The apostle’s concern for the Jews. God’s election is free and not confined to their nation.
With a protestation of his sorow for it (lest they should thinke him to reioyce in their perdition) he insinuateth the Iewes to be reprobate, although they come of Abrahams flesh. 6 saying, to be the sonnes of God goeth not by that, but by Gods grace: 19 considering that al vvere one damned masse. 24 by which grace the Gentils to be made his people: and so the prophess to haue foretold of them both. 30 And the cause hereof to be, that the Gentils submit them selues to the faith of Christ, vvhich the Iewes vvil not.
1I speak the truth in Christ: I lie not, my conscience bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost:Dico la verità in Cristo, non mentisco, facendone a me fede la mia coscienza per lo Spirito santo:I SPEAKE the verity in Christ, I lie not, my conscience bearing me vvitnes in the holy Ghost,Veritatem dico in Christo, non mentior: testimonium mihi perhibente conscientia mea in Spiritu Sancto: 2That I have great sadness and continual sorrow in my heart.Che io ho tristezza grande, e continuo affanno in cuor mio.that I haue great sadnesse & continual sorovv in my hart.quoniam tristitia mihi magna est, et continuus dolor cordi meo. 3For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren: who are my kinsmen according to the flesh:Perocché bramava di essere io stesso separato da Cristo pe' miei fratelli, che sono del sangue mio secondo la carne,For I vvished, my self to be an anáthema from Christ for my brethren, vvho are my kinsmen according to the flesh,Optabam enim ego ipse anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis, qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem, 4Who are Israelites: to whom belongeth the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament and the giving of the law and the service of God and the promises:Che sono Israeliti, de' quali è la adozione in figliuoli, e la gloria, e la alleanza, e l'ordinazione della legge, e il culto, e le promesse:vvho are Israëlites, vvhose is the adoption of sonnes, and the glorie, and the testament, and the lavv giuing, and the seruice, and the promisses:qui sunt Israëlitæ, quorum adoptio est filiorum, et gloria, et testamentum, et legislatio, et obsequium, et promissa: 5Whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ, according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever. Amen.De' quali i padri son quegli, da' quali è anche il Cristo secondo la carne, il quale è sopra tutte le cose benedetto Dio né secoli. Così sia.vvhose are the fathers, & of vvhom Christ is according to the flesh, vvho is aboue al things God blessed for euer. Amen.quorum patres, et ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in sæcula. Amen. 6Not as though the word of God hath miscarried. For all are not Israelites that are of Israel.Non già, che sia andata a voto la parola di Dio. Imperocché non tutti, quelli, che vengon da Israele, sono Israeliti:But not that the vvord of God is frustrate. For, not al that are of Israël, they be Israëlites:Non autem quod exciderit verbum Dei. Non enim omnes qui ex Israël sunt, ii sunt Israëlitæ: 7Neither are all they that are the seed of Abraham, children: but in Isaac shall thy seed be called.Né que', che sono stirpe di Abramo, (sono) tutti figliuoli: ma in Isacco sarà la tua discendenza.nor they that are the seede of Abrahā, al be children: but in Isaac shal the seede be called vnto thee:neque qui semen sunt Abrahæ, omnes filii: sed in Isaac vocabitur tibi semen:
8That is to say, not they that are the children of the flesh are the children of God: but they that are the children of the promise are accounted for the seed.Viene a dire non i figliuoli della carne sono figliuoli di Dio: ma i figliuoli della promessa sono contati per discendenti.that is to say, not they that are the childrē of the flesh, they are the children of God: but they that are the childrē of the promisse, are esteemed for the seede.id est, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei: sed qui filii sunt promissionis, æstimantur in semine. 9For this is the word of promise: According to this time will I come. And Sara shall have a son.Imperocché la parola della promessa è tale: verrò circa questo tempo: e Sara avrà un figliuolo.For the vvord of the promisse is this, According to this time vvil I come: and Sarae shal haue a sonne.Promissionis enim verbum hoc est: Secundum hoc tempus veniam: et erit Saræ filius. 10And not only she. But when Rebecca also had conceived at once of Isaac our father.Né ella solamente: ma anche Rebecca avendo conceputo in un atto (due figli) ad Isacco nostro padre.And not only she, But Rebecca also conceiuing of one copulation, of Isaac our father.Non solum autem illa: sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens, Isaac patris nostri. 11For when the children were not yet born, nor had done any good or evil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand):Perocché non essendo quegli ancora nati, e non avendo fatto né bene, né male (affinchè fermo stesse il proponimento di Dio, che è secondo l'elezione).For vvhen they vvere not yet borne, nor had done any good or euil (that the purpose of God according to election might stand)Cum enim nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid boni egissent, aut mali (ut secundum electionem propositum Dei maneret), 12Not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said to her: The elder shall serve the younger.Non per riguardo alle opere, ma a colui, che chiamò, fu detto a lei:not of vvorkes, but of the caller it vvas said to her: That the elder shal serue the yonger,non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est ei quia major serviet minori, 13As it is written: Jacob I have loved: but Esau I have hated.Il maggiore sarà servo del minore, conforme sta scritto: Ho amato Giacobbe, e ho odiato Esaù.as it is vvritten: Iacob I loued, but Esau I hated.sicut scriptum est: Jacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. 14What shall we say then? Is there injustice with God? God forbid!Che direm noi adunque? E in Dio ingiustizia? Mai no.Vvhat shal vve say then? Is there iniquitie vvith God? God forbid.Quid ergo dicemus ? numquid iniquitas apud Deum ? Absit.
15For he saith to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy. And I will shew mercy to whom I will shew mercy.Conciossiaché egli dice a Mosè: Avrò misericordia di colui, del quale ho misericordia: e farò misericordia a colui, di cui avrò misericordia.For to Moyses he saith, I vvil haue mercie on vvhom I haue mercie: and I vvil shevv mercie to vvhom I vvil shevv mercie.Moysi enim dicit: Miserebor cujus misereor: et misericordiam præstabo cujus miserebor. 16So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.Non è adunque (ciò) né di chi vuole, né di chi corre, ma di Dio, che fa misericordia.Therfore it is not of the vviller, nor the runner, but of God that shevveth mercie.Igitur non volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei. 17For the scripture saith to Pharao: To this purpose have I raised thee, that I may shew my power in thee and that my name may be declared throughout all the earth.Imperocché dice la scrittura a Faraone: Per questo, appunto ti ho suscitato, affine di far vedere in te la mia potenza: e affinchè annunziato sia il nome mio per tutto il mondo.For the Scripture saith to Pharao: That to this very purpose haue I raised thee, that in thee I may shevv my povver: and that my name may be venovvmed in the vvhole earth.Dicit enim Scriptura Pharaoni: Quia in hoc ipsum excitavi te, ut ostendam in te virtutem meam: et ut annuntietur nomen meum in universa terra. 18Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will. And whom he will, he hardeneth.Egli ha adunque misericordia di chi vuole, e indura chi vuole.Therfore on vvhom he vvil, he hath mercie: and vvhom he vvil, he doth indurate.Ergo cujus vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat. 19Thou wilt say therefore to me: Why doth he then find fault? For who resisteth his will?Mi dirai però: E perché tuttora si querela? Conciossiaché, chi resiste al voler di lui?Thou saiest therfore vnto me: Vvhy doth he yet complaine? for vvho resisteth his vvil?Dicis itaque mihi: Quid adhuc queritur ? voluntati enim ejus quis resistit ? 20O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it: Why hast thou made me thus?O uomo, chi se' tu, che stai a tu per tu con Dio? Dirà forse il vaso di terra al vasajo: perché mi hai tu fatto così?O man, vvho art thou that doest ansvver God? Doth the vvorke say to him that vvrought it: Vvhy hast thou made me thus?O homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas Deo ? numquid dicit figmentum ei qui se finxit: Quid me fecisti sic ?
21Or hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump, to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?Non è egli adunque il vasajo padrone della creta, per far della medesima pasta un vaso per uso onorevole, un altro per uso vile?Or hath not the potter of clay, povver, of the same masse to make one vessel vnto honour, and an other vnto cōtumelie?an non habet potestatem figulus luti ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud vero in contumeliam ? 22What if God, willing to shew his wrath and to make his power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction,Che se Dio volendo mostrar l'ira sua, e far conoscere la sua potenza, con pazienza molta sopportò i vasi d'ira atti alla perdizione,And if God vvilling to shevv vvrath, and to make his might knovven, susteined in much patience the vessels of vvrath apte to destruction,Quod si Deus volens ostendere iram, et notum facere potentiam suam, sustinuit in multa patientia vasa iræ, apta in interitum, 23That he might shew the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy which he hath prepared unto glory?Per far conoscere i tesori della sua gloria a pro de' vasi di misericordia, i quali egli preparò per la gloria;that he might shevv the riches of his glorie vpon the vessels of mercie vvhich he prepared vnto glorie.ut ostenderet divitias gloriæ suæ in vasa misericordiæ, quæ præparavit in gloriam. 24Even us, whom also he hath called, not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles.Di noi, i quali di più egli chiamò non solo dal Giudaismo, ma anche dalle nazioni,Vvhom also he hath called, vs, not only of the Ievves, but also of the Gentiles,Quos et vocavit nos non solum ex Judæis, sed etiam in gentibus, 25As in Osee he saith: I will call that which was not my people, my people; and her that was not beloved, beloved; and her that had not obtained mercy; one that hath obtained mercy.Come ei dice in Osea: chiamerò mio popolo il popolo non mio: e diletta la non diletta: e pervenuta a misericordia quella, che non avea conseguito misericordia.as in Osee he saith, I vvil call that vvhich is not my people, my people: and her that vvas not beloued, beloued: and her that hath not obteined mercie, hauing obteined mercie.sicut in Osee dicit: Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam: et non dilectam, dilectam: et non misericordiam consecutam, misericordiam consecutam. 26And it shalt be in the place where it was said unto them: you are not my people; there they shall be called the sons of the living God.E avverrà, che dove fu loro detto: Non (siete) voi mio popolo: quivi saran chiamati figliuoli di Dio vivo.And it shalbe, in the place vvhere it vvas said to them, you are not my people: there they shalbe called the sonnes of the liuing God.Et erit: in loco, ubi dictum est eis: Non plebs mea vos: ibi vocabuntur filii Dei vivi.
27And Isaias cried out concerning Israel: If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.Isaia poi sclama sopra Israele: Se sarà il numero de' figliuoli d'Israele, come l'arena del mare, se ne salveranno gli avanzi.And Esaie crieth for Israel, If the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remaines shal be saued.Isaias autem clamat pro Israël: Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israël tamquam arena maris, reliquiæ salvæ fient. 28For he shall finish his word and cut it short in justice: because a short word shall the Lord make upon the earth.Perocché (Dio) consumerà, e abbrevierà la parola con equità: dappoiché una parola abbreviata farà il Signore sopra la terra.For, consummating a vvord, and abridging it in equitie: because a vvord abbridged shal our Lord make vpon the earth.Verbum enim consummans, et abbrevians in æquitate: quia verbum breviatum faciet Dominus super terram: 29And as Isaias foretold: Unless the Lord of Sabbaoth had left us a seed, we had been made as Sodom and we had been like unto Gomorrha.E come prima disse Isaia: se il Signore degli eserciti non avesse lasciato di noi semenza, saremmo diventati come Sodoma, e saremmo stati simili a Gomorra.And as Esay foretold, Vnles the Lord of Sabaoth had left vs seede: vve had been made like Sodom, and vve had been like as Gomorrha.et sicut prædixit Isaias: Nisi Dominus Sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus, et sicut Gomorrha similes fuissemus. 30What then shall we say? That the Gentiles who followed not after justice have attained to justice, even the justice that is of faith.Che diremo adunque? Che le genti; le quali non seguivano la giustizia, hanno abbracciata la giustizia: quella giustizia, che viene dalla fede.What shal vve say then? That the Gentiles vvhich pursued not after iustice, haue apprehended iustice, but the iustice that is of faith.Quid ergo dicemus ? Quod gentes, quæ non sectabantur justitiam, apprehenderunt justitiam: justitiam autem, quæ ex fide est. 31But Israel, by following after the law of justice, is not come unto the law of justice.Israele poi, che seguiva la legge di giustizia, non è pervenuto alla legge di giustizia.But Israel in pursuing the lavv of iustice, is not come vnto the lavv of iustice.Israël vero sectando legem justitiæ, in legem justitiæ non pervenit. 32Why so? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were of works. For they stumbled at the stumblingstone.E perché? Perché non (la cercò) dalla fede, ma quasi dalle opere: imperocché urtarono nella pietra di inciampo,Vvhy so? Because not of faith, but as it vvere of vvorkes, for they haue stombled at the stone of stombling,Quare ? Quia non ex fide, sed quasi ex operibus: offenderunt enim in lapidem offensionis,
33As it is written: Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and a rock of scandal. And whosoever believeth in him shall not be confounded.Come sta scritto: Ecco, che io pongo in Sion una pietra di inciampo, pietra di scandalo: e chi crede in lui, non resterà confuso.as it is vvritten, Behold I put in Sion a stone of stombling, and a rocke of scandal: and vvhosoeuer beleeueth in him, shal not be confounded.sicut scriptum est: Ecce pono in Sion lapidem offensionis, et petram scandali: et omnis qui credit in eum, non confundetur.
9:3
Witham
I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ.[Ver. 3. Anathema esse a Christo, anathema einai apo tou Christou. From anathesthai. See anathema, and anathema in Legh's critic. sac. See St. Chrysostom, hom. xiv. p. 136. Ed. Sav. where he says, that to expound St. Paul, as if he wished to die for Christ's sake, is a childish exposition, not worthy of the great charity of St. Paul, that is deserves no confutation: ouk esti tauta, ouk esti....oude gar antilegein pros taouta axion. He thinks that St. Paul was willing to be separated, not from the love of Christ, (God forbid) but from the glory of the kingdom of heaven; Pag. 135. allotriothenai ouchi tes agapes autou, me genoito, alla tes apolauseos ekeines kai tes doxes.] The word anathema, according to its derivation, signifies a thing separated or laid apart for some particular use. Hence it was put to signify things given and consecrated to God, which therefore used to be presented and hung up in temples. 2. The word also was applied to signify things whose destruction was resolved upon, that is, men or things separated for destruction, as sometimes, men deputed to be sacrificed to the gods to appease their anger. This signification was according to the Hebrew word cherem, and the Syriac word horma, as Numbers 21:3. He called the name of that place Horma, that is, anathema; because it was to be entirely destroyed. See 1 Machabees 5. Hence anathema was also used for a curse, and to anathematize, to curse. See Acts 23:14. The sense of this place is differently expounded. Tolet, by the word I wished, or I did wish, thinks that St. Paul might speak of the time before his conversion, when out of a false zeal, he wished to be separated from Christ, and from all Christians: and that he brings this to shew his brethren how zealous he had been for their religion. But this wish of St. Paul is generally expounded as proceeding from the great love and charity he had, when he was an apostle, for the conversion and salvation of his brethren, the Jews, who mostly remained obstinate and incredulous: and some will have it to be no more than a hyperbolical expression of his great love and affection for them. Others, with St. Jerome, ep. ad Algasiam, tom. 4:p. 203. Ed. Ben. think that by this way of speaking, St. Paul signifies himself willing to be sacrificed, by undergoing any death for their conversion: but St. Chrysostom (hom. xvi.) thinks this far short of the sublime charity of St. Paul; for by such a death, says he, he would not be separated from Christ, but would be a great gainer by it; since by that means he would soon be free from all the troubles and sufferings of a miserable life, and blessed with the company and enjoyment of Christ in the kingdom of his glory. He, and many others, think that St. Paul was so troubled and grieved to the heart at the obstinacy of the unbelieving Jews, at their blasphemies against Christ, and their eternal perdition, that an extraordinary charity and zeal for God's honour, and their salvation, made him wish even to endure a separation from Christ, and from the glory prepared for him in heaven, though not from the love, or from the grace of Christ. If this, says St. Chrysostom, seems incredible to us, it is because we are far from such heroic dispositions of the love of God, and of our neighbours. (Witham)
Challoner
The apostle's concern and love for his countrymen, the Jews, was so great, that he was willing even to suffer an anathema, or curse, for their sake; or any evil that could come upon him, without his offending God. (Challoner)
9:4
To whom belongeth the adoption of children. Literally, whose is the adoption. He mentions the favours which God had done to his people, the Jews. As, 1. That God had adopted them for his elect people. 2. That he had glorified them with so many miracles. 3. That he had made a particular covenant and alliance with them. 4. Given them a written law. 5. Prescribed the manner they should worship him. 6. Promises of divers blessings. 7. Who are from the Fathers. Literally, whose are the Fathers; that is who descended from the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. 8. Of whose race, that is of the family of David, Jesus Christ, as man, was born.
Witham
Who is over all things God,[Ver. 5. Qui est super omnes Deus benedictus in saecula. Amen. o on ep ponton theos eulogetos eis tous aionas, Amen.] blessed for ever. Amen. Though the apostles did not often, in express words, call Jesus Christ the God, lest the heathens, when they were not sufficiently instructed, should imagine that there were many gods, (as divers of the fathers take notice) yet here, and in several places, they clearly delivered the divinity of our Saviour, Christ. The Socinians might here observe, that the apostle calls him the God blessed for ever, and with the Greek article. (Witham)
9:6
Witham
Not as though the word of God hath failed in his promises made to Abraham, and the patriarchs. The Jews pretended that the promises were made to them only, and to those that were of their race, and that the Gentiles were not to partake of them. St. Paul shews them their mistake, by telling them who are to be esteemed the true children of Abraham, and of the patriarchs, according to the promises which God made, and who are not. (Witham)
Challoner
All are not Israelites, etc. Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God's account: who, as by his free grace he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election, and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews. (Challoner)
Witham
Neither are all they, who are of the seed of Abraham, his true spiritual children, to whom these promises were made: nor are all they who are descended from Isaac the children of these promises nor are all they true Israelites, to whom these blessings were promised, although they are descended from Israel; but only they who are the children of the patriarchs by faith in Jesus, the Messias, in whom God promised that he would bless all nations. (Witham)
9:9
Calmet
To prove that the children of Abraham are the children of the promise, he adduces the passage of Scripture: "I will come in a year's time, and Sara shall have a son." (Genesis xviii.) This promised child was Isaac, the true son of the promise of God, and of the faith of Abraham; and not the son of the flesh, for Ismael was this as well as Isaac; but he was granted to the prayers of Abraham, a child of the grace and mercy of God. All the faithful, therefore, of whatever race or nation they may be, are in this sense the children of Abraham, by being gratuitously chosen by God, and by the fidelity in which they are imitators of Abraham. (Calmet)
9:10
Witham
etc. And not only she (Sara) brought forth Isaac, who was the only child of Abraham, to whom the promises descended, though he was the father of Ismael, by Agar, and of all the Ismaelites. And lest the Jews should say that the Ismaelites, though descending from Abraham, according to the flesh, were not to be reputed as his children for another reason, because they came of Agar, who was only the handmaid of Sara; he brings them another example to which they could make no such reply; to wit, that Rebecca also at once had two sons of Isaac, Esau and Jacob; where, though Esau was the first-born, these promises were not reputed as made to him, and his descendants, the Idumeans, who were equally the descendants of Isaac, yet not the favourite people, nor the children of God, as the Jews saw very well. (Witham)
Challoner
Not yet born. By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy, and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined, nor to any prerogative of birth, or any foregoing merits. For as, antecedently, to his grace, he sees no merit in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath; there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other. (Challoner)
Nor had done any good or evil. God was pleased to prefer, and promise his blessings to the younger of them, Jacob, declaring that the elder shall serve the younger; that is, that the seed of the elder should be subject to that of the younger, as it happened afterwards to the Idumeans. And the prophet, Malachias, said of them, I have loved Jacob, but hated Esau, and turned his mountains into a desert, etc.
Witham
That the purpose of God, his will, and his decree, (see Romans 8:28.) might stand according to election, might be, not according to any works they had done, or that he foresaw they would do, but merely according to his mercy. And though the preference which God gave to Jacob was literally true, as to temporal benefits; yet St. Augustine observes in divers places, that Jacob was a figure of the elect or predestinate, and Esau of the reprobate; and that as Jacob and his posterity was more favoured, purely by the mercy of God, without any merits on their side; so are God's elect, whom he has called, and to whom, according to his eternal purpose, he decreed to give eternal glory, and special graces to bring them thither. (Witham)
9:14
Witham
What shall we say, then? Is there injustice with God, when he bestows special favours and benefits on some, and not on others? He answers, by no means. And he justifies almighty God's conduct, ver. 22. In the mean time, it is certain that there is no injustice in not giving what another has no right to: and besides all men having sinned, deserved punishment. If then, he shews mercy to some, it is an effect of his goodness and liberality only which they do not deserve. If he leaves others in their sins, they are only punished according to their deserts. His mercy shines upon his elect; and his divine justice is displayed against the wicked and the reprobate, but only according to what they have deserved. (Witham)
9:15
Witham
I will have mercy, etc. Then it is not of him that willeth, etc. By these words he again teaches that God's call and predestination of those whom he has decreed to save, is not upon account of any works or merits in men, but only to be attributed to the mercy and goodness of God. See St. Thomas Aquinas on this ch. lect. 3:See St. Augustine, Encher. ch. XCVIII. Epis. 194. in the new Ed. Ep. 105. ad Sixtum de lib. Arbit. ch. XXV. etc. (Witham)
9:17
For the Scripture saith to Pharao, etc. St. Paul had shewn that there was no injustice in God by his giving special graces to the elect; now he shews that God cannot be accounted unjust for leaving the reprobate in their sins, or for punishing them as they deserve; for this purpose he brings the example of Pharao, who remained hardened against all the admonitions and chastisements of him and his kingdom.
9:18
Witham
And whom he will, he hardeneth.[Ver. 18. Et quem vult indurat. etc. St. Augustine, lib. de Gra. et Lib. Arb. Romans 23. Deus induravit cor Pharaonis, et ipse Pharao per Liberum Arbitrium. Quaerimus meritum obdurationis et invenimus: merito namque peccati, universa massa damnata est: nec obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam:....quaerimus autem meritum misericordiae, nec invenimus: quia nullum est, ne gratia evacuetur, si non gratis donetur, sed meritis redditur. Obduratio Dei est, nolle miserere, etc. Pharao, says St. Chrysostom, was a vessel of anger, but this was from himself; kai par eautou.] That is, permits to be hardened by their own malice, as it is divers times said in Exodus, that Pharao hardened his heart. God, says St. Augustine, is said to harden men's hearts, not by causing their malice, but by not giving them the free gift of his grace, by which they become hardened by their own perverse will. (Witham)
Challoner
Not by being the cause, or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits. (Challoner)
9:19
etc. Thou wilt say, therefore, to me, etc. The apostle makes objection, that if God call some, and harden, or even permit others to be hardened, and no one resisteth, or can hinder his absolute will, why should God complain that men are not converted? St. Paul first puts such rash and profane men in mind, that is unreasonable and impertinent for creatures to murmur and dispute against God their Creator, when they do not comprehend the ways of his providence.
O man, [Ver. 20. O homo, tu quis es? etc. The apostle, says St. Chrysostom, (p. 141.) does not say, that this cannot be answered, but that such questions are impertinent, because we cannot understand what God does, etc. ou legei oti adunaton toiauta luein, etc.] who art thou that repliest against God? This might stop the mouths, and quiet the minds of every man, when he cannot comprehend the mysteries of predestination, of God's foreknowledge, his decrees and graces, or the manner of reconciling them with human liberty. He may cry out with St. Paul again, (chap. 11:33.) O the riches of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! how incomprehensible are his judgments, and how unsearchable his ways!
Witham
Shall the thing formed, etc. Hath not the potter power, etc.[Ver. 21. Annon potestatem habet figulus, etc.? St. Chrysostom (p. 142.) expressly takes notice, that we must not by this comparison pretend that man has not free-will, etc. entautha ou to autexousion anairon. etc.] To teach men that they ought not to complain against God and his providence, when they cannot comprehend his works, he puts them in mind of their origin. Every one may say to God, with the prophet Isaias 6:48., Lord, thou art our Father, and we are but clay; thou art our Maker who framed us, and we are all of us the work of thy hands. Hath not the potter power as he pleaseth, out of the same lump of clay to make some vessels for honourable uses, and some for less honourable. St. Chrysostom observes very well, that this comparison must not be extended further than the apostle designed; which was to teach us, how submissive we ought to be to God, in what we do not understand; but we must not pretend from hence, nor from any expression in this chapter, as divers heretics have done, that as vessels of clay are destitute of free will and liberty, so are men. This is against the doctrine of the Catholic Church, and against the Scriptures, in many places. (Witham)
Challoner
The potter. This similitude is used, only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker: nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another: for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy that he makes out of it so many vessels of honour; and it is no more than just that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonour. (Challoner)
9:22
Witham
And if God, etc. He now gives the reason why God might, without any injustice, have mercy on some, and not on others; grant particular graces and favours to his elect, and not equally to all; because all mankind was become liable to damnation by original sin: the clay that all are made of, is a sinful clay; and as St. Augustine says, was become a lump and mass of damnation. Every one had sinned in Adam. Now, if out of this sinful lump and multitude God, to shew the richness of his glory, and superabundant mercy, hath chosen some as vessels of election, whom he hath decreed to save, and by special graces and favours to make partakers of his heavenly kingdom; and to shew his justice and hatred of sin, hath left others as vessels of his wrath and justice, to be lost in their sins, which for a time he bears patiently with, when they deserved present punishment, who can say that he hath done unjustly? (Witham)
9:24
Witham
etc. Whom also he hath called, etc. That is, he hath called some of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles, to be vessels of election, as he foretold by his prophet Osee 2:24. I will call them my people, that were not my people,...and I will make them the children of the living God. And as it was also foretold by the prophet Isaias, of all the numerous nation of the Jews, only a remnant shall be saved, by their obstinacy in not receiving, and refusing to believe in, their Messias. For finishing his word, and reducing it by his justice to a little, because the Lord will bring to pass his word reducing it to a small compass upon the earth. The sense and construction of this verse is equally obscure in the Greek and in the Latin text: the true sense seems to be, that finishing his word, or fulfilling his promises to Israel, those that are to be saved, will be reduced by his justice for their sins, to a few; because, though he bring to pass his word, and his promises, the saved among the Israelites will be reduced to a small compass, in comparison of the great number of the Gentiles. This exposition agrees with the rest of the text, and with what follows, and was foretold by Isaias, (chap. 1:9.) that unless the God of Sabaoth (of hosts) had, through his mercy, left them a seed, a small number, they would all in a manner have deserved to be utterly destroyed, like Sodom and Gomorrha. (Witham)
John iv
What I say, shall come to pass, that in those places, viz. Greece, Italy, etc. where those who are strangers to the worship of the true God dwell, and have been called, on account of their profane worship, not my people. In those very places, they shall receive the true worship of God, and by this means shall become and be called the children of the living God. He is so particular as to place, lest the Jews should imagine that the Gentiles would be converted like their former proselytes, and either dwell in Judea, or repair to it at certain stated times. Thus the apostle repeats what Jesus Christ had before said to the Samaritan woman. The hour will come when neither in this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, shall you adore the Father. (Estius) (John iv.)
Challoner
A remnant. That is, a small number only of the children of Israel shall be converted and saved. How perversely is this text quoted for the salvation of men of all religions, when it speaks only of the converts of the children of Israel. (Challoner)
Haydock
St. Paul is here speaking of the reprobation of the Jews, and of the vocation of the Gentiles, and foretells that a remnant, or small number of the children of Israel shall be converted, and saved. In the sense of St. Paul, we sincerely hope, and confidently trust, that a remnant of all will be saved through a timely conversion. But we no where read, in the Old, or New Scriptures, that a remnant of all will be saved, as if it were a matter of indifference to what society or connexion a Christian was joined. (Haydock)
9:30
Witham
What then shall we say? Or what shall we conclude from these testimonies of the Scripture, but this paradox, as St. Chrysostom calls it, that they who sought for justice, or sanctification, found it not, and they who did not seek it, found it; that is, the Jews, who sought for this justice by the works of their law, which they magnified so much, have not attained to that law that could make them just; whereas the Gentiles, who had no such written law to confide in, have only sought to be justified by the faith and law of Christ, by which they have met with justice, and sanctification? (Witham)
Calmet
Behold what was wanting to the justice of the Jews! Scrupulous observers of the ceremonial law: esteeming too much their power, and pretended justice, they regarded the gospel and faith in Christ as of no advantage. Running in the path of the commandments with zeal, but without circumspection, they struck against Jesus Christ, who became to them a stumbling-block. They rejected him: they refused to believe. Thus did their works become dead works, without any fruit for eternity. (Calmet)
9:33
Witham
Why then have not the Jews been justified? because they stumbled at the stumbling-stone: that is, the doctrine of Christ crucified has been a scandal to the Jews, at which being offended, they would not own him for their Messias. Yet whosoever believeth in him, and follows his law and doctrine, shall not be confounded, but obtain justification and salvation. (Witham)
9:3
Anathema; ... A curse. The apostle’s concern and love for his countrymen the Jews was so great, that he was willing to suffer even an anathema, or curse, for their sake; or any evil that could come upon him, without his offending God.
9:6
All are not Israelites, etc.... Not all, who are the carnal seed of Israel, are true Israelites in God’s account: who, as by his free grace, he heretofore preferred Isaac before Ismael, and Jacob before Esau, so he could, and did by the like free grace, election and mercy, raise up spiritual children by faith to Abraham and Israel, from among the Gentiles, and prefer them before the carnal Jews.
9:11
Not yet born, etc.... By this example of these twins, and the preference of the younger to the elder, the drift of the apostle is, to shew that God, in his election, mercy and grace, is not tied to any particular nation, as the Jews imagined; nor to any prerogative of birth, or any forgoing merits. For as, antecedently to his grace, he sees no merits in any, but finds all involved in sin, in the common mass of condemnation; and all children of wrath: there is no one whom he might not justly leave in that mass; so that whomsoever he delivers from it, he delivers in his mercy: and whomsoever he leaves in it, he leaves in his justice. As when, of two equally criminal, the king is pleased out of pure mercy to pardon one, whilst he suffers justice to take place in the execution of the other.
9:16
Not of him that willeth, etc.... That is, by any power or strength of his own, abstracting from the grace of God.
9:17
To this purpose, etc.... Not that God made him on purpose that he should sin, and so be damned; but foreseeing his obstinacy in sin, and the abuse of his own free will, he raised him up to be a mighty king, to make a more remarkable example of him: and that his power might be better known, and his justice in punishing him, published throughout the earth.
9:18
He hardeneth.... Not by being the cause or author of his sin, but by withholding his grace, and so leaving him in his sin, in punishment of his past demerits.
9:21
The potter.... This similitude is used only to shew that we are not to dispute with our Maker, nor to reason with him why he does not give as much grace to one as to another; for since the whole lump of our clay is vitiated by sin, it is owing to his goodness and mercy, that he makes out of it so many vessels of honor; and it is no more than just, that others, in punishment of their unrepented sins, should be given up to be vessels of dishonor.
9:27
A remnant.... That is, a small number only of the children of Israel shall be converted and saved. How perversely is this text quoted for the salvation of men of all religions, when it speaks only of the converts of the children of Israel!
9:1
•. Anáthema.] Anáthema, by vse of Scripture is either that vvhich by separation from profane vse, and by dedication to God, is holy, dreadful, and not vulgarly to be touched: Anáthema? or contrarievvise, that which is reiected, seuered, or abandoned from God, as cursed and detested, and therfore is to be auoided. And in this later sense (according as S. Paul taketh it 1 Cor. 16. If any loue not our Lord IESVS CHRIST, be he Anathema, that is to say, Avvay vvith him, Accursed be he, Bevvare you company not vvith him) the Church and holy Councels vse the vvord for a curse and excommunication against Heretikes and other notorious offenders and blasphemers. In vvhat sense S. Paul vvisheth to be anáthema. Novv hovv the Apostle, vvishing him self to be Anathema from Christ to saue his Countrie mens soules, did take this vvord, it is a very hard thing to determine. Some thinke, he desired onely to die for their saluation. Others, that being very loth to be kept from the fruition of Christ, yet he could be con•ent to be so still for to saue their soules. Others, that he vvished vvhat inalediction or separation from Christ so euer that did not imply the disfauour of God tovvards him, nor take avvay his loue tovvard God. This only is certaine that it is a point of vnspeakable charitie in the Apostles breast, and a paterne to al Bishops and Priests, hovv to loue the saluation of their flocke. As the like vvas vttered by Moyses vvhen he said, Either forgiue this people, 〈◊〉. •2, 12. or blot me out of thy booke.
1 Tvvo malefactors' being condemned both for one crime, S. Augustines example is of tvvo debters: the one forgiuē all, and the other put to pay all, by the same creditor. li. de predest. & gra. cap. 4. the Prince pardoneth the one, and letteth the lavv procede on the other. 2 The theefe that is pardoned, can not attribute his escape to his ovvne deseruings, but to the Princes mercie. 3 The theefe that is executed, can not chalenge the Prince that he vvas not pardoned also: but must acknowledge that he hath his deseruing. 4 The standers by, must not say, that he vvas executed because the Prince vvould not pardon him, for that vvas not the cause, but his offense. 5 If they ask: further, vvhy the Prince pardoned not both, or executed not both: the ansvver it, that as mercie is a goodly vertue, so iustice is necessarie and commendable. 6 But if it be further demaunded vvhy Iohn rather then Thomas vvas executed: or Thomas rather then Iohn pardoned: ansvver, that (the parties being othervvise equal) it hangeth merely and vvholy vpon the Princes vvil and pleasure.
1 So likevvise, God seing al mankind and euery one of the same in a general condemnation, and masse of sinne, in and by Adam, deliuereth some, and not othersome. 2 Al that be deliuered out of that cōmon damnation, be deliuered by grace and pardon, through the meanes and merits of Christ. 3 Such as be left in the common case of damnation, can not complaine, because they haue their deseruing for sinne. 4 Vve may not say that such be damned, because God did not pardon them, but because they had siaue, and therfore deserued it. 5 That some should be damned, and not al pardoned, and other some pardoned rather then al condemned, is agreable to Gods iustice & mercie: both vvhich vertues in Gods prouidence tovvards vs are recommended. 6 That Saul should be rather pardoned them Calphas (I meane vvhere tvvo be equally euil and vnderseruing) that is onely Gods holy wil and appointment, by vvhich many an vnworthy man getteth pardon, but no good or iust or innocent person is euer damned.
In al this mercie of God tovvards some, and iustice tovvards other some, both the pardoned vvorkes by their ovvne free vvil, Predestination and reprobatiō take not avvay free vvil, neither must any man be retchlesse & desperate. and thereby deserue their saluation: and the other no lesse by their ovvne free vvil, vvithout al necessitie, vvorke vvickednes, & them selues and only of them selues procure their ovvne damnation. Therfore no man may vvithout blasphemie say, or can truely say, that he hath nothing to doe tovvards his owne saluation, but vvil liue, and thinketh he may liue vvithout care or cogitation of his end the one vvay or the other, saying, If I be appointed to be saued, be it so: if I be one designed to damnation, I can not helpe the matter: come vvhat come may. Al these speaches and cogitations are sinful & come of the enemie, and be rather signes of reprobation, then of election. Therfore the good, man must vvithout searche of Gods secretes, vvorke his ovvne saluation and (as S. Peter saith) make his election sure by good vvorkes, •. Pet. • 10. vvith continual hope of Gods mercie, being assured that if he beleeue vvel and doe vvel, he shal haue vvel. for example, if a husband man should say, If God vvil, I shal haue corne ynough: if not, I can not make it, and so neglect to till his ground: he may be sure that he shal haue none, because he wrought not for it. An other man vseth his diligence in tilling and ploughing, and committeth the rest to God, he findeth the fruite of his labours.
9:4
〈Greek〉,
9:6
6. Not al of Israel.] Though the people of the Ievves vvere many vvaies honoured and priuiledged, Gods promis not made to carnal Israel. and namely by Christes taking flesh of them: yet the promis of grace and saluation vvas neither onely made to them, nor to al them that carnally came of them or their fathers: Gods election and mercie depending vpon his ovvne purpose, vvil, and determination, and not tied to any nation, familie, or person.
9:7
7. But in Isaac.] The promisse made to Abraham vvas not in Ismael, Isaac preferred before Ismael. vvho vvas a sonne borne onely by flesh and nature: but in Isaac, vvho vvas a sonne obtained by promisse, faith, and miracle: and vvas a figure of the Churches children borne to God in Baptisme.
Concordance Gen. 21, •2.
9:9
Concordance Gen. 18, 10.
S. Hierom. q. to. ad Hedibiam.
9:10
10. Of one copulation.] Iacob before Esau. It is proued also by Gods choosing of Iacob before Esau (vvho vvere not onely brethren by father and mother, but also tvvinnes, and Esau the elder of the tvvo, vvhich according to carnal count should haue had the preeminence) that God in giuing graces folovveth not the temporal or carnal prerogatiues of men or families.
Concordance Gen. 25, 21.
9:11
11. Not yet borne.] By the same example of those tvvinnes, it is euident also, that neither nations nor particular persons be elected eternally, By the example of Iacob and Esau, is shewed Gods mere mercie in the elect, and iustice in the reprobate. or called temporally, or preferred to Gods fauour before others, by their ovvne merites: because God, vvhen he made choise, and first loued Iacob, and refused Esau, respected them both as il, and the one no lesse then the other guilty of damnation for original sinne, vvhich vvas alike in them both. And therfore vvhere iustly he might haue reprobated both, he saued of mercie one. Vvhich one therfore, being as il and as void of good as the other, must hold of Gods eternal purpose, mercie, and election, that he vvas preferred before his brother vvhich vvas elder then him self, and no vvorse them him self. And his brother Esau on the other side hath no cause to complaine, for that God neither did nor suffered any thing to be done towards him, that his sinne did not deserue, for although God elect eternally & giue his first grace vvithout al merites, yet he doth not reprobate or hate any man but for sinne, or the foresight thereof.
Al the epistle surely to the Romanes needeth 〈◊〉, and is 〈◊〉 wrapped with 〈…〉 that to vnderstād it we neede the helpe of the Holy Ghost, who by the Apostle did dictat these same things: but especiaally this place. Howbeit nothīg pleaseth vs but that which is Ecclesiastical, that is, the sense of the Church.
9:12
Concordance Gen. 25, 23.
9:13
Concordance Mal. 1, 2.
9:14
14. Is there iniquities] Vpon the former discourse that of tvvo persons equal, That God is not vniust, or an accepter of persons, is declared by familiar examples. God calleth the one to mercie, and leaueth the other in his sinne, one might inferre that God vvere vniust and an accepter of persons. To vvhich the Apostle ansvvereth, that God vvere not iust nor indifferent in deede, so to vse the matter vvhere grace or saluation vvere due. As if tvvo men being Christened, both beleeue vvel, & liue vvel: if God should giue heauen to the one, & should damne the other, then were he vniust, partial, & forgetful of his promisse: but respecting or taking tvvo, who both be vvorthy of damnation (as al are before they be first called to mercie) then the matter standeth on mere mercie, and of the giuers vvil and liberalitie, in vvhich case partialitie hath no place. As for example.
Concordance Exo. 33, 19.
9:16
16. Not of the vviller.] If our election, calling, or first comming to God, lay vvholy or principally vpon our ovvne vvil or vvorkes: or if our vvilling or endeuouring to be good, vvould serue vvithout: Our election or cōuersion is not of our selues, but of Gods grace and mercie. the helpe and grace of God, as the Pelagians taught, then our election vvere vvholy in our selues, vvhich the Apostle denieth. and then might Pharao and other indurate persons (vvhom God hath permitted to be obstinate, to shevv his povver and iust iudgement vpon them) be conuerted vvhen them selues lift, vvithout Gods helpe and assistance: vvhereas vve see the contrarie in al such obstinate offenders, vvhom God for punishment of former sinnes, visiteth not vvith his grace, that by no threates, miracles, nor persuation, they can be conuerted. Vvherevpon vve may not vvith Heretikes inferre, that man hath not free vvil, or that our vvill vvorketh nothing in our conuersion or comming to God: but this onely, that our vvilling or vvorking of any good to our saluation, commeth of Gods special motion, grace, and assistance, and that it is the secondary cause, not the principall.
Concordance Exo. 9, 16.
9:17
17. To this purpose haue I raised.] He doth not say, that he hath of purpose raised or set him vp to sinne, or that he vvas the cause of the same in Pharao, or that he intended his damnation directly or absolutely, or any othervvise but in respect of his demerits: but rather (as the Apostle saith straight after in this chapter of such hardened & obstinate offenders) that he vvith long patience & toleration expected his conuersion, and (as S. Chrysostome interpreteth this vvord, Excitaui) preserued him aliue to repent, vvhom he might lustly haue condemned before. Exo. 9, 16. In the 9 of Exodus, In vvhat sense, God raised vp Pharao &c. vvhence this allegation is, vve reade, Posui•e, I haue put or set thee vp, as here, I haue raised thee, that is to say, I haue purposely aduanced thee to be so great a king, and chosen thee out to be a notorious example both of the obdurate obstinacie that is in such vvho I haue for so great sinne, forsaken, and also to shevv to the vvorld, that no obstinacie of neuer so mightie offenders can resist me to doe any thing vvhich shal not fall to my glorie. Vvhich is no more to say, but that God often for the punishment of Nations, and to shevv his iustice and glorie, giueth vvicked Princes vnto them, and indueth them vvith povver and al prosperitie, and taking his grace from them vpon their deserts, hardeneth their hartes so, as they vvithsand and contemne God, and afflict his people. in vvhose end and fall, either temporal or eternal, at the length God vvil euer be glorified. Neither vvould he either raise or suffer any such, or giue them povver and prosperitie in this life, vvherevpon he knovveth they vvil be vvorse, but that he can vvorke al that to his honour and glorie. mary, that he vseth not such rigorous iustice on al that deserue it, that is his great grace and mercie. And that he exerciseth his iustice vpon some certaine persons, rather then vpon other some of equal deserts, that lieth vvholy vpon his vvil, in vvhose iudgements there be many things secrete, but nothing vniust.
9:20
20. Who art thou?] Here the Apostle staieth the rashnes and presumption of such poore vvormes, Heretical bookes concerning predestination. as take vpon them to question vvith God of their election or reprobation: as certaine impious Heretikes of our time haue done, setting out bookes farsed vvith most blasphemous and erroneous doctrine cōcerning this high and hidden mysterie, and haue giuen occasion to the ignorant vvhich alvvaies be curious, to iangle, and perniciously to erre in these things, that are impossible to be vnderstood of any, or vvel thought of, but of the obedient and humble.
9:22
That God is not the cause of any mans reprobation or damnation, othervvise then for punishment of his sinnes, he shevveth by that he expec•teth al mens amendement vvith great patience, and consequently that they haue also freo vvil.
apted, fitted.
9:24
Concordance Os. 2, 23.
9:26
Concordance Os. 1, 10.
Concordance Es. 10, 22.
9:29
Concordance Es, 1, 9.
9:31
31. The potter.] This example of the pot and potter reacheth no further but to declare, that the creature may not reason vvith God his maker, vvhy he giueth not one so great grace, as an other, or vvhy he pardoneth not one as vvel as an other: no more then the chamber pot may chalenge the Potter vvhy he vvas not made a drinking pot, The example of the pot and the potter. as vvel as an other. And therfore the Heretikes that extend this similitude to proue that man hath no free vvil no more then a peece of clay, doe vntruely and deceitfully apply the example. specially vvhen vve may see expresly in the booke of Exodus, that Pharao notvvithstāding his indurate hart, had free vvil: vvhere both it is said, He vvould not dismisse the people: and He indurated his owne hart him self. Exo. c. •, 15. and (in the Hebrue) v. 32. &c. 9. 35. 1 Reg. 6, 6. And this Apostle also vvritheth, 2 Tim. 2, 21. that a man may cleanse him self from the filthy, and so become a vessel of honour in the house of God.
9:32
Here vve see that they are the cause of their ovvne damnation by infidelity.
Concordance Es. 8, 14. 28, 16.
9:1
St Gregory Thaumaturgus † AD 270 A Sectional Confession of Faith 10
… “As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” And again: “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.”
Archelaus † fl. AD 278 The Acts of the Disputation with the Heresiarch Manes 34
… “According to the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the Gospel of God.” “I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Lying 28
28. It is also written, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” But the Apostle himself has used oaths in his Epistles.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.3
… who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service and the promises; whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever."
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 104
… Above and beyond all these I have my conscience, and Him who sees my conscience. And I know too how the divine Apostle often appealed to the testimony of his conscience, for “our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience” and again “I say the truth in Christ I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost.”
9:2
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 6
… On this account they style us innovators, revolutionizers, phrase-coiners, and every other possible name of insult. But so far am I from being irritated at their abuse, that, were it not for the fact that their loss causes me “heaviness and continual sorrow,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 18.8
8. “What then,” says some one, “used not the Saint to be in sadness? Do you not hear Paul saying, “I have great heaviness, and continual sorrow in my heart?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 19
… I ask the Jew: Say, by what was Paul converted? He saw so many signs, and was not converted: his teacher (Gamaliel, supra, p. 87, note 1) was converted, and he remained unconverted. Who convinced him—and not only convinced, but all at once inspired him with such ardent zeal? Wherefore was it, that he wished even to go into hell itself
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 2, 3 . “That I have a great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 14.9
… desiring to depart and to be with Christ; longing to see the Romans, that he might have some fruit among them as among other Gentiles; being jealous over the Corinthians, and fearing in that jealousy lest their minds should be corrupted from the chastity that is in Christ; having great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for the Israelites,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.17
… Do not they even who have the first-fruits of the Spirit groan within themselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of their body? Was not the Apostle Paul himself a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, and was he not so all the more when he had heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for his Israelitish brethren?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 22
… love, of which the Apostle Peter makes answer, “Lord, Thou knowest that I love Thee;” whether through fear, of which says the Apostle Paul, “In fear and trembling work out your own salvation;” whether through joy, of which he says, “In hope rejoicing, in tribulation patient;” whether through sorrow, with which he says he had great grief for his brethren;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 88.3
… We read of the Apostle Paul, a chief member in this body, and we hear him confessing that his soul was full of such evils, when he says, that he feels “great heaviness and continual sorrow in heart for his brethren according to the flesh, who are Israelites.”
9:3
St Cyprian of Carthage † AD 258 Three Books of Testimonies Against the Jews 2.7
… who are Israelites: whose are the adoption, and the glory, and the covenant, and the appointment of the law, and the service (of God), and the promises; whose are the fathers, of whom, according to the flesh, Christ came, who is God over all, blessed for evermore.”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 14
… Blessed David again, having humbled himself by fastings, used boldness, saying, ‘O Lord my God, if I have done this, if there is any iniquity in my hands, if I have repaid those who dealt evil with me, then may I fall from my enemies as a vain man
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 2.55
… Not to be proud of earthly things, or puffed up by knowledge, or excite the flesh against the spirit. He fights for all, prays for all, is jealous for all, is kindled on behalf of all, whether without law, or under the law; a preacher of the Gentiles, a patron of the Jews. He even was exceedingly bold on behalf of his brethren according to the flesh,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 3.7
… “Who is weak,” he says, “and I am not weak? who is offended and I burn not?” Such an one ought the priest to be, or, rather, not such only: for these are small things, and as nothing compared with what I am about to say. And what is this? “I could wish,” he says, “that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Treatise Concerning the Christian Priesthood 4
… And what is this? After so many exploits, after such a multitude of victories, he prayed that he might go into hell, and be handed over to eternal punishment, if so be that those Jews, who had often stoned him, and done what they could to make away with him, might be saved, and come over to Christ.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 17
But why did Paul then, it may be said, choose to become accursed?
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 6
But the admirable and great ones, and beloved of God, need none of these motives: men, such as was Paul: not of the kingdom, not of hell, made he account. For this is indeed to love Christ, this to be no hireling, nor to reckon it a matter of trafficking and trading, but to be indeed virtuous, and to do all for the love of God. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 37
… xiii. 46 ), he did not leave these alone: such was the longing affection he had towards them. For hear him saying, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” ( Rom. x. 1 ): and, “I wished myself accursed from Christ for my brethren.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans pref
… Paul, in whom, as much as in any of the sacred writers, the Man appears as well as the guiding Spirit, was that peculiar affection with which he regarded him, and which he expresses particularly in the beginning of the introduction, and at the close of the last Homily. The effect of this is perhaps best traced in the commentary on
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 31
… For men not only reverenced him, but were even afraid of him. Had this not been so, he would not have said, who had been “a succorer of many, and of myself also.” ( v. 2 .) And again, “I could wish that myself were accursed.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 32
… the dust of that body through which Christ spoke, and the Light shone forth more brilliant than any lightning, and the voice started out, more awful than any thunder to the devils! through which he uttered that blessed voice, saying, “I could wish that myself were accursed, for my brethren” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 25
And not by this only, but by another and greater excellency doth he surpass all those before mentioned. That is, Abraham and all the rest exposed themselves to dangers in the present life, and all these were but asking for this kind of death once for all: but Paul prayed (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 7
And what again, tell me, did Paul? did he not ask even to be accursed in their stead? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Philippians 4
… ( 1 Cor. iii. 9 .). Didst thou not hear me, when I declared that I sought not “that which profited myself” ( 1 Cor. x. 33 .), but my neighbor? Heardest thou not these words, “I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 1
Now that this love is greater than the other, hear Paul saying; “For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Colossians 12
… 29 .); but unto this not many have attained. For if to stay here for Christ’s sake were more needful than to depart to Him ( Philip. i. 23, 24 .), for the sake of the salvation of others; surely then to groan for others’ sakes, is more needful even than to see Him. For if for His sake to be in hell,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Thessalonians 2
… And I will tell you why. Because many who see the sun are in darkness, but they can never be even in tribulation, who abound in friends. I speak of spiritual friends, who prefer nothing to friendship. Such was Paul, who would willingly have given his own soul, even though not asked, nay would have plunged into hell
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 82.3
… He sought to imitate the Shepherd who would, he knew, carry on his shoulders even the wandering sheep. “The good Shepherd”—they are the Lord’s own words—“layeth down his life for the sheep.” One of his disciples can wish to be anathema from Christ for his brethren’s sake, his kinsmen according to the flesh who were Israelites.
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 128.4
… The prayers of His servant hindered His power. Who, think you, is there now under heaven able to stay God’s wrath, to face the flame of His judgment, and to say with the apostle, “I could wish that I myself were accursed for my brethren”?
St Jerome † AD 420 The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary 16
… thou shalt surely bring them again unto thy brother. And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, or if thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thine house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother seek after it, and thou shalt restore it to him again.” And the Apostle Paul says,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.28
… who are Israelites, to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the testaments, and the giving of the law; whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 9.18
… “He who speaketh of himself, seeketh his own glory. But He who seeks the glory of Him who sent Him, the same is true and there is no unrighteousness in Him.” Finally the chosen vessel being filled with this feeling wished that he could be anathema from Christ
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 23.5
… For he is driven to choose this the rather by that excessive goodness of his whereby for the salvation of his brethren he is ready, were it possible, to incur even the last evil of an Anathema. “For I could wish,” he says, “that I myself were Anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites,”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius 3.1
… whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever.”
9:4
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 24
55. Furthermore man is “crowned with glory and honour,” and “glory, honour and peace” are laid up by promise “to every man that worketh good.” There is moreover a special and peculiar glory for Israelites “to whom,” it is said “pertaineth the adoption and the glory…and the service,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 A Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles 37
… xiii. 46 ), he did not leave these alone: such was the longing affection he had towards them. For hear him saying, “Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved” ( Rom. x. 1 ): and, “I wished myself accursed from Christ for my brethren.” ( ib. ix. 3 .) But he did this
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 14
… lxxxii. 6 ); and again, “I have nourished and brought up children” ( Is. i. 2 ); and so, “Israel is My first-born” ( Ex. iv. 22 ); and Paul too says, “Whose is the adoption” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 4, 5 . “To whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the Law, and the service of God, and the promises; whose are the father’s, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 14
… For the old, the new. For there was a righteousness, and again a righteousness, (“Touching the righteousness which is in the law,” saith Paul “blameless.”) ( Philip. iii. 6 .) There was a faith, there is a faith. (“From faith to faith.”) ( Rom. i. 17 .) There was an adoption, there is an adoption. (“To whom pertaineth the adoption.”) (
9:5
Pope St Clement I † AD 99 The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians 32
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognise the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh.
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.16.3
… “Whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all, blessed for ever.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 10
Joseph, again, himself was made a figure of Christ in this point alone (to name no more, not to delay my own course), that he suffered persecution at the hands of his brethren, and was sold into Egypt, on account of the favour of God; just as Christ was sold by Israel—(and therefore,) “according to the flesh,” by His “brethren”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 13
… so that if the Father and the Son, are alike to be invoked, I shall call the Father “ God ,” and invoke Jesus Christ as “ Lord .” But when Christ alone (is mentioned), I shall be able to call Him “ God ,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
Tertullian † AD 220 Against Praxeas 15
… Him, too, did Paul behold; but yet he saw not the Father. “Have I not,” he says, “seen Jesus Christ our Lord ?” Moreover, he expressly called Christ God, saying: “Of whom are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 2
… For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father, that He might be able also to save us. And we cannot express ourselves otherwise, he says; for the apostle also acknowledges one God, when he says, “Whose are the fathers, (and) of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
St Hippolytus † AD 235 Against the Heresy of One Noetus 6
6. Let us look next at the apostle’s word: “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 13
… and if, finally, the Apostle Thomas, instructed in all the proofs and conditions of Christ’s divinity, says in reply to Christ, “My Lord and my God;” and if, besides, the Apostle Paul says, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom Christ came according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for evermore,”
Novatian † AD 258 A Treatise of Novatian Concerning the Trinity 30
… because “in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and God was the Word. The same was in the beginning with God.” And, “The Word was made flesh, and dwelt in us.” And, “My Lord and my God.” And, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom according to the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for evermore.”
St Methodius † AD 311 Oration Concerning Simeon and Anna On the Day that They Met in the Temple 1
… We keep festival, not according to the vain customs of the Greek mythology; we keep a feast which brings with it no ridiculous or frenzied banqueting of the gods, but which teaches us the wondrous condescension to us men of the awful glory of Him who is God over all.
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 4.39
… The Apostle promptly matches this with For there is one Jesus Christ our Lord, through Whom are all things . Obviously there can be none other but He, for He is One. The third prophetic statement is, Thou art God and we knew it not . But Paul, once the persecutor of the Church, says, Whose are the fathers, from Whom is Christ, Who is God over all
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 8.37
… But Paul knows full well that Christ is God, for he says, Whose are the fathers, and of whom is Christ, Who is God over all
St Hilary of Poitiers † AD 367 De Trinitate or On the Trinity 12.24
… that very quality the Gospels testify to be a property of God Only-begotten; since in the beginning was the Word, and since the Word was with God, and since He was the true Light, and since God Only-begotten is in the bosom of the Father , and since Jesus Christ is God over all
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.3
… If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.4
… ‘Who is and who was and who is to come.’ Now who can rob ‘who is’ and ‘who was’ of eternity? This too in confutation of the Jews hath Paul written in his Epistle to the Romans, ‘Of whom as concerning the flesh is Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 1.7
… while John besides says, ‘The Word was ,’ and Paul again writes, ‘Who being the brightness of His glory ,’ and, ‘Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 4.1.1
1. The Word is God from God; for ‘the Word was God ,’ and again, ‘Of whom are the Fathers, and of whom Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Festal and Personal Letters of Athanasius 59
… For if He were not God in the Body, how came He, upon proceeding from Mary, straightway to be called ‘Emmanuel, which is being interpreted God with us ?’ Why again, if the Word was not in the flesh, did Paul write to the Romans ‘of whom is Christ after the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever. Amen
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.9
… For, were the Son created, either he would not have worshipped Him, or he would have refrained from classing those who worship the creature along with idolaters, lest he himself should appear to be an idolater, in offering adoration to the created. But he knew that He Whom he adored was God over all
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.11
… Who is He in Whom all things were created, and in Whom all things that are have their continuance? In Whom do we live and move and have our being? Who is He Who hath in Himself all that the Father hath? Does what has been said leave us any longer in ignorance of Him Who is “God over all
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 6.2
… As his thought, then, divides that which in love to man was made one, but is distinguished in idea, he uses, when he is proclaiming that nature which transcends and surpasses all intelligence, the more exalted order of names, calling Him “God over all
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 11.2
… not even think it necessary to bring forward in detail the utterances of Paul, since they are, as one may say, in all men’s mouths, who gives the Lord the appellation not only of “God,” but of “great God” and “God over all,” saying to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 11.3
… And yet this phrase, “over all,” as has been previously observed, is common to the Son with the Father, the Apostle having expressly ascribed such a title to Him, when he says, “Of whom, as concerning the flesh, Christ came, Who is God over all
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.3
46. But if in this place the Spirit be separated from the operation of the Father and the Son, because it is said, All things are of God, and all things are through the Son, then, too, when the Apostle says of Christ, “Who is over all, God blessed for ever,”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 1.11
… For if He existed not always with the Father, He is a “new” [God]; if He is not of one Divinity with the Father, He is a “strange” [God]. But He is not after the Father, for He is not “a new God;” nor is He “a strange God,” for He is begotten of the Father, and because, as it is written, He is “God above all, blessed for ever.”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 4.11
… “all things serve Thee.” Nor is the Son reckoned “amongst” all things, for “all things were made by Him,” and “all things exist together in Him, and He is above all the heavens.” The Son, therefore, exists not “amongst” but above all things, being, indeed, after the flesh, of the people, of the Jews, but yet at the same time God over all, blessed for ever,
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.16
… For whom else but the Arians in chief does the prophet condemn, seeing that they say that the Son of God knows neither times nor years. For there is nothing which God is ignorant of; and Christ, yea the most high Christ, is God, for He is “God over all.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 4
… How then was He of the root of Jesse? How was He a rod? how Son of man? how was Mary His mother? how was He of David’s seed? how did he “take the form of a servant?” how “was the Word made flesh?” and how saith Paul to the Romans, “Of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is God over all?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 19
For when he tells of any great and unutterable thing of this kind, he ends in wonder with a doxology. And this he does in regard to the Son also. For in that passage also he went on to the very same thing that he does here. “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is over all God blessed forever. Amen. (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 20
[6.] Nor yet, if you observe, hath he distributed the names as if belonging exclusively, assigning to the Son the name Lord, and to the Father, God. For the Scripture useth also often to interchange them; as when it saith, ( Ps. cx. 1 .) “The Lord saith unto My Lord;” and again, ( Ps. lxv. 8 .) “Wherefore God Thy God hath appointed Thee;” and, (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 1
Ver. 3 . “Blessed be the God,” he saith, “and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 4
… by the word “was” carrying thee forward to the idea that the Son is without beginning. “Yet observe,” says he, “the Father is named with the addition of the article, but the Son without it.” What then, when the Apostle says, “The Great God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ” ( Tit. ii. 13 ); and again, “Who is above all, God”? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 33
… Or rather, one would not be wrong in calling both these things “salvation” which He said was “of the Jews”; which Paul implied when he said, “Of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is God over all.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.18
24. And I sought a way of acquiring strength sufficient to enjoy Thee; but I found it not until I embraced that “Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus,” “who is over all, God blessed for ever,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.20
… to say, in the eighth generation from Adam, or the seventh from Cain,—as if from this point he had wished to pass on to another series, by which he might reach either the Israelitish people, among whom the earthly Jerusalem presented a prophetic figure of the heavenly city, or to Jesus Christ, “according to the flesh, who is over all, God blessed for ever,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 2.13
… Was an angel, then, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? Therefore He may be rightly understood to be the Saviour Himself, of whom the apostle says, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 3
… And in an analogous manner, the Lord Jesus Christ, previous to His appearing in the flesh, and coming forth in a certain manner out of the womb of His secrecy, before the eyes of men as Man, the Mediator between God and men, “who is over all, God blessed for ever,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Catechising of the Uninstructed 20
… In the service of prefiguring this King in that earthly kingdom of the people of Israel, King David stood forth pre-eminent, of whose seed according to the flesh that truest King was to come, to wit, our Lord Jesus Christ, ‘who is over all, God blessed for ever.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 16.15
… The Scripture, I acknowledge, shows points of difference; and the Scripture also, as I call on you to acknowledge, shows points of resemblance. There are points of both kinds, and one can be proved as well as the other. Christ is unlike man, for He is God; and it is written of Him that He is "over all, God blessed for ever."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Answer to the Letters of Petilian, the Donatist 3.48
… in your communion, even when it has been made clear that he has been baptized by some one who, on account of some concealed iniquity, did not at the time possess the conscience of one that gives in holiness, what answer do you intend to make, except that he is cleansed by Christ or by God, although, indeed, Christ is Himself God over all, blessed for ever,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 1.20
… for thus in another place, when He is setting forth the privileges of the Jewish people, the Apostle saith, “Whose are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, Who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 12.9
… As I taught thee to touch it in this that is written, “Whoso seeth a brother sit at meat in the idol’s temple;” touch it also concerning the Divinity of Christ. The same border said of the Jews, “Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Ten Homilies on the First Epistle of John 1.4
… He “was from the beginning,” and for a time was made visible and palpable, the Only-begotten Son of God. For what thing did He come, or what new thing did He tell us? What was it His will to teach? Wherefore did He this which He did, that the Word should be made flesh, that “God over all things”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 47.7
7. “Sing praises to our God, sing praises” ( ver. 6 ). Whom as Man mocked they, who from God were alienated. “Sing praises to our God.” For He is not Man only, but God. Man of the seed of David, God the Lord of David, of the Jews having flesh. “Whose” (saith the Apostle) “are the fathers, of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.2
2. “Let God rise up, and let His enemies be scattered” ( ver. 1 ). Already this hath come to pass, Christ hath risen up, “who is over all things, God blessed for ever,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 71.11
… had first said in their heart, “God hath forsaken Him?” Whence there was that voice on the Cross, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” So then did God forsake Christ, though “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself,” though Christ was also God, out of the Jews indeed according to the flesh, “Who is over all things, God blessed for ever,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 76.1
… Let not therefore the Jews revile, who are no longer Jews. They said themselves, “We have no king but Cæsar.” For better were it for them that their king should be Christ, of the seed of David, of the tribe of Judah. Nevertheless because Christ Himself is of the seed of David after the flesh, but God above all things blessed for ever,
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 1
… In like manner also the divine apostle in his Epistle to the Romans bewailing the change to the worse of the ancient felicity of the Jews, and calling to mind their divine promises and legislation, goes on to say “Whose are the fathers, and of whom concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever Amen,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Dialogues. The “Eranistes” or “Polymorphus” of the Blessed Theodoretus, Bishop of Cyrus 3
“But had it been becoming to attribute to Him any kind of infirmity, any one might have said that it was natural to attach these qualities to the manhood, though not to the fulness of the Godhead, or to the dignity of the highest wisdom, or to Him who according to Paul is described as God over all.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 83
… For so are we taught by the wise Paul “Whose are the Fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen,”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 147
… and declared to be the Son of God with power” and so on. He calls the same both Jesus Christ, and Son of David, and Son of God, as God and Lord of all, and yet in the middle of his epistle, after making mention of the Jews, he adds, “whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all God blessed for ever, amen.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 152
… who being in the form of God thought it not robbery to be equal with God but made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant.” And in the Epistle to the Romans, “Whose are the fathers and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came who is over all God blessed for ever. Amen.”
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 124
… God bending Himself to the weak things of man, and man rising up to the high things of the Godhead, as the Apostle says, “whose are the fathers, and from whom, according to the flesh is Christ, who is above all things God blessed for ever. Amen
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Letters 139
… in no way is He outside our true bodily nature, of Whom the Evangelist in beginning his story says, “the book of the generation of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham ,” with which the blessed Apostle Paul’s teaching agrees, when he says “whose are the fathers and of whom is Christ according to the flesh, Who is above all God blessed for ever
9:6
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1.21
… And again in another passage, “For they are not all Israelites who are of Israel.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1.23
… as well as what is that descent of seventy souls into Egypt, which seventy souls became in that land as the stars of heaven in multitude. But as not all of them were the light of this world—“for all who are of Israel are not Israel”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1-2.21
… then, being the state of the case, the apostle, elevating our power of discernment (above the letter), says somewhere, “Behold Israel after the flesh,” as if there were an Israel “according to the Spirit.” And in another place he says, “For they who are the children of the flesh are not the children of God;” nor are “they all Israel who are of Israel;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1-2.23
… and the descent into Egypt of the seventy souls, that they may there become as the “stars of heaven in multitude.” But since not all who are of them are the light of the world—“for not all who are of Israel are Israel”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies on the Statues to the People of Antioch 1.18
… Afterwards reproving him, that he had suspected thus without cause, He saith, “He yet holdeth fast his integrity; to no purpose didst thou move me to destroy his substance.” For it is a sufficient reward, and compensation to the saints, that they are serving God; since this indeed to the lover is reward enough, to love the object of his love;
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 7
But how was it, one may say, that He did not feed the Jewish people? I answer, first, this too is accomplished: for by the term Israel in this place, he figuratively meant such as believed on Him from among the Jews. And Paul interpreting this, saith, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 9
… neither they, which are the children of the flesh, are they the children of God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 6 . “Not as though the word of God had taken none effect.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 12.6
… "The word of God cannot fail. For they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called: that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of promise are counted for the seed."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 40
… “They shall all know me,” He says,—“ All ,” the house of Israel and house of Judah. “ All ,” however, “are not Israel which are of Israel,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.39
39. “Give ye glory to God, above Israel is the magnificence of Him” ( ver. 34 ). Of whom saith the Apostle, “Upon the Israel of God.” For “not all that are out of Israel, are Israelites:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.1
… let us see whether perchance the voice in this Psalm be not of that same people. But of what sort of Jews and of what sort of people of Israel? For they are not of the chaff, but perchance of the grain; not of the broken branches, but perchance of those that are strengthened. “For not all that are of Israel are Israelites.”
9:7
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 7 . “Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.32
… The apostle, in explaining this, says, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called, that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.34
… “For they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed, of whom it was said, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 25
… but the sons of the promise are counted for the seed;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 40
… And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac, (for the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth,) it was said unto her, “The elder shall serve the younger.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 117.5
… For “they,” saith the apostle, “who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
9:8
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis iv.1-2.22
… for “they who are the children of the flesh are not the children of God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 8
… And this is why he passes by all the others, and leads his discourse back to this man. And he calls him “father, as pertaining to the flesh,” to throw them out of the genuine relationship ( συγγενείας γνησίας ) to him, and to pave the Gentiles’ way to kinsmanship
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 8 . “That is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise, these are counted for the seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 14
… “They,” says he, “which are the children of the flesh, are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.31
… In no passage at all have I observed them recognising “the children of the promise,” concerning whom the apostle thus speaks: “They which are children of the flesh, these are not the children of God; but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 68.39
… 34 ). Of whom saith the Apostle, “Upon the Israel of God.” For “not all that are out of Israel, are Israelites:” for there is also an Israel after the flesh. Whence he saith, “See ye Israel after the flesh.” “For not they that are sons of the flesh, are sons of God, but sons of promise are counted for a seed.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 72.19
… “For He saith not, In seeds, as though in many; but as though in one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ.” But to Abraham is said, “In thy Seed shall be blessed all the tribes of the earth.” And not the sons of the flesh but the sons of promise are counted in the Seed.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 79.2
… to whom the offer of Christ was made, and in a manner the healthful and fruitful fulfilment of the promise; concerning whom even the Lord Himself saith, “I am not sent but to the sheep which have been lost of the house of Israel,” the same are they that out of them are the sons of promise; the same are counted for a seed;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.6
… For he explaineth in some degree what he meant by adding, “even Thy salvation, according to Thy word:” that is, according to Thy promise. Whence the Apostle desireth us to be understood as the children of promise:
9:9
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 9 . “At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.”
9:10
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.21.2
… and the one people shall overcome the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 1
… to the effect that, which ever was to be prior in proceeding from the womb, should be subjected to “the less,” that is, the posterior. For thus unto Rebecca did God speak: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two peoples shall be divided from thy bowels; and people shall overcome people, and the greater shall serve the less.”
Tertullian † AD 220 On Modesty 8
… Seek, therefore, the Christians some other as their brother; for the Jew the parable does not admit. Much more aptly would they have matched the Christian with the elder, and the Jew with the younger son, “according to the analogy of faith,” if the order of each people as intimated from Rebecca’s womb
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 On Virginity 8
… An example might be found in the patriarch Isaac. He married Rebecca when he was past the flower of his age and his prime was well-nigh spent, so that his marriage was not the deed of passion, but because of God’s blessing that should be upon his seed. He cohabited with her till the birth of her only children
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 10 . “And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 16.35
… And when she was troubled by this struggle, and inquired of the Lord, she received this answer: “Two nations are in thy womb, and two manner of people shall be separated from thy bowels; and the one people shall overcome the other people, and the elder shall serve the younger.” The Apostle Paul would have us understand this as a great instance of grace;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.8
… For, long afterwards, I perceived that those words might even be (and probably were) the utterance of a spiritual man. The latter question in this book is gathered from that passage where the apostle says, ‘And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one act of intercourse, even by our father Isaac,’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.30
… Let a man here answer to God if he dare, and say, Why was it not I also? And if he should hear, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
9:11
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 2.9.7
… “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John 2.25
… first minister in the sight of God, and I invoked my God by the inextinguishable name?” It is likely that this was really said by Jacob, and was therefore written down, and that there is also a deeper meaning in what we are told, “He supplanted his brother in the womb.” Consider whether the celebrated question about Jacob and Esau has a solution. We read,
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 43.46
… With what object? The extrusion of the Patriarch Jacob, and the intrusion in his place of Esau, who was hated,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 10
… For this is what the principles of disputation did not oblige him to say any more than the Jew; and therefore he leaves it unsolved. But if any of you were to enquire with a view to learn, we should give this answer: That we are so far from taking any harm from this death and condemnation
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 11–13 . “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 144.5
… For it is impossible that you should hold the opinion of Origen, Priscillian, and other heretics that it is for deeds done in a former life that souls are confined in earthly and mortal bodies. This opinion is, indeed, flatly contradicted by the apostle who says of Jacob and Esau that before they were born they had done neither good nor evil.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 102.15
… Thus the salvation provided by this religion, by which alone, as alone true, true salvation is truly promised, was never wanting to any one who was worthy of it, and he to whom it was wanting was not worthy of it.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.31
… To this opinion Holy Scripture indeed presents a most manifest contradiction; for when recommending divine grace, it says: “For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said, The elder shall serve the younger.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 3.17
… Perhaps you suppose that a Christian body may be born of Christian parents, without having received a Christian soul? Well, this would render the case much more wonderful still. For you would think of the soul one of two things as you pleased,—because, of course, you hold with the apostle, that before birth it had done nothing good or evil:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 40
… This is the house of the children of promise,—not by reason of their own merits, but of the kindness of God. For God promises what He Himself performs: He does not Himself promise, and another perform; which would no longer be promising, but prophesying. Hence it is “not of works, but of Him that calleth,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 2.36
… since the Apostle Paul says most plainly, that before they were born they did neither good nor evil.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 1.15
For my own part, indeed, I affirm that neither of the alternative cases ought to be admitted, nor that third opinion which would have it that souls sinned in some other state previous to the flesh, and so deserved to be condemned to the flesh; for the apostle has most distinctly stated that “the children being not yet born, had done neither good nor evil.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Soul and its Origin 3.9
Again, do not, I pray you, believe, say, or teach that “the soul deservedly lost something by the flesh, although it was of good merit previous to the flesh,” if you wish to be a catholic. For the apostle declares that “children who are not yet born, have done neither good nor evil.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.15
… for, when he had proposed something of the same kind about two twins, seeing that it was said (not of works, since they had not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that calleth), “The older shall serve the younger,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.22
… Of this purpose of God, that also was said which I have already mentioned concerning the twins Esau and Jacob, “That according to the election the purpose of God might remain, not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said, that the elder shall serve the younger.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 14
… And they are elected because they were called according to the purpose—the purpose, however, not their own, but God’s; of which He elsewhere says, “That the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her that the elder shall serve the younger.”
9:12
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 7.9
… but I fed not on them. For it pleased Thee, O Lord, to take away the reproach of diminution from Jacob, that the elder should serve the younger;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, “who being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.32
… knowing that there is a certain sure calling of those who are called according to God’s purpose, whom He has foreknown and predestinated before to be conformed to the image of His Son. And it was this calling he meant when he said, “Not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, That the elder shall serve the younger.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.38
… because faith itself does not precede that calling of which it is said: “For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance;” and of which it is said: “Not of works, but of Him that calleth”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 24.6
6. “This is the generation of them that seek the Lord” ( ver. 6 ). For thus are they born that seek Him. “Of them that seek the face of the God of Jacob. Diapsalma. ” Now they seek the face of God, who gave the pre-eminence to the younger born.
9:13
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.21.2
… that the one also should be under bondage, but the other free; but [that both should be] of one and the same father. Our God, one and the same, is also their God, who knows hidden things, who knoweth all things before they can come to pass; and for this reason has He said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on 2 Timothy 7
… And this may be otherwise manifested by an example. Cain despised his brother, and so, immediately after, he despised God. How despised Him? Mark his insolent answer to God; “Am I my brother’s keeper?” ( Gen. iv. 9 .) Again, Esau despised his brother, and he too despised God. Wherefore God said, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 137.10
10. Then he turneth to God in prayer against the enemies of that city. “Remember, O Lord, the children of Edom” ( ver. 7 ). Edom is the same who is also called Esau: for ye heard just now the words of the Apostle read, “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.”
9:14
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 1.7.4
… Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. And how shall we escape that declaration: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 14 . “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 120
(10) What is the meaning of the passage, Rom. ix. 14–29 ?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 180.2
… birth, how can it be that the innumerable souls of those little ones, in regard to whom God knew with certainty that before attaining the age of reason, and before being able to know or understand what is right or wrong, they were to leave the body without being baptized, are justly given over to eternal death by Him with whom “there is no unrighteousness!”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 20.1
… And men are punished by God for their sins often visibly, always secretly, either in this life or after death, although no man acts rightly save by the assistance of divine aid; and no man or devil acts unrighteously save by the permission of the divine and most just judgment. For, as the apostle says, “There is no unrighteousness with God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we say then?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 21.2
… "But what if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and that He might manifest the riches of His grace towards the vessels of mercy, which He hath before prepared unto glory?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.29
… The reason why this grace comes upon one man and not on another may be hidden, but it cannot be unjust. For “is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants 1.30
… Suppose both were carried off, would not both enter the kingdom of heaven? And yet there is no unrighteousness with God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 54
… inasmuch as an evil volition alone is already a sin, even if the effect be wanting,—in other words, if it has not ability. But when the evil volition receives ability to accomplish its intention, this proceeds from the judgment of God, with whom there is no unrighteousness.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 60
… Now, should any man be for constraining us to examine into this profound mystery, why this person is so per suaded as to yield, and that person is not, there are only two things occurring to me, which I should like to advance as my answer: “O the depth of the riches!” and “Is there unrighteousness with God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 66
… Men, however, ask why He does not do this; but they who raise the question consider not duly the fact that they are human. I am quite certain that, as nothing is impossible with God so also there is no iniquity with Him.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.16
… Is there unrighteousness with God? Away with the thought! For He says to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion. Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 9
… ourselves, and of our own choice would not give it?” And they do not observe that, if they are not yet regenerated, the first reason why, when they are reproached because they are disobedient to God, they ought to be dissatisfied with themselves is, that God made man upright from the beginning of the human creation, and there is no unrighteousness with God.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 19
… this to whom He will, or certainly that Scripture is wrong which says concerning the immature death of the righteous man, “He was taken away lest wickedness should change his understanding, or lest deceit should beguile his soul.” Why, then, does God give this so great benefit to some, and not give it to others, seeing that in Him is no unrighteousness
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.25
… and does not come to the help of those who are more mature, although He foresaw that they would believe His miracles if they should be done among them, because He wills not to come to their help, since in His predestination He, secretly indeed, but yet righteously, has otherwise determined concerning them. For “there is no unrighteousness with God;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 53.6
… and God can do this by a judgment that is hidden, although not by one that is unrighteous. This is a doctrine which the piety of the God-fearing ought to preserve unshaken and inviolable in all its integrity: even as the apostle, when treating of the same intricate question, says, “What shall we say then? is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.10
10. He turneth therefore Himself to them, thirsting for them: “Do not hope in iniquity” ( ver. 10 ). For my hope is in God. Ye that will not draw near and pass over, “do not hope in iniquity.” For I that have leapt over, my hope is in God; and is there anywise iniquity with God?
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.14
… This is the great mystery of God: that even a good thing which thou doest He hath Himself given it to thee, and by thy evil He doeth good Himself. Do not therefore wonder, God permitteth, and in judgment permitteth: He permitteth, and in measure, number, weight, He permitteth. With Him is not iniquity:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 69.28
… “Lay Thou iniquity upon their iniquity” ( ver. 28 ). What is this? Who would not be afraid? To God is said, “Lay Thou iniquity upon their iniquity.” Whence shall God lay iniquity? For hath He iniquity to lay? For we know that to be true which hath been spoken through Paul the Apostle, “What then shall we say? Is there anywise iniquity with God? Far be it.”
9:15
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 15 . “For I will have mercy, He says, on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” ( Ex. xxxiii. 19 .)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Second Corinthians 2
… for though there be mercy, yet it seeketh out those that are worthy. It will not come upon all without distinction; those even who have no feeling; for He saith, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
In the first place, he did not introduce it as his own opinion, but inferred it from what was before him and from what had been put forward [in the discussion]. For after saying, “It is written, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 9.13
… Forgive her, O Lord, forgive her, I beseech Thee; “enter not into judgment” with her. Let Thy mercy be exalted above Thy justice, because Thy words are true, and Thou hast promised mercy unto “the merciful;” which Thou gavest them to be who wilt “have mercy” on whom Thou wilt “have mercy,” and wilt “have compassion” on whom Thou hast had compassion.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 10.6
… And also the heaven, and earth, and all that is therein, behold, on every side they say that I should love Thee; nor do they cease to speak unto all, “so that they are without excuse.” But more profoundly wilt Thou have mercy on whom Thou wilt have mercy, and compassion on whom Thou wilt have compassion,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… As it is, however, after answering, “God forbid;” that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this, and says: “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Patience 18
… For their good works did not come before God’s mercy, but followed it. For to them was it said, and by them written, long ere Christ was come in the flesh, “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show compassion on whom I will have compassion.”
9:16
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.7
… His words are: “That seeing they may not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them.” The words, moreover, used by the Apostle Paul, that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.18
18. Let us now look to the expression, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.7
… His words are: “That seeing they might not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them.” The passage also in Paul: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.18
18. Let us look next at the passage: “So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 37
… When you hear To whom it is given, add, And it is given to those who are called and to those who incline that way. For when you hear, Not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy,
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 Against Eunomius 2.8
Since, then, the first-fruits made the true God to be its God, and the good Father to be its Father, the blessing is secured for human nature as a whole, and by means of the first-fruits the true God and Father becomes Father and God of all men. Now “if the first-fruits be holy, the lump also is holy
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 16, 17 . “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy. For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 12
How is it then that Paul says, “not of him that willeth,” if it depend on ourselves also “nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 66.8
… Thus the apostle refrains from making virginity a positive duty, because the Lord in speaking of eunuchs who had made themselves such for the kingdom of heaven’s sake finally said: “He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.” For, to quote the apostle, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 85.2
2. Your letter propounds two questions, the first, why God hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and why the apostle said: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy;”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 130.12
… “God resisteth the proud and giveth grace to the humble.” Now where there is grace, this is not given in return for works but is the free gift of the giver, so that the apostles’ words are fulfilled: “it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 133.6
… For our parts we gladly embrace this freedom, but we never forget to thank the Giver; knowing that we are powerless unless He continually preserves in us His own gift. As the apostle says, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 1.5
… And this is a clear proof that you either deny the grace which you banish from the parts of life; or if you concede its presence in the parts, a concession plainly much against your will, you must have come over to the views of us who preserve free will for man, but so limit it that we do not deny the assistance of God in each action.
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
ix. 16 . Not of him that willeth, but of God which showeth mercy.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 32
… “For it is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of His own good pleasure;” and in another place: “So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… Then he draws his conclusion: “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Of Holy Virginity 41
… but each one hath his own proper gift from God; one in this way, and another in that way.” Who therefore bestoweth these gifts? Who distributeth his own proper gifts unto each as He will? Forsooth God, with Whom there is not unrighteousness,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 40
“This passage, too,” says he, “is quoted by them: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 35
… He says indeed: “I have fought a good fight;” but then he also says: “Thanks be to God, who giveth us the victory through Jesus Christ our Lord.” He says too: “I have finished my course;” but he says again: “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 37
… ‘I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me;’ and again: ‘It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 38
… ‘This is what I also believe.’ Because this is not my opinion of them. I do not understand them to say, that God’s grace so co-operates with man, that his abstinence from sin is due, not to ‘him that willeth, nor to him that runneth, but to God that showeth mercy.’”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 39
… “This is what I also believe,” and did not, upon hearing all this, repudiate his admission by replying: “This is not my belief.” He ought, indeed, either to deny altogether, or unhesitatingly to correct and amend this perverse exposition, in which he would have it, that the apostle must not be regarded as entertaining the sentiment,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 51
… that so I might gently remind him, against the opinion he was himself entertaining, that the very righteousness which he had thought worthy to be praised in me was “not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin 1.51
… “I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will show pity on whom I will be pitiful;” and the apostle’s deduction therefrom: “So then,” says he, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.10
… say that God’s grace is not given in respect of our merits, but according to His own most merciful will, in that He said, “I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.” Where, by way of consequence, it is added, “Therefore it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 16
… In the second clause he says, “I have finished my course.” Now, who is it that says this, but he who declares in another passage, “So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.25
Accordingly, as says the apostle, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.4
… and Thy judgments I have not forgotten” ( ver. 30 ). “I have stuck unto Thy testimonies: O Lord, confound me not” ( ver. 31 ): may I persevere in striving toward the point whereunto I am running: may I arrive whither I am running! So then “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Twelve Books on the Institutes of the Cœnobia, and the Remedies for the Eight Principal Faults 12.9
… for without me ye can do nothing.” And “Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it. Except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.” And “Vain is it for you to rise up before light.” For “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that hath mercy.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 4.5
… that it is “not of him that willeth or runneth but of God which hath mercy.”
John Cassian † AD 435 The Conferences of John Cassian 13.9
… But who can easily see how it is that the completion of our salvation is assigned to our own will, of which it is said: “If ye be willing, and hearken unto Me, ye shall eat the good things of the land,” and how it is “not of him that willeth or runneth, but of God that hath mercy?”
9:17
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 16.4
… but nevertheless he reserves the dregs, the last drop of His anger, that He may pour it out entire upon those who, instead of being healed by His kindness, grow obdurate, like the hard-hearted Pharaoh, that bitter taskmaster, who is set forth as an example of the power
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 99
… “For the scripture saith unto Pharoah, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.”
9:18
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.7
… Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who shall resist His will? O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him who hath formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.8
8. Let us begin, then, with those words which were spoken to Pharaoh, who is said to have been hardened by God, in order that he might not let the people go; and, along with his case, the language of the apostle also will be considered, where he says, “Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.14
… all wisdom, also, and knowledge of workmanship,” as Scripture declares. But these points we have discussed according to our ability, treating of that chapter of Scripture in which it is said that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh, and agreeably to the statement, “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1.20
… Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.8
8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.20
… Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 Exposition of the Christian Faith 5.1
26. Therefore if they dare not say He is God by appellation, and it is a mark of deep impiety to say He is a false god, it remains that He is true God, not unlike to the true Father, but equal to Him. And as He sanctifies and justifies whom He will,
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 18, 19 . “Therefore He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he then find fault? For who hath resisted His will?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 98
… But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 99
… “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.13
… because even those who laboured more had it from the goodman of the house himself, both that they were so called as to come, and that they were so fed as to have no want. But where it is said, “Therefore, on whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.15
… was said (not of works, since they had not as yet done anything either of good or of evil, but of Him that calleth), “The older shall serve the younger,” and, “Jacob have I loved, and Esau have I hated;” and he had prolonged the horror of this deep thing even to the point of saying, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth:”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 45
… “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.14
Why, then, does He not teach all that they may come to Christ, except because all whom He teaches, He teaches in mercy, while those whom He teaches not, in judgment He teaches not? Since, “On whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”
9:19
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 2.17
… For God is not wearied by commanding , nor is His strength unequal to the making of all things, that He should alone create the only Son , and need His ministry and aid for the framing of the rest. For He lets nothing stand over, which He wills to be done; but He willed only , and all things subsisted, and no one ‘hath resisted His will
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 99
… For it is grace alone that separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in one common perdition through their common origin. Now if any one, on hearing this, should say, “Why doth He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.15
… For who has resisted His will?” And to him who says this he answered, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Doth the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power of the clay of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?”
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.29
… For in that case they would both assuredly be deficient, the one in creating, the other in providing . God therefore is both Creator and Provider, and His creative and preserving and providing power is simply His good-will. For whatsoever the Lord pleased that did He in heaven and in earth , and no one resisted His will
9:20
Tertullian † AD 220 On the Resurrection of the Flesh 7
… In the same way the potter, too, has it in his power, by tempering the blast of his fire, to modify his clayey material into a stiffer one, and to mould one form after another more beautiful than the original substance, and now possessing both a kind and name of its own. For although the Scripture says, “Shall the clay say to the potter?”
Origen † AD 254 Origen De Principiis 3.1-2.7
… For who hath resisted His will?” “The per suasion is of Him that calleth, and not of us.” “Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that hath formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.16
… The water is spilt if Arius has imprinted his tooth, it flows away if Photinus has planted his sting in any one’s vessel. We are but of common clay, we quickly feel vices. But no one says to the potter, “Why hast Thou made me thus?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 77
First then, it were well to repeat to thee the saying of the apostle, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 20 . “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on First Corinthians 29
… dividing to each one severally even as he will.” And he not only gives consolation but also stops the mouth of the gainsayer, saying here, “dividing to each one severally even as he will.” For it was necessary to bind up also, not to heal only, as he doth also in the Epistle to the Romans, when he saith, “But who art thou that repliest against God? (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Epistle to the Hebrews 8
Did he then keep entire silence, or did he resume the subject again in what follows; and do the same as in the Epistle to the Romans? For there too, when he had first stopped the mouths of the gainsayers, and said, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?” (
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 133.9
… And why must he do not what he wishes but what he dislikes and does not wish? He will answer you thus: “nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?”
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 1.28
… That which is exceeding deep, who can find it out?” You ask me to tell you why the potter makes one vessel to honour, another to dishonour, and will not be satisfied with Paul, who replies on behalf of his Lord,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 99
… “Nay, but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Him that formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Acts or Disputation Against Fortunatus the Manichaean 2
Fortunatus said: It is inquired of us, if evil cannot injure God, wherefore the soul was sent hither, or for what reason was it mingled with the world? Which is manifest in what the apostle says: "Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, why hast thou formed me thus?"
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.31
… nay, against the very Potter, whom the apostle forbids us answering again, in the well-known words: “Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God! Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.16
… This is the very question which the blessed apostle thus answers to those who propose it with more curiosity than propriety, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Does the thing formed say to him that formed it, Wherefore hast thou made me thus?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 17
Here, if I am asked why God should not have given them perseverance to whom He gave that love by which they might live Christianly, I answer that I do not know. For I do not speak arrogantly, but with acknowledgment of my small measure, when I hear the apostle saying, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.16
… so that he that glorieth may glory not in his own merits, which he sees to be equalled in those that are condemned, but in the Lord. But why He delivers one rather than another,—“His judgments are unsearchable, and His ways past finding out.” For it is better in this case for us to hear or to say, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.16
But “why,” says one, “is not the grace of God given according to men’s merits?” I answer, Because God is merciful. “Why, then,” it is asked, “is it not given to all?” And here I reply, Because God is a Judge.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.17
… is thine eye evil because I am good?” And how if he should say, “Why not to me also?” He will hear, and with reason, “Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.30
… But why some rather than others? Again and again we say, and do not shrink from it, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.13
… And to flesh and blood it is said, “O man, who art thou that repliest against God?”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.13
… inquire for mercy—“and that He might make known,” He saith, “His riches unto the vessels of mercy.” It belongeth therefore to His power to condemn unjust men. And to Him who would say, What hast thou done? “For thou, O man, who art thou that should make answer to God?”
9:21
St Basil the Great † AD 379 De Spiritu Sancto 5
… [A.V., of] the man, even so is the man also through [A.V., by] the woman.” Nevertheless in the passage in question the apostle, while illustrating the variety of usage, at the same time corrects obiter the error of those who supposed that the body of the Lord was a spiritual body, and, to shew that the God-bearing flesh was formed out of the com mon lump
St Gregory of Nyssa † AD 395 The Great Catechism 32
… For since from no other source than from the concrete lump of our nature
St Ambrose of Milan † AD 397 On the Holy Spirit 1.16
… The water is spilt if Arius has imprinted his tooth, it flows away if Photinus has planted his sting in any one’s vessel. We are but of common clay, we quickly feel vices. But no one says to the potter, “Why hast Thou made me thus?” For though our vessel be but common, yet one is in honour, another in dishonour.
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 The Apology of Rufinus. Addressed to Apronianus, in Reply to Jerome's Letter to Pammachius 1.28
… unless there are some antecedent causes for which each individual soul had its lot assigned according to its merits. Moreover, the passage which some think that they understand, (though they do not) the passage of the Epistle to the Romans which says,
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 1.16
… do all speak with tongues? do all interpret? But desire earnestly the greater gifts. But all these worketh the one and the same Spirit, dividing to each one severally even as He will.” And here mark carefully that he does not say, as each member desires, but as the Spirit Himself will. For the vessel cannot say to him that makes it,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Confessions 13.14
… Betwixt whom and us, in this as yet uncertain state of human knowledge, Thou only dividest, who provest our hearts and callest the light day, and the darkness night. For who discerneth us but Thou? But what have we that we have not received of Thee? Out of the same lump vessels unto honour, of which others also are made to dishonour.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.1
… By grace,—for so far as regards himself he is sprung from the same mass, all of which is condemned in its origin; but God, like a potter (for this comparison is introduced by the apostle judiciously, and not without thought), of the same lump made one vessel to honor, another to dishonor.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 107
… Therefore, as he chose to do his own will rather than God’s, the will of God is fulfilled concerning him; for God, out of one and the same heap of perdition which constitutes the race of man, makes one vessel to honor, another to dishonor; to honor in mercy, to dishonor in judgment;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.8
… and so death passed upon all men, for in him all have sinned.” Thus, then, God is the Creator of those that are born in such wise that all pass from the one into condemnation, who have not the One Liberator by regeneration. For He is described as “the Potter, forming out of the same lump one vessel unto honour in His mercy, and another unto dishonour
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.13
… because even those who laboured more had it from the goodman of the house himself, both that they were so called as to come, and that they were so fed as to have no want. But where it is said, “Therefore, on whom He will He has mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth,” who “maketh one vessel to honour and another to dishonour”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Two Letters Written by Augustin to Valentinus and the Monks of Adrumetum 1.3
… Now, the apostle says to such, “Who maketh thee to differ from another?” and this he does on the ground that out of the mass of perdition which arose from Adam, none but God distinguishes a man to make him a vessel to honour, and not to dishonour.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Harmony of the Gospels 3.13
… The Lord Himself expresses the same when He says, “I am come that they which see not might see, and that they which see might be made blind.” For it is in the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God that it comes to pass that of the same lump one vessel is made unto honour, and another unto dishonour.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel According to St. John 87.3
… For out of that mass, which has all perished in Adam, are formed the vessels of mercy, whereof that world of reconciliation is composed, that is hated by the world which belongeth to the vessels of wrath that are formed out of the same mass and fitted to destruction.
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 2.12
… And by the word “fit” I mean, simply that it was an evidence of the Creator’s will, for that will is the law and ordinance most meet, and no one will say to his Maker, “Why hast Thou so fashioned me?” For the potter is able at his will to make vessels of various patterns out of his clay
St John of Damascus † AD 749 An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4.19
It is to be observed that it is the custom in the Holy Scripture to speak of God’s permission as His energy, as when the apostle says in the Epistle to the Romans, Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour
9:22
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
… 22, 23, 24 . “What if God, willing to show His wrath, and to make His power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He had afore prepared unto glory, even us, whom He hath chosen, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Dialogue Against the Luciferians 1
… Thus the case stands. No one who has land is free from care. While the householder slept the enemy sowed tares among the wheat, and when the servants proposed to go and root them up the master forbade them, reserving for himself the separation of the chaff and the grain.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 15.2
… Now citizens are begotten to the earthly city by nature vitiated by sin, but to the heavenly city by grace freeing nature from sin; whence the former are called “vessels of wrath,” the latter “vessels of mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On the Holy Trinity 13.15
… The strong man was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain, that his vessels might be spoiled, which with himself and his angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might be turned into vessels of mercy.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness pref
… This was very probably the book which Jerome quotes in his Epistle to Ctesiphon, written in the year 413 or 414. These are Jerome’s words: “One of his followers [that is, Pelagius’], who was already in fact become the master and the leader of all that army, and ‘a vessel of wrath,’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 7
… God forbid, however, that they who are “the called according to His purpose, whom He also foreknew, and predestinated to be conformed to the likeness of His Son,” should be given up to their own desire to perish. This is suffered only by “the vessels of wrath,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 2.15
… up this great and hidden secret as far as he judged it fit that it should be disclosed to men, saying, “But if God, willing to show His wrath and to demonstrate His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, even that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians 4.16
… which, nevertheless, is so far solved as the same apostle solves it, saying, “But if God, willing to show His wrath, and to demonstrate His power, endured in much patience the vessels of wrath which are fitted to destruction; and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy, which He has prepared for glory.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Grace and Free Will 41
… For we find that some sins are even the punishment of other sins, as are those “vessels of wrath” which the apostle describes as “fitted to destruction;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace 25
… for he knows that such an one ought to be rebuked. God will show either mercy or judgment; mercy, indeed, if he who is rebuked is “made to differ” by the bestowal of grace from the mass of perdition, and is not found among the vessels of wrath which are completed for destruction, but among the vessels of mercy which God has prepared for glory;
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.14
… and that He might make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy which He has prepared for glory.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 59.1.17
“For so God, willing to show wrath, and to manifest His power, hath brought in, in much patience, the vessels of wrath, which have been perfected unto perdition.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 62.13
… nor so the power fear ye, as that of mercy ye despair. With Him is power, with Him mercy. This man He humbleth, and that man He exalteth: this man He humbleth with power, that man He exalteth in mercy. “For if God, willing to show wrath and to prove His power, hath in much patience borne with the vessels of wrath, which have been perfected unto perdition”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 106.32
32. So “He gave them unto compassions, in the sight of all that had taken them captive” ( ver. 46 ). That they might not be vessels of wrath, but vessels of mercy.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 119.7
… For either might be rendered for the Greek pareklhqhn. “From the beginning of the world,” that is, from the birth of the human race, “I was mindful of Thy judgments” upon the vessels of wrath, which are fitted unto perdition: “and I received comfort,” since through these also hast Thou shown the riches of Thy glory on the vessels of Thy mercy.
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 The Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret 4.19
… Would that they had been content to sin in word alone, and had not surpassed the wickedness of word by deed, for insult, however bad it be, can be borne by them in whom dwells Christ’s wisdom and His holy lessons. But these same villains, vessels of wrath fitted for destruction,
9:23
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 The Enchiridion 112
… For “Hath God” they say, forgotten to be gracious? hath He in anger shut up His tender mercies?” Now, they read this in one of the holy psalms. But without doubt we are to understand it as spoken of those who are elsewhere called “vessels of mercy,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Reply to Faustus the Manichæan 22.89
… As He saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people, there shall they be called the children of the living God."
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on Nature and Grace 5
The entire mass, therefore, incurs penalty and if the deserved punishment of condemnation were rendered to all, it would without doubt be righteously rendered. They, therefore, who are delivered therefrom by grace are called, not vessels of their own merits, but “vessels of mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius 7
… This is suffered only by “the vessels of wrath,” who are perfected for perdition; in whose very destruction, indeed, God “makes known the riches of His glory on the vessels of His mercy.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.31
… not a man of it is born without the taint of sin, He who is supremely good Himself is always working out good, making some men, as it were, “vessels of mercy,” whom grace distinguishes from those who are “vessels of wrath;” whilst He makes others, as it were, “vessels of wrath,” that He may make known the riches of His glory towards the vessels of mercy.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 2.28
… so that he who glorieth may by no means glory in himself, but in the Lord, who gives to those men to whom He will, because He is merciful, what if, however, He does not give, He is righteous: and He does not give to whom He will not, that He may make known the riches of His glory to the vessels of mercy.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 109.20
… Where although we understand mercy,—for these words follow, “for sweet is Thy mercy,”—because he said not, “In me,” or, “over me;” or anything of this sort: but, “work Thou with Me;” we rightly understand that the Father and Son together work mercifully towards the vessels of mercy.
9:25
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 1.10.3
… and discourse how it is that “this mortal body shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall put on incorruption;” and proclaim in what sense [God] says, “That is a people who was not a people; and she is beloved who was not beloved;”
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 3.9.1
… For Matthew the apostle— knowing, as one and the same God, Him who had given promise to Abraham, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven, and Him who, by His Son Christ Jesus, has called us to the knowledge of Himself, from the worship of stones, so that those who were not a people were made a people, and she beloved who was not beloved
St Irenaeus of Lyons † AD 202 Against Heresies 4.20.12
… and she who did not obtain mercy may obtain mercy. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said, This is not a people, there shall they be called the children of the living God.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 25 . “I will call them My people, which were not My people; and her beloved, which was not beloved.”
Theodoret of Cyrus † AD 458 Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyprus 118
Truly the grace of our God and Saviour has not yet abandoned the human race, but has left us a seed in your holiness “lest we should become as Sodom, and be made like unto Gomorrah.”
9:26
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 26 . “For even they shall be called,” he says, “the children of the living God.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.35
… It is not, however, commendable, but rather culpable. But as regards any part of the body which is not meant for generative purposes, should a man use even his own wife in it, it is against nature and flagitious. Indeed, the same apostle had previously
Pope St Leo I the Great † AD 461 Sermons 42
… And so be not infected with the error of those who are corrupted merely by their own ordinances, “serving the creature rather than the Creator
9:27
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 27 . “For Esaias,” he says, “crieth concerning Israel.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 18
… For he shows here that it is the worthy that God useth to save even if the promise be made to the whole nation. And this he pointed out above when he said, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be saved.” And, “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should have become as Sodoma.” (
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 City of God 18.46
… And very many of them, considering this, even before His passion, but chiefly after His resurrection, believed on Him, of whom it was predicted, “Though the number of the children of Israel be as the sand of the sea, the remnant shall be saved.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.1
… But let us understand here the voice of the Israelites in the same manner as the Apostle saith, “For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.” Here therefore let us understand that whereof the Prophets have spoken, “a remnant shall be saved.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 74.20
… for they that have been darkened have been filled of the earth of unrighteous houses:” because they had unrighteous hearts. Our “houses” are our hearts: therein gladly dwell they that are blessed with pure heart. “Have regard,” therefore, “unto Thy Testament:” and let the remnant be saved:
9:28
Tertullian † AD 220 The Five Books Against Marcion 4.16
… in the Gospel will belong to Him alone, who anciently drew it up, and gave it distinctive point, and arranged it after the decision of His own teaching, and has now reduced it, suitably to its importance, to a compendious formula, because (as it was predicted in another passage) the Lord—that is, Christ—“was to make (or utter) a concise word on earth.”
St Gregory of Nazianzus † AD 389 Select Orations of Saint Gregory Nazianzen 27
… For there are certain persons who have not only their ears and their tongues, but even, as I now perceive, their hands too, itching for our words; who delight in profane babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called, and strifes about words, which tend to no profit; for so Paul, the Preacher and Establisher of the “Word cut short,”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 11
… I may add, that Paul too was setting forth the same, when he said, “A short word will the Lord make upon the whole world.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 28 . “He will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness,” he says, “because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.” ( Ib. 23 , LXX.)
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 Homilies on Ephesians 1
… And it has this meaning. For Christ hath gathered up in Himself the dispensations carried on through a lengthened period, that is to say, He hath cut them short. For “by finishing His word and cutting it short in righteousness,” (
Rufinus of Aquileia † AD 411 A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed 1
… for therein is that prophecy verified, “Finishing and cutting short the word in equity: because a short word will the Lord make upon the earth.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise Concerning Man’s Perfection in Righteousness 11
… but the Lord, who on earth consummated and abridged
9:29
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver 29 . “And as Esaias said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and had been made like unto Gomorrha.” ( Is. i. 9 .)
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints 1.8
… The latter question in this book is gathered from that passage where the apostle says, ‘And not only this, but when Rebecca also had conceived by one act of intercourse, even by our father Isaac,’ as far as that place where he says, ‘Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we should be as Sodoma, and should have been like unto Gomorrah.’
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 115.9
… He answereth, “both small and great.” That is, the house of Israel with the house of Aaron, those who among that nation believed in Jesus the Saviour.…For in the character of those who out of that nation believed, it is said, “Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto Gomorrha.”
9:30
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom 10
… “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained unto the law of righteousness. Wherefore? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 30, 31 . “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith. But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.”
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 17
He is now going again to rebuke them more vehemently than before.
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 18
… And what is this? You heard Paul say before. “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained unto righteousness. But Israel which followed after the law of righteousness hath not attained to the law of righteousness.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 9
… Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for: but the election hath obtained it.” ( Rom. xi. 7 .) And again; “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness, have attained unto righteousness: but Israel which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.” (
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel of St. John 59
So also saith Paul; “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of the faith of Jesus; but Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.” (
St Jerome † AD 420 Against the Pelagians 2
ix. 30–32 . The Gentiles…attained to the righteousness by faith.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Christian Doctrine 3.3
… yea, rather, who is risen again? who is even at the right hand of God? who also maketh intercession for us?”—the answer “No” being understood to every one of these questions. On the other hand, in that passage where the apostle says, “What shall we say then? That the Gentiles which followed not after righteousness have attained to righteousness;”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
… For the Gentiles, which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith,
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 20.9
… to whom the blindness in part of Israel hath happened, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own. “But we are risen, and stand upright.” But we, that the Gentile people might enter in, out of the stones raised up as children to Abraham, who followed not after righteousness, have attained to it, and are risen;
9:31
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Now when you come to know of what kind the seed of Abraham is, you will see that the promise is given to his seed, and know that the word hath not fallen to the ground.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
… But Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness. And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 78.8
8. Lastly, “The sons of Ephrem bending and shooting bows, have been turned back in the day of war” ( ver. 9 ). Following after the law of righteousness, unto the law of righteousness they have not attained.
9:32
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 10
And, of course, it had been meet that the mystery of the passion itself should be figuratively set forth in predictions; and the more incredible (that mystery), the more likely to be “a stumbling-stone,”
Tertullian † AD 220 An Answer to the Jews 14
… and there was not in Him attractiveness or glory. And we saw Him, and He had not attractiveness or grace; but His mien was unhonoured, deficient in comparison of the sons of men,” “a man set in the plague, and knowing how to bear infirmity:” to wit as having been set by the Father “for a stone of offence,”
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.) 3.26
… For Christ’s enemies, being ignorant of this scope, have wandered from the way of truth, and have stumbled
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 32 . “Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the Law.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter 50
… And why? Because they sought it not by faith, but as it were by works —in other words, working it out as it were by themselves, not believing that it is God who works within them. “For it is God which worketh in us both to will and to do of His own good pleasure.” And hereby “they stumbled at the stumbling-stone.”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Expositions on the Book of Psalms 48.2
… But if in any part of the earth it is, what shall we do? Shall we go abroad out of our own country, that to that mountain we may arrive? Nay, then we are abroad, when in it we are not. For that is our city, if we are members of the King, who is the head of the same city.…For there was a certain corner-stone contemptible, whereat the Jews stumbled,
9:33
St Athanasius of Alexandria † AD 373 Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa. (Ad Afros Epistola Synodica.) 5
… And as to the actual definition of Nicæa, that the Son is coessential with the Father, on account of which they ostensibly oppose the synod, and buzz around everywhere like gnats about the phrase, either they stumble at it from ignorance, like those who stumble at the stone of stumbling that was laid in Sion
St John Chrysostom † AD 407 The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on Paul's Epistle to the Romans 16
Ver. 33 . “As it is written, Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone, and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed.”
St Jerome † AD 420 The Letters of St. Jerome 57.9
… In his epistle to the Romans the same apostle quotes these words from Isaiah: “Behold I lay in Sion a stumbling-stone and rock of offence,”
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Letters of St. Augustin 164
… a future event, that flood was a type both of baptism to believers and of destruction to unbelievers, as in that figure in which, not by a transaction but by words, two things are predicted concerning Christ, when He is represented in Scripture as a stone which was destined to be both to unbelievers a stone of stumbling, and to believers a foundation-stone.
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 On Marriage and Concupiscence 2.32
… This fault, however, is turned to good account by the Maker of even the vessels of wrath, that He may make known the riches of His glory on the vessels of mercy:
St Augustine of Hippo † AD 430 Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 93.2
… Whereas in them that believe, because this one was wanting, it was brought to pass that all should be remitted to them that believe. Nor is it with any other view that the Apostle Paul saith, “All have sinned, and have need of the glory of God; that “whosoever believeth on Him, should not be confounded;”
9:1
1. I SPEAK THE TRUTH IN CHRIST, I LIE NOT, MY CONSCIENCE BEARING ME WITNESS IN THE HOLY GHOST. — Note that "in Christ," that is to say, I speak the truth as it is fitting for one who reveres Christ; or "in Christ," that is, through Christ, whom I invoke as witness, that is to say, I call Christ to witness, I swear by Christ that I speak the truth. For Beth, that is, "in," among the Hebrews is sometimes the mark and formula of one swearing, as appears in Genesis xxii, 16; Joshua ii, 12. Theophylactus and Oecumenius add that Paul here swears by three witnesses, namely by Christ, by conscience, by the Holy Ghost. But that phrase, "my conscience bearing me witness," does not seem to be an oath, but only an assertion that he does not lie, since conscience dictates and attests this to him; conscience, I say, moved and stirred and impelled by the Holy Ghost: for this is what "in the Holy Ghost" signifies, which is the same as "by the Holy Ghost."
9:2
2. FOR (THAT) I HAVE GREAT SORROW AND CONTINUAL PAIN IN MY HEART. — Namely on account of the rejection and reprobation of the Jews from justice and salvation. For Paul expresses this cause of his sorrow in what follows; but here at the beginning he artfully conceals and hides it, so that he may first show his affection toward the Jews, and thus bind them to himself, lest they think he says these things out of hatred for the law and the Jews, and lest he strike them down at the very outset with so sad a message.
9:3
3. I MYSELF WISHED TO BE ANATHEMA FROM CHRIST FOR MY BRETHREN. — "I wished" St. Chrysostom, Origen and Theophylactus translate as "I would wish," or "I would have wished," if namely it were possible, and if divine disposition permitted it. They understand in the Greek ἐάν, and appear to have read ηὐχόμην. For ηὐχόμην, as it is now read, I do not see how it could be anything other than the imperfect past tense, "I wished." "I wished" therefore is the same as if he said: long ago I wished and continually I wish, and, as Anselm says, I began long ago to wish. Cajetan however explains it thus, as if to say: Now I do not wish, but I wished when existing in Judaism to be anathema, that is to be separated from Christ. But this is not correct: for no one wishes to be separated from him from whom he is already completely separated: but Paul in Judaism was plainly separated from Christ, and was his most bitter enemy. Add to this, it does not correctly prove Paul's present love toward the Jews from the past. For the Jews would have said: You indeed, being a Jew, loved us Jews, but now with your religion your affection toward us has changed. Note: Because Paul here was about to say things which he knew would be very hateful to the Jews, namely their rejection by God and from justice, therefore he first conciliates them to himself with so many and so grave words, showing the intimate sorrow and feeling of his heart, and from this his extraordinary love toward them; whence he wishes to become anathema for them. TO BE ANATHEMA. — First, some according to Oecumenius explain thus: I would have wished myself not yet to be converted to Christ, but still to be anathema from Christ, if this would contribute to the faith of the Jews. But this wish is illicit and impious. Second, St. Thomas and Lyra explain thus: I wish to be longer absent from the glory of Christ, so that living in this life I might benefit the Jews. Third, Ambrose, Anselm and Toletus give this sense: When I was a Jew, I was an enemy of Christ, so much so that I would wish to be held as anathema and as it were a curse and malediction from Christ and Christians. But against this sense stand those things which I produced a little before. Fourth, Dionysius the Carthusian and Abulensis, in chapter 32 of Exodus, think it to be a hyperbole, by which Paul wishes only to signify and testify his extraordinary love toward the Jews, by which he wishes to endure anything whatsoever for them. Fifth, Origen and St. Jerome to Algas., Question 9: "I wished," they say, "to be anathema, that is to undergo slaughter and martyrdom, and death of the body for the Jews. But against this exposition stands the phrase 'from Christ.' For death separates man from life, but not from Christ: indeed rather it joins the martyr most closely with Christ. But all these senses do not fill out and satisfy Paul's breast and love, do not satisfy his inflamed zeal and spirit, as St. Chrysostom, Oecumenius and Theodoretus rightly noted. Whence note: "Anathema" the Syrian translates as ארמא, cherma; for the Apostle alludes to the vow of cherem, which the Septuagint translates and calls anathema, by which a thing consecrated to God died, either civilly or naturally, and was separated forever from its master and from profane uses. For which observe, the Hebrew cherem signifies slaughter, cutting off, cutting down, from the root חרם charam, that is, he slew, he cut off, he cut down. Hence the vow of cherem was called the greatest vow, by which a thing vowed to God was so consecrated that it ought to be destroyed or slain. Cherem therefore is the same as slaughter, killing, consecration, anathema, or a thing so devoted to God and wholly consecrated that it ought to be slain or consumed in his honor. This is clear from Leviticus 27:28: "All," it says, "that is consecrated to the Lord (in Hebrew all cherem, which כי יחרם charom, that is shall be wholly and fully consecrated to the Lord as cherem), whether it be man or beast or field, shall not be sold, nor can it be redeemed. Whatever once shall have been consecrated (by this vow and this consecration of cherem, that is of anathema), shall be holy of holies (that is wholly holy and consecrated) to the Lord. And all consecration (in Hebrew all cherem, that is anathema) which is offered by man, shall not be redeemed, but shall surely die." An example of which is Numbers 21:2: "And Israel," it says, "binding himself by the vow of cherem to the Lord said: If thou wilt deliver this people (the Canaanite) into my hand, I will destroy (והחרמתי vehachharamti, that is I will cut off, I will cut down) their cities. And the Lord heard the prayers of Israel, and delivered the Canaanite, whom he slew, with their cities overthrown, and called the name of the place Horma" (or cherem, for the Hebrew letter is pronounced by some as h, by others as ch: whence some say herem and horma, others however cherem and chorma), that is anathema. See the words of Leviticus 27:28. It signifies therefore cherem or anathema, according to the testimony of Budaeus, separation, cutting off, destruction and eternal ruin. Paul therefore wishes, with a certain heroic excess, as it were of blind charity, which abstracts and does not consider whether the thing be possible, or according to God's ordinance or not; or if it does not abstract, he wishes under a tacit condition, if God should will it and if it could be done (thus St. Chrysostom, Origen, Theophylactus, who read "I would wish"); he wishes, I say, for himself cherem and anathema, that is eternal separation, not from charity, but from blessedness and future glory with Christ (for that is what the phrase "from Christ" signifies), so that the Jews might be saved. Thus Theodoret, Oecumenius, Anselm, Theophylactus, Soto, Catharinus; indeed he wishes, says Chrysostom, to perish eternally; and, as Cassian says in Collations 32, chapter vi, to be subjected to eternal punishments, and that both for the glory of God, as Chrysostom says, namely lest God be blasphemed by the Jews, but be praised eternally; then for the salvation of the Jews themselves. Paul therefore wishes here the same thing which Moses wished in a similar case, Exodus xxxii, 31, saying: "Either forgive them this sin, or if thou wilt not, blot me out of thy book which thou hast written." Hence it is clear to any holy man that the same thing is permitted to wish, namely, to be blotted out of the book of life and separated from the enjoyment and blessed society of Christ and the Saints in heaven, yet without his own fault, provided that by this reasoning and condition being posited, many others should know God, love Him and be blessed, as among others Louis Molina teaches, 1st part, Question xxiv, at the end. For this is a greater good of God and glory than my single blessedness; and consequently to wish this does not diminish, but increases charity and one's own perfection, to which charity inclines more than to one's own glory and blessedness: especially because she herself knows and understands God, as being most generous, with so generous a mind, who postpones and puts after the glory of God and the salvation of his brethren his own advantages and his own blessedness, will also generously repay with heaps and increases of charity, grace and other gifts, nor will suffer his liberality to be overcome by the liberality of his creature. Note here an illustrious example for the dignity and nobility of souls and their zeal. "What sayest thou, Paul?" says Chrysostom; "hast thou not already said: Who shall separate us from the charity of Christ? nay he says: Because I love Christ, I desire to be separated from the enjoyment of Christ, so that more, nay all may love and praise him." St. Chrysostom adds: "Because we," he says, "are far from this love, therefore we cannot understand these his words." Thus Christ wished to become a curse for us. "And what wonder," says Origen, "if, when the Lord (Christ) was made a curse for servants, a servant (Paul) should become anathema for brethren?" This wish therefore of Paul was pious, holy and efficacious on the part of his will; on the part however of the object, it was not altogether absolute and efficacious. For he was wishing for a thing impossible and repugnant to the divine ordinance. For God ordained that my salvation and blessedness should be a means to promoting and increasing the glory of God and the salvation and blessedness of my neighbour; but He did not ordain that the privation of my blessedness should be a means and procurement of the salvation of another, and Paul knew this very well: whence, speaking simply, this act, or this vow and wish in him could not be altogether absolute and efficacious.
9:4
4. WHO ARE MY KINSMEN ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, WHO ARE ISRAELITES, — who are the descendants of Israel, or that great Patriarch Jacob. For all these things which follow here pertain to the praise of the Jews, and Paul insinuates that he is wonderfully inflamed with love for them. WHOSE IS THE ADOPTION OF CHILDREN. — Whom God adopted as sons, when He assigned them to Himself and His worship, Exodus iv, 22, saying: "Israel is my son, my firstborn;" and now through Christ He wishes to adopt them to Himself as sons and heirs before all others. AND THE GLORY. — The glory of the Jews, says Chrysostom and Anselm, is this, that they alone before all nations were called, and in fact were the people and Church of God. Secondly, Theodoret: The glory of the Jews, he says, is this, that God showed and exhibited Himself to the Jews alone through so many and so glorious miracles and prophecies, and through such singular protection and providence, and through so many and so great benefits, as a most loving father, and as a glorious God, most powerful and equally most merciful. Thirdly, Toletus: The glory of the Jews, he says, was the Ark of the Covenant, which represented the power and glory of God: for God glorious sat in the temple of the Jews upon the mercy seat sustained by the Cherubim, so that the Ark served as a footstool of His feet. Whence the Ark being captured by the Philistines, the wife of Phinehas, giving birth to a son whom she bore, called him Ichabod, that is, where is the glory? saying: "The glory is departed from Israel, because the Ark of God is taken," I Kings iv, 21, as if to say, "We were Trojans, Troy was, and the great glory of the Teucrians," namely of the Israelites. All these senses are fitting; the second however is clearer and fuller. AND THE TESTAMENT. — as if to say, With whom God made a covenant repeatedly, for in Greek it is διαθῆκαι, that is, testaments; or to whom the old testament was given, and the new promised. Thirdly, our Author translates more simply, "testament," namely the old. For the Greek διαθήκη, when it signifies testament, is mostly used in the plural, says Budaeus. Note: The Greek διαθήκη signifies both testament and covenant. Hence our Interpreter often uses testament for any covenant, as I may say to Hebrews ix, 15. LEGISLATION. — as if to say, Who (namely the Jews) before other nations received the law from God, from heaven, on Sinai, and now receive a new one on Zion. For to what people the old law was given, to the same the new is promised, and through Christ exhibited and thence propagated through all nations. WORSHIP. — In Greek λατρεία, that is, the worship and religion of God, belonging and due to God alone, as if to say, God gave to the Jews alone the true worship of Himself and the true religion. PROMISES. — as if to say, The blessing of Abraham promised, and all other promises of God, which He Himself made to men both in the old and in the new Testament, pertain first and primarily before all other nations to the Jews. But the greatest of these promises is the Messiah Himself, or Christ, namely the redemption, justice and salvation to be bestowed through Christ.
9:5
5. Whose fathers (namely are those illustrious and distinguished patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; who first performed wondrous deeds of virtue) AND (secondly) from whom is Christ. — as if to say, The fathers of the Jews are also the parents of Christ. Secondly and more aptly, "whose," supply parents, are fathers, that is, our celebrated Patriarchs, namely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. For these are called and are fathers by antonomasia. AND FROM WHOM (namely from the Israelites) IS CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH. — For it is a wondrous dignity of the Jews, that Christ was born from them. Thus the Syrian distinguishes these things, so that "whose fathers" refers to the preceding verse; but from "and from whom is Christ," it begins the following verse; when therefore he says: "From whom," supply, not from the fathers, but from the Jews or Israelites, of whom he has treated up to this point in verse 4, and this conjunction "and" demands that these things be thus divided and explained. WHO (Christ) IS ABOVE ALL THINGS. — Supply, which are outside God. Therefore Christ is not above the Holy Spirit. Thus St. Gregory, homily 8 on Ezekiel, Ambrose and others. Therefore the Macedonians wrongly inferred from this that the Holy Spirit is less than God and Christ, and is a creature. WHO IS ABOVE ALL THINGS GOD BLESSED FOR EVER. — Hence St. Athanasius, Augustine, Hilary, Tertullian, and others everywhere prove against Arius that the Son is God. Erasmus responds that the word "God" is perhaps added; for Hilary, in Psalm cxxii, and St. Cyprian, book ii Against the Jews, do not read it. But he errs; for all Latin, Greek and Syrian codices read "God." Thus also the Fathers read it everywhere and by name Hilary himself, book viii On the Trinity, where he cites this entire testimony: ancient copies of Cyprian also exist, in which in the place cited "God" is read. Again Erasmus here against all places a period after "all things," and separates what follows from it, as if Paul said: "From whom is Christ, who is above all things," period. "God (the Father) be blessed for ever." Who does not see that this is a new, gaping, distorted and discordant division?
9:6
6. NOT HOWEVER THAT THE WORD OF GOD HAS FAILED. — "Not however," in Greek οὐχ οἷον δέ, which Photius translated, not in such a manner truly or not however as if the word of God had failed. Secondly, Toletus translated it, it is not possible however that the word of God has failed, and thus he explains our version, that is to say, "Not however," supply, it can happen, that the word of God has failed. But the former explanation of Photius is clearer, that is to say, Paul: These things however which I have already said concerning the rejection of the Jews and their reprobation from justice and salvation, I say, not as if the word and promise of God had "failed," that is, become void: namely as if God had promised justice and salvation through Christ to some, namely to the Jews; but to others, namely to the Gentiles, had given the same. Thus Theophylactus. Paul here meets the objection of the Jews, who bore it ill that in the Church and Christianity the idolatrous Gentiles were preferred to them, saying that this was contrary to the promises of God. They therefore objected to Paul: The promise of the Messiah, of justice and salvation was made by God to Abraham and to his seed; but we Jews are the seed of Abraham, but the Gentiles are not: therefore if this promise has been transferred from us to the Gentiles (as you, O Paul, assert and preach), it follows that the promise of God has been revoked, annulled and made void, and that God is unstable and unfaithful in his promises. To this objection and cavil of the Jews the Apostle responds in the following verse, that this promise was made to the posterity of Abraham, not carnal, but spiritual, namely to Christians, not to Jews. Note: This word, or this promised blessing, is justice, salvation and eternal life promised to those believing in Christ, and embracing his grace. This is evident first, from what follows: for only believers are reckoned the children of Abraham, namely spiritual ones, and consequently heirs of his blessing. Secondly, the same is evident from chapter iii to the Galatians, verse 14, and from this epistle chapter iv, verses 3 and 24. Thirdly, the same is shown from the fact that the Apostle does not regard the promise made to Abraham concerning possessing the land of Chanaan, and concerning the multiplication of his offspring like the stars of heaven: for both of these things even in the time of Christ the Jews had, not the Gentiles: for these never possessed the land of Chanaan. But the Apostle teaches here that the blessing promised to Abraham was fulfilled not in the Jews, but in the Gentiles, namely in Christians. Therefore he regards the promise, not that temporal one already mentioned, but another spiritual one, namely that which is contained in Genesis xii, 2, and Genesis xvii, 7, and is of this kind: "I will bless thee, and thou shalt be blessed: I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee:" because namely, as follows in Genesis xii, 3, and Genesis xxii, 18, "in thee, and in thy seed," namely in Christ, through faith "shall all nations be blessed," that is, shall obtain justice, grace, glory. Where note, in Genesis, in the places just now cited, to the seed of Abraham were promised double blessings: some carnal, given to the carnal children of Abraham, namely to the Jews, concerning possessing the land of Chanaan, and concerning its fertility and abundance of offspring; the second spiritual, promised to the spiritual children, that is to believers and the faithful, such as are those which the Apostle here cites. Again, both the blessings just mentioned in the Genesis passages cited Scripture mixes together, just as the Prophets mix the future redemption and temporal happiness of the Jews with the spiritual. For the inheritance and possession of the land of Chanaan undertaken by the Jews signified the inheritance of heaven, to which believers are admitted, and acquire a right, regenerated in the faith and baptism of Christ, as children justified and adopted by God. The Apostle therefore, leaving aside the temporal blessing of Abraham (as being one concerning which there was no contention between Jews and Gentiles, since it would fall to the Jews alone), pursues and presses only the spiritual one: for to this the Gentiles were admitted, the Jews being excluded. For not all who are of Israel (who are descended from Jacob the Patriarch), ARE ISRAELITES, — true ones namely, according to the mind of Scripture, to whom pertains the divine promise spiritual of Abraham and Israel made, concerning which I have already spoken. For this promise pertains not to the carnal, but to the spiritual children of Abraham and Israel, or of Jacob, to those namely who imitate the faith of Abraham and Jacob, whom the Apostle, verse 8, calls "children of the promise:" and he proves this in verses 7 and 9, by two similar examples, namely of Isaac and Jacob, as we shall see there.
9:7
7. NEITHER ARE ALL THEY WHO ARE THE SEED OF ABRAHAM, CHILDREN. — Neither who, in Greek οὐδ᾽ ὅτι, neither because they are the seed of Abraham. Thus also the Syriac and Ambrose read, and this reading is more forceful, that is to say: Not all who are carnally descended from the seed of Abraham are on that account reckoned children of Abraham, namely such as to whom the blessing and inheritance of Abraham pertain; for, as follows: BUT, understand, it was said Genesis xxi, 12, to Abraham, that which follows. IN ISAAC SHALL THY SEED BE CALLED. — It is a Hebraism, that is to say: Isaac shall be and shall be called thy seed, that is, thy true and genuine son, and consequently the heir of thy blessing, not however Ishmael. Thus among the Hebrews, and in Holy Scripture, when it is said that someone is called the seed or name of Jacob, it means someone is called the son of Jacob or a Jacobite. By a similar Hebraism it is said here in verse 8: "They are reckoned in the seed," that is, they are reckoned seed. Secondly and more simply, "in Isaac," that is, in the posterity of Isaac, that is to say: Thy posterity, O Abraham, shall be reckoned through Isaac, who was born to thee, an old man, and to barren Sarah, by God's promise and supernatural power; not through Ishmael, who is a son of the flesh, that is, generated by natural power alone; and consequently Isaac and the Isaacites shall be thy heirs, not however Ishmael, nor the Ishmaelites, nor thy other sons, whom thou didst beget of Cetura, that is to say: Thus Paul: Therefore also now the true spiritual Israelites and children of Abraham. Note that the faithful and Christians are children of the promise, that is, promised by God: first, because God promised through the Prophets that there would be Christians, or a Christian nation; secondly, because God promised to them through the same Prophets justice and salvation, in that they believe in and obey Christ: for this generation of the faithful is not natural, but those whom natural generation begets, but those whom grace and the power of the spiritual promise regenerated through faith and grace: and thus it is clear from these that the blessing promised by God to Abraham has not fallen away, namely the justice of God, grace, friendship and salvation: for these are the heirs thereof, that is, few Jews, and very many from the Gentiles, reborn in Christ through baptism, freely, and it comes to pass through grace, as it were a father; and through the consent of the will, as it were a mother.
9:8
8. THAT IS, NOT THEY WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE FLESH, ARE THE CHILDREN OF GOD. — That is to say: Not Ishmael, nor others carnally begotten of Abraham, are the children of God, whom namely God adopted and promised to Abraham, that in them He would fulfill His promises, namely the blessings of Abraham and promised to His seed. BUT THEY WHO ARE THE CHILDREN OF THE PROMISE, ARE RECKONED IN THE SEED. — That is to say: But the children promised by God to Abraham are reckoned "in the seed," that is, are reckoned seed, or children and heirs of Abraham, and consequently of God Himself and of the divine promise made to Abraham. Note: This passage has a twofold sense. For the Apostle speaks of both kinds of filiation and promise, namely both of the spiritual and of the temporal promise made to Abraham. For Isaac was in a twofold manner the son promised to Abraham: first, temporal, and thus he with his posterity the Jews, not however Ishmael, was heir of the land of Canaan and of the other temporal promises made to Abraham his father; and in this sense Isaac and the Isaacites, or Jews, are called the temporal children and heirs of God. Secondly, Isaac was also the son promised to Abraham in a spiritual manner, both because Isaac followed the faith and grace of his father Abraham, and because Isaac was the heir of the spiritual promises, which God had promised to Abraham, namely that in his seed (namely in Christ) all the Gentiles were to be blessed, that is, justified and saved. For Christ descended from Abraham through Isaac, not through Ishmael. And in this sense all the faithful and Christians are reckoned children of Isaac equally as of Abraham; and of these especially does Paul speak. For these are properly called children of God, and these are children not of the flesh, but of the promise, and the type of these was Isaac and the Isaacites, or Jews temporally descended from Isaac. Whence the Apostle touches upon the former sense only in passing, and as it were merely alludes to it here, that from it he might rise to the second, and establish it. For his purpose is to prove that the spiritual blessings, namely justice and salvation promised to Abraham and his posterity, were not promised to the carnal children of Abraham, namely Jews; but to the spiritual, namely Christians.
9:9
9. FOR THIS IS THE WORD OF THE PROMISE, — namely that which follows, and it is cited from Genesis xvii. The Apostle here proves that which he said, namely that Isaac was the son of Abraham, not of the flesh, that is, begotten by carnal power; but of the promise, that is, conceived and begotten by divine power promised by God. He proves, I say, from that which is said in Genesis xviii. ACCORDING TO THIS TIME I WILL COME AGAIN, AND SARAH SHALL HAVE A SON. — That is to say: Next year, at this season I will come to thee, and then Sara thy wife, although barren and old, shall have a son. These are the words of the angel to Abraham promising him a son Isaac from Sara his wife, Genesis xviii, 10.
9:10
10. NOT ONLY THAT (SARA), BUT ALSO REBECCA, — namely she experienced the same thing, that her sons are reckoned by God not as carnally begotten, but as those who are divinely promised, chosen and adopted. For Jacob her son (of Rebecca), although younger, because he was promised and chosen by God, was preferred to Esau the elder, and became the successor and heir of Isaac his father. HAVING FROM ONE INTERCOURSE, — namely the conception or offspring. Our Interpreter reads in the Greek ἐξ ἵνὸς κοίτου, from one bed, or intercourse. And thus read St. Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, Anselm and others throughout. Now the Greeks read ἐξ ἵνὸς κοίτην ἔχουσα, that is from one, namely Isaac, "having intercourse," that is conceiving; whence Beza and Erasmus wish our text here to be corrupted. But it is likely that our Interpreter had a more correct Greek exemplar, because the Fathers follow him, and the sense of his version is more precise and orderly, as if to say: Do not say that Ishmael was neglected by God and by Abraham, because he was begotten of Hagar the handmaid; but Isaac was chosen, because he was born of Sarah the free woman; behold Rebecca from one and the same intercourse brought forth two sons at once, of whom nevertheless the younger, namely Jacob, was beloved and chosen by God, but Esau the elder was neglected and rejected. Thus Chrysostom and Theophylactus. The sense therefore is, as if Paul said: You glory, O Jew, that you are a son of Abraham; you claim for yourself his blessing, justice and salvation, because you are his son according to the flesh: you are deceived, for both Ishmael and Esau were sons of the promise according to the flesh, yet they were excluded from the family of God and Abraham: but Isaac and Jacob were chosen and admitted to it, because they were sons not of the flesh, but of the divine promise. Why then do you marvel, if now God rejects the Jews insisting upon and glorying in carnal sonship, but admits the Christians believing, as it were sons of the promise, into the family of Abraham, so that they may be heirs of the blessing, that is of the justice and salvation promised to Abraham? Do you not see that in these things the promises of God have not failed; even if they have failed in the unbelieving Jews, inasmuch as they were never promised to them?
9:11
11. WHEN THEY WERE NOT YET BORN (from Rebecca Jacob and Esau), OR HAD DONE ANYTHING GOOD OR EVIL. — Paul here proves that Rebecca's younger son, namely Jacob, was preferred to Esau the elder, not on account of the excellence of age, birth, or even merits, but on account of divine election and promise, because namely before their birth and action it was said by God: The greater, namely Esau, shall serve the lesser, namely Jacob. THAT THE PURPOSE OF GOD ACCORDING TO ELECTION MIGHT REMAIN. — A threefold exposition of this passage. The first, that of Theodoret. First, Theodoret explains it thus, as if Paul said: Jacob was preferred to Esau in order that the divine election, by which He approves these and rejects those, according to their various foreseen good or evil purposes, might remain firm. But this is contrary to the mind and words of the Apostle; for he himself says: "That the purpose of God, not of men, might remain (firm) according to election," namely not of men, but of God likewise; for the election belongs to Him whose the purpose is. Secondly, the holy Chrysostom and Ambrose explain it thus: "That the purpose, or decree of God, by which He rejected Esau and loved Jacob, might remain according to election;" which election was made from foreknowledge, by which He foresaw that Esau would be evil and Jacob good. For election, they say, of one before another cannot be, unless there be a distinction in those elected themselves; and it is clear from Malachi chapter 1 that the Edomites were hated by God on account of their sins. But this sense, in almost the same way as the former, is repugnant to the words and especially to the scope of the Apostle, as will soon be evident. Hence thirdly St. Augustine, book III to Simplicianus, Question II, understands this election in the same way indeed; but he connects it with the preceding words so that the purpose might remain according to election: "When they were not yet born, or had done anything good or evil," as if he explains them, or rather draws it from them, as if to say: God chose Jacob when he had not yet done anything good; and He rejected Esau when he had not yet done anything evil: thus namely, so that this purpose of God by which He chose Jacob before Esau could not be and remain according to the election of works; because namely he who is better, holier and more worthy is usually chosen. But note that God's election in the following verse is opposed to works, and consequently it is concerned with equals, and equally worthy or unworthy. The sense therefore is: God preferred Jacob before his birth and before his good works to Esau, for this reason, namely that 12 and 13. NOT OF WORKS (of Jacob and Esau foreseen and foreseen by God), BUT OF HIM THAT CALLETH (from the gratuitous calling and election of God) IT WAS SAID UNTO HER (to Rebecca the mother): That the greater shall serve the lesser, — namely that Esau shall serve Jacob, not in his own person, but in his posterity: for the Jews, the posterity of Jacob alone, as it were heirs of Abraham, possessed the promised land of Chanaan, and were enriched with the benefits of God, and the Idumaeans, the posterity of Esau, served them in the time of David and Solomon (as is evident from II Kings chapter viii). Now Paul leaves this to be applied by the Jews to themselves, and the allegory of Jacob and Esau to be adapted in this manner, as if to say: In the same manner therefore as Jacob and Esau, neither you, O Jews, on account of the works of the law or of nature obtained the blessing of Abraham, so as to be preferred to the Gentiles in justice; but rather, as will be said in verse 31, because you proudly trusted in the works of the law, and rejected faith and the calling of Christ, you have been set aside and rejected. On the contrary, the Gentiles, who are younger than you in the knowledge, worship and Church of God, because they did not trust in their own works, but obeyed the grace and calling of God, have been preferred to you in the hereditary blessing of salvation and justice of Abraham promised, and exhibited through Christ, as Paul himself explains in verse 30. Whence likewise and proportionally to this sense St. Augustine asserts, book I to Simplicianus, Question II, that Esau was hated and rejected because he despised the calling of God. firm would be that which God by Himself and of His own will had chosen, and had established with Himself, namely to exalt and honor Jacob before Esau: for from that time God by His decree preferred Jacob to Esau, as if to say: Just as God preferred Jacob, not because he himself merited it, but because he was the chosen and promised son of God, to Esau his brother, as if to a son according to the flesh elder and more worthy, and made Jacob alone the heir of the blessings of Abraham his grandfather; so allegorically, not the carnal posterity of Abraham, but the spiritual, the same God chose, who would be the sons of Abraham and heirs of his blessing; and that not from their prior merit, but from His free election and condescension. If therefore you ask, O Jew, why God did not will our carnal posterity, but chose another, which would be according to faith? I answer, because it so pleased God to choose. If you ask, why in the descendants of Abraham, not according to the flesh, namely in the Jews; but according to faith, namely in Christians, He willed the blessings promised to Abraham to be fulfilled? I answer, that this was done thus, not because the Jews deserved it, or Christians before they were Christians deserved it; but because it so pleased God. Thus Toletus, annot. 21 and seq., who first noted the genuine sense of the Apostle here. That this is the true sense of the Apostle will be evident from what follows. That you may understand these things more fully, note first, that here the children of promise, whom Jacob signifies, are allegorically Christians reborn by baptism and the grace of Christ: but the children of the flesh, whom Esau signifies, are the Jews. When therefore Paul says: "The greater shall serve the lesser," the literal sense is: Esau shall serve Jacob; but the allegorical sense, which the Apostle here directly intends, is: The Jews shall serve and be put after Christians, just as the old law served the new. Thus St. Augustine, lib. XVI De Civitate, cap. xxxv. Note secondly: This promise, as also the calling of God, does not exclude, but rather includes free will, which responds to and consents to God's calling, so that a child of promise may be born and adopted. For the works which Paul here denies are not done from faith and grace; nor is it even the work itself by which the faithful accepts faith and grace, believes, hopes, repents, so that he may prepare and dispose himself for the remission of sins and justice; but by the works which Paul here excludes, are understood the works of the law and of nature done without faith and before faith and the grace of Christ: for these the Jews boasted of, as if on account of them they ought to be chosen for justice and salvation. You will say: Jacob, as an infant, was called and chosen without any works; therefore allegorically Christians, who are called by God to be sons and heirs of Abraham, are called without any works and without the consent of free will. I answer: I deny the consequence, for there is not in all respects a likeness here, but only in this, that neither from works, that is from prior merits, but both, that is both Jacob and Christians, from God's grace are called, so that they may be sons and heirs of Abraham; yet so that Christians now, as men, ought freely to consent to God's calling, and thus become sons of Abraham, which Jacob, as an infant, could not do, so that he might freely consent to his generation and birth from Abraham. Again, when the Apostle says: "Not from works, but from Him that calleth," he excludes not only works already actually done, although St. Chrysostom and Theodoret wish this; for it is clear that such could not have been then, when those who would work had not yet been born; but also excludes future works, which are foreseen by God. For to all these he opposes the calling and election of God: otherwise indeed it would be truly from works, and not from pure calling and grace that this election was made. Just as according to the opinion of Theologians teaching that God chose us for glory from foreseen merits, it would be false to say this election was made from Him that calleth, and not from works: for although it was not made from works actually existing, it was made nevertheless from future works and foreseen, which in God's foreknowledge are as it were present and existing; truly therefore and absolutely it must be said, that this election was made from works, and not from God the caller alone: in the same manner therefore by works here, not only actually existing, or done, but also future, which are foreseen by God, are to be understood. Note thirdly, from what has been said the Apostle here tacitly infers two things. First, that the promises of God made to Abraham are not made void, but are fulfilled in Christians, to whom they are promised. For this he intends to prove from verse 6 up to this point. Second is, that reconciliation with God is obtained by man not from works of justice, but freely, through God's calling and grace. For from it God has now chosen and called not carnal descendants of Abraham, but spiritual sons, who would be sons of Abraham, and consequently heirs of justice and blessing: for this election and adoption is from the mere will of God, from the merit or demerit of neither; yet it pleased God to give and seal it to Christians and believers, when He could equally have given and sealed the same to Jews and the circumcised, and to the carnal descendants of Abraham, if He had willed. Note fourthly: The Apostle does not speak here, as I said at the beginning of the chapter, of election and calling to prevenient grace, but to sonship, justice and salvation. For this is the blessing and inheritance of Abraham, which therefore presupposes those born to be sons, not of flesh, but of spirit: but sons of spirit cannot be born unless Christians are reborn through faith and baptism: these things therefore are presupposed to the blessing and inheritance, indeed even to sonship already instituted and accepted by God. For God determined to adopt and accept into his sons those alone who are spiritually reborn not through circumcision and law, but through baptism and faith in Christ. Therefore they must first be reborn in this way by nature, before they are adopted by God into the sons of Abraham. Just as formerly the Jews had first to be born from Abraham, before they could be his sons according to the flesh. AS IT IS WRITTEN (Malachi I): I HAVE LOVED JACOB, BUT ESAU I HAVE HATED. — The Apostle here proves the promise which he said: The greater shall serve the younger, namely Esau shall serve Jacob, to have been truly fulfilled, from the fact that Malachi, or rather God through Malachi, says: "I have loved Jacob, but Esau I have hated." I HAVE LOVED JACOB. — First, St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecumenius, Theophylactus explain it thus, as if to say: Jacob I have loved and chosen unto eternal life and crown: but Esau I have rejected unto eternity, before they had done anything good or evil in act and in reality; because I foresaw that his works would be very evil, but his works would be very good. But this is against the mind of the Apostle, verses 11 and 12. For it is evident that not works done, which he sufficiently excludes when he says: "When they were not yet born;" but all future things foreseen by God are excluded by him here: for to all these he opposes one election of God. Thus St. Augustine and many others in various places. Secondly, others plainly on the contrary wish predestination and reprobation, at least as to the first effect, to be before all foreknowledge of works and even of original sin, as if to say: Setting aside all foreknowledge of sin, even original, Jacob, that is the predestined, I have chosen; Esau, that is the reprobate, I have hated, that is I permitted to fall into sin and be damned. Thus Peter Lombard, book I of the Sentences, distinction XLI, and others. Thirdly, St. Thomas: "Jacob," he says, "I have loved," that is I have predestined without his merits; but "Esau I have hated," that is I have reprobated and decreed to damn, but on account of his foreseen demerits. Hence some explain it thus, as if to say: Without merits I have loved and chosen Jacob unto glory, and this alone, they say, the Apostle wishes to prove here; "but Esau I have hated," after his demerits foreseen, that is after his sins foreseen I have reprobated and damned Esau. For they themselves posit a twofold reprobation: The first permissive or negative, by which it is permitted to the reprobate to sin and die in sin. This is opposed to predestination not contrarily, but contradictorily, just as to have mercy and not to have mercy are opposed. The second positive, by which God reprobates and damns the one dead in sin. Now they judge the former to occur before demerits, the latter after demerits. Fourthly, Cajetan and many others: "Jacob I have loved," that is, they say, I have decreed to give Jacob such and so congruous a grace by which he would be freed from original sin and every other, and would attain unto eternal life; "but Esau" on account of original sin "I have hated," that is I have decreed to permit to himself, that he fall into sins and be damned; and both this was done before the foreseen merits of each. St. Augustine seems to favor this sense, epistle 105. For the genuine sense of this passage note that neither Paul nor Malachi speak of Jacob and Esau personally only; but also and indeed especially of their posterity. Again, he does not speak of individual predestined and reprobate, nor of love or election unto glory, and reprobation unto hell; but to the letter Malachi speaks directly of the posterity of Jacob and Esau; and says that they are beloved and chosen especially unto temporal goods, before the posterity of Esau, as is evident to one reading Malachi. For it is probable that Esau himself was saved; and much more Job and his sons, and others descended from Esau (for that Job was born from Esau, St. Augustine, Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Gregory, Sedulius, Abulensis and others teach, whom Pineda cites and follows in Job, chapter 1, verse 1, n. 32). The same is evident to one reading the Apostle here, especially the preceding verse; the Apostle however from this election of these Jacobaeans or Jews before the Idumaeans unto temporal goods, rises allegorically to the predestination of Christians before Jews unto the blessing and spiritual goods. The meaning therefore is: That which I said Jacob was predestined by God calling and preferred to his brother Esau, or that "the greater shall serve the lesser," is evident from the event. For thus, to pass over other things, Malachias teaches it happened in his time, namely that, when I had delivered both you, O Jews, and the Idumeans to the Chaldeans for devastation on account of sins, yet I, loving you and preserving my former love, brought you back from the Babylonian captivity and restored you to your homeland: but the Idumeans I left in desolation and Babylonian captivity, and their land, reduced to a wilderness, I gave to dragons to inhabit, as Malachias says. Behold this is literally: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." Whence it is clear these words do not refer to verse 11, "when they were not yet born," because then Malachias had not yet written, "Jacob have I loved;" but to that preceding verse, "not of works, but of him that calleth it was said: The greater shall serve the lesser." For that this calling and prophecy, which says "The greater shall serve the lesser," was truly fulfilled, he proves from the fact that God actually loved Jacob after he was born; but hated Esau, as Malachias testifies. I loved Jacob therefore, not of works, but of my calling and condescension, because before all foreknowledge of merits I determined to choose him and his posterity into my people and Church, and to adorn them with temporal goods, add also spiritual. For from this my love followed so great a multiplication of the Jacobites, a deliverance from Egypt, a sustenance by manna in the desert, a leading by a pillar of fire and cloud, a legislation, an instruction, a priesthood, a singular protection in a thousand difficulties, so many revelations, that God seemed to dwell continually among them, so many victories, spoils, so many possessions of kingdoms with their strongest inhabitants cast out, so many judges, holy priests, Prophets. This love toward you, O Jews, I your God continue always, and in it I proceed, as I myself asseverate through Malachias; when I bring you back from captivity to your homeland, and when I protect you there, and hereafter shall protect and exalt you through the Machabees, and finally shall give you Christ the Holy of Holies, with his beloved and chosen mother, and with the Apostles and other first Christians and saints: for these are sprung from the Jews. In like manner allegorically before all foreknowledge of merits "I loved Jacob," that is Christians, who are the posterity of Abraham and Jacob according to faith and spirit, by giving them namely my justice, grace, friendship, and finally if they persevere in it, eternal life, as I shall say more fully presently. BUT ESAU HAVE I HATED.—That is, I neglected. Thus Lia is said by Jacob to be "hated," that is neglected in comparison with Rachel, Genesis xxix, 31. Thus in Luke xiv, 26, we are commanded to hate, that is to love less and to postpone father, mother, wife and soul to Christ and the love of Christ, as if to say: I did not choose the Idumeans into my people and Church, and I forced them to serve the Jews, and I gave them a barren land, the mountains of Seir, and properly I hated them, when on account of sins I delivered them to the Chaldeans for devastation and left them in captivity, which is what Malachias properly intends. You will say: If the Idumeans were left and hated on account of sins, therefore not of him that calleth, but of works they are hated: which the Apostle denies in the preceding verse. I answer: Even before sins the Idumeans were neglected by God in comparison with the Jacobites, as I said; after sins however they are properly hated and left: but equally and perhaps more did the Jews sin than the Idumeans; whence also they were punished with the same Babylonian captivity with them. Not therefore of works, that is of a difference of works was it that he loved Jacob and brought him back from captivity; but hated Esau and left him in captivity, when both were unworthy of this mercy. But this discretion and election of the Jacobites was made of the grace and calling of God, who loved Jacob and his posterity and continued to love them even after sins deserving ill of him; but neglected Esau and continued to neglect him. Hence the Apostle tacitly infers allegorically: Thus also now Jacob, that is, believing Christians, who are the children of promise, and the spiritual seed of Abraham and Jacob, generated through faith and grace, I have loved as sons, because I have promoted them to justice and the way of salvation; but Esau, that is, the seed of the flesh, namely the Jews glorying in works and in father Abraham and spurning the faith of Christ, I have thrust back and rejected from justice and salvation. Thus St. Augustine, book XVI of the City of God, chapter xxxv. And this "not from works," because both Christians before faith and Jews had no merit of works: for both were in sins; but from grace and the calling of Christ, which Christians embraced, and therefore are beloved; which the Jews rejected, and therefore are held in hatred. For the Apostle here is entirely intent on this, and intends only to show why, namely, the Gentiles have obtained justice, but the Jews have been rejected and reprobated from it, as I proved at the beginning of the chapter. Again the same is evident from this, that this verse, like the other preceding and following verses, depends on and is drawn from verse 6. For all are directed to it, so that they may demonstrate that the children, not of the flesh, but of faith and spirit, namely faithful Christians, are the children and heirs of the blessing, that is, of the justice of Abraham promised; and therefore the promises made by God to Abraham have not failed, inasmuch as they were promised and bestowed by God upon the spiritual children of Abraham, not upon the carnal ones. But this promised blessing made to Abraham and his children according to faith and spirit is nothing other than justice and friendship with God, as I showed at the beginning of the chapter: therefore this love of Jacob before Esau is likewise justice and friendship with God. For God loved Jacob in order that He might make him an heir of the blessing of Abraham: "Jacob therefore have I loved," that is, to Jacob and to the children of Jacob according to faith and spirit, namely to Christians, I have conferred the blessing of Abraham, that is, I have justified those believing in Christ, sanctified them, and adopted them as my sons; "but Esau have I hated," that is, the Idumaeans, the Jews and other unbelievers, who are the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, and of whom Esau was the type, I have thrust back from my justice, holiness, and adoption. Therefore the Apostle does not intend here to show, as Toletus rightly teaches, annotation 24, why some particular person, Peter for example, is elected to glory, but Judas is reprobated to hell. To this special predestination and election, however, some accommodate the words of the Apostle thus: Before the foreknowledge of merits, I have loved Peter, that is, I have given to Peter the grace of predestination, namely such as I foreknew he would cooperate with, persevere in, and consequently be saved: but Judas have I hated, that is, I have not given to Judas such grace, but another, with which I foreknew he would not persevere, but would fall and be damned, although I did not intend this: because I seriously and sincerely gave him grace, as I gave it to Peter, intending that he himself would cooperate and persevere, which he could do as easily as Peter if he had wished; but I foreknew that he would not do this, and that from his mere freedom. For this foreknowledge of future or non-future cooperation and effect distinguishes the grace of predestination, which is given to the elect, from common grace, which is given to the reprobate. But this grace of predestination is not given from works, but from grace and the liberal will, purpose and intention of God. But, as I have already said, this sense is accommodated, not properly destined or intended by the Apostle.
9:14
14. WHAT SHALL WE SAY THEN? IS THERE INJUSTICE (in Greek ἀδικία, that is, injustice) WITH GOD? — The Apostle here meets a tacit objection: If God loved Jacob without merit, and hated Esau equally; therefore He seems unjust: but to say this is impious. The Apostle responds: GOD FORBID, and giving a reason and solving the objection, he adds:
9:15
15. FOR HE SAITH TO MOSES (Exodus xxxiii, 19): I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I WILL HAVE MERCY, — that is, on whom I shall will to have mercy. This is a general statement of Moses, true everywhere; the Apostle, however, applies it to his own purpose, as if to say: This predestination and election of Jacob before Esau, and allegorically of the children of faith in Abraham, that is, of Christians, before the children of the flesh, that is, of the Jews, is owed to no one, nor is it a work of justice, but of mercy, and consequently is free and gratuitous to me; therefore there is never injustice in it, as if to say: Therefore there is no injustice in the rejection of the carnal Jews, and the acceptance of believers to justice, grace and salvation, which are the blessing of Abraham and promised to his seed, because this acceptance is owed to no one, but is entirely in God's discretion, so that He may give it freely and graciously to whom He wills; therefore I have done no injury to the Jews, when I have shown mercy to the Gentiles; for I was able, as I willed, to place the blessing of Abraham in faith: just as I was able to place the same in carnal generation and circumcision; but I did not will it: for I willed that both Gentiles and Jews should form my Church through faith. Wherefore Anselm does not explain this genuinely, nor according to the mind of the Apostle, as if to say: Whom I shall have mercy on through calling, on him I shall have mercy through operation, that is, I shall cause such a one to believe and act rightly.
9:16
16. THEREFORE IT IS NOT OF HIM THAT WILLETH, NOR OF HIM THAT RUNNETH, BUT OF GOD THAT HATH MERCY. — Here, says Calvin, the cooperation of free will is taken away, the interior by "willeth," the exterior by "runneth," because the whole good work is "of God that hath mercy," that is, of the grace of God. I answer: It is true that in this cause and question which the Apostle here discusses, free will is taken away, because this cause and question concerns God alone, not man, as I shall presently show: shall it therefore be taken away in human works, merits, and counsels, which are of human choice and election? Secondly, Origen, Ambrose, and Jerome, in Question X to Hedybia, wish these to be the words of an objecting Jew. Whence also St. Chrysostom and Theodoret say that Paul by these words increases the question. Thirdly, Photius and Chrysostom explain it thus: It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth alone, but also of God that hath mercy. But this is refuted by St. Augustine, because thus Paul could equally have said: It is not of God that hath mercy alone, namely, but also of man that willeth and runneth; St. Augustine therefore understands that what Paul says here is of God that hath mercy alone. But St. Chrysostom could answer St. Augustine that Paul could not have said this with equal reason, because the greater part in a good work, conversion, and justification belongs to grace and God's mercy and preventing grace, not to man's willing; and Paul wished to signify only this by this Hebrew phrase. For the Hebrews are accustomed to make their comparison in such a way that they affirm what is greater and deny what is less; as "I will mercy, and not sacrifice," that is, I will mercy rather than sacrifice. See Canon 36. Fourthly, some Scholastic Doctors from St. Augustine, Epistle 105, apply these words to the predestination of individuals, which is not from the foreknowledge of works, but from God's will alone. For to have mercy, they say, is to give congruous grace, by which God sees that man will cooperate and be saved: but that God should give us such grace and not another incongruous grace, by which He foreknows we shall not cooperate, this we cannot merit. Fifthly, Louis Molina from St. Augustine, Enchiridion chapter 32, expounds it: "It is not of him that willeth, namely, to will; nor of him that runneth, namely, to run; but of God, who by His grace and mercy stirs us up to will and cooperates with us: for our willing also is; but the will is prepared to will by the Lord," that is to say, To will that which is good, this willing, I say, is not of the powers of nature, but of grace, which grace and mercy nevertheless does not exclude, but includes the free embrace of grace, or free will consenting to grace and working through grace: for this free embrace of grace is the effect of preventing grace; and of cooperating and accompanying grace it is a concause, or rather a concausation. But from what has been said it is plain that all these expositions do not directly touch the scope and sense of St. Paul. For he does not here dispute about the cause of a good work, nor even about predestination to glory or to congruous grace; but he disputes about justice and justifying grace, and asks whence it comes to us, whether from our good will and effort, or truly from the grace and mercy of God? Sixthly, therefore most excellently and most plainly according to the letter Anastasius, in Questions of Holy Scripture, Question LIX, explains it thus, that is to say, Paul: The blessing of Abraham and Isaac was not of Esau willing and running into the field to hunt, so that, when the father had eaten of his hunting, he would bless him; but it was of Jacob, whom God had mercy upon, so that it should fall upon him, not upon Esau, although he was the elder and firstborn. Again, as Toletus rightly explains, Jacob obtained the blessing, and from it the sonship and inheritance of Isaac his father, and consequently of Abraham his grandfather, so that namely the family of Abraham and Isaac should be reckoned to be the family of Jacob and the Jacobites, not the family of Esau and the Idumaeans; and Jacob obtained this, not from the fact that he himself, at his mother's suggestion, willing and running, brought the kid more quickly than Esau, but because God so willed and had mercy upon him, not upon Esau. In like manner allegorically, that the Christian people, of which Jacob was the type, gathered together from Gentiles and Jews through faith in Christ, might be received into the posterity of Abraham, so that namely it itself would be the Church and people of God, and consequently the heir of justice and salvation, and thence the heir of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, of the friendship and protection of God (which was the blessing of Abraham promised); but carnal Jews would be rejected from justice, and consequently from the people and Church of God, so that they would not be among the friends and sons of God; this, I say, did not happen from the will, or from the prior works of these or those; but from God's will alone, to whom it pleased to place the blessing and sonship of Abraham in faith in Christ, so that faithful Christians might be the people, sons and Church of God; just as formerly the Jews according to the flesh, born from Abraham, were so, because then it so pleased God: but now otherwise it has seemed good to him. The works therefore which the Apostle here excludes, and by which he denies that we have merited this blessing and justice, are not works done from faith, but circumcision and other works prescribed by the Mosaic law, from which the Jews thought that this sonship and blessing of Abraham was owed to them, but falsely. Whence to these their works the Apostle opposes God's calling, love, mercy, grace and faith exhibited and proposed through Christ, and teaches, urges and inculcates that from this, not however from the Mosaic works already mentioned, we are justified and saved. For this is the scope of the whole chapter, indeed of the whole epistle, as I said at the beginning. You will say: In Christians faith is a disposition toward justice, and merits justification by congruity; for, as St. Augustine says, epistle 105: "Nor is the remission of sins itself without some merit, but faith obtains this." And epistle 106: "If anyone," he says, "should say that faith merits the grace of working well, we cannot deny it, but rather we confess it most gladly." Therefore justification is not of mere grace, nor of God's mercy alone. I answer: I deny the consequence, because this merit by congruity is nothing other than a disposition; but a disposition properly does not give merit, nor the power of justifying, but is only a disposition toward justice, because God so willed it, when he could have ordained otherwise; nay, even without a disposition he could justify us. A faithful and penitent person therefore, although he be such, nevertheless receives remission of sins freely and mercifully, and undeservedly, and is justified, because it so pleased God having mercy. Just as if a king should give pardon to those guilty of lèse-majesté, and restore them to his favor and their former dignity, but only those who would come to the royal court and ask for pardon: all the guilty having thus obtained pardon would attribute this pardon and restoration not to their labor or petition, but to the king's mercy: so also here our case stands with God. Add to this that mercy is opposed to the willing and running of natural powers, and their own, but not opposed to the willing and running of the powers of grace and God's mercy, but rather includes or presupposes that. For God does not have mercy, that is, does not justify anyone, unless he sees him born according to the spirit, that is, faithful and penitent. For he alone is the son of Abraham, to whom this mercy is promised.
9:17
17. SCRIPTURE SAYS (Exodus IX, 16) TO PHARAOH: FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE HAVE I RAISED THEE UP, THAT I MAY SHEW MY POWER IN THEE. — The Apostle proved in verses 15 and 16 preceding that it is not unjust that God by free election and will loved Jacob and had mercy on him, without his works and merits. He now proves the second part of his antithesis, namely that He hated Esau and was unwilling to have mercy on him, this did not happen on account of the demerits of Esau before Jacob, but from God's will, who was unwilling to have mercy on him. For it is free to God to do this, as is evident in Pharaoh, whom, because he was hardened in his sins, He permitted and left to himself and his sins, and finally punished by drowning him in the Red Sea, yet He had mercy on Nabuchodonosor and others, who equally with Pharaoh were evil and by hardness deserved the same. I RAISED THEE UP — thee, O Pharaoh, I made king, I sustained, as the Chaldean and Septuagint render it, I preserved, and I permitted that thou shouldest rise up as a tyrant against my people; that I in turn might rise up against thee, as against an enemy, with so many most powerful plagues, and finally drown thee in the Red Sea: that thus all might know, fear and worship my justice and power. Thus St. Chrysostom and Photius. Otherwise Anselm: I raised up, he says, thy malice lying dormant through my signs and plagues, that thou mightest become harder. Thus also St. Thomas and St. Augustine explain it, lib. III Against Julian., cap. III. THAT I MAY SHEW MY POWER IN THEE. — Note: This was not the first and principal, but one among other causes and indeed the last cause why God raised up Pharaoh. For the first cause was that Pharaoh should obey God his creator and live well and blessedly, which end is appointed by God to every man; but because God foresaw that he would stubbornly resist His warnings and power, therefore He ordained this malice of his to His own glory, that by punishing him through miraculous plagues He might restrain, correct and convert him. But when He saw that he was hardened all the more by these, He decreed to add plague to plague, and finally to drown him with his people in the Red Sea, to this end, that these plagues and disasters might set before the eyes of all men God's power, not long-suffering, as Œcumenius interprets, but as it is in Greek, δύναμιν, that is power, and might strike fear of God into the impious and rebellious. Note, that Pharaoh and the impious are tolerated by God by His primary will to this end, that they might correct themselves and be saved. For this is what Paul teaches, Romans II, 4. The word therefore ut here signifies the event or remote cause, as I have already explained. See Canon 24.
9:18
18. THEREFORE HE HATH MERCY ON WHOM HE WILL, AND WHOM HE WILL HE HARDENETH. — From this passage Calvin deduces his horrible doctrine concerning reprobation and predestination; and he teaches that God after the fall of Adam, just as He efficaciously elected and predestined individual elect to glory, as it were to His end, and consequently predestined the same to faith and grace as to means suited to such an end: so likewise He predestined individual reprobates before all foreknowledge of works and demerits to eternal punishments, as it were to His end, and consequently predestined the same to evil acts, by which they would merit these punishments; and from this predestination, he himself says, flows the efficacious execution of grace and glory in the good and elect, but in the evil and reprobate flows a certain and necessary fall into any sins whatsoever, and in them hardening, blindness, death and eternal damnation, so that man in the matter of his salvation or eternal damnation acts nothing freely, but acts and is acted upon in all things by God: just as a globe is moved and impelled by one turning it, an axe by one cutting with it, clay by a potter, to which it cannot resist, nay from which it does not so much act as is acted upon and suffers. This is Calvin's fate far more universal, more efficacious and more violent than the fate of the Stoics. But if we grant this fate, to say nothing of its impiety toward God, the reprobate will rightly say with Lucian in his refutation of Jupiter: "If the Fates are the cause of all things: therefore if someone kills his father, the Fates are at fault. If Minos wishes to use judgment rightly, it would be far more just for fate to punish Sisyphus, and the Fates to punish Tantalus. For what did they do unjustly, when they were obedient to the command?" I often marvel how so atrocious a blasphemy, so horrible a doctrine, and indeed any others could be persuaded to men by Calvin; since from this one thing alone, as it were from the claw, they could and ought to recognize the lion. For from this it follows, to omit other things, that man necessarily wills or wills not to sin, whenever he sins; necessarily to blaspheme and curse God, whenever he blasphemes and curses; and consequently all those who are damned could not have averted this damnation, but are necessarily and inevitably damned, and tortured in eternal fires. For this prior decree of God, which Calvin posits, is to the reprobate man inevitable and inescapable, and its execution likewise is inescapable. Nay, from this his principle and fate it follows that not man, who merely necessarily receives the motion of God, but God alone, who imprints the motion, and impels and predetermines to the evil act from His mere and free will; God alone, I say, causes the act of sin, and consequently alone sins. Which is a blasphemy unheard of for ages, namely that someone would make God, who is very goodness itself by essence and the source of all good, the source of all malice, that is, would make God a demon, which Calvin has done in our age. O the times! O the monsters! The Manichaeans and Manes shuddered at this, and lest they be so unjust to the good God, they opposed to Him a certain evil God, as it were the source of all evil. This was far more tolerable. I omit that this fate of Calvin drives man to desperation: for if God has devoted to damnation and hell those whom He willed, without any foreseen demerit of theirs, who would not fear, who would not be struck down? Who would not always anxiously suspect this decree of God hanging over his head, and say: What if God has devoted me to damnation? Who knows whether He has placed me among the reprobate? If it is so, it is all over with me: I have perished, I shall be eternally miserable and damned, why do I labor for a good life? I must perish, nay I must sin. To this I am urged by God's fate, to which to resist, from which to withdraw myself is as impossible as to fight against God. Beautifully and gravely St. Augustine, chapter XXIII On Grace and Free Will: "God," he says, "renders evils for evils, because He is just; goods for evils, because He is good; goods for goods, because He is good and just: only He does not render evils for goods, because He is not unjust." Let us therefore examine this harmful meaning of the words: "Whom He will He hath mercy on, and whom He will He hardeneth." Note: God reprobates, does not predestine, does not prevent, does not predetermine. As therefore it concerns the true and orthodox sense of Paul's sentence, some think that this inference of his: "Therefore whom He will He hath mercy on, and whom He will He hardeneth," is not inferred from the mind of Paul himself, but from the mind of the Jews, opposing and clamoring against Paul, who gather this sentence, as it were a great absurdity, from Paul's sayings, and object it to him. Thus Origen and Jerome to Hedybia, Question X, judge. But that these are not the words, but rather the words immediately following are those of the objecting Jews, is evident from these very words. For it follows: "Thou sayest therefore unto me," etc. I say therefore: The Apostle here from that testimony, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," namely Jacob, and allegorically the faithful people, or Christians, whom I loved, infers: "Therefore whom He will, He hath mercy on." But from that, "For this very purpose did I raise thee up, that I might shew my power in thee," he infers and concludes: "Therefore whom He will, He hardeneth," namely Pharaoh; and consequently not from works, but because He wills it, He hateth Esau, and allegorically the carnal Jews, whom He repels from the blessing of Abraham. For this is what he strives to prove throughout this chapter, namely that those who believe are called by God's will, and the Jews are repelled from the blessing of Abraham. All these sentences therefore depend, and are connected and linked together with verse 13; for all these antitheses are deduced from that first verse 13: "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated," and are its proof and explanation. Note first: God "hardeneth," that is hardeneth properly, and consequently hateth, as Esau, and punishes and punished, as Pharaoh; for to all these aforesaid, namely Esau, Pharaoh, etc., it extends: he hardeneth by metonymy. Note secondly: God hardeneth the sinner, because He hath not mercy on him, but leaveth him in his hardness and impiety and sins; and permitteth it to be increased either by indulgence or by scourging; for the Apostle opposeth these two things, to have mercy and to harden. Therefore to harden is not to have mercy: since therefore to have mercy is to free from sin (for sin is the greatest misery, which standeth in greatest need of mercy) and to justify, it followeth, that not to have mercy or to harden, is the same as to leave and neglect the sinner in his justice and sins and hardness: thus the Apostle explaineth himself in verse 22. For Isaiah teacheth that sinners are hardened properly and directly by their own malice, cap. I, 16, and David, Psalm XCIV, 8. The same appeareth in Pharaoh, who in Scripture is set forth as a mirror and example of hardening, of whom the Apostle properly speaketh here. That Pharaoh was hardened not by God, but by himself and his own malice properly and directly, is demonstrated, First, from the fact that God, having sent Moses, commanded Pharaoh ten times to let the Jewish people go; therefore He willed that he should send the people forth; therefore He did not will to harden him. For to will this properly, is to will efficaciously that Pharaoh should be unwilling to let the people go: but to will that he should let them go, and to command this, and again to will efficaciously that he should not, and therefore to harden him, manifestly contradict one another. Again, if God's will was to harden Pharaoh, therefore Pharaoh conforming himself to Him did not sin: for God's will is the measure of all good will. Secondly, God punished Pharaoh resisting most severely; but "God is not the author of those things of which He is the avenger," saith St. Fulgentius, lib. I to Monimus, cap. III. Thirdly, Pharaoh himself gradually yielded to God, Moses and the Hebrews, when first he permitted them to go without their children and cattle; secondly, with their children, but without cattle; thirdly, altogether with his own to depart: therefore he himself was bending and hardening himself; nay rather Pharaoh himself was not so impious as to cast the cause of his hardness upon God, but attributed it to himself, Exodus cap. X, verse 16: "I have sinned," he saith, "against the Lord." That Calvin contendeth to free God from blame, attributing Pharaoh's sin and hardening to God, he doth this as impiously as ignorantly: for if the hardness of Pharaoh is sin, why is not hardening likewise sin, which is the cause of hardness? For a cause impelling to sin surely sinneth, John VIII, 34, Rom. I, 32; and especially then, when it impelleth efficaciously, so that another cannot resist it. But Calvin presseth on: to harden in God is not a fault, because it is a just judgment of God not to have mercy on them. But this is a frivolous and empty pretence, for if hardness is a fault, to whatever end, to whatever judgment thou impellest it, thou committest a fault: for what is in itself evil and a fault, is not lawful by any end, and therefore this judgment of Calvin is not just, but impious: and it is the same as to say and as if thou openly pronouncest: God is the author of sin, but for this end, that He might exercise His judgment and the vengeance of preceding sins. Fourth, not Pharaoh alone attributed to himself, but Scripture also attributed to him both blame and hardening, when it narrates that he, already free from punishment, returned to his nature of his own accord in Exodus VIII, 15: "Seeing," it says, "that Pharaoh saw that rest was given, he hardened his heart." And cap. IX, vers. 34: "Seeing Pharaoh that the rain had ceased, he increased sin, and his heart was hardened," that is, as it is in the Hebrew, יכבר לבו iachbed libbo, that is, he himself hardened his heart. The same appears in cap. VIII, vers. last in the Hebrew. Whence as often as our Interpreter in Exodus translates "it was hardened," understand, he hardened his heart, that is, the will of Pharaoh; for thus the Hebrew is to be translated everywhere. Therefore Pharaoh himself properly and positively hardened himself, but God permissively and negatively: because when He held his will in His hand, He did not restrain it from evil, but loosened the reins to it, for the oppression of the Hebrews: just as one who holds a hunting dog bound with ropes is said to set it upon a hare if he loosens it from its bonds and allows it to be carried toward the hare. Again, God by withdrawing and suspending His scourges, which softened Pharaoh, hardened him, because, those ceasing, he immediately returned to his nature and hardness. For when God inflicted plagues upon Pharaoh, Pharaoh promised that he would let the Hebrews go; but when He withdrew the plagues, Pharaoh was hardened again. Whence in Exodus VIII, 15, it is said: "Seeing Pharaoh that rest was given, he hardened his heart." Thus Anastasius of Nicaea in the Questions of Holy Scripture, question XXIX. Add: Just as wicked boys become harder from beatings, so also Pharaoh became harder day by day from the blows of God. Whence just as a teacher beating a stubborn boy is said to harden him with his blows and make him more stubborn: so God is said to have hardened and made harder the hard and stubborn heart of Pharaoh by His plagues, not effectively, but objectively, that is, not by producing and inflicting hardness upon him, but by presenting scourges, by which he himself hardened himself more, and resisted God more strongly. Thus all the Fathers and Catholic interpreters explain this passage. Note third: "To have mercy" here in the Apostle is general; but the Apostle applies it to Jacob, namely that God brought him back from the captivity of Babylon; and allegorically to believers, namely that they themselves have been freed from the servitude of sin by God freely and justified, as I have said. For God could, if He had willed, not justify believers, indeed even the penitent, that is, not have mercy upon them. Note fourth: That we may gather all things said into one, all these antitheses, which the Apostle heaps together from vers. 7 hitherto, are to be applied and explained by this, that Christians, who are children of the spirit, of promise, of grace and of faith, by believing in Christ and obeying Him, have obtained the blessing of Abraham, that is, justice: but Jews, who are children of the flesh, that is, carnally born of Abraham, and who sought justice from works by the force of the law and of nature, that is, from human and carnal works, and strove to produce and bring it forth, rejecting the faith of Christ, have been repelled from the blessing likewise and from justice, and from the way of salvation. That I may demonstrate this more clearly, I shall apply the individual antitheses. The first is, vers. 7. Not Ishmael the son of the flesh, but Isaac the son of promise is esteemed the son of Abraham and heir: so not Jews the sons of the flesh unbelieving, but Christians believing, as it were sons of promise are esteemed sons and heirs of the blessing and justice of Abraham. The second is, vers. 13: "The greater shall serve the lesser," that is, Jews shall be set aside and shall serve Christians. The third is in the same place: "Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated," that is, I have loved Christians believing, I have hated Jews unbelieving. The fourth is, vers. 16: "It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy;" that is, justice is not of the Jew willing and running to it by the powers of nature and works, but is of the Christian believing, to whom God willed to bestow and give justice mercifully. The fifth is, vers. 18: "Whom He will, v. g. Isaac, Jacob, Nebuchadnezzar, He hath mercy on; and whom He will, v. g. Ishmael, Esau and their posterity and Pharaoh, He hardeneth." That is, God hath mercy on the faithful Christian people, giving it justice; but Jews rebellious to faith He hardens, that is, in their injustice, hardness, rebellion He permits and abandons, and shuts them out and repels them from true justice and salvation. The sixth is, vers. 21, 22, 23, where the Apostle calls Christians believing "vessels unto honour, and vessels of mercy;" but Jews unbelieving he calls vessels unto dishonour, vessels of wrath, fitted for destruction. Note here, fifth, that Jews must always be understood here as unbelievers, and those who reject the faith of Christ, and persist in their own law: just as in Christians is involved the acceptance of faith and grace, and obedience toward Christ; for neither are Christians chosen for righteousness, unless their faith and obedience shall have been foreseen first; nor are Jews rejected from righteousness before it is foreseen that they reject the faith and grace of Christ. Just as therefore in Christians faith is presupposed to their love and blessing, that is, justification, so in Jews is always included and presupposed their unbelief, as it were the object of hatred. For on account of their unbelief they were rejected by God and held in hatred: so that on the part of the thing itself it is prior for them to be unbelievers, than to be held in hatred by God; just as conversely, it is prior for Christians to believe and obey Christ, than to be loved and justified by God. This therefore is the perpetual antithesis of the Apostle, which he proves by so many examples: namely, "Jews unbelieving were cast off from righteousness, Christians truly believing were given righteousness." All things aim at this, through this all things are to be resolved, this is the scope, this is the mind of the Apostle. Note sixth: The Apostle says that both of these things came to pass from God calling and having mercy, not from prior works: because that believers are justified, while others not believing are cast off from righteousness, is of the mercy of God, to whom it pleased to establish righteousness in faith, and to justify believers freely; when He could have justified those not believing in Christ, and established righteousness in another thing, and prescribed another mode of justification, for example circumcision, or natural descent from Abraham, and a thousand other modes, which God Himself has in the treasures of His wisdom and providence. From what has been said it is clear, that the Apostle does not treat here of congruous or incongruous vocation to first grace or glory; nor of efficacious or inefficacious grace: but treats of vocation to righteousness. Note seventh: The Apostle primarily intends here to show, that Isaac is preferred and beloved before Ishmael, Jacob before his brother Esau, and Christians before Jews, not to be from their prior merits; secondarily however he shows, that Ishmael, Esau and Jews are held in hatred, that is, neglected, set aside and cast off from the family, blessing and righteousness of Abraham, that this did not happen from their prior demerit; prior, I say, before faith or the rejection of faith, as if in Judaism they had deserved to be cast off before the Gentiles, but both this was of the will and election of God, who before all merit wished Isaac to be reckoned before Ishmael and to be the son and heir of Abraham, and Jacob to be blessed by Isaac before Esau, and to be reckoned his and through him Abraham's son and heir; and consequently the posterity of both, namely the Isaacites and Jacobites, to be before the Ishmaelites and Idumaeans, the sons and heirs of Abraham. If you say, afterwards the Idumaeans were held in hatred on account of sins, when, as Malachi says, they were captured and overthrown, Paul will answer, and the Jacobites sinned, and were captured on account of their sins. Not therefore from works and demerits, in which they were equal, were these preferred and restored before those; but because God loved and chose these and their parents before those into His people and Church. Similarly that He hardened Pharaoh before Nebuchadnezzar and others, that is, left him in his malice and hardness and oppressed him, was not from the demerit of Pharaoh, as if he had been harder and worse than Nebuchadnezzar and others similarly hardened: but because He wished to have mercy on Nebuchadnezzar and restore the kingdom to him, He wished not to do so for Pharaoh. Thus plainly in the allegorical sense (which the Apostle chiefly intends to signify here, yet so that he only touches upon the former literal sense as it were in passing, and presupposes it to his allegory), that He cast off unbelieving Jews before believing Christians, and held them in hatred, the same God did not do from prior demerits, as if Jews in Judaism before Gentiles in paganism had deserved this, when both were in sins, and the Gentiles more so; but it was from the will of God, who wished to choose believers for righteousness, to cast off unbelievers from it. If therefore you ask why Christians are chosen for righteousness, Jews truly cast off from it? The Apostle answers, verses 30 and following, because Christians have embraced the faith of Christ, Jews have rejected it. If you continue to ask why Jews rejecting faith are rejected, Christians truly embracing faith are chosen? The Apostle has always answered up to this point that the cause is, that Christians believing are children of the promise, whom God chose, and promised them mercy, namely righteousness: that is, because it pleased God to place the blessing and filiation of Abraham in the faith of Christ, that very righteousness itself; not because the Gentiles deserved this, or Jews in Judaism deserved it, or deserved to be deprived of it before the Gentiles. Behold this is what the Apostle turns over, turns back and inculcates so many times through so many sentences here.
9:19
19. YOU SAY THEREFORE TO ME: WHY DOES HE STILL COMPLAIN? — In Greek μέμφεται, that is, he complains, he finds fault; not however he seeks, he searches, although St. Thomas reads and understands it thus. It is a querulous occupation. For someone will object: If God "has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardeneth," why therefore does God complain, find fault and grow angry with Pharaoh and other impious men through the Prophets, and punish them? God himself, as you say, O Paul, hardens them. FOR WHO RESISTETH HIS WILL? — or, as it is in Greek, ἀνθέστηκε, that is, has ever resisted. The Apostle first repels this objection by the argument of God's absolute dominion and majesty, against which no one can or ought to complain; then he answers it directly in verse 22. Note: Paul could have answered him immediately, that God justly complains of the impious, because they sin by their own will. But because he deals with proud and querulous impious men, who irreverently and arrogantly complain, and set themselves against God and his will and judgments; therefore first, he repels their pride and proud complaint by the argument of reverence and divine sublimity, especially because by this very thing, although he does not answer their very question and objection, he nevertheless answers the origin and cause of the same. This cause is that the impious are unwilling to be subject to the divine will and its command, and would wish to shake it off if they could, inasmuch as they know themselves to be punished and damned by it. They say therefore to themselves: If God has mercy on whom he will, and whom he will he hardens, what wonder is it that we are miserable and hardened? For by the will of God we are such: but who resisteth his will? The Apostle removes and destroys this cause, saying that the reason for the divine will, inasmuch as it is most wise, most good and most eminent, is not to be sought by a creature; for no one ought to complain of it or make an outcry against it, but all ought to venerate it in silence, and submit themselves to it with the greatest humility and reverence. He says therefore:
9:20
20. O MAN (in Greek μενοῦνγε, but O man), WHO ART THOU THAT REPLIEST AGAINST GOD? — Beautifully St. Gregory, book IX of the Morals, chapter VIII, says: "He is convicted of not being able to reply to God, who is called man; who by the fact that he is taken from the earth, is not worthy to examine the judgments on high."
9:21
21. DOES THE THING FORMED SAY TO HIM THAT FORMED IT: WHY HAST THOU MADE ME THUS? OR HATH NOT THE POTTER POWER OVER THE CLAY, OF THE SAME LUMP TO MAKE ONE VESSEL UNTO HONOUR, AND ANOTHER UNTO DISHONOUR? — The Apostle continues to blunt and restrain the importunate and arrogant objection of the impious against God, saying that they ought no more to resist or murmur against God their maker and creator than clay against the potter. Note first: The Apostle here compares God to a potter, and men to clay, not as if men, equally as clay, were destitute of choice and free will; for the contrary is what the Apostle signifies in verses 22 and 24, and because otherwise men, equally as clay, would lack soul and reason, as St. Chrysostom says; but to signify that men ought no more to murmur against God showing mercy or hardening, punishing or rewarding, than clay against the potter, as I shall presently show more clearly. For to this end alone is this similitude of the potter and clay introduced; for Paul here alludes to Jeremiah XVIII, 6, where the Lord thus speaks: "Behold, as the clay is in the hand of the potter, so are you in my hand," that is to say, As an earthen vessel is in the hand of the potter, so that he may break it and make another vessel from it, or first renew it: so also I you, O Jews, destined by me to Chaldean destruction, if you repent, will reform, will change my sentence, and will convert your calamity into happiness: thus Theodoret. so that from vessels of dishonour, that is, inglorious, you may become vessels unto honour, that is, honourable. Note second: St. Augustine and others hold that the Apostle here speaks of the mass, that is, the community of men sprinkled not only with original but also with actual sin (for Paul here speaks of the impious and unbelieving Jews), from which God liberates and chooses some to glory, and leaves others and destines them to eternal punishment. Thus St. Augustine, book I to Simplician, Question II, and Fulgentius, to Monimus, book I, chapter XXVI. Where note: from the mass of original sin, God did not intend positively to make anyone a vessel unto dishonour, as I demonstrated in verse 13, but only permissively; indeed God intends, as far as is on his part, to snatch all from this corrupted and lost mass and to save them through Christ. For this reason he gave Christ as mediator to all, willing, as far as is on his part, that through Christ all should be saved. But from the mass and complement of actual sins, which sinners themselves make and add to original sin, God also positively makes vessels unto dishonour; because he destines them to eternal punishment and reproach, whom he sees dying in these sins of theirs. From this passage of the Apostle also, according to the mind of St. Augustine understood, it is not rightly elicited or concluded that God reprobated anyone, or decreed to exclude him from the kingdom of heaven on account of only the foreseen original sin of his, or before his actual sins, in which he was foreseen to die. Rather Gregory of Valencia, part I, Question XXIII, point 3, column 463, teaches that to this mass of perdition according to the mind of St. Augustine belong, and fall back into it, those who after original sin remitted to them commit actual sins. For this is what St. Augustine says, Enchiridion XXIX: "The rational creature which was in men, by sins and punishments, both original and their own, had wholly perished." And epistle 105: "One," he says, "is from Adam the mass of sinners and impious, in which both Jews and Gentiles, grace of God removed, belong to one sprinkling." Book I to Simplician, Question II: "For this reason," he says, "every sinner is inexcusable, either by the guilt of origin, or also by the addition of his own will." And a little later: "In vessels," he says, "on account of the merit of the mass, unto dishonour due (that is, in all those who on account of sins are destined to hell) God knows to condemn iniquity, not to make it." And book LXXXIII Questions, Question LXVIII, he teaches that the reprobate cannot say to God: Why hast thou made me a vessel unto dishonour? because they are already a mass of clay, that is, of sin, after the transgression of Adam. And he concludes: "If thou wishest to be able to say to God: Why hast thou made me? do not be clay, but become a son of God through his mercy." Wherefore grave theologians, following the mind of St. Augustine, hold that God has reprobated no one, that is, excluded from heaven and destined to hell, except after foreseeing his final sin, namely that he would die in original or actual sin. Hear Cardinal Bellarmine, book II On Grace and Free Will, chapter XVI: "We say," he says, "that the cause of reprobation is the foreknowledge of original or actual sin; because God does not reprobate all on account of original sin, since that is truly remitted to some of the reprobate through the grace of baptism; but others on account of original sin alone, such as unbaptized infants; others on account of actual sin alone, such as baptized adults; others on account of both, such as unbelieving adults, concerning which matter see Augustine, On Correction and Grace, chapter XIII, and Prosper, in Response to chapter II of the Gauls." But whatever be the case concerning this mass of sinners and their election and reprobation, I say the Apostle does not speak of it here. Therefore, in order to explain the genuine mind of the Apostle, I assert that God is compared here to the potter only in this, that just as the potter can from the same clay make one vessel unto honor and another unto dishonor: so God from the same mass of men, whom He will He has mercy on and whom He will He hardens. Whom therefore He has mercy on, that is whom He frees from sin and justifies, such as believing Christians, these He makes vessels unto honor: whom He hardens, such as Pharaoh and unbelieving Jews, these He makes vessels unto dishonor; but just as God has mercy positively and directly, so He makes vessels unto honor positively and directly; and just as He hardens permissively and indirectly only, so He makes vessels unto dishonor permissively and indirectly only. Therefore a vessel unto honor here is not one elected to glory, nor a vessel unto dishonor one reprobated to hell; but a vessel unto honor is one justified, a vessel unto dishonor is the impious one who is in sin. Secondly, to have mercy could be understood temporally as giving temporal goods and rewards, such as God gave to Jacob and the Jews; and to harden, by metonymy, as I said, for punishing and afflicting with evils, as God afflicted Pharaoh with plagues. Whence Toletus holds that the Apostle by this similitude wishes only to signify that God, at His pleasure, with no other cause than from the right of His supreme dominion and most eminent power, which He has over men, can inflict any goods or evils upon anyone, just as the potter at his pleasure makes vessels either vile or honorable, and thus a vessel unto dishonor is not formally a sinner: for God does not thus make a vessel unto dishonor; but it is he to whom God inflicts punishments and evils, such as Pharaoh, Esau, the Jews: on the other hand he is a vessel unto honor to whom God confers goods and benefits, such as Jacob and Christians. But the former sense which I have given is more express, deeper, and more connected with what precedes. Finally, in this antithesis there is an elegant paronomasia in Greek. For it is called σκεῦος εἰς τιμὴν καὶ σκεῦος εἰς ἀτιμίαν, that is a vessel unto honor and a vessel unto dishonor. Tropologically note: Clay is man, because he was made from clay, so that with fear and humility he may subject himself to God, in whose hand is our state, our glory, our riches, our virtue, our salvation and all our good; namely so that man may learn to depend entirely upon God, as upon his potter, and restore himself wholly to Him, whose power he cannot escape. Thus therefore by this phrase God tacitly commands and admonishes us, that with Jeremiah chapter XVIII, already cited, we often descend to the house of the potter, so that we may see the origin of our father Adam from clay, in Hebrew Adam from Adama, the clayey from clay, and say to ourselves: Why are you proud, earth and ashes, nay rather most vile clay, which is trampled under the feet of beasts? Secondly: just as clay is only clay, but from the hand of the potter receives this or that form: so man from his dust has nothing but dust and clay; but from God he has that he is a rational man, rich, noble, wise, happy, gracious. For God gives to each his form, and "to each He divides his gifts as He will," Ecclesiasticus XXXIII, 14; for He Himself made us, not we ourselves. Thirdly: from this it follows that each one ought to be content with his lot; for just as clay cannot say to the potter: Why did you make me thus? so neither can we say to God: Why did you make us poor, ignoble, rude, weak; but them rich, noble, wise, strong and mighty?
9:22
22 and 23. BUT IF GOD, WILLING TO SHOW HIS WRATH AND TO MAKE KNOWN THE POWER OF HIS HAND, ENDURED WITH MUCH PATIENCE VESSELS OF WRATH, FITTED FOR DESTRUCTION: THAT HE MIGHT MAKE KNOWN THE RICHES OF HIS GLORY ON THE VESSELS OF MERCY, WHICH HE HAD PREPARED UNTO GLORY. — The Apostle here perfectly answers the complaint which he proposed in verse 19. If God hardens men, why does he complain and punish the hardened? He responds therefore in this manner, as if to say: The hardened themselves positively made and fitted themselves as vessels of wrath; God therefore did not make them, but "endured," that is, patiently permitted them to sin, deferring punishment for a long time, and thus is said to have hardened them. And this for a twofold reason: The first is, that he might show his wrath, that is, his just and powerful vengeance upon them, as he did when he drowned Pharaoh in the Red Sea: for Pharaoh thought God's patience, by which God did not punish him, to be impotence. The second is, that from this severity of God toward the hardened there might appear the glorious mercy, wealth and liberality of God "on the vessels of mercy," that is, on the saints and elect, to whom he prepared not punishment, but glory. Note first: "But if God endured vessels of wrath." Note secondly: "Vessels of mercy" are here called not those efficaciously elected to glory, but believers and the just, whom God directs and ordains by his grace unto glory, as is evident from what follows: consequently vessels of wrath are the wicked and hardened, who ordain and dispose themselves unto wrath and eternal punishment. Note thirdly: "Vessels of mercy" are the same as those which in the preceding verse are called "vessels unto honor"; thus "vessels of wrath" are called those which are "unto dishonor." Note fourthly: "Vessels of wrath" were not fitted by God, but are fitted, in Greek κατηρτισμένα, that is, fitted and prepared, by their own fault and impenitence (thus the Greek Fathers, St. Thomas and interpreters throughout) unto destruction and condemnation; whence also God did not make them, but endured them in much patience, patiently that is, awaiting their repentance and penance: which assuredly he would not have awaited, unless it had been in their own hand and power; because God was prepared to help them by his grace, if they had wished to implore it and to cooperate with it. On the contrary, vessels of mercy God prepared unto glory. For good and predestination are from God, but evil and reprobation are from us; man alone can sin and does sin, but God alone frees from sin.
9:24
24. WHOM HE ALSO CALLED, US, NOT ONLY FROM THE JEWS, BUT ALSO FROM THE GENTILES. — Note that "whom" refers to "vessels of mercy," which preceded, namely the saints: which therefore is the same as if he said, these vessels of mercy, not of clay, but human, are those whom God "called" to himself, and to his grace, friendship and adoption, namely us the faithful, both from the Jews and from the Gentiles. The Jews thought that they alone were to be called by the Messiah unto his kingdom, Church and all good things. The Apostle here proves the contrary from the Prophets, namely that the Gentiles also were to be called by him unto the same good things.
9:25
25. AS IN OSEE HE SAITH: I WILL CALL NOT MY PEOPLE, MY PEOPLE. — As if to say: I will call the Gentiles, idolaters, who were not my people, unto my faith and worship, so that, when they shall have been converted to me, I will call them my people. That St. Paul rightly cites the passage of Osee and explains it of the Gentiles I have shown in Osee I, 10. AND HER THAT HAD NOT OBTAINED MERCY, TO HAVE OBTAINED MERCY. — The Greek texts delete this, as do Origen, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Theophylactus, Oecumenius, Sedulius and others; but the Roman Bibles and other Latin ones read it, and St. Jerome in Osee I reads it there and it is in the Hebrew. But that "not beloved, beloved," which the Syriac does not have, nor the Hebrew, the Septuagint has it in sense in Osee, and the Greek and Latin texts have it here. See the Notes of Francis Luke on Holy Scripture. Now the sense here is plain. For the Gentiles, whom he said a little before were made from a non-people to be the people of God, he here says were translated from the state of reprobation into the state of mercy and grace of God, so that the Gentile people, which before had not obtained mercy, should now be called to have obtained mercy.
9:26
26. AND IT SHALL BE: IN THE PLACE WHERE IT WAS SAID TO THEM: YOU ARE NOT MY PEOPLE; THERE THEY SHALL BE CALLED THE SONS OF GOD — As if to say: In the place where before it was not my people, namely in Italy, Gaul, Germany, India, "there they shall be called," that is, shall be the sons of God. For to be called by metonymy often in Scripture signifies to be. For what is such in reality can be called and said to be such in speech.
9:27
27. BUT ISAIAS CRIETH OUT FOR ISRAEL. — Paul here proves from Isaiah the first part of verse 24, namely that God will call to Himself and to His grace through Christ the Jews to be converted to Christ, but few. For most of all, as Paul says in verse 32, have stumbled at the stone of stumbling, namely at Christ. The latter part of verse 24, concerning the Gentiles to be called and converted to Christ, Paul has already proved in verse 25 from the prophet Osee. Isaiah therefore says: IF THE NUMBER OF THE CHILDREN OF ISRAEL SHALL BE AS THE SAND OF THE SEA (innumerable), THE REMNANT (that is, few) SHALL BE SAVED. — Isaiah has, "they shall be converted to the Lord." Whence it is clear that all the other Jews have been rejected, as Paul has hitherto taught, and in their place the Gentiles have been substituted and have received the promises of God, and therefore they have not fallen away, but have been fulfilled in the Gentiles, which the Apostle intends and contends to prove from verse 6 hitherto.
9:28
28. FOR THE WORD CONSUMMATING AND SHORTENING IN RIGHTEOUSNESS — supply, God is, as is evident from the Greek, where consummating is in the nominative case, and word in the accusative. For thus the Greek has λόγον γὰρ συντελῶν καὶ συντέμνων, that is to say, God shall consummate and shorten the word, that is the matter, namely the number of the faithful from Israel, a short, that is a small number, He shall make, and that "in righteousness" and justice: both because He justly thus shortened, consumed and wore down the unbelieving and impious Jews (which is what Paul properly regards here); and because conversely He made the first believing and pious Jews, namely the Apostles, and through them all nations abound in righteousness, justice and holiness. For as God is just toward the unfaithful and impious, punishing and consuming them: so is He just toward the faithful and pious, rewarding them, namely by making grace and justice abound in them and through them in other nations. Both this sense, but more the latter, the words of Isaiah signify, who has: "The consummation shortened shall inundate righteousness." For which note: Paul here cites Isaiah, chapter X, who speaks literally of the Jews remaining from the devastation of Sennacherib, and of them says: "The consummation shortened shall inundate righteousness," that is to say, In the time of Hezekiah that devastation of Sennacherib, which consumed and shortened many of the Jews, that is made them few, shall make that in the few remaining Jews surviving "it shall inundate," that is like waters overflowing shall abound righteousness, both punishing impiety, and rewarding the pious, whom this terror and calamity struck shall compel to invoke and worship the true God; as in fact happened, as appears from II Paralipomenon XXX, 7. Hence allegorically (which is what the Holy Spirit chiefly intends here) St. Paul explains this sentence concerning his Jews, that is to say, "The consummation shortened shall inundate righteousness," that is I shall consume and make an end, and indeed a very brief one, of Judaism and the Jews through Titus, yet so that a few of them shall remain and be converted to Christ; and then righteousness, which is from faith, shall inundate and be propagated through all nations, and shall cover the world with piety as with another flood. This therefore is the "word shortened, which the Lord shall make upon the earth," as Isaiah foretold. Secondly, this "word shortened" can be understood as the very brief precept of Evangelical faith and election, which has succeeded in place of all the intricate and winding ceremonies and prophecies of the law. Thus Origen, Augustine, Anselm, Oecumenius and other ancients. For the Gospel is a compendium of the law, because on two of its precepts: "Thou shalt love God and thy neighbor, the whole law depends and the prophets." St. Chrysostom adds that the same word is said to be consummated in righteousness, because it gives the righteousness which the old law could not give; or, as Ambrose, because this word of faith and the Gospel brought the consummation of sins; or, as Photius, because no other Gospel succeeds the Gospel as the Gospel succeeded the law, because the Gospel teaches complete righteousness and perfection of man. Thirdly, St. Jerome, to Algasia, Question X, and St. Cyprian, book II Against the Jews, chapter III: "The incarnate Word," they say, "is the word shortened and emptied even to human nature, so that what heaven could not contain, the manger could contain," as St. Bernard says, which saved the remnants of Israel, and which absolved and consummated so many promises drawn out, so many histories incomplete, so many beginnings and elements of great things scarcely delineated in the Old Testament, and brought the inundation of righteousness to the world. Haymo adds that the consummation absolved the knot of the dispute and controversy of Jews and Gentiles. Haymo adds that the consummation shortened is the passion of Christ, which was consummated in three days, and thus shortened, through which righteousness and holiness inundated the whole world. Again, in the passion Christ consummated all things, and said: "It is consummated:" He Himself also was then shortened in fame and life, and as it were diminished in head.
9:29
29. AND AS ISAIAS FORETOLD: EXCEPT THE LORD OF HOSTS HAD LEFT US A SEED, WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE SODOMA, AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN LIKE GOMORRHA. — That is to say, Unless the Lord had left us a seed, that is some survivors, we should have been justly, like Sodoma, utterly destroyed. Isaiah speaks literally of the Jews who remained after the Babylonian captivity. Allegorically St. Paul explains the same thing here concerning the few Jews who, in the general unbelief of the rest, believed in Christ, that is to say, Unless at the time of Christ God had chosen a small remnant, namely the Blessed Virgin, the Apostles and a few elect from the Jews who believed, the whole of Israel would have been reprobated on account of unbelief, and would have perished, as Sodoma. Thus St. Jerome, Cyril, Rupert, Haymo in Isaiah I, and St. Augustine, book I to Simplician, Question II. Let the penitent apply this tropologically to himself and let the soul grateful to God say: Unless God had left in me a seed of grace and holy inspirations, I should have perished in my sins, as Sodoma. Others, such as Origen and Photius in Oecumenius, understand by this "seed" Christ himself or the doctrine of Christ. 30 and 31. WHAT SHALL WE SAY THEN? THAT THE GENTILES, WHO FOLLOWED NOT JUSTICE, HAVE ATTAINED TO JUSTICE: BUT THE JUSTICE THAT IS OF FAITH. BUT ISRAEL, BY FOLLOWING THE LAW OF JUSTICE, HATH NOT ATTAINED TO THE LAW OF JUSTICE — That is to say, The Jews pursuing the "law of justice," that is the law which in their opinion justified, "unto the law of justice," that is unto the law truly justifying, did indeed come, that is (through the law as it were a root) began to come, but did not attain, that is to say, Israel is deceived in thinking it has the law of justice, when the law of justice is not the old law, but the law of grace. The Greek for "hath not attained" has οὐκ ἔφθασε, that is properly, did not outstrip, did not anticipate, namely Israel the Gentiles in acquiring justice. Note: Here the Apostle after a long disputation throughout this chapter resolves the question, and gives the proper cause why the Jews were rejected from justice and salvation, but the Gentiles were called and chosen to it: namely because the Jews sought it where they ought not, that is in the works of the law, not in the faith of Christ, where God placed it: this is what the Apostle adds next.
9:32
32. WHY? BECAUSE NOT OF FAITH, BUT AS IT WERE OF WORKS — supply, the Jews sought justice; but the Gentiles embraced the faith of Christ, and through this faith sought and found true justice. This verse together with the following must be noted and weighed most carefully: for it directly Note: When Paul says, "as it were of works," as it were is not a similitude, nor a comparative, but an assertion. Add that as it were sounds presumption or pride: for the Jews presumed that justice was owed to them on account of the works of the law, but falsely.
9:33
33. FOR THEY STUMBLED AT THE STONE OF STUMBLING (in Christ), AS IT IS WRITTEN: BEHOLD I LAY IN SION A STONE OF STUMBLING, AND A ROCK OF SCANDAL. — Paul cites Isaiah XXVIII, 16 and VIII, 14. In cap. XXVIII, Isaiah has it thus: "Behold I will lay in the foundations of Sion," that is the Church, which began in Sion at Pentecost, "a cornerstone." But in cap. VIII of Isaiah, it has thus: "Fear him (namely the king of Syria Rasin) be not afraid, neither be ye dismayed: Sanctify the Lord of hosts (that is, glorify him, hoping in him, and pleasing and obeying him, and thus reconciling him to yourselves); he (be) your fear, and he your terror (both passively, whom as terrible ye should revere; and actively, who may make you terrible to the king of Syria and enemies), and it shall be to you a sanctification," that is to say, the Lord shall sanctify those believing and hoping in him, and as he protects his saints, he shall be to them as a sanctuary and asylum. For this is what the Hebrew מקדש micdas signifies. "But to the unbelievers from the two houses," that is, from the two kingdoms, namely Judah and Israel, or the two and ten tribes of Israel, it shall be "a stone of stumbling," against which they may strike. For they will say: Our God is not so powerful and strong as we thought, he cannot deliver us, and thus we shall be crushed by the enemy. It is a metaphor taken from those who, walking along a way, strike their feet against stones which they do not see. Allegorically the Apostle here explains these words of Isaiah concerning Christ. For Christ was to the Jews a stone of stumbling; because the Jews, seeing Christ's humility, poverty, and death, were unwilling to acknowledge him as the Messiah, offended by his abjection; for they expected the Messiah as it were a son of David and Solomon, wealthy and magnificent, who would come with the same royal pomp and enrich and bless the Jews. But this manner, being too carnal, did not please God. Hence he chose another manner of justifying and of salvation, namely to propose Christ poor and crucified as mediator, that through him we might hope for justice and salvation, when he could have chosen a thousand other ways. And thus originally and remotely it is of God's election, but proximately and immediately it is the fault of the Jews, that they themselves are rejected from justice and salvation. Just as conversely, obedience and faith in Christ among the Gentiles is the cause that they themselves are accepted and chosen for justice and salvation. Note: the same here is "stone of stumbling" and "rock of scandal." Augustine, however, in Psal. XXV, distinguishes these two: Christ, he says, in his life was a stone of stumbling, against which the Jews struck by their unbelief; but after the resurrection he was to them a rock of scandal, when as a heavy rock he fell upon the Jews, and crushed them through Titus and Vespasian. WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM, SHALL NOT BE CONFOUNDED. — Paul cites Isaiah XXVIII, 16, where for "shall not be confounded," our Interpreter translates, "shall not hasten," namely the faithful one, wishing Christ promised to him by Isaiah and the Prophets to be exhibited immediately; but let him wait patiently, because most certainly I God will fulfill my promise concerning Christ. But the Septuagint, and from them St. Peter, I epistle II, 7, and Paul here translate, "shall not be confounded," namely both here and on the day of judgment, that is to say, Whosoever believeth in Christ, shall not be confounded, shall not be ashamed, shall not be frustrated in his faith and hope; but shall certainly see and obtain those things which he believed and hoped concerning Christ, namely justice and grace in this life, and salvation and glory in the future. For in this sense the Apostle said in cap. V, that hope in Christ confoundeth not. And this same is what Isaiah signifies saying: "Whosoever shall believe in him (Christ), shall not hasten," that is to say, the faithful one shall not run hither and thither, seeking and seeing Christ, as anxious and fearful men are wont to run. "Shall not hasten" therefore is the same as if he said, "shall not be afraid:" for he shall not be confounded, but shall certainly obtain the thing believed and hoped for by him. Thus in the word "hasten" there is metalepsis. In a similar manner Virgil speaks of bees: Those within in haste through the waxen camps Run hither and thither. For those who are afraid run hastily hither and thither, as bees do.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.
9:1
Apostolus supra necessitatem et virtutem gratiae demonstravit, hic incipit agere de origine gratiae, utrum ex sola Dei electione detur aut detur ex meritis praecedentium operum, occasione accepta ex eo quod Iudaei, qui videbantur divinis obsequiis mancipati, exciderant a gratia, gentiles autem ad eam erant admissi, qui prius fuerant a Deo alieni. Primo igitur agit de electione gentium; secundo de casu Iudaeorum cap. X fratres voluntas quidem cordis mei, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo commemorat dignitatem Iudaeorum; secundo ostendit quomodo gentiles ad illam dignitatem sunt assumpti, ibi non autem quod exciderit. Circa primum duo facit. Primo apostolus ostendit affectum suum ad gentem Iudaeorum, ne ea quae contra eos dixit vel dicturus est, ex odio dicere videatur; secundo eorum dignitatem ostendit, ibi qui sunt Israelitae, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo confirmat ea quae dicturus est; secundo demonstrat suum affectum, ibi quoniam mihi tristitia. Circa primum duo facit. Primo confirmat dicenda per simplicem assertionem, dicens veritatem dico, quod maxime convenit praedicatori, qui est testis veritatis. Prov. VIII, 7: veritatem meditabitur guttur meum. Zach. VIII, 19: pacem et veritatem diligite. Et quia quandoque aliquis veritati quam loquitur aliquod mendacium interserit, ad hoc excludendum subdit non mentior. Eph. c. IV, 25: deponentes mendacium loquimini veritatem. Secundo confirmat quae dicenda sunt per iuramentum, quod est quaedam confirmatio per testimonium infallibilis veritatis. Tales autem sunt testes sanctorum. Primo quidem Deus, secundum Iob XVI, 20: ecce in caelo testis meus. Et ideo dicit in Christo Iesu, id est, per Christum Iesum, qui est veritas absque mendacio. II Cor. I, 19: Dei enim filius qui praedicatus est in vobis, non fuit in illo est, et non. Secundo testis infallibilis sanctorum est eorum conscientia, unde subdit testimonium perhibente mihi conscientia mea. II Cor. I, 12: gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae. Et quia interdum conscientia errat, nisi per spiritum sanctum rectificetur, subdit in spiritu sancto. Supra VIII, 16: ipse spiritus testimonium reddit spiritui nostro. Deinde cum dicit quoniam tristitia, etc., ostendit suum affectum ad Iudaeos per dolorem, quem de eorum casu patiebatur, quem quidem primo exponit; secundo eius signum ponit cum dicit optabam, et cetera. Exaggerat autem suum dolorem tripliciter. Primo quidem ex eius magnitudine: quoniam mihi tristitia est magna, quia scilicet est de magno malo, id est de excidio tantae gentis. Thr. II, 13: magna est velut mare contritio tua. Sed contra hoc videtur esse quod dicitur Eccli. XXX, 22: tristitiam non des animae tuae, quod videtur sententiae Stoicorum consonare, qui tristitiam omnino ab animo sapientis propellebant. Cum enim tristitia sit de malo praesenti, non potest sapienti competere, cui nullum malum est praesens. Non enim aestimabant aliquid esse bonum nisi honestum, et malum nisi peccatum. Sed haec opinio refellitur dupliciter. Primo quidem quia corporales defectus licet non sint simpliciter mala, quibus scilicet homines fiant mali, sunt tamen quaedam mala, quae natura abhorret. Unde et dominus pro his tristatus legitur Matth. XXVI, 38: tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem. Secundo cum ex charitate homo debet suum diligere proximum sicut seipsum, imminet sapienti tristitia laudabilis de peccato proximi, sicut de peccato sui ipsius; unde apostolus dicit I Cor. XII, 21: et lugeam multos ex eis qui peccaverunt. Sic igitur reprobatur saeculi tristitia quae mortem operatur, procedens ex amore saeculi: sed tristitia quae est secundum Deum, utpote ex divina charitate procedens, salutem operatur, ut dicitur II Cor. VII, 10. Et talis fuit ista tristitia. Secundo exaggerat eam ex continuitate; unde subdit et continuus dolor. Non quod continuo actu doleret, sed secundum habitum. Ier. IX, 1: ut plorem die ac nocte interfectos populi mei. Tertio exaggerat eam ex sui veritate, et dicit cordi meo; non enim erat superficialis, sed in corde radicata. Thr. I, 22: multi gemitus mei et cor meum moerens. Deinde cum dicit optabam enim, etc., ponit signum doloris dicens: optabam enim ego ipse, qui tam fervens sum in charitate Christi, ut supra ostensum est, anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis. Ubi, primo, sciendum est quod anathema est Graecum et componitur ab ana quod est sursum, et thesis quod est positio, ut dicatur anathema quasi sursum positum: quia scilicet cum capiebatur aliquid in praeda quod nolebant esse in usu hominum, suspendebant illud in templo. Et inolevit usque adhuc ut ea quae sunt separata ab hominum communi usu, anathemata vocarentur; unde Ios. VI, v. 17 dicitur: sit civitas haec anathema, et omnia quae in ea sunt, domino.
9:3
Dicit ergo optabam ego ipse anathema esse a Christo, id est separatus ab eo, quod quidem fit dupliciter. Uno modo per culpam, per quam aliquis a charitate Christi separatur, eius praeceptum non servans. Io. XIV, 15: si diligitis me, mandata mea servate. Sic autem apostolus non poterat optare esse anathema a Christo pro quacumque causa, ut ex supra dictis in VIII, 35, patet. Est enim hoc contra ordinem charitatis, quo quis tenetur Deum super omnia diligere et salutem suam plusquam salutem aliorum. Et ideo non dicit, opto sed optabam, scilicet, tempore infidelitatis. Sed secundum hoc nihil magnum dicit apostolus, quia tunc etiam propter se volebat esse separatus a Christo. Unde et quaedam Glossa exponit quod dicit, tristitia magna est mihi, de tristitia qua dolebat de praeterito statu peccati, in quo a Christo voluerat esse separatus. Alio modo potest aliquis esse separatus a Christo, id est a fruitione Christi quae habetur in gloria. Sic autem separari a Christo volebat apostolus pro salute gentilium, nedum pro conversione Iudaeorum, secundum illud Philipp. c. I, 23 s.: desiderium habens dissolvi et cum Christo esse, multo melius; permanere in carne necessarium propter vos. Et hoc modo dicebat optabam, scilicet si fieri posset, anathema esse, id est separatus a gloria, vel simpliciter vel ad tempus, propter honorem Christi, qui est ex conversione Iudaeorum, secundum illud Prov. XIV, 28: in multitudine populi dignitas regis. Unde Chrysostomus dicit in libro de compunctione cordis: ita totam eius mentem devicit amor, ut etiam eo quod prae caeteris omnibus amabilius erat esse cum Christo, rursum idipsum, quia ita placeret Christo contemneret, sed et caelorum regna, quod videbatur laborum esse remuneratio pro Christo, nihilominus cedere pateretur. Et causam tanti affectus ostendit subdens pro fratribus meis. Unde Eccli. XXV, v. 1 s. dicitur, quod tria sunt probata coram Deo et hominibus: concordia fratrum, et cetera. Et ne hoc intelligeretur de his qui erant spiritualiter in Christo fratres, secundum illud Matth. XXIII, 8: omnes vos fratres estis, subiungit qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem. II Cor. XI, 22: semen Abrahae sunt, et ego. Deinde cum dicit qui sunt Israelitae ostendit dignitatem Iudaeorum, ut eius tristitia videretur esse rationabilis propter pristinam dignitatem populi pereuntis propensius enim est malum dignitatem perdidisse, quam numquam habuisse, ut dicit Glossa et non solum ex affectu carnali procedens. Ostendit autem eorum dignitatem tripliciter. Primo quidem quantum ad suam gentem, cum dicit qui sunt Israelitae, id est, a genere Iacob descendentes, qui est dictus Israel, Gen. XXXII, 28, et II Cor. XI, 22: Israelitae sunt, et ego. Et hoc ad dignitatem pertinet. Dicitur enim Deut. IV, 7: non est alia natio tam grandis, et cetera. Secundo ostendit dignitatem illius gentis ex Dei beneficiis, inter quae primo ponit spiritualia beneficia, quorum unum respicit praesens; et quantum ad hoc dicit quorum est adoptio filiorum Dei; unde dicitur Exod. c. IV, 22: primogenitus meus Israel. Et hoc quidem dicitur quantum ad spirituales viros qui fuerunt in illo populo. Quantum ad carnales vero supra VIII, 15 innuit, quod acceperunt spiritum servitutis in timore. Aliud vero beneficium ponit quod respicit futurum, cum dicit et gloria, scilicet filiorum Dei eis repromissa. In cuius signum legitur Ex. ult. quod gloria domini implevit tabernaculum. Deinde ponit alia beneficia figuralia, quorum tria sunt figura praesentis spiritualis beneficii. Et horum primum est testamentum, id est, pactum circumcisionis Abrahae datum, ut dicitur Gen. XVII, 2. Quamvis hoc possit referri ad testamentum novum, quod primo Iudaeis est praedicatum. Unde et dominus dicebat, Matth. XV, 24: non sum missus nisi ad oves quae perierunt domus Israel. Et Ier. c. XXXI, 31 dicitur: feriam domui Israel foedus novum. Secundum est lex data Moysi. Unde et subdit legislatio. Eccli. XXIV, 33: legem mandavit nobis Moyses. Tertium est cultus divinus, cum dicit et obsequium, quo scilicet Deo serviebant, omnibus aliis gentibus servientibus idolis. Is. XLIV, 1: et nunc audi, serve meus Iacob, et Israel quem elegi. Deinde ponit id quod pertinet ad futuram gloriam, cum dicit et promissa. Promissiones enim factae in veteri testamento impletae per Christum, Iudaeis praecipue factae videntur. Unde dicitur infra XV, 8: dico Iesum Christum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis ad confirmandas promissiones patrum, et cetera. Fuerunt autem eis multae promissiones factae de bonis terrenis, ut patet Lev. XXVI, v. 3 s., et Deut. XXVIII, 1-14. Sed per illa temporalia bona spiritualia figurabantur. Tertio autem describit dignitatem Iudaeorum ex origine, cum dicit quorum patres, quia scilicet secundum carnem sunt progeniti ab illis patribus qui fuerunt maxime Deo accepti. Deut. IV, 37: dilexi patres tuos, et elegi semen eorum. Os. IX, 10: quasi prima poma ficulneae eius vidi patres eorum. Quarto ostendit dignitatem eorum ex prole cum dicit ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem, sicut ipse dicit. Io. IV, v. 22: salus ex Iudaeis est.
9:5
Et ne hoc parum videatur, ostendit Christi dignitatem, dicens: qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula, amen. I Io. ult.: hic est verus Deus et vita aeterna. In quibus verbis quatuor haereses destruuntur. Primo quidem Manichaei, qui dicebat Christum habuisse corpus phantasticum et non verum, quod removet per hoc quod dicit secundum carnem. Habet enim veram carnem, secundum illud Lc. ult.: spiritus carnem et ossa non habet, sicut me videtis habere. Secundo, haeresis Valentini qui dicit Christum non de massa humani generis, sed de caelo corpus attulisse. Quod quidem excludit in hoc quod dicit Christum ex Iudaeis secundum carnem esse, secundum illud Matth. I, v. 1: liber generationis Iesu Christi filii David. Tertio, haeresis Nestorii qui posuit alium esse filium hominis alium Dei: contra quem apostolus hic dicit, quod ille est ex patribus secundum carnem qui est Deus super omnia. Quarto, excluditur haeresis Arii qui dicebat Christum esse minorem patre et quod est creatus ex nihilo. Contra quorum, primum dicit quod est super omnia; contra secundum, quod est benedictus per omnia saecula. Hoc enim de solo Deo dicendum est, quod eius bonitas duret in saecula.
9:7
Postquam apostolus posuit dignitatem Iudaeorum, nunc ostendit quod ista dignitas non pertineat ad eos qui carnaliter processerunt ab antiquis patribus sed ad spirituale semen quod est a Deo electum. Et primo ostendit, quod huiusmodi dignitas proveniat ex electione divina; secundo ostendit, quod haec electio communiter pertinet ad Iudaeos et ad gentiles, ibi quos etiam vocavit non solum, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ostendit quomodo ex electione divina homines spiritualem dignitatem consequuntur; secundo movet quaestionem de iustitia divinae electionis, ibi quid ergo dicemus? Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit quod intendit; secundo ostendit propositum, ibi sed in Isaac, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo ponit firmitatem divinae electionis; secundo ostendit in quibus impleatur, ibi non enim omnes, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: ita dictum est quod eorum sunt promissa et adoptio filiorum et gloria, pro quorum casu est mihi magna tristitia et continuus dolor. Non autem est hoc sic intelligendum, quod verbum Dei exciderit, id est frustratum sit, quia et si non habet locum in quibusdam qui exciderunt, habet tamen locum in aliis. Is. LV, 11: verbum quod egreditur ex ore meo, non revertetur ad me vacuum, et cetera. Ps. CXVIII, 89: in aeternum, domine, permanet verbum tuum. Deinde cum dicit non enim, etc., ostendit quomodo et in quibus verbum Dei exciderit. Circa quod considerandum est quod Iudaei de duobus praecipue gloriabantur, videlicet de Abraham qui primo accepit pactum circumcisionis a domino, ut dicitur Gen. c. XVII, 10, et de Iacob sive Israel, cuius tota posteritas in populo Dei connumerabatur. Non autem ita fuit de Isaac; nam posteritas filii eius Esau ad populum Dei non pertinebat. Unde apostolus ostendit propositum, primo quidem per comparationem ad Iacob, dicens non enim omnes qui sunt ex Israel, id est ex Iacob secundum carnem progeniti, hi sunt veri Israelitae ad quos pertinent Dei promissa, sed illi qui sunt recti et videntes Deum per fidem. Is. XLIV, 2: rectissime quem elegi. Unde et dominus dixit Nathanaeli Io. I, 47: ecce verus Israelita, in quo dolus non est. Hoc autem nomen Israel impositum fuit Iacob ab Angelo, ut patet Gen. c. XXXII, 28. Secundo ostendit idem propter comparationem ad Abraham, dicens neque omnes qui sunt carnale semen Abrahae, sunt spirituales Abrahae filii, quibus Deus benedictionem repromisit, sed solum illi qui eius fidem et opera imitantur. Io. VIII, 39: si filii Abrahae estis, opera Abrahae facite. Deinde, cum dicit sed in Isaac, etc., manifestat propositum. Et primo quantum ad Abraham; secundo quantum ad Iacob, ibi non solum autem illa, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo proponit auctoritatem Scripturae, dicens sed in Isaac vocabitur tibi semen. Hoc dominus dixit Abrahae, ut habetur Gen. XXI, 12, ubi agebatur de expulsione Ismaelis. Quasi dicat: non omnes qui nati sunt carnaliter ab Abraham pertinent ad illud semen, cui facta est repromissio, secundum illud Gal. III, 16: Abrahae dictae sunt promissiones et semini eius, sed illi qui similes sunt Isaac. Deinde, cum dicit id est, non qui filii, etc., exponit auctoritatem inductam secundum quod facit ad propositum. Ad cuius evidentiam accipiendum est quod apostolus dicit Gal. IV, 22 s.: Abraham duos filios habuit, unum de ancilla, et unum de libera: sed qui de ancilla, scilicet Ismael, secundum carnem natus est, quia scilicet secundum legem et consuetudinem carnis ex iuvencula natus est; qui autem ex libera, scilicet Isaac, per repromissionem, et non secundum carnem, id est non secundum carnis legem et consuetudinem, quia natus est ex sterili et vetula, ut habetur Gen. XVIII, 10, quamvis sit natus secundum carnem, id est secundum substantiam carnis quam accepit a parentibus.
9:8
Ex quo apostolus hic accipit quod illi non adoptantur in filios Dei, qui sunt filii carnis, id est ex hoc ipso quod secundum carnem progeniti sunt ab Abraham, sed illi aestimantur in semine, quibus facta est repromissio, qui sunt filii promissionis, id est illi qui ex gratia promissionis divinae facti sunt filii Abrahae secundum imitationem fidei, secundum illud Matth. III, 9: potens est Deus de lapidibus his suscitare filios Abrahae. Sicut etiam Ismael, secundum carnem natus, non est computatus in semine, sed Isaac per repromissionem natus. Tertio, ibi promissionis enim, etc., probat convenientem fuisse suam expositionem, qua per Isaac significari dixit eos qui sunt filii repromissionis, quia scilicet Isaac per promissionem natus est. Unde dicit promissionis enim, hoc verbum est quod Angelus, imo dominus in Angelo, dixit ad Abraham Gen.
9:9
XVIII, 10: secundum hoc tempus veniam, quo significatur tempus gratiae. Gal. IV, 4: cum venit plenitudo temporis, misit Deus filium suum. Et erit Sarae filius, scilicet per gratiam repromissionis. Unde et Gal. IV, 5 dicitur: ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus. Deinde, cum dicit non solum autem illa, etc., manifestat propositum quantum ad Iacob. Et primo ponit quod intendit; secundo manifestat propositum, ibi cum enim nondum nati, et cetera.
9:10
Dicit ergo primo: non solum illa, scilicet Sara, habuit filium de quo facta est promissio, sed et Rebecca habens in utero duos filios, quorum unus pertinebat ad promissionem, alius ad carnem solum, et hoc ex uno concubitu Isaac patris nostri. Dicitur enim Gen. XXV, 21 ss. quod Isaac rogavit pro uxore sua eo quod sterilis esset, et dedit dominus conceptum Rebeccae, sed collidebantur in ventre eius parvuli. Et est notandum quod hoc apostolus inducit contra Iudaeos, qui reputabant se Dei iustitiam adepturos propter merita patrum, contra quos dicit de viris iustis Ez. XIV, 16, quod filium et filiam non liberabunt, sed ipsi in iustitia sua liberabuntur. Unde et Ioannes Iudaeis dicebat Matth. III, 9: ne coeperitis dicere: patrem habemus Abraham, et cetera. Contra horum opinionem ergo primo induxerat quod de filiis Abrahae unus erat electus, et alius reprobatus. Possent autem hoc adscribere vel diversitati matrum, quia Ismael natus est de ancilla et Isaac de libera; vel diversitati meritorum patris, quia Ismaelem genuit incircumcisus. Ut igitur omne subterfugium excludatur, inducit exempla, ubi unus eligitur et alius reprobatur eorum, qui non solum ab uno patre sed etiam ab una matre sunt geniti et eodem tempore, imo ex uno concubitu. Deinde, cum dicit cum nondum, etc., ostendit propositum, et primo per auctoritatem Gen. XXV, 24; secundo per auctoritatem prophetae, ibi sicut scriptum est, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit.
9:11
Primo designat tempus promissionis, et dicit quod per repromissionem est unus filiorum Rebeccae alii praelatus, cum nondum nati fuissent. Et sicut per superiora exclusit opinionem Iudaeorum de meritis patris confidentium, ita etiam per hoc excludit errorem Manichaeorum, qui diversitatem eorum quae hominibus accidunt, nativitati adscribunt, ut scilicet uniuscuiusque vita et mors disponatur secundum constellationem sub qua natus est, contra quod dicitur Ier. X, 2: a signis caeli nolite metuere quae gentes timent. Subdit autem aut aliquid egissent boni aut mali, ubi excluditur error Pelagianorum, qui dicunt secundum merita praecedentia gratiam dari, cum tamen scriptum sit Tit. III, v. 5: non ex operibus iustitiae quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Utrumque autem horum ostenditur falsum per hoc quod ante nativitatem et ante opera unus filiorum Rebeccae alteri est praelatus. Excluditur per hoc etiam error Origenis, qui posuit animas hominum simul cum Angelis esse creatas et quod pro meritis eorum, quae ibi egerunt bene vel male, diversitatem vitae sortiuntur, secundum quem non posset esse verum quod hic dicitur: cum nondum aliquid mali vel boni egissent. Contra hoc autem est quod dicitur Iob XXXVIII, 7: ubi eras, cum me laudarent astra matutina, et iubilarent omnes filii Dei? Posset enim secundum Origenis errorem responderi: eram inter ipsos Dei filios iubilantes. Secundo ostendit quid accipi posset ex ipsa promissione, quia unus geminorum in utero existentium alteri est praelatus, dicens ut propositum Dei, scilicet volentis unum prae alio magnificare, maneret, id est firmum esset, et hoc non secundum merita sed secundum electionem, id est inquantum ipse Deus spontanea voluntate unum alteri praelegit, non quia sanctus erat, sed ut sanctus esset, secundum illud Eph. I, 4: elegit nos in ipso ante mundi constitutionem, ut essemus sancti. Hoc autem est propositum praedestinationis, de quo ibidem dicitur: praedestinati secundum propositum voluntatis eius. Tertio ponit promissionem, dicens non ex operibus, quae nulla praecesserunt, ut dictum est, sed ex vocante, id est ex ipsa gratia vocantis de quo supra dictum est: quos praedestinavit, hos et vocavit, dictum est ei, scilicet Rebeccae, quia maior, scilicet Esau, serviet minori, scilicet Iacob. Quod quidem tripliciter potest intelligi. Uno modo secundum eorum personas, et sic intelligitur Esau servisse Iacob, non directe sed occasionaliter, inquantum persecutio quam ei intulit, in eius bonum cessit, secundum illud Prov. XI, 29: qui stultus est serviet sapienti. Secundo potest referri ad populos ex utroque progenitos: quia Idumaei aliquando fuerunt subiecti Israelitis, secundum illud Ps. LIX, 8: in Idumaeam extendam calceamentum meum. Et hoc videtur competere his quae praemittuntur in Gen. XXV, 23. Praemittuntur enim: duo populi ex ventre tuo dividentur: populus populum superabit, et maior minori serviet. Tertio potest intelligi figuraliter dictum ut per maiorem intelligatur populus Iudaeorum, qui primo adoptionem filiationis accepit, secundum illud Ex. IV, 22: primogenitus meus Israel, per minorem autem figuratur populus gentilium, qui posterius est ad fidem vocatus, qui etiam figuratur per filium prodigum.
9:12
Maior ergo populus serviet minori, inquantum Iudaei sunt nostri capsarii, custodientes libros ex quibus nostrae fidei testimonium perhibetur. Io. V, 39: scrutamini Scripturas. Deinde, cum dicit sicut scriptum est, etc., probat propositum ex auctoritate prophetae, dicens sicut scriptum est, scilicet c.
9:13
I, 2 Malachiae prophetae, ex persona Dei dicentis Iacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. Dicit autem hic quaedam Glossa quod id quod supra dictum est maior serviet minori, dictum est secundum praescientiam; quod autem hic dicit, est intelligendum secundum iudicium, quia scilicet Deus propter bona opera dilexit Iacob, sicut et omnes sanctos diligit. Prov. VIII, 17: ego diligentes me diligo. Esau vero odio habuit propter peccata, sicut scriptum est Eccli. XII, 7: altissimus odio peccatores habet. Sed quia dilectio hominis praevenitur a dilectione Dei, secundum illud I Io. IV, 10: non quasi nos dilexerimus Deum, sed quoniam ipse prior dilexit nos, oportet dicere quod ante Iacob dilectus sit a Deo, quam ipse Deum dilexerit. Nec potest dici quod Deus ex tempore eum diligere inceperit, alioquin eius affectus esset mutabilis. Et ideo oportet dicere quod Deus ab aeterno Iacob dilexit, ut dicitur Ier. XXXI, 3: in charitate perpetua dilexi te. Est autem in his verbis apostoli considerandum, quod tria ponit in Deo pertinentia ad sanctos, videlicet electionem, per quam intelligitur praedestinatio, et electio Dei, quae quidem realiter sunt idem in Deo, sed differunt ratione. Nam ipsa Dei dilectio dicitur secundum quod vult bonum alicui absolute; electio autem dicitur secundum quod per bonum quod alicui vult, eum alteri praefert; praedestinatio autem est secundum quod hominem dirigit in id bonum quod ei vult, diligendo et eligendo. Et ideo secundum rationem praedestinatio sequitur dilectionem, sicut et voluntas de fine naturaliter praecedit directionem aliquorum in finem. Electio autem et dilectio aliter ordinantur in Deo et in homine. In homine enim electio praecedit dilectionem, voluntas enim hominis movetur ad amandum ex bono quod in re amata considerat, ratione cuius ipsam praeelegit alteri et praeelectae suum amorem impendit. Sed voluntas Dei est causa omnis boni quod est in creatura et ideo bonum per quod una creatura praefertur alteri per modum electionis, consequitur voluntatem Dei, quae est de bono illius, quae pertinet ad rationem dilectionis. Unde non propter aliquod bonum quod in homine eligat Deus eum diligit, sed potius eo quod ipsum diligit, praefert eum aliis eligendo. Sicut autem dilectio de qua hic loquitur, pertinet ad aeternam Dei praedestinationem, ita etiam odium, de quo hic loquitur, pertinet ad reprobationem qua Deus reprobat peccatores. Nec est dicendum quod ista reprobatio sit temporalis, quia nihil temporale est in voluntate divina, sed est ab aeterno: quae quidem quantum ad aliquid convenit cum dilectione vel praedestinatione, quantum autem ad aliquid differt. Convenit quidem quantum ad hoc quod sicut praedestinatio est praeparatio gloriae, ita reprobatio est praeparatio poenae. Is. c. XXX, 33: praeparata est ab heri Thopheth a rege praeparata. Differt autem quantum ad hoc quod praedestinatio importat praeparationem meritorum quibus pervenitur ad gloriam, sed reprobatio importat praeparationem peccatorum quibus pervenitur ad poenam. Et ideo praescientia meritorum non potest esse aliqua ratio praedestinationis, quia merita praescita cadunt sub praedestinatione; sed praescientia peccatorum potest esse aliqua ratio reprobationis ex parte poenae, quae praeparatur reprobatis, inquantum scilicet Deus proponit se puniturum malos propter peccata quae a seipsis habent, non a Deo; iustos autem proponit se praemiaturum propter merita quae a seipsis non habent. Os. XIII, 9: perditio tua ex te, Israel, tantum in me auxilium tuum.
9:14
Postquam praemisit apostolus quod secundum Dei electionem unus alteri praefertur non ex operibus, sed ex gratia vocantis hic inquirit de iustitia huius electionis. Et primo proponit dubitationem; secundo solvit, ibi absit. Moysi, et cetera. Tertio obiicit contra solutionem, ibi dicis itaque mihi: quid adhuc, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod Deus sine merito praecedente unum eligit, et alterum reprobat. Quid ergo dicemus? Numquid per hoc probari potest quod sit iniquitas apud Deum? Videtur quod sic. Pertinet enim ad iustitiam in distributionibus, ut aequaliter aequalibus distribuatur. Homines autem, remota differentia meritorum, sunt aequales. Si ergo absque consideratione meritorum Deus inaequaliter distribuit, unum eligens et alium reprobans, videtur quod sit in eo iniquitas, quod est contra illud quod dicitur Deut. XXXII, 4: Deus fidelis et absque ulla iniquitate; Ps. CXVIII, 137: iustus es, domine, et rectum iudicium tuum. Est autem sciendum quod Origenes hanc obiectionem solvere volens incidit in errorem. Ponit enim in suo periarchon, Deum ab initio solum creaturas spirituales fecisse, et omnes aequales, ne ex eorum inaequalitate posset secundum rationem praedictam iniquitas Deo adscribi, sed postea creaturarum diversitas subsecuta est ex diversitate meritorum. Nam illarum creaturarum spiritualium quaedam per amorem conversae sunt ad Deum plus vel minus, et secundum hoc distincti sunt diversi ordines Angelorum: quaedam vero aversae sunt a Deo plus vel minus, et secundum hoc alligatae sunt corporibus vel nobilibus vel ignobilibus, quaedam quidem caelestibus corporibus, quaedam autem corporibus Daemonum, quaedam autem corporibus hominum. Et secundum hoc ratio condendi et distinguendi creaturas corporeas, est peccatum spiritualis creaturae. Quod est contra id quod Gen. I, 31 dicitur: vidit Deus cuncta quae fecerat, et erant valde bona, per quod datur intelligi quod causa producendi creaturas corporales, est bonitas, ut dicit Augustinus, de civitate Dei. Et ideo, hac opinione reiecta, videndum est qualiter apostolus dubitationem solvat, cum dicit absit. Moysi enim dicit, et cetera. Et circa hoc duo facit. Primo solvit obiectionem praedictam quantum ad dilectionem sanctorum; secundo quantum ad odium seu reprobationem malorum, ibi dicit enim Scriptura, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo proponit auctoritatem Scripturae ex qua procedit solutio; secundo ex ea conclusionem inducit, ibi igitur non volentis, et cetera. Inducit autem auctoritatem quae habetur Exod.
9:15
XXXIII, 19, ubi dixit dominus Moysi, secundum litteram nostram: miserebor cui voluero, et clemens ero in quem placuero, sed apostolus inducit eam secundum litteram Lxx, dicens Moysi enim dicit, dominus, miserebor cui misereor, et misericordiam praestabo cui miserebor, ubi secundum superficiem litterae omnia bona nostra Dei misericordiae adscribuntur secundum illud Is. c. LXIII, 7: miserationum domini recordabor, laudem domini super omnibus quae reddidit nobis. Et Thren. III, 22: misericordiae domini quod non sumus consumpti, multae enim sunt miserationes eius. Exponitur autem haec auctoritas in Glossa dupliciter, et secundum hoc ex auctoritate hac dupliciter solvitur quaestio et obiectio. Uno modo sic: miserebor cui misereor, id est illi qui est dignus misericordia; et, ad maiorem expressionem, iterat dicens misericordiam praestabo cui misereor, id est cui dignum iudico misereri: sicut et in Ps. CII, 13 dicitur: misertus est dominus timentibus se. Et secundum hoc licet misericorditer sua impendat, tamen ab iniustitia excusatur, quia dat quibus dandum est, et quia non dat cui dandum non est, secundum rectitudinem sui iudicii. Sed misereri cui dignum est, potest intelligi dupliciter. Uno modo ut intelligatur aliquis dignus misericordia propter opera praeexistentia in hac vita, licet non in alia, ut posuit Origenes, quod pertinet ad haeresim Pelagianorum, qui posuerunt gratiam Dei hominibus secundum merita dari. Sed hoc stare non potest, quia, sicut dictum est, ipsa etiam bona merita sunt homini a Deo, et sunt praedestinationis effectus. Alio modo potest intelligi ut aliquis dicatur dignus misericordia, non propter aliqua merita praecedentia gratiam sed propter merita subsequentia, puta ut dicamus quod Deus dat alicui gratiam et proposuit eam ab aeterno illi se daturum, quem praescivit ea bene fore usurum. Et secundum hoc intelligit Glossa quod miseretur cui miserendum est. Unde dicit miserebor cui misertus ero, id est, illi miserebor vocando et gratiam apponendo, cui praescius ero quod misericordiam daturus essem, sciens illum convertendum et apud me permansurum. Sed videtur quod nec hoc convenienter dici possit. Manifestum est enim quod nihil potest poni ut ratio praedestinationis, quod est praedestinationis effectus, etiam si accipiatur prout est in Dei praescientia, quia ratio praedestinationis praeintelligitur praedestinationi, effectus autem in ipsa includitur. Manifestum est autem quod omne Dei beneficium quod homini confert ad salutem, est divinae praedestinationis effectus. Divinum autem beneficium non solum extendit se ad infusionem gratiae, qua homo iustificatur, sed etiam ad gratiae usum: sicut etiam in rebus naturalibus non solum Deus causat ipsas formas in rebus, sed etiam ipsos motus et operationes formarum, eo quod Deus est principium omnis motus, cuius operatione cessante a movendo, ex formis nullus motus vel operatio sequitur. Sicut autem se habet habitus gratiae vel virtutis in anima ad usum ipsius, sic se habet forma naturalis ad suam operationem. Et ideo dicitur Is. XXVI, 12: omnia opera nostra operatus es in nobis, domine. Probat autem hoc speciali ratione Aristoteles de operibus voluntatis humanae. Cum enim homo habeat potentiam ad opposita, puta ad sedendum vel non sedendum, oportet quod reducatur in actum per aliquid aliud. Reducitur autem in actum alterius horum per consilium, ex quo unum oppositorum praeelegit alteri. Sed cum iterum homo habet potentiam consiliandi vel non consiliandi, oportebit esse aliquid per quod reducatur in actum consilii. Et cum in hoc non sit procedere in infinitum, oportet esse aliquod principium extrinsecum superius homine, quod ipsum moveat ad consiliandum, et hoc non est aliud quam Deus. Sic igitur ipse usus gratiae est a Deo, nec propter hoc superfluit habitus gratiae, sicut nec superfluunt formae naturales, quamvis Deus in omnibus operetur, quia, sicut dicitur Sap. VIII, 1, ipse disponit omnia suaviter, quia scilicet per suas formas omnia inclinantur quasi sponte in id ad quod ordinantur a Deo. Sic igitur non potest esse quod merita consequentia gratiam sint ratio miserendi aut praedestinandi, sed sola Dei voluntas, secundum quam misericorditer aliquos liberat. Manifestum est enim quod iustitia distributiva locum habet in his quae dantur ex debito, puta si aliqui meruerunt mercedem, ut plus laborantibus maior merces donetur, non autem habet locum in his quae sponte et misericorditer aliquis dat; puta si aliquis duos pauperes in via inveniens det uni quod potest, vel disponit in eleemosynam dare, non est iniquus sed misericors. Similiter si aliquis, duobus aeque ipsum offendentibus, uni dimittat offensam et non alteri, est misericors uni, et iustus ad alterum, neutri vero iniquus. Cum enim omnes homines propter peccatum primi parentis damnationi nascantur obnoxii, quos Deus per suam gratiam liberat, sola misericordia liberat: et sic quibusdam est misericors, quos liberat, quibusdam autem iustus, quos non liberat, neutris autem iniquus. Et ideo apostolus quaestionem solvit per auctoritatem, quae omnia divinae misericordiae adscribit. Sciendum est tamen quod Dei misericordia secundum tria attenditur. Primo quidem secundum praedestinationem, qua ab aeterno proposuit aliquos liberare. Ps. CII, 16: misericordia eius ab aeterno et usque in aeternum. Secundo, secundum vocationem et iustificationem quibus homines salvat ex tempore. Tit. III, 5: secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Tertio, magnificando per gloriam, quando liberat ab omni miseria. Ps. CII, 4: qui coronat te in misericordia et miserationibus. Et ideo dicit miserebor, scilicet vocando et iustificando, cui misereor, praedestinando et misericordiam praestando, finaliter glorificando eum cui misereor vocando et iustificando. Et hic sensus magis concordat cum nostra littera, quae dicit: miserebor cui voluero, et clemens ero cui mihi placet. Ubi manifeste non meritis, sed soli divinae voluntati adscribitur divina misericordia.
9:16
Deinde, cum dicit igitur non volentis, etc., concludit propositum ex praemissa auctoritate. Et potest haec conclusio multipliciter intelligi; uno modo sic: igitur, ipsa salus hominis, non est volentis neque currentis, id est non debetur alicui per aliquam eius voluntatem, vel exteriorem operationem, quae dicitur cursus secundum illud I Cor. IX, 24: sic currite ut comprehendatis, sed est miserentis Dei, id est, procedit ex sola Dei misericordia, et maxime sequitur ex auctoritate inducta Deut. IX, 4: nec dicas in corde tuo: propter iustitiam meam introduxit me dominus, ut terram hanc possiderem. Potest autem et aliter intelligi ut sit sensus: omnia procedunt ex Dei misericordia, igitur non est volentis, scilicet velle, neque currentis, scilicet currere, sed utrumque est miserentis Dei, secundum illud I Cor. c. XV, 10: non autem ego, sed gratia Dei mecum. Et Io. XV, 5: sine me nihil potestis facere. Sed si hoc solum in hoc verbo intellexisset apostolus, cum etiam gratia sine libero arbitrio hominis non velit neque currat, potuisset e converso dicere: non est miserentis Dei, sed volentis et currentis, quod aures piae non ferunt. Unde plus aliquid est ex his verbis intelligendum, ut scilicet principalitas gratiae Dei attribuatur. Semper enim actio magis attribuitur principali agenti, quam secundario, puta si dicamus quod securis non facit arcam, sed artifex per securim. Voluntas autem hominis movetur a Deo ad bonum. Unde supra VIII, v. 14 dictum est: qui spiritu Dei aguntur, hi sunt filii Dei. Et ideo hominis operatio interior non est homini principaliter, sed Deo attribuenda. Phil. II, 13: Deus est qui operatur in nobis velle et perficere pro bona voluntate. Sed si non est volentis velle, neque currentis currere, sed Dei moventis ad hoc hominem, videtur quod homo non sit dominus sui actus, quod pertinet ad libertatem arbitrii. Et ideo dicendum est, quod Deus omnia movet, sed diversimode, inquantum scilicet unumquodque movetur ab eo secundum modum naturae suae. Et sic homo movetur a Deo ad volendum et currendum per modum liberae voluntatis. Sic ergo velle et currere est hominis, ut libere agentis: non autem est hominis ut principaliter moventis, sed Dei. Deinde, cum dicit dicit enim Scriptura, etc., solvit quaestionem praemissam quantum ad reprobationem malorum. Et primo inducit auctoritatem; secundo infert conclusionem, ibi ergo cui vult miseretur, et cetera. Dicit ergo: ita ostensum est quod non est iniquitas apud Deum, quantum ad hoc quod ab aeterno diligit iustos. Sed etiam nec quantum ad hoc quod ab aeterno reprobat malos. Dicit enim Scriptura ex ore Dei, Ex.
9:17
IX, 16: quia in hoc ipsum excitavi te, vel servavi te, secundum aliam litteram, ut ostendam in te virtutem meam ut annuntietur nomen meum in universa terra. Nostra autem littera sic habet: et idcirco posui te, ut ostendam in te fortitudinem meam, ut enarretur nomen meum in omni terra. Ubi primo, consideratum est quid Deus circa reprobos faciat, quod ostendit dicens in hoc ipsum servavi te, id est dignus eras mori propter mala quae feceras, supra c. I, 32: qui talia agunt, digni sunt morte, sed tamen non statim tibi mortem induxi sed servavi te in vita eo fine quo sequitur, ut scilicet ostendam, et cetera. Et in hoc etiam sensu potest legi quod dicitur excitavi te, id est, cum apud me pro tuis meritis mortuus esses, concessi tibi vitam, quasi te excitarem. In quo apparet quod Deus iniquitatem reprobis non facit, cum ipsi ex suis meritis essent digni statim consumi, sed hoc ipsum quod eos servat in vita, procedit ex nimia sua bonitate. Ier. X, 24: corripe me, domine verumtamen in iudicio et non in furore tuo, ne forte ad nihilum redigas me. Alio modo potest intelligi excitavi te, in peccatum, ut deterior fias. Quod quidem non est intelligendum hoc modo quod Deus in homine causet malitiam, sed est intelligendum permissive, quia scilicet ex iusto suo iudicio permittit aliquos ruere in peccatum propter praecedentes iniquitates, sicut supra I, 24 dictum est: tradidit eos Deus in reprobum sensum. Sed aliquid amplius videtur mihi in hoc esse intelligendum, quia, videlicet, instinctu quodam interiori moventur homines a Deo ad bonum et ad malum. Unde Augustinus dicit in libro de gratia et libero arbitrio, quod Deus operatur in cordibus hominum ad inclinandas eorum voluntates quocumque voluerit, sive ad bona pro sua misericordia, sive ad mala pro meritis eorum. Unde et Deus dicitur saepius suscitare aliquos ad bonum, secundum illud Dan. XIII, 45: suscitavit Deus spiritum pueri iunioris. Dicitur etiam suscitare aliquos ad malum faciendum, secundum illud Is. XIII, 17: suscitabo Medos qui sagittis parvulos interficiant. Aliter tamen ad bona, aliter ad mala: nam ad bona inclinat hominum voluntates directe et per se, tamquam actor bonorum; ad malum autem dicitur inclinare vel suscitare homines occasionaliter, inquantum scilicet Deus homini aliquid proponit vel interius, vel exterius, quod, quantum est de se, est inductivum ad bonum; sed homo propter suam malitiam perverse utitur ad malum. Supra II, 4: ignoras quoniam benignitas Dei ad poenitentiam te adducit: secundum autem duritiam tuam et cor impoenitens thesaurizas tibi iram in die irae. Et Iob XXIV, 23: dedit ei Deus locum poenitentiae, et ille abutitur eo in superbia. Et similiter Deus quantum est de se, interius instigat hominem ad bonum, puta regem ad defendendum iura regni sui, vel ad puniendum rebelles. Sed hoc instinctu bono malus homo abutitur secundum malitiam cordis sui. Et hoc patet Is. X, 6, ubi dicitur de Assur: ad gentem fallacem mittam eum, contra populum furoris mei mandabo illi ut auferat spolia, et cetera. Et post: ipse autem non sic arbitrabitur, et cor eius non ita aestimabit, sed ad conterendum erit cor eius. Et hoc modo circa Pharaonem accidit, qui cum a Deo excitaretur ad regni sui tutelam, abusus est hac excitatione in crudelitatem. Secundo, oportet considerare quo fine Deus ista partim faciat et partim permittat. Est enim considerandum, quod Deus operatur in creaturis ad suam manifestationem, secundum illud supra I, 20: invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Unde et huiusmodi excitatio in hoc ipsum ordinatur, et quantum ad praesentes, ut ostendam in te virtutem meam, Ex. XIV, 31: viderunt filii Israel manum magnam, quam exercuerat dominus contra Aegyptios, et quantum ad absentes, ut annuntietur nomen meum in universa terra. Ps. XCV, 3: annuntiate inter gentes gloriam eius. Sic igitur patet quod quantum ad hoc, non est iniquitas apud Deum, quia utitur creatura sua secundum eius merita ad gloriam suam. Et in hoc eodem sensu potest exponi si dicatur, posui te, id est ordinavi malitiam tuam ad gloriam meam; Deus enim malitiam ordinat, sed non causat. Deinde cum dicit ergo cui vult miseretur, etc.; infert conclusionem quamdam ex utraque auctoritate supra inducta. Nam ex eo quod dictum est miserebor cui misereor, concludit ergo cui vult miseretur. Ps. CII, 13: misertus est dominus timentibus se.
9:18
Ex eo vero quod dictum est: in hoc ipsum excitavit te, concludit et quem vult indurat. Is. LXIII, 17: indurasti cor nostrum, ne timeremus te. Eccli. XXXIII, 12: ex ipsis benedixit et exaltavit, et ex ipsis maledixit et humiliavit. Et quidem quod dicitur de Dei misericordia, dubitationem non habet, suppositis his quae praemissa sunt. Sed circa indurationem videtur esse duplex dubitatio. Primo quidem quia duritia cordis ad culpam pertinere videtur, secundum illud Eccli. c. III, 27: cor durum male habebit in novissimo. Si ergo Deus indurat, sequitur quod sit auctor culpae. Contra quod dicitur Iac. I, 13: Deus intentator malorum est. Ad quod dicendum quod Deus non dicitur indurare aliquos directe, quasi in eis causet malitiam, sed indirecte, inquantum scilicet ex his quae facit in homine intus vel extra, homo sumit occasionem peccati, et hoc ipse Deus permittit. Unde non dicitur indurare quasi immittendo malitiam, sed non apponendo gratiam. Secunda dubitatio est, quia ipsa obduratio non videtur divinae voluntati posse adscribi, cum scriptum sit I Thess. IV, 3: haec est voluntas Dei sanctificatio vestra. Et I Tim. II, 4: qui vult omnes homines salvos fieri. Ad quod dicendum est, quod tam misericordia quam iustitia dispositionem voluntatis important. Unde sicut miseratio attribuitur divinae voluntati, ita et id quod est iustitiae. Sic ergo intelligendum est cui vult miseretur, scilicet per suam misericordiam, et quem vult indurat, per suam iustitiam; quia illi, quos indurat, hoc merentur ut indurentur ab ipso, ut supra cap. 1 dictum est.
Posita solutione praemissae quaestionis, hic apostolus contra ipsam solutionem obiicit, et praecipue contra ultimam conclusionem qua dictum est: cuius vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat. Primo ergo ponit obiectionem; secundo solutionem, ibi o homo, tu quis es, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est quod Deus cuius vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat, dicis itaque mihi: quid adhuc quaeritur? Id est, quid oportet ulterius quaerere de causa bonorum et malorum quae hic aguntur, cum omnia voluntati divinae attribuantur, quae est causa sufficiens, eo quod nullus potest ei resistere? Unde sequitur voluntati eius quis resistit? Eccle. I, 13: proposui in animo meo quaerere et investigare sapienter de omnibus quae fiunt sub sole. Vel aliter quid adhuc quaeritur, id est conqueritur Deus de hominibus quando peccant, sicut Is. I, 2: filios enutrivi et exaltavi, ipsi autem spreverunt me, et cetera. Ideo autem videtur iustam querimoniam non habere, quia ex voluntate eius totum procedit, cui nullus potest resistere. Unde subdit voluntati eius quis resistit? Vel aliter quid adhuc quaeritur, scilicet ab homine ut faciat bonum vel vitet malum. Mich. VI, 8: indicabo tibi, o homo, quid sit bonum, et quid Deus requirat a te, et cetera. Frustra autem requiritur ab aliquo quod non est in eius potestate. Nihil autem in hominis potestate esse videtur secundum praedicta, quibus omnia divinae voluntati videntur adscribi, cui resisti non potest.
9:19
Sequitur voluntati enim eius quis resistit? Quasi diceret: nullus. Esth. XIII, 9: non est qui tuae possit resistere voluntati. Et haec videtur esse intentio apostoli.
9:20
Deinde cum dicit o homo, tu quis es, etc. respondet praemissae quaestioni. Ad cuius responsionis intellectum considerandum est, quod circa electionem bonorum et reprobationem malorum duplex quaestio potest moveri. Una quidem in generali, quare Deus velit quosdam indurare, et quorumdam misereri. Alia vero in speciali, quare velit huius misereri et hunc vel illum indurare. Et potest quidem ratio huius quaestionis assignari; secundae autem quaestionis non potest assignari ratio, nisi simplex Dei voluntas, cuius exemplum patet in rebus humanis. Si enim aliquis aedificare volens, haberet multos lapides similes et aequales congregatos, posset ratio assignari quare quosdam ponat in summo et quosdam in imo ex parte finis, quia ad perfectionem domus quam facere intendit, requiritur et fundamentum quod habet lapides in imo, et cacumen parietis quod habet lapides in summo. Sed quare ponat hos lapides in summo et hos in imo, non habet aliquam rationem, nisi quia artifex voluit. Primo igitur apostolus respondet dubitationi quantum ad quaestionem secundam, quare scilicet huius hominis misereatur et illum induret; secundo quantum ad quaestionem primam, quare scilicet quibusdam misereatur, et quosdam induret, ibi quod si volens Deus, et cetera. Circa primum tria facit. Primo arguit praesumptionem quaerentis; secundo inducit auctoritatem quae quaestionem solvit, ibi numquid dicit figmentum, etc.; tertio exponit auctoritatem, ibi an non habet potestatem, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: o homo, qui es fragilis et ignorans, tu quis es qui respondeas Deo? Unde sufficis ad respondendum ei, si voluerit tecum iudicio contendere? Iob IX, 3: si voluerit contendere iudicio cum illo, non poterit ei respondere unum pro mille. Et, sicut dicitur Iob XXXIX, 32, qui arguit Deum, debet ei respondere. In quo datur intelligi quod homo non debet scrutari rationem divinorum iudiciorum cum intentione comprehendendi, eo quod excedant rationem humanam. Eccli. III, 22: altiora te ne quaesieris. Prov. XXV, 27: perscrutator maiestatis opprimetur a gloria. Deinde cum dicit numquid dicit figmentum, etc., inducit auctoritatem, quae habetur Is. XLV, 9: numquid dicit lutum figulo suo: quid facis? Et opus tuum sine manibus est. Ubi considerandum est quod si aliquis artifex ex materia vili faciat vas pulchrum et nobilibus actibus accommodatum, totum adscribitur bonitati artificis, puta si ex luto faciat scutellas et urceos ad nobilem mensam decentes. Si vero ex vili materia, puta ex luto, faciat vas accommodatum vilibus usibus, puta coquinae vel huiusmodi officiis, non posset vas conqueri si rationem haberet. Posset enim conqueri si ex materia pretiosa quae praeiacet artificis operationi, puta ex auro et lapidibus pretiosis faceret vas ad vilia officia deputatum. Humana autem natura vilitatem habet ex sua materia, quia, ut dicitur Gen. II, 7: fecit Deus hominem de limo terrae, sed maiorem vilitatem habet ex corruptione peccati, quae per unum hominem in hunc mundum intravit. Et ideo homo luto merito comparatur Iob XXX, 19: comparatus sum luto, et assimilatus sum favillae et cineri. Unde quicquid boni habet homo debet bonitati divinae quasi principali agenti adscribere. Is. LXIV, v. 8: nunc, domine, pater es tu, nos vero lutum, et fictor noster tu, et opus manuum tuarum omnes nos. Si vero Deus hominem ad meliora non promoveat, sed in sua infirmitate eum dimittens, deputat eum ad infimum usum, nullam ei facit iniuriam: ut possit iuste de Deo conqueri.
9:21
Deinde cum dicit an non habet potestatem, etc., exponit apostolus verba prophetae. Quasi dicat: hoc est dictum figmentum, id est vas fictile, non posset dicere fictori quid me fecisti sic? Quia figulus liberam potestatem habet ex materia luti opus facere quodcumque sibi placuerit. Unde dicit an non habet potestatem, scilicet liberam, figulus luti, qui scilicet operatur in vili materia, ex eadem massa, scilicet vilis materiae, facere, absque alicuius iniuria, aliud quidem vas in honorem, id est in honorabiles usus, aliud vero in contumeliam, id est in usus viliores. II Tim. II, 20: in magna enim domo non solum sunt vasa aurea et argentea, sed etiam lignea et fictilia: et quaedam quidem in honorem, quaedam autem in contumeliam. Et similiter Deus liberam potestatem habet facere ex eadem corrupta materia humani generis, sicut ex quodam luto, nulli faciendo iniuriam, quosdam homines praeparatos in gloriam, quosdam autem in miseria derelictos. Ier. XVIII, 6: sicut lutum in manu figuli, ita in manu mea vos, domus Israel. Deinde cum dicit quod si volens Deus, etc., solvit primam quaestionem, scilicet quare Deus velit quibusdam misereri, et quosdam in miseria derelinquere, sive quosdam eligere et quosdam reprobare. Circa quod considerandum est, quod finis omnium divinorum operum est manifestatio divinae bonitatis. Prov. XVI, 4: universa propter semetipsum operatus est dominus. Unde supra I, 20 dictum est quod invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intellecta conspiciuntur. Tanta est autem divinae bonitatis excellentia, quod non potest uno modo nec in una creatura sufficienter manifestari. Et ideo diversas creaturas condidit, in quibus diversimode manifestatur. Praecipue autem in creaturis rationalibus, in quibus eius iustitia manifestatur quantum ad illos quos pro eorum meritis punit, misericordia vero in illis quos ex sua gratia liberat. Et ideo ut utrumque in hominibus manifestaretur, quosdam misericorditer liberavit, sed non omnes. Primo ergo ponit rationem reprobationis malorum; secundo ponit rationem electionis bonorum, ibi ut ostenderet divitias, et cetera. Est autem in utrisque triplex differentia attendenda. Prima quidem secundum finem; secunda, secundum usum; tertia, secundum divinum actum. Finis autem reprobationis vel obdurationis malorum est manifestatio divinae iustitiae et virtutis. Et quantum ad hoc dicit quod, id est sed, si Deus volens ostendere iram suam, id est iustitiam vindicativam. Non enim dicitur ira in Deo secundum affectus commotionem, sed secundum effectus vindictae. Supra I, 18: revelatur ira Dei, et cetera.
9:22
Addit autem et notam facere potentiam suam, quia Deus contra malos non solum utitur ira, id est vindicta, puniendo eos sibi subiectos, sed etiam sua potentia subiiciendo sibi. Phil. c. III, 21: secundum operationem qua potest etiam sibi subiicere omnia. Ex. XIV, 31: viderant Aegyptios mortuos super littus maris, et manum magnam quam exercuerat dominus contra eos. Usus autem malorum ad quem utitur eis Deus est ira, id est poena. Et ideo vocat eos vasa irae, id est, iustitiae instrumenta, quibus Deus utitur ad ostendendam iram, id est iustitiam vindicativam. Eph. II, 3: eramus natura filii irae. Actus vero quem Deus erga eos exercet, non est quod disponat eos ad malum, quia ipsi de se habent dispositionem ad malum ex corruptione primi peccati. Unde dicit vasa apta in interitum, id est, in se habentia aptitudinem ad aeternam damnationem. Gen. VI, v. 5: videns Deus quod multa malitia hominum esset in terra, et cuncta cogitatio humani cordis intenta esset ad malum omni tempore. Hoc autem solum Deus circa eos agit, quod eos permittit agere quae concupiscunt. Unde signanter dicit sustinuit. Et hoc eius patientiam demonstrat, quod non statim vindictam infert. Unde addit in multa patientia. Eccli. V, 4: altissimus est patiens redditor. Deinde ex parte bonorum similiter tria ponit.
9:23
Primo quidem finem, cum dicit ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae. Finis enim electionis et miserationis bonorum est, ut manifestaret in eis abundantiam bonitatis suae, revocando eos a malo, et ad iustitiam eos trahendo, et finaliter eos perducendo in gloriam. Et hoc est quod dicit ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae, de quibus divitiis supra II, 4: an divitias bonitatis eius contemnis? Eph. II, v. 4: Deus autem qui dives est in misericordia. Signanter autem dicit ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae, quia ipsa condemnatio et reprobatio malorum, quae est secundum Dei iustitiam, manifestat et commendat sanctorum gloriam, qui ab ipsa tali miseria liberantur. Secundo describit usum eorum, cum dicit in vasa misericordiae. Nominat autem bonos vasa misericordiae, quia utitur eis Deus quasi instrumentis ad suam misericordiam manifestandam. Eccli. XLIV, 10: isti sunt viri misericordiae. Tertio ponit actum quem circa eos Deus exercet. Non enim Deus eos solum sustinet, quasi de se aptos existentes ad bonum, sed eos praeparat et disponit vocando ad gloriam. Unde dicit quae praeparavit in gloriam. Ps. LXIV, 7: praeparans montes in virtute tua. Est autem constructio defectiva et suspensiva usque huc, ut sit sensus: si volens Deus hoc facere, quibusdam miseretur et quosdam indurat, quid contra hoc iuste poterit dici? Quasi dicat: nihil. Non enim sic quos vult indurat, ut eos peccare compellat, sed sustinet eos ut secundum suam inclinationem tendant in malum.
9:24
Postquam apostolus ostendit quod Dei gratia datur hominibus ex divina electione, per quam homines ad gratiam vocantur, hic ostendit quod praedicta electio sive vocatio non solum pertinet ad Iudaeos (ut ipsi poterant gloriari, propter hoc quod dicitur Deut. IV, 37: dilexi patres tuos), sed etiam ad gentes. Et primo proponit quod intendit; secundo probat propositum, ibi sicut in Osea dicit, etc.; tertio ex dictis infert conclusionem, ibi quid ergo dicemus, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo, dictum est quod sanctos praeparavit in gloriam, quos et vocavit, scilicet per gratiam suam, non solum ex Iudaeis, sed etiam ex gentibus. Supra III, 29: an Iudaeorum Deus tantum? Nonne et gentium? Soph. II, 11: adorabunt eum viri de loco suo omnes insulae gentium. Deinde cum dicit sicut in Osea dicit, etc., probat propositum. Et primo quantum ad gentiles; secundo quantum ad Iudaeos, ibi Isaias autem clamat, et cetera. Circa primum ponit duas auctoritates Oseae loquentis pro gentibus, quarum prima promittit eis dona Dei; secunda ipsam divinam filiationem, ibi et erit in loco ubi dictum, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: sicut, dominus, dicit in Osea, quia ipse erat qui loquebatur in prophetis. II Reg. XXIII, 2: spiritus domini locutus est per me, et sermo eius per linguam meam. Unde et Oseae I, 2 dicitur: principium loquendi domino in Osea. Est autem considerandum quod a tribus bonis quae in Iudaeis eminebant, gentiles erant alieni, quorum primum erat divinus cultus, ratione cuius dicebantur populus Dei, quasi ei servientes et eius praeceptis obedientes. Unde in Ps. XCIV, 7 dicitur: nos autem populus eius et oves pascuae eius. Sed ab huius populi societate gentiles erant alieni, secundum illud Ephes. II, 12: alienati a conversatione Israel et hospites testamentorum. Sed per Christum facti sunt populus Dei. Tit. II, 14: dedit semetipsum pro nobis, ut emundaret sibi populum acceptabilem. Et hoc est quod dicit vocabo non plebem meam, id est, gentilitatem quae non erat plebs mea, plebem meam, id est, ad hoc ut sit plebs mea. Secundum est privilegium dilectionis. Os. c. III, 1: diligit dominus filios Israel, in eo scilicet quod eis multa beneficia inducentia ad specialem gratiam praestabat, a qua quidem dilectione gentiles olim erant exclusi. Eph. IV, 18: alienati a veritate Dei propter ignorantiam quae est in illis. Et ideo dicit et non dilectam, meam, scilicet gentilitatem, vocabo dilectam, meam. Eph. II, 13: vos qui aliquando eratis longe, facti estis prope in sanguine Christi. Supra V, 10: cum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem filii eius. Tertium est libertas a peccato originali, quae Iudaeis in circumcisione conferebatur. Is. XIV, 1: miserebitur dominus Iacob. Sed huius miserationis gentiles non erant participes. Ez. XVI, 4: quando nata es, in die ortus tui non est praecisus umbilicus tuus; et infra: non pepercit super te oculus ut faceret tibi unum de his, misertus tui. Sed postea per Christum sunt misericordiam consecuti.
9:25
Ideo sequitur et non misericordiam consecutam, misericordiam consecutam. Tit. III, v. 5: secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit, et cetera. Haec autem auctoritas habetur Oseae II, 24 secundum Lxx, loco cuius littera nostra habet: miserebor eius quae fuit absque misericordia, et dicam non populo meo, populus meus es tu. Deinde cum dicit et erit in loco, etc., inducit aliam auctoritatem quae habetur Oseae I, 10: in qua eis repromittitur dignitas filiorum Dei, de qua Iudaei gloriabantur propter id quod dicitur Is. I, 2: filios enutrivi et exaltavi, ipsi autem spreverunt me. Et Deut. XXXII, 6: nonne ipse est pater tuus? Gentiles etiam non solum non dicebantur filii, quod pertinet ad eos qui ex amore Deo serviunt et spiritu Dei aguntur, ut supra cap. VIII, 14 dictum est, sed nec etiam digni erant ut populi Dei dicerentur, quod pertinere poterat etiam ad eos qui spiritum servitutis acceperant in timore. Unde dicit et erit in loco, id est, in Iudaea, ubi dictum est eis, scilicet gentilibus a Iudaeis quasi ex persona Dei loquentibus, non plebs mea vos, quia non reputabant eos populum Dei, ibi, id est etiam apud Iudaeos credentes, vocabuntur filii Dei. Vel in loco, id est toto mundo in quo convertentur ad fidem, ut detur intelligi quod non hoc modo convertentur sicut proselyti, quos Iudaei faciebant, qui suis locis derelictis in Iudaeam pergebant; hoc autem non ita futurum esse in his qui ad Christum convertendi erant ostenditur Soph. II, 11: adorabunt eum viri de loco suo.
9:26
Unicuique ergo in loco suo habitanti, ubi dictum est eis, olim ex divina sententia, non plebs mea vos, ibi vocabuntur filii Dei per divinam adoptionem. Io. I, 12: dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri his qui credunt in nomine eius. Deinde cum dicit Isaias autem clamat, etc., probat propositum quantum ad Iudaeos per auctoritatem Isaiae. Et ponit duas auctoritates, quarum prima videtur pertinere ad omnes credentes ex Iudaeis, secunda specialiter ad apostolos, ibi et sicut praedixit, et cetera. Dicit ergo primo: dictum est per Oseam pro gentibus, Isaias autem clamat, id est aperte loquitur pro conversione Israel. Is. LVIII, 1: clama, ne cesses, quasi tuba exalta vocem tuam.
9:27
In hac autem prima auctoritate, primo, ponit paucitatem conversorum Israel, dicens si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel quasi arena maris, id est innumerabiles prae multitudine gentium. Gen. XXII, 17: multiplicabo semen tuum velut arenam maris et cetera. III Reg. IV, 20: Iuda et Israel innumerabiles quasi arena maris. Reliquiae salvae fient, id est non omnes, nec maior pars, sed aliqui pauci qui relinquentur ex excidio aliorum. Mich. VII, v. 1: factus sum sicut qui colligit in autumno racemos vindemiae. Infra XI, 5: reliquiae secundum electionem gratiae salvae factae sunt.
9:28
Secundo, ibi verbum enim consummans, etc., assignat causam salutis, et, primo, ponit efficaciam evangelici verbi, dicens verbum enim consummans et abbrevians in aequitate. Ubi notatur duplex efficacia evangelici verbi. Prima est, quia consummans, id est, perficiens; ut enim dicitur Hebr. VII, 19: nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex. Dominus autem dicit, Matth. V, 17: non veni solvere legem, sed adimplere: tum quia figuris legis veritatem adhibuit, tum quia praecepta legis moralia debito modo exposuit, et occasiones transgrediendi abstulit, et etiam eis consilia perfectionis adiunxit. Unde et iuveni diviti Matth. c. XIX, 21, qui omnia mandata legis servaverat, dixit: unum tibi deest, si vis perfectus esse, vade et vende omnia quae habes, et cetera. Et propter hoc discipulis suis dicebat Matth. c. V, 49: estote perfecti sicut et pater vester caelestis perfectus est. Secunda efficacia est abbreviandi, et haec convenienter primae adiungitur, quia quanto aliquod verbum est magis perfectum, tanto est altius, et per consequens magis simplex et breve. Est autem verbum Evangelii abbrevians verba legis, quia omnia sacrificia figuralia legis in uno vero sacrificio comprehendit, quo Christus obtulit seipsum pro nobis hostiam, ut dicitur Ephes. V, 2. Omnia vero praecepta legis moralia in duobus praeceptis charitatis concludit Matth. XXII, 40: in his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet et prophetae. Unde dicit abbrevians in aequitate, vel quia nihil est praetermissum de multitudine figurarum et praeceptorum legis, quin sub brevitate Evangelii comprehenderetur; vel quia nihil ipsorum remanet observandum quod est aequum secundum dictamen rationis naturalis Ps. CXVIII, 72: omnia mandata tua aequitas. Subaudiendum est autem erit ut sit sensus: verbum Evangelii erit abbrevians et consummans in aequitate. Secundo cum dicit quod verbum, etc., assignat rationem praedictae efficaciae, dicens quia dominus super terram, existens, id est in terris tamquam homo inhabitans (secundum illud Baruch III, 38: post haec in terris visus est, et cum hominibus conversatus est) faciet verbum breviatum. Perfectius enim debet esse verbum et maioris virtutis quod ipse dominus Deus carnem indutus locutus est per semetipsum, quam verba quae locutus est per prophetas, secundum illud Hebr. I: multifarie multisque modis olim Deus loquens patribus in prophetis, et cetera. Vel aliter: quia dominus, scilicet Deus pater, faciet super terram verbum breviatum, id est incarnatum, quia filius Dei exinanivit semetipsum, formam servi accipiens. Dicitur autem exinanitum vel breviatum, non quia aliquid subtractum sit plenitudini vel magnitudini divinitatis ipsius, sed quia nostram exilitatem et parvitatem suscepit. Habetur autem haec auctoritas Is. X, 22, ubi secundum litteram nostram sic dicitur: si fuerit populus tuus Israel quasi arena maris, reliquiae convertentur ex eo. Consummatio abbreviata inundabit iustitiam. Consummationem enim et abbreviationem dominus Deus exercituum faciet in medio omnis terrae.
9:29
Deinde cum dicit et sicut praedixit Isaias, etc., inducit auctoritatem pertinentem specialiter ad apostolos, dicens et sicut praedixit Isaias I, 9: nisi dominus Sabaoth, id est, exercituum vel virtutum, reliquisset nobis, scilicet ex sua misericordia, semen, id est, verbum Evangelii; Lc. VIII, 11: semen est verbum Dei. Vel, semen, id est Christum, Gal. III, 16: et semini tuo qui est Christus. Vel, semen, id est, apostolos, Is. VI, 13: semen sanctum erit id quod steterit in ea. Sicut Sodoma facti essemus, et sicut Gomorrha similes fuissemus. Gravius enim fuit peccatum Iudaeorum quam Sodomorum. Thr. IV, 6: maior effecta est iniquitas populi mei peccato Sodomorum. Et Ez. XVI, 48: non fecit Sodoma ipsa et filiae eius sicut fecisti tu et filiae tuae. Et ideo quod Iudaei non sunt totaliter exterminati sicut Sodomitae, est divinae misericordiae imputandum. Thr. III, 22: misericordiae domini quia non sumus consumpti.
9:30
Deinde cum dicit quid ergo dicemus? Infert conclusionem ex dictis. Et primo quantum ad gentes; secundo, quantum ad Iudaeos, ibi Israel vero, et cetera. Circa primum duo facit. Primo concludit quod intendit, dicens: quid ergo dicemus, ex consideratione praedictorum? Hoc, inquam, quod gentes apprehenderunt, id est, consecutae sunt, iustitiam, scilicet qua vocantur filii. I Cor. VI, 11: et hoc quidem fuistis, sed iustificati estis. Et hoc quidem ex vocatione divinae electionis, non ex meritis, quod patet per hoc quod dicit quae non sectabantur iustitiam, secundum illud Ephes. II, 12: eratis in illo tempore sine Christo alienati a conversatione Israel. Secundo, exponit quod dixerat. Iustitiam autem quae ex fide est, non eam quae in operibus consistit. Non enim ad hoc gentes conversae sunt, ut iustitiam legalem observent, sed ut iustificentur per Christi fidem. Supra III, 22: iustitia autem Dei per fidem Iesu Christi. Deinde cum dicit Israel vero, etc., inducit conclusionem quantum ad Iudaeos. Et primo concludit quod intendit, dicens: Israel vero, id est, populus Iudaeorum, sectando legem iustitiae, in legem iustitiae non pervenit. Dicitur lex iustitiae lex spiritus vitae, per quam homines iustificantur, ad quam Iudaeorum populus non pervenit: quam tamen sectabatur observando umbram huius spiritualis legis, quae consistit in observationibus legalibus. Hebr. X, 1: umbram habens lex futurorum bonorum.
9:31
Vel sectando legem iustitiae, id est legem Moysi, quae est lex iustitiae si sit bene intellecta: quia docet iustitiam. Vel dicitur lex iustitiae, quia facit homines iustos non vere, sed exterius dum peccata vitantur, non ex amore sed timore poenae quam lex infligebat. Is. LI, 1: audite me, qui sequimini quod iustum est, et quaeritis dominum. Et in eodem: audite me qui scitis iustum, populus meus, lex mea in cordibus eorum. Secundo assignat causam, dicens quare, scilicet dum sectarentur legem ad legem iustitiae non pervenerunt? Quia scilicet non per debitam viam sectabantur. Et hoc est quod subdit quia non ex fide, scilicet Christi quaerebant iustificari, sed quasi ex operibus legis. Sequebantur enim figuram et repudiaverunt veritatem. Supra c. III, 20: ex operibus legis non iustificabitur omnis caro coram illo.
9:32
Tertio manifestat causam propositam, et primo proponit manifestationem, dicens: offenderunt enim in lapidem offensionis, id est ad Christum qui assimilatur lapidi offensionis, in hoc quod sicut lapis in quem homo offendit non cavetur propter suam parvitatem, ita Iudaei videntes Christum infirmitate nostra contentum, non caverunt in eum offendere. Is. LIII, 3: quasi absconditus vultus eius, et despectus, unde non reputavimus eum. Ier. XIII, 16: antequam offendant pedes vestri ad montes caliginosos, id est ad Christum et eius apostolos qui dicuntur montes caliginosi, propter hoc quod eorum dignitas et magnitudo latebat. Secundo ad hoc inducit auctoritatem, dicens sicut scriptum est, in Isaia scilicet. Componit autem apostolus verba Isaiae in diversis locis Scripturae. Nam Is. XXVIII, v. 16 dicitur: ecce ego mittam in fundamentis Sion lapidem. Lapidem angularem, probatum, pretiosum, in fundamento fundatum. Qui crediderit, non festinet. Et hinc sumitur principium auctoritatis: ecce ponam in Sion lapidem, scilicet quasi fundamentum, in quo designatur quod Christus divina ordinatione constitutus erat Ecclesiae fundamentum. I Cor. III, 11: fundamentum aliud nemo potest ponere praeter id quod positum est, quod est Christus Iesus. Legitur etiam Is. VIII, 14: in lapidem autem offensionis et petram scandali duabus domibus Israel. Et hinc sumitur medium auctoritatis quo dicit lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, ut offensio referatur ad ignorantiam, quia, ut dicitur I Cor. II, 8, si cognovissent, numquam dominum gloriae crucifixissent. Scandalum autem referendum est ad impactionem et casum, quo per infidelitatem ceciderunt, Christum et eius apostolos persequentes. I Cor. I, 23: nos praedicamus Christum crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum. Lc. II, 34: ecce hic positus est in ruinam, et cetera. Finis autem auctoritatis sumitur Isaiae c.
9:33
XXVIII, 16: qui crediderit, non festinet, loco cuius hic dicitur: omnis qui credit in eum non confundetur, quia scilicet consequetur mercedem ab eo. Eccli. II, 8: qui timetis Deum, credite illi, et non evacuabitur merces vestra. Ponit autem apostolus haec verba secundum litteram Lxx. Et ad hunc sensum pertinet quod in littera nostra dicitur: qui crediderit, non festinet. Ille enim festinare videtur, qui delusum se reputat, quia cito non adipiscitur quod sperabat.
9:1
1. Veritatem dico in Christo, non mentior. Hactenus de electis, eorumque dignitate, quam apud Deum habent, disseruit Apostolus; nullo adhuc indicato discrimine gentium et Judaeorum. Nunc vero propius ad detegendum profundum Dei consilium accedens, de rejectione Judaeorum et vocatione gentium agere incipit, eaque occasione mox altissimam ingreditur disputationem de causis electionis ac reprobationis divinae. Quare non incommode novi, i. e., quarti tomi hujus epistolae initium hic facit Theodoretus. Porro; ne quidquam Apostolus odio suae gentis, quam infensam habebat, dicere videatur, ideoque doctrina, quam tradere instituit, suspecta cuipiam habeatur, praefatione Judaeorum animos praemollit, utens verbis ad testificandum sui erga illos amoris magnitudinem vehementer accommodatis, idque non sine juramento; mox et ea ordine commemoraturus, quae ad illius gentis praerogativam spectarent. Veritatem, inquit, dico in Christo, non mentior, id est: Ne quis mentiri me suspicetur, rem veram sincere et ex animo loquor, idque per Christum, seu Christo teste. Juramentum enim hic agnoscunt interpretes, ut et in sequentibus:
Testimonium mihi perhibente conscientia mea. Graece: oujijxapTDpouoigcMO^ etc, id est, contestificante, simul attestante mihi conscientia mea. Idem compositum verbum supra cap. 2. et 8. Sensus: Ad id, quod dico, testem mihi adduco et allego conscientiam meam.
In Spiritu sancto; id est, per Spiritum sanctum, ut ejusdem conscientiae meae testem; quomodo hoc intellexit Hieron. in epist. ad Algas. quaest. 9., et ad Hedibiam, quaest. 10. Porro GraeciTheophylactus et Oecumenius observant Apostolum tres adducere testes eorum, quae dicturus est: Christum, suam ipsius conscientiam, et Spiritum sanctum, ut triplici testimonio, ac duplici juramento verba sua confirmet; tametsi potest hoc, in Spiritu sancto, sic accipi, ut ea parte significet Apostolus, conscientiam suam, quam testem adhibet, non errare, videlicet iuformatam et certificatam a Spiritu sancto; quemadmodum id S. Thomas interpretatur. Hic locus, ut alii similes, ostendunt ob justam necessitatem licite et sancte Christianum hominem jurare posse.
9:2
2. Quoniam tristitia mihi magna est, et continuus dolor cordi meo. Quoniam pro quod. Exponit enim eam rem, super qua juramentum praemisit, id est, tristitiam ac dolorem suum de fratribus, ut consequenter intelligas amorem erga eos. Continuus, Graece incessabilis, et oSuvtj non VTilgarem significat dolorem, sed qualis est parturientium. Erasmus cruciatum vertit. Causam doloris hic non addit. Hugo putat eam esse, quod prius cum errantibus errans persequebatur ecclesiam. Quidam alius causam ponit in eo, quod sequitur; Optabam enim, etc., quasi diceret Apostolus: Tanti doloris et tristitiae meae causa est, quod aliquando tam gra viter in Christum peccaverim, optans ab eo anathema esse pro fratribus meis Judaeis. Sed haec nihil ad contextum; posterius et ineptum est. Vera doloris causa licet hic non exprimatur, satis tamen intelligitur ex sequentibus, scilicet rejectio et coecitas populi Judaici. Igitur hic dolor ex ingenti amore fratrum, id est, Judaeorum, nascebatur. Quod declarant verba sequentia.
9:3
3. Optabam enim ego ipse, anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus meis. Notandum in Graeco legi ava{^£juia^ non ava'9-T^^a. Quamvis enim haec duo deriventur ab eodem verbo Graeco ava^^sTvai, significatione tamen diversa sunt, pro varia significatione verbi. Interdum enim significat reponere, sive separare; unde dicitur ava'{>3;ia^ separatio, et id, quod separatur. Interdum attollere, suspendere. Hinc avd^riiia, suspensio, et id, quod suspensum est. Qua ratione donaria, quae templis consecrabantur, ava&r^ijia-a Graecis dicta sunt, utpote suspensa in alto ex parietibus et columnis templorum. Quamquam et ad alias res Deo consecratas, vel usui ministrorum ejus deputatas, hoc vocabulum extenditur, non solum apud profanos autores, veram etiam apud Interpretes LXX., ut videre est Levit. ult., ubi in hac significatione tertio repetitur. Haec admonenda duxi, propter nonnullos etsi magnos autores, qui anathema hoc loco accipiunt in posteriori significatione, dicuntque Paulum hic optare, ut, sicut anathemata temjDlis dicata amplius in usus hominum non veniunt, ita ipse a consortio Christi et ecclesiae fiat alienus. Sed hoc est voces et eorum significata confundere. Nam ava'Osp,a, quod hic legitur, separationem, ut dixi proprie significat. Usurpatur autem in sacris literis pro re separanda ab usu hominum, non tanquam sacra, sed tanquam exsecrabili, quae prorsus exterminanda sit. Sed de hoc paulo post plenius. Nunc illud quaerendum, quo pacto sanctus Apostolus dicat, optasse se, ut esset anathema a Christo pro fratribus, cum nemini licitum sit ullo casu velle suam separationem a Deo, nec ordo caritatis patiatur, ut quis suam salutem postponat saluti aliorum. Cajetanus et alii quidam referunt hanc optationem ad tempus, quo Paulus adhuc erat in Judaismo. Neque enim dicit opto, sed optabam, ut sit sensus: Ego aliquando in incredulitate et coecitate mea volui me perdere pro fratribus meis; tunc scilicet, quando Jesu Clmsti nomen omni studio persequebar, optans potius tanquam anathema ab eo separari, quam Judaismum, quem cum fratribus tenebam, relinquere. Sed improbabilis est hic sensus; tum quia Saulus, Jesum Nazarenum persequens, Christum eum esse negabat, ideoque vere non optabat a Christo separationem; quo modo vere et proprie non dicitur optare miseriam, qui expetit carnis voluptates, licet hae miseros reddant homines. Deinde quia praesentem afi^ectum erga Judaeos non bene probaret Paulus ex aff"ectu, quem oHm erga eos habuisset, ut qui dicere possent, eum cum religione etiam aff^ectum mutasse. Proinde rectius alii haec verba referunt ad tempus, quo jam Christianus erat, Judaismo derelicto. Verum hi quoque variant. Nonnulli enim sic intelligunt. Aliquando prae vehementia amoris, inordinati tamen, utpote minus adhuc institutus in doctrina Christiana, optabam ipse separari et alienus esse a Christo Jesu et sahite, quae per Christum est, dummodo fratres mei Judaei salvi fierent. At certe non est verisimile, Paulum, ex quo credidit in Christum, ita male institutum fuisse, ut putaret, se absolute posse tale quid optare pro aliorum salute, tametsi optationem hujusmodi licitam et laudabilem censet Hugo Victorinus. Quod nobis non videtur, quia mea separatio, seu alienatio a Christo, non est, nec esse potest ordinabile medium ad salutem aliorum, ideoque nec ad eum finem optabilis est. Porro S. Hieronym. in epist. ad Algasiam quaest. 9., et in comment. super Zachar. 14. anathema interpretatur eum, nui per mortem corporalem separatur ab hominum consortio; quomodo et Christus dicitur factus maledictum, quia ignominiosa morte corporis affectus est. Itaque sentit, Apostolum dicere, quod optaverit sanguinem suum fundere et animam ponere pro salute fratrum; quod quidem maximae caritatis indicium est, dicente Domino: Majorem hac dilectionem nemo habet, ut animam suam ponat quis pro amicis suis, Joan. 15. Sed huic intellectui resistit addita particula, a Christo. Qui enim martyrium subit pro fratribus, non fit anathema a Christo, sed magis ei conjungitur, juxta illud ejusdem Apostoli: Cupio dissolvi, et esse cum Christo, Phil. 1. Deinde non diceret optabam, sed opto; praesertim quia non tam praeteritum affectum, quam praesentem declarare volebat, et ardor subeundi martyrii pro fratribus non in eo refrixerat, quando haec scribebat, sed cum caritate magis in dies auctus fuerat. Denique nihil singulare juxta hunc sensum diceret Paulus, qui pro omnium salute mortem subire erat paratissimus. Quo argumento Chrysostomus eam expositionem oppugnat. Alii alios sensus huc adferunt, quos videre est apud Toletum. Nobis maxime probatur eorum expositio, qui hunc sensuro faciunt: Optarem ego ipse, si liceret, et si fieri posset, esse anathema a Christo, id est separatus et alienus a Christo, pro fratribus meis Judaeis. Haec ipsius Chrysostomi sententia est, quam Theophylactus, et Photii verbis Oecumenius satis clare explicant, quae et aliis multis probatur. Secundum quos verbum optabam, quod Graece est ^^X'^!^'')'-'' non ad praeteritum tempus refertur, sed positum est pro optarem, ut sit potentiale verbum. Sic enim apud Graecos interdum sumitur praeteritum imperfectum, etiam non addita consueta vocula av, quam hic subintelligunt autores memorati. Neque enim hic commode addi potuit; non quidem ante verbum initio sententiae, cum sit postpositiva particula, sicut yap, enim, neque post verbum ob concursum alterius similis particulae, siquidem dure sonat ypyQ\i.yiv av yap; idcirco omitti debuit. Non dissimilis est usus praeteriti imperfecti, 2 Cor. 11.: ocpsAov avzi/zz^z, utinam sustinebatis, pro sustineretis. Sic et Latini interdum; ut Augustinus tract. 50 super Joannem: Quando Lazaro inferebatis necem, numquid Domino auferebatis potestatem? pro inferretis, auferretis. Jam ut clarius fiat, quid apud Paulum sit anathema, non hoc tantum loco, sed et alibi (nam et alias usurpat, ut 1 Cor. 12. et 16., et Gal. 1., significatione non mutata) sciendum, id a LXX. interpretibus et consequenter ab Apostolis, dictum esse anathema, quod Hebraei vocant j-^Q-|i-^ hhormah; quod et Hieronymus in sua versione semel et iterum Graeca voce exposuit, dicens: horma, id est, anathema, ut Num. 21. et Judicum 1. Descendit autem a radice Q"in hharam, id est, occidit, delevit, exterminavit. Igitur Hebraeis hhormah dicebatur vel homo, vel res quaepiam, quae cum exsecratione ita funditus delebatur, ut quoad fieri posset, nihil ejus reliquum maneret; quomodo jussu Dei destructa et deleta fuit civitas Jericho, Josue 6., et aliae quaedam urbes Chananaeorum, a filiis Israel cum voto hujusmodi exterminationis expugnatae, Num. 21. Id igitur LXX. vocarunt anathema. Unde apud eosdem verbum ava&cjiaTiC£i.v^ anathematizare, id est, rem aut personam anathema facere, disperdere, penitus abolere, ut eodem loco Num. et 4 Reg. 19. Item 1 Macchab. 5., ubi res explicatur his verbis: Et anathematizavit eos, et incendit turres eorum igni cum omnibus, qui in eis erant. Dixi, quid sit anathema, si nihil addatur; nam cum additur aliquid hujusmodi, a populo, ab ecclesia, a Christo, stricte exponendum est secundum determinationem additam. Unde, sicut a populo vel ab ecclesia quis fit anathema, quando ab ea, velut membrum emortuum, separatur, ut nihilo magis cum ea commune quid habeat, quam si in renim natura non esset, ita anathema a Christo Paulus eum intelligit, qui a Christi consortio et adoptione et gloria ac caeteris, de quibus egerat cap. superiori, rejectus est, tanquam ad Christum amplius omnino non pertinens. Itaque sensus Apostoli est: Quamvis tanta cum Christo et in Christo bona exspectemus, quanta dudum commemoravi, tamen ipse equidem optarem, si per legem et justitiam Dei liceret, omnibus illis privari, ut fratres mei Judaei eadem illa consequantur. Quae profecto verba sunt immensi amoris erga fratres, eosque sibi inimicos. Ab hoc sensu minimum recedunt, qui dicunt, Apostolum hjperbolico sermone voluisse significare magnitudinemsuiamoris erga fratres Judaeos. Quam sententiam prae caeteris probat Carthusianus, et satis commolie explicat.
Qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem. In Graeco casus non mutatur: cognatismeis, etc. Expositio est ejus, quod dixit: pro fratribus meis. Nam Graeco nomine auyysveT^^ significantur, qui sunt ejusdem generis. Unde et sequitur:
9:4
4. Qui sunt Israelitae. Nomen Israelitarum honorificum erat, videlicet patronymicum ab Israel, nomine divinitus imposito patriarchae ipsorum Jacob. Pergit deinde et alia commemorare spectantia ad illius populi dignitatem.
Quorum adoptio est filiorum. Cum in Graeco sit una composita dictio Diobsoia,, id est, filiorum adoptio, rectius verbum est (quod in Graeco non legitur, sed iutellegitur) praeponas dicendo: Quorum est adoptio filiorum, vel simpliciter, quorum est adoptio; siquidem adoptio fere non est, nisi filiorum. Cyprianus nude legit: quorum adoptio, lib. 2. testim. cap. 6. Item August. lib. 3. contra Faustum cap. 3. Et sensus est: Quos Deus velut in filios adoptavit. Non tamen eam intelligitadoptionem, de qua locutus est cap. superiori, quaeque novi testamenti filiis propria est; dicuntur enim haec de Judaeis reprobis, quorum coecitatem luget Paulus; sed adoptionem significat, qua filios Israel, praeteritis aliis gentibus, sibi in peculium Deus elegerat. Unde populum illum ut filium habuit ac fovit, multis ac praeclaris in eum collatis beneficiis; imo filium suum nominavit, ut Exod, 4.: Filiusmeus primogenitus Israel, et iterum: Dimitte filium meum, ut serviat mihi, et Matth. 15.: Non est bonum sumere panem filiorum. Verum haec adoptio figura tantum erat et umbra quaedam adoptionis illius excellentis, in nova lege praestandae per Christum, naturalem Dei filium, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus. Quamvis et in hac adoptione, secundum promissiones patribus factas, primo loco populus ille a Deo honoratus est; nam utique primitiae fidelium ex illo populo fuerunt. Sed, ut dixi, ea adoptio non est hujus loci.
Et gloria. Supple ex praecedenti parte: quorum est gloria, scilicet prae caeteris gentibus. Non enim fecit taliter omni nationi, Psal. 147., idque sive legem spectes a Deo datam, unde sequitur in eodem Psalmi versiculo: et judicia sua non manifestavit eis, sive admiranda Dei opei-a per Mosen et alios in illo populo exhibita, sive prophetias, sive promissiones, sive protectionem singularem. Qua de re Psal. 125.: Tunc dicent inter gentes: magnificavit Dominus facere cum eis. Haec igitur omnia populum illum inter omnes gentes reddiderunt valde gloriosum et celebrem. Sunt qui gloriam interpretentur arcam testamenti, quae gloria Domini, et absolute gloria dicobatur, quod Dei personam in populo habitantem repraesentaret. Unde 1 Reg. 4., quum capta esset arca Domini, dictum est: Translata est gloria ah Israel. Sed hic sensus contractior est, et vel hac ratione minus acceptabilis, quod jam inde a tempore transmigrationis Babylonicae, desiisset esse in illo populo arca Domini, 2 Machab. 2. Neque enim ulla historia prodit, eam restitutam aliquando fuisse.
Et Testamentum. Graece et Syriace testamenta plurali numero; quemadmodum et legunt Hieron. quaest. 9. ad Algas. et August. lib. 12. contra Faustum cap. 3. Item commentatores Ambrosiaster, SeduUus, Primasius, Hervaeus. Meminit etiam Haimo et exponit, eandemque lectionem exhibent codices quidam pervetusti. Testamenta, id est, pacta, foedera. Quae multi, Hieronymum et Augustinum locis citatis secuti, interpretantur duo testamenta, vetus et novum, de quibus Jerem. 31.; maxime, quod ea Paulus ipse expresserit Gal. 4., et repetat Hebr. 8. Quae eadem significata putant in Epistola ad Eph. cap. 2., quum eos vocat hospites testamentorum. Sed quia novum Testamentum non pertinet ad popuhtm carnalem Judaeorum, de quo hic sermo est, sed ad spirituale semen Abrahae, propterea verisimilius est, intelligi pacta particularia cum patribus eorum inita, et sub generali nomine veteris Testamenti comprehensa; velut de terra promissionis, ac terrena prosperitate, et adversus hostes victoria, de sacerdotio, de regno. Quae omnia Graeco vocabulo, ab inferpretibus LXX. usurpato, StaO^vjxat^ id est, testamenta vocantur. De cujus tamen significatione et usu, quem habet in scripturis, opportunior erit dicendi locus in expositione Epist. ad Hebr. cap. 9.
Sunt, qui testamenta exponant hoc loco duas tabulas Testamenti, in quibus decalogi praecepta digito Dei scripta fuerunt. Verum scriptura nusquam tabulas illas testamenta seu foedera vocat, sed tantum tabulas testamenti seu foederis, seu pacti; eo quod lex in illis scripta, pacto interveniente, data esset a Deo. Deinde tabulae legis satis continentur in eo, quod sequitur:
Et legislatio. Hoc est, quibus lex a Deo lata fuit. Grandis enim et singularis est praerogativa, legem habere non ab homine, sed a Deo latam, et per hocDeum ipsum habere legislatorem. Intelligit autem universam legem, quae per Mosen data est, non partem ejus aliquam, uti visum est nonnullis, qui de sola lege judiciali partem hanc interpretantur, ea ratione moti, quod lex decalogi significata fuerit per testamenta (quem commentarium jam improbavimus), lex autem caeremonialis significetur parte sequenti. Quod nec ipsum verum est. Aliud enim est lex aliqua^ aliud, et quidem amplius, res ipsa lege praecepta; cujusmodi est, quod sequitur:
Et obsequium. Graece Xaxpsia; id est, cultus sacer ac divinus lege caeremoniali praescriptus. Nam Deus in illo populo cultum suum cum sacrificiis ac caeteris caerimoniis instituit atque constituit. Quod non fecit in ulla alia gente. Hieronymus in Epistola ad Algasiam cultum legit, Cyprianus famulatum. Noster obsequium vertere solet, ut infra cap. 1 2.: Rationabile obseguium vestrum. Et Joan. 16»: Arbitrabitur, nbsequium se praestare Deo. Quamquam et alias voces Graecas alibi vertit in obsequium, ut Siax&viav^ id est, ministerium, infra cap. 15.: et UTiaxorjVj obedientiam, 2 Cor. 10., et AstTOupycav Phil. 2. semel et iterum, ubi nunc oblationem, nunc ministerium publicum significat. Ita quatuor Graecas voces, easque diversae significationis, reddidit interpres vulgatus uno vocabulo obsequii.
Et promissa, Graece STiayysAtai^ promissiones. Et sensus est: quibus, seu cui populo, factae sunt a Deo promissiones. Magnum enim est habere Deum promissorem. Sed quaeritur, quaepromissiones? Quidam eas cum testamentis confundunt. Vernra probabilius est ea distingui, ut testamenta seu pacta sint, quae solennibus verbis et stipulatione fiunt, qualia leguntur Genes. 15. et 17., Exod. 24., 4 Reg. 11. et 23., et Jerem. 34.; promissiones vero, quae nihil tale adjunctum habent; cujusmodi multae passim occurrunt.
9:5
5. Quorum patres. Subaudi: sunt, id est, qui primogenitores habent sanctos Patriarchas Abraham, Isaac et Jacob. Hos enim per antonomasiam patres nuncupat scriptura.
Et ex quibus est Christus secundum carnem. Et particula male sublata a quibusdam. Legitur enim in Graecis et in Latinis fere omnibus, nec non apud veteres scriptores et interpretes, L'enaeum lib. 3. cap. 18., Hilarium de Trin. lib. 8., Hieron. scribentem ad Algasiam, Augustin. lib. 2. de Trinit. cap. 13., commentatorem Ambr. et caeteros. Proinde non est sensus: ex quibus patribus, sed, ex quibus Israelitis ortus est Christus secundum carnem, Graece: t6 xa~a oap/.a^ quantum ad carnem attinet. Sentit populum Judaicum praeter alia jam commemorata, sic a Deo fuisse honoratum, ut ex eo Messiam, id est, Christum promissum incarnari et nasci voluerit. Qua ratione et Simeon ille justus Christum vocat gloriam plebis suae Israel, Luc. 2. Hujus porro beneficii magnitudinem auget in immensum personae Christi dignitas, de qua sequitur:
Qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula; Amen. Super omnia, Graece ItcI Tia'vt(ov, quod verti etiam potest m omnibus, ut fecit Erasmus; aut per omnia, ut citat Tertullianus adversus Praxeam cap. 15. Quamquam idem cap. 13. ejusdem libri legit: super omnia, quemadmodum et Novatianus lib. de Trinit. cap. 13. et 30., et Ambrosius libro 1. de Spiritu sancto cap. 3. Item Hilarius et Hieronymus ante citati, suffragante etiam Syriaca versione. Quod procul dubio rectius se habet. Atque eo modo vertit ipse Erasmus Eph. 4., ubi praepositionibus haec ti-ia distinguuntur, super omnia, per omnia et in omnibus. Potuit etiam verti, super omnes, sicut ibidem a vulgato interprete redditum est, quemadmodum et hic locus legitur apud Augustinum prop. 59., et ab Irenaeo citatur lib. 3. cap. 8. Sed ut generalius, ita melius est, super omnia, sive referatur ad Deum, sive ad benedictum, id est, sive intelligatur Deus super omnia, sicut Hilarius accepit, sive benedictus super omnia. Quod utrumque in eandem sententiam redit. Nam solus ille, qui est super omnia Deus, super omnia benedictus est; et contra. Itaque locus hic, ut observant omnes fere orthodoxi commentatores, apertissime destruit haeresim Arianam, quae filium, etsi Deum negare non audeat, Patre tamen minorem facit secundum naturam ab eo acceptam. Benedictus in saecula, idest, laudibus celebrandus in omnem aeternitatem, sive ut Tertullianus, ifi omne aevum. Addit, Amen, pro confirmatione rei tantae, quam dixerat. De qua voce Hebraea vide, quae diximus supra cap. 1.
9:6
6. Non autem quod exciderit verbum Dei. Graece: ohx o^ov dh. oxi; id ita sonat, non quale autem quod etc, potestque sic exponi: Quod dixi, me vehementer dolere conditionem fratrum meorum Israelitarum velut reprobatorum a Deo, non tale est, ut existimem aut dicere velim, propter eorum incredulitatem et reprobationem excidisse verbum Dei. Quidam putant hoc modo vertendum: Fieri tamen non potest, ut exciderit et caetera. Quibus non assentior. Non enim hic legitur olov ~s,, quod Graecis usurpaturpropossibili, sed simpliciter 0'.ov^ quod eum usum non habet, nisi perrarum, nec usquam, ut arbitror, in sacris literis. AUt rectius, non autem velut exciderit. Quod probat Erasmus in annotationibus. Noster interpres videtur oiov accepisse tanquam expletivum, et ornatus aut euphoniae tantum gratia additum, cujus proinde in transferendo rationem non habuerit. Quod et ab aliis quibusdam factum video, ut planus sensus sit: Non haec eo dicuntur a me, quod sentiam excidisse verbum Dei, id est, irritas factas esse Dei promissiones et pacta. Non tamen hic respicit ad promissiones et pacta, de quibus superius, pertinentia ad carnalem Israel; sedpromissiones significat novi testamenti implendas in Israele spirituali et in spirituali semine Abrahae, per Isaac promissionis filium praefigurato, sicuti consequenter declarat.
Non enim omnes, qui ex Israel sunt, ii sunt Israelitae. Graece: Non enim omnes, qui ex Israel, hi Israel. Supplendum autem verbum sunt, tam in fine quam in medio. Et sensus est: Nod enim omnes, qui ex Israel Patriarcha secundum carnem orti sunt, ii sunt Israel sive Israelitae, de quibus scriptura loquitur in illis promissionibus, quae pertinent ad novum testamentum. Hoc est: promissiones Israeli factae non spectant ad omnes carnaliter ex Israele progenitos.
9:7
7. Neque, qui semen sunt Abrahae, omnes filii. In Graeco et Syriaco non qui, sed quia legitur, adstipulantibus etiam vetustis commentatoribus Latinis, Amb., Primasio et Sedulio, deinde Hervaeo, denique mss. codicibus permultis; ut facile mihi persuadeam, ita fuisse scriptum ab interprete. Sensus: Nec ideo, quia secundum carnem nati sunt ex Abraham, censendi sunt omnes ejus filii secundum mentem scripturae, loquentis de filiis Abraham, ubi de promissionibus agitur. Hac enim ratione etiam Ismael et Esau cum universa sua posteritate, censerentur inter filios Abrahae et promissionum deberent esse participes. Quod utique tu, Judaee, non admiseris. Quidam ilhxd, omnes filii, supplent, non Abrahae, sed Dei, eo quod mox sequatur: non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei. Verum id non arguit sensom, sed sensus consequentiam. Nam Apostolo omnes filii Abrahae etiam filii Dei sunt.
Sed in Isaac vocabitur tibi semen. Subaudi: dictum est ad Abraham, scilicet Gen. 21. Quidam in Isaac exponunt, per Isaac, ut significetur semen exlsaac propagandum. Alii ipsum Isaac intelligunt vocari semen, sermone transitivo, sedres eodem redit. Nam sensus est: Solum genus Isaac, fiUi tui (a quo genere ipse Isaac non excluditur), erit et vocabitur semen tuum, in quo complebo promissiones tibi pro semine tuo factas. Hoc autem exponit secundum allegoriam verbis sequentibus:
9:8
8. Id est, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed qui filii sunt promissionis, aestimantur in semine. Graece, sig Q%i^\ia, in semen, quemadmodum et Ambr. legit. Sensus est: Illa Dei promissio ad Abraham facta, qua sic discrevit inter ejus filios, ut, Ismaele posthabito atque rejecto, solam posteritatem Isaac vellet vocari semen ejus, dicendo: In Isaac vocabitur tibi semen, allegorice nobis significat, non habendos esse filios Dei, nec reputandos pro vero semine Abrahae eos omnes aut solos, qui secundum carnem ex Abraham orti sunt, sed qui filii sunt promissionis, id est, qui regenerati sunt secundum spiritum per gratiam fidei, idque juxta promissionem divinam Abrahae factam, qua dictum est: Benedicentur in semine tuo omnes gentes, Gen. 22., sive illi carnaliter ex Abraham fuerint progeniti, sive non. Fundatur haec allegoria in eo, quod idem Apostolus dicit ad Gal. 4., Ismael secundum carnem natus fuit, Isaac secundum spiritum, id est, ille sola virtute naturali, iste vero non sine praevio miraculo, naturae facultatem excedente, ex matre sterili divinitus foecundata, videlicet juxta promissionem, de qua sequitur:
9:9
9. Promissionis enim verbum hoc est. Dictum ac secundo repetitum ad Abraham, Genes. 18.
Secundum hoc tempus veniam; et erit Sarae filius. Verba sunt angeli in persona Dei loquentis ad Abraham, sumpta vero ex versione LXX. interpretum. Hebraea paulo obscuriora sunt, eundem tamen sensum volunt, istum videlicet: Hoc eodem tempore, post annum revolutum, quando reversus veniam ad te, Sara conjux tua, quamquam sterilis et vetula, filium habebit.
9:10
10. Nonsolum autem illa; sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitu habens, Isaac patris nostri. Graece ad verbum: Non solum autem, sed et Rebecca ex uno concubitum habens Isaac patris nostri, seu potius, Isaac patre nostro. Ad quem modum vertisse nostrum interpretem satis est verisimile. Nam quod ad priorem partem attinet, solet eam sicut in Graeco est reddere, nullo addito: Non solum autem, ut supra cap. 5. semel et iterum, ac rursum 2 Cor. 8. Sic et mss. quaedam habent hoc loco, et veteres concordantiae. Quamquam et hic potuit addidisse de suo pronomen illa, sicut fecit in capite proxime praecedenti: Nonsolumautemilla, sed et nos ipsi, etc. Nec praetermittendum, quod in quibusdam mss. pro illa legitur illi f dativo casu, videlicet Sarae. Hoc enim praecessit. Jam quod ad reliqua spectat, non pauci codices^ suffragantibus iterum concordantiis, pro genitivis ablativos habent, patre nostro. Caeterum proclive fuit librariis, ut concubitum mutarent in concubitu propter casum praecedentem ex uno. Certe ex Graeco propter diversitatem casus simul et generis omnino verti non potest, ex uno concubitu habens. Sic enim legitur: H ^vog xottigv Exouaa^ quod proprievertas, exuno cubile sive torum habens. Est enim eadem dictio, quae infra cap. 13.: non in cubilibus, et Heb. 1.3.: torus immaculatus. Sed hic per tropum accipitur pro concubitu, vel conceptu. Est autem tota oratio imperfecta, quia verbo caret, ideoque supplenda. Quidam supplent et exponunt hoc modo: Non solum autem in duobus filiis Abrahae, quorum alter ex promissione natus est, alter secundum carnem, exhibita nobis est figura eorum, qui futuri essent filii Dei, et qui ab ea dignitate extranei; verum etiam Rebecca, ex uno Isaac patre nostro conceptis duobus filiis, eju.sdem rei tjpum ac significationem mysticam nobis exhibuit. Alii suppleri putant textui congruentius ad hunc modum: Non solum Abrahae dictum est, quod pertineat ad mjsterium electionis ac reprobationis divinae, videlicet illud: In Isaac vocabitur tibi semen, id est, in filio promissionis; verum etiam Rebecca duos filios ex Isaac, patre nostro, conceptos adhuc utero gestans, accepit divinum responsum, quoidemmysterium significaretur; nam, ut sequitur, dictum est ei: Quia major servietminori. Indicant hoc modo supplendam Pauli sententiam Irenaeus lib. 4. c. 38., et August. in epist. 105. ad Sixtum. Porro non meminit hic promissionis Apostolus, sicut in exemplo superiori; nam Rebeccae filios promissio non discernebat, utpote ex eodem patre, qui filius fuerat promissionis, ac matre sterili genitos, eodemque partu effusos; ut, si promissio praecessisset eorum conceptum (quae nulla legitur in Genesi), fuisset utrique communis. Sed urget indiscretam aequalitatem duorum quoad originem, quorum tamen alter dilectus sit a Deo, alter odio habitus, ut hac ratione commendet gratiam electionis ac praedestinationis divinae. Quod enim ad prius exemplum attinet, excipere potuissent Judaei, merito rejectum fuisse Ismaelem, quod ex ancilla natus esset. Tale quid autem de Esau dicere non poterant, ut qui totam originem, i;t dixi, cum fratre suo Jacob habuerit communem, nisi quod ipse prior natus fuerit; ut hac ratione praeferendus f ratri potius videretur. Historia est. Gen. 25.
9:11
11. Cum enim nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid boni egissent, aut mali. Quod hujus loco legitur apud Augustinum in expositione propositionum: Nondum enim nascentium, neque agentium aliquid honi aut mali, interpretis inscitia est, quo tunc usus fuit Augustinus. Debuit enim genitivos, qui in Graeco sunt aoristi absolute positi, reddere, quomodo noster vertit. Non dissimilis lapsus cap. 2.: cogitationum accusantium, autetiam defendentium. Quae vero ibidem proposit. 60. et duabus seq. ab Augustino dicuntur de electione hominum, non quidem ex operibus, sed tamen ex fide praevisa, tanquam fides ipsa sub electionis beneficio non comprehendatur, — quoniam ab autore non solum in retract. Hb. 1. cap. 23., verum multis etiam aliis in locis correctum est, ostendente, ipsam etiam fidem esse donum Dei, — non est, quod talia nos hic remorentur; praesertim cum facile sit, ea ex hoc ipso loco refellere. Dicens enim Apostolus de pueris: Cum enim nondum nati fuissent, aut aliquid boni egissent, et caetera, manifeste etiam fidem ab eis excludit. Non magis enim credere poterant pueri nondum nati, quam aliud quidquam boni facere. Et rursum cum ait: Non ex operibus, sed ex vocante, non opera distinguit a fide, sed ea vocationi opponit, ei nimirum, quae est secundum propositum. Alioqui dicendum erat: non ex operibus, sed ex fide. Porro sensus hujus partis est: Cum nondum essent in lucem editi, licet jam in utero concepti, nec proinde quidquam boni malive egissent, adeoque nec per aetatem agere potuissent, cujus boni vel mali merito alter eligeretur, ut fieret dominus fratris sui, alter reprobaretur, ut fratri sei-viret. Nam quod colluctati fuisse leguntur in utero materno, quia sine rationis usu erat illa seu lucta seu pugna, nec in bonum nec in malum imputari poterat. Destruit hic locus Origenis dogma, quo docuit, animas iu coelo quondam peccasse; eaque causa pro modo meritorum, partim globis coelestibus alligatas, partim in haec terrena corpora velut ergastula relegatas esse.
(Ut secundum electionem propositum Dei maneret.) Ex Graeco clarius: JJt, quod est secundum electionem Dei propositum, maneret. Itaque genitivus Dei, inter, electionem et propositum collocatus, ad utrumlibet referri potest, tametsi sensu non variato. Noster interpres ad propositum retulit, quod arbitror convenientius. Exponitur autem haec pars bifariam. Uno modo: Ut propositum, quo secundum electionem gratuitam, et non ex meritis, Deus constituerat Jacob honorare, subjiciendo fratrem ipsius servituti, maneret, hoc est, firmum ac stabile esset. Altero modo: Ut mystice significaretur, Dei propositum, quo aliquos praedestinavit ad vitam aeternam ex sola et gratuita ipsius electione, absque ullo meritorum respectu, firmum esse atque immobile. Hic posterior sensus probabilior est, propterea quod Apostolo propositum Dei passim significet voluntatem Dei praedestinantis homines ad vitam aeternam. Et juxta hunc sensum ista parenthesi figuram applicat Apostolus ad rem figuratam. Porro mirum est, etiam hoc loco Theodoritum (quod capite superiore fecit) referre propositum ad homines. Sic enim scribit: Cum adhuc utero gererentur, eorum differentiam praedixit. Praedixit autem, cum eorum propositum praescivisset. Noti est enim injusta electio, sed quaehominum proposito convenit. Haec ille; plane contra mentem et institutum Apostoli. Sed nec illi recte, qui propositum ad Deum referentes, praescientiam interpretantur, ut alii ex Graecis intellexisse videntur. Nusquam enim propositum praescientiam significat, et, hoc si vellet Apostolus, non diceret propositum Dei secundum electionem, sed electionem secundum ejus propositum, id est, praescientiam. Orationem huc usque suspensam absolvit, quod sequitur:
9:12
12. Non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est ei:
9:13
13. Quia major serviet minori. Oraculum integrum sic habet: Duae gentes sunt in utero tuo, et duo populi ex ventre tuo dividentur; populusque populum superabit, et major serviet minori. Ubi de populis apparet dictum esse, major serviet minori. Quod tamen Apostolus recte de fratribus dictum assumit, quatenus iu illis, ut oraculum significat, erant duo populi. Sensus: Non propter ulla bona opera Jacob, aut mala opera Esau, quae ut jam dictum est, nuUa adhuc erant, sed ex solo arbitrio Dei vocantis et eligentis Jacob prae Esau, dictum est Rebeccae, Dominum consulenti, quod major serviturus esset minori, et consequenter minor, id est Jacob, dominium habiturus in majorem Esau. Quod quidem completum est non in ipsorum personis, sed, ut oraculi verba declarant, in populis, qui ex illis orti sunt. Completum, inquam, tempore Davidis, qui Idumaeos, id est, populum ex Esau genitum, sibi ac populo Israelitico fecit tributarios, 2 Reg. 8. Spiritualiter autem impletur in electis ac reprobis, quia quidquid a reprobis aut circa reprobos agitur, id totum servit ac proficit saluti et felicitati electorum. Omnia enim propter electos, 2 Timoth. 2. Qua de re locus est insignis apud Augustinum in epist. 157. ad Optatum Episcopum scripta. Sed adversus Apostoli probationem objiciet aliquis: Recte quidem eum osteu' dere, quod non ex operibus seu meritis praecedeatibus dictum sit: Quia major serviet minori, eo quod, nondum nati, nihil boni aut mali agere potuerint; non tamen absolute, quod non ex operibus. Potuit enim id dictum esse propter opera futura, et a Deo praevisa. Laborat in hac objectione solvenda Toletus, difficultatem agnoscens, nec omnino satisfacit. Equidem puto, responderi posse, Paulum non intendere hanc consequentiam: Dictum est, cum nondum nati essent, ergo non ex operibus, sed ex vocante dictum est etc, sed tantum illud adferre pro signo istius, ut non tam sit argumentatio, quam divinae mentis interpretatio; quasi diceret: Idcirco Deus hujusmodi responsum dare voluit matri, quum pueri nondum nati essent, ut per hoc significaret, electionem alterius prae altero non esse ex operibus, sed ex vocante. Quamquam sciendum, verba Apostoli posse etiam aliter distingui, ut illud: non ex operibus, sed ex vocante, pertineat ad praecedentem parenthesim, velut explicatio particulae secundum electionem, hoc nimirum sensu: Ut propositum Dei, quod est secundum ipsius electionem, id est, non ex meritis, sed ex vocante, firmum maneret; deinde sequatur: Dictum est ei, etc. Quae distinctio, quod et objectionem allatam dissipet, et majorem lucem adferat toti sententiae, mihi non improbatur. Caeterum mentio fit in oraculo majoris et minoris fratris, ut, dum minor majori praefertur, amplius per hoc commendetur gratia divinae electionis, quum alioqui majori natu potius videretur attribuendus fuisse principatus et dominium in alterum. Atque ita sane frequenter sese res habet in electione ac reprobatione divina, ut qui donis naturalibus et humano studio caeteris antecellunt, velut olim Philosophi gentiles, a Deo reprobati sint, assumptis iis, quibus natura et humana exercitatio minus contulit. Quod et Apostolus docet 1 Cor. 1., illis praesertim verbis: Videte vocationem vestram, fratres, quia non mvlti sapientes secundum carnem, non multi potentes, non multi nobiles; sed, quae stulta sunt mundi, elegit Deus, ut confundat sapientes, etc. Sapienter eam rem in commendando gratiae Dei beneficio attenderunt Patres, ut Augustinus lib. 1. de peccat. mer. et remiss. cap. 22., et in fine lib. 1. ad Simpl., et Prosper lib. 1. de vocat. gent. cap. 17. et in carmine de ingratis cap. 17. et 18.
Sicut scriptum est: Jacob dilexi, Esau autem odio habui. Sensus est: Deum eo responso, quo dixit: major serviet minori, significasse id, quod multo post ex ejus persona scriptum est a Propheta Malachia capite primo: Nonne, inquit, frater erat Esau Jacob; et di~ lexi Jacob, Esau autem odio habui? quasi dicat, etsi fratres essent germani ac gemini, eoque nomine pares, nisi quod Esau ratione primogeniturae praeponendus videretur, ego tamen Jacob dilexi, id est, volui ei in sua posterilate benefacere; Esau autem odio habui, id est, posthabui ac rejeci, nolens singularia in ejus posteritatem beneficia conferre. Hic sensus est literalis verborum Prophetae. Quod liquet ex verbis ibidem sequentibus, quibus prosequitur de Esau: Et posui montes ejus in solitudinem, et haereditatem ejus in dracones deserti, etc. Jam hinc colligendum relinquit Apostolus, argumento a figura ad rem in figura ac mysterio significatam, neque electionem hominum ad aeternam salutem, neqae reprobationem esse ex ullis operum meritis; sed Deum, ex solo suae voluntatis arbitrio, alios eligere ad salutem, alios autem reprobare; non quod Deus aliquos damnare velit immerito, sed quia, sicut totus effectus praedestinationis non cadit sub merito, ita nec totus effectus reprobationis. Quod enim Deus aliquos permittit cadere in peccatum, cujus merito postea damnationem incurrant (quae quidem permissio primus est reprobationis effectus), non potest esse ex eorum merito; quandoquidem primi peccati permissionem nullum antecedit peccatum, quo illam mereri possent. Ac sane de electione seu praedestinatione, quod non sit ex meritis, clarum est ex Apostoli Pauli doctrina, variis in locis; praecipue vero ex iis, quae disserit hoc capite, sicut ex sequentibus amplius patebit. De reprobatione vero non perinde omnes consentiunt. Quidam enim dicunt, Apostolum in praesenti doctrina supponere massam humani generis infectam peccato originali, quam cum totam Deus ob illius peccati meritum reprobare potuisset, ad solam referunt Dei vohmtatem, quod ex ea aUos prae aHis gratuita sua bonitate separandos, atque ad salutem perducendos elegerit, ut proinde electio quidem istorum non sit ex merito, caeterorum autem reprobatio sit ex merito peccati, quo tota massa ponitur infecta. Nec alio sensu fatentur aliquos reprobari sine meritis, quam quia nulla ratio est ex parte hominum, cur alii prae aliis reprobentur, atque in massa [perditionis relinquantur, eo quod peccatum sit omnibus commune. Pro qua doctrina adducunt autoritatem B. Augustini, libro 1. ad Simpl. quaest. 2., enchiridii 98. epist. 105., atque alibi docentis, reprobationem Dei propterea non esse injustam, quia neminem reprobat, nisi ex merito peccati. Verum si diligenter expendantur ea, quae de electione et reprobatione ti'adit Apostolus hoc cap., prorsus apparebit ex ejus sententia, tam reprobationem, quam electionem absolute non ex ullis esse praevisis meritis. Primum enim in eo, quod dicit: cum nihil egissent aut boni, aut mali, tam excludit actionem malam Esau odio habiti, quam actionem bonam Jacob dilecti; et consequenter excludendum relinquit tam malum meritum reprobationis, quam bonum meritum electionis. Nam alioqui tantummodo dicendum erat: cum nihil egissent honi, si nempe solius vel dilectionis Jacob, vel electionis nostrae meritum excludere voluisset. Unde etiam liquet, Apostolum non supponere in hac sua disputatione massam corruptam peccato. Haec enim suppositio pugnat cum verbis Apostoli jara dictis. Sed nec eam admittunt, aut reprobationem ex meritis intelligi sinunt, quae deinceps sequuntur. Nam quaestioni, quam statim sibi movet: Numquid iniquitas apud Deum? non respondet, ideo non esse iniquitatem, quia tota massa peccato vitiata est, et omnes digni damnatione, — ut gratiae sit, inde quosdam eripere salvandos, justitiae, caeteros omnes in ea relinquere damnandos. — Sed ita respondet, ut tam horum reprobationem, quam illorum electionem referat in solam Dei voluntatem, eo tandem dicto curiosum interrogatorem compescens: O homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas Deo? Jam illud maxime, quod pro comparatione adfert de figulo, ex eadem massa luti faciente aUud quidem vas in honorem, aliud vero in contumeliam, massae corruptae hjpothesim excludit. Hic enim profecto nihil in massa supponitur, nisi quod sit indifi^"erens etformabilis ad utrumque, qualem utique esse oportet, ut voluntati et usui serviat hominis figuli. Verum haec res tota plenius in sequentibus explicabitur. In hanc porro sententiam acceperunt et interpretati sunt praesentem ApostoU de electione et reprobatione doctrinam Petrus Lombardus Ub. 1. sent. dist. 41. §. a. et d., nec non in comm. hujus loci; Hugo Victorinus iu hanc epist. quaest. 233. et 335.; S. Thomas in comment. lect. 3. et 4., atque aUbi; Cajetanus tam in comm. hujus loci, quam primae partis S. Thomae quaest. 23.; Liranus in hunc locum; F. Titelmannus in argum. hujus ad Rom. epist.; Pererius quoque in disp. 12. hujus cap. Denique scholastici doctores, in Magistrum scribentes, adeo multi, ut fateatur Thomas Ai-geutinensis, quamvis diversae opinionis assertor, hanc sententiam esse communem, sicut eam, quae praedestinationem ex meritis negat. Sed et Dominicus Sotus in retractationibus, quas subjunxit operi suo in 4. sent., in hanc sententiam ut probabiUorem incUnatur, retractans, quod in hujus loci commentario secus scripserat. Porro Cor. Jansenius tractans iUa verba Ecclesiastici 41.: Si nati fueritis, in maledictione nascemini, sententiam hanc habuit ita certam, ut errorem vocet eorum, qui propter praevisa impiorum mala merita asseruerunt quosdam U Deo reprobari. Caeteros hujus sententiae suffragatores, ne sim prolixior, omitto recensere, quorum complures citavimus ad dist. 41. lib. 1. sent., ubi quaestionem hanc de merito reprobationis satis operose, Deo juvante, tractavimus. Inde et caetera ad hujus doctrinae explicationem pertinentia petat, qui volet; atque illud iuter aha, quomodo sententia S. Augustini re ipsa ab hac doctrina non discrepet, ut qui reprobationem non accipiat eodem prorsus modo, quo S. Thomas et alii Theologi jam allegati, qui tamen alioqui suam doctrinam ex Augustini scriptis, post scripturam sacram, potissimum stabiliunt. Dicet aliquis, reprobationem a Paulo vocari odium Dei; injustum autem videri, si Deus aliquem odio habeat, nullis exsistentibus aut praevisis ejus meritis. Responsio: Paulus ipsam hominum reprobationem non vocat odium Dei, sed docet, eam significatam per odium Dei, de quo scriptum est: Esau odio habui. Ex quo sequitur quidem, reprobationem divinam non male vocari odium Dei, sicut eam Augustinus, Thomas, et alii interdum vocant; sed hoc nomen, ex mente Apostoli jam declarata, debet exponi sensu negato, non affirmato. Nam in quantum Deus quibusdam non vult hoc bonum, quod est vita aeterna, dicitur eos odio habere, ait Thomas 1. parte quaest. 23. art. 3. ad 1. Quod tamen non ita accipiendum, ac si odium tantum significet negationem alicujus actus in Deo; sed sic intelUge, Deum positive noUe eis dare bonum memoratum, hoc est, velle non dare, ut negatio sit objecti, non actus. Alii dicunt, reprobationem recte vocari odium Dei etiam affirmato sensu; non propter primum effectum, sed propter posteriores, maxime postremum, qui est aeterna damnatio. Sed ea significatio odii non convenit huic loco. Sic enim odium esset ex operibus, quod de odio, quo Deus odisse dicitur Esau (in quo fuit typus reproborum), negat hac disputatione Apostolus. Maneat igitur ea significatio odii, quam diximus. Siquidem et aUbi in scripturis odisse accipitur pro eo, quod est posthabere, negUgere, non curare, prae aUo contemnere, ut Judic. 14.: Odisti me, et non diligis. Luc. 14.: Si quis venit ad me, et non odit patrem suum et matrem, adhuc autem et animam suam, non potest meus esse discipulus. Joan. 12.: Qui odit animam suam in hoc mundo, in vitam aeternam custodit eam. Et apud hunc Apostolum Ephes. 5.: Nemo carnem suam odio habuit, sed nutrit et fovet eam. Eandem odii acceptionem esse puto in iUis verbis Matthaei 6.: Aut enim unum odio habebit, et alterum diliget. AUus quidam objicit, meritum odii seu reprobationis divinae memoratis Prophetae vel ApostoU verbis ab Esau nequaquam removeri, cum idem Apostolus, scribens ad Hebraeos 12., reprobationem Esau diserte in mala ejus opera referat: Ne quis, inquit, profanus ut Esau, qui propter unam escam vendidit primitiva. Scitote enim, quoniamet postea, cupiens haereditare benedictionem, reprobatus est. Sed factUs est responsio, reprobatum dici eo loco, id est, rejectum et neglectum a parte Isaac, cum ab eo benedictionem instantissime flagitaret. Hoc enim ei accidit in poenam praecedentis peccati, quia sciUcet tam profanus fuisset, ut pulmenti pretio venderet sua primogenita. Hic vero negat eum Apostohis ex operibus odio habitum, id est, reprobatum a Deo, quia, ut permitteretur incidere in peccata, quibus tandem mereretur a paterna benedictione excludi, nuUum erat ejus meritum, haud magis, quam fratris ejus Jacob meritum fuit uUum, ut simile quid pateretur. Et ita sane in eo, quod per typum significatur, res se habet. Damnationem merentur reprobi peccatis praecedentibus; qui tamen, secundum Apostohim, reprobati sunt non ex operibus, quia, quod permittantur cadere in peccata, pro quibus damnantur, non est ex merito. Notandum obiter, impertinens esse huic loco, an Esau sit reprobatus ea reprobatione, de qua disserit Apostolus; atque adeo non videri improbabile, quod post depositum fraternum odium, de quo Gen, 33., in vera religione a parentibus accepta defunctus, salutem adeptus sit. Quod enim hic dicitur Esau odio habitus a Deo, id, ex mente Prophetae, de odio seu rejectione quoad praerogativam temporalis ac terrenae felicitatis esse intelligendum, et non tam in ipsius Esau persona, quam in ejusposteritate completum fuisse, jamsuperius ostendimus. Non hic omittam paucis adjicere, quemadmodum sententia B. Augustini, discretionem electorum et reproborum ad solum Dei beneplacitum referentis, ut primum per Ecclesias fuit divulgata, multos etiam catholicos offenderit ac turbant, et a quibusdam etiam oppugnata fuerit; non solum ut dura et inhumana, verum etiam ut pietati inimica, quod per eam cura et studium, vel a peccatis resurgendi, vel in bono proficiendi, videretur fidelibus ademptum. Qua de re exstant epistolae, quas ad ipsum Augustinum dederunt e Gallia duo Episcopi, Prosper Regiensis et Hilarius Arelatensis. Sed et nostro saeculo non defuerunt, quimemoratamAugustinidoctriuamscriptis carperent, nonnulli palam etiam insectarentur; quorum fere princeps Ambrosius Catharinus in hujus loci comm. viginti quinque adversus eam argumentis pugnat. Verum, ut bene de Catharino respondetB.Pereriusinultimahujuscap.disp., ejus adversus Augustinum objectiones non sunt novae, nec recenter sive ab ipso, sive ab aliis hujus temporis hominibus inventae, sed eaedem cum illis, quae, vivente etiam tum Augustino, a Massiliensibus, aliisque Gallis adversus ipsum allatae fuerunt. Quae tamen nihil eum moverunt, quo minus sententiam suam constanter tueretur, et perseveranter teneret usque ad mortem, neque scandala, si qua inde nasci videbantur, curanda putaret, optime persuasus, scandabirum metu non esse dimittendam sanae doctrinae veritatem. Satis id docent duo ejus libri, de praedest. Gnil. Eatii Comm. Tom. I. sanct. et de dono persever. ad Prosperum et Hilarium rescripti, quibus etiam omnia Massiliensium argumenta, quae in illorum epistolis continebantur, refellit. Cujus deinde causam post ejus obitum B. Prosper suscepit ac defendit, atque ad caetera, si qua nova ab adversariis argumenta proferebantur, cum applausu et approbatione sanctorum Ecclesiae Pontificum, variis opusculis docte respondit. Beatus quoque Thomas, ait Pererius^ istiusmodi objectionibus et offensionibus et scandalis nihil perturbatus aut motus est, nec ab Augustini sentetitia deduci potuit. Quin ipsemet Apostolas, qui tantopere cavebat, ne cui scandalum daret, hanc tamen doctrinam praedestinationis et reprobationis hominum, licet videret, offensioni et scandalo fore multis veritatis et divinae scripturae ignaris, afiirmate et aperte tradere voluit iis sententiis, quas deinceps audiemus.
9:14
14. Quid ergo dicemus? Numquid iniquitas apud Deum? Absit. Iniquitas, Graece a.^w.a, injustitia. Quaestionem ex dictis sibi facit Apostolus. Nam si Deus sine praevisis operum meritis alios elegit, alios reprobat, injustus esse videtur, tum quia de aequalibus non aequaliter disponit, tum quia reprobat aliqaos immeritos. Atqui injustitiam adscribere Deo, impium est. Totam hanc objectionem repellit Apostolus testimonio scripturae subjuncto, ac directe quidem in electioneDei probat nihil esse injustitiae; caeterum ex consequenti idem relinquit intelligendum de reprobatione, ut infra videbimus.
9:15
15. Mosi enim dicit. Electionem, inquit, plane gratuitam et indebitam ostendunt verba Dei ad Mosen Exod. 33. Si autem indebita est electio, nulla igitur injustitia est apud Deum, quod non omnes eligat, quum iu gratuitis atque indebids locum habere non possit acceptio persorari;m, automnino iniqua distributio. Verba haec sunt:
Miserebor, cujus misereor, et misericordiam praestabo, cujus miserebor, Graecaplenius habent: Miserebor, cujuscumque misereor, et miserabor, quemcumque miseror. Leguntur haec totidem verbis apud LXX., a quibus ea Paulus accepit. Nam in Hebraeo omnia futuri temporis sunt verba. Sententiam vero Hieronymus interpres ita reddidit: Miserebor, cui voluero, et clemens ero, in quem mihi placuerit. Quaeversio nobis est loco commentarii. Significat enim, Deum misereri, quibuscumque voluerit, eligendo eos ad salutem ex solo beneplacito suae voluntatis. Utroque autem membro prorsus idem significatur, ne quis frustra laboret in quaerendo discrimine inter verbum priori et posteriori loco positum in quacumque lingua, quod facit Cajetanus, priori loco intelligens misericordiam conferentem bona gratuita, posteriori auferentem mala. Sed hoc frustra et sine fundamento. Nec sibi constat, quum in Exodum scribens, prius verbum exponat de interiore miserationis affectu, posterius de opere exteriori. Nobis dicere sufficiat, esse repetitionem inculcantis rem eandem, pro majore ejus confirmatione. Quod in scripturis Propheticis est frequens. Notandum est autem, Deum, haec verba dicentem ad Mosen, exprimere voluisse suam quandam insignem proprietatem, quod nimirum gratuitus sit benefactor, qui nulla lege ad praestanda beneficia sit adstrictus, sed ea pro arbitrio tribuat, quibus voluerit. Proinde, qui in hac parte exponenda miscent praevisionem operum, — ut commentator Ambr. et Pelagius, et si qui ahi, facientes hunc sensum: Miserebor ejus, quem dignum fore mea misericordia praevidero, utpote secuturum meam vocationem, eique assensurum, — ii Paulum non solum praeter ipsius mentem et scopum, sed etiam contra sensum verborum, quem liquido praeferunt, interpretantur.
9:16
16. Igiturnon volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei. Velle significat actum internum. In vocabulo cursus metaphora est, qua significatur exterior actio seu conversatio, cum studio et sedulitate conjuncta. Unde ait 1 Cor. 9.: Sic curro, non quasi in incertum. Et Gal. 3.: Bene currebatis. Porro hujus loci variae sunt expositiones apud veteres. Una, qua dictum hoc accipitur ex persona adversarii, velut rem absurdam inferentis ex Apostoli disputatione, tanquam inde sequatur, inanem esse omnem nostrum conatum, si Deus, miseretur, cujuscumque voluerit. Qua ratione etiam sequentia usque ad illud: 0 homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas Deo? existimant aeque dicta esse a Paulo, non in sua, sed contradicentis persona. Ita Chrysostomus, et apud Oecumenium Photius in hujus loci commentario, ac rursum Chrysost. hom. 12. in epist. ad Heb. Item Hieron. quaest. 10. ad Hedibiam. Meminit etiam Augustin. lib. depraedest. sanct. cap. 7. Verum post exortam haeresim Pelagii, cui patrocinari videbatur ejusmodi interpretatio (nam et ipse Pelagius eam suis commentariis in&eruit), merito rejecta est et improbata; praesertim cum neque contextui verborum Apostoli, nisi admodum violente, possit adaptari, nec scopo serviat Apostolicae disputationis, sed magis repugnet. Estigitur alter commentarius, quo accipiuntur quidem haec verba dicta ex persona Apostoli, sed cum exclusione intellecta in duobus prioribus membris, hoc modo: Quod quis bonum velit et operetur, non est volentis tantum, neque currentis tantum, scilicet hominis, sed etiam Dei miserentis. Hunc quoque sensum adducit Chrysost. locis memoratis, ac post eum Oecum. Indicat etiam Hieron. lib. 1. dial. adv. Pelag. cap. 2., et clare expressit Greg. Nazian. oratione 81. his verbis: Non volentis, id est, non solum volentis, nec currentis solum, sed etiam miserentis Dei. Similiter ante hos Origenes lib. 3. de principiis cap. 1. Qui sensus etsi verus sit, non tamenhuic loco convenit. Non enimexphcat ullo modoid, quod Apostolus intendit. Nam simili supplemento converti posset sermo: Non est miserentis Dei, sed volentis et currentis hominis; quia nimirum opus bonum non solius est Dei, sed etiam humanae vokmtatis. Quo inter alia argumento juste rejicit hanc expositionem August. compluribus locis, ut libr. 1. ad Simpl. qu. 2., encjh. 32., lib. de grat. et lib. arb. cap. 7., et in epist. 107. ad Vit. Eadem ratione etiam B. Thomas istum commentarium refellit, quod sermonem conversum, non est miserentis Dei, sed volentis et currentis, aures piae non ferant. Adfert autem Augustinus citatis jam locis hanc tertiam expositionem: Non est volentis, ut velit, neque currentis, ut currat, sed miserentis Dei, qui dat homini ipsum velle et currere, quasi dicat: Nec velle, nec operari quisquam habet a se ipso, sed totum accipit a Deo misericorditer ipsum per gratiam suam praeveniente. Quem sensum licet non aperte tradant Nazian., Chrysost. et Hieron., constat tamen partim ex locis eorum citatis, parthn ex aliis, ab hujus expositionis doctrina nequaqaam eos recessisse. Quod quidem operosius probare, non est praesentis instituti. Quamvis autem haec Augustini interpretatio sententiam et doctrinam contineat per omnia catholicam, non tamen omni ex parte congruere videtur instituto et contextui Apostolico. Disputat enim Apostolus de electione divina, quam superiori testimonio scripturae rejecerat in solam Dei miserentis voluntatem, atque inde concludit dicens: Igitur neque volentis, etc. Quare non de causa boni operis intelligenda est haec conclusio, sed de ipsa electione hominiun ad salutem, quemadmodum bene inter alios interpretatur Cajetanus; ut sit sensus: Quod quis sit electus a Deo, non est ex merito bonae voluntatis, neque ex merito boni operis seu conversationis praecedentis aut praevisae, sed ex solo ac libero beneplacito Dei miserentis. Ex qua etiam interpretatione liquet, quam prave detorqueaut hanc sententiam haeretici contra liberum arbitrium. Non enim causam boni nostri operis, sed meritum divinae electionis negat Apostolus constituendum in nostra voluntate ac nostro opere. Et alioqui, non solum libertas voluntatis, sed et ipsa voluntas destrueretur hoc argumento, quia dicitur, non volentis. Quod nec ipsi volunt adversarii. Interim vide, lector, quemadmodum sanctus Thomas in suo comment. doceat, per hancApostoli sententiam liberum hominis arbitrium non excludi.
9:17
17. Dicit enim scriptura Pharaoni. Quid hic jam probare velit Apostolus, haud facile apparet. Existimant plerique, eum, quod de electione docuit, idem nunc ex alio scripturae testimonio docere de reprobatione; scilicet in Deo nullam posse notari injustitiam, dum aliquos odio habet seu reprobat, absque illorum meritis. Sed quonam id docet argumento? Non enim sequitur: In hoc excitavit Deus Pharaonem, ut ostendat in eo virtutem suam etc, ergo juste eum sine meritis reprobavit. Nam responderi posset, non siae malo suo merito Pharaonem a Deo excitatum fuisse; aut certe, si sine omni merito, non tamen juste factum, ostendi ex eo solo, quia ad bonum finem ordinatum est. Nam ad bonos fines aliquando media mala et injusta assumuntur. Deinde, si hic probare vellet Apostolus alteram partem doctrinae, non 'uteretur conjunctione causali: dicit enim} sed copulativa: dicit etiam. Id enim exigeret contextus sermonis. Itaque potius dicendum, quemadmodum superius indicavi, in priori testimonio: Miserebor, cujus misereor, etc, contineri probationem utriusque, scilicet justae elec-tionis simulet justaereprobationis: quamvis tam haec, quam illa ad nulla respiciat merita ejus, qui vel reprobatur, vel eligitur. Etenim si nulla est Dei injustitia misericorditer ac gratuito eligentis aliquos prae aliis, ubi nulla sunt merita, nulla quoque ejusdem erit injustitia alios non eligentis, sed permittere volentis, ut in peccata labantur, quorum merito sint aeterna morte puniendi, quod est reprobare; quemadmodum luculente docet S. Thomas 1. par. quaest. 23. art. 3. Consequitur ergo per necessariam illationem reprobatio sine meritis justa ex electione gratuita. Quare liquet, ad utramque vindicandam ab injustitia, valere et sufficere scripturam allegatam. Quorsum ergo, dices, subnectit Apostolus alterum hoc testimonium de Pharaone? Respondeo: ut hoc exemplo doceat, quod pro arbitrio ac sine cujusquam injuria facere Deus potest, non tamen id eum facere, nisi sapientissime et cum ratione; dum videlicet illud ordinat ad finem manifestandae suae potentiae, suique nominis celebrandi. Itaque, tanquam quaereretur, quaenam sit ratio, cur ita faciat Deus, ex scriptura rationem adfert. Dicit enim, inquit, scriptura Pharaoni, id est, scriptura narrat, dictum esse Pharaoni, scilicet a Deo perMosen, quando ille pertinaciter negabat, se populum Dei dimissurum. Historia est Exodi 9.
Quia in hoc ipsum excitavi te. In Hebraeo: statui te, stare te feci, vel, ut Hieronymus xevtit, posui te, pro quo LXX. transtulerunt: C07is€rta<ws esusquenunc. Chaldaeus quoque Paraphrastes et Munsterus reddunt, conservavi te. Sed et hoc loco commentatorAmb. legit: servavite; tametsi fatetur, alios codices habere: sus-^ citavi te. Et quidem phrasis i\\a,posui te, in scripturis idem significare videtur, quod, esse te feci, produxi te in medium, promovi te ad hoc aut illud. Sonat enim destinationem, quae fit adhibitis mediis aptis et convenientibus ad finem propositum, utPsal. 17.: Constitues, seu pones^ me in caput gentium. Joan. 15.: Elegi vos, et posui vos, ut eatis et fructum afferatis. Et Paulus 1 Thess. 3.: Scitis, quod in hoc positi sumus. Et cap. 5.: Non posuit nos Deus in iram, sed in acquisitionem salutis. Item Petrus 1. epistolae 2.: Nec credunt, in quod et positi sunt. Rursum Deut. 28.: Constituet te Dominus in caput, non in caudam, quamvis illic in Hebraeo est: dabit te, sed idem significatur; quemadmodum et Jesaiae 49.: Dedi te in lucem gentium, dedi te in foedus populi. Eadem porro est ratio de verbo excitandi seu suscitandi ut Deut. 18.: Prophetam suscitabo eis de medio fratrum suorum, et 28.: Suscitabit te Dominus sibi inpopulum sanctum. Judic. 3.: Suscitavit eis salvatorem. 1 Regum 2.: Suscitabo mihi sacerdotem fidelem. Et alibi saepissime. Haec ad phrasim illustrandam adducta sint. Sensum autem Mosi et Pauli sequentia docebunt. Lt ostendam in te virtutem meam, et ut annuntietur nomenmeuminuniversa terra. Sensus totius sententiae est: In hoc ipsum, id est, ad eum finem posui et excitavi te, servavi atque promovi, videlicet non solum permittendo, sed multa tam intus quam foris operando, sensibusque objiciendo, quae tibi futura essent occasio majoris contumaciae ac duritiae cordis; ad eum finem, inquam, ut in te, sive circa te, potentiam meam divinam, per multa stupenda et horrenda signa, exercerem ethominibus manifestarem, quo per haec nomen meum celebraretur ubique terrarum. Quod utique factum esse constat, in eo maxime, quod, filiis Isragl per mare rubrum traductis, rex Pharao cum toto Aegyptiorum exercitu in eodem mari submersus et suffocatus est; ut in eo praeclare locum habuerit illud sapientis Proverb. 16.: Omnia propter semetipsum operatus est Dominus, impium quoque ad diem malum. Excitationem illam hoc modo interpretatur, et luculente exponit ex sententia B. August. lib. de grat. et lib. arbit. cap. 20. et 21. S. Thomas in hujus loci comment.
9:18
18. Ergo, cujus vult, miseretur, et quem vult, indurat. Concludit ex praecedentibus, ac potissimum ex illa sententia, qua dixit: miserebor, cujus misereor, etc. Nam ex ea plene intellecta, sicut ante docui, sequitur utrumque conclusionis membrum; scilicet Deum pro sola ac libera sua vokmtate sine respectu operum, hos quidem eligere, alios autem reprobare, sive ut hic loquitur, indurare. Notandum enim, indurationem hoc loco poni pro tota hominis derelictione, comprehensaetiam prima permissione peccati, cujus merito postea quis induretur. Siquidem et in priori parte misericordiam generaliter accipit pro tota congerie effectuum praedestinationis, in quaprimus gratiae effectus vel maxime continetur. Sic alibi nomine salutis totam hominis reparationem, cujus initium estafide, complectitur, ut ad Tit. 3.: Non ex operibus justitiae, quae fecimus nos, sed secundum suam misericordiam salvos nos fecit. Quod si solus ac seorsim consideretur indurationis effectus, non utique sine merito est peccati praecedentis. Unde et ipse Pharao non sine merito praecedentium peccatorum, ac nominatim peccati originalis, fuit a Deo derelictus, et ita derelictus, ut tandem induresceret in malo. Sed ideo dicit Apostolus, quem vult, indurat, quod induratio sive Pharaonis, sive cujusquam alterius, in prima sua velut origine, quae est prima derelictio seu peccati permissio, non aliam habeat causam, quam Dei voluntatem. Interpretatur indurationem hoc modo B. Augustinus quaest. 2. ad Simplicianum, dicens ac subinde repetens, Deum obdurare, quia non miseretur, et, quod dicit Paulus, quem vult, indurat, tale esse, ac si diceretur: cujus non vult, non miseretur. Quomodo autem Deus etiam juxta posteriorem reprobationis effectum induret hominem, nec tamen sit causa duritiae ejus, ut ex hoc loco volunt haeretici, satis jam liquet ex iis, quae paulo ante dicta sunt de Pharaone. Qua de re vide, quae scribit August. quaest. 18. super Exod., et quae Thomas rursus in comment. Nos quoque de eadem re plenius egimus ad distinct, 40. libro 1. sentent., disserentes de eftectibus reprobationis.
9:19
19. Dicis itaque mihi. Graece et Syriace: Dices. Adversarium facit objicientem sibi hoc, quod sequitur:
Quid adhuc queritur? Id est, conqueritur, querulatur. Graece /jiSfjKpsxat^ quod etiam verti potest, irascitur, succenset. Falluntur autem, qui verbum hoc aut impersonaliter exponunt, ut Faber, aut passive, quemadmodum accipi posse putat Laurentius; quamvis uterque veriorem etiam sententiam non rejicit. Sensus enim planus est: At dices mihi: Si Deus, quos vult, eligit, et quos vult, reprobat, cur non contentus facere pro libito, quae vult, etiam conqueritur de hominibus apud prophetas, et irascentis more gravia comminatur, quod ad ipsum non convertantur, ut salvi fiant?
Voluntati enim ejus, quis resistit? Id est, resistere potest? Male quidam ex Graeco vertendum putant, quis restitit. Nam Graecum praeteritum, av^Eaxr^xe vim praesentis habet, perinde ut simplex soTTjxs. Sensusest: Quis potest frustrare divinam voluntatem, ut non fiat, quod voluit? ac si dicat: Nemo. Scriptum est enim: Omnia, quaecumque voluit, fecit, Psal. 113., et ex Dei persona: Omnis voluntas mea fiet, Isa. 46., et: Non re~ sistet mihi homo, ibidem 47. Est autem sermo de voluntate Dei absoluta, quam beneplaciti voluntatem appellant Theologi, quae et proprie voluntas est. Hujusmodi (inquam) est Dei voluntas, qua alios eligit, alios reprobat. Nam voluntati Dei, quae in praeceptis et prohibitionibus consistit, et signi voluntas dicitur, resistunt omnes, qui peccant. Sequitur Apostoli responsio: deas Deo? Graece, fi£vouvye_, d> av^pcoTie. Atqui, o homo. Nec enim otiosa est illa particula ab interprete omissa, sed intendit orationem cum reprehensione adversarii. Legitur etiam Lucae 11., ubi noster vertit: Quinimo beati, qui audiunt verbum Dei, etc. Rursum pro eo, qui respondeas, in Graeco est participium 6 avTa7roxp'.v6/j.£voz, id est, contra, sive ex adverso respondens, ac si dicat: Tu quis es, qui disputas cum Deo? Hominem te cogita, illum Deum; ita desines cum illo velle in disputationem venire et ejus judicia discutere. Non deficit in solvenda quaestione Paulus, tanquam se convertat ad objurgationem, ratione destitutus, — quod vel stultos, vel impios quosdam dixisse refert August. ench. cap. 99., et quaest. 68. inter. 83. — Poterat enim respondere, Deum juste queri de peccatoribus, quia propriae voluntatis electione peccant, cum possint non peccare, liberum habentes arbitrium. Sed studium Apostoli fuit non tam ad objectionem respondere, quam ad causam objiciendi. Concluserat enim: Ergo, cujus vult, miseretur, et quem vult, indurat, unde nata eratilla adversarii objectio: Quid adhuc queritur? Voluntati enim ejus quis resistit? Respondet itaque de voluntate Dei eligente et reprobante, negans, ejus rationem ab homine, qui creatura et figmentum Dei est, scrutandam esse; imo ab exemplo figuli ostendens, Deum hoc facere pro libertate suae voluntatis absque alia ratione; quemadmodum recte locum hunc Thomas exposuit. Bene notanda in responsione Pauli antithesis inter hominem et Deum, id est, inter creaturam et creatorem. Nimis enim absurdum et improbum est, creaturam velle adversus Deum creatorem suum contendere, ejusque facta arguere. Quod utique facere vidotur, qui de Deo dicit: quid adhuc queritur? Absurditatem vero ostendit ex comparatione figmenti et figuli.
9:20
Numquid dicit figmentum ei, qui se finxit. Graece: Num dicet figmentum, ei, qui finxit, id est, figulo.
Quid me fecisti sic? Sic non ad modum fingendi, sed ad qualitatem figmenti pertinet, ut verti possit: cur me tale finxisti? Numquid, ait Apostolus, vas fic^iie jure poterit expostulare cum figulo, cur ipsum tale aut tale fecerit? ac si dicat: Minime. Hoc proprie ad reprobos accommodatur. Nam electi non habent, quod querantur aut expostulent, sed unde gratias agant; reprobi autem videri possunt habere rationem aliquam querelae, si sine meritis reprobantur, non autem s: ex meritis. Igitur etiam ex hac interrogatione colligitur, reprobationem non esse ex meritis. Porro comparationem hanc adducit Apostohis imitatus prophetas, Jesaiam cap. 45. et Jeremiam cap. 18., licet non aeque ad utrumque respexerit, ut infra dicemus.
9:21
21. An non habet potestatem figulus luti, ex eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud vero in contumeliam? Contumeliam, Graece axifitav, id est, ignominiam, quae honori opponitur. Est enim allusio vocum in Graeco tic, Ti.fA7jv_, sic; anfjitav. Quod Latine reddas licet, ad decus, ad dedecus. Est et metaphora, qua honor et ignominia rebus tribuitur inanimatis. Porro vas Hebraeo more capitur pro instramento, sive sit vas proprie dictum, id est cavum, et liquoris receptaculum, sive aliud quodlibet. Unde legimus vasa mortis et vasa interfectionis, pro telis mortiferis Psal. 7. et Ezech. 9., et vasa Psalmi pro instrumentis psallendi Psal. 70. Ita Paulus vas electionis vocatur Act. 9., id est, organum electum. Quamquam et Graecum vocabulum axeuof; latius patet, quam ad ea, quae vulgo vasa vocamus. Comprehendit enim utensilia fere omnis generis. Hinc compositum ejus aTtoaxeuT]^ id est supellex, sarcinae et impedimenta exercitus, etiam moventia. Sic enim accipitur ea vox apud LXX. interpretes Exod. 12., quemadmodum bene declarat August. quaest. 47. super Exod. Quin et Latino vasorum nomine interdum tota supellex apud Livium significatur. Caeterum vasa liquoris capacia Graeci proprie ayxsTa vocant; cujusmodi sunt ut plurimum, quae fiunt a figulis. Haec curiosius fortasse, nisi conducerent etiam ad alias scripturas intelligendas. Igitur Apostoli hic sensus est: Cum figulus ex luto sua fingens opera, liberam habeat potestatem fingendi ex eadem massa luti aliud quidem vas sive opus ad usura honestum, aliud A^ero ad usum vilem et inhonestum, cur non liberrima sit potestas Deo, ut ex eadem massa humani generis aiios eligat et faciat vasa ad honorem, alios reprobet, faciatque vasa ad ignominiam? Faciat, inquam, vasa ad honorem per effectus suae electionis, et vasa ad ignominiam per effectus reprobationis. Ostendit haec comparatio, quemadmodum in partibus massae luteae non est ratio, cur vel ex hac parte fiat vas in honorem, vel ex illa vas in contumeliam, ita in hominibus, velut partibus unius massae humani generis, non esse rationem, cur vel hic eligatur, vel ille reprobetur. Non igitur in hac disputatione supponit Apostolus massam corruptam aut damnatam, licet etiam de ea, secundum Augustini expositionem, habeat veritatem Apostoli sententia; sed intelligit massam absolute, qualis erat etiam massa angelorum, ex qua alii electi sunt, alii reprobati. Nam scriptura passim adhibens comparationem luti, quod pro suo libito format figulus, de luto loquitur absolute, nullum ejus vitium supponens, sed solam ejus naturam considerans, qua formabile est ad omne opus figulinum. Unde nec ait Apostolus, figulum ex eadem massa aliud facere vas in honorem, aliud in ignominia massae relinquere, sed ex eadem massa facere iu ignominiam. Neque dixit, figmentum ei, qui se finxit, non dicere: Cur me reliquisti in massa corrupta? Sed: Cur me fecisti sic? id est, vas ignominiosum et reprobum. Satis igitur aperte ex hac similitudine, quam sumpsit a figulo et massa lutea, facit intelligi, tam electionem, quam reprobationem ex meritis non esse. Sed hoc argumentum eludere quidam conantur. Dicunt enim hanc similitudinem aPaulo petitam esse ex Jeremia cap. 18., ubi, commemorato exemplo figuli vas ex luto facientis, atque id ipsum dissipantis, ac rursus ex eo fingentis aliud, quale voluit, Deum introducit ita loquentem: Ecce, sicut lutum in manu figuli, sic vos in manu mea, domus Israel. Qua in re tamen ad merita tam bona, quam mala Deum respicere, docent haec ejus verba subjuncta: Repente loquar adversum gentem, et adversus regnum, ut eradicem, et destruam, 'et disperdam illud. Si poenitentiam egerit gens illa a malo suo, quod locutus sum adversus eam; agam et ego poenitentiam super malo, quod cogitavi, ut facerem ei, et subito loquar de gente et de regno, ut aedificem et plantem illud, et quae sequuntur. Unde consequens esse volunt, etiam Paulum, eadem figuli similitudine utentem, haudquaquam merita hominum excludere voluisse, sed potius ea ex altero scripturae loco intelligenda reliquisse. Quibus responsum sit, ex eadem re similitudinem accipi posse ad diversa significanda; nam et Christus, et diabolus, leoni comparantur in scripturis. Nec verum esse, quod ad Jeremiae locum Paulus proprie respiciat; quin potius manifesta est verborum ejus allusio ad locum Jesaiae cap. 45., ubi sic legitur: Vae, qui contradicit fictori suo, testa de samiisterrae. Numquid dicit lutum figulo: Quid facis? et: Opus tuum ahsque manihus est? Quae sane verba significant, ita Deum pro mero suo beneplacito statuere de rebus humanis in utramlibet partem, quomodo figulus ex luto facit opus, quodcumque voluevit. Quo pertinet etiam, quod sequitur: Vae, qui dicit patri, quid generas? et mulieri, quid parturis? Quod enim meritum hominis, ut parentes eum talem aut talem gignant? Igitur eo adducuntur hae comparationes ab Jesaia propheta, ut per eas ostendat, Deum filios Israel non pro ipsorum arbitrio, sed pro sua voluntate dispensare, quemadmodum sanctus Hieronymus loquitur, eum locum explanans. Jeremias vero ex adducta similitudine figuli tantum id voluit, Deo tam facile esse, vel adversa vel prospera gentibus et regnis immittere, quam facile est figulo, opus suum, adhuc molle, quassare et refoi-mare. Hic ergo propheta fingendi ac refingendi facilitatem in figulo consideravit, ille quidlibet efiingendi nullo praeventammerito voluntatis Ubertatem. Quam quidem etiam Ecclesiasticus spectavit quando dixit cap. 33.: Quasi lutum figuli in manu ipsius, sic homo in manu illius, qui se fecit, quemadmodum bene docet Jansenius in ejus loci comment. Hoc ipsum autem Paulum Apostolum velle in adducta figuli similitudine, tota series disputationis ejus declarat.
9:22
22. Quod si Deus volens ostendere iram, et notam facere potentiam suam. Postquam docuit, non aliam esse rationem, cur Deus in particulari hos eligat. illos reprobet, quam liberrimam ejus voluntatem, nunc rationem adfert, cur in generali Deus alios eligere voluerit, alios reprobare; rationem, inquam, non ex eorum praevisis meritis, sed ex causa finali. Ac reprobationis quidem causam assignat manifestationem tam justitiae, quam potentiae Dei, qua vindicat peccata; electionis vero causam indicat manifestationem bonitatis ejus ac misericordiae, qua quibusdam etgratiam largitur, et gloriam; ut sic tam in reprobis, quam in electis, Deus secundum diversa sua opera, quae circa illos exercet, glorificetur; utpote qui omnia finaliter ordinat ac dirigit ad suam gloriam. De hac generali ratione electionis et reprobationis vide, quae scribit B. Thomas doctissime in hujus loci comm. et in Summa par. 1. quaest. 23. art. 5. ad 3. Verba Apostoli exponamus: Quod si, inquit, Deus volens ostendere iram, id est, declarare justitiam suam vindicativam, quae utique ostenditur per actus punitionis et vindictae peccatorum (hanc enim iram vocat, anthropopathice de Deo* loquens, more scripturae). et notam facere potentiam suam, in puniendis impiis, quantumcumque illi magni et potentes fuerint, cujusmodi sunt reges inter homines, ut Pharao, cujus supra meminit, quales item angeli secundum naturam, et maxime supremus angelorum, tametsi hoc quidem loco de solis hominibus Paulus loquitur. Adjungit autem hanc causam, id est, ostensionem potentiae divinae, velut causam finalem reprobationis potius, quam electionis (licetet circa electos suamDeus ostendat potentiam), eo quod potentia magis declaretur in subactione et punitione malorum, quorum permanet repugnans voluntas, quam in exaltatione bonorum, quorum tandem omnino perfectus erit cum Dei voluntate consensus.
Sustinuit in multa patientia vasa irae, apta in interitum. Hujus pericopes singula paene verba egent explicatione. Sustinuit, Graece ^vByx.ev, id est, tulif. Sed ut Latinum tuUt duobus modis intelligi potest, attulit, id est, adduxit, aut pertulit, id est, sustinuit, toleravit, ita et Graecum '^vsyxe; qaemadmodum Graeci interpretes Theophylactus et Oecumenius annotarunt. Augustinus in expositione hujus loci et alibi passim legit attulit. Atque hoc significatum verbi Graeci attendit Syrus paraphrastes, dum ita reddit hunc locum: Induxit, sive intulit pro magna longanimitate sua iram super vasa irae. Ubi videmus paraphrasten aliquid addere de sao, videlicet iram, ut sensum perficiat. Idem faciendum significat Oecumenius his verbis: Quemadmodum in vasa irae tulit iram, multa primum usus longanimitate, ita et in vasa misericordiae tulit benignitatem. Quamquam, etiamsi legamus attulit, non opus videtur hujusmodi supplemento. Potest enim illa pars, in interitum, etsi cohaereat cum participio aptata, simul etiam referri ad verbum attulit sive adduxit • ut sensus sit, Deum ad hoc adduxisse vasa irae, ad quod aptata sunt, id est, ad perditionem. Verumtamen alter sensus, secundum quem tulit idem.est, quod pertulit, sustinuit, multo receptior est. Sed et August. quaest. 68. inter. 83. legit ex alia quapiam versione pertulit. Graeci quoque diserte in hunc sensum exponunt, ut dicatur Deus cum multa patientia tolerasse vasa irae, tanto gravius ea tandem puniturus, quanto diutius toleraverit. Qui sensus utcumque respondet parti praecedenti. Sustinet enim Deus eos, quos scit non corrigendos, ut in eis postea suam iram ac potentiam ostendat. Sed sciendum est, Graecum aoristum rjvzyxa in hac significatione rarius inveniri. Certe in sacris literis legisse non memini, cum hujus significationis alia passim legantur ave;(£a{>at^ oxeysiv, oTzoniveiv. Qimcirca prior sensus forte plus habet probabilitatis, praesertim cum ct actum divinae reprobationis expressius contineat, qui est, adducere in interitum, videlicet dimittendo, excoecando, obdurando. Addit autem, in multa patientia, Graece /iaxpo^ujj.ta^ id est, lenitate, quam longanimitatem interpres vertit supra cap. 2., ut ostendat, etiam reprobos benignitate ac patientia Dei plerumque invitari ad poenitentiam, etproindereprobationem non obstare, quo minus converti possint. Nam reprobatio nihil subtrahit de potentia reprobati, ut ait S. Thomas 1. parte quaest. 23. art. 3. ad 3. Alludit autem Apostolus ad exemplum superius allatum de Pharaone, populi Dei oppressore, quem non statim Deus occidit, sed prius multis suorum plagis admonitum, tandem in interitum demersit. Tacite quoque videtur innuere hac parte quandam reprobationis causam finalem a praecedentibus diversam, etsi non aeque principalem. Non solum enim Deus in reprobis puniendis ostendit justitiam suam atque potentiam, verum etiam in iis ad poenitentiam exspectandis, licetpoenitentiam non acturis, patientiam seu longanimitatem. Porro reprobos vocat Apostolus vasa irae, et mox electos vasa misericordiae, respiciens ad superiorem comparationem figuli et vasorum ejus; quatenus scilicet illos reprobat Deus, ut in iis ostendat iram suam, hos autem eligit, ut in eis ostendat suam misericordiam. Quod enim Cajetanus et alii nonnulli hic annotant, vasa irae et misericordiae dici, quod plena sint irae vel misericordiae divinae, Deo videlicet iram vel misericordiam iu ea fundente, tanquam in vasa subjecta, legitur quidem aliquid tale etiam apud August. epist. 157. ad Opt., arbitror tamen esse praeter mentem Apostoli, cui vas in genere significat instrumentum, ut ante dixi. Idque confirmat expositio S. Thomae, qui vasa irae interpretatur instrumenta justitiae, quibus scilicetDeus utitur ad ostendendam iram, id est, justitiam vindicativam; et similiter vasa misericordiae, quibus, tanquam instrumentis, utitur Deus ad suam misericordiam manifestandam. Sequitur: apta in interitum. Apta, Graece, aptata. Quod et in quibusdam legitur Latinis mss., pro quo commentator Amb. praeparata. Caeterum Augustinus pas.sim legit: quae perfecta sunt adperditionem. Et quidem Graeca xaTT^pTtapisva significat interdum perfecta ac suis partibus absoluta, sive coagmentata, ut quidam vertit. Verum ea significatio non convenit huic lolo. Sentit enim Apostolus irae vasa parata esse ad exitium, sive apparata, ut vertit Erasmus. Sed quo sensu vasa irae dicantur aptata, id est, praeparata ad interitum, quaeritur, cum reprobationis divinae causa finalis non sit interitus et damnatio hominum, sed declaratio justitiae Dei in eorum damnatione, uti dictum est. Graeci tractatores dicunt, ea praeparata esse ad interitum, non a Deo, sed a se ipsis, aeternam perditionem sibi praeparantibus per sua peccata, quibus illam merentur. Sic etiam exponunt Aquinas et Cajetanus. Verum si phrasim hanc Scripturae expendamus, simulque attendamus ad ea, quae praecedunt et sequuntur, magis videbitur haec aptatio seu praeparatio vasorum irae in interitum Deo attribui. Nam vasa non a se ipsis aptari dicuntur, sed a figulo. Et jam dixerat Apostolus, ipsum figulum facere non solum quaedam vasa in honorem, sed etiam alia contumeliam. Atque idem de vasis misericordiae statim subjicit, Deum ea praeparasse in gloriam. Dicitur autem Deus vasa irae praeparasse ad interitum, non quia praeparavit eis peccata, quibus interitum mererentur, sicut praeparavit electis bona opera, quibus gloriam consequerentur, eodem Paulo teste Eph. 2.: Creati in operibus bonis, quae praeparavit Deus, ut in illis ambulemus. Hunc enim sensum haereticum prudenter exclusit Apostolus addendo: in multa jjatientia. Nam si Deus ipsa peccata hominibus praepararet, non recte diceretur erga homines peccatores uti multa patientia. Siquidem patientia, tametsi metaphorice Deo attributa, referri debet ad aliquid Deo involitum, quod proinde Deus ipse nec faciat, nec faciendum procuret, aut praeparet. Sed praeparasse dicitur irae vasa ad interitum, quia illis ab aetemo praeparavit, id est, praeordinavit atque inferre constituit interitum; sicut vasa misericordiae praeparavit ad gloriam, uti mox dicetur, quia iis ab aeterno praeparavit, hoc est, praeordinavit et dare constituit gloriam; eo tamen discrimine, quod his etiam merita gloriae praeparavit ab aeterno, non item illis merita damnationis. Hunc sensum confirmat locus Matth. 25., ubi quemadmodum electis dicitur a mundi constitutione ^ id est, ab aeterno praeparatum esse regnum, sic et reprobis praeparatus esse dicitur ignis aeternus, utrumque scilicet praeparatum a Deo. Itaque praeparatio haec in Scripturis non effectum aliquem voluntatis Dei, sed ipsam aeternam praeordinaticnem significat. Commentator Amb. itidem ad Deum refert hanc praeparationem, sed eam intelligit, quae fit in tempore. Dicit enim, voluntate et longanimitate Dei praeparari inCdeles ad poenam. ISam, inquit, patientia et longanimitas Dei ipsa est, quae sicut malospraeparatad interitum, ita et bonos praeparat ad coronam. Quod intellige, peroccasionem. Verum contextui magis quadrat, quod prius dixi, praeparationem significari, quae est ab aeterno. Porro quamvis Deus reprobos ad interitum praeparaverit ex ipsorum meritis, illud tamen ex meritis non est, sed ex so- ]a Dei vohintate, quod eos permittat cadere in peccata, quibus interitum mereantur; quae quidem permissio primus est, ut ante dixi, reprobationis effectus, a quo caeteri pendent. Quem effectum si comprehendamus in eo, quod Apostolus dicit, Deum, ut iram suam et potentiam ostenderet, attulisse vasa irae aptata in interitum, erit et hoc intelligendum absque meritorum respectu: quod volebat comparatio de luto et figulo, quae proxime sententiam hanc antecedit.
9:23
23. Ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit in gloriam. Graece: x«l Xva yvcjptOTj^ et ut notas faceret. Copulantem voculam nonnulli etiam Latinorum addunt, ut commentator Amb. et August lib. 2. cont. duas epist. Pelag. cap. 7., et alibi, licet e diverso nonnuUa quoque Graeca eam non agnoscant. Partem hanc alii aliter ad superiora referunt. Quidam enim existimant, quomodo parte praecedenti assignata est ratio reprobationis in genere, scilicet ostensio justitiae et potentiae divinae, ita hic seorsim, tanquam altero totius sententiae membro, adferri rationem electionis, quae est manifestatio bonitatis ac misericordiae Dei ex eo, quod provehit ad gloriam electos. Ita sentiunt Oecumenius ■, Aquinas et Cajetanus. Secundum quem intellectum haec pars cum supplemento erit explicanda, vel hoc modo: Item si Deus sustinuit cum multa patientia vasa misericordiae, ut in eis ostenderet divitias gloriae suae; vel isto modo, quem tradit Oecumenius: Et si Deus tulit, id est adduxit, vasa misericordiae ad salutem, ut in eis ostenderet, etc. At vero plerique, sensum ex Apostoli verbis obvium sequentes, intelligunt hac parte aliam adhuc annecti rationem reprobationis in genere; nempe manifestationem divinae bonitatis erga vasa misericordiae. Non enim satis apparerethaec Dei misericordia, neque satis ab hominibus aestimaretur, si esset omnibus communis, nec ulli permitterentur iu peccata cadere, pro meritis puniendi. Horum quippe comparatione manifestatur, ampliusque commendatur immensa Dei bonitas erga electos, quemadmodum pulchre docet Augustinusinsupradicta adOpt. epist., hunc ipsum Apostoli locum tractans. Notandum tamen, etiam secundum hunc sensum indicari hac parte, saltem ex consequenti, rationem electionis jam dictam. Si enim bonitas Dei, quam electis exhibet, manifestatur ex derelictione et punitione reproborum, quanto magis innotescit ex proprio opere, quod est, electis gratiam et gloriam conferre? Quamquam illud verum, ex comparatione reproborum, tanqixam juxtapositione contrarii, beneficium electionis amplius illustrari. In vocabulo gloriae priori loco posito metonymia est, qua nominatur effectus pro causa. Maxime enim per opera bonitatis et misericordiae Deus glorificatur. Itaque sensus est: Ut notam celebremque redderet opulentam ac superabundantem bonitatem suam, quam exercetin vasa misericordiae, id est, in electos, quibus gloriam et regnum aeternum praeparavit. Quaedam Graeca legunt: etg 66- $av oLzoo, ad gloriam suam, id est, Dei. Sed verisimile est, auxoD adjectitium esse. Nam opponit Apostolus vasis irae, aptatis ad interitum, vasa misericordiae praeparata ad gloriam, utique ipsorum, sicut illa aptata ad ipsomm interitum; tametsi ulterius ad Dei gloriam cedat horum utrumque. Porro tota sententia adhuc pendet, quam quidam absolvi putant illa interrogatione, quae post multos sequitur: Quid ergo dicemus? videlicet omnia media parenthesi claudentes. Sed mihi non videtur, tum propter hyperbaton nimis longum, tum quod illa interrogatio cum iis, quae deinde sequuntur, parum apte respondeat huic initio: Quod si Deus, etc. Proinde rectius est, quod Oecumenius suggerit, quodque Sedulius affirmat etiam aliis placuisse, ut pendens haec oratio compleatur repetitione ejus, quod supra dixerat: 0 homo, tu quis es, qui respondeas De»? quasi dicat: Si Deus ita voluit, nec temere, sed summa ratione, tam ex parte reproborum, quam electorum, sicut jam explicatum est, tu quis es, qui Deum arguas, aut cum eo disputes? Alii supplent repetendo ex ea sententia, quae proxime praecessit, haec verba: An non habet potestatem. Quod mihi certe non minus probabile est.
9:24
24. Quos et vocavit nos. Docet electis non solum contingere gloriam ex electione divina, sed et media procurari ad gloriam, cujusmodi est vocatio ad fidem et gratiam Evangelii. Intelligit autem vocationem secundum propositum, quo epitheto eam signavit cap. praecedenti, dicens: iis, qui secundum propositum vocati sunt. Addit nos (licet in Graecis quibusdam desideratum), utin iis, ad quos scribit, fiduciam excitet electionis, id est, ut se reputent inter vasa misericordiae. Ne autem dicendo: nos, videretur de solis loqui Judaeis ipse Judaeus, addit:
Non solum ex Judaeis, sed etiam ex gentibus. Et quidem magis ex gentibus, quam ex Judaeis, ut probant sequentia.
9:25
25. Sicut in Osee dicit. Graece addita conjunctione: sicut et in Osee dicit. Sic etiam mss. quaedam Latina, et Augustinus in expositione propositionum.
Vocabo Non-plebem meam plebem meam', et Non-dilectam dilectam; etNonmisericordiam consecutam misericordiam consecutam. Multi codices mss. post. Hieronymum scribentem super Osee 1., ubi totum hunc locum recitat, membrum medium, et Non-dilectam dilectam, omittunt; uti nec agnoscunt in suis commentariis Haimo et Hervaeus. At Graeca exemplaria cum ejusdem linguae commentatoribus omnibus, legunt illud quidem, sed tollunt postremum, et Non-misericordiam consecutam, etc. Atque his etiam accedunt commentator Amb. et August. hunc locum citans sub finem libri 1. ad Simplic., et contra Faust. lib. 22. cap. 89. Sciendum autem, istam allegati testimonii partem apud Prophetam legi his verbis in fine cap. 2. juxta B. Hieronymi versionem: Et miserebor ejus, quae fuit absque misericordia, et dicam, Non-populo meo, populus meus es tu. Cui lectioni etiam LXX. consonant tam in exemplaribus, quae hodie exstant, quam in iis, quae olim, nisi quod nupera Romana editio lectionem exhibet alteram, dimtaxat cap. 2., sed cum annotatione, quod in caeteris libris legatur: -/at aAerpio ttjv oux iXeirjijievrjV^ id est, et miserebor ejus, quae non fuerat misericordiam consecuta. Quamvis enim, ut testatur Hieronymus in Osee comment., quaedam exemplaria LXX. interpretum legant: non dilecta, veriora tamen censet, in quibus legitur: non misericordiam consecuta, maxime quod ea respondeant Graeco verbo lassI v^ misereri, per quod ex eadem translatione in cap. 1. nomen illud: absque misericordia, exponitur. Illud satis constare existimo, Paulum non utrumque scripsisse, sed alterum tantum, ac sane probabilius ri'(a.'K7iiJ.i\riv, dilectam, propter consensum Graecorum codicum. Fortassis enim alludere voluit ad illud superius: Jacob dilexi, rf^dizrioa, tametsi Petrus ad eumdem Osee locum respiciens 1. epist. 2. scripsit: ot oux riKrqixiyoi, qui non consecuti misericordiam, videlicet secutus versionem LXX. Quamquam non admodum refert, utrum ex duobus scripserit Paulus, cum utroque vocabulo res eadem significetur. Nam et vox Hebraea CDrT^ richam, quae est apud prophetam, et quam solam Syriaca hujus loci habet editio, significat utrumque, et diligere et misereri. Jam quod ad sensum attinet, quia dixerat Apostohis, Deum non ex Judaeis sohim, sed etiam ex gentibus vocasse electos, ut hoc posterius probet, adducit memoratum Prophetae testimonium. Nam popuhis decem tribuum, qui peculiari nomine dicebatur Israel, de quo secundum literam Propheta loquitur, quoniam ad cultum vitulorum deflexerat, tjpum praetulit gentilis et idololatrici populi, magisque eum postea repraesentavit sua per gentes dispersione; sicut e diverso populus duarum tribuum, qui vocabatur Juda, quia permansit in vero cultu Dei, typum gessit populi Judaici, ut a gentilitate distinctus fuit; quam mysticam utriusque populi, sciUcet Isragl et Juda, significationem attingit etiam Augustinus, hunc Prophetae locum tractans hb. 18. de civit. Dei cap. 28. Porro dicitur Deus vocare quippiam non inani nomine, sed rei praestatione, dum id facit esse, quod nominat, quomodo frequenter in Prophetis vocare et nominare sumuntur. Itaque sensus est: Eos, qui non erant populus meus, cultu et religione faciam populum meum; et qui non erant a me dilecti, id est, gratiae donis affecti, faciam dilectos, ita ut vero nomine populus meus, meique dilecti vocari possint, Notandum quippe est, illud: Non-dilectam dilectam, non esse adjectivum substantivi plebem, cum in Graeco hoc sit masculinumXaov, populum, sed foemininogenere dixit Apostolus: non-dilectam dilectam, Prophetam imitatus, qui nomen ilhid: Ahsque misericordia, seu Non dilectam, postea commutandum in oppositam affirmationem, jussus fuerat filiae sibi natae imponere, in qua populi prius non dilecti, postea vero diligendi figura exsisteret. Errandi occasionem sustulisset interpres, si vertisset: Non-populum meumpopulum meum; praesertim cum vox Graeca kao<z, quae etiam apud LXX. legitur, populum significet potius, quam plebem. Rursus ex sensu dato atque ex ipsis testimonii verbis liquet, dilectam dici hoc loco, non a benevolentia Dei aeterna, quae immutabilis est, sed a beneficentia temporali, quae dilectionis aeternae effectus est. Tunc igitur ex non dilecta coepit dilecta fieri gentilitas, quando gratiae suae beneficiis coepit eam Deus praevenire.
9:26
26. Et erit: in loco, ubi dictum est eis: Non-plebs mea vos; ibi vocabuntur filii Dei vivi. Haec testimonii pars sumpta est ex ejusdem prophetae cap. 1., et juxta typicam significationem, de qua paulo ante, sensum hunc habet: Et erit, id est, hoc, quod dicam, aliquando futurum est. In ipso loco, ut in Graecia, Italia, Gallia, et ubicumque morati fuerunt dudum a vero Dei cultu alieni, sic ut vocari possent: Non-populus meus, in eodem, inquam, loco, et absque eo, quod locum mutent, verum Dei cultum suscipient, ac per hoc erunt et vocabuntur filii Deivivi, seu viventis, Graece (.Givxor, id est, Dei veri, cujus esse vivere est. Urget Apostohis hoc testimonium de loco, ne forte dicat Judaeus, gentiles quidem aliquos ad verum Dei cultum transituros esse, sed proselytorum more, qui, Judaismo suscepto, vel in Judaeam migrabant, vel statis temporibus, secundum legem e suis locis adscendebant ad templum, quod erat Jerosolymis. Hoc igitur Apostohis docet, quod Christus Joan 4., dicens ad Samaritanam mulierem: Veniet hora, quando neque in monte hoc, neque in Jerosolymis adorabitis patrem.
9:27
27. Jesaias autem clamat pro Israel. Graece, uTiep xoO loparjA, quod significat, super Israel. Et ita vertit Erasmus, tanquam idem, quod: de Israel. Constat tamen Graecam praepositionem genitivo junctam frequentissime pro significare, ut capite superiori: Spiritus postulat pro nobis. Si Deus pro nobis, etc, et huc capite: pro fratribus meis, et alibi passim. Quod secutus interpres noster hoc loco vertit pro Israel. Quamquam etiam interdum sumitur, ut idem significet, quod Ttepi, de, velut hujus epistolae cap. 1.: Gratias ago Deo meo super, id est, de omnibus vobis, et similiter Eph. 1. et Philip. 1. Unde ejus loco, in simili sermone, alibi ponit ns.p'., ut 1 Cor. 1., Col. 1. et in utraque ad Thessal. cap. 1. Verum utra significatio conveniat huic loco, et quis clamor hic significetur, doloris an gratulationis, statim videbitur.
Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel tanquam arena maris, reliquiae salvae fient. Testimonium hoc sumptum exlesaiae cap. 10., tametsi non plane ad verbum, ue quidemjuxtaversionemLXX. Simul enim respexit Apostolus ad locum Osee 1., ubidicitm:numerus filiorum Israel, pro eo, quod apud lesaiam est: populus tuus Israel. Est enim sermo Prophetae ad regem Ezechiam, aut, juxta alios, ad ipsum Israel. Dubium est autem, utrum Apostolus, adducens hoc testimonium cum sequentibus, intendat probare vocationem Judaeorum, sicut superius ex Osee probavit vocationem gentium, an vero spectet potius ad Judaeorum abjectionem. Pro priori sentenfia facit, quod supra, de vocatis loquens, dixerat utrumque: ex Judaeis et ex gentibus. Quare et de utroque subjicienda videbatur probatio. Deinde, quod juxta nostram versionem dicit: pro Israel, quod utique non ad abjectionem pertinet, sed potius ad vocationem. At vero posteriorem sententiam probabiliorem ostendit conclusio Pauli, quam subjicit post inducta prophetica testimonia. Concluditenim, gentes apprehendisse justitiam, Judaeos autem non apprehendisse, sed impegisse in lapidem offensionis. Quae conclusio manifeste pertinet ad abjectionem Judaeorum. Quare, etsi Prophetae locus utrumque doceat, et reprobationem multitudinis, et vocationem paucorum ex eodem populo, praecipuus tamen Apostoli scopus est, ex Prophetae verbis ostendere multitudinis, id est, ipsius populi, reprobationem; ut sic etiam ex indirecto confirmet, quod de vocatione gentium dixerat. Si enim abjiciendus est populus Judaicus, ita ut pauci tantum ex iis salventur, consequens est, magnificas illas promissiones benedictionis et salutis, patribus illorum factas, in aliis, hoc est, in gentili populo implendas esse. Unde et consequitur, in parte praecedenti potius vertendum fuisse: de Israel, quam: pro Israel. 3ic enim et Graecos expositores, Origenem, Chrysostomum ac caeteros intellexisse eam partem, satis apparet ex eorum commentariis, licet interpretes eorum nonnulli inconsiderate verterint: pro Israel. Consequitur, etiam clamorem intelligi non gratulantis, sed dolentis, quomodo frequenter accipitur apud Prophetas. Igitur clamat lesaias, id est, magno doloris affectu loquitur. Nec vero opus erat Paulo, ut id quod dixerat: ex Judaeis, confirmaret alicujus Prophetae testimonio, quandoquidem res erat manifesta. Nam et Apostoli et caeteri primi fideles ex Judaeis erant, nec Judaeorum vocationi gentes umquam contradixerunt. Sed de gentium vocatione Judaei quaestionemmovebant, ut in Actis Apost. videre est; quam proinde probari ex Prophetis, operae pretium erat. Sicut et Jacobus Apostolus fecisse legitur Act. 15. Sensus igitur prophetiae est: Etsi populus, secundum carnem ex Israel genitus, juxta promissionem Abrahae factam, usque adeo multiplicetur, ut comparari posse videatur cum arena, quae est in littore maris, solae tamen ex eo reliquiae, id est, paucissimi salvi erunt. Ex quo intelligendum relinquit Apostolus, ipsam multitudinem populiperituram esse; quemadmodum dicit infra cap. 11.: Caeteri vero excaecati sunt Si cui magis placet versio: j>ro Israel, poterit hunc sensum facere: lesaias hoc solum clamat pro Israel, reliquias ejus populi salvas fore; caeteroqui denunciat, multitudinem perituram. Prosequitur Apostulus:
9:28
28. Verbum enim consummans, et abbrevians in aequitate. Verbum, accusativi casus, Graece, Aoyov. Vitabis ambiguitatem si sermonem \egas -^ nonnulli rationem malunt. Nam et lationem Aoyog significat. Sed sane huic loco non convenit, multo minus originali scripturae, ex qua desumptum est hoc testimonium. Consummans, Graece 0'jv~sA(Lv; pro quo Erasmus perficiens. Sed, ut ex sensu patebit, melius noster vertit: consummans. Quod sequitur: et ahhrevians in aequitate, Graece est: et concidens in justitia.
Quia verbum breviatum faciet Dominus super terram. Breviatum, Graece concisum. Citantur haec a Paulo secundum editionem LXX., nisi quod apud eos pro £7:1 TfyQ Y^g^ super terram, legitur ev T^ otxoujisvTrj okT^, id est, in toto orbe terrarum. Caeterum exponenda haec sunt ex Hebraeo, ubi sic legimus, Hieronymo interprete: Consummatio abbreviata inundabit justitiam. Consummationem enim et abbreviationem (Hebraice abbreviatam) Dominus Deus exercituum faciet in medio omnis terrae. Cum igitur in Hebraeo nulla fiat verbi mentio, non est hic vocabulum illud peculiariter expendendum, ut vel de verbo Dei incarnato, vel de verbo legis Mosaicae, vel de verbo praedicationis evangelicae intelligatur, quibus diversis modis diversi verbum hoc loco interpretati sunt, de quibus consule Toleti commentarium; sed referendum videtur ad verba Prophetae praecedentia, quibus dixerat, ex toto populo reliquias salvas fore, ut hic sit sensus: Deus erit consummans et abbrevians verbum in justitia, vel cum justitia; id est, Deus, quod locutus est, faciet, redigens Israelem, quem salvaturus sit, ad brevem, accisum et exiguum numerum, ita ut paene consumatur. Sed tamen paucos illos faciet justitiae donis affluentes, secundum illud ejusdem Prophetae cap. 4.: Omnis, qui relictus fuerit in Sion, et residuus in Jerusalem, sanctus vocabitur. Quod impletum fuisse constat in Apostolis ac caeteris primitivae Ecclesiae fidelibus, quos Apostolica scriptura passim sanctos appellat. Quidam sic: in aequitate, id est, in negotio consequendae justitiae, erunt paucissimi. Rursus alii: in justitia, id est, juste seu justo judicio id facturus est Deus. Nam, ut jam ante diximus, non hic intendit Apostolus probare vocationem aliquorum ad justitiam et salutem, sed Judaici populi reprobationem, salvis duntaxat reliquiis. Quocirca consummationem quoque non perfectionem, sed consumptionem, cum Vatablo, Forerio et aliis, exposui, quippe cum agatur de populi interitu. Cum enim res duobus modis consummetur, vel dum perficitur, vel dum finitur atque esse desinit, utriusque acceptionis horum vocabulorum consum- ■ mare et consummatio, satis obvia sunt % exempla in sacris literis, ut ea huc adducere non sit necesse. Porro, quod nonnuUi verbum pro re positum interpretantur hoc sensu: Deus consummabit et abbreviabit verbum, id est, consummationem et abbreviationem faciet, idcirco minus placet quod verbum pro re Graece dici soleat p^li-oc, non Xoyof;. Quod facile in libris Graecis utriusque testamenti studiosus lector observabit. Jam vero posterioris membri: qui verbum breviatum, etc. eadem cum priore sententia est, nisi quod additur, Deum id facturum super terram, vel in terra, scilicet Israelitica, in qua erat populus tara numerosus; vel juxta LXX. in universa terra, quia per totum orbem Judaei erant dispersi. Nec aliud vult, quod in Hebraeo est: m medio totius terrae. Nam idem hoc est, ac si dicas, in tota terra, videlicet juxta phrasim sacrae linguae peculiarem, de qua vide Hieron. lib. 5. in lesaiam cap. 13.
9:29
29. Et sicut praedixit lesaias. Eodem pertinet hoc testimonium, quo superiora. Praedixit, Graece irpostpTjxsv^ quod Erasmus vertere maluit, prius dixit, ut intelligatur, eundem prophetam haec verba dixisse ante illa superius citata. Habetur enim haec scriptura cap. 1. Et quidem eo modo Graecum verbum accipitur Gal. 1.: Sicut praediximus, id est, ante diximus, et nunc iterum dico. Sed nihil vetat, praedictionem intelligi consueto more Scripturae, nempe propheticam, qua res dicitur, antequam fiat. Neque enim videtur Paulus curasse, priusne an posterius haec quam illa scripserit lesaias.
Nisi Dominus Sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus, et sicut Gomorrha simiLes fuissemus. Hebraeam vocem sabaoth retinuit Apostolus ex LXX., qui eam passim non translatam reliquerunt, ubi Deo adscribitur hoc epithetum; alias, ut in Psalmis, verterunt, Tuiv dovdiizoiv, id est, virtutum. Sensus est: Et fiet, sicut idem lesaias prophetavit, dicens: Nisi Dominus exercituum reliquisset nobis, id est, populo Judaico, saltem exiguum semen, in quo, velut reliquiis, promissae benedictiones implerentur, penitus essemus consumpti et perditi, sicut Sodomaei et Gomorrhaei, quorum nullae prorsus exstant reliquiae; nec uUa ex parte illarum benedictionum fuissemus participes. Hinc quoque apparet, per consummationem superius intelligi consumtionem. Cur autemDeus voceturDominus exercituum (ut de ea re breviter aliquid dicamus), haec ratio est, quia infinitam habet angelorum multitudinem sub imperio 8U0 quasi militantem, et ad omnia, quae jusserit, expeditam. Quo pertinent duodecim legiones angelorum Christo, si vellet, exhibendae a patre contra vim Judaeorum. Generali nomine horum exercituum nonnulli etiam malos angelos comprehendunt. Nam et illi Deo serviunt ad ipsius nutum, nolentes volentes. Huc autem allegant, quod Propheta Michaeas 3 Reg. 22. vidit Dominum sedentem super solium suum, et omnem exercitum coeli assistentem ei a dextris et a sinistris. Namque eam partem exercitus, quae assistebat ei a sinistris, putant fuisse malorum spirituum, quorum unus, Domino interrogante: Quis decipiet Achab? egressus stetit coram Domino, et ait: Ego decipiam illum. Mihi sane non probatur ad eum exercitum, sive exercitus (nam utroque numero legitur), quorum Deus se Deum ac Dominum vocat, accenseri spiritus nequam. Quae enim societas luci ad tenebras? 2 Ger. 6. Aut quomodo conflabitur unus exercitus Dei ex angelis bonis et malis; quorum contrarii sunt fines et studia? Quod si angeli mali constituunt unum Dei exercitum cum bonis, qui sunt igitur hostes, ad quos debellandos exercitus ille producitur? Serviunt quidem etiam mali angeli Deo, cui dictum est: Omnia serviunt tibi, Psalm. 118., non tamen ut militiae ejus adscripti, sed ut servi mali, reprobi ac damnati, quibus etiam invitis utitur omnipotentia Dei ad suam gloriam et electorum salutem. Nam illa, quae vere dicitur militia coelestis exercitus, tota sine fine hymnum gloriae Deo concinit dicens: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus!, ut testantur verba sacerdotis ad altare Dei. Dicitur autem exercitus coelestis assistere Deo a dextris et a sinistris, tanquam hinc inde regi propinquus, et ad imperia promptus, ut solent milites suis ducibus assistere. Ab his enim sumpta metaphora est. Neque ex illo erat exercitu spiritus lUe mendax, qui operam oflFerebat ad decipiendum Achab; sed egressus de loco suo, quicumque is fuerit, Domino obtulit sese ad opera sibi placita, mendacium et hominis nocumentum; quomodo Satan, ille sancti Job tentator, filiis Dei coram Domino assistentibus, adfuisse inter eos dicitur, et stetisse in conspectu Dei, nequaquam tamen velut unus illorum. Job 1. et 2. Sed de eo satis. Porro non obstat expositioni utriusque testimonii, ex Jesaia allati, quamexmeute Pauli jam dedimus, quod forte secundum literam uterque locus pertineat ad reliquias Israelitici populi ex captivitate congregandas, de quo non contendimus. Nam iUa Utera adhuc aUum sensum continet, allegoricum et sublimiorem, eundemque a Spiritu sancto principalius intentum.
9:30
30. Quid ergo dicemus? Concludit ex dictis. Cum, inquit, talia praedixerint Prophetae de gentium vocatione et Judaeorum abjectione; quid dicemus? Nempe hoc, quod sequitur:
Quod gentes, quae non sectabantur justitiam, apprehenderunt justitiam. Hoc est: quod gentes, quae erant sine cultu et lege unius Dei, ideoque nec justitiae, qua quis Deo placeat, assequendae studebant, et ut Sjrus loquitur, non currebant post justitiam, assecutae sunt justitiam, pervenerunt ad justitiam, justificatae sunt.
Justitiam autem, quae ex fide est. Id est: eam (dico) justitiam apprehenderunt, quae ex fide est, non quae ex operibus. Simul indicat, eos ipsa fide justitiam apprehendisse. Nam quasi quaereretur: Quomodo justitiam apprehenderunt, quam non sectabantur? Respondet: ex fide; non sohim quia ex fide justitia est, sed etiam quia fide apprehenditur, eo nimirum seasu, quem exposuimus ad illud capitis 3.: Arbitramur justificari hominem per fidem. Est autem haec notatio verae justitiae, quae ex fide est. Nam in superioribus cap. 1. 3. et 4. satis docuit, non ex operibus sed ex fide justitiam haberi. Ubi etiam patuit, eam praecipue fidem intelligi, qua creditur in Christum propitiatorem, cujus ex meritis tota justitia a Deo exspectanda sit.
9:31
31. Israel vero sectando legem justitiae, in legem justitiae non pervenit. Sectando Graece et Syriace sectnns, quod etiam in Latinis mss. non paucis legitur. Pervenit, Graece ccp&aas, praevenit, quemadmodum id vertit noster interpres 1 Thess. 2. juxta codices emendatiores. Quamquam et pervenit non male transferas, ut fecit Erasmus. Neque enim plus quam perveniendi significationem urgere videntur Graecorum commentarii in ea voce, hoc quidem loco; tametsi Cajetanus diligenter ponderat praeventionem. Sensus: At contra Israel, id est, populus Judaicus, qui accepta Dei notitia. legem sibi ab eo datam, qua vera justitia praecipitur, sectabatur, eique studebat implendae, non pei-venit ad eam justitiae legem implendam, vel, non praevenit gentes in implenda lege justitiae. Quod tamen oportuit, quia legem jam olim a Dep acceperat. Observa Paulum, cum de gentibus loquitur, nominare justitiam, cum de Judaeis, legem justitiae, quia Judaeis lex data erat, non gentibus. Poterat alioqui simpliciter, et servata ad verbum antithesi cum membro praecedenti, dicere, Judaeos, qui sectabantur justitiam, non apprehendisse justitiam. Interim, vide lector, an non sit hypallage, in legem justitiae, hoc est, in justitiam legis, non pervenit, ac si diceret: Israel, dum sectatur legem, justitiae magistram, non tamen assecutus est justitiam, quam lex docet. Hujus autem ratio sequitur:
9:32
32. Quare? quia non ex fide, sed quasi ex opeHbus. In Graecis additur vojiou^ legis; etsi non in omnibus. Sensus est: ideo non pervenisse Judaeos in legem justitiae, quia non ex fide Christi legem justitiae sectabantur, id est, legi implendae studebant, sed ad eam nitebantur per opera, scilicet, non ex fide profecta, sed ex sola legis cognitione. Ratio magis erit perspicua, si legem justitiae interpreteris justitiam legis, sensu paulo ante indicato. Dicit autem quasi, vel quoniam ejusmodi opera videntur ad justitiam valere, quum revera non valeant; vel quia justitia, ex ejusmodi operibus comparata, videtur esse vera justitia, et non est. Scito, non hic reddi rationem, cur reprobati fuerint Judaei, sed cur non justitiam assecuti.
Offenderunt enim in lapidem offensionis. Causam subjicit ejus, quod dixit: non ex fide; quia scilicet Christum, in quem crederent, ut credendo justificarentur, propter ejus humilitatem et carnis infirmitatem non agnoverunt, nec receperunt; imo graviter in eum, velut lapidem humi jacentem, oflfenderunt, male et indigne eum tractantes. Metaphora sumpta ab iis, qui per viam incedentes, in lapides, quos non vident, pedibus impingunt. Lapis offensionis sive offendiculi, pro lapide, in quem offenditur, Hebraismus est. Huc pertinet, quod praedictum erat a Simeone, Christum positum esse in ruinam multorum in Israel, Luc. 2., et quod ipse Christus dixerat: Beatus, qui non fuerit scandalizatus in me, Matth. 11. Verum Apostolus more suo rem confirmat testimonio scripturae propheticae.
9:33
33. Sicut scriptum est: Ecce pono in Sion lapidem ojfensionis etpetram scandali. Id est, offendiculi. Nam o/avSaAov offendiculum significat. Testimonium conflatum ex duobus locis lesaiae Prophetae. Nam prior pars: Ecce pono in Sion lapidem, habetur in cap. 28., istud vero: lapidem offensionis et petram scandali, legitur cap. 8. Quaeritur, quid differantlapis offensionis et petra scandali. Toletus ita distinguit, ut lapis offensionis dicatur parvus quispiam lapis, in quem offendunt et impingunt, qui per viam ambulant; petrascandali, saxum magnum super hominem cadens. Nam ut Graeca vox Tiexpa non quemvis lapidem, sed rupem significat; sic et Hebraea "^^^' tsurpassim pro rupe vel saxomajoreaccipitur. Itaquesentit, Christum dici lapidem offensionis, quia in humilitate veniens non fuit a Judaeis agnitus, sed repulsus; petram vero scandali, quia post resurrectionem et adscensionem in coelum, petra factus, cecidit super eos et oppressit atque contrivit, per Romanos adimens illis locum et gentem; idque significatum videri illis verbis Salvatoris, Matt. 21. et Luc. 20.: Super quem ceciderit lapis iste, conteret eum. Igitur petram scandali interpretatur petram casus seu ruinae, sed activa significatione, id est, petram cadentem seu ruentem. Hanc distinctionem, quam alibi non legi, Joan. Lorinus in comment. super 1 Petr. 2. non probat, uti nec ego probare possum; primum quia coacta et insolita est interpretatio, petra scandali sive off ensionis (ut omnes ex Hebraeo vertunt), id est, petra ruens aut cadens. Nam ubi petra cadens opprimit hominem, ridicule dixeris petram in hominem offendisse. Neque Simeon Luc. 2. de Christo dicens: Ecce positus est hic in ruinam, significare voluit impactionem aut ruinam Christi in quosdam, sed ruinam quorundam impingentium in Christum, ut lapidem. Quod vero dominus in Evangelio dicit: Super quem vero ceciderit, etc. non explicat, cur dicatur petra scandali, sed potius docet, quam ille, qui fuerat quibusdam petra scandali, non sit eis contemnendus; ut qui tandem eos, posteaquam in praegrandem petram excreverit, oppressurus sit, ac penitus contriturus. Quamquam apud Evangelistas, ubi idnarratur Christum dixisse, non TiSTpa^ sed tantum, ki^oc,, id est, lapis legitur. Denique Petrus Apostolus, cum post illa verba, de Christo dicta, lapis offensionis et petra scandali, subjungit, his qui offendunt verbo, satis aperte significat, una eademque ratione Christo utrumque tribui, quia videlicet offendentes in verbum Evangelii, offenderunt in Christum, quem Evangelium annuntiabat. Nec his obstat significatio vocis Hebraicae, pro qua petram legimus; magis enim connotat duritiam ac firmitatem, quam magnitudinem. Unde pro ea nunc saxum, nunc silicem vertunt. Nec de grandi lapide intelligi potest illud Exod. 4.: Tulit illico Sephora acutissimam petram, et circumcidit praeputium filii sui. Sed et hoc constat, vocabula vicinae significationis, ubi verborum copia quaeritur, maxime apud Hebraeos, usurpari pro eodem significato. Quare, quae omnium fere sententia est, iu verbis Prophetae dicimus esse ejusdem rei inculcationem, prophetis familiarem; ut, quemadmodum Graeca 7ip6oxo;ji,ua et axav^Ja/.ov^ et quae ex Hebraeo vocabula respondent, accipiuntur velut synonyma, sic etiam lapis et petra. Sensum igitur dicamus allegati a Paulo testimonii: Ecce, inquitDeus, ego ponam in Sion, id est, in Judaea, vel iu ecclesia, cujus initium ex Sion, hoc est, ex Jerusalem, metropoli Judaeae; ponam, inquam, lapidem probatum, angularem; pretiosum, et eundem lapidem offendiculi, hoc est, Christum ex Judaeis nasciturum, atque inter eos conversaturum; in quem ipsi, qui sibi recte et inoffense videbantur ambulare, tanquam ex lege justi, graviter impacturi sint et casuri, non sine vulnere, videlicet percussi ac laesi a lapide, in quem impegerint. Dico, percussi ac laesi, ad exprimendam vim Hebraicae dictionis priori loco positae r|3i negepb, quam Pagninus percussionem, alii allisionem vertunt. Sensum quem dedi, confirmat locus Petri 1. epist. 2., ubi verba Prophetae plenius recitat.
Et omnis, qui credit in eum, non confundetur. In eum, Graece kiC ahxM, in eo. Et confundetur dixit interpres pro pudefiet. Hoc rursum ex eodem 28. capite desumptum est, idque juxta versionem LXX., qui, quod inHebraeo est non festi7iabit, id est, tioti festinet, quomodo Hieronymus vertit, transtulerunt: ob |jltj xaTC(.ia'/_o\^fj, nequaquampudefiet, quemadmodum citat et Petrus, tametsi Paulus hic et sequenti capite scribit simplici negatione, ou xaTaioxuv^igasxat, non pudefiet. Addidit autem de suo signum universale, omnis, ne quis dubitaret, tam ad gentiles, quam ad Judaeos sententiam esse extendendam; sicut eam ipse studiose extendit capite sequenti. Igitur hic sensus est: Et omnis, sive Judaeus, sive gentilis, qal crediderit in illum lapidem, id est, Christum, videlicet per ipsum a Deo justitiam et salutem exspectans, haudquaquam pudefiet, hoc est, exspectatione sua non frustrabitur; quia, sicut credidit, omnino futurum est ei. Vel juxta textum Hebraicum: Nonfestinet, id est, non sit impatiens morae, sicut illi, qui dicebant: Ubi est verbum Domini? veniat. Jerem. 17., et: Vbi est promissio et adventus ejus'? 2 Pet. 3. sed patienter exspectet, certissimus, ita futurum, ut credit, etiamsi res in tempus valde longum differatur. Sic Habacuc 2.: Si moram fecerit, exspecta eum, quia veniens veniet. Itaque per metalepsin, quod in Hebraeo est: ne festinet, LXX. verterunt: non pudefiet. Nam ideo festinant homines ad rem promissam, quia metuunt, ne per moram ab ea excludantur atque frustrentur. Frustratos autem pudor consequi solet. Patet igitur, utramque lectionem in eundem sensum convenire. Sunt, qui putent, LXX. diversum verbum legisse ab eo, quod nunc habetur in Hebraeo, id quod Toletus censet non esse improbabile, cum et alias interdum id eis acciderit. Porro loquuntur Apostolus et Propheta de fide conjuncta cum spe et fiducia. Quod satis insinuat illud £7i' au-oJ, in eo, vel super eo, quod magis ad spem solet accommodari. Deinde intellige credentem obedienter, sicut declaratum est cap. 1. et3., etadhucinsequentibus declarabitur. Postremo quaeres, quid haec Prophetae sententia ad Judaeos reprobatos, qui non erant credituri? De his enim prius loquebatur. Respondeo, subjici testimonium hoc ab Apostolo ad piorum consolationem simul et exhortationem, ac si diceret: Verumtamen omnis, qui credit etc. CertissLma enim consequentia est, si pie et perseveranter credis, te non esse de numero reprobortim.
9:1
1. veritatem dico in Christo, non menttor, testimontum mihi perhibente (aouyapzog23762 p.21) conscientia mea in Spiritu sancto,
De tristi contribulium suorum conditione, quac electorum felicitati ac securitati modo descriptae prorsus est opposita, locuturus Paulus quasi & benevolentiae captatione exorditur, qua dolorem suum de gentis suae reiectione declarat (9,1-5). Ad argumentationem dein transiens promissiones, eo quod non omnes ludaei salutis messianae participes facti sint, irritas non reddi ex patriarcharum historia demonstrat, quae vocationem quum ad veteris oeconomiae bona tum ad regni messiani iustitiam a naturali generatione aut a praeviis operibus non pendere, sed gratuitae Dei electioni deberi doceat (9,6-13). Difficultatem vero, quam Iudaei movere poterant, quod Deus, quum prae ipsis gentes eligeret, iniustus esse videretur, ita solvit, ut Scripturae testimoniis Deum in gratiarum suarum distributione liberrimum esse ostendat (9.15-25), et in sua electione, quum gentibus vocatis magnam Iudaeorum partem a salute messiana excludat, ea sequi doceat, quae per prophetas iam annuntiaverat (9,25-29). Magna cum sollemnitate veracitatem suam asseverans (v. 1) Apostolus summum suum dolorem de contribulium suorum infidelitate (v. 2) ardensque suum desiderium salutis eorum enuntiat (r. 3) magnis eorum privilegiis agnitis et celebratis (^. 5). Asyndete nova haec sectio praecedenti adiungitur; quo tamen nexu exordium hoc cum clausula superiore colligitur, facile apparet. Fructibus enim, quos iustitia fidei credentibus affert, consideratis B. Paulus electorum nomine securitatem celebraverat, qua omnes, qui vocationem ad Evangelium secuti in Dei dilectione perseverant, mediis in persecutionibus tribulationibusque perstare possint. Sed in corum numero non nisi paucos contribules suos invenit; contra vero ad populum suum oculos convertens eum fere totum salutem illam, quae ei proxime ac directe erat promissa, repellere Evangeliique praecones persequi videt. Hinc acerbus ille dolor. quem a principio ita exprimit, ut causam eius celet :
9:2
9. quoniam tristitia mihi magna est, et continuus dolor cordi meo. Positive (veritatem dico) et negative (non mentior) veracitatem suam asserit (cfr 1 Ti. 9,7) et utrumque membrum appositione quadam corroborat augetque. Veritatem enim se dicere asserit in. Christo, i. e. tamquam virum intime unitum cum Christo, ad quem omnes suas cogitationes actionesque referat, vel tamquam membrum et ministrum Christi. Haud infrequens Paulo est hic loquendi modus (cfr ad 2 Cor. 2,17; 12,19; 1 7Aess. 5,1 etc.) ; quare minus recte alii verba in. Christo (£» Xegw:zo) pro iurandi formula (i. q. per CAristum! 1g»s Xptw:23) habent (cfr Haym. TÀhom. etc., Est. Iust. Lap. etc., Ag. etc. — Beng. Reiche, Vollm. etc.). Quamquam enim locutio z52oxt £y «t (iurare in aliquo) per hebraismum pro 2 2726: aliquoties usurpatur (cfr Jerem. 5,1 etc.; Matth. 93,16. 18. 20-22 ctc.), nusquam tamen nu- (codd.). — 3. aváÜsua ttvxt x)z0$ ivo) (anathieina esse ipse ego) hoec verborum ordinc BADEFZG, aliqui minusc. et PP., £4. 8. Pacian, adl Sympr. ep, 2,8; S. Ambr. in Luc. III. n. 5 etc.); sed tertus rec. : 3375; ie d»oif:ux sivat (ipse ego anathema esse) cum CKL, omnibus ferc minusc. et PP., Vig. (codd. Fuld. Amiat. Demid. Harl. Tol.) Arm. Copt. Aeth.; cum It. tàmen (cfr S. Aug. c. l'aust. NIE. 3 ete., A*" Prim. ete? Vulg. Clem. iuxta iuniores codd. minus enerzice : ego ipse anathema essc. — 4. $ à:x- 5. De huius sententiae interpunctione, num nimirum verba $ iv izi závtov z1À puncto à praecedentibus sint separauda, eie Coninent, dum £ xw (in aliquo) velut iurandi formula reperitur. Negativum porro membrum (non mentior) corroborat ad conscientiam suam appellans, quae ipsum contra mentem suam non loqui (i. e. non mentiri) testetur. « Quia autem interdum, inquit TÀom., conscientia errat, nisi per S. Spiritum rectificetur, subdit zn Spiritu S. ». Quae tamen appositio haud recte a nonnullis immediate ad nomen conscientia trahitur (conscientia quae est in S. Spiritu, cum eo unitur, ab eo dirigitur), siquidem eodem modo, quo locutio &» Xpw:o, locutio à» IIvsógaxt adhiberi nec solet nec potest. Ad participium (cvgpapzopo?snc simul testimonium perhibente) potius pertinet, ut sensus sit : conscientia mecum (scilicet loquente) testatur in SpirituS., i. e. Spiritu illam illustrante et impellente. In hoc quoque membro antiquiores iunioresque multi iuramentum deprehendunt ac praeeuntibus CArys. et Hier. (ad Algas. ep. 121,9) in tota sententia tres veritatis testes a Paulo invocari censent, Christum, conscientiam, Spiritum (cfr Ca:. Tol. Est. [ust. Lap. etc.). Verum gravis asseveratio veritatis nondum est iuramentum atque alio modo Paulus loqui solet, ubi Deum vel Christum testem invocat (cfr 1,9; 2 Cor. 1,23; 11,10; Gal. 5,3; 1 Tim. 5,21 etc.). Iamvero quia tanta est assertionis vis, nemini sane dubitare licet, quin verum sit, quoniam (i. e. quod &u) magna ei est tristitia et continuus dolor animi. Qua de re doleat, hic quidem nondum dicit, sed quum eam in proxima sententia iam indicet, satis mirum est, quod H«wgo Victor. (qu. 231) coniicere potuerit, eum dolere, « quod prius cuim errantibus errans persecutus sit Ecclesiam ». De tristi enim populi sui a Christo separati conditione dolet; tanta autem cum sollemnitate hunc dolorem asseverat, quia una ex parte haud ignorat, se etiam a multis ludaeochristianis adversarium contribulium suorum et Legis patriae obtrectatorem haberi (cfr Ac. 21,21), altera ex parte summae curae ei est, ut omnibus neophytis sine exceptione persuadeat, tantum abesse, ut contribules suos contemnat aut aversetur, ut maximo potius amore eos complectatur. Secus enim timendum ei erat, ne omnia illa, quae Iudaeis ingrata dicturus erat, odio invidiaeque magis quam puro veritatis studio zeloque animarum suo attribuerentur. Hanc ob causam etiam statim, quanto cum ardore salutem gentis suae desideret, gravissimis verbis explanat :
9:3
3. optabam (y5yxv» lege cum Cassian. collat. 23,6 : optarem) enim ego ipse anathema esse a Christo pro. fratribus mets, qui sunt cognati mei secundum carnem (iuxta graecum : 2zip Qv X2:Ag0v u29, 50v SUYY:vOV p29 zx:x cxpxz melius : pro fratribus meis, cognatis meis secundum carnem cfr. At*r; minus accurate S. Her. ad Algas. ep. 191,9 : « pro fratribus meis ac propinquis iuxta carnem »). Eodem modo, quo Vig. interpres alibi imperfectum indicat. £0:Acv latino imperf. coniunct. ve/[em reddidit, quia ibi de desiderio quod impleri nequeat agitur (Ga/. $,90), etiam nostrum :;5ux»» coniunclivo optarem reddere omnino debuit, quia similiter de desiderio sermo est, quod non potest impleri !. Optaret igitur Apostolus pro contribulibus suis, si id fieri posset et ad fratres salvandos necessarium aut utile esset, ipse anathema esse a Christo (&v&0eua elvat àáz5 109. Xpw:co praegnanter pro àváOsua etvat xai y 0pí- (ec0at áx5 vc). Xpwro?) i. e. a Christo separatum perpetuis tormentis addici?. Quod desiderium tantum abest, ut quidquam habeat, quod male sonet, ut summam perfectionem spiret atque ardentissimae purissimaeque caritatis sit significatio. Quo enim sensu illud intelligatur oporteat, bene iam Orig. insinuat : « Quid mirum, si Apostolus pro fratribus suis anathema fieri velit, quum sciat eum qui in forma Dei erat exinanisse se ac suscepisse formam servi (PA:/. 2,6 sq.) et factum esse pro nobis maledictum (Gal. 3,13)? Quid ergo mirum, si, quum Dominus pro servis maledictum factus sit, servus pro fratribus anathema fiat? » Similiter S. Greg. Naz. (orat. 2,55) Pauli virtutes celebrans: « quin eliam maius aliquid, inquit, pro suis fratribussecundum carnem ausus est, ut ipse quoque aliquid audeam dicens : suo loco eos ad Christum introduci pro sua caritate optat! O eximiam animi magnitudinem et liberalitatem! Christum, qui nostra causa maledictum factus est atque iniquitates nostras suscepit aegrotationesque nostras portavit (cfr Matth. 8,7) imitatur, vel ut moderatius dicam, primus post Christum eorum causa aliquid, etiam quasi impius (xat óc &cct4;) pati paratus est, dummodo illi salutem consequantur »?. Simili igitur ratione, qua Christus innocentissimus ob nostrum amorem, nostris in se susceptis peccatis, a Patre pro nobis factus est peccatum (cfr ad 2 Cor. 5,21) et in ligno suspensus, ut nostras poenas lueret, pro nobis 2. De etymologia el significatione vocabuli àviüzka c(r Comm. in 1 Cor. p. 361. factus est maledictum, Paulus quoque ob purum fratrum suorum amorem, ut eos Christo subiugatos salvaret, corum infidelitatis poenis in se susceptis a Christo glorificato separari ac damnatorum supplicia perferre optaret, si id fieri omnino posset, ut qui interne cum Christo gratia et caritate est unitus, externe ab eo in aeternum separaretur. sit secutus. Plures autem antiquiores et iuniores Latini cum Pel. imperfectum indic. eplabam urgentes Apostolum de desiderio loqui volunt, quod ante suam conversionem ad Christum habuit : « Optabam aliquando, quum persequerer Clristum, non modo optarem » ( Pel. efr Abael. Herv.. etc., Cai. T'olet, etc.). Cui explicationi ipsum imperfectum graecum nude positum iam obstat, quia aut aorist. »91au»v adhiberi, aut saltem particula quaedam tempori imperfecto addi (i;óur» no:£) debuit. Praeterea iuxta hanc explicationem quis sil nexus sententiae cum praecedentibus sequentibusque non apparet, et « nihil magnum, inquit 7/om., diceret Apostolus, quia tunc etiam propter se volebat esse separatus a Christo », vel potius : non a Christo, sed a Iesu, quem pro Pseudomessia habuit, Undenam tam vehemens desiderium salutis Iudaeorum sit profectum, Paulus aliquo modo iam insinuat, quum eos /ratres suos (sccundum propinquitatem religiosam) ac simul cognatos suos secundum carnem appellat ; natura enim duce favemus ac bene cupimus eis, quos religionis sanguinisque vincula nobiscum coniungunt. Veram tamen desiderii illius ardentis rationem praerogativae constituunt, quibus Deus populum israeliticum ditaverat ac prae omnibus nationibus decoraverat:
9:4
&. qui (civweg quippe qui) sunt Israelitae, quorum adoptio est filiorum ($, vio0ecix) et gloria (4 222a) et testamentum (melius cfr VV. LL. : ai &a0gxax testamenta) et legislatio (5, v2u.20:ix) et obsequium (cum S. Hier. ad Algas. ep. 121,9 lege : et cultus 1; ^azg:ix) et promissa (S. Hier. l. c : repromissiones ai éxa1Max). Pronomine c£zvsz (quippe qui) ratio introducitur, cur Paulus pro fratrum cognatorumque salute tam dira pati sit paratus; sunt enim Jsraelitae, quo honorifico nomine, quod a patre suo Iacobo hereditarunt, cui Deus ipse nomen Israel imposuerat (Gen. 32,29), omnia ornamenta divinitus collata quasi concluduntur. Praecipua eorum quaedam oratione concitata enumerantur; praeprimis enim habent adoptionem filiorum, non illam quidem, qua in Novo Test. per gratiam sanctificantem infusam filii Dei nominamur et sumus (8,15 sqq. etc.), sed imperfectiorem illam, qua populus Israel prae aliis omnibus nationibus a Deo velut peculium erat electus (Exod. 19,5) atque à Deo filius seu filius primogenitus appellabatur (E-rod. &,29 sq.; Deut. 18,1 sq. ; 32,6; Os. 11,1 etc.). Quia autem Deus populum Israel sibi in peculium elegerat, ideo etiam singulari ratione in eo ita inhabitare voluit, ut continua sua protectione atque interdum signis sensibilibus quoque suam praesentiam manifestaret. Postquam enim in tabernaculo foederis arca, quae praesentis Dei symbolum erat, deposita est, nubes operuit illud « et gloria Domini implevit illud » (Exod. 40,3& sqq.). Similiter templum salomonicum post arcam illatam a gloria Domini repletum est (3 Aeg. 8,10. 11); unde deinceps « locus habitationis gloriae Domini » appellabatur (Ps. 25,8 etc.!; antequam autem a Nabuchodonosor destrueretur, iuxta Ezechielis, visionem (Ezech. 10,11) gloria Domini ab eo recessit. Hacc igitur Dei in medio populo inhabitatio, quae etiam certo quodam modo in secundo templo sese manifestavit (2 Mach. 1, 18 sqq.), nomine gloriae designari recte dicitur. Arctius vero nonnulli solam arcam foederis (nimirum propter 1 Aeg. 4,92) intelligere volunt (cfr To/. [u«t. etc.); nam inde ab exsilio babylonico hoc praesentiae divinae symbolum in templo non amplius adfuit, Paulus autem gloriam ludaeis semper remansisse supponit. Nimis late vero et vage alii gloriam interpretantur ipsam populi israelitici electionem (cfr Chrys. etc., Herr. etc.), aut complexum beneficiorum (miracula, vaticinia etc.) , quibus Israel inter omnes gentes fuerit gloriosus (cfr TAeod. etc., Est. Lap. etc.). Tertio in loco iuxta meliores testes (cfr VV. LL.) nominantur /estamenta (ai $x0$xax), qua appellatione omnia foedera comprehenduntur, quae Deus primum cum populi maioribus, Abraham Isaac lacob (cfr Exod. 9,94. Lev. 26,42), ac deinde per Moysen cum populo ipso pepegerat (cfr Eccli. 44,11; Ep. 2,11). Neque enim hic, ubi de ludaeis nondum conversis agitur, vetus et novum testamenta, id quod cum Theod. S. Hier. (l. c.) S. Aug. (c. Faust. XII. 3) aliqui volunt, apte intelliguntur. Minus recte quoque alii duas Legis tabulas plurali significari censent, nam in sequente membro /egislatio, utique mosaica, a praecedentibus ornamentis distinguitur. Legislationem scquitur 7, Aa- 1pe(a , i. e. cultus Deo iuxta Legis divinae praescripta exhibendus !, qui quidem nomine legislationis iam aliquo modo erat indicatus, ob suam dignitatem tamen speciali mentione dignus erat. Similiter promissa seu repromissiones (ai &xae&ía)) partem constituunt foederum, quae eo tendebant, ut populo Legem divinitus datam observanti et Deo culium praescriptum exhibenti benedictiones messianicae darentur; sed ipsae quoque promissiones plane singulare fuerunt populi electi ornamentum, quod nulli alteri genti erat concessum neque ullo modo in hac enumeratione omitti potuit. Quibus Dei beneficiis, quae totidem sunt populi decora et ornamenta, enumeratis « dignitatem Iudaeorum ex eorum origine ct prole describit » (Thom.) :
9:5
5. quorum patres , et exc quibus est Christus secundum carnem (x xaxà cápxa), qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula ; Amen. Nomine patrum hic ex cunctis Israelis maioribus proxime Abraham, Isaac, lacob, quibus promissiones erant dictae. intelliiendos esse, clarum est. Summae enim gloriae sibi duxerunt ludaei, quod ab illis descenderent, quos Deus tantopere dilexerat, ut eorum semen sibi eligeret (Deut. &,37) et velut eorum Deus cognosci et celebrari vellet (Exod. 3,6 etc. ; cfr Act. 7,32). Summam autem gentis iudaicae decus est, quod ex ea Cristus secundum carnem (z» va:x cigra quod ad naturam humanam attinet) nasci voluerit, 94 secundum spiritum (cfr ad 1,4) vere est super omnia Deus (5 àv &xi xXvvwv 0:5;) benedictus in saecula. Probe animadvertatur oportet, Paulum non dixisse : quorum est Christus, quemadmodum dixerat : quorum sunt patres. Nam salus ex ludaeis quidem est (Joan. 5,992), sed non est solorum Iudaeorum, et Christus, quamvis ex ludaeis naturam humanam assumere voluerit, non ad solos Iudaeos salvandos advenit, quum salutare sit, quod Deus praeparavit ante faciem omnium populorum, lumen ad revelationem gentium et gloriam plebis Israel (Luc. 2,30 sqq.). Egregie Thom. his verbis quatuor haereses destrui dicit : « primo quidem Manichaeorum, qui dicebant Christum habuisse corpus phantasticum et non verum, quod removet per hoc quod dicit : secundum carnem...; secundo haeresin Valentini, qui dicit Christum non de massa generis humani, sed de coelo corpus attulisse, quod excludit in hoc, quod dicit Christum ex ludaeis secundum carnem esse...; tertio haeresin Nestorii, qui posuit alium esse filium hominis, alium Dei, contra quem Apostolus hic dicit, quod i//e est ex patribus secundum carnem, qui est Deus super omnia; quarto excluditur haeresis Arii, qui dicebat Christum esse minorem Patre et creatum ex nihilo, contra quorum primum dicit, quod est Deus super omnta, contra secundum quod est benedictus in saecula; hoc enim de solo Deo dicendum est, quod eius bonitas duret in saecula ». Inde ab Erasmi aetate haud pauci acath., socianistico spiritu magis minusve imbuti, praeclarum hoc divinitatis Christi testimonium, interpunctione nova invecta, nobis eripere conantur. Puncto enim post érirávtov (super omnia) vel etiam post 1à xa1à odpxa (secundum carnem) posito, aut verba ultima sola (Ge £Voyncá, slc vobo al&ivac, dux,» Deus benedictus in saecula, amen) aut integram sententiolam (6 àv enl gavtov ck xvÀ qui est super omnia Deus benedictus in saecula , amen) doxologiam esse declarant, qua Apostolus Deo de tot tantisque beneficiis populo israelitico collatis gralias agat. Contra quos primum adnolamus, in doxologiis per modum exclamationis enuntiatis adiectivum teóXoys:« vel participium eoAoyauévec (benedictus), quoniam praecipuam sententiae vim habet, semper primum locum tenere, neque ullam huius usus loquendi in Novo aut in Vetere Test. inveniri exceptionem (cfr Matth. 21,9; 33,39; Marc. 11,9. 10; Luc. 1,68; 13,35. 38 [etiam 1,28. 42]; /oan, 12,13;2 Cor. 4,3; Eph. 1,3; 4 Petr. 4,3; — Gen. 9,960; nem indicavit, cur de multorum fratrum suorum infidelitate tantopere doleret omniumque conversionem ad Christum tam ardenter desideraret, Apostolus iam thesin suam statuit, quam in hac sectione demonstrare vult, nimirum promissiones populo electo datas ideo pro irritis nequaquam haberi posse, quia multi non fiant earum participes (v. 6). Quam ut probet, ex patriarcharum historia ostendit , adinissionem ad promissiones neque a sanguine naturalive generatione neque 8 praeviis operibus pendere, sed a gratuita Dei electione et vocatione. Quem in finem duo facta notissima affert, atque primo in loco monet, ex duobus filiis Abraham , cui promissiones primitus sunt dictae, illum solum ad earum hereditatem esse admissum et inter patriarchas populi locum obtinuisse, qui ipse erat promissionis filius (7-9). Atque idem in Isaaci filiis accidisse addit; quamvis enim ab eodem patre eademque matre eodem tempore sint geniti, illum solum, qui post alterum ex utero erat egressurus ac proin minus ius habere videbatur, iam ante nativitatem non iure operum, quae non habebat, sed gratuita Dei electione heredem promissionum esse vocatum (10-13). Quae argumentatio ut clarius perspiciatur, iuverit praenotasse, « Apostolum hanc gratuitam electionem ad oeconomiam Veteris Testamenti inducere tamquam argumentum, ex quo concludat, arguens ex typo ad antitypum, electionem etiam ad novam oeconomiam et ad bona in ea promissa, nominatim ad iustitiam coram Dco, non esse debitam iuri sanguinis et operum humanorum, sed gratuitum supernaturale beneficium, quod Deus vult conferre per fidem Iesu Christi, Sicut electionem ad populum V. T. conferebat verbo suo per supernaturalem promissionem et vocationem (efr Es. Franzelin De Deo uno P- 715) ». Ad v. 2 respiciens S. Paulus ad thema suum ila transit, ut luctum, quem ex praesente ac partiali contribulium suorum infidelitate ac reieclone sese concepisse manifestavit, radicem suam in praciudicio illo iudaico habere neget, iuxta quod divinae promissiones dc futuro Messia pro irritis sint habendae, nisi omnes, qui naturali geucratione ad populum israeliticum pertinent, earum participes fiant :
9:6
6. on «item quod (cy, ctv 88 6«) exciderit verbum Dei;i. e. dolorem meum asserens nequaquam dico promissiones Dei periisse vimque suam ainisisse (de significatione verbi ixzízzzv cfr ad 4 Cor. 13,8. Qua sententia elliptica thesin totius huius tertiae sectionis statui iam monuimus. trentur, ut sensus sit : « fieri non potest, ut verbum Dei exciderit », seu promissiones non possunt (vel non potuerunt) irritae fieri (cfr Erasm. Tolet. Picon. elc — Grot. Hos. Ew. eic.). Similem versionem in suo codice iam habuit S. Aug. : « non potest excidere verbum Dei » (ad Paulin. ep. 136,31); quam sententiolam explicat : « Quod promittit Deus, non facit nisi Deus; habet namque aliquid rationis et veritatis, ul homo promittat et Deus faciat; ut autem homo se facere dicat, quod promiserit Deus, superbae impietatis est reprobus sensus » (ad Sixt. ep. 194,36). Unde Paulum ostendere velle putat, « quod ea quae promisit Deus, potens est et facere; ubi maxime gratia commendatur, cuius (vos Pelagiani) estis inimici; neque enim in potestate hominum est, ut Deus impleat quae promisit, sed in ipsius qui promisit » (c. Iulian. op. imperf. I. 444). Verum non tantum haec explicatio verbis, prout ea S. Aug. legit, parum congruit, sed versioni ipsi quoque varia obstant. Neque enim nudum otov, sed olóv «e possibilitati significandae inservire solet, ac locutio oiov «e semper cum infinitivo coniungitur (ut scribi debuerit : o5; oióv ve à? Zxnexreix£vat cv Xoyov vo. Gov). Praeterea in sequentibus Apostolus solum factum explicat, idque unum probat, verbum Dei revera non excidisse; quodsi demonstrare voluisset, verbum Dei now potuisse irritum fieri, procul dubio alia argumenta attulisset. Rectius igitur reliqui locutionem o2; oio pro formula illa fortiter negante habent, qua iuniores Gracci ipsam quoque veri speciem deesse significant (i. qQ. nequaquam ; multum abest ut etc.), quaeque similis est locutioni o0y 6 ( Phil. 4,11) : « neque prope est, ut verbum Dei exciderit aut excidisse videatur » (Phot. cfr Oec.). luxta consuetum quidem usum locutio haec immediate cum verbo finito conuectitur (ut scribi debuerit : cog oiov 9i éxnéntoxev 6 Aoyoc); sed nihil impedit, quominus Apostolum, quum particulam &x ante verbum finitum insereret, duas locutiones negantes oj; olov et oóy 6t (i. q. o9 Xéqo óz0), ut maiorem vim sententiae attribueret, coniunxisse et quasi commiscuisse dicamus. Hac ergo ratione sententia exponi potest : o) votov £& Mo otov Ózt £xnízioxiv xtÀ, « non tale (dico) quale (hoc est) quod exciderit verbum Dei » etr. Zeel.. fr. p. 533; similiter Win. Gr. p. 8535; A. Buttm. Gr. p. 319;. Alii constructionem ad synesin admittere malunt Apostolumque ad notionem utum. abest, quae locutioni o3z olov competit, solam attendisse constructionemque coniunctione óx continuasse suspicantur ( Fritzshe ete.). Alii minus apte coniunctione àx hic directam orationem introduci coniiciunt; scilicel. verba. Zxzézzexev 6 Aóyoq 109 Qo (excidit verbum Dei) obiectionem Iudaeorum fuisse, quam Paulus afferat fortiterque neget (Weber). Quae ultimae explicationes ad. grammaticos potius spectant; sensus enini in illis idem ac in nostra est. Multorum Iudaeorum reiectione divinas proniissiones ad irritum cecidisse is solus persuadere sibi potest, qui eas ad omnes ct singulos, qui naturali generatione a. lacob. descendunt, pertinuisse arbitratur. Wine brevi sententia, quam in sequentibus aceuratius exponet explicabitque, hunc errorem reiicit : non enim omnes , qui ez Israel sunt, & sunt Israelitae (vel : Ài sunt Israel z5zox "Ioas cfr VV. LL.). In priore membro nomen /srael designat patriarcham lacob, cui Deus ipse hoc nomen imposuit (Gen. 39,28), atque ci £2 'Icoas; intelliguntur, qui seeundum carnem ab eo originem trahunt. In altero autem Israel est nomen gentilicium, quod plerumque quidem cunctos ex patriarcha naturaliter exortos complectitur, hic vero ad eos solos, sive ex eo descendunt sive non descendunt, designandos adhibetur, ad quos promissiones divinae vere pertinent. Quinam hi sint, Apostolus nondum declarat; id unum asserit, promissiones populo Israel dictas non ad omnes perünere, qui secundum naturalem suam originem Israelitae sunt; promissiones igitur irritas non esse, si aliqui ex his a salute messiana excludantur. Similem distinctionem supra iam adhibuit, ubi de circumcisionis, qua ludaei gloriabantur, utilitate (2,28 sq.) et de vera Abrahae progenie (4,11 sqq.) egit; alibi quoque Israeli secundum carnem opponit Israelem secundum spiritum vel Israelem Dei (cfr ad 1 Cor. 10,18; Gal. 54,29; 6,16). Semper quippe urget, « Deum non naturae sed virtutis cognationem quaerere » (7/eod.). lamsententiam eandem ita continuat, ut ad argumentationem deflectens ex iis, quaeScriptura deimmediatis Abrahae filiis tradit, probare incipiat, promissiones messianas admissionemque ad regnum messianum naturali origini non alligari, scd a gratuita Dei electione pendere :
9:7
7. neque qui (lege : neque quia 232 zx efr VV. LL.) semen sunt Abrahae , omnes filii (x£xvx), sed In [saac vocabitur tibi semen. Priora. verba, ad quae subiectum zí 2 'Iopaz (qui ez Israel sunt) repeti oportet, sensu cum praecedente membro congruunt, probationem autem annexam habent, quum Scripturae testimonio quid tenendum sit insinuetur. Ob abrahamiticum enim sanguinem suum filii Israel sese heredes promissionum Abrahae seminique eius dictarum iactabant; at solum abrahamiticum sanguinem non sufficere, ut aliquis heres Abrahae vocetur, historia filiorum eius docet. Ismael non minus quam [saac ex semine Abrahae progenitus erat, sed Deo iubente eiectus et solus Isaac a Deo agnitus est genuinus Abrahae filius, cui hereditas competeret (Gen. 91,12 cfr Gal. 4,30). Nomen seminis duplici sensu adhiberi patet; i0 principio enim sententiae significat omnes, quotquot naturali generatione ab Abraham descendunt, in 8cripturae autem textu sensu arctiore eos solos complectitur, qui filii pleno iure ideoque heredes sunt (cfr 8,17). Genescos porro verba sine ulla citationis formula atTeruntur et non mutata argumentationi inseruntur (uti etiam 2 Cor. 10,7 cfr 1 Cor. 1,31; Gal. 3,11. 12 elc.). Proxime autem ac directe docent, iuxta divinam dispositionem genus ac nomen Abrahae, excluso Ismael, per solum Isaac continuatum iri atque hunc solum ad patriarchae populi electi dignitatem admitti. Quo proximo sensu literali supposito, Apostolus lectores ad altiorem verborum significationem maxime attendere iubet, quippe qua multorum [Iudaeorum exclusione a salute messiana ethnicorumque multorum ad eam admissione promissiones divinas nequaquam irritas reddi appareat, quum a sanguine abrahamitico non pendeant. Typicum enim verborum sensum allegationi suae adiungit :
9:8
8. id est, non qui filii carnis, hi filii Dei, sed qui filii sunt promissionis, aestimantur in semine (x& vé£xva ti enar Aovitszat ei; oxépyux, filii promissionis reputantur in semen, censentur semen). Qua in expositione nomen seminis, quum locutioni ti Dei (:£xvz «20 8:25) respondeat, spiritualem posteritatem Abrahae significare evidens est; fundamentum autem typicae explicationis est differentia, quam inter Ismaelis et Isaaci generationem intercedere Paulus alibi fusius docet (Gal. &,92-30). Prior enim non tantum ex ancilla sed etiam secundum carnem (Gal. &,23. 99), i. e. ordinario modo iuxta naturae leges a parentibus generationi naturaliter idoneis, est genitus; quare apte Israelitas incredulos praefigurat, qui naturali tantum generatione ab Abraham ortum trahentes non sunt nisi eius filii secundum carnem seu /i/ii carnis. Alter vero, Isaac liberae filius, per promissionem et secundum spiritum (Gal. 4,93. 99), i. e. vi ac virtute promissionis divinae, quae emortuam generandi facultatem quum patris tum matris resuscitavit (cfr &,19 sqq.), ergo praeter naturam singulari Dei beneficio genitus, iure merito fi/ius promissionis atque etiam quodam modo /i/ius Dei vocari potest; unde typus est eorum, qui ad novam oeconomiam admittuntur. Nam hi quoque et filii promissionis (Gal. 5,28) sunt, quia per fidem Christo inserti « semen Abrahae sunt, secundum promissionem heredes » (Ga/. 3,7. 99), et filii Dei adoptivi, quia « non ex sanguinibus neque ex voluntate carnis neque ex voluntate viri sed (credentes in nomine Dei) ex Deo sunt nati » (oan. 1,12. 13 cfr ad Gal. 3,26 sqq.). Itaque verbis, quibus Deus Ismaele reiecto solum Isaac legitimum Abrahae filium heredemque agnitum iri declaravit, typice significari Paulus docet, veros filios Abrahae spirituales, qui ius ad promissiones ci seminique eius dictas, i. e. ad aditum in regnum messianum et ad eius benedictiones, habeant, nequaquam esse eos, qui physica tantum generatione ab eo originem trahant, sed eos solos, « qui ex gratia promissionis divinae facti sint filii Abrahae secundum imitationem fidei » (Thom.), sivesint. sive non sint secundum carnem ex sanguine abrahamitico progeniti. Ad complendum autem argumentum B. Paulus miraculosam [Isaaci nativitatem, cui innititur, promissione divina allata confirmat :
9:9
9. promissionis enim verbum hoc est : Secundum hoc tempus veniam , el erit Sarae filius (uazX 9 wp 229320. Eeibozga vat 27x cf; Xabia vi5;). Quae verba ex Gen. 18,15 iusta alexandrinum quidem textum (ziz zz». wxigi» c25z29 Xuxstpije xpll oi od ópxl xb folxt Niiig viii, versus hoc tempus revertar ad te proximo anno et erit Sarae filius), sed liberius ita sunt allegata, ut temporis accuratiore definitione omissa de vera promissione agi ac summo iure [saacum filium promissionis dici appareat. Sensu etiam Gen. 18,10 plane consonat, quem versum alii citatum esse arbitrantur, licet ultimo suo membro zt oi2v. Nxiix d ovovü eco, et habebit filium Sara uxor tua) longius distare videatur; neque primigenius utriusque sententiae textus ab allegatione paulina sensu dissonat. In huius loci interpretatione omnes fere consentiunt. Haud recte tamen aliqui moderni acath. Paulum non tam verba Geneseos typice explicare, quam ex facto particulari universalem veritatem derivare censent (cír Weiss etc.). Neque enim animadvertunt, verba Geneseos ad diversum altioreimque rerum ordinem transferri, atque Apostolum ipsum historiae filiorum Abrahae practer literalem ct historicum sensum significationem allegoricam seu typicam diserte attribuisse (cfr Comm. in 2 Cor. et Gal. p. 548 cet Introd general. in U. T. libr, sacr. p. 530 sqq. Ed. 2. p. 55? sqq.). Egregic id iam Chrys. insinuavit nostrum locum eadem ferc ratione ac Gal. 4,28 interpretatus : « Ideo dicit : In Isaac vocabitur tibi semen, ut discas eos maxime esse semen Abrahae, qui nati sunt secundum Isaac. Quomodo igitur natus est Isaac? Non secundum legem naturae ncque secundum vim carnis, sed sccundum vim promissionis. Quid sibi hoc vult : secundum vim promissionis? In hoc tempore veniam ad te et erit Sarae filius. Haec igitur cst promissio, et verbum Dei Isaacum formavit et genuit; neque enim vis matricis sed vis promissionis filium procreavit. Ita et nos nascimur per Dei verba, quae nos generant ac formant; nam in nomine Patris et l'ilii et Spiritus S. baptizati generamur. llaec autem generatio non naturae sed promissionis Dei est; sicut enim quum Isaaci gencrationem promisissct, rem exsccutus est, sic et nostram ante multa tempora per omnes prophetas praenuntiavit cet postea in opus deduxit » etc. (cfr Comment. in 2 Cor. ct Gal. p. 555). Aditum ad regnum messianum non esse ex iure sanguinis, ex praecedente argumento rite colligitur; minus clare autem ex illo deduci videtur, eum liberae ac gratuitae electioni Dei deberi. Etenim alibi (Gal. 4,22 sqq.) Apostolus praeter miraculosam [saaci generationem simul urget eum ex libera matre esse natum, atque diversos quoque fuisse duorum filiorum mores insinuat (Gal. 4,29). Obiici ergo potuit, Isaacum propter meliorem matris suae conditionem suamque ipsius probatiorem vitam fratri servo et improbo esse praelatum ; unde deinde sequeretur, Deum in admittendis ad regnum messianum forte externae conditionis meritorumque naturalium praecedentium rationem habere fefe. CArys. Theod. elc., Thom. ete.). Quas obiectiones praeoccupat Paulus altero allato argumento, quo non tantum apparet, promissionem de Isaac pronuntiatam (in [saac vocabitur tibi semen), non obstante sua universalitate, ad cunctos Isaaci posteros non pertinuisse, sed Deum in sua electione etiam ad externam conditionem meritaque praecedentia non attendere. Ad historiam enim filiorum geminorum [Isaaci transit, quorum ante nativitatem minor prae maiore iam est electus patriarcha populi Israel :
9:10
10. non solum autem illa, sed et Rebecca ez uno concubitu habens Isaac patris nostri, vel melius et accuratius (cfr VV. LL.) iuxta graecum : uon solum autem, sed et Rebecca ez uno concubitum habens Isaac patre nostro (29 pi»zw 8i, X4Ax xxi "Pifix«x i2 £vbI xoítmw Éyoocx 'Ioxàx 229 zzzi; $59»). Qua in sententia locutio xzi5» £yctv Ex cwog (concubitum habere ex aliquo) per metonymiam causae pro effectu significat concepisse ex aliquo («z:-v, proxime torus s. lectus coniugalis; deinde i. q. concubitus; demum 1. q. partus s. fetus conceptus), ita. ut clarius vertamus : non solum autem, sed et Rebecca quum ez uno Isaaco concepisset patre nostro!. Ad prius membrum (25 yvzv 3£, qua de formula cfr ad 5,3. 11; 8,23) graecus textus nihil quidem addit; latinum tamen additamentum (7//a sc. Sara), quod Syrus quoque exhibet, aptissimum est, si cum S. Iren. (c. haer. IV. 21,2) in altero membro velut praedicatum supplemus : « responsum a Verbo accepit » vel melius promissionem accepit. (3zxztz&íxv £xa5:v). Namque Sarae, quae v. 9. nominatur, potius quam Abrahamo promissionem de [saaco nascituro dictam esse, ex Gen. 18,9-15 elucet, Rebeccae autem promissionem, de qua nunc agitur, dictam esse, Paulus ipse (v. 19) una cum Moyse (Gen. 25,93) testatur. Alii alia supplent?; quidquid vero supplendum videtur, clarum est, hac transitionis formula argumento novo, quod inducitur, maiorem gravitatem attribui. Quae in eo est sita, quod etiam ex Rebeccae filiis geminis, quamvis ex uno, et quidem ex Isaac patre nostro, qui cum tota sua posteritate ad genus Abrahae continuandum vocatus videbatur (v. 7), ambo eodem tempore sint progeniti ac proinde inter se pares essent, Deus unum solum ad dignitatem patriarchalem elegerit neque ipsius fi/i promissionis filios omnes pro legitimo Abrahae semine, ad quod spectet promissio, agnoverit. Idem enim 1saac, qui per lacob (Israel) Israelitarum pater est, Edomitarum pater est per Esau (Edom); neque vero unquam [udaei Idumaeos legitimos Abrahae et Isaaci heredes habuerunt. Mirum ergo eis videri non debet, quod etiam Iudaei multi, sanguine suo abrahamitico non obstante, ad regnum messianum per prophetas promissum non admittantur, quum ex patriarcharum historia tam luculenter constet, divinas promissiones naturali origini non esse alligatas. Ad quam conclusionem insinuandam Paulus, fudaeus cum ludaeis disputans, Isaac vocat patrem nostrum, i. e. ludaeorum; neque recte aliqui eum Christianorum patrem appellari arbitrantur. Nam illa paternitatis ratio, qua Abraham per fidem suam omnium fidelium, etiam eorum qui originem ex eo non trahunt sed fidem eius imitantur, pater vocatur et est, Isaaco non magis quam sancto cuicumque veteris oeconomiae in Scripturis usquam attribuitur (cfr p. 230:. Quoniam de re omnibus notissima agitur, Paulus brevissima historiae in Gen. 25,19-93 narratae mentione contentus ex illa statim, ne ipsis quidem filiis de quibus loquitur nominatis, argumentum suum ita derivat, ut simul Iudaeos quum origine sua abrahamitica tum Legis suae. operibus frustra confidere doceat :
9:11
11. quium enim nondum nati fuissent (melius : essent) aut (cum S. Aug. etc. melius : neque 5x21) aliquid boni egissent aut mali — ut secundum electionem propositum Dei (melius : propositum Dei quod est secundum electionem, vel : electivum propositum Dei 4, xaz' &xXoqtv «psüsatg 228 O:25) maneret (oiv), — 12. non ez operibus sed er vocante dictum est ei (xi:
9:12
13. quia (melius : quod 2-)) mazor serviet minori, sicut scriptum es! : lacob dileri, Esau autem odio habui. Cum antiquioribus interpretibus Vulgata Clem. membrum istud : non ez operibus sed er vocaute a praecedente sententia finali, quam velut parenthesin uncis includit. w/ secundi electionem propositum Dei maneret), separat, ut illud immediate cum praedicato sententiae principalis (dictum est ei) connectat; moderni vero vix non omnes illud ad sententiam finalem trahunt, quam non parenthetice insertam, sed verbo praedicati ad quod pertinet (dictiem est ei, ut propositum Dei maneret) ideo praemissam censent, ut in illa praecipuam vim argumentationis esse clarius appareret!. Ad universum quidem loci sensum haud multum refert, uter nexus adoptetur, velut : concinniorem tamen clarioremqueantiquiori modernam constructionem praeferimus. Namque una ex parte tautologice dici videtur : « quum nondum quidquam boni aut mali egissent, non ez operibus dictum est ei »; altera vero ex parte constructio : « ez vocante dictum est » (ix *o0 xaAoüvtog &bií0r) saltem insolentior est. Apte autem membrum integrum cum sententia finali connecti, ex dicendis elucebit; antea tamen sententiam principalem explicabimus. Cuius sensus est: iam ante geminorum nativitatem Deus sua praedictione manifestavit, se unum ex eis et quidem illum, qui tamquam natu minor minus ius habere videbatur, ad patris hereditatem capiendam legitimumque patris genus continuandüm elegisse, idque electione plaue libera et gratuita, quia minoris assumtio aut maioris reiectio neque origini neque meritis alterutrius debeatur. Quemadmodum supra iam monuimus, Ismael a paterna hereditate exclusus videri potuit non tantum quia ex serva natus esset sed etiam quia fratris sui illusor fuisset (cfr Gen. 21,9 sqq.; Gal. 4,99). Ne quis vero alteram exclusionis rationem etiam in Esau adfuisse suspicetur, Paulus non modo ante nativitatem electionem factam esse dicit, verum diserte quoque (forte ad puerorum in utero matris luctam alludens, cfr Gen. 95,22) addit, eos nondum quidquam oni au! malt egisse, quo Deus ad unuin alteri praeferendum permotus esset. Iure autem cum S Aug. (ad Simplic. I. qu. 2,5; ad Sixt. ep. 194 n. 35 etc.) plerique contra CArys. A'""" aliosque ex his verbis colligunt, Deum in Iacobi electione ad praevisa opera eius futura non attendisse. Nisi enim omnia omnino opera excludere planeque gratuitam esse electionem docere voluisset, Apostolus satis superflue commemorasset, geminos nondum natos nihil boni aut mali egisse (cfr infra). Verba, quibus lacobum fratri suo maiori praelatum esse significat , oratione directa (coniunctione recitativa zx quia, vel melius quod, praemissa) ex Gen. 25,23 allegat. lbi quidem ad populorum tantum ex duobus filiis progignendorum sortem futuram referri videntur (« duae gentes sunt in utero tuo et duo populi ex ventre tuo dividentur, populusque populum superabit et mazor serviet minori »), a Paulo tamen ad ipsos filios hic referuntur idque rectissime. Etenim oraculum divinum, quum ad geminorum in utero matris collidentium luctam explicandam editum sit, filios ipsos non minus quam eorum posteros spectare clarum est, ita ut de utrisque valeat; pater quippe et caput familiae vel gentis alicuius una cum illa velut una persona moralis in Scripturis frequentissime consideratur. Revera indoles ac sors diversa ldumaeorum ludaeorumque indole sorteque diversa Esau et lacobi quasi pracfigurabatur, atque utraque ultimam suam radicem in eo habebat, quod minor ex fratribus divinitus electus erat, qui solus in semine Abrahae, cui datae erant promissiones, reputaretur, solusque in iura Isaaco, filio promissionis, ab Abraham collata succederet. Itaque illis verbis non modo Idumaeos [udaeis subiectum iri praedicitur — id quod inde a Davidis tempore (2 Reg.8,13) fere usque ad assyriacas invasiones et iterum a loannis Hyrcani tempore (F7. fos. Antiqu. XIII. 9,1) usque ad romanam Palaestinae occupationem obtinuit — verum etiam filium ipsum maiorem, iure primogeniturae (sua culpa) amisso, servum futurum esse fratris sui natu minoris, id quod factum est, quando lacob paterna benedictione accepta solus a patre constitutus est heres legitimus ac simul dominus, cui frater servire iure teneretur (cfr Gen. 27,27-99. 37. 0). Neque vero nudam praediclionem sed divinum decretum vel potius promissionem divinam, quae divinae electioni lacobi innitebatur, verbis illis contineri Paulus altero Scripturae loco insinuat, cui respondere dicuntur. lis enim quasi causa indicatur, cur maior minori Sserviturus sit : sicut. scriptum est : lacob dilert, Esau autem odio habui. Locus, qui Geneseos vaticinio consonat (za01z:p víypxzix), in ultimi prophetae sermone primo (Ma/. 1,2 sqq.: legitur, quo Deus Iudaeos ex babylonico exsilio reduces, quando de misera sua conditione murmurantes divinam erga se dilectionem in dubium vocabant, acriter quidem reprehendit sed simul consolatur, continuum suum amorem asserens infeliciorisque Idumaeorum sortis comparatione demonstrans. Idumaei enim, quamvis propinquae cognationis vinculo cum ludaeis colligati, non tantum ex exsilio non sunt revocati , sed eorum regiones quoque vastationi ita sunt traditae, ut pristinis suis incolis non amplius stabilem sedei sint praebiturae : « Nonne frater erat Esau lacob, dicit Dominus, et d//eri Jacob, Esau autem odio habui, et posui montes eius in solitudiaem et hereditatem eius in dracones deserti? Quodsi dixerit Idumaea : Destructi sumus, sed revertentes aedificabimus quae destructa sunt, haec dicit Dominus exercituum : Isti aedificabunt et ego destruam, et vocabuntur termini impietatis et populus cui iratus est Dominus usque in aeternum ». Simili igitur modo, quo Gen. 95,23, hic immediate de solis gentibus ex Jacob et Esau oriundis sermo fieri videtur, neque desunt, qui id censeant, ita ut Apostolus prophetae verbis ex historia duorum populorum quasi demonstret, Geneseos vaticinium per saeculorum cursum revera in opus deductum impletumque esse : « Addit : sicut scriptum est, quasi dicat : ecce quod in Genesi est praedictum, cernis ab ultimo demum propheta ex utriusque populi historia demonstratum et probatum : sine suo merito diligi populum lacob, iuste puniri populum Esau » (cfr Knabenbauer Comm. in proph. minores II. 422 sq.). Quae explicatio mihi minus probatur, quia non satis intelligo, quomodo ex ista sententiola, quae sola ex sermone prophetico affertur, historica eiusmodi probatio desumatur, nisi quis forte (mco quidem iudicio parum recte) dicere velit, Apostolum primis prophetae verbis allatis totum eius sermonem lectoribus in memoriam revocare voluisse, ut argumenti historici, quod 7n sententiis non allegatis continetur, ipsi recordarentur. Nisi omnia nos fallunt, Malachias in priore sermonis sui parte proxime ac directe de ipsis geminis ita loquitur, ut in iis et cum iis etiam eorum posteros a Deo dilectos aut odio habitos esse significet ; in altera autem de solis posteris agens demonstrat, Deum etiamnum Israelitas diligere, Edomitas odio habere. Ac profecto quum haud sine emphasi statim ab initio dicat : « nonne frater (erat) Esau Iacob », dubium vix esse potest, quin de ipsis personis loquatur; neque minus clarum est, cum posteros una intelligere, quum addat : « et posi? montes eius (vwi7nw sc. Esau posterorumque eius) /» solitudinem ». Ubi vero de solis posteris Esau loquitur, nomen mutat ct se de populo loqui constructione feminina indicat (OiTN vaNn-c 2 quod st dizeri! Edom , vel potius : si dixerint Idumaei). luxta hanc interpretationem Paulus prophetae verbis impletionem vaticinii Geneseos non probat, sed eius rationem affert : Deus maiorem minori servire voluit, quia minorem dilexit, maiorem odio habuit. Hoc si intelligitur sensu, dictum Dei ad Rebeccam cum Malachiae oraculo de duobus filiis eorumque posteris consonat eoque confirmatur. Dubitanti porro, num dicere liceat, Deum filium maiorem iam ante nativitatem odio habuisse, recte respondetur. in Scripturis verbum pioeiv (odio habere) interdum comparative vel etiam privative adhiberi, praesertim ubi verbo àyazav (diligere) opponitur, neque aversionem proprie dictam sed minorem animi propensionem, i. e. minorem amoris gradum, vel specialis dilectionis, quae insignioribus beneficiis collatis sese manifestat, absentiam denotare idemque fere sonare, ac minus diligere vel negligere. Qua verbi significatione, de qua multis exemplis constat !, hic admissa, Deus lacobum dilexisse et Esau odio habuisse dicitur, quatenus eo iam tempore, quo ambo externa conditione meritisque inter se pares erant, maiore neglecto mi- . norem elegit, qui solus patris hereditate occupata genus Abrahae legitime velut patriarcha populi electi continuaret et in cuius solius posteros insignia beneficia irr. &. 5) conferrentur, quae alterius posteris negaía esse historia testatur. In neutro textu allegato de gratia interna ad sanctificationem pertinente ac multo minus de salute acterna praecise ac per se spectata sermonem esse, ex verbis et ex contextu Geneseos ct Malachiae tam clare elucet, ut non intelligatur, quomodo aliqui eis directe doceri putaverint, Deum alios (uti Iacobum) ante omnem meritorum praevisionem ad aeternam beatitudinem praedestinasse, alios (uti Esau) ante eorum peccata praevisa odio habuisse ideoque ab aeterna gloria .exclusisse ac reprobasse. Proxime ac directe (simili modo ac v. 7) de sola hereditate temporali et de admissione ad foedus promissionum, quod Deus cum Abraham pepigit, minori fratri per gratuitam electiohem concessa agitur. Exemplum autem hoc, aeque ac praecedens (rv. 7-9), Apostolus utique affert, ut altioris ordinis veritatem doceat, quae utroque typice praefiguretur. Quemadmodum enim antea verbis allegatis typicam interpretationem diserte adiunxit (v. 8), ita hic ad eam animos lectorum convertit sententiam finalem inserens, qua altiorem finem explicat, quem Deus in lacobi gratuita electione ad hereditatem matri praedicenda habuit. Praedicta enim illa electione Deus significare voluit, admissionem ad novum quoque foedus eiusque bona non a sanguinis iure aut a. praeviis operibus, sed a gratuita sua electione dependere. Hic quippe est sensus verborum : »/ secundum electionem propositum (t$ wx ikv xplmi) Des maneret, non er operibus sed ex vocante. Qua in sententia, quoniam Dei immutabilis proposita per sese firma sunt ac manent (« neque enim in Deum cadit facere aliquid eum in finem, ut aliquod propositum suum s/ firmum, sed utique aliquid ideo facere potest, ut aliquod propositum suum /irmum esse ab hominibus cognoscatur »), iure merito haud pauci interpretes moderni (fieel. Reith. Mai. Bisp. L R. Dr. etc. — Fritzsche Mey. etc.) verbum manere logice esse sumendum (cfr ad 3,5. 19. 26 etc.) adnotant, Deum ergo matri gratuitam minoris filii electionem eo fine manifestasse, ut deeretum suum firmum ratumque »anere cognosceretirr. Porro qui ad graecum textum attenderit, nonnullorum antiquiorum Latinorum (cfr S. Aug. expos. n. 60; ad Simpl. I. qu. 2,6. 22 etc., 7o. etc.) interpretationem, qui dictionem seeundiim: electionem ad. praedicati verbum trahunt (wt propositum Dei maneret secundum electionem), reiicere non dubitabit. Ad subiectum cnim velut attributum omnino pertinent, atque 4, xaz' ixXoyi» xpí8:ot; (propositum Dei quod est secundum electionem) idem fere est ac decretum Dei electivum, seu decretum in quo simul electionis ratio habetur; quale nimirum erat decretum , quo Deus inter geminos unum eligens minori soli hereditatem competere voluit. Iamvero sunt, qui hoc ipsum decretum , quo lacob prae fratre suo ad dignitatem patriarchalem ex mera benevolentia divina electus est, in nostra sententia finali ita intelligendum esse censeant, ut simul typus sit alterius decreti, quo Deus ab aeterno certum hominum numerum sine ullo respectu ad eorum conditionem aut opera ad gratiam fidei aliaque novae oeconomiae bona vocare statuit (cfr Frauzelin de Deo uno p. 715 sqq. etc.). At rectius, ni fallor, dicemus de altero hoc decreto sola in sententia finali agi illudque literali sensu designari. Id enim et nomen 1, zo£0:cei; (propositum), quod semper hoc sensu usurpari supra (ad 8,28) monuimus et appositio cjx ££ £gyev àXX' éx cc» *axAo)w-os (non er operibus sed ex vocante) suadent; nam participium z za^ov(rocans), utpoteabsolute positum, secundum apostolicum loquendi usum (cfr ad 8,98) non nisi de efficaci vocatione ad fidei iustitiam et consequenter, si quis perseverat, ad gloriam (8,30) intelligatur oportet (cfr Gal 5, 8; 1 Thess. 2,19; 5,25; eodem sensu partic. aor. & xx^ésa; Gal. 1,6. 15; 9 Tim. 1,9; 1 Petr. 1,15; 2 Petr. 1,3). Haud minus vero apte verba illa cum aliquibus (cfr Reith. Mai. Beel. Bisp. etc.) participio cóza suppleto, ad totum subiectum referimus (« ut electivum Dei decretum, quod non ex operibus sed ex vocante dependet, manere cognosceretur »), quam cum aliis (cfr Est. etc.) per hyperbaton ad locutionem xa:' ixcyí» solam trahimus, ut eius quasi definitionem constituant (« ut decretum Dei, quod secundum electionem est, i. e. non ex operibus sed ex vocante dependet, manere cognosceretur »). Utraque enim constructio grammatice defendi potest! eundemque fere sensum gignit; iuxta utramque enim clare significatur, admissionem ad novam oeconomiam ab hominum suis solis viribus laborantium operibus non dependere, verum, a sola Dei vocantis gratia; eam ergo plane esse gratuitam (cfr 9 7i. 1,9 « qui vocavit nos vocatione sua sancta non secundum opera nostra sed secundum suum propositum et gratiam, quae data est nobis in Christo Iesu, ante tempora saecularia »; Eph. 2,8. 9 etc.), sicut admissio lacobi ad veterem oeconomiam , uti ex filiorum Rebeccae historia constat, operibus non debebatur, sed gratuitae Dei eligentis voluntati. Quamvis autem ex eadem historia etiam appareat, admissionem ad promissiones iuri sanguinis naturalisque generationis non esse alligatam, Apostolus id tamen hic non commemorat, quia praecedentis exempli typica explicatione iam satis erat demonstratum. De diversis sententiae expositionibus pauca adnotasse sufficiet. Refutatione Z'heod. non indiget, qui perversam, ut videtur, lectionem secutus (5, xat' ixAoyz» tou Gto) ngóétsai , propositum quod est secundum Dei electionem) nomine propositi designari vult bonam malamve geminorum voluntatem, . propter quam praevisam Deus unum elegerit altero relicto. Ad similem sensum Chrys. cum sua schola (cfr Z'heoph. Oec. etc.; similiter eam A'« etc.) pervenit, quum ei $4 xax! ixXoyzv p90caw; tov Gov (propositum Dei, quod est secundum electionem) idem sit quod 7, àxAoy?; f, xav& mpotisaw xat mpóyvectv 102 Ocoi (electio, quae secundum propositum et praescienliam Dei facta est), ita ut Deus Iacoburn elegisse dicatur, quia eum probum futurum esse praevidissel; « nam ex primo die et novit et annuntiavit, uter bonus et non bonus esset futurus ». Qua parum accurata et satis arbitraria locutionis interpretatione praetermissa, S. Doctorem non considerasse monemus, a Paulo opera et gratuitam vocationem absolute inter se opponi, ab eo igitur etiam praevisionem sive operum sive bonae voluntatis non habitam esse pro electionis causa vel ratione. Contra Iudaeos enim, qui admissionem ad regnum messianum sibi ob sanguinem suum abrabamiticum Legisque suae opera deberi arbitrabantur, Apostolus hic quam maxime urget, admissionem illam esse plane gratuitam solique Deo vocanti deberi. Id quidem recte vidit S. Aug. (ad Sixt. ep. 194,35; ad Simplic. I. qu. 9,5 etc.), at ipse quoque non tantum in priore quadam explicatione (expos. n. 60), uti postea confessus est (cfr Retract. I. 23,2; de praedest. Sanct. 3,7) a vero aberravit, quum Deum diceret saltem « fidem elegisse in praescienlia, ut quem sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegisset, cui Spiritum S. daret, ut bona operando etiam vitam aeternam consequeretur », sed in posterioribus quoque operibus genuinum sensum assecutus non est. Una enim ex parte, quia ad graecum textum non attendit, latinorum verborum quae esset recta connexio et constructio non perspexit (cfr supra p. 488. 5. 1); altera autem ex parte, quia in suo codice erronecam v. 6 versionem habuit (cfr supra ad v. 6 p. 482), non percepit, Apostolum in hac pericope non de praedestinatione ad gloriam agere, sed de gratuita ad fidem evangelicam admissione, quam utique praeter alia novae oeconomiae bona eliam salus aeterna in iis consequitur, qui ad fidem efficaciter vocati cum gralia cooperantes in iustitia accepta perseverant '. Auctoritas porro S. Augustini multos quoque iuniores, quamvis meliorem v. 6 lectionem haberent scopumque Apostoli cognoscere possent, eo adduxit, ut nostro in loco prae- t. Cfr Petrav. de praedest. Hf. 1,5, qui hac de re fusius agit. destinationem ad gloriam praecise spectatam doceri sibi persuaderent'. Quam in quaestionem ingredi opus non est; doctrinam enim illam nostro in loco nullum habere fundamentum, quum ex fine, quem Apostolus in hac pericope persequitur, tum ex tota eius argumentatione tam clare elucet, ut inter modernos non inveniatur, qui de praedestinatione ad gloriam hic diserte aut directe agi teneat. 3. — Iniuslus Deus non est quum inter pares unum prae altero ad. fidem vocal (9,14-21). ríae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae | *vx ywupiar, tov rÀoUtov ti; Oófr; ajroU praeparavit in gloriam. 24. Quos et toca- | izi axsom Üfow, d zporn:otuastv tij O0fav, vit nos non solum ez ludaeis, sed etiam | 21. o0; xai lzikegev dui; 09 uóvow d ex gentibus ,... 'Joo2aiov dAAà xai i£ iv !. Deus quum inter Rebeccae geminos nondum natos non minus quam inter Abrahae filios unum solum, altero relicto, ad hereditatem patri promissam dignitatemque patriarchalem eligeret, promissiones suas naturalis generationis operumque iuri non alligari ostendit legemque simul revelavit, quam in admissione ad promissum regnum messianum, i. e. ad Evangelium eiusque bona, secuturus erat : ex Iudaeis quippe et ex ethnicis, nulla externae conditionis aut operum ratione habita, alios ex mera benevolentia ad fidem evangelicam efficaciter vocat, alios eadem ratione non vocat, licet his quoque sufficientes gratias nequaquam deneget, quibus ad fidem pervenire possent, si cum eis cooperarentur. Haec est summa eorum, quae in praecedente pericope Apostolus exposuit, ut partiali Iudaeorum reiectione multorumque ethnicorum vocatione promissiones divinas de regno messiano non excidisse demonstraret. Sed nova inde exoriebatur difficultas; obiicere enim ludaei poterant, Deum iniustum videri, si ex illis, qui externa conditione ac meritis inter se pares sint, unum prae altero eligat(v.14). Quam obiectionem Paulus non tam directe quam indirecte solvit Scripturarum auctoritate, quam Iudaei agnoscere debebant. Illarum enim testimonio constat, Deum liberrimum esse quum in misericordia sua exhibenda (13. 16), tum in gratiis suis negandis, etsi ex earum negatione sequatur obduratio (17. 18). Praecavens vero, ne quis ex secunda responsionis suae parte inferat, Deo illos, quos ipse omnipotente sua voluntate induret, castigare non licere (v. 19), Apostolus praeprimis homuncionis cum Deo creatore suo de eius iustitia expostulantis superbiam temeritatemque reprimit (20. 21), ac deinde veram agendi rationem Dei explicat, qui erga ipsos peccatores (ludaeos Evangelium obstinate repellentes), quamvis eos puniturus sit, longanimem sese exhibeat (v. 22), maxime autem divitias misericordiae suae in electos manifestet, quos ex [udaeis et ex ethnicis vocare voluit (23. 24). Duae igitur obiectiones (vv. 15. 19), quarum prior vc. 15-18, altera vv. 20-954 refutentur, distinguendae sunt. Quam loci structuram contextionemque, quum ipsa apostolicae argumentationis forma satis aperte prodalur, cum SS. Ephr. et Aug. omnes fere iuniores interpretes latini cunctique moderni iure admittunt. Verum antiquiores Patres, ac praesertim Graeci, alios sententiarum nexus proposuerunt, ut multas et graves dífficultates, quas in hac pericope invenire sibi videbantur, effugerent. Cum Orig. inter Graecos Mopsu. et inter Latnos S. Hier. (ad Hedib. ep. 120,10) et Sedu/. unam solam obiectionem contra liberum hominis arbitrium adesse volunt, quae v. 14. proponatur et reiiciatur, vv. 15-18. Scripturarum auctoritate ab obiiciente confirmetur, v. 19. repetatur ac demum v. 20 sqq. dissolvatur, ita ut ea, quae vv. 15-19 leguntur, ex Pauli mente non sint dicta. À qua sententia CArys. cum suis (cfr Theod. Dam. Theoph. Euth.) haud longe recedit; obiectionem enim v. 1& propositam reiectamque sententiis sequentibus (15-18) nondum refutari sed potius augeri arbitratur, quum Apostolus ipse aliis Scripturae exemplis allatis ostendat, hominem non posse iudicare, cur Deus alium prae alio eligat. Unde etiam iuxta Chrys. sententiae vv. 16. 18 ex mente Pauli non sunt dictae, quamvis eas rectam quoque explicationem admittere concedat. Inter Latinos A*" duas quidem obiectiones distinguit, sed secundam iam v. 18 proponi vult, ideoque ad eundem rc. 18 trahit priora verba v. 19 (dicis itaque mihi) atque ab interrogatione Quid adhue queritur (vel uti erronee legit : Quid adhuc quaeritur?) refutationem inchoat. Demum Pe/ag. in tv. 15-19 altercationem quandam deprehendit, quasi Iudaeus adversarius ex Scripturae locis, a Paulo allegatis (vv. 15. 17) erroneas conclusiones derivet (rv. 16. 18), quae deinde reiiciantur. Verum accuratius de his sententiis disserere opus non esse arbitramur!; etenim nullam rationem adesse, cur ab illa quam cum plerisque sequimur pericopes dispositione recedamus, ex sententiarum interpretatione apparebit. Erroneam conclusionem, quam ex proposita doctrina adversarios forsitan derivaturos esse suspicatur, Paulus iisdem formulis, quibus saepius utitur (cfr 3,5; 6,1; 7,7), praeoccupat et reiicit :
9:14
15. quid ergo dicemus? numquid iniquitas (ààwiz, melius hic : iniustitia) apud Deum? Absit. Haud immerito ex ipsa hac obiectione S. Aug. desumit, in praecedentibus non tantum praeterita sed etiam praevisa opera velut rationem, cur Deus unum prae alio eligat, excludi?. Etenim rem consideranti aliqua iniquitatis vel iniustitiae species in eo solo apparere potuit, quod Deus nullo omnino sive praeteritorum sive futurorum operum respectu habito ex illis, qui inter se pares aequalesque essent unum praeferre diceretur, cui dona sua conferret. Sed « iustitia distributiva, inquit 7Àom., locum habet in iis quae dantur ez debito, puta si qui meruerunt mercedem, ut plus laborantibus maior merces detur; non autem locum habet in iis quae »ponte et misericorditer dantur, puta si quis duos pauperes in via inveniens dat uni, quod potest vel disponit dare in eleemosynam, non est iniquus (i. e. iniustus) sed misericors; similiter si quis, duobus aeque ipsum offendentibus, uni dimittit offensam et non alteri, est misericors uni et iustus ad alterum, neutri autem iniquus (vel iniustus) ». Verum hanc distinctionem, qua difficultas proposita directe solvitur, quum iustitiam fidei, i. e. admissionem ad regni messianici bona, Iudaeis non minus quam ethnicis non ex debito sed gratis ex mera benevolentia dari in superioribus fuse iam sit demonstratum (cfr 3,92 sqq. ; 4,1 sqq. etc.), Paulus diserte non enuntiat; illam tamen supponens ex Scriptura argumentari mavult, in qua Deus sese ipse in misericordia sua praestanda aut neganda liberum esse proclamat atque eo ipso etiam in hac agendi ratione iniustitiam non adesse docet; Deum iustissimum enim sese ipsum iniustum dicere, ne stultissimus quidem sibi persuaserit. Primo porro in loco sententiam affert, quam Moysi dictam esse haud sine emphasi (saltem secundum probatiorem lectionem cfr VV. LL.) monet, ut illam, quia tanto talique Dei amico dicta sit, multo magis ad reliquosomnes pertinere significet :
9:15
15. Moysi enim dicit (xà Moos: 4xp Aéye) miserebor cuius (melius : cuiuscumque z» 3») misereor et misericordiam praestabo cuius miserebor (melius : cuicumque misericordiam praesto év àv cixzsizo). Quae sententia (Exod. 33,19) accurate iuxta versionem alexandrinam allegata in eo solo a primigenio textu recedit, quod in membris relativis pro futuro praesens tempus adhibeatur (tezt. hebr. : « miserebor cuiuscumque miserebor et miserabor quemcumque miserabor! »). Qua formae mutatione sensus non mutatur, quem liberiore sua versione S. Hier. quasi explicat : « miserebor cui voluero et clemens ero in quem mihi placuerit ». Pro supremo enim suo beneplacito sese beneficia, quae non deberet, praestare neque ulla lege ad ea concedenda astringi, Deus significare voluit, quando a Moyse rogatus, ut sibi in confirmationem promissionis factae gloriam suam manifestaret, petitam gratiam se concessurum esse promittens sententiam istam generalem adiecit. Itaque illis verbis, uti Apostolus statim (v. 16) conclusione sua explanat, edocemur nos ad eiusmodi gratias nullum omnino ius habere neque eas nostris viribus laboribusque promerere posse, Deum ergo 1. [a textu hebr. formas *pznsy et sro non minus quam praecedens aM quae omues cum primo verbo **27w sunl connexae, esse Perfecta quae dicuntur consecutiva locumque Imperfecti (s. Futuri) hic tenere, contextus docet. iniustum non esse, si eas uni tribuat, alteri neget. Duo sententiae membra esse synonyma clarum est; coniunguntur autem, ut axioma repetitione ipsa animo profundius inculcetur. Quae accurata duorum verborum synonymorum (qn i::ty et Om cixzsfoew) sit distinctio, difficile est dictu; plerique tamen consentiunt , 'secundum priore esse fortius, quoniam praeter internum misericordiae affectum etiam externam eius manifestationem innuat (similiter atque latina misereri et miserari). Sunt qui sententiam in Exodo ad solum Moysen pertinere, a Paulo autem velut generalem adhiberi censeant (Bisp. etc. — Mey. Lips. etc.); at licet Moysi proxime sit dicta, a Deo ipso tamen iam velut generalis lex profertur, id quod contextum Exodi legenti patet. Eodem porro contextu etiam CArys. aliorumque, qui eum sequuntur, opinio excluditur, iuxta quam Deus sese alios ex ludaeis, qui vitulum aureum sibi in deserto fecerant, puniturum, aliis autem parciturum esse significare voluerit. Ex allegato divino testimonio Apostolus immediate infert :
9:16
16. 2gitur non volentis neque currentis , sed miserentis est Dei. Brevitatis pro more studiosus subiectum (et iuxta graecum textum etiam praedicati verbum : éc:ív est) praetermittit, quia ex praemissis Dei verbis sua sponte suppletur z5 22.707»: (« misericordiam consequi »), ita ut misericordiae (seu si mavis : beneficii indebiti) adeptionem non ab hominis voluntate aut labore, sed a Dei misericordis beneplacito dependere concludat. Si autem ad totam Apostoli argumentationem attendimus, subiectam omissum etiam accuratius definire et cum 770m. dicere nobis licet : « Igitur ipsa salus (sc. inchoata scu prima iustitia] hominis non debetur alicui per aliquam eius voluntatem vel exteriorem operationem , sed procedit ex sola Dei misericordia ». Haud recte nonnulli ín hac sententia cum Theoph. ad historiam duorum filiorum Isaaci respici arbitrati participio volentis Isaacum, qui Esau benedicere voluerit, ct participio currentis ipsum Esau, qui venatum cucurrerit, aut cum Tolet. utroque participio Iacobum, qui patris benedictionem sibi acquirere voluerit ac studuerit, designari volunt. Nam de geminorum fatis, quae ob solam eorum typicam significationem commemoravit, Paulus non amplius agit, sed de ipsa re, quam ex illis demonstravit, i. e. de gratuita admissione ad regnum messianum, quae uni divinac misericordiae debeatur. Verbum currere autem hic, uti saepe, per metaphoram a sladiodromis petitam «tr 1 Cor. 9,24. 26) idem signilicat quod rires intendere seu enixe laborare (Gal. 2,2; 5,7; Phil. 2,16 etc.). De accurata sententiae significatione Patres inter se non plane consentire aliqui arbitrantur (cfr Just. etc.). Revera enim nonnulli duo membra ita connecti volunt, ut prioris negalio non absolute sed relative ad alterun membrum intelligenda sit, cuius affirmatio hac ratione maiore cum vi efferatur, ac si scriptum sit : « non tam volentis aut currentis hominis, quam miserentis Dei est » (cfr Comment. in 4 Cor. p. 33 sq. 439 sq.). Huc praesertim Chrys. cum sua schola pertinet, qui primo quidem in loco, uti supra adnotavimus, conclusionem hanc non ex mente Pauli sed ad priorem difficultatem augendam afferri arbitratur, deinde vero eam, si ex mente Pauli dicta sumatur, hoc modo explicat (in Rom. hom. 106,9) : « Quum dicit : non est volentis neque currentis, liberlatem non tollit, verum ostendit, non totum illius esse (qui vult et currit], sed illum indigere divina gratia : oportet enim et velle et currere, confidere autem non propriis laboribus, sed Dei benignitati,, sicut et alibi (4 Cor. 45,10) dicil: non ego autem sed gratia Dei quae mecum est ». Quae quo sensu intelligi velit, docet in Hebr. hom. 12,3 : « Cuius est id, quod est amplius , eius dicit esse totum ; nam nostrum quidem est praeeligere et velle; Dei autem est perficere et ad finem perducere; quoniam ergo quod plus est, est Dei, totum Dei esse dicit ». Qua in explicatione S. Greg. IVaz. (orat. 31,13) praeiverat; nam « quod salvamur, inquit, id et a nobis et a Deo esse oportet; idcirco ait : non volentis, i. e. non solius volentis, neque currentis solius, sed etiam miserentis Dei. Quoniam autem velle quoque a Deo est, optimo iure totum Deo assignavit ; quamtumlibet curras, quamtumlibet certes, opus habes eo qui det coronam ». Ad eandem S. Aug. quoque in prioribus suis operibus prope accedere videtur, ubi docet (expos. n. 62) : « Quod autem ait : non est volentis neque currentis sed miserentis est Dei, non tollit liberum arbitrium, sed non suflicere dicit velle nostrum, nisi adiuvet Deus ». Postea tamen S. Doctor hanc explicationem saepius impugnavit : « Si propterea solum, inquit (ad Simplic. I. qu. 2,12), dictum est : non volentis etc., quia voluntas hominis sola non suflicit, ut recte iusteque vivamus, nisi adiuvemur misericordia Dei , potest el hoc modo dici : igitur non miserenlis est. Dei, sed volculis est hominis, quia misericordia Dei non sufficit, nisi consensus nostrae voluntatis addatur. At illud manifestum est, frustra nos velle, nisi Deus misereatur; illud autem nescio quomodo dicatur, frustra Deum misereri, nisi nos velimus; si enim Deus miseretur, etiam volumus; ad candem quippe misericordiam pertinet , ut velimus ». Similiter alibi, ut explicationem illam probabilitate carere demonstret, duo membra inter se converti non posse urget (Enchirid. 32; de grat. et lib. arb. 7,16). Idem 7'Àom. quoque repetit argumentum, ut in illa conclusione « principalitatein. gratiae Dei attribui » ostendat. Verum tantum abest, ut iuxta priorem explicationem, prout a SS. Greg. Naz. et Chrys. exponitur, principalitas gratiae negetur. ut ex illa clare derivetur atque in allegatis testimoniis diserte atfirmetur. Re igitur Graecorum explicatio a S. Augustini aliorumque, qui eum secuti sunt, Latinorum sententia non discordat; neque vero ideo nobis iun probatur. Nam neque graeci neque latini illi interpreles ad arzumentuni, quod Apostolus hoc in loco tractat, eiusque scopum salis videntar attendisse. In eo enim versatur, ut admissionem ad regnum messianum a libera electione Dei dependere ac merum misericordiae divinae donum esse. confirmet: quare verba eius neque sensu omnino generali neque do iis. qui iam iustificati cum gratia cooperantur, intelligere licet. Conclusione sua ergo id unum docet, electionem ac vocationem ad novae oeconomiae bona esse meram gratiam , quam nemo, neque ludaeus neque ethnicus, viribus liberi sui arbitrii aut operibus suis naturalibus sibi acquirere aut merere possit. Prioris ergo membri negatio absolute est intelligenda. Diversa vero est ratio illorum locorum, in quibus Paulus neophytos, i. e. iam iustificatos, exhortans ut currant (4 Cor. 9,24.26 etc.) hominem cum gratia cooperantem, i. e. sub influxu gratiae volentem et currentem, aliquid merere supponit. Ideo S. Chrys. ad suam explicationem confirmandam haud recte velut parallelam allegavit 1 Cor. 15,10. Ibi enim utique Paulus de laborum suorum fructibus loquens gratiae attribuit potiorem partem : « non ego sed gratiae Dei quae mecum est » i. e. « non tam ego, quam gratia »; hic autem, ubi . de ingressu in ordinem supernaturalem agit, omnia tribuit soli Deo miserenti, neque quidquam ad hanc gratiam obtinendam confert voluntati, quae eam accipiat eique consentiat; quapropter hic locus efficacissimum praebet argumentum contra Semipelagianos. Conclusionem suam, Deum scil. pro suo beneplacito misereri cuiuscumque velit, quasi e contrario Paulus confirmat, altero loco scripturistico proposito, quo Deus sese finem suum ultimum, i. e. suam gloriam, in iis quoque obtinere testatur, quorum non misereatur. Inde enim elucet, nihil adesse, quo ad exhibendam potius quam negandam misericordiam suam cogatur, sed eum in gratiis suis distribuendis liberrinum esse. Aptissime autem exemplum affert Pharaonis, qui Moysis adversarius, quamvis esset homo obduratus ac pervicacissime Deo resisteret, divinae tamen gloriae promovendae inservire debuit :
9:17
17. dicit enim Scriptura Pharaoni, quia in hoc ipsum excitari te (2252(0x az), ut ostendam in te (iv csi) virtutem meam et ut annuntietur (seu divillgetur BueryeN) nomen meum in universa terra, Particulam causalem 22 (enn) ad v. 1^ respicere, ita ut hic versus velut parallelus ad v. 15 accedat cum eoque simul sumtus completum argumentum ad divinam iustitiam in concedenda et in neganda misericordia demonstrandam constituat, parum recte nonnulli (cfr To/. etc.) censent; simplicior enim et clarior est nexus, quem indicavimus ac plerique tenent. Nomen Scripturae porro eodem modo hic, quo Ga/. 3,8, metonymice pro eius auctore Deo usurpatur, qui suo nomine verba illa per Moysen Pharaoni promulgari et in sacris literis (E.rod. 9,16) conservari voluit; ad verba allegata autem particula z-x (quia, quod) non perlinet, sed illa introducit (2x recitat cfr v. 13 etc.). In testimonio ipso afferendo Apostolus &b alexandrina versione in duobus recedit : namque pro zvizsv 2232» Bevnpfons (propter hoc conservatus es), quod illa. habet, scribere maluit sig a3» «o32 iTáysgi s: (in ioc ipsi ercitart vel suscitavi te), ut non tantum maiore cum vi finalem actionis divinae significationem urgeret, sed actionem ipsam quoque cum textu hebraico directe Deo attribueret eamque alio modo definiret. Procul dubio in his versionem, quam in reliquis fideliter sequitur!, consulto mutavit, ut eam argumento suo pressius accommodaret; quid tamen verbo 2£:y:(psv significare voluerit, in controversia est. iram), nullo autem modo vérbo hebraico *j'mroy? congruit, quod proprie significat s(are te feci vel te constitui, atque contextu interdum quidem ad conservationis, verum nusquam et nunquam ad incitationis significationem trahi potest; iamvero Paulum sensum plane diversum divinis verbis atlribuisse, dicere profecto non licet '. Alii verbo éeytípew hic idem. quod verbo Sixrapetv (conservare) significare volunt, ita ut Apostolus pro passiva forma versionis alexandrinae dumtaxat activam textus primigenii restituerit (efr Chrys. Theod. in Cat. gr., Ater Haym. Thom !. etc., Klee, Reith. etc. — Rtos. Hofm. etc.); ad quam explicationem tuendam moderni nonnulli monent, simplex £yeígew aliquoties de aegrotorum sanatione ac proin conservatione usurpari (ac. 5,15; cfr Marc. 1,31; 9,27 etc.). At aliud est in salutem restituere, aliud conservare ; praeterea de morbo, ex quo Pharao erigi debuerit, in Exodi contextu nihil habetur neque alexandrina versio (Srztnpetv) de sanatione intelligi polest; demutn verbo composito rara simplicis significatio arbitrarie assignatur ?. Alii (maxime Calvinistae) explicant ezsistere te feci, sed haec significatio, quam graeco verbo competere idoneo exemplo non probatur, hebraico certissime non competit ?. Quapropter ad Zach. 14,16 (Zzeysige mowufva suscito pastorem super terram ; cfc Fl. Jos. Aut. VIIL. 14,4 : Bacoubc dEeyetpecat On dou etc.) respicientes cum Phot. (cfr Oec.) Euth. (iíyepz. oc. sl; Üyoc Bacuetac) aliisque (cfr Vat. Tol. Lap. eic., M Ev. Sch. etc. — Benq. Fl. etc.) interpretari malumus : constitui te regem, ila tamen ut regis notio non e verbo ipso sed ex loci contextu petatur. Ad hanc autem interpretationem antiqui quoque textus hebraici interpretes. Chald. (31g), Syr. (4nm'px), S. Hier. (posui te), aeque ac Theoph. (sl «6 uécov yeyóv e«) proxime accedunt. Quae quum ita sint, sententiae sensus est hic : Deus Pharaonem illa in vitae conditione, in qua degebat, altoque in loco, quem tenuit, eam ipsam ob causam constituit (et conservavit), ut in eo indurato et contumace potentiam suam multis micandisque plagis immissis manifestaret atque hac ratione non tantum apud Israelitas Aegyptiosque , qui eius prodigia oculis suis spectabant, aut apud circumiacentes nationes, ad quas prodigiorum fama mox perlata est (cfr Exod. 15,14 sq., quo in loco pro ascenderunt populi omnino cum Heór. Alex. Syr. Chald. etc. legatur oportet : audierunt populi; Ios. 2,9; 9,9; 1 Reg. 4,8; 6,6 etc.), sed etiam in universa terra, ubicumque et quamdiu libri sacri legentur, nomen suum celebre redderet !. Fatis igitur Pharaonis, qui velut pervicacissimae indurationis exemplum in Scripturis depingitur, Deus nos edocere voluit, se etiam in iis, quorum non misereatur quibusque gratias suas neget, sapienlissimos fines suos obtinere, id quod ex fatis hominum in peccatis obduratorum, qui inferiore in loco constituti obscuram vitam agunt, eadem cum claritate non elucet. Sicut autem Pharao obstinatione sua Deum prohibere non potuit, ne populum israeliticum servaret, sed eum ad maiora patranda miracula impulit, quibus gloria divina clarius splendesceret latiusque di(funderetur, ita reliquos quoque peccatores induratione sua fines Dei impedire non posse clarum est. Suo igitur argumento Apostolus simul leviter iam innuit, quod postea (11,11 sqq. 30 sqq.) clarius fusiusque exponet, Iudaeos quoque, qui nunc obstinati Evangelium respuunt, sua induratione fines sapientissimos Dei non tantum non impedire, sed promo- : vere, quatenus nunc quidem infidelitate sua ad Evangelium suum inter ethnicos latius propagandum conferant, postea autem finalisua conversione infinitam Dei misericordiam sint manifestaturi. lamvero ex duobus testimoniis scripturisticis illam nunc infert conclusionem, qua Deum in gratiis suis dandis aut negandis liberrimum esse ostendens difficultatem modo (v. 15.) propositam dissolvit :
9:18
18. ergo cuius vult miseretur et quem vult indurat (sc. Deus); atqui si pro beneplacito suo misericordiam suam alicui exhibet aut non exhibet, eum iniustum non esse patet, si unum prae altero eligat, cui eam exhibeat. Prius conclusionis membrum ex Dei verbis Moysi dictis (v. 15) immediate ac directe colligitur, quum eorum non sit nisi concinnior repetitio. Alterum vero ex altero dicto, saltem si iuxta eam quam secuti sumus interpretationem intelligitur, non tam clare infertur, quia in eo neque indwurand; verbum est expressum neque de induratione aut indurato agi videtur. Haec praecipua est causa, cur multi, uti supra monuimus, in praecedente sententia verbum i2:7:/2:» idem esse volunt quod « ad peccandum incitare », ut induratio saltem indirecte innuatur. Verum haec explicatio, quam admitti non posse ostendimus, etiam ad nexum definiendum non est necessaria. Neque enim ex uno illo verbo, sed ex tota sententia, prout eam explicavimus, conclusio pendet; Pharaonem autem, ad quem dictum illud divinum spectat, a Deo esse induratum, eo minus neophyti romani ignorare potuerunt, quo frequentius et disertius id in Exodo affirmatur (E.rod. 9,12; 10,1. 90. 27; 11,10; 15,5. 8. 17; cfr etiam 5,21; 7,3); solo ergo Pharaonis nomine, praesertim quum Moysis nomini opponatur, audito satis iam intellexerunt, eum hic alferri velut exemplum hominis, cuius Deus non sit misertus, atque verba illa, ex quibus Apostolus argumentatur, ei esse dicta tamquam homini per Deum indurato. Illatio ergo ex illis legitima est, dummodo in suo contextu considerentur. Quodsi ad duorum membrorum oppositionem attendimus, iure colligimus, verbum zndurare hic proxime per metonymiam quandam dici pro non misereri; unde S. Aug. (ad Sixt. ep. 195,15) ait : « non obdurat Deus impertiendo malitiam, sed non impertiendo misericordiam ». Quae quasi explicans 7o. : « Deus, inquit, non dicitur indurare aliquos directe, quasi in eis causet malitiam, sed indirecte, in quantum scilicet ex his, quae facit in homine intus vel extra, homo sumit occasionem peccati et hoc ipsum Deus permittit; unde non dicitur indurare quasi immittendo malitiam sed non apponendo gratiam ». Quibus verbis S. Thom. recte indicat, Deum in hominis obduratione, quamvis hic sese ipse induret, non mere passive aut permissive sese habere. Simili potius ratione homo, qua sese ipse in immunditiam tradere et in eandem a Deo tradi dicitur (cfr ad 1,2* p. 94 sq.), etiam sese ipse indurare et a Deo indurari dicendus est. Indurationis quippe causa directa et positiva est homo ipse, quum peccatis suis indignum sese reddat, qui uberioribus gratiis a Deo adiuvetur, quique divinis monitis sive internis sive externis resistere incipiens paullatim quasi habitum resistendi sibi acquirit suumque cor ita obsepit obstruitque, ut gratiis quodam modo aditum praecludat. Occasionalis tamen et indirecta obdurationis causa Deus dici potest, quatenus primum ea agit, quibus hominem ad suam indurationem abusurum esse praevidet, deinde in praecedentium peccatorum poenam uberiores, quibus cor indurescens emolliri posset, gratias denegat, tandem indurationem ipsam ad sapientissimos suos fines ordinat. indurandi, sed effectum malitia hominis ex miraculis divinis secutum indicari (cfr Exod. 9,12; 10,1.20.27 ; 14,4.8.17). Propterea in posterioribus quoque signis his non solum Deus Pharaonem, sed etiam Pharao se ipse indurasse adhuc dicitur ( Zxod. 9,35; 43.15). Haec diversitas in modo loquendi de induratione in prioribus et posterioribus portentis, quae nobis attentione videtur dignissima, vim argumenti non perdit ex eo, quod Deus iam Exod. 4,91 et 1,3 ait : ego indurabo Pharaonem; illic enim non de singulis sed de omnibus prodigiis simul et complexe sermo est. Sicut igitur Deus induralionem Pharaonis tantummodo praescire ( Exod. 3,19), ita eam etiam efficere dicitur, dum sub hac praescientia prodigia patrat, quae licet voluntate antecedente ordinentur ad regis emollitionem, praevidentur tamen occasio futura maioris indurationis. Voluntate porro ad hanc indurationem (praevisam) consequente Deus vult in ea et per eam manifestare suam maiestatem (Exod. 14,41 sq. ; 10,4 sq.) ». Quibus addidisse iuverit, non ipsis aerumnis a Deo Pharaoni eiusque populo immissis sed earum cessatione Pharaonem esse induratum ; durante enim aerumna cor regis emolliebatur, Deo autem ad eius precationem aerumnam removente rex iterum intumuit. Itaque Deus eum indurare dicitur, quatenus plagas cessare fecit, quamvis praevideret, illa cessatione Pharaonem iterum fore contumacem; re autem rex ipse suo divinorum beneflciorum abusu sese indurasse dicendus est. Ceterum Apostolus hoc Pharaonis exemplum haud sine ratione elegit. Sicut enim illo tempore inter eorumdem miraculorum testes alii quidem (uti Israelitae) ad fidem in Deum adducebantur aut in ea confirmabantur, alii autem (uti Pharao et Aegyptii) in contumaci sua rebellione contra Deum obfirmabantur, ita Pauli tempore inter Israelitas ipsos alii miraculis Christi Apostolorumque spectatis Evangelium receperant benedictionumque messianicarum participes facti erant, alii vero, quamquam eadem miracula viderant, sua ipsorum culpa Evangelium miraculis illis confirmatum respuerunt et sese ipsi in rebellione contra Messiam suum obduraverunt. Sed praecedentis obiectionis solutio ac praesertim alterum conclusionis membrum, quo Deus pro suo beneplacito quem velit indurare dicitur, novae difficultati ansam praebet :
9:19
19. dicis itaque mihi : Quid adhuc queritur (u£ygszat)? voluntati enim eius quis resistit? Antiquiores Latini haud pauci, quia ad graecum textum non attenderunt, pro queritur (seu conqueritur, vel iuxta propriam verbi y.£u9:502c significationem : ettuperat, obiuvgat) erronee legerunt quaeritur, obiectionisque sensum esse putarunt, « in causam bonorum vel malorum quae hic agantur non amplius esse inquirendum, quum omnia iam voluntati divinae attribuantur, quae sit causa sufficiens, quia nemo ei possit resistere » (cfr Thom. Haym. Lomb!. etc.), aut etiam « ab homine non posse requiri, ut faciat bonum vel vitet malum, quia id iuxta praedicta non sit in hominis potestate, quum omnia divinae voluntati attribuantur » (cfr 7TÀom2.). Quae secunda explicatio prope accedit ad sententiam S. Hier. (ad Hedib. ep. 120,10), qui rectam lectionem secutus obiectionem hac ratione amplificat : « Si hoc ita est et pro sua voluntate miseretur Israeli et indurat Pharaonem, Deus ergo frustra conqueritur atque causatur, nos vel bona non fecisse vel fecisse mala, quum in potestate ipsius sit et voluntate, absque bonis et malis operibus eligere aliquem vel abiicere; praesertim quum voluntati ipsius humana fragilitas resistere nequeat ». Haud recte tamen S. Hier. ex utroque conclusionis membro novam obiectionem derivari supponit; ex solo enim secundo eam desumi, docet verbum py£yuoeca: (vituperat seu obiurgat), ad quod velut subiectum Deus et velut obiectum induratos ex praecedente sententia suppleri debere patet : Cur adhuc Deus obiurgat induratos, si ipse, cuius voluntati nemo resistere potest, homines indurat ac proin induratio illis, qui indurantur, imputari nequit? Obiectionem hanc non tam esse contra Apostoli argumentationem, quamvis eam sibi fieri dicat (dicis itaque mihi), quam contra ipsam agendi rationem Dei, qui in Scripturis Pharaonem indurasse atque nihilominus eundem obiurgasse ac punivisse diserte affirmatur, evidens est. Quapropter Apostolus, antequam illam aggrediatur Deique vera agendi ratione accuratius explanata solvat (22-245), homini illam moventi os obstruit. Loci enim sui eum memorem esse iubet ac figuli similitudine proposita ostendit, quam impudens absurdaque sit creaturae cum creatore suo expostulatio (20. 21). Itaque adversarium interpellat : 20. immo potius (u:vcsvye), o homo, tu quis es qui respondeas Deo, vel rectius : qui obloqueris Deo, seu cum eo expostulas ab eoque rationes exposcis, acsi iniuste egerit? Iure enim CArys. adnotat, Paulum non dixisse à àzexpoóusvo; «o Os (qui respondes Deo), sed $ àvzxzoxpwigivog, coutícctw à vtov , 6 évavttodpsvog (qui obloqueris i. e. qui contradicis , qui adversaris); « nam dicere : sic debuit res esse, sic non debuit esse, obloquentis est et expostulantis ». Ipsa iam compellatione à áy6poze (o homo), praesertim quum Dei nomini, quo prima interrogatio terminatur, cum emphasi quadam opponatur, adversarius conditionis suae humilis admonetur et ad vilitatis suae memoriam revocatur; quare haud inepte aliqui eam vertere malunt o Aomuncio vcl o homuncule (cfr Beel. etc.). Singularem deinde vim particula y:vz5v;: habet, quam Vu/g. hic praetermisit, licet eam aliis tribus in locis Novi T., in quibus reperitur, aliquo modo expresserit (10,18; PA. 3,8; Luc. 11,28). Simili quippe modo, quo latinum mno vero, graecum piv2ovys , quo Hellenistae loco postpositivi usvzov utuntur, duos sensus oppositos admittit, quum pro contextu interdum praecedentia confirmet simulque augeat, interdum quasi neget et corrigat, ita ut latino immo potius clarius reddatur (cfr Koch Griech. Grammat. Ed. 13. Leipzig 1889 p. 283; Hartung Partikellehre II. p. &00 etc.) ; atqui dubium non est, quin in tribus aliis N. T. locis priore sensu adhibeatur, haud minus autem certum est, eam nostro in loco altero sensu usurpari. Etenim adversarium, qui sibi responderi vult, cur Deus eos, quos ipse indurasse dicitur, obiurget, Paulus interpellat : mmo potius, 0 homuncio, tu responde (cfr Platon. Gorg. &70 b : cà ysvoov àcixpum) : £u quis es qui obloqueris Deo? Ad obiectionem igitur ipsam nondum attendit, sed eam interim quasi transmittens adversario ius negat Deo obloquendi obiectionisque istius proponendae; quidquid Deus creator facit, homo iuste recteque factum habeat oportet. Iure merito autem sese adversario ius illud negare Paulus duabus sequentibus interrogationibus ostendit, quibus eius attentionem ad humilem locum, quem cum Deo comparatus occupat, directe convertens temeritatem absurditatemque talis expostulationis patefacit simul et castigat : numquid dicit figmentum ei qui se finzit (35 Aásya 5à zAxcxwfictile fictori) : Quid me fecisti sic (scilicet ut hanc determinatam formam conditionemque acceperim)?
9:21
21. an non (i; «5x melius : aut non) habet potestatem figulus luti, ez eadem massa facere aliud quidem vas in honorem, aliud vero in contumeliam (3 yi» eig xikitv cx5326, 31 ei; áttp (av aliud quidem vas, quod honesto usui aptum est, qui vasi ipsi est decor?, aliud autem, quod usui vili aptum est, qui vasi est dedecori ; cfr 9 Tim. 9,90. 91)? Graecum 7, o»x (in principio v. 21) latino «^£ non rectius quam aanon reddi adnotavimus, quia idem argumentum continuatur (cfr ad 1 Cor. 6,16, 19 etc.); nam inchoata similitudo interrogatione tertia ita excolitur et completur, ut secundae absurditas clarius pateat. Quicumque enim ad plenam perfectamque libertatem attendit, qua figulus ex eadem massa pro suo arbitrio vasa diversa diversisque usibus apta confingit, negare non potest, figmento non licere cum fictore suo de sua forma suaque conditione expostulare. Ad absolutam autem figuli libertatem fortius efferendam Apostolus eum potestatem luti (genetivus z«^c5 melius per hyperbaton ad accus. i22osíxv potestatem trahitur, quam cum nomin. 3 vspzyió; figulus connectitur) tantam habere dicit, ut ex eadem massa vasa ad decorum et ad indecorum usum facere queat; significatur enim, eum ne ab ipso quidem luto, quamvis illo ad vasa sua facienda indigeat, in vasorum forma et usu definiendis pendere. Porro similitudo figuli pro arbitrio suo vasa formantis ex Vet. Test. libris! a Paulo transumta esse ab omnibus conceditur; a prophetis autem ad supremum Dei dominium perfectamque libertatem, qua res humanas disponit ac regit, asserendam vel potius ad bumile piumque obsequium silentiumque inculcandum adbibetur, quo homines rerum ordinem a Deo libere pro suo beneplacito stabilitum venerari, ab eo diiudicando autem et vituperando sese abstinere tenentur. Hic igitur similitudinis sensus ac finis neophytis romanis percognitus erat ideoque statim ac sua quasi sponte sese illis offerebat, quando eam hic adhibitam legebant. Quare optimo iure concludimus, hune sensum et finem etiam ab Apostolo esse intentum totamque similitudinis vim in eo solo esse, ut manifestet, quam absurdum et quam turpe sit, quod homuncio divinum providentiae ordinem in iudicium vocare et iniustitiae arguere audeat. Nulla vero adest ratio, qua similitudinem latius extendere aliumque eius sensum quaerere cogimur, quasi difficultatis v. 19. obiectae solutionem quandam contineat (haec enim vv. ,22-9& traditur). Varios autem conatus, quibus inde a Patrum aetate multi aut indirectam aut directam obiectionis refutationem ex illa eruere voluerunt, ad huius loci intelligentiam nihil contulisse censemus. lllam interpretationem secuti sumus, quam ab Orig. et S. Ephr. iam insinuatam plerique Graeci (cfr Chrys. Cyr Alex. Dam. Theoph. Euth. etc.) ac nonnulli iuniores (cfr Ca:. Just. in paraphr. Lap. etc.) modernique (cfr Heel. LR. etc.) tenent. Prae ceteris egregie Chrys. hunc locum explicavit, quare eius commentarium, etsi longior sit, transcripsisse iuverit : « Haec Paulus non eo sensu dicit, ut liberum arbitrium neget [quatenus sc. homines cum vasis inanimis comparare videtur], sed ut ostendat quousque Deo obtemperare debeamus. Neque enim nobis magis a Deo, quam luto [vel vasis] a figulo, rationem exigere licet; neque tantum ei contradicere aut cum eo contendere non debemus, sed neque quidquam adversus eum loqui aut cogitare. Inanimo potius luto similes simus oportet, quod figuli manum sequitur et quocumque ille voluerit circumducitur. Ad Aoc solum enim Paulus hanc similitudinem assumsit , non ad divinam administrationem declarandum (i T5,» tfjg xoActelag ex(Seieev), sed ad humile obsequium ac silentium commendandum. Atque hoc ubique observandum est, ut similitudines non secundum omnia premantur, sed secundum id unum, quod ad rem facit et ad quod illustrandum assumtae sunt, aliis omnibus relictis ». Postquam deinde hanc regulam generalem, quae utique summi momenti est, exemplis illustravit absurdisque, quae ex ea neglecta sequuntur, confirmavit, hunc in modum pergit : « NiAU igitur. nisi hoc persuadere lectori hic vult, ut omnino Deo cedat. neque. ullius rei unquam ab eo rationem reposcat. Nam sicut figulus, inquit, ex eadem massa facit quidquid voluerit neque quisquam ei contradicit, sic tu noli Deo obloqui aut eum lacessere, si ex eodem hominum genere alios castigat, alios honorat, sed eum adora et lutum imitare. Sicut lutum sequitur manum figuli, sic tu sequere sententiam voluntatemque eius qui haec disponit (x5 ;vóyy, 729 c297x. cixzvzuc5v-2; ; neque enim quidquam temere vel sine causa operatur, etiamsi tu sapientiae arcanum ignores. Tu porro figulo permittis, ut ex eadem massa vasa diversa faciat neque id ei vitio vertis; a Deo autem rationem expetis poenarum ac praemiorum neque ei coucedis , ut ipse sciat quis dignus aut indignus sit; sed quia massa ipsa eiusdem substantiae est, postulas ut eadem quoque in omnibus sit animi deliberatio ac propositum (:3; ajvàg wpoatpécsi;). Quanta haec est insania !... Ceterum, ut! dixi, ad hoc unum similitudo accipienda est, ut nos cum Deo non erpostulare, sed eius incomprehensibili sapientiae cedere debere doceat ». Huic vicina est multorum iuniorum modernorumque sententia , qui hac similitudine potissimum quidem impudentiam adversarii repelli, simul tamen eius obiectionem argumento quasi hypothetico refutari volunt (cfr Tolet. Tir. Picon. etc., Reith. M Er. Mai. Sch. Ag .Weinh. etc.). Deum enim pro supremo suo dominio sine ulla iniustitia aliis bona conferre, aliis inferre mala, quin etiam hominibus, etsi in eis non iusit peccatum, plagas quascumque infligere posse praemonentes Paulum hac fere ratione argumentari arbitrantur : « Si Deus, uti tu asseris, inter aequales pro arbitrio bona malaque distribueret unumque felicem et alterum infelicem etc. redderet, iniustitiae accusari non deberet, sicut figulus iniustitiae non incusatur, qui pro arbitrio ex eadem massa unum vas in honorem alterum in ignominiam facit ». Verum haec argumentatio tantum abest, ut difficultatem v. 19 obiectam solvat, ut eam ne attingat quidem. Adversarius enim in quaestionem non vocat, num Deo bona ac mala pro suo beneplacito distribuere atque unius misereri, allerius vero non misereri liceat, sed Deum illos iuste punire negat, quos ipse indurasse supponitur. Quapropter haec similitudinis extensio extra contextum vagari videtur. Iam de aliis interpretationibus, quas longius a vero aberrasse censemus, pauca addamus. Operae autem pretium non esse arbitramur, ut Praedestinatianorum, Calvinistarum lIansenistarumque placita exponamus et refutemus, qui ex hac similitudine colligunt, Deum aliquos homines iuxta aeternum suum decretum ad inferni poenas creare eosque voluntate sua, cui resistere nequeant, indurare, ut eos postea « iusto iudicio » (!) inferno addicat; haec enim non minus absurda quam impia ac blasphema sunt. Alias quoque non omnes enumerabimus, sed eas solas, quae a Patribus nonnullis aut insignioribus interpretibus cathol. sunt propositae. In prioribus suis operibus S. Aug. (cfr de octog. trib. quaest. 68,1-3; ad Simplic. I. qu. 2,17) simili fere modo, quo Clrys., prima interrogatione impudentiam adversarii repelli ac duabus sequentibus, quae similitudinem exhibent, repulsam confirmari putavit. Quia vero illo iam tempore nomine massae vel luti genus humanum peccato originali infectum designari tenuit (« ex quo in paradiso natura nostra peccavit,... omnes una massa luti facti sumus, quod est massa peccati » qu. 68,3), Apostoli verba non ad omnes, sed ad luteos tantum homines, i. e. ad peccatores, pertinere voluit (cfr qu. 68,2: « non enim hoc loco sanctos prohibuita quaerendo, sed eos qui nondum sunt in caritate radicati et fundati;... quos ergo prohibuit, nisi luteos ac terrenos, qui nondum intrinsecus regenerati ac nutriti imaginem hominis terreni portant? »). Eadem definitione nominis massae retenta, quae in eius operibus sexcenties recurrit, postea ad omnes quidem verbaapostolica pertinere concessit, sed figuli similitudine completam ac directam praecedentis obiectionis refutationem contineri arbitratus est (cfr Enchirid. 99; ad Paulin. ep. 186 n. 16 sqq. ; ad Sixt. ep. 194 n. 22 sq.; c. duasepist. Pelag. II. 7, 18 sqq. etc.). Quoniam hanc interpretationem haud pauci antiquiores iunioresque receperunt (cfr Haym. Herv. Thom. elc., .Yai. etc.), eam ex ;Vat. commentario (ranscribimus, qui paucis verbis eam clare comprehendit : « Sicut figulus ius et potestatem habet ex eodem luto faciendi aliud vas ad usus honorificos, aliud ad usus viles et sordidos, ila Deus ex eadem massa humani generis peccato Adami corrupta et damnationi obnoxia iure suo alios quidem eligit ad gloriam ex mera misericordia, alios reiicit reprobatque et damnat iusto, quamvis occulto, iudicio ». Contra quae primum monemus, in toto hoc contextu de eleclione seu Deo et calumniam facis et de Scripturis tanta perquiris, ut loquaris contra Deum et iustitiam voluntatis eius incusas, ostendis te liberi esse arbitrii et facere quod vis, vel tacere vel loqui. Si enim in similitudinem vasis fictilis te a Deo creatum putas et illius non posse resistere voluntati, hoc considera, quod vas fictile non dicit figulo : Quare me sic fecisti? Figulus enim habet potestatem de eodem luto aut eadem massa aliud vas in honorem facere, aliud in contumeliam. Deus autem aequali cunctos sorte generavit et dedit arbitrii libertatem, ut faciat unus quisque quod vult, sive bonum sive malum. In tantum autem omnibus dedit potestatem, ut vox impia disputet contra creatorem suum et causam voluntatis eius perscrutetur. ». Verumtamen quam parum haec explicatio, etsi nexum (quem admitti non posse evidens est) seponamus, verbis paulinis congruat, nemo non videt. Novum enim sensum in illa ingerit, quum pro similitudine dissimilitudinem quandam statui insinuet multaque addat, quibus hunc sensum extorqueat (cfr Tolet. fust. etc., qui haec contra S. Doctoris sententiam recte iam monuerunt) Haud multum abludit sententia Gennadii (cfr Cramer Catena gr. p. 349), qui tamen aptius solam praecedentis (v. 19) obiectionis confirmalionem , scilicet Dei voluntati neminem posse resistere, tribus interrogationibus refutari censet : « Interrogas me, quis resistat eius voluntati ; ego autem respondeo, te prae ceteris resistere, quippe qui cum Deo expostules » etc. Sed in hac confirmatione nec tota nec praecipua obiectionis vis sita est; quare haec quoque explicatio contextui non congruit ac multo difficilius similitudo ipsa huic novo nexui adaptatur. Sed haec sufficiunt; alias Patrum sententias videsis in opusculo Val. Weber. Krit. Geschichte der Auslegung des 9 Kap. des Roemerbr. Obiicientis temeritate impudentiaque repressa, Apostolus ad obiectionem ipsam se convertit (cfr Chrys. etc.). Quam simplici quidem distinctione refutare potuisset, si Deum peccatores non directe et positive sed occasionaliter tantum et negative (gratiarum nimirum uberiorum ad quas ius nullum habent negatione) indurare monuisset (cfr ad v. 18). At aliam viam inire obiectionique locum non esse demonstrare maluit tota agendi ratione divina delineata, ex qua tantum abesse apparet, ut Deus quemquam positive induret, ut ludaeos ipsos, qui obstinata sua Evangelii reiectione sese ipsi ad interitum aptaverunt, multa in longanimitate tulerit (tempore poenitentiae eis concesso cfr 2,4) ac simul divitias misericordiae suae in illos manifestarit, quos ipse ex ludaeis ethnicisque ad fidem iustitiamque evangelicam elegit. Qua. indirecta ultimae obiectionis (r. 19) solutione ad difficullatem illam quasi revertitur, quae obiectionis contra iustitiam divinam causa fuit, atque Iudaeorum exclusionem a salute messiana et gentilium ad illam salutem admissionem iniustam non esse docens utrumque v. 18 membrum quodammodo explanat :
9:22
22. quodsi (::z£ cum S. Hier. ad Hedib. ep. 120,10 lege : sin autem) Deus volens ostendere (1v2::2x924) iram et notam facere potentiam suam (73 ovazzv x5225 dl. (. 23,» 22vapty x)::3, proprie tamen : id quod potest) sustinuit in. multa patientia (2v ZAR » paxpz0vuía melius verte, uti 9, : in multa longauimitate) vasa trae (ovsóv, 5gis) apta (vxznosisoivx) in interitum ,
9:23
93 et (xai cfe VV. LL.) ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in. vasa. nusericordiae («sov £k£co;), quae praeparavit in. gloriam ,
9:24
34. quos et vocavit nos non solum ez Íudaeis sed etiam ex geutibus? Priusquam singula explicemus totiusque sententiae sensum exponamus, de eius nexu et constructione dicendum est. Ad nexum quod attinet, animadvertatur oportet, praecedens responsum non continuari, sed novum ei adiungi et certa quadam ratione opponi. Id enim particula si 84 docet, quam multo accuratius meliusque S. Hier. suo sin autem, quam Vulg. suo quodsi expressit. Si enim nonnulli, quia peccatores vasa irae (sxsóv, 32 :) et electi vasa misericordiae (z«55x, £&£z0;) nominantur, praecedentem similitudinem exponi aut applicari arbitrantur, ita ut casa irae respondeant casis 7n contumeliam et rasa misericordiae similiter vasis zn. honorem, non attendunt nostro in versu locutiones illas articulo carere, quern Apostolo omittere non licuisset, si vasa iam commemorata aut designare aut directe in memoriam revocare voluisset. Praeterea in similitudine praecedente nec rasa ?n contumeliam velut obiecta irae figuli interitui destinata neque vasa 2n honorem velut obiecta singularis misericordiae eius considerantur. Accedit demum, quod dictionis cuiusdam nuda repetitio profecto non sufficit, ut eas de iisdem rebus intellizendas esse asseramus; saepe quippe fit, ut scriptores locutiones, quae quia aliquid singulare habent memoriae sese fortius infixerunt, eodem in contextu. repetant sed alteri rei simili adaptent. Cuius usus luculentum testimonium alterum hoc ipso in loco reperimus: namque verba 0:70» 2 O::; iviz cÜxk vh» Bpynto watcpeezizxt zz iowxtte x):23 superiori Dei dicto zzoz iv- 2:fguat iv sc c4 D2xgi) 0:22 (rv. 17) tam similia sunt, ut ea illius uberiorem expositionem declarationemque esse omnes consentiant; neque tamen ideo cum CAr;s. aliisque antiquioribus iunioribusque admittere licet, Pharaonem nunc appellari vas irae et de eo iterum agi. Etenim ultimum sententiae membrum ír. 25) clare insinuat, Apostolum in oppositione ad electos ex ludaeis et ethnicis hic iam de Iudaeis Evangelium obstinate respuentibus loqui neque amplius de Pharaonis induratione et punitione cozitasse. Itaque praecedens quoque similitudo neque continuatur neque exponitur, licet in locutionibus rase irae et casa misericordiae allusionem quandam ad eam vel polius eius reminiscentiam haberi libenter concedamus. Porro qua ratione construenda sit sententia, dubitatur, quia non tantum protasis hypothetica (s/n autem Deus... sustinuit etc.) sua caret apodosi, sed etiam haud clare apparet, quae secundi membri (r. 93. et utl ostenderet etc.) ad. prius (r. 22) sit relatio. Quae difficultates fuerunt causa, cur jam antiquitus mutaretur textus, aliis particulas :: 2£ (v. 92), aliis coniunctionem zz :e. 23), aliis verbum protaseos (7:- vs» sustinuit) delentibus. At textus, prout eum iuxta plures et graviores testes supra transcripsimus , bene se habet neque ulla indiget mutatione, etsi constructionem anacoluthicam esse fatendum sit. Nam, ut ab altera quaestione exordiamur, cum nonnullis antiquioribus (cfr Oecum. Herv. Thom. Cai. etc.) modernisque (Heith. Mai. etc. — PA. God. Oltram. etc.) versus 23. 9&4 censemus esse secundam protaseos hypotheticae partem, priori (r. 22) parallelam cum eaque connexam coniunctione x: (et), qua particulam :: ad eam quoque pertinere insinuatur. Constructio autem secundae huius partisest anacoluthica ; Apostolus enim sicut in priore veram agendi rationem Dei erga peccatores forma hypothetica describens dixit : « si Deus, volens ostendere iram, sustinuit in multa longanimitate vasa irae, apta in interitum », ita in secunda divinam agendi rationem erga electos iterum forma hypothetica descripturus probabiliter dicere voluit : « et (si Deus), ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit in gloriam, (ea non tautum ez ludaeis sed etiam ex gentibus elegit) ». At magni beneficii, quod ipse lectoresque eius iam acceperant, recordatione quasi abreptus inchoatam constructionem non terminat, sed gratiam acceptam , addita sententia relativa (quos et vocavit nos non solum ex ludaeis sed etiam ex gentibus), ita commemorat, ut simul llam ideam, quam declarare voluerat, satis clare insinuet; etenim vocatio, quam commemorat, supponit electionem , de qua in hac pericope potissimum agit. Duae igitur sunt partes protaseos hypotheticae; quod autem ei desit apodosis, id difficultatem non creat. Graeci enim frequenter in sententiis hvpotheticis apodosin, quae ex contextu facile cognoscitur, reticentes apostopesi utuntur!, neque raro in ciusmodi constructione interrogativam apodosin suppleri volunt, ita ut particulae : 2i vel zi z5» eis idem fere valeant, quod Latinis formulae quid vera si? quid erqo si? n quibusetiam interrogativum pron. quid ex contextu accuratius definiendum exponendumque est!. Qua aposiopeseos specie hic admissa cum plerisque ad obiectionem v. 19 propositam, quae Apostolo refutanda est, respicientes facillime supplemus : « quid tunc dices? num tunc quoque Deum peccatores induratos increpantem iniustitiae arguere audebis? » Quam aptum autem sit hoc supplementum, explicatio duorum membrorum protaseos docebit. bus appareret eiusque enuntiatio superflua esset ». Tantum vero abest, ut haec sententia sua sponte ex praecedentibus derivetur, ut ex iis extundi plane non possit. — Neque multo minus a vero aberrantes nonnulli moderni acath. verbum protaseos (Zveqxev tulit) in principio v. 23 repetunt, ut ab eo apodosin incipiant : « Si autem Deus volens ostendere iram tulit vasa irae, etiam ea tulit (vel : etiam id fecit), ut manifestaret divitias gloriae » etc. (cir Ew. Hofm. Lünem. in Win. Gr. p. 3531 etc.). Neque enim in profanis neque in sacris, opinor, operibus exemplum talis ellipseos reperitur. Aliis de apodosi supplenda coniecturis, utpote plane improbabilibus, neglectis varias opiniones de membri secundi (v. 23) ad primum (v. 22) relatione paucis addimus. Inter acath. aliqui sententiam finalem (xat tva qvooí05 x13) cum solo participio xzczptteuéva connectunt, cui passivam significationem (parata sc. a Deo) attribuunt, neque dicere verentur, Deum vasa irae parasse in interitum (i. e. ut interirent) et ut divitias gloriae suae clarius erga vasa misericordiae manifestaret ( Beza, ftück. Fritzsche etc.). Quem nexum ineptum esse sensumque Deo indignum gignere, demonstratione non indiget. Ceterum participio xatzptouéva hic passivam significationem non competere statim videbimus ; quomodo vero aliquis sibi persuadere potuerit, verba si dxoeav et iva. Yvopicn eadem ratione a xezaptispéva. dependere, ut simplici xai connecti potuerint, non intelligo. Reliqui cath. et acath., qui constructionem anacoluthicam a nobis adoptatam respuunt, particulam finalem (va cum integra praecedente sententia vel, si mavis, cum eius verbo (Zvepxev. tulit) connectunt; non omnes tamen eodem modo. Quidam enim copulativo particulae xaí sensu retento quasi duos fines, ob quos Deus vasa irae tulerit, indicatos vident, primum quia voluit (62«v) ostendere iram in vasa irae, deinde efiam ut (xal tva) ostenderet divitias gloriae in vasa misericordiae. Quam inconcinnam et parum aptam constructionem, quae sententiam causalem participio expressam finalemque parallelas ponit et coniunctione x«t copulat, alii evitant, quum particulam xaí pro epexegetica sumant (i. q. et quidem seu idque) et participium 02«v concessiva sententia exponant (quamquam voluit), ita ut sola manifestatio divinae misericordiae dicatur finis, cur Deus vasa irae tulerit : « Deus, quamquam voluit ostendere iram, tulit vasa irae et id quidem ut ostenderet » etc. Alterutrum ex his sensibus ii quoque admittunt, qui cum Vulg.-particulam xat pro legitima non agnoscunt, finalem tamen sententiam verbo tulit dependere censent. At neutra explicatio mihi probatur, quia non satis apparet, quo cum iure manifestatio divinae gloriae erga electos dicatur finis longanimitatis divinae erga peccatores; sed de hac quaestione statim recurret sermo in membrorum interpretatione, ad quam iam transimus. Primo igitur in loco Paulus, ut Deum induratos iuste punire ostendat, veram eius rationem agendi erga peccatores delineat : szn autem Deus, volens ostendere iram et notam facere potentiam suam, sustinuit (zov tulit, toleravit) ài multa longanimitate vasa irae, apta in interitum... num tunc quoque eum peccatores induratos iniuste punire contendes? » Forma quidem descriptionis est hypothetica, verum hypothesin non esse nisi rhetoricam, rem ipsam autem non velut dubiam proponi, sed uti in similibus argumentis innumeris (cfr 5,10. 15. 17 etc.) tamquam certissimam, de qua non licet dubitare, asseri, ad unum omnes concedunt. Similiter moderni omnes fere recte tenent , aoristo (fveyxev) hic non designari unum factum praeteritum (puta longanimitatem Pharaoni exhibitam, quam antiquiores proxime aut unice intelligendam esse arbitrati sunt), sed consuetam agendi rationem Dei describi. Proxime enim, uti ex contextu apparere supra iam monuimus, Apostolus de modo cogitavit, quo Deus Iudaeos, qui Messiam suum occiderant Evangeliumque obstinati respuebant, eo usque tractasset; poenam eis nondum irrogarat, sed iu misericordia sua poenitentiam eorum exspectabat. Quia autem eo tempore. quo scripta est epistola, Deus iram suam erga eos nondum manifestaverat atque obstinatos patienter tulit, evidens est, aoristum stricto suo sensu historico hic non usurpari, verum latiore illo sensu, quo de iis adhibetur, quae uti certis positis conditionibus olim facta sunt, ita iisdem in conditionibus semper fiunt (cfr ad 8,30)!. So/et ergo Deus peccatores multa in longanimitate sustinere vel tolerare; cur vero ita erga illos agat, Paulus hoc in loco non addit, quia incredulos ludaeos obstinatosque peccatores, quos hic iterum alloquitur, iam antea (2,5) increpaverat : « an divitias benignitatis Dei et patientiae et lonzanimitatis contemnis, ignorans quoniam benignitas eius ad pocnitentiaui te adducit? » Si autem Deus peccatores in multa patientia eo consilio tolerat, ut eis tempus ad poenitentiam agendam concedat, clarum est, eum non efficientem directamque sed indirectam dumtaxat occasionalemque causam indurationis illorum esse. Ipsi enim, benignitate Dei contemta eiusque gratiis reiectis, tempore ad poenitentiam concesso abutuntur, ut nova peccata veteribus addentes sese ipsi indurent maioremque poenam sibi contrahant. Porro peccatores illi, quia « secundum duritiam suam et impoenitens suum cor sibi ipsis iram thesaurizant, quac in eos effundetur in die revelationis iusti iudicii. Dei » 12,5), recte vocantur vasa irae, apta in interitum («svn ipyhi Wxcnpegiax iu XxoAzzw,), quia scilicet continuis suis peccatis iram seu vindictam divinam in se ipsos, quasi in vasa quaedam, colligunt et coacervant seseque ipsi aptos dignosque reddant, qui aeterno interitui tradantur. Ex dictis iam apparet, participium 02x» (rolens) concessiva sententia (quamquam voluit seu vult) exponendum esse; nam describitur, qua ratione misericordia Dei se habcat ad eius iustitiam et quomodo iustitia non obstante Deus misericordiam suam erga peccatores manifestet. lustitia postulat, ut ordo peccato turbatus peccatoris poenis restituatur; a sua iustitia igitur ad peccata vindicanda impellitur ideoque pro sua iustitia iram (i. e. vindictam scu iustitiam vindicativam cfr ad 1,18) potentiamque suam in peccatoribus contumacibus puniendis manifestare vult ac velle debet. Altera vero ex parte misericordia sua movetur, ut peccatoribus poenis dilatis tempus concedat, quo ipsi poenitentiam agentes ordinem turbatum restituant. Itaque pro sua misericordia peccatorem sustinet et tolerat in multa longanimitate, quamvis pro sua iustitia eum punire velit. Magna cum vi textus primigenius (ci 8£ 02Aov 5 Oc5c x-7.) participium illud concessivum in principio sententiae ponit ipsique nomini, ad quod pertinet, praemittit, ut clarius oppositionem manifestet inter iustitiam vindicativam, quam Deus ostendere vult, et longanimitatem, quam re ezAibet. Ab hac explicatione, quam a CArys. aliisque Graecis insinuatam cum haud paucis modernis (Heith. L R. Weinh. etc. — Weiss, God. etc.) sequimur, plerique recedentes participio causalem significationem attribuunt, ita ut Deus vasa irae sustinuisse vel sustinere dicatur, quia voluit vel vult ostendere iram (cfr Or;g. A'"" S. Hier. ad Hedib. ep. 120,10 etc., Herv. Thom. etc., Cat. Tol. Est. etc., Mat. Beet. Ag. etc. — Calv. Rück. de W. etc.), Significari ergo volunt, Deum punitionem distulisse, « ut iustius damnaret, quos tanto tempore sustinuerat » S. Hier. l. c.), quia novis peccatis additis graviorem poenam contraxerant. Verum magna interpretum illorum auctoritate non obstante, explicatio haec mihi non probatur. Haud satis cnim videntur attendisse, totam vim argumenti, qua obieclio v. 19 proposita rcfutatur, in asserenda longanimitate sitam esse, qua Deus, quasi neglecta iustitia sua, quae punitionem postulat, peccatorem tolerat eiusque poenitentiam exspectat. Hinc enim potissimum elucet, Deum iustissime punire induratos, quippe qui tempus a benignitate divina ad poenitentiam concessum ad nova peccata committenda adhibere ipsi voluerint. Ad quid autem Apostolus longanimitatem: divinam. hie. eommemorasset, si dumtaxat significare voluisset, poenae dilationem clariori et splendidiori manifestationi iustitiae vindicativae inservire? nonne eiusmodi dilatio punitionis ad iram potius quam ad niisericordiam longanimitatemque divinam pertinet? Ob eandem rationem Est; quoque coniecturam velut ineptam reiicimus, qui graecum z»::v, quia hic aoristus a Novi Test. scriptoribus in sustinendi tolerandique significatione non adhibeatur, latino attulit cum $. .4/g (expos. n. 63; c. duas epp. Pelag. II. 7,15) vertere mavult sententiaeque nostrae sensum probabiliorem esse dicit : « Deus attulit (vel adduzit) ad interitum vasa irae, apta in interitum », scilicet « ea dimittendo, excaecando, indurando ». Etenim satis aperta contradictio habetur, si Deus in multa longanimitate peccatores dimittere, excaecare, indurare atque hac ratione ad interitum adducere dicitur; neque enim misericordiae et longanimitatis, sed irae divinae effectus est. gratiarum subtractio, qua peccator vias suas ingredi et excaecari et indurari permittitur. Plane arbitrarie quoque Est. vocabulis ad znteritum insertis sententiam complet, sicut Syrus, qui similem sensum aoristo Zvc;vsv attribuit, non minus arbitrarie alio supplemento electo interpretatur : « Deus intulit pro magna longanimitate tram super vasa irae ». Libenter quidem concedimus, aoristum £»:«x aliis in Novi Test. locis significationem tolerandi non habere; monemus autem eum additis verbis iv zzX^7 uxz2:0vpía hic ita determinari ac definiri, ut alio sensu plane nequeat intelligi. Quare omnes quoque Patres graeci latinique non minus quam iuniores interpretes eundem adoptarunt. S. Aug. autem non tantum alibi consuetam lectionem latinam sequitur (de octog. trib. quaest. 68,4 etc. : « pertulit in multa patientia vasa irae »), sed illis quoque in locis, in quibus a/tu/it legit, nullum sententiae supplementum indicat. Coniicere ergo licet, S. Doctorem eam pro completa habuisse ac proin composito a/tulit significationem simplicis tul; tribuisse. Adappellationem deinde, qua peccatores hic designantur (2«:2x 3272: zacnptupívx si; àzoA:x)) quod attinet, minus recte aliqui cum Graecis ad [s. 13,5 (vasa furoris divini) respicientes vasa trae interpretantur instrumenta , quibus Dei ira accenditur aut Deus iram suam manifestat. Nomen rasis enim, quum allusio sit ad praecedentem figuli similitudinem aut eius reminiscentia quaedam, instrumenti notionem hic non admittit. Multo minus recte alii vasa ?rae volunt esse « vasa destinata ad iram », i. e. homines, quos Deus destinavit , ut in eis iustitiam suam vindicativam manifestaret (Esz. etc. — Calr. Zwingl. Rück. etc.); id enim si significare voluisset, Paulus scripsisset 2:5 zi; i275 (vasa in iram), sicut antea scripsit ssiv, i; àcpixv (vasa in contumeliam). Ex mutata constructione, ut reliqua omnia praetermittamus, ad mutatum sensum concludamus oportet. Accedit quod destinatio vasorum irae, i. c. hominum, qui peccatis suis iram divinam in se ipsis quasi thesaurizant (2,5) ! ideoque obiecta sunt irae divinae, appositione sufficienter indicetur, quum xa-«e-tzpíox S; xzosx» dicantur. Porro participium perf. hic medialem significationem habere, praceuntibus Chrys. (vaztguwcpívo» sig Ace exw coutío-w üxTspTUouÉvov, ciusÜzv pfvcot xxi map ixsz29 « aptatum ad interitum, i. e. paratum, sed proprio 1ngenio et a se ipso ») et Pel. (« a semet ipsis ad interitum praeparata ») iuniores plerique recte tenent (cfr ZAeod. Dam. TheopA. Euth. etc., Cai. Tol. Lap. Pic. Nat. etc., Reith. Mai. M Ev. Dr. elc. — Grot. Gloeck. Olsh. etc.). Quem medialem sensum parlüicipium etiam in unico alio loco habet, in quo a Paulo adhibetur Corinthios rogante, ut « sint zazcpzouévz in eodem sensu et in eadem sententia », i. e. ut suo ipsorum studio sese in unitate conservent perficiantque (1 Cor. 1,10). Nihil tamen obstat, quominus cum Vw/g. participium hie adiectivo (aptus) reddamus (cfr Luc. 6,41); sicut enim S. [gn. (ad Philad. 8) sese ipsum dicit xatzpruspévzv si; £vostv (aptum ad unitatem), i. e. hominem, in quo omnia apta sint ac tendant ad unitatem conservandam et perficiendam, ita peccatores sunt xatmpztopívot elg azoxstxv , quia iuxta suam inclinationem tendunt ad interitum aeternum, vel quia iam « sunt idonei aeternae morti » (Herv.) et « in se habent aptitudinem ad aeternam damnationem » (TAom.). Nequaquam vero passiva significatio participii admitti potest, quasi peccatores sint vasa « Deo ad interitum parata, id quod cum Calvinianis et [ansenianis etiam £Es/. censet. Quodsi Paulus Deum velut causam efficientem interitus designare voluisset , procul dubio dixisset : à «xthptusw sig üzoszv (quae paravit ad interitum), uti statim electos VOCAL cucó, WAfzoz, 3 cponcsiaxotv si; 225a» (vasa misericordiae quae praeparavit ad gloriam); aut saltem participium aorist? pass. (xazaprto0£vzz) adhibuisset, quo solo factum illud historicum praeparationis, quod explicatio illa supponit, recte exprimi potest. Demum Deum neminem ad interitum aeternum creare aut praeparare, clarum est. Ad explicationem suam defendendam monet quidem Es:.: « Dicitur Deus vasa irae praeparasse ad interitum, non quia praeparavit eis peccata, quibus interitum mererentur, sicut praeparavit electis bona opera. quibus gloriam consequerentur (Eph. 2,10); ... sed praeparasse dicitur vasa irae ad interitum, quia illis ab aeterno praeparavit, i. e. praeordinavit atque inferre constituit interitum, sicut vasa misericordiae praeparavit ad gloriam, quia iis ab aeterno praeparavit et dare constituit. gloriam... Hune sensum confirmat locus Math. 25,35. 51, ubi quemadmodum dicitur electis a constitutione mundi praeparatum esse regnum , sic et reprobis praeparatus esse dicitur ignis aeternus; utrumque scilicet praeparatum a Deo ». At nonne mirum est, quod doctus vir non viderit, quantum differat « aliquem praeparare, i. e. aptum dignumque reddere ad poenam » et « alicui poenam praeparare »? Numquid rex, qui carcerem praeparat latronibus, dici potest praeparare latrones ad carcerem? Certe Deus ignem aeternum praeparavit peccatoribus contumacibus, qui poenitentiam agere nolunt, sed ubinam in Scripturis legitur praeparasse peccatores contumaces ad ignem aeternum? (cfr ReiuA.). Quemadmodum autem Deus iniustitiae incusari nequit, si peccatores punivit (seu punit), qui tempore ad poenitentiam sibi concesso abusi sunt (seu abutuntur), ut novis peccatis commissis sese ipsi indurarent (seu indurent), ita etiam ne species quidem iniustitiac adest, .st altera ex parte, ut ostenderet divitias gloriae suae in vasa misericordiae, quae praeparavit ad gloriam, aliquos ad fidem elegit e/ vocavit non tantum ez ludaeis sed etiam ex gentibus. Quoniam praecedens membrum , uti vidimus, totum in eo est, ut misericordiam describat, qua Deus, iustitia sua non obstante, peccatores multa in longanimitate tolerat, ab eo sententiam nostram finalem (uw ostenderet elc.) dependere non posse, recte dixisse nobis videmur. Namque manifestatio divinae gloriae seu misericordiae erga unam hominum classem, 1. e. 'erga iustos, parum apte diceretur finis longanimitatis ac misericordiae. qua Deus alteram classem, scilicet peccatores, ad poenitentiam adducere vult (2,4). Qui vero ad hunc nexum vindicandum monent, « condemnationem et reprobationem malorum, quae est sccundum iustitiam Dei, manifestare et commendare gloriam sanctorum, qui ab ipsa tali miseria liberantur » (cfr 7Aom. Nat. etc.), aut « ex punitione incredulorum magis elucere beneficium gratiae collatum iis, qui credentes iustificati sunt » (cfr Bee/. etc.) aut « ex poena et gravi vindicta malorum notam fieri magnitudinem gratiae et gloriae electorum » cfr Tolet. etc.), ii longanimitatem et iram divinam confundere vel potius constructionem praecedentis membri invertere videntur, quum seriptum supponant : « Si autem Deus, sustinens (d. e. quamvis sustineret) in multa longanimitate vasa irae apta in interitum, ro/i/ ostendere iram, ut ostenderet divitias gloriae » etc. Omnino igitur anacoluthum., quod supra indicavimus, praeferatur oportet. ita ut nuuc Dei agendi ratio erga iustos describatur, sicut modo cius ratio agendi cerea peccatores describitur. Erga utrosque suam manifestat misericordiam, sed diverso modo; peccatores tolerat eorum poenitentiam. exspectans, alios eligit et vocat, ut eis divitias misericordiae suae exlitbeat. Dicimus divitias misericordiae suae ; cum Chrys. enim ct plerisque censemus, Apostolum, quum diceret dicittas gloriae suae, per metonymiam abundantiam misericordiae benignitatisque divinae í(cfr ad 2.5) significare voluisse, quia « summa Dei gloria est misericordiam impertire » (Theoph.). Quodsi pauci quidam, quia statim nomen 2:z;; de gloria iustis parata usurpatur /z 2225:254a2:» :1; 222 xy), eandem significationem in hac locutione retinere malunt, non attendunt, pronomine addito («z; 2:£«; xj-:3 sc. «29 O::9 gloriae suae) gloriam Dei a gloria nostra (cic 222a» $540» 1 Cor. 2,7), quae a Deo nobis praeparatur, clare distingui. Quo sensu porro iusti vocentur 2:2y, izízog (rasa misericordiae), ex iis, quae de vasis irae diximus, elucet; sunt quippe homines, qui gratias divinas in se recipiunt colliguntque et cum iis cooperantes sese ab omni iniquitate emundant, ut fiant vasa in honorem sanctificata et utilia Domino, ad omne opus bonum parata (2 T'i»s. 2,91). Deus autem ea praeparasse ad gloriam dicitur, quia eis ad fidem vocatis omnia subministravit, quibus ad gloriam aeternam pervenire possent. lure enim Chrys. adnotat, verba illa eo sensu non esse intelligenda, quasi totum opus sit solius Dei neque ullam in eo partem homo habeat; « id enim si esset, nihil impediret, quominus omnes salvarentur », quia Deus sua ex parte omnium salutem vult. In anacoluthica demum clausula secundi membri protaseos ' 2ios ef vocavit nos non solum ez ludaeis sed etiain er gentibus) , quae quomodo exponenda sit supra (p. 517) indicavimus, ad ipsam difficultatem revertitur, quod Deus iniustus esse videatur, si ludacis relictis zentiles ad bona regni messiani admittat. Quam falsa autem haec obiectio sit, sequenti pericope demonstrat, qua vocationem gentium et ludacorum iis consonare docet, quae a prophetis iam sint annuntiata. 1. — [n vocandis elhnicis et Iudaeis a fie Deus ea sequitur, quee per prophetas praedirit (8.25-29). 9,25. Sicut in Osee dicit : Vocabo non 9,25. fa; xai c9 Ctr ys Ka plebem meam, plebem meam : et non die | Aicto zo» o9 xí» uoo, Axów» uos, Zxi lectam, dilectam : et non. misericordiam | zz» 9214 rxznaivwna, CWiaxznnaivnwe 20. consecutam, | misericordiam — consecutam, | zai £azxt i» Tóm 93 d2liün xjle.
9:27
vivi. ?7. Isaias autem clamat pro Israel : | ozig «2 Axm CEàw 7, 6 izÜail Ow pracdizit Isaias : Nisi Dominus sabaoth | prog Ga6ac0 — épxazi)Nuniv fiv arius, reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti | Gc Eó0oua Gv. ivevyÜrnutv xai dg T'óessemus , et sicut. Gomorrha similes fuis- | po2za &v Gotb riv !, Postquam igitur obiectionem Iudaeorum, promissiones sibi factas multorum suorum contribulium exclusione a salute messiana ad irritum cecidisse, ex patriarcharum historia refutavit, quae Ismaelis et Esau exclusione promissiones non ad omnes singulosque pertinere docet (6-13), ac deinde divinam in conferendis beneficiis libertatem auctoritate Scripturarum confirmavit et ab iniustitiae incusatione vindicavit (15-95), Apostolus nunc obiectionem illam directius aggreditur atque promissiones illas iuxta prophetarum testimonia neque solos neque omnes ludaeos spectare ostendit. Duo enim ex Oseae vaticiniis dicta Dei affert, quibus gentiles quoque ad regnum messianum vocatum iri promittitur (25. 26), eisque addit similiter duo testimonia ex Isaia, quibus maiorem Iudaeorum partem salutem non esse consecuturam praedicitur (27-29). Cum ultimis praecedentis pericopes verbis (sed etiam ex gentibus) Paulus arctissime, ita ut eandem sententiam quasi continuet, prophetae testimonia connectit, quae gentibus salutem promittunt : 25. sicut el in Osee dicit : Vocabo non plebem meam, plebem meam : et non dilectam, dilectam : (et non misericordiam consecutam , misericordiam consecutam ;) 96. et erit in loco, ubi dictum est eis : non plebs mea vos : ibi vocabuntur filii Dei vivi. In formula, qua vaticinia introducuntur, particula e^, quam Vig. Clem. immerito praetermisit, non pertinet ad vocabula immediate sequentia (zn Osee), acsi testimonia Oseae aliis testimoniis adderentur, sed ad verbum dicit; significatur enim, Deum ex gentibus aliquos vocasse sicut id se facturum esse etiam iam dicit in Oseae vaticiniis. Duo porro dicta: divina Paulus ex diversis Oseae locis desumsit (prius quippe Os 2,23. 24 [2,25], alterum Os. 1,10 [2,1] legitur), illa autem coniunxit et suo iure in unum quodam modo contraxit, quia eandem rem, licet diverso modo, declarent. Prius enim (v. 23), quod sensu fideliter retento suis quasi verbis refert, iuxta literam de incolis regni septemtrionalis, quibus reditus in gratiam Dei & quo defecerant promittitur, typice autem de gentibus ad fidem vocandis agit; alterum vero (v. 26), quod ex textu alexandrino, prout in plerisque eius codd. exstat, accurate transumsit, ipso literali iam sensu de gentium vocatione recte explicatur. Priorem locum alexandrinus interpres cum Massorethis consenliens hac ratione (saltem iuxta plerosque codd.) reddidit : xai £:5co Tüv OÓx TAfQaivey xai ip cO 2) Azo pov Aaig uou sl c9 (et miserebor eius, quae misericordiam non est consecuta, et dicam non populo meo : Populus meus es tu). Ad cuius intelligentiam adnotasse iuverit, loculiones 12m Nb (4 cox Asgg£vr, misericordiam non consecuta vel iuxta S. Hier. versionem : absque misericordia) et »2y785 (: cà 1a2; uz», non populus meus) esse nomina symbolica, quae Oseas filiae filioque suis imponere divinitus iussus est, ut significaret, incolas regni septemtrionalis, qui in idololatriam omnisque generis peccata delapsi erant, a Deo non amplius pro suo populo, quem peculiarem sibi elegerat, agnosci sed oblivioni esse datos, ita ut eorum non iam recordetur neque misereatur (cfr Os. 1,6. 9). Nostro igitur in loco Deus proxime promittit, se illos in gratiam esse recepturum, quos symbolicis illis nominibus se reiecisse significarat. At Israelitas illos, quum idololatria aliisque criminibus sese similes paresque gentibus reddidissent, S. Pau- Ius, aeque ac S. Petrus (1 Petr. 2,10), divinitus illustrati considerant velut typos gentium. Unde ea, quae de illorum reditu in gratiam cum Deo promissa sunt, de gentium vocatione ad fidem iustitamque regni messiani recte intelligunt. Ne autem vaticinio Oseae explicationem addere cogerctur, Paulus illius dumtaxat sensum suis fere verbis referre maluit; atque primum quidem, eodem modo quo Petrus, duorum membrorum ordinem invertit, quia epistolae lectores, quidnam feminino 7, 9)x Zsafw (misericordiam. non consecuta) designaretur, praemisso nomine 2 zj Aziz; uz» (non populus meus), quod sua sponte ad ethnicos transtulerunt, facilius intellexerunt. Deinde praecedente sententia relativa (29; xai àx4A£0:v fus... £2 £0vov quos et vocavit nos... ex gentibus) adductus videtur, ut pro igo :& zi a6 zv Xaii 2v :i oj potius diceret xaX£cco 12» c) Aaóv uo2 ^ai» yc» (rocabo non populum meum, populum meum) idemque verbum ad alterum membrum traheret : xat (xax^ícw) v» cix Werpivny n^£muirs (et vocabo] misericordiam non consecutam,, misericordiam consecutam). Neque vero ideo cum nonnullis dicendum est, verbum x27s:» hac in sententia eandem, quam in praecedente, habere significationem ; simplici enim appellandi significatione adhibetur, id quod duplex eius accusativus satis docet. Dicere tamen licet, Apostolum verbum illud consulto retinuisse, ut eius quasi sono lectores promissionem de vocatione ad (idem intelligendam esse recordarentur. Porroin explicatione eam lectionem ultimi membri retinuimus, quam in prophetae textu omnes fere codices graecae versionis exhibent, S. Petrus (l. c.) quoque retinuit et S. Hier. (in Os. 1,10) suo tempore communem fuisse testatur. Dubium tamen vix est, quin Paulus scripserit : xai cu» co yuxzraives Wixznsives (et[vocabo] non dilectam, dilectam); id enim ex omnium codd. et PP. graecorum consensu apparet (cfr VV. LL.). Eandem lectionem in Os. 2,93 etiam cod. Bexhibet; quia autem Os. 1,6 cum aliis consentiens nomen filiae dicat fuisse 5, zi» 77.:7ufvr (misericordiam non consecuta), lectio illa in 2,23 arbitrariae librarii mutationi videtur adscribenda. Ceterum haec lectionis differentia nullius est momenti ; hebraicum enim verbum cm non minus dilectionis quam misericordiae affectum designat atque dilectio misericordiam includit. Ad nostram tamen V»g. Clem., quae utrumque membrum coniungit (e£. non dilectam, dilecta : et non misericordiam consecutum , misericordiam consecuta) adnotandum est, alterutrum abundare, quum ambo eiusdem membri hebraici sint versiones, atque rectius hoc in loco cum S. .1&g. ultimum omitti, quia Paulus uti diximus priorem versionem praetulit. Accuratum igitur Pauli sensum antiquiores interpretes latini non enarrarunt, qui cum 7/70». tribus membris textus latini uia diversa bona. quae gentilibus concederentur, designari arbitrati sunt. Alterius testimonii (te. 26 ex Os. 1,10; hic est contextus apud. prophetam; Deus postquam nominibus symbolicis filiorum Oseae reiectiotionem Israelitarum annuntiavit, se promissionem Abrahae datam impleturum esse statim addit : « ct erit numerus filiorum Israel quasi arena maris, quae sine mensura est et non numerabitur : et erit. in loco, ubi dicetur eis (.1/es.. 7 25 igzife x)czi: ub: dietum est eis: : Non populus meus vos, dicetur eis : Filii Det viventis (Afer, 2 3zi2 znnünzzozx vizi Ouí3 DQowcez Un nocabuntur fla Dec ciet); et congrezabuntue filii Iuda et filii Israel pariter, et ponent sibimet caput unum et ascendent de terra » etc. Quoniam primis vaticinii verbis promissio Abrahae facta, qui »«ltarum gentium constitutus est pater, diserte in memoriam revocatur (cfr Gen. 22,17; 17.5), illa de gentium vocatione sensu literali agere cum P. Knabenb. (Comment. in Proph. min. f. p. 30) censemus; unde sequentibus quoque, quae a Paulo allegantur, eundem sensum literalem recte attribuemus. Obiicientibus autem, nomine « loci ubi dictum est eis : Non populus meus vos » designari Palaestinam, vaticinium ergo de solis incolis regni septemtrionalis (saltem proxime) esse intelligendum, locum illum neque Palaestinam essé neque Samariam respondemus, sed terram exsilii, in qua Israelitae e patria eiecti degebant et ex qua, uti in vaticinio clare enuntiatur (et ascendent de terra) post conversionem in patriam reversuri erant. Ibi igitur eis, uti gentibus, quibus sese plane assimilaverant et quibuscum permixti erant, dictum est : Non populus meus vos; atque ibi quoque, quando se ad Dominum iterum converterint, una cum ethnicis conversis vocabuntur filii Dei vivi, qui scilicet ipse vivit suisque veram vitam supranaturalem daturus est. Clarius hunc sensum cod. B (in Os. 1,10) sua lectione insinuat x7xü522v-2t x 3i a 272i uii Osz3 Z6vzz; (vocabuntur et ipsi filii Dei vivi); tam anipluim autem est vaticinium, ut ad solos Israelitas aegre coarctetur atque rectius gentes et Israelitas literali sensu complectere dicatur. Argumentum paulinum totam tamen suam retinebit probandi vim, si quis hoc vaticinium, similiter ac praecedens (v. 25), cum plerisque (cfr Est. Nat. Picon. elc. Reith. Mai. Beel. etc.) typice tantum de gentibus interpretari maluerit. Vaticiniis Useae, quibus gentium vocatio promittititur, Apostolus duo Isaiae testimonia adiungit, quibus maioris partis ludaeorum reiectio praedicitur. Prius ex fs. 10,22. 23 desumtum iuxta alexandrinam versionem dns allegat, ut eam in priore membro leviter tantum mutet (sc. pro 5 4a; lzzxá ex Os. 1,10 ponit 3 32:052; zàv viov 'Ioga?z), alterum vero saltem iuxta antiquiorum testium lectionem (cfr VV. LL.), quam eum modernis criticis (cfe Laclun. Tisch. Treg. WH.) praeferimus, nonnullis vocabulis omissis satis libere referat : 27. [saias autem (2i) clamat pro (oziz) i. q. super Israel : Si fuerit numerus filiorum Israel Laniieain. arena nttris, reliquiae seda fient ; 98. verbum enun consununans eti alibrevians 4n aequitate, quia verbum breviatum) faciet Dominis sper terram. formula, qua testimonium affertur, particula 2i est CP. verbum clamet (222223) gravitatem valicinii declarat, praepositio 2z:z autem latino super vel de (cfr 2 Cor. 1,8; 7,15 etc. rectius quam jo redditur, quia vaticinium non est promissivum sed comminativum. Namque cladem stragemque annuntiat, quam tempore regis Ezechiae Assyrii, duce Sennacherib, regno Iuda allaturi erant tantam, ut non nisi pauci (reliquiae xo xaxdXeuya vel 5x jz2sipax)ex illa essent evasuri incolumes (sa/vae fient). Pauci autem illi, qui quia ad Dominum suum se converterant salvabantur, Apostolo divinitus illustrato iterum typus sunt, et quidem exigui numeri ludaeorum, qui Messiam advenientem sint agnituri et salutem consecuturi. Notatu dignum est, Apostolum addito àrticulo (:» xa:27.:0.43) reliquias illas velut omnibus notas designare. Ac profecto [udaeis incognitae neque fuerunt neque esse potuerunt, quandoquidem Isaias, qui iam filio suo primogenito nomen propheticum Schear iaschub ("e/iquiae convertentur) imposuerat (Is. 7,3), Deum parvam tantum populi partem servaturum esse frequentissime annuntiare iussus est (Is. 1,10. 25; 5,9. 3 etc.). Similiter alii quoque prophetae docuerant, Deum in regendis filiis Israel, ne ob abrahamiticum suum sanguinem promissionesque Abrahae factas sese falsae securitati traderent, eam sequi normam, ut ex periculis, in quae peccatis suis semper se iniecerunt, non omnes sed eorum dumtaxat reliquias eriperet (cfr Knabenb. Comment. in Isaiam 1l. p. 38 sq. 954 etc.). Quamobrem scire debuerunt, promissiones non ad omnes ac singulos pertinere neque irritas reddi, si non omnes earum parlicipes fierent, sed paucos illos spectare, qui mente et indole fidem pietatemque Abrahae imitarentur. In altero vaticinii membro alexandrina versio, quam Paulus hic sequitur, a massorethico textu tam longe discedit, ut interpres aut diversam lectionem in suo codice hebraico habuisse aut eius sensum generatim tantum reddidisse dicendus esse videatur !. Quam in quaestionem ingredi neque huius loci neque nostri muneris esse arbitramur, quia sua allegatione Apostolus, vel potius ipse S. Spiritus, certos nos reddit, eum sensum, quem alexandrina versio exhibet, genuinis prophetae verbis accurate respondere. Apostolum vero erroneam versionem allegasse, quae prophetae sensum « ne a longinquo quidem attingeret » (cfr Fritzsche, Weiss etc.), ii soli asserere possunt, qui aut Scripturas inspiratas esse negant aut inspirationis rationem ac vim ignorant. Si ad multas diversasque nostri loci explicationes, quas Patres et antiqui interpretes tradiderunt, attendimus, satis obscurus dicendus videtur; verumiuxta meliorum testium lectionem (X272 ;3g zuvt84 v vx: zovzioiny «ouo $ Kópuz iin. ym; verbum enim consummans et brevians faciet. Dominus super terram cfr S. Aug. ad Simpl. I. qu. 2,19 etc.) sensus verborum propheticorum, prout ab Apostolo allegantur, planus est. Deus enim illud, quod praecedente sententia de reliquiarum salute ac proinde de plurimorum interitu annuntiatum est (42ycv sermonem seu verbum), plene perfecteque (covceXóv consummans) atque celeriter seu iuxta alios certissime (cuvc£gvov abÓrevians) exsecutioni mandaturus esse (z2v,sec faciet) praedicitur. Hoc igitur addito et veritas vaticinii confirmatur et gravitas augetur. Verbum svvzeAeiv quippe idem valet quod rem ad eventum adducere seu integre complere (consummare cfr Marc. 13,5; Thren. 2,17); covxé£yvetv autem (proprie : concidere vel praecidere), quod in Novo Test. hic tantum legitur, profanis interdum idem est atque aliquid paucis comprehendere verbis (abóreviare), interdum ubi de re peragenda sermo est, idem ac rem paucis absolvere seu celeriter peragere (accelerare; cfr Fritzsche in Rom. II. p. 350); in alexandrina tamen versione etiam hebraico y^n (decidere seu firmiter statuere cfr Knabenb. in Is. 10,22; 28,92. I. p. 254. 514) respondet; unde participium evvz£yvov aut celeritatem aut certitudinem exsecutionis designare recte dicitur. lamvero eundem sensum etiam lectio textus recepti admittit (272v xz g9Y5£ÀQv xat covcé£pvoy év Buxatoaóvr , Ext Ao yov ouvzscympévov zoxss 5 Koge; ixi. qüg verbum enim consummans et abbrevians in aequitate. | vel potius : 2n iustitia], quia verbum breviatum faciet Dominus super terram), quae alexandrinae versioni accuratius consonat et in eo tantum ab illa discedit, quod in principio particulam causalem (yag en» inserat, quia etiam apud prophetam haec sententia priori confirmandae inservit, et quod in fine pro 5 0:5; Küóptoz «àv $uv&geov £v cf; ciucog£vr, 24x, (Deus Dominus exercituum in orbe terrae toto) minus emphatice exhibeat 5 K?gus àzi «gc 25 (Dominus super terram vel ?n terra). In sententiae autem huius interpretatione observetur oportet, in priore membro participia covzs^v xai cuvzfy»ov, uti alibi quoque (cfr ad 3,25; 5, 10; 2 Cor. 1,5; 8,19 etc.) pro verbis finitis adhiberi (scil. sov::26» vx: covz£uvov &ozt» Vel £gszac, 1. e. cuvce Ast xat oovié£pvet Vel oovtzTiozt vai 2ovssyii consummanus et abbrevians est vel erit, 1. e. consummat et abbreviat vel cousummabit et abbreviabit) atque velut verborum subiectum sua sponte nomen 7/e? suppleri, in utroque deinde membro verbum cvvz:- pyety eo sensu usurpari, quem indicavimus. Itaque iuxta alexandrinam versionem propheta quoque, ut vaticinium de solis reliquiis salvandis confirmet et aggravet, addit : « Dominus id quod praedixit (erben) complete et celeriter exsequitur in iustitia (seu iuste) , nam utique verbum acceleratum (i. e. cuius eventum celerem esse vult) faciet Dominus in terra ». Duo membra idem fere significant; eiusdem tamen ideae repetitione eam mentibus profundius inculcant; quare sine sensus detrimento ea in unum contrahere Apostolo licuit. prehendens omnia, quae Lex multiplicibus praeceptis instituerat ». Similia tradunt Haym. Abael. Lomb. Lyr. etc.; sed hisce immorari opus non est. Alterum testimonium de parvo numero ludaeorum, qui salutem messianam sint consecuturi , Apostolus ex Js. 1,9 accurate iuxta alexandrinam versionem affert :
9:29
99. et sicut praedixit Isaias : Nisi Dominus Sabaoth reliquisset nobis semen, sicut Sodoma facti essemus et sicut Gomorrha. similes fuissemus. Contra Erasm., qui paucis acath. (Calv. Beza, Grot. etc.) approbantibus verbum zgz:igrxzv (praedirit) vertere maluit prius dirit, ut intelligeretur, eundem prophetam haec verba dixisse ante illa, quae modo allegata sunt, recte Est. iam monuit, Paulum non curasse, priusne an posterius haec quam illa Isaias scripsisset; ad verborum enim sensum hoc nihil conferre, neque usquam a Paulo indicari, qua in libri parte verba ab ipso allegata inveniantur. Uti alibi (Matth. 25,25; Marc. 13,93; Act. 1,16 etc.) de prophetica praedictione omnino intelligatur oportet. Etenim id unum Apostolus docere vult, illa quae de statu et conditione Israelitarum sui temporis dixit, quando eis una urbs Ierusalem relicta erat, typicum esse valicinium eorum, quae populo tempore messiano sint eventura. Quemadmodum iuxta praecedens vaticinium (v. 27) reliquiae tantum salvabuntur, ita iuxta hoc (v. 29) semen dumtaxat relinquitur. Verumtamen semen facit spem messis amplioris, ita ut Apostolus hanc pericopen consolatione quadam terminet, quam postea (11,1 sqq.) uberius accuratiusque proponet (cfr de hoc vaticinio eiusque nexu Kzabenb. Comm. in Isaiam I. p. 38). $ 8. — Sua ipsius culpa. Israel a. salute. messtana sibi promissa, quam gentes fide obtinuerunt, est exclusus (9,30-10,21. Infidelium Iudaeorum dilemma, aut fidem evangelicam. quam ab ipsis reiectam ethnici admittebant, non esse veram neque genuinam praestare salutem, aut promissiones divinitus olim sibi factas dici debere abrogatas (cfr p. 467), Apostolus satis quidem superiore in pericope diluit, qua multorum Iudaeorum exclusione a salute messiana ethnicorumque ad eam admissione promissiones divinas ad irritum non redigi ex patriarcharum historia ac Scripturae testimoniis demonstravit. Quam argumentationem ut compleat atque confirmet, nunc etiam ostendit, unde sit factum, ut tot ludaei, suis promissionibus non obstantibus, in salute promissa assequenda ethnicis eiusmodi promissiones non habentibus postpositi esse videantur. Paucis totam quaestionem a principio complexus ethnicos ex fide esse iustificatos, ludaeos autem in vera iustitia. a qua salus pendet. quaerenda perversam viam iniisse monet, quia in Messiam suum credere noluissent (9,30-33). Quae accuratius expositurus, eos suam ipsorum iustitiam statuere voluisse docet, quoniam ignorarent Legem adventu Messiae esse abolitam atque veteris oeconomiae iustitiae. quae ex operibus erat, fidei iustitiam successisse, quae omni credenti sine ulla Iudaeorum Graecorumve distinctione datur (10,1-13;. Hanc autem eorum ignorantiam culpabilem esse ex eo ostendit, quod Deus sua ex parte omnia fecerit, ut cuncti crederent, et Iudaei prophetarum quoque vaticiniis de gentium futura vocatione sint edocti (10.13-217. Attentione dignum est, quam caute iterum Paulus incedat. nc infidelium Iudaeorum animos irritet; simili enim modo. quo supra 2.1 sqq. cfr pp. 110. 123 etc.) a directa accusatione esse abstinens gradatim gravem eorum culpam ita detegit, ut simul suum erga eos amorem manifestet eorumque zelum agnoscat. 1. — Zn tuslilia quaerenda Iudaei Messia suo reielo perversum viam inierunt (9.30-33). ez fide est, 31. Israel cero sectando legem | 31. "lacaA Oi. Ouoxow vóuov — Duzato25iustitiae, in legem iustitiae non pervenit. | vs (orig wóuaov ol Éoüxs:v. 32. Auk l6; bun 32. Quare? Quia non ez fide, sed quasi ex | cox. ix zisstog, 3XX' 4 ID ipqow! z202operibus; o[fenderunt enim. in lapidem | é£zojxv zi Aio :o9 rposxóuuazo;, 33. offensionis. 33. Sicut scriptum est : Ecce | xal qiypaz:axv "lóoy timus Pv uos
9:33
pono in Sion lapidem o[fensionis, et pe- | Xiov zzosxóppacos xi cz tram scandali : et omnis qui credit in | Àoo, xxl à zi3::)ew iz! aX o) zal eum, non confundetur. a13/2v0r3:za:!. Iudaeis illis, qui fidem evangelicam nondum receperant sed bonae erant voluntatis, mirum utique videri potuit, quod ipsi, quamquam promissiones sibi factae in vigore erant, a salute messiana exclusi, ethnici vero, qui Messiam ignoraverant neque unquam de salute per eum consequenda cogitaverant, illius participes facti esse dicerentur. Ad hanc igitur difficultatem solvendam Apostolus transit interrogans : 30. quid ergo dicemus? Quae formula hic non, uti plerumque in hac epistola (3,5; 6,1; 7,3; 9,14), erroneae introducendae conclusioni inservit, sed simili modo, quo 5,1, transitioni inservit. Suo ergo autem ad sola vaticinià de vocatione gentium et reieclione ludacorum, uti multi volunt (cfr To/. Est. Mai. Reith. Beel. etc. — Wiss Gocó. etc.), non respicit, sed ad totam praecedentem pericopen (cfr supra p. 498), ita ut sensus sit : « quid igitur, quum de promissionum abrogatione sermo esse nequeat, dicendum est de vocatione gentium ct reiectione ludaeorum? quae miri huius eventus est vera causa et quomodo fieri potest, ut ordine plane inverso illi, quibus nihil divinitus est promissum, iustitiam salutemque messianam obtineant, illi vero, quibus promissiones factae sunt, earum impletionem in se non experiantur? » Cui interrogationi respondet, diversis adumbratis viis, quas ludaei et ethnici inierunt; hi nimirum crediderunt et ex fide iustificati sunt (v. 30), illi vero suis operibus Legis confisi credere noluerunt ideoque iustitiam Dei non sunt assecuti (31-33). Sunt qui interrogationem usque ad finem v. 30 aut etiam ad totum ». 31 extendant (cfr Mopsu. etc.); at neutrum recte fieri. contextus docet. « Namque, inquit S. Aug. (de doctr. cbrist. MI. 3,6), nisi post percontationem , qua dictum est : Quid ergo dicemus? responsio subiiciatur : quod gentes etc., textus consequens non cohaerebit ». Revera nullum invenies responsum , quod suppositae interrogationi longiori sit adaptatum. Id tamen concedimus, verbum interrogationis (quid ergo dicemus?) in priore responsi membro, ut constructio compleatur, esse repetendum : Rerum statu considerato dicemus, quod (2-1) gentes, quae non sectabantur (zà yi, £voxov:z) iustitiam , apprehenderunt (xaz£katsv) iustitiam, iustitiam autem (Sxaaxzosvry &£) quae ex fide est. Metaphoram e ludis, in quibus cursu concertabatur, desumtam hic adhiberi (cfr ad 1 Cor. 9,94), ipsa verba 3wxew (sectari) et xa-xXag- $xvew (apprehendere) satis manifestant (cfr PAil. 3,19. 18; 1 Tim. 6,11. 12 etc.). Prius ergo, quod de omni cursore ad metam praemiumque anhelante adhibetur, hic idem valet, quod operam dare ut aliquid obtineatur, a&que alterum, quod de solo victore metam attingente usurpatur, idem quod assequi; praemium vero, quod hic propositum cogitatur, est vera ?usiitta, 1. e. supernaturalis illa conditio animi, qua homo Deo probatur salutisque aeternae fruendae capax redditur. luremerito Apostolus ethnicos, qui veritatem in iniustitia detinentes vero Deo relicto idololatriae sese dederant omnisque generis peccatis indulgebant (cfr 1,18 sqq.), iustitiam sectari negat, quamvis inter illos fuerint, qui natura duce ea quae Legis sunt faciebant opusque Legis in cordibus suis scriptum ostendebant (cfr 2,1* sq.). De universo enim ethnicorum genere loquens ad paucos, qui excipi potuerunt, aeque parum attendit atque in sequente sententia ad ludaeorum reliquias iam salutem adeptas (11,5) respicit, ubi Iudaeos universe negat iustitiam esse assecutos. lamvero permirum illud nunc accidit, ut qui praemium propositum (iustitiam) non curaverunt neque operam dederunt, ut illud obtinerent, illud nihilominus iam apprehenderint. Ad quod paradoxon explicandum eos zustitiaum quae ez fide est. credentibusque gratis a Deo confertur (3,93 sqq.) asseculos esse addit; nam particula 21 (autein) in ultimo sententiae membro est epexegetica latinoque 24quam apte reddi potest (iustitiam , inquam , quae ex fide est cfr ad 3,22). Ethnicis porro iustitiam veram, quamvis eam assequi non studuerint, ex fide apprehendentibus Iudaei opponuntur, qui eam assecuti non sint, quamvis eam assequi studuerint : 31. Jsrae/ vero sectando (Btóxov) legem iustitiae (v5u2» Zvanzzóvuz) in. legem. iustitiae non pervenit (2v. £40xs:»). Plerique hoc responsi membrum ita adnectunt, ut etiam a particula 2 (guod v. 30) dependeat; id per se quidem fieri potest, sed quia hac sententiola completum responsum non continetur atque sequentes sententiae, quibus completur, ab illa particula non dependent, aptius illam a praecedentibus maiore interpunctione cum Vulg. Clem. separabimus ; ceterum nihil interest, utrum hunc an illum nexum praeferas. Ad textum quod attinet, antiquiores testes pro € vipzv Ouatocóvmg (i& legem iustitiae) nudum «i; v5yov (in. legem) exhibent; quare moderni critici (cfr Lachm. Treg. Tisch. WH.) hanc lectionem in suas editiones receperunt. Nihilominus consuetam lectionem eum haud paucis interpretibus (cfr Reith. Ma. Beel. Bisp. etc. — Fritzsche, Mey. God. etc.) praeferimus. Etenim sicut praecedentis membri acumen in eo cernitur, quod ethnici id ipsum quod non quaerebant assecuti esse dicantur, huius acumen haud dubie in eo est, quod Iudaei id ipsum quod quaerebant non assecuti esse dicantur. Idem igitur debet esse obiectum participii 2w5zov et verbi £g02ozv, ita ut genetivus Gatoo)vns, Sl scriptus & Paulo non esse supponitur, mente saltem suppleatur oportet; multo tamen concinnior est sententia paulinoque stylo conformior, si genelivus exprimitur. Difficilius dictu est, quae accurata sit locutionis viuzz 20a20)vs; (ler iustitiae) explicatio; attamen sententiam ipsam eiusque contextum consideranti dubium vix esse potest, quin hic idem significet quod nudum nomen 3ixat2oóv; in praecedente sententia. Veram enim iustitiam, quae Deo probetur, Iudaeos Legis divinitus sibi datae observatione assequi voluisse concedens Apostolus simul docet, eos ad illam pervenire non potuisse, idque ob causam, quam statim (r. 32) indicabit. Verbum «s0z»sv, quod proprie praevenire seu antevertere valet, Paulus cum Alexandrinis, notione praeveniendi neglecta, solo veniendi vel pervenzendi sensu usurpat (cfr ad 2 Cor. 10,15 p. 274). Immerito autem a Cai. paucisque aliis praeveniendi significatio hic urgetur, quasi Paulus dicere vellet, Iudaeos non ante ethnicos ad iustitiam pervenisse. Nam id unum ci curae est, ut ludaeos viam iniisse moneat, qua nulla prorsus ratione (nec ante nec post alios) ad iustitiam pervenire possent. Similiter pauci cum Herr. latinum pervenire male urgent; neque enim sensus est, ludaeos partem quidem sed non totam iustitiam oblüinuisse; omnis potius iustitia vera eis abiudicatur. De locutione vius; 2ciazzovaz (lex justitiae), quam diversimode explicari diximus, nonnulla videntur addenda. Cum modernis quibusdam (cfr Mai. Bisp. Sch. etc.) in locutione illa nomen v1:; (uti supra 1,91. 23) normam vel regulam designare tenemus, ita ut /ez 1wstitiae sit norma verae iustitiae vel etiam via. quae ad. veram. iustitiam ducit. Apostolus enim ludaeis in Lege mosaica eiusmodi normam datam esse supponit; idque recte, quia Legem rite observantibus vita aeterna, quae sine iustitia non obtinetur, erat promissa (Lev. 18,5; cfr infra 10,5 et ad Ga/. 3,12 p. 486 sq.). Verum non tam externis mandatis Legis constitucbatur haec norma, quam interno eius spiritu, tota nimirum eius voluntate ac sententia, quae quum eo tenderet, ut asseclas suos redderet gentem sanctam (Ex. 19,6 etc.) et ad Messiae adventum praepararet (Ga/. 3,25), ante omnia fidem in Messiam venturum postulabat. Itaque /ez iustitiae non est ipsa Lex mosaica, sed Legis illius mens ac voluntas; Legem ipsam ludaci possidebant neque amplius quaerere poterant, sed Legis spiritum, quamvis eum assequi studerent, assecuti non esse neque assequi potuisse dicuntur, quia sola externa praecepta attendentes eorum impletione seu Legis operibus contenti erant. Hanc explicationem Herr., ni fallor, insinuat, quum /egem iustitiae dicit esse « Legem mosaicam óene intellectam » ; similiter T/om.!, quamvis de sola lege rituali loquatur, eandem videtur indicare voluisse, ubi legem iustitiae dicit « legem spiritus vitae, per quam homines iustificantur; ad hanc ludaeos non pervenisse , quamvis eam sectarentur observando huius spiritualis legis umbram, quae consistit in observationibus legalibus ». Ab hac autem explicatione plerique longe discedunt. Atque multi quidem, Orig. et Mopsu. praeeuntibus, legem. Iustitiae priore loco legem mosaicam, posteriore legem christianam interpretantur, ut ludaei, quia (aut quamquam) suam Legem observare studebant, ad Christi legem non pervenisse dicantur (cir Pel. Prim. Sed. Hgm. Thom?. Lyr. etc., Tol. ust. Lap. Pic. etc. , Hieith. Mai M Ev. Aq. etc. — Acath. multi). Contra quam sentententiam, variis modis quibus excolitur aut vindicatur praetermissis (vix duo enim eadem ratione delinitiones illas exponunt), adnotasse sufficit, locutioni ler iustitiae in hac sententia non magis, quam nomini ?ustifiae in praecedente, duos sensus diversos posse attribui, nisi totius loci acumen destruere velimus; deinde verbum Zwxsce, uli ex praecedente sententia constat. valel « studiose illud quaerere, quod nondum possidetur », nunquam vero Graecis eut vouov idem est, quod « legis observationi intentum esse »; demum nexus quoque cum sequentibus hae explicatione turbatur, uti ex dicendis apparebit. Iudaeos, quamvis iustitiam quae ex eorum Lege obtineri potuit sibi acquirere studerent, ne hanc quidem obtinuisse, quia tolam suam Legem implere nequivissent (cfr Zheod. Pheoph. etc., A'" Est. Jat. etc. — Benq. Heum. etc.). Contextum autem consideranti,, opinor, clarum est, Apostolum hic non conqueri, quod Judaei opinatam iustitiam sed quod veram non sint conseculi, quam ethnici ex fide adepti sint; praeterea hypallage ista satis arbitrarie statui videtur. Sunt tameu etiam, qui hypallagen respuentes sentenliae sensum esse dicunt, ludaeos, quum suam Legem implere studerent, ad Leris suae implelionem non pervenisse (cfr de W. etc.); sed hos etiam longius a vero aberrare, demonstratione non indiget. Solum factum Apostolus ». 31 asseruit; in eius causam nunc inquirit interrogans : 32. quare? i. e. quae est causa, cur ludaei, quamvis legem iustitiae, i. e. veram iustitiam, studiose quaerant, ad eam non perveniant? Atque respondet : quio non ez fide sed quast (0:) ex operibus scilicet iustitiam assequi student. Veram iustitiam non nisi ex fide esse, in prima epistolae parte fuse demonstravit; mirum ergo esse non potest, quod ethnici, qui eam non quaerebant, eam assecuti sint, quamprimum crediderunt, ludaei autem, qui fide neglecta operibus suis iustificarl cupiebant, scopum suum non attigerint. Opera hic intelligi Legis omnes consentiunt, etiam ii qui cum textu recepto legere nolunt à; if igyev» viazo (cfr VV. LL.Y; quum autem opera hic opponantur fidei, mere naturalia opera intelligantur oportet, quae utique ad iustitiam supernaturalem non conducunt. Perversam igitur viam inierunt ludaei, quum ad sola externa praecepta attenti se suis operibus iustificari opinarentur; neque immerito Apostolus suo 6; inserto (oz £f fovov quast ex operibus) viam, quam inierint, non genuinam veramque sed opinabilem falsamque esse innuit. Parum recte vero CArys. (cfr Theoph. Euth.) particulam ideo insertam arbitrari videtur, ut opera ipsa dicantur simulata, ac si ludaei finxissent tantum se Legem observare; id enim rerum statui non respondet atque particula ad totam locutionem (i3 £z) pertinet neque ad solum genetivum trahi potest, quasi scriptum sit : « ex opinatis operibus ». Ulterius autem. progrediens Paulus causam quoque adiungit, cur Iudaei non e fide iustitiam assequi studuerint : offenderunt enim (zz) in layidem offensionis, 33. sieut seritptum est : Ecce pono in Sion lapidem offensionis et petram scandali et omnis qui credit in eum non confundetur. Particula xz (enin), licet a Paulo non esse scripta videatur iefr VV. LL.), timquam bona glossa apte retinetur, quia haec sententia revera prioris causam affert. Namque humilis vita Iesu superbis ludaeorum opinionibus messianicis non congruebat, ac praesertim. Christus ceucifivus eis erat scandalum (1 Cor. 1,23; cfr. Gal. 5,11), ita ut eum pro Messia suo agnoscere et in eum credere nollent. Itaque Iesus Christus, quem Simeon senex « in ruinam et in resurrectionem multorum in Israel et in signum cui contradiceretur » positum esse dixerat ( Luc. 2,354), incredulis Iudaeis factus est lapis offensionis, in quem pes eorum, quum stadium ingressi praemium verae iustitiae consectarentur, ita impegit, ut viam fidei sequi prohibiti sint. Neque vero mirari eos debere Apostolus addit, quod res ita evenerit, quia hic eventus a propheta iam erat annuntiatus. Quod ut ostendai, duos textus propheticos (Is. 28,16 et 8,14) ita in unum contrahit, ut in priore (28,16) obiectum verbi ex altero (8,154) suppleat, ne longiorem explicationem eum fere in modum, quo 1 Perr. 2,6-8, addere cogatur!. Prior apud Alexandrinos, quos iterum cum libertate quadam sequitur, hic est : i323 àyo ip5aAXo eig xà Ücp£Ata. Xov. Azv. z2o- T6A$ , ExAextov , üxpzyoviatov, évtl(gtov, eig 7x Üsy£)ux abTao, xxi Ó mtsitóuy ix! abc ob ud; xataw4v7»0: (« ecce pono in fundamentis Sion. lapidem eximium, electum, angularem, pretiosum, in fundamentis eius, et qui credit in eum non confundetur »?). In altero autem, quem Alexandrini minus accurate transtulerunt, ad primigenium potius textum respexisse videtur, qui a S. Hier. ita redditur : « Et erit (sc. Dominus exercituum) vobis in sanctificationem (melius : in sanctuarium), in /apidem autem offensionis et in petram scandali duabus domibus Israel, in laqueum et in ruinam habitantibus lerusalem, et offendent ex eis plurimi et cadent ». etc. Iamvero dubitari nequit, quin prior locus directe sit messianus atque appellatione lapidis eximii etc. Messias designetur (cfr Knabenb. Comm. in Is. I. p. 509). In altero utique ille, qui suis est protector, vocatur JaÀve Sabaoth (Dominus exercituum); sed haud paucis Veteris Test. in locis nomine JaAve designatur Verbum incarnandum seu Messias promissus (cfr ad 1 Cor. 10,& p. 976; Hundhausen Das erste Pontificalschr. Petri p. 233. 238 etc.). Atqui id etiam de [s. 8,1& valere, non tantum SS. Pauli et Petri (l. c.) auctoritate, qui ambo locum de Messia interpretantur, sed etiam prophetae contextu admittere cogimur. Namque immediate antea (Is. 8,8) innuitur, Erimanuelem, filium igitur Virginis promissum (Is. 7,15), terrae suae esse protectorem. Idem ergo etiam infidelibus utriusque regni erit lapis offensionis!. Quae quum ita sint, nulla in eo est difficultas, quod Paulus uni appellationi Messiae alteram substituerit; offenderunt Iudaei, quum divinitatem sub carne latentem ob vanas suas de Messia opiniones non cognoscerent, in lapidem pretiosum, qui hac ratione eis factus est /api» offensionis et petra scandali. Bene enim cum Chrys. adnotat Theoph., « Christum a fine et eventu eorum, qui non crediderunt , lapidern of- | fensionis nominari; per se enim eum positum esse velut fundamentum et fulerum , quum omnis, qui in eum credat, non confundi dicatur ». Utrum hoc in loco (uti 10,11) legendum sit zac à «i-:5ov (omnts qui credit), an vox zac sit omittenda, incertum est (cfr VV. LL.). Ceterum sententia est universalis, it& ut additione vocis, quam Is. 28,16 non habet, sensus non mutetur. Ideo Apostolus eam infra (10,11) addidisse videtur, ubi ethnicos non minus quam ludaeos fide iustificari docet; in nostrum autem locum, in quo de hac universalitate diserte non agitur, forte ex 10,11 irrepsit. 2. — Ob ignorantiam suam Iudaei in vera iustiliae via quaerenda erraverunt (10,1-13). 10,1. '"Aó:Àgoi, $ uiv tbóoxia iX; uds xagóla; xai $4 Oénau zo; tov O:ov nip corde iuo credideris, quod Deus illum | iv z& stópazl cou 68: Kópig "uos, suscitavit — a. mortuis, salcus — eris. | xzi z:3:t0gr, iw tj xapóía gov, D: 6 00. (Corde enim creditur ad iustiti- | O:^; odzbw yug ix vixpw, Gun. am : ore autem. confessio fit ad. salu- | 10. xaz9ía yàp ziottószat ti Guxat02Óvy», tem. 11. Dicit enim — scriptura 3:óua:t 9i ÓpoAoytizat tig guznpíav. l1. Omnis qui credit. in. illum, non con- | Aéyet. yàp. 54 pay [lag 6 zi0r:Óev dx fundetur. 129. Non enim est distin- | 29:5 o)x aisjuvÜrsattat, 12. 02 yip iazw ctio ludaei et. Graeci : nam. idem Do- | o:xazoAj 'louóalcu zt xai "ElAnvog 6 yàp minus omnium, dices in omnes qui | ajto; Kóigtog náv:wov, rÀouzGw tij závzag invocant. illum. 13. Omnis enim qui- | rov; iz:xaAouptvou; abióv. 13. ri; Yàp cumque — incocaeerit— nomen. — Domini, | 0; dv éxixaXéanzat tó Óvopa Kopiovu, ow0j- Quae de causa exclusionis contribulium suorum a salute paucis comprehenderat (9,31. 32) fusius explanaturus B. Paulus, quum eos vituperare debeat, a benevolentiae captatione quadam exorditur (vv. 1.2 a) atque viam ad eos vituperandos sibi aperit zelum eorum, quem laudavit, prudentem esse negans (v. 2 5) , quia non intelligentes, Legem suam esse paedagogum ad Christum ideoque eo adveniente abrogatam esse, iustitiae fidei sese non subiecerint (3. 4). Ut autem ostendat, quam gravis sit illa ignorantia, iustitiae operum a Lege postulatae (v. 5) iustitiam, quae ex fide est (6-10) omnibusque credentibus, ludaeis ac Graecis, sine distinctione confertur (11-13) opponit. Ne gravis, quam modo (9,32) significavit ct in hac pericope peracturus est, Iudaeorum accusatio ex animo inimico et offenso proficisci putetur, S. Apostolus sui erga eos amoris professionem interserit (v. 1) bonamque eorum voluntatem agnoscens (v. 2 a) amoris sui causam aperit. Epistolae enim lectores quàási ad suum exemplum imitandum invitans docet, quantopere contribulium suorum salus sibi cordi sit :
9:1
La même affirmation, sous une double forme, dans 1 Tim. 11, 7 ἀλήθειαν λέγω, où ψεύδομαι. L'ancienne attestation solennelle consistait à prendre Dieu à témoin, à cause de son omniprésence; elle paraît encore 11 Cor. 1, 23; x1, 31; Gal. n, 20. Mais ici Paul s’unit au Christ, qui est plus qu'un témoin intérieur, un principe de vérité; cf. II Cor. 11, 17; xu, 19. C'est de cette manière qu'il affirme ce qui se passe en lui. En même temps, sa conscience, qui est avec l’Esprit-Saint dans les mêmes rapports d'union que lui-même avec le Christ, rend témoignage. Ce ne sont point trois témoins (Chrys., Jér. etc.), mais une affirmation confirmée par un témoignage; le co-témoignage (συμμαρτυρούσης) s'explique parce que l'affirmation est déjà un témoignage rendu à la vérité. Les hommes disent ordinairement : je parle en conscience. Paul a voulu ajouter qu'il agissait en union avec le Christ, conformément à une conscience dont l'Esprit-Saint était le principe intérieur.
9:2
ὅτι 586 rapporte à λέγω plutôt qu'à οὐ ψεύδομαι qui est une parenthèse, ou qu'à συμμαρτυρούσης qui se rapporte aussi à λέγω. — λύπη douleur de l'âme; ὀδύνη douleur en général, plus souvent du corps que de l'âme : avec τῇ χαρδίχ c'est une émotion qui n’est pas sans une angoisse physique. Paul est surtout en proie à une douleur spirituelle en voyant les Juifs s’écarter de leur salut d'ailleurs aucun peuple n’a eu davantage le sentiment du deuil national; aujourd” hui encore, à Jérusalem, les pleurs des Juifs chaque vendredi soir ; ta ruine du temple est aussi pour toute la nation ἀδιάλειπτος ὀδύνη.
9:3
ηὐχόμην serait mieux rendu par optarem que par optabam. Dans le grec classique il eût fallu ajouter ἄν pour donner à l'imparfait le sens de l’optatif, mais cela n’est pas nécessaire dans la koinè; cf. Gal. 1v, 20, et il est assez clair ici que le sens n'est pas : « J'ai fait décidément une prière » mais « je souhaiterais », à savoir : si cela était possible, ou si ce souhaïit était à faire. Lequel des deux ? et que signifie ἀνάθεμα εἶναι ἀπὸ τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἢ D’après Corn. c'est être séparé du Christ extérieurement, c’est-à-dire être condamné aux tourments éternels, sans cesser d’être uni au Christ par la grâce. Maïs Paul n'avance rien qui suggère cette distinction, d'autant qu'il ne s'agit pas du futur, γένεσθαι, maïs du présent, εἶναι. Les Juifs sont séparés du Christ ; l'Apôtre volontiers sacrifierait son salut au leur, accepterait d’être séparé du Christ pour qu'ils ne le fussent pas. Mais cela ne veut pas dire qu'il accepterait nettement cette situation si Dieu lui laissait le choix. Il sait très bien que l'hypothèse n’est pas sérieuse. Tout ce qu'il veut dire, c'est qu'il se compte pour moins que son peuple, qu'il se sacrifierait volontiers pour lui; donc : « je souhaiterais, si on pouvait former un pareil vœu ». Ce ne serait done pas un désir saltem inefficax et hypotheticum rei intrinsece malae (contre Corn.); ou plutôt c’est un langage de sentiment qu'on ne doit point juger d'après la pure logique. Paul s’inspirait probablement de Moïse (Ex. xxx1r, 32). — ἀνάθεμα, hellénistique, au lieu de ἀνάθημα (attique), dans le sens d'objet con- Sacré. Chez les Hébreux, la consécration livrait l'objet à Dieu, soit pour lui être offert, s’il en était digne, soit pour être détruit. OM qui exprimait la consécration de destruction a été rendu par ἀνάθεμα, Lev. xxvir, 28-29; Dt. Mu, 26; Jos. vi, 17; de mème dans le N. T. (Gal. 1, 8-9; I Cor. xvi, 22), le mot indique une violente réprobation, sans aucune nuance de séparation seulement temporaire comme ce peut être le cas dans l'excommunication. D'ailleurs le mot ἀνάθεμα a été trouvé dans le grec hellénistique païen av. J:-C: dans le sens de malédiction (Moulton et Milligan). τῶν συγγενῶν μου explique quels sont les frères; ce sont ceux qui lui sont unis selon la chair (il était inutile de répéter τῶν devant χατὰ oépxa); cf. iv, 1; sans préjudice de la fraternité qui lie l'Apôtre aux Romaïns chrétiens selon l'esprit. Si on lisait dans Vg. optarem au lieu de optabam, le souhaït paraîtrait moins positif et la difficulté théologique disparaîtrait,
9:4
Se sacrifier pour les Juifs, c'était aussi en quelque sorte continuer le plan divin qui leur avait attribué tant de prérogatives, οἵτινες, quippe qui « eux qui ». — Ἰσραηλεῖται, titre d'honneur. {l n’y avait plus politiquement que des Ἰουδαῖοι, mais qui espéraient toujours la restauration d'Israël; c'était un nom donné par Dieu à Jacob (Gen. xxx, 29), gage de bénédiction pour ses descendants; cf. Eph. τι, 12 et Ps. Sal. χιν, 8 : ὅτι à μερὶς χαὶ ἡ χληρονομία τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστιν ὁ Ἰσραήλ; le Messie devait être le roi d'Israël (Ps. Sal. xvnr, 23. 47). ἣ υἱοθεσία, donc eux étaient déjà fils de Dieu par adoption avant les chré: tiens; Ex. 1v, 22; Dt. χιν, 1; cf. La paternité de Dieu dans l'A. T., dans ΗΒ, 1908, 481 ss. ἡ δόξα la manifestation sensible de la présence de Dieu dans le tabernacle et dans le Temple, Ex. xL, 34; III Regn. vin, 10. 11, que les Rabbins nommèrent Chekhinah. αἱ διαθῆται les alliances, au pluriel, parce qu'il y avait eu plusieurs alliances — sans parler de celle de Noé (Gen. 1x, 9) qui ne regardait pas les Israélites — avec Abraham (Gen. xv, 18; xvir, 2 etc.), avec Abraham, Isaac et Jacob (Ex. n, 24), avec Moïse et tout le peuple (Ex. χχιν, 7 s.). — ἣ νομοθεσία, cf II Macch. vi, 23, « la législation sainte et fondée par Dieu ». Paul l'envisa= geant en elle-même pouvait la compter parmi les privilèges d'Israël, d'autant qu'elle réglait la λατρεία, le seul culte qui, dans l'antiquité, fût rendu au vrai — αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι « les promesses », terme qui n’est pas dans l'A. T., et que Paul emploie aussi bien que le singulier pour désigner tout ce que contenait la promesse messianique; οἵ, Gal. nr, 16 τῷ δὲ ᾿Αδραὰμ ἐορέθησαν αἱ ἐπαγγελίαι οἵ Rom. τν, 13. Lire testamenta { WW.), au lieu de testamentum (Vg.-Clém.}).
9:5
ot πατέρες, les patriarches. Les Israélites comptaient beaucoup 50} 1685 mérites et l’intercession des patriarches; ils étaient une très sérieuse chance de salut pour la nation, et ainsi lui appartenaient {v); maïs, dans la pensée de Paul, les pères figurent plutôt ici comme les premiers dépositaires dela promesse qui se termine au Christ. Le Christ appartient à Israël, non pas seulement comme précédemment (v. 3) κατὰ «άρκα ainsi que Paul lui-même, mais τὸ χατὰ σάρχα, « pour ce qui regarde la chair »; l’article indique donc déjà qu'il y a autre chose dans le Christ, et c'est ce que Paul va expli- On sait que depuis le 1ve siècle un certain nombre d’exégètes a regardé la phrase ὁ ὦν — αἰῶνας comme une doxologie bénissant Dieu pour ses bienfaits envers les Pères. Cette opinion ne tient ni quant à la langue, ni quant au fond. Quant à la langue, elle exigerait un arrêt dans la ponctuation, soit avant ὁ ὦν, soit avant Θεός. Dans les deux cas la doxologie commencerait asyndeton et par le sujet, non par le prédicat. Or les doxologies de Paul se rattachent toujours à ce qui précède : ὅς ἐστιν (Rom. 1, 25); ou ὁ &v (II Cor. x1, 31); ou & (Gal. τ, 5; IL Tim. 1v, 18; cf. 1 Pet. iv, 11; Ileb. χπι, 21}; αὐτῷ (Rom. χι, 36; Eph. πὶ, 21; cf. I Pet. v, 11; II Pet. πὶ, 18); τῷ δὲ Θεῷ (Phil. 1V, 20; I Tim. 1, 17) (Zahn). D'autre part le prédicat précède toujours, non seulement dans la Bible, mais aussi dans les inscriptions sémitiques; le seul cas contraire qu'on ait allégué est une double traduction dans le Ps. zxvir (LxvIn), 20 Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητός qui est venue s'ajouter à la formule normale εὐλογητὸς Κύριος. Ces deux raisons sont décisives, surtout la première. Si en effet on ne met qu'une virgule après σάρχα (Soden), ce que concèdent Lietz. et Jül., on ne voit vraiment pas que ὁ &v puisse se rapporter à un autre qu’au Christ. Quant au fond, il y a le contexte et la doctrine. On ne nie pas qu'une doxologie puisse avoir sa raison d'être après l’énumération des privilèges d'Israël, mais elle n’est pas dans la tonalité du morceau qui est la tristesse, non l’action de grâces. Et surtout elle est beaucoup moins à sa place qu'une explication sur le Christ, destinée à compléter ce qui est dit τὸ κατὰ σάρχα, sur le même rythme que 1, 4. Toute la difficulté est dans la doctrine. D'après les partisans de la doxologie, Paul n’a jamais dit que le Christ était Dieu, le seul vrai Dieu qui est au-dessus de tout; car alors que deviendrait Dieu, le Père du Christ? Mais aussi bien n'est-ce pas la pensée de Paul que le Christ est Dieu à l'exclusion du Père, ou au-dessus du Père, mais seulement de dire qu'il ἃ vraiment la nature divine, θεός étant ici attribut, de sorte que ἐπὶ πάντων se rattache plutôt à ὁ &y qu'à θεύς, de façon que la phrase, appliquée au Christ, n’est point tant une doxologie qu'une glorification de sa nature divine. Paul qui ἃ dit du Christ ἴσα Θεῷ (Phil. τι, 6) et qui le regarde comme objet du culte des fidèles, ἃ très bien pu le dire Dieu; et, puisque c’est le sens grammatical de la phrase, il n’y ἃ pas à hésiter. On peut voir dans ce sens Durand $. 1. (La divinité de Jésus-Christ dans 5. Paul, Rom. 1x, 5; RB. 1908, p. 550 ss.), Corn., Weiss, Godet, Zahn, Kühl; et, avec plus ou moins d'hésitation, SIL., Lietz., Toussaint; au contraire, pour la doxologie, Lips., Jül. La tradition ancienne a donc vu avec raison dans ce verset l'affirmation par Paul de la divinité du Christ (cf. Durand, 1. 1.). On ne citera ici que Tertullien (Prar. 15) : christum autem et ipse deum cognominavit, quorum patres, et ex quibus christus secundum carnem qui est super omnia deus benedictus'in aevum. La nuance de τὸ κατὰ σάρχα est bien rendue par Érasme : quantum attinet ad carnem.
9:6
οὐχ οἷον δὲ ὅτι n'est pas οὖχ οἷόν τε, « il n'est pas possible », comme a traduit Augustin (ad Paulin. ep. CXXXVI, 81) « non potest excidere verbum Dei », mais a la valeur de où δήπου, οὐχ ὅτι, « ce n’est pas que », Vg. non autem quod. Phrynichus (p. 372, éd. Lobeck) atteste ce sens en réprouvant la locution : οὐχ οἷον ὀργίζομαι" κίδδηλον ἐσχάτως... λέγειν δὲ χρὴ où δήπου, μὴ δήπου, — ἐχπίπτω, οἵ, Gal. v, 4, « tomber d’une situation supérieure », se disait des acteurs, des orateurs, qui n'avaient pas réussi, comme nous disons qu'une pièce de théâtre est tombée. Il s'agit du λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ, dans le sens des λόγια τ, 0. (ur, 2). Paul ne voit aucune difficulté à ce que la Loi, donnée pour un temps, soit tombée. Mais il ne peut en être de même de la promesse, à laquelle la Loi était subordonnée et qui engageait la véracité et la fidélité de Dieu. Dieu avait promis qu'Israël serait sauvé par le Messie. Quand bien même ce salut ne serait devenu caduc que par la faute du peuple, le dessein de Dieu n'en serait pas moins frustré. C’est ce qui n’est pas possible, car ce serait la faillite de tout le système de la révélation. La preuve que la parole de Dieu s'accomplit, telle qu'il l’entendait lui-même, a pour base cette distinction : tous ceux qui sont descendus d'Israël selon la chair ne sont pas le véritable Israël. Paul n'oppose pas au plus grand nombre qui est infidèle le petit nombre des Juifs qui a cru au Christ, et il n’a pas ici recours à la solution de x1, 26, qu'à la fin Israël lui-même sera sauvé (contre Kühl). 11 pose plutôt, comme précédemment (ιν, 12) le principe d’une filiation spirituelle d'Abraham, la distinction entre Israël selon la chair (I Cor: x, 18), et l’Israël de Dieu (Gal. vi, 16), ce qui n’est rien moins que l’interprétation des prophéties sur Israël entendues d'un autre Israël composé de croyants, La pensée va se développer plus clairement. Sunt omis par WW. après Jsraël n'est pas nécessaire au sens. Israel serait plus littéral que Zsraelitae.
9:7
La difficulté de ce verset vient de ce que σπέρμα est pris dans deux sens différents : d’abord pour indiquer la postérité physique, ensuite pour indiquer la postérité qui compte, qui donne droit au titre de fils. Jülicher a cru éviter cet inconvénient en traduisant : « Ne sont pas « postérité d'Abraham » tous ceux qui sont ses fils, mais le nom postérité d'Abraham ne s'appliquera qu’à Isaac ». Gette traduction fait trop évidemment violence au texte. Donc οὐδ᾽ ὅτι signifie reque quia; ce n'est pas parce qu'ils descendent physiquement d'Abraham, — à savoir ceux qui en descendent, — qu'ils sont tous enfants d'Abraham. πάντες τέχνα ne doit pas s'entendre directement des enfants de Dieu (contre ZLietz.), mais des enfants d'Abraham, reconnus par Dieu pour les héritiers légitimes du patriarche et de la promesse. Comment sait-on que tous ne sont pas enfants? Par cette parole de l'Écriture insérée dans le texte sans citation à la manière rabbinique : « c’est d'Isaac que sortiront ceux qui seront vraiment ta race ». Le passage est tiré de Gen. xx, 12. Paul ἃ donc visé (contre KüAl) l'expulsion d'Ismaël. On savait qu'Abraham avait eu d’autres fils qu'Isaac, mais c’est la postérité d'Isaac qui devait hériter, et porter seule le nom de postérité d'Abraham; II Cor. ΧΙ, 22 σπέρμα ’A6paiu, titre d'honneur des Israélites. Lire neque quia avec WW. au lieu de neque qui (Vg.-Clém.).
9:8
Explication du verset précédent, y compris le texte de la Genèse. Si des enfants ont droit au titre d'enfants de Dieu, ce n'est point par suite de leur naissance charnelle de qui que ce soit, mais c’est parce que Dieu les désigne d'avance comme héritiers de sa promesse; ce sont ceux-là seulement qui sont comptés comme « postérité » au sens honorable du mot, employé par l'Écriture. La faveur qui leur est faite résulte du dessein de Dieu, évidemment gratuit, plutôt que de l'emploi du mot λογίζεται. L'Israélite pouvait objecter : quoi qu'il en soit d'Ismaël, nous sommes tous les fils d'Isaac, donc les fils de la promesse, c'est à nous qu'est promis le salut; d'où la conséquence que si Israël n’est pas sauvé, la parole de Dieu n'a pas d'effet. Mais ce serait s'arrêter à la superficie du raisonnement. Paul ἃ prouvé que Dieu n'adopte pas pour fils ceux qui sont de telle origine, mais qu'au contraire il destine d'avance ceux qu'il lui plaît d'appeler à recevoir tel privilège. Le principe dont l’élection d'Isaac fut une application demeure toujours le même; les droits de la chair ne comptant pas, Dieu demeure libre d'appeler qui il veut. Ce qui est caduc, ce n'est pas son plan qui continue à s'exercer selon les mêmes principes; c'est l'espérance que les Israélites plaçaient dans leur descendance charnelle. Lietzmann remarque d'ailleurs avec raison que le passage est beaucoup plus clair quand on se rappelle que d’après Gal. 1v, 21-31, Isaac est le type de ceux qui sont justifiés par la foi. Dans Vg. in semen serait plus littéral que in semine.
9:9
Ce verset ἃ pour but d'expliquer ce qui pouvait être obscur pour les lecteurs : comment Isaac était le fils de la promesse; il n’y ἃ qu’à se reporter à Gen. xvim, 10. 44 d'où Paul a tiré son texte en fondant deux versets en une courte phrase. On voit dans cet endroit comment Isaac n'était pas le fils de la chair, mais plutôt du miracle, d'un miracle annoncé par Dieu.
9:10
où μόνον δέ comme v, 8. 11; vin, 23; 11 Cor. vin, 19 {ZLips.), d’une façon absolue, comme pour dire : « Il y a plus ». D'ailleurs le sujet Ῥεδέχχα demeure suspendu sans verbe, pour être repris au v. 12 αὐτῇ. — κοίτη, proprement « lit, couche », était un euphémisme pour désigner l'acte sexuel, Num. xxx, 18; Jud. xx1, 11; Sap. 111, 13. 16 etc. (Zietz., Kühl); maïs cela n'expliquerait pas le gén. ἐξ ἑνός. Il faut donc donner à κοίτη le sens de semen emissum, comme dans Num. v, 20: Lev. xvin, 20. 23 (Zahn). L'unité de la mère étant évidente, Paul insiste sur l'unité du père, Isaac, « notre père », au sens juif (cf. 1v, 1), pour bien montrer qu'il ne songe pas à renier ses origines. Dans la Vo.-Clém., effacer illa {WVW.); ex uno concubitu ne peut provenir que d’une altération intra-latine; Aug., trompé par ce texte, a insisté sur cette unique union. /saac patris nostri est un décalque du gén. grec. Lire avec WW. : ex uno concubitum habens, Isaac patre nostro.
9:11
Paul suppose l'histoire bien connue (Gen. xxv, 19. 23), et n'indique même pas le sujet de γεννηθέντων, évidemment Ésaü et Jacob dans le sein de leur mère. Quand Isaac fut préféré à Ismaël, ce dernier persécutait son frère (Gal. τν, 29, expliquant Gen. xx1, 9 ss.); on aurait pu être tenté de voir dans ce fait la cause de son expulsion. Mais les jumeaux n'étant pas nés n'avaient encore rien fait ni bien, ni (%, sous la mouvance de μηδέ) mal. La situation ainsi posée, le dessein de Dieu paraîtra en toute évidence. Il est exprimé dans la phrase qui suit, comprenant le v. 12, car la coupure entre les deux versets a été mal faite, et οὐχ ἐξ ἔργων... καλοῦντος se rapporte plutôt à ce qui précède qu'à ce qui suit. C’est cet ensemble qu'il faut expliquer. — ἵνα indique une finalité qui aboutit à μένῃ. Ce dernier mot est pris par Cornely au sens logique : « afin qu'il soit constaté, connu, que le dessein de Dieu demeure » (Corn.). C’est bien la construction, car l’oracle, étant une révélation, avait en effet pour but de faire connaitre la stabilité du dessein de Dieu; mais, quoad sensum, l'idée est que Dieu ἃ agi ainsi pour que son plan demeure le même, par opposition à ἐχπέπτωχεν (v. 6). Donc, il ne fut pas dit pour que le plan demeure; mais le plan est irrévocable, et « cela fut dit » pour l'exécuter. Quel plan? un dessein qualifié par κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, ce qui semble commenté par Eph. 1, 11 : ἐν & (iv Χριστῷ) καὶ ἐχληρώθημεν προορισθέντες κατὰ πρόθεσιν τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐνεργοῦντος χατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ, cf. II Tim. 1, 9. 11] s’agit donc d'un dessein de Dieu qui s'exerce par un libre choix; de même que le jour du choix (εἰς ἡμέραν ἐκλογῆς Ps. Sal. xvur, 6) est un jour choisi et déterminé librement par Dieu. Que ce dessein soit libre, c'est ce que Paul explique en ajoutant οὐκ... χαλοῦντος, qui, pour la construction, se rattache à πρόθεσις κατ᾽ ἐκλογήν, pour expliquer le caractère propre de ce dessein qui est précisément d’être χατ᾽ ἐχλογήν. C'est bien le cas, si le choix de Dieu n'est pas dirigé par les œuvres, mais procède uniquement de celui qui appelle. Le mot χαλοῦντος qui s'applique évidemment à Dieu ἃ été choisi parce que Paul pense toujours à l'appel au christianisme (vi, 28-30), mais il indique aussi que Paul voyait dans l'expression χληθήσεται (v. 7) un sens mystique semblable, non pas seulement l'appellation courante des hommes, mais l'appel divin. Le texte de la Genèse (xxv, 23) auquel il est fait allusion s’entendait des Édomites, fils d'Esaü, et des Israélites, fils de Jacob. Paul l’applique aux enfants euxmêmes, mais c’est comme représentant aussi leurs descendants. Dans le langage de l'A. T. où le peuple porte exactement le même nom que son ancêtre, la pensée est parfois indécise entre l'un et l’autre. En tout cas, il ne s’agit point ici d'appel à la gloire ou même d'appel individuel à la grâce. Jacob, à l'exclusion d'Ésaü, sera le seul héritier, le véritable fils d'Abraham, appelé à être le peuple de Dieu; selon les termes de l’oracle, « l’ainé sera assujetti au plus jeune ». Et cette faveur n'a aucune raison d'être que la libre volonté de Dieu. Dans la Vo.-Clém. (v. 11), aut aliquid boni egissent, aut mali, est moins près du grec que aut aliquid egissent bonum, aut malum {WW.). Effacer la parenthèse ( WW.) qui trouble le contexte (Corn.).
9:13
Là-dessus Paul cite une phrase tirée de Mal. 11, 2. Dans quel but? D'après le plus grand nombre, pour confirmer sa thèse du libre choix, en lui donnant son dernier fondement. Loin de se régler pour choisir sur les dispositions des personnes, Dieu suit bien plutôt ses propres sentiments d'amour ou de haine; antérieurement à la naissance des jumeaux, Dieu aimait l’un et haïssait l'autre, de là son choix. Cette haine de Dieu antérieure à tout démérite prévu a quelque chose de choquant, que Cornely s'efforce d'adoucir en atténuant Le sens de μισεῖν en celui de « aimer moins » ou de « négliger ». Mais, quoi qu'il en soit des exemples cités (Gen. xx1x, 80. 31; Le. xvin, 26; Dt. xxr, 15-17; Jud. χιν, 16; Prov. x1v, 20), le texte de Malachie dit bien que Dieu a détesté Ésaü, représentant le peuple des Édomites, et l'a prouvé par sa conduite envers ce peuple. Il faudrait donc supposer que Paul s'est écarté du sens de ce passage, soit en éliminant toute allusion à l’histoire des peuples, soit en transportant les sentiments de Dieu à l'égard des deux ancêtres, antérieurement à leur naissance. C'est ce qui ne s'impose nullement. En effet, la citation précédente s'entend des deux peuples dans Gen. xxv, 28, et Paul n'avait aucune raison d’exclure les descendants de la perspective des ancêtres éponymes, d'autant qu'il voulait faire entendre le dessein de Dieu dans le rejet du peuple juif. Semblable avait été autrefois la destinée d'Ésaü et de ses descendants, assujettis à Jacob avant la naïssance de leur ancêtre, et cette conduite de Dieu était confirmée par un texte de l'Écriture, Le texte n’est pas cependant une preuve historique de laccomplissement de la prophétie de Gen. xxv, 23 (contre SH., Knab. [Comm. in proph. min. 11, 422 sq.}}, mais une preuve scripturaire des sentiments persistants de Dieu envers les deux ancêtres et les deux peuples; les aoristes ne doivent pas être serrés de trop près, puisqu'il s’agit d’une citation.
9:14
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν introduit cette fois très nettement une objection (comme It, 5), relative à la justice de Dieu. D'après Kühl, ἀδικία signifierait « dérogation à la règle ». L’objectant voudrait dire que Dieu, s’il avait agi comme l'a dit Paul, se serait écarté de ses propres principes, et Paul prouverait que non par l'Écriture; l'argument serait topique, tandis qu’autrement Paul ne ferait qu'aggraver la difficulté. Mais on doit laisser à ἀδιχία son sens propre d'injustice. Paul se propose moins de résoudre l’objection que de mettre sa doctrine dans tout son jour par deux exemples aussi caractéristiques que possible, et il sait si bien que l’objection n’est pas résolue qu'il la reprend au v. 19. La première objection avait cependant fait avancer la discussion en montrant que la conduite historique de Dieu découle de ses prérogatives. Quant à l'accusation d’injustice, Paul se contente de la repousser avec énergie : μὴ γένοιτο, comme ΠΙ, 5, sans recourir à aucune solution qui adoucisse la difficulté. Les pélagiens avaient eu recours à la prévision des œuvres futures. Augustin répondit très bien (ad Sixt. ep. CXCIV, 35) : d'où vient que l'Apôtre n’a pas eu l'idée d’une solution si simple? non autem hoc Apostolus dicit, sed potius ne quisquam de suorum operum audeat meritis glo= riari, ad Dei gratiam et gloriam commendandam voluit valere quod dixit (Corn.). Iniustitia serait plus littéral que iniquitas (Vg.). 15 et 16. La conduite de Dieu envers Moïse et le principe qu’il a posé à cette occasion prouvent que, quand Dieu fait miséricorde, c'est uniquement parce qu'il le veut bien. Ce qui vaut en ce cas pour Moïse vaut à plus forte raison pour quiconque.
9:15
La leçon authentique τῷ Muÿüoeï γὰρ λέγει met la personne de Moïse plus en relief que s’il y avait τῷ γὰρ Muüssi λέγει, qui pourrait presque passer pour une simple citation. D'après Jülicher, Kühl, Moïse est mis en vedette comme le législateur auquel Dieu révèle son plan. Mais le contraste avec Pharaon indique plutôt que Moïse figure ici pour sa propre personne. Si quelqu'un pouvait, par ses admirables vertus, peser dans la balance divine, c'était bien lui. Or c'est précisément à lui que Dieu a dit : ἐλεήσω ὃν ἄν 2. τ᾿ À. Le texte (Ex. xxxm1, 19) est cité d'aprés le grec des Septante; l’hébreu eût dû être rendu uniquement par des présents : « je fais grâce à qui je fais grâce, et je fais miséricorde à qui je fais miséricorde ». Il est difficile d'indiquer une nuance entre les deux verbes grecs; en hébreu le premier marque plutôt la faveur, le second la pitié et la compassion. Il y ἃ gradation, dans l’idée de la bonté exercée envers quelqu'un sans aucun droit de sa part, ou même dans le sens du pardon. Dans l'Exode Dieu accordait à Moïse une faveur insigne, maïs le cas concret importe moins que le principe général appliqué à un homme tel que lui. Je ne vois pas la nécessité de remplacer cuius par cuiuscunque (Érasme, Corn). L’antiquité a seulement hésité entre cuius et cui.
9:16
Paul pouvait donc conclure en donnant tout à Dieu, rien à l'homme. Le sujet est sous-entendu; c’est le choix (Zips.) ou la miséricorde (SA.) ou plutôt l'affaire en général (Zahn); l'affaire dont il s’agit, ou son succès ne dépend ni des dispositions, ni des efforts de l'homme, mais de Dieu exerçant sa bonté (ἐλεῶντος ou, d'après Soden, ἐλεοῦντος, forme plus régulière). — rpéyovτος indique la tension violente du coureur dans un concours, comparaison chère à Paul, I Cor. 1x, 24. 26; Gal. πὲ, 2; v, 7; Phil. ας 16; cf. Phil. ini, 12. Ces textes prouvent d’ailleurs à quel point il recommandait et pratiquait cette course dans le bien. Mais ici il suppose qu'on prétend atteindre le but par ses propres forces, comme ceux qui poursuivent les œuvres par eux-mêmes (cf. x. 31). Une telle course ne servirait de rien et ne serait pas une raison pour l'appel de Dieu. Celle qui suit l’appel n'est point ici en cause. Il n'y a pas non plus à se préoccuper du libre arbitre en traduisant que le succès dépend moins du libre arbitre que de Dieu, car il n'est nullement question ici des rapports de la grâce avec le libre arbitre, mais du dessein de Dieu d'exercer envers tel ou tel une faveur.
9:17
γάρ est probablement en parallèle avec le γάρ du v. 15; ce serait un second exemple destiné à mettre en lumière les principes de Dieu dans llappel. Quand il s’agit de grâce, si Dieu n’est pas le maître qui rend justice aux mérites, du moins on n’a pas à se plaindre de lui. Mais dans le cas où l’on n'est pas appelé? — Même dans ce cas Dieu agit librement. A l'exemple de Moïse qui illustre la grâce, Paul joint le cas de Pharaon, son adversaire, le type de ceux qui ont résisté à Dieu et refusé d'obéir à ses ordres. L'expression λέγει ἡ γραφή signifie : on lit dans l'Écriture cette parole adressée par Dieu au Pharaon, Ex. 1x, 16. L'hébreu : « Je t'ai laissé subsister pour te faire voir ma force, et afin de faire connaître mon nom dans toute la terre », était assez bien rendu par les LXX : χαὶ Evexey τούτου διετηρήθης ἵνα ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοὶ τὴν ἰσχύν {ou τὴν δύναμίν) μον, χαὶ ὅπως διαγγελῇ τὸ ὄνομά μου ἐν πάσῃ τῇ γῆ. Paul a insisté davantage sur la finalité principale {εἰς αὐτὸ τοῦτο), égalisé les deux finalités secondaires (ὅπως et ὅπως), conservé ἐνδείξωμαι ἐν σοί qui allait à son dessein de faire de Pharaon un type, et surtout remplacé διετηρήθης par ἐξήγειρά σε. Kühl prétend qu'il a dû lire cette leçon dans ses LXX, car sans cela il n'eût pas changé : « tu as été conservé », qui s’harmonise bien avec l'application au v. 22. Maïs aucune autorité des LXX n'a cette leçon et il est plus probable que c’est Paul qui a fait le changement, d'autant que ἐξήγειρά σε est une tra= duction plus littérale de Tara comme expression isolée, quoique rendant moins bien l’idée d'après le contexte que διετηρήθης. Si donc Paul a préféré ἐξηήγειρά σε, c'est sans doute pour ne pas se lier trop étroitement aux circonstances historiques du texte et pour mettre en présence plus directement Dieu et le Pharaon. Encore est-il que Paul avait tout Le texte sous les yeux et 18 supposait connu comme le prouve σχληρύνει au v. 18. Il faut donc laisser au Pharaon sa physionomie historique, et le prendre dans son rôle bien connu: Ce serait donner à la citation une portée trop étrangère, soit à son sens pro= pre, soit à l'ensemble du contexte de Paul, que d'entendre ἐξεγείρειν d'une excitation au péché. Le sens n'est pas non plus : « donner l'existence » [Ca vin, Lips., Kühl), ce que ἐξεγείρειν ne signifie jamais, maïs susciter, comme dans les LXX pour « donner un rôle dans l’histoire, mettre en scène »; ex. Hab: 1, 6 : διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω τοὺς Χαλδαίους, ou Zach. x1, 16 διότι ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ ἐξεγείρω ποιμένα ἐπὶ τὴν γῆν, Cf. Jér. xxvn, 41. C'est aussi le sens dans le Ν. T. (contre Lips.), Mt. xxiv, 41; do. vu, 52 où il s'agit de paraître comme prophète, dans un rôle déterminé, et c'est aussi à cela que se ramène l'apparition du Baptiste, Mt. χι, 11. Ce sens est tout à fait satisfaisant ici (Corn., SH.). Le Pharaon se croit de force à résister à Dieu: il refuse d'entrer dans son plan, et il ne se doute pas que Dieu ne l'a mis dans cette situation que pour se servir de lui et montrer avec quelle facilité il peut triompher de lui. Zahn en conclut que Dieu avait donc prévu les mauvaises dispositions du Pharaon et que c'est parce qu'il lui connaissait ces dispositions qu'il l’a placé sur le trône: On ne saurait affirmer que Paul y a pensé, pourtant il est certain que le verbe σχληρύνω (v. 18) suppose des mauvaises dispositions antécédentes. Fandis qu'un prophète est suscité de Dieu pour remplir le rôle que Dieu luia confié, Dieu a mis en scène le Pharaon pour qu'il lui fasse opposition. Lun est un instrument docile, l'autre est indocile, mais quand même un instrument: L'Apôtre reste dans le thème général de l'Exode. À supposer que ἐξήγειρά σε signifie que Dieu a donné l'existence au Pharaon pour un but donné, ce but ne serait toujours pas de le damner éternellement pour manifester sa gloire. Il n’est point question de cela ici. Dans Vg. μὲ avant annuncietur est rayé par WW.; mais il est dans le grec.
9:18
L'opposition du Pharaon était donc voulue de Dieu. Paul en tire une conclusion générale qu’il met à côté de celle qui ressortait du cas de Moïse (ὃν θέλει ἐλεεῖ), et il l'exprime par le terme qui revient souvent dans l'Exode (ιν, 21; vu, 8; 1x, 42; χιχ, 4. 17), Dieu ἃ endurci le Pharaon et, de la même manière, il erdurcit donc qui il veut. Il est trop raffiné de noter avec Franzelin, Cornely, que l'Écriture, après avoir annoncé que Dieu endurcirait Pharaon (Ex. 1v, 21; vu, 3), ne met l'exécution de cette menace qu'après la sixième plaie, tandis que durant le cours des cinq premières plaies, c'est le Pharaon qui est endurci ou qui s’endurcit lui-même (vn, 13. 22; vin, 15. 19. 32; 1x, 7). L'observation perd de sa valeur quand on voit le Pharaon s'endurcir lui-même, encore après la sixième plaie (Ex. 1x, 35; x, 18). Il faut, semble-t-il, conserver un juste milieu entre ceux qui ne tiennent aucun compte de la situation historique de l’Exode, et ceux qui en exigent une connaissance détaillée pour comprendre le texte de Paul. Pour lui la situation est historique, mais globale. Ge n’est pas le salut éternel qui a été offert au Pharaon et qu'il a refusé; mais en revanche c'est sa résistance obstinée qui a été voulue de Dieu. Toutefois le mot même d'endurcir, rendre le cœur dur, fermé au repentir, suppose déjà une disposition mauvaise, comme l'obstination suppose un dessein déjà formé. Comment Dieu s'y prend-il pour endurcir? C'est aux théologiens à le dire, en conciliant cette action de Dieu avec la liberté que Paul a toujours reconnue à l'homme. S. Thomas a donné relativement au Pharaon une indication d’une très fine psychologie, montrant ainsi qu'il ne perdait pas de vue le sens historique de s. Paul se référant à l'Exode. Il n'entend pas l’induration simplement comme une permission de Dieu, ce qui serait une atténuation du sens : sed aliquid amplius videtur mihi in hoc esse intelligendum : quia videlicet instinctu quodam interiori moventur homines a Deo ad bonum et ad malum .… aliter tamen ad bona, aliter ad mala ... ad malum auiem dicitur inclinare vel suscitare homines occasionaliter, in quantum scilicet Deus homini aliquid proponit vel interius vel exterius, quod quantum est de se, est inductivum ad bonum; sed homo propter suam maliliam perverse utitur ad malum ... Et similiter Deus, quantum est de se, interius instigat hominem ad bonum, puta regem ad defendendum iura regni sui, vel ad puniendum rebelles; sed hoc instinetu bono malus homo abutitur secundum malitiam cordis sui .… Et hoc modo (après une citation 418. x, 6 s.) cèrca Pharaonem accidit; qui cum a Deo excitaretur ad regni sui tutelam, abusus est hac excitatione ad crudelitatem. Paul n’a pas indiqué les lignes de la conciliation. Il pensait que Dieu avait en son pouvoir les moyens de maintenir le Pharaon dans sa résistance, et cependant la pensée que Dieu l'ait poussé au mal lui eût sûrement paru blasphématoire. Il n'a pas dit non plus que Dieu endurcit tous ceux auxquels il ne fait pas miséricorde, mais qu'il a le droit d'endurcir qui il veut, sans déterminer non plus si c'est pour un temps ou si c'est pour toujours. L'essentiel était d'établir que ceux qui croient lui résister obéissent en somme à ses desseins. Si le Pharaon a résisté, c'est que Dieu l'a endurci, et c’est pour cela aussi que les Juifs résistent à l'Évangile.
9:19
L'affirmation de la toute-puissance divine ne souffre en elle-même aucune difficulté. De notre côté, elle se heurte à la responsabilité qui nous incombe. Dans le cas qui vient d’être résolu, sommes-nous encore responsables? Or en fait Dieu nous traite comme responsables, puisqu'il nous blâme; et comment est-il juste en nous blâmant si nous faisons sa volonté? C'est ce qu'objecte quelqu'un que Paul introduit ici en scène. τίς ἀνθέστηχεν, le parfait pour le présent (Κρ. resistit) ne signifie pas « qui pourrait lui résister? » (Lips., Corn.). L'objectant se tient plus près de l'argument de Paul, avec une sorte d’ironie goguenarde : eh bien! de quoi se plaint-il? puisqu'on fait sa volonté même quand on croit lui résister! Cf. 11, 5. Au contraire Sap. xu, 12 n’envisage que l'impossibilité de résister à Dieu : τίς γὰρ ἐρεῖ" ti ἐποίησας ; ἢ τίς ἀντιστήσεται τῷ xpluatl σου; Dans la Vg. il faudrait lire dices et non dicis.
9:20
C’est précisément parce que l’objection a un caractère d’insolence plutôt que d'angoisse, que Paul répond si vertement. — μενοῦν γε en tête de la phrase (Soden), comme x, 18, cf. Phil. m1, 8 et μενοῦν, Le. x1, 28, contrairement à l'usage classique; aussi la Fg. suppose la suppression de ce mot, transporté quelquefois (Nestle) après ᾧ ἄνθρωπε, En réponse à une question μὲν οὖν (γε, indice d’une langue plus récente, n'ajoute rien) comme immo signifie soit l’acquiescement, soit une rectification. Iciil est pris probablement dans le premier sens, mais avec ironie. « O homme», pauvre petit homme! en tête de la phrase qui se termine par Dieu. — ἀνταποχρινόμενος « répondant en faisant du mauvais esprit ». La réplique de Paul consiste d'abord dans une double interrogation, destinée à rabattre les prétentions de son interlocuteur en lui rappelant ce qu'il est par rapport à Dieu. Les Latins n'ont pas rendu μενοῦν γε. On pourrait ajouter à la Ve. atqui devant o omo (Erasme). 20° et 21) Après cette vive sortie, l'Apôtre pose deux questions qui se rapportent à la même comparaison dans sa pensée. Si la première était demeurée isolée, on eût pu, à ne tenir compte que du texte de Paul, suppo= ser que cette question est adressée par l’homme au créateur qui l'a tiré de l'argile, le πλάσμα étant un terme symbolique pour désigner la créature rai: sonnable; maïs il est clair que la seconde question se rattache à la première et y répond en forme d'interrogation. C'est donc dès le début un véritable vase d'argile qui s'adresse au potier; il y ἃ une comparaison par manière de parabole. La comparaison était courante dans l'A. T., Jer. xvnr, 6; Sir. xxxvI, 18; surtout dans Isaïe que Paul a eu probablement à la pensée 15. xxix, 16 μὴ ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ πλάσαντι αὐτό" Οὐ σύ με ἔπλασας; ἢ τὸ ποίημα τῷ ποιήσαντι: Οὐ συνετῶς με ἐποίησας; οἵ, Is. xLv, 8-10; Lxiv, 8. Dieu était comparé au potier, peut-être en réminiscence du récit de la Genèse (Gen. 1, 7), et lhomme à un vase d'argile. Cette comparaison concluait à la façon des paraboles : de même que le vase n’a pas de comptes à demander au potier, de même l’homme par rapport à Dieu. Sur la pensée de Paul en reprenant cette comparaison, il y a deux opinions traditionnelles très tranchées. Chrys. etc., suivi par Cornely (KüAl), ne voit dans les versets 20 et 21 qu'une fin de non-recevoir opposée à l'objectant. Il serait aussi déplacé que lui, pauvre homme, fit des objections à Dieu, que si un vase d'argile demandait au potier pourquoi il l’a fait de la sorte, le potier ayant agi selon son droit; conclusion : il est absurde de la part d'un homme d'accuser la Providence et Dieu d'injustice. ἃ l’autre extrême, Augustin a entendu la comparaison dans le sens formulé par Noël Alexandre : « De même que le potier a le droit et le pouvoir de faire de la même argile tel vase pour des usages honorables, tel vase pour des usages vils et sordides, de même Dieu use de son droit quand, de la même masse du genre humain corrompue par le péché d'Adam et exposée à la damnation, il élit les uns à la gloire par pure miséricorde, rejette, réprouve et damne les autres par un juste quoique secret jugement ». Cornely n’a pas tort de dire qu'il n’est point question ici d'élection à la gloire ni de réprobation et que l'idée augustinienne de la masse humaine corrompue par le péché originel suppose un sens allégorique de la masse d'argile qui ne ressort pas de l’exégèse du texte. La comparaison n’a donc pas ce sens spécial; mais il semble d’autre part que le sens que lui donne Corn. est trop général. Il s'entendrait bien de la première question, v. 20b : « De même que le pot n’a pas le droit de réclamer, tu n'as pas le droit de réclamer ». Mais la seconde question exige qu'on ajoute : « De même que le potier a le droit de faire de la masse des vases pour tel et tel usage, ainsi Dieu est libre, non pas seulement dans sa conduite générale, maïs, par application au cas donné, de témoigner aux uns une bienveillance exceptionnelle, et de se servir des autres comme d’instruments pour ses desseins. En d’autres termes, la parabole demeure une parabole, et ne doit pas être prise pour une allégorie; elle a le sens qu’elle avait dans l'A. T.; mais ce sens se précise de façon à être une première réponse idoine à la boutade du v. 19, quoique la réponse de fond ne commence qu'au v. 22. — Nous revenons à chacun des deux versets. 20b) L'objection supposée que Paul réduit à l'absurde est une variante ou une déduction de l'insolente question du v. 19. Si Dieu se sert de certains hommes comme d'instruments, qu'il endurcit, et qu'il se réserve de blâmer et donc de punir, n'ont-ils pas le droit de dire : pourquoi m'avoir créé dans ces conditions? La comparaison répond : Ils ont le même droit qu'aurait un vase d'argile de demander au potier : pourquoi m'avoir fait ainsi? οὕτως, « de telle sorte », s'appliquant à la forme et à la destination du vase, non à la manière dont le potier l'a fabriqué (contre Za/n). Dicit dans Vs. devrait être remplacé par dicet. Tertullien (De res. 7) : numquid argilla dicet figulo. Se devant finxit ἃ été ajouté pour la clarté, mais n’est pas indispensable.
9:21
La phrase rappelle un texte de la Sagesse, mais où il s’agit des idoles, non de la comparaison isaïenne; Sap. xv, 7 : Καὶ γὰρ κεραμεὺς … ἐκ τοῦ αὐτοῦ πηλοῦ ἀνεπλάσατο τά τε τῶν καθαρῶν ἔργων δοῦλα σχεύη τά τε ἐναντία, πάνθ᾽ ὁμοίως" τούτων δὲ ἑτέρου τίς ἐχάστου ἐστὶν ἣ χρῆσις, χριτὴς ὁ πηλουργός. — τοῦ πηλοῦ se rattache ἃ ἐξουσίαν. — φύραμα n'est employé que par Paul dans le N. T.; dans les autres cas (χι, 16; I Cor. v, 6. 7; Gal. v, 9) c'est la pâte de la farine. — ποιῆσαι, le potier ne destine pas un vase déjà foit à tel usage; il le fait pour tel usage. — τιμή et ἀτιμία sont les deux extrêmes, cf. II Tim. τι, 20; on peut penser aux beaux vases grecs peints et aux plus humbles marmites, mais le vase le plus modeste n’est toujours pas un vase de colère, destiné à être détruit ou réprouvé: La réponse sous-entendue est nettement affirmative. — Si l'on regarde cette comparaison comme une allégorie des fins dernières, c'est Dieu qui est en scène avec la nature humaine, chaque traït devant être transposé de l'ordre physique dans l'ordre moral. Et alors ce qui suit naturellement, c'est le système de Calvin et le déterminisme, puisque l'argile est passive entre les mains du potier. Dieu fait par lui-même que l'homme soit bon et qu'il soit mauvais pour conduire les uns à la gloire, les autres à l’infamie; il est cause du mal comme du bien. Mais du moins le potier ne blâme pas les vases qu’il a construits pour des usages vulgaires... Et par conséquent l’allégorie serait manquée, sans parler de la doctrine morale de Paul, absolument contraire à ce fatalisme. Il faut donc tenir la comparaison, avec les Grecs et Cornely, pour une simple parabole. Toutefois le rapport de τί με ἐποίησας (v. 20) avec ποιῆσαι nous oblige à voir dans la parabole, comme nous l'avons dit, non point une manière d'imposer simplement le silence, mais une base d'argumentation relativement à certaines existences, et à l’appel de Dieu qui les amène à jouer tel ou tel rôle, De même que le vase n’a pas à demander de comptes au potier parce qu'il avait le droit de destiner ses vases à tel ou tel usage et de leur donner pour cela la forme qu'il fallait, ainsi l'homme n’a pas de reproches"à faire à Dieu s’il ἃ destiné les uns à telle et les autres à telle existence, et dans le cas en discussion, s’il a favorisé les uns et s’il s'est servi des autres pour assurer ses desseins. Naturellement on pourrait se servir de la même argumentation par rapport à la vie éternelle, mais ce n’est pas le cas dans le texte de Paul.
9:22
et δέ d'après Corn. sin autem (5. Jér. ad Hedib. ep. CXX, 10), comme si Paul, après avoir maintenu le droit strict de Dieu, expliquait maintenant qu'en fait il abonde dans le sens de la bonté. Maïs ce δέ serait un trop faible indice pour une pareille évolution de la pensée que rien autre n'indique. Il faut done entendre εἰ δέ dans le sens de : « or, si » (Vg. quod si). Après avoir répondu vivement à une objection insolente, Paul remonte à la situation des vv. 15- 18. Et il commence par la situation de ceux qui sont en fâcheuse posture. Le voile se soulève à demi. On voit qu'il fait allusion aux Juifs endurcis, mais il les voit dans le type de Pharaon; le v. 22 reprend le même thème, ἐνδείξασθαι rappelle ἐνδείξωμαι et γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατόν rappelle τὴν δύναμιν et διαγγελῇ. Dans le cas des Juifs comme dans celui du Pharaon nous avons une situation historique que Dieu plie à ses desseins. — Il n'y ἃ aucune raison de prendre θέλων au sens concessif (guamquam voluit, Corn.) : « Dieu aurait voulu, mais il n’a pas voulu ». θέλων est en parallèle avec καὶ ἵνα γνωρίση comme les deux ὅπως du v. 17; dans les deux cas la volonté de Dieu est bien arrètée. Dieu a voulu montrer sa colère, et il l'a montrée en fait, comme Paul l'a exposé, 1, 18-πι|, 20 (Lietz., Kühl). — γνωρίσαι τὸ δυνατὸν αὐτοῦ est une expression choisie par réminiscence du v. 17 : à l'exode, Dieu a montré sa puissance en sauvant son peuple en dépit du Pharaon; de même en ce moment, comme il sera dit clairement v. 24. Pour cela il fallait supporter les vases de colère. L'aoriste ἤνεγκεν s'explique parce que le fait du Pharaon fut un fait historique isolé; la tolérance de Dieu vis-à-vis des Juifs au début du christianisme fut aussi un fait historique. Leur injustice envers Jésus, envers les Apôtres, méritait qu'ils fussent punis sur-le-champ. Dieu les a laissés subsister. Trois termes sont à expliquer : — a) ἐν πολλῇ μαχροθυμίᾳ, d'après Cornely, indique le but que Dieu se proposait : il voulait les amener à résipiscence en leur donnant le temps de se repentir. L'idée est certainement biblique, même à l'égard des ennemis d'Israël, Sap. χα, 20 : εἰ γὰρ ἐχθροὺς παίδων σου χαὶ ὀφειλομένους θανάτῳ μετὰ τοσαύτης ἐτιμώρησας προσοχῆς χαὶ δεήσεως, δοὺς χρόνους χαὶ τόπον δι᾿ ὧν ἀπαλλαγῶσι τῆς κακίας, et Paul a exprimé la même idée dans cette épître (1, 4). IL ne pouvait donc songer à la proscrire; mais ici il ne l'exprime pas non plus; il juge la situation d'un autre point de vue. Dieu a supporté ces vases de colère dans le dessein exprimé de manifester sa colère et sa puissance, et aussi pour manifester sa bonté, mais à d’autres, les vases de miséricorde. La possibilité pour les premiers de se convertir en profitant du délai n'est pas exclue, maïs elle n'est pas non plus mise en relief. Nous avons ici un indice de plus du peu de souci que prend Paul de montrer comment ses idées se concilient. δὴ Les vases de colère. Ici Cornely a parfaitement raison de ne pas voir dans ce terme et dans celui de σκεύη ἐλέους l'explication de la parabole du v. 21, qui deviendrait ainsi une allégorie. Le potier ne témoignait à ses pots ni colère, ni faveur; son métier exigeait qu'il en fit de deux sortes et même de toutes sortes; il ne pouvait songer à exhaler à ce propos ses propres sentiments. Il s’agit donc d’une simple réminiscence; les termes employés dans cette comparaison en suggèrent d'autres, qui, cette fois, sont symboliques, sans argumentation parabolique. Ceux qui résistent à Dieu sont bien des vases de colère, c'est-à-dire les objets de sa colère, sans doute parce qu'ils la méritent. Le mot de colère est plus expressif dans ce sens que celui de haine, car la colère de Dieu porte ἐπὶ πᾶσαν ἀσέθειαν καὶ ἀδικίαν (1, 18); cela va de soi. c) xatmpriouéva. L'opinion exagérée entend : « disposés par Dieu », en parallélisme avec ἃ προητοίμασεν (v. 23); Dieu dispose à la perte comme à la gloire (Lips.). Mais le parallélisme n'est pas rigoureux, comme s'il y avait ἃ χατήρτισεν, et pourquoi Dieu les supporterait-il patiemment s'il les avait disposés pour leur perte? D’après l'opinion atténuée (Chrys., Corn), κατηρτισμένα est au moyen pour dire que les vases « se sont préparés euxmêmes ». L'idée est juste, mais ce n'est pas ce dont Paul s'occupe en ce moment. Selon nous, χατηρτισμένα signifie « qui sont au point », sans mettre en relief ni la causalité de Dieu, ni celle de l’homme. La patience de Dieu éclate parce que ces vases sont déjà mûrs pour la perdition : Dieu pourrait la consommer (SA., Zahn); pour le sens de χατηρτισμένος « qui est au point » Le. vi, 40, « bien disposé », 1 Cor. 1, 10; Icnace, ad Eph. n, 2; ad Smyrn: 1, 1; ad Philad, vin, 1; « en état stable » Ps. LxxxIx, 38. — εἰς ἀπώλειαν indique bien la perte éternelle, et la colère de Dieu, si elle est déjà manifeste sur les σχεύη ὀργῆς, s'exercera encore bien davantage dans cette ἀπώλεια, Sans la patience de Dieu, les vases de colère seraient déjà définitivement condamnés. Il est donc certain que la perspective eschato= logique est au fond de l'horizon; maïs cela n'empêche pas que la colèrevet la puissance de Dieu aient été déjà montrées au cours de l'histoire. Je ne sais si la leçon aptata ( WW.) est plus probable que apta | Vg.-Clém) d'après les mss. Pour le sens, apta me paraît meilleur, et c'est la traduction de 5. Jérôme (1, 835; VI, 11}. Augustin n'a pas traduit praeparata, mais, d'après WW., toujours quae perfecta sunt, ce qui.ne favorise nullement l'idée que Dieu a préparé ces vases pour leur perte.
9:23
Il y ἃ un vrai contre-sens à dire avec Corn. (p. 528) que le v. 22 totum in eo est, ut misericordiam describat, qua Deus, iustitia sua non obstante, peccatores multa in longanimitate tolerat, mais ce serait une autre exagération de faire dépendre le v. 23 du précédent, comme si la tolérance de Dieu vis-à-vis des uns avait précisément pour but de faire éclater sa miséricorde envers les autres. ἵνα γνωρίση, surtout précédé de καί, amène l'autre des deux idées énoncées au v. 18, mais comme effet parallèle, non comme cause finale. Après la manifestation de la colère, celle de la miséricorde. Cette fois encore la perspective du temps présent et celle des fins dernières sont associées. Dieu a dès à présent (Eph. m1, 16 χατὰ τὸ πλοῦτος τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ) manifesté sa gloire sur les vases de miséricorde, et ils sont aussi préparés pour la gloire éternelle, parce que ceux que Dieu a justifiés sont précisément ceux qui seront glorifiés (vi, 80). La gloire de Dieu n’est pas en effet la même que celle des fidèles; la richesse de sa gloire est à peu près ici synonyme de la richesse de sa bonté (π, 4). D'ailleurs ce qui prouve bien que l'intervention de Dieu est actuelle et même déjà commencée, c’est le ν. 24. Nous avons expliqué ce verset en supposant l'authenticité de χαί avant ἵνα γνωρίσῃ. Elle n'est pas douteuse puisque καί n’est omis en grec que par B et huit minuscules (Soden), plus la version bohaïrique et la Vg., avec Origène. On ne pourrait donc réintégrer et dans la version latine où il figurait d'abord, que si l'on corrige le texte résultant des mss. Jérôme a wt seulement (1, 835; VI, 11); Augustin a wt, mais plus souvent et ut (d'après WW.).
9:24
La phrase des vv. 22 et 23 est restée suspendue, précisément parce que, à propos des vases de miséricorde, Paul a voulu dire ce qui leur était arrivé. Les versets 22 et 23 étant une application des principes posés à propos de Moïse et de Pharaon, on devrait s'attendre à trouver ici l’explication de ces mystérieux vases de colère et de miséricorde. Mais visiblement il en coûte à Paul de nommer par son nom l'infidélité des Juifs; il recule jusqu'au v. 31 cette constatation douloureuse. Bien plus, quand il s’agit de ceux qui sont appelés efficacement à la foi chrétienne, il met les Juifs en tête, rappelant ainsi leur prérogative, D'ailleurs, en choisissant, soit parmi les Juifs, soit parmi les gentils, Dieu montre une fois de plus la liberté entière de ce choix. Le v. 24 étant uni pour le sens au v. 23, ne devrait pas en être séparé par un point comme dans la Vg.-Clém.
9:25
καί (om. par Vg.) non pas : « Dieu le dit aussi dans Osée », mais « et comme Dieu dit dans Osée ». Il y a deux textes. Le premier (v. 25) est emprunté librement à Os. n, 25 (grec 23) : χαὶ ἀγαπήσω τὴν οὐκ ἠγαπημένην, καὶ ἐρῶ τῷ οὐ λαῷ μου" Λαός μου εἶ σύ. La « non aimée » et le « non mon peuple » étaient des noms symboliques pour désigner l’Israël du nord. Paul néglige d'expliquer le symbolisme et s'attache seulement à l’idée signifiée. Pour rendre cette idée intelligible, il intervertit l'ordre : en mettant en avant le peuple, on comprendra que l’aimée est quelque chose de semblable. De plus, pour rattacher cette situation à l'appel de Dieu, il introduit le mot καλέσω, quoique le contexte d'Osée oblige à le prendre dans son sens de « nommer »; ce n'est guère qu'un trait d'union entre le fait de l'appel efficace et la citation biblique. Tout cela se comprend très aisément, et le raisonnement n’est point atteint par ces changements : si Dieu ἃ nommé son peuple celui qui n’était pas son peuple et son aimée celle qui n'était pas son aimée, c'est donc qu'il ἃ appelé efficacement à devenir son peuple ceux qui n'étaient pas son peuple. Si l'on voulait rendre en latin la nuance de καί avec ὡς, mieux vaudrait etenim sicut (Aug. VI, 100), que sicut et, plus littéral mais suggérant un sens que nous avons rejeté. La Vg.-Clém. contient une double traduction; WW. suppriment et non dilectam dilectam, et cependant ces mots répondent mieux au grec que et non misericordiam consecutam, misericordiam consecutam, mais ces derniers sont plus appuyés par les mss,
9:26
Le second texte est emprunté à Os. τι, 1, placé dans les LXX à τ, 10, et par van Hoonacker après 1, 7 (transporté lui-même après τι, 25). Le texte de Paul est celui des LXX (ms. A). Cette fois il n’y avait rien à changer pour la clarté, et le verbe χληθήσονται représentait l'appel … » : « Dans le lieu où Dieu avait dit … d'autres les nommeront. Dans les deux cas le prophète parle d'Israël; Cornely le reconnaît pour le premier cas, et, s'il voit dans le second une prophétie visant littéralement les gentils, il avoue que le plus grand nombre des exégètes catholiques l'entend comme le premier, d'Israël type des gentils. De plus, à supposer (ce qui est d'après nous incontestable) que le prophète ne parle que d'Israël au sens littéral, Cornely prétend que Paul a tiré du sens typique un argument pro- C'est ce qui aurait besoin d'être expliqué. L'autorité de Paul prouve en effet que dans ces textes l’Israël du nord était le type des gentils. C'est lui” même qui établit le sens typique. Il prend d'abord le texte pour sa valeur absolue comme indice de la manière dont Dieu agit. Puis, ayant sous les yeux un fait semblable à ce qu'annonce le prophète, il y reconnaît une appli cation du même principe. ἃ ne considérer que le texte d'Osée, on n'eût puy lire d'avance la vocation des gentils selon ses modalités historiques; maïs le fait éclaire le texte, montre l'extension qu'il faut lui donner et se range sous la perspective prophétique. Sachant par ailleurs que la conversion des gen tils fait partie du règne de Dieu messianique, Paul conclut que la conversion de l'Israël du nord était donc le type de la vocation des gentils, d'autant que toute l'Écriture ancienne était une figure des faits divins de la nouvelle alliance. Mais tout cela ne constitue une preuve que pour les chrétiens, et ne pouvait être donné aux Juifs comme une preuve que les gentils viennent à l'évangile en vertu d'un appel de Dieu prédit par Osée. Aussi Paul ne dit-il pas « afin que soit accompli ce qui est dit dans Osée ». Il renvoie seulement à un texte d'Osée qui éclaire admirablement le procédé de Dieu (SA., Toussaint). Zahn ἃ une autre solution. Il prétend que dans la pensée de Paul le texte d'Osée doit s'entendre des Juifs convertis; il cite pour ce sens Théodore de Mopsueste et Théodoret, ce dernier à tort. Chrysostome dit « les gentils mais sans condamner ceux qui disent « les Juifs ». Malgré toutes les arguties de Zahn il est clair que Paul n’en vient aux Juifs qu'au v. 27.
9:27
δέ de transition, non d'opposition, comme v. 22 selon nous. ὑπέρ dans le sens de περί. La citation est d'Is. x, 22, si ce n’est que ὃ λαός d'Is. a été remplacé par 6 ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν qui est une réminiscence d'Osée τ, 10 (n, 1) ἣν ὁ ἀριθμὸς τῶν υἱῶν Ἴ. ὡς ἢ ἄμμος τ. dal. De plus χατάλειμμα a été remplacé par ὑπόλειμμα, qui ἃ le même sens. Dans Isaïe, comme dans Paul, le sens est : le reste (uniquement); l'accent est sur la ruine du plus grand nombre. Quant au reste, il ne sera pas seulement sauvé de la destruction; il reviendra, c'est-àdire à Dieu. Dans Isaïe il s'agissait de ceux qui auraient échappé au désastre causé par Sennachérib, et leur conversion était symbolisée par le nom de son fils Chear-Iachoub (un reste reviendra), Il y ἃ application typique comme pour le cas d'Osée. Dans la Vg., pro est à remplacer par super.
9:28
Paul continue la citation d'Is. x, 22b et 23, d’après les LXX : λόγον συντελῶν χαὶ συντέμνων [ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ, ᾽8 ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον] ποιήσει Κύριος ἐν τῇ οἰχουμένη ὅλη. Paul ἃ omis ce qui est entre crochets et remplacé les derniers mots par le synonyme plus courant ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς. Plusieurs {Zips., Kühl etc.) prétendent que le grec ne correspond pas du tout à l’hébreu, et que Paul cite le grec pour lui faire dire que Dieu a retranché le plus grand nombre, συντέμνων. L’hébreu porte : « La destruction est décrétée, torrent qui charrie la justice! Ce décret de destruction, le Seigneur Iahvé des armées l'exécutera dans toute cette terre ». Dans les deux textes il est question d'un décret de Dieu, qui est un juste châtiment, seulement le grec qui a rendu assez bien l'idée de destruction par celle de consommation, a rendu l'idée de décision irrévocable par συντέμνειν, de même que Is. xxvi, 22, « une destruction décidée » est συντετελεσμένα χαὶ συντετμημένα πράγματα. Le sens doit être : « destruction complète et accélérée »; cf. Sorn. Ant. : ouvréuvouat γὰρ θεῶν ποδώχεις τοὺς καχόφρονας βλάδαι. Schol. συντόμως καταχόπτουσι καὶ βλάπτουσι. En somme une destruction décidée est devenue une destruction qui coupe court, Et absolument rien n'indique que Paul ait pris συντέμνων dans le sens de couper, retrancher, pour appliquer ce mot aux Israélites infidèles. Il a retenu l'idée principale du grec, laissant de côté ce qui allait de soi comme ἐν διχαιοσύνῃ et ce qui pouvait paraître une répétition, ὅτι λόγον συντετμημένον. D'ailleurs la façon dont il a cité Is. x, 222 suggère qu'il citait de mémoire. - L'objection de Lips. etc. n'a donc aucune portée, puisque le grec garde l'essentiel du sens; encore cette petite phrase ne faisait que confirmer la précédente (v. 27), seule vraiment importante. D'autre part Cornely exagère en disant que « l'apôtre ou plutôt l'Esprit-Saint nous rend certains que le sens de la version grecque répond exactement (accurate) aux paroles authentiques du prophète ». Accurate est de trop; il suflit que ce soit le même sens en substance; les minuties philologiques ne font pas partie de l’enseignement inspiré. L’oracle d’Isaïe du v. 27 contenait l'essentiel; maïs la pensée demeurait un peu en l'air, et Paul a voulu expliquer qu'il s'agissait d'un décret divin que Dieu mènerait à son terme, et en coupant court au temps comme à toute autre difficulté. Le second oracle d'Osée (v. 26) n’ajoutait non plus rien d’essentiel au premier.
9:29
Isaïe (1, 9) est cité maintenant d’après le grec des LXX. Cette fois Paul dit que c'est une prédiction, donc une prédiction de l’état présent des choses, car par rapport au temps d'Isaïe c'est plutôt une constatation, à la différence des textes précédents qui étaient prophétiques au sens littéral: La situation indiquée par Isaïe est donc, d'après Paul, le type de la situation des Juifs de son temps. Le mot σπέρμα, « semence », a en soi quelque chose de plus consolant que celui de « reste ». Il est très vraisemblable que Paul ait compris le mot dans ce sens. Nous avons raisonné d’après la leçon critique du texte de Paul; la recension antiochienne a été conformée aux LXX. La Ve. elle aussi a ajouté au texte : in aequitate : quia verbum breviatum. WW. lisent brevians au lieu de abbrevians. La précaution la plus importante pour aboutir à une exégèse purement littérale et historique, c'est de noter avec M. Gore (The argument of Romans IX-XI, dans Studia biblica, I, 37 ss.) que 5. Paul, à la différence de s. Jean, n'embrasse pas son sujet intuitivement sous sa forme propre. Il abstrait, c'est-à-dire qu'il isole un des aspects de chaque question et il le traite selon ses principes propres, sans se soucier d'en rapprocher d’autres éléments qui compléteraient l'idée. Un aspect ainsi mis en relief peut faire naître dans l'esprit des objections; Paul les prévoit, mais il ne se soucie pas d'y répondre autrement qu'en posant fortement sa thèse d'après l'Écriture. Le danger pour les commentateurs est alors : ou bien d'omettre, au lieu d'apprécier sa doctrine dans son ensemble, ce qu'il a dit ailleurs et qu'il n'avait sûrement par l'intention de rétracter, et c'est de là qu'est venue l'interprétation calviniste ou janséniste de ce passage; ou bien de faire pénétrer ces autres éléments dans l'exégèse du texte, et c'est de là qu'est venue une exégèse conforme à la doctrine catholique pour le fond, mais un peu atténuée; sans parler de ceux qui ont tiré des termes de l'Apôtre une doctrine étrangère ou même contraire à sa pensée. Au chap. vin, Paul a tracé le plan que Dieu suit pour donner des frères à Jésus-Christ : ces frères, les vrais fils de Dieu, sont le groupe des chrétiens. Dieu les conduit de la prescience qui les discerne avec amour jusqu'à la gloire. Et l’on voit précisément par cet exemple que Paul n’a traité qu'un côté de son sujet. Du côté de Dieu, tout est bonté, action qui sauve et certitude. L'intention de Paul n'est pourtant pas de nier l’action de l'homme dans l'acceptation de l'évangile, ni les chutes possibles qui le détourneraient du but. Il avait en vue la nouvelle communauté des enfants de Dieu, destinée à la gloire. Mais cet aspect glorieux avait son côté sombre. Les Juifs n'étaient donc plus le peuple de Dieu, les enfants de Dieu? Paul ne le dit pas, mais c'est bien ce qui fait éclater sa douleur. Il fallait montrer aux gentils que ce n'était pas un échec pour le plan divin; mais il fallait aussi faire accepter ce nouvel ordre aux Juifs eux-mêmes, ou du moins le défendre contre leurs objections. Le plan divin demeure, car ce fut toujours un plan d'élection. Dieu a choisi les enfants d'Abraham, il est vrai, mais non pas parce qu'ils descendaient d'Abraham. La preuve, c'est que son choix s'est fixé sur les seuls descendants d'Isaac et ensuite sur les seuls descendants de Jacob. Et comme ce choix fut antérieur à la naissance d’Isaac et à celle de Jacob, il ne fut donc pas déterminé par les mérites de l’un ou de l’autre. Ici l'objection entre en scène. Est-ce de la justice de ne tenir compte ni du mérite ni du démérite ? Cette préoccupation de rémunération montre clairement que Paul, en se posant la question, retrouve son adversaire, le Juif qui ne comprend pas qu’on soit justifié par la grâce seule. Celui-ci n’est sans doute pas très sensible au sort d'Ésaü, mais il comprend très bien qu'il s'agit cette fois de sa race, et il proteste contre la déchéance dont elle serait convaincue si le raisonnement de Paul était juste. L'Apôtre répond. Moïse lui-même n’a trouvé grâce devant Dieu que parce qu'il ajplu à Dieu de lui faire une faveur : en pareil cas, c'est-à-dire lorsqu'il s'agit de l’appel divin, les dispositions de l’homme n'entrent pour rien, tout dépend de la bonté de Dieu. De l'autre côté, Pharaon. Tout le monde savait qu'il avait résisté avec acharnement aux ordres de Dieu, lequel pourtant était demeuré vainqueur. Et c'est précisément pour cela que Dieu l'avait suscité dans l’histoire. Son obstination était donc voulue de Dieu qui s’en est servi. Il faut savoir par ailleurs, par l'Écriture à laquelle Paul emprunte le terme « Dieu endurcit », que Pharaon a résisté aux prodiges que Moïse ἃ multipliés inutilement pour le convaincre, Il rentrait sans s’en douter dans les desseins de Dieu. L'objectant : Alors pourquoi Dieu se plaint-il, puisque personne ne lui résiste? Réponse : Cette objection suppose que l'argile a droit de demander au potier pourquoi il l'a moulée de telle sorte. Or c'est au potier à décider; il fait de la même argile de beaux vases et des vases communs. C'est ainsi que Dieu agit dans l’histoire du salut. Voici donc son secret. 1] a préparé pour la gloire, la gloire éternelle (cf. vur, 30), un groupe composé de Juifs et de gentils qu'on peut bien nommer des vases de miséricorde, et pour cela il les a d’abord appelés. Les autres, Juifs et gentils, étaient mürs pour la perdition, la perdition éternelle; Dieu aurait pu les y faire tomber. Il les a supportés néanmoins, parce qu'il se proposait de montrer dès à présent sa colère et sa puissance, et aussi sa bonté pour les autres, pour nous qui sommes appelés. Ainsi Paul n’a pas perdu de vue un instant qu'il traite de l'appel de Dieu à une situation privilégiée dans l’ordre du salut : χαλεῖν revient dans ce sens propre v. 12 et v. 23; Paul y voit une allusion dans le texte de la Genèse (χχι, 12), et l’introduit dans celui d'Osée (nr, 25). C'est un appel de pure miséricorde, comprenant des Juifs et des gentils. De cet appel les bénéficiaires n'ont pas à se plaindre. Mais ceux qui ne sont pas appelés? Dieu ne le leur devait pas. Et puisqu'il est libre de son choix, il n’est pas non plus obligé d'appeler toujours les mêmes, c'est-à-dire de choisir son peuple toujours dans la même race: Le dessein selon l'élection demeure, exigeant même, pour être manifeste, un certain changement. C'est ce qui explique qu'aujourd'hui les Juifs ne sont appelés qu'en petit nombre. Paul se réserve d'ouvrir plus loin les perspectives d’un nouvel appel aux Juifs. Ainsi donc la question traitée directement par Paul n’est pas du tout celle de la prédestination et de la réprobation, mais uniquement de l'appel des gentils à la grâce du christianisme, ayant pour antithèse l'incrédulité des Juifs. Mais il est incontestable que cet appel est en même temps un appel au salut. On pense invinciblement au sort de chacun, on transpose les termes, on applique les principes de Paul au salut individuel. Dicu appelle à la justice par pure faveur, mais ceux qui ne sont pas appelés ne sauraient être glorifiés. De sorte que tous ccux qui ne sont pas appelés vont à la perdition. Les conclusions quon peut obtenir par cette voie ne regardent plus l'exégèse du texte. Elles devront toujours tenir compte de deux consilérations qui font certainement partie de la doctrine de Paul, quoiqu'il ne les ait pas développées ici. La première, c'est qu'il y a des appelés à la grâce qui ne persévéreront pas; la seconde, c'est que quelques gentils avaient pu être sauvés (11, 27). On ne peut donc pas appliquer sans précaution à la prédestination éternelle et à la réprobation ce qui est dit de l'appel à la grâce du christianisme. De plus, il n’est pas exact de dire avec les Calvinistes que Dieu procède de la même façon envers ceux qu'il appelle et envers ceux qu'il n'appelle pas, conduisant les uns au salut, les autres à la perdition. Le texte de Malachie {1, 2) et l'allusion à l’endurcissement de Pharaon (Ex. 1v, 21 ss.) ne doivent pas être pris absolument sans rien conserver de leurs attaches primitives, et surtout on ne doit point entendre de la destinée morale éternelle d'un individu ce qui est dit de son action dans l’histoire. Le Pharaon, quoique endurci, aurait pu sans doute se convertir comme les Juifs dont il était le type, et que Paul ne manquait jamais d'inviter à la foi. Dans le seul passage où Paul fait allusion aux destinées éternelles, il s'exprime en termes différents soit sur ceux qui sont simplement mürs pour la perdition (v. 22), soit sur ceux que Dieu prépare pour la gloire (v. 23). C'est une doctrine très sévère de Paul que Dieu abandonne les pécheurs à des vices plus honteux que leurs premiers égarements (1, 24). Mais cette doctrine même doit expliquer l’endurcissement du Pharaon : ce n'est pas par là que Dieu commence. Enfin on ne doit cesser de répéter aux auteurs à tendances calvinistes, que d'après Paul l'homme est vraiment la cause de sa réprobation par ses péchés, comme il le dira à propos de la déchéance temporelle d'Israël (1x, 30 ss.). Une autre école est tombée dans un excès opposé. Les Grecs, surtout depuis Chrysostome, afin de mieux défendre le libre arbitre qui était incontestablement une doctrine de s. Paul, ont introduit ici des considérations plus ou moins justes, mais étrangères ou même contraires à l'argumentation. C'est ainsi que le dessein du libre choix devient pour Chrys. un choix réglé par la prévision des dispositions humaines ἵνα φανῇ, φησί, τοῦ Θεοῦ ἡ ἐκλογὴ À κατὰ πρόθεσιν καὶ πρόγνωσιν γενομένη. Quand il s'agit, comme ici, de l'appel à la grâce, aucun théologien catholique ne suit aujourd’hui ce système. Mais Cornely, qui interprète avec raison vin, 29-30 de la glorification future, voit dans le mot προέγνω une allusion à la prévision des mérites acquis avec la grâce. C’est attribuer à Paul une idée qui lui est étrangère. Voir dans 1x, 22 une allusion positive à la bonté de Dieu qui attend le pécheur, c'est y voir une doctrine paulinienne (n1, 4), que cet endroit n'exclut pas, mais qu'il ne suggère nullement. Mais quoi qu'il en soit des détails de l’exégèse, on ne se trompera pas en disant que Paul a surtout voulu mettre en relief la gratuité de l'appel divin. Sur la prescience divine et sur le libre arbitre, il professait les opinions courantes du judaïsme. Ce qui l'en séparait, c'était le privilège que s'arrogeait Israël, et c'est pourquoi il le remet si fortement à sa place parmi ceux qui résistent à la volonté de Dieu, et qui n’en seront pas moins punis justement, quoique cette résistance serve ses desseins. Rabbi Aqiba, lui, a dit : « tout est exploré, et le libre arbitre donné, et ie monde jugé en bonté, et tout dépend de la quantité des œuvres » (Pirqgé Aboth, IT, 15) noyan 24 180 ὈΞΠῚ Ὑ1τ2 Din afoas nains ΤΉ» 2% bn C'est aux prétentions des Juifs que Paul répondait. Il ne traçait pas une conception grandiose du rôle des élus et des damnés dans le plan divin; il affirmait l'appel gratuit des Juifs d’abord, des fidèles ensuite, et la résistance aux desseins de Dieu rentrant dans ses desseins !. Tirer de ces principes des conclusions spéciales, c’est l'affaire de la théologie. ixX, 30-x, 21, CAUSES HUMAINES DE LA DÉCHÉANCE DES JUIFS. C'est toujours le même sujet, mais après avoir assigné la cause ultime de la disgrâce de sa nation, Paul en donne des raisons selon l’ordre des contingences humaines, montrant ainsi la responsabilité et la culpabilité des Juifs: Le fond de tout, c'est que les Juifs n'ont pas compris le plan divin. Ils se 1. PraT (I, p. 353 5.) dit très bien : Le point précis de la question « n'est pas : « Pourquoi tel homme est-il prédestiné à la gloire et tel autre voué à la damnation? » ni : « Pourquoi, de fait, tel homme est-il sauvé et tel autre réprouvé? » ni même : « Pourquoi tel homme, de préférence à tel autre, est-il appelé à la foi? » — J'ajouterais même que ce n’est pas non plus: « Pourquoi y a-t-il des élus et des réprouvés? » — Le P. Prat reprend: « L'objet de Paul est concret et son but tout pratique. Il veut lever le scandale causé par l'infidélité des Juifs », etc. sont attachés aux œuvres plus qu’à la foi, et, n'ayant pas compris que le Christ était la pierre angulaire, ils se sont butés (1x, 30-33). C'était mettre leur justice à la place de la justice de Dieu (x, 1-4). Ils ont donc méconnu la justice de foi ou le salut en Jésus (x, 5-10), justice qui est universelle, prêchée aux Juifs et aux gentils (x, 11-13), de façon qu'Israël ne peut pas se plaindre qu'on ne lui ait pas annoncé l'Évangile; il n'a à s'en prendre qu'à sa propre incrédulité (x, 14-21).
9:30
τί οὖν ἐροῦμεν ; comme vaut, 31, indique une conclusion à tirer. Il est vrai qu'ici commence un nouvel aspect de la question, la responsabilité d'Israël; mais c'est en même temps le mot de la fin pour la péricope précédente, car en somme Paul n'avait pas encore dit clairement qu'Israël pour le plus grand nombre avait choppé. — ὅτι ne peut signifier « car » (contre Lips.), et il scrait trop subtil de supposer une seconde interrogation. C'est donc que Paul, contre son habitude, répond à la question posée par τί ἐροῦμεν; Sous-entendre : nous dirons cela, que ... quod (Ve:.). — ἔθνη et non τὰ ἔθνη parce qu'il y ἃ eu des gentils qui ont cherché le bien {n, 14) et parce qu'il y en a encore plus qui n’ont pas atteint la justice. On pouvait dire des gentils dans l'ensemble qu'ils ne se préoccupaient pas énergiquement de la justice; on peut dire de quelques-uns qu'ils l'ont atteinte, à savoir la justice qui vient de la foi. Les images sont empruntées à la course, 1 Cor. 1x, 24, οὕτως τρέχετε ἵνα χαταλάθητε et Phil. 111, 12-14, διώχω δὲ εἰ καὶ χαταλάθω. Nous savons que la question n'était pas de courir (1x, 16), et la miséricorde apparaît dans tout son éclat, opérant le salut de ces gentils; cependant ce sont bien eux qui la reçoivent, et par la foi.
9:31
εἰς νόμον sans δικαιοσύνης, avec Soden, contre Vg. éustutiae et les textes antiochiens. L'addition par un copiste est très naturelle; on s'attend même à lire εἰς δικαιοσύνην en parallélisme avec le v. 30. C'est, d'après Lietz., la pensée de Paul qui n'a mis εἰς νόμον que pour mieux balancer sa phrase. De cette façon, que δικαιοσύνης soit exprimé ou non, le sens est qu'Israël (c'est-à-dire en plus grande partie) poursuivant une norme de justice, une voie qui conduit à la justice, n’a pas atteint cette norme de véritable justice (Corn., Thom.!). Israël aurait fait le contraire des gentils, avec un résultat contraire; le parallélisme serait complet dans l’idée, avec un léger changement dans les mots. Israël aurait en somme poursuivi la justice qu'il fallait poursuivre, mais il se serait trompé dans le mode, comme Paul l’expliquera au v. 82. Mais c’est atténuer l'expression choisie par Paul, qui n’a pas mis en scène la loi pour ne rien dire. Cette loi est la Loi de Moïse. Il est vrai qu'Israël la possède déjà, mais son accomplissement est un but à atteindre. C’est une loi de justice, car elle enseigne la justice (Thom.?, Jül.). Malgré ses efforts Israël n'arrive pas jusqu'à la Loi, c'est-à-dire à pratiquer ce que la Loi commande; cf, vint, 3. 4. L'idée d'une justice légale n'est pas exprimée aussi nettement que le veut Chrys., qui entend νόμον δικαιοσύνης par hypallage « la justice légale », mais la loi intervient, pour indiquer qu'Israël ne cherche pas purement la justice, mais un certain ordre de justice, sa loi à lui. Dans la Κρ. lire sectans (IV W.) plutôt que sectando (Vzg.-Clém.), et effacer tustitiae (Vg.).
9:32
Avec cette interprétation, nous sommes préparés à comprendre la cause de l'échec. L'application aux points positifs de la loi ἃ induit les Juifs à croire qu'ils se faisaient une justice en pratiquant des œuvres. Or ilnya de véritable justice que celle qui vient de la foi, comme Paul l’a démontré. Les Juifs devaient pratiquer la loi, mais ne pas se figurer (ὡς) que les œuvres par elles-mêmes les rendaïent justes, comme on l’imaginait dans le rabbinisme contemporain. Ainsi Paul montre que les Juifs ont causé eux-mêmes leur déchéance : tout en courant, ils ont manqué le but, parce qu'ils ont suivi leur idée qui était fausse. Mais cette part faite à l’activité humaine n'est point en contradiction avec la thèse maîtresse du chapitre. Le tout n'est pas de courir, mais de trouver grâce. La péricope montre une fois de plus que ces métaphores s'entendaient de l'histoire du salut, non de la prédestination à la gloire ou de la réprobation. 32b) γάρ après προσέχοψαν n'est pas authentique (Westle, Soden); ce qui suit n'est donc pas l'explication de ce qui précède. Mais plutôt Paul découvre enfin la cause de son deuil : les Juifs dans l'ensemble, au moment où ils couraient, se sont butés à la pierre d'achoppement προσχόπτειν τινί dans ce sens, XEN. Egq. VII, 6. L'expression désigne évidemment le Christ qui a été pour les Juifs une occasion de chute, un scandale (σχάνδαλον), surtout à cause de sa croix (1 Cor. 1, 23; cf. Gal. v, 11), si choquante pour leur idéal du messia= nisme. Non seulement le Christ crucifié n'était pas un roi vainqueur; ce né- M tait pas un roi qui fit régner la justice par l’accomplissement de la Loi; mais c'était, aux yeux de la foi, une source de justice. Les Juifs n'étaient pas disposés à y recourir. L'expression énigmatique, empruntée à Is. vin, 44 (ὡς λίθου προσχόμματι), est expliquée par deux textes d’Isaïe fondus en un seul. ί Effacer enim avec WW. dans Vg.-Clém.
9:33
Isaïe (var, 14) avait dit de Iahvé qu'il serait « pierre d'achoppement et roche où l’on se heurte », ce que les LXX avaient atténué en lisant : καὶ οὐχ ὡς λίθου προσχόμματι συναντήσεσθε οὐδὲ ὡς πέτρας πτώματι, Puis, dans un autre endroit, Iahvé disait : « J'ai mis pour fondement en Sion une pierre, une picrre éprouvée, pierre angulaire, d'un grand prix, solidement fondée; qui s'y fiera ne chancellera pas! » (lire avec Condamin ὩΣ ὩΣ Nb, ne cédera pas, au lieu de l'inintelligible win 5, Vg. non festinet). Ce dernier passage était messianique, quoique dans un sens vague; tandis que Samarie était vouée à la ruine, Sion reposait inébranlable sur la parole de lahvé et ses promesses de salut. Avec le temps, le sens personnel de la promesse avait été mieux reconnu; le Targ. entend cette pierre d'un roi fort, c'est-à-dire du Messie. C'est ainsi que l'entend Paul qui accentue le sens personnel en ajoutant ἐπ᾿ αὐτῷ. Il suit les LXX qui ont lu w13t N9 (οὐ καταισχυνθήσεται), leçon banale mais qui rend en gros l'idée d'assurance qu’on peut fonder sur la pierre. De plus, au lieu de reproduire les éloges donnés à la pierre, qui n'ajoutaient pas grand'chose au sens, Paul change, d’après Is. var, 14, la picrre angulaire précieuse etc. en pierre d'achoppement, en se rapprochant d'ailleurs du texte hébreu, comme l'ont fait Aquila et Théodotion, καὶ εἰς λίθον προσχόμματος, καὶ els πέτραν (Λ4. στερέωμα) πτώματος (Aq. σχανδάλου), Dans I Pet., 11 6-8 les deux textes d'Isaïe sont rapprochés; dans Paul ils sont unis par un raccourci hardi, qui met en opposition deux situations bien tranchées. Israël n'a pas le droit de passer à côté du Christ. Il se brisera sur lui, s'il ne préfére s'appuyer sur lui, Le texte d'Isaïe (var, 14) est choisi avec beaucoup de clairvoyance pour earactériser la réprobation d'Israël. C’est Dieu même, son protecteur, qui deviendra pour lui une pierre de scandale, ct cette pierre de scandale est Jésus-Christ (ef. Le. 11, 34). πᾶς devant ὃ πιστεύων doit être omis (même Soden}, contre Ve. omnis. x, 1-4. Les JuIFS ONT MÉCONNU LA JUSTICE DE DIEU. C'est le même thème que 1x, 30-33, mais l'image d'Israël qui court et se bute est remplacée par une analyse psychologique plus pénétrante de ses dispositions, et cette explication profonde qu'on ne pouvait atteindre le but de la Loi en négligeant le Christ, fin de la Loi.
9:1
… Schuster "She who presides over the Agape" in a Priscillian fresco of the 2nd century, in La Scuola Cattolica, 77 [1949], pp. 130-32). This brotherhood is made fruitful by a network of mutual prayers among the Churches (Eph., 21, 2; Magn., 14; Rom. 9, 1; F. X. Funk, ibid., pp. 230, 240, 262) and of this fruitfulness the fruits received by the Church of Antioch are noted (Smyrn., XI, 1, 3; Polyc., VII, 1; F. X. Funk, ibid., …
… motive concerns a supernatural good (merit, reparation, the imitation and love of the Savior, the final possession of God and the means to attain it). For this reason Sacred Scripture praises and inculcates patience many times (Eccl. 2, 3-5; Lk. 21, 19; Rom. 9, 1; II Cor. 8-10) and offers us a model of it in the whole book of Job and in the various episodes of the Passion of Jesus.
9:3
… 1:8-9). To utter it of Jesus was a blasphemous formula, incompatible with the supernatural charisms (I Cor. 12:3). Paul hypothetically resigns himself to becoming an a., that is, deprived of salvation in Christ, if only he might see the Jews converted (Rom. 9:3). From a. arose the Hellenistic anathematize (Mk. 14:71; Acts 23:12, 14, 21).
… sacred and profane texts, can indicate: a) a brother in the true and proper sense (Gen. 4, 8; Mt. 4, 21; 17, 1, etc.); b) a blood relative of any degree (Gen. 13, 18; 28, 2; I Par. 23, 21); c) a neighbor (Deut. 15, 3; Ios. 22, 2; Iudc. 1, 3; Ier. 7, 15; Rom. 9, 3; Iac. 1, 9; Plato, Men., 8, 239; Xenophon, Anab., 7, 2, 25, 38). Therefore the question arises: in what sense do the Evangelists use the word "brothers" when they speak of the brothers of Jesus? …
9:4
… fiction, it is due to our real state (cf. P. De Ambroggi, in S. Garofalo, La Sacra Bibbia, XIV, 1, Turin 1947, p. 223). The Jewish people prided itself on being the chosen people par excellence, and is in fact called by St. Paul an "adopted" people (Rom. 9:4); but in comparison with Christians it can no longer be called "son." Only in Christ are we truly adopted as sons (Gal. 4:5; F. Amiot, Epître aux Galates [Verbum Salutis, 14], Paris …
… the one hand, it is said that the L. was given for life and is holy and spiritual (Rom. 7:10 ff., 14); that it was communicated through the angels, with Moses acting as mediator (Gal. 3:19; cf. Hebr. 2:3), whence it is the chief boast of Israel (Rom. 9:4), led by it, as by a pedagogue, to Christ (Gal. 3:24); that by observing it one is declared righteous (Rom. 2:13; 10:5; Gal. 3:12); that it was the shadow of the future Christ …
9:5
… passages: "And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1:14); "the Son of God is made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3); "Of whom (the Jews) is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever" (Rom. 9:5); "Who (Jesus Christ), being in the form of God... emptied himself, taking the form of a servant... he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even to the death of the cross" (Phil. 2:6-7).
… a liturgical formula for glorifying either God (as often happens in Sacred Scripture and with a phrase that almost always contains the word δόξα) or Christ (and this in the most varied forms recurring frequently throughout early Christian literature [Rom. 9:5; Rev. 5:12 etc.]), or the Most Holy Trinity (and among these one distinguishes the lesser d., or Gloria Patri, which already in the 4th century was added at the end of the Psalms, …
… The expression is frequent: "Grace and peace from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 1, 7; Gal. 1, 3). Jesus is sent by the Father to save the world (Gal. 4, 4; Rom. 8, 3), he is the own Son, ἴδιος, of the Father (Rom. 9, 5; Tit. 2, 13). Christ, continuing to subsist as God in the divine nature, took our nature, making himself man (Phil. 2, 6) and he: "is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn …
4], of the resurrection of Lazarus [ch. 11], of the Last Supper [ch. 13, 23]). Likewise St. Paul, who recalls the Davidic origin of Jesus according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5) and the assumption of human nature (formam servi) so that Christ might be in all things like his brethren and could suffer and immolate himself for them, made both priest and victim (Heb. 2-5).
… this image, praises God who gave us the Savior as "a light to enlighten the nations," to which he will make known the true religious and moral doctrine, and as "glory of your people, Israel," because from the Jews Christ was born according to the flesh (Rom. 9:5), and from Judea his Apostles set out to teach and baptize all nations (Mt. 28:19-20).
9:7
Peter, Stephen and Paul will recall the Abrahamic promises (Acts 3, 25; 7, 2-8, 17; Heb. 6, 13; II Cor. 11, 22), which were fulfilled in Christ for all those who, through faith, are sons of the great patriarch (Rom. 9, 7-9; Gal. 3, 29; 4, 22-31). A. is the representative of the economy of the promise (ἐπικτωσία) — opposed to the bilateral Mosaic covenant — which has its full realization in the New Testament …
On this episode St. Paul makes a twofold reflection: a) that the privilege for Israel of being the people of God does not come from mere carnal descent from Abraham, but rather from the free promise of grace, to which the merit of faith in Abraham corresponds (cf. Rom. 9:7 ff.); b) that the two sons of Abraham with their mothers symbolize the two Testaments, whose contrasts after the coming of Jesus Christ are evident: the one (the Old Testament), of Mount …
9:8
The M. and his kingdom is the ultimate purpose intended by God in the "covenant" of Sinai, which specifies and determines the ancient "covenant" with Abraham, the "promise" (ἐπικητελία; Rom. 4:13-16; 9:8; Gal. 3:16-29; 4:28) formulated for his posterity. …
9:10
… water to his camels and invited him as a guest among her people; when asked to be Isaac's wife, she gladly consented, leaving Mesopotamia (Gen. 24:10-67). After twenty years of barrenness she gave birth to the twins Esau and Jacob (ibid. 25:19-26; cf. Rom. 9:10).
9:11
Calvin (Calvinus, Cauvin, Chauvin, Calvin Jean)
C. corrupts the sense of the Pauline texts (Eph. 1, 4; Col. 1, 12; I Tim. 1, 9; Rom. 9, 11, and others) in order to uphold his horrible sentence of predestination to damnation, and he will assail the doctrine of Ambrose, Origen, Jerome and of all Catholic tradition, which …
E. thus disappeared from Hebrew history to become the symbol of a people perverse and reprobate before God (cf. Ibid. 1, 2, 30; Rom. 9, 11) and as such remains the protagonist of numerous rabbinic legends.
… He discovered it in Rom. 9:11-13, and formulated it in his Institutio christianae religionis (III, chs. 21-24) and in the tract De aeterna Dei praedestinatione. …
9:13
… It is in this light that the text also cited by St. Paul must be viewed: "God has loved Jacob, but hated (= has not elected) Esau" (ibid. 9:13).
M. is cited in Lk. 1:17; Mt. 11:10, 14; 17:12; Rom. 9:13.
9:14
… Therefore it is not of him who wills, nor of him who runs, but of the merciful God" (Rom. 9:14). And he concludes: "O depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God. How inscrutable are his judgments and untraceable his ways. …
9:16
2) The characteristic of elimination recalls the Pauline phrase "non volentis, neque currentis, sed miserentis est Dei" (Rom. 9:16). Certain gifts of God — here, being the depositaries of the messianic promises — are completely gratuitous. …
9:19
… 3:10; 4:3-6), but it also speaks clearly of their future misery (1:16; 3:19; 4:19 - 5:14). Equally precious are the affirmations on the knowability of God through creation (13:4-9; cf. Rom. 1:20), on the divine power and providence (12:12-15; 15:7; cf. Rom. 9:19-23), on idolatry and on the corruption of paganism.
9:21
… attention by preference to this election, Zwingli nevertheless openly attributes reprobation also to divine causality (op. cit., IX, p. 30, n. 34), indeed sometimes taking pleasure in exalting this arbitrariness of God, which he believes he finds in Rom. 9, 21 (op. cit., III, p. 844, n. 21). God "orders his vessels, that is, us men, as he wills; he chooses one to make of him a fitting vessel; the other he does not will. …
9:22
… affirms: a) there is no predestination to evil, but God has established to inflict the penalty of damnation for the foreseen sin of final impenitence (of which God is absolutely not the cause) permitted only for a higher good of which he alone is judge (cf. Rom. 9, 22 and Denz-U, 200, 316 ff., 318, 321 ff., 514, 816, 827); man, after original sin, remains free and under the influence of Grace cooperates freely in what God wills (Denz-U, 793, 806, …
9:24
… ἐθνικός (as a noun): Mt. 5:47; 6:7; 13:17; as a plural it is synonymous with τὰ ἐθνή, which in the Septuagint translates the Hebrew haggājim (Ex. 34:24; Lev. 18:24, etc.; Is. 9:1), cf. Mt. 4:15; 6:32 and passim; in opposition to the Jews: Rom. 3:39; 9:24, etc.; Lk. 2:32; Acts 26:17, 23.
9:25
The time of the universal divine judgment is known only to God (Mt. 24, 36; Mt. 13, 32; Acts 1. 7), although Scripture indicates certain foreboding signs: the preaching and acceptance of the Gospel throughout the whole world (Mt. 24, 3 and 14; Mk. 16, 15-16; Lk. 21, 24; Rom. 9, 25), the appearance of the Antichrist (v.), the conversion of Israel (Hos. 3, 4-5; Rom. 11, 25-27; II Cor. 3, 14-17), the great apostasy (II Thess. 2, 3; Mt. 24, 11-12; Lk. 17, 26-30; …
9:26
… would strike the enemies of God, is often evoked in biblical tradition either with the name of S. alone (Ezek. 16:49; Matt. 11:23-24; Luke 10:12) or associated with G. (Amos 4:11; Isa. 1:9; 13:19; Jer. 23:14; 49:18; 50:40; Matt. 10:15; Rom. 9:26; Jude 7; II Pet. 2:6: an example for those who would live wickedly in the future).
9:29
… In the Vulgate it is transcribed once (Jer. 11:20). It is read in the New Testament (Rom. 9:29; Jas. 5:4) and was therefore received into the liturgy.
9:30
… In this sense one must understand St. Paul's statement that faith justifies (Rom. 1:12; 5:1; 3:28; 9:30; 10:6; Gal. 2:16; 3:24). It is the obligatory way and the first effective step toward justification: "Iustitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi" (Rom. 3:22, 30). Not that faith is the essential …
9:31
Epistles I-II to the Thessalonians
… the verb φθάνω (Grimme, Zorell: "nequaquam ante illos aut sine illis ad gloriam perveniemus") in the more recent Greek authors is always constructed with εἰς and the accusative; and this is the usage of St. Paul in the other two times he employs it (Rom. 9, 31; Phil. 3, 16), always placing εἰς and the accusative before the verb φθάνω. …
9:33
… Whoever believes in him already has eternal life" (John 3:18, 36; Rom. 9:33; 10:11).
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.