An exposition vvith notes on the whole fourth chapter to the the Romanes wherein the grand question of justification by faith alone, without works, is controverted, stated, cleared, and fully resolved ... / by William Sclater, Doctor in Divinity, sometimes minister of Gods word at Pitminster, in Summerset ; now published by his son, William Sclater, Batchelar in Divinity, minister at Collompton in Devon.

VERS, 1, 2.

What shall we say then, that Abraham our Father, as pertaining to the flesh hath found? For if Abra∣ham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glo∣ry, but not before God.

THE Apostles purpose in this Chapter, is, by far∣ther proofs, to confirm his principall conclusi∣on, viz. That a man is justified by Faith, with∣out the works of the Law.

The chief Parts of the Chapter are three.

First, A Confirmation of the conclusion.

Secondly, A Laudatory declaration of Abrahams Faith.

Thirdly, An applying of Abrahams example to us, even as many as walk in the steps of Abrahams faith.

The Reasons brought for confirmation, are.

• 1. From Abraham's example.
• 2. From Davids testimony.
• 3. From time, and use of circumcision.
• 4. From meanes of conveyance of the inheritance to Abraham.

• 5. From ends of justification.

The passage to Abraham's example, is by most conceived thus. The Apostle is imagined to prevent, what Iewes might object, against the conclusion of justification by faith, without works: If this be so, what got Abraham our fa∣ther, according to the flesh? as if they had said, it seems, there is no prerogative of Abraham, by all that righteous∣ness wherein he lived: And the Apostle is supposed to grant their inference, and to subjoyn Reasons thereof.

But methinks, weighing the words, the connexion may rather be conceived, to be by way of inference, out of the doctrine of the former Chapter; as if it had been said, if this be so, that boasting must be excluded, and that all that are justified, must be justified by faith; What shall we say then, that Abraham our father found, as concerning the flesh? &c. In no case.

Thus then, (but that I love not novelty,) I would read the text: What shall we say then, that Abraham found by the flesh? And so, methinks the reasons more fluently are applyed to the Negative conclusion: The connexion we see.

The conclusion principall is here proved, by the example of Abraham, If Abraham obtained not righteousness by works, but by faith, then no man is, or can be justified by works, but by faith: but, Abraham obtained not righte∣ousness by works, &c. Ergo, no man is justified by works. The proposition is not expressed, but easily collected out of the text: The assumption is, Vers 1. laid down in way of inference, delivered interrogatively, where the interroga∣tion implyes a negative: The conclusion is, Chap. 3. vers. 28.

The assumption is proved, by an argument from incon∣venience: If Abraham were justified by works, he had whereof to boast, but not with God; that is, he had no cause to boast with God; Ergo, he was not justified by works.

[Sence] For the sence of the words, Found] That is, obtained; as Gen. 26.12. Isaac sowed in the land, and found; that is, received, or obtained in that year an hundred fold, Hos. 12.8. I have found substance, that is gotten.

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] As pertaining to the flesh: This particle, some Ancients, as well as later Expositors, both Popish, and Protestant, refer rather to the word (Father,) then to the verb, (found:) And thus read, Abraham our father, concer∣ning the flesh: but, methinks the trajection is too harsh; and besides, the conclusion shall want one principall term, that best serves to express the things in hand; and there∣fore I rather refer it to the verb, and thus read; Abraham found not by the flesh, or, as pertaining to the flesh.

According to the flesh] That is, saith Ambrose, by his Circumcision; fittingly to what we may suppose the Apostle to preoccupate; and yet, in as much as ye count Circumcision is a work; he affirms it as well of morall works, as of circumcision.

Say others, as Cajetan, by flesh; that is, by righteousness which stands in works, and are done by the flesh, that is, by the body.

Others as Theodoret by his own strength, and good vvorks done thereby. Generally I thus conceive it, that Abraham obtained not righteousness, by any work Ceremonicall, Morall, or whatsoever can be imagined, to assail to righte∣ousness, except faith in Christ; so finde I the use of the word, in the same case, Phil. 3.3, 4, 5, 6, 9. Where, under this name of flesh, comes circumcision, our own righteous∣ness which is by the Law, or whatsoever is, or may be op∣posed to that righteousness, which is by the faith of Christ.

The whole explination amounts to this summe; Abraham obtained not righteousness, by any his own works.

See we the confirmation: The argument is taken from an inconvenience, issuing out of that supposition; If Abra∣ham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: But, he hath not any thing whereof to glory, at least with God;

Ergo, he was not justified by works.

Let us see what our adversaries have to say, against this full argument of the Apostle. For ground of their answer, they attempt an inversion of the Apostles syllogisme, and thus conceive him to reason: If Abraham were justified by works, then had he no glory, or boasting with God; he might indeed by that means, procure the commendation of a man excellently righteous; but with men only, not with God: but Abraham had cause of glorying, and boa∣sting with God; Ergo, was not justified by works.

This cross frame of the argument, I could not without indignation read, were it not, that it hath great Authors to give it countenance; for Reverence to them, let us afford it tryall.

First then, consider that the Apostle in this argument, hath apparent respect to that ground laid down, Rom. 3.27. That is, that we are to be justified by such a mean, as whereby boasting may be excluded; according to which ground he here concludes, That Abraham was not justified by works, for if that were true, then had he cause of boasting. Is it not now too grosse blindness, so to conceive the Apostle, as if he would give Abraham cause of boasting?

Secondly besides this, the proposition thus conceived, is apparently false: For, if Abraham were justfied by works, then sure he had cause of boasting, even before God; for, what greater cause of glorying even before God, then this, That he hath wrought works to his justification, and may therefore say, he is not beholden to God, for his greatest blessing, justification, as having purchased it by his own works of obedience, see Rom. 3.27.

Thirdly add hereunto, that the assumption is apparently false; for Abraham, if the Apostle could judg, had no cause of boasting with God; his justification being as ours, meerly of grace, through faith in Christ Jesus: leave we therefore that dream, and see whether their other answers have more waight.

Say some Catholiques, we must here understand obser∣vation of Legall Ceremonies; as Circumcision, Sabbaths, New-Moons, &c. Not works of the Law Morall.

Answ. To this idle exception, see my Annotation in Rom. 3. But bring we this distinction into the Apostles ar∣gument, and see whether boasting be excluded: If Abra∣ham were justified by works ceremoniall, then had he cause of boasting; belike not so, if by works morall: and how I wonder do works Ceremoniall, give greater cause of boa∣sting, then works Morall? is their dignity now greater, then works of Morall obedience? Fidem vestram Papistae! Be∣hold, to obey is better then sacrifice, and to hearken, then the fat of rams, 1 Sam. 15.22. I will have mercy, and not sacri∣fice, Hos. 6.6. Mat. 9.13. & sexcenta hujusmodi; blush at such idle evasions, which your own Bellarmine willingly dis∣clayms, and confutes by Fathers.

Besides this, according to this answer, boasting is only in some part taken from Abraham; namely, in respect of his observance of Ceremonialls; for Morall obedience is still left him, for matter of boasting; but boasting on any pre∣tence is excluded in Pauls intention; Ergo.

Hear Hierome; Ex operibus legis, non justificabitur om nis Caro; quod nè de Lege Moysis tantùm dictum putes, & non de omnibus mandatis, quae uno legis nomine continentur, idem Apostolus scribit, dicens consentio Legi Dei, &c. iterum scimus, quòd Lex spiritualis est, &c. We know saith Paul, that the Law is spirituall, Rom. 7.14. What Law I won∣der, if not that Morall?

Let us see yet, whether other playsters will salve the sore; works of Abraham are of two sorts; some Praecedentia fidem, going before faith; some Facta per fidem, done by faith: the Apostle understands works done before faith and regeneration; not those done in and by faith; Let us bring this into the argument: If Abraham were justified by works done without faith, by the meer power of natural free will, then had he cause of boasting; not so, if by works

done in faith. Answ. And why not I marvail, when works done by grace, (according to their opinion) are done, partly, by strength-naturall of free-will; so much then as free-will helped in the doing, so much cause of boasting Abraham had of himself; But Abraham had no cause of boasting, &c. 2. What if it be apparent, that the Apo∣stle speaks even of works done by Abraham, now believing and regenerate; then methinks, these works must also be included, in the Apostles intention: Certainly if we consi∣der the testimony alledged out of Gen. 15. in the next verse, to prove, that Abraham was not justified by works, it will easily appear that Abraham was, long before this regenerate, and believing, and had many works of faith; whereas, yet the testimony of righteousness is given him, not for wor∣king, but for believing. It was a work of faith that Abra∣ham did, in following the Lords call out of his countrey, Heb. 11.8. Other works of piety and love, see Gen. 12.8. & 13.8, 9. & 14 16, 20, &c. Yet not these works done in faith, but faith was imputed to righteousness.

True saith Bellarmine, Abraham was now regenerate, and had done many good works of faith; and yet the Apostle, when he saith he was justified by faith and not by works, rejects not his works done in faith from power of justifing, but those only which he (might) have done, not of faith: For even they who have faith, work sometimes not of faith; as when they sin, or do works meerly Morall, without relation to God: In a word, the Apostle spea∣keth conditionally, and according to their opinion, which ascribed righteousness to their own strength.

Answ. Now, what is to be willfully blind, if this be not? was it ever heard of, that a man should be justified by works, not which he (had) done, but which he (might) have done: or, think we the Saints of God to whom he wrought, or the Iews that perhaps disturbed them, were ever so shameless, as to ascribe justice to works finfull, or meerly Morall, such as heathens performed. Its apparent,

that the Apostle fits answer to Iewish objections, who urged works of law, written for matter of justification: yea in likelihood, works done in grace, for whereto else comes in the example of Abraham, so worthy a Saint of God? Certes, if of works meerly naturall, there had been question, example of Abimelech, or Socrates or Aristides, had been as pertinent to the purpose.

Lastly say others, the Apostle speaks not de justificatione Pii, but Impii; not of that justification, whereby a man, of a righteous man is made more righteous; but he speaks of justifiing a wicked man, which is done by faith: Answ. Concerning this distinction, see Annotat. in Chap. 3.

But it is their opinion, that he speaks of the first justifi∣cation only: surely Sasbout confesseth, that the testimony out of Genesis, treats only, De augmento Iustitiae, & non de justificatione Impii: And that is apparent to every confide∣rate Reader.

This mist of cavills thus dispelled, let us now resume the Apostles conclusion, and lay it for a ground; that Abraham was not justified by any works of any law, in any state by him performed.

[Use] Hear this now yee justitiaries, that dare obtrude your menstruous merits to Godsjustice, and for them claim righte∣ousness at his judgment seat: Behold Abraham, that mir∣rout of good works, as well as of faith; yet stript of all right, and claim to righteousness by any his obedience: and dare any of his children challenge more at God hands, then Abraham, the pattern of justification? Bring to the bal∣lance your voluntary poverty; building of temples, pilgri∣mage, vvorks of mercy; or, if there be any vvork that you think more glorious, and see if they be not found lighter then vanity it self, to those of Abraham: that one vvork of obedience, in offering his Son Isaac upon the altar, vvhich of the sons of men can parallel? I spare amplifications, be∣cause they are extant in the Apostle, and particularized in Ambrose; De Abrah. Patriarch lib. 1. Cap. 8.

Notes

• S. Ambrosius, ad loc.
• Cajetan, ad loc.
• Theodoret ad loc. Illyric. in cla∣vi & Zanch. de tribus Elo∣him, lib. 3. cap. 1.
• Sasbout, ad loc.
• Augustin in prefat. ad Psal. 31. Am∣bros. ad loc.
• Bellarm. de Iustific. lib. 1. cap. 19.
• Hierom ad Ctesiphont. Adv. Pelag. ultramed.
• Bellarm. qua supra.