Romans 7:14–8:2

Paul is speaking here to those who were under the law. For they would not have submitted to it if they did not know that it was spiritual.… Paul calls man carnal, because he sins.To be sold under sin means to trace one's origin to Adam, who was the first to sin, and to subject oneself to sin by one's own transgression.… For Adam sold himself first, and because of this all his descendants are subjected to sin. The law is firm and just and without fault, but man is weak and bound either by his own or by his inherited fault, so that he cannot obey the law in his own strength.

The law can only be fulfilled by spiritual men, and these only the grace of God can produce. For the man who has been made spiritual like the law will easily do what it commands. He will not be under the law but at one with it. He will also be someone who is not ensnared by temporal goods or frightened by temporal evils.

The will of the Spirit is one thing, that of the flesh is another. These two wills fight against each other and can never reach agreement. Man is carnal, but the law is spiritual. How then can the law ever become tolerable to those who struggle so hard against the sickness of sin? There is wisdom here, for if a man is carnal he is in some sense captive and reduced to the condition of slavery.

The law is spiritual and makes the person who keeps it spiritual as well. It was given by the Holy Spirit so that those who obeyed it might receive the Spirit and be cleansed by the law's teaching. Paul was not sold under sin by anyone else but by his own breaking of the law.

After having said that great evils had taken place, and that sin, taking occasion by the commandment, had grown stronger, and the opposite of what the Law mainly aimed at had been the result, and after having thrown the hearer into a great deal of perplexity, he goes on next to give the rationale of these events, after first clearing the Law of any ill suspicion. For lest-upon hearing that it was through the commandment that sin took that occasion, and that it was when it came that sin revived, and through it deceived and killed-any one should suppose the Law to be the source of these evils, he first sets forth its defence with considerable advantage, not clearing it from accusation only, but encircling it also with the utmost praise. And this he lays down, not as granting it for his own part, but as declaring a universal judgment. "For we know," he says, "that the Law is spiritual." As if he had said, This is an allowed thing, and self-evident, that it "is spiritual," so far is it from being the cause of sin, or to blame for the evils that have happened. And observe, that he not only clears it of accusation, but bestows exceeding great praise upon it. For by calling it spiritual, he shows it to be a teacher of virtue and hostile to vice; for this is what being spiritual means, leading off from sin of every kind. And this the Law did do, by frightening, admonishing, chastening, correcting, recommending every kind of virtue. Whence then, was sin produced, if the teacher was so admirable? It was from the listlessness of its disciples. Wherefore he went on to say, "but I am carnal;" giving us a sketch now of man, as comporting himself in the Law, and before the Law. "Sold under sin." Because with death (he means) the throng of passions also came in. For when the body had become mortal, it was henceforth a necessary thing for it to receive concupiscence, and anger, and pain, and all the other passions, which required a great deal of wisdom to prevent their flooding us, and sinking reason in the depth of sin. For in themselves they were not sin, but, when their extravagancy was unbridled, it wrought this effect.

"For it was not the law of God that became the cause of my being brought into subjection to corruption, but the devil; that he might be made manifested who, through that which is good, wrought evil; that the inventor of evil might become and be proved the greatest of all sinners. "For we know that the law is spiritual; "and therefore it can in no respect be injurious to any one; for spiritual things are far removed from irrational lust and sin. "But I am carnal, sold under sin; "which means: But I being carnal, and being placed between good and evil as a voluntary agent, am so that I may have it in my power to choose what I will. For "behold I set before thee life and death; "meaning that death would result from disobedience of the spiritual law, that is of the commandment; and from obedience to the carnal law, that is the counsel of the serpent; for by such a choice "I am sold" to the devil, fallen under sin.

Someone who is carnal and sold under sin does not know that the law is spiritual, so how can Paul say this of himself? In fact, when he says that he is carnal and sold under sin he is playing the part of a teacher of the church by taking on the role of the weak, as he said elsewhere: "I became weak to the weak, so that I might win the weak."We are taught by the Psalms that it was the custom in Holy Scripture for holy men to take on the role of sinners and for teachers to assume the weaknesses of their pupils: "I am utterly bowed down and prostrate; all the day I go about mourning. For my loins are filled with burning, and there is no soundness in my flesh. I am utterly spent and crushed; I groan because of the tumult of my heart."

Paul says he was carnal because, although he accepted the law, he was in the habit of living carnally.

Who can draw a distinction, and say that there are two gods, one just and the other good, when He ought to be believed to be both one and the other, whose commandment is both "just and good? "Then, again, when affirming the law to be "spiritual" he thereby implies that it is prophetic, and that it is figurative.

Once again, Paul covers the law with praise. For what could be nobler than what he says about it here? He says in effect that the law was written by the Holy Spirit. Moses was given a share in his grace and thus wrote the law.

The Apostle said that sin was revealed through the commandment. Therefore, lest you think that the law is the cause of sin, he pronounces a general verdict and says: "for we know that the law is spiritual." It is known to all, he says, and acknowledged by all, that the law is by no means the cause of sin, but that it is "spiritual," that is, an instructor of virtue and an enemy of vice. From what, then, did sin arise under so wonderful an instructor? From the negligence and weakness of the disciples. For "I," he says, "am carnal," which means: all of human nature, both before the giving of the law and during the time of the law, was filled with a multitude of passions; for as a consequence of Adam's transgression, we not only became mortal, but our nature acquired passions, gave itself over to sin, and became a slave, so that it could not even lift its head.

After showing that the law is neither evil nor productive of an evil effect, the Apostle now proves that the law is good. In regard to this he does two things: first, he proves its goodness from the very repugnance to good found in man, a repugnance the law cannot take away; second, he shows what can take away this repugnance, at unhappy (Rom 7:24). In regard to the first he does three things: first, he states his proposition; second, he proves it, at for that which I work; third, he draws the conclusion, at I find then a law (Rom 7:21). In regard to the first he does two things: first, he asserts the goodness of the law; second, man's condition, at but I am carnal. First, therefore he says: we have stated that the law is holy. We said this because we, who are wise in divine matters, know that the law, i.e., the old, is spiritual, i.e., in harmony with man's spirit: the law of the Lord is stainless (Ps 19:7). Or it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit who is called the finger of God in the Scriptures: if by the finger of God I cast out demons (Luke 11:20). Hence it is said: he gave Moses two tablets of stone, written with the finger of God (Exod 31:18). Yet the new law is not only called spiritual but the law of the Spirit (Rom 8:2), because it is not only given by the Holy Spirit but the Holy Spirit imprints it on the heart in which he dwells. Then he indicates man's condition, when he says, but I am carnal. This passage can be interpreted in two ways: in one way so that the Apostle is speaking in the person of a man existing in sin. This is the way Augustine explained it in the book of 83 Questions. But later in a book against Julian he explained it as though the Apostle is speaking in his own person, i.e., of a man in the state of grace. Let us continue, therefore, by showing how these words and those that follow can be explained under both interpretations, although the second explanation is better. The first statement, therefore, but I am carnal, is so interpreted that the word I stands for man's reason, which is the chief thing in man; hence each man seems to be his own reason or intellect, as a city seems to be the ruler of the city, so that whatever he does the city seems to do. But man is called carnal, because his reason is carnal. It is called carnal in two ways: in one way from the fact that it is submissive to the flesh and consents to things to which the flesh urges it: for while there is jealousy and strife among you, are you not of the flesh? (1 Cor 3:3). In this way it is understood of man not yet healed by grace. In another way reason is said to be carnal, because it is under attack from the flesh: the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit (Gal 5:17). In this way, even the reason of a man in the state of grace is said to be carnal. In both cases it is carnal on account of sin; hence he adds, sold under sin. But it should be noted that the carnality, which implies rebellion of the flesh against the spirit, arises from the sin of the first parent, because this pertains to the inclination to sin derived from that sin. But the carnality which implies submission of reason to the flesh arises not only from original sin but also from actual, through which a man by obeying the desires of the flesh makes himself a slave of the flesh; hence he adds: sold under sin, namely, of the first parent or of the self. He says, sold, because the sinner sells himself into the slavery of sin as payment for fulfilling his own will: for your iniquities you were sold (Isa 50:1).

This may appear to the less discerning to contradict [verse 13]. How can sin be made manifest if it is not understood? But here "I do not understand" means "I do not approve." For instance, darkness cannot be seen, but it is perceived in contrast to light; in other words, to perceive darkness is not to see it. Likewise sin, because it is not made clear by the light of righteousness, is discerned by not understanding in the way that darkness is perceived by not seeing. "Who understands his own transgressions?

There were two odd things about the human race. First, that they were haunted by the idea of a sort of behaviour they ought to practise, what you might call fair play, or decency, or morality, or the Law of Nature. Second, that they did not in fact do so. ... But if you turn to the Law of Human Nature, the Law of Decent Behaviour, it is a different matter. That law certainly does not mean 'what human beings, in fact, do'; for as I said before, many of them do not obey this law at all, and none of them obey it completely. The law of gravity tells you what stones do if you drop them; but the Law of Human Nature tells you what human beings ought to do and do not.

It appears that this refers to the ignorant Gentiles, whose thoughts Paul is reproducing. For having consigned their destiny and future to their own lusts even to the point of regarding vain idols as having some power over our lives, they deprive man of his glory, which is the ability to live freely, and to have full and complete control over his own will to do whatever he wishes.… It may be that someone who is forced to act against his will cannot be blamed for it, but at the same time no rational person will praise him for his godliness and righteousness either. For why should somebody be praised for doing things against his own will, even if he is forced to do so by a power over which he has no control?

Paul is not condemning himself here but describing the common lot of mankind, which he sees in himself.

What does the "I know not" mean?-I am ignorant. And when could this ever happen? For nobody ever sinned in ignorance. Seest thou, that if we do not receive his words with the proper caution, and keep looking to the object of the Apostle, countless incongruities will follow? For if they sinned through ignorance, then they did not deserve to be punished. As then he said above, "for without the Law sin is dead," not meaning that they did not know they were sinning, but that they knew indeed, but not so distinctly; wherefore they were punished, but not so severely: and again; "I should not have known lust;" not meaning an entire ignorance of it, but referring to the most distinct knowledge of it; and said, that it also "wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, not meaning to say that the commandment made the concupiscence, but that sin through the commandment introduces an intense degree of concupiscence; so here it is not absolute ignorance that he means by saying, "For what I do, I know not;" since how then would he have pleasure in the law of God in his inner man? What then is this, "I know not?" I get dizzy, he means, I feel carried away, I find a violence done to me, I get tripped up without knowing how. Just as we often say, Such an one came and carried me away with him, without my knowing how; when it is not ignorance we mean as an excuse, but to show a sort of deceit, and circumvention, and plot. "For what I would, that I do not: but what I hate, that I do." How then canst thou be said not to know what thou art doing? For if thou willest the good, and hatest the evil, this requires a perfect knowledge. Whence it appears that he says, "that I would not," not as denying free will, or as adducing any constrained necessity. For if it was not willingly, but by compulsion, that we sinned, then the punishments that took place before would not be justifiable.

Come, let us now consider whether a teacher sent from heaven can fail to be perfect. Let us suppose that some one were to be sent from heaven to instruct the life of men in the first principles of virtue, and to form them to righteousness. No one can doubt but that this teacher, who is sent from heaven, would be as perfect in the knowledge of all things as in virtue, lest there should be no difference between a heavenly and an earthly teacher. For in the case of a man his instruction can by no means be from within and of himself. For the mind, shut in by earthly organs, and hindered by a corrupt body, of itself can neither comprehend nor receive the truth, unless it is taught from another source. How then can one practise what he teaches, unless he is like him whom he teaches? For if he be subject to no passion, a man may thus answer him who is the teacher: It is my wish not to sin, but I am overpowered; for I am clothed with frail and weak flesh: it is this which covets, which is angry, which fears pain and death. And thus I am led on against my will; and I sin, not because it is my wish, but because I am compelled. I myself perceive that I sin; but the necessity imposed by my frailty, which I am unable to resist, impels me. What will that teacher of righteousness say in reply to these things? How will he refute and convict a man who shall allege the frailty of the flesh as an excuse for his faults, unless he himself also shall be clothed with flesh, so that he may show that even the flesh is capable of virtue?

Hence evil, as though besieging me, cleaves to me and dwells in me, justice giving me up to be sold to the Evil One, in consequence of having violated the law. Therefore also the expressions: "That which I do, I allow not," and "what I hate, that do I," are not to be understood of doing evil, but of only thinking it. For it is not in our power to think or not to think of improper things, but to act or not to act upon our thoughts. For we cannot hinder thoughts from coming into our minds, since we receive them when they are inspired into us from without; but we are able to abstain from obeying them and acting upon them.

Paul does not say that the weak man does not know what he is doing but rather that he does not understand why he is doing it.Here Paul shows that even the man who is carnal and sold under sin may try, by the instinct of natural law as it were, to resist evil, but he is overcome by sin and is subdued unwillingly. This often happens, for example, when someone decides not to react to provocation, but in the end his anger gets the better of him and he gives in to it against his will. In other words, he gets angry when he does not want to get angry.… Someone who is not yet spiritual will be defeated in instances like these, even against his own will, because that will is not yet strong or resilient enough to retain control of him even to the point of death in his struggle for truth.

Paul says that he subjected himself to sin of his own accord and then, as if drunk, he did not know what he was doing. Or perhaps he meant that he did not understand that what he accepted against his will was evil.

We do not sin from necessity or by compulsion; rather we are overcome by desire and do things which in principle we detest.

Here he speaks not of complete ignorance, for if they sinned in ignorance, then for what would they be punished? What then does he say? I remain in darkness, I am carried away, I do not know how sin carries me away. Therefore, when he says: "I do not understand," he indicates not ignorance of what ought to be done, but dangers, snares, seduction, enticement. All this he says about people who lived before the coming of Christ in the flesh, although he presented himself. So he expresses himself instead of the following: for the people of that time did not do what they wanted. In expressing himself this way, he does not suggest necessity or compulsion. But what does he say? This: what they did not approve of, what they did not accept, what they did not love, that they did. Do you see that he introduces neither compulsion nor necessity? For otherwise he would have added: what I am compelled to by necessity, that I do. But he did not say this; rather, he says: "what I hate." How then did evil arise? Through enticement, through the weakness that they had from Adam's transgression. This weakness the law could not heal, although it did say what one ought to do; Christ healed it when He came. So then, in everything that the apostle has said and intends to say, his purpose is to demonstrate that human nature had come into an incurable state and that no one would heal it except Christ.

Then he clarifies what he had stated, when he says, for that which I work: first, that the law is spiritual; second, that man is carnal, sold under sin, now then it is no more. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he presents a proof; second, he draws the conclusion, at if then I do that which I will not. The proof is based on man's infirmity, which he first asserts; second, he gives the proof, at for the good which I will. The proof is based on man's infirmity, revealed by the fact that he does what he knows should not be done; hence it is said: for that which I work, I do not understand, i.e., do not know that it should be done. This can be taken in two ways: in one way of a person subject to sin, who understands in general that sin should not be committed, but overcome by the suggestion of the devil or by passion or by the inclination of a perverse habit, he commits it. Therefore, he said to do what he understands is not to be done, acting against conscience, just as the servant who knew his master's will but did not act according to his will (Luke 12:47). In another way it can be understood of one in the state of grace. He does evil not by performing the deed or consenting with the mind, but only by desiring through a passion in the sensitive appetite; and that desire escapes the reason or intellect, because it exists before the intellect's judgment. When the judgment is made, the desire is impeded. Therefore, it is significant that he does not say: I understand it is not to be done but I do not understand; namely, because such a desire arises before the intellect has deliberated or has perceived it: the desires of the flesh are against the spirit, and the desires of the spirit are against the flesh (Gal 5:17). Then he proves what he had said by division and by effect, when he says, for I do not that good. First, he distinguishes under the division between not doing the good and doing evil, because even a person who does not do the good is said to commit sin, i.e., the sin of omission, when he says for that which I work. From his part, however, where he says, I do not understand, he proves through the effect; for since the intellect moves the will, willing is its effect, which is to understand. In regard to the omission of the good therefore, he says, for I do not that good which I will. In one way this can be understood of a man in the state of sin; then I do ought to be understood as a complete action performed outwardly with the consent of reason, whereas I will refers not to a complete act of will commanding the deed, but to an incomplete willing by which men want the good in general, just as they have a correct judgment about the good in general; yet this judgment is perverted by a bad habit or a perverse passion with the result that the will goes wrong, when it gets down to the particular case, and does not do what it knows in a general way should be done and would want to do. In another way it is understood of a man healed by grace; then, conversely, I will refers to a complete act of willing which lasts through the act of choosing a particular deed, whereas I do refers to an incomplete action which has gone no further than the sense appetite and has not reached the stage of consent. For a man in the state of grace wants to preserve his mind from wicked desires, but he fails to accomplish this good on account of disorderly movements of desire that arise in the sensitive appetite. This is similar to what he says in Galatians: so that you do not do all that you will (Gal 5:17). Second, in regard to perpetrating evil he says: but the evil which I hate, that I do. If this is understood of the sinner, I hate means an imperfect hatred in virtue of which every man naturally hates evil; I do means an action completely performed in keeping with reason's consent. For that general hatred of evil is frustrated in a particular choice by the inclination of a habit or passion. But if it is understood of a person in the state of grace, I do means an incomplete action which has gone no further than existing as a desire in the sensitive appetite; I hate refers to complete hatred, by which one continues hating evil until its final reprobation: I hate them with a perfect hatred (Ps 139:22), namely, evil men, inasmuch as they are sinners: while the laws were very well observed because of the piety of the high priest Onias and his hatred of wickedness (2 Macc 3:1).

The law is defended against every accusation, but we must be careful not to think that these words deny our free will, which is not true. The man being described here is under the law, before the coming of grace. Sin overpowers him when he attempts to live righteously in his own strength, without the help of God's liberating grace. For by his free will a man is able to believe in the Deliverer and to receive grace. Thus with the deliverance and help of him who gives it, he will not sin and will cease to be under the law. Instead, being at one with the law or in the law, he will fulfill it by the love of God which he could not have done through fear.

Nor do I say this so that we should be without affection, and with a dry heart move only our hands to works. I have read among the other great and grievous evils of men which the Apostle writes, this also numbered: namely to be without affection (Rom 1:31). But there is an affection which the flesh begets; and there is one which reason rules; and there is one which wisdom seasons. The first is that which the Apostle says is not subject to the law of God, nor can it be (Rom 8:7); the second is that which he affirms on the other hand to be consenting to the law of God, because it is good (Rom 7:16); nor is there any doubt that the contentious and the consenting differ from each other. But the third is far distant from both, which both tastes and savors that the Lord is sweet (Ps 34:8), eliminating the first and rewarding the second. For the first indeed is sweet, but base; the second is dry, but strong; the last is rich, and sweet.

You see here, that the understanding is not yet perverted, but keeps up its own noble character even during the action. For even if it does pursue vice, still it hates it the while, which would be great commendation, whether of the natural or the written Law. For that the Law is good, is (he says) plain, from the fact of my accusing myself, when I disobey the Law, and hate what has been done. And yet if the Law was to blame for the sin, how comes it that he felt a delight in it, yet hated what it orders to be done? For, "I consent," he says, "unto the Law, that it is good."

Paul says that if he does not want to do the particular evil which he does, at least he agrees with the law, which does not desire evil and prohibits it. But it can also be understood thus: if a man sins, he subjects himself to the severity of the law.

Paul says that he learned to hate what he does from the law, and therefore he defends the law and says that it was right.

That the law is good, he says, is evident from the fact that I naturally know what ought to be done, and that my reason is not impaired, even though I give myself over to vice.

Then when he says, now if I do, he concludes from the aforementioned condition of man that the law is good, saying, now if I do that which I will not. No matter which of the aforementioned ways is taken, by the very fact that I hate evil I consent to the law, that it is good in forbidding evil which I naturally do not want. For it is clear that man's inclination in keeping with reason to will the good and flee evil is in accord with nature or grace; and each is good. Hence, the law also, which agrees with this inclination by commanding what is good and forbidding what is evil, is good for the same reason: I give you good precepts; do not forsake my teaching (Ps 4:2).

"When I say 'me,'" he says, "understand that which is more excellent in me, in which I also stand by the grace of God, that is, the mind and reason. When I speak of 'my soul,' take it in the lower sense, that which you see accommodated to animating the flesh, and even joined to it in concupiscence. That I was this, but now am no longer, I acknowledge, because I no longer walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit" (Rom 8:4). "I live, now not I, but Christ lives in me" (Gal 2:20). According to the mind, I; according to the flesh, not I. For what if the soul even now desires carnally? "It is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells in me" (Rom 7:17). And therefore I would call what in me savors carnally not indeed myself, but nevertheless mine, and that nothing other than the soul itself. For truly the carnal affection of the soul is a portion of it, and the life which it administers to the body.

All this is reminiscent of what was said by the Lord in the Gospels: "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak."

On this text, those who find fault with the flesh, and contend it was no part of God's creation, attack us. What are we to say then? Just what we did before, when discussing the Law: that as there he makes sin answerable for everything so here also. For he does not say, that the flesh worketh it, but just the contrary, "it is not I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me." But if he does say that "there dwelleth no good thing in it," still this is no charge against the flesh. For the fact that "no good thing dwelleth in it," does not show that it is evil itself. Now we admit, that the flesh is not so great as the soul, and is inferior to it, yet not contrary, or opposed to it, or evil; but that it is beneath the soul, as a harp beneath a harper, and as a ship under the pilot. And these are not contrary to those who guide and use them, but go with them entirely, yet are not of the same honor with the artist. As then a person who says, that the art resides not in the harp or the ship, but in the pilot or harper, is not finding fault with the instruments, but pointing out the great difference between them and the artist; so Paul in saying, that "in my flesh dwelleth no good thing," is not finding fault with the body, but pointing out the soul's superiority. For this it is that has the whole duty of pilotage put into its hands, and that of playing. And this Paul here points out, giving the governing power to the soul, and after dividing man into these two things, the soul and the body, he says, that the flesh has less of reason, and is destitute of discretion, and ranks among things to be led, not among things that lead. But the soul has more wisdom, and can see what is to be done and what not, yet is not equal to pulling in the horse as it wishes. And this would be a charge not against the flesh only, but against the soul also, which knows indeed what it ought to do, but still does not carry out in practice what seems best to it. "For to will," he says, "is present with me; but how to perform that which is good, I find not." Here again in the words, "I find not," he does not speak of any ignorance or perplexity, but a kind of thwarting and crafty assault made by sin, which he therefore points more clearly out in the next words.

The law of nature is introduced as being in agreement with the law of God … For if we assent to the law of God according to our will, the evil which we do is no longer ours; rather, it is sin which is at work within us, i.e., the law and will of the flesh, which makes us captive to the law of sin which is in our members.The kind of person Paul is talking about here is not one in whom Christ does not dwell and who is a stranger to good works but rather someone who has started on the path of wanting to do what is right but has not yet been able to achieve his desires. This kind of weakness exists in those who have accepted the first stages of conversion, but although they want to do everything which is good this desire has not yet prevailed. For instance, someone might decide in himself that it is wrong to get angry and determine not to do it, but since by long custom and daily habit the vice of anger has controlled him, it resists his will and breaks out in the usual way.

Paul means that he did it willingly before it became a habit. Sin then lived in him as a guest or as one thing inside another … in other words, as an accidental quality, not as a natural one.

"For the law," says he, "of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death," -that, surely, which he previously mentioned as dwelling in our members. Our members, therefore, will no longer be subject to the law of death, because they cease to serve that of sin, from both which they have been set free.

He did not say that the flesh does this, but "sin," that is, the tyranny of sin that drags me along.

Then, when he says, now then it is no more I, he proves what he had said about man's condition, namely, that he is carnal and sold under sin. In regard to this he does three things: first, he states his proposition; second, he proves it, at for I know; third, he draws the conclusion, at if then I do that which I will not. That man is carnal and sold under sin, as though somehow a slave of sin, is clear from the fact that he does not act but is led by sin. For a free man acts of himself and is not led by another. Therefore, he says: I have said that I consent to the law so far as my intellect and will are concerned, but when I act against the law, it is no more I that do it, i.e., do what is against the law, but sin that dwells in me. So it is evident that I am a slave of sin, inasmuch as sin by exercising its dominion over me does it. It is easy to understand this of a man in the state of grace; for the fact that he desires something evil, so far as the sensitive appetite pertaining to the flesh is concerned, does not proceed from the work of reason but from the inclination to sin. But a person is said to do what his reason does, because man is what he is according to reason; hence the movements of concupiscible desire, which are not from reason but from the inclination to sin, the man does not do but the inclination to sin, which is here called sin: whence wars and fightings among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? (Jas 4:1). But this cannot properly be understood of a man in sin, because his reason consents to sin; therefore, he commits it. Hence Augustine and a Gloss say: greatly deceived is the man who consents to the desires of the flesh and decides to do what they desire and then thinks he can say of himself: I am not doing this. However, there is a way, although forced, to understand this even of a sinner. For an action is mainly attributed to the principal agent acting in virtue of its proper characteristic, not to the agent acting in virtue of a characteristic proper to some other thing by which it is moved. But it is clear that man's reason, considered in the light of what is proper to it, is not inclined to evil, but insofar as it is moved by concupiscible desire. Therefore, the doing of evil, which reason does, inasmuch as it has been overcome by desire, is not attributed principally to reason, which is understood here to be man, but rather to the desire or habit in virtue of which reason is inclined to evil. It should be noted that sin is said to dwell in man, not as though sin were some reality, since it is a privation of good, but to indicate the permanence of this kind of defect in man.

Paul does not say that the flesh is evil, as some think, but that what dwells in the flesh is not good, i.e., sin. How does sin dwell in the flesh when it is not a substance but the perversion of what is good? Since the body of the first man was corrupted by sin and became dissolvable, this same corruption of sin remains in the body because of the state of transgression, retaining the strength of the divine judgment given in Adam, which is the sign of the devil, at whose prompting Adam sinned. Because of this sin is said to dwell in the flesh, to which the devil comes as if to his own kingdom. For the flesh is sinful and sin remains in it in order to deceive man by evil temptations, so that man will not do what the law commands.Man can agree that what the law commands is good; he can say that it naturally pleases him and that he wants to do it. But in spite of all that, the power and the strength to carry out his wishes is lacking because he is so oppressed by the power of sin that he cannot go where he wants nor can he make contrary decisions, because another power is in control of him. For man is burdened by his habit of sinning and succumbs to sin more readily than to the law, which he knows teaches what is good. For if he wants to do what is good, habit backed by the enemy prevents him.

It is possible for a good to be performed when there is no yielding to evil lust, but the good is completed or perfected only when evil lust itself no longer exists.

Paul says that the evil of the flesh is not good but that when this evil has ceased to exist the flesh will still be there, but … then it will not be defective or corrupt.

My reason for thinking that a mere statement of even the highest ethical principles is not enough is precisely that to know these things is not necessarily to do them, and if Christianity brought no healing to the impotent will, Christ's teaching would not help us.

To say this is to repeat what everyone here admits already—that we are saved by grace, that in our flesh dwells no good thing, that we are, through and through, creatures not creators, derived beings, living not of ourselves but from Christ.

Up to that moment the human spirit had been in full control of the human organism. It doubtless expected that it would retain this control when it had ceased to obey God. But its authority over the organism was a delegated authority which it lost when it ceased to be God's delegate... Thus the organs, no longer governed by man's will, fell under the control of ordinary biochemical laws and suffered whatever the inter-workings of those laws might bring about in the way of pain, senility and death. And desires began to come up into the mind of man, not as his reason chose, but just as the biochemical and environmental facts happened to cause them. And the mind itself fell under the psychological laws of association... And the will, caught in the tidal wave of mere nature, had no resource but to force back some of the new thoughts and desires by main strength, and these uneasy rebels became the subconscious as we now know it.

I do not succeed in keeping the Law of Nature very well, and the moment anyone tells me I am not keeping it, there starts up in my mind a string of excuses as long as your arm. ... The truth is, we believe in decency so much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the responsibility.

These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.

What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behaviour, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? ... Nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.

Now we cannot, in that sense, discover our failure to keep God's law except by trying our very hardest (and then failing). Unless we really try, whatever we say there will always be at the back of our minds the idea that if we try harder next time we shall succeed in being completely good. Thus, in one sense, the road back to God is a road of moral effort, of trying harder and harder. But in another sense it is not trying that is ever going to bring us home. All this trying leads up to the vital moment at which you turn to God and say, 'You must do this. I can't.'

It is quite true that if we took Christ's advice we should soon be living in a happier world. You need not even go as far as Christ. If we did all that Plato or Aristotle or Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better than we do. And so what? We never have followed the advice of the great teachers. Why are we likely to begin now? Why are we more likely to follow Christ than any of the others? Because He is the best moral teacher? But that makes it even less likely that we shall follow Him. If we cannot take the elementary lessons, is it likely we are going to take the most advanced one? If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity is of no importance. There has been no lack of good advice for the last four thousand years. A bit more makes no difference.

In fact what I so proudly call 'Myself' becomes merely the meeting place for trains of events which I never started and which I cannot stop. What I call 'My wishes' become merely the desires thrown up by my physical organism or pumped into me by other men's thoughts or even suggested to me by devils... I am not, in my natural state, nearly so much of a person as I like to believe: most of what I call 'me' can be very easily explained.

All that he is concerned with is the description of a definite and very real type of young man; the young man whose passions and whose selfish necessities sometimes seemed to be stronger than anything else in him.

On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: "For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing," showing that the "good thing" of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying, ] "The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord." And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says: ] "Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us." Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved.

The parable of the two sons also: those who are sent into the vineyard, of whom one indeed opposed his father, but afterwards repented, when repentance profited him nothing; the other, however, promised to go, at once assuring his father, but he did not go (for "every man is a liar;" "to will is present with him, but he finds not means to perform"),-[this parable, I say], points out one and the same Father.

For myself, I find I become less cynical rather than more – remembering my own sins and follies; and realize that men's hearts are not often as bad as their acts, and very seldom as bad as their words. (Especially in our age, which is one of sneer and cynicism. We are freer from hypocrisy, since it does not 'do' to profess holiness or utter high sentiments; but it is one of inverted hypocrisy like the widely current inverted snobbery: men profess to be worse than they are.).

Paul does not say that his flesh is not good. The will is there but not the action, because carnal habit opposes the will.

Although Paul has received the knowledge of right willing, he cannot find in himself the power to do what he wills. It is not until he receives a good will as a gift that he finds the power for the virtues which he seeks.

I Fully confess unto the Lord God that it has been rash enough, if not even impudent, in me to have dared compose a treatise on Patience, for practising which I am all unfit, being a man of no goodness; whereas it were becoming that such as have addressed themselves to the demonstration and commendation of some particular thing, should themselves first be conspicuous in the practice of that thing, and should regulate the constancy of their commonishing by the authority of their personal conduct, for fear their words blush at the deficiency of their deeds.

"For as ye have tendered your members to servile impurity and iniquity, so too now tender them servants to righteousness unto holiness." For even if he has affirmed that "good dwelleth not in his flesh," yet (he means) according to "the law of the letter," in which he "was: "but according to "the law of the Spirit," to which he annexes us, he frees us from the "infirmity of the flesh.

What then do those babble who arm themselves against the flesh and exclude it from the number of God's creations? They object: the apostle says, "there dwells not in me, that is, in my flesh, anything good." Listen in what sense he said this. Man consists of two parts: the soul and the flesh; of these, the first, that is, the soul, rules over everything, while the flesh is a servant. Therefore the expression "there dwells not in my flesh anything good" means: it does not lie in the power of the flesh, but in the power of the soul; whatever the soul chooses, the flesh does. It is just as if someone were to say that harmonious sound is not in the harp but in the harpist — he does not disparage the harp, but shows the superiority of the musician over the instrument. By the words "I do not find" he indicated the assault and scheming of sin; for he removes the blame both from the essence of the soul and from the essence of the flesh, and ascribes everything to vicious activity and will.

Then he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits, when he says, for I know: first, he presents the middle term proving the proposition; second, he explains the middle term, at for to will. First, therefore, he proves that sin dwelling in man does the evil which man commits. This proof is clear when the words are referred to a man in the state of grace, who has been freed from sin by the grace of Christ (Rom 6:22). Therefore, as to a person in whom Christ's grace does not dwell, he has not yet been freed from sin. But the grace of Christ does not dwell in the flesh, but in the mind; hence it is stated below that if Christ is in us, the body is indeed dead because of sin, but the spirit lives because of justice (Rom 8:10). Therefore, sin, which the desire of the flesh works, still rules in the flesh. For he takes flesh here to include the sensitive powers. For the flesh is thus distinguished against the spirit and fights it, inasmuch as the sensitive appetite tends to the contrary of what reason seeks, as it says in Galatians: the desires of the flesh are against the spirit (Gal 5:17). He says, therefore: we have said that in me, even though healed by grace, sin works; but this must be understood of me according to the flesh along with the sensitive appetite. For I know through reason and experience that the good, namely, of grace by which I have been reformed, does not dwell in me. But lest this be understood to include reason according to the manner explained above, he adds: that is to say, in my flesh. For in me, i.e., in my heart, this good does dwell, for it says in Ephesians: that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith (Eph 3:17). This makes it clear that this passage does not favor the Manicheans who want the flesh not to be good according to its nature and, consequently, not a good creature of God, whereas it is written: everything created by God is good (1 Tim 4:4). For the Apostle is not discussing a good of nature but the good of grace, by which we are freed from sin. If this passage referred to man existing under sin, it would be superfluous to add, that is to say, in my flesh, because in a sinner the good of grace does not dwell either in regard to the flesh or the mind. A forced interpretation would explain this passage by saying that sin, which is the privation of grace, is somehow derived from the flesh to the mind. Then he clarifies what he had said, when he says for to will: first, from man's capabilities; second, from his action which proves his capability, at for the good which I will. Man's capability is described first in regard to willing, which seems to be in man's power; hence he says, for to will is present with me, i.e., is close to me, as though existing beneath my power. For nothing is so much within man's power as his will, as Augustine says. Second, he describes man's capability, or rather his difficulty in achieving an effect, when he says, but to accomplish good, I cannot find, i.e., I do not find it within my power, as it says in Proverbs: it is the part of man to prepare the soul (Prov 16:1); the heart of a man disposes his way, but the Lord directs his steps (Prov 1:9). This passage of Paul seems to favor the Pelagians who said that the start of a good work is from us, inasmuch as we will the good. And this is what the Apostle seems to say: but to accomplish good, I cannot find. However, he rejects this interpretation in Philippians: but God is at work in you both to will and to do (Phil 2:13). Therefore, the fact that for to will is present with me, once I have been healed by grace, is due to the work of divine grace, through which I not only will the good but also do some good, because I resist concupiscence and, led by the spirit, act against it; but I do not find it within my power to accomplish that good so as to exclude concupiscence entirely. This indicates that the good of grace does not reside in the flesh, because if it did, then just as I have the faculty of willing the good because of grace dwelling in the mind, so I would have the faculty of accomplishing the good in virtue of grace residing in the flesh. But if it be referred to man existing under sin, then it could be explained so that to will is taken for an incomplete act of willing, which from the impulse of nature is good in some who sin. But to will is present to man, i.e., it lies next to man, as though it is weak, unless grace bestows to the will the ability for perfection.

In fact, I would not have known sin if the law had not said: You shall not covet. And further: Without the law, sin is dead. For what benefit is it to me to know what I cannot avoid? What benefit is it to me to know that the law of my flesh opposes me? Paul is opposed, and he sees the law of his flesh resisting the law of his mind, and he is held captive under the law of sin, and does not presume of his own conscience; but by the grace of Christ, he trusts that he will be liberated from the body of death: and do you think that anyone who knows cannot sin? Paul says: For I do not do the good that I want, but the evil that I do not want, that I do: and do you think that knowledge benefits man, which increases envy of sin?

Paul repeats this often in order to make it clear.

Do you see, how he acquits the essence of the soul, as well as the essence of the flesh, from accusation, and removes it entirely to sinful actions? For if the soul willeth not the evil, it is cleared: and if he does not work it himself, the body too is set free, and the whole may be charged upon the evil moral choice. For willing is indeed natural, and is from God: but willing on this wise is our own, and from our own mind.

Therefore it is in our power to will not to think these things; but not to bring it about that they shall pass away, so as not to come into the mind again; for this does not lie in our power, as I said; which is the meaning of that statement, "The good that I would, I do not; "for I do not will to think the things which injure me; for this good is altogether innocent. But "the good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do; "not willing to think, and yet thinking what I do not will. And consider whether it was not for these very things that David entreated God, grieving that he thought of those things which he did not will: "O cleanse Thou me from my secret faults. Keep Thy servant also from presumptuous sins, lest they get the dominion over me; so shall I be undefiled, and innocent from the great offence." And the apostle too, in another place: "Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ."

Think of someone who has sworn so much for such a long time that now he does it even when he does not want to.

When he says, "which I do not want," he removes the blame from the soul.

Then when he says, for the good which I will, I do not, he manifests what he had said by citing man's action, which is a sign and effect of human capability. For man does not have the strength to accomplish good, because he does not do the good he wants but does the evil he does not want. This has been explained earlier.

Is the sinner compelled to sin by a power outside himself? Not at all. For it was by his own fault that these evil things began, for whoever binds himself to sin voluntarily is ruled by its law. Sin persuades him first, and when it has conquered him it takes control.

Even if the heretics who are opposed to the Creator suppose that in the next sentence Paul was speaking against him when he says, "I know that in me, that is in my flesh, there dwells no good thing," yet let them read what precedes and follows this. For before it he says, "But sin which dwells in me," which explains why it was appropriate for him to say, "in my flesh dwells no good thing." In what follows he continues, "But if I do that which I do not wish to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me," which being at war with the law of God and "of my mind," he says, "makes me captive by the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death." And again (for he does not become in the least weary of being helpful) he does not hesitate to add, "For the law of the Spirit has set me free from the law of sin and death," since by his Son "God condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit." In addition to this he makes the point still clearer by saying emphatically, "The body is dead because of sin," indicating that if it is not the temple, it is still the tomb of the soul. For when it is dedicated to God, he adds, "the spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, who shall also make alive your mortal bodies through his Spirit dwelling in you."

What was once an act of will has become so habitual that now it is involuntary.

"For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and through sin condemned sin in the flesh " -not the flesh in sin, for the house is not to be condemned with its inhabitant. He said, indeed, that "sin dwelleth in our body." But the condemnation of sin is the acquittal of the flesh, just as its non-condemnation subjugates it to the law of sin and death.

When he says, "it is no longer I who do it," he removes the blame from the body. Who then does evil? Sin, which, according to John Chrysostom, is a vicious and sin-loving will. And this will is not a creation of God, but our own movement. The will in itself is a creation of God; but the will directed toward a particular end is something of our own, an act of our free choice. It was said above what sin is, that is, the tyranny of sin, which carries away our mind through pleasure.

Then, when he says, now if I do that which I will not, he concludes to what he had previously proposed, saying, now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. This, too, has been explained earlier. But it should be noted that in virtue of the same middle term, i.e., which I will not, the Apostle concludes to the two things he had proposed above, namely, the goodness of the law, when he said, now if I do that which I will not, I consent to the law, that it is good, and the dominion of sin in man, when he says here, now if I do that which I will not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwells in me. The first of these conclusions pertains to his statement that the law is spiritual; the second to the statement: but I am carnal, sold under sin. But he draws the first conclusion, which is about the goodness of the law, from that middle term by reason of I do not will, because his mind does not want what the law forbids, which shows that the law is good. But in virtue of the phrase that I do he concludes that sin, which functions against reason's will, holds sway over man.

Paul says that the law of Moses agrees with his will against sin, which dwells in his flesh and forces him to do something other than what he and the law want to do.

If sin inheres in my flesh and corrupts it, it may well be that the law offers help and gives advice, but even so it does not set me free from sin. Yet for those who are bound by the weakness of sin, it is hardly enough to know that they should be doing better; what they need is the strength to do what is right and in accordance with the law.

What he says is not very clear. What then is it that is said? I praise the law, he says, in my conscience, and I find it pleads on my side so far as I am desirous of doing what is right, and that it invigorates this wish. For as I feel a pleasure in it, so does it yield praise to my decision. Do you see how he shows, that the knowledge of what is good and what is not such is an original and fundamental part of our nature, and that the Law of Moses praises it, and getteth praise from it? For above he did not say so much as I get taught by the Law, but "I consent to the Law;" nor further on that I get instructed by it, but "I delight in" it. Now what is "I delight?" It is, I agree with it as right, as it does with me when wishing to do what is good. And so the willing what is good and the not willing what is evil was made a fundamental part of us from the first. But the Law, when it came, was made at once a stronger accuser in what was bad, and a greater praiser in what was good. Do you observe that in every place he bears witness to its having a kind of intensitiveness and additional advantage, yet nothing further? For though it praises and I delight in it, and wish what is good the "evil is" still "present with me," and the agency of it has not been abolished. And thus the Law, with a man who determines upon doing anything good, only acts so far as auxiliary to him, as that it has the same wish as himself. Then since he had stated it indistinctly, as he goes on he gives a yet more distinct interpretation, by showing how the evil is present, how too the Law is a law to such a person only who has a mind to do what is good.

Paul means that he has a law which will help him do good, even though "evil lies close at hand."

Paul says that "evil lies close at hand" because our body is mortal and passible, and our soul is sluggish and weak.

The expression is unclear; something is lacking in it. It should have said: so then, when I wish to do good, I find the law to be my defender, yet I do not do the good, because evil is present with me. The meaning of the present passage is this: the knowledge of good has been implanted in me from the beginning; I also find that the law defends it, and praises it, and I desire to do good, but I am drawn in by some other force, and evil is present with me, that is, the working of evil is not destroyed in me. However, St. John Chrysostom, having interpreted the present passage as incomplete, suggests that it can also be understood differently, namely thus: I find that the law was given not to anyone else, but to me who wishes to do good; for the law is a law only for those who wish to do good, since it desires the same thing that they also desire. This will be made clear from what follows.

After showing that the law is good because it concords with reason, the Apostle now draws two conclusions based on the two things he had posited; the second conclusion is at but I see another law. In regard to the first he does two things: first, he draws a conclusion from what he had said; second, he offers a sign to clarify it, at for I am delighted. Now he had posited two things. The first was that the law is spiritual (Rom 7:14), from which he concludes: I find then, namely, by experience, a law consistent with that of Moses, that when I have a will to do good, i.e., there is agreement between the law of Moses and my reason, by which I approve the good and detest evil, just as that law commands the good and forbids evil: the word is very near unto you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it (Deut 30:14). And in this way it was necessary that evil, i.e., sin or the inclination of sin, is present with me, i.e., lay next to my reason, as though dwelling in my flesh: guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your bosom, i.e., from the flesh (Mic 7:5).

Paul says that the mind delights in the things which are taught by the law. This is "our inmost self," because sin does not dwell in the mind but in the flesh.… It is prevented from dwelling in the mind by free will. Therefore sin dwells in the flesh, at the door of the soul as it were, so as to prevent the soul from doing what it wants to do. If it dwelt in the mind it would derange it, so that man would not know himself. As it is, he does know himself and takes delight in the law of God.

See wherein we are free, wherein we are delighted with the law of God. Freedom delights. For as long as you do what is just out of fear, God does not delight you. As long as you do it still a slave, he does not delight you. Let him delight you and you are free.

Here Paul is describing the common lot of man. For the ordinary person can see in his mind what ought to be done but cannot achieve it. But the man who has believed in Christ with his mind can achieve it with the help of the Holy Spirit. Such a person is therefore called "spiritual."

He means, for I knew even before this what was good, but when I find it set down in writing, I praise it.

And the same is denoted by the words, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? "By which he does not mean that the body is death, but the law of sin which is in his members, lying hidden in us through the transgression, and ever deluding the soul to the death of unrighteousness. And he immediately adds, clearly showing from what kind of death he desired to be delivered, and who he was who delivered him, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ."

Paul's "inmost self" is the rational and intelligent soul which agrees with the law of God, for its law is to live rationally and not to be led about by the passions of irrational animals.The outer self, on the other hand, is the body. Its law is the wisdom of the flesh, which instructs one to eat and drink and enjoy the other sensual pleasures. These war against reason, and if they gain the upper hand, subject it to the law of sin. For if it is true that we do what we do not want to do, Paul would not have said that he sees another law in his members, fighting against the law of his mind. He agrees to the law with his mind.

The "inmost self" is the mind.

I knew the good even before the law, and when I find it depicted in writings, I praise the law and agree with it "according to the inner man," or according to my mind.

Then he presents a sign to show that the law agrees with reason, when he says, for I am delighted. For no one delights except in that which agrees with him. But man according to his reason delights in the law of God; therefore, the law of God agrees with reason. And that is what he says: for I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inner man, i.e., according to reason or mind, which is called the inner man, not that the soul is fashioned according to man's figure, as Tertullian supposed, or that it alone is man, as Plato said that man is a soul using a body; but because that which is more important in man is called man, as was explained above. But in man that which is more important, so far as appearance is concerned, is outward, namely, the body so fashioned that it is called the outward man. But so far as the truth is concerned, the more important is within, namely, the mind or reason, which is here called the inner man: how sweet to my taste are your words (Ps 119:103); having for our comfort the holy books that are in our hands (1 Macc 12:9).

Paul mentions two laws here. One of these he sees in his members, i.e., in the outer self, which is the flesh or the body. This law is hostile to us. It wars with his mind, leading him captive in a state of sin and preventing him from getting out of it and finding help. The other law is the law of the mind, which is either the law of Moses or the law of nature which is innate in the mind. This law is attacked by the violence of sin and by its own negligence, for in that it loves evil it subjects itself to sin and is held captive by the habit of sinning. For man is a creature of habit.For Paul, there are here four kinds of law. The first is spiritual. This is the law of nature, which was reworked by Moses and made authoritative; it is God's law. Then there is the law of the mind, which agrees with God's law. Third, there is the law of sin, which is said to dwell in man's members because of the transgression of the first man. The fourth appears in our members and tempts us to sin, before retreating. But these four laws can be reduced to two—the law of good and the law of evil. For the law of the mind is the same as the spiritual law or the law of Moses, which is called the law of God. But the law of sin is the same as the law which appears in our members, which contradicts the law of our mind.

Everyone is bound by carnal habit to the law of sin. Paul says that this law wars against his mind and captures him under the law of sin, by which it may be understood that the man being described here is not yet under grace. For if carnal habit were merely to wage war but not to triumph, there would be no condemnation. Condemnation lies in the fact that we freely submit to and serve depraved carnal lusts. But if such lusts exist and we do not give in to them, then we are not ensnared by them, and are under grace instead. Paul speaks of this grace when he calls upon the Deliverer and pleads for his help, that love might accomplish by grace what fear could not achieve through the law.

In this life it cannot happen to anyone that a law warring against the law of the mind should be entirely absent from his members, because that law would still be waging war even if man's spirit were offering it such resistance as not to fall into line with it.

Paul sees another law in his members fighting against the law of his mind. He sees it is there, not remembers that it was there. He is pressed by what is present, not recalling what is past. And he not only sees this law warring against him but even taking him captive to the law of sin, which is (not was) in his members.

Paul perceives imprisonment where righteousness has not been fulfilled; for when he is delighted with the law of God he is not a prisoner but a friend of the law and thus free, because he is a friend.

Look what damage has been done to human nature by the disobedience of the will!

See what a fight we have with our dead sins, as that active soldier of Christ and faithful teacher of the church shows. For how is sin dead when it works many things in us while we struggle against it? What are these many things except foolish and harmful desires which plunge those who consent to them into death and destruction? And to bear them patiently and not give into them is a struggle, a conflict, a battle. And between what parties is this battle if not between good and evil, not of nature against nature but of nature against fault, which is already dead but still to be buried, that is, entirely healed?

This law in me was born when the former law was transgressed; it was born, I repeat, when the former law was despised.

Antony said, 'I think that the body has a natural movement within itself, which obeys the orders of the mind, a kind of inclination of which the body's actions are only symptoms. There is a second movement in the body, caused by eating and drinking, by which the blood is heated and excited. That is why St Paul said, 'Be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess' (Eph. 5:18), and again the Lord commanded his disciples in the Gospel, 'See that your hearts be not overcharged with surfeiting and drunkenness' (Luke 21:34). There is a third movement which comes from the deceit and envy of demons against those who are trying to live a good life. It is a help to know that there are three bodily inclinations – from nature, from too much food, and from the demons.'

If Paul feared the lusts of the flesh, are we safe?

Here again he calls sin a law warring against the other, not in respect of good order, but from the strict obedience yielded to it by those who comply with it. As then it gives the name of master to Mammon, and of god to the belly, not because of their intrinsically deserving it, but because of the extreme obsequiousness of their subjects; so here he calls sin a law, owing to those who are so obsequious to it, and are afraid to leave it, just as those who have received the Law dread leaving the Law. This then, he means, is opposed to the law of nature; for this is what is meant by "the law of my mind." And he next represents an array and battle, and refers the whole struggle to the law of nature. For that of Moses was subsequently added over and above: yet still both the one and the other, the one as teaching, the other as praising what was right, wrought no great effects in this battle; so great was the thraldom of sin, overcoming and getting the upper hand as it did. And this Paul setting forth, and showing the decided victory it had, says, "I see another law warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity." He does not use the word conquering only, but "bringing me into captivity to the law of sin." He does not say the bent of the flesh, or the nature of the flesh, but "the law of sin." That is, the thrall, the power. In what sense then does he say, "Which is in my members?" Now what is this? Surely it does not make the members to be sin, but makes them as distinct from sin as possible. For that which is in a thing is diverse from that wherein it is. As then the commandment also is not evil, because by it sin took occasion, so neither is the nature of the flesh, even if sin subdues us by means of it. For in this way the soul will be evil, and much more so too, since it has authority in matters of action. But these things are not so, certainly they are not.

For the apostle here sets forth clearly, as I think, three laws: One in accordance with the good which is implanted in us, which clearly he calls the law of the mind. One the law which arises from the assault of evil, and which often draws on the soul to lustful fancies, which, he says, "wars against the law of the mind." And the third, which is in accordance with sin, settled in the flesh from lust, which he calls the "law of sin which dwells in our members; "which the Evil One, urging on, often stirs up against us, driving us to unrighteousness and evil deeds. For there seems to be in ourselves one thing which is better and another which is worse. And when that which is in its nature better is about to become more powerful than that which is worse, the whole mind is carried on to that which is good; but when that which is worse increases and overbalances, man is on the contrary urged on to evil imaginations.

The law of natural conscience, or the divine law which resides in the mind, fights against habitual desires.

For he in a previous verse ascribed sin to the flesh, and made it out to be "the law of sin dwelling in his members," and "warring against the law of the mind." On this account, therefore, (does he mean to say that) the Son was sent in the likeness of sinful flesh, that He might redeem this sinful flesh by a like substance, even a fleshly one, which bare a resemblance to sinful flesh, although it was itself free from sin.

O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? The sting of death is sin "-here is the corruption; "and the strength of sin is the law" -that other law, no doubt, which he has described "in his members as warring against the law of his mind," -meaning, of course, the actual power of sinning against his will.

Paul was right to refer to his members here, because sin takes many forms according to the nature of our members. There are sins of the eyes, sins of the tongue, sins of other parts of the body as well.

"But I see another law," that is, sin, which he called a law because those deceived by it submit to it and are afraid to abandon it, as a law that must be fulfilled. This law wars against "the law of my mind," that is, the natural law (above he called it the inner man, and now he clearly calls it the mind), and prevails, even making me a captive, conquering both the natural and the written law. In what way does it make one a captive? By "the law of sin," that is, by force, by tyranny. He did not say: by the attraction of the flesh, or by the nature of the flesh, but by "the law of sin" dwelling in my members. Therefore, the flesh is not to blame for this. If a robber occupies a royal palace, the palace is in no way to blame for that. So it is here: if sin dwells in my members, the flesh is not evil because of this. Some discern here four laws: one is God's law, which taught us what is proper; another is the opposing law, which comes to us through the activity of the devil; the third is the law of the mind, that is, the natural law; the last is the one residing in our members, that is, the sin-loving disposition and inclination toward evil, which through habit make us insensible and hardened of heart.

Then, when he says, but I see, he presents the other conclusion, which corresponds to his previous statement that I am carnal (Rom 7:14). The conclusion is this: but I see another law in my members, which is the inclination to sin and can be called a law for two reasons: first, by reason of the effect. For just as the law induces to do good, so the inclination induces to sin. Second, by reason of their cause. But since the inclination to sin is a punishment for sin, it has a twofold cause: one cause is sin, which has taken mastery over the sinner and imposed its law on him, i.e., the inclination to sin, just as a master imposes his law on a vanquished slave. The other cause of the inclination is God, who imposed this punishment on sinful man, i.e., that his lower powers do not obey reason. And in this sense the very disobedience of the lower powers constitutes the inclination to sin and is called a law, inasmuch it was introduced by the law of divine justice, just as the sentence of a just judge has the force of law: and this has been done from that day forward, and was since made a statute, and an ordinance, and as a law in Israel (1 Sam 30:25). This law is found in the sensitive appetite as in its source, but it is found spread over all the members which play a role for concupiscent desire in sinning: just as you once yielded your members to serve impurity and every iniquity (Rom 6:19). Hence he says in my members. Now this law has two effects in man: first, it resists reason; hence he says, fighting against the law of my mind, i.e., with the law of Moses, which is called the law of the mind, inasmuch as it agrees with the mind or with the natural law, which is called the law of the mind, because it is present by nature in the mind: they show that what the law requires is written in their hearts (Rom 2:15). Concerning this resistance it is said: the desires of the flesh are against the spirit (Gal 5:17). The second effect is that it makes man a slave; hence he says, and captivating me, or leading me captive, according to another text, in the law of sin that is in my members, i.e., in myself, following the Hebrew custom of speech whereby a noun is used in place of a pronoun. But the law of sin makes man captive in two ways: the sinner it makes captive through consent and action; the man in grace through the movement of concupiscent desire. It is said of this captivity: when the Lord led back the captives of Zion (Ps 126:1).

We have a physician—let us follow his remedy! Our remedy is the grace of Christ, and the body of death is our body. Let us therefore be exiled from the body lest we be exiled from Christ. Even if we are in the body let us not follow what is of the body. Let us not neglect the rights of nature, but let us prefer the gifts of grace.

Paul says that a man born in sin is wretched. For indeed how could man not be wretched when he has succeeded to this inheritance of sin, having this enemy sin with him, through which Satan has access to him? For Adam invented steps by which the despoiler came up to his descendants. Yet the most merciful God, moved by pity, gave us his grace through Christ so that it might be revealed that the human race, once it accepted the forgiveness of sins, might repent and put sin to death. For a man who is pardoned for his sins and cleansed can resist the power of the enemy which is aimed against him, provided that God continues to help him.

Here Paul begins to describe the man renewed under grace, the third of the four states we distinguished above.

Paul did not say "bad" or "evil man" but rather "wretched man" … for having shown that this person contemplated the good with his mind but was drawn toward evil by the passion of the flesh, he presents him as more deserving of mercy than of punishment.

On this account, therefore, the Lord Himself, who is Emmanuel from the Virgin, is the sign of our salvation, since it was the Lord Himself who saved them, because they could not be saved by their own instrumentality; and, therefore, when Paul sets forth human infirmity, he says: "For I know that there dwelleth in my flesh no good thing," showing that the "good thing" of our salvation is not from us, but from God. And again: "Wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" Then he introduces the Deliverer, [saying, ] "The grace of Jesus Christ our Lord." And Isaiah declares this also, [when he says: ] "Be ye strengthened, ye hands that hang down, and ye feeble knees; be ye encouraged, ye feeble-minded; be comforted, fear not: behold, our God has given judgment with retribution, and shall recompense: He will come Himself, and will save us." Here we see, that not by ourselves, but by the help of God, we must be saved.

Paul uses the term "the body of death" because the body is subject to vices and sickness, disorders and death until it rises in glory with Christ, and what was once fragile clay is purified in the fire of the Holy Spirit into a very solid rock, changing its glory, not its nature.

Do you notice what a great thraldom that of vice is, in that it overcomes even a mind that delighted in the Law? For no one can rejoin, he means, that I hate the Law and abhor it, and so sin overcomes me. For "I delight in it, and consent to it," and flee for refuge to it, yet still it had not the power of saving one who had fled to it. But Christ saved even one that fled from Him. See what a vast advantage grace has! Yet the Apostle has not stated it thus; but with a sigh only, and a great lamentation, as if devoid of any to help him, he points out by his perplexity the might of Christ, and says, "O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" The Law has not been able: conscience has proved unequal to it, though it praised what was good, and did not praise it only, but even fought against the contrary of it. For by the very words "warreth against" he shows that he was marshalled against it for his part. From what quarter then is one to hope for salvation?

Who will set me free, says Paul, prisoner that I am, from this fatal habit of the body?

And again that Apostle saith from the whole person of his human nature, "O wretched man that I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death?" And after he has asked questioningly who is able to deliver him, he revealeth, and confesseth and teacheth by his word Who He is that shall deliver him from the old and mortal nature, saying, "I thank God through our Lord Jesus Christ Who hath delivered me from this body of death."

Having considered the struggle which was taking place in the body against the soul and how man was imprisoned by this, Paul now seeks a way to escape and tries to rescue man, so that the body of death may be transformed into a body of life.… For Paul wants his body to be a body of life and not a body of death or of sin.

Paul calls the body a "body of death" because it has been made subject to death and is therefore mortal. The soul, on the other hand, is immortal.

The natural law became insufficient, the written law proved powerless, and the tyranny of sin conquered both. From where, then, shall we hope for salvation? "Who will deliver me from this body of death?", that is, subject to death. For the body, having become liable to suffering as a result of the transgression, thereby also became convenient for sin. Someone will say: if the body was convenient for sin, then why were sinners punished before the coming of Christ? Because they were given such commandments as they were able to fulfill even while being under the power of sin.

Then, when he says, unhappy man that I am, he deals with liberation from the law of sin and does three things: first, he poses a question; second, he answers, at the grace of God; third, he draws a conclusion, at therefore, I myself. In regard to the first he does two things. First, he declares his misery when he says: unhappy man that I am. This wretchedness is the result of sin which dwells in man: either in the flesh only, as in the just man, or also in the mind, as in the sinner: sin makes nations miserable (Prov 14:34); I am become miserable, and am bowed down even to the end (Ps 37:7). Second he asks: who will deliver me from this body of death? This question seems to express the desire voiced in the Psalm: bring my soul out of prison (Ps 142:7). Yet it should be remembered that in man's body one can consider the very nature of the body which agrees with the soul. It is not from this that he desires to be separated: we do not wish to be unclothed, but to be clothed over (2 Cor 5:4). One can also consider the corruptible body which is a load upon the soul (Wis 9:15). Hence it is significant that he says: from this body of death.

"The law of God" means both the law of Moses and the law of Christ.… A free mind which has been called back to good habits by the help of the Holy Spirit can repulse evil temptations. For it has recovered its power to resist the enemy. If it is no longer subject then Satan cannot appear uninvited. Flesh, though, has no judgment, nor is it able to discern anything, because it is brute nature. It cannot close the door to the enemy, nor can it come in and persuade the mind to do the opposite to what the mind intends.Because man consists of both soul and flesh, the part which knows serves God and the part which is mute serves the law of sin. But if man perseveres in the form in which he was created, the enemy would have no power to reach the flesh and persuade it to act against the will of the soul. But because the whole man was not restored to his pristine state by the grace of Christ the sentence pronounced on Adam remains in force, for it would be unjust to abolish a sentence which was rightly pronounced. So although the sentence remains in force, a cure has been found by the providence of God, so that the salvation which man had lost by his own fault might be given back to him.

Though his carnal desires still exist, the man who is renewed by grace by not giving in to sin does not serve them. With his mind he serves the law of God, even though with his flesh he serves the law of sin. Paul calls the law of sin the mortal condition which stems from the transgression of Adam, because of which we are born mortal. It is because the flesh has fallen that the lusts of the flesh entice us.

These are the words of one who is now under grace but still battling against his own lust, not so that he consents and sins but so that he experiences desires which he resists.

We should be eager to try to become without any sins, asking our Lord to deliver us from sin.

The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord will free you from the body of this death; it will deliver you from the law of death. But … this is going to take place at the resurrection, when you will possess a body in which no evil inclination remains.

Observe how he shows the necessity of having grace present with us, and that the well-doings herein belong alike to the Father and the Son. For if it is the Father Whom he thanketh, still the Son is the cause of this thanksgiving. But when you hear him say, "Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" do not suppose him to be accusing the flesh. For he does not say "body of sin," but "body of death:" that is, the mortal body-that which hath been overcome by death, not that which gendered death. And this is no proof of the evil of the flesh, but of the marring it has undergone. As if any one who was take captive by the savages were to be said to belong to the savages, not as being a savage, but as being detained by them: so the body is said to be of death, as being held down thereby, not as producing it. Wherefore also it is not the body that he himself wishes to be delivered from, but the mortal body, hinting, as I have often said, that from its becoming subject to suffering, it also became an easy prey to sin.

And the same is denoted by the words, "For I delight in the law of God after the inward man; but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" By which he does not mean that the body is death, but the law of sin which is in his members, lying hidden in us through the transgression, and ever deluding the soul to the death of unrighteousness. And he immediately adds, clearly showing from what kind of death he desired to be delivered, and who he was who delivered him, "I thank God, through Jesus Christ." And it should be considered, if he said that this body was death, O Aglaophon, as you supposed, he would not afterwards mention Christ as delivering him from so great an evil. For in that case what a strange thing should we have had from the advent of Christ? And how could the apostle have said this, as being able to be delivered from death by the advent of Christ; when it was the lot of all to die before Christ's coming into the world? And, therefore, O Aglaophon, he says not that this body was death, but the sin which dwells in the body through lust, from which God has delivered him by the coming of Christ.

Perhaps someone will say that here the apostle Paul abandons the role of the weak man, which he assumed in the preceding [verses], and talks directly about himself. For he says that he serves the law of God with his mind but the law of sin with his flesh, as if to imply that the power of sin is so great that even an apostle cannot escape it. Moreover, he also said elsewhere: "I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." But someone who takes this interpretation seems to me to be inflicting every soul with despair, because then there would be nobody who did not sin in the flesh. In other words, everyone would be serving the law of sin in the flesh. Rather, it seems to me that here Paul maintains the role he has adopted and plays the part of the weak man, whom we have already described.It appears that in this passage Paul is teaching us that the mortification of the flesh, of which he has already spoken, is not something which happens overnight but rather is a gradual process, because the force of habit is such and the attraction of sin is so great that, even though our mind may want to do what is right and has decided to serve the law of God, yet the lusts of the flesh continue to urge him to serve sin and obey its laws instead.

Grace sets free the man whom the law could not free. Was Paul at this time not yet set free by the grace of God? Of course! This shows that here he is speaking of somebody else. He then reviews the main points in order to conclude his argument. In a sense the carnal person is made up of two people and is divided within himself.

Having been placed in a hopeless situation and having found no other savior, he of necessity found Christ as Savior. Therefore he also thanks "God" the Father "through Jesus Christ our Lord," that is, the cause of thanksgiving is Christ. He, he says, accomplished what the law could not do: He delivered me from the weakness of the flesh, having strengthened it, so that it no longer stands under the tyranny of sin; but just as through the transgression of Adam, having become mortal, it became easily overcome by sin, so through the obedience of the Crucified and Risen One, having received the pledge of incorruption, it manfully resists sin.

Then he responds to the question, at the grace of God. For man by his own power cannot be freed from the corruption of the body, nor even of the soul, although he agrees with reason against sin, but only by the grace of Christ, as it says in John: so if the Son makes you free, you are free indeed (John 8:36). Therefore, he says, the grace of God will free me and it is given by Jesus Christ: grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). This grace liberates from the body of this death in two ways: in one way so that the corruption of the body does not dominate the soul and draw it to sinning; in another way so that the corruption of the body is taken away entirely. In regard to the first way, it is fitting for the sinner to say: grace has freed me from the body of this death, i.e., from sin into which the soul is led by the corruption of the body. But the just man has already been freed to that point; hence, it befits him to say in regard to the second way: the grace of God has freed me from the body of this death, so that in my body is neither the corruption of sin nor of death: which will happen at the resurrection. Then he draws the conclusion which follows in different ways from the foregoing words, depending on how they are explained, when he says, therefore, I myself. For if they are explained in the person of a sinner, the conclusion is inferred in the following manner: it has been said that the grace of God has freed me from the body of this death, so that I am not led into sin by it; therefore, when I have been freed, I myself serve the law of God with the mind, but with the flesh, the law of sin, which law remains in my flesh in regard to the inclination to sin, in virtue of which the desires of the flesh are against the spirit. But if the words are understood as spoken in the person of a just man, the conclusion is inferred in this manner: the grace of God, by Jesus Christ has freed me from the body of this death, so that the corruption of sin and death is not in me. Therefore, I myself, one and the same before being freed, serve the law of God with the mind by consenting to it; but with the flesh, the law of sin, inasmuch as my flesh is moved to concupiscent desire according to the law of the flesh.

It is true that there will be no damnation for those who are Christians serving the law of God with a devout mind.

There is no condemnation just because carnal desires exist; it is only if we give in to them and sin that we are condemned.

Paul shows here that those who are under the law, because they live according to the flesh, are under sin and condemnation. But those who are in Christ are not under condemnation because they do not walk according to the flesh.

Look how great Christ's grace is in that he has set us free from condemnation.

Then as the fact that many fall into sin even after baptism presented a difficulty, he consequently hastened to meet it, and says not merely "to them that are in Christ Jesus," but adds, "who walk not after the flesh;" so showing that all afterward comes of our listlessness. For now we have the power of walking not after the flesh, but then it was a difficult task. Then he gives another proof of it by the sequel.

After having taught what conflict there is in those who are caught in the struggle between a mind which lives according to the law of God and the desires of the flesh which lead them into sin, Paul now goes on to talk not about those who are partly in the flesh and partly in the Spirit but about those who are wholly in Christ. He declares that there is nothing in them worthy of condemnation.

There is nothing which deserves condemnation in those who have been crucified to the works of the flesh.

He said "I serve" instead of "I served"; for he is recalling what was before. Intending to say that "there is now no condemnation" and so on, and to show the ineffable grace of Christ, he recalls what we were before and that with the mind we recognized the good, but "with the flesh," that is, through the weakness of the flesh, we were subject to the law of sin. But now there is "no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus," that is, those who have been deemed worthy of baptism. And since many sin even after baptism, he added: "walk not according to the flesh," giving us to understand by this that all evil comes from our own negligence. For now it is possible and easy "not to walk according to the flesh," whereas before Christ this was exceedingly difficult. But we must not only not walk according to the flesh, but also walk "according to the Spirit," for the crown is obtained not by abstaining from vice, but by participating in virtue and spiritual works.

After showing that we are freed from sin and the law through Christ's grace, the Apostle now shows that through the same grace we are freed from damnation. First he shows that through the grace of Christ we are freed from the damnation of guilt; second, from the damnation of punishment, at "and if Christ be in you" (Rom 8:10). In regard to the first he does two things. First, he sets forth his intention; second, he proves his proposition, at "for the law of the spirit of life."

In regard to the first he does two things: first, he mentions the benefit which grace confers, drawing his conclusion from the foregoing in this way: The grace of God through Jesus Christ has freed me from the body of this death and in this consists our redemption. Now that we have been freed through grace, there is now therefore no damnation left, because the damnation has been removed both as regards guilt and as regards punishment: "it is he himself who grants peace, who is there who will condemn?" (Job 34:29).

Second, he shows to whom this benefit is granted, and he mentions two conditions required for it. He sets out the first when he says "to those who are in Christ Jesus," i.e., incorporated in him by faith and love and the sacrament of faith: "as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ" (Gal 3:27); "as the branch cannot bear fruit by itself, unless it abides in the vine, neither can you, unless you abide in me" (John 15:4). But to those who are not in Christ damnation is due. Hence John continues: "if a man does not abide in me, he is cast forth as a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered together, thrown into the fire and burned" (John 15:6).

Then he sets out the second condition, saying, "who do not walk according to the flesh," i.e., do not follow the desires of the flesh: "for though we walk in the flesh, we do not make war according to the flesh" (2 Cor 10:3).

From these words some want to infer that in unbelievers who are not in Christ Jesus the first movements are mortal sins, even though they do not consent to them, and that this is what is meant by walking according to the flesh. For regarding those who do not walk according to the flesh, if the fact that they serve the law of sin in their flesh through the first movements of desire is not damnable for them precisely because they are in Christ Jesus, it follows from the contrary sense, that for those who are not in Christ Jesus are damnable. They also give this argument. They say that an act is necessarily damnable which proceeds from the habit of a damnable sin. But original sin is damnable, because it deprives man of eternal life, and its habit remains in the unbeliever whose original sin has not been remitted. Therefore, any movements of desire that arise from original sin are a mortal sin in their case.

First, it is necessary to show that this position is false. For the reason why the first movement is not a mortal sin is because it does not reach reason, in which the notion of sin is completed. But this reason is present even in unbelievers; therefore, the first stirrings in unbelievers cannot be mortal sins. Furthermore, in the same type of sin a believer sins more gravely than an unbeliever: "how much more punishment do you think will be deserved by the man who has spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant?" (Heb 10:29). Therefore, if the first stirrings in unbelievers were mortal sins, all the more so in believers.

Second, it is necessary to respond to their reasons. For, first of all, they cannot derive this position from the words of the Apostle. For the Apostle does not say that the only thing not damnable for those who are in Christ Jesus is that in the flesh they serve the law of sin according to the movements of desire, but that there is no condemnation at all for them. But for those who are not in Christ Jesus, this very fact is damnable. Furthermore, if this passage refers to first movements experienced by those not in Christ Jesus, such stirrings are damnable according to the condemnation due to original sin, which still remains in them and from which those in Christ Jesus have been freed. But this does not mean that a new condemnation is added on account of such stirrings. Neither does their second argument conclude of necessity to what they intend. For it is not true that any act proceeding from the habit of a damnable sin is itself damnable, but only when it is an act perfected by the consent of reason. For if the habit of adultery is present in a person, the stirring of adulterous desire, which is an imperfect act, is not a mortal sin for that person, but only the perfect motion that exists by the consent of reason. Furthermore, an act proceeding from such a habit does not have a new reason for condemnation added to the reason for condemning the habit. Accordingly, the first stirrings in unbelievers, inasmuch as they proceed from original sin, do not receive the condemnation due to mortal sin but only to original sin.

Paul holds out security for us by the grace of God, so that we should not be tempted by the suggestions of the devil as long as we reject them.… We shall instead be rewarded if we repel the counsels of that sin which remains in us, for it demands great skill to avoid the tricks of the enemy within. "The law of the Spirit of life is the law of faith." For even the law of Moses is spiritual in that it forbids us to sin, but it is not the law of life. It has no power to pardon those who are guilty of the sins which merit death and thus to bring them back to life.… Therefore it is the law in Christ Jesus, that is to say, through faith in Christ, which frees the believer from the law of sin and death. The law of sin, which Paul says dwells in our members, tries to persuade us to sin, but the law of Moses is a law of death, because it puts sinners to death.

The law of nature is the law of piety. Now piety is found to exist within every nature, even insensible. Indeed, the root sends to the branches everything it receives; the wellspring pours out to the brooks everything it draws. Likewise, in animals, piety is seen in the relationship between parents and offspring, for whatever they taste and eat that is beyond their need — and even within their need — they convert into milk and food for their young. The law of Scripture is the law of truth, for it consists in a sense in the pronouncement of a true promise. The law of holiness is the law of grace. As it is written in Romans: The law of the Spirit of the life in Christ Jesus has delivered me from the law of sin and of death.

In what follows he continues, "But if I do that which I do not wish to do, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells in me," which being at war with the law of God and "of my mind," he says, "makes me captive by the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death." And again (for he does not become in the least weary of being helpful) he does not hesitate to add, "For the law of the Spirit has set me free from the law of sin and death," since by his Son "God condemned sin in the flesh that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit."

I think it is necessary for an accurate explanation of the meanings which are found here, to say this: Paul calls the lusts of the flesh which lead us into all kinds of wickedness "the law of sin and death." So also he calls the spiritual will, that is, the inclination of the mind to do what is right, "the law of the Spirit of life." … This law has not set us free by itself; rather it has restored us to freedom by the merits of Christ. Just as those who have sinned under the law have necessarily been trapped by the snares of death as well, so it is necessary also that those who are not under the law but who have been set free by Christ should lead lives of holiness and show themselves to be above corruption, because they are no longer under the law of death.

We have been made heirs of a pain-free and immortal life by the free gift of the Spirit and have all become spiritual, being set free from sin and the death which it causes.

It is the Spirit he is here calling the law of the Spirit. For as he calls sin the law of sin, so he here calls the Spirit the law of the Spirit. And yet he named that of Moses as such, where he says, "For we know that the Law is spiritual." What then is the difference? A great and unbounded one. For that was spiritual, but this is a law of the Spirit. Now what is the distinction between this and that? The other was merely given by the Spirit, but this even furnisheth those that receive it with the Spirit in large measure. Wherefore also he called it the law of life in contradistinction to that of sin, not that of Moses. For when he says, It freed me from the law of sin and death, it is not the law of Moses that he is here speaking of, since in no case does he style it the law of sin: for how could he one that he had called "just and holy" so often, and destructive of sin too? but it is that which warreth against the law of the mind. For this grievous war did the grace of the Spirit put a stop to, by slaying sin, and making the contest light to us and crowning us at the outstart, and then drawing us to the struggle with abundant help. And as it is ever his wont to turn from the Spirit to the Son and the Father, and to reckon all our estate to lean upon the Trinity, so doth he here also.

And, therefore, O Aglaophon, he says not that this body was death, but the sin which dwells in the body through lust, from which God has delivered him by the coming of Christ. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death; "so that "He that raised up Jesus from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit that dwelleth in you; "having "condemned sin" which is in the body to its destruction; "that the righteousness of the law" of nature which draws us to good, and is in accordance with the commandment, might be kindled and manifested. For the good which "the law" of nature "could not do, in that it was weak," being overcome by the lust which lies in the body, God gave strength to accomplish, "sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; "so that sin being condemned, to its destruction, so that it should never bear fruit in the flesh, the righteousness of the law of nature might be fulfilled, abounding in the obedience of those who walk not according to the lust of the flesh, but according to the lust and guidance of the Spirit; "for the law of the Spirit of life," which is the Gospel, being different from earlier laws, leading by its preaching to obedience and the remission of sins, delivered us from the law of sin and death, having conquered entirely sin which reigned over our flesh.

The law of the Spirit of life is the same thing as the law of God.… For to serve the law of God and to be under the law of the Spirit is to serve Christ. To serve Christ is to serve wisdom, which is to serve righteousness, which is to serve truth and all related virtues.

Note that Paul calls the law "grace."

For even if he has affirmed that "good dwelleth not in his flesh," yet (he means) according to "the law of the letter," in which he "was: "but according to "the law of the Spirit," to which he annexes us, he frees us from the "infirmity of the flesh.

"For the law," he says, "of the Spirit of life hath manumitted thee from the law of sin and of death." For albeit he may appear to be partly disputing from the standpoint of Judaism, yet it is to us that he is directing the integrity and plenitude of the rules of discipline,-(us), for whose sake soever, labouring (as we were) in the law, "God hath sent, through flesh, His own Son, in similitude of flesh of sin; and, became of sin, hath condemned sin in the flesh; in order that the righteousness of the law," he says, "might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to flesh, but according to (the) Spirit.

The apostle says that the resurrection takes place by the working of the Spirit. … Paul calls the Spirit the "Spirit of life" because the Spirit is the firstfruits of the eternal life which we shall then enjoy. The Spirit has been given to us in the hope of immortality, and faith in Christ has permitted us to enjoy him, because he has set us free from death and sin. Clearly Paul is using the things which are to come as evidence for what has been promised to us in Christ.

He calls the Holy Spirit the law of the Spirit, just as he called sin the law of sin. And he called it the law of life in contrast to the law of sin, which brought us death as well. For the grace of God put to death both sin and death, and by making the struggle easy for us, thus led us forth to the contest. Wicked tongues have dared to understand here by the law of sin the law of Moses; but the apostle nowhere called it such, but called it holy and spiritual. But if, they object, the law of Moses is also spiritual, then what is the difference between it and the law of the Spirit? A very great one. The law of Moses was only given by the Spirit, whereas the law of the Spirit both imparted and bestowed the Spirit.

Then when he says, "for the law," he proves what he had said. And first, in regard to the first condition that there is no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus; second, in regard to the second condition, i.e., for those who do not walk according to the flesh, at "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the spirit." In regard to the first he does two things. First, he presents a proof; second, he manifests his presupposition through its cause, at "for what was impossible for the law."

In regard to the first he presents this argument. The law of the spirit frees man from sin and death; but the law of the spirit is in Christ Jesus. Therefore, by the fact that one is in Christ Jesus, he is freed from sin and death. That the law of the spirit frees from sin and death he proves thus: The law of the spirit is the cause of life; but sin and death, which is an effect of sin, are excluded by life, for sin itself is spiritual death for the soul. Therefore, the law of the spirit frees man from sin and death. But damnation is only through sin and death. Therefore, nothing of damnation exists in those who are in Christ Jesus. This, therefore, is what he says: "for the law of the spirit of life."

In one way this law can be the Holy Spirit, so that the law of the spirit means the law which is the Spirit. For a law is given in order that through it men may be led to the good; hence, the Philosopher says in Ethics II that the intention of the lawgiver is to make citizens good. Human law does this by merely indicating what ought to be done; but the Holy Spirit dwelling in the mind not only teaches what is to be done by instructing the intellect but also inclines the affection to act aright: "but the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things," as to the first, "and suggest to you all things," as to the second, "all that I have said to you" (John 14:26).

In another way the law of the spirit can be the proper effect of the Holy Spirit, namely, faith working through love. This faith teaches what is to be done: "his anointing teaches you about everything" (1 John 2:27) and inclines the affections to act: "the love of Christ controls us" (2 Cor 5:14). And this law of the spirit is called the new law, which is the Holy Spirit himself or something that the Holy Spirit produces in our hearts: "I will put my law within them, and I will write it upon their hearts" (Jer 31:33). But when he spoke about the old law he said only that it is spiritual, i.e., given by the Holy Spirit.

And so, considering what has been said, we find four laws mentioned by the Apostle: first, the law of Moses, about which he says: "I am delighted with the law of God according to the inner man" (Rom 7:22); second, the law of inclination to sin: "I see in my members another law" (Rom 7:23); third, the natural law in one sense of the term, concerning which he adds, "fighting against the law of my mind" (Rom 7:23); fourth, the new law, when he says: "the law of the spirit."

He adds, "of life," because just as the natural spirit makes the life of nature, so the divine Spirit makes the life of grace: "it is the Spirit that gives life" (John 4:63); "the Spirit of life was in the wheels" (Ezek 1:2). He adds, "in Christ Jesus," because this Spirit is given only to those who are in Christ Jesus. For just as the natural spirit does not reach a member not connected to the head, so the Holy Spirit does not reach a man not joined to Christ, the head: "by this we know that he abides in us, because he gave us of his own Spirit" (1 John 3:24); "the Holy Spirit whom God has given those who obey him" (Acts 5:32). This law, I say, since it is in Christ Jesus, has delivered me: "If the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:38). From the law of sin, i.e., from the law of evil inclinations, which inclines to sin. Or from the law of sin, i.e., from consenting to and committing sin, which holds man bound after the manner of a law. For sin is remitted by the Holy Spirit: "receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven" (John 20:22). And of death, not only spiritual but also bodily, as will be proved below. And this because he is the Spirit of life: "come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain that they may live" (Ezek 37:9).