Commentary on Romans; Systematic Theology

fidelity, and his bonds of love and duty become stronger every day. His reward is eternal life, vs. 12, 13, 16, &c.

5. It is of God, that those who were once the servants of sin, " become the servants of righteousness. To him, therefore, all the praise and gratitude belong, ver. 17.

6. When a man is the slave of sin, he commonly thinks him-, self free; and when most degraded, is often the most proud. When truly free, he feels himself most strongly bound to God;*: and when most elevated, is most humble, vs. 20 — 22.

7. Self-abasement, or shame in view of his past life, is the necessary result of those views of his duty and destiny, whichA every Christian obtains when he becomes the servant of God, I

THE apostle, having shown in the preceding chapter that the doctrines of grace do not give liberty to sin, but, on the con trary, are productive of holiness, in this chapter first illustrates and confirms his position, that we are not under the law, but under grace, and shows the consequences of this change in our relation to God. While under the law, we brought forth fruit unto sin; when under grace, we bring forth fruit unto right eousness. This occupies the first section, vs. 1 — 6. The second, vs. 7 — 25, contains an exhibition of the operation of the law, derived from the apostle's own experience, and designed to show its insufficiency to produce sanctification, as he had before proved it to be insufficient for justification. This section con sists of two parts, vs. 7 — 13, which exhibit the operation of the law in producing conviction of sin; arid vs. 14 — 25, which show that in the inward conflict between sin and holiness, the law cannot afford the believer any relief. His only hope of victory is in the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Tnis section is an illustration of the position assumed in ver. 14 of the preceding chapter: we are not under law, but under grace. Paul remarks, as a general fact, that the author ity of laws is not perpetual, ver. 1. For example, the law of marriage binds a wuinan to her husband only so long as he lives. When he is dead, she is free from the obligation which that law imposed, and is at liberty to marry another man, vs. 2, 3. So we, being free from the law, which was our first husband, are at liberty to marry another, even Christ. We are freed from the law by the death of Christ, ver. 4. The fruit of our first marriage was sin, ver. 5. The fruit of the second is holiness, ver. <>.

The apparent confusion in this passage arises from the apos tle's not carrying the figure regularly through. As a woman is free from obligation to her husband by hia death, so we are free from the law by //x death, is obviously the illustration intended. Lut the apostle, out of respect probably to the feelings of his readers, avoids saying the law is dead, but expresses the idea that we are free from it, by saying, we are dead to the law by

the body of Christ. '* Cieterum ne<|uis conturbetur, quod inter ee comparata membra non omnino respondent: pnemonendi sumus, apostolum data opera Vv'luisse exigua, inversione deflectere asperioris verbi invidiam. Debuerat dicere, ut online s-imilitudinem contexeret: Mulier post mortem viri soluta est a conjiigii vinculo, Lex, (put locum habet mariti erga nos, m<:rtua est nobis: ergo sumus ab ejus potestate liberi. Sed ne offenderet Judyeos verbi asperitate, si dixisset legem esse mortuam, deflectione est usus, dicens nos legi esse niortuos." Calvin.

VERST^ 1. Know ye. not, brethren, (for T spr.ak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liueth? In the English version of the words '/j dfvoe?re, the particle /J, or, is overlooked. As that particle ia almost always used in reference to the immediately preceding context, Meyer and others insist on connecting this verse with vi. 23: 'The gift of God is eternal life; or are ye ignorant.' That is, you must recognize eternal life as a gift, unless ye are ignorant that the law does not bind the dead. But this is evidently forced. The idea which -q is used to recall, is that in vi. 14: "Ye are not under the law, but under grace." This is the main idea in the whole context, and is that which the following passage carries out and enforces. The thing to be proved is, that we are not under the law. The proof is, that the law does not bind the dead. But we are dead, therefore we are free from the law. This idea, that the law binds a man only so long as he lives, is presented as a general principle, and is then illustrated by a specific example. That example is the law of marriage, which ceases to bind the parties when one of them is dead. So the law, as a covenant of works, ceases to bind us when death has loosed its bonds. We are as free as the woman whose hus band is dead. " Sit generalis propositio," says Calvin, ulegem non in alium finem latam esse hominibus, quarn ut proesentein vitam moderetur: apud mortuos nullum ei supercsse locum. Cui postea hypothesin subjiciet, nos illi esse mortuos in Christ! corpore." Brethren; a mode of address applicable to all believers. He speaks to his spiritual brethren, and not to the Jewish converts alone, his brethren according to the flesh. For I speak to them that knoiv the law. That is, I speak to you as to persons who know the law; not, I speak to those among you who know the law. lie docs not distinguish one class of his readers from another. That would require the participle in the dative, ro?c fev(0ffxou0evt to the Jcnowers, as opposed to those among them who did not know. He assumes that all his read ers were fully cognizant of the principle, that the law has dominion over a man so long as he Uveth. What law does the apostle here refer to it? It may be understood of law without any restriction. Law, all laws, (in the aspect in which they are contemplated,) bind a man only so long as he lives. Or, it may mean specifically the Mosaic law; or, more definitely still, the marriage law. There is no reason for these limitations. The proposition is a jrcneral one; though the application is doubt less to the law of which he had been speaking, and specially to the law referred to in vi. 14, from which he says we are now free. That certainly is not the Mosaic law considered as a tran sient economy, or as a system of religious rites ar.d ceremonies designed for one people, and for a limited period. It is the Mosaic law considered as a revelation of the moral law, which is holy, just, and good, and which says, ''Thou shalt not covet." He illustrates the mode of our deliverance from that law, as a covenant of works, by a reference to the admitted fact, that law has no dominion over the dead.

The original leaves it doubtful whether the last clause of the verse is to be rendered "as long as Jte lives," or '%as long as it lives." The decision of this point depends on the context. In favo-ur of the latter, it may be said, 1. That it is bettor suited to the apostle's design, which is to show that the law is dead or abrogated. 2. That in verse G (according to the common read ing) the law is spoken of as being dead. 3. And, especially, that in vs. 2, 3, the woman is said to be free from the law, not by her own, but by her husband's death; which would seem to require that, in the other part of the comparison, the husband (i. e. the law) should be represented as dying, and not the wife, that is, those bound by the law. But, on the other hand, it must be admitted that t/tc l<tw //>vx, and t//>> l<i/n th'rx, are very unusual modes of expression, and perfectly unexampled in Paul's writings, if the doubtful case in ver. 6 be excepted, 2. This interpretation is inconsistent with ver. '2. It is not the law that dies: '-The woman is bound to her husband as long;H he liveth; but if the husband be dead," &c. 3. Throughout the passage it is said that we are dead to the law (ver. 4,) delivered from the law (ver. 0.) and not that the law is dead. The com mon interpretation, therefore, is to be preferred: 'The law has dominion as long and no longer than the person lives, to whom it has respect. For example, the law of marriage ceases to be binding when one of the parties is dead.' Instead of under standing the words, as long as lie liveth, of the natural or phy sical life, as is done by the great body of interpreters, Philippi and others say the meaning is, 'That the law binds a man so long as his natural, corrupt, unregerierated life continues. When the old man is crucified, he is free from the law.' We have here, he says, the same idea as is expressed above, vi. 7, * lie that dieth is justified from sin.' This interpretation is not only unnatural, but it necessitates a forced allegorical interpretation of the following verses.

VERSE 2. For the woman which Jiath a husband, yo^r] u~avdooz, viro subject a, married, answering to JTIPI* tins, Num. v. 29. Is bound by the law to her living husband, rw ^Co^it da dp!, i. e. to her husband while living. But if her husband be dead, she is freed from the law of her husband. Is freed from, xarijof'fjTo.1 d~6 is an expression which never occurs in common Greek. The same idiom is found in ver. 6 of this chapter, and in Gal. v. 4. Ka~o.(r{€iv means to invalidate, to render void. The idea is, that the relation to her husband is broken off, and she is free. Law of her husband means law relating to her husband. The phrase is analogous to those often used in the Old Testament — "law of the sacrifice;" "law of leprosy;" "law of defilement." According to the common interpretation of this verse,?dp (for) introduces a confirmatory illustration: 'Law is not of perpetual obligation; for example, a married woman is free from the law which bound her to her husband, by his death.' There is of course a slight incongruity between the illustration and the form in which the principle is stated in the first verse. There it is said that the law has dominion over a man so long as he lives. The illustration is, that a wife is free (not when she (lies) when her husband dies. For this and other reasons, many interpreters do not regard this verse as present ing an example, but as an allegory. Those who take this view, give different explanations. After Augustin, Melancthon, Beza, and others, say: 'The husband is our corrupt nature, (vis ilia nativa, as Beza calls it, ciens in nobis affectiones peccatorum;) the wife is the soul, or our members. When, therefore, the corrupt nature (or old man) dies, the soul is free from that hus band, and is at liberty to marry another.' Others, with much more regard to the context, say that the wife is the Church, the husband the law; so Origen, Chrysostom, Olshausen, Philippi, &c. This is indeed the application which the apostle makes in the following verses, but it is not what is said in vs. 2. 3. Here we have only an example, illustrating the truth of the assertion in ver. 1.

in ver. 2: That a woman is bound by the law to her husbana as long as he lives, is plain, because she is called an adulteress if she marries another man while her husband lives. And that she is free from that law when he dies, is plain, because she is in that case no adulteress, though she be married to another man. She shall be called* yjr/j /tariffs!, authoritatively and solemnly declared to be. Xftr^ucrci'sw (from /(""£w/) is literally to transact business, and specially the business of the state, to give decisions, or decrees; and specially in the Xew Testament, to utter divine responses, OTCiculct ed<'t'e, divinitus admonere; see Matt. ii. 12, 22; Luke ii. 20; Acts x. 22; lleb. via. 5, xi. 7. Compare Hum. xi. 4.

VKHSI-; 4. W/n'r<-f»rc, nu/ brethren, //<' also hcfre become dead to the law by the body of Christ. As the woman is free from the law bv the death of her husband, so i/e (thn ('/.'/.I £//.c?c) are freed from the law by the death of Christ. This is the applica,- tii/n made by the apostle of the illustration contained in vs. 2, 3. The law is our first husband; we were bound to satisfy its demands. Jiut the law being dead, (i. e. fulfilled in Christ.) we are free irom the obligation of obedience to it as the condition of justification, and are at liberty to accept the gospel. " Lex

vclut mantus fuit," savs Calvin.;'sub eujus jugo detinemur, donee mortua est. Post legis mortem Chri>tus nos assumpsit, id est, a lege soltitos adjunxit sibi. Enro Chi'isto e mortuis suscitato copulati adhaerere ei soli debemus: attjuc lit aeterna est Christ! vita post resurrectionem, ita posthac nullum futurum est divortium." Instead of saying. The law is dead, as the con

sistency of the figure would demand, the apostle expresses the same idea by saying, Ye are dead to the law, or rather, are slain, put to death, e$6cvttrw$^r£. This form of expression is probably used because the death of Christ, in which we died, wa> an act of violence, lie was put to death, and we in him. To be slain to the law, means to be freed from the law by death. Death, indeed, not our own, but ours vicariously, as we were crucified in Christ, who died on the cross in our behalf, and in our stead. It is therefore added, ly tlu1 l><>di/ <>f Christ, i. e. by his body as slain, lie redeemed us from the law by death; "by

the body of his flesh," Col. i. 22. These are all equivalent expressions. They all teach the same doctrine, that Christ bore our sins upon the tree; that his sufferings and death were a satisfaction to justice, and, being so intended and accepted, they effect our deliverance from the penalty of the law. We arc therefore free from it. Although the law continues ever more to bind us as rational creatures, it no longer prescribes the conditions of our salvation. It is no longer necessary that we should atone for our own sins, or work out a righteousness such as the law demands. Christ has done that for us. We are thus freed from the law, that we should be married to another, ecz?b Y&sad-cu, as expressing the design. The proxi mate design of our freedom from the law, is our union with Christ; and the design of our union with Christ is, that we should bring forth fruit unto God, that is, that we should be holy. Here, therefore, as in the preceding chapter, the apostle teaches that the law cannot sanctify; that it is necessary we should be delivered from its bondage, and be reconciled to God, before we can be holy. lie to Avhom we are thus united, is said to be he who is raised from the d-ead. As Christ is spoken of, or referred to as having died, it was appropriate to refer to him as now living. It is to the living and life-giving Son of God that we are united by faith and the indwelling of the Spirit; and therefore it is that we are no longer barren or unfruitful, but are made to bring forth fruit unto God. u Sed ultra progreditur apostolus," says Calvin, "nempe solutum fuisse legis vinculum, non ut nostro arbitrio vivamus, sicuti mulier vidua sui juris est, dum in coelibatu degit; sed alteri marito nos jam esse devinctos: imo de maim (ut aiunt) in manum a lege ad Christum nos transiisse."

It need hardly be remarked, that the law of which the apos tie is here speaking, is not the Mosaic law considered as the Old Testament economy. It is not the doctrine of this or of similar passages, that Christ has merely delivered us from the yoke of Jewish institutions, in order that we may embrace the simpler and more spiritual dispensation of the gospel. The law of which he speaks, is the law which says, "The man that doeth these things shall live by them," x. 5; Gal. iii. 10; that is, which requires perfect obedience as the condition of accept- ancc. It is that which says, "Thou shalt not covet," ver. 7; without which sin is dead, ver. 8; which is holy, just and good, ver. 12; which is spiritual, ver. 14, &c. It is that law hy whose works the Gentiles cannot be justified, chap. iii. 20; from whose curse Christ has redeemed not the Jews only, but also the Gen tiles, Gal. iii. 13, 14. It is plain, therefore, that Paul here means by the law, the will of God, as a rule of duty, no matter how revealed. From this law, as prescribing the terms of our acceptance with God, Christ has delivered us. It is the legal system which says, "Do this arid live," that Christ has abo lished, and introduced another, which says, fc-He that believes shall be saved." Since, however, as remarked above (chap, vi. 14,) the Old Testament economy, including the Mosaic insti tutions, was the form in which the law, as la\v, was ever present to the minds of the apostle and his readers; and since deliver ance from the1 legal system, as such, involved deliverance from that economy, it is not wonderful that reference to that dis pensation should often be made; or that Paul should at times express the idea of deliverance from the law, as such, by terms which would i»oem to express only deliverance from the particu lar form in which it was so familiar to his readers. So, too, in the epistle to the Galatians, we find him constantly speaking of a return to Judaism as a renunciation of the method of gratui tous justification, and a recurrence to a reliance on the right eousness of works. The reason of this is obvious. The Old Testament dispensation, apart from its evangelical import, which lay, like a secondary sense, beneath the cover of its institutions, was but a reenactment of the legal system. To make, however, as is so often done, the whole meaning of the apostle to be, that we are freed from the Jewish law, is not only inconsistent in this place with the context, arid irreconcilable with many express declarations of Scripture, but destructive of the whole evangelical character of the doctrine. How small a part of the redemption of Christ is deliverance from the Mosaic institutions! How slight the consolation to a soul, sensible of its exposure to the wrath of God, to be told that the law of Moses no longer condemns us! How void of truth and meaning the doctrine, that deliverance from the law is necessary to holiness, if the law means the Jewish economy merely

VERSE 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sm, whwh were ly the laiv, &c. The apostle having, in ver. 4, stated that believers are freed from the law by the death of Christ, in this and the following verse, shows the necessity and the con sequences of this change: 'We have been thus freed, because formerly, when under the law, we brought forth fruit unto death; but now, being free from the law, we are devoted to the service of God.' The force of for, at the beginning of this verse, is therefore obvious. The former legal state of believers is here described by saying, they were in the flesh. In the language of Scripture, the word flesh expresses, in such con nections, one or the other of two ideas, or both conjointly. First, a state of moral corruption, as in chap. viii. 8, " Those that arc in the flesh;" secondly, a carnal state, i. e. a state in which men are subject to external rites, ceremonies, and com mands; or more generally, a legal state, inasmuch as among the Jews, that state was one of subjection to such external rites. Gal. iii. 3, " Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by the flesh?" Compare Gal. iv. 9, where the expression "weak and beggarly elements" is substituted for the phrase "the flesh;" see Horn. iv. 1. In the present case, both ideas appear to be included. The meaning is, ' when in your unrenenewed and legal state.' The opposite condition is described (ver. G) as a state of freedom from the law; which, of course, shows that the second of the two ideas mentioned above was prominent in the apostle's mind when he used the words "in the flesh." In vi. 14, the apostle says, " Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law;" and here, in the exposition of that passage, he shows why it is that while under the law, sin does have dominion. It is because, while in that state of condemnation and alienation from God, the effect of the law is to produce sin. He says the Tratty/mTa rcov fyap- TUOV are oca rorj ^6p.oo. This does not mean that the passions of sin (i. e. which manifest themselves in sinful acts) are simply made known by the law, but they are by it, that is, produced by it. The word r.adr^iara literally means what is suffered, afflictions; here it is used in a secondary sense for passions, (motions, in the sense of emotions, feelings.) These two mean ings of the word are nearly allied, inasmuch as in passion, or feeling, the soul is rather the subject than the agent These sinful feelings, aroused by the law, the apostle says i^rr^lro, wrought, (the word is here, as everywhere else in the New Tes tament, used in an active sense,) in our members; i. e. in us, not merely in our bodily members, but in all our faculties, whether of soul or body. To bring forth fruit; s/c ro '/M.<>-O- (fooYjGa:, as expressing the result, not the design. The effect of the excitement of sinful feeling by the law. was the produc tion of fruit unto death; TW $avaTw, as opposed to ~(o Hs<u of the preceding verse. Death is personified. lie is represented as a master, to whom our works arc rendered. They belong to him. Death, in other words, is the consequence or end secured by our sins. The wages of sin is death. The consequence <>f sinning is, that we die. The death here meant is no more mere physical death than in vi. -o. It is that death which the law of God threatens as the punishment of sin.

VERSE 6. But now, (y'j^l os< opposed to o'r£ of yer. o.) i. e. since our conversion, -we were freed fr»m tlie l«w; xarfjOfqiJYjfi.z^ d~i> Ttrj wn<>\j* (the same idiom as in ver. -.) I low were we thus freed from the law? By death. If d~o$6ci<o'vroc, found in the common text, is the true reading. (t/i<it //">'ini/ <//n/.) then it is by the death (i. e. the abrogation or satisfaction) of the law that we are thus freed, even as the woman is freed by the death of her husband. Hut if, as all modern editors airree, d;ro$6cv6y- TSC (>('<' having died} is the true reading, then it is bv our own vicarious death in Christ, our having died with him whose death is a satisfaction to the law, that we are thus delivered. This is in accordance with ver. 4, where it is said?/v died to the law. The apostle says we di<'d (ru'jr(ij) £> w xa-ziynn-iia.* (to that) Ly which we were bound. The law held us under its authority, and, as it were, in bondage; from which bondage we have been redeemed by death. So tltut, the consequence of this freedom from the law is, we. serve (God) in ni'fvni-xx <>f tin-,S/>//vV, and not (sin) in the old new of the letter. That is, we serve God in a new and holy state due to the Spirit, which the Spirit has pro duced, and not sin in, or according to, the old and corrupt state under the law. ^'icnefts of the Spirit is that new state of mind of which the Holy Ghost is the author. Oldtwss of the letter is that old state of which the law is the source, in so far as it was a state of condemnation and enmity to God. That U^sit/jta here is the Holy Spirit, and not the human soul as renewed by the Spirit, may be inferred from the general usage of the New Tes tament, and from such parallel passages as Gal. iii. 3, 2 Cor. iii. 6, in both of which xvsu/jta means the Gospel as the revela tion and organ of the Spirit. In the latter passage, the apostle says, "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life." There, as here, the letter, rpd/t/jta, is what is written. The law is so desig nated because the decalogue, its most important part, was origi nally written on stone, and because the whole law, as revealed to the Jews, was written in the Scriptures, or writings. It was therefore something external, as opposed to what was inward and spiritual. Luther's version of this passage gives the sense in a few words: "Als dass wir dienen iin neuen Wesen des Geistes, und nicht im alten Wesen des Buchstaben." Believers then are free from the law, by the death of Christ. They are no longer under the old covenant, which said, "Do this and live;" but are introduced into a new and gracious state, in which they are accepted, not for what they do, but for what has been done for them. Instead of having the legal and slavish spirit which arose from their condition under the law, they have the feelings of children.

1. The leading doctrine of this section is that taught in ver. 14 of the preceding chapter, viz. that believers are not under a legal system; and that the consequence of their free dom is not the indulgence of sin, but the service of God, ver. 4.

2. This deliverance from the law is not effected by setting the law aside, or by disregarding its demands; but by those demands being satisfied in the person of Christ, ver. 4, chap. x. 4.

3. As far as we are concerned, redemption is in order to holiness. We are delivered from the law, that we may be united to Christ; and we are united to Christ, that we may bring forth fruit unto God, ver. 4, &c.

4. Legal or self-righteous strivings after holiness can never be successful. The relation in which they place the soul to

God is. from its nature, productive of evil, and not of holy feelings, ver. 5.

5. Actual freedom from the bondage and penalty of the law is always attended and manifested by a filial temper and obedi ence, ver. 6.

6. The doctrine concerning marriage, which is here inci dentally taught, or rather which is assumed as known to Jews and Christians, is, that the marriage contract can only be dis solved by death. The only exception to this rule is given by Christ, Matt. v. 32; unless indeed Paul, in 1 Cor. vii. 15, recognizes wilful and final desertion as a sufficient ground of divorce, vs. 2, 3.

1. As the only way in which we can obtain deliverance from the law is by the death of Christ, the exercise of faith in him is essential to holiness. When we lose our confidence in Christ, we fall under the power of the law, and relapse into sin. Evervthing depends, therefore, upon our maintaining our union with Christ. ''Without me, ye can do nothing/' ver. 4.

2. The only evidence of union with Christ is bringing forth fruit unto God, ver. 4.

3. As deliverance from the penalty of the law is in order to holiness, it is vain to expect that deliverance, except with a view to the end for which it is granted, ver. 4.

4. Conversion is a great change; sensible to him that expe riences it, and visible to others. It is a change from a legal and slavish state, to one of filial confidence* manifesting itself by the renunciation of the service of sin, and by devotion to the service of God, ver. 6.

5. A contract so lasting as that of marriage, and of which the consequences are so important, should not be entered into lightly, but in the fear of God, vs. 2, 3.

6. The practice, common in many Protestant countries of Europe, and in many States of this Union, of granting divorces on the ground of cruel treatment or 'incompatibility of temper,' is in direct contravention of the doctrines and precepts of the Bible on this subject, vs. 2, 3

PAUL, having shown that we must bo delivered ft >m the law, in order to our justification (chapters iii. iv.,) and that this freedom was no less necessary in order to sanctification (chap, vi., chap. vii. 1 — 6,) comes now to explain more fully than ho had previously done, what are the use and effect of the law. This is the object of the residue of this chapter. The apostle shows, first, vs. 7 — 13, that the law produces conviction of sin, agreeably to his declaration in chap. iii. 20; and, secondly, vs. 14 — 25, that it enlightens the believer's conscience, but cannot destroy the dominion of sin. This section, therefore, may be advantageously divided into two parts. Paul introduces the subject, as is usual with him, by means of an idea intimately associated with the preceding discussion. He had been insisting on the necessity of deliverance from the law. Why? Because it is evil? No; but because it cannot produce holiness. It can produce only the knowledge and the sense of sin; which are the constituents of genuine conviction. These two effects are attri buted to the operation of the law, in vs. 7, 8. These ideas are amplified in vs. 9 — -11. The inference is drawn in ver. 12, that the law is good; and in ver. 18, that the evil which it incident ally produces is to be attributed to sin, the exceeding turpitude of which becomes thus the more apparent.

VERSE 7. What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Far from it, &c. The apostle asks whether it is to be inferred, either from the general doctrine of the preceding section, respecting the necessity of deliverance from the law, or from the special declaration made in ver. 5, respecting the law producing sin, that the lawr was itself evil? lie answers, By no means; and shows, in the next verse, that the effect ascribed to the law, in ver. 5, is merely incidental. Is the law sin? means either, Is the law evil? or is it the cause of sin? see Micah i. 5, '^amaria is the sin of Jacob.' The former is best suited to the context, because Pau] admits that the law is incidentally productive of sin. The two ideas, however, may be united, as by Calvin, '•An peccatum sic generet, ut illi imputari ejus culpa debeat;" T)OCS the law so produce sin, as that the fault is to be imputed to the law itself? God forbid, IJLTJ ^ewco; let it not be thought that the law is to blame. On the eontrary (a//a,) so far from the law being evil, it is the source, and the only source of the knowledge of sin. I had nut known sin, but by the law. Where there is no knowledge of the law, there can be no con sciousness of sin; for sin is want of conformity to the law. If, therefore, the standard of right is not known, there can be no apprehension of our want of conformity to it. Bv the law here, is to be understood the moral law, however revealed. It is not the law of Moses, so far as that law was peculiar and national, but only so far as it contained the rule of duty. It is not the experience of men, as determined by their relation to tlio Mosaic dispensation, but their experience as determined by their relation to the moral law, that is here depicted. But in what sense does Paul here use the pronoun J.' That he does not speak for himself only; that it is not anvthinix in his own individual experience, peculiar to himself, is obvious from the whole context, and is almost universally admitted. But if ho speaks representatively, whom does he represent, whose experi ence under the operation of the law is here detailed? (rrotins says, that he represents the Jewish people, and sets forth their experience before and after the introduction of the law of Moses. This opinion was adopted bv Lock*-,.Estins, and recently by Beiehe. Others say that lie speaks out of the common consciousness of men. k"Dus I'fto, repnesentirte sub ject," says Meyer, "ist der Mensch iiberhaupt, in seiner rein menschlichen und natUrlichen Verfassung." The experience detailed is that of the natural or unrenewed man throughout. This view is the one generally adopted bv modern commenta tors. Others again say, that Paul is here speaking as a Christ ian; he is giving his own religious experience of the operation of the law, as that experience is common to all true believers. This does not necessarily suppose that the preliminary exercises, as detailed in vs. 7 — 13, are peculiar to the renewed. There is a "law work,'* a work of conviction which, in its apparent characteristics, is common to the renewed and the unrencwed. Many are truly and deeply convinced of sin; many experience all that the law in itself can produce, who are never regene rated. Nevertheless, the experience here exhibited is the expe rience of every renewed man. It sets forth the work of the law first in the work of conviction, vs. 7 — 13, and afterwards in reference to the holy life of the Christian. This is the Augustinian view of the bearing of this passage adopted by the Lutherans and Reformed, and still held by the great body of evangelical Christians.

I had not known sin. There are two kinds of knowledge. The one has for its object mere logical relations, and is a matter of the intellect; the other has for its object both the logical relations and the qualities, moral or otherwise, of the thing known, arid is a matter of the feelings as well as of the intel lect. The kind of knowledge of which the apostle speaks is not mere intellectual cognition, but also conviction. It includes the consciousness of guilt and pollution. The law awakened in him the knowledge of his own state and character. He felt himself to be a sinner; and by a sinner is to be understood not merely a transgressor, but one in whom sin dwells. It was the cor ruption of his nature which was revealed to the apostle by the operation of the law. This sense of the word apaoria in this context is almost universally admitted. "Die Si/jtapTca," says Meyer, "ist das prineipe der Stlnde im Mensclien (1. v. 8. 9. 11. 13. 14.), (lessen wir erst durch das Gesctz uns bewusst werden, und welches olme das Gcsetz unbewusst geblieben ware." That is, "The h.fj.apria is the principle of sin in men, of which we become conscious through the law, and of which we would with out the law have remained unconscious." So De TVette, Tholuck, Riickert, Kollner, Olshausen, and Philippi, among the modern commentators, as well as the older doctrinal expositors.

For I had not known lust, except the law had said, T/tou shalt not covet. This may be understood as merely an illustration of the preceding declaration: ' I had not known sin but by the law. For example, I had not known lust, except the law had Bziid, Thou shalt not covet.' According to this view, there is no difference between sin and lust, afiaoria and i-(&u/jila, except that the latter is specific, and the former general. Lust falls under the general category of sin. But according to this inter pretation, neither hiiap-ria nor £;'vct»v (sin nor know) receives the full force which the connection requires. This clause, there fore, is not simply an illustration, but a confirmation of the preceding: ' I had not known sin, but by the law; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.' That is, ' From the consciousness of desire striving against the law, arose the conviction of the principle of sin within me.' Desire revealed as evil by the law, itself revealed the evil source whence it springs. The word i~t&t)fi.ia. means simply earnest desire, and the verb l~i$'jus(o is to desire earnestly. It depends on the context whether the desire be good or bad, whether it is directed towards what is lawful or what is forbid den. In the tenth commandment, here quoted, the meaning is, Thou shalt not desire to have (i. e. thou shalt not covet) that which belongs to another. The point of the apostle's argument is, that his knowledge of sin is due to the law, because without the law he would not have known that mere desire is evil, and because these evil desires revealed the hidden source of sin in his nature.

VEKSI-: 8. But sin, talcing occasion ly tlte commandment, u'rowjlit in)>!<' all tmnun'r <>f concupiscence. This verse is not logically connected with the preceding. It is rather coordinate with it, and is a virtual, or rather, an additional answer to tho question, Is the law evil'.'' To this question Paul replies, Xo; on the contrary, it leads to the knowledge of sin. And hence he add-. It is not evil in itself, although incidentally the cause of sin in u<. By x/x, in this case, cannot be understood actual sin. It must mean indwelling sin, or corruption of nature; sin as the principle or source of action, and not as an act.

tl<"Afj.OLf)Ti(i non potest esse hoc loco pt'<'<-atat)i ipsuni," says Koppe, " sed ipsa potius prava et ad peccandum prodivis indoles, vitiosa hominis natura, vitiositas ipsa." To the same effect, Olshausen: "Aus der allgemeincn siindhaften natur des Menschen geht die l~t&u fj.ia, prava concupisccntia, als erste Ausserung hervor und dann folgt erst die That." That is, from sin immanent in our nature, comes first desire, and then the act. Thus Kollner says, " Ixeftu/jtiav, so von duaoTca vcrschieden, dass diese das gleichsam iin Menschen ruhende siindliche

Princip bezciclmet, £7x&L)/j.f'a aber die im einzelnen Falle wirksame bose Lust, ganz eigentlich die Begierde, die dann zunaehst zur S'dnde in concreto fiirht." Such is plainly the

meaning of the apostle. There is a principle of sin, a corrup tion of nature which lies back of all conscious voluntary exer cises, to which they owe their origin. 'Eittd-ofiia, feeling, the first form in which sin is revealed in the consciousness, springs from 6,/tapria. This is a truth of great importance. According to the theology and religious conviction of the apostle, sin can be predicated not only of acts, but also of inward states.

Sin taking occasion, dyop/utyVj opportunity or advantage, by the commandment, i. e. the command, "Thou shalt not covet." A part is taken for the whole. This special precept (iuroArj) stands, by way of illustration, for the whole law. The words dtd. TYjZ ivro/^c, by the commandment., may be taken with the preceding clause, 'taking advantage of the commandment.' In favour of this construction is the position of the words, and, as is supposed, the of a\jr7^ in ver. 11, which, it is said, cor responds to these words in this verse. This is the construction which is adopted by our translators, and by many commenta tors. Others prefer connecting the words in question with what follows — "by the commandment wrought in me." In favour of this is the fact, that the main idea of the passage is thus brought out. The apostle designs to show how the law, although good in itself, produced evil: 4 Sin wrought by it.' Besides, the phrase acoou.r^ Aa/jifidvsev ex, or Ttapd, or drro, is common, but with did it never occurs: ucd is not the appropriate preposition; whereas xarspfd^zad-at oto. is perfectly appropriate. Wrought in me all manner of concupiscence, xaaav iirc^ofjiiav^ every (evil) desire.

For ivitliout the law sin (ivas) dead. This is designed as a confirmation of the preceding declaration. This confirmation is drawn either from a fact of Paul's personal experience, or from an universally admitted truth. If the former, then wo must supply was: ' Sin is excited by the law, for without the law sin was dead;' i. e. I was not aware of its existence. If the latter, then is is to be supplied: 'Without the law sin is dead.' This is an undisputed fact: 'Where there is no law there is no sin; and where is no knowledge of law there is no knowledge of sin. The latter view best suits the context. To say that a thing is dead, is to say that it is inactive, unproductive, and unobserved. All this may be said of sin prior to the operation of the law. It is comparatively inoperative and unknown, until aroused and brought to light by the law. There are two effects of the law included in this declaration — the excitement of evil passions, and the discovery of them. Calvin makes the latter much the more prominent: uAd cognitionem prcecipue refero, acsi dictum furet: Detexit in me omncm concupiscentiam; (|iux3 dum lateret, quodammodo nulla esse videbatur." Dut the con text, and the analogous declarations in the.succeeding verses, seem to require the former to be considered as the more impor tant. The la\v then is not evil, but it produces the conviction of sin, by teaching us what sin is, ver. 7, ami bv making us conscious of the existence and power (A' this evil in our own

hearts, ver. 8. " hhe dem Menschen ein i>nno- entweder von aussen gegeben wird, odcr in ihm selbst sich entwickelt, so ist die Sundhaftigkcit /war in ihm, als Anlaire, aber sie ist todt, d. h. sie ist ihm noch nieht zum Bewusstseyn u;okommen, weil noch kcin Widerstreit /wisclicn seiner SUndhafti^keit uiul einein Gebote in ihm ontstehen konnte." L'xt< ri J;<//r/«'</>-/fF

Pauli, p 'I-). Such is certainly the experience of Christians. They live at ease. Conscience is at rest. They think them selves to be as good as can be reasonably required of them They have no adequate conception of the power or heinou-ness of the evil within them. Sin lies, as it were, dead, as the torpid serpent, until the operation of the law rouses it from its slum bers, and reveals its character.

VKRSK!>. Fur 1 was <iUre without tin' liw once, &c. The meaning of this clause is necessarily determined by what pre cedes. If by sin being dead means its lying unnoticed and unknown, then by />»-i>i:/ n/ii'<>, Paul must mean that state of security and comparative exemption from the turbulence or manifestation of sin in his heart, which he then experienced. lie fancied himself in a happy and desirable condition. lie had no dread of punishment, no painful consciousness of sin. But when the commandment came, i. e. came to his knowledge, wras revealed to him in its authority and in the extent and spiritu ality of its demands, sin revived; i. e. it was roused from its torpor. It was revealed in his consciousness by its greater activity; so that the increase of his knowledge of sin was due to an increase in its activity. And I died. As by being alive was meant being at ease in a fancied state of security and good ness, being dead must mean just the opposite, viz. a state of misery arising from a sense of danger and the consciousness of guilt. This interpretation is recommended not only by its agreement with the whole context, but also from its accordance with the common experience of Christians. Every believer can adopt the language of the apostle. He can say he was alive without the law; he was secure and free from any painful con sciousness of sin; but when the commandment came, when he was brought to see how holy and how broad is the law of God, sin was aroused and revealed, and all his fancied security and goodness disappeared. He was bowed down under the con viction of his desert of death as a penalty, and under the power of spiritual death in his soul. " Mors pcccati," says Calvin, "vita est hominis; rursum vita pcccati mors hominis."

The questions, however — When was Paul, or those in whose name he speaks, without the law? In what sense was he then alive? What is meant by the commandment coming? In what sense did sin revive? and, What does Paul mean when he says, he died? — are all answered by different commentators in differ ent ways, according to their different views of the context and of the design of the argument. Grotius and others say, that beino- without the law designates the ante-Mosaic period of the Jewish history, when the people lived in comparative innocence; the law came when it was promulgated from Mount Sinai, and under its discipline they became worse and worse, or at least sin was rendered more and more active among them. Others say, that Paul was without the law in his childhood, when he was in a state of childish innocence; but when he came to years of discretion, and the law was revealed within him, then }ie died— then he fell under the power of sin. These interpre tations give a much lower sense than the one above-mentioned, and are not in keeping with the grand design of the passage.

VERSE 10. And the commandment which ivas unto life, I found to be unto death. The law was designed and adapted to secure life, but became in fact the cause of death. Life and death, as hero opposed, are figurative terms. Life includes tho ideas of happiness and holiness. The law was designed to make men happy and holy. Death, on the other hand, includes the ideas of misery and sin. The law became, through no fault of its own, the means of rendering the apostle miserable and sinful. How vain therefore is it to expect salvation from the law, since all the law does, in its operation on the unrcnewed heart, is t<> condemn and to awaken opposition! It cannot change the nature of man. ]>y the law is the knowledge of sin, iii. 20; it produces "the motions of sin,'' ver. 5; it "works all manner of concupiscence," ver. S: it revives sin, ver. (J; it seduces into sin, ver. 11. JIow then can it save? IIo\v mise rable and deluded are those who have only a leiral religion!

A KKSK 1 1. /'>/• x//<, tnJi'uii/ oi'i'tfxio/i l>i/ tli<' commandment) deceived nn>, <mJ Li/ It xl,->r //t<>. The law is the cause of death, ver. in. f,,r by it sin deceived and slew me. The two ideas before insisted upon are again here presented — viz. the law, so far from giving life, is the source of death, spiritual and penal; and yet the fault is not in the law, but in sin. i. e, in <>nr own corrupt nature. Here, as in ver. S, two constructions are pos sible. \\ e may say, 'Sin took occasion by the1 commandment;' or,; Sin taking occasion, bv the commandment deceived me.' For reasons mentioned above, ver. S, the latter is to he pre ferred: Sin deceived me, z'^-dr^frz. The ix is intensive: • It completely deceived me, or disappointed my expectations.' How? l>y leading the apostle to expect one1 thinir, while ho experienced another. lie expected life, and found death. lie expected happiness, and found misery; he looked for holiness, and found increased corruption. He fancied that by the law all these desirable ends could be secured, when its operation was discovered to produce the directly opposite effects. Sin therefore deceived by the commandment, and by it slew him, instead of its being to him the source of holiness and blessed ness. The reference is not to the promised joys of sin, which always mock the expectation and disappoint the hopes, but rather to the utter failure of the law to do what he expected from it. Such is the experience of every believer, in the ordinary progress of his inward life. He first turns to the law, to his own righteousness and strength, but he soon finds

VERSE 12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good. This is the conclusion from the preceding exhibition. The law is not evil, ver. 5. Sin is the true source of all the evil which incidentally flows from the law. In itself the law is holy, (i. e. the whole law,) and the commandment, i. e. the specific command, "Thou shalt not covet," is holy, just, and good. That is, it is in every aspect what it should be. It is in every way excellent. It is holy as the revelation of the holiness of God; it is in its own nature right, and it is good, i. e. excellent. In the next verse all these attributes are sum med up in one, TO a-fadov, goodness. Hence this is probably the generic term of which the others are the species. "Lex •ipsa," says Calvin, " et quicquid lege praccipitur, id totum sanc tum est, ergo summa dignitate reverendum; justum, ergo nullius injustitias insimulandum; bonum, ergo omni vitio purum ac vacuum."

VERSE 13. Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. In order to prevent the possibility of misconcep tion, the apostle again vindicates the law. To ouv ayadbv, kiwi -fsfoys frdvoxoz, Has the good become death to me? Grod forbid. \\)JM, on the contrary, ~/j cLiiattria (l;iol fijo^ &dvaro^) sin (has become death to me.) Not the law, but sin is the cause of death. And it is made so, ha (fawj &/jtap-la, o:a TO>J d.fa$oi) {w> •/.</- zo'fa^otjihrj d-dvarov, in order that it may appear sin, working in me death by means of good. The true character of gin, as sin, is revealed by its making even that which is in itself good, the means of evil. In order that it might become exceeding sin fid by the commandment. God has so ordered it, that the sinfulness of sin is brought out by the operation of the law. Such is the design of the law, so far as the salvation of sinners is concerned. It does not prescribe the conditions of salvation. We arc not obliged to be sinless; in other words, we are not obliged to fulfil the demands of the law, in order to be saved. Neither is the law the means of sanctification. It cannot make us holy. On the contrary, its operation is to excite and exasperate sin; to render its power more dreadful ind destructive, so that instead of being the source of life, it is the instrument of death. By it we are slain. The construction of this passage, given above, is that which the words demand, and which almost all modern commentators adopt. Calvin, Luther, the English translators, and many others, make dittan-ia the subject of xarBo-fa^o^s^ ('/]>) taken as a verb: Sin wrought death. The sense thus expressed is good; but this construction does violence to the words, as it converts a participle into a verb.

1. The law, although it cannot secure either the justification, or sanctification of men, performs an essential part in the economy of salvation. It enlightens conscience, and secures its verdict against a multitude of evils, which we should not other wise have recognized as sins. It arouses sin, incrcasim: its power, and making it, both in itself and in our consciousness, exceedingly sinful. It therefore produces that state of mind which is a necessary preparation for the reeeptiou of the gospel, vs. 7, <S.

'2. Conviction of sin, that is, an adequate knowledge of its nature, and a, sense of its power over us, is an indispensable part of evangelical religion. Before the irospel can be embraced as a means of deliverance from sin. we must feel that we are involved in corruption and mi-cry, ver. 0.

3. The law of (Jod is a transcript of his own nature — holy, just, and good. The clearer our views of its extent and excel lence, the deeper will be our sense of our own unworthiness, vs. 9, l±

4. Sin is exceedingly sinful. Its turpitude is manifested by the fact, that the exhibition of holiness rouses it into opposi tion; and that the holy law itself is made incidentally to increase its virulence and power, ver. 13.

5. Sin is very deadly. It extracts death from the means of life, and cannot exist unattended by misery, vs. 10 — 13.

2. Though the law cannot save us, it must prepare us for salvation. It should, therefore, be carefully and faithfully preached, both in its extent and authority, vs. 7, 8.

3. It must be wrong and productive of evil, so to describe the nature of evangelical religion as to make the impression that it is a mere change in the main object of pursuit — the choice of one source of happiness in preference to another. It is a return to God, through Jesus Christ, for the purpose of being delivered from sin, and devoted to his service. Its first step is the conviction that we are sinners, and, as such, dead, i. e. helpless, corrupt, and miserable, vs. 7, IB.

4. Nothing is more inconsistent with true religion than selfcomplacency. Because the more holy we are, the clearer our views of God's law; and the clearer our views of the law, the deeper our sense of sin, and, consequently, the greater must be our humility, vs. 12, 13.

5. If our religious experience does not correspond with that of the people of God, as detailed in the Scriptures, we cannot be true Christians. Unless we have felt as Paul felt, we have not the religion of Paul, and cannot expect to share his reward, YS. 7_13.

THE apostle, having exhibited the operation of the law in producing conviction of sin, comes now to show its effect on the mind of the believer. It cannot secure his sanctification. The cause of this inability is not in the evil nature of the law, which is spiritual, ver. 14, but in the power of indwelling sin; "I am carnal," says the apostle, "sold under sin," ver. 14. As this is not only a strong, but an ambiguous expression, Paul imme diately explains his meaning. He does not intend to say that lie was given up to the willing service of sin; but that he was in the condition of a slave, whose acts are not always the evidence of his inclination. His will may be one way, but his master may direct him another. So it is with the believer. He does what he hates, and omits to do what he approves, ver. 15.

This is a description of slavery, and a clear explanation of what is intended by the expression "sold under sin." There are two obvious inferences to be drawn from this fact. The one is, that the believer, while denying the sufficiency of the law, and main taining the necessity of deliverance from it, bears an inward testimony to its excellence. He feels and admits that the law is good, ver. 16; for it is the law which he approves, and the transgression of it he hates, as stated in the preceding verse. The second inference is, that acts thus performed are not the true criterion of character: "Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me," ver. IT. The acts of a slave are indeed his own acts; but not being performed with the full assent and consent of his soul, they are not fair tests of the real state of his feelings. The propriety and truth of this repre sentation of the state of the believer, and of the influence of the law, is reasserted and confirmed in vs. 18 — -0. The law pre sents duty clearly: the heart and conscience of the believer assent to its excellence; but what can the law do in destroying the power of our inward corruptions? These evil principles remain, so fur as the law is concerned, in full force. The authoritative declaration that a thing must not be done, does not destroy the inclination to do it.

Tin? result, therefore, is, that notwithstanding the assent of the mind to the excellence of the law, the power of sin remains, so that when we would do good, evil is present with us, ver. 21. We delight in the law after the inward man, but this does not destroy the power of sin in our members, vs. 22, 2o. This inward conflict the law can never end. It only makes us sensi ble of our helpless and degraded condition, ver. '24; and drives us to seek victory, whence alone it can be obtained, i. e. as the gift of God through Jesus Christ our Lord, ver. 25.

VKKSK 14. For we know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. The connection between this verse and the preceding passage seems to be this: It had been asserted in ver. 5, that the law was incidentally the cause of sin. This result, however, was no reflection on the law; for it was holy, just, and good, vcr. 12. As the fact that the law excites gin is consistent with its being good, so is also the fact that it cannot destroy the power of sin. The law indeed is spiritual, but we are carnal. The fault is again in us. The?•«/; thug introduces the confirmation of the whole preceding argument. If the connection is with ver. 13, the sense is substantially the same: 'Sin, and not the law, works death; for the law is spiritual, but I am carnal.' The apostle says, ocoarw rdo, "for we know/' It is among Christians an acknowledged and obvious truth, that the law is spiritual. This is probably the reason that in this case he uses the plural tee instead of the singular /, which occurs everywhere else in this connection. Semler, indeed, and others, to preserve uniformity, proposes to read oloa [j.kv fdp, 1 know indeed, instead of we know. But then there would be no os corresponding to the {JLZV. The If to os is opposed to vo/^oc, and not to lf(t> in oloa. The apostle would have said, 'The law indeed is spiritual, but I am carnal,' and not, 'I indeed know,' &c. The common division of the words is therefore almost universally adopted.

The law is said to be spiritual, not because it pertains to our spirits, reaching, as Bcza says, to the interior man, ("mentem et interiorem hominem respicit;") much less because it is rea sonable, or in accordance with the T^JUU as the higher faculty of our nature; nor because it was given by inspiration of the Spirit; but as expressing its nature. It is spiritual in the sense of being Divine, or as partaking of the nature of the Holy Spirit, its divine Author. This epithet includes, therefore, all that was before expressed, by saying that the law is holy, just, and good. But I am carnal. The word in the common text is aapKLKos. Griesbach, Lachmaun, and Tisehendorf, on the author ity of the older manuscripts, and of the Fathers, read o-dptcwos. The difference between these words, (when they are distin guished,) is, that the former expresses the nature, the Litter the sul (stance out of which a thing is made; so that a-cipicivos means made of flesh, fleshy, corpulent. This is agreeable to the analogy of words in ivos, \l6ivos, made of stone; %v\ivo*, made of wood. This, however, is not an uniform rule, as avOp^-jrivo^ means hu man. In 2 Cor. iii. 3, the word <rdpicLvos is used in its strict sense, where, ev rr\a^l KapSla? crapKivais (in tables of the heart made of flesh,) it is opposed to iv ~)MZ± /r&Wc (tables made of stone.) Even if ado'/.tisoz, in this case, is the true rending, it must have the same sense as the more common word ffufxexoz, which, for internal reasons, the majority of commentators prefer. As spiritual expresses the nature of the law, so carnal must express the nature, and not the material. I am carnal means I am under the power of the flesh. And by jlc*It is meant not the body, not our sensuous nature merely, but our whole nature as fallen and corrupt. It includes all that belongs to men, apart from the Holy Spirit. In the language of the Xew Testament, the xv&JuaTfxol) spiritual, are those who arc under the control of the Spirit of God; and the aair/r/.oi are those who are under the control of their own nature. As, however, even in the renewed, this control of the Spirit is never perfect, as the flesh even in them retains much of its original power, they are forced to acknowledge that they too are carnal. There is no believer, however advanced in holiness, who cannot adopt the language here used by the apostle. In 1 Cor. iii. 3, in addressing believers, lie says, "Are ye not carnal?" In the imperfection of human language the same word must be taken in different senses. Sometimes carnal means entirely or exclusively under the control of the flesh. It designates those in whom the flesh is the only principle of art ion. At other times it has a modified sense, and is applicable to those who, although under the dominion of the Spirit, are still polluted and influenced by the flesh. It is the same with all similar words. When we speak of 'saints and sinners' we do not mean that saints, such as they are in this world, are not sinners. And thus when the Scriptures classify men as -isZ'jtiaTexoi and frapxrxo'., spiritual and <-ani<il, thev do not mean to teach that the spiritual are not carnal. It is, therefore, only by giving the words here used their extreme sense, a sense inconsistent with the context, that they can be regarded as inapplicable to the regenerated. The mystical writers, such as Olshauseri, in accordance with the theory which so many of them adopt, that man consists of three subjects or substances, body, soul, and spirit, (red/to., (ft'Jffi arid rri^v/yy/, say that by ffdftz, in such connections, we are to understand das gauze seelische Leben, the entire psychical life, which only, and not the;rv£y/./ft, (the spirit or higher element of our nature,) is in man the seat of sin. In angels, on the contrary, the xvs^/jLa itself is the seat of sin, and they therefore are incapable of redemption. And in man, when sin invades the /rvsu/^a, (spirit) then comes the sin against the Holy Ghost, and redemption becomes impossible. This is only a refined or mystical rationalism, as r.\<zrj[j.a is only another name for reason, and the conflict in man is reduced to the struggle between sense and reason, and redemption consists in giving the higher powers of our nature ascendency over the lower. According to the Scriptures, the whole of our fallen nature is the seat of sin, and our subjective redemption from its power is effected, not by making reason predominant, but by the indwelling of the Holy Ghost. The conflicting elements are not sense and reason, the anima and animus; but the flesh and spirit, the human and divine, what we derive from Adam and what we obtain through Christ. " That which is born of the flesh is flesh; that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." John iii. G.

The sense in which Paul says he was carnal, is explained by saying he was sold under sin, i. e. sold so as to be under the power of sin. This, of course, is an ambiguous expression. To say that a 'man is sold unto sin' may mean, as in 1 Kings xxi. 20, and 2 Kings xvii. IT, that he is given up to its service. Sin is that which he has deliberately chosen for a master, and to which he is devoted. In this sense of the phrase it is equivalent to what is said of the unreneAVcd in the preceding chapter, that they are the doljXot TY^ 6./jiaf)Ttaz, the slaves of sin. From this kind of bondage believers are redeemed, vi. 22. But there is another kind of bondage. A man may be subject to a power which, of himself, he cannot effectually resist; against which he may and does struggle, and from which he earnestly desires to be free; but which, notwithstanding all his efforts, still asserts its authority. This is precisely the bondage t<> sin of which every believer is conscious. He feels that there is a law in his members bringing him into subjection to the law of sin; that his distrust of God, his hard ness of heart, his love of the world and of self, his pride, in short his indwelling sin, is a real power from which he longs to be free, against which he struggles, but from which ho cannot emancipate himself. This is the kind of bondage of which the apostle here speaks, as is plain from the following verses, as well as from the whole context and from the analogy of Scripture.

VERSE 15. For that ivhich I do, I allow not, &c. This is an explanation and confirmation of the preceding declaration. 4 1 am sold under sin, for that which I do, I allow not, £c.' The word pwaxco rendered I allow, properly signifies, / know, and as it is used in different senses in the Scriptures, its mean ing in this case is a matter of doubt. Retaining its ordinary sense, the word may be used here as in the common phrase, 'I know not what I do,' expressive of the absence of a calm and deliberate purpose, and of the violence of the impulse under which one acts. Inscius et invitus facio, qiuxj facio. Or the ineanini: mav be, that what is done, is done thoughtlessly. Non cum pleno mentis proposito. Morns. This view is a very com mon one, expressed in different forms. u The sinful decision occurs not by rational self-determination, and, therefore, not with the full consciousness with which we should act." De Wctte. To the same effect Meyer, 'the act occurs without the consciousness of its moral character, in a state of bondage of the practical reason, as a slave acts without a consciousness of the nature or design of what he does.' Or, 'I do not do it knowingly, because 1 know it to be right.' This comes very near the old interpretation according to which, to know means to approve. See l)s. i. 6, "The Lord knoweth the ways of the righteous." With regard to moral objects, knowledge is not mere cognition. It is the apprehension of the moral quality, and involves of necessity approbation or disapprobation. Hence the pious are described in Scripture as those ''who know God," or "the knowers of his name." Ps. ix. 10, xxxvi. 10, llosea viii. '2. What the apostle, therefore, here says, is, 'what 1 per form, i. e.j what 1 actually carry out into action, (xa.TZp?d.ro pat,) I approve not, i. e., I do not recognize as right and good.'

For what I would, that do 1 not; but what I hate, that do I. This is a further description of this state of bondage. As tho expressions what I ivould, and what I hate, are in antithesis, the former must mean what I love or delight in. This use of the Greek work ($e/o>) is accommodated to the corresponding Hebrew term, and occurs several times in the New Testament. Matt, xxvii. 43, "Let him deliver him, if he will have him (ec 'd-eht afaov), i. e. if he delight in him;" Matt. ix. 13, xii. 7, Ileb. x. 5, 8, and Ps. xxi. 9, xxxix. 7, in the Septuagint. The word ivill, therefore, does not express so much a mere determination of the mind, as a state of the feelings and judgment. '"What I love and approve, that I omit; what I hate and disapprove, that I do.' This may not be philosophi cal, though it is perfectly correct language. It is the language of common life, which, as it proceeds from the common con sciousness of men, is often a better indication of what that consciousness teaches, than the language of the schools. Philo sophers themselves, however, at times speak in the same simple language of nature. Epictetus, Enchirid. 1. ii. c. 26, has a form of expression almost identical with that of the apostle; 6 d.u.apTdva)V — o JJLSV fistee, o'j TTO^S?, xal o /j.y fistse ~oiCc. The language of the apostle, in this passage, expresses a fact of consciousness, with which every Christian is familiar. Whether the conflict here described is that which, in a greater or less degree, exists in every man, between the natural authoritative sense of right and wrong, and his corrupt inclinations; or whether it is peculiar to the Christian, must be decided by considerations drawn from the whole description, and from the connection of this passage with the preceding and succeeding portions of the a [jostle's discourse. It is enough to remark here, that every Christian can adopt the language of this verse, Pride, coldness, slotlifulness, and other feelings which he dis approves and hates, are, day by day, reasserting their power over him. He struggles against their influence, groans beneath their bondage, longs to be filled with meekness, humility, and all other fruits of the love of God, but finds he can neither of himself, nor by the aid of the law, effect his freedom from what lie hates, or the full performance of what lie desires and ap proves. Every evening witnesses his penitent confession of his degrading bondage, his sense of utter helplessness, and his longing desire for aid from above. He is a slave looking and longing for liberty.

Two consequences flow from this representation of the experience of the Christian. First, the fault is felt and acknowledged, to be his own; the law is not to be blamed, ver. 16. Second, this state of feeling is consistent with his being a Christian, ver. 17.

VERSE 16. If then I do that which I would -not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Paul here asserts that his acting contrary to the law was no evidence that he thought the law evil; for what he did, he disapproved. But to disapprove and condemn what the law forbids, is to assent to the excellence of the law. There is a constant feeling of self-disapprobation, and a sense of the excellence of the law, in the Christian's mind. He is, therefore, never disposed to blame the extent or severity of the law, but admits the fault to be in him-elf. / consent to, o'jn^-^u.^ I speak with, 1 say the same thing which the law says, when it pronounces itself good. There is no conflict between the law and the believer; it is between the law and what the believer himself condemns.

VERSE 17. 2fotv then it is no more I that do it, lut xin tl>at dwelleth in rue. Xow then* j/ui/r os, that is. under these cir cumstances, or, this being the case. Or the meaning may bo but now, i. e. since I became a Christian. The former ex planation is to be preferred on account of the connetion of this verse with ver. lo, from which this passage is an inference 'If the ease be so, that I am sold under sin and am its unwilling slave; if I do what I disapprove, and lail to accom plish what 1 love; it is clear that it is not properly and fully I that d<> it, my real self; my better feelings or renovated nature is opposed to what the law forbids.' Ego quidem in utrooue, sed magis ego in eo, <|iiod approbabam, quam in eo ([nod in mo improbabam. Augustine, Confess. Lib. viii. ch. o. This is not said as an exculpation, but to exhibit the extent and power of indwelling sin, which it is bevond our own power, and beyond the power of the law, to eradicate or effectually control. This feeling of helplessness is not only consistent with a sense and acknowledgment of accountability, but is always found united with genuine self-condemnation and penitence. There are, in general, few stronger indications of ignorance of the power and evil of sin, than the confident assertion of our ability to resist and subdue it. Paul groaned beneath its bondage, as if held in the loathsome embrace of a k> body of death." The apostle's object, therefore, is not to apologize for sin, but to show that the experience detailed in ver. 15, is con sistent with his being a Christian. 'If it is true that 1 really approve and love the law, and desire to be conformed to it, I am no longer the willing slave of sin; to the depth and power of the original evil is to be attributed the fact that I am not entirely delivered from its influence.' This is obviously con nected with the main object of the whole passage. For if sin remains and exerts its power, notwithstanding our disappro bation, and in despite of all our efforts, it is clear that we must look for deliverance to something out of ourselves, and that the mere preceptive power of the law cannot remove the evil.

VERSES 18, 19, 20. These verses contain an amplification and confirmation of the sentiment of the preceding verses. They re-assert the existence, and explain the nature of the inward struggle of which the apostle had been speaking. 'I am unable to come up to the requirements of the law, not because they are unreasonable, but because I am corrupt; there is no good in me. I can approve and delight in the exhibitions of holiness made by the law, but full conformity to its demands is more than I can attain. It is not I, therefore, my real and lasting self, but this intrusive tyrant dwelling within me, that disobeys the law.' This strong and expressive language, though susceptible of a literal interpretation, which would make it teach not only error but nonsense, is still per fectly perspicuous and correct, because accurately descriptive of the common feelings of men. Paul frequently employs similar modes of expression. When speaking of his apostolic labours, he says, "Yet not I. but the grace of God, which was with me," 1 Cor. xv. 10. And in Gal. ii. 20, he says, "I live, vet not I, but Christ livcth in me." As no one supposes that the labours and life here spoken of were not the labours and life of the apostle, or that they did not constitute and express his moral character; so no Christian supposes that the greatness and power of his sin frees him from its responsibility, even when he expresses his helpless misery by saying, with the apostle, u It is not I, but sin that dwelleth in me." This doctrine of sin as indwelling is irreconcilable with the assurop- tion that sin consists exclusively in acts of the will, or even in the widest sense of the terms, in voluntary action. An in dwelling act is a solecism. Sin, in this, as in so many other places of Scripture, is presented as an abiding state of the -, mind, a disposition or principle, manifesting itself in acts. It is this that gives sin its power. We have measurably power over our acts, but over our immanent principles we have no direct control. They master us and not we them. Herein consists our bondage to sin. And as the power of an in dwelling principle is increased by exercise, so the strength of sin is increased by every voluntary evil act. No act is iso

lated. "Nothing," says Olshausen, "is more dangerous than the erroneous opinion that an evil act can stand alone, or that a man can commit one sin and then stop. All evil is con catenated, and every sin increases the power of the indwelling corruption in a fearful progression, until, sooner than the sinner dreams of, his head swims, und he is plunged into the abyss.''

VEUSK IS. For I knnw tlxit in me, lliat i*, in >»>/ flwh, there dwelleth no good tiling, cVc. The fun refers to the precedhi'j; clause, '••sin dwelleth in me," which what follows con firms. 'Sin dwells in me, for in my ilesh there dwelleth no good thinjr;' literally, good docs n»t dwll. Paul is hero explaining how it is that there is such a contradiction between his better principles and his conduct, as just described. The reason is, that in himself, he was entirely depraved, "In me, that is, in my ilesh, there dwelleth no good thing." As Paul is here speaking of himself, he limits the declaration that therewas no good in him. In its full sense, as he was a renewed man, this could not be true; lie therefore adds, "in my ilesh." Agreeably to the explanation given above, vcr. 14, these words evidently mean, 'in my nature considered apart from Divine influence,' i. e. 'in me viewed independently of the effects pro duced by the Spirit of God.' This is Paul's common use of the VQ\\\ flesh. As he ascribes all excellence in man to the Holy Spirit, in men, when destitute of that Spirit, there is "no good thing." To be "in the ilesh," is to be unrcnewed, and under the government of our own depraved nature; to be "in the Spirit," is to be under the guidance of the Holy Ghost;

ch. viii. 8, 9. So too, in Scripture language, a natura. man is a depraved man; and a spiritual man is one that is renewed; 1 Cor. ii. 14, 15. It need hardly be remarked that in the flesh cannot here mean in the body. Paul does not mean to say that in his body there was no good thing, as though the body were the seat of sin in man, and that exclusively. He frequently uses the phrase ivories of the flesh, in reference to sins which have no connection with the body, as envy, pride, seditions, heresies, &c., Gal. v. 19, 20.

For to will is present tuith me, but to perform that which is good, I find not. This again is connected by?ap with what precedes. ' Good does not dwell in me, for though I have the wili to do right, I have not the performance.' To dshiv napdxetral [we, not will as a faculty, but (TO -d-sAsev) as an ao^ The purpose or desire is present, i. e. I have it; but the per formance of the good 1 find not; ob% edplffxa) is equivalent to o?j -aodxzirai is not present. I have the one but not the other. Instead of the common text as given above, Griesbach and Lachmann, on the authority of the Alexandrian manuscript, read simply o'j, omitting efylcr/a), (I find.) The sense is the same, for in that case irapaxstrat must be understood. ' The one is present, the other is not (present).' The common reading is generally preferred, as the omission is easily ac counted for.

VEHSE 19..For the good that I would, I do not; but the evil that I loould not, that I do. A confirmation of what goes before. ' I do not find good present with me, for the good I would I do not.' This is a repetition, nearly in the same words, of what is said in ver. 15. Paul reasserts that he was unable to act up to his purposes and desires. For example, he doubtless desired to love God with all his heart, and at all times, but constantly was his love colder, and less operative than the law demands. This verse is, therefore, but an ampli fication of the last clause of ver. 18. / would (frsXcj,) means either I approve or love, as in ver. 15; or, I purpose, as in 7er. 18. The numerous passages* quoted by commentators in

* The following are a few examples of this kind selected from the multitude collected by Grotius and Wetstein.

Quid est hoc, LucMi, quod nos alio tendentes alio trahit, et eo, unde recedere

illustration of this and the preceding verses, though they may serve to throw light upon the language, are expressive of feelings very different from those of the apostle. When an impenitent man says 'he is sorry for his sins/ he may express the real state of his feelings; and yet the import of this language is very different from what it is in the mouth of a man truly contrite. The word sorrow expresses a multitude of very different feelings. Thus, also, when wicked men say they approve the good while they pursue the wrong, their appro bation is something very different from Paul's approbation of the law of God. And when Seneca calls the gods to witness, 'that what he wills, he does not will,' he too expresses something far short of what the language of the apostle con veys. This must IK- so, if there is any such thing as experi mental or evangelical religion; that is, if there is any dif ference between the sorrow for sin and desire of good in the mind of a true Christian, and in the unrenewed and willing votaries of sin in whom conscience is not entirely obliterated.

VKRSK 20. X<>w if I do tltat I ivouhl not, it is no more I that do it, lut sin t/tdt dwelleth ui me. The same conclusion from the same premises as in vcr. IT. 'The things which I do, when contrary to the characteristic desires and purposes of my heart, are to be considered as the acts of a slave. They are indeed my own acts, but not being performed with the full and joyful purpose of the heart, are not to be regarded as a fair criterion of character.'

cupimus, ropcllit? Quid colluotatur cum animo nostro, nee permittit nolns quidquam semel vi-llc '. Eluctuamus inter varia consilia, nihil libere volumus, irihil absolute', niliil semper. — Seneca, Ep. 1T>.

Sed trahit invituai nova vis, aliudque cupido, mens aliud suadet. Video meliora probnqao, deteriora sequor. — OnV/, Metam. vii. 11).

Errel yap u auapTuvuv o:i OeAej aij.apTa.vfii>, a\\a KaropOwffai, 5f?A.oi> on, o ulv 9e\fi, ov Trrne?, /ecu u a •/ <)t\fi, Troie?. — Arridn's Epict. ii. 20. " Since the sinner does not wish to err, but to act conx>ctly, it is plain that what he wills he does not and what lie wills not he does."

"I know indeed that what 1 am about to do is evil;

But passiou ia too strong for my purposes."

VERSE 21. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. This verse has been subjected to a greater variety of interpretations than any other in the chapter, or perhaps in the whole epistle. The construction in the original is doubtful; and besides this difficulty, there is no little uncer tainty as to the sense in which the word law is to be here taken. The question is, whether Paul means the law of God, of which he has been speaking throughout the chapter, or whether he uses the word in a new sense, for a rule, course, or law of action. Our translators have assumed the latter. If the former sense of the word be preferred, the passage may be thus interpreted. 4 1 find, therefore, that to me wishing to do good, evil (the law as the cause of evil) is present with me.' See Koppe. This is very unnatural. Or thus, 1 1 find, there fore, that to me wishing to act according to the law, i. e. to do good, evil is present with me.'* Or, as Tholuck explains it, 'I find, therefore, that while I would do the law, (i. e. good), evil is present.' Then TOV v6tj.ov depends on Tcotetv, (willing to do the law) and TO xa/.6v is in apposition with rbv votiov. The law is the good which the apostle desired to do. But in the context, the phrase r.oiftv TOV wpov does not occur, and the passage as thus explained is awkward and unnatural. Besides TO xalov would be entirely superfluous as TOU VO/JLOV needs no explana tion. The considerations in favour of the second explanation of the word law appear to be decisive. 1. The other interpre tation does not afford a sense suited to the context, as appears from Paul's own explanation of his meaning in the following verses. 4I find,' he says, 'this law, that while wishing to do good, I do evil,' vcr. 21; that is, 'I find that while I delight in the law of God, after the inward man, there is another law in my members which causes me to sin.' vs. 22, 23. Here it is evident, that the apostle means to explain what he intended by saying in ver. 21, that he found or experienced a law which caused him to act contrary to his better judgment and desires. 2. Having used the word law by itself for the Divine law throughout the chapter, he, for the first time, in ver. 22, calls

* Knapp's Prolusio in locum, Rom. vii. 21, in his Scripta Varii Argument!. The several interpretations of the passage are given and discussed by that writer.

it "the law of God," to mark the distinction between the law intended in vcr. 21, and that intended in vcr. 22. ':). This sense of the word is not unusual; it occurs repeatedly in the immediately succeeding verses.

But admitting that wtwz is taken here in the sense of controlliiiir principle or inward necessity, the construction of the passage is still doubtful. Tw &S/.OISTI itj.oi may depend on euoivxto, I fiml in inc. The construction is then regular: 'I find in myself willing to do good the law, that evil is pre sent with me.' so Meyer; or, as "\\iner (§ (k>, 4.) proposes, "Invenio hanc legem (normam) volenti niihi honcstum facere, ut mihi," c\.c. And l>eza: " Comperio igitur volenti mihi facere bonuin hanc legem esse impositum, <[ii<>d mihi malum adjaceat." Most commentators, however, assume a trajection of the particle or?, placing it liefore the first, instead of the second clause of the verse: 'I find this law, t/i>(f (or.') tome willing to do good, evil is present with me:' instead of, "I lind this law to me willing to do good, thnt (or/) evil is present.' The Kn^lish version as>umes this trajection. The sense is the same: and if it can he elicited without altering the position of the words, no such alteration should he made. Paul's experi ence had taught him. that while wishing to do good, he was still subject to evil, and from this subjection nothing but the grace of God could deliver him. 'Fins experience is common to all believers. "Fideles," savs Calvin, "duni ad bonuin mtuntur, (jiiandam in se tyrannicam legem reperire, ipiia eonini medullis et ossibus inlixa est vitiositas legi Dei adversa et repugnans."

VKKSH 22. For I delta/it in tin' her of fJod after ih<> imrctnl man. This is both an explanation and confirmation of what precedes. The inward conflict referred to in ver. 21, is here stated more fully. Paul had said that although he purposed to do good evil was present with him: '/'//'I delight in the law of God after the inner man: but I find a law in my mem bers bringing me into captivity to the law of sin.' / delight in the hue, (T'jy/jOot/.a: ]'<}.<> T(U ^outo. I rr/Vmr with; not however with others, to whom the context suggests and allows no refer ence, but intus, a pud aninnuti meunt. As we say, to rejoice with the whole heart. Compare awutda, 1 am conscious, i. e., I know with myself. As the apostle recognised in the new man two conflicting principles, he speaks as though there were within him two persons, both represented by I. The one is I, i. e. my flesh; the other is I, i. e. my inner man. By the inner man is to be understood the "new man;" either the renewed principle in itself considered, or the soul considered or viewed as renewed. That this is the true meaning of the phrase is evident: 1. From its origin. It is a term descriptive of excel lence. As the soul is better than the body, so the inner man is better than the outward man. When the contrast is simply between the external and internal, then the inner man means the soul; but when the contrast is, as here, between two con flicting principles within the soul, then by the inward man must be meant the higher or better principle within us. That this higher principle is not any natural faculty, anything belonging to us in our unrenewed state, is plain from what is predicated of this inner man. Everything is said of it that can be said of what is characteristic of the true children of God. 2. This interpretation is confirmed by a comparison with those passages where the same phrase occurs. In 2 Cor. iv. 10, and Eph iii. 16, by "inward man" is meant the soul as renewed. It is equivalent to the inner, or divine life, which is daily renewed or strengthened by the communications of the Spirit. 3. The analogous phrases, "the new man," as opposed to the "old man." Horn. vi. G, Eph. iv. 22, Col. iii. 9, and "hidden man of the heart," 1 Pet. iii. 14, serve to illustrate and confirm this interpretation. As "the new man" is the soul as made new, so "the inward man," of which the same things are predicated, means the renewed nature, or nature1 as renewed. 4. The use of the terms "inward man," "law of the mind," "the Spirit," "the spiritual man," as opposed to "the law in the members," "the old man," "the flesh," "the natural man," shows that the former all indicate the soul as regenerated, or as the seat of the Spirit's influences, and the latter the soul as unrenewed. o. The decision of the question as to what is here meant by the "inward man," depends on what is elsewhere taught in the Scriptures concerning the natural state of man. If men, since the fall, are only partially depraved; if sin affects only our lower faculties, leaving the reason undisturbed in its original purity, then by the "inward man," we must under stand our rational, as opposed to our sensuous nature. But if the Bible teaches that the whole man is defiled by sin, and that the principle of spiritual life is something superna tural, then it follows that the conflict here depicted is not that between sense and reason, but that between the new and old man, the soul as renewed and indwelling sin. ''Interior igitur

homo," says Calvin, " non anima simplicitcr dicitur, sed spiritualis ejus pars, qiue a Deo regenerate est: membrorum yocabiilum residiiaiii alterain purtem significat. 2sam ut anima est pars excL-llentior homiuis, corpus inferior; ita spiritus superior est carne. Ilac ergo ratione, qiiia Spiritus locum aniline tenet in lioiniue, caro autein, id est corrupta et vitiata anima, corporis, ille interioris hoinims, h;ec membrorum nomeii obtinet." So also Melanctlion says, tk Interior liomo significat homincm, quatenus renovatus est Spiritu sancto." And Luther's mar ginal note is, " Inwendiger.Menscli lieisst bier der (Jeist aus Gnadeii geboren, wclcher in den Ileiligeu strcitet wider den uusserlichen, das.- ist, Yernunft, Sinn und alles was Xatur am Menschen ist." And this conflict between the llesh and Spirit, lie says, in his preface to this epistle, "continues in us so long as we live, in some more, and in others less, according as the one or the other principle is the stronger. ~\ et the whole man is both flesh and Spirit, and contends with himself until lie is completely spiritual."

VKIISK ~:>. lint I *<'<• anntlu-r l<t>c in niy ///''////^rx, \c. / see, as though looking into his own soul, and observing the princi ples there in conflict. B'-.-ides kkthe inward man," or principle of the divine life, there was '-[mother law" not merely a//ov, another numericallv, but s'r£//o^, anothei' in kind, one that is hetero^enous, of a different nature. This e\ il principle is called a law, because of its permanency and its controlling power. It is not a transient act or mutable purpose, but a law, some thing independent of the will which defies and controls it. In my mi'mtK')'*, i. e. in me. It is equivalent to "in my flesh," ver. 18. Warrinrj ayainst the law of mind. It is not only passively antagonistic, but it is a constantly active principle, warrinir, i. e. endeavouring to overcome and destroy the law of nuj mind. '0 ^6/w^ TU~J vooc /wji is n°t the law of which my mind is the author, but which pertains to my higher nature. As the one law is in the members, or flesh, the other is the mind; voD^, not the reason, nor the affections, but the higher or renewed nature. It is antithetical to ado^, and as the latter does not mean the body, nor simply our sensuous nature, but our nature considered as corrupt, so the former does not mean the soul, nor the reason, but our nature as renewed. " The law of the mind" is evidently only another designation for "the inward man." It was not the apostle's mind, his rational nature, which strove against the law in his members; but it was his mind or rational nature as a Christian, and therefore, as such, the dwelling-place of the Holy Spirit. It is not the reason of the natural man, but the illuminated reason of the spiritual man, of which the apostle here speaks. Bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members,. The principle of evil is not only active, but it is conquering. It takes the soul captive. So that it is, in the sense of ver. 14, the slave of sin. Not its willing servant, but its miserable, helpless victim. This does not mean that sin always triumphs in act, but simply that it is a power from which the soul cannot free itself. It remains, and wars, in. spite of all that we can do. The law of sin is only a descriptive designation of that other law mentioned in the preceding clause. They arc not two laws. The law in the members, which was against the law of the mind, is a law of sin, i. e. it is sin considered as a law, or controlling power. It is the same as " indwelling sin," ifj otxoiHja ei> ifwl kimo-ia. In my members, i. e. in me, as what is here expressed by in role (osteal JLO'J, is before expressed by iv k/jtol. It is only a modification of the old anti-Augustinian interpretation, when Olshausen represents, according to his anthropology, man as composed of three parts, the ^usy/ia, f'^y^i and acoii.a, or voD^, ^/^, and ffdttz. The </"J%'j he makes the real centre of our personality. By the voD^ we are in com munion with the spiritual world, by the ad.oz with the material world. The ^r/fh therefore, is the battle-field of the vtyj^ and 0v/^~. By itself the </>i>%'j cannot free itself from the dominion or power of the ffdnz, and therefore needs redemption, the effect of which is to give the higher principle of our nature the ascendency. The conflict is, from first to last, a natural one.

It is only a struggle between the good principle in man which has survived the fall, with the disorder introduced into his nature by the apostacy.

VERSE 24. 0 wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The burden of indwelling sin was a load which the apostle could neither cast off nor bear. He co ild only groan under its pressure, and long for deliver ance bv a power greater than his. TaAai~co[)Oz, (nearly allied to ra/ji-ziwoz^ from T/.dto and -£?/>«, much tried,) wretched, Rev. iii 17, where it is connected with s/ss^o'c, compare James v. 1, iv. 9. Who shall deliver me/ this is the expression, not of despair, but of earnest desire of help from without and above hi'.nself. t% Xon q merit," says Calvin, "a quo sit libcrandus, quasi dubitans ut increduli, qui non teiicnt unicum csse liberator-Mil: sed vox est anhelantis et prope fatiscentis, quia non satis pnescntem opem videat." That from which the apostle d.'sired to be delivered is the bod// of tlilx death, r/c [*s f)'j(j •'(/.: Ix ~orj (7(t')fM7o^ ~urj fiavd'cou TO'JTO'J. The demonstra tive TQ'JWL) may he referre(l either to <Jiotta-u~, tltix body of death, or to ^/varov, body of thi* death. It is not unusual, especially in Hebrew, for the demonstrative and possessive pro nouns t.) be connected with the noun governed, when they reallv qualify the iroverning noun; as "idols of his silver," for his silver idols; '•mountains of my holiness," for my holy mountains. If this explanation he here adopted, then the meaning is, this body which is subject to death, i. e., this mor tal body. Then what the apostle longed for was death. He longed to have the strife over, which he knew was to last so long as he continued in the body. Hut this is inconsistent, both with what precedes and with what follows. It was the;'law in his members," k> the law of sin," which pressed on him is a grievous burden. And the victory for which he gives thanks is not freedom from the body, but deliverance from siri. To avoid these difficulties, death may be taken in the sense of spiritual death, and therefore including the idea of sin. ''This body of death." would then mean, this body which is the scat of death, in which spiritual death i. e. reigns. It is, however, more natural to take the words as they stand, and connect TO'jTou with Oa^d-u'j, this death. Then the body of this death may mean the natural or material body, whl^h belongs or per tains to the death of which he had been speaking. This agrees nearly with the interpretation last mentioned. "This supposes that the body is the seat of sin —; who shall deliver me from this death which reigns in the body?' It is not, however, Paul's doctrine that the body is evil, or that it is the scat or source of sin. It is the soul which is depraved, and which contaminates the body, and perverts it to unholy use. It is, therefore, better to take Gcotm (body) in a figurative sense. Sin is spoken of figuratively in the context as a man, is "the old man," as having members, and, in vi. G, as a body, "the body of sin." The meaning, therefore, is, 'Who wik deliver me from the burden of this death?' or, 'this deadly weight.' Calvin explains it thus: " Corpus mortis vocat massan: peccati vel congericm, ex qua totus homo confiatus est." The body under which the apostle groaned was mortifcra pccca:i massa. This exclamation is evidently from a burdened heart. It is spoken out of the writer's own consciousness, and shows that although the apostle represents a class, he himself bcbnged to that class. It is his own experience as a Christian to which he gives utterance.

VERSE 25. The burden of sin being the great evil under which the apostle and all other believers labour, from which no efficacy of the law, and no efforts of their own can deliver them, their case would be entirely hopeless but for help from on high. " Sin shall not have dominion over you," is the lan guage of the grace of God in the gospel. The conflict which the believer sustains is not to result in the victory of sin, but in the triumph of grace. In view of this certain and glorious result, Paul exclaims, / thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Thns is evidently the expression of a strong and sudden emotion of gratitude. As, however, his object is" to illustrate the operation of the law, it would be foreign to his purpose to expatiate on a deliverance effected by a different power; he, therefore, does not follow up the idea suggested by this excla mation, but immediately returns to the point in hand. Instead of the common text ^aoearco rc7j fhw, I thank God, many editors prefer the reading ydoc; TW &ew, thanks be to God. Some manuscripts have f; %dotz rorj ttsou. Then this verse would be an answer to the preceding. < Who shall deliver me from this burden of sin?' Ans. 'The grace of God.' For this reading, however, there is little authority, external or internal. Through Jesus Christ our Lord. Paul does not only render thanks to God through the mediation of Christ, but the great blessing of deliverance for which he gives thanks, is received through the Lord Jesus Christ. lie does for us what neither the law nor our own powers could effect. lie is the only Redeemer from sin.

So then, doa OL>V, wherefore. The inference is not from the immediately preceding expression of thanks. 'Jesus Christ is my deliverer, u'/i<>r<'f«re I myself,' &c. But this is an unnatural combination. The main idea of the whole passage, the subject winch the apostle laboured to have understood, is the impo tence of the law — the impossibility of obtaining deliverance from sin through its influence or agency. The in Terence is, therefore, from the whole preceding discussion, especially from what is said fmm ver. 14 onward. The conclusion to which the apostle had arrived is here brieily summed up. lie remained, and so far as the law Is concerned, must remain under the power of sin. 'With the mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law of sin.' Deliverance from (lie power of sin the law cannot accomplish. / /////*, •//'. a'jro- ly«'). The a-j-o- here is either antithetical, placing the lyd) in oppo sition to some expressed or implied, or it is explanatory. If the former, the opposition is to i'mi //<7<i:j \<ica~o7j I <il,n<' icithnnt tin' aid of <_'hri*t. So Mayer and others. IJut the idea thus expressed is not in accordance with the context. Paul had not been teaching what his unrenewed, unaided nature could accomplish, but what was the operation of the law, even on the renewed man. The a'jToz is simplv explana tory, / niywlf, and no other, i. e. the same./,}/</ of which he had spoken all along. It is very plain, from the use of this expression, that the preceding paragraph is an exhibition of his own experience. All that is there said, is summarily here said emphatically in his own person. 'I myself. I, Paul, with my mind serve the law of G<><1, but with the flesh the law of sin.' The antithesis is between \>ol and aa<rtl; the one explains the other. As mt.nz is not the body, nor the sensuous nature, but indwelling sin, ver. 18, so vo5c is not the mind as opposed to the body, nor reason as opposed to the sensual passions, but the higher, renewed principle, as opposed to the law in the members, or indwelling corruption. This interpretation is sus tained by the use of the word in the preceding verses. Paul served the law of God, in so far as he assented to the law that it is good, as he delighted in it, and strove to be conformed to it. He served the law of sin, that is, sin considered as a law or inward power, so far as, in despite of all his efforts, he was still under its influence, and was thereby hindered from living in that constant fellowship with God, and conformity to his will, that he earnestly desired.

Having gone through the exposition of this passage, it is time to pause, and ask, Of whom has Paul been speaking, of a renewed or imrenewcd man? Few questions of this kind have been more frequently canvassed, or more intimately associated with the doctrinal views of different classes of theologians. The history of the interpretation of the latter part of this chapter, is one of the most interesting sections of the doctrinal history of the Church. A brief outline of this history may be found in the Dissertation of Knapp, before referred to, and somewhat more extended in the Commentary of Tholuck. It appears that during the first three centuries, the Fathers were generally agreed in considering the passage as descriptive of the experience of one yet under the law. Even Augustine at first concurred in the correctness of this view. But as a deeper insight into his own heart, and a more thorough investigation of the Scriptures, led to the modification of his opinions on so many other points, they produced a change on this subject also. This general alteration of his doctrinal views cannot be attri buted to his controversy with Pelagius, because it took place Ion"" before that controversy commenced. It is to be ascribed to his religious experience, and his study of the word of God.

The writers of the middle ages, in general, agreed with the later views of Augustine on this, as on other subjects. At the time of the Reformation, the original diversity of opinion on this point, and on all others connected with it, soon became manifested. Erasmus, Socinus, and others, revived the opinion of the Greek Fathers; while Luther, Calvin, Mclancthon, Beza, &c., adhered to the opposite interpretation. At a later period, when the controversy with the Remonstrants occurred, it commenced with a discussion of the interpretation of this chapter. The first writings of Arminius, in which he broached his peculiar opinions, were lectures on this passage. All his associates and successors, as Grotius, Episcopius, Limborch, &c., adopted the same view of the subject. As a general rule, Arminian writers have been found on one side of this question, and Calvinistic authors on the other. This is indeed the natural result of their different views of the scriptural doctrine of the natural state of man. Most of the former class, going much farther than Arminius himself ever went — either denying that the corruption consequent on the fall is such as to destroy the power of men to conform themselves to the law ot God, or maintaining that this power, if lost, is restored by those opera tions of the IIolv Spirit which are common to all — found no difficult v in considering the expressions, "I consent to" and "delight in the law of God after the inward man," as tho lanirua^e of a person yet in his natural state. On the other hand, those who held the doctrine of total depravity, and of the consequent inability of sinners, and who rejected the doc trine of "common ^raee," could not reconcile with these opinions the strong laiiiMiaire here used bv the apostle.