"For we know that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal, sold to sin" (7:14).

1. Since (the apostle) said above that the evil was increased, and that the sin became stronger when it met with the commandment, and that the opposite of what the law intended to do, and since he thereby perplexed the hearer, he first freed the law from evil suspicion, and then explains the reason why it happened. In order that any one, hearing that sin was given occasion in the commandment, that when the commandment came, sin was revived, that sin deceived and put to death by the commandment, lest he should think that the law was the cause of all these evils, (the Apostle) first of all sets forth with great boldness the defense of the law, not only absolving it from accusation, but also weaving the greatest praise for it. And this he does not present in such a way that he himself speaks in favor of the law, but as if pronounces a general verdict. "For we know," he says, "that the law is spiritual." By this he seemed to say, "It is universally acknowledged and well known that the law is spiritual, and therefore it must not be allowed to be the cause of sin, and that the guilt of the evils that have occurred should lie upon it." And see how he not only absolves him of the accusation, but also praises him without measure. By calling it spiritual, he shows that the law is the instructor of virtue and the enemy of vice, since to be spiritual is to avert all sins; This is precisely what the law did, frightening, admonishing, punishing, correcting, advising everything concerning virtue. Where, you may ask, did the sin come from, if the teacher was so worthy of wonder? From the negligence of the disciples. Wherefore he added, "But I am of the flesh," representing a man who lived both in the law and before the law. "Sold to sin." After his death, he says, passions flooded in. When the body became mortal, it necessarily took on lust, anger, sickness, and everything else that required a great deal of wisdom, so that the passions that flooded us would not drown our thoughts in the depths of sin. In themselves they were not yet sin, but their unbridled intemperance produced it. Thus, if we take one of the passions as an example, the lust of the flesh is not a sin, but when it fell into immoderation, and not wishing to remain within the bounds of lawful marriage, it began to pounce on other people's wives, then at last it became fornication, not from lust, but from intemperance in it. And notice the wisdom of Paul. Having praised the law, he immediately turned to ancient times, in order to show the condition of the human race at that time (before the law) and after the law was received, to present the necessity of abundant grace, which (the apostle) sought everywhere to reveal. When he says, "Sold to sin," he means not only those who lived under the law, but also those who lived before the law and existed from the beginning of the world. Then he explains the way in which a person is sold and given away. "For I know not," he says, "what I am doing" (v. 15). What does "I don't understand" mean? I don't know. How did this happen? Surely no one has ever sinned in ignorance? Do you see that if we do not choose our words with due care, and do not pay attention to the purpose of the apostle, many inconsistencies will ensue? If people sinned in ignorance, they would not be worthy to be punished. Wherefore, as above (the Apostle) says, "Without the law sin is dead," not only expressing that they then sinned in ignorance, but that they knew, but not so clearly, and therefore were punished, but not so severely, and again, when he said, "He would not have understood his will," he does not express complete ignorance, but points to the clearest knowledge, likewise, saying, "He made every desire in me." He does not mean that the commandment produced lust, but that sin increased lust by means of the commandment, so here, too, when he says, "For I do not understand what I am doing," does not thereby express complete ignorance, for how did he delight (say), "For according to the inward man I find pleasure in the law of God" (7:22)? What does it mean, "I don't understand"? I dwell in darkness, I am carried away, I endure violence, I do not know how I fall into deception, as we usually say, "I do not know how such and such a person came and carried me away," not justifying himself by ignorance, but only pointing out some deception, attack, and intent. "For I do not what I will, but what I hate, I do" (v. 15). How come you don't know what you're doing? If you desire good and hate evil, then this is characteristic of perfect knowledge. From this it is clear that by the words "not what I want" the Apostle does not destroy free will and does not introduce any coercive necessity. For if we do not sin voluntarily, but under compulsion, then again the punishments that were previously inflicted would have no foundation. But just as by the word "I do not understand" (the Apostle) expressed not ignorance, but what we have said above, so, by adding, "not that ... what I want," he signified not necessity, but disapproval of what had been done, because if he did not express this by the words "I do not what I want," then why not add to him: I do what I am forced to do and am subjected to force, for this is precisely the opposite of will and freedom. But (the apostle) did not say so, but instead put "what I hate," so that you would understand that he did not destroy freedom even with the words, "not what I want." So, what does it mean to "not what I want"? That I do not praise, I do not approve, I do not love; In contrast, he added: "... And what I hate, I do. But if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good" (v. 16).

2. Do you see that the mind, as long as it is intact, retains its proper nobility? If he indulges in vice, he gives himself up with hatred, which may be the greatest praise of the law, both natural and written. That the law is good, saith the Apostle, is evident from the fact that I accuse myself, transgressing the law, and hating what I have done; And if the law were the author of sin, how could one take pleasure in the law and hate what the law commands? "I agree with the law," says the Apostle, "that it is good, and therefore it is no longer I who do these things, but the sin that dwelleth in me. For I know that no good thing dwelleth in me, that is, in my flesh" (vv. 17, 18). On these words are founded those who rebel against the flesh and exclude it from the number of God's creatures. What can we say to this? The same as what was said not long ago in the discourse on the law, for as there (the apostle) attributes all things to sin, so also here. He did not say that the flesh does this, but quite the opposite: "Wherefore it is no longer I who do these things, but the sin that dwelleth in me." But if he says that the good does not dwell in him, this is not an accusation against the flesh, since the fact that the good does not dwell in the flesh does not prove that the flesh is evil in itself. We agree that the flesh is inferior and deficient to the soul, but not at all opposed to it, not hostile or evil, but as the harp is to the musician, and as the ship is to the helmsman, so the flesh is subordinate to the soul; Both the harp and the ship are not opposed to those who manage and use them, but are in full agreement, though not of the same dignity as the artist. And just as he who says that art is not in the harp or in the ship, but in the helmsman and in the harp, does not demean these objects, but shows the difference between the artist and art, so Paul, who said: "He does not live... in my flesh, the good," did not humiliate the body, but showed the superiority of the soul. After all, it is the soul that is in charge of everything - the art of steering the ship, or playing the harp; Paul shows the same thing here, when he attributes the dominant importance to the soul.

"For the desire for good," says the Apostle, "is in me, but I do not find it to do it." Again and here, when he says, "I do not find," he does not mean ignorance or doubt, but the attack and intrigues of sin; Expressing this more clearly, he added: "The good which I will, I do not, but the evil which I do not will, I do. But if I do what I do not will, it is no longer I who do it, but the sin that dwells in me" (vv. 19, 20). Do you notice how (the Apostle), having freed both the essence of the soul and the essence of the flesh from accusation, transferred everything to evil activity? If a man does not want evil, then the soul is free, and if he does not do evil, then the body is free: everything depends on the evil will alone. Soul, body, and will are not essentially the same thing, but the former are God's creations, and the latter is a movement born out of ourselves, which we direct where we will. The will in itself is a natural faculty given by God; But the same will is something of our own, and depends on our reason. "Therefore I find the law, that when I will do good, evil is unto me" (v. 21). This is unclear. What does it mean? I praise the law according to my conscience, argues Paul, and when I want to do good, I find in it a protector who exerts my will; As I delight in the law, so he approves of my disposition. Do you see how he proves that the understanding of good and evil was first put into us, and that the law of Moses praises this understanding and is itself praised by it? As he did not say above, "I learn from the law," but, "I agree with the law," so now he does not say, "I am educated by the law," but, "I find pleasure in the law of God." What does it mean to "find pleasure"? I agree with him as a good man, just as he agrees with me who wants to do good. It was given to man from above to desire good and not to desire evil. And the law, when it appeared, became the accuser of many things in evil, and the praiser of great things in good. Do you see that (the apostle) ascribes to the law no more than a certain strengthening and addition? Though the law praises the good, and I am pleased and desire good, yet the evil is still there, and its effect is not destroyed. Thus the law is only an ally to him who intends to do something good, and in so far as he desires it for himself. And since he did not express it clearly, he afterwards reveals and makes it more clear, showing how evil is applied, and how the law assists him who will do good. "For according to the inward man I find pleasure in the law of God" (v. 22). I knew good before the law, saith the Apostle, and having found it represented in the writings, I praise him. "But in my members I see another law, contrary to the law of my mind" (v. 23).

3. Here again the Apostle called sin an anti-war law, not because of its worthiness, but because of the excessive obedience of those who obey it. As he calls Mammon lord and belly god, not on account of their own merit, but on account of the great bondage of their subjects, so here he calls sin a law, because men serve it, and are afraid to forsake it, just as those who have received the law are afraid of not fulfilling the law. And sin, says (the Apostle), is contrary to the law of nature, which is "the law of my mind." And so (the Apostle) depicts the contest and the battle, and lays the whole podvig on the natural law. The law of Moses is given after and as if in addition; Yet both the two laws, the one which taught what was good, and the other which praised it, did nothing great in this struggle: such is the power of sin that conquers and surpasses it. Paul, depicting this, and speaking of defeat according to strength, said, "I see another law that is contrary to the law of my mind, and makes me a captive." He did not simply say, "He who overcomes," but "He who makes me a prisoner of the law of sin." Nor did he say "the attraction of the flesh," or the nature of the flesh, but "the law of sin," that is, power, power. As he says, "which is in my members"? What does that mean? He does not call the members sin, but completely separates them from sin, because there is another thing that abides in something, and another that in which it abides. Just as a commandment is not evil, although sin has received an occasion in it, so the nature of the flesh is not evil, although sin struggles with us through it, because in this case the soul will also be evil, and still more so, in so far as it has power in what it ought to do. But it's not, no! If a tyrant or a robber takes possession of any fine building or royal palace, it cannot be a condemnation to the house, and all the blame falls on those who have committed the evil. This is not understood by the enemies of the truth, who, together with wickedness, fall into utter madness. Not only do they accuse the flesh, but they also slander the law. Though the flesh be evil, yet the law is good, because it fighteth against it, and opposes it. And if the law is not good, then the flesh is good, because according to their opinion it fights with the law and is at enmity with it.

"Poor man I am! Who shall deliver me from this body of death" (v. 24)? Have you noticed what is the power of evil, how it conquers, and how the mind that takes pleasure in the law? No one can say, says the Apostle, that sin makes me its prisoner, because I hate the law and abhor it; on the contrary, I find pleasure in it, I praise it, I have recourse to it, but he has not received the power to save even him who has recourse to it, but Christ has saved him who flees from it. Have you noticed how great is the superiority of grace? But the Apostle did not reveal this, but only, groaning and weeping bitterly, like a man deprived of helpers, proved the power of Christ by his most difficult position, and said: "Poor man I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?" The law turned out to be powerless, my conscience insufficient, although I praised the good, not only praised it, but also fought against evil, for (the Apostle), having called sin an antagonist, showed that he himself was arming himself against sin. So, where will the hope of salvation come from? "I thank my God through Jesus Christ our Lord" (v. 25). Do you see how he showed the necessity of the manifestation of grace, and also that it is the common gift of the Father and the Son? Though he gives thanks to the Father, the cause of this thanksgiving is the Son. And when you hear him say, "Who will deliver me from this body of death"? "Don't think he's accusing the flesh. He did not call it the body of sin, but the body of death, that is, the mortal body that was captive to death, and did not bring about death; This is not proof of the depravity of the body, but of the damage to which it has been subjected. As he who is taken captive by barbarians is reckoned to be a barbarian, not because he is a barbarian, but because he is in the power of barbarians, so the body is called the body of death, because it is in the power of death, and not because it produced death. Wherefore he desires to be rid not of the body, but of the mortal body, alluding to what I have often said, that the body, having become accessible to the passion, is therefore easily subject to sin.

4. But if this was the power of sin before grace, why, you ask, were sinners punished? Because they were given such commands that could be fulfilled even during the reign of sin. The law did not require of them a high degree of perfection in life, but allowed them to enjoy their possessions, did not forbid them to have many wives, to indulge in anger with righteousness, and to enjoy moderate pleasure; So much indulgence was given to them, that the written law required less than the natural law commanded. Although the law of nature has always enjoined one man to marry one woman, as Christ clearly testified when He said, "He who created male and female in the beginning created them" (Matt. 19:4), yet the law of Moses, just as it did not forbid divorcing one woman from marrying another, so it did not forbid having two wives together. Moreover, it may be seen that those who lived before this law, being governed by one natural law, fulfilled another more than those who lived under the law. Thus, those who lived in the Old Testament did not suffer any loss when such moderate legislation was introduced among them. If, however, they could not remain victorious, it is their own negligence that is to blame. That is why Paul gives thanks that Christ did not put us to any test, and not only did not require an account of our deeds, but made us capable of great work. Wherefore he says, "I thank my God through Jesus Christ," and to say nothing of salvation as a matter which, according to what has been proved above, is universally acknowledged, passes on to another very important one, and reveals that we have not only been freed from former sins, but have also become invincible to sin for the time to come. "Therefore there is now," he says, "no condemnation to those who in Christ Jesus do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (8:1). But he did not say this before he mentioned the former state. Having said first, "Therefore I serve the law of God with my mind, and the law of sin in the flesh" (7:25), he added, "Therefore now there is no condemnation to those who live in Christ Jesus." And since his words were contradicted by the fact that many sin even after baptism, he hastens to this also, and not only says, "who live in Christ Jesus," but adds, "not according to the flesh," which shows that everything comes from our negligence, since now it is possible to walk not according to the flesh, but then (before Christ) it was difficult. Then he reveals the same thing in a different way, saying, "For the law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus has set me free" (8:2). By the name of the law of the Spirit (the Apostle) here means the Spirit, just as sin has called the law of sin, so the Spirit is called the law of the spirit. But he also called the law of Moses spiritual, saying, "For we know that the law is spiritual." So, what's the difference? Big and endless. This is the law of the Spirit, and this is the law of the Spirit. What is the difference between one and the other? By the fact that the one was only given by the Spirit, and the other, who received him abundantly, gave the Spirit. Wherefore he also called it the law of life, as opposed to the law of sin, and not the law of Moses. When he says, "He has delivered me from the law of sin and death," he does not mean the law of Moses, since he nowhere calls it a law of sin (and how could he call it a law that he has repeatedly called righteous and holy, the destroyer of sin?), but he means a law that is opposed to the law of the mind. This cruel struggle was stopped by the grace of the Spirit, which mortified sin and made the struggle easy for us, first crowning us, and then, with great help, drawing us to podvig. And as (the Apostle) always does, passing from the Son to the Spirit, and from the Spirit to the Son and the Father, imputing all our things to the Trinity, so he does here; saying, "Who will deliver me from this body of death"? showed that the Father does this through the Son; then again he attributes it to the Holy Ghost with the Son, when he says, "The law of the Spirit of life which is in Christ Jesus has set me free"; then again attributes to the Father and the Son. "As the law," he says, "weak in the flesh, was powerless, so God sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh for sin, and condemned sin in the flesh" (v. 3). Again he seems to condemn the law, but on careful attention it is revealed that he praises it very much, proving that the law agrees with Christ, and enjoins the same thing. For he did not say, "Evil of the law," but "He was powerless," and again, "As a law, weakened," and not, "In it, he did evil or malicious." He ascribes weakness not to the law, but to the flesh, saying, "As a law weakened by the flesh." And here again he does not call the very essence and foundation of the flesh, but the wisdom of the flesh, wherefore it frees both the body and the law from accusation, and not only by this, but also by the following words.

5. If the law were hostile, how did Christ come to its aid, fulfill its righteousness, and reach out to condemn sin in the flesh? This was the only thing that remained to be done, because the law had long since condemned sin in the soul. So, what is it? Has the law done more, and the Only-begotten of God less? Nohow. For the first was done chiefly by God, who gave the natural law, and afterwards added the written law; Otherwise, there would be no use for more if less was not offered. What's really the use of knowing what to do without doing it? On the contrary, there will be an even greater condemnation for it. Thus, He who saved the soul made the flesh obedient. It is not difficult to teach, but to show the way by which it can be conveniently attained is a matter worthy of wonder. For this reason the Only-begotten came, and did not depart before he had delivered us from that inconvenience. Most important of all is the image of victory: (Christ) did not take on another flesh, but the same flesh, subdued, just as the king's son, when he sees that a thin and corrupt woman is being beaten in the market, calls himself her son, and thus frees her from the attackers. The Son of God did the same: He confessed Himself to be the Son of man, came to the help of the flesh, and condemned sin. Sin, then, did not dare to strike her any more, or rather, it had already struck her with the blow of death, but the most astonishing thing is that it was not the smitten flesh, but the sin that smote it, that was condemned and destroyed for it. If the victory had not been accomplished in the flesh, it would not have been so surprising, because the law also did it, but it is a wonder that (Christ), having flesh, raised up a trophy of victory, and the same flesh that had been conquered a thousand times by sin won a brilliant victory over it. Behold, then, how many extraordinary things have been done: first, sin has not conquered the flesh; Secondly, he himself was vanquished, and moreover conquered by the flesh, for it is not the same thing not to be vanquished and to conquer him who has always conquered; Thirdly, the flesh not only conquered, but also punished, for by not sinning He appeared unconquered, and by dying He conquered and condemned sin, making the very flesh which had been despised before terrible to it. In this way He destroyed the power of sin, and He also destroyed death, which was brought into the world by sin. As long as sin met sinners, it justly put them to death; And when he found a sinless body, and put it to death, he was condemned as having done injustice. You see how many victories have been accomplished: the flesh has not been conquered by sin, but has itself conquered and condemned it, and not only condemned it, but condemned it as one who has sinned. (Christ) first exposed him for unrighteousness, then condemned and condemned him, not only by force and authority, but also by the word of righteousness. This is what the Apostle expressed when he said of sin, "He condemned sin in the flesh," which also means that he first convicted a grievous sin, and then condemned it. Do you see that everywhere sin is condemned, and not the flesh, while the flesh is crowned and pronounces its judgment on sin? And if it is said that (God) sent the Son "in the likeness of flesh," do not think from this that the flesh of Christ was different: since (the apostle) said "sinful," he added the word "in likeness." Christ did not have sinful flesh, but like our sinful flesh, but sinless, and by nature the same as us. Thus it is evident from this that the nature of the flesh is not evil. Christ prepared the victory, not taking on another flesh in place of the former, and not changing this in essence, but, having consented to abide in the same nature, achieved that it obtained the crown for the victory over sin, and after this victory raised it up and made it immortal. But what, you may ask, has to do with me what has been done in that flesh? That is what matters most to you, and therefore you added, "That the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us who do not live according to the flesh" (v. 4). What does "justification" mean? The end, the goal, the success. What did the law want, and what did it once produce? That man may be sinless. This is what Christ has done for us now; His business was to confront and win, and ours was to take advantage of the victory. Therefore we shall not sin unless we become too weak and fall, wherefore he added, "In us who do not live according to the flesh." And lest you, having heard that Christ had delivered you from the strife of sin, and that, after the condemnation of sin in the flesh, the justification of the law was fulfilled in you, should not reject all preparation, the Apostle, as above, having said, "No condemnation," added, "Those who do not live according to the flesh," so here also he added the same thing to the words, "That the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us," or rather, Something much more has been added here. Having said, "That the justification of the law may be fulfilled in us, who do not live according to the flesh," he added, "but according to the Spirit," giving them to understand that we must not only abstain from evil, but also adorn ourselves with good. To give you a crown is the work of Christ, but to keep what is given is yours. Christ has done for you that which was the justification of the law, namely, that you should not be subject to an oath.

6. Therefore, do not destroy this gift, but keep this beautiful treasure at all times. Here (the Apostle) inspires you that baptism is not sufficient for our salvation, unless after it we show a life worthy of this gift. Thus, by saying this, he is again defending the law. And after we have believed in Christ, all things must be done and done, so that the justification of the law, which Christ has fulfilled, may remain in us, and not be destroyed. "For those who live according to the flesh," says the Apostle, "think of the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit think of the things of the Spirit. The mind of the flesh is death, and the mind of the spirit is life and peace, because the mind of the flesh is enmity against God; for they do not obey the law of God, neither can they" (vv. 5-7). But this is not an accusation of the flesh. As long as it retains its own significance, there is nothing incongruous; But when we allow it everything, and it oversteps its limits, it rises up against the soul, then it destroys and corrupts everything, not by its own nature, but by its intemperance and the disorder that arises from it. "But those who live according to the Spirit are about spiritual things. The mind of the flesh is death." He did not say the nature of the flesh or the essence of the body, but "carnal thoughts," which can be corrected and destroyed. And when he says this, he does not ascribe to the flesh his own thought, but points to the grosser tendency of the mind, to which he gives a name borrowed from the worst part of man, just as he is wont to call the whole man, together with the soul, flesh. "And the thoughts are spiritual." Again and again he speaks of spiritual thought, as he writes below, "But he that searcheth the heart knoweth what the thought of the Spirit is" (8:27), and shows the many blessings which flow from it for the present and future life. In comparison with the evil produced by carnal wisdom, spiritual wisdom is much more good, as the Apostle expressed when he said, "Life and peace." "Life" is contrary to what was said before, "The mind of the flesh is death," and "the world" is contrary to what was said later, because when he said "peace," he added, "For the mind of the flesh is enmity against God," which is worse than death. Then, showing why carnal wisdom is death and enmity, he says: "For they do not obey the law of God, neither can they." But do not be embarrassed when you hear, "And they cannot," for this difficulty is easily solved. By the name of carnal wisdom (the Apostle) here means an earthly thought, coarse, partial to worldly things and to evil deeds, of which he says that he cannot submit to God. What hope of salvation is there if, being evil, it is impossible to become good? But this is not what the Apostle says, otherwise how did Paul himself become so great? How's that for a robber? How is Manasseh? How about the Ninevites? How did David rebel after his fall? How did Peter come to his senses when he denied (Christ)? How was the prodigal son numbered among the flock of Christ? How did the Galatians, who had lost their grace, regain their former bliss? Therefore (the Apostle) does not say that it is impossible for a bad man to become good, but that it is impossible to submit to God while remaining wicked; but whoever changes, it is certainly easy for him to become good and submit to God. He did not say that a man cannot submit to God, but he says that a bad deed cannot be good; This is the same as saying that fornication cannot be chastity, and vice cannot be a virtue. So when (Christ) says in the Gospel, "He cannot... a bad tree bring forth good fruit" (Matt. 7:18), He does not thereby deny the possibility of passing from vice to virtue, but only says that abiding in vice cannot bear good fruit. He did not say that a bad tree cannot become good, but that if it remains bad, it cannot bear good fruit. And that evil can be changed, this (Christ) showed both here and in another parable, when He spoke of tares becoming wheat, wherefore He forbids them to be pulled out, "lest when you choose the tares," as He said, "you pluck out the wheat with them" (Matt. 13:29), that is, the one that will be of them. Thus (the Apostle) calls vice carnal wisdom, and spiritual wisdom the grace given and the activity approved by the good will, and here he does not speak at all about essence and nature, but about virtue and vice. What thou couldst not do under the law, saith the Apostle, thou canst do now, thou mayest walk upright and upright, if thou receivest help from the Spirit. It is not enough not yet to walk in the flesh, but we must walk in the Spirit, because for our salvation we must not only turn away from evil, but also do good. And this will happen if we surrender the soul to the Spirit, and persuade the flesh to know its position. In this way, we will make it spiritual, just as if we indulge in carelessness, we will make the soul carnal.

7. Since the gift is not given out of natural necessity, but is given of free will, it is up to you to become one or the other. (Christ) has done all that depended on Him: sin does not oppose the law of our minds, nor captivate us as before, but all these things have passed away and vanished, the passions have been hidden, fearing and trembling at the grace of the Spirit. But if you extinguish the light, push the driver down, and drive out the helmsman, then ascribe to yourself the cause of the storming of the waves. And that virtue has now become more fulfillable, and therefore the desire for wisdom has increased, you can see from the state in which the human race was when the law reigned, and in which it is now, when grace has shone forth. What once seemed impossible to anyone, such as virginity, contempt for death and other very numerous sufferings, is now successfully fulfilled everywhere in the world. Not only among us, but also among the Scythians, Thracians, Indians, Persians, and other barbarous peoples, there are the faces of virgins, hosts of martyrs, communities of monks and nuns, and moreover, in greater numbers than those who live in marriage, everywhere there is a zealous observance of fasting, an abundance of poverty, and those who lived under the law, except one or two examples, could not even imagine them in their dreams. Therefore, when you see the truth of events sounding the trumpets, do not indulge in effeminacy and do not lose so great a grace. It is impossible for a careless person to be saved even after accepting the faith. Podvigs have become easy in order that you might be victorious in the struggle, and not so that you would slumber and use the greatness of grace as a pretext for negligence, once again plunging into the old mud of sins. That is why he adds, "Therefore they that live according to the flesh cannot please God" (Rom. 8:8). So, what is it? Will it be said that we will cut off the body and separate ourselves from the flesh in order to please God? Do you, in leading us to virtue, command us to be suicidal? Do you see how many inconsistencies are born if we take what (the apostle) says literally? By the name of the flesh Paul does not mean the body, nor the essence of the body, but the carnal and worldly life, full of luxury and debauchery, which makes the whole man flesh. As those who are winged by the Spirit make the body itself spiritual, so those who withdraw from the Spirit, who serve the belly and pleasures, make the soul itself flesh, not changing its essence, but destroying its nobility. This mode of expression is often found in the Old Testament, and signifies under the name of the flesh a coarse and unclean life full of vile pleasures. Thus it was said to Noah, "My Spirit shall not be despised by men for ever; for they are flesh" (Gen. 6:3). Though Noah himself was clothed with flesh, yet to be clothed with flesh was not guilty, for it was natural; It is a crime to love the life of the flesh. That is why Paul says, "Therefore those who live according to the flesh cannot please God," and continues, "But you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit" (Romans 8:9). And here again he means not just flesh, but flesh that is carried away by passions and given over to torment. Why, you may ask, did he not say so, and make such a distinction? To encourage the listener and show that the one who truly lives will not live in the body. Since everyone knows that it is not proper for the spiritual to abide in sin, he points out something more, saying that the spiritual man not only does not abide in sin, but is not even in the flesh, but also here he becomes an angel, ascends to heaven, and simply wears only the body. But if you condemn the flesh because (the apostle) calls the life of the flesh by its name, then you will condemn the world also, because by its name the evil life is often called, just as Christ said to the disciples: "You are not of the world" (John 15:19); And again He said to His brethren: "The world cannot hate you, but it hates Me" (John 7:7). And the soul in this case will have to be called alienated from God, because (the apostle) he called those who live in error soulful. But that's not the case, no. Everywhere it is necessary to pay attention not merely to the expressions, but to the thought of the speaker, and it is necessary to understand exactly the difference of what is said. The one is good, the other is evil, and the other is average; For example, the soul or the flesh is something in between, and can become both. And the spirit is always good and never becomes anything else. Again, carnal wisdom, that is, a vicious action, is always evil, because it does not obey the law of God. If, therefore, you give your soul and body to the better, you yourself will belong to the same side, and if you give to the worst, you will become a partaker of the destruction that proceeds from this, not by the nature of the soul or the flesh, but by the disposition, which has the power to choose one or the other. And that it really has such a significance, and that there is no condemnation of the flesh in what has been said, we shall examine it more precisely, by turning again to the same expression. "But you do not live according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit," he says.

8. How's that? Were they not in the flesh, but were incorporeal? What could make sense? Do you notice that he understood the life of the flesh? Wherefore did he not say, Ye are not in sin? That thou mayest know that Christ not only quenched the torment of sin, but also made the flesh lighter and more spiritual, not by changing its nature, but by giving it greater wings. Just as iron, from being in fire, becomes fire itself, preserving its own nature, so in believers who have the Spirit, the flesh itself is reborn in the same activity, becoming wholly spiritual, crucified and winged together with the soul. Such, for instance, was the body of the one who speaks of these things, wherefore it despised all luxuries and pleasures, but rejoiced in hunger, beatings, and bonds, and enduring these things without sorrow. Bearing witness to this, (Paul) said, "For ... our slight suffering" (2 Corinthians 4:17), so it was good for him, and so he taught the flesh to walk on a level with the spirit. "If only the Spirit of God dwells in you." The Apostle often uses the word "unless" (poneje) not to denote doubt, but with full certainty and instead of "because," as, for example, when he says: "For it is righteous in the sight of God, to repay those who offend you with tribulation" (2 Thess. 1:6); and in another place, "Have you suffered so much in vain" (Galatians 3:4). "But if any man hath not the Spirit of Christ." The Apostle did not say, "If you do not have, but attribute the unpleasant to others, "he [and] not His" (Rom. 8:9), he says.

"But if Christ be in you" (v. 10). Again he says that Christ is in them. He mentions the unpleasant briefly and in the middle, and speaks of the pleasant both before and after, and in many words, so that he softens the former. And when he says this, he does not call the Spirit Christ, but shows that he who has the Spirit not only receives the name of Christ, but also has Christ Himself in him. It is impossible that Christ is not where the Spirit is present. Where one of the persons of the Trinity is, the whole Trinity is present, it is inseparable in Itself and is intimately united. What will happen, you ask, if Christ is in you? "That body is dead to sin, but the spirit is alive to righteousness" (v. 10). You see how many calamities arise from not having the Holy Spirit in us: death, enmity against God, the inability to please His laws, the inability to belong to Christ as we should, to have Him dwelling in us. See also how many good things are when we have the Spirit in us: to belong to Christ, to have Christ Himself in us, to compete with the angels. This is what it means to mortify the flesh, i.e. to live eternal life, to have the pledge of resurrection while still here on earth, and to walk the path of virtue with ease. (The Apostle) did not say that the body is no longer active in relation to sin, but is dead to sin, which elevates the ease of asceticism. He (who has Christ) is crowned even without works and labors. Wherefore he added "for sin," that thou mayest understand that He hath once and for all destroyed the vice, and not the nature of the body. Otherwise, much that could be useful to the soul would be destroyed. Therefore this is not what the Apostle is talking about, but he desires that the body, while living and abiding, should be dead. When our bodies do not differ in the least from those who lie in the grave in regard to bodily activity, this is a sign that we have the Son in us, that the Spirit dwells in us. But when you hear of death, do not be afraid, for you have real life in you, which will not be followed by any death. Such is the life of the Spirit, it no longer submits to death, but destroys and destroys death, and preserves immortal what it has received. Wherefore (the Apostle), when he called the body dead, he did not say, "The Spirit lives," but called it life, giving them to understand that it can give life to others also. Then, again, drawing the listener, he speaks of the cause and testimony of life: this is righteousness. When there is no sin, there is no death, and when there is no death, there is eternal life. "If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies by his Spirit which dwells in you" (v. 11). Again (the Apostle) begins to speak of the resurrection, because the hope of the resurrection especially encourages the hearer and strengthens him by the example of Christ. Do not be afraid, he says, that you are clothed with a mortal body; have the Spirit in you, and the body will surely be resurrected. So, what is it? Will not bodies that do not have the Spirit be resurrected? And how should all stand before the judgment seat of Christ? How, then, will the doctrine of hell be reliable? For if those who do not have the Spirit are not resurrected, there is no hell. So, what is the meaning of what (the apostle) said? All will be resurrected, but not all for life, but some for punishment, and others for life. Wherefore he did not say, He shall raise up, but, He shall give life, which signifies more than resurrection, and is given only to the righteous. And pointing out the reason for this honor, he added, saying, "By his Spirit which dwelleth in you." Therefore, if you lose the grace of the Spirit while living here, and die without keeping it intact, you will surely perish, though you will be resurrected. Just as when He sees that His Spirit shines in you, He will not be willing to punish you, so when He sees that He is extinguished in you, He will not consent to bring you into the wedding chamber, as well as the foolish virgins. Therefore do not let the body live now, that it may live then; Make it die so that it doesn't die afterwards. If it stays alive, it won't live, and if it dies, it will live. It will be the same in the general resurrection: the body must first die and be buried, and then become immortal. The same thing happened in baptism: first the man was crucified and buried, and then he was resurrected. It was the same with the Lord's body: it was crucified and buried, and then it was resurrected.

9. So let us do this too, and let us continually mortify the body in its works. I do not say this of the essence of the body, let it not be, but of the inclinations to evil deeds. Not to tolerate anything human and not to serve pleasure is also life, or rather, it is the only life. And he who has surrendered to pleasure can no longer live, because of the anxieties, fears, dangers, and innumerable swarms of passions that arise from it. If the thought of death occurred to him, he had already died of fear before death; Whether sickness, resentment, poverty, or anything else unexpected presents itself to him, he is already lost and destroyed. What could be more miserable than such a life? But he who lives by the Spirit is not like that: he stands above fears, sorrows, dangers, and all change, because he endures nothing, but, what is more important, despises everything that happens. How does this happen? If the Spirit dwells in us continually, as the Apostle did not merely say that the Spirit should dwell in us only for a short time, but always live, wherefore he did not say, "The Spirit lived, but he who lives," meaning that he dwells continually. Therefore he who dies to life is predominantly such (he who lives by the Spirit). For this reason he said, "The Spirit lives unto righteousness." And to make this clearer, let us imagine two men, one devoted to luxury, pleasure, and the pleasures of life, and the other dead to all these things, and see which of them lives longer. Let one of these two be very rich and noble, feed the idlers and flatterers, feast and drink, and spend whole days in it; And the other, living in poverty, fasting, and other austere life and love of wisdom, only in the evening takes the necessary food, or, if you wish, does not eat for two or three days. Which of these two lives in our country for the most part? I know well that many will point to him who rejoices and squanders his possessions, but we call him who is satisfied with moderation. And if there is any further dispute or controversy, let us enter into the dwelling of each one, and it is during the time of the merriment itself, when the rich man, in your opinion, lives in the full sense, and when we have entered, let us see in what condition each of them is: from their deeds it will be seen who is alive and who is dead. And so we shall find one at books, in prayer and fasting, or awake at some other necessary work, sober and conversing with God, and the other we shall find immersed in drunkenness, and in a condition no better than a dead man; But if we wait until evening, we shall see that he is still more seized with death, and in this state he sleeps, while the former spends the night without sleep and is awake.

Do you see that the one lives above all the living, and the other lies in a condition worse than the dead? The latter, if he undertakes any task, sees one thing instead of the other, and is like madmen, or rather more miserable than these. If someone offends a madman in our minds, we all feel compassion for the offended person and blame the offender, and if we see someone mocking such a person, we not only do not feel pity for him, but we condemn the person who is lying. And tell me, is this life? Isn't it worse than countless deaths? Do you see that he who indulges in pleasure is not only dead, but even worse than a dead man and more miserable than a madman? The one arouses pity for himself, and the other hatred, the one is forgiven, and the other is punished for the very thing by which he suffers. If, however, a man who has rotten saliva flowing and a foul smell of wine is so ridiculous in appearance, then imagine what is the condition of the unfortunate soul buried in such a body as in a coffin. To see this is the same as if one were to give full power to a servant of barbarian birth, ugly and shameless, to mock and insult a maiden who is modest, sensible, free, of noble birth, and beautiful. Such is drunkenness.