Commentary on Romans (Super Epistolam B. Pauli ad Romanos Lectura)

After the Apostle has shown how someone ought to become perfect, here he shows how the perfect ought to conduct themselves toward the imperfect. And first he shows that they ought not to scandalize or judge them; second, he shows that they ought to sustain them, in chapter 15, where it says, "but we who are stronger," and so on. Concerning the first he does two things. First he forbids disordered judgments; second he forbids the scandals of the weak, where it says, "but judge this rather," and so on. Concerning the first he does three things. First he sets forth an admonition; second he explains it, where it says "for one," etc.; third he assigns the reason, where it says "for God has," and so on.

Concerning the first, it must be considered that in the primitive Church some of those converted from the Jews to Christ believed that the legal observances had to be kept along with the Gospel, as is evident in Acts 15:1ff. And these the Apostle calls weak in the faith of Christ, as not yet perfectly believing that the faith of Christ suffices for salvation. But he calls perfect or strong in the faith those who believed that the faith of Christ was to be kept without the legal observances. Of both sorts, however, there were some at Rome among the faithful of Christ.

The Apostle therefore addresses those perfect in faith, saying: it has been said that you ought thus to put on the Lord Jesus Christ; now take up — that is, join to yourselves in the affection of charity so as to support — the one weak in faith, as has been explained, concerning whom that saying in Wisdom 9:5 can be understood: "a weak man, and of short time, and too little for the understanding of judgment and laws." Below, in chapter 15:7: "receive one another, as Christ also has received you." Ecclesiasticus 29:12: "for the commandment's sake take up the poor man." And this not in disputes about thoughts — that is, not disputing on the ground that one thinks against another, namely, insofar as those who kept the legal observances judged as transgressors those who did not keep them, while those who did not keep them despised as erring and ignorant those who did keep them. Above, in chapter 2:15: "of thoughts mutually accusing or else defending one another," and so on.

Then, when he says "for one," etc., he explains what he had said. And first he shows who are the weak in faith; second he shows how disputes about thoughts are to be avoided, where it says "he who eats," and so on. Concerning the first it must be considered that among the other legal observances one was the distinction of foods, because of certain foods prohibited in the Law, as is evident in Leviticus 11:2ff.; and indeed this observance was to be used or not used daily. And therefore the Apostle made mention of this specifically, saying: "for one," among you — namely, he who is perfect in the faith — "believes that he may lawfully eat all things," because he does not reckon himself bound to the legal observances. Matthew 15:11: "what goes into the mouth does not defile a man." 1 Timothy 4:4: "every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving," and so on.

Now in the old Law certain foods were prohibited, not because they were naturally unclean. For just as in words this name "fool" signifies something evil, although the name itself is good, so among things a certain animal is good according to nature but by signification is evil, as the pig, which signifies uncleanness. And therefore the eating of those meats was prohibited to the ancients, so that in their avoidance the avoidance of uncleanness might be signified. For the whole life of that ancient people was figural, as Augustine says in the book Against Faustus. But when Christ came, who is the truth, the figures ceased.

He then adds, as regards the weak one: "but he who is weak, let him eat herbs" — as if to say: let him make use of those foods in which nothing unclean prohibited in the Law is encountered. For among the several kinds of animals — those of the land, those of the air, and those of the water — certain kinds were permitted and certain prohibited; but among plants and trees nothing was prohibited, as is evident in Leviticus 11. And there can be a twofold reason for this. One is that the things springing from the earth were granted to man for eating from the beginning, according to Genesis 1:29: "behold I have given you every herb bearing seed upon the earth, and all trees that have in themselves seed of their own kind, that they may be to you for food." But only after the flood do we first read that the eating of flesh was granted to man. Whence it is said in Genesis 9:3: "even as the green herbs have I delivered all to you" — namely, the kinds of animals. The other reason is that man had transgressed the first prohibition concerning abstaining from certain things springing from the earth in Paradise, as is evident in Genesis 3; and on this account a similar prohibition did not need to be repeated for him.

But since the legal observances ceased at the passion of Christ, it seems unfitting that the Apostle should permit the weak in faith to abstain from foods prohibited in the Law, since this is now not upheld among Christians by the Church. But a threefold time must be distinguished, according to Augustine, as regards the legal observances. Of these, the first is the time before the passion of Christ, in which the legal observances retained their force as though still alive. The second time is after the passion of Christ but before the promulgation of the Gospel, in which time indeed the legal observances were dead, because no one was bound to them, nor did their observance confer anything on anyone; yet they were not yet deadly, because the Jews converted to Christ could observe the legal observances without sin — and it is for that time that the Apostle speaks here. The third time is after the promulgation of the Gospel, in which the legal observances are not only dead but deadly, so that whoever observes them sins mortally.

But it is also explained otherwise in the Gloss, so that the weak one is said to be he who is prone to the lapses of carnal vices, and it is to be advised for him that he eat herbs — that is, meager and dry foods which are not fuel for the vices — and abstain from those things by which lust is aroused. But the other, who is stronger, believes that he can eat all things without danger. And this difference appears between the disciples of Christ, who did not fast, as being comforted by the presence of Christ, and the disciples of John the Baptist, who did fast. Whence also those doing penance abstain from certain foods, not because of their uncleanness, but in order to restrain lust.

Then, when he says "he who eats," etc., he explains how the disputes about thoughts are to be avoided. And first as regards the perfect, he says: "he who eats" — namely, with a secure conscience, all things, or even without danger of lust — "let him not despise him who does not eat" — namely, all things indifferently — as one weak in the faith, or as one prone to vices. Isaiah 33:1: "woe to you who despise, shall not you also be despised?" Luke 10:16: "he who despises you, despises me." Second he speaks as regards the weak, saying: "and let him who does not eat" — namely, all things indifferently, either because he is weak in the faith, of which the Apostle speaks, or also because he is prone to lust — "not judge him who eats" — namely, all things indifferently — as a transgressor of the Law, or as one headlong into lust. Matthew 7:1: "judge not, and you shall not be judged." Above, in chapter 2:1: "you are inexcusable, O man, whoever you are that judge."

Then, when he says "for God has taken him to himself," etc., he assigns three reasons on account of which we ought to abstain from false judgment. The second is set forth where it says "to his own lord," etc.; the third, where it says "but you who judge," and so on. The first reason is taken from the authority of the one judging. Whence first he shows that this charity befits God; second he concludes that judgment does not pertain to men, where it says "who are you," and so on. He says therefore first: it has rightly been said that he who does not eat should not judge him who eats, "for God has taken him to himself" — namely, as a servant to be judged by himself. Zechariah 11:7: "I took to myself two rods" — that is, two peoples. Psalm 17:17: "he took me out of many waters." But he who is taken up to the judgment of a superior ought not to be judged by an inferior. And therefore he concludes: "who are you" — that is, of what authority or power are you — "who judge another's servant?" That is, your neighbor, who is the servant of God? For authority is required in one who judges, according to Exodus 2:14: "who made you a prince and a judge over us?" And Luke 12:14: "who has appointed me a judge or a divider over you?"

But from this reason it seems to follow that the judgment of one man about another is unlawful. But it must be said that the judgment of man is lawful to the extent that it is exercised by authority granted from on high. Whence it is said in Deuteronomy 1:16: "hear them, and judge that which is just," and afterward it follows "for the judgment is God's" — that is, it is exercised by divine authority. But if anyone should wish to usurp for himself judgment over those things which have not been divinely granted to him to judge, it is a rash judgment, just as if some judge delegated by the Pope should wish to overstep the bounds of his mandate in judging. But God has reserved to himself alone the judging of hidden things, which are especially the thoughts of hearts and future things. And therefore if anyone should presume to judge concerning these, it is a rash judgment. Whence Augustine says in the book On the Sermon of the Lord on the Mount: "in these two matters judgment is rash, namely, when it is uncertain with what mind a thing was done, or when it is uncertain what sort of person he who now appears either good or bad will turn out to be."

Then, when he says "he stands or falls to his own lord," etc., he sets forth the second reason, which indeed is taken from the end of merit or demerit. Someone could say that although a man does not have judiciary authority, nevertheless he ought to concern himself with the judgment of another because of the harm or the benefit that results from it; but the Apostle shows that this pertains rather to God than to men. And thus also on this account we ought to leave the judgments of our neighbors to God, except insofar as we act in his stead in judging through an authority committed to us. Concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth what he intends; second he gives an example, where it says "for one judges," etc.; third he proves his proposition, where it says "he who is mindful of the day," and so on.

Concerning the first he sets forth two things. First, that whatever happens concerning a man pertains to God, when he says "he stands to his own lord" — namely, by acting rightly, Psalm 121:2: "our feet were standing in your courts, O Jerusalem"; "or he falls" — namely, by sinning, Amos 5:1: "the house of Israel has fallen, and it shall no more rise." Now he sets it forth under a disjunction, "he stands or falls," on account of uncertainty, because many who stand seem to fall, and conversely, according to Ecclesiastes 8:10: "I saw the wicked buried, who even while they were yet living were in the holy place, and were praised in the city as though of just works." Now the Apostle speaks here according to the likeness of a man who is a servant, to whose lord pertains everything that is done concerning the servant. Nor is it to be understood that anything profits or harms God, whether a man stands or falls. For it is said in Job 35:6: "if you sin, what shall you harm him? Or if you act justly, what shall you give him?" But as regards men, that which we do justly pertains to the glory of God. Matthew 5:16: "that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." But that we fall by sinning is an occasion for men to blaspheme God. Above, in chapter 2:24: "the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you." Or what he says, "he stands or falls to his own lord," is to be explained as meaning: in the judgment of his own lord. 1 Corinthians 4:4: "he who judges me is the Lord."

Second, he shows that it pertains to God to judge the state of a man, saying "but he shall stand" — as if to say: even if someone should now fall through sin, nevertheless it can be that he will stand again. And this will be wholly fulfilled if he is predestined. Psalm 40:9: "shall not he who sleeps rise again?" Micah 7:8: "rejoice not, my enemy, over me, because I have fallen; I shall rise again." And on this account, if we see someone manifestly falling, we ought not to despise him, rashly judging of him that he will never rise again, but rather we ought to presume that he will stand again, not from consideration of the human condition, but by considering the divine power. Whence when he says "for God is able to make him stand," on account of God's goodness we ought to presume that he will make him stand again. Ezekiel 3:24: "the spirit entered into me, and set me upon my feet," just as has also been said above: "if they do not continue in unbelief, they will be grafted in; for God is able to graft them in again."

Then, when he says "for one judges," etc., he gives an example of what has been said. And first he sets forth the diversity of human judgment, saying: therefore I say that he stands or falls to his own lord, "for one judges between day and day" — that is, judges between one day and another, namely, so as to abstain on one day and not on another. This indeed seems to pertain to the one weak in the faith, who still reckons that the legal observances are to be kept. For it is said in Leviticus 23:27: "the tenth day of this seventh month shall be the day of atonement, and you shall afflict your souls therein." And it is said in Judith 8:6 that Judith fasted all the days of her life except the sabbaths, and the new moons, and the feasts of the house of Israel. But another judges that every day is to be observed indifferently as regards the ceremonial matters of the Law, which have already ceased. Whence this seems to pertain to him who is perfect in the faith. Psalm 144:2: "every day will I bless you." This can also be referred to the abstinences that are done for the sake of restraining lust, in which some engage every day — for instance those who abstain perpetually from meats or wine, or fast — while others abstain on alternating days and cease from abstinence, according to Ecclesiastes 3:1: "all things have their season."

Second he shows that all these things can pertain to the glory of God, saying "let each abound in his own sense" — that is, let him be left to his own sense. For to abound in one's own sense is to follow one's own sense. Ecclesiasticus 15:14: "God from the beginning made man, and left him in the hand of his own counsel." Or "in his own sense" — that is, let him strive to abound according to his own sense unto the glory of God, according to 1 Corinthians 14:12: "seek that you may abound unto the edifying of the Church." But this seems to have a place in those things which are not evil in themselves. In those things, however, which are evil in themselves, a man is not to be left to his own sense. But that someone should judge between one day and another seems to be evil in itself, according to the first explanation. For it is said in Galatians 4:10-11: "you observe days, and months, and times, and years; I fear lest I have labored in vain among you." And there he speaks literally of those who said that days were to be observed according to the ceremonies of the Law. But it must be said that the Apostle here speaks according to that time in which, the Jews having been converted to the faith, it was lawful to observe the legal observances, as has been said.

But as regards the second explanation it seems to be unlawful, what he says: "another judges every day." For there are certain days on which it is not lawful to fast. For Augustine says in the letter to Casulanus: "whoever should think that the Lord's Day ought to be appointed for fasting would be no small scandal to the Church, and not undeservedly. For on those days on which the Church or the divine Scripture has determined nothing certain, the custom of the people of God and the institutions of our elders are to be held as law." And in the Decretals it is said, Distinction 30: "if any presbyter, on account of a public penance received from a priest, without any other necessity should fast on the Lord's Day out of a certain religious scruple, like the Manichaeans, let him be anathema." But it must be understood that here the Apostle speaks as regards those abstinences which can lawfully be done on any day whatsoever, without dissonance from common custom, or from those things instituted by our elders.

Then, when he says "he who is mindful of the day," etc., he proves his proposition — namely, that each one stands or falls to his own lord — and this in three ways. First through the act of the faithful; second through their intention, where it says "for none of you," etc.; third through their condition, where it says "whether therefore we live, or die," and so on.

He proves therefore first how each of the faithful stands or falls to his own lord, through the fact that he gives thanks to God for all things which he does according to his conscience. Whence he says "he who is mindful of the day" — namely, so as to abstain on one day and to cease from abstinence on another — "is mindful unto the Lord" — that is, he distinguishes foods out of reverence for God, just as we too distinguish the vigils of feasts on which we fast from the feast days on which we release the fast, out of reverence for God. Ecclesiasticus 33:7: "why does one day excel another, and again one light excel another light?"

Then he speaks as regards those who judge every day alike, some of whom ceased from fasting on every day, as it is said in Matthew 9:14, that the disciples of Christ did not fast. Whence he says "and he who eats" — namely, every day — "eats unto the Lord" — that is, unto the glory of the Lord, which is evident from this, that he gives thanks to God — namely, for the food taken. 1 Timothy 4:3: "to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful." Psalm 21:27: "the poor shall eat and shall be filled," and so on.

Further, as regards him who so judges every day alike, that he abstains on every day, he adds "and he who does not eat" — that is, abstains on every day — "unto the Lord" — that is, to the honor of the Lord — "does not eat." And this is evident from the fact that he gives thanks to God, who gave him the will and the power of abstaining. 1 Thessalonians, last chapter: "in all things give thanks." But what the Apostle says here of those who either abstained or ceased from abstinence on every day must be understood as regards that time in which this was not contrary to the statutes of our elders, nor to the common custom of the people of God.

Then, when he says "for none of you lives to himself," etc., he proves the same thing from the intention of the faithful. And first he excludes a disordered intention, saying: I rightly say that each one stands or falls to his own lord, "none of us lives to himself" — either the natural life or the spiritual life, of which it is said in Habakkuk 2:4: "but my just man lives by faith." "To himself" — that is, for his own sake, because this would be to enjoy himself. 1 Corinthians 10:33: "not seeking what is profitable to myself." Psalm 113:9: "not to us, O Lord, not to us," etc.; or "to himself" — that is, according to his own rule, as those say who say in Wisdom 2:11: "let our strength be the law of injustice"; or "to himself" — that is, by his own judgment, 1 Corinthians 4:3: "but neither do I judge my own self." "And none dies" — namely, by bodily death, or by spiritual death through sinning, or also by that spiritual death by which one dies to vices, for instance in Baptism, according to that which is said above in chapter 6:7: "he who is dead is justified from sin"; or "to himself" — that is, by his own judgment, or for his own sake, or by his own example; but by the example of Christ someone dies to vices. Romans 6:10: "for in that he died to sin, he died once"; and below: "so also do you reckon that you are dead to sin."

Second he shows what the right intention of the faithful is, saying "for whether we live" — the bodily life — "we live unto the Lord" — that is, unto the glory of the Lord; "or whether we die" — the bodily death — "we die unto the Lord" — that is, unto the honor of the Lord. Philippians 1:20: "Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by death, or by life." Or it may be explained thus: what he says, "we live" and "we die," is to be explained of spiritual life and death, and what he says "unto the Lord" is to be explained as meaning: unto the judgment of the Lord, who has been appointed by God judge of the living and the dead, as is said in Acts 10:42.

Then, when he says "whether therefore we live," etc., he shows his proposition from the condition of the faithful. And first he concludes from the foregoing the condition of the faithful, namely, that they are not their own, but another's. For those who are their own, as free men, live to themselves and die to themselves. Because therefore it has been said that the faithful do not live or die to themselves but to the Lord, he concludes thus: "whether therefore we live, or die, we are the Lord's" — as it were servants of him who has power of life and death. 1 Corinthians 7:23: "you are bought with a price, do not become the servants of men." 1 Corinthians 6:20: "for you are bought with a great price." 1 Chronicles 12:18: "we are yours, O David, and with you, son of Jesse."

Second he assigns the cause of this condition, saying "for to this end Christ died, and rose again" — that is, this he obtained by his death and resurrection — "that he might have dominion over the living" — because he rose again, beginning a new and everlasting life — "and over the dead" — because by dying he destroyed our death. 2 Corinthians 5:15: "for whom Christ died, that they who live may now not live to themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again." Thus, therefore, through all the aforesaid the Apostle has proved that each one stands or falls to his own lord, namely through this, that the faithful give thanks to God, and that they live and die unto the Lord, and that they are the Lord's both in death and in life.

Then, when he says "but you, why do you judge," etc., he sets forth the third reason, which is taken from the future judgment. And concerning this he does three things. First he sets forth the superfluity of present judgment, saying "but you, why do you judge" — that is, by what utility or necessity do you judge — "your brother" — rashly, concerning hidden things, which have not been committed to your judgment? "Or you" — the other who is judged — "why do you despise your brother" — reckoning him as nothing, as judged by him? Malachi 2:10: "why does every man despise his brother?"

Second he foretells the future judgment of Christ, as if to say: I rightly say why you judge, because you ought not to fear that it will remain without judgment, "for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ." For his judiciary power is called the judgment seat of Christ, just as also in Matthew 25:31 it is said: "when the Son of man shall come in his majesty, then he shall sit upon the seat of his majesty." Now he says "we shall all stand" — as to be judged, both good and bad, as regards reward or punishment. 2 Corinthians 5:10: "for we must all be manifested before the judgment seat of Christ, that everyone may receive the proper things of the body, according as he has done, whether it be good or evil." But as regards the discussion, not all shall stand as to be judged, but some shall sit together as judges. Matthew 19:28: "you shall sit upon seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel."

Third, where it says "for it is written," etc., he proves what he had said. And first he adduces an authority; second he draws the conclusion, where it says "therefore each one," and so on. He says therefore first: it has been said that we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ, and this is evident through the authority of sacred Scripture. "For it is written," Isaiah 45:23, "as I live, says the Lord: for to me every knee shall be bowed, and every tongue shall confess to God." Our own text has it thus: "I have sworn by myself, that to me every knee shall bow, and every tongue shall swear."

Now three things are set down in these words. First indeed an oath, which is at times set down in the words of God to show that what is said is firm by the immutability of the divine counsel, and not mutable as those things which are foretold according to lower causes, as a prophecy of threat. Whence it is said in Psalm 109:4: "the Lord has sworn, and he will not repent." But men, as the Apostle says in Hebrews 6:16, "swear by one greater than themselves." But because God does not have anyone greater in whom a greater firmness of truth might consist, he swears by himself. Now he himself is life itself and the fount of life, according to that which is said in Deuteronomy 30:20: "for he is your life, and the length of your days," etc., Psalm 35:10: "with you is the fountain of life," etc.; and therefore the form of the Lord's oath is "as I live" — as if to say: I swear by the life by which I alone live in a singular way.

Second, the subjection of the common creature to Christ is foretold, when it is said "for to me" — namely to Christ — "every knee shall be bowed." In which the perfect subjection of the rational creature to Christ is designated. For men are accustomed, as a sign of subjection, to bend the knee to their superiors. Whence in Philippians 2:10 it is said: "in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven, on earth, and under the earth."

Third he foretells the confession of faith by which all will confess the glory of Christ. Whence it follows "and every tongue shall confess to God" — that is, shall confess Christ to be Lord, according to that which is said in Philippians 2:11: "let every tongue confess, that our Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father." For "every tongue" can be understood as the expression of knowledge, whether of men or of angels, according to that which is said in 1 Corinthians 13:1: "if I speak with the tongues of men and of angels," and so on. Now this is fulfilled now in this life, not as regards individual men, but as regards the kinds of individuals. For of every kind of man some are now subjected to Christ and confess him through faith, but in the future judgment all and each shall be subjected to him — the good indeed willingly, but the wicked unwillingly. Whence it is said in Hebrews 2:8: "for in that he has subjected all things to him, he has left nothing not subject to him; but now we see not yet all things subjected to him."

Then, when he says "therefore each one," etc., he draws the conclusion from what has been said. And first the conclusion intended from that which he had immediately said, saying "therefore" — since to Christ every knee is bowed — "each one of us shall render account for himself to God" — namely, before the judgment seat of Christ. Matthew 12:36: "for every idle word that men shall speak, they shall render an account for it in the day of judgment." And 18:23: "the kingdom of heaven is likened to a king who would take account of his servants."

But it seems that not each one shall render account for himself, but one for another. Hebrews, last chapter: "obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account for your souls." But it must be said that in this very thing, that prelates shall render an account for others, they shall render an account for their own acts which they ought to have performed concerning their subjects. For if they did what pertained to their office, it shall not be imputed to them if their subjects perish. But it would be imputed to them if they neglected to do what their office required. Whence it is said in Ezekiel 3:18-19: "if, when I say to the wicked, you shall surely die, you declare it not to him, he shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at your hand. But if you declare it to the wicked, and he be not converted, he indeed shall die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your soul."

Second he draws the conclusion principally intended in the whole preceding part, saying "let us not therefore judge one another anymore" — namely, by rash judgment, which is included in the reasons given above. 1 Corinthians 4:5: "judge not before the time," and so on.

After the Apostle has forbidden human judgments, here he forbids the scandalizing of neighbors, and concerning this he does two things. First he sets forth what he intends; second he makes clear what he has proposed, at but if because of food, and so on. Concerning the first he proposes three things. First, indeed, he teaches that scandals are to be avoided, saying: I have said that you should not judge one another, but each one ought to judge concerning his own acts, lest they be to the scandal of others. And this is what he says: but judge this rather, that you should not put a stumbling-block, or scandal, before the brethren. Now scandal, as Jerome says on Matthew, denotes a stumbling-block or a fall, which we may call a striking of the foot. Hence scandal is a deed or word not sufficiently upright, offering someone an occasion of falling, after the likeness of a stone placed in the road against which a man strikes his foot and falls. Now scandal seems to be something greater than a stumbling-block. For a stumbling-block can be whatever holds back or retards the movement of one proceeding; but scandal, that is, a striking, seems to occur when someone is disposed toward a fall. We ought not, therefore, to place a stumbling-block before our brother by doing something whereby our neighbor is impeded from the way of righteousness. Isaiah 56: take away the stumbling-block from the way of my people. Nor likewise ought we to place scandal before our brother by doing something whereby he himself is inclined toward sin. Matthew 18: woe to that man through whom scandal comes.

Second, he teaches that from which scandal was thought to arise, according to its own nature, or in itself was licit. Concerning this it should be known that, as was said above, among the Romans there were certain ones converted to the faith of Christ from among the Jews, who distinguished foods according to the law; but others, having a perfect faith, used all foods indifferently, which indeed was in itself licit. Hence he says: I know and I am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common through him. Concerning this it should be noted, as Jerome says on Matthew, that the people of the Jews, boasting themselves to be the portion of God, call those foods common which all men use, for example swine's flesh, hares, and such things; and the other nations, which used such foods, were not of the portion of God, and therefore such food is called unclean. What he says, then, nothing is common, is the same as if he said: nothing is unclean. And this indeed the Apostle, first, says he knows, because it is so according to the nature of things, according to that word of 1 Timothy 4: every creature of God is good, and nothing is to be rejected which is received with thanksgiving. Second, he says he is confident in Christ Jesus, that through himself nothing is common, namely because foods according to their own nature were never unclean, yet they were avoided at some time as unclean, according to the precept of the law for the sake of a figure, but Christ removed this by fulfilling all the figures. And therefore the Apostle, through the confidence which he has in the Lord Jesus, asserts that nothing is common or unclean through him, that is, by his so acting. Acts 10, v. 15: what God has purified, do not call common.

Third, he shows how this could be, by accident, illicit, namely insofar as it is against the conscience of the one eating. Hence he says: it has been said that nothing is common, but this is to be understood except to him who, by an erroneous conscience, deems something — that is, some one of the foods — to be common, that is, unclean; to him it is common, that is, it is thus illicit for him, just as if it were in itself unclean. Titus 1: all things are clean to the clean, but to the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean, but their mind and conscience is defiled. And thus it appears that something which is in itself licit is made illicit for him who acts against his own conscience in doing it, even though his conscience be erroneous, which happens reasonably. For acts are judged according to the will of the agents, and the will is moved by the thing apprehended. Hence the will tends toward that which the apprehensive power represents to it, and according to this the action is qualified, or specified. If, therefore, someone's reason judges something to be a sin, and the will is carried toward doing it, it is manifest that the man has the will of doing sin; and so his exterior action, which is informed by the will, is a sin. And by the same reasoning, if someone deems that which is a venial sin to be a mortal sin, if, this conscience persisting, he does it, it is manifest that he has chosen to sin mortally, and so his action, on account of his choice, is a mortal sin. If, however, someone after the deed has an erroneous conscience, by which he believes that what was in itself licit and done by him was a sin, or that what was venial was mortal, that which was previously — either sin, or mortal — does not thereby become so, because the will and the action are not informed from the apprehension that follows, but from that which precedes.

Now these things that have been said admit of no doubt, but there can be a doubt whether, if someone has an erroneous conscience such that he believes it necessary for salvation to do what is a mortal sin — for instance, if someone deems that he sins mortally unless he steals or fornicates — whether such a conscience binds him, namely, such that if he acts against conscience, he sins mortally. And it seems that it does not. First indeed because the law of God, which forbids fornication and theft, binds more strongly than conscience. Second, because on this supposition he would be perplexed, for he would sin both by fornicating and by not fornicating. But it must be said that even in things evil in themselves, an erroneous conscience binds. For conscience binds to this extent, as has been said, that from the fact that someone acts against conscience, it follows that he has the will of sinning; and so if someone believes that not fornicating is a mortal sin, in choosing not to fornicate, he chooses to sin mortally, and so he sins mortally. And to this also pertains what the Apostle here says. For it is manifest that to distinguish foods as though necessary for salvation was illicit, because not even for the Jews converted, even before the Gospel was made public, was it licit to observe the legal precepts, placing hope in them as though they were necessary for salvation, as Augustine says. And yet the Apostle here says that if anyone, having a conscience compelling him to distinguish foods — which is to deem something to be common — does not distinguish them, namely by abstaining from them, he sins just as if he ate what is unclean. And so even in things illicit in themselves an erroneous conscience binds. Nor does it stand in the way that the first objection is raised concerning the law of God, because the binding force of an even erroneous conscience and of the law of God is the same. For conscience does not dictate that something is to be done or avoided, except because it believes this to be against, or according to, the law of God. For the law is not applied to our acts except by the mediation of our conscience. Likewise, too, the second objection does not stand in the way. For nothing prevents someone from being perplexed on some supposition, although no one is perplexed simply speaking, just as a fornicating priest, whether he celebrates Mass or does not celebrate when he ought to by office, sins mortally; yet he is not perplexed simply speaking, because he can give up the sin and celebrate. And likewise someone can give up an erroneous conscience, and abstain from sin.

There is, however, yet another doubt. For one is not said to scandalize who does an upright work, even though someone may from it take an occasion of scandal, for it is read in Matthew 15, v. 12, that the Pharisees, having heard Christ's word, were scandalized. But not to distinguish foods is an upright work; therefore it is not to be given up on account of the scandal of him who has a perverse conscience, erring in the faith. For according to this, Catholics ought to abstain from meats and from marriage, lest heretics thereby be scandalized according to their erroneous conscience. But it must be said that someone can scandalize another, not only by doing something evil, but also by doing something which has the appearance of evil, according to that word of 1 Thessalonians, the last chapter: abstain from every appearance of evil. Now something is said to have the appearance of evil in two ways. First, namely, according to the opinion of those who are cut off from the Church; second, according to the opinion of those who are still tolerated by the Church. Now the weak in faith, deeming the legal precepts to be observed, were still tolerated by the Church before the Gospel was made public. And therefore one ought not to eat, to the scandal of these, foods forbidden in the law. Heretics, however, are not tolerated by the Church, and therefore concerning them the reasoning is not the same.

Then when he says for if because of food, etc., he makes clear what he had said. And first the first point, namely that scandal is not to be placed before the brethren; second, the second and third points, namely how something is common, at all things indeed are clean, and so on. Concerning the first he sets down four arguments, of which the first is taken from the side of charity, saying: for if your brother is grieved, from this — that he deems you to sin — on account of the food which you eat, which he himself deems unclean, now you do not walk according to charity, according to which someone loves his neighbor as himself. And so he avoids his grieving and does not prefer food to his brother's peace, because, as is said in 1 Corinthians 13, 5: charity does not seek the things that are its own.

He sets down the second argument, at do not by your food, etc., which is taken from the side of the death of Christ. For he seems to esteem the death of Christ but little, who for the sake of food does not refuse to make its fruit void. Hence he says: do not by your food — which you, namely, eat indifferently, not distinguishing foods — destroy him, that is, scandalize him, for whom, that is, for whose salvation, Christ died. 1 Peter 3, 18: Christ died once for our sins, the just for the unjust. Now he says that he is destroyed who is scandalized, because passive scandal cannot be without the sin of the one scandalized. For he is scandalized who takes an occasion of falling. 1 Corinthians 8, 11: the weak brother, for whom Christ died, will perish through your conscience.

He sets down the third argument, at let not, therefore, our good be blasphemed, and so on, which is taken from the gifts of spiritual grace. And first he shows the unfitting thing that follows against gifts of this kind from the fact that we scandalize others; second he makes clear what he had said, at for is not, etc.; third he draws the intended conclusion, at therefore let us follow after the things that are of peace, and so on. Concerning the first it must be considered that, from the fact that some used foods indifferently in the primitive Church, to the scandal of the weak, this unfitting consequence followed, that the weak blasphemed the faith of Christ, saying that it induced a voracity of foods against the command of the law. And therefore the Apostle says: since it has been brought about through the Lord Jesus that nothing is common, let not, therefore, our good, that is, the faith or grace of Christ, through which you have obtained freedom from ceremonies, be blasphemed by the weak, who say that it indulges the gluttony of men. James 2, 7: they themselves blaspheme the good name that has been invoked upon you; concerning this good it is said in Psalm 72, 28: it is good for me to cleave to God.

Then when he says for is not, etc., he makes clear what he had said, namely in what our good consists. And first he shows in what it does not consist, saying: for the kingdom of God is not meat and drink. Now the kingdom of God is here called that through which God reigns in us and through which we arrive at his kingdom; concerning which it is said in Matthew 6, 10: thy kingdom come; and Micah 4, 7: the Lord shall reign over all in Mount Sion. Now we are joined and made subject to God through the interior intellect and affection, as it is said in John 4, 24: God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth. And hence it is that the kingdom of God is principally considered according to the interior of man, not according to exterior things. Hence it is said in Luke 17, 21: the kingdom of God is within you. But those things which are exterior, pertaining to the body, pertain to the kingdom of God only insofar as through them the interior affection is ordered, or disordered, according to those things in which the kingdom of God principally consists. And therefore, since meat and drink pertain to the body, they do not in themselves pertain to the kingdom of God, except insofar as we use them, or abstain from them. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians 8, 8: food does not commend us to God. For neither, if we do not eat, shall we lack, nor, if we eat, shall we abound. Yet the use, or the abstinence, of food and drink pertains to the kingdom of God, insofar as man's affection is thereby ordered, or disordered. Hence Augustine says, in the book On Questions of the Gospel, and it is had here in the Gloss: wisdom is justified by her children, who understand that righteousness consists not in abstaining, nor in eating, but in the equanimity of enduring want, and in the temperance of not corrupting oneself through abundance and the untimely taking of food. For it does not matter how, as is said in the Gloss, or what kind of food, or how much one receives, provided he does this in keeping with the men with whom he lives, and with his own person, and according to the necessity of his health; but with how great capacity and severity of mind he can do without these, whether when it is fitting or when it is necessary to be without them.

Second, he shows in what our good consists, which he calls the kingdom of God, saying: but the kingdom of God is righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit. So that righteousness is referred to exterior works, by which a man renders to each what is his, and to the will of doing such works, as it is said in Matthew 6, 33: seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness. Peace, however, is referred to the effect of righteousness. For peace is most disturbed by this, that one man does not render to another what he owes him. Hence it is said in Isaiah 32, 17: the work of righteousness is peace. Joy, however, is to be referred to the manner in which the works of righteousness are to be accomplished; for as the Philosopher says in Ethics 1: he is not just who does not rejoice in just working. Hence also in Psalm 99, v. 2 it is said: serve the Lord in gladness. Now he expresses the cause of this joy, saying in the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is that by which the charity of God is poured out in us, as is said above in chapter 5, 6. For that is joy in the Holy Spirit, which charity brings forth, as when someone rejoices in the goods of God and of his neighbors. Hence it is said in 1 Corinthians 13, 6, that charity does not rejoice over iniquity, but rejoices with the truth. And Galatians 5, 22 it is said: but the fruit of the Spirit is charity, joy, peace. Now these three things which are touched on here are had imperfectly indeed in this life, but perfectly when the saints shall possess the kingdom of God prepared for them, as is said in Matthew 25, 34. There righteousness will be perfect without any sin. Isaiah 60, 21: your people shall be all just. There will be peace without any disturbance of fear. Isaiah 32, 18: my people shall sit in the beauty of peace, in tabernacles of confidence. There will be joy. Isaiah 35, 10: they shall obtain joy and gladness, and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.

Third, he proves what he had said, namely that the kingdom of God consists in these things. For that man seems to pertain to the kingdom of God who pleases God and is approved by holy men; but this happens to him in whom righteousness, peace, and joy are found; therefore the kingdom of God is in these things. He says, therefore: it has been said that the kingdom of God is righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit; he, therefore, who in this serves Christ — who is the king of this kingdom, according to that word of Colossians 1, 13: he has translated us into the kingdom of the son of his love — so as, namely, to live in righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, pleases God, who is the author of this kingdom, Wisdom 4, 10: being pleasing to God, he was made beloved, and approved by men, that is, he is approved by them who are participants of this kingdom. Ecclesiasticus 31, 10: who has been tried by it, and found perfect.

Then when he says therefore, etc., he draws the intended admonition, saying: since the kingdom of God consists in righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy, therefore, that we may be able to arrive at the kingdom of God, let us follow after the things that are of peace, that is, let us strive to fulfill those things by which we may preserve the peace of Christians, Hebrews 12, v. 14: follow after peace and holiness, and so on. Let us keep, one toward another, the things that are of edification, that is, those things by which we may edify one another, that is, preserve the good, and be roused to something better. 1 Corinthians 14, 12: seek that you may abound unto the edification of the Church. And this indeed will come about if we live in righteousness and spiritual joy.

He sets down the fourth argument, at do not for the sake of food, and so on, which is taken from reverence for the works of God, to which we owe this reverence, that we ought not to destroy what God works for the sake of any bodily advantage. And this is what he says: do not for the sake of food, which pertains to the utility of the body, destroy the work of God. This indeed is not to be understood of any work of God whatsoever. For all the things that come into the food of man are works of God, just as the things born of the earth and the flesh of animals, which are granted to men for food by God, as is clear in Genesis 1, 29 and 9, 3. But it is to be understood of the work of grace, which he works specially in us ourselves. Philippians 2, 13: for it is God who works in us to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. This work of God, therefore, we ought not to destroy in our neighbor for the sake of our food, as those seemed to do who, through the disturbance and scandal of their neighbors, used foods indifferently.

After the Apostle set forth the reason for showing that we ought not to partake of all things indifferently with scandal to our neighbors, here he shows how certain foods can be clean and unclean. And concerning this he does two things. First, he sets forth what things are clean by their own nature, saying, All things indeed — namely, those which can pertain to man's food — are clean, namely by their own nature, because by their own nature they do not have that which would defile the soul of man, according to that word of Matthew 15:11: For not everything that enters into the mouth defiles a man. 1 Timothy 4:4: Every creature of God is good. Now certain things were said in the Law to be unclean, not by nature, but by signification, as is evident from Leviticus 11:2 and following. But Christ also removed this uncleanness, by fulfilling the figures of the old Law. Hence it was said to Peter in Acts 10:15: What God has purified, do not you call common, that is, unclean. Second, at the place, But it is evil for the man, etc., he shows how some food can become unclean for a man, namely so that from eating it he is defiled with respect to the soul, and this he shows to happen in two ways. First, from the fact that someone eats any food whatsoever with scandal to his neighbors; second, from the fact that he eats against conscience, at the place, Blessed is he who does not judge, etc. Concerning the first he does three things.

First, he shows what is evil concerning the eating of foods, saying: although all things are clean by their own nature, yet it is evil for the man who eats — any food whatsoever — through offense, that is, with the confusion and scandal of his neighbors. Matthew 18:7: Woe to that man through whom scandal comes. Second, he shows what is good concerning this kind of use of foods, saying, It is good not to eat meat and not to drink wine; of which the first seems to be the chief among foods, the second among drinks. And he sets down that to abstain from these is good, either for the sake of subduing the concupiscence of the flesh, according to that word of Ephesians 5:18: Do not be drunk with wine, in which is luxury; or also so that a man may be rendered more capable of contemplating spiritual things, according to that word of Ecclesiastes 2:3: I thought to withdraw my flesh from wine, that I might transfer my mind to wisdom. But the Apostle does not intend to say this here, but that it is good not to use these things with scandal to one's neighbors — which indeed is apparent from what is added below, nor that in which your brother is offended, etc. What I say, I say not only of wine and meats, that it is good not to use them, but of any other food whatsoever; your brother is offended, that is, disturbed against you, as against one acting unlawfully, whereby his peace is disturbed; or is scandalized, that is, provoked to a fall into sin, on account of which his righteousness is injured; or is weakened, that is, at least comes into doubt as to whether what is being done is lawful, whereby his spiritual joy is diminished. Hence the Apostle himself also says in 1 Corinthians 8:13: If food scandalizes my brother, I will never eat meat, lest I scandalize my brother.

But since it is lawful to use these foods, if one must abstain from them on account of avoiding the scandal of one's neighbors, it seems by parity of reason that one must abstain, on account of the scandal of one's neighbors, from all lawful things which are not necessary for salvation — as righteousness, peace, and spiritual joy are necessary. And thus it seems that it is not lawful for a man to reclaim what is his own with scandal to his neighbor. But it must be said that if the scandal arises from the weakness or the ignorance of those who are thereby scandalized, then in order to avoid this scandal, a man ought to abstain from lawful things, if they are not necessary for salvation. For this is the scandal of the little ones, which the Lord commands to be avoided, Matthew 18:10: See that you do not despise one of these little ones. But if this kind of scandal arises from the malice of those who are scandalized, such scandal is, as it were, the scandal of the Pharisees, which the Lord, Matthew chapter 15:12 and following, taught is to be disregarded. Hence, to avoid this kind of scandal it is not necessary to abstain from lawful things. But nevertheless, concerning the scandal of the little ones, it must be noted that, in order to avoid it, a man is bound to defer the use of lawful things, until, a reason having been given, this scandal can be removed. But if, a reason having been given, the scandal still remains, it no longer seems to proceed from ignorance or weakness but from malice; and thus it will then belong to the scandal of the Pharisees.

Third, he excludes a certain excuse. For someone could say: although my neighbor is scandalized by the fact that I make indifferent use of foods, nevertheless, for the showing forth of my faith, by which it is certain that this is lawful for me, I wish to use foods indifferently. But excluding this reasoning, the Apostle says, You — namely, you who use foods indifferently — have faith, an upright faith within yourself, by which it is established that it is lawful to use these foods. Good indeed and praiseworthy is this faith, but have it in secret, before God, to whom such faith is pleasing, Ecclesiasticus 1:34-35: Faith and meekness are well-pleasing to God. As if to say: it is not necessary that you manifest this faith through the execution of the deed, where this is done with scandal to your neighbors. But it seems to be against what is said above, Romans 10:10: For with the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. It does not, then, seem sufficient to have faith with the heart alone before God, but it is necessary to manifest this kind of faith to one's neighbor, by confessing it.

But it must be said that, among the things that belong to faith, there are some which have not been perfectly manifested through the Church, just as in the primitive Church it was not yet perfectly declared among men that those who had been converted from among the Jews were not bound to observe the legal precepts, and just as in the time of Augustine it had not yet been declared by the Church that the soul is not by propagation. Hence in such matters it suffices for a man that he have faith before God, nor is it necessary that he publish his faith with scandal to his neighbors, except perhaps before those who have the authority to determine matters of faith. But there are some things pertaining to the faith which have already been determined by the Church, and in such matters it does not suffice to have faith before God, but it is necessary that one confess the faith before one's neighbor, however much someone may be scandalized by this, because the truth of doctrine is not to be abandoned on account of scandal, just as Christ did not abandon the truth of his teaching on account of the scandal of the Pharisees, as is found in Matthew chapter 15:12 and following. It must also be known that, although concerning such matters it is necessary that a man manifest his faith by confession of words, nevertheless it is not necessary that he manifest it by the execution of a deed; just as if someone holds by faith that it is lawful to use marriage, it is not required of him that he make use of marriage for the manifestation of his faith. And thus also it was not required of those who had the right faith that they manifest their faith by the use of foods. For they could manifest it by confessing it in words.

Then, when he says, Blessed is he who does not judge, etc., he shows how the use of foods becomes unclean for some, from the fact that it is against conscience. And concerning this he does three things.

First, he shows what is good concerning this, namely, that concerning what a man does not do, he should not have a remorseful conscience. Hence he says, Blessed is he who does not judge himself, that is, whose conscience does not reprehend or condemn him, in that which he approves, that is, approves as to be done. But this is to be understood, if he approves something as to be done with right faith. But if by a false opinion he approves something as to be done — for instance, if he thinks he is rendering service to God by the fact that he kills the disciples of Christ, as is said in John 16:2 — he is not excused by the fact that concerning this he does not judge himself; rather, he would be more blessed if his conscience reprehended him concerning this, inasmuch as by this he would be the more restrained from sin. But it is in those things which are lawful that what the Apostle says here is to be understood. For this pertains to the glory of a man, that his conscience does not reprehend him. 2 Corinthians 1:12: This is our glory, the testimony of our conscience. Job 27:6: For my heart does not reprehend me in all my life.

Second, he shows what is evil concerning this, namely, that one acts against conscience. Hence he says, but he who discerns — that is, who holds the false opinion that foods had to be discerned — if he eats, namely, the foods which he considers to be unlawful, he is condemned, from the fact that, as far as it is in himself, he has the will to do what is unlawful, and thus he sins, condemned by his own judgment, as is said in Titus 3:11.

Third, he assigns the cause of what he had said, saying, because it is not of faith; that is, he is therefore condemned. Now faith here can be taken in two ways: in one way, of the faith which is a virtue; in another way, according as faith is said to be conscience. And these two acceptations do not differ except according to the difference of the particular and the universal. For that which we hold universally by faith — for instance, that the use of foods is lawful or unlawful — conscience applies to the deed that has been done or is to be done. It is said, therefore, that he who eats and discerns is for this reason condemned, because this is not of faith — rather it is against faith, that is, against the truth of faith and against the conscience of the one acting. Hebrews 11:6: Without faith it is impossible to please God. And that this is a sufficient cause of condemnation, he shows by adding, but everything that is not of faith is sin.

From which it seems, as is said in the Gloss, that the whole life of unbelievers is sin, just as the whole life of believers is meritorious, inasmuch as it is ordered to the glory of God, according to that word of 1 Corinthians chapter 10:31: Whether you eat, or drink, or do anything else, do all things for the glory of God. But it must be said that the believer stands otherwise in relation to good, and the unbeliever in relation to evil. For in the man who has formed faith there is nothing of condemnation, as was said above, Romans 8:1. But in the unbelieving man, together with unbelief, there is a good of nature. And therefore when some unbeliever does some good from the dictate of reason, not referring it to an evil end, he does not sin. Yet his work is not meritorious, because it is not informed by grace. And this is what is said in the Gloss: nothing is good without the highest good — that is, no good is meritorious without the grace of God — and where the knowledge of eternal life and of unchangeable truth is lacking, which knowledge indeed is through faith, there is false virtue in the best of morals, inasmuch, namely, as it is not referred to the end of eternal beatitude. But when the unbelieving man does something from the very fact that he is an unbeliever, it is manifest that he sins. Hence, when it is said in the Gloss: every work that is not of faith is sin, it is to be understood thus: everything that is against faith or against conscience is sin, even if by its kind it seems to be good — for instance, if a Pagan preserves virginity in honor of his gods, or gives alms, by this very fact he sins. Titus 1:15: To the defiled and unbelieving nothing is clean, but both their mind and their conscience are defiled.