Romans 2:10–16

Just as Paul mentioned three woes for unbelievers, so now he mentions three benefits for believers: genuine honor as sons of God, unchanging glory and peace. Those who live rightly may be quiet in the future, undisturbed by any commotion. For everyone who keeps himself from wrongdoing has a judge who will be favorable to him.

Paul is right to put the Jew first here and then the Greek. For those who are closer to the Lord and to his rebukes are honored above others, and they enjoy their rewards more than others.

"But glory, honor, and peace to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile." What Jew does he here mean? or about what Gentiles is he discoursing? It is of those before Christ's coming. For his discourse had not hitherto come to the times of grace, but he was still dwelling upon the earlier times, so breaking down first from afar off and clearing away the separation between the Greek and the Jew, that when he should do this in the matter of grace, he might no more seem to be devising some new and degrading view. For if in the earlier times when this Grace had not shone forth in such, greatness, when the estate of the Jews was solemn and renowned and glorious before all men, there was no difference, what could they say for themselves now after so great a display of grace? And this is why he establishes it with so great earnestness. For when the hearer has been informed that this held in the earlier times, much more will he receive it after the faith. But by Greeks he here means not them that worshipped idols, but them that adored God, that obeyed the law of nature, that strictly kept all things, save the Jewish observances, which contribute to piety, such as were Melchizedek and his, such as was Job, such as were the Ninevites, such as was Cornelius.

Given that Paul puts the Jews first and the Greeks second, both for punishment and for reward, we have to ask who is meant by these terms. If he meant by Jews those who are still under the law and who have not come to Christ, and by Greeks those who are Christians from among the Gentiles, it is clear that he would be going completely against the meaning of the gospel.It seems to me that the apostle has distinguished three types of people in this passage. First of all, he talks about those who are looking for glory and honor and immortality by patience in well-doing, whom God will reward with eternal life. Patience in well-doing is something which is certainly to be found in those who have endured suffering and struggle for the sake of godliness, and therefore, as we have already explained above, this must be said about Christians, among whom the martyrs are found. But as I understand it, when Paul mentions Jews and Greeks he is talking about people who in neither case have become believers in Christ. It may happen that among those who are still under the law there will be someone who, because of pressure from his family and friends, has not believed in Christ but nevertheless does what is good, upholds righteousness, loves mercy, preserves chastity and continence, guards modesty and meekness, and does every good work. Although this person does not have eternal life—because despite the fact that he believes that there is only one true God he has not believed in his Son Jesus Christ, whom God has sent—nevertheless it may be that the glory of his works and the peace and honor which they bring may not perish. But the Greek, that is the Gentile, if he does not have the law, is a law to himself, showing the work of the law in his heart, and motivated by natural reason, as we see that quite a few Gentiles are, either because they uphold righteousness or preserve chastity or maintain prudence, temperance and modesty. Although such a man is cut off from eternal life because he has not believed in Christ, and cannot enter the kingdom of heaven because he has not been born again of water and the Spirit, yet it appears from what the apostle says that he cannot entirely lose the glory, honor and peace of good works. For if it appears, according to what we discussed above, that the apostle condemned the Gentiles on the ground that although they knew God by their natural intelligence they did not glorify him as God, how can we not think that he can and must praise them if they recognize God by their behavior and glorify him? Therefore I do not think it can be doubted that someone who deserves to be condemned because of his evil deeds will also be considered worthy of the reward of good works if he does something good. Consider what the apostle says: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive good or evil, according to what he has done in the body."

Glory is opposed to wrath and honor to displeasure. What Paul called "immortality" above he calls "peace" here. The word first is emphatic and means "indeed," because God does not play favorites. Or it may mean first in time but not in honor.

God did not promise eternal life to those who worshiped idols but to those who even apart from the law led a Mosaic life, embraced godliness and the worship of God, and were concerned about righteousness.

In what follows, the apostle intends to prove that neither does circumcision bring benefit, nor does uncircumcision cause harm, and then to show the necessity of faith that justifies a person. For this purpose he first overthrows Judaism. Note the wisdom: he speaks of the time before the coming of Christ, that the world was filled with vices and that all were subject to punishment — first the Jew, then the Greek. Having acknowledged as certain that the pagan will be punished for evil, from this premise he draws the conclusion that he will also be rewarded for good. If both reward and punishment are consequences of deeds, then the law and circumcision are already superfluous, and not only superfluous, but they also prepare a greater punishment for the Jew; for if a Gentile is condemned because he was not guided by nature, and therefore by natural law, then all the more is a Jew condemned, who with the same guidance was also brought up in the law. This is the direction of the apostle's argument. Now learn the meaning of the words. By Greeks he means here not idolaters, but God-fearing people who lived piously without having the law, such as Melchizedek, Job, the Ninevites, and finally Cornelius. Likewise, by Jews he means Jews who lived before the coming of Christ. For, endeavoring to prove that circumcision has no power whatsoever, he directs attention to ancient times and shows that there was no difference between a God-fearing Gentile and a virtuous Jew. If a Jew in no way surpassed a Gentile before the coming of Christ, when Judaism was especially renowned, then all the more does he not surpass him now, when the law has been abolished. So speaks the apostle, intending to crush the pride of the Jews, who would not receive those who came from paganism. Glory, he says, and honor and peace. Earthly goods always have enemies, are coupled with anxieties, are subject to envy and plots, and even if no one threatened them from without, the one who possesses them is always troubled in his thoughts; but glory and honor from God enjoy peace and are free from anxiety in thoughts, as they are not subject to plots.

Second, he shows this in regard to the good: first, he repeats the two things mentioned above, namely, glory and honor, but the third, namely, peace, he mentions instead of immortality, which includes peace among many other things.

For a man's peace cannot be complete as long as he fears he might lose the good things he has; rather, one has true peace of heart when he has everything he desires and no fear of losing them: my people will abide in a peaceful habitation (Isa 32:18).

In these things, too, he gives primacy to the Jews, because they were first promised to them, and the gentiles entered into their promises: others have labored and you have entered into their labors (John 4:38).

Paul shows that neither Jews nor Greeks will be rejected by God if they believe in Christ, but that both are justified by faith. Likewise, he says that those who do not believe are equally guilty, since circumcision without faith is worthless but uncircumcision with faith is acceptable. For God does not stick to any privilege of race, so as to accept unbelief on account of ancestors and reject believers because of the unworthiness of their parents. Rather he rewards or condemns each one on his own merits.

You have often heard that, though in the world we hold different stations, yet we are all equal in the sight of God. There are of course senses in which this is true. God is no accepter of persons: His love for us is not measured by our social rank or our intellectual talents. But I believe there is a sense in which this maxim is the reverse of the truth. I am going to venture to say that artificial equality is necessary in the life of the State, but that in the Church we strip off this disguise, we recover our real inequalities, and are thereby refreshed and quickened.

We are all born equal, emperors and paupers, and we die as equals. Our humanity is of one quality.

"For there is no respect of persons with God." Wonderful! What more than victory has he gained! For he shows, by reducing it to an absurdity, that it was not meet with God that it should be otherwise. For it would then be a case of respecting of persons. But of such character God is not. And he does not say, "for if this were not so, God would be a respecter of persons," but with more of dignity, "For there is no respect of persons with God." That it is not quality of persons, but difference of actions, Which He maketh inquisition for. By so saying he shows that it was not in actions but in persons only that the Jew differed from the Gentile. The consequence of this would be thus expressed; For it is not because one is a Jew and the other a Gentile, that one is honored and the other disgraced, but it is from the works that either treatment comes. But he does not say so, since it would have roused the anger of the Jew, but he sets down something more, so bringing their haughty spirit yet lower, and quelling it for the admission of the other.

Anyone who doubts this needs only read what Peter said when he went to visit the Gentile Cornelius: "Truly I perceive that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him." We might go even farther and quote what our Lord says in the Gospel: "he who believes in me is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."

Knowing, says he, that our and their Master is in heaven; and that there is no respect of persons with Him.

Since it seemed incredible that a gentile who had not heard the law and the prophets should be deemed worthy of honor, he proves this by the fact that God is no respecter of persons. God, he says, does not take into account persons, but examines deeds. If by deeds there is no difference between a Jew and a gentile, then nothing prevents the latter from being deemed worthy of the same honor as the former. Therefore, now that the law has been abolished, do not boast, O Jew, before the one who, being from the gentiles and doing good, was equal to you even at the time when your Judaism was in its glory.

Then when he says for there is no respect of persons, he assigns the reason for his statement, namely, because there is no respect of persons with God: truly I perceive that God shows no partiality (Acts 10:34).

Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice, through which one distributes to each according to the person's worth; therefore, there is respect of persons, when more is given or less is given without regard to worth. This happens when the person rather than his qualifications is accepted as a cause. In this case there is a cause, i.e., a rule of action, but the person is taken as the cause of doing something. Thus, if one gives more inheritance to another on account of a blood relationship, it is not respect of persons, because this relationship is a fitting cause why he should receive such benefits. But if a prelate gives more ecclesiastical goods to someone on account of a blood relationship, it would be respect of persons, if some other qualification were not present. For blood relationship is not a suitable reason for receiving spiritual goods.

Therefore, because God does everything for the best of reasons, respect of persons does not enter into his actions: wisdom orders all things well (Wis 8:l).

Yet he seems to be a respecter of persons, because he abandons some sinners and calls others to himself.

The answer is that respect of persons is opposed to justice; hence, it finds its sphere in the payment of debts, with which justice is concerned. But God calls sinners to repentance not from debt but as a favor: and if by grace, it is not now by works (Rom 11:6); not because of deeds done by us in justice, but in virtue of his own mercy he saved us (Titus 3:5).

In such gifts not only God, but man too, is free to give to whom he will: am I not allowed to give what I choose with what belongs to me? (Matt 20:15).

How can someone sin without the law, when Paul says that everyone is subject to the law of nature? By "law" he means the law of Moses, to which the Jews are bound although they do not believe. The Gentiles are also under the judgment of the natural law, but only insofar as they have chosen not to attach themselves to it. Thus the Gentile unbelievers are doubly in trouble, because they have neither assented to the law given through Moses, nor have they received the grace of Christ. Therefore it is quite right that they should perish. So just as the person who sins without the law will perish, so also the one who has kept the law without knowing it will be justified. For the keeper of the law maintains his righteousness by nature. For if the law is given not for the righteous but for the unrighteous, whoever does not sin is a friend of the law. For him faith alone is the way by which he is made perfect. For others mere avoidance of evil will not gain them any advantage with God unless they also believe in God, so that they may be righteous on both counts. For the one righteousness is temporal; the other is eternal.The Gentiles even if they keep the natural law will perish if they do not accept the faith of Christ. For it is a greater thing to confess faith in the one Lord, since God is one, than it is to avoid sinning (for the first of these has to do with God, the second with us). The Jews who live under the law will be accused and judged by the law, insofar as they have not accepted the Christ promised to them in the law. And if you wonder about this, the fate of the Jews will be worse than that of the Gentiles, for it is worse to lose what was promised than not to receive what was not hoped for in the first place. The unbelieving Gentile has not entered the kingdom of God, but the unbelieving Jew has been removed from it.

As many as have sinned in law shall be judged according to law, and as many as have sinned without law shall perish without law.

It is generally agreed that judgment is the usual expression for eternal damnation.

The apostle did not mean to say that those who sin in ignorance will suffer worse punishment than those who know the law. It seems that it is worse to perish than to be judged. Rather the apostle here was merely distinguishing between Jews and Gentiles.

Paul to the Romans: "As many as have sinned without law, shall perish without law; and as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged also by the law."

As I have heard from a certain presbyter, who had heard it from those who had seen the apostles, and from those who had been their disciples, the punishment [declared] in Scripture was sufficient for the ancients in regard to what they did without the Spirit's guidance. For as God is no respecter of persons, He inflicted a proper punishment on deeds displeasing to Him.

The ungodly without the law shall perish forever. But the sinner under the law who comes to faith in God will not perish.

Those who lived before the giving of the law will not receive the same sentence as those after the law. Those sinning after the giving of the law will undergo heavier penalties.

"For as many," he says, "as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law." For here, as I said before, he shows not only the equality of the Jew and the Gentile, but that the Jew was even much burdened by the gift of the Law. For the Gentile is judged without law. But this "without law" here expresses not the worse plight but the easier, that is, he has not the Law to accuse him. For "without law" (that is, without the condemnation arising from it), is he condemned solely from the reasonings of nature, but the Jew, "in the Law," that is, with nature and the Law too to accuse him. For the greater the attention he enjoyed, the greater the punishment he will suffer. See how much greater is the necessity which he lays upon the Jews of a speedy recourse to grace! For in that they said, they needed not grace, being justified by the Law, he shows that they need it more than the Gentiles, considering they are liable to be punished more.

When the apostle says that those who are without the law will perish without the law, the question arises as to whether this should be understood only of the law of Moses or whether it should be extended to cover the law of Christ or even some other law under which mortal men may live. Will such a person be judged according to the law under which he has sinned, or will he perish as if he were outside the law because he is outside the law of Moses, even if he lives under some other law? For the apostle Paul himself, when he speaks to those who are outside the law, says that he too is virtually outside the law but adds: "I am not without law, but I am in the law of Christ," thus showing that although he may not be under the law of Moses he is nevertheless still under law. But whether human laws also belong to this category remains to be seen.

"Will perish" means the same thing as "will be judged," for the man who perishes perishes by God's judgment, and the man who is judged a sinner perishes. Paul puts Jews and Gentiles on the same level when he says that doers rather than hearers of the law are righteous and then adds that the Gentiles will be judged on the day of the Lord. For does anyone doubt that those under the law will perish just as those who lived without the law, unless they have believed in Christ?

If, then, God will judge the secrets of men-both of those who have sinned in the law, and of those who have sinned without law (inasmuch as they who know not the law yet do by nature the things contained in the law) -surely the God who shall judge is He to whom belong both the law, and that nature which is the rule to them who know not the law.

So as not to appear to be condemning them out of hatred Paul has repeated himself here, saying that those who have sinned without the law will perish without the law and that those under the law will be judged by the law.

Above he proved that the Gentile is deemed worthy of the same honor as the Jew. Now he proves that at the time of punishment, condemnation will also befall the Jew. The Gentiles, he says, "having sinned without law," that is, not having been instructed by the law, therefore "will also perish without law," that is, they will be punished more lightly, as not having the law as their accuser; for "without law" means: not being subject to condemnation according to the law. On the contrary, the Jew sinned "under the law," that is, being instructed also by the law, and therefore will also receive judgment, that is, will be condemned "by the law," as being subject to the law, which convicts him and subjects him to greater condemnation.

Then when he says, for whosoever, he explains the reason.

For if all who sinned are punished, it is clear that there is no respect of persons with God. Hence, he speaks first of those who have not received the law, saying that for whosoever has sinned without the law received from God by Moses, will perish without the law, i.e., will be condemned, but not for transgression of the law: because no one understands, they will perish forever (Job 4:20).

Second, he speaks of those who received the written law, and he says that whosoever has sinned in the law, i.e., after the written law, will be judged by the law, i.e., precisely for having transgressed a precept of the law: the word which I have spoken will be his judge on the last day (John 12:48).

The Apostle's manner of speaking here has been taken as an occasion of error by some. Because the Apostle does not say that all who sinned under the law will perish by the law, as he had said of those who are without the law that they will perish without the law, some believed that those who sin after receiving the law will be judged by some means, i.e., in the present, but will not perish.

But as the Gloss says: what Christian would say that the Jew will not perish for not believing in Christ, when the Lord says that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for them? (Matt 10:15). Hence it says: I have no pleasure in the death of the sinner (Ezek 18:32).

But the Apostle uses these different expressions because, as Gregory says on Job 36:6: he gives judgment to the poor, some will perish in the future judgment without being judged, i.e., the wicked who are without faith and the law: the wicked will not stand in the judgment (Ps 1:5), namely, because there is no basis for discussion with one entirely estranged from God: he who does not believe is condemned (John 3:18).

But others who sin in spite of having received the law and faith will perish in such a way as also to be judged through a discussion held with them; hence, it is said: I judge between sheep and sheep, rams and he-goats (Ezek 34:17), just as a king condemns enemies without a hearing, but citizens with a careful examination, as Gregory says.

Paul says this because those who hear the law are not justified unless they believe in Christ, whom the law itself has promised. This is what it means to keep the law. For how does someone who does not believe the law keep it, when he does not receive the One to whom the law bears witness? But the one who appears not to be under the law because he is uncircumcised in his flesh, if he believes in Christ, may be said to have kept the law. And he who says he is in the law, i.e., the Jew, because what is said in the law does not penetrate to his mind, is not a doer of the law but a hearer only, for he does not believe in the Christ who is written about in the law, as Philip said to Nathanael: "We have found him of whom Moses in the law and also the prophets wrote."

This is not the perfect righteousness according to Christ. About that, Paul says: "By works of the law shall no one be justified."

The second benefit of keeping the commandments of God is the understanding of the sacred Scriptures. Gregory says that "by hearing God's precepts the disciples were not illuminated, but by doing them they were illuminated"; because "not the hearers of the law only, but the doers shall be justified." On account of this James says: "Be doers of the word of God and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves." When a man hears the word of God, it seems to him that he understands it well, but it immediately departs; but when he puts it to experience by working well, then he understands it.

That we must labour not with words, but with deeds. In Solomon, in Ecclesiasticus: "Be not hasty in thy tongue, and in thy deeds useless and remiss." And Paul, in the first to the Corinthians: "The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power." Also to the Romans: "Not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Also in the Gospel according to Matthew: "He who shall do and teach so, shall be called greatest in the kingdom of heaven." Also in the same place: "Every one who heareth my words, and doeth them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house upon a rock. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house, and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one who heareth my words, and doeth them not, I will liken him to the foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and its ruin became great."

Therefore, by hearing the precepts of God they were not enlightened; by doing them they were enlightened, because it is written: "Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified." Whoever therefore wishes to understand what he has heard, let him hasten to fulfill in deed those things which he has already been able to understand.

What benefit is it if, while listening each day, we neglect to practice what we hear? Hence I beseech you, let us be zealous in practicing those very deeds (by no other way, in fact, is it possible to be saved) so that we may also wash away our sins and be granted the Lord's lovingkindness at his own hands, thanks to the grace and mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ.

"For not the hearers of the law are just before God." Well doth he add "before God;" for haply before men they may be able to appear dignified and to vaunt great things, but before God it is quite otherwise-the doers of the Law alone are justified. You see with what advantage he combats, by turning what they said to an opposite bearing. For if it is by the Law you claim to be saved, in this respect, saith he, the Gentile will stand before you, when seen to be a doer of what is written in the Law. And how is it possible (one may say) for one who hath not heard to be a doer? Not this only, he says, is possible, but what is much more even than this. For not only is it possible without hearing to be a doer, but even with hearing not to be so. Which last thing he makes plainer, and that with a greater advantage over them, when he says, "Thou that teachest another, teachest thou not thyself?" (Rom. ii. 21.) But here he is still making the former point good.

For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them". The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness.

For each individual lives by his own faith, nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says. Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the fight of a priest.

How then do you, O Jew, say that you have no need of grace, because you are justified by the law? Behold, it has been proven that you derive no benefit from the law, so that you have a greater need of grace than the Gentile, since you are not justified before God by merely hearing the law. Before men, hearers of the law may appear honorable; but before God it is not so: before Him, the doers of the law are justified.

After confuting the human judgment with which the gentiles and Jews judged one another and commending God's judgment, the Apostle now undertakes to show that the things in which the Jews gloried do not suffice for their salvation. First, he states his position; second, he answers arguments against his position, at what advantage then has the Jew? (Rom 3:1).

The Jews gloried in two things, namely, the law and circumcision, which stemmed not from the law but from the patriarchs (John 7:22). First, therefore, he shows that the Jewish law heard or accepted was not enough for salvation; second, he shows the same about circumcision, at circumcision indeed (Rom 2:25).

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth his position; second, he clarifies it, at for when the gentiles.

In regard to the first he sets forth two things: one by rejecting; the other by asserting.

For he rejects the Jewish opinion that they were made just by merely hearing the law. Hence he says: I have said that all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law, for the hearers of the law, i.e., in virtue of having heard the law, are not just before God, even if they are deemed just before men: every one who hears these words of mine and does not do them is like a foolish man (Matt 7:26); if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who observes his natural face in a mirror (Jas 1:23).

Second, he declares that the doers of the law are righteous, when he says, but the doers of the law will be justified: everyone who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man (Matt 7:24); be doers of the word and not hearers only (Jas 1:22); a good understanding have all those who practice it (Ps 111:10).

But this point seems to conflict with his own statement below that by the works of the law no flesh will be justified before him (Rom 3:20). Consequently, no one is justified precisely for doing the works of the law.

The answer is that justification can be taken in three ways: in one way, in regard to reputation; then one is said to be justified, when he is regarded as just: you have made your sisters appear justified, i.e., by reputation (Ezek 16:51). In this sense, the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., are considered just before God and men.

Second, by doing what is just: this man went down to his home justified (Luke 18:14), because the publican performed a work of justice by confessing his sin. In this way is verified the statement that the doers of the law will be justified, i.e., by performing the justice of the law.

In a third way justification can be considered in regard to the cause of justice, so that a person is said to be justified, when he newly receives justice: being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God (Rom 5:1). It must not be supposed, however, that the doers of the law are justified as though acquiring justice through the works of the law. This cannot be accomplished either by the ceremonial works, which confer no justifying grace, or by the moral works, from which the habit of justice is not acquired; rather, we do such works in virtue of an infused habit of justice.

Therefore, in this, we seem to hear the voice of the Lord, which prohibits some things and commands others. And so, if anyone does not obey those things which we believe have once been commanded by God, he is considered subject to punishment. However, the commandment of God is not written with ink on stone tablets, but is impressed in our hearts by the spirit of the living God. Therefore, our own opinion becomes its own law. For if the Gentiles, who do not have the law, naturally do what the law requires, they themselves are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written on their hearts. Therefore, human opinion is to itself as the law of God.

And indeed, according to the tenor of your question, it is certain that the Law, which was given by Moses, was not necessary. For had men been able to keep the natural Law, which our God and Maker implanted in the breast of each, there would have been no need of the Law, which, written on tables of stone, tended rather to entangle and fetter the infirmity of human nature, than to set at large and liberate it. Now that there is a natural Law written in our hearts the Apostle also teaches us, when he writes, that for the most part the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by nature the things contained in the Law, and, though they have not read the Law, have yet the works of the Law written in their hearts.

Paul calls the Gentiles Christians because he is the teacher of the Gentiles, as he says elsewhere: "For I speak to you Gentiles." These people are uncircumcised and do not keep new moons or the sabbath or the law of foods, yet under the guidance of nature they believe in God and in Christ, i.e., in the Father and the Son. To keep the law is to acknowledge the God who gives the law. This is the first part of wisdom: to stand in awe of God the Father, from whom all things come, and the Lord Jesus his Son, through whom all things come. Therefore nature itself acknowledges its Creator by its own judgment, not by the law but by reason, for the creature recognizes its Maker in itself.

The same argument applies to our values, which are affected by social factors, but if they are caused by them we cannot know that they are right. One can reject morality as an illusion, but the man who does so often tacitly excepts his own ethical motive: for instance the duty of freeing morality from superstition and of spreading enlightenment.

Classical political theory, with its Stoical, Christian, and juristic key-conceptions (natural law, the value of the individual, the rights of man), has died. The modern State exists not to protect our rights but to do us good or make us good — anyway, to do something to us or to make us something. Hence the new name 'leaders' for those who were once 'rulers'. We are less their subjects than their wards, pupils, or domestic animals. There is nothing left of which we can say to them, 'Mind your own business.' Our whole lives are their business.

But of course that was not what Clare meant. She meant that he had not only a legal but a moral right to act as he did. In other words, Clare is — or would be if she thought it out — a classical moralist after the style of Thomas Aquinas, Grotius, Hooker and Locke. She believes that behind the laws of the state there is a Natural Law.

I agree with her. I hold this conception to be basic to all civilization. Without it, the actual laws of the state become an absolute, as in Hegel. They cannot be criticized because there is no norm against which they should be judged.

All the human beings that history has heard of acknowledge some kind of morality; that is, they feel towards certain proposed actions the experiences expressed by the words 'I ought' or 'I ought not'. These experiences resemble awe in one respect, namely that they cannot be logically deduced from the environment and physical experiences of the man who undergoes them. You can shuffle 'I want' and 'I am forced' and 'I shall be well advised' and 'I dare not' as long as you please without getting out of them the slightest hint of 'ought' and 'ought not'. ... Morality, like numinous awe, is a jump; in it, man goes beyond anything that can be 'given' in the facts of experience. ... This consciousness is neither a logical, nor an illogical, inference from the facts of experience; if we did not bring it to our experience we could not find it there. It is either inexplicable illusion, or else revelation.

This law was called the Law of Nature because people thought that every one knew it by nature and did not need to be taught it. They did not mean, of course, that you might not find an odd individual here and there who did not know it, just as you find a few people who are colour-blind or have no ear for a tune. But taking the race as a whole, they thought that the human idea of decent behaviour was obvious to every one. And I believe they were right. If they were not, then all the things we said about the war were nonsense. What was the sense in saying the enemy were in the wrong unless Right is a real thing which the Nazis at bottom knew as well as we did and ought to have practised? If they had had no notion of what we mean by right, then, though we might still have had to fight them, we could no more have blamed them for that than for the colour of their hair.

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities. But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.

The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not. In other words, when you are dealing with humans, something else comes in above and beyond the actual facts. You have the facts (how men do behave) and you also have something else (how they ought to behave). In the rest of the universe there need not be anything but the facts. Electrons and molecules behave in a certain way, and certain results follow, and that may be the whole story. But men behave in a certain way and that is not the whole story, for all the time you know that they ought to behave differently.

Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing—a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. And yet it is not a fact in the ordinary sense, in the same way as our actual behaviour is a fact. It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us.

I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. The question at the moment is not whether they are good excuses. The point is that they are one more proof of how deeply, whether we like it or not, we believe in the Law of Nature. If we do not believe in decent behaviour, why should we be so anxious to make excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility. For you notice that it is only for our bad behaviour that we find all these explanations. It is only our bad temper that we put down to being tired or worried or hungry; we put our good temper down to ourselves.

[Arguing that the Moral Law is not reducible to herd instinct, but is a higher principle that judges between instincts]

Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinct—by mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

[Arguing that the existence of moral progress proves an objective moral standard independent of human convention]

The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilised morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers or Pioneers—people who understood morality better than their neighbours did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer or less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head', how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve', there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had ever been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world could ever grow morally better or morally worse.

[On how the very attempt to argue against God from the injustice of the universe presupposes an objective standard of justice — and thus points back to God]

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.

We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is that Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built.

Suppose someone asked me, when I see a man in blue uniform going down the street leaving little paper packets at each house, why I suppose that they contain letters? I should reply, 'Because whenever he leaves a similar little packet for me I find it does contain a letter.' And if he then objected—'But you've never seen all these letters which you think the other people are getting,' I should say, 'Of course not, and I shouldn't expect to, because they're not addressed to me. I'm explaining the packets I'm not allowed to open by the ones I am allowed to open.' It is the same about this question. The only packet I am allowed to open is Man. When I do, especially when I open that particular man called Myself, I find that I do not exist on my own, that I am under a law; that somebody or something wants me to behave in a certain way.

I know that the Enemy disapproves many of these causes. But that is where He is so unfair. He often makes prizes of humans who have given their lives for causes He thinks bad on the monstrously sophistical ground that the humans thought them good and were following the best they knew.

"For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves; uncircumcision observing the precepts of the law".

"For when the Gentiles," he says, "which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves." I am not, he means, rejecting the Law, but even on this score I justify the Gentiles. You see how when undermining the conceit of Judaism, he giveth no handle against himself as villifying the Law, but on the contrary by extolling it and showing its greatness he so makes good his whole position. But whenever he saith "by nature," he means by the reasonings of nature. And he shows that others are better than they, and, what is more better for this, that they have not received the Law, and have not that wherein the Jews seem to have an advantage over them. For on this ground he means they are to be admired, because they required not a law, and yet exhibited all the doings of the Law, having the works, not the letters, graven upon their minds.

Who that is acquainted with the mystery of God could so significantly relate the law of God, as a man far removed from the knowledge of the truth has set forth that law? But I consider that they who speak true things unconsciously are to be so regarded as though they prophesied under the influence of some spirit. But if he had known or explained this also, in what precepts the law itself consisted, as he clearly saw the force and purport of the divine law, he would not have discharged the office of a philosopher, but of a prophet. And because he was unable to do this, it must be done by us, to whom the law itself has been delivered by the one great Master and Ruler of all, God.

The Gentiles need not keep the sabbaths or the new moons or the sacrifices which are written down in the law. For this law is not what is written on the hearts of the Gentiles. Rather it is that which can be discerned naturally, e.g., that they should not kill or commit adultery, that they should not steal nor bear false witness, that they should honor father and mother, etc. It may well be that since God is the one Creator of all, these things are written on the hearts of the Gentiles.… For the natural law may agree with the law of Moses in the spirit, if not in the letter. For how would anyone understand by nature that a child should be circumcised on the eighth day? … But we who feel that such things must be understood in a spiritual sense believe that we are not merely hearers of the law but doers of it also, being justified not according to the letter of the law, which in any case is so difficult that nobody could ever do it correctly, but according to the Spirit, which is the only way the law can ever be kept. This then is the work of the law which the apostle says even the Gentiles can fulfill. So when they do what the law says, it seems that they have the law written on their hearts by God, "not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God."

Paul is referring either to those who were righteous before the law or to those who even now are doing some good. He shows that the Gentiles are not without any kind of law in order to leave them with no excuse and to take away the glory which the Jews had by their possession of the law.

For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them". The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness.

Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman's veil he says, "Does not even Nature teach you? " -as when to the Romans, affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law requires, he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing nature.

He proves what he says against the Jews, and speaks with wise skill so as not to appear to be saying anything against the law. As if praising and exalting the law, he says that those who do not have the law "by nature," that is, having conviction in their thoughts, are worthy of admiration; for they had no need of the law, and yet fulfilled the law, having inscribed on their hearts not letters but deeds, and instead of the law, using conscience and natural thoughts as witness to the good. He speaks here of three laws: the written law, the natural law, and the law of deeds. "Gentiles, who do not have the law." Which one? The written one. "Do by nature the things of the law." By which law? By the law that manifests itself in deeds. "Not having the law." Which one? The written one. "They are a law unto themselves." How so? Being guided by the natural law. Notice the wisdom: he did not strike at the Jews, as the course of his argument demanded. According to the course of his argument, he should have said this: when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do the things of the law by nature, then they are far superior to those instructed in the law. But the apostle did not say this, and expressed himself more gently, thus: "they are a law unto themselves." By this he proves that even in the most ancient times, and before the law was given, the human race was under the same Providence. By this he also stops the mouths of those who say: why did Christ not come to teach the doing of good earlier, from the beginning? The knowledge of good and evil, he says, He implanted in all from the beginning; but when He saw that it was not helping, He finally came Himself.

Then when he says for when the gentiles, he clarifies his position. First, he shows that doers of the law are justified even without being hearers; second, that hearers of the law are not justified without observing the law, at but if you are called a Jew (Rom 2:17).

In regard to the first he does three things: first, he mentions the worthiness of those who observe the law without having heard it; second, he clarifies what he had said, at who show the work of the law; third, he proves it, at their conscience bearing witness.

In regard to the first he touches on three things relating to the gentiles.

First, their lack of the law, saying, for when the gentiles, who have not the law, namely, the divine law, which they have not received. For the law was not delivered to the gentiles but to the Jews: the law which Moses commanded us as an inheritance for the congregations of Jacob (Sir 24:24); he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Ps 147:20); when Moses commanded us a law, as a possession for the assembly of Jacob (Deut 33:4).

From this it is clear that the gentiles did not sin by not observing the ceremonies of the law.

Second, he commends their observance of law, when he says they do by nature those things that are of the law, i.e., the moral precepts, which flow from a dictate of natural reason. Thus Job was blameless and upright, fearing God and turning away from evil. Hence he himself says: my foot has held fast to his steps; I have kept his ways (Job 23:11).

But the expression by nature causes some difficulty. For it seems to favor the Pelagians, who taught that man could observe all the precepts of the law by his own natural powers.

Hence by nature should mean nature reformed by grace. For he is speaking of gentiles converted to the faith, who began to obey the moral precepts of the law by the help of Christ's grace. Or by nature can mean by the natural law showing them what should be done, as in a psalm: there are many who say, 'who shows us good things?' The light of your countenance, O Lord, is signed upon us (Ps 4:6), i.e., the light of natural reason, in which is God's image. All this does not rule out the need of grace to move the affections any more than the knowledge of sin through the law (Rom 3:20) exempts from the need of grace to move the affections.

Third, he shows their worth in that they, having not the law, are a law to themselves, inasmuch as they function as a law to themselves by instructing and inducing themselves to the good, because the Philosopher says: law is a statement laying down an obligation and proceeding from prudence and understanding (Ethics 11). Therefore, it is said that the law is not laid down for the just (1 Tim 1:9), who is not compelled by a law outside of him, but for the lawless, who need to be compelled from without.

It is, of course, the highest level of greatness among men, when they are induced toward the good not by others but by themselves. The second level belongs to those who are induced by others but without force. The third belongs to those who need to be forced to do good. The fourth belongs to those who cannot be directed to the good even by force: in vain have I smitten your children; they took no correction (Jer 2:30).

The meaning here is that those who believe under the guidance of nature do the work of the law not through the letter but through their conscience. For the work of the law is faith, which, although it is fully revealed in the Word of God, also shows itself to be a law for the natural judgment. Faith goes beyond what the law commands. Faith trusts in Christ. These people believe because of the inner witness of their conscience, because they know in their conscience that what they believe is right. It is not disjunctive for the creature to believe and worship his Creator, nor is it absurd for the servant to recognize his Lord.Unbelieving Gentiles will be judged first of all by other believing Gentiles, just as the Lord said that his disciples would judge the unbelieving Jews: "They themselves will be your judges." The unbelief of the Jews will be judged by the faith of the apostles who, although Jews themselves, believed in Christ while the rest of their people rejected him. Similarly the Gentiles will be accused by their own thoughts if, touched by the faith and power of the Creator, they refuse to believe. But if because of some foolishness a man does not think to believe the words or deeds of the Lord, his conscience will defend him on the day of judgment, because he did not think that he was obliged to believe. He will be judged not as an intentional malefactor but as one who was merely ignorant.… It is Christians to whom Paul is referring when he speaks of accusing and excusing on the day of judgment. Those who differ from the true church, either because they think differently about Christ or because they disagree about the meaning of the Bible in the tradition of the church (e.g., Montanists, Novatianists, Donatists and other heretics) will be accused by their own thoughts on the day of judgment. Likewise one who recognizes that the Christian faith is true but refuses to follow it so as not to appear that he has been corrected and who is ashamed to depart from what he has so long held will be accused by his own thoughts on the day of judgment.

Compare this with 1 John [3:20]: "Dearly beloved, if our own hearts condemn us, God is greater than our conscience."

Nothing can be, in the strictest sense of the word, more comic than to set so shadowy a thing as the conjectures made by the vaguer anthropologists about primitive man against so solid a thing as the human sense of sin. By its nature the evidence of Eden is something that one cannot find. By its nature the evidence of sin is something that one cannot help finding.

"Which show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another." See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. But what is most to be marvelled at in the discretion of the Apostle, it is worth while to mention now. For having shown, from the grounds given, that the Gentile is greater than the Jew; in the inference, and the conclusion of his reasoning, he does not state it, in order not to exasperate the Jew. For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law's stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. And be not surprised that he proves this point, not once or twice, but several times. For this topic was very needful for him to prove owing to those who say, Why ever is it, that Christ came but now? And where in times before was the scheme of Providence? Now it is these that he is at present beating off by the way, when he shows that even in former times, and before the Law was given, the human race fully enjoyed the care of Providence.

"Written on their hearts" should not be taken too literally. What Paul calls the heart is the rational faculty of the soul.It is also necessary to discuss what Paul means by the word conscience. Is it something distinguishable from the heart or from the soul?… Conscience is the spirit which the apostle says is with the soul, according to which we have been instructed in the higher things. This spirit or conscience is linked to the soul as a teacher and guide to point out what things are best and to reprove and condemn faults. The apostle was speaking of it when he said: "What person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?"

Nature produces a law in their hearts through the witness of their conscience. Or it may mean that the conscience testifies to the fact that it has its own law, because even if the sinner is afraid of no one the conscience is worried when he sins and rejoices when that sin is overcome.

For the man who, though listening not, doeth, is better than the man who is constant in listening and empty of works, even as the word of the apostle Paul teacheth us, "For not the hearers of the law are righteous before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified: for if the Gentiles which have no law do by their own nature the things of the law, these, having no law, are a law unto themselves; and they show the work of the law written upon their hearts, and their conscience testifieth concerning them". The hearing of the law is good, for it bringeth to the works thereof, and reading and meditation in the Scriptures, which purify our secret understanding from thoughts of evil things, are good, but if a man is constant in reading, and in hearing, and in the meditation of the word of God, and yet perfecteth not by his reading the labour of works, against this man hath the Spirit of God spoken by the hand of the blessed David, rebuking and reproving his wickedness.

"They show that the work of the law is written in their hearts." Of which law? The law in deeds. On the day of judgment our own thoughts will stand forth, now condemning, now justifying, and a person will need at that tribunal neither another accuser nor another defender.

Then when he says who show, he explains how they are a law to themselves. This can be likened to a law presented to man from without and which it is customary to deliver in writing on account of the memory's weakness; whereas, those who observe the law without externally hearing the law show the work of the law written not with ink, but first and chiefly with the Spirit of the living God (2 Cor 3:3), and second through study: write them on the tablet of your heart (Prov 3:3), i.e., the precepts of wisdom. Hence, here, too, he continues in their hearts, not on parchment or on stone or copper tablets: I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts (Jer 31:33).

Then when he says their conscience bearing witness he proves his statement that the work of the law is written in their hearts by citing actions which announce its presence.

First, he mentions those actions, one of which is the witness of conscience. He touches on this when he says their conscience bearing witness, conscience being the application of one's knowledge in judging whether some action was good or bad to do.

Hence, this conscience sometimes gives testimony of good: our boast is this, the testimony of our conscience (2 Cor 1:12); and sometimes of evil: your conscience knows that many times you have yourself cursed others (Eccl 7:23).

However, no one can testify that an action is good or bad, unless he has knowledge of the law. Hence, if conscience bears witness about good or evil, this is a clear sign that the work of the law has been written in the man's heart.

Another function is to accuse and defend. Here, too, knowledge of the law is required.

In regard to this he says and their conflicting thoughts accusing or also defending, following the Greek practice whereby a genitive is used for accusing and defending in place of an ablative. And these are conflicting.

For an accusing thought in regard to some action arises in a man, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted evilly: now I rebuke you and lay the charge before you (Ps 50:21); the show of their countenance witnesses against them (Isa 3:9).

But sometimes a defending thought arises, when he has reason to suppose that he has acted well: my heart does not reproach me for any of my days (Job 27:6). Between this accusation and defense the testimony of conscience has the final say.

This passage, their conscience bearing witness to them, can be interpreted in another way, so that there is consciousness not only of one's deeds but also of thoughts; but the first is better.

There are two thoughughts inside a man which will accuse each other—the good and the evil. The good accuses the evil because it has denied the truth. The evil accuses the good because it has not done what it knows to be right. One who knows that the church is good and true but persists in heresy or schism will be judged guilty. Other thoughts will excuse, insofar as one has done what is expedient to do. He will say inwardly: "In my mind I have always thought it expedient to do what I have done. This was my faith." He will have a better case, even though he will still have to be corrected, because his conscience will not accuse him on the day of judgment. This is how the secret things of men will be judged by Jesus Christ our Lord on the day of judgment.

Men sit as judges of the external things only. It is God who judges things hidden. For Scripture says: "Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks upon the heart." When Christ judges, then God is the judge.

The awe-inspiring countenance of the Judge will compel you to speak the truth. Even if you are silent, it will convict you. You will rise clothed either in your sins or in your just deeds. The Judge himself declared this.

"In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my Gospel." See how he again puts that day before them, and brings it close to them, battering down their conceit, and showing, that those were to be the rather honored who without the Law strove earnestly to fulfil the things of the Law. ... For the conscience and reason doth suffice in the Law's stead. By this he showed, first, that God made man independent, so as to be able to choose virtue and to avoid vice. ... And why does he put the words "accusing or else excusing?"-for, if they have a Law written, and show the work of it in them, how comes reason to be able to accuse them still? But he is not any longer speaking of those only who do well, but also of mankind (Gr. the nature) universally. For then our reasonings stand up, some accusing and some excusing. And at that tribunal a man needeth no other accuser. Then to add to their fear, he does not say the sins of men, but the secrets of men. For since he said, "Thinkest thou, that judgest them that do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God;" that thou mayest not expect such a sentence as thou passest thyself, but mayest know, that that of God is far more exact than thine own, he brings in, "the secrets of men," and adds, "through Jesus Christ according to my Gospel." For men sit in judgment upon overt acts alone. And above too he spake of the Father alone, but as soon as he had crushed them with fear, he brought in the mention of Christ also. But he does not do barely this, but even here, after having made mention of the Father, he so introduceth Him. And by the same things he raises the dignity of his preaching. For this preaching, he means, openly speaks out what nature taught by anticipation. Do you see with what wisdom he has bound them both to the Gospel and to Christ, and demonstrated that our affairs come not here to a stand, but travel further. And this he made good before also, when he said, "thou treasurest up to thyself wrath against the day of wrath:" and here again, "God shall judge the secrets of men."

Who can doubt that a trial is properly conducted when there are accusers and defenders and witnesses all present?… See therefore how on that day, when God will judge the secrets of men, our thoughts will either accuse or defend our soul—not the thoughts which we will have then but the ones which we have now.

Paul says that there is a mental debate when we decide after long deliberation what we should and should not do. On the day of the Lord we shall be judged by this. This proves that we were not ignorant of good and evil. Or perhaps it means that on the day of judgment our conscience and our thoughts will appear before our eyes like history lessons to be learned; they will either accuse us or excuse us.

If God will judge the secrets of men … surely the God who will judge is he to whom belong both the law and that nature which is the rule for those who do not know the law. But how will he conduct this judgment? "According to my gospel," says the apostle, "by Christ Jesus." The law and nature are vindicated by the gospel and Christ.

Now he did not observe how much this clause of the sentence made against him: "For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to (give) the light of the knowledge (of His glory) in the face of (Jesus) Christ." Now who was it that said; "Let there be light? " And who was it that said to Christ concerning giving light to the world: "I have set Thee as a light to the Gentiles" -to them, that is, "who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death? " (None else, surely, than He), to whom the Spirit in the Psalm answers, in His foresight of the future, saying, "The light of Thy countenance, O Lord, hath been displayed upon us.

Paul continually preached that there will be a day of judgment and that it will be necessary to have believed in Christ in order to escape punishment.

And to increase the fear, he did not say: sins, but: "secret deeds." People can judge only manifest deeds, but God, he says, will judge the secret deeds through Jesus Christ, that is, the Father through the Son, because the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). You can also understand the words "through Jesus Christ" this way: according to my gospel, entrusted to me by Jesus Christ. Here he suggests that the gospel preaches nothing contrary to nature, but proclaims the very same thing that was originally implanted in people by nature itself, that is, that the gospel also testifies of judgment and punishment.

But because testimony, accusation, and defense occur during a trial, he mentions the time, when he says in the day. He says this not to designate the quality of the time but the disclosure of things hidden: I will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Cor 4:5).

Yet it is sometimes called night on account of the uncertainty of that hour: at midnight there was a cry (Matt 25:6).

The accusing or defending thoughts are not those which will arise on the day of judgment, because on that day each one's salvation or damnation will be clear to him; rather, such thoughts as exist now and the testimony of conscience that exists now will be represented to a man on that day by divine power, as Augustine says in The City of God II.

Indeed, the recognition of those thoughts that remain in the soul seems to be nothing less, as a Gloss says, than the debt of punishment or the reward, which follows them.

Then he shows the author of the judgment, when he says, when God shall judge: he will judge the world with justice (Ps 96:13).

He also describes what the judgment will concern, when he says, the secrets of men, matters about which men cannot now judge. He will bring to light the things now hidden in darkness (1 Cor 4:5).

He also shows the teaching from which faith in this judgment is had when he says, according to my Gospel, i.e., preaching by me: on the day of judgment men will render account for every careless word (Matt 12:36).

He says according to my Gospel, although he could not say, my baptism, and be a minister of both, because in baptism a man's diligence effects nothing, but in preaching the Gospel the preacher's industry achieves something: when you read this you can perceive my insight in the mystery of Christ (Eph 3:4).

Then he mentions the judge, when he says, by Christ Jesus, who has been appointed by God to be judge of the living and the dead (Acts 10:42); the Father has given all judgment to the Son (John 5:20), who will appear to the good and the wicked during the judgment: to the good in the glory of the Godhead: your eyes will see the king in his beauty (Isa 33:17), but to the wicked in his human form: every eye will see him (Rev 1:7).