I doubt not but that he acted thus by design, exactly as our blessed Lord himself did in his first sermon that heever preached, when, in citing the words of the Prophet Isaiah, he stopped short, when he came to the words which were irrelevant to his
present subject, and never mentioned them at all s
The Apostle was engaged in a most important topic, and establishing by argument the doctrine of justification by faith without works. He had shewn that Abraham, who had so abounded in good works, had nothing whereof he could glory, and that he had been justified solely by faith in the promised Seedh. He proceeds then to establish the same doctrine from the words of David, who had pronounced that man blessed, not whose good works could avail, whether in whole or in part, for his justification before God, but, " whose transgressions were forgiven, and whose sins were covered;" and who, con- sequently, if saved at all, must be saved by a righteousness imputed to him. But, if the Apostle had proceeded to cite the remaining words of David, he would have obscured his argument, and given occasion to an adversary to misrepresent, or at all events to misunderstand, his meaning. An adversary, if the last clause of David's words had been inserted by Paul, might have said, ' I agree with you, Paul : we are to be justi- fied by faith : but then it is not by faith as apprehending the righteousness of another, but by faith as working out a righteousness for itself; or, in other words, not by faith without works, but by faith as an active, operative, sanctifying principle : and the person who possesses and exercises such a faith, has some- what of his own to glory in.' Now this would have utterly sub- verted the Apostle's argument : and therefore the Apostle, not choosing to give occasion for any such objection to his statement, altogether omitted the words on which the adversary would have founded it. He could indeed easily have answered the objec- tion : but he judged it best to cut off all occasion for it.
But David had no such reason for restraining his words; and therefore he gave full scope to what was in his mind ; and knowing that the justifying office of Christ is never separated from the sanctifying office of the Holy Spirit, and that no man under the power of sin could be blessed, he added, " and in whose spirit there is no guile." He knew it would be to no purpose that a man was pardoned, if he was not also renewed in the spirit of his mind. Suppose Satan himself to be par- doned ; suppose further, that he was admitted into heaven ; he
b Compare Isai. lxi. 1, 2. with Luke iv. 17 — 19. where our Lord stopped short in the middle of the sentence, omitting all mention of " vengeance" when lie wished to impress his hearers with nothing but the words of " qrace"
•' ver. 1—3.'