitam esse iustitiam demonstravit, nunc eodem modo (uti iam diximus) ex Davidis proxime verbis colligere iustitiam esse universalem, ut idem deinde Abrahami ante circumcisionem fide iustificati exemplo uberius explanato confirmet. Quem nexum moderni quoque multi non perspexerunt, quum coniunctionem cóv (ergo) hic dictum aliquod praecedens resumere (quodnam?) et sententiam nostram dumtaxat transitioni ad exemplum Abrahae inservire dicerent (Bisp. Dr. etc. — Mey. Weiss etc.). At particula cjx sensum suum illativum relinet, atque sententia nostra completum constituit argumentum. Nempe David sine ulla limitatione et sine ulla Iudaeorum gentiliumque distictione modo generali beatum dicit hominem (v. 6), cui Deus imputet iustitiam sine operibus; quare suo iure Paulus concludit, iustitiam illam, quae ex fide est, solis Iudaeis non esse destinatam sed eam esse universalem. Quod autem hanc conclusionem per interrogationis formam proponat, id profecto non creat difficultatem ; nam interrogatio ipsa responsum continet et iuxta contextum nihil responderi potest, nisi Davidis beatificationem etiam ad praeputiatos pertinere, qui credunt (3,92. 29 sq.). Quod responsum ut Legi quoque consonare ostendat Legeque confirmet (attende ad sequentem particulam yáp enim et cfr ad v. 2), ad Abrahami iustificationem revertens eam primum generali modo in memoriam revocat : dicimus enim quia reputata est Abrahae fides ad iustitiam. Qua in sententia neque subiecto (/ides) neque praedicato (reputata est ad iustitiam) praecipuam vim inesse, uti multi moderni volunt, sed dativo (AóraAae), sequentia docent, in quibus de ipsius Abrabae persona agitur. Interrogatur quippe :
4:10
10. quomodo (zà;) ergo reputata est? in circumcisione an in praeputio? vel clarius in secunda interrogatione iuxta textum primigenium et antiquam versionem (cfr VV. LL.) : quum esset in circumcisione an in praeputio? Secunda porro interrogatione adverbium interrogativum zàg (quomodo) ita definitur, ut totius interrogationis sensus sit : « Quo in statu, num in statu circumcisionis an in statu praeputii, Abraham ex fide iustificatus est? » Si post suam circumcisionem iustificatus esset, cum aliqua ulique veritatis specie asseri posset, iustitiam non conferri nisi circumcisis ethnicosque circumcidi debere, ut deinde ex fide iustificentur; atqui verba, quibus Scriptura Abrahamum ex fide iustitiam obtinuisse testatur (Gen. 15,6), de patriarcha nondum circumciso dicta sunt, circumcisio autem plus quatuordecim annis postea ei iniuncta est (Gen. 17,9 sqq.). « Si igitur Abraham adhuc incircumcisus exsistens iustificatus est per fidem , manifestum est, quod iustitia fidei, per quam gratis remittuntur peccata, non est solum in circumcisione sed etiam in praeputio, i. e. in gentilitate » (TÀom.). Hoc significare vult Paulus, si interrogationi suae ipse respondet : non in circumcisione sed in praeputto sc. iustificatus est ex fide. Sed haec non est nisi prior responsi pars, cui alteram addit, qua cavillationem quae fieri possit praeoccupaturus significationem circumcisionis Abrahae exponit, ut tandem responsum suum compleat fine explicato, cur Deus Abrahamum praeputiatum ex fide iustificari et ex fide iustificatum circumcidi voluerit. Praeprimis igitur, ne quis cireumcisionem Abrahae prorsus superfluam fuisse erronee concludat, idem suum responsum continuans! Apostolus quid illa sibi voluerit explanat :
4:11
11. et signum accepit circumcisionis signaculum iustitiae fidei quae est in praeputio (-zz iv X«pcfoszia rectius : quae fuerat in praeputio; verbum cnim praeteriti temp. supplendum esse patet, quia de Abrahamo ante circumcisionem credentc sermo est). Abrahamoigitur circumcisio signum (2r4:::») fuisse dicitur; nam genet. zegitopisi (circumcistonis) est genetivus appositionis (cfr ad Cor. 1,92): signum 1. e. circumcisionem accepit (minus apte alii : circumcisionem tamquam signum accepit); quod non perspicientes aliqui librarii scribere maluerunt : xa exusizv £Aaícv zspvzui (cfr VV. LL.). Cuiusnam autem generis signum fuerit, docet appositio signaculum (227 7:2x sigillum) iustitiae fidei (72; 2vxax22)vt5 &15 z(ot:oz d. q. cz Pronccives Es dx víc:eus 9,30; 10,6 iustitiae ex fide) quae fuerat in praeputio. Ad quae verba alludens egregie iam S. Just. M. (c. Trvph. 23) « Abraham, inquit, quum in praeputio essct, propter fidem, qua credidit Deo, iustificatus et benedictus est, uti Scriptura demonstrat; circumcisionem autem in signum, non ad iustitiam accepit, uti Scriptura et rerum gestarum series nos cogunt confiteri ». Primum credidit, deinde iustificatus est, demum in manifestationem et probationem iustitiae ex fide obtentae circumcisus est; haec est rerum gestarum series, quam Paulus lectoribus suis ex Genesi notam esse supponit. sedemus, quia eam huius loci non esse evidens est, quum S. Paulus, uti Salin. rectissime observavit, de ludaeorum circumcisione eiusque efficacia non agat, sed de solius circumcisionis, quam Abraham iustificatus accepit, significatione. Scholasticis igitur theologis eam totam relinquimus discutiendam, atque id adnotasse suflicit, alios affirmativam, alios negativam sententiam tenere, alios mediam viam inire (ceterum cfr ad 7,9 ».). Verba «zc Suatocóvas tfj; zísteuz vic £v üxpobustia (iustitiae fidei quae fuerat in praeputio) duas admittunt constructiones , quae ambae aptae sunt sensumque quoque per se aptum gignunt. Appositionem scilicet (t5 v &xpcfuccía) aut cum priore genetivo regente (zz; Sxatosóvgz iustitiae quae fuerat in praeputio) aut cum altero recto (:5; zíszso; fide? quae fuerat in praeputio) arctius connectere per grammaticam licet. Priorem nexum Est. cum paucis praefert, alterum cum 7/om. ac plerisque secuti sumus utpote contextui magis adaptatum. Namque solo facto historico, licet ex eo iustitiam fidei etiam praeputiatis esse destinatam clare iam constet, non contentus Apostolus, ut responsum suum compleat eique maiorem auctoritatem conciliet, finem quoque indicat, quem Deus prae oculis habuit, quando speciali sua providentia res patriarchae ita disponebat ac regebat, ut hic prius ex fide, quam in statu praeputii habuit, iustificoretur ac deinde in confirmationem iustitiae ex illa fide obtentae circumcideretur. lam vero hic finis divinus non tam donum ex fide acceptum, i. e. iustitiam, quam ipsam fidem, iuxta Paulum proxime spectat. Abrahamum quippe hac ratione a Deo constitutum esse credentium patrem docet, cui omnes, sive praeputiati sint sive cireumcisi, fide assimilari debeant, ut. ius ad hereditatem Abrahamo ac semini eius promissam acquirerent. Uti supra iam innuimus, sententia finalis duobus membris constat, quae duabus responsi partibus correspondent; prius autem membrum pertinet ad praeputiatos : Abrahae praeputiato iam fides ad iustitiam reputata est (v. 10), ut sit (ei; «5 elvax melius : wt esset) pater omntum credentium per praeputium (AV &xozfuszia; |. e. in statu praeputii cfr ad 2,97 zi Teipuazes xai espvsoyss) , wt reputetur (si; zz 22702»2x melius : wt reputaretur) et illis (xxx a5-z1; nimirum sicut patri eorum Abrahae, cuius filii facti sunt, fide sua ei assimilati cfr ad Ga/. 3,7) ad iustitiam; vel eodem plane sensu (cfr ad v. 6) iuxta communiorem lectionem graecam : ut imputaretur et illis iustitia. Graeca locutio zi; -z cum infinit. & nonnullis hic consecutive sumitur : ex eo, quod Abraham in praeputio ex fide iustificatus est, consequitur ut omnes, qui eadem ratione in praeputio credentes fide ei assimilantur, eius filii sint ac proin ut eis idem quoque donum (iustitiae) ex fide imputetur, quo capaces fiant hereditatis Abrahae obtinendae (cfr Thom. Cai. etc.); ab aliis finaliter explicatur : ideo Abraham... iustificatus est, «t esset pater etc. (Chrys. etc., Tol. Est. etc., moderni plerique). Utraque explicatio per se admitti potest (cfr ad 1,20), neque magna exoritur, sive prior sive altera eligitur, sensus differentia, quum eadem res secundum priorem in historica sua exsistentia, secundum altera in intentione divina consideretur. Alteram tamen cum plerisque praeferendam indicavimus, primum quidem quia nulla hic adest causa , cur formulam «i; «5 c. inf. consueto suo sensu finali privemus, ac deinde quia sententia maiorem habet vim ad làdaeorum superbiam confundendam, si Deus eum in finem Abrahamum praeputiatum ad fidem et iustitiam adduxisse dicatur, ut omnium praeputiatorum credentium pater fieret. Ob easdem quoque rationes in altero membro, quod quasi parenthetice inseritur (eig «» Aeyte0zvat xx, ut reputaretur et illis fides ad iustitiam), finalem explicationem praetulimus. Iuxta divinam ordinationem enim Abraham, ex fide in praeputio habita iustificatus, pater gentilium credentium constitutus est, ut hi eadem via, qua ille, iustitiam sine circumcisione ex fide adipiscerentur. Ad divinum enim finem Paulum in hac argumentatione attendere clare apparet ex v. 93 sq. Iudaeorum superbiam, «ui ob originem circumcisionemque suam sibi solis dignitatem filiorum Abrahae et ius ad benedictiones messianicas ei promissas vindicabant, Apostolus in priore sententiae finalis membro haud leviter iam confudit, quum a praeputiatis exorsus his quasi primum ius ad illam dignitatem competere insinuaret; gravius autem eam confundit in altero membro, saltem secundum graecum textum, quem cum iunioribus ac modernis tantum non omnibus (cfr Cai. Salm. Tol. Est. Iust. Nat. Pic. etc., Reith. Mai. Beel. M Ev. Bisp. etc.) latinae versioni huius loci praeferimus ideoque primo in loco exponemus graecorum interpretum (Orig. Chrys. Theoph. Oec. etc.) vestigia prementes. Circumcisionem quippe ad dignitatem illam nihil conferre Paulus docet, quandoquidem circumcisi ipsi praeputiato Abrahamo fie assimilari debeant, si genuini filii eius esse et ius ad promissiones ei seminique eius factas habere velint. Haec enim est primigenii textus versio cum suo contextu : Abraham in confirmationem iustitiae, quam ex fide in praeputii statu habita obtinuerat, cireumcisionem accepit (v. 11), ut essct...
4:12
12 e/ pater circumcisionis, iis qui non ez circumcisione tantum sunt, sed et. ipsi. sectantur vestigia. illius, quae in praeputio erat, fidei. patris nostri Abrahae; ei; «b. elvat... xai xatéoa mspttouds , soia cox £v csptzogdiz aivzo 3A xai cts (lege : xai assets) ovotycos- Gt Tc! Lyvest) TE $» Axglbugtix xístseg 129 maps duov "Afpaig. Sicut in eius confirmationem circumcisus est, ut esset pater Iudaeorum credentium ; unica ergo ratio paternitatis illius sita est in fide, quam Abraham iam habuit et ex qua iam iustificatus est, quum esset praeputiatus. Dicitur autem circumcisus, ut esset pater circumcisionis i. e. circumcisorum ; abstractum enim nomen zeptzcu3; (circumcisionis) pro concreto iterum positum est (cfr v. 9; 3,30 etc.). Neque tamen omnium circumcisorum Abrahamum esse patrem neque quemquam vi solius "circumcisionis genuinum filium eius esse Paulus articulo ante genetivum zepeopzz omisso leviter indicat, clare autem docet addita conditione, quae praeter circumcisionem in ludaeis requiratur. Potuit quidem sententiam genetivo continuare (za-égx «spicW4., TGv cóx ix mtpuogds pivov pater circumcisorum , eorum [scilicet] qui non ex circumcisione tantum sunt etc.), sed orationem varians, ut conditionem illam fortius exprimeret, dativo commodi sententiam continuare maluit: « ut esset pater circumcisorum, relate ad illos (vol : illis) videlicet, qui non tantum sunt circumcisi sed et ipsi (eodem modo quo praeputiati) fidem, quam praeputiatus habuit, patris nostri Abrahac imitantur ». coeli et in semine eius benedicerentur omnes gentes. Semen autem intellexerat spirituale, Christum nimirum, qui secundum carnem ex Abrahamo originem traxit, omnesque qui per fidem Christo, capiti suo, velut membra inseruntur unumque cum eo corpus efficiunt (cfrad Gal. 3,23-28). Attamen iustitiam universalem esse omnibusque credentibus conferri Apostolus altero ex capite confirmat. Simili quippe modo, quo antea nec Legem scriptam (2,1-24) neque circumcisionem (2,25-99) Iudaeos peccantes ab ira divina eximere docuit, nunc ordine inverso neque circumcisionem carnis (vv. 10-12) neque Legem (vv. 13-16) ius ad dignitatem verorum filiorum Abrahae ac proin ad hereditatem Abrahae tribuere docet. Paternitatis nimirum Abrahae rationem totam non in circumcisione sed in fide sitam esse dixerat, idque nunc, a notione filii ad connexam notionem heredis transiens, ex eo comprobat, quod hereditatis quoque ratio non in Legis operibus sed in iustitia fidei sit sita :
4:13
13. non enim per legem promissio Abrahae aut semini eius, ut heres esset mundi, sed per iustitiam fidei (supple : facta est ày£vsxo, vel: est ici»). Quemadmodum Abraham non in statu circumcisionis sed in statu praeputii credens iustificatus est, ut omnium credentium, etiam praeputiatorum , pater esset, ita promissiones quoque per legem (&& v5yev) , i. e. « merito servatae Legis » (4'*"), seu Lege mosaica interveniente et adiuvante, non accepit, sed per iustitiam fidei (àXx &xaxzo3vns zíc:eo:), 1. e. mediante iustitia, quam fides parit (cfr v. 16 ix zizzso; ex fide), idque ideo ut eas ad omnes pertinere appareret, qui fide iustificati sunt, sive Legem scriptam habent sive illa carent. Ad originem quidem promissionum hic, uti Gal. 3,15 sqq., Apostolus respicit, sed non plane eodem modo, quo ibi, ex ea argumentatur. lbi enim ex natura testamenti divinitus confirmati, quo promissiones continebantur, concludit illud Lege quadringentis et triginta annis postea data neque irritum reddi neque mutari potuisse, Legem ergo non requiri, ut quis promissionum particeps fiat. loc autem in loco ex causa, qua quasi impellente Deus promissiones dedit, argumentum desumit. Si Abraham propter Legem mosaicam habitam et observatam illas accepisset, iure utique colligeretur, neminem praeter Iudaeos, quibus Lex data erat, illarum partem esse habiturum; verum quia diu ante promulgatam Legem et sine ullo Legis postea promulgandae respectu credenti et ex fide iustificato patriarchae (atque in eo simul semini eius) sunt dictae, consequens est, utad omnes, qui ex fide iustificantur, pertineant et a Lege non dependeant. Ab hac communiore sententiae explicatione (cfr Theod. Theoph. etc., A'** Prim. etc. , Herv. Lyr. etc. , Tol. Est. Iust. etc. , Reith. Beel. M Ev. etc.) pauci dissentiunt, qui nomen promissionis, ut nexum cum sequente sententia inveniant, improprie de re ipsa promissa interpretantes hunc verborum sensum esse statuunt : « Res Abrahae promissa (hereditas mundi) ei aut semini eius non per Legem, i. e. per Legis custodiam , sed per iustitiam fidei danda est » (cfr Thom. Cai. Salm. Ag.). At licet haec per se verissime dicantur atque etiam ex nostra sententia per sensum quem vocant consequentem legitime deriventur, ipsis tamen verbis non sunt expressa, nisi admittatur eorum constructio parum apta; ad nexum autem cum sequente sententia stabiliendura nos hac explicatione non indigere, ex dicendis patebit. Ad singula ut transeamus, primum ex toto contextu clare apparet, legem hic intelligi mosaicam, quatenus fidei opponitur; a sua enim Lege ludaei ius suum ad Abrahae hereditatem derivabant. Quod si unus alterve modernus a communi hac explicatione recedens ob articulum omissum (à vipco) « legem aliquam, quaecumque fuerit, sive mosaicam sive aliam » intelligere vult (4g.), haud satis attendit, in iunumeris fere paulinarum epistolarum locis, atque in hac ipsa pericope (cfrv. 1& ci éx v£yco 2,12. 13. 18. 17. 23 etc. etc.), nomen vy» sine articulo, maxime in casibus obliquis, de mosaica Lege usurpari. Difficilius dictu est, de quanam proniissione sit sermo; neque enim inter illas, quae Abrahae sunt dictae, ulla est, qua ei et semini eius hereditas mundi promittatur. Unde, uti Sa/m. iam adnotat, alii de Gen. 12,3 (in te benedicentur universae cognationes terrae), alii de Gen. 15,1 (eduxi te de Ur Chaldaeorum, ut darem tibi terram istam), alii de omnibus promissionibus simul sumtis cogitarunt. Ad quam difficultatem solvendam animadvertatur oportet, de promissione Abrahae «/ semini eius facta sermonem esse; siquidem sensus verborum :ü 'Afgaxy f, zo exípggazt aj:22 (Abrahae aut semini eius), quum in sententia negativa legantur, iuxta graecum (et latinum) loquendi usum a Novi Test. scriptoribus retentum (cfr 9,11; EpA. 5,3; Act. 1,7; 11,8 etc.), idem est, qui in affirmativa foret verbis «à 'A£zzxxa xxi-ó cezípgan a2:59 (Abrahae et semini eius). Itaque Apostolum hic, uti Ga/. 3,16, proxime ad duasillas praedictiones respexisse censemus, quibus « Abrahae et semini eius omnis terra Chanaan in possessionem aeternam » promittitur, nimirum ad Gen. 13,15 et 17,8, et maxime ad secundum locum, ex cuius contextu statim alia verba allegat (v. 17 cfr Gen. 17,4). Neque vero negamus, eum simul reliquas promissiones, quum omnes arctissime inter se cohaereant, ante oculos habuisse, uti eum omnes probationes fidei Abrahae attendisse et quasi coniunxisse diximus (cfr ad v. 3). Terra Chanaan autem, quae lacte et melle fluens filiis Israel promissa erat requiesac possessio, in qua securi ab omnibus hostibus degerent et absque ullo timore habitarent (Deut. 12, 9 sq. etc.; Ps. 95,11 etc.; cfr Hebr. &,1 ssq.), Apostolo est typus quum regni messianici ipsius, quod sese a mari usque ad mare et a flumine usque ad terminos terrae extendens (Ps. 71,8) totum mundum complexurum est!, tum omnium spiritualium benedictionum, atque ipsius aeternae quoque requiei ac beatitudinis, spiritualibus filiis Abrahae promissarum , quas velut membra regni messianici obtenturi sint (cfr ad Gal. 3,16). Quo typico sensu terram Abrahamo eiusque semini promissam eo facilius intelligere potuit, quia simul promissum erat, in Abrahamo eiusque semine omnes nationes terrae benedictum iri (Gen. 12,3. 1. 7; 18,18 etc.), et quia ex Abrahae semine iuxta divinas promissiones exortus est Messias, cui tamquam hereditas ac possessio gentes omnes ac termini terrae competunt (Ps. 2,8). Parum tamen recte nonnulli antiquiores ad illas praedictiones, quibus benedictionem in semine, i. e, per semen, fore promittitur, potissimum attendentes nomine sem:nis hoc in loco ipsam personam Christi « principaliter » designari statuerunt (Thom!. etc.). Nam de eiusmodi promissionibus proxime agitur, quae Abrahae eiusque semini ita sunt dictae, ut ex illis habeant ius ad dona promissa (cfr ad Gal. 3,16). Nomine ergo seminis directe et immediate « omnes qui per gratiam Christi spiritualiter sunt. semen Abrahae » (Thom?.) hic designantur, seu si mavis Christus mysticus, i. e. omnes qui Christo fide velut membra inserti eo ipso « semen Abrahae sunt, secundum promissionem heredes » (cfr ad Ga/. 3,29). Quod vero aliqui moderni acath. semen Abrahae hic dicunt esse naturalem eius progeniem, i. e. omnes ac solos Iudaeos (Beck, Weiss etc.), id plane &bsonum est totamque argumentationem Apostoli evertit. Ex hac sententia necessario consequitur, promissiones neque a Lege mosaica dependere neque ad eos solos, qui Legein habent, spectare, sed fidei alligari ideoque ad omnes credentes pertinere, qui Abrahae fidem imitantur. Quam conclusionem, utpote apertam ac manifestam, verbis declarare Apostolus pro more supervacaneum ducit; eam autem statim iuxta utrumque membrum confirmat a negativo incipiens (tv. 14. 15) et ad affirmativum transiens (rv. 16). Ac primum quidem ex ipsa natura et indole Legis duo argumenta desumit, quorum prius simile est illi, quod Galatis proposuit (Ga. 3,18 si ez lege est hereditas, tam non ez promissione, Abrahae autem per promissionem donavit Deus » hereditatem), quodque principio supra (vv. &. 5) enuntiato innititur, Legis nimirum operibus mercedem ex iustitia deberi, credentibus donum gratuitum ex mera benignitate conferri :
4:14
15. s? enim qut ex lege sunt (ol &àx v5yoo) heredes sunt, exinanita est (xsx£évozax evacuata i. e. virtute et efficacia sua privata est) fides, abolita est (xxvíoyeza cessavit) promissio. Fieri nequit, ut hereditas simul sit tum ex Lege tum ex fide ac promissione, quia simul et eadem ratione non potest esse merces ex iustitia operanti debita et donum credenti gratis ex liberalitate ac benignitate concessum. Atqui si iuxta Iudaeorum opinionem illi soli, qui ex lege sunt, i. e. qui Legem mosaicam habent eamque viribus suis naturalibus implere student, hereditatem assequerentur, hereditas dicenda esset merces operantibus debita ex iustitia. Fides igitur nihil amplius, quod ad hereditatem spectat, conferre posset omnique sua virtute esset privata. Quod non nisi absurdissime dici, Paulus hic non amplius demonstrat, quia antea sufficienter iam demonstravit, iuxta Veteris Test. ipsius doctrinam iustitiam ac proin hereditatem ex fide esse (vv. 2-8). Similiter autem promissio dicenda esset cessasse seu abolita esse, si ex Lege esset hereditas. Lex enim a Deo data et a populo acceptata constituit contractum bilateralem, quum populus ad eam implendam se obligaret ac Deus vicissim se obligaret ad mercedem dandam Legem implentibus. Promissio autem est contractus unilateralis, quo Deus sese ex mera liberalitate ad hereditatem credentibus gratis conferendam obligavit (cfr ad Gal. 3,20). . « Fidem, inquit Tolet., dicit fore exinanitam, quia inutilis facta esset, si non per fidem iustitia ac benedictio sed per Legem futura esset; promissionem quoque dicit fore abolitam, i. e. quasi infectam ct destructam et irritam, quia quod promissum est ex gratia, non ex gratia sed ex Lege daretur. Pugnat enim quod ex Lege est et quod ex fide et promissione est; hoc enim est gratia, illud iustitia » (cfr Esí. lust. etc. , Reith. Mai. Beel. etc.). Hanc sententiae interpretationem, quae communior est, veriorem quoque esse clare elucet ex v. 16, ubi ad positivum membrum transiens Apostolus ex dictis (vv. 15,13) concludit hereditatem « ex fide esse, ut sit secundum gratiam », i. c. ut non tamquam merces secundum debitum ex iustitia operantibus, scd tamquam gratuitum donum credentibus tribuatur. Porro quum ibidem addit, eam « secundum gratiam esse, ut firma sit promissio omni semini », simul nobis innuit, quis sensus sit secundi argumenti, quo negativum conclusionis membrum confirmat :
4:15
15. lez enim tram operatur ; ubi enim (25 ;ig vel iuxta testatiorem lectionem cfr VV. LL. : 9$ &£ ubi autem) non est lez, nec praevaricatio. Plerique hac sententia explicari vel probari praecedentem (abolita est promissio) volunt; scilicet promissionem, si a Lege dependeret, abolitam esse, quia Lex, quum impleri nequeat, iram divinam provocans Deum cogat, ut promissa non det. Attamen hic nexus mihi non probatur (cfr etiam To/. etc. , Reith. Mai. Beel. etc.) , quia parum apta, ne dicam inanis, esset eiusmodi probatio. Nam sive Lex impleri potest sive impleri non potest, immo sive iram sive benedictionem operatur, iuxta Paulum promissio hereditatis, si hereditas a Lege dependere coepisset, semper dicenda esset abolita; etenim iuxta eum hereditas tamquam donum gratuitum credenti promissa erat, ex illa autem hypothesi tamquam debita merces operanti daretur (cfr ad Gal. 3,18. 21). Si quis vero Paulum hic supponere affirmaret, hereditatem ab initio iam sub conditione Legis impletae promissam esse, vix non ineptior esset probatio addita. Neque enim conditionalis promissio aboleri vel cessare dicitur, si propter conditionem non impletam promissa non dantur; si vero conditio apposita impleri plane nequit, recte quidem eiusmodi promissio ab initio iam irrita et illusoria fuisse dicitur, sed abolita esse vel cessasse (xavnp12502x) absurde diceretur. Quae quum ita sint, cum aliis, quos nominavimus, hanc sententiam praecedenti confirmationis aut explicationis gratia adiungi negamus, eamque eidem ita parallelam esse tenemus, ut altero argumento negativum conclusionis ex v. 13 derivatae membrum confirmans hereditatem a Lege non dependere doceat. Argumentum porro ex indole et effectu Legis nude in se spectatae desumitur, quam Apostolus hic divinam tram operari , i. e. efficere vel provocare dicit, sicut eam alibi occidere, maledictionem afferre etc. asserit (cfr ad 2 Cor. 3,6, ad Gal. 3,10 etc.). Lex quippe mosaica, prout hic nuda et non tantum separata 8 fide sed ei opposita consideratur, cognitionem quidem peccati praebet (3,20), vires autem ad illud vitandum homini non confert. Quin etiam virtus peccati est (cfr ad 1 Cor. 15,56) et transgressionum gratia (-àv zapa£ássuv yiow), i. e. ad eas augendas manifestandasque, posita dicitur (cfr ad Gal. 3,19), quatenus suis prohibitionibus concupiscentiam auget (cfr ad 7,7 sqq.) atque ita homini occasio est frequentiorum et maiorum peccatorum vel transgressionum (zzzz£zc:ov). Hoc igitur sensu Lex iram operatur seu provocat divinam, ac proinde Deum, si a Lege dependeret hereditas promissa, impediret, ne promissam daret, immo eum cogeret, ut illam negaret. Prius igitur sententiae membrum clarum est; quid vero alterum sibi velit (:5 xz (vel: 2$ 24) zx f£cvty v$goo , 0322 «apáfang, ubi enim [vel : ubi autem] non est lez, ibi nec praevaricatio vel transgressio est), minus est perspicuum, uti iam ex eo apparet, quod iuxta alios praecedenti per particulam causalem (váp enim) velut confirmatio vel explicatio addatur, iuxta alios eidem per particulam adversativam (3£ autem) quodam modo opponatur. Plerique cum nostra Vulg. et graeco textu rec. priorem nexum causalem retinentes hoc membro probari censent, mosaicam Legem iram operari. Lege nimirum quacumque positiva effici volunt, ut peccatum gravitate crescat, quatenus naturam praevaricationis seu transgressionis (zapafácsuoc) praecepti non tantum ex natura cogniti sed etiam externe promulgati induat!. Quae explicatio ob duplicem maxime rationem mihi non probatur. Primo enim in loco haud satis intelligitur, cur Paulus negative dixerit : « ubi non est lex, nec praevaricatio »; nam iuxta istam explicationem potius dicere debuit : « ubi lex, ibi et praevaricatio, ita ut ad peccatum contra legem naturalem accedat transgressio legis externe promulgatae ». Gravior est altera ratio ; neque enim Paulus dixit, quod iuxta hanc explicationem dixisse supponitur : « lex (positiva) matorem iram operatur », sed generali modo « lex iram operatur ». Atqui ira Dei etiam revelatur super ethnicos, qui mosaica Lege aut alia divinitus data praeter naturalem carebant (1, 18 Sqq.), et qui sine Lege mosaica peccaverunt, sine Lege perire, i. e. irae divinae obnoxii esse dicuntur (2,19). Ad iram igitur divinam provocandam non requiritur, ut legis externe promulgatae seu positivae adsit transgressio. Itaque alteram lectionem (ubi autem) praeferentes hoc membrum velut Minorem praecedenti tamquam Maiori subiungi (autem 2£ hic i. q. atqui) atque conclusionem v. 16 enuntiari arbitramur, ut hic sit syllogismus completus, cuius prima tantum lineamenta Paulus pro conciso suo loquendi modo indicavit : Lex (mosaica) iram operatur ideoque impedit Deum, ne hereditatem det, si haec a Lege servata dependet; atqui uói non est Lez, uti in promissione absoluta, quae in re vicissim danda non nititur, neque igitur a Legis impletione dependet, ibi nec praevaricatio est aut esse potest, quae Deum ab hereditate danda relineat; 160. ideo (hereditas est) ez fide ut secundum gratiam firma sit promissio omni semini , non ei qui (lege : quod !) ex Lege est solum, sed et ei qui (lege : quod) ex fide est Abrahae, qui pater est omnium nostrum. Graecus textus aliquantulum dilfert : 4x 7292 ix. zizcoz, iva xatk yágu, sig c5 elvat Qfaxav : ideo ez fide, ut secundum gratiam sit, (idque eo fine) ut firma sit etc. Eodem modo etiam Amiat. aliique boni codd. Vulg. sententiam legunt (cfr Est.), quamvis plerique, altera coniunctione finali (ut) omissa, generalem quidem sententiae sensum non mutent, minus accurate tamen eum declarent totamque argumentationem reddant minus concinnam. Quemadmodum supra enim innuimus, Paulus duo argumenta vv. 14. 15 proposita hic complectitur, ut affirmativum membrum conclusionis ex v. 13. derivatae confirmet, ac simul duplicem finem (proximum et remotiorem) indicat, quem Deus, quum hereditatem ex fide esse vellet , spectavit. Ac primum quidem eam non ex Lege sed ez fide esse voluit, ut eam secundum gratiam esse, i. e. ut gratuitum benevolentiae suae donum esse appareret, neque merces operibus Legis ex iustitia debita putaretur. Donum deinde gratuitum, et non mercedem debitam, eam esse voluit, «t firma esset promissio omni semini Abrahae, i. e. omnibus, qui Abrahamo fide assimilati germanum eius semen spirituale sunt. Si enim a Lege hereditas promissa penderet, ita ut velut merces operantibus daretur (v. 4), non tantum omnes, qui Legem non habent, a promissione essent exclusi, sed illis quoque, qui Legem habent, promissio firma certaque non esset, quia Ler tram operatur suos asseclas ad transgressiones quasi provocans. Verum hereditas, quae sine Legis impletae conditione credentibus velut donum gratuitum promissa est, non tantum ad eos se extendit, qui Legem non habent, sed etiam illis qui eam habent firma est. Lex enim ad alium quendam rerum ordinem pertinet neque per se quidquam ad dandam vel negandam rem promissam confert; ubi autem Lez non est, nec est praevaricatio, quae Deum ab iis, quae sese gratuito daturum esse promisit, gratuito dandis retineat. Bene Theoph. : « Gratia non habet praevaricationem, sicut Lex, ut incerta ac dubia sint promissa; quoniam igitur totum hoc negotium a gratia et misericordia divina pendet, merito illa, quae donantur, firma dicuntur omni semini, i. e. omnibus credentibus non tantum circumcisis, verum eliam praeputiatis ». Quas duas seminis classes Apostolus distinguit, firmam esse dicens promissionem omni semini , non ei quod ez lege est solum, sed et ei quod ex fide est Abrahae. Quae verba, quamvis superioribus (v. 12) similia esse videantur, sensu ab iis plane differunt. Ibi enim de Iudaeis solis fidelibus sermonem esse diximus, qui « non tantum ex circumcisione sint, sed etiam vestigia fidei Abrahae sectentur », ita ut una sola credentium classis iuxta duplicem , qui ei competit, characterem describatur. Hic vero duae credentium classes, ludaeorum et ethnicorum, distinguuntur; etenim adverbium y5vov (tantum) hie non uti supra (v. 12) ad sola ultima verba (non ex Lege tantum) , sed ad totum prius membrum pertinet, id quod ex verborum ordine satis apparet : non ei tantum , qui ex Lege est, sed et ei, qui ex fide est. Mirum videri potest, quod hic in priore classe (non ei solum qui ez lege est) non fiat fidei mentio; at hereditatem ez fide esse asserens, ut promissio firma sit omni semini, Apostolus satis clare iam declaravit, se de semine spirituali, i. e. de credentibus, loqui. Quare in priore quidem membro mentio fidei superflua fuit; in altero tamen (sed et ei qui ez fide est) mentionem fidei addidit, quia ethnici non nisi fide sua filii Abrahae - constituuntur, ludaei credentes autem etiam ratione originis suae ad semen Abrahae pertinent.
4:17
sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur cre- | &oyísür, ajr, 24. dXÀk xat OU fux, dentibus in cum qui suscitavit Iesum | ofc p£AXet Aoyileocat, rotg ziGteUouctv Pzi Christum. Dominum nostrum a mortuis : | vov iyslpavca "Incoóv tov Kóptov fiov 25. qui traditus est propter delicta nostra, | ix vexpiw, 25. 9g rapcóó0n Dix và mapael resurrerit. propter. iustificationem. na- | z:opaza fuv xai éyégUr, Oi tijv Otxaluaty stram. 59v, Tertiam hanc pericopen Apostolus secundae arctissime adiungit eadem in sententia priorem concludens ac novam inchoaus (cfr p. 201). Postquam enim Deum ideo promissam hereditatem a iustitia fidei ac proindea fide ipsa dependere voluisse docuit, ut promissio omni semini Abrahae spirituali, i. e. omnibus qui fide ei assimilarentur, firma esset, ac deinde ad hoc semen ethnicos quoque pertinere novo testimonio scripturistico confirmavit, fidem patriarchae describere incipit, ut eandem fidem in eius posteris, si hereditatem consequi velint, requiri insinuet (16. 17.). Humanisigitur rationibus, quae promissionis impletioni obstare videbantur, spretis Abrahamumin fide sua non vacillasse monet (18. 19), sed plena intellectus subiectione Deum revelantem glorificasse (20. 21). Quia tam perfecta fuit, fides Abrahamo reputata est in iustitiam (v. 22); at quae de eius fide Scriptura tradit, ea propter nos quoque scripta esse Apostolus addit, ut nos eandem fidem imitati iustificemur credentes in omnipotentem Deum, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum pro nobis traditum a mortuis (23-25). Duas spiritualis seminis Abrahae classes, credentium Iudaeorum et credentium ethnicorum, quibus firmam et ccrtam esse hereditatis promissionem dixerat, B. Paulus in fine v. 16 comprehendit, ut rationem iterum inculcet, qua patriarcha tam numerosam familiam obtinuerit, simulque sibi viam ad describendam eius fidem aperiat : qui (Abraham) est pater omnium nostrum 1'1. — sicut scriptum est : Quia patrem. multarum gentium posui te — ante Deum, cui credidit, qui vivificat mortuos et vocat ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt, — vel in ultimo membro iuxta graecum (xai xaXcovtos tX yi; ivt óg Zvra) accuratius : e£ vocat ea quae non süntac si sint, vel essent. Sibi, qui utpote Iudaeus origine ad priorem classem pertinebat, epistolae lectores romanos, qui plerique ethnici fuerant, associans Abrahamum dicit patrem omnium nostrum « non secundum physicam generationem sed secundum cognationem fidei » (xaz' oixs(ocw zísteug Theoph. cfr Chrys. etc.). Verum quia spirituali hac paternitate universalitas hereditatis promissae innitebatur (igitur iustitiae quoque, de qua maxime agitur), Apostolus probationi ex patriarchae historia iam allatae (vv. 11. 12) alteram disertiorem ex Dei ipsius verbis addidit : quia patrem multarum gentium posui te. Coniunctionem z- (quia), nisi eam hic mere recitativam esse, i. e. introductioni orationis directae inservire, dicere malueris, ex alexandrina versione, quam rursus accurate sequitur, retinuit. In allegato quippe loco (Gen. 17,5) Deus his verbis explicat, cur patriarchae nomen Aó$ram (pater excelsus) in Abraham (pater multitudinis) mutet. Proxime ibi procul dubio de naturali progenie patriarchae sermo est, qui non tantum duodecim tribuum Israel, sed etiam tribuum ab Ismaele (Gen. 95, 12 sqq.) filiisque Cethurae (Gen. 95,1 sqq.) et ab Esau (Gen. 36,1 sqq.) procreatarum pater secundum carnem fuit. Plenam tamen suam veritatem verba illa non sortiuntur, nisi typico sensu de spirituali semine intelligantur; sollemniora enim ac grandiora sunt, quam quae parvarum istarum tribuum nomadum paternitate impleta dici queant. Maiore autem cum iure Paulus hic a literali ad typicum sensum transiit, quia patriarchae paternitas spiritualis naturali tota innititur (cfr To/. Est. etc.). Namque Abraham ideo, uti antea iam diximus, quia secundum carnem est pater Christi, pater simul omnium eorum est, qui sunt Christi, i. e. eorum qui ex fide sunt ac fide viva Christo capiti suo velut membra inserta unam cum eo constituunt personam mysticam (cfr Gal. 3,296 sqq.). De spirituali autem paternitate se loqui significat eiusque fundamentum iterum indicat, quum Abrahamum omnium nostrum vocat patrem ante Deum cut credidit. Etenim testimonium scripturisticum (uti Vulg. Clem. sua interpunctione recte insinuat) parenthetice est insertum; unde verba ante Deum cum iis, quae parenthesin praecedunt, connectantur oportet. Parum vero apte antiquiores multi lectione erronea (cfr VV. LL. : cui credidisti) seducti allegationem quasi continuari putarunt verbaque illa (ante Deum etc.) cum allegatis coniunxerunt. Coram hominibus igitur — haec est Apostoli sententia — solarum quidem israeliticarum agnatarumque tribuum pater est, sed coram Deo, i. e. ex iudicio et decreto Dei, pater est omnium credentium, idque quia credzdit; fide enim sua factus est pater eorum, qui ipsi fide sua, qua ei assimilantur, in Christum sunt inserti. Deum porro, cui credidit patriarcha, Paulus duobus epithetis velut omnipotentem describit (gui vivificat mortuos et vocat ea quae non sunt ac si essent), quoniam ex persuasione de divina omnipotentia (quemadmodum statim uberius exponet) exoriebatur firmitas fiduciae, qua Abraham illa, quae Deus promiserat, futura esse confidebat. Illa autem epitheta elegit, quae et infinitam virtutem divinam clare enuntient, atque ad historiam Abrahae quadrent allegataque Scripturae verba quodammodo explicent. Emortuam enim generandi vim patriarchae uxorisque eius Deus ad novam vitam resuscilavit, atque gentes, quae nondum aderant neque ex Abrahamo sene procreari posse videbantur, vocavit ac si coram iam adessent, quando ei dixit : patrem multarum gentium posui te. In priore quippe membro (qui vivificat etc.) ad nomen patris, in altero (qui vocat etc.) ad praeteritum posui maxime attendit. In primis verbis sententiae (ante Deum) explicandis secuti sumus antiquiores Latinos, quibuscum moderni fere consentiunt. Graeci vero illud xaxívavi: (ante) idem esse quod éuoivx (similiter, ad instar) aiunt (cfr Chrys. Theod. Theoph. etc.; quos secuti aliqui etiam ex iunioribus Latinis Abrahamum patrem omnium credentium dici censent ad instar Dei, « ut sicut Deus omnium est pater creatione, ita Abraham fieret omnium pater exemplo fidei » (Est. cfr Tol. etc.). Attamen adverbium xarévavt (pro quo profani semper adv. xazevavriov adhibent) in versione alex. satis frequens hebraico 325 vel 22b (ez adverso, coram? respondet eodemque sensu in Novo Test. semper usurpatur (Marc. 11, 9; 13,3: Luc. 19,30; 2 Cor. 2,17; 12,19); quare non apparet, quo cum iure Chrys. dixerit: *ó xacévavetionvópgotwc. Eodem quidem modo, quo Latini, Pot. (cfr Occ.) adverbium explicat, sed integram locutionem xa:zévavrt Ocoz ad verba xx86; téypartat trahit, ut « Scripturam, quia ante Deum et ex persona Dei dicta sit, fide dignam esse » doceatur; verum formula xa8ó« yéyoxz:aw, Paulo usitatissima, eiusmodi appositione non indiget neque eam admittit. — Constructio porro, qua Paulus hic utitur, attractio sc. dativi (xezévave ob ixicztuctv. Qro; pro xazévavit Geo; $ nícttueev) rarior quidem est, sed etiam profanorum in usum recepta; quapropter aliae explicationes (ex. gr. xacévavet ob i. q. xaévavtt ToUtov Ütt propterea quod, aut zireóttv xavévavsl vwo; credere coram aliquo etc.) non tantum superfluae sed etiam ineptae sunt. Ultima sententiae verba, in quibus interpretandis A'rv* aliosque Latinos secuti sumus, diversissime explicantur. Vivificationem mortuorum aliqui de peccatorum iustificalione (cfr Orig. etc.) aut speciatim de Iudaeorum conversione (cfr Herv. Thom. eic.) intelligunt; alii sensu proprio eam ita explicant, ut habeatur comparatio quaedam : sicut Deus mortuos ad vitam revocare potest , ita ex gentibus facere potest filios Abrahae (cfr Chrys. etc.); - alii ad sacrificium Isaaci patri eius imperatum alludi putant (cfr T'ol. Est. etc.), alii alio modo. ltem locutio « vocare ea quae non sunt ac si sint » ab aliis de vocatione gentium ad fidem intelligitur (cfr Orig. etc.), ab aliis de aeterna hominum, qui nondum sunt, electione et praedestinatione ad vitam aeternam (cfr Perer. etc.), ab aliis de creatione (cfr Chrys.) etc. Verum* explicationem quam dedimus utriusque membri quum verbis tum contextui consonare, reliquas magis minusve arbitrarias esse censemus. Postquam hac ratione sermonem ad fidem, qua Abraham iustificatus est, reduxit, Apostolus in ea describenda immoratur, quia similis debet esse fides qua nos iustificamur(v. 23 sqq.). Egregie Herv. : « Incipit commendare fidem Abrahae, ut eam imitemur; saepe enim iam dixerat eum credidisse, et nunc pergit ostendere, quomodo et quam firmiter crediderit ». Solo Dei promittentis verbo nixus, humanis contemtis rationibus, quae divinae promissioni obstabant, patriarcha illa esse futura credidit, quae ei praedicta erant :
4:18
18. qui contra spem (zap' £22) in spem (iz' exi cum Pel. Prim. H Car. etc. lege : in spe) credidit, ut fieret pater (el, «& 4eví£cÜav zaxégai. e. credidit se futurum esse patrem) multarum gentium secundum quod dictum est (ei) : Sic erit semen tuum. Quae in verba bene TAeod. : « Sterilem uxorem seque et illam prae senectute imbecilles videns, ita ut iuxta humanam existimationem nulla suscipiendorum liberorum spes superesset, neque ullum in antiquitate inveniens exemplum quo ad spem erigeretur, cum fide tamen divinam promissionem accepit. Contra spem scilicet Apostolus dicit eam, quae est secundum naturam humanam; in spe autem eam, quae promissioni divinae innititur ». Ad constructionem sententiae quod attinet, verba éz' &kz(à per se quidem ita cum verbo zuwzeietv connecti possunt , ut obiectum fidei quod creditur significent (cfr 9,33; 10,11; 1 Tim. 1,16 etc.), ac revera Vulg. Clem. suo in spem credidit hunc nexum videtur insinuare. Huic tamen constructioni praeprimis obstat, quod sensum parum aptum gignat, nisi nomini spei significationem rei speratae (cfr ad Gal. 5,5) cum nonuullis (Lap. etc.) tribueris; id vero si feceris, pulchrum oxymoron (contra spem in spe) plane destrues, quum priore in loco nomen spei consueta sua significatione sumi oporteat. Praeterea si haee constructio admitteretur, sequentia verba (ei; «» yevéc0xm. xxX ut fieret eic.) finali sensu exponenda essent, id quod non licet; neque enim Abraham eo fine promissioni divinae credidit, ut multarum gentium pater fieret. Rectius igitur cum antiqua versione latina illud àz' &izi:x cum verbo £ziz::55:v ita connectemus, ut fundamentum quasi declaret, quo fides patriarchae nitebatur, atque cum Graecis censemus; obiectum fidei verbis ei; «2 ysví£c0at xxA. enuntiari !. Humanae quippe rationes impletioni promissionis divinae obstare neque ullum locum spei relinquere videbantur ; naturali autem spe destitutus (sine spe vel contra spem «x?' &xzi2x) supranaturali spe, quam ex Dei promittentis omnipotentia omnimodaque perfectione considerata hausit, fretus (Zn spe i. q. sperans iz' £xzízx efr Tol. Est. ete.) credidit se multarum gentium futurum esse patrem suumque semen fore sicut stellas coeli iuxta promissionem : sic erit semen tuum, Quae praestantia fidei Abrahae ut clarius appareat, Paulus illud contra spem in spe quasi exponens ostendit, quomodo patriarcha, quamvis difficultates naturales perspexerit, fide tamen non vacillaverit (v. 19), atque omni exclusa dubitatione fide confortatus Deum glorificaverit agnitione potentiae eius (20.21). Ita enim pergit:
4:19
19. e£ non infirmatus est fide nec consideravit (vel melius iuxta probatiorem lectionem graecam cfr VV. LL. : «xi ui, azüsvi,oxz cà cisci vacsvivoev cum antiquioribus Vulg. codd. : et non infirmatus fide consideravit, i. q. fide non vacillante consideravit) corpus suum emortuum, quum (iam) centum fere esset annorum , et emortuam vulvam Sarae. Sine ullo dubio Apostolus ad promissionem illam respicit, quae (zen. 17,15 sqq. legitur. Quando nimirum Deus patriarchae nonaginta novem annos iam habenti (quum centum fere esset annorum) ex uxore nonagenaria filium Isaac nasciturum praedixit, qui futurus essct in nationes, « cecidit Abraham in faciem suam et risit dicens in corde suo : Putasne centenario nascetur filius et Sara nonagenaria pariet? » Abraham igitur difficultates naturales, quae iuxta hominum existimationem promissioni obstabant, et animadvertit et consideravit (xazevigcey), quum verbis suis eas indicaret; sed fide non vacillante eas consideravit atque hanc promissionem non minore cum fiducia suscepit, quam priorem , quae de Ismaele ei tredecim annis antea facta est (Gen. 15,& sqq.). Sunt quidem, qui cum S. Hier. (c. Pelag. III. 12) in Abrahami risu eiusque verbis dubitationem quandam fideique imperfectionem deprehendere velint; at non tam dubitationem, quam exsultationem admirationemque de promissionis magnitudine risu verbisque eius declarari, alii Patres plerique recte tenent!. Quemadmodum enim verba B. Virginis angelo respondentis : « Quomodo fiet istud » etc. (Luc. 1,35) à Zachariae verbis : « Unde hoc sciam » etc. (Luc. 1,18), quamvis similia esse videantur, sensu prorsus differre et non dubitantis sed stupentis admirantisque fuisse ex diversis angeli responsis evidens est (cfr Ma/d. Schanz, Knabenb. etc.), ita risum Abrahae a Sarae risu (Gen. 18,10 sqq.) differre ex eo elucet, quod Deus ridenti Abrahamo promissionem confirmavit novamque eius petitionem exaudivit, ridentem Saram vituperavit. « Riserat enim, inquit S. Aug. (de civ. Dei XVI. 31), pater, quando ei promissus est (Isaac) admirans in gaudio; riserat et mater, quando per illos tres viros iterum promissus est, dubitans in gaudio; quamvis exprobrante angelo, quod risus ille, etiamsi gaudii fuit, tamen plenae fidei non fuit, post ab eodem angelo in fide etiam confirmata est ». Melior igitur huius loci lectio cum Moysis narratione ad amussim consonat, neque recte moderni aliqui acath. (Mey. Goeb. etc.) Apostolum hic ad Gen. 15,5 sq. potius quam ad Gen. 171,17 attendisse censent; prior enim promissio illa facta est diu antequam Abraham centum fere esset annorum et antequam corpus cius esset emortuum, id quod ex narratione de Ismaelis generatione (Gen. 16,1 sqq.) luculentissime apparet. Minus apte cum mosaica narratione lectio graeci text. rec. et Vulg. Clem. consonat, qua Abraham impedimenta non considerasse dicitur. Ad similem tamen sensum trahitur, si cum antiquioribus interpretibus explicas : « non consideravit ad discernendam promissionem » (Thom.), vel « non sic consideravit, ut propterea diflideret aut assensum fidemque adhibere divinae promissioni differret » (Esz. cfr Tol. [ust. Pic. Beel. M Ev. etc). Durior tamen, ne dicamus coacta, est haec explicatio; unde altera lectio, quae etiam maiore testium auctoritate commendatur, ob internas simul rationes est praeferenda. Ad difficultatem deinde, quod Abraham, quum post Sarae mortem Ceturam uxorem duxisse ex eaque sex filios genuisse narretur, corpus emortuum habuisse dici nequeat, duplici modo S. Aug. (de civ. Dei XVI. 98) iam respondet; primo enim in loco coniicit, Abrahamum, etsi prae senectute sua ex muliere vetula, uti fuit Sara, gignere non potuerit, respectu iuvenculae, uti fuit Cetura, ad gignendum non fuisse impotentem; uti communior autem ita longe probabilior est altera eius responsio, « gignendi donum, quod a Domino (per miraculum) recepit, etiam post obitum mansisse uxoris » (cfr Sed. Thom. Tul. Est. etc., M Ev. Mai. etc. — Weiss elc.). Tantum vero abfuit, ut Abraham vacillante fide impedimenta naturalia consideraret, ut nulla admissa dubitatione fide perfecta Deum glorificaret :
4:20
20. Zn repromissione! etiam (lege : autem 2z) non haesitavit. (33 &zwziz incredulitate), sed confortatus est fide dans gloriam Deo,
4:21
91. plenissime sciens quia quaecumque promisit (cum A"? etc. lege: quae promisit 5 ézfyskzax) potens est et facere. Priori membro, quo Abrahamum spretis impedimentis naturalibus contra spem credidisse significavit, Apostolus alterum opponit (cum graeco enim textu consentiens etiam vetus latina versio in principio v. 20. particulam adversativam autem ££ exhibet cfr A'* Prim. ctc., quo verba zn spe exponens perfectam patriarchae fidem negative ac positive conimendat. Praeprimis enim in promissione Dei, vcl potius ad Dei promissionem quod attinet (si; i» &zxvpistixy 225 O22. simili sensu praepositio e saepius adhibetur 15,2; 2 Cor. 11,10 ctc.). dubitationi, quae in ipsa incredulitate ultimam suam radicem habet ex eaque exoritur (cfr Matth. 21,21), locum non concessit : 2) 22:07, zT, àcizciz d. c. incredulitate illa nota et inter homines tam vulgari /attende ad articulum «5 àzio:zíx) adductus non est, ut in se ipso quasi divisus anceps hacreret aut huc illuc iactatus de promissione ambigeret. Omnis ergo dubitatio plane excluditur, neque intelligo, quomodo recens quidam acath. (Weiss) ex his verbis colligat, Paulum in Abrahae responso (Gen. 17.17) dubitationem quandam momentariam deprehendisse. Neque tantum non haesitavit aut dubitavit patriarcha incredulitate, sed confortatus est fide. Plerique interpretes haec verba superioribus non infirmatus fide (u3y &cüsvísaz v3, «icza)) respondere volunt, ut Abraham n fide crevisse dicatur. ltectius vero, uti ipsa constructio satis iam docet, ea immediate praecedentibus (non haesitavit incredulitate) opponi ita dicemus, ut ablativus fide (-7, «i7-«) sit ablat. instrum. : per fidem nimirum, quam divinae promissioni adhibuit, internum animi robur accepit (£vc- 8uvaj.901,), ut difficultates naturales, quas promissioni sibi factae obstare perspexit, despiciens g/oriam daret Deo. Deum enim glorificat, qui id solum de eo sentit credit praedicatque, quod Deo est dignum eique vere competit : Abraham ergo, quum audita promissione, quae iuxta naturae leges impleri non potuit, fide perfecta omnipotentiam divinam contemplans omni dubitationi aditum praecluderet animumque Deo loquenti plane subiiceret, summam Deo gloriam tribuit. Hanc explicationem Apostolus insinuat, quum patriarcham certissime scivisse (xmpoccprhivac persuasum fuisse) dicit, Deum non tantum promisisse sed etiam suam promissionem implere posse. Haud immerito enim 7o/. adnotat : « illud potens est et facere quae promisit, non solum potentiam significat sed etiam effectum, ut sit sensus : potens est implere et implebit ». Fides igitur, qua interne confortatus Abraham Deo gloriam dedit, non potentiam solam sed etiam veracitatem divinam complectebatur. Itaque propriam suam impotentiam et indignilatem plane intelligens (cfr ad v. 5) sese totum et intellectu (v. 18 sq.) et voluntate (v. 20) Deo per fidem subiecit; quia autem tam perfecte credidit,
4:22
92. ideo et reputatum est illi ad iustitiam (cfr ad v. 3). Aliqui cum Tol. censent, ultimum membrum sententiae supra (v. 3 ex Gen. 15,6) allegatae iterum allegari atque coniunctionem e/ (xa?) non tam ad Apostoli argumentationem, quam ad allegationem pertinere; attamen allegationis nullum est vestigium. Paulus potius verba ista velut sua adhibens coniunclione zai (et) relationem causalem, quae inter Abrahae fidem perfectam eiusdemque iustitiam gratis acceptam intercedit, clarius insinuat. Satis frequenter enim locutio Zi xai vel &à «05:2 xai (ideo et) hoc sensu usurpatur (cfr 1.25 text. rec.; Hebr. 13,19; Luc. 1,35; 11,49; Act. 10,29 ctc.). Eodem quidem modo, quo Gen. 15,6 (cfr supra v. 3), subiectum verbi 2227507, (reputatum est) desideratur et ex praecedentibus suppleatur necesse est; neque tamen idem subiectum supplere licet. Uti enim ibi simplex verbum credere («2 zwzessw) ex praecedente membro (credidit Abraham Deo) velut subiectum addendum esse contextu. edocemur, ita hic iuxta contextum ex tota perfectae fidei descriptione praecedente subiectum desumamus oportet, quum perfectam fidem, qua sese totum Deo subdiderat, patriarchae in iustitiam reputatam esse Apostolus docere velit. . Neque enim fide qualicumque, sed ea sola qua confortatus gloriam dedit Deo, Abraham iustificatus est, ac similem in nobis requiri Apostolus nunc monet, quia ea, quae S. Scripturae de eius iustificatione retulerunt, de nostra iustificatione valeant :
4:23
23. non est autem scriptum tantum propter ipsum, quia reputatum est illi (ad iustitiam),
4:24
2&. sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur (cíg u£kXst «oyizsct« quibus reputabitur ex decreto Dei, vel etiam : quibus reputandum est cfr 8,13; Matt. 11,92; Marc. 13,&; Luc. 9,&&; 1 Thess. 3,& etc.) credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis. Illud ad iustitiam , quod in v. 23 ad complendam sententiam a multis latinis paucisque graecis codd. inseritur, sensui quidem plane congruit, ita ut bonum glossema constituat. ob antiquiorum tamen codd. auctoritatem (cfr VV. LL.) rectius omittitur, sicut etiam in seq. v. 24 ad verbum reputabitur omissum est. Ceterum sententiae sensus est planus. Quod supra (v. 11 sqq. 16) insinuavit, Abrashamum ex fide iustificatum figuram esse ac typum omnium credentium, id Paulus hoc in loco expressius repetit illo principio nixus, quod saepius inculcat, primarium Scripturarum auctorem Deum in eis inspirandis id intendisse, ut omnia quae scriberentur ad nostrum omnium salutem promovendam inservirent (15,4; 1 Cor. 10,11; 9 Tim. 3,16). Itaque etiam illa, quae Spiritu S. movente ac dirigente Moyses de Abrahae iustificatione retulit, ad nostram simul eruditionem exhortationemque conscripta sunt, licet proxime ad patriarchae laudem et commendationem spectent. Illius enim fidem admirantes donumque ei ob hanc fidem divinitus collatum celebrantes edocemur, quid nobis faciendum sit, atque admonemur, ut eadem via ad eundem finem tendamus idemque donum nos obtenturos esse confidamus, quum nobis quoque similiter credentibus fides imputanda sit ad iustitiam. « Sic ergo propter eum, ut sit nobis in exemplum, et propter nos, ut sit nobis in iustificationis spem » (770/4.). Sicut Abrahac igitur iustificatio, nostra quoque est prorsus gratuita ; nam nobis, uti illi, nullis meritis praecedentibus fides imputatur ad iustitiam, fides autem, quae in nobis requiritur, eadem cst, quae fuit Abrahae, sive eius obiectum formale, Dei revelantis promittenlisque auctoritatem (veracitatem ac fidelitatem), sive eius obiectum materiale, Dei omnipotentiam, consideras. Quin etiam nostra fides fidei Abrahae in eo est similis, quod ille in divinam omnipotentiam corpus suum emortuum vivificaturam crediderit (r. 19). nos in eandem omnipotentiam Iesum Christum a mortuis resuscitantem credamus. Isaaci quoque ex emortua matris vulva nativitas, quam certo futuram Abraham contra spem in spe credidit, figura quaedam est resuscitationis Domini a mortuis, quam certo factam esse credere debemus, ut nobis credentibus iustitia a Deo conferatur. « Cur enim, inquit CArys., scriptum id esse dixit, nisi ut nos eadem ratione iustificatum iri disceremus? Eidem quippe Deo credimus easdem res revelanti, etsi non re- . late ad easdem personas ». Quae quodammodo explicans TAeoph. : « Quemadmodum, inquit, Abraham corpus suum emortuum credidit foecundum reddi, ita et tu crede, Iesum mortuum esse et resuscitatum, et imputabitur tibi quoque fides ad iustitiam aeque ac progenitori tuo Abraham ». Ultima demum verba (credentibus in eum qui suscitavit Iesum a mortuis) accuratius definiturus Paulus « mortis et resurrectionis Christi causam exponit, ut manifestet, unde fides virtutem accipiat iustificandi » (Tolet.). Fides resurrectionis Christi quidem, uti bene adnotat Nat., omnium mysteriorum fidem complectitur, quatenus Christi resurrectio velut sigillum est omnium quae fecit pertulitque, docuit ac promisit; praeprimis tamen resurrectionem eius credere non possumus, nisi simul eius mortem, qua salutem nobis promeruit, credamus. His duobus autem factis, morte ac resurrectione Domini, totum redemtionis opus innititur : nisi enim Christus mortuus esset et resurrexisset , iustitiam, quae coram Deo valet, assequi non possemus. Quamobrem in fidei, quae nobis ad iustitiam imputanda sit, descriptione Paulus duo ista facta etiam diserte commemorat : iuxta divinum enim decretum, inquit, fides nobis imputabitur (ufxXet Xoyizec02:) ad. iustitiam credentibus (vc! zuteicozt» vel: quia credimus, vel : si tales simus, qui credamus) in eum, qui suscitavit Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis,
4:25
25. qui traditus est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit (melius : et suscitatus est vx: $ríz0v) propter iustificationem nostram. Christus semet ipsum quidem pro nobis tradidisse (in mortem) alibi dicitur (Gal. 2,20; Eph. 5,9) atque eliam a luda Iudaeisque in mortem traditus dici potest (oan. 19,11: MattA. 20.19 cfr TÀom.); at hoc in loco, uti ex contextu apparet, ab eo in mortem traditus esse insinuatur, a quo eum resuscitatum esse credimus, i. e. a Patre, qui mundum ita dilexit, ut Filium suum unigenitum daret. ac proprio Filio non pepercit sed pro nobis eum tradidit (8,32; Joan. 3,16 etoc.). A Patre autem in mortem traditus est propter delicta nostra (&x «à maprzitjaza $40), 1. e. ut peccata nostra in corpore suo super lignum perferret (1 Petr. 2,24) ac nostra causa, quum peccatum non fecisset nec peccatum cognosceret (1 Petr. 2,92; 2 Cor. 5,921) , peccatum factus vicaria ac satisfactoria sua morte delicta nostra expiaret (praepositione && c. acc. causa finalis indicatur). In priore hoc membro interpretando omnes consentiunt ; haud levis autem est interpretum dissensus, si quaeritur, quo sensu Apostolus addiderit, Christum resuscitatum esse propter tustificationem nostram (ài «i» Sualoco fuv 1. e. ut nos iustificaret). Illud quidem inter omnes cath. ac plerosque acath. convenit, verba ita interpretari non licere, ut Christus, qui morte sua remissionem peccatorum nobis promeruit, resurrectione sua nobis iustificationem seu gratiae sanctificantis infusionem meruisse dicatur. Itaque verba propter iustificationem nostram non tam exponenda sunt : « ut nobis iustitiam acquireret », quam : « ut nos iustitiae participes redderet ». Namque omnia, sanctificationem glorificationemque non minus quam peccatorum remissionem, Christum passione ac morte sua cruenta nobis meruisse et acquisivisse, resurgendo autem mereri non potuisse constat, « quia in statu resurrectionis non fuit viator sed comprehensor » (Thom.); iustificati vero sumus in sanguine ipsius, et quum peccatores essemus, Deo reconciliati sumus per mortem Filii eius (5,9. 10). Quare nemo quoque verba ita cum 4''? interpretari audebit, ut eos, qui ante passionem Domini sint baptizati, solam peccatorum remissionem accepisse, eos autem, qui post resurrectionem sint baptizati, iustificationem adeptos esse dicat; neque enim verbis paulinis neque doctrinae catholicae haec sententia consonat. Qua explicatione praetermissa praecipuas aliorum sententias paucis exponamus. Difficultatem, quod Paulus peccatorum remissionem morti, iustificationem resurreetioni attribuere videtur, eludunt potius quam solvuatii, qui cum Graecis (efr Chrys. Theoph. Oec.) passionem et resurrectionem Christi velut unam actionem Christi completam considerant, qua simul ac semel meruerit peccatorum remissionem et iustificationem (cfr Lap. Tir. Pic?. ctc.); ad singularem enim loquendi modum Apostoli non satis attendunt. Praeeunte S. Aug. (cfr serm. 931,2 : « crucifixus est, ut in cruce ostenderet veteris hominis nostri occasum, et resurrexit, ut in sua vita ostenderet nostrae vitae novitatem ») haud pauci Apostolum similitudinem, quam peccati interitus cum Christi morte, vitae novae infusio cum eius resurrectione habeat, solam significare voluisse arbitrantur (cfr Gl ord. Lomb. Thom. etc., Ag. LR. Sch. etc.). Nescio tamen an haec explicatio verbis Pauli satis congruat, qui ad hunc sensui declarandum simili modo, quo 6,4 sqq., potius scribere debuisset : « Mortuus est, ut nos peccato moreremur, et resurrexit, ut nos iustitiae viveremus ». Neque satis haec explicatio corrigi videtur, si cum Es. (efr Pic!. etc.) dixeris : « Traditus in mortem est, ut sua morte poenam peccatis nostris debitam aboleret, resurrexit vero, ut sua resurvectione typum quendam nobis praeferret resurgendi ad iustitiam »; secundi enim membri explicatio admodum est coacta , ne dicam arbitraria. Alii multi, iterum praeeunte S. Aug. (c. Faust. XVI. 29), resurrectionem hoc in loco a Paulo velut argumentum efficax fidei, qua iustificamur, considerari volunt. Quam explicationem hunc in modum exponit Cai. : « Nisi Christus resurrexisset, non fuissemus nos iustificati & peccatis nostris, quamvis mortuus fuisset ac solvisset pretium pro nobis, quoniam non credidissemus; sed ex eo quod resurrexit , credimus ac per hoc pervenit ad nos iustificatio » (cfr Prim. Herv. etc., Sasb. Perer. Nat. e&c., Reith. MEv. etc.). Cui interpretationi, quam aptam probabilemque esse censemus, alteram similem, quae nobis probabilior esse videtur, ex Tolet. (cfr Mai. etc.) adiungimus : « Dicitur Christus mortuus propter delicta nostra, quia morte sua pretium peccatorum nostrorum solvit, nec solum pretium peccatorum, sed etiam pretium iustitiae ac salutis. Hoc totum tamen satis non erat, ut nos huius redemtionis effectum consequeremur; oportebat enim haec annuntiari mundo, ut credentes et ea exhibentes, quae ordinata a Deo erant tamquam media, quibus virtus redemtionis applicaretur, iustitiam et salutem consequeremur. Si enim Christus mortuus tantum esset ac pretium redemtionis exhibuisset, omnes periremus, sicut multi nunc pe-- reunt, qui notitiam redemtionis non habent. Oportebat ergo mittere per mundum Apostolos et annunciatores salutis ac redemtionis, ut hi, qui redemti erant, iustificarentur ac salutem consequerentur fide et remediis institutis a Deo. Propter hoc ergo resurrexit Christus; nam (ex ordinatione Dei) ante resurrectionem non erant Apostoli mittendi nec salus facta annuncianda. Ideo dicitur resurrezisse propter tustirficationem nostram, nempe ut redemtio per mortem eius facta nobis applicaretur et nos fructum eius participaremus... Aeterna nimirum sua dispositione Deus decrevit, ut Spiritus S. non descenderet nec Apostoli salutem mundo annuntiarent nisi post Christi resurrectionem, ut, quamvis morte fuerit facta redemptio et satisfactio completa ex parte Christi, non tamen communicaretur hominibus generaliter et in universum nisi post resurrectionem ; tunc enim tradita est potestas Evangelii omnibus praedicandi, baptismi omnibus dandi, remittendi peccata » etc. QUANTA BIT EVANGELII VIRTUS IN SALUTE CONFERENDA SEU DE FRUCTIBUS IUSTITIAE FIDEI (5,1-8,99). Postquam thesin suam, Evangelium virtutem Dei esse in salutem omni credenti, i. e. veram iustitiam, a qua salus aeterna dependet, non nisi per fidem evangelicam in Iesum Christum obtineri, omnibus autem credentibus, sive Ethnici fuerint sive Iudaei, pari modo conferri, in superioribus demonstravit, B. Apostolus ad eam explanandam commendandamque transit. Quem in finem proprietatibus vel potius utilitatibus fructibusque iustitiae quae ex fide est enumeratis descriptisque accuratius ostendit, quae sit salutis per Evangelium credentibus allatae vera natura ac ratio, ac proinde quanta sit Evangelii virtus in salutem !. Quadripartita autem est haec sectio, quum quatuor fructus enumerentur fusiusque exponantur. Ac primum quidem eos, qui ex fide sunt iustificati, a divina ira liberatos pacem ad Deum ac spem futurae gloriae per Christum habere Apostolus monet (5,1-21). Deinde eos neque amplius esse servos peccati, utpote cum moriente Christo peccato mortuos et ad novam iustitiae vitam resuscitatos (6,1-23), neque amplius ob eandem rationem sub Legis servitute degere docet (7,1-25). Quarto demum in loco ad primum quodammodo fructum reversus, quae el quanta sit beatitudo ac dignitas hominis ex fide in Christum renati, diligentius explicat; nihil enim iam damnationis eum habere sed Spiritu S. accepto eum filium adoptivum esse Dei et coheredem Christi futuraeque suae gloriae certum (8,1-30). Tot vero tantasque utilitates, quas fidei iustitia secum affert considerans totam sectionem magnifico epilogo terminat, quo iustificatis nihil asserit esse timendum, omnia vero speranda (8,31-39). seu de iustificatorum pace cum Deo ac spe gloriae (5,1-21). Iram suam Deum in omnes infideles, quum ethnicos tum ludaeos, revelareB. Paulus in negativa sua argumentatione ostenderat ; ad quam demonstrationem nunc respiciens primum fructum, quem iustitia fidei secum affert, dicit esse pacem cum Deo ac gloriae futurae spem , quae ab illa pace dependet. Duae autem sunt huius expositionis partes; in priore enim Christum nosab ira divina liberasse Deoque reconciliasse , pacem igitur nostram cum Deo restituisse ac futurae nostrae gloriae spem nobis recuperasse ostendit (5,1-11). Ne quis vero difficultatem in eo inveniat, quod Christus vicaria sua morte pro nobis satisfecisse nosque Deo reconciliasse dicatur, in altera parte salutem , quam Christus pro omnibus satisfaciens nobis acquisivit, cum condemnatione, quam primus noster parens, Adam, peccato suo in omnes suos posteros attraxit, ita comparat, ut per Christi obedientiam effectus inobedientiae Adami sublatos esse appareat (5,12-21). 1. — Chrislus credentibus pacem cum Deo gloriaeque spem acquisivit (5,1-11). Primum igitur fructum, quo iustitia fidei sese commendat, Paulus pacem dicit esse cum Deo, qua per Christum, per quem etiam ad iustificationis gratiam pervenerint, iustificati fruantur, atque futurae gloriae spem (1.2); quaespes tanta sit, ut iustificati de ipsis quoque tribulationibus gloriari possint, quandoquidem mercedis aeternae, quippe cuius arrham, Spiritum S., iam acceperint, certi sint (3-5). Quam assertionem argumento quasi a fortiore probat ; maximum enim caritatis suae documentum ait Christum nobis exhibuisse pro nobis, quum adhuc impii essemus, morientem (6-8); unde nos concludere vult, multo magis nunc, quum sanguine eius simus iustificati, nos liberos fore a divina ira (v. 9), nosque, utpote Deo morte Filii eius reconciliatos, a Filio glorificato salutem esse adepturos (v. 10), quin etiam de ea iam nobis gloriandum esse in Deo, quia eam certa spe iam teneamus (v. 11). 1. Iustificati ergo ez fide, pacem habeamus (lege : habemus) ad Deum per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum. Arcte novam sectionem Paulus priori adiungit primis suis verbis ea complexus, quae in superioribus demonstravit; nos enim ez fide iustificari est conclusio, quae praecedente argumentatione legitime colligitur. In via autem, qua iustitiam adipiscimur, monstranda et explananda non amplius moratur, sed ad lectores, quos aeque ac se ipsum iam ex fide iustificatos esse novit , conversus primo in loco, ut quae quantaque sit felicitas iustificatorum declaret, illud beneficium ponit, quod cum iustificatione intime est coniunctum ac reliquorum quasi fundamentum constituit : pacem habemus ad Deum. Natura eramus filii irae (EpA. 2,3) abalienati a Deo eiusque inimici (Col. 1,21); eo ipso autem, quod ex fide sumus iustificati, in gratiam Dei sumus recepti eique reconciliati salvi sumus ab ira eius, translati, quippe ex statu inimicitiae ad Deum in statum pacis ad Deum, ut cum eo iam tamquam amici eius vivamus. Fuerunt qui pacem ad Deum hic intelligerent Christianorum inter se concordiam, quae ad Deum esse dicatur, quia ei sit grata acceptaque, quatenus nimirum « inter se non disceptent neque alii de antiquae Legis operibus, alii de nova Christi vocatione praesumtive glorientur » (Haym. cfr «w£; apud Chrys., Oec?. etc., Herv. Lomb!. ctc.). Quam explicationem vix non omnes cum Chrys. recte reiiciunt velut verbis ipsis contextuique parum consonam. Satis clare enim Apostolus se de ea pace ad Deum vel cum Deo loqui insinuat, quam homo possidet, quando ab ira Dei salvus (v. 9) neque amplius ex eius inimicis est (v. 10). Haec autem pax est beneficium divinum, quod per Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum habere dicimur, quia Deus in Christo nos sibi reconciliavit non imputans nobis peccata nostra (cfr ad 2 Cor. 5, 18). Qui ad genuinum, quem proposuimus, sensum locutionis pacem ad Deum habere attenderit, lectionem habeamus (É4ousv) parum. aptam dicere non dubitabit, quamvis magna testium auctoritate sese commendet atque a modernis textus graeci editoribus criticis (Lachm T'reg. Tisch. W II) sit recepta. Namque pax, de qua agitur, Dei est donum ab eoque dependet, qui hominem sibi reconciliat in suamque gratiam amicitiamque recipit atque ipse Christum proposuit propitiationem in sanguine ipsius (3,25); atqui ab homine eam dependere dicendum esset, ita ut quodammodo homo Deum in suam gratiam reciperet, si exhortativus habeamus hoc in loco esset retinendus. Quam difficultatem nonnulli effugere quidem conantur verbo habendi (£jsw) sensum retinendi conservandique attribuentes Paulique sententiam ila interpretantes, ut pacem, quam in iustificatione accepimus, nostra ex parte evitatis peccatis conservare iubeamur : « Pacem habeamus i. e. ne ultra peccemus neque ad priora revertamur; hoc enim est bellum habere ad Deum » (Chrys. etc.). At Apostolus, si id monere voluisset, pro Éjyousv (habeamus) alio verbo aptiore (xexégouev retineamus , «»p&pev conservemus) procul dubio usus esset. Praeterea hoc in loco, uti bene £st. adnotat, « nondum adhortationi sed doctrinae intendit Apostolus »; id quod satis apparet, quum orationem suam indicativis (et gloriamur... sed et gloriamur) continuet indeque a v. 6. (atque etiam iam v. 2) nos pacem cum Deo revera habere demonstret, minime vero nos eam habere aut conservare debere moneat. Haud sine ratione igitur iuniores ac moderni interpretes, cath. et acath., non obstante criticorum testium auctoritate, indicativum (habemus Éyousv) praetulerunt (cfr Cai. Tol. Est. Tust. Lap. etc., Beel. Mai. Bisp. Ag. etc. — God. Weiss. Lips. etc.). Antequam vero fusius accuratiusque exponat, quae et quanta sit iustificatorum pax, Apostolus nos eam per Jesum Christum mediatorem habere quasi parenthetice confirmat :
4:1
εὑρηκέναι placé après ἡμῶν dans la tradition syrienne (K et Pesh.) ἃ amené l’exégèse : « qu'a trouvé Abraham selon la chair? » qui s'est maintenue chez les latins. Mais εὑρηχένχι avant ‘Afsxgu est attesté par l'accord des autres textes. L'omission dans B et deux autres mss. n'est pas assez appuyée (contre Liets.) et s'explique par la difliculté du mot. D’après Lipsius, SH., c'est un objectant qui prend la parole, et Paul répond au v. 2 ἀλλ᾽ οὐ, #14. Mais il serait trop dur de couper l'argumentation du v. 2 (cf. infra). C'est donc Paul qui parle tout le temps, se posant à lui-même des questions, comme depuis ini, 27, et, spécialement ici, au point de vue juif. Cependant même un juif n'aurait pas demandé ce qu'Abraham avait trouvé selon la chair, voulant dire « en recevant la circoncision ». À la question : « Quel est donc l'avantage d’Abra= ham selon la chair? » on répondrait : « aucun! mais Abraham n'a pas cherché cela ». Il faut donc très naturellement joindre « notre père selon la chair νυ; cf. Rom. 1, 8; 1x, 3.5; 1 Cor. x, 18. « Selon la chair » n'est pas inutile; nous ne sommes pas encore au thème de la paternité spirituelle d'Abraz ham. Paul se met bien dans la pensée d'un juif. Abraham, type le plus accompli de la justice, a sûrement trouvé grâce devant Dieu. Comment lui appliquer le nouveau mode expliqué au chapitre précédent? Nous mentionnerons seulement pour mémoire la construction proposée par quelques exégètes allemands et encore soutenue par Zahn. I ΠΕ : « Que dirons-nous donc? Que nous n'avons trouvé dans Abraham un ancêtre que selon la chair ? » Il faudrait sous-entendre ἣμᾶς, et pour aboutir à une impasse, car on ne peut rattacher cette phrase à ce qui suit. Dans les trois cas où Paul détache un τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν suivi d'une proposition invraisemblable;“il répond par un μὴ γένοιτο (vi, 1; vit, 7; 1x, 45).
4:2
Les mots ont leurs difficultés, puis la construction. l'éo, de l’aveu général, ne lie pas d'une causalité stricte. Ce n'est guère plus que « en effet »: une simple liaison du discours. ἐδιχαιώθη ne se rapporte évidemment pas au moment où Abraham ἃ comparu devant Dieu pour être jugé, non plus qu'à un jugement d'entrée dans les biens messianiques. Il s'agit d'un moment de la vie d'Abraham caractérisé par l'Écriture. Le sens de déclaré juste dans un jugement solennel qui convenait à u, 13 est donc exclu ici. On peut l'entendre au sens de reconnu juste, à savoir par l'autorité de l'Écriture. Justin : οὐδὲ γὰρ ᾿λόραχ". διὰ τὴν περιτομὴν δίχαιος εἶναι ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐμαρτυρήθη, ἀλλὰ διχ τὴν πίστιν (Dial, xcn, 8). Cependant nous prouvons plus loin, p. 125 ss., que διχαιοῦσθαι peut avoir le sens de « devenir juste » et ce sens conviendrait peut-être ici; on peut se glorifier d'être reconnu juste, mais combien plus d'être devenu juste! d'autant que ἐξ ἔργων aurait aussi son plein sens, devenir juste en accomplissant des œuvres. — καύχημα peut signifier glorilication, presque comme καύχησις (ur, 27). Cependant il est incontestable que cette dernière forme exprime mieux l'action. Il est donc possible que καύγημα signifie seulement un titre à l'honneur. Cette nuance n’a pas grande importance pour le sens. Venons à la construction de ce verset qui suppose nécessairement qu'on pressent déjà le verset suivant. D'après Origène, Chrysostome, Augustin, Thomas etc., le raisonnement est celui-ci, très clairement énoncé par Aug. Ait apostolus : Certe notum est nobis οἱ manifestum quia Abraham ad Deum habet gloriam; et si ex operibus tustificatus est Abraham, habet gloriam, sed non ad Deum : ad Deum autem habet gloriam; non ergo ex operibus iustiicatus est. Voilà pour le côté négatif de la question. Voici pour le v. 3 : δὲ ergo non ex operibus iustificatus est Abraham. unde iustificatus est? Loquitur, et dicit unde : Quid enim Scriptura dicit? id est, unde dicit Seriptura iustificatum Abraham? Credidit autem Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad tustitiam. Ergo ex fide iustificatus est Abraham (In psalm. xxx, P. L. XXXVI, 259). La difficulté de ce système, c'est qu'on doit sous-entendre qu’Abraham a de quoi se glorifier auprès de Dieu, ce qui n'est guère en harmonie avec ur, 27. Dans le système de la foi, la glorification est exclue. Tous les modernes (sauf Zahn), même Cornely, Prat, Toussaint, aboutissent à la même conclusion essentielle que les anciens, mais en expliquant la construction autrement. L'objectant suppose comme une chose évidente que tout le monde rend gloire à Abraham pour ses œuvres. Paul ne le nie pas, et c'est pourquoi il emploie la forme positive ἔχει καύχημα au lieu de l'hypothétique : εἶχεν ἂν καύχημα. Mais il ajoute cette restriction : ἀλλ᾽ οὐ πρὸς Θεόν. Quelques-uns (Soden) mettent un point après καύχημα. On supposerait que le début du verset appartiendrait à un objectant : Paul prendrait ici la parole et dirait vivement : mais il n’a pas lieu de se glorifier auprès de Dieu! Cette tournure assez compliquée ne s'impose pas. ᾿λλλά est l’apodose de la conditionnelle et, dont il restreint le sens, comme dans Platon {Lach. 183 ἃ): εἰ à ἐκείνους ἐλελήθει, ἀλλ᾽ οὐ τούτους γε... λέληθεν. On sous-entend naturellement ἔχει. Corn. ἃ répondu par un syllogisme à celui de saint Augustin : δὲ Abraham ex operibus iustificatus est, habet unde glorietur; at non habet unde glorietur apud Deum.… ergo er operibus iustificatus non est. L'argument tient sans une confirmation que Corn. a cru devoir y ajouter et qui ne porterait pas. Α la place où nous avons mis des points, il y ἃ dans son texte : (πρὸς Θεόν S. Aug. ἰ. c. significantius : ad Deum, i. e. adversus Deum). Mais on ἃ vu qu'Augustin ne donnait nullement à ad le sens d'adversus; ce n’est point non plus le sens de πρός avec χαυγᾶσθαι, et si ces mots ne sont pas synonymes de χαυγᾶσθαι ἐν Θεῷ, ils disent la même chose que χαυγᾶσθαι ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ. On peut donc entendre πρός favorablement; cf. δοῖ(ἐν) got ὁ Σάραπις χαὶ ἡ ‘sis ἐπαφροῦδισίχν χάριν, μορφὴν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα χαὶ τὴν βασίλισσαν (βαρ. D Leid. 11; cf. Καὶ Leid. 10, apud HERWERDEX, Lexicon, verbo μορφή). De même dans Xénophon (Comm. I, n, 61) : Σωχράτης rai πρὸς τοὺς ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους κόσμον τῇ πόλει παρεῖχε. On peut donc préférer apud de la Vs. au ad de saint Augustin, et, en tout cas, ce dernier ne doit pas être synonyme de adeersus. Mais gloriationem ou unde glorietur rendrait mieux καύχημα que gloriam.
4:3
lei γάρ a toute sa valeur ; qu'Abraham n'ait pas de glorification auprès de Dieu, cela résulte d’un texte formel. La citation est empruntée à Gen. xv, 6, textuel sauf ’Aécaiu pour ‘Afsau οἱ à dans Paul au lieu de zx dans nos éditions; mais comme δέ convient moins au contexte de Paul, c'est donc qu'on ἃ corrigé dans les mss. des LXX le texte primitif grec pour obtenir plus de ressemblance avec l’hébreu. De plus, dans l’hébreu, le second verbe est à l'actif, non au passif : « etil crut Tahvé (grec, syr. Vule. en Dieu), et il lui compta cela comme justice ». C'est presque l'expression de satisfaction que lahvé accorde à ceux qui observent la loi {(Dt. vi, 25; χχιν, 43); il n’est pas directement question de la justification première d'Abraham, mais du mérite de son acte de foi, mérite tel qu'il équivaut à une œuvre parfaite. L'acte de foi porte sur la postérité d'Abraham qui doit posséder le pays de Canaan. Depuis longtemps déjà il se conduisait en fidèle serviteur de lahvé. La traduction grecque rend assez bien le sens, malgré le passage de l'actif au passif. εἰς δικαιοσύνην n'est point une locution hébraïque (contre Cornely); on trouve dans Xénophon : yerματα... εἰς ἀργύριον λογισθέντα (Cyr. LIT, 1, 83) « biens... valant en argent... La préposition et; pourrait paraître un simple équivalent de l'hébreu ἢ après 2Ùn, comme dans les cas suivants : ἐλογίσατο αὐτὴν ᾿λεὶ εἰς μεθύουσαν (1 Regn. 1, 43); ἐλογίσατο ἄδυσσον εἰς πεοίπατον (Job, χε, 23 [24]}; ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Ps. cv [ον], 81); τὸ Χερμὲλ εἰς δρυμὸν λογισθήσεται (Is. ΧΧΙΧ, 17; ΧΧΧΙ, 15), mais εἰς se trouve aussi sans 9, tant la tournure paraissait exacte pour indiquer une équivalence, par exemple : τὰ νόμιμα αὐτῶν εἰς ἀλλότρια ἐλογίσθηsav, Où εἰς remplace %22 (Os. virr, 12), et εἰς οὐδὲν ἐλογίσθησαν, où rien ne représente εἰς (Is. xL, 17). Dans aucun des textes qu'on vient de citer, la mise en compte, l'enregistrement d'une valeur ne suppose un défaut de proportion entre ce qui est fourni ou qui paraît tel et l'estimation. On peut se tromper, comme dans le cas d'IHéli, mais nulle part le déficit de la prestation n'est constaté pour être comblé. La même formule est appliquée à Phinéès pour un acte de zèle (Ps. cv, 31). Le sens de la Genèse n'est donc certainement pas que la foi a permis d'imputer une justice absente, ni que la justice a été donnée en retour de la foi. Mais le texte n'aurait-il pas pris un sens différent dans le contexte de Paul? On sait que les Luthériens appuient sur ce verset leur justice imputée : Abraham crut en Dieu et cette foi suMit pour que Dieu le déclarût juste sans qu'il le fût. C'est insérer ici un systéme aussi contraire au bon sens qu’à la doctrine de Paul. Le P. Cornely, lui, introduit dans le texte une doctrine catholique et paulinienne, quand il dit en parlant de la foi d'Abraham : éd est a benignissimo Deo ita acceptata, ut illius respectu altius donum (iustitiam) ei conferret et in eius rationes inferret. Gette doctrine, si juste qu'elle soit en elle-même, est trop étrangère à Ja Genèse pour être le premier sens que Paul ἃ vu dans ce verset. On s'appuie pour l'établir sur le sens de λογίζεσθαι plus loin. Mais ceci appartient aux νυ. 4 et 5, qui commencent par δέ, non par τάς. Nous avons le droit de prendre le verset 3 comme ayant une double portée : c'est la preuve qu'Abraham ἃ été dit juste à cause de sa foi, non à cause de ses œuvres; c'est aussi le point de départ d'un raisonnement qui cherche dans les termes mêmes de l'Écriture l'explication de la manière dont la justice ἃ été acquise. Mais puisque la pensée de Paul est en mouvement, le devoir de l'exégète est de fixer avec précision chacun des moments de cette pensée. Au v. 3 nous n'avons aucune explication sur la manière dont Abraham a acquis ou reçu la justice, nous savons seulement que lorsque Dieu l'a déclaré juste, ce fut en suite de sa foi, non en suite de ses œuvres. Si Paul s'était arrêté au v. 3, on ne pourrait dire rien de plus. L’explication la plus exacte de la portée de son texte comme preuve de sa thèse principale est dans des textes analogues des Jubilés, à propos de l'action de Siméon et de Lévi à Sichem. Cette action « leur fut (comptée) pour justice, et cela est consigné en leur faveur par écrit pour justice... ». Et spécialement de Lévi : « Ainsi on écrivit comme un témoignage en sa faveur sur les tables divines, bénédiction et justice devant Dieu » (Jubilés, xxx, 17 et 19). Seulement Paul remplace l’action par la foi. C'était done la foi qui comptait, non les œuvres. La these du chap. πὶ s’appliquait donc à Abraham. Mais en même temps un problème était soulevé : d'où venait cette justice qui ne s'était pas faite par les œuvres? C'est le problème qui occupe Paul dans les versets suivants. et pour la solution duquel il se sert. en les glosant, des termes mêmes du v. 8. Avant d'y arriver, disons un mot de la traduction latine : ef reputatum est illi ad tustitiam. La lournure grecque λογίζεσθαι εἰς ne pouvait pas sans inconvénient être traduite trop littéralement en latin. Par exemple Gen. xv, 6 eût dû être rendu et computavit id ei pro tustitia où tustitiam. 8. Jérôme semble avoir évité ailleurs une transcription trop littérale. Dans les textes cités ci-dessus il ἃ traduit : aestimavit ergo eam Heli temulentam \(Regn.); acstimabit abyssum quasi senescentem (Job); quae velut alienae computatae sunt (Os.); quasi nihilum.… reputatae sunt (Is. xL, 17), mais cependant : ἐπ saltum reputabitur (Is. xxix, 17 et xxx11, 15}. Le traducteur de la Sagesse : εἰς χαἰδδηλον ἐλογίσθημεν αὐτῷ, tanquam nugaces aestimati sumus ab illo (Sap. τι, 16). Ordinairement cependant εἰς est représenté dans l’ancienne latine par ἐπ, Ps. cv (αν), 81; Sap. nt, 17: 1x. 6, sauf précisément dans le cas de Gen. xv, 6, reproduit 1 Macch. v, 52 et imité pour Phinéès, Ps. cv (ei), 31, où l'ancienne latine ἃ employé ad. C'est probablement parce que la tournure avait acquis droit de cité, surtout pour Abraham, et à cause de l'usage du N. T., que Jérôme a traduit Gen. xv, 6, credidit Abram Deo et reputatum est illi ad tustitiam, en serrant l’hébreu beaucoup moins qu'il ne le faisait d'ordinaire. L'ancienne latine, du moins dans son état primitif, portait, soit dans la Genèse (contre Sabatier), soit dans Romains : deputatum.… ad iustitiam et non reputatum (de même le traducteur d’Irénée [IV, v, 5]; 5. Cyprien, £p. LXIIT). On peut regretter le changement, d'autant qu'on a abusé de ce reputatum dans le sens luthérien : Reputatio enim eius non in nobis nec in potestate nostra est. Erso nec tustilia nostra in nobis est nec in potestate nostra (Lurner, Commentaire de 1515, II, p. 10%). Reputare suggère l'idée de « regarder comme », tandis que deputare même avec ad signifie « mettre au compte de » : sancitae animae ad gloriae augmenta deputant quidquid contra carum mMeritum accusator ingesserit (Ennodius. Opusc. 7, 4, dans Thes.). Tertullien ἃ toujours employé deputare et jamais ad : Abraham Deo credidit, et iustitiae deputatus ab illo est (De patientia, νὴ; quando credidit Abraham Deo, et deputatum est ei in tustitiam (Monog. Ni); Si enim Abraham Deo credidit et deputatum est tustitiae (Adv. Marc. ν, 3).
4:4
. Nous avons tenu à laisser au v. 3 son sens propre. Du verbe λογίζεσθαι on ne fera jamais sortir le don de la justice. Car ni en lui-même, ni dans l'emploi qu'en fait Paul, ce verbe ne signifie marquer à l'acquis plus qu'on n’a reçu; cf. Rom. 11, 26 : « son prépuce vaudra circoncision sera vraiment l'équivalent de la circoncision; Rom. 1x, 8 : « ceux-là sont estimés pour la race », sont la vraie race: Act. χιχ, 27 : « sera réduit à rien ». Mais ce qui ne sortait pas du verbe lui-même pouvait sortir du verbe employé dans une certaine circonstance, c'est-à-dire quand il n’y avait pas d'œuvres. Paul ne se livre pas à un puéril #idrach sur un mot, il table sur la conclusion déjà acquise : la justice mise au compte d'Abraham sans qu'il ait fait d'œuvres... Que doit-on dire en pareil tas? δέ indique à sa façon qu'il s’agit moins d'expliquer le texte qui précède (ce qui exigerait γάρ), que de tabler sur tout ce qui précède. Paul distingue deux façons de mettre au compte, soit qu'on ait rempli des obligations contractées, et c'est λογίζεσθαι κατὰ ὀφείλημα, soit que le maître ou le patron tienne quitte, et alors c'est λογίζεσθα: χατὰ γάριν. La comparaison parallélique est parfaitement satisfaisante, et ce scrait introduire arbitrairement une idée nouvelle que de suppléer δίδοται après ὀφείλημα. 1 y ἃ parabole et non pas allégorie; il est inutile de se demander si la récompense représente la justice ou le bonheur céleste. Nous savons seulement que dans le cas des œuvres il y a règlement de rigueur. Mais nous savons aussi que ce n'est pas le cas d'Abraham. Le verset 5 amène un cas qui est précisément celui d'Abraham, puisqu'il ne comporte pas d'œuvres. Si l’antithèse eût été poussée selon un parallélisme exact, on allait à ertte conclusion : mais, quand l'ouvrier n'a pas travaillé, le compte est reconnu juste par une pure faveur. Mais, comme il arrive souvent, Paul a déjà en vue l'acte qu'il avait voulu éclaircir par une comparaison, il quitte le terrain de la comparaison pour expliquer que celui qui n'a pas les œuvres, c'est quelqu'un qui ne peut que recourir à Dieu pour obtenir le compte de faveur. 11 semble qu’en même temps sa pensée s'éloigne d'Abraham pour aborder le cas le plus scabreux, celui qui par conséquent mettra le mieux en relief les traits de sa doctrine. Oui, l'impie lui-même, s'il eroit en cclui qui peut rendre juste l'impie. un pourra dire de lui que sa foi lui est comptée comme justice, ce qui revient à dire, si Dieu ne ment pas, que Dieu ἃ donné la justice. On voit que nous donnons à διχαιοῦντα le sens « rendant juste ». 1 s'impose en effet. Car δικαιόω à laclif ne peut signifier pardonner : il faut que ce soit déclarer juste ou rendre juste. Que Dieu déclare juste celui qui est impie, c'est une proposition blasphématoire. Mais de plus quand se ferait cette déclaration? dans quel jugement solennel? Si on disait que Dieu déclare juste l'impic, non pas en lui-même, mais parce qu'il le voit couvert par la justice de Jésus-Christ, ce serait toujours contraire à la doctrine de Paul, qui admet une justice intrinsèque, mais où y a-t-il le moindre indice de cette doctrine dans ce chapitre relatif à PA. T.? Il faut donc comprendre que Dieu à le pouvoir de rendre juste celui qui ne l'est pas, et qu'il en use. Pour mieux établir l'accord des deux Testaments, Paul ἃ choisi une formule qui rappelle m1, 26. Notons aussi que cette fois λογίζεσθαι suppose à lui seul une faveur, mais c’est en raison du contexte, et avec le sujet « la foi ». « La foi est comptéc comme justice », signifie : la foi est tout ee que demande Dieu en donnant la justice. Aussi bien la pensée va toujours en avant, au lieu de remonter en arrière, et ces mots sont moins l'explication du v. 5 qu'ils ne sont une proposition prouvée par ce qui suit pour son sens particulier. Dans la Fe. on préférerait que λογίζεσθαι soit toujours rendu par deputari, au lieu de imputart, reputari. Effacer secundum propositum gratiaee Dei (\VW.;.
4:6
Ce verset se lie étroitement au précédent. David ne vient pas là pour son exemple personnel, mais comme auteur inspiré, parlant au nom de Dieu, et auteur des psaumes. Le μακαρισμός n'est pas « le bonheur », mais presque « une déclaration de bonheur, une félicitation »; ef. Clém. R. L, 7. Paul aurait dit aussi bien μαχαρίζει; sa tournure est seulement un peu plus solennelle. — Les protestants ont appuyé sur ce verset leur justice imputée. $. Paul établit simplement que l’on peut être juste sans les œuvres, par le cas sans réplique de celui qui vient d'être pardonné. Puisque Dieu par la bouche de David le déclare heureux, c'est done qu'il est juste, ou, d'après les termes de la citation de la Genèse, qu'il lui compte justice où il n'a pas d'œuvres. Le Vs.-Clém. met un point avant sicut (de même WW.); c'est rompre τα Ieureux ceux dont les iniquités ont été remises, et dont les péchés ont été recouverts; * heureux l'homme auquel le Seigneur ne compterait pas de péché! » l'enchaînement de la phrase. Elle ἃ rendu cette fois λογίζετα: par accepto fert, « il porte en compte » comme suflisant. Jet 8) Ps. xxxr (xxx), 1 et 2. Soden lit ᾧ où et non οὗ οὐ, qui est moins cuphonique, mais a pour cela même plus de chances d’être original. Cornely tient beaucoup à mettre en scène David pécheur repentant. Mais la théologie enseigne qu'après le pardon les anciennes œuvres revivent. L’argument de Paul serait-il meilleur ainsi? En réalité, David, comme psalmiste et au nom de Dieu, déclare heureux celui dont les péchés sont pardonnés. C’est donc qu'il est juste aux yeux de Dieu, sans les œuvres. L'exemple d'Abraham prouvait mieux le côté positif de la question, que Dieu déclare juste celui qui a la foi, sans tenir compte de ses œuvres comme telles; l'exemple du pécheur justifié prouve mieux le côté négatif, qu'on peut être juste sans les œuvres. Cependant la foi est supposée, au v. 5, ce qui prouve la liaison des idées de 5 à 8. Les péchés remis, les péchés couverts, les péchés non imputés, sont différentes manières de dire que le péché n'existe plus aux yeux de Dieu. Dire avec les luthériens qu'il existe encore, c'est supposer que Dieu use d'une fiction pour ne pas en tenir compte ou le recouvre pour ne pas le voir! Imputabit (WW). est plus près du grec que imputavit; lire imputaret.
4:9
Cornely regarde ce verset comme la conclusion des précédents, posée sous forme d'interrogation : ne ressort-il pas des paroles de David, qui parle de l’homme sans distinction, que la doctrine de la justification s'applique à tous, sans distinction de Juifs et de non-circoncis? Mais c'est une interrogation véritable, et la solution est fournie par ce qui suit (Æstius). La question n’est pas de savoir si la félicitation, s'appliquant de droit en cas de circoncision, peut s'appliquer aux gentils, mais simplement : cette félicitation qui s’est rencontrée historiquement, comme le prouve le psaume, dans la circoncision, pourrait-elle aussi s'appliquer à des non-circoneis? C’est dans l'Écriture qu'il faut chercher la réponse. Or elle est contenue dans le texte cité de Gen. xv, 6. γάρ s'explique comme au v. 3, quand il s'agit de faire une preuve par l’Écriture. La Ve.-Clém. ajoute tantum manet (om. WW.); cf. uovoy dans D E etc.
4:10
En fait la justice fut marquée à Abraham avant la circoncision. Dès lors il était juste et la circoncision n'y était pour rien. Paul suppose que ses auditeurs connaissent bien les textes de la Genèse, où la circoncision ne parait que dans notre ch. xvir, 10. Ce texte suggère que Paul à eu en vue de quelque manière la justification d'Abraham. Quelques anciens Pères, s'attachant aux textes de la Genèse selon leur portée historique. ont refusé de croire que Paul ait fait allusion à sa première justification. Il est en effet impossible de supposer, quand on lit la Genèse selon l’ordre des faits, qu'Abraham soit demeuré pécheur jusqu'au moment marqué par Gen. xv, 6. Chrysostome a donc distingué nettement le cas d'Abraham de celui du pécheur : que celui, dit-il en substance, qui n'a rien fait de bon, soit justifié par la foi, cela n’est pas tellement admirable; mais que cet homme si grand par ses actes ne soit juste que par sa foi, voilà l'éloge suprême de la foi. Euthym. : τὸ ὃξ τὸν χολῶντα ἐν χατορῃώμασ! μὴ Ex τούτῶν διχαιωθῆναι, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ πίστεως, τοῦτο ἣν τὸ θαυμαστὸν χαὶ μάλιστα τῆς πίστεως τὴν ἰσχὺν ἐμφαῖνον. C'était aussi l'opinion de 5. Jérôme que la foi d'Abraham était animée par la charité (44 Gal. im, 6). Estius pensait encore que la justification dont parle Paul fut un progrès dans la justification. Or s. Thomas n'a rien dit dans ce sens, et en etfet l'argumentation de Paul n'aurait plus sa portée s’il ne parlait de la justification d'Abraham. Mais il ἃ soigneusement évité de la situer à un moment de sa vie, si ce n’est qu'elle fut antérieure à la circoncision. Il s’agit moins de la vie mortelle d'Abraham selon le développement des contingences que de son existence scripturaire. Il apparaît comme le type de la justice par la foi au moment où il est encore incirconcis, voilà l'essentiel. Paul eût sûrement reconnu qu'Abraham était déjà l'ami de Dieu quand il quitta la Chaldée. Peu lui importait le moment de sa première justification dans l’histoire; celle dont il parlait était la première mentionnée par l’Écriture, et elle était antérieure à la circoncision.
4:11
Que fut donc la circoncision? un signe, et d’après Gen. xvu, 10, le signe de l'alliance : χαὶ ἔστα: ἐν σημείῳ διαθήχης, Corn. affaiblit l'expression en traduisant : signum, id est circumcisionem, car Paul ἃ entendu sans doute insister sur le caractère extérieur de la circoncision. À [a circoneision on reconnaissait qu'un homme appartenait à lahvé. Sur le caractère religieux de la circoncision et son rapport avec l'initiation, cf. É'RS. 2e éd. p. 242-246. Dans cet ordre d'idées, il était naturel de regarder la circoncision comme un sceau. Un contrat était rendu définitif par l'apposition d'un sceau, signe extérieur qui garantissait l'accord. Ou encore les sceaux d'argile attachés à des objets étaient une marque de propriété. A la circoncision on reconnaissait qu'un homme était la propriété de Iahvé, que son peuple était lié à son Dieu par un contrat. Aussi la tradition juive est arrivée à cette métaphore « il scella ses descendants du signe de la sainte alliance » (Chabbath, 1870}: « le sceau de la circoncision est dans notre chair, comme il fut scellé dans la chair d'Abraham » ( ἀν. Cant. ur, 8); Cf. Barnabé, x, 6 : περιτέτινηται ὃ λαὸς εἰς σφραγῖδα, Paul ne méconnaît pas ce caractère, mais il voit dans la circoncision quelque chose de plus que le sceau de l'alliance, c'est le sceau de la justice de la foi. On en vint de très bonne heure (Hermas) à prendre % σφραγίς pour le nom du baptême, mais dans Paul ce n'est encore qu'un nom métaphorique, comme 1 Cor. 1x, 2: ἡ γὰρ σφραγίς mou τῆς ἀποστολῆς ὑμεῖς ἐστε ἐν χυρίῳ. Le choix de cette métaphore est si naturel d'après l'usage profane qu'il n'y ἃ pas lieu de supposer un emprunt de Paul aux mystères. D'ailleurs le baptème est si bien, beaucoup mieux que la circoncision, le sceau de la justice de la foi, que l'expression chrétienne a pu venir de s. Paul, comme aussi veni* directement de l'usage profane. Il est d'autant moins probable que les chrétiens aient emprunté aux mystères païens qu'on ne trouve l'idée (exprimée par le verbe) que chez des auteurs chrétiens qui pourraient bien avoir exprimé le rite païen d'une façon qui leur était familière : Tenrucuex, Adv. Valent. 1, à propos des mystères d'Éleusis : diutius initiant quam consignant; Apol. 1x hodie istic Bellonae sacratus sanguis de femore proscisso in palmulam exceptus et esui datus signat; De pracscr. haer. Lxx : Mithra signat illic in {rontibus milites suos; CLÉ“. p'ALEx. Protrept. XII, cxx, 1 : ἱεροφαντεῖ δὲ ὁ κύριος χαὶ τὸν μύστην σφραγίζεται φυταγωγῶν χτλ. A tout le moins les usages sacrés ont pu naître parallèlement des usages profanes (cf. HerruüLier, σφραγίς, dans les Mélanges dédiés à Heiïnrici. Leipzig, 1914). — τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀχροδυστίχ dépend de δικαιοσύνης plutôt que de zistews, car c'est de la justice qu'il s'agit surtout, et la foi n’en est que le principe. — εἰς τὸ εἶναι gouverne tout ce qui suit, 1° la situation des fidèles justifiés incirconcis, et 2° la situation des circoncis. Le sens final, généralement admis, convient très bien à la seconde situation, car le verbe principal est : il reçut la circoncision. Mais on ne peut pas dire : il reçut la circoncision afin d'être le père des incirconcis. Il s’agit donc d’un résultat, qui porte sur toute la situation antécédente : ayant recu la circoncision comme sceau de la justice. il pouvait être le père des incirconeis (5. Thomas : id est, ex praedictis consequitur). En effet εἰς τό avec l’infinitif, locution presque propre à Paul dans le N. T., a fréquemment perdu chez lui son sens final. Il en est encore ainsi dans εἰς τὸ λογισθῆναι, parallèle et non dépendant de πιστευόντων. On voit bien ici que Paul n'avait pas en vue au v. 6 de compter par faveur la foi pour la justice, mais de mettre à l'actif la justice, celle de la foi, la seule qui compte à ses yeux, et qui est aussi celle des incirconcis, la leur, τὴν (avec Soden}) δικαιοσύνην. — Kai devant αὐτοῖς (entre crochets dans Soden), montre aussi qu'à Abraham lui-même, dans la pensée de Paul, c’est la justice qui fut comptéc; on peut admettre cette leçon { Ve.) comme plus difficile. Dans la Ve. au lieu de quae est lire quae fuerat (Hrasme); car le verbe doit être suppléé au temps convenable; lire ut esset, au lieu de ut sit, et surtout : ut deputaretur οἱ üllis iustitia, au lieu de ut reputetur etillis ad iustitiam, qui ramène la teneur du v. 6 tandis qu’il est ici modifié extérieurcment et fixé dans son vrai sens.
4:12
Abraham demeure le père des cirvoncis (περιτομῆς sans article, comme une catégorie connue}, mais à la condition qu'ils ne se contentent pas de la circoncision, et suivent les traces de la foi d'Abraham avant la circoncision. 12. Supprimer τοῖς ou lire αὐτοῖς, — τοῖς avant στοιγ οὖσιν est superflu et se trouve cependant dans tous les mss. SH., Cornely, regardent ce τοῖς comme la fin de αὐτοῖς mal copié; c'est bien le sens, mais d’où serait venue l'erreur? On est contraint de regarder τοῖς comme une négligence inexpliquée. — στοῦ εἴν, marcher à la file. Les Juifs ne niaient pas la nécessité de la foi, IV Esdr. 1x, 7 : Et erit omnis, qui salous factus fuerit et qui poterit effugere per opera sua vel per fidem in qua credidit… x, 28 : qui habent opera et fidem ad Fortissimum, mais il y a loin de là à la doctrine paulinienne. La fausse leçon τοῖς στοιγοῦσιν a entrainé la Fy. dans un contre-sens sans conséquence pour la doctrine. Il faudrait lire avec Corn. sed et ipst au licu de sed et τὶς (WW. his) qui, en supposant la leçon χαὶ αὐτοῖς, ou, en retranchant τοῖς, lire avec Érasme verum etiam qui.
4:13
Dans l'épitre aux Galates (nr. 15 ss.) Paul regarde la promesse comme inviolable, à la manière d’un testament, et ne pouvant être modifiée plusieurs siècles après; puis il oppose la promesse et la Loi, comme ici. Mais ici il se préoccupe aussi de la situation et des dispositions d'Abraham; διὰ νόμου el διὰ δικαιοτόνης : sous le régime de la loi, sous Ie régime de la justice (de la foi). Donc ici l'argument va plus au fond des choses. D'après ce qui suit, on comprend que διὰ νόμου signifie : à la condition d'observer la Loi, et par conséquent διὰ ὀιχαιοσύνης doit marquer aussi que la justice de la foi est indispensable. D'après le texte cité, Gen. xv, 6, la promesse est à la fois antérieure et postérieure à la foi; ce n’est donc pas la foi qui mérite la première promesse, ni la justice de la foi, et l’on pourrait à la rigueur la regarder comme absolue, même par rapport à la foi. D'autre part, comme la promesse est faite à Abraham, s'il ne l'embrasse pas par la foi, elle n’a plus d'objet pour lui. Mais Paul ne spécule pas sur ces possibilités. 1] s'en tient au fait rapporté par l'Écriture : la promesse, par rapport à Abraham, n’exige que la justice de la foi. Celui auquel est faite cette promesse est Abraham et sa postérité (4 après une négation vaut copule). Cette postérité, d’après ce qui précède et ce qui suit, c'est la postérité spirituelle d'Abraham, celle qui prend sa part des promesses {Corn.). L'objet, c’est d’être l'héritier du monde. Cette expression ne se trouve pas dans la Genèse. Mais, au passage cité par Paul {xv, 6), Dieu promet à Abraham qu'il possédera en héritage, xAnpovou#- a, le pays de Canaan. Ce domaine était élargi dans la perspective de Gen. xn, 3 et Gen. xxu, 17 5. au sens spirituel, par la bénédiction répandue sur toutes les nations. Dans son splendide éloge de la foi des Pères, le traité Mekilta s'exprime ainsi sur Ex. x1v, 31 : « Et ainsi tu vois qu'Abraham, notre Père, par le seul mérite de la foi qu'il eut en lahvé, hérita de ce monde et de l’autre, comme il est dit : Et il crut en Iahvé, et il lui compta cela comme justice ». C'est donc probablement toujours au passage Gen. xv, 1-7 que se réfère saint Paul. Dieu promet un héritier à Abraham. Abraham croit, et Dieu lui promet, à lui et à sa postérité, le pays de Canaan, comme un symbole de la bénédiction répandue sur le monde par les hiens messianiques. Saint Paul ne distingue pas, comme dans Mekilta, le monde présent et le monde à venir, parce que l'héritage est déjà ouvert par la mort du Christ.
4:14
Ceux qui sont ἐκ νόμου ne sont pas précisément les Israélites de race, comme dotés d'une loi nationale et opposés aux gentils. Car les Israélites auraient pu répondre qu'ils ne se réservaient pas le bénéfice de la Loi, et qu'il ne tenait pas à eux qu'elle ne régît le monde entier. La promesse eût été réalisée en même temps que la Loi eût régné. Mais, dit Paul, quelle que soit l'extension de la loi, si les héritiers, les bénéficiaires de la promesse, se présentent au nom de la Loi, demandent leur part des biens messianiques parce qu'ils ont pratiqué la Loi, la foi est vidée de son contenu, est inutile, οὗ la promesse abolie. Deux interprétations sur ce verset. 1) D'après Thomas, Lipsius, Lietz. etc., ce n’est qu'une énonciation, prouvée par le verset suivant. La loi n'amenant que la colère, la promesse ne pourra être tenue, la foi sera frustrée, donc inutile. Ce sens est parfaitement raisonnable (contre Corn.), et c'est en somme celui du v. 15 de toute façon, qu'on le regarde comme la preuve du v. 16 ou comme une seconde preuve du v. 18. Dans le mème sens on peut argumenter aussi de γάρ au v. 15. 2) Cependant le verset doit avoir son sens propre comme dans l'épitre aux Galates, où, après l'opposition entre la promesse et la Loi (nt, 48), vient une explication du rôle de la Loi (ur, 19). Paul se demande si Dieu, ayant donné la promesse, et ensuite 15. Lire γάρ au lieu de δέ (Vestle). la Loi, entendait par ce second acte rendre le premier conditionnel. Or la promesse ne devait pas, en raison de sa nature, dépendre de la Loi, appliquée ou non. La foi, citée la première, ἃ un droit acquis, aussitôt la promesse faite. Si Dieu, ensuite, avait posé une condition, c'eût été enlever à la promesse sa valeur, puisque désormais l'accomplissement de la promesse dépendait d'autre chose. Comme il est dit Gal. mr, 18 : εἰ γὰρ ἐκ νόμου à κληρονομία, οὐχέτι ἐξ ἐπαγγελίας. Faire dépendre la promesse de l'observation de la Loi, eùt été instituer une nouvelle économie où la Loi aurait eu le premier rang. Lorsqu'on promet quelque chose à condition qu'on fasse une autre chose, c'est cette autre chose à laquelle on tient, et à laquelle la promesse est subordonnée comme une simple récompense. Traiter ainsi la promesse faite à Abraham, le salut du monde entier dépendant des gens de la Loi qui, en fait, sont le petit nombre, c'eüt été, en tout cas, une dérogation au plan primitif.
4:15
Ce verset prouve que, de plus, c'eût été une mauvaise combinaison. Si Dieu, au lieu de faire une promesse absolue, avait mis d'avance une condition, l'observation de la Loi, il aurait d'avance renoncé à exécuter la promesse, car la Loi opère la colère. l'ä est à prendre dans un sens un peu large, comme plusieurs fois dans ce chapitre. Cette seconde raison répond à la question toujours posée : mais enfin à quoi donc sert la Loi? par rapport à la promesse, elle ne pouvait que gêner, et il est heureux que Dieu n'ait pas fait une condition de l'observation de la Loi. En fait elle n'est pas observée et ne peut que provoquer la colère. Les preuves ont été données au chap. u. L'objet de la promesse c’est d’eflacer le péché et de donner la gràce. Que pouvait y faire la Loi? elle ne faisait qu'attirer la colère en rendant le péché plus coupable. C'est le sens de 15, si on lit οὐ γάρ avec Soden, qui soupçonne οὗ δέ d'être une correction d'Origène. Si le texte eût été οὔ δέ, on n'aurait pas corrigé pour aboutir à deux γάρ à la suite. De cette façon 18» est le complément de 152. Ce qui excite surtout la colère, ce n'est pas tant le péché en lui-même que la transgression, παράδασις, le péché commis contre une loi positive (Aug., Thom. etc. etc.), après l'alliance contractée, en pleine faveur divine. Cornely objecte à cette opinion commune que le péché lui aussi excite la colère et que la transgression excite seulement une plus grande colère. Cela est très juste, mais saint Paul n'a pas à s'occuper de la gravité du péché en dehors de Ja Loi. On se demandait si la Loi avait quelque chose à faire avec la promesse? Non, elle ne pourrait être qu'un obstacle; la preuve est faite. Ce sens, nécessaire avec γάο, est très légitime avec δέ. — Cornely lit à et interprète : là où il n’y ἃ pas Loi, c'est-à-dire dans le cas où la promesse est absolue, il ne saurait y avoir de prévarication qui empêche Dieu de donner l’héritage. Ce serait une simple tautologie. La Κρ. avec enim soutient la leçon γάρ que nous avons préférée.
4:16
L’accomplissement de la promesse ne dépend donc pas de l'observation de la Loi. Le Juif ne peut se présenter avec ses œuvres et exiger en justice l'exécution de la promesse. Dieu l'accorde donc par grâce. Josué ben Khanania disait : « Dieu aura pitié des Israélites ct les délivrera, de même qu'il fait tomber la pluie » (sur les justes et sur les pécheurs); cf. Le Messianisme… p. 190. Mais Paul introduit la foi, qui n'est pas contraire à la grâce, comme condition nécessaire pour bénéficier de la promesse. De cette façon la promesse, fondée sur le dessein de Dieu, acceptée par la foi d'Abraham, est absolument garantie pour toute la postérité d'Abraham, non seulement pour ceux qui ont depuis reçu la Loi, mais pour tous ceux qui relèvent de la foi d'Abraham, notre père à nous tous (qui croyons), car il va sans dire, d'après ce qui précède, que ceux qui viennent de la Loi ne sont reçus qu'au titre de la foi (v. 12). — Après διὰ τοῦτο, Lipsius sous-entend zAnpoνομία ἐστίν, mais il s'agit plutôt de la promesse que de son objet; d'autre part on ne peut suppléer ἣ ἐπαγγελία qui est nommée après. Il faut donc s’en tenir au vague voulu par Paul pour désigner le dessein de Dieu. — ἵνα (5.-6. γένηται) indique une causalité plus marquée que εἰς τό, La Loi est exclue afin que tout soit l'œuvre de la grâce et que. de cette façon, la promesse soit assurée à tous. La l’e.-Clém. n'a pas distingué les deux finalités, ut secundum gratiam firma sit; lire avec WW. : ut secundum gratiam, ut firma sit. Les deux éditions ont οἱ qui après semini (bis), par une construction ad sensum assez hardie; lire non δὲ quod... sed et ei quo.
4:17
Nestle a tort de mettre entre parenthèses ὅς ἐστιν... τέθεικά σε. La parenthèse devrait tout au plus commencer à καθώς, mais elle est déplacée même ainsi. Gar si ces mots semblent la preuve scripturaire de l'affirmation (v. 16) qu'Abraham est notre père, ils sont aussi la base des explications qui vont être données. Les termes sont empruntés à Gen. xvu, 5, d'après les LXX. C'est le moment où Dicu change le nom d'Abram en celui d'Abraham, expliqué comme « Père de nations nombreuses », mais cette paternité a quelque chose de religieux, car elle ἃ ses origines dans la foi, devant Dieu auquel Abraham a eru. χατέναντι οὐ ἐπίστευσεν, attraction du relatif pour χατέναντι Θεοῦ ᾧ ἐπίστευσε, Paul semble voir Abraham se tenant devant Dieu (Gen. xvin, 22). L'objet de la foi d'Abraham n'est pas Dieu comme justifiant l'impie; nouvel indice que le v. 5 ne doit pas s'entendre d'Abraham; mais, comme l'exigeait le thème de la promesse d'un héritier, père à son tour de peuples nombreux, lorsque Abraham et Sara n'avaient plus l'espérance d'avoir des enfants, cet objet est le Dieu qui peut faire vivre même les morts, et appeler à l'existence ceux qui n'existent pas encore, sûr qu'ils obéiront comme s'ils existaient déjà, cf. Is. xrvin, 13 : καλέσω αὐτούς, χαὶ στήσονται: ἅμα, et Apoc. Baruch, XXI, 4 : qui vocasti ab initio mundi quod nondum crat et obediunt tibi. Gette foi ressemble par ailleurs à celle des chrétiens qui croient à la résurrection du Christ, et voient se lever parmi les nations des fils d'Abrahain. Dans 1. la parenthèse est omise par WW.; de même ea après vocat, Cette omission ne remédic à rien pour le sens; il faudrait vocat ca quae non sunt tanquam sint OU ac st essent.
4:18
Abraham crut, contre toute espérance humaine, par la confiance que lui inspirait la parole de Dieu; ef. Sirach, xLix, 10 : ἐλυτρώσατο αὐτοὺς ἐν πίστει ἐλπίδος, — εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι est encore un cas de sens consécutif, — ὥστε γεν.» mais en gardant une portée pour l'avenir; non pas : « de sorte qu’il devint mois « de façon à devenir ». Le sens final signilierait qu'Abrahan a cru afin de devenir... ce qui rabaisserait sa foi. D'autres (Corn., Lips. etc.) rattachent εἰς τό à ἐπίστευσεν, comme l'objet de la foi : credidit se futurum esse patrem mais cette construction de πιστεύειν avec εἰς τό et l'infinitif serait singulière. Le passage cité est Gen. xv, 5, avant l'acte de foi sur lequel Paul a tant insisié, après que Dieu, créateur des étoiles, eut invité Abraham à les compter s'il le pouvait. Évocation poétique, mais suggestlive aussi, qui appuyait une promesse sur une manifestation si sensible de la puissance de Dieu. Dans la Ve. in spem est à lire ἐπ spe; effacer ei avec WW.
4:19
D'après des mss. grecs que Soden qualifie non d’occidentaux mais de Lucianiques, οὐ κατενόησε, Cette leçon est plus facile et moins appuyée que Jl'omission de la négation. « Il ne considéra pas, c'est-à-dire il ne s'arrêta pas aux doutes qu'eût pu lui inspirer sa vieillesse »; ou plutôt, avec le texte authentique, «il considéra, sans s'y arrêter », son corps si décrépit qu'il était comme mort, et la même situation chez sa femme Sara. Paul suppose la situation de Gen. xvn, 17, et explique une parole d'Abraham qui semble marquer un doute : « Abraham rit et dit en lui-même : un homme de cent ans aura-t-il un fils, et Sara en aura-t-elle un à quatre-vingt-dix ans?» Cornely explique son rire par sa joie; mais le patriarche ajoute : qu'Ismaël vive devant toi! Le doute a été reconnu pars. Jérôme (C. Pelag. III, 12). Cependant on pouvait regarder le rire et la réflexion comme un simple exposé de x difficulté, destiné à expliquer le nom d’Isaac {il rit) et à rehausser le miracle. C'est dans ce sens que Paul le prend. Abraham considéra une situation qui paraissait désespérée, sans que sa foi succombât. — ἀσθενέω indique une véritable maladie de l'âme portant sur la foi. ἤδη (Soden) avant νενεχρωμένον est fort douteux. La preuve qu'Abraham crut, c'est qu'il pratiqua la circoncision. D'ailleurs, sans s'arrêter aux détails, Paul est toujours sous l'impression de Gen. xv, 6, qui domine la situation. Comme ce verset est visé directement au v. 18, on peut dire que μὴ ἀσθενήσας s’y rapporte. Abraham qui, dans cette circonstance, avait montré sa foi, devant la nouvelle promesse considéra, etc. Le vrai texte de la Ve. ΟΥ̓Κ.) supprime est avant fide, nec avant consideravit et iam; il est donc semblable au grec authentique.
4:20
εἰς τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν dépend de διεχρίθη. Sur ce verbe, cf. Mc. χι, 23. Le sens d'hésiter est jusqu’à présent propre à la littérature chrétienne, mais bien établi. II y ἃ comme trois degrés dans l'état d'âme d'Abraham. D'abord il n'est pas atteint dans sa foi (τῇ πίστει, v. 19, état subjectif), puis il n'hésite pas sous l'influence de l’incrédulité (τῇ ἀπιστίᾳ, état subjectif}, mais fut fortifié dans la foi (τῇ πίστει, état subjectifl, ce qui suppose que sa foi devint de plus en plus parfaite. Cornely préfère τῇ πίστει comme un datif instrumental. Insistant sur ce datif instrumental, Euthymius dit εἰς παιδογονίαν, la foi le fortifia même dans son corps et le rendit capable d’engendrer. SH. inelinent dans ce sens et citent Heb. x1, 11. 12. Maïs le contexte n'est pas favorable. Abraham est fortifié dans sa foi de facon à rendre gloire à Dieu, s'en rapportant à Dieu de tout, s’abandonnant à sa conduite. Dans Τῷ. au lieu de in repromissione etiam, lire ad promissionem autem.
4:21
Dans quel sentiment? dans une conviction pleine et entière. Sur πληροφοσέω, cf. Bulletin d'ancienne littérature et d'archéologie chrétiennes, 1912, p. 96 ss.; le sens est d'abord être rempli, puis recevoir satisfaction, être convaincu pleinement. Au lieu de l’'emphatique quaecumque, lire quae. 22] C'est donc bien la fui d'Abraham qui est comptée comme justice. mais une foi pleine, éprouvée, solide, la foi dans la promesse. Et par là la foi d'Abraham rejoint {a nôtre, puisque, comme nous le savons, le terme de la promesse est Jésus. — ὅτὸ χαί (cf. Το. 1, 35 ete.) montre que le raisonnement. tiré de l'Écriture, est pris par l'Apôtre à son propre compte. Dans cet endroit, comme le dit Cornely : neque enim fide qualicumique. sed er sola qua con/ortatus gloriam dedit Deo, Abraham tustificatus est. I ne s'agit don: point, dans la pensée de Paul, de la justice conférée en retour de la foi. mais d’une satisfaction exprimée par Dieu pour la foi d'Abraham.
4:23
Non seulement le cas d'Abraham rentre dans la nouvelle économie, mais, maintenant que l'ancienne Loi est bien comprise, elle nous fournit à nous-mêmes des lumières. Paul a donc tenu la parole qu'il avait donnée: au lieu de détruire Ja Loi, il Jui donne toute sa valeur (nr, 31]. En eflet, lorsque l'Ecriture raconte ce qui arrivait aux anciens, c'est comme une esquisse qui doit nous instruire (1 Cor. x, 11). — Dans δι᾽ αὐτὸν μόνον, διά ne peut avoir son sens ordinaire : « à cause de lui », car l'Écriture n’a évidemment pas été composée dans l'intérêt d'Abraham; c'est presque « à son sujet, en vue de lui Dans la Vs. effacer ad iustitiam avec WW. 2% et 25) Ce qui doit être compté est expliqué par ce qui suit, c'est de croire. — τοῖς πιστεύουσιν, NON pas « Si NOUS CrOYONs », mais « à nous qui croyons », car dans le premier sens l'article serait supertlu {SIL.) Il s'agit de la communauté des chrétiens qui croient οἱ qui sont déjà justifiés ou censés l'être. μέλλει marque la certitude dans un avenir voulu par Dieu, comme souvent dans le N.T. Mais ici la notion d'avenir est très peu marquée : du moment que nous croyons, nous savons par l'exemple d'Abraham que cette foi doit nous être comptée comme justice si elle est parfaite, δικαιςσύνη δὲ Θεοῦ διὰ πίστεως (rit, 22). Sant Paul ne s'explique toujours pas sur les rapports du don de la justice et de la foi. C'est assez que l'exemple d'Abraham nous enseigne que la justice estacquise à ceux qui croient comme il faut. L'objet de la foi chrétienne est Dieu qui a ressuscité Jésus d'entre les morts. Il était mort à cause de nos péchés, c'est-à-dire en vue de les effacer: il est ressuscité alin que nous soyons justifiés. Lipsius entend : afin que nous, les justiliés, soyons sauvés, parce que, d'après la doctrine de Paul, la justification procède toujours de la mort, jamais de la résurrection. Mais ce passage même prouve qu'il + ἃ dans la justification un élément intérieur de vie dont la résurrection est la cause : resurrectionem autem etus, qua rediit ad novam vitam gloriae, dicit esse causam iustificationis nostrae, per quam redimus ad novitatem iustitiae, comme dit saint Thomas, en parfaite harmonie avec vi, 4. La mort et la résurrection du Christ causent la rémission des péchés et la justice à ceux qui croient, de cette foi pleine qui est pour saint Paul l'adhésion au christianisme. Par la foi on entre dans la justice, qui est la justice de Dieu, et Dieu se déclare satisfait. Dans la Vo. effacer Christum (WW.). CHAPITRE V ! Étant donc justifiés par la foi, gardons la paix avec Dieu par CHapirRe v. — La GRACE DE LA JUSTIFICATION DANS L'AME ET DANS L'HUMANITÉ. Entre la justification et la sanctification, l'Église n’admet aucune différence essentielle. Et telle est bien la doctrine de saint Paul, comme beaucoup de protestants le reconnaissent aujourd'hui (cf. La justification d'après saint Paul, RB. juillet et octobre 1914). Cependant Paul semble avoir réservé les termes relatifs à la justification pour la première justilication; le croyant entre en possession d'une justice qui est une véritable vie; après avoir dit l'origine de cette vie, on pouvait s'étendre sur ses effets. C'est précisément ce qu’a fait l’Apôtre, comme l'a très bien vu saint Augustin : La question dogmatique de l'épitre, c'est : utrum Îudaeis solis Evangelium D. N. J. C. venerit propter merita operum Legis, an vero nullis operum merttis praecedentibus omnibus gentibus vencril iustificatio fidei, quae est in Christo lesu, ut non, quiu iusti erant, homines crederent, SED CREDENDO IUSTIFICATI DEIN IUSTE VIVERE INCIPERENT (Lxpos. inchoat. in ep. ad Rom., P. L. XXXV, 2087. La seconde partie a donc trait à la vie chrétienne, et on la peut nommer celle de la sanctification, non point comme opposée à la justilication, mais comme son fruit. Tout le monde convient qu’elle commence au moins au ch. vi. Mais quelques-uns, comme Cornely, la font commencer au ch. v. 11 paraît en effet tout d'abord que dès le début du ch. v la justilication paraît comme une chose acquise, dont il reste à énumérer les fruits (1-11). Mais aussitôt après vient la doctrine du péché originel. qui nous ramène à la nécessité de la justification. Le chapitre v est donc comme suspendu entre les deux parties, mais se rattachant plutôt au thème de la justification. Elle est censée acquise, mais si récemment, que la vie chrétienne est envisagée d’abord comme une réconciliation, et comme une espérance. La carrière est ouverte, mais c'est seulement au ch, vr que nous apprendrons à y marcher. 1] est d’ailleurs très naturel, puisque la justification et la sanctification sont une même chose, que la justification acquise soit déjà envisagée comme le don de l'Esprit-Saint (v, 5) qui sera le principe de la vie sainte, Nous sommes à une ligne de partage. L'âme est délivrée et s'arrête un instant à contempler l'étendue du don qu'elle a reçu. C'est même, semble-t-il, le thème de la réconciliation, si accentué dans v, 1-11, qui a amené l'Apôtre à remonter jusqu’à la première brouille du genre humain avec Dieu. D'ailleurs l'opposition du péché et de la justice était exigéc par le thème de la justification. Dans cette dernière page (12-21), le péché, la Loi, la grâce et la justice sont rangés selon leur rôle dans l'histoire de l'humanité jusqu’à Jésus-Christ, Le verset 21 est une admirable conclusion de tout ce qui précède. Aussi doit-on dire avec Salmeron (cité par Cornely, {ntrod. specialis… ΠΠ, 464) : Quinque primis capitibus de tustificatione plenissimum habet disputationem. Il y a de cela un indice très caractéristique. Si l'on divise l’épître en deux parties. 1-v et vi-xvi, on trouve δίκαιος où δίκαιοι en parlant des hommes, 1, 17311, 13; τὰ, 10. 26; v, 7. 19 et ensuite seulement δικαία en parlant de la Loi, vrr, 12. δικαιόω τι, 13; 111, 4. 20. 24. 26. 28, 30: 1v, 2. 5; v, 1. 9, et ensuite seulement vr, 7; virr, 30. 33. δικαίωμα, 1, 32; 11, 26; v, 16. 18, et ensuite vu, 4. δικαίωσις, seulement rv, 25; v, 18. δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ, 1, 17; 1x1, 3. 21. 22, 925. 26; ensuite x, 8 (bis). καταλλάσσω, ν, 10 (bis). χαταλλαγή, V, 11 et χι, 15. Le chapitre se divise en deux parties très distinctes; la justification dans l'âme du croyant source d'espérance, gage de salut (1-11); la justice rendue à l'humanité répare la chute originelle (12-21).
4:1
Tradition falls within this luminous furrow; St. Ignatius of Antioch desires martyrdom in order to reach God (Ὅκοῦ ἐπιτυχεῖν: Rom. 4:1) and therefore implores the faithful of Rome not to hinder his death, through which he will obtain "pure light" (καθαρὸν φῶς: Rom. 6:2). Theophilus of Antioch assures Autolycus that, …
4:2
… 262) and of this fruitfulness the fruits received by the Church of Antioch are noted (Smyrn., XI, 1, 3; Polyc., VII, 1; F. X. Funk, ibid., pp. 284, 292). Ignatius on several occasions commends himself to the prayers of the faithful (for example, Rom. 4, 2; F. X. Funk, ibid., p. 256) and offers himself as a victim for the Ephesians (Eph. 8, 1; F. X. Funk, ibid., p. 220). Nor does he forget to have prayers said for heretics and …
4:6
… The Septuagint translates it μακάριος; whence μακαρισμός (Rom. 4:6, 9; Gal. 4:15), "proclamation of happiness," in praise of someone. …
4:11
Circumcision (From Lat. circumcisio, «cutting around»; Gr. περιτομή; Heb. Milāh)
… St. Paul observes that circumcision was given to Abraham as a sign and seal of the righteousness obtained through faith (Rom. 4:11). Therefore the circumcision of the flesh presupposes and imposes that of the spirit, of which it is a symbol and a reminder. …
4:12
… The ultimate foundation of this faith, today universal, which was slowly made explicit and clarified by the Fathers and the theologians, is Sacred Scripture, in which is foreshadowed the total victory of Christ and of Mary over sin and over its moral and physical consequences (cf. Gen. 3:15; Rom. 4:12; 5:14; 6:8; 1 Cor. 15:21-26, 54-57). Therefore the Pontiff holds that the moment has come to define what is so widely documented and so deeply rooted in the Christian conscience, all …
4:13
The M. and his kingdom is the ultimate purpose intended by God in the "covenant" of Sinai, which specifies and determines the ancient "covenant" with Abraham, the "promise" (ἐπικητελία; Rom. 4:13-16; 9:8; Gal. 3:16-29; 4:28) formulated for his posterity. …
4:15
… 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 of having brought nothing to perfection (Hebr. 7:19); of being the provoker of God's wrath (Rom. 4:15), because it multiplies transgressions (Gal. 3:19; Rom. 5:20), awakening the moral conscience (Rom. 3:20) without offering the strength to combat sin; whence whoever lives under …
… various other expressions: ἀμαρτία or ἀμάρτημα, that is, the act by which man turns away from the attainment of his end (Rom. 5:12; 7:7; 8:3); παράβασις or ἀνομία or παρενημία, that is, transgression of the law, which man is bound to observe (2 Pt. 2:16; Rom. 4:15; 1 Jn. 3:4); παράπταμα, that is, the state of one who has fallen from his dignity or moral perfection (Mk. 11:25-26).
4:16
… low couch and propped on his left elbow, can easily lean back upon his breast: in sim (John 13, 23; Pliny, Ep. 4, 22, 4). Other authors prefer to see in the rest upon Abraham's bosom the paternal protection and tenderness of the patriarch of believers (Rom. 4, 16 ff.) who receives into eternal happiness his children, intimately united to him (cf. John 1, 23; Luke 13, 28; and the apocryphal IV Macc. 13, 17 where, however, "the bosom" is a probably …
… 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.). …
4:20
The integral concept of this faith certainly also implies trust, hope, abandonment, as well as obedience (cf. Rom. 4:20-22; 1:6, 15, 18; II Cor. 10:4-6). In order to justify, it must be "living" faith, accompanied by love. …
4:25
The third scriptural proof is drawn from certain Pauline texts taken as a whole, which on the one hand establish for the Christian the grounds for resurrection (I Cor. 15:20-23) and on the other present death as a consequence of sin (Rom. 4:25; 5:12-21; 6:23; 8:19-23; I Cor. 15:3; 15:56). In the light of these texts and of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, not a few reason as follows: the deferral of the final glorification, …
… 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 …
… The whole life of Jesus has redemptive value (Rom. 8:3), but especially his death on the Cross and his Resurrection, which contribute to our salvation not only morally as an example (Phil. 2:5 ff.; Gal. 2:19 ff.; Rom. 6:4 ff.), but also by way of true and proper efficient causality (Rom. 4:25). Christ is constituted a bloody victim for our sins, who offers to the Father his blood and his life as a holocaust of reparation, as the price of ransom and pacification. …
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.