The Christian must die to sin and live to God.
He exhorteth vs, novv after Baptisme, to liue no more in sinne, but to vvalke in good vvorkes: because there vve died to the one, and rose againe to the other 14 (grace also giuing vs sufficient strength) 16 and vvere made free to the one, and seruants to the other, 21 and specially because of the fruite here, and the end aftervvard, both of the one and of the other.
1What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?Che diremo noi adunque? Rimarremo noi nel peccato, affinchè sia abbondante la grazia?WHAT shal vve say then? Shal vve continue in sinne that grace may abound?Quid ergo dicemus ? permanebimus in peccato ut gratia abundet ? 2God forbid! For we that are dead to sin, how shall we live any longer therein?Dio ce ne guardi. Imperocché se noi siamo morti al peccato, come viveremo tuttora in esso?God forbid. For vve that are dead to sinne, hovv shal vve yet liue therein?Absit. Qui enim mortui sumus peccato, quomodo adhuc vivemus in illo ? 3Know you not that all we who are baptized in Christ Jesus are baptized in his death?Non sapete voi forse, che quanti siamo stati battezzati in Cristo Gesù, nella morte di lui siamo stati battezzati?Are you ignorant that al vve vvhich are baptized in Christ IESVS, in his death vve are baptized?an ignoratis quia quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sumus ? 4For we are buried together with him by baptism into death: that, as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.Imperocché siamo stati insieme con lui sepolti pel Battesimo per morire: affinchè siccome Cristo risuscitò da morte per gloria del Padre, così noi nuova vita viviamo.For vve are buried together vvith him by Baptisme into death: that as Christ is risen from the dead by the glorie of the father, so vve also may vvalke in nevvnesse of life.Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem: ut quomodo Christus surrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita et nos in novitate vitæ ambulemus. 5For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.Imperocché se noi siamo stati innestati alla raffigurazione della sua morte, lo saremo eziandio alla risurrezione.For if vve be become complanted to the similitude of his death, vve shal be also of his resurrection.Si enim complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis ejus: simul et resurrectionis erimus. 6Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin may be destroyed, to the end that we may serve sin no longer.Sapendo noi, come il nostro uomo vecchio è stato concrocifisso, affinchè sia distrutto il corpo del peccato, onde noi non serviamo più al peccato.Knovving this, that our old man is crucified vvith him, that the body of sinne may be destroied, to the end that vve may serue sinne no longer.Hoc scientes, quia vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, ut destruatur corpus peccati, et ultra non serviamus peccato.
7For he that is dead is justified from sin.Imperocché colui, che è morto, è stato giustificato dal peccato.For he that is dead, is iustified from sinne.Qui enim mortuus est, justificatus est a peccato. 8Now, if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall live also together with Christ.Che se siamo morti con Cristo, crediamo, che vivremo ancora con lui:And if vve be dead vvith Christ, vve beleeue that vve shal liue also together vvith Christ.Si autem mortui sumus cum Christo, credimus quia simul etiam vivemus cum Christo, 9Knowing that Christ, rising again from the dead, dieth now no more. Death shall no more have dominion over him.Sapendo noi, che Cristo risuscitato da morte non muore più, la morte più nol dominerà.knovving that Christ rising againe from the dead, novv dieth no more, death shal no more haue dominion ouer him.scientes quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis jam non moritur: mors illi ultra non dominabitur. 10For in that he died to sin, he died once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.Imperocché quanto all'essere lui morto, morì per lo peccato una volta: quanto poi al vivere, ei vive per Dio.For that he died, to sinne he died once: but that he liueth, he liueth to God.Quod enim mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel: quod autem vivit, vivit Deo. 11So do you also reckon that you are dead to sin, but alive unto God, in Christ Jesus our Lord.Nella stessa guisa anche voi fate conto, che siete morti al peccato, e vivi per Dio in Gesù Cristo Signor Nostro.So thinke you also, that you are dead to sinne, but aliue to God in Christ IESVS our Lord.Ita et vos existimate vos mortuos quidem esse peccato, viventes autem Deo, in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. 12Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, so as to obey the lusts thereof.Non regni adunque il peccato nel corpo vostro mortale, onde serviate alle sue concupiscenze.Let not sinne therfore reigne in your mortal body, that you obey the concupiscences thereof.Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore ut obediatis concupiscentiis ejus. 13Neither yield ye your members as instruments of iniquity unto sin: but present yourselves to God, as those that are alive from the dead; and your members as instruments of justice unto God.E non imprestate le vostre membra quai strumenti di iniquità al peccato: ma offerite a Dio voi stessi, come viventi dopo essere stati morti, e le vostre membra a Dio come strumenti di giustizia.But neither doe ye exhibite your members instruments of iniquitie vnto sinne: but exhibite your selues to God as of dead men, aliue: and your members instruments of iustice to God.Sed neque exhibeatis membra vestra arma iniquitatis peccato: sed exhibete vos Deo, tamquam ex mortuis viventes: et membra vestra arma justitiæ Deo.
14For sin shall not have dominion over you: for you are not under the law, but under grace.Imperocché il peccato non vi dominerà: atteso che non siete sotto la legge, ma sotto la grazia.For sinne shal not haue dominion ouer you. for you are not vnder the Lavv, but vnder grace.Peccatum enim vobis non dominabitur: non enim sub lege estis, sed sub gratia. 15What then? Shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace? God forbid!E che adunque? Peccheremo noi, perché non siamo sotto la legge, ma sotto la grazia? Dio ce ne guardi.Vvhat then? shal vve sinne, because vve are not vnder the Lavv, but vnder grace? God forbid.Quid ergo ? peccabimus, quoniam non sumus sub lege, sed sub gratia ? Absit. 16Know you not that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey, whether it be of sin unto death or of obedience unto justice.Non sapete voi, che a chiunque vi diate per ubbidire qual servi, di lui siete servi, cui ubbidite, sia del peccato per morte, o sia della ubbidienza per la giustizia?Knovv you not that to vvhom you exhibite your selues seruants to obey, you are the seruants of him vvhom you obey, vvhether it be of sinne, to death, or of obedience, to iustice.Nescitis quoniam cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum, servi estis ejus, cui obeditis, sive peccati ad mortem, sive obeditionis ad justitiam ? 17But thanks be to God, that you were the servants of sin but have obeyed from the heart unto that form of doctrine into which you have been delivered.Grazie però a Dio, che foste servi del peccato, ma avete ubbidito di cuore seconde quella forma di dottrina, dalla quale siete stati formati.But thankes be to God, that you vvere the seruants of sinne, but haue obeied from the hart, vnto that forme of doctrine, into the vvhich you haue been deliuered.Gratias autem Deo quod fuistis servi peccati, obedistis autem ex corde in eam formam doctrinæ, in quam traditi estis. 18Being then freed from sin, we have been made servants of justice.E liberarti dal peccato, siete divenuti servi della giustizia.And being made free from sinne, you vvere made seruants to iustice.Liberati autem a peccato, servi facti estis justitiæ. 19I speak an human thing, because of the infirmity of your flesh. For as you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, unto iniquity: so now yield your members to serve justice, unto sanctification.Parlo da uomo a riguardo della debolezza della vostra carne: imperocché siccome deste le vostre membra a servire alla immondezza, e alla iniquità per la iniquità, così date adesso le vostre membra a servire alla giustizia per la santificazione.I speake an humane thing, because of the infirmitie of your flesh, for as you haue exhibited your members to serue vncleannesse and iniquitie, vnto iniquitie: so now exhibite your mēbers to serue iustice, vnto sanctification.Humanum dico, propter infirmitatem carnis vestræ: sicut enim exhibuistis membra vestra servire immunditiæ, et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membra vestra servire justitiæ in santificationem.
20For when you were the servants of sin, you were free men to justice.Imperocché quando eravate servi del peccato, eravate francati dalla giustizia.For when you vvere seruants of sinne, you were free to iustice.Cum enim servi essetis peccati, liberi fuistis justitiæ. 21What fruit therefore had you then in those things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of them is death.E qual frutto adunque aveste allora da quelle cose, nelle quali avete adesso vergogna? Conciossiachè il fine di essi è la morte.What fruite therfore had you then in those things, for vvhich novv you are ashamed? for the end of them is death.Quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in illis, in quibus nunc erubescitis ? nam finis illorum mors est. 22But now being made free from sin and become servants to God, you have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end life everlasting.Adesso poi liberati dal peccato, e fatti servi di Dio, avete per vostro frutto la santificazione; per fine poi la vita eterna.But novv being made free from sinne, and become seruants to God, you haue your fruite vnto sanctification, but the end, life euerlasting.Nunc vero liberati a peccato, servi autem facti Deo, habetis fructum vestrum in santificationem, finem vero vitam æternam. 23For the wages of sin is death. But the grace of God, life everlasting in Christ Jesus our Lord.Imperocché la paga dei peccatosi è la morte. Grazia di Dio (è) la vita eterna in Cristo Gesù nostro Signore.For the stipends of sinne, death. but the grace of God, life euerlasting in Christ IESVS our Lord.Stipendia enim peccati, mors. Gratia autem Dei, vita æterna, in Christo Jesu Domino nostro.
6:1
Witham
Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? He puts and rejects the same objection as before. (Chap. 3:7.) And having set forth in the last chapter the grace and advantages by Christ's coming, he now exhorts them to avoid sinning, and live in the grace of God. (Witham)
6:2
Estius
Dead to sin, etc. We are then dead to sin when we neither live in sin by serving it, nor sin lives in us by reigning; in this case, how can we still live in it by yielding to its desires? St. Augustine (ch. VI. de spiritu et litera) thus explains the passage: when grace has caused us to die to sin; if we live again in it, we must be exceedingly ungrateful to grace. (Estius)
6:3
Witham
etc. We...are baptized in his death. Greek, unto his death. The apostle here alludes to the manner of administering the sacrament of baptism, which was then done by immersion or by plunging the person baptized under the water, in which he finds a resemblance of Christ's death and burial under ground, and of his resurrection to an immortal life. So must we after baptism rise to lead a quite different life: having been also, when we were baptized and made Christians, planted as branches ingrafted in Christ, let us endeavour to bring forth the fruits of a virtuous life. (Witham)
Challoner
Old man...body of sin. Our corrupt state, subject to sin and concupiscence, coming to us from Adam, is called our old man, as our state, reformed in and by Christ, is called the new man. And the vices and sins which then ruled in us, are named the body of sin. (Challoner)
Witham
The old and sinful man we must look upon as crucified with him, and the body of sin, or our sinful body, destroyed. We must look upon ourselves as dead to sin, and that we must sin no more, as Christ being once risen, dies no more. (Witham)
6:7
Witham
He that is dead is justified from sin.[Ver. 7. Is justified from sin, justificatus est a peccato; dedikaiotai apo tes amartias. Dikaioo est vocabulum forense. See Cornelius a Lapide, Estius, etc.] Some translate, is freed from sin: this is true; but perhaps it is better to retain the word justified, which is observed to be a law-word used in courts of justice, where to be justified is to be acquitted, so that a man cannot be questioned again on that account; and so are sinners, when their sins are forgiven. (Witham)
6:10
Witham
For in that he died to sin. But the sense must be for sins, or to destroy other men's sins, he himself being incapable of sinning. (Witham)
6:12
Witham
Let not sin, therefore, reign, etc. He compares sin and justice to two kings, or generals, under one of which every man fights in this world. Sin is the tyrant, under which fight the wicked, and make their minds and their members the instruments, or arms of iniquity to sin, when they follow and yield to their disorderly lusts. But he exhorts them to live so as to make the powers of their souls, and their members, instruments or arms of justice to God, to fight under God, their lawful king, and under the banner of his justice. (Witham)
6:14
Witham
You are not under the law of Moses, as some of you were before: but now you are all under grace, or the law of grace, where you may find pardon for your sins. But take care not to abuse this grace of pardon offered you, nor multiply your sins, and defer your conversion, as some may do, by presuming, that after all, by the merits of Christ, you can find pardon. This, says Tertullian, is the greatest ingratitude, to continue wicked, because God is good. Reflect that you make yourselves servants of him whom you obey. By yielding to your passions, you become slaves to sin. If you keep your obedience to the law of Christ, and to his doctrine, the form of which you have delivered to you by the gospel, you are the happy servants of justice, and the servants of God, who is justice itself. (Witham)
6:17
Estius
Thanks be to God, etc. He thanks God, not because they had been in sin, but because after having been so long under the slavery of sin, they had now been converted from their heart, and with their whole strength gave themselves to that form of doctrine to which they had been conducted by the gospel. He returns God thanks for their obedience to the faith, because this obedience of the human will is the work and gift of God, that so no one may glory in his sight. (Ephesians ii.) (Estius)
6:19
Witham
I speak a human thing,[Ver. 19. Humanum dico, anthropinon lego; Romans 3:6. Secundum hominem, kat anthropon. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xii.] or I am proposing to you what is according to human strength and ability assisted by the grace of God, with a due regard to the weakness and infirmity of your flesh. The sense, according to St. Chrysostom is this, that the apostle having told them they must be dead to sin, lead a new life, etc. he now encourages them to it, by telling them, that what is required of them is not above their human strength, as it is assisted by those graces which God offers them, and which they have received. Where we may observe that these words, I speak a human thing, are not the same, nor to be taken in the same sense, as Romans 3:6. when he said, I speak after a human way, or I speak like men. (Witham)
Menochius
What I ask of you, Christian Romans, is, that you so earnestly labour for your sanctification as to improve daily in virtue, as formerly you plunged every day deeper and deeper into vice. (Menochius)
6:20
Witham
You were free from justice; that is, says St. Chrysostom, you lived as no ways subject to justice, nor obedient to the law and precepts of God: an unhappy freedom, a miserable liberty, worse than the greatest slavery, the end of which is death, eternal death: of which sins with great reason you are now ashamed, when you are become the servants of God, and obedient to him, for which you will receive the fruit and reward of everlasting life in heaven. (Witham)
6:23
Witham
For the wages, which the tyrant sin gives to his soldiers and slaves, is eternal death; but the wages, the pay, the reward, which God gives to those that fight under him, is everlasting life; which, though a reward of our past labours, as it is often called in the Scriptures, is still a grace,[Ver. 23. Gratia Dei, vita aeterna; that is, in construction, vita aeterna, est gratia Dei.] or free gift; because if our works are good, or deserve a reward in heaven, it is God's grace that makes them deserve it. For, as St. Augustine says, when God crowns our works, he crowns his own gifts. (Witham)
6:6
Old man—body of sin.... Our corrupt state, subject to sin and concupiscence, coming to us from Adam, is called our old man, as our state, reformed in and by Christ, is called the new man. And the vices and sins, which then ruled in us are named the body of sin.
6:3
3. We that are baptized.) That vvhich before he chalenged from the Lavv of Moyses, to faith, is novv attributed to baptisme, Not only faith. vvhich is the first Sacrament of our faith and the entrance to Christian religion. Whereby it is plaine that he meaneth not onely faith to iustifie, but the Sacraments also, and al Christian religion, vvhich he calleth the Lavv of spirit, grace, and faith.
In the liturgy The Epistle vpō the 6 Sūday after Pentecost.
6:4
Remission of sinne, nevv life, sanctification, and iustificatiō, are giuen by baptisme, because it resembleth in vs and applieth to vs Christes death and resurrectiō, and engraffeth vs into him.
6:6
6. Old man, body of sinne.) The old man, & the nevv. Our corrupt state subiect to sinne and concupiscence, comming to vs from Adam, is called the Old man: as our person reformed in & by Christ, is named the Nevv man. And the lumpe and masse of sinnes vvhich then ruled, is called the corps or body of sinne.
6:10
10. To sinne he died.) Dying to sinne. Christ died to sinne, vvhen by his death he destroied sinne: Vve die to sinne, Liuing to God. in that vve be discharged of the povver thereof, vvhich before vvas as it vvere the life of our persons, and commaunded al the partes and faculties of our soule and body: as contrarievvise vve liue to God, vvhen his grace ruleth and vvorketh in vs, as the soule doth rule our mortal bodies.
6:12
12. Sinne reigne.) Hovv concupiscēce is called sinne. Concupiscence is here named sinne, because it is the effect, occasion, and matter of sinne, and is as it vvere a disease or infirmitie in vs, inclining vs to il, remaining also after Baptisme according to the substance or matter thereof: but it is not properly a sinne, nor forbidden by commaundement, til it reigne in vs, and vve obey and folovv the desires thereof. August. •i. de nupt. & concupise. c. 23. Cont. 2 epist. Pelag. li. 1 c. 13. Conc. Trident. Sess. 5. decret. de pec. orig.
6:15
Concordance Io. 8, 34.
6:16
Concordance 2. Pet. 2, 19.
6:17
17. Forme of doctrine.) The doctrine of our first Apostles. At the first conuersion of euery nation to the Catholike faith, there is a forme & rule of beleefe set dovvne, vnto vvhich vvhen the people is once put by their Apostles, they must neuer by any persuasion of men alter the same, nor take of man or Angel, any nevv doctrine or Analogie of faith, as the Protestants call it.
Here againe is signified, that our discharge frō the bōdage of sinne, is by the Christian faith, & by obedience to the vvhole doctrīe of Christs religion: in that the Apostle attributeth this their deliuerance frō sinne, to their humble receiuing of the Catholike faith.
6:18
In the liturgy The Epistle vpō the 7 Sunday after Pentecost.
6:19
He signifieth that as vvhen they vvere subiect to sinne by cōtinual & oftē vvorking vvickednes, they increased their iniquitie: that so also novv being iustified, they may & should by external vvorkes of Iustice, increase their iustice and sanctification.
6:23
23. The grace of God, Life euerlasting a stipend, and yet grace. life euerlasting.) The sequele of speache required, that as he said, death or damnation is the stipend of sinne, so life euerlasting is the stipend of iustice, and so it is, and in the same sense he spake in the last chapter: that as sinne reigneth to death, so grace reigneth by iustice to life euerlasting. but here he changed the sentence somevvhat, calling life euerlasting grace, rather then revvard: because the merites by vvhich vve attaine vnto life, be al of Gods gift and grace. August. Ep. 105 ad Sixtum.
6:1
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 17
… knowing that Christ, having been raised from the dead, no more dieth, (that) death no more hath domination over Him. For in that He died to sin, He died once for all ; but in that He liveth, to God He liveth. Thus, too, repute ye yourselves dead indeed to sin, but living to God through Christ Jesus.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 6
… v. 20 ), in ridicule of him and perverting what he said to another meaning, they said, We must cling to vice that we may get what is good. But Paul said not so; however to correct this notion it is that he says, “What then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
Chap. vi. ver. 1 . “What then? shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9
[7.] What is, “having tasted of the heavenly gift”? it is, “of the remission of sins”: for this is of God alone to bestow, and the grace is a grace once for all. “What then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Far from it!” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 52
… so that just as real as is His death, so real is the remission of our sins; and just as real as is His resurrection, so real is our justification. He says: “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 9
… but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.” Then, proposing a question for himself to answer, he adds, “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Two Letters Written by Augustin to Valentinus and the Monks of Adrumetum 2.8
… Now it was the words of such as these which the apostle had in view when he said, “What shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?”
6:2
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
Ver. 2 . “How shall we,” he says, “that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
… And that you may know that he is not speaking of that resulting from baptism, but about the other, after saying, “for if we were planted together in the likeness of His Death,” he does not say that we shall be in the likeness of His Resurrection, but we shall belong to the Resurrection.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 3
… vi. 14 .) Hear then how he says, “I no longer live.” And how he says, “to me to live is Christ.” The word “life” is much significant, beloved, as also the word “death.” There is this life of the body, there is the life of sin, as he himself elsewhere says, “But if we died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philemon 3
… What then, say you? Hath not the Laver saved us, who had committed infinite evils? It hath delivered us from them, not that we should commit them again, but that we may not commit them. For “how shall we,” it is said, “that are dead to sin, live any longer therein”? (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 9
… “The law entered, that the offence might abound: but where sin abounded, grace did much more abound,”—as if he had said that sin had been of advantage by reason of the abundance of grace. Rejecting this, he answers his question with a “God forbid!” and at once adds: “How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?”
6:3
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.9
… But that the apostle did know Him as one, both who was born and who suffered, namely Christ Jesus, he again says in the same Epistle: “Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized in Christ Jesus were baptized in His death? that like as Christ rose from the dead, so should we also walk in newness of life.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… the apostle himself suggesting this idea: “Know ye not, that so many of us as are baptized into Jesus Christ, are baptized into His death? We are therefore buried with Him by baptism into death, that just as Christ was raised up from the dead, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Repentance 6
… “Nothing hid which shall not be revealed.” Draw whatever (veil of) darkness you please over your deeds, “God is light.” But some think as if God were under a necessity of bestowing even on the unworthy, what He has engaged (to give); and they turn His liberality into slavery. But if it is of necessity that God grants us the symbol of death,
Tertullian † AD 220 On Monogamy 17
… Once for all did he taste of the tree; once for all felt concupiscence; once for all veiled his shame; once for all blushed in the presence of God; once for all concealed his guilty hue; once for all was exiled from the paradise of holiness; once for all thenceforward married. If you were “in him,” you have your norm; if you have passed over “into Christ,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 12
… “As many of you,” he says, “as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ;” and again, “As many of you as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 20.6
… For this cause Paul just now cried aloud and said, Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus, were baptized into His death? We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into His death
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Baptism of Christ 1
… and he raises up against us fiery temptations, seeking earnestly to despoil us of that second adornment, as he did of our former array. But when we are aware of his attacks, we ought to repeat to ourselves the apostolic words, “As many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.2
9. This, too, is plain, that in him who is baptized the Son of God is crucified, for our flesh could not do away sin unless it were crucified in Jesus Christ. And then it is written that: “All we who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose 63.11
… “For this ye know, that no immodest person, nor unclean, nor covetous, which is an idolator, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.” It is clear that this is said of the baptized, for they receive the inheritance, who are baptized into the death of Christ
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 1.9
… but was full of anxiety and fear, therefore also he fasted rigidly, and was not affected as many are, who, when they have kept themselves to it but ten, or perhaps twenty months,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
Ver. 3, 4 . “Know ye not,” he says, “my brethren, that so many of us as were baptized into Christ were baptized into His death? therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 40
… For after we have confessed this together with the rest, then at last are we let down into the fountain of those sacred streams. This therefore Paul recalling to their minds said, “if there be no resurrection, why art thou then baptized for the dead ?” i.e., the dead bodies. For in fact with a view to this art thou baptized, the resurrection of thy dead
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 69.7
… Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.25
… and this rest is now enjoyed by faith, “for the just shall live by faith.” “Know ye not,” saith the same apostle, “that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism unto death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 14.17
… which two things are plainly shown in the Psalm, where we read, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities,” which takes place in baptism; and then follows, “and healeth all thine infirmities;” and this takes place by daily additions, while this image is being renewed.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 10
… knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He died unto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… This is a great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.” Listen to him as he says “Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us,” and elsewhere “Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized unto Jesus Christ were baptized into His death,”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 16
… We were buried with Him through baptism into death; that as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have become united with the likeness of His death, we shall be also (with the likeness) of His resurrection
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.9
… seeing they crucify to themselves the Christ afresh, and put Him to an open shame . But those who were not bap tized into the Holy Trinity, these must be baptized again. For although the divine Apostle says: Into Christ and into His death were we baptized
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.11
… For by the Cross all things have been made right. So many of us, the apostle says, as were baptized into Christ, were baptized into His death
6:4
Tertullian † AD 220 A Treatise on the Soul 40
Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ; moreover, it is unclean all the while that it remains without this regeneration;
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.69
… as is declared by Paul, “For we were buried with Him by baptism, and have also risen with Him.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.25
… And similarly it is from and because of the energy with which He causes the old deadness to be put aside and that which is par excellence life to be put on, so that those who have truly received Him rise again from the dead, that He is called the resurrection. And this He does not only at the moment at which a man says,
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 10.20
… for each of them, like Paul, glories in nothing but the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which He is crucified to the world, and the world to Him. Not only, therefore, is it crucified with Christ, and crucified to the world; it is also buried with Christ, for we were buried with Christ, Paul says.
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 13.9
… by the Lord, inasmuch as, contrary to their expectation, it was to the destruction of their own kingdom and power, that they received from the Father the Son, who was raised on the third day, by having abolished His enemy death, and made us conformed, not only to the image of His death but also of His resurrection; through whom we walk in newness of life,
St Methodius † AD 311 From the Discourse on the Resurrection, Part I 1
… shall also bear the image of the heavenly?” For the image of the earthy which we have borne is this, “Dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.” But the image of the heavenly is the resurrection from the dead, and incorruption, in order that “as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also should walk in newness of life.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… “God is faithful,” it is said, “by whom ( δι᾽ οὖ ) ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son,” and “Paul an apostle of Jesus Christ by ( διά ) the will of God;” and again, “Wherefore thou art no more a servant, but a son; and if a son, then an heir through God.” And “like as Christ was raised up from the dead by ( διά ) the glory of God the Father.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 15
… So Paul, the imitator of Christ, says, “being made conformable unto his death; if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead.” How then are we made in the likeness of His death?
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril procatechesis-or-prologue-to-t.2
2. Even Simon Magus once came to the Laver : he was baptized, but was not enlightened; and though he dipped his body in water, he enlightened not his heart with the Spirit: his body went down and came up, but his soul was not buried with Christ, nor raised with Him
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.12
… For as Jesus took upon Him the sins of the world, and died, that by putting sin to death He might rise again in righteousness; so thou by going down into the water, and being in a manner buried in the waters, as He was in the rock, art raised again walking in newness of life
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 20.8
… that I also, unworthy though I be, may say of you, Now I love you , because ye always remember me, and hold fast the traditions, which I delivered unto you . And God, who has presented you as it were alive from the dead , is able to grant unto you to walk in newness of life
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 40
… But it is uncertain if the Master will spare it, inasmuch as it cumbers the ground of another asking for mercy, and becoming deteriorated by the longsuffering shewn to this one. Let us then be buried with Christ by Baptism,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 2.9
97. Now let us consider whether we can teach that anything is through the Father. But it is written: “Paul the servant of Christ through the will of God;” and elsewhere: “Wherefore thou art now not a servant but a son, and if a son an heir also through God;” and again: “As Christ rose from the dead by the glory of God.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.2
… “For we are buried with Him through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of life.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ did put on Christ.” It is called also burial: “For we were buried” saith he, “with him, through baptism, into death.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 1
… And when wilt thou say those words to Christ, in the act of being buried with Him when at the point to depart hence? For indeed both by works and by words must we show our good will towards Him. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 24
… xi. 2 ): and a root, and drink, and meat, and life;—for he says, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth in me;” ( Gal. ii. 20 ) and Apostle, and High-Priest, and Teacher, and Father, and Brother, and Joint-heir, and sharer of the tomb and Cross;—for it says, “We were buried together with Him,” and “planted together in the likeness of His Death” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 40
… when thou hast done thine own part, then also doth God fully assure thee. How and in what manner? By the water. For the being baptized and immersed and then emerging, is a symbol of the descent into Hades and return thence. Wherefore also Paul calls baptism a burial, saying, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 24
“And having on,” he continues, “the breastplate of righteousness.” As the breastplate is impenetrable, so also is righteousness, and by righteousness here he means a life of universal virtue.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 11
… As if he had said, We become Christ’s in this respect. O how great is the dignity of sufferings! We believe that we become “conformed to His death” through sufferings! For as in baptism, we were “buried with the likeness of His death,” so here, with His death. There did he rightly say, “The likeness of His death” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 5
… But how are we “dead with Him”? This death he means both of that in the Laver, and that in sufferings. For he says, “Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” ( 2 Cor. iv. 10 .); and, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 25
… And this is done thrice, that you may learn that the power of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost fulfilleth all this. To show that what we say is no conjecture, hear Paul saying, “We are buried with Him by Baptism into death”: and again, “Our old man is crucified with Him”: and again, “We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9
… Baptism is a Cross, and “our old man was crucified with [Him]” ( Rom. vi. 6 ), for we were “made conformable to the likeness of His death” ( Rom. vi. 5; Philip. iii. 10 ), and again, “we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 22.39
39. The things that I have here set forth will seem hard to her who loves not Christ. But one who has come to regard all the splendor of the world as off-scourings, and to hold all things under the sun as vain, that he may win Christ; one who has died with his Lord and risen again, and has crucified the flesh with its affections and lusts;
St Jerome † AD 420 To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 33
… As many of us, therefore, as have this hope, as we have yielded our members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, so let us yield them servants to righteousness unto holiness, that
St Jerome † AD 420 To Pammachius against John of Jerusalem 36
… If you do not believe, you who thus try to deceive the minds of the ignorant, and parade the word resurrection, though you mean nothing by it, listen to me. Not long ago, a certain disciple of Marcion said: “Woe to him who rises again with this flesh and these bones!” Our heart at once with joy replied,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.3
… for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” According to this faith and hope and love, by which we have begun to be “under grace,” we are already dead together with Christ, and buried together with Him by baptism into death;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.26
… he says, “I count not myself to have apprehended.” Since, however, our hope is sure, because of the truth of the promise, when he said elsewhere, “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death,” he adds these words, “that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 98.9
… Thus the apostle says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by baptism into death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.10
… For certainly it was in the inner and not the outer man that those had risen again to whom he says, “If ye have risen with Christ, mind the things that are above.” The same sense he elsewhere conveyed in other words, saying, “That as Christ has risen from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 53
… For in reference to His crucifixion it is said: “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.” And in reference to His burial: “We are buried with Him by baptism into death.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 19.10
… For He came to bury us with Himself by baptism into death, that as Christ rose again from the dead, so we also should walk in newness of life.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 51
… “For we are buried with Christ by baptism unto death, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
6:5
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… “For if we have been planted together in the likeness of Christ’s death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 3.12
12. For thou goest down into the water, bearing thy sins, but the invocation of grace , having sealed thy soul, suffereth thee not afterwards to be swallowed up by the terrible dragon. Having gone down dead in sins, thou comest up quickened in righteousness. For if thou hast been united with the likeness of the Saviour’s death
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 20.7
… things Christ endured, for us and for our salvation He suffered them in reality and not in appearance, and that we also are made partakers of His sufferings, Paul cried with all exactness of truth, For if we have been planted together with the likeness of His death, we shall be also with the likeness of His resurrection . Well has he said, planted together
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Concerning Repentance 2.2
… And then it is written that: “All we who were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death.” And farther on: “If we have been planted in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection, knowing that our old man was fastened with Him to His cross.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 5
… This death he means both of that in the Laver, and that in sufferings. For he says, “Bearing about in the body the dying of the Lord Jesus” ( 2 Cor. iv. 10 .); and, “We are buried with Him by baptism into death” ( Rom. vi. 4 .); and, “Our old man is crucified with Him”; and, “We have been planted together in the likeness of His death.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9
[6.] “Crucifying to themselves,” he says, “the Son of God afresh, and putting Him to an open shame.” What he means is this. Baptism is a Cross, and “our old man was crucified with [Him]” ( Rom. vi. 6 ), for we were “made conformable to the likeness of His death” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 53
… “They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts.” And in reference to His burial: “We are buried with Him by baptism into death.” In reference to His resurrection: “That, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”
6:6
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
For that must be living after the world, which, as the old man, he declares to be “crucified with Christ,”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 15
… Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.97
… has never recognized the correlation and distinction between figures and the truth, so that by withdrawing from the former and cleaving to the latter, and by thus escaping from the oldness of the letter and serving the newness of the spirit, he may clean pass over to grace from the law, which finds its spiritual fulfilment in the dissolution of the body.
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Duties of the Clergy 3.18
… The sacrifice which was consumed in the time of Moses was a sacrifice for sin, wherefore Moses said, as is written in the book of the Maccabees: “Because the sacrifice for sin was not to be eaten, it was consumed.” Does it not seem to be consumed for thee when in the sacrament of baptism the whole outer man perishes? “Our old man is crucified,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Instructions to Catechumens 1.2
… “For we were buried” saith he, “with him, through baptism, into death.” It is called circumcision: “In whom ye were also circumcised, with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the sins of the flesh.” It is called a cross: “Our old man was crucified with him that the body of sin might be done away.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 6 . “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
… and in the husband’s place he puts the Law, but in the woman’s, all believers. Then he adds the conclusion in such way, that it does not tally with the premiss; for what the context would require would be, “and so, my brethren, the Law doth not rule over you, for it is dead.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Commentary on Galatians 2
… so by life, he signifies a delivery from sin. For a man cannot live to God, otherwise than by dying to sin; and as Christ suffered bodily death, so does Paul a death to sin. “Mortify,” says he, “your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, passion;” ( Col. iii. 5 .), and again, “our old man was crucified,” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9
[6.] “Crucifying to themselves,” he says, “the Son of God afresh, and putting Him to an open shame.” What he means is this. Baptism is a Cross, and “our old man was crucified with [Him]” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.3
… But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” According to this faith and hope and love, by which we have begun to be “under grace,” we are already dead together with Christ, and buried together with Him by baptism into death; as the apostle hath said, “Our old man is crucified with Him;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 55.24
… “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.” Hence also he says of himself: “The world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world.” And again: “Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 3.10
… For “our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 4.3
… And so the body of sin is destroyed through such a cross, that now we should not yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 14.4
… A man may deny that Christ was cursed who denies that He died. But the man who believes that Christ died, and acknowledges that death is the fruit of sin, and is itself called sin, will understand who it is that is cursed by Moses, when he hears the apostle saying "For our old man is crucified with Him."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 14.12
… Christ, by the curse, takes the curse away, as He takes away death by death, and sin by sin. In the words, "Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree," there is no more blasphemy than in the words of the apostle, "He died," or, "Our old man was crucified along with Him,"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.58
… “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” For why should he be born again, unless to be renewed? From what is he to be renewed, if not from some old condition? From what old condition, but that in which “our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.37
… and in respect of ourselves too, though we were dead in sins and in the uncircumcision of our flesh, we are quickened together in Christ, in whom we are circumcised with the circumcision not made with the hand, but such as was prefigured by the old manual circumcision, that the body of sin might be done away
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.2
… There is another reason, which may be here not unreasonably accepted, why the judgment should be called the eighth, because it will take place after two generations, one relating to the body, the other to the soul. For from Adam unto Moses the human race lived of the body, that is, according to the flesh: which is called the outward and the old man,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 22.1
… For from the head of this Psalm are the words, which He cried out, whilst hanging on the Cross, sustaining also the person of the old man, whose mortality He bare. For our old man was nailed together with Him to the Cross.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 38.26
… If He does not forsake Thee, who believest in Him, could the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, One God, forsake Christ? But He had transferred to Himself the person of the First Man. We know by the words of an Apostle, that “our old man is crucified with Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.27
… to this punishment they would add that persecute us. This punishment is the smiting of the Lord. For the Lord smote man with the sentence: “What day ye shall have touched it,” He saith, “with death ye shall die.” Out of this death He had taken upon Him flesh, and our old man hath been crucified together with Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.10
… according to that whereby He had transformed us into Himself, not according to that wherein He had Himself come down. For He became a monster unto many. And perchance the same was the old age of Him; because on account of its oldness it is not improperly called old age, and the Apostle saith, “Our old man hath been crucified together with Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.11
… Far be it. But in our old man our voice it was, because our old man was crucified together with Him:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 141.3
… Still we too are figured there. For what of Him hung upon the tree, save what He took of us? And how can it be that the Father should leave and abandon His only begotten Son, especially when He is one God with Him? Yet, fixing our weakness upon the Cross, where, as the Apostle saith, “our old man is crucified with Him,”
6:7
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.23.6
… But He set a bound to his [state of] sin, by interposing death, and thus causing sin to cease,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 27
… but to set what is spiritual before all, even the most indispensable matters, and to know both what is life, and what is death. Since many even of them that seem to live are nothing better than dead men, living as they do in wickedness; or rather these are worse than the dead; “For he that is dead,” it is said, “is freed from sin,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 7 . “For he that is dead,” he says, “is freed (Gr. justified) from sin.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 11
… Behold, for example; I for my part know nothing against myself: yet neither so am I justified, that is, I am not quit of accounts to be given, nor of charges to be answered. For he doth not say this, “I rank not among the righteous;” but “I am not pure from sin.” For elsewhere he saith also, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 39
… After this manner of victory doth Christ Himself say in the Gospels that He hath been victorious, thus speaking, “When he shall bind the strong man, then shall he also spoil his goods.” ( Matt. xii. 29 .) Since if this were not so, it would not be at all a manifest victory. For as in the death of the soul, “he that hath died is justified from sin;” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 10
… Why has he not said that he ought to be already raised above the world? But dost thou demand less of the Bishop, than even of those in the world? For to these he saith, “Mortify your members which are upon the earth” ( Col. iii. 5 .), and “He that is dead, is freed from sin.” (
6:8
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… but the sense is that which he has subjoined, “that the body of sin might be made void,” by an amendment of life, not by a destruction of the substance, as he goes on to say, “that henceforth we should not serve sin;” and that we should believe ourselves to be “dead with Christ,” in such a manner as that “we shall also live with Him.”
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 of sins is there? Those men did not die with Christ; wherefore they were not raised with Him.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 8 . “Now if we be dead with Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 11
“That if one died for all, then all died.” ‘Surely then it was because all were lost,’ saith he. For except all were dead, He had not died for all
6:9
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.9
… “But at the same time, [it, is] Christ [that] died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God.” And again, “Knowing that Christ, rising from the dead, dieth no more:”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.16
… For no one is immortal who is destined to die; but he is immortal when he shall no longer be subject to death. But “Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over Him;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.4
… and the woman who is an adulteress, to-wit, the soul, which, while her husband, the law, liveth, has become joined to another husband, namely, the law of the flesh; and the woman who is married to the brother of the dead husband, to the Word who is alive and dies not, who “being raised from the dead dieth no more, for death hath no more dominion over Him.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 10
… Finally, He became man, that we who die as men might live again, and that death should no more reign over us; for the Apostolic word proclaims, ‘Death shall not have the dominion over us
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 9 . “That Christ being raised from the dead, dieth no more.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 6
[3.] Since then It hath given us life, let us remain living and not return again to the former deadness: for “Christ dieth no more; for the death that He died, He died unto sin once:” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 9
… vi. 5; Philip. iii. 10 ), and again, “we were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death.” ( Rom. vi. 4 .) Wherefore, as it is not possible that Christ should be crucified a second time, for that is to “put Him to an open shame.” For “if death shall no more have dominion over Him” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 45
… This body then, which is now corruptible, will by the grace of the resurrection be incorruptible, and this which is now mortal will be clothed with virtues of immortality, that, as “Christ rising from the dead dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 102.3
3. To this I answer, that the resurrection of Christ and not of Lazarus corresponds to that which is promised, because Lazarus was so raised that he died a second time, whereas of Christ it is written: “Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 166.14
… that the soul of man must owe its immortality to its having been created before time began, this does not disturb my faith; for, passing over other examples, which conclusively dispose of this assertion, I need only refer to the body of Christ, which now “dieth no more; death shall have no more dominion over it.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 220.1
… For He has risen from the dead, and now “dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 12.13
… For once Christ died for our sins; and, rising from the dead, He dieth no more. “Death hath no more dominion over Him;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 17.11
… Thereafter it follows, “Who is the man that shall live, and shall not see death? shall he snatch his soul from the hand of hell?” Who is this but that substance of Israel out of the seed of David, Christ Jesus, of whom the apostle says, that “rising from the dead He now dieth not, and death shall no more have dominion over Him?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.14
… And therefore He conquered the devil first by righteousness, and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had no sin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, because having been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Creed 9
… do the work and receive the prize; strive in the match and thou shall be crowned. What is the work? Obedience. What the prize? Resurrection without death. Why did I add, “without death?” Because “Lazarus rose, and died: Christ rose again, “dieth no more, death will no longer have dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Creed 10
… He was as it were left: but by whom? By those insulting ones. Therefore thou shall but to this end have patience, that thou mayest rise again and not die, that is, never die, even as Christ. For so we read, “Christ rising from the dead henceforth dieth not.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Good of Widowhood 13
… For, whereas they, who of Christian sanctity marry not, are said to choose the marriage of Christ, hence certain argue saying, If she, who during the life of her husband is married to another, be an adulteress, even as the Lord Himself hath laid down in the Gospel; therefore, during the life of Christ, over Whom death hath no more dominion,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 11.7
… So, "we have known Christ after the flesh," that is, after the mortality of flesh, before His resurrection; "now henceforth we know Him no more," because, as the same apostle says, "Christ being risen from the dead, dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion over Him."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 1.9
Chapter 9.— 10. Again, when he hears, "He that is washed by one dead, his washing profiteth him nought," he will answer, "Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him:"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 2.7
… For that all unrighteous persons are wont to be called dead in a mystical sense is clear enough; but Christ, to whom true baptism belongs, which you say is false because of the faults of men, is alive, sitting at the right hand of the Father, and He will not die any more through any infirmity of the flesh: death will no more have dominion over Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 38.1
… For He assumed a mortal body, wherein to kill death. And, “though He was crucified through weakness,” as the Apostle saith, “yet He liveth by the power of God.” They are the words too of the same Apostle; “He dieth no more, and death shall have no more dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 38.9
… For because these miracles are written that so they might be read, they “passed by” when they were being done. In a word, not to dwell long on this, He was Crucified: is He hanging on the Cross always? He was Buried, He Rose again, He Ascended into heaven; “now He dieth no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 58.1
… when He came, nor did He depart when He went away, and He is to come to them to whom He said, “Lo, I am with you, even unto the end of the world.” According to the “form of a servant” then, which He took for our sakes, was He born at a certain time, and was slain, and rose again, and now “dieth no more, neither shall death have any more dominion over Him;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 32.9
… In this sojourn of our life let us meditate on nothing else, but that here we shall not always be, and that by good living we shall prepare a place for ourselves there, whence we shall never migrate. For our Lord Jesus Christ, after that He is risen again, “now dieth no more;” “death,” as the apostle says, “shall no more have dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 64.4
… They were not, therefore, at that time less able to follow the Lord to death, but they were less able to follow Him to the life which is deathless. For thither it was the Lord was going, that, rising from the dead, He should die no more, and death should no more have dominion over Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 69.4
… And if the mere image that God made is capable of this, what may not God, the very image of God, not made by, but born of God; whose body, wherein He came forth to us and returned from us, has not ceased to be, like the sound of my voice, but abides there, where it shall die no more, and death shall have no more dominion over it?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 101.3
… which is usually all the greater when it is not a girl but a boy that is born. But when He said, “Your joy no man taketh from you,” for their joy was Jesus Himself, there is implied what was said by the apostle, “Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; and death shall have no more dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 22.1
1. “To the end,” for His own resurrection, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself speaketh. For in the morning on the first day of the week was His resurrection, whereby He was taken up, into eternal life, “Over whom death shall have no more dominion.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.8
… just as they are drawn even from things earthly, to wit, stone, lion, lamb, man having two sons, and the like: therefore having humbled the false-accuser, He endureth with the sun: because having vanquished the devil by the Resurrection, He sitteth at the right hand of the Father, where He dieth no more, and death no longer over Him shall have dominion.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.17
… 15 ). There would not have been said, “and He shall live” (for of whom could not this be said, though living for ever so brief a space of time on this earth?) unless that life were being recommended to our notice, wherein He “dieth no more, and death over Him shall have no more dominion.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.4
… But He, wounded and asleep in the tomb, awoke on the third day, and became “like a sparrow that sitteth alone on the housetop,” that is, on the right hand of His Father in Heaven: and now “dieth no more, death shall no more have dominion over Him.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 89.37
37. “What man is he that shall live, and shall not see death?” ( ver. 48 ). For being raised from the dead He dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion over Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 97.9
… let those who worship stones be ashamed. Because those stones were dead, we have found a living Stone; indeed those stones never lived, so that they cannot be called even dead; but our Stone is living, and hath ever lived with the Father, and though He died for us, He revived, and liveth now, and death shall no more have dominion over Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 150.4
… For in Christ’s resurrection, “strength” is especially set forth to us, for in His Passion was weakness, as the Apostle saith. And well doth it say, “the firmament of His power.” For it is the “firmament of His power” that He “dieth no more, death hath no more dominion over Him.”
6:10
St Ignatius of Antioch † AD 108 Epistle to the Tarsians 3
… For, says he, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of the Lord Jesus.” And He really suffered, and died, and rose again. For says [Paul], “If Christ should become passible, and should be the first to rise again from the dead.” And again, “In that He died, He died unto sin once: but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen Against Celsus 2.69
… crucifixion contains a truth, represented in the words, “I am crucified with Christ,” and intimated also in these, “God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the world;” and as His death was necessary, because of the statement, “For in that He died, He died unto sin once,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 1.11
… by the man Jesus he would be made a man of God, and by His death he would die to sin. For “Christ,
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 9.13
… and again to the Romans, For the death, that He died unto sin, He died once: but the life, that He liveth, He liveth unto God. Even so reckon ye yourselves also to be dead unto sin, but alive unto God in Christ Jesus
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 6.1
… and “He was crucified through weakness” (where by “weakness” he means “the flesh”), “yet liveth by power ” (while he indicates by “power” the Divine Nature); and, “He died unto sin” (that is, with regard to the body), “but liveth unto God
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Selections from the Letters of St. Ambrose sermon-against-auxentius-on-th.13
… Christ answers: I am coming to be crucified again. Peter understood the divine answer to refer to his own cross, for Christ could not be crucified a second time, for He had put off the flesh by the passion of the death which He had undergone; since: “In that He died, He died unto sin once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”
6:11
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed.”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril procatechesis-or-prologue-to-t.5
… Thou art come within the Church’s nets : be taken alive, flee not: for Jesus is angling for thee, not in order to kill, but by killing to make alive: for thou must die and rise again. For thou hast heard the Apostle say, Dead indeed unto sin, but living unto righteousness
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 11 . “Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 5
… lx. 12 .) And Paul, “Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey, in the will of God, to come unto you.” ( Rom. i. 10 .) And again he uses it of Christ, saying, “In Christ Jesus.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 38.2
… Then life had all but forsaken her body, and the approach of death made her gasp and shiver. What succour did she obtain in that hour from her kinsfolk? What comfort was there in their words lighter than smoke? She owes no debt to you, ye unkindly kindred, now that she is dead to the world and alive unto Christ.
6:12
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 5.14.4
… And for this reason he says, in the Epistle to the Romans: “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, to be under its control: neither yield ye your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves to God, as being alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it, and that ye should yield your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield ye yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead”—not simply alive, but as alive from the dead—“and your members as instruments of righteousness.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 17
… Else, if fornication and adultery may by possibility be anew admissible, Christ withal will be able anew to die. Moreover, the apostle is urgent in prohibiting “sin from reigning in our mortal body,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 12.35
… And such an one indeed would see in Him the kingdom of God come with power; and he would see this, as one who is no longer now under the reign of “sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who sin,”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.3
And next to this about the married, I am familiar also with another interpretation of the agreement between the two which is as follows. In the wicked, sin reigns over the soul, being settled as on its own throne in this mortal body, so that the soul obeys the lusts thereof;
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on Matthew 14.7
… But if you enquire into the meaning of the words, “Theirs is the kingdom of heaven,” you may say that Christ is theirs in so far as He is absolute Kingdom, reigning in every thought of the man who is no longer under the reign of sin which reigns in the mortal body of those who have subjected themselves to it.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 23.13
13. Thy kingdom come . A pure soul can say with boldness, Thy kingdom come ; for he who has heard Paul saying, Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 12 . “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.6
… When He Himself aids the soul in His own hidden and wonderful ways, and the sin which dwells in our members, and is, as the apostle teaches, rather the punishment of sin, does not reign in our mortal body to obey the lusts of it, and when we no longer yield our members as instruments of unrighteousness,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 4
… but contain it, by not suffering thought to proceed to consent: for thus, according to the precept of the Apostle, sin reigneth not in our mortal body, nor do we yield our members as weapons of unrighteousness unto sin.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 8
… nor yield your members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin; but yield yourselves unto God, as living in place of dead, and your members weapons of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not rule over you. For ye are not under the law, but under Grace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 31
… Then sin will reign in the mortal body of man to obey its desires; then will it yield its members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.4
… Of this evil the apostle says: “I know that in my flesh dwelleth no good thing;” and it is likewise to the same evil that he counsels us to give no obedience, when he says: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to obey the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 2.45
This law of sin, however, which the apostle also designates “sin,” when he says, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 65
… In respect, therefore, of that immortal life, the commandment is even now applicable: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might;” but in reference to the present life the following: “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 45
… as well as how frequently these and many other similar failings stealthily crept over his mind. And are not these failings sins , about which the apostle’s precept gives us a general admonition that we should avoid and restrain them, when he says: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 66
… “Not to let it reign in our mortal body, that we should obey it in the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 12
… “These are contrary the one to the other, so that ye will not do the things that ye can,” but, “so that ye do not the things that ye would.” How happens it, then, that the lust of the flesh which of course is culpable and corrupt, and is nothing else than the desire for sin, as to which the same apostle instructs us not to let it “reign in our mortal body;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 28
… His heart then reproaches him, because it reproaches himself, and not his sin which dwelleth in him. But whensoever he suffers not sin to reign in his mortal body to obey it in the lusts thereof,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness chapter44
… is not in us.” Observe, the expression is not we had , but “ we have .” If, however, anybody contend that the apostle’s statement concerns the sin which dwells in our mortal flesh according to the defect which was caused by the will of the first man when he sinned, and concerning which the Apostle Paul enjoins us “not” to “obey it in the lusts thereof,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.25
Now this concupiscence, this law of sin which dwells in our members, to which the law of righteousness forbids allegiance, saying in the words of the apostle, “Let not sin, therefore, reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof; neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.28
… Now we are admonished not to obey its sinful desires to do evil: “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.30
… But what in this action does it effect, unless it be its evil and shameful desires? For if these were good and lawful, the apostle would not forbid obedience to them, saying, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.35
… Thus, although the actual law of sin partly holds the flesh in captivity (whence comes its resistance to the law of the mind), still it has not an absolute empire in our body, notwithstanding its mortal state, since it refuses obedience to its desires.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Our Lord’s Sermon on the Mount 1.22
… For of itself it is a genuine avenging of the martyrs, and one full of righteousness and mercy, that the dominion of sin should be overthrown, under which dominion they were subjected to so great sufferings. And for its overthrow the apostle strives, saying, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.8
… For it is not so that thou hast nothing wherewith to fight. Thy God is in thee, the good Spirit hath been given to thee. And notwithstanding this flesh of ours is permitted to lust against the spirit by evil suggestions and real delights. Be that secured which the Apostle saith, “Let not sin reign in your mortal body.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 78.12
12. But do what ye are able; what the Apostle himself says in another place, which I had already begun to repeat; “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, to obey the desires thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 41.12
12. But if with the flesh thou servest the law of sin, do as the apostle himself says: “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lust thereof: neither yield ye your members as weapons of unrighteousness unto sin.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 9.8
… that as the Apostle says, “Sin should no more reign in” our “mortal body,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 36.5
… if a man cannot but have wickedness, let him at least hate it. For when thou hatest it, it scarcely occurs to thee to do any wickedness. For sin is in our mortal body, but what saith the Apostle? “Let not sin reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 42.8
… For God’s tabernacle on earth is the faithful; I admire in them the obedience of even their bodily members: that in them “Sin does not reign so that they should obey its lusts; neither do they yield their members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin; but unto the living God in good works.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 51.3
… For from afar David saw her with whom he was captivated. Woman afar, lust near. What he saw was elsewhere, in himself that whereby he fell. This weakness of the flesh must be therefore minded, the words of the Apostle recollected, “Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.18
… But they are called kings from ruling: and what more than the lusts of the flesh, that sin may not reign in their mortal body to obey the desires thereof, that they yield not their members instruments of iniquity unto sin, but yield themselves to God, as though from the dead living, and their members instruments of righteousness to God?
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 1.11
… because they are never satisfied merely with the mortification of the heart, but also have the motions of the outward man and the incentives of nature itself frozen by the approach of the frost of continence from without, if only, as the Apostle says, they no longer allow any reign of sin in their mortal body, nor wear a flesh that resists the spirit.
Early Popes (Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals) The Epistles of Pope Callistus 2.6
… whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the manner of men.”
6:13
Tertullian † AD 220 Five Books in Reply to Marcion 5
Is seeking to regain the flesh’s limbs,
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 20.8
8. Having been sufficiently instructed in these things, keep them, I beseech you, in your remembrance; that I also, unworthy though I be, may say of you, Now I love you , because ye always remember me, and hold fast the traditions, which I delivered unto you . And God, who has presented you as it were alive from the dead
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.95
… before my feet had been set upon the rock, made like hart’s feet, and my footsteps directed in a godly fashion so that they should not well-nigh slip, nor slip at all; before all my members had become instruments of righteousness,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 12
… and it is meet that they should all rejoice in the Lord when they all look towards the Beautiful and the Good, and do everything for the glory of God, no longer instruments of sin
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 13 . “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin…but as instruments of righteousness.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 24
“And having on,” he continues, “the breastplate of righteousness.” As the breastplate is impenetrable, so also is righteousness, and by righteousness here he means a life of universal virtue.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 5
And say; what chargest thou? “That by them thou shouldest war a good warfare.” They chose thee, that then for which they chose thee do thou, “war a good warfare.” He named “a good warfare,” since there is a bad warfare, of which he says, “As ye have yielded your members instruments
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 10.6
… For this is a part of that mercy which each man shows to himself; as it is written, “Have mercy on thy soul by pleasing God.” Our body, too, as a sacrifice when we chasten it by temperance, if we do so as we ought, for God’s sake, that we may not yield our members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but instruments of righteousness unto God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.7
… that part which the philosophers also call vicious, and which ought not to lead the mind, but which the mind ought to rule and restrain by reason from illicit motions,—when, then, this part has been moved to perpetrate any wickedness, if it be curbed and if it obey the word of the apostle, “Yield not your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 12.12
… then, as it were, the serpent discourses with the woman. And to consent to this allurement, is to eat of the forbidden tree. But if that consent is satisfied by the pleasure of thought alone, but the members are so restrained by the authority of higher counsel that they are not yielded as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Against Lying 18
… lastly, to draw nearer to the matter in question, if deservedly she punishment him who hath with that intent mixed in adulterous embrace with some woman, privy to the turpitude of the Priscillianists, that he might enter into their concealments; I pray thee, when the Apostle saith, “Neither yield ye your members instruments of unrighteousness unto sin;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 45
… They who in a great degree have curbed this sin, that is, this appetite of a corrupt affection, so as not to obey its desires, nor to “yield their members to it as instruments of unrighteousness,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 28
… His heart then reproaches him, because it reproaches himself, and not his sin which dwelleth in him. But whensoever he suffers not sin to reign in his mortal body to obey it in the lusts thereof, and yields not his members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 1.31
… The two things are simultaneous in his case: he hates the thing himself because he knows that it is evil; and yet he does it, because he is bent on doing it. Now if, in addition to all this, he proceeds to do what the Scripture forbids him, when it says, “Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin,”
6:14
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 14 . “For sin shall no more have dominion over you; for ye are not under the Law, but under grace.”
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.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
vi. 14 . Not under the law, but under grace.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Continence 12
12. When, therefore, you hear it said, “Sin shall not reign over you;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.42
… He then completes the passage by adding these words: “Better than they were even who lived under the law; according to the apostle, who says, ‘Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.13
… Because the law worketh wrath, for where no law is, there is no transgression.” And in another place: “Moreover, the law entered that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded grace did much more abound.” In still another place: “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under law, but under grace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 24
… For they were under the law, not under grace, and therefore sin had dominion over them, from which a man is not freed by the law, but by grace. On which account he elsewhere says, “For sin shall not have dominion over you; because ye are not under the law, but under grace.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 3
… By it humbled, by it also glorified; by it He raised the humble, even by that to which He, when humbled, descended. We belong, then, to the gospel, we belong to the New Testament. “The law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.” We ask the apostle, and he says to us, since we are not under the law but under grace.
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 21.30
… “For sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law but under grace.”
6:15
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 15 . “What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the Law, but under grace? God forbid.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philemon 3
“What then? shall we sin because we are not under the law? God forbid.” (
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 21.34
… “We have sinned, because we are not under the law but under grace.”
6:16
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 16 . “Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 2
… For He saith, “I will dwell in them, and walk in them;” ( Lev. xxvi. 12 .) for when the mind is become righteous, when it hath put off its sins, it becometh God’s dwelling. (
6:17
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 10
… Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regenerate through the grace given in our baptism. How else could we be? And after recognising that this salvation is established through the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, shall we fling away “that form of doctrine”
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.3
3. But before delivering you over to the Creed
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On the Holy Spirit 1
… and if any one were to term some individual a man, and yet were unable to produce evidence in his case of the foregoing signs of human nature, his terming him so would be a valueless honour. Thus, too, the Christian is marked by his Belief in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; in this consists the form of him who is fashioned
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 38
… Thus at any rate He acts, where He weeps for the city. Not therefore because of this doth He rejoice, but because what wise men knew not, was known to these. As when Paul saith, “I thank God, that ye were servants of sin, but ye obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered unto you.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 1
… xxv. 9 ), for the work is the servant of Him which made it. Another kind is that from the faith, of which it saith, “But God be thanked that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from a pure heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you: being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
Ver. 17 . “But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered unto you.” (Lit. “into which ye were delivered.”)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 18
Ver. 7, 8 . “Be not ye, therefore, partakers with them. For ye were
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.12
… Yea, and our earth, before it received the “form of doctrine,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 4.21
… that is, if bodies alone can be recognised? What Christian, however, when discussing subjects of such magnitude and difficulty, can give such little heed to the inspired word as to say, “If the soul be incorporeal, it must of necessity lack form”? Have you forgotten that in that word you have read of “a form of doctrine”?
6:18
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 7.7
… But God had no need of a go-between in dealing with man; but Himself in His own person at once judges and consoles him. And not only this is wonderful, but also that he corrects the crimes that had been committed. For judges in general, when they find thieves and grave-robbers,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 11
So he first adopted a form of adjuration, because it was an absurd thing he had named. And then he makes his discourse pass on to exhortation, and shows the great facility of the struggle, in the following words.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 35
… This sin they no longer serve who are not in the first condition, as Adam, free; but are freed by the grace of God through the second Adam, and by that deliverance have that free will which enables them to serve God, not that by which they may be made captive by the devil. From being made free from sin they have become the servants of righteousness,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.23
… Whence to Peter hath been said, “From henceforth thou shalt catch men.” Led captive therefore they are because caught, and caught because subjugated, being sent under that gentle yoke, being delivered from sin whereof they were servants, and being made servants of righteousness
6:19
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 47
… What fruit had ye then in those things of which ye are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
St Basil the Great † AD 379 The Letters 46.3
… she has forsaken Me, the true and holy Bridegroom of holy souls, and has betaken herself to an impious and lawless destroyer of body and soul alike. She has revolted from God, her Saviour, and yielded her members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity.
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 4.19
… but if ye be not willing, neither hearken unto Me, the sword shall devour you, &c. : and again, As ye presented your members as servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now present your members as servants to righteousness unto sanctification
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 65
… For I am indeed ashamed to make mention of them; nevertheless, because of your infirmity it is needful to do even this. For Paul too saith, “Like as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 24
… For he uses the expression “man can bear ,” in respect of what is small; as when he says, “I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 1 Timothy 5
And say; what chargest thou? “That by them thou shouldest war a good warfare.” They chose thee, that then for which they chose thee do thou, “war a good warfare.” He named “a good warfare,” since there is a bad warfare, of which he says, “As ye have yielded your members instruments to uncleanness and to iniquity.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 145.5
… Then that is done which the apostle enjoins in the admonition, “I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.”
6:20
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
Ver. 20 . “For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 1.5
… For free will in the sinner up to this extent did not perish,—that by it all sin, especially they who sin with delight and with love of sin; what they are pleased to do gives them pleasure. Whence also the apostle says, “When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 41.8
… For only if thy will is pious, will it be free. Thou wilt be free, if thou art a servant still,—free from sin, the servant of righteous ness: as the apostle says, “When ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. But now, being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”
6:21
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 16
… And this you may learn plainly from those who have done well. Hear, for instance, how of those passions Paul is ashamed, even after his deliverance from them, saying, “For what fruit had ye then in those things, whereof ye are now ashamed?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
Ver. 21 . “What fruit had ye then in those things whereof ye are now ashamed?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 18
… then, on the other hand, from the thought of punishment and hell-fire. “For ye were once darkness,” says he, “but are now light in the Lord.” Which is what he says also in the Epistle to the Romans; “What fruit then had ye at that time in the things whereof ye are now ashamed?” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against Jovinianus 1.37
… By this method I shall succeed in omitting nothing relating to chastity, and shall avoid being tediously long. Amongst other passages, Paul the Apostle writes to the Romans:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 2.8
… nor needed I have provoked that itching of my own passions, by the encouragement of accomplices. But as my enjoyment was not in those pears, it was in the crime itself, which the company of my fellow-sinners produced.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 6.13
… There is then nothing to hinder us from taking what follows too in this sense, “let them be turned and ashamed,” that is, let them be turned to God, and be ashamed that they sometime gloried in the former darkness of their sins; as the Apostle says, “For what glory had ye sometime in those things of which ye are now ashamed?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.3
3. “O God, in Thee I have hoped, O Lord, I shall not be confounded for everlasting” ( ver. 1 ). Already I have been confounded, but not for everlasting. For how is he not confounded, to whom is said, “What fruit had ye in these things wherein ye now blush?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 86.22
… how are they numbered among the children of God! What hath pride profited us?” Then shall they say this: let them say it now, and they say it to their health. For let each one turn humbly to God, and now say, What hath my pride profited me? and hear from the Apostle, “For what glory had ye in those things of which ye are now ashamed?”
6:22
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 15
… Hence it follows that the answer to our question why the water was associated with the Spirit is clear: the reason is because in baptism two ends were proposed; on the one hand, the destroying of the body of sin, that it may never bear fruit unto death; on the other hand, our living unto the Spirit, and having our fruit in holiness;
St Cyril of Jerusalem † AD 386 The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril 18.30
… as He answered to him that came to Him, and said, Good Master, what shall I do that I may have eternal life ? But further, it is by departing from evil works, and henceforth serving God; for Paul says, But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto sanctification, and the end eternal life
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
Ver. 22 . “For now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 19.11
… Of this end the apostle says, “But now, being freed from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end life eternal.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 1.5
… nor can an unsteady look help them to correct and restore the straight line enjoined on them. So then the end indeed which we have set before us is, as the Apostle says, eternal life, as he declares, “having indeed your fruit unto holiness, and the end eternal life;”
6:23
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.19.1
… “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.” But, being ignorant of Him who from the Virgin is Emmanuel, they are deprived of His gift, which is eternal life;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 12
Ver. 23 . “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.42
… That deceitful mediator, then, by whom in Thy secret judgments pride deserved to be deceived, hath one thing in common with man, that is, sin; another he would appear to have with God, and, not being clothed with mortality of flesh, would boast that he was immortal. But since “the wages of sin is death,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 107
Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which is surely the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God. “For the wages of sin,” he says, “is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Baptism, Against the Donatists 6.34
66. What it is to be baptized by the dead, we have already, without prejudice to the more careful consideration of the same scripture, sufficiently declared before. But I would ask why it is that they wish heretics alone to be considered dead, when Paul the apostle has said generally of sin, "The wages of sin is death;"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 18
… But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated “eternal life” itself as His gracious “gift.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 19
… Does the apostle perchance not say that eternal life is a grace? Nay, he has so called it, with a clearness which none can possibly gainsay. It requires no acute intellect, but only an attentive reader, to discover this. For after saying, “The wages of sin is death,” he at once added, “The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 21
… one after this manner, and another after that.” And this is grace. But, over and above this, we shall also receive “grace for grace,” when we shall have awarded to us eternal life, of which the apostle said: “The grace of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,”
6:1
1. WHAT THEN SHALL WE SAY? SHALL WE CONTINUE IN SIN THAT GRACE MAY ABOUND? — This is a prolepsis, by which the Apostle meets the objection of certain persons. For someone will say: "If, O Paul, it is true what you said at the end of the preceding chapter — 'Where sin abounded, grace did more abound' — therefore sins are to be added to sins, so that God's grace may abound more." Paul responds: God forbid; thus the Fathers. Whence it is clear that "sin" is here taken properly, although some take it metonymically for the tinder of sin. 2. FOR WE WHO ARE DEAD TO SIN, HOW SHALL WE STILL LIVE IN IT? — Note: The word "sin" here can be taken in two ways: first, so that it is in the ablative case, and "dead to sin" is the same as "dead through sin," as the Apostle speaks in Ephesians II, 5; second, so that "sin" is in the dative case, and then "to die to sin" is the same as to renounce sin, to cast off sin. St. Chrysostom takes it both ways here, whence he gives a twofold exposition. First: "dead to sin," that is, we who through sin have lost spiritual life. Or second: we who, with sin abolished, no longer obey it, but have already renounced and cast it off. But this second sense is better and more proper; for by direct antithesis it is opposed to what the Apostle subjoins: "how shall we still live in it?" Note: To live unto justice or unto sin is to exercise the operations of life concerning justice or sin — that is, to do and exercise the vital works of sin, namely when a rational man, by will, love, desire, joy, obeys, delights in, follows, enjoys concupiscences and appetites contrary to the law of God, indulging not the divine will but his own. Thus on the contrary someone is said to be dead to sin, when he does not have these operations of life, these loves, but cuts himself off from them and renounces them. For death is complete abandonment, separation and severance. Just as therefore Religious ought to be dead to the world, so that they neither delight in nor mingle themselves with worldly things, so all Christians ought to be dead to sin. See what has been said in Galatians VI, 14. Note: In this chapter the Apostle considers sin and the tinder of sin as it were a lord or king reigning in man — when he obeys its depraved motions and desires; for he persists in the personification, concerning which I spoke in the preceding chapter, verse 20.
6:3
3. WHOSOEVER ARE BAPTIZED IN CHRIST JESUS, ARE BAPTIZED IN HIS DEATH. — "Baptized in Christ," that is, baptized in the power, name and merits not of John but of Christ; thus Origen and Anselm. Secondly, Pererius: "in Christ," he says, is the same as "through Christ." But the Greek has εἰς Χριστόν, "into Christ," and thus Tertullian reads it, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh — as if Paul were saying: through baptism you are grafted into Christ, just as branches into a new tree, and you have become part of his body, namely the mystical body, which is the Church. From this place and similar ones some thought that baptism is valid if someone baptizes with this form: "I baptize you in the name of Christ," with the names of the Father and Holy Spirit omitted. Thus the Master holds (in the Sentences IV, dist. III); Adrian (ibid., Question I, art. 2); Cajetan (III part., Question LXVI, art. 6). The same seemed to be the opinion — as a private Doctor — of Nicholas I, Pontiff, in his response to the consultations of the Bulgarians. For he says: "Those indeed who are baptized in the name of the Trinity, or only in the name of Christ — as is read in the Acts of the Apostles — are not to be rebaptized." The same teaches St. Ambrose (book I On the Holy Spirit, cap. III), and Bede on Acts cap. X. Secondly, St. Thomas (Summa III, q. 66, art. 6) holds that the Apostles, by God's dispensation, baptized in the name of Christ, in order to make his name illustrious; but now this is not permitted, nor is baptism valid unless conferred with the three Persons of the Most Holy Trinity expressly named. But other Fathers and Doctors commonly hold that baptism is not valid — nor ever was — unless each Person of the Most Holy Trinity is named. Suarez cites them (III part., Question LXVI, art. 6). Indeed Pope Pelagius defined this very thing, cap. Si revera, on consecrations, dist. 4, where he says that he who is baptized in the name of the Lord — that is, of Christ — is to be rebaptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The same asserts Pope Zacharias in the same dist., cap. In the Synod of the English. Therefore when Paul says we are baptized in Christ, and Luke in Acts "in the name of Jesus," understand "in Christ" thus: first, in the authority, power and merits of Christ; secondly, in the baptism instituted by Christ, which is conferred in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; thirdly, in the name of Christ, but not alone; fourthly, it is probable that the Apostles in baptism added these words "Jesus Christ," saying: I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. For this greatly contributed to making this new name of Christ known among Jews and Gentiles, especially since in this way Christ was placed together with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Author of sanctification. Thus St. Basil, in the book On the Holy Spirit, cap. XII, openly asserts that none of the three Persons can be omitted from the form of baptism; and therefore when Paul says we are baptized into Christ, or into the Holy Spirit, the other Persons are also to be understood. "For indeed," he says, "the very name of Christ is a profession of the whole Godhead: for it declares at once both God (the Father) who anointed, and the Son who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit who is the anointing — just as we have learned from Peter in Acts: 'Jesus of Nazareth, whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit'; and likewise from Isaiah LXI: 'The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me'; and the Psalmist, Psalm XLIV: 'Therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.'" IN DEATH. — In Greek εἰς τὸν θάνατον, "into death" — that is, into the likeness and representation of the death of Christ we are baptized. For those who are baptized and immersed in waters allegorically represent Christ dead and buried, and signify by a tropological likeness that just as Christ died to temporal life, so they themselves are dead to sin (says St. Chrysostom) through baptism, by which sins are submerged and buried — to die, I say, to sin both by the virtue and efficacy of baptism (as St. Augustine teaches, Enchiridion LI, where from this he proves that infants have original sin, namely because they are baptized), and by the holy purpose of new life which the baptized soul conceives (thus Tertullian, On Penance). Here the Apostle proves that we are dead to sin, and ought not to live to it, because through baptism we are grafted into Christ, that we may live the life of Christ and the Christian life — for this is diametrically opposed to sin. 4. WE ARE BURIED TOGETHER WITH HIM BY BAPTISM INTO DEATH. — The Apostle proves that we are dead to sin from the mystical burial of baptism; whence he says, "we are buried together," as if to say: We, as dead to sin, are buried in baptism, just as Christ, corporally dead, was delivered to burial — for no one is buried except the dead. The rite therefore of baptism, namely the threefold immersion, allegorically represents the three days of Christ's burial, and tropologically represents the burial and death of sin. For this reason and similarity, on the day of Christ's burial, namely Holy Saturday, solemn baptism is accustomed to be celebrated. See Damascene, On the Faith, Book IV, chapter X. Note here the dissimilarity between Christ's burial and baptism. Christ first died, then was buried; but this baptismal burial, because it is a Sacrament, effects the death of sin in us; and therefore it is prior and anterior to the death of sin — not in time but in nature, as Pererius and Toletus rightly observe. This is what Paul says "we are buried together in death" — as if to say: with Christ in baptism we are as it were buried, so that we may die to sin; for this baptismal burial brings about and induces this death of sin. Hence the Fathers morally admonish us always to have before our eyes the profession which we made in baptism, saying: "I renounce Satan," and consequently sin. "You have entered," says St. Ambrose (On the Mysteries, chapter II), "the sanctuary of regeneration; recall what you were asked, recognize what you answered. You renounced the devil and his works, the world and its luxury and pleasures: your voice is bound — not in the tomb of the dead, but in the book of the living. You spoke before the angels: there is no one there to deceive, no one to deny." And St. Augustine (Book IV On the Creed to Catechumens, chapter 1, volume IX): "The enemy," he says, "is shut out from your hearts; you have professed to renounce him, in which profession you said — not to men, but to God and his angels receiving it — 'I renounce.' Renounce not only in words, but also in conduct; not only in the sound of the tongue, but in the act of life; not only in sounding lips, but also in deeds declaring it. Know that you have undertaken a struggle with a cunning, ancient and inveterate enemy; lest after your renunciation he find his works in you, lest he draw you back into his servitude — for it will be revealed and discovered, O Christian, when you do one thing and profess another, faithful in name and showing something else in deed, not keeping the faith of your promise: now entering the church to pour out prayers, a little later in the spectacles with actors shamelessly shouting. What have you to do with the pomps of the devil, which you renounced?" Hence also to the baptized the priest gives a white garment, as a sign of purity and innocence, saying: "Receive this white garment, holy and immaculate, which you shall bear without stain before the tribunal of Christ, so that you may have eternal life." Of which Lactantius sings in the Easter Song: White the army goes forth from the snowy waters, And the old vice is purged in the new stream. The shining souls the white garment also marks, And from the snowy flock the shepherd has joys. Wherefore Muritta the Deacon, in Victor of Utica (Book III On the Persecution of the Vandals), addresses pathetically Elpidophorus the apostate — executioner of his own people equally as of the orthodox — unfolding and examining those linens with which he once received Elpidophorus from the sacred font: "These," he says, "are, Elpidophorus, minister of error, the linens which will accuse you, when the majesty of the Judge shall have come — my diligence preserved in testimony of your perdition, to plunge you into the abyss of the sulphurous lake. These clothed you immaculate, when you rose from the font. These will pursue you more sharply, when you shall begin to possess the flaming Gehenna, because you have put on a curse as a garment, tearing and casting away the sacrament of true baptism and faith. What will you do, wretch, when the servants of the master of the house shall begin to gather those called to the royal supper? Then at last called, the King will see you with terrible indignation stripped of the wedding garment, and will say to you: 'Friend, how did you come in here, not having a wedding garment? I do not see what I bestowed, I do not recognize what I gave. You have lost the cloak of warfare, which I wove for ten months in the weaving of virginal members, and the bonds of the cross, which extending the water I cleansed and adorned with the purple of my blood — these eyes of mine do not see; I do not see the character of the Trinity; such a one cannot be present at my feasts: bind him hand and foot,' etc." JUST AS CHRIST ROSE FROM THE DEAD THROUGH THE GLORY OF THE FATHER, SO WE ALSO MAY WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE. — "Through the glory of the Father" — that is, through divine power; or, as Theodoret and Theophylactus say, through His very divinity; for the glory, or glorious divinity, of the Father and the Son is the same. Secondly, and more aptly, Cajetan — so that the comparison between Christ and us may be more complete — explains it thus: "through the glory of the Father," that is, through the glorious and immortal life which Christ rising received from the Father — as if to say: Christ rose in order that He might live a glorious life befitting His divinity, such as is fitting for the Son of God. Whence it is fitting also for us, rising in baptism, to lead a new life worthy of the sons of God, and this by continually advancing and making progress in it; for this is what the word "walk" signifies. Thirdly, the Greek διά could be rendered "on account of," or, as the Syriac translator renders it, "to the glory of the Father." For the Father is greatly glorified in the resurrection and rising of Christ. Most excellently does St. Augustine say in the Enchiridion, chapter LIII: "Whatever," he says, "was done on the cross of Christ, in His burial, in His resurrection on the third day, in His ascension into heaven and in His sitting at the right hand of the Father — was done in such a way that by these things, not only mystically spoken but also actually done, the Christian life which is lived here might be configured. For, on account of His cross, it was said: They that are of Jesus Christ have crucified their flesh with the vices and concupiscences; on account of His burial: We are buried together with Christ by baptism into death; on account of His resurrection: That as Christ rose from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also may walk in newness of life; on account of His ascension and sitting at the right hand of the Father: If you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God; mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth."
6:5
5. FOR IF WE HAVE BEEN PLANTED TOGETHER IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS DEATH, WE SHALL BE ALSO IN THE LIKENESS OF HIS RESURRECTION. — Here the Apostle stirs us up to newness of life through hope of resurrection. Note: for "planted together," the Greek is σύμφυτοι, which is not a participle but a noun, as if you were to say "constituted together." The sense is: if we have been grafted into Christ as branches are grafted into a tree, so that they draw sap and nourishment from it, then from the death of Christ — whose likeness we bore in baptism — as from a root, we draw a like death of sin: namely, that through the death of Christ in which we were baptized, we might be dead to our sins. If, I say, we are thus grafted into Christ, we shall also be sharers in the resurrection of Christ. Therefore the dative "likeness" stands by Hebraism for "into likeness" — that is, into conformity with the death of Christ. Yet it could, with the Syriac, be taken for "through likeness," or "in likeness," namely in baptism, which is the likeness and representation of the death and burial of Christ. But the antithesis which follows requires the first sense; for in like manner the Apostle tacitly adds that we shall sometime be planted together and grafted into Christ "in likeness," that is, in the likeness of his resurrection — namely, so that from Christ as rising again, we may draw and share in a like resurrection. Paul persists in the metaphor of a plant. For thus Scripture calls Christ a shoot and a vine, us branches; Christ is said to grow in us, and we are said to grow in Christ and to be fruitful trees, which the ministers of Christ are said to plant and water. He says therefore: As a branch grafted into a tree, when the tree as it were dies through winter, dies together with it, and again, when the tree as it were rises in spring, the branch likewise rises with it — so he who has been planted together with Christ, dies together with him to sin in the winter of this life and passion, and at last, in that universal spring of resurrection, when the new heaven and new earth shall bud forth again, shall rise with Christ to glory. Thus Origen. Hence also Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, cap. XLVII) reads: "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of the death of Christ, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection," and thus explains it: "through likeness (through representation) we die in baptism, but through truth we shall rise in the flesh, as Christ also did." The sense therefore is, as if Paul were to say: As we have been made sharers in this life of the death and passion of Christ, so likewise shall we be sharers of the resurrection of Christ in the life to come; for in this too we are grafted in, inasmuch as we have borne, equally as the death of Christ, his likeness in baptism. For as through the immersion which takes place in baptism we are configured to Christ dead and buried, so in turn through the emersion from the waters of baptism we are configured to Christ rising again. But if we shall be sharers of the resurrection of Christ — and such we ought to become — we ought likewise to walk in newness of life, which the resurrection of Christ signifies and which our resurrection demands and requires. Beautifully Gregory of Nazianzus, Oration 1 on Easter: "Yesterday," he says, "I was led to the cross with Christ; today I am glorified with him; yesterday I was dying with him, today I am made alive with him; yesterday I was buried with him, today I rise with him," etc. And Tertullian (On the Crown of the Soldier, cap. XIV): "Christ," he says, "after tasting gall tasted honeycomb, nor was he hailed as king of glory by the heavenly powers before he was proscribed as king of the Jews on the cross: made a little lower than the angels by the Father, thus he was crowned with glory and honor." So also we, if here we taste gall, shall afterwards taste honeycomb with Christ. Toletus and Adam explain these things otherwise: namely, that to be planted together in the resurrection of Christ is the same as to walk in newness of life, as he went before — as if Paul were to say: If, like certain shoots, we are grafted into Christ through baptism, so that we bear the likeness of his death in ourselves by dying to sins, by this very fact we shall also be planted together — or grafted, or implanted — in the likeness of his resurrection; which likeness consists in newness of life: namely, that as Christ rose to a new and blessed life, so also we shall rise to newness of life, and live and walk in it. But if the Apostle had wished this, he would rather have said, "we shall also be in the likeness of his resurrection"; now however he says not "we are" but "we shall be." Whence it seems more genuine and proper to look to the future resurrection. Note the force of the preposition συν ("with") in the Greek verbs of the Apostle: σύμφυτοι, συνταφῆναι, συσταυρωθῆναι, συζῆν, συμπάσχειν, συμμορφοῦσθαι, συμβασιλεύειν, συνδοξάζεσθαι — that is: implanted together, buried together, crucified together, living together, suffering together, conformed together, reigning together, glorified together with Christ. For συν signifies, first, the likeness of our condition with Christ. Second, it signifies that the cause of all these things in us is this: that we are united to Christ as branches to a tree, so that we draw all these things as it were the sap of the tree of Christ from Christ and from the cross and passion of Christ. Third, συν signifies the effect and fruit which Christ demands from us, namely that we strive to perfect these things with Christ in ourselves, and continually imitate and pursue Christ in these things, so that we may be glorified together with him.
6:6
6. KNOWING THIS, THAT OUR OLD MAN IS CRUCIFIED TOGETHER. — Refer "knowing this" to all the preceding, but especially to "we are dead," and to "we are made implanted together in the likeness of his death, that we may walk in newness of life"; as if he said: We ought to be dead to sin and to walk in newness of life, knowing this — that is, since we know (for by Hebraism the participle is put for the verb) that our old man is crucified. Note: "the old man," says St. Thomas, first, is the stain left from the act of sin; second, the very habit of sinning; third, concupiscence; fourth and more clearly Toletus: "the old man," he says, is called he who, born from the old Adam, drew from him sin and concupiscences and follows them — namely the old life, old customs, old manner of living, in the manner of the old Adam, in concupiscences and sins; as I shall say more fully in chapter VII. This man, therefore — already called the old man — is crucified with Christ: first, by representation, because in baptism we represent the cross of Christ, and that we are crucified with Christ and have crucified our vices; second, by efficacy, namely because, by the virtue of Christ dead on the cross, which is applied to us through baptism, our sins are blotted out. For the cross is the death and destruction of our sins. THAT THE BODY OF SIN MAY BE DESTROYED. — First, Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anselm and Toletus: "the body of sin," they say, is the whole mass of sins, which as it were is one body of the old man, whose members are lust, avarice, fornication — to be mortified by every Christian, as the Apostle says in Colossians III, 5. This mass of sins the Apostle calls "the body of sin," so that he may persist in the metaphor of the cross, of which he said "our old man is crucified": for it is not accidents, nor spirits, but the bodies of men that are usually crucified. Note here that sins are not covered over by imputed justice, but truly die and are blotted out in baptism through grace and infused justice — so that Calvin, forgetting himself, is forced to confess this here. Second, the same Origen thus explains: that the body of sin — that is, the body conceived in sin, nourished by sin and accustomed to it — may be destroyed not in substance but in quality, that is, may be weakened; for this is what the Greek καταργηθῇ signifies. Whence Tertullian (On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter XLVII) similarly reads and explains: "That the body of wrongdoing may be evacuated, through amendment of life, not through destruction of substance." Third, Theodoret thus reads, that our body may be evacuated of sin, that is, that it may be empty of sins; but the first sense is more conformable to the mind and phrase of the Apostle.
6:7
7. FOR HE THAT IS DEAD IS JUSTIFIED FROM SIN. — He gives the reason why we ought no longer to serve sin: Because, he says, he who is conformed to Christ crucified, and dying to the death of Christ dying on the cross, is dead to sin or to the old life — this man "is justified," that is, is wholly absolved from sin, so that he ought to have no dealings with it: just as a dead man is absolved from the affairs of this life, so that he ought not to mix himself up in them, nor can he. Second, St. Basil, in the book On Baptism: "He that is dead," he says, "is justified, that is, is cleansed from sin through justice given and infused by God." Third, more specially and more profoundly, according to the first sense, St. Chrysostom and Theodoret thus explain, as if Paul alluded to a slave who, while he lives, is bound to servitude, but in death is absolved and freed from it: for the Apostle presses this metaphor of the slave in verses 16 and following — as if he said: Just as a dead slave, through death justified, that is absolved and freed from the right and dominion of his master, so that the master has no right or power over him: in the same way we also, justified from the servitude of sin, that is freed and absolved by this very fact that we are dead to it through baptism, ought no longer to be idle or serve sin.
6:8
8. IF WE BE DEAD WITH CHRIST, WE BELIEVE THAT WE SHALL ALSO LIVE TOGETHER WITH CHRIST. — "We shall live together," namely in the future life, blessed and eternal. Thus Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret and Anselm. Secondly, Toletus: "'We believe,'" he says, "that is we are confident, that we live together with Christ in the new life of grace, that is we shall continue to live." But the former sense is clearer: for the Apostle, after the manner of a preacher, repeatedly sets before Christians the reward of eternal life, that he may allure and stir us to a good and holy life; and therefore he leaps from the anagogy of baptism to the tropology — namely from resurrection to the mortification of vices and newness of life; and soon from that he returns to resurrection, and he does this a second and third time, but in different words. For he proposed this anagogy or resurrection of baptism in verse 5, and the same in this verse 8, and again in verses 9 and 11, inculcating it in different words. Again, he prefixed the same tropology concerning newness of life in verse 4, and again subjoined it in verses 6, 7, 9, 11 and following. The same should be done by any ecclesiastical teacher, namely that he mingle rewards with virtues, and propose to his hearers now heaven and heavenly crowns, now the flight from vices and Christian morals, by which heavenly crowns are acquired.
6:9
9. KNOWING THAT CHRIST RISING (in Greek ἐγερθείς, that is raised up, or who rose again, for it is in the past tense) FROM THE DEAD NOW DIETH NO MORE, DEATH SHALL NO MORE HAVE DOMINION OVER HIM. — These words depend on the preceding ones, as if to say: If we be dead to sin, we believe that we shall also live together with Christ, namely in the blessed and immortal life. For we know that Christ, after he rose from the dead, now lives such a life, and shall no more die — nay, cannot die. Since therefore our blessed life after resurrection shall be similar and conformed to the life of Christ, it follows that we too shall then no more die — nay, cannot die. From which reasoning the Apostle leaves it to be silently gathered by Christians, that they, as being already dead to sin and brought into newness of life, and thus here beginning the blessed life and tending toward glorious immortality, ought steadfastly to persist in this way and holy life, that they may not fall back into the death of sin, but may represent and begin the holy and happy immortality through the constancy of a pious and Christian life. Origen infers from the fact that the Apostle says "death shall no more have dominion over him," therefore death before — namely on the cross — had dominion over Christ. Moreover Origen understands by death the devil; but it is clear from the preceding context that death is properly taken here. Death therefore is here introduced as it were a master and king, which had dominion over Christ and all men, but through Christ it has been stripped of this dominion of its own.
6:10
10. FOR THAT HE DIED TO SIN, HE DIED ONCE. — St. Hilarius, book IX On the Trinity, thinks that "that" (quod) is a relative pronoun, and thus translates and reads: "that which died, died to sin once; but that which lives, lives to God," as if to say: The body of Christ died once on account of sin, but his divinity lives and has lived and will live forever. Faber Stapulensis contends that it should be translated thus, and censures our Interpreter for translating "died" (masculine) in place of "died" (neuter). But our Interpreter is defended by Erasmus and others throughout, indeed even by Beza. For the Greek ὅ, that is "that," is taken for ὅν, or certainly κατά is to be understood, as if κατὰ ὅ, that is, in that he died, or insofar as the death of Christ is concerned, he himself died to sin once: for it is more aptly said that Christ dies and lives, than that the body of Christ dies and lives — lest namely it should seem that he separates in Christ the body and man from the divinity, as Nestorius does. TO SIN HE DIED ONCE. — Hilarius, book IX On the Trinity, and Oecumenius say: "To sin," that is to the body — namely bodily — Christ died once. For the body is called "sin" by metonymy, because it is the subject of sin. In a similar sense it is called "flesh of sin," although in Christ there was only a likeness of the flesh of sin: or, as Pererius explains, "Christ died to sin," that is to a passible and mortal life, such as is in this body subject to sins. Secondly, St. Ambrose, sermon 18 on Psalm CXVIII, verse 7: Christ died, he says, "to sin," that is to the sinner — namely on account of sinners. Thirdly and most rightly, St. Chrysostom and Theodoret: Christ died "to sin," that is on account of sin, in order to mortify and abolish sin in us; for this is the force of the dative lamed among the Hebrews. Thus Christ is said to die to sin in one way, we in another; Christ effectively, we subjectively; Christ once ἀπαξ died, but we νεκροί nominally, as if we ought always to be dead to sin and to remain so. BUT THAT WHICH LIVES, LIVES TO GOD. — "Lives to God," that is by divinity and soul. Thus Oecumenius. Secondly, St. Chrysostom and Toletus: "Lives to God," that is by the power of God. Thirdly and most rightly: Christ, now after the resurrection, "lives to God," that is with God, and lives a life similar to God — heavenly, divine, blessed, immortal. Again, "lives to God," that is for the glory of God, so that he may perpetually praise and celebrate God: for just as he died on account of sin, so he lives on account of God and the glory of God.
6:11
11. SO YOU ALSO RECKON YOURSELVES TO BE DEAD INDEED TO SIN, BUT ALIVE UNTO GOD. — Who is dead to sin, St. Prosper explains beautifully and in detail in his book On the Contemplative Life, cap. XXI: "What is it," he says, "to die to sin, except to live not at all in works to be condemned, to desire nothing carnally, to aspire to nothing? So that just as he who is dead in the flesh no longer detracts from anyone, avoids no one, despises no one, corrupts no one's chastity by cunning circumvention, is violent to no one, slanders or oppresses no one, envies not the goods of others or insults the afflicted, does not serve the luxury of the flesh, is not devoted to wine-drinking, does not kindle in himself the thirst for drinking by drinking more and more, does not burn with the torches of hatreds, does not pursue unjust gains, does not flatter the powerful or the rich, is not seized by the restless curiosity of man, is not distended by the care of domestic solicitude, does not delight in the officious salutations of those meeting him, nor is wearied by the injuries of the proud; whom pride does not inflate, vain ambition does not precipitate, vain glory does not basely toss about, the desire of glorious reputation does not inflame, the distraction of another's deed does not ensnare, the love of turpitude does not invite to the society of the base, the rage of insane fury does not agitate, the zeal of sumptuous delights does not slay, the ardor of contentious spirit does not exhaust." Then by another scheme through epithets proper to individual vices he pursues the same thing, saying: "Whom audacity does not make impudent, injustice does not make unjust, harshness does not make fierce, inconstancy does not make fickle, obstinacy does not make stubborn, madness does not make insane, gluttony does not make delicate, disobedience does not make rebellious, boasting does not make vain, perfidy does not make unfaithful, facility does not make light, cruelty does not make savage, base greed does not make a glutton, restlessness does not make impatient, instability does not make unstable, spiritual weakness does not make vagrant, spiritedness does not make wrathful, perversity does not make suspicious, vanity does not make verbose, malignity does not make injurious: who is altogether removed from worldly enticements, removed from uncleannesses and enmities, removed from the snares of others, removed from robberies whether more hidden or open, removed from lies or perjuries, finally removed from every kind of shame and crime, by which those living carnally offend God: just as, I say, dead in the flesh he can neither do those things which I have said nor suffer them, so also those who, living unto God, crucify their flesh with its vices and concupiscences live not at all in these and such vices." ALIVE UNTO GOD, — namely by the Spirit of God, or by spiritual and divine life — that is, the life of grace — not serving sin but God, live, that is, preserve this life of grace received in baptism; for "living" here signifies an act not begun but continued, according to canon 32. Whence he says "reckon," that is, account, think, consider, resolve, conclude, and altogether determine that you ought and wish henceforth always to live unto God. IN CHRIST, — that is, through Christ; or, as Toletus says, in the likeness of Christ, because he lives in such a way that he dies no more — as if to say: In like manner, neither ought you to die any more through sin. Often the Hebrews take ב, that is "in," for ב of likeness, so that "in Christ" is the same as "after the manner of Christ."
6:12
12. LET NOT SIN THEREFORE REIGN IN YOUR MORTAL BODY, SO AS TO OBEY THE CONCUPISCENCES THEREOF. — By "sin" understand it properly so called. For thus the Apostle took "sin" in verses 1, 2, 6, 7, 10 and 11. St. Chrysostom and Theodoret note that it is not said: Let not sin tyrannize over you as if against your will; because sin cannot reign in us unless we will it and willingly accept it, and consequently it cannot command and tyrannize over us against our will. Others, not improbably, take "sin" here metonymically, so that it is the same as the tinder of sin and concupiscence. Whence St. Augustine in Psalm XXXV, and Gregory in book XIV of the Morals, chapter IX, note that the Apostle does not say: Let it not be, let it not dwell — for this is impossible — but, Let not sin reign in you, namely so that you subject yourselves to it and obey its desires and concupiscences, as follows. Beza therefore wrongly explains "let not sin reign" as if the Apostle said: Let the spirit struggle against sin and concupiscence, yet let it not overcome it. But wrongly, as I said; for if in this struggle the spirit does not overcome the flesh and concupiscence, then concupiscence itself overcomes and reigns. Indeed Beza is deceived, and does not see that it is one thing for sin to be or exist, another thing to overcome sin and concupiscence. There is indeed in man flesh and concupiscence, and in this life it cannot be completely eradicated, but nevertheless in the just it is overcome and suppressed by the ruling reason and spirit. Note the word "mortal," when the Apostle says "in your mortal body" — it gives a stimulus to the struggle and to resisting concupiscences, because namely these are fleeting and evanescent, and will perish together with this mortal body. Whence St. Chrysostom notes here that the time of sin and of struggle against sin in this life and body is brief, while the time of victory and eternal and immense glory is: "What then, O man, do you seek long here, what solid joys? Brief and perishable is whatever you see here." The Apostle therefore says: "Through Christ, His grace as a king reigns in the minds of the faithful: therefore let not sin reign in them." Gravely and eloquently St. Leo, sermon 1 On Lent: "If," he says, "the mind subjected to its ruler, and delighted with heavenly gifts, shall trample underfoot the incitements of earthly pleasure, and shall not allow sin to reign in its mortal body, reason will hold the most orderly principate, and no illusion of spiritual wickedness shall shake its fortifications: because then is the true peace of man, and true liberty, when both the flesh is ruled by the mind as judge, and the mind is governed by God as president."
6:13
13. BUT NEITHER YIELD YOUR MEMBERS AS INSTRUMENTS OF INIQUITY TO SIN. — "Instruments," that is, tools serving sin: for thus the Hebrews call כלי חמס kele chamas, vessels — that is, weapons of iniquity — as Simeon and Levi are called, Genesis XLIX, 5. Note that in the soul there is a twofold and contrary kingdom — of sin and of justice. Sin, for the expansion of its kingdom, uses our members as weapons, when it abuses the hand for blows, the tongue for detraction, the eyes for curiosity. The contrary happens in the kingdom of justice, when it uses the hand for almsgiving, the tongue for the praise of God, the eyes for study. For this reason the Apostle calls our members weapons both of sin and of justice. BUT YIELD YOURSELVES TO GOD, AS THOSE THAT ARE ALIVE FROM THE DEAD. — As if to say: Rather live in such a way that you show yourselves to be raised from the death of sin to the life of grace. For Paul seems to look back to verse 11. Secondly and more fully, as if to say: Serve God, as those ought to do who once dead to sin in baptism, now live to justice and to God, in the new Christian life, to which they have risen with Christ and in the manner of Christ. That this is the meaning is evident from what precedes. Thirdly, some explain it thus, as if to say: Serve God so exactly, fearfully and fervently, as if you had been recalled from natural death to life. Consider how piously and holily they lived, and served God, who, snatched away in death to God's tribunal, beheld both His severity and the punishments of hell and the glory of the saints, and were afterwards restored to life. Consider what great penance St. Diethelm did, whom the Venerable Bede relates in book V of his History of the English, chapter XII, who, when asked the reason for such austerity, answered nothing other than: I have seen more austere things, I have seen colder things. Bede has similar accounts concerning St. Fursey, book III, chapter XIX. Consider what torments St. Christina the Admirable willingly endured, returning from death to life, throwing herself into burning furnaces, into icy pools, into mill wheels, so that she would be turned and torn with them — and this so that she might free souls (whose horrible punishments she had seen in her rapture) from Purgatory, as Cardinal James of Vitry relates in her Life. You therefore imitate these, and with the eyes of faith and mind behold the horror of death, the terror of judgment, the bitterness of hell, the immensity of eternity, and thus live as if you had beheld these things with your eyes, just as they did, and had been restored from death to life: for certainly and most certainly they await you, as sure faith teaches you. This sense is pious, but rather accommodated than genuine, as is evident from what has been said.
6:14
14. FOR SIN SHALL NOT HAVE DOMINION OVER YOU, — that is, it cannot have dominion; "shall have dominion" is taken by Hebraism δυναμικῶς, that is, in the potential sense. The Apostle meets this objection: How can we serve justice, not sin, when we are weak in resisting sin and its temptations; and hitherto the whole world, and we ourselves, have served sin? The Apostle answers: Although sin has had dominion in the world, in the time of Adam and in the time of the Mosaic law, yet to you, O Christians, who through baptism are dead to sin and strengthened by the grace of Christ, sin cannot have dominion: understand, by its own right and power, as it had dominion before Christ — unless indeed you yourselves freely cast off the grace of Christ and give yourselves to sin. Whence the Apostle, explaining and assigning the reason, adds: FOR YOU ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE. — As if to say: Sin cannot have dominion over those who are under grace, unless they themselves freely subject themselves to sin; but over those who are under the law, not under grace, sin has dominion as if by hereditary right prescribed from Adam hitherto. Although therefore sin attacks the faithful, who are under grace, and makes war upon them, yet it cannot have dominion over them by its own will and command — nay rather it can easily be overcome and subdued by them through the grace of the Holy Spirit. Excellently St. Leo, sermon 7 On the Fast of the Tenth Month: "The adversary rages," he says, "and turns bloody enmities into quiet snares, so that those whom he could not conquer by hunger and cold, by flames and iron, he might waste away by idleness, ensnare by desires, puff up by ambition, corrupt by pleasure. But for the destruction of these evils and all others, the Christian army has strong fortifications and victorious weapons — God namely instructing His soldiers, so that by the spirit of truth gentleness may overcome anger, liberality may overcome avarice, kindness may extinguish envy. The right hand of the Most High changing the hearts of many, antiquity returned to newness, and from servants of iniquity they came forth as ministers of justice. Continence subdued luxury, humility drove back arrogance; and those who had been defiled by impurity shone forth in chastity." Secondly, Maldonatus in his manuscript Notes explains thus: "You are not under the law," that is, you have not received the spirit of servitude, as he says in chapter VIII, but the spirit of adoption of the sons of God. Therefore you ought not permit anything else to have dominion over you. And thus follows: "What then? Shall we sin?"
6:15
15. WHAT THEN? SHALL WE SIN, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT UNDER THE LAW, BUT UNDER GRACE? — A new objection arises. For someone will object: You have said, O Paul, that we are not under the law but under grace, and therefore sin cannot have dominion over us; therefore we can transgress the law freely and with impunity and sin, and indulge our concupiscences and sins, because we are free, and whatever we do, sin cannot have dominion over us; but rather we shall have dominion over sin and concupiscences, if we summon or repel them at our pleasure. For this is also the argument of modern libertines. Paul responds: "God forbid," because although we are under grace, not under the law, nevertheless it is not lawful to despise or transgress the law; but rather through grace we ought to fulfill the law. Again, although sin cannot have dominion over us by itself and by its own right, nevertheless it can have dominion over us, and in fact will have dominion, if we willingly give ourselves to it and subject ourselves as it were as slaves to its dominion. And this is what the Apostle adds, saying:
6:16
16. KNOW YOU NOT THAT TO WHOM YOU YIELD YOURSELVES SERVANTS TO OBEY, HIS SERVANTS YOU ARE WHOM YOU OBEY, WHETHER OF SIN (which leads) TO DEATH, OR OF OBEDIENCE (which leads) TO JUSTICE? — The Apostle here proposes two kings, and sets them in opposition to each other: the first king is sin, or disobedience to the divine law — the servants of this are all sinners who obey it, whose stipend and end is death; the second king is obedience, or obedience to God and the divine law, namely the Gospel — the servants of this are all the faithful who obey the Gospel; their stipend, fruit and end is justice and eternal life. This is as it were the major proposition of the Apostle, under which he tacitly leaves this minor to be subsumed and this conclusion to be drawn: But you, O faithful Christians, in baptism renounced sin and devoted yourselves as servants to Christ and to faith, to obey the Gospel; therefore you are not servants of sin, nor ought you to serve sin, but Christ and obedience, that is faith and the Gospel. Note: The law of Christ is called the law of obedience, because it teaches men to obey God, and (which properly concerns the Apostle here) faith, Christ, the Gospel, Prelates, Princes, and makes them subject to itself — flexible and obedient — as experience shows, and as the modern pagan princes themselves in Japan and India also confess.
6:17
17. BUT THANKS BE TO GOD, THAT YOU WERE (have ceased to be) SERVANTS OF SIN, BUT YOU HAVE OBEYED FROM THE HEART IN THAT FORM OF DOCTRINE INTO WHICH YOU WERE DELIVERED. — In Greek εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε τύπον διδαχῆς. As if to say: You have obeyed the doctrine of the Gospel, into which as into a type you were cast by God and the Apostles, so that you press and conform yourselves to them as to a form and type. For just as paper impressed with the types of printers expresses in itself the letters of the types and the doctrine contained in the letters, so likewise you by your obedience to the Gospel doctrine — pressing and conforming yourselves as it were to a form, type and norm of living rightly — express and represent the same in your life and morals.
6:18
18. BUT BEING MADE FREE FROM SIN, YOU ARE MADE SERVANTS OF JUSTICE. — This sentence depends on the preceding one, namely "but thanks (I give) to God, that you were servants of sin," and continues and completes it.
6:19
19. I SPEAK AS A MAN, BECAUSE OF THE INFIRMITY OF YOUR FLESH: FOR AS (as if to say, for it is human that as) YOU HAVE YIELDED YOUR MEMBERS TO SERVE UNCLEANNESS AND INIQUITY UNTO INIQUITY, SO NOW YIELD YOUR MEMBERS TO SERVE JUSTICE, UNTO SANCTIFICATION. — Tertullian, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter XLVII, reads: "As you have yielded your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity, so also now yield your members to serve justice unto sanctification." The sense is: I demand of you, O Roman Christians, a human thing — that is, an equitable, moderate and easy thing (a similar phrase is found in II Kings VII, 14, and I Corinthians X, 13) — namely that you strive for justice "unto sanctification," that is so that day by day you may become increasingly sanctified, just as once you strove "unto iniquity unto iniquity," that is so that from one iniquity you would rush into another, and would become ever more wicked. As if to say: I could demand greater things of you, O faithful, as Baruch chapter IV, verse 28, where it thus says: "As your will was to err from God, so ten times over seeking you shall find him again"; but I, out of humanity, do not demand so much, not more, but equal striving. St. Anselm beautifully explains this from St. Augustine: "Just as," he says, "no fear compelled you to sin, but the desire and pleasure of sin itself persuaded you; so to live justly, let not the fear of punishment urge you, but let the delight and charity of justice lead you. Just as therefore he is most unjust whom not even temporal penalties deter from the foul works of sordid pleasure; so he is most just who is not recalled even by the fear of temporal punishments from the holy works of most luminous charity." And Origen: "The Apostle," he says, "instills shame in his hearers by these words, so that they may at least render to justice that obedience which they previously rendered to iniquity, as if to say: Your feet once ran to shed blood, now let them run to save blood. Your hands were once stretched out to plunder what belonged to others, now let them be stretched out to give what is your own. Your eyes once looked about to covet what belonged to another, now let them look about at the poor to have mercy, and let each member's ministry, which it exhibited to vices, be fitted to virtues, and the act which it exhibited to uncleanness, now let it convert to chastity and holiness." Others, with the Syriac version, explain thus: "I speak as a man," that is, I speak in human fashion, so that I may lower myself to your understanding, using the names of servitude and freedom in spiritual matters. Others wish these to be words as it were of one softening the way and asking pardon, because he was about to speak of shameful things; but the first sense already given is the genuine one.
6:20
20. FOR WHEN YOU WERE THE SERVANTS OF SIN, YOU WERE FREE FROM JUSTICE. — "From justice," that is, from justice and its most beautiful state, as if to say: When you served sin, you were destitute of justice: for you withdrew yourselves from the dominion of justice, and as if loosed from all law, you rushed into sins. Thus Anselm, whom see. For the Apostle here gives the reason why they served iniquity unto iniquity under sin, and why they were poured out into all wickedness — because namely they were altogether destitute of justice, and therefore as if loosed from all restraint, they ran to all forbidden pleasures. Again this statement is opposed to that of verse 18: "Being made free from sin, you are made servants of justice." Beza objects: These sinners are servants of sin and enslaved to it, therefore they do not have free will: "I wonder," he says, "with what boldness the Sophists dare to defend their free will — free indeed from justice, but enslaved to sin." Foolishly, as if that arbitrium were called free which serves sin. I answer with St. Bernard, in the book On Grace and Free Will: There is a threefold freedom — of nature, of grace, and of glory. The first is opposed to natural necessity, and makes free will; the third is opposed to death and the miseries of this life, and makes one blessed; the second is opposed to sin, and makes one just and holy. The Apostle treats here of this second — not however of the first or third. For he alludes to Hebrew servants serving seven years, Exodus XXI, 2. For sinners of their own accord and by voluntary obedience bind themselves to sin as to a master, as the Apostle here teaches: just as, conversely, these same persons of their own accord bind themselves to justice as to a mistress, when aided by the grace of God, they freely transfer themselves to the kingdom of justice. This freedom of justice, as Anselm says, is freedom and is called so, on account of the justice of right action, and because it operates freely; yet it is also servitude at the same time, on account of obedience to the precept. Thus good servants freely and willingly serve their masters: and so all, both good and bad, in their servitude preserve free will: why therefore should not men preserve the same, whether they serve justice or sin? Morally: Sinners are servants of their own desires. See the words of Exodus chapter XXIII, last verse. Namely many, so that they may serve luxury, gain, gluttony, are strong to endure all things: after conversion to virtue they claim that strength fails them.
6:22
22. YOU HAVE YOUR FRUIT IN SANCTIFICATION — namely, continuous, so that you go from sanctity to sanctification, so that day by day you may be sanctified more and more. It is a Hebraism. "In sanctification," that is, sanctification itself and its continuation and increase, you have as the fruit of justice, because namely justice makes and produces this fruit, so that he who possesses it may live purely and holily, may perform holy and excellent works, and by continuous works of virtue may sanctify himself more, by which he may merit and at length obtain as it were the end and reward eternal life.
6:23
23. FOR THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH. BUT THE GRACE OF GOD, LIFE ETERNAL IN CHRIST — that is, through Christ. "Wages," in Greek ὀψώνιον, which signifies that which is eaten with bread, or as it were a relish — the price which is given in the evening: which aptly corresponds to that which preceded, "But the end life eternal." Secondly, ὀψώνιον, as Nazianzen says, oration 23, which is inscribed concerning his sermons to Julian the tax collector, signifies τὸ βασιλικὸν συντρέφιον, καὶ τὰς ὑπαρχούσας ἐκ νόμου τοῖς ἀξιώμασι δωρεὰς, that is, royal provisions, and gifts which by law were bestowed upon dignities; and, as Theophylactus says, ὀψώνιον signifies food which is given to soldiers by the emperor. Thus here sin, to those serving it, gives death as it were as food — namely, a vile wage. Whence all everywhere translate ὀψώνιον here as "wage" — or, as the Syriac, תאגורתא tegureta, that is, "reward" — certainly better than Erasmus, who translated it as "hire." GRACE (that is, the gratuitous gift of God, is) LIFE ETERNAL. — Tertullian, in the book On the Resurrection of the Flesh, chapter XLVII, reads: "the gift of God is life eternal." A gift is a present which is given by the emperor to a soldier. Note: The Apostle here describes a twofold kingdom — of God and of sin: in each are our members as arms; the just are soldiers and servants of the one, the wicked of the other; the wage of the latter is death, of the former life eternal. Whence, secondly, an apt antithesis of that which preceded: "The wages of sin is death" required that in like manner he should say "but the wage of justice is life eternal" — as elsewhere he calls it the crown of justice; he preferred, however, to say "the grace of God is life eternal," because this epistle against Jews and Gentiles presiding over the works of the law or of nature inculcates throughout the necessity of the grace of Christ; and because the reason of sin and justice is unlike here: for to sin, not freely, but as it were a wage altogether due, death and damnation is rendered; not so is life eternal rendered to the merits of justice. For these merits flow from grace, as from seed and root: grace, I say, bestowed upon the unworthy — whence they themselves can be called, and in fact are, grace. Thus St. Augustine, epistle 105. Whence the same St. Augustine calls the first grace "grace"; but life eternal he calls "grace for grace": and "When God crowns our merits, what else does he crown than his own gifts?" he says from St. Augustine, Pope Celestine to the Bishops of Gaul, chapter XII, and the Council of Trent, session VI, chapter XVI. Secondly, life eternal is called grace, because although life eternal is due to works done from grace, they are not, however — if our labor be viewed merely in itself — itself grace, because the sufferings of this time are not condign to the future glory: thus Theodoret. Grace therefore is life eternal, because it is obtained by slight works, labors and sufferings. As if a king should adopt a poor man as his son on this condition that he obey him, it would be said that he adopts him from grace. Thirdly, life eternal is called grace, because by his free ordinance God decreed and promised to the works of the just life eternal, without which promise this life would not be due to them. Add that the Apostle was unwilling to call life eternal a wage, because in Greek it is ὀψώνιον — namely, a vile and common wage; but this does not befit the most excellent reward of justice, which is life eternal. The sense of the Apostle therefore is this: As sin leads man to death, as it were to its end and wage; so grace, which frees us from sin and makes us servants of God in justice and holiness, leads us to life eternal, as it were to its end, term and crown: for this is what he said a little before, and what the Apostle urges here: "You have," he says, "your fruit in sanctification, but the end life eternal." Grace therefore is life eternal — not in itself and formally, but finally, because it has life eternal as its end and crown. It is a metonymy. Hence, against Eunomius, Beghards and Beguines, it is clear that men by the light of nature alone and by the powers of nature alone cannot see God and be blessed; otherwise indeed life eternal would not be grace. Note: The reward of the Blessed is not called delights, not riches, not honors, but "eternal life." First, because this directly opposes the wage and punishment of Adam and sinners, which is eternal death; second, because this life includes as it were the root of all good: for life in torments is not called life, but rather death; therefore this life is vital and perfect, by which the animal, by which the human, by which the angelic, by which the divine life is lived. Memory lives there, by the recollection of all things past. The intellect lives there, by the knowledge and vision of God. The will lives there, by the enjoyment of all good. In like manner the concupiscible and irascible appetites live there, and all the senses, and they enjoy their own delights. Therefore this life includes all delights, riches, honors, and the pleasures of all lives, senses and powers. Second, this life is not of a thousand years, not of a thousand millions of years, but is eternal. For it must be eternal in order to be blessed. Hear St. Augustine, in the eighty-three Questions, Question 35: "What," he says, "is it other than to live blessedly, than to have something eternal by knowing it? For it is eternal, concerning which alone it is right to trust, which cannot be taken away from the one who loves it, etc. For of all things the most excellent is that which is eternal. And for this reason we cannot have it, except by that thing by which we are more excellent—that is, by the mind." And soon after: "And since that which is loved must affect the lover from itself, it comes to pass that thus loved, that which is eternal, affects the soul with eternity. Wherefore that life is blessed at last, which is eternal. But what is eternal, and what affects the soul with eternity, except God?" Whence Christ says, John 17: "Now this is eternal life, that they may know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." What is eternity? It is duration always present, one perpetual today, which does not pass into past or future. What is eternity? It is the aeon of aeons, says St. Dionysius, chapter 10 On the Divine Names, which does not perish, but always remains in the same way. What is eternity? It is a circle, whose center is always, circumference never, because never, at no time, can it be closed or terminated. What is eternity? It is stable immutability and immortality. How long will eternity last? Always; after a thousand years, after a hundred thousand years, after a thousand millions of years, not yet an end, not yet a middle, not yet a beginning of eternity; but its measure is always: as long as "always" lasts, so long will eternity last. As long as heaven will be heaven, as long as earth will be earth, as long as God will be God, who bids time go forth from eternity, and remaining stable gives all things to move, so long will eternity last, so long will the blessed be blessed, so long will the damned be damned: as it was in the beginning, and now, and always, and for ever and ever. What is eternity? It is the stable and immobile axis around which the wheel of the world, of time and of all ages revolves. "The whole and perfect possession of interminable life," says Boethius, book 5 On Consolation, prose 6: "O dear truth, true eternity, eternal happiness, my God!" says St. Augustine. O eternity, eternity! How long you are, eternity! How rarely do you turn in the minds of men! If we often thought of this, how light and momentary would appear whatever is of our tribulation, how nothing would be difficult, how eager we would be for all good, how well we would weigh this moment, on which depends our eternity! With reason the Royal Prophet says: "I thought upon the days of old, and I had the eternal years in my mind." For "that which is hard, which torments, is eternal: that which is happy, which makes blessed, is eternity. Death hangs from: death from life: this from a moment; choose. To have lived once, to have perished once, is eternal." St. Augustine beautifully describes this eternal life and the goods and happiness of this life, in book XXII of The City of God, chapter XXX: "How great," he says, "will be the happiness there, where there will be no evil, no good will be hidden, and we will be free for the praises of God, who will be all in all! Blessed are they that dwell in thy house, O Lord, they shall praise thee for ever and ever. All the members and organs of the incorruptible body will contribute to the praises of God. True glory will be there, where no one will be praised either through error or flattery. True honor, which will be denied to no one worthy, and will be deferred to no one unworthy; nor will any unworthy person seek it, where no one will be permitted to exist except the worthy." Soon after he describes the essential reward of the Blessed: "The reward of virtue will be He Himself who gave virtue, and who promised Himself, than which nothing better and greater can exist. For what else is it that He said through the prophet: I will be their God, and they shall be my people, I will be whatever all honestly desire, both life, and salvation, and food, and abundance, and glory, and honor, and peace, and all good things? For thus also that saying is rightly understood: God will be all in all; He Himself will be the end of our desires." And further on: "As far as rational knowledge is concerned, the soul will remember its past evils; but as far as the sense of experience is concerned, it will be utterly forgetful: for they will lack past evils, so that they will be completely blotted out from their senses. There will be fulfilled: Be still and see that I am God. There, resting in the sabbath of rest, we shall see that the Lord is sweet, that He Himself is God, by whom we shall be filled, when He will be all in all." Hear also the author of the book On Spirit and Soul, volume III of the works of St. Augustine, chapter LX, calling this life: "There is in you no corruption, nor defect, nor old age, nor anger; but perpetual peace, solemn glory, eternal joy, continuous solemnity. Truly such great gladness and exultation, the flower and beauty of youth, and of perfect salvation. There is in you neither yesterday nor the day before, but the same today. To you is salvation, to you is life, to you is infinite peace, to you God is all. Glorious things are said of you, city of God; for as you are the dwelling of all who rejoice. There is no fear in you, no sadness: every desire passes into joy, while whatever is wished for is at hand, and whatever is desired abounds." And further on: "Those indeed who have been redeemed by the Lord, how devoutly will they confess and say: How good is God to Israel! for His mercy is for ever. Eternal joy indeed will be in them, and the exaltations of God in their throat for ever, and for ever and ever, in perpetual eternities. Blessed are all they that dwell in thy house, O Lord, they shall praise thee for ever and ever. They shall be inebriated with the plenty of thy house, and thou shalt make them drink of the torrent of thy pleasure. For with thee is the fountain of life, and in thy light we shall see light: when we shall see thee in thee, and ourselves in thee, and thee in us, in continuous vision and perpetual happiness."
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
6:1
Postquam apostolus ostendit quod per gratiam Christi liberamur a peccato praeterito, tam introducto per primum hominem, quam etiam abundante per legem, hic ostendit quod per gratiam Christi datur nobis facultas ad resistendum peccatis futuris. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo ponit quaestionem ex praemissis ortam; secundo solvit eam, ibi absit. Si enim, et cetera. Dixerat autem supra, quod ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia; quod quidem aliquis posset male intelligere, quasi abundantia delicti esset causa superabundantiae gratiarum. Et ideo inducit quaestionem dicens: quid ergo dicemus, numquid permanebimus in peccato, ut gratia abundet? Quod quidem oporteret dicere, si abundantia delicti esset causa gratiae abundantis, et non sola occasio, ut supra dictum est. Unde et supra III, 8, apostolus dicit: sicut blasphemamur, et sicut aiunt quidam nos dicere, faciamus mala ut eveniant bona. Ier. XII, 1: bene est omnibus qui praevaricantur et inique agunt. Deinde cum dicit absit, etc., solvit inductam quaestionem. Et primo assignat rationem, quare non est nobis permanendum sub peccato; secundo concludit exhortationem intentam, ibi non ergo regnet, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo assignat rationem, quare non sit in peccato permanendum; secundo ostendit nobis inesse facultatem, ad hoc quod non sub peccato maneamus, ibi hoc scientes, et cetera. Circa primum ponit talem rationem: si sumus mortui peccato, non debemus vivere in illo; sed mortui sumus peccato, ergo non debemus vivere in peccato. Circa hoc ergo quatuor facit. Primo ponit conditionalem; secundo probat antecedens, ibi an ignoratis, etc.; tertio concludit consequens, ibi ut quomodo Christus, etc.; quarto probat necessitatem consequentiae, ibi si enim complantati, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo absit, scilicet quod hac intentione permanendum sit in peccato, ut gratia abundet, quia, ut dicitur Eccli. c. XV, 21, nemini mandavit Deus impie agere.
6:2
Et huius ratio est: si enim mortui sumus peccato per hoc scilicet quod peccatum est mortificatum in nobis, quomodo adhuc in illo vivemus? Non enim naturalis ordo rerum habet, ut a morte redeatur ad vitam. Is. XXIV, 14: morientes non vivant, et cetera. Cant. V, 3: lavi pedes meos, quomodo inquinabo illos?
6:3
Deinde cum dicit an ignoratis, etc., probat antecedens, scilicet, quod fideles sunt mortui peccato. Et primo proponit medium ad propositum ostendendum; secundo manifestat medium inductum, ibi consepulti enim sumus, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo an ignoratis, quasi dicat: quod vobis proponendum est, est adeo manifestum quod illud vobis ignorare non licet, I Cor. XIV, 38: si quis ignorat, ignorabitur, quia quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu: quod intelligitur tripliciter. Uno modo secundum institutionem Iesu Christi, Matth. ult.: docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos, et cetera. Secundo, per invocationem Iesu Christi, Act. c. VIII, 12: in nomine Iesu Christi baptizabantur viri ac mulieres. Tertio, in Christo Iesu, id est in quadam conformitate ad Christum Iesum, Gal. III, 27: quicumque in Christo Iesu baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Sicut igitur eius morti configuramur, in similitudinem mortis eius, quasi ipsam mortem Christi in nobis repraesentantes. II Cor. c. IV, 10: semper mortificationem Iesu Christi in corpore nostro circumferentes. Gal. ult.: stigmata Iesu in corpore meo porto. Vel in morte ipsius, id est, per virtutem mortis eius. Apoc. I, 5: lavit nos a peccatis nostris. Unde de latere Christi pendentis in cruce post mortem fluxit sanguis et aqua, ut dicitur Io. XIX, 34. Sicut igitur eius morti configuramur, inquantum peccato morimur, sic ipse mortuus est vitae mortali, in qua erat similitudo peccati, licet non esset ibi peccatum. Ergo omnes qui baptizati sumus, mortui sumus peccato.
6:4
Deinde cum dicit consepulti enim, etc., probat propositum medium, scilicet quod omnes baptizemur in conformitate ad mortem Christi, dicens: consepulti enim sumus cum illo per Baptismum in morte. Quasi dicat: sepultura non nisi mortuis debetur. Matth. VIII, 22: sinite mortuos sepelire mortuos suos. Per Baptismum autem homines sepeliuntur Christo, id est conformantur sepulturae ipsius. Sicut enim ille qui sepelitur ponitur sub terra, ita ille qui baptizatur immergitur sub aqua. Unde et in Baptismo fit trina immersio, non solum propter fidem Trinitatis, sed etiam ad repraesentandum triduum sepulturae Christi. Et sicut triduum sepulturae non facit nisi unam sepulturam, ita trina immersio non facit nisi unum Baptisma. Et inde etiam est, quod in sabbato sancto solemnis Baptismus in Ecclesia celebratur quando commemoratur sepultura Christi, sicut et in vigilia Pentecostes quando solemnizatur de spiritu sancto, ex cuius virtute aqua Baptismi accipit vim purgandi, ut dicitur Io. III, 5: nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et spiritu sancto, et cetera. Est tamen considerandum, quod corporaliter aliquis prius moritur et postea sepelitur; sed spiritualiter sepultura Baptismi causat mortem peccati, quia sacramentum novae legis efficit quod signat. Unde cum sepultura, quae fit per Baptismum, sit signum mortis peccati, mortem efficit in baptizato. Et hoc est, quod dicit, quod sumus sepulti in mortem, ut per hoc ipsum, quod signum sepulturae Christi in nobis accipimus, consequimur mortem peccati. Deinde cum dicit ut quomodo Christus, infert consequens, scilicet quod non debeamus vivere in peccato. Ad hoc quidem inducit similitudinem ex resurrectione Christi, dicens ut quomodo Christus resurrexit a mortuis per gloriam patris, id est, per virtutem patris, ex qua ipse pater glorificatur, secundum illud Ps. LVI, 8: exurge, gloria mea, ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus, id est, per bona opera vitae procedamus. Vita enim peccati vetustatem habet, quia in corruptionem nos ducit. Hebr. VIII, 13: quod antiquatur et senescit prope interitum est. Unde et dicitur Bar. III, 10: quid est quod in terra inimicorum es, inveterasti in terra aliena? et cetera. Unde et novitas vitae dicitur per quam aliquis redit ad integritatem, ut scilicet sit sine peccato. Ps. CII, 5: renovabitur ut aquilae iuventus tua. Eph. IV, 23: renovamini spiritu mentis vestrae. Deinde cum dicit si enim, probat necessitatem consequentiae. Christus enim postquam fuit mortuus resurrexit; unde conveniens est, ut illi, qui conformantur Christo quantum ad mortem in Baptismo, conformentur etiam resurrectioni eius per innocentiam vitae.
6:5
Et hoc est quod dicit si enim complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis eius, id est, si in nobis assumamus similitudinem mortis eius, ut ei incorporemur sicut ramus qui inseritur plantae: ut quasi nos in ipsa passione Christi inseramur, simul et resurrectionis erimus, scilicet, similitudini eius complantati, ut scilicet in praesenti innocenter vivamus, et in futuro ad similem gloriam perveniamus. Phil. III, v. 21: reformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae configuratum corpori claritatis suae. II Tim. c. II, 11: si commortui sumus, et convivemus. Sic igitur, sicut apostolus per similitudinem mortis Christi probavit quod sumus mortui peccato, quod praemiserat quasi antecedens, sic, per similitudinem resurrectionis eius, probavit quod non debemus vivere in peccato; quod quasi consequens superius introduxit.
6:6
Postquam apostolus ostendit, quod non est nobis in peccato permanendum, ex eo quod per Baptismum mortui sumus peccato, hic ulterius ostendit adesse nobis facultatem ad hoc observandum. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi qui enim mortuus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit beneficium, quod consecuti sumus; secundo, huius beneficii effectum, ibi ut destruatur, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod debemus in novitate ambulare, scilicet desistendo a peccato. Et ne hoc aliquis forte impossibile diceret, dicit quod sumus hoc scientes, quia vetus homo noster, id est vetustas hominis per peccatum inducta, simul, scilicet cum Christo, crucifixus est, id est per crucem Christi est mortificatus. Sicut enim supra dictum est, vetustas hominis per peccatum inducta est, inquantum per peccatum bonum naturae corrumpitur; quae quidem vetustas in homine principatur quamdiu homo peccato subiacet. Et quia id quod est principale in homine dicitur esse ipse homo, inde est quod in eo qui peccato subiicitur, ipsa vetustas peccati dicitur esse vetus homo. Vetustas autem peccati potest intelligi vel ipse reatus, seu macula actualium peccatorum, vel etiam consuetudo peccandi, quae quamdam necessitatem ingerit ad peccandum, vel etiam ipse fomes peccati proveniens ex peccato primi parentis. Sic igitur vetus homo noster dicitur esse simul crucifixus cum Christo, inquantum praedicta vetustas virtute Christi sublata est. Vel quia totaliter est amota, sicut totaliter amovetur in Baptismo reatus et macula peccati. Vel quia diminuitur virtus eius, sicut virtus fomitis vel etiam consuetudinis peccandi. Col. II, 14: delens quod adversum nos erat chirographum decreti, quod erat contrarium nobis: et ipsum tulit de medio, affigens illud cruci. Deinde cum dicit ut destruatur, etc., ponit effectum praedicti beneficii duplicem; quorum primus est remotio praecedentium delictorum. Et hoc est quod dicit ut destruatur corpus peccati. Dicitur enim corpus peccati ipsa congeries malorum operum, sicut ipsa congeries membrorum facit unum corpus naturale. Iob XLI, 6: corpus eius quasi scuta fusilia, et cetera. Secundus autem effectus est ut caveamus a peccatis in futurum: et hoc est quod subdit dicens ut ultra non serviamus peccato. Tunc enim homo peccato servit, quando concupiscentiae peccati obedit per consensum et corporis executionem. Io. VIII, 34: qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Deinde cum dicit qui enim mortuus est, etc., manifestat quod dixerat. Et primo quantum ad primum effectum; secundo quantum ad secundum, ibi si autem mortui, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod congeries peccatorum destruitur quando peccata homini remittuntur.
6:7
Sic igitur destructionem corporis peccati manifestat dicens: qui enim mortuus est, peccato scilicet per Baptismum, quo Christo commorimur, iustificatus est a peccato, id est, remissis peccatis, translatus est in statum iustitiae. I Cor. VI, 11: et haec quidem fuistis aliquando, sed abluti estis, et cetera. Quia igitur per crucem Christi homo peccato moritur, consequens est quod a peccato iustificetur, et ita quod corpus peccati destruatur. Deinde cum dicit si autem mortui, etc., manifestat secundum effectum per conformitatem ad vitam Christi tali ratione: ille qui Christo morienti commoritur, simul convivit et resurgenti. Christus autem sic resurrexit a mortuis tamquam numquam de caetero moriturus; ergo ille qui mortificatus est peccato, sic Christo resurgenti convivit, quod habet facultatem numquam de caetero ad peccatum redeundi. Circa hoc ergo tria facit. Primo ostendit conformitatem hominis fidelis ad vitam Christi resurgentis; secundo ponit conditionem vitae resurgentis, ibi scientes quod Christus, etc.; tertio infert conclusionem intentam, ibi ita et vos, et cetera.
6:8
Dicit ergo primo, si autem mortui sumus cum Christo, id est, si virtute mortis Christi sumus mortui peccato, credimus quia simul etiam vivemus cum illo, id est, ad similitudinem vitae eius. Vivemus, inquam, hic vita gratiae et in futuro vita gloriae. Eph. II, 5: cum essemus mortui peccatis, convivificavit nos, et cetera. Deinde cum dicit scientes, ponit conditionem vitae Christi resurgenti. Et primo ponit eam; secundo probat, ibi quod enim mortuus est, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: hoc, inquam, quod dictum est credimus scientes quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis, iam non moritur, sed vivit vita perpetua. Apoc. I, 18: fui mortuus, et sum vivens in saecula saeculorum.
6:9
Et, quod plus est, mors illi ultra non dominabitur, quae scilicet in homine dominatur non solum dum moritur per separationem animae a corpore, sed etiam ante mortem dum patitur aegritudinem, famem et sitim, et alia huiusmodi, per quae pervenitur ad mortem: sed ab his libera est vita Christi resurgentis. Et ideo non subiicitur dominio mortis, sed potius ipse habet dominium super mortem. Apoc. I, 18: habet clavem mortis et Inferni. Deinde cum dicit quod enim mortuus, etc., probat propositum scilicet quod Christus resurgens ulterius non moriatur, et hoc dupliciter.
6:10
Primo quidem ratione accepta ex parte mortis quam sustinuit, dicens quod enim mortuus est peccato, mortuus est semel. Non autem intelligitur, quod ipse mortuus est peccato, quod ipse commisit vel contraxit, quia in eo nullo modo peccatum locum habuit. I Petr. II, 22: qui peccatum non fecit, et cetera. Sed dicitur mortuus esse peccato dupliciter. Uno modo, quia mortuus est pro peccato tollendo, II Cor. V, 21: eum qui non novit peccatum pro nobis Deus fecit peccatum, id est hostiam pro peccato. Alio modo, quia mortuus est similitudini carnis peccati, id est, vitae passibili et mortali. Infra VIII, 3: Deus misit filium suum in similitudinem carnis peccati. Utroque autem modo concludi potest, quod Christus mortuus sit semel, ex hoc quod mortuus est peccato. Quantum enim ad primum, manifestum est quod per unam mortem omnia peccata delevit, secundum illud Hebr. X, 14: una oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificandos. Ideo non restat ut adhuc pro peccato moreretur. I Petr. c. III, 18: Christus semel pro peccatis nostris mortuus est, et cetera. Quantum ad secundum autem idem potest concludi. Si enim Christus mortem sustinuit, ut deficeret in eo similitudo carnis peccati, debuit eius mors conformari aliis gerentibus carnem peccati, qui semel moriuntur. Unde dicitur ad Hebr. IX, v. 27 s.: quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semel mori, sic et Christus semel oblatus est, et cetera. Secundo ostendit idem ex conditione vitae, quam resurgendo adeptus est, dicens quod autem vivit, vivit Deo, id est, ad conformitatem Dei. Dicitur enim II Cor. ult. quod si crucifixus est ex infirmitate, vivit ex virtute Dei. Effectus autem conformatur causae; unde et vita quam Christus resurgens acquisivit, est deiformis. Sicut ergo vita Dei est sempiterna et absque corruptione, secundum illud I Tim. ult.: qui solus habet immortalitatem, ita et vita Christi est immortalis. Deinde cum dicit ita et vos, etc., infert conclusionem intentam ut conformemur vitae Christi resurgentis, et quantum ad hoc quod mortuus est peccato, id est mortali vitae, quae habet similitudinem peccati, numquam ad eam rediturus, et quantum ad hoc quod vivit ad conformitatem Dei. Et quantum ad primum dicit ita et vos existimate vos quidem mortuos esse peccato, scilicet tamquam ad peccatum numquam sitis redituri. Is. XXVI, 14: morientes non vivant. Et quantum ad secundum dicit viventes Deo, id est, ad honorem vel similitudinem Dei, ut scilicet numquam per peccatum moriamur. Gal. II, 20: quod autem nunc vivo in carne, in fide vivo filii Dei.
6:11
Et ideo subdit in Christo Iesu domino nostro, id est, per Iesum Christum, per quem et peccatis morimur et Deo vivimus. Vel: in Christo Iesu, id est, tamquam incorporati Christo Iesu, ut per eius mortem moriamur peccato et per eius resurrectionem vivamus Deo. Eph. II, 5: convivificavit nos in Christo, cuius gratia salvati estis per Christum.
6:12
Postquam apostolus ostendit, quod non est nobis permanendum in peccato, et quod huius rei facultatem habemus, hic concludit moralem exhortationem. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo rationem assignat, ibi peccatum enim, etc.; tertio movet quaestionem et solvit, ibi quid ergo? Peccabimus, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit admonitionem; secundo exponit eam, ibi ut obediatis, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est, ut destruatur corpus peccati, per quod datur intelligi, quod virtus peccati in tantum diminuta est, ut nobis dominari non possit. Ergo peccatum, de caetero, non regnet in vestro mortali corpore. Non autem dicit: non sit peccatum in vestro mortali corpore, quia quamdiu corpus nostrum est mortale, id est necessitati mortis addictum, non potest esse quin in corpore nostro sit peccatum, id est fomes peccati. Sed ex quo a Deo liberati sumus a regno peccati debemus conari, quod peccatum in corpore nostro dominium iam amissum in nobis non recuperet. Et hoc est quod dicit non regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore. Et hoc quidem necessarium est cavere, dum corpus mortale gerimus, quia dicitur Sap. IX, 15: corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, et cetera. Deinde, cum dicit ut obediatis, etc., exponit admonitionem praemissam. Circa quod considerandum est, quod dupliciter peccatum regnat in homine. Uno modo per interiorem consensum mentis. Et hoc removendo dicit ut obediatis concupiscentiis eius. Obedire enim per consensum mentis concupiscentiis peccati est peccatum regnare in nobis. Eccli. XVIII, 30: post concupiscentias tuas non eas. Secundo modo regnat in nobis peccatum per operis executionem.
6:13
Et ad hoc excludendum subdit sed neque exhibeatis membra vestra peccato, id est fomiti peccati, arma iniquitatis, id est instrumenta ad iniquitatem exequendam. Homo enim cum per membra sua peccatum exequitur, ad iniquitatem exequitur: et hoc ipso impugnare videtur ad restituendum dominium peccati, quod per consuetudinem peccati in nobis convalescit. Ez. XXXII, 27: cum armis suis ad Inferos descenderunt. Deinde, cum dicit sed exhibete vos Deo, etc., exhortatur ad contrarium, ut scilicet exhibeamus nos Deo. Et primo quantum ad interiorem affectum, cum dicit sed exhibeatis vos Deo, ut scilicet mens vestra ei subdatur. Deut. X, v. 12: et nunc, Israel, quid dominus Deus tuus requirit a te, nisi ut timeas dominum Deum tuum, et ambules in viis eius? Et hoc facere debetis tamquam ex mortuis viventes, id est tamquam reducti ad vitam gratiae de morte culpae. Nam et ideo iustum est ut qui vivit, iam non sibi vivat, sed ei qui pro omnibus mortuus est, II Cor. V, 15. Secundo, quantum ad exteriorem actum, unde dicit: exhibete membra vestra Deo, id est ad eius obsequium, arma iustitiae, id est instrumenta quaedam ad iustitiam exequendam, quibus scilicet pugnetis contra inimicos Dei. Eph. ult.: induite vos armaturam Dei, ut possitis stare adversus insidias Diaboli. Deinde, cum dicit peccatum enim, etc., assignat rationem admonitionis praedictae. Posset, enim aliquis seipsum excusare, allegans peccati dominium, per quod assereret se ab observatione admonitionis praedictae impediri.
6:14
Hoc ergo Apost. primo excludit dicens peccatum enim vobis non dominabitur, scilicet si coeperitis peccato resistere et vos Deo exhibere, secundum illud Iac. VI, 8: appropinquate Deo, et appropinquabit vobis: resistite Diabolo, et fugiet a vobis. Quasi dicat: ideo potestis praedicta observare, quia non invenitis peccatum in vos dominari, per quod retrahi possitis; sumus enim liberati a Christo, secundum illud Io. VIII, 36: si filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi eritis.
6:15
Secundo manifestat quod dixerat, dicens non enim estis sub lege, sed sub gratia. Ubi considerandum est, quod non loquitur hic de lege solum quantum ad caeremonialia, sed etiam quantum ad moralia, sub qua quidem aliquis dicitur esse dupliciter. Uno modo quasi legis observantiae voluntarie subiectus. Et hoc modo etiam Christus fuit sub lege, secundum illud Gal. IV, 4: factum sub lege: quia scilicet legem observavit, non solum quantum ad moralia, sed etiam quantum ad caeremonialia. Fideles autem Christi sunt quidem hoc modo sub lege, quantum ad moralia, non autem quantum ad caeremonialia. Alio modo dicitur aliquis esse sub lege, quasi a lege coactus; et sic dicitur esse sub lege, qui non voluntarie ex amore, sed timore cogitur legem observare. Talis autem caret gratia, quae si adesset, inclinaret voluntatem ad observantiam legis, ut ex amore moralia eius praecepta impleret. Sic igitur quamdiu aliquis sic est sub lege, ut non impleat voluntarie legem, peccatum in eo dominatur, ex quo voluntas hominis inclinatur ut velit id quod est contrarium legi, sed per gratiam tale dominium tollitur, ut scilicet homo servet legem, non quasi sub lege existens, sed sicut liber. Gal. IV, 31: non sumus ancillae filii, sed liberae: qua libertate Christus nos liberavit. Hanc autem gratiam facientem homines libere legem implere, non conferebant legalia sacramenta, sed conferunt eam sacramenta Christi; et ideo illi qui se caeremoniis legis subiiciebant, quantum pertinet ad virtutem ipsorum sacramentorum legalium, non erant sub gratia, sed sub lege, nisi forte per fidem Christi gratiam adipiscerentur. Illi vero qui se sacramentis Christi subiiciunt, ex eorum virtute gratiam consequuntur, ut non sint sub lege, sed sub gratia, nisi forte per suam culpam se subiiciant servituti peccati. Deinde cum dicit quid ergo, etc., movet quaestionem contra id quod dictum est. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit quaestionem; secundo solvit eam ducendo ad inconveniens, ibi absit. An nescitis, etc.; tertio ostendit esse inconveniens id ad quod duxerat, ibi gratias ago Deo, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod verbum praemissum poterat male intelligi ab aliquibus, ut scilicet fideles Christi non sint sub lege, quantum ad debitum observandi praecepta moralia, ex quo sequeretur, quod fidelibus Christi licitum esset peccare, scilicet contra praecepta moralia faciendo. Et ideo sub hoc sensu quaestionem movet, dicens: quid ergo, dicemus, numquid peccabimus, scilicet contra praecepta moralia legis faciendo, quoniam dictum est, quod non sumus sub lege, sed sub gratia? Et hunc sensum apostolus improbat ad Gal. V, 13 dicens: vos in libertatem vocati estis, fratres mei, tantum ne libertatem in occasionem detis carnis. Et ideo hic etiam respondens, subdit, absit, scilicet ut peccemus, quia sumus a lege liberati: quia si peccaremus, sequeretur hoc inconveniens, quod iterum redigeremur in servitutem peccati.
6:16
Et hoc est quod dicit an nescitis, quoniam cui vos exhibetis propria voluntate servos ad obediendum spontanee servi estis, cui obedistis. Obedire enim debitum est, quod servi dominis debent. Eph. VI, 5: servi, obedite dominis carnalibus. Unde cum aliquis obedit alicui, se servum profitetur eius, obediendo. Diverso tamen stipendio, diversis dominis obeditur. Qui enim obedit peccato, per servitutem peccati ducitur in mortem. Et hoc est quod dicit sive peccati, scilicet servi estis ei obediendo. Et hoc est in mortem, id est aeternam damnationem praecipitandi, de qua dicitur Apoc. II, 11: in his mors secunda non habet locum. Qui vero obedit Deo, efficitur huius obedientiae servus: quia per assuetudinem obediendi, mens eius magis ac magis ad obediendum inclinatur et ex hoc iustitiam perficit. Et hoc est quod dicit sive obeditionis, scilicet divinorum praeceptorum, servi estis ad iustitiam implendam, secundum illud supra II, v. 13: factores legis iustificabuntur. Et satis convenienter obeditionem peccato opponit, eo quod, sicut Ambrosius dicit, peccatum est transgressio legis divinae et caelestium inobedientia mandatorum.
6:17
Deinde, cum dicit gratias autem Deo, ostendit hoc esse inconveniens, scilicet quod obediendo peccato, iterum reducamur in servitutem peccati. Primo quidem ratione accepta ex beneficio, quod consecuti sumus. Si enim aliquis per gratiam alicuius a servitute liberatur, inconveniens est quod se spontaneum subiiciat servituti; unde cum nos per gratiam Dei simus liberati a peccato, inconveniens est, quod iterum nos sponte retrudamus in servitutem peccati. Secundo, ex conditione in quam ducti sumus post libertatem peccati, ut scilicet simus servi iustitiae. Non licet autem servo alicuius, se contrarii domini servituti subiicere; unde nobis non licet, ex quo sumus facti servi iustitiae, iterum redire ad servitutem peccati. Utramque rationem apostolus simul tangit dicens gratias ago Deo, sic et vos gratia agere debetis, quod, cum essetis servi peccati, quia qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati, Io. VIII, 34, obedistis, scilicet credendo, supra I, 5: ad obediendum fidei in omnibus gentibus; et hoc non coacti, sed ex corde, infra X, 10: corde creditur ad iustitiam, in eam formam doctrinae, idest in doctrina Catholicae fidei, II Tim. I, 13: formam habens sanorum verborum, quae a me audistis; in quam traditi estis, II Cor. c. VIII, 5: semetipsos dederunt primum Deo, deinde, nobis per voluntatem Dei. Et per hoc liberati estis a peccato, et ita non convenit quod iustitiam deseratis. I Cor. VII, 23: pretio empti estis, et non estis vestri.
6:18
Postquam apostolus ostendit, ratione accepta ex beneficio divino, quod non est nobis in peccato permanendum sed Deo serviendum, hic ostendit idem ratione accepta ex prioris vitae consuetudine. Et circa hoc tria facit. Primo proponit suppositi documenti conditionem, quod subdit; secundo ponit documenti expressionem ibi sicut enim exhibuistis, etc.; tertio documenti rationem assignat, ibi cum enim servi. Dicit ergo primo: monui quod exhibeatis vos Deo; adhuc dico vobis quoddam humanum, id est, congruens imbecillitati humanae. Sic enim quandoque homo accipitur in Scriptura, prout scilicet significat conditionem infirmitatis humanae; Sap. IX, 5: homo infirmus et exigui temporis et minor ad intellectum iudicii et legum. I Cor. III, 3: cum sit inter vos zelus et contentio, nonne carnales estis, et secundum hominem ambulatis? Causam autem assignat, subdens propter infirmitatem; perfectis enim sunt perfectiora praecepta tradenda. I Cor. II, 6: sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos. Hebr. V, 14: perfectorum est solidus cibus. Infirmioribus sunt danda leviora praecepta. I Cor. III, 1 s.: tamquam parvulis in Christo, lac potum dedi vobis, non escam. Hebr. V, 12: facti estis quibus lac opus est. Haec autem infirmitas non ex spiritu sed ex carne venit, quia corpus quod corrumpitur aggravat animam, ut dicitur Sap. IX, 15. Et ideo subdit carnis vestrae. Matth. XXVI, v. 41: spiritus quidem promptus est, caro autem infirma. Deinde, cum dicit sicut enim exhibuistis, etc., ponit documentum quod dicit esse humanum, in quo docet corpus esse aequaliter exhibendum ad serviendum iustitiae, secundum quod nos exhibuimus ipsum ad serviendum peccato.
6:19
Et hoc est quod dicit sicut enim exhibuistis membra vestra servire, scilicet per executionem mali operis, immunditiae et iniquitati corde conceptae: ut immunditia referatur ad peccata carnalia, Eph. V, 3: omnis fornicatio, aut immunditia nec nominetur in vobis, etc.; iniquitas autem refertur ad peccata spiritualia et praecipue quibus laeditur proximus. Ps.: iniquitatem meditatus est in cubili suo. Quibus in corde conceptis membra serviunt ad iniquitatem, scilicet opere exequendam. Et ponit iniquitatem hic pro immunditia et iniquitate, I Io. III, 4, secundum quod omne peccatum est iniquitas. Et hoc in quantum discordat ab aequitate legis divinae. Ita nunc, scilicet liberati a peccato, exhibete membra vestra, scilicet per executionem bonorum operum, servire iustitiae, in lege divina nobis propositae: et hoc in sanctificationem, id est in executionem et augmentum sanctitatis. Apoc. ult.: sanctus sanctificetur adhuc. Dicit autem hoc esse humanum, quia secundum rectum iudicium exigeretur ut homo multo plus serviret iustitiae, quam ante servierit peccato. Bar. IV, 28: sicut fuit sensus vester, ut erraretis a Deo decies tantum, iterum convertentes requiretis eum. Huius documenti rationem consequenter assignat dicens cum enim servi, et cetera. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo proponit rationem praedictorum; secundo probat quod supposuerat, ibi stipendia peccati mors, et cetera. Ostendit autem rationem praemissorum, praeferendo statum gratiae statui culpae. Si enim plura nobis bona ex iustitia proveniunt quam ex culpa, magis debemus insistere ad serviendum iustitiae, quam studuerimus ad serviendum peccato. Primo ergo ponit conditionem status peccati; secundo conditionem status iustitiae, ibi nunc vero liberati, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo ponit conditionem peccati; secundo, effectum peccati, ibi quem ergo fructum, et cetera. Tertio, finem, ibi nam finis illorum, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod homo naturaliter est liberi arbitrii, propter rationem et voluntatem, quae cogi non potest, inclinari tamen ab aliquibus potest. Semper ergo homo, quantum ad arbitrium rationis, remanet liber a coactione, non tamen est liber ab inclinatione. Quandoque enim liberum arbitrium inclinatur ad bonum per habitum gratiae vel iustitiae: et tunc habet servitutem iustitiae et est liber a peccato. Quandoque autem arbitrium inclinatur ad malum per habitum peccati: et tunc habet servitutem peccati et libertatem iustitiae. Servitutem quidem peccati qua trahitur ad consentiendum peccato, contra iudicium rationis. Io. VIII, 34: qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati.
6:20
Et quantum ad hoc dicit: cum enim servi essetis peccati. Libertatem vero a iustitia, quantum ad hoc quod homo absque freno iustitiae praecipitat se in peccatum. Et quantum ad hoc dicit liberi fuistis iustitiae, quod praecipue contingit his qui ex certo proposito peccant. Nam illi qui ex infirmitate vel passione peccant, aliquo freno iustitiae retinentur, ut non videantur a iustitia omnino liberi. Ier. II, 20: a saeculo fregisti iugum, rupisti vincula, dixisti, non serviam. Iob XI, 12: vir vanus in superbiam erigitur; et tamquam pullum onagri, liberum se putat. Sciendum est tamen, quod iste status habet veram servitutem, libertatem autem non veram, sed apparentem. Cum enim homo sit id quod est secundum rationem, tunc homo vere est servus, quando ab aliquo extraneo abducitur ab eo quod est rationis. Sed quod aliquis freno rationis non cohibeatur a sequela concupiscentiae, est libertas quantum ad opinionem illius, qui summum bonum putat concupita sequi.
6:21
Deinde cum dicit quem ergo fructum, etc., ostendit effectum peccati. Et unum quidem effectum excludit, scilicet effectum fructuosum, cum dicit quem ergo fructum, scilicet cum peccabatis in illis, scilicet peccatis. Sunt enim infructuosa peccati opera, quia non adiuvant hominem ad beatitudinem consequendam. Is. LIX, 6: opera eorum, opera inutilia. Mich. II, 1: vae qui cogitatis inutile, et operamini malum in cubilibus vestris. Adstruit autem effectum confusibilem, dicens in quibus, scilicet peccatis, id est de quibus nunc, scilicet in statu poenitentiae, erubescitis, propter eorum turpitudinem. Ier. XXXI, 19: postquam ostendisti mihi, percussi femur meum confusione, et erubui. Is. I, 29: erubescitis super hortis, scilicet voluptatis, quos elegeratis. Deinde cum dicit nam finis, etc., ponit finem peccati, dicens nam finis illorum, scilicet peccatorum, mors est. Quae quidem et si non sit finis operantis peccatum, quia peccando non intendit mortem incurrere, est tamen finis ipsorum peccatorum, quia de se nata sunt mortem inducere temporalem quia cum anima a se Deum separat, dignum est ut ab ea corpus suum separetur, et aeternam, quia cum aliquis ad tempus vult separari a Deo, propter concupiscentiam peccati, dignum est ut ab eo aeternaliter separetur, quod est mors aeterna. Supra I, 32: qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte. Deinde cum dicit nunc vero, etc., ostendit qualitatem status iustitiae. Et primo ponit conditionem status iustitiae; secundo, effectum, ibi habetis fructum vestrum, etc.; tertio ponit finem, ibi finem vero, et cetera. Circa primum considerandum est, quod sicut quando aliquis a peccato inclinatur ad malum, est liber a iustitia; ita cum aliquis ex habitu iustitiae et gratiae inclinatur ad bonum, est liber a peccato; ut scilicet ab eo non superetur usque ad consensum. Unde dicit nunc vero, scilicet in statu iustitiae, liberati a peccato. Io. VIII, 36: si filius vos liberaverit, tunc vere liberi eritis. Similiter, e contra, sicut in statu peccati est aliquis servus peccati, cui obedit, ita in statu iustitiae est aliquis servus Dei voluntarie obediens, secundum illud Ps. XCIX, 2: servite domino in laetitia.
6:22
Et hoc est quod subdit servi autem facti Deo. Ps. CXV, v. 16: o domine, quia ego servus tuus, et cetera. Haec autem vera est libertas, et optima servitus; quia per iustitiam homo inclinatur ad id quod convenit ipsi, quod est proprium hominis, et avertitur ab eo quod convenit concupiscentiae, quod est maxime bestiale. Deinde cum dicit habetis fructum, etc., ponit effectum iustitiae, dicens habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificatione, id est, ipsa sanctificatio, hoc est executio sanctitatis per bona opera, est fructus vester, in quantum scilicet hoc spiritualiter et sancte vos delectat. Eccli. XXIV, 23: flores mei fructus honoris et honestatis, et cetera. Gal. V, 22: fructus spiritus est gaudium, pax, et cetera. Consequenter ponit finem, dicens finem vero habetis vitam aeternam. Quae quidem est finis ipsorum iustorum, qui propter vitam aeternam habendam omnia operantur. Matth. VI, 33: primum quaerite regnum Dei, et cetera. Et etiam ipsorum operum, quae cum ex obedientia Dei fiant et ad Dei imitationem, vitam aeternam merentur. Io. X, 27 s.: oves meae vocem meam audiunt, et sequuntur me, et vitam aeternam do eis.
6:23
Deinde cum dicit stipendia enim peccati, etc., manifestat quod dixerat de finibus malorum et bonorum. Et primo quantum ad mala. Dicit: dictum est quod finis peccatorum est mors, stipendia enim peccati, mors. Dicuntur autem stipendia mercedes militum, a stipe pendenda, id est ponderanda: quia pecunia distribuenda militibus ponderabatur. Quia ergo peccatores peccato militant, membra sua exhibentes arma peccato, ut supra dictum est, mors dicitur esse stipendium peccati, id est retributio, quam retribuit sibi servientibus. Et ex hoc manifestum est, quod mors sit finis peccatorum, non quem peccantes quaerunt, sed qui eis retribuitur. Ps. X, 6: ignis, sulphur, spiritus procellarum, pars calicis eorum. Quantum vero ad bona, dicit gratia Dei vita aeterna. Quia enim dixerat iustos homines habere vitam aeternam, quam certum est non posse haberi, nisi per gratiam: ideo hoc ipsum quod bona operamur, et quod opus nostrum est dignum vita aeterna, est a gratia Dei. Unde et in Ps. LXXXIII, 12, dicitur: gratiam et gloriam dabit dominus. Sic igitur opera nostra si considerentur in sui natura et secundum quod procedunt ex libero arbitrio hominis, non merentur ex condigno vitam aeternam, sed solum secundum quod procedunt ex gratia spiritus sancti. Unde dicitur Io. IV, 14: quod fiet in eo fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam. Et hoc fit in Christo Iesu domino nostro, id est, per Christum, vel in quantum in ipso sumus per fidem et charitatem. Io. VI, 40: omnis qui videt filium, et credit in eum, habet vitam aeternam.
6:2
2. Absit. Quoniam dixerat gratiam superabundare, ubi abundavit peccatum, ne quis propterea putaret immorandum esse peccatis et peccata peccatis cumulanda, quo scilicet amplius abundaret atque commendaretur Dei gratia, repellit hujusmodi perversam cogitationem Apostolus, dum de ea quaestionem sibi faciens, respondet: Absit. Nam ut perabsurdum est ideo velle aegrotare, ut habeat medicina, quod sanet, ita summae dementiae est, velle adhuc peccare, ut gratia Dei semper habeat, quod remittat. Imo sicut durante morbo non habetur sanitas, nec apparet ars medici, ita manente peccato non habetur justitia, nec ostenditur virtus gratiae Dei. Quare, ut gratia commendetur, a peccatis recedendum est, non in illis manendum.
Qui enim mortui sumus peccato, quomodo adhuc vivemus in illo? lu Graeco non est, enim, et absque eo citat Tertullianuslib.de pudicitiacap. 17. Recte tamen intelligitur. Est enim haec ^irobatio datae responsionis argumento a contrariis, ac si dicat: Nam qui peccato bene mortui sumus, ei profecto non amplius vivere debemus. Peccato dativus est, non ablativus, ut ad Galat. 2.: Legi mortuus sum. Ut enim phrases sunt Apostolicae, vivere peccato, legi, justitiae, Deo, quibus significatur servitus et obsequium, quod quam dispar utriusque servitutis sit exitus. his impenditur, aut commercium, quod cum iis habetur, ita et istae e contrario, mori seu mortuum esse peccato, ac caeteris, id est, ab horum servitute et obsequio penitus esse liberum, et a commercio alienum. Sic et Petrus loquitur 1 epist. 2.: ut peccatis mortui justitiae vivamus. Ac rursum Paulus Ephes. 2.: Cum essetis mortui delictis et peccatis vestris, et Coloss. 2.: Cum mortui essetis delictis et praeputio carnis vestrae. Quae duo loca huic praesenti similia esse, quamvis alii secus exponant, ostendemus, quum illuc usque pervenerimus. Mortuos igitur peccato vocat eos, qui respectu peccati mortui sunt, id est, qui a peccati servitute liberi, quibusque cum peccato non plus est negotii aut commercii, quam mortuis esse solet cum viventibus. Aut certe (quod eodem recidit) mortui peccato dicimur, dum neque nos in peccato vivimus, ei serviendo, neque peccatum vivit in nobis, regnando. Unde ait: quomodo adhuc vivemus in illo? scilicet desideriis ejus obsequendo. B. Augustinus libro de spiritu et litera cap. 6. partem hanc sic exponit: Cum id praestiterit gratia, ut moreremur peccoto, quid aliud faciemus, si vivemus in eo, nisi ut gratiae simus ingrati? Ideui epistola 47. ad Valentinum hanc Apostoli sententiam ita commendat, ut affirmet, nihil potuisse dici brevius et melius. Porro dicit Apostolus peccatum singulari numero, quia respicit ad fomitem peccati, quem contraximus ex transgressione primi parentis, atque hoc peccatum considerat ut dominum ac imperatorem in homine tunc regnantem, quando pravis ejus motibus ac desideriis obtemperat. Quae consideratio patebit amplius in consequentibus.
6:3
3. Anignoratis, quia quicunque baptizati sumus in Christo Jesu, in morte ipsius baptizati sm;«ms? Argumentationem praecedentem totam confirmat ex baptismi caerimonia atque effectu. In Graeco sunt accusativi, in Jesum Christum, in mortem. Atque ita legit Tertull. in lib. de resur. carnis cap. 47. Sed et vetusti quidam Bibliorum codices habent, in mortem. Ul autem intelligatur, quid sit baptizari in Christum, conferendus est hic locus cum illo Galat. 3: Quicumque in Christo (Graece in Christum) baptizati estis, Christum induistis. Quae utique verba et efiicaciam baptismi significant. Itaque sensus hujus loci est: Scire debetis, quod, quicumque per baptismum Christo nomen dedimus, et mystico ejus corpori sumus insiti, baptizati sumus in similitudinem seu configurationem mortis ejus; quatenus scilicet in nobis, quando baptizabamur, impletum est et significatione et eftectu, quod Christi morte figurabatur. Nam mors et passio Christi non solum causa fuit nostrae justificationis, verum etiam ejusdem typus ac figuralis quaedam repraesentatio. Significabat enim mortem et interitum veteris hominis in nobis, quomodo Christus in se ipso mortuus fuit vitae mortali. Rursusexhochjcocolligit August.Ench. cap. 52. parvulos in peccato nasci. Nam si Paulo teste, quicimique baptizantur iu Christo, in ejus morte baptizantur, et proinde peccato moriuntur (id enim probandum suscepit), necesse est, et parvulos habere peccatum, cui moriantur, dum in uiorte Christi baptizantur. Porro non sokim mors Christi et crucifixio, de qua paulo post, sed et sepultura et resurrectio et ascensio in coelum adumbrarunt ea, quae in nostra aguntur justificatione. Id quod Paulus cum alibi^ ut ad Gah 2. 5. et 6., et ad CoL 2. et 3., tum maxime in hoc capite nos docet. Qua de re sic Augustinus ejusdem lib. cap. 35. Quidquid gestum est, inquit, in cruce Christi, in sepultura, in resurrectione tertio die, in ascensione in coelum, et in sedere ad dexteram Patris, ita gestum est, ut his rebus, non mystice tantum dictis, sed etiam gestis, configuraretur vita Christiana, quae hic geritur. Quod et inde per singula declarat. Jam vero simile mysterium etiam in baptismi caerimonia statuit Apostolus. Nam immersio Christi sepulturam nobis repraesentat, adeoque et mortem. Sepulcrum namque mortis s;yTnbolum est, nec enim sepeliuntur, nisi mortui. Quae autem immersionem sequitur emersio, similitudinem habet resurrectionis. Igitur in baptismo configuramur non tantum morti Christi, quod jam dixit, verum etiam sepulturae et resurrectioni; quodutruraque consequenter dicturus est.
6:4
4. Consepulti enim sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem. Enim, Graece ouv, ergo. Sicque legit Tertull. in lib. de pudicitia, et August. de spir. et Kt. Sensus: Per baptismi caerimoniam sumus una cum Christo sepulti; quatenus immersio, quae fit in baptismo, significat et exprimit, ut dictum est, Christi sepulturam; sepulti, inquam, sumus in mortem veteris hominis et peccati, sicut Christus in sepulcro jacens mortuus erat carne mortali.
Vt, quomodo Christus surre.rit a mortuis per gloriam patris. Surr^rit a mortuis, Graece r^-^^ip^r^ ix vsxpd)V, suscitatus est ex mortuis, id est a morte. De qua phrasi dictum est alias.
Ita et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus. Tta et nos, intellige, velutexaqui baptismatis emersi, atque ea raundificat-., novique homines facti. Significatur causa finalis mysticae, quam dixit, sepultura nostrae, et sensus est: ideo per bajiti - mum nos Christo consepultos esse iu mortem peccati, id est, mortuos esse peccato, iit deinceps a peccati consuetudine prorsus alieni, exerceaniTis opera novae vitae (hoc enim est in novitate vitae ambulare), quemadmodum Christus resuscitatus est a morte ad novam et immortalem vitam, idque per gloriam, id est gloriosam operationem Patris sui; quia nimirum in Christi resurrectione Deus, qui eam operatus est, glorificatur. Sic enim raiilti banc partem interpretantur, cum alioqui possit intelligi causa formalis, quam indicat versio Syriaca: in gloriam patris, ut ipsa nova et gloriosa vita, ad quam a patre resuscitatus est Christus, ipso orante, pater glorifica filium tuum, Joan. 17., vocetur gloria patris. Qui sensus haud immerito placuit Cajetano. Nam hoc pacto plenior et aptior erit collatio, quam inter nos et Christum attendit Apostolus. Commentator Amb. legit: per virtutem Dei, quod sensum habet jjerspicuum, sed ab originali dissonat. Porro ambulare passim in scripturis morale vocabulum est, quo metaphorice significatur idem, quod conversari, vivere, actiones exercere alias post alias, sumiturque non tantum in l)ono, sed etiam in malo, ut Joan. 8.: Qui seijuitur me, non ambulat in tenebris. Nec proprie profectum indicat, ne quidem dum in bono accipitur, sed continuationem quandam actionum. Nam et Christo in diebus carnis suae competebat secundum hunc sensum ambulare, de quo Joan. 1 epist. 2.: Qui dicit se in ipso manere, debet, sicut ille ambulavit, et ipse ambulare. Quamquam nos viatores ita debemus in lege Domini et in novitate vitae ambulare, ut proficiamus de die in diem.
6:5
5. Si enim complantati facti sumus similitudini mortis ejus, simul et resurrectionis erimus. Confirmatio est ejus, quod proxime praecessit. Complantati, Graece au/xcpuTO',^ non participium est, sed nomen, quasi dicas consiticii vel insiticii. Porro dativus to)" 6;-iQtoj;lati posset etiam reddi per ablativum modi, si~ militudine; pro quo Syrus vertit: in similitudine. Verum Paulus, modum significare volens hoc vocabulo, sem))er addere solet praepositionem, Iv aut z,Ti'., ut supra cap. 1. et 5., et infra cap. 8. et Philip. 2. Quod cum hic factum non sit, optime redditum puto a nostro interprete dativum, similitudini; maxime quodeum casum exigat dictio 3'J|Ji(puT0i. Nam quod Erasmus supplet hoc modo: Si enim insiticii facti sumus illi, id est Christo, per similitudinem mortis ejus, coactum mihi videtur. Nec solet Paulus hujusmodi relativum reticere ac supplendum relinquere. Posterius membrum in Graeco sic habet: sed et resurrectionis erimus, atque ita citat Tertullianus. Ubi sed per utique, sane, igitur, exponendum est. Interpres vulgatus pro ocXXa legit diiOL, vocem similem. Haec eadem pars ex priori membro ita suppleatur: Sed et resurrectionis erimus similitudini complantati. Sensus igitur hujus periodi est: Nam si more surculorum, qui arbori inseruntur, ut inde succum trahant, insiti sumus morti Christi, cujus similitudinem gessimus in baptismo, et per hoc ejusdem mortis effecti participes in eo, quod mortui sumus peccatis, profecto etiam resurrectionis Christi pavticipes efiici debemus, tanquam et huic insiti, cujus aeque in baptismo similltudlnem gessimus. Nam sicut immersione, quae fit in baptismo, Cijnfiguramui' Christo mortuo et sepulto, ita vicissim emersione configuramur Christo resurgenti. Quod si autem resurrectionis Christi participes esse debemus, igitur in novitate vitae, quam Chiisti resurrectio significat, ambulandum nobis est.
6:6
6. Hoc scientes, quia vetus homo noster simul crucifixus est. Significantius in Graeco: aDVcatauptoO^rj^ concrucifixus est, tanquam dicat eidem cx-uci simul afiixum, videlicet cum Christo. Nunc enim ex ipsa Christi crucifixione argumentatur. non esse manendum in peccatis. Per illam enim figuraliter repraesentata est crucifixioetmortificatio veterishominisinnobis. Sensus: Cum et hoc sciamus, veterem hominem nostrum una cum Christo (scilicet in typo seu repraesentatione) cruci affixum et mortificatum esse. Veterem hominem vocat vetiistatera et corniptionem peccad in homine, quam ex veteri Adam contraxit; vel potius ipsum hominem, in quantum hujusmi)di vetustate affectus est. Opponitur autem homini novo. Quem utrumque meminit ac notis suis de- I scribit Apostolus Eph. 4. I Putat Augustinus propos. 32., Pauhim hic respicere ad illud Deut. 21.: Maledictus a Deo est, qui pendet in ligno. Nam veteris hominis, id est, peccaturis ac maledicti similitudinem gessit Christus propter nos affixus cruci. Unde et factus pro nobis dinitviY peccatum 2 Cor. 5., et maledictum GaL 3. Hic igitur vetus noster homo simul cum Christ.i crucifixus est et mortificatus, non, ut statim vetustas Iomnis tollatur, quod non contingit in hac vita; sed, quemadmodum sequitur:
Ut destruatur corpus peccati. Destruatur, Graece Y.a-a^'(r^^f^, aboleatur vel aboleretur. Pro quo legunt Tertul. et tAugust.: evacuaretur. Corpus peccati vocat ipsum veterem hominem, cujus membra alibi enumerat, dicens: 3Iortificate membra vestra, quae suyit super terram, fornicationem, immunditiam etc. Col. 3. Ubi satis significat, eadem haec esse membra veteris hominis ac terreni, nempe in eo, quod dicit, membra vestra, quae sunt super terram, id est membra hominis vestri terreni. Destruitur ergo et aboletur in nobis corpus peccati, quando membra ejus mortificamus, id est, quando desideriis peccati non consentimus, sed resistimus, eaque in nobis expugnamus et occidimus. Sunt, qui corpus peccati interpretentur corpus nostrum, quateims peccato subditum est, quam carnem peccati vocat Apostolos infra cap. 8. Atque hanc expositionem late prosequitur Origenes, liberum tamen lectori faciens, ut vel istam, vel priorem eligat. Nobis quidem jirior huic loco magis accoramcdata videtur. Qudd vero neoterici quidam corpus pro robore positum existimant, ac destrui corpus peccati dicunt, quum robur et virtus peccati enervatur, id a consueto Pauli sermone constat esse alienum. Porro, quamvis, ut dixi, perfecta destructio corporis peccati non hujus sit vitae, sed futurae, nunc tamen interim ita destruendum est, ut saltem fiat, quod sequitur:
Et ultra non serciamus peccato. Legendum: ut ultra non serviamus. Tn hanc enim lectionem omnes fere nostri codices, et commentatores consprant, eademque est apud Augustinum. Xec Graeca diversam admittunt. Servit peccato, qui peccati desideriis, et, ut ita dicam, imperiis oVisequitur; qui sub peccati dominio est. Nam peccatum fingit ut personam di minantem, quae suljectis servis imperet. Sed id expressius in sequentibus.
6:7
7. Qui enim mortuus est, justificatus est a peccato. Inest his verbis tacita argumentatio ab efFectu seu proprietate mortis, ad hunc modum explicanda: Mortuus horao nihil agit vitale, sed absolutus est ab officiis vitae, qua prius vivebat. Nam mors abolet omnes vitae actiones. Sic igitur et nos, quoniam conformati morti Christi in cruce, mortui sumus peccato seu vitae veteri, justificati sumus, id est, absoluti }'rorsus a peccato, ut ei nuUam deinceps servitutem debeamus, tanquam xrihil amplius habentes cum eo negotii sive commercii. Quod ait, justificatus est, sumpta phrasis a judiciis forensibus, ubi, qui absolvebatur, justificari dicebatur, hocest liberari, sive a crimine sibi imposito^ sive a domino volente eum sibi vindicare servum Jam ex hac quoque Paulina sententia colligit Augustin. Ench. 42. et. 43., parvulos ante baptismum habere peccatum, quoniam et ipsi Christo Cf.mmortui sunt in baptismo. S. Si autem mortui sumus cum Christo, credimus, quia simul etiam vivemus cum Christo. Graece, credimus, quia et convivemus ei. Chrysost. aliique multi dictum hoc accipiunt de vita gloriae, quam exspectamus per resurrectionem; ut simile sit illi, quod ait 2 Timoth. 2.: Si commortui sumus, et convivemus: si sustinebimus, et conregnabimus. At certe contextus hic exigit, ut intelligatur de vita per novitatem Christo resurgenti conformata, quae est vita gratiae •, ut sit sensus: Si mortui sumus peccato, quomodo Christus mortuus est carne, confidimus, sicut ille resuscitatus a morte vivit novam vitam, ita nos quoque novam, id est, a vetustate peccati repurgatam vitam deinceps acturos. Et quia confidimus, ad hoc ipsum anniti debemus. Sensum hunc praeter alia, tam superiora, quam sequentia, manifeste vult illa conclusio, quam paulo post infert: Ita et vos existimate, vos mortuos quidem essepeccato, viventes autem Deo in Christo etc.
6:9
9. Scientes, quod Christus resurgens ex mortuis jam non moritur. Resurgens, Graece suscitatus. Jam non moritur, Graece, non amplius moritur. Mors tUi ultra non dominabitur, Graece, mors ei non amplius dominatur, verbo scilicet praesentis temporis; quemadmodum et citat Tertullianus. Atque ita scriptum legimus in pervetusto codice monasterii Laudensis. Docere vult Apostolus non modo recedendum esse a peccatis, sed in novitate vitae continuo pei'severandum. Scimus, inquit, Christum resurrexisse ad vitam immortalem, ita ut Hon sit amplius moriturus, neque (quod idem est) mors ei praevalitura. Semel quidem mors Christo dominata fuit, non tamen jure suo, quod in eum haberet, sed ipsius voluntate ac libera potestate, de qua ait Joan. 10.: Ego pono animam meam a me ipso, et potestatem habeo ponendi eam. Origenes mortem interpretatur diabolum, quod non recipimus. Nam diabolum aliquando fuisse dominatum Christo, nescio, an ferant aures piae. Et ut ferant aliquo sensu, tamen huic loco non convenit, ubi de morte, non de priueipe mortis est sermo. Rectius apud Origenem Rufiinus, dimi ex hoc loco Pauli redarguit eos, qui Christum in futuris saeculis iterum atque iterum eadem vel similia passurum asserebant, id est, saepe moriturum. Quod propter ipsum Origenem, eo dogmate infamem, a Ruffino additum fuisse non est dubium.
6:10
10. Quod enim mortuus est, peccato mortuus est semel. Vocem peccato quidam cum verbo praecedente construunt, sed alii rectius cum sequente. Quod et indicant emendatiores codices, commate posito ante peccato, ut missale Romanum et biblia Lovaniensis castigationis. Hanc quippe constructionem postulat alterum membrum haic antithetum: Quod autem vivit, etc. Sensus: Quod enim mortuus fuit Christus, id semel duntaxat fieri oportuit, factumque est videlicet ad destructionem peccati, simul ut mors nostra, qua peccato morimur, in ejus morte repraesentaretur. Ad quod utrumque una ejus mors satis superque valebat. Sic Hebr. 9.: Christus semel oblatus est ad multorum exhaurienda peccata. Et cap. 10.: Utia oblatione consummavit in sempiternum sanctificatos.
Quod autem vivit, vivit Deo. Td est: Quod autem vivit jara excitatus a morte, vivit vitam gloriosam et immortalem Deoque dignam, qui immortalis est. Aut juxta Chrysostomum, vivit Deo, id est, ex Dei virtute praestante vitam immortalem. Sed priori sensui melius respondet, quod sequitur.
6:11
11. Ita et vos existimate, vos mortuos quidem esse peccato, viventes autem Deo in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Vos secundo loco lauTOug^ vos ipsos. Pro verbo existimate, quod Graece est Xoy'- Csat^c, Ruffinus mavult cogitate, id est, animo reputate. Nam exhortatoria conclusio est, qua ad institutum applicat Apostohis ea, quae dixit de morte et vita Christi. Ita, inquit, et vos cogitate de vobis ipsis, nempe vos semel mortuos esse peccato in baptismo, de caetero autem viventes esse ac vivere oportere Deo, id est, vitam vivere Deo congruam, quam nuUa mors peccati ulterius sequatur, idque per Christum. Liquet ex jam dictis aliter Christum, aliter nos mortuos esse peccato. Nos enim mortui peccato dicimur, quia non amplius in peccato vivimus, sed, vita peccati derelicta, per justitiam vivimus Deo. Christus autem mortuus peccato, id est, corpore mortuus ad tollendum peccatum. Est autem in Graeco discrimen sermonis observandnin. Nam Christus verbaliter et in praeterito aTisflavsv, id est, mortuus fuit peccato; nos autem nominaliter VcXpO'. ^ id est, mortui peccato dicimur, scilicet morte praesente et in nobis permanente; cum in Christo post paullulum morti vita successerit.
6:12
1 2. Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortali corpore, ut obediatis concupiscentiis ejus. Hoc loco tertius incipit tomus hujus epistolae secundum Theodoretum. Est enim hic quidam transitus a doctrina ad morum informationem, quae tamen ipsa multum etiam doctrinae continet. Ut autem haec, et quae sequuntur usque ad finem oapitis, melius intelligantur, observanda est (de quo et superius admoet justitia. Fingit enim eas ut reginas seu dominas (nam utrumque in Graeco foemininum est), singulas suum habentes regnum ac dominium, alterum alteri contrarium; humanum vero genus, regno peccati subditum, per Christi gratiam paulatim ex ea servitute liberari ac transferri in regnum justitiae. Sic autem liberatos hortatur, ne sese rursus per spontaneam obedientiam in priorem peccati servitutem redigi sinant. Quae res ex sequentibus fiet manifestior. Quod nos habemus, ut obediatis concupiscentiis ejus, ita legitur in Graeco: sic: to tJTcazoustv abr-Q sv xalc; l7iti>uixiaii ahxoo, id est, ad obediendum ei in concupiscentiis ejus, ut ei ad ajiap- T'.a'v, peccatum, et ejus ad awjxa^ corpus, referatur. Jam enim dixi, peccatum hic considerari ut dominam ac reginam, cui servitus et obedientia praestetur. Unde, quod in Graecis nonnullis pro abrfj legitur al)~in, mendosum existimo. At posteriore loco recte se habet auzoo. Passim enim in epistolis Apostolicis audimus desideria carnis, quam notare vohiit dicens: in vestro mortali corpore. Quamquam secundum rem concupiscentiae corporis eaedem sunt concupiscentiae peccati, quatenus peccatum eas in corpore excitat. Tertull. k>cum hunc Pauli adducens libro de resur. carnis cap. 47. legit, ut Graeci, ad obuudiendum illi, non addens tamen partem sequentem, in concupiscentiis ejus; forte quia non totum citare voluit. Peccatam intelligit Apostolus ipsam habitualem concupiscentiam, quae est fomes peccati, de qua, quidnam sit, et in qua animae facultate resideat, disputari soJet in 2. lib. Sent. dist. 30., et nos aliquid dicturi sumus ad illud capitis sequentis: concupiscentiam nesciebam, et rursus ad ea verba Gah 5.: Caro cmcupiscit adversus spiritum. Vocatur autem a Paulo peccatum hoc capite et duobus sequentibus, non quod vere et proprie in renatis peccatum sit, uti contendunt hujus temporis haeretici, sed quia ex peccato est, et ad peccatum inclinat, quemadmodum ex S. Augustini doctrina declarat synidus Tridentina sess. 5. can. 5. Loca apud August. sunt lib. 1. contra duas epist. Pelag. c. 13., serm. 43. de verbis Dom., et serm. 6. de verbis apost., et alibi. Potior tamen hujus appellationis ratio, quamque praecipue et interdum solam urget Augustinus, ea est, concupiscentiam ideo vocari peccatum, quia ad peccatum inclinat atque sollicitat. Nam mors ac caeterae poenalitates, licet etiam sint ex peccato primae transgressionis, quia tamen ad peccatum non inclinant, non solent peccata vocari in scripturis. Porro non dicit Apostolus: Non sit, sed, non regnet peccatum etc, quia, quamdiu sumus in hoc mortali corpore, est in nobis peccatum, neque durante hac vita exstirpari potest; unde et habitare in nobis dicitur capite sequente. Sed hoc agere possumus et debemus, ut non regnet in corpore nostro, id est, non dominetur nobis, juxta id, quod orat Psalmistes: et non dominetur mei omnis injustitia, Psalm. IIP. Qund fit, quando ei ad peccatum sollicitanti non consentimus, et, \\t Apostolus biquitur, non obedimus obsequendo concupiscentiis seu pravis motibus, quos excitat in carne nostra. Ita locum hunc declarat August. in exposit. Psal. 50., et serm. 12. de verbis Apost., et dias saepe. Hincetiam patet, cur addiderit moriaZi^ scilicet ad significandum, vitium hoc, quod peccatum vocat, propriam ac fixam habere sedem in corpore nostro mortali, nec nisi per mortem hujus corporis futurum, ut ab eo malo liberemur. Propter quod ait in fine capitis sequentis: Quis me liberabit de corpore mortis hujus? Quidam peccati nomine non concupiscentiam hoc loco, sed peccatum in genei"e mahint intelligi, idemque proprie dictura. Nam fieri non potest, nt dum sumus in mortali corpore, careamus peccato; pos sumus autem facere cum Dei gratia, ut peccatum in nobis non regnet. Verum hi non videntur satis advertisse ad verba Concilii Tridentini loco jam iudicato, quibus dicitur, Apostohim ipsam concupiscentiam aHquando appellare peccatum. XJbi procul dubio respicitur ad caput 6. 7. et 8. hujus ad Romanos epistolae, quae etiam ad marginem illic annotari solent.
6:13
13. Sed neque exhibeatis membra vestra arma iniquitatis jjeccato. Sed redundare videtur. Nam Graece tantum est, neque exhibete membra etc. Tertullianus quoque citans hunc locum non addit, et ad sensum non facit. Tantum enim explicat Apostolus, quod proxime dixerat. Neque, inquit, exhibete, sistite, in obsequium date membra corporis vestri peccato, id est, fomiti, ut sint instrumenta ac vehit arma, quibus peccato miUtetls, injustitiae opera, ad quae suo imperio movet ac impellit, exercentes. Perstat enim Apostolus in metaphora dominii et obsequii. Cui probe servit Graecum verbum Tiapioxavsxc, bene et significanter ab interprete nostro redditum exhibete, tam hic, quam in parte sequenti; minus autem bene ab Erasmo, accommodate. Est enim hoc verbum ad id expinmendum, quod vult Apostohis, parum commodum. Quod et ipse Erasmus intelligens postea vers. 19. htijus cap., ac rursum initio cap. 10., pro eodem Graeco verbo reponit Latinum praebere, id est, exhibere.
Sed exhibete cos Deo tanquam ex mortuis viventes. Vos, Graece lauToug^ vosmetipsos. Sed, inquit, exhibete, sistite, ac date vos ipsos totos, quanti estis, in obsequium Deo, sicut facere convenit eos, qui peccato mortui jam vivunt cum Christo, similitudini resurrectionis ejus conformati.
Et membra cestra arma justitiae Deo, scilicet exhibete. Sensus: Et ideo membra vestra exhibete Deo, velut arma, quibus ei mihtetis, ad exercenda jastitiae opera, quae vobis imperat. Nondum hic justitiam tit dominam oppunit peccato, sed Deum, tit ostendat, non aliud esse justitiaeregnum, ahudDei; nec aliud justitiae miUtare, aUud Deo. Caeterum iu sequentibus aperte comparantur peccatum et justitia tanquam dominae, suos utraque servos suis obsequiis addictos habentes.
6:14
14. Peccatum enim vobis non dominabitur. Quidam praeceptive exponunt: non dominabitur, id est, non dominetur, idiotismo Hebraico, ut sit repetitio praecepti, quo supra dixit: Non ergo regnet peccatum in vestro mortaU corpore. AUt intelligunt enunciative dictum, idque rectius. Occurrit enim Pauhis objectioni, qua dicere quis posset, peccatum esse dominam, quae sua tyrannide premat ac sibi servire cogat homines, posteaquam semel in mundum intravit; ideoque non posse nos facere, quae Paulus praecipit. Respondet atitem, fideles ab ea peccati tyrannide liberatos esse per Christi gratiam, ut jam et deinceps peccatum eis non dominetur; ac proinde merito se ab eis exigere tanqtiam rem facilem, ut de caetero membra sua exhibeant arma, non peccato, sed Deo. Probat hunc sensum, qitod sequitur:
Non enim sub lege estis, sed sub gratia. Legem iuteUigit Mosaicam, ut passim in hac epistola, praesertim capite sequenti; sed eam sohim et pitram, ut loquuntur, id est sine gratia et fide. Nam distinguitur contra gratiam. Igittir sub lege esse dicuntur, qtii legis Mosaicae servitute premuntur, gratia Dei, quam non agnoscunt, ad eam implendamnou adjuti. Sic enim et aUbi phrasim hanc, esse sub lege, Paulus usurpat, maxime in epist. ad Gal. c. 3. 4. et 5. Sub gratia autem esse dicuntur, qui ex fide per gratiam Christi justitiam percipiunt aiit exspectant, sive legis Mosaicae praeceptis adstricti sint, sive non. Nam justi veteris testamenti, quamvis legis servandae debitores, quia tamen non ex lege, sed ex fide venturi Messiae, justitiam sperabant, non sub lege (prout Apostolus utitur hac phrasi), sed sub gratia dicendi sunt fuisse. Unde etiam intelligitur, post legem abrogatam nullos jam esse sub lege, nisi propria et errante conscientia, velut Judaeos, qui lege Mosaica, tanquam adhuc vigeat, teneri se credunt. Sic enim et Galatae, quos objurgat Paulus, esse volebant sub lege, Gal. 4. Sensus igitur Apostoli et probatio haec est: Non estis sub lege, quippe jam abolita, sed ab ea translati ad gratiam Christi, cui estis incorporati per baptismum; igitur estis a peccati dominio liberi. Sequela valet a causa _ad effectum.
6:15
15. Quid ergo? peccabimus, quoniam non sumus sub lege, sed sub gratia? Hanc sibi quaestionem facit ex eo, quod proxime dixerat, non estis sub lege, sed sub gratia. Nam si sub lege non sumus, liberum nobis relictum videtur, ut peccemus, id est, ea agamus, quae lex prohibet, utpote legis vinculo non adstrictis. Ac rursum, etsi sub gratia simus, adhuc tamen peccandum erit, ut gratia et misericordia Dei in remissione peccatorum amplius commendetur. Qua posteriori parte coincidit haec occupatio cum ea, quae erat initio hujus capitis.
Absit. Res, inquit, plane absurda est, nec ullo modo consequens ex dictis, cum potius ex iis bene intellectis diversum sequatur, scilicet non esse peccandum.
6:16
16. Nescitis, quoniam, cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum. Graece: vos ipsos servos ad obedientiam, quam mox obeditionem vocat interpres.
Servi estis ejus, cui obeditis, sive peccati ad mol'tem, sive obeditionis ad justitiam? Objectionem contrario refellit argumento, ex quo tamen etiam objectionis solutio possit accipi. Vis argumenti haec est: Cui quis se exhibet ac tradit ad obediendum, servus illius efficitur; atqui per gratiam vosmetipsos tradidistis in obedientiam evangelii, igitur hujus estis servi; et proinde non amplius peccare, sed operibus justitiae, quae praescribit evangelium, incumbere debetis. Propositionem argumentationis ista pars tota continet, obscura quidem, sed quam ita clariorem reddere licebit; An nescitis, quod, cuicumque vos ipsos addicitis, obediendo voluntati et imperio ejus, servi illius efficimini; sive peccati, quod hominem sibi servientem trahit ad mortem; sive evangelii, aut (secundum alios) fidei, cujus obedientia praestat justitiam? Nam in evangelio justitia Dei revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est: Justus autem ex fide vivit, supra cap. 1. Ubi etiam fides evangelii per obedientiam describitui-, quemadmodum et alibi. Porro mortem intelligit aeternam, de qua infra: Stipendia peccati mors. Consonant huic loco scripturae, Joan. 8.: Omnis, qui facit peccatum, servus est peccati. Et 2 Petr. 2.: A quo quis superatus est, hujus et servus est.
6:17
17. Gratias autem Deo, quod fuistis servi peccati. Gratias, Graece X<^'p'^.> gratia; sed sensum facit eundem.
Obedistis autem ex corde in eam formam doctrinae, in quam traditi estis. His vej-bis assumptio continetur praecedentis argumentationis. In quam, lego ex correctione Romana, pro eo, quod passim legebatur, in qua. CoiTectionem probant non mndo Graeca et Sjra exemplaria, verum etiam ex Latinis meliora post Amb., Aquinatem et Lyranum; nec non veteres concordantiae. Apud Pelagium autem sic legitur: in ea forma doctrinae, in quam traditi estis. Quod a Graeca h>-ctione nun est alienum. Sic enim habet ad verbum: obedistis autem ex corde, in quam traditi estis formam doctrinae. Quod ita construitur et explicatur: Obedistis in ea forma, vel secundum eam formam doctrinae, in quam traditi estis, id est, traducH sive translati per evangelii praedicationem. Quod nonnulli per hypallagen exponunt: in quam traditi estis, id est, quae tradita est vobis. Verum superior propositio magis exigit, ut significetur, quod ipsi sua voluntate et spontanea obedientia se tradiderint evangelio, cujus proinde servi sint facti. Porro non agit gratias Deo pro servitute peccati, quam aliquando passi sint, tanquam illud esset Dei beneficium: sed phrasis est Hebraica, sensam hunc habens: Gratia Deo habenda, quod, cum fueritis servi peccati, nunc e converso obedieritis ex corde, id est, toto animo vosmetipsos composueritis ad formam evangelicae doctrinae, cui contraditi estis. Similes sunt b.cutiones, Isaiae 12.: Confitebor tibi, Domine, quoniam iratus es mihi, conversus est furor tuus, et consolatus esme, etLuc. 15.: Manducemus et epulemur, quia hic filius meus mortuus erat, et revixit, loerierat, et inventus est. Jam si gratiae Deo sunt agendae pro eo, quod ex corde obediunt homines evangeliu, igitur obedientia voluntatis humanae et opus et donum Dei est, ut ne quis glori^,tur, Eph. 2.
6:18
18. Liberati autem a peccato, servi facti estis justitiae. Dativi casus eatjustitiae. Sic enim habetur in Graeco sSouAO)- {^TyTS rfi StxaicouviTy, ac si dicat, mancipati estis justitiae. Cohaeret haec pars cum praecedente, tanquam explicatio ejus, quod dixit, fuistis serci peccati. Nam sensus est: Gratias, inquam, Deo, quod liberati a peccati dominio, servi facti estis justitiae, nempe per hoc, quod evangelio obedivistis, ac si dicat, a probrosa servitute, cujusm(di maxime est servitus peccati, translati ad honorabilem servitutem, scilicet justitiae, qua Deo servitui-. Id circo cavendum vubis summopere est, ne iterum peccando in priorem servitutem recidatis.
6:19
19. Humanum dico, propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae. Suadet ab aequo et facili. Rem, inquit, non difiicilem, sed hutranis viribus accommodam et humano judicio valde aequani et rationabilem vobis propono et a vobis exigo, idque propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae; quasi dicat, nolo vos onerare graviore praecepto. Quamvis enim spiritus promptus sit, caro tamen infirma est. Nomine carnis intelligi potest, vel ipse homo quatenus carnalis est, ad malum pronus, et ad bonum infirmus, quomodo dictum est Genesis 6.: Non permanebit spiritus meus in homine in aeternum, quia caro est; vel innata homini concupiscentia, reddens eum carnalem et infirmum; tametsiprior intellectusmagisplacet. Hieronymus in epistola ad Algasiam quaest. 10. phrasim hanc, humanum dico, refert inter eas, quae Paulo, ut homini Tarsensi, et lingua Cilictim utenti, fuere peculiares; quemadmodum et illam 1 Cor. 4.: ab humano die. Simili ratione tentationem humanam nominat ejusdem epistolae cap. 10. Porro humanum ilhxd, quod dicit, jam sequitur.
&icut enim exhibuistis ynembra vestra servire immunditiae et iniquitati adiniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membra | vestra servire justitiae in sanctificationem. Ita nunc, Graece, ita et nunc. Notandum quoque pro verbo servire, utrobiquein Graeco essenomen neutrum SoiJAa, id est, serva, sive, ut Tertullianus duobus b cis ante citatis legit, famula, videlicet adjectivum substantivi toc \i-t\r^, membra, ut servitus haec ipsis membris tribuatur. Deinde eadem utrobique praepositio est z\c,, ad iniquitatem, ad sanctificationem. Sensus: Cum merito deberetis multo majus studium impendere servituti justitiae, quam hactenus impendistis servituti peccati, et ad id possem vos exhortari, utendo verbis ejusmodi, quibus Baruch alloquitur Judaeos cap. 4. dicens: Sicut fuit sensus vester, ut erraretis a Deo, decies tantum iterum conversi requiretis eum; attamen demittens exhortationem meam ad vestram infirmitatem, hoc sokmi a vobis requiro, ut, sicut membra vestra aliquando praebuistis immunditiae, et in universum injustitiae serva, ad opera injustitiae patranda, ita nunc pari saltem studio praebeatis membra vestra serva justitiae ad sanctificationem vestram, id est, ut vitam agatis sanctam et puram, nominatim ab iis peccatis, quae ad genus immunditiae spectant. Huic enim peccatorum generi sanctitatem praecipue opponunt Apostolicae literae, ut 1 Thess. 4. et alibi.
6:20
20. Cum enim servi essetis peccati, liberi fuistis justitiae. Essetis, fuistis; utrumque Graece ^xs^ e^atis. 'Etjustitiae rursus dativicasus est t^ StxaioouVTj. Sensus: Quando eratis servi peccati, liberi eratis a praeclara et unice exoptanda servitute justitiae; liberi, inquam, in quantum non serviebatis justitiae. Quidam sic: Liberi fuistis justitiae, id est, credebatis vos non esse obligatos justitiae; secundum illud, quod dicitur impiae civitati Jerem. 2.: A saeculo confregisti jugum meum; dixisti, non serviam, id est, libera sum. Verum prior expositio menti Paulinae magis congruit. Sentit enim liberos fuisse justiliae, non opinione, sed facto, tametsi non jure.
6:21
21. (/wem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in illis, in quibus nunc erubescitis? In illis, Graece non est, sed nec in omnibus Latinis. Quamquam Graeca exigunt hujusmodi supplementum, in illis aut ex illis. Exhortationem confirmat Apostolus ab eflPectu et exitu utriusque servitutis. Ac primum ostendit, nuUum verum fructum ex peccatis percipi, quia fructus proprie in bono intelligitur. Cum autem dicit in quibus, id est, de quibus 7iunc erubescitis, insinuat, effectum quendam, qui improprie fructus dici queat, ex peccatis consequi, sed malum et fugiendum, nimirum pudorem et erubescentiam; qua parte simul innuit, se loqui potissimum de peccatis immunditiae. De his enim maxime solent homines erubescere.
Nam finis tUorum mors est. Est additum ab interprete. Sensus: Adeo nullus ex peccatis fructus percipitur, ut etiam mors inde tandem consequatur. Mortem intelligit eam, quae vitae aeternae oppo nitur: hanc enim mcx ex adversa parte collocat. Mors autem illa, quamA'is sit totius hominis, tamen initium habet a morte corporali, eamque complectitur.
6:22
22. Nunc vero liberati a peccato. Id est, a dominio peccati, cui serviebatis.
Servi autem facti Deo. Id est, mancipati Deo, nempe per hoc, quod addixistis vos operibus justitiae, quae Deus praecipit. Quos prius dixit servos factos justitiae, nunc, quo servitutem illam impensius commendet, Deo servos esse factos afiirmat.
Habetis fructum vestrum in sanctificationem. Hoc est, ipsam sanctificationem sive sanctimoniam, vitaeque^munditiam, velut fructum ex illa servitute capitis. Si fructus est sanctitas, utique vera, licet imperfecta; non igitur imputative solum et sancti et justi sumus. Loquitur enim de fructu, quem in hac vita percipimus; nam de futura sequitur:
Finem vero vitam aeternam. Ad hanc enim perducit tandem justitiae servitus, et ad eam ut causam finalem ordinatur. Circa totum hunc locum, in quo tam peccati, quam justitiae servitus identidem nominatur, sciendum ex eo, quod peccator dicitur servus peccati, sicut et Dominus ait Joan. 8.: (jui facit peccatum, servus est peccati, et Petius de quibusdam 2 epistolae 2.: Cum ipsi sint servi corruptionis, id est, peccati, nequaquam consequens esse, quod haeretici volunt, hominem peccatorem necessario peccare et non libere; quemadmodum nec ex eo, quod justus vocatur servus justitiae, sequitur hominem justum necessario bene operari, quasi nomen servi necessitatem importet actionibus, quas aliquis ut servus facit. Quod falsum esse constat. Nam, sive in bonam partem, sive in malum, servitutis nomen huc translatum est, non ad significandam actionum necessitatem, sed ipsius hominis ad actiones hujus aut illius generis addictionem, et, i;t ila dicam, appropriatiouem, uti superius expositum est. Significatur enim, alios quidem peccato dominanti addictos esse^ ejusque velut imperio regi et desideriis agi; alios vero justitiae dominanti addictos servire^ ejusque jussis obtemperare. Est enim, ut ante dixi, fictio personarum in peccato et justitia, dum vel hujus vel illius servi dicuntur homines, quod eis, perinde ut dominis, servire videantur. Imo vero, quia Apostolus hanc servitutem in obedientia constituit, ut ex ejus verbis est manifestum, obedientia autem proprie non est nisi liberae voluntatis, plane ex hoc loco diversum sequitur, videlicet tam peccatores, quam justos liberum habere arbitrium ad eas actiones, in quibus vel peccato, vel justitiae serviunt. illud interim discrimen agnoscendum inter servos peccati et servos justitiae, quod hi solis arbitrii viribus deflectere possint ad peccatum, illi non nisi gratia Dei adjuti a servitute peccati sese expedire et ad justitiamtransferre queant; quemadmodum docet August. lib. 1. cont. duas epist. Pelag. cap. 2.
6:23
23. Stipendia enim peccati: Mors. Declarat, quod dixit de fine et exitu utriusque servitutis. Sensus hujus partis: Merces. quam peccatum servis suis rependit, mors est. Adhuc enim durat metaphora servitutis et militiae. Nam considerat Apostolus peccatum ut dominum ac imperatorem, qui non solum servis ac militibus suis imperet, verum etiam stipendia solvat, eamque ob causam usus est stipendii nomine. Sic Theophylactus et alii. Atque huic intellect.ui probe respondet alterum sentsntiae membrum, Gratia Dei etc. Est autem Graece pro stipendiis (j^OiVid, quae vox proprie significat cibarium ac vulgare stipendium gregariis militibus pro mercede dari solitum. Itaque vocabulo ipso Paulus insinuat, cujusmndi stipendium conveniat iis persolvi, qui sub peccati signis militant.
Gratia autem Dei: Vita aeterna in Chrinto Jesu Domino nostro. Gratia, Graece y6.p<.z\xOL, id est donum gratuitum, et sensus est: Donum, quod Deus servis suis largitur, est vita aeterna accipienda per Jesu Christi Domini nostri merita. Quaeritur, cur non dixerit, stipendium aut merces justitiae vita aeterna, sicut dixerat: stipendium peccati tnors. Id enim postulare videbatur consequentia sermonis. Respondet haereticus, meritum omne justificatis detrahens, hanc e.sse causam, quia vita aeterna tantum est gratia Dei, non etiam merces bonorum operum. Verum B. Augustinus multis locis aliter et catholice respondet, vitam aeternam, quamvis pro bonis operibus justo Dei judicio reddendam (sicut ait ipse Paulus, coronam justitiae eam appellans, quam reddet mihi, inquit, i)i illa die justus judex, 2 Timoth. 4.), gratiam tamen esse, id est gratuitum Dei munus, quoniam ipsa bona opera, pro quibus vita aeterna redditur, gratia sunt, id est gratis data, eodem Apostolo testificante, quod sumus creati in Christo Jesu in operibus bonis, quae praeparavit Deus, ut in illis ambulemus, Eph. 2. Ad hanc igitur gratiam commendandam makiisse Paulum loqui ad huno modum, ut vitam aeternam diceret gratiam Dei, quam ut stipendium justitiae, quod alioqui vere dicere poterat. Ita docet August. in epist. 105. ad.Sixtum; lib. de gratia et lib. arb. cap. 6., et 1 tribus seq. de corrept. et grat. cap. 13., et f Ench. cap. 107. Quo postremo loco sic ait: Ipsam vitam aeternam, quae certe merces est bonorum operum, gratiam Dei appellat Apostolus. Stipendium enim, inquit, peccati mors: Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Jesu Domino nostro. Stipendium pro opere militiae debitum redditur, non donatur; ideo dixit: Stipendium peccati mors, ut mortem peccati non immerito illatam, sed debitam demonstraret. Gratia vero?usi gratis sit, gratia non est. InteUigendum est igitur, etiam ipsa hominis bona mei'ita esse Dei munera; quibus cum vita aeterna redditur, quid nisi gratia piro gratia redditur? Haec Augustini responsio, quam probant omnes orthodoxi, plenior erit et absolutior, si dicamus, idcnco vitam aeternam vocari gr;itiam, quid praedestinatio, qua ad salutem et vitam aeternam praeordinati sumus, prorsus gratuita sit, et ab omni praevisione meritnrum independens. Cum enim praedestinatio Dei respiciat et vitam aeternam, et opera bona, illam ut finem, haec ut media ad finem, sitque finis intentione primus, utique consequens est, praedestinationem ad vitam ordine rationis priorem esse praedestinatione ad opera, quibus vitam mereamur, quemadmodum pluribus ostendimus in 1. sent. dist. 40. Sed et hanc rationem ad Augustini responsionem amplius stabiliendam adjungimus, quia Deus gratuito dignatus est vitam aeternam constituere mercedem ac praemium bonis operibus. Non enim iis haec meriti ratio competit ex ipsorum natura, sed ex Dei beneplacito, quo ita statuit ac promisit. Quamquam etiam idcirco non debuit Apostolus dicere: stipendium justitiae vita aeterna; quia Graecum vocabulum otj;U)Via non quadrabat in excellentissimum illud praemium justitiae, quod est vita aetema. Quo pleniusautemrespondeatur adversariis, sciendum est, /ap'.a,ua Graecis interdum id significare, quod Latini donativum appellant, id est munus, quod a principe militibus ob rem fortiter ac feliciter gestam donatur. Et ita accipi hoc loco valdtj probabile est. Versatur enim Apostolus, ut dictum est, in metaphora militiae. Certe Tertull. in lib. de resurr. carnis cap. 47. donativum transtulit, apposite nimirum et Romane. Erat enim illa Romanorum imperatorum consuetudo donativa largiri militibus. Igitur in eodem Graeco nomine, quo Paulus usus est, habemus et largitionem gratuitam, et laborum militarium remunerationem. Ex quo praeterea confirmari posse videtur, quod Theologi communi consensu tenent, Deum omnibus suis electis praemia redditurum supra condignum.
6:1
6,1. Quid ergo dicemus? permanebimus ipoüusv; émtivoutw t Ad alterum iustificationis fructum explanandum S. Paulus transit pro principio statuens, eis qui respectu peccati sint mortui , in peccato permanere non licere (v. 1. 2). Revera autem Christianos peccato, i. e. relate ad peccatum, mortuos essc ex caerimoniis ostendit baptismi, quo Christo morienti ac resurgenti inserti cum Christo ad novam vitam resurrexerint, in qua deinceps eis sit degendum (3-5). Quae uberius explanaturus ex eo, quod vetus noster homo cum Christo in crucem actus in eaque mortuus sit, nos a peccati servitute in posterum liberos esse ac liberos manere debere concludit (6. 7), ac similiter ex eo, quod cum Christo resuscitato ac semper victuro resurrexerimus, colligit, nos semper, eodem modo quo Christus, cum Deo vivere debere (8-10). Unde sua sponte consequitur exhortatio, ut caveamus, ne peccati servituti nos iterum subiiciamus membrisque nostris ad peccandum abutamur (11-13); id enim evitare nos posse addit, quoniam non amplius sub Legis, sed sub gratiae dominio degamus (v. 154). Novam sectionem priori Apostolus arcte adnectit; ne enim superiora sua verba (3,90 ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit gratia) ab adversariis in perversum sensum detorqueantur (cfr ad 3,8), sibi ipsi illud obiicit, quod ex eis malevoli homines forte deducere potuerint, ut responso suo simul huius paragraphi thema statuat : 1. Quid ergo dicenuts (zt 3v igeüpsv)? permanebimus (melius : permaneamus &zva£voysv !) ?n peccato (73; xaxpziz), ut gratia abundet?
6:2
2. Absit! qui (enim) mortui sumus peccato (z3, xaapzix), quomodo adhuc vivemus in illo? Formulam ^i igziusv (quid dicemus?), quae aliis in epistolis paulinis non legitur, in hac haud raro adhibet, ut ex antea dictis aut veram derivet conclusionem (cfr &,1; 9,30), aut erroneam, uti hic, praeoccupet, quam adversarios deducturos esse supponit (cfr 3,5; 7,7; 9,14). Quia enim divina clementia semper est eadem, facile fieri potuit, ut ex eius doctrina, quod Deus olim eo tempore, quo post datam Legem peccatum virtutem suam auctis delictis clarius manifestavit, gratiam suam superabundare voluerat, aliquis coniiceret, Deum etiam nunc eadem ratione esse acturum; in peccato igitur esse permanendum delictisque delicta esse addenda, ut Deus abundantiam gratiarum iterum iterumque manifestet. Conclusio igitur per se inepta non est, ineptam autem eam esse Apostolus statim demonstrat, quia diversus sit status, in quo nunc degimus. Ad singula quod attinet, nomen peccati (5; &gagsía), quum Apostolus omnibus fatentibus in hac obiectione, ad 5,90 respiciat, in obiectione ipsa et in responso responsique explanatione eodem sensu, quo ibi, interpretemur oportet. Haud recte ergo multi nomen pro collectivo habent, acsi /n peccato (i» «3 &yapzía) sit idem quod in peccatis vel in peccando (cfr Tolet. etc.). Originale enim peccatum designatur, etquidem in hacsectione potissimum, ne dicam unice, secundum partem quasi materialem suam, i. e. secundum concupiscentiam , quae in renatis reatu culpae deleto remanet, ut eis sit àd agonem, quamque ab Apostolo aliquando simpliciter peccatum (5$ &yapzía) appellari certum est, « non quia vere ac proprie in renatis peccatum est, sed quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat » (Conc. trid. sess. 5. decr. de pecc. orig. 5!). Quae interpretatio quum tota hac sectione tum vv. 12. 13 haud parum confirmatur, quo in loco nomen 5; &gapzia de habituali concupiscentia interpretandum esse, evidens est. Itaque iuxta Apostolum is «3; &apzíz écwy£vew (in peccato permanere) dicendus est, qui postquam baptismo a reatu culpae peccali originalis mundatus est, pristinam vitam continuans peccat et pravae concupiscentiae ex originali peccato exortae ac remanenti obtemperat (cfr Est. Lap. etc., Beel. Ag. etc.). Ceterum clarum est, multo maiore cum iure eos in peccato manere dici, qui a culpae reatu nondum liberati concupiscentiam sequuntur; sed de his hoc in loco Paulus proxime ac directe non loquitur. Quantopere vero blasphemam illam conclusionem detestetur, suo absit (v3, yévzvzc) insinuans simul eius absurditatem ratione addita manifestat, quandoquidem eum, qui peccato sit mortuus, in peccato remanere repugnet. Duplici modo et graeca locutio -z X&zpzía àzcÜavstv, uti Chrys. cum suis iam adnotat, et latina peccato mortuum esse explicari potest, prout -z xvxpzía aut pro dativo instrum. (i. q. &x «zz &pap-íaz) ac similiter peccato pro ablativo instr. (1i. q. per peccatum; cfr Ep. 9,5 vexpeb; zetg zapxz-opacw mortuos peccatis) , aut pro dativo commodi vel incomm. sumitur (i. e. repectu peccati ; cfr 1 Petr. 9,98 (va zatz &yxcciat &xoyev5pevot ci, Suuatocóvr, Coop ut peccatis mortui, i. e. & peccatis abalienati, iustitiae vivamus). Secundam tameninterpretationem solam huic loco congruere, cum CArys. omnes, paucis exceptis acath. (F/att, Ros. etc.) merito tenent. Eo enim Apostoli argumentatio tota spectat, ut iustificatos, quia respectu peccati sint mortui, deinceps novam vitam agere atque Deo iustitiaeque vivere debere ostendat (v. 11 sqq.). Quando et qua ratione peccato mortui sint, statim ipse docebit (v. 3 sqq.); ad faciliorem tamen sequentium intelligentiam cum Tolet. hic adnotasse iuverit, « mori et vivere peccato per analogiam quandam dici; sicut enim mortuus [respectu vitae] dicitur, qui functiones et operationes vitae non amplius habet, quae antea habuit, ita mortuus peccato is appellatur, qui peccati operationes non amplius habet in se, i. e. qui non amplius obedit concupiscentiis et appetitibus suis contra Dei legem militantibus, neque proprio sensui sed voluntati divinae obtemperat; contra vero qui suis obtemperat appetitibus contra legem Dei, ille vivit peccato, quia opera facit peccati. Mori alicui ergo est opera illius abiicere, vivere alicui autem eius opera exercere ». Qua in esplicatione iam praeierant Orig. (« Sicut Deo vivere dicitur is qui secundum voluntatem Dei vivit, ita et peccato vivere dicitur is qui secundum voluntatem peccati vivit; quod si vero facere desideria peccati peccato vivere est, non facere desideria peccati, nec obedire voluntati eius, hoc est mori peccato » ) atque Chrys. ( « quid est mortuum esse peccato? In nullo deinceps ei obedire » ). Quibuscum reliqui re, etsi non verbis, consentientes nomine peccati hic concupiscentiam inordinatam fomitemque maxime intelligi confirmant, atque sua sponte patere recte monent, quantopere repugnet, eum qui peccato mortuus sit, nihilominus in peccato vel peccato vivere velle'!. Animadvertatur tamen oportet, latinum mortui sumus hic non graeco vexgcl &cpsy (cfr EpA. 2,5; Col. 2,13) sed graeco àzsüzvcp.cv respondere, ut non tam status mortis perdurans, quam ipse, ut ita dicamus, actus moriendi momentumque illud significetur, quo mortem respectu peccati obivimus. Ad illud enim Paulus respicit, quum assertam repugnantiam confirmaturus nos in baptismo illam mortem obiisse declarat, quia in Christum baptizari idem sit quod in Christum in cruce morientem inseri et cum eo mori :
6:3
3. an (rectius : aut 1j) ignoratis, quia quicumque baptizati sumus in Christo Iesu (melius : in Christum Iesum! ei; Xopwztv 'Inozov) , tn morte (cum Fuld. etc., Tert. de pud. 17 etc.lege : in mortem «ic 35v 0Xvazov) tpsius baptizati sumus. Novam doctrinam fidelibus non proponit, sed pridem acceptam in memoriam revocat; namque formula 5 àyvscize (aut ignoratis), aeque ac similes 7; cx ci2x:e (11,2; 1 Cor. 6,9. 6. 9. 16) et cox cGxre (v. 16; 1 Cor. 6,15; 9,25), rem notissimam esse insinuat, quam ignorare non liceat. Procul dubio Apostolorum tempore, id quod Orig. iam adnotat diversum suae aetatis usum carpens, catechumeni ante baptismum accurate edocebantur, quinam sacramenti effectus caerimoniis eius essent praefigurati. Primum quidem effectum, ablutionem peccatorum (Act. 92,16; 1 Cor. 6,11; EpA. 5,96 etc.), quia ad rem suam non facit, hic praetermittit; alterum vero neque minus essentialem neque minus omnibus qui rite baptizantur communem (quicumque baptizati sumus &cot é£z- &iícÓrus») commemorat, insertionem in Christum, quo novo vitae principio accepto vere renascimur tamquam nova creatura , quae non amplius sua vita sed ipsius Christi vita vivit (cfr Comment. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 167. 610). Etenim locutio in Christum baptizari significat per baptismum Christo consecrari in eiusque proprietatem tradi, immo tamquam membrum in eum inseri, ita ut omnes baptizati cum Christo sint concorporei eumque induti unus sint in eo (cfr Comment. in 1 Cor. p. 33. 315; Comment. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 516 sqq.). Recte autem To/^t. adnotat, latinam quoque lectionem in eum sensum esse exponendam ?, « quamvis propria significatione considerata longe aliud sit £n Christo et in morte eius baptizari, atque baptizari in CAristum et in mortem eius ». Revera antiquiores Latini lectionem suam exponentes de baptismo zn nomine vel in virtute Christi collato hic agi arbitrabantur; verum haec interpretatio iure merito relicta est, quia graecis verbis parum congruit et contextu excluditur (cfr Tolet. Est. Lap. Nat. etc., Reith. Mai. Becl. Bisp. Sch. etc.). Porro hanc nostram insertionem in Christum accuratius definiens nos in mortem ipsius baptizari dicit, i. e. per baptismum nos in eum morientem inseri, ita ut participatione mortis Christi moriamur in hoc quod prius eramus, i. e. secundum veterem hominem (v. 6; cfr Comment. in 9. Cor. p. 162). Neque vero haec pro nuda similitudine aut mera comparatione cum nonuaullis habere licet, qui hac sententia nihil aliud doceri censent, nisi baptizatos debere ita peccato mori vel potius debere semetipsos ita peccato mortuos considerare, sicut Christus in cruce carni vere mortuus sit. Quomodo enim eiusmodi similitudine et monitione id demonstraretur, quod Paulus v. 2. asseruit et nunc probare vult, nimirum nos respectu peccati mortem obiisse? Quamobrem nisi quis verbis ludere Apostolum non minus stulte quam impie dicere velit, nobiscum fateatur oportet, eum de vera quadam ac reali, etsi mystica, coniunctione loqui, qua per baptismum tam &rcte cum Christo copulamur et unimur et coalescimus, ut ea. quae Christi sunt etiam nostra quodammodo dici possint eaque, quae Christus in morte et post mortem egit, a nobis quoque quasi acta sint. Ac profecto iuxta Pauli doctrinam multis in locis propositam homines, uti antea iam diximus, per baptismum Christo, sicut oleastri olivae, inseruntur (11,7 sqq.), ut deinceps vere ac realiter 2 eo sint (st & Xpwzo 8,1, etc.) et velut palmites in vite et ex vite vivant (Ioan. 15,1 sqq.) neque amplius propria sua vita sed vita vivant Christi, quippe qui in cis vivat (cfr Comment. in 9 Cor. et Gal. p &61 sq.) ; hinc enim est (uti alibi monuimus cfr Comm. in 1 Cor. p. 138 sq.), quod nos dicat in et cum Christo concrucifixos (v. 6: Gal. 2, 20), in et cum eo commortuos (r. ^; 2 7m. 2, 11), consepultos (r. &; Cot. 9, 12), convivificatos et corresuscitatos (Ep. 9, 3 sq.; Col. 2, 13), conviventes (v. 8; 2 Tim. 9, 12), coheredes (8,17). conglorificatos (8,17), consedentes in coelestibus ( Ep. 2, 6), corregnantes (2 Tin. 2, 19). Quae omnia pro mere analogicis locutionibus haberi nequeunt sed veram nostram cum Christo unionem supponunt. Atque eadem quoque realis coniunctio admittatur oportet, si S. Aug. (Enchirid. 53) nostro loco allato addit : « Quidquid gestum est in cruce Christi, in sepultura, in resurrectione tertia die, in ascensione in coelum, in sede ad dexteram Patris, ita iestum est, ut his rebus non mystice tantum dictis sed etiam gestis configuraretur vita christiana, quae hic geritur » et vita gloriosa, quae in coelis nobis est praeparata. Attende autem, Apostolum eiusmodi dictionibus non uti nisi de iis, quae Christus post suam exaltationem in crucem gessit, quia nimirum per baptismum in eum morientem inserimur!. Qua insertione efficitur, ut in obedientia, qua Christus mortem pro nobis subiens Patri satisfecit, partem quandam habeamus, sicuti in inobedientia, qua Adam in paradiso Deum offendit sibique ac nobis iustitiam integritatemque originalem amisit, partem quandam habuimus. Nos per baptismum cum Christo moriente coalescere doctrina tam certa fidelibusque apostolico tempore tam cognita iuxta Paulum est , ut eam ulteriore probatione non indigere censeat atque ex ea statim argumentetur :
6:4
&. consepulti enim (lege : ergo civ) sumus cum illo per baptismum in mortem, ut quomodo Christus surrexit (vel potius : suscitatus est 1yéo0x) a mortuis per gloriam Patris, ita et nos in novitate vttae ambulemus. Duplex quidem est huius loci lectio; etenim cum Orig. (c. Cels. II. 69, etc.) paucisque aliis Patribus graecis Vulg. coniunctionecausali yáp (enim) hancsententiam praecedenti ita adnectit, ut illius rationem afferat atque ex eo, quod cum Christo consepeliamur, nos mortuos esse probet vel confirmet. Contra vero iuxta alteram lectionem, quam vix non omnes codices Patresque graeci una cum versionibus exhibent et antiquiores quoque Patres latini sequuntur (cfr Tert. de pudic. 17.; de resur. carn. 47; S. Pacian. ep. 3,9. M. 13,1069; S. Aug. Enchirid. 52; de spir. et lit. 6,10, etc.), sententia nostra per coniunctionem illativam cóv (ergo) velut conclusio ex praecedente derivatur. At quamvis prior lectio eiusque explicatio non omni probabilitate careant, secunda tamen longe est praeferenda non tantum ob maiorem testium eam tuentium auctoritatem, sed etiam ob aptiorem eius sensum. Sua enim sponte ex eo, quod per baptismum in Christum morientem inserimur cum eoque mystice commorimur, sequitur significatio caerimoniarum baptismatis, quod per immersioneimn plerumque ab Apostolis conferebatur : « In aquam, inquit S. CAÀrys. (in Ioan. hom. 25,2), tamquam in sepulcrum, caput nobis immergentibus vetus homo sepelitur ac demergitur totus; deinde nobis emergentibus novus exsurgit. Uti enim nobis facile est immergi ac postea emergere, ita Deo facile est veterem hominem sepelire et novum inducere. » Revera per immersionem in aquam aptissime mystica nostra sepultura figuratur, quam Paulus speciatim commemorare voluit, non tam ut certam esse mortem nostram mysticam significaret (quatenus nimirum soli mortui sepeliuntur), quam ut nos Christo etiam in illo statu assimilatos esse ostenderet, in quo post mortem ante resurrectionem fuit. Sicut autem Christus sepultus est, ut tertia die ex sepulcro gloriosus ad novam vitam' resurgeret, ita nos quoque in aquam immergimur, non ut in ea maneamus (neque enim sufficit, nos dumtaxat peccato mortuos esse), sed ut in ea per virtutem Spiritus S. regenerati ad novam vitam resurgamus; quae mystica resurrectio nostra figuratur emersione. Itaque baptismus nobis vere est « lavacrum regenerationis et renovationis Spiritus S. » (Tit. 3,5), quum in eo vetus homo moriatur et sepeliatur, ut novus ex eo prodeat, « renatus ex aqua ct Spiritu S. » (oan. 3,5) et conformis (2344:092;) imaginis Filii Dei (8,9); ac satis quoque patet, quantopere secum ipse pugnet, qui postquam per baptismum vitam priorem deposuit novamque accepit, nihilominus priorem continuare vult (v. 2). Neque tamen tria ista in baptismo tempore esse distincta putandum est (quasi primum vetus homo moriatur, deinde immersus in aquam sepeliatur, demum emergens novus nascatur), sed eodem temporis momento per gratiae iustificantis infusionem vetus homo destruitur et novus generatur. Deus scilicet, ut spirituales baptismatis effectus clarius nobis innotescerent, eos variis illis caerimoniis nobis quasi ante oculos pingere voluit!. In primo sententiae membro (consepulti ergo |vel : enim] sumus cum illo per baptismum tn mortem) iuniores aliqui cum 7Aom. vocabula in mortem ad verbum consepulti sumus trahunt sensumque esse volunt, « nos per baptismum cum Christo consepultos esse , ut peccato moriamur » (in mortem i. q. ad moriendum); simul autem monent, mortem sepulturamque Christi a nostra morte sepultuvaque in baptismo in eo ditferre, quod Christus iam mortuus in sepulcro sit depositus, in nobis autem « sepultura baptismi causet mortem peccati, quia sacramentum novae legis efficiat id quod signat » (7/om. cfr Cai. Tolet. Lap. etc.). Quae explicatio nobis non probatur, quia iuxta Apostolum non sola immersio, qua sepultura Christi figuratur, scd etiam emersio, qua eius figuratur resurrectio, requiritur, ut habeatur plenum signum effectus baptismatis, quippe quo non tantum vetus liomo destruatur (v. 6) sed eliam novus generetur (v. 8); unde haud recte loqui. videntur, qui sola immersione in aquam, non subsequente emersione, baptismum valide conferri dicunt. Rectius ergo cum Graecis modernisque vocabula in mortem cum substantivo praecedente connectimus : zi 4:2 pxxsisaaze: sip i9 Üxoxtzv]. Per baptismum sciliect, qui in mortem Christi confertur (v. 3), Christo morienti inserimur et cum eo commortui cum co consepelimur. « Quod Christo, inquit CArys., fuit crux et sepultura, hoc nobis baptismus est, etsi non iisdem in rebus; ille enim carni mortuus sepultusque est, nos peccato ». In secundo membro (quomodo Christus surrexit a mortuis per gloriam Patris) de vocabulorum per gloriam Patris (3x 15 22x «29 Ia- :e5c) sensu controversia agitatur. Iuniorum quorundam (Tof/. lust. etc.), quibus per gloriam idem est quod propter gloriam , interpretationem iure omittimus, quia nec graecum zx c. genet. nec latinum per eam admittit. Iuxta Theodor. hic gloria Patris vocatur divinitas Christi, ut Christus per suam ipsius divinitatem suscitatus dicatur; sed hoc longius quaesitum est satisque arbitrarie asseri videtur. Melius quidem Thom. cum multis explicat: « per virtutem Patris, ex qua ipse Pater glorificatur » ; haud raro enim Christi resuscitatio potentiae vel virtuti Patris attribuitur (5,24; 2 Cor. 13,&; Eph. 1,19 sq.; Col. 2,12 etc.). Nihilominus cum aliis dicere malo, Paulum de omnibus divinis attributis, quae Pater in Filio suo resuscitando manifestavit, eius potentiam , sapientiam, sanctitatem, etc. significare voluisse. In tertio demum membro pro « et nos in novitate vitae ambulemus potius diei debuisse videtur : ut et nos ad novitatem vitae resurganus; sicut enim Christus sepultus est ut resurgeret, ita et nos mystice sepelimur in baptismo, ut ad novam vitam renascamur. Nos revera in baptismo resurgere, Apostolus statim (v. 5) probat, hic autem omissa resurrectionis commemoratione illud efferre voluit, quod mysticam nostram resurrectionem sequi debet quodque in eius argumentatione maximi est momenti. Ex eo enim, quod in nova vita, quam per baptismum accipimus, ambulare debeamus, clarius, quam ex ipsa resurrectione ad. novam vitam, elucet, quantopere baptizatum in peccati servitio manere dedeceat immo repugnet. Nos cum Christo per baptismum mystice resurgere, id quod in ultimo v. *. membrosupposuit, Apostolus nunc argumento a pari diserte probat :
6:5
3. st enim complantati facti sumus (e312972& seivxysv concreti sumus vel coaluimus) szmilitudini mortis eius, simul et (cum Tert. Aug. etc. iuxta consuetam lectionem graecam 347. zai lege : sed eti. q. profecto et) resurrectionis erimus. Argumentatio clara est; fieri nimirum non posse Paulus censet, ut qui morienti Christo inserti cum eo commortui sint, resurgenti non sint inserti resurrectionisque non fiant participes; si vero cum Christo resuscitantur, consequens est ut deinceps in novitate vitae deambulent (v. &). Bene Thom. : « Quoniam Christus post mortem resurrexit, conveniens est, ut illi, qui conformantur Christo quantum ad mortem in baptismo, conformentur etiam resurrectioni eius per innocentiam [vel potius : novitatem] vitae ». Sed in generali hoc sensu indicando consentientes disceptant interpretes, quaenam sit accuratior sententiae explicatio, quum graecus textus duplicem constructionem admittat. Moderni igitur plurimi (cfr Rei. Beel. Mai. etc. — God. Weiss etc.) dativum -à isa pro instrumentali habentes ad cjy.guzot veyivaysv alterum dativum (a5zó sc. Ng) in utroque membro ex superioribus supplent, ut hic sit sensus : « Si enim Christo coaluimus per similitudinem mortis eius, profecto etiam ei per similitudinem resurrectionis coalescemus ». Graeci vero, uti cum Vulg. etiam antiquiores iunioresque Latini, nihil supplentes dativum :à épstopazt dependere volunt a cóygu72t :2v25:», ut hic exoriatur sensus : « Si coaluimus cum similitudine mortis Christi, etiam cum similitudine resurrectionis eius coalescemus ». Quae altera constructio procul dubio priore simplicior est, at sensum minus aptum praebet. Neque enim satis intelligitur, quid sit « cum similitudine mortis vel resurrectionis coalescere »; nam quod S. Cyr. Aler. coniicit, ipsam Christi mortem hic similitudinem mortis vocari, quia Christus in ea non debuerit permanere, id nemini facile probabitur. Contra vero per similitudinem mortis Christi cum eo coalescere aptissime dicimur, quatenus mors, quam in baptismo Christo morienti inserti obimus, utpote mystica et spiritualis, dumtaxat similis est morti Christi animam in cruce efflantis; pariter etiam per similitudinem resurrectionis cum Christo rcsurgente coalescimus, quia de sola nostra resurrectione spirituali ad novitatem vitae Paulum hic cogitasse tota pericope docet. Tert, (de resurr. carn. 47) quidem et C/rys. (cfr etiam. TÀeop. Euth. Occ.) Paulum de futura corporum resurrectione loqui arbitrantur, quia non dixerit «à £a:ya-t cZ Gvxvic:70; (Similitudini resurvcctionis) sed «4; àva2:3s:o; tantum, et quia de morte loquens practeritum (v:7vxysv), de resurrectione autem futurum (i225:0x) adliibuerit. Sed sermonis contextus, uti iam diximus. tam clare de sola spirituali resurrectione agi insinuat, ut vix quisquam ex iunioribus sententiam Tert. et Chrys. probaverit. Quod autem ad duo corum argumenta attinet, in altero membro dativum «6 £252: supplendum esse patet, nisi dicere velimus, Apostolum in brevissima sententia sine ulla ratione adiectivum cóygo:« semel cum dativo ac semel cum genetivo construxisse. Futurum (ici5:0x) autem hic. uti saepe, in conclusione ad necessariam consequentiam indicandam adhibetur (« si hoc est verum, illud profecto etiam erit verum ») eoque facilius adhiberi potuit, quia Apostolus in suo argumento non tam ad illud momentum, in quo spiritualiter resuscitati sumus in baptismo, quam ad tempus universum attendit, quod in novitate vitae peragere debemus (cfr ad v. 8). Graecum eujzvto;, quod in N. T. hic tantum legitur, a evugósw (una crescere) derivatum apud profanos plerumque de iis usurpatur, quae una cum alio nata sunt (dotc? có.guro; virtus una cum homine nata, inde ab ortu ei insita seu ingenita), aut etiam tropice de iis, quae inter se similia sunt aut cognata. At aliquoties etiam de iis adhibetur, quae ita sunt simul nata, ut quasi in unam naturam coaluerint; unde eóuzute; latino concretus nostro in loco recte reddi potest. Vuly. autem cum graecis Patribus vocabulum a evuquztisty (simul plantare) derivasse videtur (complantati); sensus tamen idem fere manet iuxta explicationem Latinorum fere omnium, quibus complantatus idem est quod insitus vel insiticius vel insertus (cfr Cai. T'ol. Est. etc.), « sicut ramus qui inseritur plantae » (Zhom.). Graeci autem erroneam suam etymologiam prementes varia indicata vident. Iuxta Chrys. plantationis nomine fructus proventurus innuitur : « Sicut enim corpus Christi in terra sepultum salutem orbis tamquam fruclum tulit, ita nostrum corpus in baptismate sepultum tamquam fructum tulit iustitiam, sanctificationem, adoptionem, innumera bona »; similiter S. Cyr. eros. (Catech. III. 49) : « Qui mortuus in peccatis descendisti (in aquam), ascendis vivificatus in iustitia; si enim coniplantatus fueris similitudini mortis Salvatoris, simul et resurrectione dignus iudicaberis; quemadmodum enim Iesus totius mundi peccata suscipiens mortuus est, ut interemto peccato te in iustitia resuscitaret, ita et tu in aquam immersus, immo quasi sepultus in aquis, sicut ille in petra fuit, in novitate vitae ambulans resuscitaris ». Paullo aliter Orig. : « Vide quam necessario formam planlationis assumserit; omnis enim planta post hiemis mortem resurrectionem veris exspectat; si ergo et nos in Christi morte complantati sumus in hieme saeculi huius et praesentis vitae, etiam ad futurum ver inveniemur fructus iustitiae ex ipsius radice proferentes; et si complantati sumus ei, necesse est ut Pater agricola purget nos tamquam palmites vitis verae, ut fructum plurimum afferamus ». Aliter iterum AMopsu. planlationis nomen ideo adhiberi censet, quia ca sit plantarum natura, ut in plantatione pereant. quidem, sed in meliorem statum mutentur. Propius ad germanum sensum accedit //jod. T«rs. (in Catena PP. graec.), quum baptizatos codem modo cum Christo per baptismum uniri dicit, quo arbores una plantatae interdum inter se. coalescant. At haec et similia in textum potius ingeruntur quam ex eo educuntur. lamvero hane sententiam, quod sicut morienti Christo per mortis similitudinem, ita resurgenti per similitudinem resurrectionis inseramur, Paulus secundum utramquepartem ita explanat, ut significatione ac fine quum mysticae mortis (rr. 6. 7) tum mysticae resurrectionis nostrae (8-10) deseriptis exhortationem suam (v. 11 sqq.) praeparet; nostra enim cooperatio requiritur, utin nova vita permaneamus, quam insertione nostra in Christum morientem et resurgentem adipiscimur; cooperari autem non poterimus, nisi cognoscamus, quid Deus hac nostra morte et resurrectione intenderit. Sententiam ergo v. 5. inchoatam continuans! proximum ac remotiorem mortis finem describere incipit : per resurrectionis scilicet similitudinem cum Christo coalescemus
6:6
6. Aoc scientes (wocxovzez 1. e. dummodo hoc cognoscamus), quia vetus noster homo simul crucifixus est (melius : concrucifizus est cuvsoxaupo0r), ut destruatur corpus peccati, et (cum Tert. S. Aug. A'r? etc. cunctisque fereVulg. codd. lege: wu!) ultra non serviamus peccato. Ante omnia Paulus fidelibus cognoscendum esse monet , qua ratione in baptismo cum Christo sint concrucifixi ; neque enim corpore , uti ille, sed secundum veterem hominem in crucem sunt acti. Veterem autem Aominem appellat eum, qui corrumpitur secundum desideria erroris (Eph. &$,92) cuiusque actus sunt flagitia et vitia omnis generis (Co/. 3,5-9); e contra novum dicit illum, qui secundum Deum creatus est in iustitia et sanctitate veritatis (Ep. 4,24), renatus in agnitionem (rerum coelestium ac divinarum) secundum imaginem creatoris sui (Col. 3,10). Namque, uti cum aliis egregie Tolet. adnotat, « solet Paulus in unoquoque nostrum duos distinguere homines, veterem et novum, non quod duae sint substantiae aut subiecta, sed diversi status eorum; qui enim obedit concupiscentiis suis et indulget vitiis, vetus homo dicitur, quia statum peccati sequitur, in quo natus est et qui originem ab Adamo traxit; at qui peccato abiecto iustitiae inservit et Dei mandatis obedit, novus homo appellatur, quia hunc statum non ab Adamo nec a nativitate carnali traxit, sed a Christo, in quo per baptismum renatus et in quem insitus est ». Vetus igitur homo noster, i. e. nos ipsi. quatenus in et cum Adamo peccantes reatum culpae originalis et concupiscentiam carnis fomitemque contraximus, in et cum Christo concrucifixi poenas debitas Deo luimus. In corpore enim suo peccata nostra perferens super lignum (4 Petr. 2,24) et pro nobis maledictum et peccatum factus (Gal. 3,13; 2 Cor. 5,21) Christus nostram omnium quidem personam induerat, ita utin eo universum genus lapsum in crucem sit actum ; sed ut crucifixionis huius fructum percipiamus, etiam nostra ex parte nos cum Christo crucifixo unire debemus, id quod fit per baptismum, in quo Christum induimus (Gal. 3.27). Fructus porro duos Paulus indicat duplici indicato concrucifixionis fine; concrucifixos enim nos dicit proxime, ut destruatur (vel melius : destrueretur aut cum Tert. et Aug. : evacuaretur) corpus peccati (iva xasapyn0s t» cópa cg; &gxgiíx;), et remotius, ut ultra non serviamus peccato (vel melius : ne ultra serviremus peccato 105 urnxén SovAeóttw fag 75 &papría). Quoniam duo fines diversis constructionibus declarantur, satis patet, alterum priori non esse parallelum neque coniunctione e£ eidem adiungere licere (id quod facit Vulg. Clem. contra fidem codd., per errorem, ut videtur, typographi), sed ei subiungi debere, utpote ex priore derivatum. Quid sit corpus peccati, ad quod destruendum vel evacuandum vetus noster homo concrucifixus est, non uno modo explicatur. Paucorum sententiam, qui hebr. Ox» comparantes vim roburque peccati designari volunt (cfr Iust!. Salm?. etc.) praetermittimus, quia cógua tropico hoc sensu nusquam adhibetur; duas autem explicationes Orig. proponit, quarum utra sit praeferenda, interpretes dissentiunt. Iuxta priorem, quae antiquioribus iunioribusque plurimis praeplacuit, significat « universam malitiam diversis nequitiae partibus constantem » (CArys. Theoph. Oec. etc.), vel « cuncta crimina » (A), « omnia vitia, quia unum vitium membrum est peccati, omnia corpus totum » (Pe/.), « congeriem omnium malorum , quae corpus quoddam constituunt, sicut congeries membrorum facit unum corpus » (TAom.), vel quod idem est : « ipsum veterem hominem, cuius membra iuxta Co/. 3,5 sqq. sint peccata ac vitia » (Salm. Tol. Iust?. Lap. etc.). Sed superflue subiectum (corpus peccati) esset expressum, si idem , quod in priore membro (vetus homo), esset intelligendum. Quare cum nonnullis antiquioribus (cfr Haym. Cai. etc.) et vix non omnibus modernis (cfr ReitA. Beel. Bisp. LR. Ag. ScA. etc.) alteram interpretationem praeferimus, iuxta quam corpus peccati intelligitur ipsum nostrum corpus, quatenus et quamdiu dominio peccati (:7; &.x2-í2;) subditum eius quasi est proprietas eique inservit concupiscentiis obediens. Quam interpretationem Apostolus quoque ipse in sua exhortatione (vv. 19. 13) supponit, eamque confirmat, ubi postea de lege peccati in membris nostris inhabitante eosque captivante ac de corpore mortis huius, i. e. de corpore quod inordinatis suis motibus nos ad mortem spiritualem adducit, loquitur (cfr ad 7,23. 24). Idem ergo est corpus peccati atque « caro cum passionibus et concupiscentiis eius », quam ii qui Christi sunt crucifixerunt (Gal. 5,93), et « corpus carnis ». quod in baptismo exspoliamus ac deponimus (Co/. 2,11). Genetivo peccati enim nomen corpus ad eum fere sensum trahitur, quem Paulus plerumque nomine carnis exprimit (cfr Comment. in 1. Cor. p. 69 sq.). Destrut autem vel evacuari dicitur utique non in se, quatenus est corpus nostrum, sed quatenus est proprietas peccati eique obedit tamquam instrumentum iniquitatis (v. 13), vel ut habet Haym. : « Non destruitur ut annihiletur, sed ut cesset ab opere peccati ». Quam interpretationem Tert. (de resur. carn. /T) iam insinuat, quum corpus peccati « per emendationem vitae, non per interitum substantiae evacuari » dicit !. Vetus homo noster ergo cum Christo concrucifixus est, ut corpus nostrum dominio peccati (*zc &yaozía;) i. e. concupiscentiae inordinatae (cfr ad v. 1) subtraheretur; dominium autem, quod inde a nostra nativitate peccatum in corpus nostrum exercuit, in baptismo destructum est, ne ultra serviremus peccato. Quae verba quid sibi velint, Apostolus statim (v. 11 sqq.) ipse explicabit, postquam antea alteram partem v. 5 explicaverit. Antequam vero ad hanc explicationem progreditur, sententia generali nos concrucifixione veteris hominis ac destructione corporis peccati a servitute peccati liberatos esse probat. Eadem enim plane ratione sese ad peccatum habere monet eos, qui secundum veterem hominem sunt mortui, atque eos, qui naturalem mortem obierunt:
6:7
7. qui enim mortuus est, iustificatus est a peccato (5 Y&p &zoBavov 3e3ixalozat &z2 tz &p.xpzíaz). Quae in verba bene CArys. : « De omni homine hoc dicit, quod quemadmodum qui mortuus est & peccando deinceps desistit, mortuus quum iacet, ita et ille, qui ascendit a baptismo; postquam enim illic semel mortuus est, omnino mortuus peccato maneat oportet. Si ergo mortuus es in baptismo, mane mortuus, nullus enim mortuus amplius peccare potest ; si autem pecces, Dei donum labefactas ». Simili vel potius eodem argumento S. Petrus quoque fidelibus, utpote mortuis, a peccatis abstinendum esse probat : « quia qui passus est in carne, desiit a peccatis » vel uti S. Aug. sensum clarius reddit : « quia qui mortuus est carne , desiit peccare (2«t 8 za00v cay! cízzocxt Xpapting 1 Petr. 5,1; cfr S. Aug. de fide et oper. 10,15). Mortuus, quum praeceptis non amplius ligetur (efr 7,1 sqq.), quasi per iudicis sententiam declaratus est liber a peccato, utpote quo deinceps infici nequeat; ac similiter in eum, qui secundum veterem hominem cum Christo mortuus est, peccatum dominium suum amplius exercere non potest. Quum enim corpus peccati 'sit destructum, baptizatus quodam modo instrumento caret, quo peccet, neque amplius concupiscentiae peccare iubenti obedire potest (cfr 1 Ioan. 3,9; 5,18). Haec est communior huius sententiae interpretatio, quam cum 1. Bene quoque S. Cyr. Alex.:« Destructum est corpus peccati, non tamen ipsa caro, sed plurimis Graecis (CArys. Theod. Mopsu. Phot. Theoph. Oec. Euth.) et multis antiquioribus iunioribusque Latinis (Pe. Sed. Abael. etc., Tol. Est. Pic. etc.) pacne omnes moderni sequuntur (cfr Reith. Mai. Beel. M Ev. Bisp. Dr. Sch. LR.). Verbum 2wai25c0ax igitur eo sensu, quo plerumque in hac epistola adhibetur, intelligendum non est, sed sensu forensi de sententia absolutoria iudicis, qua aliquis accusatus liberdeclaratur ab onere quodam perferendo aut servitio praestando, ita ut &ixatz9o0ot à «tog Sil. 1. q. &Aev0spouo0at 3x5 «twcz. Praeeunte tamen S. Basil. (de bapt. I. 2,15) aliqui Graeci (zw£; apud Oec.) et multi Latini (Haym. Herv. Lomb. Thom. Lyr. etc., Cai. lust. Nat. etc., Ag.) consuetam verbi 2655021 significationem retinentes de iis solis, qui cum Christo in baptismo peccato mortui sunt, hanc sententiam explicant. « Qui enim mortuus est, inquit S. Bas. (l. c.), iustificatus est a peccato, i. e. solutus est, liberatus est, purgatus est ab omni peccato, quod non solum in operibus et verbis, verum etiam in cogitatione libidinem et affectus commovente situm est » ; atque 7/om. : « Qui enim mortuus est per baptismum, quo commorimur Christo, iustificatus est & peccato, i. e. remissis peccatis translatus est in statum iustitiae ». Sed quomodo haec explicatio contextui accommodetur, non videmus, siquidem in tota hac sectione de remissione peccatorum, quae utique est primus ex effectibus baptismi, non agitur, sed de liberatione a servitute peccati, quae etiam ad primarios baptismi effectus pertinet. Sine ullo autem dubio Paulus hac sententia proxime demonstrare vult , nos non amplius debere servire peccato. Priore sententiae superioris (v. 5) membro, nos scilicet per mortis similitudinem in baptismo Christo morienti insertos insitosque esse, explanato consectarioque practico, quod ex eo derivetur, insinuato ad alterum membrum explanandum Apostolus transit. Neque enim sufficit, ut peccato moriamur mortuique maneamus, sed requiritur, ut cum Christo ctiam resurgamus novamque vitam agamus :
6:8
8. si autem mortui sumus éum Christo, credimus quia etiam simul vivemus cum Christo (melius : etiam convivemus ei, vel cum eo, vi cuvzfszusv a3),
6:9
9. scientes (25:85) quod. Christus resurgens (melius : resuscitatus à:se- 0sí;) ez mortuis iam non moritur; mors tlli ultra non dominabitur (melius : dominatur xoguis efr VV. LL.). Particulam z£ (autem) hic non esse adversativam sed sermonem continuare et ad novum argumentum traducere evidens est; argumoentationis forma autem eadem est, quae fuit v. 5. Eodem quippe modo Apostolus ex mystica nostra morte cum Christo ad mysticam nostram resurrectionem et novam nostram vitam in Christo concludit: propter unum scilicet beneficium, quod iam accepimus, credere i. e. confidere nos dicit (zuzejz5ev), nos altero, quod cum illo intimesit connexum, non esse carituros. Similiter quoque prius beneficium , mortem nostram mysticam, tamquam rem praeteritam (xzs03vou:v), resurrectionem vel potius novám vitám nostram tamquam rem futuram (covz4524:v) ponit (cfr ad v. 5). Aeque pa- Tum vero, ac priora, haec verba cum CÁrys. aliisque haud paucis, qui eum sequuntur, de futura gloriae vita, in qua cum Christo corregnabimus (2 Tim. 2,11), proxime ac directe intelligere licet. Tota potius huius .Sectionis contextura postulat, ut cum S. Basil. (de bapt. I. 2,15 sq.) ac plerisque de nova gratiae vita praesente, ad quam per baptismum regeneramur, directe illa interpretemur ac futuram gloriae vitam eatenus tantum, quatenus est praesentis vitae gratiae continuatio ac sequela, connotari dicamus (cfr v. 22). « Apostolus, inquit To/et., utitur verbo futuri (vtvemus), quia vitae novitas, quae in baptismo accipitur, duratura est et quia in ea nobis est perseverandum; vitae enim perseverantiam et durationem hoc verbo Paulus significat, sicut Basil. in libr. de bapt. exponit; vita scilicet gratiae ex se perpetua est et finem non habet ». Iuxta Apostolum in Christum ita inserimur, ut ipse quasi principium novae vitae nobis fiat neque nos amplius vivamus sed Christus in nobis vivat (cfr Comment. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 462); itaque quia Christus: non amplius moritur, vita haec nova nostra, quantum ad Deum attinet, aeterna est, idque unum requiritur, ut nos nostra ex parte ea praestemus, quae ad illam continuandam pertinent. Nam per baptismum « creati sumus in Christo Iesu ad opera bona, quae praeparavit Deus, ut in illis ambulemus » (EpA. 2,10); ad novam ergo vitam conservandam nostra cooperatio exigitur. Quam conditionem interim praetermittens, ut in exhortatione sua illam insinuet (v. 13), ex parte novi principii vitalis nostram vitam novam non habituram finem esse ex eo probat, quod Christus, postquam semel propter peccata nostra mortuus est, ad vitam resuscitatus amplius mori nequeat, quia dominio mortis non amplius subiaceat. Semel quidem, scil. in mundum ingrediens, dominio mortis se ipse liber subiecit, ut pro nobis moriens nos sanctificaret per oblationem corporis sui (Heór. 10,5 sqq.). Postquam vero gloriosa sua resurrectione mortem devicit eiusque imperium destruxit, dominio eius nor amplius potest subiacere. Quae confirmans Apostolus addit :
6:10
10. guod enim mortuus est, peccato (74 Xuxgsiz) mortuus est semel (£2xzx5 1. q. semel in perpetuum, ein für alle mal, une fois pour toutes); quod autem vivit, vivit Deo. Quemadmodum in latino, ita etiam in graeco textu prior sententiae pars ambigua est, quum duplicem constructionem admittat; nam dativus «5 &papzla (peccato) non minus cum priore duétavtv (mortuus est), quam cum altero coniungi potest. Cum haud paucis antiquioribus Latinis (cfr Herv. Lomb. Thom. etc.) Vulg. Clem., id quod ex eius interpunctione apparet, eum cum priore verbo connecti iubet; cum Graecis tamen (cfr Chrys. Theod. Theoph. etc.) etiam Latini multi antiquiores iunioresque (cfr S. Ambr. in Ps. 118 serm. 48, 42; Zaym. etc., Cai. Tol. Est. Iust. etc.) modernique fere omnes alterum nexum haud immerito praeferunt. Concinniorem enim reddit sententiam , quum hac ratione duo ultima utriusque partis membra accuratius inter se respondent (peccato mortuus est semel, vivit Deo [semper]); ceterum sensus in utraque constructione idem fere manet. Porro in utraque sententiae parte pronomen 6 (quod) accusativus est obiecti, qui a verbis éroü«veiv et tiv dependet; scilicet dro8víoxtw «x et Gv m Graecis est « aliquam mortem mori », « aliquam vitam vivere » (dnotvsxew 9dvaxov cvparsyoo Plut. Sulla 4; dvépàx fiov Gv Lucian. Tim. 33 etc.). Eadem ergo hic est constructio, quae est Gal. 2,90, atque bene Theoph. : ixeivo, 8 éníOnvev, 57; ágagr(a dzíüavev « illud, quod mortuus est, peccato mortuus est », i. e. mortem, quam mortuus est, peccato mortuus est. Alii 6 (quod) pro accusativo absoluto habent, qui valeat latinum « quod attinet ad »; sed eo modo Graeci pronomen £ adhibere non solent. Omnino erronee aliqui (Valla etc.) 8 pro nominativo sumserunt : « Quod mortuum est, peccato mortuum est, i. e. quae Christi pars (sc. corpus humanum) mortua est, ea peccato mortua est semel; quae Christi pars (i. e. animus) vivit, vivit Deo ». In antiquioribus S. Hilarii editionibus etiam legebatur : « Quod enim mortuum est, peccato mortuum est semel » (S. Hilar. de Trin. IX. 13), sed in recentioribus consueta lectio Italae (quod enim mortuus est etc.) est restituta. Quaeritur iam, quo sensu Christus dicatur mortuus esse peccato semel et nunc semper vivere Deo. Patres latini nomen peccati hic tropice interpretantur. Cum S. Hilar. (de Trin. IX, 13 cfr I. 15; N, 25) etiam S. Aug. (Enchir. 59. cfr &1-43) peccatum pro carne Christi positum esse censet, « in qua non fuerit peccatum quidem , sed similitudo peccati, et quae ideo appellata sit peccatum », ita ut Christus carni, i. c. « vitae passibili et mortali » vel secundum carnem mortuus esse significetur (cfr etiam Herv?. Lomó?. Thom?.). S. Ambros. (l. c.) vero peccatum pro peccatore positum esse insinuat, ut Christus nobis peccatoribus, i. e. pro nobis, mortuus esse dicatur : « Semel tibi peccatori mortuus est Christus, noli iterum peccare post baptismum ;... peccatum es, o homo, ideo peccatum fecit Christum suum omnipotens Pater (cfr 2 Cor. 5,91); hominem fecit, qui peccata nostra portaret; mii ergo peccato mortuus est Dominus Iesus, ut nos in illo essemus iustitia Dei ». Sed ut nullam admittendi tropi rationem hic adesse praetermittamus, clarum est, neutram explicationem contextui congruere. Neque de tropo graeci Patres cogitarunt, quibuscum plurimi interpretantur, Christum mortuum dici propter peccatum, non suum utique, sed nostrum quod in se suscepit, ut illud nimirum expiaret et destrueret: « Quid est illud peccato? id est, ei obnoxius non erat, sed propter peccatum nostrum; nam ut illud tolleret et illius nervos vimque omnem praescinderet, ideo mortuus est » (CArys. cfr Theod. Theoph. etc. ; Herv!. Lomb!. Thom!. Lyr. etc. , Cai. Tol. Est. Lap. e&c., M Ev. Dr. Ag. etc. — Fr. God. e&c.). Quae explicatio, licet duabus prioribus praestet, minus tamen contextui consonare videtur. Graeci quidem alterum membrum (Deo vivit) interpretantur : « vivit ex virtute et potentia Patris » (TheopA.) vel « vivit per suam ipsius divinitatem, propterea quod est Deus » (Oec.), ut nimirum aliqua saltem conformilas inter duo huius sententiae membra obtineatur. Attamen statim sequitur exhortatio, ut nos, similiter ac Christus, nos ipsos reputemus peccato mortuos et viventes Deo; qui nexus evidenter suadet, ut etiam in v. 10. simili ratione, qua in tota hac sectione, locutionem peccato mori explicemus (cfr ad v. 1). Christus nimirum , quum tamquam agnus Dei, qui tolleret peccatum mundi (zzv &yapzíxv «09 x5cuzo oan. 1,99), omnia nostra peccata in se suscepisset, et a Deo factus esset peccatum pro nobis (2 Cor. 5,91), certo quodam modo ante suam passionem dominio peccati, uti etiam mortis, erat subiectus. Mortuus ergo peccato, i. e. respectu peccati, recte dici potest, quatenus morte sua imperium peccati destruens se ipsum quoque ab eius dominio, quod liber in se susceperat, liberavit, ita ut peccatum nihil amplius ad eum pertineret. Tam completa enim fuit eius victoria, ut peccatum nulla iam ratione dominium in eum exercere possit neque altera eius mors ad illud expiandum destruendumque requiratur (cfr Hebr. 7,27; 9,19. 20-98; 10,10). Semel mortuus est peccato in perpetuum; vivere Deo autem post mortem suam dicitur, quatenus nunc ex mortuis resuscitatus immortalis vivit ad Dei gloriam et laudem (cfr Reith. Mai. Beel. Bisp. etc.). Utique etiam ante passionem mortemque suam Christus vixit unice ad Dei gloriam et laudem; at Apostolus, quum nos in baptismo Christo resurgenti ac semper viventi insertos esse doceat, eam solam vitam, quam nunc Dominus in coelis degit, tamquam exemplar imitandum nobis proponit. Aptissime iam iuxta hanc explicationem nunc sequitur monitum :
6:11
11. t/a (zxo;, sicut nimirum Christum unica sua morte a peccati dominio in perpetuum esse liberum atque post resurrectionem suam indesinenter Deo vivere scitis) et vos eristimate vos mortuos quidem esse peccato, viventes autem Deo, in Christo Iesu (Domino nostro). Proxime et immediate haec sententia particulis cózog xa! (tta etiam) praecedenti velut alterum quasi comparationis membrum adnectitur; simul tamen conclusio quaedam est, quae ex tota hac sectione eruitur. Ideo enim nosmetipsos tamquam mortuos peccato et Deo viventes reputare et considerare iubemur, quia per baptismum Christo morienti et ad vitam perpetuam resurgenti inserti revera cum eo per mortem quandam mysticam ex peccati servitute sumus erepti et per mysticam quandam resurrectionem novae perpetuaeque vitae principium accepimus. Hanc enim insertionem ultima verba (in CAristo Iesu) nobis in memoriam revocant, quibus non tantum haec beneficia nobis per Christum mediatorem contigisse insinuatur, sed etiam , idque praecipue, declaratur, nos illa obtinuisse tamquam membra corporis, cuius caput ipsum, peccato mortuum, Deo vivit. Omnis enim, qui in Christo est, nova est creatura (2 Cor. 5,17), cuius vita ipse iam est Christus, quippe qui in illa vivat (Col. 3,3; Gal. 2,90 etc.). Iustificati igitur in novum statum divino beneficio sunt translati; verumtamen in eo, quamvis ex se sit perpetuus, sine sua cooperatione non perseverabunt. Quamobrem ex praecedente monito ac simul ex tota sectione, cui illud innititur, Apostolus exhortationem derivat :
6:12
12. non ergo (v3, ov, nimirum quia vos per baptismum peccato mortuos et ad vitam soli Deo dicatam resuscitatos esse scitis) regnet peccatum (5; &yapría) £n vestro mortali corpore , ut obediatis concupiscentiis eius (ei; 15 üzaxcóst» calg ExtÜuuixtg a3cc0, S. Aug. serm. 30 n. 6; 198 n. 12 etc. : ad obediendum desideriis eius cfr Gal. 5,16),
6:13
13. (sed) neque (vx 24) exhibeatis membra vestra arma (5X2) iniquitatis peccato; sed (323.3) exhibete vos Deo tamquam ez mortuis viventes et membra vestra arma (3x) iustitiae Deo. Duabus moniti partibus duae respondent exhortationis partes, quae binis ita constant membris, ut duo priora ad interiorem potius hominem consensumque voluntatis , altera duo ad externi operis exsecutionem pertineant. Utpote peccato mortui enim invigilare iubemur, ne peccatum regnum amissum in nobis recuperare sinamus (id quod fit quando desideriis. corporis obedimus), neve membris nostris iuxta peccati voluntatem ad peccandum abutamur; utpote resuscitati autem nos revera tamquam soli Deo jam viventes quum tota nostra vita tum speciatim externis nostris actibus exhibere debemus. Qua exhortationis structura elucet, particulam sed, quam in principio v. 13. soli Latini legunt (non tamen omnes, quia S. Aug. ll. cc. eam ignorat) perperam esse insertam. Nam inter duo prioris partis membra nulla habetur oppositio, uti neque inter duo alterius membra; oppositio autem adest inter ipsas duas partes, quarum prior vetat, altera iubet. Iure merito plerique (cum S. Awg. Theod. etc.) nomine peccati (7, X»xg7ia) hic intelligunt concupiscentiam, quae iu baptizatis (hos quippe Apostolus alloquitur), reatu peccati originalis remisso, ad agonem relinquitur (cfr ad v. 1). Velut regina autem repraesentatur, quae regnum amissum recuperare studet. Etenim dominium, quod inde a protoparentis lapsu in omnes eius posteros tenuit, Christus destruxit quidem morte sua, quum abundantes nobis gratias mereret, quibus adiuti sollicitationibus eius resistere easque vincere possumus. Quamdiu autem in mortali nostro corpore degimus, concupiscentia a lucta nunquam desistens eo tendit, ut desideriis corporis nostri obtemperemus atque hac ratione suo regno iterum subiiciamur. Id enim efficere vult, ut corpus nostrum denuo fiat « corpus peccati », quod esse in baptismo cessavit (v. 6), quod vero iterum erit, quamprimum carni concupiscenti contra spiritum (Gal. 5,17) consensum praestiterimus. Apposite adnotant Graeci, non dici yi, vopavveizo Sed yi, Gxs.evfzo , ut concupiscentiam nos invitos sibi subiugare non posse, verum nunc a libero nostro consensu eius dominium in nos dependere intelligamus; nam tyrannidem quidem in invitos exerceri, regnum autem principatum esse in eos, qui voluntarii ac liberi se subiiciunt (cfr Chrys. Theod. Theoph. etc.). . Interroganti porro, cur Apostolus exhortetur, nein mor/ali nostro corpore peccatum regnet, cum S. Aug. respondemus eum docere voluisse, nobis per totam hanc vitam contra concupiscentiam luctandum esse : « Quamdiu hic vivitur, sic est; sic et nos, qui senuimus in ista militia, minores quidem habemus hostes, sed habemus; fatigati sunt quodammodo hostes nostri iam per aetatem, sed tamen etiam fatigati non cessant qualibuscumque motibus infestare senectutis quietem; acrior pugna iuvenum est, novimus eam, transivimus per eam » (S. Aug. serm. 128 n. 11); pugna non cessabit, nisi quando mortale nostrum corpus induerit immortalitatem (1 Cor. 15,53). Quae autem alii significari volunt, pugnam haud diu esse duraturam propter vitae brevitatem (Chrys. Theod. etc.), aut suavia quoque corporis non esse stabilia neque proinde digna, propter quae concupiscentiae obediatur (Theoph !.), aut mortem ipsam esse ex peccato (TAeopA ?. etc., Maietc.), ea longius quaesita neque contextui congrua sunt. Cavendum autem etiam est, ne concupiscentiam adiuvemus membris nostris velut armis, quibus regnum suum recuperet , ei subministratis. Egregie haec verba S. Aug. (l. c. n. 12) amplificat : « Dedit tibi Deus potestatem per Spiritum suum, ut membra tua teneas; surgit libido, tene tu membra, quid factura est, quae surrexit? Tu tene membra; noli exhibere membra arma iniquitatis peccato; noli armare adversarium tuum contra te. Tene pedes, ne eant ad illicita; libido surrexit, tene tu membra, tene tu manus ab omni scelere; tene oculos, ne male attendant; tene aures, ne verba libidinis libenter audiant; tene totum corpus, tene latera, tene summa, tene ima, quid faciet libido? Surgere novit, vincere non novit : surgendo assidue sine causa discet et non surgere ». Idem fere est, utrum graecum ózÀa hic cum It. et Vulg. interpretemur arma , an cum nonnullis iunioribus multisque modernis instrumenta ; altera significatio apud profanos quidem est trita, prior tamen, uti in Novo Test. communior, immo unice usitata (13,12; 9 Cor. 6,7; 10,& Ioan. 18,3), ita imagini belli &b Apostolo hic adhibitae accommodatior est. Peccatum membris nostris velut armis ad recuperandum suum regnum uti vult, quando nos sollicitat, ut contra divinam voluntatem iis utamur ad exercendam iniquitatem. Neque.tamen sufficit, ut & malo nos abstineamus, utpote secundum veterem hominem mortui, sed si in novo nostro statu permanere velimus, bonum quoque operemur oportet, utpote ad novam vitam resuscitati. Hinc altera exhortationis pars positiva, in cuius priore membro nosmetipsos (£xuxooc), nos igitur integros, quanti sumus, totas nostras ut ita dicamus personas, Deo ezhibere (seu sistere «apwzávev) iubemur tamquam (ócei) tales, quales post baptismum revera sumus, qui nimirum per baptismum cum Christo ad novam vitam soli Deo dicatam resurreximus (viventes a mortuis). Totos igitur divino servitio nos consecrare ac speciatim , uti in ultimis verbis additur, memóra nostra Deo dicare in eiusque ministerium offerre tenemur, ut sint arma iustitiae (Syxatecóvoz 1. e. honestatis ac sanctitatis, opp. à2wíz iniquitas), quibus Deus regnum suum stabiliat ac propaget. In hac exhortationis parte pro imperativis praes., quibus in priore usus est (&acss£zo , «xpwráveze), Apostolus imperativum aor. (zapxorícs:e) adhibet, ut maiore cum vi et intentione fideles ad divinum servitium excitet; minus vero placet, quod alii hac ratione orationem ideo variari tenent, ut subito aut semel in perpetuum ad divinum servitium transeundum esse insinuetur. Ne quis vero maiora, quam a nobis fieri possint, praecipi praetendat, tantam esse ratus peccati (concupiscentiae) potentiam, ut ei resisti nequeat, Paulus ad fidelium animos erigendos addit, iustificatis ab illius potestate nihil esse timendum, quia vires, quibus ei resistant, eis non sint defuturae :
6:14
1&. peccatum (àyagsíx) enim vobis non dominabitur (vel forte meliusiuxta alteram lectionem : non amplius dominabitur cix£c xupiiost efr VV. LL.); non enim sub lege (üz5 vtycv) estis, sed sub gratia (bz5 &pw). Prima verba sollemnem continent promissionem; sed eam conditionatam esse fideliumque cooperationem supponere , reliqua sententia docet, qua causa indicatur, cur peccatum in iustificatos non sit dominaturum ; causa autem haec sita est in differentia statuum Legis et gratiae. Nam quoniam Lex praecipiebat quidem, quid agendum esset, sed vires quibus iussa implerentur non praebebat, iure-merito ii qui sub Lege erant, i. e. in statu Legis degebant, peccati dominium sibi timebant; viribus naturalibus enim , quae solae vi Legis eis praesto erant, concupiscentia vinci nequit. At nihil timendum est iis, qui sub gratia, i. e. in statu Evangelii degunt, quippe in quo et praedicatur et confertur gratia, qua adiutus homo peccatum vincere potest et delictorum suorum veniam invenit. Bene S. Aug. (de contin. 3,8) : « Membra nostra non sibi usurpet concupiscentia , sed sibi vindicet continentia, ut sint arma iustitiae Deo, ne sint inquitatis arma peccato; sic enim nobis peccatum non dominabitur. Non enim sumus sub Lege bonum quidem iubente non tamen dante, sed sumus sub gratia, quae id, quod Lex iubet, faciens nos amaré potest liberis imperare » (cfr ad 3, 20; &,15; 7,1 sqq.; Comment. in 9 Cor. et Gal. p. 89 sq. 457 etc.). Ceterum clarum est ex contextu, nomen peccati, quamvis &uapzíz hic articulo careat, eodem concupiscentiae sensu, quo in reliqua sectione esse sumendum. Recte enim Beel. : « abesse potest articulus ob eandem rationem, ob quam a vocibus v3pov et pt hic abest, quia nimirum eiusmodi sunt haec nomina, ut in praesente doctrina si adhibentur, propriorum nominum naturam induant ». Fuse utrumque confirmationis membrum Apostolus mox exponet (7,1 sqq., 8,1 sqq.). 2, — Juslificali, quia peccalo sunt mortui, sustiliae servire possunt ac debent (6,15-23). autem facti Deo, habetis fructum vestrum. | zt 50 s Oc, Éyszs vov xaprov Üpiw sl; in sanctificationem, finem vero. vitam ae- | &ytxogóv, to oi tÉAog Quijv alovtov. 23. tà ternam. 23. Stipendia enim peccati, mors. | yàp .ójovix tf ápaprla; Odvaroc, tb oi Gratia autem Dei, vita aeterna, in. Christo | ;dpwgx. to0 8:08 Tw alówo; iv Xu Iesu Domino nostro. "[nsoó x xvpio fuv !. Simili modo, quo praecedentem, hanc quoque pericopen Paulus a. proponenda ac reiicienda obiectione exorditur, quam ab adversariis malevolis ex sua doctrina derivatum iri suspicabatur. Qui enim ex eius verbis, gratiam superabundasse ubi delictum abundavit (5,20), fallaciter concludere voluerunt, permanendum esse in peccato, ut Deo superabundantis suae gratiae manifestandae occasio praeberetur (cfr ad v. 1), iidem etiam Christianis licentiam quandam peccandi concessam esse calumniari poterant, si eos non sub Lege sed sub gralia esse audiebant (v. 15). Quam perversam conclusionem reiiciens Paulus ostendit, Christianos eo ipso, quod ex peccati servitute sint liberati, servos iustitiae esse factos (16-18). Unde sua sponte sequitur, eos suis membris, quibus antea peccato servierunt, nunc iustitiae eodem saltem cum ardore servire debere (v. 19). Id autem et aequum esse monet (v. 20) et necessarium , quoniam peccati servitus mortem, iustitiae vero servitus vitam aeternam afferat (21-23). inchoare voluerit atque ad prius praecedentis sententiae membrum (non estis sub lege) demonstrandum iam transeat. Uterque nexus per se est aptus, atque secundus etiam aptior videri potest, ne nimis abrupte statim (7,1) tractatio de Legis abrogatione inchoetur. Nam si haec sectio cum priore arcte connectitur, non satis intelligitur, cur Apostolus, descriptione secundi fructus terminata, ad tertium plane diversum sine ulla praeparatione transiluerit mediasque in res se proiiciens Christianos sua morte mystica etiam a Lege esse solutos demonstrare inceperit. Attamen altera ex parte toto argumento suo haec pericope cum praecedente intime cohaeret, siquidem amplior est confirmatio et explanatio superioris exhortationis, ut membra nostra divino servitio consecremus (v. 13). Itaque eam velut alteram quidem partem tractatus de liberatione a peccati servitute, sed simul velut praeparationem quandam ad tractatum sequentem de Legis servitute abrogata considerare debemus. Is enim Apostoli est mos, ut versus finem alicuius partis alteram iam praeparet (cfr Comment. in 4 Cor. p. 146; Comment. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 441). De reliquo ad pericopes ipsius interpretationem parum refert, utrum praecedenti an sequenti arctius adiungatur. S. Paulus doctrinam de Legis statu abrogato et de gratiae statu stabilito perverse intelligi et in malam partem trahi posse haud ignoravit; Galatas enim monendos esse jam censuerat, ne libertatem a Lege per Christum ipsis acquisitam in occasionem darent carni, i. e. ne audito libertatis nomine, uti ait S. Aug., impune sibi esse peccandum arbitrarentur (cfr ad Gal. 5,13). Similiter Romanorum attentionem ad conclusionem non minus perniciosam quam erroneam trahere vult, quam carnales homines ex superiore suo asserto (v. 14) deducere potuerint. Ideo eam sibi ipse obiicit, ut eius refutatione simul habeat occasionem uberius docendi, quid neophytis pro novo suo statu sit faciendum :
6:15
15. quid ergo? peccabimus (&yagzlszusv, vel : peccemus xyagvá uev), quoniam non. sumus sub lege sed sub gratia? Forma quidem obiectionis eadem cest, quae fuit v. 1, neque hic quoque quidquam interest, utrum cum Vg. ac plerisque verss. iunioribusque graecis codd. futurum legamus, an cum antiquioribus omnibus codd. graecis coniunctivum (aor.) dubitativum (cfr VV. LL.) ; obiectiones autem sunt diversae. Ibi (r. 1) enim quaerebatur, num Christianis in peccati servitute permanere liceret eo fine, tt gratia abundaret; hic quaeritur, num eis impune peccare liceat, q«ia non amplius sint sub Lege sed sub gratia. Priorem obiectionem is solus movere potest, qui superabundantibus gratiis per Christum acquisitis non contentus alteram quandam uberiorem gratiae divinae manifestationem exspectat, qui igitur aut fidem nondum accepit aut ab ea defecit. Altera est hominis, qui novi status, in quem est translatus, officia nondum satis cognovit ac temere confidit, se semper delictorum suorum veniam esse inventurum. Animadvertatur quippe oportet, Paulum ambo illa, quod non simus sub Lege sed sub gratia, tamquam fontem obiectionis ponere : quia non amplius sint sub Lege, neophyti se moralibus quoque praeceptis non amplius teneri coniicere potuerunt; ac similiter quia sint sub gratia, sibi persuadere potueruut, se sine suo periculo peccare, quia remissionem delictorum , quam Lex non dabat, per gratiam iam haberent paratam. Obiectionem consueta formula (p, yéveco aósit!) velut blasphemam reiicit ac deinde hoc syllogismo refutat : Cuius servitio aliquis sese devovit, ei soli servire et obedire tenetur (v. 16) ; atqui fideles, abiecta peccati servitute, servitio iustitiaese devoverunt (vv. 17.18); ergo soli iustitiae servire et a peccando sese abstinere tenentur. Quam conclusionem utpote evidentem verbis non declarat, sed statim (v. 19 sqq.) ostendit, qua ratione iustitiae servire debeant. Maioris quoque generale axioma, quod Dominus iam proposuerat, quum neminem duobus dominis servire posse doceret (Matth. 6,24), argumento non confirmat, quia illud per se esse clarum existimat. Ac revera, uti recte monet Knabenbauer (in Matth. l. c.), « servire et servitus totum hominis servi laborem viresque spectat; quod vero totum uni devoveri et consecrari oportet, id iam non potest alteri impendi »; idque multo minus fieri potest, ubi de duobus dominis non tam diversa quam disparata iubentibus agitur. Maior árgumenti proponitur interrogatione, quae rem a fidelibus ignorari non posse insinuat :
6:16
16. nescitis, quoniam cui exhibetis vos servos ad obediendum (sis oaov), servi estiseius, cui obeditis (Uxaxoóexe), sive peccati ad mortem , sive obeditionis (üzaxcz;) ad iustitiam. Omnis servus est unius domini , cui soli servire et obedire tenetur; multo magis autem ii, qui semetipsos (£xv:«5c) in alicuius domini servitium tamquam servos sua sponte (ix xapzíx;, uti v. 17 additur) tradiderunt, wt obedirent (sig üxuv.o»), Vlius solius, cui obediunt, i. e. cui se servos obsequium praestituros obtulerunt, serv? sunt eique soli, alio omni servitio excluso, obediant oportet. Quod axioma Paulus ad suum argumentum applicat duobus illis nominatis dominis, qui in re morali ad oppositos fines tendentes omnium hominum servitium obedientiamque ita sibi vindicant, ut fieri non possit, quin in utriusque servitutem sese tradentes simul peccati servi sint, quod eos ducit ad mortem (aeternam), atque obeditionis, quae ad iustitiam cos ducit. Concinnius, uti patet, in altero membro dicere potuit : sive tustitiae ad vitam aeternam , siquidem mox (vv. 18. 19. 90) peccati servis ac servituti servitutem et servos iustiliae opponit atque terminos ultimos, ad quorum alterutrum homines adducuntur, mortem et vitam aeternam esse dicit (vv. 22. 23). Verum concinnitatem negligere maluit, ut statim initio sui tractatus doceret, fideles, etsi non essent sub Lege, ab omni servitute et obedientia non esse solutos, sed ad servitutem et obedientiam Dei obligari. Nudo enim obeditionis (5xzxs$;) nomine, quod in sententiae principio indefinite est positum (si ózaxof» ad obedientiam , Vulg. : ad obediendum), in ultimo membro definite o5edientiam erga Deum eiusque Evangelium designari, ex contextu clare apparet (cfr vv. 17. 22). Obeditio porro, quae Dei eiusque Evangelio praestatur, ad iustitiam (si; 2wa:222v1»), 1. e. ad supranaturalem vitae probitatem ac sanctitatem (si; &vuxz5» v. 19), sanctitas vero ad vitam aeternam (v. 22) fideles adducit. Solus ergo intermedius terminus, qui tamen cum ultimo intime est connexus, in altero membro indicatur, in priore autem ultimus, nimirum »15rs eaque aeterna (nam eam expositionem postulat oppositio ad vitam aeternam), nominatur, ad quem peccatum suos servos adducat. Attende quoque, nomen iustitiae (2vxavzsjvro), quo in hac sententia sanctitas subiectiva velut proximus terminus, ad quem obedientia erga Deum fideles adducit, designatur, in reliqua pericope alio sensu adhiberi. Ibi enim peccato (13; &yapcía), 1. e. concupiscenliae obedientiam hominum sibi vindicanti eosque ad inobedientiam erga Deum sollicitanti, tamquam alterum principium, quo vita moralis regitur, vel potius tamquam alter dominus opponitur, cui homines servire et obedire tenentur (vv. 18. 19. 20); significat ergo ibi obiectivam sanctitatis normam in Evangelio revelatam, ad quam fideles iuxta divinam voluntatem vitam suam dirigere debent. Itaque omnes homines pro sua libertate quidem aut peccatum aut iustitiam tamquam dominum, cui obediant, eligere possunt; sed alterutriusservi sint necesse est, utrique autem servire et obedire nequeunt; atqui fideles, reiecto peccato, iustitiam pro domino, cui servirent, eligentes iam facti sunt servi iustitiae. ITanc syllogismi sui Minorem Apostolus sub forma gratiarum actionis proponit, ut divino beneficio id factum esse significet, quod bonam partem elegissent, quum naturales vires ad eam eligendam ct amplectendam non suffecissent :
6:17
17. gratias autem Deo , quod fuistis servi peccati , obedistis autem ex corde (3x xxp- 2) in. eam. formam doctrinae in quam traditi estis (si £v zags220n:s Tjzsy ODxy9; per attractionem pro «à z2zo 2x; sl; &v «apsz20nss, ei formae doctrinae , in quam traditi estis !);
6:18
18. liberati autem a peccato servi facti estis iustitiae. De duobus Paulus gratias agit, quod nimirum fideles fuerint servi peccati, i. e. quod servitutem illam abiecerint, et quod Evangelio eis tradito obedientes in servitutem iustitiae transierint servique facti sint iustitiae. De accurata sententiae constructione disceptatur; antiquiores enim iunioresque plerique atque moderni nonnulli, quum praeteritum 3s (fuistis) in principio sententiae magna cum vi esse positum haud satis considerarent neque intelligerent, quomodo gratiae agi possent, quod fideles aliquando fuissent servi peccati, prius membrum (quod fuistis serei. peccati) cum secundo arcte coniungere eique sublungere voluerunt. Per hebraismum ! enim aut etiam ex negligentia quadam Apostolum existimarunt verbum finitum pro participio adhibuisse atque scribere debuisse : yápu oi 19 Or, Ütt Óvtec moxk boulot 5$ ápapríag ügrxoboatt x:À (gratias autem Deo, quod quum essetis aliquando servi peccati, obedistis etc.). Sed si prius membrum hac ratione secundo subiungere voluisset, particulam pév inseruisset (zc 7t piv ó0)Xo: Tie &uxptlac, Urnxoócate O6 x1 vel potius : Utt tfj; piv ápapzlae Tj 6odAot, Ürmxoóaart ó€ x1tÀ. quod peccati quidem servi fuistis sed obedistis etc.). Nulla quoque est ratio, cur hebraismum aut negligentiam constructionis admittamus. Quid enim impedit, quominus Paulum Deo gratias agere dicamus, quia fideles per divinam gratiam fuerint, 1. e. non amplius sint, servi peccati? Nequaquam enim imperfectum 2x: huic explicationi obstat, siquidem verbum tiva: aliud praeteritum non habet, ita ut imperlectum (2v), uti pro aoristo, ita etiam pro perfecto adhiberi possit (cfr 1 Cor. 6,11 xai 1aUrá ztveq jte, sed non amplius estis). Eo ipso, quod fideles non amplius esse peccati servi dicuntur, insinuatur quidem eos iam iustitiae servos esse, quum omnes in alterutra servitute degant iuxta praecedentem sententiam necesse sit. Quod autem primo membro indirecte tantum et obscurius indicavit, id duobus sequentibus Paulus directe et clare asserit via descripta, qua ex peccati servitute in servitutem iustitiae transierint (obedistis autem etc.), et termino indicato ad quem pervenerint (/iberati autem etc.)?. Obcdiverunt nimirum Romani Evangelio eis oblato, ez corde (ix »zp2ia; l1. e. ex animo, libenter ac sincere) illud acceptantes vitamque suam eius praeceptis conformantes. Quod autem obedire potuerint, id habent a divina gratia, quae effecit, ut sese Evangelio traderent, vel potius per quam Evangelio vel in Evangelium traditi sunt (cfr Ga/. 1,6 gezaiüscüs... eig Ecepov ea £12» transferimini... in aliud evangelium). Recte CArys. : « Sincera obeditio liberum consensum (zz aj:sZodovv sc. fidelium) denotat, traditio autem (-x 2: zapaic0gvat d. q. «5 tradi) divinum auxilium declarat ». Hac porro obedientia eo pervenerunt, ut liberati a peccato , i. e. ab eius servitute (2.:00:000£v-e; 3z5 c£; &pxpvía;) servi. facti sint tustitiae (1229)07s 5T, Gmaxocóvr). Uli in praecedente (z2p:2205:«), etiam in hoc membro verba passiva adhibentur, ut fideles non tam suis viribus quam divinae gratiae hanc status mutationem se debere intelligant. Evangelium hic a Paulo tropice vocatur $ cjzog £UxyXs (forma doctrinae), quia normam exhibet, ad quam vita est instituenda (cfr CArys. Theod. Oec. Theoph. etc. , Est. Iust. etc., Reith. etc.). Minus vero placet, quod hac dictione doctrinam evangelicam velut distinctam ab aliis formis doctrinae, uti iudaica etc. , alii significari volunt; ad hoc enim exprimendum nudum 2z;4, si; £v «aps220n:e suffecisset. Multo minus vero concedimus, Paulum hic suum Evangelium, quatenus nonnullis doctrinis clarius propositis ab aliorum Apostolorum praedicatione differebat, designare voluisse; nulla enim prorsus hic erat ei ratio, cur de svo Evangelio loqueretur, quia ipse Romanis nondum praedicaverat neque Romani in ipsius Evaugelium traditi apte dici possunt. cui se tradiderunt, servire tenentur, fideles autem spontanea sua obeditione erga Evangelium sese iustititiae tamquam servos subiecerunt, servitute peccati abiecta, clarum est eos soli iustitiae servire et obedire, a peccando igitur sese abstinere debere. Quare eos docere mavult, qua ratione eos iustitiae servire oporteat :
6:19
19. humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae; sicut enim ezhibuistis membra vestra servire (vel servos 3z5Aa) dmmunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibete membra vestra servire (vel servos $03Xa) iustitiae in. sanctificationem. Locutionis dv0purztwwov Ayo. (humanum dico) duplex est expositio. Iuxta paucos enim cath. et plerosque acath. modernos Paulus, ut sese excusaret, quod de sercitute iustitiae esset locutus, hac expressione monuisset, se hominum more esse locutum, qui verborum vim non semper, ut decet, pensare soleant, vel etiam sese utpote hominem ad homines loquentem verba hominibus usitata et cognita adhibuisse (cfr Mai. JJeel. — de W. Rück. Mey. Weiss, God. Lips. Grimm Lexic. Goeb. etc.); iuxta cathol. autem fere omnes, antiquos, iuniores modernosque, verba significant, a fidelibus nihil postulari, quod eorum vires (a gratia adiutas) superet, modica esse praecepta humanaeque infirmitati accommodata. Priores ávüpóntvov Mo. simili sensu quo xaz& avÜperov Aéo (cfr ad 3,5) dici volunt; alteri vocabuli significationem ex 4 Cor. 10,13 (reipaapóc dvüpermivoc tentatio humana, i. e. talis quae vires hominis gratia adiutas non superat efr Comment. in 4 Cor. p. 286^ definiunt. Iamvero a prioribus arbitrarie admitti videtur, idem esse dv6pómvov Ayo) ef xarà dvüipomoy Aeyvo, siquidem nullo exemplo haec significationum aequalitas probatur. Neque magis probare possunt, verba propler infirmilatem carnis vestrae apte explicari « propter intellectus vestri imbecillitatem, qui intelligere nondum potest, quod Deo servire sit regnare »; nusquam enim nomen carnis ad solum intellectum restringitur. Praeterea si eorum interpretatio admitteretur, primum membrum (humanum dico propter infinitatem carnis vestrae) parenthesin constitueret, praeceptum autem, quod sequitur (exAibetle membra vestra servire iustitiae) et coniunctione causali (r2p enim) introducitur, aut immediate cum asserto v. 48 (servi facti estix institit) aut cum conclusione praetermissa (ergo servire debetis iustitiae) connectendum essel; neutrum vero apte fieri potest. Quamobrem novam hanc explicationem omni probabilitate carere censemus, idque eo magis, quia nulla Paulo hic fuit ratio, cur se excusaret. Uti enim Christus de iugo suo loquitur, quod omnes in se suscipere debeant (Math. 11,29), ita cum reliquis Apostolis Paulus tam frequenter de servis Christi vel Dei loquitur locutionemque servire Deo adhibet (8001e« Xpiwroo vel Geou, Gouledetv Xii vel 6:5 1,4; 7,25; 14,18; 16,18; 4 Cor. 7,92; Gal. 4,10; Eph. 6,6; Phil. 4,4; 2,22 etc.), ut nemini locutio servus iustitiae (&o0Aoq Gxatosüvrc) admirationi, nedum scandalo, esse potuerit. Explanaturus igitur, qua ratione fideles iustitiae, quam dominam, cui obedirent, sibi ipsi elegerant, servire debeant, Apostolus propter infirmitatem. carnis eorum, quae etiam iustificatis ad agonem relicta a perfectioribus difficilioribusque refugit, neophytis, utpote parvulis in Christo (cfr Comm. in. Cor. p. 173 sq.), humanum tantum praeceptum imponit. Nihil enzm postulat, nisi ut deinceps eadem saltem ratione ac mensura membra sua servitio iustitiae consecrent, qua antca illis in servitium peccati sint usi. Iure merito Orig. « pudorem quendam, inquit, per haec incutit auditoribus, ut hoc saltem obsequii dependant iustitiae et sanctificationi, quod prius immunditiae iniquitatique detulerunt. Quid ergo tam humanum, hoc est, quid tam leve, quid tam sine onere, et quod nulla prorsus possit carnis infirmitas excusare? Ingloriosum quidem est, ut ita quis virtutibus sicut vitiis serviat; multo enim amplius et multo intentius honoranda iustitia est; sed ego, inquit, humane et communiter ago; eadem postulo, similia requiro. Dudum currebant pedes vestri ad daemonum templa, nunc currant ad ecclesiam Dei; currebant prius ad effundendum , nunc ad liberandum sanguinem currant; protendebantur prius manus ut aliena diriperent, nunc protendantur, ut propria largiantur » etc. Ac profecto haud sine ratione praeceptum hoc vocat Aumanunm «i.c. leve, exiguum, humile, imbecillitati neophytorum consonum » (ZAeopA. cfr Chrys. Theod. etc.), quia procul dubio fideles maiore cum ardore ac studio iustitiae servire decet, quam peccato ab eius asseclis servitur. Id recte monet S. Aug. (ad Anast. ep. 155,5) : « Non praemitteret humanum dico propter infirmitatem carnis vestrae, nisi plus aliquid dicendum fuit, si iam illi ferre potuissent. Plus quippe servitutis debetur iustitiae, quam peccato solent homines exhibere; nam poena corporis, etsi non a voluntate, tamen revocat ab opere peccati , nec facile quisquam est, qui palam committat, quo illicitam et immundam percipiat voluptatem, si cruciatus vindictae certum est continuo sccuturos. Iustitia vero sic amanda est, ut ab eius operibus etiam poenae corporis cohibere non debeant, atque inter manus etiam crudelium inimicorum luceant opera nostra coram hominibus ». Minimum sane est, quod Apostolus praecipit, quum Zar. 4,20, ad quem locum forte alludit (cfr Tol.) moneat, ut Israclitae studium decuplo maius ad Dei servitium adhibeant, quam antea ad peccandum adhibucrint. Anle conversionem suam neophyti membris suis /mnienditide et iniquitati (73, &xalxpsia wai 3 àvcuía) serviisse et ab iis ad iniquitatem (iz i» &vsgíav) adducti esse dicuntur. Pro generali nimirum nominc peccati (*2e &papzíx; l. e. concupiscentiae), quo antea Paulus dominum, cui servierant, designavit (cv. 17. 18), duo specialia elegit, quibus concupiscentiam designaret, quatenus ad peccata luxuriae (xz5022212! et iniustitiae (&vzyíx) suos servos sollicitat. Fortasse enim insinuare voluit, Romanos, utpote Ethnicochristianos, antea his praesertim peccatis deditos fuisse. Quemadmodum porro nomen iustitiae in hac pericope aut obiectivam sanctitatis supranaturalis normam aut subiectivam sanctitatem fidelium significat, prout aut velut principium , a quo eorum vita regitur, aut velut terminus, ad quem adducuntur, ab Apostolo usurpatur (cfr ad v. 16 p. 335), ita iniquitas quoque (1, &vcpia) in hac sententia semel concupiscentiam ad iniustitias sollicitantem designat, ubi nimirum velut domina, cui eousque neophyti servierant, consideratur, et semel subiectivam improbitatem pravitatemque latissimo sensu, ubi nimirum de termino (proximo) adhibetur, ad quem immunditia et iniquitas, 1. e. peccatum, suos asseclas adduxerant (servire immunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem). Descripto modo, quo fideles nuuc iam uni iustitiae servire debeant, duabus rationibus Paulus eos ad hoc servitium praestandum omniaque vitanda delicta exhortatur. Ac primum quidem aequum esse monet, ut in novo suo statu eadem se ratione habeant ad peccatum, quo in pristino suo statu sese ad iustitiam habuerunt. Sicuti olim soli servierunt peccato, ita eos nunc soli iustitiae servire decet :
6:20
20. quum enim servi essetis peccati , liberi fuistis iustitiae (&Xeó0spot Size c, Bucatcsóvr, tustitiae est dativus) i. e. liberi fuistis relate ad iustitiam, ei nullo modo servitium exhibuistis. Egregie CArys. hanc sententiam exponit conclusione, quam Paulus pro more ob brevitatis studium praetermisit, suppleta : « Non eratis ei (sc. iustitiae) subiecti, sed ab ea prorsus alieni; neque enim servitutis modum (zv «p3zov «25 82uAsíz;) dividebatis partim iustitiae partim peccato, sed vos totos peccato tradebatis. Itaque et nunc, quia ad iustitiam vos transtulistis, vos totos virtuti tradite nihil prorsus malitiae patrantes, ut saltem parem exhibeatis mensuram ». Neque vero decet tantum, fideles sese iustitiae servituti ita consecrare, ut nihil in illam delinquant, sed id necessarium quoque esse apparet, si fructus, quem peccatum eis attulit (v. 21) cum fructu iustititiae (v. 22) comparatur; peccatum enim ad mortem, iustitia ad vitam aeternam ducit (v. 23). A peccati fructu Apostolus exorditur :
6:21
31. quem ergo fructum habuistis tunc in illis, in quibus nunc erubescitis? Nam finis eorum mors est (tva oSv vapzw styszs s$cs [ixstvov], ig c1 ov9v izxwys4is0:i; T» vXp tÉAz. ixniivev OXvxic;). Graeca sententia praeter interpunctionem, quam cum Chrys. etiam Vulg. ac plerique antiquiores iunioresque Latini sequuntur, alteram quoque admittit, quam cum 7/Aeod. plerique moderni praeferunt : cívx 20v xagziv slysis ez zii [hxrtex] igo vpov$ ixxw3eicürt TL vàp tfkoQ Pxiivew 0ivxlcg (quem igitur fructum. habuistis tunc? Eiusmodi, de quibus nunc erubescitis; nam finis illorum mors est). Ad sensum generalem haud multum refert, utra interpunctio eligatur, quia iuxta utramque sequelas servitutis peccati pessimas esse docetur, et iuxta utramque quoque opera, quibus neophyti ante conversionem suam (sse tunc) peccato servierunt, pudenda dicuntur, de quibus nunc (v?») iure merito erubescant. Si priorem sequimur, opera illa nullum fructum attulisse significatur, quoniam neophytos ad mortem spiritualem adduxerunt; etenim responsum : « Nullum fructum habuerunt », post interrogationem supplendum esse patet. Quodsi alteram sequimur, opera illa velut fructus considerantur sua sponte ex peccati servitute procreati, atque de illis erubescendum esse Apostolus docet, quia ad mortem spiritualem et aeternam ducant. Aptum igitur sensum utraque lectio praebet, alteram tamen praeferimus, quia duplicem terminum servitutis peccati enuntians (proximum, scilicet opera, de quibus fideles nunc erubescunt, et ultimum, scilicet mortem aeternam) accuratius respondet sequenti sententiae, quae duplicem terminum servitutis iustitiae indicat :
6:22
22. nunc vero liberati a peccato, servi autem facti Deo, habetis fructum vestrum tn sanctificationem (sig &yixop^v in sanctitatem), finem vero vitam aeternam. Sicut tunc in pristino eorum statu servitus peccati fructus pudendos malorum operum tulit, quae ad mortem aeternam ducunt , ita nunc in novo eorum statu servitus iustitiae fructus fert bonorum operum , quae proxime ad perfectiorem sanctitatem et tandem ad vitam aeternam adducunt. Demum Apostolus ea, quae de ultimo utriusque servitutis termino dixerat, confirmaturus addit :
6:23
23. stipendia enim (zx 4xp 29ovnx) peccati mors ; gratia autem (75 8& 4apwpx Tert. de resurr. carn. &1 : donativum) Dei vita aeterna. « Bene, inquit Orig., metaphoram militiae ab initio propositam (v. 12 sq.) servat, ut militantibus sub peccato rege, immo potius tyrannidi eius obedientibus, stipendia debita mortem dicat exsolvi ». 'Ogówvv enim (vel usitatius plur. 240), uti etiam latinum stipendium (vel plur. stipendia) « proprie dicitur id quod a rege militibus datur in sustentationem » (Theoph. cfr Chrys. Theod. ctc.) quodque militibus stricto iure debetur (cfr 1 Cor. 9,7). Mors igitur, eaque aeterna (hanc enim intelligendam esse oppositio vitae acternae docet) est iusta retributio, quam peccatum servis suis solvit tamquam mercedem debitam. Simili modo vitam aeternam Apostolus stipendia iustitiae vel Dei appellare potuit, quum hane quoque considerare liceat tamquam iustam retributionem, quam iustitia vel Deus sibi servientibus debeat. At non tam, quia nomen stipendii aliquid abiecti habet, ab co adhibendo abstinuit, quam ut insinuaret, aliam esse malorum, aliam bonorum nostrorum operum rationem. Namque mala opera integra sunt hominis, quia ab eius voluntate libera sola procedunt; bona vero, quamvis etiam a libera voluntate procedant, primario tamen divinae gratiae debentur et a gratia habent, quod ex condigno vitam aeternam mereantur. Quoniam igitur bona opera, quibus vita aeterna velut merces debita divinitus est promissa, ipsa sunt gratuita dona divina, etiam vita aeterna vere ac proprie donum gratuitum (z&ptsua Vulg. gratia) Dei est. « Sine ulla dubitatione, inquit S. Aug. (de corrept. et grat. 13,41) confitendum est , ideo gratiam vitam aeternam vocari, quia his meritis redditur, quae gratia contulit homini ». Fusius sententiam hanc alibi (ad Sixt. ep. 194 n. 20. 21) idem S. Doctor in hunc modum exponit : « Vide, in quanta brevitate quam vigilanter verba posuerit. Quum enim dixisset stipendium peccati mors, quis non eum congruentissime et consequenter addere iudicaret, si diceret : stipendium autem du- ' stitiae vita aeterna? Et verum est. quia sicut merito peccati redditur mors tamquam stipendium, ita merito iustitiae tamquam stipendium vita aeterna;... unde etiam merces appellatur plurimis sanctarum Seripturarum locis; nusquam porro dicta est merces iustitia vel fides, quia iustitiae vel fidei redditur merces; quod est autem merces operanti, hoc militanti stipendium. Sed beatus Apostolus adversus elationem... ne iustitia de humano se extolleret bono merito, sicut humanum meritum malum non dubitatur esse peccatum, non a contrario retulit dicens : stipendium iustitiae vita aeterna, sed gratia, inquit, Dei vita aeterna. Et haec ne praeter mediatorem aliqua alia via quaereretur, adiecit : 2n Christo Iesu Domino nostro, tamquam diceret : Audito quod stipendium peccati sit mors, quid te disponis extollere... et contrariam morti vitam aeternam tamquam debitum stipendium flagitare? Cui debetur vita aeterna. vera iustitia est; si autem vera iustitia est, ex te non est, desursum cst descendens a Patre luminum. Quapropter, o homo, si accepturus es vitam aeternam, iustitiae quidem stipendium est, sed tibi gratia est, cui gratia est et ipsa iustitia; tibi enim tamquam debita redderetur, si ex te tibi esset iustitia, cui debetur » (efr etiam Enchirid. 107; de gr. et lib. arb. 9,21 etc.). seu de liberatione a servitute Legis (1,1-25). Iustificatos non amplius sub Lege esse sed sub gratia, S. Paulus supra (6,15) asseruerat, ut iure se sperare doceret, fideles deinceps non iam peccato sed iustitiae esse servituros. Neque tamen assertum suum probaverat, quia prius obiectione quadam, quam carnales homines ex eo derivare poterant, refutata accuratius explanare voluerat, neophytos novo statu, quem favente et auxiliante Deo sibi elegerant, obligatos esse, ut sese integros servituti iustitiae consecrarent. Manca tamen et imperfecta fuisset tota eius argumentatio, nisi assertum, quo etsuam spem fulciri obiectionemque refutatam niti dixerat, diligenter firmasset. Ad illud ergo reversus praeprimis priorem eius partem (non estis sub lege) probat; mystica enim sua morte fideles etiam & Legis dominatu esse liberatos (7,1-6) docet relationemque, quae inter peccatum et Legem intercedit, ita exponit, ut quantum sit beneficium liberatio a servitute Legis clarius appareat (7,7-25). 1. — Juslificali mystica sua morle a Legis dominalu sunt soluti (7,1-6). mortis, in qua detinebamur, ita ut ser- | àzoüavóvito, 0v à xattf6uiÜ0x, (3z: Oouviamus in novitate spiritus, e( non in ve- | Asóste dv xatvózrzt xvi9yato; xai oU nakaiótustate literae. Tnt Ypápgarog 3. Fideles divinis gratiis indigere, ut devictis peccati incursibus uni iustitiae servire possint, ultima praecedentis pericopes sententia insinuat, quae vitam aeternam ipsam, ad quam iustitiae servitus tendit, gratiam Dei esse docet (6,22. 23). Tantum vero abest, ut Lex post peccatum in mundum ingressa asseclis suis auxilia haec praestet, ut cum peccato quasi sociata ac foederata ad delicta augenda iuvet efficiatque, ut peccatum virus suum magis manifestet (5,20). Minime igitur sufficere potuit, ut fideles a sola peccati servitute liberarentur; quamdiu enim sub Legis dominatu degebant, in proximo semper versabantur periculo, ne a peccato iterum subiugarentur. Fide iustificatos autem non minus à Legis quam a peccati servitute solutos esse, Paulus morte mystica probat, qua in baptismo una cum Christo in cruce moriente mortui sint (6,3 sqq.). Romanis enim in memoriam revocat, Legem solis vivis dominari (v. 1), idque elucere addit ex lege matrimoniali, quae uxorem alteri nubere vetat, quamdiu vir eius vivit, illo autem mortuo alterum matrimonium ei permittit (2. 3). Unde neophytos quoque, quia cum Christo mortui sint, à Legis dominatu esse exemtos concludit, idque co fine factum esse declarat, ut cum Christo resuscitato intime in nova sua vita uniri Deoque fructus iustitiae ferre possint (v. 4). Quam conclusionem diversitate duorum statuum descripta confirmans eos, qui a Legis dominio liberati sint, non amplius morti sed Deo fructificare posse ac debere monet (5. 6). manet enim nunc lex moralis et decalogi in Evangelio... neque tamen nunc dicimur esse sub Lege aut sub servitute Legis. Haec enim cessarunt et non sunt adveniente Evangelio; quia Legem dominari aut esse sub servitute Legis est esse in statu Legis, in quo Lex pura consideratur : in quo statu homo non habet vires, quibus impleat praecepta Legis. Lex enim quantum ex se est (i. e. Lex pura] obligat, virtutem tamen non dat, qua quod iubet fiat; hoc enim facit virtus gratiae et fidei, quae ad Evangelium pertinet. Qui ergo in Legis statu erant, sub Lege et dominio eius esse dicebantur, a quo statu et dominio Legis Evangelium Christi liberat, quia secum habet gratiam, per quam Lex impletur. Quae quidem gratia dabatur olim in statu Legis degentibus, at non ratione status sed propter futurum Christum, in quem fide et spe et caritate ferebantur, quae ad Evangelium proprie pertinent, quod Christum annuntiat et praedicat. Fieri ergo potest, ut Lex maneat obligans ad sui observantiam, et cum hoc non simus sub Lege nec sub eius dominio, quia gratiam iam habemus, qua eius praecepta impleamus : sicut etiam, quamvis nunc peccemus ef peccatum in nobis inveniatur, non dicimur sub peccato esse, quia habemus, quo illud vincamus et ab eius iugo liberemur. Paulus ergo non praetendit praecipue in hoc capite demonstrare, Legem veterem cessasse neque amplius obligare,... sed Legis statum cessasse et Legem dominium suum amisisse, sub quo tamquam servi tenebamur non valentes iugum illius excutere impletis illis, quae Lege praecipiebantur ». Satis abrupte ad superius suum assertum (6,14) revertens Apostolus simili interrogatione, qua antea (6,3), axioma proponit, quo Christianos, utpote in Christo mortuos, a Legis mosaicae dominatu solutos . esse ostendat :
6:1
Les Juifs regardaient comme justes ceux qui observaient la Loi. Dieu aussi les regardait comme justes et inscrivait leurs actions comme telles dans son livre, en attendant de reconnaitre leur justice au dernier jour. Cette justice résultait donc des œuvres de la Loi. — Sur ce point l'antithèse est formelle. La justice de l'Évangile ne vient point des œuvres de la Loi.
6:2
Ayant acquis lui-même sa justice par des œuvres, le Juif pouvait dire « ma justice ». Sa justice était son bien propre, une justice humaine. — Antithèse de Paul : la justice de l'Évangile est la justice de Dieu, le chrétien ne peut pas dire : ma justice, issue de mes œuvres. En résulte-t-il que la justice est complètement extérieure au chrétien. qu'il ne possède aucune justice ? C'est l'interprétation de Luther. L'homme est pécheur, il le demeure jusqu'au dernier jour, en dépit du baptême. Et cependant Dieu le déclare juste et le déclarera juste au dernier jour. Ce ne peut donc être qu'en vertu d’une fiction juridique. Dieu déclare juste le pécheur — sans cela il ne pourrait lui accorder de récompense — pourvu qu'il ait confiance que la justice du Christ lui sera imputée. IH va sans dire que c'est un paradoxe de parler de justice dans ce cas. Paul a-t-il vraiment soutenu ce paradoxe? De cette façon l'antithèse serait absolue : au Juif fier de montrer à Dieu sa justice, Paul opposerail le chrétien dépourvu de toute justice. Mais alors le terme de juste devenait tout à fait impropre. Le Juif aurait pu se plaindre que Paul jouait sur les mots et prêtait au souverain Juge un subterfuge indigne de lui. Dans l'hypothèse luthérienne il suflirait que Dieu accorde le pardon à celui qui se confie au Christ. Pourquoi cette déclaration qu'il est juste, alors qu'il ne l’est pas? Est-ce pour tromper le diable ou pour répondre à ses accusations? Aucun moderne n'aurait songé à cette justice imputée s'il n'avait fallu expliquer ct tirer à soi des termes de Paul. Mais Paul n’a-t-il pas considéré la justice de l'Évangile comme une réalité? 1] faut bien avouer qu'il ÿ a quelque chose de paradoxal à nommer justice un don de Dieu. Si s. Paul s'y est décidé, pour maintenir le grand principe du juste jugement, il devait du moins s'arrêter avant le point où la justice n'aurait été qu'une pure fiction. La justice vient de Dieu, elle est donnée gratuitement, mais elle est réelle. Elle est justice, parce que quelqu'un, et c'est Jésus-Christ, a répandu son sang, et que de cette façon Dieu se montre juste, même en pardonnant. Il y a incontestablement en cela une acceptation bienveillante de Dieu et un transfert initial de mérites, mais s'il y a manifestation de la justice de Dieu. activité de Dieu pour la justification des hommes, cette activité a un terme réel qui est la justice en eux. Si Paul ἃ parlé en pareille matière de la justice de Dieu et non de sa miséricorde, c'est qu'il ne l'entendai! pas d’un attribut purement divin. La justice qui juge. la miséricorde qui pardonne, sont des attributs divins. La justice qui sauve en pardonnant ne peut se nommer de ce nom que parce que son terme est la justice ne venant pas de l'homme, mais cependant pénétrant daus l'homme pour lui être acquise par la foi. Cette justice a donc un double aspect, justice de Dieu, justice communiquée, — ni justice de Dieu seulement attribut, ni justice simplement humaine, — et c'est pour cela que l’exégèse des textes est diflicile. Mais il n'y a aucune raison de nier de la justice, — non pas vindicative, mais agissant pour le salut, — ce que Paul dit de l'amour de Dieu pour nous, qu'il ἃ été « répandu dans nos cœurs » (v, 2). Les textes prouvent que telle est bien sa pensée. Mettons hors de cause Rom. nr, 5 où la δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ doit s'entendre de la justice de Dieu au sens propre, comme l’attribut qu'il exerce au jugement. Dans les autres cas, la justice de Dieu, celle qui est révélée dans l'Évangile, est une activité de Dieu pour que les hommes soient justes οὐ soient reconnus tels à son tribunal. C’est done, en quelque manière, un attribut de Dieu. Dans Rom. 1, 17, ce sens de justice appartenant à Dieu est suggéré par le parallélisme avec la colère de Dieu qui se révèle (τ, 18), tout comme la justice. Des deux côtés il y ἃ donc un attribut de Dieu, et la manifestation de cet attribut. Mais la manileslation de la colère n'est que le châtiment, tandis que la justice se manifeste par la foi. La foi des croyants est une marque que le salut est commencé; bien plus c'est un principe de vie. La justice de Dieu agit donc pour donner la vie. Dans Rom. nr, 21 et 22, la justice de Dieu se manifeste de nouveau par la foi, par la foi en Jésus-Christ; elle est destinée à ceux qui croient. Si cette pensée élait encore obscure, elle serait expliquée très clairement par l'épitre aux Philippiens (ur, 9). 5. Paul veut être trouvé dans le Christ, ne possédant point de justice propre, sa justice, celle qui vient de la Loi, mais la justice qu'on obtient par la foi au Christ, une justice qui vient de Dieu et qui est accordée à la foi. Des deux côtés nous avons cette même justice διὰ πίστεως ᾿Ιησοῦ Χριστοῦ Rom.) ou Χριστοῦ (Phil.), si dans un cas elle est qualifiée θεοῦ (Rom.) et dans l'autre Ex θεοῦ, c'est donc que le génitif des Romains doit être entendu comme un génitif d’origine. Dans les versets qui suivent, ur, 25 et 26, la justice est assurément un attribut divin, puisque Dieu la montre. Mais en la montrant, il l'exerce, el cet exercice a pour terme la justication. Il n’y a point icide brusque changement dans le sens. Et précisément si l’on veut éviter ce changement, il faudra interpréter les vv. 25 οὐ 26 dans le sens du v. 22, d’une justice de Dieu qui ne demeure pas extérieure par rapport au croyant. S'il n'en était ainsi, cette justice ne serait pas la justice : elle déclarerait juste celui qu'elle n'aurait pas rendu juste, car elle ne pouvait, dans la pensée de Paul, reconnaitre juste celui qui n'aurait eu que sa justice propre. Dans Rom. x, 3, δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ est répété deux fois, οὗ, la seconde fois, Paal dit que les Juifs n'ont pas été soumis à la justice de Dieu. La justice de Dieu est donc un attribut. Sans doute, mais non pas un attribut qui constitue sa justice propre, le principe de ses jugements. C’est toujours la justice qui sauve, et qui pour cela vient de Dieu. Le texte de Philippiens (nr, 9 explique aussi celui-ci. Dans Rom. la justice propre est opposée à la justice de Dieu, dans Phil. « ma justice » à la justice qui vient de Dieu (ἐκ θεοῦ). Dire que les Juifs se sont opposés à la justice de Dieu, c’est dire qu'ils n'ont pas voulu la recevoir, cer le Christest pour tout croyant la fin de la Loi en vuc de la justice (x, 4), une justice qui n’est pas celle de l'homme, mais celle que Dieu communique. En d’autres termes « les gentils qui ne poursuivaient pas la justice, ont atteint la justice, je dis la justice qui vient de la foi; tandis qu'Israël poursuivant une loi de justice, n'est point parvenu à la Loi » (1x, 80 5.). Si la justice de Dicu cest communiquée au fidèle, il possède done la justice. Ce n'est point « sa justice », ni une justice qui lui soit « propre ».,en ce sens qu'il l’ait acquise, mais enfin elle est à lui puisque Dieu la lui a donnée. Elle lui vient du Christ. La comparaison entre Adam et le Christ (v, 15-19) est décisive. Adam a transmis son péché; ses descendants sont donc constitués pécheurs. Les fidèles de Jésus-Christ sont constitués justes. Or chacun de ces éléments doit être traité selon sa valcur propre. Le péché n’est point une réalité, c'est un défaut qui conduit à la mort. La justice au contraire est un principe de vie. C'est un don : « ceux qui recoivent l'abondance de la grâce et du don dela justice régneront dans la vie » (v, 17). C’est par ce don positif que les fidèles sont « constitués justes » (v, 19), de façon que la grâce règne au moyen de la justice {v, 21). Et cn fait ce règne est déja commencé, Lorsque Paul dit que le règne de Dieu c'est la justice et la paix et la joie dans l'Esprit-Saint (xiv, 17), il suppose évidemment que la justice est l'apanage des chrétiens, comme la paix et la joie.
92, — ÊTRE JUSTIFIÉ, JUSTIFIER, JUSTIFICATION. Puisque Paul reconnaît une justice, à la vérité une justice qui vient de Dieu, qui n'est pas acquise par les œuvres, mais communiquée par lui, n'est-il pas vraisemblable qu'il a employé un verbe pour exprimer cette situation ? C’est la question du sens de δικαιοῦν, à l'actif et au passif. Les verbes en & ont le sens de rendre tel que l'indique leur racine. Ainsi δικαιόω devrait proprement signilier « rendre juste ». Ce sens ne se trouve pas dans le grec profane, et la raison en est assez naturelle. Quel que soit le sens de δίκαιος, qu'il exprime une disposition droite à l'égard des autres ou plus généralement nne disposition générale à bien remplir ses devoirs, cette disposition ne s'impose pas du dehors, parce qu’elle est propre à la personne. On peut employer ôst5m dans le sens de purifier, mais pourvu qu'il soit question d’une purification extérieure. Chez les Grecs δικαιόω signifiait donc simplement regarder comme juste, comme convenable, trouver bon; et aussi rendre justice à quelqu'un ou le condamner. Le sens déclaratif large est le plus courant, mais le sens spécial de déclarer juste par un jugement est assez rare, et le mot se prête à de nombreuses combinaisons. . C’est aussi ce qu'on constate dans le grec de l'A. T., où il traduit des mots hébreux variés et avec des acceptions différentes. On ne l’a pas suflisamment constaté. M. Feine (1) est un des rares auteurs qui aient pris la peine d'examiner les quarante-cinq cas de la Bible grecque, mais il voit beaucoup trop souvent le sens de déclarer juste, si bien que sur les onze cas du Siracide, dix lui paraissent avoir ce sens, ainsi que les cas où « être juste » en hébreu est traduit par δικαιοῦν à l'actif ou au passif. Nous allons voir combien les faits sont plus nuancés. Le verbe δικαιοῦν traduit rue Ez. χχι, 13 (48) ὅτι δεδικαίωται « c'est jugé »; cas obscur dont on ne peut rien tirer. ὩΞῸ au niph. ! Regn. xu, 7, au sens de juger; cf. Ez. xurv, 24, où il y a double traduction. av Mich. var, 9; Îs. r, 17, à l'actif les deux fois dans le sens de plaider pour quelqu'un. Ces cas éliminés comme sans importance pour notre sujet, δικαιοῦν rend les thèmes hébreux ΘῈΣ, ΠῚ et, si l'on tient compte du Siracide hébreu, pet Π5). Le thème 53 à la forme hiphil a le sens de déclarer juste. C’est une suite de cas parfaitement clairs, où δικαιοῦν est à l'actif : Ex, xxx, 7: Dt. xxv, 1; [I Regn. xv, 4 (avec une nuance); ΠῚ Regn. vin, 32 — 11 Par. vi, 28: Ps. Lxxxi (Lxxxu), ὁ; Is. v, 28; 1, S; Lu, 11. Dans tous ces cas il est question d’un véritable jugement; le juge prononce que telle partie a pour elle le droit, la justice, la raison. Comme il s'agit d'hommes faillibles, ils pourront donner raison à celui qui a tort; le cas est prévu (Ex. xx, 7; Is. v, 23), mais cela ne change pas le sens du verbe. En aucun cas il ne signifie acquitter, ni condamner comme dans le grec classique, mais seulement donner gain de cause en déclarant le bon droit. J'ai compris dans le groupe déclaratif Is. ur, 11 que plusieurs critiques (Zen:) donnent comme une preuve du sens causatif de rendre juste, parce que ce sens ne me paraît indiqué que par l’hébreu dont le grec peut s'être éloigné. Cependant un de ces cas Is. r, 8) contient une nuance très notable ὅτι ἐγγίζει ὃ δικαίωσάς με΄ τίς ὃ κρινόμενός μοι; [ci en effet Sxxuow ne peut signifier précisément déclarer juste dans un jugement, mais soutenir la justice de quelqu'un, le défendre en vue du jugement. ἢ n'y ἃ pas non plus de diiliculté pour la forme hithpaël de 555, qui signifie se justifier soi-même devant un juge, Gen. xLiv, 16 (au pass.)'et Sir. vit, 5, μὴ δικαιοῦ (hébr. 57257 « n'essaye pas de te justifier, d'avoir raison » devant le roi. La forme piël est rendue par l'actif Jer. m1, 11; Ez. νι, 51. 52, dans le sens de se montrer innocent, en comparaison d’un autre plus coupable (Jer.\, ou d'innocenter une autre personne, à force d'être mauvais soi-même (Ez.}. Ce n'est pas le jugc qui prononce l'innocence (relative!) d'une des parties; c’est l’autre partie qui la fait ressortir. Ce n'est déjà plus le sensus forensis déclaratif. Le piël est rendu par le passif dans Job xxxrr, 32 : « Parle, car je désire te donner raison » de l’hébreu, devient : θέλω γὰρ δικαιωθῆναί σε, « parle, car je veux qu'on te donne raison ». Traduire comme M. Feiue : « car je voudrais que tu fusses déclaré juste » comme une preuve que les Septante avaient en vue ordinairement le sensus forensis, c'est donner trop d'importance à Elihou qui n'est pas le juge officiel de la cause de Job. Ce qui d’ailleurs nous autorise à traduire comme nous l'avons fait, c'est le cas très fréquent du passif signifiant simplement « être Juste», qui est précisément le fait méconnu que nous voudrions mettre en lumière. C'est, croyons-nonus, le cas presque toutes les fois que δικαιοῦσθαι traduit le qal hébreu 555 dont le sens incontestable est « être juste». Voici les exemples Gen. xxxvin, 26 δεδικαίωται Qauts % ἐγώ « Thamar est plus juste que moi, a raison contre moi Ps. xvirr (xix), 10 à msiuuzx Kustou rie, Σεδιχκαιωμένα (13) « les jugements du Seigneur sont conformes à la vérité ct à la justice 11 n'y ἃ aucune raison de penser que le grec a entendu changer le sens Ps. L ἔμ, 4 ὅπως ἂν διχαιωθξς ἐν τοῖς λόγοις σου, passage d'autant plus important qu'il est cité par Paul (Rom. m1, 4. On admet sans sourciller que le grec a changé le sens de l'hébreu. très limpide : « pour que tu aies raison dans tes paroles. pour que ta justice soit reconnue », afin d'y introduire l'idée d'une comparution de Dieu au tribunal de sa eréature, qui le « déclare juste »! C'est là une idée choquante qu'il ne faudrait admettre que si elle était évidente. Mais le grec peut très bien se traduire : « afin que ta justice soit reconnue » sans qu'il soit fait état d'une sentence judiciaire. Cependant, à cause du second hémistiche (contresens en grec) nous admettons pour ce cas le sensus forensis. Ps. cxzir (exzin), 2 οὐ δικαιωθήσεται... Le psalmisie demande à Dieu de ne pas le juger, non pas parce que personne n’est déclaré juste par lui, mais parce que personne n'est assez juste pour affronter son verdict « aucun vivant ne paraîtra juste en ta présence 15. xuuit, 9 καὶ δικαιωθήτωσαν « et qu'ils se justifient », qu'ils prouvent qu'ils ont raison. 15. xeur, 26 vx δικαιωθῇς, parle donc « pour obtenir justice » et non pas « pour que tu sois déclaré juste », ce qui n'est pas le cas. Dans Is. xiv, 25 (26) l'hébreu signifie : « en lahvé obtiendra justice et se glorifiera toute la race d'fsraël ». C’est un texte que Paul aurait pu citer pour montrer que l'A. T. connaissait la justice conférée. Le grec ἀπὸ xupiou δικαιωθήσονται devrait donc signifier : « ils obtiendront justice du Seigneur » d'autant que le v. 24 (25) dit : διχαιοσύνη καὶ δόξα πρὸς αὐτὸν fs. À tout le moins il n'est pas question de déclarer la justice d'Israël. Dans Is. χα, 21 « à cause de sa justice » est rendu ἵνα δικαιωθῇ,. Le sens ne peut pourtant pas être : le Seigneur a voulu « être déclaré juste en justice », mais « montrer sa justice », ou simplement « agir avec justice Dans tous les cas où l'hébreu a le 48] de ai D le sens déclaratif est étranger à l'hébreu. Avant de supposer qu'il a été introduit par le grec dans un contexte qui ne le comporte pas. il convient d'essayer une traduction plus conforme à l'hébreu; elle existe dans le sens d'être juste, montrer sa justice, obtenir justice (1), sans qu'il soit nécessaire de donner au passil de δικαιοῦν le sens d'être declaré juste en justice. Le sens déclaratif est encore plus nettement exclu quand δικαιοῦν rend 125, au qal « être pur », au piël « purifier Mich. vr, 11 εἶ δικαιωθήσεται « sera-t-il sans reproche ? » (qal). Ps. Lxxn (Lxxut), 18 est le seul exemple incontestable de l'A. T. pour le sens de « rendre pur » : ἄρα ματαίως ἐδικαίωσα τὴν χαρδίαν ou, T2, Aq. ἐκαθάρισα, Sym. ἐκάθαρα, Théod. comme LXX ἐδικαίωσα, Dans le Siracide, sur les onze cas, plusieurs répondent à un original hébreu connu : vir, 5 μὴ διχαιοῦ « ne te justifie pas toi-même », hithp. de pis que nous avons déjà rencontré; x, 29 (32) τίς δικαιώσει, sens déclaratif très clair, comme les autres cas de l'hiphil de ps: de même χα, 2. xur, 22 (26) ἐδικαίωσαν répond à l'hiphil de ña1 : «Ils ont déclaré beau Mais voici deux cas qui confirment ce que nous avons dit du sens du passif, « être juste »: c'est lorsque ce passif répond au niph. de ΠΣ être innocent, impuni. Ainsi 1X, 12 (17) ἕως ἅδου οὐ ur, δικαιωθῶσι et XXXIV (XXXI), 5 ὃ dyarûv ysvclov οὐ δικαιωθήσεται, Qu'on aurait si aisément traduit : «ne sera pas déclaré juste » sans l'évidence de l’hébreu, lequel exige : « ils ne seront pas, il ne sera pas sans reproche. » Dans les autres cas l'hébreu fait défaut. D'après les deux exemples précédents, on est forttenté de supposer 75: dans les cas quisont toutà faitsur le même rythme : εἰ διὰ xevñc ὥμοσεν οὐ δικαιωθήσεται (XXII, 14) et où διχαιωθήσεται χάπηλος (xxVI, 28) et probablement encore : οὐ δυνήσεται θυμὸς ἄδικος δικχιωθῆναι (1, 28). L'homme injuste et emporté ne saurait demeurer impuni, car da fougue de la colère amène sa ruine. L'analogie des cas où c'est le Seigneur qui est en scène Ps. xvnn et L) suggère le qal de ΕἼΣ pour xvir, 1 χύριος μόνος δικαιωθήσεται « le Seigneur seul sera reconnu juste », mais sans passer en jugement. On voit ce que vaut l'aflirmation de M. Feine (p. 410) que sur onze cas du Siracide, dix signifient « déclarer juste »! Il n'a même pas excepté xvinr, 22 pour lequel nous n'osons proposer un équivalent hébreu : μὴ uelvrs ἕως θανάτου δικατωθῆναι, qui paraît signifier : « n’attends pas le moment de la mort pour te mettre en règle », ou d’une façon générale, ou, d'après le grec, en acquittant un vœu. De toute façon il faut soi-même se mettre en bon état, sans qu'il soit ici question d'une déclaration de justice. I reste dans l'A. T. des passages de Tobie (ms. sinaïtique) où δικαιοῦται a le sens d'appartenir selon le droit (νι, 12-13; xn1, Δ), antérieurement à la déclaration judiciaire. Dans les additions d'Esther (x, 9 [12;) δικαιοῦν a incontestablement le sens de faire droit à, sauver : χαὶ ἐμνήσθη, ὁ θεὸς τοῦ λχοῦ αὐτοῦ, xat ἐδικαίωσεν τὴν κληρονομίαν ἑαυτοῦ, Cf. v. 6 [9], sans déclaration aucune (supposer pr& au piül?. Ce qui précède est établi sur la Concordance des Septante d'après les principaux manuscrits. L'emploi du passif de δικαιοῦν comme traduisant le qal de 575, dans le sens normal d’être juste, était sans doute plus fréquent dans les autres traductions. Voici les exemples colligés par Field Job x, 15 καὶ δικαιωθεὶς οὐκ ἀρῶ χεφαλέν .Λλ4.} « et si je suis juste, je ne lèverai pas la tête pour cela ». Job xxu, 8 ἵνα δικαιωθῇς (Sym.), tradui= sant : « Que tu sois juste ». Job xv, 14 χαὶ ὅτι δικαιωθήσεται (Aq., Théod), traduisant « pour qu'il soit juste ». Job 1x, 15 ὅστις εἰ δικαιωθήσομαι tra= duisant : « Si j'ai pour moi la justice F1 faut donc choisir entre deux hypothèses : ou bien δικχιοῦσθαι signifiait couramment « étre ou devenir juste », ou bien les traducteurs grecs de tout acabit ont remplacé cette notion de justice par celle d'une justification prononcée dans un jugement positif. L'Apocalypse de Baruch pose le même problème ou plutôt nous oblige à le résoudre dans le premier sens. Le texte syriaque cst traduit du grec. Très souvent ce grec qui devait être δικαιωθῆνχι représente simplement l'idée d’être juste. Voici des cas dans le latin traduit du syriaque (1) : xx1, 9 eos qui peccant et cos qui lustificantur... χχι, 11 et si in tempore multi peccaverunt, eliam ali non pauci iustificati sunt.… 12 extremum eorum qui peccaverunt, aut Jinem eorum qui tustificati sunt.…. xXXIV, 1 peccata eorum qui peccaverunt.… tustitia eorum qui iustificati sunt.. Aussitôt après, ce même passif indique qu’on devient juste : xx1v, 2 videbis longanimitatem Excelsi…. qui longanimis erat in omnes naitos qui peccabant et iustificabantur…. Ce sont des pécheurs qui n'étaient sans doute pas déclarés justes, d'après la manière qu'on prête à Paul, mais qui devenaicent justes. Sur les nations qui n’ont jamais pratiqué la justice, on dit : Zustificatae sunt, cf. Lxu, 7. On cherchait sa justice dans la loi, Lr, 3 etiam gloria eorum qui nunc iustificati sunt in lege mea, c'est-à-dire qu'on devenait juste cn la pratiquant. Dans IV Esdr. xu, 7, le Zustificari du latin doit signifier la mème chose : si invent gratiarn ante oculos tuos et si lustificatus sun apud te prae multis…; les versions orientales indiquent plutôt la faveur de Dicu. En tout cas la comparaison « plus que d’autres » exclut une déclaration judiciaire en faveur d'Esdras, censé encore vivant. On s'est appuyé pour le sensus forensis sur les Psaumes de Salomon. Mais il faudrait derechef admettre que le juif s'était fait une habitude de convoquer Dieu à son tribunal, ou plutôt qu'il s'érigeait en tribunal d'appel des jugements de Dieu. Quand le verbe δικαιοῦν est à l'actif, c'est le fidèle qui reconnait que les jugements de Dieu sont justes, de la justice qui leur est nécessairement propre, sans qu'il soit censé lui-même prononcer en appel, Ps. Sal. πιά, 16; πὶ, 5; 1v, 9; vunt, 7. 31. Dans deux cas le verbe est au passif, et, comme il s’agit de Dieu, il ne signifie pas que Dieu a été déclaré juste devant un tribunal, mais qu'il a été reconnu juste ou plutôt qu'il s’est montré juste : virr, 27 ἐδιχαιώηη ὃ θεὸς ἐν τοῖς χρίμασιν αὐτοῦ ἐν (probablement : sur) τοῖς ἔθνεσι τὴς γῆς. De même 1x, 3 ἵνα δικαιωύῆς, 6 θεός, ἐν τῇ δικαιοσύνη σου : les jugements de Dieu font ressortir sa justice. Il est tont à fait probable que ces deux passifs représentent p55 au qal. Nouvelle indication que « être » ou « se montrer juste » pouvait êlre rendu de cette facon. Dans les Testaments des XII Patriarches, Siméon γι, 1 ὅπως δικαιωθῶ ἀπὸ τῆς ἁπαρτίας ὑμῶν « afin que je dégage ma responsabilité de votre péché » et Dan m1, 3 ϑικαιοῖ τὰ πραχθέντα, l'âme « approuve les actes » du corps, étant elle-même mal disposée. On voit combien il est peu exact de dire avec Sanday-Headlam que dans l'A. T. le mot a toujours ou presque toujours un sens forensique ou judiciaire. Cela est vrai de δικαιοῦν à l'actif, avec le sens de défendre, pour 15. L. 8. Quant au passif, on ne peut indiquer qu'un cas où le sens « être déclaré juste en justice » s'impose incontestablement (p. 125}. Dans un très grand nombre de cas, le sens est bien plutôt intransitif que passif : être juste, devenir juste, se montrer juste, faire prévaloir son droit, être innocent, impuni. Si plusieurs fois il est dit de Dieu, ce ne peut être tout au plus que dans le sens d'être reconnu juste. Si Dieu est le sujet du verbe actif, il va sans dire qu'il ne reconnaît ou déclare juste que celui qui l’est réellement. Nulle part un acquittement par gràce n'est exprimé par l'idée de rendre justice. L'usage des apocryphes comporte les mêmes nuances. Évidemment saint Paul devait tenir compte de l'usage reçu de son temps, mais on voit combien cet usage était flottant. Il lui était certes permis de se servir d'un mot très vague pour exprimer ses idées nouvelles. Et ce serait sans doute une autre exagération de penser qu'il lui ἃ donné dès le premier emploi un sens précis, toujours le même. S'il aime les situations franches, il ne répugne pas non plus à l'emploi des nuances. D'après certains auteurs, on dirait que δικαιοῦν à l'actif ct au passif doit nécessairement avoir le sens de déclarer juste ou de rendre juste. Encore le terme de « déclarer » est-il trop spécial, puisqu'il se réfère à une décision solennelle. Les exégètes catholiques ne sont pas réduits à l'option entre le sensus forensis proprement dit et le don de la justice. Partout où le sens de « déclarer » est le plus vraisemblable, celui de « reconnaitre » suffit, et il a l'avantage d'insister sur la justice objective, base du jugement. De plus il s'applique au cas où l'homme reconnait la justice de Dieu sans être proprement son juge, et il s'applique dans le courant de la vie en dehors du jugement dernier. Une première ligne de démarcation pour le sens de justifier serait donc bien placée entre le sens eschatologique proprement dit et les autres sens. S'il s'agit du jugement dernier, Paul est d'accord avec les Juifs. ἢ sera rendu par Dieu, dans des assises solennelles. Dieu jugera avec justice. Le juste sera donc déclaré juste. Mais il est déjà diflicile de distinguer les textes qui se rapportent à ce moment. Iloltzmann en reconnaît plus que l'eine, qui en reconnaît plus que Zahn. Voici la liste la plus complète : Rom. τι, 13: a, 20 ‘== Gal. τι, [0]. τὴν 30; Gal. 1, 17; er, 11 (— Rom. r, 17). 24; v, 5; 1 Cor. 1v, 4; Rom. vur, 30. 33. Je ne la discuterai pas dès à présent, pour éviter les répétitions. De ces textes je ne retiens comme franchement eschatologiques que Rom. τι, 13. Dans ce cas le sensus forensis déclaratif ressort nettement du contexte. Mais aussi δικαιοῦσθαι y paraît sire adiuncio, sans que rien indique que la justification procède d'une disposition ou se fasse au moyen d'une disposition, ou qu'elle ait iieu « devant » Dieu. Ce point acquis, a-t-on le droit d'étendre le sensus forensis à la situation du chrétien dont il est dit qu'il est justifié ou que Dieu le justifie? Autant la déclaration est à sa place au dernier jugement, autant elle serait étrange quand la justification est censée accomplie ici-bas. Sans doute Dieu est éternel et tout se passe sous son regard. Si quelqu'un est juste, il le sait, il le reconnait; il le note sur ses tablettes s'il s'agit d'une action insigne{1}. Mais pourquoi ferait-il une déclaration en justice? Les Juifs ne l’ont jamais prétendu. Ce ne serait donc pas pour se conformer à leurs idées que Paul aurait introduit cette déclaration de justice. L'a-t-il introduite dans un sens particulier? Nous pouvons demander qu'on précise ce sens. Si Dieu se prononce comme juge, il est absolument impossible qu'il déclare juste quelqu'un qui ne l'est pas. Le déclarer juste en lui imputant la justice d'autrui pourrait s'entendre, à la condition que cette justice lui soit vraiment appliquée. Sinon cela veut dire simplement que Dieu pardonne à une personne en faveur d'une autre. Mais alors que vient faire cette déclaration de justice? Dieu n'agirait plus comme juge, mais comme souverain. La formule « Dieu déclare juste l'impie » n’a plus de raison d'être, et d'autre part δικαιοῦν n'a pas le sens d'acquitter. Done, s'il y a de la part de Dieu déclaration de justice, la justice propre étant exelue, — ce qui est le cas d’après les luthériens, — cela veut dire simplement qu'il tient pour justes ceux auxquels il a appliqué la justice de Jésus-Christ. Mais si Paul ἃ pu, ce que persoune ne nie, faire allusion à cette sorte de constatation divine, il a pu aussi faire allusion à l'application elle-même, soit de la part de Dieu qui concède, soit de la part de l'homme, qui entre à tout le moins dans un rapport nouveau avec Dieu. Comment savoir s’il s’agit de constatation ou d'application? À prendre les choses du côté de l'homme, c’est-à-dire au passif, si l’homme est tenu pour juste, c'est donc « par » Dieu, et, s’il devient juste, c'est « devant » Dieu. De plus, si l'homme est tenu pour juste, c'est par un acte de Dieu seul qui ne demande aucune collaboration de sa part; si donc il est justifié au moyen d'une disposition quelconque, le sens est qu'il devient juste grâce à cette disposition. Du côté de Dieu, c'est-à-dire à l'actif, il en sera de même quant au second cas; s’il justifie au moyen d’une disposition de l'homme, ce sera donc qu'il le rend juste par ce moyen. Si aucune disposition n’est indiquée, le sens demeurera indécis, et il faudra recourir à d'autres raisons pour le déterminer. C’est sous 16 bénéfice de ces observations et en tenant compte de ces critères, qu'on examinera les cas du passif et de l'actif. Rom. ur, 4 est une citation du Ps. 11, ὁ, qui ἃ été examinée plus haut (p. 125). Rom. nr, 20 a une saveur eschatologique à cause du futur δικαιωθής σεται, mais c’est une citation libre du Ps. cxzur, 2; le futur n'a guère qu'une valeur logique. Étant donné l'état du monde, les hommes doivent s'attendre à une condamnalion, parce que personne ne sera en état d'établir sa justice « devant » Dieu : ἐνώπιον αὐτοῦ ne permet pas de traduire : « sera déclaré juste ». De même pour le où δικαιωθήσεται de Gal. πι, 16, quoique la citation soit moins complète. Rom. 11, 24 δικαιούμενοι δωρεὰν τῇ αὐτοῦ χάριτι διὰ τῆς ἀπολυτρώσεως... on pourrait traduire le début : « tenus pour justes gratuitement par sa bonté », — mais comment cette déclaration (?) se fait-elle au moyen de la rédemption? puisque la rédemption joue le rôle d’une cause instrumentale, on s’atterd à un résultat positif. Donc : « devenus actuellement justes », etc. Rom. n1, 28 confirme ce sens, car l’homme joue un rôle et la justilication se produit par la foi : λογιζόμεθα γὰρ δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἄνθρωπον... « nous estimons que l'homme devient juste par la foi », etc. Rom. 1v, 2 : « Si Abraham est devenu juste en suite de ses œuvres; il a sujet de se glorifier »; parce que l'action personnelle est mise en relief; ou tout au plus : si Abraham a été reconnu juste. Rom. v, 1 δικαιωθέντες οὖν 2x πίστεως. Les mots ἐκ πίστεως sont moins nets pour affirmer le rôle de la foi que διὰ πίστεως ou πίστει. Mais Paul a-t-il conçu le rôle de la foi de deux manières différentes? De toute façon, la foi est une disposition personnelle de celui qui a été justifié. « Reconnus justes en suite de la foi » est une traduction possibles mais « devenus justes (à un moment donné) en suite de la foi » est beaucoup plus naturel, surtout si au v. 2 τῇ πίστει est authentique (Soden sans crochets). La même idée reparaît plus loin (Rom. x1v, 17) dans un passage déjà cité, où la justice est une réalité avec la paix, comme Rom. v, 9 δικαιωθέντες νῦν ἐν τῷ αἵματι, La causalité du sang rédemp= teur suggère un effet réel dans le fidèle. On concevrait que le fidèle fût tenu pour juste à cause du sang du Christ, mais s’il est pour ainsi dire trempé dans son sang, n'est-ce pas pour s'imbiber de sa justice? Rom. vi, 7 ὃ γὰρ ἀποθανὼν δεδικαίωται ἀπὸ τῆς duapriac. Sens particulier. Ni « déclaré juste », ni « devenu juste », mais « mis hors de cause C’est une comparaison avec ce qui se passe dans le monde profane, sans portée pour la théorie paulinienne de la justification. On peut comparer Testaments des XII Patriarches, Siméon vi, 1. I Cor. 1v, 4 οὐδὲν γὰρ ἐμαυτῷ σύνοιδα, ἀλλ᾽ οὐκ ἐν τούτῳ δεδιχαίωμαι, « je n'ai conscience de rien (de coupable), maïs je ne me tiens pas pour juste à cause de cela », et non pas : « Mais je ne suis pas déclaré juste pour cela 1 Cor. νι, 11 ἀλλὰ ἀπελούσασθε, ἀλλὰ ἡγιάσθητε, ἀλλὰ ἐδικαιώθητε... « Mais vous avez été lavés, vous avez été sanctifiés (vous Ctes devenus saints), vous avez été justifiés (vous êles devenus justes) ».. Quoi de plus clair pour prouver que la justification n’est pas une déclaration extérieure distincte de la sanctification qui est intérieure ? Gal. πα, 16. Paul et les chrétiens poursuivent-ils ἀπὸ déclaration de justice ou la possession de la justice? ils savent qu'on ne devient pas juste à coup d'œuvres de la loi, mais par la foi (διὰ πίστεως) ; ils veulent donc devenir justes 2x πίστεως, ce qui marque bien que ἐκ πίστεως répond à la même idée que διὰ πίστεως, Gal. πα, 17 continue la même idée. Ce que Paul cherche « dans le Christ », c'est la justice et non point une déclaration de justice. Gal. 1x, 11 οὐδεὶς δικαιοῦται παρὰ τῷ θεῷ « personne ne peut établir sa justice devant Dieu » (à coup d'œuvres de la loi), et non pas « personne n'est déclaré juste devant Dicu », car c'est Dieu seul qui peut déclarer juste. Dans ce cas Paul eût écrit παρὰ τὸν θεόν. Gal. πι, 24 ἵνα ἐκ πίστεως δικαιωθῶμεν, Quoique le verbe indique le futur, ce n’est que relativement au temps où nous étions sous la loi, comparée à un pédagogue. Or ce temps est passé depuis l'avènement du Christ. La justification a donc eu lieu. [2116 a eu lieu en suite de la foi. Le rôle de la foi, füt-ce comme simple condition, n'est pas favorable Gal. v, 5 est un des textes qu'on interprète le plus généralement dans le sens eschatologique ({Tobac, Liet:mann, Bousset, ete.\. C'est, je pense, à Lort (avec Linsius, Cornely ele.). Le v. 4 ne peut s'entendre que du temps présent et des efforts personnels des Juifs : χαταργήθητε ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ οἵτινες ἐν νόμῳ διχαιοῦσθε, τῆς χάριτος ἐξεπέσατε « VOUS avez été détachés du Christ, vous avez été déchus de la grâce (noter les aorisies), vous qui cherchez la justice dans la loi ». Les Judéo-chrétiens ne prétendaient pas être déclarés justes gratis, mais prétendaient acquérir la justice: ils y travaillaient dès ce moment ; δικαιοῦσθε, vous vous créez où prétendez vous créer une justice légale. Il est vrai qu'à cet état Paul oppose l'espérance chrétienne : ἡμεῖς “hp πνεύματι x πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεκδεχόμεθα. Or attendre l'espérance nc siguifie pas entretenir Pespérance, mais attendre ce qui est l'objet de l'espérance, puisque l'espérance comme terme de l'attente ne peut être l'espérance subjective (cf. Tit. τὰ, 13; Rom. var, 24; Col. 1, 5). Cette espérance est déterminée par la justice. Si la justification peut être future, ouvrir les destinées éternelles, on ne peut le dire de la justice dans la doctrine de Paul. Au dernier jour, la justice est constatée, déclarée, mais non accordée. Ce n’est plus le moment. On ne doit donc pas traduire « l'espérance qui est la justice », mais « l'espérance qu'attend la justice » (déjà reçue). Il s'agit en effet d’un fidèle qui est en possession de l'esprit et qui agit ἐκ πίστεως. Ces derniers mots à eux seuls suggèrent déjà la justification, sinon comme acquise, du moins comme proche, et non comme renvoyée au dernier jour. Mais ἐν πνεύματι ne laisse pas de doute sur la justification antécédente au moment où l'espérance se développe (Rom. v, 1 55.). Tit. mx, 7 est évident dans le sens d'une justice réelle. Ι Tim. 11, 16 se dit du Christ, et n'a rien à faire avec la justification. On le voit, le passif n'exige jamais le sens déclaratif quand il s’agit de la justification, non point eschatologique, mais chrétienne. Le sens de devenir juste, par un don de Dieu évidemment, et dans le Christ, dans son sang, par sa rédemption, ce sens est souvent exigé et suffit toujours. D'autre part nous avons vu ce sens courant dans l'A. T. pour traduire l'intransitif πὸ, et dans les apocryphes, surtout dans l'Apocalypse de Baruch. Cette concordance parait tout à fait décisive, d'autant que Paul, admettant chez le fidèle ἀπὸ justice de Dieu communiquée, lui donnait ainsi une expression traditionnelle. Seulement, d'après sa doctrine, devenir juste, c'était, en réalité, ètre mis par grâce en possession de la justice. Ce sens du passif nous autorise à chercher dans l'actif quelque chose de correspondant. L'aetil, lui, ne comporte pas une solution moyenne, le sens instransitif étant naturellement exclu. Or δικαιοῦν dans l'A. T: signilie bien « déclarer juste ». Ce sera le sens de Paul, à moins qu'il n'ait changé le sens du mot en changeant l'aspect de la justice. Si Dieu la donne, pourquoi δικαιοῦν ne signifierait-il pas « rendre juste » comme tout autre verbe en dw signifie rendre tel ou tel, par exemple τυφλοῦν « rendre aveugle »? Voyons les cas. Rom. nr, 26 εἰς τὸν εἶναι αὐτὸν δίκαιον καὶ δικαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως Ἰησοῦ pourrait ètre entendu dans l’un ou dans l’autre sens, si la mention de la disposition du fidèle ne faisait pencher pour le sens de rendre juste. D'autant que tout près nous avons que ἐχ πίστεως est synonyme de διὰ πίστεως. Rom. nr, 30 6 θεὸς ὃς δικαιώσει... ἐκ πίστεως... διὰ τῆς πίστεως. Le futur suggère un sens eschatologique, mais il est exclu par la causalité de la foi qui est plus à sa place dans le temps présent qu'au jour du jugement. Dicu justifiera donc chaque fois que l’occasion s’en présentera. Puis= qu'il justifie au moyen de la foi, c'est donc pour aboutir à un effet réel dans l’âme, il rendra juste. Rom. iv, 5, « justifier l’impie » ne peut être « déclarer juste l’impie Rom. vur, 30 (05) ἐδικαίωσεν n'est point caractéristique en soi, mais doit être solutionné d'après les cas précédents, et le voisinage de ἐδόξασεν qui est certainement causatif. Donc « a rendu juste Rom. vin, 33 θεὸς ὃ δικαιῶν rappelle Is. 1, 8, et peut ètre pris dans le même sens spécial de « défendre contre d'injustes accusations ». Dieu intervient, non pas au dernier jugement, mais chaque fois que cela est nécessaire, Ou plutôt : « C'est Dieu qui donne la justice, qui donc condamnerait? » Le sens déclaratif est exclu, parce que, après une déclaration de justice, l'hypothèse d'une condamnation ne peut même pas se présenter. Gal. 111, 8 ἐκ πίστεως διχκαιοῖ τὰ ἔθνη ὁ θεός, Dieu confère la justice aux nations en suite de leur foi. Ce passage ressemble à Rom. 1x, 30, où les nations appréhendent la justice, ἔθνη δικαιοσύνην χατέλαδεν, et à Rom. v, 17, où les fidèles reçoivent le don de la justice. Nous avons tenu à interpréter δικαιοῦν, à l'actif et au passif, en laissant à l'expression toute sa souplesse. Néanmoins, lorsque le terme est en contact avec l'idée de foi, le concept prend une physionomie très particulière, celui du don et de l'obtention de la justice : δικαιοῦν est le terme qui exprime l'action de Dieu que nous avons constatée à propos de δικαιοσύνη. Cette conclusion sera plus ferme si le nom d'action tiré de ce verbe admet la même signification. Δικαίωσις figure Rom. 1v, 25 dans un contexte difficile, ἠγέρθη διὰ τὴν δικαίωσιν ἡμῶν « Jésus-Christ est ressuscité à cause de notre justification ». Or pourquoi Paul aurait-il parlé ici de la résurrection, si la justification n'était qu'une déclaration de justice? Elle résulterait bien plutôt de la mort de Jésus. La résurrection suggère l'idée de la vie. Et en effet, dans le second cas où figure δικαίωσις (Rom. x, 18) la justification est une justification de vie, c'est-à-dire qu'elle est un principe de vie. Suit le passage déjà cité sur les fidèles constitués dans la justice. Concluons donc que tout ce que dit Paul de la justice de Dieu, de la justice donnée aux fidèles, de la justification, est parfaitement homogène si nous prenons le mot justifier dans le sens de conférer la justice. Évidemment, puisque les fidèles sont justes, Dieu les tient pour justes. Mais la première idée est la principale et la racine de l’autre. Dans le système du sens forensique, c’est tout au plus si la réalité de la justice résulte de la déclaration. Pour admettre un pareil renversement de l'ordre naturel, il faudrait une bien forte raison. On croit la trouver dans le sens eschatologique fondamental de la justification. Voyons encore. Tandis que M. Holtzmann (1) ne reconnaissait aux chrétiens qu'une justice dépourvue de réalité, la réalité étant réservée au jour du jugement, M. Titius (2), prenant une position diamétralement opposée, prétend que la sentence judiciaire de justification est déjà rendue en faveur de celui qui se convertit au christianisme. Au lieu que la justice soit renvoyée, c'est la déclaration qui est avancée; et la justification étant essentiellement une déclaration, est done une notion empruntée aux fins dernières. Telle était déjà, d'après M. Tobac(3,, la préoccupation de Paul quand il était encore pharisien : quel est donc « le moyen d'arriver à Ja justice et de s'attirer un jugement favorable du Messie? » (p. 2); ct encore : « cette justification dans la théologie juive apparaît donc bien comme forensique et eschatologique; c'est le décret d’acquittement, d'admission à la vie dans le royaume messianique au jour du TETE final » (p. 14). Assurément, le messianisme, d'après quelques Juifs, devait s'ouvrir par un certain jugement. C'est encore ce que suggèrent les images employées par saint Jean-Baptiste. Mais était-ce l'opinion des Pharisiens et de la majorité des Juifs? Dès le temps des Psaumes de Salomon (environ 40 ans avant Jésus-Christ) on distinguait le messianisme temporel et les fins dernières. Les apocalypses d'Esdras et de Baruch supposent cette distinction fondamentale. Le jugement de Dieu, aprèsles temps messianiques, était dès lors vraiment le jugement final. C'est alors que serait rendue pour chacun la sentence de justification ou de condamnation, Et c'est cette conception qui avait déjà prévalu, qui allait prévaloir de plus en plus. Personne ne songeait à nier le jugement final, comprenant la déclaration de justice, la répartition du sort des justes et des méchants. On ne pouvait le transporter tout entier à l'entrée de la période messianique. A-t-on eu l’idée de le dédoubler pour ainsi dire, de placer à l’arrivée du Messie une ombre, une répétition du jugement général, une sentence d'admission aux biens messianiques"® C'est ce dont je ne vois pas trace dans les textes. Le Messie devait faire régner la justice et donner aux justes un traitement de faveur, combattre les méchants et les exterminer. Mais son règne devait être bien plutôt une époque de rénovation et de restauration que la consécration d'un état antérieur. L'ancienne vue qui mettait sur la même perspective l'avè= nement du Messie et la consommation finale niait en réalité toute période messianique temporelle distincte, si courte fût-elle : elle ne comportait qu’un jugement. Entre les deux il fallait opter. Paul ne pouvait emprunter à aucune des deux théories juives l’idée d'une déclaration de justice anticipée. Mais certains estiment que ce point devait résulter de ses vues eschatologiques. Ce n'est pas le licu de les exposer en détail. Certainement Paul a du Messianisme une idée beaucoup plus haute que les Pharisiens. Jésus, Fils de Dieu, est le consommateur de toutes choses. La vie chrétienne c'est déjà la vie éternelle commencée. Le don de l'Esprit qui accompagne la justification est un don d’infini. Cependant il ἃ maintenu aussi nettement que les Pharisiens de son temps le jugement à venir. Seulement il l'attribue au Christ aussi bien qu'à Dieu : « Car nous tous il nous faut comparaître devant le tribunal du Christ, afin que chacun reçoive ce qu'il a mérité étant dans son corps, selon ses œuvres, soit bien, soit mal » (II Cor. v, 10). C’est la doctrine constante de l'épitre aux Romains (ur, 16; xiv, 10). C'est à ce moment que se placera naturellement la déclaration de justice (Rom. 11, 13). Mais parce qu'en ce moment le sens de déclaration est à sa place, faut-il conclure que δικαιοῦσθαι aura le même sens quand il s’agit d'un fait qui se place au début de la vie chrétienne? Ce serait confondre l'acquisition de la justice pour l'exercice de la justice, propre à la vie temporelle, et la déclaration, le jugement qui termine tout. La déclaration se comprend dans le système de Luther qui a du moins le mérite d’être logique. Puisque le fidèle n’a pas de justice, il faut bien que Dieu lui en attribue une, sinon comme juste juge, du moins comme souverain. Et cette déclaration luthérienne a les deux propriétés nécessaires à une déclaration divine: elle donne la certitude et elle est irrévocable, du moins tant que dure la foi. Mais lorsqu'on reconnaît comme Titius la présence de la justice dans l'âme, d’une justice qui peut être augmentée et qui peut être perdue, sur quoi porte la déclaration de Dieu? Elle constate que le fidèle possède la justice, soit; nous admettons pleinement que celte constatation est possible et qu'elle a lieu. Mais elle se distingue de la déclaration finale parce qu'elle n'est pas promulguée de façon à donner la certitude, et parce qu'elle n’est pas définitive. Saint Paul sait qu'il n’est pas encore justifié dans ce sens; et s’il parle avec tant de confiance aux Romains de la certitude de leur salut en ce qui concerne l'assistance de Dieu, toutes ses exhortations indiquent assez que les chrétiens peuvent cesser d'être au Christ. Il serait inutile de s'étendre sur ce point qui n’est généralement pas contesté; on peut se reporter aux chapitres νι οὗ vus de cette même épitre aux Romains. Aussi M. Titius a-t-il pris soin de marquer ces différences entre la justification qui est l'union au Christ et la justifieation qui est la sentence de gloire. Mais ces différences sont précisément telles que la première justification, n'ayant plus le caractère d'une sentence promulguée οὐ définitive, n'est plus une sentence judiciaire divine. Par ailleurs l’idée de la justice possédée, reconnue, étant naturellement antérieure à l'idée de la justice consacrée par une sentence, pourquoi Paul aurait-il emprunté sa justification à la justification du dernier jour? Titius (p. 159) en donne comme indice les futurs οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι (Rom. v, 24), δικαιώσει (Rom. τι, 30), δίκαιοι χκατασταθήσονται (Rom. v, 19) à propos de la première justification comme à propos de la seconde (Rom. n1, 13); elles sont donc dans la même perspective eschatologique. Mais vraiment ce n'est pas le cas. Paul parle de la première justification tantôl comme présente, tantôt comme passéc; il peut aussi en parler au futur, car les chrétiens auxquels il s'adresse ne sont pas les derniers qui embrasseront le christianisme; ce n'est pas une raison pour confondre cette justification avec le jugement final. Nous sommes bien d'accord avec Titius sur la richesse des dons que contient la justification. C’est dans cette vue que beaucoup de commentateurs catholiques ne voient dans les chapitres vi-vuir de l'épiître aux Romains que l'exposé des fruits de la justification. Mais ce n'est point une preuve que la première justification se confonde avec la sentence définitive. Cette plénitude vient de l'union au Christ. Le messianisme est une source de biens qui doivent être mis en œuvre par le chrétien avant d'être assurés dans la gloire. La justification est certainement une assurance de salut, δικαιωθέντες... σωθησόμεθα, mais qui n’empêche pas la comparution pour une instance suprème. La justice présente emporte avec elle son espérance : ἡμεῖς γὰρ πνεύματι x πίστεως ἐλπίδα δικαιοσύνης ἀπεχδεχόμεθα (Gal. v, 5), espérance qui sera fortifiée par la patience et par l'épreuve (Rom. v, 4). Certes nous reconnaissons qu'il s'agit ici d'une opinion beaucoup moins contraire à la pensée de saint Paul que celle qui dépouille le chrétien de toute justice réelle. Car, dans un sens très vrai, cette justice est eschatologique, puisque le messianisme clôt les temps anciens et inaugure en quelque manière la vie éternelle. La nouvelle justice qui vient du Christ n'a rien de commun avec la justice qu'on cherchait dans la pratique de la loi. Mais elle ne dispense pas de la pratique des bonnes œuvres, puisque, chose étrange, l’Incarnation a pour résultat de nous permettre d'accomplir le précepte de la loi, τὸ δικαίωμα τοῦ νόμου (Rom. vu, 4). Il y aurait done imprudence à accuser trop son caractère définitif. Or qu'est-ce qu'une déclaration divine qui n'est ni connue avec certitude, ni définitive? Si on exclut ces conséquences, il n'y a vraiment qu'une raison de mettre les deux justifications sur la mème ligne en perspective, c’est l'emploi du même mot. Mais ce serait une pétition de principe, car si les situations sont si différentes, on doit plutôt estimer que le mot a deux acceptions différentes. Paul? Assurément non, d'après les usages divers du mot δικαιοῦν que nous avons reconnus. La solution la plus probable est donc qu'il s'est servi d'un mot au sens ondoyant et divers, selon que l’exigeaient des situations différentes, et que par conséquent on ne peut aflirmer le sens déclaratif en dehors du jugement dernier où il est en situation. Ce point passe pour le plus obscur de ceux qui touchent à la justification; il faudrait déjà bien des pages pour expliquer ce que Paul entend par la foi. Et cependant il semble que l'on n'est pas loin de s'accorder sur les choses. Si quelques luthériens maintiennent encore la foi qui nest que la certitude d’être en grâce avec Dieu par les mérites de J.-C., le plus grand nombre des théologiens protestants insistent bien davantage sur le véritable concept de la foi d'après saint Paul. Ils y voient, comme les catholiques, une conviction de l'esprit. Il croit, celui qui adhère aux vérités annoncées dans l'Évangile. Or personne ne regarde cette foi comme purement intellectuelle, puisque les vérités de la foi ne s'imposent pas directement à l'intelligence. Paul n’a pas examiné ce point, mais il ne pose jamais non plus le cas de l'homme qui croirait, sans tirer de sa foi aucune conséquence pratique. Celui qui croit à l'Évangile est en même temps celui qui désire l'embrasser. Parmi les vérités annoncées par FE vangile figure la mort de Jésus-Christ, source de pardon pour tous les hommes, et par conséquent, pour celui qui croit comme Paul l'entend, la foi comprend le désir du pardon. Du côté de Dieu, il y a offrande du pardon, octroi de la justice nouvelle. Celui qui croit souhaite de recevoir cette justice. La foi n'est donc pas la justice; elle est plutôt une condition pour que la justice du Christ soit appliquée. Et pourtant la foi ne saurait disparaître quand vient la justice. Elle ne cessera qu'au moment où commencera la vision. Elle est donc toujours dans l’homme le principe nécessaire à l'obtention de tous les biens messianiques, un vrai principe de vie dans le Christ (Gal. 11, 20; Π Cor. x, 5). A-t-elle pour cela changé de nature? Non, Paul ne le suggère par rien. Mais alors elle est principe d'espérance en même temps que l'Esprit (πνεύματι ἐκ πίστεως, Gal. v, 5), elle agit par la charité (Gal. v, 6). Dans ce sens elle suppose plutôt la justice, tout en conservant vis-à-vis d'elle sa situation de fondement et de principe. Je n'insiste pas sur les preuves de cette doctrine, parce que je la crois très généralement reçue, je dis mème par de nombreux protestants. Mais quel rôle exact joue la foi avant la justification, au moment où elle n'est certainement ni la justice, ni équivalente à la justice, ni agissante par la charité? Est-elle une condition sine qué& non, sans exercer aucune influence sur la justification? Est-elle au contraire une coopération de la part de l'homme ? Paul se sert de trois modes pour marquer le rapport de la foi à la justification. C'est d’abord ἐκ πίστεως, soit que l’homme soit justifié (Rom. v, 1; Gal. nr, 24), soit que Dieu justifie (Rom. 111, 30; Gal. mr, 8). Évidemment la foi est la part de l'homme. Si Dieu procède à la justification uniquement à la suite de ce fait que l'homme a la foi, il s'ensuit nécessairement que la foi est indispensable, et que c'est une préparation nécessaire. Si l'on a recours aux œuvres, point de justice: si l'on embrasse la foi, on est justifié. Je n’en conclurais pas que la foi soit une œuvre, du moins dans le sens de Paul, ni qu’elle ait droit à la justice, sans cela celle-ci ne serait pas gratuite, mais enfin une disposition de l'âme nécessaire est à tout le moins une condition qu'il faut remplir pour recevoir le don de Dieu. En tant que l'on est justifié ἐκ πίστεως, Paul semble bien dire que la justice sort de la foi, que la foi est en quelque façon la source de la justice. Comme d'autre part cette justice est la justice de Dieu, la foi n’en sera pas la source véritable et première. Peut-être Paul veut-il dire simplement qu'on n'arrive pas à la justice sans passer par la foi, àκαιοῦντα τὸν ἐκ πίστεως ᾿Γ[ησοῦ (Rom. 111, 26). Dans ce texte important, la foi, sans cesser d'être subjective, vise cependant quelque chose d'extérieur, comme l'adhésion au christianisme. Étant opposée aux œuvres, qui sont extérieures, la foi est elle aussi envisagée du dehors. Tel se présente au nom des œuvres, tel se présente au nom de 18 foi. Je ne veux pas dire par là que la profession de foi soit déjà et toujours censée consacrée par une démarche extérieure comme le baptème, mais seulement que la préposition & montre la foi comme déjà acquise, de sorte qu'on puisse la considérer en elle-même comme existante, et condition utile pour recevoir d'autres dons (Rom. m1, 30; v, 1; Gal. m1, 8, 24). Mais Paul dit aussi que Dieu justifie διὰ πίστεως (Rom. πὶ, 30) dans ce même passage où Dieu justifie ἐκ πίστεως. Διά avec le génitif indique encore plus nettement le rôle actif de la foi dans la justification. Dieu s'en sert. Aussi la justice sera-t-elle la justice au moyen de la foi, διὰ πίστεως (Rom. 111, 22; 1x, 30). On ne trouve pas que l’homme soit justifié διὰ πίστεως au passif. Et c'est, si je ne me trompe, que l'idée est alors mieux exprimée par le datif : δικαιοῦσθαι πίστει ἀνθρωπον (Rom. 111, 28), comme au contraire on ne lrouve pas le datif avec le verbe actif justifier. ΠῚ y a là une nuance un peu subtile, mais réelle ct qui ne s'explique bien qu'en meltant de côté le sens déclaratif, que nous avons reconnu {avec Zahn, Prat, etc.) incompatible avec la causalité de la foi. Sans doute, d'après Paul, l'homme n'acquiert pas la justice par ses propres moyens, mais, s'il la reçoit, c'est donc qu'il l'acquiert. Il l’acquiert πίστει, qui marque l'action personnelle du sujet du verbe : cf. ne” τῇ πίστει (Rom. 1v, 20), προσαγωγὴν ἐσγήχχμεν τῇ πίστει (Rom. v, 2; cf. Χι, 20; Phil. 1, 27; II Tim. an, 10). Tandis que Dieu donne la justice διὰ πίστεως, au moyen de la foi qu'il trouve dans celui qui reçoit la justice. L'expression πίστει est donc particulièrement forte pour désigner ce que l’homme fait de son côté et qui aboutit normalement à la demande du baptême. Le baptême consomme la justification : qui est justifié est censé avoir été baptisé (Rom. v, 1 ss.; 1 Cor. vr, 11). On voit si la foi paulinienne est active, même avant la justification. On pourrait aisément la reconnaître dans le chapitre vr du Concile de Trente (Session VI) sur le mode de préparation des adultes à la justification. Cette préparation comprend la foi intellectuelle, que nous sommes habitués à nommer spécialement la foi, mais aussi la crainte, l’espérance du pardon à cause du Christ, la contrition et le propos de recevoir le baptême. Si le Concile y ajoute un commencement d'amour de Dieu dont Paul ne parle pas expressément, c'est qu'il ne peut raisonnablement être absent du cœur de celui qui embrasse le christianisme. Dans le langage de Paul, la foi comprend tout cela, les théologiens catholiques en conviennent comme les protestants. Ces derniers sont donc contraints de reconnaitre que la part du fidèle dans la justification est dessinée par le Concile selon la doctrine mème de Paul, dont Luther s’est éloigné. Seulement ils croient prendre leur revanche en glorifiant Luther d’avoir dit que la foi seule joue un rôle dans la justification. Alors ce n’est plus qu'une question de mots. Le Concile ἃ dit anathème δὲ quis dixerit, sola fide impium tustificari, mas il ἃ eu soin d'ajouter “a ut intelligat nihil aliud requiri, quod ad iustificationis gratiam consequendam cooperetur, et nulla ex parte necesse esse eurn suae voluntatis motu praeparari atque disponi. La foi purement intellectuelle ne suffit pas; il fallait le dire, et, d’après les termes de la théologie, cela condamnait la proposition : justifié « par la foi seule » ; maïs, en constatant la nécessité d'autres dispositions, le Concile se conformait à la pensée de saint Paul, car tout cela est compris pour lui dans la foi. Dira-t-on qu'alors la justification n'est plus gratuite? Mais on ne peut le reprocher au Concile puisqu'il met en tête de tout l'appel de Dieu et sa grâce qui prévient, qui excite et qui aide, pas plus qu'à saint Paul qui regarde la foi comme un don de Dieu, et non seulement la foi principe de vie dans le Christ, mais la foi qui adhère à l'Évangile, prêché dans la vertu de Dieu et l'Esprit-Saint (1 Thess. Cette action très réelle de la foi constatée, faut-il la nommer cause instrumentale de la justification? Cette expression agrée au P. Prat (II, 330), et elle peut sans doute être acceptée; mais le Concile ne l’a pas employée de la foi et l'a réservée pour le baptème. Et il serait peut-être préférable de s'en tenir là. La justification se produit à un moment déterminé, normalement au moyen du baptême qui est aussi un acte très concret. Cela est moins net pour la foi. On ne peut nommer cause instrumentale l’Aabitus de foi intellectuelle qui ne suffit pas. Quant aux actes préparatoires qui sont requis et compris par Paul sous le nom de foi, ils sont pour la plupart sans connexion immédiate avec la justification; le dernier, celui qui demande le baptême et s'exerce en le recevant, a, moins que le baptème, le caractère d'un signe sensible et par conséquent moins le caractère d’un instrument. Mais ce qui importe bien davantage, c'est de constater avec le P. Prat que ce n'est pas la foi qui justifie, c'est Dieu qui justifie par la foi {Π|, p. 350). Le terme de foi justifiante risque d'introduire de la confusion. Si le Concile l’a employé {can. 12), c'est pour rejeter la foi justifiante telle que Luther l’entendait. La justification est donc, d’après Paul, le don de la justice fait par Dieu à celui qui a cru, demandé et reçu le baptème. Elle a dans sa pensée le caractère d'un commencement. Il admet très bien que l'on progresse dans la voie où l'on est entré, que la vie se développe, et, dans ce sens, il eüt pu parler avec le Concile de ragis iustificari. Cependant il ne l’a pas fait. Il n’a parlé de justification que dans le sens de première justification. Et c’est pourquoi, à partir du ch. vr de l'épître aux Romains, sinon dès le ch. v, la justification se range dans le plan du passé. C’est un argument sur lequel insistent les partisans du sens déclaratif, Si la justification est au passé tandis que la sanctification entre en scène et se développe, c’est donc que la justification a le caractère d'une déclaration tandis que la sanctification procède d'un principe intérieur. Nous avons renvoyé cet argument jusqu'à cet endroit parce que l'intervention de la foi οὐ du baptême dans la justification -permet de comprendre ce qu'il prouve et ce qu'il ne prouve pas. II prouve bien que la justification est un acte initial. Π est vrai que si la sainteté ou l'Esprit est donné et progresse, on peut en dire autant de la justice. Mais nous ne songeons pas à nier que l’idée de justice implique un rapport extérieur plus directement que celle de sainteté: Il est de la nature d’un rapport extérieur qu'il soit établi extérieurement, constaté une fois pour toutes. On ne grandit en justice qu'autant que la justice est identifiée à la sainteté, à la vie intérieure, à l'Esprit donné, à la grâce reçue. Mais la justice en tant qu'elle marque la restitution des rapports souhaitables entre Dieu et l'homme se rétablit et ne change plus à moins que les rapports ne soient rompus de nouveau. Voilà pourquoi la justification est, plus que la sanctification, liée à l'acte extérieur du baptême. La foi qui y dispose ἃ son point décisif au moment où les bons rapports sont rétablis. Ils sont rétablis, il est vrai, par le don de la justice qui sera désormais active pour le bien. Mais ce progrès, s’il peut être qualifié par « devenir plus juste », ne peut se traduire simplement par devenir juste, recevoir la justice. Paul a tout simplement tenu compte de cette différence, mais cette distinction ne prouve pas que la justice soit déclarative. L'idée de vie suppose bien un commencement, mais elle comporte naturellement une suite; le passage du péché à la justice s'opère en une fois. On pourra donc ranger les chapitres vi-viri de l'épitre aux Romains sous la rubrique : fruits de la justification. Mais j'aimerais mieux les qualifier : la vie chrétienne après la justification, sans donner pour cela à la justification un sens déclaratif. Mème comme infusion de la grâce elle marque un moment précis. On a beaucoup reproché aux Pères du Concile de Trente de n'avoir pas pratiqué l’exégèse historique. Il est sûr que, dans leur chapitre de la justification, ils ont moins procédé à la critique historique de saint Paul qu'à la détermination des points de foi relatifs à la justification individuelle. Faut-il rappeler qu'ils n'avaient pas autre chose à faire, puisque l'hérésie de Luther les avait amenés précisément sur ce terrain? Mais je voudrais qu'à l'occasion du quatrième centenaire de ce commentaire de l'Épitre aux Romains qui fut le point de départ du protestantisme (1515), un critique très au courant des fluctuations de la pensée de Luther les mît une fois de plus en regard de la doctrine du Concile, si ferme, si lucide, si respectueuse de la grâce, si soucieuse de sauvegarder ie libre arbitre. On verrait d'un côté une exégèse arbitraire, hypnotisée par certains mots comme la « foi {scule) », le « compter comme justice », et fermant les yeux à l'évidence de la doctrine paulinienne; de l'autre côté une synthèse théologique qui, avec quelques nuances dans les termes, ct beaucoup de précisions en plus, est cependant l'interprétation critiquement correcte de la pensée de saint Paul. Lorsque le Concile de Trente ἃ parlé de la iustitia Dei, non qua tpse iustus est, sed qua nos tustos facit,… tustitiam in nobis recipientes, il a retenu la formule constante de la tradition, formule qui rendait bien la pensée de saint Paul. CHAPITRE VI Que dirons-nous donc? Faut-il que nous demeurions dans le CHAPITRES VI-VIII, — DEUXIÈME SECTION DE LA PARTIE DOGMATIQUE LA VIE CHRÉTIENNE. D'après la partition que nous avons adoptée (cf. sur ch. v), c’est une nouvelle section qui s'ouvre ici. La justification et la sanctification sont le don de la justice de Dieu et l'exercice de cette justice. Mais, comme terme, la justification regarde le passé plus que l'avenir; c'est le sceau du pardon, la justice par la foi a détruit le péché en nous. Et cependant le péché menace encore. Autant qu'auparavant il occupe la scène. Mort au péché, le chrétien doit se soustraire complètement à ses influences et à ses entreprises. Il le peut, car il a trouvé dans le baptème le principe d'une vie nouvelle : cette vie, c'est le service de Dieu remplaçant l'esclavage du péché (νι, 1-23). Dans le conflit qui s'engage, la Loi ne servirait de rien; sous son empire, le péché imposait sa loi; c'est donc bien à la grâce seule qu'il faut demander le salut {vir, 1-25). Il ne restait plus qu'à décrire les merveilleux effets de la grâce ou de l'Esprit-Saint dans l'âme des fidèles (vrir, 1-39). CuapiTRe vi. — Vie paxs LE Carisr, sERvICE DE Dieu. Dans cette section, le chapitre vr compose une partie distincte, qui se divise elle-même en deux péricopes. La première pose le principe de la mort au péché et dela vie au Christ dans le baptême ([1-11); la seconde exhorte le chrétien à embrasser généreusement les exigences morales qui sont la suite de sa rénovation (12-23). vi, d-11. LE CHRÉTIEN, MORT ET RESSUSCITÉ AVEC LE CHRIST DANS LE BAPTÈME, NE VIT PLUS ET NE DOIT PLUS VIVRE AU PÉCHÉ, MAIS A Dieu. S'il y ἃ quelque chose de plus beau que la justification par la foi, œuvre de la bonté de Dieu, c’est la vie dans le Christ pour Dieu. Paul était d'autant plus soucieux de traiter ce sujet que sa théorie de la justification sans les œuvres pouvait être mal interprétée, et regardée comme ouvrant la porte à une sorte d'indifférence pour la morale, ou même comme une invitation à pécher pour que la grâce de Dieu abonde. C'est par cette objection, sous sa forme la plus crue, qu'il amène les développements qu'il se proposait de donner. Le chrétien demeurera-t-il dans le péché? Loin de Ἰὰ, car il est mort au péché, et vit d'une vie nouvelle en Jésus-Christ. L'objection, au v. 1, est suivie de la réponse au v. 2 qui n'est encore que négative : nous ne pouvons plus vivre au péché. Suit une considération spéculative, 3-11, et une exhortation, 12-14. La considération spéculative est à trois degrés, marqués par une allusion à ce que les chrétiens sans doute n'ignorent pas (v. 3), à ce qu'ils pénètrent sûrement (γινώσκοντες v. 6), à ce dont ils doivent prendre conscience (λογίζεσθε v. 11). Ce qu'ils n'ignorent pas, c'est que le baptême nous associe à la mort et à la résurrection du Christ (3-5); ce qu'ils pénètrent sûrement, c'est que cette mort est une mort au péché, que cette vie de la résurrection est une vie dans le Christ pour Dieu (6-10), et c'est de cela même qu'ils doivent bien prendre conscience (v. 11), comme conclusion de tout ce qui précède. L’exhortation (12-14) est une transition qui appartient plutôt à la péricope suivante. Les fidèles ne doivent donc ni servir le péché, ni faire de leurs membres des armes à son service, mais au contraire se mettre au service de Dieu. L’issue du combat sera favorable, et ce qui écartera définitivement le règne du péché, ce sera précisément celui de la grâce. (1) Theologie des Neuen Testament, 1910, p. 339-4118. (1) ΕΖ. xvr, 52, primo loco ne traduit pas le qal, mais le piël; ce cas rentre dans le-même ordre que Ez. xv1, 52, secundo loco. (1) Ryssel et Charles dans leur traduction des apocryphes ont avec toute raison traduit le syriaque par « être juste ». Charles en ἃ donné la raison : c'est que ce devait être Le texte hébreu, traduit par διχαιοῦσθαν en grec. Seulement il faudrait en conclure que δικαιοῦσθαι ne signifiait pas « to be juslified » (Apocruples, p. 493), mais simplement « être juste (1) Jubilés, xxx, 17. (1) Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, II, 1897, p. 121.148. (2) Der Paulinismus unter dem Gesichtspunkt der Seligkeit, 1900, p- 153-218. (3) Le problème de la justification dans saint Paul, Louvain, 1908.
6:4
ἐπιμένωμεν, subjonctif délibératif parfaitement en situation; ἐπιμένομεν οἱ ἐπιμενοῦμεν sont des corrections. — L'objection n'est pas purement académique. Paul sait qu'on calomnie sa doctrine (in, 8). On lui reprochait d’enseigner qu'il faut faire le mal pour amener le bien! Mais ne prête-t-il pas le flanc, en disant que Dicu lui-même a donné la Loi afin que le péché augmente (v, 20)? Il n’y ἃ qu'à entrer dans les vues du Tout-Puissant, à pécher pour lui donner le plaisir et l'honneur de pardonner! — D'après Cornely, la conclusion vaudrait pour le temps de la Loi, mais ne vaut pas, maintenant que la situation est changée. Il parait cependant impossible que Paul ait admis, pour un temps quelconque, une morale aussi relàchée. Seulement il n’a à se préoccuper que de la nouvelle économie. Le même Cornely entend par ἣ ἁμαρτία le péché originel, comme v, 20, Mais comment peut-il être question de demeurer dans le péché originel après la justification? C'est, d'après Cornely, parce qu'en continuant à pécher, on cède à la concupiseence issue du péché originel. Ces subtilités ne sont pas dans la pensée de l’objectant. Le péché est ici presque un principe du mal; on demeure dans le péché quand, sans tenir compte du pardon de Dieu, on garde un genre de vie qui comporte des péchés. — à χάρις n’est pas précisément la gräce sanctifiante, mais la bonté de Dieu qui pardonne, ayant précisément cet effet que nous nommons la grâce sanctifiante. Dans Ve. lire permaneamus avec D de, au licu de permanebimus = ἐπιμενοῦμεν. 2) Paul suppose donc que les chrétiens savent qu'ils sont morts au péché, et d’ailleurs il va l’expliquer. Nous nous considérons comme ayant rompu avec le péché aussi radicalement qu’on rompt par la mort; dès lors comment aurions-nous l'idée de vivre au péché, de continuér à pécher? Évidemment le péché n'est pas un principe de vie; toute comparaison cloche. L'opposition entre le péché et le Christ suppose précisément que c'est en le Ghrist qu'est la vie. — Soden lit ζήσωμεν au lieu de ζήσομεν, parce qu'il ne tient pas assez compte des meilleurs mss. Dans la Vg. qui enim dans le sens de quippe qui.
6:5
Paul suppose que les chrétiens savent ce qu’il va dire, maïs cette tournure n’empèche pas qu'il ait conscience d'enseigner une vérité qui n'a pas été suffisamment approfondie. Le baptème nous conduit au Christ pour lui être unis, et cette union commence par l'union à sa mort. Paul ne dit jamais que nous naissons avec le Christ. que nous sommes baptisés avec lui (Corn. C'est que pour vivre avec le Christ nous de*ons d'abord mourir au péché. et nous mourons au péché en nous unissant à la mort du Christ qui en délivre. C'est notre vrai point de départ, celui où nous revëtons le Christ (Gal. ur, 27. Des lors nous sommes crucifiés avec lui (v. 6: Gal. π, 20): morts avec lui (11 Tim. n, 111, ensevelis avec lui (v. 4; Col. n, 12», viifiés et ressuscités avec lui (Eph. n, 5 s.; Col. 11, 18), vivants avec lui (v. 8; II Tim. 11, 121, ses cohéritiers (vur, 17); glorifiés avec lui (vnr. 17), assis avec lni dans le ciel (Eph. π. 61, régnant avec lui (11 Tim. π|, 12). Le baptême était une image de la mort, parce qu'on était complètement plongé dans l'eau; quand on sortait de l’eau, on venait à une nouvelle existence. Rien ne prouve que la formule baptismale ait indiqué l'union au Christ. Les chrétiens savaient qu'en se plongeant dans l'eau ils se plongeaient dans le Christ, et spécialement dans sa mort. Déjà dans 5. Paul, βαπτισθῆναι, c’est avoir recu le baptème. Le P. Prat (II, 3981 suppose qu'ici, en raison du contente, le mot doit être pris au sens primitif d'être plongé. Mais cela n'est pas nécessaire, il suflit que ce sens primitif n'ait pas été perdu de vue pour que le symbolisme ait été compris. Les anciens protestants ne xoyaient dans Funion qu'un symbole : de nombreux critiques reconnaissent aujourd'hui duns les expressions de Paul une union, mystique sans doute, mais très réelle avec le Christ (voir la note qui suit cette péricope). é Vy. an à corriger en aut; in Christo Jesu — in Christum Jesum; in morte — in mortem eius. La traduction latine par l'ablatif Christo a gèné l'exégèse τ de ce passage. Par exemple les trois sens de 5. Thomas pour ἐπ Christo Jesu, secundum institutionem Jesu, per invocationem Jesu, in quadam conformitate ad Christum, ne rendent pas toute la force de l'expression, qui marque une tendance vers le Christ pour lui être uni. ῃ ἃ Lire οὖν et non pas γάρ, quine se trouve dans aucun ms. grec, maïs est seulement représenté par dr Ty. pes. Orig., Cyrille d'Al (Soden). Γάρ signifierait : nous sommes morts, puisque nous avons été ensevelis; preuve a posteriori par trop évidente. Avec οὖν il s'agit d'une conséquence facile à tirer : étant morts, nous avons été ensevelis. L'immersion totale donne l'impression d’une mise au tombeau. C'est peut-être dans ce sentiment qu'aujourd'hui encore de nombreux pèlerins grecs et russes vont prendre un bain dans le Jourdain le jour de l'Épiphanie, enveloppés dans des peignoirs en toile qu’ils remportent pour leur servir de suaires après la mort. — Il est très naturel de joindre εἰς τὸν θάνατον avec βαπτίσματος, d'autant que l’ensevelissement ne conduit pas à la mort (Corn., Lips. etc.), mais alors c’est une répétition du v. 3. On peut préférer la construction plus diflieile avec συνετάgquev, parce que l'idée de Paul est que le baptême, qu'il soit considéré comme une mort ou comme une sépulture, produit la mort au péché (SH.). Thomas : corporaliter aliquis prius moritur, et postea sepelitur (c'est l'objection}; sed spiritualiter sepultura baptismi causat mortem peccati. Ce doit être la pensée du traducteur latin, qui cette fois ἃ mis ἐπ mortem. Maïs le baptême n'est pas seulement une immersion; il est aussi une émersion, qui rappelle la résurrection du Christ. Le Christ a été ressuscité διὰ τῆς δόξης τοῦ Πατρός, la résurrection étant ordinairement attribuée à la vertu du Père (πν, 24; 11 Cor. xur, 4; Eph. 1, 19 s.; Col. n, 13), cette vertu est ici nommée gloire, éd est per virtutem Patris, er qua ipse Pater glorificatur (Thomas); cf. Jo. x1, 23, à propos de la résurrection de Lazare : ὄψη τὴν δόξαν τοῦ Θεοῦ, Le parallélisme strict eût amené : afin que nous ressuscitions aussi. Mais Paul, pensant toujours au péché, revient à l’antithèse du v. 2, et dépasse pour ainsi dire la résurrection symbolique pour arriver aussitôt à la pratique de la vie nouvelle (οἷ. Gal. v, 16). Dans la Ve., au lieu de enim, lire égitur; au lieu de surrerit, lire suscitatus est (Corn.). δ) D'après beaucoup d'anciens (Tert., Chrys., Euth., Thomas\ et quelques modernes (Zietz.), Paul fait ici allusion à la résurrection glorieuse future, On insiste sur ce que dans le second membre, Paul ne répète pas τῷ ὁμοιώματι, il faut donc entendre σύμφυτοι τῆς ἀναστάσεως, participants à la résurrection d'une facon réelle, et dans l'avenir, ἐσόμεθα. Cette pensée est juste en ellemême, mais, dans toute cette péricope, Paul n'a en vue que la vie actuelle des chrétiens. Le mot γάρ indique bien que loin de passer à une nouvelle idée, il revient à la résurrection qu'il avait supposée accomplie, pour conlirmer ce qu'il vient de dire. Il admet sans hésiter que le baptême opère une véritable résurrection mystique (Col. τι, 12; Eph. n, 5 s.}). C'est de celle-là qu'il parle ici. — σύμφυτοι se dit de choses qui ont graedi ensemble, surtout des plantes. Le terme est assez vague, et indique la participation à la même destinée qui, s’il s'agit des plantes, peut aller jusqu'à l'union par la greffe. Dhéophr. (De caus. plant. V, v, 2) : σύμφυτον γὰρ πᾶν τὸ ζῶν τῷ ζῶντι, καὶ μάλιστα ὁμογενές, ὅταν ἀφελχωθῇ, χαὶ γένηται μία φύσις. Peut-être saint Paul a-t-il pensé à la greffe, mais il ne l'a pas dit; cependant complantati ne dit pas assez; ce serait (cum aliquo) complantati coaluimus. L'idée, tout le monde en convient, est que nous sommes, par le baptême, unis au Christ d'une façon mystique, de façon à éprouver les effets de sa mort et de sa résurrection. Mais on se demande quelle est la construction grammaticale? D'après les uns, il faut sous-entendre ἐν Χριστῷ et prendre τῷ ὁμοιώματι comme un datif instrumental (Corn., Jülicher etc.), d'autres font de τῷ ὁμοιώματι le régime de σύμφυτοι : id est εἰ ἐπ nobis assumamus similitudinem mortis eius, ut ei incorporemur (Tho= mas). Dans les deux opinions {si l'on exclut la résurrection glorieuse) il faut suppléer τῷ ὁμοιώματι avant τῆς ἀναστάσεως. Le premier mode rend mieux le sens; le second est plus rapproché du texte; il faut choisir entre une construction elliptique et une alliance de mots obscure : « associés [au Christ] par la ressemblance de sa mort » etc., ou « associés à la ressemblance de sa mort ». On préfère le premier mode comme plus naturel et plus clair. ἐσόμεθα, futur objecté par les partisans de la résurrection glorieuse, peut s'expliquer soit dans le sens d’une conclusion logique : « quiconque est brave sera récompensé », soit en prenant l'association à Ia résurrection, moins comme à un acte déjà accompli dans le baptême, que comme à une pratique de vie ressuscitée qui s'impose au chrétien; et en effet la pensée continue dans ce sens au v. 6. Dans la Ve. complantati (consati, Tert. Res. 47) est en somme plus conforme à σύμφυτοι que énstititii (ffrasme) qui tranche dans le sens de greffe. Simul est à remplacer par sed (Tert., Aug.), ou par sic (Aug.) ou par cta (7 6 }1.).
6:6
Par γινώσχοντες, Paul ne fail pas appel comme au v. 3 aux connaissances spéculatives des chrétiens, mais les invite à réfléchir : « prenant conscience de ce fait ». « Le vieil homme » est un mot propre à Paul (Eph. τν, 22; Col. 10, 9), et probablement forgé par lui, maïs qui correspond bien à l'idée du Maître sur la nécessité de ne pas mêler le nouveau et l'ancien (ME 1x, 46; Me. n, 21; Le. v, 36). Le vieil homme est celui qui était sous la domination du péché et exposé à la colère. Il a été crucifié avec le Christ (cf. Gal: 20), c'est-à-dire qu'il est mort avec lui de cette mort douloureuse par laquelle le Christ a détruit le domaine du péché. Son corps qui était alors un corps de péché, c'est-à-dire adonné au péché, doit être réduit à l'impuissance (καταργηθῇ) comme tel. Des deux propositions finales, ἵνα et τοῦ μηχέτι δουλεύειν, la seconde est celle qui marque le plus énergiquement la finalité. Le but à atteindre, ce quivfait l'objet de toute la péricope, c’est que nous ne servions plus le péché, consi= déré comme une personne. Lui vit donc toujours; ce n’est done pas luiqui a été détruit en personne ou crucifié, c'est notre corps à nous en tant qu'assu= jetti au péché. Étant crucifié et donc mort, il ne peut plus être sous l'empire de personne, comme le prouvera le v. 7. Il y a quelque chose de changé"en nous, et, à ce point de vue, les anciens n'avaient pas tort de voir ici un des effets du baptême, la destruction du péché. Mais il serait contre la pensée de Paul d'entendre le corps du péché de l’ensemble des péchés (ipsa congeries malorum operum, Thom.}; et il s’en expliquera (v. 42. 18; cf. Col. ir, 11) encore plus clairement. τῆς ἁμαρτίας est donc un génitif d’appartenance, comme vir, 24, τοῦ σώματος τοῦ θανάτου τούτου, Lire ut ultra avec WW. au lieu de et ultra (Vg.-Clém.).
6:7
Ce verset ἃ été interprété de bien des manières selon le sens qu'on donne à ἀποθανών et à δεδιχαίωται, mais on peut dire que le sens du second mot est déterminé par celui du premier. D'après 5. Basile, 5. Thomas etc., il s'agit de la mort mystique et de la justification. Thom. : qui enim mortuus est, peccato scilicet per baptismum, tustificatus est a peccato; id est, remissis peccatis translatus est in statum iustitiae. Ce sens ἃ été repris par Reitzenstein, Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, p. 103, qui insiste seulement sur le caractère volontaire de cette mort, ni naturelle, ni seulement symbolique, mais réelle par le passage de l'injustice à la justice, qui toutes deux ont leur réalité dans l'homme. Cornely objecte que Paul ne {raite pas ici de la rémission des péchés, mais de l'affranchissement de la servitude du péché; et l'argument est bon, parce que δεδικαίωται ne peut se traduire « être affranchi ». De plus le sens de mort mystique, avec γάρ atténué, ne serait guère qu'une tautologie après ce qui précède; si Paul eût voulu en faire une conclusion, il eût écrit οὖν et non γάρ. — Si γάρ ἃ son sens propre, il indique la raison pour laquelle la mort mystique est une mort au péché. Cette raison doit être tirée d’un ordre différent, de l’ordre naturel qui sert de base à la comparaison. Le mot ἀποθανών étant général, on n'a pas à supposer une exécution Capitale qui expierait le péché. Il s'agit donc d'un axiome général. Quand un coupable est mort, fût-il en prison et la procédure commencée, on le déclare net de tout crime (Crys. et ses disciples). Cependant δικαιοῦσθαι ne doit pas s'entendre d’une déclaration de justice, mais d'une mise hors de cause, la procédure est supprimée, comme pour un non-lieu. La mème idée se trouve 1 Pet. rv, 1 : ὅτι ὁ παθὼν σαρχὶ πέπαυται ἁμαρτίας, et une idée analogue dans ὦ. Chabbath, 302: 1512; Nidda, 61 : « quand un homme est mort, il est libéré de la Loi et des commandements » (cité par Delitzsch)., Si Ia mort naturelle affranchit l'homme de sa dette envers le péché, il doit en être de même de la mort mystique. Seulement on est étonné que Paul ait donné cette raison un peu triviale, au lieu de dire que la mort mystique nous délivre de la servitude du péché, parce qu'elle est une union à la mort du Christ qui ἃ vaincu le péché. La raison est sans doute qu'il a voulu s’appuyer sur un principe très général, applicable même au Christ, car il va nous dire que le Christ lui-même, d’une certaine façon, ἃ payé par la mort la dette qu'il avait contractée envers le péché.
6:8
Le v. 5 avait parlé de l'union à la mort et à la résurrection du Christ. Dans les vv. 6 et 7 Paul ἃ insisté sur la mort, il passe maintenant à la vie {Lips., Corn.). 11 s'agit de la vie nouvelle du chrétien, non de la résurrection future. IL est vrai que cette dernière n’est pas absente de la perspective, et qu'elle est très spécialement un objet de foi, mais πιστεύομεν a ici le sens de avoir confiance (Corn.}, et le v. 11 montre bien que Paul ἃ toujours en vue la rénovation morale. La vie spirituelle dans le Christ est commencée; c'est, de sa nature, une vie éternelle, puisqu'elle est à l'image de la vie ressuscitée du Christ, ou plutôt unie à celle du Christ, συνζήσομεν, plus fort que simul Dans Vg. sémul est inutile. Le traducteur a sans doute pensé que vivemus cum ne rendait pas assez συνζήσομεν, Cum illo (Tert. etc.) serait plus conforme au grec que cum Christo. Convivere cum ne dirait rien de plus.
6:9
Le Christ ressuscité ne meurt plus, la mort n'a plus d'empire sur lui. La résurrection du Christ n'est pas un Simple miracle, comme celle de Lazare, mais une entrée dans la gloire. Aussi bien le Christ n'était assujetti à la mort qu'à cause du péché qui avait fait entrer la mort dans le monde. Les corrections de WW. surgens a mortuis pour resurgens ex mortuis (Vg.-Clém.\ ne suffisent pas à rendre le texte grec. Il faudrait : suscitatus ex mortuis. Lire dominatur au lieu de dominabitur.
6:10
On est d'accord que 6 est un relatif à l’accusatif : τὸν θάνατον ὃν ἀπέθανε (Euth.), et que la virgule doit précéder τῇ ἁμαρτίᾳ. — ἐφάπαξ « une fois pour toutes » ne fait pas difficulté. Mais comment le Christ est-il mort au péché? Je ne sais ce que veut dire le P. Prat (I, 311 s.) en traduisant que le Christ est mort « par le péché ». D'après le contexte, il n’est pas non plus question de l’expiation de nos péchés. Le péché régnait et avait le droit d'infliger à tous la mort. Le Christ, en s’incarnant, a accepté de subir cette loi, mais, en lui infligeant la mort, le péché a épuisé son droit. Dans I Pet. mr, 18, on lit Χριστὸς ἅπαξ περὶ τῶν ἁμαρτίων ἀπέθανεν, mais Paul, en employant le datif, comme pour ζῇ τῷ θεῷ, ἃ marqué une sorte d'appartenance du Christ envers le péché, appartenance dont il est désormais affranchi, ayant payé sa dette par sa mort. Cela paraîtrait un blasphème, si ce n'était expliqué par Paul lui-même 11 Cor. x, 21: τὸν μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν. D'ail= leurs entre la mort et la vie il y a cette différence que la mort ἃ affranchile Christ de l'obligation qu'il avait contractée pour nous, tandis qu'il vit toujours pour Dieu et en Dieu. Le Fg. doit être ponctuée comme le grec : quod enim mortuus est, peccato etc. (WW.).
6:11
Le Christ en partageant si étroitement notre destinée, nous autorise à raisonner de nous comme de lui. L’exhortation proprement dite ne commence qu'au v. 12, mais elle est préparée par une considération que Paul recommande aux chrétiens, λογίζεσῆε étant à l'impératif (presque tous) et non à l'indicatif (Zips.). Avant le baptême, les hommes, à la différence du Christ, avaient à mourir personnellement au péché, car ils vivaient, eux, pour le péché; mais cette mort est accomplie par le baptême, les chrétiens doivent se le dire, et se regarder aussi comme désormais vivant pour Dieu, dans le Christ Jésus. Soden ἃ mis dans le texte, même sans crochets, τῷ Κυρίῳ ἡμῶν, La Ve.- Clé. a aussi domino nostro. Mais l'addition est rayée par W W., et n'appartient sûrement pas à 15. ni probablement au texte grec authentique. NoTE sur LE BAPTÈME. — La péricope Rom. νι, 1-11 est la plus importante de celles où Paul ἃ parlé du baptème chrétien. L'Église a toujours vu dans son texte l'indication d'un sacrement, c'est-à-dire d'un signe sensible ou symbole, mais qui opère ce qu'il signilie, er opere operato. Dans le protestantisme on a longtemps aflirmé que Paul ne parle que d'un symbole. C'est encore l'opinion de Clemen (Der Eïinfluss der Mysterienreligionen auf das älieste Christentum, p. 34ss.), de Kühl (Commentaire ad h. L.). Clemen admet que les textes de Paul, pris isolément, peuvent avoir le sens sacramentel, mais ils ne l'ont pas en réalité, car l'idée d'un sacrement s'accorde mal avec la justification par la foi. C'est la foi qui justifie, c'est par la foi qu'on s'unit à la mort et à la résurrection du Christ; le baptème n'est qu'un symbole de ces faits. C'est aussi l'opinion de Kühl; même si l'union au Christ devait être regardée comme réelle, elle ne découlerait pas du baptème. C'était le principe de Luther que le baptème signifiait seulement le transfert juridique de l’affranchissement du péché par la mort de Jésus. Mais aujourd'hui l’opinion dominante de beaucoup parmi les critiques indépendants du protestantisme, c'est que Paul avait en vue un véritable sacrement, opérant par lui-même. On peut citer Holtzmann (TAeolozie, 11, 179), et de plus en plus nettement, Heïtmüller | Tau/e und Abendmahl bei Paulus, 9 ss.), Lietzmann (Commentaire), Schweitzer (op. L. 162), Bousset (Ayrios Christos, 146). Seulement, pour plusieurs, sacramentel est synonyme de magique, et ious ne consentent pas à attribuer à Paul une conception magique des sacrements qui serait empruntée aux mystères païens, comme le fait Reitzenstein (Die hellenistischen Mysterienreligionen, 77 ss.). D'après Lietzmann, par exemple, la conséquence logique de l'effet sacramentel eût été de garantir absolument la vie éternelle, quelle que soit la moralité des actions subséquentes. C'était en vertu de ce principe que certains Corinthiens se faisaient baptiser pour les morts (1 Cor. xv, 29} et que les Thessaloniciens s'étonnaient qu'on mourût après le baptême (T Thess. 1v, 13 s.). Paul admettait comme eux un changement réel dans la nature, opéré par le baptême, mais son sens pratique l'emportant, au lieu de tirer des conclusions de l'ordre physique, il exhortait à mener une vie nouvelle, renvoyant à plus tard la véritable résurrection (v, 5, d’après son interprétation). Paul cependant a évité de dire que le chrétien pouvait retomber dans la mort du péché; il espère le triomphe. Sa théorie est donc peu conséquente avec elle-même; il a trouvé une pratique d'initiation avec des effets magiques reconnus, qu'il a accordée tant bien que mal avec sa doctrine de la justification par la foi. La théorie nouvelle, même adoucie sous cette forme, est une réaction exagérée contre le symbolisme luthérien; elle confond magique et Le principe de la magie est que le semblable opère le semblable. Par exemple en versant de l'eau on attire la pluie; en perçant une statuette de cire, on amène la mort de la personne qu’elle représente. C’est une sorte d'action naturelle, mise en mouvement par la volonté de l’homme; quand le rite est accompli, ce qu'il signifie s'opère nécessairement dans la nature. L’homme impose ainsi sa volonté, même aux dieux. Si le rite est censé institué par le dieu, ce n’est plus de la magie pure. Dans le sacrement chrétien, il Υ a aussi une certaine proportion entre le signe et l'effet produit, avec une relation nécessaire, mais en vertu d'une institution divine et pour produire un effet surnaturel. Or, quoi qu'il en soit de certains fidèles de Corinthe et de Thessalonique, Paul n'attachait évidemment pas au baptême une eflicacité nécessaire dans l'ordre naturel. Il ne pensait pas que la nature fût changée, que l'homme fût devenu immortel, ni que ses actions fussent indifférentes (I Cor. x, 1-12), puisqu'il part du baptème pour exhorter les baptisés à une vie nouvelle. S'il n’a pas dit son sentiment sur le baptême pour les morts, ce n’est pas une raison de croire qu'il l'ait approuvé. Il est bien vrai qu'il attribue au baptême une action réelle, mais une action mystique, qui fait de l’homme assujetti au péché un homme affranchi de la vie du péché, associé, d’une façon secrète, d’abord à la mort, puis à la résurrection du Christ; que cette mort ne soit pas naturelle, cela est assez évident, la résurrection ne l'est pas non plus. Ces effets admirables, découlant de l'union au Christ, sont au-dessus de l’ordre de la nature; la cause l’est donc aussi. Le baptême est pour Paul précisément ce qu'entend l'Église, avec son effet réel, sacramentel, mais nullement magique. Mais il est très vrai, comme en conviennent Schweitzer, Lietzmann, Bousset, Clemen, Kühl, que cet effet du baptême n’est point une conséquence de la justification par la foi. On peut dire dans ce sens que Paul n'aurait point abouti par une conclusion logique de cette justification au sacrement de baptême. Il l’a trouvé institué, déjà entendu comme institution sacramentelle, οἱ tel qu'il l’a expliqué lui-même. Il nous dit en eflet que les fidèles en connaissaient le symbolisme. Cependant ce n'est pas celui qui se présente le premier à l'esprit. Comme signe sensible, le baptême est un bain; on emploie l’eau pour laver, nettoyer, purifier; d'où l'on pouvait conclure très naturellement, par symbolisme, au nettoyage de l'âme, purifiée de ses péchés. Paul n'ignore pas ce symbolisme ([ Cor. νι, 11; Eph. v, 26; Tit. πὶ, 5), mais ce n'est pas celui qu'il présente ici. Schweitzer a pensé que, résolu à trouver dans le baptême l'union au Christ souffrant et ressuscité, il a créé lui-même un symbolisme peu naturel. Mais c'est aller contre l'aflirmation assez claire de Paul (v. 3). Donc, avant lui, l'Église primitive regardait le baptème comme une union au Christ mort et ressuscité; en d’autres termes, le baptême était déjà un rite d'initiation, car il est de la nature du rite d'initiation d’unir au dieu, au culte duquel on est initié. Si donc on objecte que ce symbolisme n'est pas aussi expressif que celui de la purification, on peut le concéder. Précisément parce qu'il ne s'agit pas d'un rite magique, où la ressemblance opère par ellemême, il n’est pas nécessaire que le rite en action soit comme une traduction complète des effets qu'il produit. Le sacrement est un don de Dieu de l’ordre surnaturel qui opère plus que la nature ne peut signifier, et c'est même pour cela que la forme est unie à la matière, pour suppléer en quelque façon à ce que l’action aurait d'ebscur sans les paroles. Même avec la forme, le sacrement donne plus qu'il ne représente. Le pur symbolisme était celui de la rémission des péchés. Mais le baptème était une démarche qui associait au groupe des chrétiens, et dans l'union au Christ. Puisqu'il s'agissait à la fois d'union au Christ et de rémission des péchés, c'était done une union au Christ souffrant et ressuscité. L'idée d'une nouvelle naissance n’a été signalée par Paul que plus tard (Tit. 1, 5) et celle d'une illumination n’a été bien dégagée qu'après les apôtres. Nous avons vu par le commentaire que l'immersion et l'émersion représentent assez bien le chrétien mort et ressuscité, mais peut-être l'union dans le baptème au Christ souffrant et ressuscité a-t-elle été comprise des fidèles avant mème qu'ils aient perçu le rapport sensible du rite et de l'effet. Nous n'avons pas ici à remonter plus haut pour rechercher les origines du baptême chrétien. Le symbolisme de l’ablution des péchés se retrouve ailleurs, mais on n'a rien indiqué qui rappelle dans les mystères l'union par le baptème à un dieu mort et ressuscité. Et quant aux scrupules de Clemen et de Kühl qui se demandent comment l'effet sacramentel du baptème se concilie avec la justification par la foi, M. Loisy y a très bien répondu : « Le même esprit qui a ressuscité Jésus ressuscite le fidèle, et c'est dans l'acte même de l'ini- 12 Que le péché ne règne donc pas dans votre corps mortel, de tiation par le baptème que se réalise la justification par la foi, parce que le fidèle voit alors par la foi réalisées mystiquement en lui la mort et la résurrection du Christ divin. La justification par la foi n'est pas conçue indépendamment du rite qui est le symbole même de la foi dont il s'agit : la question de savoir si Dieu justifie le chrétien pour sa foi, sans égard au symbole, ne se pose même pas, car c'est dans le symbole que se détermine la foi du chrétien au Christ rédempteur, et c'est dans le symbole, c’est dans le baptème que le croyant apparaît aux yeux de Dieu même comme identifié au Christ en qui et par qui est mort le péché. Parlant justification avec les Juifs, et comme les Juifs, et contre eux, lorsqu'il oppose le salut chrétien à la conception juive, toute juridique, du salut par l'observation exacte de [ἃ Loi, Paul semble rattacher le salut à la foi seule; mais, quand il parle christianisme aux chrétiens, il envisage en elle-même l'économie du salut et il montre la foi recevant dans le baptème et par le baptême la justification et le don de l'esprit qui est la vie du Christ dans le croyant » (L'initiation chrétienne, dans la Revue d'histoire et de littérature religieuses, 1914, p. 198 s.). Il ne se peut rien dire de plus fort pour donner à la justification son véritable caractère, à l'encontre des théories protestantes. Pour être complètement exact il faut cependant distinguer plus nettement que ne fait M. Loisy entre le symbole et le fait du baptême. Son argument décisif est que la foi ne se peut concevoir sans l'adhésion au symbole, et il est certain que normalement cette adhésion se réalise au baptème. Mais il faut réserver le cas où la foi parfaite devancerait le baptême, et le cas où le baptème ne pourrait être administré. Dans ces cas les termes de Paul qui « semble attacher le salut à la foi seule » autorisent en effet à penser que dès lors la justification est acquise. Mais l'harmonie demeure entre l'effet de la foi et l'effet du baptême, parce que le désir du baptème est toujours nécessairement inclus dans cette foi. C'est aussi la doctrine de l'Église qui a donc bien embrassé dans sa théologie toutes les modalités de la doctrine de 5. Paul : le baptême reste efficace et nécessaire sans être cependant indispensable en fait à la justification, sacrement et non rite magique.
6:12
D'après les Grecs, Paul dit βασιλεύειν non τυραννεύειν, δεικνύων ὅτι: ξχόντων βασιλεύει, καὶ οὐκ ἀπὸ τῆς οἰχείας δυναμέως, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ϑασιλευομένων ἐχθυμίας (Euth.). Le tyran impose son pouvoir de force, le roi ne peut établir son pouvoir que du consentement de ceux qui l'acceptent. C’est un peu subtil. Le règne du péché est acquis quand il s'établit sur l'âme, lorsqu'elle obéit aux mauvais désirs en y cédant. Mais c’est ordinairement par le corps que viennent les tentations du nouveau converti. L'esprit qui s’est donné à Dieu dans le Christ garderait sa ferveur, si le corps, qui a été un corps de péché, n'était encore enclin à ses anciennes habitudes. Paul le nomme un corps mortel, pour rappeler que malgré l'état mystique de résurrection le corps n'a pas changé de nature; il a encore son entrainement vers la volupté, la mollesse, le désir des richesses pour satisfaire ses passions. Obéir à ces concupiscences serait se soumettre au règne du péché; c'est ainsi que jadis Dicu, pour punir les hommes, les ἃ livrés aux désirs de leurs cœurs (1, 2%), désirs que Paul nomme ailleurs les désirs de la chair (Gal. v, 16; Eph. πὶ 8). S. Thomas : obedire enim per consensum mentis econcupiscentiis peccati, est peccalum regnare in nobis. Donc l'obéissance aux concupiscences ne marque pas la fin poursuivie par le péché (Lips), mais plutôt le moyen dont il se sert, en d'autres termes εἰς τό avec l’infinitif n'a pas le sens final. Les Latins ont compris les concupiscences du péché, eius, sc. peccati, contresens favorable à l'idée qu'il s'agit ici du péché originel. Il est plus juste de dire que le fomes survivant au péché originel, et exprimé par les désirs du Corps (αὐτοῦ masc., ἁμαρτία fém.), est comme un point de départ pour le règne du péché personnifié.
6:13
L'opposition du prés. παριστάνετε et de l'aor. παραστήσατε est voulue. L’aoriste étant un temps historique qui note un fait dans son accomplissement transitoire, παραστήσατε signilie : « donnez-vous maintenant une bonne fois », et μηδὲ πχριστάνετε « ne vous laissez pas aller dans les occasions à faire... — ὅπλα en grec peut signifier « instruments », mais dans le N. T. il s'agit toujours d'armes, et c’est le sens ici, où il s’agit d'un règne à étendre. Dans les cités antiques, le premier soin du simple particulier devenu le maitre, était de prendre des gardes du corps armés pour soutenir sa domination. Ainsi le péché souhaiterait que les membres du corps fussent des armes à sa disposition, des armes destinées à faire prévaloir l'injustice dans l’homme qui est lui-même l'enjeu et le théâtre du combat. Et en effet la perpétration extérieure du péché achève d'établir le règne du péché. — ἀδικία ne marque pas l'injustice proprement dite, à l'égard du prochain; le mot a été choisi, par opposition à δικαιοσύνη, dans le sens vague de 1, 18. — &ssl non pas « comme si vous étiez », mais « étant, comme vous l'êtes ». — Cette fois les armes sont des armes de justice, c’est-à-dire de sainteté, qui s'emploient d'une manière sainte (dans les deux cas, génit. de qualité) au service de Dieu.
6:14
ἁμαρτία, quoique sans art., est toujours le même péché personnifé; c'est même pour cela qu'il peut se passer d'article, comme νόμος, χάρις. κυριεύσει ne peut exprimer une certitude qui serait contre l'esprit de l’exhortation, mais une espérance très confiante. Le premier γάρ n’est pas très expressif, mais le second donne bien la raison de cette espérance. Cette raison serait très énigmatique si elle n'avait son explication d'avance, dans ν, 20. La Loi n’est d'aucun secours dans la lutte contre le péché : tout au contraire; mais vous n'êtes plus sous le régime de la Loi, vous êtes sous le régime de la grâce, qui règne pour vous conduire à la vie éternelle. Cette petite phrase est placée là comme une pierre d'attente pour des explications ultérieures, mais surtout elle ferme la péricope par une sorte d'inclusio. Le v. 1 demandait insolemment s'il fallait donc demeurer dans le péché, pour que la grâce abonde; Paul conclut maintenant que bien au contraire le péché sera vaincu parce qu'on est sous le régime de la grâce. Tout ce passage renferme d'utiles enseignements pour la direction des convertis. La réforme des habitudes extérieures importe beaucoup à leur perfection. Il faut que les sens qui les ont entraînés au péché subissent une discipline sévère, et le plus sûr garant qu'ils ne se laisseront pas aller insensiblement à servir d'instruments au péché, c'est de les mettre résolument «au service de Dieu par des actions saintes et charitables.
6:15
L’objection rappelle celle du v.1, maïs la forme en est réglée chacune des deux fois par la considération qui précède. Dans le premier cas, on se demandait s’il fallait rester dans le péché, afin que la grâce abonde davantage et sans doute aussi se manifeste plus ouvertement. Réponse : non, car nous avons déjà en fait quitté le péché par le baptême et même nous avons commencé une nouvelle vie, qui est sous la grâce, v. 15. D'où la seconde objection : que risquerions-nous à pécher encore, puisque nous sommes sous la grâce; serait-ce même pécher, puisque nous ne sommes plus sous la Loi? Les initiés sont souvent enclins à exagérer les avantages de l'initiation. Devenus les intimes du dieu, sinon divinisés, ils peuvent tout se permettre. Si quelque chrétien avait partagé cette grossière erreur morale de certains païens, Paul se chargerail de le rappeler à la vérité. On sait que la doctrine de Luther sur la foi et la justice imputée a produit plus d'un désordre moral. WW. ont cru devoir lire peccavimus au lieu de peccabimus (Fs.-Clém.). La leçon peccavimus est, paraît-il, celle du beaucoup plus grand nombre des mss. Elle est antérieure à la Po. (e # Ambrst. [commentaire]}, mais il serait bien étonnant qu'elle ait été adoptée par Jérôme; elle n'a d'appui en grec que F G (ἡμαρτήσαμεν) qui sont notoirement latinisants. ΠῚ faudrait donc conserver peccabimus qui rend assez bien le subjonctif délibératif (ou écrire peccemus}), quand bien même il serait prouvé que la tradition hiéronymienne contenait ce non-sens occasionné par la prononciation du ὁ par e.
6:16
Le stoïcien regardait lui aussi comme un esclavage et le pire de tous (Épict. IV, 1, 173 : δοῦλος ἐν δούλοις) d'obéir aux passions; mais le sage était libre. Pour 5. Paul, l'alternative est d’obéir au péché, personnifié comme toujours, ou d'obéir à Dieu. Sa mystique d'union au Christ n'empêche pas que l'homme demeure vis-à-vis de Dieu un serviteur. Ce point supposé, il rappelle aux Romains ce qu'ils savent bien (parallélisme avec v. 3), que lorsqu'on se donne à un maïtre, c'est pour recevoir ses ordres et les exévuter fidèlement. ᾧ ὑπακούετε, au lieu de αὐτοῦ, insiste sur l'idée d'obéissance. Or on ne peut servir deux maîtres; il faut opter. Si l'on se met au service du péché, il conduit à la mort, mort qui est à la fois la mort temporelle et la mort éternelle. L'autre maitre devrait être Dieu, et c'est bien lui qui est en cause (v. 22); mais, d'abord, pour opposer au péché une valeur morale du même ordre, Paul dit « l’obéissance », qui est, bien entendu, l'obéissance à Dieu, vertu que le Christ ἃ pratiquée (ν, 19), de façon à mettre la justice à la place du péché, qui est une désobéissance (παραχοή v, 19). De même que le péché mène à la mort, l'obéissance produit la justice. Paul ne dit pas encore la vie éternelle, tant il est préoccupé de donner une leçon de morale actuelle. Jei « justice » signifie sainteté, vertu pratiquée, dans un sens que des Juifs eussent pu comprendre; mais cette justice est transformée au sens chrétien, est dès lors le fruit de la vie en Jésus-Christ. La proposition est très générale, et si Paul dit « vous », c'est par un procédé d'argumentation, sans application à la situation spéciale des chrétiens, justes ou pécheurs. On ne s'explique pas pourquoi W W. ont effacé in mortem.
6:17
Paul ne veut même pas dire : comme tout le monde, vous avez le choix! L'hypothèse d'une rechute n'est malheureusement pas exclue, mais cest un aspect sinistre, qui n'est pas dessiné expressément. Pour des chrétiens, le choix est fait! Paul rend grâces à Dieu de ce que l'esclavage du péché est une chose passée (ἥτε, de ce que vous étiez, par conséquent de ce que vous ayez cessé d'être [cf. v, 8] les esclaves du péché). Au lieu de cet esclavage, l’obéissance à un type de doctrine. Noter l'attraction du relatif, pour τῷ τύπῳ τῆς διδαγῆς εἰς ὃν παρεδόθητε. Ce τύπος n'est pas un évangile particulier à Paul, mais l'évangile annoncé à tous les chrétiens, auquel les Romains ont élé livrés par l'action de Dieu. Les termes choisis : type, règle, forme de doctrine, présentent l'évangile comme contenant une morale, mais sans la forme redoutable des menaces de la Loi. Aussi les Romains, qui représentent ici simplement tous ceux qui ont embrassé la foi, y sont allés de tout cour, ἐκ καρδίας, On dirait bien (Jülicher) que Paul atténue ici ce que le mot d'esclavage aurait de trop dur : c'est une obéissance volontaire, sous l'influx de la grâce de Dieu, à une règle morale lumineuse. In quam de Ve.-Clém. vaut mieux pour le sens que ἐπ qua (WWF.).
6:18
C'est donc bien un affranchissement par rapport au péché, et si c'est un esclavage, ou une obligation de servir, c'est envers la justice. Cette fois la justice (et non l'obéissance), dans le même sens qu'au v. 16, mais personnifiée, comme le péché. Il semble bien clair qu'ici à ἁμαρτία n’est pas la con- Ccupiscence laissée par le péché originel. Ce verset est la conclusion de ce qui précède, et ne devrait pas en être séparé par un point (Ve.). 19%) Cornely donne le choix entre deux interprétations, l'une de presque tous les catholiques, l'autre de presque tous les modernes. D'après la première: Paul va imposer un précepte humain (humanum tantum praeceptum imponit, p- 339), c'est-à-dire proportionné à la faiblesse morale des Romains, à savoir de faire au moins pour la justice ce qu'ils faisaient pour le péché. D'après la seconde, Paul, en parlant précédemment d'esclavage de la justice, parlait à la façon commune, pour se proportionner à la faiblesse intellectuelle des Romains, alors qu'il aurait pu parler de liberté (cf. Gal. v, 13). Mais il y ἃ d’autres combinaisons possibles. Jülicher admet la faiblesse morale aussi bien qu'intellectuelle; d'après Kühl, l'apôtre craint quewla faiblesse morale des fidèles ne les induise à prendre trop de liberté, et veut leur prouver que le service est ce qui caractérise le mieux la situation etc: ἀνθρώπινον peut s'entendre de ce qui ne dépasse pas les forces humaines (T Cor. x, 13), mais aussi de ce qui est conforme à l'intelligence humaine (I Cor. π΄, 18; 1v, 3); le dernier sens est plus indiqué avec λέγω, de sorte que ἀνθρώπινον λέγω ne parait être qu’une variante de κατὰ ἄνθρωπον λέγω (π|, ὅ; Gal. πι, 45; cf. I Cor. nt, 8; 1x, 8; χν, 32; Gal. 1, 11). Il ne s'agit ροϊπί ἰοΐ d'imposer un précepte qui ne dépasserait pas les forces humaines, il est question d'une situation telle qu’elle est comprise ordinairement. C'est ainsi que les termes sont compris par Chrys. lui-même, ὡσανεὶ ἔλεγεν, ἀπὸ ἀνήρωπίνων λογισμῶν, ἀπὸ τῶν ἐν συνηθείχ γινομένων. Donc Paul applique aux chrétiens des termes du langage courant, une comparaison tirée de l'esclavage. Pourquoi? parce qu'ils sont faibles, d'une faiblesse qui se ressent de l'ancienne faiblesse (v, 6), morale, mais aussi intellectuelle. Paul ne dit pas « je m'excuse de caractériser le christianisme comme un esclavage, alors qu'il est plutôt une liberté, parce que vous ne me comprendriez pas si je parlais de la sorte », mais : «dans votre situation actuelle vos rapports envers Dieu doivent être envisagés comme un service », spécialement l'emploi à son service de membres qui ont été au service du péché. Plus tard il pourra dire comme saint Augustin : Ama et fac quod vis. Pour le moment ils sont dans la situation des Corinthiens (1 Cor. ur, 1).
6:19
La première partie du v. tait une sorte de parenthèse. La seconde se rattache par γάρ au v. 18, et explique ce que c'est que le service de la justice. Ilest exprimé comme au v. 13, mais la métaphore des armes est remplacée par celle du service. Le maître est maintenant l'impureté, et cette liberté sans frein que l'on nomme aujourd'hui a-moralité. Au service de cette puissance qui ne connaît pas de règle, on tend à en absorber en soi le principe. Au service de la justice, on tend à la sainteté. ἁγιασμός peut signifier sanctilication ou sainteté. Ici c'est plutôt le second sens, le but à atteindre en opposition à ἀνομία. Sans doute la sainteté doit progresser toujours par la sanctification, mais on se la représente de loin comme le plus haut degré de la vertu; cf. vi, 22; I Cor. 1, 30; I Thess,. 1v, 3 8. 7; II Thess. πὶ, 13; I Tim. 11, 15 et même Feb. xur, 14. Le mot se trouve dans le grec profane avec le sens de consécration (ἁγίασμα se dit, dans la pseudo-liturgie mithriaque de Dieterich [p. 4, I. 23], de « consécration personnelle »), mais non dans le sens d'une vertu très haute acquise au service de Dieu. En rappelant aux Romains qu'ils avaient été esclaves de l'impureté et de laxisme moral, Paul les caractérise assez nettement comme des gentils convertis. Les Juifs affectaient du moins l'observation de la Loi et leur dépendance à son égard {x, 2). Dans la Ve. servire pourrait être remplacé les deux fois par servos.
6:20
Il serait plus naturel de dire : vos prétentions de liberté à l'égard de la justice n'empêchaient pas que vous fussiez esclaves du péché. Peut-être Paul veut-il dissiper cette illusion que tout en péchant ils respectaient encore le règne de la justice; en réalité ils s’en affranchissaient. C’est toujours le même principe : on ne peut servir deux maitres. Saint Thomas note cependant que cela suppose un péché bien délibéré : nam ülli qui ex infirmitate sel ex passione peccant, aliquo freno iustitiae retinentur, ut non videantur a iustitia omnino liberi. Il va sans dire que cet affranchissement coupable n'empêche pas la responsabilité.
6:21
On pourrait renvoyer l'interrogation à la fin. Quel fruit aviez-vous des actions dont vous rougissez maintenant? Réponse sous-entendue : aucun. Ce qui serait très vrai, si l'on parlait d’un fruit utile. Mais on peut supposer des fruits mauvais, et c'est l'hypothèse de Paul. Aussi les modernes (même Corn.) ponctuent et expliquent : τίνα οὖν καρπὸν εἴχετε τότε; (ἐκεῖνα) ἐφ᾽ οἷς νῦν ἐπαισιύνεσθε. Ces fruits sont les satisfactions que l’âme cherchait dans le péché, qui ne laissent qu'un goût d'amertume. La Phèdre de Racine : « Et du fatal amour dont la honte me suit, Jamais mon trisle cœur n'a recueilli le fruit ». La mort était le terme et même le résultat de cet esclavage; mort temporelle et mort éternelle. La Vy. renvoie l'interrogation à la fin. Zn éllis, ajouté pour la clarté, est omis par WW. On pourrait aussi supprimer est.
6:22
C'est à peine si Paul a parlé de fruits du péché; en tout cas ils n'étaient pas un bien pour les pécheurs. Les fidèles, serviteurs de Dieu, qui paraît enfin comme l’Étre véritable de la justice, possèdent un fruit qui leur est propre, qui est bien à ceux, constituant peu à peu le patrimoine de la sainteté, ayant pour terme et pour fin la vie éternelle.
6:23
Les deux antagonistes des vv. 12 s. se retrouvent en présence, Dieu et 1e péché, et la métaphore du service militaire revient aussi. Le péché paie la solde, qui est la mort, c'est-à-dire la mort éternelle ; Dieu donne la vie éternelle comme une faveur. Le changement de tournure est voulu et a été noté par s. Augustin. Les protestants en concluent que Paul exclut le mérite: Mais les mérites dont parlent les catholiques sont des mérites acquis sous l'influence de la grâce. De son côté Augustin concède que la vie éternelle peut être nommée une solde, mais c'est une solde payée à la justice qui ne vient pas de l'homme. Le terme de don gratuit est à tout prendre plus exact. — ἐν Χριστῷ 2. =. À. se rapporte à tout ce que Dieu fait pour nous : et hoc fit in Christo Jesu Domino nostro, id est per Christum; vel in quantum in ipso sumus per fidem et carilatem (Thom.). L'idée qui domine toute cette morale est celle d'un service, et d’un service Γ actif, qui est spécialement un service militaire. Le service se trouve partout pour exprimer les rapports de l'homme envers Dieu. Dans l'Ancien Testament, c'est le rapport normal : les plus favorisés de Dieu sont ses serviteurs, comme Moïse, comme David. Naturellement on devait trouver l'expression de servir dans la langue des mystères. L'initia® tion était considérée comme l'acceptation d'un joug. Apulée, XI, 15 : ἐὰ nomen sanclac huic militiae, cuius non olim sacramento etiam rogabenis; teque iam nune obsequio religionis nostrae dedica et ministerié iugum subi soluntarium. Ainsi Paul aurait-il pu caractériser le baptême comme l'accep= tation volontaire d'un joug. Mais précisément il ne l’a pas fait. Le baptême une efficacité beaucoup plus profonde, C'est après le baptême que le chrétien est invité à entrer au service de Dieu. Et, par un contraste dont l'A. T. ne lui fournissait pas l’idée, mais qui était un thème reçu de la philosophie, l’'Apôtre oppose l'esclavage du péché. Cette notion d'esclavage aurait quelque chose de déprimant, même à l'égard de Dieu, si Paul ne l'avait relevée par l’idée d'un service actif, comparé au noble métier des armes. Sur ce point aussi, il y avait des antécédents. Les anciens Israélites combattaient les guerres de Iahvé (1 Sam. xvin, 17). On vient aussi de lire le nom de sacramentum, « Serment militaire », dans le texte d'Apulée qui parle du joug. Cette comparaison devait être surtout familière à la philosophie morale de l’action. Epictète {TIT, 24, 34) : « La vie est pour chacun un service militaire, long et varié », aussi le stoïcien est le soldat de Zeus (III, 24, 112). D'ailleurs les termes de Paul sont si généraux qu’il n'avait en vue qu'une comparaison tirée de la vie ordinaire, et lui-même prend soin de nous le dire (v. 19). L'homme est placé entre deux maitres; il faut choisir. Ou plutôt les chrétiens sont placés entre le passé et le présent, car leur choix est fait. C'est le service de Dieu, qui comporte l’obéissance, mais qui est actif et wénéreux comme celui d’un soldat. Les armes du chrétien sont ses membres qui peuvent contribuer à sa sanctification et par là lui obtenir la vie éternelle. Ce que fait Dieu dans ce travail, Paul ne le dit pas encore. Il prétend avant tout inspirer un généreux élan à des âmes encore faibles, qui ont à peine crucifié le vicil homme dans le baptême; c'était la meilleure réponse à ceux qui auraient été tentés de voir dans sa doctrine de la justification une invitation à l'indifférence morale ou à la mollesse. La vie ressuscitte se traduit par la fuite du péché, la consécration à la justice, l'acquisition de la sainteté tout cela pour Dieu en Jésus-Christ Notre-Seigneur. Il n'y a donc là aucune trace de paresse excusée par l'initiation, mais une saine doctrine morale sur le fruit à tirer de la conversion. CHAPITRE VII CuapiTre vu. LA Loir N'OBLIGE PLUS LE CHRÉTIEN; TOUTE LOI A D'AIL- LEURS ÉTÉ TOUJOURS IMPUISSANTE À REFRÉNER LE PÉCHÉ. — Tout ce chapitre est consacré à la Loi, mais de deux façons sensiblement différentes. D’abord il s’agit de la Loi mosaïque, dont le chrétien est affranchi par sa mort mystique unie à la mort du Christ (1-6). Ce qui suit n'est pas précisément une preuve que la Loi mosaïque est abolie; la preuve est faite. C’est toute l'économie ancienne, mettant en relief la loi et le précepte de Dieu, qui est appréciée en elle-même comme impuissante à sauver l’homme du péché (7-25).
6:1
To the first, derived from the old Adam, sin is connected, and death, which is its "wages" (Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23); the new Adam, Christ, brings remedy for this, renewing man in Baptism, immersing him in his mystery of death and resurrection (ibid. 6:1-13). But there remains in man here below, dramatically, the struggle between the outer man and the inner man, between the old man of sin and the new man of righteousness (ibid. 7:5-25). …
6:2
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, once the corruption of the body is laid aside, he will see God, according to the merits acquired in life (Ad Autolycum, I, 7: PG 6, …
6:3
… and mystical meanings: there is only one B., as there is only one Christ (Eph. 4:5); B. brings the imprint of the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 1:21-22); it clothes us with Christ (Gal. 3:27); it makes us mystically relive the death and resurrection of Jesus (Rom. 6:3-4); etc. (cf. further on, III). …
… blood cleanses the leprosy of sin (I Jn. 1:7, 9); he is the lamb that takes away the sin of the world (Jn. 1:29), so that nothing condemnable remains in those who have been incorporated into him through the grace of justification and raised to new life (Rom. 6:3-11; 7:24). Mere non-imputation is not reconcilable with the fullness of the meaning of these texts, and in vain have Protestants invoked others, where there is talk of non-imputation …
… "Baptized into the death of Jesus," "grafted into the likeness of him" (Rom. 6:3, 5) who compares his own death to a Baptism (Lk. 12:30, whence the term: Baptism of blood) and drinking the cup of the Lord's death, we have no other way out than to remember (I Cor. …
Man, in order to escape his fate, must follow the itinerary traced by Christ, dying to sin and rising again to Grace, that is, to union with God. This process of real imitation of the twofold phase of the Redemption begins with Baptism (death to sin and resurrection to Grace, according to Rom. 6:3-11) and is completed with the Eucharist, through which the faithful die perfectly, at least sacramentaliter, and are united to God through Christ. …
… More than on the necessity of the rite (cf. Act. 19, 5), P. insists on pointing out its symbolism; it represents also externally death to the world and the incorporation of the new creature into the Mystical Christ (cf. Rom. 6, 3; Gal. 3, 27; Eph. 3, 6). The Apostle recalls at length the Eucharist (I Cor. 11, 20-32). He speaks of Holy Orders, pointing out its capacity to confer Grace (Act. 20, 28; I Tim. 4, …
… In Baptism, for example, St. Paul (Rom. 6, 3-11) affirms that the immersion and the emersion, while reproducing the physical death and resurrection of Jesus, represents the mystical death and resurrection of the faithful (the sign), …
6:4
… And St. Paul: "Do you not know that we have been baptized in Jesus Christ... so that we may walk in newness of life?" (Rom. 6:4). 2) to acquire a filial spirit toward God. …
… The former presents it under the soteriological light as a redemptive force from sin. A restoration begun with Baptism, which is rebirth in the risen Christ (Rom. 6, 4-11), a new life nourished by faith and charity (I Cor. 13; Eph. 3, 14-19), whereby a new creation is brought about (II Cor. 5, 17), the new man clothed in Christ (Col. 3, 9; Gal. 3, 27), …
The Christocentric idea of his theology also dominates the ethics of P., who loves to speak of moral "death" and "resurrection" (Rom. 6:4, 6, 11; Col. 2:20-3:8), of the necessity of "putting off" the old personality (= Adam) in order to "put on" the new (= Christ; cf. Rom. 13:14; Eph. 4:20-24; Col. 3:9-11). Just as in …
… 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 …
6:6
… spirit, principally as a consequence and by virtue of original sin. St. Paul describes in vivid colors this contrast between the flesh and the spirit, which often becomes a slavery of the soul, from which it can free itself by being reborn in Christ (Rom. 6:6; 7:14 ff.; Gal. 5:19 ff. and elsewhere). …
Indeed, as St. Paul teaches, "we have been buried with Christ through Baptism into death." Our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be reduced to nothing, so that we might no longer be slaves of sin (Rom. 6:6). In the Christian, who must "live for God in Christ Jesus" (ibid., 6:11), sin must not reign, nor must he obey the concupiscences of the mortal body. …
… He does not condemn slavery, but dwells with satisfaction on the duty of "charity" and presents analogies suited to directing the thoughts of Christian masters toward other ideas (common slavery with regard to Christ, 1 Cor. 7:22; danger of a slavery of sin, Rom. 6:6, 16). In politics, a subject constantly avoided, P. does not appear at all the "revolutionary" identified by some contemporary Jews (cf. Acts 16:20, 21; 17:6, 7; 24:5, 12) and by certain …
… resurrection (ibid. 6:1-13). But there remains in man here below, dramatically, the struggle between the outer man and the inner man, between the old man of sin and the new man of righteousness (ibid. 7:5-25). The first, called the "body of sin, of death" (ibid. 6:6; 7:24), which tends toward moral and physical disintegration, is usually called "flesh" in the pejorative sense that already appears in Gen. 6:3, 12 (cf. Is. 40:6; Eccl. 14:18; I Cor. …
… 31:53), entails, as is better expressed in the New Testament, an interior holiness, similar to that of God (Mt. 5:48). This perfection is a true participation in the divine nature (II Pt. 1:3-11), it is like a new nature superimposed on the old man (Rom. 6:6); the very life of Jesus engraved in our mortal flesh (II Cor. 4:10-11). It is opposed to the natural life as light to darkness (Eph. 5:8-9), as a living stone to a dead stone (I Pt. …
6:8
… 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 the more …
6:9
At the end of the 6th century, St. Gregory the Great, gathering together all the elements of Tradition, constructed a particularly felicitous synthesis: "Hace victima... illam nobis mortem Unigeniti per mysterium reparat, qui licet resurgens a mortuis iam non moritur et mors et ultra non dominatur (Rom. 6, 9), tamen in semeiipso immortaliter et incorruptibiliter vivens, pro nobis iterum in hoc mysterio sacrae oblationis immolatur... …
6:10
Maccabees (Greek Μακκαβαῖοι, Vulgate Machabaei)
… were enjoying a period of calm (14:9); but before the destruction of the Temple, by a Hellenistic Jew. It is not possible to speak of numerous Christian interpolations (J. Freudenthal); one can only debate 7:19 and 16:25 in relation to Mc. 12:26 and Rom. 6:10 (J. B. Frey). …
6:11
Indeed, as St. Paul teaches, "we have been buried with Christ through Baptism into death." Our old man was crucified with him so that the body of sin might be reduced to nothing, so that we might no longer be slaves of sin (Rom. 6:6). In the Christian, who must "live for God in Christ Jesus" (ibid., 6:11), sin must not reign, nor must he obey the concupiscences of the mortal body. …
6:12
… St. Paul (Rom. 6:12; 7:19-25) specifies this teaching. …
S., who sinned from the beginning (I Io. 3:8), is the agent of sin (Rom. 6:12-14; Io. 8:34), by which he makes man a slave (Io. 8:34) and assimilates him to himself (Io. 6:70; Judas). …
… The "flesh" is human nature abandoned to itself, therefore fragile, because deprived of God, and death-bearing, because vitiated by sin which nests in it its seed, concupiscence (Io. 1:13); it is connected to sin by origin and by tendency (Rom. 6:12-18, 13). The opposite of the flesh, or animated matter (σάρξ) enclosing the ψυχή, was the invisible dynamism of man called "spirit" (πνεῦμα; I Cor. 5:5); the "fragile flesh" resists the "willing …
6:13
… Lagrange, Epître aux Romains, Paris 1916, pp. 292-93; and the related sense of consecration to God in Rom. 6:13). J. reveals himself here also as the salvation of God for all men, as light of the gentiles and glory of Israel and, in the prophecy of Simeon himself, as an occasion of ruin and …
6:14
JEWISH LAW. - In the writings of the New Testament, by L. is often meant, besides the Sinaitic legislation and the books that contain it, also the Old Testament or Mosaic economy, founded on the L., in opposition to the Christian one, informed by faith and Grace (cf. Rom. 6:14 ff.); therefore, not only the five books of Moses, as when the L. is distinguished from the "prophets" and the "other books," that is, the "hagiographa" (Eccl., prologue; cf. Lk. 24:44), …
6:15
4. Ethics. - Moral theology finds a more modest harvest in the writings of P. who, while in the letters to the Romans and to the Galatians he solemnly declares the end of the Mosaic Law as a whole, is less explicit in showing in what "the law of Christ" (Gal. 6, 2; I Cor. 9, 21) or of Grace (cf. Rom. 6, 15) consists. …
6:16
… Moreover it is easy to think that catechesis, under the influence of the Apostles, unfolded with a certain order, according to a common line and a well-defined schema of doctrine (cf. Acts 2:42 "doctrine of the Apostles"; Rom. 6:16 "form of doctrine"; above all Lk. 1:2 traces the program of catechesis back to the eyewitnesses, to the Apostles). …
… 18-20; Mk. 16, 15-16; Jn. 14, 16 ff.; 15, 26; 17, 18-20; I Cor. 1, 17; II Cor. 5, 20; I Tim. 3, 14 ff.), every man must fully adhere to it (Mk. 16, 16; Rom. 1, 5; II Cor. 10, 4; I Jn. 2, 24), nor ever give ear to contrary doctrines (Rom. 6, 16; Gal. 1, 8; II Jn. 1, 10) under penalty of shipwreck in the faith (I Tim. 1, 19). In these simple propositions: there are truths revealed by God, of which the sole depositary …
6:17
… Sin holds them beneath itself as slaves (Rom. 6:17, 20; John 8:34; 2 Pet. 2:19); they are subject to the devil as subjects to their head (John 12:31; 14:30). The devil is the god (θεός) "of this world" (2 Cor. 4:4; 1 Cor. 2:6; Gal. 2:15).
Especially in the Pauline epistles, both the Good News in its generality (Rom. 6, 17; Gal. 1, 9-12; I Tim. 6, 20; II Tim. 1, 13 ff.) and specifically the precepts of Christian life (Phil. 4, 9; I Thess. 4, 1; II Thess. 2, 15; 3, 6), or even individual doctrines …
… to this division of labor, if he had believed it necessary to re-establish what his speculations or alleged visions manifested to him as truth, or had he believed that his rivals in the apostolate were altering the type of catechesis (τύπων διδαχῆς; Rom. 6:17), accepted by all? How would he have imposed on everyone, in so energetic a manner, never to do so? (Rom. 16:17; Col. 2:6-9; II Thess. 3:6; Eph. 4:13-14).
… In fact the oral catechesis, however much attested by the sources in different types (Paul spoke of his «ways»: I Cor. 4, 17; of his «gospel» and «type of doctrine»: Rom. 2, 16; 6, 17), was not bound to be so stereotyped as to preserve unaltered in secondary matters certain expressions, and to allow itself so many liberties in certain others, where a closer agreement …
6:22
… fidem et hoc non ex vobis: Dei enim donum est » (Eph. 2, 8). This grace, which commits man to collaborate with God, is viaticum for eternal life, indeed is already eternal life anticipated: « Gratia autem Dei vita aeterna in Christo Iesu Domino nostro » (Rom. 6, 22).
… and truly are such; and harmonizing our actions with the will of God, following the example of Christ, whose spiritual likeness Grace imprints upon us, we can bear fruits, which the heavenly Father rewards with eternal life (cf. Lk. 8:15; Jn. 15:5-6; Rom. 6:22).
… The Council of Trent (Denz-U, 792) declares that concupiscence is sometimes called by St. Paul with the name of sin (Rom. 6:22) because it was born from sin and inclines to sin, but that in the baptized it is not, properly speaking, a sin, but rather a wound in the process of healing. …
6:23
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, even …
… The devil is the prince of death (Hebr. 2, 14; Rom. 6, 23). Jesus Christ is the prince and the author of life (Act. 3, 15; Hebr. 2, 10). Passing over to Jesus Christ, man «is reborn». …
… Sometimes it has the generic meaning of a gracious gift, and can thus be applied even to sanctifying Grace, as in Rom. 6:23; but besides this, it possesses a special meaning, namely that of a supernatural gift granted to a person not so much for himself as for the benefit of others, so that the Gospel may …
… the soul" (Cathech., 18, 1: PG 33, 107); St. Ambrose: "Before each one stands the balance of our merits; on the day of judgment either our works will help us or plunge us into the deep" (Epist., 2, 14, 16: PL 16, 883); St. Augustine: "having said" (Rom. 6:23) that the wages of sin is death, who would not think to add: and the wages of righteousness, eternal life? …
… as are the shameless woman and her accomplices (Prov. 2:18; 7:27); there are heaped up those who forget God, sinners (ibid. 9:18; 21:16), despisers of the Law (Eccl. 41:11). It appears ever more as the "wages" of sin (cf. Rom. 2:7; 5:12, 21; 6:23), in opposition to the "life" reserved for the good (Prov. 3:18; 8:35; 9:6; 12:2; 16:21); to the f. that is below is opposed "the way of life" that leads on high (Prov. 15:24). …
To the first, derived from the old Adam, sin is connected, and death, which is its "wages" (Rom. 5:12-21; 6:23); the new Adam, Christ, brings remedy for this, renewing man in Baptism, immersing him in his mystery of death and resurrection (ibid. 6:1-13). But there remains in man here below, …
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.