Romans 5:10–16

And what he has said looks indeed like tautology, but it is not to any one who accurately attends to it. Consider then. He wishes to give them reasons for confidence respecting things to come. And first he gives them a sense of shame from the righteous man's decision, when he says, that he also "was fully persuaded that what God had promised He was able also to perform;" and next from the grace that was given; then from the tribulation, as sufficing to lead us into hopes; and again from the Spirit, whom we have received. Next from death, and from our former viciousness, he maketh this good. And it seems indeed, as I said, that what he had mentioned was one thing, but it is discovered to be two, three, and even many more. First, that "He died:" second, that it was "for the ungodly;" third, that He "reconciled, saved, justified" us, made us immortal, made us sons and heirs. It is not from His Death then only, he says, that we draw strong assertions, but from the gift which was given unto us through His Death. And indeed if He had died only for such creatures as we be, a proof of the greatest love would what He had done be! but when He is seen at once dying, and yielding us a gift, and that such a gift, and to such creatures, what was done casts into shade our highest conceptions, and leads the very dullest on to faith. For there is no one else that will save us, except He Who so loved us when we were sinners, as even to give Himself up for us. Do you see what a ground this topic affords for hope? For before this there were two difficulties in the way of our being saved; our being sinners, and our salvation requiring the Lord's Death, a thing which was quite incredible before it took place, and required exceeding love for it to take place. But now since this hath come about, the other requisites are easier. For we have become friends, and there is no further need of Death.

The God who acts on behalf of his enemies will not be able to love his friends any less than that. Therefore if the death of the Savior benefited us while we were still ungodly, how much more will his life do for us who are justified, when he raises us from the dead?

There are many passages of this sort, which set forth with clarity and splendor the great, ineffable benevolence of God in freely pardoning our sins and granting us the means and the power of performing righteous acts for the glory of God and his Christ, in the hope of receiving eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

He was not returning love but freely offering it. For who had given him anything first, that it should be returned to him? "Not that we had loved him, but that he first loved us." He loved us even before we existed, and in addition he loved us when we resisted him. According to the witness of St Paul: "Even when we were still his enemies we were reconciled to God through the blood of his Son." If he had not loved his enemies, he could not have had any friends, just as he would have had no one to love if he had not loved those who were not.

[Lewis: once a man has seen he is at enmity with the absolute goodness behind the Moral Law, Christianity begins to answer the question of how reconciliation is possible]

They offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man from the disapproval of God.

Now what was the sort of 'hole' man had got himself into? He had tried to set up on his own, to behave as if he belonged to himself. In other words, fallen man is not simply an imperfect creature who needs improvement: he is a rebel who must lay down his arms. Laying down your arms, surrendering, saying you are sorry, realising that you have been on the wrong track and getting ready to start life over again from the ground floor—that is the only way out of our 'hole'. This process of surrender—this movement full speed astern—is what Christians call repentance.

In saying this Paul shows that there is no substance which is hostile to God, as the Marcionites and Valentinians think, for if something was hostile to God by nature and not simply by will, reconciliation with him would be impossible.…Christ's death brought death to the enmity which existed between us and God and ushered in reconciliation. For Christ's resurrection and life brought with it salvation to those who believe, as the apostle said of Christ: "The death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God." Christ is said to be dead to sin—not to his own, for he never sinned, but dead to sin in that by his death he put sin to death as well. For he is said to live to God so that we also might live to God and not to ourselves or to our own will, so that at the last we may be saved by his life.

Sinners are enemies because they show contempt. We were enemies in our deeds but not by nature; we have been reconciled in peace, because by nature we have been united in peace. If we have been saved by Christ's death, how much more shall we glory in his life if we imitate it!

Once more, Paul calls the Lord Christ "the Son," who is both God and man. But it is clear, I think, even to the greatest heretics in which nature his suffering took place.

Although, it would seem, he says here the same thing, the inferences through comparison are different. Above he speaks of our sinfulness and then, adding that we have been justified, concludes through comparison: He who justified us sinners by His death will all the more save those who have been justified. But now, mentioning the death and life of Christ, he again reasons comparatively: when we were reconciled by the Blood and death of the Lord, how shall we not now be saved in His life? For He who did not spare His own Son, but gave Him over to death for our reconciliation, will He not all the more now save us by His life?

Then when he says, for if, when we were enemies, he shows the necessity of his conclusion, which proceeds by arguing from the lesser to the greater. And one should observe here two comparisons of lesser to greater, one on our part and one on the part of Christ. On our part he compares enemies to those who are reconciled. For it seems a lesser thing that someone should treat enemies well who are already reconciled. On the part of Christ he compares death to life. For his life is more powerful than his death because, as is said the last chapter of 2 Corinthians: he died through weakness, namely the weakness of our flesh, but lives through the power of God (2 Cor 13:4). And this is why he says: with reason I concluded that much more, being enlivened, shall we be saved through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God, and this by the death of his Son: much more now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved, and this by his life. Now one should note that a man is said to be an enemy of God in two ways. In one way, because he practices hostility towards God when he resists his commands: he has run against him with his neck raised up (Job 15:26). In another way, a man is said to be an enemy of God by the fact that God hates men, not indeed insofar as he made them, because in this regard it is said, you have loved all things, and you have hated nothing of the things you have made (Wis 11:25); but insofar as the enemy of man, i.e., the devil, has worked in man: i.e., as regards sin: similarly God hates the ungodly (Wis 14:9), and the Most High hates sinners (Sir 12:7). Once the cause of enmity, namely, sin, has been removed by Christ, reconciliation through him follows: God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself (2 Cor 5:19); for our sin was removed through the death of his Son. In this regard it should be noted that Christ's death can be considered in three ways. First, precisely as a death; and so it is said: God did not make death (Wis 1:13) in human nature, but it was brought on by sin. Accordingly, Christ's death, precisely as death, was not so acceptable to God as to be reconciled through it, because God does not delight in the death of the living (Wis 1:13). In another way Christ's death can be considered with emphasis on the action of the killers, which greatly displeased God. Hence St. Peter says against them: you denied the holy and just one . . . and killed the author of life (Acts 3:14). From this aspect Christ's death could not be the cause of reconciliation but rather of indignation. It can be considered in a third way according as it proceeds from the will of Christ suffering, which was a will formed to the endurance of death, in obedience to the Father: he became obedient to the Father even unto death (Phil 2:8) and out of love for men: Christ loved us and gave himself up for us (Eph 5:2). From this aspect Christ's death was meritorious and satisfied for our sins; it was accepted by God as sufficient for reconciling all men, even those who killed Christ, some of whom were saved at his prayer: Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do (Luke 23:34).

Paul teaches us not only that we should thank God, for the salvation and assurance which we have received, but that we should also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, because through his Son the Mediator God has been pleased to call us his friends. Therefore we can rejoice that we have received every blessing through Christ, that through him we have come to know God. As we rejoice in him, let us therefore honor the Son equally with the Father, as he himself bears witness, saying: "That they may honor the Son as they honor the Father."

What meaneth the "not only so?" Not only were we saved, he means, but we even glory for this very reason, for which some suppose we ought to hide our faces. For, for us who lived in so great wickedness to be saved, was a very great mark of our being exceedingly beloved by Him that saved us. For it was not by angels or archangels, but by His Only-begotten Son Himself, that He saved us. And so the fact of His saving us, and saving us too when we were in such plight, and doing it by means of His Only-begotten, and not merely by His Only-begotten, but by His Blood, weaves for us endless crowns to glory in. For there is not anything that counts so much in the way of glory and confidence, as the being treated as friends by God, and finding a Friend in Him that loveth us. This it is that maketh the angels glorious, and the principalities and powers. This is greater than the Kingdom, and so Paul placed it above the Kingdom. For this also I count the incorporeal powers blessed, because they love Him, and in all things obey Him. And on this score the Prophet also expressed his admiration at them. "Ye that excel in strength, that fulfil His Word." And hence too Isaiah extolleth the Seraphim, setting forth their great excellency from their standing near that glory, which is a sign of the greatest love.

Paul stresses the "now" in order to indicate that our rejoicing is not merely a future hope but also a present experience.

Not only shall we have eternal life, but through Christ we are promised a certain likeness to divine glory as well. Paul wants to show that Christ suffered so that we who had forsaken God by following Adam might be reconciled to God through Christ.

Not only, he says, are we saved, but we also boast in God, because we were saved when we were ungodly, and saved by the blood of the Only-Begotten. And we boast in the Lord Jesus Christ; for He, the source of our reconciliation, is also the source of our boasting.

Then when he says, not only so, he shows what benefits we obtain even now through grace, saying, not only so, i.e., not only in the hope of the glory we expect in the future, but also we glory in God, i.e., in being even now united to God by faith and charity: let him who boasts, boast in the Lord (1 Cor 1:31 and 2 Cor 10:17). And this through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have even now during this life received reconciliation, so that we have been changed from enemies to friends: through him he reconciled to himself all things (Col 1:20). The verse, not only so, can be connected with the preceding one, so that the sense would be: we shall be saved by his life from sin and punishment; and not only shall we be saved from evils, but shall rejoice in God, i.e., in the fact that we shall be the same in the future with him: that they may be one in us, even as we are one (John 17:22).

For death is alike to all, without difference for the poor, without exception for the rich. And so although through the sin of one alone, yet it passed upon all; that we may not refuse to acknowledge Him to be also the Author of death, Whom we do not refuse to acknowledge as the Author of our race; and that, as through one death is ours, so should be also the resurrection; and that we should not refuse the misery, that we may attain to the gift. For, as we read, Christ "is come to save that which was lost," and "to be Lord both of the dead and living." In Adam I fell, in Adam I was cast out of Paradise, in Adam I died; how shall the Lord call me back, except He find me in Adam; guilty as I was in him, so now justified in Christ.

Paul said that all have sinned in Adam even though in fact it was Eve who sinned because he was not referring to the particular but to the universal. For it is clear that all have sinned in Adam as though in a lump. For, being corrupted by sin himself, all those whom he fathered were born under sin. For that reason we are all sinners, because we all descend from him. He lost God's blessing because he transgressed and was made unworthy to eat of the tree of life. For that reason he had to die. Death is the separation of body and soul. There is another death as well, called the second death, which takes place in Gehenna. We do not suffer this death as a result of Adam's sin, but his fall makes it possible for us to get it by our own sins. Good men were protected from this, as they were only in hell, but they were still not free, because they could not ascend to heaven. They were still bound by the sentence meted out in Adam, the seal of which was broken by the death of Christ. The sentence passed on Adam was that the human body would decompose on earth, but the soul would be bound by the chains of hell until it was released.

Everyone, even little children, have broken God's covenant, not indeed in virtue of any personal action but in virtue of mankind's common origin in that single ancestor in whom all have sinned.

When a man is born, he is already born with death, because he contracts sin from Adam.

If the souls of all men are derived from that one which was breathed into the first man … either the soul of Christ was not derived from that one, since he had no sin of any kind … or, if his soul was derived from that first one, he purified it in taking it for himself, so that he might be born of the virgin and might come to us without any trace of sin, either committed or transmitted.

As infants cannot help being descended from Adam, so they cannot help being touched by the same sin, unless they are set free from its guilt by the baptism of Christ.

These words clearly teach that original sin is common to all men, regardless of the personal sins of each one.

All men for whom Christ died died in the sin of the first Adam, and all who are baptized into Christ die to sin.

Since the Fall no organization or way of life whatever has a natural tendency to go right. In the Middle Ages some people thought that if only they entered a religious order they would find themselves automatically becoming holy and happy: the whole native literature of the period echoes with the exposure of that fatal error. In the nineteenth century some people thought that monogamous family life would automatically make them holy and happy; the savage antidomestic literature of modern times—the Samuel Butlers, the Gosses, the Shaws—delivered the answer. In both cases the "debunkers" may have been wrong about principles and may have forgotten the maxim abusus non tollit usum: but in both cases they were pretty right about matter of fact. Both family life and monastic life were often detestable, and it should be noticed that the serious defenders of both are well aware of the dangers and free of the sentimental illusion. The author of the Imitation of Christ knows (no one better) how easily monastic life goes wrong. Charlotte M. Yonge makes it abundantly clear that domesticity is no passport to heaven on earth but an arduous vocation—a sea full of hidden rocks and perilous ice shores only to be navigated by one who uses a celestial chart. That is the first point on which we must be absolutely clear. The family, like the nation, can be offered to God, can be converted and redeemed, and will then become the channel of particular blessings and graces. But, like everything else that is human, it needs redemption. Unredeemed, it will produce only particular temptations, corruptions, and miseries. Charity begins at home: so does un-charity.

This condition was transmitted by heredity to all later generations, for it was not simply what biologists call an acquired variation; it was the emergence of a new kind of man--a new species, never made by God, had sinned itself into existence. The change which man had undergone was not parallel to the development of a new organ or a new habit; it was a radical alteration of his constitution, a disturbance of the relation between his component parts, and an internal perversion of one of them... Our present condition, then, is explained by the fact that we are members of a spoiled species.

It is probably therefore with reference to the consummation that Salome says: "Until when shall men die?" The Scripture uses the word "man" in two senses, the outward man and the soul, and again of him who is being saved and him who is not; and sin is said to be the death of the soul. That is why the Lord gave a cautious answer - "As long as women bear children," that is, as long as the desires are active. "Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin death came to all men, in that all sinned, and death reigned from Adam to Moses," says the apostle. By natural necessity in the divine plan death follows birth, and the coming together of soul and body is followed by their dissolution. If birth exists for the sake of learning and knowledge, dissolution leads to the final restoration.

Death entered into the first man, and into the beginnings of our race, because of sin, and very soon it had corrupted the entire race. In addition to this, the serpent who invented sin, after he had conquered Adam because of the latter's unfaithfulness, opened up a way for himself to enter the mind of man: "They are corrupt … there is none that does good." Therefore, having turned away from the face of the most holy God, and because the mind of man willingly inclined towards evil from its adolescence, we lived an absurd life, and death the conqueror devoured us accordingly.… For since we have all copied Adam's transgression and thus have all sinned, we have incurred a penalty equal to his. Yet the world was not without hope, for in the end sin was destroyed, Satan was defeated and death itself was abolished.

Since the apostle said: "By man death entered into the world," it was surely essential that the victory over death should be achieved by man as well, and the body of death be shown to be the body of life, and the reign of sin that before ruled in the mortal body be destroyed so that it should no longer serve sin but righteousness.

In his new Utopia he says, for instance, that a chief point of the Utopia will be a disbelief in original sin. If he had begun with the human soul—that is, if he had begun on himself—he would have found original sin almost the first thing to be believed in. He would have found, to put the matter shortly, that a permanent possibility of selfishness arises from the mere fact of having a self, and not from any accidents of education or ill-treatment. And the weakness of all Utopias is this, that they take the greatest difficulty of man and assume it to be overcome, and then give an elaborate account of the overcoming of the smaller ones.

How could physical science prove that man is not depraved? You do not cut a man open to find his sins. You do not boil him until he gives forth the unmistakable green fumes of depravity. How could physical science find any traces of a moral fall?

If it is not true that a divine being fell, then we can only say that one of the animals went entirely off its head. In neither case can we really argue very much from the body of man simply considered as the body of an innocent and healthy animal. His body has got too much mixed up with his soul.

Carlyle said that men were mostly fools. Christianity, with a surer and more reverent realism, says that they are all fools. This doctrine is sometimes called the doctrine of original sin. It may also be described as the doctrine of the equality of men. But the essential point of it is merely this, that whatever primary and far-reaching moral dangers affect any man, affect all men. All men can be criminals, if tempted; all men can be heroes, if inspired.

Everyone in the following of Adam has died, because they have all inherited their nature from him. But some have died because they themselves have sinned, while others have died only because of Adam's condemnation—for example, children.

As the best physicians always take great pains to discover the source of diseases, and go to the very fountain of the mischief, so doth the blessed Paul also. Hence after having said that we were justified, and having shown it from the Patriarch, and from the Spirit, and from the dying of Christ (for He would not have died unless He intended to justify), he next confirms from other sources also what he had at such length demonstrated. And he confirms his proposition from things opposite, that is, from death and sin. How, and in what way? He enquires whence death came in, and how it prevailed. How then did death come in and prevail? "Through the sin of one." But what means, "for that all have sinned?" This; he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree did from him, all of them, become mortal.

So that no one can accuse God of injustice, in that we all die because of the fall of Adam, Paul adds: "and so all have sinned." Adam is the origin and the cause of the fact that we have all sinned in imitation of him.

Perhaps someone will object that the woman sinned before the man and even that the serpent sinned before her … and elsewhere the apostle says: "Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived." … How is it then that sin seems to have come in through one man rather than through one woman?… Here the apostle sticks to the order of nature, and thus when he speaks about sin, because of which death has passed to all men, he attributes the line of human descent, which has succumbed to this death because of sin, not to the woman but to the man. For the descent is not reckoned from the woman but from the man, as the apostle says elsewhere: "For man was not made from woman but woman from man."In this context the word world is to be understood either as the place in which people live or as the earthly and corporeal life in which death has its location. It is to this world, that is, to this earthly life, that the saints say that they are crucified and dead. The death which entered through sin is without doubt that death of which the prophet speaks when he says: "The soul which sins shall surely die." One might rightly say that our bodily death is a shadow of this death. For whenever a soul dies, the body is obliged to follow suit, like a shadow. Now if someone objects that the Savior did not sin, nor did his soul die because of sin, yet nevertheless his body suffered death, we would answer that the Savior, although he did not himself sin, nevertheless by the assumption of human flesh is said to have become sin. As a result, although he owed his death to nothing else, nor was he bound to anything outside himself, yet for our salvation he voluntarily took on this shadow as part of his incarnation. As he himself said: "I have power to lay my soul down, and I have power to take it again." … The apostle stated most categorically that the death of sin has passed to all men because all have sinned.… Therefore even if you say that Abel was righteous, still he cannot be excused, for all have sinned, including him.

Just as through Adam sin came at a time when it did not yet exist, so through Christ righteousness was recovered at a time when it survived in almost nobody. And just as through Adam's sin death came in, so through Christ's righteousness life was regained. As long as people sin as Adam sinned they die. Death did not pass on to Abraham and Isaac, of whom the Lord says: "They all live to him." But here Paul says that all are dead because in a multitude of sinners no exception is made for a few righteous.… Or perhaps we should understand that death passed on to all who lived in a human and not in a heavenly manner.

Such was the soul's first state. Created pure Through sordid union with the flesh it fell Into iniquity; stained by Adam's sin, It tainted all the race from him derived, And infant souls inherit at their birth The first man's sin; no one is sinless born.

St. Paul says that when Adam sinned he became mortal because of it and passed both on to his descendants. Thus death came to all men, in that all sinned. But each person receives the sentence of death not because of the sin of his first ancestor but because of his own sin.

Having said that the Lord Jesus justified us, he turns to the root of evil, to sin and death, and shows that both the one and the other, that is, sin and death, entered the world through one man, Adam, and again by one and the same Man, Christ, were removed. What then does "in him all sinned" mean? That all sinned in Adam. As soon as he fell, through him even those who had not eaten from the forbidden tree became mortal, as though they themselves had also fallen, because he fell.

After indicating the benefits we obtained through Christ's grace, the Apostle now indicates the evils from which we were set free. And concerning this he does three things. First, he shows that through Christ's grace we have been freed from the slavery of sin; second, he shows that through his grace we have been freed from the slavery of the law, at or know you not, brethren (Rom 7:1); third, he shows that through his grace we have been freed from condemnation, at there is now therefore no condemnation (Rom 8:1). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that by Christ's grace we are set free from original sin; second, that we are shielded against future sins, at what shall we say then (Rom 6:1). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he deals with the history of sin; second, of grace destroying sin, at but not as the offense (Rom 5:15). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; second, he manifests it, at for until the law (Rom 5:13). Concerning the first, he does two things: first, he sets forth the origin of sin; second, its universality, at and so death passed. First, therefore, he says that we have been reconciled through Christ. For reconciliation came into the world from Christ, as by one man, namely Adam, sin entered into this world: as in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (1 Cor 15:22). Here it should be noted that the Pelagian heretics, who denied the existence of original sin in infants, claim that these words of the Apostle must be understood of actual sin which, according to them, entered this world through Adam, inasmuch as all sinners imitate the sin of Adam: but like Adam they transgressed the covenant (Hos 6:7). But, as Augustine says against them, if the Apostle were speaking of the entrance of actual sin, which is through imitation, he would not have said that sin entered this world through a man but rather through the devil, whom sinners imitate: through the devil's envy death entered the world (Wis 2:24). Therefore, the interpretation is that sin entered this world through Adam not only by imitation but also by propagation, i.e., by a vitiated origin of the flesh in accordance with Ephesians: we were by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:3) and the Psalm: behold, I was brought forth in iniquity (Ps 51:5). But it seems impossible that sin be passed from one person to another through carnal origin. For sin exists in the rational soul, which is not passed on by carnal origin, not only because the intellect is not the act of any body and so cannot be caused by the power of bodily seed, as the Philosopher says in On the Generation of Animals, but also because the rational soul, being a subsistent reality (inasmuch as it can perform certain acts without using the body and is not destroyed when the body is destroyed), is not produced in virtue of the body's being produced (unlike other forms which cannot subsist of themselves), but is caused by God. Therefore, it seems to follow that sin, too, which is an accident of the soul, cannot be passed on by carnal origin. The reasonable answer seems to be that although the soul is not in the seed, nevertheless there is in it a power disposing the body to receive the soul which, when it is infused into the body, is also adapted to it in its own way for the reason that everything received by something exists in it according to a mode of the recipient. That is why children resemble parents not only in bodily defects, as a leper begets a leprous child and a person with gout a gouty child, but also in defects of the soul, as an irascible parent begets irascible children and mad parents mad offspring. For although the foot subject to gout or the soul subject to anger and madness are not in the seed, nevertheless in the seed is a power which forms the bodily members and disposes them for the soul. Yet a difficulty remains, because defects traced to a vitiated source do not involve guilt. For they are not deserving of punishment but rather of pity, as the Philosopher says of one born blind or in any other way defective. The reason is that it is the character of guilt that it be voluntary and in the power of the one to whom the guilt is imputed. Consequently, if any defect in us arose through origin from the first parent, it does not seem to carry with it the nature of guilt but of punishment. Therefore, it must be admitted that as actual sin is a person's sin, because it is committed through the will of the person sinning, so original sin is the sin of the nature committed through the will of the source of human nature. For it must be remembered that just as the various members of the body are the parts of one human person, so all men are parts and, as it were, members of human nature. Hence Porphyry says that by sharing in the same species many men are one man. Furthermore, the act of sin performed by a member, say the hand or the foot, does not carry the notion of guilt from the hand's or foot's will but from the whole person's will, from which as from a source the movement of sin is passed to the several members. Similarly, from the will of Adam, who was the source of human nature, the total disorder of that nature carries the notion of guilt in all who obtain that nature precisely as susceptible to guilt. And just as an actual sin, which is a sin of the person, is drawn to the several members by an act of the person, so original sin is drawn to each man by an act of the nature, namely, generation. Accordingly, just as human nature is obtained through generation, so, too, by generation is passed on the defect it acquired from the sin of the first parent. This defect is a lack of original justice divinely conferred on the first parent not only in his role as a definite person but also as the source of human nature—a justice that was to be passed along with human nature to his descendants. Consequently, the loss of this original justice through sin was passed on to his descendants. It is this loss that has the aspect of guilt in his descendants for the reason given. That is why it is said that in the progression of original sin a person infected the nature, namely, Adam sinning vitiated human nature; but later in others the vitiated nature affects the person in the sense that to the offspring is imputed as guilt this vitiated state of nature on account of the first parent's will, as explained above. From this it is clear that although the first sin of the first parent is passed on to the descendants by generation, nevertheless his other sins, or even those of other men, are not passed on to their children, because it was only through the first sin that the good of nature, originally intended to be passed on by generation, was lost. Through all later sins the good of personal grace is lost, which does not pass on to one's descendants. This also explains why, although Adam's sin was removed by his repentance: she delivered him from his transgression (Wis 10:2), nevertheless his repentance could not remove the sin of descendants, because his repentance was performed by a personal act, which did not extend beyond him personally. Consequently, there is but one sole original sin, because the defect following upon the first sin is the only one passed on to the descendants. Therefore, the Apostle is careful to say that by one man sin entered into this world, and not sins, which he would have said, if he were speaking of actual sin. But sometimes it is said in the plural: and in sins did my mother conceive me (Ps 51:7) because it contains many sins virtually, insofar as the corruption of the fomes, or concupiscence, inclines one to many sins. It seems, however, that original sin entered this world not through one man, namely, Adam, but through one woman, namely, Eve, who was the first to sin: from a woman sin had its beginning and because of her we all die (Sir 25:24). This is answered in a Gloss in two ways: in one way, because the custom of Scripture is to present genealogies not through the woman but through the men. Hence, the Apostle in giving, as it were, the genealogy of sin makes no mention of the woman but only of the man. In another way, because the woman was taken from the man; consequently, what is true of the woman is attributed to the man. But this can be explained in another and better way, namely, that since original sin is passed on along with the nature, as has been said, then just as the nature is passed on by the active power of the man, while the woman furnishes the matter, so too original sin. Hence, if Adam had not sinned, but Eve only, sin would not have been passed on to their descendants. For Christ did not contract original sin, because he took his flesh from the woman alone without male seed. Augustine uses these words from the apostle Paul to respond to the heretic Julian, who asked: the one who is born does not sin, the one who begot him does not sin, the one who bore him does not sin; through what crack, therefore, in such a garrison of innocence do you suppose sin has entered? But Augustine responds: why do you seek a crack when you have a wide open gate? For according to the Apostle, sin entered into this world through one man. Then he touches on the entry of death into this world when he says, and by sin death entered this world: ungodliness purchases death (Wis 1:12). However, it seems that death does not arise from sin but from nature, being due to the presence of matter. For the human body is composed of contrary elements and, therefore, is corruptible of its very nature. The answer is that human nature can be considered in two ways: in one way according to its structural principles, and then death is natural. Hence Seneca says that death is natural, not penal, for man. In another way man's nature can be considered in the light of what divine providence had supplied it through original justice. This justice was a state in which man's mind was under God, the lower powers of the soul under the mind, the body under the soul, and all external things under man, with the result that as long as man's mind remained under God, the lower powers would remain subject to reason, and the body to the soul by receiving life from it without interruption, and external things to man in the sense that all things would serve man, who would never experience any harm from them. Divine providence planned this for man on account of the worth of the rational soul, which, being incorruptible, deserved an incorruptible body. But because the body, which is composed of contrary elements, served as an instrument for the senses, and such a body could not in virtue of its nature be incorruptible, the divine power furnished which was lacking to human nature by giving the soul the power to maintain the body incorruptible, just as a worker in metal might give the iron, from which he makes a sword, the power never to become rusty. Thus, therefore, after man's mind was turned from God through sin, he lost the strength to control the lower powers as well as the body and external things. Consequently, he became subject to death from intrinsic sources and to violence from external sources. Then when he says, and so death passed, he shows the universality of this process in regard both to death and to sin, but in reverse order. For above he treated first of the entry of sin, which is the cause of death's entry; but now he deals first with the universality of death as with something more obvious. Hence he says, and so death, or the sin of the first parent, passed upon all, because men merit the necessity of dying on account of a vitiated origin: we must all die (2 Sam 14:14); what man can live and never see death? (Ps 89:48). Then he touches on the universality of sin when he says, in whom all have sinned. According to Augustine this can be understood in two ways: in one way, in whom, i.e., in the first man, or in which, namely, in that sin; because while he was sinning, all sinned in a sense, inasmuch as all men were in him as in their first origin. But since Christ derived his origin from Adam (Luke 3:23ff.), it seems that even he sinned in Adam's sin. Augustine's answer in On Genesis is that Christ was not in Adam as completely as we were, for we were in him according to bodily substance and according to seed. But Christ was in him in the first way only. Some who interpreted these words incorrectly supposed that the entire substance of all human bodies, which is required for a true human nature, was actually in Adam and that in virtue of a multiplication traced to God's power, something taken from Adam was increased to form such a quantity of bodies. But this is unfitting, because it explains the works of nature by a miracle. Indeed, it is obvious that the human body, even though it is required for the integrity of human nature, corrupts and becomes a corpse. Hence it is better to say that, because everything generable is corruptible and vice versa, the matter which was present under some form other than human before a man is begotten, received the form proper to human flesh. Accordingly, not everything in our bodies that belongs to the integrity of human nature was in Adam actually, but only according to origin in the way that an effect is present in its active principle. According to this, therefore, there are in human generation the bodily material, which the woman proffers, and an active force, which is in the male's seed; both are derived originally from Adam as their first principle. Hence, they are said to have been in him according to seed and according to bodily substance, inasmuch as both came forth from him. But in Christ's generation there was the bodily substance which he obtained from the virgin; in place of the male seed was the Holy Spirit's active power, which is not derived from Adam. Consequently, Christ was not in Adam according to his seedly power, but only according to bodily substance. Thus, therefore, we not only receive sin from Adam and contract it; we also derive human nature from him as from an active principle—which amounts to being in him according to the power of the seed. But this is not true of Christ, as has been stated. Finally, it seems that original sin does not pass on to all, because the baptized are cleansed of original sin. Hence, it seems that they cannot transmit to their descendents something they do not have. The answer is that through baptism a man is freed from original sin as far as the mind is concerned, but the infection of sin remains as far as the flesh is concerned. Hence the Apostle says below: I serve the law of God with the mind, but with the flesh, the law of sin (Rom 7:25). But man does not beget children with the mind but with the flesh; consequently, he does not transmit the new life of Christ but the old life of Adam.

Before the law was given, men thought that they could sin with impunity before God but not before other men. For the natural law, of which they were well aware, had not completely lost its force, so that they knew not to do to others what they did not want to suffer themselves. For sin was certainly not unknown among men at that time.How is it then that sin was not imputed, when there was no law? Was it all right to sin, if the law was absent? There had always been a natural law, and it was not unknown, but at that time it was thought to be the only law, and it did not make men guilty before God. For it was not then known that God would judge the human race, and for that reason sin was not imputed, almost as if it did not exist in God's sight and that God did not care about it. But when the law was given through Moses, it became clear that God did care about human affairs and that in the future wrongdoers would not escape without punishment, as they had done up to then.

Paul said this in opposition to those who thought that sin could be taken away through the law. He says that sins were made apparent by the law, not abolished. He says not that there was no sin but only that it was not counted. Once the law was given, sin was not taken away, but it began to be counted.

The law of Moses was the power constraining the weakness of sinners. It proved to be not the answer to sin but rather a provocation to wrath. For it was necessary for transgressors to undergo the punishments prescribed by the law, and wherever there was transgression, there was also sin. So if sin brought death in its wake, it may undoubtedly be said that death, having been born of sin, was strengthened by this very thing. But when sin was taken away death was also weakened, and it disappeared along with its parent. Therefore there was death in the world until the coming of the law. For as long as the law was valid, the crime of transgression could be laid against those who had fallen, but once the law was removed, the accusation of transgression disappeared as well. Therefore when the guilt ceased, death also came to an end.

Sin was in the world before the law of Moses came, and it was counted, though not according to that law. Rather it was counted according to the law of nature, by which we have learned to distinguish good and evil. This was the law of which Paul spoke above.

The phrase "till the Law" some think he used of the time before the giving of the Law-that of Abel, for instance, or of Noah, or of Abraham-till Moses was born. What was the sin in those days, at this rate? some say he means that in Paradise. For hitherto it was not done away, (he would say,) but the fruit of it was yet in vigor. For it had borne that death whereof all partake, which prevailed and lorded over us. Why then does he proceed, "But sin is not imputed when there is no law?" It was by way of objection from the Jews, say they who have spoken on our side, that he laid this position down and said, if there be no sin without the Law, how came death to consume all those before the Law? But to me it seems that the sense presently to be given has more to be said for it, and suits better with the Apostle's meaning. And what sense is this? In saying, that "till the Law sin was in the world," what he seems to me to mean is this, that after the Law was given the sin resulting from the transgression of it prevailed, and prevailed too so long as the Law existed. For sin, he says, can have no existence if there be no law. If then it was this sin, he means, from the transgression of the Law that brought forth death, how was it that all before the Law died? For if it is in sin that death hath its origin, but when there is no law, sin is not imputed, how came death to prevail? From whence it is clear, that it was not this sin, the transgression, that is, of the Law, but that of Adam's disobedience, which marred all things. Now what is the proof of this? The fact that even before the Law all died: for "death reigned" he says, "from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned."

When Paul uses the word sin here he is thinking primarily of the transgression of the law of Moses and its commandments, e.g., circumcision, sabbath observance, the food laws, etc. Nevertheless, sin in general already existed in human nature, and it was counted. By this I mean things like murder, robbery, child abuse and so on.… For there was a law of nature which covered things like that.

The law came to punish sin. Before it came, sinners enjoyed at least the length of this present life with less restraint. Sin indeed existed before the law, but it was not counted as sin because natural knowledge had been almost wiped out. How did death reign, if sin was not counted? You have to understand here that it was not counted "for the time being."

The coming of the law did not remove sin. On the contrary, even though the law was observed and kept by men, sin continued to increase and the law could do nothing to stop it.… So far was the law from being the cure for sin that Paul even says that there would not have been sin at all had there been no law! By "law" Paul means the discernment which comes by both the natural law and the law of Moses. For without this discernment, nobody would be able to call sin by its name, since there would be no way of knowing the difference between good and evil.

Paul is not, as some think, accusing those who lived before the law but rather everyone together. When he says "before the law" he does not mean before the law began but before the law came to an end, because as long as the law was in control, sin retained its force.

The Apostle wants to prove that even those who did not eat from the forbidden tree and did not sin like Adam were, on account of his sin, also counted as having sinned and died. He proves this as follows: sin reigned before the giving of the law, that is, even before the law. But what sin was this? Was it sin from transgression of the law? But how could there be such sin when there was no law? Sin is imputed when there is a law, and people who transgress the law are necessarily called sinners.

After tracing the origin of sin and death and their entry into the world, the Apostle now clarifies what he has said. First, he explains his statement; second, he clarifies the comparison he suggested, when he said: wherefore as by one man (Rom 5:12); third, he explains it, at who is a figure of him who was to come. Now he had stated that sin and death passed on to all men. Here, in line with Augustine's exposition, he intends to explain this by the fact that sin remained even under the law, implying that it was unable to expel it. In regard to this he does two things: first, he explains his statement as far as sin is concerned; second, as far as death is concerned, at but death reigned. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he shows that sin existed under the law; second, what the law did in regard to sin, at but sin was not imputed. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that all have sinned in Adam, because even the law did not take away sin. Until the law, i.e., even under the law, as until is taken inclusively, sin was in the world. This can be understood of the natural law and the law of Moses; similarly, of actual sin and original sin. For original sin was in the child until the law of nature, i.e., until he reached the use of reason through which man adverts to these laws: in sins did my mother conceive me (Ps 51:5). Nor does this sin pass away with the coming of the natural law in a man; rather, it grows through the addition of actual sin, because, as stated in Ecclesiastes: there is not a just man on earth who does good and never sins (Eccl 7:20). But if we understand it of the law of Moses, then the statement that sin was in the world until the law can be understood not only of original sin but also of actual, because both sins continued in the world before the law and under the law: who can say: I have made my heart clean? (Prov 20:9). But although the law did not remove sin, it produced knowledge of sin which previously was not recognized. Hence he continues, but sin was not imputed. This is obvious, if it is understood of the natural law. For although original sin is in the child before the natural law and is counted against him by God, it was not imputed to him by men. But if it be understood of the law of Moses, it is clear that some actual sins were not imputed before the law, as those which are specifically forbidden by the law, which men did not regard as sins; for example, you shall not covet (Exod 20:17). But certain sins were imputed, inasmuch as they were against the law of nature. Hence, Joseph is sent to prison on a charge of adultery (Gen 39:11ff.).

Paul said this in order to contradict those who thought that the Genesis story of the fall applied to nobody but Adam himself. For here he says that all have sinned, even if not exactly in the same way as Adam, and that the Genesis account applies to all men.

Although sin was not imputed before the law of Moses was given, death nevertheless reigned in the supremacy of its own seizure of power, knowing those who were bound to it. Therefore death reigned in the security of its dominion both over those who for a time escaped punishment and over those who suffered punishment for their evil deeds. Death claimed everyone as its own, because whoever sins is the servant of sin. Imagining they would get away with it, people sinned all the more and were more prone to wrongdoing because the world abetted it as if it were legal. Because of all this Satan rejoiced, knowing that he was secure in his possession of man, who because of Adam's sin had been abandoned by God. Thus it was that death reigned.Some Greek manuscripts say that death reigned even in those who had not sinned in the way that Adam had. If this is true, it is because Satan's jealousy was such that death, that is, dissolution, held sway over even those who did not sin.… Here there is a textual difference between the Latin version and some of the Greek manuscripts. The Latin says that death reigned over those whose sins were like the sin of Adam, but some Greek manuscripts say that death reigned even over those whose sins were not like Adam's. Which of the two readings is the correct one? What has happened is that somebody who could not win his argument altered the words of the text in order to make them say what he wanted them to say, so that not argument but textual authority would determine the issue. However, it is known that there were Latin-speakers who translated ancient Greek manuscripts which preserved an uncorrupted version from earlier times. But once these problems were raised by heretics and schismatics who were upsetting the harmony of the church, many things were altered so that the biblical text might conform to what people wanted. Thus even the Greeks have different readings in their manuscripts. I consider the correct reading to be the one which reason, history and authority all retain. For the reading of the modern Latin manuscripts is also found in Tertullian, Victorinus and Cyprian. Thus it was in Judea that the destruction of the kingdom of death began, since God was made known in Judea. But now death is being destroyed daily in every nation, since many who once were sons of the devil have become sons of God. Therefore, death did not reign in everyone but only in those who sinned in the same way that Adam had sinned. Adam was the type of the one who was to come, because even then God had secretly decided to redeem Adam's sin through the one Christ, as it says in John's Apocalypse: "The Lamb of God which was slain before the foundation of the world."

This can be understood in two ways: either "in the likeness of Adam's transgression, death reigned," or (as surely it must be read) "death reigned over even those who did not sin in the likeness of Adam's transgression but sinned before the law was given." Thus those who received the law may be understood to have sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression, because Adam also sinned after having received a law to obey…. Adam is the type of the one who was to come but in reverse, for as death came through Adam, so life came through our Lord.

Adam is the type of Christ but in reverse, because the good done by Christ to the regenerated is greater than the harm done by Adam to his descendants.

In the first epistle to the Romans the Apostle has declared Adam to be a type of Christ, saying: Who is a figure of him that was to come; and in like manner he has called Adam the first man, and Christ the second. Since God threatened the first man with death that very day should he transgress the commandment, and yet when he did transgress did not immediately visit him with death in accordance with the threatening, but was long-suffering towards him, and having disciplined him by means of the law, and cast him out of Paradise, and permitted him to live to a good old age before he died, God showed great forbearance and kindness towards man, particularly in having provided him with clothing, and in that he did not in wrath inflict death upon human nature, but instructed man in prudence and wisdom, and made sin hateful to him, and righteousness the object of his desires. Then, through the guarding of the tree of life, he taught men to love and hope for immortality. Glory to him who from the beginning to the end has bestowed his provident care upon man.

Paul's meaning is that, although Moses was a righteous and admirable man, the death sentence promulgated upon Adam reached him as well, and also those who came after, even though neither he nor they copied the sin of Adam in disobediently eating of the tree.

Adam was a type of Christ not with respect to his sin or his righteousness—in this respect the two men were opposites—but with respect to the effects of what he did. For just as Adam's sin spread to all men, so Christ's life also spread to all men. Adam was also a type of Christ in another respect. For just as he was the head of Eve, in that he was her husband, so also Christ, being its bridegroom, is the head of the church.

When, therefore, according to these (heretics), the entire world and super-mundane entities were finished, and (when) nothing exists labouring under deficiency, there still remains in the (conglomeration of) all germs the third Sonship, which had been left behind in the Seed to confer benefits and receive them. And it must needs be that the Sonship which had been left behind ought likewise to be revealed and reinstated above. And His place should be above the Conterminous Spirit, near the refined and imitative Sonship and the Non-Existent One. But this would be in accordance with what has been written, he says: "And the creation itself groaneth together, and travaileth in pain together, waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God." Now, we who are spiritual are sons, he says, who have been left here to arrange, and mould, and rectify, and complete the souls which, according to nature, are so constituted as to continue in this quarter of the universe. "Sin, then, reigned from Adam unto Moses," as it has been written. For the Great Archon exercised dominion and possesses an empire with limits extending as far as the firmament. And He imagines Himself alone to be God, and that there exists nothing above Him, for (the reason that) all things have been guarded by unrevealed Siope. This, he says, is the mystery which has not been made known to former generations; but in those days the Great Archon, the Ogdoad, was King and Lord, as it seemed, of the universe. But (in reality) the Hebdomad was king and lord of this quarter of the universe, and the Ogdoad is Arrhetus, whereas the Hebdomad is Rhetus. This, he says, is the Archon of the Hebdomad, who has spoken to Moses, and says: "I am the God of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and I have not manifested unto them the name of God" (for so they wish that it had been written)-that is, the God, Arrhetus, Archon of the Ogdoad. All the prophets, therefore, who were before the Saviour uttered their predictions, he says, from this source (of inspiration). Since, therefore, it was requisite, he says, that we should be revealed as the children of God, in expectation of whose manifestation, he says, the creation habitually groans and travails in pain, the Gospel came into the world, and passed through every Principality, and Power, and Dominion, and every Name that is named. And (the Gospel) came in reality, though nothing descended from above; nor did the blessed Sonship retire from that Inconceivable, and Blessed, (and) Non-Existent God. Nay, (far from it;) for as Indian naphtha, when lighted merely from a considerably long distance, nevertheless attracts fire (towards it), so from below, from the formlessness of the conglomeration (of all germs), the powers pass upwards as far as the Sonship. For, according to the illustration of the Indian naphtha, the Son of the Great Archon of the Ogdoad, as if he were some (sort of) naphtha, apprehends and seizes conceptions from the Blessed Sonship, whose place of habitation is situated after that of the Conterminous (Spirit). For the power of the Sonship which is in the midst of the Holy Spirit, (that is,) in, the midst of the (Conterminous) Spirit, shares the flowing and rushing thoughts of the Sonship with the Son of the Great Archon.

For it was incumbent upon the Mediator between God and men, by His relationship to both, to bring both to friendship and concord, and present man to God, while He revealed God to man. For, in what way could we be partaken of the adoption of sons, unless we had received from Him through the Son that fellowship which refers to Himself, unless His Word, having been made flesh, had entered into communion with us? Wherefore also He passed through every stage of life, restoring to all communion with God. Those, therefore, who assert that He appeared putatively, and was neither born in the flesh nor truly made man, are as yet under the old condemnation, holding out patronage to sin; for, by their showing, death has not been vanquished, which "reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression."

But the law coming, which was given by Moses, and testifying of sin that it is a sinner, did truly take away his (death's) kingdom, showing that he was no king, but a robber; and it revealed him as a murderer. It laid, however, a weighty burden upon man, who had sin in himself, showing that he was liable to death. For as the law was spiritual, it merely made sin to stand out in relief, but did not destroy it. For sin had no dominion over the spirit, but over man. For it behoved Him who was to destroy sin, and redeem man under the power of death, that He should Himself be made that very same thing which he was, that is, man; who had been drawn by sin into bondage, but was held by death, so that sin should be destroyed by man, and man should go forth from death.

Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generations, connecting the end with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam himself termed by Paul "the figure of Him that was to come," because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature, with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves should not exist in vain.

In the transgression of Adam we have all through sin been cast out of paradise. The apostle teaches that even in us who were to come later Adam had fallen. In Christ therefore, in the heavenly Adam, we believe that we who through the sin of the first Adam have fallen from paradise now through the righteousness of the second Adam are to return to paradise.

How did it reign? "After the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of Him that was to come." Now this is why Adam is a type of Christ. How a type? it will be said. Why in that, as the former became to those who were sprung from him, although they had not eaten of the tree, the cause of that death which by his eating was introduced; thus also did Christ become to those sprung from Him, even though they had not wrought righteousness, the Provider of that righteousness which through His Cross He graciously bestowed on us all. For this reason, at every turn he keeps to the "one," and is continually bringing it before us, when he says, "As by one man sin entered into the world"-and, "If through the offence of one many be dead:" and, "Not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift;" and, "The judgment was by one to condemnation:" and again, "If by one (or, the one) man's offence death reigned by one;" and "Therefore as by the offence of one." And again, "As by one man's disobedience many (or, the many) were made sinners." And so he letteth not go of the one, that when the Jew says to thee, How came it, that by the well-doing of this one Person, Christ, the world was saved? thou mightest be able to say to him, How by the disobedience of this one person, Adam, came it to be condemned?

Whence, also, they say that Pharaoh was a type of the devil in Egypt, since he mercilessly commanded the males to be cast into the river, but the females to be preserved alive. For the devil, ruling from Adam to Moses over this great Egypt, the world, took care to have the male and rational offspring of the soul carried away and destroyed by the streams of passions, but he longs for the carnal and irrational offspring to increase and multiply.

It seems to me that Paul's description of death and its power may be compared to the entry of a tyrant who wants to usurp the authority of the legitimate ruler and after seizing the entrance to the kingdom by the treachery of the gatekeeper then tries to get public opinion on his side. To a great extent he succeeds in this and can therefore claim that the kingdom belongs to him. It was during the rule of this tyrant that Moses, a leader chosen by the legitimate ruler, was sent to the occupied peoples in order to revoke the laws of the civil administration and teach them to follow the laws of the true king.… This leader did all he could to deliver at least some people from the control of sin and death, and in the end he managed to form a nation composed of those who chose to associate with him. At the command of the king, he instituted sacrifices which were to be offered with a certain solemnity, as was only fitting, and by which their sins would be forgiven. And so at last a part of the human race began to be set free from the rule of sin and death.…Many manuscripts read that death reigned over even those whose sin was not like that of Adam. If this reading is correct, then it may be said that it refers to that death which has kept souls in hell, and we would understand that even the saints have passed away because of this law of death, even though they were not subject to the law of sin. Therefore it may be said that Christ descended into hell not only in order to show that he could not be held by death but also that he might liberate those who found themselves there not because of the sin of transgression but merely because of their mortal condition.… What did Paul mean when he said that Adam was a type of the one who was to come? Was he speaking of some future man who had not yet come when he was writing, or was he thinking about Christ, who would have been in the future from Adam's point of view but was already in the past when Paul was writing? I do not know how Adam can be regarded as a type of Christ, unless it is by contrast.… I think it is better to say that Paul understood Adam as a type of Christ's second coming. Thus just as death has taken control of this age because of the one Adam, and the entire human race has been subjected to mortality, so in the coming age life will reign through Christ, and the entire human race will be blessed with immortality.

This may mean that as long as there was no one who distinguished between the righteous and the unrighteous, death imagined that it was Lord over all. Or else it may mean that death reigned not only over those who, like Adam, broke a commandment—like the sons of Noah who were ordered not to eat the life in the blood or the sons of Abraham, on whom circumcision was imposed—but over those who, lacking the commandment, showed contempt for the law of nature. Adam was a type of Christ either because he was made by God without sexual intercourse, just as Christ was born of a virgin by the aid of the Holy Spirit, or he was an antithetical type, that is, as Adam was the source of sin so Christ is the source of righteousness.

Death came to all men not because they committed the same sin as Adam but because they sinned.… Death is not just the punishment for one particular sin; it is the punishment for every sin.

"Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses," that is, until the giving of the law. Therefore, there was a sin through which death reigned: if there had been no sin that sustained death, it would not have reigned. Since it has been demonstrated that sin from transgression of the law did not yet exist, it remains that it was the sin of Adam through which death reigned even over those who did not sin directly (for those who did not receive the law and did not transgress it are not called sinners), but sinned in the likeness of Adam's transgression and became partakers of the fall of their forefather, who is a type of Christ. For just as the ancient Adam made all guilty of his fall, even though they did not fall, so also Christ justified all, even though they did nothing for which they should be justified. This is why he is "a type of the one to come," that is, of Christ.

Then he deals with death, saying: although sins were not imputed before the law, yet death, i.e., spiritual, i.e., sin or eternal damnation, of which it is written: the death of the wicked is very evil (Ps 34:21), reigned, i.e., exercised its power over men, by bringing them to damnation, from Adam through whom sin entered the world, unto Moses, under whom the law was given: the law was given through Moses (John 1:17), not only over those who sinned actually, but even over them also who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, who sinned actually: but like Adam they transgressed the covenant; there they dealt faithlessly with me (Hos 6:7), because even the children incurred damnation. Under this sense it is also possible to understand bodily death, through which is shown the presence of sin, even when it was not imputed. As if to say: sin indeed was not imputed before the law, but we know that it existed, because death reigned, i.e., bodily, first by bringing suffering, such as hunger, thirst and sickness, and finally by destroying life, even over them who have not sinned, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, i.e., even over children who committed no actual sins, because even they suffered bodily death before and after the law: what man can live and never see death? (Ps 89:48). Ambrose explained these words in another way, namely, of actual sin only, and of the Mosaic law. According to him these words were written to explain that sin entered this world through the first parent and passed on to everyone. For until the law, i.e., before the law of Moses, sin was in the world, namely, actual sin. For men sinned against the law of nature in manifold ways. Hence, it is said: the men of Sodom were the wickedest (Gen 13:13). But sin was not imputed, when the law was not, not as though it was not imputed as something to be punished by men, since there are records of men being punished for sin before the time of the law (Gen 39–40); but it was not considered as something to be punished by God. For at that time men did not believe that God would punish or reward men's actions: he walks about the poles of heaven, nor does he consider our things (Job 22:14). But after the law was given by God, it was recognized that sins are imputed by God for punishment and not only by men. Consequently, because men did not believe that they would be punished by God for their sins, they sinned freely and without restraint, whenever they did not fear human judgment. Hence he adds: But death, i.e., sin, reigned, i.e., exercised its power in every way, from Adam unto Moses excluded. For when the law was given through Moses, it began to weaken the reign of sin, inculcating fear of divine judgment: oh, that they had such a mind as this always, to fear me and keep my commandments (Deut 5:28). Sin reigned, I say, until Moses, not over all, but over them who have sinned after the similitude of the transgression of Adam. For Ambrose says that not is not found in the ancient manuscripts; hence, he believes it was added by corrupters. Adam, indeed, believed the devil's promise more than God's threat, as is clear in Genesis 3; in a way, then, he preferred the devil to God. Therefore, idolaters sin in the likeness of Adam's sin, because they abandon the worship of God to venerate the devil. Over such, therefore, death, i.e., sin, reigned completely, because it possessed them entirely. But there were true worshippers of God before the law; yet even if they sinned, sin did not reign over them, because it did not separate them totally from God. Rather, they sinned under God, i.e., under faith in the one God, if they sinned mortally, or under the charity of God, if they sinned venially. From both these interpretations a third can be obtained which seems more in accord with the Apostle's intention. For he had said that by one man sin entered into this world (Rom 5:12); but because sin is a transgression of the divine law, it might seem that this would not be true during the time before the law, especially since he had stated: for where there is no law, neither is there transgression (Rom 4:15). Consequently, one might suppose that sin entered the world not through a man but through the law. To exclude this he says, until the law, i.e., the time before the law, sin was in the world, both original and actual, but it was not recognized as something to be punished by God. And this is what he adds, but sin was not imputed, namely, as something against God, when the law, i.e., the divinely given law, was not. For there were certain persons, as the Philosopher says, who believed that nothing is just by nature and, consequently, nothing unjust, but only because there is a human law. According to this, a sin was not imputed as being contrary to God, especially original sin, since it was not known. But the error of this opinion is shown by the effect, because bodily death reigned from Adam, through whom original sin entered the world, until Moses, under whom the law was given. Consequently, since death is the effect of sin, especially original, it is clear that before the law there was original sin in the world. But lest anyone suppose that they died on account of actual sins, he excludes this, when he says that it reigned even over them who have not sinned by their own act, namely, children and the just who did not sin mortally, but did sin in the first man, as has been stated. Therefore, he adds, after the similitude of the transgression of Adam, inasmuch as they contracted the likeness of that sin through their origin along with the likeness of nature. As if to say: the fact that they died without personal sin shows that the likeness of Adam's sin had been spread in them in virtue of origin. And this is what the Apostle intends to convey, namely, that original sin entered the world through Adam. Then when he says, who is a figure of him, he explains the likeness which was understood in the adverb, as (Rom 5:12). Hence he says, who, namely, Adam, was a figure of the one who was to come, i.e., of Christ, although in an opposite way. For just as sin and death entered the world through Adam, so justice and life entered through Christ: the first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven (1 Cor 15:47). There are other likenesses between Christ and Adam, namely, that just as Adam's body was formed without intercourse, so Christ's body from the Virgin. Again, just as the woman was taken from the side of the sleeping Adam, so from the side of the sleeping Christ flowed blood and water (John 19:34), which signify the sacraments by which the Church was formed.

Paul said that Adam was a type of Christ, but in order to assure us that they were not alike in substance, he says that the gift is not like the trespass. The only similarity between them is that just as one man sinned, so one man put things right.If by the trespass of one man many have died by imitating his transgression, how much more has the grace of God and his gift abounded in those who flee to him for refuge! For there are more who have received grace than who have died because of Adam's trespass. From this it is clear that Paul was not talking about ordinary death, which is common to us all, since everybody dies but not everybody receives grace. Death does not reign in everyone. It only reigns in those who have died because of the sin of Adam, who have sinned by a transgression like his. Paul is talking only about these when he says that although many have died because of Adam's sin, many more have received grace.… For both to those who sinned in a way similar to Adam and to those who did not sin in that way but who were nevertheless confined to hell because of God's judgment on Adam's sin, the grace of God has abounded by the descent of the Savior to hell, granting pardon to all and leading them up to heaven in triumph.

The gift excels in two ways: first, because grace abounds much more in that it bestows eternal life even though death reigns in the temporal sphere because of the death of Adam, and second, because by the condemnation of one sin the death of many came about through Adam, whereas by the forgiveness of many sins through our Lord Jesus Christ grace has been given for eternal life.

At first sight it may seem that this verse contradicts what Paul said [in verse 12] above, for there he spoke of death having come to all humanity, whereas here he says only that many have died. In fact there is no contradiction, because death, although it came upon all because we have all sinned, came only to test and to try everyone. Death does not destroy all sinners automatically but only those who persist in their sins. By saying that "many died" Paul shows merely that many turned out to be unrepentant in their sins.

For what he says is somewhat of this kind. If sin had so extensive effects, and the sin of one man too; how can grace, and that the grace of God, not the Father only, but also the Son, do otherwise than be the more abundant of the two? For the latter is far the more reasonable supposition. For that one man should be punished on account of another does not seem to be much in accordance with reason. But for one to be saved on account of another is at once more suitable and more reasonable. If then the former took place, much more may the latter. Hence he has shown from these grounds the likelihood and reasonableness of it. For when the former had been made good, this would then be readily admitted.

Christ's obedience was greater than Adam's disobedience in the following sense. Death, which originated with the sin of Adam, had our cooperation in the sins which we all committed, and so it was able to gain control over us. For if men had remained free of all wrongdoing, death would not have been in control. But the grace of Christ has come to us all without our cooperation and shows that the grace of the resurrection is such that not only believers, who glory in their faith, will be resurrected, but also unbelievers, both Jews and Greeks. Something which works in us against our will is therefore obviously greater than something which works in us with our cooperation.

It makes no difference that Paul said [in verse 12] that sin spread to all, whereas here he says that the grace and gift of God have abounded for many. In Paul's usage, all and many are almost synonymous.… Yet Paul refrains from saying that all will benefit from the free grace of God, because if men had the assurance that they would be saved, they would not fear God and turn away from evil.[In this verse] Paul starts to explain how Adam may be regarded as a type of Christ. Any close similarity between them is obviously absurd, which is why he insists that "the free gift is not like the trespass." … The judgment on Adam was that through his one sin condemnation came to all men. But in sharp contrast to this, through Christ justification is given to all for the many sins in which the entire human race is bound up.

The gift is not like the trespass, because one must not give equal value to the type as to the original. Righteousness had more power to bring to life than sin had to put to death. Adam killed only himself and his descendants, whereas Christ freed both those who were then in the body and also succeeding generations. Those who oppose the idea of the transmission of sin try to attack it as follows: "If Adam's sin harmed even those who were not sinners, then Christ's righteousness must help even those who are not believers. For Paul says that people are saved through Christ in the same way or to an even greater degree than they had previously perished through Adam." Secondly, they say: "If baptism washes away that ancient sin, those who are born of two baptized parents should not have that sin, for they could not have passed on to their children what they did not possess themselves. Besides, if the soul does not exist by transmission, but only the flesh, then only the flesh carries the transmission of sin and it alone deserves punishment." Declaring it to be unjust that a soul which is born today, not from the lump of Adam, bears so ancient a sin belonging to another, these people say that on no account should it be accepted that God, who forgives a man his own sins, imputes to him the sins of someone else.

Paul calls Jesus a man in this passage in order to underline the parallel with Adam, for just as death came through one man, so the cure for death came through one man as well.

Christ, he says, brought benefit not merely to the same degree that Adam caused harm. If sin was so powerful that through the fall of one all his descendants were condemned, even though they themselves did not fall, then how much greater and more abundant will be the effect of the grace of God the Father upon many, and not only His, but also of His Son. And the gift of God cannot be equal to the condemnation through the one who sinned.

After discussing the entry of sin into this world, the Apostle treats of the history of grace, which abolishes sin. And concerning this he does two things. First, he shows how the grace of Christ removed sin, which entered the world through one man; second, how it removed sin, which superabounded with the coming of the law, at now the law entered in (Rom 5:20). In showing how Christ's grace removed the sin introduced into the world by Adam, he compares Christ's grace to Adam's sin, stating that Christ's grace can accomplish more good than Adam's sin accomplishes evil. And concerning this he does two things. First, he compares the causes, namely, Christ's grace with Adam's sin; second, he compares their effects, at and not as it was by one sin. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he gives the comparison; second, he clarifies it, at for if by the offense of one. First, therefore, he says: it has been stated that Adam is the type of the one who was to come, but not as the offense, so also the gift. As if to say: the efficacy of Adam's trespass must not be considered the equal of Christ's gift. The reason is that sin came from the weakness of the human will, but grace comes from the immensity of the divine goodness, which excels the human will, especially in its weakness. Therefore, the power of grace exceeds every sin; consequently, David said: have mercy on me, O God, according to your abundant mercy (Ps 51:1). For this reason Cain's attitude is justly reproved: my sin is too great to merit pardon (Gen 4:13). Then, when he says for if by the offense of one, he explains what he had said, namely, that the gift of grace exceeds the offense of Adam, saying for if by the offense of one, namely of Adam, many died, that is, if from the offense of Adam sin and death crossed into many others, because into all who sinned in him, much more the grace of God and the gift, that is, the gratuitous gift of God, in order that and be expositively comprehended. Or the grace of God refers to the remission of sin. As above: being justified freely by his grace (Rom 3:24). Gift however is referred to the good superadded beyond the remission of sins, as a psalm says, according to another version, the Lord gave gifts to men (Ps 47:19). Much more, I say, grace and gifts of this kind, has abounded unto many. For the more potent something is, the more it can extend to a greater number. But the fact of death, which was Adam's sin, extended to many. Hence, he says significantly that by the trespass of one many have died. For death is the argument for original sin, as stated above, for God said to Adam: in the day that you eat of it, you shall die (Gen 2:17). God's grace, which is stronger, extends much more abundantly to many: who brings many sons to glory (Heb 2:10). It should be noted that he says, abounded, because God's grace reached many not only to erase the sin incurred from Adam but also to remove actual sins and to bestow many other blessings: God is able to provide you with every blessing in abundance (2 Cor 9:8). For just as sin abounded from one man to many through the first suggestion of the devil, so God's grace abounded to many through one man. Hence, he says, by the grace, i.e., through the grace, of one man, Jesus Christ. For grace is poured out by God upon many, in order that we might receive it through Christ, in whom every fullness of grace is found: from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace (John 1:16). This is how the text should be read according to Augustine's interpretation, such that the word many is not taken comparatively but absolutely. So Augustine would have it that the comparison points to this, that if the sin of the one man Adam spread to many, much more will the grace of the one man Christ spread to many. But according to Ambrose the word many should be taken comparatively, so that the meaning is that by the offense, i.e., the actual sin, of one, namely Adam, many, not all, died by the death of sin, namely by imitating the sin of Adam by idolatry, as was explained above. It is said of idolaters: they are unhappy, and their hope is among the dead (Wis 13:10). And much more the grace of God . . . has abounded unto many, namely more than in the idolaters who sinned in the likeness of Adam, because not only their sins are taken away by the grace of Christ but also the sins of those who persevered in the faith of the one God: he will put away our iniquities: and he will cast all our sins into the bottom of the sea (Mic 7:19).

There is an obvious difference between the fact that those who have sinned in imitation of Adam's transgression have been condemned and the fact that the grace of God in Christ has justified men not from one trespass but from many sins, giving them forgiveness of sins.

This is the difference: in Adam one sin was condemned, but by the Lord many sins have been forgiven.

Paul wants to say that it was because of Adam's sin, although it was only one, that God condemned many, on account of the fact that they copied Adam. But the grace of the Lord was measured not according to that one sin but according to the many sins which all had committed. Thus Christ transformed many sins into righteousness.

And what is this that he is speaking of? It is that sin had power to bring in death and condemnation; but grace did not do away that one sin only, but also those that followed after in its train. Lest then the words "as" and "so" might seem to make the measure of the blessings and the evils equal, and that you might not think, upon hearing of Adam, that it was only that sin which he had brought in which was done away with, he says that it was from many offences that an indemnity was brought about. How is this plain? Because after the numberless sins committed after that in paradise, the matter issued in justification. But where righteousness is, there of necessity follows by all means life, and the countless blessings, as does death where sin was. For righteousness is more than life, since it is even the root of life. That there were several goods then brought in, and that it was not that sin only that was taken away, but all the rest along with it, he points out when he says, that "the gift was of many offences unto justification." In which a proof is necessarily included, that death was also torn up by the roots.

The effect of the gift is greater than that of the sin. From the sin of one righteous man came the judgment of death. Adam never came across all the righteousness which he destroyed, but Christ discharged the sins of many by his grace. Adam was only the model for sin, but Christ both forgave sins freely and gave an example of righteousness.

There is one great difference between Adam's sin and God's gift in Christ. Adam's sin brought punishment on all those who came after him, and so they died. But the free gift is different. For not only did it take effect in the case of those who came afterward; it also took away the sins of those who had gone before. It is therefore much greater, because where sin harmed those who came after, grace rescued not only those who came after but those who had transgressed before as well.

For the "transgression," that is, the sin subject to condemnation, proceeding from Adam, led "to condemnation," that is, to death, and a multitude of sins always existed among his descendants, so that people were in the power of many sins and death. "But the gift of grace is unto justification from many transgressions," that is, grace not only blotted out that one sin, but also the other sins that followed after it; for it became our justification, granting us forgiveness of all transgressions committed after the fall.

Then when he says, and not as it was, he compares Christ's grace to Adam's sin as regards the effect, because not only does each affect many, but Christ's grace had a greater effect than Adam's sin. And concerning this he does three things. First, he states his proposition; second, he clarifies it, at for judgment indeed; third, he proves it, at for if by one man's offense. First, therefore, he says: not only does Christ's grace more abound for many than Adam's sin, but it produces a greater effect in them. And this is what he says: and not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. As if to say: not as great an effect comes to many through the one sin of Adam as comes to many through the gift of Christ's grace. For the effect of a stronger cause is stronger. Hence, since it has been established that grace is stronger than Adam's sin, it follows that it produces a greater effect. Then when he says, for judgment, he clarifies what he has said: for judgment, i.e., God's punishment, indeed was by one, i.e., by the sin of the first parent, unto condemnation on all men, because they sinned in his sin, as stated above: death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned (Rom 5:12). But the grace of God, which is given through Christ, is of many offences, i.e., following not only that one original sin but also many actual sins, unto justification, i.e., complete cleansing: and such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified (1 Cor 6:11).