Exposition of Romans 4, Exposition · Verse 1, 2
VERS, 1, 2.
What ſhall we ſay then, that Abraham our Father, as pertaining to the fleſh hath found? For if Abraham were juſtified by works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God.
THE Apoſtles purpoſe in this Chapter, is, by farther proofs, to confirm his principall concluſion, viz. That a man is juſtified by Faith, without the works of the Law.
The chief Parts of the Chapter are three.
Firſt, A Confirmation of the concluſion.
Secondly, A Laudatory declaration of Abrahams Faith.
Thirdly, An applying of Abrahams example to us, even as many as walk in the ſteps of Abrahams faith.
The Reaſons brought for confirmation, are.
1. From Abraham's example.
2. From Davids teſtimony.
3. From time, and uſe of circumciſion.
4. From meanes of conveyance of the inheritance to Abraham.
5. From ends of juſtification.
The paſſage to Abraham's example, is by moſt conceived thus. The Apoſtle is imagined to prevent, what Iewes might object, againſt the concluſion of juſtification by faith, without works: If this be ſo, what got Abraham our father, according to the fleſh? as if they had ſaid, it ſeems, there is no prerogative of Abraham, by all that righteouſneſs wherein he lived: And the Apoſtle is ſuppoſed to grant their inference, and to ſubjoyn Reaſons thereof.
But methinks, weighing the words, the connexion may rather be conceived, to be by way of inference, out of the doctrine of the former Chapter; as if it had been ſaid, if this be ſo, that boaſting muſt be excluded, and that all that are juſtified, muſt be juſtified by faith; What ſhall we ſay then, that Abraham our father found, as concerning the fleſh? &c. In no caſe.
Thus then, (but that I love not novelty,) I would read the text: What ſhall we ſay then, that Abraham found by the fleſh? And ſo, methinks the reaſons more fluently are applyed to the Negative concluſion: The connexion we ſee.
The concluſion principall is here proved, by the example of Abraham, If Abraham obtained not righteouſneſs by works, but by faith, then no man is, or can be juſtified by works, but by faith: but, Abraham obtained not righteouſneſs by works, &c. Ergo, no man is juſtified by works. The propoſition is not expreſſed, but eaſily collected out of the text: The aſſumption is, Verſ 1. laid down in way of inference, delivered interrogatively, where the interrogation implyes a negative: The concluſion is, Chap. 3. verſ. 28.
The aſſumption is proved, by an argument from inconvenience: If Abraham were juſtified by works, he had whereof to boaſt, but not with God; that is, he had no cauſe to boaſt with God; Ergo, he was not juſtified by works.
Sence For the ſence of the words, Found] That is, obtained; as Gen. 26.12. Iſaac ſowed in the land, and found; that is, received, or obtained in that year an hundred fold, Hoſ. 12.8. I have found ſubſtance, that is gotten.
foreign] As pertaining to the fleſh: This particle, ſome Ancients, as well as later Expoſitors, both Popiſh, and Proteſtant, refer rather to the word (Father,) then to the verb, (found:) And thus read, Abraham our father, concerning the fleſh: but, methinks the trajection is too harſh; and beſides, the concluſion ſhall want one principall term, that beſt ſerves to expreſs the things in hand; and therefore I rather refer it to the verb, and thus read; Abraham found not by the fleſh, or, as pertaining to the fleſh.
According to the fleſh] That is, ſaith Ambroſe, S. Ambroſius, ad loc.by his Circumciſion; fittingly to what we may ſuppoſe the Apoſtle to preoccupate; and yet, in as much as ye count Circumciſion is a work; he affirms it as well of morall works, as of circumciſion.
Say others, as Cajetan, by fleſh; that is, Cajetan, ad loc.by righteouſneſs which ſtands in works, and are done by the fleſh, that is, by the body.
Others as Theodoret by his own ſtrength, Theodoret ad loc. Illyric. in clavi & Zanch. de tribus Elohim, lib. 3. cap. 1.and good vvorks done thereby. Generally I thus conceive it, that Abraham obtained not righteouſneſs, by any work Ceremonicall, Morall, or whatſoever can be imagined, to aſſail to righteouſneſs, except faith in Chriſt; ſo finde I the uſe of the word, in the ſame caſe, Phil. 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 9. Where, under this name of fleſh, comes circumciſion, our own righteouſneſs which is by the Law, or whatſoever is, or may be oppoſed to that righteouſneſs, which is by the faith of Chriſt.
The whole explination amounts to this ſumme; Abraham obtained not righteouſneſs, by any his own works.
See we the confirmation: The argument is taken from an inconvenience, iſſuing out of that ſuppoſition; If Abraham were juſtified by works, he hath whereof to glory: But, he hath not any thing whereof to glory, at leaſt with God; Ergo, he was not juſtified by works.
Let us ſee what our adverſaries have to ſay, againſt this full argument of the Apoſtle. For ground of their anſwer, they attempt an inverſion of the Apoſtles ſyllogiſme, and thus conceive him to reaſon: Sasbout, ad loc.If Abraham were juſtified by works, then had he no glory, or boaſting with God; he might indeed by that means, procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous; but with men only, not with God: but Abraham had cauſe of glorying, and boaſting with God; Ergo, was not juſtified by works.
This croſs frame of the argument, Auguſtin in prefat. ad Pſal. 31. Ambros. ad loc.I could not without indignation read, were it not, that it hath great Authors to give it countenance; for Reverence to them, let us afford it tryall.
Firſt then, conſider that the Apoſtle in this argument, hath apparent reſpect to that ground laid down, Rom. 3.27. That is, that we are to be juſtified by ſuch a mean, as whereby boaſting may be excluded; according to which ground he here concludes, That Abraham was not juſtified by works, for if that were true, then had he cauſe of boaſting. Is it not now too groſſe blindneſs, ſo to conceive the Apoſtle, as if he would give Abraham cauſe of boaſting?
Secondly beſides this, the propoſition thus conceived, is apparently falſe: For, if Abraham were juſtfied by works, then ſure he had cauſe of boaſting, even before God; for, what greater cauſe of glorying even before God, then this, That he hath wrought works to his juſtification, and may therefore ſay, he is not beholden to God, for his greateſt bleſſing, juſtification, as having purchaſed it by his own works of obedience, ſee Rom. 3.27.
Thirdly add hereunto, that the aſſumption is apparently falſe; for Abraham, if the Apoſtle could judg, had no cauſe of boaſting with God; his juſtification being as ours, meerly of grace, through faith in Chriſt Jeſus: leave we therefore that dream, and ſee whether their other anſwers have more waight.
Say ſome Catholiques, we muſt here underſtand obſervation of Legall Ceremonies; as Circumciſion, Sabbaths, New-Moons, &c. Not works of the Law Morall.
Anſw. To this idle exception, ſee my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this diſtinction into the Apoſtles argument, and ſee whether boaſting be excluded: If Abraham were juſtified by works ceremoniall, then had he cauſe of boaſting; belike not ſo, if by works morall: and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall, give greater cauſe of boaſting, then works Morall? is their dignity now greater, then works of Morall obedience? Fidem veſtram Papiſtae! Behold, to obey is better then ſacrifice, and to hearken, then the fat of rams, 1 Sam. 15.22. I will have mercy, and not ſacrifice, Hoſ. 6.6. Mat. 9.13. & ſexcenta hujuſmodi; Bellarm. de Iuſtific. lib. 1. cap. 19.bluſh at ſuch idle evaſions, which your own Bellarmine willingly diſclayms, and confutes by Fathers.
Beſides this, according to this anſwer, boaſting is only in ſome part taken from Abraham; namely, in reſpect of his obſervance of Ceremonialls; for Morall obedience is ſtill left him, for matter of boaſting; but boaſting on any pretence is excluded in Pauls intention; Ergo.
Hear Hierome; Ex operibus legis, Hierom ad Cteſiphont. Adv. Pelag. ultramed.non juſtificabitur om nis Caro; quod nè de Lege Moyſis tantùm dictum putes, & non de omnibus mandatis, quae uno legis nomine continentur, idem Apoſtolus ſcribit, dicens conſentio Legi Dei, &c. iterum ſcimus, quòd Lex ſpiritualis eſt, &c. We know ſaith Paul, that the Law is ſpirituall, Rom. 7.14. What Law I wonder, if not that Morall?
Let us ſee yet, whether other playſters will ſalve the ſore; Bellarm. qua ſupra.works of Abraham are of two ſorts; ſome Praecedentia fidem, going before faith; ſome Facta per fidem, done by faith: the Apoſtle underſtands works done before faith and regeneration; not thoſe done in and by faith; Let us bring this into the argument: If Abraham were juſtified by works done without faith, by the meer power of natural free will, then had he cauſe of boaſting; not ſo, if by works done in faith. Anſw. And why not I marvail, when works done by grace, (according to their opinion) are done, partly, by ſtrength-naturall of free-will; ſo much then as free-will helped in the doing, ſo much cauſe of boaſting Abraham had of himſelf; But Abraham had no cauſe of boaſting, &c. 2. What if it be apparent, that the Apoſtle ſpeaks even of works done by Abraham, now believing and regenerate; then methinks, theſe works muſt alſo be included, in the Apoſtles intention: Certainly if we conſider the teſtimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verſe, to prove, that Abraham was not juſtified by works, it will eaſily appear that Abraham was, long before this regenerate, and believing, and had many works of faith; whereas, yet the teſtimony of righteouſneſs is given him, not for working, but for believing. It was a work of faith that Abraham did, in following the Lords call out of his countrey, Heb. 11.8. Other works of piety and love, ſee Gen. 12.8. & 13.8, 9. & 14 16, 20, &c. Yet not theſe works done in faith, but faith was imputed to righteouſneſs.
True ſaith Bellarmine, Abraham was now regenerate, and had done many good works of faith; and yet the Apoſtle, when he ſaith he was juſtified by faith and not by works, rejects not his works done in faith from power of juſtifing, but thoſe only which he (might) have done, not of faith: For even they who have faith, work ſometimes not of faith; as when they ſin, or do works meerly Morall, without relation to God: In a word, the Apoſtle ſpeaketh conditionally, and according to their opinion, which aſcribed righteouſneſs to their own ſtrength.
Anſw. Now, what is to be willfully blind, if this be not? was it ever heard of, that a man ſhould be juſtified by works, not which he (had) done, but which he (might) have done: or, think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought, or the Iews that perhaps diſturbed them, were ever ſo ſhameleſs, as to aſcribe juſtice to works finfull, or meerly Morall, ſuch as heathens performed. Its apparent, that the Apoſtle fits anſwer to Iewiſh objections, who urged works of law, written for matter of juſtification: yea in likelihood, works done in grace, for whereto elſe comes in the example of Abraham, ſo worthy a Saint of God? Certes, if of works meerly naturall, there had been queſtion, example of Abimelech, or Socrates or Ariſtides, had been as pertinent to the purpoſe.
Laſtly ſay others, the Apoſtle ſpeaks not de juſtificatione Pii, but Impii; not of that juſtification, whereby a man, of a righteous man is made more righteous; but he ſpeaks of juſtifiing a wicked man, which is done by faith: Anſw. Concerning this diſtinction, ſee Annotat. in Chap. 3.
But it is their opinion, that he ſpeaks of the firſt juſtification only: ſurely Sasbout confeſſeth, that the teſtimony out of Geneſis, treats only, De augmento Iuſtitiae, & non de juſtificatione Impii: And that is apparent to every confiderate Reader.
This miſt of cavills thus diſpelled, let us now reſume the Apoſtles concluſion, and lay it for a ground; that Abraham was not juſtified by any works of any law, in any ſtate by him performed.
Uſe Hear this now yee juſtitiaries, that dare obtrude your menſtruous merits to Godsjuſtice, and for them claim righteouſneſs at his judgment ſeat: Behold Abraham, that mirrout of good works, as well as of faith; yet ſtript of all right, and claim to righteouſneſs by any his obedience: and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands, then Abraham, the pattern of juſtification? Bring to the ballance your voluntary poverty; building of temples, pilgrimage, vvorks of mercy; or, if there be any vvork that you think more glorious, and ſee if they be not found lighter then vanity it ſelf, to thoſe of Abraham: that one vvork of obedience, in offering his Son Iſaac upon the altar, vvhichwhich of the ſons of men can parallel? I ſpare amplifications, becauſe they are extant in the Apoſtle, and particularized in Ambroſe; De Abrah. Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8.