Scs^^S" -fh -rsv^**^- SCS #'S"<^5" JUST PUBLISHED. SANDY SCOTT'S BIBLE CLASS. A work of religious instruction set forth in a homely and humorous way. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, price is. 6d.; paper covers, price is. A TREATISE ON SANCTIFICATION The Rev. JAMES FRASER {of Alness) A Treatise on SANCTIFICATION BY The Rev. JAMES ERASER (OF ALNESS) NEW AND REVISED EDITION WITH BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL INTRODUCTION BY The Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A. LONDON SANDS & COMPAN Y 12 BURLEIGH STREET, STRAND, W.C. MDCCCXCVIII PREFACE /^OPIES of this excellent book are not easily pro- ^^^ curable, and when they are obtained their form in the matter of printing and paper is anything but attractive. It occurred to the present Editor that a re-issue of the work, carefully revised, would meet a real want, and serve to secure a favourable introduction for what seems to him a masterpiece in its own department to those who might be repelled by the aspect of earlier editions, or might, in consequence of its comparative rarity, remain altogether ignorant of its existence. It has been the aim of the Editor, first of all, to produce a pure text. He has much pleasure in making grateful acknowledgment of the kindness and courtesy with which Mrs Mackintosh allowed him the use of the original manuscript, which had come into the possession of her husband, the late eminent and revered Dr Charles Calder Mackintosh of Tain, and afterwards of Dunoon. The present edition is the result of a careful collation of previous printed editions with the manu- script. The older editions were prefaced by a Biographical Introduction of six pages, five of which were devoted VI 11 PREFACE to the story of the sufferings undergone by Mr Fraser's father, only the closing section being given to a vague and general encomium on Mr James Fraser, the only facts given being the dates of his birth, ordination, and death. It seemed therefore extremely desirable to gather, if possible, some details regarding the life and work of the author, and to present them in the form of a brief introductory biography. For the several particulars which have been embodied in the following notice, the Editor is almost wholly indebted to Dr Gustavus Aird of Creich. Probably no one living has anything approaching the information of the venerable Doctor with regard to the inner and outer history of the Highlands, especially of Ross and Sutherland, from the time of the Reformation down to the present day. In the kindest manner, Dr Aird wrote long and interest- ing letters, giving authentic information, often going into minute genealogical details in order to show the accuracy of some statement, and drawing upon his wide knowledge of family history in order to mark changes in the possession of properties more or less closely connected with the story of our author's life. It is earnestly to be hoped that Dr Aird may be persuaded soon to give to the world his reminiscences of interesting persons whom he has met, and remarkable incidents in which he has taken part, as well as his splendid collection of incidents and traditions of earlier times. r RE FACE IX Special thanks are also due to John Mackenzie, Esq., C.E., of Inverness, who has placed at the disposal of the Editor the portrait of Mr Fraser of 1747, now in his possession, of which the frontispiece is a copy. The present accomplished and respected Free Church Minister of Alness, Rev. A. R. Munro, has also given much encouragement in the preparation of this edition by his advice and hearty sympathy. May the issue of this new edition lead to increased interest in the study of this important and profound portion of the Divine Word. JOHN MACPHERSOX. Free Church Manse, Findhorn, August 1897. CONTENTS PAGES vii. ix. Xlll.-XXXl. 1-32 33-106 107- PREFACE ..... Biographical Introduction Introduction to Explication of Romans vi. Explication of Romans vi. Introduction to Explication of Romans vii. Explication of Romans vii. i-S Essay on Penal Sanction of the Law Explication of Romans vii. 9 v on Promise under Old Testament Explication of Romans vii. 10-13 Dissertation on Scope of Romans vii. 14-25 Sect. 1. Introduction „ 2. General Considerations „ 3. Nothing Inconsistent with State of Grace 270-281 „ 4-6. Much Inconsistent with Unregenerate State ..... 2S1-331 132-186 187-214 214-223 223-242 242-254 254-352 254-259 259-270 „ 7. Answers to Objections „ 8. Practical Uses Paraphrase of Romans vii. 14-25 Explication of Romans viii. 1-4 331-345 345-352 352-356 357-396 Xll CONTENTS APPENDIX. PAGES The Apostle's Doctrine, Principles, and Reason- ings APPLIED TO THE PURPOSES OF HOLY Practice and of Evangelical Preaching— Sect. i. Recapitulation of Apostle's Doctrine and Principles .... 397-400 „ 2. Advantage to Holiness from being under Grace ..... 401-427 „ 3. Directions to those anxious about Salva- tion ..... 427-456 „ 4. Concerning True Evangelical Preaching 456-493 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MR FRASER, AND CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF HIS WORK. During the latter half of the seventeenth century Ross-shire and the province of Moray were singularly favoured by the presence of several highly distinguished and zealous witnesses for evangelical truth. Throughout this district, as well as in other parts of the country, there were no doubt prevailing deadness and indifference to spiritual things, while in most of the parishes conforming ministers and curates represented Moderatism of the most objectionable kind. But though many districts remained in a state of ignorance and rudeness that seemed more pagan than Christian, there were here and there throughout these provinces communities gathered around devoted and earnest ministers, whose profound personal ex- perience of spiritual truths, and minute acquaintance with the doctrinal and religious teaching of scripture, has been the astonishment and admiration of all who have studied the history of this locality and age. The parish of Alness lay in the heart of the district in which, dur- ing that period, spiritual religion flourished in the highest degree. It lies on the northern shore of the Cromarty Firth, almost directly opposite the town and parish of Cromarty, not far re- moved from Kilmuir, Logie Easter, Fodderty, Killearn, Redcastle, and Urquhart, all famous as centres of light in those dark days. In 1695 the curate, who had been a legacy to the parish from XIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE the prelatical Government, died, and the people, headed by one of the most influential and powerful of the northern lairds, Munro of Fowlis, determined that they should have a minister who should preach a pureGospel, and show himself zealous for the conversion of sinners unto God. During the preceding years Gaelic-speaking ministers settled in southern parishes had been sent to these northern parts to evangelise among the people, for the number of such men was small and the need was great. Among others, Mr John Fraser, minister of Glencorse, in the Presbytery of Dalkeith, had visited Alness and preached among the people. Now that they had the opportunity of calling a minister, their hearts turned towards him, of whose gifts and graces they had had sufficient evidence. This Mr Fraser, the father of the author of our treatise on " Sanctification," had previously passed through severe trial and persecution in consequence of his faithful adherence to the cause of Protestantism. Having withdrawn to London in 1680, he associated with various Nonconformists, and enjoyed much refreshing fellowship with pious ministers and members of some of the smaller and proscribed sects which abounded in that age. For some years considerable freedom of assembly was enjoyed, but by-and-by the system of espionage became more regularly organised and more rigorously carried out, informers being encouraged in their despicable calling by the payment of a considerable reward for each discovery of a house in which a conventicle was held. Preachers and hearers were also subjected to fines, and these too were paid over to the informer. And so it happened that in the beginning of 1685, as a famous Scotch preacher, Alexander Shiells, was addressing an assembly composed mostly of Scotsmen, among whom was Mr Fraser, he and others were apprehended and sent down as prisoners to Scotland to stand their trial in their own native country. Mr Fraser was one of seven who were sent down by sea to Leith, along with Mr Shiells, in the month of March. BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XV Of the whole party, Mr Shiells was the only one who flinched from a plain and honest acknowledgment of their political position and religious belief. The seven faithful men were sent on the 18th of May to Dunnottar Castle, near Stonehaven, on the Kincardineshire coast, which had been purchased from the Earl Marischal by the Government for a State prison. No less than 167 Covenanters were at this time confined within the narrow walls of this old castle, where they were subjected to the most barbarous cruelties. The condition of the dungeons in this place was deplorable, as many as forty-two prisoners being confined in a chamber measuring fifteen feet by nine, to which air and light were admitted by a single narrow slit placed near the floor. Many died here, and others contracted diseases which continued with them during all the subsequent years of their lives. After about three months of misery in this pestilential prison, they were brought back to Leith, and again subjected to examination before the judges. A large number of them received sentence of exile, many were sold to un- scrupulous men, who made considerable profit by selling them as slaves to work on plantations in one or other of the American colonies. Mr Fraser was one of a party of eighty or a hundred sold to the laird of Pitlochie, who, along with his wife, sailed in the ship with them from Leith for New Jersey. Altogether, there were about 300 souls on board. The provisions were bad j the health of many of those who came from Dunnottar had been utterly ruined ; the weather was stormy, and the winds contrary. Often three or four died in one day, so that during the wretched voyage of seventeen weeks no less than sixty deaths took place on board, among these that of the laird of Pitlochie and of his wife. That poor man had bought the prisoners for four years' service, and his son-in-law, who had also been in the ship, sought to enforce his claim before the courts of the State. The jury summoned by the Governor to try the case refused the claim, on the ground that these men XVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE had not voluntarily accepted service, nor gone on board the ship of their own free will. Soon after this Mr Fraser, along with others who had been his companions in suffering, left New Jersey, and went northward into New England. He settled for some time in Waterbury — well known in these days for its extensive watch manufactories — a city on the coast of the State of Connecticut, about half-way between New York and Boston. It was here that Mr John Fraser was licensed as a preacher of the Gospel, and for about two or three years he remained in this place, engaging laboriously in pastoral duties, not without encouraging tokens of the Divine favour and blessing. Among those who had gone out with him from Scotland in the ship was a certain Miss Jean Moffat. She was from Tweeddale, her home having been in the neigh- bourhood of what is now known as Abbotsford, so celebrated as the residence of Sir Walter Scott. Her repeated refusal to attend the services of the curates, and her attending of the conventicles or field meetings of the Covenanters, led to her being denounced as one disaffected towards the Government, and after repeated finings had proved ineffectual, she was sentenced to be sent beyond the seas. Mr Fraser married the lady, who proved an excellent, and in every way a suitable partner to her husband, and a sympathiser and helper in his work. On the news of the accession of William of Orange reaching them, they left America and returned to Scotland, his settlement in the parish of Glencorse speedily following his arrival. The call which the people of Alness addressed to him in 1695 having been set aside by the Assembly, the northern congregation refused to regard this decision as final, and renewed their call in the following year, making an appeal to the Assembly of 1696. In order to strengthen Mr Fraser in his purpose to stay with them, the people of Glencorse built him a new. church; but just on the eve of the meeting of the Assembly, when the finishing touch had been put to the BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XVll internal fittings of the church, and before it had been occu- pied, the building was burnt to the ground. The minister and his wife were agreed in regarding this as an indication of God's mind and will. He felt that he was called to use his Gaelic where it was needed, and accordingly he accepted the call to Alness, and was inducted to that charge in that same year — 1696. His ministry in Alness extended over a period of fifteen years. It was a ministry singularly fruitful and richly blessed. He died in the manse of Alness in November 1 7 1 1. Mr James Fraser was born in Alness in the year 1700. An older brother, a young man of great promise, died while James was still a youth of twelve. He recognised signs of more than ordinary talent in his younger brother, and strongly urged his mother to endeavour to secure for him the advantages of a University education. He passed through the regular curriculum in arts and theology, and was in due course licensed as a preacher of the Gospel. No record remains of the reputation he secured at College, but owing to the evil custom which prevailed then, and for a long time afterwards, of sending boys to College at the absurdly early age of twelve or thirteen, it is probable that his mental powers were not developed or his abilities seen till long after his University course had ended. His father had been succeeded in 17 11 by Mr Daniel Mackilligan, who was translated from Kilmuir Easter to Alness. This minister, who proved in every way worthy of his pious and popular predecessor, was the son of the famous Mr Mackilligan of Fodderty, the Covenanter. On his death, in 1726, Mr James Fraser, now in his twenty-sixth year, was called to his father's parish, and ordained and inducted as minister of Alness. The records of his life and work in Alness are very scanty. The " Statistical Account of Ross-shire " speaks of him only in general terms. " He appears to have been a man as much distinguished for the talents necessary to eminence as a public xvill BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE character as for the virtues which rendered him so much esteemed as a private Christian." These words seem to sum up very accurately what we might be led to suppose, from the few recorded incidents of his ministry, would have been his leading characteristics. From the very outset of his ministry he established a high reputation as a preacher, and was soon recognised as one of the most impressive and instructive preachers in a district where men of great and distinguished pulpit gifts were remarkably numerous. In his sermons he seemed to aim specially at the conviction of sinners. And so we find among the people attending his ministrations much spiritual anxiety and great searchings of heart. According to the mode of expression current in that age, the law work was very prominent in their experience ; they were made to feel the terribleness of sin, the awful and inexorable demands of the holy law. Christ was very faithfully and tenderly preached, but it was as the Saviour of sinners, who had been painfully driven and unweariedly hunted out of every refuge of lies. The good people of Ross-shire seem to have quite understood the peculiar fitness of the different ministers in that neighbour- hood for dealing with special conditions of the spiritual life, so that, when their personal condition of mind and experience called for special treatment, they would go to hear the minister whose gifts were supposed to lie in the imparting of the needed help. In Kilmuir, Mr Fraser's contemporary was his own cousin, Mr Porteous, the son of his father's sister. He was one of the most famous ministers of his time, and between him and Mr Fraser there existed throughout their whole lifetime a friendship of the closest intimacy. Some of those who were awakened under Mr Fraser's ministry were wont to go occa- sionally to Kilmuir to hear Mr Porteous. The good people of Kilmuir became alarmed on account of these visits of members of the Alness congregation, lest it might produce any mis- understanding and coolness between the two ministers, both of BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XIX whom they venerated so much and loved so dearly. Accord- ingly they asked Mr Porteous to speak to Mr Fraser on the subject, and to assure him that he had done nothing with the object of inducing these people to become occasional wor- shippers in his church. Mr Porteous, who was himself some- what vexed and anxious about the matter, readily complied with this wise and well-considered request. Mr Fraser's answer was characteristic, and in every way worthy of the man. " My dear brother," he said, "this will never produce any alienation of feeling between us. It is entirely of the Lord. He has given me a quiverful of arrows, and it is not yet exhausted, and these arrows are piercing their consciences ; hence their pain and cry for relief. But the Lord has given you a breast full of oil, and they run to you for relief. The whole is from the Lord, and no coolness shall arise between us." This incident not only reflects most creditably the unselfishness of Mr Fraser, and his absolute surrender of himself to the interests of his Master's kingdom, and the wise considerateness and modesty of Mr Porteous, but also the sterling Christian good sense of the people, who loved them both. Besides his pulpit services on Sabbath, for which he made very laborious and careful preparation, he had frequent meet- ings in different parts of his parish, and for different classes of men and women, during the week. Once a month, Monday was observed as the question day, when meetings were held for conference on topics of doctrine and experience. The exercise at these Monday meetings seems to have been similar to that of the Friday before the Communion Sabbath, according to the mode of preparation for the Sacrament which still prevails throughout the Highlands. Besides this, there was also once a month, on Tuesday, a meeting of pious women, many of whom resided in a part of the parish, which was then thickly peopled, called Clachnambuaig. This also seems to have been a question meeting, for we are told that XX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE these pious females, who were not allowed to speak in other meetings, came to these Tuesday gatherings with a great variety and wealth of difficult questions in what might be called casuistic divinity. It was the minister's rather un- enviable task to do as best he could to supply a reasonable and satisfactory solution of these hard problems. Mr Fraser seems often to have found the work more than ordinarily irksome, and confesses that the puzzles presented to him on such occasions were often so perplexing that the ordeal of these Tuesdays constituted the most serious and trying part of his work as a minister. So much did he feel this burden, that on parting with his elders at the close of the monthly Monday meeting, Mr Fraser was in the habit of asking them most earnestly to remember him in their prayers, that he might be enabled at the meeting on the following day to answer discreetly and profitably the questions put to him by the women. Mr Fraser inherited from his father a small estate in the parish of Nigg called Pitcalzian, or Meikle Pitcalzian. To this property his sister Catherine retired, and there she resided during her widowhood. She was married to the Rev. John MacArthur, who was minister of Killearnan or Redcastle from 1 7 19 to 1730, and of Logie Easter, in the Presbytery of Tain, from 1730 to 1744. Mrs MacArthur lived in Pitcalzian till her death in January 1785. Tradition represents her as a woman of high character and strong will. She was in the habit of attending the county meetings, and was wont sharply to reprove anyone who might use rough or unseemly language, even bringing down her stick upon the backs of the offenders. Some time after Mr Fraser's death this property passed away from the family, and was purchased by Mr William Murray, Provost of Tain, and it is now possessed by Captain Murray of Geanies, the great-grandson of the original purchaser. Mrs James Fraser of Alness was one of the Macleods of Geanies, in the parish of Tarbat, a family who came from BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXI Assynt, although disclaiming all connection with the un- pleasantly notorious captor of Montrose. Her nephew, Donald Macleod of Geanies, was Sheriff-Depute of Ross for upwards of half a century, and his jubilee as Sheriff was celebrated by a great gathering of all the north - country lawyers at Dingwall in 1625. After the Sheriff's death, Geanies was sold to the Provost's son, and so Geanies and Pitcalzian are now held by one and the same proprietor. In 1752 there was a forced settlement in the parish of Nigg. The patron's presentee, a certain Mr Grant, was keenly opposed by the great body of the people, and when, in spite of all their protest, this clergyman was inducted to the parish church, the people refused to attend the services conducted by the intruder, or to recognise in any way his ministry. The dispute between the patron and the people had lasted for about three years, and when at last, by order of the General Assembly, the presentee was ordained, it was found that not more than three or four families out of the whole population of the parish adhered to him. It was now a difficult question for the people to decide where they should go to hear the Gospel. For a time the most of them went to Kilmuir, where they enjoyed the rich and comforting discourses of Mr Porteous ; and it would seem that Mr Fraser of Alness occasionally preached in Nigg, and that he regularly baptized the children of the Seceders. The elders and all the good Christian people in the surrounding parishes sympathised with them, and tokens of admission to the Lord's Table were readily granted them by the Kirk-Sessions of the neighbourhood. The intruded minister, feeling offended at such conduct, wrote to Mr Fraser of Alness, threatening him that, if he persisted in preaching to the people of Nigg and baptizing their children, he would take steps to have him deposed from the ministry of the Church of Scotland. When the Alness people heard this, most of them assembled in a body about the manse, and besought the minister that he would not expose himself to XX11 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE ejection from the parish, and them to the loss of the minister whom they so dearly loved. He replied to the intruder that no doubt, owing to the temper prevailing at that time in the Assembly, he could easily secure his deposition at its hands. However, should matters be brought to such an issue, he assured him that this would by no means improve the case of the persecutor, or in any way make matters smoother for him in the parish of Nigg. If deposed, he would simply go and reside upon his own property of Pitcalzian, build a church there, and become the minister of the Seceders, preaching and baptizing at his very door. Eventually a minister of the Secession Church was sent to Nigg, represented by the United Presbyterian congregation of Nigg in the present day. Not only among the people as an edifying preacher and a sympathetic and faithful pastor, but also among his brethren in the ministry as a wise counsellor and a man of deep and varied Christian experience, Mr Fraser was greatly valued. On the opposite side of the Cromarty Firth from Alness lay the parish of Resolis, in what is known as the Black Isle. Mr Hector MacPhail was minister there, the warmly attached and loving friend of Mr Fraser. For a time he was greatly depressed in mind. He regarded himself as unfit for the office of the ministry, and concluded that this was the cause of that apparent want of success in his labours which he deplored. His distress and discomfort were so great that, notwithstanding the remonstrances of his friend the minister of Alness, he determined to resign his charge and leave the parish. At length Mr MacPhail concluded that the time for his departure had come, and so he summoned Mr Fraser to come to preach in Resolis, and intimate to his people the resolution to which their minister had come. With the greatest reluctance Mr Fraser went to Resolis, but he preached that day doctrine at once so encouraging and so clear in the way of pointing out. the path of duty, that Mr MacPhail interfered BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XX1I1 before the intimation of his resolution to resign had been made, and, to Mr Fraser's great joy, announced that all his bonds were loosed, that he was never united to the parish of Resolis until that day. This fruit of Mr Fraser's preaching was destined itself to prove abundantly fruitful. From that day onward Mr MacPhail seldom appeared in the pulpit without good being done by his ministry, either in the awakening and convicting of sinners or in the notable and evident edifying of the Church. Little is known of the details of his family and private life. His whole ministry of over forty years was passed in the one parish, and his life, though active, was probably uneventful. He died in the manse of Alness on the 5th October 1769. His cousin, Mr Porteous of Kilmuir, having heard of his ill- ness, went to Alness to see him, but when he arrived he was already gone. Being his nearest relative, Mr Porteous remained to make arrangements for and to superintend the funeral. On Sabbath he preached in the church of Alness the funeral sermon, from the text (Gen. v. 24), " Enoch walked with God ; and he was not, for God took him." In his own pulpit at Kilmuir, Mr Porteous's nephew, a young man, Mr Lewis Fraser, son of Rev. Alexander Fraser of Inverness, preached that day on the same text, without any knowledge of his uncle's choice. Mr Fraser was a man of imposing appearance. An excellent portrait of our author — an oil painting, half size — was for many years, during Sir Henry Munro's time, in Fowlis Castle. It was sold in 1826 by the late Hugh Munro, and bought by the late Mr Flyter of Alness, when it found its fitting home in the old manse. Photographs of it were taken in 1SS8, and the picture itself exhibited during the sittings of the General Assembly of the Free Church in Inverness. It is now the property of John Mackenzie, Esq., Inverness, the grandson of Mr Flyter, who has most courteously placed it at the disposal xxiv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE of the Editor of this new edition of Mr Fraser's great work. The frontispiece picture, copied from this portrait, will be regarded by all as a most attractive feature of the present publication. The original painting is dated 1747, and conse- quently represents Mr Fraser in his forty-seventh year. So far as is known, Mr Fraser published nothing in his life- time. His principal work, the treatise on " Sanctification," in the form of an introduction, explication, and paraphrase of Romans vi.-viii. 4, with several important essays or excursuses, was carefully written out and prepared for the press. The beautiful manuscript, in which scarcely an error, and seldom even an erasure can be found, is dated at the end "July 1769," only between two and three months before his death. This important manuscript came into the hands of Mr Hugh MacKay, a native of the parish of Kilmuir, who was converted under the ministry of Mr Charles Calder of Ferintosh. Even when engaged in business in the parish of Kincardine, he was wont to travel through the intervening parishes of Edderton, Rosskeen, Alness, and Killearn, crossing the ferry in the boat commonly known as " the Gospel Packet," in order to attend the services of the minister of Ferintosh. In after years he lived in Glasgow, where Mr Calder's grandson, Charles Calder Mackintosh, during his student course, was a lodger in his house. The young student was a great favourite with the old man, and he showed that his regard was of no ordinary kind by bestowing upon him the gift of this highly-prized manu- script. It still survives as a valued treasure in the possession of Dr Mackintosh's family, and by the courtesy of Mrs Mackintosh, the present Editor has been enabled to compare it word by word with the printed text. The first edition of this work was issued in Edinburgh in 1774, with a short note of commendation by the celebrated Dr John Erskine, who had read the treatise in manuscript and reaped much instruction from it. A reprint appeared in 1813, and after this an undated, BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXV abridged edition was issued by the Religious Tract Society. Another edition was issued in Edinburgh in 1834, which con- tained, in addition to the matter of the present volume, three sermons preached on sacramental occasions. Besides these, another sermon of Mr Fraser's, on the text 1 Cor. i. 30, was printed in the Christian Instructor for May 1823. It is also said that there exists somewhere a manuscript volume of sermons, carefully transcribed, but nothing has been learnt as to the party into whose hands this volume has passed. The three sermons appended to the edition of " Sanctification " of 1834 are introduced by two short notes, signed respectively by John Russel and James Robertson, ministers of Kilmar- nock. Mr Russel says of the writer : " I had the honour to be personally acquainted with the author, and consider that acquaintance as one of the happiest circumstances of my life. In him concentred all the amiable qualities of the divine, the scholar, and the Christian. Indeed, one may say, without exceeding the bounds of truth, that the illustrious title marked out for gospel ministers by Paul, when he says that ' they are the glory of Christ,' eminently belonged to him." These introductory notices are dated 16th August 1785, at which time apparently these sermons appeared in a volume by them- selves. The first of these sermons is an elaborate treatise on the text Heb ix. 14, and occupies no less than fifty-two closely printed pages. It was usually called the " great sermon," in Gaelic, "an t-searmon mhor." The late Principal Cunningham, of the New College, Edinburgh, said of it that the sermon was eminently good ; but what astonished him most was where a congregation could be got which would intelligently follow and appreciate it. Those best acquainted with the spiritual history of these districts at that time confidently affirm that when originally delivered there would be considerable numbers present who could thoroughly and appreciatively follow ail the details of the preacher's arguments and doctrinal dis- cussions. XXVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE The profound and thorough character of Mr Fraser's preach- ing will appear from this, that apparently at least the substance of the treatise on " Sanctification " had been delivered from the pulpit in the form of sermons or lectures. Hugh Ross, a native of Alness, had been brought to a knowledge of the truth under Mr Fraser's ministry at the early age of fifteen. In extreme old age he lived in the parish of Resolis, in the early years of Mr Sage's ministry. Being in the manse one Sabbath evening, Mr Sage read to him a part of Mr Fraser's work on " Sanctification." Seeing him excited and uneasy, Mr Sage asked him what was the matter. " What book is this that you are reading from ? " he asked. " Why do you ask ? " said Mr Sage. " Well," answered Ross, " I do not know what book it is ; but this I know, that seventy years ago I heard these sentiments on that passage delivered by Mr James Fraser, when lecturing on Romans, and they are as fresh in my memory as when I heard them from his lips." This strong meat was not too strong to be assimilated by men of this type, and such pro- found preaching was evidently not over the heads or beyond the comprehension of all the hearers. In the " Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification " we have an extremely interesting specimen of eighteenth-century exegesis. The style and composition are undoubtedly somewhat old- fashioned. But if this work be read, not alongside of treatises of the present day, but alongside of the writings of the author's own contemporaries, it will be found that his style is good, and that, judged by the standard of a hundred and thirty years ago, it does not deserve to be called " cumbrous " and " rude," as Dr James Morrison and Dr John Brown have characterised it. As to the matter, Dr Morrison says that its exegesis is massive and judicious, and that, among treatises on the subject, this work deserves a special niche ; and Dr BrOwn says that it is well worth studying; that it is rude in speech but not in knowledge. The method of the author in this treatise is BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXV11 singularly like that adopted by our latest and most scholarly commentators. It is avowedly a doctrinal commentary. His exegesis of the sixth and seventh chapters of Romans is honestly entitled the Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification. These chapters are themselves doctrinal, expressly devoted to the exposition of the doctrine of sanctification, and any com- mentary on them worthy of its original must prove nothing less than a section of New Testament theology. The commentary deals first with the sixth chapter and then with the seventh chapter, giving a careful introduction to each, treating of the general scope and contents of the chapter, and especially com- bating defective or erroneous views of the standpoint and intention of the apostle. Each verse is commented on separ- ately, and the results of this exegetical study are then given in a paraphrase. In the latest, and in every way most excellent, commentary on Romans, by Dr Sanday and Mr Headlam, the paraphrase is given first, and then the detailed exposition follows. In the seventeenth century, and during the first half of the eighteenth, paraphrases largely took the place of commentaries. Some of the most highly-prized works of that age on the New Testament were simply paraphrases, with occasional notes, e.g. those of Hammond, Locke, Whitby, Taylor, Guise, and Doddridge. Where the paraphrase is made quite subordinate to the exegesis, so that nothing is put into it which has not been shown to be already in its text, a paraphrase may admirably serve the purpose of exposition. In dealing with those whose views he had to refute, Mr Fraser had occasion to call attention to the readiness with which something quite foreign to the text might be either dexterously or unwittingly imported into the paraphrase ; and so we find that in his own paraphrasing he was always watchful to avoid himself committing the mistake which he reproved in others. As to Mr Fraser's equipment for the task of expositor, we find him well abreast of the theological and biblical literature of the XXV111 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE day. He had access to the splendid compilation known as the Ctitici Sacrz, originally issued in 1660, and again in thirteen folio volumes in 1693-1732, presenting a catena of the notes of the most illustrious commentators up to that date. He makes ample use of the materials which this immense thesaurus placed at his command. Besides this, for the immediate purpose of his work, he studied with great care the works of Locke, Whitby, Hammond, and Taylor of Norwich, whose position, as fitted to overthrow the founda- tions of all evangelical truth, he laboriously, and often with great acuteness and success, controverts. He was also well acquainted with the writings of Augustine, and he was not less familiar with the works of Socinus and Arminius. On two or three occasions he shows a somewhat remarkable skill in deal- ing with questions of textual criticism, and discussing the merits and demerits of various readings. The exegesis will be found natural and unstrained. Our author made diligent use of his Greek lexicon, as well as of all these other available helps. And then, not instead of, but on the foundation of, such investigations, he proceeds to consider the passage in hand in the light of the whole drift of the Pauline and New Testament doctrine. The exposition of the several verses will stand comparison creditably with the work of the most approved exegetes of modern times. A very good specimen of his logical power is given in the essay on the " Penal Sanction of the Law" (pp. 187-214), in which, with remarkable patience, he follows from point to point the strange idea of Locke and Whitby that sin could not hurt a man before the giving of the law of Moses, which first denounced death as the punishment of sin. But perhaps the gem of the whole work will be found in the " Dissertation Concerning the General Scope and Pur- pose of Rom. vii. 14-25 " (p. 254), which takes the place of a detailed exposition of that section, verse by verse. In this long dissertation, divided into eight sections, he seeks to show BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXIX that the apostle is representing the case of a regenerate, not an unregenerate, person, pointing out that there is much said in that passage that could not possibly be said of an unregenerate man, and much that is characteristic of and peculiar to the regenerate. I certainly do not know where, in all the range of Biblical literature, there is to be found anything like this dis- sertation as an acute and thoroughly satisfactory demonstration of the thesis which he undertakes to make good. In his introduction to the seventh chapter, and in his explication of the first thirteen verses, our author had shown that the apostle there obviously represented those under the law as under the dominion of sin. But in the last twelve verses the apostle in his own person describes the case of a regenerate man suffering from the remnant of indwelling sin, which yet he hates and fights against, so that, though often made to feel bitterly his extreme wickedness, he has yet well-grounded comfort in the assurance of full deliverance in Christ Jesus. The use made by this able divine of the closing verse of the chapter (pp. 307-330) is specially admirable. His careful examination of the three expressions : " I myself," " with the mind," "serving the law of God," seems to make it impossible to understand the apostle as speaking of an unregenerate person, without having recourse to the most patent devices of the party pleader. It is most disappointing to find one of the ablest and most candid of recent German theologians, the late Dr Lipsius, in his admirable commentary on Romans (1892), still occupying the position of those ex- positors who were so completely vanquished by Mr Fraser. Most admirably does he sum up the contents of verses 7-13 : 11 Proof that man, under the dominion of the law, stands also under the dominion of sin, against the might of which the inner man, until Christ has redeemed him, is powerless." But then, quite in the style of Locke and Whitby, he sums up verses 14-23 thus : " That sin through the law works death to man is to be explained from our fleshly nature, by reason of XXX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE which we are subjected to the might of sin against our better knowledge and will." Under verse 15 Lipsius distinctly main- tains that the man under the law, not yet regenerate, can inwardly hate what is evil; and he understands Paul in verse 24 as taking a painful retrospect of his own unregenerate past. Our author finds himself in a good succession, preceded as he is by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers generally. In later times this view has been ably supported by Olshausen, in whose "Commentary on Romans" (Edin., 1849), pp.236-257, we are presented with a singularly clear statement and powerful argument, showing that in the latter half of the chapter the reference must be to the regenerate and not to the unregenerate. A very thorough discussion of this question will also be found in the too much neglected " Commentary on Romans " of Philippi (Edin., 1870), vol. i. pp. 347-358. This subject is also treated by Dr Sanday and Mr Headlam in their detached note "The Inward Conflict " in "Commentary on Romans" (Edin., 1896), pp. 184-186. After a clear summary of the history of the interpretation of the passage, showing how the Greek Fathers generally regarded it as describing the unre- generate, and the Latin Fathers as describing the regenerate, they distinguish what may be called lower and higher stages in the condition of the regenerate. If the term regenerate be applied to all baptized persons, then, they admit, the experi- ence described by the apostle may be that of the regenerate. And so we are prepared for the statement of a later part of this note, in which the writers say : " Without putting an exact date to the struggle which follows, we shall probably not be wrong in referring the main features of it especially to the period before his conversion." They remark that the experience described is one that comes earlier to one man, later to another; in one case leading to Christianity, in another following it. That it comes earlier to one and later to another ; in one degree of intensity to one, and another degree to another, is true ; but BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE xxxi to say that it may precede conversion or follow it, seems to ignore the critical character of the change which is designated as conversion. No doubt the rigid doctrine set forth so ably by Mr Fraser had been at times abused by those who sought to excuse their own remissness and corrupt lives by the pre- tence that these were not inconsistent with the fact of regenera- tion. And, on the other hand, Pelagians, who deny that concupiscence is sin, and Donatists and other rigorists, who judge harshly of all who show the presence in them of sinful imperfections, must regard the state described as that of the unregenerate. In the calm and well-considered exposition of our author, while the latter are convincingly answered, all ground is taken away from those who would seek to use the doctrine of the apostle thus understood as an apology for their moral laxity. What shows the condition of the man whose experience is described to be that of the regenerate is just his refusal to make any apology for his sin, and his longing to be rid of its dominion. He only is entitled to take comfort to himself from this passage who is able of himself to say, like the apostle, " I delight in the law of God after the inward man ; the good is that which I would, the evil is that which I would not do." INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. SHOWING That this, and the preceding Chapter, are not meant, as Mr Locke interprets, of Believers of the Gentiles separately, and as contra- distinguished to Jewish Believers. It is of great consequence in interpretation to discover and observe carefully the general scope and purpose of a writer, and of his argument. When this is justly con- ceived and understood, it serves in a great measure as a key in interpreting particular passages that might otherwise be ambiguous or dark. But when the general scope is mistaken, through the influence of prejudice against the truth, or of an hypothesis and preconceive:! opinion possessing the mind, this often occasions a forced and unnatural interpretation of particular passages, and giving meanings to particular expressions that are not agreeable to Scripture use, or to the use of speech other- wise, or to the real scope of the writer, and of his argument. I cannot help thinking that this hath, in some degree, happened to the celebrated Mr Locke;* when he under- * The work of Locke (1662- 1704), so constantly referred to and controverted in this treatise, was entitled : " A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistles to Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans, and Ephesians : with an Essay for understanding St Paul's Epistles by consulting St Paul himself." London, 1705-1707. It is a very vigorous and spirited attempt to carry out an historical interpretation A INTRODUCTION TO THE stood the fifth and sixth chapters of this epistle to the Romans, as addressed to the Gentile converts to Christianity separately, and as contradistinguished to the Jewish converts ; to whom he supposed the seventh chapter to be addressed, as contradistinguished to the Gentiles. I see little in this sixth chapter itself, that he brings to prove it to be addressed to the Gentile con- verts separately. But as he supposes it to be addressed to the same persons as the fifth, it is from that chapter especially that he brings the proof that the whole discourse contained in both is directed to the Gentiles. This notion of his appears to have brought him under great disadvantage in interpretation ; and an ill super- structure has been raised upon it. It is therefore needful that I give the reasons why I cannot fall in with it, and show it not to be well founded. His proofs are taken chiefly from the first eleven verses of chap. v. The word we, in the first verse, he will have to mean the Gentiles ; and thus he reasons : It is in their name that St Paul speaks in the three last verses of the foregoing chapter, and all through this section, as is evident from the illation here, Therefore being justified by faith we — / it being an inference drawn from his having proved in the foregoing chapter, that the promise was not to the Jews alone, but to the Gentiles also. Very well ; if he proved that the promise was not to the Jews alone, but to both Jews and Gentiles — that is, to all true believers, — the natural consequence is, that we should understand the illation, therefore, as introducing not privileges and comforts belonging to one sort of believers separately, but to all believers in common, whether of the Jews or of the Gentiles. As to the three last verses of chap. iv. with which the illative word therefore is most immediately con- of these sacred writings in opposition to the previously prevalent style of commenting, which gave little or no consideration to the historical setting of the passages discussed. It was a work in every way deserving the thorough examination bestowed upon it by Mr Fraser. EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. nected, there is no colour of reason for supposing them to be spoken in name of the Gentiles separately. It was not written, saith the apostle (chap. iv. 23) for his [Abraham's] sake alone, that it [faith] was imputed to hint ; but (ver. 24) for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe ; — that is, it was written for the sake of us also, who live in these latter times, if we believe. What other sense can be given these words ? or what is there in them of anything special respecting the Gentiles as contradistinguished to the Jews? Yea, I do not see in Mr Locke's own paraphrase and notes on these three verses anything that tends to restrict their meaning to the Gentiles separately. Instead of that, here is his note on ver. 24 — u St Paul seems to mention this here in particular, to show the analog}- between Abraham's faith and that of believers under the gospel ; see ver. 17." Right ; believers under the gospel, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles. It being so, then, what reason to think that the illative word therefore is meant to introduce any other matters than such as belong in common to believers of both denominations? However, having fixed it in his mind that the apostle here (chaps, v. and vi.) means the Gentiles, as contra- distinguished to the Jews, he says in his contents of chap. v. i-u,"In this section he comes to show what the convert Gentiles, by faith without circumcision, had to glory in." They had indeed these things to glory in : but had not Jewish believers the same cause to glory ? Or, is there any reason why all believers, Jews and Gentiles, should not be understood to be meant ? The author mentions three things : for thus he goes on — " viz. the hope of glory (ver. 2)." Surely this was common to all believers of the Jews and of the Gentiles. But had they not, previous to this, cause to glory in being at peace with God (ver. 1) and in being brought into a state of grace and favour with God (ver. 2) ? But the author here, without reason, doth, in mentioning the causes of glorying which the believer hath, confine himself to the three instances in which the apostle uses the word glorying. INTRODUCTION TO THE The next thing he mentions that the Gentiles had to glory in was " their sufferings for the gospel (ver. 3)." Surely these, and the consolations of faith respecting them, were common to believers of both denominations. The chief tribulations of the Christians of these times were by persecutions, and the chief persecutors then were the unbelieving Jews, — the weight of whose malice and wrath fell especially on the believers who were of their own nation, whom they considered as the betrayers and enemies of their nation and religion. But it appears not that the apostle's view was confined to sufferings for the gospel, when he mentions tribulation. As to tribulations for religion and the gospel, Christians may lay their account with them, in one form or other, in all times ; for the truth is, as the apostle writes (2 Tim. iii. 12), All that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecu- tion. However persons religious in another way may be respected in the world, they who will be evangelically religious (godly in Christ Jesus) will be hated by the world, and be pursued with the malice and contempt of the world, in one way or other. But what is there in this to distinguish the case of Gentiles from that of Jews ? In the third place, our author says, " The Gentiles had cause to glory in God as their God " (ver. 1 1). This is of the three the point on which he labours most. He observes how the Jew is represented (chap. ii. 17) as making his boast oj God. The word is the same that is rendered here by glorying. In Mr Locke's note on chap, v. 2, he writes thus — " Glory. The same word here for the Gentile converts that he used before for the boasting of the Jews — plainly shows us here that St Paul in this section opposes the advantages the Gentile converts to Christianity have by faith, to those the Jews gloried in with so much haughtiness and contempt of the Gentiles." But, allowing that the apostle meant an opposition of the glorying of different sorts of people, Mr Locke hath not conceived or stated the opposition in a just or right manner. He should have stated it as between the glorying of the true Christian, of whatever nation, and EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 5 that of the unbelieving carnal Jew, mentioned chap. ii. ; not between the Gentile converts and the Jews without distinction. For (Acts xxi. 20) there were many thousands of the Jews who believed, and were zealous of the law. These undoubtedly had their part in the glorying, and cause of glorying mentioned here (chap, v.) together with Christians of the Gentiles. To conceive the matter justly, the opposition and contrast stands thus : Upon the one hand, the carnal unbelieving Jew gloried on the grounds mentioned (chap, ii. 17), he rested in the law, and made his boast of God, of his knowing his will, and approving the things that are most excellent, etc., on such grounds as the apostle mentions as in his own case (Phil. iii. 5, 6) Circumcised the eighth day, etc. The carnal Jews their glorying in God, was the glorying of an ill-founded carnal confidence in men insensible of their own sinfulness, and of what their true case required, in order to their having a well- founded glorying in God. Upon the other hand, as to the Christian's glorying in God here (ver. 11), if he glorieth in God, it is through Jesus Christ, by whom we haze received the atonement : by virtue of which, sinners, reconciled to God, admitted unto his grace and favour, and unto covenant with him, have the most sure and solid ground of glorying in God. Here is a clear opposition between the glorying of the carnal Jew, or hypocrite of that denomination, and that of true Christians through faith : and we may now justly substitute in place of this, and as of the same general kind, the opposition that still subsists between the glorying of the true believer and that of hypocritical professors in the Christian church. But there is nothing here in the glorying mentioned (Rom. v. 11) that is peculiar to Gentiles, and that is not common to believers of whatever nation. When the apostle - (Phil. iii. 3), We are the circumcision, which rejoice in Christ Jesus (the word is the same that is rendered glorying) and have no confidence in the flesh ; there is an opposition between the glorying of the true Christian, and that of the unbelieving carnal Jews, mentioned under very unfavourable character in the preceding verse ; INTRODUCTION TO THE whose grounds of confidence and glorying are mentioned in the next following verses. But I expect none will take it in his head to say, that this glorying in Christ Jesus is peculiar to Gentiles. Mr Locke himself, in a note on ver. 1 1 of Rom. v , writes thus : " And not only so, but we glory also in God as our God " (so the author paraphrases there) — " And thus he (the apostle) shows, that the convert Gentiles had whereof to glory, as well as the Jews." Doubtless ; as well as the Jews : why then not understand what is there of believing Jews and Gentiles ? We are not indeed to understand Mr Locke to have meant that the three subjects of glorying mentioned by him did not belong to believers of the Jewish nation : that were too absurd. These, then, afforded no reason for supposing that the apostle in the first context of chap. v. and in chap. vi. meant the Gentile Christians, as contra- distinguished to the Jews. Upon what, then, doth the learned writer indeed found that notion? This we have in the following passages: "Another evidence St Paul gives them here of the love of God towards them — is the death of Christ for them, whilst they were yet in their Gentile estate." But did not Christ die for those of the Jewish nation (John xi. 51, 52), though not for that nation only ? He goes on — "which (their Gentile estate) he describes by calling them da-Oevds, without strength, daefSeis, ungodly y d/xapTwAot, sinners, kydpol, enemies. These four epithets are given to them as Gentiles, they being used by St Paul, as the proper attributes of the heathen world, in contradistinction to the Jewish nation." So then under these epithets he doth not include the Jews, or any others than the Gentiles in their heathen state. As the criticisms of this eminent writer on these four epithets tend to establish misinterpretation of scripture, of considerable and hurtful consequence, it is the more needful that we consider them carefully. 1. acrdtveU, rendered here (chap. v. 6) according to its precise meaning without strength — " The helpless con- dition (saith Mr Locke) of the Gentile world in the state of Gentilism, signified here by without strength, he EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. terms (Col. ii. 13) dead in sin, a state, if any, of weakness." I am hereafter to consider by itself this expression, dead in sin ; and to show that it doth not contradistinguish the Gentiles to the Jews ; and if not, then, having been dead, as in chap. vi. 13, the other text he adduces certainly doth not distinguish them. Mr Locke himself says, in the contents prefixed to his paraphrase of chap, iii. I- 1 3, whatever advantages the Jews had, that, in respect to their acceptance with God under the gospel, they had none at all. " He (the apostle) declares that both Jews and Gentiles are both equally incapable of being justified by their own performances/' And in his paraphrase of ver. 20, he gives the apostle's sense thus : " It is evident that by his own performances, in obedience to a law, no man can attain to an exact conformity to the rule of right, so as to be righteous in the sight of God." One would think, that, according to this general doctrine, he should have understood the epithet, without strength, to belong to all. For if all are equally incap- able of being justified by their own performances, this clearly implies that all were without strength. We have seen all that Mr Locke adduces to support his interpretation of this word. Let me now give my view of it, and of that text (Rom. v. 6). There are two things in the wretched, natural, and common condition of men. One is, to be ungodly, guilty, destitute of righteousness with which they can appear and stand before God. The other is want of strength to help themselves, to do what is pleasing to God or to walk with God. This text directs sinful men to look to Christ, for righteousness and strength, by virtue of his death, and the purchase thereof. So it answers well to the prophecy concerning him (Isa. xlv. 24), Surely, shall one say, in the Lord have 1 righteousness and strength. I am satisfied with this view of that text (Rom. v. 6). If any others are not, they may consider what is offered by Dr Whitby on the place ; where he brings a good many instances from the Seventy, of their translating the Hebrew word that signifies to stumble or fall, by the Greek word rendered here, without 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE strength. His paraphrase gives it thus : " We being fallen, at the appointed time, Christ died for the ungodly, for us who since our fall had no righteousness of our own." But neither will this suit Mr Locke's purpose ; for being without strength in this sense, is the natural con- dition of Jews and Gentiles ; all have fallen. 2. The second epithet, specially denoting, according to him, the Gentiles, is, do-efieis, ungodly, which occurs in the same text with the former (chap. v. 6). The whole of what he adduces in his note on this text to his pur- pose, respecting this word, he gives thus : " How he describes, do-ejSeiav, ungodliness, mentioned (chap. i. 18), as the proper state of the Gentiles, we may see (vers. 21, 23). That the Gentiles were chargeable with ungodliness in a very high degree, yea, and with holding the truth in unrighteousness, is not a matter in question. But if the apostle proves that against the Gentiles, in what remains of that first chapter, he thereafter proves the charge of ungodliness, and unrighteousness against the Jews ; and certainly they were more chargeable with holding the truth in unrighteousness, as mentioned ver. 18, than the Gentiles, as they had more knowledge of the truth, having, besides nature's light, that of revelation. However, Mr Locke's meaning is, that this and the other epithets denote the Gentiles nationally, not single persons of them universally. For in his note on this place (vers. 6 and 8), he writes thus: "That there were some among the heathen as innocent in their lives, and as far from enmity to God, as some among the Jews, cannot be questioned. Nay, that many of them were not da-ifSels, but crefS6fX€vot, worshippers of the true God, if we would doubt of it, is manifest out of the Acts of the Apostles." As to this it is agreed, that the persons so called in the book of Acts (chap. xiii. 43) and chap. xvii. 17, were Gentiles by nation and descent : that they were heathens in' religion is very wrong, as heathen, in our use of speech, imports idolatrous religion. According to this, heathens, worshippers of the true God, as Mr Locke's passage hath it, is very improper speech. These EXPLICATION OF ROMAXS VI. mentioned in the Acts were proselytes, and are so called expressly in the first of the texts now mentioned : Religious ( baptism doth exhibit and seal to their faith. Baptismal vows and engagements do greatly enforce the duty of forsaking, resisting, and mortifying sin. Baptism, according to its own nature, as here explained, doth afford strong argument and powerful excitement to that duty. But to restrict the apostle's meaning here to these hath this great inconvenience, that it tends to hide from Christians the great consolation and encouragement to that duty, that is properly and directly meant, viz. that the\- are by the death of Christ made free from the reign and the dominion of sin, and that the same is ascertained and sealed to them bv their baptism. * [I.e. in their place]. 46 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 Text. — 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ; that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. Explication. — Christ" being our representative and surety ; when he died Tor our sins, it is as if we by our own death had expiated our sins ; and as he is said to be raised for our justification, the case is, that the release of our Surety is virtually, and in effect, our release. When he was raised, we might be considered as having been raised from the dead. The apostle gives this view of the matter when he says (Eph. ii. 4-6) : God — hath quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. So he speaks when he is setting forth the application of the virtue of Christ's death and resurrec- tion to believers. Again (Phil. iii. 10) the apostle expresses his aim and desire thus : That I may know him, and the power of his resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death. As to these latter clauses, it is true that Christians, in their sufferings in this life, have a fellowship of suffering with Christ, and a conformity to his death ; yet there is no good reason for restricting these clauses here, in Philippians, where the context hath nothing concerning sufferings, to that meaning and view, more than there would be for restrict- ing the power of Christ's resurrection, in the first clause, to the supports the apostle had under his tribulations, by virtue of the resurrection and life of Christ, of which he speaks (2 Cor. iv. 10, 11), which I scarce think any would agree to. The desire and aim of the apostle here (Phil. iii. 10) seems to be this : as he had already known and experienced the power of Christ's resurrection, he earnestly desired and longed for the full fruit and effect of it, as in perfect and final justification, so in the per- fection of holiness, and in eternal life. As he had already the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, and conformity to his death, in being by means thereof dead to sin, and Ver. 4] of Romans VI. 47 made free from its reign and dominion, so he earnestly desires to attain the full effect of his death, in being not only free from the reign of sin, but also from all molesta- tion and danger by it, in the perfection of holiness, when nothing of sin should remain in him. In these places (Eph. ii. and Phil, iii.) the apostle does not appear to have baptism at all in his view. He con- siders our fellowship of Christ's sufferings, and conformity to his death, — our being quickened, and raised together with Christ, and sitting together with him in heavenly places, as matters of privilege, comfort and hope, arising from our relation to Christ and union with him. A true believer is united to Christ, and is dead indeed unto sin, and alive unto God through Jesus Christ (as here, Rom. vi. 11) previouslvtoh^sbap_tism ; or if he should never have \\\^^ox^I^cf^ChSm% baptized. So. that turning the matter of being dead iliUq sin on this point of 1 1 bapti5Tna1~vo^s~~1md obligations, falls greatly short ot * the apostTe's argument, and tends to obscure instead of giving light to it. The part of baptism in this matter is, that the privilege, blessings, and comlort meant by the apostle (and from which there arise the strongest obligations and encourage- ments to holy living) are represented, further applied, sealed, and confirmed "to the" "Christian's faith by it. Thus (Col. ii. 12) : " .buried with him In baptism, wherein also you are risen with him, through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead." Here our being buried with him in baptism (it is in view to the baptism of adult persons he speaks), and our rising therein with him, are both ascribed to faith ; not our rising with him only. Beza's note on the place seems to be a good one : " Per fidem, id est, Mam fide a vobis apprehensam virtutem Dei, ejfieientem ut Chris to mortuo, et a morluis exeitato, sitis conformes? To this purpose in our language : " By faith, that is, by your laying hold on (or apprehending) through faith, that divine power, by the efficiency of which you become conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ.'' Let it be further observed, that in this text (Col. ii. 12) 48 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Vet. 4 Christians being buried, and rising with Christ in baptism, is not ascribed to baptismal engagements to die, or (as they speak) to die more and more unto sin, and to live unto righteousness ; but to their faith, by which the ordinance is made effectual to its proper purpose, and by which Christians perceive the comfort- able matters which it is designed to represent and seal to them. The apostle's argument in this place I do not take to be, that Christians are by their baptismal engagements obliged to that duty, or course of duty which some understand by dying to sin ; though undoubtedly baptism, and the grace it exhibits, doth fix such obligation to duty on them. Put his argument is plainly to this purpose, that the baptism of Christians doth, in way of figure, signify the' blessings thereby represented, and is a means whereby they are applied to them ; and is, at the same time, a comfortable, solemn, divine ratification of their interest in the fruits of Christ's death and resurrection ; this particularly of being dead to sin, made free from its reign and dominion, and so brought unto a capacity of holy living. Christians having in their baptism this comfort, with respect to the dominion of sin, and a capacity of holy living, with the strongest obligations thereto, and that by the grace which hath abounded towards them ; how extremely absurd to suppose continuing in sin a consequence of that grace, or that it is at all consistent with it? To look now more closely to the expression of this ver. 4, the first clause is : " Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death." In the common course of things, a man's burial ascertains his death to beholders: they have no doubt of his being dead, when they see him buried. Thus the baptism of a Christian represented, in a very strong manner, his being dead ; for in it he appeared to be buried by his immersion under the water ; which was anciently the most common way, at least as to adult persons, in that hot climate. But there remains one difficulty in the apostle's manner of expression, Buried — infa-dcath. Now death Ver. 4] ROMAKS vi. 49 is previous to burial ; but by the form of the expression here, the baptismal burial seems to be previous to the death mentioned, and in order to it, a burial unto death. To understand this, let it be considered, that the adult believer, while yet unbaptized, was by faith truly united to Christ, and so saved, according to the general meaning of that word : and yet the apostle Peter ascribes to baptism his being saved ( 1 Pet. iii. 21). "The like figure whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us." Again, though when the Christian did first truly believe in Christ (under the influence of the Spirit cf faith he was, by his faith and by t it, united to ChristT vet that J his bodv, is ascribed to baptism (1 Cor. xii. 1 3), " For by one Spirit are we alT baptized into one body.'*' So here in the text under consideration, t h e d e a th meant is ascribed to baptism r as the effect of it, according form of the expression, though the thing that a baptismal fL e:\n\ represented, and sealed to the ]./.'_ r. :" : ' '- _■ .'cr establishment and comfort, his death, his being dead to sin. The may be taken briefly thus : in our baptism, as by a figure, we are buried with Chr:-- 1 . ' ' ratify to our fii::h} that by virtue of Christ's death, we are dead unto sin. Follows the latter part of the verse, "That like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory " (that is, by the glorious power and operation) "of the Father." He doth (Col. ii. 12) mention our being risen with Christ in baptism. Here, after mentioning Christ's being raised from the dead, instead of adding, as there, our rising with him, he mentions the effect of our so rising, in our practice of life, thus, " Even so we also should walk in newness of life." So, to continuing in sin, as in the objection (ver. 1) which is expressive of the practice of sin, he, with great propriety, and very emphatically, opposes the practice of newness of life the proper and necessary consequence of the Christian's fellowship in the death and resurrection of Christ, represented and sealed to him by baptism. Paraphrase. — 3. Dead, I say, unto sin. For you D -h 50 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE f Ver. 5 cannot but know concerning that baptism, by which we are externally admitted into the churcriTand to the par- ticipation of its privileges, and by which the new covenant, with all its grace and promises, is sealed to us, —'that to all those of us, to whom it is truly and effectually the seal of our ingraftment into Christ, and aToiir" fellowship With him (/coawta, 1 Cor. i. 9), it doth particularly signify and sea], to our great comfort, that fellowship of his sufferings and death, by virtue of which, as he (ver. 10) died unto sin, so we (ver. 11) are dead unto sin. Therefore (to put this matter out of question), as Christ's being actually buried, proved his being truly dead, so we have, in this divine ordinance, a baptismal figurative burial, which ascertains, demonstrates, and seals to our faith, our being truly dead unto sin, set free from its reign and dominion, by virtue of his death, and that in order to this further consolation and benefit, that, like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious power and operation of the Father, even so we also, being by our fellowship with him in his resurrection, and by the power thereof, raised together with him, which our baptism also represents and confirms to us (Col. ii. 12), should be engaged, disposed, and enabled to a new manner of life, in the inward and outward practice of holiness and righteousness. How unreasonable then, how calumnious and absurd, to suggest as if the grace that had abounded towards us, with such design and effect, did indeed favour sin, or men's continuing in it ! Text. — 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death ; we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection. EXPLICATION.— It is generally agreed, that the apostle hath here in his eye the true Christian's ingraftment into Christ, as a scion into a vine, to which Christ compares himself (John xv. 1). I see with the learned a good deal of criticism here, and somewhat various notions of the sense ; which seem, for most part, to come to the Ver. 5] OF ROMANS VI. 5 I same general purpose. I conceive the scope and mean- ing to be in general thus: If by our ingraftment into Christ we have a conform it}- to his death, being dead to sin ; that we shall also have a conformity and likeness to his resurrection. But more particularly ; the apostle had mentioned (verse 2), Christians being dead to sin, and ver. 3, that their baptism invested them in an interest in Christ's deatb^atid in this special benefit thereby, to be dead to sin, and ver. 4, that their baptism ascertained this death to them by the baptismal immersion, which was a kind of baptismal figurative burial. When he mentions here (ver. 5) Christians being planted together in the likeness of Christ's death, he but resumes what he had said in the three preceding verses, without any additional sense, though there is some variation of metaphorical ex- pression and ideas. But having added in the latter part of ver. 4, " That like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life," this is what he had said nothing of before ; and what he says here (ver. 5) is added to explain and confirm it, and to assert the connection of these things, viz. that if by our ingraftment into Christ, our union and fellowship with him, we are dead to sin, and made free from its reign, so we shall certainly have the fellowship of his resurrection in newness of life. To be made free from sin, that is, that sin hath not dominion over us, is a negative proposition ; it expresses nothing of itself concerning fruitfulness in holiness and good works. But the Christian is not made free from the dominion of sin, in order only to be barren and unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ. If by means of his fellow- ship with Christ in his death, he is dead to sin, he at the same time, by virtue of his fellowship with Christ, is risen together with Christ ; his baptism represents to him the one as well as the other. There is, however, this difference: When the Christian came unto union with Christ, he from that time became free from the dominion of sin. Though it remains, infests, and, in several respects endangers the Christian, yet it doth not reign, 52 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. nor hath dominion. But as to conformity to the resur- rection of Christ in the actual practice of newness of life, that is but begun. The progress in this life, and the perfection hereafter of conformity to Christ's resurrection is future ; and that may be the reason why, in this latter part of the verse, the apostle uses the future tense, tVo/xe^a, we shall be. Paraphrase. — 5. For if all we believers are together ingrafted into Christ, and united to him, and so in a likeness to his death, and by virtue thereof, are dead unto sin, free from its dominion, we are not to conceive the matter merely under that negative notion. By no means ; by virtue of our fellowship with Christ, we are risen together with him : and, as his resurrection gives us, through faith, the certain prospect of a resurrection to eternal life, when we shall be brought to a perfect likeness to his resurrection, in holiness, happiness, and glory, so on this side of that, we are, by the power of his resurrection, raised, and shall be more and more so, to a new, active, and fruitful life of holiness, by our continuance and progress in which we are to reach a full conformity to his resurrection, in the perfection of our resurrection state. Text. — 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. Explication. — The subject of inquiry in the first clause is, what is meant by the old man ; and what by his being crucified. As to the first, Dr Taylor gives for it in his paraphrase, our heathen state. The old man he explains by the account he gives of the new man ; and that he founds on Eph. ii, 15, so he says,* "The new man included two sorts of people, viz. believing Jews and Gentiles ; and was created (Eph. ii. 15) when Christ abolislied in his * " Original Sin," 3rd ed. p. 426. Ver. 6] OF ROMANS vi. 53 flesh the enmity, or that which separated the Jews and Gentiles, for to make or create (K-un]) in himself of twain, (i.e. of believing Jews and Gentiles) one new man" So he says,* " The new man is either the Christian state, or the Christian church, body, or society." According to this notion, he explains what is the old man. In the page just now cited, he says, "The old man relates to the Gentile state," and " the old man has reference to the life these Christians had lived while they were heathens." t And in the text under consideration, he gives for our old man, our heathen state, as was before observed. But this account cannot be admitted. It is to be considered that the gospel-church, called the one new man (Eph. ii.), had, for a considerable part, converts of the Jews, many of whom were truly godly, and true believers, according to the light and promise of the old Testament, before they knew that Jesus was the Christ, or became members of the gospel-church. (Acts ii. 5), "There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under Heaven." Another very considerable part of the new gospel-church had been in a state of proselytism before they knew the gospel. A great many of these proselytes were men that feared God, and were truly devout and godly. Such was Cornelius, a proselyte of the gate, and such was the Ethiopian eunuch. Yea, it is very likely that the greatest part of the new gospel-church in these times, and at first, were the Jews and proselytes of the Gentiles. The notion of the old man will not suit these ; and the old man, as to them, cannot mean the state or practice of heathenism. Dr Taylor, as if he were sensible of this, although he makes the new man to include Jews and Gentiles, yet he commonly interprets the old man of the heathen state— a state which a great, perhaps the greatest part, at first, of the Christian church had not been in. If the • man means the gospel state and church, the old man is of the same extent of meaning; for all, before be- Original Sin," 3rd cJ., p. 430. t //>/. Now, it will be acknowledged by every Christian (the Socinian hath not, I think, a good title to that denomination) that Christ came under the strength and power which the law gives to sin ; and that the sting of sin was truly and fully in the death which he underwent, in order to mi- sting it to his people. Now, this amounts to as much as to say, that he was under the reign of sin in so far, and in the sense that hath been explained; and that in regard to him, sin reigned unto death. Further, this view makes the connection clear between this and the preceding verse, yea, that connection seems to make this sense necessary. He had said (ver. 9) that Christ dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion 1 him. It is plain, that the words here (ver. 10) are in- tended to give the reason of this ; and, by the interpreta- tion given, the reason is clear and strong. Death derives its dominion, mentioned, ver. 9, from the reign of sin : and where sin hath no right or power to reign unto death, there death can have no dominion. So it is then that Christ, by dying and expiating sin, satisfied fully the law ; and so the law gives no more strength to sin to reign over him unto death ; and death can have no more dominion over him ; which is the thing asserted (ver. 9), that is meant to be proved by this argument (ver. 10). As by once dying he took away sin, — even that guiltiness by which his people, and himself, when substituted in their stead, became obnoxious to death, — he at the same time became dead to sin once for all and for ever ; that is, he became free from the reign of sin, so that sin cannot, and death by virtue of sin cannot, any more reign, or have dominion over him. With respect to the explication that hath been given 72 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 10 there may occur to some a difficulty, arising from the connection that hath appeared, in the case of mankind universally, between being under the curse of the law, or the reign of sin, as it reigneth unto death, and being under the practical dominion of sin, with regard to inherency in nature, and prevalence in practice : so that to say, Christ was under the reign of sin, in the one respect, would give cause to say, he came under its dominion in the other respect also, which were very absurd. But if the matter be considered, this difficulty will soon disappear. Whatever connection hath appeared in the case of mankind between incurring guiltiness and becom- ing corrupt and depraved in nature and practice, yet it is certain, that this corruption or depravation (however it may be justly reckoned to be, in itself, death in a moral sense) is not included in the death threatened by the law for transgression, such as was to be inflicted by the Supreme Judge. So it is no part of the punishment of sin, which Christ was to undergo for us ; and when he underwent that punishment in our stead, he had the perfect purity of his own human nature ; he had the Holy Spirit, that was given him without measure, dwell- ing in him ; and also the continued union of his divine with his human nature, to keep him even from the possibility of sinning. So that however depravation was the consequence of incurring guiltiness and the curse of the law, in the case of mankind, yet nothing similar to this can be inferred from Christ's coming under the reign of sin, as it reigned unto death ; which, as to the reality of things, imports no more than what Christians have ever held, according to the scriptures, viz., that Christ underwent the death that was the punishment of our sins. There remains the second clause of this ioth verse, In that he liveth, he liveth unto God. The meaning of this will be more clear, by what will be largely and more fitly suggested in explaining the latter clause of the following verse. Here I give for it the short note of the judicious Samuel Clarke. He liveth unto God — an immortal, heavenly, glorious life, in the presence of God, and to the glory of God. Ver. Il] OF ROMAS'S VI. 73 Text. — il. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin ; but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord. EXPLICATION. — This last clause, through /esus Christ our Lord, is to be considered as connected with the first, as well as with the second clause ; thus, dead unto sin through Jesus Christ — alive unto God through Jesus Christ. As to the first clause, it is not, ye are obliged to die, or be dead to sin, but RECKON yourselves to be dead IN- DEED unto sin : not merely by virtue of profession, vows, and gospel obligations, as if matter of duty were meant ; but through Jesus Christ, and by virtue of union and fellowship with him ; it being the advantage and blessed- ness of the believer's state, through Christ, that the apostle means. So Calvin chooses to render it more precisely according to the Greek (cv X^io-no) in Christ, as more expressive of our ingraftment into Christ, and our union with him, by virtue of which we have fellowship with him in his death, so as to be dead with him, rather than as others render per, by, or through Christ. But in the one way or the other, it comes to much the same thing. He had said (ver. 10) that Christ died unto sin ; and it is with a view to the union of Christians, and their communion with him in his death, that now (ver. 1 1) he directs Christians to infer, and reckon themselves to be dead indeed unto sin. Christ being dead unto sin, that is. having become free from the reign of sin he had been under, sin cannot any more reign over him unto death. In like manner, the believer being in Christ, in union and fellow- ship with him, and so dead with him unto sin, it cannot reign over him unto death. The law, which is the strength of sin in this respect, will never give it strength cr power so to reign over the believer. But doth not every Christian, even the best, die ? True ; but there is nothing penal in their death ; whatever there may be of fatherly chastisement in the circumstances of it. there is nothing of the reign of sin in it. By a con- stitution of divine wisdom (happy for the general interest 74 EXPLICA TION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1 of this sinful world), it is appointed for all men once to die. With regard to them who are under the law and its curse, there is in their death the reign of sin. Not so in the death of those who have interest and fellowship in the death of Christ. Tribulations, afflictions, sickness, and death, came originally by sin, and the curse of the law for sin ; for the breach of the first covenant. But now these are adopted by the new covenant, not for penal but for salutary purposes. Sin did originally reign in them. But now the reign of sin, as to penal effect, being at an end with regard to true believers, what succeeds to that reign is (Rom. v. 21) that grace now reigneth. Tribulations, afflictions, and death, do, in their case, belong to the reign of grace, terminating in eternal life. There is no sting of sin in their death, nor is it by the strength that the law gives to sin that they are chastised, or die. Follows the second clause, But alive unto God. The sense of this clause, is, I think, to be taken from these words of our Lord, in arguing with the Sadducees concerning the resurrection of the dead (Luke xx. 37, 38): Now that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of facob. For he is not a God of the dead, but of the livi?ig ; for all live unto Jiiin. It is plain that our Lord doth not mean this merely to prove that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, as to their souls, in their separate state; which indeed the Sadducees did also deny ; but to prove the resurrection of the body, against which they had on this occasion pretended to bring their argument, which the existence and life of their separate souls would not prove. Now our Lord argues from God's covenant of grace by which he be- came the God of Abraham and of all his spiritual seed ; and from this he argues (as ver. 38), He is not a God of the dead; that is, they who are dead, in a state of death, dead in the eye of God, and by his righteous destination, God cannot be supposed to be, nor can be called, their God. He would be ashamed to be called their God, to have been the God of such as perish. If he is the God Ver. Il] OF ROMANS VI. 75 of any, they must be supposed to be living, that is, in God's eye, and by his destination, and by the grace of his covenant. So it is said, He that believeth — HATH rlasting life; and whosoever livetJi, and believeth in vie, shall never die* As to the word all, in the last clause of Luke xx. 38, the universality of its meaning is to be restricted (as in innumerable instances) according to the subject and argument, and the clause to be understood thus : For all who have part in the covenant, and to whom the Lord is their God, do live unto him : they are in a state of life in his sight ; they have passed from death to life; they are by divine grace entitled to life, and so shall be raised in their bodies to eternal life, which was the point which our Lord's argument was designed to prove. Now if this be the consequence of being interested in God's covenant of grace, and of persons having him, by special relation and interest, to be their God, that they live to him in the sense now given, it follows, that believers, from the time they come unto union with Christ, and have part in the covenant, do even in this life on earth live unto God, in the sense in which Christ meant the expression ; that is, are the heirs of eternal life, to the full possession and enjoyment of which they shall be brought in their complete persons at the resur- rection. In this sense doth the apostle desire the Christians to reckon themselves to be alive unto God; that is, heirs of eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. This may satisfy us concerning the true meaning of the words concerning Christ in ver. 10, In that he livetJi, he liveth unto God. To interpret this, as some have done, merely of his living a life acceptable to God, and to his glory, doth not come up to the present purpose and argument. He lived such a life before his death and resurrection as truly as after these. Whereas it is evident, the words mean some special thing that is the proper consequence of his death, by virtue of which it * John iii. 56 ; xi. 26. 76 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1 was that he became dead unto sin, and liveth to God ; and a consequence of his resurrection, viz. that he is entitled to, yea possessed of, an eternal life, out of the reach of the reign of sin, and of that dominion of death mentioned in the immediately preceding words of ver. 9. It is needless to perplex things here, by asking an account how a right to, and the certainty of, eternal life, should come to be expressed by living unto God. Some account of that may be learned from what hath been already suggested. But without that, the use of speech is enough for determining the meaning of words, whether the manner and view in which they came to that use and meaning can be accounted for or not. It is evident our Lord used the words in the meaning now explained (Luke xx. 38). The scribes understood him so, and approved ; the Sadducees so understood, and were put to silence ; while the multitude understood in the same way, and were astonished (Matt. xxii. 33, 34); nor do I see that any other sense better suits the similar ex- pression of the apostle here (vers. 10, 11). The sense of these three verses I have been last explaining may be conceived thus : PARAPHRASE. — 9. Having said (ver. 8), that in conse- quence of our fellowship in the death of Christ, being dead with him, we shall certainly live with him, I come now to explain that matter by a few words concerning his living and ours. So it is then, as we know with the utmost certainty, that Christ having, in his resurrection from the dead, overcome death, he is no more obnoxious to it. If he was once, for a time, under its dominion, it now can no more for ever have dominion over him. 10. For the dominion of death, which it exercised over him for a season, being no other than the reign of sin, as it hath reigned unto death, our blessed Lord being substituted in the vice of sinners, and so coming under the reign of sin in that respect, and actually undergoing death ; he did, by that expiating death, fully satisfy the law ; and it, according to its perfect justice, can never more give strength or power to sin Ver. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 77 to reign over him unto death. It is the consequence of his dying for sin, that he hath thereby died unto sin, and become for ever free from its claim to reign over him, once for all and for ever : and that having gloriously overcome sin and death, in rising anew to life, he liveth a glorious eternal life, out of the reach of all reign of sin or death. 11. In like manner, as I have said (ver. 8) that in consequence of our fellowship with him in his death, we shall also live with him, so accordingly, from what I have said just now (ver. 10), you have cause to reckon, with assured faith, that through Christ, and by virtue of his having died unto sin, yourselves are indeed dead unto sin, and so are made free from it, as it reigned unto death ; and that never can give you death in the penal way, in which the righteous law enabled it to subject you to it ; and at the same time that you have through him a sure and unquestionable title to eternal life, wherein you shall live with him, in a perfect conformity to his life, in holiness, happiness, and glory. Tf.xt. — 12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. Explication. — The apostle now proceeds to exhort the believers against sin, and to the practice of holi- ness ; and insists to that purpose to the end of the chapter. Having represented the privilege, advantage, and blessedness of the state of the believer, of the sincere Christian ; what he had brought forth on that subject gave him great advantage with regard to the exhortation he now enters on ; and suggests the strongest arguments and motives imaginable to enforce it. The grace that hath made believers free from the reign of sin, hath put them under the greatest obligation to avoid, resist, and mortify it ; under the greatest obligation to all duty, and to the practice of holiness. If by being made free from the reign of sin, in the sense that hath been here explained, they are alive unto God, and have the 7% EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 12 prospect of eternal life, they are to consider that they are to enjoy that life in the perfection of holiness: so it becomes them to have greatly at heart to advance in their practice towards that perfection of holiness that is included in their most comfortable hope. Besides, it is to be remembered what was said before, viz. that while one is under the reign of sin, as it by virtue of the law reigneth unto death, he is at the same time under the dominion of sin, as a slave in its service, and no longer. So the apostle, having asserted that believers are made free from sin in the former respect, his exhortation proceeds on this view, that they are made free from it, at the same time, in the latter respect also ; which he is to bring forth more clearly a little hereafter, in order to be explained and established. It appears by this same text, that whilst Christians are in this life, they will have sin, and the lusts thereof in them. For the exhortation is not to resist tempta- tions from without, but not to obey sin, or the lusts thereof within them ; and why should Christians be warned (as it will be allowed to be a warning fit to be given to every Christian, in every time of life) not to obey sin in the lusts thereof, if there would be no such lusts in them ? Further, when he speaks of obeying^ this, I think, imports something deliberate and voluntary. For it would seem, that what a man doth with absolute re- luctance, by surprise and force, doth not deserve to be called obedience. Further yet ; the exhortation proceeds on this view, that the Christian made free, is in such condition to resist the reign of sin, and to refuse obedience to it, as he was not in formerly. Christians are now in condition to resist it effectually ; and to prevent its reigning, or prevailing in their practice. If sin shall now reign and prevail, it must be owing to their own indolence, un- watchfulness, faulty weakness, or treachery. Sin hath not now force enough to restore and maintain its own dominion. However, as unholy lusts are not quite eradicate, it should be the care of the Christian to resist Ver. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 79 their motions carefully and seasonably, and to endeavour, through divine grace, that they do not take effect, or prevail. It is fit now to offer some explication of that expres- sion, your mortal body. Let it then be observed, that, according to the Hebrew idiom, and that of some other languages, soul is often put for person ; and his soul, or our soul, often mean no more than he or himself, we or us. This hath been so often observed, that it were not needful, for the sake of any of the learned, to produce such instances. However, here are a few. Exod. xxx. 12, Then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul ; that is, for himself ; Job xxxiii. 22, His soul (that is, he) draweth near unto the grave ; Num. xi. 6, Our soul is (that is, we are) dried away ; Ps. xliv. 25, Our soul is (that is, we are) bowed down to the dust ; Ps. cxxiv. 4, The stream hath gone over our soul (that is, over us). So, when God is said to swear by his soul, it is rightly rendered, that he swears by himself. Hundreds of instances may be given, wherein soul may be rendered by person, or by the pronoun denoting the person. The word body is often used in the same manner. So Rom. xii. 1, Present your bodies (that is, your persons, or yourselves) a living sacrifice ; I Pet. ii. 24, Christ bare our sins in his oivn body (in his own person, or in himself) 071 tlie tree ; Exod. xxi. 3, Of the Hebrew servant it is said, If he came in with his body (so the Hebrew and the English margin), he shall go out with his body ; justly rendered in both clauses by himself. So the Hebrew in the last clause of ver. 4, he shall go out with his body ; which we render as before, by himself Thus also Matt vi. 22, Thy whole body {i.e. thy whole person) shall be full of light ; for otherwise the body in itself is not luminous, nor hath visive faculty. So James iii. 6, The tongue defileth the whole body ; that is, the whole person. According to this use and meaning of the expression, the apostle is to be understood thus : Let not sin reign in your mortal persons^ or in you, in this your mortal state. 80 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 12 It appears, then, that from the mention of mortal body in this place, Mr Locke had not good cause to say, that sin hath its source and root in the body. However, Dr Taylor had the same view ; for his paraphrase gives it thus: "I exhort you — not to suffer sin to have a governing power in your mortal bodies, by yielding obedience to it, in gratifying the appetites of a cor- ruptible mass of flesh." Was there indeed no danger of sin, but by the appetites of the corruptible mass of flesh ? One might think from these notions and expressions, that these writers have had very narrow and restricted views of sin, and that a great deal of sin had escaped their observation. It has, I know, been observed, that the gender in the Greek makes it necessary to connect and construct these last words, the lusts thereof, not with sin, but with the word body. True ; as body is mentioned, the word con- structed with it behoved to be of the same gender. But that makes no reason against the interpretation of mortal body, here given. The last clause, consistently with that interpretation, may well be understood thus : The lusts thereof, that is, of your mortal persons, or the lusts which remain in you, in your mortal state. Yet it is not without special reason that the apostle, exhorting against sin, and the danger of it in this mortal state, mentions the mortal body. For though the general proposition is very wrong, that sin hath its source and root in the body, yet it is certain, that much sin hath its source and root in the body; and that the Christian hath great cause to be watchful against the danger from that side. There is this further reason for the apostle's using this expression here, that indeed death hath the'chief unfavour- able effect on the body. The soul, separately considered, is immortal, not capable of being dissolved into corruption and dust, as the body : and as to the soul of the believer, except that death dissolves its natural union with the body, the. effect otherwise is altogether favourable. It departs, and is with Christ, which is far better. Paraphrase. — 12. Alive you are, I say, unto God, l\r. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 8 1 through Jesus Christ ; through him, and by virtue of his resurrection, entitled to eternal life, to a happy im- mortality ; when there will be no molestation or danger from sin ; no cause of fear. But on this side of that, in your present embodied mortal state, there is much danger of sin. It remains in you, its law is in your members, and its various lusts, as the particular com- mandments of that law. But as you are made free from its reign, as it reigned unto death, and at the same time made free from its dominion by which it enslaved you, and so are brought into a capacity to resist it, and main- tain war against it ; let me earnestly exhort you to maintain your liberty by doing so ; and to be anxiously careful that sin be not allowed to resume its dominion in any sort or degree, in this your mortal embodied state; so as that you should yield a voluntary obedience to the lusts which infest that state. Oh, maintain your liberty against the dethroned tyrant, by constantly recusing obedience to these his commandments, however much they be urged upon you during this your mortality, when sin hath so great advantage from the wretched condition of your bodies, besides the deep root it hath otherwise in your souls. If I have been thus putting you in mind of your mortality, and your danger from sin during the continuance of it, until your actual death ; yet be en- couraged concerning this : There is nothing of the reign of sin, by virtue of the law and its curse, in your mortality, or in the tribulations connected with it, or in the dissolu- tion you are to undergo. Now life and death, things present, and things to come (1 Cor. hi. 22), all are yours, and under a powerful influence and direction, to work for you, and not against you. Yea, let the consideration of your mortal state, as a state that will soon be at an end, encourage you with respect to these lusts, the motions of which will so often perplex and distress you. Not one of them in you will survive that state for a moment. Therefore, as the time of your warfare and conflict is short, acquit you against them like men, like Christians, like Christ's freed men. 82 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3 Text.— 13. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of un- righteousness unto sin : but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead ; and your members as instru- ments of righteousness unto God. EXPLICATION. — The apostle's exhortation in these two verses implies two things. First, that the Christian, now dead to sin, was come to a capacity of avoiding and resisting sin effectually, and of declining its service. In the next place, made free as he was, that possibly he might, much to his own hurt, return, in too great degree, and in too many instances, to the service of sin. The freed man, anciently called by the Romans libertus, might perhaps retain a considerable attachment to the master he had served, and perhaps a great liking to the service he had been used to, so as voluntarily, habitually, and commonly to do the service, yea, the meanest and coarsest drudgery, of his former master. As to a Roman freed man, gratitude might make a good and laudable reason for such conduct ; but sin is a master to whom, being once made free, we owe no gratitude, nor can expect better from its service than hurt and mischief to our- selves, with the charge of the greatest ingratitude and undutifulness to him whose grace hath made us free. In this verse there is mention of two masters ; sin the first mentioned, and God the other. The service of the former is termed unrighteousness ; the service of God is righteousness : and a man's members are represented as employed in the one sort of service or the other. As to the mention of members here, it is true that sin, and the lusts thereof, do exert themselves by the members of the body. Yet the apostle's view and meaning here is by no means to be restricted to these. By comparing other texts, we shall find that under the name of members arc comprehended the various faculties, powers, passions, and affections of the soul, as well as members of the body. Thus James iv. 1, From whence come wars and fightings among y oil ? come tJiey not hoice, even of your lusts that war in your members? Pride, Ver. 13] OF ROMANS VI. 83 revenge, covetousness, &c. (that are such common causes of outward wars and fightings), having their inward warring, even when there is no outward exertion o<*them by the members of the body. These unholy lusts war against judgment and conscience: and thus mind, will, affections, all that is within, have inward war before the members of the body come to be employed. So these lusts raise war in and among all the faculties and powers of the soul. Again (Col. iii. 5), Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth ; inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Surely by the working of these inwardly there is much unholiness and sin, when the members of the body are not at all employed. Xow, as servants or soldiers should sist themselves with their arms or tools (o-Aa signifies both) to their sovereign or master, to be employed in his service ; so the apostle here exhorts Christians not to sist or present (so the word we render yield more properly signifies) their members as weapons or tools for serving sin ; but first to sist or present their whole selves to God, and then to sist or present all their members, that is, powers of soul and body, to be the instruments of righteousness by which he is served. Upon the word obey, in the preceding verse, I observed, that obedience implies being unforced and willing. This is still more to be observed concerning the word here, which signifies to sist, or present. For a man to sist or present himself, or his members, to sin and its service, it implies as when one man says to another — I am at your service, that is, quite willing and ready to serve you. This is the real disposition of an unregenerate man's heart — the prevailing disposition ; however con- science may remonstrate and check, however conscience, aided by considerations that may be ascribed to prudence rather than to conscience itself, may give restraint, especially as to the outward work. But the prevailing disposition and purpose of the sincere Christian is ac- cording to the latter part of the verse. The argument by which this is urged is insinuated in 84 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I 3 these words, as those that are alive from the dead. It is the happy state of all true Christians (as ver. 11), that they are dead, not in sin, but to sin, and alive unto God : and the words here (ver. 13) are so evidently used with a view to these words (ver. 11), that if we restrict the words in ver. 13, alive from the dead, to a particular sort of Christians, we must also restrict the meaning of ver. 1 1 to them ; which it were unreasonable, yea, absurd to do. However, the Greek, Ik veKpuv, Mr Locke renders, from among the dead ; and in his note interprets thus : " The Gentile world were dead in sins — those who were con- verted to the gospel were raised to life from among these dead." This is according to his general view of the chapter, as addressed to the Christians of the Gentiles separately, and as contradistinguished to the Jews ; and is one instance of wrong interpretation that that general view of the chapter led him to. Yea, this is one of the things in this chapter, by which he pretends to support that notion. But if the expression may on some occasions perhaps signify from among the dead, yet the learned writer would not say, it should still be so ren- dered. For in one verse (chap. viii. 11) Mr Locke him- self in his paraphrase renders it twice, from the dead. So then, as in the introduction to this chapter, I have proved that dead in trespasses and sins is the natural state of all men, Jews and Gentiles, it is plain there is nothing in the expression here, alive from the dead, to support Mr Locke's notion, that this chapter is designed peculiarly for Gentile converts. Paraphrase — 13. And do not present or sist the faculties, affections, and powers of your soul, or body, to sin, that usurper, to be the tools of unrighteousness in his service ; but present your whole selves to God, in a constant and willing readiness for his service, who is your rightful Lord ; and that as becomes those who by his wonderful grace are dead unto sin (made free from its reign), and are become alive unto God : and present all your powers to God, as weapons or tools fit and ready for the warfare and work of righteousness in his service. Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 85 Text. — 14. For sin shall not have dominion over you : for ye are not under the law, but under grace. Explication. — It is of much importance to conceive aright the meaning of this verse. What is fit to be first considered and explained is, the dominion of sin mentioned in the first clause. I have before observed a distinction between the reign of sin, with regard to its penal consequence, as it hath reigned unto death (chap, v. 21), and its practical dominion in men's nature and practice; and have shown that vers. 10, 11 are to be understood to respect the former. Divers commentators appear to think that this is the dominion of sin meant here (ver. 14). Mr Locke, indeed, in his note on the first clause, interprets thus : " Sin shall not be your absolute master, to dispose of your members and faculties in its drudgery and service." This is according to the second sense of dominion above mentioned, and respects what I have called the practical dominion of sin. In his note, however, on the next clause, in a sort of paraphrase, representing the obliga- tions Christians are under not to be the slaves of sin, but to yield themselves up to God to be his servants, in a constant and sincere purpose and endeavour of obeying him in all things ; he adds, " This if ye do, sin shall not be able to procure your death, for you Gentiles are not under the law, which condemns to death for every the least transgression, though it be but a slip of infirmity." According to this, the dominion of sin here is its procur- ing death to transgressors. These two notes of the learned writer seem to give very different views of the matter. Dr Whitby's paraphrase gives the whole verse thus : " And say not, this is beyond your strength, seeing the law in your members leads you captive to sin ; for sin shall not have dominion over yon, for ye are not under the pedagogy of the laze, which gives the knowledge of sin, but not sufficient strength to mortify it ; but under that economy of graee which affords that spirit of life in ?6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 4 Christ Jesus, which frees us from the law of sin and death." The words, pedagogy and economy, should not have been here, for reasons that will probably be suggested in another place ; otherwise this paraphrase is right. But though in his note the Doctor calls this a pious sense, he adds, " but seems to give no place for the following objection. Others, therefore, paraphrase the words thus." And after giving that paraphrase, he interprets the text concerning the power that sin hath by the law to condemn and give death for transgression. What the occasion is of the objection in the following verse, we shall see when we come to it ; and that there is not for that a sufficient reason for the Doctor's receding from what he calls the pious sense. Mr John Alexander, in his posthumous commentary on this context, follows Dr Whitby's interpretation in his note ; and I think Dr Doddridge's interpretation, especially in his note, gees much the same way. The paraphrase of this verse given by the judicious Dr Guise is too large to be inserted in this place. It gives the sense of the text in a clear and just manner. I much wish the learned writer had added a note to support his interpretation, which would probably have been done by him with greater advantage, than it is likely to be done here. However, as I am convinced that the dominion of sin here, means that power which sin hath in the nature and practice of persons under the law, by which they are its slaves, obey it, and do its service, I come now to give my reasons for understanding it so. — 1. I observe, then, in the first place, that the apostle appears to have much in his view, a dominion of sin by which men are its servants (slaves, as was in those times the common condition of servants), doing its service and obeying it. So ver. 16, His servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death; ver. 17, Ye were the servants of sin ; ver. 1 8, Being made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness ; ver. 20, When ye were the servants of sin ; ver. 22, Now being made free from sin, and become servants to God. Now, as having dominion, and being slaves, are characters and states Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 87 that are correlates, that is, have mutual relation, as it is the scope of the exhortation that begins ver. 12, to exhort Christians not to obey sin, but to serve and obey God, and as he encourages Christians with this considera- tion, that having been the slaves of sin, they had been made free from that slavery and dominion, and with this consideration, that sin shall not have dominion over them, it is exceeding clear, that the whole drift and scope of the discourse and reasoning leads us to understand, by the dominion of sin here (ver. 14), that dominion by which it holds men as its slaves and employed in its service. 2. The same thing will appear in a clear and strong light, if we observe what he hath concerning this subject in the seventh chapter. There, in the first context (vers. 1 - 1 3), it appears the Christians behoved to be dead to the law, and to be married to Christ, in order to bring forth fruit unto God ; this (ver. 4) and (ver. 5), we see such a prevalence of the flesh (of depravation), in those who are under the law, that sinful motions and lusts do prevail, even by occasion, in some sort, of the law itself, to bring forth fruit unto death. One must (ver. 6) be delivered from the law in order to be capable of serving God in newness of spirit, in an acceptable manner. Yea, such is the prevailing of sin, and of sinful deprava- tion, in persons under the law, that (ver. 8) it takes occasion by the commandment itself, to work in a man all manner of concupiscence. It takes occasion (ver. 11) by the commandment, and slays a man. Though the commandment is holy, just, and good, yet sin discovers its most malignant nature, and its power, by working death in a man bv that which is crood. It is true there is frequent mention in that context chap. vii. of sin's working death to a man, but it doth so by working in him all manner of concupiscence, and by bringing forth fruit unto death. We see in that context, sin holding men, who are under the law, as in strong fetters, detaining and dis- abling them from serving God acceptably, or bringing forth fruit unto God. Wc sec in it sin putting a man 88 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 14 under the law to its service, in defiance of the light and authority of the law. Surely, according to this, men under the law are the slaves of sin, and it hath great power and absolute dominion over them to command their service. Now, as it is generally agreed, that in the first context of chap. vii. the apostle is explaining what he had said here (chap. vi. 14), can any unbiassed and thinking person doubt, after the account he gives there of the condition of persons under the law with regard to sin, that by the dominion of sin, connected (chap. vi. 14) with being under the law, he means its practical dominion in men's nature and practice? This point is exceeding clear by what hath been observed, and its evidence doth by no means depend on what I now further suggest and submit to the judgment of learned readers. I observe, then, that in the preced- ing context of chap, vi., when there is mention of sin reigning, the word is Pao-cXeveiv, to act the king, from fSao-uXevs, a king. But the word in our present text (ver. 14) is KvpieCew, to act the lord or master, as a man over his slaves. These words represent quite different ideas. A legal kingly government receives direction and limitation from law, and is to be exercised by fixed established law; so if sin is said (chap. v. 21) /Sao-iXevetv, to act the king — to reign unto death, it doth so according to law, and by authority of law. Again, under a legal and limited kingly government, the subject enjoys liberty, more or less, and the kingly government is supposed to be founded, in some sort, on the consent of the people who are the subjects of the government ; so here (ver. 12), the exhortation, not to let sin, Pao-iXevetv, to reign, or act the king — as addressed to Christians by divine grace made free, in whom sin could not attain considerable prevalence, or reign without their consent. The case is very different when the ruler is Kvpios, as here (ver. 14), or, SeoTro-n/s, lord or master. Then the government is despotic; the subjects are all slaves absolutely, and cannot claim benefit by laws, but are governed by the mere arbitrary will of the sovereign or Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 89 lord. That is the only rule of his government, and of their subjection, which hath no other limitation. Thus, in our present text (ver. 14), the dominion of sin is expressed by Kvpieveiv, to act the lord or master, as over slaves, who arc absolutely in the power of their lord ; and must act according to his will, whatever service or drudgery he shall put them to. Mr John Alexander allows, that the dominion of sin here is such dominion as one hath over his slaves ; but he makes it to mean "the power that sin acquires, in consequence of this (of obeying it in the lusts of the flesh), to destroy his captives, and which he exercises with a merciless hand." But besides that among men, from whom the similitude is taken, such power was very rarely exercised, and was not consistent with justice or the law of God, it hath been already shown that this dominion of sin is not that by which it gives death to its slaves, but that by which it commands their obedience and service ; which is made very clear by the several verses and expressions of the context above observed, and adduced to that purpose. The next inquiry is, What is meant by being under grace ? Mr Locke's paraphrase gives it thus : " You are not under the law, in the legal state, but are under grace, in the gospel-state of the covenant of grace." The expression here seems to respect different dispensations or states of the covenant of grace, the gospel dispensation of it, and a previous dispensation, which may be justly denominated the legal dispensation of the covenant of grace. Mr Locke, indeed, does not seem to understand the legal Mosaic state to have been a state or dispensation of the covenant of grace. Of this more hereafter. But as to his expression here, when he says, the gospel-state of the covenant of grace, to what other state or dis- pensation of the covenant of grace doth he contra- distinguish this gospel-state of it ? Any who shall take pains to inquire into his sentiments will find things in- consistent, yea, absurd enough, with the learned writer concerning this point ; some of which may come in our way hereafter. 90 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 4 Meantime, in his note he gives the sense of the last clause, under grace, thus : " You Gentiles are not under the law, which condemns to death for every the least transgression — but by your baptism you are entered into the covenant of grace ; and being under grace, God will accept of your sincere endeavours in the place of exact obedience." As to this, though we are far from thinking that sincere endeavours do now come in the place of exact and perfect obedience, in what concerns the sinner's justification, yet it is certain, that the sincere endeavours of believers in a justified state are now acceptable to God through Jesus Christ From the beginning of the world, all they who believed in the promised Saviour, and in the promise concerning him, being justified, their sincere endeavours were accepted. Yea, faithful Israelites under the Mosaic law, being justified through faith, as was their father Abraham, themselves and their sincere endeavours were accepted, when they were far from exact and perfect obedience. This, therefore, is not peculiar to the gospel-state ; nor is there anything in it of privilege peculiar to Gentile converts, as contradistinguished to the Jews, as Mr Locke would have it. To understand being under grace, merely of being under a dispensation or constitution of grace that accepts sincere obedience and pardons imperfections, will makethe apostle's declaration in our text not consistent with truth. For how many millions are under grace in that sense, who are under the dominion of sin, and perish? Some may endeavour to make this right by giving it thus : If you decline obeying sin, and endeavour to mortify it, — and if you shall yield your faculties to God, and his service sincerely, — then sin shall not have dominion over you, being under grace. This, however, is making the declaration and promise in the text conditional, whereas it is given forth by the apostle as absolute and certain, not suspended on. the Christian's endeavours, but insured by the grace they are under. As there is nothing in the apostle's' speech, so neither is there anything else, to make a good reason for understanding otherwise. There Ver. 14] OF A 0. VANS VI. 91 arc many conditional promises, but this is none of them. If we observe the apostle's own doctrine and style, it will direct us how to understand being under grace. In the beginning of the preceding chapter he acquaints us, that Christians, being justified through faith, are recon- ciled and at peace with God ; and further, that they have access, -poo- ay wyqv, the bringing, or introducing them unto that grace, wherein, sd.ith he, we stand ; not in a fleeting and changing condition, but as in a fixed state. It is said (John iii. 36), He that believeth ?wt the Son (that doth not so, truly and sincerely), the wrath of God abidetJi on him. But the Christian, being by his justification through faith delivered from the wrath and the curse he had been under, — he is now personally under the actual grace and favour of God, and in a state of grace, as to his real spiritual state before God. Though it hath been observed, that grace doth commonly signify favour, even free unmerited favour, yet in this place grace certainly signifies more than being in favour at present with God. Being at present in favour with God would not secure things for the future, as in our text. Whilst Adam continued in his innocence, he was under Divine favour; but this did not secure against his falling under the dominion of sin. If the apostle meant nothing here, but that Christians, being under grace, would be secure against falling under the dominion of sin, upon certain conditions, depending merely and altogether on themselves, the comfort would amount to little. If man in his state of perfection fell short of the conditions prescribed to him, how likely would fallen man be to fall short? But the grace of the new covenant doth (as chap. v. 21) REIGN unto eternal life, and makes it sure to the seed. So chap. iv. 16, // is of faith, that it might be by GRACE (the consequence that the promise might be SURE to all the seed. The first covenant, though it promised much good, upon most reasonable and equitable conditions, yet it made nothing sure. But the grace and promise of the new covenant 92 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 5 made all sure. It secures to the believer eternal life, and the safety and success of his course and way to the enjoyment of it, according to Jer. xxxii. 40. In what manner, and by what means grace doth contribute to preserve them who are in a state of grace from falling again under the dominion of sin, must be referred to another place, where the important matter may be explained more largely than would be fit here.* There remains this clause of ver. 14, Ye are not tmder the law. But this falls to be explained at some length in the explication of the following chapter, and it is not fit to anticipate here what must be there said. (See on chap. vii. 4). Paraphrase. — 14. For animating you to refuse the service of sin, and earnestly to resist its demands and urgency, and to endeavour through the Spirit to mortify it, you have this great encouragement and consolation, that, being made free from the reign and dominion of sin, you certainly shall never come again under its dominion : and of that you may assure yourselves from this, that you are not now, as formerly, under the law, which could not subdue sin, nor enable you to subdue it, so that you then remained the servants (the slaves) of sin ; but that you are under that grace which hath made you free ; and which, according to the tenor and promises of the covenant of grace, will preserve and uphold you in that freedom from the dominion of sin, until it perfectly accomplish all its purpose, to your eternal comfort and happiness. Text. — 15. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under the law, but under grace ? God forbid. Explication. — I do not take this to be a new- objection different from that which was suggested (ver. 1). But the apostle having here (ver. 14) asserted, * Sec Appendix, % 2. Ver. 1 6] of Romans vi. 93 that the Christian is not under the law, he supposes an adversary might from this reinforce his argument and objection, putting it in a new form, suited to the expression of ver. 14. T cannot express my views of this verse, or explain it better than by the following Paraphrase. — 15. What, then, may I suppose that a Christian, who mistakes my doctrine, or inclines to abuse it, or that an adversary of grace, may infer or object ? Possibly, such may suggest and argue thus : You have said, that where sin abounded, grace hath much more abounded ; viz. in pardoning. This hath great appearance of encouraging persons to continue in sin. But now you have made things much more strong to that purpose, by saying, that the Christian is not under the law. The law strictly prohibits sin, and denounces fearful judgment for transgression ; and might by that means greatly discourage and repress sin. But is it indeed the state of the believer, to be under the covert and protection of grace that superabounds in pardoning, and at the same time to be delivered from the law, and to be no longer under the law, that breathes forth so strongly against sin, particularly in its awful threatening? May not such sin freely? for what cause can they have to apprehend hurt or danger to them- selves by doing so? So some may argue ; but far be it from us so to abuse the happy privilege which we have by grace. Surely the doctrine of grace imports nothing that would encourage us to do so. Text. — 16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether of sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness ? EXPLICATION. — One might readily think at first sight, that the apostle doth not here answer so directly and clearly to the objection and argument in the preceding verse as might be wished. But on considering this text closely, we shall find two things in it. First, that the apostle doth here insist in the exhortation he had begun (ver. 1 2] ; and next, that he doth so in such manner in this 94 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Ver. 1 6 verse, as to make a very sufficient answer to the argument or objection in the preceding verse. . I say, the apostle here insists in the exhortation begun (vers. 1 2, 1 3). One may be satisfied about this, by observ- ing the style of this verse so suited as it is to the style of ver. 13, and the argument here so much suited as it is to the purpose of the 13th and preceding verse. There he exhorted Christians not to yield themselves, or their members, to the obedience or service of sin, but to the service of God. Here, again, is mention of yielding themselves, and of both sorts of service. So the con- formity of style is evident. It was observed before, that the word we render by yielding, properly signifies to sist, or present one's self, with his arms or weapons, to a master or commander. So Mr Locke observes, and, long before him, Beza. I also observed, that one's thus sisting, or presenting himself, is something fully voluntary, and deliberate. In the latter context of chap. vii. there is much repre- sented of the motions and strength of sin. But there is much regret, sorrow, conflict, and outcry of misery. The case, directly opposite to that is here hinted ; the case of one deliberately and voluntarily sisting or presenting himself, and his faculties, to sin and its service. A Christian may sin through mere infirmity, or by the surprise and force of temptation: the effect of which becomes afterwards very bitter to him. But for a man to present or sist (deliberately, voluntarily) himself and his faculties to the service of sin, whether in his general course of life and practice, or in the service of a particular predominant and indulged lust; this makes a very ill case, against which Christians are here earnestly exhorted, and this enforced by a strong . argument. The argument seems to be to this purpose. A person, thinking that himself hath been made free from the dominion of sin, may imagine himself to be acting with liberty in serving sin, in this, and the other, and in very many instances. But the reality of the case is, that by thus sisting himself to sin and its service, he doth prove Ver. 1 6] OF ROMANS vi. 95 himself to be indeed the servant of sin, and its slave. Now, to a Christian, who hath been made sensible of the misery of such a slavery, and of the valuable privilege and advantage of being made free from that slavery, the thought of coming in any sort or degree into it again, and showing so by his practice, should be so frightsome and shocking, as to awaken him to earnest carefulness to keep himself at the utmost distance from it. This I take to be the import of the argument, as it respects the subject of the exhortation in vers. 12, 13. I said, that the apostle manages this argument, so as at the same time to suggest a sufficient and very proper answer to the objection in ver. 15. He had said (ver. 14) that sin would not have dominion over the believers, they not being under the law, but under grace. Ay, then, says the supposed adversary, if so, the stroke of the law cannot reach us, we not being under it; and grace will protect us and keep us safe : therefore we may, without any apprehension, take full liberty in sinning. But by no means ; such an abuse of grace were horrible, and the reasoning is vain. By taking such liberty to sin, a man will prove that he is truly its servant and slave, and so demonstrate that he is not under grace, but indeed under the law, whose curse and judgment will yet reach him with fearful effect. Thus ver. 16 contains this very pointed and striking answer to what was suggested in ver. 15. One thing yet on the last clause — or (servants) of obedience unto righteousness. The service of God is (as ver. 13, and here) righteousness, and men fulfil and do that service only in way of obedience, which pre-supposes divine command and institution. Therefore superstitious practices in religion, and will-worship, which have not the warrant of the Divine command and institution, and do not come under the notion of obedience, whatever show they may have of wisdom, yet do not truly belong to the service of God, or to the practice of righteousness. PARAPHRASE. — 16. But let me not be diverted from the exhortation I have begun ; but let mc still* earnestly entreat you not to obey sin in the lusts thereof, nor g6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Vcr. 1 6 to sist your faculties to its service ; but to yield your- selves, with all your faculties and powers, to God and to righteousness, in way of obedience. For if I have said that ye are not under the law, it was far from my meaning that you might withdraw yourselves from the authority and obedience of the holy commandment, which is the rule of righteousness ; so that nothing can be counted righteousness, or the service of God, that is not obedience and conformity to that rule. Let me then enforce my exhortation by the consideration of what you know, — what every one knows ; viz. that to whom one sists himself voluntarily and habitually to obey and serve him, he thereby proves, that he whom he so serves and obeys, is indeed his master and lord, whether it be sin, who gives death for wages (ver. 23) or God, in way of obedience to his will, commandment, and institutions, in order to complete that service of righteousness, which will issue in eternal life. Have you then been sensible of the great wretchedness of being the servants of sin, and of the great good that grace hath done you, in making you free from that thraldom ? be wrarned to keep yourselves at the greatest distance from that way of practice that would give suspicion that you are again entangled and engaged therein. Now, will any say, because persons are not under the law, but under grace, that therefore they may freely and safely go into a course of sin ? surely if any, with the high praise, perhaps, of grace in their mouths, shall so believe, and shall presume so to live, the reproach and real abuse of grace will recoil, and fall with fearful weight on their heads. There is no fallacy in the promises of the new covenant, or in the doctrine of grace ; but there may be much fallacy and deception in men's notion and opinion of their own state. They who so argue, and so live, as I have been just saying, will prove nothing truly dishonourable to grace ; but they will prove, to their own confusion, that they have not been truly under grace, but indeed under the law in the flesh, under the dominion of sin, serving it ; for which the stroke of the law will reach them fearfully, especially Ver. 17] OF ROM ass VI. 97 in the great day of the vengeance of grace, and of the wrath of tJie Lamb, when grace, which they have so much counteracted and affronted, will not interpose to screen them from the righteous judgment. Text. — 17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which was delivered you. Explication. — When the apostle says here, that they had been the servants of sin, it may give occasion for some question concerning the ground on which he says so. If the Roman Christians had been universally converted immediately from heathenism, some might suppose he had no other in view than their former state of heathenism. But that was not the case. There were in that church a good many Israelites, or Jews, as appears in chap, xvi., who were brought up in the church of God. There might be also a good many who were brought up from childhood in a state of proselytism, and in the early knowledge and faith of the holy scriptures, as was Timothy, under his pious and believing mother and grandmother. Though these Romans, who had been converted from heathenism, had certainly been the servants of sin, yet how comes he to say of that church universally, and without the hint of any exception, that they had been formerly the servants of sin ? If he addresses the churches he writes to, under the character and designation of believers, without giving the hint of any exceptions, there was reason for this from their profession, and from the favourable judgment of charity. But such Jews, and persons brought up from childhood in proselytism, as were members of'that church, had not been by profession the servants of sin ; nor would the judgment of charity direct or permit him to call them so, if he knew them not better, and their having universally- proved by their practice that they were so, than it is likely the apostle did, who had at that time never been in Rome. How, then, can we account for it, that he says G 98 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I? of them universally, that they had been without exception, the servants (the slaves) of sin, but on this ground that it is the common and natural condition of all men to be the servants of sin ? The last clause of this text, which was delivered you , is as Castellio renders, and which Beza calls a perverse rendering. He would probably have spoke more softly of our translation ; though he and the Vulgar had good reason to render otherwise. The word rendered form doth signify, form, rule, or pattern. Sometimes it signifies a mould ; and it seems to be here determined to that sense by the expressions connected therewith ; which, as they run in the Greek, are to be thus rendered, into which ye were delivered over or cast. Here are very different ideas. Obeying respects the authority of the doctrine. Being delivered over, or cast into it, respects the doctrine under the notion of a mould, which gives its own a new form to that which is cast into it. This verse, then, doth in the general, represent the doctrine of the gospel, and men's obeying it, yielding it the obedience of faith, as the great means of sanctification, and of freedom from the slavery of sin: — Ye were the servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed. For explaining the matter briefly, as here set forth : I. The word of Christ is, as hath been said, the mean of purifying, and of freedom from the slavery of sin. So John xv. 3, Ye are clean through the word which J have spoken unto you.. So also John viii. 32, Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. 2. The truth, or doctrine of faith, hath this effect, through men's obey- ing it, or yielding it the obedience of faith, and that with great freedom of will. To this obedience the matter is ascribed in our text. But is this obedience merely from man's own will? By no means; for, 3. There is in it the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is expressed with regard to a main branch of holiness, viz. brotherly love (1 Pet. i. 22), Ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth THROUGH THE SPIRIT, unto unfeigned love of the brethren. Here Christians are represented, in obeying and purifying their souls, as acting with the freedom that Ver. 17] OF ROMANS VI. 99 is essential to moral agency ; yet so acting and purifying their souls, the one and the other, by the Spirit and his powerful influence. There seems to be some hint of this intended in our text, cis ov irapahod^re, into which ye were delivered, or cast. The verb here is passive ; the Christian hath been so delivered over and cast by another hand. They obeyed the doctrine heartily ; in this they were active : yet they were cast into the mould of this doctrine, and thereby received the new form of faith, obedience, and holiness, from another hand and influence. So that they were active in obeying the truth ; and at the very same time and instant, were passive with regard to the superior influence. — Beholding — the glory of the Lord (2 Cor. iii. 18), we are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. No created being can absolutely, and by immediate influence, determine the will. But cannot the Creator do, by his instruction and influence, what no created being can ? The Psalmist thought so, when he argued and prayed, as Ps. cxix. j$, Thy hands have made me, and fashioned me ; give me understanding, that L may learn thy com- mandments. They who hold that the superior influence of the Creator, effectually determining and disposing the heart to that which is good, is inconsistent with free agency, are as destitute of foundation in sound reason as they are grossly contrary to the scripture. Paraphrase. — 17. But I hope better things of you than to sist yourselves to the servic: of sin, and see cause of thankfulness to God, the author and true cause of the great effect ; that, whereas you had been the servants of sin, you have sincerely and heartily obeyed the doctrine of the gospel ; into which, by the power and efficiency of a superior hand, as into a mould, ye were delivered over and cast : and so the truth hath made you free from the dominion which sin unhappily had sometime over you. IOO EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Vers. 1 8, 1 9 Text. — 18. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness. Paraphrase. — 18. Being, then, through your obeying the truth, which conveyed the knowledge of Christ, and of divine grace through him into your hearts, and through the faith thereof, under the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit, made free from the wretched thraldom of sin, — ye became the servants of righteousness, I mean the servants of God (ver, 22), having the principles of righteousness prevailing and dominant in your hearts, in place of the vile principles of sin, unrighteousness, and impurity, which formerly reigned therein. Text. — 19. I speak after the manner of men, because of the in- firmity of your flesh : for as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity ; even so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness. Paraphrase. — 19. You have, through the infirmity of your present condition in the flesh, such disadvantage and weakness of understanding, in conceiving spiritual things, except they be set before you under the simili- tude of things earthly (John iii. 12), that I have judged it needful to speak of what concerns your spiritual condition, with regard to sin and holiness, in language, and under a similitude taken from the manner and affairs of men, respecting masters and their bond-servants, which you Romans are well acquainted with. Upon the same view to your infirmity — though I might, upon comparing both sorts of service together, reasonably require of you a zeal, fervency, and assiduity, in the better service of righteousness, incomparably beyond what you showed in the service of sin ; yet, as this perhaps goes beyond any attainment which, in your present infirmity in the flesh, you are likely to reach — and sd might, through your weakness, occasion your Vers. 20, 21] of romaxs vl ici forming conclusions too unfavourable and discouraging concerning your condition — let me exhort you to some purity, at least, of endeavour in the better service you are through grace engaged in ; and that as you have heretofore yielded your members servants to impurity and iniquity, to the practice and increase of iniquity; so now that you sist all your faculties, affections, and powers, servants of righteousness, to the practice and advancement of holiness. Text. — 20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free from righteousness. PARAPHRASE. — 20. It maybe a very cogent argument to move you to this, that when ye were the servants of sin, you were free from the dominion of righteousness. However you might, even from carnal motives and ends, comply with the natural notions of men concerning virtue and decency, at least in the appearance of these, yet ye were in no true subjection to righteousness, or to the law of God, which is the rule of it ; nor had the necessary principles of acceptable righteousness any influence in your hearts. Should you not then be ex- cited by the consideration of this, to be very careful, now that you are the servants of righteousness (ver. 18), to maintain your liberty from the dominion of sin, not to allow it to prevail with you in any sort, to yield yourselves, or your members to its service ; but that ye should, as I have been exhorting you, be faithful and assiduous servants to your new and better Master, ever sisting all your powers of soul and bod)- ready for his service, in the practice of holiness ? Text. — 21. What fruit had ye then in those things, whereof ye are now ashamed ? for the end of those things is death. Paraphrase. — 21. Let me further argue from the comparative consideration of the fruit and consequence 102 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 22 of both sorts of service and practice : First, as to the service of sin, what fruit, may I ask you, had ye by yielding your members to its service? did not pride, envy, malice, wrath, revenge, covetousness, and deceit- fulness, that defiled your spirits, bring present disturb- ance, distress, and misery upon your souls? did not the gratification of brutal appetites, that are the filthiness of the flesh, waste your bodies and estates, and bring misery upon your families? were not these malignant passions and foul pleasures of sin for a season, always attended with pricking and painful remorse in time, and with sad misgivings of heart with respect to future judgment and eternity? Indeed, now that the Lord has been gracious to you, these practices, in which ye served sin, do, on recollection, give you that shame and confusion of face that ever accompanies true repentance ; and that is all the fruit that remains with you of a practice and course, which, if the rich grace of God do not interpose, doth always terminate in death and eternal misery. Let me next observe the matter to you on the other side. Text. — 22. But now being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end everlasting life. Explication. — The apostle having designed to give a comparative view of the fruit and consequence of both sorts of service — that of sin and that of God — he did so as to the former in the preceding verse; and now he proceeds here to give a view of the fruit and consequence of serving God in righteousness and holiness. The servant of God here is the same as the servant of righteousness (ver. 18), God is the Lord and Master; righteousness is the service. It hath been observed before that the notion of servants, according to these times, includes the notion of slavery, — by which a servant was the property of his master, as to his person ; and behoved to be absolutely Ver. 22] OF ROMANS IV. 1 03 subject, as to his service and employment, to his master's will, to be commanded and disposed of as he pleased. The servant of God is absolutely his as to his person, and that by the original right of creation and sovereignty, and by the superadded right of grace and redemption. Yea, the servant of God hath freely and fully, by his own choice, given himself up to the Lord, to be his, as a man's bond-servant is his, being bought with his money, or born in his house. So the Psalmist acknowledges (Ps. cxvi. 16), I am thy servant, and the son of thy hand- maid. But there is otherwise great odds, with regard to the liberty of mind and spirit, the confidence, consolation, and hope, very opposite to a state of slavery or bondage, which the Christian hath in the service of his natural and rightful Lord ; whom he is, at the same time, to consider as his Father, and himself as a son by the adoption of grace, and an heir. On these accounts, though the Christian is the absolute property of his Lord, and absolutely subject to his sovereignty and will, yet his state is not that of slavery and bondage. To him the law, which expresses his Master's will and is the rule of his service, is the perfect law of liberty (James i. 25). We may now be fully satisfied concerning the dis- tinction suggested with regard to the reign and dominion of sin. If Christ died unto sin (ver. 10) this can be understood in no sense suiting the expression, but that of his becoming by his own expiating death free from sin, as to its penal consequence, as it reigned unto death. Sinners under the reign of sin in that sense, are not so properly the servants of sin, but rather the victims of justice, in consequence of their having served sin. But in this exhortation which was begun at ver. 12, and is insisted in downwards throughout the chapter, till we are now at the end of it, when we have mention of sinners as the servants of sin, sisting themselves and their faculties to its service, and obeying it, and some made free from that slavery, and engaged in the service of God and righteousness ; this, on the one hand, and, on the other sin set forth as a master, whose' service is done, and as Kvpios, a lord having dominion 104 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2$ clear as any thing can be, that this can be understood of no other than what I called a practical dominion — a dominion by which sin powerfully holds sinners its slaves, employed in its service. One thing yet on this first clause, and its connection with what next follows. — They who have at heart to be the servants of God, and have some perception of the happiness of that state, should be very solicitous, that, in order thereto, they may be made free from the dominion of sin. For that is the connection of things in our present text, Being made free from sin and become servants of God. There is needful here, not merely good purposes and some sort of change of practice, but a change of nature and of a man's spiritual state ; that the death of Christ, and his resurrection, with the benefits thereof, be truly and effectually applied to them by the Holy Spirit, and by faith ; the Holy Spirit, renewing the heart, and being in it the Spirit of faith. Good purposes and resolutions, and some sort of endeavours, without this, may make a self-deceiving and shining hypocrite, but will not make a genuine sincere servant of God. Paraphrase. — 22. Let us next, then, consider the other side of the comparison, and the advantage of being the servants of God. For now, being, by means of Christ's death and resurrection, brought under grace, made free from the dominion of sin, and become the servants of God (which ye could not be without being so made free from your former master), ye have your fruit in that service, to the advancement of holiness, — fruit at present sweet, healthful, and comfortable, and, as to futurity, terminating in eternal life. TEXT. — 23. For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord. EXPLICATION. — The Greek oifwiov, rendered wages, was commonly meant of the pay of soldiers in provisions or money. Dannhauerus, cited by Wolfius. gives an account of it to this purpose and sense : It commonly Ver. 23] OF ROMANS VI. 105 signified, he says, the wages, in particular, by which gladiators were hired to sell their blood, to give pleasure to the populace. So as the gladiator, for wages and provisions afforded him, gave himself up to butcher)- and destruction, for the amusement and diversion of the cruel and barbarous Roman rabble ; so the sinner doth, for the present pleasure of sin, give himself up to eternal destruction : whereby he gratifies and satiates the malice of devils. Let this be further observed. The apostle had said of men's sins (ver. 21) that the END of those things is death. So to believers in a course of holiness (ver. 22), the END is everlasting life. But these ends, severally, do happen in a very different way, as is represented here (ver. 23). Death is the proper wages of sin, and is given according to the law, and the true demerit of men's works. Eternal life is the gift of God, Xa/noyxa, the most free gift. But though eternal life is freely given to us of God, yet it is through fesus Christ our Lord ; by his mediation and merit. Yet still not the less to us the free gift of God, who hath of grace provided, afforded, and accepted the price of our redemption and life. Paraphrase. — 23. For the wages which sin, by the strength of the law, and according to the tenor of its righteous sanction, doth pay, is eternal death, suited, and justly proportioned to the true demerit of the work and service. But eternal life, in which the believer's course of holiness terminates, is not for any merit of ours, but is to us the most free gift of God, and that through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through his mediation and merit. Now, what arguments, motives, and means of suasion can any created mind conceive more strong and power- ful in themselves? When the prospect of eternal life, so clearly set forth in God's word and promises, and the terrors of eternal death, the just punishment of sin, so much inculcated by the word of God, so agreeable to the light of reason, and to the dictates and impressions of conscience in every man, do not prevail with sinful men to betake them to Christ by faith, to forsake their sins 106 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 23 by true repentance, and to engage them in the service of God ; what a demonstration is it of the dominion that sin hath over them, and how absolutely it hath subjected them, with all their faculties and powers, to itself, and its service, in so far that no means of suasion whatsoever are sufficient to work the good effect ? Therefore the apostle goes to show that the law, how- ever much its precept and sanction be inculcated on the minds and consciences of men, cannot make them free ; that no other than the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus (chap. viii. 2) can make them free from the dominion of sin, from that unhappy law of sin and death, by which they have been ruled. INTRODUCTION TO THE EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. SHOWING That the Apostle's doctrine and reasoning in this Chapter do not respect the Mosaic ceremonial law, or the abolition hereof. It is of great consequence, in explaining the first context (vers. I -1 3) of this chapter, to determine what is to be understood by law ; and from what law the believers are therein said to be delivered. This requires to be more largely treated oi than were fit in explaining any particular verse. Many have understood it of the Mosaic law. This, in the largest sense, comprehends the whole system of laws given to Israel in the wilderness. But more strictly, it signifies the law that prescribed the ordinances of worship, the rites, ceremonies, and peculiar observances of the church of Israel ; commonly called the ceremojiial law. When I observe every place in this epistle in which law is mentioned, I do not see cause to think, that the cere- monial law is meant in any one of them, or that the apostle's explications and reasoning have respect to it. If in some places he hath at all in his eye the Mosaic law, as chap. v. 15, 20, it is only the Mosaic, or Sinaitic promulgation of the moral law he means : his argument doth not appear to have any respect to the ceremonial law. In proving the sinfulness of the Gentiles (chap, i.), they are only sins against the moral law he mentions ; as indeed they could not be charged with transgression 108 INTRODUCTION TO THE of the ceremonial law, which had not been given them. It is plain it is the same moral law that was common to Jews and Gentiles (chap. ii. 14, 15) that he hath in his eye, even the law of which some light and impression remained in the consciences of the Gentiles, when he says (chap. ii. 26), If the uncircumcision keep the righteous- ness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision ? It is plain that the ceremonial law is excluded from all concern in the argument, for the un- circumcised had not access to observe the ceremonial law. As this concerning the uncircumcision is a part of his reasoning with the Jews, it shows that in his reasoning with the Jew in the preceding context he meant no other than the moral law. In that second chapter, reasoning with the Jew, who (ver. 17) rested in the law, he charges only transgressions of the moral law (vers. 21, 22) ; and when (chap. iii. 10-18) he cites several texts of the Old Testament to prove sin against them, in many instances there represented, every instance respects the moral law, and none other. The apostle doth indeed manage his argument, respect- ing justification, in such way, that he had no occasion to mention the ceremonial law ; at least, when he might take occasion to mention it, it is evident that he avoids it. For making this clear, it is to be observed, that moral and accountable agents may be justified in one of two ways. 1. Such may be justified, as personally and perfectly righteous ; and so the angels, who kept their first state, stand justified before God, according to the law they are under. It is a point the apostle labours much, that no man, Jew or Gentile, can be justified in this way, as he proves that all have sinned. 2. The way, and the only way, for the justification of the sinners is by grace : and he shows that this grace in the exercise of it, is founded on expiation, or redemption, even the redemption that is in Christ, whom God hath set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his blood ; so he says (chap. iii. 24, 25). Here indeed he might have taken occasion to treat of the expiations and purifications of the Mosaic law, and to have proved EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII IO9 their insufficiency for taking away sin, or removing the guilt of sinners. This indeed he does in the epistle to the Hebrews. This was especially needful for them, the Jews of Palestine and the east, who were so exceedingly zealous for the Levitical service and Mosaic institutions. But the Romans were a church of Christians, who were, for most part, of the Gentiles, whose liberty from the cere- monial law had been declared before this time. This liberty the Gentiles had cause to value much : and it appears that the apostle saw no occasion for proving to them the insufficiency of the ceremonial expiations (which the\- had nothing to do with) for the justifica- tion of sinners ; and it is evident, that in treating of that subject in this epistle he doth not touch that point at all. In the sixth and seventh chapters, sanctification, and deliverance from the dominion of sin is the subject ; and it is clear that there, particularly in this seventh chapter, it is the moral law he hath still in his view. As it is by it that there is the knowledge of sin, it is bv it he came to know sin ; giving an instance only of a transgression of the moral law : so ver. 7. It hath, however, been the opinion of divers inter- preters, that in the first context of this seventh chapter the apostle asserts the abrogation of the Mosaic cere- monial law. Dr Hammond* says, on ver. 1: "The design arid matter of the discourse is discernibly this, to vindicate his doctrine (charged on him, Acts xxi. 21, it is not certain whether then truly or no, but with- out doubt now professedly taught by him), that the Judaical law was abolished by the death of Christ * Dr Henry Hammond (1605-1660) published "Paraphrase and Annotations on the New Testament," 1653. Sanday says of him : "He has been styled the father of English Commentators, and certainly no considerable exegetical work before his time had appeared in this country. But he has a further title to fame. His ' Commentary ' undoubtedly deserves the name historical. In his interpretation he has detached himself from the dogmatic Strug of the seventeenth century, and throughout, he attempts to expound the apostle in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times in which he lived." IIO INTRODUCTION TO THE (Eph. ii. 15, 16; Col. ii. 14), and so was not now obliga- tory to a Jew." This certainly the learned author means, not of the moral, but of that called the ceremonial law. Downwards he says : " This abolition of the law to the Jews is here evidently proclaimed." Grotius and Whitby have the same view of the general scope of this context. Now, when Dr Hammond says, that it is uncertain whether the preaching that the Judaical law was abolished, and was not obligatory to the Jew, was charged on him truly or no on that occasion (Acts xxi. 21), but that now without doubt it was professedly taught by him in this epistle, this clearly implies, as if the writing of this epistle was posterior to that story related Acts xxi. But it is evident, that here the learned man hath fallen into an inadvertency scarcely excusable. We learn from Rom. xv. 25, 26, that the epistle was written when he was in his way to Jerusalem, with the contribution for the poor saints that had been made by them of Macedonia and Achaia. It was there- after, when he was actually arrived at Jerusalem, with these contributions, that the things happened, of which we have the story, Acts xxi. Certainly, any who will consider the apostle's conduct on this latter occasion, may be well convinced, that to interpret any passage in this epistle, as declaring or asserting the abolition of the Mosaic law, must be mistaking his meaning. Of this more hereafter. To proceed the more distinctly in our inquiry con- cerning this matter, I observe, that there are two things on which the apostle labours in this epistle, and in that to the Galatians, which is thought to have been written before it : 1. That a sinner is not justified by the law, or by the works of the law. This he proves by principles and arguments that have no respect particularly to the Mosaic law and institutions, or to the abolition thereof. This is the subject of the first five chapters to the Romans, wherein he establishes the one way of justi- fication, common to both Jews and Gentiles. EXPLICA TION OF ROMANS VII. I I I 2. He proves, that the Gentile converts were relieved by the gospel from the necessity of undergoing the Mosaic yoke. This he is zealous about, and considers it as an essential point of the gospel. The truth is, as the Mosaic or Judaical law was originally given to the Jews, and not to the Gentiles, there were divers institu- tions in it which it was morally impossible for the Gen- tiles generally to observe ; for instance, the three great annual feasts in Jerusalem. The case was, that the wisdom of God thought fit to have, in these times, one nation only for his church ; and so he appointed ordi- nances of worship, and other various institutions, suiting that one national church. If particular persons of other nations came to be converted, and would enjoy the privilege of members of the church of God, they be- hoved to accede to that one national church, and submit to its rules and institutions. But when, under the gospel, the church became catholic, consisting of people of all nations, it was thought fit by divine wisdom, that those of other nations, the Gentiles, should be declared free from the obligation of Mosaic ordinances, which were not suited to such a state of things ; and should enjoy the privileges of the church of God, without sub- mitting to these. As to the first of these subjects, justification not by works, but by faith, as it is a fundamental point, and essential in religion at all times, the apostle is full and clear upon it in both epistles. As to the other subject, the liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, he insists on it especially in the epistle to the Galatians, whom he exhorts to stand fast in this liberty, and warns them, in very strong terms, of the danger of doing otherwise. In this epistle to the Romans, he does, greatly to the comfort of the Gentiles, establish the doctrine of one way of justification by faith, common to Jews and Gentiles. But the liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke does not appear to be the special and immediate subject in this epistle to the Romans. The churches of Galatia appear to have been greatly dis- turbed and divided by disputes, and by the arts and 112 INTRODUCTION TO THE importunities of false teachers, concerning this subject I do not see anything in the epistle to the Romans, that gives cause to think they had much question concerning it. Therefore though the apostle still manages his sub- ject, particularly that of justification, in a way very com- fortably favourable to the interest of the Gentiles, yet I do not see that the freedom of the Gentiles from the Mosaic law is his proper and direct subject ; so that Mr Locke certainly had not cause to consider that as the main scope and drift of the apostle's discourse and reasoning in a great part of this epistle, as much as he does. Viewing matters so much in that light, has given him a wrong bias in interpreting many texts, and has occasioned his falling often short of the true meaning, in a manner very detrimental to the faith and comfort of Christians. There are yet two things fit to be considered respect- ing the case of the Gentiles during the Mosaic and Old Testament times. i. The Gentile converts to the faith of the church of Israel would certainly, in these times, have great advan- tage in being outwardly admitted by circumcision to be actual members of the Jewish church. Without this they would not have the comfort of partaking of the paschal lamb, or of other ordinances, by which the Lord repre- sented and conveyed the blessings of his grace more abundantly, according to the measure of these times, to his people. Yet, 2. This disadvantage did not amount to so much, but that persons of the Gentiles, enlightened with the faith of the church and word of God, and fearing God, were in these times truly accepted of him, without being cir- cumcised, or coming under the Mosaic yoke. Solomon's prayer at the dedication of the temple (i Kings viii. 41, 42, 43) gave reason to think so long ago. But the matter is clear in the case of Cornelius (Acts x.), when the Lord said to Peter in the vision (ver. 15), what God hath cleansed, call not thou unclean ; that is, though he be not purified or cleansed by the blood of circumcision. The apostle thus instructed, says (vers. 34, 35), Of a truth I perceive that EXPLICATION OF ROMANS I VI. I I 3 God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, lie that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him. To say, or infer from this, that persons who know not the true God, or the way of salvation he hath revealed, may, walking honestly according to the light of their own religion and conscience, be saved, hath no foundation in the words of the apostle Peter. He is by no means speaking in that latitude of meaning. He is speaking of what God had cleansed, of Cornelius, whom even Dr Whitby considered as a proselyte of the gate, and such as he, of whatever nation, who were enlightened with the true faith, as the same was revealed and pro- fessed in the church of God, and who, by the influence and direction of that light, feared God and wrought righteousness, though they were not Jews, nor initiated by circumcision into the Jewish church. But though the sentiment just now mentioned hath no foundation in the apostle Peter's words, yet it may be justly inferred from what he says, that whatever might be the advantage of being members externally of the Jewish church, yet believing and pious Gentiles might, without that, and without coining under the yoke of the Mosaic institu- tions, be accepted of God, and be saved, even during the Old Testament times. This being so, the Jewish Chistians had the more reason to be reconciled to the exemption of the Gentile converts from the Mosaic yoke ; and it appears that some were so (Acts xi. 18), who had no thought at that time that the Mosaic law was abrogated. The Mosaic law had been given to Israel. Though proselytes of the Gentiles were admitted by circumcision to the privileges of the church of Israel, yet their being so does not appear to have been strictly required ; and it is certain, that when the counsel of Jerusalem declared the liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, this did not import, nor imply, the abrogation of the Mosaic law ; nor was it so understood by the apostles or believing Jews, who had agreed to the exemption of the Gentiles from that law. However, Dr Hammond says, "That asserting the II 114 INTRODUCTION TO THE liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, and preaching the gospel to them, did both together, by way of interpretation, and necessary consequence, contain under them this of the unobligingness of the law to a Jew ; for the law of the Jews commanding a strict separation from the Gentiles, all that were not their proselytes and circumcised, and Paul and others being Jews, their conversing with, and preaching to the Gentiles, could not be allowed on any score, but that of the abrogation of the Jewish law, which accordingly was of necessity to be revealed to St Peter in a vision (Acts x., and so seems to have been to St Paul, Eph. Hi. 3)-" There is an evident mistake here We have seen that the thing revealed to the apostle Peter (Acts x.) was no more than this, that the Gentiles were to be preached to, and to be admitted members of the church, without being subjected to the Mosaic yoke. The mystery made known by revelation to the apostle Paul (Eph. iii. 3), was no other, as himself tells expressly (ver. 6), than that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs ■, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel. There is nothing in either place of the abroga- tion of the Judaical law, with regard to the Jews themselves, to whom it was given. But the learned writer supposes this to be implied in the other ; for the Jews could not so much as eat with the Gentiles, by reason of certain rules and prohibitions of their law, except that were abolished. But this seems to have been provided for in the decree of the synod of Jerusalem, which required (not the Jews to neglect any rules of their own law, as no longer obligatory, but) that the Gentile converts should abstain from things strangled and from blood. It has been pretty commonly said, that this was ordered to prevent too great offence of the Jews. But I do not see what this could amount to, as to the offence of those who were zealous of the Jewish law, whose offence no concessions could prevent, without the Gentile converts submitting to circumcision, and the whole Mosaic yoke. But it did much to obviate this EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 1 5 difficulty, how Gentiles, and such Jewish converts as were zealous of their own law, yet agreed to the liberty of the Gentiles, might, members as both now were of the body and church of Christ, converse and eat together, notwithstanding the distinctions and prohibitions of the law of Moses respecting meats. I doubt not but the Gentiles would understand, from the general reason of it, that the injunction was meant to extend to all meats, which by the law of Moses were prohibited. Thus Jewish and Gentile Christians might converse and eat together freely ; which they could not do if it were not for this limitation, wisely put, for a season, on the liberty of the Gentiles. So the asserting the liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic law, did by no means imply the abrogation of that law, with respect to the Jews ; as necessary in order to the believers of the Jews and Gentiles conversing and eating together. Having premised these things, in order to clear our way, let us now come more close to the subject and question, concerning the abolition of the Mosaic law, as alleged to be meant by the apostle in his seventh to the Romans. That that is not meant or asserted by him in it, is very evident from his reasoning in it concerning the law. He does (ver. 4) consider men's being dead to the law, or delivered from it, as necessary in order to their having part in Christ, or, as he expresses it, being married to him ; as necessary to their bringing forth fruit unto God, not in the old n ess of the letter, but in the nearness of the spirit. Yea, he intimates (chap. vi. 14), that being under the law, gave advantage to sin to have dominion over them. Now, if all this is to be understood of the Mosaic law of ordinances, rites, and ceremonies, surely the apostles would not have preached the gospel at all to the Jews, without intimating to them clearly and loudly, that the abolition of the Mosaic law, their being free from it, and renouncing it, was absolutely necessary for their salvation. For I scarce think any will deny the things I have mentioned to be so, especially when the gospel was so fully revealed. Yet if we observe the preaching of the apostles to the Jews, Il6 INTRODUCTION TO THE and their discourses to them on divers occasions, as set down in the book of the Acts, we shall not find any- thing to that purpose in them all. Instead of that, the thousands in Jerusalem and Judea, who believed, con- tinued zealous of the law ; and it does not appear, that the apostles or elders, who dwelt among them, or resorted to them, did at all disturb them with declaring the abolition of the law. So far from it, that the apostle Peter was influenced by the brethren, who came down from Jerusalem to Antioch, to behave in a manner that tended to betray the liberty of the Gentiles, with regard to the Mosaic law, which had been first intimated by revelation to himself, — so far were the apostles from touching the law, as to its obligatory force with respect to the Jews. Could this have been their conduct, if the freedom of the Jews from that law had indeed been necessary for purposes so essential to salvation, as are mentioned (chap, vii.) by the apostle Paul, in his dis- course concerning the law? But there is something very clearly decisive on this subject in that story (Acts xxi.) here before mentioned. Let us now consider it. Sometime after writing this epistle to the Romans, Paul having arrived at Jerusalem, James and all the elders being present, they said unto him (vers. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24), " Thou seest, brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the fews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs. What is it, therefore ? &c. What ! zealous of the law, under the law, and married to the law, and yet believ- ing, and so married to Christ ? Could the fidelity of the apostles allow them to connive at such pernicious, incon- sistent pretensions ? Would it not be expected, that, on this occasion, they would have asked the assistance of the apostle Paul, who had been so successful among the Gentiles, and have endeavoured to awaken his zeal to exert himself to the utmost to recover his country- men who believed, from this sad mistake? Instead of EXPLICATION OF ROMAXS VII. 11/ that they gave Paul, and Paul observed, an advice of very contrary tendency. But what is it now that the Jews of Jerusalem were informed of concerning Paul ? The very same thing that Dr Hammond, and others before and after him, assert that he did actually in this epistle to the Romans, that was written before that time, and on other occa- sions ; viz. that he taught the Jews, which were among the Gentiles, that they ought to forsake Moses and his law ; and that this was a liberty that they ought to stand to, and assert, on considerations of the utmost importance to their salvation. Let us now consider the advice that is unanimously given by James and all the elders present. It is, that he should confute these reports, which the Jewish Chris- tians had heard, and which, according to Grotius, Drs Hammond and Whitby, all three learned men, were very true reports ; and that he should give the most effectual proof, by avowed public practice, that these things of which they were informed concerning him, were nothing, — had no foundation in truth, and that himself walked orderly, and kept the law ; and the apostle Paul, we see, did punctually observe this advice. We may, on this occasion, observe the apostle Peter's conduct at Antioch, related by Paul (Gal. ii.), and how Paul then behaved and argued ; and what a Jewish Christian, who had seen his epistle to the Romans if it is to be understood according to the interpretation of the learned men lately mentioned) might very reason- ably have said to him, when he celebrated the expira- tion and fulfilment of his Xazarite vow. What is this, might he say, that I have seen thee doing? thou hast been openly teaching, that these Mosaic laws are no longer of force, even to Jews; and hast suggested con- siderations of the utmost consequence, for which even- Jew ought to assert his liberty from the obligations of these ordinances and observances ; yet now I have seen thee showing serious regard to these institutions in thr- own practice, and thereby proving openly, that there was no truth in what was reported of thy urging the Il8 INTRODUCTION TO THE Jews to forsake Moses and his law. Surely this is not upright. You cannot have forgot how you treated the apostle Peter at Antioch, when for such fear of the Jewish believers, which yourself do now show, he with- drew from the society of the Gentile Christians. You withstood him ; you said he was to be blamed ; that he dissembled himself, so that the Christians of Antioch, and even Barnabas himself, were carried away with his dissimulation. So you said when you reported that story. You said, that he walked not uprightly accord- ing to the truth of the gospel. You did obliquely charge him with building up the things he had destroyed; as he had so great a part in declaring the immunity of the Gentiles from the Mosaic law. Thus did you treat that eminent apostle, who was in Christ before you, and was so eminent among Jews and Gentiles in the service of the gospel, when you was persecuting it. You excused yourself in this, by the necessity of doing so, for main- taining the truth of the gospel : but, alas ! how shall we now understand your conduct? after teaching that the Jews should no longer observe the Mosaic law, you have gone to the temple and to the priests, you have brought your offering (according to the law, Numb. vi. 13, 14), one he-lamb for a burnt-offering, one ewe-lamb for a sin-offering, one ram for a peace-offering, with the proper meat-offering and drink-offering. Is this the very man who told the Jews at Rome, so very lately, that the Mosaic law was no longer of force, and that they should assert their liberty from it, as they wished that sin should not have dominion over them, — that they should be married to Christ, and bring forth fruit unto God? Surely this is not walking uprightly, or according to the truth of the gospel. This is building up very openly the things you have been destroying with so great labour and zeal. Dr Whitby, on Acts xxi., doth not take notice of the objection arising from Paul's conduct there related, against his own interpretation of Rom. vii. But he seems to have it in his view, and to be greatly at a loss to account for the apostle's conduct on that occasion ; at EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 1 9 least, that is likely to be the case by the considerations he suggests to that purpose (annot. on vers. 26, 27), they fall so very far short of the purpose: as, " 1. That the vow of Nazaritism being only a stricter sort of separation from all pollution to the service of God, and to be holy, and free from all kind of defilement, seems very con- sistent with the spirit and design of Christianity." But if we consider the moral and spiritual design of Mosaic institutions, which of them is it that was not consistent with the faith, spirit, and design of Chris- tianity? The present question doth not concern what was moral or spiritual in these institutions, but respects the external administration and observance of cere- monial ordinances. Now, what can be named in all the system of Mosaic laws, that was more peculiarly Mosaic and ceremonial than the appointments concerning Nazaritism ? Were the Jewish Christians to believe and assert their liberty from all the Mosaic ceremonial laws (as the Doctor and others say is taught the Romans here), and yet might they voluntarily use these very ceremonial regulations of Nazaritism, when the Mosaic law itself, when in its fullest force, left them free not to vow Nazaritism at all? 2. "Observe," says the Doctor, "that the offerings of the temporary Nazarite, at the completion of his vow, being a burnt-offering, and a sin-offering, and a peace- offering (Numb, vi. 14) and two of them being sacrifices not appointed for expiating sin, but offerings of thanks- giving to God, who had enabled them to perform their vow, and of acknowledgment of God's sovereign dominion — this action seems to have little or nothing inconsistent with the doctrine of St Paul." Little or nothing? — I think, considering the person, and the advice by which he acted, the Doctor should not have discovered any disposition to yield, that there was even a little, or anything at all, in the action, incon- sistent with St Paul's doctrine. But let us consider the matter more closely. The law concerning the sin- offering (Lev. iv.) is so express to that purpose, that none can deny (nor do I know of any that doth deny' 120 INTRODUCTION TO THE that it was expiatory, and designed to make atonement. The two sacrifices, then, which, according to the Doctor in this place, were not expiatory, were the burnt-offering, and the peace-offering. It is likely to be the former that he means by the offering of acknowledgment of God's sovereign dominion ; and the latter, by the offering of thanksgiving. Thus some others of the learned have spoke ; though without good reason. For though they were not intended to be offered for expiation of par- ticular sins and trespasses, there is good reason to think they were offered for expiation of sin in general. As to the burnt-offerings not being expiatory, that notion is of set purpose, and fully confuted by Dr Whitby himself, in his notes on Eph. v. 2, and on Heb. ix. 19, to which I refer. I wonder it should be denied by any who considers Lev. i. 4, and I think it strange that any should suppose the burnt-offering of the morn- ing and evening sacrifice, accompanied with the burning of incense in the holy place, not to have been expiatory, and, indeed, the most common solemn type of the expiation to be made in due time by our Lord Jesus Christ. These daily sacrifices signified clearly, that God would accept of no service or worship from men, but by means of the expiation of sin. That all bloody sacrifices were in some sort expiatory, is, I think, very plain from what the Lord says concerning the blood, when he pre- hibits the common use of it (Lev. xvii. 1 1), For the life of the flesh is in the blood \ and I have given it to you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls : for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. It is reasonable to think, that in this all the bloody offerings of the Old Testament did typify that one great sacrifice that hath truly expiated sin. But to what purpose doth the Doctor here mention expiation at all ? Is it, that it would be ill to account for, that the apostle should concur in offering an expia- tory sacrifice, as being inconsistent with the gospel faith of a complete expiation having been actually made by the blood of Christ ; but that the offering of burnt-offerings and peace-offerings (neither of which, as he, in contra- EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 121 diction to himself insinuates, was expiatory) was not in- consistent with that faith, or with the abolition of the Mosaic law, said to be asserted by the apostle here (chap, vil)? What else could he mean? and yet if this was his meaning, it is evidently ridiculous, especially as the sin-offering was expiatory at any rate. To this second observation he adds : " And the advice here not being personally to make, or present these offerings, but only to purify himself" (how purify him- self, say I, but according to the purification of the Mosaic sanctuary ? ) " and to help the Nazarites in bear- ing some part of the charges of these offerings." He infers as above, that there was little or nothing incon- sistent with the doctrine of St Paul. But these Nazarites were Jewish Christians. Did he tell such at Rome (Rom. vii.;, that they were dead to the law that is, as he and some others interpret) free from the obligation of the Mosaic institutions ; and this liberty was needful to be asserted, in order to their being married to Christ, and bringing forth fruit unto God ? and doth he now contribute to confirm such persons at Jerusalem in their conscientious regard to that law, and its institutions, by officiously contributing to the expense of their sacrifices? These things are not quite con- sistent : besides, that this assisting merely to the ex- pense hath no foundation in the story. 3. The third consideration by which Dr Whitby endeavours to account for the apostle's conduct on this occasion, he expresses thus : " Though St Paul knew that these constitutions were not now obligatory in them- selves, yet, seeing they were rites belonging to that temple, which was yet standing, and God had not, by any express declaration made to the Jews, prohibited the continuance of them, St Paul might lawfully submit to this compliance with them, to prevent the scandal of the unbelieving Jews, which might divert them from that Christianity they had embraced." There must be an error of the press here (edit. 4). I suppose he meant to say, who had ?iot embraced Christianity. Put how comes the Doctor to say, that God had not prohibited 122 INTRODUCTION TO THE the continuance of these ordinances by any express declarations made to the Jews? Surely, according to his interpretation of Rom. vii. which was written before that time, the declarations there made are express enough to that purpose. If then the apostle thought it his duty, to make these declarations some time before to the Jews at Rome, in addressing them (separately, as is alleged) in that chapter, in writing which, he was under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it is likely to have been as much his duty to have made these declara- tions to the Jews at Jerusalem, instead of confirming them in the opposite sentiments and way, by such thorough and remarkable compliance with them, in a very solemn instance of practice. As to giving offence to the Jews, by refusing such compliance, let us but consider how great offence it would give to believing and unbeliev- ing Jews, when they should have occasion to observe the inconsistence between his doctrine (Rom. vii.), as that hath been interpreted, and his posterior practice at Jerusalem. The Doctor concludes his annotation on Acts xxi. 26, 27, with these remarkable and very instructive words : " Whence we may learn what great condescendence in lesser matters may be used for the promotion of the salvation of others." The condescension he means here to recommend, seems, from the nature of the subject, not to be the condescension of men's forbearing to impose and urge practices contrary to the sentiments and consciences of their brethren, but the condescension of others, in complying with the use of rites, ceremonies, observances, and practices, which they think ought not to be imposed ; and which, perhaps, they think cannot be complied with by them, as their light and views are, without sin. Indeed, if the apostle thought, that being free from the Mosaic law and institutions, and asserting that liberty was needful for such reasons and ends, as are mentioned (Rom. vi. and vii.), I cannot help thinking, that the compliance mentioned Acts xxi. was a great deal too much, and was an example not safe for a Christian to follow, by any principles or rules for keep- ing good conscience, or concerning offence, that I can EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 23 learn from the writings of the apostle himself, or from the scripture otherwise. However, such was, according to the Doctor, the apostle's doctrine (Rom. vii.). And so did he conceal, yea, contradict, that doctrine by his solemn practice (Acts xxi.), in compliance with the dangerous error of the Jews and Jewish Christians, and that for the promotion of the salvation of others. Alas, for these poor peevish persons of our times ! some cere- monial institutions (little, very little ones, matters quite indifferent in the eyes of the imposers, and so might be well wanted), are prescribed, not indeed by an authority altogether so venerable as that which had enjoined the Mosaic ordinances. We see how Paul condescended and complied. But these modern precisians will not comply with these ceremonial institutions for the pro- motion of themselves to livings, dignities, &c. in the church, or in the state, at the peril, as these poor narrow souls conceive, of their salvation, or to save themselves from low circumstances, and much needless expense! Yea, the Doctor hath brought his own account of things, respecting the apostle's conduct, under very great difficulty, by what he hath in the immediately preceding annotation on Acts xxi. 20. There he says, " The zealots among the believers were urgent for the circumcision of the Gentiles ; — but the whole body of the converted Jews, bishops, elders, as well as the laity, were zealous for the observation of the laws and customs by the Jew;." Then he brings quotations from Philo and Josephus to show how much the Jews would suffer, rather than abandon God's ordinances. These are very needlessly brought, since godly persons of all nations and times have agreed, that it were better to die, than to desert, or renounce, or counteract divine institutions and appoint- ments. Then he tells, that the Jewish Christians knew of no revelation made by God — that the Mosaic institu- tions were to cease after the death of the Messiah. Downwards he hath these words : " Yet it pleased God not yet to convince them of this error, by any revelation or any afflatus of that Spirit, which many of them had received." But was there not any revelation, or afflatus, 124 INTRODUCTION TO THE or divine inspiration, when the apostle had some time before written according to the Doctor's paraphrase, thus (Rom. vii. 4): " Wherefore, my brethren, as the woman is free from the law of her husband by his death, even so ye also are become dead to the law, and so free from it by the crucifixion of the body of Christ, which hath dissolved your obligation to the law, as the death of the husband the obligation of the wife to him ; that ye should or may be married to another?'' There is no removing these difficulties arising from the apostle's conduct (Acts xxi.), according to the Doctor's account of things. But upon a just view of matters, there is no real difficulty at all — no inconsistence between the apostle's conduct (Acts xxi.) and any doctrine he had previously taught. He practised (Acts xxi.) according to the law of Moses, being an Israelite. But he had not before that time, in Rom. vii., or on any other occasion, publicly taught, that Israelites were made free from the obligations of that law. Yea, his practice (Acts xxi.), which we have been considering, is an unanswerable argument, that in Rom. vii. he did not so teach ; and that he is misunderstood by those who interpret him in that way. To what hath been said, we may add what the apostle offered on different occasions, for vindicating himself to the Jews, or to others, against the accusations of the Jews. We are told (Acts xxv. 7) that the Jews laid before Festus many and grievous complaints against Paul, wliich they could not prove ; and (ver. 8), He answered for himself, neither against the law of the Jews, neither against the temple — have I offended anything at all. It could not be accounted for, that any man of common honesty, who had in so public manner, as in an epistle to the church of Rome, asserted that the law of the Jews was abrogated, and, consequently, that the service of the temple ought to be no longer celebrated, — would now, before the seat of judgment, assert, that he had not offended against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple. Nor do I see how, in the supposed case, his ingenuity could be vindicated, when he said, some time after this, at Rome, to the chief Jews of that place (when EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 25 it is not unlikely that some of the Christians might have been present, to whom he had sometime before addressed this epistle), I have committed nothing against the people or customs of our fathers (Acts xxviii. 17). What! com- mitted nothing against the customs of their fathers ! if, in the epistle he had written some time ago to the Christians of that place, he had asserted the abolition of all these customs ! For my part, after all the closest attention I was capable of, to all that is said of the law, or of any particular matter respecting it, in this epistle to the Romans, — I am well satisfied that there is nothing in it of the abrogation of the Mosaic law with regard to the Jews, or their ex- emption from its obligation, — that it is nowhere therein asserted, — that it is not a principle from which the apostle argues, — nor a conclusion he infers from any principles. I see nothing in this epistle to the Romans, that can be urged with any appearance of force, as importing the abolition of the Mosaic law ; if it is not what we have in the 14th chapter. There appears in it a considerable difference in the practice of Christians about meats and holy days. This matter was the occasion of judging and condemning upon one side, and of contempt and un- charitable neglect upon the other ; and the peace of the church was much endangered by the difference. This we may learn from these words (ver. 19/, Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace. It has been generally thought, that these weak persons were Jewish believers, who did not yet under- stand or receive their liberty from the Mosaic yoke. If indeed they were Jews, the apostle's calling them weak, for their adherence to the rules of that law, would imply, that the authority and obligation of that law had ceased. But it does not appear that the Jews generally had sufficient cause to think, that their law was abrogated. The consequence of this is that they generally had good reason to think it their duty to observe that law : and that they cannot be the persons charged on that account with weakness. Besides, in the disputes with the Jews, 126 INTRODUCTION TO THE the question commonly turned on the necessity of men's being circumcised, and so brought under the obligation of the whole Mosaic law. But when the question turned on the subject of meats and holy days, I incline to think they were others than* Jewish converts whose scrupulosity is there represented. The many thousands of the Jews who believed in Judea were zealous for the law. The apostles themselves at Jerusalem joined with them in the temple worship and service. The apostle Paul, a Jew, came under the Nazarite vow, and celebrated the expiration of his vow according to the rules of the law, as we have seen. These things being so, there can be no reason to think, that their brethren of the Gentiles, who probably held pious Jewish converts in much veneration, and who might be well content with enjoying their own liberty, would despise the believers of the Jews for their Judaical observances ; or that any differences would arise among them upon these accounts, that would endanger the peace of the church. The peace of the church was indeed much disturbed by the endeavours of some Jews to impose the Mosaic law upon believers of the Gentiles. But that the Gentiles would disturb or despise believers who were of the Jews, for observing their own law, is by no means likely. There is nothing in this 14th chapter but may be well accounted for, by understanding these weak persons to have been believers of the Gentiles : nor is it at all unreasonable to think, that there were of them such weak persons. It is to be considered, that a great many of the Gentiles, who had been converted by the gospel, had been proselytes to Judaism, and perhaps had been the children of such, brought up from childhood in that way, as Timothy had been. Although these might agree to the declaration of the liberty of the Gentiles, as to the main of things, yet we may easily suppose that something might stick with them. They had received divine revelation, the word of God, and the faith, by which they expected to be saved, from the Jews. It is no wonder if for this they did retain a great EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. \2J veneration for that people, and for their institutions. Besides, they might think that the distinction of meats, clean and unclean, had a more early authority, and more extensive obligation, as the distinction of beasts clean and unclean, had been mentioned by God in his directions to Noah. Nor need we wonder, if they retained a regard for the Jewish holy days. We know how tenacious Christians have been to this day, of ancient festivals, which derive their origin, some of them from Judaism, some of them from heathenism itself. Although they knew themselves to be by the gospel happily set free from these peculiar institutions of the church of Israel, to which they were obliged, when, as proselytes of righteousness, they were admitted by circumcision to be members of that church ; yet they might think themselves still obliged to these rules, which, not being members of that church, but proselytes of the gate, they had carefully observed ; such as the distinction of meats, and some other things compre- hended under these, called the precepts of the sons of Noah. It may also be easily conceived, that they would be likely to retain a regard for the sanctity of these days, on which the annual feast, and the several great festivals were solemnized. This may be the more easily conceived of some Gentile converts at Rome, if we consider that the Galatians, Gentiles as they were for most part, were so prone to desert wholly their valuable liberty, and to submit to the whole law of Moses, as appears in the epistle addressed to them. The apostle doth indeed say in this chapter (Rom. xiv. 14), / know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself. This may import, that there is not in any sort of thing, otherwise fit for food, any intrinsic uncleanness, such that the eating thereof would bring moral defilement on a man, for anything in its own nature. This was clearly implied in the liberty granted to the Gentiles from these regula- tions concerning beasts clean or unclean ; so that such Gentile converts as scrupled the use of them, did therein 128 INTRODUCTION TO THE show weakness. But there is nothing in this decisive against Jewish converts, or to prove them to be weak, for observing the regu'ations of a law which they did not know to be abrogated, with respect to them ; even while they might acknowledge that there was no natural or intrinsic uncleanness in the prohibited meats. But now, upon the whole, to give freely my own opinion concerning the abolition of the Mosaic law and institutions, and the ceasing of their obligation, I believe there was good reason for it from the death of Christ. So it was said (Dan. ix. 27), In the midst of the week (so is expressed the time of his suffering) he shall cause the sacrifice and oblation to cease : his death was the cause of the ceasing of these services. When the sub- stance and body was exhibited, the reason ceased for entertaining the church with these shadows ; and a more spiritual way of worship did better become the more spiritual dispensation of the gospel. This became good reasoning, when it became the reasoning of the Holy Ghost. Otherwise, this, or any other human reasoning, could not make a sufficient warrant for men to withdraw from subjection to a law and ordinances so expressly and solemnly instituted and promulgated by God him- self. Nothing could be sufficient for this purpose to the Jews but a public, clear, express, and well-vouched divine revelation. When the gospel was first preached, we do not find in the book of Acts, that the apostles mentioned on any occasion, that the gospel was to supersede the obligation of the Mosaic law, as to the Jews. Therefore, such Jews as received the gospel observed the Mosaic law, and were zealous for it ; and we find that the apostles were so far from giving disturbance or offence on that account, that they ordinarily joined with them in that way of worship. Grotius, on Rom. vii., observes, that for a while after the synod of Jerusalem, Paul contented himself with intimating wherever he came, their decree concern- ing the liberty of the Gentiles. As to declaring the liberty of the Jews from the law of Moses, he says, Nondum erat tempus, it was not yet the proper season : EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 29 and I say that this was the case when the epistle to the Romans was written, and for some time thereafter. Although there is no reason to doubt that the apostles themselves did, by this time, know (at least Paul probably did know) that the Judaical ordinances were to be abolished, they did not, however, think it yet the fit season for giving out the revelation they had of this to the Jewish converts, nor were they directed yet to publish it ; and that for such good reason as their blessed Lord had mentioned to themselves (John xvi. 12), I have ret many tilings to say unto yon, but yc cannot bear them now. They might give instruction concerning this matter to more advanced Christians; and it might be a part of that wisdom which Paul did speak among them that were perfect (grown up from childhood to be men in Christ) ; but being under the direction of divine wisdom, they did not think fit to give out openly, that it was the will of God to abolish wholly the Mosaic s\ stem of ordinances, ceremonial service and observances, with respect to the Jews themselves, until the gospel- faith should be well established, and take deep root with the Jewish Christians. We find in the second chapter of the epistle to the Ephesians, and in the second of the epistle to the Colossians, which were churches of the Gentiles, some- thing concerning the abolition of the Jewish ordinances. These epistles were written some while after writing this to the Romans (three years thereafter, according to Dr Whitby's chronology), and after Paul's conduct at Jerusalem, related Acts xxi., which we have been con- sidering ; Paul himself being then a prisoner at Rome. It was some time thereafter (about two years) that the divine revelation concerning this matter was clearly and fully given forth, in the epistle to the Hebrews. A great event was to happen, that would tend much to cause the Jewish Christians more readily to receive the declaration of the abrogation of the Mosaic law : that was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, ac- cording to the prediction of our blessed Lord ; by which it became impossible to celebrate the chief ordi- I 130 INTRODUCTION TO THE nances of that law. Accordingly, about five years before that event, was the epistle to the Hebrews written. It might take that much time for that epistle to be sufficiently spread among the Hebrew Christians in the east, and for it to operate somewhat in their minds. Then, in the seventieth year of our Lord, the revelation and doctrine of the epistle to the Hebrews was con- firmed by the dreadful event of the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, and the awful vengeance that was executed on the Jewish nation. In that epistle to the Hebrews, who of all the Jews had the warmest zeal for the Mosaic institutions, revela- tion speaks clear and full of the abolition of these. There the inspired writer shows the Mosaic sacrifices to be ineffectual for the purpose of expiating sin. There he proves, from the scriptures of the Old Testament, that God intended to set up a priesthood different from the Aaronic ; and to constitute Christ a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. From this he argues in a manner clear and just (chap. vii. 12), The priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law. So with the abolition of the Levitical priesthood, the whole system of the Levitical and Mosaic institutions fell down, and were no longer of force. What hath been said may satisfy us, that when the apostle says here (chap. vii. 4) Ye are become dead to the lazv ; and (ver. 6) We are delivered from the law ; he doth not mean it of the Jews being made free from the obliga- tion of the Mosaic ceremonial law, or of its precepts and institutions. None mention the judicial law of the commonwealth of Israel on this occasion ; nor can we understand him as meaning to derogate, in any degree, from the authority or obligation of the commandments of the moral law. What the apostle means by being dead to the law, and being delivered from it, will be the subject of inquiry in the following sheets : where ex- plaining of the marriage with the law that he speaks of, and the dissolution of that marriage, will make it clear in what sense he means being delivered from the law. This might be a fit place for representing the general EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 3 I scope and contents of this seventh chapter. It seems to be acknowledged by learned interpreters, that the apostle designs in it to explain what he had said (chap. vi. 14). He there insinuated, that they who are under the law, are under the dominion of sin. It is obvious, that his explanations in the first part of the chapter (vers. I- 1 3) do respect that point. Whether the latter context (vers. 14-25) doth represent the condition and circumstances of those who are under grace, with regard to sin, is to be inquired into in the proper place. For anything more particular, it is fit to refer to the explications here followiner. EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE ROMANS VII. Text.— I. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man, as long as he liveth ? Explication. — These writers who suppose the apostle was, in the 5th and 6th chapters, speaking to the Gentiles separately, and as contradistinguished to the Jewish converts, do at the same time suppose, that, in this seventh chapter, he speaks to the Jews separately, and as contradistinguished to the Gentiles. There were indeed a good many Jewish converts in the church at Rome. But as the apostle doth all along consider the Romans as a church of the Gentiles, and commonly addresses them as such ; to say, that in a particular place, without distinctly intimating that view, he turns aside to speak to the Jewish converts separately and apart, would need to be supported by good reasons. Two things they adduce from this verse to that purpose. One, that he calls them brethren, for such the Jews were to the apostle by nation and descent. The other, that he supposes them especially to know the law ; as indeed the Jews valued themselves much upon the law, and their knowledge, of it. But these things do by no means make out the point. The apostle does commonly call Christians of any nation, brethren. In the beginning of chap. x. he uses the com- pellation, brethren, to the Gentiles, when he is speaking 132 Ver. i] EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 33 to them concerning the Jews. No church was more to be denominated Gentile than that of Thessalonica. For of the conversion of the Jews in that place, it is said (Acts xvii. 4), that SOME of them believed. The conversion of the Gentiles is related in these words: Of the devout Greeks A GREAT MULTITUDE. If we suppose, as we reasonably should, that the devout Greeks, or proselytes were not idolaters, it would seem that a great number were, after this good beginning, soon converted from heathenism, as it is said (1 Thess. i. 9) that they turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true God: so that few comparatively of that church were Jews by nation. Yet in his first epistle to them, which is a short one, compared with this to the Romans, he uses the compellation of brethren to them in common, no less than sixteen times. In his supposing that they knew the law, whether he means the law concerning marriage, of which in the next verses, and which was common to the Jews and other nations, or the law in general ; there is nothing in it but what will suit the Roman Gentile Christians, as well as those who were Jews by nation. Such of them as had been proselytes, had been directed to study the Scriptures. Timothy was brought up from childhood in the knowledge of them ; and the Ethiopian eunuch returning homeward, and sitting in his chariot, he lead in the prophecy of Isaiah. Christians brought from the darkness of heathenism, did doubtless greatly value the rich treasure of light and knowledge ihey found in the scripture, and studied it carefully. So that, whatever knowledge the Jews had of the law, or of an)' divine things by revelation, was communicated to the converted Gentiles by the scripture ; and there, as in the fountain, they had divine truth, without that mixture of traditional and superstitious trash, by which the Jews pretty com- monly explained, darkened, and perverted the Scripture. The Gentile converts had likewise the more easy access to the Scriptures, to which the preachers of the gospel did so commonly remit them, that they were then extant in a language (the Greek) pretty commonly known in 134 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. I all civilised nations. So the two things above mentioned make no reason at all for thinking that he speaks here to the Jews separately, — a conceit that has greatly per- plexed things in explaining this chapter. As to the purpose the apostle now enters upon, it appears to be this : He had said (chap. vi. 14), Sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. This insinuates, that whilst persons are under the law, they are under the dominion of sin. There was great need to explain this. The law is the rule of holiness, and strictly requires it. Sin is the trans- gression of the law, and is prohibited by every precept of it, under a heavy sanction. Whereas, on the other hand, grace aboundeth in the pardoning of sin. Now, to say that sin hath dominion over men, by occasion of being under the law, that thus prohibits it, and denounces wrath and judgment for it ; and that men become free from the dominion of sin, by being under grace that pardons it. hath, at first sight, great appearance of •paradox, or mystery. It is indeed the mystery of the gospel, in what concerns sanctification; which the apostle saw it of great consequence to explain ; as he doth in the following context. In the first thirteen verses, he carefully vindicates the law from being in any sort blame- able for the sinfulness, or actual sins of men. He at the same time shows, that all the light and authority of the law is so far from subduing sin in men, that it doth, as thereby awakened and irritated, the more exert itself, and show its extreme wickedness. In the beginning of this chapter, he sets out with illustrating his doctrine by the similitude of marriage; and in this first verse, he lays down the general principle contained in it. It appears by the next following verses, that the relation between the law and those who are under it, he compares to that between husband and wife. The only thing besides that I have occasion to observe in this verse is, that the last clause, as long as he liveth, is so expressed in the Greek, that it may be connected with the lazv, thus ; as long as it (the law) liveth, or is Vers. 2, 3] OF ROMANS VII. 135 in force ; or with man thus ; as long as lie (the man) liveth. Without determining precisely in favour of the one way preferably to the other, there seems to be occa- sion rather to observe a special skill in the apostle's forming his expression in this part, so as that the last clause may be connected at once with both the ante- cedents, thus : The lazv hath dominion over a man, as long as liveth the law (which hath here the place of the husband), or the person that hath the place of the wife in relation to that husband. To take the expression thus, suits the nature of the subject ; as marriage is dis- solved by the death of either party ; and though in setting forth the similitude in the two following verses, he mentions only the dissolution of the marriage by the death of the husband (here representing the law;, yet in the 4th verse he asserts the deliverance of Christians (meant by the wife in the similitude) from the law by their being dead to it. Text. — 2. For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth'; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. 3. So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress : but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law ; so that she is no adulteress though she be married to another man. Anything here which it were of consequence to explain, will be more fitly considered in explaining the following verses ; wherein the matter here designed for a simili- tude, and the principles concerning it, are applied to the apostle's particular purpose. Any explication fit to be suggested here, may be comprehended, and expressed briefly in the following Paraphrase. — i. I have said (chap. vi. 14) that sin shall not have dominion over yon ; for ye are not under the laze, but under grace. I come now to explain the important subject to you : and I begin to lead you into the understanding of my meaning and doctrine, some- I36 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 4 what in the allegorical way, and by a similitude taken from a matter of which you cannot be ignorant. For I presume that all of you, my dear brethren and fellow- Christians, being believers, members of the church of God, and having his word for the rule of your faith, and the subject of your study and meditation ; that, I say, you know the law, and this principle concerning it, that the law hath dominion over a man ; such as a husband hath over his wife (eft 6aov xpovov &) for so long time as liveth either the law, or the person who had been under the law, and no longer : for the death of either party dissolves the marriage covenant and relation, and the obligations arising therefrom. 2. For, to exemplify this upon one side, the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law of marriage, and by the marriage covenant, to her husband as long as he liveth ; but when the husband is dead, she is loosed from the marriage law and covenant, by which she was bound to her husband. 3. The consequence then is, if the woman during her husband's life shall be married to another man, that she shall be called (shall be indeed) an adulteress ; but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law, according to which she might be charged with crime and reproach; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. In like manner, if you have been married to the law, and have had it, by a sacred covenant, for your husband, this bond could not be dissolved by mere will or fancy. It hath been a covenant and relation for life ; so it is death that dissolves it. Text. — 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. EXPLICATION.— For the right understanding of this verse, it is needful to explain — 1. What is meant by the law. 2. What by being dead to the law. 3. How we are to understand being married to the law, and after- Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 137 wards to Christ. 4. How the marriage with the law is dissolved, and by what means. 5. The consequence of that marriage being dissolved, and of our being married to Christ. The explaining of these important points, which will contribute much to our conceiving justly the scope of this whole context, as well as the sense of this verse, is likely to come out to a considerable length. 1. What is meant by the law. — It has been proved already, that the law here is not to be understood of the Mosaic ceremonial law. Mr Locke's notion will be considered by itself hereafter. Certainly we can under- stand no other here by the law than the moral law, that universal rule of duty that hath been given to mankind fenced with the sanction of death for transgression, which may be reasonably supposed to imply a promise of life for obedience, and which contained the matter of the first covenant. This law was generally known by men, though with different degrees of light. The heathens did, by nature's direction, the things contained in the law 'chap. ii. 14, 15), and showed the work of the law written in their hearts (not the work of sanctifying, for that is not the work of the law, as is here proven, but), the marking out to men their duty, and giving the knowledge of sin and of judgment for it, their con- sciences bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or excusing, according to the degree of light they had. In what they thought their duty, they could have satisfaction, and an agreeable self-approbation. By doing ill, the peace of their mind was disturbed; their consciences accused them, and they were self-condemned. As sin abounded in them, there was a secret misgiving and fear. They made a shift to make life as agreeable as they could by the amusement of speculation, or by exercise and employment, or by temporary earthly enjoyments ; in which pretty commonly they went to a length, in various sorts of self-indulgence, according to their abilities and opportunities, that was extremely criminal. By such means they often smothered and overcame apprehen- sions, against which they knew not the true comfort, or proper remedy. 138 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 But it appears that in the heathens, this habitual latent fear, that ever attends a state of condemnation, was easily awakened, so as to rise to a high degree, and to be the cause of much superstition, and of some horrible methods for appeasing the wrath of heaven, and averting judgments. The church of God anciently had a much more clear and extensive knowledge of the law, and of judgment for transgression, and that by the solemn promulgation of it at Sinai ; and afterwards by the scripture, which contained the explication and enforcement of it from time to time by the prophets. Though the apostle doth not mean here to restrict his doctrine and argument to any law that was peculiar to the Jews, yet in speaking of the law, he seems to have in his eye that clearer light of the law by revelation, which the Jews enjoyed ; as we have cause to think from his mentioning a commandment expressly set forth in the decalogue, in which the sum of the law was given them, Thou shall not covet. In the scriptures of the Old Testament, we find men, on divers occasions, expressing the conviction of sin, and fearful impression of judgment, which they conceived by the law in their consciences. In the first time of the gospel, it was the impression and authority of the law in their consciences, roused and awakened by the sermon of the apostle Peter (Acts ii.), that caused his numerous hearers, pricked in their heart, to cry out to him, and to the other apostles (ver. 37), Men and brethren, what shall we do ? Though the jailor at Philippi was a heathen, and so a stranger to that light of the law that shined in the church, yet it was the conviction of sin. and impression of judgment, that was by the law in his conscience, suddenly and powerfully awakened, that made him cry out to Paul and Silas (Acts xvi. 30) What must I do to be saved? And the law hath still the same effect to produce in souls that have been at ease in their sins, to awaken them' to a serious concern about their salvation. All men are, — every man singly is, as to his real spiritual state, either under the law, and under the curse and wrath that it denounces for sin ; or, by being in Christ, Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 139 united to him truly by faith, under grace, in actual grace and favour with God. They are these who are not thus under grace, but under the curse, having the wrath of God abiding on them, that are under the law in the sense of the apostle here ; as we shall see in considering the several verses of this context. As I have given my view of what the apostle means here by the law, and by being under the law, I desire the reader to observe, as we go along, if there is anything in this context that doth not suit this view ; there certainly is not. Some learned men, who, from attachment to their particular system, are averse from this view, and en- deavour to turn things another way, to the ceremonial law and dispensation, or to something or other peculiar to the Jews, do an ill-office to Christians, and labour to shut up from them a source of much useful instruction. Certainly, several things are here said of the law, and of being under it, that cannot be applied to anything peculiar to the Jews, or to the Old-Testament dispensa- tion, without much absurdity. The evidence to this purpose will come in our way, as we go along. 2. What is meant by being dead to the law. — The conse- quences of death are various, with respect to various subjects. Here the death mentioned hath respect to marriage ; and evidently means the dissolution of that marriage that hath been between persons and the law. As death dissolves marriage, so the dissolution of this marriage is expressed by being dead to the law. The believer is no longer married to the law ; he is made tree from that yoke ; and from all obligation arising from that connection and relation. He had also mentioned (ver. 1) the law's having dominion over a man. In so far as that dominion coin- cides with the right and claim of the law as a husband, being dead to it imports being made free from that dominion of the law. But it is the explication of the remaining points that are proposed to be the subject of inquiry on this verse, that will fully explain the meaning of being dead to the law; and that will, at the same time, show a special 140 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. \ reason why the apostle expresses, being made free from the law, and from its dominion as a husband, by being dead to it. Without anticipating things out of their more proper place, let us now be satisfied with the general view of the matter that hath been given, and proceed to the next point. 3. How is to be understood being married to the law, and being married to Christ. — The special thing which Dr Whitby supposes to be in view under the metaphor of marriage, is, the subjection of the wife to her husband, and so the subjection of persons to the law, who were under it and married to it. The Mosaic law he means, for he was far from thinking that persons are disobliged from subjection to the precepts of the moral law. His paraphrase runs thus (ver. 2) : " The woman which hath a?i husband, is bound by the taw to be SUBJECT to her husband — But if the husband be dead, she is then free from the lazv of SUBJECTION to her husband. — And ver. 3. — If her husband be dead, she is free from that law, which bound her to be in SUBJECTION, and yield con- jugal affection to her husband only. — And ver. 6, that being dead wherein we were held in SUBJECTION, as the wife is to her living husband." Here it appears, that the Doctor understood, as indeed several others have done, the apostle's scope and meaning to be, to show the freedom even of Jews and Jewish converts from the Mosaic ritual and ceremonial law ; and from the obligation or subjection thereto. This notion has been sufficiently disproved in the introduction to this chapter. In order to reach the apostle's meaning, it is fit to consider the special things that do naturally arise from the marriage covenant and relation between a woman and her husband. In the first place, the woman is entitled, by the marriage covenant and relation, to support and pro- tection from her husband ; and that he provide for her welfare and happiness ; and she hath cause to depend on, and confide in him for this, so far as she shall show herself dutiful to him. It is said to the woman (Gen. iii. 16), Ver. 4] OF ROMA XS VII. 141 Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. There is no question but the expression, thy desire shall be to thy liusband, implies her dependence, as it does when it is used concerning Abel (chap. iv. 7). But then it implies not only dependence of inferiority and subjection, but likewise dependence of trust and confidence. So that applying this to the apostle's subject and design in this place, it comes to this : That persons married to the law have had dependence en that husband for support and protection, and his providing for their welfare ; and this as connected with subjection to the rule of that husband, and obedience to his commands. To establish the meaning I have given of that expression, it is fit to observe the meaning and use of it in some other places ; and I expect that fixing the meaning of the expression will give considerable light concerning the meaning of these texts I am to mention. One of them is Isa. xxvi. 8, Yea, in the way of thy judgments, 0 Lord, ha: rated for thee, — that is, trusted in thee. It looks strangely, to profess trust and confidence in God, when he is dealing in way of wrath and judgment with men. But the church accounts for this trust and confidence, and shows the reason and sure ground on which it is founded, by adding, The desire of our soul 'an Hebraism, the same as our desire — see on chap. vi. 12) is to thy NAMF, and to the renicmbranee of thee, — rather, to thy memorial, as the word is rendered in the text to be presently cited. The sense of this is to be taken from Exod. hi. 15, / am Jehovah, the God of Abraham — this is my NAME for ever, and this is my MEMORIAL to all generations. The God of Abraham is the summary of the covenant of grace, as exhibited to Abraham, and to the faithful, as his spiritual seed. So when the church expresses her trust and confidence in God Isa. xxvi. 8), even when he was dealing with her in way of anger and judgment, she gives a good reason for it. when she says, Our desire is to thy name, and to thy memorial ; our dependence is on what thou hast given 142 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 to our fathers for thy everlasting name and memorial ; and so we are confident, that angry as thou justly art, yet thy covenant, O unchangeable almighty JEHOVAH, shall stand firm, and take full effect in our behalf. Thus also 1 Sam. ix. 20, On whom is all the DESIRE of Israel? is it not on thee, and on all thy father's house ? This is not said historically, for few of Israel at that time knew Saul, but prophetically, as if he had said, — Thou art to be King, — the anointed of the Lord, on whom all Israel shall have their dependence, that under thy shadow (Lam. iv. 20) they shall live among the heathen. So likewise 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, after mentioning God's covenant, everlasting, well ordered, and sure, David adds, For his is all my salvation and all my DESIRE. Of which last expression this is likely to be the meaning : This covenant of God's grace is that on which I have my dependence, and found my confidence for all my hope and my salvation. It seems reasonable to understand in the same sense that expression, (Hag. ii. 7), The DESIRE of all nations shall come ; which is to be taken as said, not historically (as was observed concerning, the words of Samuel to Saul), but prophetically — He who shall be the desire of all nations, on whom God's people of all nations shall have their dependence, and found their confidence ; as all nations are to be blessed in him. The sense of the expression is now pretty clear ; and, as the Lord said to our first mother, Thy desire shall be to thy husband, so, according to the apostle's similitude and style, if sinners are married to the law, the con- sequence is, their desire is to that husband ; they confide in and depend on that husband (the law) for protecting them, for securing their standing before God, for pro- viding and insuring happiness to them, in consequence of their obedience to the commandments of that husband. But, alas ! this wife hath broken her covenant with her husband ; she hath gone astray from him, and preferred the interest and gratification of others, to his commands, honour, and pleasure; she hath disregarded his com- Ver. 4] of roma xs vii. 143 mands, and dealt most undutifully with him. Whatever imaginary hopes she may still entertain of good from him, being insensible of her own ill behaviour, she hath indeed nothing to expect from him but just rigour and wrath. This, viz., that the sinner cannot attain justi- fication, or any of its comfortable consequences, by the law, hath been the apostle's subject in the first four or five chapters of this epistle. But though the explaining the apostle's similitude of marriage led us to say so much of the matter, and that by the way we found occasion to offer light concerning some texts of scrip- ture, yet, if we consider somewhat closely, we may be soon satisfied, that that is not the particular matter in his view in the present context (chap. vii. 1 - 1 3) ; and that it is another consequence of the marriage covenant and relation that he hath in his eye. In the next place, then, the wife expects to be fruitful b*r means of her husband. That this is the particular point now in the apostle's view is evident. During the former marriage with the law, the fruit was, as ver. 5, to bring forth FRUIT unto death. But, as in this 4th verse, the consequence of the dissolution of the marriage with the law, and of being married to Christ is, to bring fortJi FRUIT unto God ; and being delivered from the law, the Christian is enabled to serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. This evidently suits what is generally observed and acknowledged to be the scope and design of this context, viz., to explain what the apostle had said, chap. vi. 14, where in enforcing the exhortation to holiness, he suggests this encouragement, Sin sJiall not have dominion over you ; for ye are not under the lawi but under grace ; which clearly implies, that whilst under the law, and married to it, sin having dominion over them, they could not bring forth fruit unto God. These things have no special respect to the peculiar institutions of the Mosaic law. The case plainly is, that men in all times are concerned with the law of God, particularly the moral law ; which includes under its authority, and in the comprehensive meaning of its 144 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 precept, all positive divine institutions, whether before the fall or after it, whether under the Old or the New Testament dispensation. The marriage with the law is dissolved but in one way here mentioned. Every one is married with the law, and is under the dismal con- sequence of being so, as matters stand with sinners, until they be delivered from the law in the way here suggested. To take a general view of the matter, we may say, that this marriage with the law hath its foundation in the original constitution of things, and in the covenant God made at first with man. When God made man, and gave him his law, with the threatening of death denounced against transgression, and the promise therein im- plied, of life for obedience, it was by obedience to the law that man was to live, and by the influence of its light and authority, he was to be fruitful in all holiness and righteousness. Although there hath happened, by sin, a sad alteration in man's condition, yet still the ri^ht of the law, that first husband, hath subsisted. It continues to be the right of the law, that none shall attain justification and life but by its means, and by perfect obedience to it. It continues to be the right of the law, that men should, by the influence of its light and authority, bring forth fruit unto God. Though man by the guiltiness and corruption he hath incurred, hath become incapable of justification or sanctification by the law (which tends to make his condition quite deplor- able), yet such doth the right of the law, the first husband, continue to be, until the marriage with the law is dis- solved in the way pointed out here by the apostle. Upon the other hand, if we consider the matter on man's part, we shall find, however obnoxious man is to the law by transgression and guilt — and however opposite to the holiness of the law in his nature and practice — that there is still naturally in men a strong attachment to this first marriage, and inclination to look for protec- tion or justification, for fruitfulness, sanctification, and final happiness, by the first husband, the law. The light, principles, and sentiments, which are naturally in Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. I 45 the minds of men, mark out to them no other way to life, but by the law, and obedience thereto. Nor doth nature show any other way to holiness and fruitfulness but by the concurrence of their own powers, and earnest endeavours with the light and authority of the law. Besides the sentiments that are naturally in the minds of men, there are naturally principles in the hearts of men that favour this first marriage, and that contribute to its subsisting, even when it can yield no comfort or real benefit. The way of life and fruitfulness (however now impossible) between this first husband, and the natural human powers, hath something in it that greatly suits the pride — that self-exalting principle — that is naturally in the hearts of men ; which, while it honours the law in appearance, doth indeed give to men them- selves the honour of all their good works, and of their hope of eternal life. Thus, by the original right of the law, by the senti- ments of men's own minds, and by the principles that naturally prevail in their hearts, this marriage, with the law, subsists until it is dissolved by the death of one or other party, or of both, according to the apostle's figurative way of representing the matter. From what hath been said, it is the more easy to understand what it imports to be married to Christ. The less needs be said on it in this place. Briefly, and in the general, the believer's being united to Christ by faith, and by the Spirit of Christ — being called of God to the fellowship of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, — and he and they being in the sight of God, and accord- ing to the law of grace, held as one ; they have the fellowship of his righteousness for their justification, and of his grace otherwise for sanctification and fruitfulness, and for their complete salvation and happiness. The fourth thing which this verse offers to our considera- tion is, 4. How the marriage with the law is dissolved a)id by what means. — The apostle, in setting forth the similitude, by which he illustrates his subject, had observed, that marriage is dissolved by death ; and now here (ver. 4), K I46 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 he tells the believers, that they are DEAD to the law. The question then comes to this : How is this death to the law, that dissolves the marriage with it, brought about ? The law itself contributes its part to this event. So the apostle says (Gal. ii. 19), / through the law am dead to the law. The law, the first husband, is indeed dead itself, as to the power of effecting the design of marriage. Never was any more dead than the law is, as to the power of giving justification, or fruitfulness in holiness, to sinners. Yet it lives in the fearful sanction of death and the curse to sinners : and they must all have died by its hands, in rigorous and just revenge of their undutifulness and disobedience, if a way had not been found for their relief. A sinner, whose ear hath been opened to the law, and his conscience and heart awakened by it, finds its demands, as to a justifying righteousness wholly beyond his reach ; and that there can be nothing to him from it, but wrath and destruc- tion, as he is a transgressor. If it requires fruitfulness in holiness, it is as a hard task-master, and doth not afford the means and assistance necessary for the work. The sinner, receiving a just view of this with deep im- pression, can no longer have his desire to that husband, or have his dependence on him, for any good to himself. Despairing of himself, and of the law, he must look another way for relief. God himself, of his manifold wisdom, uncontrollable sovereignty, and rich grace, hath provided a way of relief. Matters having failed between mankind and this first husband he had assigned them, he hath provided a second husband for them, even Christ. So in our text (ver. 4), Ye also are become dead to the law by tlie body of Christ, that is, by Christ crucified. By this most properly and effectually are persons made dead to the law. The law itself hath its subserviency, as we have seen, in separating sinners from that its first husband. But by the body of Christ crucified is the happy event truly brought about. If the first husband had a claim of justice against them for their undutiful behaviour, the Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII 14/ crucifixion of the body of Christ, whereby sin hath been expiated, and which is the consummation of that righteousness by which he hath fulfilled the law, hath answered the claim of the law. So the resentment of that first husband cannot reach them. They are, as by death, delivered from it ; as a bond servant is by death delivered from a hard master, or a wife from the yoke of a rigorous husband. By his death Christ hath acquired his people, or church, to be his own spouse. Thus the first marriage is dissolved ; the law cannot claim, as a husband, that persons should have dependence on it, as they are provided for in a better way. Here likewise we may observe a reason why the true believer's deliverance from the law is very properly ex- pressed by being dead to it. It is by being dead with Clirist (chap. vi. 8), by their fellowship with Christ in his death, and by their interest in his death, and in the fruits thereof, that they are thus delivered from the law, and that an end is put to their relation to the law as their husband ; as they are also said to have been raised together with Christ. If they are said to be dead to the law (which they are by their fellowship with Christ in his death), and yet after this their death to be married to another, there is no incon- gruity in it. If they are dead in one respect, in another respect they live, being risen together with Christ to a new being and life, as his spouse or wife ; as he having died to acquire them to himself for his spouse, hath, by rising from the dead, proved himself capable to cause them to live, and to do the part of a husband to them, in protecting, caring for them, and securing effectually their eternal welfare. Hence the desire of true Chris- tians is to this their new husband, and they have their dependence on him for all things ; until at length he bring home his church to himself, when she shall have the full fruition of him, in everlasting glory and blessedness. Now as to all this blessed fruit of Christ's death and resurrection, we are not to think that it did' not at all take place until he was actually crucified, died, and rose 148 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 again ; or until the subsequent more full display of gospel light. These things are indeed now set forth by the gospel in a much more clear light, and are better understood than under the former more dark dispensa- tion. The grounds of our confidence and our liberty are now fully exhibited to us ; and since Christ ascended up on high, and hath received gifts for men, the fruits of his death and resurrection are much more abundant and plentiful to the church. But we are not to connect the disadvantages of being under the law, here mentioned, with the legal pedagogy of the Old Testament ; or to suppose that the advantages by Christ, here set forth under the figure of being married with him, do solely belong to the gospel times and dispensation, and are connected with the abrogation of the Mosaic law. They who understand the apostle's scope and meaning in that way, do, in explaining the matters contained in this context, bring themselves into absurdity and embarrass- ment, out of which there is no disentangling them on their general view of the apostle's argument. This may be somewhat understood by what hath been said, and will be more and more clear as we proceed in the con- sideration of this context. It is certain, that as Christ is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, his expiatory sufferings and death have had effect from the beginning of the world, for remission of sins to all true believers. In like manner, his death hath had effect for the sanctifying of his people by his Spirit, from the beginning. As it was the Spirit of Christ who spoke by all the ancient prophets (1 Pet. i. 11), so did his Spirit operate powerfully in the hearts of his people, to make them fruitful in holiness. We may then con- fidently conclude, that the apostle doth here, by being married to the law, by the dissolution of that marriage, and by being married to Christ, set forth, as to the sub- stance of things, and as to what is most essential, the different conditions of men, in the state of nature, and in the state of grace ; both under the legal pedagogy of the Old, and under the gospel-dispensation of the New Testament. Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 149 The last thing in this verse that I proposed to explain is, 5. The consequence of the dissolution of the marriage with the law, and of being married to Christ. — It is, first, that the law hath no longer a right to execute its ven- geance for disobedience on them who believe in Christ ; and next, that they bring forth fruit unto God, — that is, the fruit of holiness and righteousness, by which God is served in a conformity to his will and holy com- mandment. God delighteth in having fruit by his only begotten Son, and that he hath by his marriage with the spouse which he hath given him ; and she, however formerly unfruitful, is made fruitful by the power and grace of her glorious Husband, to bring forth fruit by which his Father is glorified (John xv. 8), and by which she is (Eph. i. 6) to the praise of the glory of his grace. How this fruitfulness is the consequence, is a point to be hereafter explained ; and it is needless to say more on it here, as the explication of the verse under consideration doth not require it. Though the explication of this verse hath come out to such length, yet it is not fit to leave it without taking notice of the interpretation given by Mr John Alexander, in his posthumous commentary on this context, lately published. He will have it, that sin is meant here as the husband. In the account he gives of the sense of these three verses, he says, in a sort of paraphrase of ver. 4, " You have been formerly under engagements to sin, to whom the law hath bound you as to the husband of your choice, in a connection which nothing but the death of one of the parties could dissolve." A few lines thereafter he says : " When they (men) forsake their sins, and turn to God, they become dead to the law." And in the next sentence, — " There are two ways (saith he) by which a sinner becomes dead to the law ; either by breaking off his sins, or by suffering the punish- ment due to them." But our text doth not ascribe one's being dead to the law to his breaking off his sins, but to the body of Christ. That one should become dead to the law by undergoing the punishment it prescribes, is not 150 EXPLICATION AMD PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 easily understood, except he meant that that punishment is annihilation ; which, indeed, by putting an end to the sinner's existence, would withdraw him from the power and dominion of the law. This, however, is one way of escaping punishment, rather than undergoing it. But if a sinner exists under punishment, he is certainly not dead to the law, or delivered from it, as is the expression, ver. 6, but the dominion and power of the law is exerted upon him, so long as he is under punishment. Leaving this, let us look again to this fourth and the two preceding verses. There, after setting forth the similitude of marriage (vers. 2, 3), he adds (ver. 4), Ye are become dead to the /aw — that ye should be married to anotJier. It is death that dissolves the first marriage, and leaves one at liberty to make a second marriage. The believer is dead to the law, in order to be married to another. Can any one doubt that the first husband here is the law ? Mr Alexander's thought had been much more con- gruous and just, if he had considered sin as the adulterer, and the wife as incurring the guilt and infamy of an adulteress, by complying with him, to the dis- honour and injury of the husband to whom God had joined her. But how came these parties to be joined and bound together, sin and the sinner? We have that in the author's paraphrase above cited : " To whom {viz. sin) the law hath bound you, as to the husband of your choice." This, truly, is telling an odd tale of the law. The dominion which sin hath in a sinner we know that the law cannot break or subdue, or set him free from it. That is what the apostle asserts and proves in this context. But the sinner having made such a vile choice, as of sin for a husband, that the law should bind them together, so that nothing but death should part them, — that till then the wife (the sinner) should be obliged tolove, honour, and obey this husband (sin), as all these are due from a wife to her husband, and that in opposition to the authority, right, and holiness of the law itself; — is a very strange way of thinking and interpreting. Ver. 4] of romaxs vn. 151 What, then, is the death that dissolves this marriage with sin ? This he gives in these words of the para- phrase before mentioned : " For which reason you have been crucified with Christ, that the body of sin, which was the former husband, being destroyed, you might be freed from those fatal engagements, and be joined to him who is risen from the dead." So, according to him, it is the death of the husband (that is, of sin) that dissolves this first marriage. But what occasion, then, did the apostle's subject, or argument, give him to mention those who held the place of the wife, being made dead to the law, in order to be married to another? I do not see that he does, or can give, an account of this. There is enough of this interpretation, of which one might think there needed no other confutation than to repre- sent it. As to some errors in doctrinal sentiment, that are more than hinted in this writer's comment on this verse, this is not a proper place to consider them. PARAPHRASE. — 4. So accordingly it hath happened to you, my brethren, as to your condition and state. You have, indeed, been married to the law by the first covenant, according to which, that husband, in con- sequence of your dutiful obedience to his will, was to protect you, and to secure your standing before God, and to make you fruitful in all holiness: and happy for ever. At the same time, from the sentiments that were naturally in your minds, and the principles that naturally prevailed in your hearts, your desire was to that husband, your dependence was on him for justification and pro- tection, and for fruitfulness ; and this, when, for your undutifulness and disobedience to him, you had the most fearful things to expect from him, when, through the weakness yourselves had incurred, ye were become incapable of fruitfulness by his instructions or authority. But now there is a happy change in your condition. You are made free from that marriage covenant, and from your relation to the law as a husband. The law itself (Gal. ii. 19) hath had its subservience in bringing this about on your part, by convincing you of the sad things you had to expect from it, and that as a husband 152 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. $ it could not help your wretched state ; so that you were determined to betake you to the better hope which the gospel set before you, even Christ crucified ; and by the crucifixion of the body of Christ it is, that the demands of the law being satisfied, he hath acquired you to himself. So that, by your fellowship with him in his death, having died with him, you became dead to the law, so far as concerns marriage therewith, and its con- sequences ; and you having risen together with Christ, are married to him, and through faith your desire is to- wards him, your dependence is on him, as your most loving husband, — who, by his resurrection from the dead, and its glorious consequences, is capable, as to secure your favourable standing before God, so to dispose and enable you to bring forth fruit unto holi- ness and righteousness in the service of God, and to his glory, and to make you eternally happy with himself. These ends and purposes, once you became sinners, could not be attained by your marriage with the law. Text. — 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. EXPLICATION. — We shall now have occasion to ob- serve and explain the effects of the law, and of sin by the law, in those who" are under the law, and married to it, in so far as concerns the fruit they bring forth ; and shall have occasion, at the same time, to observe and explain what are the consequences of being married to Christ, so far as is mentioned in this context. It will tend much to clear our way as to these matters, that we, in the first place, explain what is meant by flesh, fleshly, or carnal, and being in the flesh, mentioned in this ver. 5. The use ' of these words is somewhat various in scripture. When they appear to have a moral signification, they have commonly one or other of these meanings. Ver. 5] of ROMANS vii. 153 1. The epithet and character of carnal or fleshly is given to the Mosaic ordinances or institutions. The epistle to the Hebrews calls the ceremonial law, the law of a carnal commandment (Heb. vii. 16); and by purifying of the fleshy or a fleshly purifying, appears to mean an external ceremonial purification (Heb. ix. 13). In these ordinances there was much external labour, and great variety of external observances ; and the Levitical insti- tutions and worship had in them great external ceremony, stateliness, and pomp, which suits the disposition of the flesh, and hath been ever, and continues to be, most agreeable to men that are carnal, whose hearts are not sufficiently well disposed for spiritual worship. Hence, it hath happened, that a prevailing carnal disposition, which increased as men's relish of spiritual worship decreased, hath introduced into the Christian church and worship much external ceremony, pageantry, and pomp. Many, in latter times, have complained, that the reformed churches have made divine worship too naked, simple, and unadorned. The great men of the world seem to think as if there ought to be that stateliness in the house of God that becomes their own courts and attendance; and carnal men are commonly of the same disposition and way of thinking. But as we think it most right and safe that the Lord should not have occasion to say of anything in our worship, It is what I commanded not, neither came it into my mind (Jer. vii. 31); so we reckon, that external plainness and simplicity is, in its own nature, most suited to the worship of God, who is a Spirit, and desires to be worshipped in spirit and in truth ; and most suited to the more spiritual gospel dispensation. It is agreeable to the notion which scripture gives us, to call the Old Testament state of the church, its state of childhood, or nonage ; and the Lord condescended to the weakness of his church in that its childhood, in appointing ordinances suited to it. As in the case of the Corinthians, the apostle doth, to the notion of their being babes, join that of being carnal, so to the childhood of the church the Lord accommodated carnal ordinance-. 154 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 5 But then there is a great difference between being, in some sort and degree, carnal, and being in the flesh, which is the expression here (ver. 5). The former is said of the Corinthians who were in Christ, and saints (1 Cor. iii. 1, 3), and who could not be said to be in the flesh. They indeed are said to be carnal, for the carnal lusts, passions, and divisions that prevailed among them. But though the Old Testament ordinances are called carnal, I do not see that even carnal or fleshly is given as the character of the Old Testament church, or of men as members of it. But to be in the flesh, can by no means be understood as their character ; as will appear by explaining that expression hereafter. Yet some learned men, who understood the apostle as reasoning here concerning the Mosaic law, and the abolition of it, endeavour to bring about this of being in the flesh, to be the character and state of the Old Testament church and its members ; and for this do found, in some sort, on the character of carnal given to the Mosaic ordinances. Dr Whitby attempts this ; but somewhat awkwardly. His. paraphrase gives the fifth verse thus : " For when we were in the flesh {i.e. when we lived under the carnal ordinances, without the assist- ance of the Spirit), the lustings of sin," &c. But by what warrant, or for what reason, would he connect these things, to be under the Old Testament ordinances, and to be without the assistance of the Spirit ? The Doctor himself is not satisfied with this ; and he corrects it, for a good reason mentioned in his note. " I judge," saith he, "that when we were in the flesh here doth not only signify to be under the carnal ordinances of the law, for so were all the pious Israelites, from Moses to the gospel times." — If, say I, true Israelites, Israelites indeed, were pious, free from the dominion of sin, and holy men, as there were many such under the Mosaic ordinances, carnal as these ordinances were, then surely the abolition of these ordinances and of the Mosaic law, was not necessary, in order to free men from the dominion of sin, and of carnal lusts. The Doctor goes on : " But more especially relates to Ver. 5] of Romans vii. 155 them who, living under these ordinances, were them- selves carnal, and without any assistance of the Holy Spirit — And if of such only we understand the apostle's following discourse in this chapter, the sense will be clear." But in that way the sense will be far from being clear ; yea, the apostle's argument will be quite per- plexed and unintelligible. The Doctor, and several other learned men, make the design of the apostle's argument to be the abolition of the Mosaic ordinances, making the church free from the obligation of that law ; and to give reasons for it But what subservience will this ver. 5 have, according to this interpretation, to that scope and purpose? As there were many pious Israelites, hohr men, having the assistance of the Spirit, so there were many who were carnal themselves, and had not the assistance of the Spirit. But what doth this say for the abolition of the Mosaic ordinances, more than it would for the abolition of gospel ordinances, that there are now under these many who are carnal themselves, and have no prevailing assistance of the Holy Spirit? Dr Doddridge's paraphrase gives it thus: " When zve zee re in the fleshy that is, under the comparatively carnal dispensation of Moses, a variety of sinful passions," &c. If the character of comparatively carnal, should be allowed to be given to the Mosaic dispensation, yet that makes no good reason for holding, that men for being under it were IX the flesh, or that these mean the same thing, to be in the flesh, and to be under the comparatively carnal Mosaic dispensation ; as will fully appear in explaining a little hereafter what it is to be in the flesh. The worthy writer certainly did not reach the true meaning of this place. 2. The flesh is sometimes mentioned with respect to men's false confidences before God, and the grounds thereof. So of the true circumcision it is said (Phil, ill that the\- have no confidence in the flesh. Dr Whitby paraphrases it, " no confidence in the circumcision of the flesh." I see no reason he could have for restricting the matter to circumcision ; since, a little below, the apostle puts a great deal more in the grounds of this carnal 156 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 5 confidence, particularly his zeal; and that touching the righteousness wJiicli is in the law, he was blameless. As he doth (ver. 3) to confidence in the flesh, oppose rejoicing in Christ Jesus, so (ver. 9), he represents, as the true ground of a sinner's confidence before God, that righteous- ness which is by t lie faith of Christ. So, upon the whole, we may justly reckon, that by carnal confidence, he means everything different from this righteousness by the faith of Christ, upon which carnal self-deceiving hearts may found their confidence, such as external privileges and advantages, and men's own righteousness, which tends to self-exaltation, and so is agreeable to the temper and disposition of carnal hearts. As to the evangelical grounds of confidence, these are the things of the Spirit ; and so it is the illumination and influence of the Spirit that prevail with our hearts, and effectually direct us to found upon them ; according to Gal. v. 5, We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. Every confidence different from this is what natural principles, and the self-exalting disposition of the heart, lead men to. As the flesh draws a quite different and opposite way from the Spirit, in what concerns purity and holiness, so it doth also in what concerns men's confidence, and the grounds thereof. How far fleshly, or carnal confidence, is concerned in the subject of our context, we may see hereafter. But certainly it is not in view in this fifth verse, where being in the flesh is mentioned in view to the motions of sin, and bringing forth fruit unto death. 3. Most commonly the flesh (used in a moral sense) signifies the corruption of nature, the evil principle of sin in men ; or human nature as corrupted by sin. The word flesh may have been transferred to this use and meaning, from a view to the body, and the excitement it gives to various evil affections and lusts, which are accomplished and gratified by the body. It was in this part that the moral depravation of nature was most obvious, striking, and sensible ; which might have occasioned the corruption of nature in general to be called the flesh. But it would make odd work in Ver. 5] of Romans vii. 157 language and interpretation, to confine the meanings of words to what they would import by their derivation and original meaning. The sense of words is to be determined by the use of speech, and the meaning of scripture-words is to be determined by the scripture-use especially. If we observe the scripture-use, we shall find the flesh, and the lust of the flesh in a more restricted sense. So 1 John ii. 16, the lust of the flesh means that sort of lust, in particular, which receives its excitement from the body, is accomplished by, and brings special defilement and dishonour on, the body. But the ill moral meaning of the flesh is not to be restricted to this. In 2 Cor. vii. I, if there arefllthinesses of the flesh, there are also filthinesses of the spirit ; and the Lord doth (John viii. 44) mention to the Jews the lusts of their father the devil. But there is in scripture mention of the flesh in so large a sense, as to comprehend filthinesses of the flesh and of the spirit ; yea, all sinful lusts, and corrupt unholy affections what- soever. In this large sense of the word is flesh mentioned (Gal. v. 19, 20, 21), where we have a numerous list of these called works of the flesh, some of which, it is plain, have place in creatures that have no body, no connection with flesh in their personal constitution. But what is it to be IN the flesh ? We have several similar expressions in our own language. A man is said to be in good humour, when good humour is prevalent in him ; to be in wrath, or in anger, when wrath or anger is prevalent in him ; to be in drink, when the influence and effect of drink is prevalent. This would lead us to think, that to be in the flesh, signifies to be under the prevalent influence and power of that corrupt principle or deprava- tion, which, we have seen, the scripture means by the flesh. The apostle Paul directs us, in a very clear manner, to understand the expression thus : He mentions (chap, viii. 5), being after the flesh, which is certainly the same as to be in the flesh (ver. 8), where he says, They who are in the flesh eannot please God. Will any say, that Israelites of old, for being under the carnal ordinances 158 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 5 of the Mosaic law, were in the flesh, and so cruld not please God ? As none will say this, it is plain that the apostle cannot here mean the Mosaic law, or the state of men under it. He helps us to understand fully what he means by being in the flesh, by what he states in opposi- tion to it (ver. 9), Ye are ?wt in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of J lis. Here it is evident, that -being in the Spirit doth not signify merely having a temper and disposition conformed to Christ, and suitable to the spirituality of the gospel. It imports to have the Spirit of Christ, — the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelling in a man, as ver. 10, even that same Spirit by whom (as in that same ver. 10), God shall quicken the mortal bodies at the resurrection : which doth not dwell in any that arc under the curse of the law, or in any but those he hath brought unto union with Christ, who are born of the Spirit, and so are renewed in the habitual and prevailing temper and disposition of their hearts. It is clear, in the apostle's words, that it is by that Spirit, and by his operation and influence in men, that they come out of their carnal state, and from being in the flesh. Being in the Spirit, and having the Spirit of Christ, upon the one hand, and being in the flesh, destitute of the Spirit on the other, are the characters and states of men that are contradistinguished. As the Spirit cometh not by the law, they that are under the law, being without the Spirit, must be in the flesh ; and they who, having the Spirit, are led by him (Gal. v. 18) are not under the law, as is there said. By being in the flesh, is certainly meant a character and state commensurate to being under the law. This evidently suits the apostle's scope, and his view of explaining these words (chap. vi. 14), Sin shall not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law. But what concerns the Mosaic ritual and ceremonial law hath in this, none -of the learned, who suppose it to be here meant, have been able to explain to the satisfaction of any, who are not disposed to take things from them implicitly. Ver. 5] of ROMANS vii. 159 Let us now look to Mr Locke's interpretation of being in the flesh. His paraphrase gives it thus: "When we were after so fleshly a manner under the law, as not to comprehend the spiritual meaning of it — our sinful lusts/' &c. But the apostle is speaking in general of being under the law, and married to it ; not of being under it in a particulary7^///r manner. Indeed, in the latter times of the Old Testament, the Jews did become generally ignorant of the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic law. But the true seed of Abraham, the truly faithful, in all times of the Old Testament, were not so. Yea, in that very evil time of the Jewish church, when the Son of God came in the flesh, there were such as Zacharias, Simeon, Anna, and many others, who waited earnestly for the consolation of Israel (Luke ii. 25^, and those who looked for redemption in Jerusalem 'ver. 5S], who ccrtainly understood much of the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic law and institutions. It appears, then, that being under the Mosaic law did not of itself disable men to under- stand the spiritual meaning of it. So there is nothing here, according to this interpretation, that can be con- nected with the general purpose, as this writer understands it, of the necessary abolition of the Mosaic law. The same writer says in his note : " The understanding and observance of the law in a bare literal sense, without looking any farther for a more spiritual intention in it, St Paul calls being in the flesh." But it has been here proven that that is not Paul's meaning. In the latter part of that same paragraph, he doth, with respect to the ritual law, refer to Heb. ix. 9, 10, and adds, " Which whilst they lived in the observance of, they were in the flesh. That part of the Mosaic law was wholly about fleshly things (Col. ii. 14-23 , was sealed in the flesh, and proposed no other than temporal fleshly rewards." But if that part of the Mosaic iaw employed men outwardly about fleshly things, were they not, at the same time, shadows of good things to eome ? (Heb. x. 1.) Did not the Mosaic sacrificial service assure them of a future real expiation of sin, — yea, foreshadow heavenly and eternal blessedness? The enlightened holy persons, who under- l6o EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. $ stood in some good degree the spiritual meaning and intention of the law (as there were such in every part of the Mosaic period), were they indeed in the flesh, accord- ing to the meaning of the context under consideration ? This learned writer makes great show of his method of studying, and, the rules he observed in interpreting the parts of Scripture he wrote upon ; but we may observe, on divers occasions, that these rules were better observed by former writers, whom he does not mean to advance in the esteem of his readers. If he meant to interpret Paul by Paul himself (which is one principal rule he frequently mentions), he had not far to go, in this same discourse of his, to find the apostle (chap. viii. 5, 8, 9) interpreting very clearly what he meant by that ex- pression, being in the flesh, as hath been shown here above. As these things are so clear, I cannot but wonder that Dr Hammond should thus paraphrase this fifth verse: "This (viz. to bring forth fruit unto God, ver. 4) while we lived under the pedagogy of the law, was not done by us — For while we were under these carnal ordinances, though all sinful practices were forbidden by that law — yet our sinful desires and affections — that law had not power to subdue." Some men write as if being under the pedagogy of the law, and being under the law in the sense of our context (in that sense in which they who are under the law are under the dominion of sin, chap. vi. 14) were the same thing, which is very wrong. The true church of God. the heir (Gal. iv. 1, 3), whilst a child, was under that dispensation and pedagogy. But we must not say, they were in the flesh, in the sense the apostle here evidently means, and wholly destitute of the Spirit ; or that there were so many holy men in these times, without the sanctifying grace of the Spirit. Some men do not allow the Spirit his proper work, in sanctifying men under the New Testament dispensation. It would sometimes seem as if they thought that, under the Old Testament, men pleased God, and became good men, without the Spirit altogether. This needs be the less wondered at, that Ver. 5] OF ROMANS VII. 161 they suppose that heathens may please God with their virtue, without any revelation of the law or gospel, or of the promise of the Spirit. But the scripture gives another view of things. If under the gospel dispensation men are destitute of the Spirit, as very many appear to be, they are in the flesh ; and men under , the Mosaic pedagogy, who proved by their disposition and practice that they had the Spirit of God dwelling in them, they were not in the flesh, nor under the law, as laiv is meant in this context, but, as to the real state of their souls, under grace, and in favour with God ; though still, as hath been said formerly, allowance is to be made of greater abundance of the Spirit, and of spiritual blessings in the period that hath succeeded the actual propitiation by the blood of the cross, and the actual resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. What a strange interpretation, then, is this of Dr Hammond ! Did not believers anciently, the true seed of faithful Abraham, did not the heir, though a child, yet being truly a child and heir, bring forth fruit unto God? If the law did not subdue sinful desires and affections then, neither is it the law (to the authority and obligation of which men are still subject) that doth now subdue and mortify these desires and affections. By what hath been said, it is evident that to be in the flesh, and destitute of the Spirit, is not to be connected with being under the Mosaic legal pedagogy ; but with being wider the law, in that sense in which all men are naturally so, until they become dead to the law by virtue of the cross of Christ, and by being united to him by true faith. The expression that falls next to be considered is, the motions of sins which are by the law. The Greek word 7ra0?}/xaTa signifies more precisely passions, or affections, as the English margin gives it ; and the affections of sins, a Hebraism, is the same as sinful affections, or lustings. These are naturally in men, but they are considered here as put in motion, or excited ; and this by occasion of the law. Mr Locke's paraphrase hath it, "That remained in us under the law ; " and he brings some 1 62 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. $ instances in which 8id is so used. Our rendering BY the law, which is according to the most common meaning of that preposition, he says in his note, " is a very literal translation of the words ; but leads the reader quite away from the apostle's sense, and is fain to be supported by interpreters that so understand it, by say- ing, that the law excited men to sin by forbidding it. A strange imputation on the law of God." But this is said without any good reason. It is just to say, that the precept, prohibition, and fearful threatening of the law, do, instead of subduing sinful affections in an unrenewed heart, but irritate them, and occasion their excitement and more violent motion. Nor is this a strange imputation on the law of God, which is not the proper cause of these motions. These are to be ascribed to the corruption of men's hearts, which the apostle insinuates, when he ascribes these sinful motions by the law to men in the flesh. The true state of the case between the flesh, or the evil principle of sin, and the law, is, that the flesh or sin worketh death in a man by that which is good, as is represented here (ver. 13). The matter has been often illustrated by the similitude of the sun, by whose light and heat roses and flowers display their fine colours, and emit their fragrant smell ; whereas by its heat, the dung-hill emits its unsavoury steams and ill smell. These various and opposite effects are from the different objects, and their different natures. So the law, which to a sanctified heart is a mean of holy practice, doth, in those who are in the flesh, occasion the more vehement motions of sin- ful affections and lustings, not from any proper causality of the law, but from the energy of the sinful principles that are in men's hearts and nature. There was great wrath and sinful passion in Jeroboam, by the reproof of the prophet (1 Kings xiii. 4). This was not to be imputed to the prophet, but to Jeroboam, a man in the flesh. In David, a man of very different character, Nathan's very sharp reproof had no such effect. If the apostle meant here (ver. 5) only motions of sins under the law, this would give him no occasion to vindicate Ver. 5] of Romans VII. 163 the law, as he does (ver. 7), Is the law sin ? God forbid. Dr Whitby, in answering Mr Locke concerning this point in his note, says, " Is this any more an imputation upon the law of God, than it is an imputation on his providence, that it provides the corn and wine, which carnal men abuse to drunkenness and excess?" Mr John Alexander's late commentary before men- tioned, says on this verse," To ascribe the motions of sin directly to the law of God as their origin, is not more impious than it is nonsensical." (It is not to the law, but to the flesh, that interpreters ascribe sinful motions as to their origin.) He goes on : " And to account for this afterwards by the proneness there is in man to break through the restraint of a law, merely because it is a law, and something commanded, is, to say the least, highly ridiculous." (Not merely because it is a law, but because it commands what the corrupt heart is averse to, and prohibits what the corrupt heart loves.) In his next paragraph he says, " To ascribe the existence of sin to the law of God inciting and irritating it, must be quite out of the question — I do not say with an inspired writer, but with any writer of common sense." But none ascribe the existence of sin to any influence of the law of God. It exists as an evil principle in the corrupt nature of man, and exerts itself in sinful affections and lustings by occasion of the command, prohibition, and threatening of the law. I do not think there needs any more answer to this writer than hath been already suggested. The young man's heat put forth strong words (impious, nonsensical, highly ridiculous, and con- trary to common sense). But when he was so warm for the honour of the law, would he not have been in great commotion if he had heard a man say, even of the gospel itself, that to some (2 Cor. ii. 16) it was the savour of death unto death ? For the last clause of this verse, — did work in our members to bring fortli fruit unto death, Dr Doddridge's paraphrase hath thus — " were active in our members to produce visible sinful actions." So indeed they do, very commonly, in men who are in the flesh. Yet I do not 1 64 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6 see that the Greek words suggest anything about visible external actions. One sense, and indeed the primary sense, of the verb ^epyetv, is, intus efficere, to effect inwardly. According to this, one sense given by Erasmus and Vatablus (in Poole's Synopsis) is sea'eto age bant ; nam occulta vis (so is added there), dzcitur, hepyeia, velut in semine, et vis mentis in komine — acted secretly ; for a hidden power is meant by the Greek word, such as is in the seeds of things, or in the human mind. The inter- pretation our Lord gives of the seventh commandment (Matt. v. 28) proves that sinful lusts may be very effectual, bringing forth fruit unto death, when there is no outward or visible action. A particular reason for my taking notice of this here may appear hereafter. Paraphrase. — 5. So far were we, whilst under the law, from bringing forth fruit unto God, that, being then in the flesh, in our corrupt and unregenerate state, under the dominion of sin, — our sinful affections or lusts, awakened by the prohibition and threatening of the law, did work in all our faculties and powers such unholy fiuit as tendeth to death; and, if grace prevented not, would certainly terminate in death ; the law, with all its strict prohibitions and fearful denunciations, being weak, through the prevailing power of the flesh, and not able to subdue these sinful affections and lustings in us. Text.— 6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. EXPLICATION. — The expression (ver. 4) was dead to the law — here it is, delivered from the law. The sense in general is the same. But there is some question about the right reading of the next clause, — That or it (viz. the law) being dead wherein we were held. If we take it not thus, there will be this seeming inconvenience or impro- priety,— that, though in setting forth the similitude he had mentioned — marriage to be dissolved by the death Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VII. 165 of the husband, without any mention of the death of the wife, — yet there is nothing of the death of the husband (the law) in the application of the similitude to his subject. This seeming impropriety is avoided by our reading, which is supported, as some of the learned relate, by one ancient copy (that of Vienna) and by the authority of Chrysostom ; and thus later writers do commonly take it. There is besides a suitableness in the expression to that of ver. 2, which tends to favour our reading. There, setting forth the similitude, he says, If the husband be dead she is loosed (k ar i)py,)T at) from the law of her husband. So here (ver. 6), where, according to our reading, there is mention of the death of the law, the expression is (K]OiifjLev/} we are loosed or delivered from the law. The other reading, the English gives on the margin : we being dead to that wherein or whereby we were held, — and so the matter is expressed (ver. 4), Ye also are become dead to the law* This is the reading of the ancient MSS. generally, according to which several ancient translations render ; and so the text is cited generally by the ancient writers of the church. It is not easy to find arguments sufficient against a reading so well sup- ported ; though, at the same time, after saying so much about it, it makes no odds as to the main subject and argument. Concerning serving in newness of spirit, and. not in the oldness of the letter. — The last part of the verse comes now to be considered, — That we should serve in newness of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. It is plain the apostle hath in his view the difference in practice of those who were under the law and married to it, and of those who are disengaged from that first marriage, and married to Christ. He had represented (ver. 4) the * On KaTapydv, see note on Rom. vi. 6. It means here literally "we were paralysed," an absolute end has been put to our relations with the law. — The reading d-oduvovTos, which Mr Fraser seems to prefer, and which was accepted by the translators ofthe A.V., has no MS. support ; all the ancient MSS., as he allows, giving uTTodavovres. 1 66 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 6 consequence of being dead to the law, to be, to bring forth fruit unto God. Here he so varies the expression as to give the hint of the particular sort and manner of fruitfulness ; — it is to serve God in newness of spirit. But as to these who are married to the law, shall we say, — they had no religion at all — no design to bring forth fruit unto God, or to serve him ? this is not to be thought, yea, were scarce consistent with being married to the law. But they served in the oldness of the letter. When was it then, that men served in the oldness of the letter? In the general, according to the opposition here stated, it was when they were not delivered from the law — when they were under the law and in the flesh — as we have seen these things conjoined. As the flesh hath its impurity and wickedness, it hath its religion too ; but this is not to be connected with the Old Testament dispensation, as peculiar to it. If many were carnal in religion under that dispensation, many are likewise now carnally religious under the New Testament dispensation. It will make matters the more clear respecting this sort of religion, called here, serving in the oldness of the letter, that first we understand what it is to serve in new- ness of spirit. It is, in general, to serve God sincerely from such principles, dispositions, and views, as the Spirit of God gives to hearts renewed by him, and under his influence. More particularly, it is to serve God with faith and love ; with thankfulness ; with entire submission and resignation ; with supreme pur- pose to honour and please God ; submitting every desire and interest to the chief end of the advancement of his glory ; with a sincere purpose and course of uniform, universal, and cheerful obedience, joined with a true hatred and fear of sin. This new way of serving God hath in it spirituality of desire and affection, raised above the earth and earthly views ; purity of aim and intention ; a most self-abasing humility, and self-denial, that suppresses the carnality of self-confidence, with respect to our righteousness or strength ; and founds a solid confidence on Christ only, for both righteousness and strength, which is the sort of confidence the Holy Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VII. 167 Spirit directs to, and which he inspires into all that are taught by him, and under his influence. As this new way of serving hath for its principle in the heart the prevailing love of God ; so there is joined with that love, and flowing from it, the true love of man ; by which, besides that special brotherly kindness which Christians owe to one another, the heart is turned to a sincere, universal, and fruitful benevolence towards all men : this love prevailing over these malignant passions and lusts that are contrary to it, such as selfish- ness, pride, malice, wrath, envy, revenge, cruelty ; which are to be ascribed to the flesh. Such is serving in newness of spirit, by the Spirit of God renewing and influencing the hearts of men. Opposite to this is, serving in the old n ess of the letter. Let us now consider what this is. Some have said, that this is serving according to the literal expression of the law, in outward work and service only. But this doth not define the subject justly. The literal expres- sion of the law reaches further than to outward work and service. The law says in plain and literal expres- sion, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbour as thyself ; and the sincerity of neither is in serving according to the oldness of the letter. For further understanding this subject, it is fit we have recourse to that place (2 Cor. iii. 6, 7), Who hath made us able ministers of the uezv testam mtt not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death written and engraven in stones, was glorious, &c. Here it strikes at first sight, that when the apostle is speaking of the letter, the law he hath in view is not the ceremonial law. It is plain, that by letter he means the moral law ; as it was it, and it only, that was written and engraven in stones. The word (y/>a/z/xa) signifies letter, as we render it, but is often put for writing ; and seems to be so meant here, where the discourse is of the law written — in stones. He hath made us able ministers, not of the writing ; that is, not of the law written in stones. Wolfius on this 1 68 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6 place (2 Cor. iii. 16) relates, that some of the learned would have the word we render letter, rendered simply law. He adduces some instances to this purpose, and gives a particular passage of Isocrates, which is to this sense : That wise rulers should be careful to have the love of justice implanted in the hearts of their people, rather than (rots crroas kjXTrnrXavaL ypdfifiaTMv) to have their public galleries filled with letters, or writings ; that is, with laws published by writings on their walls. Accord- ing to this, the apostle's words to the Corinthians (ver. 6) may be thus understood : God hath made us able ministers of the new testament, not of the law, which conveys nothing to the hearts of men, to give it effect, but of the gospel, which is the ministration of the Spirit. Let it be next observed, that serving in the oldness of the writing, or of the law, — that is, in the old manner, as when under the law, is to be so understood, as to include nothing in it that proceeds from the special grace and influence of the Holy Spirit ; for serving God in newness of spirit, and serving in the oldness of the letter, are the things that are here (Rom. vii. 6) stated in opposition. The consequence is, as the Spirit cometh not by the law, that serving God in the letter is : — such service as the law, by its authority, light, and terror, can procure from one under the law and in the flesh, not having the Spirit, or his sanctifying grace and influence. It im- ports such service as the law in the conscience, and the carnal unregenerate heart, by natural strength, with the exertion thereof in earnest endeavour, can work out between them. The authority of the law in the con- science may procure from one in the flesh and unre- generate, not having the Spirit, a considerable outward conformity, without any principle within better than a selfish, slavish, mercenary, carnal disposition, influenced by the terrors of the law, and the pride of self-righteous- ness ; but the law, and the greatest efforts of one under the law, in the flesh, cannot set the heart right with regard to the love of God, overcome worldly lusts, or give truth and sincerity in the inward parts. Ver. 6] OF ROMANS Vll. 169 If there is in any such persons the semblance of good affection and devotion towards God, with a serious design to do well, yet to such we cannot ascribe any- thing that cometh not but by the special sanctifying in- fluence of the Holy Spirit. Such indeed may sometimes bear amiable appearance and character in the world, and be useful in it. Such, doubtless, was that rich virtuous young man in the gospel history; which relates that Jesus loved him ; yet being put to trial, his insincerity soon appeared. Though Paul asserts of himself before the Jewish counsel, I have lived in all good conscience before God until tliis day, yet, whilst he was under the law, he and his righteousness were not pleasing to God, nor pleasing to himself, when he came to be better instructed. The unbelieving Jews had a zeal of God, and followed after the law of righteousness ; yet their religion was wholly carnal, there was no true holiness in it. Men may have their minds well furnished with sublime sentiments concerning the amiableness of virtue, and with this abound in external works of righteousness, and be in condition to recommend the virtuous course, from the peace and self-approbation men may have in that way ; and yet all the time their righteousness be essentially defective, not rising above the oldness of the letter, nor having at the root of it in the heart the necessary and essential principles of true holiness. In the meanest soul, united and truly married to him that rose from the dead, there is (often with great disadvantage otherwise) a sincerity of holiness, as to inward principles and uniform practice, that makes his righteousness to exceed the righteousness of the scribes. Mr Alexander, in his note on this verse, says, ''ypd/x/xa, which we translate the letter, denotes the writing or contract supposed to be made between sin and sinners." Well ; marriages are wont to be preceded by contracts. This is fanciful enough ; but to what hath been said on this, nothing needs be added. At the same time, I cannot but somewhat wonder at Dr Whitby's way of expressing himself. He says (an not. on Rom. vii. 3), " That Israel was married to the law, or 170 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 6 to him that put them in subjection under it, and were his spouse (Jer. iii. 14), and so obliged to serve God in the oldness of the letter." I think it very clear, that serving in the oldness of the letter, is of very different kind from that service which men in every state and time have been obliged to, even after all the allowance that is to be made of a greater abundance of the Spirit under the gospel dispensation. But the learned writer thought it was the Mosaic ceremonial law that the apostle meant in this context ; a notion which hath been shown to be quite destitute of foundation. According to this notion, he seems to have thought, that serving in the old manner of the letter, or law, was serving God in the ceremonial service of the Old Testament. But that service certainly was not incompatible with serving in spirit, according to the degree of these times. Whereas here these two ways of service are set forth as opposite and incompatible ; and it is plain, that serving in new- ness of spirit here (ver. 6), is the same with bringing forth fruit unto God (ver. 5). Let us observe how the Doctor doth in his note on this verse explain serving in the newness of the spirit. He says, To serve God in the spirit is, 1. To serve him with a freedom from the prevalency of the flesh, by virtue of the Spirit. 2. To serve God, not chiefly with bodily service, and carnal ordinances, but in the spirit of our mind. 3. To serve him by the assistance of the Spirit, so as to live and walk in the Spirit. But did not the Lord require under the Old Testament, that all these three things should be in the service of his people ? and did not holy men indeed so serve him ? I know the Doctor would acknowledge so. According to him, then, persons under the Mosaic law were obliged to serve God with all that he includes in serving in newness of spirit, and were, at the same time, obliged to serve in the oldness of the letter ; which doth by no means consist with the apostle's way of representing things here. Paraphrase. — 6. But we believers in Christ Jesus are now delivered from the law, by which we were held fast, to be dealt with as to life and death absolutely Ver. 7] OF ROMANS VII. 1 7 1 according to the conformity or nonconformity of our behaviour to its will and command, though it could not enable us to bring forth good fruit, or do acceptable service ; and we are so delivered by its being dead to us (or, our being made free, as by our own death, from our relation to it, and from its consequences) ; and this in order that we, being married to Christ, might serve God in a new manner, agreeable to the principles and disposition of souls renewed by his Holy Spirit, and under his influence ; not according to the old manner of a carnal religion, produced by a fleshly heart, under the mere influence of the light, authority, and terror of the law, which can produce or procure no true holiness or acceptable service. Text. — 7. What shall we say, then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law ; for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. Explication. — The expression here in the first clause, is such as the apostle uses on several occasions, when he introduces an objection against his doctrine or explica- tions, as hath been observed on chap. vi. 1. The objection here seems to be levelled against what he had said (ver. 5), The motions of sins which were by the law. — The objection means as if what he said implied that the law favoured sin, and was the cause of it ; the absurdity of which were very evident. He rejects that inference and conclusion with abhorrence ; and brings an argument to prove that the law does not favour sin, nor is the cause of it. He shows that the law forbids sin, and not only prohibits it in the outward practice, but pursues it in the innermost recesses of the soul, and directs its strict prohibition, and awful sanction, against the first motions of it there. It not only forbids the outward act of unrighteousness and rapine, but speaks with all its force and authority to the heart, saying, Thou shalt not covet. It discovers by its light the secret motions of sin inwardly; reproves and judges 172 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 7 them. Therefore the cause of sinning must be looked for elsewhere than in the law; and indeed he had given the hint of the proper source and cause of every sinful motion by saying (ver. 5), When we were in the flesh. It was the flesh (the corruption of nature thereby meant) that was the true cause of sinful motions by occasion of the law. These words, Thou shalt not covet, are the general expression of the tenth commandment ; and the apostle may mean, that this last of the commandments served him for a key to all the commandments, to lay open to him the spirituality of them. Yea, we may suppose the apostle to be speaking on a more extensive view, than to design merely the tenth commandment. I had not, saith he, known EPITHYMIAN, except the law had said, OUK EPITHYMESEIS ; and ver. 8, Sin wrought in me PASAN EPITHYMIAN. The English reader, seeing the words in our common characters, has access to observe, that what we render by three different words, lust, covet, concupiscence, ought strictly to be rendered by one of them, thus : I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not lust ; and, Sin wrought in me all manner of lust. Now, as the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God, there is in it lusting in opposition to every command in particular, and every commandment is so to be understood as prohibiting the particular lusting or concupiscence that hath the least tendency to the prohibited act. This appears by our Lord's interpretation of the sixth and seventh command- ments, in Matt. v. ; and the expression in our context (ver. 8) seems to favour this interpretation. The com- prehensive expression, all manner of conmpiscence, includes each particular sort of concupiscence as directed against each commandment, — not merely the concupiscence that is a transgression of the tenth commandment, though the expression of that com- mandment,' respecting the heart only, might be the mean leading him to the view of all the commandments I have been representing. The apostle doth here give an instance of something Ver. 7] OF ROMANS vii. 173 which, by the teachers and other Jews of his time, was generally thought not to be sin. They thought there was no transgression or sin but in external omission or commission. Though some Jewish writers since that time appear to have thought more justly on this point, yet it was in former times as hath been said. It is needless to produce quotations from Jewish writers to this purpose, though some are produced by the learned. When our Lord, after mentioning (Matt, v.) the sixth and seventh commandments, adds concerning them severally, But I say unto you, Whosoever is angry with- out a cause — Whosoever looketli on a woman to lust after her (vers. 22, 28), it is plain, it had been needless for him to have expressed himself in this manner, as in opposition to others, if there were not those who held that the out- ward work only was sin, — not the inward affection or lusting. But then it is likely that the apostle meant something more than to say, that it was the prohibition of the law that showed him this to be sin in its own nature. If he meant no more than that, he might as well have given the instance of some outward work, as, Thou sJialt not steal ; as the sinfulness of any work, outward or inward, consists in its contrariety to the law. But he seems to design not only to say, that by the law he knew what was sin in itself, but that it was the law that showed him sin in himself that he had not been sensible of. He had been a Pharisee, and with great zeal and earnest effort serving in the oldness of the letter, as he understood it. His mind being biassed by corrupt teaching and sentiment, he thought himself chargeable with no sin, until the law struck at his heart within him, as subject to its authority and direction no less than the outward man. Then (as if he had said), alas ! how much sin had continued in power, and at rest within me, un- reproved, unresisted, under the cover of external righteousness, and screened with the most full self- approbation ; until the law entered, and darted its light into my heart with awful authority, and found there what proved me a wretched sinner, as it says in 174 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. J the sense of every commandment, Thou shalt not lust. Until then he thought all his works were good. Now he sees all his works, taking into the account the evil principles, and the concupiscence which, in various forms, was set at the root of all his works, to be evil. Instead of keeping all the commandments from his youth up, he then saw he had truly fulfilled none of them. Grotius, and after him Dr Hammond, were of opinion, that in this context the apostle doth but personate others, and represent their case as if it had been his own ; and in thus thinking, they, and some others since, do proceed on a very imaginary supposition, as if the apostle had used this method to avoid the offence of the Jews, yet adhering zealously to the Mosaic law ; though it is indeed, they suppose, the case of these Jews he means. We do not, however, see that the apostle is so very artful, or shy of displeasing the Jews, when he is ex- plaining and defending the truth against them, in matters wherein their salvation and his own fidelity were much concerned. If any Jews were to read the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this epistle, I dare say themselves would not think that he much feared their displeasure. Possibly there was something more than they express that pinched these learned men. Perhaps they had so good opinion of Paul's religion before he knew Christ (for he here speaks of that time), that they could not think such things as he mentions could be applicable to him, even when he was in that condition and way. For if Paul, who, having the advantage of revelation to direct him, laboured so hard and with zeal of God to be righteous, even before he knew Christ, had no true holi- ness, nor was acceptable to God, or in the way of salvation, — will not this tend to bring very low, on the one hand, our opinion of the powers of nature and free will, and our opinion, on the other hand, of the salvation of virtuous heathens and Mahomedans, who never in this life come to the knowledge of Christ ? I leave to the living to explain themselves on this matter when they please. Ver. 7] OF ROMANS V1L 175 I see that Dr Doddridge falls in with the notion of the apostle's personating others even in this first context of chap. vii. In his note on this text, he says, " The character assumed here is that of a man first ignorant of the law, then under it, and sincerely desiring to please God." Those under the law, as the apostle represents, are persons in the flesh ; and there are great exceptions to the sincerity of persons in the flesh, as to desire to please God. " But finding, to his sorrow (so the Doctor goes on), the weakness of the motives it suggested, and the discouragement under which it left him, and, last of all, with transport discovering the gospel, and gaining pardon and strength, peace and joy by it." It is the Mosaic law, and the condition of persons under it, that the doctor means, as appears fully by his paraphrase and notes on this context. Now as to that, allowing still that there is greater degree of light, comfort, and strength by the gospel and gospel dispensation, yet, I would ask, did not Abraham — did not his spiritual seed, the faithful of the Old Testament, under the Mosaic law, perceive, in the promises made to him and them (which the law did not annul, Gal. iii. 17), motives very powerful to engage them to holiness? did they not receive pardon and strength, peace and joy, by these promises, by which they were encouraged and supported in a course of holiness, integrity, and fruitfulness, until, through faith and patience, they at last actually inherited the promises ? The Doctor concludes that paragraph and note thus : — "But to suppose he speaks all these things of himself, as the confirmed Christian that he really was when he wrote this epistle, is not only foreign, but contrary to the whole scope of this discourse, as well as to what is ex- pressly asserted (chap. viii. 2)." It is plain, however, that these things the apostle speaks here of himself in the past tense; he speaks not of himself as the confirmed Christian and true believer. But being the confirmed Christian, when he wrote these things, he had that ex- perience on both sides, under the law, and under grace; in the flesh, and in the Spirit; which, on different 176 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. J occasions he has brought forth, sometimes in the past, sometimes in the present tense, under the direction of the Spirit of God, for the benefit and instruction of the church to the world's end. Before we leave this verse, there is yet one thing fit to be observed respecting that question, What sort of concupiscence or lusting is here meant ? The Papists, and some others, have held, that the very first motions of lusting, which spring up spontaneously in the heart, previous to all deliberation, and that are not entertained or consented to by the will, are not sin. Concerning this, I see in the Synopsis on this verse, a passage of James Capel, a French divine, which is to this purpose and sense. He speaks here, saith this writer, of that concupiscence which Paul would not have known but by the law, as is here said. But Paul could not be ignorant of that which was known even by the heathens, viz. that a de- termined purpose of commiting a wicked action is sin, or that avarice, which is also called concupiscence, is sin. He must therefore be understood to mean, the indetermined will of sinning, or the very first motions of appetite, by which the will is tickled and provoked ; which, because it is not in our power to prevent them, many have believed not to be sin, nor had Paul known them to be sin, if he had not looked more closely into the meaning of the law. For it is this sort of concu- piscence that is meant by the prohibition of the tenth commandment, as the former sort is in the preceding commands. So that learned Professor of Sedan. As to these things, it may well be doubted if there is any so spontaneous and indeliberate motion of concu- piscence of any sort, that hath not, in some degree, the consent of the heart and will ; and there is good appearance of reason for thinking there is something of will in the very first motions of irregular appetite. And if the law of God enters, with its proper light and authority, it will surely find that the very first and spontaneous motions of irregular desire are contrary to the purity and rectitude which it requires, are to be ascribed to the pravity of the heart, and consequently Ver. 7] OF ROMANS VII. 177 are sinful, and so are comprehended in the sin of which Paul got the knowledge by the law. But the matter seems not to be restricted to this. It appears, by what our Lord says, in interpreting the seventh command- ment (Matt, v.), that there were those who then held that inward lusting, however much entertained, was not sin. There is a further proof of this in that passage of Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentioned by Dr Whitby and by others before him, wherein that historian says, that the sacrilegious purpose of King Antiochus was not sin, as it was not brought to execution. Some heathens may have known better than so. But there hath been sometimes occasion to observe, that a preconceived and darling opinion or principle hath occasioned men's over- looking, and even denying, truths very evident in the scripture, and known by the very heathens. If I mistake not, we shall see notable instance of this before we have done with the very next following verse. Paul, having been brought up in the Pharisaical school, he might have it to learn, by the entrance of the light and authority of the law into his conscience, that any inward lustings, however much entertained, were sin ; which some of that sect, as Josephus in particular, did not think to be so. Paraph rase. — 7. What shall we think then of this account of our former state, as we stood in relation to the law, and of my mentioning motions of sins which were by the law ? Some will say, that this great absurdity may be justly inferred, that the righteous law of God doth indeed favour sin, and is a cause of it : but by no means — I can relate from my experience, that it was by the law that I received the knowledge and conviction of sin in every instance. The law forbids it, and that not only in the outward work, but in the first appearance of it in the heart, in the secret workings of irregular desire, and the very first motions of irregular affections. It is by its prohibition that I came to know lust inwardly, more or less consented to and entertained, to be sin, as the tenth commandment says, Thou shall not covet, and as every commandment implies the pro- M 178 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8 hibition of every inward lusting in opposition to the duty commanded, or that hath the remotest tendency to the outward sinful work forbidden ; and it was by the law discovering sinful lustings and affections within me, and directing its sharp reproof and awful threatening against them, that I, who had been very righteous in my own eyes, saw first my great sinfulness and very dangerous condition. It being then the truth of the matter, that the law is so adverse to sin, surely the cause of sin, and of sinful passions and lustings in the heart, is to be looked for elsewhere than in the law. Text. — 8. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead. Explication. — In the fifth verse there is mention of the motions of sin which were by the law. Here it is, Sin taking occasion by the commandment. The one place explains the other. If there are, as ver. 6, motions of sin by the law, that is not that the law is the cause of sin, but, as here, that sin taketh occasion by the commandment. The word rendered occasion, Grotius renders impunity, — sin having impunity by the precept or commandment ; and he adduces a place of Thucydides, where he thought the word signifies so. The dictionary mentions no such meaning ; and Raphelius, cited by Wolfius, shows that Grotius did mistake the place referred to, where the word hath no such sense.* However, Grotius understanding it so in this text, explains himself by saying, Because to that command- * The passage in Thucydides, " History," 1, 90, 2, in which the word in question, a^opjxrj, occurs, refers to " a base of operations " in a military sense. -In the statement of the apostle before us here, it undoubtedly means that sin apart from the law has nothing to work from, wants a starting-point, and that this opportunity or occasion is furnished by law. See Sanday, " Crit. and Exeg. Comm. on Romans," 2nd ed., Edin. 1896, p. 179. Ver. 8] OF ROMANS VII. 179 ment (respecting inward lusting, Thou shalt not c there was no punishment annexed, as to the commands forbidding adultery and theft, therefore it was despised. Dr Hammond, who very commonly follows the other learned writer, speaks full to the same purpose. But if the Lord, the Lawgiver of the commonwealth of Israel, in prescribing to them the punishment they should inflict on these transgressions of his laws which should come under their cognizance, did not prescribe punishment of transgressions which did not come under their cognizance, such as inward transgressions and im- purities ; shall we therefore say, that the law of God allows impunity to inward unholiness and impurity ? or that the Supreme Judge, who sees men's hearts, is not to punish it? Dr Whitby brings for one reason against this interpretation, that it contradicts the words of the law, which pronounces a curse on every one who continues not in all things that are written in the law to do them. But notwithstanding what Grotius and Dr Hammond have said of the impunity of inward transgressions, yet it must be agreed to on all hands, in the general, that the law denounced punishment for sin. Dr Hammond makes use of this too for explaining the present subject. Sin had, or took occasion, or advantage, from this, according to him, that the law prescribed punishment without giving the hope of pardon. So sin took occasion from impunity, and likewise from the apprehension of punishment. Though he is wrong as to matter of fact (so I may call it), with respect to the law, on both sides ; yet on the general and abstract view of the matter, these things are not inconsistent. For as to them who are in the flesh, which is the common character of persons under the lan\ in the sense of this context, if through the delusion of their mind there is confidence of impunity, or if there is despair of mercy, sin dominant in such souls will take occasion, in the one case and the other, to exert itself, and show its great power and malignity. By the laiv, it is the law of Moses that these writers mean. Concerning it, it is needful, before we go farther, 180 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8 to observe a distinction that is proper to be made. First, the law maybe understood to signify the whole system of religion in the Mosaic times of the Old Testament. Dr Hammond expresses it thus (annot on Matt. v. 17): "In scripture the law signifies sometimes, yea often, in one general notion, the whole way of economy among the Jews under the Old Testament (taken precisely by itself, without opposition to the reformation wrought by Christ, and that way that men were put into for their eternal weal), — the Old Testament course, the religion of the former age, — the whole body of their religion." 2. The law may be understood, in a more narrow sense, to mean the system of precepts, or commandments, statutes, and judgments, which God gave to Israel by Moses, to be the rule and practice. Again, as to this last, the law may be understood of the moral law, which hath been, and continues ever to be in force, in all times : or it may signify the ceremonial or ritual law given by Moses, which was peculiar to the church of Israel, and times of the Old Testament : which last is most strictly the Mosaic law. Now, to answer on the question about remission of sins, according to this distinction ; the case was, that the preceptory moral law contained nothing about re- mission of sins ; nor doth it now. The moral law is still in force, and hath annexed to it the curse and denunciation of wrath against transgressors ; the conse- quence of which it is, that he who believeth not the Son. hath the wrath of God abiding upon him. It cannot be inferred from this, that there is no remission of sins now. For remission of sins, and the happy consequences of it, come not, at this time, by the law, but by grace. Thus as to the ancient Israel ; if remission of sins came not by the law, yet they had then the hope of remission, of acceptance with God, and of blessedness, and that by grace, and by the promise, which was manifested to Abraham for himself, and for his spiritual seed, the faithful ; and which the law afterwards given could not disannul, as Gal. iii. 17. Now, if in the religion of the former age, the whole body of the Jewish religion, as Ver. 8] OF ROMAXS VII. 1S1 Dr Hammond speaks, that is, in the law in the com- prehensive sense, which is the first sense he gives of the law, there was ground for the hope of the remission of sins ; it is not just to say, that sin took occasion by the law of Moses, as not giving the prospect of pardon ; or to mention that at all, in interpreting what he takes to be a reasoning concerning the abrogation of the Mosaic law; as if that was needful for giving men the prospect of remission ; and thereby encouraging them to repent- ance and reformation. It is undeniable, that Israel, under the Old Testament, were encouraged to repentance by the promise of forgiveness ; nor is it in this that the difference consists between the Old and New Testament. Let us, however, consider more closely how Dr Hammond expresses himself concerning this matter. Thus then he writes in his paraphrase of chap. vi. 14, " It were the vilest thing in the world for sin to have dominion over you, who are no longer under the weak unefrlcacious pedagogy of the law (which could only forbid sin, and denounce judgment, but never yield any man that hope of mercy, on amendment, which is necessary to the working reformation on him, or check- ing any sin that men are tempted to), but under a kingdom of grace, where there is pardon for sin unto repentance/' This passage must be meant of sin in outward practice : as the writer allowed, with Grotius, that the law allowed impunity to the inward working of unholy lusts. But what meant he by the pedagogy of the law? The word is taken from Gal. iii. 24, The law was our schoolmaster (TraL&ayuiyus, pedagogue,) to bring us unto Christ. Now, if the children, the heir, was under tutors or governors (Gal. iv. 1, 2), or under a pedagogue during the Old Testament, surely we are not to say, that it was his condition by this pedagogy, not having the remission of sin, to be only under judgment and wrath. The apostle gives us to understand otherwise, but that it was to the Jewish church a pedagogue to bring them unto Christ ; except any shall be so absurd as to say, that the Mosaic law had this tendency and effect only when the gospel 1 82 EXPLICATfON AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 8 was revealed, and the law came to be abolished ; but that, whilst it subsisted, it had no such effect to those who were under it. It is plain, that if in the pedagogy of the law there was denunciation of judgment, there was also the hope of mercy through Jesus Christ ; and that the special use of the law, as a pedagogue, was to lead men to Christ, that they might be justified through faith. This was the way in which Abraham was justified, and so he became the father of all them who believe, particularly of those who, being of the circumcision, did also walk in the steps of the faith of their father Abraham (Rom. iv. 12). Certainly the Doctor would not deny that there were many such under the pedagogy of the law ; so that it was quite wild for him to say, that the pedagogy of the law denounced judgment, but gave not the hope of mercy. But some men speak of the pedagogy of the law as if they who were under it had been under a proper and strict covenant of works, that gave no hope to trans- gressors. This is very wrong. God did never make a new promulgation of the law, by revelation, to sinful men, in order to keep them under mere law, without setting before them, at the same time, the promise and grace of the new covenant, by which they might escape from the wrath which the law denounced. The legal and evangelical dispensations have been but different dispensations of the same covenant of grace, and of the blessings thereof. Though there is now greater degree of light, consolation, and liberty, yet if Christians are now under a kingdom of grace where there is pardon upon repentance, the Lord's people under the Old Testament were (as to the reality and substance of things) also under a kingdom of grace. Terrible as the appearance was at giving the law from Mount Sinai,, yet when the Lord was to renew the writing of the law on tables of stone (Exod. xxxiv. 1-9), he declared his name, and proclaimed, The LORD, the LORD God, merciful and gracious, &c. There certainly could be no religion or sincere worship in the Mosaic, Ver. 8] of Romans vrr. 183 or in any times, without the prospect of forgiveness. So David understood (Ps. cxxx. 4}, There is forgiveness with thee that thou may est be feared. With what earnest- ness and humble confidence did the Psalmist, as often in his other psalms, so in Ps. li., plead for pardon, even when his prayer was for the pardon of sins in particular, for which the Mosaic law had provided no sacrifice, but had ordered capital punishment ? Which shows, that in the case of presumptuous sins, for which capital punishment was ordered — yet, even in such cases, that the penitent was not precluded from pardon. Now, if there was under the legal Mosaic dispensation that grace manifested, that taketh away sin and pardons it, it is certain there was nothing in the Mosaic institu- tions to intercept from the Lord's people the comfort of that grace. Though there was not in the Mosaic sacri- fices a true expiation, but instead of that a remembrance kept up of sin, as not yet truly expiated, yet in these Israel had the assurance and pledge of a true expiation promised and provided. This was according to the import of the name which Abraham gave to the mount on which the temple was afterwards built, JEHOVAH- JIREH, The Lord will provide himself a lamb for a burnt- offering Gen. xxii. 14). Such language had all the sacrificial service in that place, until at length He appeared, who was to be the true burnt-offering, and the Baptist marked him out to the people, saying, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world John i. 29). The virtue of this sacrifice availed to the Lord's people from the beginning of the world, for the remission of sin. But did Dr Hammond indeed think that the Mosaic legal pedagogy did not yield to men the hope of mercy, and that it is only now under the gospel dispensation that men are under a kingdom of grace, in which there is pardon upon repentance? How should I then under- stand what he says in the passage quoted above, that the law, in the most comprehensive sense, signifies that way that men were put into for their eternal weal — the religion of the former age ? Could men be put into any 184 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 8 way for their eternal weal, without the remission of sins ? These things that the learned writer hath, concerning the Mosaic pedagogy and law, are by no means con- sistent. What hath been said, makes it evident that the advantage which sin hath, to have dominion over men who are under the law, and to work in them all manner of concupiscence, is not to be understood of the Mosaic law ; and that the apostle's reasoning in this context (Rom. vii. 1-13) proceeds on a quite different view. What then doth it mean, that sin takes occasion by the commandment, to work in a man all manner of con- cupiscence ? The very words as they are expressed show that the law is in no wise the cause of this ill effect ; but sin taking occasion by it, even sin reigning in them who are under the law. Sin, that evil principle that spreads its influence over all the faculties of the soul, finding the law entering with great force into the conscience, and as it were making great efforts there against it, doth there- upon awaken all its powers ; and instead of submitting to the prohibition or reproof of the law, or fleeing before the threatening, it puts every sinful affection in motion against the commandment. Pareus illustrates the matter by this similitude : A physician forbids his patient the use of wine, or other strong drink. The patient, who perhaps was not thinking of strong drink, does now eagerly long for it, and calls for it with great impatience. The proper cause of this is not the advice of the physician, which is good and right, but the man's own heart under a sickly disposition. Concerning this Dr Doddridge says in his note: "It must surely be acknowledged, that all lust does not arise from hence (viz. from sin taking occasion by the commandment), much being previous to all possible knowledge of God's law, whether revealed or natural." This will be readily agreed to, that all lust doth not thence arise, nor does any say that the apostle means so. But sin, the evil principle or corruption that is in the heart, previous to all knowledge of God's law (as the worthy writer says) is ever lusting one way or other, Ver. 8] OF ROMANS VII. 185 but most remarkably when the law presses hard upon the conscience. Mr Alexander says, " In the most corrupted ages of the world, laws have a natural tendency to lessen the number and prevalence of crimes." True, as to crimes outwardly committed. But as the apostle is speaking here of inward concupiscence, it requires something else than the laws of men, even than the law of God itself, to restrain and subdue that. Of the last clause, without the law sin was dead, there hath a strange interpretation been given of late. Mr Locke gives it thus in his paraphrase: "Without the law (he means the law of Moses) sin is dead, not able to hurt me." And in his note he says, " Without the law, which annexes death to transgression, sin is as good as dead, is not able to have its will of me, and bring death upon me." But as I am, to the explication and para- phrase of this verse, to subjoin an essay on the penal sanction of the law, and his notion concerning it, I say no more of it here. In the meantime, what I take to be the true meaning of this clause I give as follows. The first part of the verse represents sin as not subdued by the law, but (on occasion of the law entering with force into the conscience) exerting itself vehemently against the authority of the law, in all manner of concupiscence. This, doubtless, behoved to give the sinner great disturbance of mind, between the authority of the law pressing hard upon one side, and the opposite vehement motions of sin on the other. The apostle seems to mean by the last clause a very different and opposite case. Whilst the law did not enter into the man's conscience with its light, authority, and force, sin was asleep, or even as dead, and gave no more trouble or uneasiness than a dead ravenous beast, that he carried, would do. If it had its motions inwardly, as it certainly had, they were not violent, or much observed. That they were little observed was in part from the love of sin, in part from ignorance of the law, and lastly, from the absence of the law, with regard to the authority and force of its precept and threatening in 1 86 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8 the conscience ; so that sin was not ruffled, nor disturbed by it. In this condition sin was as a strong man keeping his palace, and having his goods in peace. Yea, what increases this deadness of sin is, that it is often coloured, or covered, and as it were screened, under the cover of some sort of self-righteousness, that keeps it quite out of view ; yea, perhaps, under the cover of some fine-spun sublime speculation and theory concerning virtue ; as there are many who seem to have little of the force of the law in their conscience, who have a great deal of virtue in their head. The opposition that appears in this text, between sin, by occasion of the law, working in a man all manner of concupiscence on the one hand, and, on the other, sin dead without the law, gives good reason for understanding the last clause according to this inter- pretation. Paraphrase. — 8. Certainly the law, which prohibits all sinful motions and affections, is not a proper cause of these in the hearts of men. I hinted to you the true cause, when I said (ver. 5), that the vehement prevailing motions of sins, which are by the law, do happen in persons who are in the flesh. Take some explication briefly thus : Sin, or the flesh, that evil principle in corrupt nature, which is enmity against God and his authority, and not subject to the law of God ; but being roused and awakened by the strict prohibition and fearful threatening of the law ; and not finding, in its commands or terrors, what would subdue it, and with- draw the heart from its dominion ; did but take occasion, from the law, to exert itself in all manner of con- cupiscence, in a rebellious and vehement opposition to its authority, and to every precept thereof in particular ; as the same came to be borne home, and to press hard upon the conscience ; for without the law thus entering with authority and force, sin was as asleep, without such vehement and sensible motion, and, as it were, dead comparatively, under the cover perhaps of a shining self-righteousness, or of refined speculation concerning virtue, with little reality of it. THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW I S; AN ESSAY Concerning the penal sanction of the law, in view to the notion of Mr Locke, and of some others, concerning that subject. In explaining the 8th verse of Rom. vii. we have seen, how Mr Locke's paraphrase gives the last clause thus : " Without the law sin is dead, not able to hurt me." A reader, who knew that Mr Locke's view of the law in this place was restricted to the Mosaic promulgation of it, could not be surprised at such a sentiment. Mr Locke's notion comes now to be represented and con- sidered. It has been the opinion of divers learned men, that the apostle's reasoning (Rom. vii. I - 1 3 ) respects the Mosaic ceremonial law. But as there appears nothing particular in that context that can be understood to have any respect to the rites and ceremonies of Moses' law, others of late, still retaining the general notion that it is the Mosaic law that is meant, have supposed that it is something peculiar to the Mosaic promulgation of the moral law that is especially in the apostle's eye ; and having fallen in with an opinion that hath been first broached (for aught I know) by Mr Locke, I shall, for the reader's more full satisfaction concerning their views, represent his sentiments ; then these of Dr Whitby ; and thereafter these of Dr Taylor of Norwich, in their own words ; and then suggest some arguments against their opinion on the subject. Mr Locke expresses his mind thus, in his paraphrase of Rom. v. 13. " There is no certain determined punish- ment affixed to sin, without a positive law declaring it." And in his note there, he writes thus : " Sins can never be taxed, or a rate set upon them, but by the positive declaration and sanction of the Law-maker. Mankind, without the positive law of God, knew by the light of nature, that they transgressed the rule of their nature, reason, which dictated to them what they ought to do. 1 88 AN ESSAY CONCERNING But without a positive declaration of God their Sovereign, they could not tell at what rate God taxed their trespasses against that rule : till he pronounced that life should be the price of sin, that could not be ascertained, and consequently sin could not be brought to account. And therefore we see, that where there was no positive law affixing death to sin, men did not look on death as the wages or retribution for their sins : they did not account that they paid their lives as a debt and forfeit for their transgressions." At first sight, one might readily suppose the author meant no more, than that men could not know or deter- mine what is the punishment of sin, except that was determined by the law itself, or by the declaration of the Lawgiver otherwise. But it means more when he says, that sin could not be brought to account. That he so meant, is very clear and express in what he says in his note on Rom. v. 14 : " In this verse (saith he) St Paul proves that all men became mortal by Adam's eating the forbidden fruit, and by that alone, because no man can incur a penalty without the sanction of a positive law declaring and establishing that penalty ; but death was affixed by no positive law to any sin, but the eating of the forbidden fruit : and therefore men's dying before the law of Moses was purely in consequence of Adam's sin." Here we are to observe, that positive law is not meant in the ordinary sense ; as positive law is commonly meant of a law enacted for a time by the mere will of the Lawgiver, in contradistinction to a law moral in its own nature and of perpetual obligation. It is plain, the author, by positive law here, means a law clearly revealed, and fully promulgated, expressly deter- mining the punishment of transgression. We see then in the passage last cited, that Mr Locke held that no man can incur any penalty without the sanction of a positive law declaring and establishing that penalty; and that from giving forth the command concerning the forbidden fruit, which alone enacted death for the transgressing of it, death was denounced for no sin till the law given by Moses : and we have seen, that in his paraphrase of THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 89 Rom. vii. 8, and in his note on it, he said, that without such law, and previously to the law of Moses, sin could not hurt a man or bring death upon him. Thus also he writes in his note on Rom. v. 13 : " This is plain, that St Paul's notion of a law was conformable to that given by Moses ; and so he uses the word vo/ios, in English, lan\ for a positive command of God, with a sanction of a penalty annexed to it ; of which kind there never having been any one given to an)- people but that by Moses to the children of Israel, till the revelation of the will of God by Jesus Christ to all man- kind— no penalty," &c. So, according to him, till Moses' time, no man could incur a penalty for any sin, except that of eating the forbidden fruit. These things are exceeding crude. However much the celebrated name of Mr Locke, or the interest of an hypothesis, may give to some a bias towards these notions, I must for myself confess, that it gives me concern to see a man who wrote so accurately and judiciously on divers subjects, fall into such absence of thought and reason, as to be capable of writing at this rate. However, he hath, as to this subject, had his followers. According to this notion of Mr Locke's, the Lord made his chosen people Israel unhappy beyond all people, by giving them that law, by which, for even- sin, yea, as he speaks somewhere, for the least slip of infirmity, they were obnoxious to death, which, by his sentiments, persons of other nations were not. But he pretends to prove, that there was no hardship in this to the Jew, but a privilege; and what cannot be proven by so great a master in reasoning? In his note on Rom. v. 20, he thus states the matter: "All mankind was in an irrecoverable state of death by Adam's lapse. It was plainly the intention of God to remove the Israelites out of this state (viz. this irrecoverable state of death) by the law — By the law the children of Israel were put into a new state — their remaining under death, or their recovery of life, was to be the consequence, not of what another had done, but of what themselves did. — In their former state, common to them with the rest of mankind, 190 AN ESSAY CONCERNING death was unavoidable to them. But by the law they had a trial for life. Accordingly, our Saviour to the young man answers — Keep the commandments." Here, one might ask, Did the law, in giving them a trial for life, give them a chance of avoiding death wholly? No; they were to die at any rate, in consequence of Adam's sin. But the author means, a chance of continuing irrecoverably under death or recovering life, according as they should behave. But was it easy, or even possible, for an Israelite to keep the law so perfectly, that he would not, by some deed of his own — some one transgression, or slip of infirmity, bring death on himself irrecoverably? If this was neither easy nor possible, the privilege in the case evanishes quite. Even Dr Taylor ventures to say, that here Mr Locke has a wild conceit. The objection arising from this did not wholly escape Mr Locke's observation. In his note on Rom. vii. 8 he writes thus: "Laying aside the figure (viz. sin's being set forth as a person), the plain meaning here of St Paul is this : Though the law lays a stricter restraint upon sin than men have without it, yet it betters not my condition thereby (may the well - meaning Jew say), because it enables me not wholly to extirpate sin, and subdue con- cupiscence, though it hath made every transgression a mortal crime. So that being no more totally secured from offending under the law than I was before, I am under the law exposed to certain death." So our author supposes a Jew to argue and object; and this objection he supposes the apostle means to obviate. In his note on Rom. vii. 13, he says, "In the five foregoing verses, the apostle had proved that the law was not sin. In this, and the ten following verses, he proves the law not to be made death, but that it was given to show the power of sin which remained in those under the law, so strong, notwithstanding the law, that it could prevail on them to transgress. the law, notwithstanding all its pro- hibition, with the penalty of death annexed to every transgression. Of what use this showing the power of sin by the law was, we may see, Gal. iii. 24." The THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 191 words of that text arc, Wherefore the laze was our school- master to bring us unto Christ, that zee might be justified by faith. Well, this is a good use and design of the law. But if Jews did not fall in with this design of the law, were not actually brought to Christ, or justified by faith, did not they die irrecoverably, for their own sins, according to the sanction of their own law, which men of other nations were not under? It showed the power of sin, that it prevailed on men to transgress, not- withstanding the threatening of death. But still it is not proven that the law did not give death to the transgressing Jews, or that they were not, by being under such a law, in worse condition than men of other nations, on whom their personal sins could not bring death, as not being under a law fenced with such a sanction. They indeed, by wanting such a law, wanted the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ that the Jews had. But at the same time, according to this writer's notions, they did not so much need Christ for a Saviour as the Jews did. I go now to observe how Dr Whitby thought on this subject. He gives this paraphrase of Rom. v. 13, "For it must be indeed confessed, that until the taw, sin was in the world; but it must also be acknowledged, that sin is not generally then imputed to death, when there is no laze condemning men to death for it." And in his annotation, he says, " I add generally, because, though all men died after Adam, all were not punished with death for their own personal sins, but only the Ante- diluvians and the Sodomites." We shall hereafter observe, that a great many besides these died for their own sins before the Mosaic promulgation of the law. But if a whole generation of mankind, except eight persons, were destroyed by the flood for their own personal sins, as the scripture asserts (Gen. v.), it shows that all man- kind were then, before the law of Moses was given, under a law by which they were obnoxious to death for their own sins ; and when was that law repealed ? In the next paragraph Dr Whitby says : "Here also note, that the apostle cannot be rationally conceived to 192 AN ESSAY CONCERNING assert, as Mr Locke suggests, that no man can incur a penalty, without the sanction of a positive law declaring and establishing that penalty." It seems indeed to be a strange argument that the Doctor here suggests against Mr Locke : " For," says he, " this assertion entirely destroys the obligation of the heathens to perform any duty, since no man can be obliged to do that which he may omit without fear of punishment, and renders the heathens, who had no positive law given them, incapable of incurring any penalty by any sins they had com- mitted." This were indeed absurd. Yet doth this entirely destroy the obligation of the heathens to do their duty ? Are men indeed under no obligation to duty, but what arises from the consideration of punish- ment ? However, as this writer asserts here, that no man can be obliged to do that which he may omit without punishment, one might readily think, that such a writer should necessarily hold, in consequence of such a sentiment, that nothing could be accounted a law that had not a sanction prescribing punishment. Let us, however, observe the Doctor's paraphrase of Rom. vii. 9, which is precisely thus : " For I the seed of Abraham was alive ; or, indeed lived without the law once, before the law was given, I not being obnoxious to death for that to which the law had not threatened death ; but when the commandment came, forbidding it under that penalty, sin revived, and 1 died, i.e. it got strength to draw me to sin, and to condemn me to death." Here there is only mention of the seed of Abraham, in the interval between him and the giving of the law by Moses. But if they whose sin was aggravated by the advantage they had of divine revelation in that interval, were not obnoxious to death for their sins, much less the heathens, who, as the Doctor says, had no positive law given them, nor revelation, in that interval, or until the times of the gospel. I now observe the Doctor's paraphrase of Rom. v. 14, which is thus: "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, the giver of a new law, threatening death to the transgressors of it, even over them who had not THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 93 sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; i.e. men were all the while subject to death, though they sinned not as Adam did against an express law, threaten- ing death to them for it, and therefore death must reign over them for the sin of Adam." We have seen the Doctor contradicting Mr Locke's notion ; but wherein does he differ from him, if it is not that Mr Locke says, a man could not incur punishment ? Dr Whitby says, a man was not obnoxious to dcatJi, until the law was given by Moses, for his own personal transgressions, as no law until then was given to mankind threatening death. However, if a man was not obnoxious to death, unless the law he was under did denounce death for transgression expressly, as Dr Whitby thought, certainly there is as good reason for saying a man could not incur punishment unless he was under a positive law denounc- ing punishment expressly for sin. Upon the whole, it is evident, though these writers contradict one another, that they were on the main of the same opinion. Dr Whitby contradicts Mr Locke's notion, and brings argu- ments against it ; and yet adopts it when he finds use for it to explain some texts, without hurting his own hypothesis and opinion in a matter of doctrine. Let us now observe the sentiments of Dr Taylor of Norwich on this subject. The writings of this author are now in the hands of many ; and with some he bears the character of a masterly critic. We shall here have a swatch of his skill in that way, and of the accuracy of his notions and expression. Dr Taylor held, that Christ did not undergo the punishment of our sins in order to redeem us from punishment for our sins, and so to satisfy the sanction of the law, which denounced punish- ment and death for transgression. Suitable and helpful to this doctrine (hitherto held by the Christian church to be very heretical) is this notion, That a sanction de- nouncing punishment and death for sin, is not essential to the law itself; but that the law hath been for mam- ages without having any such sanction or threatening annexed to it. There is no cause then to wonder he should very readily fall in with this notion of Mr Locke's. N 194 AN ESSAY CONCERNING This is not the only instance that gives occasion to say, that Dr Taylor, mounted as it were on the shoulders of Dr Whitby and Mr Locke, has pretended to see farther than either of them, and to reject every particular article, almost even the most essential, of Christian faith and gospel doctrine. In the general, he acknowledges that every transgres- sion of the law doth, in its own nature, and in strict justice, deserve death. It may seem hard to think that the other two writers did not think and mean so too. Yet how could they say, that a man could not incur punish- ment or death for his sin, but by virtue of a positive law expressly threatening it ? which amounts to this, that however men's sins deserved punishment and death, yet they could not incur it ; or, which is the same thing, God could not punish, according to their deserts, the sins of the far greatest part of mankind, to whom such a law, as hath been mentioned, was not given. To proceed distinctly, it is fit to represent this writer's account of the different senses of law. In his note on Rom. v. 20, he says, " The apostle uses the word law in various senses; sometimes for a rule in general; some- times for the whole Jewish code, or the Old Testament ; sometimes for a rule of action ; sometimes for a rule of action with the penalty of death annexed, as here (Rom. v. 20, and chap. vi. 15 ; vii. 4, &c). Such a law Adam was under (In the day thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt die), and such a constitution the law of Moses was, sub- jecting those who were under it to death for every trans- gression." In like manner* he says, "By law, the apostle here (Rom. v. 13, 14) doth not only mean a rule of duty, but such a rule with the penalty of death threatened for every transgression of it. Such was the covenant at Sinai, or the law given by Moses — and such was the covenant under which Adam originally was." I wish he had proven this last assertion. The penalty of death was indeed annexed to one special probatory precept respecting the forbidden fruit. But I see not in * " Original Sin," p. 390, ed. 3. TILE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 95 the history, in the first chapters of Genesis, the mention or hint of such threatening annexed to the law in general, or to any other particular precept. So, for aught that is mentioned there, Adam might, according to this writer's notions, have transgressed a thousand times, and not be obnoxious to death, if he had not meddled with the for- bidden fruit. I would be glad to see how one of his sentiments would prove Adam to have been under a covenant or law, making him obnoxious to death for y transgression, so as not to prove that men in all times were under such a law. Lai<\ with ihe penalty of death annexed to the pre- cept, is what this writer calls rigour of law ; and Adam having been under such a law, he says it was abolished upon his fall. So he says,* " That covenant (under which Adam was) was the covenant of works, the same in nature with the Sinai covenant. Under this covenant Adam was when he sinned. But it was disannulled immediately after that. For even before God passed sentence upon Adam and Eve, grace was introduced by that promise (Gen. iii. 15)." According to him, then, from the time that promise was given, all mankind were under grace, until the matter was altered, with respect to the Jews, by the law of Moses. "From Moses to Christ (saith he) t the Jews were under the law. But the rest of mankind, though they always had a rule of action, yet never were under the law, in the sense above explained." That is, not under a law fenced with a threatening of death. All mankind, according to him, have been, from the time of the first promise, under grace. So, then, by this writer's notion of things, the first promise (Gen. iii. 15) disarmed the law of its penal sanction, and disannulled the covenant of works. But this is a great mistake, and is asserted without any warrant or good reason. It is true, the law, or covenant of works, by its tenor could not be a covenant of life to sinners. Grace showed them a way to escape the wrath denounced by the law for sin ; and we know by gospel- Original Sin," p. 389. t "Original Sin," p. 394. 196 AN ESSAY CONCERNING light, that this was such a way as did not abrogate or disannul the penal sanction of the law, but satisfied it. Though man transgressed, and broke the covenant of works, there is no reason to say, that that covenant was disannulled, or the law disarmed of its penal sanction. The case plainly is, grace being manifested, it took effect from thenceforth, for the salvation of those who laid hold of it by faith, and improved it for salvation. But the penal sanction of the law continued in force, takes effect at all times, and for ever, against the impenitent and unbelievers. Law, and the penal sanction being, as he says, abolished, let us observe some of the consequences. Dr Taylor hath as follows:* "When he says (Rom. v. 13), But sin is not imputed when there is no law, or, when law is not in being, he means the sins of those persons (from Adam to Moses) were not imputed to them, so as to subject them to death, because law, which subjects transgressors to death, was not in being. Take good notice " (pray do, reader, for it is a notable sentiment that now comes forth), " according to the apostle, and the true nature of things, it is only law which slays the sinner. For did not the law, or the constitution of the Lawgiver, condemn him unto death, he might, notwith- standing his sin, live for ever, for he might from time to time be pardoned." Here are rare things. Pardon imports remitting the punishment which the sinner is obnoxious to, and obliged to undergo ; and must be so understood in this passage, where pardon is mentioned as that by which the sinner might live for ever, and be saved from dying. But what need of pardon to save a man from death, who is not for his sins obnoxious to it, and is not under a law con- demning him to death for his sin ? I would likewise ask, if a man was under a law condemning him to death for sin, might not a pardon relieve him, and save him from it? Old Luther and Calvin, who were in use to call things by. their proper names, would have called the * " Original Sin," p. 393. THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 97 author of such a passage, nehilo. However, according to this author, from Adam to Moses there was no law condemning men to death for their sins ; all mankind were, yea, are now under grace, the grace of the new covenant ; even pagans, who never heard of grace, or of the promise, or of Christ, through whom grace is conveyed to sinners. We know from what source this notion is derived. But this is not a proper place to enlarge on that subject. Let us now sec the evidence Dr Taylor brings, that such law, as he describes, was introduced among the Jews ; for he is at pains to prove it. He puts the question,* " What evidence have we that the law of Moses was law in the rigorous sense, subjecting to death for every transgression?" I would not have troubled the author with such a question, or have asked a proof of what every one knows, and none, I think, denies. Let us, however, observe how he answers it, and what proof he brings, " The apostle (saith he- did — certainly so understand it, as appears by this place here ; where, having spoken of Adam's one jro/oaxrw/ia, lapse, or offence, he tells us, that the law entered that the lapse or offence might abound, or be multiplied. Now the law entered only among the Jews, and it could not enter so as to multiply the lapse or offence, which before was but one, if it were not of the same nature with the law given to Adam." By the explication I have elsewhere given of this text, it is made very evident that it will by no means answer this writer's purpose.! Dr Taylor supposes, that z-apn-rbifm, rendered offence, is to be restricted to such as subjects the guilty to death, which he thought sins of men before the Mosaic law, since the fall of Adajn, did not ; and so, whereas Adam's sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the only lapse before, yet now the Mosaic law, annexing death to sin, the lapse, or 7rapd~7iofia, was multiplied to as great a number as all the sins of the millions who were under that law. But what warrant had he to make this dis- * In his note on Rom. v. 20. t Sec on chap. vii. 1. 198 AN ESSAY CONCERNING tinction between lapses and other sins ! He did not, he could not say, that a/xa/ma had anything special in the sense of it more than our language expresses by the word sin. Yet every one knows, that these two words are interchangeably used, yea, are so in the very verse he is commenting on. The first clause is, The law entered, that the offence (7ra/oa7rrw/xa) might abound. The next clause is, But where sin abounded. — It is plain, that sin in the one clause, and offence in the other, are words of the same meaning. It were vain to say, that as the words are different, they mean differently. The evident design and scope of the verse will not allow it ; and the matter is put beyond question by ver. 16, the last clause of which is, The free gift is of many offences unto justifica- tioit. Here the word is TrapaTTTUfxa, the same as in the first clause of ver. 20. And it is plain, that the word (ver. 16) includes the offences of men of all nations and times, who are justified or pardoned. It appears, then, though the word is used in this context, concerning the one sin of Adam, that there is no good reason for restrict- ing its meaning in the first clause of ver. 20, since in the last clause of ver. 16, in the same context, the word appears without restriction to Adam's sin, or to sins against the Mosaic law; but includes sins that are neither the one or the other of these. To this he subjoins another argument, to prove that the law of Moses subjected the transgressor to death for every sin ; thus : " Besides this (saith he), he (the apostle) gives a substantial and undeniable proof, taken out of the law itself (Gal. iii. 10), Cursed is every one that con- tinueth not, &c. This denunciation of the law we find, Deut. xxvii. 26." A few lines downwards he argues and says, " This curse, without doubt, rendered the transgressors obnoxious to death." It certainly did so. But did he indeed think that the law which the Gentiles were under, which was not the law of Moses, did not assign the curse to transgressors ? Alas ! many were the sad symptoms that proved that the curse lay heavy upon them. He might in Gal. iii., a few verses below that cited by him, have observed (vers. 13, 14), Christ THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 99 hath redeemed us from the curse. — The Galatians were Gentiles who had not been under the law of Moses. The apostle all along considers them as such, and warns them to hold fast the privilege and liberty he had been asserting for them as Gentiles. But how vainly had he said to them, Christ hath redeemed US from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us, if the law they had been under, not that of Moses, did not subject them to a curse for their sins ? Thus far, in order to be the better acquainted with Dr Taylor's way of reasoning and criticism, we have followed him in the arguments he brings laboriously to prove what none ever denied, viz. that the law of Moses denounced death and the curse to transgressors, which he calls law in the rigorous sense. Let us now proceed to observe the consequence to the Jews, of law in the rigorous sense being introduced among them. The effect of it is thus expressed by Dr Taylor/'" " When the commandment came with the penalty of death annexed to it, then sin, the sting of death, revived ; then it acquired full life and vigour, and the Jew died, i.e. was a dead man in law, upon the first transgression he committed." Alas, for the peculiar and favourite people ! How could a man of Israel, or the nation subsist for a day, under such a law, which, according to our author, no other nation were burdened with? But the author (we thank him) soon relieves our anxiety for the Jew, in the next following words : " Though he had the relief of the gospel as well (so this author) as the rest of mankind, to heal the deadly wound." I can understand that the Jew had relief by the gospel ; for the gospel (according to Gal. hi. 8) was preached to Abraham ; but it is not so easily understood, how the rest of mankind (during the peculiarity of the Jews) had the relief of the gospel. However, by this account all is well for the Jew ; now we see the differ- ence, as to their spiritual state, between the Jews under rigorous law, and the Gentiles. The Jews, obnoxious to death by the law they were under, might attain * " Original Sin," p. 292. 200 AN ESSAY CONCERNING salvation by the grace they were under at the same time. The Gentiles, continuing impenitent, were to perish eternally (Rom. ii. 12), which they could not be adjudged to, but according to the law they were under. Is this now all that Dr Taylor's critical labour on this point has produced ? Having given a view of the sentiments of these writers, with such remarks on the several passages as occurred, I now come to consider more closely and distinctly the subject itself. The truth which we hold is, — That every man, of all nations and in every time, hath been obnoxious, for sin, to death, in all its extent and mean- ing, by the law of God, and its just sanction. The opposite notion is — That as no man is obnoxious to, or can incur death or punishment, but by a positive law, expressly determining that punishment ; so no man or nation, since the fall of Adam, hath been under such a law, adjudging them to death for their personal sins, until the law given by Moses, under which the Jews alone were. The case of the Antediluvians and Sodomites doth strongly contradict this notion. Dr Whitby speaks concerning the former thus,* " To say that they who were swept away by the flood with an untimely death did not die for their own sins, but for Adam's sin, is to contradict God himself, saying, / will destroy man from the earth ; for the iniquity of man is very great" &c. Something hath been said on this case before. Mr Locke answers, and says,*f" That some have been led so far out of the way, as to allege, that men in the deluge died for their own sins. Was this going far out of the way, or was it not true? His own very next words do so acknowledge. "It is true," says he, "they did so; but it is as true, that by their own sins they were not made mortal : they were so before by their father Adam's eating the forbidden fruit. So that what they paid for their own sins, was not immortality, which they * Note on Rom. v. 13. t Note on Rom. v. 15. THE TENAL SANCTJON OF THE LAW 201 had not, but a few years of their own finite lives ; which having been let alone, would every one of them in a short time have come to an end." This answer is far from being- satisfying. Men became universally mortal by Adam's sin. But the infliction of actual death on the antediluvians for their own personal sins, as is asserted in Scripture, behoved to be by a law the}' were under, which assigned death to men for their personal sins ; and by that sad instance, it appears to have been a law that would have adjudged them to death, though they had not been in a state of mortality before. But I say further, when the law of Moses entered, threatening death to the men of Israel for every transgression, was it by this law the men of Israel became mortal ? This will not be said. It might then be said of the men of Israel, of the Mosaic period, as Mr Locke says of the men of the former period, what they paid for their own sins was not immortality, but a few years of their own finite lives. As to those who held that no more was imported by the death threatened for eating the for- bidden fruit, than mere natural death, or the dissolution of their natural frame, I would ask one thing yet : Did the Israelites under the Mosaic law undergo death more, or in a more terrible manner, than other nations? For if Israel was brought under a law, with such a sanction, which other nations were not under, we might reasonably think the consequence would be — more dying, more of sudden and premature deaths, death in a more terrible manner and form, than in any other nation. But as to the ordinary course of things, this distinction did not appear. Other nations were cut off by sword, famine, and pestilence ; and death appeared among them in every terrible form. If, on some occasions, Israel were subjected to distinguishing judg- ments, this was owing to the special aggravations of their sin, to God's special care of them, and his special attention to their behaviour and welfare (Amos iii. 2 ; yet when he made an end of other nations, he. did n< deal with them to this day. These things give good cause to think, that Israel were not brought under any 202 AN ESSAY CONCERNING penal sanction but that which other nations were under. Dr Whitby says/ that in the ante-Mosaic period, the seed of Abraham were not, by any law they were under, obnoxious to death for their personal sins. But here are two notable instances, even of the seed of Abraham, who suffered death for their personal sins in that period (Gen. xxxviii. 7), Er — was wicked in the sight ef the Lord. and the Lord slew him ; and ver. 10, The thing that he [Onan] did displeased the Lord, zvlierefore he slew him also. In the period before giving the law at Sinai, when according to these writers, none of mankind were ob- noxious to death for their personal sins, Pharaoh, and a great army of Egyptians, were put to death in the Red Sea, for their personal sins, by the immediate hand of God. The Mosaic law could not be a rule of conduct or judgment respecting the seven nations of Canaan ; yet, when the measure of their iniquity came to be full, they were appointed to be destroyed, and the whole nation of the Amalekites were ordered to utter excision for other sins than that of Adam.t One argument respecting this subject from Gal. iii. 13, 14 has been urged before, and it has been proved by it, that the Gentiles, who were not under the Mosaic law, were nevertheless under the penal sanction and curse of God's law, by the law they were under. I go now to observe what the apostle Paul says (Rom. ii. 12), As many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without law ; and as many as have sinned in (or under) the law, shall be judged by the law. Mr Locke's note on this observes the different words in the first and second clause, airoXovvrai, shall perish, and KpLO-qo-ovrai, shall be judged ; and says, " St Paul doth not use these so eminently differing expressions for nothing." The eminent difference of meaning in this place I have not perceived. What he understood himself here by perish- ing, he hath not explained. It is very likely he meant the * On Rom. vii. 9. t Dcut. vii. and xx. THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 203 same with a writer to be presently mentioned, viz. going to non-existence, or ceasing to be. But if this same is what the law they were under adjudged impenitent Gentiles to, that law had a heavy and awful sanction. However, his notion of the word rendered perish, is fully- confuted by Dr Whitby and Wolfius on the place. The former, in opposition to the extravagant opinion of Dr Dodwel, brings divers texts, wherein the word is used with regard to persons, who, Dr Dodwel would acknow- ledge, would be subjected to everlasting suffering and misery, as the reader may see by looking to those texts themselves wherein the word is used, without my saying anything particular concerning them.* Dr Taylor gives this text 'Rom. ii. 12), thus : " They who shall be found to have transgressed against the mere light of nature, shall not come under the same rule with such as have enjoyed an extraordinary revelation." Xo, they shall not be so heavily punished as they whose sin is more aggravated. But Dr Taylor's paraphrase is contrived to hide much of the light of this text from his reader. The text says, they shall pcrisli ; the true sense of which appears by the text just now cited. Gentiles then were under a law that adjudged them to perish for sin. As to the latter word, rendered shall be judged, it also very commonly means, condemned : of which it is needless to bring instances, as none will deny it. But to what were Jews sinning under the law condemned, but to perish or die eternally ? Further, the point we are upon is very clear by what we have besides in that chapter Rom. ii.). If we trace from ver. 5, there it is said, that the impenitent do treasure up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath ; when (ver. 6) Cod will render to every man according to his deeds ; to some ver. 7 , eternal life ; to others (vers. 8, 9 . indigna- tion and wrath ; tribulation and anguish upon every soul of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the * Rom. xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. viii. II ; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; 2 Thcss. ii. 10; 2 Peter iii. 9 ; John xvii. 12; Mark i. 24 : Matt v. 29, chap, xviii. 14 : Matt. x. 39, chap. x\i. 25 ; Matt. x. 28. 204 AN ESSAY CONCERNING Gentile. By this it appears, that the Gentile, though not under the law of Moses, was under a law that assigned to him for sin indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish. What we have seen in this chapter (Rom. ii.), on which these learned writers have been able to say so little, to support their opinion, is as good as a hundred arguments, to confute the strange notion concerning the law that we are considering. I here observe an odd sentiment of Dr Whitby's, or a sentiment oddly expressed, concerning the law, on Rom. vii. 8- II. Arguing against those injudicious com- mentators, as he calls them, who thought that the advan- tage which sin got by the law, was because the law assigned no penalty for inward impurities, covetousness, for instance : " If," says he, "the law given them encour- aged them to covet, because it had no present penalty annexed to it, they must be more free to covet, or follow their natural or carnal inclination, when there was no law at all forbidding them to covet." No law at all ! when was it so? He must mean, before the Mosaic promulgation of the law ; and those at all times, who had not the light of that law. Yet as to the Gentiles, against whom the transgression of that law could not be charged, we find covetousness mentioned among the sins which they are said (Rom. i. 32) to have known, by the light of the law in their own consciences, to have been sins, and worthy of death by the righteous judgment of God ; and so, according to what did appear on Rom. ii. 12, for covetousness unpardoned, they behoved to perish by the law written in their own conscience. Let us now consider what the apostle says of the heathen Gentiles (Rom. i. 32), Who knowing tlie judgment of God {that they who commit such things are ivorthy of death), not oitly do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them. On this Dr Whitby says, " That murder, adultery, and unnatural lusts deserved death, they knew, not only by the light of nature and of conscience, but by their own laws, condemning them to death." But in the list there given by the apostle of sins common among the Gentiles, he mentions not only these three very THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 205 atrocious sorts, but also eoretousfiess, maliciousness, back- biting, envy, &c. Therefore the Doctor adds, " That all these sins, being species of injustice, condemned by the law of nature, rendered them obnoxious to the displeasure of God, who is the governor of the world, and the avenger of all unrighteousness, and so obnoxious to death for violating the law he had given them." Thus the learned writer, who said on Rom. vii. 9, that even the seed of Abraham, whose sins before the Mosaic law were more aggravated than those of the heathens, were not obnoxious to death for their sins until that law was given, — says here, that the heathens, who were never under that law, were obnoxious to death, even for inward sinful lusts. This text bears hard on Mr Locke's notion of the law. Let us observe how the learned gentlemen endeavours to evade or prevent the objection by a various reading of the text, thus : " Who knowing the judgment of God, did not understand [ovk evoija-av) that they who commit such things, are worthy of death."* So he would have the text say the quite contrary to that for which I have adduced it. However, the text, acording to this same reading, says, the heathens knew the judgment of God ; and (saith Dr Whitby) what righteous judgment of God could the)- know to be due to them who did these things, who knew not that they were worthy of death? Mr Locke says, there is another, besides the Clermont copy, that reads so ; but tells not which. Beza mentions the Clermont copy, and says, it is according to our common reading in all the Greek MSS. copies besides that he saw ; and he saw a great many. Dr Mills, according to his humour of unfixing the reading of ever)- text, when he could find any the least pretence * In the Codex Claromontanus (D) of the 6th century, and other western texts insert here the words ovk evoiprav, non inteUexerunt. It seems quite easy to account for the introduction of this clause. It would make the conduct of those who knew the judg- ment of God, and yet committed and took pleasure in these offences, more conceivable, if it were said that they did not understand that the death sentence had gone forth against such deeds. But there is nothing to justify the insertion of these words. 206 AN ESSA V CONCERNING for it, prefers the Clermont reading. Dr Whitby in his " Examen Millii," confutes him, and does very sufficiently support the common reading. Wolfius hath done so more lately ; and to them I refer, to avoid prolixity. The Clermont reading seems by no means to suit the apostle's scope. That appears to be, not only to show men's guilt, but also to show the aggravations of their guilt ; as, that they sinned against light, and the natural notions of God (vers. 20, 21). And so in this ver. 32, it would tend to aggravate, that they knew that, by doing such things, they became obnoxious to death. But to say that they understood not this, tends greatly to alleviate, which is cross to the apostle's evident purpose. But what could be the view in saying, as this reading hath it, that they understood not, or knew not, that they 10 J 10 did sue] 1 things were worthy of death ? It doth clearly hint, or insinuate, if they had known so, that they would not have behaved as they did. This were to make the apostle speak contrary to the truth of experi- ence and to the most certain common observation, which shows, that ill men practise in the same way, who know the penal sanction of the divine law, by the most sure and clear revelation : and it were unreasonable to in- sinuate the contrary concerning persons of whom it was said, a few verses before, that they were given up to a reprobate mind. After all, if we allow the reading that Mr Locke prefers, the text affords a strong argument to the purpose for which it hath been adduced. For, 1. According- to it, though thev did not know or understand it, yet so indeed the case was, that they, Gentiles as well as Jews, who commit such things, are obnoxious to death. Why should notice be taken of their ignorance, if it was not a point of truth which they are said not to have known or understood ? But, 2. We are not obliged to understand the word, as meaning their ignorance. I find by my lexicon (Hederici) that the word may be understood to import, that they did not advert, think of it, or consider it. So, according to that same reading, the text may be understood thus : THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 20 J Who knowing the judgment of God (the rule of righteousness God gave them in the precepts of his law, and the rule of his own righteous judging, set forth in the sanction of it), they, being given up to a reprobate mind (ver. 28), did not advert, think of it, or consider duly, that by such practices they became obnoxious to death. Whichsoever, then, of the readings mentioned shall be chosen, there is still a good argument from this text to prove, that by the law the Gentiles were under, the impression of which was in their consciences (though they, being fully possessed, and hurried on by their lusts, did not advert to, or consider it), they were ob- noxious to death for their sins. We may now judge of the justness of the interpre- tation given by Dr Whitby and some others, of Rom. v. 14. I much suspect that this is one of the texts, for interpreting which, without hurt to their own scheme and hypothesis, they are so fond of the notion concern- ing the sanction of the law we are considering. Dr Whitby gives it thus in his paraphrase : " Death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression: i.e. men were all the while subject to death, though they sinned not, as Adam did, against an express law threatening death to them for it." But by the evidence that hath been brought, it appears that this interpretation cannot stand ; as from Adam to Moses, and at all times, the sins of men were against a law that assigned death to them for their sins. If it be objected or asked, When, or how was the promulgation of the law, with penal sanction of death, made to men universally? — for it cannot be held to be law that is not made known to those concerned, and promulgated — I answer, The sanction assigning death for transgression, was promulgated to mankind when God said to Adam concerning the forbidden fruit, /;/ the day thou eatest, thou slialt die ; which did sufficiently intimate, that the punishment of all and every trans- gression of the law of God was to be death. Since that time, besides the divine revelation, of which the church 208 AN ESSAY CONCERNING had ever the advantage from the beginning, the sanction of the law appears to have been universally made known by the light and impression of it in the minds of men, of the Gentiles, even of the worst sorts of them, as we have seen in Rom. i. 32. If they had their bloody sacrifices, there hath been observed by the learned, in their writings, and in history, what shows that they considered the victims as substituted in their stead, to save them from the death and destruction they were obnoxious to for their sins. Whatever shift they made ordinarily to keep their minds easy, yet their apprehensions of destruction by the wrath of heaven for their sins were easily awakened. On such occasions they multiplied their sacrifices, and whole hetacombs were offered. If there were greater appearance of judgment and destruction threatened, human sacrifices, sometimes in considerable number, were offered. There is a very shocking instance of such human sacrifice recorded (2 Kings iii. 27), when the King of Moab saw providence giving the advantage to his enemies against the greatest efforts of him and his people ; he, to save himself and them from destruction, and to appease the wrath of heaven, took his eldest son that should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering on the wall. But the light and impression of the precept and penal sanction of the law in the minds and consciences of men, having become dim and weak, the wisdom of God saw meet to make to his church a new, clear, full, and very solemn promulgation of the law, and of its sanction, at Sinai, and otherwise, by the ministry of Moses. But by what hath been adduced from the scripture to that purpose, it appears how vainly, and without any good reason, it hath been said, that the Sinaitic and Mosiac promulgation added anything, as to penal sanction, to what was originally in the law given to mankind, and under which, with different degrees of light and im- pression, men have' been everywhere, and in all times of the world.. Before leaving this subject, it is fit to say something concerning the death which the law hath annexed to THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 2CX) transgression, and concerning the extent of meaning, in which the death threatened is to be understood. Dr Taylor held,* that in the threatening, and afterwards sentence, intimated to Adam, there was not meant "any other death but that dissolution which all mankind undergo when they cease to live in this world, whatever that dissolution be." It seems it was a question with this writer, what the dissolution is which men undergo at death? It has been generally agreed, that it is the dissolution of the union between the soul and body, by which the soul goes into a separate state, and the body is dissolved into dust. In this there appears to be nothing but what is clear, and easily understood. But this writer makes it matter of question, what the dissolu- tion is that happens at death, and seems not to be satisfied with the common notion of Christians concern- ing it. Did he think or suspect, as some have held, that the soul itself is mortal ; and, being material, is dissolved in the dissolution of the body, and hath no existence or life until the resurrection, when the body shall arise, endowed with the breath of life, and with rational powers and faculties? He was shy of giving his mind clearly on this point — only gives the hint by the doubt above mentioned. What important or fundamental truth is it, on which this author would not, in some sort, blow his baneful breath ! It is true, he speaks of eternal death as meant by the threatening of the law. But let not the reader mistake him. The passage is in his note on Rom. v. 20. There having observed that laiv sometimes signifies a rule of action, with the penalty of death annexed, he says, " Such a law Adam was under, and such a constitution the law of Moses was, subjecting those who were under it to death for every transgression, meaning by death eternal death, without hopes of a revival or resurrection." The death, then, that the law of Moses denounced, was the same death that was threatened for eating the for- bidden fruit ; and we saw just now, that that death * "Origin.il Sin," p. 20. O 210 AN ESSAY CONCERNING imported no more than the dissolution which men undergo, when they cease to live in this world. So by eternal death, it appears that he means here as denounced by the law nothing more than that, undergoing dissolu- tion, they should continue so for ever, without revival or resurrection. However, he also held that Christ procured resurrection to life for mankind universally. But if men shall then be punished with eternal misery for their sins and impenitence, this, according to what we have seen of his opinion, cannot be by virtue of the law, which, by his account, did not threaten or denounce any such thing. But if the law given to Adam, and that of Moses, were of the same nature, and threatened the same death, there is something in the matter that is not easily understood, or accounted for, if this death were no other than the deprivation of natural life. All mankind were, in con- sequence of Adam's sin, doomed to death in that sense, and were undergoing it universally, with the certainty that it would so continue to the world's end. This being the case, and the established constant course of things, what occasion for threatening this death by the law of Moses ? Is it not impeaching the divine wisdom, to say, that God would with such solemnity give forth the threatening of death for transgression, if that death signified no more than the deprivation of natural life? Why pretend to make a new addition to the law as given to Israel, beyond what was in the law, which other nations were under, if there was nothing in the additional threatening of death, but what Israel and all other nations were in common subjected to from the begin- ning ? Ay, but the law given at Sinai threatened death for every transgression : not so the law given to other nations, who were only suffering death, not for their own sins, but in consequence of Adam's sin. But what alteration did this make in the state of the Israelites? If they underwent death, those of other nations did so too. If the Lord cut off some Israelites with sudden and fearful strokes, many instances of that sort happened in other nations, who were not under the Mosaic law. THE rENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 211 Yea, among Israel in the Mosaic period it was observed, that the worst of men passed the course of life often in an easy and prosperous manner, and underwent death without an)- unfavourable visible symptom. So we in Psalm Ixxiii. Shall we say, that, the law prescribing for men's sins nothing but the dissolution of their frame by death, in the manner common to all men, these men, after passing life more prosperously, and death more easily, than other men, had nothing further to fear as the consequence of their distinguished wickedness? As this will not be said, shall we say that after this life punishment awaited them beyond what the law they were under prescribed ? Certainly this were absurd. Let us then consider what, besides deprivation of natural life, is included in the death threatened by the law. It is a just sentiment, that as the natural life of the human person consists in the union of the soul and body, so it is the spiritual life of the person to be in union with God, enjoying his favour. So Psalm xxx. 5. In his favour is life. But sin separates the sinner from God, and from his favour ; which must be accounted death by every one who comfortably enjoyed it, by every one who thinks justly. The curse imports so much, though what Dr Taylor says of it amounts to no more than this (note on Rom. vi.), "This curse without doubt rendered the transgressor obnoxious to death ; as Saul's curse was understood to touch Jonathan's life." A* to Saul's curse, it could indeed reach no farther than Jonathan's life ; but the curse of God, and of his righteous law, can and cloth reach much farther. This curse certainly imports, besides deprivation of natural life, to be cast out of God's favour and fellowship, deprived thereof, and of the light of his countenance ; which they who judge that in God's favour is life, will certainly consider as a real death. If, according to the scripture, we consider it in that light, what good reason can be given, why it should not be included in the death threatened by the law for sin, which certainly separates between men and God? But there is what the scripture calls the second deaths 212 AN ESSAY CONCERNING which imports everlasting pain and misery. As it is called the- second death (Rev. xxi. 8), so it is expressed by the name of death (Rom. viii. 13), If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die ; and chap. vi. 23, The wages of sin is death. Some endeavour to answer, or prevent the argu- ment, by suggesting, that in both places the apostle hath in his eye a course of fleshly living and sinning, con- tinued in impenitently to the end. But though it be allowed that this is the case, as to the two places now mentioned, yet this doth not hinder our understanding the apostle as giving forth a general doctrine or maxim, particularly in Rom. vi. 23, The wages of sin is death. What determines the wages of sin is the law. Now we know of no determination of the law on this subject, other than that it determines the curse and death for the wages of sin. Therefore the second eternal death, and the spiritual death before mentioned, must be in- cluded in the death assigned by the law as the wages of sin. Dr Taylor himself expresses something that tends to this purpose.* " And certain it is," saith he, " that now we are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. vi. 14). Nor will the law be in force, to give sin its deadly destructive power, till the great and terrible day of the Lord, when those who impenitently have lived after the flesh shall die (Rom. viii. 13)." Passing the inter- pretation he hints of Rom. vi. 14, of which formerly, I now say concerning this passage : 1. Dr Taylor's notion, as here expressed, clearly implies, that the law, with regard to its penal sanction, hath not the authority and force of a law till it comes to be executed, which is very absurd. The Supreme Ruler brings men under a dispensation of grace, uses forbearance, delays executing of judgment, and hath appointed a day wherein he will judge the world. Is it therefore just to say, that the sanction of the law hath not all along and still authority and force, nor will be in force till the last day? Surely it must be by virtue of the law and its sanction, that it is * "Original Sin," p. 394. THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 21 3 said of a man in this life, of him that believeth not the Son (John iii. 36), that the wrath of God abideth on him. For (Rom. iv. 15) it is the law that worketh wrath, 2. The Doctor says, that it is the law that will give sin its deadly and destructive power in the great day. But certainly it could not do so, but as in its penal sanction it adjudges death and destruction for sin. As God hath given to men his law to be the rule of their behaviour, so when he shall come to act as a Judge, he certainly will make that same law his rule in judging them. It were dishonourable to God as a Judge, to say that he would judge moral agents at last otherwise than accord- ing to the law he had put them under when the)' acted their part in life. It appears, then, by Dr Taylor's sentiment, as set forth in this passage, that the damnation and perdition of sinners at the day of judgment will be by virtue of the sanction of the law, which denounced death for sin ; which proves very clearly, that this everlasting perdition, this second death (and not merely the deprivation of natural life), must be understood to be included in the death threatened by the law. It proves further, as this second death, this eternal perdition, will happen at last to every man, of every nation, and of all times, who is not saved by grace, and in the way marked out by it. that, besides deprivation of natural life, the second death is adjudged for sin by the law, which men of all nations and times have been under. So that it is not the law given to Adam, concerning the forbidden fruit only, or thereafter only the law given at Sinai, that denounced death and a curse for sin. How far these things are consistent with Dr Taylor's other speculations concerning the law, which we have seen formerly, the reader may judge. That writer had very crude and undigested sentiments and reasonings on this, as on divers other subjects. Upon the whole, it has been sufficiently proved, that the law of God, which is the rule of duty to all men in common, hath at all times, and with regard to men of all nations, been fenced with a penal sanction, which 214 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 9 adjudged death to transgressors, — even death in all the extent of meaning, that hath been here shown from the scripture. So that we may now be satisfied, how destitute of all foundation in scripture or reason, is the conceit of Mr Locke, expressed in his paraphrase, and note on Rom. vii. 8, where he says, that without the law (of Moses) sin could not hurt a man, or bring death upon him ; and his notion, that since the fall, mankind were not under a law threatening death for transgression, until the law given by Moses, which was given only to Israel ; which notion appears to have been adopted by Dr Whitby, in his paraphrase of ver. 9, which I come now to consider. Most of readers would not, I suppose, need to have so much said on this point. But, consider- ing what weight the characters of these writers might give to their sentiments and arguments in the eyes of many, it seemed fit to consider the subject the more thoroughly and largely. Text. — Ver. 9. For I was alive without the law once : but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. Explication. — As to the first expression here / was alive, some render it, / lived once, or sometime ; I lived without the law ; as if he meant no more than to say, that sometime, for a part of the time of his life, he had been without the law ; supposing there is no particular emphasis, or more special meaning of being alive. But as the expression in the end of the sentence, / died, certainly means something else than the death that puts an end to natural life, so the antithesis, or opposition that is evidently intended, requires that, by saying, / was alive, we understand something else than natural life, or a part of its duration. It is, in short, that being without the law, and so not' knowing his great guiltiness, and the prevailing of sin in him, he was alive, with respect to confidence and conceit of his own good state ; confident of the favour of God and of eternal life : which con- J rer. 9] OF ROMANS VII. 2 1 5 fidence was destroyed by the coming of the command- ment. Grotius, Drs Hammond and Whitby, and also Mr Locke, agree in holding, that the apostle means not here himself personally, but the Jews in general; that being without the law, he means of the time before the law was given at Sinai ; and by the coming of the commandment, the promulgation of the law on that occasion, with the curse, or penalty of death annexed. This the two last named did suppose was not threatened, except in the single case of eating the forbidden fruit, until that time. But why suppose that Paul here personates others ; or that he does not represent his own former personal case ? Considering his style and expression, there can be no cause for understanding him otherwise, except there can be shown some absurdity in applying to him- self personally what he says. I see not that Grotius brings any reason from the verse itself for this notion of his ; but Dr Hammond does. " That he was once without the law, can," he says, " with no appearance of truth be affirmed of Paul's person, who was born and brought up a Jew, in the knowledge of the Mosaic law." But Paul might have had great knowledge of the Mosaic law, and, being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, might have been very learned in the various cases and questions respecting the Mosaic rules of divine service, cere- monial pollutions, and ceremonial methods of purifica- tion, and yet have little knowledge of the moral law in its extent, and very little knowledge of the power and energy of the law in his conscience and heart. He mentions in the same context, what proves his knowledge of the law to have been very defective. He says (ver. 7), I had not known Inst, except the law had said, Thou shalt not Inst. There was a time when he did not know the inward lustings of the heart to be sin ; when he had no concern or anxiety about the disposition, aims, or affections of his heart ; but thought all was well if he did what was externally good. As to this, it is to be considered, that the moral actions of rational creatures 2l6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 9 are not to be judged of merely by what they are in the outward work, but also by the inward principles and disposition of the heart ; so that an action may, as to the outward part, be good materially, when, on the whole, as it comes to be judged of by an all-seeing, heart-searching God, according to the holiness and spirituality of his law, it is sin, and that, perhaps, of the most atrocious and aggravated kind and degree. By this it appears, that when Paul was a Pharisee, if his works were outwardly good, or in their outward nature indifferent, yet, not knowing that the law reaches the heart, he had not that light and knowledge of the law which would enable him to judge justly in what class, of good or evil, to state even those outward works, as connected with his inward views and disposition : besides, that much sin inwardly, not immediately con- nected with any outward action, was not known or observed by him. This was to be without the law in a great degree. However learned Paul had been in the divinity of the Pharisaical school, yet his knowledge being so essentially defective, with respect to duty and sin, certainly there was no impropriety or exaggeration in saying, when he came to know better, / was without the law once. But besides, an important thing to be considered here is, that the law did not enter into his conscience with its proper authority, energy, and impression. Many a man there is of very clear and extensive knowledge, into whom the law doth not thus enter, to give the view and conviction of sin, with the proper impression. Upon the whole, Dr Hammond was far from having reason to say, that it could not be affirmed of Paul personally, that he was without the law once. However, the sentiment, particularly of Dr Whitby and Mr Locke is, that the apostle, personating others, says, / was without the law once ; that is, for between two and three thousand years from the fall of Adam. For though they sometimes speak only of the Jews, the seed of Abraham, and seem to restrict the matter to the time between Abraham and the giving of the law, yet their Ver. 9] of Romans }'ii. 217 scheme and opinion allows no room for this restriction. All mankind were, according to them, without a law denouncing death for transgression, from the fall until the law was given at Sinai. So that, in interpreting this verse, by the notion of Paul's personating others, they view mankind as contracted into one long-lived man, who was indeed very old (more than four thousand years old), when he says in the text, / was alive without the law oucc. It seems to have required considerable vivacity and force of genius to have thought of interpret- ing the text by a figure so very bold — rather, wild and extravagant. But what is it that gives the hint of such a meaning, or that makes it necessary to have recourse to so strange an interpretation ? That which hath been more commonly given, is simple, natural, obvious, and agreeable to the proper import and use of the expres- sions of the text, embarrassed with nothing that deserves to be called difficulty or inconvenience. Mr Locke's opinion has indeed led him to express himself in a strange manner, particularly in his paraphrase of this verse. " There was a time (saith he) when I, being without the law, was in a state of life." And this he means not of men's own conceit, or sense of things respecting their state, but of a real state of life, not obnoxious to death. So that for one instance, for many instances, for a million of instances of transgression, sinners had not death to fear. Dr Whitby's notion to the same purpose, we have seen in his paraphrase of this verse. I should think, with due deference to Mr Locke's and Dr Whitby's characters, that representing fairly such extravagance of sentiment and exprcssiuii, were enough for confutation to any thinking or judicious reader. I have, however, bestowed an essay on the subject, to which I refer. After all, the expression of the text is not, When the threatening of death for transgression came; nor yet, When the law came; which they would suppose included or implied that threatening ; but, ichcu the commandment came, which is something very different from the threatening. I can easily admit, that law and 21 8 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 9 commandment may be interchanged in expressing the same meaning ; and I see they are so interchanged here, as I believe, at the same time, that the divine command- ment is to be understood to have had, at all times, the penal sanction of death for transgression annexed to it, whether expressed or not. Yet if it were otherwise, and that the commandment had been for many ages without such penal sanction, we may be confident, when mention was to be made of introducing a law fenced with such a new and unusual sanction, that the expression would not be simply, When the commandment came, which, according to the notion of these writers, implies no such thing as the threatening of death. This then is the second clause, But when the command- ment came, sin revived. It did so in two respects. 1. By the conviction he received of his own manifold guiltiness. He had become guilty in many respects, especially by the inward prevailing of sin, which, through his ignorance of the law, he had no sense of. Besides, the conviction and impression of sin, that he had sometime been conscious of, came by time to disappear and be defaced. But when the law entered into his conscience with light and force, armed with a terrible denunciation of wrath, it showed him sin that he had not been sensible was sin ; and what sin he had, in some sort, been conscious of, it brought to remembrance with a fearful sting. 2. Sin revived in these sinful affections that are by the law, as ver. 5 ; and the more the law, with its authority, light, and terror, reached the heart and sin in it, sin exerted itself the more vehemently, in all manner of concupiscence, as ver. 8, in opposition to the law. The consideration of the context seems to lead us to think, that it is the reviving of sin in this second respect, not excluding the former, that the apostle hath chiefly in his eye. The sinner, convinced of his. guiltiness and danger by transgressing the law, doth yet incline to hope well of himself, if he shall do well in all future behaviour. So, being sensible by the coming of the commandment, that it is necessary that the heart be Ver. 9] of Romans vii. 219 right, he labours upon it. But the more he doth so, the more he perceives the wickedness of his heart. Hence awakened sinners so commonly complain, that they find their hearts become daily worse, instead of becoming better. They find in it a perverse aversion to God and to his holiness, that the carnal mind is enmity against God, and is not subject to his law ; and if, through manifold guiltiness by past practice, they find them- selves under the fearful sentence of the righteous law, sin also reviving in the unholy workings of an evil heart, and in those motions of sin which are by the law, this especially destroys every false confidence. Thus the consequence of the coming of the command- ment, with its light, authority, and terror, and of the reviving of sin on that occasion, is, as the apostle expresses it,/ died, — I found myself a dead man, and nothing on my part to encourage me to entertain any confidence or hope. Though the word here used concerning sin is, sin revived, that doth not oblige us to think, as if it had been altogether, as to the conviction of sin, or as to its rebellious motions by the law (as the apostle speaks, ver. 5), even before the commandment came, in the manner here meant. The preposition dvo, that is in the composition of the Greek verb here, hath not always that effect in the signification of a word ; for sometimes a verb so compounded, hath no other than the simple meaning of the uncompounded verb ; as instances of which are mentioned, avafiXacrraveLV, ura-eAAai', av'uTTavOai, for which the dictionaries may be looked into. I represented before* Dr Whitby's paraphrase of this verse, by which he would have it mean, that before the law of Moses was given, a man of the seed of Abraham was not obnoxious to death for sin, as there was then no law that threatened death for it. His note on this verse is in these words: ''-p. tow Mwvo-edK, before the law of Moses came. So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact." It is a way not uncommon with this writer, to give such * In the " Essay on the Penal Sanction of the Law." 220 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. g a list of names when he hath not a better argument to support his interpretation. Before I leave this verse, there is one thing yet which it is needful to consider. It may, perhaps, be objected, that, in the history of Paul, we cannot find any period or time when he could observe in himself that revival of sin, on the coming of the commandment, or could have that experience of the workings of sin, on occasion of the law, in persons in the flesh, that are represented in this con- text : and if so, then he must necessarily be supposed to be personating others, not setting forth his own experi- ence. The argument may be conceived thus. He was, on his journey to Damascus, a Pharisee, possessed with the delusions of that sect, and in full confidence of his own good state ; when the Lord having manifested him- self to him, he did, at the same time, manifest to him the consolations of grace; yea, said (Acts xxvi. 16), / have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a minister, &c, adding words of the utmost encouragement and comfort. Here there was no interval or time, to observe the motions of sin that are by the law. This was prevented by the speedy manifestation of grace ; by which being brought under grace, he could not have in himself the experience of a man in the flesh, and under the law, that is represented in this context. This deserves to be considered. I begin with observing what the learned and judicious Dr Guise suggests (note on Acts xxvi. 16) to this purpose : That it is not necessary to think that all the comfortable things related there (vers. 16, 17), were spoken by the Lord to Paul on the road to Damascus, at his first appearing to him. The historian Luke, or Paul himself, may have joined together what the Lord spoke to him at different times. Paul himself reports (chap. xxii. 14, 15) that Ananias spoke to him of the future revelations and ministerial commission that the Lord was to vouchsafe to him ; and the Lord himself might have said more fully to him, to the purpose expressed (chap. xxvi. 16, 17) on that other occasion mentioned (chap. xxii. 17), and afterwards. If in his Ver.g] of Romans vir. 221 first appearance to him on the road to Damascus, the Lord said anything to him of ministerial office, and of protection and support in it, it might be in general and dark hints (not so well understood or attended to by Paul, in the condition he was then in), to be more fully explained afterwards. Indeed in the account given, Acts ix. 6, when Paul, upon hearing the Lord's reproof and expostulation, trembling and astonished, said, Lord, what wilt tliou have me to do? the answer is, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. This, I think, makes it probable, that any special comfort to him was referred to the time when Ananias in Damascus was sent to him. If any shall happen not to be satisfied with this, yet the matter may still be accounted for by what we find in his history. Let it then be allowed, that on his first appearing to him, the Lord said very comfortable things, as it is not uncommon for him to suggest some comfort- able matters for the present support of distressed souls, when they are not yet capable of receiving full con- solation through faith. So, whatever matter of comfort was suggested, Paul was not yet susceptible of the comfort. The sense of his guiltiness by the wicked course he had been in, and the apprehension of judgment for it, even the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. v. 10), was uppermost, and possessed his whole soul. As he trembled and was all astonished when he heard the Lord's reproof and expostulation, so, being blind, he did not eat or drink for three days and nights. This represents a condition of great distress ; nor do we find with him any symptoms of comfort till Ananias came to him, acquainted him of the ministry to be committed to him, and called on him to receive baptism, the seal of divine grace; and, using it with faith to wash away his sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts xxii. 14-16). In these primitive times, the law and the gospel had very powerful and speed}* effect on the souls of men, as we may observe in divers instances. If we suppose a man blind, and diverted by no external objects, having his heart filled with the sense of his sinfulness. 222 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. g and of the great aggravations and fearful consequences thereof, with his mind turned to the most serious thought about his most important interests, with the most intense application ; if with this we consider the velocity with which things pass in the human mind, especially in such a condition, we may be assured, that in these three days and three nights, Paul acquired great experience of his own heart, of the flesh, that corrupt principle in him, and the law now come clear and strong into his conscience, — these, the flesh and the law, striking powerfully the one against the other. Paul, deeply sensible of his own wretchedness, did doubtless labour much on this occasion to reform his heart unto a conformity with the holiness and spirituality of the law, which he now understood better than ever before. He might at that time have all the experience he represents in this context, of sins reviving, and exerting itself vehemently, and of the pre- vailing power of the flesh, with all its sinful affections and lustings, in opposition to the authority and holiness of the law. Thus we find a period in his history wherein he was likely to have personally all the experience here set forth ; which makes a sufficient answer to the difficulty or objection suggested. Some have explained and accounted for the advantage that sin hath by the law, by this : That the law did not promise, to those who were under it, spiritual blessings and eternal life, which is necessary for purify- ing the heart and subduing sin. This is of importance to be more largely considered ; and I subjoin an Essay concerning that subject, after representing the sense of this ninth verse, according to the interpretation I have given of it, in the following. Paraphrase. — 9. Sin being thus dead, as in the absence of the law, a self-flattering deluded heart entertains great confidence of a man's good state, until the coming. of the commandment discovers to him the delusion he hath been in. Of this I have had sad experience. For, being sometime without the law, I was alive, in great confidence of my good state, of my interest in the Divine favour, and eternal life. But Ver. 9] of Romans vii. 223 when the commandment came, and entered into my conscience in its extent and spirituality, and with its proper authority, light, and force ; as this awakened me to a more serious consideration of my spiritual state, sin awakened also. Not only did the conviction of by-past guiltiness revive in me, but sin, not subdued, but awakened and ruffled by the reproof and threatening of the law, did exert itself in all manner of concupiscence ; and give me such proof of the pravity of my nature and heart, as did especially contribute to overturn all my false confidence, and to make me sensible that I was a dead man, by virtue of the judgment of the righteous law, my guiltiness, and the extreme wickedness of my heart ; by which my case became quite deplorable. AX ESSAY Concerning the promise and hope of spiritual blessings, and of eternal life, under the Old Testament. I AM now come to consider another account, that of Grotius, of sin's having advantage by the law, and by men's being under it. He says upon Rom. vi. 14, that as the law promised nothing beyond what is earthly, it gave not strength enough for purifying the soul. But the gospel, by the promise of things heavenly, gives great strength to those who will use it. The gospel indeed gives great strength in this way, and otherwise too than by proposing the best of motives, and that in a way very effectual, though not quite agreeable to this writer's notions. On chap. vii. 5, he says, "Most men in these times were carnal, and had no hope, or but small hope, of another life ; and so were addicted to the present life, and to the pleasures of it." The former account, that of Dr Hammond considered in explaining ver. 8), and this, arc so far connected, that if under the law there was no ground for men's hope of the remission of sins, there could be no hope of eternal 224 AN ^SSA Y CONCERNING THE PROMISE. life. Yet, on the other hand, if there was then no ground for the hope of forgiveness, as there certainly was, there behoved to be good warrant for the hope of future life and happiness. For men might justly conclude, that God would not pardon sin, and so bring men into favour and amity with himself, without providing for them, as the fruit of that amity, something better than an earthly portion, which is more commonly enjoyed in its highest degree by those who are strangers to God, and under the guilt of unpardoned sin. What the words last cited say, " that most men in these times were carnal," is, I apprehend, the case now, even under the light and encouragement of gospel revelation. If it was so with the ancient Israel, the cause of it was not, that God did not encourage them, or that piety was not encouraged with the hope of eternal life. Grotius says, in the words immediately preceding those last cited, that the few who in that state were spiritual, were not so ex sola vi legis, merely by virtue of the law. In this I agree with him ; and I believe the law, strictly so called, will not in any time make men spiritual, as of old the promise that he should be heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed through the law. But that is nothing to the present purpose. For, if the ancient Israel, together with the law, had the promise of future life and happiness, to encourage their pursuit of holiness, and of spiritual and heavenly things, then their being under the legal pedagogy could not be a cause of men's being under the dominion of sin, or in the flesh. When this eminent writer doth, on Rom. vi. 14, contradistinguish the gospel as having the promise of heavenly things, to the law as having no such promise, he must by the law be under- stood to mean the whole system of the ancient Jewish faith and religion. So that when he says, on Rom. vii. 5, that men had then generally small hope, or none at all, of future life, it was evidently his mind, that God gave them not sufficient ground for such hope, by his dealing with them, or by the revelation he gave them, however some of them might console themselves with some weak hope of that sort. This is a matter of such UXDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 225 importance as deserves to be seriously considered, and carefully explained. In the first place, I say, in general, that an Israelite might, from God's dealing with their nation, and with particular persons in it who feared him, conclude, with the utmost certainty of rational deduction, that he had provided a future happiness for pious persons. He exalted them to be his peculiar people, and gave them very sensible proofs of his favour and regard, beyond what he had ever given to any nation. Could any rational person allow himself to think, that the Lord had in view no other than an earthly transitory happiness for such a people? that they who honoured him most with their faith, confidence, and obedience, were, if they prospered in this world, but as fed for the slaughter ; when death should feed on them without any hope beyond it? Surely it might be rationally concluded that God would account it dishonourable to himself to assert any special friendly relation to them, if he made no special provision for them beyond this life. If, serving and fearing God, they had earthly felicity, nations had so too, in a greater degree than the}- had whom God accounted and declared his enemies. Israel, in all times, had occasion to see pious persons in worldly and external misery, and dying without any change to advantage in their con- dition outwardly. It was not only so on occasion of the distresses of the Babylonish captivity, and the following times of their church and nation, when Grotius allows, that hints were given, and more hope conceived, of eternal life : but in ancient times pious men often underwent great misery of outward condition. They were for a considerable time in great misery and distress in Egypt. Shall we say, that the many pious Israelites, who died in that time, had no ground or warrant given them for the hope of better things after death? In the times of the Judges, yea, in all the times preceding the reign of King David, they had great vicissitudes, and recurring times of great and long- 226 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE continued distress. Many thousands, who were pious, are likely to have died in these calamitous times of their nation, in circumstances of much external misery, without seeing what the renewed mercy of God did for their people. Had all these no hope for themselves in their death ? or might they, after all the privilege God had dignified them with, — after all their faith in him, and their upright walking with him, amidst the backslidings of their nation, that brought judgments on them, — might they say, that they had nothing by it, but to be of all men the most miserable? If the Ephesians, in their state of heathenism, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, were without hope, it certainly were very unreasonable to say, that those of the common- wealth of Israel were so too. Upon the general view of these things, it is certainly just to say, that from God's dealing with that people, in such instances and cases as are before mentioned, an Israelite, thoughtful about futurity, might infer the hope of future happiness to pious persons, with as great certainty, and acquiescence of judgment and understanding, as he could infer any conclusions from any principles. It will perhaps be said, that indeed pious persons did, from such views of things as I have been representing, form the hope of future happiness, and that not altogether without reason; but that it is still true that God did not give them ground for that hope by any revelation or promise he gave them. As to this, it hath been shown, by what is above written, that God did give them ground for that hope. As to what his revelation or promise imported to that purpose, let us now direct our inquiry to that point, and see what God gave to Israel by his word and promise, to found the hope of eternal life. The Lord called himself their God, and denominated himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. iii. 6, 15). This expressed the covenant ; the sum of which was in these few words, / will be their God, and they shall be my people. Let us consider what this imported. It is not merely, that as he was the God they acknow- ledged and worshipped, so they were the people he UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 227 would acknowledge as his, and whose services he would accept. The expressions import a great deal more ; even a most special mutual interest which God and his people should have in one another, by virtue of the covenant. When the true Israel agreed sincerely to be his people, it imported a resignation of themselves to him, to be wholly his : to be disposed of for his glory, and separated to his service. Hence, as God hath an original right to them of property and dominion, as his creatures, so he had a special acquired right to them by the covenant, and by their own choice and self- dedication. In like manner, on the other hand, when God con- descended in the covenant to be their God, it imported, that, of infinite grace, he engaged himself to be theirs, that, as the Lord's portion is his people, so the Lord should, by the covenant, be their portion — The portion of Jacob (Jer. x. 16). I am my beloved's, saith the church, and my beloved is mine (Cant vi. 3). That promise, in- cluding all the grace of the covenant, imports no less than — for all that is signified in being God, I am thine, so far as is requisite ' for thy support, protection, and endless happiness. I am thine, to be thy shield and exceeding great reward (Gen. xv. 1). There was suffi- cient and very evident ground for every pious soul, laying hold of God's covenant, to entertain the hope of eternal life. Sadducees of old might overlook, modern critics or philosophers may overlook or dispute it, when the scheme of doctrine they have adopted requires their doing so. But certainly a thinking rational soul, believing God's word, would, at departing this life, find, in this expression and promise of the covenant, a very sufficient foundation to rest on comfortably, for the hope of future life and happiness. If a pious Israelite com- forted himself by the Lord's saying, / am tliy God, in going through all the stages and vicissitudes of this life, often foregoing the comforts of this life for keeping a good conscience towards God ; shall we say, that the Lord's being his God imported nothing at all to him in his last gloomy and solemn hour ; but that all the 228 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE consolation, arising from the Lord's being his God, was to expire with his last breath? If one's hope in man should thus terminate, yet God is not man. If enemies were despatching a pious person from this life with bloody hands, how would it especially be as a sword in his bones, if he had not in the promise, / will be thy God, what would fortify his heart against the reproach and insult, Where is now thy God? Such a pious person, when death was on his lips, — when the failure of natural spirit and strength prognosticates the speedy dissolution of his frame, — yet from this, / am thy God, he had cause to say, When heart and strength fail, thou art the strength of my heart, and my portion for ever. We have the best confirmation possible of the justness of this reasoning from our Lord's using it to the same purpose against the Sadducees, in Matt. xxii. 23, and Luke xx. 37, 38, Now that the dead are raised, Moses showed at the bush, when he calls the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. As it was fit to argue out of the writings of Moses against the Sadducees, who are said to have acknowledged no other Scripture, it is certain that nothing is to be found in all the Scripture more to the purpose of proving the resurrection, than God's covenant expressed in these words. The Lord's argument from them, as expressed (Luke xx. 38), comes to this ; — he is not the God of the dead — of those who at death shall perish; for it were highly dishonourable to him to be reckoned to be, by special relation of grace and covenant, their God. He is not the God of any but of such who, by virtue of his being so, are the heirs of eternal life, and who shall be introduced to it by a happy resurrection. Shall now any, who shall consider the matter itself, or who regards the authority and judgment of the greatest Master of reason that ever appeared in our nature, say, that an ancient Israelite, who had at heart to lay hold of and improve the grace of the covenant, had not in these words, / am the Lord thy God, a most sure ground to rest on for the hope of a happy futurity, and the most sure warrant for the hope of eternal life ? The inspired UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 229 writer to the Hebrews thought so, when he said (Heb. xi. 16), Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he hath prepared for them a city. I shall now show by another Scripture, that God's covenant, as it was proposed to his people anciently, did found the hope of eternal life, and that the promise thereof was so meant. In Isa. lv. 3 mention is made of the sure mercies of David. Indeed the mention oi sure mercies might, at first sight, convince any, that other sort of mercies are intended than such as are earthly, temporary, and transient. We need be at no loss to understand who this David is. David, King of Israel, had been dead some centuries before. This David was to come when Isaiah wrote, as appears by the following words : Behold I have given him for a witness to t lie people, a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt call a nation that thou know est not, and nations that knew not thee shall come unto thee. It is plain it is the Lord Jesus Christ, mentioned on other occasions by the prophets under the name of David, who is here in- tended ; and the expression of " mercies being sure to him," imports that God would raise him from the dead to eternal life. We may be the more confident of this interpretation, when we observe the blessed apostle going before us in it (Acts xiii. 34), where, proving to his hearers from the Scriptures of the Old Testament, that God was to raise Christ from the dead, his Scripture quotation and argument he gives thus : As concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give unto you the sure mercies of David. We see what the sure mercies promised to Jesus Christ do mean. To bring this to the purpose of our present argument, I next observe, that these sure mercies, importing resurrection to eternal life, arc by Isaiah extended to all the faithful, as the mercies of the covenant. It is implied, agreeable to the common doctrine of the Scriptures, that the covenant is, in the first place, made with Jesus Christ the "second Adam ; and hence God is called the God and Father of our Lord fesus Christ. Therefore the prom 23O AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE and blessings of the covenant descend through Christ, and, in his right, to them who believe in him. Accord- ingly, these are the prophet's words (Isa. lv. 3), Hear, and your souls shall live ; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Here it is evident, that as the resurrection to eternal life was promised to Christ, so it is set forth as the promise of the covenant to his people, that they should partake in the same sure mercies, in the like resurrection and eternal life. If the Jews, who were Paul's hearers, did not, and could not, contradict Paul, and say, that sure mercies did not import to Christ the raising him from the dead to eternal life, as little can any say that the promise, as it is extended by the prophet, does not mean resurrection and eternal life to believers of these, and of all times. As to the law itself, it is very true, that, considered separately from grace, it gave no promise of eternal, nor even of temporal life to sinners. Yet, at the same time, it is to be observed, that when God gave his law to Israel from Mount Sinai, he introduced it thus : / am the Lord thy God. The reason was this : He then gave out his law with circumstances of the utmost terror to sinners. Yet, according to the hint given in the preface prefixed to it, he designed it in subserviency to his grace. It appears to have been his declared and special view to give his law on this occasion to them whom he took for his peculiar people, to whom he was their God, and who, from his being so, were to expect to have, for the end of their conformity thereto in holiness, eternal life ; and to have their obedience to it rewarded, according to the grace of the covenant, with an eternal inheritance. So it cannot be said that, even as the law was given by Moses, and terribly promulgated at Sinai, Israel were not encouraged to obedience by the promise of eternal life, though this was not included from the law itself, but from the grace of the covenant, by which the Lord became their God ; for such he could not be to sinners by virtue of the law, but of grace, and by virtue of the covenant of grace. UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 23 1 In the time of Moses, Balaam says (Num. xxiii. 10), Let me die the death of the righteous^ and let my last cud be like his. Grotius gives, from the Jewish Gemara, an interpretation of this, as if it was only a wish that he might not die an immature or violent death, as the Lord promised to those who obeyed him. Himself did well to add, that these expressions do, however, hide a more deep mystical sense ; yet this that he calls a mystical sense appears more open and obvious than that other given by the Gemara. It is plain, that the words mean the hope that is in death possessed by righteous persons, even if their death should be immature or violent (as that afterwards of Eli and Josiah, and, long before Balaam's time, that of righteous Abel) or with whatever external circumstances it should be attended. Solomon saith (Prov. xiii. 32) that the righteous hath Jiopc i)i his death. But it is not easy to see what should furnish hope to a man leaving this life with all its satis- factions and enjoyments at death, if there was not the hope of future life and happiness. The view that Solomon gives of the course of things in the world makes clearly and strongly to the present purpose, when he says (Eccl. ix. 1, 2), No man knoweth love or hatred by all that is before them : all tilings come alike to all : there is one event to the righteous and to the wicked. What the words intimate is, that there happens not, in the course of providence respecting men in this life, anything that proves God's special favour and love to one sort beyond others. So the wise man observed, even in these times of the Old Testament. Yet it could not be thought that God's special favour and love to his people does not produce suitable effects and fruits to their advantage. Therefore the Holy Ghost declaring, that none such are to be looked for in this life, it amounts to an assurance, and could not but be so understood in these times, that the special fruits of Divine favour are certainly awaiting them in a future happy state. Let us likewise consider these words (Isa. iii. 10), Say ye to the righteous, it shall be well with him, for they shall 232 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked, it shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands shall be given him. The former text showed that there is nothing distinguishing in God's providential dealings with the righteous and wicked in this world. Yet this text asserts, that it shall be well with the righteous — that he shall enjoy the fruit of his works ; and that it shall be ill with the wicked — that he shall receive a reward suited to his works. Now, if, according to Solomon's observation, the one or the other happens not in this world, it is certain, and might have appeared so in Isaiah's time, from these scriptural declarations, that it behoved to be after this life. God gives warrant and commission here, in the words of Isaiah, to say to the righteous, without excepting any condition or time of life, that it shall be well with him. It is at death especially, when a man is finishing his course of righteousness, that he may be determined to be righteous ; and it is then especially that a man needs the consolations of God's Word. Let us suppose such a one in the convulsions and throes of death, and that a pious friend says, Fear not ; God hath said it shall be well with the righteous : you are now to eat the fruit of your doings. Let us suppose such a one to answer (as persons in darkness of condition are often very ready to argue against themselves) — How can it be well with me, and what can my hope be ? Alas ! my course is at an end : I shall enjoy no more time, nor any good in this world. Surely it would, in this case, be replying justly, to say : God's promise to such as you is absolute, and without limitation to time, or the things of time. The power of God can cause you to live. Imitate the faith of Abraham concerning his son Isaac, through whom the promises were to have their accomplishment : He accounted (Heb. xi. 19) that God was able to raise him up, even from the dead. Death itself is not strong enough to disappoint the promise, or make it of none effect. You need not apprehend, that the power or faithfulness of God shall fail in anything that is com- UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 23 ; prehended in the extent of his word and promise. It shall therefore be well with you when you depart hence : you shall enjoy the fruit of your doings. This text indeed doth not say eternal life ; and the demand of some is, to find in the scriptures of the Old Testament a promise or declaration mentioning explicitly and expressly eternal life ; not merely inferring it by reasoning from dark texts. This, however, is very un- reasonable, and not better than if the Sadducees had replied to our blessed Lord, — You do but argue from a dark text, in which there is no express mention of resurrection, or of eternal life. The force of the argument did so strike them as to disable them to make such answer to it. It doth not become us to contend captiously with God about words and vocables. Certainly, no words of any promise could more clearly and strongly ensure future life and happiness to a righteous man when dying, than the promise of Isaiah doth. As to the expression, eternal or everlasting life, we shall even find it in the promise presently. We see Daniel writing expressly of the resurrection of the dead (chap. xii. 2, 3), And many of them who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and they that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and ever. If Daniel had, in the preceding context, been prophesying of the distresses of the Jews by the op- pressions of Antiochus, he doth here promise, not merely outward deliverance from these, but sets forth what makes the chief consolation of the church against all temporal distresses and afflictions. It is common with the prophets, Isaiah in particular, to comfort the church of Israel, against the tribulations they foretell, by lofty representations of the glories of Christ's kingdom to the end of the world, and after it for ever. Thus doth Daniel here comfort the church against the extreme distresses he had foretold, by representing the resur- rection of the dead, and the glory that shall follow. If the word is many, it hath been observed, that sometimes 234 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE the word signifies the same as all. So Rom v. 19, By one maris disobedience many were made sinners. It is plain that nothing less than the resurrection of the dead comes up to the propriety and obvious meaning of Daniel's words ; and the promise to himself can mean no less than his having his part comfortably in that resurrection ; ver 13, But go thou thy way till the end be ; for thou shall rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. Let us now look into the New Testament, and to some of the accounts which we find therein of the faith of the Old Testament church respecting heaven and eternal life, and the hopes which believers of these times entertained of it. For Christians may be well assured, that the Holy Ghost would not in the New Testament represent these to have been otherwise than as indeed they were. The apostle Paul put the cause between him and his persecutors on this (Acts xxiii. 6), that it was con- cerning the hope and resurrection of the dead that he was called in question. And he says before Agrippa (Acts xxvi. 6, 7, 8), I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers : unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and nig Jit, hope to come ; for which hope's sake, King Agrippa, I am accused of the fews. Why should it be thought a tiling incredible with you, that God should raise the dead? In like manner (vers. 22, 23) he asserts, that he said none other things than Moses and the prophets did say should come, that Christ should suffer, and that lie should be the first that should rise from the dead. Indeed, this promise of rising from the dead, to Christ and his people, is clearly enough expressed (Isa. lv. 3), as hath been shown formerly. It may have the appearance and pretence of advancing the honour and value of the Gospel, and of the Christian revelation, to assert that it was by it first, and never before, that the promise was given, and a foundation laid for the hope of the resurrection, and of eternal life. But I do not understand that it can consist with the credit of the Christian revelation to suppose, CX PER THE OLD TESTA M EXT 235 that Christ and his apostles pretended to find in Moses and the prophets what was not truly in them. We find (Hcb. xi. 9, 10, that Abraham, while he received believingly and thankfully the promise of Canaan to his posterity, as a pledge of something better to himself, and to his spiritual seed, yet for his own personal and chief interest, he by faith sojourned in the land of promise, as in a strange country, very con- tentedly dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise. So he and these other patriarchs showed by their conduct, that they looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God. Thus too the same inspired writer gives an account of the faith and hope of these fathers (vers. 13-16). He says, TJicse all died in tJie fait//, not having received tJic promises, but having seen them afar off, and ice re persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth. He then says, they hereby declared plainly, that they did seek a connt)y; not that from whence they came out: they showed that they desired a better, that is, a heavenly country. Whatever besides was in these promises, it is evidently the apostle's view, that there was that in them that determined these fathers to account themselves, yea, to choose to be, strangers and pilgrims on earth, and to desire a heavenly country. Downwards (vers. 24-26), he represents how Moses did forego the prospect of high worldly advancement, took a share in the afflictions of the people of God, and in the reproach of Christ : for, saith the inspired writer, he had respect unto the recompense of reward. This was not a reward on earth, or to share in the rest and happiness of Israel in Canaan, which he did not attain ; but a recompense and reward, the hope of which did not disappoint him. Thereafter (ver. 35), he mentions some, who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. After all this, I cannot but wonder that some learned men should hot be able to find in the religion of the Old Testament, or in the 236 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE covenants of promise, which were the grounds and principles of that religion, a clear and sufficient warrant for the hope of future happiness, and of eternal life. Our blessed Lord himself (John v. 39) bids the Jews to search the Scriptures ; for in them, saith he, ye think ye have eternal life. He gave them no hint on this occasion, that their opinion of finding eternal life in these Old Testament Scriptures was ill founded. Yea, if it were, it had been deluding them to direct them to look for it there. It were easy to add here divers instances of holy persons in these times, whose profession of their faith and hope of future life appears in the Scriptures of the Old Testament, and who profess this hope in such a manner as did sufficiently warrant the same hope to others, in their own and after times. There is less need to enlarge in that way, that even Socinus and his followers acknowledge that several of them did actually entertain that hope ; at the same time that they assert, that God gave them no such promise, nor the warrant of such hope ; and allow that the heathens also had that hope : so that God's Israel were without hope, as to any sure ground of hope, as well as the heathens who were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise (Eph. ii. 12). But the great difference between Israel and the heathens, as to the grounds of their hope, doth very clearly appear by what we have said on the subject. However, as to the hope actually entertained by them, these few instances (besides what hath come in our way before) may be observed, Gen. xlix. 18; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Ps. xvii. 15; Ps. xlix. 14, 15 ; Ps. lxxiii. 24-26. If we consider attentively how matters were ordered under the Old Testament as to Israel, we may see cause to conceive of them thus. When the Lord chose and separated the seed of Jacob to be his church, and brought them into covenant with himself, he dealt with them as he never did before, or since, with any people. A par- ticular article of his covenant and promise to them was, to give them a good land, Canaan, for an inheritance. UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 237 He promised them the enjoyment of that land, and prosperity in it, on condition of maintaining his truth and worship, and the purity of his institutions, with which he had dignified them beyond any other people, and of universal obedience to all his commandments : intimating to them, that, from a contrary behaviour, they should expect his judgments to come on themselves and their land ; to make them unhappy in it, or to expel them from it. At the same time, he assured them of his merc\-, by which he would, upon their repentance, renew the prosperity of their nation, and restore them to the possession of their earthly inheritance, if they had been dispossessed of it. Upon this view of things, we need not wonder that, in giving them his law by Moses, the Lord should encourage their nation to a due regard to his laws and ordinances, by the promise of national and temporal prosperity, in the land he gave them for an inheritance, and should deter them from disobedience, by denounc- ing temporal judgments and strokes to come on them and on their land, in consequence of it. In like manner, when their prophets did deal with that people about the unhappy circumstances in which they often were, as they did acquaint them that their sins were the cause, so they commonly encouraged them to repentance and reforma- tion by the promise of temporal prosperity to their nation, and the affluence of the good things of the earth. Indeed, when the weal and prosperity, the misery and distresses of nations are the subject, these views will suit the case of all nations at all times. God doth not give heaven to whole nations, but doth commonly connect national good behaviour and obedience with temporal national prosperity. It is likewise true, that under the Old Testament, as heavenly and eternal things were more sparingly revealed, temporal pros- perity and success was more commonly bestowed, to encourage the integrity of single persons, than under the gospel, when the cross is recommended to Christians, after the example of Christ himself, as the way to glory. These things may account for a great deal of what is to 238 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE be found with Moses and the prophets, of which an improper use hath been made, with regard to the spiritual state and hope of the Lord's people in ancient times. What is expressed in the Old Testament Scripture, on such views as I have been observing, is by no means to the purpose of the doctrine of justification, nor doth it derogate from the hope of eternal life in the times of the Old Testament If Moses or the prophets are signifying to Israel, by what means their nation may attain or recover the Divine favour and their national prosperity, we are not to conceive it, as if the Holy Ghost were showing how a sinner is justified before God, with spiritual and eternal consequences. I believe a nation may, according to the common rule and method of Divine conduct, attain the favour of Providence by their own works and good behaviour ; and the favour of Providence may sometimes, by Divine sovereignty, be bestowed, as the reward of the integrity and well-doing of single persons, as more commonly happened in the times of the Old Testament. But it doth not by any means follow, that a sinner is justified before God by his own works or righteousness, or that it is by these that a sinner is introduced into a state of grace and favour with God. At the same time, if the Lord encouraged Israel to obedience, repentance, and reformation, by the promises of peace, earthly prosperity, and national happi- ness, they shall greatly mistake, who shall think that he invited men to piety by no higher views, and by no better promises. The case, in short, hath stood thus : Godliness hath still had the promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come. Under the gospel, the promise of the life that is to come is more clearly exhibited, and more inculcated. During the Old Testament, the promise of the life that now is, did, in a greater degree, include temporal prosperity, and was more inculcated than since. They who were carnal followed after righteous- ness with that view ; and generally they did not miss of their reward. But they whose hearts were formed to UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 239 spiritual things, as their views entered farther into true holiness, they pursued that course with a higher aim of spiritual good things, and of eternal blessings, and found sufficient ground for such aim and hope in the promises of the covenant. It doth not become us to prescribe rules to divine wisdom, concerning the measure of light that ought to be afforded in the different periods of time. It is said (2 Tim. i. 10) that Christ JiatJi — brought life and immor- tality to light through the gospel. Much use hath been made of this against what hath been here advanced. But no more can be justly made of these words, than that life and immortality is brought out of the obscurity of the Old Testament ; and is, together with the special grounds of the hope, set forth in a clear and full light by the gospel. But this doth by no means import that in the preceding state and period there was no revelation or promise of life and immortality. That the expression used in writing to Timothy doth not import so, will appear by considering expressions fully as strong, used concerning other subjects. For instance (Eph. hi.), the apostle says, That the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ, by the gospel (ver. 6 was a mystery made known ver. 3) to himself by revelation. A mystery (ver. 5) which in former ages was not made known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit. We must not for this say, that the mystery of the calling, and incorporating of the Gentiles into the church, was not at all revealed in the Old Testament Scriptures. For we find these Scriptures, on divers occasions, quoted to that purpose ; and particularly (Rom. xv. 9-12) we see the apostle observing the prediction of that event in divers places of the Old Testament : and we shall easily find it foretold in several places, not less, rather more, clearly than in those mentioned by the apostle. As if he intended to assist those he wrote to, to observe the prediction in these places where there were but dark and brief hints of it; leaving to themselves to observe these places where the 240 AN ESS A Y CONCERNING THE PROMISE matter was more obvious, and presented in a more clear and full light. But as he says to the Ephesians, of the calling of the Gentiles, that it was not formerly made known, as it is now revealed by the Spirit to the holy apostles and prophets ; so we may justly paraphrase the words to Timothy thus : Life and immortality were not formerly made known as they are now revealed by the Spirit to the holy apostles and prophets, and by them to the church through the gospel. Life and immortality are now brought to light, compared with the former obscurity. In like manner, the apostle Peter says of Christ to those he writes to, that he was fore- ordained before the foundation of the world ; but (so he adds) was manifested in these latter times for you. The word manifest, here, and in 2 Tim. i. 10, brought to light, do very precisely render the words of the Greek ; and to bring to light and to make manifest, are expressions evidently of the same meaning. But if Christ is said to be made manifest in the latter times, those of the gospel, would any infer that there was no revelation, no promise of him under the Old Testament? To make the like inference concerning life and immortality, from 2 Tim. i. 10, were no less absurd. It cannot be understood how religion could be at all maintained in ancient times, or at any time sincerely, in the church, without the promise and hope of spiritual blessings, and of eternal life ; or how without the pursuit and hope of these, there could be true purity of heart, or true holiness. When the apostle Paul proceeds in the latter part of his epistle to the Colossians, as is usual with him in all his epistles, to exhort the Colossians to holiness, he begins (chap. iii. i) with exhorting them to seek the tilings that are above ; to set their affections on things above, not on things on the earth, and to mortify their members (their corrupt lusts and affections) that are upon the earth. If we observe the view the Scripture gives us of the matter, we shall see there is nothing more contrary to holiness and purity of heart, than to have the heart set on the earth, and addicted to earthly satisfactions and enjoyments, and to the pursuit of them. Though CXDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 24 1 Grotius is wrong, when he writes so unfavourably of the hope of eternal life during the Old Testament, yet his view is so far right in general, that, supposing the Lord not to give the hope of any good beyond what is earthly, there would not be the strength (nor, I say, the disposition) needful for purifying the heart. To say the truth, how could men be found fault with for pursuing and resting in the happiness of earthly wealth and pleasure, if nothing better was set before them ? And however, on occasion of remarkable Divine pleasure, fasting and prayer might, at any rate, be proper, even for the recovery or con- tinuance of earthly enjoyments ; yet, in the common course of things, might it not be reckoned just and prudent to say, I.ct us cat a)id drink, for to- m or r 01. die ? For why should not men set their hearts on that good, which is the greatest object of hope, that they find even revelation setting before them ? The Lord might indeed, by the regulations prescribed to civil and ecclesiastic rulers ; by the severity of his judgments on Israel for their sins; and by the extra- ordinary interpositions of his providence, at other times, in their behalf; by the ministry of his prophets, and the authority he conciliated to them by extraordinary gifts and miraculous powers ; he might, I say, by all these means procure considerable regard to his laws as to outward obedience, and deter men from the outward practice of wickedness ; and so maintain some order in society. But I am confident, it is agreeable to the Scriptures, and to the nature of things, to say, that all these means could not procure true holiness and sincerity of obedience, or the purifying of the heart, if the word of God proposed, for the object of hope, nothing above what is earthly. It will not be enough to say, that many, in these times, from the direction of their reason or understanding, from the inclination of their own hearts, or from some secret instinct of grace, did indeed desire and hope for spiritual blessings and eternal life, though God did not by any revelation or promise give them any direction or ground to warrant such desire and hope Even the Q 242 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 10 Socinians allow so much. But that certainly must be deemed sufficient in religion, which is agreeable to the revelation God hath given. If the revelation did not warrant and found the hope of spiritual blessings and of eternal life, we must either say, that the desire and hope of these is not necessary in religion, or that divine revelation in the times of the Old Testament was essentially defective ; which were so dishonourable to God and to revelation, that I scarce think it will be admitted by any persons of Christian profession. I apprehend that, of the two things I have mentioned, those I have in my eye will choose the first ; viz. to say, that though the desire and hope of spiritual and eternal blessings are of great advantage in religion, yet they are not absolutely necessary. Accordingly, I observe, that they who hold that ancient Israel had little hope of eternal life, and no ground for such hope by God's word or promise, do generally incline to think favourably of those they call virtuous heathens ; and that their wanting this hope, and good grounds for it, and the want of its influence in their heart and practice, was not such an essential defect in the religion of the heathens, but that without it they might attain to the pleasing of God, and to future happiness. Whatever arguments he used to guard against the consequence of these sentiments, yet their tendency is, and their consequence will commonly be, with those who receive them, though they themselves have presented to them the revelation and promise of eternal life, that they will be led by such notions to think (what the carnality of men's hearts is otherwise prone to) that the way to the kingdom of heaven is more easy than it is indeed, and that with fatal effect to the souls of men. Text. — Ver. 10. And the commandment which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death. EXPLICATION. — The unfavourable consequence of the coming of the commandment here seems not to be Ver. io] OF ROMANS VII. 243 merely condemning the transgressor, and adjudging death to him, which, according to the notion of some late writers, it never did but in one instance, until the Mosaic promulgation, which, they say, first added to the commandment the sanction of death for transgression. If we consider the context from ver. 5, we may see cause to think, that the apostle hath especially in his view the effect produced by the unregenerate heart and the law, between them ; viz. the revival of sin in its more vehement lustings and unholy affections. As to the law's being ordained to life, it did originally promise life to those who should perfectly obey it. It was designed, and in itself calculated to lead them in the way that would terminate in life. It represents an amiable scheme of holiness, a perfect system of duty, by which it might recommend itself to every rational mind, as tending in its own nature to make man happy. By its light it marked out to men the way to life ; the Divine authority in it did powerfully enforce it ; as did the promise of life, and threatening of death annexed to it. To the rational and undepraved mind and heart it gave the most powerful excitement to holiness. Thus the commandment was ordained to life. But, alas ! human nature hath undergone a sad change, a powerful depravation. Now, sin, or the flesh, that evil principle dominant in the unregenerate soul, being urged, reproved, and condemned by the law, it doth awaken with all its force, and exert itself in sinful affections, in all manner of concupiscence, terminating in death. As the evident scope of the preceding context tends to gi\e this view of the present text ; so we see the expression and sense of the next following (ver. 11) suits the same view. I do not, however, think that the death here meant is to be understood merely of the death denounced by the law, to which the activity of sin deservedly exposes a man. It seems likely, that by death he especially means here the prevalence of sin itself in his soul. He mentions (chap. vi. 6) the body of sin, and, ver. 24, of this chapter, he cries out, Who shall deliver me from this body of 244 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. IO death? We have no cause to think that the object of his earnest wish in this latter text is, to be freed from the body. It is rather what he had in the former text called the body of sin, that he calls here, the body of death. The inherent plague of sin showing, by occasion of the law, its great power and prevalence, was to him as death; and why might he not justly call it death, that disabled him from all vital activity, from activity in holiness, without which he would not reckon that he had life ? Some writers, whom I have often had occasion to mention, have held that law in this context is to be understood in a restricted sense, of a law with the sanction of death for transgression, such as never was given forth to sinful men until the Mosaic promulgation ; and this some of them call rigour of law. But how could it be said that this law was ordained to life to sinful men ; for it was to such it was given at Sinai? it could not possibly bring sinners to life. If they should say the law was ordained to life, as it was first given to Adam in innocence, yet even thus it will not answer, according to the strange notion of Dr Taylor who says, that Adam, in his first state, could not stand under what he calls rigour of law (that is, law denouncing death for every transgression), more than any of his posterity. If so, then, according to him, the law could not bring man in his best state to life ; and none will say that the law could give life to sinners. How then, according to these men's notions, could Paul say, the law was ordained to life ? Paraphrase. — 10. And thus the commandment, which was originally designed to give life to all who would perfectly obey it, and which to undepraved and innocent man gave the best direction, and the most powerful excitement to the holiness and obedience that is the way to life, did, as by accident (as causa per aeeidens), through the sad corruption of my nature, which did not yield to its authority, nor was subdued by its power, but exerted itself the more vehemently in all sinful affections and lustings, work a real death in me, as it denounced Ver. Il] OF ROMANS VII. 245 eternal death to me ; and so (ver. 9) destroyed that confidence by which I was sometime vainly alive in my own conceit. Text. — 1 1. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me. EXPLICATION. — Dr Whitby in his annotations on vers. 8-1 1, and after his particular annotation on ver. 10, says, " The old and common interpretation is this, that the prohibition of what we desire makes us to think the enjoyment of it more sweet and valuable ; or at least provokes the carnal mind, which is not subject to the law of God, to a more fervent lusting after it, dum proJiibita non tarn refugit qitam ardentius expetit, and this agrees very well with the expression." The matter may be illustrated by this similitude: — If a man who bears an inveterate hatred to another, whom he reckons his enemy, ever desiring and endeavouring to destroy him, should see this other man before him and near him, this would readily awaken his passion to an extreme degree against him, and put him upon showing his hatred and opposition to him in a vehement manner. So sin, finding the commandment come home upon the conscience with much force, seeking its destruction ; this awakens the malignity of sin, and it exerts itself, and all its members, its various lusts and passions, in the most keen opposition to the law. He had said before, that sin taking occasion by tlic commandment, WROUGHT in him all manner of con- cupiscence. Here he says, sin taking occasion by the com- mandment, DECEIVED him. So there is deception in the case. There is so great evil in sin, and the consequences, as set forth by the righteous law, arc so terrible, that it were not likely the heart of man would fall in with it, without being in some way deceived. So the Greek here is ef>/7raT?7o-e, it deceived, as the Seventy hath in Eve's answer (Gen. iii. 13), the serpent y-u-yre beguiled me. We know that men's lusts and passions have great 246 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1 influence on their mind and imagination. Thus sin, and the various lusts thereof, awakened and irritated by the contrary commandment, set the imagination to work according to their own turn and disposition, to represent in the most alluring colours the pleasure to be attained by their gratification and enjoyment. This further inflames the sinful passion and lusting. These sinful passions and desires upon the one hand, and on the other the false colours in which the imagination represents the object, do mutually co-operate to give advantage to sin and its deceit. Dr Doddridge, in his paraphrase, mentions another way of deception (to which, however, the deceiving is by no means to be restricted), thus : " Sin — taking occasion by the terrors and curse of the violated command- ment, and representing the great Lawgiver, as now be- come my irreconcilable enemy, deceived me into a persuasion that I could be no worse than I was." The truth is, a persuasion that a man cannot be in a worse state, or, in other words, a despair of mercy, doth in persons under the power of their lust, very commonly operate in this way, even for a man to run the more vehemently in an evil course, with an affected thought- lessness about futurity. At the same time, there is another sort of deception no less common, arising from the suggestion of im- punity: thus, Deut. xxix. 18, 19. — Lest there should be among yon a root bearing gall and wormwood, and it come to pass when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart. A self- flattering heart {deceitful above all things, Jer. xvii. 9), can readily enough suggest, in flat contradiction to the law, as the tempter did of old (Gen. iii. 4), Ye shall not surely die. This is perhaps supported by some delusion, which the heart is very ready to entertain concerning the goodness of God, and by extenuating thoughts of sin, and perhaps by the notion of some works, or some particular virtue on which a man values himself, and which he vainly thinks makes compensation for his sin. Ver. Il] OF ROMANS III. 247 Thus, for instance, some worthless men of our times, who have sold themselves to their lusts in the practice of lewdness, do abound in almsgiving, from a senseless notion of the meaning of that text (1 Peter iv. 8), Charity shall cover a multitude of sins. Thus sin makes out its purpose by one way or other of deceiving. Dr Taylor doth here alter the translation, and, instead of sin taking occasion, he renders, " sin having received force by the commandment." He says (note on ver. 8), that all the commentators (and some of them understood the Greek exceeding well) have mistaken the signifi- cation of the Greek word here rendered occasion, when it really signifies force, advantage. That force he under- stands of the force which sin hath got by the Mosaic law to give death to the transgressor. Grotius on ver. 8 renders the Greek word, impunity, which implies the law's wanting force. Dr Taylor will have it mean, the law's having force, and giving destructive force to sin. Enough has been said elsewhere concerning Grotius' rendering. I see not that Dr Taylor gives any authority or reason for his sense of the word ; if it is not that it best suits his notions and doctrine, and the misinter- pretation he has given of divers other texts. I see in my dictionary, occasion, given for a sense of the word. But that of Grotius, or of Dr Taylor are not among the senses given of it. If critics will, in interpreting Scrip- ture, give senses to words upon no better authorities, they may assert and establish what doctrines they please. The sense of this verse may, with little variation from the paraphrase of the worthy Dr Guise, be given thus : Paraphrase. — 11. For sin in me, that evil principle so deeply rooted in my depraved nature, being impatient of restraint by the law, took a perverse occasion from the strictness of the commandments contained in it, to rise up in rebellion against it, as if it was too unreason- able and severe an imposition to be laid upon human nature ; and by this and various other means of decep- tion, beguiling me as the serpent did Eve (Gen. iii. 13), it ensnared me, and drew me to the commission of many evils, which God had forbidden ; and by this 248 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Vers. 12, 1 3 means, brought me more and more under the heaviest sentence of condemnation and death ; and when after- wards it came home, in its spirituality and power, to my conscience, it slew the high towering thoughts and con- fidences which I before had entertained about my own sufficiency to keep it, and my own righteousness to recommend me to God. Text. — 12. Wherefore the law is holy ; and the commandment holy, and just, and good. I have no occasion to enlarge on the epithets and characters here given to the law and commandment, the sense of which is obvious. The purpose and sense of what this verse contains may be conceived and ex- pressed briefly according to this. Paraphrase. — 12. I have shown the true cause of all sinful motions ; of every sinful concupiscence. Where- fore, although the evil principle in the hearts of men doth produce such concupiscence, and sinful motions more vehemently, by occasion of the commandment; yet the law in itself is holy, and the commandment holy, just, and good : and so not at all favourable to sin, which it pursues into the heart, discovers, and reproves in the very inward motions thereof. Text. — 13. Was then that which is good, made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good: that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful. Explication. — Let us begin with observing Dr Taylor's interpretation of. the first part of this verse. According to the notion that has been entertained by him, and some others, that this chapter is addressed to Jewish converts separately, he makes several passages in it to be the words, question, or objection of a Jew, with the apostle's answer annexed. So here his paraphrase gives, in way of dialogue, thus : "Jew. And yet you say, Ver. 13] OF ROMANS VII. 249 we were made subject to death by the commandment. Could that which is so good (ver. 12), become deadly to us?" By this the Jew, as he is represented here, considers the law's denouncing death for transgression as a doctrine of the apostle's, which Jews had not known, nor ever received ; and reasoning against it as hard, and inconsistent with the goodness of the law. But it is very incongruous to put an objection against the law in the mouth of a Jew. The Jew gloried in the law, and would not object against it on the account here mentioned, or on any account. ' When the curses were solemnly proclaimed from Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii.), all the people were directed to say at hearing each, Amen. They did so at hearing the last comprehensive one denounced against all and every transgression (ver. 26). Their assent and consent to this, on that solemn occasion, appears as a condition of the covenant of that nation with God. They greatly mistake, who think the design here is to vindicate the penal sanction of the law against the objection of a Jew. What the vindication hath respect to, we have seen in part, and will presently see more fully. Let us now see the answer, as Dr Taylor gives it thus : " Apostle. No ; take me right. It was not the command- ment itself which slew us, but sin. It was sin which subjected us to death, by the law justly threatening sin with death." The truth in this matter is easily conceived. Sin merits death : death is threatened and inflicted by the law and by the Lawgiver. There is faultiness in sin, so meriting; but no faultiness on the part of the law, or Lawgiver. But to say, it was not the law that slew sinners, or subjected them to death, is not agreeable to truth ; nor is it consistent with what this Doctor says elsewhere. In his note on ver. 8, he writes thus : " That sting (viz. of death) is sin. But death would have no power to thrust that sting into the sinner's heart, were it not for the law of God condemning him to death."' And a little downwards: "The law is the force, by which the terrible sting is plunged into the sinner's vitals. For (ver. 8) without the law, sin, the sting of death, is itself 250 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3 dead, and quite unable to slay the sinner." Thus this acute Doctor introduces the Jew, quite out of character, objecting against the law, and its penal sanction ; and makes the inspired apostle give an answer inconsistent with the Doctor's own account of things : an answer contrary to truth and common sense. How could the man say, it was not the commandment that slew us, but sin, when he held that sin prevailing for many ages did not slay men, until the law was given at Sinai ? As it is quite vain to think that the apostle means here to introduce a vindication of the law, for assigning death as the punishment of transgressions; so the just view of his design is easily learned from the preceding context. He had mentioned (ver. 5) the motions of sins which were by the law. He had said (ver. 8) that sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in him all manner of concupiscence : and (ver. 10) that the command- ment which was ordained to life, he found to be unto death : and (ver. 1 1 ) that sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived him. By this it is evident, that what is here meant is a vindication of the law from the charge of being truly the cause of sin in a man's heart and practice, or of these motions of sins, and of that concupiscence and deception that is by occasion of the law. As we distinguish, with regard to offence, between offence given and offence taken, which last may be when indeed there is no offence, or cause of offence, given : so here, as to occasion, the law did not give occasion ; but sin did perversely and wickedly take occasion, such as the context represents. The vindicating of the law with regard to this, and showing that it is not by any means the cause of sin, is the evident and special scope of this place. The true cause, then, of these motions of sins (ver. 5), of that unholy concupiscence (ver. 8), of that deception (ver. 11), is sin. So the apostle says here : Sin that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good. Here two things are to be considered and inquired into. 1. What is here meant by death? I have said Ver. 13] OF ROMANS I'll. 251 before, that the holy apostle would certainly reckon as a very death in his soul, the prevailing of sin in its motions and activity in his heart. Yet this not to exclude sin's working death in and to him by virtue of the sanction of the law. Not as if this was the effect by a peculiarity or peculiar sanction of the Mosaic law, but by virtue of the sanction that was ever in the law, and connected with the commandment : the consequence of which was, that every new motion or act of sin, or con- cupiscence, subjected him to new condemnation to death, by virtue of the threatening of the law. 2. The other thing to be here inquired into, is, what is meant by sin in this clause, — sin that it might appear sin. Divers commentators have observed, that sin is in this context, by a figure, represented as a person ; and some seem to mean no more by this figurative person, than a general notion, comprehending or including all particular sorts of sin. But we see in this context sin dis- tinguished from sinful acting, as we have (ver. 8) sin working in a man all manner of concupiscence. This last imports inward acts of sin, previous to which is sin working this concupiscence, and the efficient cause of it. So that sin thus working is not to be considered as a thing merely ideal, an abstract idea, or notion, which cannot be truly the cause of anything. Sin here is something real — a cause, which, by its powerful influence, works concupiscence, every particular lusting, or unholy affection. It is the cause or principle of sinning, deeply rooted in men's nature, in this state of depravation, what the learned have called peccatum peceans — the sinning sin — sin the cause of all actual sins in the inward and outward practice. The remainder of which evil principle in the regenerate he had called (chap. vi. 6) the old man. It is otherwise called the flesh ; which is itself, previous to these unholy actings, inward or outward, called (Gal. v. 19, &c. the works of the flesh. How, on any other view, can be understood sin working concupiscence ? This activity, in the way of concupiscence, or of deceiving, doth certainly presuppose a previous acting cause. The sum, then, of the apostle's argument is, as hath been 252 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3 several times said, that the law or commandment is but the innocent occasion, and by no means the cause of such sinful motions as are said (ver. 5) to be by the law ; but that sin, that evil principle in human nature, is the true proper cause of all sinful motions and actions. Nor will it make a valid objection against this, that is somewhere suggested by Mr Locke, that sin cannot be the cause of itself. True ; nothing can be the cause of itself. But sin, in one sense and respect, may be the cause of sin in another sense and respect. This is easily explained by James i. 15. It will be acknowledged that the lusting there mentioned is sin, especially when it hath inwardly conceived ; and there it is said, When lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. Here, then, sin (lust inwardly conceiving) is the cause of sin in the outward work and deed. Besides this, it appears in our context that there is sin in nature, previous even to the inward lusting, and which is the cause of it, — sin working in a man all manner of concupiscence. Now, as to the last clause, That sin by the command- ment might become exceedingly sinful ; it has been observed before, that sometimes things are said to be, when the meaning is, that they appear, or are proved to be. To the instances of this sort adduced on chap. vi. 1, may be added (chap. iii. 19) That all the world may become guilty before God. It is not by the declaration or testimony of God's word that men, properly and indeed, become guilty ; but thereby it appears that they are guilty. So here, as in the preceding clause, it is said, Sin that it might appear sin ; to the same purpose, with some varia- tion of expression, it is in the last clause, That sin by the commandment might become (that is, might appear, or be proved to be) exceeding sinful. Paraphrase. — 13. But after all that hath been offered to vindicate the law from the charge of being the true and proper cause. of sin, yet having (ver. 5) mentioned the motions of sin which are by the law, and (ver. 8) all manner of concupiscence arising by occasion of the law, and (ver. 10) that you found the commandment to be unto death to you; and (ver. 1 1) that sin, by occasion of Ver. 13] of ROMANS vii. 253 the commandment, deceived and slew you ; may it not be justly concluded, that the law which you have commended for its goodness is, indeed, made death to you, not merely by adjudging death to you for trans- gressing and rebelling against the commands and authority of the Almighty (which all the world must acknowledge to be agreeable as to the holiness and justice, so also to the goodness of the law), but that it is also made death to you by increasing the activity of sin in you, or in me, which is so contrary to, so inconsistent with, the activity of a better and true life in our souls ; and thus it is a true cause of death in us of sin, as well as of death to us of punishment? That the law should in this way be made death to me, or to any, I cannot easily conceive to be consistent with that holiness or goodness which you ascribe to the law. But far be it from us to think so concerning the divine law and holy commandment. The effect mentioned is, as I hinted (ver. 5), only in them who are in the flesh, under the dominion of sin (chap. vi. 14) ; and I still say, that it is sin, or the flesh, that evil principle and plague inherent in my depraved nature, that wrought death in me and to me ; thereby appearing in its own colours, and to be what it truly is, the vilest thing in the world, even to be sin (than which nothing worse can be said of it), the fruitful and abounding source of all transgression inward and outward, meriting death ; and proving at once its wickedness and power, in working death in me by that which is good that so (not only by its ordinary motions, but especially by its more lively and powerful activity, on occasion of the commandment's coming home into my conscience, then exerting itself, as in defiance and despite of its light and authority, and of the divine authority in it), sin in me might appear by the light of the commandment thus outrageously despised and counteracted, to be a most aggravated evil, — evil beyond all conception — an abounding and overflowing source of transgression, impurity, and iniquity, — the powerful cause of increased condemnation and death, — yea, in a word, to be (as Jer. xvii. 9) desperately wicked. 254 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING We have seen the case of persons under the law in the flesli, and so under the dominion of sin. Whether the latter part of this chapter, which now follows, doth represent the case, with respect to sin, of persons under grace, whilst they continue in this life, is to be the next subject of inquiry. But here I find it expedient to alter my method. A DISSERTATION Concerning the general scope and purpose of the latter part of Chap. vii. 14-25, in order to determine whether it represents the case of a regenerate or unregenerate person ; the case of a person under the law, or of one under grace ; wherein the particular expressions of that context are explained. SECT. i. — Being an introduction to this subject and inquiry. It has been said, that the ancient writers of the church did universally understand the apostle as here personating an unregenerate person, until Augustine introduced a different interpretation. Wolfius, on ver. 9 of this chapter, mentions a learned writer (Calovius) who has proved, he says, that these ancient writers before Augustine did not universally so understand the apostle. Augustine himself, who had at first so understood, says, that in the opinion which, on more close consideration of the context, he fell in with, he followed the interpretation of several writers of note, whom he mentions. By the passages he quotes from Ambrose of Milan, it is very evident that that eminent person, who wrote before him, understood Paul as representing here his own case and experience in a state of grace. This is in Augustine's second book against Julian. In later times, Socinus, that noted adversary, under Christian profession of the Christian faith, said, Beware as of the pestilence, that you understand not this context of persons regenerate and under grace. Arminius, the THE SCOPE OF ROMANS VI L 14-25 255 first who did, in the bosom of a reformed church, broach that scheme of doctrine that hath its name from him, made the first discovery of his sentiments in his lectures on this context, in which his interpretation differed from that which was generally given by the reformed divines. He afterwards published an elaborate dissertation upon it, written with considerable learning and acuteness. On the former part of the chapter we saw different opinions and interpretations ; but on this part men have become more warm and keen in their reasoning, and whilst they differ otherwise, they seem on all hands to agree in this one thing, the importance of understanding this context aright. Among those who think the apostle here personates an unregenerate man, there is, however, some difference in their manner of stating the matter. Arminius supposes we have here the case of a man under the powerful in- fluence of the law in his conscience, the law doing in his conscience all that could be done by its light and authority, convincing of sin, condemning, and giving him great in- citement to his duty ; the case of a man in the very next step to regeneration and conversion. But the writers on that side do appear sometimes to change their ground. Some understand the man personated to be the Jew under the law, and even of such an one as Ahab, one of the worst of Jews, one of the worst of men, far from regeneration. Several have recourse to heathen fable, and introduce the story of the witch Medea, and the words which the poet puts in her mouth, to exemplify and illustrate their interpretation of this context ; as if we had nothing here but what suits the character and disposition of an Ahab, or a Medea. i)r Whitby states the question thus: "Whether Paul spcaketh here in his own person, or in the person of a regenerate man, or only in the person of a Jew con- flicting with the motions of his lusts, only by the assist- ance of the letter of the law, without the aids and power- ful assistance of the Holy Spirit." It is not easy to see with what propriety the name and character of Jew is here introduced at all. Holy 256 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING men from Moses to Christ were generally Jews ; and it cannot be said that they were without the aids of the Holy Spirit, according to Dr Whitby himself on ver. 5. It seems to be especially hard that he should thus represent a Jew, as not having the aids of the Spirit, even when conflicting against the motions of his lusts, considering what himself allows in favour of the heathens (annot. on Rom. ii. 14), where he says, "If any of them did arrive at such a state, as made them indeed to fear God, and work righteousness, they did this not merely by the strength of natural light ; for though some of them seem to say, that nature or philosophy was a sufficient guide to virtue, yet that they meant not this exclusively of the Divine assistance, which they saw necessary to preserve them against the infirmity of human nature, their own words do fully testify." I stay not to make observations on the doctrine or interpre- tation contained in this passage. Only as to what concerns the present purpose, it represents to us, heathens arriving, according to this writer, at the character of fearing God, and working righteousness (which they could not do without conflicting successfully against their lusts), and that not without Divine assistance. Alas for the poor Jew under the law, and having the advantage of Divine revelation, that to his character it should be affixed, as a thing distinguishing him from both the Christian and the heathen, to be conflicting with his lusts without that assistance ! I would ask, was there any universal sufficient grace in these Jewish and Old Testament times ? I should think, that the principles that would necessarily infer the doctrine of such grace at one time, would prove it with respect to every time. If there was, as Dr Whitby held, I see not how a Jew could be supposed to be sincerely, seriously, earnestly (I think the author must mean so — certainly our context represents so) in conflict with the motions of his lusts ; and yet not have sufficient Divine aids to enable a person so disposed, and so exercised, to overcome them. After all, how comes he to suppose a Jew of the THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 257 apostle's times to be conflicting with his lusts at all, when these Jews were generally of opinion that the motions of lusts in the hearts of men were not sins or transgressions of the law, if they did not take effect externally? as this learned writer proves in his anno- tation on Matt. v. 20, 21, to have been the opinion of the most prevailing sect, and of their teachers, as they were indeed comparatively but few of the Jews who were not followers of that sect of the Pharisees. Upon this view, it were certainly more congruous to have marked out and distinguished the Jew as one who, whatever guard he kept on his outward behaviour, did not inwardly maintain a conflict with his lusts at all, rather than as one who, without the aid of the Spirit, was in earnest and sad conflict with them, crying out, as in this context, Wretched man that I am, who sJiall deliver vie? For my part, I cannot help considering it as very opposite to the clear doctrine of the Scripture, to suppose the Jew, or any man, to be in sincere conflict against the motions of his lusts and corrupt affections within him, with the view and desire of holiness, and purity of heart, without being under the present influence of the Holy Spirit. It seems some followers of Pelagius of old did likewise understand this context, as if it set forth the language of a Jew personated. But Augustine* did well observe that these words, Wretched man tJiat I am, who shall deliver me? — The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (so he read, instead of, / thank God, as we have it), could not be the language of a Jew, or be used by the apostle, as personating a carnal Jew, who would not speak thus of Jesus Christ. It is the same person, he observes, who says, Grace will deliver me through Jesus Christ, who said, / see another law resisting the law of my mind. How Dr Taylor endeavours to hide this glaring incongruity, we shall see when we come to explain that part of the context. Though Dr Whitby in stating the question (when, if * " Contra Julianum," lib. 3, cap. 26. R 258 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING ever, he should have spoke with some exactness) will have the apostle to be speaking here as in the person of a Jew, yet in his paraphrase of ver. 14 he expresses a more extensive view, thus : " The law is spiritual: but every NATURAL man hath cause to say of himself, / am carnal!' As there is then no colour of reason for mentioning the Jew on this occasion, let us take the view of the writers of that side, on the general point that the apostle here personates an unregenerate man, that none may complain of unfairly representing their opinion by restricting the matter to the Jew. They who hold this interpretation do most commonly seem to understand by what good is here ascribed to the unregenerate, no more than the light of reason in the mind or understanding, with the urgent testimony for duty, and against sin, that is in the conscience of the unregenerate, with different degrees of light and force. But if they can by any arguments persuade men that it is the case of the unregenerate that is here represented, I see they have further use to make of that interpretation in the dispute concerning the moral powers of nature. But this will come in our way more fully hereafter, in explaining the particular parts of the context that they argue from. There is another point of doctrine which writers of that side have at heart to support. As they labour much to advance the moral powers of nature, and of free-will in men's natural and unregenerate state, they are no less anxious to advance the power of free-will in a state of grace, beyond proper bounds. This has led them, at least some of the most eminent of them, to hold, that a sinless state, and perfection in holiness, is within the reach' of free-will in this life. But it tends utterly to confound that notion, if this very eminent saint and apostle shall be understood to speak in this context as in his own person, and to be representing how matters stood with himself as to sin and holiness. So these writers have their system to take care of and support, in interpreting this part of Scripture ; — none, however, more ready to accuse their neighbours, the THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 259 divines of the reformed churches, of interpreting Scripture by their system. Whatever may be of this upon one side or other, yet there is no good cause for scepticism. The true and certain meaning of scripture may be reached by humble, sincere, and impartial inquiries after truth. Let the reader be warned to be on his guard, that none impose the mere notions of his system upon him for Scripture. At the same time, I may be allowed to warn him, not to let a pre-conceived opinion shut out the truth from his mind, or harden him against its evidence and impression. Let us now go a step nearer to the main subject. Sfxt. 2. — Containing general considerations tending to explain the scope and purpose of this context. I. The first consideration arises from the great difference in the style and expression between the former and this latter context. He had been speaking of himself in the past tense, showing how matters had been with him formerly, when under the law ; and, in his own case, representing how it is with persons under the law, who, as long as they are so, are in the flesh, and under the dominion of sin. He now (from ver. 14) speaks of himself in the present tense. It is what naturally occurs to one's mind from this change of the tense, that, as formerly he had been showing his own case whilst under the law, so now he shows how things go with him at present, in a state of grace, as he was when he wrote. They would need to bring very cogent reasons, who would have us understand him in a sense so very different from what his expression naturally leads us to. He could easily set forth in plain speech the case of persons unregenerate, as he had done before in this and the preceding chapters, without darkening matters, and making his discourse quite ambiguous, by altering his style. He had in a very plain manner represented, from his own past experience, the case of persons under the law ; what good reason can possibly 260 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING be given for his becoming obscure now, by speaking in the present tense, as of himself (a person regenerate and under grace), what must be understood of persons unre- generate and under the law, without giving any hint that he so means ? It hath been said, that the apostle doth on divers occasions speak in his own name, when he doth indeed personate others. Several instances are adduced, some of which cannot be justly so interpreted. But if it be allowed, that, on some occasions, he doth in very few words express the arguments, objections, and reproaches used by others against himself, his doctrine, or conduct, yet in every such case the thing evidently appears by the obvious import of the expressions, and by the answers immediately subjoined, so that there is not room left for mistaking. But it is quite unlikely that he would continue to speak, as of himself, through so long a passage, and yet mean it of others all the time, without intimating by any expression or hint, that to be his design. At any rate, his personating on some other occasions does not give us cause to think he personates here, unless very good reasons were given for our under- standing him so ; and what reasons are offered to that purpose are to be here considered. One account of the matter, somewhat plausible, is given by Dr Whitby (annot. on Rom. vii. 25) thus : " He saith not, as he might have done, you that are under the law are carnal ; but, representing what belonged to them in his own person, and so taking off the harshness and mollifying the invidiousness of the sentence, by speaking of it in his own person, he saith, I am carnal, sold under sin. So Photius and Oecumenius." This is far from being satisfying ; and I wish the learned writer had told us what there is in the names Photius and Oecumenius, to make a bad reason a good one. " He saith not, You that are under the law." Surely he could neither say nor mean this with respect to these he writes to. For, even supposing, as some would have it, that this chapter is addressed to the Jews separately, yet it must be supposed, that it is to the Jewish converts or THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 26 1 believers. Now, to them he had said in this chapter, that they were dead to the law, and delivered from it ; nor could he, in the personating way, or otherwise, say that they were sold tinder sin, in the sense in which Dr Whitby and other Arminians explain that expression. If it shall be supposed, that he means the infidel Jews, how was this grave lecture, contained in an epistle to the Roman Christians, to be conveyed to them? If it should be conveyed to them, certainly the strong things he says, as of himself, they would all agree to belong to himself in the worst sense ; and if having sold themselves to sin and wickedness is said of these revolters from the true religion, in the times of the Maccabees, who are mentioned in the interpretation of this context, surely the infidel Jews would readily say that, in as strong sense as Dr Whitby uses the expression (ver. 14}, it belonged to Paul himself, that noted revolter, as they judged of him. This is all the advantage the apostle would be likely to gain at the hands of the infidel Jews, by his mollifying art. But why speak of mollifying? When the pravity of men's nature, and the wretchedness of their condition is to be shown, it doth not suit the fidelity of God's messengers, and was far from the apostle's way, to take off the harshness of truths, and to mollify them, though too many do often manage in that way, when indeed the hearts of men do more need to be roused and awakened to a sense of their extreme wretchedness in a state of sin. A prudent caution, a holy art (as they represent in this case), to avoid giving offence by plain speech to those he writes to, is on some occasions ascribed to the apostle without cause. His words (ver. 5) imply, that they who are under the law are in the flesh. Is not this, compared with chap. viii. 8, 9 strong and harsh? Is it not so, when his words (chap., iv. 14 clearly imply, that they who are under the law are under the dominion of sin? He had in the preceding sixth chapter told the Romans they had been the servants (the slaves) of sin, in a shameful course, and in the way to perdition and 262 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING death eternal. Is he now afraid to provoke the self- righteous legalist, or impenitent sinners, so as to put on caution here (from ver. 14) to avoid offence, and soften things, by telling very darkly their case, and saying as concerning himself, what it would be very dangerous (so Dr Whitby says) for them to understand as true of such a man as he then was, and that without cautioning them by the least hint against that dangerous notion ? In fine, whatever be understood by law, it is plain that the apostle doth, without mincing or mollifying, set forth in a clear and strong light, in the preceding context of this chapter, and chap. vi. 14, the very unhappy condition of persons under the law. Let us now go a little farther in observing the varia- tion of the apostle's style (of which see Dr Guise, note on ver. 14), and compare his expression here (vers. 14- 25), with what he hath in this and the preceding and following chapters, concerning the unregenerate. These (chap. vi. 16-20), yielded (that is, sisted or presented) themselves servants to sin ; they yielded, or sisted their members as servants to unclea?mess, and to iniquity ; which implies the full and habitual consent of the will. But here (ver. 23) there is a law in a man's members zvarring and bringing into captivity that which is against the habitual bent and inclination of the man's will. As to the unregenerate who are after the flesh and in the flesh, they are (chap. viii. 7), enmity against God, and not subject to his law. But the man, in our context (from ver. 14), consents to the law, that it is good ; delights in the law of God after the inner man ; and with his mind he himself serves the law of God. As to the man in our context, what is holy and good is what he willeth ; sin is what he willeth not. But in the context preceding ver. 14, where the case of the unregenerate man under the law is certainly set forth, sin doth by occasion of the law work in him all manner of concupiscence, deceives him, slays him, and reviving in him, destroys all his confidences ; but it is not said of him that he hates it, that it is the thing he would not, 'JIIE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 263 nor doth he cry out of wretchedness by it, as in the latter context. They who interpret this latter context, of a man in the flesh, and under the law, do ascribe all the good mentioned in it to the man's understanding, reason, and natural conscience. But though these are in the unregenerate, who are certainly meant in the context preceding ver. 14, yet in no part of that context are they said to love, to hate, to delight, to will, to serve, as in this ; nor in the former context is there any mention of the inner man, of the mind, or of the law of the mind. The several expressions in the latter context come again in our way, to be more particularly explained. I here only observe the variation of the apostle's style and expression. Upon a general view, the great difference and variation of the style and expression gives good cause to think, that from ver. 14, there is represented a person and state very different from being under the law, in the fleshy as we have here a style and expression never used concerning such. 2. Here we see that the apostle speaks with a special view to the spirituality of the law of God, as it gives rule to a man's heart and spirit within, and to all inward thoughts and motions in the soul. It seems indeed to be clear, that it is with this view he speaks all along, even in the preceding context. The motions of sins working in a man's members (ver. 5) are inward : the particular instance condescended on (ver. 7), Thou sJialt not covet, is inward. So it is (ver. 8), when sin works in a man all manner of concupiscence ; and when (ver. 9) sin revives. If it were the practice of sin in outward works and behaviour that were meant in that context, certainly what he says would not universally suit the case of persons in the flesh, and under the law. Many such have been outwardly, as to the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. So the apostle himself was when in that state, and in appearance very religious, yea, having much at heart to be so. It had been a too partial, restricted, and incomplete view of the general 264 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING character of persons in the flesh, and under the law, if he had considered and represented only the outward practice; nor would it give a just account of the character in general of persons in the flesh ; whereas upon the view we are taking of the apostle's discourse, it answers to that character and state universally. Those in the flesh, as the apostle represents, do mean in their way to serve God, if not in the newness of spirit, yet according to the oldness of the letter. It is so that the distinction is stated (ver. 6). Not that the one sort serve God, and the other sort do not intend to serve him at all. If those in the flesh have their unholiness, and un- holy lustings and affections (which in many of them break forth outwardly in much impurity and iniquity), yet they have also their carnal religion, and their carnal confidence founded upon it. If the impurities and iniquity of the flesh have fearfully prevailed in the world, a carnal religion, in one form or other, hath no less overspread the world. But when the apostle doth (ver. 14), where he begins to speak of himself in the present tense, mention expressly that the law is spritual, it serves as a key to the following context, with which that expression and assertion is more precisely connected. Now, it is not only that his nature and heart had been, as to its inward workings, in the utmost rebellious and unholy opposition to the law, in his unregenerate state, but, as if he had said, When I consider the law in this point of view, as it is spiritual, alas, I am (yet, I am still) carnal, even in my present more comfortable state ! alas, what of impurity and iniquity remains inwardly with me ! If he had considered the law as a rule only to the outward actions and behaviour, he might at any rate say, that it is holy, just, and good; but might easily, at the same time, think himself likewise holy, just, and good. But when he views the law as spiritual, he finds great opposition and disconformity to its holiness to observe with sorrow, even now in his better state under grace. When he considers that the law requires not only the ex- ternal acts of worship, but also requires the worshipping THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 265 of God in spirit and in truth ; that it not only re- quires the external acts of obedience, but also demands to love God sincerely, yea, intensely to the utmost of our faculties and powers, with all our might and strength ; that it not only prohibits outward acts of impurity and iniquity, but also prohibits all deviation of the heart from God, and from holiness by evil lusting inwardly ; that it not only requires all outward duty to our neighbour (including our enemies), but also that our heart inwardly be sincerely well affected to him ; that not only killing a man, but also to be angry at him without a cause, is a transgression of the sixth command- ment ; that not only the outward act of adultery, but also to look on a woman to lust after her, is a transgression of the seventh ; — it is, I say, considering the law as thus spiritual, thus giving rule to his heart and spirit within him, and prohibiting the inward motions and activity of sin, and comparing himself, and the inward motions and inclinations of his heart, with the strict holiness and spirituality of it, that he represents his present feelings and observations concerning himself as he doth. It hath been argued by some, that whatever may pass inwardly in the heart, even of a true Christian, yet the expressions of this context convey more than what is merely inward, even the doing of evil in the ordinary outward course and practice of life, which is certainly inconsistent with a state of grace. It has been said, that the three words here rendered — to do or to perform, viz. ttoiw, -pdo-o-ij), Ka-tpya&ixai, can be understood of no less than external work, action, and course. But this is not so clear or evident. Not to enlarge more than is needful on this point, it is enough to observe, in general, that in all languages commonly the actions and operations of the mind are very often expressed by words which do primarily signify bodily action or opera- tion in general, or bodily sensation. So, although the words mentioned should be allowed to be used most commonly concerning outward doing or work, it doth not follow that the operations of the mind may not be, 266 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING yea, are not often, meant by them in the use of speech. The only word of the three that would be most likely to import more is KaTepyd(o[xai. But I observe, in ver. 20, If I do (ttoluj) that 1 would not, it is no more I that do it (Karepya^o/xat avro), that this latter verb is interchanged with the other ; and as it is certain that the former hath not always that force and meaning to signify full doing or performing in the outward work, there is reason to think that neither hath the latter, as used here. It is likewise to be observed, that, in this same chapter (ver. 8) the apostle says — Sin wrought in me (Karetpydo-aTo) all manner of concupiscence ; where, it is plain, that the word respects the motions and lustings of sin inwardly ; or, as Dr Whitby's paraphrase hath it, all manner of concu- piscence, or vehement desires after that which is forbidden by the law. So there is nothing here to disprove the account given of the apostle's view with regard to the spirituality of the law. Men's overlooking the apostle's view and respect to the law as spiritual, and to the disconformity of his heart, to what the law requires in this respect, and considering all the accounts here given by him as respecting the outward ordinary practice, has, I apprehend, been a main cause of their falling in with the notion, that though he speaks of himself in the present tense, yet he must be understood as personating unre- generate persons. 3. The third general consideration I suggest is this : The more holy a person is, and the more his heart is truly sanctified, it is reasonable to suppose he shall have the more quick sense and painful feeling of what sin may remain in him ; and that he shall utter his complaint of it in the more strong expressions, and with the greater bitterness of heart. A person nasty and drabbish, who hath been commonly employed in the dunghill, Can be nasty all over, without any uneasiness; whereas it gives a person of more delicate breeding and manners much shame and uneasiness to observe a small spot of filth upon himself. An un- regenerate person, who is in a course of impurity and iniquity, like a sow wallowing in the mire (that is THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 267 the scripture similitude), his sins give him little or no uneasiness, not even the unholiness of his outward practice ; much less the unholiness of his heart. There is a notable difference between the sense of things the two sorts of persons entertain, and often express. Such an unregenerate person as I have mentioned, however freely he takes his course in ill practice, will often give favourable accounts of himself for an honest heart, for certain praiseworthy qualities, and good deeds ; will often represent himself as righteous, and say such things of himself as, according to their true import and meaning, can suit only righteous persons, and those truly re- generate ; when persons truly holy, however pure and fruitful the\- are in outward behaviour, yet, from what they observe of the evil of their hearts, will be heard sometimes to speak of themselves in a style that may seem, at first sight, to suit only the worst of men. Thus the matter stands on both sides. A person unholy and impenitent fixes his attention on any good thing he can observe with himself, whereby he can in any degree support a favourable opinion of his own state, and be somewhat easy in an evil course. On the other hand, a person truly sanctified is ready to overlook his own good attainments, to forget the things that are behind in this respect, and rather consider how far he is behind, and defective in holiness, and to fix his attention with much painful feeling on his remaining sinfulness, for matter of godly sorrow or serious regret to him. With a just view of the majesty and holiness of God, he is ready to say with Job (chap. xlii. 6 , / abhor myself. All professed Christians will acknowledge, that it is very consistent with a state of grace, to have much imperfection in holiness, and much remaining sinfulness. Upon this view, it is most reasonable to- suppose, according to what hath been said above, that the farther one is advanced in holiness, and the more his heart is truly sanctified, he will have the greater sensibility with regard to sin, and it must give him the more pain and bitterness. If we shall suppose that an angel should find an unholy thought, or imagination, to 268 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING spring up in his mind, surely the first view and feeling of it would give him great apprehension and distress, and could not miss to put such a holy being into agonies. Let us, but for once, make the supposition, that the blessed apostle Paul found some sin and unholy affections remaining and stirring in his heart ; as he was a person advanced to a very uncommon degree in holi- ness, it would be the natural consequence, that he would express himself, concerning the matter, in language uncommonly strong and bitter. Followers of Arminius, at least some of them, have held, that Christians may, in this life, attain the perfection of holiness, yet they would acknowledge that this is not the attainment of many. If then they should suppose a man to be so holy as to be in the very next degree to perfection, should they not acknowledge, even consistently with their own notions, that such a person will have a much more quick feeling and bitter complaint of sin than another good man, who is yet less holy ? There is something here of important consideration and usefulness in dealing with souls serious and sincere. A Christian says, I have tasted that the Lord is gracious, and methinks I have found my heart undergo a happy change, with a powerful determination towards God and holiness. I have thought that I had good evidence of true conversion, and of a heart truly regenerated by grace. But then I know that the effect should be to grow in grace, to advance in holiness, and that sin remaining in my heart should become weaker and weaker. But I find otherwise ; I find grace rather become more weak ; and, however my outward deport- ment is regulated by a good conscience in ways of purity and integrity, yet in my heart I feel sin very strong, and rather growing more and more so. - Evil lusts, carnal affections, and disorderly passions are daily stirring, often with great vehemence, and defiling my heart and spirit. Alas ! after all I have experienced of divine goodness, I have cause to apprehend, that I may be found to have been in a delusion, and that matters may have a fatal issue with me at last. The unholiness THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 269 of my heart, in which grace feels so weak, and sin so strong, gives me constant regret and sorrow ; and the dread of the final consequence sometimes strikes terror through my whole soul. To consider the case with judgment ; as it is, in the first place, to be acknowledged that a Christian hath great cause of serious regret, and to be greatly humbled for his remaining sinfulness, yet it is one thing for sin to be growing more and more strong indeed ; it is another and very different thing, for his sense of sin to be growing more and more so. If sin was indeed growing more strong in a Christian's heart, he would feel it less, as the increasing strength of sin is always attended with a proportional hardness of heart and insensibility. When Hezekiah was humbled for the pride of his heart, it is likely that he observed the motions of that evil lust strong in him, and as if it had grown more and more so, compared with his former feeling and observation. Yet it was now that that lust was truly become weaker, and the real growth of grace appeared in the quick and humbling sense he had of it. On a former occasion, when he was gratifying his vanity in entertaining the ambassadors of the king of Babylon, the pride of his heart had much influence, yet gave him no annoyance or uneasiness. It was then that the interest of sin was strong and prevailing, and that of grace and holiness weak. There are too many Christians whose sense of sin and of its motions in them is not so great as it ought to be ; and this, alas ! comes too often to discover itself in outward instances of unholy conversation and practice. Christians may be assured, that a growing sensibility of conscience and heart with respect to sin, outwardly and inwardly, is among the chief evidences of the growth of grace, and of good advances in holiness, that they are likely to have on this side of heaven. For the more pure and holy the heart is, it will naturally have the more quick feeling of what sin remaineth in it ; and it will be taking the just view of the context now before us, to consider it in this light. 4. The last general consideration I suggest is, that the 270 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING expressions here are not used by another concerning a person historically, but by himself in the way of bitter regret and complaint. A man may in this way, and in the bitterness of his heart, say very strong things con- cerning himself and his condition, which it were unjust and absurd for another to say of him, in giving his character historically. But this will come in our way Sect. 3. — That nothing represented in this context (vers. 14-25) is inconsistent with a state of grace. The arguments of those who will have the apostle to be here personating others, come under this general head, that there are divers things in this context which he could not say or mean of himself, and which are in- consistent with a state of grace. Let us consider the particular things that are observed and alleged to this purpose. 1. The first thing of this sort that is adduced is in ver. 14, — / am carnal. To be carnal, or to be in the flesh (so it is argued), is the character of a person unregenerate, and under the law, and not applicable to a person in a state of grace, as the apostle was. Answer. — To be IN the flesh, can indeed be said of none who are in a state of grace, according to the scripture use of the expression. But to be in the flesh, and to be in some respect carnal, are not words con- vertible, or of the same meaning. They may be, and are said to be carnal in particular respects, and on a special view, who are in a state of grace. Here is a clear instance. The Corinthians the apostle addresses as saints, and considers as being in Christ ; yet to them he writes thus (1 Cor. iii. 1-3), / could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. — For ye are yet carnal ; for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men ? I know not what can be replied here, if it is not this. THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 27 I The apostle severely blames the Corinthians for being carnal ; so that we cannot suppose that he means of himself, when he says here, / am carnal. Yet still his charging the Corinthians, whom he con- siders as saints, and truly in Christ, with being carnal, it makes out this general point, that persons regenerate may be carnal in particular respects. To be in the flesh denotes persons absolutely unregenerate and destitute of the Spirit, as we see Rom. viii. 9. But as to Chris- tians being charged with carnality, in particular respects, this admits of great variety. The blessed apostle was by no means carnal in the same respect or degree as the Corinthians. He charges them with being so, because they could be fed only with milk ; had envyings, strifes, and divisions among them ; in a word, that they were but babes in Christ ; though grace was real and sincere in them, it was weak : so the flesh remained strong and little subdued in them. This was shameful to them, and very reprovable. But it was, on comparing himself with a much higher standard than that of men adult and come to full stature in Christ, even with the strict holiness and spirituality of the law of God, that he here calls himself carnal. This was matter of bitter regret to himself; but was far from that more blameworthy kind and degree that he charges the Corinthians with. As here, speaking to the Corinthians, he states the opposition between spiritual and earual, even as to persons, each sort, in a state of grace, it is plain that he hath the same opposition of characters in view as to persons in the same state of grace (Gal. vi. 1): If a brother be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore sueli an one. Where it is plain, he considers the person overtaken in a fault as carnal, though a brother. All this is enough to show, that his saying / am eamal, though it imports something in its own nature, contrary to holiness, yet doth not import the man's being in the flesh, unregenerate. 2. The next thing objected is in the same ver. 14, Sold under sin. And the argument from this expres- sion is thus stated. Anciently, when regular cartels 272 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING were not agreed on between powers at war, the prisoners or captives became the slaves of the victors, or, being sold by them, the slaves of such as bought them. Some- times men became slaves by their having of their own will resigned their liberty, and sold themselves : so in general this expression, sold under sin, imports to be a slave of sin (so it is argued) ; and this cannot be said, in any sense or degree, of a person regenerate and under grace. On this occasion (as we have already seen in a citation from Dr Whitby), is introduced the expression used concerning Ahab, that surely can never be applicable to a regenerate person (i Kings xxi. 25), But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell him- self to work wickedness, in the sight of the Lord. To this I answer, that the instance of Ahab (to begin with that) is very improperly adduced to explain or illustrate the expression in our text. In the words quoted, Ahab is represented as singular among, yea, above the most wicked. The inspired historian says, There was none like unto Ahab ; and it is to explain this that he adds, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the Lord ; that is, he wholly abandoned himself to all manner of wickedness, in open defiance of the Almighty. Now, if the apostle shall be supposed to be representing in our context the general and common case of persons unregenerate, in the flesh, and under the law, can the case of Ahab answer that purpose ? can such things be said of all who are unregenerate ? Arminius supposes that our context exhibits the case of a man who is not regenerate, but is in a very promising way, as in the next step to conversion ; but by the description given of Ahab, he was at the utmost distance from it. Yea, Dr Whitby, in explaining this place by the character given of Ahab, seems not to be quite consistent with himself. In a passage of his, to-be hereafter quoted, he labours to prove from this context what good an unregenerate man can, in that state, attain and do. He can will that which is good, hate sin, and delight in the law of God after the inner man. Could such things be said of one, who, as Ahab, had sold himself to work wickedness ? It is plain THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 2 J I that the expression used concerning Ahab, and that of our text, / am — sold under sin, are not of the same import or meaning. If the latter should mean as the former, it would not express the common case and character of persons regenerate or unregenerate, under the law or under grace. As to slavery, there was a great difference, according to the different ways in which a man came into that state. If in the course of war a man happened to be taken captive, he was unwillingly a slave, regretted his own condition, and truly longed for deliverance, as he might expect it from the future successes of his proper lord. A man having such a disposition and prospect, though captivated for a season, might still justly reckon himself the subject and soldier of the lord under whose banner he had fought, and solace himself with the prospect of his working his relief. But if a man peacefully and volun- tarily sold himself, he had not the same reason to look for relief ; and would be likely to live without the hope of it ; without being anxious about his condition. It must accordingly be allowed, that there is a great difference between a person, who with full determination of heart and will, peacefully yieldeth himself a slave to sin, to the outward and inward practice of it, and a person who, to pure and upright inward behaviour, adds the utmost solicitude about inward conformity to the strict holiness and spirituality of the law, with an ordinary conflict against everything within him contrary thereto. The former proves himself to be in an unregenerate state ; the latter, with all his bitter and tragical complaint, is not so ; yea, this can suit none other than a person in a regenerate state. As to the instance of Ahab, if instead of its being liistorically said of him that he sold Jiimsclf, we had over- heard him, or any other such, striking his thigh like Ephraim, and bemoaning himself, saying, Ah, how carnal I am, and sold under sin ! it would surely have made a vast difference ; we should see cause to judge such a man. like Ephraim, to be a true penitent, under the full influence of regenerating grace. S 274 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING In interpreting the language of sorrow and complaint, great allowance is to be made, so as not to take strong words rigidly, in their most full ordinary meaning. They would make absurd and foolish work of it, who would so interpret it in many instances that occur in holy writ. In this way, for instance, one might argue and say, Job was certainly an ill, yea, a vile man, for so he testifies of himself (Job xl. 4), Behold, I am vile. Job uttered this humble expression on his having got a very affecting view of the Divine majesty and holiness. In like manner, with an eye to the authority and holiness of God revealed in his law, and of the inward purity it required, as being spiritual, the apostle cries out, I am carnal, sold under sin. If one overheard a serious upright Christian saying, on some occasion, with much deep regret (as many such have done), Ah, what a slave am I to carnal affections, to unruly passions ! how do they carry me away, and capti- vate me ! would he hastily say, that this complaint had no foundation at all in truth? or would he conclude, if it had, that this man was truly and absolutely a slave of sin, and a person unregenerate ? I should think, that a person so judging, would deserve no other than to be unfavourably regarded. If the apostle's exclamation, sold under sin, shall be considered in this view, as it certainly ought to be, it is so far from proving the person who thus speaks to be truly a slave of sin, that it evidently tends to prove the contrary. 3. To the expression we have been last considering (ver. 14), we may join that other, as near of kin to it in meaning (ver. 23), / see another law — bringing me into captivity to the law of sin. To be actually brought into captivity to sin, and to be sold under sin, signify much the same thing ; so that what hath been said of the other expression (ver. 14), may be applied to this. We have no cause to think, that the apostle was, even in his regenerate state, altogether a stranger to the sudden hurry and surprise of passion, such as cannot be without some degree of sin, however soon checked and overcome, yet not so soon but that he might observe as much of it as would greatly annoy his holy heart. If we THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 275 consider things in view to the third general consideration above suggested, we ought, from a heart so sanctified as was that of the Apostle Paul, to expect no less than the expression of bitter regret on such accounts. Dr Whitby in a descant he hath on these words of ver. 23 speaks as if they expressed the case of one yield- ing himself captive to the law in his members. But certainly they do not represent one so yielding himself captive, but one in earnest struggle against that law, which he found warring against his soul, and striving to bring him captive. Whatever may, on some occasions, have happened, these expressions do not truly import the law in its members to have got the better, or to have actually overcome him. To this purpose serves what hath been observed by the critics. That words properly signifying the action and the effect together, are some- times so used as to mean no more than the action, and its tendency. Here is an instance (Ezek. xxiv. 1; . / have purged thee, and thou wast not purged. If the first clause, / have purged thee (which imports, in the common use of speech, both the action and the effect), should be understood in the proper and full sense, it would be a contradiction to say, as in the next words, thou wast not purged. But it is plain, that the words, / have purged thee, mean no more than the Lord's having used means tending greatly to that effect. This use of such words cannot be denied by any who shall agree to Dr Whitby's interpretation of John vi. 44, according to which, the Father draweth many to Christ, who yet are not effectually drawn, or actually brought to him. So here, / find a laiv in my members bringing me into captivity j means no more than working hard, and of strongly tending to captivate me, and to make me a slave of sin in this and the other instance. So that they who infer from this expression, that the person here re- presented was, in fact and in good earnest, according to the full sense of the words, habitually a captive and slave of sin, and that he yielded himself to be so, do infer what the expression doth by no means import or give any ground for. 276 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING 4. A fourth thing that is said to be inconsistent with a state of grace, is, a will to do good that hath not effect in practice. Thus, ver. 15, What I would that I do not ; ver. 18, To will is present with me, but how to perform that which is good, I find not ; and ver. 1 9, The good that 1 would, I do not. This, say they, cannot be the case of a person in a state of grace ; for of such the apostle says, that God worketh in them to will and to do, or perform. This is to come in our way elsewhere hereafter. But, as to the purpose of this place, if the apostle says, How to perform that which is good, I find not, we have not reason to think from this, that it was still, or most commonly so with him ; nor do the words oblige us to understand him so. I doubt if our opposites will allow, that it is always, and in every instance, thus even with persons unregenerate. I put the question, Is it so, indeed, that an unregenerate man is still, and in every instance, unable to perform that which is good ? Is it so, that he cannot by the grace of God, that is ever ready to assist men of every condition and state, who sincerely will that which is good, perform it in any, yea, in many instances ? I would be glad to know how they would answer this upon their own principles. If they shall say, that an unregenerate man, willing that which is good, can perform it in some, yea, in many instances, they must at the same time, acknowledge, that these words, How to perform that which is good, I find not, do not mean that this is always the case with him who here speaks. What good reason then can they give for think- ing that the apostle could not say so of himself, con- sistently with his performing his duty in many, yea, in most instances, though in some instances, to his great regret, he found himself unable to perform it, as he here says? If they say, that an unregenerate man doth indeed sometimes perform that which is good, but not so constantly, or in so good a manner as he ought, is it not still more reasonable, understanding the words here of Paul himself, to say they only mean that even he doth not perform that which is good, so constantly, THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 2J7 and in so good a manner as he ordinarily willeth and wisheth ? Yea, even from the representation here given, it is certain that the person whose case is meant, must be supposed to do and to perform a great deal that is good. He saith several times, that it is good that he willed to do, and that to will it was present with him. He saith not, that he willed that which was evil ; though it is true that he could not do evil without his will being in it in some sort and degree. But as he never says, that he willed that which was evil, it implies that such will was not the habitual and prevailing will. But when he mentions oftener than once that he willed that which was good, and says, that to will so is present with him, he hereby shows, that the prevailing habitual inclination and determination of his will was towards good. Now, if it was so, it is certain from the nature of things, and from the natural course of things in rational agents, that good behoved to prevail in his conduct and practice outward and inward. But whatever good he attained, or whatever good he performed, yet, according to what hath been formerly said, overlooking his attainment in that way, his attention is fixed, with great concern and regret, on what he hath not attained or performed. Alas ! (as if he had said) in how many instances doth it happen, that I do what I allow not ; that I do not that which I would ; that when to will is present with me. yet how to perform that which is good I find not ! Surely this is very consistent with the prevailing of grace in the heart. The truth is, serious Christians are so much often in this way, and thus expressing their complaint, that if one was to form a character of them according to what they say and represent in this style, it would often be more unfavourable than just. Further, we are to remember that the apostle hath in his eye, all along, what, at first setting out in speaking of himself in the present tense, he had mentioned (ver. 14), even the spirituality of the law, as a rule not only to his outward behaviour, but also to his heart and spirit within him. If with this in view he should say, To will 278 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING even the absolute perfection and purity which the law of God requireth, is present with me ; but how to perform that which is good, according to the strict holiness and spirituality of the law, I find not; alas, I find not in any instance whatsoever ! will any say that this is incon- sistent with a state of grace ? Let us consider what is likely to have been the aim, the will and wish of so holy a person. He willed that the love of God should fill his heart, and prevail in it in the most intense degree ; that his heart should be wholly spiritual and heavenly, in all its thoughts and affections ; that when he came before God in exercises of worship, his whole soul should be animated and elevated with a heavenly flame of devotion ; that vain thoughts, sin and sinful imperfections should never hold him short of such perfect attainment in his duty. Will any say it is unreasonable to suppose this to be what he willed ? or can any good reason be given for supposing that Paul, whilst he was in the body, found nothing that made him fall short of so high an aim in holiness ? Let it be added here, when the apostle says (ver. 18), Hozv to perform that which is good, I find not, that the word rendered perform, is, KaTepyd^eaOau ; which, though it may sometimes mean no more than simply, facere, to do, as hath been shown formerly, yet it more properly signifies, perficere, peragere, to do thoroughly, or completely. The apostle, having the strict holiness and spirituality of the law in his eye, willed to do what is good thoroughly and completely ; as in the outward work, so in his heart and spirit within him. But, after all that the Christian attains, there is something as to doing thoroughly and completely that he doth not reach in this life. There is not a just man that doth good, and sinneth not. There is still imperfection ; something of sin that cleaves to men's best doings. So that, in view to the proper standard and rule, the best may say (according to Isa. lxiv. 6), that even all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags. The common case of Christians is according to Gal. v. 17, T lie flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; so that ye cannot do the tilings that ye would. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 279 These considerations account for the apostle's saying, How to perform that which is good, I find ?iot ; and show that therein there is nothing inconsistent with being regenerate and under grace, and nothing to give cause to think that the apostle personates the unregenerate man. 5. Some have argued from that expression (ver. 20), Sin that dwelleth in me. Arminius labours to prove, and boasts of having proved, that sin dwelling in a man signifies its ruling, or having dominion in him. Indeed, if he had proved this, it might have saved him all the labour he bestowed on other arguments. This one were absolutely decisive ; and his long dissertation on this context might have been a very short one. But if a man, who is head of a family, dwelleth in his own house, it is true that he ruleth there ; but he doth so as being head of the family, not merely because he dwelleth there, for it is as properly said of the family, that they dwell there, as of him. If the Spirit of God dwelleth in a Christian, it is true that he ruleth in him ; and so, if Christ dwelleth in a man's heart through faith ; but still it is not the word dwelleth that imports so. If Arminius found that any expression, where the word dwell occurs, did import ruling, as in several texts mentioned by him, yet that notion arises from something else than merely the word dzvelliug. If a man dwells in this city, or in that country, and it is so said, doth indeed the expression import that he ruleth in that city or country ? The prophet says (Amos hi. 12), So shall the children of Israel be taken out that dwell in Samaria, in the corner of a bed, and in Damascus in a couch. Is it that Israel had dominion in these places, where they are said to dwell ; when it is plain they are represented as in distress, and hiding themselves in these places? So Zech. ii. 7, Deliver thyself, 0 Zion, that dwelleth with the daughter of Babylon. Surely it would be very ill to infer from this, that the Jews in captivity at Babylon had the dominion there. Now, if the word in its proper use doth not import rule, or dominion, there can be no reason for making that 280 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING the meaning of it, when it is transferred to the figurative use. Christ says (John vi. 56), He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. So I John iv. 13, Hereby we know that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. It is just to say, that God or Christ dwelling, or abiding in a man, do rule in him. But it were nonsense and blas- phemy to put that in the meaning of the word, when the Christian is said to abide or dwell in God or in Christ. So it is plain that the word dwell doth not of itself import rule or dominion ; and that there is good reason for the distinction between sin reigning in men, as it doth in the unregenerate ; and sin merely dwelling in them, as it doth in them who are regenerate. This argument rather gives the hint of an argument against the exposition of Arminius. If the apostle meant to represent here persons unregenerate, he had a fair occa- sion to make the matter clear by that one word, by saying, instead of dwelling, Sin that ruleth, or hath dominion in me. When he doth not so, but uses a word that hath no such meaning, this rather gives the hint at least, or makes a likelihood in favour of the interpre- tation against which Arminius argues. 6. It is likewise argued, that there is something in- consistent with a regenerate state in the expression (ver. 23) 0 wretched man that I am ! — Arminius gives it in the form of syllogism, to this purpose : All that are regenerated and under grace, are happy ; by no means wretched : but this man is wretched ; therefore he is not regenerate. But this is a most wretched argument. Though a man who is regenerate is happy on the whole, yet such a man may be wretched in several respects, and may complain bitterly of being so. If a good Christian, in the distressing paroxysm of a chronical disease, of gout or gravel, should cry out, 0 wretched man that I am ! or if Job, in his great distress, had used these very words (as he used very strong ones), it were surely rash and foolish to conclude that he was unregenerate, and not under grace. A sanctified heart, conscious of the motions THE SCOrE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 28 1 of sin in itself, hath certainly no less cause to cry out of wretchedness. Arminius concludes what he hath on this argument, by saying, men cannot be called wretched, who have conflict by sin, and are buffeted by a messenger of Satan ; but it is truly wretched to be overcome. Yet a man cannot be called wretched, who being sometimes overcome, is more commonly victorious against the world, sin, and Satan. This appears to be so much the case in our context, that Arminius hath, by these concessions, quite undone his own argument. 7. Some have argued from that expression in this same ver. 23, Who shall deliver Die? as if it implied despair ; which is inconsistent with a state of grace. As to this, it will be allowed, that final absolute despair is so. But we must not judge so of the suggestions of despair, even when these are uttered in strong enough terms, from the force of temptation. There are not wanting instances of this sort in Scripture, in the case of some of the saints. But the apostle's expression here doth not amount even to so much. It expresses the painful feeling he had of sin; the great difficulty he found in overcoming it ; and that it required the hand of one more powerful than himself, together with his solicitude, his most vehement desire, and longing to be delivered. That there is no despair, appears in the words he utters, as with the same breath, — / thank my God through Jesus Christ. Thus I have considered all that I have observed to be adduced with any colour, from the apostle's words, as inconsistent with a state of grace ; and I think it may by this time be reckoned very clear, that none of these things in particular, nor the whole together, are so. Sect. 4. — Showing that this context contains a great deal that is inconsistent with an unregenerate state. I come now to show, that in the case here represented, there is much that is inconsistent with an unregenerate 282 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING state, and such as none else than a true believer under grace and regenerated, is capable of. To this purpose, the general appearance hath something at first sight very striking, I mean the bitter complaint that is all along of sin dwelling in the man, or in his flesh. / am carnal, sold under sin. Taking this as the language of bitter and heavy complaint, as it evidently is, what unregenerate man hath such a sense of sin prevailing in him as would produce in sincerity such a complaint? or if the unregenerate man hath right sentiments in his head, what man in this state hath so sad an impression of the case in his heart ? How sad the impression, and the exclamation (ver. 24), 0 wretched man that 1 am, who shall deliver me from this body of death ? As to this last expression, this body of death, some have understood it of the body properly so called. But however the apostle knew it was better for him to depart and be with Christ, yet amidst all his distresses in the body, we never find him wishing and crying out to be disunited from the body, or to be by such an event with- drawn from the service of Christ, and of his church on earth. Much less is it congruous to suppose an unre- generate man (who is said to be here personated), crying out for death, in order to be without sin. No such man was ever so weary of sin, or had such a prospect respecting it, for futurity, as to wish and cry out for his dissolution on such account. But, as hath been formerly said, the body of death, in this 24th verse, is likely to mean the same thing as the body of sin (chap. vi. 6), and shows how bitter and sad the sense of sin is in the man who cries out, as in this place. I know that an unregenerate man may, in great terror of the penal consequence of sin, loudly complain of it. But it is not sin itself, but the penal consequence that is bitter to such. I know also, that a person who labours to establish his own righteousness (which is in great opposition to God, and to the sincerity of holiness), may have much vexation, and much discouragement to that sort of hope, by sin. But that sin itself, for the evil it hath in its own nature, and its contrariety to God, to THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 283 duty, to holiness, in view to the spirituality of the law, should be so bitter to a man, is quite remote from the disposition of such a self-righteous unregenerated soul. Dr Whitby will have the case of a man who had sold himself to work wickedness, as Ahab, to come under the representation in this context : and there are few of his way of thinking, who do not use that instance in inter- preting it. Can any imagine, that such an abandoned person would be thus affected with regard to sin ? or would he be thus truly sick of sin ? We read, indeed, of Ahab's once retiring to his bed, turning away his face, and refusing to eat. Something, doubtless, lay heavy on his mind. But it was his lust's being crossed by Xaboth's refusal of his vineyard ; not his sin. We also read of his humbling himself, and wearing sackcloth ; but it was for the terrible denunciation against him and his family, by a person of very established character as a prophet ; not merely or chiefly for his sin. Can any one conceive, that a man is truly, and willingly, a slave of sin, yielding himself to its service, and selling himself to work wicked- ness, and yet finding sin so bitter, so painful to his heart ? The notion is quite absurd. The sincere expression of pain and bitterness by sin, and the sorrowful exclamation against it that is here used, is altogether incompatible with an un regenerate state. To be more particular: he says 'ver. 15), That which I do, I allow not. The Greek word rendered allow, is not the same that is so rendered, chap. xiv. 22. The word here is yivuo-iw, / know not. But as this more common meaning of the word doth not suit this place, it is fit to take another meaning that is not uncommon in Scripture use, by which the word signifies, to love. So Ps. i. 6, The Lord knoweth (that is, lovctli) the way of the righteous. Matt. vii. 43, / never knew (i.e. loved, or had complacence in) you ; depart from me. Ps. xxxi. 7, Thou hast known {hast loved, or testified thy love to) my soul in adversity. John x. 14,/ am the good Shepherd, and know {i.e. love) my sheep ; and am known fi.e. l< 1 of mine. This sense well suits our text (Rom. vii. 1 ; >. That which I do, I allow, or knozv not, that is, love not. 284 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING For what in the last clause of the verse he opposes to this, is not mere disapprobation, but hatred : what I hate, that I do. So he expresses here, that sin he loved not ; he hated it. This is emphatic. Nature did spontaneously, and with strong inclination, produce the motions of sins; the flesh, depraved nature, produced irregular unholy passions and lusts, which he understood by the spirituality of the law to be sin ; but by the fixed, deliberate, and prevailing disposition of his sanctified heart, he loved it not, — he hated it. What nature, or the flesh produceth in the manner that hath been said, being what, by the prevailing dis- position of his heart, he would not, he infers (ver. 16), I consent unto the law, that it is good. Assent and consent do differ, as the former is of the understanding, respecting truth, which is its proper object ; the latter is of the heart and will, respecting good, which is the special object of the will. Now, though the Greek a-vfi^rj^ may sometimes be used, and but very rarely, for the assent of the mind and judgment, as that use of the word is observed by Grotius and by Hedericus's lexicon, to occur in Sophocles and Euripides, yet that cannot be the meaning in this place, as it is here used expressly with relation to good, that the law is good, which is the object of the will ; and it is from the inclination of his will, If I do that which I WOULD not, that he makes the inference, / consent unto the law, that it is good. This, however, doth not suit the disposition and prevailing principles of the unregenerate. Let such argue in rational theory ever so much, for the goodness of the law, and assent to all that can be said to that purpose, yet the heart and will do not consent unto the law that it is good ; and, as Dr Whitby hath it, commands what is good for me to do. When it comes from mere theory to doing, the heart and will give it against the holy and spiritual law ; and every unholy lust, inordinate affection, and irregular passion, hath the consent of the will' to the goodness of itself, and it hath its course inwardly, in opposition to the holiness of the law ; even when there may be great restraint, from various causes and means, as to outward practice. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 285 I am aware of what ma}- be excepted against this reasoning. The case described in the lines here im- mediately preceding, that, viz. of the unregenerate, is the very case, may one say, described in our context. Whatever favourable views the man's mind may give of the law ; yet when it comes to doing, his unholy lust and passions decide against the holiness of the law, and he doth what he would not. For answer to this, it is certainly without reason that the will of the unregenerate can be supposed to be, as to its prevailing bent and inclination, on the side of the law and its holiness. As to doing, the apostle doubtless found it with himself in too many instances, as he reports. Nature, so far as unrenewed, or the flesh in him, was producing or doing what he would not ; at least by its activity or inward working ; which he appears to have in his view here especially. Yet as to habitual, ordinary, deliberate practice, and the common disposition and course of life, we must suppose that this was according to what he willed, according to the inclination of his heart, consenting to the goodness of the law. To suppose otherwise, were to suppose what is inconsistent with the nature of things ; inconsistent with the natural con- nection of the faculties in rational and moral agents. It is reasonable then to consider it as a fixed point, that to consent to the goodness of the law, as it is spiritual, giving rule to men's hearts and spirits, which is the apostle's special view in this place, is far from the disposition of any unregenerated soul. To proceed ; the apostle says (ver. 17), Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. What here would strike every mind free of bias is, that this " I " on the side of holiness against sin, is the most prevailing, and what represents the true character of the man ; and that sin, which he distinguishes from this " I " is not the prevailing reigning power in the man here represented ; as it is, however, in every unregenerate man. Further, we see all along in this context, the man- is represented as on the side of duty and holiness, and against sin. It is true, that sin could not do or effect 286 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING anything, without having the will and affections in its interest in some degree. Yet he never saith here, that sin or evil is the thing that he willeth ; but still what he willeth not. Often as he mentions willing, and sin, and doing, yet he never mentions his willing as on the side of sin ; that is still what he would not. How shall we account for this, if it is not by saying, that the will to duty and holiness is prevailing, and his will is habitually on that side, which cannot be the case with a man in the flesh under the dominion of sin? He says (ver. 18), To will is present with vie ; that is, to will what is good and holy ; and thus it is with him habitually. This can import no less than that the will to holiness, and to the very perfection thereof, is habitually ready with him. He says indeed (ver. 2 1 ), I find a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. So it was ; the flesh re- maining in him, sin was its natural production, it was spontaneous and ready on the side of sin ; ever ready to avoid, and resist every holy thought, motion, or action. Yet sin was not what he willed. It was against the deliberate, fixed inclination and determination of his will ; and so was not the dominant principle in him, as it is in all who are in the flesh. Sin could not be dominant in him, without having the prevailing inclina- tion of the will favourable to it. But here there is no hint given of this concerning the will. Let us now observe how these expressions I have been taking notice of are accounted for and interpreted by those who apply them to the unregenerate. Grotius says, that these things are spoken figuratively, and by metonymy ; giving to the cause, that is, to reason or conscience, a name from the effect it ought to produce. That is, for instance, the man is said to hate sin, and to will what is good, because conscience and its dictates ought to have that effect. As to this, we know that metonymy gives to the cause a name from the effect which it naturally and commonly produces ; but to give- to a thing, under the notion of a moral cause, a name from the effect it ought to produce, but most commonly it doth not produce, hath no warrant in the use THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 287 of speech; yea, is quite absurd. In this way a very wicked man might brag, and say, My heart is pure, sincere, and holy ; my outward conversation and be- haviour is according to the rule of purity and righteous- ness. A person acquainted with his character, over- hearing him, would readily say, Strange ! a person notoriously lewd, profane, and wicked to a high degree, to talk so impudently of his purity and virtue. But one might vindicate him by Grotius' notion of metonymy, and say, The man speaks rightly enough by a metonymy, which gives him, by virtue of his conscience (for ill as he is, he hath a conscience within him) a character from the effect it ought to produce ; for it requires all that he has been ascribing to himself. What adds to the un- reasonableness of this interpretation is, that conscience, whatever good a man ought to do by its dictates, is by no means a cause adequate, in sinful men, to such effect as is here mentioned. There is not such an effect in any soul without the influence of a superior cause and power. To give to a thing, as a cause, the name of an effect, which it doth not naturally or commonly produce, yea, is insufficient of itself to produce, is a sort of metonymy, which the use of speech cannot, never did, admit. This is a criticism which Grotius, as he was in that way, could not support. Let us now see how Dr Whitby accounts for these things. He has not recourse to metonymy ; but takes the expressions in their true and proper sense, without any figure ; and hath an important purpose to serve in doing so, — even to give a favourable idea of the moral powers of a natural and unregenerated man, such as he thinks is here personated. Some men have not been contented with so interpreting this context, that the general interest of their system shall not lose by it : they expect to gain considerably by it for the establishing of their own sentiments. This view and interest has, doubth made them the more warm and keen. Dr Whitl in answering an argument taken from this context, * "The Five Points/'* ed. 1710, pp. 331, 332. 288 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING among other things, writes thus : " Whereas they make their lapsed man to have lost the power even of willing to do good, and to be totally enslaved both as to his will, mind, and action (perhaps affection), the man here mentioned hath a will to do the good he doth not, and to avoid the evil that he doth ; yea, the evil that he doth is hateful to him ; and he delighteth in the law of God in the inner man, and with his mind serves the law of God." He then quotes a passage from Origen (one of his masters in orthodoxy — not the very best), which imports, that he (the unregenerate man) is not wholly alienated from good things, but is in his purpose and will inclined to them, though not yet sufficient to perform. The Doctor then argues, and puts the question, thus,* " Now I inquire (saith he) whether in this will to do good, this delight in the law of God, this hatred of sin, this man doth well or ill ? If well (so the Doctor thought, and so do I), he can, even in the state here mentioned, do something that is good ; " in an un- regenerate state, as he understood. Well, it is no small acquisition the Arminian makes here in favour of nature and free will. But that the expressions, delighting in the law of God, and with the mind serving it, suited not this purpose, will appear when I come hereafter to consider them, and vers. 22, 25, separately. But to say a little in this place, it is certainly reasonable to think, that he who willeth, hateth, delighteth, in the manner here said, can not only do something that is good, but can do a great deal in the way of holy practice and duty. But as Dr Whitby and others of his sentiments, do interpret our context as representing the case of persons who, like Ahab, sold themselves to work wickedness (1 Kings xxi. 20), or like these revolters from the true religion (1 Mace. i. 15), surely they put very opposite and inconsistent things in their character, — to have abandoned themselves to wickedness, and at the same time, to hate sin, to will that which is good, and to delight in the law of God, even when they are * "The Five Points," ed. 1710, p. 332. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 289 under the thraldom and dominion of sin. I cannot but wonder, that reasonable and thinking men would not find their reason quite shocked, at expressing sentiments and reasoning that proceed on joining in the state, character, disposition, and practice of any description of persons, things so evidently and grossly inconsistent. But if a natural man, destitute of the Holy Spirit, can sincerely will, love, delight, and hate, as is here said, I would wish to know, what is left for Divine grace to do in regeneration, according to the sentiments of these writers ? What but external revelation, and moral suasion well inculcated, to give the proper excitement to the more languid will, inclination, and affection towards holiness, which a man in nature hath, from rational nature itself, that these may exert themselves with due activity and force ? This is Divine grace, and the human will consenting to this suasion, and so exert- ing itself in practice, is, according to them, regeneration. Moral suasion must indeed have its own place in dealing with rational creatures. They are not dealt with as stocks or stones under the hand of the mechanic. Conversion to God through Jesus Christ, and to holiness, is the consequence of proper evidence, and of proper motives. Conversion is the effect of suasion, but not of that merely — suasion is not of itself a cause adequate to such an effect in sinful men. In using that suasion, and that the proper evidence and motives should have effect on the hearts of men, there is needful the im- mediate operation and influence of Divine power and grace on the hearts of men ; not to work on them as the mechanic doth on a stock or a stone (as some men foolishly speak, in arguing against the doctrine of grace), but with a much greater efficacy of power, by which God quickeneth the dead, gives sight to the blind, or causes the lame to walk, which are similitudes the Scripture affords respecting this subject. The minds of men are spiritually so blind as to be incapable of perceiving, in a just light, the evidence and excellency of spiritual things ; and their hearts are so possessed by sin, that they cannot be duly affected or T 290 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING excited by the best motives, until of Divine mercy they are saved from the prevailing influence and effect of sin, by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Ghost. If it were not so, how could it happen, that on so great a part of mankind, yea, of the wise and prudent, whose intellectual faculties have been highly improved with respect to other subjects, yet the best evidence and motives set before them by the gospel, have no effect for their good and salvation, when these things are happily and effectually revealed to babes? The gospel hath effect beyond what the law ever hath, not merely by its better light and means of suasion, but especially as it is the ministration of the Spirit, and that thereby is conveyed into the souls of men the Holy Spirit, to give efficacy to its suasion, to enlighten, con- vert, and sanctify. To say that without this, men in their natural condition can have their will truly inclined to holiness, and can delight in the holy and spiritual law of God, is to depreciate grace, and to feed nature with delusion. Another query yet : If a man in nature, and in the flesh, doth will, love, delight, and hate, as is here said, what remains to distinguish between him and a person truly regenerated and in a state of grace ? The answer to this that is given by some, is taken from ver. 18, To will is present with me, but how to PERFORM that which is good, I find not. So the defect of the natural man is not in his will, which is inclined to what is good and holy ; but he cannot perform. Whereas (so Dr Whitby argues) in the true Christian, God worketh not only to will, but to do (Phil. ii. 13); so he not only willeth, but can perform that which is good. To this I answer : There is certainly great inadvertency in the Arminians so arguing from this text of Philippians, which ascribes to Divine grace, not only to work in the true Christian to do, but also to will. God not only in creating him works in him, to fleAr/^a, the will, or the faculty, but (so the Greek hath it) to dkkeiv, to will, or the exercise and act of the faculty. So this text THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 29 1 effectually confutes their interpretation, who understood the willing of that which is good and holy, in our context (Rom. vii.), to be of a man un regenerated. To suppose that God worketh in men to will that which i.^ good, without enabling them at all to perform that which is good, is not agreeable to this text (Phil. ii. 13), which joins both together, and both as the work and effect of Divine grace ; not, the one as the production of nature, the other as the working or effect of grace. It is true, indeed, that a sincere Christian may oc- casionally be so much under the influence of the flesh, as to be thereby unable to perform what he habitually willeth and wisheth ; yea, so as to be much ensnared in evil ; and God, who worketh in Christians to will and to do of \i\s good pleasure, may leave him in some instances, thus to prove his weakness, for making him more humble, watchful, and dependent. But to say that a man can sincerely and habitually have his will well affected to God and holiness, with a true hatred of sin, and not habitually and commonly perform that which is good, is quite contrary to the nature of things. The sincere Christian willing that which is good, doth also in practice perform it in a manner that the unregenerate man is incapable of; and notwithstanding the imperfection of his doing, he is therein accepted through Jesus Christ. Let us now see how Dr Taylor of Norwich accounts for these things I have been observing, as peculiar to a regenerate man, and which he supposes to be in the case and character of the Jew under the law, and the unre- generate, even the worse sort of them. Here are some instances from his paraphrase. The words (ver. 15), What I would, that I do not, his paraphrase gives thus :" What his (the sinner's) reason approves and dictates, that he doth not." But if a sinner's reason approves and dictates what is right, is that the same as to say, what is holy and right is what he willeth o 6e\u), as the apostle's expression is? The next words, — What I hate, that I do, he gives thus : " What he (the sinner) hateth (this he explains by what he adds) what is abhorrent from his reason, that he doth." ?92 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING But if sin is contrary to, or, if you please to give force of sound to the expression, abhorrent from his reason, is it true that the unregenerate hateth it? or do these ex- pressions mean the same thing ? Drunkenness is con- trary to, is abhorrent from the reason of the habitual drunkard. Were it for this just to say, that the habitual drunkard hateth drunkenness ? These words (ver. 17), It is not I that do it, his para- phrase gives thus : " It is not I in the best sense, it is not a man's reason separately considered, that produces the wicked action." But what sense or philosophy is here ? a man's reason considered separately from his other faculties, produces no action, good or bad. The words (ver. 18) To will is present with me, he gives thus : " To will is present, is adjoined to a man — God hath endowed him with faculties, to approve and choose what is good." But if a sinner's understanding and conscience approve what is good, doth it mean no more to say that to will what is good is present with him ? This is gross dealing with words. The apostle's words do not say merely that the faculty to distinguish between good and evil, and to approve and choose what is good, is given him. The natural faculty in general every man hath. But the apostle's expression, as hath been formerly observed is, to Okkav, actual willing and choosing what is good. These words (ver. 19), The good that I would, he gives thus : " What good actions his (the sinner's) reason chooses." And as the apostle had said (ver. 16), If then I do that which I would not, he gives it thus : " If a carnal man doth these things which are not the choice of his own reason." But choosing is not an act merely of a man's understanding or reason. A man doth not choose but by the determination of his will to that which his understanding or reason recommends to it. To say, the choice of reason, or, what reason chooses, is but an artful impropriety, if not rather nonsense. The words (ver. 22), / delight in the law of God, he para- phrases thus : " It is granted, that the Jew in the flesh may esteem the law of God." Do delight and esteem THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 293 truly signify the same thing ? If it were said that a lewd man delighted in the practice of uncleanness, would that import that with his mind and reason he esteemed it ? I doubt if this author himself would admit that paraphrase. In these instances, we see that Dr Taylor doth all along ascribe to reason, willing, delighting, hating, choos- ing. This is throwing aside the distinction of human faculties ; it involves our thoughts in confusion, and tends to make language useless. The understanding is the seat of reason, and is the reasoning faculty. There is besides in the human soul, the will and affections. But according to Dr Taylor if the understanding perceives, judges, reasons, it also wills, loves, hates, delights, chooses. But the author may have had his own reason for this strange and unnatural way of representing things. They who interpret this context of a person regenerate, have observed, that in an unregenerate man, his conscience, or (as some choose to speak) his reason, that one faculty, is on the side of duty and holiness, testifies for it, and requires it, God having maintained in this one faculty a testimony for his authority and holi- ness within man. But in one unregenerate, sin possesses his will and affections, hath these wholly on its side, and so hath the man under its dominion. That in persons regenerate, and under grace, as by Divine grace their conscience is more enlightened and strengthened, so their will and affections are, by habitual and prevailing inclination, on the side of duty and holiness, and grace hath its powerful influence and effect on all their faculties. That this is evidently the case proposed in this con- text, the mind, conscience, or reason, representing holy practice and duty as good, lovely, and delightful, the man doth actually will that which is good, loves it, and delights in the law of God and its holiness. So they conclude with good reason, as it cannot be thus in the unregenerate, that it is certainly the case of a person truly regenerate, even of the apostle himself (so his expression and style import) that is here exhibited. Dr Taylor doth by a bold stretch of genius evade 294 A DISSERTATION CONCERNJNG this argument. He forms reason into a person, and the willing of good, hating evil, and delighting in the law of God in our context, which are the exercise of human personal faculties, he ascribes to that one faculty, that fictitious person, reason. We have seen how, according to him, that person, of his own creating, wills, chooses, hates, and delights. The question remains, as to the person, the man speak- ing, or personated in our text, how is it that he willeth ? Dr Taylor gives his mind thus,* on these words here (ver. 14), Sold under sin. "He means/' said he, "a will- ing slavery, as Ahab had sold himself to work evil." Truly the apostle crying out, as of his wretchedness, in these words, is far from representing a willing slavery. However, the slavery of sin must be a willing slavery. A man's body may be bound, and carried hither and thither, and he may be a slave as to his bodily or out- ward condition, much against his will. But he cannot be a slave in a moral sense, as to his fixed ordinary character, or a slave to ill principles, habits, or lusts, a slave of sin, without his will being on the side of these. So that Dr Whitby's supposing, as we have seen with him, a man to will what is good, to hate evil, and to delight in the law of God, whilst he is a slave of sin, and under its dominion, is quite absurd. A sentiment of Dr Taylor's! is this: "A man may assent to the best rule of action, and yet still be under the dominion of lust and sin." I do not see cause to differ from him concerning this. But it is plain, that by his notions, and way of interpreting, he lays a good ground for one to argue and object against the person speaking in our context, thus : You say, that you will that which is good, holy, and right, &c, but that cer- tainly is not true of you. You in words artfully give a favourable, but false colour to every ill matter and case. You deceitfully ascribe to yourself personally what belongs to reason, that excellent person that lodges * h Original Sin," p. 216, marginal note, t Ibid. Note on Rom. vii. 15. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 295 in every man's breast. But reason and you are very different persons, whose will, inclination, and affections go very different ways. How can you ascribe to your- self a will to do what is good and holy, when you are a willing slave of sin ? You say o{ the propensity that is in you to evil, it is not I. But if you have any faint ineffectual inclination to what is good in any instance, you might say much more justly, It is not I, but reason that dwelleth in me : even reason, whose suggestions within me are too weak against the prevailing force and dominion of sin. You might add, according to the truth of your case: I do indeed by the evidence and force of reason, assent in my mind to the best rule of action ; I rather wish I could avoid that assent, for I am, myself personally, in opposition to that best iule of action, still under the dominion of sin, and of my lusts. Thus, while Dr Taylor sets forth reason as an imagin- ary person, ascribing thereto the various faculties, and qualities of a person, he denies what the apostle asserts of himself personally, or of the man personated by him, as to the prevailing habitual inclination of his faculties, consenting, loving, hating, willing, and delighting on the side of duty and holiness ; so that, upon the whole, his account of things is flatly contradicting the apostle, instead of interpreting. There remain several things to be adduced to the same purpose from two verses, which it is fit to consider separately, and more largely. Sect. Y.— The subject continued, and ver. 22 explained. Yer. 22. I delight i?i the law of God y after the inward man. There hath been great labour and difference in interpreting this verse. The inquiry is: 1. What is meant by the inward man ? 2. What is meant by delighting in the law of God? 1. What is meant by the inward man? We say, it means the same as the neiv man, or the soul so far as renewed by divine grace. Dr Whitby says, it cannot 296 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING mean the new man, which is not put on till we have put off the old man with his deeds. Did the learned writer truly think, that the new man could not be in a Christian state whilst anything of the old man (even in a crucified state, as chap. vi. 6) remained to be put off, or of his deeds ? There is something in this matter that he seems not to have adverted to, and that is, when the Christian hath put off the old man, it is not so perfectly done but that there remains occasion for the exhortation, to put off the old man, and to put on the new man, as Eph. iv. 22, 24. And though the Colossians had put off the old man, as in the verses of Col. iii. cited by the Doctor, still there remained in them members of the old man to be mortified, as he exhorts them (ver. 5) ; and he found in them what occasioned his saying to them (ver. 8), Now also put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, &c, which pertained to the old man. The Doctor goes on : " For sure this (viz. that he had put off the old man) cannot be said of him who is still carnal, sold under sin, and captivated to the law of sin." This argument hath a full answer in what hath been said already on those ex- pressions of our context on which it is founded. These expressions convey the sorrowful complaint of one who appears to have indeed put off the old man ; who grieves much for what he still finds of the members of the old man remaining and stirring in him ; and who hath at heart, according to the exhortation directed to the Ephesians and Colossians, to put off the old man, and to mortify his members, more and more, and longs to be delivered from the body of death. The learned writer proceeds, and having asserted that it only means the mind of man, the rovs, as he says the apostle explains himself (ver. 25), he adduces the authority of Origen (none of the best divines, or interpreters of Scripture), and of three others of the ancients, who say, that the soul, using the body as its instrument, is called, 6 etnu avdpwTros, the inward man. But there needed no authority to prove, that in the composition of the human person, the body is the outward, the soul the inward part of man, and the principle of life and action, which useth THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 297 the other as its instrument ; nor is there any absurdity, if men, in expressing their own mind in common speech, shall call the one the inward, the other the outward man. But we are now inquiring concerning the Scripture use of the word, inward man, and that cer- tainly is not, to signify the soul, in contradiction to the body. This is certain from the apostle's evident scope and argument in the place we are considering. From that it is clear, that he means by the inward man, that in him to which nothing contrary to delighting in the law of God could be ascribed. He had said (ver. 21), I find tJicn a law, that when I would do good, rcil is present with inc. For (so he adds, ver. 22) / delight in the law of God, after the inward man. It were making the apostle talk in an inconsistent manner, to give delighting in the law of God, as the peculiar and distinguishing character of his inward man, in opposition to that law, by which evil was present with him, if that law was like- wise to be ascribed to his inward man, which were certainly the case, if the inward man signified the soul, in contradistinction to the body. The body, considered separately, is not the subject of moral good or evil. In the human person the soul is especially and most properly the seat of moral good and evil. If, as Origen speaks, it uses the body as its instrument in doing good, it also uses it as its instrument in accomplishing and gratifying the corrupt lusts and passions that are in- herent in the soul. It is plain, that the apostle means to ascribe delighting in the law of God to a good principle in him, which he contradistinguishes to another principle in his soul, by which, as in the preceding words, evil was present with him ; and that good principle can be no other than that called in Scripture the nezv man, and here, the inward man. If we look into the writings of our adversaries on this point, we shall see, that though their general arguing sometimes tends to prove that the inward man signifies the soul, in contradistinction to the body, yet themsel do not indeed mean so in explaining this context. By 298 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING their explications they appear to mean the mind, under- standing, or conscience. So Dr Whitby understood the mind of man, the vov, as Beza observes, who says, he never saw it so in the text, in any copy, and he had seen a great many. The reason with these interpreters for attempting to make this alteration in the text, may, I think, be learned from these words of Dr Whitby's annotation, " Not I Paul writing this epistle." If the expression I myself be retained, however, precisely according to the Greek, they seem to be sensible that it will strongly intimate that the apostle is indeed representing his own present case, and how it was then with himself. So indeed the words import ; and must we agree to alter the text, to be free of this inconvenience? In order to have this agreed to, they should have shown us their translation to be warranted by the use of speech in the Greek, or else have shown us a different reading, to be warranted by ancient manuscripts of good authority. It seems neither of these could be done. My lexicon for the Latin, idem, the same man, gives, o dvros, and the words 310 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING in our text, dvrbs eyw, are still rendered as here, / myself. So Luke xxiv. 39: That, dvrus eyw dpi, it is I myself. Rom. ix. 3 : For I could wish that, dvrbs eyw, myself were accursed. Rom. xv. 14: And, curros eyw, I myself also am persuaded. 2 Cor. x. I : avrbs Se €yw TLacXos, Now I Paul myself beseech you ; chap. xii. 1 3 : Except that, auros eyw, / myself was not burdensome to you. This is enough for vindicating our translation, and to show that the differ- ent rendering is not warranted by the use and common meaning of the words. As this expression shows, that it is the case of the apostle himself, writing this epistle, which is here repre- sented, there is this further in it, the expression clearly implies, that the character of the person he represented is to be taken, and himself to be denominated from this, as from the most prevailing principle in him, and in his course, that with his mind he served the law of God ; he himself did so. Surely if this was the prevailing dis- position and practice, it must be allowed to be a strong argument and proof of regeneration ; and that the Apostle is not here personating an unregenerate man, or a carnal Jew. Indeed, this way of expressing the matter is quite suitable to what he had said (ver. 17), Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. And again (ver. 20), If I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. It is putting his conclusion in language very suitable to such premises and declarations, to say here (ver. 25), So then I MYSELF with my mind serve the law of God. However, his distinguishing thus pathetically and anxiously between himself (vers. 17, 20), and sin dwelling in him, is not to be understood as if he designed to alleviate his sin, or to excuse himself. That were not like the disposition of a man, who was making such sorrowful confession and complaint of sin. For if he had whereby to excuse himself, or meant so, why should he cry out, Wretched man that I am ? But though he was far from designing to excuse himself, or sin in him, yet having such sorrowful sense of his condition by sin, he much needed, as the true state of the case gave him THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII 1 4-2 5. 3 I I ground, to encourage himself by observing, that the better principle prevailed in him, and that with his mind he himself 'served the law of God. 2. The word in this clause to be next considered is, the mind) for which the Greek word is wvs. Now, shall we say, that an unregenerate man may justly demand that his character be taken from his mind and conscience, and from the office which it performs within, so that it should be said that this is he himself, and that the apostle is so to be understood in this place ? It would seem that Dr Whitby inclined to think so. For on the words of ver. 17, just now quoted, he says : " Here the apostle seems to speak according to the philosophy of the heathens, with which the Jews began to be acquainted, that a man was not to be denominated from his body, or his sensual and carnal part, but from his mind, his vovs, or AoyiK?) SiaVoia, which, in Philo's phrase, is the man within us — the true man, the man properly so called." So the unregenerate man may say, in the apostle's words, that with his vovs, his mind, which is himself (the true man, the man properly so called) he serves the law of God. This is what the Doctor aims at. As to this, if human nature is to be considered in the most general view, and man is to be described as he is to be distinguished from the other animals on this globe, I allow that he is to be denominated from his soul or mind, and rational faculty and conscience, which is the better and the distinguishing part in his frame. So when we say, that man is a reasonable creature, endowed with a conscience, that is denominating him from his soul or mind, which alone is capable of rationality and conscience. But all this is nothing to the present purpose. The apostle's view doth not respect the general frame or con- stitution of man, or of human nature. His discourse respects moral character, and the different case of a person regenerate, and under grace, and of a person unregenerate, under the law, with regard . to moral character. Though I denominate man in general from the reason and conscience he is endowed with, shall I 312 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING therefore give the moral character of an ill man, of one who has abandoned himself to work wickedness like Ahab, from reason and conscience, and say the man is a person of reason and conscience ? What Dr Whitby suggests on this occasion from philosophy, is but an attempt to give his interpretation a colouring, which, if duly considered, must appear fallacious, yea extremely absurd. The writers on that side express themselves as if they thought that in every man all was right on the part of the vovs, the mind or reasoning faculty, whatever pravity may have affected the will, affections, and body, through acquired ill habits or otherwise. In interpreting this context, they do not advert, that in this fallen state the human mind hath come under great weakness, yea blind- ness, in spiritual matters, and in the things of God. Besides what there is of this common to all men in their natural condition, the Scripture distinguishes some men as of corrupt minds in a special degree. The persons spoken of (Tit. i. 15) had their mind (6 vovs) and conscience defiled. These in Rom. i. 28 were given up (cfs aSoKcpov vovv) to a reprobate mind. Paul says (Eph. ii. 3) that, in an unconverted state, we all — were fulfilling the desires of the flesh, and (tQ>v Stavoiwi') of the mind. Chap. iv. 17 he exhorts the Christians not to walk, as other Gentiles do, in the vanity {jov vobs dvruv) of their viind. He speaks of a man (Col. ii. 18) vainly puffed up by (rov vobs rijs o-apKos dvrov) his fleshly mind. He mentions (1 Tim. vi. ^per- verse disputings of men (SucfiOapfieviov rov vovv) of corrupt minds, and so likewise 2 Tim. iii. 8. It appears then, that in unregenerate men, even the vovs, the mind itself, is not so good a thing as some imagine, but is sadly tainted with sin ; and is so in some to a high degree. Such men as Ahab, who have sold themselves to work wickedness, have their vovs, their mind as corrupt as any men ; and such are supposed, by the interpreters we have to do with, to be here personated by the apostle. Can such men justly say, With these our minds, fleshly minds, corrupt minds, reprobate minds as they are, we, even we ourselves, serve the law of God ? or, when such THE SCOPE OF ROM. J 77. 1 4- 2 5 313 a one sins, can he say, It is not I, for I am to be denominated, and my character taken from my vovs, mind, my Aoyi/o) Su'wolo., my rational understanding, vain, corrupt, and fleshly as that is ? Let us now consider the natural course of things in the human soul and practice. It is certain that a man doth not follow any sinful course farther than even his mind and understanding is on the side of sin. The mind or understanding is on the side of duty in many cases in theory ; but when it comes to the actual practice of sin, it is certain that the mind doth first represent it as good, before it can proceed to practice. The mind may in this be biassed by affections, senses, lusts, and appetites. But from whatever source the bias comes, so it is, that the mind doth represent evil under the notion of good, before the will can possibly be determined to it. This is the fixed and unalterable order of things in rational agents. To suppose the will to determine itself to any sort of action or course without this, were to make it a brutal faculty, not the faculty of a rational agent. To say that the human will may, by a sort of sovereign liberty, determine itself to any action or pursuit de- liberately, without the mind representing it as good, is, in order to ascribe to man the liberty of his will, to degrade him from the rank of a rational agent. It is certainly impossible in nature, that such an agent can will or choose anything, good or evil as it may be in itself, but what the mind represents as good. Be it so, then, that the mind, understanding, or conscience, hath a certain light and urgency on the side of holiness or of duty, so far as they are enlightened in an unrc- generate man ; yet this light and urgency is faint and weak. On the other hand, the mind, influenced by a corrupt heart, represents the pleasures of sin as good, and this it performs in a strong light, and ur powerfully ; which, being agreeable to the corrupt disposition of the heart, prevails against the weak and ineffectual suggestion of mind and conscience, in favour of holiness and duty, and so takes effect in the practice. Thus, even the vovs, the mind itself, comes to be on 3 H A DISSERTATION CONCERNING the side of sin, in men corrupt, unsanctified, and unregenerate. This being the case, from which part is the unregenerate man to be denominated? Is it from the faint light in his mind, and the weak ineffectual urgency of his conscience in favour of duty ? or is it from the more prevailing bias of his mind itself, of his will and affections on the side of sin ; and from the free course it hath in his practice ? How much soever he is in the several faculties of his soul determined on the side of sin, in opposition to true holiness, yet as any degree of light that remains in his mind and conscience is the better part in him ; is he, from this, even when he goes on in sin, yea, is under the dominion of it, entitled to denominate himself, as to moral or spiritual character, from this better part ; and to say, of all the evil that he practises, It is not I ? —This is absurd. But to come still closer to the subject, let us endeavour to explain what is here meant by the mind. We have here (ver. 25) the mind and the flesh, instead of the law of his mind, and the law in his members, mentioned ver. 23. It is needless to seek a reason from this variation in the expression. If there had been a repetition in this ver. 25 of the word law four times, thus : I with the law of my mind serve the law of God ; but with the law in my members the law of sin ; there might be some disadvantage in sound and elegance. One word, striking the ear so often in one sentence, might be unpleasing, which is avoided by substituting the words, his mind, and the flesh. It is likely, however, that by his mind here he means the same thing as the law of his mind (ver. 23). Let us then inquire into the meaning of the law of his mind. We may be helped in this by considering what is meant by the law in his members, which he states in opposition to it. This last certainly is not any directing light, to be opposed in that respect to the light of his mind and conscience. In general, the law in his members is a powerful, energetic, operative principle. We must then, as the opposition is stated, understand the law of his THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5. 3 I 5 mind, not merely of the light of his mind and conscience, suggesting to a man the law and rule of practice, but of another powerful, energetic, operative principle. So that here we have one active principle disposing and deter- mining the man's heart to holiness ; and it is plain that this is here represented as the more prevailing and ruling principle in him. There is another active principle, the law in his members, the flesh, exerting itself in various lusts, carnal affections, unruly and unholy passions ; and by these warring against that other and better principle of life and action, and so serving the law of sin. It will tend to our better understanding this subject, and at the same time show a reason of the expression, the law of my mind, to observe that Scripture (Heb. viii. 10), This is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saitJi the Lord: I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts. This is not merely what the apostle mentions, when he speaks of the natural conscience that is in the Gentiles (Rom. ii. 15). The work of the law, as there mentioned, is not the work that the law prescribes, but the work which the law itself in the conscience performs ; representing duty and sin, excusing or accusing. But it is something very different from what was naturally in the Gentiles, and something more excellent and effectual that is meant by the promise of the new covenant, when it is said (Heb. viii.), / will put my laws into their minds, and icrite them in their hearts. This is something more than natural conscience can arrive to in any man : it is a writing by the Spirit of the living God in the fleshly tables of the hearts. It is, that God by his Spirit puts the holiness of the law, or puts the love of God (which is the great commandment, and the sum of holiness) in the minds and hearts of his people ; implants in them a new and efficacious principle of spiritual life, effectually producing in them conformity to his law, and securing against the breaking of the covenant, as had happened with respect to the first covenant, before mentioned. So 3l6 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING that this promise is so far parallel to that (Jer. xxxii. 40), / will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. From what hath been observed, we have good reason to think, that the law of the mind here is the principle of holiness in a mind and heart enlightened and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, which is a powerful, operative, and prevailing principle in every regenerate person. 3. The third expression in this second clause is, serving the law of God. This can import no less than a true conformity to the holiness of the law of God, with submission and obedience to its authority, in the sincere and constant purpose of the heart, and in habitual endeavour ; and this is incompatible with the character and state of an unregenerate person, under the dominion of sin. It is, however, endeavoured to reconcile this serving the law of God, with the condition of such a person. Dr Hammond hath it thus in his paraphrase : "The carnal man — with his understanding he serves the law of God ; is delighted and pleased with those things wherewith that is delighted." Dr Taylor thus : " That same I, the same person, in his inward man, his mind and rational powers, may assent to, and approve the law of God." Dr Whitby's mind we have seen to the same purpose. Let us consider these things a little. These writers suppose, that this context represents the case of a person enslaved by his lusts, habitually led captive by them, and quite destitute of the spirit. Yea, they explain and exemplify the case in instances of the grossest sinners. On the other hand, they observe, that the unregenerate man hath naturally a rational mind and conscience, but of small force or effect in practice. The light in his rational mind, so far as it is enlightened, shows him what is duty, and what is sin. Yea, in some cases, his conscience incites him with great urgency to do his duty ; and when he acts in the contrary way, accuses and condemns him. But with regard to the light in his conscience, the person under the dominion THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 317 of sin is altogether passive, reluctant, and rebellious. As to serving the law of God, the conscience doth indeed serve it, as a witness for its authority and holiness; and God serves himself of the conscience, for the interest of his justice, and for that likewise of his grace and holiness. But shall we say, and give it for the interpretation of this place, that an unregenerate person. because he has reason and conscience marking out to him duty and sin, may be said to serve the law of God : when, in the prevailing disposition of his heart, and his whole course of life and practice, he is in the utmost contrariety to it? may such justly say, I myself, or (if you please) I, the same carnal man and slave of sin, do serve the law of God with my reason and conscience, which, with my will and affections, I do resolvedly disobey and counteract, in the allowed lustings of my heart, and in all my conversation and practice ? Surely such an interpretation is intolerable, and an insult upon common sense. The great hurt which these writers pretend to fear from the interpretation the)- oppose is, that wicked and unholy persons are thereby encouraged, as they think, to consider their practice as not inconsistent with being truly in Christ, and in a state of grace. But by this time it may be pretty clear to any impartial person, that the interpretation of the context here given affords no encouragement to men in unholy practice ; and the proper consequence and improvement of it is to be here- aftcr shown. In the meantime these interpreters, and the}' who receive their notions, would do well to consider if their own interpretation tendeth not greatly to encourage men in an ill condition and course, when they make Paul teach persons unregenerate, wicked, and unholy, that when they do ill, they may justly and warrantably say, according to the style of this scripture, It is not /, but sin that dice lie tJi in me ; for with the mind I do serve the law of God. Is it possible that unholy persons can apply such language to themselves, without conveying thereby alleviating notions of their wickedness, and favourable notions of their condition, 318 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING into their own hearts, already woefully deluded by their lusts, and that with the worst consequences to them ? Dr Taylor (note on ver. 25) says, " Serving the law of God, is not a stronger expression than hating sin (ver. 15), and delighting in the law of God (ver. 22). But these expressions are applied to the Jew in the flesh, or enslaved with sin ; consequently, so may serving the law of God." Good reason hath been here given, why we should reckon it very absurd to apply any of these expressions to a person enslaved to sin. But it is not only the Jew in the flesh, and under the Mosaic law, to whom what this context represents is applied by these interpreters : recourse is had to heathen fable ; and Medea, whom the poets represent as a monster of wickedness, is brought on the stage, to have her part in this farce of interpreta- tion. So the perfidious cruel witch Medea (if she had been the apostle's contemporary) might say of all her wickedness, " // is not /, but sin* that dwelleth in me. Do not denominate me, or take my character, from this wickedness, but from that best thing that is in me, my reason and conscience, which accuse and condemn me for it ; for I myself, or, I the same person, who so grossly counteract my reason and conscience, in all my practice ; even the same person whom the apostle Paul has so notably represented (though, good man, he writes as in his own name and person, to mollify the harshness, and to avoid giving offence to my delicate ladyship, and to such as I) even I, the same person do, notwithstanding all my ill practice, yet with my mind and reason serve the law of God." It were indeed mollifying with a witness for the apostle to write as he has done, with such meaning and intention. Was he indeed so shy of giving offence even to the Jews, whom he had it so much at heart to do good to? (See Acts xxviii. 25-27, Rom. xi. 8-10, 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16.) Medea is introduced in this interpretation particularly for the words which Ovid (a man not very noted for sanctity himself) has put in her mouth ; by which several interpreters have exemplified the expressions of our THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5. 319 context. Dr Taylor brings them in thus (note on ver. 15). "A heathen poet, saith he, gives us a like description of the combat between reason and passion." Sed trahit invitam ?icr,'a vis, aliudque cupido Mens aliud suadet, video meliora probo$W£ Deteriora sequor — He gives it in English thus : My reason this, my passion that persuades, I see the right, and I approve it too, Condemn the wrong ; — and yet the wrong pu rsue. By the interpretation here given, our context represents a conflict between a prevailing principle of holiness, under the influence of the Spirit of grace, in a sanctified heart, with so much of the flesh, and its lustings and passions, as remains in it. It is true, at the same time, that in the unregenerate, reason and conscience oppose sin ; and especially in its grosser actings, according to the words of Ovid, they have some sort of conflict with it. The distinction between these different sorts of conflict I leave to the practical writers. But it is fit to say something here, to account for the words ascribed by the poet to Medea. Notwithstanding the fearful effect of the fall upon human nature, mankind have ever retained some notion and impression of the Supreme Being, and that he ought to be worshipped. There have been at all times notions of social virtues, with considerable impression and effect in the minds of men. Every man in particular is sensible of his own interest in these, and of their importance in society. God, the great patron of human society, hath in great mercy to the world, carefully maintained the impression of these in the minds of men, even in those whose disposition and practice are very remote from holiness. Gross acts of iniquity, that are contrary to all social virtue, excite horror, even in those who are guilty of them. Medea's character is that of a noted sorcei She betrayed her father, and her country ; she murdered her brother, and mangled his body in a most inhuman 230 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING manner ; having formed an extravagant and passionate love to Theseus, she bore him several children ; and when she followed him to his own country, being there dis- appointed of her expectation from him, she murdered the children she had by him. In the end, being a witch, she raised wind and tempest, went aloft, and made her way through the air to a remote region. So the poets have told the story of Medea. Such acts of perfidy, cruelty, impetuous lust, and sorcery, are shocking to humanity itself. She is made to speak as sensible of this herself, and as if her own heart recoiled at the thought of them. But our context represents one who viewed the spirituality of the law of God, as it prescribes a rule to the motions and temper of the heart inwardly ; one who bitterly laments the motions and activity of sin within him, with- out mentioning any gross acts of sin outwardly. All that is here said, can be accounted for without supposing anything of that sort. To interpret this context by such instances as Medea, and by the account given of her in the lines inserted above, is utterly unwarrantable. So then, in the second clause of this ver. 25, we have these three things: — 1. The man here represented is to be denominated, and his character taken from the better, as it is the most prevailing principle. Reason and conscience are not the prevailing principles in an un- regenerate, unholy person. But, as in the man here, the better principle prevails, it is he himself. 2. There is not only reason and conscience requiring him to serve the law of God ; but he doth actually serve it : so the text expressly says. 3. This he doth by a new principle, his sanctified mind; the law of his mind; even the law of God put in his mind and heart by the grace of the new covenant, a law or principle opposing, in a prevailing manner, the law in his members. Thus in the conclusion, in this last verse, of the representation given in this context, we have three things very decisive concerning its general scope, that it is the case of a regenerate person, under grace, that is exhibited in it. There remains the last clause of this text, But with the flesh the law of sin. The words, I serve, which are in the THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 32 1 preceding, are to be understood to be in the sense of this clause, though not repeated in it, thus: With the flesh I serve the law of sin. For the apostle doth not mean to say, that what of sin came from the flesh was not his sin, or done by him, having said (ver. 1 5) What I hate, that I do, and (ver. 19) The evil which I would not, that I do. Vet it is evident, by the way this last clause is introduced and connected, that the flesh was not the dominant or reigning principle in him. Dr Taylor will have it understood that it was. For in the last paragraph of his note on this verse, he says: "Serving with the flesh the law of sin cannot well be applied to a true Christian, or such an one as Paul was." To confirm this, he uses the words of chap. viii. 1, 2. When we come to consider these verses, it will appear very evidently, that they do not by any means suit the purpose for which he refers to them. He adds there : " Serving and delighting in the law are properly enough used in the case of a wicked Jew. For how little soever his life was conformed to the law of God, he would notwithstanding glory in it, and profess a high esteem for it (chap. ii. 17, 24) ; see also Isa. lviii. i, 2." Of this last text enough hath been said before. The wicked Jew might profess an esteem for the law, without loving it ; and he might glory in it, as the peculiar privilege of his nation, and in his own knowledge of it, without delighting in it, or in the holiness it represents and requires. Serving and delighting in the law cannot be ascribed to a wicked Jew, or to any other wicked man, but with the utmost impropriety, yea glaring absurdity. That writer paraphrases the two latter clauses thus : " To conclude ; the sum of what I have advanced concerning the power of sin in the sensual man, is this ; namely, that the same I, the same person, in his inward man, his mind, and rational powers, may assent to, and approve the law of God, and yet notwithstanding, by his fleshly appetites, may be brought under servitude to sin.*' But how came he to express serving sin by being brought under servitude to sin ? That with the flesh he served sin may be accounted for by single instances and x 322 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING acts in the full sense of the expression, but to be brought under servitude to sin denotes a man's state, — to be under the dominion of sin, its servant or slave. For example : if a sincere Christian shall, from the influence of the flesh, be angry with his brother without a cause, and through the impetuosity of his passion shall call him Raca, or, Thou Jool, he, in that instance, doth serve the law of sin ; yet it would be unjust and absurd to say, he is under servitude to sin. This author, however, seems to have understood by the flesh here only sensuality and fleshly appetites, as in his paraphrase. To what then shall we ascribe causeless anger, and one's calling his brother Raca, if it come not under the general de- nomination of the flesh ? But how came he for, serving the law of sin, in the last clause, where serving is not expressed, to give, brought under servitude to sin ; and, at the same time, in the former clause, where it is expressed, to render it by no more than assenting to, and approving in his rational powers, the law of God, which might be without serving it at all ? When the Apostle says, With my mind I serve the law of God, surely there is good reason to conclude, that the man, being made free from sin (from its dominion), was the servant of righteousness, the servant of God (as chap. vi. 18, 22), rather than to say, he was under servitude to sin ; even though the flesh in him prevailed, in too many instances, to serve the law of sin. Mr John Alexander, who understands this context of an unregenerate man, yet differs from all that I know of, in the interpretation of this verse. As to serving the law of God, he says, it is more than to assent to the law that it is good, — yea, it can be said of none but the true Christian and servant of God ; of whom, according to him, it cannot be said, that with the flesh he serves the law of sin ; which could not, he thought, agree with what our Saviour says, — no man can serve two masters. "It must," he says, "be predicated of the same person at different times of his life." Yet it is plain, the man here speaking represents his own case in both clauses, as it THE SCOPE OF ROM. VIL 1 4-25 323 was at the present time ; nor can he be otherwise under- stood, without taking a liberty in interpretation that were quite intolerable. However, the writer speaks very strongly thus : " Surely he (the Apostle) could not intend to speak of a monster which never existed in nature, equally governed by two opposite principles, which are directly subversive of each other." I shall not say that true believers are monsters, but certainly they possess a very peculiar character in their present state. Angels are all holiness, without any sin ; devils are all sin, without any holiness. Unregenerate men are wholly under the dominion of sin, its servants or slaves, — quite free from righteousness ; whereas the true believer is holy by his general character, and prevailing disposition ; yet, having the flesh in him, he thereby serves the law of sin. But the monstrosity will evanish, and the difficulty disappear, if you throw out of Mr Alexander's sentence the word equally, which the apostle's language gave him no warrant to put in it. It is very clear in the expression of this ver. 25, that he did not say or mean that he was equally governed by two opposite principles. A little afterward, Mr Alexander says : " Teaching us that the mind or understanding must lead and predominate in the servant of God, as the flesh does in the servant of sin, he shows us how the mind being restored to its dominion over the man by the gospel, and the flesh at the same time subdued or crucified, the law of God comes to be kept." But did this writer think, that in the servant of God the flesh is so subdued or crucified, that it hath no motion or activity at all? If so, where shall we find a servant of God in this world ? If not, then the flesh, though crucified, yet having life and motion, exerts itself, for instance, in a fit of sinful anger, and thereby serves the law of sin. Doth the man, for this, cease ail at once to be the servant of God ? But there is enough of this conceit of Mr Alexander's. We must not, however, leave this verse and chapter, without observing how Dr Taylor connects this last verse of it in his paraphrase, with the preceding and 324 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING following ones. He paraphrases ver. 24, with the following one, thus : " And now, what shall a sinner do in this miserable situation ? He is under the power of such passions and habits as the law declares to be sinful, and which even his own reason disapproves, but is too weak to conquer ; and being a Jew under the law, he stands condemned to death for his wicked compliances with them. How shall such a wretched, enslaved, condemned Jew be delivered from the dominion of sinful lusts, and the curse of the law, which subjects him to death ? " Then, after giving ver. 25, as we have seen, he adds, " Thus under the weak and lifeless dispensation of the law, the sinner remains in a deplorable state, without help or hope, and sentenced to death. But now (chap. viii. 1), under the gospel the most encouraging hopes smile upon us, and we have the highest assurance, that those are quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and disengaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith of the gospel ; if so be," &c. By the first of these passages, the sinner is miserable by the power of sinful passions and habits. There is some further unhappiness in the case of the Jew ; being a Jew, under the law, he stands condemned to death. According to this writer, a heathen, however wicked, was not obnoxious to death, as not being under a law that allotted death for sin, but the Jew, and he only, was under such a law ; so he stood condemned to death for transgression. But we have had enough of this absurd notion before. It appears that, according to this author, the Jews were in a most wretched condition during the Mosaic dispensation, being enslaved, and condemned, without help or hope from the weak and lifeless dispensation of the law they were under. Yet there were many thousands of pious persons in these times, who were not under condemnation, nor enslaved to sin. As to the dispensa- tion they were under, it was not a weak and lifeless dispensation of mere law. God never brought his people under such a dispensation, since grace was first manifested (Gen. iii. 15), nor were such a dispensation consistent THE SCOPE Of ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 325 with God's having a people at all. Sinners of the Je\vs> who were the slaves of sin, might come out of that state by a proper improvement of the grace that was set before them under that dispensation, as others had done. Dr Taylor could not deny this. The Jews, who were in the worst condition, were such as delusively turned the dispensation they were under to a dispensation of mere law to themselves, by neglecting and rejecting grace, and founding all their confidence on the law, and works thereof. Of these the apostle says (Gal. iii. 10), As many as are of the works of the law are under the curse. They at the same time persecuted outrageously the teachers and professors of the gospel, rejecting and opposing it with great zeal and fury. Let us observe how Dr Taylor gives his thoughts concerning these in other places of his book. When we state these thoughts of his in contrast with what he says of them in his paraphrase and notes on the texts we have been last considering, we shall see some things that are not quite consistent. But before we observe his opinion of the infidel Jews, let us make our way to it, by taking some notice of his opinion concerning the heathens. In the title and contents of chap xiii. of his Key are these words concerning the heathens: "Virtuous heathens shall be eternally saved." He labours this point much. He says : * " This noble scheme (that of the gospel) was not intended to exclude any part of the world, to whom it should not be revealed, from the present favour of God or future salvation." And a little below: "There might be some virtuous persons among them." And down- awards : "In that solemn day (the day of judgment) the virtuous heathen will not be rejected because he did not belong to the visible kingdom of God in this world, but will then be readily accepted and received into the kingdom of glory." For a further discovery of this author's opinion on this subject, let us observe how he expresses himself concern- ing the necessity of revelation. In his note on chap. ii. * " Key to the Apostolic Writings," § 289. 326 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING 1 5 he hath this proposition : " There is a law of nature which is a true guide, and sufficient to bring a man who has no other light to eternal happiness. Objection. But if the law of nature be so sufficient, what occasion for the gospel ? A nswer. Reflect upon chap. i. 17 to the end. No law, or light, how sufficient soever of itself, to save mankind, when duly attended to, is sufficient to reform them, when they generally neglect and pervert it; because that very thing that should reform them is neglected and perverted." All this might be said concerning the gospel, and says no more for the necessity of the revela- tion that hath been given than it doth for the necessity of a new revelation besides the gospel. He adds another objection and answer. " Objection. But if we live accord- ing to the light of nature, we shall be saved, though we pay no regard to revelation. Answer. To despise or disregard any discoveries of God's will and goodness, to neglect any scheme he has formed to promote virtue and happiness, especially such a glorious and noble scheme, is foolish, wicked, and a capital transgression of the law of nature." So the gospel is a valuable discovery of God's will and goodness, and is a glorious and noble scheme for promoting virtue and happiness : but, according to this writer, men might be virtuous, so as to reach happiness, and the kingdom of glory, though they had never heard of it ; yea, if such revelation had never been made, I know that several, who have showm much ability in defending the general truth of the Christian revelation, have been of the same mind with this writer on this subject ; and I cannot help thinking that, on this account, their writings against the infidels are essentially defective. They have entertained notions and principles that have disabled them from making a thorough confutation of Deism ; and that they have too great tendency to make the infidel easy in his mind, in rejecting the gospel. Let us now observe this author's notions concerning the infidel Jews ; and certainly we may expect he would not think their case, if they were virtuous, who had the divine law by a clear revelation, worse than that of virtuous heathens. Heathens might be, he says, virtuous THE SCOPE OF ROM. VI 1. 1 4-2 5 327 and finally happy, which they could not be, without obtaining pardon, and being made free from the slavery and dominion of sin. Surely the Jew under the law was not in worse condition as to this. Concerning these Jews, who seem to have been in the worst case that ever Jews were in, Dr Taylor's opinion was what I come now to show. In his fourth note on Rom. v. 20, he puts this question : " But suppose the Jew through mere mistake should verily believe that he ought to continue under the law of Moses, doth it follow that he was therefore to remain under condemnation for ever ? " I would not indeed have expected that any Christian, who would be at the pains but of a little thinking, would ever put such a question ; as it is certain that many Jews (thousands, Acts xxi. 20) who were true believers, and holy persons, did, for some time after their conversion by the gospel, verily believe in the manner the question supposes. Though probably many of them died in that persuasion, yet I scarce think that ever Christian imagined they would for this continue under condemnation for ever. But the author inclined not to disturb or shock his reader all at once, by putting the question in the full form that he meant. It is plain he meant Jews, who to believing the perpetuity of the Mosaic law joined the rejection of Christ and the gospel ; as we shall see presently. He answers the question thus : " No, surely ; no more than it follows, that any other man shall remain under condemnation for any mere mistake of judgment in religious affairs. Such a Jew must be in the same state with any other honest man, who is in a simple error." What he means by mere mistake of judgment and being in a simple error, I shall not determine. But if he meant (and I see not what else he could mean) mistakes and errors that are not connected with anything very ill in the disposition and practice of men ; as it is not reasonable to think that errors can be such, that amount to a denial of the important and essential truth of faith, so it is evident that the error of the Jew was connected with what was very ill in his disposition and practice. 328 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING He proceeds in the same place thus : " Notwithstanding, it was the apostle's duty. to set him right; because such a mistake was very prejudicial, not only as it led him to place his dependence and hope upon the law, a weak and ineffectual principle." — (This indeed was extremely prejudicial, if we consider the matter as the apostle doth, Rom. ix. 31-33, and chap. x. 3, 4.) He goes on thus: " Not only as it hindered him from seeing and improving the gracious provision God had made for purifying his heart, perfecting his joy and comfort, and preparing him for happiness." (But might not a virtuous person, even a heathen, have his heart purified, and he be pre- pared for happiness, though he had never known or heard of the gracious provision God had made for these purposes ? He might, according to this author ; who thus proceeds), " But also as it engaged him to oppose the preaching and reception of the gospel, the only scheme of life, peace, and salvation, and to despise the very grace which must pardon his mistakes and errors, if ever he was pardoned and saved." Concerning Paul, this writer says,* " Being fully persuaded, that the Jewish dispensation was instituted by God, never to be altered, but to abide for ever, he really believed that Jesus and his followers were deceivers ; and that it was his duty to oppose them, and to stand up courageously for God and his truth. Thus he honestly followed the dictates of his own conscience." We have now Dr Taylor's notions concerning the subject, for which these passages were here transcribed pretty fully ; and we see that, according to him — (1) The salvation and future happiness of the virtuous heathen is not to be doubted of ; and if so, why should there be any doubt of the salvation of an honest and virtuous Jew? For what virtuous heathen was ever heard of, of whom there is a higher character for virtue, and better supported, than that which is given of the Jews (Rom. x. 2), that they had a zeal of God ; and (chap. ix. 31), that they ■ followed after the law of righteousness ? * " Key to the Apostolic Writings," § 302. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 329 (2) That the Jew's error concerning the perpetuity of the Mosaic law was a mere mistake of judgment, and a simple error, such as would not hinder the salvation of any honest man. Yea (3), It is to be considered as such a simple error and mere mistake of judgment, even as connected with the consequences above mentioned, of trusting to the law, of rejecting and persecuting the gospel in a furious manner ; as for these consequences, he says, that such a mistake was very prejudicial. Now, if the Jews' mistake respecting the law, and respecting Jesus Christ, really believing him and his followers to be deceivers, was consistent with honesty and sincerity, it were hard to say, that acting consequentially would not be consistent with honesty. Accordingly, the author says, that Paul in opposing the gospel acted honestly, according to his conscience ; though Paul himself says, that in doing so, he was the persecutor, blasphemer, injurious, and the chief of sinners. But though Dr Taylor considered the error of the Jew as a mere mistake of judgment and simple error, consistent with one's being an honest man, yet Christians, who will consider the matter in the light in which the Scripture presents it, cannot but be convinced that there was great and wilful blindness, hardness of heart, perverse- ness, and insincerity, in the error of the Jews concerning Christ and the gospel ; considering the evidence, and powerful demonstration with which it was proposed and supported ; and that by this, and their conduct in conse- quence of their inexcusable error, they brought on them- selves great guilt, and fearful wrath. This author indeed says, as we have seen above, that the error of the Jew was very prejudicial, as it led him, among other things, to oppose the gospel, the only scheme of peace, life, and salvation, and to despise the very grace which must pardon his mistakes and errors, if ever he was pardoned. But though the error of the Jew was in these respects very prejudicial, it does not follow, that, according to the notions of this. writer, it, and the Jews' consequential honest conduct, did hinder the Jews being at present accepted of God, or hinder his 330 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING future salvation and happiness. For if the virtuous heathen was to be saved, without knowing Christ or the gospel, why should it not be thought, that the virtuous Jew, acting from a zeal of God, in opposing and de- spising the scheme of grace, might not be saved ; as all this on his part proceeded from a mere mistake of judg- ment, that put him in no worse condition, as our author says, than any other honest man ? This, however, is not a proper place for enlarging on these subjects. We have seen that, according to Dr Taylor, the infidel Jew, even continuing such, was far from being in a hopeless condition. Upon the other hand, if we look into the same author's paraphrase of Rom. vii. 15, there, according to him, the person represented is the enslaved Jew, under the dominion of sinful lusts, and the curse of the law ; under the weak and lifeless dispensation of the law he remains in a deplorable condition, without help or hope, enslaved to sin, and sentenced to death. This is his account of the Jews in general in this place. The author says there indeed, " He is delivered, and obtains salvation by the grace or favour of God, in our Lord Jesus Christ." How shall we understand this, but as he explains in the para- phrase of the next following verse (chap. viii. 1), " Now under the gospel the most encouraging hopes smile upon us, and we have the highest assurance that those are quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and dis- engaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith of the gospel." But according to this, whatever effect the encouraging hope of the gospel may have in favour of them who embrace it, it can have no good effect for them who reject and oppose it ; and however they who truly embrace the faith of the gospel may be thereby discharged from the penalty of the law, and the servitude of sin, yet these expressions imply, that the Jew who embraces it not continues under the condem- nation of the law, and servitude of sin, still in a deplorable condition. Any who can reconcile Dr Taylor's notions concerning the unbelieving Jew, in his notes on Rom. v. 20, and in THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 33 I his "Key " to the apostolic writings, with what we have seen in his paraphrase of Rom. vii. 25, may do it ; I cannot. But in making the paraphrase, the writer minded carefully his general notion, that the context represents especially the case of the Jew under the law, the slave of sin : he did not mind the sentiments he had elsewhere expressed concerning such a Jew. The true meaning of this text (chap. vii. 25) has been made sufficiently clear, and I now proceed to Sect. VI I. — Containing answers to the objections brought against the foregoing interpretation. Clear and full evidence hath been brought, proving that in this context the apostle represents his own case and experience, in the state wherein he was when he wrote it ; which was a state of grace. As to those who hold that the apostle personates a man unregenerate, the slave of sin, their strongest argument consists chiefly in two things : 1. In this, that they understand the apostle's language here of bitter complaint concerning sin, in the fullest and most extended meaning of the words; as if those were used concerning the man in the cool historical way. 2. In this, that in interpreting, they ascribe to the understanding, conscience, or reason, what can by no means be ascribed to that faculty. Their unreasonableness in both hath been shown. I go now to consider arguments of another sort, that are used by way of objection against the interpreta- tion itself in general. Dr Hammond, on Rom. vii. note (V), brings what is contained (vers. 8, 9) to prove, that in this chapter the apostle doth not represent his own case in his regenerate state. But as the question only concerns the latter context, where he alters his style, and speaks of himself in the present tense, from ver. 14 to the end of the chapter, the learned writer's arguments, so far as he founds on anything preceding that verse, are quite wide of the purpose. The writers on that side would have it thought, that 332 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Augustine was the first who interpreted this context, as hath been done here, contrary to what he sometimes thought ; but that he was led to change his opinion by the heat of dispute with the Pelagians. But this amounts to no more than some sort of prejudice, and is no real argument against our interpretation. He was not the first who did so interpret, as hath been observed before; and as to the heat of dispute with the Pelagians, it is certain that the false doctrines of heretics, and their subtility in defending them, have often given occasion to good men to consider things more closely ; to think, and speak, and interpret Scripture more correctly. If Augustine saw cause to change his opinion concerning this context, he seems to have the better of Dr Whitby, who suggests these prejudices against him ; and who did himself, without such good reason, change his mind on a subject of much greater importance. After he had, in his annotations on the New Testament, maintained the divinity of our Saviour by many good arguments, insisted on by the learned before him to good purpose, and to which neither himself, nor any one else, could give a good answer, he left, as his legacy to the church, his posthumous treatise against that fundamental article of Christian faith. As to the present subject, and these prejudices against Augustine, the reader's best method will be to divest himself of prejudice, to consider arguments carefully and coolly, and to judge as evidence shall determine his mind. I go now to consider more particularly the objections of Dr Whitby and Arminius. The former brings about seven arguments, or considerations against our interpre- tation. The sum of all comes to this : — The person here represented is carnal, sold under sin (so indeed the apostle bitterly complains) ; hath no power in him to do any good — (the apostle doth not say so, though he bemoans himself that he could not do good in the degree and manner he willed. Yea, how could it be thus argued by Dr Whitby who, in a place formerly noticed, argues strenuously, from the language used in this context, that the person here represented, even the unregenerate, of THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 333 whom he understands it, is not without a power to do good? "Living" (unfairly; as this word imports the habitual outward and inward practice of life " in the commission of things that he hated" — indeed the flesh in him served the law of sin ; and in that part there was a too ordinary activity of sin, springing up spontaneously, and sometimes impetuously. But the character of his life was not betaken from this; as he says of it, // is not /, but sin that dwelleth in me). " Still" (unfairly still ; nothing in the apostle's expressions imports what that word means) " doing that which he allowed not : " the flesh indeed was commonly active in that way ; but the man himself and his manner of life were to be denominated from a better principle, by which he served the law of God : — " made captive to the law of sin ; " (to that tended indeed the efforts of the law of sin ; and the apostle's words import no more. Dr Whitby in his second argument represents unfairly, as if the man confessed that he yielded himself a captive to the law of sin, whereas he appears all along in resistance and conflict against it, however much in some particular instances it might prevail). With these and such-like expressions, unfairly enough represented, the Doctor compares, under so many differ- ent heads, and in so man}' different paragraphs, a con- siderable number of texts, which prove that the apostle could not, and that a true believer cannot, be the slave of sin, &c. Some of his readers, of no very extensive acquaintance in the learned world, might, from his way of reasoning, conceive very strange notions of the men whose interpretation he pretends to confute. They might readily ask. What sort of persons can these be, who can join in one character the true believer, yea, an apostle, and at the same time a slave of sin, captivated to his lusts? Yet the interpretation here given, is that of the generality of the divines of the reformed churches ; of many men eminent for piety, and of as great ability and learning as any Protestant church or nation hath produced ; of the learned Bishop Davenant, and of divers other eminent writers of the Church of England. 334 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING From this consideration one might suspect, upon a little reflection, that Dr Whitby in this arguing of his had not hit the point. However, he has proved that a regenerate man cannot be a slave to his lusts, and on this he has bestowed more than a folio page, in which, though so much writing amounted to some labour, yet the work otherwise was very easy. Now, let us observe more particularly his objections and reasonings, in his note on ver. 25. 1. Our interpretation, he says, makes the apostle con- tradict what he says of himself to the Thessalonians (1 Thess. ii. 10) and to the Corinthians (2 Cor. i. 12 ; 1 Cor. iv. 4 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27). Could he say such things as he says of himself in these texts, who is carnal, sold under sin, &c. ? A?iswer. He could say such things as in these texts, very consistently with the sorrowful and bitter complaints he hath of sin, and of the flesh, in our context. Yea, it is the man who shows such sensi- bility with regard to the motions of sin within him, and conflict against them, who is most likely to have all his con- versation and behaviour which the cited texts represent. 2. How often doth the apostle propose himself as a pattern to the churches ; requiring them to be followers of him, as he was also of Christ? (1 Cor. xi. 1) and again (Phil. iv. 8) ; that is, be ye carnal, sold under sin — and the God of love and peace shall be with you — this sure (so he adds) is an absurd, if not blasphemous exhor- tation ; and yet, according to this interpretation, it must be suitable to the mind of the apostle. Answer. Blas- phemous indeed, as he interprets these expressions of our context ; he needed not have spared his censure. But no such absurdity or blasphemy follows from our interpretation. If the apostle's outward conversation, which the churches had access to observe, set before them a good pattern, surely when he lays open his inmost heart to them, and shows himself in a sorrowful struggle .and conflict against the flesh, and the first motions of sin within him, that is not the part of his example least worthy to be followed by those who have at heart to live holily and righteously. THE SCOPE OF ROM. V1L I4-25 335 3. With what indignation doth he reject the accusa- tions of them who looked upon him as walking after the flesh ? yet if he were carnal, sold under sin, if with the flesh he served the law of sin, &c, he doth here in effect confess what there he peremptorily denies. Ans\ By no means. In the explication it hath been made very clear, that none of the expressions in our context imports what this writer interprets. It doth not represent him as one that walked after the flesh : but as one who had it qreatlv at heart not to walk so. That he did so walk is not said. But more of this on chap. viii. 1. In the meantime, as to serving with the flesh the law of sin, should it not be observed, that he says (ver. 25), that with his mind he himself served the law of God ? But why should I tire the reader with more of this sort ? all this Doctor's arguments derive their force from his own interpretation of the particular expressions of the apostle's doleful complaint of sin remaining in him, which I have shown not to be just or well founded. There is no appearance of force in his objections, com- pared with our interpretation ; but all his seven argu- ments come to nothing if it stands good, and the expressions are to be understood as we have showed ; and for that I refer to what hath been said to establish our interpretation. However, to make it the more easy for readers to satisfy themselves with regard to what remains of Dr Whitby's objections, I shall suggest a few considera- tions. 1. It is given as a certain mark of persons who are in Christ (2 Cor. v. 17) that old tilings arc passed an*a\\ and all tilings are become new. Yet I do not. expect any will say, it is meant, that sin doth not remain in such as are in Christ. If it doth remain, it may be justly said, that among all the new things that, by divine grace, are in such a man, there is nothing more new, and more dif- ferent from a man's former disposition and exercise in his natural state, than to have his heart so affected with regard to sin, as is here expressed. Sin had formerly the dominion, and was served by sinners, in the day of 336 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING its power, as by a willing people Now it is dethroned, sorrowed for, sincerely and vigorously opposed, even in its first motions within. The man had been hardened, and sin was sweet and pleasant to him. But old things are passed away ; things are become new with him in this respect. All the great and multiplied distresses he underwent from without, never brought such a doleful cry from his heart, as now uttered itself, 0 wretched man that I am ! 2. There is nothing in this latter context of chap. vii. that shows the person therein represented to be in the same case as formerly, with regard to what is mentioned (ver. 5), where first mention is made of the motions of sin that were by the law ; and next, that these did bring forth fruit unto death. The disparity appears clearly. The man now feels the motions of sin in him : what true Christian doth not ? But it is not said, that these motions of sin are by the law. A renewed soul is, by its prevailing disposition, well affected to the law ; and hath a prevailing habitual delight in the holiness thereof. There is in such a heart what dutifully entertains the precept, though the flesh inclines a different way. Such a soul is relieved from the curse of the law. The chief effects of the law in the heart are not, as in the unre- generate, that the holy commandment rouses the powers of sin, or that the curse irritates the rebellious disposition of the heart. In the precept the regenerate person perceives the beauty of holiness ; and the curse of the law being altogether just and right in his eyes, his deliverance from it exalts the Lord in his eyes, endears his grace, and engages him more and more to the Lord's yoke, disposing him to set to his seal, that now, by divine grace and love, it is easy. Again, it is not said, that the motions of sin have ordinarily their course, to bring forth fruit, as in the man in ver. 5. If he finds himself enticed by his lust, it is not said, that lust conceiving doth ordinarily bring forth fruit in the practice. It may so happen in particular instances to true Christians ; but there is nothing that imports THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 337 that that is commonly the case with the man in our context. 3. The regenerate man truly mortifies sin, and the lusts thereof; and hath habitually at heart to do so. There is nothing contrary to that in the person who here speaks. Would to God that all Christians had the quick sense, and painful feeling, with the conflict against sin that is here represented ! We might justly say, in that case, that sin, corrupt lusts, and carnal affections, were more in the way to be thoroughly mortified, than they commonly appear to be in most Christians. 4. In persons regenerated, sin is crucified, and Gal. v. 24, They that are Christ s have enieified the flesh, with the affections and lusts. True, they have done so. Accord- ingly, as to the man in our context, it is very evident, though sin exerted great vigour, that indeed it was bound, did not act at liberty, but was in a crucified, suffering, and dying condition. The great objection against our interpretation is, that, according to it, the context presents what is of dangerous tendency to the morals of Christians. After considering what Dr Whitby hath offered to that general purpose, let us now consider it as it is urged by Arminius, who has bestowed much labour upon it in the dissertation formerly mentioned, and has enlarged much on the ill use that may be made of our context, as we interpret it. I do not, however, expect that any will sustain it as a good argument against a proposition, interpretation, or doctrine, that men make an ill use of it. God is merciful, and gracious ; and I doubt if any doctrine or proposition hath ever been published to the world, of which men very commonly do make a worse use, hardening themselves therefore in their sins ; yet it is not the less true, or the less needful to be held and proclaimed. Arminius relates, that Augustine had observed what ill use men might make of his interpretation ; and he brings, very needlessly, some large quotations from him,, to prove that he did so observe. But he might, at the same time, have observed, that this great asserter of the truth did not see in this a good argument against the interpretation v 338 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING he had given. The truth may still be vindicated against all abuse, by arguments consistent with itself, and that do not overthrow it. It is the proper work of all the preachers of the truth, as to show the right and proper practical use, so to guard in a proper manner, against the abuse of it. For what important truth is there that may not be abused ? The abuse Arminius insists on is this, that a man, doing what is evil against some reluctance of his mind, and the witnessing of his conscience, may make himself easy, and encourage himself in doing it, by supposing himself to be thereby in the case of the Apostle Paul, and other true believers, according to our interpretation. But there is no encouragement to this abuse by it, as we shall see presently. Persons who are bent on sinning may imagine other encouraging matter to themselves in that course, by which they will be more likely to serve themselves, than by anything in this context, as we interpret. For instance : as it will be acknowledged on all hands, that a person in a state of grace may commit sin against the witnessing of his conscience, and some reluctance of his mind, through the surprise and force of temptation ; and that such a person may be recovered by repentance, and be finally saved ; so from this some may encourage themselves to commit sin. Is therefore the doctrine not true, that even the chief of sinners, or a regenerate person, after falling into heinous sins, may upon repentance be saved ? or is it to be rejected, as calculated to encourage men in sin ? Arminius relates an instance that came within his own observation, of a person's encouraging himself to sin from this context, according to our interpretation. I apprehend there is need of some caution in taking such stories on the report of an adversary. There is, however, one instance so plain, that it could not easily be mistaken ; and as he swears to the truth of it very solemnly, (much in the words of Paul, Rom. ix. i), it were not reasonable to question his veracity. A man, he says, being warned against committing sin in a particular instance, answered, that indeed the inclination THE SCOPE OF ROM. VI 1. 1 4- 2 5 339 of his will was against it ; but he had to say with the Apostle Paul, that he found himself not able to perform the good that he would ; and so he went on his way, against his conscience and the warning given him. Could not such an acute person have found in the context, as explained by his brethren, a proper and sufficient answer to this? surely he might have argued and said, The apostle having a heart that delighted in the holiness of the law, had it greatly at heart to perform his duty, though he did not attain to perform it in the perfect manner he willed. He struggled, and was as a man grievously oppressed by the motions and resistance of the flesh disabling him. The very first motions of sin within him gave him grief. If, by the lusting of the flesh against the Spirit, he could not do or perform as the Spirit suggested, so, by the effectual opposition of the Spirit, he could not do what the flesh prompted him to. But you are in a case quite contrary to that of Paul. You grasp at a pretence to make yourself easy with regard to the inward motions of the flesh prompting you to evil — you encourage yourself to overcome the urgency of your conscience — and against its light you resolutely go on, even in the outward practice, to do evil ; and so you are, as with your eyes open, deliberately putting yourself in the road to perdition. A man less acute than Arminius could easily have suggested such an answer ; but the man was then forming his scheme, and seems to have been more disposed to have some- thing whereof to make a handle in dispute, than to give the proper answer to the wicked excuse and pretence he represents. As to another case he relates of a man, who, being reproved for something he had actually done, contrary to the commandment of God, answered, that he therein came into the case of the apostle, who said, The evil that I would not, that I do ; an answer could be given in like manner. The apostle represents in our context the greatest sense of wretchedness by the force of sin within him. This man makes himself easy -~- screens and hardens himself against reproof for sin outwardly com- 340 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING mitted by him. Upon the whole, if a man doth, on any pretence whatsoever, previously encourage and harden himself to commit sin ; or doth, after committing it, harden himself against reproof, and exclude from his heart the sorrow and contrition he ought to have for sin ; this is so opposite to the disposition and sense of things expressed by the apostle, as we interpret, that no such person can encourage himself by it, without the utmost absurdity. Certainly no sentiment or interpretation can be charged with falsehood or faultiness, by reason of such abuse, as hardened sinners cannot make of them, but by means of misconception, delusion, and absurdity. The reader will, perhaps, see cause to think I have considered these things too largely, when he observes what I am next to set before him. It is fit then to inform him, that the abuse concerning which Arminius argues, respects what he calls actual good or evil [malum et bonum actuate); that is, as I understand it, the acting of sin in the external work and practice ; and so is directed against their inter- pretation (if there are any such, who understand here of the apostle himself, or the regenerate man), who extend the meaning of these and such like words, The evil that I would not, that I do, to the outward practice and conduct of life, and to the common character and course thereof. But concerning Augustine's interpretation, which is the same with ours, he hath these words, " Fateor enim Augustini sententiam, quce de concupiscenticz tantum actu et motu, locum interpretatur, nihil neque gratia, neque bonis moribus injuries aut detrimenti inferte, etiamsi de hoi nine regenito locum explicet!' That is, " I confess that the opinion of Augustine, who understands this place of Scripture only as respecting the actings and motions of concupiscence (inwardly) imports nothing detrimental to grace or good morals ; even interpreting it in that way of persons regenerate." One might readily think, that this acknowledgment would put the argument, from the ill consequence to men's morals, quite off the field. Yet he insists upon THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 14-25 341 it still, though I apprehend the reader will be greatly at a loss to imagine how he can do so, after the acknowledgment we have seen. Thus, however, he proceeds. If once the general notion be impressed on the minds of men, that it is the case of a regenerate person that is here treated of, it is not in our power to hinder them from understanding what remains of the context, and is therein ascribed to the person spoken of, in the sense in which (according to him) it ought to be understood ; agreeably, as he asserts, to the text itself, and to the apostle's scope ; that is, as these expressions are to be understood of a person under sin, and under the law. Of this abuse the story he had related, and is here lately mentioned, is, he says, an instance. The occasion of the abuse here mentioned is the tacking of his interpretation very improperly to ours. Did the author suppose, that a man would understand the particular expressions, as setting forth what denotes one a slave to sin, and to his lusts, as Arminius under- stood without good reason ; and that, at the same time, he would think the context represented the case of a person regenerated and sanctified ? This were supposing a man to be absurd and thoughtless to a great degree. All that the arguing of Arminius here doth prove, is, that his interpretation of the particular expressions (which hath been shown to be very ill founded), joined with our account of the general scope, as expressing the case of a regenerate person, makes a very ill composition, dangerous to the souls of men. ■ Although there have been men inattentive, not given to much thinking ; men blinded by their own lusts; perverted by wrong senti- ments, which their corrupt minds have entertained, and tenaciously held ; and those who have wrested the writings of Paul (2 Pet. iii. 16), as they have the other scriptures, to their own destruction, we are not, for the abuse of such, to charge faultiness on the Scripture, or any interpretation of it, that is otherwise just, and well warranted. Upon the whole, it appears that Arminius had no cause to retract or enervate the concession he had made ; 342 A DISSERTATION- CONCERNING and if he said, that Augustine's interpretation had nothing in it prejudicial to good morals, we have right to use the concession as superseding all occasion of dispute with him on that point. Some do seem to have found difficulty respecting our interpretation, as they could not allow themselves to think, that this blessed apostle had any remainder of sin in him, or could be charged with any disconformity to the holy commandment, in these times wherein he wrote. There is cause to wonder that any should doubt or find difficulty concerning this, considering what the apostle John says,* and that Paul f himself doth deny his being perfect. This cannot mean, that he was not perfect in the sense in which the spirits of just men made perfect are mentioned (Heb. xii. 23), or that he had not attained that perfection of his human nature, in all respects, that belongs to the resurrection state. It were idle for a man to disclaim perfection in these senses, while he was seen in an embodied state, sharing so much in the infirmities and miseries of this life. So we must understand it of his not being perfect in holiness, nor altogether without sin. What if no instance of his falling into sin or particular transgression were recorded in sacred history? That is but a negative argument, such as none would sustain in proof. His own account in our context is a sufficient proof that he was not without sin, or without the stirrings and activity of it within him. When he relates (2 Cor. xii. 7) a thorn given him in the flesh, lest he should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, may we not think that he was likely to have felt some stirrings of that evil tendency that made him so readily understand, and be so much reconciled to the salutary though painful remedy that Divine wisdom had administered to him ? There are two places besides, in which the matter seems to be more clear. One is Acts xxiii. 2-5, the * 1 John i. 8. + Phil. iii. 12. THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 343 high priest Ananias having commanded to smite him on the mouth, Paul said to him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall. On this Dr Guise says, " Perhaps the apostle might use this opprobrious title with rather too much warmth of temper, under a violent effort of the law of his members against the law of his mind, according to his complaint (Rom. vii. 23, 24), through inattention, sudden surprise, and high provocation." So that judicious divine. In whatever way this speech be taken or accounted for, it is plain it was not according to his example, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again, and when he suffered, he threatened not* It has been thought that Paul spoke under the influence of the spirit of prophecy on this occasion, and uttered a prophecy against Ananias, which, according to history, was afterwards accomplished. But this, if it was so, doth not prove that there was no sinful infirmity in the case. We find that wicked Caiaphas, the high priest, uttered something very remarkable, of which the sacred historian says, This spake he not of himself ; but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation, t Here it is clear that Caiaphas spoke according to the wicked passion of his own heart. Yet, on the other hand, he was so under the overruling influence of the spirit of prophecy (being high priest), that his words were clearly prophetic. Paul had a heart very much sanctified ; yet there is no inconsistency in supposing that, by the sudden provocation of an atrocious injur}-, he fell into a violent passion, and uttered words expressive of that passion, which, as to the threatening part of them, might be prophetic, by a superior influence and direction. The apostle being found fault with for so reviling God's high priest, said (ver. 5), I wist not that he was the high priest ; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. But though he knew him not to be high priest, he knew himself to be standing before the * 1 Pet. ii. 23. + John xi. 51. 344 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Sanhedrim, or supreme council of his nation, and that the person he spoke to was a member of it, and then sitting in the seat of judgment. So his words import (ver. 2), Sittest thou to judge me after the law ? He knew then that he was one of the rulers of his people, and so came under the meaning of the text he mentions. The matter being thus, may we not take this to be a just paraphrase of the apostle's words (ver. 5), " I wist not that he was high priest at this time ; but being a member of this august court, I call to mind that law, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. And therefore, however ill I have been treated, I insist not in justifying my emotion, or all the expressions I have uttered." Another place we may consider on this occasion is Acts xv. 37-40. It may well be allowed that Paul was in the right to urge that there should be some testimony of their disapprobation of John-Mark's conduct in the matter mentioned. But there is cause to suspect that the dispute on this subject was not without human and sinful infirmity. The sacred historian says (ver. 39) that the contention was so sharp between Paul and Barnabas^ that they departed asunder one from the other. Contention is rather too soft a word for the Greek Trapogvo-fjios (paroxysm). It signifies a mutual irritation, or (as Beza renders, exacerbatio) that their temper and spirit became hot and embittered. Nor is there any hint that this heat and discomposure of temper was greater upon the one side than the other ; it was mutual. The matter being so, it is not unreasonable to think, that on cool reflection, the blessed and holy apostle Paul might reflect and say with himself to this purpose : Though I am satisfied I was in the right in advising and urging as I did with regard to Mark, yet, alas ! that my corrupt heart and violent passion should have got so much the better of me in dealing with my blessed brother Barnabas, who was in Christ before me, who was preaching Christ when I was persecuting him and his gospel, who con- descended with so much tenderness and affection to me when other disciples avoided me, who introduced me in so kindly manner to the acquaintance and confidence of THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 345 the apostles, who was assigned me by the Hoi)' Ghost, as a special companion in the service of the kingdom of Christ, who laboured with me in that work with so much zeal and success ; even Barnabas, that son of consolation, justly so surnamed by the apostles ; whose conversation and preaching have often been so comfortable to myself and others. If I have peace of mind with regard to the matter of duty itself about which we differed, yet how much doth my manner of doing duty sometimes give me disquiet of mind ! How much hath my irregular and unholy passion hurried me away ; as it were bringing me captive with great violence — Wretched man that I am ! There is nothing unreasonable in supposing, that on occasion of this paroxysm, or passionate debate, Paul might see occasion for such reflections. Another man confident of his being right as to the main of the difference might thereby, perhaps, justify all the passion he showed in defending his own opinion. It would not be likely to be so with this holy apostle. What the judicious, elegant, and pious Calvin has written on this story in his com- mentary deserves to be often read. Having answered all the objections that have any appearance of force against our interpretation, let us now proceed to — Sect. VIII. — Marking out some of the practical uses to be made of this context, according to the foregoing interpretation ; to- gether with the paraphrase of the several verses 14-25. Having vindicated our interpretation against the charge of ill consequence in practice, it is fit, before we leave it, to mark out some of the good uses that are to be made of it, which are of great importance with regard to holiness and the comfort of Christians. I. From the case and example here laid before us, we learn how careful a Christian ought to be about the inward purity of his heart, and what constant earnest opposition he should make to the very first motions of every unholy passion and inordinate affection or lusting 346 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING in his heart. The heart is the proper and chief seat of holiness. Holiness in the heart is the chief part of our conformity to the holy and spiritual law of God ; nor is any outward work considered as holy, if the heart within is not right before God, who sees and tries the heart, and to whom it cannot otherwise be ac- ceptable. Every unruly passion and unholy lusting is, in the nature of things, contrary to our own happiness. By the prevailing of these in the heart, the conscience is hurt and disquieted ; and inordinate affections make the heart itself incapable of happiness. Holiness of heart is absolutely necessary to bring us into a capacity of happiness, which can be had, properly and perfectly, by no object but one, a holy God. Yea, inward purity of heart, and conflict with the motions of sin therein, are absolutely necessary for maintaining external purity of practice, integrity, and faithfulness. What prevails in the heart will be likely to come forth. When sin in general, or a particular lust, prevails in the heart, and is there entertained, it will be likely some time or other to force an eruption. The many snares of an evil world, the devices of invisible enemies, yea, the righteous judgment of God, will all concur in this, even to discover what is in a man's heart. Keep thy heart with all diligence (Pro v. iv. 23). From what hath been said, the impartial reader may judge if our interpretation hath anything in it unfavour- able to holy and righteous practice. Arminius saith it hath not, and afterwards endeavours to prove, without reason, that it hath. Dr Whitby reckons it a dangerous interpretation ; and, as he would have the particular expressions mean, it would be extremely so. It is well if, when the sentiments, reasoning, and explications of men of their way of thinking are well examined, they be not found to fix the standard of purity and holiness much lower than this context doth, according to our interpretation. If they did not, I apprehend they would have lower thoughts of the moral powers of nature, and higher thoughts of the necessity and efficacy of divine THE SCOPE OP ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 347 grace. But it is some men's way to bring up the power of free-will to holiness, by bringing holiness down to the power of free-will. There will not, however, be wanting sublime speculations, and general language, strong and lofty enough, concerning holiness and virtue. 2. We have something here that may be exceedingly useful to support and encourage those who go heavily under the evil of their hearts. It were not right to suggest anything that would tend to exclude the contrition for sin, that ought to be in the heart of every child of God. Yet from the light and sensibility that is in every sanctified heart with regard to sin, the conse- quence might be extremely hurtful to the comfort and stability of a Christian, if the word of God hath not provided something encouraging respecting the case, as there is in this context. So, if there are those who may abuse this passage, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction, serious Christians find cause to bless God for having provided for their comfort and for their direction in faith and duty, by this very valuable portion of holy writ. I only add concerning this point the following words of Augustine:* 'He hath set before thee his own conflict, that thou mightest not fear thine. For if the blessed apostle had not thus spoke, when thou should st observe the moving of lust in thy members, to which, however, thou didst not yield thy consent, yet finding it to move, thou wouldst perhaps despair of thyself, and say, If I be- longed to God, there would be no such motions in me. Observe the apostle in conflict, and do not thou despair." 3. I add an observation and inference respecting a doctrinal subject. We have here occasion to observe the sad corruption which human nature hath undergone; * " Constituit tibi ante occulos pugnam suam, nc timeres tuam. Si enim hoc non dixisset bcatus apostolus ; quando videres moveri concupiscentiam in membris tuis, cui tu non consentiris, tamen cum earn moveri videres, forsitan desperares de te, et diceres, Si ad Deum pertinerem, sic non moveret. Vide apostolum pugnantem, et noli te facere desperantem." 34-8 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING how deep the root of sin hath gone in the hearts of men, and how great its force and activity is in the best of men. We have seen in the context preceding ver. 14 the case of a person unregenerate with respect to this. He is under the law, and when the commandment cometh (as ver. 9) with its light, authority, and force, into the conscience, it may be supposed to awaken him to great carefulness about curbing, subduing, or restraining the motions of sin in his heart. It might be thought that the authority and light of the law in the conscience, with the impression of the terrible threatening, might give great excitement to this, and help a man much to it ; yet we have seen how little the law could do in this way. So far was it from subduing sin, and the motions of it in the heart, that sin did but move the more vehemently, and show the more its great wickedness and force. In this latter context from ver. 14 we have the case of a man under grace, who had, with great sense and ex- perience of the love of God, his heart commonly full of consolation by the assured prospect of eternal happiness and glory ; whose heart was greatly raised above things earthly and temporary, in full desire and pursuit of the things that are above; whose soul was animated with the warmest zeal for God, and for holiness ; and who had made great advances in holiness, inferior to no mere man we know of. Yet what heavy and sore complaint doth he make of sin dwelling in him ? He did by its force what he allowed not ; and what he seriously would, he could not perform. Though he delighted in the law of God according to the inward man, yet he found a law in his members warring against the law of his mind, and working hard to bring him into captivity to the law of sin ; so that he cries out, 0 wretched man that I am ! Shall we now say, that the greatest advantage and strength which sin hath in the heart of any man is only by deep-rooted habits, contracted merely by frequent acts, and the continued custom of sinning, proceeding only from the unhappy use that each man makes of his free-will ; who hath come into the world with his nature THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 349 in the same original purity with which man was at first created ? or (if we rise not so high) with no more de- pravation than a man can get the better of by his own efforts, and exertion of his moral powers? We have here before us what doth not allow us to think so. If man's nature itself were not depraved and corrupted to a high degree, — if human nature retained its full liberty and moral powers, without any greater disadvantage than acquired habits could have brought upon them, — what mere habits could be so strong but they might be fully overcome by the most serious and earnest en- deavours of a man under the sharp discipline of the law in his conscience? But if, in this state and way, a man could not do it ; might we not suppose that a man made free from the dominion of sin, by the washing of regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and brought under grace (which hath that in it that tendeth to engage a man most effectually to holiness), would be able, by his more sincere and powerful endeavours, and earnest exertion of all his moral powers, with the assist- ance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, to overcome any small remaining degree of natural depravation, and every evil habit, in the most effectual and complete manner ; so that there should not be the least remainder of any evil habit, or of sin at all in him ! But which of the saints is it whose experience hath testified any such thing? There is none of them in whose experience we might more readily expect to find it than this eminent apostle, considering his attainment in grace, light, and holiness. Yet how far from this is the case here represented ? In the persons most eminent for holiness, of whom we have the history at any length in the Scripture, this evil fountain hath discovered itself by the streams it hath sent forth. If this blessed apostle was preserved from remarkable lapses in outward practice, yet here, where he lays open his heart, he shows the source of sin yet remaining within him ; by which he had matter of constant exercise, of struggle and of godly sorrow, and what, from his own experience, afforded good reason for giving the salutary advice to every other 350 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING Christian, Thou standest by faith : be not high-minded but fear. The Scripture acquaints us, that there is not a just man that doeth good, and sinneth not. We have here what accounts for it, and shows it shall ever be so, whilst Christians are in this life. This is that original sin, which every one hath derived from a corrupt original ; and which is itself the original and source of all a man's moral deficiencies, and actual transgressions in outward and inward practice ; and whose root is so deep in human nature, as never to be wholly eradicated in this life. The power of divine grace, and of the Holy Spirit, could doubtless soon do it perfectly, if Divine wisdom had not thought otherwise fit, and that Christians should labour under imperfection, and having the remainder of sin dwelling in them to struggle with ; that with minds well enlightened, and hearts truly sanctified, they might, from what they con- stantly feel, perceive sensibly, and understand thoroughly, the wretched state from which divine grace saves them ; might be kept from trusting in themselves, and might ever hold all their consolation and hope of the rich and free grace of God in Jesus Christ, through faith. It is matter of very serious consideration to observe, after what high attainments eminent saints have dis- covered much of sin remaining in them. Moses was at two different times forty days and forty nights in the mount with God, and God had often spoken to him face to face, as a man doth to his friend ; yet it was after this that an unholy passion in him made its eruption, in a manner very provoking to God. David was under great influence of grace in his ordinary course and behaviour, and was often under divine inspiration ; yet thereafter it appeared, in fearful instances, that the root of sin still remained in him, so as to give him occasion to look back to his original depravation, and to say (Ps. li. 5), Behold, I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. The sinful failures of prophets might be here mentioned. For one instance, Jonah had re- ceived frequent revelations from God, yet after this, how great proof did he give of sinful mistrust and fear, of THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 35 I remaining rebelliousness against the government of the Almighty (even after being delivered out of the whale's belly), and of turbulent and violent passion, as is narrated in the short history that bears his name. Paul, a New Testament saint, made great advances in light and holiness ; he laboured hard against sin within ; he kept under his body ; he had great helps to the mortifying of sin, even in the various outward trials and distresses that he was very commonly exercised with. With all this, he had abundance of revelations, and was even rapt up into the third heavens some years before he wrote to the Romans. But after being in heaven, he needed the acutely painful thorn in the flesh, to keep the evil root that yet remained in him from springing, and lest lie should be exalted above measure ; even lest (so he emphatically repeats it) he should be exalted above measure. In our context, how sad the representation he gives of sin dwelling in him ! Ah, how deep hath sin gone in human nature ! Christians have the use to make of the case here set before them, that Paul himself made of it, who not only at his first conversion, but ever after, had it greatly at heart to be found in Christ, not having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith. Christians will, whilst in this life, carry about with them what may give them a sensible proof and deep impression of the obligation they are under to the free grace of God ; what great power of grace it requires to present them at last a church glorious and without spot ; and what is the exceeding riches of God's grace, in his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus. Enough seems to have been said to vindicate the true sense of this context ; and some of the practical uses thereof have been marked out. Though the learned Dr Whitby shows no great superiority of genius, and his arguments on this subject are sometimes extremely blunt, yet he could give a keen enough ed\;c to his expressions otherwise; as when he says of our inter- pretation : " That it is as great an instance of the force 352 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII 1 4 of prejudice, and the heat of opposition, to pervert the plainest truths, as can be haply produced." For my part, when I observe that the man who speaks here is one who delighted in the law of God, and in the holiness thereof in the inner man ; who willed, loved, and endeavoured what was good and right ; who hated sin, and was conflicting against it, crying out sorrowfully of his wretchedness by it ; and who (himself) with his mind served the law of God : I cannot help considering it as one of the phenomena in the learned world the most difficult to account for, that any men of learning and judgment could interpret these things of persons unregenerate, under the law, destitute of the Holy Spirit ; yea, of persons who have abandoned themselves to wickedness, as Ahab, and the revolters from the true religion before mentioned. Let the reader judge for himself. Text. — 14. For we know that the law is spiritual ; but I am carnal, sold under sin. Paraphrase. — We know that the law of God is spiritual : that its authority and demand reaches to a man's spirit and heart, to prescribe rule thereto, and to every inward motion of the soul ; and it is by its being thus spiritual that I heretofore received the thorough conviction of my sinfulness. When, upon this extensive view of the law, I do now compare myself with it, and consider the perfect inward as well as outward purity it requires, how great a disconformity to its holiness doth still remain with me ! I do not only refer to the time, when I was in my natural condition, in the flesh (ver. 5), when that evil principle was absolutely dominant in me, being under the law, and its curse, destitute of the Spirit, when sin had its full course in me, in one form or other ; but even, at this time, being under grace, thereby delivered from the law, and made free from the domi- nion of sin ; even yet alas ! though now in such a comfortable state, how far from that holiness of heart PARAPHRASE OP ROMANS VII. 15,16 353 which this spiritual law requireth ! I am carnal ; the flesh, that corrupt source and principle of evil, though deprived of its dominion, yet still remaineth in me, with much force and activity ; and though by the grace of God, I am not as Ahab, who, with full determination of his heart, sold (abandoned) himself to work evil, yet the flesh, with its violent corrupt affections, and unholy passions, having the advantage of concurring tempta- tions, doth often, yea too commonly, carry me away as a captive and slave, contrary to the habitual, and habitually prevailing inclination of my heart and will. Text. — 15. For that which I do, I allow not : for what I would, that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I. PAR. I say, against the habitually prevailing inclination of my will. For what I do, through the unhappy influence of the flesh in the way I have mentioned, is what indeed I do not favour or love. For what my will inclines to by its habitual determination, that, obstructed by the flesh, and the weakness which remaining corruption brings upon me, I do not ; but what I truly and sincerely hate, that, through its influence, I too often do. Text. — 16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good. Par. If then what my heart worketh and doth within me by means of the evil that springeth up from the flesh and corrupt nature, contrary to the holy and spiritual law, is indeed what is contrary to the fixed and habitual inclination of my will, then I do not only by my under- standing or mind assent to it as a truth, that the law is good, but this habitual inclination of my will shows that I heartily consent to the goodness of the law ; . that it is good in itself, as I said but just now (ver. 12), and that it prescribes that which is good for me, with respect to my duty and happiness. z 354 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII 1 7- 1 9 Text. — 17. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. PAR. Now then, though, strictly speaking, it is I who do all that is done by the activity of sin in my heart, and though I cannot justify myself before this holy and spiritual law, nor say, I am not chargeable with it ; yet grace, under which I am, and which hath special and tender regard to the sincerity of the heart and will, allows me to take some comfort, with respect to the sad case, by distinguishing, and saying, It is not I myself who do the evil, which I sincerely hate, and is so contrary to the habitual inclination of my will ; but my most hateful enemy sin, which continueth its habitation, though not its dominion, in me. Text. — 18. For I know, that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing : for to will is present with me, but how to per- form that which is good, I find not. PAR. It is grace that alloweth me thus to distinguish ; yea, the real distinction that is in me is of grace, the honour of which is to be ascribed to its blessed Author ; for as to me otherwise, as I am by nature, and so far as my nature is yet unrenewed in me, that is, in my flesh (which is what naturally, and abstracting from grace, I call my own, and myself), I know that no good thing dwelleth. For though, through grace, there is a readiness in me to will that which is good, yet, through the obstruction which the flesh giveth, I find not myself able to perform, in the constant, thorough, and perfect manner which I will, and which the holy law requires. Text.— 19. For the good that I would, I do not ; but the evil which I would not, that I do. PAR. For the whole good that my will is fully bent on. and inclined to, I do not ; but sin ever springing up in me, through remaining corruption, is what, on the part of the flesh, I do ; and that against the fixed determination of my will. PARAPHRASE OF ROMAXS VII. 20-23 355 Text. — 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. PAR. Now as a man's moral character is to be taken from the sincere habitual inclination of his heart and will ; if, by the influence of the flesh, I do what is contrary to the spiritual and holy law, and what my will is averse to, it is not I (let me again encourage myself somewhat with the thought), it is not my very self that does it, but sin that dwelleth in me. Text. — 21. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me. Par. I find then a law, not such as hath a true light, and just authority, but a principle strong and effective, that when my will is well determined to that which is good, evil, even the unholy motions that are spontaneous in corrupt nature, takes the start of my better will, and prevents its effect ; so that I cannot do what I would in the inward and outward practice of holiness. Text. — 22. For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man. Par. As I have been saying, that now when I am under grace, my will by its habitual inclination is really on the side of holiness ; the truth of the matter is, that I sincerelv delight in the law of God, and in the holiness which it recommends and requires, according to my inward man, that new man in me, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness. Text. — 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin, which is in my members. PAR. But though by this delight in the holiness of the law, my heart hath got an habitual and pre- vailing determination to holiness, yet I find a law in my members, which hath in some degree taken possession 356 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII. 24-25 of all my faculties, giving false light and prejudice to my mind and judgment ; a corrupt bias often to my will, putting my affections and passions in irregular and impetuous motion, and so warring against the law of my mind, that good principle and law, which God, according to the promise of the new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 33 ; Heb. viii. 10), hath put in my mind, and written in my heart ; so warring againt my soul (1 Pet. ii. 11) and labouring hard, and with too much success in some particular instances, to captivate me to the law of sin which is in my members. Text. — 24. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death ? PAR. What a miserable condition this ! To be free of this, I would count myself happy in all such various perils as I have gone through, such multiplied tribulations as I have undergone. Those have not made me miserable ; but this worst of enemies within myself. By means of this, ah, what a wretched man am I ! who shall deliver me from this body of death, from which it hath hitherto exceeded all my powers of nature or grace to rescue me ? Text. — 25. I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then, with the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but with the flesh the law of sin. PAR. I thank God, who hath provided comfort for me with respect to this my present wretchedness through Jesus Christ our Lord ; by virtue of whose cross the old man in me is crucified ; which gives me the sure and delightful prospect, that this body of sin and death shall, in due time, be absolutely destroyed, and I com- pletely and for ever delivered from it. So then,, the conclusion of the whole is : With my mind, that good and most prevailing law which divine grace hath put in my mind and heart, I my very self do (if imperfectly, yet) truly and sincerely, serve the law of God ; though, alas, with the flesh, the cause of my greatest sorrow, the law of sin. EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VIII. 1-4. Text. — 1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. EXPLICATION. — This proposition is introduced in way of inference, expressed by the word therefore. Without mentioning the different views that interpreters have had of this, I take it to be an inference from the apostle's whole discourse and doctrine in the preceding part of this epistle. He had treated largely of the justification of sinners by grace through faith, in the first five chapters. A proper inference from that is this : There is tlierefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus. In the sixth and seventh chapters he had treated of what concerns sanctification. He had represented persons under the law as being in the flesh, under the dominion of sin, and its servants ; but persons brought under grace by free justification, as being made free from that servitude — as being become the servants of God, and having their fruit unto holiness. From his doctrine in this part, which he insists on to the end of chap, vii., he had proper occasion to add, as the mark of persons in Christ, justified and free from condemnation, that they walk not after the flesh, but after, the Spirit. It is not their so walking that frees them from condem- nation, but being by gratuitous justification freed from condemnation, and brought under grace, and thereby 357 358 EXP 1 1 CATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I made free from the dominion of sin (chap. vi. 14), they will, in their ordinary course, walk as is here said ; and that so certainly, that if any do not so walk, but walk after the flesh, it may be justly concluded, that they are not truly in Christ as to their real spiritual state. This is the view that the apostle's discourse directs us to take of the matter. After making the complex inference (ver. 1) from his doctrine of justification and sanctifica- tion, the apostle doth, through this whole eighth chapter, discourse in the mixed way, with an eye to both subjects, and concerning the consolation, and the obligation to duty and holy living arising from both, according to the inseparable connection that is established between them in the economy of salvation. So that, if we look through this whole eighth chapter, it is a discourse that hath this first verse, in both parts of it, for its text. If, in all the seventeen or eighteen verses immediately preceding, he had been describing the case only of persons unregenerate — the slaves of sin, one might readily think that the inference in our text comes in somewhat awkwardly, and not in its proper place. But if, from the fourteenth verse of the preceding chapter, the case of a person is represented who walked not after the flesh, but after the Spirit, which is the truth of the matter ; then the comfortable inference and description in this text are very properly introduced. Let us now look more closely to the particular expres- sions of the text. Them which are in Christ Jesus, some have rendered or interpreted thus : Them who are Christians. So Castalio and Le Clerc, as is observed by Dr Whitby, who adds — " But if either of them mean only Christians by profession, or being only members of the Christian Church, this, will by no means agree with this place, or any other of the like nature ; since freedom from condemnation, and other benefits conferred upon us through Jesus Christ, will not follow our being Christians in this sense, but upon a lively faith in Christ, our union to Him by the Spirit," etc. Le Clerc says, that being in Christ is often used by St Paul for being a Christian. I do not observe instances of his using the Ver. 1] of komaxs via. 359 expression in that lax and large sense, but quite the contrary. For which see I Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 17; Thess. iv. 16; and to these places of Paul we may add, I John v. 20 ; Rev. xiv. 13 ; John xv. 5 ; and the words of Paul, Phil. iii. 9. In which places it is plain, that being in Clirist means not only being Christians by profession and outward church privilege ; but being sincere believers, in real union with Christ, and in consequence thereof, being holy in life, happy and blessed in death. As to the second clause, — who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit — the reading in the Greek, and in our translation, is vindicated by Dr Whitby in his Examen Milliu This way of walking, as to the ordinary course of life, is a certain consequence of being in Christ. For (2 Cor. v. 17), If any man be IN Christy he is a creature; and (i Cor. i. 30) to them who are IN Clirist fesus, he is made wisdom^ and righteousness, and sanetif cation. Some interpret and object thus : Mention is here made of walking after the flesh ; which is certainly expressive of the case represented in the context immediately preceding, in which the man speaks so strongly of the flesh in him, and the law in his members captivating him. So some. But, if we consider the matter, we shall find that this is far from being the case in the apostle's view. There is indeed a man represented complaining bitterly of the flesh, and the law in his members, and of its force and too great prevalence. I cannot but wonder that any should take such a sense of things, and such a complaint, as proof of a man's walking after the flesh. A man may come under such consequences of an ill life with respect to his person outwardly, or his affairs, that may set him a complaining bitterly of his prevailing lusts and ill practice, when it is not sin that is truly bitter to him, but these outward ill consequences of it ; but in the preceding context, we find a man feeling painfull}', and lamenting bitterly the motions, force, and prevalence of sin within him, in opposition to the spiritual and holy law of God, without mentioning any ill consequence 360 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Ver. I externally. Sin, and sinful affections, and their motions within him, are what he would not, and what he hates, abstracting from all penal and ill consequences. If sin remains in him, we see him in conflict with it. This doth not suit the notion of WALKING after the flesh. Walking imports a man's habitual and deliberate course, in which he freely proceeds, without force, struggle, or constraint, neither violently drawn, carried, or captivated ; but going according to the motion and inclination of his own will. If the flesh hath its law or commandment, it may be said of the unregenerate man, with respect to the commandment of that law, as is said of Ephraim, with respect to a particular instance of fleshly walking (idolatry, Gal. v. 20), and the law requiring it (Hos. v. 1 1), that he walked zvillingly after the commandment. So the unregenerate man doth with regard to the com- mandment of the law of sin, as to the habitual and prevailing inclination of his will, whatever check con- science may give. If this is, as it certainly is, walking after the flesh, the preceding context represents a man whose character, disposition, purpose, and earnest endeavour, are very contrary to it. I here add a passage of Dr Davenant (afterwards bishop of Sarum) on Col. i. 7 : * " The regenerate may fall into sin ; but they are not wont to walk, nor can they live in sin. For he walketh in sin who sinneth by his hearty choice, in his constant curse, and with the full consent of his will." The mention of the Spirit has here been the occasion of another argument, respecting the meaning of the im- mediately preceding context. On occasion of speaking on the subject of holiness, the apostle very commonly mentions and brings into view the Spirit of God, with his powerful operation and influence : and the mutual opposition is commonly stated between the Spirit and the flesh. But there is no mention of the Spirit in the * " Renati possunt incidere in peccata, sed non solent ambulare, nee possunt vivere in peccato ; ambulat enim in peccato, qui lubenter, assidue, et plena voluntate peccat." Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 36 1 case proposed in the latter part of chap. vii. as there is here; which, according to them, gives cause to think, that it is here only (chap. viii. 1) that the apostle begins to speak of the case of true believers, truly regenerated ; and that in the preceding context, where there is no mention of the Spirit, the case of the unregenerate, destitute of the Spirit, is represented. So Arminius and others argue. I would not indeed expect (if there were not a point of dispute in the case) that the mention of the Spirit would be the thing of which some men, though de- nominated Christians, would perceive the greatest want in the reading of any context ; as I do not see, if their scheme and sentiments are well looked into, that they generally put anything in religion, as to its ordinary causes, principles, and practice, but what might be accounted for, if there was no mention of the Holy Spirit in the Scriptures, or in the world at all. As to the argument, — It is true, that the Spirit is not mentioned in the preceding context, nor is he mentioned in all the sixth chapter, where the case of sincere believers, with respect to sin and holiness, is so largely treated of. They have in them the old man and the body of sin (ver. 6) ; they are (ver. 22) the servants of God, and have their fruit unto holiness. Yet all along in that chapter there is no mention of the Holy Spirit. If it be said that there is, however, in that chapter what sufficiently distinguishes the case of the true Christian, and regenerate person, as there meant, the same may be said of the latter context of chap, vii., as hath been shown largely and clearly in the explication of it. At the same time it is to be considered, that the lazu of the mind, and the law in the members, are expressions that are to be found nowhere else in the Scriptures. Yet we cannot justly infer, that what is meant by these expressions occurs nowhere else. That the opposition and conflict of the law of the mind against the flesh, or law in the members, is not that of natural conscience or mere reason, hath been shown, as it hath been, that 362 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I the law of the mind as to its principle is holiness, implanted in the soul by the Holy Spirit ; or the law of God put in the mind and heart, according to the grace and promise of the new covenant. There is indeed great complaint of the flesh ; yet nothing appears in the preceding context that amounts to walking after the flesh. But on the contrary, we have cause to conclude, that a heart habitually delighting in the holiness of the law of God, and in ordinary conflict with the inward motions of sin, as is there represented, is as great an evidence of a man's not walking after the flesh, as can possibly be imagined to be in the case of any man in whom sin remaineth at all. Let us now observe how Dr Taylor interprets this text. Here is the first part of his paraphrase of it : " But now under the gospel the most encouraging hopes smile upon us, and we have the highest assurance, that those are quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and dis- engaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith of the gospel : if so be they make that faith a principle of obedience, and do not choose to live in wickedness, according to the instigation of fleshly appetite." In this passage several things come to be observed. 1. For — them which are in Christ Jesus, — he gives, a Who embrace the faith of the gospel." This falls in with the notion of Castalio and Le Clerc, for confuting which enough hath been said already. 2. The para- phrase expresses what is now under the gospel ; and what the writer states in opposition thereto, is the Mosaic law, the weak and lifeless dispensation, as he calls it, of the law (which is an erroneous and absurd way of representing that dispensation), and the condition of a wretched, enslaved, condemned Jew under it. Yet nothing can be marked out in the paraphrase, as now under the gospel, but what did truly (though not with the same degree of light and comfort) take place under the Mosaic legal dispensation. In that time and state of things, the most encouraging hopes did smile on men, and they had the highest assurance of being quite dis- charged from the penalty of the law, and disengaged Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 363 from the servitude of sin, who sincerely embraced the faith of the promise, by which, even in these times, the gospel was preached to them. In these times there were good men, who made their faith a principle of obedience, etc. 3. The expression of the paraphrase implies, that persons may be in Christ in the sense of the text, who do not make their faith a principle of obedience ; which is inconsistent with what hath been shown to be the apostle's meaning. The paraphrase proceeds thus : — " But (do choose to live) in faith and holiness, according to the dictates of the inward man, or the rational faculty." That the in- ward man means something more than merely the rational faculty, hath been here proved, on chap. vii. 22. His putting "the rational faculty," for the Spirit, as in the text, he endeavours to justify in his note. There he says, li7rv€Vfj.a} Spirit, certainly is not used in the same sense throughout this chapter. Vers. 10, 16, it signifies the spirit of our mind — the supreme part of our con- stitution, or the principle of reason, by which we discern, approve, and choose the truth." These two are all the places in this chapter that he brings as meaning by the Spirit the human spirit, or principle of reason. But they do not answer his purpose in interpreting this first verse. For in ver. 16, our spirit being set in opposition to the Spirit itself, shows, that by the former is there meant the human spirit. The expression is not so (ver. 1), but absolutely, the Spirit. If the word spirit is in any place so connected with another word, expression, or argument, as shows it is there to be understood of the human spirit, this makes no reason for understand- ing it so, when the spirit is mentioned absolutely, without any such connection, or particular reason for understand- ing it in that way. As to ver. 10, he there alters our translation in the column opposite to his paraphrase, and for, The body is dead, BECAUSE of sin, he translates, with RESPECT to sin, and so he gives the next clause, The Spirit is life (not BECAUSE, as in our translation, but) with RESPECT to righteousness. . And to this translation of his own, he 364 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I suits his paraphrase thus: "The sinful appetites and affections of the body are slain in you, — your spiritual part is alive, is in a healthy vigorous condition with respect to righteousness." This method is far from being fair. If he would give our translation in one column, as he pretends to do, he should give it as it is, and if he should prove in a note that our translation was not just, he might thereby warrant his paraphrase. It occurs happily, however, that in his note, when he meant to support his para- phrase, himself brings forth what justifies our translation. Am, with an accusative, says he, signifies with reference to, or on account of. But could the preposition, as him- self relates, be rendered, on account of sin, and on account of righteousness, doth this make such odds of sense from, because of sin and because of righteousness, that our translation should be altered for it, when it could well stand, according to what he mentions concerning the preposition ? But what reason can be offered for using, instead of body (ver. 10), u sinful appetites and affections of the body," and for the Spirit, to put " your spiritual part ? " Dr Taylor has certainly mistaken the meaning of this tenth verse. I venture to express myself concerning it as follows. As the apostle hath in his eye the comfortable subject of the resurrection of the dead, suggested more fully in the following verse, I think the word body (ver. 10), may be taken for person (see on chap. vi. 12); and the Spirit is evidently meant of the Spirit of God, mentioned in the preceding 9th verse, and twice in the immediately following verse.* So the sense of the whole verse may be thus expressed : " If Christ be in * Moule on Romans (in "Expositors' Bible'"') supports this view. " We refer,"' says he, " the word Trvevfxa here, as throughout the passage to the Holy Ghost. No other interpretation seems either consistent with the whole context, or adequate to its grandeur." Sanday, however, has no hesitation in understanding the 7rv€Vfia here of the human 7rvev/jLa which has the properties of life infused into it, by the presence of the Divine -rrvev/jia. This is precisely the view maintained by Alford, and is undoubtedly the correct one. Ver. i] of Romans viii. 365 you by your having his Spirit, even the Spirit of God dwelling in you (as ver. 9), you are, as to the present bodily state and frame of your persons, appointed indeed to die because of sin, even the sin of the first Adam, for which all mankind have been adjudged to death ; but the Spirit of God, and of Christ in you, will bring you to life at the resurrection, because of righteousness, even the righteousness of One, the second Adam," as is more fully expressed in the next verse.* We have Dr Taylor's criticism concerning the Greek preposition Aia, with an accusative, in ver. 10 ; we may next see how he manages with it as constructed with a genitive. This is in ver. 1 1 , and as we have come so near it, it is not amiss that we observe it. There for Slo. — Trvevfiaros, he gives, Because of the Spirit. What reason could he give for this? It is the case that Sta in that construction very commonly signifies per, by; and my lexicon gives that as the first sense of the preposi- tion in that construction, according to which we translate. Hedericus gives no sense of the preposition with a genitive that will answer this writer's purpose ; nor doth Pasor, who mentions very many instances of it in that construction. But the author seems to have been more anxious to screen his particular hypothesis and opinion from hurt, than to give a just and well-warranted inter- pretation of this text. That heavenly Being or Agent, which is commonly called the Holy Ghost {; he did not believe more than he believed the Son to be truly and by nature God. But he was sensible that it would be a striking proof of his being so, if quickening the dead, or raising the dead, were ascribed to him. So, instead of our translation, which renders justly, according to the use of the Greek language, He that raised up Christ shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit, — he gives — because of his Spirit; and, according to this, he gives in his paraphrase thus : " He who raised Christ, will restore to a glorious immortal life, — even your * See Dr Whitby on the place. t As Dr Taylor speaks in his note on ver. 1. 366 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I bodies, because you are sanctified by his Spirit." But this cannot be supported by any just criticism. * We have seem that the two texts, f which Dr Taylor brings out of this same chapter, do not answer his purpose in rendering, after the Spirit, by, "according to the dictates of — the rational faculty." Neither these two verses, nor any other that he could bring, give any countenance to that paraphrase. In that expression (ver. i) which walk — after the Spirit, the apostle certainly speaks in relation to the Spirit of God. We have sufficient cause to think so, from the manner in which the apostle states the opposition between the flesh and the Spirit (mentioned here, ver. i), and follows it out through the following context ; wherein after opposing flesh and Spirit several times, he at length explains what he means by Spirit in this opposition when he tells the Roman Christians (ver. 9), that they were not in the flesh but were in the Spirit, by having the SPIRIT of GOD dwelling in them. It is that Spirit that is meant (vers. 10, 11), as hath been just now observed ; and when (ver. 1 3), he mentions Christians through the Spirit mortifying the flesh, it is the Spirit of God, in opposition to the flesh, that is meant, even according to Dr Taylor. Nor can it be doubted, that walking after the Spirit, in the first verse, means the same way of walking and the same influence that is meant (ver. 14),. where it is said, As many as are led by tJie Spirit of Godr they are the sons of God. They who walk after the * For the genitive, Sia tqv £volkovvtos avrov Uvevfiaros^ supported by Alexandrian authorities, tf. A.C., etc., as against the accusative, Sia to zvolkovv avrov Ilvtv/xa, supported by Western authorities, b.d. &c, there is no preponderating evidence, but at most a slight advantage. With the genitive Bta undoubtedly means "by means of," "through ;" with the accusative 81a means " on account of," " because of." The opponents of Macedonius, who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, preferred the genitive reading, as bringing out more clearly the personal working of the Holy Spirit. The accusative reading, however, is quite capable of an orthodox interpretation. t Namely, vers. 10, 16. Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 367 Spirit (ver. 1) are the same who are led by the Spirit of God (ver. 14). Upon the whole, I conceive the matter thus : In the 7th chapter he mentions the inward man as delighting in the law of God, and says (ver. 2 5 J, With the ?nind I myself serve the law of God. These expressions, the inward man, the mind, and the law of his mind, signify the soul itself as renewed, — the new man, and principle of holiness within him. Here in the next following; verse (chap. viii. 1), he means the same way of walking and serving God, according to the inward man, and law of his mind, with the superadded idea of the Spirit of God dwelling in the Christian, and continuing to influence the inward man and law of the mind, in this way of walking. Having here (ver. 1), once mentioned the Spirit, we see he keeps him much in view, with regard to his various influence and assistance granted to Christains, down to ver. 27. The dictates of the rational faculty (if men understood them) and the Spirit of God, do direct and lead to the same way of walking. But there is a power and efficacy in the influence of the Spirit, that is not in the dictates of the rational faculty. The apostle's meaning by the Spirit, as stated in opposition to the flesh in this 8th chapter, is so very clear, that it was very wrong, and somewhat perverse, to use in paraphrase for the Spirit, the rational faculty. Paraphrase. — i. As I have showed, that true Chris- tians are, by the faith that hath truly united them to Christ, brought into a justified state, and have the blessedness that God imputeth righteousness to them ; and have showed that true believers, being dead to sin, and made free from its dominion, are become servants of God and of righteousness in ordinary, sincere, and earnest conflict against the motions of sin within them ; it clearly follows on the one hand, that there is now no condemnation to them who are truly united to Christ, and on the other hand, that it is the certain characteristic of such, that their conversation and walk is not regulated or directed according to the flesh, or the lusts thereof, 368 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2 (whatever temptation and sad exercise they may have by these) but by the principle of holiness in the new man, and by the holy Spirit of God, under whose special influence the new man, the law of their mind, is. Text — 2. For the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death. Explication. — In the preceding verse there is a doctrinal proposition by way of inference, which in the comprehension of the expression, includes and respects all true believers. Here the expression is of himself personally ; yet so as to be evidently designed to explain the general doctrine of the preceding verse. Some have considered this second verse, as particu- larly connected with the first clause of the preceding, There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus ; and as being designed to give some explanation about being made free from condemnation. But as in the sixth and seventh chapters, those immediately preceding this, the subject is sanctification, anything concerning justification falls in but incidentally, and as connected with sanctification, and in subserviency to his explana- tions on that subject. I therefore think this second verse is to be considered as particularly connected with the second clause of ver. I, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. It might have been suggested thus : Men in their natural condition are the slaves of sin, and, in that state, certainly they cannot walk after the Spirit, being destitute of the Spirit. Men's so walking shows them to be blessed with a happy liberty from the slavery of the flesh, and of the law of sin, which they have been under formerly. This second verse explains how Christians have been made free from that slavery and dominion, as the third verse doth still further explain the matter. As to the particular expressions of this text, the word law comes first to be explained, as it seems to have different senses in this one verse. In the latter clause, Ver. 2] of Romans via. 369 the law of sin and death hath by some been undcrsto cl of the law of God, as it assigns death to the transgressors ; and whilst men are under it, they are under the dominion of sin. Sin is so far from being subdued by it, that there are motions of sins by the law, and sin taketh occasion by the commandment. This, however, cannot be the meaning. It were not consistent with the reverence due to the law of God, nor with the truth, to call it the law of sin and death. Yea, it could not be so called, but in plain contradiction to the vindication the apostle hath made of it (chap. vii. 7), Is the law sin ? G d forbid ; and (ver. 13), Was that which is good made death unto me ? God forbid. We need not be at a loss for the meaning of this last clause of the text. He had (chap. vii. 25, the next verse save one preceding this) mentioned the law of sin \ which, by means of the flesh, had held sinners in subjec- tion and slavery ; and, in the verse preceding that, he had mentioned the body of death. The lawt then, of sin and death, is no other than that evil principle dominant in a man, from which the true Christian is made free. How made free ? This the apostle ascribes to the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Here is another law ; and if the law in the last clause signifies a principle within a man, this may seem to signify also an inward principle — a better principle wrought and implanted by the Spirit of life, even the same which he had called (chap. vii. J | the law of his mind. By this principle is a man made free from the dominion of the other principle or law. This is not widely different from what I take to be the more precise meaning. It seems most likely, that the law of the Spirit of life means the gospel. So it was understood by Methodius, an ancient writer, as mentioned by Dr Whitby.* If the Methodius, Bishop of Olympus and afterwards of Tyre, antagonist of Origen, martyr in a.d 312, in his " Discourse on the Resurrection" (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiv., Edin. 1869, p. ; says : " The law of the Spirit of Life, which is the gospel, being different from earlier laws, leading by its preaching to obedience and the remission of sins, delivered us from the law of sin and death, having conquered entirely sin which reigned over our flesh." 2 A 370 EXPLICATION AMD PARAPHRASE [Ver. 2 apostle mention (chap. iii. 27) the law of faith, he doth not recede any farther from strict propriety in giving here the name of law to the gospel, that is the means of faith. It is certain that law is often in the Old Testament put for the word of God in general, of which there are many instances in the 119th Psalm. The Psalmist says (Ps. xix. 7), The law of the Lord is perfect \ converting the soul. It is plain that he there means the doctrine of gospel-grace, as then set forth in the word of God ; for without this, the law, strictly so called, doth not convert the soul. At the same time it is to be observed, that the designation given here to the gospel is not absolutely the law, but the law of the Spirit of life ; thus distinguish- ing it from the law, by which the Spirit is not given. The gospel brings men to the liberty here mentioned, only as it is the law of the Spirit of life. He is called here the Spirit of life very appositely, in opposition to that other law of sin and death, as he now gives a spiritual life in the souls, of men ; and hereafter, when he shall quicken their bodies at the resurrection, shall raise them to the perfection of life in soul and body. Now this is a very important thing, in which the gospel is set in opposition to the law, and hath the advantage of it, that it is (2 Cor. iii. 8) the ministration of the Spirit which (ver. 6)giveth life ; and so the gospel is the law of the Spirit of life. In our text is added, in Christ Jesus ; which may be understood thus : The Holy Spirit was bestowed on Christ the Mediator without measure ; he hath been anointed with this gladdening oil ; and it being poured on him as our great High Priest and Head, as on the head of Aaron (Ps. cxxxiii. 2), it runs down on the body and members. So the Holy Spirit is in Christ, as in a fountain, out of which every one receives accord- ing to the measure of the gift of Christ (Eph. iv. 7). Or the expression may be taken thus : as the preposition iv, iny is often put for Aia,/^r, by (so Matt. v. 13, 35, and vii. 6, and in divers other places), the sense may be taken thus : The Spirit of life by Jesus Christ, — by him purchased and bestowed. Ver. 2] OF ROMANS VIII. 37 1 We now come to consider the good effect, and that is to be made free from the law of sin and death. This, the interpreters of opposite sentiments to ours, concerning the scope and meaning of the preceding context, con- sider as a key to open and determine the scope and sense of it. Here, say they, the apostle, after giving a general doctrine (ver. 1), begins to speak of himself indeed. He had (chap. vii. 14-25), been setting forth the case of one carnal, sold under sin, a captive and slave to the law of sin. The apostle, though speaking as of himself, yet could not truly mean himself, as then in a state of grace, but was certainly personating another, a man under the law ; and of such an one it could not be said, as here, that he was free from the law of sin and death. Here, then, is he speaking of himself indeed, and stating his own present condition in opposition to that he had been representing : this is clear, express, strong, and decisive on the subject, according to some. Softly ; let us consider the matter a little. It hath been made to appear very clearly, that the strong expressions in the preceding context being the language of sad complaint, there is nothing in it incor- sistent with a regenerate state. None will say, that true believers, made free in the sense of our text, have not sin remaining in them ; yea, oftentimes too much pre- vailing, especially as to its inward motions. Surely the bitter complaint of persons on this account is no sign of their being under the dominion of sin ; but the contrary. Persons under the dominion of sin may indeed have much outcry against it, on account of its consequences of misery and punishment, as hath been formerly observed. So a passionate man, for instance, may cry out of his own hasty and outrageous passion, merely because it brings him into much inconvenience, into many a fray, and perhaps to the commission of crimes of capital consequence. A lewd man may cry out against his own practice, for the loathsome rottenness of disease it hath brought on him, and the ruin it hath brought on his affairs. Yea, an awakened sinner may cry out still more seriously and earnestly against sin, 372 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 2 under the sad impression, by the force of the law in his conscience, of Divine wrath, and eternal judgment. Yet in these cases the prevailing disposition of heart, w\\\y and affections may be still truly on the side of sin itself,, though under considerable restraint. But to say that a man who, setting before him the holiness and spirituality of the law, doth delight in the holiness of the law after the inward man, habitually willeth that which is good, hateth sin, crieth out sincerely against it, and is habitually in earnest struggle and conflict against its inward motions ;. — to say that such an one (however strongly he may express his feelings of sin) is indeed under its dominion,, and its slave, is what I cannot help considering as a most glaring absurdity. When a man is inclined and affected with regard to sin and duty, and maintains a struggle and conflict with sin, as is expressed in the preceding context, it makes a clear and full proof that he is not the slave of sin, but that he is indeed made free from its dominion and tyranny. It is not easy to- imagine a stronger proof that he is so, whilst sin doth at all remain in him. A similitude taken from human affairs may somewhat illustrate the matter. Our neighbours, the Hollanders,, cast off the yoke of a cruel arbitrary tyrant, then the most powerful monarch in Christendom, and asserted their liberty. For this they had war a long time,, between seventy and eighty years, with some interval of truce. In the course of it they were very successful on the whole, and became truly rich. Yet there was great distress and danger. They were sometimes foiled in battle; their country was plundered; towns sacked; ships and rich merchandise lost ; their men taken, and brought into captivity. Private persons in these times might, yea, the republic might, often cry out, Ah, what wretchedness, what misery ! Yet still in all this distress and wretchedness they were a free people ; they suffered, they groaned, they struggled, they fought, and were free. They proved themselves to be so, whilst they held their arms in their hands, and stood out with noble resistance in the war which their old master carried on against Ver. 2] of rom ax s vni. 373 them, to subject them again to his tyranny. They found themselves sometimes very weak ; but when their affairs were lowest, yet weak and resisting, still they were free. At length the most illustrious republic attained a state of complete liberty, and their old tyrant ceased from having pretensions to their service in any instance. It is thus as to the matter before us, which is of incomparably greater importance to individuals, than their interest in the worldly condition or affairs of any state or commonwealth. True Christians are in earnest conflict and struggle with sin. as represented, chap, vii., by which they have often much distress ; so that one of that character may find just cause to cry out, Wretched man that I am, zi'ho shall deliver me from this body of death? Yet by this sense of things, and by this conflict, however distressing, they show themselves to be. not the slaves of sin, but to be free from its dominion. Upon the whole, Christians are made free from the dominion of sin, whose willing slaves they had been ; and that by the power of the gospel in their hearts, as it is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and by the grace of God, which, sin remaining in them, hath, accord- ing to the first promise, put enmity in them against it ; against the serpent, and what of his poison remaineth in them. Continuing in this resistance to sin, they will at length attain a state of most perfect liberty, when sin shall do them no more hurt, nor ever more give them any molestation. Paraphrase. — 2. I have represented my sad condition by sin which dwelleth in me, and have expressed my thankfulness to God through Jesus Christ, by whom I have been disposed and enabled to resist and main- tain conflict with it, with good prospect of success, final victory, and to be, amidst all the disadvantage that sin brings upon me, serving God and his law with earnest and sincere endeavour, walking not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. I now come to account for it, and to explain to you how I have been brought into a capacity thus to resist and struggle, and thus to walk, who have been sometime the slave of sin. This hath 374 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3 not happened by the force of the mere dictates of reason in my mind, nor by any resolutions or endeavours that were the mere consequence of these. Nor did it happen by the power and effect of the law in my conscience. I have represented, that when I was most affected with the authority, light, and terrors of the law, I found my- self but the more fastened in the fetters of sin ; and sin awakened and irritated by the law, did then move the more vehemently in me, and show itself to be exceeding sinful. I acknowledge, to the praise and glory of Divine grace, that it was the power of the gospel, that better law for us, as it is the ministration of the Spirit, the law of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus as in a fountain, and cometh by him to us, that hath made me free from the dominion of sin, putting within me that inward principle of holiness, which I have called the law of my mind, and which now resists these evils and enemies that war against my soul, and maintains warfare against the law of sin and death, over which it will be finally and completely victorious. Text — 3. For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh. Explication. — This is a text of great importance to be rightly understood ; as it contains a summary of the most essential doctrines of the gospel, and at the same time, completes the apostle's explications concerning the subject of the two preceding chapters. Yet few texts have been more teazed with the criticisms of the learned, which do often tend rather to darken, than to give light to it, or to the subject of it. I shall lay open very freely what I think concerning the general scope of it, and concerning the sense of the particular expressions, in the order in which they lie. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh — The first inquiry is, What is it that the law could not do ? Divers commentators, whom I Ver. 3] of Romans viil 375 much esteem, do understand this to be the justifying of sinful men. This is likewise Dr Whitby's view of it. Yet I am not satisfied with this interpretation ; yea, I am well satisfied that it doth not hit the apostle's view and meaning. For, 1. Though it is true that the law cannot justify a sinner, as the apostle had proved in the former part of this epistle, yet that is not the present subject. It is evident, that sanctification hath been the subject from the beginning of chap. vi. and the deliver- ance of persons from the dominion of sin. The subject of the immediately preceding verse is, the making a sinner free from the law of sin and death ; that is, from the power of natural corruption, and the dominion of sin. This was the last thing the apostle had mentioned ; and it seems very clear from the connection, and the manner in which this third verse is introduced with the casual particle (ydp,for) that the great thing thus to make free (ver. 2) is what tJie Law (ver. 3) could not do: it could not make free from the dominion and law of sin. 2. The reason he gives suits that subject more properly than it doth the doctrine of justification, — In that it was weak through the flesh. Now, that is not the reason why the law cannot justify. Though in proving the sinfulness of Gentiles and Jews (chap. iii. 10-18), the apostle's reasoning, and quotations from the Scripture, do abund- antly prove the dreadful universal corruption of human nature, yet the precise point upon which his argument turns is (ver. 23) that all have sinned ; whereby they have incurred the curse of the law, as he elsewhere suggests (Gal. iii. 10). Though there were no such inherent pravity of nature, as the Scripture sets forth under the name of the flesh, yet the law could not justify any who had sinned, who had at all incurred guilt. To turn the disability of the law to justify the sinner, upon the corruption of his nature, as this text would do, according to the interpretation I am considering, would imply something by no means consistent with the apostle's clear doctrine ; viz. that after a person had transgressed, he might be justified, even by the law, for returning to his duty, and for his subsequent righteous- 376 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. J ness, if the weakness and pravity of his nature, called the fleshy did not disable him from doing his duty ; which, how contrary it is to Scripture doctrine, I need not stay to prove, the thing is so clear. We have next to inquire, what law is here meant. As to the ritual or ceremonial law of Moses, which is most strictly the Mosaic law, and which some do so commonly bring into view in interpreting this context, the institu- tions of it were appendages to the gospel, as obscurely represented during that more dark dispensation. They were figures or shadows that prefigured Christ, and divine grace through him. So to those who used them with faith, they could not be absolutely denied to have virtue and effect, with regard to sanctification. It remains, that the law here must be the moral law, which all mankind are, and ever were concerned with ; and which can be called Mosaic only with respect to the particular manner of its promulgation at Sinai, and the subsequent explanations of it by Moses. This law expressing the conditions of the first covenant, doth by its precept require holiness and obedience. In its penal sanction is terrible denunciation against sin, and its promise gave great encouragement to obedience. By all this the law might have had great effect with man in a state of perfection, had he duly attended thereto. But as it could not hinder the transgression of man in a state of perfection, much less can it recover the fallen sinner from the slavery of sin, or set him free from its dominion. The apostle had shown (chap. vii. 5, and vers. 7-13) how matters stand in this respect between the law and persons under it, in their natural condition, in the flesh ; and represents them so as to prove what he had insinuated (chap. vi. 14), viz. that persons under the law are under the dominion of sin. It is evident then, that what the law could not do, was, to make a man free from this dominion of sin. The law's being weak through the flesh comes to the same thing as to say, that the flesh is too strong for the law, with all its light, authority, and terrors, and could not be subdued or cured, but by the, Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. $77 Spirit of life mentioned in the preceding verse ; and this Spirit comes not by the law. God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesli. — The Son of God did not assume human nature in its beauty, strength, and natural perfection, as sinless flesh, or as Adam's in his creation-state ; he assumed it in \^ present natural weakness, obnoxious to the miseries of this life, as sinful men are; designing to bear our griefs, and carry our sorrows. We have occasion here to observe Dr Taylor's sense of this clause, as he gives it in his paraphrase thus : *' God by sending his Son to live as we do, in the flesh, frail, and liable to sin." — That Christ's human nature had the frailty that is now natural to man, is certainly meant by the apostle's expression. But to extend it to moral frailty, is extremely shocking. That Christ's human nature having come into being by the operation of the Holy Ghost, and subsisting in personal union with the divine nature ; that, I say, this blessed divine Person should be said to be liable to sin, must by Christians be accounted quite blasphemous. But this writer differs from Christians in this essential article of their faith, the divinity of the Son of God. He -considers him as a glorious being (on whom he fails not to bestow high language), who was by God truly created before the world ; and in the question of his catechism respecting the incarnation of the Son of God, he says, "He became man by assuming a body like unto ours," without mentioning a human reasonable soul. A human body animated by this pre-existent created being, is according to him, the person of Christ ; which, by his account, is a person neither truly God nor truly man. That this created spirit, and human body united, should be a person liable, in a state of probation, to sin, does well enough suit his notions. This is not a proper place for considering or confuting the heretical doctrine of the Arians concerning the divinity of our Saviour. They who would study that subject, if they will not, or cannot read the writings of learned foreigners, in the Latin tongue, in defence of the 378 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 3 truth, will find that great article of Christian faith sufficiently established by what hath been written in our language above forty years ago ; whereby the Scripture evidence of the truth hath been set forth in a clear light* and the subtilty of the Arians hath been exposed and confuted with great ability and learning. To be liable to sin (as in Dr Taylor's paraphrase) doth not suit the expression of our text. The likeness of sinful flesh must certainly mean something that could not be said of sinless flesh ; otherwise, why should the distinction and character of sinful 'be here used at all? There is a great difference between being actually sinful, and being liable to sin. Adam, in his creation-state, was liable to sin, yet could not, in that state, be called sinful flesh. To be in the likeness of sinfid flesh must certainly mean something else than to be liable to sin ; for even sinless flesh was liable to sin. Dr Taylor did indeed hold, that no man is chargeable with sin, in any respect, or is sinful, until he becomes so by his own actual transgression. But this clause we are considering doth not look favourably on that sentiment. Our Lord underwent the infirmities common to man, and the miseries of life meant in this clause, in his birth and early infancy, and therein was like unto sinful flesh. The common infirmities of human nature, in this lapsed state, and the miseries of life in every period of it, with- out distinction, are, by this clause, connected with men's sinfulness, or their being sinful flesh. If, then, mankind are subjected to the now natural infirmities and miseries of human life, in that early period of infancy and child- hood,— and if Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh in that early period, wherein men are incapable of moral agency, or of actual transgression, it is plain that they are sinful flesh, before they are capable of actually sinning in their own persons. The sense of this clause being clear, we proceed to the next : And for sin. — The Greek 7re/n d/xapTia?, which is the expression here, is very commonly the name of the sin- offering, or sacrifice for sin, of which the English margin gives the hint, rendering thus : and by a sacrifice for sin. Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 379 Dr Whitby, on the place, mentions between thirty and forty instances of the Septuagint translation, wherein this expression means the sin-offering; and hints that a good many more instances might be given. In the New Testament we see that (Heb. x. 6) the expression occurs in that sense. Our translators have supplied the word sacrifice, putting it in a different character, which scarce needed to be done, as sacrifice for sin is so common a sense of the words as they are in the Greek. This did not so well suit Dr Taylor's notions, and therefore he gives for it in his paraphrase — " And by sending him about the affair of sin." This writer had unhappily adopted the doctrine of the Socinians, in denying the substitution of Christ in bearing the punish- ment of our sins; and what important article of Christian faith hath he not laboured to subvert? In his note on this verse, he says the expression means, as Dr Whitby mentions, when joined with a bullock, lamb, &c. (either expressed or understood) appointed by the law for a sin-offering ; " but," saith he, " offering here is not the thing to which -e/n apapTias hath relation, but to God's sending his Son." Mr John Alexander, who follows the sentiments of the other writer pretty closely, observes that rpdyos -epl apap-Las may be rendered, the goat for the sin-offering. " But (so he adds) this will not prove that the words have such a signification in themselves, or when joined with things not usually offered in sacrifice for sin, which is the thing that ought to be proved, in order to show that — (the Greek expression here) may properly be rendered, sending his Son an offering for sin." In the beginning of the next following page (123) he says: " Since, therefore, there is nothing in the context or phraseology in this place, which directs us to understand -e/5i afjLaprias in a sacrificial sense, we must necessarily take the words in their more common acceptance of for or concerning sin, and explain them of one of the great ends of Christ's mission, which was, to reform the world." It is true, that one great end of Christ's mission was to reform the world — to purify to himself a peculiar 380 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3 people ; but the doctrine of these writers tends much to counteract that design, by denying what the wisdom and righteousness of God found necessary for accom- plishing it, even Christ's delivering men from the curse of the law, and from the punishment of their sins, by his own bearing it. They allow that the Greek expression here signifies a sacrifice for sin, when joined with things usually offered in sacrifice. Now, thugh Christ was not usually (being but once) offered in sacrifice, yet it is plain that the Scripture very usually represents him as a sacrifice, and as offering sacrifice, and the sacrificial style is very often used concerning him. For this see particularly Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ix. 26, 28. Yea, Dr Taylor adopts this style of Scripture, and frequently uses sacri- ficial language concerning him. Mr Alexander says (p. 123) there is nothing in the context or phraseology in this place, which directs us to understand -nrcpl afxaprias in a sacrificial sense. But he much mistook the matter;, for the apostle's subject and argument in this place do direct us to understand the expression in the sacrificial sense ; and the phraseology or expression being so very commonly used in that sense, there is very special reason, arising from the subject and argument, for understanding it in that sense here. To explain this, let it be observed, that, as hath been formerly shown, the subject here is making men free from the dominion of sin, and sanctifying them. Let it next be observed, that purifying and sanctifying is often in Scripture connected with the sufferings, death, and sacrifice of Christ, as the consequence thereof. For instance (John xvii. 19), For their sakes I sanctify myself that they also might be sanctified through the truth. More clearly (Tit. ii. 14), Who gave himself for us, that he mi° lit redeem us from all iniquity \ and purify unto himself a peculiar people. More clearly still (Eph. v. 25, 26), Christ — loved the church, and gave himself for it, that lie might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. So likewise 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed (iXvTpa>Or]Te) with corruptible Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 38 1 tilings, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Christ. Thus the general point is clear, that the Scripture connects making men free from the dominion of sin, with Christ's sufferings and sacrifice. More particularly, the verse preceding our present text, mentions the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, as making the Christian free from the law cf sin. But how cometh the Spirit to sinful men, the wretched objects of the curse? Of this we are told (Gal. iii. 13, 14), Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the lazv, being made a curse for ?is ; — that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (that is, through the gospel, the doctrine of faith ; compare ver. 25). And thus the gospel becomes the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Having then mentioned the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the explaining of this in our present text evidently required the apostle's representing Christ as a sacrifice for sin, the condemning of sin as the consequence thereof, and his procuring the Spirit of life for freeing men from the slavery of sin, and sanctifying them. The true sense of the expression in question is now sufficiently cleared and vindicated, and it appears that Dr Taylor and Mr Alexander were very wrong in thinking that there is nothing in the context or phraseology in this place, which directs us to understand 7re/n d/xa/aWas in the sacrificial sense. I had written an essay, to be inserted in this place, on redemption, against the pernicious notions, explanations, and reasoning of Dr Taylor ; but have laid it aside, as too large for this place, though too contracted for the important subject. Enough has been here said to prove the true sense of the expression in our text ; and whether I shall overtake to finish what I have written and designed on the subject, the Lord knows. If I should not, there remain many abler friends and asserters of the truth. One thing, however, it is fit not to neglect. The English translators have, in the margin, prefixed the particle by (and by a sacrifice for sin). It seems they 382 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 3 considered the word a/xapria, as signifying by itself a sin- offering, or sacrifice for sin. So it doth (2 Cor. v. 2), and the Hebrew word answering to it, is very often in the Old Testament put for sin-offering. Upon this view, then, that the substantive noun doth of itself signify sin-offering, they for the preposition prefixed translate by. It may, however, be doubted that the use of the Greek warrants that rendering of the preposition. There is no need or reason for understanding it so here, as both the words together, the preposition and the noun joined in the expression, make so very commonly the name of the sin-offering. God sent his Son a sacrifice for sin. By his being subjected to the infirmities of human nature in this lapsed state, and to the miseries of this life, he, being in himself perfectly innocent and guiltless, was so far bearing our sins all along, and was marked out from the womb as the sacrifice for sin. He was accordingly, in due time, completely and solemnly offered up as such. We go on to the following ex- pression : Condemned sin. — In general, we must understand this as corresponding with the subject the apostle means here to explain, which is, as he had expressed it (ver. 2), making men free from the law of sin, or relieving them from its dominion. But it is necessary to give an exact explication of the words. I observe, that KaraKplvziv, to condemn (which is the word here), and Kpwew, to judge, are sometimes in Scripture used in the same sense ; that is, that the latter sometimes means the same as the former. For though the latter word strictly and properly signifies to judge, yet sometimes it hath a more restricted sense, and signifies judging favourably, as Ps. xxvii. 1, Kpivov fie (so the Septuagint), fudge me, 0 Lord ; that is, judge in my behalf; and so in many other instances. Some- times it hath the restricted sense of judging unfavourably, of which there are likewise divers instances. So John xvi. 11, Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged ; that is condemned. The word is to be understood in the general meaning of judging, or in one or other, Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 383 the favourable, or unfavourable restricted meaning, according to the scope or circumstances of the par- ticular passage. Now I observe, that in the last clause of John xvi. 11, the prince of this world is judged ; it evidently bears the unfavourable sense (as I said before) of condemning, as KaraKpiveiv, in our text : the prince of this world is condemned. For the meaning of this we may have recourse to John xii. 31, Now is the judgment of this "world ; now shall the prince of this world be cast out. As to the first of these clauses, Dr Whitby's annotation on it is : " Now shall the men of this world be con- demned, who believe not in me." But I think the favourable meaning best suits the place, thus : Now is judgment in favour of this world, to deliver it from Satan's delusions and thraldom. Agreeable to this, is the consequence (ver. 32) that Christ being crucified, shall draw all men after him ; that is, not only Jews, who had of a long time been God's peculiar people, but men of all nations ; as the expression, all men, must be here understood, and is so explained even by Dr Whitby. The case was thus : in consequence of Christ's death, which he had now in near view, judgment was to be given in favour of the world, and Satan the prince of the world to be cast out from his throne and dominion, so that Christ by the gospel would draw men of all nations, among whom Satan had reigned, to himself. So then, that Satan the prince of the world is judged (John xvi. 11) means (as John xii. 31) that he is cast out from his dominion and kingdom. We have seen what it means, that Satan is judged or condemned. We are, I think, to understand most reason- ably the condemning of sin here (Rom. viii. 3) in the same way ; as sin, with the lusts thereof, is that by which Satan had ruled in the hearts of men, and in the world. Sin hath had the dominion in men. It is the fruit and effect of the death of Christ, and his being therein a sacrifice for sin (as in our text), that sin is condemned, and cast out from its dominion over men, in order to its final and complete destruction. Thus a 384 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. $ judgment in favour of men being passed against sin. they are made free from the law of sin and death, and are no longer under its thraldom. This was the thing; mentioned (ver. 2), which the apostle has explained in this ver. 3. It is by his being thus made free, that the Christian hath the liberty, disposition, and power to maintain such conflict against sin, as is represented in the latter context of the preceding chapter. That a person, who expresses so much sorrow with regard to sin dwel'ing in him, should, by the prevailing disposition of his soul, yet be adverse to sin, and in conflict with it, is well accounted for and explained by what we have here (chap. viii. 2, 3). The last expression of our text is this : In the flesh. — What flesh is here meant ? or, in what flesh is sin condemned ? I take flesh here in its more general meaning, as signifying human nature. It so means in this same verse. Christ was sent in the like- ness of sinful flesh. Here flesh signifies human nature in general. The corrupt state of human nature is ex- pressed by the prefixed epithet, sinful. It was by what Christ suffered in the flesh (in his human nature, being a sacrifice for sin) that sin came to be condemned, and to lose its dominion. This hath been accomplished. 1. With respect to the flesh, or human nature of Christ himself. The apostle, as was formerly observed, saith (Rom. v. 21) that sin hath reigned unto death. Men, by virtue of the law, became obnoxious to death by the power and reign of sin. Now the greatest instance, beyond all that ever have been, or ever shall be, of this power and reign of sin, appeared in the death of the Son of God, when he put himself in the place and stead of sinners. But then it is condemned, and by this great exertion of its reigning power and strength on the Son of God, it hath lost its power of thus reigning any more, with respect to him, and his human nature. So the apostle says (chap. vi. 9), He dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion over him. If, as Heb. ix. 27, 28, It is appointed for all men once to die ; so Christ was once offeredy Ver. 3] of Romans viii. 385 by which the whole power of sin and death over him was exhausted. The consequence to his people with regard to the reign of sin in their bodily part, and as to this effect, is, that, though according to God's wise constitution it is appointed for them, as for all men, to die ; yet as to them death hath not that penalty in it which the sentence of the law imports ; the sting of sin and the curse of the law are not in it. There is nothing of the reign of sin in their death. There is blessing in their death, by virtue of the grace of the new covenant. 2. Sin is condemned to lose its dominion with respect to its inherence in the souls of God's people, and the absolute prevalence it hath had in their hearts and practice. Though the flesh or human nature, absolutely and generally expressed, includes the whole human race, yet here it must be understood with such limitation, as must reasonably be admitted in many places of Scripture, in which divine grace, its design and effect, is mentioned in general terms. Here is an instance (Tit. iii. 4, 5), But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared — according to his mercy lie saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. In the first clause of these the expression is general and comprehensive — The love of God toward man. Yet the effect in view and expressed, the renewing of the Holy Ghost, is not to all men. So in our present text, though the expression, — condemned sin in the flesh, in human nature, is general, it is not meant that the happy effect takes place in all men universally and singly. This second point is certainly the special thing (not altogether excluding the other}, which must be especially in the apostle's view here. The matter he is explaining is the making men free from the law of sin (ver. 2), which had dominion over them. The condemning of sin in human nature must respect the ejecting it from this dominion, and depriving it of its power. Interpreters do generally think there is in this verse an ellipsis, a word or two wanting, that must be supplied, 386 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3 to express fully the sense ; and some supply thus : What the law could not do, God hath done. But I think there is scarce any need of supposing such an ellipsis, or of supplying it. The sense seems to be fully expressed by the words as they are ; and the construction seems to be clear and regular without supplying. The verb to be constructed with the word God, is expressed, God condemned sin. These words, What the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, may be con- sidered as in parenthesis ; or in interpreting by way of paraphrase, may be transposed to the end of the sentence, thus : God hath condemned sin — which the lazv could not do. The matters contained in this verse are so very important, and it hath appeared so dark, that very learned and judicious interpreters have differed widely about the scope and meaning of it. By all this it became needful to consider it in the most careful and exact manner ; and so the explication hath reached to a considerable length. Paraphrase — 3. I have represented to you in my own name, and from my own sad experience, the case of a true Christian whilst in this life, groaning under sin, which dwelleth in him ; and in ordinary conflict with it, in its inward motions. Such a person, as to the general character of his behaviour, must certainly be one who walketh not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. A person so exercised inwardly, and so walking, is certainly not the slave of sin, or under its dominion. He hath been made free from its law and ruling power ; as I have told you, that I have been by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. I come now to explain to you further, how this happy deliverance from sin's dominion hath been brought about, and to show you what part a gracious God, and his ever-blessed Son, have had in this great change ; which hath been actually effected by the more immediate operation and influence of the Holy Spirit. Thus then it is : God, the blessed Author and original cause of all our salvation, hath sent his own only-begotten Son in our Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 387 nature ; not vested with the dignity, beauty, and vigour of its first and best state ; but in a humble condition, partaking in the infirmities that are natural to us in our lapsed state, and in the common miseries of human life, which on account of sin we have been subjected to : so that from his birth, being perfectly innocent himself, he bore the penal consequences of our sin, and at length, in due time, became a proper sacrifice for our sin, God having made him a sin-offering for us. On which account he hath given forth judgment, as against Satan, so against sin ; the gracious God, by the sacrifice of his Son, and through faith in his blood, bringing sinners into a state of reconciliation and peace with himself; and under grace, hath condemned sin to be dethroned, and deprived of the dominion it hath unhappily had in them ; and so, making them free from its thraldom, he hath put enmity between them and it, which will end in its com- plete destruction, and in their complete salvation. Thus, by the death and sacrifice of Christ, God hath put an end to that power of sin, by which it reigned unto death, even over his Son, so that death can have no more dominion over him, and so that the death of his people hath nothing of the penal consequence or reign of sin in it ; and he hath, by the same means, deprived sin of its dominion in them, by which it hath held them its servants and slaves ; Christ having, by bearing our curse, redeemed us from the curse, and made way for our receiving the blessing of the Spirit through (the doctrine of) faith, the gospel ; the gospel is thereby become the law of the Spirit of life, making us free from the law of sin and death. This great deliverance from the dominion of sin, and making us free from it, the law, however contrary to sin, could not effect ; for as it conveyed not the Spirit, the flesh (the total corruption of nature so called), and the power of sin in it, was too strong for the law, with all its light, authority, promises, and terrors. Thus have I explained to you what I intimated (chap. vi. 14), and what might, at first sight, appear a strange paradox, viz. that persons under the law and its 388 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 curse, are under the dominion of sin, its servants and slaves ; and that sin shall not have dominion over them, who, by the sacrifice of the Son of God, by the blood of his cross, and by faith in his blood, are brought under grace. Text — 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Explication. — The Greek word, SiKcuw^a, admits, yea, requires, to be somewhat variously understood in different places. In the plural number SiKcuwyuara sometimes means the commands of the moral law, and so it is to be understood in Rom. ii. 26, If the uncircumcisiou keep the righteousness (Si/couw/xaTu) of the law. The word, in the singular number, signifies the rule of right taken in general (saith Mr Locke on the place) ; and the plural word here (chap. ii. 26), signifies the particular branches of it contained in the law of Moses, that is, the moral law of the Mosaic promulgation. In Heb. ix. ir SiKaitofiaTa Aarpeias, means, as our translation gives it, the ordinances of divine service. In the singular number, as in our text, it may be rendered righteousness, as in our translation, or right (Jus), as rendered by Beza and the Dutch. It seems to make little difference in the sense which of the two words be taken : though I think the latter word suits the place best, and to render the clause thus : That the right of the law might be fulfilled, or take its full effect. Now, the righteousness of the law which it requires, or the right of the law, is twofold. [. That sin be punished or expiated according to the sanction of the law. This right of the law is fulfilled, or hath taken full effect, in us, by means of Jesus Christ made a sacrifice for sins, and by means of our union with him, he being in us, and we in him by faith, — the righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. v. 21). This Dr Whitby takes to be the subject of the preceding ver. 3, and he does not allow it to be in the meaning of this JVr. 4] OF ROMANS VIII. 389 fourth verse, which he gives thus in his paraphrase : u That the righteousness of the law 'i.e. the inward purity and righteousness the law required) might be performed and fulfilled in and by us, who walk not after the lusts of the flesh, but after the motions of the Spirit^ Toward the end of his annotation on this verse, he writes thus : u Now, these two, viz. freedom from condemnation, and the vouchsafement of the Spirit, being always connected, the apostle goes frequently from the one to the other, first mentioning our freedom from condemnation, then our walking in the Spirit (vers. 1,2); our freedom from the guilt of sin by the death of Christ (ver. 3) ; and then our fulfilling the righteousness of the law bv the Spirit of Christ " (ver. 4). I have given good reasons for not understanding ver. 3, as this writer does ; and have shown that what the laic' could not do (ver. 3), is not justifying the sinner, but the making him free from the law of sin and death. Though the doctor is right in interpreting, tc/h a/iaprias, as divers critics have done, of Christ's being a sacrifice for sin, yet, as to the following clause, — condemned sin, — the learned writer has certainly come short of the meaning, when he interprets it, in his paraphrase, of taking away sin's power to condemn us. It hath been here proved, that, according to the scope of the place, and the style of Scripture elsewhere, the expression is to be understood of taking away the dominion which sin had in us, so that we should be free from its power, and from being its slaves. The just way, then, of conceiving the connection and sense of these two verses, is not that the apostle passes from one subject, oUr freedom from condemnation (ver. 3), to our fulfilling the righteousness of the law by the Spirit (ver. 4) ; but having mentioned (ver. 3) Christ's being a sacrifice for sin (by which we are freed from condemnation), and also the condemning of sin to be deprived of its dominion, by which it made powerful and successful opposition to the law of God ; he proceeds to give a comprehensive view of the end and design of the blessed scheme of divine grace (ver. 4), viz. that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled, or 390 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 that the right of the law might take full effect ; and it being certainly the right of the law, that the transgression of it should be punished, as it hath been by Christ's bearing our sins ; surely there is good reason for including this in the righteousness, or the right of the law, in this first clause of ver. 4. 2. It is the right of the law that the authority of its commandments should be made good and maintained, and that it should be the rule of life and practice. This is an unalterable and unalienable right of the law of God. The Lord could no more dispense with the authority, holiness, and righteousness of his law, than he could deny himself. The grace of God manifested in the gospel is by no means to be conceived as deroga- tory to this right of the law ; nor can any atonement for transgressing the law set God's creatures free from the authority and obligation of his holy commandments. Divine grace, and the expiation made by Christ, are wholly calculated for establishing the law, even in this view, and for giving it full effect. We have seen that Dr Whitby would allow this ver. 4 only to mean that righteousness of the law which Christians perform by the Spirit, walking according thereto. Some other very learned persons will have this verse to respect only that right of the law I have first mentioned, which hath been fulfilled in Christ's bearing our sins, and in us by the application thereof to us ; and will not, by any means, allow that sanctifkation and holy practice is included in the righteousness of the law here mentioned, as to be fulfilled in us. Thus Wolfius (a learned Lutheran divine) says on the text, that this phrase, ev rjfiw, in us, hath by no means any respect to the obedience to the law to be performed by us, but, to the satisfaction given by Christ as an ex- piatory sacrifice, without us, and for us. He adds, if the apostle had meant the demand of the law to be performed by us, his expression would not have been 6v tJ/xu/, in us, but such as behoved to be rendered, /^r nos, or a nobis, by us. This argument seems not to amount to much. As our obedience to the law in actual Ver. 4] OF KOMA.VS VIII. 39 1 and active practice is the immediate and certain conse- quence of making us free from the dominion of sin, and the sanctifying of our nature and heart, which are effects produced by divine grace in us, it is but reasonable to include in the meaning of the right, or righteousness of the law to be fulfilled in us, our conformity to that law in holiness : as the general scope of the apostle's dis- course requires that the words be so understood. Dr Guise, in his note on this verse, says : " We can- not be properly said to fulfil the righteousness of the law by our own imperfect (though sincere) obedience to its precepts ; much less to give satisfaction to its threatenings, both of which go into the righteousness that a broken law demands." These sentiments of the judicious and worthy writer are quite just. But the interpretation here offered doth not make the words to mean, that the right of the law takes full effect, or that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled by the imperfect, though sincere, obedience of any Christian in this life. This seems, indeed, to be Dr Whitby's opinion. But, however, the true believer being, and continuing to be, in union with Christ, and in a justified state through faith, both himself and his sincere (though imperfect) services are graciously accepted, yet to say, that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled by this imperfect obedience, is evidently absurd, and amounts to no less than a contradiction in terms. For imperfect obedience is an obedience that comes short of what the law requires ; if it did not, it would be perfect obedience. Now, to say that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled by an obedience that falls short of what the law require-, is evident contradiction. On the other hand, though it be allowed that both the active and passive perfect obedience of Christ was necessary, in order to the sinner's being not only freed from condemnation, but also being received into a state of adoption, — an heir of eternal life, and of the heavenly inheritance ; yet still the right of the law subsists as to the demand of perfect obedience and conformity on the part of them who are in a justified state, and under 392 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. \ grace. If, sincerely aiming at walking in the light, they fall short and sin, it is happy for them, that the blood of Jesus Christ (i John i. 7) cleanses them from and takes away their sin. But there would be no need of this to persons in a state of grace, if the right of the law to require perfect obedience did not still subsist with respect to them. But it is the design of divine grace to bring God's people to a state wherein the righteous- ness which the law hath right to require, shall be ful- filled in the perfect obedience and conformity of these objects of grace. The text doth not say, that it is ful- filled in their walking, in this state of imperfection, not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. But as (ver. 1) it was given as the mark of them who are truly in Christ Jesus, and made free from condemnation, that they so walk ; so here (ver. 4), as to them in whom divine grace hath purposed that the right of the law shall take full effect, or the righteousness of it be fulfilled, on the one hand, by the fulfilment thereof by their blessed Surety in their stead and behalf, and on the other, by their own personal perfect conformity thereto at last; it is again given as their distinguishing mark and characteristic, even in this life, that they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Their so walking, though with much imper- fection, is the sure mark of them in whom the righteous- ness of the law will sometime be fulfilled, in their perfect conformity thereto in holiness. The apostle's mentioning here again this very distinguishing mark, gives him occasion to pass to these doctrines and ex- plications concerning the flesh and the Spirit, which are presented in the following context, which hath not fallen within my design to explain in this work. With respect to the explication here given of ver. 4, I subjoin the following passage of Paranis. " In explicatione dubiorum in cap. 8 ad Romanos ; et in responsione ad dubium quartum, ex versu quarto. " Est autem jus legis duplex, 1. Condemnandi et puniendi peccatores. 2. Post paenam, si, emerserint, rursus exigendi perfectam obedientiam. — Significaturergo geminus mortis Christi effectus in nobis; justificatio et Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VIIL 393 sanctificatio. Per illud impletur jus lc^is in nobis im- putatione — per istam lex impletur in nobis inchoatione — hrcc inchoata obedientia perfecta dici potest, perfectione partium — perfecte vero implebitur in nobis quando id quod est ex parte cessabit" It is needless to translate this passage, as I have given the sense of it largely in the explication of this verse 4, immediately preceding, which it appears is not new, as the same hath been given long ago by this eminent divine Before we conclude our explication of this fourth verse with the paraphrase of it, it is fit that from what we have seen in this context, we observe what hath been the design, and what the real consequence of the wonderful grace of God, the Father, of his Son Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, with regard to the holy, just, and good law of God. This is the more to be adverted to, that the most true and just account of the doctrine of grace hath been considered and represented by some, as derogating from the honour and authority of the law. But if the apostle has proved that the law cannot justify any man, this reflects no dishonour on the law. man having trans- gressed. In this case it became the law, not to justify, but to assign just punishment. The honour and authority of the law required this. He hath also proved, that the law cannot sanctify a sinner. But this is owing to the pravity and perverse- ness of men's nature, in which sin, with its various lusts, hath dominion, not to the defect of any thing that should be in the law, which marks out to men perfectly their duty, with a sanction of suitable promise and threatening. Surely there is no honour given to the law by those proud zealots of the law, who think by their own righteous- ness, doing in some poor sort what it was at anvrate and ever their duty to do perfectly, that they can cover the defects of their obedience to the law, and make the trans- gression of it pass for nothing. Nor do they give honour either to grace or to the law, who suppose that the grace of the new covenant hath made abatement of the holiness required by the law, and hath substituted sincere, though imperfect obedience, m 394 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4 the place of the perfect obedience which the law hath originally and ever required. Grace hath provided much otherwise for the comfort and salvation of sinners, and for the honour of the law. The righteousness of the law must at anyrate be fulfilled in us, and its right have full effect. If they who give full scope to their lusts, in the indulgence and gratification of them, do offer dishonour to the law of God, some noisy and pretending zealots of the law, and of good works, come into the next class to those for offering dishonour and disgrace to the perfectly holy and righteous law of God. If sinful man was to be saved, it did not fall to the part of the law to produce the great effect. It could not possibly be effected but by grace : and the sinner is justified by grace through faith, not by the law or by his works. He is, at the same time, made free from the dominion of sin in him, not by the law properly so called, but by the gospel, as it is the law of the Spirit of life ; and by the sanctification of the Spirit is he made holy ; and all this of the most free and abounding grace. But we proceed to the Paraphrase. — 4. The divine scheme and method of grace effects and accomplishes the salvation of God's people in a way highly honourable to the law. Grace frees from condemnation and justifies them through the redemption that is in Christ, and by his blood, and by his having become a sacrifice for sin : God, as from infinite love to his people, so from infinite regard to his righteous law, not sparing his own Son, when he was substituted in their stead to bear the punishment of their sin : and thus the right of the law, with respect to the punishment of transgression, hath taken full effect, for the redemption of the transgressors, in a manner most honourable to the law, and to its authority, and hath taken effect in them by virtue of their union with Christ, and their being the righteousness of God in him. God's people being thus brought under grace, sin cannot have dominion in them. Being made free from the curse of the righteous law, sin is at the same time Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VIII. 395 deprived, by a just sentence of condemnation, of its dominion ; they are blessed with the Spirit ; by him they are made free from the law of sin ; and being sanctified, they are advanced in holiness from one degree to another, until at length they are perfected therein. Nor doth grace bring its blessed objects to the perfection of bliss and happiness, but at the same time that it brings them to the perfection of obedience to the authority of the law, and to perfect conformity to its holiness ; and thus the right of the law taketh full effect in them, as to all its demand of punishment, or of obedience and con- formity. Thus, if from the law there arose a necessity, for the saving of sinners, of the most rich and abounding grace, grace doth save them in such way as not to make void the law, but to establish it. The hoi)' divine law and divine grace reflect glory ; the one upon the other reciprocally ; and both will shine forth with joint glory eternally in heaven. The law setting forth, in the brightest light, the beauty of holiness, and the vileness and fearful demerit of sin, will show the abounding grace that hath brought the children of wrath thither, with infinite lustre and glory ; and grace will do honour to the law, by showing in sinners, formerly very vile and polluted, the purity and holiness of the law full)' exemplified in their perfect sanctification ; and Christ, the Lamb that was slain, by whom the interests of the law and of grace have been happily reconciled and inseparably united, will be glorified in his saints, and admired in them who believe. We, in whom the righteousness of the law doth already take place in a good degree, and in whom it shall be completely fulfilled hereafter, being such as are distinguished, in this life, by walking, not after the flesh (which is not subject to the law of God), in the grosser gratification of its lusts, or in the more refined way of a slavish, mercenary, self-exalting, carnal religion ; but after the Spirit, who writes the law, with its authority and holiness, in our hearts, enabling us to mortify fleshly lusts, and to serve God in newness of life, under his influence ; who is not a spirit of fear, but of power, of 396 EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VIII. [ Ver. 4 love, and of a sound mind ; we having, according to the necessity of our state of imperfection, the blood of Jesus to cleanse us from all sin ; even that blood, in the shedding of which the right of the law did so remark- ably take effect, and by the daily and constant application whereof to us, the right of the law takes effect, and its righteousness is fulfilled in us. APPENDIX WHEREIN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE, PRINCIPLES, .\Nl> REASONING, ARE APPLIED TO THE PURPOSES OF HOLY PRACTICE, AND OF EVANGELICAL PREACHING. SECT. I. — Containing a Recapitulation of the Apostle's Doctrines and Principles in the context before explained. HAVING searched carefully into the scope of this context, and the meaning of the particular parts thereof, it now appears very clearly, that the apostle's design is, therein to set forth and explain the gospel doctrine of sanctifica- tion. This subject he keeps all along in view, until he doth, in the first four verses of chap. viii. give the summary of all the doctrines and explications contained in the two preceding chapters concerning it. In the course of his reasoning, he labours carefully to show the different condition of persons under the law, and of those under grace, with regard to sin and the practice of holiness. Divers interpreters have, by being under the law or under grace, understood being under the Mosaic law, <>r under the grace of the gospel-dispensation ; and that the apostle's view and purpose is, to show to believers who were of the Gentiles, that they were free from the obliga- tion of that law, had no need of it, nor had any disadvan- tage by not being subjected to it ; and to convince those believers who were of the Jews, that they acted contrary to their real, and most valuable interest, by 398 RECAPITULATION OF APOSTLE 'S DOCTRINE their attachment to the Mosaic law, now that God did set even them also free from its obligation. Enough hath been said to disprove this interpretation ; and it hath been shown, that we have no reason to think the apostle means by the law in this discourse, any other law than that which all men have been concerned with. To say, that by being under the Mosaic law, persons were under the dominion of sin (mentioned chap. vi. 14) were extremely unreasonable. True believers, the spiritual seed of Abraham, were, during the Old Testa- ment, under grace ; and the case of millions proves, that men may be under the New Testament dispensation of grace, and not be under grace as to the real state of their souls, nor made free from the dominion of sin. But referring for these things to what hath been said in the proper places, we find with the apostle in this context, these important matters : — 1. To be under the law, and to be married or united to Christ, are conditions of men that are incompatible. Persons become dead to (free from) trie law (chap. vii. 4), that they may be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead. 2. Persons under the law, not married to Christ, are incapable (while in that state) of bringing forth fruit unto God. Persons not delivered from the law, are (ver. 6) incapable of serving in newness of spirit. What accounts for this is, 3. That whilst persons are under the law, they are (chap. vii. 5) in the flesh, under the power and prevalence of natural corruption ; being (chap. viii. 9) destitute of the Spirit, which cometh not by the law (Gal. iii. 2). So that they who are under the law, in the flesh, cannot please God, cannot do what is acceptable to God (Rom. viii. 8). 4. In this state, the law, with its whole force directed against sin, yet doth not subdue sin. Instead of that, there are in men in the flesh, under the law, motions of sins by the law (chap. vii. 5, and ver. 8). Sin taking occasion by the commandment, and thereby awakened, worketh in a man all manner of concupiscence. Hence, IN THE CONTEXT BEFORE EXPLAINED 399 5. Sinners under the law, and in the flesh, are under the dominion of sin, its servants and slaves (chap. vi. 14, 17, 20), unable by any powers of their own to deliver themselves from that slavery, or from under that dominion. The notion of dominion and slavery imports no less. 6. It is Christ who maketh a sinner free from this slavery, and from the dominion of sin. Whosoever committeth sin is (John viii. 34) tlie servant of sin. So here (chap vi. 16), To whom men yield themselves servants to obey, his servants they are to whom they obey. But (John viii. 36), They whom the Son shall make free, shall be free indeed. The apostle's discourse explains this general matter by the following particulars. 7. Sinners owe their being made free from sin, or being dead to sin, to the death of Christ, and to their fellow- ship with him in his death, and in the benefits and fruits thereof, which is exhibited and sealed to Christians in their baptism (chap. vi. 3, 4). For, 8. Christ, in his death, was a sacrifice for sin (chap, viii. 3). And as this was not for his own sin, but for the sins of his people, the law which denounced death to sinners in its righteous sanction, is satisfied in their behalf, by his death. So, 9. Christians are redeemed from the curse of the law (Gal. iii. 13) by Christ's being made a curse for them; and, as here (chap. vii. 4), they are dead to (made free from) the law, and the death and fearful curse it denounces, by the body of Christ crucified. If sin, by virtue of the law which gave it that strength, hath reigned unto death, Christ, coming in our place and stead, did become subject to that reign of sin. But by his death (chap. vi. 10) he died unto sin, and so became free from that reign of sin unto death ; and therefore it is (as ver. 9) that he dietli no more — death hath no more dominion over him ; in consequence of which, .believers should reckon themselves to be dead INDEED unto sin (ver. 11). So that now their death is not by the reign of sin, nor is the sting of it in their death. 10. The consequence of Christ's becoming a sacrifice 400 RECAPITULATION OF APOSTLES DOCTRINE for sin is, likewise, that God hath condemned sin to be dethroned and deprived of the dominion it hath had in his people (chap. viii. 3). 11. This judgment and condemnation is executed by the gospel conveying the Holy Spirit into the souls of God's people, and so becoming the law of the Spirit of life (in or through) Jesus Christ, making them free from the law and dominion of sin and death. 12. Thus sinners, being justified through faith in Jesus Christ, even through faith in his blood (Rom. iii. 24, 25), and sanctified by being born of the Spirit (John iii. 5 ; 2 Thess. ii. 13), they pass from death to life ; from being under wrath and the curse of the law, to be under grace (Rom. v. 1, 2). And so sin shall not have dominion over them, according to chap. vi. 14. 13. Yet, whilst they continue in this life, sin remaining in them will give them trouble, and they will be ever in such danger of hurt by it, that their case will require constant fear, watchfulness, and conflict. But whilst, by their groaning for sin that dwelleth in them, and their conflict against it, they prove that they are not its slaves, nor under its dominion, they have, at the same time, cause to thank God through Jesus Christ, as for making them free from its dominion, so for the sure prospect of being hereafter perfectly delivered from it. 14. Christians having sorrow or serious regret for sin in them, and being in earnest conflict with the law in their members, with the lusts, and irregular passions, and inordinate affections of the flesh, their way of walking cannot (as to their ordinary and habitual course) be after the flesh ; nor can they be the slaves of sin ; but being made free from sin, and become servants to God (chap, vi. 22), they walk after the Spirit, have their fruit unto holiness (which is the necessary and certain characteristic of the true Christian), and the end everlasting life; to which end and final issue holiness is indispensably necessary — though, however necessary, yet eternal life is not proper wages which men win by their holiness, but is the gift of God through Jesus Christ. THE ADVANTAGE OE BEING UNDER GRACE. 4OI SECT. II. — Showing the advantage, with regard to holiness, that ariseth from persons being under grace. The advantage to sinners, with regard to holiness, is either such as is, in some sort, extrinsic, arising from the blessed privilege and benefits of a state of grace ; or such as ariseth from genuine principles of holiness, and of holy practice in the souls of those who are under grace, that cannot have place or operate in any who are not so. To explain the advantage, with regard to holiness and holy practice that is in some sort extrinsic, arising from the privilege of a state of grace, let the following matters be considered. 1. When men, by their guiltiness, were under the curse of God's law, this withheld from them these blessings and favourable influences of heaven, by which their souls, being made good soil, might become fruitful in holiness and good works. As the earth, when the curse seized it, was to produce naturally thorns and thistles, so the hearts of persons under the law and its curse, do produce no fruit truly good and acceptable. Men being in the flesh, in an unjustified state, and sin having the dominion over them, Satan hath ruled in them, and by means of sin, and the lusts thereof, he hath wrought effectually in them. But it will not be so with them who are under grace, in a state of favour with God. These enemies may infest, but shall not have the dominion over them. The virtue of Christ's death having reached them in their being born of God, and in their gratuitous justification, sin is condemned to lose its rule in them ; the prince of this world is judged and cast out. If it is comfortable in relation to our outward enemies, it is especially with respect to our invisible and spiritual enemies, as Rom. viii. 31, If God be for us, who can be against us? Christians being justified by faith and under grace, this, as hath been hinted above, opens to them the treasures of heavenly blessings. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (now become their God and Father through him) blesseth them (as Eph. i. 3) with 2 C 402 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. This must have much sanctifying effect. Particularly and especially having been born of the Spirit, justified, and brought into a state of grace, God giveth them His Spirit to dwell in them (chap. viii. 9), and they are sealed by the Spirit unto the day of redemption. Formerly Satan wrought in them by means of the blindness and errors of their mind, and by means of the various lusts that prevail in their unrenewed hearts. But now the strong man is despoiled of his armour, the curse of the law, and sin dominant in them ; and he hath not the ad- vantage over them that he hath formerly had. Being renewed in the spirits of their minds, and having the Holy Spirit dwelling in them, he doth direct and rule their renewed faculties for the advancement of their sanctification. His more special reproofs and consola- tions, his humbling and quickening influences, he measures variously to them, with infinite wisdom, in the manner most proper for further subduing sin, and promoting holiness. Dwelling in them, and being in them as a well of water springing up unto everlasting life, he will be in them an effectual principle of spiritual and heavenly desires and pursuits, and a true source of holiness, — a principle effectually directing and disposing them to walk after the Spirit. 2. By reason of the influence of the Spirit thus dwell- ing in them who are under grace, and entitled to the comforts of it, they will find their comfort much concerned in holy living and practice. The comfort of Christians arises from objects which, however agreeable to right reason when revealed, yet are above the reach of reason to discover, and are not suitable to the principles and disposition natural to the hearts of men ; such objects as eye hath, not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered into the heart of man. So the apostle says concerning the doctrine of Christ and of grace ( 1 Cor. ii. 9) : As we need the Spirit that is of God (ver. 12), that we may know the things that are freely given us of God ; so to maintain usually, and with advantage, the comfort of our heart on such grounds, requires the ordinary and favour- ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 403 able influence of the same Spirit of grace. But, as sin indulged and entertained in the heart, or having course in men's speech and behaviour, grieveth the Holy Spirit (as the apostle speaks, Eph. iv. 30), the consequence will be, that he shall withhold his favourable influence, and leave them to that sense of condemnation that is natural to the hearts of the guilty, and to the darkness of mind and inward frame that naturally flows from it. In this case the reasoning of their own minds, however just, will have but very weak influence or effect for recovering their peace, and for enabling them to overcome the temptations which the enemy of their peace and comfort will in such cases be ever ready to suggest. Now, as the peace and comfort of his mind from grace is a very important interest of every one who is under grace, the connection between holiness and comfort by the influence of the Holy Spirit, which I have been repre- senting, is a constant and most cogent reason to every such person to be watchful against sin, and earnestly studious of holiness. 3. Holiness is greatly promoted by the advantage which persons under grace have in worship. Divine worship, inward and outward, public and private, makes of itself a considerable branch of holy practice ; and when it is followed out with good conscience, sincerity, and success, hath much good effect in all the course of holy practice and good works. One under grace approaches God in worship with great advantage. I observe this connection in the apostle's words (Heb. ix. 14 , where he represents the blood of Christ as purging the conscience from dead works, to serve [Xarpefeiv] the living God. When the conscience unpurged lieth under guilt and condemnation, one is greatly at a loss in serv- ing and worshipping God. But when one is justified, brought under grace, and hath his conscience purged from guilt and condemnation, he may approach and worship God with confidence and comfort. Godly persons under the Old Testament, however truly under grace, had not this benefit in so great a degree as now under the New Testament, when grace is more fully 404 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS displayed, and the Spirit given in greater than ordinary measure. Now all believers are priests, with respect to the privilege of near approach unto God. Yea (which exhibits the matter in a still stronger light), whereas anciently the high priest only went into the most holy place, in near approach to God's throne, the mercy-seat ; now all believers have boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, through the vail that was rent, — that is to say, his flesh, and to come up as to God's very throne of grace. Believers have, according to Eph. iii. 12, boldness, or liberty (in opposition to bondage of spirit) and access with confidence, by the faith of him. This makes the worship of God comfortable. When the Spirit helpeth our infirmity in such holy exercise, making inter- cession for us, according to the will of God, and likewise in return intimates, in due time and measure, the love, mercy, and favour of God to the heart, this further engages the heart to God, which is of itself the further sanctifying of it, and gives great alacrity and vigour in walking with God, and in all good works. When in worship God gives inwardly the sense of his favour, and the light of his countenance, or when he gives in outward providence proofs of his faithfulness, mercy, and care, in consequence of earnest recourse to him, and as in answer to prayer, it powerfully disposes the heart to say (as Ps. cxvi. i, 2), I love the Lord, because he hath heard my voice, and my supplications. Because he hath inclined his ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I live. And ver. 9, / will walk before the Lord in the laud of the living. And ver. 12, What shall I render unto the Lord? Such is the good consequence of comfortable and successful recourse to God in worship. It is easy to understand what happy effect this sort of intercourse with God must have in all holy practice, and in walking with God. Thus they who are under grace have the strongest engagements, and the greatest excitements to holy living, by the advantage which they comfortably have, in their intercourse with God in worship, beyond what men can have who are under the law and its condemnation. ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 405 4. The grace they are under cloth especially give efficacy to the doctrine of the word of the gospel, to every part of the word of God, and to all divine institutions, as the chief ordinary means of promoting holiness. The prayer of the great Intercessor, that God miglit sanctify them through his truth, will have effect upon all his true disciples. The light of God's word doth mark out to them, in every part, the way in which they ought to walk ; and giveth them instruction in righteousness. God's Spirit bringeth his holy command- ments and righteous judgments into their renewed hearts, in such a manner as makes them sweeter to them than honey — than the honey-comb. By God's word they receive seasonable and apposite correction and reproof, agreeably seasoned with the love of their best friend. If the threatenings of it are made useful for curbing the rebelliousness and wickedness of the flesh, the promises and comforts of it are especially made useful for strengthening and quickening the principles of grace, and for making them active in all fruits of holiness. The good hope through grace which God's word holds forth before them, is made effectual for raising them above the world, and making them victorious over the terrifying and alluring temptations of it, and for en- couraging- them to be steadfast and immovable, alwavs abounding in the work of the Lord. The securities of God's promises give vigour to their hearts in walking with God, and in maintaining the Christian warfare against sin inwardly, and outwardly also ; even if there should be occasion to resist unto blood, striving against sin. If we observe how it happens as to them who are yet in an unconverted state, and under the curse, whilst they are under the same dropping of the word of God, usually with little effect ; we have occasion to say, it is happy, with a view to the sanctifying effect of the truth, for one to be under grace, as to his real state before God. 5. The grace which God's people, freely justified, are under, will direct everything in an effectual tendency to their sanctification and furtherance in holiness. It will 406 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, give that direction to all providential dispensations. If these be favourable, it will be for encouraging and strengthening them in the Lord's ways. For sometimes they are encouraged to serve the Lord their God with joyfulness and gladness of heart, in the abundance of all things* If they have the cross to bear, that will tend to make the fruits of the cross of Christ the more precious to them ; to take off their hearts from the world ; to preserve them from the prevailing evils of it ; and for that end, to co-operate with divine grace to mortify their members that are upon the earth ; to cause the consolations of grace have the better relish in their hearts ; to humble them, and keep them in the greater dependence on the Lord and on his grace. Nor are strokes and crosses dispensed to them in- discriminately. The Lord corrects them in judgment, not in mere anger. t In measure when it shooteth forth, doth he debate with it ; he stayeth his rough wind in the day of the east wind.; Judgments are not pro- portioned to the demerits of those who are under grace, but are suited to their strength, and the good purposes to be accomplished by them. God is faithful, and will not suffer that the objects of his grace and special favour be tempted above that they are able.§ If they are chastened, it is in order to separate them from their sins. The declared intention of all God's chastisements is the profit of his children, that thereby they may be made partakers of his holiness.]] If there is special danger from a particular lust of the flesh (for instance, from pride, or being exalted above measure), the Lord .knoweth how to give some special trial or thorn in the flesh, to prevent its operation and effect. If the flesh breaks forth in evil works, he will visit their transgres- sion with • the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.^I . When the Lord sees that, through their weakness and the greatness of their distress and trouble, they are in clanger to fail in their faith, or in their general integrity, * Deut. xxviii. 47. t Jcr. x. 24. X Isa. xxvii. 8. § 1 Cor. x. 13. lleb. xii. 10. % Ps. lxxxix. 32. ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 407 he will relieve them by a seasonable interposition of his providence. — He repentetli himself for his servants, when he seeth that their power is gone* If, through their un- watchfulness, the flesh and the devil prevail against them, and they fall into grievous sins (the leaving them to which is the most fearful of all providential dispensa- tions), yet divine grace, wisdom, and omnipotence, will make even this to contribute, as to making them more humble, so to the making them more circumspect and holy in all their ways ; as we have cause to think con- cerning David and divers other saints. What wonder of grace this ! Such is the direction which the grace they are under gives to every sort of providences re- specting God's people, causing all things co-operate with grace for good to them, sanctifying all dispensations to them, to be the means of sanctifying them. How different the case of men of the world, who, though under an external dispensation of grace, yet are not under grace as to the real state of their souls ! 6. The habitual view and impression of the great day of the Lord must give great excitement to watchfulness against sin and temptation, to holiness and fruitfulness in good works. But to them who are under condemna- tion, the thoughts of that day bring so great terror, as tends to turn away their mind from the view of it ; or, if they cannot do so, to give them such alarm and confusion, as bring distress and perplexity upon them, with so much weakness as is prejudicial to holiness. But a soul truly converted to God, justified and under grace, has cause to think of that day with great comfort ; looking for the grace that is to be brought unto him at the revelation of Jesus Christ,! which will bring him complete deliverance from sin, redemption from misery and death, with the consummation of holiness and happi- ness. He may with confidence wait for the Son of God from heaven, whom God raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to comet Such is the advantage of being under grace, whereby + r Pet. i. T3. X 1 Thess. i. 10. 408 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, a Christian, delivered from the wrath to come, may fix his mind on that day with peace and comfort ; excited by the hope he hath in Christ Jesus against that day, to purify himself as he is pure ; * while there remain to be considered, consistently with the consolations of grace, those awful circumstances of the coming of the Lord, that may, though without confusion or amazement, awaken in the Christian the utmost concern, to be found of him in peace, without spot and blameless.t 7. As the people of God are the purchase of Christ's blood, so when his blood is actually applied to them, and they are justified and brought under grace, they are from thenceforth his most special charge, committed to himself to rule and preserve them, and complete their salvation. He is sufficient for the charge, and faithful in the execution of it. He doth fulfil the will of his Father, of which he saith (John vi. 39), This is the will of him that sent me, that of all which he hath given me, 1 should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. With a view to this important charge of its happy objects, which divine grace commits to the Redeemer, all things are delivered to him of his Father, who hath given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as he hath given him.j All power is given him in heaven and in earth ; § and it is given him to be Head over all things to the Church.|| The Captain of our salvation, infinitely powerful in himself, and mighty to save, being furnished with such extensive power in his mediatory character for bringing many sons unto glory, the great work he hath to do upon them, upon his church, is, that he may sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he may present it to himself a glorious church I % It is when all. his church shall be gathered in, and fully sanctified, that he shall bring them home to God (his and their Father), to be perfectly happy in the im- mediate fruition of him — when God himself shall be * 1 John iii. 3. t 2 Pet. ii. 14. $ John xvii. 2. § Matt, xxviii. 18. II Eph i. 22. H Eph. v. 26, 27. ARIS1XG FROM RERSOXS BEIXG LXDER GRACE 409 to his people eternally all in all* Thus the sancti- fication of believers is insured by their being given in charge, for that purpose, to him who died for them, and rose again. He is the great Shepherd of the sheep, who saith (John x. 28), They shall never perish^ neither shall any pluck them out of my Jiand. Is this merely, that the enemy cannot pluck them by force out of the hands of Christ or of his Father? Surely this is not the way in which the enemy chiefly attempts to work against Omnipotence. " But this maybe done" (saith a learned writer. Dr Whitby) " by deceit and allurements, through the negligence of men who have the freedom of their wills ; for such men who, by the allurements of the world, the flesh, and the devil, thus cease to obey Christ's laws, are not snatched out of Christ's hands, but choose to go from him." But if souls may, in this way, be brought away from Christ, and from His ways, to perdition (as this is the way in which the enemy doth ever attempt it, even by allure- ments or terrors, or some means or other of deceiving, to gain their will), is not this snatching them out of Christ's hands? And if, through the cunning of the enemy, and their wandering disposition, the sheep are brought aside from their pasture and from the right way, and finally perish, alas ! what a small matter doth the care of the great Shepherd amount to? If one might perish by these means, and by the choice ol their own will, however influenced, might not all ? and so this great Shepherd have no flock to bring home to the fold in the end of the day; and Christ, having died for his church, that he might sanctify it, and present it a glorious church, in the end have no church to present? Can we not hold what is just concerning the liberty of human will, without holding concerning it what would make it possible that the Son of God should have no work to do at his glorious second coming, but to execute eternal vengeance upon them all whom, when he came first, he redeemed with his blood? Surely the divine council of * 1 Cor. xv. 28. 410 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, grace, and the death of the Son of God, have been contrived by infinite wisdom with greater certainty of effect. 8. It appears, then, that the Lord's people have very great advantage with regard to sanctification and the preserving them in holiness, by their being under grace. But, further, this is secured by a sure covenant. The grace they are under is the grace of the new covenant. If we consider, that man, in his first and perfect state, did fall from God through the temptation of the enemy, and his abuse of the freedom of his own will — if we consider what place and strength sin retains now in the hearts of the best whilst in this life, how weak they arey and what innumerable snares and temptations they are surrounded with — we may venture to say, that it were not becoming the wisdom of God to make a new display of his grace to such creatures, in a new covenant, without ordering it so as would secure the effect of grace. It becomes us, indeed, to reason modestly concerning the wisdom of God, and what becometh it. But with regard to the present subject, we may thus reason the more confidently, that his word hath declared his new and second covenant to be everlasting, well ordered, and sure. Here is the sum of it, as the Lord hath given it forth (Jer. xxxii. 40), / will make an everlasting covenant with tli em, tli at I will not turn away from them (Heb. from after them) to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Here, besides the general declaration, that the covenant will be everlasting, the Lord doth more particularly describe how it shall become so. Upon the one hand, he promises that he will not turn away from after them to do them good. Thus he expresses and promises his constant care of them. As they are, whilst in this life, but as children learning to walk, and still in danger of stumbling, he will set them before him — he will follow after them, to observe them, to care for them. Thus the Psalmist (Ps. xli. 12) : As for me, saith he, thou upholdest me in mine integrity, and adds for comfortable explaining this, Thou settest me before thy face for ever. As if he had ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 4II said, I am ever before thy face — under thine eye, to be seasonably corrected and helped by thee ; and thus it is that thou upholdest me in mine integrity. Thus also (Gen. xvii. 1), The Lord said unto A brain, I am the Almighty God ; walk before me and be thou perfect. Here there is a hint to him of being careful to be perfect, or upright and sincere, as walking before an all-seeing God. Yet God's omniscience is only implied, not expressed. The thing expressed is God's being almighty ; and the encouragement meant we may conceive thus : When I have engaged thee to walk in my way, have good courage ; consider thyself as a child walking before, and under the eye of a kind father; consider me as ever after thee, to observe and care for thee, to assist, support, and protect thee. Thus the Lord promises (Jer. xxxii. 40) that he will not turn from after his people, to do them good. The only thing, then, that can be imagined to deprive them of the benefit of this divine care and grace, is, that they should depart from the Lord, and from his ways, and so refuse his care, resist it, and withdraw themselves from it. But this is provided against by the promise, / will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. If the tenor of the covenant were thus : I will not cease to do them good, on condition that they cleave to me, obey me, and not depart from me ; if, I say, the covenant amounted to no more than this, it would be a law-covenant, even if there should be some abatement in the condition, in condescension to human infirmity. Whereas the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise, that gives security, by mere grace, on all hands, with regard to the sanctification of God's people, and their preservation in a state and course of holiness, to their final salvation. The right inheritance is not by the law, or by works. For if they which are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect. Tlierefore it is of faith, that it might be by GRACE, to the end the PROMISE might be SURE to all the seed (Rom. iv. H, 16). . But is it not true, if the Christian should wholly and 412 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, finally depart from God, that this would deprive him of all the benefit of grace ? I answer, This hypothetic pro- position is of undoubted truth ; yea, the truth of it is implied and pre-supposed in the promise itself, which is likewise of certain and infallible truth, — / will put my fear in their hearts, that they SHALL NOT depart from me. But how can it be consistent with that freedom of will that is essential to moral agency, that the sanctification and perseverance in holiness of God's people should be thus previously secured by grace, and by the promise ? Answer. It is acknowledged that none can be called moral agents who do not act with freedom of will ; yet there are moral agents who are incapable of doing what is evil, and at the same time, do not act with the less freedom of will ; yea, they enjoy the liberty of the will in its perfection. There are likewise moral agents who cannot do what is truly morally good, yet act with free will. This is acknowledged by the greatest patrons of the pretensions of free will. So, the general proposition, that the power alike to do good or evil is essential to the freedom of the will, and is necessary to moral agency, is deserted, I see, by the most able and learned of them. The saints in a state of glory will, by the grace that brought them to that state, be preserved in holiness eternally, and that very consistently with the freedom of their will. Shall it be said concerning the saints on earth, amidst their own imperfections, and the snares that abound in the world, that it is indeed beyond the reach of infinite wisdom and grace to preserve them in holiness, to advance and perfect them therein, without destroying the freedom of their will ? It certainly were very un- reasonable to say so. As it is certainly true, that men, as all other moral agents, do act with free will, so we have seen that God's covenant of grace and promise hath secured the sanctification and perseverance of those who are under grace. The word of God abounds with promises to that purpose. If any say that God cannot accomplish with certainty these purposes of his grace and providence, that are to be brought about by means of moral agents endowed with free will, without destroying AR/SEYG FROM PERSONS BEIXG UNDER GRACE 413 the freedom of their will, they are far from being well founded in philosophy or sound reason, and speak in extreme opposition to the word of God, yea, to the common notions of mankind, who pray to God to bring about events that must, by the nature of things, be brought about by the free will of rational agents, without ever thinking that he is to destroy or suspend the liberty of their will. We have been considering the advantage, in some sort extrinsic, respecting holiness and freedom from the dominion of sin, even that which ariseth from a state of grace, from the believer's being under grace, the object of special divine favour. Let us now consider the advan- tage of an intrinsic sort, which the true Christian hath by being under grace, as to the true and necessary inward principles of genuine holiness, which cannot take place or have effect in any soul that is under the law and its curse, under guilt and condemnation. It is of essential consequence with regard to holiness, that a man have right inward principles in all his actions. A man's external actions and behaviour may be gocd, and yet have nothing of true holiness, if all doth not proceed from right inward principles. Yea, a man doing much good outwardly, from evil principles, and to a wrong end, his course upon the whole may be quite diabolical and wicked. A man's external practice when it is good, makes but one side, the outside of practice. From rational moral agents, God, who is a Spirit, requires the worship and service of the heart and spirit ; and their practice is to be judged of by him who searcheth the reins and heart ( Jer. xvii. 10 ; Rev. ii. 23), according to the inward disposition and principles that influence it. If one should, from ambitious views, as Absalom, strive to reach by iniquity a state of life in which he might gratify every lust, and after obtaining it, recommend him- self to men by all acts of kindness and beneficence, by mercy and liberality to the poor, by avoiding every immorality, yea, and by showing great regard to religion and devotion; should this man's practice be denominated holiness? Xo, surely; all his apparent goodness is from 4H THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, sinful lusts dominant in him. Men may, yea ought, to judge favourably of one, when his speech and behaviour express only what is good ; but this is still with a reserve to the judgment of the heart-searching supreme Judge, who only can with absolute certainty judge of a man's holiness. It is therefore of essential consequence to advert to the inward principles of practice and behaviour; and if even the good outward behaviour of a person yet under the law and its condemnation, cannot proceed from right and holy inward principles ; if these can only have place and effect in the heart of one under grace, it proves the advantage with respect to holiness, of being under grace ; yea, that sin will have dominion, and there cannot be true holy practice with any who is not in a state of grace. We learn from the word of God, that there is no good or acceptable work without faith and love. The doctrine concerning the first of these is precise and clear (Heb. xi. 6), Without fait] i it is impossible to please God. The inspired writer explains this, and gives the reason thus : For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Dr Whitby says, in his annotation, that this is the heathen's creed — (I thought there could be no creed without revelation) ; and thereafter he says : " God must either have laid upon them no obligation to please him, or required what he knew to be impossible, or given them sufficient means to know this," — viz. that he is a rewarder to sinful men who seek him, and are virtuous. This is rare divinity. One thing appears in it at first sight, viz. that the gospel revelation was not necessary to lead men to a state of acceptance with God, and to happiness ; natural religion, influenced by the heathen's creed, being sufficient for that purpose. ' As many who write well in defence of the truth of the Christian revelation, do yield this point, I apprehend their doing so hath a greater tendency to make many infidels easy in their mind than their ingenious defences of revelation have to bring such over to the faith. I observe the speculations of divers heathen philb- ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 415 sophers adduced by Dr Whitby concerning the regard the gods (as they spoke, according to their creed) have for good men, and their care of such. It was indeed easy for the self-flattering hearts of men, who esteemed their own goodness and virtue, to entertain such favourable notions, overlooking their own sinfulness, and the charge which the holy and righteous Sovereign of the world had against them on that account. But certainly the learned writer could not show, from all the heathen writers he was acquainted with, that they knew any true and sufficient grounds on which they could believe that God would be a rewarder to sinful men. They could, at best, have but doubtful unfounded specu- lations concerning it — could not possibly have the faith of it, according to the description of faith there (ver. 1). The Scripture shows us the only true and solid ground on which sinful men can have faith in God (1 Pet. i. 21 ), Who by him (Christ) do believe in God that raised him up front the dead \ and gave him glory, that your faith and hope might be in God. The atonement made for men's sins by Christ's sufferings and death, and God's testifying his acceptance thereof by raising him from the dead, together with the testimony of the word of God concern- ing divine grace through Christ, makes the only proper and solid ground upon which sinful men can have faith in God, or believe him to be to them a rewarder. Now it is by this sincere faith in Christ, and in God through Christ, that sinners do pass from death to life, and, being justified, come under grace ; nor can it be an habitual principle of practice, in any who are not so, as to their real state before God. So, whatever appearance of virtue or goodness they may'have, they who are in the flesh (and so are yet under the law) cannot please God (Rom. viii. 8), nor have for a principle of action and service that faith, without which it is impossible to please God. The other principle essential to true holine- acceptable obedience, and good works, is love. This, ac- cording.to the apostle (Rom. xiii. 8) is the fulfilling of the law; and if it is so with respect to the second table, which 416 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, he hath there particularly in his view, it is so as to the first, according to Matt. xxii. 36, 37, The great command- me?it in the lazv is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God. This is indeed the sum of the whole law, and a necessary principle of obedience to it in every part. But how doth this love enter, and reside in the heart of man, to whom it certainly is not natural ? The apostle accounts for this (1 John iv. 10), Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that lie loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitia- tion for our sins. Faith representing, with satisfying conviction, to the heart of an awakened, serious, and humbled sinner, this most wonderful and endearing love of God, testified in redeeming us from death and wrath by the death of his Son, engages the heart to him, to love, and to serve him. When the love of God, thus manifested in Christ Jesus, touches the heart with com- fortable effect, it doth, as the flame of one candle touching another, kindle the love of God in the heart. But then, if this love, that is essential to holiness, enters into and arises in the heart only by means of that faith by which one comes under grace, it is plain it can be a principle of practice only in the hearts of such as are under grace. It is faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6). The true inward progress and connection of things respecting the principles of holy practice and obedience, we find I Tim. i. 5, Now the end of the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned. It is worth while to consider this verse somewhat closely. As to the first clause, The end of the commandment ; this, saith Dr Whitby's annotation, some refer to the law. Himself rather thinks it here refers to the gospel ; and to this purpose observes, that the Greek word here, and the two other words he mentions, are always, in the epistles, used of the gospel. But as these three words have not in the use of language the same meaning, so as to the word in this text (irapayyekta), I see not in my lexicon any sense of it that would favour that interpre- tation. As to the only two texts he mentions (1 Thess. iv. 2, and here, ver. 18), the word is justly rendered as ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 417 we translate; nor is there anything in the scope that requires rendering otherwise than by commandment and charge. It is plain that the apostle hath in his eye some who (as ver. 7), desired to be teachers of the law ; against whom he reasons concerning the law in the following verses. The law, or commandment, is the subject in this place. As he charges these men with ignorance- (ver. 7), not understanding (so the Doctor's paraphrase) the scope or true meaning of the law ; here he (ver. 5) goes on to speak concerning the law, or commandment, by representing, in opposition to them, the true scope and end of the law in its holy command- ment. But though the rendering and sense is to be retained as we have it (the end of the commandment) yet it is certain this end of the commandment cannot be attained by sinful men, as to the conformity it requires, but by means of the gospel, and the grace which it exhibits ; and the apostle gives such a view of the subject here as makes this clear, as we shall see. The end of the commandment is charity. — This word in our language hath undergone a considerable change of meaning in the use of speech. The Greek word is no other than the common word for love; as it hath been observed, that love is the fulfilling of the law. The apostle shows here how this love is connected in the heart, and mentions a series of causes by which the true love, whereby the end of the commandment is obtained in the practice of men, is produced. 1. It is love oil t of a pure heart. Without giving any prolix explication of this, we ma)' learn what a pure heart means, from James iv. 8, Purify your hearts, ye double-minded. The pure heart here is the same with a true heart (Heb. x. 22), and means its sincerity. So love out of a pure heart is the same as out of a sincere heart ; and the apostle's expression means the sincerity of love. 2. This sincerity of love comes from a good conscience. A man's conscience may be called good, in general, when it hath in it a true light to direct a man's way and behaviour, with such impression of the authority 2 D 418 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, of God, the great Lawgiver, as powerfully and effectually enforces conformity and obedience to its dictates. In short, it is a good conscience that doth its office in the proper manner. But the apostle's special meaning of a good conscience here, is, I think, to be understood as opposed to an evil conscience, mentioned Heb. x. 22, Having your hearts spi'inkled from an evil conscience. There is evidently in these words an allusion to the ancient typical sprinkling of the blood by which atone- ment was made, and persons were made free from the charge of guiltiness and defilement, and from the con- sequences of it. An evil conscience is a conscience charging guilt, a condemning conscience, that gives the sad impression of wrath and judgment for sin. Now, it is (Heb. ix. 14) the blood of Christ that purgeth the conscience, so as that (Heb. x. 2) there shall be no more conscience of sins; the conscience once purged, retaining no longer a charge of guiltiness, and of judg- ment for it. So there are two ways of having a good conscience; one is, by not having transgressed ; the other is, by having the guilt taken away by the appli- cation of that blood which taketh away the sin of the world. By means of a conscience condemning, and terrifying with the apprehension of wrath and judgment, God's enemies may (as Ps. lxvi. 3) submit themselves unto him (or, according to our margin, yield feigned obedience : Heb. lie unto him). But whilst the conscience retains the charge of guilt, condemnation, and wrath, there cannot be purity, or sincerity of heart toward God, or sincerity of the love of God. Human nature is so formed, that it cannot love any object that is adverse and terrible to it. There is good sense in a passage of Simplicius, a heathen writer, as Dr Whitby (on Heb. xi. 6) gives it thus : " We cannot love, honour, and worship the Deity, whatsoever reasons may be alleged for so doing, if we conceive him hurtful, and not profitable to us, because every living- creature flies what is hurtful, and the causes of it ; and affects and follows what is profitable." So that philosopher. As to the purpose for which Dr Whitby ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 419 adduces this passage (on Heb. xi. 6), upon what good grounds could such a man assure himself that the holy and righteous Ruler and Judge would be favourable to the guilt)-, or that such could have profit by him, with regard to their spiritual, everlasting state ; if they had any firm belief of an everlasting state, which many of the most eminent heathen philosophers had not ? Here was an essential defect in the religion of the heathen. This by the by. Now to our present purpose. It is when the conscience is relieved from the sense of condemnation and wrath, and from the sad misgivings which haunt them who do most labour to be easy in that condition ; I say, when it is relieved from these im- pressions and apprehensions, and that by means so wonderfully endearing as the redeeming love of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ ; it is then that the heart kindles in love, and comes, with purity and sincerity of heart, to be well affected to God, and to his service. Then God's people come to serve him (Luke i. 74, 75) in holiness and righteousness^ without FEAR; then the Christian hath boldness and access with confidence ; the conscience being purged from dead works, he serves God comfortably. The fear arising from an evil conscience hath torment, and excludes love. But this fear being removed by the heart's being sprinkled from an evil conscience, and love entering, it casteth out fear ; for there is no fear in love* If, through the Christian's neglect and unwatchfulness, fear shall return with some bondage and torment, love recovering itself, with the proper force, casts it out. The Christian, sensible of being under Divine grace and favour, love hath free course and prevalence in his heart, and alloweth him not to entertain harsh, or unfavourable, or discouraging thoughts of God. So wisdom's ways become to the Christian ways of pleasantness ; he walks cheerfully in them, and is encouraged to say, If God be for us, icJio can be against us ? — There is, 3. Unfeigned faith. This is at the top of the series * 1 John iv. 18. 420 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, in this text ; and is in the Christian the proper source of those other principles of holy practice here mentioned. Concerning it these general things are to be considered : (i.) It is unfeigned. Not merely as opposed to a false and lying profession, when there is not within a faith of any sort. It is a sincere, in opposition to an insincere faith : which, however, may be real in its kind. *Avu7roK/)tTos (if the use of speech with us would admit it) might be rendered precisely, unhypocritic ; a faith of such kind as hypocrites never have. The apostle John says (i epist. v. 3), Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ, is born of God. This faith is not a mere assent of the mind to the truth of the proposition, that Jesus is the Christ ; for such faith the devils have : it is such a faith as is an evidence that one is born of God, as this text says. So also, they who believe in Christ are born of God.* When Philip preached Christ at Samaria, it is said that Simon (the sorcerer) himself also believed. It is not said merely, that he professed to believe, which one might do who had inwardly no faith at all. The Scripture is not to be contradicted, that says expresslyr he believed: yet the man remaining in the gall of bitter- ness and in the bond of iniquity, surely he was not born of God, nor had the faith that is the fruit and consequence of being so.f We see (2. Thess. ii. 13) that sanctifi 'cation of the Spirit and belief of the truth are connected. It is said (John ii. 23, 24) that many believed in his name, but Jesus did not commit himself unto them. Can it be said, that these were born of God, or had that faith that comes by being born of God ? We are told that many of Christ's disciples murmured and were offended at his doctrine ; and Christ said to them, There are some oj you that believe not ; for (so the evangelist adds) fesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.% Here, upon the one hand, these men were disciples, which they could not be with- out some sort of faith; yet, on the other hand, they believed not — Christ told them so — they had not the * John i. 12, 13. t Acts viii. 13, 23. % John vi. 60, 61, 64.' ARISIiVG FROM FERSOXS BE IXC UNDER GRACE 42 1 unhypocritic, the unfeigned faith, which they have who are born of God. By what hath been said, we may be satisfied that the opinion is far from being well founded which hath been held by some learned men, agreeably to their scheme and system, viz. that the faith of hypocrites and that of sincere Christians are, in themselves, of the same nature and kind. (2.) This unfeigned faith is such as hath for its natural and proper consequence a good conscience, with love in purity and sincerity of heart. We have here occasion to observe the sentiments expressed by Dr Taylor in his paraphrase of Rom. viii. 1, and which he gives as the meaning of the blessed apostle in that place : " Nozu — we have the highest assurance that those are quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and disengaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith of the gospel, if so be they make that faith a principle of obedience, and do not choose to live in wickedness, according to the instigation of fleshly appetite, but in truth and holiness," &c. I had occasion to make observation on this passage formerly : what I now observe is, that it is therein implied, that a man may have that faith by which he comes to be in Christ which is the expression of the text, and which is the effect of being born of God), and yet continue under the servitude of sin, and choose to live in wickedness. As to this of choosing, it is true, that if a man live in the practice of wickedness, or of holiness, he doth the one or the other by his free choice ; though, in the last mentioned sort of practice, there is a superior hand, to which the right choice is especially owing. It is also true, that a Christian should have at heart to advance, as in faith, with regard to light and establishment, so in holiness, obedience, and all good works; and that Christians do too often fall short in these, yea, deviate too often from purity and holiness. But to say, that a man may have true faith, by which he comes to be indeed in Christ, and unto real union with him, as that expression imports ; and that holiness and 422 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, obedience, in the man's habitual and ordinary practice only comes by an uncertain and merely arbitrary choice and determination of his will, which might determine him to live in wickedness, notwithstanding his faith ; is in extreme opposition to the Scripture, yea, to the nature of things, if we consider the human faculties, and the natural order of their operation. We have seen,* that faith is connected with the sancti- fication of the Spirit. To say that a man having the faith that comes by the sanctification of the Spirit, may choose to live in wickedness, is evidently absurd. As it is said that he who believeth is born of God, so it is said, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit siny for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God A Dr Taylor says,! that it is very common in the sacred writings to speak of that as done, which only ought to be done, and which, in fact, may possibly never be done. To this purpose he adduces several texts, in not one of which there is reason for that way of interpreting ; and in some of them there appears what clearly forbids it. However, according to this observation of his, he supplies in such texts, or substitutes in place of the scripture words, ought to be, or some such expression. Thus (Matt. v. 13), Ye are (ought to be) the salt of the earth. Thus he makes a way for himself to contradict very express declarations of Scripture. Among other texts, he mentions this ( 1 John iii. 9) without quoting the words. But, according to his rule, the first clause is to be understood thus : Whosoever is born of God doth not (ought not to) commit sin. But what reason to mention being born of God to that purpose, when it might be said of any man, whether born of God or not, that he ought not to commit sin ? What then would the writer say of the following clause : He cannot sin because lie is born of God? It seems he did not extend his view to that clause. Concerning the * 2 Thess. ii. 13. 1 1 John v. 1 ; iii. 9. % " Key to Apostolic Writings," Sect. 274. ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 423 interpretation of the first clause just mentioned, Dr Whitby says, "Vain is that sense which some put upon these words, viz. He that is born of God, non debet peeeare, ought not to sin, or that it is absurd for him to sin ; for the apostle speaks not of what he ought not to do, but of what he doth not." The interpretation of Dr Hammond on the place, note e, comes to this : " The affirming here, of the re- generate pious convert, that he cannot sin, is not the affirming that he cannot cease to be what he is — but that remaining thus, a pious follower, imitator, and so a child of God, he cannot yield deliberately to any kind of sin." Dr Whitby on the place, says, " False seems to be the sense which Origen, &c. put upon the words, that Jie that is born of God, sinneth not, quamdiu renatus est, whilst he is born of God, because he ceaseth to be a child of God when he sins." Indeed, according to Origen's and Dr Hammond's interpretation, these two contradictory propositions are true at once : He that is born of God, cannot sin ; and, He that is born of God, can sin : even understanding sinning in the same sense in both propositions. It is true, Dr Whitby is not quite consistent with himself as to this text, in different parts of his writings. His long annotation on this text seems to be pretty harmless, with respect to the doctrine of the reformed churches concerning the perseverance of the saints, and the argument taken from this text to that purpose. But in his book on the five Arminian points (ed. 17 10), he says, p. 468, " The interpretation which many of the ancient fathers gives us of these words, are a demonstra- tion that they believed not the doctrine of the saint's perseverance, for they expound the words thus : He that is born of God sinneth not, neither can sin, quamdiu renatus est, whilst he is born of God, because he ceaseth to be a child of God when he sins ; and this (saith the Doctor) must necessarily be the import of the words, if you interpret them of living in an habit or an)- course of sin." So indeed they must be understood ; for as to acts, even gross acts of sin, the Doctor had with good reason, rejected the interpreting of them by these. So 424 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS, the interpretation which he called false, when he wrote his annotations, he considered as the necessary and true interpretation when he wrote on controversy. But the text says clearly and expressly, that he who is born of God hath his seed remaining in him (which is inconsistent with his ceasing to be born of God) ; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God; which shows clearly, that by being born of God, and having his seed remain- ing in him, he hath a sure preservative against sinning, or falling into a course of sinning. This sufficiently proves, against Dr Taylor, that a man having true faith, that is, the fruit and evidence of being born of God, cannot be, or choose to be, in servitude to sin, or to live in wickedness. The same thing appears from its being said (Acts xv. 9) that God put no difference between believing Jews and the Gentiles there mentioned, purifying their hearts by faith. But though God conveyed to them the light of faith, how could it be said, that he purified their hearts by faith, if faith had not efficacy by its proper influence in the heart to purify it; but that a man, notwithstanding his faith, may still choose to live in wickedness? It is said (Gal. v. 6), In Christ fesus, neither circum- cision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Here the true, unfeigned, un- hypocritic faith is distinguished from the false faith of hypocrites, by this, that it worketh by love. But how could love, and working by love, be ascribed to faith, if faith hath in itself no efficacy or power in the heart thus to work ? Christian love and holy walking might be ascribed to the will of the man, who so chooses, when he might choose to live in. wickedness. But when working by love is ascribed to faith, it certainly import?, that true faith hath efficacy so to work, and to determine the heart to the choice of what is right and holy. So this shows, that there is in the nature of the true unfeigned faith that which is not in the faith of hypocrites, whose faith hath no such efficacy, no such fruit ; whose faith therefore is in itself of a different nature and kind from the genuine faith of the true Christian. ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 425 However, the notion of some has been, that a person coming to true faith, and having faith of the same nature and kind with that of the true Christian, doth neverthe- less, at believing, stand as (in bivid) where roads part, to choose going to the right or left, without anything in his faith to determine effectually his 'choice, as to wicked or holy living. How contrary this is to the views the Scripture gives of the matter, hath been shown. Upon the whole, as the apostle doth (Rom. viii. 1 ) give it as a certain distinguishing mark of them that arc in Christ, united to him by faith, that they walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit (much contrary to Dr Taylor's interpretation) ; so in the text we are now especially considering (1 Tim. i. 5), it is plain that the love that is the end of the commandment, is as to the ordinary habitual disposition and practice of the Christian, certainly connected with unfeigned faith, and is its native certain consequence. One thing remains yet to be observed for explication, concerning faith as here meant. (3.) Faith, in the comprehensive view of it, doth in various ways influence holy practice. When the inspired writer is to show Tieb. xi ) how faith enabled hoi)- men of ancient times to do and to suffer as they did, he sets out (ver. 1) with giving this general and comprehensive description of it : Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith doth, by the light and authority of the word of God, demonstrate with powerful conviction and impression, and realises to the heart the being, and grace of God vers. 6, 2j\ It inwardly realises divine threatenings and promises (vers. 7, 13", &c. It realises Christ, and the things of Christ, to the heart. But, then, as I have said before, that a good conscience is most fitly to be understood here (1 Tim. i. 5), as opposed to an evil conscience ; so that a good conscience is a conscience relieved from condemnation, a conscience that enjoys and gives peace ; it seems, upon this view, that faith is to be considered herein the special view and precise notion, as it is connected with our justification, re- conciliation, and peace with God. The apostle's doctrine 4^6 THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING UNDER GRACE concerning that subject he thus expresses (Rom. iii. 24, 25), Being justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in CJirist Jesus (compare Eph. i. 7), whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH IN HIS BLOOD. It is the blood of Christ (he having given his life a ransom for many) that hath made peace. It is by the application of it to the conscience, that the sinner, thereby truly purged, hath no more conscience of sins (Heb. x. 2). It is (chap. ix. 14) this blood that purges the conscience. It is by it (chap. x. 22) that our hearts are sprinkled from an evil conscience. This is that blood of sprinkling (chap. xii. 24) that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel. Now faith in Christ, faith in his blood, is, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, the intellectual means, or instrument, by which this blood is effectually applied, as by sprinkling, to the conscience, to free it from con- demnation, and to give it peace ; to free it from fear and terror of wrath, and so to diffuse comfort through the soul, from a sense of reconciliation and peace with God. Let us now take a brief view of the series of inward principles of holiness, as contained in the text under our eye, beginning at the first. An unfeigned faith in Christ, and in his blood, gives peace in the conscience, and removes that apprehension of wrath that is so powerful a cause of the alienation of the heart from God, By this the heart comes to be reconciled to God's sovereignty; and holiness, and love, out of a pure sincere heart, prevail ; and thus the end of the commandment is truly attained, according to the Christian's measure in this state of imperfection. Though these principles of holiness are formed, and have real effect in the heart of a Christian, yet often he is not so sensible thereof as he hath cause, and as his comfort would require. This is often owing to ignorance and mistake, to the remaining darkness of his mind, to the perplexity that sin which dwelleth in him, and the motions thereof, give him, and to the various temptations of the enemy. Yet these principles have place and real DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS 427 effect in every soul that is, through Christ, brought under grace, however much such souls may, for the causes just mentioned, not have the distinct view or sense thereof, nor the proper degree of comfort. At the same time, it is evident that these essential principles of true holiness cannot exist in a soul yet under the law and its curse, and not under grace. Such an one being destitute of the faith that would unite him truly to Christ, and bring him under grace, and not having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, is incapable of the love of God, that is the end of the com- mandment ; and so is incapable of true holiness, what- ever appearances may have. Sect. III. — Containing several directions, which the doctrine of the context before explained affords to the souls of sinners who are seriously concerned about their most important interests, with the explication and solution of divers questions respecting" the conversion of sinners. We have been observing the advantage, with regard to sanctification and holy practice, which they have who are under grace, by the privilege of their state, and the benefit thence arising of having divine grace, faithfulness, care, and power to act for them : and by the true and genuine principles of holy practice in their existence and operation, and which cannot be in any such as are under the law, and its curse, and not under grace. From the scripture light and doctrine concerning these matters, there is important direction to those who have at heart their greatest interest. I begin with suggesting two things that ought to be particularly adverted to. One is, that persons should not rest or found their hope on mere external privilege. All the members of the visible church are under a dispensation of grace, that encourages sinners to seek God, and to return from their strayings, by the prospect of pardon and acceptance through Jesus Christ. But, as hath been formerly observed on chap. vi. 14, many are thus under a dis- 428 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS pensation of grace, who are not under grace as to their true spiritual state before God, but remain under the curse of the righteous law, and have the wrath of God abiding on them. Men's trusting to external privilege with regard to the state of their souls, is not better than the vain confidence of Jews heretofore, who said within them- selves (Matt. iii. 9), that they had Abraham to their father, and so were entitled to the privileges of the covenant A man may have been, by virtue of birth-right, solemnly admitted a member of the church — he may have a sort of faith that is no effect or evidence of being born of God, and, by virtue of his profession of it, may externally enjoy all external church-privileges as a believer, as one in Christ, and under grace; but how little may all this amount to as to his present real state? as he may all the time be destitute of that faith by which he would be truly united to Christ, and so be a member of that church of the first-born (Heb. xii. 23), which are written in heaven. Another thing that should be carefully adverted to is, that persons trust not to their own works of righteous- ness for their acceptance with God, or for changing their natural state into a state of grace and favour. All have sinned, ana so incurred the curse of the righteous law. If a man should thereafter do his duty as completely in every part as an angel, he but doth in so far what he was bound to do ; and this doth not make amends for transgression, nor is pleadable against the curse of the law. This must be removed by other means than the righteousness of a man's own works. What makes the delusion of trusting to these, for bringing a man into a state of grace, still the more absurd is, that, according to the apostle's doctrine, which we have been illustrating, a man is incapable of the true acceptable practice of righteousness and holiness, until he is under grace as to his real spiritual state, being, until then, under the real dominion of sin. We learn from the apostle's doctrine, that the condition of a person under the law is truly very wretched. To be delivered from the law (chap. vii. 6) is a great deliver- ance ; and to be dead to the law (that is, to be set free COXCEKXED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 429 from the thraldom and bondage of it (as ver. 4) is a happy freedom. Without this, one is incapable of bringing forth fruit unto God, and of serving in the newness of the Spirit. This deliverance and liberty hath been purchased at a costly rate — the crucifixion of the body of Christ. For the law (chap. iv. 15) worketh wrath to sinners ; it denounces a curse against even- transgressor, so that the natural condition of every one not delivered from the law is, to be under wrath, and under the dominion of sin. As divine love and mercy hath, with infinite wisdom, made a way for the relief and deliverance of sinners, which is set before them by the gospel of the grace of God, it is of the utmost consequence, in order to persons improving seasonably, truly, and effectually, the great means of salvation which the gospel sets before them, that they should have the most serious consideration r and deep impression of their most wretched spiritual condition by sin, and the curse of the law. Such, however, is the vanity of the mind — the self- flattering disposition of the heart, with a strong inclina- tion in men to keep their mind at ease, and this often supported by erroneous notions and principles, that it is a matter of the utmost difficulty to bring persons to a fixed consideration, just views, and serious impressions of their present spiritual wretchedness, and of their fearful prospect of a future eternal state. The strongest reasoning, and the most cogent arguments, often appear to have little or no effect in this way. They who become truly serious about their salvation, have commonly occasion to observe a superior hand bringing them to it ; by some sudden alarming providence, bringing their sins to remembrance, awakening their conscience and heart — by continued or repeated tribulation and affliction opening their ears to discipline — or by the word of God, particularly of the holy and righteous law, conveyed in a striking manner into the conscience. But when it so happens, the love of inward ease inclines the heart to avoid and divert these sad views and apprehensions. As when Felix trembled, on hearing 430 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS Paul reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, and said, Go thy way for this time ; when I have a cojivenient season, I will call for thee ; * so men often deal with their own consciences, suggesting to them fearful, but just apprehensions ; they divert them, and resolutely endeavour to avoid them. So it is done by many sinners, with fatal consequence to themselves. It were well that sinners would lay their heart and conscience open to the light of God's word and holy law ; that they should have full views of their manifold sinfulness ; that their sins and transgressions should come particularly to their remembrance ; and that the righteous judgment of God, and the wrath to come, should appear in their awful reality to their apprehension. But as nature avoids and abhors everything that gives dread and terror ; and as men's hearts are disinclined to every view of things that tends to give them low and humbling views of themselves, there is need of the Spirit of God, whose office it is to convince of sin. If the law gives the knowledge of sin, and worketh wrath in the sense and apprehension of sinful men, it doth not so with the proper force and effect, until it is conveyed into the heart and conscience by the power of the Spirit of God, and that with a degree of light, impression, and energy, such as the self-conceit, the vanity, and carnality of the heart, cannot surmount or overcome, so as to divert or extinguish it. If awakened sinners understood their true interest, they should, instead of avoiding or resisting the Spirit of God, or the convictions of sin, and the impressions he gives, rather pray earnestly for the Spirit to do this his office more and more powerfully in their hearts and consciences. If they understood the merciful design of God, during this day of salvation, in thus awakening, searching, bringing their sins to re- membrance, and pleading with them by his Spirit and law in their consciences, they might see cause thankfully to submit themselves to this his discipline in their conscience, and be disposed to fall in with the gracious * Acts xxiv. 25. CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 43 1 design of it, betaking themselves by faith to Christ, who is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth. But matters do not commonly take this turn all at once. If the conviction of sin, and the impression of wrath continue to go deep in the heart, and the arrows of the Almighty stick fast in it, the sinner is led naturally from this to groan and cry out, What shall I do to be saved? And whatever encouraging and comfortable answer to the important question is suggested by the gospel revelation, nature doth secretly insinuate its own way, and gives a different direction. The awakened conscience, sensible of the eternal and indispensable obligation to holiness, to all manner of duty and good works, applies itself thereto, and labours in reformation of life and practice. So far it is right in itself. Indeed, if there is in an awakened conscience a sense of the danger of sinning, with an impression of divine wrath for sin, and yet the lusts of the heart so far prevail, as to have a free course, and to exclude reformation in practice, it makes, for the present, a condition of very unpromising appearance. But although practical reformation is right in itself, the unhappiness often in the case is, that sinners incline to trust thereto, and to found their confidence of pardon, reconciliation, and acceptance with God, on their own righteousness and good works. Indeed, in the first state of mankind, it was by the law, and by works of righteous- ness in conformity thereto, that men were to be justified. Man being without sin, in" the perfection of his nature and moral powers, the law could have given life ; and in that state of things, verily righteousness should have been by the law ; but the state of things is altered ; the Scripture hath concluded all under sin;* and the law, with all the righteousness of a man in conformity thereto, cannot justify the sinner, or bring him to a state of acceptance with God. Yet this having been the old way, the bias of nature is still towards it. Though the * Gal. iii. 21, 22. 432 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS minds of men under the gospel may have orthodox notions, yet the ground of hope which the gospel sets before them is contrary to the previous conceptions of the natural mind. It is necessary that the ground of confidence and hope which the gospel presents should be realised to it by a superior light and power. Until it is so, the natural man doth not receive the things of the Spirit, which are no other than the things of Christ, which he is to show to men effectually : * I say, the natural man doth not receive these things of Christ and of the Spirit, so as to rest his soul on that sure founda- tion which God hath laid in Zion. In that view, the heart treats them as foolishness, and doth not trust to them for hope and salvation. The self-exalting way of self-righteousness is what the natural mind suggests, — is what the natural heart inclines to trust to. It was not owing to anything peculiar to the Jews, but to principles that are natural to mankind, that going about to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not tJiemselves to the righteousness of God. } However, an awakened serious sinner, going on in this way of self-righteousness, hath what the apostle dignifies (Rom. x. 2) with the character of a zeal of God. He labours earnestly for higher and higher degrees of devotion ; he labours hard in reforming his practice, and in every good work. But they to whom the Lord doth at length give a better light, whom he brings unto a better way, have occasion to observe and acknowledge, that, whilst they were in the course I have been now represent- ing, they have felt a struggle between the law in their" conscience and the flesh, or the power of sin in their hearts, according to the sad experience represented in the past time by the blessed apostle (Rom. vii. 5-13), and that, all their concern and labour to avoid and subdue sin, and to be truly holy, hath been miserably unsuccessful. Being yet in the flesh, not having their nature renewed, * 1 Cor. ii. T4 ; John xvi. 14. 1 Rom. x. 3. COXCERXED ABOUT THEIR SAW ATI OX nor being under the sanctifying influence of the Spirit of grace, if the law in their conscience hath strict and urgent demands of holiness, and all manner of duty, yet the flesh, which is not subject to the law of God,* acts rebelliously against it, and exerts itself in unholy lust' and affections. So that with those who are in the flesh, there are motions of sin, even by the law, though it opposes sin with all its light and authority. If the deluded sinner formerly thought of the law as only requiring external conformity, and so found it easy to have a good opinion of his own purity and righteous- ness, yet now the law, which is spiritual, entering into the heart, saying, Thou slialt not lust, prohibiting and condemning the inward lustings and affections of the heart that are contrary to holiness ; he now hath by the law the knowledge of sin in good earnest, — hath amazing and confounding views of the extent of sin's dominion — of the deep root and great power it hath in his nature. But though sin is thus discovered in its extent and power, all the endeavours of a serious soul, with all the authority of the law in the conscience, are not able to subdue it. Instead of that, sin taking occasion by the commandment, thereby awakened and irritated, works in the heart all manner of concupiscence.t If the conscience of the sinner is awakened by the law coming with force into it, sin in the heart, with its unholy lusts and affections, is thereby likewise awakened, and exerts itself with the greater vehemence. So sin, working death to the wretched sinner by that which is good (ver. 13 . becomes (shows itself to be/ exceeding sinful, exceeding rebellious and wicked, unconquerable by mere human power. The consequence will be, as Paul found it, and re- presents (chap. vii. g/} I was alive without the law once (without its light and authority he entertained a good opinion of his own condition) ; but when the commandment came, sin revived, saith he, and I died. Former sins * Rom. viii. 7. t Rom. vii. 8. 2 E 434 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS revived in his conscience with a fearful sting-, and appre- hension of wrath ; and the conscience, enlightened by the holy commandment, feeling the force of its authority, and insisting most urgently for present conformity, the issue is far otherwise than it ought. Instead of the heart's conforming cheerfully and dutifully with the holi- ness of the law, sin revives in its various lustings, unholy affections, and rebellious motions ; nor doth the sinner find that the authority of the law, or the force of his conscience, or all the endeavours of his yet carnal heart, under the bondage of the law, and not truly sincere on the side of holiness, can subdue these unholy motions and lustings of his soul. His heart being searched by the holy law, his best devotions, good works, and righteousnesses, do now appear to him as filthy rags.* However wretched his condition had appeared by the wrath which his guiltiness subjected him to, yet whilst he expected, by his serious care and earnest endeavours, to bring not only his outward practice, but his heart inwardly, unto a conformity with the holiness of the commandment, he still had, in his own apprehension, some resource in himself, with regard to his comfort, and the confidence of divine mercy and acceptance. But when, after serious endeavour, under the authority and impression of the law, to restrain sin, and to work up his heart to a holy temper and practice, the effect is, that sin taking occasion by the commandment, worketh in him all manner of concupiscence ; that sin, actively disposed to lust, taking occasion by the commandment, deceives him, and so slays him ; that sin, that evil principle, showing its extreme wickedness and power, worketh death in him by that which is good, even by that good law, by the direction and influence whereof he sometime hoped to come to a good condition and state; it is now that the sinner dieth indeed, in his own sense and apprehension, and that his self-confidence evanishes. But there is hope in Israel concerning this case. God * Isa. Ixiv. 6. CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 435 is merciful. So he hath proclaimed his name (Exod. xxxiv. 6), The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious. He hath favoured, yea, he hath purposed the salvation of sinful men, and hath, with infinite wisdom, provided for accomplishing of it, in a way consistent with all his perfections, tending to establish the authority of his law, and to maintain the honour and dignity of his government. He hath provided a Saviour, and laid help upon One who is mighty. He hath sent his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and hath made him to be a sin-offering for us, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him. A good ground is laid for the reconciliation and peace of sinners with God by the blood of the cross. If God doth, by the instructions and discipline of the law in the consciences of sinners, as with a violent shower of hail, sweep away the refuge of lies, which, through the delusion of their hearts, they have trusted to, he doth, at the same time, acquaint them in the preceding words, that he hath laid in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation : he that believeth, shall not make haste — He that belicvcth on him shall not be confounded* A Mediator hath, by the appointment of the Father, interposed to make re- conciliation for the sins of the people, and to maintain the peace, and all the interests of his people, by his continued intercession, being able to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by himy seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.j He is a Captain of salvation, appointed to bring the many sons unto glory, and as he hath been consecrated to this office through sufferings, he is able to execute it by his power. It is, at the same time, to be considered, that, accord- ing to the various ways in which Christ is set forth and represented to us in the word of God, there is requisite a suitable acting of men's minds and hearts corresponding thereto. Is he set forth as a propitiation, and his blood * Isa. xxviii. 16 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6. t Heb. vii. 25. 436 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS (his giving Irs life a ransom) as that which taketh away our guiltiness and condemnation ? This requires faith in his blood, — the faith by which the sinner shall trust in that blood for pardon and peace, — the faith by which the heart shall be sprinkled from an evil conscience, and so the conscience purged from dead works, — the faith that giveth confidence, with reference to that blood, in approaching unto God, even as unto the holiest, accord- ing to Heb. x. 19, 22, Having — boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, &c. ; and according to Eph. iii. 1 2, In whom we have boldness and access zvith confidence through the faith of him. Is Christ represented as the sure foundation which, not man, but God hath laid in Zion? then believing on him is the soul's secure resting on that foundation, and building thereon a good hope, which will not give disappointment or shame to any, not to the chief of sinners. For (1 Pet. ii. 6), He (any sinner; whosoever heareth the gospel) who believeth on him shall not he ashamed. Is Christ set forth as a Saviour, and offered as such to perishing sinners? then faith is a receiving him (John i. 12), with an eye to the several offices, by which he executes the great undertaking of saving sinners : to receive him not only in the character of our great High Priest, to procure for us reconciliation and peace, and all the blessings of grace, but also in the character of the great Teacher and Prophet, submitting our minds absolutely to his light and instruction, with regard to all the truth he reveals ; and likewise in the character of Lord and King, subjecting ourselves to his government in the way of cheerful universal obedience, yielding our- selves to be ruled by him, and trusting in his power for all the purposes of our salvation. Thus, I say, faith in Jesus Christ is, in the acting thereof, somewhat varied according to the various views in which the word of God exhibits him to us. Yet we are not to conceive as if this variation in the acting of faith in Jesus Christ made so many different kinds of faith. For the truth is, that true faith in every soul in CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 437 which it is, hath in it all that these different form? of it import ; and that either implicitly, or more explicitly and sensibly, according as the different Scripture views of Christ do strike the mind, suitably to the different views and feelings of the soul, in which the influence and power of a superior hand is to be acknowledged. But man is a reasonable being. His trust, and his whole conduct, will be directed naturally according to the light that is in his mind. He cannot found his confidence or hope on anything, without having in his mind a true perception of it, and a satisfying conviction of its truth and reality. Now the Scripture represents the minds of sinful men as ignorant and blind with regard to the matters of God, the things of Christ and of the Spirit. These things of Christ, and of salvation through him, are not deducible from any principles or notions that are naturally in the minds of men. They are such as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man* Now, as it was the Spirit of God that discovers these divine counsels of grace in the gospel-revelation, so it appears that the inward instruction and illumination of the mind by the same Spirit is needful, in order to men's knowing effectually these spiritual and gracious truths, according to ver. 12, We have received, not the spirit of the w or Id y but the Spirit which is of God, that zee might know the things that freely given to us of God J It is to be considered, besides, that this method of salvation is not agreeable to the disposition of the natural and carnal heart ras hath been formerly observed", which powerfully inclines to seek the grounds of a man's justification and acceptance in himself, and to trust to a man's own powers and endeavours for sanctification. Hence it is that men are so averse to submit themselves unto the righteousness of God, or to despair of their own powers and endeavours with regard to anything in the practice of religion. As there is need of a divine illumination of the mind, there * 1 Cor. ii. 9. t See also 2 Cor. iv. 6. 43§ DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS is need of a powerful divine influence to renew the heart, and change the disposition of it. Until this divine illumination and influence take effect in the mind and heart, the awakened sinner must be in great perplexity, being painfully sensible of the curse of the law for transgression, that excludes all possibility of the sinner's working out a justifying righteousness for himself; and having a deep impression and experience of such dominion of sin, as makes it impossible for him to subdue it, or to sanctify himself in any true degree, or in sincerity, whilst under the law, and in his natural state in the flesh. Under these views and impressions, I say, the condition of a serious awakened sinner will be very doleful. His condition may be fitly represented, in the figurative way, by the case of Hagar the bond- woman, as related, Gen. xxi. 15, 16, 19. When her own provision was spent, she sat desponding and weeping, until God opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water ; which, it seems, was near, when she was most sorrowful and de- spondent, though she did not perceive it until God opened her eyes. In this condition the sinner is called to be assiduous and earnest in prayer to God for his mercy, and for his Holy Spirit, to give that illumination and influence that will enable him to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and to attend in the most careful and earnest manner on the preaching of the gospel, by which divine grace works so great effects on the souls of men ; thus endeavouring to watch daily at Wisdom's gates, waiting at the posts of her doors. There is an objection that may be suggested here to this purpose; viz. — By what good reason, or to what good purpose, can such sinners be urged and exhorted to do as hath been now said, if the truth of the case is indeed, that a sinner in his natural condition, in the flesh and under the law, cannot do anything pleasing to God, or acceptable ; and that no assurance can be given him of any spiritual mercy or blessing to be certainly con- nected with the utmost exertion of his natural powers, which in that state he is capable of, in seeking God aiid AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 439 his mercy? Yea, if we will deal reasonably with such sinners, in advising and exhorting them to earnestness in using the means of grace and of salvation, should we not assure them, if they do what they can by their natural powers, that grace will not be wanting, to connect certain spiritual blessings with their earnest endeavours? Are we not well warranted in giving them such assur- ance, by what our Lord says (Luke xi. 9-13), Ash, audit shall be given you — For every one that asketh, receiveth, &c. Concerning this, I have these several things to suggest. — 1. It does not appear, that the meaning or design is to connect the promise in this text with anything of duty or means that a sinner is capable of by his natural powers, whilst in an unregenerate state. The foregoing and following parables show the contrary. Which of yon (ver. 5) shall hare a friend — and ver. 8, Though he will not rise and give him, because he is his friend — and ver. 1 3, If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children. It appears then, that the)' are these, who, by their spiritual state, are the friends and children of God, that the Lord means by this declaration and promise to encourage to importunity and perseverance in prayer. It appears by the Scripture, that it is only the prayer of faith that will be acceptable, and will pro- cure blessings : Ask (in faith), and it shall be given you ; and, Every one that (thus) asketh, receiveth. So Dr YVhitby's paraphrase of vers. 9, 10. And the faith by which men please God, and by which their prayers become acceptable, cannot proceed from the heart of any sinner without special divine influence. But, however, we understand the promise in this place, it must be acknowledged, on all hands, that a command to seek God, and to pray to him, is directed to persons who are in their natural unregenerate state. So also are they com- manded to turn to God with their whole heart, to repent. and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, with the encouraging promise of mercy and acceptance through him. But these commands to repent and believe, with 440 AN OBJECTION ANSWERED the promises annexed, do not establish a connection between the promised mercy and anything that sinful men are capable of doing, by the utmost exertion of their mere natural powers. 2. Though sinners, yet in the flesh, and under the law, can do no work in the manner pleasing to God, or that would entitle such to any spiritual blessings by any divine promise, yet such are capable of conceiving, with deep impression, their extreme wretchedness by sin, and its consequences. Though their sense of sin and misery does not proceed from the same principles and views as in the children of God, yet they may have a deep sense of their misery by the curse of the law, and the divine judgment, to which, by sin, they have become obnoxious; and by their inability to make themselves free from the dominion of sin in their nature and heart, to subdue sin and the lusts thereof, or to sanctify their own hearts. They are, even in their yet unregenerate state, capable of such a sense of things in these respects, as will destroy their carnal confidences, and bring them very low in their views respecting their state, despairing of all help from themselves or others, — sensible that there can be no help for them but from divine sovereign grace and mercy alone. Surely it is in this posture, and with this sense of things, that sinners ought to lay themselves before the footstool of divine mercy. If the Lord will show the riches of his mercy, and the abounding of his grace, surely he will be most likely to do it to those by whose views of their own state his grace and mercy will be most exalted and most glorified. 3. It were most unreasonable to say, that sinners, in their natural condition, should not be exhorted to pray, to repent, or believe in Jesus Christ, without assuring them of a' certain connection between their own exertion of their natural powers, and their obtaining saving mercy and blessings. The apostle Peter did not think so, when he said to that vilest of men (Acts viii. 22), Repent and pi'ay God, if PERHAPS the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. 4. The command to seek God, and to believe in Jesus AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 44 1 Christ — to believe the testimony and record of God con- cerning him, lays obligation to these duties on every one to whom such command is directed, as it is to every one who hears the gospel. It therefore becomes every such sinner to be very careful that his conscience and heart be duly affected with the authority and encourage- ment of such command, and with the obligation it lays upon him, so as to exert himself in the duties required, and that with the most earnest endeavour. Will a person under the law, and feeling its force and authority in his conscience, exert himself in other commanded duties, as prayer, aim-deeds, and every good work besides ; and should he not, with a view to the authority of the divine commandment, exert himself in earnest attempts to obey it in such duties as have been now mentioned ; yea, should he not be very much excited thereto, by con- sidering that it is a matter of very great encouragement to his dark and comfortless soul, that such command hath been directed to him? Christ is offered to the sinner — he should attempt to lay hold of him. His hand is withered ; but he should, without hesitation, stretch forth his withered hand at Christ's command, which is a command of grace, and often conveys the strength needful for the obedience required. He should endeavour to apply to his wounded conscience and troubled heart, the blood of sprinkling, by which there is peace. He should, as his need requires, endeavour, on every occasion, to feed his famished soul with the bread of life, — with the flesh and blood of a crucified Saviour, as the gospel represents it before him. Nor should he for this require any other internal call than that of his needy condition. Neither should he require to have his faith warranted, by having the secrets of the divine counsels displayed to him ; nor needs he to entertain notions, not sufficiently warranted in the Scripture, as that Christ gave himself alike a ransom for all and even- one of mankind. He hath most sufficient warrant for his faith in Jesus Christ by the full and free offer and call of the gospel, and by God's testimony and command. 442 AN OBJECTION ANSWERED The sinner, continuing in this way of serious efforts, hath no cause to despond, being under such a dispensa- tion of grace. Though his natural powers and endeavours come short, it may happen to him as to the impotent man at the pool of Bethesda (John v.) with respect to an outward bodily case. Still sensible of his ill condition, he con- tinued to make earnest efforts. But being quite impotent, his natural powers and his endeavours came short. When he had, however, cause to despair of any good coming in that way, divine mercy interposed seasonably, and the Saviour cured him with a word of power. Such an issue the sinner may look for, in continuing the serious use of means and suitable endeavours. What gives effectual relief to the heavy laden soul of a sinner is, when, by the direction of divine sovereign grace, the word of the grace of God doth seasonably impress the mind with special light and power, so as to realise to it the unseen things of Christ, and of his gospel, with full and satisfying conviction of the truth thereof, and of the report of the gospel concerning the abounding grace of God, the sufficiency and efficacy of the blood of the cross, and the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour, mighty to save ; as well as of the free offer and call of the gospel, as warranting him in particular to receive Christ, to apply the blood of sprinkling to his conscience, and to have peace thereby. By this light, and by the satisfying views of the love of God, as manifested in Jesus Christ, the heart is gained to God : and if a sense of guiltiness and condemnation in the conscience, and if the terrors of the law affecting it, do tend to put the soul to a distance, with alienation of heart from God ; yet by the comfortable light, which the word and Spirit of God have diffused into the mind, it conceives such satisfying .views of Christ and his redemption, as dispose and enable the sinner to have that faith in his blood by which he is justified, and comes under grace ; even unto that happy state, in which he hath the advantages with respect to communion and intercourse with God, and walking with him in newness of life, that have been formerly explained. Nor is there, with respect to the AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 443 particular things I have hinted, in the conversion of a sinner, occasion to think of priority or posteriority of time, or of a progressive work or exercise ; all is in- stantaneous in the soul, and in the exercise of its faculties, with regard to these blessed objects, from which, by a divine illumination, it receives peace, life, and comfort. There are, however, some things respecting the subject, of which it may be fit to give some further explication. We learn from John i. 12, 13, that they who truly and sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, are born of God, and their faith is a consequence and evidence of their being so. Xow, this new birth is sometimes ascribed to the Holy Spirit, as John iii. 5, Born of water, and of the Spirit. Sometimes it is ascribed to the word of God, as 1 Pet. i. 23, Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. So James i. 18, Of his own will begat lie us with the word of truth. How is it to be understood, that this new birth is ascribed to these different causes? But there is no difficulty in the matter. These are not opposite or inconsistent causes ; but causes co- operating, the one in subordination to the other. For, on the one hand, according to Gal. iii. 14, we receive the promise of the Spirit through faith; that is, the doctrine or word of faith, the gospel : and (as 2 Cor. iii. 8), the gospel is the ministration of the Spirit. So by the gospel the Spirit is conveyed into the heart. On the other hand, the Spirit gives efficacy to the gospel in the minds and hearts of men. He doth by a pleasant exertion of might}' power change the dis- position of the heart, forming it for God, and putting a new spiritual life and strength into it ; while, at the same time, by the word of the promise, or of the gospel (the blessed means by which he worketh , he conveys that comfortable light, and satisfying conviction into the mind, that hath the happy effects before mentioned, of turning the heart to God, with faith in the Lord Jesus .Christ : thus working on the souls of men in a manner suitable to their faculties and rational nature. 444 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION On this occasion some may readily suggest what they consider as a considerable difficulty, thus : In that re- generation by which men are begotten, or born of God, the principles of holiness are infused into the soul. If then this being born of God, is previous, in order of nature, to the faith by which the sinner is justified, it follows that the sinner's sanctification is previous to his justification, by which he comes under grace ; which they may readily consider as a notion of hurtful tendency, and contrary to the statements concerning sanctification we have given. It will tend to elucidate this matter, that we distinguish between the habit, or physical principle of sanctification, and the practice of holiness. As to the first of these, it is plain from the texts formerly cited,* that being born of God, is previous to a man's truly believing in Jesus Christ. Yea, we may be satisfied about it, by considering the nature of things. If faith is not properly or merely an act of the Holy Spirit, but an act of the human soul, it cannot be produced without a principle in the soul that shall be an adequate cause of such an act. A gracious act, as faith is, cannot be without a gracious principle producing it. It is, at the same time, to be observed, that when, for the relief of a burdened and distressed soul, the word of faith enters into the mind, with the influence of the Spirit of faith, whose power renews the heart, the first thing that must follow in such a soul, by means of the light which the Holy Spirit introduces into it by the word of God, is that faith in Jesus Christ, and in his blood, by which the sinner is justified, and so comes under grace. From this it follows, that the practice of holiness and good works cannot intervene between a man's being born of God, and his coming under grace by his justifica- tion. It appears also, that asserting a man's being born of God to be previous to justifying faith, is very con- sistent with what hath been said in the explanations * John i. 12, 13 ; 1 John v. r. QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 445 formerly given, viz. that a man cannot have all that is essentially requisite to the true and acceptable practice of holiness, until, being justified by faith, he comes under grace. As it appears by the texts formerly cited, that being born of God is previous to one's exercising faith in Jesus Christ, the same thing appears further from the language used in these texts which mention the sanctification of the Spirit previously to believing. So God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth* So also, Elect — through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience f (that is, obedi- ence to the gospel by that faith in Jesus Christ which it especially requires) and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. It is still to be remembered, that this sanctifica- tion of the Spirit is the consequence and fruit of Christ's having died — having risen again — having ascended to the right hand of God — and his having received power over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many as the Father hath given him.i As the Scripture evidence respecting this point is clear, I think none need to apprehend any ill con- sequence from asserting, that the sanctification of the Spirit, which is the same in the stricter sense as being born of God, is, in the nature of things, previous to the faith by which the sinner is justified. But with respect to holy practice — as it is a rational practice, proceeding from a right and sincere disposition of the heart, influenced by right views, to a right end, the truth stands that hath been here asserted, that none is capable of such a practice and course but one who is justified and under grace ; and that such practice of holiness and good works cannot intervene betwixt the sanctification of the Spirit and the sinner's being, through faith, justified, and brought under grace, as hath been said before. What hath been now observed, may serve to answer a question which has been thought to have some diffi- * 2 Thess. ii. 13. t 1 Peter i. 2. X John xvii. 2. 446 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION culty ; viz. How can it be accounted for, that in the chain of grace represented Rom. viii. 30, a matter so important as sanctification is not mentioned? It has been endeavoured to solve this difficulty in various ways. But as the calling is by the sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth, I see no good reason why sanctification may not be understood to be included in the calling there mentioned, which is a holy calling (2 Tim. i. 9) ; and Christians are said to be called saints (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2), that is, saints by their calling. It will not be amiss, in this place, I think, to consider another question respecting the conversion of a sinner, viz. Which takes place first in such souls, repentance, or faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? I expect it will appear, by a due consideration of this point, that it is not of such importance as some have thought. But to proceed distinctly — Sometimes repentance is mentioned in Scripture in a more large and comprehensive meaning. That repent- ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.* Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out. f Him hath God exalted — to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and remission of sins. % Now, as justification and remission of sins are by faith in Jesus Christ, which is not mentioned in these texts, it is plain that repentance, which alone is men- tioned in them, as required in order to remission of sins, includes that faith in Jesus Christ, with which justifica- tion and remission of sins is connected. We are there- fore by repentance, in such texts, to understand all that is comprehended in the conversion of a sinner ; and so it seems to be for explication of repentance, according to this larger meaning, that, being converted, is added (Acts iii. 19), Repent — and be converted. At other times, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ, are distinguished, and distinctly expressed ; Testifying both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.% * Luke xxiv. 47. t Acts iii. 19. % Acts v. 31. § Acts xx. 21. QUESTIONS RESPECTIXG CONVERSION 447 1. Repentance towards God. The sinner hath strayed from God. He set up his own will, his lust, and the desire of self-gratification, in opposition to God. He withdrew himself from his authority and rule, and sought his happiness in the creature, and not in the Creator, who is blessed for ever. The heart, under the influence of carnal lusts,, wanders in pursuit of good and happiness in the enjoyment of the creatures ; and being insatiable by anything found in them, says (so do the many, Ps. iv. 6), Who will show us any good? But the soul of the sinner, deeply convinced of sin, and its fearful consequences, by the law, distressed with its terrors, persuaded of the vanity of its former pursuits after imaginary happiness ; being now renewed by the sanctification of the Spirit before mentioned ; and viewing God in the encouraging and amiable light, in which the gospel represents him, doth, with shame and sorrow for his past conduct and straying from God, return to him, to seek his happiness in him, in his favour and enjoyment. Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon US ; * yields himself to his government and rule, with sincere purpose of dutiful obedience. Thus we see repentance explained by turn- ing to God, TJiat they should repent, and turn to God. t 2. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The faith here mentioned is not the faith of God's being and per- fections ; nor the faith of the word of God, as it marks out to us the way in which we ought to walk ; nor the faith of a future life and happiness. All these are indeed comprehended in faith, in the large sense of it. But the faith here mentioned, with respect to the con- version of a sinner, is faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ. God hath in himself infinite glory,excellency, and amiable- ness ; but it is the glory of God that shineth in the face of Jesus Christ,^ that makes him especially amiable in the eye of the sinner, and that doth effectually attract his heart toward God. It is Christ, and him crucified, that the sinner needs to be told of, to encourage his conver- * Ps. iv. 6. + Acts xxvi. 20. See also 1 Thess. i. 9. t 2 Cor. xv. 6. 448 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION sion and approach to God. It is the blood of sprinkling that alone gives confidence to the guilty soul in return- ing and approaching to God. By his mediation, Christ is the way (John xiv. 6), and no man cometh unto the Father but by him. In the conversion of the sinner, God is the end, and Christ is the way to that end ; and thus it is that the conversion of the sinner imports repentance towards God, and faith towards our Loi'd Jesus Christ. Now, as to the question concerning the priority of repentance or faith, the one to the other, it is right to understand and hold, that the light which entereth into the mind by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, and by the word and doctrine of the gospel, showing, in the most satisfying manner, the truth, reality, and excellency of the things of God, of Christ, and of things unseen, must be prior in the soul to any particular acting of grace, which is necessarily directed and influenced by this light, which is the light of faith, as it is the evidence of things not seen. But if we consider the question as respecting the activity of the soul in conversion, then, as I have said, that in conversion God is as the end in which it terminates, and Christ the way to that end, through faith in him ; the only way in which the sinner can come to God acceptably, and with any well founded confidence ; then the question concerning the priority of repentance or faith is such as this other question : Which is first, in order of time, or of nature, my setting out for Edinburgh, or my taking the way to it? which were an useless question. It has been right and useful to consider faith in Jesus Christ, and repentance, separately, and to give different definitions of them. Yet as they are acted in the soul, they are involved the one in the other ; and as they are acted inwardly, both might well be comprehended in the following definition — " Repentance unto life, or the conversion of the sinner, is a saving grace, whereby a sinner, from a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of the mercy of God in Christ, turns from sin unto God, QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 449 founding- his confidence, and resting on Jesus Christ for pardon and acceptance with God through his mediation, and for complete salvation." I know that some will not bear to hear that repent- ance is previous to justification, but will have it to be wholly the consequence and effect of a sinner's being justified, and coming under grace, and that repentance is, from thenceforth, the continued exercise and practice of the Christian to the end of his course. I doubt not but many such do mean what is right in the main, though their way of conceiving things hath this evident inconvenience, that it would direct them to express them- selves in a way contrary to the language of Scripture, which calls on sinners to repent, in order to (and so previously to) the remission of sins. It may tend to give some further light concerning this point that we consider how, and in what cases, the true believer is required in Scripture to repent, or, is said to repent. 1. I observe, that when such have considerably declined with respect to their love, fruitfulness, or integrity, they are called on to repent. Thus, after giving commenda- tion to the angel of the Church of Ephesus, the Lord says, / have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works* Thus, also in that same chapter, the angel of the church of Pergamos having much offended the Lord, by suffering those who held the doctrine of Balaam, and those who held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, the Lord says to him (ver. 16), Repent. So likewise the angel of the church of Laodicea having fallen into a fearful condition of lukewarmness, the Lord says to him (chap. iii. 19), Be zealous, therefore, and repent. 2. When a Christian hath come under the predomi- ance of any particular lust, he is called to repent and forsake it, and the practice that hath been the consequence thereof. Thus the apostles, having shown pride and * Rev. ii. 4, 5. 2 F 450 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION ambition to be very predominant in them, the Lord said to them, Except ye be converted (the same in meaning as, Except ye repent), and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven* Job was happy as to his state and general character, and gave a very exemplary proof of patience ; yet in one thing he was dangerously wrong, because (chap, xxxii. 2) he justified himself rather than God ; so far even as to insinuate what was reproachful to God with regard to his dealing with him ; saying / am clean, without transgression — Behold, he findeth occasions against me.j — This in Job's views and disposition might continue to be matter of controversy between God and him. But by Elihu's pleading with him, and more especially by the Lord's own appearance and pleading, he was at length brought down from his height ; and after so confident pleading his own righteousness, and impeaching divine providence, he comes to this (chap. xlii. 6), / abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes.% It was then, and not till then, that the Lord gave forth judgment for him against his friends, and turned the captivity of Job. It is only in such special cases as these, that I observe sincere believers, or true Christians, called on to repent, or the word repent used with respect to their disposition and course. According to our conception, we may, perhaps, say, that the whole life, exercise, and practice of a true Christian is no other than repentance continued and extended to the end of his course ; nor can I think that way of con- ceiving things is to be found fault with. But we are inquiring here concerning the Scripture meaning of the word, and as to that, I have not observed anywhere in Scripture, that the ordinary exercise and practice of the Christian is set forth under the name of repentance. These things, which some do conceive as a continuation of repentance, should, according to Scripture style, be accounted fruits, or works meet for repentance, rather * Matt, xviii. 1, 3. + Saying, as Elihu represents, Job xxxiii. 9, 10. \ Matt. iii. 8; Acts xxvi. 20. QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 45 I than be called any of them, or the whole together, by the name of repentance. Let me observe, by the way, this affords what may satisfy us about the meaning of our Lord's expression (Luke xv. 7) where he explains his parable of the hundred sheep, whereof one was lost, and recovered, to the great joy of the owner : / say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ?iinety and nine just persons, which need no repentance. It seems reasonable to think, that the ninety and nine sheep are creatures of the same species with the sheep that went astray ; that is, not angels, but men. Who then are the ninety-nine just persons among men, who need not repentance ? What hath been just now observed helps us to answer — They are those sincere Christians, who walk uniformly in a pure and upright course, free of any remarkable sins, or predominant lust, labouring earnestly to perfect holiness in the fear of God. These, according to the Scripture style and use of the word, need not repentance Some earnestly maintain, that repentance is not previous to, but is a consequence of justification, in order to secure against the legal disposition, which men are so naturally prone to, or rather, that is so deeply rivetted in men's hearts naturally, and which is indeed of the worst tendency and consequence to the souls of men. Upon the same view, some have denied regenera- tion, or the sanctifkation of the Spirit, to be previous to faith or justification. It is certain, however, where true regeneration is, and the sincerity of repentance, that there is a disposition of heart the most remote from legal. At any rate, when men would provide an antidote against error upon one hand, they should be very careful that they strike not against the truth, on the other hand, or give advantage to the adversaries of the truth. To me it appears to be the truth clearly set forth in the word of God, that no sinner is justified but the penitent sinner ; and that the penitent, or repenting sinner, is justified by faith alone, by faith in Jesus Christ, and in his blood ; from which blessed object faith 452 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION derives its virtue to justify the sinner, and not from anything in a man, previous, concomitant, or subsequent to his faith, however certainly connected true unfeigned faith is with good dispositions and good works. To represent repentance distinguished from faith, as in a class of co-ordinate conditionally with faith in the matter of justification, or attaining an interest in the covenant of grace and blessings thereof, I cannot consider otherwise than as a notion ill-founded, and of hurtful tenden cy. Thus we take considerable time, and use many words, in explaining what happens instantaneously in the human soul, so as not to be measured by time. A ray of divine light, by one declaration or promise of God's word, entering the mind and heart, with an effectual touch of divine power, may effect, in an instant, in the soul of a serious and humbled sinner, all that hath been here said concerning the sanctification of the Spirit,, repentance towards God, and that faith in Jesus Christ, and in his blood, with which the justification of the sinner is immediately connected, and that hath for its certain consequence, freedom from the dominion of sin, and holy practice. One or two things remain, however, which it is fit to add in this place. Though as to the great substance of it, the conversion of the sinner is effected as hath been represented, yet there may be a considerable variety as to manner and circumstances. The spiritual state of all men by nature is the same, yet there may be a great difference, as to circumstances. Some are in great igno- ance; their course hath been in remarkable opposition to purity, and they have perhaps fallen into ways of gross wickedness, highly dishonourable and provoking to God. In such, the law giving the knowledge of sin, and work- ing wrath, often strikes the conscience with greater force and terror, and alarms the whole soul to a high degree; so that, if divine goodness and care did not secretly work to prevent it, the consequence might be fearful. In such, when divine grace directs these convictions to a happy issue, their conversion and relief by faith may be more QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 453 evident and observable, and sensibly comfortable in a higher degree. The Lord may likewise design to prepare some for more special usefulness, or for more special trials, by greater experience of the terrors of the law, and of the consolations of grace. Yea, some have greater softness, vivacity, and sensibility in their natural spirit and temper ; and thereby more sensible terrors and con- solations than others who have perhaps the reality of this work in greater degree, and with greater effect in all holiness and good fruits. Upon the other hand, some have been brought up under the purity of the gospel, and with a greater degree of light and knowledge, perhaps under the best examples, which have not altogether been without effect, being preserved from the more gross ways of the world ; and possessing, perhaps, greater natural vigour of spirit, with greater equality and sedateness of natural temper. Though such have experienced most serious conviction, and deep impressions of their sinful- ness, and their wretchedness by sin, yet, perhaps, the law of God doth not strike them with such sensible force, or alarm them so very much by its terrors. The law may impress them more gradually, and may (if I may with propriety use the expression) soak by degrees into their minds and consciences. In such, their relief, peace, and comfort, through faith, may at first be less sensible and observable ; but the word of the grace of the gospel entering into their minds and hearts by slower degrees, their faith grows up to greater strength, and with its proper effect in holiness and fruitfulness in every gooj work. At any rate, as to vital principles, whatever difference may be as to manner and circumstances, vet matters will be with every soul truly converted to God, according to the general views given by the Scripture, which acquaints us, that they are (Matt. ix. 12) the sick who need the physician; that (1 Pet. ii. 7) to them who believe, Christ is precious ; that true faith will not allow the Christian to be habitually (2 Pet. i. 8) idle and unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ. It will be an active working principle, a faith that worketh by love. 454 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION Another thing fit to be added here is this : However needful the ministry and discipline of the law in the con- science and heart of a sinner, giving the knowledge of sin and of wrath, is to determine him to flee for refuge, yet he is not to consider the views and impressions that come in this way, as qualifications that entitle him to the comforts of the gospel, or to think, as if without these in a certain measure and degree, it were unwarrantable and unfit for him to lay hold of Christ, or of any comforts of grace. If he is truly and seriously convinced of his need of a Saviour, it were well for him even immediately to betake himself to him, believing in him. If they are the sick that need the Physician, it were vain and highly imprudent to stand off till they were more sick. Many a life has been lost in that way. Whatever the disorder whatever the pain, as to the degree of it, it were good for a man to betake himself soon and seasonably to the Physician. Delay in such cases is often hurtful, and extremely dangerous. It were good for a man to be often thinking seriously concerning his spiritual condition, which is his most important interest. When he is so, and obtains increased views and impressions of sin and wrath, it were good for him, having Christ and his grace set before him, and freely offered, to endeavour, having an eye upward for divine influence, to lay hold of Christ by faith, to apply the blood of sprinkling to himself, for giving him peace; and to apply the comforts of free and rich grace, and of the promise, suitable to his condition ; yet this still so as that the conscience and heart shall be kept open to further views and convictions of sin, and of judgment for it, from the law ; in order to cause a man take the more fast hold of the hope set before him (which is the hope of riglitcotisncss through faith, Gal. v. 5), to hold Christ the more precious, to have the greater relish of the consolations of grace, and of the promise, and to have ever the greater fear of sin, as of the greatest of all evils. The special design of this section was, to point out what direction the Scripture, particularly the context we have been considering, gives to sinners yet in their QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 455 natural, unconverted state, with respect to their most important interest, especially with regard to their justifi- cation and sanctification. When the sinner, who hath been at ease in his sins, is first awakened to seriousness, what especially affects his mind and conscience is, the law as it worketh wrath ; and the great concern is, to be freed from condemnation and judgment. Some, when they have got some kind of peace and settlement of mind with regard to this matter, take their ease, and have no further concern. They rest in a form of religion with no real holiness, or fruitfulness. But they, in whom this work comes to a better issue, through the mercy of God, are led farther into them- selves, to perceive the alarming dominion which sin hath in them, and their inability to sanctify themselves. This becomes matter of weight}' concern with them. The remedy with respect both to the sinner's guilt and his depravity, is, to be made free from the law and its curse. Whilst he is in this condition, as he is under wrath, so sin hath dominion in him. He is at once delivered from the divine wrath, from the dominion of sin in his heart and nature, and made capable of holy practice, by being justified through faith, and brought under grace.* Sinners coming into union with Jesus Christ by faith, they become dead to the law (free from its curse and bondage) by the body of Christ, that they should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that they should bring fortli fruit unto GodA This is the doctrine of the Scripture, and the way which it marks out to sinful men, in which alone they can come to a capacity of bringing forth fruit in a practice truly holy and acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. We should now show what direction our context affords, as to comfort, and holy practice, to persons now truly in a state of grace. But as this will, in some form. * Rom. v. 1, 2, with chap. vi. 14. t Rom. vii. 4. 456 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING come in our way hereafter, I shall not lengthen this section, by saying anything particular concerning it in this place. Sect. IV. — Concerning True Evangelical Preaching. We proceed now to point out some directions that our context, and the apostle's doctrine in it, afford to the preachers of the gospel. As there are commonly persons differing as to their spiritual condition and state in every public audience, the discourses should exhibit things suited to such various conditions of men. There may be such difference in the case, even of persons in the same unconverted state, that may require their being addressed and treated in a different manner. Some such are quite secure and thoughtless about their condi- tion, whilst others of them are serious, and under the sharp discipline of the law in their conscience. There may also be considerable difference in the particular condition and circumstances of persons in a state of grace ; some such are weak, others are strong. A dis- tinction that includes all the members of the church is, That some are, in their natural conditon, under the law and its curse, and under the dominion of sin ; and that others are in a state of grace. As the apostle says of the ancient Israel, He is not a Jew which is one out- wardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh ; They are not all Israel which are of Israel ;* so may be said of the New Testament Israel, the gospel- church, all members of the church externally are not the true circumcision described. f It is, however, the way of some preachers to consider all their audience under the general character of believers and Christians (as they are by profession and outward privilege), and to exhort them indiscriminately, without * Rom. ii. 28 ; ix. 6. t Phil. iii. 3. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 457 any hint of the difference that may be, as to their real spiritual state, to the practice of holiness ; explaining it and each particular virtue, and enforcing these with such motives as the nature of the subject affords ; pressing them to labour earnestly to overcome their evil habits, and withdraw themselves from under the power of them, and by careful attention to their heart and practice, to acquire new habits of holiness and virtue ; encouraging sometimes their sincere endeavours in this way, with the prospect of the aids and assistances of the Holy Spirit. As to these, the children of God do indeed need them, with regard to all their course, work and exercise; but persons in their natural state need much more than particular aids and assistances. This way of preaching tends to keep persons in ignorance of their natural condition, and of the sad disadvantage which they therein labour under with respect to true holiness ; or to cause them overlook it, and to imagine their powers amount to more than they do. It is certain there can be no true holiness, no sincere serving of God, until a person is made free from sin — from its dominion. It is in that order that the apostle conceives and represents things (chap. vi. 22), Being made FREE FROM SIX and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto Jioliness. It is right that a man should strive against ill habits ; but there is a crreat deal more in the dominion and slavery of sin than acquired evil habits. The dominion of sin is too strong for any human power or endeavour. The apostle says* that the law could not make a man free from the law of sin and death. Why ? the law doth not encourage reforma- tion (so some explain) by any promise of pardon. True; but this is not all ; nor is it to this that the apostle ascribes the disability of the law : but he says, the law could not make a man free, in that it was weak through the flesh, the corruption of our nature, that evil principle in men, whose tendency and influence is ever in opposi- tion to the direction and demand of the holv law. Rom 45^ CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING The case hath required a great deal more than were requisite for curing and reforming any mere ill habits. It required, as we have seen, that Christ should become a sacrifice for sin ; as to procure pardon, and to bring sinners under grace, so to procure that sin should be condemned to be ejected from its throne and dominion. It becomes sinful men to labour in every way of duty and means against sin. But the condemning sentence against sin must be first truly executed by a superior hand, before a man can do anything sincerely and successfully in the matter. So the apostle says, The law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.* The first main intention, therefore, of the preacher with respect to such sinners, should be, to bring them truly to Christ, by the faith that would truly unite them to him, and derive from him peace and comfort, sanctify- ing influence and strength, that so, being married to him, they might bring forth fruit unto God. Subservient to this main intention is this other ; viz. to acquaint such sinners with the wretchedness of their condition, by the light of the law ; to show them the evil of sin in itself, and the fearful judgment, curse, and wrath, which by the law is due to it ; to explain to them the holiness which the holy and spiritual law requires ; and besides their actual sins, to mark out to them the contrariety to this holiness, which they may observe in their own nature and heart, by comparing these with the perfect rule, and the light of the word of God ; and to convince them by the word of God, and what they may find in their own experience, how impossible it is for them (being slaves of sin. and it having invested all their faculties and powers), to reform or sanctify their own hearts, or to practise holiness in a manner truly sincere and acceptable to God. At the same time, with a view to sinners becoming serious and earnest in the matter of salvation, it is fit that the preacher lay fully before them the abounding ;:" Rom. viii. 2. COXCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 459 and exceeding riches of divine grace ; the sufficiency of the Saviour ; his love to sinners ; the complacency he hath in their betaking themselves to him ; and the absolute freeness (without money and without price) with which Christ, and all grace, is offered in the gospel, even to the chief of sinners. This should be done in such a manner as to obviate the temptations of various sorts, which arise from their own ignorance and mistake, or from the device of the enemy ; which, by reason of the darkness and weakness of their minds, they are commonly too ready to entertain to their great hurt. It was appointed anciently, that the highways to the city of refuge should be open and clear, that nothing might impede the course of a man thither, when he was fleeing from the avenger : So should the preacher labour, by the direction of the word of God, to obviate and remove everything that might discourage or hinder the motion of a serious and humbled sinner towards Christ by faith, for refuge and salvation. I have noticed the directions which our context affords to sinners themselves, with regard to their wretched, natural state. As these may serve likewise for the use of the preacher in dealing with such, I shall insist no longer on this part of the subject. The other class, of whom the preacher ought to have much consideration, are sincere believers, who are truly in a state of grace. The important intention with regard to them is, the building them up in holiness and comfort; — in comfort, particularly in what concerns their sanctifi- cation ; as indeed their feelings and experience do often occasion more sorrow and discouragement with regard to this subject than with regard to any other. Yet it is of great importance that their comfort and joy should be maintained, as the joy of the Lord is their strength. We see the apostle in our context acting on this view very remarkably. His special purpose is to exhort to the practice of holiness, to the avoiding and resisting of sin. But he brings forth every argument, clothed, as it were, with consolation, respecting the subject 'concerning which Christians do commonly find such cause of dis- 460 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING couragement) and respecting the happy and certain issue. To be dead to sin* affords a strong argument why Christians should not live in sin. But how great the comfort, to be made free from its dominion, as that expression imports? Christians are obliged to be in practice conformed to Christ's death, and to the design of it. But how great the comfort, that they have fellowship with him in his crucifixion and death, so that though sin remain in them, and gives them much molestation, yet the old man is crucified by virtue of the cross of Christ, and so being enervated and weakened, they may take courage to decline its service ! If Christians have fellowship with Christ in his death, whereby they are made free from the dominion of sin, how unspeakably great the consolation, that they shall be planted together in the likeness of his resurrection, and, having died with him, that they shall live with him in newness of life here, and in eternal life hereafter ; and may reckon themselves to be dead indeed unto sin (made free from its reign and dominion), and alive unto God through Jesus Christ ! Such consolations tend greatly to sweeten and recommend to the heart the arguments enforcing holiness and holy practice. This particularly hath that tendency, Sin SHALL NOT have dominion over you ; for ye are not under the law, but under grace. j As if he had said, The law would have left you wholly to your own free will, to stand or fall according to its direction and determination. If a sinner were delivered from the law, and that miserable condition into which his sin had brought him, and put anew under the law, he could have no security for preserving himself from coming anew and quickly under the dominion of sin. But the Christian being under grace, the object of special divine favour, yea, a child of God, divine grace will take care that he fall not under that thraldom again, according to the declaration of the last mentioned text, and according to the promise of God's covenant of grace (Jer. xxxii. 40). And though * Rom. vi. 2. t Rom. vi. 14. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHIXG 46 1 the means needful to be used, by way of chastisement, may be so bitter and painful as may make sin ever fear- ful to him, yet he will be recovered from his straying, and from his disordered frame ; his faith shall not fail, or be quite eradicated, but his seed shall, by Divine influence and care, abide in him. Thus the apostle goes on, com- forting and exhorting at once, by the most encouraging considerations, and the most cogent arguments, to ver. 22, But nawt being made free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever- lasting life; in which words he gives a summary of what he had said more largely in the whole chapter. Let us go a little farther in observing how the apostle manages this subject. As the condition of sinners under the law is so extremely miserable, the apostle sets out on that subject (chap. vii. 4) with stating this very comfort- able sentiment to Christians ; viz. that they were dead to the law, and entered into marriage with a better husband, by whom they would become fruitful in holi- ness. It is not until after this, that he shows from his own experience, when under the law, how great the power of sin, in opposition to holiness, is, in the case of those who are under the law. But as sincere Christians, acquainted with the spirituality of the law, and with their own hearts, might find still with themselves what was very opposite to the holiness q{ the law, there wa^ great need of providing comfort against this. He doth so by representing his own case and experience in his state of grace, in order (as Augustine said judiciously) that a sincere soul might not conceive excessive dread or discouragement from what the apostle found in his own case ; and in the end he leads the true Christian (ver. 25) to a joyful thanksgiving to God for what he had attained, and for his happy prospect. Thus the apostle's arguments against sin, and for enforcing the practice of holiness, are all along dipped in consolation, and this way ought the preacher of the gospel to follow in exhorting Christians to holiness. Yet often it is needful in dealing with Christians, to administer something else than mere consolation. The 462 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING case even of true Christians is commonly various. If some especially need comfort, others need something else in the meantime. For this we may observe the apostle's distinction and advice, Warn them that are unruly, or disorderly.* If a Christian doth in his practice, perhaps in a remark- able degree, leave the rule of holiness, and act contrary thereto, it is needful, for recovering him, to warn him with proper authority, and sharpness of rebuke, acquaint- ing him with the danger of his present course : it is not comfort that is then most needful or fit. Comfort the feeble-minded. — Some Christians, through the weakness of their spirit, do not retain their comfort ; but it is easily shaken or overturned ; especially when there is the pressure of heavy affliction and tribulation, with various temptations. Their case needs to be carefully attended to, and all proper means used to revive and strengthen them, and to establish them in comfort and hope through faith. Support the weak. — Some labour under too great degree of ignorance (as, for instance, of the Christian Gentiles, their full liberty from all the Mosaic yoke, which was the weakness of some hereto- fore, Rom. xiv.) and with unsteadiness of temper other- wise ; their ignorance makes them easily stumble, or puts them in danger of going out of the right way. Such need to be supported by those who are strong, particularly by their teachers, with proper instruction, increase of light, and with charitable condescension to their weakness, so as not to give them needless offence. Though, as to matters of necessary and strict duty, other Christians or ministers are not to be brought into bondage to their weakness, by virtue of any claim they can found on considerations of offence. Thus true Christians should, according to their different cases, be somewhat differently treated. But it is still true in general, that Christians, from their inward and outward condition in this evil world, do need that care should be taken by preachers and others, to labour 1 Thess. v. 14. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHLNG 463 in advancing and establishing their comfort, in the proper, seasonable, judicious, and well warranted manner. — I should now proceed to the other special purpose which a preacher of the gospel should have in view, with respect to true Christians, and that is, the advancing them in holiness. But I choose a following place for that subject. Before we go farther, we have full occasion to observe, of how great importance it is, to preach the special doctrine of the gospel, the doctrine of faith ; and that, not only in order to give sinners encouragement respect- ing free justification, but also with regard to sanctifica- tion. The Gospel, the doctrine of faith, is the special truth of God, and of divine revelation ; this is the great means of sanctification, according to that declaration and petition of our blessed Saviour to his Father : Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is truth* It is not always the Gospel that is delivered from the pulpit. A man may preach very sensibly concerning the divine perfections, and the authority of God's government and laws. He may set forth the general obligations to duty and obedience. He may inculcate the amiablensss of virtue in general, or of particular virtues ; and may represent many worthy examples, for men's encouragement and excitement. He may earnestly call on men to repent of their sins, and to reform the disposition of their hearts, and their course of life. He may inculcate this with all the advantage of elocution, earnestness, and action, that would entitle him to the character of the complete orator. The composition may be very skilful, the language elegant and pathetical, and the preacher may be so greatly applauded, that it may sometimes be said, He hath his reward. Not only may the ears of the hearers be tickled, but their minds may be very agreeably enter- tained with sentiments that are in themselves just, and with many a good thought. Yet in all this there may be nothing by which a soul ma)- be relieved and re- * John xvii. 17. 464 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING freshed, that labours and is heavy laden ; nothing by which a serious soul may be directed to the proper sources of sanctification. A discourse may have in it much truth that is consistent with the gospel, and presupposed by it, and yet have nothing in it of the gospel, properly so called. Of such a discourse, with all its advantage of sentiment and expression, it may be said, as the apostle says of the law, that it is weak through the flesh. The corruption of nature, in which sin hath dominion, is too strong for philosophy, logic, and rhetoric — too strong for refined speculation, strong- argument, and the greatest oratory. It is only the law of the Spirit of life that can make men free from that unhappy law of sin and death, that prevails naturally in the hearts of men ; and what arguments or exhortations will prevail with the hearts of men to be truly holy and virtuous, whilst they are under the miserable law and dominion of sin? It is the gospel that is the ministration of the Spirit. Men receive the Spirit through faith (Gal. iii., 14), by the hearing of faith (Gal. iii. 2). It is the gospel that exhibits God's highest glory, which he chiefly designs to display before sinful men, even that glory of God that shineth in the face of Christ. It is the gospel that sets forth the glory of Christ, and by which the Holy Spirit himself is glorified ; and it is it that will be honoured with the concomitant influence of the Holy Spirit. It is true, after all, that whilst the faithful preacher may be to God, a sweet savour of Christ he may be to them who perish the savour of death, through their own fault ; * vet the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit is not likely to attend any other means, even any other truth, than the truth and doctrine of faith, the gospel, which will be the savour of life unto life to some. But, however it may happen to hearers, or however the blessings of grace may be dispensed, it is happy for the preacher that himself should be to God a sweet savour of Christ. If it should now be asked what is that special doctrine * 2 Cor. ii. 1 ;, 16. CONCEKiYIXG TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH 1XG 465 of the gospel, and, strictly speaking, the doctrine of faith ? I shall answer briefly — All revealed truth ought to be greatly valued, and received by faith ; and, if properly used, may be sub- servient to the main subject and design of the gospel. But the special subject of the gospel is Christ ; and preaching Christ, according to the light and direction of the word of God, is preaching the gospel. The angel preached it to the shepherds, saying, Fear not ; for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the eity of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord* To preach Christ the Saviour and the LORD, is the sum of gospel-preaching. To exhibit him as a powerful Saviour, not merely to save us from our ignorance or our errors, as a Prophet and Teacher sent from God, or merely as a powerful Lord to protect us during our course of obedience to him in our way through this world, and at last to raise us up by his power to eternal bliss ; but in the most comprehensive sense to save us from our sins. Under this character was he introduced into the world. Thou shalt call his name JESUS; for lie shall save his people from their siusA The whole extent of this salva- tion is comprised in these few words, He is of God made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.^ Besides that illumination of our minds, and instruction by his word, that is contained in the sense of his being made unto us wisdom, the two great parts of our salvation that are to be carried on and effected in this life, are his being made unto us righteousness and sauetif 'cation, and how he is the Saviour to us with respect to both these, is what the blessed apostle explains and asserts in the context I have been explaining, and in the preceding part of the epistle. With regard to the first of these, as he had proved 'chap. iii. 19), that all the world is guilty before God ; so he had shown how Christ is made unto us righteousness, and how sinners are justified, vers. 24, 25, formerly cited ; * Luke ii. 10, 11. t Matt L 21. 1 1 Cor. i. 30. 2 G 466 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING to which is to be added, Eph i. 7. And as to the other part, our sanctification, — as by his being a sacrifice for sin, he hath procured the condemning of sin in the flesh, so he doth make sinners free from its thraldom by his Spirit, and carries on their sanctification by his Spirit, by his word, and by his providence, until at length he shall present his church a glorious church without spot. Thus is Christ a Saviour, saving us from our sins. When we were under the guilt and dominion of sin, thus hath he saved us by him. " Not by works of righteousness, which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life."* We may observe how exceedingly careful the apostle was, in preaching, to make Christ and his cross the chief subject. To the Corinthians, those Greeks who were as much taken up about wisdom of sentiment, refined -speculation, and elegance of language, as the men of most politeness and fine taste in our times, he says, Christ sent me — to preach the gospel ; not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of CJirist shoidd be made of none effects When men labour greatly about artful composition, refined philosophical sentiment, and well turned expres- sion, it were well that this saying of the apostle should occur to their minds ; and that they would beware lest the tendency of their labour should be to make the cross of Christ of none effect. It appears the blessed apostle wished not that the brightness of the preacher, or his performance, should obscure the glories of the cross, or should obstruct its virtue and effect in the con- sciences and hearts of men. We preach not, saith he (2 Cor. iv. 5), ourselves, but Christ fesus the Lord. Although the preaching of Christ crucified was to the Greeks foolishness, yet he asserts, that Christ crucified is (ver. 24) to them who are called, the pozver of God, and * Tit. iii. 5, 6, 7. t 1 Cor. i. 17. CONCERN! AG TRUE EVANGELICAL /"REACHING 467 the wisdom of God. So, to these same polite, speculative, wise, and elegant Greeks, he says again, " And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech, or of wisdom, declaring to you, the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."* We have reason to think the apostle had very extensive knowledge ; but from whatever part in the circle of knowledge he drew his lines, they all, with him and in his preaching, centred in Christ, or were drawn from that centre in every direction. In all this, the preacher hath large scope for his meditations and discourses. But, with propriety, purity, and gravity of language, it is only the most unaffected plainness and simplicity of style that can suit subjects so very sublime. To endeavour to set forth such subjects with flourish and ornament of speech, is silly and pedantic, hath nothing in it of true oratory, and shows that the man's own heart is not seriously enough affected with the importance of the subject to himself and to his hearers. Though propriety of style, with gravity and plainness, is commonly fittest, yet there seems to be a great deal in what was said long ago by an eminent person : Qui pucrilita\ qui trivialitcr ( I would add here, sed non futilitcr), is utiliter. The low, but decent and grave homely style, is most adapted to the profit, commonly, of the greatest part of an audience; and they of better rank and education who wish to have their conscience open to, and their hearts seriously affected by, the word of God, may reap the most valuable advantages by those sermons that are most profitable to persons of lower condition. What shall I say of that most foolish custom of reading sermons to the congregation, which hath come from the Southern (I know not if it takes place in any other countries) to be in use of late with some in the Northern part of the Island? It is too dull for the orator, and puts such a man in fetters ; and it hath a * 1 Cor. ii. 1, 2. 468 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING strange appearance, that an ambassador of Christ should deliver his message in this way. What the Lord hath given in writing, he should read to his people ; and if the minister should from a distance send an epistle to his congregation, the clerk might read it to them from the desk. But that the messenger of Christ should appear personally, and address the consciences and hearts of his people, praying them, beseeching them, earnestly exhorting them from his papers, is extremely incon- gruous. We speak of a man's getting a discourse by heart ; and it were right that preachers should (in a sense somewhat different from the more common mean- ing of that expression) have their sermons by heartr and preach from the heart to the heart. At any rate, the appearance of this is the most becoming, the most likely to be profitable, and generally the most acceptable. Some hearers who have, or pretend to have, better judg- ment and taste than their neighbours, may like the reading of sermons ; but it may well be doubted if these are the sort who have the best taste of gospel-preaching,, or are most serious in religion. With us, this way is hitherto so generally disgusting to congregations, some- times without the exception of a single person, that often the reader may be vindicated from the charge of setting up for applause ; if it is not, perhaps, the self-applauser which his notion of his own superiority makes him fond of, with the contempt of others. I would not, however, be understood to mean, that the church should be wholly deprived of the useful preaching of those who, through old age, or accidental infirmity, are disabled from deliver- ing sermons in any other manner ; but I have known very few instances of that kind among those who could prepare such discourses, or could preach at all. I have been saying, that the chief thing in preaching should be to preach Christ, and the doctrine of the gospel concerning him. Too many sermons come abroad into the world that are much wanting fn that respect. I venture to give, for an instance of this, a sermon of the Reverend John Alexander, said, in the title-page of the book in which it is contained, to have been composed CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 469 (which I much doubt of) by the author the day pre- ceding his death. This circumstance might have afforded reason not to mention it here in this way, if, after its being published, it did not appear needful to report such a circumstance, in order to make some observations on it, for the sake of the living. The text is (Eccles. ix. 10), " Whatsoever thy hand fmdeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, whither thou goest." The heads under which he enlarges on this text are two. The first, What is implied in the advice in the text. On this he says: I. It teaches us diligence and assiduity in the daily employments of life. 2. The speedy execution of every worthy and important scheme. 3. The constant and strenuous exertion of all our faculties in the proper business of reasonable and moral agents ; the improvement of our minds, and the government of our passions and affections, &c. The second general head is, to illustrate the motive contained in the text. As to this, there is, 1. The nature of that state upon which we enter by death. There is neither work, &c. It is a state of perfect ignorance and inactivity, in which we retain no sense of our present condition, no memory of former transactions, nor any of the pleasing capacities of action and enjoyment — so it is indeed in the full sense, if after death there remain no more of man than what goes to the grave. 2. This state, as it is real and certain, so it is continually approaching — the grave to which thou goest. This is the sum of the sermon. He mentions the second life, to which we aspire, by the favour and good- ness of the Creator ; and a little thereafter, mentions the reviving prospect of immortality, and that glorious hope of a resurrection, which is promised in the gospel. One might think, if the writer relished that subject, that here was a fair opportunity of mentioning Christ, who by his death and resurrection abolished death, and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel. A few lines from the end of the sermon he says, M We must live 470 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING to God, and lead an heavenly life, if we ever expect to reach those blissful abodes ; and we must form the habits of goodness and holiness, in order to be admitted there." Would the apostle Paul have discoursed of living to God, of living a heavenly life, of forming habits of good- ness and holiness, without making mention of Christ, or of his death and resurrection ? This may be judged of from the context we have been considering. This author had learned from the gospel, that there is the hope of the resurrection and future life ; but there is nothing in all the sermon by which one would learn that ever he had heard of Christ the Saviour, or of the Spirit of Christ, or the need which sinful men have of the one or the other : nothing of these subjects is insinuated or hinted in the remotest manner ; only the name Christian occurs, from whatever root that word is derived. It might be thought, that in the full light that hath come by thegospel,a preacher of the gospel could not easily preach on that same text (Eccles. ix. 10), without setting Christ before his hearers. There has an apology been provided for such a case by a very celebrated preacher, who gave as his excuse for not mentioning Christ in his sermon, that he was not mentioned in his text. Nor is he mentioned in that text (Eph. ii. 8), By grace ye are saved, through faith ; yet one might think it were not easy to preach properly on it, and give the proper explanations, exhortations, and directions, without mentioning Christ. It is however possible, that though the name Christ is not mentioned, the sermon may be truly evangelical ; and also that Christ may be often mentioned, and the sermon be far from being evangelical. After all, it would seem more becoming a minister of Christ, to take all occasions to set Christ and his grace before his hearers, rather than be so ready to sustain for himself, and offer to others, an excuse for having nothing about him at all. Such preachers would do well to compare their sermons with our context, yea, with all the epistles of Paul, where we see he could not proceed a step without introducing that important, necessary, and favourite subject. But since the time of that blessed apostle, many have appeared to CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 47 I be far from the disposition he expresses (Rom. i. 16, 17), / am not ashamed of the gospel of Clirist: for it is the power of God unto salvation — For therein is the righteous- ness of God revealed. — There are some who speak much about righteousness, who seem not to be fond of that righteousness of God meant by him, and which he counted the glory of the gospel, and a special cause why he should not be ashamed of it. As they incline not to borrow righteousness from Christ for justification, so neither do they appear to see need of Christ for practical righteousness and holiness ; if it is not for a clearer illustration of the law that is the rule of it. Many, who wish not to bear the character of infidels, do, under Christian profession, appear to have gone far in the way to a sort of philosophical heathenism, borrowing from the gospel-revelation what they think fit for adorn- ing and recommending their new form of heathenism. But if it is fit and necessary to preach Christ, and him crucified, and the special doctrine of the gospel concern- ing him, it is also necessary to set forth and to inculcate earnestly the design of his death, and of the grace manifested in the gospel through him. If it was his gracious design to bring sinners to peace, grace, and favour with God, and at last to a state of blessedness and glory, it was no less his design to sanctify them. So Eph. v. 25-27, He gave liimself for his churchy that he might sanctify it ; — and Tit. ii. 14, He gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify to liimself a peculiar people, zealous of good zvorks. The demand for preaching Christ and free grace is so far from being opposite to the end of preaching holiness and good works, that indeed men cannot preach holiness and good works to good purpose, and with good effect, without bringing along with them all the way the doctrine of Christ, and of free grace. It is at the same time true, that men's preaching is essentially defective, if they preach not Christ in a manner subservient to holiness. Some men, when they hear a demand for evangelical preaching, and the doctrine of grace, with complaints of legal doctrine, have been ready to ex- 472 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING claim, and to say, that those who make them cannot bear to hear of holiness and good works. This is far from the disposition of pious souls who have a true relish of the truth of the gospel, and a just zeal for it. Yet, if the manner in which some preach holiness and good works gives disgust, there is often too much cause for that disgust. They are particularly happy who~have the skill to give free grace through Jesus Christ, and holiness, their proper place, in a proper connection the one with the other. In the meantime, if faithful men are most frequently employed in preaching Christ, and the doctrine of grace, there is special reason and need for it. The consciences of men have naturally in them light and impressions favouring holiness and good works ; whereas the peculiar doctrine of faith, in which all the comfort and hope of sinful men are founded, are such as nature gives no hint of. They are, according to that text formerly cited,* things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, and which we could not have discovered by any light or principles naturally in our minds, nor have come to the knowledge of them, if God had not revealed them to us by his Spirit. Yea, as hath been also formerly observed, there are principles and dispositions naturally in the hearts of men, which tend to lead them to some other foundation of their confidence and hope, than that which the gospel and the doctrine of grace directs them to. It is the more necessary to labour much in explaining and establishing the truth concerning Christ crucified, and all the proper doctrines of faith that are connected with that funda- mental subject, and in inculcating these upon the consciences and hearts of the hearers. When the truths of faith are effectually received into the heart, they of themselves dispose it to holiness ; and the true faith of these truths works by that love which is the fulfilling of the law. Indeed, in sincere Christians, love to God and men, with its fruits, in all kinds of duty, and of holy * i Cor. ii. 9, 10. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH1XG 473 dispositions, is to be considered as the effect rather of the doctrine of grace itself received into the heart, than as the consequence of the direct exhortations to that love and duty : so that when a preacher is not employed in direct and explicit exhortations to holiness, but in setting forth the love and grace of God in Christ Jesus, he is not so remote from the purpose of advancing holiness as some apprehend. But still the practice of holiness and good works is of too much consequence not to be insisted on and urged in the most careful, direct, and earnest manner. Some who insist only on the encouragements and con- solations of grace, are defective in this respect. I am not apprehensive of very considerable danger by this to true believers, sincere Christians, for the reason I have been just now suggesting. But as all who have the appearance, are not truly such, man}- may be much hurt in this way. The doctrine of Christ crucified, and the consolations arising from the richness and freeness of divine grace through him, may be to many as a very lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well on an instrument ; * when these doctrines have never been truly, and with proper effect, received into their hearts. There is a description of sermons that do not urge the holiness which the hearts of too many professed Christians are not disposed to, that do not reprove their vices and unholy passions, or the false and foul steps in their walk, or their unfruitfulness in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and the preachers themselves may be greatly applauded, whilst their preaching is very defective. Yea, as the children of God themselves have the remainders of the flesh in them, they sometimes have much of the fruit thereof in their disposition, temper, and behaviour, that they do not choose should be touched or exposed in a proper light, even to their own view. Yet the health and purity of their souls require that these evils should not be cherished under any disguises. * Ezek. xxxiii. 32. 474 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING The doctrine, then, of faith, and of Christ crucified, should be exhibited in its proper connection with holi- ness and good works. This connection hath been much mistaken by some, who represent holiness and good works as necessary to men's having an interest in Christ and being justified, which is very contrary to the gospel, and is extremely hurtful and dangerous. Some, upon the other hand, who teach justification by faith, and not by works, and have just sentiments concerning the necessity of holiness in the general, yet in preaching are too negligent in insisting upon the certain and necessary connection between faith and good works — between justification and true holiness ; the one as the fruit and consequence of the other. As this may be of pernicious effect to hypocrites in the church, it cannot be doubted but it must be very hurtful to those who are sincere, not to have the instructions and excitements, with respect to holy disposition and practice, that are proper. It is then to be considered, that the gospel and doc- trine of grace is the doctrine that is according to godliness, which tendeth, in the whole and in every part of it, to promote the practice of godliness. Let us likewise con- sider what the apostle in divers places, means by soimd doctrine, and wholesome words, particularly I Tim. i. 9, 10, 11, — The law is made— for the lawless— for liars and perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to SOUND DOCTRINE, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God. Here it is plain, that sound doctrine (vyiaivovcnj StSaa-KaXta^ healthful, wholesome doc- trine), is the doctrine of the holy commandment, the rule of duty, as enforced by the gospel. So (chap, vi.) after he had (vers. 1, 2) enforced the duty of Christian servants, he adds (ver. 3), If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words (yyiatvovo-i Aoyois), he is proud, knowing nothing* Thus also, Tit. ii. 1, But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine (ver. 2), that the aged men be sober, &c. And so he goes on, speaking of practical matters, the duties of Christians in the several * 1 Tim. vi. 3. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 475 relations, ranks, and conditions of life. I conclude, if any do urge holiness and good works, without connecting these, as the proper consequences, with the doctrine of Christ crucified, and with faith, they certainly, according to the whole tenor of the gospel, have not sound, health- ful doctrine. At the same time, if any do separate the doctrine of faith and of Christ crucified from that of holiness, practical righteousness, and good works, surely, according to the apostle Paul, in the places I have been observing, neither is their doctrine sound, wholesome, or healthful doctrine. It appears in the context we have been considering, how much the apostle had at heart to excite Christians to the practice of holiness. This is so obvious through the whole of it, that after the close view we have been taking of it, we need not speak more particularly on it here. Let us then proceed to observe what arguments remain, consistent with the doctrine of grace, by which the preachcr may excite Christians to watchfulness against sin, and to the practice of holiness and all kinds of good works. It is, in the first place, needful that Christians should be deeply impressed with the authority of the laws of God, their Creator and Supreme Lawgiver, and that preachers should inculcate this on all classes of their hearers. Some who, I am persuaded, did not mean any- thing unfavourable to holiness, or to any duty, seem to have thought as if the believer's being delivered from the law included in its meaning their being released from this original obligation of the law, and their having substituted in its place to them the law of Christ. That expression, the law of Clirist, doth indeed occur in one place (Gal. vi. 2), where it evidently signifies the law of mutual brotherly love, by which Christians bear one another's burdens, which is the subject of exhortation there. As to the law in general, it is to be acknowledged that the law and holy commandment coming to believers from the great Prophet and Apostle of their profession, and being the instrument and rule of his kingly govern- ment over them ; there is a great deal in this view, and 476 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING way of conveyance of it to them, to sweeten and recom- mend it to their hearts. But still it is wrong to set up the law of Christ in opposition to the authority of the law of the great Creator and Sovereign of the world, or to suppose that the doctrine of faith gives any reason for this, or any countenance to it. When the apostle is (Rom. vii.) giving an account of things respecting those who were strangers to Christ, being in the flesh, and under the law, he commends the law as holy, just, and good. This certainly is the law of God, the Creator. When, a few words thereafter, he says (ver. 14), the law is spiritual, it is plain it is the same law he speaks of, as he gives no indication of his using the word in a different sense, now that he speaks with a view to the case of a believer. A little downward he says of the same law, that he delighted in it according to the inward man ; and con- cludes the chapter with saying, that with his mind he served the lazv of God. If he served it, surely he was under its authority. Our apostle says, that the carnal mind is not subject to the law of God* Shall it be said, that the spiritual mind and spiritual man, under the influence of the Spirit of grace, doth voluntarily conform to the law of God, but is not indeed subject to it, or to its authority? This would seem to be too absurd. For as the unhappy distinction of the carnal mind is not to be subject, we must suppose the spiritual mind to have the opposite character of being subject to the law, and its authority. The apostle says, Do we make void the law through faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the law A It is true, that the law was greatly established and magnified by the satisfaction Christ gave it ; yet it is not easy to conceive that a doctrine did not tend to make void the law, if indeed it released all true Christians from its authority and obligation. If the matter be justly considered, the obligation which true believers, or others, are under to regard and * Rom. viii. 7. t Rom. iii. 31. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 4;/ submit to Christ the Mediator's kingly government, and his other mediatory offices, is founded upon, and pro- ceeds from the authority of God the Sovereign Law- giver, and of his law. If it were possible for them to be loosed from the obligation of the law of God the Creator and Supreme Lawgiver, they would at the same time be set free from the government of the Mediator. But they are subject to the kingly government and authority of the Mediator, by virtue of their being, and continuing to be, under the authority and law of him who said, / have set my King upon my holy liill of Zionr They regard him as the great Prophet, by virtue of his authority, who said from heaven, Hear ye himA They consider him as their great High Priest, for his being called of God, as was Aaron. \ Let not then the Christian think, that, by being free from the law in the sense meant by the apostle (Rom. vii.) he is not under the authority of the holy commandment, as it is the law of the Creator and Supreme Ruler of the world. Another set of arguments that ought to be carefully urged and inculcated, are these that arise from the grace of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ. The authority of God in his laws is that which doth, and still ought to effect the conscience. But consolatory arguments are these which do most effectually and powerfully affect the heart. The exceeding riches of the grace of God, in his kindness to us through Jesus Christ, should make the authority of his government and laws venerable and amiable to us, and every one of his commandments acceptable to us ; and ought for this end to be much inculcated. The love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who loved his people, and gave himself for them, is a most powerful argument for that love, which engages the heart to the Lord, and to the study of holiness. Ye are not, saith the apostle, your own ; ye arc bought with a price.% This is wonderful grace, inexpressibly comfort- able ; and how strong and en£ragincr the argument it * Ps. ii. 6. t Matt. xvii. ">, as in Deut. xviii. 15-1S. { Heb. v. 4-6. I 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20. 478 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING affords for Christians to glorify God in their bodies, and in their spirits, which are his! In temptations to sin, how powerfully may that thought, Do ye thus requite the Lord, strike the heart that hath any sincerity in it ! A strong argument to enforce holiness, arises from the necessity of it, in order to the actual attainment of future happiness and eternal life; and the certain inseparable connection between fleshly, unholy living, and eternal death. Heb. xii. 14, Follow peace with all men, and holiness, without which 110 man shall see the Lord. On the other hand (Rom. viii. 13), If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die. Upon this latter text some have unreasonably commented, and argued thus : Therefore it is evident, say they, that true believers and saints (and the apostle considered the Romans he wrote to as such), may fall wholly off from holiness to fleshly living, and die eternally, else why should they be thus warned ? But there is no ground for this argument in the apostle's proposition. The thing asserted is, according to the nature of such hypothetical propositions, the certain connection between one thing and another : between continued fleshly living, and dying eternally. Let us apply this way of arguing to such another hypothetical proposition, and see how it will hold. When the mariners attempted to leave the ship wherein Paul was, he said, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved* Would it be inferred from this, that the mariners might actually leave the ship, and that the other people aboard might all actually perish, notwithstanding God's having absolutely promised them by his angel and by Paul, that there would not be the loss of any man's life among them ? Surely this could not be inferred. Neither from the conditional proposition (Rom. viii. 13) can any thing be inferred -contrary to the absolute promises of God's covenant (Jer. xxxii. 40). The truth declared to the Romans is, that eternal death will be the certain consequence of living after the flesh ; and the conviction and impression of this in the minds and hearts of God's * Acts xxviii. 34. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 479 people, and powerfully affecting them, is one considerable means by which the purpose and promise of God will take effect, in their perseverance and salvation. There is nothing in the promises of God that derogates from this certain truth, — If men shall live after the flesh, that they shall die ; nor any thing in this that derogates from the truth and certainty oi the promises of the new covenant. It is likewise needful and fit that Christians consider, and that preachers inculcate upon them, that the practice of holiness and good works is the sure way to attain and maintain the fixed and habitual assurance of their good state, and of their eternal salvation. If (as Rom. viii. 16), the Spirit of God shall bear witness with our spirits, that we are the children of God, and so heirs of God, this is the evidence by which our spirit, mind, and conscience have their part in this witnessing. It is by their fruitful ness in holiness (as 1 Pet. i. 4-7), that Christians are exhorted (ver. 10. to make their calling and election sure. When the apostle commends the Hebrews for their good works, he desires them to show the same diligence, to tlie full assurance of hope unto the end)* A Christian may have well-founded present con- solation by the direct exercise of faith on Jesus Christ, and the promises of a new covenant ; but fixed, habitual, and well-established comfort, as to their state and hope, cannot be maintained but in the way of purity and upright walking with God ; nor will the Holy Spirit, whose influence is needful in this case, countenance or support the comfort and hope of the Christian in any other course. As something hath been formerly said on this and the next following point, the less needs to be said on either in this place.! There occurs next the consideration of divine chastise- ments. Fatherly chastisements indeed they are to believers, the children of God, and designed to make them partakers of his holiness ; but how fearful may these chastisements be for what is wrong or defective in the Christian's general course, or for particular deviations * Heb. vi. 10, 11. + See Section II 480 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING from purity and integrity ! Many instances of this sort are related in the word of God, with respect to those to whom grace did abound in pardoning. Thus, Ps. xcix. 8, Thou wast a God that forgavest them ; though thou tookest vengeance of their inventions. What terrible dis- pensations, outward and inward, may be included in this vengeance ! A child of God, who had great assurance that things would go well with him finally, felt as he expresses, My flesh tremble th for fear of thee, and 1 am afraid of thy judgments* Further, it is in the way of holiness that the Christian may have, not only inward peace, but that fellowship and intercourse with God, and light of his countenance, that will make wisdom's ways ways of pleasantness to him. Thus, I John i. y, If we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another. By this the Lord sometimes putteth more gladness in the hearts of his people than the world have by the increase of their corn and their wine.f The apostle John's words show us in what way and course this may be looked for. Indeed, in any course that the Christian can hold, whilst in this life, sin will cleave to him and to all his best works and righteousness, which might make him very uncomfort- able, if it were not for what is added, — And the blood of fesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. But if the Psalmist had so much gladness by the light of God's countenance, he experienced also a contrary dispensa- tion. Thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled. I cried to thee, O Lord. What profit is there in my blood, when I go down to the pit? i They who have the experi- ence of these various dispensations, and of walking in the light of God's countenance,§ will feel great weight in this argument and motive for fruitful and holy walking with God. Finally, a very powerful argument to encourage and excite the Christian to holiness, to advancing therein, to avoid and strive against sin, arises from that comfortable * Ps. cxix. 120. t Ps. iv. 7. X Ps. xxx. 7-9. § Ps. Ixxxix. 15. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 48 1 consideration and principle suggested, that sin shall ?iot have dominion over hint* This is express and clear, and the inconceivably valuable advantage of this is repre- sented, not as depending merely on the slippery free-will of man, but on the Christian's being under grace. This grace he is under ; and that Christ is set at the head of the kingdom of grace, a Captain of Salvation, secures the Christian from ever falling again under the dominion of sin. There is a great deal in this to excite the Christian to labour in advancing in holiness and good works, maintaining warfare against sin, an enemy already dethroned and deprived of its power and dominion, with a sure prospect of complete victory over it at last. The apprehended impossibility of accomplishing their design, doth often hinder men from beginning or proceeding with courage even in a laudable attempt or undertak- ing. But to be called to a course of holiness, in warfare against an enemy already deprived of his power, and that with sure prospect of victory and glory, surely there is in* this very much to give incitement to every soul that can think wisely and dutifully on the important subject. Such are the arguments that may be suggested to Christians for enforcing holy practice, consistently with the doctrine of grace, and with the comforts of the grace they are under. Yet the cry with some is, as if by this doctrine the necessity and care of holiness were quite superseded, and as if there remained not arguments and motives sufficient to enforce holiness. But do there not remain sufficient reasons and motives for holiness and good works, unless we delude sinners, by directing them to look for their justification before God by their own righteousness and works ? which is a way of justification incompatible with the condition of a sinner. If there were no other way of justification, certainly sinners behoved to be under condemnation for ever. Yea, this would exclude true holiness and works truly acceptable to God, from among men for ever, as is clear from the apostle's doctrine in the context which we have been * Rom. vi. 14. 2 H 482 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING explaining ; in which it is evident, that the sinner must be gratuitously justified, through the redemption that is in Christ, and by faith in his blood, and so brought under grace, before he is capable, being delivered from the dominion of sin, of holy and righteous practice, or of works truly good or acceptable to God. However, though men's good works have no place or part in justification, yet the doctrine of grace, and the experience of that grace, directs Christians to say, We are God's workman- ship (not our own workmanship), created in Christ Jesus, unto good 'works, which he hath before ordained ' (7373077™ i/xao-ev, before prepared {that we should walk in them).* And the glorious preparation which divine wisdom and grace have made, for bringing sinners, who were at the same time under the curse of the law, and under the dominion of sin, unto a state of grace and favour, and unto a course of holiness and good works, is what our context explains and proposes in a clear and strong light. But can there be arguments sufficient to enforce holi- ness and good works, if God's purpose and promise do absolutely secure the salvation of every one of God's true people? We have seen in the various arguments formerly suggested, that there are indeed such; and if these have not effect, it proves the person to be under such dominion of sin, as will be too strong for all argu- ments and motives whatsoever. Some seem to think it the only way to enforce holiness effectually, to acquaint men that their salvation depends absolutely and merely on their own behaviour, and the determination of their own will ; and that if Christians are delivered by God's promise and covenant, and by their faith therein, from the terrors of damnation and the wrath to come, that there can remain no sufficient force in any argument or motive to holiness. But the truth is, if Christians have no security against the wrath to come, otherwise than from their own behaviour and use of their free-will, they, conscious of the deceitfulness of sin, and of their own hearts, and of all the temptations * As Eph. ii. 10. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 483 and hazards attending their course, might see reason always for terror and dread, in a manner and degree not favourable to holiness. For, though fear hath its use for the restraining and curbing of sin, yet the proper prin- ciple of true holiness is love, and the faith which worketh by love. But if the Christian hath nothing to look to for securing him against damnation and wrath but his own use of his free-will, with such aids and assistances as his free-will may use or neglect, there will be cause for continual fear and terror, even such fear as hath torment, and is inconsistent with the love that is the principle of holiness.* But the divine scheme of grace hath mixed and tempered things well for the advancement of holiness. Is the salvation of God's people secured upon the best and most solid foundation ? yet there remains a great deal for the children of God to fear, with regard to sin and its consequences — with regard to God's threatenings against the sins of his children, and the terrible dispensa- tions, outward and inward, that may be the actual con- sequences of their sins. This, in so far that it is among the marks of God's people, that they tremble at God's word ; and we see that the special designation and character of godly persons is, that they tremble at the words of the God of Israeli There is, at the same time, a sure and well founded hope, a strong consolation, an exalted prospect, the most endearing and attractive motives, tending to increase love to God, to his sovereignty and holiness, and to strengthen the hearts of Christians in labouring for conformity to it. Certainly it was the best scheme for promoting holi- ness, that, with a proper curb of fear upon the unholy lusts and unruly passions of the heart, did and still doth contribute most to the advancement of love, and strengthening the hearts of Christians in their course. Thus then it is, while by divine grace the Christian hath the greatest cause for the love that is the true principle of holiness, there remains at the same time a fear sub- * According to 1 John iv. 19. t Ezra ix. 4. 484 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING servient to this love, and to holiness, not a tormenting fear, inconsistent with love, but a fear that hath its root and spring chiefly in love. Some who seem not to employ much thought on the argument, express it thus in general : — If God's purpose of grace, and his promise, hath absolutely secured the salvation of God's people, then they may go on as they please in unholiness and fleshly living, — their salvation being so well secured. But for the argument to strike against the doctrine of grace we have been asserting, it should be formed thus: — If God's purpose and promise have secured the perseverance of his people in faith and holiness, to the attainment of a final and complete salvation, then they may live as they list in unholiness and impurity. This is the only form in which the argument can strike against the doctrine of grace; and the glaring absurdity it contains supersedes all occasion of giving it any direct answer. Concerning holiness, this is evidently the issue of our whole discussion, viz. that the grace of the new covenant hath provided for the advancement of holiness and good works, and for the sanctification of God's people, in a manner and degree much beyond what the sentiments of the adversaries of grace will allow them to admit. As to the argument taken from the liberty of the will, that impotent idol, that hath been set up against the glories of divine grace, something hath been said before concerning it, and I shall here add but a little, briefly. All moral agents act with free will. But there is a principle in nature of powerful influence and effect, previous to all exercise of free will, that directs and determines the will in its actings, and in the use of its liberty. In angels and saints in a confirmed state of holiness, this principle is the perfect rectitude of their nature, that directs their free will to that only that is holy, just, and good. In some other moral agents, the previous principle is the corruption or pravity of their nature, or the dominion of sin therein, which directs the will to that which is evil, and makes it at present in- capable of true holiness. In both cases the moral agent CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 485 acts freely, according to the direction of his own mind, and according to his inclination, without any sort of force or violence ; and so the will may have all the liberty that is necessary to moral agency, whilst, at the same time, it, and all the faculties of the soul, may be enslaved, and under the dominion of sin, until it shall be made free according to the glorious scheme of grace through Jesus Christ, and by him. So that when Luther was publishing his answer to Erasmus' book on Free-will, he did very properly entitle his own excellent treatise. Concerning the En- slaved Will (de Servo Arbitrio). Free it is in its manner of acting, yet truly enslaved to sin in ever}- natural man until the Son shall make him free indeed. True believers, whilst they are in this life, are in a sort of middle state between the two characters before mentioned. Their nature is renewed by grace, and they have the seed of holiness in them, which seed shall remain in them. They have also in them a sad re- mainder of the original corruption ; and both these draw different ways, so that they cannot do completely the things that they would.* But though this remaining corruption considerably disables them, and too often draws them aside from the right way, yet the grace they are under will preserve them from ever falling under the dominion of sin, and will rather care effectually for their safety in the final issue, according to our context.! Should it be thought a thing incredible that the sincere Christian should be certainly kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ? But how can we conceive or comprehend, that the previous certainty of God's prescience of future events, that are to be brought about in concurrence with the will of man, or that the certain accomplishment of divine counsels and purposes that are accomplished by means of the human will, can be consistent with the freedom of the will ? Can the will be free in its determination, and yet, at the same time, that determination of the will be fixed and certain in the divine prescience and decree? * Gal. v. 17. t Rom. vi. 14. 486 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING So it is, however, on both sides ; there is such a previous certainty of events, and the human will having its part in bringing about those events, is free. Besides that the divine prescience and decree, and the certainty thereof, can be proved by just reasoning from the infinite per- fection of the Divine nature, so the doctrine can be satisfactorily confirmed from the Scripture ; and it can be shown, by very many particular instances recorded in the word of God, that this previous certainty of events in the counsel and purpose of God, is consistent with the liberty of the will. What if we cannot conceive or comprehend how it is so ? We shall comprehend it when we shall be as gods. The mischief of aspiring to know and comprehend beyond our sphere and capacity began very early with us. But it becomes us to confine our understanding, as to knowledge, inquiries, and conceptions, within its proper limits and capacity. It will be a happy time and state, when the mind shall be satiated with the best knowledge, without aspiring to comprehend all things ; even things which no finite mind can comprehend ; more than we shall aspire to the dignity and glory of God in general. I do indeed suspect, that in this matter, — viz. to comprehend the consistency of the liberty of the will, with the previous certainty of events to be brought about by it, there is something of this sort, — something that cannot be fully comprehended by finite beings in any state. I therefore cannot think they have been wisely employed, who have pretended to explain this matter, so as to bring it within the grasp of human minds. I see that some with great and vain pretension to be ingenious, have produced on this subject speculations of most mischievous tendency, — speculations adverse to all freedom of will, and at the same time to all moral agency ; consequently adverse to all virtue and religion. The rule of our faith and duty is set before us, and we should be satisfied with it. To pursue our inquiries in divine things beyond what this light and rule direct us, will be vain and dangerous. But as this is not a proper place for enlarging much in COXCERX/XG TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH IXG 48/ the controversial way, I shall conclude this point with giving the sense of a passage of the great Augustine, in his book De Spiritu et Litera, thus : " Do we then make void free-will by grace? Far be it from us: we rather establish free-will. For as the law is not made void by faith, so neither is free-will by grace, but established. For the law is not fulfilled but by the free-will. But by the law is the knowledge of sin ; by faith is grace obtained against sin ; by grace is the soul cured of the disease of sin ; by this cure or health of the soul is the will free. By the will's being made free, is delighting in righteous- ness : by delighting in righteousness, comes the doing of the duties of the law. So, as the law is not made void, but established by faith, as faith obtains the grace by which the law is fulfilled ; in like manner, free-will is not made void, but established, because grace so heals the will, that righteousness is freely delighted in. These things which I have connected as in a chain, can be warranted by texts of Scripture to the sense of each. The law saith, TJwu sJialt not lust. Faith says and prays, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee. Grace says, Lo, thou art made whole, sin not, lest worse happen to thee. The soul healed saith, Lord my God, I have cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. Free-will saith, / zi'ill offer a FREE-WILL offering to thee. Delight- ing in righteousness saith, The unrighteous have told me what they delighted in, but they are not according to thy law. How then should wretched men dare to be proud of their free-will before they are made free, without observing that the very word free-will imports the will being made free? for where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. If then persons are the slaves of sin, why should they boast of free-will? for his slave one is, of whoni he is overcome. But if the}- are made free, why should they boast as of their own work, and glory as if they had not received? Are they so free, that they will not submit to have him for their Lord, who saith to them, Without me ye can do nothing ; and, If the Son shall make you free, then shall ye be free indec So far the excellent Augustine. 488 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING But with all this excitement to the practice of holiness and good works, there is one thing yet remains which Christians should have much at heart, and in which faithful preachers should labour to assist them. As Christians should look anxiously to the sincerity of their hearts, to the sincerity of grace and love in them ; so ought they to labour carefully for the increase of that knowledge and light that is needful to direct the good principles that are in them, in their operations ; and herein they may have great benefit by faithful and judicious teachers. There are two places of Scripture especially worthy to be considered on this occasion. One is Col. i. 9, 10, where the apostle earnestly prays for the Colossian Christians thus : That ye might, saith he, be filled with the KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL, in all wisdom and spiritual understanding : that ye might walk worthy of the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. Here, after great commendation of their faith and love, in the preceding verses, we see he reckons their being filled with the knowledge of the will of God, so necessary in order to their walking worthy of the Lord, and being fruitful in every good work, that he makes the most earnest addresses to the throne of grace, on this account for them. The other place is Phil. i. 9, 10, II, "And this I pray, that your love" (some would express it in our more usual language, " that your grace " ) " may abound yet more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment; that ye may approve things that are excellent." The margin hath it, That ye may try things that differ. I take the meaning to be, that they might have that knowledge, good judgment, and spiritual sense by which they might be able to distinguish between duty and sin, and to discover their duty in every case, however dark, doubtful, or disputable it might appear. He wishes their love to increase and abound, but at the same time that their knowledge and judgment might, for giving their love the proper direction, in every instance of conduct and be- CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 489 haviour. It is in this way, and not otherwise, he expects they might be, as he adds, " Sincere, and without offence till the day of Christ ; being filled with the fruits of righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory and praise of God." There is nothing has a more un- pleasant and painful effect, than when a Christian, truly sincere in love, and in a zeal of God, falls into mistaken courses, through want of needful light, by which to distinguish between sin and duty, and which might obviate and counteract the influence of his own, and other men's passions. Yet so it happens. Some abound in light and knowledge, who are not so anxious about the sincerity of their hearts, and the uprightness of their walk, as they ought to be. Others, conscious and confident of their own sincerity, are no less confident on that account, whatever light or arguments oppose it, that their course is right ; and so they despise and reject the offer of better light, that might show them what is wrong in their way. Therefore it were good not to engage hastily in any new course; for when once Christians are so engaged, too many things concur to exclude the light that may be unfavourable to their course. In this preachers should labour much to be useful to Christians, for increasing their light and knowledge, and improving their judgment in all cases of duty and sin. Here they have a very large field, and great scope for showing at once their ability and fidelity, in setting forth the obligation and necessity of holiness, in explaining its general nature and ingredients, in explaining parti- cular virtues and duties, and in enforcing them ; showing the fallacy of the various colours and disguises, under which a sinful work or course may be recommended to them. It is from the word of God that Christians are to derive all their light and knowledge concerning such subjects ; and as their teachers have commonly more opportunities, and greater advantage for studying and understanding the word of God, so should they endeavour to enlarge their own stores, for the use of Christians, out of that treasure of divine wisdom. Let a man exert all the vivacity and vigour of his mind in refined speculation 490 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING — let him abound in quaint and striking thought and expression — let him collect all that is most valuable concerning virtue, in the writings of the philosophers and wise men of the world, — all will come much short of the light and instruction, concerning such subjects, that is to be obtained from the word of God. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness" — (is profitable for giving the knowledge of divine truth ; for convicting and refuting contrary errors ; for conveying the light and reproof that tend to the correcting of what may be wrong in men's course and works ; and for instruction in all that concerns the practice of righteousness) — " that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works;" that the Christian may be complete in that character, and furnished for every good work ; that the man of God, so called in a more special sense, may be complete in the character of a minister of God, and thoroughly furnished for every good work pertaining to his office ; for advancing the profit and salvation of his people ; particularly in giving them from the Scripture all the instruction needful with regard to the practice of righteousness.* There are, however, several things respecting this matter which it were fit for preachers to observe. I. That they especially use the language of the word of God. This is the style most proper for such subjects ; the style most grave, serious, and emphatic. Human language, especially when it is much laboured, and wrought up to elegance and oratory, may tickle the ears and minds of hearers, and conciliate their esteem of the preacher's talents ; but will never make such impression on the hearts of persons serious in religion, or be received with such relish, as the language of the Holy Ghost, properly used. He was a good, and very successful preacher, who said, Which things also we speak, not in the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with * 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 49 1 spiritual; * that is, as some understand the last clause, very suitably to the matter and scope of the verse, suiting spiritual language, such as the Holy Ghost himself useth, to spiritual things ; which, in the next following verse, he calls the things of the Spirit. 2. That on occasion of explaining and urging duty, or particular instances thereof, they direct Christians to discover and observe what may have been, in omission or commission, contrary thereto in their practice ; and to the renewed application by faith, of the blood of sprinkling, for renewing and supporting their inward peace and comfort. With thee there is forgiveness, that thou niayest be feared. \ Faith's views and improvement of the blood of sprinkling, and of pardoning grace, is essential in the religion of a sinner. Whatever improper use hypocritical and insincere persons may make of pardoning grace, the view and comfort of it is exceeding needful for every serious and sincere soul, for encourage- ment and support in godliness, amidst the views such may have of their own strayings and failures. 3. That in explaining holiness, and the particular virtues and good dispositions that are included in it, they mark out the opposite vices and corrupt tempers that are naturally in the hearts of men, that they show the fallacy of these appearances of virtue, that do oftentimes but colour over a very sinful disposition and practice ; that they mark out to Christians the opposite plagues, lustings, and unholy affections, which, through remaining corruption, are yet commonly and in too great a degree in their hearts, with the difficulty thence arising in the practice of each virtue, and the hinderance this gives to their progress and advancement in holiness. To repre- sent, as in contrast, the several virtues and holy disposi- tions, with the opposite evils of men's hearts, happily suits the real case of Christians. Without this, mere theories concerning virtues and duties, however just, and however much the nature, amiableness, excellency, and * 1 Cor. ii. 13. + Ps. exxx. 4. 492 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING advantage of virtue be set forth, will not be really profitable. Some content themselves with setting forth the righteous and good man, and the man to whom they give a designation from some particular virtue, in such a way as if indeed the man, in his real disposition and practice, did represent righteousness and goodness, or the particular grace or virtue, as completely as the preacher's definitions and illustrations do. This is flying too much above the heads of Christians. It is by all means fit to acquaint them fully with the operation and influence of the opposite principles that remain in them, in order to put them on their guard against those evils on the part of the flesh, which, if unobserved, may have a very ill effect with regard to their disposition and course. It is fit, at the same time, that for their encouragement, Christians be acquainted with the condescensions of divine grace, which often doth grant favourable accept- ance, through Jesus Christ, of the sincerity that is attended with much failure and imperfection, yea, hath a very considerable mixture of what is evil. But if, with proper descriptions of Christian virtues and duties, men's hearts be searched, with a view to show the opposite evil dispositions and corrupt biases which, on the part of the flesh, are in them, as this will tend to make them the more watchful, so will they be thereby led to have the necessary recourse to the fulness that is laid up for them in him in whom it hath pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell, and that for the renewed and more powerful influences of the Spirit. Christians are often too easily satisfied with the dis- position and frame of their own hearts. But if, with sincere and earnest desire to advance in holiness, they looked more closely into the law, as it is spiritual, and into their own hearts, they would see, to their great benefit, more of these motions of sin in them, by which they do what they would not, and are unable to do, in manner and degree, as they would ; as the blessed apostle represents in our context.* Such views and * Rom. vii. 14-25. CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 493 feelings contribute greatly to the Christian's purity in heart, and in the practice of life, and to his advancement in holiness. The things above suggested in this section belong to the profitable and evangelical way of preach- ing, and enforcing holy practice. But now, to bring this work to a conclusion : it is good for them who are the servants of sin, and under its dominion, to become sensible of the wretchedness of that condition, and to betake themselves to the Son, to make them free indeed ; to pray earnestly for that Spirit of life, which cometh by Christ Jesus, to make them free ; without trusting to an)' powers or endeavours of their own for recovering their liberty. It becomes them, who, by being justified through faith, and brought under grace, are made free, to acknowledge the grace which hath made them so ; to keep ever in their eye the rule of duty, with earnest endeavours to attain conformity to it ; knowing that the design of divine grace, in delivering them from the law and its curse, and in making them free from the dominion of sin, was, according to our context, that they might be the servants of righteousness. It becomes them to have habitual recourse to the Lord, and to the promises of the new covenant, for renewed influences of grace, to enable them to hold on in their course of faith and holiness; and to encourage their hearts, and support their hope with this comfortable consideration, that sin shall not have dominion over them, as not being under the law, but under grace. It becomes ministers to labour in leading persons to know themselves and to know Christ, to mark out to them by the light of God's word the way in which they ought to walk, and to enforce holy practice by evangelical principles, arguments, and motives, which alone will have effect. THE END. PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET. BOOK LOVERS' CLASSICS. PRESS OPINIONS On " THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD:' <&TAWCHESTE% gUARDIAN.—" A beautifully printed and wonderfully cheap facsimile." QLOcBE. — "A very attractive edition." CHURCH TIMES.—" Beautifully printed, tastefully bound .... it would be difficult to conceive a more worthy representative of Goldsmith's immortal work." On "GULLIVER'S TRAVELS:' t&fAWCHESTE^ GUARDIAN.— "A marvellously cheap and taking reprint." TIoM'ES. — " The book is handy in shape, and the print is excellent." PALL zMALL. — " A verbatim reprint . . . exceedingly well bound." THE SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY. By Laurence Sterne, with ioo new Illustrations by T. H. Robinson. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield. THE SCARLET LETTER. By Nathaniel Hawthorne, with eight new full-page Illustrations by T. H. Robinson. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield. CRANFORD. By Mrs. Gaskell, with Sixteen Full-page Illustrations, specially drawn for this edition by T. H. Robinson, and separately printed on the finest-surfaced plate paper, and inserted in the volume. 320 pages. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield. GULLIVER'S TRAVELS. By Jonathan Swift, with re- productions of the original plates. A verbatim reprint of the First Edition. 320 pages. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield. THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. By Oliver Goldsmith, with careful reproductions of the whole of the Illustrations by William Mulready, R.A. A facsimile and verbatim reprint of the First Mulready Edition. 320 pages, large crown 8vo. *#* The above teorks are all re-set from next type, ivith title-pages in red and black, designed by J. Walter West, and are printed on choice paper, and bound in vno styles: (a) Cloth extra, gilt lettered on back, gilt top, and gilt panel on front, price 2/6. (b) Cloth extra, gilt lettered on back and front, gilt edges, and pro- fusely decorated with gold on front and back, price 3/6. . THE PROGRESSIVE SCIENCE SERIES. Edited by F. E. BEDDARD, F.R.S. The object of this series, as its name implies, is not merely historical or expository. Each volume, where practicable, will treat its particular branch of" science from three points of view. Firstly, it will give a brief history of its subject ; secondly, the bulk of the work will be devoted, as in other scientific series, to an exposition of the present state of knowledge in regard to it ; and thirdly, as the title of the series indicates, it will endeavour to point towards the line of future discovery, and by giving a brief resume of recent experiment and research, will save investigators the trouble of going over ground that has recently been trodden without result. The following Volumes are ready or in course of preparation : EARTH STRUCTURE. By Professor Geikie, LL.D. VOLCANOES. By Professor Bonnet, D.Sc, F.R.S. THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE. By St. George Mivart, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S. VERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY. By Professor Cope. SCIENCE AND ETHICS. By M. Berthelot. And wor\s on the following subjects are arranged for : ON THEORIES OF MATTER. ON HEREDITY. ON THE ANIMAL OVUM. ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE. ON HYPNOTISM. Other Volumes will shortly be announced, and the Series in its entirety will comprise Volumes on every branch of Science. Where necessary, and to whatever extent may be necessary, the volumes will be illustrated. No expense will be spared in this connection. Large 8vo, cloth extra, price 6s. per volume. FICTION. Edward Jenkins. A WEEK OF PASSION. A Novel. By Edward Jenkins. Large Qroivn %vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s. Gabriel Setoun. .GEORGE MALCOLM. A Novel. By Gabriel Setoun, Author of "Robert Urquhart." Large Qroivn %uoy cloth extra, gilt top, price 6 s. Samuel Gordon. IN YEARS OF TRANSITION. A Novel. *By Samuel Gordon, Author of "A Handful of Exotics." Large Qroivn 8 t/o, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6 s. Darley Dale. CHLOE. A Novel. By Darley Dale, Author of "The Village Blacksmith." Large Qroivn 81/0, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s. Portland Board Akerman & Norman Hurst. TRISCOMBE STONE. A Romance of the Qjiantock Hills. 'By Portland Board Akerman and Norman Hurst. Large Qroivn %-vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s. A. B. Louis. MALLERTON. A Novel. By A. B. Louis. Large Qroivn S-vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s. S. R. Crockett. LADS' LOVE. An Idyll of the Land of Heather. A Novel. 'By S. R. Crockett, Author of " Bog-Myrtle and Peat," etc. Illustrated by Warwick Goble. Large Croivn %uo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. S. R. Crockett. BOG-MYRTLE AND PEAT : Tales chiefly of Galloway, gathered from the years 1889 to 1895. By S. R. Crockett, Author of " The Stickit Minister," " The Raiders," etc. Third Edition, Large Crown %-vo, cloth, gilt top, 6s. Walter Raymond. CHARITY CHANCE. A Novel. By Walter Raymond, Author of "Tryphena in Love," etc. With a Frontis- piece by T. H. Robinson. Large Croivn %uo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. Oliphant Smeaton. OUR LADDIE. A Novel. By Oliphant Smeaton. Illustrated by Anthony Fox. Large Croivn %vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. Frederic Carrel. THE ADVENTURES OF JOHN JOHNS. A Novel. 'By Frederic Carrel, Author of " The City." Large Croivn %vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. Riccardo Stephens. MR. PETERS. A Novel. By Riccardo Stephens, Author of "The Cruciform Mark." Large Crown 81/0, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. Arabella Kenealy. BELINDA'S BEAUX, and other Stories. By Arabella Kenealy, Author of " Dr. Janet of Harley Street," etc. Large Croivn $vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. H. D. Lowry. A MAN OF MOODS. A Novel. By H. D. Lowry, Author of "Wreckers and Methodists," etc. Large Croivn %vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s. 1