Father MacEvilly's Commentary on Romans Chapter 7

ANALYSIS OF ROMANS CHAPTER 7
Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation 

In the first six verses if this chapter, the Apostle addresses the Jewish converts, and shows them that they are not “under the law” (Rom 6:14). The law is dead to them; and hence their union with it is dissolved; and they have contracted other nuptials with Christ, for whom they are to bring forth the fruits of grace, as, under the law, they brought forth fruit unto death (Rom 7:1–6). He next shows how sin became multiplied under the law, without any fault on the part of the law. The law gave a knowledge of sin, and this was made the occasion of further transgression, owing to our corrupt nature, and to the concupiscence which dwells within us Rom 7:(7–9). In order to illustrate the manner in which the law contributed to the increase of sin, he represents in his own person the different states of the Jewish people before and after the law (Rom 7:9); and shows, after the issuing of the law, how the knowledge it imparted, and the prohibition it contained, irritated and roused the hitherto comparatively dormant evil of concupiscence (Rom 7:10–14). He next (verse 14) shows how, even in the law of grace, this evil of concupiscence impels us to sin; and, in his own person, he describes the struggle of Just men infighting against this evil. So that, at verse 14, he passes from describing the law of Moses to the law of grace (Rom 7:14–25).

COMMENTARY ON ROMANS CHAPTER 7
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

Rom 7:1. I address myself to you in particular, my Jewish brethren, who are acquainted with the law of Moses; are you not aware that the law exercises dominion over the man subject to it, so long as the law itself is in force and exists?

The Apostle wishes to show that they are not under the law (6:14); and he addresses the Jews acquainted with the precepts of the Mosaic law. “The law hath dominion,” i.e., binds by its precepts and exercises its threats and menaces, “as long as it liveth;” “liveth,” in the Greek, ζῇ, may regard either “man” or “the law;” it more probably, as in our English version, should be construed with the law, “it liveth.”

Rom 7:2. This dominion of the law over man may be illustrated by the dominion which the law of marriage gives the husband over his wife; for the married woman is bound to her husband by the law of marriage during his lifetime; but, when the husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. (So it is with the law: man is subject to it whilst it lives or is in vigour; but, he is released from it when once abrogated).

He illustrates this by the example of the law of marriage. He appears to regard the law of marriage as it was instituted by our Divine Redeemer, according to which institution, the marriage tie is indissoluble, except by the death of either of the parties; or, if he be understood to refer to the law of marriage among the Jews, then the words are to be taken with the limitations placed by God himself (v.g.) libellum repudii, &c. as in the New Law, the ingressus religionis, “the solemn profession of religion,” by either party before the consummation of the marriage, dissolves the tie of marriage. This is a point of faith defined by the Council of Trent, SS. xxiv., Can. 6. “The woman that hath a husband;” the Greek, ἡ ὕπανδρος γυνὴ, means, “the woman that is engaged to obedience and fidelity to a husband;” “is bound to the law,” i.e., to the law of obedience and fidelity, or bound by the law to her husband.

Rom 7:3. Therefore, she will be accounted an adulteress if she cohabit with another man, during her husband’s lifetime; but if her husband be dead, she is released from the law of matrimony, so as not to be accounted an adulteress, or liable to the penalties of adultery, by cohabiting with another man.

“She shall be called,” i.e., she shall be reputed and regarded as “an adulteress. So that she is not an adulteress,” &c.; although she may sin, if she cohabit unlawfully with another party, who is unmarried, after her husband’s death; still, she will not commit the crime, or incur the penalties of “adultery.”

Rom 7:4. In like manner, my brethren, the law is dead to you by the body of Christ offered up in sacrifice on the cross to abolish it; and you are dead to it, by being engrafted on his body in baptism: so that you have contracted new engagements with another, who has risen from the dead, and thus should bring forth the fruit of virtue and good works to God.

In this verse, he applies the foregoing example to the point in question, “therefore,” i.e., in like manner, “you are become dead to the law;” he avoids saying, “the law is dead to you,” in order not to offend and to spare the feelings of the Jews, among whom the law was held in such veneration; although this form would better suit the foregoing example, in which the husband is the party supposed to die, and the law is regarded by the Apostle as “the husband,” in reference to the Jews. The meaning, however, comes to the same, as the relation is dissolved, no matter which party dies—“by the body of Christ,” sacrificed for the abolition of the law, on the cross; or it may mean, by being engrafted on the body of Christ in baptism; both meanings are united in the Paraphrase, “that you may belong to another who is risen from the dead,” i.e., that after the death of your former spouse, you may again contract new nuptials with a more exalted spouse, Jesus Christ, “and that we may bring forth fruit to God,” to whom you are espoused. He employs the first person, “we,” from a feeling of humility.

Rom 7:5. And it is but just that after our exalted marriage engagements with such a spouse, we should bring forth fruits worthy of God; for, when we lived in the condition of the old and carnal man, under the Mosaic law, then the desires and corrupt inclinations to sin, which were irritated by occasion of the law, were consummated in our members, so as to bring forth the fruits of sin, the unhappy end and reward of which is death.

And why not now bring forth fruit to God, as we formerly, in our sinful state, brought forth fruit to death, “in the flesh,” i.e., under the Old Law, when we lived according to the flesh, “the passions of sins,” the corrupt inclinations of our nature to commit sin, “which were by the law,” i.e., which were irritated by the prohibition of the law, which only excited a desire of the thing prohibited; for we are so constituted by our corrupt nature as to desire more eagerly what is prohibited. Nitimur in vetitum, &c. “Did work in our members;” the Greek word for “work,” ἐνεργεῖτο, will bear a passive meaning, signifying “were worked,” or consummated, as in Paraphrase.

Rom 7:6. But now we are freed, by the grace of Christ from the yoke of the law, which was the occasion to us of death, in which we were detained captive; so that we may serve God, as spouses of his Son, in the new spirit of charity and love, and not in following the inclinations of the old man of sin, which the letter of the ancient law was the occasion of increasing, because it gave not the necessary grace for the observance of its own precepts.

We are now freed and loosed from the tie of the law which occasioned death, so that we should serve God “in the newness” or sanctity of the new man, produced by the spirit of grace “diffused in our hearts,” and love God as adopted children and spouses of his eternal son, Jesus Christ, “and not in the oldness of the letter,” and not serve in the sinful inclinations of the old man, which the “letter” of the Mosaic law had been the occasion of increasing, in consequence of not furnishing the grace necessary to resist our passions. In the common Greek, the reading is different from that of our Vulgate. Instead of the words, “loosed from the law of death,” κατηργηθημεν απο τοῦ νομοῦ θανατοῦ, the common Greek is, απο τοῦ νομου, αποθανοντες, “loosed from the law, being dead to it.” Both readings, however, make good sense.

Rom 7:7. What then! are we to infer from the foregoing that the law itself is the cause of sin? Far be it from us to assent to so impious a deduction. The law only serves to give us a more perfect knowledge of sin; for, there are many things which I did not know to be sin, until I was told so by the law; among the rest, I did not know that internal concupiscence was a sin, until I heard the prohibition of the law, Thou shalt not covet.

The Apostle had said in the foregoing (verse 5), “that the passions of sin were by the law.” He also calls it “the law of death.” In order to explain these points he asks, by way of objection—is not the law, then, the cause and source of sin? He says, by no means; for, though sin abounded under the law, this was not directly caused by the law. It is to be accounted for in a different way. The law only gave a knowledge of sin for the direct end and object of restraining it. And in the next verse, the Apostle shows how this knowledge, supplied by the law, was made the occasion of increasing sin. “I did not know sin but by the law,” i.e., I did not know it so clearly, and there were other sins which I did not know to be sins at all, until after the prohibition. He refers to the law of Moses prohibiting internal concupiscence. Here, “concupiscence,” means the consent to the irregular and deordinate inclination of our corrupt nature towards the objects prohibited by the law of God. The malice of these mere thoughts of consent was neither attended to nor clearly seen by men, until after the precept prohibiting them was issued. Some persons interpret the word, “but I did not know sin, but by the law,” to mean, nay even, far from being the cause of sin, the contrary is the case; since, the law pointed out sin, &c. It is better, however, to understand the words to be merely an excuse for the law, and the Apostle afterwards shows how under it sin abounded, but as a matter quite extrinsic to the law.

Rom 7:8. But the evil of concupiscence, latent within me, taking occasion of this knowledge derived from the law, excited and wrought in me all manner of evil inclination, by reason of this prohibition; and thus concupiscence, which before the prohibition of the law was dormant, assumed life and vigour.

He now shows how the law increased “sin;” it was only the occasion of exciting the dormant, slumbering passions of our corrupt nature. “Sin” is personified here as well as in the preceding chapter. The prohibition excited and irritated these passions; for, owing to the natural desire of liberty and opposition to restraint, so strongly implanted in our nature, the very prohibition only increases our desire of obtaining and enjoying the thing prohibited. The Greek word for “occasion” αφορμή, conveys the idea of receiving an impetus, or, being stimulated. “All manner of concupiscence,” i.e., all sorts of unlawful desires, so that, “concupiscence” is not merely confined to the unlawful desire of the things specified in the ninth and tenth commandments of the Decalogue; but it extends to the desire of all things prohibited. “For without the law sin was dead,” i.e., until the distinct prohibition of indulging the desires of concupiscence was issued, it comparatively slumbered—the prohibition aroused and excited it—nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata.

Rom 7:9. In order the more clearly to explain to you the influence which the knowledge derived from the law had in increasing sin, I shall illustrate it by representing, in my own person, the Jewish people in two different states—viz., before and after receiving the law: At a certain time, I, as a Jew, lived without the Mosaic law (during that time I was not so subject to the action of concupiscence as afterwards; it appeared, during that time, to slumber). But after the law was given, this slumbering evil, excited by the prohibition, came into active existence.

In order to render more clear what he has been saying regarding the manner in which the law contributed to the increase of sin under it, the Apostle supposes two different states of the Jewish people, before and after the law was given, and represents the Jewish people in his own person. “I lived some time without the law:” (verse 9); when as a Jew, I sojourned in Egypt. The sense requires that we should add, as in Paraphrase; during that time, I was not so subject to the action of concupiscence as afterwards. But in the next state of the Jewish people, after the giving of the law, “when the commandments came,” “sin”—i.e., the heretofore comparatively dormant evil of concupiscence—“revived,” or came into more active operation. A’Lapide says that in this verse the Apostle is not representing the different states of the Jewish people, but his own state, before he came to the use of reason, “when he lived without the law,” and after he came to the use of reason, and received a full knowledge, then “sin revived.” The former interpretation seems preferable. The interpretation which Estius gives the word, “I lived,” referring it to spritual life, I lived a life of grace in my own estimation, is very probable; and by uniting it with the meaning given in the Paraphrase, then there will be no need for supplying anything in the interpretation. It will run thus: “I seemed to myself to enjoy a life of grace, at a certain time—viz., when I lived without the law, but when the commandment was given, concupiscence revived.”

Rom 7:10. But I became clearly spiritually dead, having been now manifestly guilty of sin, which leads to death. And it was found in my regard, that the commandment, which was intended for my spiritual life, became, through my corruption, the occasion to me of spiritual death.

And then I was manifestly dead in sin, which causes the spiritual death of the soul; and through my own corruption it happened, that what had been given me for the purpose of life, became the occasion of spiritual death. The words, “and I died,” which evidently refer to spiritual death, make the interpretation of the words, “I lived once without the law,” given by Estius, very probable, since they are clearly put in opposition to each other. By saying “I died,” after the law was given, the Apostle does not mean to say that men were not spirtually dead before it, but that they were now more manifestly dead, as being now more clearly prevaricators.

Rom 7:11. For concupiscence, taking occasion from the commandment, lured and tempted me to sin, and through this sin, committed by occasion of the precept, caused my spiritual death, and involved me still more in guilt.

He explains how the commandment intended for life became the cause of death, because “sin,” “taking occasion” from, αφορμη, or being stimulated by, the prohibition, seduced him, by pointing out the unreasonableness of the command, the advantages and pleasures of its violation, &c., and “by it,” i.e., owing to the knowledge which it gave, and the consequent resistance which this knowledge provoked, it “killed” him, and added still more to his former guilt, not through any fault of the law, but owing to the corruption of human nature. It is to be observed that by “sin,” often personified in this and the foregoing chapters, the Apostle understands concupiscence, which he calls “sin,” because it is the result of sin, and entices us to sin.

Rom 7:12. Therefore, the entire law, far from being the cause of sin, is holy; and so is every one of its precepts holy, and just, and good.

This, then, is the conclusion which the Apostle draws from the preceding, and by it replies to the objection (verse 7). “The law,” far from being the cause of sin, “is holy;” and so is “the commandment,” i.e., each of its precepts, “holy,” prescribing how God may be served with sanctity, “just,” prescribing that each man receive what is due to him, “good,” prescribing what will render each one good, if observed; or as St. Thomas explains it: “holy” in its ceremonial, “just” in its judicial, and “good” in its moral precepts. By “the law” is meant the sum of the precepts, by “the commandment,” each individual precept.

Rom 7:13. What then! has that which is good been made for me the cause of death? The law is by no means the cause of death; but concupiscence, the source of sin, so that its sinfulness might be made to appear more manifestly, has been the cause of death to me, even by means, or rather by occasion, of what is in itself good; hence, the excessive sinfulness of concupiscence is more clearly manifested by reason of its making the commandment, which is in itself good and holy, the occasion of sin and death.

He now proposes an objection, grounded on the two preceding verses, “sin killed me by the commandment, and this commandment is good,” (verse 11). Hence, if the law be not in itself a sin, at least, it became the cause of sin to me, and caused my death. The Apostle rejects the observation as unmeaning. It was not the law that caused my death; it was “sin,” or, concupiscence, that caused it, taking occasion from what is good, in order that its aggravated enormity might appear, &c. The Greek interpreters make an addition to the text to complete the sense, thus: “but sin (was made death unto me) that it might appear sin, having worked death in me by that which is good.” The Greek reading, κατεργαζομενη, will admit the change in the words, having worked. However, there appears to be no necessity for any such addition, as the Vulgate makes perfect and complete sense; and the participle by a Hebraism may be taken for a verb; “wrought,” or hath worked. Here, “sin” is personified as committing great crimes, making “the commandment,” given for quite an opposite purpose, the occasion of transgression.

Rom 7:14. The multiplied increase in sin under the law, does not proceed from the law, as we know the law itself to be spiritual. It proceeds from the carnal propensities of man, and the corruption of human nature; and these propensities we have even under the law of grace: for, I myself now feel these stings of the flesh, soliciting me to sin; I feel like one handed over to the tyranny of concupiscence.

In this verse, the Apostle, according to the more probable opinion, passes from the law of Moses, and in his own person, represents mankind under the law of grace and even justified. He would appear to speak of himself in his present state, “I am carnal.” The same appears from the subsequent part of the chapter, wherein he refers to the arduous struggle he was sustaining against concupiscence; now, it is only of the just man that this could be said, since the sinner, far from struggling with, yields himself up to his passions. He even speaks of himself as “delighted with the law of God, and serving the law of God” (verses 22, 25). His object in thus describing the state of man in the law of grace, and representing it in his own person, is to show that in the Old Testament, the law was not the cause of the multiplied transgressions under it; since even under the New Law, in which grace is so liberally dispensed, we experience such difficulty in the struggle with the “law of the members.” Now, nobody would impute this to the New Law, but to the corruption of human nature; and he shows the difference between our present state and that of the Jews, under the Old Law: they obeyed concupiscence; we feel it, but far from obeying, we resist its corrupt motions. “The law is spiritual”—its end and object are spiritual—viz., man’s sanctification—and so are its precepts. “Sold under sin,” that is, given over by the sin of Adam, of which concupiscence is the consequence, to the dominion of corruption, the motions of which, even with reluctance, we must feel, but not obey, as “interiorly we serve the law of God,” (verse 25).

Rom 7:15. For, that I am delivered over and sold like a slave under the dominion of concupiscence, is clear from the fact, that I am constrained to do, or rather to submit to, things of which I do not approve in my mind and will; for, not the good which I wish for, viz., not to experience the motions of concupiscence, can I do or accomplish, but the evil, which I hate, viz., the experiencing these corrupt motions, I am forced to submit to.

The Apostle, in the subsequent part of the chapter, describes the struggle that exists in the just man, between the sensual appetite, corrupted and deranged by original sin, and the superior faculties of the soul, when aided and assisted by divine grace. “That which I work,” in my animal part, “I understand not,” i.e., approve not, because it happens without the consent of my will, nor does my reason approve of it. “I do not that good which I will,” (“good” is not in the Greek), i.e., to be exempt from concupiscence—and to perform good actions without the resistance of concupiscence; “the evil of which I hate, that I do” (“evil” is not in the Greek), because although its takes place in my animal part, I am still said to “do it” according to the axiom, actiones sunt suppositorum.

Rom 7:16. But if it be against my will that I experience these evil tendencies of concupiscence, by this unwillingness I bear testimony to the excellence of the law, commanding me, not to covet.

This withholding of the consent of the will from the actions, or rather passions, of the inferior appetite, is a testimony, on the part of my intellect and will, of the excellence of the prohibitory law.

Rom 7:17. But now, owing to my unwillingness to experience them, these motions are not, properly speaking, my acts, but the deeds of sin which reside in me; hence, no longer attributable to me.

He explains how it is that he did the evil which he did not wish to do. He himself was not the principle of these actions, or rather passions, and motions of concupiscence, but it was rather the evil of concupiscence, which had been implanted, and which dwelt in his nature; and hence, these motions being involuntary, are no longer imputable to him, as free, human actions.

Rom 7:18. For I have known from experience that there dwells not in me, that is to say, in my flesh, corrupted and rendered rebellious by sin, any inclination to good. For, to wish for good and for exemption from evil, I find very easy, but to accomplish that good I find beyond my power.

He explains the words, “sin that dwelleth in me;” for, from experience he finds that it is not good that dwells in his members, but evil; for, to wish to do good, and to be exempt from the evils of concupiscence, he finds easy enough, but to accomplish this, and be actually exempt from them, he finds impossible.

Rom 7:19. For, the good which I wish for, I cannot do; but the evil which I do not wish for, or consent to, that I reluctantly do, or rather submit to.
Rom 7:20. But if I reluctantly do or submit to what I wish not, then, this is not attributable to me; nor, is it, properly speaking, my act, but the act of sin, which dwells within me.

In these two verses there is a repetition, for greater emphasis sake, of the verses 15–17.

Rom 7:21. When, therefore, I wish to do good, in accordance with the divine law, I find an opposing resistance in my corrupt flesh, acting on me like a law; and this arises from the evil of concupiscence implanted in my very nature.

The construction of this verse has been a source of perplexity to Commentators generally. The easiest and the most natural construction appears to be that adopted in the Paraphrase, I find a law opposing or contradicting me when I have a wish to do good. “Evil is present with me,” i.e., this law, or opposing resistance, arises from the fact that evil or concupiscence is present, or is implanted in my nature.

Rom 7:22. For, I am delighted with the law of God according to my interior man; i.e., in my mind, in my intellect and will.

“For, I am delighted with the law of God, according to the inward man,” that is, my mind, my intellect, enlightened and aided by grace and faith, approves of, and my will is delighted with the law of God. This evidently shows that the Apostle is representing the state of a man justified. The “inward man” means, man considered as enlightened by grace and faith.

Rom 7:23. But I experience another law in my corrupt flesh opposed to the law of God, in which my mind is delighted, and subjecting me to servitude under itself, by feeling its motions, but not by consenting to them.

“But I see another law in my members,” i.e., in my rebellious flesh. Through feelings of modest delicacy, he omits mentioning the members more particularly. “Fighting against the law of my mind,” i.e., against the law of God, with which my mind is delighted (verse 22), and “captivating me in the law of sin, which is in my members,” is put by a Hebrew idiom, for “captivating me to itself,” because “the law of the members” is the same as “the law of sin,” “captivating;” by making me submit to its inordinate motions, but not forcing me to consent thereto. “Captivantem,” says St. Augustine, “motione, non consensione.”—(2 Epistola contra Pelagian., c. 10).

Rom 7:24. Unhappy man that I am, who will deliver me from this body, by its stings and corrupt motions inclining me to sin, entailing my spiritual and eternal death?

In this verse are conveyed the exclamation and groans of a just man battling with his corrupt passions, and aspiring, after the glorious liberty of the children of God, when this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruptible shall be indued with incorruptibility. “From the body of this death;” the Greek, εκ τοῦ σωματος τοῦ θανατοῦ τούτου, may also be translated, “from this body of death,”—this mortal body, subject to the same motions of concupiscence, inclining us to the spiritual death of the soul, which leads to eternal death.

Rom 7:25. The gratuitous mercy of God one day conferring on me an immortal and incorruptible body in the resurrection, through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord, will deliver me. I, therefore, the self-same person, may be regarded in a two-fold respect. In my mind and will, I serve the law of God, by not consenting to the motions of concupiscence; but in my sensual part, I serve the law of sin, by feeling, although reluctantly, its motions.

“The grace of God,” i.e., the gratuitous mercy of God, &c., will deliver me (vide Paraphrase). The common Greek reading for “the grace of God” is, ευχαριστῳ τῳ θεῳ διὰ Ἰησοῦ, &c., “I give thanks to God through Jesus Christ,” &c. The Codex Vaticanus has χαρις τῶ θεῶ δια Ἰησου, &c., thanks to God through Jesus Christ, &c. The meaning of which may be rendered thus: I give thanks to God for liberating me, or rather for giving me hopes of future liberation through our Lord Jesus Christ. The Vulgate reading is found in some ancient MSS. and in many of the Latin Fathers, and defended by many eminent critics. “Therefore, I myself,” &c. In these words, the Apostle briefly sums up what he had been saying in the latter part of this chapter from verse 14. The sum of all comes to this, that although one and the same person, I feel within me two principles of action: through the one—viz., the animal, sensual principle, I serve the law of sin, by actually having motions of concupiscence, although with reluctance, against God’s law; and through the other—viz., the spiritual principle, I serve the law of God, by not wishing for these motions, and by not consenting to them. This clearly shows, that the Apostle is speaking of himself as representing mankind justified under the law of grace, and battling with concupiscence.

Father MacEvilly's Commentary on Romans Chapter 6

ANALYSIS OF ROMANS CHAPTER 6

Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation

In this chapter, the Apostle answers an objection to which his doctrine in the preceding chapter (Rom 5:20), might give rise (Rom 6:1). From the very rite of baptism, he shows that we should no longer commit sin; on the contrary, we should lead a new life of grace; for the rite of immersion practised in his time in baptism, was a type of our death to sin, and the egress from the waters of baptism was a type of our spiritual resurrection, both of which were effected, as well as signified, by the sacrament of baptism; and both had the death and resurrection of Christ for models (Rom 6:2–9). He next shows, from the very nature of Christ’s death, which took place but once, and of his resurrection, which was the entrance to an immortal life, that we, too, after his example, should persevere in a life of grace (Rom 6:9–11). He exhorts to a life of sanctity (Rom 6:11–20). He points out the present and future fruits of a life of sin and of a life of grace (Rom 6:21-23).

COMMENTARY ON ROMANS CHAPTER 6
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

Rom 6:1. What inference, then, are we to draw from the foregoing doctrine, viz., that “where sin abounded, grace did more abound.” Is it that we should continue in sin in order that grace may abound the more?

The Apostle proposes an objection which might be derived from his words in the preceding chapter, verse 20, that “where sin abounded, grace abounded more,” why not then continue in sin to give occasion to the abundant effusion of grace? Instead of “shall we continue,” the chief MSS. have, επιμενωμεν, “should we continue.”

Rom 6:2. Far be it from us to entertain for a moment so foolish and impious a thought. For how could we, who are dead to sin, who, from our Christian profession, should have no more commerce with sin than the living have with the dead, live any longer in that unhappy state? How is it possible to live and die to the same thing?

He at once rejects the thought as impious and absurd—since it would be absurd for men who, by their Christian profession, “are dead to sin.” i.e., who renounced all intercourse with sin, as the dead do in regard to the living, to live any longer in a state which they have so thoroughly renounced. He shows the absurdity of the consequence, since it is impossible to live and die to the same thing.

Rom 6:3. For that we are dead to sin, you may clearly see, by calling to mind what you already know, viz., that when we are baptized in the name and by the authority of Jesus Christ, we are baptized into the likeness and representation of his death.

He now proves that they are dead to sin, since by being “baptized in Christ Jesus,” in the Greek, εἰς Χριστὸν Ἰησοῦν, into Christ Jesus, i.e., by professing ourselves followers of Christ in the rite of baptism. In the Codex Vaticanus, the word “Jesus” is wanting, it simply is, “baptized unto Christ.” “Are baptized in his death”; in the Greek, εἰς τὸν θάνατον, into his death, i.e., into the likeness and representation of his death. So that his death on the cross would be represented by our death to sin, of which the baptism by immersion—the form of baptism in use in the time of the Apostle—was a significant type; and this death to sin on our part is effected by baptism, since, according to the doctrine of St. Thomas, the sacraments operate what they signify.

Rom 6:4. For, in order vividly to represent his death, we have been buried with him in the baptismal rite of immersion. So that as Christ has been resuscitated from the grave by the glorious operation of his Father’s power, we also, emerging from the baptismal waters, would lead a new life, as he did after his resurrection, and continue perseveringly in it.

He shows how our spiritual death to sin is signified by baptism. For, our immersion in baptism is a type of our burial, and, consequently, of our death to sin, of which his death on the cross was the model. “For we are buried together with him by baptism,” his burial, and, consequently, his death, being the model of our burial and death to sin, signified by our immersion in the waters of baptism. In all the Greek copies we have, οὖν, therefore, instead of “for.” “Into death,” to represent his death, which must precede burial. “That as Christ is risen from the dead by the glory of the Father,” i.e., by the glorious operation of the Father’s power, to enter on a new and immortal life, we too, after emerging from the waters of baptism, which is a type of our spiritual resurrection, would, like Christ, risen from the grave—our resuscitated model—enter on a new and holy life. As the death of Christ is the model of our death to sin, so is his resurrection from the tomb the model of our spiritual resurrection, and both signified by the rite of baptism, then conferred by immersion.

Rom 6:5. For, if, like young shoots, we have been engrafted on him by baptism, so as to represent, by our death to sin, his death on the cross, we shall certainly, for a like reason, be engrafted also unto the likeness of his resurrection, which will be effected by our leading a new life of grace, after the model of his glorious and immortal life.

He shows why we should walk in the newness of life, or become assimilated to Christ in his resurrection; for, our assimilation to him in our spiritual death, was not to rest there. Baptism not only represented and effected our spiritual death to sin—for this was but one spiritual effect signified and caused by baptism—but it also signified and effected our resurrection to a new life, in which we are to live after the model of Christ resuscitated from the grave. Our death to sin was the precursor of our new life of grace. Hence, if we die with Christ, with much greater reason shall we rise with him. “Planted together with him,” συμφυτοι γεγοναμεν; there is allusion in these words to the grafting of young shoots on the stock of another tree: Christ is the stock of the true and faithful vine on which we must be engrafted, to die with him to sin, and to live with him to grace, as the young graft participates in all the vicissitudes of the stock on which it is inserted. The nutriment we derive from our insertion on him, will not be merely confined to our dying to sin; it is intended to produce in us the fruits of a new and spiritual life.

Rom 6:6. We should die to sin and live a new life of grace, if we consider that in baptism, our old man, i.e., the corruption of nature, which we inherited from Adam, is crucified with Christ, so that the whole mass, or body of sin consisting of different members, may be destroyed, and we may no longer serve as slaves under the tyranny of sin.

From the end of baptism he shows that we should be dead to sin, and walk in the newness of life (verse 4); for, while baptism represents the crucifixion of Christ, it also signifies and effects the crucifixion of our vices. “Our old man,” i.e., the sinfulness and corruption inherited from Adam, or rather man himself, as affected by this sinfulness. The Apostle distinguishes two men, the old and the new. The “old man was crucified” with Christ; for, in his person “who was made for us a malediction,” the entire fallen race of Adam was nailed to the cross. “That the body of sin,” i.e., the entire mass or collection of sins—the members of which collection are uncleanness, avarice, &c. (Colossians 3). They are called a body, because as different members joined together constitute a body, so all the particular sins committed by the “old man” constitute a “body” also; in using the word body, the Apostle carries with him the idea of crucifixion, and alludes to the body of man after he fell in Adam, before he was renewed in Christ. This corrupt body was made by man the instrument of indulging his concupiscences. “May be destroyed,” by mortifying and restraining its members, “and may serve sin no longer.” “Sin” is represented as a tyrant exercising dominion over us.

Rom 6:7. For, as the dead slave is freed from servitude, so are we, who are dead to sin by baptism, freed from its tyranny; and hence, we should no longer serve it.

He continues to represent sin as a tyrant exercising sway—“is justified from sin?” “justified” is taken in a legal sense to signify acquitted, fully absolved, so as not to be again questioned on that account.

Rom 6:8. But if we be really dead to sin with Christ, we have a firm hope and confidence, that one day we shall enjoy with Christ a glorious and immortal life.

“We believe,” i.e., we confidently hope, “we shall live together with Christ.” These words are understood by Estius to refer to our living a life of grace after the model of His glorious and immortal life. The interpretation in the Paraphrase, which makes it refer to our living with him one day a life of glory in heaven, is, however, to be preferred; for, the Apostle would appear to take occasion, from treating of the life of grace, to refer to the reward of future glory, as a means of stimulating men to the practice of virtue. The opinion of Estius, however, derives great probability from the meaning given to the words, alive unto God, verse 11, where the foregoing example is applied.

Rom 6:9. As we know that Christ, resuscitated from the tomb, dies no more, death has no further dominion over him he (enjoys a glorious and immortal life, free from all the ills of mortality).

These words show that Christ, now risen, shall live for ever; and hence, as we are to live with him, we are to enjoy an immortal life. The connexion is more easily seen in the interpretation of Estius: “We shall live also together with Christ,” (verse 8). But what life is that?—an unceasing, continuous life of grace; for such is its model—the life of Christ resuscitated from the tomb; or, perhaps, it might be more probably said, that this verse has no immediate connexion with the foregoing; but that in it is merely introduced a new reason for persevering in grace—founded on the mode of Christ’s death and resurrection. From the very nature, the oneness, of Christ’s resurrection, he shows our obligation to persevere in good, and not relapse again into the state of sin.

Rom 6:10. For, so far as his death is concerned, it took place but once for the expiation of sin, but as to his life, it is altogether employed for the glory of God.

“He died to sin, he died once,” i.e., he died one death to expiate and atone for sin. In the common Greek, the punctuation is so placed that the words “to sin” are joined to “once,” thus, “he died to sin once.” The punctuation in the Codex Vaticanus “ὅ γὰρ απεθανεν, τῆ αμαρτία, απεθανεν εφαπαξ,” leaves the matter doubtful. “But he liveth unto God,” i.e., solely for God’s glory; and hence, our life of grace should be devoted to the same; or, the words, “unto God,” may mean, he lived a life worthy of God, immortal and unchangeable.

Rom 6:11. So do you, therefore, after his example, regard yourselves as dead to sin by baptism, and gifted with an unchanging, unfading life of grace, to be wholly devoted to the promotion of God’s glory, through the grace and merits of Jesus Christ our Lord.

He applies the foregoing, and founds on it the exhortation to sanctity of life. Hence, we should regard ourselves after baptism as dead once and for ever to sin, and living, like Christ, solely for God, performing all the actions of our life solely for the end of advancing his glory.

Rom 6:12. Do not, therefore, permit sin to exercise dominion or tyranny over your mortal bodies, by obeying and consenting to its corrupt desires.

He continues the metaphor, wherein “sin” is represented as a tyrant. By “sin” is meant, concupiscence, which the Apostle calls “sin,” because it is an effect of sin, and inclines us to it, quia ex peccato est et ad peccatum inclinat.—(Concil. Trid. SS. v., Can. 5). “In your mortal body;” he reminds them of their mortality and of the short duration of their shameful gratifications, in order to stimulate them to trample on them, and seek these rewards which are eternal. “So as to obey the lusts thereof.” It is by obeying the lusts of concupiscence, that we permit it to exercise tyranny over us. In the common Greek the words run thus: εἰς τὸ ὑπακούειν (αυτῃ ἐν) ταῖς επιθυμιαῖς αυτοῦ, “so as to obey (it in) its lusts.” The Vulgate is conformable to the chief MSS. and ancient versions, in which, αυτῃ εν, are altogether omitted.

Rom 6:13. And do not yield your members to the tyrant sin, as instruments for carrying out the ends of iniquity; but rather devote and give up your entire being to God, as having been raised from the death of sin to lead a new life of grace, and yield your members to God as instruments for carrying out the ends of justice.

No commentary is offered beyond the paraphrase.

Rom 6:14. Nor should you apprehend any great difficulties in this struggle, from the fear that concupiscence would once more regain dominion over you; it will no longer domineer over you; for, you are no longer under the Mosaic Law, where sin reigned with such uncontrollable dominion, but you are under the New Law, where grace abounds and enables you to keep sin under subjection.

The Apostle points out the facility with which they can obtain the victory. There is no fear that sin would exercise its dominion over them; they are no longer under the Mosaic law, which pointed out the sin to be avoided, but did not give grace to overcome or avoid it; and hence, sin reigned with more uncontrollable dominion under it; but they are under the Gospel law, in which they have ample graces to resist and battle against sin. “Under the law” has reference to the threats and menaces which the law holds out against those who are unable to fulfil its precepts, for the fulfilment of which the law itself gives no assistance. They, therefore, are said “not to be under the law,” who, though bound by the precepts of the law, still, in consequence of being enabled, owing to the numerous graces liberally dealt out to them “under grace,” to fulfil all its precepts, can set its threats and menaces at defiance. In the Greek it is, “under Law.” The article is wanting.

Rom 6:15. As, then, we are “not under the law,” does it not follow that we are free to neglect its precepts and thus sin against it? And as we are “under grace,” should we not sin that grace may abound the more (verse 1)? The inference is, in the first place, too impious and silly to deserve refutation.

This wrong influence is founded on the erroneous interpretation of the words, “under the law.” His first answer to it is, “God forbid,” i.e., far be it from us to assent to so unmeaning and impious an idea. Instead of, “shall we sin,” the reading of the chief MSS. is, ἁμαρτησωμεν, should we sin.

Rom 6:16. In the next place, the contrary should be deduced; viz., that you should no longer sin. For, are you not aware, that to whomsoever you give yourselves as servants to obey, you are his servants; you acknowledge him as your master, whether it be sin that entails eternal death, or gospel obedience—the fruit of which is justice here and eternal life hereafter?

He answers it, in the second place, by showing that if they were to adopt the wrong and unmeaning inference referred to, they would be incurring the very inconvenience for the avoiding of which he proposed to them the abundant grace of the Gospel—viz., they would become the slaves of the tyrant, “sin;” because, men are the slaves of whomsoever they obey. “Of obedience unto justice.” By “obedience” he means the Gospel law, which prescribes obedience, and it is opposed to “sin.” because every sin involves disobedience.

Rom 6:17. But thanks be to God, that having ceased to be servants of sin, you have become servants of Christ, by sincerely obeying the true form of gospel teaching, which has been delivered to you, or, to which you voluntarily submitted.

“That you were the servants of sin,” is the same as, that you have long since ceased to be what you were—viz., “the servants of sin.” “That form of doctrine,” i.e., that doctrine marked out by the Gospel. “Into which you have been delivered,” i.e., you have voluntarily and spontaneously submitted and yielded yourselves.

Rom 6:18. But having been freed from the galling servitude of sin, you have passed to the glorious service of justice, in regard to God, to serve whom, is to reign.

They have ceased to be what they heretofore were, “the servants of sin;” and hence, they should no longer sin, which is the contrary inference of that deduced by the impious (verse 15). “Made the servants of justice;” they should serve justice, and have no part in a service incompatible with it.

Rom 6:19. I propose to you an easy precept, by no means beyond your reach, and perfectly accommodated to human weakness, and it is, that you would now, after becoming servants of justice, use the same exertions in advancing the cause of justice and sanctification, that you have, heretofore, employed in your former degraded state, towards forwarding the purposes of iniquity and uncleanness.

Having shown that they were servants of justice, and therefore bound to promote the ends of sanctity, he points out the extent to which he requires of them to exert themselves in this service. “I speak a human thing,” i.e., a precept not above human strength, aided by ordinary grace, “because of the infirmity of your flesh,” more in accommodation to your weakness than in accordance with what God, your new master, deserves at your hands. The easy precept is, to do as much for justice as they did before for uncleanness and sin, although the Apostle might require of them to use greater zeal in the service of the former.

Rom 6:20. For, while you were the degraded slaves of sin, and so wholly engrossed with its degrading servitude, you had nothing at all to do with justice—no thoughts or concern whatever about it. (Hence, now, in serving justice, you should be wholly engrossed with it, having no further thoughts about sin or injustice).

They will comply with this easy precept, by altogether discarding any connexion with sin; for, their service under sin was equally exclusive of justice.

Rom 6:21. And in order to exert greater zeal in the service of justice than you have shown in the cause of iniquity, consider the rewards of both. The present fruit of your past services in the cause of sin, is shame at the remembrance of them, and their final end shall be everlasting death.

He stimulates them in the discharge of the duties which they owe in justice to God, by pointing out the present and future rewards, and fruits of their service to both.

Rom 6:22. But the present fruit of your labours in the cause of God, in whose service you are engaged, after having been freed from the degrading servitude of sin, is the sanctification of your souls; and the final recompense shall be, eternal life.

The present fruit of justice is not shame, but sanctification, wherein we should glory; and the final end to which it conducts, is not death, but everlasting life.

Rom 6:23. For, the wages given to the sinner, like the military pay given to the soldier, is eternal death; but the donative of God, given to the man who fights under the banner of justice, is eternal life, which is merited for us by Christ Jesus our Lord.

“The wages of sin,” (the Greek word for “wages,” ὀψωνια, means, the military pay given to soldiers); as if he said, the military pay, to which those that fight under the banners of sin are entitled, is death. “But the grace of God.” The Greek word for “grace,” χαρισμα, means, the donative or liberal allowance which the generals were sometimes accustomed to give the soldiers beyond their ordinary pay. Here, then, the words mean: the liberal donative given by God to the followers of justice is eternal life.

Objection.—If eternal life can be merited as a reward of good works, as faith teaches, how could the Apostle call it a “grace,” since a reward is strictly due, and a “grace” is essentially gratuitous?

Resp.—Although eternal life be a merces or reward, the Apostle still calls it a “grace,” because it is really such in a certain sense—viz., inasmuch as the very works by which it is earned must proceed from grace. Hence, St. Augustine has said, “that in crowning our good works, God only crowns his own grace;” 2ndly, the Apostle calls it a “grace” here, because it is not the wages or stipend of good works, in the same way that death is the wages of sin, i.e., deserving it of its own intrinsic nature. Good works, viewed in themselves, are not deserving of eternal life, only inasmuch as God has graciously promised to attach to them eternal life; and it is on this promise of God, and not on the nature of abstract distributive justice, that the right to eternal life, resulting from good works, is founded. St. Paul, then, calls eternal life a “grace,” because grace is the more exalted principle for gaining it; and, besides, as eternal life far exceeds the merits of good works, it may be called a grace in this respect also. The chief object which the Apostle had in view in this Epistle was to refute the errors of the Jewish and Gentile converts at Rome, who relied too much on the merit of their natural good works. Hence, he directs his whole reasoning to prove the gratuitousness of eternal life, and of the means to obtain it, and he abstracts from the other view, in which it may be regarded—viz., as a subject of merit. For, to consider it under this latter respect, would only involve his reasoning in obscurity, and interfere, in a great measure, with his principal object in this Epistle. The same is observable in his reasoning (chap. 4) regarding Abraham’s justification. He there abstracts from the good works of the Patriarch, and attributes all to faith.

Father MacEvilly's Commentary on Romans Chapter 5

ANALYSIS OF ROMANS CHAPTER 5
Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation

The Apostle, having proved in the preceding chapters, that our justification comes from faith and not from the works performed by the sole aid of cither the natural law or the law of Moses, now points out the excellence if this justification from its effects and the fruits which it produces. The first effect is, peace and tranquillity of conscience (Rom 5:1). The second is the adoption of us, as sons of God (Rom 5:2). The third is joy in our afflictions, which subserve as means to bring us to the enjoyment of our eternal inheritance (Rom 5:3-5). We have two most consoling and certain grounds for this hope, viz., the diffusion of the Holy Ghost in our hearts, and the death if Christ, than which God could not furnish a greater proof of his boundless love (Rom 5:6–10). The fourth effect of our justification is our glorying in God, as our Father, and in Jesus Christ, as our Mediator (Rom 5:11). In order to show the absolute necessity of this reconciliation on the part of Christ, the Apostle traces matters to the very root of all evil, viz., original sin, of which subject he treats in the remainder of the chapter (Rom 5:12-21).

COMMENTARY ON ROMANS CHAPTER 5
text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

Rom 5:1. Having, therefore, been justified through faith (in Christ resuscitated from the grave to complete our justification, Rom 4:25), let us be at peace with God, by sinning no more; or, by laying aside the terrors of conscience to which we are subject while in the state of sin, having been reconciled through our Lord Jesus Christ.

“By faith,” and not by the cause advanced by the Jews and Gentiles respectively, viz., the works of the moral and Mosaic laws. “Let us have peace.” In the common Greek copies it is, εχομεν, we have peace, i.e., we have God propitious and reconciled to us. The Vulgate reading, εχωμεν, is that of the Alexandrian and Vatican MSS., and followed by many of the Holy Fathers, SS. Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine, &c. The meaning of both readings differs but little. Beelen prefers the indicative reading, “we have,” which is the reading of the other verses; “we stand,” verse 3; “we glory,” verse 3 etc.

Rom 5:2. Through whose merits we have had access, by means of faith, to this grace of reconciliation, wherein we are firmly established, and wherein we glory, in the hope of enjoying one day the bliss in store for the sons of God.

“By whom also,” i.e., through whose merits, “we have access,” (in the Greek, την προσαγωγην εσχηκαμεν, we had access,) i.e., we had been admitted to that happy state of grace in which we firmly persevere—sanctifying grace, as a habit, firmly adheres to us—and of which we boast, since it furnishes us with the most assured hope of one day enjoying the glorious inheritance prepared for the sons of God, of which grace is the seed and the sure earnest. The Greek word for “access,” literally means approach, and frequently means, permission to approach great men. Here it is used metaphorically to denote introduction to a state of grace. “Sons” is not in the Greek, which runs thus, “in the hope of the glory of God.” “Through faith.” Christ has given us access through faith, as through a door, to sanctifying grace.

Rom 5:3. And not only do we glory in this grace which is the seed of future glory; but, we even rejoice and glory in tribulation, as conducing to bring us to this happy end. Knowing well from the principles of our faith, that tribulation is the matter and occasional cause of patience.

And to show how great are our expectations of this future bliss, we glory in the means of obtaining it, be they ever so opposed to flesh and blood, such as tribulations are. “Knowing that tribulation worketh patience,” tribulation being the matter by which patience is exercised.

Rom 5:4. Now, the patient endurance of sufferings tries us and shows what we are. And this trial, after passing through the order of tribulations, enlivens and animates our hope of future bliss.

“And patience (worketh) trial.” Because, it is the patient endurance of affliction that alone tries us, and shows what we are, “as gold and silver are tried in the fire, so are acceptable men in the furnace of humiliation.”—(Eccles. 1). St. James would appear to contradict the Apostle here, for he says (chap. 1) “the trying of faith worketh patience.” There is no real contradiction, however; for, by the “trying of faith,” St. James means the tribulation itself; and this worketh patience, as it is said by St. Paul, in the preceding verse; whereas, here, by “trial” the Apostle means the result of patiently enduring tribulation, the proof we give of the extent of our love for God, and of the sterling virtue which we possess; “and trial (worketh) hope,” because it wonderfully animates and enlivens our hope of heavenly bliss to pass unhurt through the furnace of tribulation.

Rom 5:5. But this hope of future bliss shall never cause the shame of disappointment, since, as a pledge of the fulfilment of this hope, the charity and liberality of God is poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Ghost who has been given to us. (After giving us this pledge of our future inheritance, what can God deny to us?)

“And hope confoundeth not.” The Greek for “confoundeth,” καταισχύνει, means shameth, by which is expressed the shame of disappointment resulting from grounding our hopes on vain, delusive promises; but our hopes in God are most certain and infallible, as is seen from two indubitable proofs which he has given us of the fulfilment of his promises. The first proof is the diffusion of the gift of charity, by which we Gove him through the Holy Ghost, who is given to us, and permanently resides and inheres in our souls by his gifts. The words, “in our hearts” favour this meaning of “charity of God.” “The charity of God” may also refer to the love of God for us manifested by his pouring forth plenteously into our souls the gifts of his Holy Spirit, which permanently reside and inhere in us; and these gifts of sanctifying grace, and the virtues which are inseparable from it, being the seed of future glory, are the surest earnest God could give us of one clay attaining that glory. This latter meaning of “the charity of God,” is rendered probable by verse 8. It may refer to both God’s love for us, and our love for Him. Some Commentators understand the words, “by the Holy Ghost who is given to us,” to refer to a personal union of the Holy Ghost, in a manner peculiar or proper to him, and not common to the Father and Son (see Beelen). From this verse is derived an argument, that sanctifying grace is intrinsic and permanent, as it is “poured forth in our hearts by the Holy Ghost who is given to us,” to reside in us.

Rom 5:6. In the next place, why should Christ die for us at the prescribed time, when we were yet impious and languishing uder the infirmity of sin, unless it were to display his charity towards us and confirm our hope?

The second proof of God’s love for us, and a further confirmation of our hope is, the death of Christ for us, “for why did Christ … die for the ungodly?” unless it was by this splendid proof of his love for us to animate and confirm our hope, and give us an assurance, that, one day he would crown his gifts in us. “Why,” is not in the common Greek, which gives the sentence in an affirmative form, ἔτι γὰρ. The ancient MSS. have various readings. The Codex Vaticanus, εἴ γε. Irenæus and other Fathers support the Vulgate; “weak,” i.e., labouring under the infirmity of infidelity and sin, which is more clearly expressed in the word “ungodly.” The first proof of his great charity which God has given us, is the diffusion of the gifts of his Holy Spirit in our hearts. The second is the death of Christ for us. “According to the time,” i.e., at the precise period, pointed out by the prophets, and fixed on by his heavenly Father.

Rom 5:7. Now, scarcely will you find among men an instance of one man dying for another: even though that other be a just man. I say, scarcely, because, perhaps, for the just man, who may be at the same time a benefactor, one may submit to die.

The Apostle, in order to render the love of charity displayed by God for us in the death of his Son the more conspicuous, contrasts this great act of love on the part of God, with similar manifestations on the part of mankind to one another. “Scarcely will you find one” to carry his love for another to such a degree, as to die for him, even though that one be “a just man.” It may, however, possibly happen that this rare instance of love may be shown in behalf of a just man, who may be, at the same time, beneficent to us. “A good man,” implies, not only that one is just, rendering to every one what is due, but also beneficent to us; and therefore, having some grounds for demanding a sacrifice from us.

Rom 5:8-9. But in this does God display in a conspicuous manner his charity and love for us, that Christ has died in the plenitude of lime for us, while we were yet his enemies and in the state of sin. Having suffered so much for us while in a state of sin, much more shall we be saved and preserved by him from the eternal punishment, with which we will, in his wrath, visit the impious, now that we have been justified at the price of his precious blood.

But the charity of God surpasses anything ever heard of, or anything even supposed to be possible among men, by His dying for us, when we were neither “just” nor “good,” but when we were “sinners” and enemies The Greek word for “commends,” συνιστησιν, means, to set forth, to display. The words “according to the time,” κατα χαιρον, are not in any Greek copies, and were probably introduced from verse 6. The word “God” is omitted in the Codex Vaticanus, according to which “Christ” is the nominative to “commendeth.” What a lively picture is drawn here by the Apostle of the boundless love of God for man—the Creator dying for us, his wretched creatures, when we were his enemies. How few correspond with this boundless love. How few make a suitable return. Tam amantem quis non redamet? in quantum possumus, amemus, redamemus vulneratum nostrum.—(St. Bernard, de Passione). What wonder that the Apostle should invoke the heaviest malediction on the head of him who loves not our Lord Jesus Christ.—(1 Cor. 16:22.) “Let us therefore love God, because God first hath loved us.”—(1 John 4:19). How frequently should we not meditate on the different circumstances of God’s love for us, as here set forth by the Apostle.

Rom 5:10. For, if when we were his enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more now that we are reconciled to him, shall he complete this work of our justification by saving us after having entered on his exalted state of glorious and immortal life.

In this verse, he repeats with greater emphasis, founded on the contrast between Christ’s ignominious death and glorified life, the idea conveyed in the preceding one. If Christ, in his weak, possible and humiliated state, had, at the expense of his precious blood, performed the more difficult work of reconciling us with God; is it not much more natural to expect, that he will now, in his glorious state of immortal and impassible life, perform in our behalf the complement of the preceding, without which it would be unavailing, viz., bring us to consummate salvation, and thereby perfect the work of our reconciliation?

Rom 5:11. But not only do we glory in the hope of future bliss, and in tribulations as conducing thereto; but, we also glory in God, whose adopted sons we have become, not through any merits of our own, but through those of our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have been admitted to the grace of reconciliation with God.

“And not only so.” Some Commentators, among the rest, Estius, connect these words with the preceding, thus: “and not only have we been reconciled, but we also glory,” &c. The participial form of reconciliati and gloriantes favours this. The connexion in the Paraphrase appears far more probable, and is also well sustained by external authority. The Greek for “we glory” is a participle, καυχωμενοι, glorying, but it is equivalent to the indicative.

Rom 5:12. (Through Christ alone have we been reconciled to God, and we needed him to reconcile us). For, as by one man (Adam) sin entered into this world, and by sin death, thus death has passed into all men, since all sinned in Adam, as the principal and head of the human race. (So also through one man Christ—the principal and head of all who are spiritually regenerated—has justice entered into the world, and through justice, eternal life).

The Apostle, in order to show the necessity of reconciliation through Christ, traces matters back to the root of all evil, and propounds the mysterious doctrine of original sin. What it is that constitutes this sin, and what the particular mode is of contracting it, which we have inherited from Adam, and which has been transmitted to all who have been, by the natural course of generation, descended from him (the glorious Mother of God, alone, excepted, who, according to the doctrine of faith, “by a singular privilege and grace of Almighty God, has been preserved free from all stain of original sin in the first instant of Her conception, in view of the merits of Christ Jesus, the Saviour of the human race”), no way concerns us to inquire. This much we know and believe as an article of Catholic faith, that this sin has been transmitted to all men, not by imitation, but by carnal generation. “Hoc Adæ peccatum … propagatione non imitatione transfusum omnibus, inest unicuique proprium.”—(Concil. Trid. SS. 5. de Peccato Orig.) And this doctrine has been proved from this passage by several Councils against the Pelagians.

“Wherefore,” δια τουτο, may mean, for, with the connexion in Paraphrase, or it may be thus connected: “Since, then, Christ is the meritorious cause of our salvation, it is meet that we should, therefore, institute the following comparison. “As by one man,” i.e., Adam, who was by God constituted the head and representative of the whole mass of mankind, “sin entered into this world,” i.e., infected the whole human race, which thereby contracted the necessity of dying. By “sin,” is meant the guilt of original sin, and not its effects, death and bodily suffering, as defined by the Council of Trent—(SS. 5, Can. 2). It is opposed to justification, and moreover, if it referred to the effects of sin, it would be identified with “death.” “And so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.” “In whom,” regards the “one man,” δἰ ἑνὸς ἀνθρώπου, or Adam, as is clear from the Greek, ἐφʼ ᾧ. This is the interpretation of St. Augustine and St. Chrysostom. In this construction, the words intervening between “one man,” and “in whom.” are included in a parenthesis, “wherefore, as by one man (…) in whom all have sinned.” Others understand the words, ἐφʼ ῳ, causatively to mean inasmuch as, or because, and this is preferred by many (see Beelen). Some Commentators say the sense is suspended as far as verse 18—“therefore as by the offence,” &c.—others finish the sense as in Paraphrase. And this is the more probable; for in verse 18, it is a conclusion that is expressed, “therefore,” &c. Others, with Beelen, say the second member of the comparison which should correspond with the words, “as by one man,” &c., and should complete the sentence, is expressed, if not in words, at least in reality, wherein is conveyed the contrast between the first and second Adam, in verse 14, “who is a figure,” &c.

Rom 5:13-14. And that this sin existed in the world at all times, even before the written law was given to Moses, although before the law, it was not so much attended to by mankind, following the bent of their corrupt passions, and having no positive law to point out the enormity and fix the special punishment of their crimes, is evident from the fact, that death, its consequence, reigned from Adam to Moses even over those (v.g., infants and idiots) who were incapable, by actual transgression, of sinning after the manner of Adam, who, as the head of a sinful race, was, by contraries, a type of the second Adam, Christ, through whom, as the head of a ransomed race, justice and life were to be introduced into this world.

13. In this verse, the Apostle anticipates and solves an objection which might be made against the universality of the preceding doctrine, namely, as sin is the violation of some law, how could there be any violation of a law before it was given? The Apostle says, that even before the law was given to Moses, this sin of Adam, as well in itself as in its effects, viz., actual sins, existed in this world; but these sins were not “imputed,” or attended to by mankind following their corrupt passions; because there was no particular positive enactment clearly to point out their enormity—so that “sin” in this verse embraces not only original but actual sins, of which the corruption we have inherited from Adam is the source and principle. “But sin,” under which are included original sin, and the actual sins flowing from it, superadded by our own wills—“was not imputed.” Some say was not imputed unto punishment, or as a transgression. The interpretation adopted in the Paraphrase is preferable; for, it is very hard to reconcile the other interpretation with the heavy chastisements always visited upon sin, even before the time of Moses; for, even then, death reigned as well as afterwards.

14. But as a proof that this sin existed, even during the interval that elapsed between Adam and Moses, the Apostle adduces the fact that death, the consequence and punishment of sin, reigned over those who could not deserve any such punishment by actual positive guilt of their own. Such, for instance, were infants and idiots, who, unlike Adam, were incapable of actual sin.

“Who is a figure of him who was to come.” Adam was, by contraries, a type of the future or second Adam, Christ, who is the principle of spiritual life, as the first Adam was the principle of spiritual death. Some Commentators, and among them Beelen, are of opinion that the second member of the antithesis between Adam and Christ is insinuated here, although not clearly expressed, as has been done in Paraphrase of verse 12.

This passage had been adduced by St. Augustine and the early Fathers, to establish against the Pelagians the doctrine of original sin. The Apostle says, “all have sinned,” verse 12, and that this is not to be understood of actual sin, he shows in verse 14, since death, the consequence and punishment of sin, had been inflicted upon all, not even excepting those who were incapable of committing actual sin, viz., infants and idiots. Hence, it must be inflicted as a punishment of that sin, which by generation was transmitted to them from Adam, whom, in his infinite wisdom, God had constituted the head of all his descendants; so that his sin would be imputable to them, as would his fidelity have been accounted in their favour, had he persevered in justice.

Rom 5:15. We are not, however, to imagine, that the sin of the first Adam has been so detrimental in its effects, as the gift of the second Adam, by which these effects were removed, has been useful. For, if by the sin of the first Adam his many descendants were deprived of spiritual life and rendered subject to eternal death, far more numerous and precious were the gratuitous gifts of God, through the grace of one man Jesus Christ, conferred on the many (for, besides restoring spiritual life, he has bestowed many gifts of the Holy Ghost and immortality itself).

In the preceding verse, the Apostle had asserted, that Adam was a type or figure of him, “who is to come,” i.e., of Christ, who is often in SS. Scripture styled, the last Adam.—(1 Cor. 15:45). He was a figure by contraries, because, as the first Adam was the principle of death and sin, so the last was the principle of justice and of life, in all who were to be spiritually regenerated and born of him. This resemblance was not, in every respect, perfect. “Many died,” in Greek, οἱ πολλοὶ, “the many.” The first point of dissimilitude, even on contrary sides, was that the guilt of the one had only inflicted temporal and eternal death; whereas, “the grace of God and the gift,” i.e., the gratuitous gift of God furnished by the grace and merits of the man-God, Jesus Christ, “hath much more abounded,” not in point of extensive application, but in the comprehensive excellence and abundance of the benefits which it conferred; since it was not merely confined to the removal of the evil effects of the sin of Adam, but it also bestowed the gifts of the Holy Ghost and perseverance in grace, of which the sin of Adam did not deprive us; for, Adam had not these gifts in Paradise.

“Unto many,” or, as in the Greek, εἰς τους πολλους, “unto the many.” Of course, “the many” in this latter member of the sentence is not as extensive as in the former member, “by the offence of one many died;” for, the many in the former are called “all men,” verse 12; while in this latter part, there is question only of the many who are spiritually born or begotten of Christ, in the same way as treating of the descendants of Adam there is question of those carnally descended from him. It is not in the extent of their actual application that the Apostle compares “the gift” and “the sin,” but in their comprehensive or intrinsic effects where they are applied.

Rom 5:16. There is another point of difference besides; for, it was only for the one sin of Adam, that all have been subject to the sentence of condemnation; whereas, the gratuitous gift effected the justification of all, not only from that sin, but from all others, and so it rescued us from more evils than the sin of Adam had introduced.

There is another point of dissimilitude. For, the gift of the last Adam did more than remove the evil effects of which the transgression of the first was productive. For, by the transgression of Adam, all had been subject to the sentence of condemnation for only one sin; whereas, the gratuitous gift of Christ not only justified us from that one general sin, but from all our own actual sins, superadded by depraved and corrupt nature. “And not as it was by one sin,” the Greek is, καὶ ουχ ὡς δἰ ἑνος ἁμαρτησαντος, “and not as by one who sinned.” The Vulgate reading is, however, found in some of the principal Greek manuscripts, and in the Arabic version.

Rom 5:17. For, if through the sin of one man (Adam), and as the consequence of his sin, death reigned over the entire human race; with far greater reason should we believe, that those who receive the abundance of divine grace, of justice, and of all supernatural favours, shall reign for endless ages, through the merits of the one man, Jesus Christ, which are boundless and infinite.

The Apostle repeats, with greater emphasis in this verse, the points of similitude and dissimilitude between Christ and Adam, as opposite principles of life and death. He represents life and death introduced by both, as reigning over the human race. Adam introduced the reign of death and sin; Christ, the reign of justice and life. He does not say, as In the preceding member, that “life shall reign,” but “they shall reign in life,” to point out the dignity of the sons of God, to whom the form, “they shall reign in life,” is more honourable than “life shall reign over them,” as is said of death in the preceding; “much more”—i.e., it is much more natural, considering the infinite power and boundless merits of the one man, Jesus Christ, the principle of spiritual and eternal life, to expect that his children shall reign for ever; the word “reign” expresses the height of happiness, together with the exalted honour they shall enjoy. “Abundance of grace” may mean the abundant, transcendant grace; “and of the gift, and of justice,” (in the common Greek, καὶ της δωρεας της δικαιοσυνης, “and of the gift of justice.”). In the Vatican MS. the word “gift” is wanting.

Rom 5:18. Therefore, as by the sin of one man, Adam, the entire mass of mankind incurred the guilt through which they were subject to condemnation; so also, by the justice of one man, Christ, have all men born of him, obtained that justice which makes them sharers of eternal life.

In this verse, according to the interpretation adopted by many, the Apostle reverts to the preceding, for the purpose of completing the sense, and of filling up the comparison left incomplete at verse 12. The intervening verses are, according to this connexion, to be read as within a parenthesis, in which the sacred writer is hurried off from the main subject to note some points of similitude or dissimilitude that occurred to him in reference to the subject in question—a thing not at all unusual in the style of the Apostle. Against this connexion, however, it may be fairly objected, that in this verse the Apostle only draws a conclusion from the foregoing, in which the comparison is supposed to have been already instituted, and indeed, according to many (vide Beelen), the points of comparison are carried out in the words of verse 14, “who is a figure of him who was to come;” “Therefore,” i.e., so then, “as by the offence of one unto all men to condemnation,” the word judgment is understood (judgment passed), “unto all men to condemnation,” as in verse 16; “so also by the justice of one,” (grace or justice passed) “unto all men to justification of life;” “all men,” in this latter clause, regarding justification, are to be understood of all spiritually born of Christ, as in the preceding, reference is made to all carnally descended from the principle of death and condemnation—viz., Adam.

Rom 5:19. For, as by the disobedience of one man, Adam, the many descended from him are made sinners; so also, by the obedience of Christ, shall the many, spiritually born of him, be constituted just.

On account of the great importance of the doctrine, the Apostle repeats in this verse the same thing conveyed in the preceding, “as by the disobedience of the one”—viz., Adam eating the forbidden fruit, “the many,” i.e., all his descendants, who are many (he calls them “all men,” verse 18), “are made sinners;” “so also by the obedience of the one, the many (descended of him) shall be,” &c.; “the many,” in this latter member is not co-extensive with “the many” in the preceding, according to the interpretation now given; or, if we take “the many” who shall be “made just,” to refer to the entire human race, then the words “made just” will not imply that they are actually justified, but only that the grace of justification is intended for all, and it is their own fault if they fail to obtain it; and that all who are rendered just, are made so by the grace of Christ. From this and the preceding verse is derived a convincing argument of the Catholic doctrine of inherent justice, as Beelen well observes. For, according to the teaching of the Apostle, we are constituted just, and even obtain the gift of justice, through the obedience of Christ, as we are constituted sinners through the disobedience of Adam. Now, in the latter case, we were really sinners, “by nature, children of wrath,” (Eph. 2:3) by the guilt of sin inherent in each of us, transmitted by carnal generation from him. Therefore, by the obedience of Christ, all who are spiritually born of him are constituted really just by justice really inherent in them, and not by the imputation of the justice of Christ, as it was not by the imputation of the sin of Adam that all are sinners. For, the spiritual regeneration in Christ corresponds with the carnal descent from Adam, in which guilt is not imputed but really contracted.

Rom 5:20. In the interval that elapsed between the transgression of the first Adam, and the obedience of the second, the law was introduced; but, so far was it from remedying the evil, that, on account of human depravity, it became the occasion of greater sin. This increase in sin was, however, only the occasion of manifesting the superabundance of God’s grace.

Lest it might be imagined from what he said (verse 13), that the law could have the effect of abolishing this sin, the Apostle says, that although the law was introduced in the same space of time that intervened between the sin of the first Adam, and the furnishing of a remedy by the second; still, so far was it from remedying the evil, that it was the occasion of its increase, owing to the depravity of man’s nature. In this interpretation the word “that” means the consequence of what happened—a signification in which it is often employed. Some interpret it as expressing the final cause or end of the law. “The law entered in, in order that sin might abound,” and that thus, from a consciousness of their spiritual miseries and disorders, men might look forward with greater ardour to the coming of the remedy, which alone could remove them. If we take “that” to signify the final cause or end of giving the law, then the words are not to be understood as conveying that the immediate and direct end God had in view was the “abounding of sin;” but, the humiliation of man resulting from the increase of sin by occasion of the law. From which it would follow that, conscious of his weakness and sinfulness, he would implore the aid of a deliverer. “Entered in,” παρεισηλθεν, as if by stealth, and only for a time, until the plenitude of grace would be conferred by the Gospel. “And where sin abounded,” &c., not that this happened in every instance—but only where God thought fit to apply it. Some Commentators give “where” the meaning of “when sin abounded,” owing to the introduction of the law, then the superabundant grace of Christ was given to the world. The Greek particle, οὗ, will mean either where or when. The signification of when in this passage is preferable, because the Apostle is treating of different periods of time, and the different degrees of grace and sinfulness during these times.

Rom 5:21. So that, as until the time of the dispensation of this superabundant grace, sin reigned over all mankind, bringing death upon all; so, grace also would reign, bestowing upon all, that justice which leads to eternal life, through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord.

So that as sin extended its dominion far and wide, bringing death upon all men, the reign of divine mercy and grace would also be extended, bestowing life-giving justice on all who are to be saved, through the infinite merits of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Father MacEvoilly's Commentary on Romans Chapter 4

ANALYSIS OF ROMANS CHAPTER 4
Scripture links are to the Douay Rheims translation.

In this chapter, the Apostle adduces the example of Abraham, whose justification was the model of that of all the faithful, to prove the principal proposition and the leading subject of this Epistle, viz., that justification is neither derived from circumcision, nor from the works preceding faith, but from faith itself. He first proves that Abraham was not justified by circumcision or by the external works of the law of Moses (Rom 4:1-2); but that his justification was the gratuitous justification through faith. In proof of this, he quotes a text from the Book of Genesis, and builds his argument on this quotation (Rom 4:3-5). He also proves the gratuitousness of justification from the prophetic words of David (Rom 4:6-8), from the universal extension of which he also shows, that justification is conferred on the uncircumcised Gentiles; and, consequently, that it is independent of the works of the law (Rom 4:9). He likewise proves, from the date of Abraham’s justification, which occurred prior to his circumcision, that he was not indebted to circumcision, nor, consequently, to the works of the law, for his justification (Rom 4:9-10). He proves the same, also, from the object and nature of circumcision, which was a seal of his former justice, obtained in faith. Hence, his circumcision was posterior to his justification (Rom 4:11). He shows the reason why Abraham’s justification preceded his circumcision, and why he received circumcision after being justified (Rom 4:12). From the circumstances and qualities of the promise made to Abraham, the Apostle derives another argument in favour of justification by faith, independently of the observance of the law (Rom 4:13-15). Having shown, that justification comes neither from circumcision nor from the works of the law, the Apostle concludes, that it must come from faith, in which case, will be observed the gratuitousness of the promise made to Abraham, and its universal extension to all Abraham’s spiritual children (Rom 4:16). The Apostle, finally, extols the heroic firmness of the Patriarch’s faith, which, he tells us, was to be the model of ours, and similar in its object and happy results (Rom 4:  17–25).

COMMENTARY ON ROMANS CHAPTER 4
Text in purple indicates Fr. MacEvilly's paraphrase of the scripture he is commenting on

Rom 4:1. What justification then shall we say, Abraham our father according to the flesh received? Was it the justification through faith, or through the works performed by his own natural strength, without grace or faith?

“That Abraham hath found, who is our father, according to the flesh.” Some Commentators, following the common Greek reading, τον πατερα ἡμων εὑρηκεναι κατα σαρκα, connect the words, “according to the flesh,” with the verb “found,” and understand the verse to mean—what did our father Abraham profit by carnal circumcision? These understand the words to mean the same as the question (chap. 3.) “What is the profit of circumcision?” To which, they say, the Apostle gives an answer in this chapter. Others, who also prefer the same construction, and connect the words “according to the flesh,” with the verb “found,” understand the word, “flesh,” of the works performed by his natural strength, so as to mean the same as “works” (verse 2). The particle “for,” would make it very probable, that the Apostle was referring to the same thing in both verses. The reading adopted in the Paraphrase is that of the Vulgate, which, as regards the words, “according to the flesh,” is conformable to the Codex Vaticanus, τι οὖν εροῦμεν Αβρααμ τον προπατερα ἠμῶν κατα σαρκα. In this reading of the Codex Vaticanus, the verb, εὑρήκεναι, found, is wanting. No doubt, the Vulgate reading, “Quid ergo dicemus invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundum carnem?” will admit of either construction. According to it, secundum carnem, may be joined to either, invenisse, or patrem nostrum. It is in favour of the former construction, that it does not seem to accord much with the Apostle’s scope in this Epistle, to attach any great importance to carnal descent from Abraham—(see Rom 9:10).

Rom 4:2. Surely, not the justification through the works in question, because if Abraham were justified by such works, he would have cause for glorying in himself (such works being supposed to be performed by his own natural strength), but not in God, whose gratuitous benefits would not be acknowledged in such a system of justification.

“Justified by works.” He speaks of works done without grace or faith; since, it is of these alone he could say, that they deprived a man of all cause for glorying in God, which is the meaning of the words, “before God,” according to Mauduit. Moreover, it was only of such works that there was question between the converted Jews and Gentiles, as establishing for them respectively a claim to the Gospel. The words of this verse are commonly explained by interpreters thus: “He would have external subject for glorying before men, but he would have no real subject for glorying in the sight of God,” and they connect the following verse, 3, thus: “But we have the testimony of Scripture assuring us that Abraham was really and interiorly justified before God, for it is said that ‘he believed, and his belief was reputed by God unto justice.’ ”—(Genesis 15:6). Therefore, it was not by external works, but by faith, he was justified. According to the interpretation adopted in the Paraphrase, which is that of Père Mauduit, making “before God” mean “in God,” the connexion in verse 3 is quite different (vide Paraphrase). This connexion adopted in the Paraphrase accords better with the Apostle’s reasoning on the Scriptural text in Rom 4:4-5 below “Whereof to glory,” καυχημα subject for boasting.

Rom 4:3. But that Abraham had cause for glorying in God, owing to the gratuitousness of his justification, which was wholly independent of the works performed by his mere natural strength, is clear from the history of his justification given in the book of Genesis 15:6, “Abraham believed God, and it,” i.e., his faith (not his works), “was reputed to him unto justice.”

But that Abraham had reason to glory in God, on account of the gratuitousness of his justification, and not in himself, for any merit of works, is clear from the words of Genesis 15:6, in which his justification is described as perfectly gratuitous—“Abraham believed … and it was reputed to him unto justice.”

Rom 4:4. On which words I build this argument: to the man who performs a work, the wages due to the performance of that work is given, not as a matter of mere gratuitous favour, but as a debt due in strict justice. (As, therefore, justification was given to Abraham, as a matter of grace and favour, which is implied in the word, reputed, it must not proceed from works establishing a just claim to it).

On the words of Genesis, it was reputed, &c., the Apostle builds an argument in favour of the gratuitous justification of Abraham by faith. If the works of Abraham, performed by his natural strength, were the principle of his justification, it could not be said that it was a mere voluntary act of grace on the part of God to bestow it, as the word, “reputed” implies; it would be given as a debt of strict justice; for, the man who performs a work entitled to reward, shall receive that reward as a debt and not as a favour. Hence, as the justification of Abraham was a mere matter of gratuitous acceptance on the part of God, it was not bestowed in consideration of such works as establish a claim to it.

Rom 4:5. It is only in reference to the man who performs no works establishing a strict claim to justification, beyond the mere work of believing in him, who justifies the impious, that it could be said, “his faith is reputed to justice,” according to the decree of God, vouchsafing liberally and gratuitously to confer justice, as a grace, on such a person (and hence, it is only as having been gratuitously bestowed in consideration of his faith, that we can regard the justification of Abraham)

 It is only on the supposition that he performed no works establishing a claim to justification, except the mere act of faith, or “believing in him who justifies the ungodly,” to which his justification is ascribed, that we can say that “his faith is reputed unto justice,” according to the liberal purpose of God, decreeing to give justification gratuitously, through grace and faith. The words, “according to the purpose of the grace of God,” are omitted in the Greek, and, from being a marginal explanation of how “faith is reputed,” very probably crept into the Sacred text.

Objection.—Does not this passage furnish an unanswerable argument in favour of the doctrine of justification by faith only, and against the Catholic doctrine of merit? 1st. The Apostle denies that the justification of Abraham could come from works, because works would establish a claim to merit and strict right. Therefore, justification by works, as held by Catholics, is opposed to its gratuitousness, on which the Apostle builds his argument. 2ndly. The Apostle not only excludes the works performed by Abraham before his conversion, but all works, even those performed in faith; for, at the time that the words of Genesis, chap. 15, here quoted, were used, Abraham was justified, as appears from Genesis, chap. 12, and from St, Paul to the Hebrews, chap. 11. Hence, the Apostle speaks of Abraham’s second justification, and denies, on the grounds of its perfect gratuitousness implied in the words, “he believed, … and it was reputed,” &c., that works had any share in Abraham’s second justification, which destroys the Catholic doctrine of merit.

Resp.—In reply to the 1st.—The works excluded by the Apostle from any share in the justification of Abraham are the works performed without grace or faith, and we exclude the same.—That these were the works excluded by the Apostle is clear from his scope in this Epistle, which is, to prove that the works performed by the sole aid of the natural law, or the law of Moses, gave neither Jew nor Gentile a claim to the Gospel. The same appears from verse 2. He excludes works which would give Abraham cause to glory in himself and not in God (this reason holds equally good should we understand “before God” to mean in the sight of God). Now, it is only the works performed by his sole natural strength, that would redound thus to his own glory. Whereas, no one can be impious enough to assert that the works done in grace and faith would not give us cause to glory in God, or, in the sight of God, since the grace of God would be the chief principle in their performance. Hence, the works excluded are those performed without grace or faith. But the gratuitousness of justification here insisted on by the Apostle does not exclude works done under the influence of grace and faith; for, according to Catholic doctrine, good works performed in grace and faith before justification are mere necessary conditions, establishing no claim to justification which God might not refuse; and hence, they leave it still quite a gratuitous act of grace on the part of God. This is no arbitrary interpretation. Besides the reasons already adduced, we have the authorty of St. James (chap. 2), who maintains that no one is justified by faith without good works, and he adduces the example of Rahab, (James 2:25), who he says, was justified by works, and this, probably, in her first justification; for, at the time she received the messengers, she was, most probably, an infidel and in sin; for he calls her, a harlot. St. James, then, speaks of good works done in faith, and St. Paul here speaks of faith accompanied by good works as dispositions of justification. The two Apostles opposed different errors; and hence, St. Paul puts forward one condition necessary for, or one of the ingredients of, justification, viz., faith; and St. James, another; namely, good works, done in grace and faith.

Resp. to the 2nd.—Although Abraham was justified at the time the words of Genesis here referred to were spoken, and his faith commended, still the inference deduced from this is quite unfounded. For, the Apostle is only proving that in the first justification of Abraham, works done without grace or faith, such as the converted Jews and Gentiles put forward, had no share, and this he proves effectually by an argument a fortiori, by referring to what the Scripture says of Abraham’s second justification; for, if Abraham, already just, did not receive an increase of justice, that is to say, second justification, through works without faith, therefore, a fortiori, he did not become just from being a sinner, or, in other words, did not receive first justification through the same works.

Objection.—But were not the works of Abraham, at the time these words were spoken of him, meritorious even of a reward? How then could the Apostle insist on the gratuitousness of his justification, since it was even merited as a debt, which is here excluded?—(verse 4).

Resp.—The Apostle only excludes such a strict debt and reward as would be independent of grace, such a debt as the works performed by the Jews and Gentiles would, in their minds, give them a claim to. Now, although second justification be given as a debt due to merit, it is a grace also. The Apostle views it under this latter respect; and by doing so sufficiently refutes the errors of the Romans; for they regarded justification as the price of works, as a strict debt without any reference to a gratuitous concession, such as Catholic faith teaches to exist in the reward of merit. The Apostle, then, only excludes such merit as would leave room for us to glory in ourselves, and not in God (verse 2); such a merit as the Jews and Gentiles put forward as claims for the Gospel—a merit in which grace has no part. Merit like this, the Catholic Church has ever repudiated; and although the works of Abraham were, at the time referred to, meritorious, they were still not meritorious in the sense understood by the Jews and Gentiles, that is to say, independently of grace and faith, and such merit as this and this only, as every candid reasoner on this passage must admit, is excluded in the argument of the Apostle.

Rom 4:6. This gratuitousness of justification, independenth of works establishing a claim to it, perfectly accords with what David says, when speaking on this subject.
Rom 4:7. Psalm 31. (modern translations, Ps 32) Blessed are they whose iniquities are gratuitously remitted, and whose sins are so fully wiped away as not to appear at all.

He adduces the authority of David also in proof of the gratuitousness of justification without works, of course, in the sense of works already assigned. Psalm 31. “Blessed are they,” &c. This furnishes no argument in favour of the erroneous doctrine of imputative justice, by which, in other words, is meant, that our sins are covered in consequence of God not regarding them for Christ’s sake, although still really unremitted. For, it is worse than foolish to say, that anything is concealed from God. Sins are said to be “covered” from him, because, wholly removed by the grace of justification, which, whilst it covers, heals and removes altogether the disease and leprosy of sin. The non-imputation of sin only proves that sin does not exist, because God essentially hates and abominates sin, wherever it does exist. To Him, the impious man and his impiety are alike an abomination. Hence, by not imputing sin, he removes and remits it. The words “not impute,” refer only to punishment with which sin will not be visited in consequence of having been remitted.

They may also have reference, as Bellarmine well remarks (Com. in Psalm 31 [32]) to those singularly just men, such as Abel, Henoch, Noe, Abraham, Isaac, &c., of whose sins the SS. Scriptures are silent; and also to Jeremias, John the Baptist, sanctified from the womb; not excepting Her, blessed above all the rest of creation, the solemn proclamation of whose glorious preservation from the stain of original sin has filled the earth with joy and universal jubilee. In this interpretation, there is no ground whatever for any objection; and even if we understand the words of those who sinned, the passage only proves that “sin is not imputed,” because having been gratuitously remitted, it no longer exists.

Nor, does it follow from this passage, that justification consists in the bare remission of sin, without the infusion of sanctifying grace; for, the same Psalmist represents justification as consisting in cleansing and rendering us “whiter than snow.” Hence, together with remitting sin, and removing from the soul that stain analogous to corporal leprosy which sin causes, it renders us pure and lovely in the sight of God, and by the increase of sanctifying grace which permanently inheres, the soul acquires still greater beauty and whiteness. Wash me yet more, &c. And I shall be made whiter than snow.—(Psalm 50 [Ps 51]).

Rom 4:8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord does not impute sin, either as to guilt or punishment, in consequence of its gratuitous remission.

No comments are offered beyond the paraphrase.

Rom 4:9. From the universal extension of these words of David, it is clear, that this blessedness is not confined merely to the Jews, but that it extends to the Gentiles also. The same is clear from the case of Abraham, whose faith, we have said, was reputed unto justice.

The question is equivalent to a strong form of affirmation, deducing from the universality of the words of David, that this blessedness extends to the Gentiles also; and it is implied, and left to be inferred that, consequently, justification is bestowed independently of the works of the Mosaic law. The words, “doth it remain only,” are not expressed in the Greek; they are, however, understood as being necessary to complete the sense. “Circumcision” and “uncircumcision” mean Jew and Gentile; the abstract for the concrete. “For we say,” &c. Here is introduced another argument derived from the condition in which Abraham was, when the words “it was reputed unto justice,” were applied to him.

Rom 4:10. Let us see what state Abraham was in, at the time that this occurred to him. Was he circumcised or uncircumcised? Undoubtedly, it occurred to him not when he was circumcised, but while he was uncircumcised.

In what state was he when “his faith was reputed?” &c. He was yet uncircumcised. An interval of about thirteen or fourteen years elapsed between the date of his justification and his circumcision, as appears from the history of Genesis. The preceding is the reasoning of A’Lapide on this passage. Other Commentators say, that verses 9 and 10 contain but one argument, derived from the Apostle’s application of the case of Abraham, to his general purpose, which is, to show, that this beatitude extends to the Gentiles also. These Commentators do not admit that in the quotation from David, there is a distinct or independent argument in proof of the same. The interpretation of A’Lapide, as given in the Paraphrase, appears the more probable. According to it, two distinct proofs are referred to in verse 9; the one, founded on the words of David universally extended, the other, on the date of Abraham’s justification, prior to his circumcision.

Rom 4:11. We have an additional argument of Abraham’s having been justified before his circumcision, and consequently that his justification was independent of the legal observances, in the fact, that Abraham received circumcision as a seal and testimony, on the part of God, of the justice which had been bestowed on him, while uncircumcised, in consideration of his faith in God’s promises; and this justice had been conferred on him before his circumcision, in order that he would be the father of the uncircumcised Gentile believers, whose faith also, like his, may be reputed unto justice.

Another argument, to prove that Abraham was not justified in circumcision, is founded by the Apostle on the fact, that “he received the sign of circumcision”—i.e., circumcision itself (which was given as a “sign” of God’s covenant with Abraham, and of his faith in God’s promises), “as a seal of the justice” bestowed on him in consideration of his faith, while uncircumcised; consequently, his justification must have been anterior to his circumcision. It was a “seal of his justice”—i.e., a testimony whereby God declared and confirmed his justice. “That he might be the father of all them that believe,” &c. The justice was bestowed on Abraham in his uncircumcised state, in order that he might be the spiritual father of all the believing Gentiles, whose justification by faith would have his for a model, “which he had being uncircumcised,” is rather a liberal rendering of the words, τῆς εν τῃ ἀκροβυστία, quæ est in præputio, “which is in uncircumcision.” The same applies to the words, “them that believe being uncircumcised,” which should be literally rendered, “them that believe by uncircumcision.”

Rom 4:12. And after being justified, he received circumcision, that he might be the father of the circumcised Jews, not of them, who are merely circumcised externally, without imitating his faith; but, of them who also imitate the faith by which Abraham, though uncircumcised, was justified.

And he received circumcision after his justification, in order that he might be the spirtual father of the circumcised Jew. Not of the Jew who is merely circumcised externally, &c.—(Vide Paraphrase). In truth, by receiving justification while uncircumcised, and by receiving circumcision afterwards, he became the spiritual father of all believers, both Gentiles and Jews, circumcision having been a sign and a protestation of faith, on the part of Abraham, in the future Messiah; hence, for the Jews, who were destitute of this faith in Christ, circumcision is a vain, empty sign, without the reality signified; and it was only to the faithful Jews, that the signification of circumcision had reference.

Rom 4:13. Justification was no more attached to the observance of the Mosaic law than it was to circumcision; for, it was not on the condition of observing the law (which had not then existed) but on account of the justice which his faith procured for him before receiving the law, that God made to Abraham the promise of being the heir of the world.

Another argument in favour of justification by faith without works is derived from the circumstances of the promise made to Abraham.—(Vide Paraphrase). It is, therefore, through faith, and not through the law, that this promise is to be fulfilled in his posterity, his justification being the model of theirs.

Rom 4:14. For, if the inheritance were confined merely to those who observe the law, then, the faith of Abraham, believing in the multiplication of his seed, “as the stars of heaven,” &c. (Genesis 22:17), would be made void (because few or none observed the law); for the same reason, the promise would be of no effect, because the conditions being wanting on the part of man, the promise on the part of God would not be binding.

“Who are of the law,” may also mean, who are under the law, “be heirs.” That is to say, if the Jews alone be heirs, then, “faith is made void;” because, the law was confined merely to Judea, and did not extend to the entire earth. The interpretation in the Paraphrase, referring the words, “who are of the law,” to those who observe the law, appears, however, the more probable.

Rom 4:15. It is clear, if the promise were attached to the observance of the law, the promise would be voided for want of the performance of the conditions on the part of man; for, the law gave no help for its own fulfilment, and hence, it was the occasion of anger by its frequent violations; for, where there is no law manifesting the malice of sin, there can be no voluntary transgression of the law.

“The law worketh anger.” It became the occasion of anger by its frequent violations. It was not, however, given for that end, just as happened in the case of our Redeemer, who “was set,” as well, “for the fall,” as “for the resurrection of many in Israel.”—(St. Luke 2:34). The law, then, on account of its universal transgression, worked anger, which would not happen if the law were not given at all; for, in that case, there would be no prevarication, or voluntary transgression of it. A’Lapide connects this verse immediately with verse 12, “For where there is no law,” &c. This negative sentence, as Beelen well remarks, contains the opposite affirmative, that where there is a law, there prevarication is not wanting.

Rom 4:16. Therefore, this promise comes through faith; by which means, its gratuitousness will be consulted for, as well as its universal extension not only to the Jews, but to all the believers who imitate Abraham’s faith, who is the father of us all who believe, Gentiles as well as Jews.

As, then, the observance of the law, or according to others, the giving of it, was not sufficiently extensive and universal to answer the designs of God, in calling all mankind, Jew and Gentile; and, moreover, as the attaching to the observance of the law the grace of justification, in which the promise to Abraham chiefly consisted, would appear to interfere with the gratuitousness of this grace; it must, therefore, come from faith. The Apostle appears to make this disjunctive; “justice comes either from the law or from faith, but not from the law does it come, therefore, from faith;” in which case, will be preserved the gratuitousness of the promise, “that according to grace,” &c. And also, its universal extension, not only to the Jew, who observed the law, or received it, but to all the imitators of the faith of Abraham, who is the spiritual father of all the believers; “not to that only which is of the law,” &c.

Rom 4:17. (According as it is written of him in Genesis 17:5, where, in assigning the cause of his change of name from Abram to Abraham, God says, I have made thee a father of many nations), not by carnal generation, which is perceptible to men, but by spiritual paternity, which is seen only by God, and which recommends men to him, whom Abraham believed, relying on his promises, who exerts his omnipotence in raising the dead to life, and in calling into existence the things that are not, and uses them for his purposes, like things already in being.

He proves that Abraham was the father of us all from the quotation (Genesis 17:5), where God, assigning a reason for changing the Patriarch’s name from “Abram,’ i.e., high father, to “Abraham,” i.e., father of a multitude, says, “because I have made thee,” &c. This quotation is to be read within a parenthesis, and the words. “before God,” are to be immediately connected with the words of the last verse. “The father of us all (…) before God, whom he believed,” &c. Some understand the words, “before God,” to mean like God, who holds the relation of paternity towards us by creation, which Abraham does by faith. “Who quickeneth the dead,” &c., most probably, refers to the faith in God’s omnipotence, particularly manifested in the raising the dead to life, and creating all things out of nothing; and it, most likely, refers to the examples of each operation of Omnipotence, that came under Abraham’s faith. First, the raising of Isaac from the dead, of which the Apostle says to the Hebrews 11:19, “accounting, that God is able to raise up, even from the dead.” And, secondly, his creating a new unto the power of generation, and vivifying the dead womb of Sara. These two examples had a particular reference to the things believed by Abraham.

Rom 4:18. Relying on this power of God, so strong was the faith of Abraham, that he firmly hoped in that, which he should regard as naturally impossible, viz. that he should become, at so advanced an age, the lather of many nations, according to what was promised him (Genesis 15:5): Look up to heaven and number the stars if thou canst, so shall thy seed be.

The Apostle now gives an animated account of Abraham’s faith: he shows its heroism, and the happy consequences of imitating it. “Who, against hope,” i.e., against the natural obstacles apparently, and humanly speaking insuperable, “believed” in God’s promises, with a firm and unshaken confidence of their fulfilment. “That he might.” &c. This referred to his carnal descendants, but it was particularly verified in the spiritual children of Abraham; and this is principally referred to in the promise then given.

Rom 4:19. His faith was not weakened, nor had the consideration of natural impossibilities (his body being now dead as to generative powers, owing to his advanced age of nearly one hundred years, and the womb of Sara similarly dead) any effect upon his mind.

The consideration of natural impossibilities had no effect in weakening his faith. “The dead womb of Sara.” “Dead.” as to the power of conceiving children, being now ninety years old. In the Greek it is, τὴν νέκρωσιν τῆς μήτρας Σαῤῥας, “the deadness of the womb of Sara,” the sense of which is expressed in our version.

Queritur.—How could the body of Abraham be said to be dead, whereas, he had six children, forty years after this, by Cetura?

Resp.—This was the result of the miraculous power here given him, and which continued with him after. The same happened to Anna, the mother of Samuel, who had other children after Samuel, though his birth was miraculous.—(1 Kings, &c.)

Queritur.—Did not Abraham live seventy-five years after the one hundred? How, then, was his body dead at the age of one hundred?

Resp.—He was an old man at the age of one hundred; for, the decline as well as the vigour of life continued for a long time in the patriarchal age. Isaac was an old man at one hundred and twenty, so old, that he lost his sight from age, and still he lived to be an hundred and eighty.—(Genesis 35).

Rom 4:20. And at the promise of God he did not stagger through any feeling of unbelief, but he was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God (to whose attributes of omnipotence and veracity he paid homage by this belief).

“In the promise;” (in Greek, εἰς δὲ την ἐπαγγελίαν εἰς, frequently means, at “at the promise.”) “By distrust; (in Greek τῇ ἀπιστία, “unbelief.”) He gave “glory to God:” for, by this faith he acknowledged his infinite veracity and omnipotence, as in following verse.

Queritur.—But, did not Abraham stagger, for he said in his heart, on hearing the promise (Genesis 17), “Shall a son, thinkest thou, be born to him that is a hundred years old?”

Resp.—The common answer of the Holy Fathers is, that in these words, Abraham only expressed his unworthiness to be favoured with so great a blessing, as having a son at that age.

Rom 4:21. Being most fully and thoroughly persuaded that whatever God promised, he has power to execute and fulfil.

“Most fully knowing.” In Greek, και πληροφορηθεις, “and having obtained a plenitude,” i.e., of persuasion or conviction, as the subject matter implies; hence, our version expresses the meaning of the passage. “He is able to perform.” He expressly mentions Abraham’s faith in God’s omnipotence, because it was the more difficult point to be believed. The faith in his veracity is implied.

Rom 4:22. And this heroic faith was imputed to him unto justice.

“And, therefore, it was reputed,” &c. Hence, Abraham’s was a justifying faith. Now, the object of Abraham’s faith was not his own justification, but the power of God (verses 20, 21); and hence, the object of justifying faith is not our own individual justification, as is erroneously taught by the sectaries. As often as Abraham believed, after his justification, so often was his faith imputed unto justice, and so often did he obtain an increase of sanctifying grace.

Rom 4:23. Now, these words of Scripture, assuring us that Abraham was justified on account of his faith, were not written merely in praise of him.
Rom 4:24. But they were principally intended for our instruction and encouragement, to point out to us the model of our faith and also of our gratuitous justification by believing in him who raised up our Lord Jesus Christ from the dead.

The Apostle now shows the application of the foregoing example of Abraham. His justification is the model of ours; hence, all his spiritual children i.e., all the believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, (verses 11, 12), are to be justified gratuitously by faith; of course, in the sense marked out in the foregoing. “Unto justice,” (verse 23), are omitted in the Greek. “If we believe in him that raised up,” &c. The resurrection of Christ is referred to by the Apostle, as the principal object of our faith. Under it, are included the other mysteries. It is also the great proof of faith; and our faith in it will be reputed to us unto justice, as his faith was reputed to Abraham.

Rom 4:25. Who was delivered unto death to make atonement and offer satisfaction for our sins, and was resuscitated from the dead to complete our justification (which comes through faith, and without the resurrection of Christ, our faith is vain).—1 Cor. 15:14.

The Apostle having referred to Christ’s resurrection, now shows its results to us. Although Christ merited nothing in his resurrection—he merited all by his death—still, if he had not risen, our faith would be vain; and, hence, we would not be justified. The word “for,” may also express the exemplary cause. As Christ’s death was a type of our death to sin, so he arose to be the model of our resurrection to grace, and of our walking in the newness of life. The exposition in the Paraphrase is the more natural meaning of “for,” in both cases—of his death and resurrection.