This blessedness then, doth it remain in the circumcision only, or in the uncircumcision also? For we say that unto Abraham faith was reputed to justice.

“For now the subject of enquiry is, With whom is this good and great thing to be found; is it with the circumcision or with the uncircumcision? And notice its superiority! For he shows that it is so far from shunning the uncircumcision, that it even dwelt gladly with it before the circumcision. For since he that pronounced it blessed was David, who was himself also in a state of circumcision, and he was speaking to those in that state, see how eagerly Paul contends for applying what he said to the uncircumcised. For after joining the ascription of blessedness to righteousness, and showing that they are one and the same thing, he enquires how Abraham came to be righteous. For if the ascription of blessedness belong to the righteous, and Abraham was made righteous, let us see how he was made righteous, as uncircumcised or circumcised? Uncircumcised, he says. "For we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness." After mentioning the Scripture above (for he said, "What saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness,") here he goes on to secure also the judgment of the speakers, and shows that justification took place in the uncircumcision. Then from these grounds he solves another objection which is starting up. For if when in uncircumcision, one might say he was justified, to what purpose was the circumcision brought in?”

“After the Apostle excluded the glory of the Jews which they had in the law, by which they preferred themselves to the Gentiles, here he excludes their glory as regards circumcision. And concerning this he does two things. First he resumes the question which he had proposed above, saying, What is the profit of circumcision? And because Abraham was the first to receive the commandment concerning circumcision, as is said in Genesis 17:10, therefore he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: if it is so that God justifies the uncircumcision just as He justifies circumcision, what then shall we say that Abraham our father found according to the flesh? That is, according to carnal circumcision and according to the other carnal observances? It seems to be unfitting if it should be said that he found no profit, since it is said in Isaiah 47:17: "I am the Lord teaching you profitable things." Second, where he says "For if Abraham," etc., he responds to the question proposed. And he does two things. First he shows that Abraham did not find this through circumcision and the other works of the law, namely that he should be justified by it, but rather through faith. Second he commends his faith, where he says "who against hope," etc. Concerning the first he does two things. First he shows the proposition by an argument taken from the side of the divine acceptance; second, by an argument from the divine promise, where he says "For not through the law," etc. Concerning the first he does three things. First he proposes a certain conditional; second he proves the destruction of the consequent, where he says "For what does Scripture say," etc. Third, he proves the conditional itself, where he says "as also David," etc. Concerning the first part, the Apostle intends to argue thus: if Abraham had been justified by the works of the law, he would not have glory before God; therefore he was not justified by works. He proposes therefore a conditional, saying: it was asked what Abraham found according to carnal circumcision, and it is manifest that he did not find this — that he should be justified by the works of the law — in the sense, namely, that his justice should consist in the works of the law; he has glory indeed, namely before men, who see external deeds, but not before God, who sees in secret, according to that saying in 1 Kings 16:7: "But God looks upon the heart." 1 Corinthians 3:21: "Let no one of you glory in men," etc. Whence against certain ones it is said in John 12:43: "They loved the glory of men more than the glory of God." But against this it can be objected, because from the habit of external works an interior disposition is generated, according to which even the heart of man is well disposed, so that it is prompt for acting well and delights in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Book II of the Ethics. But it must be said that this holds in human justice, by which, namely, man is ordered to a human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which has glory before God is ordered to the divine good, namely of future glory, which exceeds human capacity, according to that saying in 1 Corinthians 2:9: "Into the heart of man there has not ascended what God has prepared for those who love Him." And therefore the works of man are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice, but it is necessary that the heart of man first be justified interiorly by God, so that he may perform works proportioned to the divine glory. Then, where he says "For what," etc., he destroys the consequent which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmation, namely that Abraham had glory before God. And this he proves through the authority of Scripture, which the Apostle first sets down; second he expounds it, where he says "But to him," etc. He says therefore first: I say Abraham to be so justified that he has glory before God — for what does Scripture say? Genesis 15:6: Abraham believed God promising him the multiplication of his seed. Ecclesiasticus 2:6: "Believe God, and He will recover you." "And it was reputed to him," namely by God, "unto justice." 1 Maccabees 2:52: "Abraham was found faithful in temptation." And thus it is clear that before God, by whom it was reputed to him unto justice that he believed, he has glory. It must be considered, however, that the justice which God reputes as written, He expressed not in some external work, but in the interior faith of the heart, which God alone beholds. Now since it is said that the act of faith is threefold, namely to believe God, to believe in God, and to believe unto God, he set down this act which is to believe God, which is the proper act of faith, showing its species. For to believe in God shows the order of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe in God is, by believing, to go into God, which charity effects. And thus it follows upon the species of faith. But to believe God shows the matter of faith, according as it is a theological virtue, having God for its object. And therefore this act does not yet attain to the species of faith, because if someone should believe that God exists through certain human reasonings and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we speak, but only when from this very reason he believes that it was said by God — which is designated by saying "to believe God"; and from this faith is specified, just as any cognitive habit has its species from the reason by which it assents to something. For one having the habit of science is inclined to assent by one reason, namely through demonstration, and one having the habit of opinion by another reason, namely through dialectical syllogism. Then, where he says "But to him who works," etc., he expounds the aforesaid authority as to what it says, "it was reputed to him unto justice," etc. And a twofold exposition of these words is touched upon in the Gloss. The first is according as they are referred to the final reward, concerning which it is shown first how it stands with respect to works, second how it stands with respect to faith, where he says "But to him who does not," etc. He says therefore first, that to him who works — namely, works of justice — the reward, of eternal recompense, concerning which it is said in Isaiah 40:10: "Behold, his reward is with him," is not reputed according to grace only, but according to debt, according to that saying in Matthew 20:13: "Did you not agree with me for a denarius?" But against this is what is said below in 6:23: "the grace of God is eternal life." And below in 8:18: "the sufferings of this time are not worthy to be compared to the glory to come." Thus therefore that recompense is not made according to debt, but according to grace. But it must be said that human works can be considered in two ways. In one way according to the substance of the works, and thus they have nothing condign, such that the reward of eternal glory should be rendered to them. In another way they can be considered according to their principle, namely as they are done from the impulse of God according to the purpose of God predestining; and according to this the aforesaid reward is owed to them according to debt, because, as is said below in 8:14: "those who are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God; but if sons, also heirs." Then, where he says "But to him," etc., he shows how the eternal reward stands with respect to faith, saying: "But to him who does not work" — namely, external works, for instance because he does not have time to work, as is clear in one baptized who dies immediately — "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly," namely, in God, of whom it is said below, 8:18, "his faith is reputed" — namely alone, without external works — "unto justice," that is, so that by it he may be called just, and may receive the reward of justice, just as if he had done works of justice, according to that saying below, 10:10: "with the heart one believes unto justice," and this "according to the purpose of the grace of God," that is, according as God purposes from His grace to save men. Below, 8:28: "to those who according to His purpose are called saints." Ephesians 1:11: "who works all things according to the counsel of His will." The other exposition is that this be referred to the justification of man. He says therefore "but to him who works," that is, if someone should be justified by works, justice itself would be imputed as a reward not according to grace, but according to debt. Below, 11:6: "But if by grace, now it is not of works; otherwise grace is no longer grace." "But to him who does not work" — namely, so as to be justified by his own works — "but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly" — this faith of his shall be computed unto justice according to the purpose of the grace of God — not indeed so that by faith he merits justice, but because the very act of believing is the first act of justice which God works in him. For from the fact that he believes in God justifying, he subjects himself to His justification, and thus receives its effect. And this exposition is the literal one, and according to the intention of the Apostle, who lays stress on this, that in Genesis 15:6 it is said "it was reputed to him unto justice," which is customarily said when that which is less on someone's part is reputed to him gratis, as if he had done the whole. And therefore the Apostle says that this reputation would have no place, if justice were from works, but it has place only insofar as it is from faith. Then, where he says "as also David," etc., he proves the conditional premised, from the authority of the Psalm. Of which he first sets forth the sense; second he sets down its words, where he says "Blessed are they whose"; third he excludes a false understanding, where he says "the blessedness," etc. He says therefore: as also David says, that is, asserts, the blessedness of man to be that of him, namely, to whom God brings, that is gives, justice, received — that is, freely, without preceding works. Titus 3:5: "For not by works of justice which we have done." Now the blessedness of man is from God, according to that saying in Psalm 39:5: "Blessed is the man whose hope the Lord God is." Thus therefore it is manifest that he has glory before God who is not justified from the works of the law, as has been said. Then, where he says "Blessed are they whose," etc., he sets down the words of David containing the aforesaid statement, and says that they are blessed whose sins are forgiven. And thus it is clear that they did not have prior good works from which they might obtain justice or blessedness. Now sin is threefold, namely original, actual mortal, and actual venial. First therefore, as to original sin, he says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven." Here it must be considered that original sin is called iniquity, because it is a lack of original justice, by which, according to equity, the reason of man was subjected to God, the lower powers to reason, and the body to the soul; but through original sin this equity is taken away, because after reason ceased to be subject to God, the lower powers rebel against reason and the body is withdrawn from the obedience of the soul through corruption and death. Whence in Psalm 50:7: "Behold, for I was conceived in iniquities." In both cases, moreover, original sin is signified in the plural. Either because of the many men in whom original sin is multiplied, or rather because it virtually contains in itself, as it were, all sins. This kind of original sin, moreover, is said to be forgiven, because the guilt passes away when grace supervenes, but it remains in act, the tinder or concupiscence remaining, which is not wholly taken away in this life, but is remitted, or mitigated. Second, as to actual mortal sin, he says: "and whose sins are covered." Now sins are said to be covered from the divine sight, insofar as He does not look upon them so as to punish them. Psalm 84:3: "You have covered all their sins." Third, as to venial sin, he says: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin," so that by "sin" venial sins are understood, which, although they are light, nevertheless through many of them man is separated and removed far from God. 2 Chronicles 30:18-19: "The good Lord will be merciful to all who seek Him with their whole heart, and it shall not be imputed to them that they are less holy." These three, moreover, can also be distinguished otherwise. For in sin there are three things, of which one is the offense against God, and as to this he says: "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," according as man is said to forgive an offense done to him. Isaiah 40:2: "Her iniquity is forgiven." Another is the disordered act itself of the fault, which cannot not have been done once it has been perpetrated, but it is covered by the hand of divine mercy, so that it is held as if not done. Third, indeed, is the guilt of punishment, and as to this he says: "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord has not imputed sin," namely, unto punishment. Then, where he says "The blessedness therefore," etc., he excludes a false understanding of the aforesaid authority. For a Jew could understand it thus, that the aforesaid grace of the remission of sins would not come about except to the circumcised. To exclude this, therefore, first the Apostle raises the question, saying: "this blessedness," namely, by which God gives justice without works, "does it remain only in the circumcision," that is, does it have place only in the circumcised, "or also in the uncircumcision," that is, in the Gentiles? It is manifest that it is in both, according to that which he says below, 10:10: "the same Lord is rich unto all," etc. Second, where he says "For we say," he assumes, to show this, the authority of Scripture, as if he should say, I ask this for this reason: "for we say," etc., that "faith was reputed to Abraham unto justice," Genesis 15:6. Third, from this authority he concludes the solution of the aforesaid question, yet under a question, saying: "How then was it reputed?" Namely, the faith of Abraham unto justice, "in circumcision," that is, when he was circumcised, "or in uncircumcision," that is, when he was uncircumcised? And he answers: "not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision." And this is manifest from the sequence of the narrative of Scripture. For in Genesis 15:6 it is read that faith was reputed to Abraham unto justice, but he is read to have received circumcision in Genesis 17:23. If therefore Abraham, while still existing uncircumcised, was justified through faith, it is manifest that the justice of faith, by which sins are freely remitted, is not only in circumcision, but also in uncircumcision, that is, in gentility.”

“St. Paul observes in this paragraph when and why Abraham was thus justified; for he has several things to remark upon that. It was before he was circumcised, and before the giving of the law; and there was a reason for both. I. It was before he was circumcised, Rom 4:10. His faith was counted to him for righteousness while he was in uncircumcision. It was imputed, Gen 15:6, and he was not circumcised till ch. 17. Abraham is expressly said to be justified by faith fourteen years, some say twenty-five years, before he was circumcised. Now this the apostle takes notice of in answer to the question (Rom 4:9), Cometh this blessedness then on the circumcision only, or on the uncircumcision also? Abraham was pardoned and accepted in uncircumcision, a circumstance which, as it might silence the fears of the poor uncircumcised Gentiles, so it might lower the pride and conceitedness of the Jews, who gloried in their circumcision, as if they had the monopoly of all happiness. Here are two reasons why Abraham was justified by faith in uncircumcision: - 1. That circumcision might be a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom 4:11. The tenour of the covenants must first be settled before the seal can be annexed. Sealing supposes a previous bargain, which is confirmed and ratified by that ceremony. After Abraham's justification by faith had continued several years only a grant by parole, for the confirmation of Abraham's faith God was pleased to appoint a sealing ordinance, and Abraham received it; though it was a bloody ordinance, yet he submitted to it, and even received it as a special favour, the sign of circumcision, etc. Now we may hence observe, (1.) The nature of sacraments in general: they are signs and seals - signs to represent and instruct, seals to ratify and confirm. They are signs of absolute grace and favour; they are seals of the conditional promises; nay, they are mutual seals: God does in the sacraments seal to us to be to us a God, and we do therein seal to him to be to him a people. (2.) The nature of circumcision in particular: it was the initiating sacrament of the Old Testament; and it is here said to be, [1.] A sign - a sign of that original corruption which we are all born with, and which is cut off by spiritual circumcision, - a commemorating sign of God's covenant with Abraham, - a distinguishing sign between Jews and Gentiles, - a sign of admission into the visible church, - a sign prefiguring baptism, which comes in the room of circumcision, now under the gospel, when (the blood of Christ being shed) all bloody ordinances are abolished; it was an outward and sensible sign of an inward and spiritual grace signified thereby. [2.] A seal of the righteousness of the faith. In general, it was a seal of the covenant of grace, particularly of justification by faith - the covenant of grace, called the righteousness which is of faith (Rom 10:6), and it refers to an Old Testament promise, Deu 30:12. Now if infants were then capable of receiving a seal of the covenant of grace, which proves that they then were within the verge of that covenant, how they come to be now cast out of the covenant and incapable of the seal, and by what severe sentence they were thus rejected and incapacitated, those are concerned to make out that not only reject, but nullify and reproach, the baptism of the seed of believers. 2. That he might be the father of all those that believe. Not but that there were those that were justified by faith before Abraham; but of Abraham first it is particularly observed, and in him commenced a much clearer and fuller dispensation of the covenant of grace than any that had been before extant; and there he is called the father of all that believe, because he was so eminent a believer, and so eminently justified by faith, as Jabal was the father of shepherds and Jubal of musicians, Gen 4:20, Gen 4:21. The father of all those that believe; that is, a standing pattern of faith, as parents are examples to their children; and a standing precedent of justification by faith, as the liberties, privileges, honours, and estates, of the fathers descend to their children. Abraham was the father of believers, because to him particularly the magna charta was renewed. (1.) The father of believing Gentiles, though they be not circumcised. Zaccheus, a publican, if he believe, is reckoned a son of Abraham, Luk 19:9. Abraham being himself uncircumcised when he was justified by faith, uncircumcision can never be a bar. Thus were the doubts and fears of the poor Gentiles anticipated and no room left to question but that righteousness might be imputed to them also, Col 3:11; Gal 5:6. (2.) The father of believing Jews, not merely as circumcised, and of the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, but because believers, because they are not of the circumcision only (that is, are not only circumcised), but walk in the steps of that faith - have not only the sign, but the thing signified - not only are of Abraham's family, but follow the example of Abraham's faith. See here who are the genuine children and lawful successors of those that were the church's fathers: not those that sit in their chairs, and bear their names, but those that tread in their steps; this is the line of succession, which holds, notwithstanding interruptions. It seems, then, those were most loud and forward to call Abraham father that had least title to the honours and privileges of his children. Thus those have most reason to call Christ Father, not that bear his name in being Christians in profession, but that tread in his steps. II. It was before the giving of the law, Rom 4:13-16. The former observation is levelled against those that confined justification to the circumcision, this against those that expected it by the law; now the promise was made to Abraham long before the law. Compare Gal 3:17, Gal 3:18. Now observe, 1. What that promise was - that he should be the heir of the world, that is, of the land of Canaan, the choicest spot of ground in the world, - or the father of many nations of the world, who sprang from him, besides the Israelites, - or the heir of the comforts of the life which now is. The meek are said to inherit the earth, and the world is theirs. Though Abraham had so little of the world in possession, yet he was heir of it all. Or, rather, it points at Christ, the seed here mentioned; compare Gal 3:16, To thy seed, which is Christ. Now Christ is the heir of the world, the ends of the earth are his possession, and it is in him that Abraham was so. And it refers to that promise (Gen 12:3), In thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed. 2. How it was made to him: Not through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. Not through the law, for that was not yet given: but it was upon that believing which was counted to him for righteousness; it was upon his trusting God, in his leaving his own country when God commanded him, Heb 11:8. Now, being by faith, it could not be by the law, which he proves by the opposition there is between them (Rom 4:14, Rom 4:15): If those who are of the law be heirs; that is, those, and those only, and they by virtue of the law (the Jews did, and still do, boast that they are the rightful heirs of the world, because to them the law was given), then faith is made void; for, if it were requisite to an interest in the promise that there should be a perfect performance of the whole law, then the promise can never take its effect, nor is it to any purpose for us to depend upon it, since the way to life by perfect obedience to the law, and spotless sinless innocency, is wholly blocked up, and the law in itself opens no other way. This he proves, Rom 4:15. The law worketh wrath - wrath in us to God; it irritates and provokes that carnal mind which is enmity to God, as the damming up of a stream makes it swell - wrath in God against us. It works this, that is, it discovers it, or our breach of the law works it. Now it is certain that we can never expect the inheritance by a law that worketh wrath. How the law works wrath he shows very concisely in the latter part of the verse: Where no law is there is no transgression, an acknowledged maxim, which implies, Where there is a law there is transgression and that transgression is provoking, and so the law worketh wrath. 3. Why the promise was made to him by faith; for three reasons, Rom 4:16. (1.) That it might be by grace, that grace might have the honour of it; by grace, and not by the law; by grace, and not of debt, nor of merit; that Grace, grace, might be cried to every stone, especially to the top-stone, in this building. Faith hath particular reference to grace granting, as grace hath reference to faith receiving. By grace, and therefore through faith, Eph 2:8. For God will have every crown thrown at the feet of grace, free grace, and every song in heaven sung to that tune, Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us, but unto thy name be the praise. (2.) That the promise might be sure. The first covenant, being a covenant of works, was not sure: but, through man's failure, the benefits designed by it were cut off; and therefore, the more effectually to ascertain and ensure the conveyance of the new covenant, there is another way found out, not by works (were it so, the promise would not be sure, because of the continual frailty and infirmity of the flesh), but by faith, which receives all from Christ, and acts in a continual dependence upon him, as the great trustee of our salvation, and in whose keeping it is safe. The covenant is therefore sure, because it is so well ordered in all things, Sa2 23:5. (3.) That it might be sure to all the seed. If it had been by the law, it had been limited to the Jews, to whom pertained the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law (Rom 9:4); but therefore it was by faith that Gentiles as well as Jews might become interested in it, the spiritual as well as the natural seed of faithful Abraham. God would contrive the promise in such a way as might make it most extensive, to comprehend all true believers, that circumcision and uncircumcision might break no squares; and for this (Rom 4:17) he refers us to Gen 17:5, where the reason of the change of his name from Abram - a high father, to Abraham - the high father of a multitude, is thus rendered: For a father of many nations have I made thee; that is, all believers, both before and since the coming of Christ in the flesh, should take Abraham for their pattern, and call him father. The Jews say Abraham was the father of all proselytes to the Jewish religion. Behold, he is the father of all the world, which are gathered under the wings of the Divine Majesty. - Maimonides.”

“How was it then reckoned?.... The Arabic version adds, "and when"; and the Ethiopic version reads it, "when was Abraham justified?" expressing the sense, not the words of the original text, with which agree the following questions: when he was in circumcision, or in uncircumcision? that is, was he justified, or his faith reckoned to him for righteousness, when he was a circumcised, or an uncircumcised person? not in circumcision; or when he was circumcised; for when it was said of him, that "he believed in the Lord", and "he counted it to him for righteousness", Gen 15:6, he was then uncircumcised, and remained so many years after: for this was before the birth of Ishmael, and Ishmael was "thirteen" years of age when he and his father Abraham were circumcised; so that it must be "fourteen" years, or thereabout, before his circumcision, that this declaration of his being a justified person was made; wherefore the apostle rightly adds, but in uncircumcision; or whilst an uncircumcised person: hence it clearly appears that circumcision could not be the cause of his justification, since it followed it; and if Abraham when uncircumcised was a justified person, as it is certain he was, why may not uncircumcised Gentiles be justified also? and especially when it is observed, that the covenant made with Abraham when uncircumcised, included the Gentiles; see Gen 12:3.”

“Cometh this blessedness - upon the circumcision only - The word μονον, only, is very properly supplied by our translators, and indeed is found in some excellent MSS., and is here quite necessary to complete the sense. The apostle's question is very nervous. If this pardon, granted in this way, be essential to happiness - and David says it is so - then is it the privilege of the Jews exclusively? This cannot be; for, as it is by the mere mercy of God, through faith, the circumcision cannot even claim it. But if God offer it to the circumcision, not because they have been obedient, for they also have sinned, but because of his mere mercy, then of course the same blessedness may be offered to the Gentiles who believe in the Lord Jesus. And this is evident; for we say, following our own Scriptures, that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness; he had no merit, he was an idolater; but he believed in God, and his faith was reckoned to him εις δικαιοσυνην, in reference to his justification; he brought faith when he could not bring works; and God accepted his faith in the place of obedience; and this became the instrumental cause of his justification.”

“Cometh this blessedness then, &c.--that is, "Say not, All this is spoken of the circumcised, and is therefore no evidence of God's general way of justifying men; for Abraham's justification took place long before he was circumcised, and so could have no dependence upon that rite: nay, 'the sign of circumcision' was given to Abraham as 'a seal' (or token) of the (justifying) righteousness which he had before he was circumcised; in order that he might stand forth to every age as the parent believer--the model man of justification by faith--after whose type, as the first public example of it, all were to be moulded, whether Jew or Gentile, who should thereafter believe to life everlasting."”