Romans 2:28–3:18

"For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly." Here he attacks them as doing all things for show.

Come now, following him who said "that the law is spiritual," and who says of the things related in the law that they were spoken by way of allegory, let us see also what is to be thought about circumcision according to the allegorical laws. I know that many have delivered sayings or writings on this subject; but we too shall add what the Lord may grant to those things which seem to have been fittingly composed by others. To circumcise is to cut away some part from the generative member, through which the succession of the human race and the propagation of the flesh is administered. By this, therefore, I think it is figuratively indicated that there must be cut away from the soul any impurity that has clung to it from its association with the flesh, if any sense of ill-persuading lust has covered it over.

Therefore this cutting is inflicted not upon other members but upon the genital members, so that it may be made clear that vices of this kind come to the soul not from its own substance, but from the innate motion and incitement of the flesh. But as to the circumcision being given on the eighth day, I judge that this is signified: that to the present age the week of seven days has been assigned, while the eighth day holds the mystery of the age to come. Theirs, then, is the spiritual circumcision who serve as soldiers of the age to come, in which "they shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be as the angels of God"; and theirs "who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God," and whose "conversation is in heaven" though they walk upon earth, and who look not at the things "which are seen, but at the things which are not seen," and who know that "the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal."

But, as we mentioned above, it has also been said by others that spiritual circumcision is to cut away and cast off from the heart every unclean thought and impure perception. Yet against explanations of this sort there stands what is reported as written in Ezekiel, where the Lord says: "Every son of a stranger, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary, among all the sons of strangers who are in the midst of the house of Israel." For plainly the prophetic word in this place points to two circumcisions when it says: "Uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh." Hence we are compelled, according to the laws of allegory, to assign the forms and kinds of each circumcision — although this same objection might also be brought against us in the interpretations we set forth above. But for the present let us pursue what figure of the two circumcisions may be maintained according to allegory; and let us see whether perhaps it may be referred to two general classes of sin, in which it is not expedient to be uncircumcised, that is, in faith and in works: so that he is uncircumcised in heart who does not have faith, and uncircumcised in flesh who does not have works. For the one without the other is rejected, since faith without works is said to be dead, and from works without faith no one is justified before God. Thus then, as I judge, the prophetic saying will be fittingly applied to the people of the faithful, to whom it is said: "Every stranger who is among you in the midst of the house of Israel, uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall not enter into my sanctuary" — which is doubtless the same thing that the Lord also says in the Gospel: "He who believes in me keeps my commandments"; and again: "He who hears these my words, and does them"; and again: "But why do you say to me, Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I say?" You see, then, that everywhere faith is joined with works, and works are associated with faith. And so it is circumcision of the heart to think nothing sordid, nothing unworthy concerning the faith. Circumcision of the flesh is to commit nothing unclean, nothing defiled in deed and action. For whoever is uncircumcised and unclean in either one of these is by the words of God forbidden to enter into the sanctuary. Yet even the stranger enters into the sanctuary, into which, according to the letter of the law, none but the priests alone were permitted to enter. But now it is granted even to strangers that they should enter, provided they have been purified by the circumcision of faith and of deeds.

But if anyone should strive to call us back to the earlier questions, and should again lay before us what is written concerning the stranger — that from him who wishes to enter into the sanctuary not only circumcision of the heart but also of the flesh is required — to such a one, persisting so troublesomely, we for our part set over against him that which the prophet Jeremiah says: "Behold, your ears are uncircumcised." Let this exactor of a fleshly circumcision show us a circumcision of the ears that is perceptible and bodily, if he can: but it is certain that he can in no way do so. He will therefore be driven by necessity back to allegories, and will say that the ears are circumcised when, according to Solomon's admonitions, they do not receive an empty report, and when they are stopped up so as not to hear the judgment of blood, and when they are hedged about with thorns so as not to receive detraction, but so that they lie open to the word of God alone, and to those things which are spoken for edification. Let that circumcision of the heart, then, be of the same sort as this circumcision of the ears, which is seen to be expounded in the common way. And in this manner one is also said to be uncircumcised in lips who has not circumcised blasphemy, scurrility, and filthy speech from his mouth, who has not set a guard upon his mouth and a door of restraint about his lips, who has not circumcised his mouth even from an idle word. Finally, where Moses says to the Lord: "Provide, Lord, another whom you may send, for I am slow of tongue and of feeble voice" — they say that in the Hebrew copies they themselves have: "But I am uncircumcised in lips." And if in the manner we have described above one can be seen to be uncircumcised in ears and uncircumcised in lips, why should not one likewise be said to be uncircumcised in the foreskin of his flesh who pours himself out too immoderately and intemperately toward the natural motion of intercourse — while he is held to be circumcised who in a matter of this kind employs only such acts as are lawful and as suffice for posterity?

But since we are treating of the meaning of circumcision, it does not seem out of place to add to these things also that Jesus the son of Nave is recorded, at the Lord's command, to have circumcised the children of Israel a second time with knives of stone: which, so far as the letter is concerned, seems to have been an impossible thing to do. For once they had been circumcised in the flesh of the foreskin, what could a second circumcision find to take away? But our Jesus, who truly after Moses leads the children of Israel into the holy land flowing with milk and honey, into the land of promise, plainly circumcises the believing people not once but a second time. For his first circumcision is that by which he cut away from them either the worship of idols or the fabrications of philosophical persuasion. But he applies a second circumcision when he cuts away from them the habit of the old man, and the passions and vices of the flesh: and then is fulfilled what is written in Jesus son of Nave: "This day I have taken away from you the reproaches of Egypt." For a man carries the reproaches of Egypt about with him if, though placed within the Church and serving as a soldier under Jesus his captain, he keeps Egyptian manners and barbarous motions of the mind.

Marcion indeed, who is pleased to have nothing understood by way of allegory, will find no way at all to explain what the Apostle says, that circumcision profits. But neither will he be able in any degree to give an account of the several things that follow. To oppose, and with a certain mockery to brand, the God of the law who gave circumcision, is the custom not of him alone, but of all the heretics who repudiate the Old Testament, together with the pagans, who all heap up such things against the God of the law as though in a confederacy of disparagement. The Stoics say: Granted that circumcision indicates something mystical and holds an allegorical figure; was it then fitting that the kinds of figures and the riddles of the law should be established with the punishment and peril of little children, with tortures inflicted on tender and still innocent infancy? Had the lawgiver no place to put his mystical forms except in the dishonoring of the parts of shame; and could the law of Almighty God, the seal of the eternal covenant, be placed nowhere but in the obscene parts of the members? Is that God good, then, who commanded a newborn human being to be wounded at once, in the very first auspices of the new light? And if, as it seems to you, he himself is the creator both of the soul and of the body, then either he brands himself as having formed superfluously that part of the body which he afterwards orders to be cut away — so that through the torments of wretched people he might correct his own mistake — or else he wrongly commands to be taken away what he made of necessity and to good purpose. And then besides, if God is concerned that very many be brought to the worship of his religion, the greatest obstacle arises from circumcision. For both because every man shrinks from pain, and also because he flees the derision attaching to what is shameful, this ought to be reckoned rather an impediment to religion than a badge of it.

These things and many like them the Gentiles clamor against the lawgiver, or the heretics do; and I think it necessary to answer them, but first the Gentiles. No wise man censures in others what he holds honorable and great in his own house; for circumcision among you, O Gentiles, is held to be so great a thing that it is not entrusted indiscriminately to the ignoble crowd, but only to priests, and to those among them who have been devoted to the more select studies. For among the Egyptians, who are reckoned in your superstitions both the most ancient and the most learned, and from whom nearly all the rest have borrowed the rite of their sacred things and their ceremonies — among these, I say, no one used to study geometry or astronomy, which among them are held to be the foremost disciplines; certainly no one searched out the secrets of astrology and of the casting of nativities, than which they think nothing more divine, unless he had first received circumcision. Among them the priest, the diviner, or the minister of any sacred rites whatever, or, as they call him, every prophet, is circumcised. The priestly letters, too, of the ancient Egyptians, which they call hieroglyphic, no one learned unless he were circumcised. Every hierophant, every seer, every initiate and knower of heaven and, as they suppose, of the underworld, is not believed among them to be such unless he has been circumcised. Do you then judge that shameful and obscene among us which among you is held so honorable and great that you believe the secrets of things heavenly and infernal cannot be declared to you except through marks of this kind? But if among you, for the sake of so many and such great secrets of yours which are performed with circumcision as their handmaid, it will be necessary that a reason be sought — and such a reason as ought not to be despised, lest along with it all your ceremonies alike be undermined — why do you not expect that this same thing can hold among us as well? Indeed, if you unroll your own histories, you will find that not only the priests and hierophants of the Egyptians made use of circumcision, but also the Arabs and the Ethiopians and the Phoenicians, and others among whom zeal for superstitions of this kind flourished more nobly. Let this suffice as said against the Gentiles, to whom it was not fitting to speak more openly about the mysteries of our Law.

Now let our discourse be directed to those who do indeed believe in Christ, but do not receive the Law and the Prophets. You confess without doubt that what is written in the Epistle of Peter is true: that "we have been redeemed not with the corruptible price of silver and gold, but with the precious blood" of the Only-begotten. If therefore we have been "bought with a price," as Paul also confirms, we have without doubt been bought from someone whose slaves we were, who also demanded the price he wished in order to release from his power those whom he held. Now the devil held us, to whom we had been sold off by our sins. He demanded, then, as our price the blood of Christ. But until the blood of Jesus should be given, which was so precious that it alone sufficed for the redemption of all, it was necessary that those who were being trained under the Law should each one for himself, as it were in a certain imitation of the redemption to come, give his own blood; and therefore we, for whom the price of Christ's blood has been paid in full, have no need to pay a price for ourselves, that is, the blood of circumcision. But if it seems blameworthy to you that the God of the Law commands wounds to be inflicted on infants and blood to be shed, then you also blame what was done in Christ, who both was circumcised on the eighth day and received the wounds of the passion and poured out his blood in the punishment of the cross. And as to your view that, because of the horror of circumcision, access to religion seems difficult, far more difficult does the entrance to the Gospel appear, where one is bidden to lay down not a tiny part of the body, but the soul itself. But, according to you, the examples of the martyrs will keep people from coming to the faith. Or is a religion rather believed to be firm precisely because it promises nothing lax, nothing dainty or soft? And even if circumcision held figuratively no other sacred meaning, what would be absurd in it, if for distinction from the other nations the people that was being trained under the law of God should bear some badge of its own? And if the amputation of some part seemed necessary, what was so fitting as to find that part which seemed shameful, and to take away those things whose diminution would in no way hinder the body's function? But as to what they say — that if that part of the member was not necessary, it ought not to have been made by the Creator, and if it was made of necessity, it ought not to be taken away — let us too question them, whether they call the procreation of children necessary. Without doubt they will answer that it is necessary. Blameworthy, then, will be those who, under the pretext of continence and virginity, do not serve the necessary functions of nature; and all will have to be compelled to marriage who, according to the laws of the Gospel, "have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of God," having as the author of this example both many others of the saints and also the Lord Jesus himself. But in sum it must be said that, just as many baptisms were necessary before the baptism of Christ, and many purifications before purification through the Holy Spirit came about, and many victims before Christ, the one victim, the spotless Lamb, offered himself as a victim to the Father — so also there was need of many circumcisions, until the one circumcision in Christ should be handed down to all; and the shedding of the blood of many went before, until through the blood of one the redemption of all should be accomplished. These things indeed are what could occur to us at present concerning the rationale of circumcision; yet let them be said by us under this rule, that if anyone shall have spoken better and more reasonably, his views rather than these of ours should be held.

But after a digression perhaps more ample than is fair, let us return to the conclusion of the Apostle's chapter. Since, therefore, this treatment is frequent with the Apostle, whereby he indicates that in each single person there are two men — of whom he is accustomed to name the one outer, the other inner, and says that the one is according to the flesh, the other according to the spirit (instructed, I suppose, from those things which are written in Genesis, where one is reported to have been made to the image of God, the other formed from the mud of the earth) — and these same he now calls the one a Jew in the open, the other a Jew in secret: it must be known that each of these two makes use of practices that are in some respects discordant, but in some cases shared. For there are certain things which take their beginning from the inner man and reach as far as the outer; while others, begun from the outer man, reach as far as the inner. What I mean is this. If chastity takes its beginning from the inner man, it reaches without doubt as far as the outer. For it cannot happen that a man who does not first commit adultery in his heart should be able to commit adultery in his body. But it does not follow at once that if someone begins from the chastity of the outer man, he also arrives at inner continence, so that if he does not commit adultery in the body, he does not commit adultery in the heart either. According to these things, then, let the circumcision of the inner and of the outer man be understood by allegorical rules, when that inner man no longer lusts in the heart, and this outer one no longer serves lust in the body: so that he is said to be circumcised in the flesh whom the Apostle declares to be no longer in the flesh, but in the spirit, and who mortifies the deeds of the flesh through the spirit.

But since he who is circumcised has given up some flesh to destruction and preserved some unharmed, in that which he gave up to destruction I think that flesh is signified of which it is written: "All flesh is grass, and all its glory as the flower of grass." But the flesh which is preserved and remains unharmed, I think, holds the form of that flesh of which it is said that "all flesh shall see the salvation of God." But there is need of ears able to hear what that flesh is which perishes, and what that flesh is which shall see the salvation of God — which after the laying aside of the flesh of the foreskin remains safe, when the other has fallen away like the flower of grass. And whoever understands this will find that the forms of immense mysteries have been set forth beforehand in the rationale of circumcision, and will find that he who is a Jew in secret, and who is circumcised in the inner man, so far surpasses and is more eminent than him who is a Jew according to the flesh, as that Judah surpasses and is eminent — whom his brothers praise together, and who slept as a lion and was raised up as a lion's whelp — over that Judah who was born from the loins of Jacob according to the flesh.

This is the true Jew, for everything which was previously done externally was but an image of what was meant to happen internally.

Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

On exactly the same principle, they consider the special soil of Judµa to be that very holy land, which ought rather to be interpreted of the Lord's flesh, which, in all those who put on Christ, is thenceforward the holy land; holy indeed by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost, truly flowing with milk and honey by the sweetness of His assurance, truly Judµan by reason of the friendship of God. For "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly." In the same way it is that both God's temple and Jerusalem (must be understood) when it is said by Isaiah: "Awake, awake, O Jerusalem! put on the strength of thine arm; awake, as in thine earliest time," that is to say, in that innocence which preceded the fall into sin.

And so to the Law presently had to succeed the Word of God introducing the spiritual circumcision. Therefore, by means of the wide licence of those days, materials for subsequent emendations were furnished beforehand, of which materials the Lord by His Gospel, and then the apostle in the last days of the (Jewish) age, either cut off the redundancies or regulated the disorders.

Thus, he rebukes not circumcision (which he apparently respects), but the one who insults or transgresses it. Then, having proved this, he clearly defines who is a true Jew, and gives to understand that the Jews did everything out of vainglory. "For he is not a Jew," he says, "who is one outwardly, but he who is one inwardly," who does nothing in a merely sensory manner, but understands spiritually both the sabbaths, and the sacrifices, and the purifications.

Then when he says for he is not a Jew who is so outwardly, he assigns the reason for his statements. First, he gives the reason; second, he proves it, at whose praise.

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he assigns the reason why circumcision or Judaism without observance of the law is fruitless; second, why observance of the law without Judaism and circumcision has value, at but he who is one inwardly.

He says, therefore, that circumcision in one who breaks the law is uncircumcision and will be judged by the uncircumcised who obey the law, for he is not a real Jew, who is so outwardly, according to carnal birth: for all are not Israelites that are of the circumcision, but they who are the children of the promise (Rom 9:6, 8). Similarly, true circumcision is not that which appears in the flesh, for it is a sign: it shall be a sign of the covenant between you and me (Gen 17:11). But it is not a true sign, unless the reality signified corresponds to it. Hence, if a Jew transgressed the covenant, his circumcision would not be true; consequently, it would be regarded as uncircumcision.

It is clear why Paul denies that the circumcision of the flesh has any merit with God. For Abraham was not justified because he was circumcised; rather, he was justified because he believed, and afterward he was circumcised. It is the circumcision of the heart which is praiseworthy before God. To circumcise the heart means to cut out error and recognize the Creator. And because the circumcision of the heart was to come in the future, first Moses said: "Circumcise the hardness of your heart," and Jeremiah also: "Circumcise the foreskin of your heart." He said this to Jews who were following idols. For there is a veil over the heart which the one who is converted to God circumcises, because faith removes the cloud of error and grants those who are perfect knowledge of God in the mystery of the Trinity, which was unknown in earlier times. The praise of this circumcision is from God but is hidden to men, for it is the merit of the heart which God looks for, not that of the flesh. But the praise of the Jews is from men, for they glory in the circumcision of the flesh, which comes from their ancestors.

This means that the law should be understood according to the Spirit, and not according to what the letter says. This pertains especially to those who have interpreted circumcision more according to the flesh than according to the Spirit.

He impoverishes himself, in order that he may never overlook a brother who has been brought into affliction, through the perfection that is in love, especially if he know that he will bear want himself easier than his brother. He considers, accordingly, the other's pain his own grief; and if, by contributing from his own indigence in order to do good, he suffer any hardship, he does not fret at this, but augments his beneficence still more. For he possesses in its sincerity the faith which is exercised in reference to the affairs of life, and praises the Gospel in practice and contemplation. And, in truth, he wins his praise "not from men, but from God," by the performance of what the Lord has taught.

The apostle testifies without any hesitation that those who walk according to the teaching of Christ—in the spirit, not in the letter—are the Israel of God.

"But he is a Jew which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter." By saying this he sets aside all things bodily. For the circumcision is outwardly, and the sabbaths and the sacrifices and purifications: all of which he hints in a single word, when he says, "For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly." But since much was made of the circumcision, inasmuch as even the sabbath gave way to it (John vii. 22), he has good reason for aiming more especially against it. But when he has said "in the spirit" he thereafter paves the way for the conversation of the Church, and introduces the faith. For it too is in the heart and spirit and hath its praise of God. And how cometh he not to show that the Gentile which doeth aright is not inferior to the Jew which doeth aright, but that the Gentile which doeth aright is better than the Jew which breaketh the Law? It was that he might make the victory an undoubted one. For when this is agreed upon, of necessity the circumcision of the flesh is set aside, and the need of a good life is everywhere demonstrated. For the Greek is saved without these, but the Jew with these is yet punished, Judaism stands by doing nothing. And by Greek he again means not the idolatrous Greek, but the religous and virtuous, and free from all legal observances.

This is foretold in the law: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God," and again: "Circumcise yourselves to the Lord, and remove the foreskin of your heart," not according to the letter of the law but according to the New Testament, which examines the inner secrets which only God can see.

Now it is quite within the purpose of the God of the law that circumcision should be that of the heart, not in the flesh; in the spirit, and not in the letter. Since this is the circumcision recommended by Jeremiah: "Circumcise (yourselves to the Lord, and take away) the foreskins of your heart; " and even of Moses: "Circumcise, therefore, the hardness of your heart," -the Spirit which circumcises the heart will proceed from Him who prescribed the letter also which clips the flesh; and "the Jew which is one inwardly" will be a subject of the self-same God as he also is who is "a Jew outwardly; " because the apostle would have preferred not to have mentioned a Jew at all, unless he were a servant of the God of the Jews.

"Spiritual" here does not refer to the Holy Spirit. For Paul is not talking about those who have been put right by grace but is referring above all to those outside the faith who do the works of the law and who show themselves to be better than those transgressors who are under the law.

When he says: "circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit," he paves the way for the Christian way of life and shows the necessity of faith; for believing with the heart and spirit has praise from God, who searches the hearts and judges nothing according to the flesh. From all this it follows that everywhere a righteous life is needed. By the name of the uncircumcised or gentile he means, as was said above, not an idolater, but a pious and virtuous person who does not, however, observe Jewish rites.

Then when he says but he who is one inwardly, he assigns the reason why the uncircumcision of one who keeps the law is regarded as circumcision and will judge bodily circumcision. The reason is that he is truly a Jew who is one inwardly, i.e., whose heart is possessed by the precepts of the law, which the Jews professed: your Father who sees in secret will repay you (Matt 6:6).

Again, true circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, i.e., made by one's spirit, which expels superfluous thoughts from the heart. Or in the spirit, i.e., effected by a spiritual understanding of the law, and not in the letter: for we are the true circumcision who worship God in spirit (Phil 3:3).

Then when he says whose praise he proves this reason.

For it is obvious that in all matters the divine judgment must prevail over the human. Now things that appear outwardly, such as Judaism or circumcision, are praised by men, but things that exist within are judged according to God's judgment, because man looks on the outward appearance, but the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam 16:7).

Hence, inward Judaism and circumcision prevail over the outward. And this is what he says: whose praise, i.e., of inward circumcision, is not of men but of God: it is not the man who commends himself that is accepted, but the man whom the Lord commends (2 Cor 10:18).

"What advantage then hath the Jew?" Since he has set all aside, the hearing, the teaching, the name of the Jew, the circumcision, and all the other particulars by his saying that "he is not a Jew which is one outwardly, but he which is one inwardly;" he next sees an objection which starts up, and against this makes his stand. Now what is this objection? If, he means, these things are no use, what reason was there for that nation being called, and the circumcision too being given? What does he then and how does he solve it? By the same means as he did before: for as there, he told, not of their praises, but the benefits of God; nor their well doings (for to be called a Jew and to know His Will and to approve the things which are more excellent, was no well doing of their own, but came of the grace of God: and this the Prophet also says, upbraiding them; "He hath not done so to any nation, neither hath he showed His judgments unto them;" (Ps. cxlvii. 20.) and Moses again; "Ask now whether there hath been any such thing as this?" he says, "did ever people hear the voice of God speaking out of the midst of the fire, and live?") (Deut. iv. 32, Deut. iv. 33), this then he does here also.

Having cast aside all the ordinances of the law with the words "what advantage is there in being a Jew," he sees an objection naturally arising and forestalls it. What is this objection? The following: if there is not the slightest benefit in those ordinances, then why, after all, was the Jewish people chosen? He resolves this objection with his characteristic wisdom. In words he agrees and says that there is great benefit to the Jew, but as proof of this he brings forward not the merits of the Jews, but the gifts of God.

After showing that Judaism, which involved receiving the law and circumcision, is not sufficient for salvation without the law's observance, through which the gentile without external Judaism and circumcision obtains the fruit of each, he now objects to his own doctrine: first, he presents the objection; second, he answers it, at much every way.

First, he objects: if what I say is so, i.e., that the true Jew and true circumcision are not something outward but inward in the heart, what advantage then has the Jew, i.e., what has been given to him more than to others? It seems to be nothing. But this is not fitting, since the Lord had said: the Lord, your God, has chosen you to be a people for his own possession (Deut 7:6). Or what is the profit of circumcision, i.e., outward? It seems from his previous teaching that there is no value. But this is not fitting, since it was imposed by God, who says: I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you unto profit (Isa 48:17).

Although Paul says that there are many things which pertain to the honor and merit of the seed of Abraham, he records only one of them openly, because it is their greatest boast: They were judged worthy to receive the law, by which they learned to distinguish right from wrong. Only after that was it possible for the value of other things to be understood. But as far as the Jews according to the flesh are concerned (that is, the unbelievers among them), Paul shows that the witness of their race is of no advantage to them. But so as not to appear to be treating them all, including the believers among them, badly, he teaches that the law is very useful to Jewish believers, because they are children of Abraham.For it was to them that the oracles of God were entrusted. It is by the merits of their ancestors that they received the law and were called God's people.… Egypt was hit by different plagues because of the wrongs which it did to them. They dined on heavenly manna; they were a terror to all nations, as Rahab the harlot bore witness. Moreover, it was to them that Christ the Savior was promised for their sanctification. Therefore Paul says that in many ways it was useful to the Jews, because they were the children of Abraham and came before the Gentiles.

When Paul says "To begin with," he does not go on to list a second or third item. He means rather that what he begins with is comprehensive of all good things. For what could be better than to believe the words of God?

"Much every way: chiefly, because that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." Do you see that, as I said above, it is not their well doings, but the benefits of God, that he everywhere counts up? And what is the word "entrusted?" It means, that they had the Law put into their hands because He held them to be of so much account that He entrusted to them oracles which came down from above. I know indeed that some take the "entrusted" not of the Jews, but of the oracles, as much as to say, the Law was believed in. But the context does not admit of this being held good. For in the first place he is saying this with a view to accuse them, and to show that, though in the enjoyment of many a blessing from above, they yet showed great ingratitude. Then, the context also makes this clear. For he goes on to say, "For what if some did not believe?" If they did not believe, how do some say, the oracles were believed in? What does he mean then? Why that God entrusted the same to them, and not that they trusted to the oracles.

In this Epistle Paul, sitting as a kind of arbiter between the Jews and the Greeks — that is, those who believe from among the Gentiles — so summons and invites both to faith in Christ that he neither gives offense to the Jews by utterly destroying the Jewish rites, nor casts the Gentiles into despair by confirming the observance of the law and the letter; and whether he makes mention of the promises or of the punishments, he divides his word to each people. As, for example, when he says: "But to those who are of contention, and who indeed distrust the truth, but believe iniquity, wrath and indignation: tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that worketh evil, of the Jew first, and of the Greek." This concerns the punishments. But concerning the promises he adds: "But glory, and honor, and peace to everyone that worketh good, to the Jew first, and to the Greek." Again he seems to speak of the Gentiles: "For whosoever have sinned without the law, shall perish without the law." And again of the circumcised: "And as many as have sinned in the law, shall be judged by the law." But again, lifting up the Gentiles, he says: "For when the Gentiles, who have not the law, do by nature those things that are of the law, these, not having the law, are a law unto themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts," and so forth. And again he turns his discourse to the Jews, saying: "But if thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law," and the rest, up to that place where he says: "For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." And lest he should seem to be excessive in his rebukes of the Jews, he says: "Circumcision indeed profiteth, if thou keep the law." But again, lest he should exalt those who place too much glory in circumcision, he added: "But if thou art a transgressor of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision." And in order to lift up a little also the spirits of those who believe from among the Gentiles, he adds: "But if the uncircumcision keep the just ordinances of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be reckoned for circumcision?" And that he might more strongly raise up the spirits of the Gentiles, and that they might know that they can, if they observe the law more perfectly, even become better than the Jews, he says: "And that which by nature is uncircumcision, fulfilling the law, shall judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision art a transgressor of the law." But since he knew that there are many promises in the Law and the Prophets which seem to be made to the Jews, lest the Gentiles should be able to despair as though they had no fellowship in the promises there recorded, he teaches them that according to the mystical reckoning they too are Jews, and have circumcision. Therefore he says: "For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, neither is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh; but he is a Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."

But since in all these things he had in a certain way made the cause of the Gentiles superior, again, as though meeting the complaints of those who are of the circumcision, he sets before himself the things which are contained in the present chapter, saying: "What then is the advantage of the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way." If therefore, he says, he "who is a Jew outwardly, and that which is circumcision outwardly in the flesh," is not reckoned as such, "but he who is a Jew inwardly, and circumcision of the heart," which is made "in the spirit," is itself the true circumcision, you will say to me: What is the advantage in those Jews who are reckoned by this appellation? or what profit is held in bodily circumcision? To these things, lest he should seem to have sat as a less than just arbiter between the two peoples, he declares what advantage the Jew has, and that circumcision which is in the flesh, and says that they have much advantage in every way. And what that great advantage is he adds: "First," he says, "because the oracles of God were entrusted to them." For although the oracles of God are now entrusted to the Gentiles also, yet to them, he says, they were entrusted first.

Yet I inquire what it means when it is said that to them first the oracles of God were entrusted: whether he says this of the letters and books, or of the sense and understanding of the law. For we see very many of the Jews always learning from infancy even to old age, and never arriving at the knowledge of the truth: and how will that seem to be true which is said, that they have something more in this, that to them first the oracles of God were entrusted, in which they understand "neither the things which they say, nor the things concerning which they affirm"? But if, according to Solomon, he is called wise who "understands the things that are from his own mouth, and" who "carries understanding upon his lips": these things must be understood as said of Moses and the prophets, and the rest like them, to whom the oracles of God were entrusted, since it cannot be doubted that they too were Jews and had circumcision: but also, if there was among them any wise man, and understanding hearer, and wonderful counselor, whom the Lord is said to take away from Jerusalem, being offended at the impieties of the people. For thus says Isaiah: "Behold the sovereign Lord of Sabaoth shall take away from Jerusalem and from Judah the strong and the mighty"; and after a little: "And the prophet," he says, "and the diviner, and the elder, and the captain of fifty, and the wonderful counselor, and the wise architect, and the prudent hearer." To such as these, then, it must be judged that the divine oracles were first entrusted, and in these it must be confessed that there was much advantage in every way; but also if there were any others like these, as the Apostle recalls what is written in the books of Kingdoms: "I have left me seven thousand men, who have not bowed their knees before Baal." But the apostles of Christ themselves also, and Paul himself, the vessel of election, coming from the Jews and from the circumcision, had an advantage in every way over those whom he taught from among the Gentiles. For the oracles of God were entrusted to them.

But this very thing also which he says, "Because the oracles of God were entrusted to them," must be considered: that he did not say that the letters were entrusted, but "the oracles of God." Whence a way is given us of understanding that to those who read and do not understand, and who read and do not believe, the letter alone has been entrusted, that letter of which the Apostle says that "the letter killeth": but the oracles of God have been entrusted to those who, understanding and believing the things which Moses wrote, believe also in Christ, as the Lord also says: "But if you had believed Moses himself, you would surely have believed me also: for he wrote of me." But be it so: let the Jew have an advantage in the letters, let him have something also in the oracles of God: have those who come from among the Gentiles to Christ been utterly abandoned? or is there also for them a place where they have something more?

Hear the Lord saying to the centurion, a believer from among the Gentiles: "Amen I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith." See therefore how much more the Gentiles have when it comes to faith; concerning whom the Lord says in another place: "For they shall come from the east and the west, and from the four winds of the earth, and shall recline with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob in the kingdom of God: but the sons of the kingdom shall be cast out into the outer darkness." Where, then, it is a question of laws and letters, the Jews have more, "much in every way"; but where it is a question of faith, so that I may speak by way of comparison, the Gentiles have more, "much in every way." It must indeed be asked whether it is also to be said of the Samaritans that to them first the oracles of God were entrusted, since indeed even among them the law of Moses appears to be kept. But of them I would say that not even that letter itself which is said to kill was entrusted to them. For the prophet says of them: "Woe to those who despise Mount Zion, and who trust in the mountain of Samaria"; for they indeed make themselves strangers to "the writings of God," repudiating the prophets. But neither of the heretics, who speak iniquity against the Most High, and who by their impiety divide the unity of the Godhead, and who separate the law from the Gospels, would I say that the oracles of God have been entrusted to them, merely on the ground that the divine volumes appear to be read among them; but since they perceive nothing spiritual in them, nothing worthy of God, I would say that among them only that letter which kills has a place. But if perchance the Jews are unwilling to accept the judgment of our Apostle, which says that "the letter" of the law "kills," and think that an injury is done to the law if it seems to be despised according to the letter, let us return to Moses himself, and let us see how great he himself made the letter of the law; who, when he had received the stone tablets inscribed by the finger of God, paid such honor to the letter of the law that he cast the tablets from his hands, and shattered tablets written indeed by the finger of God, and yet was not on this account charged with the fault of impiety. You see, therefore, that not Paul alone despises the letter of the law, but long before him Moses both despised, and cast away, and ground to pieces the letters of the law, doubtless signifying even then this, that the honor and the power of the law lay not in the letters, but in the spirit. But also the Lord in the Gospel, when he says, speaking to the Jews: "The kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation producing its fruit"—I think that he called the meaning of the law the kingdom of God, which was taken away from the Jews, only the letters of the law remaining with them, and was given to the Gentiles, who are able through faith to produce the fruit of the spirit. Since these things are so, why are we so cowardly and slothful that we do not at last, having cast off all malice, hasten with simplicity and purity of heart to receive the oracles of God, and to grasp from them the mind of Christ, seeing that we hear that in them is the kingdom of God? Certainly let each one, according to his strength, take in what oracles of God he can; and if he is fit for solid food, let him receive those oracles of God which are the wisdom that the Apostle speaks among the perfect. But he who is not yet fit for this, let him receive the oracles of God in which he recognizes nothing more than Christ Jesus, and him crucified. He who cannot do even this, let him receive the oracles of God in such a way that he uses milk and not strong food. But if he is still weak in faith, let him take the oracles of God in vegetables. Only let us all alike know that "the oracles of God" are "chaste oracles," and "silver tried by fire, proved of the earth, purified sevenfold": that is, that in chastity and in holiness of heart and body we may keep the divine oracles.

He did not say that the Jews greatly surpass the other nations because they carried out such and such things well, but that "to them were entrusted the oracles of God," and this is a benefaction of God, not their own superiority. What does "entrusted" mean? Given, committed to their care; God deemed the Jews worthy and therefore entrusted to them the heavenly revelations.

Then when he says much every way, he answers the objection: first, in regard to Judaism's prerogative; second, in regard to the value of circumcision, at what shall we say then? (Rom 4:1). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows Judaism's prerogative; second, he rejects their boasting over the gentiles, at what then? Do we excel them? (Rom 3:9). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his position; second, he explains it, at first indeed; third, he excludes an objection, at for what if some.

First, therefore, he says: the question is raised what advantage has the Jew. The advantage is both quantitative, which is indicated when he says much, and numerical, which is indicated when he says in every way. For they have an advantage both in contemplating divine matters: in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1) and in the provision of temporal things: he has not dealt thus with any other nation (Ps 147:20). They have further advantages relating to their ancestors, to the promises, and to their offspring: to whom belongs the adoption as of children and the glory and the testament (Rom 9:4). In each of these there is no small advantage, but great and important ones, which are summed up when he says much. For man's greatest good lies in knowing God, in clinging to God, and in being instructed by God: blessed is the man whom you teach out of your law (Ps 93:12).

Then when he says first indeed, he explains his statement, saying: first indeed, i.e., the chief advantage is that the words of God were committed to them, as to his friends: I have called you friends (John 15:15). This is important, because the words of God are trustworthy: the ordinances of the Lord are true and just altogether (Ps 19:9) and pleasant: how sweet are your words to my taste (Ps 119:103) and useful for avoiding sin: I have laid up your word in my heart, that I may not sin against you (Ps 119:11).

Paul says this because it was not foreordained that believing Jews would not be thought worthy of receiving what God had promised just because the others were unbelieving, for the promise was such that the gift of grace would be given to those who believed.Therefore God is not put out because of the unbelief of the Jews and will grant eternal life to their believers, which he promised would be given to those who believed in Christ. Those who did not believe excluded themselves from consideration without doing the rest any injury. Having said this, Paul commends Jewish believers, because it was not their fault that many of their kinsmen refused to believe.

Let it be agreed, Paul says, that God is faithful and true in every case, whereas men have been judged as unfaithful and untrue, so that God by his goodness may conquer the self-righteousness of men by bestowing his own righteousness upon them.

Of the Greek: but glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good."

Nor ought it, my dearest brother, to disturb any one who is faithful and mindful of the Gospel, and retains the commands of the apostle who forewarns us; if in the last days certain persons, proud, contumacious, and enemies of God's priests, either depart from the Church or act against the Church, since both the Lord and His apostles have previously foretold that there should be such. Nor let any one wonder that the servant placed over them should be forsaken by some, when His own disciples forsook the Lord Himself, who performed such great and wonderful works, and illustrated the attributes of God the Father by the testimony of His doings. And yet He did not rebuke them when they went away, nor even severely threaten them; but rather, turning to His apostles, He said, "Will ye also go away? " manifestly observing the law whereby a man left to his own liberty, and established in his own choice, himself desires for himself either death or salvation. Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God: " signifying, doubtless, and showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God; but that, on the other hand, they are not the plantation planted by God the Father, whom we see not to be established with the stability of wheat, but blown about like chaff by the breath of the enemy scattering them, of whom John also in his epistle says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us." Paul also warns us, when evil men perish out of the Church, not to be disturbed, nor to let our faith be lessened by the departure of the faithless. "For what," he says, "if some of them have departed from the faith? Hath their unbelief made the faith of God of none effect? God forbid! For God is true, but every man a liar."

Yet although, in these last times, evangelic rigour has not so failed in the Church of God, nor the strength of Christian virtue or faith so languished, that there is not left a portion of the priests which in no respect gives way under these ruins of things and wrecks of faith; but, bold and stedfast, they maintain the honour of the divine majesty and the priestly dignity, with full observance of fear. We remember and keep in view that, although others succumbed and yielded, Mattathias boldly vindicated God's law; that Elias, when the Jews gave way and departed from the divine religion, stood and nobly contended; that Daniel, deterred neither by the loneliness of a foreign country nor by the harassment of continual persecution, frequently and gloriously suffered martyrdoms; also that the three youths, subdued neither by their tender years nor by threats, stood up faithfully against the Babylonian fires, and conquered the victor king even in their very captivity itself. Let the number either of prevaricators or of traitors see to it, who have now begun to rise in the Church against the Church, and to corrupt as well the faith as the truth. Among very many there still remains a sincere mind and a substantial religion, and a spirit devoted to nothing but the Lord and its God. Nor does the perfidy of others press down the Christian faith into ruin, but rather stimulates and exalts it to glory, according to what the blessed Apostle Paul exhorts, and says: "For what if some of these have fallen from their faith: hath their unbelief made the faith of God of none effect? God forbid. For God is true, but every man a liar." But if every man is a liar,and God only true, what else ought we, the servants, and especially the priests, of God, to do, than forsake human errors and lies, and continue in the truth of God, keeping the Lord's precepts?

You have written also, that on my account the Church has now a portion of herself in a state of dispersion, although the whole people of the Church are collected, and united, and joined to itself in an undivided concord: they alone have remained without, who even, if they had been within, would have had to be cast out. Nor does the Lord, the protector of His people, and their guardian, suffer the wheat to be snatched from His floor; but the chaff alone can be separated from the Church, since also the apostle says, "For what if some of them have departed from the faith? shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God forbid; for God is true, but every man a liar." And the Lord also in the Gospel, when disciples forsook Him as He spoke, turning to the twelve, said, "Will ye also go away? "then Peter answered Him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the word of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure, that Thou art the Son of the living God." Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another.

For the Lord chose Judas also among the apostles, and yet afterwards Judas betrayed the Lord. Yet not on that account did the faith and firmness of the apostles fail, because the traitor Judas failed from their fellowship: so also in the case in question the holiness and dignity of confessors is not forthwith diminished, because the faith of some of them is broken. The blessed Apostle Paul in his epistle speaks in this manner: "For what if some of them fall away from the faith, shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid: for God is true, though every man be a liar." The greater and better part of the confessors stand firm in the strength of their faith, and in the truth of the law and discipline of the Lord; neither do they depart from the peace of the Church, who remember that they have obtained grace in the Church by the condescension of God; and by this very thing they obtain a higher praise of their faith, that they have separated from the faithlessness of those who have been associated with them in the fellowship of confession, and withdrawn from the contagion of crime. Illuminated by the true light of the Gospel, shone upon with the Lord's pure and white brightness, they are as praiseworthy in maintaining the peace of Christ, as they have been victorious in their combat with the devil.

Paulus of Obba said: It does not disturb me if any man does not assert the faith and truth of the Church, since the apostle says, "For what if some of them have fallen away from the faith? Has their unbelief made the faith of God of no effect? By no means. For God is true, but every man a liar." But if God is true, how can the truth of baptism be among the heretics, among whom God is not?

"For what if some did not believe?" And what comes next makes the same point clear. For he again adds and follows; "Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." The word "entrusted," then, proclaims God's gift. And I would have you here also note his judgment. For again he does not bring in his accusation of them on his own part, but as it were by way of objection, as if he said, But perhaps you will say, `What then is the use of this circumcision since they used it not as was fitting, since they were trusted with the Law and were unfaithful to the trust?' And hitherto he is not a severe accuser, but as if to clear God of complaints against Him, he by this means turns the whole of the accusation round upon themselves. For why, he would say, do you complain that they did not believe? and how doth this affect God? For as for His benefit, doth the ingratitude of those benefited overturn it? Or doth it make the honor to be no honor? For this is what the words, "Shall their unfaithfulness make the faith of God without effect," amount to. "God forbid." As if one should say, I have honored such an one. And if he did not receive the honor, this gives no ground for accusing me, nor impairs my kindness, but shows his want of feeling. But Paul does not say this merely, but what is much more. That not only does their unbelief not leave the soil of complaint upon God, but even shows His honor and love of man to be the greater, in that He is seen to have bestowed honor upon one who would dishonor Him.

The oracles of God, therefore, were entrusted to those first ones of whom we spoke above; but some, as he says, did not believe, whether God or the oracles of God. You see that those who do not believe are themselves according to the flesh, of whom he says also elsewhere: "The natural man does not perceive the things which are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him." But their unbelief does not make void the faith of God. By "the faith of God" we understand either that faith which God has toward those to whom he entrusts his own oracles, or that faith by which those believe God who receive the divine oracles from him. We are admonished, therefore, that when the unfaithfulness of those who either do not come to faith, or fall away from it, perchance mocks us as we perform the works of faith—whether when we fast, or when we do deeds of mercy, or when we devote ourselves to study and to the law of God, or even when we endure torments for the martyrdom of Christ—we should always remember that their unfaithfulness does not make void the faith of God which is in us.

The faithfulness meant here is that to the promises made to Abraham, to whom it was said that "in your seed all the nations will be blessed."

God knew in advance who would obey the law and who would break it. Therefore those who did not believe were unable to stand in the way of his blessings.

Speaking thus, he outwardly defends them; but nevertheless brings forward a new accusation, proving that they did not believe the words of God, which served to their honor. But he presents this accusation not in his own person. He speaks as if to say: what benefit is it to the Jews that they received the oracles of God, when they did not believe them? It seems he resolves this objection as well, vindicating not the Jews, but God. If they did not believe, is this from God? Will their unbelief "nullify the faithfulness of God," that is, the oracles and beneficence entrusted to them? The unbelief of the Jews not only causes God no harm, but on the contrary, demonstrates His great love for mankind, because He does not deprive of His beneficence those who subsequently dishonor Him. Do you see how he accused the Jews by the very thing in which they boasted, that is, by the fact that they received the law?

Then when he says for what if some of them, he excludes an objection: first, he presents it; second, he rejects it by showing its consequences, at shall their unbelief; third, by showing that the consequence is unfitting, at but God is true.

Someone could belittle the Jews' prerogative by citing their ingratitude, through which they would seem to have set aside the value of God's message. Hence he says, what if some of them have not believed? Does this show that the Jew has no advantage, especially in the light of 2 Peter: it would have been better for them never to have known the way of justice than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandments delivered to them (2 Pet 2:21)? For they did not believe the lawgiver: they had no faith in his promises (Ps 106:24) or the prophets: for you are among unbelievers and destroyers (Ezek 2:6) or the Son of God: if I tell the truth, why do you not believe me? (John 8:46).

Then when he says shall their unbelief, he excludes this objection by showing the unsuitable conclusion it engenders. For if the Jews' prerogative were taken away on account of the unbelief of some, it would follow that man's unbelief would nullify God's faithfulness—which is an unacceptable conclusion. This is what he says: shall their unbelief, namely, of those who have not believed, make the faith of God without effect? This can be understood in two ways: in one way, as referring to the faith by which one believes in God. For the faith of believers is not nullified by those who have not believed, because the evil in some members of society does not nullify the good in other members: some of them he blessed and exalted and some of them he made holy and brought near to himself; some he cursed and brought low, and he turned them out of their place (Sir 33:12). This is against those of whom Augustine says in The Letter to the People of Hippo: what other motive inspires them and what else do they discuss save that when a bishop or cleric or monk or nun falls, they believe that all are such, but not all can be exposed? In another way, it can be understood as referring to the faith with which God is faithful in keeping his promises: he who promised is faithful (Heb 10:23). This faithfulness would be nullified, if it happened that the Jews had no advantage, just because some have not believed. For God promised to multiply that people and make it great: I will multiply your descendants (Gen 22:l6).

Does God lie? Truly He lies not, because it is impossible for God to lie. And further, does this impossibility arise from infirmity? No, truly, for how can He be Almighty if He cannot do all things? What then is impossible to Him? Not that which is difficult to His Power, but what is contrary to His Nature. It is impossible, it is said, for Him to lie. This impossibility comes not of infirmity, but of Power and Majesty, for truth admits not of falsehood, nor God's Power of the weakness of error. Wherefore let God be true and every man a liar.

Because God is true, he gives what he has promised. To fail is human, for the times and the foolishness of nature make man unstable in that he does not have foreknowledge. But God, for whom there is no future, remains unchanging, as he says: "I the Lord do not change." Therefore Paul says that all men are liars, and this is true. For nature is fallible and is not unreasonably called a liar. It may be a liar intentionally or accidentally, but we must not expect God to be like that, for he is perfect and full of good will and will accomplish what he has promised. He even confirms this by the prophetic oracle: "Thou art justified in thy sentence and blameless in thy judgment."

God in himself is true; you in yourself are a liar—in him you can be true!

If every man is a liar and God alone is true, what else ought we servants and bishops of God to do except to reject human errors and lies and to remain in the truth of God, obeying the precepts of the Lord?

Even if all men loved a lie before the coming of the truth, the true God nevertheless remained just, holding fast to the things which were proper to God and fulfilling everything which was said that was fitting.

The homeless scepticism of our time has reached a sub-conscious feeling that morality is somehow merely a matter of human taste—an accident of psychology. And if goodness only exists in certain human minds, a man wishing to praise goodness will naturally exaggerate the amount of it that there is in human minds or the number of human minds in which it is supreme. Every confession that man is vicious is a confession that virtue is visionary. Every book which admits that evil is real is felt in some vague way to be admitting that good is unreal. The modern instinct is that if the heart of man is evil, there is nothing that remains good. But the older feeling was that if the heart of man was ever so evil, there was something that remained good—goodness remained good. An actual avenging virtue existed outside the human race; to that men rose, or from that men fell away.

Thou wilt destroy all who speak a lie. I see a new thing. He who works evil is held in hatred; he who lies, perishes. Let us see which is more, to be held in hatred by the Lord, or to perish. He who is held in hatred by God is indeed unhappy, because he is held in hatred by the Lord: but he still lives. But he who speaks a lie and perishes, has already ceased to be. Therefore he who speaks a lie is more unhappy than he who works iniquity: for he who works iniquity is held in hatred; but he who speaks a lie, perishes. 'For the mouth that lies kills the soul.' And how is it written, 'That God may be truthful, but every man a liar'? But if whoever speaks a lie already perishes, and kills his own soul, and yet we all lie, then shall we all perish? Therefore, from what he says here, Thou wilt destroy all who speak a lie, and from what follows in the psalm, and from the very order, we can understand that he is speaking of heretics. For he who works iniquity kills only his own soul; but he who is a heretic, and speaks a lie, kills as many men as he has led astray.

After these things, what follows seems indeed to have been joined on with less orderly arrangement; for he says: "But let God be true, and every man a liar, as it is written: That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged." Nevertheless, by a certain turn of thought we shall attempt to fit this to what precedes. Although, he says, some of the Jews have not believed, yet concerning their unfaithfulness this must be said, that God alone is true, but every man is a liar: because even if someone is just, it is nevertheless necessary that in some point he fall away from the truth, which it is well-nigh impossible for human nature to preserve in all things. Since, therefore, every man is a liar, on this account certain of the Jews, as lying men, did not believe. For since every man is a liar, necessarily on that day, when the Lord shall come to judgment with men, he alone will be justified in his words. For his words are true in all things, because they are the words of truth. But that the Lord comes to judgment with men, the prophet says: "Come, and let us be judged together, says the Lord"; and: "The Lord himself will come to judgment with the elders of the people"; and again: "Remember thou, and let us be judged, says the Lord." These things the Apostle introduced with an eye to that objection which he sets before himself in another place, where he says: "But if our injustice commends the justice of God." Concerning which we shall inquire when we come to its place. Now, therefore, let us see what it is that he says: "But let God become true, and every man a liar." For thus it stands in the Greek copies. For the Latins read "let him be" (sit) instead of "let him become" (fiat). First, then, this is to be known, that what he said, "let it become," he does not say in the imperative mood. For it is foolish if it be thought that God must be commanded to become true. But just as we say: "Thy will be done, as in heaven, so also on earth"; or, as again we say: "Let peace be made in thy strength"—not commanding, but wishing, nay rather declaring, and so forth, since peace cannot be made except in the power of God—so also here the saying is to be taken as that of one declaring: "But let God become true, and every man a liar." But this too is to be known, that this saying, that is, "Every man is a liar," is taken from the one hundred and fifteenth psalm, where it says: "I said in my ecstasy: Every man is a liar." But here, for the more evident illumination of the Apostle's meaning, let it not seem burdensome to readers if we briefly expound the content of the psalm itself, from which he takes his testimony.

It seems to me, then, that the Prophet is announcing some such meaning as this. Although there are, he says, many doctrines among men, and many philosophize about the search for truth, and although in all these questions the Son of God ought to come first: others indeed, who sought without first believing, did not find; but I, because I believed before I sought, therefore found what I was seeking, and not only found it, but also spoke, and announced to the peoples the truth I had found. Nor yet, having found the truth, was I lifted up in wisdom, nor puffed up in my knowledge; but I was all the more humbled, when I recognized and understood that it is the Lord who teaches all knowledge. Then, considering what things and how many the men — whether among the philosophers or among the rest of the barbarians — have said about truth, and that, though saying much with great labor, they found nothing, because they did not believe before they sought: considering all their sayings or writings, and being placed in an ecstasy of mind, that is, struck with astonishment of heart, because all those volumes of the philosophers, which seemed composed in splendid and dazzling speech, stood far off from the truth, being placed in ecstasy and in astonishment of mind I said: "Every man is a liar." But I, to whom God had shown these things, was not ungrateful, but I pondered and inquired within myself what gift I might render to the Lord in return for this, that the Lord had granted me the knowledge of the truth: yet I understood that that eternal nature, mistress of all things, has need of nothing. Therefore I found one thing only which I ought to offer to God, namely, that I should believe concerning him that he can never receive anything from man, but always give; and therefore I said: "I will take the cup of salvation"; as if I were answering him who says, "Can you drink the cup which I am about to drink?" and I should say: I can, Lord. So then I say: I will willingly and with my whole will take up the cup of your passion; and that I may preserve to the very end the grace of your cup, that is, of your passion, I will not act by my own strength, but "I will call upon the name of the Lord." For precious in your sight is the death which is undertaken for piety and for truth. According to this, therefore, the words "Every man is a liar" are also to be taken in the apostolic sayings, whether of him who trusts in the letter of the law without faith, or of him who glories in doctrines and writings of any kind whatever. But it is objected against us: If every man is a liar, then Paul himself, since he is a man, will be a liar. And David too, who said these things, since he was a man — if every man is a liar, he himself will also be a liar, and this very thing false which he says, "Every man is a liar," since he necessarily pronounces himself a liar along with the rest of men; and if he is a liar, surely what is said by a liar will not be true, namely that "every man is a liar." His statement, then, seems to have fallen into the syllogism which is called *aporos*, that is, "insubstantive" (without substance), which is also called false. But if we return to the inner understanding of Scripture, we shall find that all the prophets or apostles are among those to whom the word of God comes, as it is written: "And the word of the Lord came" to this or that prophet. These, then, to whom the word of God comes, the Lord in the Gospel declares to be not men, but gods. For he says thus: "But if he calls them gods to whom the word of God comes, and the Scripture cannot be broken." Since therefore the word of God came both to David as a prophet and to Paul as an apostle, without doubt they were not men, but gods, to whom the word of God came. Therefore, since they were not men but gods, what he pronounces about the rest of men, to whom the word of God did not come, is true, namely that "every man is a liar." But what follows is likewise taken from the fiftieth psalm, that is: "That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged." Now the complete sense in the psalm is set down in this way: "Against you only have I sinned, and done evil before you, that you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged." And since it is a great digression for us to go back to the beginning of the psalm, for the sake of brevity let us examine only this saying which we have set in the middle; in which at the very outset this explanation seems difficult. For if we follow the history which is written in the title of the psalm, it is there reported that, Uriah the Hittite having been killed, David took his wife. How then does he say, "Against you only have I sinned," when surely he sinned also against Uriah himself, and against his kinsmen, and also against Bathsheba herself and her whole house, upon which he seems to have brought the stain of adultery? But it must be known that the content of a psalm does not always follow the history of its title, as anyone who observes will find in a great many psalms. And to speak by way of example, the title of the seventeenth psalm is: "Unto the end," it says, "for David the servant of the Lord, who spoke the words of this song in the day when the Lord delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul, and he said." But the content of the psalm contains something far other than the title. For what foundations of the mountains were shaken? Or how was the earth made to tremble, when David was fighting against his enemies? Or where is it recorded that there was darkness under the feet of the Lord? Or where is it indicated that he ascended upon the cherubim and flew, or upon the wings of the winds, and nearly all the rest of the things which in every way disagree with the history of the title? In this manner, then, in the fiftieth psalm also there are things which do not fit according to the history. We must consider whether perhaps mention of the woman was made in the title figuratively, so that under this designation some such woman may be understood as either that valiant woman who is described as having made double cloaks for her husband, or certainly one contrary to her, such as those women who are said to have turned aside the heart of Solomon, so that he built altars to the nations, and idols. And these, when taken allegorically, are not from the divine wisdom, but from those things which are contrary to it, that is, sects alien from God. Such, then, can this wife of Uriah the Hittite also be understood to be — of a man alien from Israel — whom David, stationed on the upper places, beheld washing her uncleannesses in the waters and wishing to wash away her filth, and desired her and took her. But because it was not the will of the Lord that sects alien from the truth of God should be brought into the house of David, her first offspring and first fruit is extinguished, so that by a second progeny a wise king might be born of the foreign woman. But it is a long task to pursue the figures and riddles of these things. Yet that which pertains to the matter we shall briefly pursue. Since, he says, there is much subtlety in the variety of the sects, and since it belongs to no one to know or to judge which meaning is according to God and which is alien from God in the treatises and disputations of the wise, save to God alone, who alone can catch the wise in their own craftiness: therefore "against you only have I sinned, and done evil before you," because all the rest, being as they are natural men, cannot pass judgment on me, who am spiritual, even if I have erred: for "the spiritual man judges all things, but he himself is judged by no one." But since Paul adds "spiritual," and says: "But he who judges me is the Lord" — David too, knowing this, that the Lord alone is the one who judges the spiritual man or the prophet, therefore says: "Against you only have I sinned," by whom alone I can be judged. For man's day cannot judge the spiritual man. And what follows also looks to this sense: "That you may be justified in your words, and may overcome when you are judged." For God is judged in the disputations of the wise, while some think of God in this way, others in another, and each one differently. But he overcomes those who pass judgment on him, when, while all go astray, he himself reveals his own verdict concerning himself, how and in what manner he is to be believed and venerated.

"Every man" means the majority. Paul's opponents had quoted this text as if David had meant: "For this reason have I sinned, that thou might appear just in judging me." But the true meaning is that God promised to punish sinners without showing favoritism and that some thought his delay in doing so amounted to a lie. God prevails when he judges the deeds of those from whom no one thought vengeance would ever be exacted. Or it may also mean that God has shown that he is concerned about mankind … and that he has overthrown those who wrongly suggest that he is not interested in human affairs.

Human beings are thus given over to their own free will. Hence they are divided into two groups: those who prefer the worship of God and those who take the opposite path and come to a dire end, corresponding to their choice.

Above he said that some did not believe. Yet it turns out that not just some, but all proved faithless. Therefore, so as not to grieve the Jews, he speaks wisely and presents what was shown by experience in the form of a supposition. Let us say, he says, that all were faithless. What of it? Even in this case God is justified. That is: if one considers and compares what God bestowed upon the Jews and how they conducted themselves before Him, then righteousness remains on God's side, as David also says (Ps. 50:6).

Then when he says, God forbid! But God is true, he shows that it is unfitting for God's faithfulness to be nullified on account of men's unbelief. First, he gives a reason for this; second, he cites a text, at as it is written; third, he excludes a false understanding of this text, at but if our injustice.

The reason is based on the fact that God in himself is true: the Lord is the true God (Jer 10:10); this is the true God and life eternal (1 John 5:20); and every man a liar: I said in my consternation: men are all a vain hope (Ps 116:11). Hence, it is plain that man's mendacity or unbelief in not adhering to the truth does not nullify God's truth or faithfulness.

This is easier to understand, if we consider that truth implies agreement between thing and understanding. But things are in agreement with our understanding in one way and with God's in another way. For our intellect derives its knowledge from things; consequently, the cause and measure of our truth stems from the thing's being. For an opinion is called true or false depending on whether the thing is as stated or is not. Hence, our understanding can be true or it can be false, for it can be in agreement or disagreement. But whatever is open to being or not being needs someone acting to make it be; otherwise, it continues not to be. For as air without something illuminating it remains dark, so our intellect by itself, unless it is enlightened by the first truth, continues in falseness. Hence, of himself every man is false in his intellect and is true only in virtue of participating in the divine truth: send out your light and your truth (Ps 43:3). The divine intellect, on the other hand, is the cause and measure of things. For this reason it is of itself unfailingly true, and everything else is true inasmuch as it conforms to that intellect. Similarly, considering truth on the part of the thing, man of himself does not have truth, because his nature is convertible into nothing. Only the divine nature, which is not produced from nothing or convertible into nothing, has of itself truth.

Then when he says as it is written, he proves his statement on the authority of a text in a psalm: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged (Ps 51:4). How this is to the point can be gathered from considering what the Psalmist had said just ahead of it. For he says just before this, against you, you only, have I sinned, and then: that you may be justified in your words and may overcome when you are judged. For God through the prophet Nathan had promised David that he would establish his kingdom forever in his seed (2 Sam 7:16). But later, when he fell into serious sin, namely, adultery and murder (2 Sam 11:2ff.), some said that on account of these sins God would not keep the promises made to him.

Hence, the Psalmist's intention bears on two things. First, that God's justice, which involves keeping his promises, is not changed on account of sin. Touching on this he says, that you may be justified in your words, i.e., that you may be shown just in your words, since you do not disregard them because of my sins: all the words of my mouth are righteous (Prov 8:8); the Lord is faithful in all his words (Ps 145:13). Second, that God's promise imitates men's judgment. And this is what he says, and may overcome, namely, by keeping your promise, when you are judged, namely, by men, that on account of my sins you did not keep your promises: be not overcome by evil, but overcome evil by good (Rom 12:21), which is said to men. Accordingly, it is truer of God.

It should be noted that God's promise to David was to be fulfilled in Christ's Incarnation. Hence it was a predestinative prophecy, in which something is promised as destined to be fulfilled in every way; whereas something promised or foretold by a prophecy of warning is not predicted as destined to be fulfilled in every way but according to men's merits, which can change. Therefore, if the promise made to David had not been fulfilled, it would have been prejudicial to God's justice; whereas the non-fulfillment of a promise made through a prophecy of warning is not prejudicial to God's justice, but indicates a change in human merits. Hence it is written: if at any time I declare concerning a nation or a kingdom that I will pluck up and break down and destroy it, and if that nation turns from its evil, I will repent of the evil that I intended to do to it (Jer 18:7). Therefore, it is plain, according to this sense, that man's sin does not exclude God's faithfulness.

Other senses of this text are presented in the Gloss, but they are not closely related to the Apostle's intention. The first is that these words are linked with the words, wash me more thoroughly from my iniquity (Ps 50:4), to the end that you may be justified, i.e., appear just, in your words, in which you promised pardon to sinners not only in Ezekiel, because these words antedated that, but also in Leviticus: if they make amends for their iniquity, then I will remember my covenant (Lev 26:41), and Deuteronomy: if, led by repentance of heart, you turn to God, the Lord your God will bring you back, and have compassion on you (Deut 30:1). Thus you may overcome when you are judged by men that you ought not pardon me.

Second these words are connected with the verse against you only have I sinned, i.e., in comparison with you who alone are just. And this is what he means when he says that you may be justified, i.e., may you appear just in comparison to me and other sinners: the Lord is just, and loves justice (Ps 10:8), and this not only in deeds but also in your words, which is the greatest of all according to James, if anyone does not offend in word (Jas 3:2). And may overcome when you are judged, i.e., when you are compared to anyone else in judgment: judge between me and my vineyard (Isa 5:3).

Third, these words are referred to Christ, who alone is without sin: he committed no sin; no guile was found on his lips (2 Pet 2:22) and is, therefore, justified in his words as compared to all men. And overcome sin, death, and the devil: the Lion of the tribe of Judah has conquered (Rev 5:5), when you are judged unjustly by Pilate: your cause has been judged as that of the wicked (Job 36:17).

David had sinned in the case of Uriah the Hittite. Because he knew that the promise would not be given to sinners, he pleaded that the righteousness of the words of God might overrule the judgment which said that the promise should not be given to sinners and that it might sanctify the penitent in order to give him what God had promised he would give to the righteous. To this Paul adds that … if God is justified because we are sinners, it would be wrong of him to pardon us on that account. If it can really be said that our wickedness is of some advantage to God, then there is some measure of truth in this reasoning. But it is dangerous to speak like that. God is not unjust if he judges, because our unrighteousness is of no benefit to him. It is not as if he would somehow be justified by our sins or as if he would somehow rejoice at our sins, by which he alone would then appear to be righteous.This way of thinking suits men but not God, because it does not happen that God should ever be unjust, only man. Nor does our unrighteousness make God righteous if he gives to us sinners what he promised to the saints, for although we are sinners, we are reformed by repentance so that it is not as sinners but as those who have been cleansed that we are readied to receive the promise.

When adversities come … or when by God's just judgment hostility, dryness or death is imposed, we should attribute this to our sins rather than to God's injustice.

And God does not inflict punishment from wrath, but for the ends of justice; since it is not expedient that justice should be neglected on our account. Each one of us, who sins, with his own free-will chooses punishment, and the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame. "But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous, who taketh vengeance? God forbid." It is clear, then, that those who are not at enmity with the truth, and do not hate the Word, will not hate their own salvation, but will escape the punishment of enmity.

"But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall we say? is God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance? I speak as a man. God forbid." He solves one perplexity by another again. Yet as this is not clear, we must needs declare it more clearly. What is it then he means? God honored the Jews: they did despite to Him. This gives Him the victory, and shows the greatness of His love towards man, in that He honored them even such as they were. Since then, he means, we did despite to Him and wronged Him, God by this very thing became victorious, and His righteousness was shown to be clear. Why then (a man may say) am I to be punished, who have been the cause of His victory by the despite I did Him? Now how does he meet this? It is, as I was saying, by another absurdity again. For if it were you, he says, that were the cause of the victory, and after this are punished, the thing is an act of injustice. But if He is not unjust, and yet you are punished, then you are no more the cause of the victory. And note his apostolic reverence; for after saying, "Is God unrighteous Who taketh vengeance?" he adds, "I speak as a man." As if, he means, any body were to argue in the way men reason. For what things seem with us to be justice, these the just judgment of God far exceedeth, and has certain other unspeakable grounds for it.

"But if our iniquity commends the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who inflicts wrath? I speak according to man. God forbid. Otherwise, how shall God judge this world? For if the truth of God has abounded through my lie unto his glory, why am I also still judged as a sinner? and not (as we are blasphemed, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that good may come? whose condemnation is just." Perhaps the order of speaking arranged by the apostle Paul through nearly the whole text of this Epistle will seem highly inconsequent, since his discourse is now directed against the Gentiles, now moderated on behalf of the Gentiles, and again is set against the Jews, and again concerning the Jews, or even on behalf of the Jews; and of these same people he calls some worthy of praise and censures others. And this variety of meanings will again be thought to have led him outside the lines of the subject he had proposed — as when he employs that exclamation in which he says: "But let God be true, and every man a liar"; or even that which he consequently adds when he says: "But if our iniquity commends the justice of God," and the rest, so that by this he may seem to have slipped from one digression into another. But we who believe him when he says that "he has made us fit ministers of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit," find his meaning far loftier than the method of human art is believed to possess. For through the whole text of this Epistle he wishes to trace what salvation there was even before the coming of Christ for those living according to the law; or how, through the coming of the Savior, salvation is in turn conferred upon the Gentiles out of the unbelief of Israel; and again, that neither do the Gentiles come to salvation in their entirety, but only those who have believed; nor is Israel cast off in its entirety, but "the remnant" of believers "shall be saved." And for this reason the order of speaking seems, as I said, confused, while he pursues the diversities of believers and unbelievers on both sides. In these matters he necessarily turns his discourse also to God, so that amid all these differences of acceptances and rejections he may teach that the judgments of God are indeed true and just, but that much falsehood abounds among men; and therefore he says: "But let God be true, and every man a liar; as it is written: That thou mayest be justified in thy words, and mayest overcome when thou art judged" — concerning which we have spoken above as far as we were able. Seeing then that a plausible objection could be raised against him from the contrary side — namely, that if it is necessary for every man to be a liar in order that God may be true, and if the justice of God is commended through the injustice of men, then God will seem unjust who inflicts wrath upon men, since he sees his own justice approved through the injustice of men: for if our injustice, that is, the injustice of men, commends the justice of God, then surely those men will not seem worthy of punishment through whom the justice of God is held to be more provable and more manifest — But God forbid, he says, that we should accept it thus, that God should seem unjust who brings wrath against men. For how shall he be thought unjust who judges the world, since by the very name of judge it is shown that he does nothing without judgment? And where there is judgment, it is agreed that there is justice; for justice is named both judge and judgment. If then, as unjust men, he says, happen to assert of us, "the truth of God has abounded through my lie," then it is superfluous that "I am judged as a sinner." But rather that will be seen wherein they blaspheme us, he says, as though we were seen to say this: if the truth of God is more displayed in the lie of men, and his justice is proved through the injustice of men, then let us "do evil, that" out of evils "good may come"; and let us lie, so that from our lie the truth of God may shine forth. But these things indeed they invent about us who blaspheme us, as though these things seemed to be said, or to follow, from the logic of our own assertion. But the reasoning of our teaching in no way admits this, since we understand God to be a just and true judge. It should surely be known that in certain Greek copies it is found thus: "Is God unjust, who inflicts wrath against men?" And according to this sense the things we have said will seem to fit better. But according to what we find in the Latin copies, and in some of the Greek: "Is God unjust, who inflicts wrath? I speak according to man. God forbid" — it seems it must be understood in this way. This statement that "God is unjust who inflicts wrath," on the ground that "our injustice commends the justice of God," is not said according to God, nor according to the wisdom of God, but "according to man," and according to that which is said, "every man is a liar." Now these things we have said while still treating the very order of the discourses and the sequence of the statements, so that the division itself of the words might make the way of understanding more open to us. But now let us inquire what sense is to be held in these discourses according to apostolic worth. Every discipline consists of favorable things and of adverse or contrary ones. For example: medicine professes the knowledge not only of health but also of sickness; and although it pursues the study of health, it nevertheless cannot be ignorant of what belongs to sickness. Similarly prudence too consists in the knowledge of good and evil; and temperance knows what things are to be chosen and what are to be avoided; and fortitude is not ignorant of what pertains to fear. So also justice. If we wish to know what justice is, it is necessary for us to know what injustice is; and when we have grasped the full knowledge of injustice, from that very thing we shall come to know what justice also is; for when it has become clear what is unjust, consequently what is just also will appear. And since justice is in God, whose nature is inaccessible to human perception, but injustice is found in us men, or even in every rational creature, it is from this injustice of ours, which is known to us, that that justice of God which is, as it were, inaccessible and incomprehensible to us is known and commended, and as it were the contrary is disclosed from its contrary. The apostle Paul therefore marks the ignorance of those who raise an inconsequent question, thinking that God is unjust who brings wrath upon men, on the ground that his justice is commended from our injustice; not knowing, however, that it comes about not by the benefit of our sins but by the very nature of reason, that contraries are proved from contraries. Therefore the Apostle speaks thus: "But if our injustice commends the justice of God, what shall we say? Is God unjust, who inflicts wrath? I speak according to man. God forbid. Otherwise, how shall God judge the world?" God is therefore not proved unjust in this, if the method of instruction proves contraries from contraries, and commends justice from injustice; but rather, with full consistency, justice is worthily and deservedly hostile to injustice and opposed to it, just as life is hostile and opposed to death, and light to darkness. And therefore God, in whom righteousness resides, is said to bring wrath upon those men in whom unrighteousness dwells. For these two are by nature opposed to one another. And how, even on this very account, will God appear unrighteous, who opposes unrighteousness? And for this reason perhaps the Apostle did not say that we unrighteous men commend the righteousness of God; but he says: "If our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God" — so as to show that it is not God who is contrary to men, but righteousness that is contrary to unrighteousness; and that wrath is brought upon men because they have given a place to unrighteousness within themselves. God therefore, who is righteousness, will not appear unrighteous when He is angry against unrighteousness, toward which it is not fitting that He should be favorable; but this wrath reaches even to those men who have offered themselves as ministers of the unrighteousness at which God is angry. For in no one can unrighteousness and righteousness both subsist; but just as righteousness is the effect of a righteous and upright work, which is found first in God, and then also in those who imitate Him, so too unrighteousness is the effect of an unrighteous and crooked work, which is detected first in the devil, and then also in those who are willing to imitate him. And therefore wrath is deservedly said to be brought upon them, even though out of their unrighteousness, as by way of contrast, the righteousness of God seems to have shone forth. For they might, just as they received into themselves the disposition of an unrighteous and crooked work, much more have received that of a righteous and upright one. Justly, therefore, is wrath said to be brought by God upon all men. For those in whom wrath has no place are already to be called not men, but above men. And for this reason perhaps the same apostle Paul makes his pronouncement concerning all men, saying that "we were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." For he did not say, "We were children of wrath," but he added: "We were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest." For all men have been made by nature children of wrath, from the fact that they were gods and sons of the Most High, and through this were called men. For attend more diligently to how he says: "I said: You are gods, and sons of the Most High"; and he added, "all of you." This addition signifies the whole human race bound together at once under this title. Finally, in what follows he says: "But you shall die like men." Hence also that which is written: "And God reflected that He had made man upon the earth; and it repented Him in His heart, and God said: I will blot out man whom I have made from the face of the earth" — this I think was said not only with reference to the destruction of the flood, but that something was also foretold by it, under a mystery, concerning things to come: so that what is said, "I will blot out man," may be understood in the same way as when God says through the prophet: "For behold, I blot out your iniquities like a cloud"; that He may be seen to blot him out according to that which is man, so as afterwards to make him god, at that time when "God will be all in all." And to this sense may also be applied what is said in Genesis: "The time of every man has come before my sight" — so that it may be thought to have been said not only about that time of the flood then, but also about the mystery of baptism; just as the apostle Peter says that, as Noah was then saved from the flood, so now also in like manner believers are saved through baptism. And thus what he says, that "the time of every man" has come, can be understood with reference to salvation, so that believers are understood, through the grace of baptism, to be destined to be changed from men into a higher order, when the day of resurrection shall have come, where all the saints "shall be as the angels of God." Let this be what has been said, so far as it could occur to us, concerning that which was stated: "Is God unrighteous who brings wrath," or "against men," as we said is read in certain copies, or, as we have it, "I speak after the manner of man. God forbid."

Here he presents one objection. Some could say: if from the fact that God bestowed benefits upon us and we proved ungrateful to Him, He turns out to be even more faithful, then why is He angry, that is, why does He punish us, if we became the cause of His justification and victory? Such is the objection. The words "I speak in human terms" have this meaning. Thus, he says, I answer in God's defense according to human reasoning, that is, as far as a sensible person can answer, for the actions of God have certain grounds incomprehensible to us, surpass human reason, and have no need of our defense.

Then when he says, but if our wickedness, he excludes a false understanding of the text he cited. For someone might understand these words according to the sense that that would be taken in a causal, not a consecutive, sense. Then it would follow that man's sin would be directly ordained to commend God's justice. But the Apostle shows that this is false. Hence he says that that is used consecutively, on the ground that David sinned and then the manifestation of divine justice followed, but not causally, as if a man's sin commended God's justice.

He proves this by showing that it leads to something unfitting in two ways: first, on the part of divine judgment; second, on the part of human judgment. In regard to the first he does three things: first, he presents the false sense; second, he shows that something unfitting follows from this, at what shall we say? Is God unjust; third, he shows that it is unfitting, at God forbid!

It should be noted that above the Apostle had made two comparisons; in the first he compared divine truth to human falsity when he said: but God is true and every man a liar; in the second, God's justice to human sin, in the words of a psalm, where it is said: against you, you only, have I sinned (Ps 51:4), that you may be justified. In regard to the first comparison he says: if these words are taken to mean that our iniquity directly commends God's justice, what shall we say? In other words, we could not accept the unfittingness that follows. For sin is not necessary for God to have his justice commended: he does not desire a multitude of faithless and useless children (Sir 16:1).

He expresses the unfittingness that follows, when he says: is God unjust, who executes wrath, i.e., vengeance for sin. For this follows from the supposition. For if sin were directly ordained to commending justice, it would not be deserving of punishment but of reward. Consequently, God would be unjust in punishing men for sin, contrary to what is stated in Deuteronomy: God is faithful and without iniquity (Deut 32:4).

It is true that it would not have been just if God had judged the world if its sins were of some benefit to him, so that whenever sinners received forgiveness at his nod, God would appear to be good. Then if they had not sinned, according to this reasoning, he would not appear to be righteous. For if they had not sinned there would be nothing to forgive, and God would not be good. But this kind of thinking is absurd!

But as to what he says: "Otherwise how shall God judge the world," in this passage by "world" he means the men who are in this world, just as we read elsewhere, "that the whole world lies in the evil one"; which surely shows that the men who dwell in this world are set in wickedness.

The Apostle resolves it very wisely and to the reproach of the Jews. From the fact that God punishes you, it does not follow that you are the cause of God's victory; for it would be unjust for a victor to punish the one who was the cause of his victory. But God is not unjust: otherwise, how could God judge the world if He were unjust? Therefore, when God punishes you, and He is not unjust, it follows that you did not become the cause of His victory by sinning, for God could have prevailed otherwise even if you had not turned out to be evil.

He rejects this unfittingness, when he says God forbid, that God is unjust. I speak according to man, i.e., I say these words not from my understanding but from that of a man in error, as is said: for while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? (1 Cor 3:3).

He shows that this must not be admitted, adding: otherwise, namely, if God is unjust, how shall God judge this world, i.e., how could he be the universal and supreme judge of the world? For it is necessary that the first and highest item in every class be unerring, just as the first mover is unchangeable. Hence it is written: I will judge the world with justice (Ps 96:13). A like argument is presented in Job: of a truth God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice. Who gave him charge over the earth and who laid on him the whole world? (Job 34:12). In other words: if he were not to judge justly, it would be necessary to suppose that someone else is judge of the world.

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto His glory: why yet am I also judged as a sinner?" For if God, he means is shown to be a Lover of man, and righteous, and good, by your acts of disobedience, you ought not only to be exempt from punishment but even to have good done unto you. But if so, that absurdity will be found to result, which is in circulation with so many, that good comes of evil, and that evil is the cause of good; and one of the two is necessary, either that He be clearly unjust in punishing, or that if He punish not, it is from our vices that He hath the victory. And both of these are absurd to a degree.

After this let us now see how it was said: "For if the truth of God has abounded in my lie unto His glory." There are in this world many kinds of religions, many sects of philosophers, many teachings handed down with false assertions and composed with lying arguments, whose authors — though under a false title of wisdom — are nevertheless held to be men of no slight or contemptible authority; and it is from their prestige that false things have been received as true, so that they have taken possession of almost the entire world with lying opinions about religion, so that even the elect, if it can be said, were being led into error. Since therefore the truth of God, and His wisdom, and His Word, coming into the world, reproved and refuted every lie, and cut away all the assertions of false teachings by the faith of the truth, through each single lie which had previously been asserted by men the truth of God abounded, by exposing the surreptitious plausibilities and by handing down, in each and every teaching, the simple truth of the faith: and in this way the Apostle says that the truth of God abounded in the lie of men. But, that what we are saying may become still clearer, let us bring forward some things by way of example. There was among men a teaching which declared that the highest good is pleasure; and in this it is consequently asserted also that there is no Providence, since one must live not by laws but by pleasure: and these things are set out through innumerable volumes with such abundant and ornate speech and with the most forceful arguments. But observe now how he who defends the truth of God, and who is a philosopher according to Christ, who is the truth of God and the wisdom of God, teaches men that the highest good is eternal life; and that this is eternal life, that men should know the one only true God, and His Son Jesus Christ: and how with all confidence he asserts the providence of God, saying: "Are not two sparrows sold for a penny, and not one of them falls to the ground without the Father's will?" and that He Himself "commands His sun to rise upon the good and the evil, and rains upon the just and the unjust." Now through each of these things, while those teachings of a false knowledge are refuted, the truth of God abounds in the lie of men. There are likewise others who say that there are three kinds of good: one pertaining to the soul, another pertaining to bodies, a third external. Since each of these is held to be advantageous, they affirm that the highest good consists of them. These men too, cutting back the providence of God, contend that it extends only as far as the sphere of the moon, but that below that, that is, to men, it by no means descends. There are likewise others who say that nothing invisible or incorporeal exists, but assign all things that are to bodies, whence they have also said that God, the Father of all, is a body. But because the consistency of their own reasoning pressed them — by which it stands that every body is corruptible, so that if they assert that God too is a body, they must without doubt confess Him to be corruptible as well — they turned a trick of words, and said that He is indeed of a corruptible nature, yet is not corrupted, because there is nothing superior to Him by which He could be corrupted or dissolved. There are also innumerable other fabrications of men, put together with dialectical subtleties and the deceit of sophisms. And when the truth of God, through churchmen instructed in divine wisdom, convicts each of these, and refutes the snares of their arguments, the truth of God is said to abound in the lie of men — and not only to abound, but to abound unto His glory. Which I think is to be understood in this way: if a teacher of the Church instructs hearers who are simple and not yet taken up with false teachings, and opens to them the account of the divine truth concerning each several matter, in teaching of this kind the truth of God will be seen to abound. But if the discourse is addressed to those who resist the truth, who contradict the words of sound doctrine, and the contradictors are refuted and convicted, so that, forsaking the darkness of their errors, they come to the light of truth; then the truth of God will not only abound, but will abound also unto His glory. For God is glorified through him who, snatched from the error of the lie, has beheld the light of truth.

Again he repeats what was said before, in order to clarify it. If through my transgression God appeared righteous and faithful, then why, after all, condemn me, who has rendered a service to the glory of God? In that case I deserve not condemnation, but a reward.

Then when he says for if the truth, he shows the same on the part of human judgment. He does three things: first, he presents the false understanding of the above words; second, he shows the unfittingness that follows, at why am I also yet judged; third, he shows that it is unfitting, at whose damnation.

He expresses the false understanding according to the comparison of divine truth to human falsity, when he says: but if through my lie, i.e., on account of my falsity, the truth of God, being manifested, has more abounded unto his glory, man's falsity directly obtains an increase of glory. This is contrary to what is stated in Job: does God need you to speak deceitfully for him? (Job 13:7).

This is why the apostle asked himself this question. The matter was raised by opponents, as if this were the meaning of the preaching of the forgiveness of sins—that they should do evil and good would come of it. That is, they should sin so that by forgiving their sins God should appear to be good, according to what has just been said above. Paul calls this blasphemy and rejects it as a bad interpretation of God's teaching. Faith is not meant to encourage people to sin by preaching that God will ultimately be vindicated. Rather, it gives sinners a remedy so that having recovered their health they may live under the law of God and not sin again.

Perhaps it is such people that the apostle attacks in the epistle to the Romans when he writes: "And not as we are blasphemously accused and some assert that we say, Let us do evil that good may come, an argument which is rightly condemned." These are they who when reading the Bible pervert the sense to their own desires by their tone of voice, and by changing certain accents and marks of punctuation twist words that are wise and useful to conform to their own lusts.

That the catechumen ought now no longer to sin. In the Epistle of Paul to the Romans: "Let us do evil until the good things come; whose condemnation is just."

These men, even as the Gentiles, have been sent forth by Satan to bring dishonour upon the Church, so that, in one way or another, men hearing the things which they speak, and imagining that we all are such as they, may turn away their ears from the preaching of the truth; or, again, seeing the things they practise, may speak evil of us all, who have in fact no fellowship with them, either in doctrine or in morals, or in our daily conduct. But they lead a licentious life, and, to conceal their impious doctrines, they abuse the name [of Christ], as a means of hiding their wickedness; so that "their condemnation is just," when they receive from God a recompense suited to their works.

"If not (as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil that good may come? Whose damnation is just." For whereas Paul said, "where sin abounded grace did much more abound" (Rom. v. 20), in ridicule of him and perverting what he said to another meaning, they said, We must cling to vice that we may get what is good. But Paul said not so; however to correct this notion it is that he says, "What then? shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? God forbid!" (ib. vi. 1, 2.) For I said it, he means, of the times which are past, not that we should make this a practice. To lead them away then from this suspicion, he said, that henceforth this was even impossible. For "how shall we," he says, "that are dead unto sin, live any longer therein?" Against the Greeks then he inveighs without difficulty. For their life was exceeding abandoned. But of the Jews, even if their life seemed to have been careless, still they had great means of cloaking these things in the Law and circumcision, and the fact of God having conversed with them, and their being the teachers of all. And this is why he strips them even of these, and shows that for these they were the more punished, and this is the conclusion to which he has here drawn his discussion.

He therefore who has understood in this way will certainly not say what is put forward in what follows as a foolish objection: "Why am I still also judged as a sinner?" but he perceives that he is deservedly to be judged, if he remains in the lie of men: and he who, according to what we have expounded above, being convicted by the truth of God perceives that he has erred, turning from his error glorifies the true God when the truth is recognized, and no longer blasphemes those who preach the truth, as though they said: "Let us do evil that good may come," knowing that in such a saying the condemnation of the blasphemer is just. It must also be observed that of those who preach the truth he said not so much that they are spoken ill of, which pertains to men, but that they are blasphemed, which pertains to God.

This was not the intention of the apostles' teaching. On the contrary, they demanded that everyone abstain from all manner of wickedness.

And if this is fair, then what the pagans say about us would also be fair. The pagans, hearing the words of Paul: "where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Rom. 5:20), subjected them to ridicule and maintained that Christians say: let us do evil that good may come, let us sin more that grace may abound. These words of the pagans, spoken by them in reproach and mockery of us, are applicable in the present case as well, if one admits that God manifests His goodness thanks to our wickedness and ingratitude. But in reality it is not so. The speech of the pagans is the speech of those who always speak lies. "Whose judgment is just," that is, they will be punished justly. So then, by sinning I do not become the cause of God's justification, because I am condemned as a sinner; for if I were sinning for the glory of God, I would not be condemned.

Then he adds two unfitting conclusions that follow: one is that man should not be regarded a sinner for lying, on the ground that it is directly ordained to God's glory. And this is what he says: why am I, i.e., even now, yet judged by men as a sinner for being false: whereas wickedness is fearful, it bears witness of its condemnation (Wis 17:8), because sinners are condemned by the judgment of all. The other unfitting conclusion is that it lends support to the false accusation leveled against the apostles. For they preached that through the abounding grace of Christ the debt for an abundance of sins was paid, as is stated below: where sin abounded, grace did more abound (Rom 5:20). For this the apostles were blasphemed, as if preaching that men should do evil in order that good be obtained. This would follow, if man's falsehood directly commended God's grace and truth. Therefore, he says: and why not do evil by sinning and teaching falsehood, that there may come good, i.e., that God's truth and justice be commended, as we are slandered: when slandered, we try to conciliate (1 Cor 4:13), and as some affirm that we say, by twisting our words: which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction (2 Pet 3:16).

He rejects these unfitting conclusions when he says whose damnation is just, i.e., those who do evil that good may come. For just as it is not correct to deduce truth from falsity, so it is wrong to reach a good end through evil means: why does the way of the wicked prosper? Why do all who are treacherous thrive? (Jer 12:1). Or whose, namely, those who accuse us of this falsely, damnation is just. For perverters of sacred doctrine are justly condemned: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book (Rev 22:18).

Paul is saying: "Why go on talking like this? For we have shown by the examples given that all, Jews and Gentiles alike, are guilty and that the law is being pursued in vain." For Paul first showed that the Gentiles are guilty according to the law of nature and also because they did not accept the law of Moses, for which reason their case is very dire indeed. Then he showed that the Jews were also guilty. While they appeared to be living under God's law and defended their privilege by the merit of their ancestors, they in fact brought the grace of God into disrepute because they rejected the promise made to their ancestors.

"What then have we more than they? For we have proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one." He had accused the Gentiles, he had accused the Jews; it came next in order to mention the righteousness which is by faith. For if the law of nature availed not, and the written Law was of no advantage, but both weighed down those that used them not aright, and made it plain that they were worthy of greater punishment, then after this the salvation which is by grace was necessary. Speak then of it, O Paul, and display it. But as yet he does not venture, as having an eye to the violence of the Jews, and so turns afresh to his accusation of them; and first he brings in as accuser, David speaking of the same things at length, which Isaiah mentioned all in short compass, so furnishing a strong curb for them, so that they might not bound off, nor any of his hearers, while the matters of faith were laid open to them, might after this start away; being beforehand safely held down by the accusations of the prophets. For there are three excesses which the prophet lays down; he says that all of them together did evil, and that they did not do good indifferently with evil, but that they followed after wickedness alone, and followed it also with all earnestness. And next that they should not say, "What then, if these things were said to others?" he goes on:

"What then do we hold further? For we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin, as it is written: That there is none righteous, none that understands, none that seeks after God. All have turned aside, they have together become unprofitable; there is none that does goodness, there is not so much as one. Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they dealt deceitfully, the poison of asps is under their lips, whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness: their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known: there is no fear of God before their eyes." We have already said beforehand that in this Epistle Paul, like a kind of arbiter between those who have believed from the circumcision and those from the Gentiles, always tempers and balances his speech, so that now these, now those he seems to reprove in certain matters, and again he encourages each party with the sure hope of the promise. Since therefore he had seemed in the earlier passages to say that if the uncircumcision keeps the righteous requirements of the law, it shall judge him who in circumcision is a transgressor of the law: again, in order to lift up those whom he had humbled, he added: "What then is the advantage of the Jew? or what is the profit of circumcision? Much in every way. First indeed, because to them were entrusted the oracles of God." After these things, when he had gone on consequently with certain matters connected with these, he now adds and says: "What then do we hold further? For we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin." But if all are under sin, then there will be no cause of boasting for the one against the other, since each comes to salvation not out of his own righteousness, but out of God's mercy. He proved therefore that the Greeks, that is, the Gentiles, are under sin, when he says: "For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools: and they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man, and of birds, and of four-footed beasts, and of serpents: wherefore God gave them over to a reprobate mind," and the rest: and the Jews, when he says: "But if you are called a Jew, and rest in the law," and the rest. To which he added: "You therefore who teach another, do you not teach yourself? you who preach that a man should not steal, do you steal?" and so forth. After these things therefore he says that "we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin." But after this, as is his custom, he wishes to confirm from the holy Scriptures what he had said; and at the same time he offers an example to the teachers of the Church, that the things they speak to the people they should bring forward not presumed from their own opinions, but fortified by divine testimonies. For if he himself, so great and such an Apostle, does not believe that the authority of his own words can suffice unless he shows that what he says is written in the Law and the Prophets, "how much more ought we, the least, to observe this, that when we teach we bring forward not our own opinions, but those of the Holy Spirit?" This too we consider must necessarily be pointed out, that in some Latin copies the testimonies which follow are found placed consecutively and in full in the thirteenth psalm; but in almost all the Greek copies there is no more in the thirteenth psalm than up to that verse where it is written: "There is none that does good, there is not so much as one." But also what the Apostle said: "As it is written: That there is none righteous: none that understands, none that seeks after God," is not found in the same words in the psalm, but some are changed, some are taken up, some are left out. And if this be observed rather carefully by any diligent students, I think that apostolic authority is given in this matter, so that when we must use the testimonies of Scripture, we should grasp the sense from it rather than the words. For you will find this frequently done also in the Gospels. In the thirteenth psalm, then, it is thus written: "The Lord looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is one that understands, or that seeks after God." But in the fifty-second psalm it says thus: "God looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is one that understands, or that seeks after God." And the same sense seems to be preserved also in that which the Apostle set down: "There is none that understands, none that seeks after God." And as for what he said: "There is none righteous," I think that he took it from what is written: "There is none that does goodness, there is not so much as one": in which, even if the wording seems to be altered, nevertheless one and the same sense is preserved. But that which is said in what follows: "Their throat is an open sepulchre, with their tongues they dealt deceitfully," you will find in the fifth psalm. After this: "The poison of asps is under their lips," which I think was itself also taken from some psalm, the wording being changed, as we said above. But what follows: "Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness," seems to be received from the ninth psalm. Then next: "Their feet are swift to shed blood," you will find either in Isaiah or in Proverbs. But also, "Destruction and unhappiness are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known," I do not indeed fully recall where it is written: I suspect, however, that it can be found in one of the prophets. And in the Psalms it is written: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." Now he seems to have wished to gather all these testimonies for this reason, that he might show that when he charges that "Jews and Greeks are all under sin," he pronounces not so much his own opinion as that of holy Scripture. But let us inquire what this very thing is, to be under sin: for his statement seems to involve all without exception, whether they be Jews or Gentiles. But there meets us another statement of his own, in which he says: "But where there is no law, neither is there transgression." Among the Jews indeed it is manifest that there is the law of Moses: but among the Gentiles he affirms that there is the law of nature, which convicts the offender by the testimony of conscience. Where then do we seek a man in whom there is no law, and who through this may seem not to be in the transgression of sin, since Paul himself also says of himself: "But I was alive without the law once." When did Paul live without the law, who again says of himself: "Circumcised the eighth day, a Hebrew of the Hebrews"? How then will it be true that he once lived without the law, who on the eighth day of his birth received the sign of circumcision according to the law? Whence it is established that a man then comes to be under the law when he has arrived at that age at which he can choose, and discern what the law is: nor does he take upon himself the yoke of that outward law before he begins to have the firmness of the inward and natural law.

Finally, in that passage where he said: “But I was alive without the law once,” he added: “But when the commandment came, sin revived.” In this he shows indeed that in childhood, before one has discernment of good and evil, a person is said to be without law; since even if he sins, because the law is not in him, sin is not imputed to him. But when he has received discernment of good and evil, the law is said to have come to him and to have given him commandments. Now where the force of the commandment is present — that is, a conscience that convicts — sin, which before was dead in him, is said to have revived. From this time on, therefore, if anyone subjects himself to the law of Moses so as to observe it according to the letter, he becomes a Jew outwardly; but if he follows it according to the spirit, he becomes a Jew inwardly. These things are said with respect to what was written: “For we have charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” That is, let “all” be understood as spoken of those who, it is agreed, are taught not to sin either by the natural law or by the written law. For concerning the Gentiles too, who are placed under sin, we understand it in the same way we said above: when they have begun to do naturally the things of the law and to be a law to themselves, then they are convicted by conscience in those things which they are seen to do against the law. For this reason those men also seem to me to have judged rightly who call the law of nature the law of God, and call the law of Moses the written law. For if Paul were speaking of the written law, that is, of the law of Moses, when he says: “But sin is not imputed when there is no law,” it will seem that sin was not reckoned to Cain, nor to those who perished in the flood, nor to those whom fire consumed in Sodom. But since we see that not only were sins reckoned to them, but vengeance also was inflicted upon them, it is shown from these things that Paul is speaking of the natural law, which — apart from the first age of childhood — is present in all human beings; and through this he says most rightly: “For we have charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin.” Hence it does not seem to me that a certain one of the wise men defined the matter contrary to reason when he said that in the whole race of mortals, when a person has come to that age at which he receives the discernment of right and wrong by the entrance of the natural law, first of all malice is stirred up, and after this, by teachings, training, and admonitions, it is little by little driven out, and a passage is made to virtue. For Paul too seems to me to have thought in harmony with these things in what he says: “But when the commandment came, sin revived.” And the Savior also, when he says in the Gospels: “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin,” will be seen to have spoken according to this same reasoning: that by that power with which he is said to fill the world, he comes to each individual person and speaks in his heart and teaches the judgment of good and evil.

Paul finds no reason for saying that the Jews are better than others.… Both Jews and Gentiles are under sin—something we not only deduce by reason but also corroborate by the witness of the Jews themselves.

Having said above that the Jews have a certain advantage, because the law was entrusted and committed to them, he now proves that they have no advantage by their deeds. For, as those who did not preserve what was entrusted to them, they will be subjected to great condemnation. Therefore, although they had a certain advantage, as chosen by God, yet since by their deeds they dishonored the One who honored them and chose them, they not only no longer have any advantage, but will also be subjected to greater condemnation. He speaks as if from the person of the Jews: "What then? Do we have an advantage," do we surpass others, are we more pleasing to God than the rest, we Jews who received the law and circumcision? "Not at all." For the Jews, not to say more, sinned just as the Gentiles did. And from where is this evident? From the prophets, namely David and Isaiah.

After showing the Jews' advantage over the gentiles so far as God's blessings are concerned, the Apostle now rejects their vainglory, by which they preferred themselves to gentiles converted to the faith. First, he states his point; second, he proves it, at for we have charged.

First, therefore, he says: I have asked what advantage has the Jew. The first is that God's words were delivered to them. What then shall we Jews say to converts to the faith? Do we excel them, namely, those gentiles converted to the faith? For this was a matter discussed among them: a dispute also rose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest (Luke 23:24). He answers this when he says, no, not so.

But this seems to be at variance with an earlier statement, which said that their advantage was much every way (Rom 3:2). The Gloss explains that in the first statement the Apostle was thinking of the Jews in the time of the law, but now he is speaking of the time of grace because, as is written in Colossians: in Christ there cannot be Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised (Col 3:11), since these make no difference so far as the state of grace is concerned. But this explanation does not seem to be altogether in keeping with the Apostle's intention, because later he will show that even while they were under the law, they were under the power of sin, just as the gentiles were, and even more so: this is Jerusalem; I have set her in the center of the nations, with countries round about her. And she has wickedly rebelled against my ordinances and become more wicked than these countries (Ezek 5:5). Hence, it seems that above he was showing the excellence of God's blessings; consequently, he did not say that the Jew was more excellent, but that something greater had been conferred on the Jew. Here he is rejecting the notion that they are excellent persons, because in spite of receiving God's blessings they did not use them properly.

Then when he says for we have charged, he establishes his points: first, that the Jews do not excel the gentiles so far as the state of sin is concerned; second, so far as the state of justice is concerned, at but now, without the law. He establishes the first in two ways: first, from what has been stated above; second, from an authority, at as it is written.

First, therefore, he says: we have charged, i.e., we have supported with reasons, that Jews and Greeks, i.e., gentiles, are all under sin: from the sole of the foot even to the head there is no soundness in him (Isa 1:6). For he showed, first of all, that the gentiles suppressed the truth they knew by their wickedness and injustice; second, that the Jews, after receiving the law, dishonored God by transgressing it.

From unrighteousness Paul goes on to list their evil deeds and even adds some worse ones, in order to show that there was no hope for them unless they cried out for the mercy of Christ, who forgives sins.

Pambo said to Antony, 'What shall I do?' Antony said, 'Do not trust in your own righteousness. Do not go on sorrowing over a deed that is past. Keep your tongue and your belly under control.'

For they are all gone aside, He exclaims, they are all become useless. There is none that understands, there is not so much as one. With their tongues they have practised deceit, their throat is an open sepulchre, the poison of asps is under their lips, destruction and misery are in their paths, and the way of peace they have not known.

For this reason, then, Paul says it is written: “Because there is none righteous; there is none that understands, there is none that seeks after God: all have turned aside, together they have become unprofitable”; just as elsewhere the Prophet says: “For in your sight shall no living person be justified.” And this may perhaps seem contrary to other Scriptures, which bear witness to some as though they were righteous — so much so that it is even said to Jerusalem concerning Sodom that “Sodom has been justified more than you.” But consider more carefully the caution of divine Scripture, how it did not say, “Sodom has been justified,” but rather says: Since you commit many crimes, and the things you do are such that you surpass all in the greatness of your sins, by comparison with your crimes Sodom is now justified. And here too, then, when it says, “In your sight shall no living person be justified,” it did not mean this to be understood, that no living person shall be justified, but that “in your sight” — that is, God's — he shall not be justified. For however righteous a person may be, however holy, not only among human beings but even among the higher and more eminent creatures, it is certain that by comparison with God he cannot be justified. Finally, in the Apocalypse of John also, where the sealed book is offered in the sight of the Ancient of Days, and search is made among every tribe, tongue, and people for one who might be able to open it, no one was found except the Lamb alone from the tribe of Judah, who was justified in the sight of God; and he alone was worthy to open the book, who alone is the one “who opens, and no one shuts; who shuts, and no one opens.” Therefore our Savior the Lord Jesus Christ alone is justified in the sight of the Father, because “whatever things the Father does, these the Son likewise does.” But every creature is justified by comparison with those beneath it. As, for example, if we should say: by comparison with the rest of the people, Miriam the sister of Moses was righteous; and again, by comparison with Miriam, Aaron was righteous; and again, by comparison with Aaron, Moses was righteous. Yet blessed is the one who is called righteous by comparison with better people, and not by comparison with the worst, as Sodom, which is recorded as justified by comparison with Jerusalem. Hence I too fear that, because of us who seem to be in the Church of God and to devote our efforts to his law and to serve the evangelical precepts, some of the unbelievers may be found who are to be justified. To speak by way of example: if we are slaves to lust and unchastity, while a pagan who is a stranger to the faith of Christ keeps chastity, that pagan is justified over against us. Likewise, if we are entangled in avarice, rapacity, pride, and other evils of this kind, while a pagan abstains from all these — those who do not know the law of God will be justified over against us, and we shall be condemned by comparison with them. Rather, let us take pains that, just as we go before the Gentiles in faith, so we may excel them in deeds and works, lest our evils become another's goods, and their self-restraint convict our lack of restraint. What he said — “There is none righteous” — or what he says — “In your sight shall no living person be justified” — can still be explained in yet another way: that as long as anyone lives in the body, he cannot be justified nor be pronounced righteous, but only when he has gone out of the body and departed from the contest of this life, as Scripture also says: “Call no one blessed before his death, for you do not know what his last things will be”; and again Ecclesiastes says: “And I praised the dead who are already dead, more than the living who are still alive; but better than both is he who has not yet been born.” You have still another saying of Scripture as well, which says that whoever is least in the kingdom of God is greater than one who is in the body, even if it be that John, than whom there was none greater among those born of women. Therefore “there is none righteous.”

The psalm from which this quote is taken speaks of the fool. Paul shows that witness to the fool will be fulfilled particularly at the coming of Christ. When he appears, not one righteous person will be found.

For the passage beginning with the words "there is none righteous" and ending with "their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness" belongs to David (Ps. 13:3–5, 9:28, 139:4), while the passage from the words "their feet are swift" to the words "they have not known the way of peace" belongs to Isaiah (Isa. 59:7–8); then again follow the words of David (Ps. 35:2). So, he presents the most notable prophets as accusers of the Jews, and shows that they speak in complete agreement. This is why after the words of Isaiah he again brings in the words of David. For Isaiah speaks clearly about the Jews, and David speaks about them as well.

Then when he says as it is written, he establishes his point by the authority of the Psalmist: first, he quotes him; second, he explains, at now we know. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions sins of omission; second, sins of commission, at their throat. He touches on the sins of omission in two ways: first, by removing the sources of good works; second, by removing the good works themselves, at all have turned out of the way.

Now there are three sources or principles that make a work good: one of these pertains to the justice of the work, namely, justice, which he says is lacking: there is not any man just (Ps 13:3). The godly man has perished from the earth; and there is none upright among men (Mic 7:2).

No man is just can be interpreted in three ways: in one way as meaning that no one is just within himself and of himself, but of himself everyone is a sinner and it is owing to God that he is righteous: the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty (Exod 34:6). In another way it means that no one is just in every way but has some sin according to Proverbs: who can say: I have made my heart clean? (Prov 20:9), and Ecclesiastes: surely there is not a just man on earth who does good and never sins (Eccl 7:20). In a third way it can be understood as referring to the wicked members of a populace, among which no one is just. For it is the custom of Scripture sometimes to speak of an entire populace in terms of its evil members and sometimes of its good members, as in Jeremiah, where it is stated that when Jeremiah finished saying everything the Lord had commanded him to say to the entire populace, the priests and prophets and the entire people took hold of him and said that he would die the death (Jeremiah 26:8ff.). Then it is added: then the princes and all the people said to the priests and prophets: this man does not deserve the sentence of death (Jer 26:16). However, the first two meanings seem to be more in keeping with the Apostle's intent; and the same must be said for the following.

Seek God. Do not be like Asa the king of Judah, who after receiving many blessings from God fell so far that when he suffered lameness in his feet he would not seek God even though there was a prophet present.

People who are naturally religious find difficulty in understanding the horror of such a revelation. Amiable agnostics will talk cheerfully about "man's search for God." To me, as I then was, they might as well have talked about the mouse's search for the cat.

I judge it necessary to add to these details also what, by garbling passages of Scripture, they try to persuade us concerning their Propator, who was unknown to all before the coming of Christ. Their object in this is to show that our Lord announced another Father than the Maker of this universe, whom, as we said before, they impiously declare to have been the fruit of a defect. For instance, when the prophet Isaiah says, "But Israel hath not known Me, and My people have not understood Me," they pervert his words to mean ignorance of the invisible Bythus. And that which is spoken by Hosea, "There is no truth in them, nor the knowledge of God," they strive to give the same reference. And, "There is none that understandeth, or that seeketh after God: they have all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable," they maintain to be said concerning ignorance of Bythus. Also that which is spoken by Moses, "No man shall see God and live," has, as they would persuade us, the same reference.

And he added: “There is none that understands.” And indeed, since the Apostle himself says that he knows in part and understands in part, who will there be that may be called understanding? For however much a person may understand, he will be seen to understand in a mirror and in an enigma; because it is only after the laying aside of the earthly body that one is said to understand face to face. But now, as Scripture says: “The corruptible body weighs down the soul, and the earthly dwelling presses down the mind that ponders many things.” Hence it comes about that no one is “understanding,” nor “seeking after God.” For while we are occupied with the anxieties of the body and seek the things that are of human beings, we cannot seek God nor think upon the things that are of God.

One who does not understand does not seek. Or perhaps it is that one does not understand because one does not seek. One seeks for God by enquiring after his will.… The sinner has not known the will of his master. "Know me, know my will," as the popular saying goes.

The second element that makes a work good is intellectual discernment, whose absence is declared when he says, there is none who understands: they have neither knowledge nor understanding (Ps 82:5); he would not understand (Ps 36:3).

The third element is a right intention, whose absence is described when he says, there is none who seeks after God, namely, by directing his intention toward him: it is time to seek the Lord that he may come and rain salvation upon you (Hos 10:12).

No one doubts that those who do not look to God for help are inclined to seek help from vain things, and vanity is an idol. Thus they become useless. Once that happens they cannot do good either, for those who have already fallen just go from bad to worse.

The Scripture shut up all things under sin, the first through ignorance, the second through weakness, and the third through malice, so that when Christ came, He could have mercy on them all. And the Apostle wonders at this, and quotes the authority of the Psalm: "All alike have gone astray; they have become perverse; there is not one that does good, not even one."

“All have turned aside, together they have become useless.” It seems to me that he is not said to have turned aside except one who at some time stood on the straight road. From this it appears that that first work of rational nature, which was made by God, was upright, and was set upon the straight road by the gift of the Creator himself. But because it bent its journey away from this road to the left hand of sin, it is now rightly said to have turned aside — as we have an example in the first man, Adam, who from the straight road of paradise turned aside, through the deceit of the evil-counselling serpent, to the crooked and twisting paths of mortal life. Consequently, therefore, all who come into this world by succession from him have turned aside, and together with him have become useless. On this account I think the Lord too gives a command in the Gospels, that when we have done all the precepts, we should nevertheless remember what we are, and say: “We are useless servants: what we ought to have done, we have done.” For so long as anyone does only that which he owes — that is, the things which have been commanded — he is a useless servant. But if you add something to the precepts, then you will no longer be a useless servant, but it will be said to you: “Well done, good and faithful servant.” And what it is that may be added to the precepts and done beyond what is owed, the apostle Paul states: “Concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: but I give counsel, as one that has obtained mercy from the Lord.” This is a work beyond the precept. Whoever, then, having fulfilled the precepts, adds this also, that he keep virginity, will no longer be called a useless servant, but a good and faithful servant. And again it is commanded that they who announce the Gospel should live by the Gospel; yet Paul says that “I have used none of these things”; and therefore he was not a useless servant, but a faithful and prudent one. “All,” therefore, “have turned aside, together they have become useless.” To which he added: “There is none that does goodness, there is not so much as one.” A weighty statement, and one that can be established only with difficulty. For how does it seem possible that no one at all, not so much as one, whether among the Jews or among the Greeks, could be found who did goodness? Are we so to believe that there was no one who at some time received a stranger, or gave bread to the hungry, or clothed the naked, or snatched an innocent man from the hands of the powerful, or performed some such good work? It does not seem to me that the apostle Paul wished to assert so incredible a statement: but I think it must be understood in this way — that he denies that anyone has *done* goodness. For example: as if someone should lay the foundations of a house, and build up one or two walls, and even bring in some material, will he be said to have made a house, although he seems to have worked on the house? Rather he will be said to have made a house who has brought each and every part of the whole building to completion. So I think the Apostle here too says that no one has done goodness — that is, that by no one has it been consummated to perfection and in its entirety. But if we ask who is truly good, and who has done goodness perfectly, we shall find him alone who says: “I am the good shepherd”; and again: “The good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep.”

Paul did not treat this passage as if it were prophetic but rather because what David said about transgressors was still a good summary of what was going on in Paul's day. Even now we still cite texts of this kind in our sermons, because what they say can be applied to our congregations.

Furthermore, as soon as anyone turns away from good, he immediately becomes useless. For vice is nothing other than a perversion of the natural impulses toward good; therefore, by driving a person toward what is contrary to nature, it renders him useless. For nature no longer makes use of him, just as it does not make use of those who are sick in the conduct of its affairs.

Then he removes the good works themselves. First, he cites offenses against the divine law when he says, all have turned out of the way, namely, from regulation by divine law: they have all turned to their own way (Isa 56:11). Second, failure to pursue the end; hence he adds, they have become unprofitable together. For we call unprofitable whatever does not attain its end. Therefore, when men turn from God for whom they were made, they are rendered unprofitable: the brood of the ungodly will be of no use (Wis 4:3). Third, he excludes the good works themselves, when he adds, there is none who does good: they are skilled in doing evil, but how to do good they know not (Jer 4:22).

He adds, not so much as one. This can be taken exclusively, to mean: except the one who alone did good by redeeming the human race: one man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found (Eccl 7:28). Or it can be taken inclusively, to mean: there is not even one pure man doing good, i.e., what is perfect: search the squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth (Jer 5:1).

Already chained to evil, they wanted if possible to devour the good, so that just as a sepulchre is open to receive corpses, so their throat is open to devour the good.… The words of men are like tiny mice. They speak in order to deceive, and just as poison flows from the lips of a serpent, so trickery and deceit flow from their lips.

Hence the threatening countenance, the lowering aspect, pallor in the face, trembling on the lips, gnashing of the teeth, mad words, unbridled revilings, a hand prompt for the violence of slaughter; even if for the time deprived of a sword, yet armed with the hatred of an infuriate mind. And accordingly the Holy Spirit says in the Psalms: "Be not jealous against him who walketh prosperously in his way." And again: "The wicked shall observe the righteous, and shall gnash upon him with his teeth. But God shall laugh at him; for He seeth that his day is coming." The blessed Apostle Paul designates and points out these when he says, "The poison of asps is under their lips, and their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood, destruction and misery are in their ways, who have not known the way of peace; neither is the fear of God before their eyes."

After these things, taking from the fifth psalm, as we said above, he says: “Their throat is an open sepulchre.” In these words, as it seems to me, he describes various sins of the human race. Every sepulchre covers over the uncleanness of a dead corpse; whence the Lord also said in the Gospel concerning the Scribes and Pharisees, that they were whitewashed sepulchres, “which outwardly indeed appear beautiful to men, but within are full of all uncleanness.” But Paul seems in this place to point out something greater of crime in those of whom he speaks, when he calls them a sepulchre not covered nor closed over, but “open.” For those are called closed sepulchres whom some little shame restrains from sinning openly and bringing their crimes out into public. But those are called an open sepulchre who have their uncleannesses and impurities out in the open: from whom constant practice and habit of wickedness — which is the last stage among evils — has taken away even the shame of what they have committed: so that now they do not open their mouth and bring forth the word of God, the living word; but they open their throat and bring forth a dead word, the word of the devil, not from the heart, but from the sepulchre. If, then, you ever see a man flinging out shameless words with a wanton mouth, or, swollen and raging, uttering insults and curses, do not hesitate to say of him that “his throat is an open sepulchre.” For “out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” To these things is added: “With their tongues they have acted deceitfully.” Deceit is when someone speaks one thing with the tongue and turns over another in the heart. And this fault I do not know whether it leaves even the just and the elect free of it; but I think that one is more liable, another less, yet no one is perfectly pure of it, save he alone of whom it is written: “Who did no sin, neither was deceit found in his mouth.” For even if someone be found diligent and cautious, he can perhaps guard himself in the graver matters: but whom will you find who does not fall into these things, either through shame or through negligence? Sometimes even through forgetfulness things that ought to have been attended to are left undone, and, that the fault may not appear, they are excused otherwise than as they were done. Whence Peter also, knowing that these are the varieties of deceit, writes in his Epistle, saying: “Laying aside therefore all deceit, and dissimulation, and envy, and detraction, as newborn infants, rational and without deceit, desire milk, that in it you may grow unto salvation.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” The bite of a serpent destroys the body with venom: the bite of a venomed word slays the soul by its deceit. This can happen both in the case of those who circumvent men with the contrivances of false accusations, and in the case of those who, through heretical teaching infected with the poison of the devil, deceive the souls of the simple.

The stench of their teaching and flattery contaminates and kills those who listen. This is why a grave is carefully sealed, so that it does not continue to breed disease among the living by its odor. They express one thing with their mouths but another with their hearts. The venom of asps is mentioned because it is supposed to be the most harmful.

Anger has been prohibited, our spirits retained, the petulance of the hand checked, the poison of the tongue extracted.

Then when he says their throats, he mentions the sins of commission: first, sins of speech; second, sinful deeds, at their feet swift. The sins of the heart can be gathered from these.

In regard to sins of speech he mentions four things. First, readiness and foulness, when he says: their throat is an open sepulchre. For an open grave has two features. For it is ready to receive the dead. According to this, a man's throat is said to be an open grave, when it is prepared to utter deadly remarks in the manner described by Jeremiah: their quiver is like an open tomb (Jer 5:16). Second, it exudes a foul odor: you are like white-washed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness (Matt 23:27). Therefore, a person from whose mouth proceeds the foul odor of filthy remarks has a throat which is an open grave: fire and smoke and sulphur issued from their mouths (Rev 9:17).

Second, in regard to sins of speech, he touches on deception when he says, with their tongues they have dealt deceitfully, having one thing in their heart and another in their words: their tongue is a deadly arrow; it speaks deceitfully (Jer 9:8).

Third, he mentions the havoc wrought by their words, when he says: the venom of asps is under their lips, because they utter words which kill their neighbor either spiritually or bodily: their wine is the poison of serpents and the cruel venom of asps (Deut 32:33).

It is clear and obvious that evil people are always throwing curses and bitterness at the good in an attempt to harm and distract them.

"God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods." He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God-that is, the Son Himself-has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: "The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth." Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, "God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;" that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, "I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not." But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, "I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High." To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the "adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father."

“Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.” Of the venom of asps indeed he did not say that their lips were full. For in that vice perhaps many may be found, yet not many who put forth that venom's poison fully and in its entirety. But to have the mouth filled with cursing and bitterness belongs to very many. For who is of so corrected a mouth that the habit of cursing does not tempt him — I will not say against those who are worthy of cursing, but against those whom the Lord has not cursed, that is, just and innocent men? This is a ready and downhill vice of human frailty, especially toward subordinates and inferiors: so that they no longer think this manner of address to be cursing. And therefore their mouth is said to be full, and cursing is said to flow unceasingly as from a full vessel of the mouth. Yet with this bitterness too is joined, because it is drawn out from the gall of wrath. For it is through wrath and fury that the tongue is driven to cursing. And therefore the same Apostle says: “Bless, and do not curse”; and elsewhere: “Lest any root of bitterness springing up hinder you.”

There is not just one kind of malicious talk. What is said out of malice is without doubt said recklessly.

Fourth, he designates the abundance of these sins when he says: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, because they have a plentiful supply of curses, for they curse in slandering others, contrary to what he says below: bless them and curse not (Rom 12:14). And bitterness, inasmuch as they do not hesitate to say insulting words to their neighbor's face, being provoked by bitterness, contrary to what is written in Ephesians: let all bitterness be put away from you (Eph 4:31).

Scripture says this about the murder of the prophets, whom they killed without hesitation—"slow to do good but swift to murder."

Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known. The fear of God is not before their eyes.

There is added in what follows: “Their feet are swift to shed blood.” Yet this crime will perhaps seem unable to be fitted to most of those of whom he said: “For we have charged that all, both Jews and Greeks, are under sin”; unless perhaps we understand it thus, that not only is the blood of those shed bodily whose bodies are butchered, but that those also who by any stumbling-block separate a soul from God are called men of blood. For just as he is called a homicide who separates the body from the soul, by which it is given life: so much more truly must he be called a homicide who separates the soul from the true life, which is God. But understand the feet in this place to be those of which the Prophet says: “But my feet were almost moved”; that is, the counsel by which we make the journey of life.

Then when he says their feet swift he touches on sinful deeds, in regard to which he mentions three things. First, readiness to do wickedly. Hence he says, their feet swift, i.e., their feelings, to shed blood, i.e., to commit any serious sin, because among the sins committed against our neighbor, murder is the most grievous: their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed blood (Prov 1:16).

Since they hastened to do evil, Paul called their path a ruinous and unhappy way.

For both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord, who is "the power and wisdom of God;" and the terror which the law begets is merciful and in order to salvation. "Let not alms, and faith, and truth fail thee, but hang them around thy neck." In the same way as Paul, prophecy upbraids the people with not understanding the law. "Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." "And we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." "Desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand," says the apostle, "neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned."

“Contrition and misery are in their ways: and the way of peace they have not known.” Here he speaks of a contrition, not that by which the spirit is broken over sins in repentance, whence it is said in the Psalms: “A contrite and humbled heart God does not despise;” but he speaks of that contrition by which sinners are said to break the yoke of the Lord and to cast it from their necks. Similarly “misery” also — or, as it is read elsewhere, “wretchedness” — is to be understood as that by which a man has been made wretched and miserable, who “though he was in honor, did not understand,” but “was compared to the senseless beasts, and became like them.”

"Destruction and misery" is sin, for nothing destroys the soul like sin, by its crooked path. For virtue, as our natural good, prepares for us a smooth and level path, while vice, as something contrary to nature, marked by deficiencies and excesses, causes us sometimes to be carried upward and sometimes downward, and therefore makes our movement uneven and difficult — to say nothing of the fact that it prepares punishment for us afterward.

Second, he touches on the number of injuries they inflict on others when he adds: in their ways, i.e., in their deeds, are destruction; because they crush others by oppressing them: it is in his mind to destroy (Isa 10:7); and misery, inasmuch as they deprive men of their goods and reduce them to wretchedness: they send men away naked, taking away their clothes (Job 24:7).

Yet these two, destruction and misery, can be taken as designating the punishment rather than the sin. Then the sense is: in their paths are destruction and misery, i.e., their deeds, which are signified as paths, lead them to misery. In this case, destruction would refer to the oppressive punishment they suffer for their sins: they shall be broken as a potter's vessel (Isa 30:14) and misery, to the punishment of damnation, because they will be refused eternal happiness: they are miserable, with their hopes set on dead things (Wis 14:10).

Having chosen the way of hostility, along which they were heading toward the second death, they did not want to know about the way which leads to eternal life. This is called the way of peace, because with God as its guardian it will have no disturbance. Those who will the good have this rest with God.

“And the way of peace they have not known.” Christ is our peace. Therefore the way of peace is the way of Christ. But even if we take it that sinners, since they are always pressed by the wars of the vices, do not know the way of peace, we understand rightly. For the prophet says to the Lord: “Much peace to those who love your name, and there is no stumbling-block for them.” Moreover, that people which was led out of Egypt walked by the way of peace, so as to come to the land of promise and dwell in Jerusalem, which is interpreted “vision of peace,” as the Prophet also says: “His place has been made in peace, and his habitation in Sion.” But more fully does he know the way of peace who presses on toward the dwelling of the heavenly Jerusalem, so as to ascend to the holy city of the living God.

"They do not know the way of peace," that is, of a godly life; for a godly life is a path of tranquility. "Take," says the Lord, "My yoke... and you will find rest" (Matt. 11:29): this is the way to the true peace of Christ!

Third, he shows their persistence in evil, from which men are returned in two ways. In one way by a desire to be at peace with others. Against this he says, the way of peace they have not known, i.e., have not accepted: among those who hate peace I was peaceful (Ps 120:6).

This could also refer in a particular way to the Jews who did not believe Christ, i.e., that they have not known the way of peace, namely, Christ, of whom it is written: he is our peace (Eph 2:14).

Since people of this kind have no sense, they have no fear of God. For "the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom," says Solomon. But Scripture did not say that they did not have the fear of God. It said: "There is no fear of God before their eyes." For seeing how evil their works were and not being horrified by them, they are said not to have the fear of God before their eyes.

Where there is no fear, there is neither wisdom nor justice nor grace. "Their throat is an open sepulchre, the poison of asps is under their lips, with their tongues they acted deceitfully, their feet are swift to shed blood: whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness, destruction and unhappiness are in their ways"; "there is no fear of God before their eyes." When a man does not have the fear of God, then his sense is turned to malice and goes forth like the poison of asps. There follows iniquity in deed: whence he says: "With their tongues they acted deceitfully, their feet are swift to shed blood." When a man is disordered in affection with respect to thought, in speech with respect to utterance, and in deed with respect to effect; then he has nothing good. Whence he says: "Their feet are swift to shed blood. Destruction and unhappiness are in their ways, and the way of peace they have not known," namely the way of the grace of the Holy Spirit. And why? Because "there is no fear of God before their eyes."

If you wish to strive to have grace, justice, and wisdom, and these cannot be had without fear: therefore the fear of God is necessary for you. Likewise, where there is no fear, there is foolishness, malice, and iniquity, destruction and unhappiness: but these are to be fled as the worst things.

For both the law and the Gospel are the energy of one Lord, who is "the power and wisdom of God;" and the terror which the law begets is merciful and in order to salvation. "Let not alms, and faith, and truth fail thee, but hang them around thy neck." In the same way as Paul, prophecy upbraids the people with not understanding the law. "Destruction and misery are in their ways, and the way of peace have they not known." "There is no fear of God before their eyes." "Professing themselves wise, they became fools." "And we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." "Desiring to be teachers of the law, they understand," says the apostle, "neither what they say, nor whereof they affirm." "Now the end of the commandment is charity out of a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned."

After these things is added: “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” If there be anyone who always thinks upon the fear of God, who inquires what pleases him and what displeases him, of such a one it is said that the fear of God is before his eyes. But he ought to be skilled and diligently instructed from the law of the Lord, lest perhaps he fear there with fear where fear will not be necessary. Therefore the fear of God is always to be set before the eyes: not these eyes of the flesh (for neither is anything visible or bodily sought), but before the eyes of the mind; by which both the understanding and the teaching of the fear of God are discerned, through which, as we said above, it may be understood what is to be feared or what is not to be feared. He who fears God does not fear the powers of the world. And why do I speak of the powers of the world? He fears neither those principalities, and powers, and rulers of this world, nor the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. And that we may confirm this by the authority of Paul himself, hear how he speaks of human powers: “Do you wish,” he says, “not to fear the power? Do what is good, and you will have praise from it.” And the Prophet says: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man may do to me.” But concerning the adverse powers of the spirits the same Prophet seems to me to have thought, where he says: “Many who war against me from on high shall fear by day;” and again: “If camps stand against me, my heart shall not fear.” It is therefore a great and magnificent work always to have before the eyes of the heart the fear of God: that fear which filled the rod that arose from the root of Jesse, and the flower which arose from his root: concerning which he had said: “And the spirit of the fear of the Lord shall fill him.” And the fear of God renders a man perfect to such a degree that nothing is lacking to him, as the Prophet says, because “nothing is lacking to those who fear him.” These things, as far as we were able, we have fitted to each several point which had been taken up by Paul, showing how they would seem to agree with those of whom he says: “For we have charged that Jews and Greeks are all under sin.” Which things nevertheless I think ought to be understood in this way, not that all these things are proved to have been in individual men, but one thing in one and another in another, yet in such a way that in all of them together this whole range of vices was fulfilled.

In another way by the fear of God; but they neither fear God nor regard man (Luke 18:2). Hence he adds, there is no fear of God before their eyes, i.e., in their plans: the fear of the Lord casts out sin; for without fear a person cannot be justified (Sir 1:27).