Chapter 3

What is therefore the prerogative of the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? Much every way, and first of all because the oracles of God were committed to them.

Although Paul has notably proved that bare circumcision does profit the Jews nothing, yet inasmuch as he could not deny but there was some difference between the Gentiles and the Jews, which was pointed out or sealed by the Lord by that Sacrament: and it was an absurd thing to make that difference, or diversity, void and of none effect of which the Lord was the author: it remained therefore he should unfold this objection also. Truly it was apparent that that was a foolish glory which the Jews had therein. Notwithstanding this doubt yet remained, to what end circumcision was instituted of the Lord, except it were notably profitable for some thing. Therefore by the way of exception or subjection, he demands wherein the Jew excels the Gentile. And by another interrogation he adds the reason of the question, when he says, What profit is there of circumcision? For that did distinguish the Jews from the vulgar sort of men: as Paul calls the ceremonies the partition wall, which separated the one from the other.

2 Much every way, that is much altogether, much thoroughly or utterly. Here he begins to give to the Sacrament his praise: yet he will not grant to the Jews that they should be proud therefore. For when he says, they were marked with the seal of circumcision, that they might be reckoned the sons of God: he does not acknowledge them to have excelled others by any merit of theirs, or dignity of their own, but by the benefits of God. If the men therefore be considered, he shows they are like to others: but if the benefits of God be considered, he declares that therein they have, whereby they excel other people.

First, because the oracles of God were committed to them. Many think it to be the figure Anapodotum: because he propounds more than he expounds afterward. Yet this word first seems to me not to be a note of order, but simply to signify, specially, or chiefly, in this sense, if there had been no more but this: that they had the oracles of God committed to them: it ought to be sufficient to their dignity. And it is worthy the noting, that the profit of circumcision is not placed in the bare sign, but is to be esteemed by the word: here verily Paul demands what the Sacrament did profit the Jews. He answers, because God committed to them the treasure of his celestial wisdom: whereupon it follows, that the word being taken away, there remains no more prerogative. By oracles he means the covenant which first was revealed to Abraham and his posterity, afterward was confirmed, and interpreted by the law and the prophets. And the oracles of God were committed to them, that they might conserve them with them, so long as it pleased the Lord to contain his glory among them: afterward, in the time of dispensation, they should publish them throughout the whole world: first, they were keepers of the oracles of God: secondly, they were stewards or disposers. And if this benefit be so greatly to be esteemed, while the Lord does vouchsafe to make any people partaker of his word: we can never sufficiently detest our ingratitude, which receive the same so negligently, carelessly, that I say not contumeliously.

What if some were incredulous? Shall their incredulity make the faith of God void?

Let it not be so: but let God be true and every man a liar: as it is written, that you may be justified in your sayings, and overcome when you are judged.

3 For what if some, etc. As before, while he respected the Jews, glorying in the bare sign, that he did not grant to them so much as a spark of glory: so now while he considers the nature of the sign, he testifies that the virtue thereof is not abolished, no not through their vanity. Because therefore he seemed above to import, that if there were any grace in the sign of circumcision, it were all perished through the unthankfulness of the Jews.

Now again, by the way of exception or subjection, he demands what is to be thought thereof. And here is a kind of silence or concealing: because he expresses less than he would have to be understood: for he might truly have said, that a great part of the people had cast from them the covenant of the Lord: but because that had been marvelous bitter in the ears of the Jews, that he might mitigate the roughness thereof, he only names some. Shall their incredulity, etc. Catargein, properly is to make void, and of none effect: which signification is most apt for this present sentence. For Paul treats not only whether the incredulity of men can hinder the verity of God, that it should not remain firm and stable in itself: but whether it can hinder the effect and accomplishment thereof among men. The meaning therefore is, seeing the most of the Jews were covenant breakers, whether through their unfaithfulness the covenant of God be so abrogated, that it should show forth no fruit among them? He answers, that it cannot come to pass through the depravity of men, that the verity or truth of God should not have its constancy.

Therefore however the greatest part has broken the covenant, and trod it under foot, yet notwithstanding it retains its efficacy, and exercises its force: though not in every one, yet at the least in the same nation. And efficacy, or force is this, that the grace and blessing of the Lord might be of strength among them to eternal salvation.

And that cannot be but where the promise is received by faith, for so the mutual covenant is confirmed on both sides. Therefore he signifies, that there were always some in that nation who abiding in the faith of the promise, did not fall from that prerogative.

But let God be true. However others think, I take it to be an argument from the necessary sequence of the contrary, whereby Paul dissolves the former objection: for if these two stand together (indeed, do necessarily agree) that God is true, and man a liar, it follows that the truth of God is not hindered through the lie of men. For unless he did now oppose one of these principles against the other, in vain and to no purpose is he immediately so serious in refuting this inconvenience, namely, how God may be righteous if he sets forth his righteousness by our unrighteousness. Therefore the meaning is plain: that the faith of God is so far from being destroyed or overthrown by the unfaithfulness and default of men, that it appears more clear and excellent. He calls God true, not only because he is ready to stand faithfully to his promises, but also because whatever he says in word he fulfills the same indeed, for he so speaks that his commandment is straightway brought into act. On the contrary, man is called a liar, not only because he often breaks his promise, but because by nature he covets falsehood, and flees the truth. The former member is a special maxim of Christian philosophy. The latter is taken out of the Psalms, where David confesses that neither does any certainty come from man, neither is there any in him.

This place is notable, and contains very necessary consolation: for such is the perversity of men in refusing or contemning the word of God, that the certainty thereof should often come into question, unless it came to our remembrance that the truth of God depends not upon man's truth. But how agrees this with what was said immediately before, namely, that the faith of men which may receive the promise is required that the promise of God might be effectual? For faith is contrary to lying. It seems to be a hard question, yet it is easily resolved: that is, that the Lord by the lies of men (which otherwise are hindrances to his truth) will yet find to himself a way where there is no way, that he may overcome — by correcting in his elect that incredulity grafted in our nature, and by subjecting into his obedience such as do seem to be unruly. Finally, now the disputation is of the corruption of nature, and not of the grace of God, which is the remedy of the said corruption. That you might be justified. The meaning is, it is so far off that the truth of God should be destroyed by our lie and unfaithfulness, that thereby it is made more apparent and manifest — as David testifies, saying, that therefore because he was a sinner, God was always a just and righteous judge, whatever he decreed against him: and that he should overcome all the reproaches of the wicked, which would murmur against his righteousness. By the sayings of God, David understands judgments which he brings forth against us. For whereas they commonly expound it of the promises, that is too much wrested. Therefore this particle 'that' is not only final, neither does it note a consequence far fetched, but is of as much value as an illation — inferring or bringing in, to this sense: I have sinned against you, therefore you may by right punish me. And that Paul has alleged the place of David in his proper and natural sense the objection added a little after does prove: how shall the righteousness of God abide perfect, if our iniquity sets it forth? For in vain (as I have partly shown a little before) and out of season should Paul stay the readers upon this doubt, unless David did understand that God by his wonderful providence does get praise to his righteousness, even out of the iniquities of men. The second member after the Hebrew is thus: 'and you in judging pure,' which speech imports nothing else than that God is worthy of praise in all his judgments, however the wicked exclaim, and odiously go about by their complaints to overwhelm his glory. But Paul followed the Greek translation which served better for the present purpose. For we know the Apostles in reciting the words of Scripture to be more frank, free, or bold, because they counted it sufficient if they applied them to the matter. Therefore they stood not so much upon the words. To the present place therefore this shall be the application: if all the sins of mortal men must serve to the setting forth of the glory of the Lord, and he is specially glorified by his truth, it follows that the vanity of men serves rather to the establishing than subverting of his truth. And although this word Crinesthai may be taken as well actively as passively, yet I doubt not but the Greeks have translated it passively besides the meaning of the Prophet.

5 Now if our unrighteousness commends the righteousness of God, what shall we say? Is God unrighteous, which adds wrath (I speak as a man)?

6 Let it not be so. For how shall God judge the world?

7 For if the truth of God has more abounded through my lie to his glory, why am I yet condemned as a sinner?

8 And not rather (as we are blamed, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that good may come? Whose damnation is just.

5 Now if our unrighteousness. Although this is a digression from the principal cause, yet was it necessary the Apostle should add it, lest he should seem to have given to the wicked that occasion of speaking evil, which he knew to be voluntarily sought for of them. For seeing they were ready to take every occasion that might make to the defamation of the Gospel, they had in the testimony of David, which they might catch to the framing of their false detraction. If God seeks nothing else at the hands of men than to be glorified of them: why does he punish them when they offend, seeing by their offence they glorify him? Undoubtedly he is angry without cause, if he takes occasion at that to be angry whereby he is glorified. Neither is it to be doubted but this surmised accusation was common, and very common, as shall immediately be said again. Therefore Paul might not pass it over obscurely. And lest any should think he speaks here according to the persuasion or censure of his own mind, he first shows how he takes on him the person of the wicked. And withal he sharply rebukes man's reason, whose property he notes to be, always to chat and prate against the wisdom of God. For he says not, I speak as the wicked, but I speak as a man. And it is certainly so, seeing all the mysteries of God are strange or absurd to the flesh: it is so bold, that it does not doubt to rise up against [reconstructed: them] and which of them it cannot conceive, those it wantonly pursues. Whereby we are admonished, if we will become capable of the mysteries of God, first of all we must labor that our own sense or sensual judgment being laid apart, we may yield and give ourselves wholly over into the obedience of the word. This word, wrath, which is used for judgment, here has respect to the punishment: as if he had said, is God unrighteous in punishing iniquities, which set forth his righteousness?

6 Let it not be so. In stemming this blasphemy, he answers not directly to the objection: but first begins at the abhorring thereof, lest Christian religion should seem to bring so great absurdities with it. And that is somewhat more, than if he had simply refuted it. For he gives to understand thereby that this wicked saying is worthy to be abhorred and not to be heard. Immediately he adds, but (as they call it) an indirect refutation: for he does not absolutely take away the obloquy, but only answers, that that is absurd which is objected.

Furthermore, he takes an argument from the office of God, whereby he proves that to be impossible, God shall judge this world, therefore he cannot be unjust, which argument is not taken (as a man would say) from the bare power of God: but from his actual power, which shines in the whole course and order of his works: as if it were said thus, the office of God is to judge the world: that is, by his righteousness to compose and bring into good order, whatever is disordered in the same. Therefore he can do nothing unjustly: and he seems to allude to the place of Moses, where, while Abraham prays God that he would not utterly destroy Sodom, it is not fitting (says he) that you who shall judge the earth, should destroy the just with the unjust. Neither is that your part, neither can it be said of you. In Job there is the like saying, shall he that hates judgment govern? (Job 34:17). For in that there are often found wicked judges among men, that is either because they use their authority against law and right, or else because they are unadvisedly lifted up there, or else because they degenerate from themselves. In God there is no such matter. Seeing therefore, he is a judge by nature, he must needs be just, because he cannot deny himself. Paul therefore reasons from that which is impossible, proving God (to whom it is proper, or rather essential to govern the world righteously) to be wrongfully charged with unrighteousness. And although this doctrine of Paul be extended to the general government of God, yet I deny not but it has special respect to the last judgment: because then at the length shall the sound renewing of the right order appear. If you desire a direct refutation, whereby such blasphemous speeches may be quenched, understand it thus, that this comes not to pass through the nature of unrighteousness, that the righteousness of God should appear the more thereby: but our wickedness is so overcome of the goodness of God, that it is rather converted into another end, than it does tend to.

7 For if the truth of God by my lie, etc. I doubt not but this objection also is pronounced in the person of the wicked. For it is an exposition of that which went before: and should have been joined, but that the Apostle being moved with the heinousness, or uncomeliness of the thing, did break off his speech in the midst. The meaning is, if by our lie the truth of God be made more clear, and after a sort established, from where also more glory redounds to him: it is not right that he should be punished for a sinner, who is the minister of the glory of God.

8 And not rather as, etc. This is a defective speech, wherein there must somewhat be understood: it shall be perfect if you do resolve it thus, and why is it not rather said, (as we are blamed) that evil must be done that good may come? The Apostle verily vouchsafes not to answer this ungodly caviling: which nevertheless it shall be lawful by good reason to repress. For thus much only it pretends, if God be glorified by our iniquity and nothing better befits a man to do in his life: than to procure the glory of God: then to his glory we must sin. But this may easily be answered, that evil by itself can bring forth nothing but evil.

Whereas therefore the glory of God is made clear by our sin, that is not the work of man, but of God: who as a wonderful workman, knows how to subdue our wickedness and to convey it to another end, that besides that end it is appointed to of us, he converts it to increase his glory. God has prescribed to us a manner how he will be glorified of us: namely, piety, which consists in the obedience of his word. He that passes these bounds does not go about to honor God but rather to dishonor him. In that it falls out otherwise, that is to be ascribed to the providence of God, and not to the wickedness of man, which permits nothing but the Majesty of God may be utterly overthrown, much less does it permit that the same should not be violated. As we are blamed: Seeing Paul treated so reverently of the secret judgments of God, it is marvelous that the enemies fell to such waywardness, to calumniate him: but there was never yet so great piety and sobriety in the servants of God, which could bridle impure and poisonous tongues. It is not therefore a new example, that the adversaries at this day do charge us with false accusations, and make our doctrine odious (which both we ourselves know, and all, both angels and faithful men witness with us, that it is the pure Gospel of Christ.) Nothing can be imagined more monstrous, than that we read here to have been laid to the charge of Paul: and all to the end his preaching might be made odious or contemptible to the ignorant. Let us therefore bear it, that the wicked by malicious detractions do deprave the truth which we preach, and let us not therefore cease to defend the simple confession thereof: seeing it has in itself sufficient virtue to overcome and vanquish their lies. Nevertheless, by the example of the Apostle, let us as much as in us lies, resist their malicious subtleties, lest ungracious and wicked wretches should freely blaspheme the Creator. Whose judgment is just. Some take this actively, only that Paul should agree to them, that it was absurd which they objected, lest the doctrine of the Gospel should be thought to be joined with such strange and absurd things. But I like better of the Passive signification. For it were not fitting simply to agree to so great lewdness, which merits rather to be sharply reproved, which thing Paul seems to me to do. Their perversity therefore is two ways damnable. First, in that this impiety could come into their mind even to the consenting thereto: Secondly, that in slandering the Gospel, they dared take their malicious detraction hence.

9 What then? are we more excellent? no, in no wise: for we have already alleged or promised to prove that all, both Jews and Gentiles are under sin.

9 What then? From his digression he returns to his purpose. For lest the Jews perhaps should take it, that they were spoiled of their right, when he reckoned these titles of dignity, whereby they advanced themselves above the Gentiles: now at the length he unfolds the question, whether they excel the Gentiles or no in anything. And although this answer in show may seem to be much contrary to the former (because he now takes from them all preeminence to whom he gave much before) yet there is no variance. For those privileges whereby he confessed them to excel, consisted out of themselves, in the goodness of God and not in their own merit. And here he demands after their dignity, whether they could glory of anything in themselves. Therefore these two answers agree so, that this proceeds out of the other. For when he extolled their prerogatives including them in the only benefits of God, he declared them to have nothing of their own, whereupon that which he now answers, might forthwith be inferred. For if their principal preeminence be, that the oracles of God were committed to them, and they have it not by their merit, there is nothing therefore left to them, whereby they might be proud in the sight of God. And note the sacred workmanship or cunning, that when he gave to them excellence or preeminence he spoke in the third person. Now when he will take all from them, he puts himself in the number that he might avoid offense. For we have already alleged or promised to prove. The Greek verb Atiastai, which Paul uses here, is a word appertaining to judgment: therefore it has pleased us to translate it, We have alleged, determined, or purposed to prove. For the accuser in his action is said to allege the crime which he is ready to prove by other testimonies and proofs. And the Apostle had cited all mankind generally before the tribunal seat of God: that he might include all under the same condemnation. And in vain is it for any man to object, that the Apostle does not only accuse here, but rather prove: for no accusation is true but that, which is grounded upon firm and sure proofs: as Cicero in a certain place distinguishes between an accusation and a reproach. Moreover, to be under sin, is as much as to be condemned for sinners justly before God, or to be held under the curse which is due to sin. For as righteousness brings with it absolution, so condemnation follows sin.

10 As it is written, that there is none righteous, no not one.

11 There is none that understands: there is none that seeks God.

12 They have all gone out of the way: they have been made altogether unprofitable: there is none that does good no not one.

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

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness.

15 Their feet are swift to shed blood.

16 Contrition and calamity are in their ways.

17 And the way of peace have they not known.

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

10. As it is written, Hitherto he has used reasons to convince men of their iniquity. Now he begins to argue from authority: which is the surest kind of proof with Christians, so that the authority be given to the only God. And here let Ecclesiastical persons learn what is their office. For if Paul here affirms no doctrine which he also confirms not by certain testimony of Scripture: much less is this thing to be attempted of them, whose whole charge is this, to preach that Gospel which they have received by the hands of Paul and others. There is none righteous. Seeing the Apostle alleges rather the sense than the words absolutely, before he would descend to the particulars, he seems first to have put down in general, what is the sum of those things which are noted by the Prophet to be in man: namely, that none is just, and afterward to reckon up particularly the fruits of this unrighteousness. And the first is, that there is none that understands. And this foolishness is straightway reproved, because they seek not God. For vain is that man in whom the knowledge of God is not, whatever knowledge he have besides. Indeed, the sciences and faculties themselves, which in themselves are good, yet are made but vain in us, if they want this foundation.

It follows, There is none that does good: whereby is meant that they have put off all sense of humanity. For as the best bond of mutual conjunction among us, consists in the knowledge of God (because as he is father to all, he does notably reconcile us: and out of him there is nothing but mere dissipation) so for the most part inhumanity follows the ignorance of him, while every man, other men being contemned, loves and seeks himself. Contrariwise it is added, their throat is an open sepulchre: that is to say, a gulf to destroy men. And it is more than if he had said, devourers, or eaters of men. Because it is a note of outrageous cruelty, that the throat of man should be such a gulf, that it should serve to the swallowing, and supping up of whole men. Hereto pertains that also which is said, Their tongues are deceitful, and lips smeared with poison. It follows, their mouth is full of cursing and bitterness. Which vice is contrary to the former: but the meaning is, they are every way full of mischief, for if they speak fair, they deceive, and under fair speeches they proffer poison: But if they broach that they have in their mind, thence comes bitterness and cursing. It is a notable kind of speech, which is added out of Isaiah, Contrition and calamity are in their ways. For it is a singular demonstration, or description of barbarous cruelty, which wherever it goes or comes, by destroying all things, it causes solitariness and desolation: after which sort Pliny describes Domitian.

It follows, and the way of peace they have not known: because they are so accustomed with robberies, violences, injuries, security and cruelty, that they know not to do anything lovingly, and courteously. Lastly, in the conclusion that is repeated again under another word, which we speak of at the first: namely, that out of the contempt of God comes all wickedness. For seeing the fear of God is the fountain of wisdom, when we are once departed from that, there abides nothing right or sincere.

Finally, as it is a bridle to restrain our naughtiness: so if it be wanting, we are loosed to all kind of licentious wickedness. And lest any should think these testimonies were [reconstructed: improperly] wrested: let us consider every one of them according to the circumstances of the places from where they are taken. David says, there was so great perversity or naughtiness of nature in men, that God having beheld them all in order, he could not find one just. It follows therefore that this mischief went over all mankind, seeing nothing is hid from the sight of God. He speaks truly in the end of the Psalm of the redemption of Israel: But straightway we shall show in what manner holy men, and to what extent they are exempted from this condition. In the other Psalms he complains of the wickedness of his enemies, where under himself and his, he portrays a certain type of the kingdom of Christ: therefore under his adversaries all those are represented to us which being estranged from Christ, are not led by his spirit. Isaiah does expressly note Israel: Therefore his accusation does the more agree to the Gentiles. What then? There is no question, but the nature of men is described under these terms: that thereby we might see, what man is, being left to himself: inasmuch as Scripture testifies all to be such, which are not regenerate by the grace of God.

The condition of holy men were nothing better, but that the same depravity or naughtiness is corrected in them. Yet to the end they might remember, how they differ nothing from others by nature: in the relics of their flesh (wherewith they are still compassed) they feel the seeds of those things, which would continually bring forth fruit in them except mortification did hinder them: which they ought to ascribe to the mercy of the Lord, and not to their nature. And finally, whereas all the faults are here reckoned, do not appear in every one, this hinders not but they may rightly and truly be contained or compacted under the nature of man, as we have already noted.

19 We know that whatever the Law says, it says it to them which are under the Law, that every mouth might be stopped and all the world be culpable before God.

20 Therefore by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law, comes the knowledge of sin.

19 We know. Having left the Gentiles he does precisely apply those speeches to the Jews: in subduing of whom there was much more ado: because they being no less void of righteousness than the Gentiles, did cover themselves with the cloak of the covenant of God, as though this were sufficient holiness for them, that they were distinguished from the residue of the world, by the election of God. And truly he brings forth those evasions, which he knew well the Jews had at hand. For whatever was spoken sinisterly in the law against all mankind, they were wont to return it upon the Gentiles: as though they were exempted from the common sort. And surely so they were, but that they fell from their degree. Therefore lest some false imagination of their own private worthiness should hinder them, and they should restrain those things to the Gentiles which do no less appertain to themselves: Paul here prevents that, and by an argument taken from the end of the Scripture, he shows that they are not only in the same condition with the common sort of men, but that that judgment is peculiarly denounced of them. And hereby we see the diligence of the Apostle in refuting objections. For to whom is the law given, or to whose instruction ought it to serve if not to the Jews? In that therefore it makes mention of others, that it does (as it were) by the way, or (as they say) lightly: but to his own scholars it does principally apply his doctrine. In the law. He says the Jews are those to whom the law was appointed: whereby it follows that it does properly appertain to them: and under the law he understands also the Prophets: and so comprehends the whole Old Testament.

That every mouth might be stopped. That is, that all evasion, and power of excusing might be taken away. It is a metaphor taken from judgments, where he that is guilty, if he has anything that may serve justly to his defense, asks leave to speak that he might clear himself of those things laid against him: but if his own conscience condemns him, he holds his peace, and saying nothing awaits his condemnation, being even now by his silence condemned. The same sense has that saying of Job: I will lay my hand upon my mouth. For he says, although he lacked not some kind of excuse, yet not going about to justify himself, he would yield to the sentence of God. The next clause contains an exposition. For his mouth is stopped who is so held wrapped in judgment, that he can no way escape: otherwise to be silent before the face of God, is to be afraid of his majesty, and as it were astonished with his brightness, to become even speechless.

20 Because by the works of the law. It is a great question, indeed even among the learned, what works are called the works of the law, while some extend them to the observation of the whole law, others restrain them to the ceremonies only. The annexing of this word law, did move Chrysostom, Origen, and Jerome to be of the first opinion, for in that addition they thought there was peculiar advisement that the speech should not be understood of all works generally. But this doubt is easily resolved. For seeing works are so far forth just in the sight of the Lord, as we do study by them to give to him worship and obedience: to the end he might more precisely take from all works the force, virtue, or strength of justification, he has named those works which specially might justify, if there were any that could justify. For it is the law that has the promises, without the which our works are of no value before God. You see therefore the cause why Paul expressed the works of the law: Namely, because by the law there is a reward appointed to works. Neither were the very Scholastics ignorant of this: among whom it is an old and common saying, that works are not meritorious in respect of any internal or real worthiness, but for the covenant. And although they are deceived, for that they see not our works always to be defiled with vices, which do take from them merit: yet that principle is true, namely, that the reward of works depends upon the voluntary promise of the law.

Therefore Paul wisely and very well does not dispute of bare works: but precisely and namely he alleges the keeping of the law, of the which properly the question was. As for those things which are brought in of other learned men for the defense of that sentence, they are weaker than were fitting.

By the naming of circumcision, they think an example to be propounded, which proves that it appertains to the ceremonies only. But we have already declared why Paul has named circumcision. For neither do any other swell with the confidence of works than hypocrites. And we know how they glory only in eternal shows. Secondly, circumcision in their judgment was a certain entrance to the righteousness of the law: therefore it seemed also to be a work of great dignity. And whereas they fight out of the Epistle to the Galatians: where, when Paul handles the same cause, yet he directs his style to ceremonies only: that also is not firm enough to obtain what they would. Sure it is, Paul had to do with such as did incense the people with a false belief or confidence of ceremonies. That he might remove or take this away he does not contain himself within the compass of ceremonies, neither does he dispute specially of what value they are: but he comprehends the whole law, as may appear by the places which are all of them derived from that fountain. Such also was the state of that disputation which was held at Jerusalem among the disciples. And it is not without cause we labor to prove Paul in this place without exception to speak of the whole law. For the very style and manner of disputation which he has hitherto followed and does still prosecute, does sufficiently favor us: and many places do not suffer us to think otherwise. It is therefore a sentence notable among the chiefest, that no man shall be justified by the keeping of the law. He has showed the reason before, and repeats it again straightways: because all men together being convicted of transgression, are reproved of unrighteousness by the law. These two are contrary one to the other (as we shall see more at large in the process) to be thought righteous by works, and to be guilty of transgression. This word flesh without any special consideration betokens men: but that it seems after a sort to pretend a more general signification. After which manner more is expressed when one says all mortal men, or all mortal creatures, than if he should name all men, as you may see with or at Gellius. For by the law. He reasons from the contrary, that we have not righteousness by the law, because it convinces us of sin and damnation: seeing life and death proceed not forth of the same fountain. And whereas he reasons from the contrary effect of the law, that we cannot be justified by it: we must understand, his argument proceeds or holds not, except we keep this as an inseparable and perpetual accident, that the law revealing to man his sin, takes from him the hope of salvation that way. The law truly by itself, because it instructs to righteousness, is the way to salvation: but our depravity and corruption prevents this way from profiting anything.

Now this must needs be added in the second place, whoever is found to be a sinner, he is spoiled of righteousness. For it is frivolous to feign with Sophists a half righteousness, that works should partly justify: but nothing is gotten on this behalf, for the corruption of man.

21 But now is the righteousness of God, made manifest without the law, having witness of the law and the prophets.

22 To wit, the righteousness of God, by the faith of Jesus Christ, to all, and upon all, that do believe.

21 But now is the righteousness, etc. It is doubted in what sense he calls that the righteousness of God which we obtain by faith: whether therefore, because it only consists or stands in the sight of God: or for that the Lord does give the same to us of his mercy. Because both interpretations agree well: we will contend on neither part. He says therefore that that righteousness, which God both communicates to man, and also embraces only and acknowledges for righteousness, is revealed without the law, that is, without the aid, help, or support of the law: so that by the law is meant works. For it may not be referred to doctrine, which straightways he cites for the witness of free righteousness by faith. Whereas some restrain it to ceremonies, shortly after I shall show that to be vain and cold. It remains therefore that we know the merit of works to be excluded. Where also we see how he mixes not works with the mercy of God: but all opinion of works being removed and abolished, he establishes the only mercy of God. Neither am I ignorant that Augustine does expound it otherwise: for he takes the righteousness of God for the grace of regeneration: and he confesses this grace to be free, because the Lord renews us, being unworthy, with his spirit. And from this he excludes the works of the law, that is, whereby men go about, without renewal, [reconstructed: of themselves to deserve God]. And I know well enough, that certain new beholders and viewers of matters do arrogantly pronounce this doctrine, as though it were at this day revealed to them. But it shall appear plainly by the text how the Apostle without exception comprehends all works, yes even those which the Lord works in his. For surely Abraham was regenerate, and was led by the spirit of God, at such time as he denies him to be justified by works. Therefore he excludes from the justification of man, not only those works which are morally good (as commonly they term them) and which are done by the instinct of nature, but also whatever works the faithful can have.

Secondly, if that be the definition of the righteousness of faith, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven:" the question is not of this or that kind of works: but the merit of works being done away, only remission of sins is put down for the cause of righteousness. They think these two agree well, man to be justified by faith by the grace of Christ: and yet notwithstanding to be justified by works which do proceed from spiritual regeneration: because both God does freely renew, and by faith we receive his gift. But Paul takes a far other principle: namely, that the consciences of men are never quiet, till they lean or rest upon the only mercy of God. Therefore in another place after he has taught, God to have been in Christ, that he might justify men, he does also show the manner: saying, in not imputing to them their sins. Likewise to the Galatians he therefore makes the law contrary to faith, in respect of the effect of justifying, because the law promises life to those who do what it commands. But the law commands not an external show of works only, but the sincere love of God. Therefore it follows no merit of works can be admitted in the righteousness of faith. Whereby it appears it is but a frivolous cavil that we are justified in Christ, because we are renewed by the Spirit as we are the members of Christ: that we are justified by faith, because by faith we are grafted into the body of Christ: that we are justified freely, because God does find nothing in us but sin.

For therefore are we justified in Christ, because out of ourselves: therefore by faith, because we must needs depend upon his mercy and free promises: therefore freely, because God does reconcile us to himself by burying our sins. Neither can that be tied to the beginning of righteousness as they dream. For that definition, "Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven," had place in David, when he had long exercised himself in the worship of God: and Abraham thirty years after he was called, although he were a singular example of holiness, yet had he no works wherein to glory with God: and therefore it is imputed to him for righteousness that he believed the promise. And when Paul says God justifies men by not imputing their sins, he recites that sermon which ought daily to be rehearsed in the Church.

And that part of the conscience which is troubled in respect of works, is not of the continuance of one day, but ought to last the whole life: whereby it follows, we are not otherwise justified, even until the day of death: but because we have respect to Christ only, in whom God has adopted us, and now holds us acceptable. Hereby also their cavil is refuted, who charge us of falsehood, because we affirm it to be had out of the Scripture, that we are justified by faith only, when as the exclusive particle is nowhere extant in Scripture. But if justification be both without the law, and without us: why shall it not be imputed to mercy only? If it be of mercy only? then of faith only.

This particle "now" may simply be taken adversatively, that it not be referred to time: as we often say "now" for "but yet." If you had rather refer it to time (which I do willingly admit, lest he should seem to seek any evasion) yet notwithstanding the only abrogation of ceremonies shall not be understood: because the purpose of the Apostle is only by comparison to illustrate the grace, wherein we excel the fathers. Therefore the sense shall be, after Christ was exhibited in the flesh, the righteousness of faith was revealed by the preaching of the Gospel. Whereby yet it follows not that it lay hidden before the coming of Christ. For a twofold manifestation is here to be considered: the former is of the old Testament, which consisted in the word and sacraments: the second of the new Testament, which besides the ceremonies and promises contains the fullness or filling up in Christ: into which also is added a more absolute clearness by the Gospel. Having witness. He adds this, lest in the dispensation of free righteousness, the Gospel should seem to be contrary to the law. Therefore as he denied the righteousness of faith to stand in need of the help of the law: so now he affirms it to be confirmed by the testimony of the Law. And if the law bears witness to free righteousness: it is apparent the law was not given therefore, that it might teach men to get to themselves righteousness by works. Then they pervert the law, who wrest it to that end. Moreover, if you do desire the proof of this sentence, prosecute in order the sum of Moses' doctrine, and you shall find how man at the beginning being cast from the kingdom of God, had no other restitution than in the evangelical promises touching the blessed seed, wherein the breaking of the Serpent's head is foretold: and wherein a blessing is promised or declared to all nations. In the commandments you shall find the demonstration of your iniquity: by the sacrifices and oblations you shall learn how the satisfaction and purgation thereof is in Christ only. If you come to the Prophets, in them you shall find most plentiful promises of free grace: concerning which matter see our institutions. I say the righteousness of God. In few words he declares what manner of righteousness this is, namely, that it rests or abides in Christ, and is apprehended by faith. Although while he infers again the name of God, he seems to make God the author and not only an approver of that righteousness of which he treats: as though he should say it comes from him only, or it has its origin from heaven, and is made manifest to us in Christ. Therefore when we reason of this righteousness, we must proceed this way. First, the cause of our righteousness must not be referred to the judgment of men, but to the tribunal of God, where no righteousness is accounted of, but the perfect and absolute obedience of the law: which thing may easily appear by the promises and threatenings. And if no man can be found that has attained to such exact holiness: it follows all are void of righteousness in themselves. Then must Christ needs help: who as he is only just, so by transferring his righteousness to us he makes us righteous. Now you see how the righteousness of faith is the righteousness of Christ. That we may therefore be justified, the efficient cause is the mercy of God: Christ is the matter or material cause: the word and faith is the instrument or instrumental cause. Therefore, faith is said to justify: because it is the instrument to receive Christ, in whom righteousness is communicated to us. After that we are made partakers of Christ, not only we ourselves are just, but our works are reputed just before God: namely because whatever imperfection is in them it is abolished or taken away by the blood of Christ. The promises which are conditional, by the same grace also are fulfilled to us, in as much as God rewards our works as perfect, because the defect or imperfection of them is covered through free pardon.

To all, and upon all. For amplification sake he has repeated the same thing by diverse forms of speaking: to the end he might the rather express what we have heard, namely, that both sole faith is required here, and that the faithful are not distinguished by temporal or external notes: so it matters not whether they be Gentiles or Jews.

23 For there is no difference. All have sinned, and are deprived of the glory of God.

24 And are justified freely by his grace, through the redemption is in Christ Jesus.

25 Whom God has set forth to be a reconciliation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness, by the forgiveness of the sins that are passed through the patience of God.

26 To show at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and a justifier of him which is of the faith of Jesus.

23 For there is no difference. He enjoins to all without exception the necessity of seeking righteousness in Christ: as if he should say, there is no other way to obtain righteousness by, neither are some justified this way, and others that way, but all together by faith, because all are sinners: and therefore they have nothing on which to glory before God. And he takes it for a thing granted, that when men are come to the tribunal of God, whoever is guilty of sin in his own conscience, he lies confounded, and so overthrown under his own ignominy: that no sinner can abide the face of God, as we see in the example of Adam. Again he fights with an argument taken from the contrary: where we must mark what follows. Because all men are sinners, Paul infers, that they want or are deprived of the praise of righteousness. Therefore according to his doctrine there is no righteousness but that which is perfect and absolute. For if there were any half righteousness, then should not "he is a sinner" be altogether spoiled of all glory. Whereby that fable of righteousness in part (as they call it) is sufficiently refuted. For if it were true, that we are partly justified by works, and partly by the grace of God: this argument of Paul should be of no force, namely, that all are therefore deprived of the glory of God, because they are sinners. It is therefore beyond all controversy, there is no righteousness there, where sin is, till Christ has put away the curse. And that is it, which is said to the Galatians: As many as are under the law, are subject to the curse: but we are delivered from this by the benefit of Christ (Galatians 3:10). By the glory of God, he understands that glory which has place before God, as it is said with John, they have loved more the glory of men, than the glory of God. And so he calls us from the delight of human judgment to the celestial judgment seat.

And are justified freely. The participle after the manner of the Greeks is put in stead of the verb. The meaning is, because there remains nothing else to men in themselves, but that they being smitten through by the just judgment of God should perish: therefore they are justified freely by his mercy. For Christ helps this misery, and communicates himself to the faithful, that in him only they may find all things which are wanting to them. As it falls out, there is no place in all the Scripture more notable to set forth the power of this righteousness. For it shows the mercy of God to be the efficient cause: Christ with his blood to be the matter or material cause: faith conceived by the word, to be the formal or instrumental cause: lastly, the glory both of the justice and goodness of God to be the final cause. Concerning the efficient cause, he says we are justified freely, and that truly by his grace. Therefore by this he shows how all is of God and nothing of ourselves. It might have been sufficient to have opposed grace to merits: but lest we should imagine a half righteousness, having added a repetition he more clearly shows forth his mind: and has ascribed the true effect of righteousness to the only mercy of God, which righteousness the Sophisters rend in pieces and maim, lest they should be constrained to confess their own poverty.

By the redemption. The matter of our righteousness or justification is, that Christ by his obedience has satisfied the judgment of the Father, and by taking our person upon him, has delivered us from the tyranny of death, wherewith we were held captive. For by the satisfaction of that sacrifice which he offered, our guilt is taken away. Whereby also the imagination of those is notably refuted, which will have righteousness to be a quality in us. For if we be therefore reputed righteous before God, because we are bought or redeemed by a price: then surely we borrow that elsewhere, which is not in ourselves. And straightway Paul declares of what power this redemption is, and to what end it serves, namely, that we might be reconciled to God. For he calls Christ the propitiation or rather (which we prefer, that we might allude to the old figure) the propitiatory. And what else signifies that, but that we are just, so far forth as Christ reconciles the Father to us? But now it behooves us to consider the words.

Whom God foreappointed, etc. Because the Greek word Protithenai, sometimes signifies to determine or appoint before, sometimes to bring forth into light: if the first signification be taken, Paul refers it to the free mercy of God, that Christ was foreordained a mediator, who should reconcile the Father to us by the sacrifice of his death. And this is an excellent commendation of grace, that God did willingly of himself seek out a means, whereby he might take away our curse. And certainly this place seems to agree with that of John: God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son. However if we embrace the other sense, the same reason shall stand: that God in his time made him manifest, whom he had decreed with himself to be the mediator. In the word propitiatory I think there is an allusion (as I said) to the old propitiatory. For he teaches how that is exhibited in Christ indeed, which was figured there. Yet because the other opinion cannot be disproved, if any had rather understand it more simply, I will leave it to their election. The meaning of Paul in this place may surely be gathered out of his words, namely, that God without Christ is always angry with us: and that we are reconciled by him, while by his righteousness we are accepted. For God does not detest in us his own workmanship: but our uncleanness, which has extinguished the light of his image: which uncleanness when the washing or rinsing of Christ has done away, he loves and embraces us as his own pure workmanship. A propitiatory or reconciliation through his blood. So I had rather word for word to keep what Paul has: for verily he seems to me by a continual style without interruption to say, God is reconciled to us, so soon as we have our confidence reposed in the blood of Christ: because through faith we come into the possession of his benefit. While he names blood only, he excludes not the other parts of our redemption: but rather under a part he comprehends the whole sum: and named the blood, wherein we have our washing. So by the figure Synecdoche the whole cleansing is noted. For whereas he said of late that God was pleased with us in Christ, now he adds, that the same is brought to pass by faith: and also what our faith ought chiefly respect in Christ. For the forgiveness of sins. The causal preposition is as much in value, as if he had said, for forgiveness sake, or to this end that he might do away sins. And this definition or exposition does confirm again that which I have now already sundry times warned, namely, that men are not justified because they are such indeed, but by imputation. Only he uses various words that he might more evidently declare, there is no merit of ours in this righteousness. For if we obtain it by the remission of sins, we gather, it is out of ourselves. Secondly, if the remission of sins be of the mere liberality of God, all merit falls to the ground. Yet here arises a question, why he restrains pardon or forgiveness to the sins that are passed. Although this place be diversely expounded: it seems probable to me, that Paul had regard to the cleansings or washings of the law. Which were only testimonies of the satisfaction to come. For they could not please God. There is the like place to the Hebrews, that through Christ came the redemption of sins that were in the former Testament. And yet you may not understand it, that no transgressions but those of the former time are done away by the death of Christ. Which dotage or folly, some certain mad men have drawn from this place being indecently wrested. For Paul only shows, that until the death of Christ there was no price to please God, and that the same was not accomplished or fulfilled by the figures of the law: therefore the truth until the fullness of time, was in suspense. Moreover, the same reason is of those sins that do daily make us guilty: for there is one only satisfaction for all. Some, that they might avoid that inconvenience, have said the former sins were forgiven, lest a liberty of sinning afterward should seem to be granted. And true it is, there is no remission given but to sins committed. Not that the fruit of redemption does fall away or perish, if afterward we sin, as Novatus with his sect did dream: but because this is the dispensation of the Gospel, to set before him who is about to sin, the judgment and wrath of God, and before him who has sinned, mercy. [illegible]

Whereas he adds, this remission to have been in patience or long-suffering. They simply understand it for meekness, mildness or gentleness which stayed the judgment of God, neither suffered it to burst forth to our destruction, until at the length he received us into favor. But rather it seems to be a secret preoccupation or preventing of an objection. Lest any should object, that it was long before this mercy appeared, Paul shows it was an argument of patience.

26 To show, etc. The repetition of this member is not without an emphasis or force, which repetition Paul did purposely seek after, because it was very necessary: seeing man is persuaded to nothing more hardly, than that he, disabling himself in all things, should acknowledge them to be received of God: although this new demonstration be mentioned of purpose, that the Jews might open their eyes to behold. At this time, he refers that to the day or time when Christ was exhibited, which has been at all times. And not unworthily, for that which in old time was known obscurely under shadows, God has manifested openly in his Son. So the coming of Christ was the time of his good pleasure, and the day of salvation. God truly in all ages gave some testimony of his righteousness: but when the Son of righteousness shined, it appeared far more bright. The comparing therefore of the old and new Testament is to be noted: because then at the last was the righteousness of God manifestly revealed, when Christ was exhibited. That he might be just. It is a definition of that righteousness, which he said was then revealed when Christ was given: as in the first Chapter he taught to be declared in the Gospel. And he affirms it to consist of two members. The first is, that God is just, not as one among many, but as one who only contains in himself all the fullness of righteousness. For otherwise perfect and true praise, such as is due to him, cannot be given to him, than while he only obtains the name and honor of just, all mankind being condemned of unrighteousness. He sets the second member in the communication of righteousness, namely, while God does not keep his riches hid up in himself, but pours them out upon men. Therefore the righteousness of God appears in us, so far forth, as he justifies us by the faith of Christ. For in vain was Christ given to righteousness, except there followed a fruition of him by faith. Whereby it follows that all men were unjust and damned in themselves, till a remedy was offered from heaven.

27 Where then is the glorying? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? No. But by the law of faith.

28 We determine therefore, that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law.

27 Where then is the glorying? After that the Apostle has sufficiently by firm reasons beaten men down from the confidence of works, he now taunts their vanity. This exclamation or acclamation to the thing already declared and proved was necessary: for in this cause it did not suffice to teach except by greater vehemence of the Holy Ghost, he should lighten and thunder against our pride to overthrow it. And undoubtedly he says that glorying is excluded, because we can bring nothing of our own, which is worthy to be approved, or commended of God. If merit be the matter of glorying, whether you term it de congruo, which is, apt, fit, or convenient, or whether you call it, de condigno, that is, worthy, whereby man reconciles God to himself: here you see they are both overthrown. For here he speaks of no diminishing, or moderating: but Paul truly leaves no drop of merit. Moreover, if the glorying of works be so taken away by faith, the faith cannot purely be preached, but in giving all to the mercy of God, man must needs be spoiled of all praise: it follows then, that we are not helped by any works to the obtaining of righteousness. Of works? How does the Apostle here deny our merits to be excluded by the Law, seeing before he proved our damnation out of the Law? For if the Law makes us subject to death, what glory shall we get out of it? Or rather does it not cover us, being deprived of all glory, with shame or reproach? But then he showed, how our sin is laid open by the detection of the Law, because we are all fallen from the observation of it. And here he means, if righteousness were in the law of works, our glorying were not excluded: but because it is of faith only, therefore we can challenge nothing to ourselves: for faith receives all from God, it brings nothing but a humble confession of need or want. And the antithesis or contrariety of faith and works is to be noted: wherein without addition works are put universally. Therefore, he neither treats of ceremonies only, nor yet of the external show of works: but comprehends all the merits of works which can be imagined. The name Law is given to faith improperly: but yet this darkens not the sense of the Apostle. For his meaning is, that when we are once come to the rule of faith, then all the glory of works is overthrown: as if he should say, the righteousness of works truly is commended in the Law, but faith has a law of its own, which leaves no righteousness in works whatever they be.

28 We have determined therefore. Now he gathers the principal proposition, as though it were now out of all controversy, adding also an explanation. For justification by faith is made very clear, while works are excluded by name. Therefore our adversaries at this day labor nothing more, than that faith might be entangled with the merit of works. They confess a man is justified by faith: but not by sole faith. Indeed in very deed they place the power of justification in charity, however in words they give it to faith. But Paul in this place does make justification so free, that he makes it evident how in no sort it can stand with any merit of works. I have showed before why he names the works of the law: and also I have declared those to be ridiculous which restrain it to ceremonies. Their imagination also is childish which take the works of the law for external or literal works, which are done without the spirit of Christ. But rather the epithet is as much of value as if he had called them meritorious: because he has regard to the reward promised in the law. Whereas James says a man is not justified by faith only, but by works: it is nothing contrary to the former sentence. The reconciliation depends chiefly upon the state of that argument of which James treats in that place. For in that place the question is not how men get to them righteousness before God: but how they approve themselves to be just. For he refutes hypocrites who glory vainly in the title of faith. It is therefore a gross fallacy: not to observe how the word justify or justifying, is otherwise taken with James than with Paul: as they treat of diverse things. And also the word faith most certainly appears to be equivocal, that is, of ambiguous and doubtful signification. This twofold ambiguity or doubtfulness [reconstructed: ought to have been noted]. It may be gathered out of the text, that James would nothing else, than that a man is not made, or approved just by a dead faith, except he confirm his righteousness by works. Of which matter see our institutions.

29 Is God the God of the Jews only? and not of the Gentiles also? Indeed even of the Gentiles also.

30 Seeing there is but one God, who shall justify the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision by faith.

29 Is God the God of the etc. The second proposition shows, how that righteousness does no more appertain to the Jews, than to the Gentiles. And it was very necessary that should be urged to the end place might be made for the kingdom of Christ through the whole world. He does not therefore ask simply or precisely whether God be the maker of the Gentiles, which was known to be out of all controversy: but whether he would show himself a Savior to them also or no. For after he has matched all mankind together, and has brought them all under the same condition: if there be any difference among them, it is of God and not of themselves, which have all things like or equal among them. So that if it be true, God would have all the people of the earth to be partakers of his mercy then salvation, and righteousness which is necessary to salvation is extended to all. Therefore under the name of God here is an insinuation of that mutual relation, which often comes to our sight in Scripture: I will be your God and you shall be my people. For, that God for a time did choose to himself a peculiar people, that takes not away the beginning of nature, namely, that all men were made according to the image of God, and brought up in this world to the hope of blessed eternity.

30 Who justifies. When he says some are justified by faith, other some of faith, he seems to be delighted with the variety of speech in declaring the same matter, that he might by the way gird the folly of the Jews, who imagine a difference between them and the Gentiles: when as in the cause of justification there is no difference at all. For if men be made partakers of this grace by faith only: and there is one faith in them both: it is childishness to make a variance or diversity, where there is so great a likeness. Therefore I suppose a derision to be in these words, as though he should say, if any will have a difference of the Gentile from the Jew, let him take this, that the Gentile obtains righteousness by faith, and the Jew of faith. Unless perhaps you had rather distinguish thus, the Jews are justified of faith, because they are born the heirs of grace, while the right of adoption was given over to them of their fathers: and the Gentiles by faith, because the covenant came to them in another sort.

31 Do we therefore make the law void by faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.

31 Do we therefore etc. As soon as the law is opposed to faith, the flesh straightway thereby catches some suspicion of repugnancy, as though one were contrary to the other. And especially this false imagination takes place in those who being imbued with a perverted knowledge of the law, and having left the promises, seek nothing else in it, than the righteousness of works. And for this cause not only Paul, but also the Lord himself was evil spoken of among the Jews: as though by his whole preaching he labored the abrogation of the law. From where proceeded that declaration: I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it. And this suspicion pertained as well to that part of the law that concerns manners, as that which concerns ceremonies. For because the Gospel makes the ceremonies of Moses to cease, it is thought to tend to the subversion of the ministry of Moses.

Moreover, because the Gospel takes away all righteousness of works, it is thought to be contrary to so many testimonies of the law, where the Lord affirms that he has prescribed in the law the way of righteousness and salvation. Therefore I neither understand this excuse of Paul, of those ceremonies only, neither of the moral precepts only: but in general of the whole law. For the moral law is truly confirmed and established by faith in Christ: seeing it was given to this end, that having taught man his iniquity, it might lead him to Christ: without whom the law itself is not performed, and in vain it preaches what is proper to be done: neither can it do anything, but stir up the lust or concupiscence more, to the end that at length it might bring upon man a greater damnation. But when we are once come to Christ, first, there is found in him the exact righteousness of the law, which is also ours by imputation, Secondly, sanctification, whereby our hearts are [reconstructed: framed] to the observation of the law, namely that observation, which though it be imperfect, yet aims to the mark. The like reason is of ceremonies, which verily cease and vanish by the coming of Christ: but in so doing they are truly confirmed. For if they be esteemed by themselves, they are vain shadows and shows easily done away: and then they are found to have some firmness when they respect a better end. Herein therefore is their chief confirmation, [reconstructed: when it] is taught, that they have obtained their truth in Christ. Let us therefore remember also to preach the Gospel so, that by our manner of teaching the law may be established: but yet propped up with no other stay, than faith in Christ.