Romans 4

This chapter consists of four parts. In the first, the Apostle, by referring to the history of Abraham and the authority of David, illustrates his doctrine of justification by faith. Nothing could be so well calculated to convince both Jewish and Gentile believers, especially the former, how vain is the expectation of those who look for justification by their own works. Abraham was a patriarch eminently holy, the head of the nation of Israel, the friend of God, the father of all who believe, in whose seed all the nations of the world were to be blessed. David was a man according to God’s own heart, the progenitor of the Messiah, his great personal type, and a chosen and anointed King of Israel. If, then, Abraham had not been justified by his works, but by the righteousness of God imputed to him through faith, and David, speaking by the Spirit of God, had declared that the only way in which a man can receive justification, is by his sin being covered by the imputation of that righteousness, who could suppose that it was to be obtained by any other means? By these two references, the Apostle likewise shows, that the way of justification was the same from the beginning, both under the old and the new dispensation. This he had before intimated, in saying that both the law and the prophets bore witness to the righteousness of God, which is upon all them that believe. In the three other parts of this chapter, Paul shows, first, that circumcision, to which the Jews ascribed so much efficacy, contributed nothing to Abraham’s justification, and that the righteousness imputed to him was bestowed before his circumcision, with the express intention of proving, that righteousness should be imputed to all who believe though they be not circumcised. In the next place, he proves, that the promise of the inheritance made to Abraham was not through the legal dispensation, but through that righteousness which is received by faith; and that the whole plan of justification was arranged in this manner, in order that the blessing conveyed through faith by the free favour of God, might be made sure to all the seed of Abraham, — that is, to “the children of the promise,” Rom. ix. 8, whether Jews or Gentiles. And, lastly, Paul describes Abraham’s faith, and states the benefit resulting from its exhibition to believers, for whose sake chiefly his faith was recorded. It is particularly to be noticed, that throughout the chapter not a word is said respecting Abraham’s sanctifi cation, although his whole history, after leaving his own country, furnishes so remarkable an example of a holy walk and conversation. All that is brought into view is the strength of his faith. It is thus shown, that neither moral nor ceremonial, neither evangelical nor legal works, are of any account whatever in the act of justification, or contribute in any degree to procure that blessing.

V. 1. — What shall lue then say that Abrahan, our father as pertaining to the Jiesh, hathfoxind 9

In the third chapter the Apostle had replied to the objections which might be offered to what he had before advanced respecting the Jews. First, it might be enquired if, as appeared from his doctrine, the Jews could not be saved by their distinguished privileges connected with the law, or by observing the rite of circumcision, what advantage did they possess over others, and what profit had they from circumcision? Second, on the supposition of their being transgressors, it was asked, if their sin was the means of commending the righteousness of God, was it not unjust to punish them as sinners? Lastly, if all that had been said was true, what were they better than others? After obviating all these objections, and proving from the character of the Jews, and of all other men, as delineated in the Scriptures, the impossibility of their being justified by the works of law, Paul had exhibited the only way in which sinners could obtain justification before God, and had shown that it was bestowed in such a way, that all boasting on the part of man is excluded. Another objection might now naturally present itself to the Jews in connexion with the case of Abraham, who had received the ordinance of circumcision from God himself, and whose eminent piety they held in such veneration. It might be asked what, according to the Apostle’s doctrine, could be said regarding him; what had he found, or obtained? Did not he obtain justification in these ways? Such is the objection which the Apostle introduces in this and the following verse, and answers fully in both its parts.

Abraham our father. — In the course of this chapter, Abraham is again and again denominated, in a spiritual sense, the father of all believers; but in this place it appears, according to the questions put respecting him, that he is spoken of as the natural progenitor of the Jewish nation. The expression our is, therefore, to be considered as referring to the Jews, as in verses 5th and 9th of the preceding chapter, and not to believers, whether Jews or Gentiles, as in verses 12, 16, 24, and 25 of this chapter. That it is thus to be understood does not appear, however, from the expression pertaining to the fleshy since it is not joined with that of father in the original. The order there is, “Abraham our father hath found as pertaining to the flesh.”

As pertaining to the flesh. — That is, respecting circumcision, of which the Apostle had spoken, ch. ii.; or by any work or privilege, Phil. iii. 4. Circumcision especially was the token of the covenant which contained all the promises that God had made to Abraham, saying, “My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.” Could it be supposed that this rite, so solemnly enjoined, and connected with such gracious promises, had no procuring influence in Abraham’s justification l Such is the objection supposed in this first verse to be brought by the Jews, which the Apostle fully answers in the

V. 2. — For if Ahrahavi were, justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.

If Abraham was justified on account of his works, as the Jews believed, it must be admitted that he had something to boast of, contrary to what Paul had just before declared, that all boasting on such grounds is excluded, and the doctrine of the Apostle must be set aside. Than this no objection that could be offered would appear to the Jews more plausible or forcible; it was therefore important to answer it. Being, however, entirely groundless, the Apostle at once repels it, and sets aside the question previously proposed respecting circumcision, in that prompt and brief manner of which we see an example at the end of the 8th verse of the former chapter. He answers. But not before God. Abraham had no ground of boasting before God, not having been justified either by the observance of the rite of circumcision, or by any other work of obedience which he had performed; and this Paul fully proves in the sequel.

V. 3. — For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted Unto him for righteousness.

Having denied in the foregoing verse that Abraham was justified, or had any ground of boasting, either on account of his circumcision or his obedience, Paul next supports his denial by an appeal to the Scriptures, which was calculated to carry stronger conviction to the Jews, than all things else he could have alleged. His proof is drawn from the historical records of the Old Testament, and thus he sets his seal to its complete verbal inspiration, quoting what is there recorded as the decision of God; yet many who profess to receive the Bible as the word of God, deny that portion of it to be inspired. His meaning then by the question, what saith the Scripture is, that God himself hath by his own word decided this matter, for the fact k there declared that Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. This quotation is taken from Gen. xv. 6, where the .promise to Abraham is recorded, that his seed should be innumerable as the stars of heaven, being the renewal of the promise. Gen. xii. 2, when he was called out of his own country. It thus comprehended the truth announced to him at different times, that all the nations of the world should be blessed in his seed, that is, in the Messiah, Gal. iii. 16. This promise referred to that made to our first parents after the fall, in which was included the hope of eternal redemption to be accomplished by the Deliverer of mankind, who was to spring from him, as God declared to Abraham. The above passage then, according to Paul, proves that the righteousness of God is received by faith, and is an example of the testimony, as has been already noticed, that is rendered to it by the law. It refutes the opinion of those who, misunderstanding the manner in which the Apostle James expresses himself, affirm, that a man is first justified only by faith, but afterwards by works which flow from faith.

And it was counted to him for righteousness. Rather unto righteousness. — It is not instead of righteousness, as this translation for righteousness has led many to suppose. By faith a man becomes truly righteous. Faith is the recipient of that righteousness by which we are justified. Unto righteousness is the literal rendering, as the same word in the original is so often translated in this discussion, as where it is said, chap, i. 16, the gospel is the power of God unto salvation; and chap. iii. 22, even the righteousness of God which is imto all; and so in innumerable other places, but especially in a passage precisely parallel to the one before us, chap. x. 10, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.”” This is the signification of the phrase in the verse before us, which ought to have been translated in the same way. The expression “unto righteousness“” is elliptical, and signifies unto the receiving of righteousness. In the diiferent French translations, the meaning of the original is properly expressed “a justice r that is, to, or unto righteousness, and in the same way in the Vulgate,” ad justitiam’’ to righteousness.

That faith is not itself the justifying righteousness is demonstrably evident, from the very phraseology of many passages that speak of faith and righteousness in the same place. *’ Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that believe.’’ Here righteousness is supposed to be one thing, and faith to be another. Righteousness is what we want in order to justification; faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, as testified in the gospel, is the means through which we receive this righteousness. BeHeving, then, is not the righteousness, but it is the means through which we become righteous. Can language more expressly show that righteousness and faith are two different things, for two different purposes, though always found united in the same persons, and both equally necessary? In like manner, in Romans, x. 10, the Apostle says, “For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness.’”* Here it is necessarily implied that faith is not righteousness, but that it is the means through which we receive righteousness. Nothing then can be a greater corruption of the truth than to represent faith itself as accepted instead of righteousness, or to be the righteousness that saves the sinner. Faith is not righteousness. Righteousness is the fulfilling of the law.

This verse, connected with the two following, proves, like the 28th verse of the foregoing chapter, that faith is opposed to works, and not considered as a work in the matter of justification. Yet many speak of the excellence of Abraham**s faith in such a way as to represent the patriarch to be saved by faith as a work — as the most excellent of all works. Mr Tholuck has many observations that are exceedingly culpable in this respect. He quotes from Philo, to prove the excellence of faith, who speaks of it as “the queen of virtues.” He understands righteousness in this verse to denote” subjective holiness r and according to this most erroneous interpretation of the passage (which proves that he misunderstands the whole scope of the Apostle’s discourse), and the view which he has given of faith, he adds, ‘God looked upon Abraham’s childlike submission as if it were real holiness and attached value to it alone.’ He seems to consider that it was not the object of faith — namely, the Messiah’s righteousness, that constituted Abraham’s righteousness, but the act of faith. Dr Macknight has a long note on this verse directly opposed to the Apostle’s doctrine of justification. ‘In judging Abraham,’ he says, ‘God will place on the one side of the ’ account his duties, and on the other his per- ‘- formances. And on the side of his perform- ’ ances he will place his faith, and by mere ’ favour will value it as equal to a complete ’ performance of his duties, and reward him as ’ if he were a righteous person. But neither ’ here, nor in Gal. iii. 6, is it said, that Chrisfs ’ righteousness teas counted to Abraham. In both ’ passages the expression is, Abraham believed ‘God and it, viz. his believing God, was ’ counted to him for righteousness.... Farther, ’ as it is nowhere said in Scripture, that Christ’s ’ righteousness was imputed to Abraham, so ’ neither is it said any where, that Christ’s ’ righteousness is imputed to believers.’ By such strange reasoning, and groundless assertion, does Dr Macknight labour to banish from the Bible the doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness.

V. 4. — Noio to him that uporketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

Some understand this as implying working perfectly — doing all that a man is bound to do. But this is contrary to the meaning; it applies to work of any kind. No reward can be said to be of grace that is given for work of any description. Abraham did not obtain righteousness by faith as a good disposition, or by counting that disposition above its value. Had Abraham been justified by faith as an act or disposition worthy of approbation, he would have been justified by works, and might have boasted.

V> 5 — But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly his faith is counted for righteousness.

But to him that worJceth not. — This is entirely misunderstood by Dr Macknight and Mr Stuart, as if it meant, according to Dr Macknight, “one who does not work all that he is bound to do,” or, according to Mr Stuart, “the sinner who has not exhibited perfect obedience.’” It means, however, what it literally expresses, namely, that the person who is justified does not worlz at all for his justification. It is not that he does not perform all the works that he ought, but that for justification he does nothing. It is true that he works, but not for justification. Mr Tholuck seems to think that the case of Abraham is only an analogy, and not an example of justification by faith. But Abraham’s faith respected the Messiah, whose day he saw afar off, and by this he was justified.

Jmtifieth the ungodly/. — If the expression, “to him that worketh not,” needed any explanation, this term — the ungodly — would place its meaning beyond all doubt. The term ungodly is applied throughout the Scriptures to wicked men, Rom. v. 6; 1st Tim. i. 9; 1st Pet. iv. 18; 2d Pet. ii. 5, iii. 7; Jude, 4, 15. Men are ungodly in themselves, though, as soon as they are justified, they cease to be ungodly. They are ungodly till tJieT/ believe; but in the moment that they receive the gift of faith, they are thereby united to the Saviour, and are instantly invested with the robe of righteousness, and also partake, according to the measure of their faith, of all those other graces that are received out of his fulness. They then pais from death to U/e

VOL. I, z a transition in which there is no medium; they are turned from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, for till then, being without Christ, they are the children of the Devil. They cannot at the same time be both dead and alive — under the power of God and under the power of the Devil; they must in every instant of their existence be either under the one or the other. In that moment, then, in which they believe they are justified; and to justify, signifies not to treat men as if they were just or righteous, though they are not so, but that they are really just. In this Professors Tholuck and Stuart entirely err. To justify, with them, is not to acquit as being perfectly righteous, but to hold men to be righteous when they are not righteous. The expression, justifieth the ungodly, Dr Macknight says, ’ does not imply that Abra- ’ ham was an ungodly person when he was jus- ’ tified; the Apostle’s meaning is justifieth him * w/ao had been ungodly.^ This entirely sets aside the Apostle’s declaration. Another very remarkable instance of his contradicting, in express terms, an explicit declaration of the Apostle, occurs in his note on the last verse of the seventh chapter of this Epistle, where, by first converting the assertion it contains into a question, and then boldly adding to it, he makes the Apostle say precisely the reverse of what he actually affirms,

ROMANS, IV. o. 355

* Do I myself then as a slave, serve with the mind ’ the law of God, but with the flesh the law of

* sin? By no means, The whole concluding part of that chapter, from verse 14, Mr Stuart has most violently perverted.

Mr Scott’s note, in his Commentary on this expression, “justifieth the ungodly,’’ is incorrect, and his ideas on the subject are confused. Contrary to the Apostle, he asserts that a man is not” absolutely ungodly at the time of his justification.” It is true, as has been observed, that the moment a man is justified, he is godly; but the question is, if he be godly or ungodly in the moment which precedes his justification. If he be godly before, then the words of the Apostle are false; and the contrary, that God justifies the godly, would be true. But Mr Scott’s views on this point were very erroneous, as appears from his remarks on Cornelius, in his note preceding the verse before us. He says, ‘Even the proposition,” Good works are the

* fruits of faith, and follow after faith,” in Christ,

* though a general truth, may admit of some

* exception, in such cases as that of Cornelius.’ This contradicts the 12th and 18th articles of his church, to which he appears to refer; but, what is of more consequence, his statement explicitly contradicts the whole tenor of the Holy Scriptures, and of the plan of redemption. The case of Cornelius forms no exception; nor does it contain even the shadow of an exception to the truth declared in the verse we are considering.* Mr Scott closes his note on Acts, x. 1, 2, by remarking, ‘Perhaps these observations may ’ assist the reader in understanding this instruct- ’ ing chapter, which cannot easily be made to ’ accord with the exactness of systematical ’ writers on these subjects. “■ Now, there is not the smallest difficulty in showing that all which that chapter contains is in exact accordance with every other part of Scripture.

Mr Scott, after some further remarks on the justification of the ungodly, says, ‘Nay, the ’ justified believer, whatever his holiness or dili- ’ gence may be, never works for this purpose ’ and he still comes before God as ungodly in * this respect!’ This is incorrect. He always comes as a sinner; that is, as one who is daily, hourly, and every moment sinning. And when he comes so, he comes as he is; for this is truth. But he is not ungodly after he believes, for this is a character that belongs only to the enemies of God. The Christian then cannot in any respect come in such a character, for he cannot come in a character that does not belong to him. There is an essential difference between

On the case of Cornelius I refer to Evidences, vol. ii. pp. 429.440.

coming to God as a sinner, and coming to him as ungodly. ‘Abraham,“* Mr Scott, subjoins, ’ several years before, by faith obeyed the call ’ and command of God; and therefore could ’ not be, strictly speaking, altogether ungodly ’ when it was said,” He believed God, and it ’ was counted to him for righteousness;” so that ’ the example of Abraham is alone a full and ’ clear refutation of the construction by some ’ put on this text, that men are altogether and ’ in every sense ungodly and unregenerate at ’ the time when God justifies them — a senti- ’ ment of most dangerous tendency.’ The assertion of the Apostle is, that God justifies the ungodly, which can have no other meaning than that men are ungodly in the moment that precedes their justification. It is truly astonishing that the example of Abraham should be referred to as a full and clear refutation of the plain and obvious construction of this assertion of the Apostle, which it never can be of dangerous tendency to believe implicitly. The danger lies in not receiving it, and in raising difficulties and objections which obscure and neutralize a declaration, the meaning of which is so clear and manifest. This must always have the effect, as in the case before us, of leading into most palpable error, inconsistency, and misrepresentation of the Divine testimony. If Abraham was godly before the time when it is recorded that he beHeved God, and it was counted to him for righteousness, he was also a believer before this time, and justified before this time, although his justification was then for the first time recorded. The limitations, therefore, “strictly speaking,” and “altogether ungodly’’ which Mr Scott introduces, are entirely misplaced. He was not ungodly at all. To intimate, as Mr Scott does here, that Abraham was not a justified believer till the period when it is recorded that his faith was counted to him for righteousness, is to say that a man may exercise strong faith, and obey God, and walk in communion with him, long before he is justified, which is to overturn the doctrine of justification. But no such confusion and discrepancies are to be found in the Scriptures. When, in the eleventh chapter of the Hebrews, the Apostle illustrates his declaration in the end of the tenth chapter, that the just shall live by faiths he affirms that, “By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place, which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed.*” If, then, faith justifies, as the Apostle is there showing, Abraham was justified by faith when he “departed as the Lord had spoken to him,” Gen. xii. 4, many years before the time of the declaration recorded in Gen. xv, 6. On the whole, there is not a spark of godliness in any man before he is united to Christ; and the moment he is united to him, he is justified.

In the fourth and fifth verses before us, the distinction between receiving a reward for works, and receiving it through faith, is clearly established. In the first case, a man receives what is due to him; in the second, all comes in the way of favour. Here also faith and works are directly opposed to each other. To preserve the doctrine of these verses from abuse, it is only necessary to recollect that works are denied as having any thing to do in justification, but that they are absolutely necessary in the life of the believer. “Works,”“’ says Luther, “are not taken into consideration when the question respects justification. But true faith will no more fail to produce them than the sun can cease to give light. But it is not on account of works that God justifies us.’’ — “Without doubt,” says Melancthon, “the renewal of the heart must follow faith, but if the question is of justification, turn away thine eyes from this renewal, and fix them solely on the promises, upon Christ, knowing that we are not justified on account of this renewal, but for the love (faith) of Christ. Faith justifies us, not because, as you write, it is in us the root of the good tree, but because it takes hold on Christ, on account of whose love we are made acceptable.” — “We offer nothing to God,” says Calvin, “but we are prevented by his grace altogether free, without his having any respect to our works.”

Men are prone to magnify one part of the Divine counsel, by disparaging or denying another, which to their wisdom appears to stand in opposition to it. Some speak of faith in such a manner as to disparage works. Others are so zealous for works as to disparage faith; while some, in order to honour both, join them in justification. The Apostle Paul gives every truth its proper value, and its proper place. In this epistle he establishes the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and speaks not of the fruits of faith till the fifth <jhapter. But these fruits he shows to be the necessary result of that faith which justifies.

“F- 6. — Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the mavunto whom God imputeth righteousness without works-As the blessing of the pardon of sin cannot be separated from our being viewed as perfectly righteous in the sight of God, Paul further confirms his doctrine by a reference to the 32d Psalm, which gives the meaning of David’s words. In this manner one part of Scripture is employed to open and explain what is said in another part. Imputeth. The same word in the original, which, in verses 3, 4, 5, is rendered counted or reckoned, is here rendered imputed. All of them bear the same meaning of placing to the believer’s account, as if he himself had performed it, the righteousness of Jesus Christ, called in chap. v. 19, his “obedience.*” “Here we see,’’ says Calvin, “the mere cavil of those who limit the works of the law within ceremonial rites, since what before were denominated works of the law, are now called worh simply, and without an adjunct. The simple and unrestricted language occurring in this passage, which all readers must understand as applying indifferently to every kind of work, must for ever conclude the whole of this dispute. For nothing is more inconsistent than to deprive ceremonies alone of the power of justifying, when Paul excludes works indefinitely.”

The expression, “imputeth righteousness without works,” is important, as it clearly ascertains that the phrase “for righteousness,” literally unto righteousness, signifies unto the receiving of righteousness. It signifies receiving righteousness itself, not a substitute for righteousness, nor a thing of less value than righteousness, which is gratuitously accounted or accepted as righteousness. In Dr Macknight’s note, however, on verse Sd, already quoted, where he is labouring to prove that faith is counted for righteousness, or according to Mr Stuart, as righteousness, he affirms that God values faith as equal to complete performance of duty, and observes, that it is no where said in Scripture that Christ’s righteousness is imputed to believers. The verse before us contains an explicit refutation of these unscriptural statements, which subvert the whole of the Apostle’s reasoning on the doctrine of justification. The righteousness here said to be imputed is that righteousness to which Paul had all along been referring, even the righteousness of God on account of the revelation, of which the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, and which by the Apostle Peter is called the righteousness of our God and Samour Jesus Christ, in which believers have obtained precious faith. That it is to this righteousness which fulfils the law the Apostle in the verse before us refers, is evident, if we look back to what he says in the 21st verse of the foregoing chapter, and to what he continues to say respecting it onwards to this 6th verse, and to the effect he here ascribes to it. If any one can suppose that all this is insufficient to settle the question, I shall produce an argument which is unanswerable, and which all the ingenuity of man is unable to gainsay. It must he the righteousness of God (or the righteousness of Christy which is the same) that is here spoken of because there

IS NO OTHER RIGHTEOUSNESS ON EARTH.

Mr Stuart comes far short of the truth when he represents the Apostle as here confirming his doctrine by the case of David, as a second example or single instance. David is appealed to by Paul, not in respect to his own justification, but as to the doctrine which he taught with respect to this subject in one of his Psalms, where he speaks as he was moved by the Holy Ghost. He is there teaching how all are justified who ever were or ever shall be justified. It is, then, much more than a second example. It is the declaration of God himself, who spoke y the mouth of his servant David, Acts, iv. 25. The effect of Mr Stuart’s misunderstanding the expression, “the righteousness of God,” ch. i. 17, and iii. 21, and ascribing to it the signification of “the justification which God bestows,’’ is, in his explanation of the verse before us, as in so many other places, abundantly evident. Although compelled here to attach to the original word its proper meaning of righteousness, instead of “justification,’’ the vagueness of the meaning he had, as above, so erroneously ascribed to it, leaves an opening for explaining it to be a fictitious righteousness belonging to faith itself, instead of a real righteousness, namely, the righteousness of Christ received by faith. * Here,”* he says, ’ and else- ’ where in this chapter, where the same phrase- ’ ology occurs, it is evident that the word is not ’ to be understood in the sense of justification ’ (which is the most common meaning of it in ’ our epistle).’ So far from this being its most common meaning, it is not even once its meaning out of no fewer than thirty-six times in which it occurs in this epistle.

Mr Stuart’s views on the all-important subject of justification, are not only completely erroneous and unscriptural, but, such as they are, he holds them in a manner so confused and indistinct, that he alternately asserts and contradicts what he has asserted. He one while speaks of faith as * not of itself such an act of ’ obedience to the divine law, as that it will ’ supply the place of perfect obedience.”* ‘Nor ’ has it,’ he adds, ’ any efficacy in itself, as a ’ meritum ex condigno to save men; it is merely ’ the instrument of union to Christ, in order that ’ the may receive a gratuitous salvation p. 176. At other times, he speaks as if faith were accepted at a rate much above its value, and that the justification of a sinner is gratuitous, because of such acceptance. ‘Their faith,’ says he, ’ was ’ gratuitously reckoned as equivalent to the ’ dr/,aio(Svv7) (viz. righteousness) demanded by the

* law.’ Here faith itself is made the ground of justification, and taken at a value far above its intrinsic worth. But faith is, in no point of view, equivalent to the obedience the law requires. It is Christ’s obedience that is taken as an equivalent to an obedience to the law; and for the best of all reasons, because it is an equivalent. The value of faith is, that, by the Divine appointment, it is the medium of union to Christ. If it be true that faith is ‘’ merely” an instrument of union to Christ, in order that we may receive a gratuitous salvation, as, in one of these passages, Mr Stuart asserts, how is it that faith was gratuitously reckoned as equivalent to the righteousness demanded by the law? If faith is accepted as an equivalent to righteousness, then it cannot be merely the medium of connecting us with Christ. He observes, p. 177 — ‘To say, was counted (namely, ’ their faith) /or justification, would make no ’ tolerable sense — but to say, was counted as ’ complete obedience, would be saying just what

* the Apostle means to say, viz. that the believer ’ is gratuitously justified.’ And again, he affirms that faith “is counted as righteousness,” p. 172. There, and in other places, the imputation of Christ’s righteousness for the justification of a sinner is excluded by Mr Stuart, as it is by

Dr Macknight. Mr Stuart’s self-contradictions, contained in his commentary, are noticed as follows in the American Theological Magazine, called” The Biblical Repertory;’ of July 1833, where it is reviewed, — ‘Respected Sir, ‘You admit what you deny, and deny what you ’ admit, in such rapid succession, your readers ’ are bewildered/

According, then, to these statements, righteousness, that is, the righteousness of Christ, which does indeed fulfil the demands of the law, is not imputed to the believer for justification — although this is explicitly asserted in the text, when it is said, ‘’ God imputeth righteousness,” for on earth, as has been observed, there is no other righteousness — while faith, which does not fulfil so much as one of its demands, is reckoned as equivalent to all its demands; and besides, righteousness is thus counted to a man as belonging to him, which, “in reality does not belong to him.*” And this we are told by Mr Stuart, is ‘just what the Apostle means to ’ say.’ Paul affirms that God is just when he justifies him that believeth. But according to Mr Stuart, in thus representing God as counting for a reality what is a mere figment, and counting “something” to a man “which does not belong to him,” not a trace of any thing that has even the semblance of justice in a sinner’s justification is left. And on these grounds salvation is asserted by him to be “gratuitous.”

Mr Stuart considers that the mercy of God, for Christs sake, accepts believers as just, while they are not so in reality. This overturns the gospel and the justice of the Divine character. It destroys both law and gospel. If a man is not truly just, God cannot account him just, nor treat him as just. Why cannot Mr Stuart see believers perfectly just in Jesus Christ, their head and substitute I But this is what might be expected from one who cannot see the human race guilty in Adam. It is quite natural, then, that he should not see believers righteous in Christ. According to Mr Stuart, God is not a just God in saving sinners, for he acquits as just those whom he knows to be unjust. He represents God as an unjust God in punishing the innocent, for he visits with suffering and death infants, who are supposed innocent of Adam’s sin.*

According to the doctrine of the Apostle, when a sinner is justified it is by the imputation of righteousness, not a fictitious but a real right-

* Mr Stuart afterwards explains his views on the subject of justification in a manner that adds to the confusion, and makes them, if possible, still worse; which shall be noticed in the Appendix.

eousness. The believer, in his union with Christ, is vievred as perfectly righteous, because in truth he is so, for the righteousness of God is “upon him,” ch. iii. 22; Jehovah is his righteousness, Jer. xxiii. 6; God is therefore just in justifying him, and in the day of judgment the Great Judge will pronounce him “righteous,” and will award to him “a crown of righteousness,” according to the strictest justice. The gift of this righteousness, with the justification it brings along with it, is indeed perfectly gratuitous, and the manner of bestowing it is gratuitous — freely by grace — but” grace reigns through righteousness’’’’ Rom. v. 21, in that way which meets every demand of law and justice. This last is a most important declaration, with which the Apostle closes his discussion on the doctrine of justification; but important as it is, Mr Stuart has altogether mistaken its meaning, and has misrepresented it in the same way as he has misrepresented the corresponding expression at the opening of this discussion, chap. i. 17. Had he understood it, he would not have perverted the Apostle’s reasoning as he has done, and propounded sentiments respecting the all-important doctrine of justification, which annihilate the glory of that redemption in which righteousness and peace have kissed each other — sentiments which compromise the justice, and dishonour the character of God.

‘Faith, says Mr Bell, in his View of the Covenants, p. 226, ’ rests upon Christ alone. ‘It in effect excludes itself as a work, in the ’ matter of justification. It is not a thing upon ’ which a sinner rests: it is his restino on the ‘Surety. Therefore that man who would bring ’ in his faith, as a part of his justifying right- ’ eousness before God, thereby proves that he ’ has no faith in Jesus Christ. He comes as ’ with a lie in his right hand; for such is the ’ absurdity, that he trusts in the act of his faith, ’ not in its object, i. e. he believes in his faith, ’ not in Jesus Christ. Having taken Christ, as ’ he pretends, he would have that very act ’ where])y he received him, sustained at the ‘Divine tribunal, as his righteousness. Thus ‘Christ is bid to stand at a distance, and the ’ sinner’s own act is by himself bid to come near ’ in the case of justification. This is nothing ’ else but works under another name. It is not ’ faith, for that necessarily establishes grace.”

V. 7. — Saying, Blessed are thei, whose iniquities are forgiven, an.(l tv/iose sins are covered.

This verse, in connexion with the preceding, shows that sins are not forgiven except in a way in which righteousness is imputed. Anciently, the high-priest was appointed to bless the people,

Num. vi. 24, as the type of Jesus Christ, who, as the great high-priest, imparts a real blessedness. “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ.” In him it was promised that all nations should be blessed. When about to ascend into heaven, he lifted up his hands and blessed his (iisciples; and at the last day he will, from the throne of his glory, pronounce all his people the Messed of his Father. On that day, and not till then, shall any of them be able fully to comprehend all that is implied in this term in the verse before us.

Blessed are they. — “Blessed is he” (the man), says David, “whose transgression is forgiven.” David speaks of one person, but Paul speaks of many. This alteration which the Apostle makes should not be overlooked. The work of redemption being now finished, the Apostle is commissioned by the Holy Ghost, who dictated the words, thus to include for their encouragement the whole mystical body of Christ — all that are his, whether Jews or Gentiles. Covered. — This appears to be in allusion to the mercy-seat which covered the law. Sins must be covered before they can be forgiven. There must be a way in which God hides them from his face. This way is through the blood of Christ. And he that is dead with him is freed or justified from sin; Rom. vi. 7. His sins are for ever covered, as being cast into the depths of the sea. Mic. vii. 19. They are blotted out with the Saviour s blood. “I, even I, am he that blotteth out thy transgressions for mine own sake, and will not remember thy sins,*” Isaiah, xliii. 25. He is saved from the guilt of sin immediately on his believing. The righteousness of the Saviour being imputed to the sinner, none of his own unrishteousness can attach to him; the imputation of both cannot take place. There is a full remission of his past sins, and none which he shall afterwards commit shall be judicially laid to his charge, Rom. viii. S3. Being stripped of the filthy garments, and clothed with a change of raiment, Zech. iii. 4, as certain as God is unchangeable it shall never be taken off him. “I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more,’’ Jer. xxxi. 34.” As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us,’’ Psalm ciii. 12. ‘Wearied at length,’ says Luther, ’ with your own righteousness, rejoice ’ and confide in the righteousness of Christ. ‘Learn, my dear brother, to know Christ, and ‘Christ crucified, and learn to despair of thy- * self, and to sing to the Lord this song: Lord ‘Jesus! thou art ray righteousness; but I am o72 ROMANS, ly. 8.

’ thy sin. Thou hast taken what belonged to ’ me; thou hast given me what was thine. ‘Thou becamest what thou wert not, in order ‘That I might become what I was not myself.”

V. 8. — Blessed is the man to whom the Lord wilt not impute sin.

Righteousness is imputed when sin is not imputed, for we here see that the man to whom sin is not imputed is blessed. As Jesus was accursed., Gal. iii. 18, when the sins of his people were imputed to him, so they are blessed when his righteousness is imputed to them. Justification, or the judgment of God, by which he renders us “blessed,“” consists of two acts, by one of which he pardons our sins, by the other he gives us the kingdom. This appears in the sequel of this chapter, where we see that the justification of Abraham includes the promise of making him heir of the world, verse IS; and this truth the Apostle establishes not only in the person of Abraham, but also extends it to all the people of God, verse 16. In the eighth chapter of this epistle, where Paul joins together the divine calling and justification, he also connects justification and glorification. Afterwards he adds, “what shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things V The expression, God is for us, marks the effect of justification. It is not said God is not against us, as should be said if justification was only the pardon of sin; but God is for us, which signifies that he not only pardons but blesses us, giving us a right to the kingdom. He not only delivers us from being children of wrath, but adopts us into his family, and makes us his own children. When he discharges us from the pains of the second death, he destines us to the glory of heaven. And likewise the words that follow respecting the delivering up of his Son, and freely giving us all things, clearly import these two great acts of pardon and blessing. The same is also declared by the Prophet Malachi, iii. 17,” And they shall be mine, saith the Lord of Hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son.’’ Justification then corresponds to the righteousness of God, by the imputation of which it is received. By that righteousness the penalty of the law is fulfilled which secures the pardon of sin, and also the precept on account of which the inheritance is awarded.

V. 9. — Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for ive say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

The Apostle having fully established the truth that a man is justified by faith without works, now reverts to the allusion made to circumcision at the beginning of this chapter, in demanding what Abraham had obtained as pertaining to the flesh. He now shows, in the most decisive manner, that Abraham had not obtained justification by means of his circumcision, since he was justified before he was circumcised. And proceeding to prove what he had affirmed, chap, iii. 30, that justification is not confined to the Jews, he asks if the blessedness he had spoken of comes only to those who are circumcised, or to the uncircumcised also. It was the more necessary to decide this question, because the Jews not only believed that justification depended, at least in part, on their works, but that the privileges of the people of God were inseparably connected with circumcision. In the sequel, Paul shows that justification has no necessary connexion with, or dependence on, circumcision. For we sap. — This is not the language of an objector, as Mr Stuart supposes; it is the position which the Apostle lays down for the purpose of establishing his conclusion. The fact that faith was counted to Abraham unto righteousness, is the ground- work on which he builds.

r. 10. — How was it then reckoned? ivlien he was in chcumcision, or in uncircumcison? Not in circumcision, but in zi?icircurncision.

How was it, or in what circumstances was righteousness counted to him? — This question determines that Abraham’s justification by faith was previous to circumcision, and therefore circumcision could not be its cause. If riorhteousness was imputed to him before he was circumcised, then circumcision is not necessary to justification. It may come on Gentiles as well as on Jews- This is founded on the history of Abraham, recorded in the Old Testament, who was in a state of justification before IshmaeFs birth, many years antecedent to the appointment of circumcision.

V. 1 1. — And he received the sign of circumcision; a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised; that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also.

If, then, Abraham was justified in uncircumcision, for what purpose, it might be asked, was he circumcised? It is replied, that he received circumcision, which was appointed as a figure or sign of his paternity, literally with respect to a numerous seed, and spiritually of all believers. It intimated that He, in whom all the families of the earth should be blessed, was to spring from Abraham. This blessedixess is described by David as consisting in the imputation of righteousness without works. But this was not all: Circumcision was not only a sign, but a seal of that righteousness which was imputed to Abraham through faith while he was uncircumcised. He had previously been justified by faith, Gen. XV. 6; but now that blessing was sealed to him by circumcision, iii order that he might be the father or pattern of all believers, whether circumcised or uncircumcised. It was a seal, assurance, or pledge of the reality of that righteousness which is received by the faith which lie had — a ‘pledge that that righteousness by the imputation of which, through his faith, he was justified, although not then in existence should in its appointed period, he brought in. Circumcision, then, being such a seal or pledge, and as the appointment of Abraham as the father of Christ, by whom this righteousness was to be introduced, included his being the father of the line from which Christ was to spring, it was to be affixed to his natural posterity, and not to cease to be so till the thing signified was accomplished. Here, it would appear, we learn the reason why this seal was to be affixed on the eighth day after birth. On the eighth day, the first day of the week, when Jesus, the seed of Abraham, arose from the dead, that righteousness of which circumcision was a seal, was accomplished. In reference to this, and to the chancre of the Sabbath from the seventh to the eighth day, in consequence of his resurrection, when he brought in the everlasting righteousness, and entered into his rest, it would seem that the eighth day is distinguished in so many ways throughout the Old Testament. On this subject, I refer to Evidences, vol. i. p. 358. That he might he the father, &lc. In order to his being the father. This mark, then, was a sign of Abraham’s being the father of all believers, both Jews and Gentiles, to all of whom this righteousness was to be imputed. As it was a seal of the righteousness which heJiad received by the faith which he had in a state of uncircumcision, it implied that righteousness would be imputed to believers in the same state.

V. 12 — And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision onli/, bid who nlso xvalk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had, bemg yet uncircumcised.

This implies that there is a sense in which Abraham is a father of some of his descendants, in which he is not a father to others. To those of them who walk in the steps of his faith he is a spiritual father. While all Abraham’s children were circumcised, he was not equally the father of them all. It was only to such of them as had his faith that he was a father in what is spiritually represented by circumcision. As it is said, “they are not all Israel which are of Israel; neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children; but in Isaac shall thy seed be called; that is, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed,” Rom. ix. 6. This is also established by our Lord himself, who denied that the unbelieving Jews were the children of Abraham; John, viii. 39. He was, however, not only the father of his believing children, who were circumcised, but of all, in every nation, who walk in the steps of his faith. Believing Gentiles are therefore said to be grafted, contrary to nature, into a good olive-tree, Romans, xi. 24; and to be Abraham’’s seed, Galatians, iii. 29.

V. 13 — For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.

Paul here continues to prove that the blessing of justification is received through faith, and not in any other way. Heir of the world. — The promise to Abraham included three things: — 1. That the promised seed of the woman should descend from him; 2. That all nations should be blessed in that seed; 3. That, as a pledge of all this, he and his seed should inherit the land of Canaan. “And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession.” Canaan, however, was but an emblem of the heavenly country, of which last only, Abraham could have an everlasting possession; for he was a stranger on the earth, and Canaan was to him “a strange country;’’ Heb. xi. 9. This he understood it to be, and, accordingly, to the former he looked forward, as what substantially was promised; Heb. xi. 18, 16. This was “that world,” as it is designated by our Lord, Luke, xx. 35 — a possession, so often called an inheritance, Heb. ix. 15; 1 Pet. i. 4; of which not only Abraham, but also his spiritual posterity were constituted heirs. They were to inherit all things, Rev. xxi. 7; and although the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain, yet all things are theirs, 1 Cor. iii. 21, 23. Abraham, however, being the father or first heir according to that promise, he might properly, by way of distinction, be called “the heir,” and on the same ground, the father of many nations, being the father of all God’s people, as is likewise promised in the covenant, which is so often referred to in this chapter.

The expression “heir“’ has a manifest relation to the title of children, which is given to the people of God in their adoption. It is on this account that Paul joins them together —” If children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ,’’ Rom. viii. 17; by which he teaches that they have not only a right to the good things that God confers, but that they have right in virtue of their adoption, and not of their works. The birthright of a child, which gives him a right to the good things of his father, and distinguishes him from those who may gain them by their services, resembles the privilege conferred by the free and gratuitous adoption of God of his children. In coftferring the right in this way, every pretension to merit is excluded; and as God, in the law, had rendered inheritances inalienable, such also is the inviolable stability of the inheritance which God confers. The grandeur of this inheritance is represented in Scripture by the appellation of a kingdom Luke xii. 32; of a croion 2 Tim. iv. 8; and of a throne Rev. iii. 21.

Or to his seed. — The covenant in all its promises, and in its fullest extent, in reference to spiritual blessings, was established in Christ, who was emphatically and eminently Abraham’s seed, Gal. iii. 1 6; and in him, with all his members who were the spiritual seed of Abraham, of whom the natural seed were typical, as the land of Canaan was typical of the heavenly inheritance. The promise to the Seed was, that all nations should be blessed in Him, and this proraise was to Abraham also, as it implied that the Messiah was to be Abraham’s seed. The promise to Christ included all the children that God had given him, who are in him and one with him. These are all “joint heirs with Jesus Christ,” Rom. viii. 17.

Many are spoken of before Abraham who were the children of God; but we do not read that the first promise respecting the seed was repeated to any of them. Though in the time of Enos, men began to call themselves by the name of the Lord, though Enoch walked with God, though Noah was an heir of the righteousness which is by faith, though Jehovah was the God of Shem, it is not said that the promise of the seed was renewed to them. But to Abraham it was expressly renewed, and hence we see the reason why he is so frequently mentioned in the New Testament, and spoken of as the father of believers-Through the lav — Abraham was the heir of the world, and it is entailed on him and his posterity, but it was not bestowed on Abraham or his seed through the law. Some understand by this phrase, they who seek to justify themselves by keeping the law; but the Apostle is not here showing that salvation is not by the law (this he had done before), but that it does not belong to the Jews as such. That is, they are not saved, or are not heirs, as belonging to the legal dispensation, or as being descendants of Abraham. Although, therefore, the reasoning respecting it be applicable to the law of God in general, in whatever form or manner, written or unwritten, or in whatever circumstances, or at whatever period given, yet here it is evidently restricted to the legal dispensation. This appears from v. 1 6, where part of the seed to whom the promise is made sure, is said to be of the law, which proves that this expression cannot mean those who seek justification by the deeds of the law, for these are not the seed to whom the promise was made sure by grace. As the Apostle then had before shown that the blessing of justification did not depend on circumcision, so he here affirms, that the promise of the inheritance was not to become effectual through, or to be dependent on, a man’s being under or belonging to the legal dispensation. This was essential to his purpose, since it was on that economy, and on the privileges connected with it, that the Jews so pertinaciously fixed their hope of acceptance with God, and to which even the Gentile believers were in danger of being brought into bondage. To this subject the Apostle adverts more fully in his Epistle to the Galatians, chapter iii. 16, 18.

But through the righteousness of faith. — The promise given to Abraham, that in his seed the world should be blessed, was not through the law, which did not then exist; but it was through the righteousness of faith. And it could not have been in any other way. ‘’ If there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the* law; but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.” It was therefore to receive its accomplishment only by virtue of and through the communication of the righteousness which is received by faith. This is that righteousness which was counted or imputed to Abraham, when, upon the promise of a numerous seed being made to him, he believed in the Lord. The inheritance comes solely in virtue of this righteousness to those who by it are constituted righteous. “Thy people also shall he all righteous they shall inherit the land for ever,” Isa. Ix. 21. They shall be “called trees of righteousness, the planting of the Lord, that he might be glorified,” Isaiah, lxi. 3.

V. 1 4 — For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise of none effect.

This and the following verse supply the reasons on which the foregoing assertion is founded. If the Jews are heirs by virtue of their being under the Ipgal dispensation, then the inheritance is not obtained through faith, faith is set aside, and the promise is made of no effect; that is, the promise of the inheritance through faith is then annulled, as the inheritance is obtained through descent. But that the inheritance was not by the law of Moses in any respect whatever, Paul has shown, Gal. iii. 17, where he says that the law, which was 430 years after, could not disannul the promise confirmed so long before, and observes, that if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise, but God gave it to Abraham by promise. The expression here, “if they who are of the law be heirs,” is in itself a proof, that by law, in this and the preceding verse, is not meant law in general, or obedience to law, because a man is not constituted an heir by his obedience, or through work or price of any kind.

V. 15. — Because the law workelh wrath: for where no laans, there is no transgression.

Two reasons are ‘here given why the promise of the inheritance cannot be accomplished through the law. 1. J^or the law worketh wrath instead of working salvation. — No law makes provision for the exercise of mercy, but requires perfect obedience to all its commands, and subjects the transgressor to punishment. If, then, faith were made void, the promise would become of no effect, as the possibility of obtaining the inheritance would be destroyed altogether. 2. For where no law is there is no transgression. — Some read Bitt, instead of For. The original word, however, does not seem ever to have that signification in the New Testament, and the passages referred to in its favour do not bear it out. Others render it trul or verily, as in Acts, xvi. ^7, and understand the meaning to be as follows: where truly, or indeed, there is no law, there is no transgression; that is, if faith alone be the means of receiving the promised inheritance, and if, in this respect, law is set aside, there can be no transgression of law that can affect the promise or render it of no effect. But the original word properly signifies for. That where there is no law there is no transgression, appears to be a proverbial saying, at least it must be acknowledged to be true, as it clearly implies that where there is a law there is transgression. The Jews had a law to which none could plead that they rendered perfect obedience; they were therefore exposed to punishment instead of being entitled to a reward. In their law it was written, “Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them ;*’ VOL. I. 2 b and again, “There is no man that sinneth not,”

1 Kings, viii. 46; Eccl. vii. 20. The ministration of the law, then, as the Apostle declares,

2 Cor. iii. 9, was a ministration not of righteousness but of condemnation. The law worketh wrath to every soul of man that doeth evil; and as there is none righteous, no not one, so by the law a curse must be incurred. If this last clause of the verse be connected with the first, the meaning is, that if a man could be placed in a situation without law, he would not be exposed to wrath as guilty, for as sin is the transgression of the law, so no transgression could be charged on him who is under no law; for, considering what the character of man is, it is only where there is no law that there is no transgression. But it rather appears that this clause stands unconnected with the preceding one, and’ contains a second reason why the law cannot convey the blessing. It renders the situation of those who are under it worse; it adds to their transgressions on account of their innumerable breaches of it. In this view we have here another example of what occurs in verses 13 and 14 of chapter second, where, as has been shown, the 14th verse has no connexion with the 13th. In the same way, in the verse before us, the latter clause has, in this view, no dependence on the one that precedes it.

V. 16. — ‘Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that onh, ivhick is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all.

Having affirmed, in the end of the loth verse, that the promise was not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith, and having, in the intermediate verses, shown that it could not be through the law, Paul here proceeds to state why faith was appointed to be the way through which it should be carried into effect. Therefore. — This appears to give a reason for what immediately follows, not for what goes before. Salvation, or the fulfilment of the promise, is of faith for this reason, namely, that it might he of grace. There is no other way in which it could have been completely of grace. Had salvation been given for one good thought, it would not have been altogether of grace. Paul had asserted that they who have obtained the righteousness of God by faith, are justified freely by grace, and now he affirms that salvation is of faith, for this very purpose that it might be by grace; for except by grace — free and unmerited favour — it is not possible that any sinner, which is the character of every man, could be saved. It is grounded, then, not on obedience to law, but on the gratuitous favour of God. Grace selects its objects, its only motive being in God, and they obtain salvation in a way that is certain, and cannot be made void by their own unworthiness and mutability, but which depends on the sovereign and immutable will of God. According to his everlasting covenant, which is ordered in all things and sure, God saves his people by grace through faith, bestowed by him whose gifts and calling are without repentance.

To the end the ‘promhe might he sure to all the seed. — Faith is also the only way in which the promise could be assured to all the seed. Had the promise been confined to natural descent from Abraham, his seed by faith would not have enjoyed the inheritance. Not to that only &c. — This explains what goes before. The promise is thus sure, not only to his natural offspring under the legal dispensation, who are believers, but also to all of any nation who have his faith. Here it is worthy of observation, that none are supposed to be Abraham’s spiritual seed, or heirs as his seed, except believers, whether they be his descendants or Gentiles. Who is the father of us all; that is, spiritual father both of Jewish and Gentile believers. He is equally in this sense the father of all, but of none except believers. It is only by faith that he is spiritually the father of any.

V. 17. — C^s it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth ike dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.

As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations. — According to the Apostle’s interpretation of the promise, “I have made thee a father,” &c., it imports a numerous spiritual offspring, as well as a numerous natural posterity. It is not by way of what is called accommodation that this is said; it is the real interpretation of the promise, whether Abraham himself understood it so or not. This interpretation of the Apostle is a key to all that is said on this subject. It shows that Abraham had a double seed, that the promise had a double meaning, and both are distinctly fulfilled. Thus, each of the three promises made to Abraham had a double fulfilment; 1. Of a numerous posterity; 2, Of Ood being a God to his seed; S. Of the earthly and heavenly country. Before him. — He was at that moment made a father or pattern of all his natural and spiritual posterity. In the 2)resence of God. — That is, though he was not actually a father, yet he was so in the presence of God, or in the pui-pose of God, which made it as sure as if it had already taken place. Ood now willed it, and the result would follow as surely as creation followed his word. Quickeneth the dead. — Does this refer to the literal general fact of bringing the dead to life, or to Abraham’s body now dead, and Sarah’s incapacity of having children at her advanced age, or to the raising of Isaac had he been sacrificed? The first appears to be the meaning, and includes the others; and the belief of it is the ground on which the others rest. Faith in God’s power, as raising the dead, is a proper ground of believing any other work of power which God engages to perform, or which is necessary to be performed, in order to fulfil his word. If God raises the dead, why should Abraham look with distrust on his own body, or consider Sarah’s natural incapacity to bear children? Why should he doubt that God will fulfil his promise as to his numerous seed by Isaac, even though Isaac shall be slain? God could raise him from the dead. Calleth those things which ‘-he not as though they were. — This does not say that God calls into existence the things that exist not, as he calls into existence the things that are. But God speaks of the things that exist not, in the same way as he speaks of the things that exist; that is, he speaks of them as existing, though they do not actually exist. And this is the way he now speaks of Abraham as the father of many nations. I have made thee. — God calls him now a father, though he was not actually a father of many nations, because before God, or in God’s counsel, he was such a father.

V. 18 — JVho against hope believed in hope,* that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which was spoken, So shall thy seed be-Against hope or beyond hope. — The thing was utterly beyond all that could be expected according to natural principles. In hope or upon hope; that is, he believed the thing that was an object of hope. He believed the proraise. Belief respects any thing that is testified, whether desirable or otherwise. But the thing testified to Abraham was an object of hope, therefore, he is said beyond hope to believe upon hope. That he might become. — This is explained by some as importing that Abraham believed that he should become, &;c.; that is, his becoming the father of many nations was the object of his belief. Others explain it, that he believed the promise in order that he might become; that is, his faith was the means through which the promise was to be made good to him. Both of these are true, but the last appears to be most agreeable to the expression, and is the more important sense. He was made

* Some place the point after believed. Who against hope believed, in hope that he might become, &c. That is, he believed the thing that was an object of hope. He believed the promise, and hoped for its accomplishment.

such a father through faith. Had he not believed the promise he would not have been made such a father. According to that which was spoken. — This shows that Abraham’s expectation was entirely guided by the Divine promise. He had no ground-to hope that he would have so numerous a posterity, or any posterity at all, but on the authority of the promise of God. This he received in its true and obvious meaning, and did not, like many, explain away, modify, or fritter it down into something less wonderful. He hoped for the very thing which the words of the promise intimated, and to the very utmost extent of the meaning of these words, So shall thy seed he,

V. 19. — And being not weak in faith, he considered not his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither yet the deadness of Sarah’s womb.

Not weak in faith. — This is a usual way of expressing the opposite, implying that his faith was peculiarly strong. Faith is the substance of things hoped for, inasmuch as we believe that we shall in due time be put in possession of them. It is the evidence of things not seen, as thereby we are persuaded of all the unseen things declared in Scripture. Faith thus makes future things present, and unseen things evident. He considered not his own hody. — This is an example which ought ever to direct our faith.

There are always obstacles and difficulties in the way of faith. We should give them no more weight than if they did not exist, reflecting that it is God who is to remove them. Nothing can be a difficulty in the way of the fulfilment of God’s own word. This ought to encourage us, not only with respect to ourselves, but with respect to the cause of God, in the world. The government rests on the shoulders of Emmanuel. His own hody now dead c — Had Abraham looked to any natural means, he would have staggered; but he looked only to the power of him who promised.

V. 20. — He staggered not at the promise of God throvgh unbelief; but was strong in faith., giving glory to God.

He staggered not. — This well expresses the meaning, the word signifying to doubt or hesitate. Dr Macknight’s translation is bad, — “He did not dispute.” He might have hesitated or doubted, though he did not dispute. At the promise.^ or with respect to the promise. But was strong in faith. — In the foregoing verse, Abraham is said not to have been weak in faith; here it is affirmed that he was strong in faith. This imports that there are degrees in faith, — a doctrine that some deny, but a doctrine which Scripture, in many places, most clearly establishes. Jesus Christ charges his disciples. Matt, vi. 30, as having little faith. They had faith; but, unlike to Abraham’s, it was deficient in strength. Our Lord, too, speaks of the comparatively strong faith of the centurion. Matt, viii. 10. He had not found so great faith in Israel. The Apostles also, ,addressing Jesus, pray, “Lord, increase our faith,” Luke, xvii. 5. In the same manner, the Apostle Paul speaks of the “measure of faith,*” Rom. xii. 3; importing, that believers were endowed with different degrees of the gift. With such a profusion of instruction as the Scriptures afford on this point, it is strange that the love of theory should induce any to assert that faith is equal in all Christians. Giv’mg glory to God. — How did he give glory to God? By believing that he would do what he promised, although nothing less than Almighty power could effect what was promised. This is an important thought, that we glorify God by ascribing to him his attributes, and believing that he will act according to them, notwithstanding many present appearances to the contrary.

V. 21, 22. — And being fully persuaded that what he had promised he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Fully persuaded ov fully assured, being strongly convinced. — This is the explanation of the way in which he gave glory to God. We might suppose that every one who professes to believe in the attributes of God would judge as Abraham did; yet experience shows the contrary. Even the Christian does not act up to his principles on this point. The Israelites believed in God’s power and favour to them; but in time of trial they failed in giving him glory by confiding in him. In like manner, Christians, in their own individual cases, do not manifest that confidence in God which their principles would lead to expect. Also, that is, he was as able to perform as to promise. Where/ore. — Because he believed God, notwithstanding all contrary appearances, his believing was imputed to him unto righteousness.

V’ 23. — jVoiv it zoas not wi-itttni for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him.

This history of the way in which Abraham became righteous is not applicable to himself alone, but is equally applicable to all believers. The Apostle here guards us against supposing that this method of justification was peculiar to Abraham, and teaches that it is the pattern of the justification of all who shall ever find acceptance with God. The first recorded testimony respecting the justification of any sinner, as has been already observed, is that of Abraham. Others had been justified from the Fall down to his time; but it was reserved for him to possess the high privilege and distinction of being thus the first man singled out and constituted the progenitor of the Messiah. In him all the nations of the earth were to be blessed, and, consequently, he was to be the father of all believers, who are all the children of Christ, Heb. ii. 13, and the heir of that inheritance on earth wdiich typified the inheritance in heaven, which belongs to Jesus Christ, who is “appointed heir of all things,” with whom all believers are joint heirs. And in Abraham we see that, in the first declaration of the nature of justification, it is held out as being conferred by imputation of righteousness through faith only. This passage, then, which refers to what is written as well as those that precede it in this chapter, it must again be remarked, exhibits the character of the historical parts of Scripture as all divinely inspired, and all divinely arranged, in the wisdom of God, to apply to events the most important in the future dispensation. Every fact,. and every circumstance which they announce, as well as the whole narrative, is ordered and dictated by him, to whom all his works are known from the beginning of the world. Acts, xv. 18.

V. 24. — But for US also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead-Righteousness shall be imputed to us, as well as to Abraham, if we have his faith. If we believe on him that raised, &c. — Here God is characterised by the fact that he raised up Christ. This, then, is not a mere circumstance, but it is in this very character that our faith must view God. To believe for salvation, we must believe not in God absolutely, but in God as the raiser of Jesus Christ. This faith in God, as raising up our Lord, must also import a proper view of him. It must imply a belief of the gospel, not only to the fact of a resurrection, but also as to the person and work of Christ.

F. 25 IFho was delivered for our offences, and was raised

again/or our justification.

Delivered. — The Father gave over the Son to death, delivering him into the hands of wicked men. Here we must look to a higher tribunal than that of Pilate, who delivered him into the hands of the Jews. He was delivered, by the determined counsel and foreknowledge of God. When Herod, Pilate, and the Gentiles, with the people of Israel, were gathered together against him, it was to do whatsoever God’s word and counsel had determined before to be done. Acts iv. 28. The crucifixion of Christ being the greatest of all crimes, was hateful and highly provoking in the sight of God; yet it was the will of God that it should take place, in order to bring to pass the greatest good. God decreed this event, and willed that it should come to pass, and ordered circumstances in his providence in o9S ROMANS, IV. 25.

such a way, as gave men an opportunity to carry into effect their wicked intentions. In their sin God had no part; and his determination that the deed should be done, formed no excuse for its perpetrators, nordid it in any degree extenuate their wickedness, which the Scriptures charge upon them in the fullest manner. “Him, bein delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain ;^’ Acts, ii. 2.3. This was an example of the same truth declared by Joseph to his brethren; “As for you, ye thought evil against me; but God meant it unto good,’’ Gen. 1. 20. For our offences or on account of our offences. — This shows the need of Christ’s death. It was not for an example, or for a witness merely; but for our offences. Raised again for our justification. — That is, he was raised that he might enter the holy place not made with hands, and present his own blood that we might be declared righteous through his death for us. As the death of Christ, according to the determinate counsel of a holy and righteous God, was a demonstration of the guilt of his people, so his resurrection was their acquittal from every charge.

It is of importance to distinguish the persons to whom the Apostle refers in this and the foregoing verse, when he says, if toe believe, and speaks of sin being imputed to us, of oitr offences and our justification. In the beginning of the chapter he uses the expression, “Abraham our father;“’ but there he is introducing an objection that might be offered by the Jews, and speaks of Abraham as his own and their progenitor. But when, in the 12th verse, he says,” our father Abraham,” and in the 16th,” the father of us all,’’ heapplies these expressions not to the Jews, or the natural descendants of Abraham, but to himself and those to whom he is writing, that is, to believers, to all of whom, whether Jews or Gentiles, in every age, as walking in the same steps of Abraham’s faith, they are equally applicable. And of the same persons he here speaks in the 24th and 25th verses, for whose offences Jesus was delivered, and for whose justification he was raised again. They are those whom the Father had given Him, John vi. 37, xvii, 2; Heb. ii. 13; for the effect of his death was not to depend on the contingent will of mn, but was fixed by the eternal purpose of God. They are those of whom it was promised to the Redeemer, that when he should make his solil an offering for sin, he should see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied, — those who are or shall be saved, and called with an holy calling, not according to their works, but according to God’s purpose and grace which was given them in Christ Jesus before the world began, 2d Tim. i. 9, — those who have the faith of God’s elect, who are brought by him to the acknowledgment of the truth which is after godliness, who have the hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised from eternity to their Head and Surety, Titus, i. 1, 2. No one, then, is entitled to rank himself, or to consider that he is of the number of those to whom the Apostle’s words are here applicable, unless he has obtained precious faith in the righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ. Yet the expression our Saviour is often used by persons who reject God’s testimony concerning him, and, consequently, have neither part nor lot in the matter of salvation.

Having substituted himself in the place of sinners, Jesus Christ suffered in his own person the punishment of sin conformably to that declaration, In the day that thou eatest thou shalt surely die. He came forth from among the dead in testimony that the threatening of God was accomplished, and as a pledge of the acceptance of his sacrifice, and that by his obedience unto death Divine justice was satisfied, the law honoured and magnified, and that eternal life was awarded to those for whom he died, whose sins he had borne in his own body on the tree, 1st Pet. ii.’24. He was quickened by the Spirit, 1st Pet. iii. 18; by whom he was also justified, 1 Tim. iii. IG, from every charge that could be alleged against him as the Surety of them whose iniquities he bore. The justification, therefore, of his people, which includes not only the pardon of their sins, but also their title to the eternal inheritance, was begun in his death, and perfected in his resurrection. He wrought their justification by his death, but its efficacy depended on his resurrection. By his death he paid their debt; in his resurrection he received their acquittance. He rose to assure to them the right to eternal life, fully to discover it, and to establish it in his own person, for all who are the members of his bodv.