_________________________________________________________________

   Title: Commentary on Romans
   Creator(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564)
   (Alternative)
   (Translator)
   Rights: Public Domain
   LC Call no: BS491
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     _________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES ON THE
   EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
   TO

   THE ROMANS


   BY JOHN CALVIN



   TRANSLATED AND EDITED

   BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN,

   VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE



   CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY
   GRAND RAPIDS, MI

   [1]http://www.ccel.org
     _________________________________________________________________

   TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

   On no portion of The New Testament have so many Commentaries been written as
   on The Epistle To The Romans. We have indeed no separate Comment extant by
   any of the Fathers on this Epistle; though it has been explained, together
   with other parts of Scripture, by Origen in the third century; by Jerome,
   Chrysostom, and in part by Augustine, in the fourth; by Theodoret in the
   fifth; by Œcumenius in the tenth; and by Theophylact in the eleventh
   century. But since the Reformation, many separate Expositions have been
   published, beside a learned Introduction by Luther, and Notes or Scholia by
   Zuingle and Melancthon.

   The first complete Commentary, as it appears, was written by Bullinger; the
   second by Bucer, a Professor of Theology at Cambridge for a short time in
   the reign of Edward the Sixth; and the next in order of time was this Work
   by Calvin, composed at Strasbourg in the year 1539. The fourth was by Peter
   Martyr; and this was translated into English in the year 1568. Another was
   afterwards published by Rodolph Gualter, Minister at Zurich.

   Early in the next century the learned Pareus [1] delivered lectures on this
   Epistle, as Professor of Theology in the University of Heidelberg — a work
   of great learning and of great merits though written in a style too
   scholastic to suit the taste of the present day. His special object was to
   rebut the arguments and expose the sophistries of Popish writers,
   particularly those of Bellarmine, the acutest, the subtlest and the most
   learned of all the Jesuits of his own age, and perhaps of any in after ages.
   There is hardly a subject in any measure connected with the contents of this
   Epistle which Pareus does not discuss: at the end of every chapter a number
   of questions are stated and answered, especially such as refer to the
   disputes between Papists and Protestants. He also controverts the
   perversions of Socinianism.

   The next work that requires particular notice is that of Turrettin, a
   Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva. It was published about
   the commencement of the last century; the author died in the year 1737. The
   doctrine of Calvin had somewhat degenerated in his time, though the work on
   the whole takes the side of orthodoxy. It yet shows a leaning to those
   views, which commonly issue its sentiments subversive of the essentials of
   true Christianity.

   The first Commentary published in this country, composed in English, was by
   Elnathan Parr, B.D., Rector of Palgrave in Suffolk. He was, as it appears
   the personal friend of Sir Nathaniel Bacon, an elder brother of Lord Bacon.
   He dedicated his work to Sir Nathaniel, and speaks of him a having been a
   hearer of what he published when delivered from the pulpit. [2] His style is
   that of his age, and appear quaint now; but his thoughts are often very
   striking and truly excellent, and his sentiments are wholly in accordant
   with those of the Reformers.

   Since that time until this century, no work of any note has appeared
   separately on this Epistle. But within the last thirty years several
   Commentaries have been published. Besides those of Flatt and Tholuck in
   Germany, three at least have appeared in this country, and three in America.
   The authors in America are Moses Stuart, M.A., Professor of Sacred
   Literature at Andover in Massachusetts, the Rev Albert Barnes, and Charles
   Hodge, Professor of Biblical Literature at Princeton. Those in this country
   are the Rev F. Fry, Rector of Desford, Leicestershire, Robert Haldane Esq.,
   and Dr Chalmers. The doctrine held by Calvin is essentially maintained in
   all these works, and in most of them in its fullest extent.

   Of our American brethren, the most learned and the most versed in criticisms
   is Professor Stuart; the fullest and the minutest expositor is the Rev. A.
   Barnes; and the acutest and the most concise commentator is Professor Hodge.
   The two first seem, in some instances, like Turrettin, to deviate somewhat
   from what may be considered strict orthodoxy, at least in their mode of
   explaining some subjects: the last is liable to no charge of this kind.

   Respecting our own countrymen, there is a more perfect unanimity, though
   they belonged to different Churches. The Lectures of the Rev. J. Fry are
   those of a strict Predestinarian, and yet replete with remarks, both
   experimental and practical. The layman, R. Haldane, Esq., has displayed very
   high qualifications as an expositor; he is strictly and even stiffly
   orthodox, and can brook no deviation from what he regards as the truth. Of
   Dr. Chalmers’ Lectures, comprised in four volumes, 12mo, it is difficult to
   pronounce an opinion. They are the productions of a philosopher’s and one of
   the highest grade, who, at the same time, possessed the heart and the
   experience of an humble Christian. He expatiates over the whole field of
   truth with the eye of an eagle, and with the docility of a child, without
   ever overleaping the boundaries of revelation. He was evidently a man by
   himself, taller by his shoulders than most men, either in this or in any
   other age, having a mind as sound as at was vigorous, an imagination as
   sober as it was creative, and a capacity to illustrate and to amplify quite
   unequaled.

   All these works have their peculiar excellencies, adapted to different
   tastes and capacities, and no doubt they have their defects. The same must
   be said of Calvin’s work. But as a concise and lucid commentator he
   certainly excels. He is not so much an expounder of words, as of principles.
   He carries on an unbroken chain of reasoning throughout, in a brief and
   clear manner. Having well considered the main drift of a passage, he sets
   before us what it contains, by a brief statement or by a clear process of
   reasoning; and often by a single sentence he throws light on a whole
   passage: and though his mind possessed more vigour of intellect and sound
   good sense, than what is called imagination; yet there are some fine
   thoughts occasionally occurring, beautifully expressed, to which that
   faculty must have given birth. There is also a noble grandeur and dignity in
   his sentiments, rarely to be found in other writers.

   Professor Stuart has justly characterized this Work by saying, that it
   contains “fundamental investigation of the logic and course of thought
   contained in the Epistle;” and that it embraces “very little verbal
   criticism. Many a difficulty is solved without any appearance of effort, or
   any show of learning. Calvin,” he adds, “is by far the most distinguished of
   all the Commentators of his times.”

   It was mainly to supply the defect named above, the want of verbal
   criticism, that Notes have been added in the present Edition. They are also
   designed to furnish the reader with such expositions as have been suggested
   by posterior critics and commentators. And as we are generally desirous of
   knowing the names of authors, they have been for the most part given. Much
   light is thrown on a passage by conveying the full meaning of the original.
   This has been done partly by giving such different versions as seemed most
   entitled to approbation, and partly by referring to other passages where
   such words occur: so that a common reader, unacquainted with the original,
   may, to a certain extent, have the advantage of one well versed in the Greek
   language.

   Variety of meanings given to words, and also to passages, has been deemed by
   some to lessen the certainty of truth, but without any solid reason; for
   this variety as found in the works of all sound and judicious critics,
   seldom or ever affects any thing important, either in doctrine, experience,
   or practice, and tends often to expand the meaning and to render it clearer
   and more prominent. There has been indeed sometimes a pruriency in this
   respect, an unholy ambition for novelty, a desire for new discoveries, an
   indulgence of mere curiosity, which have been very injurious. Much of this
   sort of mania prevailed among some of the German divines in the last
   century, as Wolfius clearly shows in his works, in which he notices and
   disproves many vagaries assuming the name of critical expositions; and much
   of a similar kind of spirit seems to prevail still in that country. It is a
   mania for criticism, for its own sake, without any concern or solicitude for
   the truth: and ingenious criticism has often been resorted to by the
   oppugners of vital Christianity as means for supporting heterodoxical
   sentiments. But there is a palpable difference between men of this
   character, the mere gladiators of criticism, and those who embrace the
   truth, and whose object it is faithfully to explain it in consistency with
   the general tenor of what is revealed, and who have what is indispensably
   necessary for such a work, a spiritual experience, which often affords
   better assistance than any critical acumen that can ever be possessed. The
   man who has seen a thing has a much better idea of it than the man who has
   only heard it described.

   Attempts have been made by various authors to show and prove, that the Style
   Of The Epistles, especially those of Paul, is consonant with that of
   classical writers. Blackwall laboured much to do this in this country, as
   well as many German divines, particularly in the last century. In common
   with some of the Fathers, they thought to recommend in this way the
   Apostolic Writings to the attention of literary men. But it was a labour not
   wisely undertaken, as it must have necessarily proved abortive: for though
   some phrases may be classical, yet the general style is what might have been
   naturally expected from the writers, brought up, as they had all been, in
   the Jewish religion, and accustomed, as they had been, to the writings of
   the Old Testament. Hence their style throughout is Hebraistic; and the
   meaning of many of the Greek words which they use is not to be sought from
   the Classics, but from the Greek Translation of the ancient Scriptures, and
   sometimes from the Hebrew itself, of which that is a translation. [3]

   Much evil and no good must result from a claim that cannot be supported: nor
   is it at all necessary to make such a claim. It has been long ago
   repudiated, and repudiated by Paul himself. Writers have often ascribed to
   Paul what he himself distinctly and entirely disclaimed, and never attempted
   to attain or to practice, and that on principle, “Lest the cross of Christ
   should be made of none effect.” It was not by “excellency of speech” that he
   courted the attention of the classical and refined Grecians, that he
   recommended the gospel to them; it was not by the tinsel of mere eloquence
   that he succeeded in his preaching, nor by the elegance and beauty of his
   diction; but by something much higher, much greater, much more powerful and
   efficient. We ought to follow his example, and stand on his high ground, and
   not to descend to that which is no better than a quagmire. It is a happy
   thing, and no doubt so designed by God, that the shell should not be made of
   fine materials, lest men’s minds should be attracted by it and neglect the
   kernel. God might, if he chose, have easily endued his Apostles with
   eloquence more than human, and enabled them to write with elegance more than
   Grecian; but He did not do so, and Paul expressly gives us the reason, “that
   our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”

   It is generally agreed, that the Epistle To The Romans was written at
   Corinth, and about the end of the year 57, or at the beginning of the year
   58, and that it is the fifth Epistle in order of time; the two Epistles to
   the Thessalonians, the Epistle to the Galatians, and the first to the
   Corinthians, having been previously written. Then followed the second
   Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians,
   Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews, the first to Timothy, the Epistle to
   Titus, and the second to Timothy

   The common date assigned to Paul’s conversion is AD 35. He wrote his first
   Epistle, that is, the first to the Thessalonians, in 52, seventeen years
   after his conversion. His second Epistle to Timothy, his last, was written
   from Rome in 65. So that he wrote his fourteen Epistles during these
   thirteen years. The whole extent of his ministry seems to have been about
   thirty years; for it is not supposed that he long outlived the date of his
   second Epistle to Timothy. Tradition says, that he was beheaded at Rome,
   June 29; AD 66.

   Paul’s first coming to Rome was in the spring of the year 61. He continued
   there as a prisoner for two years. [4] When he was released, most writers
   are of the opinion, that he returned early in 63 to Judea, in company with
   Timothy, and left Titus at Crete; that he visited the Churches in Asia
   Minor, then the Churches in Macedonia; that he wintered at Nicopolis, a city
   of Epirus, in 64; that afterwards he proceeded to Crete and also to Corinth;
   and that early in 65 he again visited Rome, was taken prisoner, and beheaded
   in the following year. [5] This account clearly shows that he did not
   accomplish his purpose of visiting Spain, as tradition has recorded.

   The first introduction of the Gospel into Rome is involved in uncertainty.
   The probability is, that some of the “strangers of Rome,” present at the day
   of Pentecost, were converted, and at their return promoted the spread of the
   Gospel. Paul mentions two, “Andronicus and Junia,” as having professed the
   faith before him, and as having been noted among the Apostles. He makes
   mention, too, of another eminent Christian, “Rufus” whose father, as it is
   supposed carried our Savior’s cross, Mark 15:21. It is not improbable, that
   these were afterwards assisted by such as had been converted under the
   ministry of Paul; for he speaks of some of those whom he salutes at Rome as
   being “beloved,” and as having been his “fellow-workers.”

   What some of the Fathers have related was in the first instance a tradition,
   as there was nothing recorded on the subject before the latter part of the
   second century, except what has been ascribed to Dionysius of Corinth,
   preserved by Eusebius. Irenœus and Tertullian were the first retailers of
   the tradition, that Peter, in conjunction with Paul, was the founder of the
   Church at Rome. This tradition increased considerably by the time of Jerome,
   who, in the fourth century, says, that Peter had been bishop of Rome for
   twenty-five years! But this account is so clearly inconsistent with what we
   learn from the Acts of the Apostles respecting Peter, that some of the most
   reasonable of the Papists themselves have given it up as unworthy of credit.
   [6]

   It appears next to a certainty that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote
   his Epistle in 57 or 58, for he sends no salutation to Peter: — And also
   that he had not been there previous to that time; for it is wholly
   unreasonable to suppose, that, had he been there, Paul would have made no
   reference to his labours. It further amounts almost to a certainty, that
   Peter was not at Rome when Paul was for two years a prisoner there, from 61
   to 63; for he makes no mention of him in any way, not even in the four or
   five Epistles which he wrote during that time: And that Peter was not at
   Rome during Paul’s last imprisonment in 65 and 66, is evident from the
   second Epistle to Timothy; for he makes no mention of Peter, and what he
   says of Christians there, that they “all forsook him,” would have been
   highly discreditable to Peter, if he was there. So that we have the
   strongest reasons to conclude, that Peter had no part in forming and
   establishing a Church in Rome during Paul’s life, whatever share in the work
   he might have had afterwards. [7] But the first tradition, or the first
   account, given by Irenœus and Tertullian, refers only to a co-operation: and
   yet this co-operation is wholly inconsistent with what has been stated, the
   force of which no reasonable man can resist.

   The learned Pareus proceeds in a different way to prove that Peter was never
   at Rome. He shows from different parts of the Acts of the Apostles and the
   Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter was in Judea at the time when tradition
   declares that he was at Rome. Peter was in Judea when Paul was converted,
   Acts 9; and three years after this — that is, in the year 38, Galatians 1:8.
   He was in Judea in the year 45, when he was imprisoned by Herod, Acts 12,
   and in 49, fourteen years after Paul’s conversion, Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-9.
   Had he been to Rome during this time, some account of such a journey must
   surely have been given. After this time we find that he was at Antioch,
   Galatians 2:11. If it be asked, where did he afterwards exercise his
   ministry? Where more likely than among the Jews, as he had hitherto most
   clearly done; for he was the Apostle of the Circumcision, and among those to
   whom he sent his Epistles. The dating of the first at “Babylon,” has led
   some to conjecture that it was a figurative term for Rome; but why not for
   Jerusalem, or for Antioch? for Christians were at that time treated
   everywhere like captives or aliens, and especially in the land of Judea.

   What then are we to say as to this tradition? The same, according to the
   just remark of Pareus, as what we must say of many other traditions of that
   age, that it is nothing but a fable, which, like many others, would have
   passed away, had it not been allied to a growing superstition. With respect
   to what Eusebius says of the testimony of a presbyter, named Caius, that
   about the beginning of the third century he saw the graves of Peter and Paul
   at Rome, it may be easily accounted for: it was the age of pious fraud, when
   the relics of saints could be found almost everywhere; and, in the next
   century, the wood and the nails of the Cross were discovered! Those who can
   believe these things, may have a credulity large enough to swallow up the
   testimony of Caius. [8]

   The most probable account, then, of the commencement of a Christian Church
   at Rome, is what has been already stated. The condition of that Church, when
   Paul wrote to it, we may in a great measure learn from the Epistle itself.
   It had a high character, viewed in a general way; but there were some
   defects and blemishes. Its faith had been widely reported: there were at the
   same time some contentions and divisions among its members, arising
   especially from the prejudices of the Jewish believers. To remove the causes
   of this dissension, was evidently one of the main objects of Paul in this
   Epistle.

   The Order And Arrangement Of The Epistle have been somewhat differently
   viewed by different authors. Pareus includes the whole in this brief summary
   — “The Jews and Gentiles are equally guilty; they are equally justified
   freely by faith in Christ, without works; they are equally bound to lead a
   holy life, to be humble, and to love one another.” Stuart says, that the
   whole of what the Epistle contains may be expressed in a single brief
   sentence — “Christ our justification and sanctification.”

   In giving a more specific view of the contents of this Epistle, the former
   author divides it into two parts — doctrinal, 1-11.; and hortative, 12-16.:
   but the latter divides it into three parts — doctrinal, 1-8.; answers to
   objections, 9-11.; and hortatory, 12-16. The analysis of Professor Hodge,
   who takes the same view with Professor Stuart is the following: —

   “The Epistle consists of three parts. The first, which includes the first
   eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of The Doctrine of
   Justification and its consequences. The second, embracing chapters 9, 10,
   11, treats of The Calling of the Gentiles, The Rejection and Future
   Conversion of the Jews. The third consists of Practical Exhortations and
   Salutations to the Christians at Rome.”

   A more particular Analysis may be thus given: —

   I. Address - A desire to visit Rome - a brief View of The Gospel; 1:1-18.

   II. Justification,

   1. A proof of its necessity — the sin and guilt of both Gentiles and Jews,
   1:18-3:21

   2. Its Nature and Character — Examples, Abraham and David, 3:21-4

   3. Its Effects or Fruits — Peace and Fullness of Grace, 5.; Death unto Sin
   and Eternal Life, 6.; Immunity from The Law and The Reigning Power of Sin,
   7. Holiness, The Spirit’s help, Patience in Afflictions, Perseverance, 8.

   III. God’s Dealings Vindicated —

   l. Election and Reprobation, 9

   2. Unbelief and Faith, 10

   3. The Rejection of the Jews, The Adoption of the Gentiles, The Restoration
   of the Jews, 11

   IV Christian Duties

   1. Devotedness to God, Proper Use of Gifts, Love, Doing Good, 12.

   2. Obedience to Authority, Love to all, Purity, 13.

   3. Forbearance towards Weak Brethren, 14.

   4. Help to the Weak, Unanimity, Christ the Savior of Jews and Gentiles,
   15:1-13.

   V. Conclusion, —

   1. Paul’s Labours and Purpose to Visit Rome, 15:13

   2. Salutations, Avoiding Disturbers, Promise of Victory, Praise to God, 16

   We have set before us in this Epistle especially two things, which it
   behoves us all rightly to understand — the righteousness of man and the
   righteousness of God — merit and grace, or salvation by works and salvation
   by faith. The light in which they are exhibited here is clearer and brighter
   than what we find in any other portion of Scripture, with the exception,
   perhaps, of the Epistle to the Galatians. Hence the great value which has in
   every age been attached to this Epistle by all really enlightened
   Christians; and hence also the strenuous efforts which have often been made
   to darken and wrest its meaning by men, though acute and learned, yet
   destitute of spiritual light. But let not the simple Christian conclude from
   the contrariety that is often found in the expositions on these two points,
   that there is no certainty in what is taught respecting them. There are no
   contrary views given of them by spiritually-minded men. Though on other
   subjects discussed here, such men have had their differences, yet on these
   they have ever been found unanimous: that salvation is from first to last by
   grace, and not by works, has ever been the conviction of really enlightened
   men in every age, however their opinion may have varied in other respects.

   It may seem very strange, when we consider the plain and decisive language,
   especially of this Epistle, and the clear and conclusive reasoning which it
   exhibits, that any attempt should ever be made by a reasonable being,
   acknowledging the authority of Scripture, to pervert what it plainly
   teaches, and to evade what it clearly proves. But a right view of what human
   nature is, when unrenewed, as exhibited in God’s Word, and as proved by
   history and made evident by observation, enables us fully to account for
   what would otherwise remain an enigma. No truth is more fully confirmed by
   facts (and it ought ever to be remembered) than that “the natural man
   receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God,” and that he “cannot know
   them, because they are spiritually discerned.” This declaration clearly
   accounts for the fact, that men of great learning have often misunderstood
   many things in Scripture, and such things as are plain enough even to the
   unlettered when spiritually enlightened. The learned Scribes and Rabbins
   were blind leaders of the blind, when even babes understood the mysteries of
   the kingdom of God: and no better than the Scribes are many learned men,
   professing Christianity, in our day.

   There is indeed a special reason why, on these points, unenlightened men
   should contrive means to evade the obvious meaning of Scripture; for they
   are such things as come in constant contact with a principle, the strongest
   that belongs to human nature in its fallen state. Other doctrines may be
   held as speculations, and kept, as it were, at a distance; but when we come
   to merit and grace, to work and faith, man’s pride is touched; and as long
   as he is under its prevailing influence, he will be certain, in some way or
   another, direct or evasive, to support merit in opposition to grace, or
   works in opposition to faith. When the authority of tradition supplanted the
   authority of Scripture, the doctrine of merit so prevailed, that the
   preposterous idea, that merits were a salable and a transferable commodity,
   gained ground in the world. A notion of this kind is too gross and absurd to
   be entertained by any who acknowledge God’s Word as the only umpire in
   religion; and yet what is not essentially different has often been
   maintained; for to say that salvation is partly by faith and partly by
   works, is really the same thing, inasmuch as the principle of merit is
   thereby admitted. Man naturally cleaves to his own righteousness; all those
   who are ignorant are self-righteous, and all the learned who understand not
   the gospel; and it is wonderful what ingenious evasions and learned
   subtleties men will have recourse to in order to resist the plain testimony
   of Scripture. When they cannot maintain their ground as advocates of
   salvation alone by merits, they will attempt to maintain it as advocates of
   a system, which allows a part to grace and a part to works — an amalgamation
   which Paul expressly repudiates, Romans 11:6.

   But it is remarkable how the innate disposition of man has displayed itself
   in this respect. Conscious, as it were, in some measure of moral
   imperfections, he has been striving for the most part to merit his salvation
   by ceremonial works. This has been the case in all ages with heathens: their
   sacrifices, austerities, and mechanical devotions were their merits; they
   were the works by which they expected to obtain happiness. God favored the
   people of Israel with the rituals of religion, which were designed merely as
   aids and means to attain and preserve true religion; but they converted them
   to another purpose, and, like the heathens, regarded them as meritorious
   performances, and expected God’s acceptance for the very religious acts
   which they exercised: and in order to make up, as it were, a sufficient
   quantity of merit, they made additions to those services which God had
   appointed, as though to multiply acts of this kind was to render their
   salvation more certain. The very same evil crept early into the Christian
   Church, and still continues to exist. The accumulation of ceremonies is of
   itself a sufficient proof, that salvation by faith was in a great measure
   lost sight of: we want no other evidence; it is what has been ever done
   whenever the light of truth has become dim and obscure. We see the same evil
   in the present day. Outward privileges and outward acts of worship are in
   effect too often substituted for that grace which changes the heart, and for
   that living faith which unites us to the Savior, which works by love and
   overcomes the world. The very disposition to over-value external privileges
   and the mere performances of religious duties, is an unequivocal evidence,
   that salvation by faith is not understood, or very imperfectly understood,
   and not really embraced.

   The only remedy, as means for this evil, is that which we find employed by
   Paul in this Epistle. He begins by showing what every man, Jew and Gentile,
   is by nature; he proves by the clearest evidence, that all have sinned and
   become guilty before God. And having done this, he discloses the way of
   salvation which God himself has planned and revealed; and he teaches us,
   that it is altogether by grace and through faith that we can be saved, and
   not by works. In order cordially to embrace this latter truth, it is
   necessary to know the first, that we are sinners under condemnation. It is
   impossible, according to the very constitution of man’s mind, that he should
   really and truly accede to the one, without a real and deep knowledge of the
   other. The whole need not a physician, but the sick. It is only he who is
   really convinced of sin and who feels its guilt and its burden intolerable,
   that ever will, or indeed ever can, really lay hold on that free salvation
   which God has provided. And when this free salvation is really known, all
   other things compared with it will be deemed as nothing; and then all
   outward privileges will be viewed only as means, and all outward acts of
   religion only as aids and helps; and then also all our works, however great
   and self-denying, will be regarded in no way meritorious, but imperfect and
   defective, and acceptable only through the merits of our High Priest at
   God’s right hand.

   It has not been deemed necessary to give in this Edition any specimens of
   title-pages, etc., from former Editions, either In Latin or in English; as
   they are to be found in the Old Translation already in the hands of the
   subscribers.

   J. O.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] His original name was Wangler, but he Grecised it, as Erasmus had done,
   and as others did in that age.

   [2] This work must have been published before the year 1615, for his patron
   died in that year. The copy seen by the writer is the third edition and was
   published in 1633.

   [3] “The writers of the New Testament, or rather (with reverence be it
   Spoken!) the Holy Spirit, whose penmen they were, wisely chose, in
   expressing evangelical notions, to employ such Greek terms as had been long
   before used for the same purposes by the Greek Translators of the New
   Testament: and thus the Septuagint version, however imperfect and faulty in
   many particulars, became in this respect, not to the first age of the Church
   only, but also to all succeeding generations, the connecting link between
   the languages of the Old and New Testament, and will be regarded in this
   view as long as sound judgment and real learning shall continue among
   men.” —ParkHurst.

   [4] It was while a prisoner at this time at Rome that he wrote his Epistles
   to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews also,
   as it is generally supposed.

   [5] See Horne’s Introduction, volume 4 part 2 chapter; 3 section 1.

   [6] The inconsistencies of what the retailers of this tradition say, are
   quite palpable. Irenœus affirms, that “the Church at Rome was founded and
   constituted (fundata et constituta) by the two Apostles, Peter and Paul.”
   Epiphanius says, that they were the first “Bishops” at Rome, as well as
   Apostles, while Irenœus declares, that they both “delivered the episcopal
   office into the hands of Linus;” and it is said in what are called the
   Apostolic Constitutions, that “Linus was ordained bishop by Paul, and
   Clement after the death of Linus by Peter.” — see Dr. Barrow on the Pope’s
   Supremacy, pages 127-129.

   [7] But this cannot be admitted, as the same informant, Tradition, tells us,
   that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. The only thing
   which Peter appears to have had to do in forming and founding a church at
   Rome, was to have been the instrument in the conversion, at the day of
   Pentecost, of those who in all probability were the first who introduced the
   gospel into Rome: and it is probable that it was this circumstance which
   occasioned the tradition, that he had been the founder of that church. Less
   occasion has often produced tales of this kind.

   [8] Let it not be supposed, that by discrediting some things, we discredit
   every thing said by the Fathers. They ought to be treated as all other
   historians. What we find on examination to be unfounded, ought to be so
   viewed: and what we have every reason to believe to be true, ought to be so
   received. Even such a man as Dr. Lardner seemed unwilling to reject this
   tale, from fear of lessening the credit of history; evidently mistaking the
   ground on which history has a title to credit. The many authorities adduced
   respecting Peter being at Rome may be reduced almost to two — Irenœus and
   Tertullian. They were the first to stamp as it were a kind of authority on
   this report, and also on others to which no credit is given even by those
   who would have the Fathers to have been almost infallible. The learned Dr.
   Copleston, the present Bishop of Landaff, in his pamphlet on the Errors of
   Romanism, justly says, “It is even a matter of serious doubt whether St.
   Peter was ever at Rome. There is no good historical evidence of the fact;
   and there is much probability against it.” —P. 87.
     _________________________________________________________________

   THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY

   JOHN CALVIN TO SIMON GRYNÆUS, [9]

   A MAN WORTHY OF ALL HONOR

   I Remember that when three years ago we had a friendly converse as to the
   best mode of expounding Scripture, the plan which especially pleased you,
   seemed also to me the most entitled to approbation: we both thought that the
   chief excellency of an expounder consists in lucid brevity. And, indeed,
   since it is almost his only work to lay open the mind of the writer whom he
   undertakes to explain, the degree in which he leads away his readers from
   it, in that degree he goes astray from his purpose, and in a manner wanders
   from his own boundaries. Hence we expressed a hope, that from the number of
   those who strive at this day to advance the interest of theology by this
   kind of labour, some one would be found, who would study plainness, and
   endeavour to avoid the evil of tiring his readers with prolixity. I know at
   the same time that this view is not taken by all, and that those who judge
   otherwise have their reasons; but still I cannot be drawn away from the love
   of what is compendious. But as there is such a variety, found in the minds
   of men, that different things please different persons, let every one in
   this case follow his own judgment, provided that no one attempts to force
   others to adopt his own rules. Thus it will be, that we who approve of
   brevity, will not reject nor despise the labours of those who are more
   copious and diffused in their explanations of Scripture, and that they also
   in their turn will bear with us, though they may think us too compressed and
   concise.

   I indeed could not have restrained myself from attempting something to
   benefit the Church of God in this way. I am, however, by no means confident
   that I have attained what at that time seemed best to us; nor did I hope to
   attain it when I began; but I have endeavoured so to regulate my style, that
   I might appear to aim at that model. How far I have succeeded, as it is not
   my part to determine, I leave to be decided by you and by such as you are.

   That I have dared to make the trial, especially on this Epistle of Paul, I
   indeed see, will subject me to the condemnation of many: for since men of so
   much learning have already laboured in the explanation of it, it seems not
   probable that there is any room for others to produce any thing better. And
   I confess, that though I promised to myself some fruit from my labour, I was
   at first deterred by this thought; for I feared, lest I should incur the
   imputation of presumption by applying my hand to a work which had been
   executed by so many illustrious workmen. There are extant on this Epistle
   many Commentaries by the ancients, and many by modern writers: and truly
   they could have never employed their labours in a better way; for when any
   one understands this Epistle, he has a passage opened to him to the
   understanding of the whole Scripture.

   Of the ancients who have, by their piety, learning, holiness, and also by
   their age, gained so much authority, that we ought to despise nothing of
   what they have adduced, I will say nothing; and with regard to those who
   live at this day, it is of no benefit to mention them all by name: Of those
   who have spent most labour in this work, I will express my opinion.

   Philip Melancthon, who, by his singular learning and industry, and by that
   readiness in all kinds of knowledge, in which he excels, has introduced more
   light than those who had preceded him. But as it seems to have been his
   object to examine only those things which are mainly worthy of attention, he
   dwelt at large on these, and designedly passed by many things which common
   minds find to be difficult. Then follows Bullinger, who has justly attained
   no small praise; for with learning he has connected plainness, for which he
   has been highly commended. In the last place comes Bucer, who, by publishing
   his works, has given as it were the finishing stroke. For in addition to his
   recondite learning and enlarged knowledge of things, and to the clearness of
   his mind, and much reading and many other excellencies, in which he is
   hardly surpassed by any at this day, equaled by few and excelled by still
   fewer — he possesses, as you know, this praise as his own — that no one in
   our age has been with so much labour engaged in the work of expounding
   Scripture. [10]

   As then it would have been, I know, a proof of the most presumptuous
   rivalry, to wish to contend with such men, such a thing never entered my
   mind; nor have I a desire to take from them the least portion of their
   praise. Let that favor and authority, which according to the confession of
   all good men they have deserved, be continued to them. This, however, I
   trust, will be allowed — that nothing has been done by men so absolutely
   perfect, that there is no room left for the industry of those who succeed
   them, either to polish, or to adorn, or to illustrate. Of myself I venture
   not to say any thing, except that I thought that my labour would not be
   useless, and that I have undertaken it for no other reason than to promote
   the public good of the Church.

   I farther hoped, that by adopting a different plan, I should not expose
   myself to the invidious charge of rivalry, of which I was afraid in the
   first instance. Philipp attained his object by illustrating the principal
   points: being occupied with these primary things, he passed by many things
   which deserve attention; and it was not his purpose to prevent others to
   examine them. Bucer is too diffuse for men in business to read, and too
   profound to be understood by such as are simple and not capable of much
   application: for whatever be the subject which he handles, so many things
   are suggested to him through the incredible fecundity of his mind, in which
   he excels, that he knows not when to stop. Since then the first has not
   explained every passage, and the other has handled every point more at large
   than it can be read in a short time, my design has not even the appearance
   of being an act of rivalship. I, however, hesitated for some time, whether
   it would be better to gather some gleanings after these and others, by which
   I might assist humbler minds — or to compose a regular comment, in which I
   should necessarily have to repeat many things which have been previously
   said by them all, or at least by some of them. But as they often vary from
   one another, and thus present a difficulty to simple readers, who hesitate
   as to what opinion they ought to receive, I thought that it would be no vain
   labour, if by pointing out the best explanation, I relieved them from the
   trouble of forming a judgment, who are not able to form a judgment for
   themselves; and especially as I determined to treat things so briefly, that
   without much loss of time, readers may peruse in my work what is contained
   in other writings. In short, I have endeavoured that no one may justly
   complain, that there are here many things which are superfluous.

   Of the usefulness of this work I will say nothing; men not malignant, will,
   however, it may be, have reasons to confess, that they have derived from it
   more benefit than I can with any modesty dare to promise. Now, that I some
   times dissent from others, or somewhat differ from them, it is but right
   that I should be excused. Such veneration we ought indeed to entertain for
   the Word of God, that we ought not to pervert it in the least degree by
   varying expositions; for its majesty is diminished, I know not how much,
   especially when not expounded with great discretion and with great sobriety.
   And if it be deemed a great wickedness to contaminate any thing that is
   dedicated to God, he surely cannot be endured, who, with impure, or even
   with unprepared hands, will handle that very thing, which of all things is
   the most sacred on earth. It is therefore an audacity, closely allied to a
   sacrilege, rashly to turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our
   fancies as in sport; which has been done-by many in former times.

   But we ever find, that even those who have not been deficient in their zeal
   for piety, nor in reverence and sobriety in handling the mysteries of God,
   have by no means agreed among themselves on every point; for God hath never
   favored his servants with so great a benefit, that they were all endued with
   a full and perfect knowledge in every thing; and, no doubt, for this end —
   that he might first keep them humble; and secondly, render them disposed to
   cultivate brotherly intercourse. Since then what would otherwise be very
   desirable cannot be expected in this life, that is, universal consent among
   us in the interpretation of all parts of Scripture, we must endeavour, that,
   when we depart from the sentiments of our predecessors, we may not be
   stimulated by any humour for novelty, nor impelled by any lust or defaming
   others, nor instigated by hatred, nor tickled by any ambition, but
   constrained by necessity alone, and by the motive of seeking to do good: and
   then, when this is done in interpreting Scripture, less liberty will be
   taken in the principles of religion, in which God would have the minds of
   his people to be especially unanimous. Readers will easily perceive that I
   had both these things in view.

   But as it becomes not me to decide or to pronounce any thing respecting
   myself, I willingly allow you this office; to whose judgment, since almost
   all in most things defer, I ought in everything to defer, inasmuch as you
   are intimately known to me by familiar intercourse; which is wont somewhat
   to diminish the esteem had for others, but does not a little increase yours,
   as is well known among al the learned. Farewell.

   Strasburgh, 18th October 1539.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [9] The account given of Grynæus by Watkins in his Biographical Dictionary,
   taken from Moreri, is the following: — “A learned German, born at Veringen,
   in Hohenzollern, in 1493. He studied at Vienna, after which he became Rector
   of the school at Baden, but was thrown into prison for espousing the
   Lutheran doctrines. However, he recovered his liberty, and went to
   Heidelberg, afterwards to Basil, and, in 1531, he visited England. 1536 he
   returned to Basil, and died there in 1540.” It is somewhat singular, that in
   the same year, 1540, another learned man of the same name, John James
   Grynæus, was born at Berne, and was educated at Basil, and became
   distinguished for his learning — Ed.

   [10] There were at least two other Reformers who had written on the Epistle
   to the Romans: but whether they were published at this time the writer is
   not able to say. There is by Luther an Introduction to it, which has been
   much praised, and has attained the name of the golden preface. Peter Martyr
   wrote a large comment on this Epistle, which was translated into English
   early in Queen Elizabeth’s reign, in the year 1568. It is rather remarkable
   that there was no commenter among our English Reformers, while on the
   Continent there were a great many commentators. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

   THE ARGUMENT

   With regard to the excellency of this Epistle, I know not whether it would
   be well for me to dwell long on the subject; for I fear, lest through my
   recommendations falling far short of what they ought to be, I should do
   nothing but obscure its merits: besides, the Epistle itself, at its very
   beginning, explains itself in a much better way than can be done by any
   words which I can use. It will then be better for me to pass on to the
   Argument, or the contents of the Epistle; and it will hence appear beyond
   all controversy, that besides other excellencies, and those remarkable, this
   can with truth be said of it, and it is what can never be sufficiently
   appreciated — that when any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an
   entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture.

   The whole Epistle is so methodical, that even its very beginning is framed
   according to the rules of art. As contrivance appears in many parts, which
   shall be noticed as we proceed, so also especially in the way in which the
   main argument is deduced: for having begun with the proof of his
   Apostleship, he then comes to the Gospel with the view of recommending it;
   and as this necessarily draws with it the subject of faith, he glides into
   that, being led by the chain of words as by the hand: and thus he enters on
   the main subject of the whole Epistle justification by faith; in treating
   which he is engaged to the end of the fifth chapter.

   The subject then of these chapters may be stated thus, — man’s only
   righteousness is through the mercy of God in Christ, which being offered by
   the Gospel is apprehended by faith.

   But as men are asleep in their sins, and flatter and delude themselves with
   a false notion about righteousness, so that they think not that they need
   the righteousness of faith, except they be cast down from all
   self-confidence, — and further, as they are inebriated with the sweetness of
   lusts, and sunk in deep self-security, so that they are not-easily roused to
   seek righteousness, except they are struck down by the terror of divine
   judgment, — the Apostle proceeds to do two things — to convince men of
   iniquity, and to shake off the torpor of those whom he proves guilty.

   He first condemns all mankind from the beginning of the world for
   ingratitude, because they recognized not the workman in his extraordinary
   work: nay, when they were constrained to acknowledge him, they did not duly
   honor his majesty, but in their vanity profaned and dishonored it. Thus all
   became guilty of impiety, a wickedness more detestable than any thing else.
   And that he might more clearly show that all had departed from the Lord, he
   recounts the filthy and horrible crimes of which men everywhere became
   guilty: and this is a manifest proof, that they had degenerated from God,
   since these sins are evidences of divine wrath, which appear not except in
   the ungodly. And as the Jews and some of the Gentiles, while they covered
   their inward depravity by the veil of outward holiness, seemed to be in no
   way chargeable with such crimes, and hence thought themselves exempt from
   the common sentence of condemnation, the Apostle directs his discourse
   against this fictitious holiness; and as this mask before men cannot be
   taken away from saintlings, (sanctulis — petty saints,) he summons them to
   the tribunal of God, whose eyes no latent evils can escape. Having
   afterwards divided his subject, he places apart both the Jews and the
   Gentiles before the tribunal of God. He cuts off from the Gentiles the
   excuse which they pleaded from ignorance, because conscience was to them a
   law, and by this they were abundantly convicted as guilty. He chiefly urges
   on the Jews that from which they took their defense, even the written law;
   and as they were proved to have transgressed it, they could not free
   themselves from the charge of iniquity, and a sentence against them had
   already been pronounced by the mouth of God himself. He at the same time
   obviates any objection which might have been made by them — that the
   covenant of God, which was the symbol of holiness, would have been violated,
   if they were not to be distinguished from others. Here he first shows, that
   they excelled not others by the right of the covenant, for they had by their
   unfaithfulness departed from it: and then, that he might not derogate from
   the perpetuity of the divine promise, he concedes to them some privilege as
   arising from the covenant; but it proceeded from the mercy of God, and not
   from their merits. So that with regard to their own qualifications they were
   on a level with the Gentiles. He then proves by the authority of Scripture,
   that both Jews and Gentiles were all sinners; and he also slightly refers to
   the use of the law.

   Having wholly deprived all mankind of their confidence in their own virtue
   and of their boast of righteousness, and laid them prostrate by the severity
   of God’s judgment, he returns to what he had before laid down as his subject
   — that we are justified by faith; and he explains what faith is, and how the
   righteousness of Christ is by it attained by us. To these things he adds at
   the end of the third chapter a remarkable conclusion, with the view of
   beating down the fierceness of human pride, that it might not dare to raise
   up itself against the grace of God: and lest the Jews should confine so
   great a favor of God to their own nation, he also by the way claims it in
   behalf of the Gentiles.

   In the fourth chapter he reasons from example; which he adduces as being
   evident, and hence not liable to be cavilled at; and it is that of Abraham,
   who, being the father of the faithful ought to be deemed a pattern and a
   kind of universal example. Having then proved that he was justified by
   faith, the Apostle teaches us that we ought to maintain no other way of
   justification. And here he shows, that it follows from the rule of
   contraries, that the righteousness of works ceases to exist, since the
   righteousness of faith is introduced. And he confirms this by the
   declaration of David, who, by making the blessedness of man to depend on the
   mercy of God, takes it away from works, as they are incapable of making a
   man blessed. He then treats more fully what he had before shortly referred
   to — that the Jews had no reason to raise themselves above the Gentiles, as
   this felicity is equally common to them both, since Scripture declares that
   Abraham obtained this righteousness in an uncircumcised state: and here he
   takes the opportunity of adding some remarks on the use of circumcision. He
   afterwards subjoins, that the promise of salvation depends on God’s goodness
   alone: for were it to depend on the law, it could not bring peace to
   consciences, which it ought to confirm, nor could it attain its own
   fulfillment. Hence, that it may be sure and certain, we must, in embracing
   it, regard the truth of God alone, and not ourselves, and follow the example
   of Abraham, who, turning away from himself, had regard only to the power of
   God. At the end of the chapter, in order to make a more general application
   of the adduced example, he introduces several comparisons.

   In the fifth chapter, after having touched on the fruit and effects of the
   righteousness of faith, he is almost wholly taken up with illustrations, in
   order to make the point clearer. For, deducing an argument from one greater,
   he shows how much we, who have been redeemed and reconciled to God, ought to
   expect from his love; which was so abundantly poured forth towards us, when
   we were sinners and lost, that he gave for us his only-begotten and beloved
   Son. He afterwards makes comparisons between sin and free righteousness,
   between Christ and Adam, between death and life, between the law and grace:
   it hence appears that our evils, however vast they are, are swallowed up by
   the infinite mercy of God.

   He proceeds in the sixth chapter to mention the sanctification which we
   obtain in Christ. It is indeed natural to our flesh, as soon as it has had
   some slight knowledge of grace, to indulge quietly in its own vices and
   lusts, as though it had become free from all danger: but Paul, on the
   contrary, contends here, that we cannot partake of the righteousness of
   Christ, except we also lay hold on sanctification. He reasons from baptism,
   by which we are initiated into a participation of Christ, (per quem in
   Christi participationem initiamur;) and in it we are buried together with
   Christ, so that being dead in ourselves, we may through his life be raised
   to a newness of life. It then follows, that without regeneration no one can
   put on his righteousness. He hence deduces exhortations as to purity and
   holiness of life, which must necessarily appear in those who have been
   removed from the kingdom of sin to the kingdom of righteousness, the sinful
   indulgence of the flesh, which seeks in Christ a greater liberty in sinning,
   being cast aside. He makes also a brief mention of the law as being
   abrogated; and in the abrogation of this the New Testament shines forth
   eminently; for together with the remission of sins, it contains the promise
   of the Holy Spirit.

   In the seventh chapter he enters on a full discussion on the use of the law,
   which he had pointed out before as it were by the finger, while he had
   another subject in hand: he assigns a reason why we are loosed from the law,
   and that is, because it serves only for condemnation. Lest, however, he
   should expose the law to reproach, he clears it in the strongest terms from
   any imputation of this kind; for he shows that through our fault it is that
   the law, which was given for life, turns to be an occasion of death. He also
   explains how sin is by it increased. He then proceeds to describe the
   contest between the Spirit and the flesh, which the children of God find in
   themselves, as long as they are surrounded by the prison of a mortal body;
   for they carry with them the relics of lust, by which they are continually
   prevented from yielding full obedience to the law.

   The eighth chapter contains abundance of consolations, in order that the
   consciences of the faithful, having heard of the disobedience which he had
   before proved, or rather imperfect obedience, might not be terrified and
   dejected. But that the ungodly might not hence flatter themselves, he first
   testifies that this privilege belongs to none but to the regenerated, in
   whom the Spirit of God lives and prevails. He unfolds then two things — that
   all who are planted by the Spirit in the Lord Jesus Christ, are beyond the
   danger or the chance of condemnation, however burdened they may yet be with
   sins; and, also, that all who remain in the flesh, being without the
   sanctification of the Spirit, are by no means partakers of this great
   benefit. He afterwards explains how great is the certainty of our
   confidence, since the Spirit of God by his own testimony drives away all
   doubts and fears. He further shows, for the purpose of anticipating
   objections, that the certainty of eternal life cannot be intercepted or
   disturbed by present evils, to which we are subject in this life; but that,
   on the contrary, our salvation is promoted by such trials, and that the
   value of it, when compared with our present miseries, renders them as
   nothing. He confirms this by the example of Christ, who, being the
   first-begotten and holding the highest station in the family of God, is the
   pattern to which we must all be conformed. And, in the last place, as though
   all things were made secure, he concludes in a most exulting strain, and
   boldly triumphs over all the power and artifices of Satan.

   But as most were much concerned on seeing the Jews, the first guardians and
   heirs of the covenant, rejecting Christ, for they hence concluded, that
   either the covenant was transferred from the posterity of Abraham, who
   disregarded the fulfilling of the covenant, or that he, who made no better
   provision for the people of Israel, was not the promised Redeemer — he meets
   this objection at the beginning of the ninth chapter. Having then spoken of
   his love towards his own nation, that he might not appear to speak from
   hatred, and having also duly mentioned those privileges by which they
   excelled others, he gently glides to the point he had in view, that is, to
   remove the offence, which arose from their own blindness. And he divides the
   children of Abraham into two classes, that he might show that not all who
   descended from him according to the flesh, are to be counted for seed and
   become partakers of the grace of the covenant; but that, on the contrary,
   aliens become his children, when they possess his faith. He brings forward
   Jacob and Esau as examples. He then refers us back here to the election of
   God, on which the whole matter necessarily depends. Besides, as election
   rests on the mercy of God alone, it is in vain to seek the cause of it in
   the worthiness of man. There is, on the other hand, rejection (rejectio),
   the justice of which is indubitable, and yet there is no higher cause for it
   than the will of God. Near the end of the chapter, he sets forth the calling
   of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews as proved by the predictions
   of the Prophets.

   Having again begun, in the tenth chapter, by testifying his love towards the
   Jews, he declares that a vain confidence in their own works was the cause of
   their ruin; and lest they should pretend the law, he obviates their
   objection, and says, that we are even by the law itself led as it were by
   the hand to the righteousness of faith. He adds that this righteousness is
   through God’s bountiful goodness offered indiscriminately to all nations,
   but that it is only apprehended by those, whom the Lord through special
   favor illuminates. And he states, that more from the Gentiles than from the
   Jews would obtain this benefit, as predicted both by Moses and by Isaiah;
   the one having plainly prophesied of the calling of the Gentiles, and the
   other of the hardening of the Jews.

   The question still remained, “Is there not a difference between the seed of
   Abraham and other nations according to the covenant of God?” Proceeding to
   answer this question, he first reminds us, that the work of God is not to be
   limited to what is seen by our eyes, since the elect often escape our
   observation; for Elias was formerly mistaken, when he thought that religion
   had become wholly extinct among the Israelites, when there were still
   remaining seven thousand; and, further, that we must not be perplexed by the
   number of unbelievers, who, as we see, hate the gospel. He at length
   alleges, that the covenant of God continues even to the posterity of Abraham
   according to the flesh, but to those only whom the Lord by a free election
   hath predestinated. He then turns to the Gentiles, and speaks to them, lest
   they should become insolent on account of their adoption, and exult over the
   Jews as having been rejected since they excel them in nothing, except in the
   free favor of the Lord, which ought to make them the more humble; and that
   this has not wholly departed from the seed of Abraham, for the Jews were at
   length to be provoked to emulation by the faith of the Gentiles, so that God
   would gather all Israel to himself.

   The three chapters which follow are admonitory, but they are various in
   their contents. The twelfth chapter contains general precepts on Christian
   life. The thirteenth, for the; most part, speaks of the authority of
   magistrates. We may hence undoubtedly gather that there were then some
   unruly persons, who thought Christian liberty could not exist without
   overturning the civil power. But that Paul might not appear to impose on the
   Church any duties but those of love, he declares that this obedience is
   included in what love requires. He afterwards adds those precepts, which he
   had before mentioned, for the guidance of our conduct. In the next chapter
   he gives an exhortation, especially necessary in that age: for as there were
   those who through obstinate superstition insisted on the observance of
   Mosaic rites, and could not endure the neglect of them without being most
   grievously offended; so there were others, who, being convinced of their
   abrogation, and anxious to pull down superstition, designedly showed their
   contempt of such things. Both parties offended through being too
   intemperate; for the superstitious condemned the others as being despisers
   of God’s law; and the latter in their turn unreasonably ridiculed the
   simplicity of the former. Therefore the Apostle recommends to both a
   befitting moderation, deporting the one from superciliousness and insult,
   and the other from excessive moroseness: and he also prescribes the best way
   of exercising Christian liberty, by keeping within the boundaries of love
   and edification; and he faithfully provides for the weak, while he forbids
   them to do any thing in opposition to conscience.

   The fifteenth chapter begins with a repetition of the general argument, as a
   conclusion of the whole subject — that the strong should use their strength
   in endeavours to confirm the weak. And as there was a perpetual discord,
   with regard to the Mosaic ceremonies, between the Jews and the Gentiles, he
   allays all emulation between them by removing the cause of contention; for
   he shows, that the salvation of both rested on the mercy of God alone; on
   which relying, they ought to lay aside all high thoughts of themselves and
   being thereby connected together in the hope of the same inheritance, they
   ought mutually to embrace one another. And being anxious, in the last place,
   to turn aside for the purpose of commending his own apostleship, which
   secured no small authority to his doctrine, he takes occasion to defend
   himself, and to deprecate presumption in having assumed with so much
   confidence the office of teacher among them. He further gives them some hope
   of his coming to them, which he had mentioned at the beginning, but had
   hitherto in vain looked for and tried to effect; and he states the reason
   which at that time hindered him, and that was, because the churches of
   Macedonia and Achaia had committed to him the care of conveying to Jerusalem
   those alms which they had given to relieve the wants of the faithful in that
   city.

   The last chapter is almost entirely taken up with salutations, though
   scattered with some precepts worthy of all attention; and concludes with a
   remarkable prayer.
     _________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES ON THE

   EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

   CHAPTER 1
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:1-7

   1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto
   the gospel of God,

   1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, selectus in Evangelium
   Dei,

   2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

   2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis,

   3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of
   David according to the flesh;

   3. De Filio suo, qui factus est è semine David secundum carnem,

   4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
   holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

   4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per Spiritum sanctificationis, ex
   resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro:

   5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the
   faith among all nations, for his name:

   5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum, in obedientiam fidei inter
   omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius;

   6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

   6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu Christi:

   7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you
   and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

   7. Omnibus qui Romæ estis, dilectis Deo, vocatis sanctis: gratia vobis, et
   pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu Christo.
     _________________________________________________________________

   1. Paul, etc. [11] — With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no
   such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not
   been mentioned by other expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper
   to satisfy some at small expense without being tedious to others; for the
   subject shall be despatched in a very few words.

   They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having
   brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are confuted by the
   testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. (Acts
   13:7, 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was
   converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased Augustine, that he took
   occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a
   proud Saul he was made a very little (parvulum [12] ) disciple of Christ.
   More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he had two names;
   for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his
   kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his
   descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to
   Roman citizenship; [13] they would not have this honor, then highly valued,
   to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value it as to
   withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the
   name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be for the following reasons: because
   in the churches to which he wrote, it was more known and more common, more
   acceptable in the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was
   indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred under which the
   name of a Jew then labored among the Romans and in their provinces, and to
   abstain from inflaming the rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of
   himself.

   A servant of Jesus Christ, etc. — He signalizes himself with these
   distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and
   this he seeks to secure by two things — first, by asserting his call to the
   Apostleship; [14] and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected
   with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be
   deemed an Apostle through God’s call, and that he should be known as one
   destined for the Roman Church. He therefore says, that he was a servant of
   Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he
   had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was
   chosen, (selectum — selected, [15] ) by which he more fully confirms the
   fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the
   Lord. Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general
   to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service; for all
   who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ’s servants, but
   Apostles, in point of honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the
   gospel, etc., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the
   use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he
   was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ,
   he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming to
   himself the title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no
   authority is due to him who willfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that
   he was appointed by God.

   Then the meaning is, — that Paul was a servant of Christ, not any kind of
   servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by
   presumptuous intrusion: then follows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic
   office, — it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot
   agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal
   election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his
   mother’s womb, which he mentions in Galatians 1:15, or that which Luke
   refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he
   simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should
   think that he had through his own rashness taken this honor to himself. [16]

   We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word;
   for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted
   ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to
   the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider
   it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle
   is the preaching of the gospel. It hence appears what just objects of
   ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by
   their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of
   the Apostles!

   The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister, for it refers to
   what is official. [17] I mention this to remove the mistake of those who too
   much refine on this expression and think that there is here to be understood
   a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.

   2. Which he had before promised, etc. — As the suspicion of being new
   subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of
   the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, “Christ came not on the earth
   unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard of
   before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected
   from the beginning of the world.” But as antiquity is often fabulous, he
   brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he
   might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their
   testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.

   We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that
   it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets
   promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at
   length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the
   promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed
   preaching of Christ as manifested, in whom the promises themselves are
   exhibited. [18]

   3. Concerning his own Son, etc. — This is a remarkable passage, by which we
   are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any
   removes one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For
   since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder,
   that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be
   directed and in whom it is to center. It is then a definition of the gospel,
   by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have
   rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case;
   which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn,
   that he who has made a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has
   acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the other
   hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish,
   but even completely insane.

   Who was made, etc. — Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we
   may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity
   possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to
   us. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the Summary he gives
   of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh — and that in it he
   declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says; after having declared
   that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh there was a glory
   as of the only-begotten Son of God. (John 1:14.) That he specially notices
   the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not
   superfluous; for by this he calls back our attention to the promise, that we
   may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been formerly promised.
   So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears to have been a
   common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then
   — that Christ did spring from David — was said for the purpose of confirming
   our faith.

   He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand
   that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from
   heaven, and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions,
   the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not only
   declare that Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his
   human from his divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of
   Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated
   elements.

   4. Declared [19] the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined
   (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised
   from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the
   Son of God, according to what is said in Psalm 2:7, “I have this day
   begotten thee:” for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though
   some indeed find here three separate evidences of the divinity of Christ —
   “power,” understanding thereby miracles — then the testimony of the Spirit
   — and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead — I yet prefer to connect them
   together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner — that
   Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial
   power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but
   that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our
   hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this
   view; for he says that he was declared by power, because power, peculiar to
   God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this
   was indeed made evident by his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in
   another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh
   appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his
   resurrection; (2 Corinthians 13:4) This glory, however, is not made known to
   us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And
   that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which
   Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the
   faithful feel in their hearts, is even evident from this — that he expressly
   calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as
   far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which
   it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to
   the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by
   our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions;
   (John 14:17)

   Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of
   Christ for this reason — because he rose by his own power, as he had often
   testified:

   “Destroy this temple, and in three days
   I will raise it up again,” (John 2:19;)

   “No man taketh it from me,” etc.; (John 10:18)

   For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the
   weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial
   operation of his own Spirit.

   5. Through whom we have received, etc. — Having completed his definition of
   the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his office, he now
   returns to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that this should
   be proved to the Romans. By mentioning grace and apostleship apart, he
   adopts a form of speech, [20] which must be understood as meaning,
   gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the apostleship; by which he means,
   that it was wholly through divine favor, not through his own worthiness,
   that he had been chosen for so high an office. For though it has hardly any
   thing connected with it in the estimation of the world, except dangers,
   labors, hatred, and disgrace; yet before God and his saints, it possesses a
   dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore deservedly counted a
   favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I should be an
   Apostle,” the sense would be the same. [21]

   The expression, on account of his name, is rendered by Ambrose, “in his
   name,” as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of
   Christ to preach the gospel, according to that passage, “We are ambassadors
   for Christ,” etc. (2 Corinthians 5:20.) Their opinion, however, seems
   better, who take name for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end
   — that we may believe on the name of the Son of God. (John 3:23.) And Paul
   is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of Christ among the
   Gentiles. (Acts 9:15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as
   though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is. [22]

   For the obedience of faith, etc. — That is, we have received a command to
   preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By
   stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his
   office, as though he said, “It is indeed my duty to discharge the office
   committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear
   the word and willingly to obey it; you will otherwise make void the vocation
   which the Lord has bestowed on me.”

   We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset
   the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously
   reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us
   to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience
   is given to it, and for this reason — because the Lord calls us by his
   gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act
   of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentence, “For
   the obedience of faith,” rather than, “In order that they may obey the
   faith;” for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively,
   though it be found once in the Acts 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we
   obey the gospel. [23]

   Among all nations, etc. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an
   Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to be taught:
   hence he adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards
   calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans, when he says, that
   they were included in the number of the nations, to whom he had been given
   as a minister. And further, the Apostles had in common the command to preach
   the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops, set
   over certain churches. But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of
   the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a
   minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles. It is no objection to
   this, that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word
   in Mysia: for this was done, not that there were limits prescribed to him,
   but that he was for a time to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet
   ripe there.

   Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, etc. He assigns a reason more nearly
   connected with them — because the Lord had already exhibited in them an
   evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a
   participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their
   own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul,
   who had been chosen by the same election of God. I therefore take this
   clause, “the called of Jesus Christ,” as explanatory, as though the particle
   “even” were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers
   of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the
   celestial Father to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are
   committed to his care and protection as their shepherd. [24]

   7. To all of you who are at Rome, etc. By this happy arrangement he sets
   forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the
   Lord through his own kindness made us the objects of his favor and love; and
   then that he has called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness:
   but this high honor only then exists, when we are not wanting to our call.

   Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I shall briefly refer, and
   leave it to be meditated upon by each individual: Paul does by no means
   ascribe the praise of our salvation to ourselves, but derives it altogether
   from the fountain of God’s free and paternal love towards us; for he makes
   this the first thing — God loves us: and what is the cause of his love,
   except his own goodness alone? On this depends our calling, by which in his
   own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before freely chosen. We
   also learn from this passage that none rightly connect themselves with the
   number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the Lord is gracious,
   however unworthy and wretched sinners they may be, and except they be
   stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not called us
   to uncleanness, but to holiness. (1 Thessalonians 4:7.) As the Greek can be
   rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change.

   Grace to you and peace, etc. Nothing is more desirable than to have God
   propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have
   prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated
   by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even
   blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our
   felicity is the favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity,
   and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities.
   [25] And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that
   whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence. Nor must
   we omit to notice, that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ
   for these blessings. Worthily indeed is this honor rendered to him, who is
   not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father’s bounty to us, but
   also works all things in connection with him. It was, however, the special
   object of the Apostle to show, that through him all God’s blessings come to
   us. [26]

   There are those who prefer to regard the word peace as signifying quietness
   of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it sometimes, I do not deny:
   but since it is certain that the Apostle wished to give us here a summary of
   God’s blessings, the former meaning, which is adduced by Bucer, is much the
   most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to the godly what makes up real
   happiness, he betakes himself, as he did before, to the very fountain
   itself, even the favor of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal
   felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this life.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [11] “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is
   according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were
   wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their
   good wishes.” We have an example in Acts 23:26. — Ed.

   [12] Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little.
   “Paul,” says the quaint Elnathan Parr, “as signifies little, and indeed not
   unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have had a
   very small voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2
   Corinthians 10:10 — Ed.

   [13] Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and
   Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.

   [14] “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — klētos apostolos;” our version
   is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of
   chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that
   klētos in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling,
   and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers
   to 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 1:6, 7; Romans 8:28;
   compared with Galatians 1:15; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:1; Romans 11:29; Ephesians
   4:1 He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God
   — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself
   expresses it in Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione
   divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.” The difference between “a called
   Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the
   idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.

   [15] Aphōrismenos separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus,
   Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed aphōrismenos we may English
   them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in
   which respect they might be called aphōrismenos eis ton nomon, separated to
   the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have
   styled himself, Romans 1:1, aphōrismenon eis euangelion, separated unto the
   Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the
   Gospel.” Separated is the word adopted both by Doddridge and Macknight, as
   well as by our own version. — Ed.

   [16] Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of
   God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15, and by the special
   commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the
   Church, Acts 13:3; Galatians 2:9.” — Parr. But the object here seems to have
   been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other
   idea with the word except that which the context requires; for to do so only
   tends to create confusion. — Ed.

   [17] Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called
   servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. — Ed

   [18] The verb is proepēngeilato only here; it comes from epangellomai, which
   Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. “Which he had before
   promised.” is then the proper rendering, and not “Which he formerly
   published,” as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Macknight
   have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.

   [19] “Declaratus,” horisthentos. Some of the ancients, such as Origen,
   Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is
   “proved — deichthentos;” demonstrated — apophanthentos;” “exhibited —
   apodeichthōntos;”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in
   the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed,
   constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts
   10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26; Hebrews 4:7. The word, determined, or
   constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that
   Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the
   resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled,
   determined, and manifestly exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and
   adorned with his own power. Professor Stuart has conjured a number of
   difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no
   solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so well known from the usage of
   Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is
   the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ’s resurrection was no evidence of
   his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead,
   appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did
   Lazarus rise again for our justification? Was his resurrection an
   attestation of any thing he had previously declared? The Revelation A.
   Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were
   those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity. Professor
   Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these
   words, “Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of David; but he
   was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by
   the resurrection from the dead.” This view is taken by many, such as Pareus,
   Beza, Turrettin, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness”
   — kata pneuma hagiōsunēs, are taken differently by others, as meaning the
   Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either
   sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1
   Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 3:18 Doddridge,
   Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives
   this paraphrase: — “Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of
   God and with power. The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the
   exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another
   place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, ‘According to the
   working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.’ — The Spirit
   of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy
   Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of
   Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the
   work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death in the flesh,’ says Peter, and
   ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He
   was demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having
   been put forth in raising him from the dead.” As to the genitive case after
   “resurrection,” see a similar instance in Acts 17:32 The idea deduced by
   Calvin, that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the
   holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by
   Theodoret and Augustine. — Ed.

   [20] “Hypellage,” a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is
   put in a form or in a case different from that in which it ought
   grammatically to be. — Ed.

   [21] If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render kai, even
   “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as Wolfius says, “both words would
   perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to
   the conversion of the Apostle himself, and “apostleship” to his office. See
   1 Timothy 1:12-14, and Acts 9:15, Acts 13:2; Acts 22:21. — Ed

   [22] He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the
   order of the text, because he viewed it as connected with the receiving of
   the apostleship. “Pro nomine ipsius,” — huper tou onomatos autou; “ad
   nominis ejus gloriam — to the glory of his name,” Turrettin; “for the
   purpose of magnifying his name,” Chalmers Hodge observes, “Paul was an
   apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honor of Jesus Christ,
   that is, so that his name may be known.” Some, as Tholuck, connect the words
   with “obedience to the faith,” as they render the phrase, and, in this
   sense, “that obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for
   the sake of his name.” But it is better to connect the words with the
   receiving of the apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there
   might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be
   magnified. — Ed.

   [23] It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or,
   “in order to produce,” or, “Promote the obedience of faith.” The obedience
   is faith. The command is, “believe,” and the obedience must correspond with
   it. To obey the faith, as in Acts 6:7, is a different form of expression:
   the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. — See 2
   Thessalonians 1:8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The
   latter refers to Romans 10:3, where the Israelites are charged for not
   submitting to God’s righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they
   had not all obeyed the gospel, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed
   our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it.
   — Ed.

   [24] “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ.
   Klētos means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has
   been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.” — Stuart.
   The same author renders the words klētois hagiois, in the next verse,
   “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.

   [25] “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says Turrettin, “wished to those to
   whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy,
   happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings even the favor of God,
   the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included
   all blessings.” — Ed.

   [26] “From God our Father, — if God, then able; if our Father, then willing
   to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, — from our
   Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without these we cannot
   be saved; from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, John
   1:16.” — Parr
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:8-12

   8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith
   is spoken of throughout the whole world.

   8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum super vobis omnibus,
   quia fides vestra Prædicatur in universo mundo.

   9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his
   Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

   9. Testis enim mihi Deus, quem colo in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii
   ipsius, ut continenter memoriam vestri faciam;

   10. Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous
   journey by the will of God to come unto you.

   10. Semper in orationibus meis, [27] rogans, si quomodo prosperum iter
   aliquando mihi, obtingat per voluntatem Dei, veniendi ad vos.

   11. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift,
   to the end ye may be established;

   11. Desidero enim videre, vos, ut aliquod impertiar vobis donum spirituale
   ad vos confirmandos;

   12. That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith
   both of you and me.

   12. Hoc est. ad cohortationem mutuo percipiendam in vobis per Mutuam fidem,
   vestram atque meam.

   8. I first [28] indeed, etc. Here the beginning commences, altogether
   adapted to the occasion, as he seasonably prepares them for receiving
   instruction by reasons connected with himself as well as with them. What he
   states respecting them is, the celebrity of their faith; for he intimates
   that they being honored with the public approbation of the churches, could
   not reject an Apostle of the Lord, without disappointing the good opinion
   entertained of them by all; and such a thing would have been extremely
   uncourteous and in a manner bordering on perfidy. As then this testimony
   justly induced the Apostle, by affording him an assurance of their
   obedience, to undertake, according to his office, to teach and instruct the
   Romans; so it held them bound not to despise his authority. With regard to
   himself, he disposes them to a teachable spirit by testifying his love
   towards them: and there is nothing more effectual in gaining credit to an
   adviser, than the impression that he is cordially anxious to consult our
   wellbeing.

   The first thing worthy of remark is, that he so commends their faith, [29]
   that he implies that it had been received from God. We are here taught that
   faith is God’s gift; for thanksgiving is an acknowledgment of a benefit. He
   who gives thanks to God for faith, confesses that it comes from him. And
   since we find that the Apostle ever begins his congratulations with
   thanksgiving, let us know that we are hereby reminded, that all our
   blessings are God’s free gifts. It is also needful to become accustomed to
   such forms of speaking, that we may be led more fully to rouse ourselves in
   the duty of acknowledging God as the giver of all our blessings, and to stir
   up others to join us in the same acknowledgment. If it be right to do this
   in little things, how much more with regard to faith; Which is neither a
   small nor an indiscriminate (promiscua) gift of God. We have here besides an
   example, that thanks ought to be given through Christ, according to the
   Apostle’s command in Hebrews 13:15; inasmuch as in his name we seek and
   obtain mercy from the Father. — I observe in the last place, that he calls
   him his God. This is the faithful’s special privilege, and on them alone God
   bestows this honor. There is indeed implied in this a mutual relationship,
   which is expressed in this promise,

   “I will be to them a God;
   they shall be to me a people.” (Jeremiah 30:22.)

   I prefer at the same time to confine this to the character which Paul
   sustained, as an attestation of his obedience to the end in the work of
   preaching the gospel. So Hezekiah called God the God of Isaiah, when he
   desired him to give him the testimony of a true and faithful Prophet.
   (Isaiah 37:4.) So also he is called in an especial manner the God of Daniel.
   (Daniel 6:20.)

   Through the whole world. The eulogy of faithful men was to Paul equal to
   that of the whole world, with regard to the faith of the Romans; for the
   unbelieving, who deemed it detestable, could not have given an impartial or
   a correct testimony respecting it. We then understood that it was by the
   mouths of the faithful that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed through
   the whole world; and that they were alone able to judge rightly of it, and
   to pronounce a correct opinion. That this small and despised handful of men
   were unknown as to their character to the ungodly, even at Rome, was a
   circumstance he regarded as nothing; for Paul made no account of their
   judgment.

   9. For God is my witness, etc. He proves his love by its effects; for had he
   not greatly loved them, he would not have so anxiously commended them to the
   Lord, and especially he would not have so ardently desired to promote their
   welfare by his own labors. His anxiety then and his ardent desire were
   certain evidences of his love; for had they not sprung from it, they would
   never have existed. And as he knew it to be necessary for establishing
   confidence in his preaching, that the Romans should be fully persuaded of
   his sincerity, he added an oath — a needful remedy, whenever a declaration,
   which ought to be received as true and indubitable vacillates through
   uncertainty. For since an oath is nothing else but an appeal to God as to
   the truth of what we declare, most foolish is it to deny that the Apostle
   used here an oath. He did not notwithstanding transgress the prohibition of
   Christ.

   It hence appears that it was not Christ’s design (as the superstitious
   Anabaptists dream) to abolish oaths altogether, but on the contrary to call
   attention to the due observance of the law; and the law, allowing an oath,
   only condemns perjury and needless swearing. If then we would use an oath
   aright, let us imitate the seriousness and the reverent manner exhibited by
   the Apostles; and that you may understand what it is, know that God is so
   called as a witness, that he is also appealed to as an avenger, in case we
   deceive; which Paul expresses elsewhere in these words,

   “God is a witness to my soul.” (2 Corinthians 1:23.) [30]

   Whom I serve with my spirit, etc. It is usual with profane men, who trifle
   with God, to pretend his name, no less boldly than presumptuously; but the
   Apostle here speaks of his own piety, in order to gain credit; and those, in
   whom the fear of God and reverence for his name prevail, will dread to swear
   falsely. At the same time, he sets his own spirit in opposition to the
   outward mask of religion; for as many falsely pretend to be the worshippers
   of God, and outwardly appear to be so, he testifies that he, from the heart
   served, God. [31] It may be also that he alluded to the ancient ceremonies,
   in which alone the Jews thought the worship of God consisted. He then
   intimates, that though he retained not observance of these, he was yet a
   sincere worshipper of God, according to what he says in Philippians 3:3,

   “We are the true circumcision, who in spirit serve God,
   and glory not in the flesh.”

   He then glories that he served God with sincere devotion of heart, which is
   true religion and approved worship.

   But it was expedient, as I have said, in order that his oath might attain
   more credit, that Paul should declare his piety towards God; for perjury is
   a sport to the ungodly, while the pious dread it more than a thousand
   deaths; inasmuch as it cannot be, but that where there is a real fear of
   God, there must be also a reverence for his name. It is then the same thing,
   as though Paul had said, that he knew how much sacredness and sincerity
   belonged to an oath, and that he did not rashly appeal to God as a witness,
   as the profane are wont to do. And thus, by his own example, he teaches us,
   that whenever we swear, we ought to give such evidence of piety, that the
   name of God, which we use in our declarations, may retain its sacredness.
   And further, he gives a proof, even by his own ministry, that he worshipped
   not God feignedly; for it was the fullest evidence, that he was a man
   devoted to God’s glory, when he denied himself, and hesitated not to undergo
   all the hardships of reproach, poverty, and hatred, and even the peril of
   death, in advancing the kingdom of God. [32]

   Some take this clause, as though Paul intended to recommend that worship
   which he said he rendered to God, on this account, — because it corresponded
   with what the gospel prescribes. It is indeed certain that spiritual worship
   is enjoined on us in the gospel; but the former interpretation is far the
   most suitable, — that he devoted his service to God in preaching the gospel.
   He, however, makes at the same time a difference between himself and
   hypocrites, who have something else in view rather than to serve God; for
   ambition, or some such thing, influences most men; and it is far from being
   the case, that all engage cordially and faithfully in this office. The
   meaning is, that Paul performed sincerely the office of teaching; for what
   he says of his own devotion he applies to this subject.

   But we hence gather a profitable doctrine; for it ought to add no little
   encouragement to the ministers of the gospel, when they hear that, in
   preaching the gospel, they render an acceptable and a valuable service to
   God. What, indeed, is there to prevent them from regarding it an excellent
   service, when they know that their labor is pleasing to God, and is approved
   by him? Moreover, he calls it the gospel of the Son of God; for Christ is in
   it made known, who has been appointed by the Father for this end, — that he,
   being glorified, should also glorify the Father.

   That continually, etc. He still further sets forth the ardor of his love by
   his very constancy in praying for them. It was, indeed, a strong evidence,
   when he poured forth no prayers to the Lord without making mention of them.
   That the meaning may be clearer, I render pantote, “always;” as though it
   was said, “In all my prayers,” or, “whenever I address God in prayer, I join
   a mention of you.” [33] Now he speaks not of every kind of calling on God,
   but of those prayers to which the saints, being at liberty, and laying aside
   all cares, apply their whole attention to the work; for he might have often
   expressed suddenly this or that wish, when the Romans did not come into his
   mind; but whenever he had previously intended, and, as it were, prepared
   himself to offer up prayers to God, among others he remembered them. He then
   speaks peculiarly of those prayers, for which the saints deliberately
   prepare themselves; as we find to have been the case with our Lord himself,
   who, for this purpose, sought retirement. He at the same time intimates how
   frequently, or rather, how unceasingly he was engaged in such prayers, since
   he says that he prayed continually.

   10. Requesting, if by any means, etc. As it is not probable that we from the
   heart study his benefit, whom we are not ready to assist by our labors, he
   now adds, after having said that he was anxious for their welfare, that he
   showed by another proof his love to them, as before God, even by requesting
   that he might be able to advance their interest. That you may, therefore,
   perceive the full meaning, read the words as though the word also were
   inserted, requesting also, if by any means, etc. By saying, A prosperous
   journey by the will of God he shows, not only that he looked to the Lord’s
   favor for success in his journey, but that he deemed his journey prosperous,
   if it was approved by the Lord. According to this model ought all our wishes
   to be formed.

   11. For I greatly desire to see you He might, indeed, while absent, have
   confirmed their faith by his doctrine; but as advice is better taken from
   one present, he had a desire to be with them. But he explains what his
   object was, and shows that he wished to undertake the toil of a journey, not
   for his own, but for their advantage. — Spiritual gifts [34] he calls those
   which he possessed, being either those of doctrine, or of exhortation, or of
   prophesy which he knew had come to him through God’s favor. He has here
   strikingly pointed out the use of gifts by the word, imparting: for
   different gifts are distributed to each individual, that all may in kindness
   mutually assist one another, and transfer to others what each one possesses.
   See Romans 12:3; and 1 Corinthians 12:11

   To confirm you, etc. He modifies what he had said of imparting, lest he
   should seem to regard them such as were yet to be instructed in the first
   elements of religion, as though they were not hitherto rightly taught in
   Christ. He then says, that he wished so to lend his aid to them, that they
   who had for the most part made a proficiency, might be further assisted: for
   a confirmation is what we all want, until Christ be fully formed in us.
   (Ephesians 4:13.)

   12. Being not satisfied with this modest statement, he qualifies it, and
   shows, that he did not so occupy the place of a teacher, but that he wished
   to learn also from them; as though he said, “I desire so to confirm you
   according to the measure of grace conferred on me, that your example may
   also add courage (alacritatem — alacrity) to my faith, and that we may thus
   mutually benefit one another.”

   See to what degree of modesty his pious heart submitted itself, so that he
   disdained not to seek confirmation from unexperienced beginners: nor did he
   speak dissemblingly, for there is no one so void of gifts in the Church of
   Christ, who is not able to contribute something to our benefit: but we are
   hindered by our envy and by our pride from gathering such fruit from one
   another. Such is our high-mindedness, such is the inebriety produced by vain
   reputation, that despising and disregarding others, every one thinks that he
   possesses what is abundantly sufficient for himself. I prefer to read with
   Bucer, exhortation (exhortationem — encouragement) rather than consolatim;
   for it agrees better with the former part. [35]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [27] Margin, “in all my prayers.”

   [28] “It does not mean here the first in point of importance, but first in
   the order of time.” — Stuart. The same author thinks that men here has its
   corresponding de in Romans 1:13, Ou thelō de humas, etc., — Ed

   [29] “Faith is put here for the whole religion, and means the same as your
   piety. Faith is one of the principal things of religion, one of its first
   requirements, and hence it signifies religion itself.” — Barnes. It is
   indeed the principal thing, the very basis of religion. Hebrews 11:6. — Ed.

   [30] The passage in Matthew 5:33-37, has been often wholly misunderstood.
   That oaths in common conversation are alone prohibited, is quite evident
   from what the passage itself contains. In solemn oaths there was no swearing
   by “heaven,” or by “God’s throne,” or by “the earth,” or by “Jerusalem,” or
   by “the head.” such forms were only used in conversation, as similar ones
   are still used: and these kinds of swearing are alone condemned by our
   Savior. — Ed.

   [31] “Sincerè et verè — sincerely and truly,” Wolfius, “not merely
   externally, but cordially,” Hodge.

   [32] en tō euangeliō tou huiou autou “by the preaching of the gospel,
   etc.” Stuart. “In predicando evangelio — in preaching the gospel,” Beza. “I
   serve God, not in teaching legal rites, but a much more celestial
   doctrine,” Grotius

   [33] The order of the words, as arranged by Calvin, is better than that of
   our version; he connects “always in my prayers,” or, “in all my prayers,”
   with “requesting.” The simpler rendering would be as follows: — 9. My
   witness indeed is God, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son,
   that I unceasingly make mention of you, always requesting in my prayers, 10.
   That by some means now at length I may, through the will of God, have a free
   course to come to you. “In the gospel,” may either mean “according to the
   gospel,” or, “in preaching the gospel.” Hodge prefers the first. The
   particle ei clearly means “that” in this connection. That it is used in this
   sense in the New Testament there can be no doubt; see Acts 26:8, 23; Hebrews
   7:15

   [34] The words, ti charisma pneumatikon, some spiritual gift, or benefit,
   seem to be of general import. Some, such as Chalmers and Haldane, have
   supposed that a miraculous power is intended, which the Apostles alone
   conveyed, such as the power of speaking with tongues: but most Commentators
   agree in the view here given. The phrase is not found in any other place:
   charisma, in the plural number, is used to designate miraculous powers. 1
   Corinthians 12:9; and ta pneumatika mean the same, 1 Corinthians 14:1. But
   here, no doubt, the expression includes any gift or benefit, whether
   miraculous or ordinary, which the Apostle might have been made the means of
   conveying. — Ed.

   [35] The verb is sumparaklēthōnai, which Grotius connects with epipothō in
   the preceding verse; and adds, “He softens what he had said, by showing,
   that he would not only bring some joy to them, but they also to him.” “Ut
   percipiam consolationem — that I may receive consolation,” Piscator; — “Ut
   unà recreemur — that we may be together refreshed,” Castelio. “Ad communem
   exhortationem percipiendam — in order to receive common exhortation,” Beza;
   “Ut gaudium et voluptatem ex vobis precipiam — that I may receive joy and
   pleasure from you;” vel, “Ut mutuo solatio invicem nos erigamus atque
   firmemus — that by mutual comfort we may console and strengthen one
   another,” Schleusner The verb with the prefix, sum, is only found here; but
   the verb parakaleō frequently occurs, and its common meaning is, to beseech,
   to exhort to encourage, and by these means to comfort. With regard to this
   passage, Professor Stuart says, “I have rendered the word, comfort, only
   because I cannot find any English word which will convey the full sense of
   the original.” “The word rendered to comfort,” says Professor Hodge, “means
   to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, etc. Which of these senses is
   to be preferred here, it is not easy to decide. Most probably the Apostle
   intended to use the word in a wide sense, as expressing the idea, that he
   might be excited, encouraged, and comforted by his intercourse with his
   Christian brethren.” — The two verses may be thus rendered: — 11. For I
   desire much to see you, that I may impart to you spiritual 12. benefit, so
   that you may be strengthened: this also is what I desire, to be encouraged
   together with you, through the faith which is in both, even in you and in
   me. Grotius observes, “en allēlois impropriè dixit pro in utrisque, in me et
   vobis. Dixit sic et Demosthenes, ta pros allēlois — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:13-15

   13. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed
   to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among
   you also, even as among other Gentiles.

   13. Nolo verò vos ignorare, fratres, quod sæpe proposui venire ad vos, et
   impeditus sum hactenus,ut fructum aliquem haberem in vobis, sicut et in
   reliquis gentibus.

   14. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise,
   and to the unwise.

   14. Et Græcis et Barbaris et sapientbus et stultis debitor sum.

   15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are
   at Rome also.

   15. Itaque quantum in me est, paratus sum vobis quoque qui Romae estis
   Evangelizare.

   13. I would not that you should be ignorant. What he has hitherto testified
   — that he continually requested of the Lord that he might visit them, might
   have appeared a vain thing, and could not have obtained credit, had he
   neglected to seize the occasion when offered: he therefore says, that the
   effort had not been wanting, but the opportunity; for he had been prevented
   from executing a purpose often formed.

   We hence learn that the Lord frequently upsets the purposes of his saints,
   in order to humble them, and by such humiliation to teach them to regard his
   Providence, that they may rely on it; though the saints, who design nothing
   without the Lord’s will, cannot be said, strictly speaking, to be driven
   away from their purposes. It is indeed the presumption of impiety to pass by
   God, and without him to determine on things to come, as though they were in
   our own power; and this is what James sharply reprehends in James 4:13.

   But he says that he was hindered: you must take this in no other sense, but
   that the Lord employed him in more urgent concerns, which he could not have
   neglected without loss to the Church. Thus the hinderances of the godly and
   of the unbelieving differ: the latter perceive only that they are hindered,
   when they are restrained by the strong hand of the Lord, so as not to be
   able to move; but the former are satisfied with an hinderance that arises
   from some approved reason; nor do they allow themselves to attempt any thing
   beyond their duty, or contrary to edification.

   That I might obtain some fruit, etc. He no doubt speaks of that fruit, for
   the gathering of which the Lord sent his Apostles,

   “I have chosen you, that ye may go and bring forth fruit,
   and that your fruit may remain.” (John 15:16.)

   Though he gathered it not for himself, but for the Lord, he yet calls it his
   own; for the godly have nothing more as their own than the work of promoting
   the glory of the Lord, with which is connected all their happiness. And he
   records what had happened to him with respect to other nations, that the
   Romans might entertain hope, that his coming to them would not be
   unprofitable, which so many nations had found to have been attended with so
   much benefit.

   14. I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, etc. Those whom
   he means by the Greeks and the Barbarians, he afterwards explains by adding,
   both to the wise and to the foolish; which words Erasmus has not rendered
   amiss by “learned and unlearned,” (eruditos et rudes,) but I prefer to
   retain the very words of Paul. He then takes an argument from his own
   office, and intimates that it ought not to be ascribed to his arrogance,
   that he thought himself in a manner capable of teaching the Romans, however
   much they excelled in learning and wisdom and in the knowledge of things,
   inasmuch as it had pleased the Lord to make him a debtor even to the wise.
   [36]

   Two things are to be here considered — that the gospel is by a heavenly
   mandate destined and offered to the wise, in order that the Lord may subject
   to himself all the wisdom of this world, and make all variety of talents,
   and every kind of science, and the loftiness of all arts, to give way to the
   simplicity of his doctrine; and what is more, they are to be reduced to the
   same rank with the unlearned, and to be made so meek, as to be able to bear
   those to be their fellow-disciples under their master, Christ, whom they
   would not have deigned before to take as their scholars; and then that the
   unlearned are by no means to be driven away from this school, nor are they
   to flee away from it through groundless fear; for if Paul was indebted to
   them, being a faithful debtor, he had doubtless discharged what he owed; and
   thus they will find here what they will be capable of enjoying. All teachers
   have also a rule here which they are to follow, and that is, modestly and
   kindly to accommodate themselves to the capacities of the ignorant and
   unlearned. Hence it will be, that they will be able, with more evenness of
   mind, to bear with many absurdities and almost innumerable things that may
   disgust them, by which they might otherwise be overcome. They are, however,
   to remember, that they are not so indebted to the foolish, as that they are
   to cherish their folly by immoderate indulgence.

   15. I am therefore ready, [37] etc. He concludes what he had before said of
   his desire — that as he knew it to be his duty to spread the gospel among
   them, in order to gather fruit for the Lord, he was anxious to fulfill
   God’s calling, as far as he was allowed to do so by the Lord.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [36] Chalmers paraphrases the text thus — “I am bound, or I am under
   obligation, laid upon me by the duties of my office, to preach both to
   Greeks and Barbarians, both to the wise and the unwise.” In modern
   phraseology, the words may be rendered, “Both to the civilized and to the
   uncivilized, both to the learned and to the unlearned, am I a debtor.” The
   two last terms are not exactly parallel to the two first, as many unlearned
   were among the Greeks, or the civilized, as well as among the Barbarians.
   — Ed.

   [37] to kat eme prothumon, literally, “As to me there is readiness;” or,
   according to Stuart “There is a readiness so far as it respects me.” But,
   “I am ready,” or “I am prepared,” conveys the meaning sufficiently, without
   the other words, “As much as in me is.” By saying that he was prepared, he
   intimates that the event depended on another, even on God. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:16-17

   16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God
   unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to
   the Greek.

   16. Non enim pudet me Evangelii Christi, quandoquidem potentia est Dei, in
   salutem omni credenti, Iudæoprimum, deinde Græco.

   17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as
   it is written, The just shall live by faith.

   17. Nam justitia Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est,
   Justus ex fide sua vivet.

   16. I am not indeed ashamed, etc. This is an anticipation of an objection;
   for he declares beforehand, that he cared not for the taunts of the ungodly;
   and he thus provides a way for himself, by which he proceeds to pronounce an
   eulogy on the value of the gospel, that it might not appear contemptible to
   the Romans. He indeed intimates that it was contemptible in the eyes of the
   world; and he does this by saying, that he was not ashamed of it. And thus
   he prepares them for bearing the reproach of the cross of Christ, lest they
   should esteem the gospel of less value by finding it exposed to the scoffs
   and reproaches of the ungodly; and, on the other hand, he shows how valuable
   it was to the faithful. If, in the first place, the power of God ought to be
   extolled by us, that power shines forth in the gospel; if, again, the
   goodness of God deserves to be sought and loved by us, the gospel is a
   display of his goodness. It ought then to be reverenced and honored, since
   veneration is due to God’s power; and as it avails to our salvation, it
   ought to be loved by us.

   But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he
   testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not
   here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching. It hence follows,
   that those as it were willfully despise the power of God, and drive away
   from them his delivering hand, who withdraw themselves from the hearing of
   the word.

   At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the
   Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one
   who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but
   the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to
   the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own
   wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other
   trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in
   the gospel a sure proof of their own ruin. Since then the gospel invites all
   to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the
   doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is
   to save that which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall
   find him a Judge. But everywhere in Scripture the word salvation is simply
   set in opposition to the word destruction: and hence we must observe, when
   it is mentioned, what the subject of the discourse is. Since then the gospel
   delivers from ruin and the curse of endless death, its salvation is eternal
   life. [38]

   First to the Jew and then to the Greek. Under the word Greek, he includes
   all the Gentiles, as it is evident from the comparison that is made; for the
   two clauses comprehend all mankind. And it is probable that he chose
   especially this nation to designate other nations, because, in the first
   place, it was admitted, next to the Jews, into a participation of the gospel
   covenant; and, secondly, because the Greeks, on account of their vicinity,
   and the celebrity of their language, were more known to the Jews. It is then
   a mode of speaking, a part being taken for the whole, by which he connects
   the Gentiles universally with the Jews, as participators of the gospel: nor
   does he thrust the Jews from their own eminence and dignity, since they were
   the first partakers of God’s promise and calling. He then reserves for them
   their prerogative; but he immediately joins the Gentiles, though in the
   second place, as being partakers with them.

   17. For [39] the righteousness of God, etc. This is an explanation and a
   confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God
   unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God,
   righteousness must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we
   may, through him being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists
   only in his favor; for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become
   righteous, since he regards unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore
   intimates, that we cannot obtain salvation otherwise than from the gospel,
   since nowhere else does God reveal to us his righteousness, which alone
   delivers us from perdition. Now this righteousness, which is the groundwork
   of our salvation, is revealed in the gospel: hence the gospel is said to be
   the power of God unto salvation. Thus he reasons from the cause to the
   effect.

   Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on
   us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I
   take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his
   tribunal; [40] as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness
   of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it
   be only vapor. Paul, however, I doubt not, alludes to the many prophecies in
   which the Spirit makes known everywhere the righteousness of God in the
   future kingdom of Christ.

   Some explain it as the righteousness which is freely given us by God: and I
   indeed confess that the words will bear this sense; for God justifies us by
   the gospel, and thus saves us: yet the former view seems to me more
   suitable, though it is not what I make much of. Of greater moment is what
   some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free
   remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration.
   But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles
   us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place.

   But instead of the expression he used before, “to every one who
   believeth,” he says now, from faith; for righteousness is offered by the
   gospel, and is received by faith. And he adds, to faith: for as our faith
   makes progress, and as it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God
   increases in us at the same time, and the possession of it is in a manner
   confirmed. When at first we taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling
   countenance turned towards us, but at a distance: the more the knowledge of
   true religion grows in us, by coming as it were nearer, we behold God’s
   favor more clearly and more familiarly. What some think, that there is here
   an implied comparison between the Old and New Testament, is more refined
   than well-founded; for Paul does not here compare the Fathers who lived
   under the law with us, but points out the daily progress that is made by
   every one of the faithful.

   As it is written, etc. By the authority of the Prophet Habakkuk he proves
   the righteousness of faith; for he, predicting the overthrow of the proud,
   adds this — that the life of the righteous consists in faith. Now we live
   not before God, except through righteousness: it then follows, that our
   righteousness is obtained by faith; and the verb being future, designates
   the real perpetuity of that life of which he speaks; as though he had said,
   — that it would not be momentary, but continue forever. For even the ungodly
   swell with the false notion of having life; but when they say, “Peace and
   safety,” a sudden destruction comes upon them, (1 Thessalonians 5:3.) It is
   therefore a shadow, which endures only for a moment. Faith alone is that
   which secures the perpetuity of life; and whence is this, except that it
   leads us to God, and makes our life to depend on him? For Paul would not
   have aptly quoted this testimony had not the meaning of the Prophet been,
   that we then only stand, when by faith we recumb on God: and he has not
   certainly ascribed life to the faith of the godly, but in as far as they,
   having renounced the arrogance of the world, resign themselves to the
   protection of God alone. [41]

   He does not indeed professedly handle this subject; and hence he makes no
   mention of gratuitous justification: but it is sufficiently evident from the
   nature of faith, that this testimony is rightly applied to the present
   subject. Besides, we necessarily gather from his reasoning, that there is a
   mutual connection between faith and the gospel: for as the just is said to
   live by faith, he concludes that this life is received by the gospel.

   We have now the principal point or the main hinge of the first part of this
   Epistle, — that we are justified by faith through the mercy of God alone. We
   have not this, indeed as yet distinctly expressed by Paul; but from his own
   words it will hereafter be made very clear — that the righteousness, which
   is grounded on faith, depends entirely on the mercy of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [38] On the power of God, Pareus observes, that the abstract, after the
   Hebrew manner, is put for the concrete. Power means the instrument of God’s
   power; that is, the gospel is an instrument rendered efficacious by divine
   power to convey salvation to believers: or, as Stuart says, “It is powerful
   through the energy which he imparts, and so it is called his power.”
   Chalmers gives this paraphrase, “It is that, which however judged and
   despised as a weak instrument by the men of this world — it is that, to
   which he, by his own power, gives effect for the recovery of that life which
   all men had forfeited and lost by sin.” “The gospel is a divine act, which
   continues to operate through all ages of the world, and that not in the
   first place outwardly, but inwardly, in the depths of the soul, and for
   eternal purposes.” — Dr. Olshausen

   [39] “The causative, gar, indicates a connection with the preceding, that
   the gospel is the power of God: the reason is, because by the gospel is
   revealed the righteousness of God, that is, made known by it is a way of
   righteousness and of obtaining life before God, which neither the law, nor
   philosophy, nor any other doctrine, was able to show.” — Pareus

   [40] “The righteousness of God,” dikaiosunē theou, has been the occasion of
   much toil to critics, but without reason: the very context is sufficient to
   show its meaning, it being what the gospel reveals, and what the gospel
   reveals is abundantly known from other passages. Whether we saw, it is the
   righteousness which is approved of God, as Calvin says, or provided by God,
   or contrived by God, or imputed by God, the meaning does not materially
   differ, and indeed all these things, as it is evident from Scripture, are
   true respecting it. There is more difficulty connected with the following
   words, ek pisteōs eis pistin. The view which Calvin gives was adopted by
   some of the Fathers, such as Theophylact and Clemens Alexandrinus; and it is
   that of Melancthon, Beza, Scaliger, Locke, and many others. From Poole we
   find that Chrysostom gave this exposition, “From the obscure and inchoate
   faith of the Old Testament to the clear and full faith of the New;” and that
   Ambrose’s exposition was the following, “From the faith or fidelity of God
   who promises to the faith of him who believes.” But in all these views there
   is not that which comports with the context, nor the construction very
   intelligible-”revealed from faith,” What can it mean? To render the passage
   intelligibly, ek pisteōs must be connected with dikaiosunē theou, as
   suggested by Hammond, and followed by Doddridge and Macknight. Then it would
   be, “The righteousness of God by faith or, which is by faith:” this is
   revealed in the gospel “to faith,” that is, in order that it may be
   believed; which is often the force of eis before a noun; as, eis tēn anomian
   — in order to do wickedness; or, eis hagiasmon in order to practice
   holiness, Romans 6:19 Chalmers, Stuart, Barnes, and Haldane take this view.
   The verse may be thus rendered, — For the righteousness of God by faith is
   in it revealed in order to be believed, as it is written, “The just shall by
   faith live.” The same truth is conveyed in Romans 3:22; and similar
   phraseology is found in Philippians 3:9. Barnes seems fully to express the
   import of the passage in these words, “God’s plan of justifying men is
   revealed in the gospel, which plan is by faith, and the benefits of which
   plan shall be extended to all that have faith or that believe.” — Ed.

   [41] Here is an instance in which Paul quotes the Old Testament, [Habbakuk
   2:4] neither exactly from the Hebrew nor the Septuagint. The Hebrew is “the
   just, — by his faith shall he live,” וצדיק באמונתו היה: and the Septuagint,
   turns “his” into “my,” ho de dikaios ek pisteōs mou zēsetai — “The just
   shall by my faith live,” — “by my faith,” that is, according to the tenor of
   the passage, “by faith in me.” The passage is quoted by him twice besides,
   in Galatians 3:11, and in Hebrews 10:38, but exactly in the same words,
   without the pronoun “his” or “my.” His object in this, as in some similar
   instances, was to state the general truth contained in the passage, and not
   to give a strictly verbal quotation. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:18-23

   18. For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
   unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

   18. Revelatur enim ira Dei e cœlo, super omnem impietatem et injustitiam
   hominum, veritatem Dei injuste continentium;

   19. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath
   shewed it unto them.

   19. Quia quod cognoscitur de Deo manifestum est in ipsis: Deus enim illis
   manifestavit.

   20. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are
   clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal
   power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

   20. Si quidem invisibilia ipsius, ex creatione mundi operibus intellecta,
   conspiciuntur, æterna quoque ejus potentia, et divinitas; ut sint
   inexcusabiles.

   21. Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither
   were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish
   heart was darkened.

   21. Quoniam quum Deum cogno vissent, non tanquam Deo gloriam dederunt, aut
   grati fuerunt; exinaniti sunt in cogitationibus suis, et obtenebratum est
   stultum coreorum.

   22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

   22. Quum se putarent sapientes, stulti facti sunt,

   23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like
   to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
   things.

   23. Et mutaverunt gloriam incorruptibilis Dei similitudine imaginis
   corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentum.

   18. For [42] revealed, etc. He reasons now by stating things of a contrary
   nature, and proves that there is no righteousness except what is conferred,
   or comes through the gospel; for he shows that without this all men are
   condemned: by it alone there is salvation to be found. And he brings, as the
   first proof of condemnation, the fact, — that though the structure of the
   world, and the most beautiful arrangement of the elements, ought to have
   induced man to glorify God, yet no one discharged his proper duty: it hence
   appears that all were guilty of sacrilege, and of wicked and abominable
   ingratitude.

   To some it seems that this is a main subject, and that Paul forms his
   discourse for the purpose of enforcing repentance; but I think that the
   discussion of the subject begins here, and that the principal point is
   stated in a former proposition; for Paul’s object was to teach us where
   salvation is to be found. He has already declared that we cannot obtain it
   except through the gospel: but as the flesh will not willingly humble itself
   so far as to assign the praise of salvation to the grace of God alone, Paul
   shows that the whole world is deserving of eternal death. It hence follows,
   that life is to be recovered in some other way, since we are all lost in
   ourselves. But the words, being well considered, will help us much to
   understand the meaning of the passage.

   Some make a difference between impiety and unrighteousness, and think, that
   by the former word is meant the profanation of God’s worship, and by the
   latter, injustice towards men; but as the Apostle immediately refers this
   unrighteousness to the neglect of true religion, we shall explain both as
   referring to the same thing. [43] And then, all the impiety of men is to be
   taken, by a figure in language, as meaning “the impiety of all men,” or, the
   impiety of which all men are guilty. But by these two words one thing is
   designated, and that is, ingratitude towards God; for we thereby offend in
   two ways: it is said to be asebeia, impiety, as it is a dishonoring of God;
   it is adikia, unrighteousness, because man, by transferring to himself what
   belongs to God, unjustly deprives God of his glory. The word wrath,
   according to the usage of Scripture, speaking after the manner of men, means
   the vengeance of God; for God, in punishing, has, according to our notion,
   the appearance of one in wrath. It imports, therefore, no such emotion in
   God, but only has a reference to the perception and feeling of the sinner
   who is punished. Then he says that it is revealed from heaven; though the
   expression, from heaven, is taken by some in the sense of an adjective, as
   though he had said “the wrath of the celestial God;” yet I think it more
   emphatical, when taken as having this import, “Wheresoever a man may look
   around him, he will find no salvation; for the wrath of God is poured out on
   the whole world, to the full extent of heaven.”

   The truth of God means, the true knowledge of God; and to hold in that, is
   to suppress or to obscure it: hence they are charged as guilty of robbery.
   — What we render unjustly, is given literally by Paul, in unrighteousness,
   which means the same thing in Hebrew: but we have regard to perspicuity.
   [44]

   19. Inasmuch as what may be known of God, etc. He thus designates what it
   behoves us to know of God; and he means all that appertains to the setting
   forth of the glory of the Lord, or, which is the same thing, whatever ought
   to move and excite us to glorify God. And by this expression he intimates,
   that God in his greatness can by no means be fully comprehended by us, and
   that there are certain limits within which men ought to confine themselves,
   inasmuch as God accommodates to our small capacities what he testifies of
   himself. Insane then are all they who seek to know of themselves what God
   is: for the Spirit, the teacher of perfect wisdom, does not in vain invite
   our attention to what may be known, to gnōston; and by what means this is
   known, he immediately explains. And he said, in them rather than to them,
   for the sake of greater emphasis: for though the Apostle adopts everywhere
   Hebrew phrases, and ב, beth, is often redundant in that language, yet he
   seems here to have intended to indicate a manifestation, by which they might
   be so closely pressed, that they could not evade; for every one of us
   undoubtedly finds it to be engraven on his own heart, [45] By saying, that
   God has made it manifest, he means, that man was created to be a spectator
   of this formed world, and that eyes were given him, that he might, by
   looking on so beautiful a picture, be led up to the Author himself.

   20. Since his invisible things, [46] etc. God is in himself invisible; but
   as his majesty shines forth in his works and in his creatures everywhere,
   men ought in these to acknowledge him, for they clearly set forth their
   Maker: and for this reason the Apostle in his Epistle to the Hebrews says,
   that this world is a mirror, or the representation of invisible things. He
   does not mention all the particulars which may be thought to belong to God;
   but he states, that we can arrive at the knowledge of his eternal power and
   divinity; [47] for he who is the framer of all things, must necessarily be
   without beginning and from himself. When we arrive at this point, the
   divinity becomes known to us, which cannot exist except accompanied with all
   the attributes of a God, since they are all included under that idea.

   So that they are inexcusable. It hence clearly appears what the consequence
   is of having this evidence — that men cannot allege any thing before God’s
   tribunal for the purpose of showing that they are not justly condemned. Yet
   let this difference be remembered, that the manifestation of God, by which
   he makes his glory known in his creation, is, with regard to the light
   itself, sufficiently clear; but that on account of our blindness, it is not
   found to be sufficient. We are not however so blind, that we can plead our
   ignorance as an excuse for our perverseness. We conceive that there is a
   Deity; and then we conclude, that whoever he may be, he ought to be
   worshipped: but our reason here fails, because it cannot ascertain who or
   what sort of being God is. Hence the Apostle in Hebrews 11:3, ascribes to
   faith the light by which man can gain real knowledge from the work of
   creation, and not without reason; for we are prevented by our blindness, so
   that we reach not to the end in view; we yet see so far, that we cannot
   pretend any excuse. Both these things are strikingly set forth by Paul in
   Acts 14:16-17, when he says, that the Lord in past times left the nations in
   their ignorance, and yet that he left them not without witness (amarturon,)
   since he gave them rain and fertility from heaven. But this knowledge of
   God, which avails only to take away excuse, differs greatly from that which
   brings salvation, which Christ mentions in John 17:3, and in which we are to
   glory, as Jeremiah teaches us, Jeremiah 9:24

   21. For when they knew God, etc. He plainly testifies here, that God has
   presented to the minds of all the means of knowing him, having so manifested
   himself by his works, that they must necessarily see what of themselves they
   seek not to know — that there is some God; for the world does not by chance
   exist, nor could it have proceeded from itself. But we must ever bear in
   mind the degree of knowledge in which they continued; and this appears from
   what follows.

   They glorified him not as God. No idea can be formed of God without
   including his eternity, power, wisdom, goodness, truth, righteousness, and
   mercy. His eternity appears evident, because he is the maker of all things
   — his power, because he holds all things in his hand and continues their
   existence — his wisdom, because he has arranged things in such an exquisite
   order — his goodness, for there is no other cause than himself, why he
   created all things, and no other reason, why he should be induced to
   preserve them — his justice, because in his government he punishes the
   guilty and defends the innocent — his mercy, because he bears with so much
   forbearance the perversity of men — and his truth, because he is
   unchangeable. He then who has a right notion of God ought to give him the
   praise due to his eternity, wisdom, goodness, and justice. Since men have
   not recognized these attributes in God, but have dreamt of him as though he
   were an empty phantom, they are justly said to have impiously robbed him of
   his own glory. Nor is it without reason that he adds, that they were not
   thankful, [48] for there is no one who is not indebted to him for numberless
   benefits: yea, even on this account alone, because he has been pleased to
   reveal himself to us, he has abundantly made us indebted to him. But they
   became vain, [49] etc.; that is, having forsaken the truth of God, they
   turned to the vanity of their own reason, all the acuteness of which is
   fading and passes away like vapor. And thus their foolish mind, being
   involved in darkness, could understand nothing aright but was carried away
   headlong, in various ways, into errors and delusions. Their unrighteousness
   was this — they quickly choked by their own depravity the seed of right
   knowledge, before it grew up to ripeness.

   22. While they were thinking, etc. It is commonly inferred from this
   passage, that Paul alludes here to those philosophers, who assumed to
   themselves in a peculiar manner the reputation of wisdom; and it is thought
   that the design of his discourse is to show, that when the superiority of
   the great is brought down to nothing, the common people would have no reason
   to suppose that they had any thing worthy of being commended: but they seem
   to me to have been guided by too slender a reason; for it was not peculiar
   to the philosophers to suppose themselves wise in the knowledge of God, but
   it was equally common to all nations, and to all ranks of men. There were
   indeed none who sought not to form some ideas of the majesty of God, and to
   make him such a God as they could conceive him to be according to their own
   reason. This presumption I hold is not learned in the schools, but is
   innate, and comes with us, so to speak, from the womb. It is indeed evident,
   that it is an evil which has prevailed in all ages — that men have allowed
   themselves every liberty in coining superstitions. The arrogance then which
   is condemned here is this — that men sought to be of themselves wise, and to
   draw God down to a level with their own low condition, when they ought
   humbly to have given him his own glory. For Paul holds this principle, that
   none, except through their own fault, are unacquainted with the worship due
   to God; as though he said, “As they have proudly exalted themselves, they
   have become infatuated through the righteous judgment of God.” There is an
   obvious reason, which contravenes the interpretation which I reject; for the
   error of forming an image of God did not originate with the philosophers;
   but they, by their consent, approved of it as received from others. [50]

   23. And changed, etc. Having feigned such a God as they could comprehend
   according to their carnal reason, they were very far from acknowledging the
   true God: but devised a fictitious and a new god, or rather a phantom. And
   what he says is, that they changed the glory of God; for as though one
   substituted a strange child, so they departed from the true God. Nor are
   they to be excused for this pretense, that they believe that God dwells in
   heaven, and that they count not the wood to be God, but his image; for it is
   a high indignity to God, to form so gross an idea of his majesty as to dare
   to make an image of him. But from the wickedness of such a presumption none
   were exempt, neither priests, nor statesmen, nor philosophers, of whom the
   most sound-minded, even Plato himself, sought to find out some likeness of
   God.

   The madness then here noticed, is, that all attempted to make for themselves
   an image of God; which was a certain proof that their notions of God were
   gross and absurd. And, first, they befouled the majesty of God by forming
   him in the likeness of a corruptible man: for I prefer this rendering to
   that of mortal man, which is adopted by Erasmus; for Paul sets not the
   immortality of God in opposition to the mortality of man, but that glory,
   which is subject to no defects, to the most wretched condition of man. And
   then, being not satisfied with so great a crime, they descended even to
   beasts and to those of the most filthy kind; by which their stupidity
   appeared still more evident. You may see an account of these abominations in
   Lactantius, in Eusebius, and in Augustine in his book on the city of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [42] The connection here is not deemed very clear. Stuart thinks that this
   verse is connected, as the former one, with Romans 1:16. and that it
   includes a reason why the Apostle was not ashamed of the gospel: and
   Macknight seems to have been of the same opinion, for he renders gar,
   besides. In this case the revelation of wrath from heaven is that which is
   made by the gospel. This certainly gives a meaning to the words, “from
   heaven” which is hardly done by any other views. That the gospel reveals
   “wrath,” as well as righteousness to be obtained by faith, is what is
   undeniable. Salvation to the believer, and condemnation to the unbeliever,
   is its sum and substance. The objection made by Haldane is of no force, —
   that the Apostle subsequently shows the sins of mankind as committed against
   the light of nature, and not against the gospel; for he seems to have
   brought forward the evidence from the light of nature, in order to confirm
   the evidence from the light of revelation. The expression is, “Revealed is
   the wrath of God,” and not has been. See Acts 17:30, 31 This is the view
   taken by Turrettin; and Pareus says, “There is nothing to prevent us from
   referring the revelation of wrath, as well as the revelation of
   righteousness, to the gospel” — Ed.

   [43] It is true that the immediate subject is the neglect of religion; but
   then injustice towards men is afterwards introduced, and most critics take
   it in this sense. — Ed.

   [44] This clause, tōn tēn alētheian en adikia katechontōn is differently
   rendered, “Veritatem injuste detinentes — unjustly detaining the truth,”
   Turrettin; “Who stifle the truth in unrighteousness,” Chalmers; “Who hinder
   the truth by unrighteousness,” Stuart; “Who wickedly oppose the truth,”
   Hodge; “Who confine the truth by unrighteousness,” Macknight “They rushed
   headlong,” says Pareus, “into impiety against God and into injustice against
   one another, not through ignorance, but knowingly, not through weakness, but
   willfully and maliciously: and this the Apostle expresses by a striking
   metaphor, taken from tyrants, who, against right and justice, by open
   violence, oppress the innocent, bind them in chains, and detain them in
   prison.” The sense given by Schleusner and some others, “Qui cum veri Dei
   cognitione pravitatem vitæ conjungunt — who connect with a knowledge of the
   true God a wicked life,” seems not to comport with the context. “The
   truth” means that respecting the being and power of God afterwards
   specified. — Ed.

   [45] Some take en autois, to mean among them, i.e., as Stuart says, “in the
   midst of them, or before their eyes,” that is, in the visible world; though
   many refer it with Calvin, to the moral sense, and that the expression is
   the same with “written in their hearts,” in Romans 2:15. — Ed.

   [46] There is a passage quoted by Wolfius from Aristotle in his book De
   Mundo, which remarkably coincides with a part of this verse — “pasHu
   thnēthō phusei genomenos atheōrētos ap autōn tōn ergōn theoreitai ho theos
   — God, unseen by any mortal nature, is to be seen by the works
   themselves.” — Ed.

   [47] Divinitas, theiotēs, here only, and not theotēs as in Colossians 1:9
   Elsner and others make a difference between these two words and say, that
   the former means the divinity or majesty of God, and the latter his nature
   or being. There seems to be the idea of goodness conveyed in the word,
   theiotēs: for in the following verse there are two things laid to the charge
   of the Gentiles which bear a reference to the two things said here — they
   did not glorify him as God, and they were not thankful. He made himself
   known by power as God, and by the beneficent exercise of that power, he had
   laid a claim to the gratitude of his creatures. See Acts 14:15; and Acts
   17:25, 27 Venema, in his note on this passage, shows, that goodness was
   regarded by many of the heathens as the primary attribute of Deity. Among
   the Greeks, goodness — to agathon, was the expression by which the Supreme
   Being was distinguished. And it appears evident from the context that the
   Apostle included this idea especially in the word theiotēs. — Ed

   [48] The conjunctive, ē, is for oute, says Piscator: but it is a Hebraism,
   for ו is sometimes used in Hebrew without the negative, which belongs to a
   former clause. — Ed.

   [49] The original words are, emataiōthēsan en tois dialogismois autōn, “Vani
   facti sunt in ratiocinationibus suis — they became vain in their
   reasonings” Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, and Doddridge; “They became foolish by
   their own reasonings,” Macknight “Whatever the right reason within,” says
   Pareus, “or the frame of the world without, might have suggested respecting
   God, they indulged in pleasing speculations, specious reasonings, and in
   subtle and frivolous conclusions; some denied the existence of a God, as
   Epicurus and Democritus — others doubted, as Protagoras and Diagoras —
   others affirmed the existence of many gods, and these, as the Platonics,
   maintained that they are not corporeal, while the Greeks and Romans held
   them to be so, who worshipped dead men, impious, cruel, impure, and wicked.
   There were also the Egyptians, who worshipped as gods, brute animals, oxen,
   geese, birds, crocodiles, yea, what grew in their gardens, garlic’s and
   onions. A very few, such as Plato and Aristotle, acknowledged one Supreme
   Being; but even these deprived him of his providence. These, and the like,
   were the monstrous opinions which the Gentiles deduced from their
   reasonings. They became vain, foolish, senseless.” “And darkened became
   their foolish heart,” — hē asunetos autōn kardia; “Corinthians eorum
   intelligentia carens — their heart void of understanding;” “their
   unintelligent heart,” Doddridge. Perhaps “undiscerning heart” would be the
   most suitable. See Matthew 15:16. Heart, after the manner of the Hebrews, is
   to be taken here for the whole soul, especially the mind. — Ed.

   [50] Calvin is peculiar in his exposition of this verse. Most critics agree
   in thinking that those referred to here were those reputed learned among all
   nations, as Beza says, “Such as the Druids of the Gauls, the soothsayers of
   the Tuscans, the philosophers of the Greeks, the priests of the Egyptians,
   the magi of the Persians, the gymnosophists of the Indians, and the Rabbins
   of the Jews.” He considers that the Apostle refers especially to such as
   these, though he speaks of all men as appearing to themselves very wise in
   their insane devices as to the worship of God. The wiser they thought
   themselves, the more foolish they became. See Jeremiah 8:8, 9; 1 Corinthians
   1:19-22. “This is the greatest unhappiness of man, not only not to feel his
   malady, but to extract matter of pride from what ought to be his shame. What
   they deemed to be their wisdom was truly their folly.” — Haldane. It is a
   just remark of Hodge, “That the higher the advancement of the nations in
   refinement and philosophy, the greater, as a general rule, the degradation
   and folly of their systems of religion.” As a proof he mentions the ancient
   Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, as compared with the aborigines of America.
   — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:24-32

   24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of
   their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

   24. Propterea tradidit illos Deus in cupiditates cordium suorum in
   immunditiem, ut ignominia afficerent corpora sua in seipsis:

   25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
   creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

   25. Qui transmutarunt veritatem ejus in mendacium et coluerunt ac venerati
   sunt creaturam supra, Creatorem, qui est benedictus in secula: Amen.

   26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their
   women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:

   26. Propterea, inquam, tradidit illos Deus in passiones ignominiosas: ac
   enim feminæ ipsorum transmutarunt natura- lem usum in eum qui est præter
   naturam:

   27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned
   in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is
   unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which
   was meet.

   27. Similiter et viri quoque, amisso naturali usu feminæ, exarserunt mutua
   libidine, alii in alios; masculi in masculis fœditatem per petrantes et quam
   decebat erroris sui mercedem in seipsis recipientes.

   28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave
   them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;

   28. Et quemadmodum non probaverunt Deum habere in notitia, tradidit illos
   Deus in reprobam mentem, ad facienda quæ non decerent;

   29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness,
   covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit,
   malignity; whisperers,

   29. Ut essent pleni omni injustitia, nequitia, libidine, avaritia, malitia;
   referti invidia, homicidio, contentione, dolo, perversitate; susurrones,

   30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of
   evil things, disobedient to parents,

   30. Obtrectatores, osores Dei, malefici, contumeliosi, fastuosi, repertores
   malorum, parentibus immorigeri,

   31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection,
   implacable, unmerciful:

   31. Intelligentiæ expertes, insociabiles, affectu humanitatis carentes,
   fœdifragi, sine misericordiæ sensu;

   32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are
   worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do
   them.

   32. Qui, quum Dei judicium cognoverint, quod qui talia agunt, digni sunt
   morte, non tantum ea faciunt, sed assentiuntur facientibus.

   24. God therefore gave them up, etc. As impiety is a hidden evil, lest they
   should still find an evasion, he shows, by a more palpable demonstration,
   that, they cannot escape, but must be held fast by a just condemnation,
   since such fruits have followed this impiety as cannot be viewed otherwise
   than manifest evidences of the Lord’s wrath. As the Lord’s wrath is always
   just, it follows, that what has exposed them to condemnation, must have
   preceded it. By these evidences then he now proves the apostasy and
   defection of men: for the Lord indeed does so punish those, who alienate
   themselves from his goodness, that he casts them headlong into various
   courses which lead to perdition and ruin. And by comparing the vices, of
   which they were guilty, with the impiety, of which he had before accused
   them, he shows that they suffered punishment through the just judgment of
   God: for since nothing is dearer to us than our own honor, it is extreme
   blindness, when we fear not to bring disgrace on ourselves; and it is the
   most suitable punishment for a reproach done to the Divine Majesty. This is
   the very thing which he treats of to the end of the chapter; but he handles
   it in various ways, for the subject required ample illustration.

   What then, in short, he proves to us is this, — that the ingratitude of men
   to God is incapable of being excused; for it is manifest, by unequivocal
   evidences, that the wrath of God rages against them: they would have never
   rolled themselves in lusts so filthy, after the manner of beasts, had not
   the majesty of God been provoked and incensed against them. Since, then, the
   worst abominations abounded everywhere, he concludes that there existed
   among them evidences of divine vengeance. Now, as this never rages without
   reason, or unjustly, but ever keeps within the limits of what is right, he
   intimates that it hence appears that perdition, not less certain than just,
   impended over all.

   As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is
   by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate,
   (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to
   fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that
   he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led
   and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil.
   He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to the constant usage of
   Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into
   sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s
   wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not
   through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is
   not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly
   shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve
   such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin
   is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for
   this must be true,

   “Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.”
   (Hosea 13:9) [51]

   By connecting the desires or lusts of man’s heart with uncleanness, he
   indirectly intimates what sort of progeny our heart generates, when left to
   itself. The expression, among themselves, is not without its force; for it
   significantly expresses how deep and indelible are the marks of infamy
   imprinted on our bodies.

   25. Who changed, etc. He repeats what he had said before, though in
   different words, in order to fix it deeper in our minds. When the truth of
   God is turned to a lie, his glory is obliterated. It is then but just, that
   they should be besprinkled with every kind of infamy, who strive to take
   away from God his honor, and also to reproach his name. —

   And worshipped, etc. That I might include two words in one, I have given
   this rendering. He points out especially the sin of idolatry; for religious
   honor cannot be given to a creature, without taking it away, in a
   disgraceful and sacrilegious manner, from God: and vain is the excuse that
   images are worshipped on God’s account, since God acknowledges no such
   worship, nor regards it as acceptable; and the true God is not then
   worshipped at all, but a fictitious God, whom the flesh has devised for
   itself. [52] What is added, Who is blessed for ever, I explain as having
   been said for the purpose of exposing idolaters to greater reproach, and in
   this way, “He is one whom they ought alone to have honored and worshipped,
   and from whom it was not right to take away any thing, no, not even the
   least.”

   26. God therefore gave them up, etc. After having introduced as it were an
   intervening clause, he returns to what he had before stated respecting the
   judgment of God: and he brings, as the first example, the dreadful crime of
   unnatural lust; and it hence appears that they not only abandoned themselves
   to beastly lusts, but became degraded beyond the beasts, since they reversed
   the whole order of nature. He then enumerates a long catalogue of vices
   which had existed in all ages, and then prevailed everywhere without any
   restraint.

   It is not to the purpose to say, that every one was not laden with so great
   a mass of vices; for in arraigning the common baseness of men, it is proof
   enough if all to a man are constrained to acknowledge some faults. So then
   we must consider, that Paul here records those abominations which had been
   common in all ages, and were at that time especially prevalent everywhere;
   for it is marvelous how common then was that filthiness which even brute
   beasts abhor; and some of these vices were even popular. And he recites a
   catalogue of vices, in some of which the whole race of man were involved;
   for though all were not murderers, or thieves, or adulterers, yet there were
   none who were not found polluted by some vice or another. He calls those
   disgraceful passions, which are shameful even in the estimation of men, and
   redound to the dishonoring of God.

   27. Such a reward for their error as was meet. They indeed deserved to be
   blinded, so as to forget themselves, and not to see any thing befitting
   them, who, through their own malignity, closed their eyes against the light
   offered them by God, that they might not behold his glory: in short, they
   who were not ashamed to extinguish, as much as they could, the glory of God,
   which alone gives us light, deserved to become blind at noonday.

   28. And as they chose not, etc. There is an evident comparison to be
   observed in these words, by which is strikingly set forth the just relation
   between sin and punishment. As they chose not to continue in the knowledge
   of God, which alone guides our minds to true wisdom, the Lord gave them a
   perverted mind, which can choose nothing that is right. [53] And by saying,
   that they chose not, (non probasse - approved not,) it is the same as though
   he had said, that they pursued not after the knowledge of God with the
   attention they ought to have done, but, on the contrary, turned away their
   thoughts resignedly from God. He then intimates, that they, making a
   depraved choice, preferred their own vanities to the true God; and thus the
   error, by which they were deceived, was voluntary.

   To do those things which were not meet As he had hitherto referred only to
   one instance of abomination, which prevailed indeed among many, but was not
   common to all, he begins here to enumerate vices from which none could be
   found free: for though every vice, as it has been said, did not appear in
   each individual, yet all were guilty of some vices, so that every one might
   separately be accused of manifest depravity. As he calls them in the first
   instance not meet, understand him as saying, that they were inconsistent
   with every decision of reason, and alien to the duties of men: for he
   mentions it as an evidence of a perverted mind, that men addicted
   themselves, without any reflection, to those vices, which common sense ought
   to have led them to renounce.

   But it is labor in vain so to connect these vices, as to make them dependent
   one on another, since this was not Paul’s design; but he set them down as
   they occurred to his mind. What each of them signifies, we shall very
   briefly explain.

   29. Understand by unrighteousness, the violation of justice among men, by
   not rendering to each his due. I have rendered ponērian, according to the
   opinion of Ammonium, wickedness; for he teaches us that ponēron, the wicked,
   is drastikon kakou, the doer of evil. The word (nequitia) then means
   practiced wickedness, or licentiousness in doing mischief: but maliciousness
   (malitia) is that depravity and obliquity of mind which leads us to do harm
   to our neighbour. [54] For the word porneian, which Paul uses, I have put
   lust, (libidinem.) I do not, however, object, if one prefers to render it
   fornication; but he means the inward passion as well as the outward act.
   [55] The words avarice, envy, and murder, have nothing doubtful in their
   meaning. Under the word strife, (contentione,) [56] he includes quarrels,
   fightings, and seditions. We have rendered kakoētheian, perversity,
   (perversitatem;) [57] which is a notorious and uncommon wickedness; that is,
   when a man, covered over, as it were, with hardness, has become hardened in
   a corrupt course of life by custom and evil habit.

   30. The word theostugeis, means, no doubt, haters of God; for there is no
   reason to take it in a passive sense, (hated of God,) since Paul here proves
   men to be guilty by manifest vices. Those, then, are designated, who hate
   God, whose justice they seem to resist by doing wrong. Whisperers
   (susurrones) and slanderers (obtrectatores) [58] are to be thus
   distinguished; the former, by secret accusations, break off the friendships
   of good men, inflame their minds with anger, defame the innocent, and sow
   discords; and the latter through an innate malignity, spare the reputation
   of no one, and, as though they were instigated by the fury of evilspeaking,
   they revile the deserving as well as the undeserving We have translated
   hubristas, villanous, (maleficos;) for the Latin authors are wont to call
   notable injuries villanies, such as plunders, thefts, burnings, and
   sorceries; and these where the vices which Paul meant to point out here.
   [59] I have rendered the word huperēphanous, used by Paul, insolent,
   (contumeliosos;) for this is the meaning of the Greek word: and the reason
   for the word is this, — because such being raised, as it were, on high, look
   down on those who are, as it were, below them with contempt, and they cannot
   bear to look on their equals. Haughty are they who swell with the empty wind
   of overweeningness. Unsociable [60] are those who, by their iniquities,
   unloose the bands of society, or those in whom there is no sincerity or
   constancy of faith, who may be called truce-breakers.

   31. Without the feelings of humanity are they who have put off the first
   affections of nature towards their own relations. As he mentions the want of
   mercy as an evidence of human nature being depraved, Augustine, in arguing
   against the Stoics, concludes, that mercy is a Christian virtue.

   32. Who, knowing the judgement [61] of God, etc. Though this passage is
   variously explained, yet the following appears to me the correctest
   interpretation, — that men left nothing undone for the purpose of giving
   unbridled liberty to their sinful propensities; for having taken away all
   distinction between good and evil, they approved in themselves and in others
   those things which they knew displeased God, and would be condemned by his
   righteous judgment. For it is the summit of all evils, when the sinner is so
   void of shame, that he is pleased with his own vices, and will not bear them
   to be reproved, and also cherishes them in others by his consent and
   approbation. This desperate wickedness is thus described in Scripture:

   “They boast when they do evil,” (Proverbs 2:14.)

   “She has spread out her feet,
   and gloried in her wickedness,” (Ezekiel 16:25.)

   For he who is ashamed is as yet healable; but when such an impudence is
   contracted through a sinful habit, that vices, and not virtues, please us,
   and are approved, there is no more any hope of reformation. Such, then, is
   the interpretation I give; for I see that the Apostle meant here to condemn
   something more grievous and more wicked than the very doing of vices: what
   that is I know not, except we refer to that which is the summit of all
   wickedness, — that is, when wretched men, having cast away all shame,
   undertake the patronage of vices in opposition to the righteousness of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [51] On this subject Augustine, as quoted by Poole, uses a stronger language
   than which we find here: — Tradidit non solum per patientiam et
   permissionem, sed per potentiam et quasi actionem; non faciendo voluntates
   malas, sed eis jam malis utendo ut voluerit; multa et intra ipsos et exrtra
   ipsos operando, a quibus illi occasionem capiunt gravius peccandi; largiendo
   illis admonitiones, flagella, beneficia, etc., quibus quoque eos scivit Deus
   ad suam perniciem abusuros — “He delivered them up, not only by sufferance
   and permission, but by power, and as it were by an efficient operation; not
   by making evil their wills, but by using them, being already evil, as he
   pleased; by working many things both within and without them, from which
   they take occasion to sin more grievously, by giving them warnings,
   scourges, benefits, etc., which God knew they would abuse to their own
   destruction.” — This is an awful view of God’s proceedings towards those who
   willfully resist the truth, but no doubt a true one. Let all who have the
   opportunity of knowing the truth tremble at the thought of making light of
   it. The preposition en before desires or lusts, is used after the Hebrew
   manner, in the sense of to or into; for ב beth, means in, and to, and also
   by or through; and such is the import of en as frequently used by the
   Apostle. It is so used in the preceding verse — en homoiōmati — into the
   likeness, etc. Then the verse would be, as Calvin in sense renders it, — God
   also on this account delivered them up to the lusts of their own hearts to
   work uncleanness, that they might dishonor their bodies among themselves.
   The import of eis akatharsian, in order to uncleanness, is no doubt, to work
   uncleanness; the Apostle frequently uses this kind of expression. Stuart
   labors here unnecessarily to show, that God gave them up, being in their
   lusts, etc., taking the clause as a description of those who were given up;
   but the plainest meaning is that which Calvin gives. — Ed.

   [52] The words, “the truth of God,” and “falsehood,” or, a lie, are
   Hebraistic in their meaning, signifying “the true God,” and “an idol.” The
   word, which means a lie, is often in Hebrew applied to any thing made to be
   worshipped. See Isaiah 44:17, compared with 20; Jeremiah 13:25 Stuart
   renders the sentence, “Who exchanged the true God for a false one.” Wolfius
   objects to this view, and says, “I prefer to take alētheian tou theou, for
   the truth made known by God to the Gentiles, of which see Romans 1:18, and
   the following verses: they changed this into a lie, i.e., into those insane
   and absurd notions, into which they were led by their dialogismois —
   reasonings, Romans 1:21.” The expression — para ton ktisanta has been
   rendered by Erasmus, “above the creator,” by Luther, “rather than the
   Creator;” by Beza, “to the neglect of the Creator — præterito conditore;”
   and by Grotius, “in the place of the Creator.” The two last are more
   consonant with the general tenor of the context; for the persons here spoken
   of, according to the description given them, did not worship God at all;
   para is evidently used in the sense of exclusion and opposition para ton
   nomon — contrary to the law, Acts 18:13; para phusin — contrary to nature,
   Romans 1: 26. See Galatians 1:8 — Ed.

   [53] There is a correspondence between the words ouk edokimasan — they did
   not approve, or think worthy, and adokimon — unapproved, or worthless, which
   is connected with noun, mind. The verb means to try or prove a thing, as
   metal by fire, then to distinguish between what is genuine or otherwise, and
   also to approve of what is good and valuable. To approve or think fit or
   worthy seems to be the meaning here. Derived from this verb is adokimos,
   which is applied to unapproved or adulterated money, — to men unsound, not
   able to bear the test, not genuine as Christians, 2 Corinthians 13:5, — to
   the earth that is unfit to produce fruits, Hebrews 6:8. The nearest
   alliteration that can perhaps be presented is the following, “And as they
   did not deem it worth while to acknowledge God, God delivered them up to a
   worthless mind,” that is, a mind unfit to discern between right and wrong.
   Beza gives this meaning, “Mentem omnis judicii expertem — a mind void of all
   judgment.” Locke’s “unsearching mind,” and Macknight’s “unapproving mind,”
   and Doddridge’s “undiscerning mind,” do not exactly convey the right idea,
   though the last comes nearest to it. It is an unattesting mind, not capable
   of bringing things to the test — dokimion not able to distinguish between
   things of the most obvious nature. “To acknowledge God” is literally “to
   have God in recognition ton theon echein en epignōsei.” Venema says, that
   this is a purely Greek idiom, and adduces passages from Herodotus and
   Xenophon; from the first, the following phrase, en alogiēͅ echein — to have
   in contempt, i.e., to contemn or despise. — Ed.

   [54] The two words are ponēria and kakia Doddridge renders them “mischief
   and malignity.” Pareus says that kakia is vice, opposed to tē aretē —
   virtue. — Ed.

   [55] “Porneia has an extended sense, comprehending all illicit intercourse,
   whether fornication, adultery, incest, or any other venus illicita.” —Stuart

   [56] Improperly rendered “debate” in our version — eridos, “strife”, by
   Macknight, and “contention,” by Doddridge. — Ed.

   [57] In our versions “malignity;” by Macknight, “bad disposition;” and by
   Doddridge, “inveteracy of evil habits.” Schleusner thinks that it means here
   “malevolence.” — Ed.

   [58] Katalalous, literally gainsayers, or those who speak against others,
   — defamers, calumniators; rendered “revilers,” by Macknight. — Ed.

   [59] The three words, hubistas huperēphanous, and alazonas seem to designate
   three properties of a proud spirit — disdainful or insolent, haughty and
   vainglorious. The hubristai are those who treat others petulantly,
   contumeliously, or insultingly “Insolent,” as given by Macknight, is the
   most suitable word. The huperēphanos is one who sets himself to view above
   others, the high and elevated, who exhibits himself as superior to others.
   The alazōn is the boaster, who assumes more than what belongs to him, or
   promises more than what he can perform. These three forms of pride are often
   seen in the world. — Ed.

   [60] Unsociabiles — asunthetous. “Faithless,” perhaps, would be the most
   suitable word. “Who adhere not to compacts,” is the explanation of Hesychius
   To preserve the same negative according to what is done in Greek, we may
   render Romans 1:31 as follows: — 31. Unintelligent, unfaithful, unnatural,
   unappeasable, unmerciful. — Ed.

   [61] Calvin has “justitiam“ here, though “judicium“ is given in the text.
   — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 2
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:1-2

   1. Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest:
   for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that
   judgest doest the same things.

   1. Propterea inexcusabilis es, O homo, quicunque judicas: in quo enim
   judicas alterum, teipsum condemnas; eadem enim facis dum judicas.

   2. But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against
   them which commit such things.

   2. Novimus autem quod judicium Dei est secundum veritatem in eos qui talia
   agunt.

   1. Therefore inexcusable art thou, O man. This reproof is directed against
   hypocrites, who dazzle the eyes of men by displays of outward sanctity, and
   even think themselves to be accepted before God, as though they had given
   him full satisfaction. Hence Paul, after having stated the grosser vices,
   that he might prove that none are just before God, now attacks saintlings
   (sanctulos) of this kind, who could not have been included in the first
   catalogue. Now the inference is too simple and plain for any one to wonder
   how the Apostle derived his argument; for he makes them inexcusable, because
   they themselves knew the judgment of God, and yet transgressed the law; as
   though he said, “Though thou consented not to the vices of others, and
   seemest to be avowedly even an enemy and a reprover of vices; yet as thou
   art not free from them, if thou really examinest thyself, thou canst not
   bring forward any defense.”

   For in what thou judgest another, etc. Besides the striking resemblance
   there is between the two Greek verbs, krinein and katakrinein (to judge and
   to condemn,) the enhancing of their sin ought to be noticed; for his mode of
   speaking is the same, as though he said, “Thou art doubly deserving of
   condemnation; for thou art guilty of the same vices which thou blamest and
   reprovest in others.” It is, indeed, a well-known saying, — that they who
   scrutinize the life of others lay claim themselves to innocence, temperance,
   and all virtues; and that those are not worthy of any indulgence who allow
   in themselves the same things which they undertake to correct in others.

   For thou, judging, doest the same things: so it is literally; but the
   meaning is, “Though thou judgest, thou yet doest the same things.” And he
   says that they did them, because they were not in a right state of mind; for
   sin properly belongs to the mind. They then condemned themselves on this
   account, — because, in reproving a thief, or an adulterer, or a slanderer,
   they did not merely condemn the persons, but those very vices which adhered
   to themselves. [62]

   2. But we know that the judgment of God, etc. The design of Paul is to shake
   off from hypocrites their self-complacencies, that they may not think that
   they can really gain any thing, though they be applauded by the world, and
   though they regard themselves guiltless; for a far different trial awaits
   them in heaven. But as he charges them with inward impurity, which, being
   hid from the eyes of men, cannot be proved and convicted by human
   testimonies, he summons them to the tribunal of God, to whom darkness itself
   is not hid, and by whose judgment the case of sinners, be they willing or
   unwilling, must be determined.

   Moreover, the truth of judgment will in two ways appear, because God will
   punish sin without any respect of persons, in whomsoever it will be found;
   and he will not heed outward appearances, nor be satisfied with any outward
   work, except what has proceeded from real sincerity of heart. It hence
   follows, that the mask of feigned sanctity will not prevent him from
   visiting secret wickedness with judgment. It is, no doubt, a Hebrew idiom;
   for truth in Hebrew means often the inward integrity of the heart, and thus
   stands opposed not only to gross falsehood, but also to the outward
   appearance of good works. And then only are hypocrites awakened, when they
   are told that God will take an account, not only of their disguised
   righteousness, but also of their secret motives and feelings. [63]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [62] It is confessed by most that the illative, dio, at the beginning of the
   verse can hardly be accounted for. The inference from the preceding is not
   very evident. It is, in my view, an instance of Hebraism; and the reference
   is not to what has preceded, but to what is to come. It is not properly an
   illative, but it anticipates a reason afterwards given, conveyed by for, or,
   because. Its meaning will be seen in the following version: — On this
   account, inexcusable art thou, O man, whosoever thou be who condemnest
   another, because, in what thou condemnest another thou condemnest thyself;
   for thou who condemnest doest the same things. The verb, krinō, has here the
   idea of condemning, or of passing judgments; to judge is not sufficiently
   distinct. — Ed.

   [63] “According to truth” — kata alētheian, means, according to the true
   state of the case, without any partiality, or according to what is just and
   equitable; so Grotius takes it. Its corresponding word in Hebrew, אמת, is
   sometimes rendered dikaiosunm, It is found opposed to adikia in 1
   Corinthians 13:6. The expression here may be deemed to be the same in
   meaning with dikaiokrisia — righteous judgment, in verse 5. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:3-10

   3. And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things,
   and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?

   3. Existimas autem, O homo, qui judicas eos qui talia faciunt, et eadem
   facis, quod ipse effugies judicium Dei?

   4. Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and
   long-suffering; [64] not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
   repentance?

   4. An divitias bonitatis ipsius tolerantiæque, ac lenitatis contemnis;
   ignorans quod bonitas Dei te ad pœnitentiam deducit?

   5. But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself
   wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of
   God;

   5. Sed, juxta duritiam tuam, et cor pœnitere nescium, thesaurizas tibi iram
   in diem irae et revelations justi judicii Dei;

   6. Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

   6. Qui redditurus est unicuique secundam ipsius opera:

   7. To them who by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory and
   honour and immortality, eternal life;

   7. Iis quidem, qui per boni operis perseverantiam, gloriam et honorem et
   immortalitatem quærunt, vitam æternam;

   8. But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey
   unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

   8. Iis vero qui sunt contentiosi, ac veritati immorigeri, injustitiæ autem
   obtemperant, excandescentia, ira, tribulatio,

   9. Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the
   Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

   9. Et anxietas in omnem animam hominis perpetrantis malum, Iudæi primum
   simul et Græci:

   10. But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew
   first, and also to the Gentile:

   10. At gloria et honor et pax omni operanti bonum, Iudæo primum simul et
   Græco.

   3. And thinkest thou, O man, etc. As rhetoricians teach us, that we ought
   not to proceed to give strong reproof before the crime be proved, Paul may
   seem to some to have acted unwisely here for having passed so severe a
   censure, when he had not yet proved the accusation which he had brought
   forward. But the fact is otherwise; for he adduced not his accusation before
   men, but appealed to the judgment of conscience; and thus he deemed that
   proved which he had in view — that they could not deny their iniquity, if
   they examined themselves and submitted to the scrutiny of God’s tribunal.
   And it was not without urgent necessity, that he with so much sharpness and
   severity rebuked their fictitious sanctity; for men of this class will with
   astonishing security trust in themselves, except their vain confidence be
   forcibly shaken from them. Let us then remember, that this is the best mode
   of dealing with hypocrisy, in order to awaken it from its inebriety, that
   is, to draw it forth to the light of God’s judgment.

   That thou shalt escape, etc. This argument is drawn from the less; for since
   our sins are subject to the judgment of men, much more are they to that of
   God, who is the only true Judge of all. Men are indeed led by a divine
   instinct to condemn evil deeds; but this is only an obscure and faint
   resemblance of the divine judgment. They are then extremely besotted, who
   think that they can escape the judgment of God, though they allow not others
   to escape their own judgment. It is not without an emphatical meaning that
   he repeats the word man; it is for the purpose of presenting a comparison
   between man and God.

   4. Dost thou despise the riches? etc. It does not seem to me, as some think,
   that there is here an argument, conclusive on two grounds, (dilemma,) but an
   anticipation of an objection: for as hypocrites are commonly transported
   with prosperity, as though they had merited the Lord’s kindness by their
   good deeds, and become thus more hardened in their contempt of God, the
   Apostle anticipates their arrogance, and proves, by an argument taken from a
   reason of an opposite kind, that there is no ground for them to think that
   God, on account of their outward prosperity, is propitious to them, since
   the design of his benevolence is far different, and that is, to convert
   sinners to himself. Where then the fear of God does not rule, confidence, on
   account of prosperity, is a contempt and a mockery of his great goodness. It
   hence follows, that a heavier punishment will be inflicted on those whom God
   has in this life favored; because, in addition to their other wickedness,
   they have rejected the fatherly invitation of God. And though all the gifts
   of God are so many evidences of his paternal goodness, yet as he often has a
   different object in view, the ungodly absurdly congratulate themselves on
   their prosperity, as though they were dear to him, while he kindly and
   bountifully supports them.

   Not knowing that the goodness of God, etc. For the Lord by his kindness
   shows to us, that it is he to whom we ought turn, if we desire to secure our
   wellbeing, and at the same time he strengthens our confidence in expecting
   mercy. If we use not God’s bounty for this end, we abuse it. But yet it is
   not to be viewed always in the same light; for when the Lord deals favorably
   with his servants and gives them earthly blessings, he makes known to them
   by symbols of this kind his own benevolence, and trains them up at the same
   time to seek the sum and substance of all good things in himself alone: when
   he treats the transgressors of his law with the same indulgence, his object
   is to soften by his kindness their perverseness; he yet does not testify
   that he is already propitious to them, but, on the contrary, invites them to
   repentance. But if any one brings this objection — that the Lord sings to
   the deaf as long as he does not touch inwardly their hearts; we must answer
   — that no fault can be found in this case except with our own depravity. But
   I prefer rendering the word which Paul here uses, leads, rather than
   invites, for it is more significant; I do not, however, take it in the sense
   of driving, but of leading as it were by the hand.

   5. But according to thy hardness, etc. When we become hardened against the
   admonitions of the Lord, impenitence follows; and they who are not anxious
   about repentance openly provoke the Lord. [65]

   This is a remarkable passage: we may hence learn what I have already
   referred to — that the ungodly not only accumulate for themselves daily a
   heavier weight of God’s judgments, as long as they live here, but that the
   gifts of God also, which they continually enjoy, shall increase their
   condemnation; for an account of them all will be required: and it will then
   be found, that it will be justly imputed to them as an extreme wickedness,
   that they had been made worse through God’s bounty, by which they ought
   surely to have been improved. Let us then take heed, lest by unlawful use of
   blessings we lay up for ourselves this cursed treasure.

   For the day, etc.; literally, in the day; but it is put for eis hēmeran, for
   the day. The ungodly gather now the indignation of God against themselves,
   the stream of which shall then be poured on their heads: they accumulate
   hidden destruction, which then shall be drawn out from the treasures of God.
   The day of the last judgment is called the day of wrath, when a reference is
   made to the ungodly; but it will be a day of redemption to the faithful. And
   thus all other visitations of God are ever described as dreadful and full of
   terror to the ungodly; and on the contrary, as pleasant and joyful to the
   godly. Hence whenever the Scripture mentions the approach of the Lord, it
   bids the godly to exult with joy; but when it turns to the reprobate, it
   proclaims nothing but dread and terror.

   “A day of wrath,” saith Zephaniah, “shall be that day, a day of tribulation
   and distress, a day of calamity and wretchedness, a day of darkness and of
   thick darkness, a day of mist and of whirlwind.” (Zephaniah 1:15.)

   You have a similar description in Joel 2:2, etc. And Amos exclaims,

   “Woe To You Who Desire The Day Of The Lord! What Will It Be To You? The Day
   Of The Lord Will Be Darkness, And Not Light.” (Amos 5:18.)

   Farther, by adding the word revelation, Paul intimates what this day of
   wrath is to be, — that the Lord will then manifest his judgment: though he
   gives daily some indications of it, he yet suspends and holds back, till
   that day, the clear and full manifestation of it; for the books shall then
   be opened; the sheep shall then be separated the goats, and the wheat shall
   be cleansed from the tares.

   6. Who will render to every one, etc. As he had to do with blind saintlings,
   who thought that the wickedness of their hearts was well covered, provided
   it was spread over with some disguises, I know not what, of empty works, he
   pointed out the true character of the righteousness of works, even that
   which is of account before God; and he did this, lest they should feel
   confident that it was enough to pacify him, if they brought words and
   trifles, or leaves only. But there is not so much difficulty in this verse,
   as it is commonly thought. For the Lord, by visiting the wickedness of the
   reprobate with just vengeance, will recompense them with what they have
   deserved: and as he sanctifies those whom he has previously resolved to
   glorify, he will also crown their good works, but not on account of any
   merit: nor can this be proved from this verse; for though it declares what
   reward good works are to have, it does yet by no means show what they are
   worth, or what price is due to them. And it is an absurd inference, to
   deduce merit from reward.

   7. To them indeed, who by perseverance, etc.; literally, patience; by which
   word something more is expressed. For it is perseverance, when one is not
   wearied in constantly doing good; but patience also is required in the
   saints, by which they may continue firm, though oppressed with various
   trials. For Satan suffers them not by a free course to come to the Lord; but
   he strives by numberless hinderances to impede them, and to turn them aside
   from the right way. And when he says, that the faithful, by continuing in
   good works, seek glory and honour, he does not mean that they aspire after
   any thing else but the favor of God, or that they strive to attain any thing
   higher, or more excellent: but they can not seek him, without striving, at
   the same time, for the blessedness of his kingdom, the description of which
   is contained in the paraphrase given in these words. The meaning then is,
   — that the Lord will give eternal life to those who, by attention to good
   works, strive to attain immortality. [66]

   8. But to those who are contentious, etc. There is some irregularity in the
   passage; first, on account of its tenor being interrupted, for the thread of
   the discourse required, that the second clause of the contrast should be
   thus connected, — “The Lord will render to them, who by perseverance in good
   works, seek glory, and honor, and immortality, eternal life; but to the
   contentious and the disobedient, eternal death.” Then the conclusion might
   be joined, — “That for the former are prepared glory, and honor, and
   incorruption; and that for the latter are laid up wrath and misery.” There
   is another thing, — These words, indignation, wrath, tribulation, and
   anguish, are joined to two clauses in the context. However, the meaning of
   the passage is by no means obscure; and with this we must be satisfied in
   the Apostolic writings. From other writings must eloquence be learnt: here
   spiritual wisdom is to be sought, conveyed in a plain and simple style. [67]

   Contention is mentioned here for rebellion and stubbornness; for Paul was
   contending with hypocrites who, by their gross and supine self-indulgence,
   trifled with God. By the word truth, is simply meant the revealed will of
   God, which alone is the light of truth: for it is what belongs to all the
   ungodly, that they ever prefer to be in bondage to iniquity, rather than to
   receive the yoke of God; and whatever obedience they may pretend, yet they
   never cease perversely to clamor and struggle against God’s word. For as
   they who are openly wicked scoff at the truth, so hypocrites fear not to set
   up in opposition to it their artificial modes of worship. The Apostle
   further adds, that such disobedient persons obey or serve iniquity; for
   there is no middle course, which those who are unwilling to be in subjection
   to the law of the Lord can take, so as to be kept from falling immediately
   into the service of sin. And it is the just reward of outrageous
   licentiousness, that those become the bondslaves of sin who cannot endure
   the service of God. Indignation and wrath, so the character of the words
   induces me to render them; for thumos in Greek means what the Latins call
   excandescentia — indignation, as Cicero teaches us, (Tusc. 4,) even a sudden
   burning of anger. As to the other words I follow Erasmus. But observe, that
   of the four which are mentioned, the two last are, as it were, the effects
   of the two first; for they who perceive that God is displeased and angry
   with them are immediately filled with confusion.

   We may add, that though he might have briefly described, even in two words,
   the blessedness of the godly and also the misery of the reprobate, he yet
   enlarges on both subjects, and for this end — that he might more effectually
   strike men with the fear of God’s wrath, and sharpen their desire for
   obtaining grace through Christ: for we never fear God’s judgment as we
   ought, except it be set as it were by a lively description before our eyes;
   nor do we really burn with desire for future life, except when roused by
   strong incentives, (multis flabellis incitati — incited by many fans.)

   9. To the Jew first, etc. He simply places, I have no doubt, the Jew in
   opposition to the Gentile; for those whom he calls Greeks he will presently
   call Gentiles. But the Jews take the precedence in this case, for they had,
   in preference to others, both the promises and the threatenings of the law;
   as though he had said, “This is the universal rule of the divine judgment;
   it shall begin with the Jews, and it shall include the whole world.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   [64] Lenitatis — makrothumias, tarditatis ad iram. “Long-suffering”
   expresses the meaning very exactly. There is here a gradation — “goodness”
   — chrēstotēs, benevolence, kindness, bounty; — “forbearance” — anochē,
   withholding, i.e., of wrath; — then “long-suffering,” that is, bearing long
   with the sins of men. “Riches” mean abundance; the same as though the
   expression was, “the abounding goodness,” etc. — Ed.

   [65] What follows in the text, according to Calvin, is this, “et Corinthians
   pœni tere nescium — and a heart that knoweth not to repent;” kai ametanoēton
   kardian, which Schleusner renders thus, “animus, qui omnem emendationem
   respuit — a mind which rejects every improvement.” It is an impenitable
   rather than “an impenitent heart,” that is, a heart incapable of repenting.
   See Ephesians 4:19. — Ed.

   [66] It has appeared to some difficult to reconcile this language with the
   free salvation which the gospel offers, and to obviate the conclusion which
   many are disposed to draw from this passage — that salvation is by works as
   well as by faith. To this objection Pareus answers, that the Apostle speaks
   here of salvation by the works of the law, not indeed as a thing possible,
   which he subsequently denies, but as a declaration of what it is, that he
   might thereby show the necessity of a gratuitous salvation which is by faith
   only. And this is the view which Mr. Haldane takes. But there is no need of
   having recourse to this hypothesis: for whenever judgment is spoken of even
   in the New Testament, it is ever represented in the same way, as being
   regulated in righteousness, according to the works of every individual. See
   Acts 17:31; 2 Corinthians 5:10; Colossians 3:24, 25; Revelation 20:12;
   Revelation 22:12. It will be a judgment, conducted according to the perfect
   rule of justice, with no respect of persons, with no regard to individuals
   as such, whether high or low, much or little favored as to outward
   privileges, but according to what their conduct has been, under the
   circumstances of their case. The rule, if heathens, will be the law of
   nature; if Jews, the law which had been given them. Judgment, as to its
   character, will be still the same to those under the gospel; it will be
   according to what the gospel requires. — Ed.

   [67] With regard to the construction of this passage, 6-10, it may be
   observed, that it is formed according to the mode of Hebrew parallelism,
   many instances of which we meet with even in the prose writings of the New
   Testament. None of the ancients, nor any of the moderns, before the time of
   Bishop Lowth, understood much of the peculiar character of the Hebrew style.
   All the anomalies, noticed by Calvin, instantly vanish, when the passage is
   so arranged, as to exhibit the correspondence of its different parts. It
   consists of two general portions; the first includes three verses, Romans
   2:6, 7, and 8; the other, the remaining three verses. The same things are
   mainly included in both portions, only in the latter there are some things
   additional, and explanatory, and the order is reversed, so that the passage
   ends with what corresponds with its beginning. To see the whole in a
   connected form, it is necessary to set it down in lines, in the following
   manner — 6. Who will render to each according to his works, — 7. To those
   indeed, who, by perseverance in well — doing, Seek glory and honor and
   immortality, — Eternal life 8. But there shall be to them who are
   contentious And obey not the truth, but obey iniquity, —Indignation and
   wrath: Then follow the same things, the order being reversed — 9. Distress
   and anguish shall be on every soul of man that worketh evil, — On the Jew
   first, and then on the Greek; 10. But glory and honor and peace, To every
   one who worketh good, — To the Jew first and then to the Greek; 11. For
   there is no respect of persons with God. The idea in the last and the first
   line is essentially the same. This repetition is for the sake of producing
   an impression. The character of the righteous, in the first part, is, that
   by persevering in doing good they seek glory, honor, and immortality, and
   their reward is to be eternal life: the character of the wicked is that of
   being contentious, disobedient to the truth, and obedient to
   unrighteousness, and their reward is to be indignation and wrath. The
   character of the first, in the second part, is, that they work good; and of
   the other, that they work evil: and the reward of the first is glory, honor,
   and peace, and the reward of the other, distress and anguish; which are the
   effects of indignation and wrath, as glory honor, and peace are the fruits
   or the constituent parts of eternal life. It is to be observed that priority
   in happiness, as well as priority in misery, is ascribed to the Jew. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:11-13

   11. For there is no respect of persons with God.

   11. Siquidem non est acceptio personarum apud Deum.

   12. For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law:
   and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;

   12. Quicunque enim sine Lege peccaverunt sine Lege etiam peribunt; quicunque
   vero in Lege peccaverunt per Legem judicabuntur.

   13. (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of
   the law shall be justified.

   13. Non enim Legis auditores justi sunt apud Deum, sed qui Legem faciunt
   justificabuntur.

   11. There is no respect of persons, etc. He has hitherto generally arraigned
   all mortals as guilty; but now he begins to bring home his accusation to the
   Jews and to the Gentiles separately: and at the same time he teaches us,
   that it is no objection that there is a difference between them, but that
   they are both without any distinction exposed to eternal death. The Gentiles
   pretended ignorance as their defense; the Jews gloried in the honor of
   having the law: from the former he takes away their subterfuge, and he
   deprives the latter of their false and empty boasting.

   There is then a division of the whole human race into two classes; for God
   had separated the Jews from all the rest, but the condition of all the
   Gentiles was the same. He now teaches us, that this difference is no reason
   why both should not be involved in the same guilt. But the word person is
   taken in Scripture for all outward things, which are wont to be regarded as
   possessing any value or esteem. When therefore thou readest, that God is no
   respecter of persons, understand that what he regards is purity of heart or
   inward integrity; and that he hath no respect for those things which are
   wont to be highly valued by men, such as kindred, country, dignity, wealth,
   and similar things; so that respect of persons is to be here taken for the
   distinction or the difference there is between one nation and another. [68]
   But if any hence objects and says, “That then there is no such thing as the
   gratuitous election of God;” it may be answered, That there is a twofold
   acceptation of men before God; the first, when he chooses and calls us from
   nothing through gratuitous goodness, as there is nothing in our nature which
   can be approved by him; the second, when after having regenerated us, he
   confers on us his gifts, and shows favor to the image of his Son which he
   recognizes in us.

   12. Whosoever have sinned without law, [69] etc. In the former part of this
   section he assails the Gentiles; though no Moses was given them to publish
   and to ratify a law from the Lord, he yet denies this omission to be a
   reason why they deserved not the just sentence of death for their sins; as
   though he had said — that the knowledge of a written law was not necessary
   for the just condemnation of a sinner. See then what kind of advocacy they
   undertake, who through misplaced mercy, attempt, on the ground of ignorance,
   to exempt the nations who have not the light of the gospel from the judgment
   of God.

   Whosoever have sinned under the law, etc. As the Gentiles, being led by the
   errors of their own reason, go headlong into ruin, so the Jews possess a law
   by which they are condemned; [70] for this sentence has been long ago
   pronounced,

   “Cursed are all they who continue not in all its precepts.” (Deuteronomy
   27:26.)

   A worse condition then awaits the Jewish sinners, since their condemnation
   is already pronounced in their own law.

   13. For the hearers of the law, etc. This anticipates an objection which the
   Jews might have adduced. As they had heard that the law was the rule of
   righteousness, (Deuteronomy 4:1,) they gloried in the mere knowledge of it:
   to obviate this mistake, he declares that the hearing of the law or any
   knowledge of it is of no such consequence, that any one should on that
   account lay claim to righteousness, but that works must be produced,
   according to this saying, “He who will do these shall live in them.” The
   import then of this verse is the following, — “That if righteousness be
   sought from the law, the law must be fulfilled; for the righteousness of the
   law consists in the perfection of works.” They who pervert this passage for
   the purpose of building up justification by works, deserve most fully to be
   laughed at even by children. It is therefore improper and beyond what is
   needful, to introduce here a long discussion on the subject, with the view
   of exposing so futile a sophistry: for the Apostle only urges here on the
   Jews what he had mentioned, the decision of the law, — That by the law they
   could not be justified, except they fulfilled the law, that if they
   transgressed it, a curse was instantly pronounced on them. Now we do not
   deny but that perfect righteousness is prescribed in the law: but as all are
   convicted of transgression, we say that another righteousness must be
   sought. Still more, we can prove from this passage that no one is justified
   by works; for if they alone are justified by the law who fulfill the law, it
   follows that no one is justified; for no one can be found who can boast of
   having fulfilled the law. [71]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [68] The word prosōpolēpsia, respect of persons, is found in three other
   places, Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 3:25; and James 2:1; and in these the
   reference is to conditions in life. In Acts 10:34, the word is in another
   form prosōpolēptēs, a respecter of persons, and as a verb in James 2:9. The
   full phrase is prosōpon lambanō, as found in Luke 20:21, and Galatians 2:6.
   It is a phrase peculiar to the Hebrew language, and means literally, to lift
   up or regard faces, that is, persons, נשא פנים. See Leviticus 19:15;
   Deuteronomy 10:17; 2 Chronicles 19:7 An argument has been hence taken to
   oppose the doctrine of election; but this is to apply to a particular thing
   what belongs entirely and exclusively to another. This belongs to the
   administration of justice, but election is the exercise of mercy. Even
   Grotius admits, that God manifests a difference in bestowing benefits, but
   not in exercising Judgment. Indeed, in the present instance, with regard to
   the subject handled by the Apostle, there was a manifest difference; the
   Gentile had only the law of nature, but the Jew had a revealed law. Yet when
   brought to judgment there was to be no respect of persons, each was to be
   judged impartially according to the circumstances of his condition. And
   further, election does not proceed on the principle of showing respect of
   persons, that is, of regarding men according to their privileges or outward
   circumstances, or kindred or relation in life, or any thing in man; but its
   sole and exclusive ground or reason is the good pleasure of God. — Ed.

   [69] Anomōs commonly means unlawfully, wickedly, lawlessly; but here, as it
   is evident from the context, it signifies to be without law. The adjective
   anomos is also used once in this sense in 1 Corinthians 9:21. — Ed.

   [70] The word “condemned” would be better in the text than “judged;” it
   would then more plainly correspond with the former part, where the word
   “perished” is used: and that it means “condemned” is evident, for those who
   have “sinned” are the persons referred to. — Ed.

   [71] On the expression “hearers of the law,” Stuart has these remarks — “The
   Apostle here speaks of hoi akroatai tou nomou, because the Jews were
   accustomed to hear the Scriptures read in public; but many of them did not
   individually possess copies of the sacred volume which they could read.”
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:14-16

   14. For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things
   contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

   14. Quum enim Gentes, quæ Legem non habent, natura quæ Legis sunt faciant,
   ipsæ, Legem non habentes, sibi ipsæ sunt Lex:

   15. Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience
   also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else
   excusing one another;)

   15. Quæ ostendunt opus Legis scriptum in cordibus suis, simul attestante
   ipsorum conscientia et cogitationibus inter se accusantibus aut etiam
   excusantibus,

   16. In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ
   according to my gospel.

   16. In die qua judicabit Deus occulta hominum, secundum Evangelium meum, per
   Iesum Christum.

   14. For when the Gentiles, etc. He now states what proves the former clause;
   for he did not think it enough to condemn us by mere assertion, and only to
   pronounce on us the just judgment of God; but he proceeds to prove this by
   reasons, in order to excite us to a greater desire for Christ, and to a
   greater love towards him. He indeed shows that ignorance is in vain
   pretended as an excuse by the Gentiles, since they prove by their own deeds
   that they have some rule of righteousness: for there is no nation so lost to
   every thing human, that it does not keep within the limits of some laws.
   Since then all nations, of themselves and without a monitor, are disposed to
   make laws for themselves, it is beyond all question evident that they have
   some notions of justice and rectitude, which the Greeks call preconceptions
   prolēpseis, and which are implanted by nature in the hearts of men. They
   have then a law, though they are without law: for though they have not a
   written law, they are yet by no means wholly destitute of the knowledge of
   what is right and just; as they could not otherwise distinguish between vice
   and virtue; the first of which they restrain by punishment, and the latter
   they commend, and manifest their approbation of it by honoring it with
   rewards. He sets nature in opposition to a written law, meaning that the
   Gentiles had the natural light of righteousness, which supplied the place of
   that law by which the Jews were instructed, so that they were a law to
   themselves. [72]

   15. Who show the work of the law [73] written, etc.; that is, they prove
   that there is imprinted on their hearts a discrimination and judgment by
   which they distinguish between what is just and unjust, between what is
   honest and dishonest. He means not that it was so engraven on their will,
   that they sought and diligently pursued it, but that they were so mastered
   by the power of truth, that they could not disapprove of it. For why did
   they institute religious rites, except that they were convinced that God
   ought to be worshipped? Why were they ashamed of adultery and theft, except
   that they deemed them evils?

   Without reason then is the power of the will deduced from this passage, as
   though Paul had said, that the keeping of the law is within our power; for
   he speaks not of the power to fulfill the law, but of the knowledge of it.
   Nor is the word heart to be taken for the seat of the affections, but only
   for the understanding, as it is found in Deuteronomy 29:4,

   “The Lord hath not given thee a heart to understand;”

   and in Luke 24:25,

   “O foolish men, and slow in heart to believe.”

   Nor can we conclude from this passage, that there is in men a full knowledge
   of the law, but that there are only some seeds of what is right implanted in
   their nature, evidenced by such acts as these — All the Gentiles alike
   instituted religious rites, they made laws to punish adultery, and theft,
   and murder, they commended good faith in bargains and contracts. They have
   thus indeed proved, that God ought to be worshipped, that adultery, and
   theft, and murder are evils, that honesty is commendable. It is not to our
   purpose to inquire what sort of God they imagined him to be, or how many
   gods they devised; it is enough to know, that they thought that there is a
   God, and that honor and worship are due to him. It matters not whether they
   permitted the coveting of another man’s wife, or of his possessions, or of
   any thing which was his, — whether they connived at wrath and hatred;
   inasmuch as it was not right for them to covet what they knew to be evil
   when done.

   Their conscience at the same time attesting, etc. He could not have more
   forcibly urged them than by the testimony of their own conscience, which is
   equal to a thousand witnesses. By the consciousness of having done good, men
   sustain and comfort themselves; those who are conscious of having done evil,
   are inwardly harassed and tormented. Hence came these sayings of the
   heathens — “A good conscience is the widest sphere; but a bad one is the
   cruelest executioner, and more fiercely torments the ungodly than any furies
   can do.” There is then a certain knowledge of the law by nature, which says,
   “This is good and worthy of being desired; that ought to be abhorred.”

   But observe how intelligently he defines conscience: he says, that reasons
   come to our minds, by which we defend what is rightly done, and that there
   are those which accuse and reprove us for our vices; [74] and he refers this
   process of accusation and defense to the day of the Lord; not that it will
   then first commence, for it is now continually carried on, but that it will
   then also be in operation; and he says this, that no one should disregard
   this process, as though it were vain and evanescent. And he has put, in the
   day, instead of, at the day, — a similar instance to what we have already
   observed.

   16. In which God shall judge the secrets of men [75] Most suitable to the
   present occasion is this periphrastic definition of judgment: it teaches
   those, who willfully hide themselves in the recesses of insensibility, that
   the most secret thoughts and those now completely hid in the depths of their
   hearts, shall then be brought forth to the light. So he speaks in another
   place; in order to show to the Corinthians what little value belongs to
   human judgment, which regards only the outward action, he bids them to wait
   until the Lord came, who would bring to light the hidden things of darkness,
   and reveal the secrets of the heart. (1 Corinthians 4:5) When we hear this,
   let it come to our minds, that we are warned that if we wish to be really
   approved by our Judge, we must strive for sincerity of heart.

   He adds, according to my gospel, intimating, that he announced a doctrine,
   to which the judgments of men, naturally implanted in them, gave a response:
   and he calls it his gospel, on account of the ministry; for the authority
   for setting forth the gospel resides in the true God alone; and it was only
   the dispensing of it that was committed to the Apostles. It is indeed no
   matter of surprise, that the gospel is in part called the messenger and the
   announcer of future judgment: for if the fulfillment and completion of what
   it promises be deferred to the full revelation of the heavenly kingdom, it
   must necessarily be connected with the last judgment: and further, Christ
   cannot be preached without being a resurrection to some, and a destruction
   to others; and both these things have a reference to the day of judgment.
   The words, through Jesus Christ, I apply to the day of judgment, though they
   are regarded otherwise by some; and the meaning is, — that the Lord will
   execute judgment by Christ, for he is appointed by the Father to be the
   Judge of the living and of the dead, — which the Apostles always mention
   among the main articles of the gospel. Thus the sentence will be full and
   complete, which would otherwise be defective.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [72] As to the phrase, “these are a law unto themselves,” Venema adduces
   classical examples — pan to beltiston phainomenon estō soi nomos aparabatos
   “Whatever seems best, let it be to thee a perpetual law.” — Epict. in Ench.,
   c. 75. “to men orthon nomos esti basilēkos What is indeed right, is a royal
   law.” — Plato in Min., page 317. The heathens themselves acknowledged a law
   of nature. Turrettin quotes a passage from a lost work of Cicero, retained
   by Lactantius, which remarkably coincides with the language of Paul here —
   Ed.

   [73] By the work of the law, to ergon tou nomou, is to be understood what
   the law requires. The “work of God,” in John 6:29, is of the same import,
   that is, the work which God requires or demands; and the same word is plural
   in the former verse, ta erga — “the works of God.” So here, in the former
   verse, it is ta tou nomou — “the things of the law,” where we may suppose
   ergato be understood. The common expression, “the works of the law,” has the
   same meaning, that is, such works as the law prescribes and requires. — Ed.

   [74] Calvin seems to consider that the latter part of the verse is only a
   expansion or an exposition of the preceding clause respecting
   “conscience:” but it seems to contain a distinct idea. The testimony of
   conscience is one thing, which is instantaneous, without reflection: and the
   thoughts or the reasonings — logismōn, which alternately or mutually accuse
   or excuse, seem to refer to a process carried on by the mind, by which the
   innate voice of conscience is confirmed. This is the view taken by Stuart
   and Barnes, and to which Hodge is inclined. Another view of the latter
   clause is given by Doddridge, Macknight, Haldane, and Chalmers The last
   gives this paraphrase of the whole verse, — “For they show that the matter
   of the law is written in their hearts — both from their conscience
   testifying what is right and wrong in their own conduct, and from their
   reasonings in which they either accuse or vindicate one another.” But to
   regard the two clauses as referring to conscience and the inward workings of
   the mind, appears more consistent with the context. The Gentiles are those
   spoken of: God gave them no outward law, but the law of nature which is
   inward. Hence in the following verse he speaks of God as judging “the
   secrets of men,” as the inward law will be the rule of judgment to the
   Gentiles — Ed.

   [75] In accordance with some of the fathers, Jerome, Chrysostom,
   Theophylact, and others, Calvin connects this with the immediately preceding
   verse: but almost all modern critics connect it with the 12th verse, and
   consider what intervenes as parenthetic. This is according to our version.
   In the Romans 2:12, both the Gentile and the Jew are spoken of, and that
   with reference to judgment. In this verse the time and the character of that
   judgment are referred to, and its character especially as to the Gentile, as
   his case is particularly delineated in the parenthesis. The Apostle then, in
   what follows, turns to the Jew. “According to my gospel” must be understood,
   not as though the gospel is to be the rule of judgment to the Gentile, but
   as to the fact, that Christ is appointed to be the Judge of all. See Acts
   17:31. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:17-24

   17. Behold, thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law, and makest thy
   boast of God,

   17. Ecce, tu Iudæus cognominaris, et acquiescis in Lege, et gloriaris in
   Deo,

   18. And knowest his will, and approvest the things that are more excellent,
   being instructed out of the law;

   18. Et nosti voluntatem, et probas eximia, institutus ex Lege;

   19. And art confident that thou thyself art a guide of the blind, a light of
   them which are in darkness,

   19. Confidisque teipsum esse ducem cæcorum, lumen eorum qui sunt in
   tenebris,

   20. An instructer of the foolish, a teacher of babes, which hast the form of
   knowledge and of the truth in the law.

   20. Eruditorem insipientium, doctorem imperitorum, habentem formam
   cognitionis ac veritatis in Lege:

   21. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? thou
   that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?

   21. Qui igitur doces alterum, teipsum non doces; qui concionaris, non
   furandum, furaris;

   22. Thou that sayest a man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit
   adultery? thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege?

   22. Qui dicis, nom mœchandum, mœcharis; qui detestaris idola, Sacrilegium
   perpetras;

   23. Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law
   dishonourest thou God?

   23. Qui de Lege gloriaris, Deum per Legis transgressionem dehonestas:

   24. For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it
   is written. [76]

   24. Nomen enim Dei propter vos probro afficitur inter gentes, quemadmodum
   scriptum est.

   17. Behold, thou art named a Jew, etc. Some old copies read ei de, though
   indeed; which, were it generally received, would meet my approbation; but as
   the greater part of the manuscripts is opposed to it, and the sense is not
   unsuitable, I retain the old reading, especially as it is only a small
   difference of one letter. [77]

   Having now completed what he meant to say of the Gentiles, he returns to the
   Jews; and that he might, with greater force, beat down their great vanity,
   he allows them all those privileges, by which they were beyond measure
   transported and inflated: and then he shows how insufficient they were for
   the attainment of true glory, yea, how they turned to their reproach. Under
   the name Jew he includes all the privileges of the nation, which they vainly
   pretended were derived from the law and the prophets; and so he comprehends
   all the Israelites, all of whom were then, without any difference, called
   Jews.

   But at what time this name first originated it is uncertain, except that it
   arose, no doubt, after the dispersion. [78] Josephus, in the eleventh book
   of his Antiquities, thinks that it was taken from Judas Maccabæus, under
   whose auspices the liberty and honor of the people, after having for some
   time fallen, and been almost buried, revived again. Though I allow this
   opinion to be probable, yet, if there be some to whom it is not
   satisfactory, I will offer them a conjecture of my own. It seems, indeed,
   very likely, that after having been degraded and scattered through so many
   disasters, they were not able to retain any certain distinction as to their
   tribes; for a census could not have been made at that time, nor did there
   exist a regular government, which was necessary to preserve an order of this
   kind; and they dwelt scattered and in disorder; and having been worn out by
   adversities, they were no doubt less attentive to the records of their
   kindred. But though you may not grant these things to me, yet it cannot be
   denied but that a danger of this kind was connected with such disturbed
   state of things. Whether, then, they meant to provide for the future, or to
   remedy an evil already received, they all, I think assumed the name of that
   tribe, in which the purity of religion remained the longest, and which, by a
   peculiar privilege, excelled all the rest, as from it the Redeemer was
   expected to come; for it was their refuge in all extremities, to console
   themselves with the expectation of the Messiah. However this may be, by the
   name of Jews they avowed themselves to be the heirs of the covenant which
   the Lord had made with Abraham and his seed.

   And restest in the law, and gloriest in God, etc. He means not that they
   rested in attending to the law, as though they applied their minds to the
   keeping of it; but, on the contrary, he reproves them for not observing the
   end for which the law had been given; for they had no care for its
   observance, and were inflated on this account only, — because they were
   persuaded that the oracles of God belonged to them. In the same way they
   gloried in God, not as the Lord commands by his Prophet, — to humble
   ourselves, and to seek our glory in him alone, (Jeremiah 9:24,) — but being
   without any knowledge of God’s goodness, they made him, of whom they were
   inwardly destitute, peculiarly their own, and assumed to be his people, for
   the purpose of vain ostentation before men. This, then, was not the glorying
   of the heart, but the boasting of the tongue.

   18. And knowest his will, and approvest things excellent, etc. He now
   concedes to them the knowledge of the divine will, and the approval of
   things useful; and this they had attained from the doctrine of the law. But
   there is a twofold approval, — one of choice, when we embrace the good we
   approve; the other of judgment, by which indeed we distinguish good from
   evil, but by no means strive or desire to follow it. Thus the Jews were so
   learned in the law that they could pass judgment on the conduct of others,
   but were not careful to regulate their life according to that judgment. But
   as Paul reproves their hypocrisy, we may, on the other hand, conclude, that
   excellent things are then only rightly approved (provided our judgment
   proceeds from sincerity) when God is attended to; for his will, as it is
   revealed in the law, is here appointed as the guide and teacher of what is
   to be justly approved. [79]

   19. And believest thyself, etc. More is still granted to them; as though
   they had not only what was sufficient for themselves, but also that by which
   they could enrich others. He grants, indeed, that they had such abundance of
   learning, as that others might have been supplied. [80]

   20. I take what follows, having the form of knowledge, as a reason for the
   preceding; and it may be thus explained, — “because thou hast the form of
   knowledge.” For they professed to be the teachers of others, because they
   seemed to carry in their breasts all the secrets of the law. The word form
   is put for model (exemplar — pattern); [81] for Paul has adopted morphōsin
   and not tupon: but he intended, I think, to point out the conspicuous pomp
   of their teaching, and what is commonly called display; and it certainly
   appears that they were destitute of that knowledge which they pretended. But
   Paul, by indirectly ridiculing the perverted use of the law, intimates, on
   the other hand, that right knowledge must be sought from the law, in order
   that the truth may have a solid basis.

   21. Thou, who then teachest another, teachest not thyself, etc. [82] Though
   the excellencies (encomia — commendations) which he has hitherto stated
   respecting the Jews, were such as might have justly adorned them, provided
   the higher ornaments were not wanting; yet as they included qualifications
   of a neutral kind, which may be possessed even by the ungodly and corrupted
   by abuse, they are by no means sufficient to constitute true glory. And
   hence Paul, not satisfied with merely reproving and taunting their arrogance
   in trusting in these things alone, employs them for the purpose of enhancing
   their disgraceful conduct; for he exposes himself to no ordinary measure of
   reproach, who not only renders useless the gifts of God, which are otherwise
   valuable and excellent, but by his wickedness vitiates and contaminates
   them. And a strange counselor is he, who consults not for his own good, and
   is wise only for the benefit of others. He shows then that the praise which
   they appropriated to themselves, turned out to their own disgrace.

   Thou who preachest, steal not, etc. He seems to have alluded to a passage in
   Psalm 50:16, where God says to the wicked,

   “Why dost thou declare my statutes, and takest my covenant in thy mouth? And
   thou hatest reform, and hast cast my words behind thee: when thou seest a
   thief, thou joinest him, and with adulterers is thy portion.”

   And as this reproof was suitable to the Jews in old time, who, relying on
   the mere knowledge of the law, lived in no way better than if they had no
   law; so we must take heed, lest it should be turned against us at this day:
   and indeed it may be well applied to many, who, boasting of some
   extraordinary knowledge of the gospel, abandon themselves to every kind of
   uncleanness, as though the gospel were not a rule of life. That we may not
   then so heedlessly trifle with the Lord, let us remember what sort of
   judgment impends over such prattlers, (logodœdalis — word-artificers,) who
   make a show of God’s word by mere garrulity.

   22. Thou who abhorrest idols, etc. He fitly compares sacrilege to idolatry,
   as it is a thing of the same kind; for sacrilege is simply a profanation of
   the Divine Majesty, a sin not unknown to heathen poets. On this account Ovid
   (Metamor. 3,) calls Lycurgus sacrilegious for despising the rites of
   Bacchus; and in his Fasti he calls those sacrilegious hands which violated
   the majesty of Venus. But as the Gentiles ascribed the majesty of their gods
   to idols, they only thought it a sacrilege when any one plundered what was
   dedicated to their temples, in which, as they believed, the whole of
   religion centered. So at this day, where superstition reigns, and not the
   word of God, they acknowledge no other kind of sacrilege than the stealing
   of what belongs to churches, as there is no God but in idols, no religion
   but in pomp and magnificence. [83]

   Now we are here warned, first, not to flatter ourselves and to despise
   others, when we have performed only some portions of the law, — and,
   secondly, not to glory in having outward idolatry removed, while we care not
   to drive away and to eradicate the impiety that lieth hid in our hearts.

   23. Thou who gloriest in the law, etc. Though every transgressor dishonors
   God, (for we are all born for this end — to serve him in righteousness and
   holiness;) yet he justly imputes in this respect a special fault to the
   Jews; for as they avowed God as their Lawgiver, and yet had no care to form
   their life according to his rule, they clearly proved that the majesty of
   their God was not so regarded by them, but that they easily despised him. In
   the same manner do they at this day dishonor Christ, by transgressing the
   gospel, who prattle idly about its doctrine, while yet they tread it under
   foot by their unbridled and licentious mode of living.

   24. For the name of God, etc. I think this quotation is taken from Ezekiel
   36:20, rather than from Isaiah 52:5; for in Isaiah there are no reproofs
   given to the people, but that chapter in Ezekiel is full of reproofs. But
   some think that it is a proof from the less to the greater, according to
   this import, “Since the Prophet upbraided, not without cause, the Jews of
   his time, that on account of their captivity, the glory and power of God
   were ridiculed among the Gentiles, as though he could not have preserved the
   people, whom he had taken under his protection, much more are ye a disgrace
   and dishonor to God, whose religion, being judged of by your wicked life, is
   blasphemed.” This view I do not reject, but I prefer a simpler one, such as
   the following, — “We see that all the reproaches cast on the people of
   Israel do fall on the name of God; for as they are counted, and are said to
   be the people of God, his name is as it were engraven on their foreheads: it
   must hence be, that God, whose name they assume, is in a manner defamed by
   men, through their wicked conduct.” It was then a monstrous thing, that they
   who derived their glory from God should have disgraced his holy name; for it
   behoved them surely to requite him in a different manner. [84]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [76] These texts are referred to, Isaiah 52:6; Ezekiel 36:20.

   [77] Griesbach has since found a majority of MSS. in favor of this reading,
   and has adopted it. But the difficulty is to find a corresponding clause.
   There is none, except what begins in Romans 2:21; ei de and oun do not well
   respond, except we render the first, though indeed, and the other, yes or
   nevertheless somewhat in the sense of an adversative. It will admit this
   meaning in some passages. See Matthew 12:12; Matthew 26:64; Romans 10:14.
   — Ed.

   [78] This is not quite correct. They were called Jews even before the
   captivity, and during the captivity, but most commonly and regularly after
   it. The words Jews, first occurs in 2 Kings 16:6. See Esther 4:3; Jeremiah
   38:19; Daniel 3:8; Ezra 4:12; Nehemiah 2:16. — Ed.

   [79] There are two expositions of the words, dokimazeis ta diapheronta,
   which may be sustained according to what the words signify in other places.
   The first word means to prove, or test, or examine, and also to approve; and
   the second signifies things which differ, or things which are excellent.
   “Thou provest, or, distinguishest things which differ,” is the rendering of
   Beza, Pareus, Doddridge, and Stuart: “Thou approvest things excellent or
   useful,” is the rendering of Erasmus, Macknight, and others. The first is
   the most suitable to the context, as knowledge, and not approval, is
   evidently intended, as proved by the explanatory clause which follows, —
   “being instructed out of the law.” — Ed.

   [80] Calvin has passed over here several clauses: they are so plain as to
   require no remarks, except the two last. “The instructor of the unwise —
   insipientium,” aphronōn, of such as were foolish from not understanding
   things rightly. “The teacher of the ignorant — imperitorum,” nēpiōn, babes,
   that is, of such as were ignorant like babes. But these and the foregoing
   titles, “the guide of the blind,” and, “light to those in darkness,” were
   such as the Jewish doctors assumed, and are not to be considered as having
   any great difference in their real meaning. There seems to be no reason to
   suppose, with Doddridge and some others, that “the blind, foolish,
   ignorant” were the Gentiles, for the Jews did not assume the office of
   teaching them. It is to be observed that Paul here takes the case, not of
   the common people, but of the learned — the teachers.

   [81] The same word occurs only in 2 Timothy 3:5, “morphōsin eusebeias — the
   form of godliness.” It is taken here in a good sense, as meaning a sketch, a
   delineation, an outline, a representation, or a summary. Chalmers renders
   the words thus, — “The whole summary of knowledge and truth which is in the
   law.” Some understand by knowledge what refers to morals or outward conduct,
   and by truth what is to be believed. Others regard them as an instance of
   Hebrewism, two substantives being put, instead of a substantive and an
   adjective; the phrase would then be, “true knowledge.” — Ed.

   [82] This clause, and those which follow, are commonly put in an
   interrogatory form, that is, as questions: but some, as Theophylact, Erasmus
   and Luther, have rendered the clauses in the form here adopted. There is no
   difference in the meaning. It is worthy of notice, that the Apostle, after
   the Hebrew manner, reverses the order as to the points he mentions; he, as
   it were, retrogrades, and begins to do so at Romans 2:21. The passage may be
   thus rendered, — 17. Seeing then, thou art named a Jew, And reliest on the
   law, and gloriest in God, 18. And knowest his will, And decernest things
   which differ, being taught by the law, 19. And art confident that thou art A
   leader to the blind, a light to those in darkness, 20. An instructor to the
   foolish, a teacher to babes, Having the form of knowledge and of truth
   according to the law: 21. Yet thou, who teachest another, teachest not
   thyself, Thou, who preachest, “Steal not,” stealest, 22. Thou, who sayest,
   “Commit no adultery,” committest adultery, Thou who detestest idols,
   committest sacrilege, 23. Thou who gloriest in the law, by transgressing the
   law dishonorest God; For the name of God, as it is written, is through you
   blasphemed by the Gentiles. Romans 2:21, and part of the 22nd, refer to what
   is contained in Romans 19 and the 20th; and the latter part of the 22nd to
   the 18th verse; and 23rd to the 17th. The latter part of the 22nd helps us
   to fix the meaning of the latter part of the 18th; the man who hated idols
   and committed sacrilege proved that he did not exercise his boasted power of
   making a proper distinction between right and wrong. Then the man who is
   said, in Romans 2:17, to rely on the law and glory in God, is charged, in
   Romans 2:23, with the sin of dishonoring God by transgressing the law — Ed.

   [83] “Sacrilege,” mentioned here, is by some taken literally as meaning the
   robbing of God as to the sacrifices he required, and the profanation of
   sacred rites; “many examples of which,” says Turrettin, “are recorded by the
   Prophets, and also by Josephus, both before and during the last war.” But
   some extend its meaning to acts of hypocrisy and ungodliness, by which
   God’s honor was profaned, and the glory due to him was denied. The highest
   sacrilege, no doubt, is to deprive God of that sincere service and obedience
   which he justly requires. “They caused,” says Pareus, “the name and honor of
   God to be in various ways blasphemed by their wicked hypocrisy; and hence
   they were justly said by the Apostle to be guilty of sacrilege.” He then
   adds, “we must notice, that idolatry is not opposed to sacrilege, but
   mentioned as a thing closely allied to it. Indeed all idolatry is
   sacrilegious. How then can the Monks, Priests, and Jesuits clear themselves
   from the charge of sacrilege? for they not only do not detest idolatry,
   being in this respect much worse than these hypocrites, but also greedily
   seek, like them, sacred offerings, and under the pretense of sanctity devour
   widows’ houses, pillage the coffers of kings, and, what is most heinous,
   sacrilegiously rob God of his due worship and honor and transfer them to
   saints.” Yet the world is so blind as not to see the real character of such
   men! — Ed.

   [84] On this remarkable passage Haldane has these very appropriate, just,
   and striking observations, — “The Apostle, in these verses, exhibits the
   most lively image of hypocrisy. Was there ever a more beautiful veil than
   that under which the Jew presents himself? He is a man of confession, of
   praise, of thanksgiving — a man, whose trust is in the Law, whose boast is
   of God, who knows his will, who approves of things that are excellent, a man
   who calls himself a conductor of the blind, a light of those who are in
   darkness, an instructor of the ignorant, a teacher of babes; a man who
   directs others, who preaches against theft, against adultery, against
   idolatry, and to sum up the whole, a man who glories in the commandments of
   the Lord. Who would not say that this is an angel arrayed in human form — a
   star detached from the firmament, and brought nearer to enlighten the earth?
   But observe what is concealed under this mask. It is a man who is himself
   untaught; it is a thief, an adulterer, a sacrilegious person; in one word, a
   wicked man, who continually dishonors God by the transgression of his law.
   Is it possible to imagine a contrast more monstrous than between these fair
   appearances and this awful reality?” No, certainly; but it is a contrast
   which still exists, with various modifications, in many instances. — It
   ought to be observed, that when the author calls the Jew “a man of
   confession, of praise, of thanksgiving,” he alludes to the import of the
   word, Jew, in Hebrew, which is derived from a verb, which includes these
   ideas: and it is supposed by some, that there is an allusion in the last
   words of this chapter, “whose praise,” etc., to what the name signifies. —
   Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 2:25-29

   25. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be
   a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision.

   25. Nam circumcisio quidem prodest, si Legem observes; quod si transgressor
   Legis fueris, circumcisio tua in præputium versa est.

   26. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall
   not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision?

   26. Si ergo præputium justitias Legis servaverit, nonne præputium ejus pro
   circumcisione consebitur?

   27. And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law,
   judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law?

   27. Et judicabit quod ex natura est præputium (si Legem servaverit) te qui
   per literam et circumcisionem transgressor es Legis?

   28. For he is not a Jew which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision
   which is outward in the flesh:

   28. Non enim qui est in aperto Iudæus est; ne quæ in aperto est circumcisio
   in carne, ea est circumcisio:

   29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the
   heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but
   of God.

   29. Sed qui est in occulto Iudæus; et circumcisio cordis in spiritu non
   litera; cujus laus non ex hominibus est sed ex Deo.

   25. For circumcision indeed profits, etc. He dissipates by anticipation what
   the Jews might have objected in opposition to him in the defense of their
   own cause: for since circumcision was a symbol of the Lord’s covenant, by
   which he had chosen Abraham and his seed as his peculiar people, they seemed
   not to have gloried in vain; but as they neglected what the sign signified,
   and regarded only the outward form, he gives this answer — That they had no
   reason to lay claim to any thing on account of the bare sign. The true
   character of circumcision was a spiritual promise, which required faith: the
   Jews neglected both, the promise as well as faith. Then foolish was their
   confidence. Hence it is, that he omits to state here the main use of
   circumcision, and proceeds to expose their gross error, as he does in his
   Epistle to the Galatians. And this ought to be carefully noticed; for if he
   were explaining the whole character and design of circumcision, it would
   have been inconsistent in him not to have made mention of grace and free
   promise: but in both instances he spoke according to what the subject he had
   in hand required, and therefore he only discussed that part which was
   controverted.

   They thought that circumcision was of itself sufficient for the purpose of
   obtaining righteousness. Hence, speaking according to such an opinion, he
   gives this reply — That if this benefit be expected from circumcision, it is
   on this condition, that he who is circumcised, must serve God wholly and
   perfectly. Circumcision then requires perfection. The same may be also said
   of our baptism: when any one confidently relies on the water of baptism
   alone, and thinks that he is justified, as though he had obtained holiness
   by that ordinance itself, the end of baptism must be adduced as an
   objection; which is, that the Lord thereby calls us to holiness of life: the
   grace and promise, which baptism testifies (testificatur) and seals,
   (obsignat,) need not in this case to be mentioned; for our business is with
   those who, being satisfied with the empty shadow of baptism, care not for
   nor consider what is material (solidum — substantial) in it. And this very
   thing you may observe in Paul — that when he speaks to the faithful of
   signs, apart from controversy, he connects them with the efficacy and
   fulfillment of the promises which belong to them; but when he contends with
   the absurd and unskillful interpreters of signs, he omits all mention of the
   proper and true character of signs, and directs his whole discourse against
   their perverted interpretation.

   Now many, seeing that Paul brings forward circumcision rather than any other
   part of the law, suppose that he takes away justification only from
   ceremonies: but the matter is far otherwise; for it always happens, that
   those who dare to set up their own merits against the righteousness of God,
   glory more in outward observances than in real goodness; for no one, who is
   seriously touched and moved by the fear of God, will ever dare to raise up
   his eyes to heaven, since the more he strives after true righteousness, the
   clearer he sees how far he is from it. But as to the Pharisees, who were
   satisfied with imitating holiness by an outward disguise, it is no wonder
   that they so easily deluded themselves. Hence Paul, after having left the
   Jews nothing, but this poor subterfuge of being justified by circumcision,
   does now also take from them even this empty pretense.

   26. If then the uncircumcision, etc. This is a very strong argument. Every
   thing is below its end and subordinate to it. Circumcision looks to the law,
   and must therefore be inferior to it: it is then a greater thing to keep the
   law than circumcision, which was for its sake instituted. It hence follows,
   that the uncircumcised, provided he keeps the law, far excels the Jew with
   his barren and unprofitable circumcision, if he be a transgressor of the
   law: and though he is by nature polluted, he shall yet be so sanctified by
   keeping the law, that uncircumcision shall be imputed to him for
   circumcision. The word uncircumcision, is to be taken in its proper sense in
   the second clause; but in the first, figuratively, for the Gentiles, the
   thing for the persons.

   It must be added — that no one ought anxiously to inquire what observers of
   the law are those of which Paul speaks here, inasmuch no such can be found;
   for he simply intended to lay down a supposed case — that if any Gentile
   could be found who kept the law, his righteousness would be of more value
   without circumcision, than the circumcision of the Jew without
   righteousness. And hence I refer what follows, And what is by nature
   uncircumcision shall judge thee, etc., not to persons, but to the case that
   is supposed, according to what is said of the Queen of the south, that she
   shall come, etc., (Matthew 12:42,) and of the men of Nineveh, that they
   shall rise up in judgment, etc., (Luke 11:32) For the very words of Paul
   lead us to this view — “The Gentile,” he says, “being a keeper of the law,
   shall judge thee who art a transgressor, though he is uncircumcised, and
   thou hast the literal circumcision.”

   27. By the letter and circumcision, etc. A construction [85] which means a
   literal circumcision. He does not mean that they violated the law, because
   they had the literal circumcision; but because they continued, though they
   had the outward rite, to neglect the spiritual worship of God, even piety,
   justice, judgment, and truth, which are the chief matters of the law. [86]

   28. For a Jew is not he, etc. The meaning is, that a real Jew is not to be
   ascertained, either by natural descent, or by profession, or by an external
   symbol; that the circumcision which constitutes a Jew, does not consist in
   an outward sign only, but that both are inward. And what he subjoins with
   regard to true circumcision, is taken from various passages of Scripture,
   and even from its general teaching; for the people are everywhere commanded
   to circumcise their hearts, and it is what the Lord promises to do. The
   fore-skin was cut off, not indeed as the small corruption of one part, but
   as that of the whole nature. Circumcision then signified the mortification
   of the whole flesh.

   29. What he then adds, in the spirit, not in the letter, understand thus: He
   calls the outward rite, without piety, the letter, and the spiritual design
   of this rite, the spirit; for the whole importance of signs and rites
   depends on what is designed; when the end in view is not regarded, the
   letter alone remains, which in itself is useless. And the reason for this
   mode of speaking is this, — where the voice of God sounds, all that he
   commands, except it be received by men in sincerity of heart, will remain in
   the letter, that is, in the dead writing; but when it penetrates into the
   heart, it is in a manner transformed into spirit. And there is an allusion
   to the difference between the old and the new covenant, which Jeremiah
   points out in Jeremiah 31:33; where the Lord declares that his covenant
   would be firm and permanent when engraven on the inward parts. Paul had also
   the same thing in view in another place, (2 Corinthians 3:6,) where he
   compares the law with the gospel, and calls the former “the letter,” which
   is not only dead but killeth; and the latter he signalizes with the title of
   “spirit.” But extremly gross has been the folly of those who have deduced a
   double meaning from the “letter,” and allegories from the “spirit.”

   Whose praise is not from men, etc. As men fix their eyes only on those
   things which are visible, he denies that we ought to be satisfied with what
   is commendable in the estimation of men, who are often deceived by outward
   splendor; but that we ought to be satisfied with the all-seeing eyes of God,
   from which the deepest secrets of the heart are not hid. He thus again
   summons hypocrites, who soothe themselves with false opinions, to the
   tribunal of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [85] Hypallage, substitution, a figure of speech, by which a noun or an
   adjective is put in a form different from its obvious import. — Ed

   [86] The rendering of this clause is rather obscure, “who by the letter and
   circumcision dost transgress the law.” The preposition, dia, has no doubt
   the meaning of en or sun, as in some other passages, as in Romans 4:11, di
   akrobustias — in uncircumcision, and in Romans 8:25, di upomonōs — in or
   with patience. Then the version should be, “who, being with, or having, the
   letter and circumcision, dost transgress the law.” The “letter” means the
   written law. That this is the meaning is evident from the context. Both
   Grotius and Macknight give the same construction. It is better to take
   “letter,” i.e., the law, and “circumcision” separate, than to amalgamate
   them by a rhetorical figure, as is done by Calvin and others. Hodge justly
   says, that this is “more suited to the context, as nothing is said here of
   spiritual circumcision.” The word gramma, letter, has various meanings — 1.
   What is commonly called letter, the character, Luke 23:38, — 2. What is
   written, a bond or contract, Luke 16:6; — 3. In the plural, letters,
   epistles, Acts 28:21; — 4. The written law, as here, and in the plural, the
   Old Testament Scriptures, 2 Timothy 3:15; — 5. What is conveyed by writing,
   learning, John 7:15; Acts 26:24; — and, 6. The outward performance of the
   law, it being written, as opposed to what is spiritual or inward, as in the
   last verse of this chapter, and in 2 Corinthians 3:6. — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 3
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:1-2

   1. What advantage [87] then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of
   circumcision?

   1. Quae igitur praerogativa Iudaei, aut quae utilitas circumcisionis?

   2. Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the
   oracles of God.

   2. Multa per omnem modem; ac primum quidem, quod illis credits sunt oracula
   Dei.

   1. Though Paul has clearly proved that bare circumcision brought nothing to
   the Jews, yet since he could not deny but that there was some difference
   between the Gentiles and the Jews, which by that symbol was sealed to them
   by the Lord, and since it was inconsistent to make a distinction, of which
   God was the author, void and of no moment, it remained for him to remove
   also this objection. It was indeed evident, that it was a foolish glorying
   in which the Jews on this account indulged; yet still a doubt remained as to
   the design of circumcision; for the Lord would not have appointed it had not
   some benefit been intended. He therefore, by way of an objection, asks, what
   it was that made the Jew superior to the Gentile; and he subjoins a reason
   for this by another question, What is the benefit of circumcision? For this
   separated the Jews from the common class of men; it was a partition-wall, as
   Paul calls ceremonies, which kept parties asunder.

   2. Much in every way, etc.; that is, very much. He begins here to give the
   sacrament its own praise; but he concedes not, that on this account the Jews
   ought to have been proud; for when he teaches that they were sealed by the
   symbol of circumcision, by which they were counted the children of God, he
   does not allow that they became superior to others through any merit or
   worthiness of their own, but through the free mercy of God. If then regard
   be had to them as men, he shows that they were on a level with others; but
   if the favors of God be taken to the account, he admits that they possessed
   what made them more eminent than other men.

   First indeed, because, intrusted to them, etc. Some think there is here an
   unfinished period, for he sets down what he does not afterwards complete.
   But the word first seems not to me to be a note of number, but means
   chiefly” or especially, [88] and is to be taken in this sense — “Though it
   were but this one thing, that they have the oracles [89] of God committed to
   them, it might be deemed sufficient to prove their superiority.” And it is
   worthy of being noticed, that the advantage of circumcision is not made to
   consist in the naked sign, but its value is derived from the word; for Paul
   asks here what benefit the sacrament conferred on the Jews, and he answers,
   that God had deposited with them the treasure of celestial wisdom. It hence
   follows, that, apart from the word, no excellency remained. By oracles he
   means the covenant which God revealed first to Abraham and to his posterity,
   and afterwards sealed and unfolded by the law and the Prophets.

   Now the oracles were committed to them, for the purpose of preserving them
   as long as it pleased the Lord to continue his glory among them, and then of
   publishing them during the time of their stewardship through the whole
   world: they were first depositories, and secondly dispensers. But if this
   benefit was to be so highly esteemed when the Lord favored one nation only
   with the revelation of his word, we can never sufficiently reprobate our
   ingratitude, who receive his word with so much negligence or with so much
   carelessness, not to say disdain.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [87] “Prærogativa — prerogative,” to perisson, rendered “pre-eminence” by
   Macknight; “præstantia — superiority” by Beza and Pareus; and “advantage” in
   our version, and by Doddridge and Stuart. — Ed.

   [88] The word prōton is thus used in other places. See Matthew 6:33; Mark
   7:27; 2 Peter 1:20. — Ed.

   [89] Logia, oracula, mean, in Greek authors, divine responses. Hesychius
   explains it by Thesphata — divine dictates. The word is used four times in
   New Testament. In Acts 7:38, it means specifically the law of Moses; here it
   includes the whole of the Old Testament; in Hebrews 5:12, and in 1 Peter
   4:11, it embraces the truths of the Gospel. The divine character of the
   Scriptures is by this word attested; they are the oracles of God, his
   dictates, or communications from him. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:3-4

   3. For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of
   God without effect?

   3. Quid enigma si quidem fuerunt increduli? Num incredulitas eorum fidem Dei
   faciet irritam?

   4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written,
   That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when
   thou art judged.

   4. Ne ita sit; quin sit Deus verax, omnis autem homo mendax; quemadmodum
   scriptum est, ut justificeris in sermonibus tuis, et vincas quum judicaris.
   [90]

   3. What indeed if some, etc. As before, while regarding the Jews as exulting
   in the naked sign, he allowed them no not even a spark of glory; so now,
   while considering the nature of the sign, he testifies that its virtue
   (virtutem, efficacy) is not destroyed, no, not even by their inconstancy. As
   then he seemed before to have intimated that whatever grace there might have
   been in the sign of circumcision, it had wholly vanished through the
   ingratitude of the Jews, he now, anticipating an objection, again asks what
   opinion was to be formed of it. There is here indeed a sort of reticence, as
   he expresses less than what he intended to be understood; for he might have
   truly said that a great part of the nation had renounced the covenant of
   God; but as this would have been very grating to the ears of the Jews, he
   mitigated its severity, and mentioned only some.

   Shall their unbelief, etc. Katargein is properly to render void and
   ineffectual; a meaning most suitable to this passage. For Paul’s inquiry is
   not so much whether the unbelief of men neutralizes the truth of God, so
   that it should not in itself remain firm and constant, but whether it
   hinders its effect and fulfillment as to men. The meaning then is, “Since
   most of the Jews are covenant-breakers, is God’s covenant so abrogated by
   their perfidiousness that it brings forth no fruit among them? To this he
   answers, that it cannot be that the truth of God should lose its stability
   through man’s wickedness. Though then the greater part had nullified and
   trodden under foot God’s covenant, it yet retained its efficacy and
   manifested its power, not indeed as to all, but with regard to a few of that
   nation: and it is then efficacious when the grace or the blessing of the
   Lord avails to eternal salvation. But this cannot be, except when the
   promise is received by faith; for it is in this way that a mutual covenant
   is on both sides confirmed. He then means that some ever remained in that
   nation, who by continuing to believe in the promise, had not fallen away
   from the privileges of the covenant.

   4. But let God be true, etc. Whatever may be the opinion of others, I regard
   this as an argument taken from the necessary consequence of what is opposed
   to it, by which Paul invalidates the preceding objection. For since these
   two things stand together, yea, necessarily accord, that God is true and
   that man is false, it follows that the truth of God is not nullified by the
   falsehood of men; for except he did now set those two things in opposition,
   the one to the other, he would afterwards have in vain labored to refute
   what was absurd, and show how God is just, though he manifests his justice
   by our unjustice. Hence the meaning is by no means ambiguous, — that the
   faithfulness of God is so far from being nullified by the perfidy and
   apostasy of men that it thereby becomes more evident. “God,” he says, “is
   true, not only because he is prepared to stand faithfully to his promises,
   but because he also really fulfills whatever he declares; for he so speaks,
   that his command becomes a reality. On the other hand, man is false, not
   only because he often violates his pledged faith, but because he naturally
   seeks falsehood and shuns the truth.”

   The first clause contains the primary axiom of all Christian philosophy; the
   latter is taken from Psalm 116:11, where David confesses that there is
   nothing certain from man or in man.

   Now this is a remarkable passage, and contains a consolation that is much
   needed; for such is the perversity of men in rejecting and despising God’s
   word, that its truth would be often doubted were not this to come to our
   minds, that God’s verity depends not on man’s verity. But how does this
   agree with what has been said previously — that in order to make the divine
   promise effectual, faith, which receives it, is on the part of men
   necessary? for faith stands opposed to falsehood. This seems, indeed, to be
   a difficult question; but it may with no great difficulty be answered, and
   in this way — the Lord, notwithstanding the lies of men, and though these
   are hinderances to his truth, does yet find a way for it through a pathless
   track, that he may come forth a conqueror, and that is, by correcting in his
   elect the inbred unbelief of our nature, and by subjecting to his service
   those who seem to be unconquerable. It must be added, that the discourse
   here is concerning the corruption of nature, and not the grace of God, which
   is the remedy for that corruption.

   That thou mightest be justified, etc. The sense is, So far is it that the
   truth of God is destroyed by our falsehood and unfaithfulness, that it
   thereby shines forth and appears more evident, according to the testimony of
   David, who says, that as he was sinner, God was a just and righteous Judge
   in whatever he determined respecting him, and that he would overcome all the
   calumnies of the ungodly who murmured against his righteousness. By the
   words of God, David means the judgments which he pronounces upon us; for the
   common application of these to promises is too strained: and so the particle
   that, is not so much final, nor refers to a far-fetched consequence, but
   implies an inference according to this purport, “Against thee have I sinned;
   justly then dost thou punish me.” And that Paul has quoted this passage
   according to the proper and real meaning of David, is clear from the
   objection that is immediately added, “How shall the righteousness of God
   remain perfect if our iniquity illustrates it?” For in vain, as I have
   already observed, and unseasonable has Paul arrested the attention of his
   readers with this difficulty, except David meant, that God, in his wonderful
   providence, elicited from the sins of men a praise to his own righteousness.
   The second clause in Hebrew is this, “And that thou mightest be pure in thy
   judgment;” which expression imports nothing else but that God in all his
   judgments is worthy of praise, how much soever the ungodly may clamor and
   strive by their complaints disgracefully to efface his glory. But Paul has
   followed the Greek version, which answered his purpose here even better. We
   indeed know that the Apostles in quoting Scripture often used a freer
   language than the original; for they counted it enough to quote what was
   suitable to their subject: hence they made no great account of words.

   The application then of this passage is the following: Since all the sins of
   mortals must serve to illustrate the glory of the Lord, and since he is
   especially glorified by his truth, it follows, that even the falsehood of
   men serves to confirm rather than to subvert his truth. Though the word
   krinesthai, may be taken actively as well as passively, yet the Greek
   translators, I have no doubt, rendered it passively, contrary to the meaning
   of the Prophet. [91]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [90] The references in the margin are the following: — Romans 9:6; 2 Timothy
   2:13; John 3:33; Psalm 116:11; Psalm 51:4.

   [91] Whenever there is a material agreement between the Greek and the
   Hebrew, we ought not to make it otherwise. If the verb krinesthai, as
   admitted by most critics, may be taken actively and be thus made to agree
   with the Hebrew, what reason can there be to take it in another sense? The
   only real difference is in one word, between nikēsēs, “overcomest,” and
   תזכה, “art clear:” but the meaning is the same, though the words are
   different. To overcome in judgment, and to be clear in judgment, amounts to
   the same thing. The parallelism of the Hebrew requires krinesthai to be a
   verb in the middle voice, and to have an active meaning. The two lines in
   Hebrew, as it is often the case in Hebrew poetry, contain the same sentiment
   in different words, the last line expressing it more definitely; so that to
   be “justified,” and to be “cleared,” convey the same idea; and also “in thy
   word,” or saying — בדברך and “in thy judgment” בשפטך. In many copies both
   these last words are in the plural number, so that the first would be
   strictly what is here expressed, “in thy words,” that is, the words which
   thou hast declared; and “in thy judgments,” that is, those which thou hast
   announced, would be fully rendered by “when thou Judgest.” Commentators,
   both ancient and modern, have differed on the meaning of the verb in
   question. Pareus, Beza, Macknight, and Stuart, take it in an active sense;
   while Erasmus, Grotius, Venema, and others, contend for the passive meaning.
   Drusius, Hammond, and Doddridge render it, “when thou contendest in
   judgment,” or, “when thou art called to judgment:” and such a meaning no
   doubt the verb has according to Matthew 5:40, and 1 Corinthians 6:1, 6. But
   in this case regard must be had, especially to the meaning which corresponds
   the nearest with the original Hebrew. Some have maintained that “in thy
   judgment” בשפטך may be rendered “in judging thee;” but this would not only
   be unusual and make the sentence hardly intelligible, but also destroy the
   evident parallelism of the two lines. The whole verse may be thus literally
   rendered from the Hebrew, — Against thee, against thee only have I sinned;
   And the evil before thine eyes have I done;
   So that thou art justified in thy words,
   And clear in thy judgments. The conjunction למען, admits of being rendered
   so that; see Psalm 30:12; Isaiah 41:20; Amos 2:7; and hopōs in many
   instances may be thus rendered; see Luke 2:35; Philemon 6; 1 Peter 2:9. It
   is what Schleusner designates ekbatikōs, signifying the issue or the event.
   Pareus connects the passage differently. He considers the former part of the
   verse parenthetic, or as specifying what is generally stated in the previous
   verse, the third; and with that verse he connects this passage: so that the
   rendering of the two verses would be the following, — 3. For my
   transgression I acknowledge, And my sin is before me continually, — 4.
   (Against thee, against thee only have I sinned, and the evil before thine
   eyes have I done,) That thou mightest be justified in thy saying, And clear
   in thy judgment. This is certainty more probable than what Vatablus and
   Houbigant propose, who connect the passage with the second verse, “Wash me
   thoroughly,” etc. But the sense given by Calvin is the most satisfactory —
   Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:5-8

   5. But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness of God, what shall
   we say? Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man)

   5. Quod si injustitia nostra Dei justitiam commendat, quid dicemus? Num
   injustus est Deus qui infert iram? Secundum hominem dico.

   6. God forbid: for then how shall God judge the world?

   6. Ne ita sit: nam quomodo judicabit Deus mundum?

   7. For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory;
   why yet am I also judged as a sinner?

   7. Si enim veritas Dei per meum mendacium excelluit in ejus gloriam; quid
   etiammum et ego velut peccator judicor;

   8. And not rather, (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that
   we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just.

   8. Et non (quemadmodum exprobratur nobis, et quemadmodum aiunt quidam nos
   dicere) Faciamus mala, ut veniant bona? quorum judicium justum est.

   5 But if our unrighteousness, etc. Though this is a digression from the main
   subject, it was yet necessary for the Apostle to introduce it, lest he
   should seem to give to the ill-disposed an occasion to speak evil, which he
   knew would be readily laid hold on by them. For since they were watching for
   every opportunity to defame the gospel, they had, in the testimony of David,
   what they might have taken for the purpose of founding a calumny, — “If God
   seeks nothing else, but to be glorified by men, why does he punish them,
   when they offend, since by offending they glorify him? Without cause then
   surely is he offended, if he derives the reason of his displeasure from that
   by which he is glorified.” There is, indeed, no doubt, but that this was an
   ordinary, and everywhere a common calumny, as it will presently appear.
   Hence Paul could not have covertly passed it by; but that no one should
   think that he expressed the sentiments of his own mind, he premises that he
   assumes the person of the ungodly; and at the same time, he sharply,
   touches, by a single expression, on human reason; whose work, as he
   intimates, is ever to bark against the wisdom of God; for he says not,
   “according to the ungodly,” but “according to man,” or as man. And thus
   indeed it is, for all the mysteries of God are paradoxes to the flesh: and
   at the same tine it possesses so much audacity, that it fears not to oppose
   them and insolently to assail what it cannot comprehend. We are hence
   reminded, that if we desire to become capable of understanding them, we must
   especially labor to become freed from our own reason, (proprio sensu) and to
   give up ourselves, and unreservedly to submit to his word. — The word wrath,
   taken here for judgment, refers to punishment; as though he said, “Is God
   unjust, who punishes those sins which set forth his righteousness?”

   6. By no means, etc. In checking this blasphemy he gives not a direct reply
   to the objection, but begins with expressing his abhorrence of it, lest the
   Christian religion should even appear to include absurdities so great. And
   this is more weighty than if he adopted a simple denial; for he implies,
   that this impious expression deserved to be regarded with horror, and not to
   be heard. He presently subjoins what may be called an indirect refutation;
   for he does not distinctly refute the calumny, but gives only this reply,
   — that the objection was absurd. Moreover, he takes an argument from an
   office which belongs to God, by which he proves it to be impossible, — God
   shall judge the world; he cannot then be unjust.

   This argument is not derived, so to speak, from the mere power of God, but
   from his exercised power, which shines forth in the whole arrangement and
   order of his works; as though he said, — “It is God’s work to judge the
   world, that is, to rectify it by his own righteousness, and to reduce to the
   best order whatever there is in it out of order: he cannot then determine
   any thing unjustly.” And he seems to allude to a passage recorded by Moses,
   in Genesis 18:25, where it is said, that when Abraham prayed God not to
   deliver Sodom wholly to destruction, he spoke to this purpose, —

   “It is not meet, that thou who art to judge the earth, shouldest destroy the
   just with the ungodly: for this is not thy work nor can it be done by
   thee.”

   A similar declaration is found in Job 34:17, —

   “Should he who hates judgment exercise power?”

   For though there are found among men unjust judges, yet this happens,
   because they usurp authority contrary to law and right, or because they are
   inconsiderately raised to that eminence, or because they degenerate from
   themselves. But there is nothing of this kind with regard to God. Since,
   then, he is by nature judge, it must be that he is just, for he cannot deny
   himself. Paul then proves from what is impossible, that God is absurdly
   accused of unrighteousness; for to him peculiarly and naturally belongs the
   work of justly governing the world. And though what Paul teaches extends to
   the constant government of God, yet I allow that it has a special reference
   to the last judgment; for then only a real restoration of just order will
   take place. But if you wish for a direct refutation, by which profane things
   of this kind may be checked, take this, and say, “That it comes not through
   what unrighteousness is, that God’s righteousness becomes more illustrious,
   but that our wickedness is so surpassed by God’s goodness, that it is turned
   to serve an end different from that to which it tends.”

   7. If indeed [92] the truth of God, etc. This objection, I have no doubt, is
   adduced in the person of the ungodly; for it is a sort of an explanation of
   the former verse, and would have been connected with it, had not the
   Apostle, moved with indignation, broken off the sentence in the middle. The
   meaning of the objection is — “If by our unfaithfulness the truth of God
   becomes more conspicuous, and in a manner confirmed, and hence more glory
   redounds to him, it is by no means just, that he, who serves to display
   God’s glory, should be punished as a sinner.” [93]

   8. And not, etc. This is an elliptical sentence, in which a word is to be
   understood. It will be complete, if you read it thus, — “and why is it not
   rather said, (as we are reproached, etc.) that we are to do evils, that good
   things may come?” But the Apostle deigns not to answer the slander; which
   yet we may check by the most solid reason. The pretense, indeed, is this,
   — “If God is by our iniquity glorified, and if nothing can be done by man in
   this life more befitting than to promote the glory of God, then let us sin
   to advance his glory!” Now the answer to this is evident, — “That evil
   cannot of itself produce anything but evil; and that God’s glory is through
   our sin illustrated, is not the work of man, but the work of God; who, as a
   wonderful worker, knows how to overcome our wickedness, and to convert it to
   another end, so as to turn it contrary to what we intend, to the promotion
   of his own glory.” God has prescribed to us the way, by which he would have
   himself to be glorified by us, even by true piety, which consists in
   obedience to his word. He who leaps over this boundary, strives not to honor
   God, but to dishonor him. That it turns out otherwise, is to be ascribed to
   the Providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man; through which it
   comes not, that the majesty of God is not injured, nay, wholly overthrown
   [94]

   (As we are reproached,) etc. Since Paul speaks so reverently of the secret
   judgments of God, it is a wonder that his enemies should have fallen into
   such wantonness as to calumniate him: but there has never been so much
   reverence and seriousness displayed by God’s servants as to be sufficient to
   check impure and virulent tongues. It is not then a new thing, that
   adversaries at this day load with so many false accusations, and render
   odious our doctrine, which we ourselves know to be the pure gospel of
   Christ, and all the angels, as well as the faithful, are our witnesses.
   Nothing can be imagined more monstrous than what we read here was laid to
   the charge of Paul, to the end, that his preaching might be rendered hateful
   to the inexperienced. Let us then bear this evil, when the ungodly abuse the
   truth which we preach by their calumnies: nor let us cease, on this account,
   constantly to defend the genuine confession of it, inasmuch as it has
   sufficient power to crush and to dissipate their falsehoods. Let us, at the
   same time, according to the Apostle’s example, oppose, as much as we can,
   all malicious subtilties, (technis — crafts, wiles,) that the base and the
   abandoned may not, without some check, speak evil of our Creator.

   Whose judgment is just. Some take this in an active sense, as signifying
   that Paul so far assents to them, that what they objected was absurd, in
   order that the doctrine of the gospel might not be thought to be connected
   with such paradoxes: but I approve more of the passive meaning; for it would
   not have been suitable simply to express an approval of such a wickedness,
   which, on the contrary, deserved to be severely condemned; and this is what
   Paul seems to me to have done. And their perverseness was, on two accounts,
   to be condemned, — first, because this impiety had gained the assent of
   their minds; and secondly, because, in traducing the gospel, they dared to
   draw from it their calumny.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [92] Or, “For if” — Si enim — ei gar. The particle gar here gives no reason,
   but is to be viewed as meaning then, or indeed, verily; see Luke 12:58; John
   9:30; Acts 16:37; Philippians 2:27 Stuart renders it, still, and says, that
   it “points to a connection with verse. 5, and denotes a continuance of the
   same theme.” Macknight often renders it by further, besides, and no doubt
   rightly. — Ed.

   [93] It is remarkable how the Apostle changes his words from the third verse
   to the end of this, while the same things are essentially meant. His style
   is throughout Hebraistic. Stuart makes these just remarks, “Adikia is here
   [Romans 3:5] the generic appellation of sin, for which a specific name,
   apistia, was employed in Romans 3:3, and pseusma, in Romans 3:7. In like
   manner the dikaiosunē, in Romans 3:5, which is a generic appellation, is
   expressed by a specific one, pistin, in Romans 3:3, and by alētheia, in
   Romans 3:7. The idea is substantially the same, which is designated by these
   respectively corresponding appellations. Fidelity, uprightness, integrity,
   are designated by pistin, dikaiosunēn, and alētheia; while alētheia, and
   apistia adikia, designate unfaithfulness, want of uprightness and false
   dealing. All of these terms have more or less reference to the ברית,
   covenant or compact (so to speak) which existed between God and his ancient
   people.” — Ed.

   [94] Grotius thinks, that in the beginning of this verse there is a
   transposition, and that hoti, after the parenthesis, ought to be construed
   before mē which precedes it, and that hoti is for cur, why, — as in Mark
   9:11, and 28. The version would then be, “and why not, (as we are
   reproached, and as some declare that we say,) Let us do evil that good may
   come?” This is the rendering of Luther But Limborch and Stuart consider
   legōmen to be understood after mē; and the latter takes mē not as a negative
   but an interrogative, “and shall we say,” etc.? Amidst these varieties, the
   main drift of the passage remains the same. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:9

   9. What then? are we better than they? No, in no wise: for we have before
   proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin.

   9. Quid ergo? præcellimus? [95] Nequaquam: ante enim constituimus tam Judæos
   quam Græcos, omnes sub peccato esse.

   9. What then? He returns from his digression to his subject. For lest the
   Jews should object that they were deprived of their right, as he had
   mentioned those distinctions of honor, for which they thought themselves
   superior to the Gentiles, he now at length replies to the question — in what
   respect they excelled the Gentiles. And though his answer seems in
   appearance to militate against what he had said before, (for he now strips
   those of all dignity to whom he had attributed so much,) there is yet no
   discord; for those privileges in which he allowed them to be eminent, were
   separate from themselves, and dependent on God’s goodness, and not on their
   own merit: but here he makes inquiry as to their own worthiness, whether
   they could glory in any respect in themselves. Hence the two answers he
   gives so agree together, that the one follows from the other; for while he
   extols their privileges, by including them among the free benefits of God,
   he shows that they had nothing of their own. Hence, what he now answers
   might have been easily inferred; for since it was their chief superiority,
   that God’s oracles were deposited with them, and they had it not through
   their own merit, there was nothing left for them, on account of which they
   could glory before God. Now mark the holy contrivance (sanctum artificium)
   which he adopts; for when he ascribes pre-eminency to them, he speaks in the
   third person; but when he strips them of all things, he puts himself among
   them, that he might avoid giving offense.

   For we have before brought a charge, etc. The Greek verb which Paul adopts,
   aitiasthai is properly a forensic term; and I have therefore preferred to
   render it, “We have brought a charge;” [96] for an accuser in an action is
   said to charge a crime, which he is prepared to substantiate by testimonies
   and other proofs. Now the Apostle had summoned all mankind universally
   before the tribunal of God, that he might include all under the same
   condemnation: and it is to no purpose for any one to object, and say that
   the Apostle here not only brings a charge, but more especially proves it;
   for a charge is not true except it depends on solid and strong evidences,
   according to what Cicero says, who, in a certain place, distinguishes
   between a charge and a slander. We must add, that to be under sin means that
   we are justly condemned as sinners before God, or that we are held under the
   curse which is due to sin; for as righteousness brings with it absolution,
   so sin is followed by condemnation.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [95] “Præcellimus?” proechometha; “Have we the advantage?” Doddridge; “Do we
   excel?” Macknight; “Have we any preference?” Stuart It is thus paraphrased
   by Theodoret ti oun katechomen perisson — “What advantages then, have we?”
   “Præcellimus“ is the rendering of Erasmus, Pareus, and Beza Venema says,
   that this verb, in the active voice only, has this meaning in Greek authors;
   but the context can allow it no other sense here. Wetstein indeed gives it a
   passive meaning, “an antecellimur — are we surpassed?” but it can hardly
   comport with the drift of the passage. — Ed.

   [96] So do Grotius, Beza, and Stuart render the verb. Doddridge and
   Macknight have preserved our common version. “We have before charged,”
   Chalmers “Antea idoneis argumentis demonstravimus — we have before proved by
   sufficient arguments.” Schleusner It is charge rather than conviction that
   the verb imports, though the latter idea is also considered to be included.
   — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:10-18

   10. As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

   10. Sicut scriptum, Quod non est justus quisquam, ne unus quidem;

   11. There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

   11. Non est intelligens, non est qui requirat Deum;

   12. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable;
   there is none that doeth good, no, not one.

   12. Omnes declinarunt, simul facti sunt inutiles; non est qui exerceat
   benignitatem, ne ad unum quidem:

   13. Their throat is an open sepulchre: with their tongues they have used
   deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

   13. Sepulchrum apertum guttur eorum; linguis dolose egerunt: venenum aspidum
   sub labiis eorum:

   14. Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

   14. Quorum os execratione et amarulentia plenum:

   15. Their feet are swift to shed blood:

   15. Veloces pedes eorum ad effundendum sanguinem;

   16. Destruction and misery are in their ways:

   16. Contritio et calamitas in viis eorum;

   17. And the way of peace have they not known:

   17. Et viam pacis non noverunt:

   18. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

   18. Non est timor Dei præ oculis eorum. [97]

   10. As it is written, etc. He has hitherto used proofs or arguments to
   convince men of their iniquity; he now begins to reason from authority; and
   it is to Christians the strongest kind of proof, when authority is derived
   from the only true God. And hence let ecclesiastical teachers learn what
   their office is; for since Paul asserts here no truth but what he confirms
   by the sure testimony of Scripture, much less ought such a thing to be
   attempted by those, who have no other commission but to preach the gospel,
   which they have received through Paul and others.

   There is none righteous, etc. The Apostle, who gives the meaning rather than
   the entire words, seems, in the first place, before he comes to particulars,
   to state generally the substance of what the Prophet declares to be in man,
   and that is — that none is righteous; [98] he afterwards particularly
   enumerates the effects or fruits of this unrighteousness.

   11. The first effect is, that there is none that understands: and then this
   ignorance is immediately proved, for they seek not God; for empty is the man
   in whom there is not the knowledge of God, whatever other learning he may
   possess; yea, the sciences and the arts, which in themselves are good, are
   empty things, when they are without this groundwork.

   12. It is added, [99] There is no one who doeth kindness By this we are to
   understand, that they had put off every feeling of humanity. For as the best
   bond of mutual concord among us is the knowledge of God, (as he is the
   common Father of all, he wonderfully unites us, and without him there is
   nothing but disunion,) so inhumanity commonly follows where there is
   ignorance of God, as every one, when he despises others, loves and seeks his
   own good.

   13. It is further added, Their throat is an open grave; [100] that is, a
   gulf to swallow up men. It is more than if he had said, that they were
   devourers (anthrōpophagous — men-eaters;) for it is an intimation of extreme
   barbarity, when the throat is said to be so great a gulf, that it is
   sufficient to swallow down and devour men whole and entire. Their tongues
   are deceitful, and, the poison of asps is under their lips, import the same
   thing,

   14. Then he says, that their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness [101]
   — a vice of an opposite character to the former; but the meaning is, that
   they are in every way full of wickedness; for if they speak fair, they
   deceive and blend poison with their flatteries; but if they draw forth what
   they have in their hearts, bitterness and cursing stream out.

   16. Very striking is the sentence that is added from Isaiah, Ruin and misery
   are in all their ways; [102] for it is a representation of ferociousness
   above measure barbarous, which produces solitude and waste by destroying
   every thing wherever it prevails: it is the same as the description which
   Pliny gives of Domitian.

   17. It follows, The way of peace they have not known: they are so habituated
   to plunders, acts of violence and wrong, to savageness and cruelty, that
   they know not how to act kindly and courteously.

   18. In the last clause [103] he repeats again, in other words, what we have
   noticed at the beginning — that every wickedness flows from a disregard of
   God: for as the principal part of wisdom is the fear of God, when we depart
   from that, there remains in us nothing right or pure. In short, as it is a
   bridle to restrain our wickedness, so when it is wanting, we feel at liberty
   to indulge every kind of licentiousness.

   And that these testimonies may not seem to any one to have been unfitly
   produced, let us consider each of them in connection with the passages from
   which they have been taken. David says in Psalm 14:1, that there was such
   perverseness in men, that God, when looking on them all in their different
   conditions, could not find a righteous man, no, not one. It then follows,
   that this evil pervaded mankind universally; for nothing is hid from the
   sight of God. He speaks indeed at the end of the Psalm of the redemption of
   Israel: but we shall presently show how men become holy, and how far they
   are exempt from this condition. In the other Psalms he speaks of the
   treachery of his enemies, while he was exhibiting in himself and in his
   descendants a type of the kingdom of Christ: hence we have in his
   adversaries the representatives of all those, who being alienated from
   Christ, are not led by his Spirit. Isaiah expressly mentions Israel; and
   therefore his charge applies with still greater force against the Gentiles.
   What, then? There is no doubt but that the character of men is described in
   those words, in order that we may see what man is when left to himself; for
   Scripture testifies that all men are in this state, who are not regenerated
   by the grace of God. The condition of the saints would be nothing better,
   were not this depravity corrected in them: and that they may still remember
   that they differ nothing from others by nature, they do find in the relics
   of their flesh (by which they are always encompassed) the seeds of those
   evils, which would constantly produce fruits, were they not prevented by
   being mortified; and for this mortification they are indebted to God’s mercy
   and not to their own nature. We may add, that though all the vices here
   enumerated are not found conspicuously in every individual, yet they may be
   justly and truly ascribed to human nature, as we have already observed [2]on
   Romans 1:26.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [97] The references given in the margin are these, — Psalm 14:1-3; Psalm
   53:3 Psalm 5:9; Psalm 14:3; Psalm 9:7; Isaiah 56:7; Proverbs 1:16; Psalm
   36:1.

   [98] Psalm 14:1. The Hebrew is, “There is none that doeth good;” and the
   Septuagint, “There is none doing kindness, (chrēstotēta), there is not even
   one, (ouk estin heōs henos.)” So that the Apostle quotes the meaning, not
   the words. The eleventh verse (Romans 3:11) is from the same Psalm; the
   Hebrew, with which the Septuagint agree, except that there is the
   disjunctive ē between the participles, is the following, — “Whether there is
   any one who understands, who seeks after God.” — Ed.

   [99] This verse is literally the Septuagint, and as to meaning, a correct
   version of the Hebrew. “All have gone out of the way — pantes exeklinan” “is
   in Hebrew הכל סר, “the whole (or every one) has turned aside,” or revolted,
   or apostatized. Then, “they have become unprofitable” or useless, is נאלחו,
   “they are become putrid,” or Corrupted, like putrified fruit or meat,
   therefore useless, not fit for what they were designed — to serve God and to
   promote their own and the good of others. Idolatry was evidently this
   putrescence. — Ed.

   [100] This is from Psalm 5:9, that is, the first part, and is literally the
   Septuagint, which correctly represents the Hebrew. The last clause is from
   Psalm 140:3, and is according to the Septuagint, and the Hebrew, too, except
   that “asps,” or adders, is in the singular number. Stuart gives the import
   of this figurative language different from Calvin: “As from the
   sepulchre,” he says, “issues forth an offensive and pestilential vapor; so
   from the mouths of slanderous persons issue noisome and pestilential words.
   Their words are like poison, they utter the poisonous breath of slander.”
   — Ed.

   [101] Psalm 10:7. Paul corrects the order of the words as found in the
   Septuagint, and gives the Hebrew more exactly, but retains the word
   “bitterness,” by which the Septuagint have rendered מרמות, which means
   deceit, or rather, mischievous deceit. Some think that it ought to be מררות,
   “bitterness;” but there is no copy in its favor. — Ed.

   [102] Romans 3:15, 16, and 17 are taken from Isaiah 59:7, 8. Both the Hebrew
   and the Septuagint are alike, but Paul has abbreviated them, and changed two
   words in the Greek version, having put oxei' for tachinoi, and egnōsan for
   oídasi, and has followed that version in leaving out “innocent” before
   “blood.” — Ed.

   [103] It is taken from Psalm 36:1, and verbatim from the Greek version, and
   strictly in accordance with the Hebrew. It is evident from several of these
   quotations, that Paul’s object, as Calvin says, was to represent the general
   meaning, and not to keep strictly to the expressions. There is a difference
   of opinion as to the precise object of the Apostle; whether in these
   quotations he had regard to the Jews only, or to both Jews and Gentiles. In
   the introduction, Romans 3:9, he mentions both, and in the conclusion,
   Romans 3:19, he evidently refers to both, in these words, “that every, mouth
   may be stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God.” The most
   consistent view seems to be, that the passages quoted refer both to Jews and
   Gentiles; the last, more especially, to the Jews, while some of the
   preceding have a special reference to the Gentile world, particularly Psalm
   14, as it describes the character of the enemies of God and his people, to
   whose liberation the Psalmist refers in the last verse. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:19-20

   19. Now we know that what things soever the law saith, it saith to them who
   are under the law: that every mouth may be stopped, and all the world may
   become guilty before God.

   19. Scimus autem quod quæcunque Lex dicit, iis qui in Lege sunt loquitur; ut
   omne os obstruatur, et obnoxius fiat omnis mundus Deo. [104]

   20. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in
   his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

   20. Quoniam ex operibus Legis non justificabitur omnis caro coram ipso; per
   Legem enim agnitio peccati.

   19. Now we know, etc. Leaving the Gentiles, he distinctly addresses his
   words to the Jews; for he had a much more difficult work in subduing them,
   because they, though no less destitute of true righteousness than the
   Gentiles, yet covered themselves with the cloak of God’s covenant, as though
   it was a sufficient holiness to them to have been separated from the rest of
   the world by the election of God. And he indeed mentions those evasions
   which he well understood the Jews were ready to bring forward; for whatever
   was said in the law unfavorably of mankind, they usually applied to the
   Gentiles, as though they were exempt from the common condition of men, and
   no doubt they would have been so, had they not fallen from their own
   dignity. Hence, that no false conceit as to their own worthiness should be a
   hinderance to them, and that they might not confine to the Gentiles alone
   what applied to them in common with others, Paul here anticipates them, and
   shows, from what Scripture declares, that they were not only blended with
   the multitude, but that condemnation was peculiarly denounced on them. And
   we indeed see the discretion of the Apostle in undertaking to refute these
   objections; for to whom but to the Jews had the law been given, and to whose
   instruction but theirs ought it to have served? What then it states
   respecting others is as it were accidental; or as they say, parergon, an
   appendage; but it applies its teaching mainly to its own disciples.

   Under the law He says that the Jews were those to whom the law was destined,
   it hence follows, that it especially regards them; and under the word law he
   includes also the Prophets, and so the whole of the Old Testament — That
   every mouth may be stopped, etc.; that is, that every evasion may be cut
   off, and every occasion for excuse. It is a metaphor taken from courts of
   law, where the accused, if he has anything to plead as a lawful defense,
   demands leave to speak, that he might clear himself from the things laid to
   his charge; but if he is convicted by his own conscience, he is silent, and
   without saying a word waits for his condemnation, being even already by his
   own silence condemned. Of the same meaning is this saying in Job 40:4, “I
   will lay my hand on my mouth.” He indeed says, that though he was not
   altogether without some kind of excuse, he would yet cease to justify
   himself, and submit to the sentence of God. The next clause contains the
   explanation; for his mouth is stopped, who is so fast held by the sentence
   of condemnation, that he can by no means escape. According to another sense,
   to be silent before the Lord is to tremble at his majesty, and to stand
   mute, being astonished at his brightness. [105]

   20. Therefore by the works of the law, etc. It is a matter of doubt, even
   among the learned, what the works of the law mean. Some extend them to the
   observance of the whole law, while others confine them to the ceremonies
   alone. The addition of the word law induced Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome
   to assent to the latter opinion; [106] for they thought that there is a
   peculiar intimation in this appendage, that the expression should not be
   understood as including all works. But this difficulty may be very easily
   removed: for seeing works are so far just before God as we seek by them to
   render to him worship and obedience, in order expressly to take away the
   power of justifying from all works, he has mentioned those, if there be any,
   which can possibly justify; for the law hath promises, without which there
   would be no value in our works before God. You hence see the reason why Paul
   expressly mentioned the works of the law; for it is by the law that a reward
   is apportioned to works. Nor was this unknown to the schoolmen, who held it
   as an approved and common maxim, that works have no intrinsic worthiness,
   but become meritorious by covenant. And though they were mistaken, inasmuch
   as they saw not that works are ever polluted with vices, which deprive them
   of any merit, yet this principle is still true, that the reward for works
   depends on the free promise of the law. Wisely then and rightly does Paul
   speak here; for he speaks not of mere works, but distinctly and expressly
   refers to the keeping of the law, the subject which he is discussing. [107]

   As to those things which have been adduced by learned men in defense of this
   opinion, they are weaker than they might have been. They think that by
   mentioning circumcision, an example is propounded, which belonged to
   ceremonies only: but why Paul mentioned circumcision, we have already
   explained; for none swell more with confidence in works than hypocrites, and
   we know that they glory only in external masks; and then circumcision,
   according to their view, was a sort of initiation into the righteousness of
   the law; and hence it seemed to them a work of primary excellence, and
   indeed the basis as it were of the righteousness of works. — They also
   allege what is said in the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul handles the
   same subject, and refers to ceremonies only; but that also is not
   sufficiently strong to support what they wish to defend. It is certain that
   Paul had a controversy with those who inspired the people with a false
   confidence in ceremonies; that he might cut of this confidence, he did not
   confine himself to ceremonies, nor did he speak specifically of what value
   they were; but he included the whole law, as it is evident from those
   passages which are derived from that source. Such also was the character of
   the disputation held at Jerusalem by the disciples.

   But we contend, not without reason, that Paul speaks here of the whole law;
   for we are abundantly supported by the thread of reasoning which he has
   hitherto followed and continues to follow, and there are many other passages
   which will not allow us to think otherwise. It is therefore a truth, which
   deserves to be remembered as the first in importance, — that by keeping the
   law no one can attain righteousness. He had before assigned the reason, and
   he will repeat it presently again, and that is, that all, being to a man
   guilty of transgression, are condemned for unrighteousness by the law. And
   these two things — to be justified by works — and to be guilty of
   transgressions, (as we shall show more at large as we proceed,) are wholly
   inconsistent the one with the other. — The word flesh, without some
   particular specification, signifies men; [108] though it seems to convey a
   meaning somewhat more general, as it is more expressive to say, “All
   mortals,” than to say, “All men,” as you may see in Gallius.

   For by the law, etc. He reasons from what is of an opposite character, —
   that righteousness is not brought to us by the law, because it convinces us
   of sin and condemns us; for life and death proceed not from the same
   fountain. And as he reasons from the contrary effect of the law, that it
   cannot confer righteousness on us, let us know, that the argument does not
   otherwise hold good, except we hold this as an inseparable and unvarying
   circumstance, — that by showing to man his sin, it cuts off the hope of
   salvation. It is indeed by itself, as it teaches us what righteousness is,
   the way to salvation: but our depravity and corruption prevent it from being
   in this respect of any advantage to us. It is also necessary in the second
   place to add this, — that whosoever is found to be a sinner, is deprived of
   righteousness; for to devise with the sophisters a half kind of
   righteousness, so that works in part justify, is frivolous: but nothing is
   in this respect gained, on account of man’s corruption.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [104] Obnoxius Deo — hupodikos tō theō: “Obnoxius condemnationi Dei —
   subject to the condemnation of God” Beza; “Liable to punishment before
   God,” Macknight; “Stand convicted before God,” Doddridge The word means to
   be “under sentence” or under condemnation, and thus “to God,” i.e., before
   God. Tillotson gives this paraphrase, “Liable to the Divine justice.” It may
   be rendered “condemned before God.” The meaning is that the world is under
   condemnation. — Ed.

   [105] To see the force and meaning of this verse, we must bear in mind that
   the former part was said to prevent the Jews from evading the application of
   the preceding testimonies; and then the words “that every mouth,” etc., and
   “that all the world,” etc., were added, not so much to include the Gentiles,
   as to include the Jews, who thought themselves exempted. No doubt the
   Gentiles are included, but the special object of the Apostle evidently seems
   to prevent the Jews from supposing that they were not included. In no other
   way can the connection between the two parts of the verse be understood. —
   Ed.

   [106] The original is “ut in priorem opinionem concederent:” but the context
   shows clearly that “priorem“ is a misprint for “posteriorem. In addition to
   the authors mentioned here may be added Ambrose, Theodoret, Pelagius,
   Erasmus, and Grotius And yet, notwithstanding all those authorities, the
   opinion referred to is wholly inconsistent with the reasoning of the Apostle
   here and throughout the whole Epistle. It has indeed been given up as
   untenable by modern authors of the same school, such as Locke, Whitby, and
   Macknight To disprove this notion it is sufficient to notice the sins which
   the Apostle had referred to; they are not those against the ceremonial but
   the moral law, and it is because the moral law is transgressed that it
   cannot justify. “If there be any law which man has perfectly kept, he may
   doubtless be justified by it; and surely no man can be justified by a law
   which condemns him for breaking it. But there is no law of God which any man
   has kept; therefore no law by the deeds of which a man can be justified. The
   Gentile broke the law of his reason and conscience; the Jew broke the moral
   law; and even the attempt to justify himself by observing the ceremonial
   law, contradicted the very nature and intent of it.” — Scott

   [107] The argument and the reasoning of the Apostle seem to require that ex
   ergōn nomou should be rendered here literally, “by works of law,” without
   the article, as the word “law” seems here, according to the drift of the
   argument, to mean law in general, both natural and revealed; and dia nomou
   in the next clause must be regarded as having the same meaning; the law of
   nature as well as the written law, though not to the same extent, makes sin
   known. This is the view taken by Pareus, Doddridge, Macknight, Stuart, and
   Haldane. — Ed.

   [108] The expression is ou pasa sarx — not all, that is, not any flesh,
   etc.; the word pasa, like כל in Hebrew, is used here in the sense of
   “any.” The sentence bears a resemblance to what is contained in Psalm 143:2,
   “for justified before thee shall not all living,” or, not any one living,
   לא כל חי. The sentence here is literally, “Hence by works of law shall not
   be justified any flesh before Him.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:21-22

   21. But now the righteousness of God without the law [109] is manifested,
   being witnessed by the law and the prophets;

   21. Nunc autem sine Lege justitia Dei manifesto est, testimonio comprobata
   Legis et prophetarum;

   22. Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all
   and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

   22. Justitia, inquam, Dei per fidem Iesu Christi, in omnes et super omnes
   credentes; non est sanè distinctio:

   21. But now without the law, etc. It is not certain for what distinct reason
   he calls that the righteousness of God, which we obtain by faith; whether it
   be, because it can alone stand before God, or because the Lord in his mercy
   confers it on us. As both interpretations are suitable, we contend for
   neither. This righteousness then, which God communicates to man, and accepts
   alone, and owns as righteousness, has been revealed, he says, without the
   law, that is without the aid of the law; and the law is to be understood as
   meaning works; for it is not proper to refer this to its teaching, which he
   immediately adduces as bearing witness to the gratuitous righteousness of
   faith. Some confine it to ceremonies; but this view I shall presently show
   to be unsound and frigid. We ought then to know, that the merits of works
   are excluded. We also see that he blends not works with the mercy of God;
   but having taken away and wholly removed all confidence in works, he sets up
   mercy alone.

   It is not unknown to me, that Augustine gives a different explanation; for
   he thinks that the righteousness of God is the grace of regeneration; and
   this grace he allows to be free, because God renews us, when unworthy, by
   his Spirit; and from this he excludes the works of the law, that is, those
   works, by which men of themselves endeavor, without renovation, to render
   God indebted to them. (Deum promereri — to oblige God.) I also well know,
   that some new speculators proudly adduce this sentiment, as though it were
   at this day revealed to them. But that the Apostle includes all works
   without exception, even those which the Lord produces in his own people, is
   evident from the context.

   For no doubt Abraham was regenerated and led by the Spirit of God at the
   time when he denied that he was justified by works. Hence he excluded from
   man’s justification not only works morally good, as they commonly call them,
   and such as are done by the impulse of nature, but also all those which even
   the faithful can perform. [110] Again, since this is a definition of the
   righteousness of faith, “Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven,”
   there is no question to be made about this or that kind of work; but the
   merit of works being abolished, the remission of sins alone is set down as
   the cause of righteousness.

   They think that these two things well agree, — that man is justified by
   faith through the grace of Christ, — and that he is yet justified by the
   works, which proceed from spiritual regeneration; for God gratuitously
   renews us, and we also receive his gift by faith. But Paul takes up a very
   different principle, — that the consciences of men will never be
   tranquillized until they recumb on the mercy of God alone. [111] Hence, in
   another place, after having taught us that God is in Christ justifying men,
   he expresses the manner, — “by not imputing to them their sins.” In like
   manner, in his Epistle to the Galatians, he puts the law in opposition to
   faith with regard to justification; for the law promises life to those who
   do what it commands, (Galatians 3:12;) and it requires not only the outward
   performance of works, but also sincere love to God. It hence follows, that
   in the righteousness of faith, no merit of works is allowed. It then appears
   evident, that it is but a frivolous sophistry to say, that we are justified
   in Christ, because we are renewed by the Spirit, inasmuch as we are the
   members of Christ, — that we are justified by faith, because we are united
   by faith to the body of Christ, — that we are justified freely, because God
   finds nothing in us but sin.

   But we are in Christ because we are out of ourselves; and justified by
   faith, because we must recumb on the mercy of God alone, and on his
   gratuitous promises; and freely, because God reconciles us to himself by
   burying our sins. Nor can this indeed be confined to the commencement of
   justification, as they dream; for this definition — “Blessed are they whose
   iniquities are forgiven” — was applicable to David, after he had long
   exercised himself in the service of God; and Abraham, thirty years after his
   call, though a remarkable example of holiness, had yet no works for which he
   could glory before God, and hence his faith in the promise was imputed to
   him for righteousness; and when Paul teaches us that God justifies men by
   not imputing their sins, he quotes a passage, which is daily repeated in the
   Church. Still more, the conscience, by which we are disturbed on the score
   of works, performs its office, not for one day only, but continues to do so
   through life. It hence follows that we cannot remain, even to death, in a
   justified state, except we look to Christ only, in whom God has adopted us,
   and regards us now as accepted. Hence also is their sophistry confuted, who
   falsely accuse us of asserting, that according to Scripture we are justified
   by faith only, while the exclusive word only, is nowhere to be found in
   Scripture. But if justification depends not either on the law, or on
   ourselves, why should it not be ascribed to mercy alone? and if it be from
   mercy only, it is then by faith only.

   The particle now may be taken adversatively, and not with reference to time;
   as we often use now for but. [112] But if you prefer to regard it as an
   adverb of time, I willingly admit it, so that there may be no room to
   suspect an evasion; yet the abrogation of ceremonies alone is not to be
   understood; for it was only the design of the Apostle to illustrate by a
   comparison the grace by which we excel the fathers. Then the meaning is,
   that by the preaching of the gospel, after the appearance of Christ in the
   flesh, the righteousness of faith was revealed. It does not, however, hence
   follow, that it was hid before the coming of Christ; for a twofold
   manifestation is to be here noticed: the first in the Old Testament, which
   was by the word and sacraments; the other in the New, which contains the
   completion of ceremonies and promises, as exhibited in Christ himself: and
   we may add, that by the gospel it has received a fuller brightness.

   Being proved [or approved] by the testimony, [113] etc. He adds this, lest
   in the conferring of free righteousness the gospel should seem to militate
   against the law. As then he has denied that the righteousness of faith needs
   the aid of the law, so now he asserts that it is confirmed by its testimony.
   If then the law affords its testimony to gratuitous righteousness, it is
   evident that the law was not given for this end, to teach men how to obtain
   righteousness by works. Hence they pervert it, who turn it to answer any
   purpose of this kind. And further, if you desire a proof of this truth,
   examine in order the chief things taught by Moses, and you will find that
   man, being cast from the kingdom of God, had no other restoration from the
   beginning than that contained in the evangelical promises through the
   blessed seed, by whom, as it had been foretold, the serpent’s head was to be
   bruised, and through whom a blessing to the nations had been promised: you
   will find in the commandments a demonstration of your iniquity, and from the
   sacrifices and oblations you may learn that satisfaction and cleansing are
   to be obtained in Christ alone. [114] When you come to the Prophets you will
   find the clearest promises of gratuitous mercy. On this subject see my
   Institutes.

   22. Even the righteousness of God, etc. [115] He shows in few words what
   this justification is, even that which is found in Christ and is apprehended
   by faith. At the same time, by introducing again the name of God, he seems
   to make God the founder, (autorem, the author,) and not only the approver of
   the righteousness of which he speaks; as though he had said, that it flows
   from him alone, or that its origin is from heaven, but that it is made
   manifest to us in Christ.

   When therefore we discuss this subject, we ought to proceed in this way:
   First, the question respecting our justification is to be referred, not to
   the judgment of men, but to the judgment of God, before whom nothing is
   counted righteousness, but perfect and absolute obedience to the law; which
   appears clear from its promises and threatenings: if no one is found who has
   attained to such a perfect measure of holiness, it follows that all are in
   themselves destitute of righteousness. Secondly, it is necessary that Christ
   should come to our aid; who, being alone just, can render us just by
   transferring to us his own righteousness. You now see how the righteousness
   of faith is the righteousness of Christ. When therefore we are justified,
   the efficient cause is the mercy of God, the meritorious is Christ, the
   instrumental is the word in connection with faith. [116] Hence faith is said
   to justify, because it is the instrument by which we receive Christ, in whom
   righteousness is conveyed to us. Having been made partakers of Christ, we
   ourselves are not only just, but our works also are counted just before God,
   and for this reason, because whatever imperfections there may be in them,
   are obliterated by the blood of Christ; the promises, which are conditional,
   are also by the same grace fulfilled to us; for God rewards our works as
   perfect, inasmuch as their defects are covered by free pardon.

   Unto all and upon all, [117] etc. For the sake of amplifying, he repeats the
   same thing in different forms; it was, that he might more fully express what
   we have already heard, that faith alone is required, that the faithful are
   not distinguished by external marks, and that hence it matters not whether
   they be Gentiles or Jews.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [109] Here again it is better, and indeed necessary for the Apostle’s
   argument, to render chōris nomou, ““without law,” that is, without any law,
   either natural or revealed. The same sentiment is found in Galatians 3:21
   — “For if a law had been given, capable of giving life, truly righteous
   would have been by law (ek nomou.)” The version of Macknight seems just,
   “But now a righteousness of God without law is discovered.” But we, may
   retain the tense (pephanerōtai) “has been discovered,” or manifested, or
   made known. “A righteousness of God without law,” is a similar phrase to
   “the righteousness of God by faith,” in Romans 1:17. — Then in the following
   clause the “law” means not specifically the law of Moses, but the Old
   Testament, excepting the Prophets. — Ed.

   [110] Professor Hodge very justly observes, “It never was the doctrine of
   the Reformation, or of the Lutheran and Calvinistic divines, that the
   imputation of righteousness affected the moral character of those concerned.
   It is true,” he adds, “whom God justifies he also sanctifies; but
   justification is not sanctification, and the imputation of righteousness is
   not the infusion of righteousness.” — Ed.

   [111] “The foundation of your trust before God, must be either your own
   righteousness out and out, or the righteousness of Christ out and out. ...
   If you are to lean upon your own merit, lean upon it wholly — if you are to
   lean upon Christ, lean upon him wholly. The two will not amalgamate
   together, and it is the attempt to do so, which keeps many a weary and
   heavy-laden inquirer at a distance from rest, and at a distance from the
   truth of the gospel. Maintain a clear and consistent posture. Stand not
   before God with one foot upon a rock and the other upon a treacherous
   quicksand...We call upon you not to lean so much as the weight of one grain
   or scruple of your confidence upon your own doings — to leave this ground
   entirely, and to come over entirely to the ground of a Redeemer’s blood and
   a Redeemer’s righteousness.” — Dr. Chalmers

   [112] “The words but now may be regarded merely as marking the transition
   from one paragraph to another, or as a designation of tense; now, i.e.,
   under the gospel dispensation. In favor of this view is the phrase, “to
   declare at this time his righteousness, Romans 3:26.” — Hodge

   [113] “Testimonio comprobata,” etc., so Beza and Pareus render marturoumenē;
   “Being attested,” Doddridge; “Being testified,” Macknight Schleusner gives a
   paraphrase, “Being predicted and promised;” and this no doubt is the full
   meaning. — Ed.

   [114] Concurrent with what is said here is this striking and condensed
   passage from Scott, — “It has been witnessed by the law and the Prophets;
   the ceremonies typified it; the very strictness of the moral law and its
   awful curses, being compared with the promises of mercy to sinners, implied
   it; the promises and predictions of the Messiah bore witness to it; the
   faith and hope of ancient believers recognized it; and the whole Old
   Testament, rightly understood, taught men to expect and depend on it.” — Ed.

   [115] The words which follow, dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou “by or through the
   faith of Jesus Christ,” mean not the faith which is his, but the faith of
   which he is the object. They ought to be rendered “through faith in Jesus
   Christ.” The genitive case has often this meaning: “Echete pistin Theou —
   Have faith in (of) God,” Mark 11:22; “En pistei zō tHu tou huiou tou Theou
   — I live by the faith of the Son of God;” [Galations 2:20;] it should be in
   our language, “I live by faith in the Son of God.” This genitive case of the
   object is an Hebraism, and is of frequent occurrence. — Ed.

   [116] The original is this, “Ut ergo justificemur, causa efficiens est
   misericordia Dei, Christus materia, verbum cum fide instrumentum — When
   therefore we are justified, the efficient cause is God’s mercy, Christ is
   the material, the word with faith is the instrument.” — Ed.

   [117] Eis pantas kai epi pantas. He makes a similar difference in his
   expressions in verse 30. This righteousness, as some say, came to the Jews,
   as it had been promised to them, and upon the Gentiles, as a gift with which
   they were not acquainted, and it was conferred on them. But the possession
   was equal and belonged to all who believed, and to none else, whether Jews
   or Gentiles. Stuart connects these words with “manifested,” or revealed, in
   verse 21. It is manifested to all, and manifested for all; that is, for the
   real benefit of all who believe; in other words, it is offered to all, but
   becomes of real advantage only to those who believe. But the simpler mode is
   to consider the words, which is, as in our version, to be understood.
   ‘Erchomenē is the word which Luther adopts. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:23-26

   23. For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

   23. Omnes enim peccaverunt, et destituuntur gloria Dei;

   24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
   Christ Jesus:

   24. Justificati gratis ipsius gratia per redemptionem quæ est in Christo
   lesu:

   25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,
   to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past,
   through the forbearance of God;

   25. Quem proposuit Deus propitiatorium per fidem in sanguine ipsius, in
   demonstrationem justitiae suæ, propter remissionem delictorum,

   26. To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be
   just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

   26. Quæ prius extiterunt in tolerantia Dei; ad demonstrationem justitiae
   suae, in hoc tempore; ut sit ipse justus et Justificans enum qui est ex fide
   Iesu.

   23. There is indeed no difference, etc. He urges on all, without exception,
   the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ; as though he had said,
   “There is no other way of attaining righteousness; for some cannot be
   justified in this and others in that way; but all must alike be justified by
   faith, because all are sinners, and therefore have nothing for which they
   can glory before God.” But he takes as granted that every one, conscious of
   his sin, when he comes before the tribunal of God, is confounded and lost
   under a sense of his own shame; so that no sinner can bear the presence of
   God, as we see an example in the case of Adam. He again brings forward a
   reason taken from the opposite side; and hence we must notice what follows.
   Since we are all sinners, Paul concludes, that we are deficient in, or
   destitute of, the praise due to righteousness. There is then, according to
   what he teaches, no righteousness but what is perfect and absolute. Were
   there indeed such a thing as half righteousness, it would yet be necessary
   to deprive the sinner entirely of all glory: and hereby the figment of
   partial righteousness, as they call it, is sufficiently confuted; for if it
   were true that we are justified in part by works, and in part by grace, this
   argument of Paul would be of no force — that all are deprived of the glory
   of God because they are sinners. It is then certain, there is no
   righteousness where there is sin, until Christ removes the curse; and this
   very thing is what is said in Galatians 3:10, that all who are under the law
   are exposed to the curse, and that we are delivered from it through the
   kindness of Christ. The glory of God I take to mean the approbation of God,
   as in John 12:43, where it is said, that “they loved the glory of men more
   than the glory of God.” And thus he summons us from the applause of a human
   court to the tribunal of heaven. [118]

   24. Being justified freely, etc. A participle is here put for a verb
   according to the usage of the Greek language. The meaning is, — that since
   there remains nothing for men, as to themselves, but to perish, being
   smitten by the just judgment of God, they are to be justified freely through
   his mercy; for Christ comes to the aid of this misery, and communicates
   himself to believers, so that they find in him alone all those things in
   which they are wanting. There is, perhaps, no passage in the whole Scripture
   which illustrates in a more striking manner the efficacy of his
   righteousness; for it shows that God’s mercy is the efficient cause, that
   Christ with his blood is the meritorious cause, that the formal or the
   instumental cause is faith in the word, and that moreover, the final cause
   is the glory of the divine justice and goodness.

   With regard to the efficient cause, he says, that we are justified freely,
   and further, by his grace; and he thus repeats the word to show that the
   whole is from God, and nothing from us. It might have been enough to oppose
   grace to merits; but lest we should imagine a half kind of grace, he affirms
   more strongly what he means by a repetition, and claims for God’s mercy
   alone the whole glory of our righteousness, which the sophists divide into
   parts and mutilate, that they may not be constrained to confess their own
   poverty. — Through the redemption, etc. This is the material, — Christ by
   his obedience satisfied the Father’s justice, (judicium — judgment,) and by
   undertaking our cause he liberated us from the tyranny of death, by which we
   were held captive; as on account of the sacrifice which he offered is our
   guilt removed. Here again is fully confuted the gloss of those who make
   righteousness a quality; for if we are counted righteous before God, because
   we are redeemed by a price, we certainly derive from another what is not in
   us. And Paul immediately explains more clearly what this redemption is, and
   what is its object, which is to reconcile us to God; for he calls Christ a
   propitiation, (or, if we prefer an allusion to an ancient type,) a
   propitiatory. But what he means is, that we are not otherwise just than
   through Christ propitiating the Father for us. But it is necessary for us to
   examine the words. [119]

   25. Whom God hath set forth, etc. The Greek verb, protithenai, means
   sometimes to determine beforehand, and sometimes to set forth. If the first
   meaning be taken, Paul refers to the gratuitous mercy of God, in having
   appointed Christ as our Mediator, that he might appease the Father by the
   sacrifice of his death: nor is it a small commendation of God’s grace that
   he, of his own good will, sought out a way by which he might remove our
   curse. According to this view, the passage fully harmonizes with that in
   John 3:16,

   “God so loved the world, that he gave his only-begotten Son.”

   Yet if we embrace this meaning, it will remain still true, that God hath set
   him forth in due time, whom he had appointed as a Mediator. There seems to
   be an allusion in the word, hilastērion, as I have said, to the ancient
   propitiatory; for he teaches us that the same thing was really exhibited in
   Christ, which had been previously typified. As, however, the other view
   cannot be disproved, should any prefer it, I shall not undertake to decide
   the question. What Paul especially meant here is no doubt evident from his
   words; and it was this, — that God, without having regard to Christ, is
   always angry with us, — and that we are reconciled to him when we are
   accepted through his righteousness. God does not indeed hate in us his own
   workmanship, that is, as we are formed men; but he hates our uncleanness,
   which has extinguished the light of his image. When the washing of Christ
   cleanses this away, he then loves and embraces us as his own pure
   workmanship.

   A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer thus literally to
   retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by
   one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we
   have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the
   possession of this benefit. But by mentioning blood only, he did not mean to
   exclude other things connected with redemption, but, on the contrary, to
   include the whole under one word: and he mentioned “blood,” because by it we
   are cleansed. Thus, by taking a part for the whole, he points out the whole
   work of expiation. For, as he had said before, that God is reconciled in
   Christ, so he now adds, that this reconciliation is obtained by faith,
   mentioning, at the same time, what it is that faith ought mainly to regard
   in Christ — his blood.

   For (propter) the remission of sins, [120] etc. The causal preposition
   imports as much as though he had said, “for the sake of remission,” or, “to
   this end, that he might blot out sins.” And this definition or explanation
   again confirms what I have already often reminded you, — that men are
   pronounced just, not because they are such in reality, but by imputation:
   for he only uses various modes of expression, that he might more clearly
   declare, that in this righteousness there is no merit of ours; for if we
   obtain it by the remission of sins, we conclude that it is not from
   ourselves; and further, since remission itself is an act of God’s bounty
   alone, every merit falls to the ground.

   It may, however, be asked, why he confines pardon to preceding sins? Though
   this passage is variously explained, yet it seems to me probable that Paul
   had regard to the legal expiations, which were indeed evidences of a future
   satisfaction, but could by no means pacify God. There is a similar passage
   in Hebrews 9:15, where it is said, that by Christ a redemption was brought
   from sins, which remained under the former Testament. You are not, however,
   to understand that no sins but those of former times were expiated by the
   death of Christ — a delirious notion, which some fanatics have drawn from a
   distorted view of this passage. For Paul teaches us only this, — that until
   the death of Christ there was no way of appeasing God, and that this was not
   done or accomplished by the legal types: hence the reality was suspended
   until the fullness of time came. We may further say, that those things which
   involve us daily in guilt must be regarded in the same light; for there is
   but one true expiation for all.

   Some, in order to avoid what seems inconsistent, have held that former sins
   are said to have been forgiven, lest there should seem to he a liberty given
   to sin in future. It is indeed true that no pardon is offered but for sins
   committed; not that the benefit of redemption fails or is lost, when we
   afterwards fall, as Novatus and his sect dreamed, but that it is the
   character of the dispensation of the gospel, to set before him who will sin
   the judgment and wrath of God, and before the sinner his mercy. But what I
   have already stated is the real sense.

   He adds, that this remission was through forbearance; and this I take simply
   to mean gentleness, which has stayed the judgment of God, and suffered it
   not to burst forth to our ruin, until he had at length received us into
   favor. But there seems to be here also an implied anticipation of what might
   be said; that no one might object, and say that this favor had only of late
   appeared. Paul teaches us, that it was an evidence of forbearance.

   26. For a demonstration, [121] etc. The repetition of this clause is
   emphatical; and Paul resignedly made it, as it was very needful; for nothing
   is more difficult than to persuade man that he ought to disclaim all things
   as his own, and to ascribe them all to God. At the same time mention was
   intentionally made twice of this demonstration, that the Jews might open
   their eyes to behold it. — At this time, etc. What had been ever at all
   times, he applies to the time when Christ was revealed, and not without
   reason; for what was formerly known in an obscure manner under shadows, God
   openly manifested in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his
   good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God had indeed in all ages given
   some evidence of his righteousness; but it appeared far brighter when the
   sun of righteousness shone. Noticed, then, ought to be the comparison
   between the Old and the New Testament; for then only was revealed the
   righteousness of God when Christ appeared.

   That he might be just, etc. This is a definition of that righteousness which
   he has declared was revealed when Christ was given, and which, as he has
   taught us in the first chapter, is made known in the gospel: and he affirms
   that it consists of two parts — The first is, that God is just, not indeed
   as one among many, but as one who contains within himself all fullness of
   righteousness; for complete and full praise, such as is due, is not
   otherwise given to him, but when he alone obtains the name and the honor of
   being just, while the whole human race is condemned for injustice: and then
   the other part refers to the communication of righteousness; for God by no
   means keeps his riches laid up in himself, but pours them forth upon men.
   Then the righteousness of God shines in us, whenever he justifies us by
   faith in Christ; for in vain were Christ given us for righteousness, unless
   there was the fruition of him by faith. It hence follows, that all were
   unjust and lost in themselves, until a remedy from heaven was offered to
   them. [122]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [118] Beza gives another view, that the verb husterountai, refers to those
   who run a race, and reach not the goal, and lose the prize. The “glory of
   God” is the happiness which he bestows; (see Romans 5:2;) of this all
   mankind come short, however much some seemed to labor for it; and it can
   only be attained by faith. Pareus, Locke, and Whitby give the same view.
   Others consider it to be “the glory” due to God, — that all come short of
   rendering him the service and honor which he justly demands and requires. So
   Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers But Melancthon, Grotius and Macknight seemed
   to have agreed with Calvin in regarding “glory” here as the praise or
   approbation that comes from God. The second view seems the most appropriate,
   according to what is said in Romans 1:21, “they glorified him not as God.”
   — Ed.

   [119] On this word hilastērion, both Venema, in his Notes on the Comment of
   Stephanus de Brais on this Epistle, and Professor Stuart, have long remarks.
   They both agree as to the meaning of the word as found in the Septuagint and
   in Greek authors, but they disagree as to its import here. It means
   uniformly in the Septuagint, the mercy-seat, כפרת, and, as it is in the form
   of an adjective, it has at least once, (Exodus 25:17,) epithema, cover,
   added to it. But in the classics it means a propitiatory sacrifice, the word
   thuma, a sacrifice, being understood; but it is used by itself as other
   words of similar termination are. It is found also in Josephus and in
   Maccabees in this sense. It appears that Origen, Theodoret, and other
   Fathers, and also Erasmus, Luther and Locke, take the first meaning —
   mercy-seat; and that Grotius, Elsner, Turrettin, Bos, and Tholuck, take the
   second meaning — a propitiatory sacrifice. Now as both meanings are
   legitimate, which of them are we to take? Venema, and Stuart allude to one
   thing which much favors the latter view, that is, the phrase en tō haimati
   autou; and the latter says, that it would be incongruous to represent Christ
   himself as the mercy-seat, and to represent him also as sprinkled by his own
   blood; but that it is appropriate to say that a propitiatory sacrifice was
   made by his blood. The verb proetheto, set forth, it is added, seems to
   support the same view. To exhibit a mercy-seat is certainly not suitable
   language in this connection. Pareus renders it “placamentum — atonement,”
   hoc est, “placatorem,” that is, “atoner, or expiator.” Beza’s version is the
   same — “placamentum;” Doddridge has “propitiation,” and Macknight, “a
   propitiatory,” and Schleusner, “expiatorem — expiator.” The word occurs in
   one other place with the neuter article, to hilastērion, Hebrews 9:5, where
   it clearly means the mercy-seat. It is ever accompanied with the article in
   the Septuagint, when by itself, see Leviticus 16:2, 13-15; but here it is
   without the article, and may be viewed as an adjective dependent on on,
   “whom,” and rendered propitiator. Had the mercy-seat been intended, it would
   have been to hilastērion. — Ed.

   [120] The words are, dia tēn paresin. They seem connected, not with the
   first clause, but with the one immediately preceding; and dia may be
   rendered here in; see a note on Romans 2:26; or more properly, perhaps, on
   account of. “For a proof of his own righteousness in passing by the sins,”
   etc., Macknight; “In order to declare his justification with respect to the
   remission of sins,” Stuart What is God’s “righteousness” here has been
   variously explained. Some regard it his righteousness in fulfilling his
   promises, as Beza; others, his righteousness in Christ to believers,
   mentioned in chapter. 1:17, as Augustine; and others, his righteousness as
   the God of rectitude and justice, as Chrysostom Some, too, as Grotius, view
   it as meaning goodness or mercy, regarding the word as having sometimes this
   sense. It is the context that can help us to the right meaning. God
   exhibited his Son as a propitiation, to set forth this righteousness; and
   this righteousness is connected with the remission of, or rather; as the
   word means, the preterition of or connivance at sins committed under the old
   dispensation: and those sins were connived at through the forbearance of
   God, he not executing the punishment they deserved; and the purpose is
   stated to be, — that God might be or appear just, while he is the justifier
   of those who believe in Christ. Now, what can this righteousness be but his
   administrative justice? As the law allowed no remission, and God did remit
   sins, there appeared to be a stain on divine justice. The exhibition of
   Christ as an atonement is what alone removes it. And there is a word in the
   former verse, as Venema justly observes, which tends to confirm this view,
   and that word is redemption, apolutrōsis, which is a deliverance obtained by
   a ransom, or by a price, such as justice requires. Both Doddridge and Scott
   regard the passage in this light; and the latter gives the following version
   of it, — “Whom God hath before appointed to be a propitiation, through faith
   in his blood, for a demonstration of his justice, on account of the passing
   by of sins, that had been committed in former times, through the forbearance
   of God; I say, for a demonstration of his justice, in this present time, in
   order that he might be just, and the justifier of him that believeth in
   Jesus.” — Nothing can be clearer than this version. The last words are
   rightly rendered, though not literally; ton ek pisteōs Iēsou — “him of the
   faith of Jesus,” or, “him of faith in Jesus.” Him of faith is him who
   believes, as tois houk ek peritomōs — “them not of circumcision” means “them
   who are not circumcised,” Romans 4:12; and tois ex eritheias — “those of
   contention,” signifies, “those who contend,” or, are contentious, Romans
   2:8. — Ed.

   [121] There is a different preposition used here, pros, while eis is found
   in the preceding verse. The meaning seems to be the same, for both
   prepositions are used to designate the design, end, or object of any thing.
   This variety seems to have been usual with the Apostle; similar instances
   are found in Romans 3:22, as to eis and epi, and in Romans 3:30, as to ek
   and dia. “By both,” says Wolfius, “the final cause (causa finalis) is
   indicated.” Beza renders them both by the same preposition, ad, in Latin;
   and Stuart regards the two as equivalent. There is, perhaps, more refinement
   than truth in what Pareus says, — that eis intimates the proximate end — the
   forgiveness of sins; and pros, the final end — the glory of God in the
   exhibition of his justice as well as of his mercy. There is, at the same
   time, something in the passage which seems favorable to this view. Two
   objects are stated at the end of the passage, — that God might appear just,
   and be also the justifier of such as believe. The last may refer to eis, and
   the former to pros; and this is consistent with the usual style of the
   Apostle; for, in imitation of the Prophets, where two things are mentioned
   in a former clause, the order is reversed in the second. — Ed.

   [122] A parallel passage to this, including the two verses, Romans 3:25 and
   26, is found in Hebrews 9:15; where a reference, as here, is made to the
   effect of Christ’s death as to the saints under the Old testament. The same
   truth is implied in other parts of Scripture, but not so expressly declared.
   Stuart makes here an important remark — that if the death of Christ be
   regarded only as that of a martyr or as an example of constancy, how then
   could its efficacy be referred to “sins that are past?” In no other way than
   as a vicarious death could it possibly have any effect on past sins, not
   punished through God’s forbearance. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:27-28

   27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but
   by the law of faith.

   27. Ubi ergo gloriatio? [123] exclusa est. Per quam legem? operum?
   Nequaquam; Sed per legem fidei.

   28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds
   of the law.

   28. Constituimus ergo, fide justificari hominem sine operibus Legis.

   27. Where then is glorying? The Apostle, after having, with reasons
   abundantly strong, cast down men from their confidence in works, now
   triumphs over their folly: and this exulting conclusion was necessary; for
   on this subject, to teach us would not have been enough; it was necessary
   that the Holy Spirit should loudly thunder, in order to lay prostrate our
   loftiness. But he says that glorying is beyond all doubt excluded, for we
   cannot adduce anything of our own, which is worthy of being approved or
   commended by God. If the material of glorying be merit, whether you name
   that of congruity or of condignity, by which man would conciliate God, you
   see that both are here annihilated; for he treats not of the lessening or
   the modifying of merit, but Paul leaves not a particle behind. Besides,
   since by faith glorying in works is so taken away, that faith cannot be
   truly preached, without wholly depriving man of all praise by ascribing all
   to God’s mercy — it follows, that we are assisted by no works in obtaining
   righteousness.

   Of works? In what sense does the Apostle deny here, that our merits are
   excluded by the law, since he has before proved that we are condemned by the
   law? For if the law delivers us over to death, what glorying can we obtain
   from it? Does it not on the contrary deprive us of all glorying and cover us
   with shame? He then indeed showed, that our sin is laid open by what the law
   declares, for the keeping of it is what we have all neglected: but he means
   here, that were righteousness to be had by the law of works, our glorying
   would not be excluded; but as it is by faith alone, there is nothing that we
   can claim for ourselves; for faith receives all from God, and brings nothing
   except an humble confession of want.

   This contrast between faith and works ought to be carefully noticed: works
   are here mentioned without any limitation, even works universally. Then he
   neither speaks of ceremonies only, nor specifically of any external work,
   but includes all the merits of works which can possibly be imagined.

   The name of law is here, with no strict correctness, given to faith: but
   this by no means obscures the meaning of the Apostle; for what he
   understands is, that when we come to the rule of faith, the whole glorying
   in works is laid prostrate; as though he said — “The righteousness of works
   is indeed commended by the law, but that of faith has its own law, which
   leaves to works, whatever they may be, no righteousness.” [124]

   28. We then conclude, etc. He now draws the main proposition, as one that is
   incontrovertible, and adds an explanation. Justification by faith is indeed
   made very clear, while works are expressly excluded. Hence, in nothing do
   our adversaries labor more in the present day than in attempts to blend
   faith with the merits of works. They indeed allow that man is justified by
   faith; but not by faith alone; yea, they place the efficacy of justification
   in love, though in words they ascribe it to faith. But Paul affirms in this
   passage that justification is so gratuitous, that he makes it quite evident,
   that it can by no means be associated with the merit of works. Why he names
   the works of the law, I have already explained; and I have also proved that
   it is quite absurd to confine them to ceremonies. Frigid also is the gloss,
   that works are to be taken for those which are outward, and done without the
   Spirit of Christ. On the contrary, the word law that is added, means the
   same as though he called them meritorious; for what is referred to is the
   reward promised in the law. [125]

   What, James says, that man is not justified by faith alone, but also by
   works, does not at all militate against the preceding view. The reconciling
   of the two views depends chiefly on the drift of the argument pursued by
   James. For the question with him is not, how men attain righteousness before
   God, but how they prove to others that they are justified, for his object
   was to confute hypocrites, who vainly boasted that they had faith. Gross
   then is the sophistry, not to admit that the word, to justify, is taken in a
   different sense by James, from that in which it is used by Paul; for they
   handle different subjects. The word, faith, is also no doubt capable of
   various meanings. These two things must be taken to the account, before a
   correct judgment can be formed on the point. We may learn from the context,
   that James meant no more than that man is not made or proved to be just by a
   feigned or dead faith, and that he must prove his righteousness by his
   works. See on this subject my Institutes.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [123] Gloriatio — kauchēsis — glorying — boasting or rejoicing. “The result
   of the gospel plan of salvation is to prevent all self-approbation,
   self-gratulation and exaltation on the part of the sinner.” — Hodge

   [124] Grotius explains “law” here by “vivendi regula“ — rule of living;”
   Beza, by “doctrina — doctrine or teaching,” according to the import of the
   word תורה in Hebrew; and Pareus takes “the law of works,” metonymically, for
   works themselves, and “the law of faith,” for faith itself; and he quotes
   these words of Theophylact, “The Apostle calls faith a law because the word,
   law, was in high veneration among the Jews.” He uses the term, law, in a
   similar manner in Romans 8:2, “The law of the spirit of life,” etc. “He
   calls here the gospel; ‘the law of faith,’ because faith is the condition of
   the gospel covenant, as perfect obedience was the condition of the covenant
   of nature and of that of Moses, (conditio fœderis naturalis et fœderis
   Mosaici.)” — Turrettin

   [125] The phrase, chōris ergōn nomou, may be rendered, “without the works of
   law,” that is, either natural or revealed; for Gentiles as well as Jews are
   here contemplated. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:29-30

   29. Is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of
   the Gentiles also:

   29. Num Iudæorum Deus tantum? an non et Gentium? certe et Gentium.

   30. Seeing it is one God [126] which shall justify the circumcision by
   faith, and uncircumcision through faith.

   30. Quandoquidem unus Deus, qui justificabit circumcisionem ex fide, et
   Præputium per fidem.

   29. Is he the God of the Jews only? The second proposition is, that this
   righteousness belongs no more to the Jews than to the Gentiles: and it was a
   great matter that this point should be urged, in order that a free passage
   might be made for the kingdom of Christ through the whole world. He does not
   then ask simply or expressly, whether God was the Creator of the Gentiles,
   which was admitted without any dispute; but whether he designed to manifest
   himself as a Savior also to them. As he had put all mankind on a level, and
   brought them to the same condition, if there be any difference between them,
   it is from God, not from themselves, who have all things alike: but if it be
   true that God designs to make all the nations of the earth partakers of his
   mercy, then salvation, and righteousness, which is necessary for salvation,
   must be extended to all. Hence under the name, God, is conveyed an
   intimation of a mutual relationship, which is often mentioned in Scripture,
   —

   “I shall be to you a God, and you shall be to me a people.” (Jeremiah
   30:22.)

   For the circumstance, that God, for a time, chose for himself a peculiar
   people, did not make void the origin of mankind, who were all formed after
   the image of God, and were to be brought up in the world in the hope of a
   blessed eternity.

   30. Who shall justify, [127] etc. In saying that some are justified by
   faith, and some through faith, he seems to have indulged himself in varying
   his language, while he expresses the same thing, and for this end, — that he
   might, by the way, touch on the folly of the Jews, who imagined a difference
   between themselves and the Gentiles, though on the subject of justification
   there was no difference whatever; for since men became partakers of this
   grace by faith only, and since faith in all is the same, it is absurd to
   make a distinction in what is so much alike. I am hence led to think that
   there is something ironical in the words, as though be said, — “If any
   wishes to have a difference made between the Gentile and the Jew, let him
   take this, — that the one obtains righteousness by faith, and the other
   through faith.”

   But it may be, that some will prefer this distinction, — that the Jews were
   justified by faith, because they were born the heirs of grace, as the right
   of adoption was transmitted to them from the Fathers, — and that the
   Gentiles were justified through faith, because the covenant to them was
   adventitious.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [126] Heis ho Theos — unus Deus Heis here means the same, see 1 Corinthians
   3:8; or if it be rendered one, it refers to God as being one in his purpose,
   and as to the way of salvation. See Zechariah 14:9. — Ed.

   [127] The future is used for the present — “who justifies,” after the manner
   of the Hebrew language, though some consider that the day of judgment is
   referred to; but he seems to speak of a present act, or as Grotius says, of
   a continued act, which the Hebrews expressed by the future tense. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 3:31

   31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we
   establish the law.

   31. Legem igitur irritam facimus per fidem? Ne ita sit: sed Legem
   stabilimus.


   31. Do we then make, etc. When the law is opposed to faith, the flesh
   immediately suspects that there is some contrariety, as though the one were
   adverse to the other: and this false notion prevails, especially among those
   who are imbued with wrong ideas as to the law, and leaving the promises,
   seek nothing else through it but the righteousness of works. And on this
   account, not only Paul, but our Lord himself, was evil spoken of by the
   Jews, as though in all his preaching he aimed at the abrogation of the law.
   Hence it was that he made this protest, —

   “I came not to undo, but to fulfill the law.” (Matthew 5:17.)

   And this suspicion regards the moral as well as the ceremonial law; for as
   the gospel has put an end to the Mosaic ceremonies, it is supposed to have a
   tendency to destroy the whole dispensation of Moses. And further, as it
   sweeps away all the righteousness of works, it is believed to be opposed to
   all those testimonies of the law, by which the Lord has declared, that he
   has thereby prescribed the way of righteousness and salvation. I therefore
   take this defense of Paul, not only as to ceremonies, nor as to the
   commandments which are called moral, but with regard to the whole law
   universally. [128]

   For the moral law is in reality confirmed and established through faith in
   Christ, inasmuch as it was given for this end — to lead man to Christ by
   showing him his iniquity; and without this it cannot be fulfilled, and in
   vain will it require what ought to be done; nor can it do anything but
   irritate lust more and more, and thus finally increase man’s condemnation;
   but where there is a coming to Christ, there is first found in him the
   perfect righteousness of the law, which becomes ours by imputation, and then
   there is sanctification, by which our hearts are prepared to keep the law;
   it is indeed imperfectly done, but there is an aiming at the work. Similar
   is the case with ceremonies, which indeed cease and vanish away when Christ
   comes, but they are in reality confirmed by him; for when they are viewed in
   themselves they are vain and shadowy images, and then only do they attain
   anything real and solid, when their end is regarded. In this then consists
   their chief confirmation, when they have obtained their accomplishment in
   Christ. Let us then also bear in mind, so to dispense the gospel that by our
   mode of teaching the law may be confirmed; but let it be sustained by no
   other strength than that of faith in Christ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [128] The law here, no doubt means, the law of which mention is made in the
   preceding verses — the law by the works of which we cannot be justified —
   the law that is in this respect opposed to faith. To refer us for its meanng
   to Romans 3:20 and 21, as is done by Stuart, “is wholly unwarrantable,” and
   to say that it means the Old Testament; for this is to separate it from
   it’s immediate connection without any satisfactory reason. Besides, such an
   interpretation obliterates an important doctrine, that faith does not render
   void, or nullify the authority, the use and sanctions of the moral law but
   on the contrary, sustains and confirms them. Though it does what the law
   does not, and cannot do, inasmuch as it saves the sinner whom the law
   condemns; it yet effects this without relaxing or dishonoring the law, but
   in a way that renders it, if possible, more binding, and more honorable, and
   more illustrious. It only renders the passage more intricate to include the
   ceremonial law, (for that has more of faith than of law in it,) to which no
   reference is made in the context: but there seems to be no objection to
   include the law of conscience, as well as the written law; for faith
   confirms both, and the word “law,” is here without the article, though this
   indeed of itself is not decisive. The moral law, then, as well as the law of
   conscience, is what is here intended: for the authority of both is confirmed
   and strengthened by faith. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 4
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:1-3

   1. What shall we say then that Abraham our father, as pertaining to the
   flesh, hath found?

   1. Quid ergo dicemus, invenisse Abraham patrem nostrum secundw carnem?

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

   2. Si enim Abraham ex operibus justificatus est. habet quo glorietur, sed
   non apud Deum.

   3. For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted
   unto him for righteousness. [129]

   3. Quid enim Scripture dicit’ Credidit Abraham Deo, et imputa tum est illi
   in justitiam.

   1. What then, etc. This is a confirmation by example; and it is a very
   strong one, since all things are alike with regard to the subject and the
   person; for he was the father of the faithful, to whom we ought all to be
   conformed; and there is also but one way and not many ways by which
   righteousness may be obtained by all. In many other things one example would
   not be sufficient to make a common rule; but as in the person of Abraham
   there was exhibited a mirror and pattern of righteousness, which belongs in
   common to the whole Church, rightly does Paul apply what has been written of
   him alone to the whole body of the Church, and at the same time he gives a
   check to the Jews, who had nothing more plausible to glory in than that they
   were the children of Abraham; and they could not have dared to claim to
   themselves more holiness than what they ascribed to the holy patriarch.
   Since it is then evident that he was justified freely, his posterity, who
   claimed a righteousness of their own by the law, ought to have been made
   silent even through shame.

   According to the flesh, etc. Between this clause and the word father there
   is put in Paul’s text the verb heurēkenai, in this order — “What shall we
   say that Abraham our father has found according to the flesh?” On this
   account, some interpreters think that the question is — “What has Abraham
   obtained according to the flesh?” If this exposition be approved, the words
   according to the flesh mean naturally or from himself. It is, however,
   probable that they are to be connected with the word father. [130] Besides,
   as we are wont to be more touched by domestic examples, the dignity of their
   race, in which the Jews took too much pride, is here again expressly
   mentioned. But some regard this as spoken in contempt, as they are elsewhere
   called the carnal children of Abraham, being not so spiritually or in a
   legitimate sense. But I think that it was expressed as a thing peculiar to
   the Jews; for it was a greater honor to be the children of Abraham by nature
   and descent, than by mere adoption, provided there was also faith. He then
   concedes to the Jews a closer bond of union, but only for this end — that he
   might more deeply impress them that they ought not to depart from the
   example of their father.

   2. For if Abraham, etc. This is an incomplete argument, [131] which may be
   made in this form — “If Abraham was justified by works, he might justly
   glory: but he had nothing for which he could glory before God; then he was
   not justified by works.” Thus the clause but not before God, is the minor
   proposition; and to this must be added the conclusion which I have stated,
   though it is not expressed by Paul. He calls that glorying when we pretend
   to have anything of our own to which a reward is supposed to be due at
   God’s tribunal. Since he takes this away from Abraham, who of us can claim
   for himself the least particle of merit?

   3. For what saith the Scripture? This is a proof of the minor proposition,
   or of what he assumed, when he denied that Abraham had any ground for
   glorying: for if Abraham was justified, because he embraced, by faith, the
   bountiful mercy of God, it follows, that he had nothing to glory in; for he
   brought nothing of his own, except a confession of his misery, which is a
   solicitation for mercy. He, indeed, takes it as granted, that the
   righteousness of faith is the refuge, and, as it were, the asylum of the
   sinner, who is destitute of works. For if there be any righteousness by the
   law or by works, it must be in men themselves; but by faith they derive from
   another what is wanting in themselves; and hence the righteousness of faith
   is rightly called imputative.

   The passage, which is quoted, is taken from Genesis 15:6; in which the word
   believe is not to be confined to any particular expression, but it refers to
   the whole covenant of salvation, and the grace of adoption, which Abraham
   apprehended by faith. There is, indeed, mentioned there the promise of a
   future seed; but it was grounded on gratuitous adoption: [132] and it ought
   to be observed, that salvation without the grace of God is not promised, nor
   God’s grace without salvation; and again, that we are not called to the
   grace of God nor to the hope of salvation, without having righteousness
   offered to us.

   Taking this view, we cannot but see that those understand not the principles
   of theology, who think that this testimony recorded by Moses, is drawn aside
   from its obvious meaning by Paul: for as there is a particular promise there
   stated, they understand that he acted rightly and faithfully in believing
   it, and was so far approved by God. But they are in this mistaken; first,
   because they have not considered that believing extends to the whole
   context, and ought not to be confined to one clause. But the principal
   mistake is, that they begin not with the testimony of God’s favor. But God
   gave this, to make Abraham more assured of his adoption and paternal favor;
   and included in this was eternal salvation by Christ. Hence Abraham, by
   believing, embraced nothing but the favor offered to him, being persuaded
   that it would not be void. Since this was imputed to him for righteousness,
   it follows, that he was not otherwise just, than as one trusting in God’s
   goodness, and venturing to hope for all things from him. Moses does not,
   indeed, tell us what men thought of him, but how he was accounted before the
   tribunal of God. Abraham then laid hold on the benignity of God offered to
   him in the promise, through which he understood that righteousness was
   communicated to him. It is necessary, in order to form an opinion of
   righteousness, to understand this relation between the promise and faith;
   for there is in this respect the same connection between God and us, as
   there is, according to the lawyers, between the giver and the person to whom
   any thing is given, (datorem et donatarium — the donor and the donee:) for
   we can no otherwise attain righteousness, than as it is brought to us, as it
   were, by the promise of the gospel; and we realize its possession by faith.
   [133]

   How to reconcile what James says, which seems somewhat contrary to this view
   I have already explained, and intend to explain more fully, when I come, if
   the Lord will permit, to expound that Epistle.

   Only let us remember this, — that those to whom righteousness is imputed,
   are justified; since these two things are mentioned by Paul as being the
   same. We hence conclude that the question is not, what men are in
   themselves, but how God regards them; not that purity of conscience and
   integrity of life are to be separated from the gratuitous favor of God; but
   that when the reason is asked, why God loves us and owns us as just, it is
   necessary that Christ should come forth as one who clothes us with his own
   righteousness.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [129] This chapter, as Turrettin observes, divides itself into three parts.
   The first from 1 to 12 inclusive, the second from 13 to 17 inclusive, in
   which it is proved that the promises made to Abraham did not depend on the
   law; and the third from 18 to the end, in which the faith of Abraham is
   commended, and the Christian faith briefly referred to. But Pareus makes a
   different division: 1, Four proofs of justification by faith, from 1 to 16;
   2, The dispensation of Abraham, from 17 to 22; 3, The application of the
   subject, from 23 to 25. — Ed.

   [130] So did all the fathers according to Pareus, and so does the Vulgate.
   But later commentators have taken the words as they stand, and with good
   reason, for otherwise the correspondence between this and the following
   verse would not be apparent. Beza, Hammond, and Macknight take the words in
   their proper order; and this is what is done by the Syriac and Arabic
   versions. Kata sarka is rendered by Grotius and Macknight, “by (per) the
   flesh. Some understand by the word “flesh,” circumcision, as Vatablus;
   others, natural powers, as Grotius But Beza and Hammond think that it is the
   same as what is meant “by works” in the next verse; and “flesh” evidently
   has this meaning: it signifies often the performance of what the law
   requires, the observance not only of ceremonial but also of moral duties.
   See Galatians 3:3; Galatians 6:12; and especially Philippians 3:3, 4; where
   Paul gives up “all confidence in the flesh,” and enumerates, among other
   things, his strict conformity to the law. — Ed.

   [131] Epicheirema; in Greek epicheirema, an attempted but an unfinished
   process of reasoning. It is not necessary to introduce this sort of
   syllogism, it being not the character of Scripture nor of any other writing
   to discuss matters in this form. The word for “glorying” here, kauchēma, is
   different from that in Romans 3:27, kauchēsis, and means reason, ground, or
   cause for glorying, and is rendered by Grotius “unde laudem speret — whereby
   he may hope for praise;” and by Beza and Piscator “unde glorietur — whereby
   he may glory.” To complete the following clause, most repeat the words echei
   kauchēma — “But he has no ground for glorying before God.” Vatablus gives
   another meaning, “But not with regard to God,” that is, with regard to what
   he has said in his word; and this view is confirmed by what immediately
   follows, “For what saith the Scripture?” In this case there is nothing
   understood. That pros theon is used in a similar manner, is evident from
   other passages: ta pros theon — “things which pertain to God,” i.e., to
   God’s work or service. See Hebrews 2:17; Hebrews 5:1. — Ed.

   [132] The adoption is evidently included in the words, found in the first
   verse of this chapter, “I am thy shield and thy exceeding great reward.”
   What follows is connected with this, and the promise of a numerous seed
   arose from what Abraham said respecting an heir. His believing then had an
   especial regard to the first promise, as the second, respecting his
   “seed,” was only, as it were, an enlargement of the first, or an addition to
   it. — Ed.

   [133] The foregoing observations contain a lucid and a satisfactory view of
   the character of Abraham’s faith, perfectly consistent with what is said of
   it by Paul in this chapter, and in the epistle to the Galatians. Some think
   that the principle of faith was the only thing which the Apostle had in view
   in referring to Abraham’s faith, and that he had no special regard to the
   object of justifying faith, that is, Christ. But that Christ was, in a
   measure, revealed to him, is evident from the account given in Genesis, and
   from what Christ himself has said, — that Abraham saw his day and rejoiced,
   John 8:56. At the same time it was the promise of gratuitous mercy, as
   Calvin intimates, that formed the most distinctive object of Abraham’s
   faith, the promise of a free acceptance, without any regard to works. There
   are two things which the Apostle clearly intended to show, — that imputation
   of righteousness is an act of gratuitous favor, — and that it is alone by
   faith. There is some difference in the wording, though not in the meaning,
   of the sentence from Genesis 15:6. Paul gives it literally according to the
   Septuagint. The word “Abraham,” is put in; instead of “Jehovah,” it is
   “God;” the verb “count,” is made passive, and a preposition is placed before
   “righteousness.” The Hebrew is this, — “And he believed on Jehovah, and he
   counted it to him righteousness.” The “it,” no doubt, refers to what is
   included in the word “believed.” So Paul explains it in verse 9, where he
   expressly puts down pistis, faith. It has been said that this faith of
   Abraham was not faith in Christ, according to what the context shows in
   Genesis. And it was not so specifically: nor does Paul represent it as such;
   for this was not his object. He states it throughout as faith in God; it was
   believing the testimony of God; but that testimony embraced a promise
   respecting Christ; so that it included the Savior within its compass. We
   must remember that Paul’s object is to establish this truth, — that
   righteousness is attained by faith and not by works; and that for this end
   he adduces the examples both of Abraham and David. It was not his design to
   point out specifically the object of justifying faith. We must keep this in
   view, in order to understand the reasoning of the Apostle in this chapter:
   it is the power and efficacy of faith, in opposition to all works, that he
   particularly dwells upon, and the gracious promise of God was its object.
   — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:4-5

   4. Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.

   4. Ei quidem qui operatur merces non imputatur secundum gratiam, sed
   secundum debitum:

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

   5. Ei vero qui non operatur, credit autem in eum qui justificat impium,
   imputatur fides sua in justitiam.

   4. To him indeed who works, etc. It is not he, whom he calls a worker, who
   is given to good works, to which all the children of God ought to attend,
   but the person who seeks to merit something by his works: and in a similar
   way he calls him no worker who depends not on the merit of what he does. He
   would not, indeed, have the faithful to be idle; but he only forbids them to
   be mercenaries, so as to demand any thing from God, as though it were justly
   their due.

   We have before reminded you, that the question is not here how we are to
   regulate our life, but how we are to be saved: and he argues from what is
   contrary, — that God confers not righteousness on us because it is due, but
   bestows it as a gift. And indeed I agree with Bucer, who proves that the
   argument is not made to depend on one expression, but on the whole passage,
   and formed in this manner, “If one merits any thing by his work, what is
   merited is not freely imputed to him, but rendered to him as his due. Faith
   is counted for righteousness, not that it procures any merit for us, but
   because it lays hold on the goodness of God: hence righteousness is not due
   to us, but freely bestowed.” For as Christ of his own good-will justifies us
   through faith, Paul always regards this as an evidence of our emptiness; for
   what do we believe, except that Christ is an expiation to reconcile us to
   God? The same truth is found in other words in Galatians 3:11, where it is
   said, “That no man is justified by the law, it is evident, for the just
   shall by faith live: but the law is not by faith; but he who doeth these
   things shall live in them.” Inasmuch, then, as the law promises reward to
   works, he hence concludes, that the righteousness of faith, which is free,
   accords not with that which is operative: this could not be were faith to
   justify by means of works. — We ought carefully to observe these
   comparisons, by which every merit is entirely done away.

   5. But believes on him, etc. This is a very important sentence, in which he
   expresses the substance and nature both of faith and of righteousness. He
   indeed clearly shews that faith brings us righteousness, not because it is a
   meritorious act, but because it obtains for us the favor of God. [134] Nor
   does he declare only that God is the giver of righteousness, but he also
   arraigns us of unrighteousness, in order that the bounty of God may come to
   aid our necessity: in short, no one will seek the righteousness of faith
   except he who feels that he is ungodly; for this sentence is to be applied
   to what is said in this passage, — that faith adorns us with the
   righteousness of another, which it seeks as a gift from God. And here again,
   God is said to justify us when he freely forgives sinners, and favors those,
   with whom he might justly be angry, with his love, that is, when his mercy
   obliterates our unrighteousness.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [134] Some have stumbled at this sentence, — “his faith is counted for
   righteousness,” and have misapplied it, as though faith were in itself the
   cause of righteousness, and hence a meritorious act, and not the way and
   means of attaining righteousness. Condensed sentences will not submit to the
   rules of logic, but must be interpreted according to the context and
   explanations elsewhere found. “His faith” means, no doubt, his faith in the
   Promise, or in God who promises, or in him who, as is said in this verse,
   “justifies the ungodly:” hence what is believed, or the object of faith, is
   what is counted for righteousness. This accords with the declarations, —
   that “man is justified by faith,” Romans 3:28, and that “the righteousness
   of God” is “by faith,” Romans 3:22. If by faith, then faith itself is not
   that righteousness. “Beware,” says Chalmers, “of having any such view of
   faith as will lead you to annex to it the kind of merit, or of claim, or of
   glorying under the gospel, which are annexed to works under the law. This,
   in fact, were just animating with a legal spirit the whole phraseology and
   doctrine of the gospel. It is God who justifies. He drew up the title-deed,
   and he bestowed the title-deed. It is ours simply to lay hold of it...Any
   other view of faith than that which excludes boasting must be altogether
   unscriptural.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:6-8

   6. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God
   imputeth righteousness without works,

   6. Quemadmodum etiam David finit beatudinem hominis cui Deus imputat
   justitiam absque operibus,

   7. Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins
   are covered.

   7. Beati quorum remissæ sunt iniquitates, et quorum tecta sunt peccata:

   8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

   8. Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum.

   6. As David also defines, etc. We hence see the sheer sophistry of those who
   limit the works of the law to ceremonies; for he now simply calls those
   works, without anything added, which he had before called the works of the
   law. Since no one can deny that a simple and unrestricted mode of speaking,
   such as we find here, ought to be understood of every work without any
   difference, the same view must be held throughout the whole argument. There
   is indeed nothing less reasonable than to remove from ceremonies only the
   power of justifying, since Paul excludes all works indefinitely. To the same
   purpose is the negative clause, — that God justifies men by not imputing
   sin: and by these words we are taught that righteousness, according to Paul,
   is nothing else than the remission of sins; and further, that this remission
   is gratuitous, because it is imputed without works, which the very name of
   remission indicates; for the creditor who is paid does not remit, but he who
   spontaneously cancels the debt through mere kindness. Away, then, with those
   who teach us to redeem pardon for our sins by satisfactions; for Paul
   borrows an argument from this pardon to prove the gratuitous gift of
   righteousness. [135] How then is it possible for them to agree with Paul?
   They say, “We must satisfy by works the justice of God, that we may obtain
   the pardon of our sins:” but he, on the contrary, reasons thus, — “The
   righteousness of faith is gratuitous, and without works, because it depends
   on the remission of sins.” Vicious, no doubt, would be this reasoning, if
   any works interposed in the remission of sins.

   Dissipated also, in like manner, by the words of the Prophet, are the
   puerile fancies of the schoolmen respecting half remission. Their childish
   fiction is, — that though the fault is remitted, the punishment is still
   retained by God. But the Prophet not only declares that our sins are
   covered, that is, removed from the presence of God; but also adds, that they
   are not imputed. How can it be consistent, that God should punish those sins
   which he does not impute? Safe then does this most glorious declaration
   remain to us — “That he is justified by faith, who is cleared before God by
   a gratuitous remission of his sins.” We may also hence learn, the unceasing
   perpetuity of gratuitous righteousness through life: for when David, being
   wearied with the continual anguish of his own conscience, gave utterance to
   this declaration, he no doubt spoke according to his own experience; and he
   had now served God for many years. He then had found by experience, after
   having made great advances, that all are miserable when summoned before
   God’s tribunal; and he made this avowal, that there is no other way of
   obtaining blessedness, except the Lord receives us into favor by not
   imputing our sins. Thus fully refuted also is the romance of those who
   dream, that the righteousness of faith is but initial, and that the faithful
   afterwards retain by works the possession of that righteousness which they
   had first attained by no merits.

   It invalidates in no degree what Paul says, that works are sometimes imputed
   for righteousness, and that other kinds of blessedness are mentioned. It is
   said in Psalm 106:30-31, that it was imputed to Phinehas, the Lord’s priest,
   for righteousness, because he took away reproach from Israel by inflicting
   punishment on an adulterer and a harlot. It is true, we learn from this
   passage, that he did a righteous deed; but we know that a person is not
   justified by one act. What is indeed required is perfect obedience, and
   complete in all its parts, according to the import of the promise, —

   “He who shall do these things shall live in them.”
   (Deuteronomy 4:1.)

   How then was this judgment which he inflicted imputed to him for
   righteousness? He must no doubt have been previously justified by the grace
   of God: for they who are already clothed in the righteousness of Christ,
   have God not only propitious to them, but also to their works, the spots and
   blemishes of which are covered by the purity of Christ, lest they should
   come to judgment. As works, infected with no defilements, are alone counted
   just, it is quite evident that no human work whatever can please God, except
   through a favor of this kind. But if the righteousness of faith is the only
   reason why our works are counted just, you see how absurd is the argument,
   — “That as righteousness is ascribed to works, righteousness is not by faith
   only.” But I set against them this invincible argument, that all works are
   to be condemned as those of unrighteousness, except a man be justified
   solely by faith.

   The like is said of blessedness: they are pronounced blessed who fear the
   Lord, who walk in his ways, (Psalm 128:1,) who meditate on his law day and
   night, (Psalm 1:2:) but as no one doeth these things so perfectly as he
   ought, so as fully to come up to God’s command, all blessedness of this kind
   is nothing worth, until we be made blessed by being purified and cleansed
   through the remission of sins, and thus cleansed, that we may become capable
   of enjoying that blessedness which the Lord promises to his servants for
   attention to the law and to good works. Hence the righteousness of works is
   the effect of the righteousness of God, and the blessedness arising from
   works is the effect of the blessedness which proceeds from the remission of
   sins. Since the cause ought not and cannot be destroyed by its own effect,
   absurdly do they act, who strive to subvert the righteousness of faith by
   works.

   But some one may say, “Why may we not maintain, on the ground of these
   testimonies, that man is justified and made blessed by works? for the words
   of Scripture declare that man is justified and made blessed by works as well
   as by faith.” Here indeed we must consider the order of causes as well as
   the dispensation of God’s grace: for inasmuch as whatever is declared,
   either of the righteousness of works or of the blessedness arising from
   them, does not exist, until this only true righteousness of faith has
   preceded, and does alone discharge all its offices, this last must be built
   up and established, in order that the other may, as a fruit from a tree,
   grow from it and flourish.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [135] Speaking of this righteousness, Pareus says, “It is not ours,
   otherwise God would not gratuitously impute it, but bestow it as a matter of
   right; nor is it a habit or quality, for it is without works, and imputed to
   the ungodly, who have habitually nothing but iniquities; but it is a
   gratuitous remission, a covering, a non-imputation of sins.” It is a
   striking proof of what the Apostle had in view here, that he stop short and
   does not quote the whole verse from Psalm 32:2. He leaves out, “and in whose
   spirit there is no guile:” and why? Evidently because his subject is
   justification, and not sanctification. He has thus most clearly marked the
   difference between the two. Sins may be said to be “forgiven” or remitted,
   because they are debts, and “covered,” because they are filthy and
   abominable in the sight of God: and they are said to be “not imputed,” or
   not put to one’s account, in order to convey an assurance, that they are
   wholly removed, and shall be no more remembered. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:9-10

   9. Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, [136] or upon
   the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for
   righteousness.

   9. Beatudo ergo ista in circumcisionem modo, an et in præputium competit?
   Dicimus enim quod imputata fuit Abrahæ fides in justitiam.

   10. How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision, or in
   uncircumcision? Not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision.

   10. Quomodo igitur imputata fuit? In Circumcisione quum esset, an in
   præputio? Non in circumcisione, sed in præputio.

   9-10. As circumcision and uncircumcision are alone mentioned, some unwisely
   conclude, that the only question is, that righteousness is not attained by
   the ceremonies of the law. But we ought to consider what sort of men were
   those with whom Paul was reasoning; for we know that hypocrites, whilst they
   generally boast of meritorious works, do yet disguise themselves in outward
   masks. The Jews also had a peculiar way of their own, by which they
   departed, through a gross abuse of the law, from true and genuine
   righteousness. Paul had said, that no one is blessed but he whom God
   reconciles to himself by a gratuitous pardon; it hence follows, that all are
   accursed, whose works come to judgment. Now then this principle is to be
   held, that men are justified, not by their own worthiness, but by the mercy
   of God. But still, this is not enough, except remission of sins precedes all
   works, and of these the first was circumcision, which initiated the Jewish
   people into the service of God. He therefore proceeds to demonstrate this
   also.

   We must ever bear in mind, that circumcision is here mentioned as the
   initial work, so to speak, of the righteousness of the law: for the Jews
   gloried not in it as the symbol of God’s favor, but as a meritorious
   observance of the law: and on this account it was that they regarded
   themselves better than others, as though they possessed a higher excellency
   before God. We now see that the dispute is not about one rite, but that
   under one thing is included every work of the law; that is, every work to
   which reward can be due. Circumcision then was especially mentioned, because
   it was the basis of the righteousness of the law.

   But Paul maintains the contrary, and thus reasons: “If Abraham’s
   righteousness was the remission of sins, (which he safely takes as granted,)
   and if Abraham attained this before circumcision, it then follows that
   remission of sins is not given for preceding merits.” You see that the
   argument rests on the order of causes and effects; for the cause is always
   before its effect; and righteousness was possessed by Abraham before he had
   circumcision.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [136] This “only” is not in the original, but is supplied by most
   commentators: yet it is not necessary, nor makes the meaning consistent with
   what follows in Romans 4:10. The Kai; in the next clause is omitted in many
   copies; but if retained, it will not alter the sense. We may render this
   part of the verse thus, “Came then this blessedness on the circumcision, or
   even on the uncircumcision?” Then in the tenth verse he answerers in the
   negative, — that it was not to Abraham while “in circumcision,” but while he
   was a “in uncircumcision.” The reference is evidently to the first state of
   things, to the case of Abraham himself. Abraham is supposed to have been
   justified by faith about fourteen years before he was circumcised. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:11-12

   11. 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:

   11. Et signum accepit circumcisionis, sigillum justitiæ fidei quæ fuerat in
   præputio; ut esset pater omnium credentium per præputium, quo ipsis quoque
   imputetur justitia;

   12. And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision
   only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham,
   which he had being yet uncircumcised.

   12. Et pater circumcisionis, non iis qui sunt ex circumcisione tantum, sed
   qui insistunt vestigiis fidei, quæ fuit in præputio patris nostri Abrahæ.

   11. And he received the sign, etc. In order to anticipate an objection, he
   shows that circumcision was not unprofitable and superfluous, though it
   could not justify; but it had another very remarkable use, it had the office
   of sealing, and as it were of ratifying the righteousness of faith. And yet
   he intimates at the same time, by stating what its object was, that it was
   not the cause of righteousness, it indeed tended to confirm the
   righteousness of faith, and that already obtained in uncircumcision. He then
   derogates or takes away nothing from it.

   We have indeed here a remarkable passage with regard to the general benefits
   of sacraments. According to the testimony of Paul, they are seals by which
   the promises of God are in a manner imprinted on our hearts, (Dei
   promissiones cordibus nostris quodammodo imprimuntur,) and the certainty of
   grace confirmed (sancitur gratœ certitudo ) And though by themselves they
   profit nothing, yet God has designed them to be the instruments
   (instrumenta) of his grace; and he effects by the secret grace of his
   Spirit, that they should not be without benefit in the elect. And though
   they are dead and unprofitable symbols to the reprobate, they yet ever
   retain their import and character (vim suam et naturam:) for though our
   unbelief may deprive them of their effect, yet it cannot weaken or
   extinguish the truth of God. Hence it remains a fixed principle, that sacred
   symbols are testimonies, by which God seals his grace on our hearts.

   As to the symbol of circumcision, this especially is to be said, that a
   twofold grace was represented by it. God had promised to Abraham a blessed
   seed, from whom salvation was to be expected by the whole world. On this
   depended the promise — “I will be to thee a God.” (Genesis 17:7.) Then a
   gratuitous reconciliation with God was included in that symbol: and for this
   reason it was necessary that the faithful should look forward to the
   promised seed. On the other hand, God requires integrity and holiness of
   life; he indicated by the symbol how this could be attained, that is, by
   cutting off in man whatever is born of the flesh, for his whole nature had
   become vicious. He therefore reminded Abraham by the external sign, that he
   was spiritually to cut off the corruption of the flesh; and to this Moses
   has also alluded in Deuteronomy 10:16. And to show that it was not the work
   of man, but of God, he commanded tender infants to be circumcised, who, on
   account of their age, could not have performed such a command. Moses has
   indeed expressly mentioned spiritual circumcision as the work of divine
   power, as you will find in Deuteronomy 30:6, where he says, “The Lord will
   circumcise thine heart:” and the Prophets afterwards declared the same thing
   much more clearly.

   As there are two points in baptism now, so there were formerly in
   circumcision; for it was a symbol of a new life, and also of the remission
   of sins. But the fact as to Abraham himself, that righteousness preceded
   circumcision, is not always the case in sacraments, as it is evident from
   the case of Isaac and his posterity: but God intended to give such an
   instance once at the beginning, that no one might ascribe salvation to
   external signs. [137]

   That he might be the father, etc. Mark how the circumcision of Abraham
   confirms our faith with regard to gratuitous righteousness; for it was the
   sealing of the righteousness of faith, that righteousness might also be
   imputed to us who believe. And thus Paul, by a remarkable dexterity makes to
   recoil on his opponents what they might have adduced as an objection: for
   since the truth and import (veritas et vis) of circumcision were found in an
   uncircumcised state, there was no ground for the Jews to elevate themselves
   so much above the Gentiles.

   But as a doubt might arise, whether it behoves us, after the example of
   Abraham, to confirm also the same righteousness by the sign of circumcision,
   how came the Apostle to make this omission? Even because he thought that the
   question was sufficiently settled by the drift of his argument: for as this
   truth had been admitted, that circumcision availed only to seal the grace of
   God, it follows, that it is now of no benefit to us, who have a sign
   instituted in its place by our Lord. As then there is no necessity now for
   circumcision, where baptism is, he was not disposed to contend unnecessarily
   for that respecting which there was no doubt, that is, why the righteousness
   of faith was not sealed to the Gentiles in the same way as it was to
   Abraham. To believe in uncircumcision means, that the Gentiles, being
   satisfied with their own condition, did not introduce the seal of
   circumcision: and so the proposition dia, by is put for en, in [138]

   12. To them who are not, etc. The verb, are, is in this place to be taken
   for, “are deemed to be:” for he touches the carnal descendants of Abraham,
   who, having nothing but outward circumcision, confidently gloried in it. The
   other thing, which was the chief matter, they neglected; for the faith of
   Abraham, by which alone he obtained salvation, they did not imitate. It
   hence appears, how carefully he distinguished between faith and the
   sacrament; not only that no one might be satisfied with the one without the
   other, as though it were sufficient for justifying; but also that faith
   alone might be set forth as accomplishing everything: for while he allows
   the circumcised Jews to be justified, he expressly makes this exception —
   provided in true faith they followed the example of Abraham; for why does he
   mention faith while in uncircumcision, except to show, that it is alone
   sufficient, without the aid of anything else? Let us then beware, lest any
   of us, by halving things, blend together the two modes of justification.

   What we have stated disproves also the scholastic dogma respecting the
   difference between the sacraments of the Old and those of the New Testament;
   for they deny the power of justifying to the former, and assign it to the
   latter. But if Paul reasons correctly, when he argues that circumcision does
   not justify, because Abraham was justified by faith, the same reason holds
   good for us, while we deny that men are justified by baptism, inasmuch as
   they are justified by the same faith with that of Abraham.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [137] The word “sign” in this passage, sēmeion, seems not to mean an outward
   token of something inward, but a mark, circumcision itself, which was
   imprinted, as it were, as a mark in the flesh. So Macknight renders it, “The
   mark of circumcision.” That circumcision was a sign or a symbol of what was
   spiritual, is evident: but this is not what is taught here. Circumcision is
   expressly called “a token,” or a sign, in Genesis 17:11; but it is said to
   have been “a token of the covenant,” that is, a proof and an evidence of it.
   The design of circumcision is expressed by the next word, sphragida — seal.
   This sometimes signified the instrument, 1 Kings 21:8; and sometimes the
   impression, Revelation 5:1: and the impression was used for various
   purposes, — to close up a document, to secure a thing, and also to confirm
   an agreement. It is taken here in the latter sense; circumcision was a
   “seal,” a confirmation, an evidence, a proof, or a pledge, “of the
   righteousness” obtained “by faith.” We meet not with any distinct statement
   of this kind in Genesis: it is what the Apostle had gathered, and rightly
   gathered, from the account given us of what took place between God and
   Abraham. — Ed.

   [138] See a similar instance in Romans 2:27. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:13

   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.

   13. Non enim per Legem promissio Abrahæ et semini ejus data est, ut esset
   hæres mundi; sed per justitiam fidei.

   13. For the promise, etc. He now more clearly sets the law and faith in
   opposition, the one to the other, which he had before in some measure done;
   and this ought to be carefully observed: for if faith borrows nothing from
   the law in order to justify, we hence understand, that it has respect to
   nothing else but to the mercy of God. And further, the romance of those who
   would have this to have been said of ceremonies, may be easily disproved;
   for if works contributed anything towards justification, it ought not to
   have been said, through the written law, but rather, through the law of
   nature. But Paul does not oppose spiritual holiness of life to ceremonies,
   but faith and its righteousness. The meaning then is, that heirship was
   promised to Abraham, not because he deserved it by keeping the law, but
   because he had obtained righteousness by faith. And doubtless (as Paul will
   presently show) consciences can then only enjoy solid peace, when they know
   that what is not justly due is freely given them. [139]

   Hence also it follows, that this benefit, the reason for which applies
   equally to both, belongs to the Gentiles no less than to the Jews; for if
   the salvation of men is based on the goodness of God alone, they check and
   hinder its course, as much as they can, who exclude from it the Gentiles.

   That he should be the heir of the world, [140] etc. Since he now speaks of
   eternal salvation, the Apostle seems to have somewhat unseasonably led his
   readers to the world; but he includes generally under this word world, the
   restoration which was expected through Christ. The chief thing was indeed
   the restoration of life; it was yet necessary that the fallen state of the
   whole world should be repaired. The Apostle, in Hebrews 1:2, calls Christ
   the heir of all the good things of God; for the adoption which we obtain
   through his favor restores to us the possession of the inheritance which we
   lost in Adam; and as under the type of the land of Canaan, not only the hope
   of a heavenly life was exhibited to Abraham, but also the full and complete
   blessing of God, the Apostle rightly teaches us, that the dominion of the
   world was promised to him. Some taste of this the godly have in the present
   life; for how much soever they may at times be oppressed with want, yet as
   they partake with a peaceable conscience of those things which God has
   created for their use, and as they enjoy through his mercy and good-will his
   earthly benefits no otherwise than as pledges and earnests of eternal life,
   their poverty does in no degree prevent them from acknowledging heaven, and
   the earth, and the sea, as their own possessions.

   Though the ungodly swallow up the riches of the world, they can yet call
   nothing as their own; but they rather snatch them as it were by stealth; for
   they possess them under the curse of God. It is indeed a great comfort to
   the godly in their poverty, that though they fare slenderly, they yet steal
   nothing of what belongs to another, but receive their lawful allowance from
   the hand of their celestial Father, until they enter on the full possession
   of their inheritance, when all creatures shall be made subservient to their
   glory; for both heaven and earth shall be renewed for this end, — that
   according to their measure they may contribute to render glorious the
   kingdom of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [139] Critics have differed as to the disjunctive ē, or, “or to his seed.”
   Some think it is put for kai, and: but Pareus thinks that it has a special
   meaning, intended to anticipate an objection. The Jews might have said, “If
   the case with Abraham is as stated, it is not so with his seed who received
   the law.” Yes, says Paul, there is no difference, “The promise to Abraham,
   or to his seed, to whom the law was actually given, was not by the law.”
   Hammond renders the whole verse more literally than in our version, — “The
   promise to Abraham or to his seed, that he should be the heir of the world,
   was not by the law, but through the righteousness of faith.” — Ed.

   [140] There is in Genesis no expression conveyed in these words; but the
   probability is, that he intended to express in another form what he
   distinctly quotes in Romans 4:17, “I have made thee a father of many
   nations.” The word “father,” in this case, has been commonly understood to
   mean a leader, a pattern, a model, an exemplar, a forerunner, as Abraham was
   the first believer justified by faith, of whom there is an express record.
   But the idea seems to be somewhat different. He was a father as the first
   possessor of an inheritance which was to descend to all his children. The
   inheritance was given him by grace through faith; it was to descend, as it
   were, to all his lawful posterity, to all his legitimate seed, that is, to
   all who possessed the like faith with himself. He is therefore called the
   father of many nations, because many nations would become his legitimate
   heirs by becoming believers; and in the same sense must be regarded the
   expression here, “the heir of the world;” he was the representative of all
   the believing world, and made an heir of an inheritance which was to come to
   the world in general, to the believing Jews and to the believing Gentiles.
   He was the heir, the first possessor, of what was to descend to the world
   without any difference. He was the heir of the world in the same sense as he
   was “the father of all who believe,” as he is said to have been in verse
   eleventh. The inheritance was doubtless eternal life or the heavenly
   kingdom, the country above, of which the land of Canaan was a type and a
   pledge. See Hebrews 11:12, 13, 16. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:14-15

   14. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
   promise made of none effect:

   14. Si enim ii qui sunt ex Lege hæredes sunt, exinanita est fides et abolita
   est promissio:

   15. Because the law worketh wrath: for where no law is, there is no
   transgression.

   15. Nam Lex iram efficit; siquidem ubi non est Lex, neque etiam
   transgressio.

   14. For if they who are of the law, etc. He takes his argument from what is
   impossible or absurd, that the favor which Abraham obtained from God, was
   not promised to him through any legal agreement, or through any regard to
   works; for if this condition had been interposed — that God would favor
   those only with adoption who deserved, or who performed the law, no one
   could have dared to feel confident that it belonged to him: for who is there
   so conscious of so much perfection that he can feel assured that the
   inheritance is due to him through the righteousness of the law? Void then
   would faith be made; for an impossible condition would not only hold the
   minds of men in suspense and anxiety, but fill them also with fear and
   trembling: and thus the fulfillment of the promises would be rendered void;
   for they avail nothing but when received by faith. If our adversaries had
   ears to hear this one reason, the contest between us might easily be
   settled.

   The Apostle assumes it as a thing indubitable, that the promises would by no
   means be effectual except they were received with full assurance of mind.
   But what would be the case if the salvation of men was based on the keeping
   of the law? consciences would have no certainty, but would be harassed with
   perpetual inquietude, and at length sink in despair; and the promise itself,
   the fulfillment of which depended on what is impossible, would also vanish
   away without producing any fruit. Away then with those who teach the common
   people to seek salvation for themselves by works, seeing that Paul declares
   expressly, that the promise is abolished if we depend on works. But it is
   especially necessary that this should be known, — that when there is a
   reliance on works, faith is reduced to nothing. And hence we also learn what
   faith is, and what sort of righteousness ought that of works to be, in which
   men may safely trust.

   The Apostle teaches us, that faith perishes, except the soul rests on the
   goodness of God. Faith then is not a naked knowledge either of God or of his
   truth; nor is it a simple persuasion that God is, that his word is the
   truth; but a sure knowledge of God’s mercy, which is received from the
   gospel, and brings peace of conscience with regard to God, and rest to the
   mind. The sum of the matter then is this, — that if salvation depends on the
   keeping of the law, the soul can entertain no confidence respecting it, yea,
   that all the promises offered to us by God will become void: we must thus
   become wretched and lost, if we are sent back to works to find out the cause
   or the certainty of salvation.

   15. For the law causeth wrath, etc. This is a confirmation of the last
   verse, derived from the contrary effect of the law; for as the law generates
   nothing but vengeance, it cannot bring grace. It can indeed show to the good
   and the perfect the way of life: but as it prescribes to the sinful and
   corrupt what they ought to do, and supplies them with no power for doing, it
   exhibits them as guilty before the tribunal of God. For such is the
   viciousness of our nature, that the more we are taught what is right and
   just, the more openly is our iniquity discovered, and especially our
   contumacy, and thus a heavier judgment is incurred.

   By wrath, understand God’s judgment, which meaning it has everywhere. They
   who explain it of the wrath of the sinner, excited by the law, inasmuch as
   he hates and execrates the Lawgiver, whom he finds to be opposed to his
   lusts, say what is ingenious, but not suitable to this passage; for Paul
   meant no other thing, than that condemnation only is what is brought on us
   all by the law, as it is evident from the common use of the expression, and
   also from the reason which he immediately adds.

   Where there is no law, etc. This is the proof, by which he confirms what he
   had said; for it would have been difficult to see how God’s wrath is kindled
   against us through the law, unless it had been made more apparent. And the
   reason is, that as the knowledge of God’s justice is discovered by the law,
   the less excuse we have, and hence the more grievously we offend against
   God; for they who despise the known will of God, justly deserve to sustain a
   heavier punishment, than those who offend through ignorance.

   But the Apostle speaks not of the mere transgression of what is right, from
   which no man is exempt; but he calls that a transgression, when man, having
   been taught what pleases and displeases God, knowingly and willfully passes
   over the boundaries fixed by God’s word; or, in other words, transgression
   here is not a mere act of sin, but a willful determination to violate what
   is right. [141] The particle, ou, where, which I take as an adverb, some
   consider to be a relative, of which; but the former reading is the most
   suitable, and the most commonly received. Whichever reading you may follow,
   the meaning will be the same, — that he who is not instructed by the written
   law, when he sins, is not guilty of so great a transgression, as he is who
   knowingly breaks and transgresses the law of God.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [141] It is better to take this sentence, “Where there is no law, there is
   no transgression,” according to its obvious meaning; as it comports better
   with the former clause. The reasoning seems to be this, — “The promise is by
   faith, and not by the law; for the law brings wrath or condemnation: but
   where there is no law, there is no transgression to occasion wrath.” The
   same idea is essentially conveyed in verse Romans 4:16, where it is said,
   that the promise is sure, because it is through faith and by grace. Had it
   been by the law, there would have been transgression and wrath, and hence
   the loss of the promise. This verse is connected with the Romans 4:13 rather
   than with the 14th. It contains another reason, besides what Romans 4:14
   gives, in confirmation of what is said in Romans 4:13. Hence Macknight
   renders gar, in this verse, “farther,” which renders the connection more
   evident. “Where no law is, there is no transgression, and therefore no wrath
   or punishment; but where law is, there is transgression, wrath, and
   punishment.” — Pareus
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:16-17

   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 only which is of the law,
   but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us
   all,

   16. Propterea ex fide, ut secundum gratiam, quo firma sit promissio universo
   semini non ei quod est ex Lege solum, sed quod est ex fide Abrahæ, qui est
   pater omnium nostrum,

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

   17. (sicut scriptum est. Quod patrem multarum gentium posui te,) coram Deo,
   cui credidit, qua vivificat mortuos et vocat ea quæ non sunt tanquam sint.

   16. It is therefore of faith, etc. This is the winding up of the argument;
   and you may summarily include the whole of it in this statement, — “If the
   heirship of salvation comes to us by works, then faith in it vanishes, the
   promise of it is abolished; but it is necessary that both these should be
   sure and certain; hence it comes to us by faith, so that its stability being
   based on the goodness of God alone, may be secured.” See how the Apostle,
   regarding faith as a thing firm and certain, considers hesitancy and doubt
   as unbelief, by which faith is abolished, and the promise abrogated. And yet
   this doubting is what the schoolmen call a moral conjecture, and which,
   alas! they substitute for faith.

   That it might be by grace, etc. Here, in the first place, the Apostle shows,
   that nothing is set before faith but mere grace; and this, as they commonly
   say, is its object: for were it to look on merits, absurdly would Paul
   infer, that whatever it obtains for us is gratuitous. I will repeat this
   again in other words, — “If grace be everything that we obtain by faith,
   then every regard for works is laid in the dust.” But what next follows more
   fully removes all ambiguity, — that the promise then only stands firm, when
   it recumbs on grace: for by this expression Paul confirms this truth, that
   as long as men depend on works, they are harassed with doubts; for they
   deprive themselves of what the promises contain. Hence, also, we may easily
   learn, that grace is not to be taken, as some imagine, for the gift of
   regeneration, but for a gratuitous favor: for as regeneration is never
   perfect, it can never suffice to pacify souls, nor of itself can it make the
   promise certain.

   Not to that only which is of the law, etc. Though these words mean in
   another place those who, being absurd zealots of the law, bind themselves to
   its yoke, and boast of their confidence in it, yet here they mean simply the
   Jewish nation, to whom the law of the Lord had been delivered. For Paul
   teaches us in another passage, that all who remain bound to the dominion of
   the law, are subject to a curse; it is then certain that they are excluded
   from the participation of grace. He does not then call them the servants of
   the law, who, adhering to the righteousness of works, renounce Christ; but
   they were those Jews who had been brought up in the law, and yet professed
   the name of Christ. But that the sentence may be made clearer, let it be
   worded thus, — “Not to those only who are of the law, but to all who imitate
   the faith of Abraham, though they had not the law before.”

   Who is the father of us all, etc. The relative has the meaning of a
   causative particle; for he meant to prove, that the Gentiles were become
   partakers of this grace, inasmuch as by the same oracle, by which the
   heirship was conferred on Abraham and his seed, were the Gentiles also
   constituted his seed: for he is said to have been made the father, not of
   one nation, but of many nations; by which was presignified the future
   extension of grace, then confined to Israel alone. For except the promised
   blessing had been extended to them, they could not have been counted as the
   offspring of Abraham. The past tense of the verb, according to the common
   usage of Scripture, denotes the certainty of the Divine counsel; for though
   nothing then was less apparent, yet as God had thus decreed, he is rightly
   said to have been made the father of many nations. Let the testimony of
   Moses be included in a parenthesis, that this clause, “Who is the father of
   us all,” may be connected with the other, “before God,” etc.: for it was
   necessary to explain also what that relationship was, that the Jews might
   not glory too much in their carnal descent. Hence he says, “He is our father
   before God;” which means the same as though he had said, “He is our
   spiritual father;” for he had this privilege, not from his own flesh, but
   from the promise of God [142]

   17. Whom he believed, who quickens the dead, etc. In this circuitous form is
   expressed the very substance of Abraham’s faith, that by his example an
   opening might be made for the Gentiles. He had indeed to attain, in a
   wonderful way, the promise which he had heard from the Lord’s mouth, since
   there was then no token of it. A seed was promised to him as though he was
   in vigor and strength; but he was as it were dead. It was hence necessary
   for him to raise up his thoughts to the power of God, by which the dead are
   quickened. It was therefore not strange that the Gentiles, who were barren
   and dead, should be introduced into the same society. He then who denies
   them to be capable of grace, does wrong to Abraham, whose faith was
   sustained by this thought, — that it matters not whether he was dead or not
   who is called by the Lord; to whom it is an easy thing, even by a word, to
   raise the dead through his own power.

   We have here also a type and a pattern of the call of us all, by which our
   beginning is set before our eyes, not as to our first birth, but as to the
   hope of future life, — that when we are called by the Lord we emerge from
   nothing; for whatever we may seem to be we have not, no, not a spark of
   anything good, which can render us fit for the kingdom of God. That we may
   indeed on the other hand be in a suitable state to hear the call of God, we
   must be altogether dead in ourselves. The character of the divine calling
   is, that they who are dead are raised by the Lord, that they who are nothing
   begin to be something through his power. The word call ought not to be
   confined to preaching, but it is to be taken, according to the usage of
   Scripture, for raising up; and it is intended to set forth more fully the
   power of God, who raises up, as it were by a nod only, whom he wills. [143]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [142] It appears from Pareus and Hammond, that some of the Fathers such as
   Chrysostom, and Theophylact, regarded katenanti in the sense of homoiōs,
   like, and have rendered the passage, “like God, in whom he believed;” that
   is, that as God is not partial, but the Father of all, so Abraham was. But
   this meaning is not consistent with the import of katenanti, nor with the
   context. The preposition is found in four other places, Mark 11:2; Mark
   12:41; Mark 13:3; Luke 19:30, and invariably means before, or, over against.
   The Septuagint use it in Numbers 25:4, in the sense of before, katenanti tou
   hēliou — “before the sun,” not “against the sun” as in our version; for the
   word in Hebrew is נגד, Coram, in conspectu. The context also requires this
   meaning: Abraham was a father of many nations before God, or, in the view or
   estimation of God, and not in the view or estimation of men, because God, as
   it is said at the end of the verse, regards things which are not, as though
   they were. Hence Abraham was already in God’s view, according to his
   purpose, the father of many nations. The collocation of the words is said by
   Wolfius to be an instance of Atticism, the word theou, being separated from
   its preposition: and hou is put for hō by the grammatical law of attraction;
   and Stuart brings three similar instances of the relative being regulated by
   the case of its noun, though preceding it in the sentence, Mark 6:16, Acts
   21:16; and Romans 6:17

   [143] The idea of commanding to existence, or of effecting, is given by many
   Commentators to the word kalountos; but this seems not necessary. The simple
   notion of calling, naming, regarding, or representing, is more consistent
   with the passage, and with the construction of the sentence: and the various
   modes of rendering it, which critics have proposed, have arisen from not
   taking the word in its most obvious meaning. “The literal version is, and
   who calls things not existing as existing,” — kai kalountos ta mē onta hōs
   onta. The reference is evidently to the declaration, “I have made thee the
   father of many nations.” This had then no real existence; but God represents
   it as having an existence already. Far-fetched meanings are sometimes
   adopted, when the plainest and the most obvious is passed by. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:18

   18. Who 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.

   18. Qui præter (vel supra) spem super spe credidit, ut esset [144] pater
   multarum gentium, secundum quod dictum erat, Sic erit semen tuum.

   18. Who against hope, etc. If we thus read, the sense is, that when there
   was no probable reason, yea, when all things were against him, he yet
   continued to believe. And, doubtless, there is nothing more injurious to
   faith than to fasten our minds to our eyes, that we may from what we see,
   seek a reason for our hope. We may also read, “above hope,” and perhaps more
   suitably; as though he had said that by his faith he far surpassed all that
   he could conceive; for except faith flies upward on celestial wings so as to
   look down on all the perceptions of the flesh as on things far below, it
   will stick fast in the mud of the world. But Paul uses the word hope twice
   in this verse: in the first instance, he means a probable evidence for
   hoping, such as can be derived from nature and carnal reason; in the second
   he refers to faith given by God; [145] for when he had no ground for hoping
   he yet in hope relied on the promise of God; and he thought it a sufficient
   reason for hoping, that the Lord had promised, however incredible the thing
   was in itself.

   According to what had been said, etc. So have I preferred to render it, that
   it may be applied to the time of Abraham; for Paul meant to say, that
   Abraham, when many temptations were drawing him to despair, that he might
   not fail, turned his thoughts to what had been promised to him, “Thy seed
   shall equal the stars of heaven and the sands of the sea;” but he resignedly
   adduced this quotation incomplete, in order to stimulate us to read the
   Scriptures. The Apostles, indeed, at all times, in quoting the Scriptures,
   took a scrupulous care to rouse us to a more diligent reading of them.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [144] “Ut esset:” this may indeed be rendered according to our version,
   “that he might become;” but the drift of the comment seems to favor the
   other view, that he believed that he should be, and not that he believed in
   order to be, or that he might be, the father of many nations eis to
   genesthai auton, “that he should be,” is the rendering of Hammond,
   Doddridge, and Stuart; and it is indeed what is consistent with the drift of
   the passage, and with what is recorded in Genesis. Wolfius says, that eis
   here does not signify the final cause, but the subject or the object of
   faith and hope; Abraham believed the promise, that he should be the father
   of many nations. — Ed.

   [145] This is a striking instance of the latitude of meaning which some
   words have in Scripture. Here hope, in the first instance, means the ground
   of hope; and in the second, the object of hope. So faith, in Romans 4:5, and
   in other places, must be considered as including its object, the gracious
   promise of God; for otherwise it will be a meritorious act, the very thing
   which the Apostle throughout repudiates with regard to man’s justification.
   Faith, as it lays hold on God’s promise of free acceptance and forgiveness,
   can alone, in the very nature of things, be imputed for righteousness: it is
   not indispensably necessary that the way, or medium, or the meritorious
   cause of acceptance and forgiveness, should be clearly known and distinctly
   seen; the gracious promise of God is enough, so that faith may become a
   justifying faith.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:19-22

   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:

   19. Ac fide minime debilitatus, non consideravit suum ipsius corpus jam
   emortuum, centenaries quum fere esset, nec emortuam vulvam Saræ:

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

   20. Nec vero in Dei promissionem nec emortuam vulvam Sarre: per
   incredulitatem disquisivit; sed roboratus est fide, tribuens gloriam Deo;

   21. And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also
   to perform.

   21. Ac certe persuasus, quod ubi quid promisit, possit etiam præstare.

   22. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

   22. Ideo et imputatum illi est in justitiam.

   19. In faith, etc. If you prefer to omit one of the negatives you may render
   it thus, “Being weak in faith, he considered not his own body,” etc.; but
   this makes no sense. He indeed shows now more fully what might have
   hindered, yea, and wholly turned Abraham aside from receiving the promise. A
   seed from Sarah was promised to him at a time when he was not by nature fit
   for generating, nor Sarah for conceiving. Whatever he could see as to
   himself was opposed to the accomplishment of the promise. Hence, that he
   might yield to the truth of God, he withdrew his mind from those things
   which presented themselves to his own view, and as it were forgot himself.

   You are not however to think, that he had no regard whatever to his own
   body, now dead, since Scripture testifies to the contrary; for he reasoned
   thus with himself, “Shall a child be born to a man an hundred years old? and
   shall Sarah, who is ninety, bear a son?” But as he laid aside the
   consideration of all this, and resigned his own judgment to the Lord, the
   Apostle says, that he considered not, etc.; and truly it was a greater
   effort to withdraw his thoughts from what of itself met his eyes, than if
   such a thing came into his mind.

   And that the body of Abraham was become through age incapable of generating,
   at the time he received the Lord’s blessing, is quite evident from this
   passage, and also from Genesis 17 and 18, so that the opinion of Augustine
   is by no means to be admitted, who says somewhere, that the impediment was
   in Sarah alone. Nor ought the absurdity of the objection to influence us, by
   which he was induced to have recourse to this solution; for he thought it
   inconsistent to suppose that Abraham in his hundredth year was incapable of
   generating, as he had afterwards many children. But by this very thing God
   rendered his power more visible, inasmuch as he, who was before like a dry
   and barren tree, was so invigorated by the celestial blessing, that he not
   only begot Isaac, but, as though he was restored to the vigor of age, he had
   afterwards strength to beget others. But some one may object and say, that
   it is not beyond the course of nature that a man should beget children at
   that age. Though I allow that such a thing is not a prodigy, it is yet very
   little short of a miracle. And then, think with how many toils, sorrows,
   wanderings, distresses, had that holy man been exercised all his life; and
   it must be confessed, that he was no more debilitated by age, than worn out
   and exhausted by toils. And lastly, his body is not called barren simply but
   comparatively; for it was not probable that he, who was unfit for begetting
   in the flower and vigor of age, should begin only now when nature had
   decayed.

   The expression, being not weak in faith, take in this sense — that he
   vacillated not, nor fluctuated, as we usually do under difficult
   circumstances. There is indeed a twofold weakness of faith — one is that
   which, by succumbing to trying adversities, occasions a falling away from
   the supporting power of God — the other arises from imperfection, but does
   not extinguish faith itself: for the mind is never so illuminated, but that
   many relics of ignorance remain; the heart is never so strengthened, but
   that much doubting cleaves to it. Hence with these vices of the flesh,
   ignorance and doubt, the faithful have a continual conflict, and in this
   conflict their faith is often dreadfully shaken and distressed, but at
   length it comes forth victorious; so that they may be said to be strong even
   in weakness.

   20. Nor did he through unbelief make an inquiry, etc. Though I do not follow
   the old version, nor Erasmus, yet my rendering is not given without reason.
   The Apostle seems to have had this in view, — That Abraham did not try to
   find out, by weighing the matter in the balance of unbelief, whether the
   Lord was able to perform what he had promised. What is properly to inquire
   or to search into anything, is to examine it through diffidence or mistrust,
   and to be unwilling to admit what appears not credible, without thoroughly
   sifting it. [146] He indeed asked, how it could come to pass, but that was
   the asking of one astonished; as the case was with the virgin Mary, when she
   inquired of the angel how could that be which he had announced; and there
   are other similar instances. The saints then, when a message is brought them
   respecting the works of God, the greatness of which exceeds their
   comprehension, do indeed burst forth into expressions of wonder; but from
   this wonder they soon pass on to lay hold on the power of God: on the
   contrary, the wicked, when they examine a message, scoff at and reject it as
   a fable. Such, as you will find, was the case with the Jews, when they asked
   Christ how he could give his flesh to be eaten. For this reason it was, that
   Abraham was not reproved when he laughed and asked, how could a child be
   born to a man an hundred years old, and to a woman of ninety; for in his
   astonishment he fully admitted the power of God’s word. On the other hand, a
   similar laughter and inquiry on the part of Sarah were not without reproof,
   because she regarded not the promise as valid.

   If these things be applied to our present subject, it will be evident, that
   the justification of Abraham had no other beginning than that of the
   Gentiles. Hence the Jews reproach their own father, if they exclaim against
   the call of the Gentiles as a thing unreasonable. Let us also remember, that
   the condition of us all is the same with that of Abraham. All things around
   us are in opposition to the promises of God: He promises immortality; we are
   surrounded with mortality and corruption: He declares that he counts us
   just; we are covered with sins: He testifies that he is propitious and kind
   to us; outward judgments threaten his wrath. What then is to be done? We
   must with closed eyes pass by ourselves and all things connected with us,
   that nothing may hinder or prevent us from believing that God is true.

   But he was strengthened, etc. This is of the same import with a former
   clause, when it is said, that he was not weak in faith. It is the same as
   though he had said, that he overcame unbelief by the constancy and firmness
   of faith. [147] No one indeed comes forth a conqueror from this contest, but
   he who borrows weapons and strength from the word of God. From what he adds,
   giving glory to God, it must be observed, that no greater honor can be given
   to God, than by faith to seal his truth; as, on the other hand, no greater
   dishonor can be done to him, than to refuse his offered favor, or to
   discredit his word. It is hence the chief thing in honoring God, obediently
   to embrace his promises: and true religion begins with faith.

   21. That what he had promised, etc. As all men acknowledge God’s power, Paul
   seems to say nothing very extraordinary of the faith of Abraham; but
   experience proves, that nothing is more uncommon, or more difficult, than to
   ascribe to God’s power the honor which it deserves. There is in deed no
   obstacle, however small and insignificant, by which the flesh imagines the
   hand of God is restrained from working. Hence it is, that in the slightest
   trials, the promises of God slide away from us. When there is no contest, it
   is true, no one, as I have said, denies that God can do all things; but as
   soon as anything comes in the way to impede the course of God’s promise, we
   cast down God’s power from its eminence. Hence, that it may obtain from us
   its right and its honor, when a contest comes, we ought to determine thus,
   — That it is no less sufficient to overcome the obstacles of the world, than
   the strong rays of the sun are to dissipate the mists. We are indeed wont
   ever to excuse ourselves, that we derogate nothing from God’s power,
   whenever we hesitate respecting his promises, and we commonly say, “The
   thought, that God promises more in his word than he can perform, (which
   would be a falsehood and blasphemy against him,) is by no means the cause of
   our hesitation; but that it is the defect which we feel in ourselves.” But
   we do not sufficiently exalt the power of God, unless we think it to be
   greater than our weakness. Faith then ought not to regard our weakness,
   misery, and defects, but to fix wholly its attention on the power of God
   alone; for if it depends on our righteousness or worthiness, it can never
   ascend to the consideration of God’s power. And it is a proof of the
   unbelief, of which he had before spoken, when we mete the Lord’s power with
   our own measure. For faith does not think that God can do all things, while
   it leaves him sitting still, but when, on the contrary, it regards his power
   in continual exercise, and applies it, especially, to the accomplishment of
   his word: for the hand of God is ever ready to execute whatever he has
   declared by his mouth.

   It seems strange to me, that Erasmus approved of the relative in the
   masculine gender; for though the sense is not changed, we may yet come
   nearer to the Greek words of Paul. The verb, I know, is passive; [148] but
   the abruptness may be lessened by a little change.

   22. And it was therefore imputed, [149] etc. It becomes now more clear, how
   and in what manner faith brought righteousness to Abraham; and that was,
   because he, leaning on God’s word, rejected not the promised favor. And this
   connection of faith with the word ought to be well understood and carefully
   remembered; for faith can bring us nothing more than what it receives from
   the word. Hence he does not become immediately just, who is imbued only with
   a general and confused idea that God is true, except he reposes on the
   promise of his favor.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [146] The verb is diekrithē, which Calvin renders “disquisivit.” The most
   common meaning of the verb is to hesitate, to doubt: it has the sense of
   exploring and examining, in the active voice, as in 1 Corinthians 11:31, but
   not in the passive — See Matthew 21:21, Mark 11:23, Acts 10:20. The version
   of Pareus is, “non disceptavit — he disputed not,” and also of Macknight But
   the fathers, and many moderns, such as Beza, Hammond, Stuart, and others,
   have rendered the sentence, “He doubted not:” Phavorinus says, as quoted by
   Poole, that diakrinesthai, is to doubt, to hesitate, to dispute, to
   distrust, (diffidere.) — Ed.

   [147] “Doubt,” says Pareus, has two arguments — will God do this? and can
   God do this? Faith has also two arguments — God will do it, because He has
   promised; and he can do it, because He is omnipotent.”

   [148] The verb is, epēngeltai, used here, and perhaps in one other place,
   Hebrews 12:26, in an active sense. It is usually found, in the sense of
   promising, in the middle voice, as in Mark 14:11; Acts 7:5; Hebrews 6:13,
   etc. It is an anomaly that is to be met with sometimes in Greek authors. —
   Ed.

   [149] As in a former instance in Romans 4:3, there is no nominative case to
   this verb: it is supplied by the sentence. This is the case not unfrequently
   in languages, such as Greek and Hebrew, in which the person is included in
   the verb itself. There is no nominative in the Welsh version, and there
   seems to be no need of it, Amhyny y cyvrivwyd iddo yn gyviawnder “It is most
   true, as Paul says to the Romans, that by faith Abraham was justified, and
   not by obedience: but it is just as true what he says to the Hebrews, that
   it was by faith that Abraham obeyed.” — Chalmers.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 4:23-25

   23. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him;

   23. Non est autem scriptum propter ipsum tantum, imputatum fuisse illi;

   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;

   24. Sed etiam propter nos, quibus imputabitur credentibus in eum, qui
   excitavit lesum Dominum nostrum ex mortuis:

   25. Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our
   justification.

   25. Qui traditus fuit propter delicta nostra, et excitatus propter nostram
   justificationem.

   23. Now it was not written, etc. A proof from example is not always valid,
   of which I have before reminded you; lest this should be questioned, Paul
   expressly affirms, that in the person of Abraham was exhibited an example of
   a common righteousness, which belongs equally to all.

   We are, by this passage, reminded of the duty of seeking profit from the
   examples recorded in Scripture. That history is the teacher of what life
   ought to be, is what heathens have with truth said; but as it is handed down
   by them, no one can derive from it sound instruction. Scripture alone justly
   claims to itself an office of this kind. For in the first place it
   prescribes general rules, by which we may test every other history, so as to
   render it serviceable to us: and in the second place, it clearly points out
   what things are to be followed, and what things are to be avoided. But as to
   doctrine, which it especially teaches, it possesses this peculiarity, — that
   it clearly reveals the providence of God, his justice and goodness towards
   his own people, and his judgments on the wicked.

   What then is recorded of Abraham is by Paul denied to have been written only
   for his sake; for the subject is not what belongs to the special call of one
   or of any particular person; but that way of obtaining righteousness is
   described, which is ever the same with regard to all; and it is what
   belonged to the common father of the faithful, on whom the eyes of all ought
   to be fixed.

   If then we would make a right and proper use of sacred histories, we must
   remember so to use them as to draw from them sound doctrine. They instruct
   us, in some parts, how to frame our life; in others, how to strengthen
   faith; and then, how we are to be stirred up to serve the Lord. In forming
   our life, the example of the saints may be useful; and we may learn from
   them sobriety, chastity, love, patience, moderation, contempt of the world,
   and other virtues. What will serve to confirm faith is the help which God
   ever gave them, the protection which brought comfort in adversities, and the
   paternal care which he ever exercised over them. The judgments of God, and
   the punishments inflicted on the wicked, will also aid us, provided they
   fill us with that fear which imbues the heart with reverence and devotion.

   But by saying, not on his account only, he seems to intimate, that it was
   written partly for his sake. Hence some think, that what Abraham obtained by
   faith was commemorated to his praise, because the Lord will have his
   servants to be forever remembered, according to what Solomon says, that
   their name will be blessed. (Proverbs 10:7.) But what if you take the words,
   not on his account only, in a simpler form, as though it were some singular
   privilege, not fit to be made an example of, but yet suitable to teach us,
   who must be justified in the same manner? This certainly would be a more
   appropriate sense.

   24. Who believe on him, etc. I have already reminded you of the design of
   those periphrastic expressions: Paul introduced them, that he might,
   according to what the passages may require, describe in various ways the
   real character of faith — of which the resurrection of Christ is not the
   smallest part; for it is the ground of our hope as to eternal life. Had he
   said only, that we believe in God, it could not have been so readily learnt
   how this could serve to obtain righteousness; but when Christ comes forth
   and presents to us in his own resurrection a sure pledge of life, it then
   appears evident from what fountain the imputation of righteousness flows.

   25. Who was delivered for our offences, [150] etc. He expands and
   illustrates more at large the doctrine to which I have just referred. It
   indeed greatly concerns us, not only to have our minds directed to Christ,
   but also to have it distinctly made known how he attained salvation for us.
   And though Scripture, when it treats of our salvation, dwells especially on
   the death of Christ, yet the Apostle now proceeds farther: for as his
   purpose was more explicitly to set forth the cause of our salvation, he
   mentions its two parts; and says, first, that our sins were expiated by the
   death of Christ, — and secondly, that by his resurrection was obtained our
   righteousness. But the meaning is, that when we possess the benefit of
   Christ’s death and resurrection, there is nothing wanting to the completion
   of perfect righteousness. By separating his death from his resurrection, he
   no doubt accommodates what he says to our ignorance; for it is also true
   that righteousness has been obtained for us by that obedience of Christ,
   which he exhibited in his death, as the Apostle himself teaches us in the
   following chapter. But as Christ, by rising from the dead, made known how
   much he had effected by his death, this distinction is calculated to teach
   us that our salvation was begun by the sacrifice, by which our sins were
   expiated, and was at length completed by his resurrection: for the beginning
   of righteousness is to be reconciled to God, and its completion is to attain
   life by having death abolished. Paul then means, that satisfaction for our
   sins was given on the cross: for it was necessary, in order that Christ
   might restore us to the Father’s favor, that our sins should be abolished by
   him; which could not have been done had he not on their account suffered the
   punishment, which we were not equal to endure. Hence Isaiah says, that the
   chastisement of our peace was upon him. (Isaiah 53:5.) But he says that he
   was delivered, and not, that he died; for expiation depended on the eternal
   goodwill of God, who purposed to be in this way pacified.

   And was raised again for our justification. As it would not have been enough
   for Christ to undergo the wrath and judgment of God, and to endure the curse
   due to our sins, without his coming forth a conqueror, and without being
   received into celestial glory, that by his intercession he might reconcile
   God to us, the efficacy of justification is ascribed to his resurrection, by
   which death was overcome; not that the sacrifice of the cross, by which we
   are reconciled to God, contributes nothing towards our justification, but
   that the completeness of his favor appears more clear by his coming to life
   again. [151]

   But I cannot assent to those who refer this second clause to newness of
   life; for of that the Apostle has not begun to speak; and further, it is
   certain that both clauses refer to the same thing. For if justification
   means renovation, then that he died for our sins must be taken in the same
   sense, as signifying that he acquired for us grace to mortify the flesh;
   which no one admits. Then, as he is said to have died for our sins, because
   he delivered us from the evil of death by suffering death as a punishment
   for our sins; so he is now said to have been raised for our justification,
   because he fully restored life to us by his resurrection: for he was first
   smitten by the hand of God, that in the person of the sinner he might
   sustain the misery of sin; and then he was raised to life, that he might
   freely grant to his people righteousness and life. [152] He therefore still
   speaks of imputative justification; and this will be confirmed by what
   immediately follows in the next chapter.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [150] It is dia ta paraptōmata hēmōn, “for our offenses,” and dia tēn
   dikaiōsin hēmōn, “for our justification.” The preposition dia, has here
   clearly two meanings: the first signifies the reason why, and the second,
   the end for which. How is this to be known? By the character of the
   sentence, and by what is taught elsewhere. For, to which Johnson attaches
   forty meanings, is commonly understood here as having a different sense, and
   this is sufficiently indicated by what is connected with it. But in case a
   doubt arises, we have only to consult other passages in which the subject is
   handled. Take the first instance — “for our offenses.” There are those who
   say that dia here means because of, or, on account of; and this, in order to
   evade the idea of a propitiation. The preposition, no doubt, has this sense;
   but is this its sense here? If the sentence itself be deemed insufficient to
   determine the question, (though to a plain reader it is,) let us see what is
   said elsewhere of Christ’s death in connection with our sins or offenses. He
   himself said, that he came “to give his life a ransom (lutron — a redeeming
   price) for many,” Matthew 20:28. It is said, that he “gave himself a ransom
   (antilutron — a redeeming price for another) for all,” 1 Timothy 2:6. It is
   expressly declared, that “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of
   many,” Hebrews 9:28. And more to the purpose still, if possible, is the
   testimony of John, when he says that Christ “is the propitiation (hilasmos
   — expiation) for our sins,” 1 John 2:2. Now, can it be that we can give any
   other meaning to the text, than that God delivered his Son as a sacrifice
   for our offenses? This is the doctrine of Scripture throughout. — Ed.

   [151] Christ is said here to have been raised from the dead by God, as well
   as delivered into death. “However much of the import of this,” says
   Chalmers, “may have escaped the notice of an ordinary reader, it is pregnant
   with meaning of the weightiest importance. You know that when the prison
   door is opened to a criminal, and that by the very authority which lodged
   him there, it envinces that the debt of his transgression has been rendered,
   and that he stands aquitted of all it’s penalties. It was not for his own,
   but for our offenses that Jesus was delivered unto the death, and that his
   body was consigned to the imprisonment of the grave. And when an angel
   descended from heaven, and rolled back the great stone from the door of the
   sepulchre, this speaks to us, that the justice of God is satisfied, that the
   ransom of our iniquity has been paid, that Christ has rendered a full
   discharge of all the debt for which he undertook as the great surety between
   God and the sinners who believe in him.” — Ed.

   [152] “Either therefore as the evidence of the acceptance of his suffering
   as our substitute, or as a necessary step toward securing the application of
   their merit to our benefit, the resurrection of Christ was essential to our
   justification.” — Professor Hodge
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________

   CHAPTER 5
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:1-2

   1. Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our
   Lord Jesus Christ:

   1. Iustificatus ergo ex fide, pacem habemus apud Deum per Dominum nostrum
   Iesum Christum;

   2. By whom also we have access by faith into this grace wherein we stand,
   and rejoice in hope of the glory of God.

   2. Per quem accessum habiumus fide in gratiam istam in qua stetimus, et
   gloriamur super spe gloriæ Dei.

   1. Being then justified, etc. The Apostle begins to illustrate by the
   effects, what he has hitherto said of the righteousness of faith: and hence
   the whole of this chapter is taken up with amplifications, which are no less
   calculated to explain than to confirm. He had said before, that faith is
   abolished, if righteousness is sought by works; and in this case perpetual
   inquietude would disturb miserable souls, as they can find nothing
   substantial in themselves: but he teaches us now, that they are rendered
   quiet and tranquil, when we have obtained righteousness by faith, we have
   peace with God; and this is the peculiar fruit of the righteousness of
   faith. When any one strives to seek tranquillity of conscience by works,
   (which is the case with profane and ignorant men,) he labors for it in vain;
   for either his heart is asleep through his disregard or forgetfulness of
   God’s judgment, or else it is full of trembling and dread, until it reposes
   on Christ, who is alone our peace.

   Then peace means tranquillity of conscience, which arises from this, — that
   it feels itself to be reconciled to God. This the Pharisee has not, who
   swells with false confidence in his own works; nor the stupid sinner, who is
   not disquieted, because he is inebriated with the sweetness of vices: for
   though neither of these seems to have a manifest disquietude, as he is who
   is smitten with a consciousness of sin; yet as they do not really approach
   the tribunal of God, they have no reconciliation with him; for insensibility
   of conscience is, as it were, a sort of retreating from God. Peace with God
   is opposed to the dead security of the flesh, and for this reason, — because
   the first thing is, that every one should become awakened as to the account
   he must render of his life; and no one can stand boldly before God, but he
   who relies on a gratuitous reconciliation; for as long as he is God, all
   must otherwise tremble and be confounded. And this is the strongest of
   proofs, that our opponents do nothing but prate to no purpose, when they
   ascribe righteousness to works; for this conclusion of Paul is derived from
   this fact, — that miserable souls always tremble, except they repose on the
   grace of Christ.

   2. Through whom we have access, [153] etc. Our reconciliation with God
   depends only on Christ; for he only is the beloved Son, and we are all by
   nature the children of wrath. But this favor is communicated to us by the
   gospel; for the gospel is the ministry of reconciliation, by the means of
   which we are in a manner brought into the kingdom of God. Rightly then does
   Paul set before our eyes in Christ a sure pledge of God’s favor, that he
   might more easily draw us away from every confidence in works. And as he
   teaches us by the word access, that salvation begins with Christ, he
   excludes those preparations by which foolish men imagine that they can
   anticipate God’s mercy; as though he said, “Christ comes not to you, nor
   helps you, on account of your merits.” He afterwards immediately subjoins,
   that it is through the continuance of the same favor that our salvation
   becomes certain and sure; by which he intimates, that perseverance is not
   founded on our power and diligence, but on Christ; though at the same time
   by saying, that we stand, he indicates that the gospel ought to strike deep
   roots into the hearts of the godly, so that being strengthened by its truth,
   they may stand firm against all the devices of Satan and of the flesh. And
   by the word stand, he means, that faith is not a changeable persuasion, only
   for one day; but that it is immutable, and that it sinks deep into the
   heart, so that it endures through life. It is then not he, who by a sudden
   impulse is led to believe, that has faith, and is to be reckoned among the
   faithful; but he who constantly, and, so to speak, with a firm and fixed
   foot, abides in that station appointed to him by God, so as to cleave always
   to Christ.

   And glory in the hope, etc. The reason that the hope of a future life exists
   and dares to exult, is this, — because we rest on God’s favor as on a sure
   foundation: for Paul’s meaning is, that though the faithful are now pilgrims
   on the earth, they yet by hope scale the heavens, so that they quietly enjoy
   in their own bosoms their future inheritance. And hereby are subverted two
   of the most pestilent dogmas of the sophists. What they do in the first
   place is, they bid Christians to be satisfied with moral conjecture as to
   the perception of God’s favor towards them; and secondly, they teach that
   all are uncertain as to their final perseverance; but except there be at
   present sure knowledge, and a firm and undoubting persuasion as to the
   future, who would dare to glory? The hope of the glory of God has shone upon
   us through the gospel, which testifies that we shall be participators of the
   Divine nature; for when we shall see God face to face, we shall be like him.
   (2 Peter 1:4; 1 John 3:2.)
     _________________________________________________________________

   [153] Calvin leaves out kai, “also.” Griesbach retains it. The omission is
   only in one MS., and in the Syriac and Ethiopic versions: it is rendered nun
   by Theodoret But its meaning here seems not to be “also,” but “even” or
   “yea:” for this verse contains in part the same truth as the former. The
   style of Paul is often very like that of the Prophets, that is, the
   arrangement of his sentences is frequently on their model. In the Prophets,
   and also in the Psalms, we find often two distichs and sometimes two verses
   containing the same sentiment, only the latter distich states it
   differently, and adds something to it. See, for example, Psalm 32:1, 2. such
   is exactly the case here. “Justified by faith,” and “this grace in which we
   stand,” are the same. “Through our Lord Jesus Christ” and “through whom we
   have access,” are identical in their import. The additional idea in the
   second verse is the last clause. That we may see how the whole corresponds
   with the Prophetic style, the two verses shall be presented in lines, — 1.
   Having then been justified by faith,
   We have peace with God,^
   Through our Lord Jesus Christ; 2. Through whom we have had, yea, the access
   by faith
   To this grace, in which we stand,
   And exult in the hope of the glory of God. The illative, then, is to be
   preferred to therefore, as it is an inference, not from a particular verse
   or a clause, but from what the Apostle had been teaching. By the phrase,
   “the glory of God,” is meant the glory which God bestows: it is, to use the
   words of Professor Stuart, “genitivus auctoris.” The word “access,”
   prosagōgēn has two meanings, — introduction (adductio) — and access
   (accessio.) The verb prosagein, is used in 1 Peter 3:18, in the sense of
   introducing, leading or bringing to. So Christ, as Wolfius remarks, may be
   considered to be here represented as the introducer and reconciler, through
   whom believers come to God and hold intercourse with him. “Introduction” is
   the version of Macknight; and Doddridge has also adopted this idea. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:3-5

   3. And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that
   tribulation worketh patience;

   3. Neque id modo, sed gloriamur [154] etiam in afflictionibus; scientes quod
   tribulatio patientiam efficiat;

   4. And patience, experience; and experience, hope:

   4. Patientia vero probationem; probatio autem spem:

   5. And hope maketh not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in
   our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.

   5. Porro spes non pudefacit, quoniam dilectio Dei diffusa est in cordibus
   nostris per Spiritum santum, qui datus est nobis.

   3. Not only so, etc. That no one might scoffingly object and say, that
   Christians, with all their glorying, are yet strangely harassed and
   distressed in this life, which condition is far from being a happy one, — he
   meets this objection, and declares, not only that the godly are prevented by
   these calamities from being blessed, but also that their glorying is thereby
   promoted. To prove this he takes his argument from the effects, and adopts a
   remarkable gradation, and at last concludes, that all the sorrows we endure
   contribute to our salvation and final good.

   By saying that the saints glory in tribulations, he is not to be understood,
   as though they dreaded not, nor avoided adversities, or were not distressed
   with their bitterness when they happened, (for there is no patience when
   there is no feeling of bitterness;) but as in their grief and sorrow they
   are not without great consolation, because they regard that whatever they
   bear is dispensed to them for good by the hand of a most indulgent Father,
   they are justly said to glory: for whenever salvation is promoted, there is
   not wanting a reason for glorying.

   We are then taught here what is the design of our tribulations, if indeed we
   would prove ourselves to be the children of God. They ought to habituate us
   to patience; and if they do not answer this end, the work of the Lord is
   rendered void and of none effect through our corruption: for how does he
   prove that adversities do not hinder the glorying of the faithful, except
   that by their patience in enduring them, they feel the help of God, which
   nourishes and confirms their hope? They then who do not learn patience, do
   not, it is certain, make good progress. Nor is it any objection, that there
   are recorded in Scripture some complaints full of despondency, which the
   saints had made: for the Lord sometimes so depresses and straitens for a
   time his people, that they can hardly breathe, and can hardly remember any
   source of consolation; but in a moment he brings to life those whom he had
   nearly sunk in the darkness of death. So that what Paul says is always
   accomplished in them —

   “We are in every way oppressed, but not made anxious; we are in danger, but
   we are not in despair; we suffer persecution, but we are not forsaken; we
   are cast down but we are not destroyed.”
   (2 Corinthians 4:8.)

   Tribulation produces (efficiat) patience, etc. This is not the natural
   effect of tribulation; for we see that a great portion of mankind are
   thereby instigated to murmur against God, and even to curse his name. But
   when that inward meekness, which is infused by the Spirit of God, and the
   consolation, which is conveyed by the same Spirit, succeed in the place of
   our stubbornness, then tribulations become the means of generating patience;
   yea, those tribulations, which in the obstinate can produce nothing but
   indignation and clamorous discontent.

   4. Patience, probation, etc. James, adopting a similar gradation, seems to
   follow a different order; for he says, that patience proceeds from
   probation: but the different meaning of the word is what will reconcile
   both. Paul takes probation for the experience which the faithful have of the
   sure protection of God, when by relying on his aid they overcome all
   difficulties, even when they experience, whilst in patiently enduring they
   stand firm, how much avails the power of the Lord, which he has promised to
   be always present with his people. James takes the same word for tribulation
   itself, according to the common usage of Scripture; for by these God proves
   and tries his servants: and they are often called trials. [155]

   According then to the present passage, we then only make advances in
   patience as we ought, when we regard it as having been continued to us by
   God’s power, and thus entertain hope as to the future, that God’s favor,
   which has ever succored us in our necessities, will never be wanting to us.
   Hence he subjoins, that from probation arises hope; for ungrateful we should
   be for benefits received, except the recollection of them confirms our hope
   as to what is to come.

   5. Hope maketh not ashamed, etc.; [156] that is, it regards salvation as
   most certain. It hence appears, that the Lord tries us by adversities for
   this end, — that our salvation may thereby be gradually advanced. Those
   evils then cannot render us miserable, which do in a manner promote our
   happiness. And thus is proved what he had said, that the godly have reasons
   for glorying in the midst of their afflictions.

   For the love of God, etc. I do not refer this only to the last sentence, but
   to the whole of the preceding passage. I therefore would say, — that by
   tribulations we are stimulated to patience, and that patience finds an
   experiment of divine help, by which we are more encouraged to entertain
   hope; for however we may be pressed and seem to be nearly consumed, we do
   not yet cease to feel God’s favor towards us, which affords the richest
   consolation, and much more abundant than when all things happen
   prosperously. For as that happiness, which is so in appearance, is misery
   itself, when God is adverse to and displeased with us; so when he is
   propitious, even calamities themselves will surely be turned to a prosperous
   and a joyful issue. Seeing all things must serve the will of the Creator,
   who, according to his paternal favor towards us, (as Paul declares in the
   eighth chapter,) overrules all the trials of the cross for our salvation,
   this knowledge of divine love towards us is instilled into our hearts to the
   Spirit of God; for the good things which God has prepared for his servants
   are hid from the ears and the eyes and the minds of men, and the Spirit
   alone is he who can reveal them. And the word diffused, is very emphatical;
   for it means that the revelation of divine love towards us is so abounding
   that it fills our hearts; and being thus spread through every part of them,
   it not only mitigates sorrow in adversities, but also, like a sweet
   seasoning, it renders tribulations to be loved by us. [157]

   He says further, that the Spirit is given, that is, bestowed through the
   gratuitous goodness of God, and not conferred for our merits; according to
   what Augustine has well observed, who, though he is mistaken in his view of
   the love of God, gives this explanation, — that we courageously bear
   adversities, and are thus confirmed in our hope, because we, having been
   regenerated by the Spirit, do love God. It is indeed a pious sentiment, but
   not what Paul means: for love is not to be taken here in an active but a
   passive sense. And certain it is, that no other thing is taught by Paul than
   that the true fountain of all love is, when the faithful are convinced that
   they are loved by God, and that they are not slightly touched with this
   conviction, but have their souls thoroughly imbued with it.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [154] Gloriamur — kauchōmetha. The same as in the preceding verse, and
   rendered “boast” by Macknight, and in the former verse by Doddridge and
   here, “glory.” “Boast” is certainly not a proper word, for it is commonly
   used in a bad sense. “Rejoice” is too feeble, for it means exultation and
   triumph. — Ed.

   [155] The word in James is dokimion while here it is dokimē. The first means
   a test, or the act of testing — trial; and the second, the result of testing
   — experience, and is rendered in our version “proof,” 2 Corinthians 2:9, —
   “experiment,” 2 Corinthians 9:13, — and in 2 Corinthians 8:2, “trial,” which
   ought to be experience. Beza says, that the first bears to the second a
   similar relation as cause bears to effect: the one thing is testing or
   probation, and the other is the experience that is thereby gained. The word
   is rendered here, not very intelligibly, “approbation,” both by Macknight
   and Stuart; but more correctly, “experience,” by Beza and Doddridge. — Ed.

   [156] Chalmers observes, that there are two hopes mentioned in this passage,
   — the hope of faith in the second verse, and the hope of experience in this.
   “The hope of the fourth verse,” he says, “is distinct from and posterior to
   the hope of the second; and it also appears to be derived from another
   source. The first hope is hope in believing, a hope which hangs direct on
   the testimony of God...The second hope is grounded on distinct
   considerations — not upon what the believer sees to be in the testimony of
   God, but upon what he finds to be in himself. — It is the fruit not of
   faith, but of experience; and is gathered not from the word that is without,
   but from the feeling of what passes within.” — Ed.

   [157] “The love of God” in this passage may mean either the love of which
   God is the object — love to God, or the love which he possesses — God’s love
   to us: the usus loquendi would admit either of these meanings; and hence
   commentators have differed on the point. The expression, tēn agapēn tou
   Theou, in Luke 12:42, John 5:42, and in other places, means “love to God;”
   hē agapē tou Theou, in 1 John 4:9, signifies clearly the love of God to us.
   The meaning then can alone be ascertained by the context and by the wording
   of the sentence. It stands connected with Christian graces, patience and
   hope; and this favors the first view, that it is love to God produced within
   by the Spirit. Then the verb, ekkechutai — is poured out or poured forth,
   seems more suitable to the idea of love being communicated as a gift, or as
   a holy feeling within. It is further what prevents hope from being
   disappointed; it is some good or enjoyment that now strengthens and
   satisfies hope; and to love God who first loved us is to realize in a
   measure what hope expects; and when it is said that it is diffused by the
   Spirit, we are reminded of what Paul says in (Galatians 5:22, that “love” is
   one of the fruits of the Spirit. But it may, on the other hand, be alleged,
   that the verse stands connected with what follows, as the next verse begins
   with “for,” and that the subsequent context most clearly refers to the love
   of God to us; and this evidently decides the question. The first view, our
   love to God, has been adopted by Augustine, Mede, Doddridge, Scott, and
   Stuart; and the other, God’s love to us, by Chrysostom, Beza, Pareus,
   Grotius, Hodge, and Chalmers, and also by Schleusner who gives this
   paraphrase, “Amor Dei abunde nobis declaratus est — the love of God is
   abundantly declared to us.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:6-9

   6. For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the
   ungodly.

   6. Christus enim, quum adhuc essemus infirmi secundum rationem Temporis, pro
   impiis mortuus est:

   7. For scarcely for a righteous man will one die; yet peradventure for a
   good man some would even dare to die.

   7. Vix sane pro justo quis moriatur; nam pro bono forsan aliquis etiam mori
   audeat.

   8. But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet
   sinners, Christ died for us.

   8. Confimat autem erga nos charitatem Deus quod peccatores quum Adhuc
   essemus, Christus pro nobis mortuus est:

   9. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from
   wrath through him.

   9. Multo igitur magis, justificati nunc per sanguinem ejus, servabimur per
   ipsum ab ira.

   6. For Christ, etc. I ventured not in my version to allow myself so much
   liberty as to give this rendering, “In the time in which we were weak;” and
   yet I prefer this sense. An argument begins here, which is from the greater
   to the less, and which he afterwards pursues more at large: and though he
   has not woven the thread of his discourse so very distinctly, yet its
   irregular structure does not disturb the meaning. “If Christ,” he says, “had
   mercy on the ungodly, if he reconciled enemies to his Father, if he has done
   this by the virtue of his death, much more easily will he save them when
   justified, and keep those restored to favor in the possession of it,
   especially when the influence of his life is added to the virtue of his
   death.” [158] The time of weakness some consider to be that, when Christ
   first began to be manifested to the world, and they think that those are
   called weak, who were like children under the tuition of the law. I apply
   the expression to every one of us, and I regard that time to be meant, which
   precedes the reconciliation of each one with God. For as we are all born the
   children of wrath, so we are kept under that curse until we become partakers
   of Christ. And he calls those weak, who have nothing in themselves but what
   is sinful; for he calls the same immediately afterwards ungodly. And it is
   nothing new, that weakness should be taken in this sense. He calls, in 1
   Corinthians 12:22, the covered parts of the body weak; and, in 2 Corinthians
   10:10, he designates his own bodily presence weak, because it had no
   dignity. And this meaning will soon again occur. When, therefore, we were
   weak, that is, when we were in no way worthy or fit that God should look on
   us, at this very time Christ died for the ungodly: for the beginning of
   religion is faith, from which they were all alienated, for whom Christ died.
   And this also is true as to the ancient fathers, who obtained righteousness
   before he died; for they derived this benefit from his future death. [159]

   7. For a just man, etc. The meaning of the passage has constrained me to
   render the particle gar as an affirmative or declarative rather than as a
   causative. The import of the sentence is this, “Most rare, indeed, is such
   an example to be found among men, that one dies for a just man, though this
   may sometimes happen: but let this be granted, yet for an ungodly man none
   will be found willing to die: this is what Christ has done.” [160] Thus it
   is an illustration, derived from a comparison; for such an example of
   kindness, as Christ has exhibited towards us, does not exist among men.

   8. But God confirms, etc. The verb, sunistēsi, has various meanings; that
   which is most suitable to this place is that of confirming; for it was not
   the Apostle’s object to excite our gratitude, but to strengthen the trust
   and confidence of our souls. He then confirms, that is, exhibits his love to
   us as most certain and complete, inasmuch as for the sake of the ungodly he
   spared not Christ his own Son. In this, indeed, his love appears, that being
   not moved by love on our part, he of his own good will first loved us, as
   John tells us. (1 John 3:16.) — Those are here called sinners, (as in many
   other places,) who are wholly vicious and given up to sin, according to what
   is said in John 9:31, “God hears not sinners,” that is, men abandoned and
   altogether wicked. The woman called “a sinner,” was one of a shameful
   character. (Luke 7:37.) And this meaning appears more evident from the
   contrast which immediately follows, — for being now justified through his
   blood: for since he sets the two in opposition, the one to the other, and
   calls those justified who are delivered from the guilt of sin, it
   necessarily follows that those are sinners who, for their evil deeds, are
   condemned. [161] The import of the whole is, — since Christ has attained
   righteousness for sinner by his death, much more shall he protect them,
   being now justified, from destruction. And in the last clause he applies to
   his own doctrine the comparison between the less and the greater: for it
   would not have been enough for salvation to have been once procured for us,
   were not Christ to render it safe and secure to the end. And this is what
   the Apostle now maintains; so that we ought not to fear, that Christ will
   cut off the current of his favor while we are in the middle of our course:
   for inasmuch as he has reconciled us to the Father, our condition is such,
   that he purposes more efficaciously to put forth and daily to increase his
   favor towards us.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [158] On the argument of this verse, and on what follows to the tenth verse,
   Professor Stuart makes this remark, — “The passage before us seems to be
   more direct, in respect to the perseverance of the saints, than almost any
   other passage in the Scriptures which I can find. The sentiment here is not
   dependent on the form of a particular expression, (as it appears to be in
   some other passages); but it is fundamentally connected with the very nature
   of the argument.” — Ed.

   [159] Others, as well as Calvin, such as Chrysostom and Erasmus, have
   connected kata kairon with the preceding, and not with the following words.
   Pareus, who inclined to the same view, gives this explanation, — “He
   distinguishes the former from the present state, as though he said, ‘We who
   are now justified by faith were formerly ungodly.’” Chrysostom refers to the
   time of the law, and considers the weakness here to be that of man under the
   law. This gives an emphatic meaning to “weak,” which otherwise it seems not
   to have, and is countenanced by what is said in Romans 8:3, where the law is
   said to be weak, but weak on account of the weakness of the flesh. At the
   same time it must be observed, that most commentators, like Beza, connect
   these words, kata kairon, with the death of Christ, as having taken place
   “in due time,” appointed by God, and pre-signified by the prophets,
   according to what is said in Galatians 4:4. — Ed.

   [160] Calvin has omitted what is said of the “good” man; for whom, it is
   said, one would perhaps even dare to die. The “just,” dikaios, is he who
   acts according to what justice requires, and according to what the Rabbins
   say, “What is mine is mine, and what is thine is thine,” שלי שלי ושלך שלך:
   but the “good,” agathos, is the kind, the benevolent, the beneficient,
   called טוב in Hebrew; who is described by Cicero as one who does good to
   those to whom he can, (vir bonus est is, qui prodest quibus potest.) There
   is here an evident contrast between these words and those employed in Romans
   5:6 and 8, to designate the character of those for whom Christ died. The
   just, dikaios, is the opposite of the “ungodly,” asebēs; who, by not
   worshipping and honoring God, is guilty of injustice of the highest kind,
   and in this sense of being unjust it is found in Romans 4:5, where God is
   said to “justify the ungodly,” that is, him who is unjust by withholding
   from God the homage which rightly belongs to him. Phavorinus gives
   athemitos, unlawful, unjust, as one of its meanings. — What forms a contrast
   with “good” is sinner, hamartōlos, which often means wicked, mischievous,
   one given to vice and the doing of evil. Suidas describes hamartōloi as
   those who determine to live in transgression, hoi paranomiaͅ suzōn
   proairoumenoi; and Schleusner gives “scelestus — wicked,” “flagitiosus —
   full of mischief,” as being sometimes its meaning. But the description goes
   farther, for in Romans 5:10 the word “enemies echthroi,” is introduced in
   order to complete the character of those for whom Christ died. They were not
   only “ungodly,” and therefore unjust towards God, and “wicked,” given to all
   evils; but also “enemies,” entertaining hatred to God, and carrying on war,
   as it were, against him. — Ed.

   [161] The meaning given to sunistēsi is not peculiar. It is used with an
   accusative in two senses, — to recommend, to commend, to praise, as in
   Romans 16:1; 2 Corinthians 3:1; 2 Corinthians 5:12; 2 Corinthians 10:12, 18;
   and also, to prove, to demonstrate, to shew, to render manifest or certain,
   and thus to confirm, as in Romans 3:5; 2 Corinthians 6:4; 7:11; Galatians
   2:18; Schleusner refers to this passage as an instance of the latter
   meaning. That God proved, or rendered manifest, or conspicuously shewed, his
   love, seems to be the most suitable idea, as the proof or the evidence is
   stated in the words which follow. The Syriac version gives the sense of
   shewing or proving. Vatablus has “proves” or verifies; Grotius, “renders
   conspicuous,” Beza, “commends,” as our version and Macknight; Doddridge,
   “recommends;” Hodge, “renders conspicuous.” — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:10

   10. For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of
   his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

   10. Si enim quum inimici essemus, reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii
   ejus; multo magis, reconciliati, servabimur per vitam ipsius.

   10. This is an explanation of the former verse, amplified by introducing a
   comparison between life and death. We were enemies, he says, when Christ
   interposed for the purpose of propitiating the Father: through this
   reconciliation we are now friends; since this was effected by his death;
   much more influential and efficacious will be his life. [162] We hence have
   ample proofs to strengthen our hearts with confidence respecting our
   salvation. By saying that we were reconciled to God by the death of Christ,
   he means, that it was the sacrifice of expiation, by which God was pacified
   towards the world, as I have showed in the fourth chapter.

   But the Apostle seems here to be inconsistent with himself; for if the death
   of Christ was a pledge of the divine love towards us, it follows that we
   were already acceptable to him; but he says now, that we were enemies. To
   this answer, that as God hates sin, we are also hated by him his far as we
   are sinners; but as in his secret counsel he chooses us into the body of
   Christ, he ceases to hate us: but restoration to favor is unknown to us,
   until we attain it by faith. Hence with regard to us, we are always enemies,
   until the death of Christ interposes in order to propitiate God. And this
   twofold aspect of things ought to be noticed; for we do not know the
   gratuitous mercy of God otherwise than as it appears from this — that he
   spared not his only-begotten Son; for he loved us at a time when there was
   discord between him and us: nor can we sufficiently understand the benefit
   brought to us by the death of Christ, except this be the beginning of our
   reconciliation with God, that we are persuaded that it is by the expiation
   that has been made, that he, who was before justly angry with us, is now
   propitious to us. Since then our reception into favor is ascribed to the
   death of Christ, the meaning is, that guilt is thereby taken away, to which
   we should be otherwise exposed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [162] “By his life,” the abstract for the concrete; it means, “through him
   being alive,” being at God’s right hand, having every power committed to
   him, and making intercession for us Romans 8:34. “Because I live, ye shall
   live also.” John 14:19. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:11

   11. And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ,
   by whom we have now received the atonement.

   11. Non solum autem, sed etiam gloriamur in Deo per Dominum Iesum Christum,
   per quem nunc reconciliationem accepimus.

   11. And not this only, etc. He now ascends into the highest strain of
   glorying; for when we glory that God is ours, whatever blessings can be
   imagined or wished, ensue and flow from this fountain; for God is not only
   the chief of all good things, but also possesses in himself the sum and
   substance of all blessings; and he becomes ours through Christ. We then
   attain this by faith, — that nothing is wanting to us as to happiness. Nor
   is it in vain that he so often mentions reconciliation: it is, first, that
   we may be taught to fix our eyes on the death of Christ, whenever we speak
   of our salvation; and, secondly, that we may know that our trust must be
   fixed on nothing else, but on the expiation made for our sins.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:12-14

   12. Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin;
   and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

   12. Quamobrem sicut per unum hominem peccatmn in mundum introiit, et per
   peccatum mors; atque ita in omnes homines mors pervagata est. quandoquidem
   omnes peccaverunt:

   13. (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when
   there is no law.

   13. (Nam usque ad legem peccatum erat in mundo; peccatum autem non
   imputatur, quum non est lex:

   14. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had
   not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure
   of him that was to come.

   14. Sed regnavit mors ab Adam usque ad Mosen, etiam in eos qui non
   peccaverunt ad similitudinem prævericationis Adam, qui est figura futuri.

   12 Wherefore as, etc. He now begins to enlarge on the same doctrine, by
   comparing with it what is of an opposite character. For since Christ came to
   redeem us from the calamity into which Adam had fallen, and had precipitated
   all his posterity with him, we cannot see with so much clearness what we
   have in Christ, as by having what we have lost in Adam set before us, though
   all things on both sides are not similar: hence Paul subjoins an exception,
   which we shall notice in its place; and we shall also point out any other
   difference that may occur. The incompleteness of the sentence sometimes
   renders it obscure, as when the second clause, which answers to the former,
   is not expressed. But we shall endeavor to make both plain when we come to
   those parts. [163]

   Sin entered into the world, etc. Observe the order which he keeps here; for
   he says, that sin preceded, and that from sin death followed. There are
   indeed some who contend, that we are so lost through Adam’s sin, as though
   we perished through no fault of our own, but only, because he had sinned for
   us. But Paul distinctly affirms, that sin extends to all who suffer its
   punishment: and this he afterwards more fully declares, when subsequently he
   assigns a reason why all the posterity of Adam are subject to the dominion
   of death; and it is even this — because we have all, he says, sinned. But to
   sin in this case, is to become corrupt and vicious; for the natural
   depravity which we bring, from our mother’s womb, though it brings not forth
   immediately its own fruits, is yet sin before God, and deserves his
   vengeance: and this is that sin which they call original. For as Adam at his
   creation had received for us as well as for himself the gifts of God’s
   favor, so by falling away from the Lord, he in himself corrupted, vitiated,
   depraved, and ruined our nature; for having been divested of God’s likeness,
   he could not have generated seed but what was like himself. Hence we have
   all sinned; for we are all imbued with natural corruption, and so are become
   sinful and wicked. Frivolous then was the gloss, by which formerly the
   Pelagians endeavored to elude the words of Paul, and held, that sin
   descended by imitation from Adam to the whole human race; for Christ would
   in this case become only the exemplar and not the cause of righteousness.
   Besides, we may easily conclude, that he speaks not here of actual sin; for
   if everyone for himself contracted guilt, why did Paul form a comparison
   between Adam and Christ? It then follows that our innate and hereditary
   depravity is what is here referred to. [164]

   13. For until the law, etc. This parenthesis anticipates an objection: for
   as there seems to be no transgression without the law, it might have been
   doubted whether there were before the law any sin: that there was after the
   law admitted of no doubt. The question only refers to the time preceding the
   law. To this then he gives this answer, — that though God had not as yet
   denounced judgment by a written law, yet mankind were under a curse, and
   that from the womb; and hence that they who led a wicked and vicious life
   before the promulgation of the law, were by no means exempt from the
   condemnation of sin; for there had always been some notion of a God, to whom
   honor was due, and there had ever been some rule of righteousness. This view
   is so plain and so clear, that of itself it disproves every opposite notion.

   But sin is not imputed, etc. Without the law reproving us, we in a manner
   sleep in our sins; and though we are not ignorant that we do evil, we yet
   suppress as much as we can the knowledge of evil offered to us, at least we
   obliterate it by quickly forgetting it. While the law reproves and chides
   us, it awakens us as it were by its stimulating power, that we may return to
   the consideration of God’s judgment. The Apostle then intimates that men
   continue in their perverseness when not roused by the law, and that when the
   difference between good and evil is laid aside, they securely and joyfully
   indulge themselves, as if there was no judgment to come. But that before the
   law iniquities were by God imputed to men is evident from the punishment of
   Cain, from the deluge by which the whole world was destroyed, from the fate
   of Sodom, and from the plagues inflicted on Pharaoh and Abimelech on account
   of Abraham, and also from the plagues brought on the Egyptians. That men
   also imputed sin to one another, is clear from the many complaints and
   expostulations by which they charged one another with iniquity, and also
   from the defenses by which they labored to clear themselves from accusations
   of doing wrong. There are indeed many examples which prove that every man
   was of himself conscious of what was evil and of what was good: but that for
   the most part they connived at their own evil deeds, so that they imputed
   nothing as a sin to themselves unless they were constrained. When therefore
   he denies that sin without the law is imputed, he speaks comparatively; for
   when men are not pricked by the goads of the law, they become sunk in
   carelessness. [165]

   But Paul wisely introduced this sentence, in order that the Jews might hence
   more clearly learn how grievously they offended, inasmuch as the law openly
   condemned them; for if they were not exempted from punishment whom God had
   never summoned as guilty before his tribunal, what would become of the Jews
   to whom the law, like a herald, had proclaimed their guilt, yea, on whom it
   denounced judgment? There may be also another reason adduced why he
   expressly says, that sin reigned before the law, but was not imputed, and
   that is, that we may know that the cause of death proceeds not from the law,
   but is only made known by it. Hence he declares, that all became miserably
   lost immediately after the fall of Adam, though their destruction was only
   made manifest by the law. If you translate this adversative de, though, the
   text would run better; for the meaning is, that though men may indulge
   themselves, they cannot yet escape God’s judgment, even when there is no law
   to reprove them.

   Death reigned from Adam, etc. He explains more clearly that it availed men
   nothing that from Adam to the time when the law was promulgated, they led a
   licentious and careless life, while the difference between good and evil was
   willfully rejected, and thus, without the warning of the law, the
   remembrance of sin was buried; yea, that this availed them nothing, because
   sin did yet issue in their condemnation. It hence appears, that death even
   then reigned; for the blindness and obduracy of men could not stifle the
   judgment of God.

   14. Even over them, etc. Though this passage is commonly understood of
   infants, who being guilty of no actual sin, die through original sin, I yet
   prefer to regard it as referring to all those who sinned without the law;
   for this verse is to be connected with the preceding clause, which says,
   that those who were without the law did not impute sin to themselves. Hence
   they sinned not after the similitude of Adam’s transgression; for they had
   not, like him, the will of God made known to them by a certain oracle: for
   the Lord had forbidden Adam to touch the fruit of the tree of the knowledge
   of good and evil; but to them he had given no command besides the testimony
   of conscience. The Apostle then intended to imply, that it did not happen
   through the difference between Adam and his posterity that they were exempt
   from condemnation. Infants are at the same time included in their number.

   Who is a type of him who was to come. This sentence is put instead of a
   second clause; for we see that one part only of the comparison is expressed,
   the other is omitted — an instance of what is called anacoluthon [166] You
   are then to take the meaning as though it was said, “as by one man sin
   entered into the whole world, and death through sin, so by one man
   righteousness returned, and life through righteousness.” But in saying that
   Adam bore a resemblance to Christ, there is nothing incongruous; for some
   likeness often appears in things wholly contrary. As then we are all lost
   through Adam’s sin, so we are restored through Christ’s righteousness: hence
   he calls Adam not inaptly the type of Christ. But observe, that Adam is not,
   said to be the type of sin, nor Christ the type of righteousness, as though
   they led the way only by their example, but that the one is contrasted with
   the other. Observe this, lest you should foolishly go astray with Origen,
   and be involved in a pernicious error; for he reasoned philosophically and
   profanely on the corruption of mankind, and not only diminished the grace of
   Christ, but nearly obliterated it altogether. The less excusable is Erasmus,
   who labors much in palliating a notion so grossly delirious.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [163] The beginning of this verse has occasioned a vast number of
   conjectures, both as to the connection and as to the corresponding clause to
   the first sentence. Most agree in the main with Calvin on these two points.
   Hodge announces a similar view as to the connection in these words, — “The
   idea of men being regarded and treated, not according to their own merits,
   but the merit of another, is contrary to the common mode of thinking among
   men. The Apostle illustrates and enforces it by an appeal to the great
   analogous fact in the history of the world.” As to the corresponding clause,
   that it is found in the 18^th verse, there is a common consent, — Pareus,
   Willet, Grotius, Doddridge, Scott, Stuart, Chalmers, etc.; the intervening
   verses are viewed as parenthetic. The phrase, dia touto, and also dio and
   oun, are sometimes used anticipatively as well as retrospectively, as their
   corresponding particles are often in Hebrew. See [3]note on Romans 2:1. That
   Paul uses dia touto in this way appears evident from Romans 4:16; Romans
   13:6; 1 Corinthians 11:10. It anticipates here, as I think, what is
   afterwards expressed by eph hō, as in Romans 4:16, by hina, in Romans 13:6,
   by gar, and in 1 Corinthians 11:10, by dia before angels. Then the meaning
   of the verse would be conveyed by the following rendering, — 12. For this
   reason — as through one man sin entered into the world, and through sin
   death, even so death came on all men, because all have sinned. According to
   this view, the corresponding clause is in the verse itself. The sentiment of
   the passage is this, — through one man sin entered and death followed; and
   death followed as to all mankind, because all had sinned. Then, according to
   his usual manner, the Apostle takes up the last subject, “sin,” issuing in
   the death of all; and at the end of the Romans 5:14 he goes back to “the one
   man,” Adam, who he says was a type of another: and this sentence is made the
   text of what follows till the end of the Romans 5:19. Having before referred
   to the state of things before the “law,” in the two remaining verses he
   refers to the bearing of the law on his subject, and shows that there is in
   Christ an abundant provision for the increase of sin occasioned by the law.
   So abundant is grace that it is fully sufficient to remove original sin,
   actual sins — its fruits, and the sins discovered by the law, and by its
   means increased and enhanced. Hence superabundance is ascribed to it. — Ed.

   [164] The particles eph ō, at the end of this verse, have been variously
   rendered, without much change in the meaning. “In quo — in which,” i.e.,
   sin, Augustine; “in quo — in whom,” i.e., man, Chrysostom and Beza; “per
   quem — by or through whom,” Grotius; “propterea quod,” vel, “quia,” vel,
   “quoniam — because,” Luther, Pareus, and Raphelius; which is the same with
   that of Calvin See Matthew 26:50; 2 Corinthians 5:4; Philippians 3:12
   Wolfius quotes a singular passage from a Jewish Rabbi, Moses Tranensis, “In
   the sin which the first man sinned, the whole world through him (or in him,
   בו) sinned: for he was every man, or all mankind — כי זה כל אדם.” The idea
   is exactly the same with that of the Apostle. “There are three things,” says
   Pareus, “which are to be considered in Adam’s sin, — the sinful act, the
   penalty of the law, and the depravity of nature; or in other words, the
   transgression of the command, the punishment of death, and natural
   corruption, which was the loss of God’s image, and in its stead came
   deformity and disorder. From none of these his posterity are free, but all
   these have descended to them; there is a participation of the transgression,
   an imputation of guilt, and the propagation of natural depravity. There is a
   participation of the sin; for all his posterity were seminally in his loins,
   so that all sinned in his sin, as Levi paid tithes in the loins of Abraham;
   and as children are a part of their parents, so children are in a manner
   partakers of their parents’ sin. There is also an imputation of guilt, for
   the first man so stood in favor, that when he sinned, not only he, but also
   all his posterity fell with him, and became with him subject to eternal
   death. And lastly, there is the propagation or the generation of a dreadful
   deformity of nature; for such as Adam became after the fall, such were the
   children he begat, being after his own image, and not after the image of
   God. Genesis 5:1. All these things, as to the first sin, apply to the parent
   and also to the children, with only this difference — that Adam sinning
   first transgressed, first contracted guilt, and first depraved his nature,
   — and that all these things belong to his posterity by participation,
   imputation, and propagation.” Both Stuart and Barnes stumble here; and
   though they denounce theorizing, and advocate adherence to the language of
   Scripture, they do yet theorize and attempt to evade the plain and obvious
   meaning of this passage. But in trying to avoid one difficulty, they make
   for themselves another still greater. The penalty, or the imputation of
   guilt, they admit; which is indeed undeniable, as facts, as well as
   Scripture, most clearly prove: but the participation they deny, though words
   could hardly be framed to express it more distinctly than the words of this
   verse; and thus, according to their view, a punishment is inflicted without
   a previous implication in an offense; while the Scriptural account of the
   matter is, according to what Calvin states, that “sin extends to all who
   suffer its punishment,” though he afterwards explains this in a way that is
   not altogether consistent. — Ed.

   [165] This verse, as bearing on the argument, maybe viewed rather
   differently. This and the following verse contain an explanation or an
   illustration of the last, Romans 5:12. He states in this verse two things: a
   fact and a general principle; the fact is, that sin, the first sin in its
   evident effects, (for he speaks throughout of no other sin, as to Adam, or
   as producing death,) was in the world before the law of Moses was given; and
   the general principle he avows is, that no sin is imputed where there is no
   law. Having made this last admission, he proceeds in the Romans 5:14 to say,
   that “nevertheless,” or notwithstanding, death, the effect of sin, prevailed
   in the world, and prevailed even as to those who did not actually or
   personally sin as Adam did. He takes no account of personal sins, for his
   object was to show the effects of the first sin. And then he says, that in
   is respect Adam was a kind of type, a figure, a representative of Christ who
   was to come; and in the three verses which follow, Romans 5:15, 16, and 17,
   he traces the similitude between the two, pointing out at the same time the
   difference, which in every instance is in favor of the last Adam. That tupos
   signifies here likeness and not identity, is quite certain, whatever may be
   its common meaning because its import is exemplified and illustrated in the
   verses which follow. — Ed.

   [166] Anakolouthon, not consequent: a figure in grammar when a word or a
   clause, required by a former one, is not put down. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:15

   15. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the
   offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by
   grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

   15. Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum; nam si unius delicto [167] multi
   mortui sunt, multo magis gratia Dei et donum Dei in gratia, quæ fuit unius
   hominis Christi, in multos abundavit.

   15. But not as the offense, etc. Now follows the rectifying or the
   completion of the comparison already introduced. The Apostle does not,
   however, very minutely state the points of difference between Christ and
   Adam, but he obviates errors into which we might otherwise easily fall, and
   what is needful for an explanation we shall add. Though he mentions
   oftentimes a difference, yet there are none of these repetitions in which
   there is not a want of a corresponding clause, or in which there is not at
   least an ellipsis. Such instances are indeed defects in a discourse; but
   they are not prejudicial to the majesty of that celestial wisdom which is
   taught us by the Apostle; it has, on the contrary, so happened through the
   providence of God, that the highest mysteries have been delivered to us in
   the garb of an humble style, [168] in order that our faith may not depend on
   the potency of human eloquence, but on the efficacious working of the Spirit
   alone.

   He does not indeed even now expressly supply the deficiency of the former
   sentence, but simply teaches us, that there is a greater measure of grace
   procured by Christ, than of condemnation introduced by the first man. What
   some think, that the Apostle carries on here a chain of reasoning, I know
   not whether it will be deemed by all sufficiently evident. It may indeed be
   justly inferred, that since the fall of Adam had such an effect as to
   produce the ruin of many, much more efficacious is the grace of God to the
   benefit of many; inasmuch as it is admitted, that Christ is much more
   powerful to save, than Adam was to destroy. But as they cannot be disproved,
   who wish to take the passage without this inference, I am willing that they
   should choose either of these views; though what next follows cannot be
   deemed an inference, yet it is of the same meaning. It is hence probable,
   that Paul rectifies, or by way of exception modifies, what he had said of
   the likeness between Christ and Adam.

   But observe, that a larger number (plures) are not here contrasted with many
   (multis,) for he speaks not of the number of men: but as the sin of Adam has
   destroyed many, he draws this conclusion, — that the righteousness of Christ
   will be no less efficacious to save many. [169]

   When he says, by the offense of one, etc., understand him as meaning this,
   — that corruption has from him descended to us: for we perish not through
   his fault, as though we were blameless; but as his sin is the cause of our
   sin, Paul ascribes to him our ruin: our sin I call that which is implanted
   in us, and with which we are born.

   The grace of God and the gift of God through grace, etc. Grace is properly
   set in opposition to offense; the gift which proceeds from grace, to death.
   Hence grace means the free goodness of God or gratuitous love, of which he
   has given us a proof in Christ, that he might relieve our misery: and gift
   is the fruit of this mercy, and hath come to us, even the reconciliation by
   which we have obtained life and salvation, righteousness, newness of life,
   and every other blessing. We hence see how absurdly the schoolmen have
   defined grace, who have taught that it is nothing else but a quality infused
   into the hearts of men: for grace, properly speaking, is in God; and what is
   in us is the effect of grace. And he says, that it is by one man; for the
   Father has made him the fountain out of whose fullness all must draw. And
   thus he teaches us, that not even the least drop of life can be found out of
   Christ, — that there is no other remedy for our poverty and want, than what
   he conveys to us from his own abundance.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [167] Delicto — fault, paraptōma — stumbling, fall, transgression. Perhaps
   the last would be the best word here. It is rendered sometimes in the plural
   number “trespasses,” Matthew 18:35; 2 Corinthians 5:19; Ephesians 2:1
   Macknight renders it here “fall,” but most “offense.” The comparison here is
   between the sin of one, which produced death, and the grace of God through
   one, which brings the “gift” of life; and the difference, “much more,” seems
   to refer to the exuberance of grace by which man is to be raised to a higher
   state than that from which Adam fell. “A little lower than the angels” was
   man in his first creation; he is by exuberance of grace to be raised to a
   state as high as that of angels, if not higher; or we may take “much more”
   as intimating the greater power of grace to recover than sin to destroy. Sin
   is the act of man, and issued in death; but grace is the act of God, and
   will therefore with greater certainty issue in life. “Adam’s life after his
   fall was even as a slow dying, that reached its completion in his physical
   death; Christ’s zōopoiēsis of mankind is also gradual, the height of which
   is in the glorification of the body.” — Olshausen

   [168] “Sub contemptibili verborum humilitate.” This sort of derogatory
   language as to the style of Scripture, Calvin had evidently learnt from the
   fathers. Chrysostom and Jerome did sometimes say most unwarrantable things
   in this respect, and that in a great measure because they did not understand
   the style of the New Testament, and in part with the view of taking away, by
   an admission, the force of objections alleged by admirers of Grecian and
   refined diction. The style of the New Testament is that of the Old; and
   hardly any of the fathers, except Origen and Jerome knew Hebrew, and the
   latter learnt it only in his old age, so that he could have had no great
   insight into its peculiarities. One like Chrysostom brought up in the
   refinements of Grecian literature, was a very unfit judge of the style of
   the New Testament, and hence it is that the criticisms of the Greek fathers
   in general are comparatively of very little value. The whole of this
   passage, 12-19, is constructed according to the model of the Hebrew style;
   and when rightly understood, it will appear to contain none of those defects
   ascribed to it. — Ed.

   [169] It is evident that is the many hoi polloi, include those connected
   with the two parties — the many descendants of Adam, and the many believers
   in Christ. And “the many” was adopted to form a contrast with the “one.”
   “The many” are termed “all” in verse Romans 5:18, and again, “the many,” in
   Romans 5:19. They are called “the many” and “all” alike with regard both to
   Adam and to Christ. Some maintain that the terms are coextensive in the two
   instances. That the whole race of man is meant in the one instances cannot
   be doubted: and is there any reason why the whole race of man should not be
   included in the second? Most clearly there is. The Apostle speaks of Adam
   and his posterity, and also of Christ and his people, or those “who receive
   abundance of grace,” or, “are made righteous;” and “the many” and the
   “all” are evidently those who belong to each separately. In no other way can
   the words with any consistency be understood. All who fell in Adam do not
   certainly “receive abundance of grace,” and are not “made righteous.” And it
   is not possible, as Professor Hodge observes, “so to eviscerate such
   declarations as these, as to make them to contain nothing more than that the
   chance of salvation is offered to all men.” This is indeed contrary to
   evident facts. Nor can they mean, that a way of acceptance has been opened,
   which is suitable to all; for though this is true, it yet cannot be the
   meaning here. Hence “the many” and the “all,” as to Adam, are all his
   descendants; and “the many” and the “all,” as to Christ, are those who
   believe. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:16

   16. And not as it was by one that sinned, [170] so is the gift: for the
   judgement was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences
   unto justification.

   16. Et non sicut per unum qui peccaverat, ita donum; judicium enim ex uno in
   condemationem, donum autem ex multis delictis in justificationem.

   16. This is especially an explanation of what he had said before, — that by
   one offense guilt issued in the condemnation of us all, but that grace, or
   rather the gratuitous gift, is efficacious to our justification from many
   offenses. It is indeed an expansion of what the last verse contains; for he
   had not hitherto expressed, how or in what respect Christ excelled Adam.
   This difference being settled, it appears evident, that their opinion is
   impious, who have taught that we recover nothing else by Christ but a
   freedom from original sin, or the corruption derived from Adam. Observe
   also, that these many offenses, from which he affirms we are freed through
   Christ, are not to be understood only of those which every one must have
   committed before baptism, but also of those by which the saints contract
   daily new guilt; and on account of which they would be justly exposed to
   condemnation, were they not continually relieved by this grace.

   He sets gift in opposition to judgment: by the latter he means strict
   justice; by the former, gratuitous pardon. From strict justice comes
   condemnation; from pardon, absolution. Or, which is the same thing, were God
   to deal with us according to justice, we should be all undone; but he
   justifies us freely in Christ.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [170] Many copies have hamartēmatos — sin; but it is a reading deemed by
   Griesbach of less authority than the received text, hamartēsantos — sinning:
   yet there being good MSS. in its favor, and several versions, especially the
   Syriac and the Vulgate, and the passage requiring it, this reading is to be
   preferred. Then the rendering would be the following, — And not as through
   one sin, is the free gift — (dōrēma;) for judment was indeed from one sin to
   condemnation, but the free favor (charisma) is from many trespasses to
   justification. It is the character of the Apostle’s style to change his
   words, while the same idea is often intended. The comparison here is between
   the one sin which issued in condemnation, and the many trespasses or
   offenses, from which a justification is the favor obtained. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 5:17

   17. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which
   receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in
   life by one, Jesus Christ.) [171]

   17. Si enin unius delicto mors regnavit per unum; multo magis qui
   exuberantiam gratiæ et doni justitiæ acceperunt, in vita regnabunt per unum
   Iesum Christum.)

   17. For if the offense of one, etc. He again subjoins a general explanation,
   on which he dwells still further; for it was by no means his purpose to
   explain every part of the subject, but to state the main points. He had
   before declared, that the power of grace had surpassed that of sin: and by
   this he consoles and strengthens the faithful, and, at the same time,
   stimulates and encourages them to meditate on the benignity of God. Indeed
   the design of so studious a repetition was, — that the grace of God might be
   worthily set forth, that men might be led from self-confidence to trust in
   Christ, that having obtained his grace they might enjoy full assurance; and
   hence at length arises gratitude. The sum of the whole is this — that Christ
   surpasses Adam; the sin of one is overcome by the righteousness of the
   other; the curse of one is effaced by the grace of the other; from one,
   death has proceeded, which is absorbed by the life which the other bestows.

   But the parts of this comparison do not correspond; instead of adding, “the
   gift of life shall more fully reign and flourish through the exuberance of
   grace,” he says, that “the faithful shall reign;” which amounts to the same
   thing; for the reign of the faithful is in life, and the reign of life is in
   the faithful.

   It may further be useful to notice here the difference between Christ and
   Adam, which the Apostle omitted, not because he deemed it of no importance,
   but unconnected with his present subject.

   The first is, that by Adam’s sin we are not condemned through imputation
   alone, as though we were punished only for the sin of another; but we suffer
   his punishment, because we also ourselves are guilty; for as our nature is
   vitiated in him, it is regarded by God as having committed sin.