Exposition of Romans 4, Exposition · Verse 16, 17
VERS. 16, 17.
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 only, which is of the Law, but to that alſo which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, Verſ. 17. As it is written, I have made thee a Father of many nations &c.
HItherto hath been ſhewen, that juſtification is not by works: Followes now farther confirmation of the affirmitive part, that it is by faith. The arguments here laid down are from the ends, and ſcope, which the Lord propounds to himſelf, in our juſtification, and ſalvation. Firſt, The glory of his grace. Secondly, Our comfort. Thirdly, And both theſe are intended to all the ſeed. All theſe ſeverall arguments are artifically linked together by the Apoſtle, and as it were entwyned one in another, by mutuall dependance: Let us view them ſeverally. It muſt be by faith that it may be by grace: If the inheritance be ours by grace, and not by debt, then muſt it be by faith; but it is ours by grace; Ergo. The force of the conſequence we will ſhew, after we have a little explaned the text.
The verb, & ſuppoſitum are both wanting; It is by faith: What muſt be by faith? Either the promiſe, or the inheritance: the inheritance rather, ſee verſ. 13.14. What is the verb to be ſupplyed? whether it is promiſed, or, it is attained? whether we will, the ſenſe no whit varied by either.
The parcells here to be conſidered, are two.
Firſt, That the inheritance is attained by grace.
Secondly, That except it be attained by faith, it cannot be ours by grace.
It were impertinent, perhaps, on this occaſion, to run out into that queſtion; Whether by grace, we are here to underſtand the gifts of grace in us, or the favour of God towards us?
The beſt Interpreters amongſt the adverſaries, oppoſe it to debitum; and expound it liberality: Cajetan. Sasbout.By grace then underſtand we, Gods free and undeſerved favour, without any of our works, or debt accrewing from God to us by merit, ſee verſ. 4, and Rom. 11.6.
Obſerv The point is, that our righteouſneſs, and ſalvation is of Gods free favour: Hereto after a ſort agree our adverſaries; but yet, latet anguis: Whether meerly of grace, or mixtly of grace and merit? Who ſo is converſant in their writings ſhall finde them ſo ſharing the matter, betwixt grace and merit; that he would think the ſpirit of Pelagius to be revived in them: He ſeeing how odious his barefaced hereſie was, teaching that a man without help of Gods grace, might live without ſin, began to colour it with equivocating, and in terms, to joyn with orthodox teachers; and to give place to the neceſſity of grace aſſiſting, in the fulfilling of the Law: whereupon ſaid Auſtin; finding but the term of grace and mercy, by cunning conceſſion, inſerted by Pelagius; Auguſtine. de natur. & grat. cap. 11.Laetitiâ repente perfuſus ſum, quòd Dei gratiam non negaret, per quam ſolam homo juſtificari poteſt.
But, what was this grace of God admitted by Pelagians? Nothing elſe but freewill, which our nature receives from God, without any precedent merits; and the law, or doctrine of God, Auguſtin. de Haereſ. Haer. 88.whereby we are taught what we ſhould do, and in doing hope for: With like cunning deal our adverſaries: Juſtification and ſalvation, they are of grace; But what is grace? the gift of charity in us: How of grace? becauſe not without it, but prinbipally and originally from it.
Let us enquire, whether this can be the ſenſe of the Apoſtle, in aſcribing the inheritance unto Gods grace; or whether his purpoſe be, only to make grace a ſharer with our merits, and not rather ſo to give all to grace, that he excludes all debitum, that may accrew to us, in reſpect of our works, See Annotat. ad cap. 3.24.
Freely by grace, that is, meerly by grace, and verſ. 27. So that all boaſting in our ſelves may be excluded. In a word, See, 1. Our ſtate before calling; it is ſuch, as wherein no merits, except (for the truth of the point,) merita mala as Auſtin terms them, Auguſtin. de grat. & lib Arbitr. cap. 5.can have place; whence is that of Paul ſo often repeated; not of works of righteouſneſs, Tit. 3.5.2 Tim. 1.9. 2. After calling, works imperfect, Rom. 7.3. The good that is in them, meerly the work of Gods grace, whence that of Auſtin; Si donaſunt bona merita tua, non deus coronat merita tua, tanquam merita tua, ſed tanquam dona ſua: Auguſtin. de grat. & lib. Arbitr. cap. 78.And again Si vita bona noſtra nihil aliud eſt, quam dei gratia; Sine dubio, & vita aeterna quae bonae vitae redditur, Dei gratia eſt; & ipſa enim gratis datur, quia gratis data eſt illi cui datur. The labour would be long, and endleſs almoſt, to point at all the dreams, and devices of the enemies of Gods grace, with their cunning ſhifts, in that no leſs then Sacrilegious, diverting the more part of the glory of mans ſalvation, from Gods grace to our ſelves: Fitter occaſion will hereafter offer it ſelf: only I ſay as Auguſtine, Auguſtin. tract. in Ioh. 3.ſeeing God gives freely, let us love freely: quia gratis dedit, gratis ama; noli ad praemium diligere deum.
The Second point followes; That it may be of grace, it muſt be of faith: This way of juſtification, and no other preſerves the glory of Gods grace entire: Let us ſee how, ſay ſome, becauſe grace is promiſed, and given only to the believer; Paraeus ad loc.that is a truth: But the Apoſtles purpoſe in this argument, is not to ſhew the neceſſity of faith, to the obtaining of grace; but rather to the maintaining of the glory of Gods grace, in the matter of our righteouſneſs, and ſalvation. Let us enquire therefore, how this means of juſtification by faith ſtabliſheth grace; and how that other by works, either overthrows, or empairs it: May we ſay as ſome of late, becauſe faith is a free gift of God in us? The like may be ſaid of charity: But take faith correlatively, thou ſhalt ſee eaſily, how this means of juſtification alone, and no other, makes grace glorious: For, if all our title to righteouſneſs, and ſalvation accrew to us only, for the obedience ſake of Chriſt, apprehended by faith; who ſees not how entirely the glory of all, belongs to the grace of God?
But I wonder how Papiſts, with all their skill, can uphold the concurrence of works, in procuring our title to righteouſneſs, and ſalvation; and not overthrow, or clip, at the leaſt, the glory of Gods grace: Perhaps, becauſe our works proceed of grace: but, Dic ſodes; are they meerly of grace? or partly, of the power of nature? Their common conſent is, that though grace be a principall, yet naturall abilities have their partnerſhip in every good work: So much as they aſcribe to nature, ſo much they derogate from the grace of God: See Annotat. ad cap. 3. verſ. 27. S. Bern Ser. 67. in Cantic.28. Deeſt gratiae quicquid meritis deputas, as S. Bernard.
The Second argument followes; That the promiſe may be ſure, and that to all the ſeed:] Whether we make this a ſecond argument, or a confirmation of the minor, in the former, is not much materiall: If a new argument, thus is the frame; If the promiſe muſt be ſure, then muſt the inheritance be of faith: But the promiſe muſt be ſure; Ergo. Take it the other way; It is of grace: Why? Becauſe elſe the promiſe cannot be ſure: I rather conceive it as a ſecond argument, though linked thus artificially with the former.
In it we have alſo two points.
Firſt, That the promiſe is ſure.
Secondly, That except the inheritance be of faith, the promiſe cannot be ſure.
Sure] Whether in it ſelf, in reſpect of certain accompliſhment; duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page duplicate page or to us, in reſpect of our apprehenſion, and undoubtfull perſwaſion: This later ſome inſiſt on, and thus give the ſenſe; If the inheritance depend on any thing, except faith and grace, we can never have any aſſurance to obtain the promiſe; but muſt needs be filled with uncomfortable doubtings, and uncertain waverings: And that is a truth, but not here directly taught; The Apoſtle ſpeaking of the certainty of the promiſe rather in it ſelf; then to our apprehenſion and perſwaſion; though by Conſequence, this follows from the former.
Obſerv The Point is, That the promiſe of inheritance is firm, and ſhall have certain accompliſhment: Read for this, Heb. 8.6. where the Apoſtle compares the two covenants together, and ſhews that of grace to be preferred, eſpecially in reſpect of the certainty of it, and of our attainment of the bleſſings therein conveyed: And, view. 1. The Mediatour Chriſt, in whoſe bloud it is ratified, Heb. 10.2. The removall of impediments, by mercifull pardon of ſinnes, and imperfections, Heb. 8.3. The certain donation of graces neceſſary to attainment, and our confirmation therein; ibidem: the certainty of accompliſhment is eaſily diſcerned.
The more ſolid is our Hope, and the more firm ſhould be our faith, and confidence, as the Apoſtle inferres, Heb. 10.23. So that neither violence of afflictions, nor prevailing of hereſies, nor conſcience of our own weakneſſes and imperfections, to which pardon is promiſed, Heb. 8. nor any doubt of perſeverance in ſtate of grace, ſhould make us waver: 2 Tim. 2.19.For he is faithfull that hath promiſed, not onelyonly ſalvation but pardon of ſinnes, donation of ſpirit, perſeverance, and perfecting the work of grace to the day of the Lord Jeſus Chriſt: It is true, there are duties required of us, to the obtaining of the promiſes; as faith, and perſeverance in faith; obedience, and perſeverance in obedience; but that God that requires them, hath covenanted to work them, Jer. 31. and, 32.40.
The next point is, The neceſſity of faith, and the property it hath peculiar to it ſelf, in making firm, after a ſort, the promiſe: the truth of this point will the better appear, if we ſhall conſider a little the conſent, and difference of the two Covenants: Their agreement is this; in both is promiſed Salvation, and Bleſſedneſs; of the Law it is ſaid. That if a man do it, he ſhall live thereby; as of faith, he that believeth, ſhall be ſaved.
Their difference ſtands. 1. In the condition, the Law requiring perfect obedience to be performed in our own perſons; threatning a curſe to every tranſgreſſion, Gal. 3.10. The other Covenant requiring faith of the Meſſiah, and ſincere endeavour of obedience. A ſecond difference; the Law requires perfect obedience; promiſeth neither ability to perform it, nor pardon to any imperfection: The Goſpel ſo requires faith, that it promiſeth to work it; ſo new obedience, that withall, the Lord covenanteth to make us walk in his ſtatutes, Ezek. 36. Yea, and to pard on imperfections, Jer. 31. Heb. 8. And beſides, delivers all theſe promiſes, as ratified unto us, in the bloud of Chriſt.
Theſe things thus briefly laid together ſhew, how faith onelyonly makes the promiſe ſure; becauſe, to the believer promiſe is made. 1. To remove impediments, by pardon, and ſanctification. 2. To enable to do, and to perſevere in doing whatſoever the Lord, in the Covenant of grace, requires to ſalvation: Who can ſhew like promiſes made to the Worker? that, not without cauſe, ſaid the Apoſtle. It muſt be of faith, that the promiſe may be (ſure;) it being impoſsible by the Law to obtain the promiſes.
The third Argument, from the extent of the promiſe, both in the making, and accompliſhment; It is made, and muſt be ſure to (all) the ſeed, not onelyonly to that of the Law, but to that alſo, which is of the faith of Abraham; therefore, it muſt be of faith, and not of the Law: The minor hath its proof, in the latter end of the verſe, and is alſo further confirmed and illuſtrated, verſ. 17. Abraham is the father of all both Jews, and Gentiles, as it is written; Therefore the promiſe muſt be ſure to all the ſeed.
Senſe That the force of the argument may appear; See we briefly the ſenſe of the words: The whole ſeed of Abraham is here, Paraeus.as ſome think, deſcribed by properties; as I rather think, diſtributed into kinds: They that think it deſcribed, imagine a trajection of the Article, and thus render; To the whole ſeed which is not onelyonly of the Law, but alſo of the faith of Abraham. But againſt this expoſition are theſe reaſons. 1. That by this means the promiſe ſhall be here reſtrained to the Jewiſh ſeed onelyonly; inaſmuch as they onelyonly are that ſeed of the Law; whereas the Apoſtles purpoſe is, to include the ſeed of the Gentiles, as appears by the confirmation; I have made thee a father of many nations. And, 2. The Emphaſis of the argument lying in the univerſall particle is, by this means, much abated: beſides that the Trajection is harſh, and hath no pregnant example in other Scripture, nor warrant from circumſtances of the place to approve it.
I rather conceive it, as a diſtribution of Abrahams ſeed, brought to illuſtrate, and explain what the Apoſtle meant, By the whole ſeed; as if it had been ſaid, The ſeed of Abraham is of two ſorts: One, part of the Law, as the Jews; another, not of the Law, but of the Faith of Abraham, as the Gentiles: To both theſe muſt the promiſe be ſure; which cannot be, if the law be made the condition, or mean of inheirtiance.
What is the ground of the Conſequence? this as I think; becauſe the Law was given to the Jews onelyonly, and not to the Gentiles, Rom. 9.4. and 2.14.
The queſtion then here is, Whether the Law were not given to Gentiles, as well as to Jews? Anſw. Some here diſtinguiſh on this manner: The law of ordinances, and ceremoniall rites was given onelyonly to Jews: that that enjoyns morall duties, to Gentiles alſo; as who ſay, the Apoſtle ſpake onelyonly of Ceremonies, and not chiefly of the Law morall.
Was not then the Law morall given to the Gentiles? how then binds it us to obedience? Anſw. In the morall law, we muſt conſider two things. 1. The ſubſtance of doctrines, and preſcriptions. 2. The accidents, and circumſtances of giving: For the ſubſtance of doctrine, it belongs to all, Jews, and Gentiles, as having at firſt an impreſſion in mens hearts, Gen. 2.and being by immediate voice of God delivered to Adam: Touching accidents, under which comes the delivery of it written, in two Tables, by the finger of God in Sinai; ſo, not given to Gentiles, but to Jews onelyonly, no not to Abraham, Iſaac and Jacob; as Moſes amplifies the Lords love to the people of his time, Deut. 5.3. He made not this Covenant with our fathers but with us; The Negative ſeems abſolute; but is reſpective onelyonly to the manner of giving.
But howſoever the law was given to the Gentiles whether in writing, or otherwiſe, the Apoſtles ground ſeems infirm? Anſw. Suppoſing the Cavilſome objection of Juſtitiaries, firm enough: For this very circumſtance they urged ſtrangely, in the point of juſtification: that the law was given in writing to the Jews, with promiſe of life to the obſerving thereof; which in their judgement had been vain, except righteouſneſs might be in part by the law? according to which ſuppoſition, the Apoſtle in this place diſputes; ſee Gal. 3.17.
Now, though I love not extravagances, yet let me have leave a little, upon occaſion of this queſtion thus aſſoiled, to note the idle inference of ſome Antiſabbathiſts: Therefore, ſay they, The precept of Sabbath binds not the Church of the Gentiles, becauſe the Decalogue was given onelyonly to Jews? Anſw. And why inferre they not the like for other Precepts, and ſo become abſolute Antinomi? Object. Forſooth, other precepts are revived, in Scriptures of the new Teſtament, & their recitall there gives them authority with us? Anſw. Belike then, no precept of the Decalogue binds futher, then it is recited in the new Teſtament: It was wont to be taught, that the whole Decalogue ſtands in force for ever unto our conſciences, in reſpect of that congruence it hath with the Law eternall, and the impreſsion it once had in our hearts, in Creation ſome rudera whereof, in all the Commandments, are to be found in very Ethnicks.
But, to their argument. It is fallacious, and, except it be limited, untrue. Take the Decalogue for the (ſubſtance) of precepts therein contained, ſo it is given to Gentiles; reſpect the (circumſtances) and accidents of giving, as the writing in ſo many letters and ſyllables, &c. ſo the peculiar favour of Iews; but ſo underſtood it affords no ſuch concluſion. Leave we them, and ſee what out of this argument we may obſerve.
Obſerv That is chiefly this; An anſwer to a thread bare argument of Juſtitiaries, ancient and modern, that reaſon from the reviving of the Law in Sinai, to prove an intention in the Law-giver, to juſtifie us by the Law, and to give us power to perform it to juſtification? Anſw. If from that ground, we may infer a poſſibility to be juſtified by the Law; from the ſelf-ſame may we prove juſtification to be peculiar to the nation of the Jews; for theirs onelyonly was the giving of the Law, Rom. 9.4. But the promiſe belongs to Gentiles, as well as to Jews: Ergò. Whereto then ſerved the reviving of the Law? Paul anſwers, Gal. 3.9. It was added becauſe of tranſgreſſions; not ſo much to reſtrain them by preſcriptions and threats, Theoph. ad Gal. 3.as Chryſoſtome and Hierome, and after them Theophylact; Ʋt pro fraenis eſſet lex illa Iudaeis, quae hos vel à mandatorum quorundam tranſgreſſu, etſi non omnium prohiberet: but rather to detect and diſcover them, as Auguſtine centies interprets; agreeably to the Apoſtle, Rom. 3.20. and 5.20.
Here alſo occurs that obſervation before made, ad ver. 11. That the promiſe of righteouſneſs and ſalvation belongs to Gentiles believing, and not to Jews onelyonly: becauſe it hath been often fore-treated, I will not long inſiſt on it: onelyonly, ſith the Apoſtle is pleaſed ſo often to inculcate it, and here to add new confirmation; it ſhall not be amiſs to explane his proofs, againſt the fooliſh limitation and encloſure of Abraehams covenant made by Jews to themſelves. The argument of the Apoſtle is this, becauſe Abraham is father of us all both Gentiles and Iews believing: the covenant and promiſes therefore belong to the whol ſeed and generation of believers. Becauſe the antecedent might be doubted, the Apoſtle firſt proves the univerſall paternity of Abraham, and after illuſtrates it; the proof we have extant, Gen. 17.5. whwere the Lord, to ſignifie the point in hand, is pleaſed to alter the name of Abram to Abraham; himſelf giving the Etymon and ſignification, Becauſe a father of many nations I have made thee.
How then ſay Iews, that the Covenant made with Abraham belongs to them onelyonly, and think the fidelity of God muſt needs fall to the ground; if either they be rejected, or Gentiles admitted to be the people of God. Certes, the name of Abraham, conſidered with the ſignification pointed at, by the Impoſer, might well have taught them; that other nations believing, as well as Iews, might call Abraham father; themſelves being, though a populous nation, yet but one nation; whereas Abraham hath promiſe to be father of many. And of the argument thus farre. Follows now the illuſtration of Abrahams Univerſall Paternitie.