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.
Romans 4:13
- Non enim per Legem promissio Abrahæ
et semini ejus data est, ut esset hæres mundi; sed
per justitiam fidei. - 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.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
(^139) Critics have differed as to the disjunctive , or, “or to his seed.” Some think it is put for , 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