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.
Romans 4:6-8
- Quemadmodum etiam David finit
beatudinem hominis cui Deus imputat justitiam
absque operibus, - Even as David also describeth the
blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth
righteousness without works, - Beati quorum remissæ sunt iniquitates, et
quorum tecta sunt peccata:
7.Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities
are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.- Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus
peccatum. - Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will
not impute sin.
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,
(^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.