ROM. 3. 27.
THe Apostle delivered in the words before most compendiously and fully the whole doctrine of justification in the1 severall causes of it, from whence in this verse, he inferreth a conclusion against all boasting in a mans self; which he manageth by short interrogations, that so he might the more subdue that selfe confidence in us: Where is boasting? saith he. This is to be applyed universally both to Jew and Gentile; but especially to the Jew, who gloried most herein. and Chrysostome makes this the reason why Christ deferred so long, & put off his coming in the flesh, viz. that our humane pride might be debased: for if at first he had come unto us, men would not have found such an absolute necessity of a Saviour. The second Question is, by what Law boasting is excluded; and this is answered, first negatively, not by the Law of works. Secondly positively, by the law of faith.
The Apostle, by the law of works, meaneth the doctrine of works, prescribing them as the condition of our justification and salvation; and he saith works, in the plurall number, because one or two good works, though perfectly done (if that were possible) would not satisfie the Law for our acceptation, unlesse there were a continuall and universall practise of them, both for parts and degrees: and he cals the doctrine of faith, the law of faith, either because (as Chrysostome saith) he would sweeten and indeare the Gospel to the Jewes, by giving it a name which they loved; or, as Beza, he speaks here mimetically, according to the sense of the Jewes, as when John. 6. he calleth Faith a work, because the Jewes asked, What should they do? Now we have in the Scripture two lively comments upon both these parts of the Text. The Pharisee mentioning what he did, reckoning up his works, and never naming the grace of God, is a boaster by the Law of works, but the Publican, that looketh upon himselfe only as a sinner, and so judgeth himself, he excludeth all boasting by the law of faith.
The Papists they mean by works here in the Text, those2 which go before faith, and they quote a good rule out of Gregory, though to a foul errour, Non per opera venitur ad fidem, sed per fidem ad opera: We do not come by works to faith, but by faith to Works. But this glosse of theirs corrupts the text, because the Apostle in this controversie instanceth in Abraham, shewing how he had not wherewith to glory in himself, and therefore by beleeving gave glory to God. If you ask why works do imply boasting, though we be enabled thereunto by the grace of God? The answer is ready, because we attribute justification to that work of grace within us, which yet is defective, that is, wholly to be given unto Christ. (Doctr)
The doctrine I shall pursue out of these words, is, That although the Law, given by God to the Israelites, was a Covenant of grace, yet in some sense the Law and Gospel do oppose and thwart one another, And this matter I undertake, because hereby the nature of the Gospel and the Law will be much discovered. It is an errour, saith Calvin lib. 2. Instit. cap. 9. in those who do never otherwise compare the Gospel with the Law, then the merit of works with the free imputation of righteousness: and (saith he) this Antithesis or opposition is not to be refused, because the Apostle doth many times make them contrary, meaning by the Law that rule of life, whereby God doth require of us, that which is his own, given us no ground of hope, unlesse in every respect we keep the Law; but, saith he, quum de totâ lege agitur, when he speaks of the Law more largely taken, he makes them to differ, only in respect of clearer manifestation: or, as, Pareus saith of the old and new Covenant, they3 differ not essentially, but, as we say, the old and new Moon.
Therefore, before I come to shew the exact opposition, take notice of two things as a foundation: first, that the Law and the Gospel may be compared one with another, either in respect of the grace God gave under the Old-Testament, & the New, and then they differ onely gradually; for they under the Law did enjoy grace and the Spirit of God, (though Socinians deny it) although indeed in respect of the Gospel, it may comparatively be said, no spirit, and, no grace; as when it is said, The holy Ghost was not yet given, because it was not so plentifully given: Or, secondly, the doctrine of the Law in the meere preceptive nature of it, may be compared with the doctrine of the Gospel, having the grace of God annexed unto it and going along with it. Now this is in some respects an unequall comparison; for if you take the doctrine or letter of the Gospel without the grace of God, that letter may be said to kill as well as the letter of the Law: only this is the reason, why we cannot say, The Spirit of God, or grace, or life is by the Law, because whatsoever spirituall good was vouchsafed to the Jewes, it is not of the Law, but of the grace of God, or the Gospel. Therefore, whensoever we compare Law and Gospel together, we must be sure to make the parallel equall, and to take them so oppositely, that we may not give the one more advantage, or lesse, then the nature of it doth crave and desire.