Romans 3:28–4:3

"Where then is your boasting? It has been shut out. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we reckon that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." Again and yet more often we admonish those who desire to attend more carefully to Paul's writings to hold more tenaciously to that distinction which we spoke of above — how he pursues now the case of circumcision, now that of uncircumcision, that is, of the Jews or of the Gentiles, always along a separate track. For if even a little should escape the reader, at once this narrow and slender footpath of understanding will be thrown into confusion. Therefore, when the Apostle had shown above what is the Jew's advantage, or what the usefulness of circumcision, and had taught that to those first ones the oracles of God were entrusted, and by these things had seemed to exalt that vaunting of theirs by which they are wont to raise themselves against the Gentiles; and again, in what follows, had set against these things the objection that the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ is unto all who believe, and that there is no distinction, but that all have sinned, both Jews and Greeks, and lack the glory of God, and are justified through the grace and redemption which is in Christ Jesus; and that he himself is the propitiatory through faith, and that every one who is of faith is justified by him — now at last, setting down as it were the conclusion of his assertions, he says in this place: "Where then is your boasting? It has been shut out. By what law? Of works? No, but by the law of faith. For we reckon that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law": and he says that the justification of faith alone suffices, so that one who merely believes is justified, even if no work at all has been completed by him. It presses upon us, therefore, who strive to assert that the Apostle's Scripture is whole and entire, and that all of it stands together in its own order, to inquire who has been justified by faith alone without works. So far, then, as concerns an example, I think that thief suffices who, crucified with Christ, cried out to him from the cross: "Lord Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." Nor is any other good work of his described in the Gospels, but for this faith alone Jesus says to him: "Truly I say to you: Today you shall be with me in paradise." Let us now, if it seems good, fit the words of the apostle Paul to the case of this thief, and say to the Jew: "Where then is your boasting?" Certainly it has been shut out; and shut out not by the law of works, but by the law of faith. For by faith this thief was justified without the works of the law: because concerning this the Lord did not inquire what he had previously done; nor did he wait to see what work he might complete once he had believed, but, as he was about to enter paradise, he took him as his companion, justified by confession alone. But also that woman of whom it is related in the Gospel according to Luke, that "when she had learned that Jesus reclined at table in the house of the Pharisee, she brought a vessel of ointment, and standing behind at his feet and weeping, she washed his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head, and kissed them and anointed them with the ointment. But the Pharisee who had invited him, seeing this, said within himself: If this man were a prophet, he would surely know who and what sort of woman she is who touches his feet, for she is a sinner." But Jesus spoke to him the parable of the five hundred or the fifty denarii; and from no work of the law, but for faith alone, he says to her: "Your sins are forgiven you"; and again: "Your faith has saved you, go in peace." But also in many places of the Gospel we read that the Savior used this expression, so that he calls the faith of the believer the cause of his salvation. From all which it is clear that the Apostle rightly reckons that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law. But perhaps someone hearing these things may grow slack and take up a negligence of doing well, since indeed faith alone suffices for justification. To him we shall say that after justification, if anyone acts unjustly, without doubt he has despised the grace of justification. For no one receives pardon of sins for this purpose, that he should think license to sin has again been given him. For indulgence is granted not for future but for past offenses. Therefore, to return to our subject, a man is justified by faith, and the works of the law contribute nothing to him for justification. But where there is not the faith which justifies the believer, even if a man has works from the law, yet because they are not built upon the foundation of faith, although they may seem to be good, nevertheless they cannot justify the one who works them, because faith is lacking to them, which is the seal of those who are justified by God, as we said above, because "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him unto righteousness." So much is this so, that he who is justified by the grace of faith says, according to Paul, that "the grace of God which was given to me was not in vain." Therefore every boasting which comes from the works of the law is shut out. And that what we say may become still more evident, we shall give an example from those things which are written in the Gospel, where the Pharisee and the Publican went up to the temple of God; "and the Pharisee," he says, "standing in the midst, said: God, I give you thanks, because I am not as the rest of men, robbers, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican: I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess," and the rest. And these things perhaps he may have said truly, but according to the Lord's sentence, being corrupted by the disease of vaunting, he did not go down from the temple justified. Such boasting, therefore, as came from the works of the law is shut out, because it does not have the humility of the cross of Christ; and hear what he says who boasts in that cross: "But far be it from me to boast, save in the cross of my Lord Jesus Christ, through whom the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world." You see the Apostle not boasting over his righteousness, nor over his chastity, nor over his wisdom, nor over his other virtues or acts, but most openly declaring and saying: "He who boasts, let him boast in the Lord." And thus Jewish boasting has been shut out, not by the law of works, but by the law of faith which is in Christ Jesus, in whose cross the Apostle boasts. For who will rightly boast even over his own chastity, when he reads it written, that "if anyone looks upon a woman to desire her, he has already committed adultery with her in his heart"? Whence also the prophet says: "How shall anyone boast that he has a chaste heart?" Or who will boast over wisdom, when he sees it written, that "the world through wisdom did not know God: and therefore it pleased God through the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe"? And again: "The foolish things of the world God has chosen, that he may confound the wise"? And who will boast even over his own righteousness, when he hears God saying through the prophet, that "all your righteousness is as the cloth of a menstruous woman"? The only just boasting, therefore, is in the faith of the cross of Christ, which shuts out all that boasting which comes down from the works of the law. And these things have been said by us because the Apostle spoke as it were in the language of one questioning: "Where then is your boasting?" And to this he himself answered himself: "It has been shut out." And again, as though he were questioning himself, he says: "By what law? Of works?" And he answered himself: "No, but by the law of faith. For we reckon that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law." Of these things we have already spoken above. But as to the fact that in the present place also he makes mention again of two laws, and speaks of the law of works and the law of faith, consider also for yourself, you who read, whether this discourse ought to be inclined toward the law of Moses and the natural law, or toward the law of the letter and the law of the spirit: because the law of the letter kills, and works death; but the law of the spirit of life sets free from the law of sin and death.

Paul says that a Gentile can be sure that he is justified by faith without doing the works of the law, e. g., circumcision or new moons or the veneration of the sabbath.

This must not be understood in such a way as to say that a man who has received faith and continues to live is righteous, even though he leads a wicked life.

The controversy about faith and works is one that has gone on for a very long time, and it is a highly technical matter. I personally rely on the paradoxical text: "Work out your own salvation... for it is God that worketh in you." [Philippians 2:12] It looks as if in one sense we do nothing, and in another case we do a damned lot. "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," but you must have it in you before you can work it out.

"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the Law." When he had shown that by faith they were superior to the Jews, then he goes on with great confidence to discourse upon it also, and what seemed therein to annoy he again heals up. For these two things were what confused the Jews; one, if it were possible for men, who with works were not saved, to be saved without them, and another, if it were just for the uncircumcised to enjoy the same blessings with those, who had during so long a period been nurtured in the Law; which last confused them more by far than the former. And on this ground having proved the former, he goes on to the other next, which perplexed the Jews so far, that they even complained on account of this position against Peter after they believed. What does he say then? "Therefore we conclude, that by faith a man is justified." He does not say, a Jew, or one under the Law, but after leading forth his discourse into a large room, and opening the doors of faith to the world, he says "a man," the name common to our race.

Some people misinterpret this verse in order to do away with the works of righteousness, saying that faith by itself is enough, even though Paul says elsewhere: "If I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing." If this seems to contradict the sense of the other [verses], what works did the apostle mean when he said that a man is justified by faith, without works? Obviously, these are the works of circumcision, the sabbath and so on, and not the works of righteousness about which St. James says: "Faith without works is dead." [In this verse] Paul is speaking about the man who comes to Christ and is saved when he first believes by faith alone. But by adding the works of the law Paul is saying that there are also works of grace which believers ought to perform.

Paul did not say "we hold" because he was himself uncertain. He said it in order to counter those who concluded from this that anyone who wished to could be justified simply by willing faith. Note carefully that Paul does not say simply "without the law," as if we could just perform virtue by wanting to, nor do we do the works of the law by force. We do them because we have been led to do them by Christ.

Having proved that justification is in the Blood of Christ and not in the works of the law, he concludes his discourse and says: from all that has been said, we conclude that every person is justified by faith. Do not be troubled by this, O Jew, as though it were an absurdity.

Then when he says, for we account, he shows how the Jews' boasting is excluded by the law of faith, saying: for we apostles, being taught the truth by Christ, account a man, whomsoever he be, whether Jew or gentile, to be justified by faith: he cleansed their hearts by faith (Acts 15:9). And this without the works of the law.

Not only without the ceremonial works, which did not confer grace but only signified it, but also without the works of the moral precepts, as stated in Titus, not because of deeds done by us in justice (Titus 3:5). This, of course, means without works prior to becoming just, but not without works following it, because, as is stated in James: faith without works (Jas 2:26), i.e., subsequent works, is dead, and, consequently, cannot justify.

Undoubtedly there is only one God for everybody. For even the Jews cannot claim that their God is not the God of the Gentiles also, because they believe that the origin of all people is from the one Adam and that no one who comes willingly to the law may be prevented from accepting it. Some Gentiles actually went with the Israelites into the desert of Egypt, and the Israelites were ordered to accept them as long as they agreed to be circumcised and eat unleavened bread, or the Passover, together with the rest of them. Then again Cornelius, a Gentile who was not judaized, received the gift of God, and it is clear from holy Scripture that he was justified.

Wherefore also, to those that ask the wisdom that is with us, we are to hold out things suitable, that with the greatest possible ease they may, through their own ideas, be likely to arrive at faith in the truth. For "I became all things to all men, that I might gain all men." Since also "the rain" of the divine grace is sent down "on the just and the unjust." "Is He the God of the Jews only, and not also of the Gentiles? Yes, also of the Gentiles: if indeed He is one God," exclaims the noble apostle.

One righteous man, then, differs not, as righteous, from another righteous man, whether he be of the Law or a Greek. For God is not only Lord of the Jews, but of all men, and more nearly the Father of those who know Him. For if to live well and according to the law is to live, also to live rationally according to the law is to live; and those who lived rightly before the Law were classed under faith, and judged to be righteous,-it is evident that those, too, who were outside of the Law, having lived rightly, in consequence of the peculiar nature of the voice, though they are in Hades and in ward, on hearing the voice of the Lord, whether that of His own person or that acting through His apostles, with all speed turned and believed. For we remember that the Lord is "the power of God," and power can never be weak.

"Is He the God of the Jews only?" As if he said, On what foot does it then seem to you amiss that every man should be saved? Is God partial? So showing from this, that in wishing to flout the Gentiles, they are rather offering an insult to God's glory, if, that is, they would not allow Him to be the God of all. But if He is of all, then He taketh care of all; and if He care for all, then He saveth all alike by faith. And this is why he says, "Is He the God of the Jews only? is He not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also." For He is not partial as the fables of the Gentiles (cf. Ov. Tr. I. ii. 5. sqq) are, but common to all, and One...

Hence he also fittingly adds in what follows: "Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since indeed there is one God, who justifies the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For those who would have the God of the Jews to be one and the God of the Gentiles another — that is, one God of the Law and another of the Gospels — the reply on this point will be narrow and confining enough, since the apostle Paul gives his verdict abundantly enough when he not only says that there is one God of Jews and of Gentiles, but also adds that it is one and the same God who justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith. And if they should wish to take "circumcision" by way of allegory, so as to say that by this word he called all the holy and spiritual ones, they will at once find a stumbling block in what follows. For if he called the holy ones — or, as they name them, the spiritual ones — "circumcision," it follows that by "uncircumcision" he meant sinners, whom they call "animal" (of the soul). And how will it be fitting that the good God should justify spiritual and animal alike? For them, then, there will be an inextricable knot in these words of the Apostle. But according to us, who say that "circumcision" means those who have believed from among the Jews, and "uncircumcision" no less means those who have been called from among the Gentiles to the faith, the exposition will be plain and easy. For it is one and the same God who justifies believers from either people, not by the privilege of circumcision or of uncircumcision, but by the regard for faith alone. There remains also the difference of a single syllable, in which the Apostle seems to have varied his expression. Let it not pass us by idly that he says God justifies the circumcision *from* faith, and not *through* faith; but the uncircumcision *through* faith, and not *from* faith. For this exchange of prepositions does not seem to me to be held superfluous in his usage, since we find that in other places too they are set down by him not at random but observantly, and that the difference of this distinction is of necessity preserved — as when, speaking of God, he says: "Since from him, and through himself, and in him are all things." And again elsewhere he says: "For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God." Of the same sort is what he writes to the Corinthians: "To one indeed through the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit." And not only does the apostle Paul maintain the observance of these distinctions, but John also, who, though he says of the Word of God that "all things were made through him," testifies that life was made not *through* him but *in* him, saying: "That which was made, in him was life." And since it would take much to expound the passages we have now brought forward by way of example, let us gather their sense briefly, so far as our capacity allows. When it is said "from him," something primary seems to be shown by the beginning of this preposition. But when "through him" is said, the understanding of a subsequent cause is designated — that is, of the cause which comes after the primary one. So that, to speak by way of example concerning what he says, "From him and through him and in him are all things": by "from him" he gave the signification of the first creation of all things, and of this very fact, that the things which exist began to be from God; by "through him," that those things which had earlier been made are governed and administered through him from whom they draw the beginning of their subsistence; by "in him," that those who have now been corrected and amended stand fast in his perfection. Thus, therefore, we are taught that these words maintain distinctions of the fullest reasonableness, so that our subsisting is said to be had "from God"; that we are administered and governed is designated as coming about "through him"; but that we stand in the summit of perfection is declared to be "in him." In the present passage too a certain such distinction can be observed, so that the circumcision, which is justified as it were in the first place and order, is mentioned as to be justified *from* faith and not *through* faith; while the uncircumcision, which is drawn to justification in the second place, is said to be justified not *from* faith but *through* faith. And I think that in that difference which we mentioned above — "For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman" — these things are more fully designated. For in the first place stands the man, from whom the woman is said to descend, and not *through* the man. But in the second place the man is through the woman; because the woman seems in a certain way to minister to the man as author, and therefore the man is said to be born *through* the woman, and not *from* the woman. But perhaps someone may meet this exposition of ours concerning the woman and the man, and object what the Apostle said concerning Christ: "Made from a woman, made under the law"; and he did not say, made *through* a woman. To him I think the answer must be given in this way. Of every man indeed it will be fitting to say that he was made through a woman, since indeed, before he was born through a woman, he took his beginning from a man; but Christ, who did not take the origin of his flesh from the seed of a man, is rightly said to have been made "from a woman." For to her, that is, to the woman, the very primary origin of his flesh is ascribed, and rightly is he mentioned by the Apostle as made not *through* a woman but "from a woman." One and the same God, therefore, justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith. But if anyone should inquire rather curiously by whom those who are justified from faith are justified, and again from whom those who are justified through faith are justified — although perhaps much curiosity may seem to be in this, nevertheless we can suitably say that those who are justified from faith, having taken their beginning from faith, are brought to completion through the fulfillment of good works; and those who are justified through faith, having begun from good works, receive the summit of perfection through faith. Thus each, cleaving to the other, is brought to completion from the other.

Did God create only the Jews, and is he exclusively concerned with them? For even if the Gentiles sinned, so did the Jews, and even if the Jews repent, so do the Gentiles. If Christ came to the Jews as promised by the law, he came to the Gentiles as well. For the prophets often spoke of the calling of the Gentiles. Paul wants to show the Gentiles that the first saints had not been circumcised and that Abraham was righteous before his circumcision. But he adds "as well," so as not to appear to be excluding the Jews.

Is not all humankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of all nations?

Tell me, is not all mankind one flock of God? Is not the same God both Lord and Shepherd of the universal nations? Who more "perishes" from God than the heathen, so long as he "errs? "Who is more "re-sought" by God than the heathen, when he is recalled by Christ? In fact, it is among heathens that this order finds antecedent place; if, that is, Christians are not otherwise made out of heathens than by being first "lost," and "re-sought" by God, and "carried back" by Christ.

God is not a partial God, so as to save only you and not every person. Here he also shames the Jews and greatly frightens them as fighters against God, if they do not admit that the Gentiles are saved through faith; for they do not believe that He is the God of all and equally provides for all.

Then when he says or is he the God of the Jews only, he manifests something he had presupposed, namely, that the justice of faith stands in the same common relation to all. He had previously explained this with a reason based on the material cause, when he stated above that all have sinned and need the glory of God (Rom 3:23), i.e., they are sinners, who need to be made just by the grace of God. But a proof based solely on the material cause is not enough, because matter is not moved to a form by itself without an agent cause. Accordingly, he now presents a proof based on the agent cause, i.e., the justifier, who is God: God is he who justifies (Rom 8:33). Now it is manifest that our God by justifying saves those whose God he is, according to a psalm, our God is a God of salvation (Ps 68:20). But he is the God not of the Jews only but of the gentiles also; therefore, he justifies both.

On this point he does three things. First, he raises a question concerning the Jews, when he says, is he the God of Jews only? It might seem that he is, because it says in Exodus, the God of the Hebrews called us (Exod 5:3). Hence it must be said that he was the God of the Jews only by the special worship paid to God by them; hence it is stated in a psalm: in Judah God is known (Ps 76:1); yet he was the God of all by his common reign over all things, as is stated in a psalm: God is king of all the earth (Ps 47:8). Second, he raises the question on the side of the gentiles, saying: is he not also of the gentiles? and he answers: yes, of gentiles also, whom he governs and rules: who would not fear you, O king of the nations? (Jer 10:7).

By "the circumcised" Paul means the Jews who have been justified by their faith in the promise and who believe that Jesus is the Christ whom God had promised in the law. By "the uncircumcised" he means the Gentiles who have been justified with God by their faith in Christ. Thus God has justified both Jews and Gentiles. For because God is one, everyone has been justified in the same way. What benefit then is there in circumcision? Or what disadvantage is there in uncircumcision when only faith produces worthiness and merit?

For "it is one God which justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith;" in which clauses there is no real difference in the sense, as if the phrase "by faith" meant one thing, and "through faith" another, but only a variety of expression. For in one passage, when speaking of the Gentiles,—that is, of the uncircumcision,—he says, "The Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen by faith;" and again, in another, when speaking of the circumcision, to which he himself belonged, he says, "We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we believed in Jesus Christ."

For all things had entered upon a new phase, the Word arranging after a new manner the advent in the flesh, that He might win back to God that human nature (hominem) which had departed from God; and therefore men were taught to worship God after a new fashion, but not another god, because in truth there is but "one God, who justifieth the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith."

For it was not merely for those who believed on Him in the time of Tiberius Caesar that Christ came, nor did the Father exercise His providence for the men only who are now alive, but for all men altogether, who from the beginning, according to their capacity, in their generation have both feared and loved God, and practised justice and piety towards their neighbours, and have earnestly desired to see Christ, and to hear His voice. Wherefore He shall, at His second coming, first rouse from their sleep all persons of this description, and shall raise them up, as well as the rest who shall be judged, and give them a place in His kingdom. For it is truly "one God who" directed the patriarchs towards His dispensations, and "has justified the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For as in the first we were prefigured, so, on the other hand, are they represented in us, that is, in the Church, and receive the recompense for those things which they accomplished.

Thus then does the Lord plainly show that it was the true Lord and the one God who had been set forth by the law; for Him whom the law proclaimed as God, the same did Christ point out as the Father, whom also it behoves the disciples of Christ alone to serve. By means of the statements of the law, He put our adversary to utter confusion; and the law directs us to praise God the Creator (Demiurgum), and to serve Him alone. Since this is the case, we must not seek for another Father besides Him, or above Him, since there is one God who justifies the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith.

Paul shows clearly that righteousness depends not on the merit of man but on the grace of God, who accepts the faith of those who believe without the works of the law.

"Seeing it is one God." That is, the same is the Master of both these and those. But if you tell me of the ancient state of things, then too the dealings of Providence were shared by both, although in diverse ways. For as to thee was given the written law, so to them was the natural; and they came short in nothing, if, that is, only they were willing, but were even able to surpass thee. And so he proceeds, with an allusion to this very thing, "Who shall justify the circumcision by faith, and the uncircumcision through faith," so reminding them of what he said before about uncircumcision and circumcision, whereby he showed that there was no difference. But if then there was no difference, much less is there any now, And this accordingly he now establishes upon still clearer grounds, and so demonstrates, that either of them stand alike in need of faith.

Hence he also fittingly adds in what follows: "Or is he the God of the Jews only? Is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also. Since indeed there is one God, who justifies the circumcision from faith, and the uncircumcision through faith." For those who would have the God of the Jews to be one and the God of the Gentiles another — that is, one God of the Law and another of the Gospels — the reply on this point will be narrow and confining enough, since the apostle Paul gives his verdict abundantly enough when he not only says that there is one God of Jews and of Gentiles, but also adds that it is one and the same God who justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith. And if they should wish to take "circumcision" by way of allegory, so as to say that by this word he called all the holy and spiritual ones, they will at once find a stumbling block in what follows. For if he called the holy ones — or, as they name them, the spiritual ones — "circumcision," it follows that by "uncircumcision" he meant sinners, whom they call "animal" (of the soul). And how will it be fitting that the good God should justify spiritual and animal alike? For them, then, there will be an inextricable knot in these words of the Apostle. But according to us, who say that "circumcision" means those who have believed from among the Jews, and "uncircumcision" no less means those who have been called from among the Gentiles to the faith, the exposition will be plain and easy. For it is one and the same God who justifies believers from either people, not by the privilege of circumcision or of uncircumcision, but by the regard for faith alone. There remains also the difference of a single syllable, in which the Apostle seems to have varied his expression. Let it not pass us by idly that he says God justifies the circumcision *from* faith, and not *through* faith; but the uncircumcision *through* faith, and not *from* faith. For this exchange of prepositions does not seem to me to be held superfluous in his usage, since we find that in other places too they are set down by him not at random but observantly, and that the difference of this distinction is of necessity preserved — as when, speaking of God, he says: "Since from him, and through himself, and in him are all things." And again elsewhere he says: "For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman; but all things are from God." Of the same sort is what he writes to the Corinthians: "To one indeed through the Spirit is given the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit." And not only does the apostle Paul maintain the observance of these distinctions, but John also, who, though he says of the Word of God that "all things were made through him," testifies that life was made not *through* him but *in* him, saying: "That which was made, in him was life." And since it would take much to expound the passages we have now brought forward by way of example, let us gather their sense briefly, so far as our capacity allows. When it is said "from him," something primary seems to be shown by the beginning of this preposition. But when "through him" is said, the understanding of a subsequent cause is designated — that is, of the cause which comes after the primary one. So that, to speak by way of example concerning what he says, "From him and through him and in him are all things": by "from him" he gave the signification of the first creation of all things, and of this very fact, that the things which exist began to be from God; by "through him," that those things which had earlier been made are governed and administered through him from whom they draw the beginning of their subsistence; by "in him," that those who have now been corrected and amended stand fast in his perfection. Thus, therefore, we are taught that these words maintain distinctions of the fullest reasonableness, so that our subsisting is said to be had "from God"; that we are administered and governed is designated as coming about "through him"; but that we stand in the summit of perfection is declared to be "in him." In the present passage too a certain such distinction can be observed, so that the circumcision, which is justified as it were in the first place and order, is mentioned as to be justified *from* faith and not *through* faith; while the uncircumcision, which is drawn to justification in the second place, is said to be justified not *from* faith but *through* faith. And I think that in that difference which we mentioned above — "For as the woman is from the man, so also the man is through the woman" — these things are more fully designated. For in the first place stands the man, from whom the woman is said to descend, and not *through* the man. But in the second place the man is through the woman; because the woman seems in a certain way to minister to the man as author, and therefore the man is said to be born *through* the woman, and not *from* the woman. But perhaps someone may meet this exposition of ours concerning the woman and the man, and object what the Apostle said concerning Christ: "Made from a woman, made under the law"; and he did not say, made *through* a woman. To him I think the answer must be given in this way. Of every man indeed it will be fitting to say that he was made through a woman, since indeed, before he was born through a woman, he took his beginning from a man; but Christ, who did not take the origin of his flesh from the seed of a man, is rightly said to have been made "from a woman." For to her, that is, to the woman, the very primary origin of his flesh is ascribed, and rightly is he mentioned by the Apostle as made not *through* a woman but "from a woman." One and the same God, therefore, justifies the circumcision from faith and the uncircumcision through faith. But if anyone should inquire rather curiously by whom those who are justified from faith are justified, and again from whom those who are justified through faith are justified — although perhaps much curiosity may seem to be in this, nevertheless we can suitably say that those who are justified from faith, having taken their beginning from faith, are brought to completion through the fulfillment of good works; and those who are justified through faith, having begun from good works, receive the summit of perfection through faith. Thus each, cleaving to the other, is brought to completion from the other.

Jews and Gentiles have both believed in the same God and in the same Christ.

One, he says, is God, that is, the God of both Jews and Gentiles, Who justifies the circumcised not by the law, but by faith, and accepts the uncircumcised through faith. Having mentioned circumcision and uncircumcision, he also recalls what was said above, where he proved that neither does circumcision bring benefit when there are no works, nor does uncircumcision harm in and of itself. Thus, in both cases faith is needed.

Third, at for it is one God, he manifests what he had said with a sign, as if to say: it is clear that he is the God not only of the Jews but also of the gentiles, for it is one God who justifies circumcision, i.e., the Jews, from faith, as is said in Galatians, in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision is of any avail (Gal 5:6).

According to the Gloss, from faith and through faith are exactly the same. However, a slight difference can be noted. For the preposition 'from' sometimes designates a remote cause, while the preposition 'through' designates a nearer cause. Therefore, the Jews are said to be justified from faith because faith was the first cause from which circumcision and the other sacraments of the law proceeded; thus, faith justified the Jews as a primary cause through intermediate causes. But the gentiles are justified by faith itself immediately.

Paul says that the law is not nullified by faith but fulfilled. For its status is confirmed when faith bears witness that what it said would come has actually happened. Paul says this because of the Jews who thought that faith in Christ was inimical to the law because they did not understand the true meaning of the law. For Paul does not nullify the law when he says that it must come to an end, because he asserts that at the time it was given it was rightly given, but now it does not have to be kept any longer. In the law itself it is said that a time would come when the promise would be fulfilled and the law would no longer have to be kept.… "Behold the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and the house of Judah, not like the covenant which I made with their fathers."

How should the law be upheld if not by righteousness? By a righteousness, moreover, which is of faith, for what could not be fulfilled through the law is fulfilled through faith.

Do we then make void freedom of choice through grace? God forbid! Rather, we establish freedom of choice. As the law is not made void by faith, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace. Freedom of choice is necessary to the fulfillment of the law. But by the law comes the knowledge of sin; by faith comes the obtaining of grace against sin; by grace comes the healing of the soul from sin's sickness; by the healing of the soul comes freedom of choice; by freedom of choice comes the love of righteousness; by the love of righteousness comes the working of the law. Thus, as the law is not made void but established by faith, since faith obtains the grace whereby the law may be fulfilled, so freedom of choice is not made void but established by grace, since grace heals the will whereby righteousness may freely be loved.

The law is confirmed by faith. Apart from faith the law merely commands, and it holds guilty those who do not fulfill its commands, so that it might thereafter turn to the grace of the Deliverer those groaning in their inability to do what is commanded.

On account of his humanity Emmanuel is called a prophet, who following Moses is the mediator between God and humanity. The law was a shadow, but even so it presented an image of the truth. Furthermore, the truth hardly destroys its images; rather it makes-them clearer.

"Do we then," he says, "make void the Law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the Law." Do you see his varied and unspeakable judgment? For the bare use of the word "establish" shows that it was not then standing, but was worn out. And note also Paul's exceeding power, and how superabundantly he maintains what he wishes. For here he shows that the faith, so far from doing any disparagement to the "Law," even assists it, as it on the other hand paved the way for the faith. For as the Law itself before bore witness to it (for he saith, "being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets"), so here this establisheth that, now that it is unnerved. And how did it establish? he would say. What was the object of the Law and what the scope of all its enactments? Why, to make man righteous. But this it had no power to do. "For all," it says, "have sinned:" but faith when it came accomplished it. For when a man is once a believer, he is straightway justified. The intention then of the Law it did establish, and what all its enactments aim after, this hath it brought to a consummation. Consequently it has not disannulled, but perfected it. Here then three points he has demonstrated; first, that without the Law it is possible to be justified; next, that this the Law could not effect; and, that faith is not opposed to the Law.

And for this reason I think the Apostle at once added in what follows: "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid; rather, we establish the law." Since in the foregoing he seemed to refer everything to faith, he himself sets before himself the objection that could be raised by another, and says: If a man is justified through faith and not from the works of the law, and if God justifies circumcision from faith and uncircumcision through faith, do you then, O Paul, destroy the law of Moses through faith? But answering this himself he says: "God forbid; nay rather, we establish the law," that is, we confirm it. But it is worth the effort to see how he declares that he confirms the law, when in the foregoing he had said that a man is not justified from the works of the law. The Savior says in the Gospels that "Moses wrote of me." Therefore he who does not believe in Christ, of whom Moses wrote in the law, destroys the law; but he who believes in Christ, of whom Moses wrote, confirms the law through faith, because he believes in Christ. And by faith we mean a faith in the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit that is whole, full, and perfect, one that professes nothing divergent, nothing discordant or alien within the Trinity. For Marcion, who says that the God of the law is one and the Father of Christ another, does not by his faith establish or confirm the law, but destroys it. This Ebion also does; and so do all who insert some corruption into the catholic faith. I will also fittingly add this, that everyone who, believing in Christ, acts well and keeps himself from every stain of sin, this man confirms the law of God by living rightly; but he who is driven headlong by the vices of sins, and without any restraint of repentance is defiled by the constancy of his crimes, this man, even if he seems to believe in Christ, does not by his faith establish, but destroys the law. But that objection too seems to me by no means to be passed over, which someone can bring forward, saying that the Apostle appears to write things contrary to himself, since in the present passage he says that the law is not destroyed but confirmed, while in the second Epistle to the Corinthians he writes thus: "But if the ministry of death, engraved in letters upon stones, was made in glory, so that the children of Israel could not gaze upon the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which is being done away, how shall the ministry of the Spirit not be rather in glory?" And a little later: "For if that which is being done away is through glory, much more is that which remains in glory." It can therefore be said that the glory of the face of Moses which is being done away, and this which he says, "For if that which is being done away is through glory," seems contrary to that statement in which he declares: We do not destroy the law through faith, but we establish and confirm it. But see whether we may resolve in this way the difficulty that is put to us. It is not the same thing to say, "We destroy the law," and, the law is destroyed. Paul therefore in the present passage declares this, that he himself does not destroy the law. For even if the law is destroyed by that glory which surpasses it, it is not destroyed by Paul, nor by any other of the saints. Whence the Lord himself also said: "I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill it." No one of the saints, therefore, nor the Lord himself, destroys the law; but its temporal and passing glory is destroyed and overcome by the eternal and abiding glory. Whence see how carefully and how keenly the apostolic Writings must be read. He did not say, "For that which was glorious was not glorified," and then fall silent — otherwise it would seem false (for how would that which is glorious not be glorified?) — but he added: "because of the glory that surpasses it," so as to show that the glory of Moses, that is, of the law, is not destroyed by anyone whatever, but, as we have said, that from the comparison of the greater glory which is in Christ, that glory which is in the law is covered over and darkened; and therefore he says: "For if that which is being done away is through glory, much more is that which remains in glory." He says that the things of Christ remain, and that the things of Moses are done away: but done away not by a man, but from the comparison, as we have said, of the glory that supervenes; since indeed "the law was our schoolmaster unto Christ" until "the fullness of the times" should come; and, just as we say that the work of the schoolmaster is necessary so long as he who is under the schoolmaster is a little child, but that the office of the schoolmaster is done away and is no longer necessary when he who was under the schoolmaster has come to maturity, so we say that the work of the law is now done away "when the fullness of time arrived," and the son who once differed nothing from a servant has been made heir of the father's substance. But that these things which the Apostle calls "to be done away" ought to be understood in this way, learn his usage regarding this word in other places also, where he says: "We know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect shall have come, those things which are in part shall be done away." And in this passage Paul's knowledge or prophecy is said to be done away without any injury to the apostolic grace: namely, so that we may understand that in comparison with things perfect, those things which are imperfect are empty and idle. So therefore in the present discourse Paul indeed does not destroy the law, but confirms it. Yet the glory of Christ, when it has been revealed, by the very comparison of itself which surpasses it, both refutes and convicts that glory which appeared in Moses and by which he had been glorified, and shows that it is not even to be reckoned a glory. Of the same sort is what is said elsewhere: "He must increase, but I must decrease"; and what Paul himself says: "But when I became a man, I did away with the things of a child." This the likeness of the schoolmaster also shows, whose work is done away and ceases when the little child has come to the perfect age. Therefore the Apostle said most cautiously: "Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid!" — and he did not say, is the law then destroyed through faith, but, "do we then destroy the law?" And again in what follows: "No; rather, we establish the law." For even if the law is destroyed, it is not destroyed through faith, but through the surpassing glory. But through faith the law is not only not destroyed, but is established and confirmed by the apostles: because the Christ whom the law and the prophets foretold would come, these men proclaim to have come already; and it is assuredly a confirmation of the prophecy or of the law, when the things that had been foretold are shown to have been fulfilled.

Is the law which enjoins us to be circumcised unnecessary? Not at all! On the contrary, we enable it to stand firm when we show that what it said is true, viz., that (spiritual) law would follow after (physical) law, (spiritual) testament after (physical) testament, (spiritual) circumcision after (physical) circumcision.

But he had withal said above: "Are we, then, making void the law through faith? Far be it; but we are establishing the law " -forsooth in those (points) which, being even now interdicted by the New Testament, are prohibited by an even more emphatic precept: instead of, "Thou shalt not commit adultery," "Whoever shall have seen with a view to concupiscence, hath already committed adultery in his own heart; " and instead of, "Thou shalt not kill," "Whoever shall have said to his brother, Racha, shall be in danger of hell.

The statement that the law is overthrown by faith threw the Jews into confusion. Therefore he heals them with his great wisdom, saying that faith establishes the law. For what the law also desired, that is, to justify man, but could not do, faith accomplishes. Whoever has believed has already been justified. So faith did not destroy, but established the law. By the expression ίστώμεν he suggests that the law was lying down, and that which is lying down must be raised up and set upright.

Then when he says do we then destroy, he excludes an objection. For someone might claim that he is overthrowing the aforementioned law; therefore, he asks: do we then destroy the law through faith, inasmuch as we say that men are justified without the works of the law?

He answers: God forbid! in keeping with Matthew, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law (Matt 5:18). Rather, he adds: but we establish the law, i.e., by faith we complete and fulfill the law, as Matthew says, I have come not to abolish the law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17).

This is true as regards the ceremonial precepts because, being figures, they were upheld and fulfilled by the fact that the truth signified by them is shown forth in the faith of Christ. This is also true as regards the moral precepts, because the faith of Christ confers the help of grace to fulfill the moral precepts of the law and even adds special counsels, through which the moral precepts are more safely and securely kept.

After showing that no one can be justified before God by the works of the law, Paul goes on to say that Abraham could not merit anything according to the flesh either. In saying "the flesh," Paul meant circumcision, because Abraham sought nothing on the basis of his circumcision. For he was already justified before he was circumcised.

Paul shows from the example of Abraham that faith is not given only to those who are under the law and the circumcision, but also to those who are not circumcised. For Abraham was not justified by his works either, nor did he have any reason to boast, for he was imperfect and apart from God he could do nothing.… Abraham our father was justified by faith. Paul calls him the "forefather according to the flesh" of those Israelites who have become sons of God by the Spirit. For Christ was made like them in his birth according to the flesh, and now he has made them like him through his birth by grace in the Spirit.

He had said that the world had become guilty before God, and that all had sinned, and that boasting was excluded and that it was impossible to be saved otherwise than by faith. He is now intent upon showing that this salvation, so far from being matter of shame, was even the cause of a bright glory, and a greater than that through works. For since the being saved, yet with shame, had somewhat of dejection in it, he next takes away this suspicion too. And indeed he has hinted at the same already, by calling it not barely salvation, but "righteousness. Therein" (he says) "is the righteousness of God revealed." For he that is saved as a righteous man has a confidence accompanying his salvation. And he calls it not "righteousness" only, but also the setting forth of the righteousness of God. But God is set forth in things which are glorious and shining, and great.

And he calls him "father, as pertaining to the flesh," to throw them out of the genuine relationship to him, and to pave the Gentiles' way to kinsmanship with him. And then he says, "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory: but not before God." After saying that God "justified the circumcision by faith and the uncircumcision through faith," and making the same sufficiently sure in what he said before, he now proves it by Abraham more clearly than he promised, and pitches the battle for faith against works, and makes this righteous man the subject of the whole struggle.

For the great power of Paul is especially displayed in this, that he turns what is objected to the other side, and shows that what seemed rather to be on the side of salvation by works, viz. glorying or boldness of claim belonged much more truly to that by faith. For he that glorieth in his works has his own labors to put forward: but he that finds his honor in having faith in God, has a much greater ground for glorying to show, in that it is God that he glorifieth and magnifieth.

These things having thus been explained according to our ability, it also seems by no means to be passed over that he named Abraham "our father according to the flesh." For Abraham is seen to be the father of the Gentiles according to faith, not according to the flesh. For of the Apostle himself he can indeed be called father even according to the flesh: for being of the race of Israel, he could name Abraham father even according to the flesh; but the other nations will name him father in spirit, not in flesh — unless, in passages so constricted, we turn to the breadth of allegorical understanding, where "father according to the flesh" can be taken as he who has handed on the first elements of carnal teaching, that is, of the law according to the letter, and has stood forth as a teacher of the first instruction in the divine law. But that teachers too are called fathers, the apostle Paul also says, that "in Christ Jesus through the Gospel I have begotten you." But you also who read, gather for yourself from the divine Volumes the testimonies bearing on this.

Paul calls the Jews back to the beginning of circumcision, so that what it originally stood for might be fully understood.

Having sufficiently proven that faith is necessary for all, he confirms this further with the example of Abraham, who enjoyed great respect among the Jews, and says that he too, having excellently accomplished many great things, was justified not by works, but by faith. He calls him father "according to the flesh," in order to show that the Jews do not have a spiritual kinship with him, or rather, in order to oblige them to imitate him in all things.

After excluding the glory which the Jews took in the law, on the basis of which they preferred themselves to the gentiles, the Apostle now excludes their glory in regard to circumcision.

About this he does two things.

First, he takes up the question he had raised earlier, when he asked, what is the profit of circumcision? (Rom 3:1). And because Abraham was the first to receive the command about circumcision, as stated in Genesis (Gen 17:10), he repeats the question in the person of Abraham himself, saying: if it is true that God justifies the uncircumcised as well as the circumcised, what profit shall we say then that Abraham has found, who is our father according to the flesh? That is, according to circumcision and other bodily observances. For it does not seem fitting to say that he found no usefulness, since it is stated in Isaiah, I am the Lord, your God, who teaches you useful things (Isa 48:17).

This is a rhetorical argument. For Abraham indeed does have glory before God, but because of the faith by which he was justified, because nobody is justified by the works of the law in a way which would give him glory before God. And because those who keep the law are still being justified, Paul adds: "If Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God."

Since Abraham without the law obtained glory not by the works of the law (as if he could fulfill the law in his own strength), since the law had not yet been given, the glory belongs to God, not to him. For he was justified not by his own merit, as if by works, but by the grace of God through faith.

What can we say to those who insist that Abraham was justified by works because he was ready to sacrifice his son Isaac on the altar? Abraham was already an old man when God promised him that he would have a son and that his descendants would be as countless as the stars of the sky. Abraham piously believed that all things are possible with God and so exercised this faith. God reckoned him to be righteous on this account and gave Abraham a reward worthy of such a godly mind, viz., the forgiveness of his previous sins.… So even if Abraham was also justified by his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, this must be regarded as an evident demonstration of a faith which was already very strong.

Since above he had set forth two laws, one of which he named the law of works and the other the law of faith, and says that by the law of faith the boasting of those who glory in the works of the law is excluded; and since he had pronounced that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law: consequently he now, in order that these things may be established from the Scriptures, brings forward the example of Abraham, and says that "Abraham, if he was justified by works, has glory, but not before God." And this indeed he argues not without dialectical skill. For if he who is justified by works does not have glory before God, but it is agreed that Abraham does have glory before God, then Abraham was justified not by works but by faith, so that he necessarily has glory before God. For thus the Scripture declares: that "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him unto righteousness." But if God reckoned it to him unto righteousness, without doubt his glory too is before God. For this reason, therefore, the Apostle joins to this testimony which he took from the book of Genesis also a word of his own, and says that "to him who works, the reward is not imputed according to grace, but according to debt; but to him who does not work, yet believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned unto righteousness." Throughout this whole passage, then, the Apostle seems to show this: that there are two justifications, one of which he calls that from works, the other that from faith. And the one which is from works he says indeed has glory, but in itself, and not before God; whereas the one which is from faith has glory before God, inasmuch as it is before him who inspects the hearts of men and knows who it is that believes in secret and who it is that does not believe. And therefore it rightly has glory before God alone, who sees through the disposition of a person's faith in what is hidden; but he who hopes for justification from works — it may happen that his works are approved even by men. For whatever is manifest in deed is open and can be seen with the eyes; and if faith is in secret, while works are in the open, it will be fitting to take up here what is written: "The things that are hidden belong to the Lord your God, but the things that are manifest, to you and to your sons." But it will also be fitting to apply to these matters what is written, that "the just shall live by my faith." Fittingly, therefore, we say that those who are circumcised according to the inner man and are Jews in secret, in spirit and not in letter — their praise and glory is not before men, but before God. But those who are justified from works, since their works are open and manifest, their glory can be either before any of the saints and just who receive from God the power of judging concerning visible human works, or even before the angels and the other powers of the heavenly virtues, who certainly are able to glorify him whose works they have approved. But since to know the hidden things of the heart belongs to God alone, he himself sees through whether in each one there dwells some disposition of faith; and therefore he who is justified from faith has glory before God alone, who has knowledge of hidden things and is alone the inspector of faith. Therefore also "Abraham," he says, "if he was justified by works, has" indeed "glory" coming from works, "but not" that which is "before God" alone; yet it is certain that Abraham has glory before God alone: it follows, then, that he was justified not from works, but from faith. But do not suppose that if anyone has such a faith by which, being justified, he has glory before God, he can at the same time have injustice along with it. For there is no share of faith together with unbelief, no fellowship of righteousness with iniquity, just as there can be no association of light with darkness. For if "he who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God," and "he who is born of God does not sin," it is manifest that he who believes in Jesus Christ does not sin; but if he sins, it is certain that he does not believe in him. The mark, therefore, of true faith is where there is no transgression, just as, on the contrary, where there is transgression it is a mark of unbelief. For this reason, then, it is also said of Abraham in another passage of Scripture that he was justified from the works of faith: because it is certain that he who truly believes works the work of faith and of righteousness and of all goodness, and becomes capable of both glories — both that which is before God in secret, and also that which is in the open and is not before God alone.

If Abraham was justified because of his circumcision, then God gave him nothing and he could have gloried in what he did to himself. Or it may mean that if Abraham carried out the ordinances, he had glory in his own eyes but not in God's.

The accomplishment of good works honors those who do them, but it does not reveal the kindness of God. Faith, on the other hand, reveals both the love for God of the one who believes and God's kindness.

If he was justified by works, then he "has something to boast about, but not before God," that is, he can boast that he accomplished something well by his own labors, but this does not mean boasting before God, and is not directed toward God.

Second, when he says, for if Abraham, he answers the question he had raised.

He does two things.

First, he shows that Abraham did not obtain justification through circumcision and the other works of the law, but rather through faith;

second, he commends his faith, at who against hope (Rom 4:18).

In regard to the first he does two things.

First, he explains his position with a reason based on divine acceptance;

second, by reason of God's promise, at for not through the law (Rom 4:13).

In regard to the first he does three things.

First, he proposes a conditional statement;

second, he disproves the consequent, at for what says the Scripture?

Third, he proves the conditional statement, at as David also.

In regard to the first the Apostle intends to argue in the following manner: if Abraham were justified from works of the law, he would have no glory with God; therefore, he was not justified from works.

Hence, he presents the conditional statement, saying: it has been asked what Abraham found in virtue of bodily circumcision, and it is obvious that he did not find himself justified from works of the law, such that his justice consisted in the works of the law; he has glory, namely, before men, who see the outward works, but not before God, who sees in secret: the Lord looks on the heart (1 Sam 16:7); so let no one boast of men (1 Cor 3:21). Hence it is written against some that they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God (John 12:43).

Against this one might object that becoming accustomed to outward works generates an inward habit, according to which a man's heart is also well disposed and so made ready to perform well and take pleasure in good works, as the Philosopher teaches in Ethics II.

The answer is that this takes place in human justice, through which man is ordained to the human good. For the habit of this justice can be acquired through human works, but the justice which obtains glory before God is ordained to the divine good, namely future glory, which exceeds human ability, as is said: it has not arisen in the heart of man what God has prepared for those who love him (1 Cor 2:9).

Consequently, a man's works are not proportioned to causing the habit of this justice; rather, a man's heart needs first to be justified inwardly by God, so that he can perform works proportioned to divine glory.

I do not demand a reason from Christ. If I am convinced by reason, I deny faith. Abraham believed God. Let us also believe, so that we who are the heirs of his race may likewise be heirs of his faith.

Paul revealed that Abraham had glory before God not because he was circumcised nor because he abstained from evil, but because he believed in God. For that reason he was justified, and he would receive the reward of praise in the future.

Abraham, accordingly, who through hearing believed the voice, which promised under the oak in Mamre, "I will give this land to thee, and to thy seed," was either elect or not. But if he was not, how did he straightway believe, as it were naturally? And if he was elect, their hypothesis is done away with, in as much as even previous to the coming of the Lord an election was found, and that saved: "For it was reckoned to him for righteousness."

And on learning the way of truth, let us walk on the right way, without turning till we attain to what we desire. It was therefore with reason that the king of the Romans (his name was Numa), being a Pythagorean, first of all men, erected a temple to Faith and Peace. "And to Abraham, on believing, righteousness was reckoned."

And teaching this very thing, He said to the Jews: "Your father Abraham rejoiced that he should see my day; and he saw it, and was glad." What is intended? "Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness." In the first place, [he believed] that He was the maker of heaven and earth, the only God; and in the next place, that He would make his seed as the stars of heaven. This is what is meant by Paul, [when he says,] "as lights in the world." Righteously, therefore, having left his earthly kindred, he followed the Word of God, walking as a pilgrim with the Word, that he might [afterwards] have his abode with the Word.

The Master proclaimed that Abraham was just because he outran the weakness of his human nature. He strained with his whole mind toward the power of him who had made the promise.

"For what saith the Scripture? Abraham believed in God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

After mentioning the Scripture above he goes on to secure also the judgment of the speakers, and shows that justification took place in the uncircumcision. Then from these grounds he solves another objection which is starting up. For if when in uncircumcision, one might say he was justified, to what purpose was the circumcision brought in? "He received it," he says, "a sign and seal of the righteousness that was by the faith, which he had being yet uncircumcised."

There is added in what follows: "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him unto righteousness." This saying is taken from the book of Genesis, from that place where not Abraham, but Abram says to the Lord: "Since you have given me no seed, this house-born servant of mine will be my heir. And the Lord said to him: This man shall not be your heir, but he who shall come forth from you, he shall be your heir. And he led him," it says, "outside, and said to him: Look up to heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to count them. And he said to him: So shall your seed be. And he believed God, and it was reckoned to him unto righteousness." We have gone back over these very passages from the book of Genesis at some length, by way of example, so that we might learn what the cause of this justification was. And therefore we must attend the more keenly to this: whether it is on this account alone — that he believed a son was to be given him, and from him an offspring to be propagated to the multitude of the stars — that his faith is said to have been reckoned unto righteousness; or whether it is for this and for all the things he had already believed before. For it must not be supposed that it was without faith that he went out from his own land and from his father's kindred and came into the land which God had shown him; or that other occasion, when, after Lot had been separated from him, the Lord says to him: "Lift up your eyes and look from this place where you stand, and gaze toward the north and the south and toward the west and the east, for all this land which you see I will give to you and to your seed forever." And who would say that this too was done without faith, that Abraham came and dwelt by the oak of Mamre in Hebron and built there an altar to the Lord? And how was that also not a work of faith, when Melchizedek blessed Abraham and said: "Blessed be Abraham of the most high God, who created heaven and earth; and blessed be the most high God, who delivered his enemies into his hands"? From all of which it is gathered that in each of these there was indeed faith in Abraham, but in part; whereas in that place where it is said that his faith was reckoned unto righteousness, a perfect faith is declared. For just as the Apostle says that knowledge and prophecy are in part — and again says that there is a perfect state, when he writes: "We know in part and we prophesy in part; but when that which is perfect has come, those things which are in part shall be done away" — so also we can understand that faith is sometimes in part and sometimes perfect. But that what we say may be further fortified by other testimonies of holy Scripture, hear the apostles saying to the Lord in the Gospel: "Lord, increase our faith." Do they not plainly show by these words that they indeed have faith, but such faith as needed increase? Moreover the apostle Paul himself, when he says, "If I should have all faith, so that I might remove mountains," by saying "all" teaches that the whole is composed of parts. For a thing cannot be called "all" where there is no diversity either of quality or of quantity. It seems therefore that in the present passage also, since many acts of faith on Abraham's part had gone before, through each of the several things which we recalled above as being in part, in this present instance the whole of his faith is gathered together, and so was reckoned to him unto righteousness. Now indeed you will consider whether, just as it was said of faith that it was reckoned to him unto righteousness, so it may also be said of the other virtues that, for example, mercy can be reckoned to anyone unto righteousness, or wisdom, or knowledge, or gentleness and humility; or at any rate whether faith is reckoned unto righteousness for every believer. But when I return to the Scriptures, I do not find that faith is reckoned unto righteousness for all believers. For it is written of the sons of Israel that "they believed the Lord and his servant Moses," and yet there is not added what is written of Abraham, that it was reckoned to them unto righteousness. On this account I judge that they did not have, as we have shown in Abraham's case, that perfection heaped up into one out of many parts of faith, which would deserve to be reckoned unto righteousness.

Abraham's faith was so great that his earlier sins were all forgiven him, and righteousness was counted as credit for every one of them by faith alone. Later he was on fire with such love for God that he piled one good work on top of another. Therefore he has glory in God's eyes.

Accordingly it is patience which is both subsequent and antecedent to faith. In short, Abraham believed God, and was accredited by Him with righteousness; but it was patience which proved his faith, when he was bidden to immolate his son, with a view to (I would not say the temptation, but) the typical attestation of his faith.

On the contrary, whoever is justified by faith has praise before God and can boast in God, as one saved by His grace and beloved by Him. The believer can also boast in another way, namely as one who has glorified God by believing that He can do what seems impossible to us. So, he has praise and boldness before God, as one having a true understanding of Him, and believing in Him as almighty.

Then when he says, for what says, he disproves the consequent, which was negative, by proving the opposite affirmative, namely, that Abraham did have glory before God.

He proves this on the authority of Scripture:

first, he cites the authority;

second, he explains, at now to him.

First, therefore, he says: I say that Abraham was justified in a way that gave him glory before God. For what says the Scripture? Abraham believed God who promised that his seed would be multiplied (Gen 15:6). Believe God and he will help you (Sir 2:6). And it was reputed to him, i.e., by God, unto justice: was not Abraham found faithful when tested? (1 Macc 2:52). Consequently, it is clear that before God, by whom that he believed was reckoned to him as justice, he has glory.

But it should be noted that Abraham expressed the justice described, which God regards, not in some outward work but in the inward faith of the heart, which God alone sees. Indeed, since the act of faith is said to be threefold, namely, to believe in God, to believe God, and to believe unto God, he mentions this act, namely to believe God, which is the proper act of faith and indicates its nature. For to believe unto God shows the ordering of faith to its end, which is through charity; for to believe unto God is to go to God by believing, which charity does. Consequently, it follows upon the nature of faith.

But to believe in God indicates the matter of faith taken as a theological virtue, having God for its object. Consequently, this act does not yet attain the nature of faith, because if one believes in God in virtue of certain human reasons and natural signs, he is not yet said to have the faith of which we now speak, but only when he believes something for the reason that it was said by God—which is indicated by the phrase, 'to believe God.' It is from this that faith takes its nature, just as any cognitive habit takes its nature from the reason in virtue of which it assents to something. For a person possessing scientific philosophical knowledge is inclined to assent to its statements for one reason, namely, through demonstration, but one having the habit of opinion is inclined to assent for a different reason, namely, through a dialectical syllogism.