he is justified gratuitously, even as David speaks of the blessedness of him whom, although destitute of merit, God regards and treats as right- eous. Descriheth the blessedness, i. e. pronounces blessed. To whom God imputeth righteousness without works, that is, whom God regards and treats as righteous, although he is not in himself righteous. The meaning of this clause cannot be mistaken. ' To impute sin' is to lay sin to the charge of any one, and to treat him accordingly, as is universally admit- ted; so 'to impute righteousness' is to set righteousness to one's ac- count, and to treat him accordingly. This righteousness does not, of course, belong antecedently to those to whom it is imputed, for they are ungodly and destitute of works. Here then is an imputation to men of what does not belong to them, and to which they have in themselves no claim. To impute righteousness is the apostle's definition of the term to justify. It is not making men inherently righteous, or morally pure, but it is regarding and treating them as just. This is done, not on the ground of personal character or works, but on the ground of the right- eousness of Christ. As this is dealing with men, not according to merit, but in a gracious manner, the passage cited from Ps. 32 : 1, 2, is pre- cisely in point, " Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin." That is, blessed is the man who, although a sinner, is re- garded and treated as righteous. As the remission of sin is necessarily connected with restoration to God's favour, the apostle speaks of it as the whole of justification ; not that the idea of remission exhausts the whole idea of justification, but it necessarily implies the rest. In like manner, in Eph. 1 : 7, it is said, " In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sin ;" which does not imply that forgiveness is the whole of redemp- tion, that the gift of the Spirit, the glorification of the body, and eternal life, which are so constantly spoken of as fruits of Christ's work and parts of " the purchased possession" (Eph. 1 : 14), are to be excluded.
(9) Cometh this blessedness upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncir- cumcision also? &e. The apostle's third argument, commencing with this verse and continuing to the 12th, has special reference to circumci- sion. He had proved that Abraham was not justified on account of his works generally; he now proves that circumcision is neither the ground nor condition of his acceptance. The proof of this point is brief and con- clusive. It is admitted that Abraham was justified. The only question is, was it before or after his circumcision ? If before, it certainly was not on account of it. As it was before, circumcision must have had some other object.
' Cometh this blessedness.^ There is nothing in the original to answer to the word cometh, although some word of the kind must be supplied. The word rendered blessedness me?Lns more properly ' declaration of bless- edness.' 'This declaration of blessedness, is it upo7i, i. e. is it about, does it concern the circumcision only]' The preposition used by the apostle often points out the direction of an action, or the object concerning