THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY From the collection of Julius Doerner, Chicago Purchased, 1918. 221. 1 K'M-o Return this book on or before the Latest Date stamped below. Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from the University. University of Illinois Library JSR 1 9 '**• Q 'z i L161 — iO-1096 A CRITICAL COMMENTARY OX THK EPISTLE OE ST. PAUL THE APOSTLE TO THE ROMANS. “Rarissime :gitur et difficillime inveniri potest ambiguitas in PROPRIIS VERBIS QUANTUM AD LIBROS DIVINARUM SCRIPTURARUM SPECTAT, QUAM NON AUT CIRCUMSTANTIA IPSA SERMON IS, QUA COGNOSCITUR SCRIPTORUM INTEN- TIO, AUT 1 N TERPRETUM COLLATIO, AUT PRiECEDENTIS LINGUA SOLVAT INSPECTIO.” — St. Aug. De Doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. c. 4. “To EXPRESS THE SAME THING AFFIRMATIVELY, WHICH BEFORE I HAVE NEGATIVELY, when any interpretation of Scripture has all these FIVE characters (viz. NATURAL REASON, PARALLEL places of SCRIPTURE, ANALOGY of FAITH, PROPRIETY of LANGUAGE, and COUNTENANCE of ANTIQUITY,) to vouch directly for it, then it is as strongly sup- ported as it is POSSIBLE for an interpretation to be. If it has only SOME OF THESE POSITIVE CHARACTERS, OR ONE ONLY, THE REST NOT INTER- FERING, IT MAY BE A GOOD INTERPRETATION; BUT THE MORE IT HAS, SO »much the SURER.” — Waterland on the Use and Value of Ecclesiastical Antiquity. “Controversy, therefore, as it respects professed Christian be- lievers, IS BUT ANOTHER TERM FOR MAINTAINING WHAT ON EITHER SIDE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE TRUE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE SACRED WORD. The right interpretation of Scripture is the direct object of its research.” — Van Mildert, vol. iv. p. 9. Bampton Lecture, Sermon i. A CRITICAL COMMENTARY ON THE (tjiifitlf of S-t. fjJaul the fApstli) to the 31 o mans. ROBERT K NIGH T, PERPETUAL CURATE OF WARTON. LONDON: SAMUEL BAGSTER AND SONS. SIMPKIN, MARSHALL AND CO. OXFORD: J. H. PARKER. CAMBRIDGE: MACMILLAN AND CO. atherstone: w. c. Holland. M.PCCC.UV. LONDON: PRINTED BY J. WERTHEIMER AND CO. CIRCUS PLACE, FINSBURY CIRCUS. PREFACE. The present Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans was, in a great measure written, as has been stated in the Pro- spectus, in a Canadian mission, partly at times when the author was incapacitated for duty. A subsequent residence in England has permitted him to study many of the annotators upon the Epistle ancient and modern , 1 and to incorporate from them quotations, selected with a desire of adding to the possible use- fulness of the work, which will itself afford the best index of the thought and research that have been expended upon it. It is hoped that it is free from any grave objection ; and that, even when it departs most widely from the current of modern interpretation, the reasons assigned for the views which have been adopted, and the authorities by which, in many instances, these views are supported, will be sufficient to avert the charge of rashness. The great object has been to follow, conscientiously and implicitly, what seemed to be the meaning of the apostle; and never to depart from others, except when it was thought that reasons could be assigned for believing that they had departed from the mind of St. Paul himself. No obscure place has been intentionally blanched ; 2 and, in noticing opposite inter- pretations, attention has been directed to those only which, 1 I may be permitted to acknowledge here the advantage derived from the extensive collection in Darling's Metropolitan Library. 2 “ The second is concerning the exposition and explication of authors which resteth in commentations and commentaries : wherein it is over usual to blanch the obscure places, and discourse upon the plain .” — Bacon Adv. of Learning , p. 215, Mont. Ed. 469481 IV PREFACE. either from their plausibleness, or the extent to which they had been received, seemed to call for notice. As every translation is a kind of condensed comment, and one version sometimes renders a particular expression more felici- tously than another, the frequent introduction of the renderings of modern versions, although, perhaps, a peculiarity, may not be without advantage. A paraphrase has been added, for the purpose of enabling the reader to embrace at a glance the interpretation which is defended in the body of the work, and to judge how far that interpretation vindicates St. Paul’s argument from charges of obscurity and want of coherence. For this reason, the author would wish the paraphrase to be regarded as claiming no other merit than a supplement to the Commentary, intended for a special and sub- ordinate purpose. In conclusion, I desire to return my best thanks to those who have enabled me to publish with diminished risk, and to express a hope that the work may not be found altogether unworthy of the encouragement with which it has been so kindly honoured. R. K. CONTENTS. Page. Introduction ix Chapter I. Sect. 1. — The Salutation 1 2. — Introduction 30 3. — Advantage of embracing the Gospel, and Danger of neg- lecting it ; and the Reasons why they are inexcusable who oppose it 51 4. — Reasons of the Inexcusableness of those who impede the Gospel, and a Description of the Nature, Course, and Degree of the Depravity, which leads them to oppose it, and of the universal Corruption of the Human Race . 70 Chapter II. Sect. 5. — General Introduction to the Subjects, which, owing to the State of the Church at Rome, required early and espe- cial Notice. The true relative Position of Jewish and Gentile Converts in reference to the Law, Justification, and a future Judgment, stated 90 6. — Continuation and special Application of the preceding Argument 131 Chapter III. Sect. 7. — Answer to an Objection derived from the preceding Argu- ment 152 8. — Return to the main Argument 164 9. — The true and only Justification 170 Chapter IY. Sect. 10. — Abraham’s Justification, and the Object of his Circumci- sion and his Covenant with God 195 Chapter V. Sect. 11. — The blessed Fruits of Justification by Faith . . . 226 12. — The Benefits procured by Christ for the Human Race, co-extensive with the Evils inflicted on it by Adam . 242 Chapter VI. Sect. 13. — Some Objections to the Doctrine of Free Mercy con- sidered. The Obligations to Holiness associated with it, as exhibited in Baptism. Gracious Acceptance and Holiness inseparable 278 Chapter YII. Sect. 14. — The Believer’s Liberation from the Law and his Union to Christ. Hopeless State of Despair to which the Law consigns the Man who seeks Justification on its Terms, and from which God delivers Believers by Christ 312 b 2 CONTENTS. Page. Chapter VIII. Sect. 15. — Respective Influences of a Justified State, and of a State of Condemnation 337 16. — Unspeakable Superiority of the future Glory of Believers to their present Sufferings. Beneficial Purposes of the Sufferings of those who love God, and their final Security , , , f 377 Chapter IX. Sect. 17. — God’s Promises cannot fail, and are to be appropriated, not by Works, nor by natural Descent, but by Faith. Vindication of the Justice of this Principle, as a Means of receiving some and rejecting others out of the human Mass 418 Chapter X. Sect, 18. — Faith inculcated by Moses as the true Way of Accept- ance. Admission of the Gentiles to Favour, and the comparative Disobedience of the Jews predicted by Moses and Esaias . . . . . , . . 477 Chapter XI. Sect. 19. — Actual respective Positions of Jews and Gentiles, and future Prospects of the Former, in connexion with the Gospel . 493 Chapter XII. Sect. 20. — Exhortations to Humility and to Holiness in all its Manifestations 528 Chapter XIII. Sect. 21,— Subjection to the Civil Powers, and Motives to Watch- fulness 553 Chapter XIY. Sect. 22. — Due Regard to be had to the Scruples of Jewish Be- lievers by their Gentile Brethren 562 Chapter XY. Sect. 23. — Further Exhortations to mutual Consideration and to Unity 579 Chapter XYI. Sect. 24.— Concluding Commendations 595 Paraphrase on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans . . 603 INTRODUCTION. The preliminary enquiry of most importance in the examination of an epistle, to those who possess a knowledge of the author and of the parties addressed, is the object for which it was written. . It has been generally supposed, that the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans was directed to a church already established at Rome, and instructed in the Gospel — not to make known to them the first principles of the doctrine of Christ — ‘but to combat and correct the Judaizing leaven, which was the earliest widely- extended corruption that threatened the Church. Olshausen and some other critics have, indeed, altogether re- pudiated such a view; and the former has, in the introduction to his commentary, stated his objections against it. Their force rests almost entirely on the difficulty which is connected with the circumstances of St. Paul’s arrival and reception at Rome, and the absence of direct reference to the Christian Church in that city by the Jews during their conference with the apostle. On this circumstance, a German critic, Tobler, grounded an attempt to prove that when St. Paul came to Rome there was no Christian Church there ; and upon the same circumstance Olshausen grounds his denial of the presence of a Judaizing, or even Jewish element in the Church at Rome. He says, that if there had been any Jewish Christians there, it must be admitted that they adhered to the Jewish synagogue, in the same way that the Jewish converts at Jerusalem remained attached to the temple ; and that they must, therefore, have been well known to the Jews. There does not, however, seem to be any real ground for diffi- culty. When St. Paul came to Rome, the brethren , or Christian believers, came out to meet him; “ and it came to pass, that after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews,” (who are thus dis- tinguished from the brethren) “ together.” Are we to suppose that during these three days the apostle was idle, and not in communication with Christians, since it seems that with the Jews X INTRODUCTION. he was not? Is it not more likely that during that time he had held frequent conferences with the brethren who had come out to meet him on his approach to the city, and had informed himself fully of the relative positions and feelings of the J ews .and Christians towards one another, and that he had concerted his plans for endeavouring to influence his countrymen, his brethren according to the flesh? Coming, as a Jewish prisoner who had appealed to Caesar, and as a person intimately acquainted with the Christians, and capable of affording the fullest information re- specting their true character, and the nature and tendency of their doctrines, St. Paul would stand in a very different position, and on much higher ground with the Jews, than any of the Christians resident at Rome. Of this favourable position he avails himself, probably, after consultation with the brethren, to endeavour to win the Jews. He calls them together, and they respond to his summons, to be informed of the cause of his im- prisonment and appeal. Being informed of this, they then express a desire to hear from him, as from an indisputably au- thentic source, and a man thoroughly versed in the" Jewish religion, for the hope of which he had been bound, the actual state of the question. So far is the language from countenancing | the view, that the existence of Christians at Rome was unknown j to the Jews, that they introduce their request by saying, “ but as * for this sect , we know that it is everywhere spoken against.” The most obvious and natural interpretation of the passage seems to be this, that wishing to hear St. PauPs sentiments, the Jews studiously, or, at least, intentionally, kept out of view any- thing which would have indicated an absolute prejudication of the question; and that the mention of the Christian Church at Rome, and of their relation to it, in proportion as it was hostile, would have been of this character. It would have been quite destructive of all supposition that they were disposed to hear what St. Paul had to say without prejudice, or, at least, without a determined pre-judgment of the question, to have introduced it as one which had been the source of violent antagonism, and, probably, of complete separation between themselves and their brethren who had embraced the faith of Christ. They therefore place their objection not on their own opinions as private Jews, or as the Jews at Rome, but upon its general condemnation by the body of the nation everywhere. To have expressed or said what implied that they had already condemned this sect, and INTRODUCTION. XI were so convinced of their error and wickedness, that they would not even associate with them, would have been a singular preface to a wish to know St. Paul’s views upon the subject; but to have said or implied that they were indeed opposed to it, but were willing to distrust their own opinions, and to hear without pre- judice what St. Paul could bring forward in its favour, that could counterbalance its general condemnation by the Jews everywhere, would have been perfectly natural. Olshausen’s supposition, that, if there were any Jewish Chris- tians at Eome, we must assume, that, as the Jewish converts at Jerusalem remained attached to the temple there, so the converts at Eome would adhere to the synagogue in that city, is by no means beyond controversy. He himself rather inconsistently makes it a part of his explanatory theory, that, owing to the persecutions of the Jews, the Christians at Rome were induced to make their differences from the Jews more apparent. But this was a motive which would influence a Jewish as well as a Gentile convert; while the necessity of such a course would be much more urgent in the case of the former than of the latter, since the Gentile convert was all along widely distinguished from the Jew by his exemption from Judaical rites and observances; but the Jewish convert could not, so long as he associated himself with the J ews, and observed their rites and customs, expect to be distinguished from them by heathen rulers. This would be a very strong inducement to the J ewish Christian to withdraw from the synagogue, particularly if, at any time, he could remain at Eome only by doing so. The tendency of St. Paul's epistle itself had been such, that it must have contributed to draw a clear line between Judaism and Christianity, and to lead to a more distinct profession of the faith on the part of those who received it, and to a proportionate alienation from them on the part of the unconverted Jews. His exhortations in the thirteenth chapter, would lead the Jewish Christians to keep entirely aloof from all seditious plots entered into by the Jews, and, if necessary for their own safety, to withdraw from them altogether; and it is, therefore, probable, that under the persecution of the Jews by Claudius, a complete separation took place, to which St. Paul's vindication of even the Jewish Christians from legal obligations, chap. vii. 1 — 4 of the present epistle would reconcile the latter. If the Christians at Eome had either at any time withdrawn from the Jews, or if there had been a strong spirit of antagonism Xll INTRODUCTION. between them, the presence of the former during St. Paul's com- munication with the latter, must either have prevented any satis- factory intercourse, or have defeated its object by reviving old animosities which had originated either on doctrinal grounds; or, if persecution had led to a complete separation, on what the Jews must have regarded as a desertion, and therefore equally criminal. It may be said, that if there was a Christian Church at Rome known to the J ews, the latter might have ascertained their tenets without consulting St. Paul, and that they must have had some knowledge of them from being in contact with them. But it is evident that, in desiring information from St. Paul, the Jews applied to him as to a man of note, upon whose words particular reliance might be placed, who had not dissociated himself from his Jewish brethren, and that they did not so much wish to know the Christian system as St. Paul’s view and explanation of it. It seems also clear that there must have been a Christian Church at Rome, or else that in some way the Jews there had become ac- quainted with the Christian tenets, or with St. Paul’s connexion with them, since the words this sect either denote a proximity of place, or prove that the Jews immediately understood what St. Paul meant by saying, that for the hope of Israel he was hound with this chain . To a mere Jew, unpossessed of any clue to the apostle’s meaning, these words would never have intimated any connexion with an unknown sect, or that St. Paul referred to the Christian doctrine. After all the difficulties which he suggests, Olshausen gives up the question. First, he admits that there might have been Jews by birth, or proselytes among the members of the Roman Church, overlooking, apparently, that this is scarcely a matter of conjecture, but of almost certainty ; that Priscilla and Aquila are saluted by name, and that Luke, Jason, and Sosipater were most probably of Hebrew descent, if they were St. Paul’s relations in the strict sense of the term, which there is no good reason for doubting. Secondly, he adds what seems a direct contradiction of his great argument, that if there were any such, “ they would have alto- gether taken up the freer Pauline view of the law, and have detached themselves from the connexion of the synagogue." Can we suppose such a withdrawal taking place, and yet that the Jews at Rome were ignorant of the existence of a Christian Church in that city ; particularly if, as Olshausen supposes in his INTRODUCTION. XI 11 remarks on chap. xvi. 3, 4, the Christians had, very early, places of assembling in various parts of Rome; and if, as we know from Tacitus, their existence was well known to the heathen inhabitants. Such is the weight to be attached to the arguments against the existence of the Jewish and Judaizing element in the Church at Rome, derived from the circumstances of St. Paul’s arrival in that city; and those derived from the epistle itself are equally feeble. The author already referred to says, that the seventeenth and following verses of the sixteenth chapter point only to a probable danger; but the natural meaning which the words convey is, that persons existed in the Church at Rome who were opposed to the doctrines which St. Paul had so fully set forth and explained in his epistle to that Church, and who caused differ- ences of opinion and divisions. Even if it be admitted, that these words do not prove that divisions had as yet taken place, yet the very least that they can he made, with any consistency, to signify is, that the elements of discord existed in the Church at Rome, and that these elements were opinions at variance with the doctrine contained in St. Paul’s epistle. It seems evident that, as the abuse of spiritual gifts is proved to have been one great source of discord in the Church at Corinth, by the instruc- tions relating to them in the epistle to the Church in that city, so the errors which were opposed to St. Paul’s teaching in the present epistle must have been such as had reference to the re- lative positions of Jews and Gentiles under the Gospel. Olshausen, indeed, supposes that all the references to Jews and Gentiles are merely introduced as necessary to shew the Gentile Church at Rome their relation to the old dispensation as converts from heathenism. If the language of the epistle is at all con- sidered, such a supposition seems little less than extraordinary. Was it necessary, in order to shew the Gentile converts the rela- tion in which the New Covenant stood to the Old, as the shadow to the substance, the fulfilment to the promise, to assure them that God would judge Jew as well as Gentile — that God was the God of the Gentile, as well as of the Jew — that the blessings of the Gospel came not upon the circumcision only, but upon the uncircumcision also? Are these things which required to be made known to Gentile believers, whose faith was come abroad unto all men ? Are they truths which required to be urged upon them, because they were such as were opposed to reason, or XIV INTRODUCTION. because the Gentiles would be naturally indisposed to receive them? Are they not much more clearly truths urged upon persons who were disposed to disparage the Gentiles, and to arro- gate an unjust superiority over them ? Is the earnest and close personal address in the second chapter such as we should meet in what Olshausen calls a mere objective exposition? Is it not as subjective as anything can be, interwoven throughout with urgent appeals to the conscience and principles of a particular party who * is expressly declared to be the Jew? The introduction of such an urgent aim at the conviction of a party not existing in the body addressed, merely to illustrate the relation of another and different party to a particular system, or, in the words of Ols- hausen, “ as a mere rhetorical figure” (!) is inconceivable. The whole tenor of the epistle points out as clearly, as an address to those who are concerned, and not a description to a third party of the state of the Church at Rome could do so, that the Church in that city consisted of Jewish and Gentile converts, and that there, as elsewhere, the leaven of Judaism existed, and was in- jurious to the progress, as well as to the purity of the Gospel. Whom can we suppose St. Paul to address, when, after describing the advantages of the calling of the Jews, and the establishment of their polity, he says, l( Are we any better than they?” and, supplying the answer, adds, “ By no means, for we have already charged both Jews and Gentiles that they are under sin.” There seem to be only two arguments of any weight offered by Olshausen to support his theory from the epistle itself . 1 The first is, that the second chapter is addressed to Jews, and not to Jewish converts to the Gospel. This is, indeed, admitted by the majority of those commentators who take for granted the existence of Judaizers at Rome; but I have endeavoured to shew, that it is not Jews simply, as such, but Jewish or Judaizing converts, who are addressed — persons who were not named, but swrnamed Jews, or who prided themselves on their distinctive name of Jews, as giving them a superiority over their Gentile brethren. The other is an attempt to rebut the argument deduced from the fourteenth chapter, which proves that there were persons who 1 Unless St. Paul’s omission to state the object of the epistle be con- sidered such. But according to the view which supposes that the com- bating Judaizing views was the object, such a statement would have been prejudicial to the success of the epistle, and altogether at variance with the cautious and delicate manner in which St. Paul approaches the subject. INTRODUCTION. XV from principle objected to tbe use of certain food ; and as we have no record of the existence of any such scruple on the part of any Gentile Christians, and abundant testimony to its existence on the part of Jews, this has been justly regarded as strong con- firmatory evidence of the existence of Jewish converts, and that the scruples referred to were entertained by them. This Ols- hausen meets by asserting what is palpably incorrect, namely, that while these Roman ascetics objected to all use of animal food, the Jews abstained only from the flesh of unclean animals. It is, however, well known that conscientious Jews would refuse to eat what had been offered to idols, or what they had not reason to believe had been so killed as to comply with the Mosaic in- junctions respecting the pouring out of the blood, and the appre- hension of transgressing, by inadvertently eating what had been offered to idols, or what had not been slain according to the Jewish custom, seems to have been so strong in some cases as to have led to abstinence from all animal food whatever. To produce all the evidences of the existence of Jewish be- lievers at Rome, and of imminent if not actual division between the Jewish and Gentile converts, would be to transcribe a large portion of the epistle, in which St. Paul addresses at one time the Jews, and at another the Gentiles; at one time associating them together in his exhortations to faith and patience; and, at another, warning them respectively against mutual offence, and entreating them to preserve the unity of the faith in the bond of peace . 1 At the same time there is a much fuller declaration of the whole Gospel system than in St. PauPs epistle to the 1 Dr. Paley, with his usual perspicuity, has shewn that the principal object of the argumentative part of the Epistle, “ is to place the Gentile convert upon a parity of situation with the Jewish in respect of his reli- gious condition,- and his rank in the Divine favour. The Epistle supports this point by a variety of arguments, such as that no man of either de- scription was justified by the works of the law, for this plain reason, that no man had performed them ; and it became therefore necessary to appoint another medium, or condition of justification, in which new medium the Jewish peculiarity was merged and lost ; that Abraham’s own justification was antecedent to the law, and independent of it ; that the Jewish converts were to consider the law as now dead, and themselves as married to another ; that what the law in truth could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God had done by sending His Son ; that God had re- jected the unbelieving Jews, and had substituted in their place a society of believers in Christ, collected indifferently from Jews and Gentiles.” — Townsend. XVI INTRODUCTION. Galatians, which is to be accounted for from the circumstance that the church at Rome had not enjoyed the presence of that apos- tle, or probably of any other at the time when St. Paul wrote, and had not, therefore, received those full and abundant personal instructions which had no doubt been bestowed on the Galatians. There is also an absence of the severity of reproof which exists in that epistle* and this is probably to be accounted for on the the same ground, as well as owing to their not having all been St. Paul's personal converts, and to the circumstance that the J udai- zing leaven was not, perhaps, so malignant, nor so widely spread ; and also that the Gentile converts at Rome had offered a more . noble and successful resistance to its aggressions. The Epistle to the Romans is eminently doctrinal. It opens with a declaration that the Gospel had been the subject of pro- phetical annunciation (chap. i. 2), that He who was its great subject combined in His person the human and divine natures, (chap. i. 3, 4), and that it was the power of God to salvation to all believers (chap. i. 16, 17). The wrath of God against all who reject it is pointed out, and their guilt and inexcusableness are shown to consist in two things; first that they reject the last and clearest discoveries of God’s attributes and purposes, which He has made or can make ; and secondly, that the obdu- racy of heart under the influence of which they reject these is the result of self- formed habits in the individual, and of the increas- ing alienation and departure from God of the human race that had taken place since the fall, owing to which the knowledge originally possessed of His attributes and character had been entirely lost, and habits of proportionate moral depravity formed (chap. i. 21 — 30). The guilt and folly of those who despised the clear revelations, made by the Gospel, of the guilt of these depraved habits, and of God’s wrath against them, as well as of those who perverted their knowledge of the judgment which it announced by condemning others, instead of examining and judging themselves, and by hoping for an acquittal on partial grounds is stated (chap. i. 30 — ii. 11), and the true relative position of Jewish and Gentile be- lievers, in reference to acceptance with God, and acquittal in judgment, and the exemption of the latter from submission to Judaism, are vindicated (chap. ii. 12 — 29). The object of the calling and separation of the Jews as a nation is stated (chap. iii. 1 — 8) ; the universal corruption of INTRODUCTION. XVII Jews as well as Gentiles is proved from the Old Testament Scriptures; and the only hope of justification and acceptance is shown to be the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto and upon all that believe. That this had been the true means of acceptance to the faithful Jews under the Mosaic covenant, as it was under the new to both Jews and Gentiles, is also proved (chap. iii. 8 — 30). That the purpose for which Abraham was called was, like that of the calling of the Jews, the general advantage of man- kind; and that Abraham himself was justified by faith, that he might be the father of all that believe is the subject of the fourth chapter; and the security and strong assurance of final safety which those, who, like him, are justified by faith, derive from what God has already done for them, is dwelt upon (chap. v. 1 - 11 ). In chap. v. 12 — 19, a contrast is instituted between Christ and Adam, and the advantages derived from the former are proved to be greater than the evils accruing from the latter; and in chap. v. 20, 21, the object of the law is briefly referred to, as a partial and temporary measure, intended, like the calling of the Jews, to subserve God’s general purposes of mercy by bringing into stronger relief man’s natural sinfulness. The doctrine of grace is vindicated from the imputation of holding out any encouragement to sin; and the powerful obliga- tions to holiness, not to be renounced without forfeiture of its privileges, imposed upon believers by Baptism, as well as the strong inducements to resist sin which a state of grace affords are fully set forth (chap. vi. 1 — 23). In the seventh chapter, the case of a self-righteous man, striving to yield a sincere and perfect obedience which might merit life on legal principles, 16 illustrated by St. Paul’s own experience in his Pharisaical state, and by the description of those sinful work- ings of the human heart which, even if external obedience to the law were yielded, would condemn a man owing to their continued transgression of the tenth commandment. By these, a law, holy, just, and good in itself, becomes to man in his fallen state the means of transgression, and of consequent death or con- demnation. The manner in which Christ delivers from this condemnation, and the respective influences of a state of acceptance, in pro- ducing spiritual- mindedness and love to God, and of a state XV111 INTRODUCTION. of condemnation, in causing earthly-mindedness and enmity to Him, are described; and spirituality of nature and disposition is insisted upon, as an indispensable requisite in every believer, and as a certain consequence of the indwelling of God’s Spirit, with- out wbicb no man can belong to Christ (chap. viii. 1 — 9). The obligations to holiness and to the mortification of sin, arising from the assurance of a future resurrection — from the transient nature of earthly pleasures — from deliverance from the spirit of bondage, and the reception of the spirit of adoption and from the hope of an eternal inheritance and glory are strongly inculcated (chap. viii. 9 — 17). The unworthiness of the sufferings that intervene to be compared with the future glory to accrue to be- lievers is set forth, and the wisdom of patient endurance and waiting to the end are urged, upon the ground, that, although believers cannot discern what, as being really for their good, should be the subject of prayer; yet the Holy Spirit intercedes within them by His suggestions; while all things are made to work together for their good, as they always have done for that of those who love God (chap. viii. 17 — 28). The truth of this position is illustrated and proved by the example of God’s people of old; and the strong assurance of final safety to be derived from what has been already done for the salvation of believers, and from the history of God’s dealings with His people Israel in their calling, and in all the intermediate steps of their disci- pline, until their final establishment was accomplished, is declared (chap. viii. 28 — 39). In the ninth chapter, St. Paul meets the objection against the encouragement, which he had said was to be derived from the history of God’s ancient people, suggested by their state at the time that the apostle wrote, by shewing that they were not all Israelites in the sense of being believers, and that it was not mere fleshly descent that constituted a man such, but faith; and that, from the very cradle of Jewish history, faith had been the principle of acceptance with God (chap. ix. 1 — 16). This principle of acceptance and discrimination he vindicates, by tracing its operation in the case of Pharaoh and the Israelites, in bringing down God’s wrath upon the unbelieving party, and in moulding the others into vessels of mercy; and he declares that it is exactly by the same principle, by whichhe drew out the Israel- ites from among the Egyptians, and in the same capacity of vessels of mercy, that God now calls both Jews and Gentiles into His INTRODUCTION. XIX Church, proving also, by quotations from the prophets (chap, ix. 16 — 33), that the calling of the Gentiles had always been God’s purpose, and that the disobedience of the Jews had been predicted. In the tenth chapter, it is proved, by the words of Moses him- self, that faith had been the means of acceptance even under the Mosaic dispensation; and reference is made to additional pro- phecies, proving that the calling of the Gentiles and the dis- obedience of the Jews to the Gospel had been foretold. The eleventh chapter is intended to guard the Gentile believers from falling into the error into which their Jewish brethren had been betrayed, by so misconstruing St. Paul’s intimation of the falling away of the Jews as to arrogate a superiority over their Jewish brethren, and from supposing that they were themselves the sub- jects of that blind partiality on God’s part which the Jews had erroneously claimed; and the true relative position of Jews and Gentiles, the absence of all respect of persons on God’s part, and the final and general return of the Jews to God — their recep- tion of the Gospel — the powerful influence to result from their conversion, in evangelizing and quickening the world into spiri- tual life, are stated (chap. xi. 1 — 36). The five concluding chapters contain various practical exhort- ations, among which obedience to existing authorities, and a consideration for the scruples of others are strongly insisted upon ; the former addressed, probably, with an especial aim at the Jew- ish converts, to rectify their aversion as Jews to heathen domina- tion ; the latter, to the Gentiles, with the view of leading them to have a tender regard for the feelings and consciences of their Jewish brethren; and thus to promote that unity which, next to the vindication of Christian truth and Christian liberty, is clearly the leading object of the Epistle. It is probable that the Church at Rome had been principally established by Priscilla and Aquila, and the other persons, as Epenetus, Andronicus, and Junius, who are called St. Paul's fel- low-workers, although the first seeds of the Gospel may have been brought to Rome shortly after the day of Pentecost. The Epistle contains the strongest internal evidence that neither St. Peter nor any other apostle had yet visited Rome. It was written from Corinth (chap. xv. 25 — 30), probably at the close of St. Paul’s second residence in that city, according to Usher and Eichhorn in the year sixty; and, according to Pearson, Dupin, XX INTRODUCTION. and Lange, in the year fifty-seven. It is likely that the collec- tion referred to (chap. xv. 26), was made at Corinth; and it was when he brought it to Jerusalem that St. Paul was seized and ultimately brought to Rome. Cenchrea, of the church at which Phoebe (chap. xvi. 1), was a member, was the port of Corinth ; Erastus, from whom a salutation is sent, and who is called the chamberlain of the city, is spoken of as abiding at Corinth (1 Tim. iv. 20); and Gaius, whom St. Paul designates as his host, is pro- bably the same who is mentioned (1 Cor. i. 14), as having been a member of the Church at Corinth who had been baptized by St. Paul himself, all of which circumstances seem to point out with no small certainty that the Epistle was penned there. 1 “ The date of this Epistle is very precisely fixed by the follow- ing statements contained in it : — “1. St. Paul had never yet been to Rome (chap. i. 11, 13, 15). “ 2. He was intending to go to Rome, after first visiting Jerusa- lem (chap. xv. 23—28). This was exactly his purpose during his three months’ residence at Corinth (see Acts xix. 21). “3. He was going to bear a collection of alms from Macedonia and Achaia to Jerusalem (chap. xv. 26 and 31). This he did carry from Corinth to Jerusalem at the close of his three months’ visit (see Acts xxiv. 17). “4. When he wrote the Epistle, Timotheus, Sosipater, Gaius, and Erastus were with him (chap. xvi. 21, 23): of these, the first three are expressly mentioned in the Acts as having been with him at Corinth during the three months’ visit (see Acts xx. 4) ; and the last, Erastus, was himself a Corinthian, and had been sent shortly before from Ephesus (Acts xix. 22) , with Timotheus on the way to Corinth (compare 1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11). “5. Phoebe, a deaconess of the Corinthian port of Cenchrea was the bearer of the Epistle (chap. xvi. 1) to Rome.” 2 1 Tholuck. 2 Conybeare and Howson. EXPOSITION OP THE EPISTLE OF SAINT PAUL TO THE CHCJRCH AT ROME. § I.— THE SALUTATION. Chap. I. 1-7. St. Paul, as the servant of Jesus Christ, addresses the Christian believers at Rome ; declares his apostolical office, and his separation to the work of publishing the gospel of God, concerning His Son Jesus Christ ; and vindicates that gospel from the possible suspicion or imputation of novelty, by referring to the prophetical annunciations of it in the Old Testament Scriptures. He asserts the union of the human and divine natures in Christ, as at once the son of David and the Son of God ; and brings forward the proof of His divinity, derived from His resurrection by His own inherent power. He then resumes the statement of his having received grace and apostleship, by tracing his mission to its author, Christ ; and by stating its object, obedience to the faith in His name among all nations. This he points out as the link which con- nects him with the believers at Rome, namely, that they are among those for whose sakes he had received mercy, and office in the Church of God. He therefore addresses them all , that is, irrespectively of any distinction in origin, as Jewish or Gentile ; reminds them of God’s love to them all, and of the Author, character, and end of their common calling ; and invokes upon them grace and peace from God, their and his common Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. Verse 1 . — UauXo?. The original name of the apostle was ^avXo? (Heb.) desideratus vel desiderabilis. Some suppose that he took the name of Paul on being presented with the freedom of a Roman citizen; but this supposition is proved to be erro- neous by St. Paul’s ahswer to the chief captain (Acts xxii. 28), in which he asserts that he was free born. Others ascribe this name to his diminutive size, 7raOXo9, pusillus— Schleusner; while B 2 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. St. Augustine imputes it to his humility. “ Non quasi jactantia aliqua nomen sibi mutavit apostolus, sed ex Saulo factus est Paulus, ex superbo modicus; Paulus enim modicum est Usum Latinse locutionis advertite, quia Paulum modicum dicitur. Paulo post videbo te, i.e., videbo te post modicum.” — St. Aug. He is first called Paul (Acts xiii. 9), immediately after the men- tion of Sergius Paulus, the Roman proconsul at Paphos ; from which circumstance it has been conjectured, that the Roman name, Paul, was assumed by the apostle in honour of the proconsul. Theodoret associates it with his calling : Kal 7 rpcorov /iev eavTOV Uavkov KaXel ov ravrrjv avcoOev irapa tcov 7 rarepcov TYjV Trpoarjyoplav aXXa gera ttjv / ckrjcnv Tavrr)<; a'gicodeU a>? X'lgwv IJerpo ^ ?, Kal viol ftpovrrjs oi Zefiehalov viol Kal 6 ’ IaKco/3 IaparjX, Kal ’Aflpadp, 6 ''Afipag : l Th. Aquinas, with his evangelising; u This name he does not seem to have used, until after he began to preach to the Gentiles.” The adoption, however, of a second name, generally resembling the first in form and sound, but sometimes quite distinct, was very common not only in the times of the apostle, but in all the periods in which the Jews were brought into close connexion with the surrounding nations. “ Thus many Jews, who lived among the Romans, besides their native Hebrew appellations, assumed others of Latin origin, as, Dostai, Dositheus, Tarphon, Trypho ; while others, residing among the Greeks, took names from their language, as, Jesus, Jason, Joiakim, Alkimos.”* — Tholuck. The name Uav\o^ } which was a common Roman one, has a peculiar propriety in the opening of an address to the Church at Rome. In ancient times, it was the custom, in all epistles, to prefix the writer’s name, instead of subscribing it, as is now done. “ He prefixes his own name, according to the ancient custom; for example, 1 Claudius Lysias unto the most excellent governor Felix.’” — (Ecumen. The ancient custom is, however, still re- tained in letters of authority, and in the letters missive of churches. 1 And first, indeed, he calls himself Paul, not having received this appellation from of old from his fathers, but having been dignified with it after his calling ; as Simon with that of Peter, and the sons of Zebedee with that of sons of thunder, Jacob of Israel, and Abram of Abraham. In Rev.ii. 17, a new name seems to be similarly used, to indicate an admission to new honour or to higher exaltation. SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 3 AovXos, The servant. The proper meaning of this word is slave, or one who is the property of another, and employed in his service. The grade, in honour and happiness, of persons so circumstanced, naturally depends upon, and follows, that of their Lord; and the highest honour and greatest happiness must rest upon those who are the servants of the Most High. It is in- finitely better to be even a door-keeper in the house of God, than to be a master in the tents of wickedness. “ St. Paul generally calls himself at the beginning of his epistles simply, airoaroXo ? ’ Irjcrov XpiaTov ; only in this place and Phil. i. 1 , 8ov \o? ’ Irjaov XpiaTov; and in Tit. i. I, BovXos 0eou.” — Olshausen. In the East, the highest officers of state were called the king’s hovXou. The Spaniards pride themselves in the title, Criados del Rey , that is, “the king’s servants,” “ the king’s called”; and among ourselves, “ her Majesty’s servants,” is frequently used to desig- nate those in office. The appellation mrp 12V was applied to Moses (Deut. xxxiv. 5), and is rendered in the Septuagint, ol/ceTri<;. It is afterwards applied to Joshua, then to the pro- phets, and, lastly, the term 8ovXo< ; is applied to the apostles and ministers of the gospel generally; but this appellation is less fre- quent in the New Testament than in the Old. Our Lord said (John xiv. 15), Henceforth I call you not servants but I have called you friends. Theopliylact thus explains the scriptural usage of the term. “ There are various ways of service. One is by creation, according to which it is said, All things serve Thee ; another by faith, of which it is said, Ye have obeyed that form of doctrine into which ye were delivered ; another, by the employment of life, according to which Moses was called the servant of God. St. Paul was a servant in all these respects.” Similarly, St. James, St. Peter, and St. Jude, call themselves the servants of Jesus Christ, in the opening of their respective epistles. Trjcrov XpLGTov, Of Jesus Christ. Tgcrovs, the Greek for the Hebrew Joshua, Jehovah that saveth. The force of this name is explained Matt. i. 21., the Saviour in the highest sense, who saves His people from their sins. Xpicrrov is a participial noun from XP^ to anoint; the Messiah or anointed, which word, from being frequently added to designate His office, came to be used as a part of our Lord’s name. As anointing formed a part of the ceremonial in the consecration of priests and prophets, and in the coronation of kings, this name may refer in our blessed Lord’s case to either, or to all of these offices; for He is a prophet, and b 2 4 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. a king, and^a priest for ever. “The name Jesus refers to His saving his people ; the designation Christ, to His being anointed for that purpose; and that of Lord, which answers to the different names or titles, which the Hebrews gave to God, but most com- monly to that of Jehovah, to His sovereign authority/’ — Haldane . “ Christus significat Regem, Jesus salvatorem.” — St. Aug. KXrjrbs a7rd(7ToXo?, A called apostle. The word diroaToXos sig- nifies properly a messenger, one sent with a message or commission. In its highest sense, it is appropriated to the twelve, whom Christ chose and sent forth, as his Father had sent him. In the first sense, it is found in John xiii. 16, Phil. ii. 25. In the limited sense, as confined to those whom our Saviour chose as His apostles, and to whom He gave the name (Luke vi. 13), it is found passim, and generally, if not always, with the article. It is also applied to the delegates or companions of the apostles, Rom. xvi. 7, and perhaps in 2 Cor. viii. 23, and Acts xiv. 4, 14. “ Apostolos suos certe ipse Dominus misit, quod eorum etiam nomen indicat; nam sicut Grseci, angeli, Latine nuntii vocantur; ita Graece apostoli, Latine missi appellantur.” — St. Aug. There is here a gradation in sense. The former epithet, the servant of Jesus Christ, is illustrated, and its sense explained by the terms of the fifth verse, By whom we have received , first, grace , and , secondly, apostleship. By the first we are made 3oi)Xo4, for we are not our own, hut bought with a price. Having thus, by God’s grace, been made a member of Christ’s household, St. Paul was promoted to a particular office, called to be an apostle, an office with which he was invested, as all the other apostles were, by Christ himself, Gal. i. 12. 1 “ Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular.” — Calvin. St. Paul’s introduction into the household of Christ, although a distinct thing, was not, however, irrespective of his office as an apostle; and, in admitting him into His service, God had in view the particular station, for which he was adapted, and in which He intended to place him. In the overpowering means, there- fore, which He employed to bring him into the household of faith. He had respect not to St. Paul only or individually, and to his salvation personally, but to the benefit of that whole house- 1 “ All these nominatives depend upon ypacbei, which verb is supplied in all the most ancient epistles on record.” — Bloomfield. SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 5 hold, through the agency of one so deeply indebted to His grace, and from the exercise of the duties of the station in that house- hold, which he intended to assign to him. Comp. Acts ix. 15. “ Ad hoc dicit apostolatum accepisse, ut obediatur fidei pro nomine Domini nostri Jesu Christi.” — St. Aug. When we take into consideration the following circumstances, we shall find abundant reason for the course which St. Paul pursued in prefacing his epistles, with declarations of his apostolic office, of his being a called apostle , an apostle by the will of God , K. T. X. Our Saviour had himself chosen, while upon earth, twelve apostles, corresponding in number to the twelve tribes of Israel. These accompanied Him during His ministry, were instructed by Him in the things pertaining to His kingdom, and witnessed the effects of His miraculous powers. His unceasing benevolence, and His zeal for His father's glory. They conversed with Him per- sonally after His resurrection, were finally commissioned by Him to preach the Gospel, and on the day of Pentecost received the promised power from on high. When one was chosen from among the disciples, to supply the place of the traitor Judas, it was considered necessary by the apostles, that he should be selected from among those who had enjoyed these advantages, Acts i. 21, 22. Hence it was natural not only to suppose, that such a course of training was an indis- pensable requisite for an apostle, but to question the right to this title, on the part of any person who had not participated in it. When we also take into consideration, that St. Paul, as an apostle, was born out of due time , and that he was the apostle to the Gentiles, to whom the Jews were unwilling to concede a right to the privileges of the Messiah’s kingdom, except by previous admission, through circumcision, into the Jewish church; and that, once admitted into the Jewish church, the Gentiles would naturally come under the care of some one of those apostles, whose number corresponded with that of the twelve tribes, it will not appear strange, if some of the Jewish converts were dis- posed to consider him as a supernumerary, and not only so, but an unauthorised and unnecessary teacher. These considerations will enable us to attach to the vindications of his apostolic autho- rity and office, prefixed to his epistles, a proper emphasis, as also to his declarations, that he had seen the Lord Christ. “ An apostle by Divine vocation.”— Turretin. “ Vocatitius apostolus.” — Eras . 6 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. “ Je ne suis pas moins apotre que les autres; puisque je suis corame eux appele a l’apostolat, par une vocation surnaturelle, et que je n’ai pas moins travaille que ceux qui sont les plus c^l&bres parmi les apotres (comp. 2 Cor. xi. 5.)” — Calmet. . 'A^cdpiaiJievo ? eh evayyeXiov Geov , Separated unto the Gospel of God. In addition to his reception of grace, and his promotion to the apostleship, he had also been specially separated, or set apart during a season of prayer and fasting, for the work of evangel- izing; when the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And , when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them , , they sent them away. Actsxiii.2, 3, and immediately consequent upon this separation, was St. Paul's commencement of that active, extensive, and un- ceasing course of labour in the work of evangelizing, the history of which occupies the greater portion of the book of Acts, from that chapter forward. His referring to this formal and solemn separation, from which the commencement of his recorded labours may be dated, appears both natural, and judiciously calculated to conciliate the party at Home, in combating whose prejudices a large portion of the epistle is taken up. The Jews had very high views of the priestly office, of the honour of ministering unto the Lord, of the exclusive right of those, who were called, as was Aaron; and formally and visibly set apart, as he and his sons were (Lev. xxii. 2). The terms here introduced had, therefore, to the Jewish converts a peculiar sig- nificancy; and were admirably suited to conciliate them, by acknowledging the justness of their sentiments upon this point; as well as to vindicate St. Paul’s claim to the ministry, and to the apostolic office, by referring to those solemn and authoritative acts of the apostolic college, by which his title had received the highest earthly sanction, and he himself had been publicly and openly set apart. The correctness of their opinions upon this subject afforded him an opportunity, of which he gladly availed himself, of becoming, without compromising the truth, to the Jewish converts as a Jew; that he might gain from them a patient consideration of those arguments which controverted on other points opinions held by them, that w^ere irreconcileable with the truth. By connecting this passage with another, in which the word acfxvpKrpevos is found, it has been made to assume a very different aspect, and transferred from a solemn, official, and definite sepa- SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 7 ration, under the public and authoritative direction of the Holy Ghost, in an assembly of the Church, to an act of the Divine mind, whereby the apostle was set apart from the time of his birth as a chosen vessel. Various considerations, however, in addition to those already adduced, which point to a formal sepa- ration, tend to prove that the term “separated” ( aopl^a> means not to destine, but to separate.” — Tholuck . God is said to separate , afyoplaai, His people from the nations (Lev. xx. 24, 26). “ In classic Greek, the verb atyopi^euv is more usually employed in a bad sense, in malam partem, mean- ing to exterminate, excommunicate, repudiate. But in Hel- lenistic Greek, it is more commonly employed in bonam partem, as here.” — Stuart. Calvin, in loco, says, “ I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal elec- tion of God, and who understand the separation, that from his mother’s womb, in Gal. i. 15.” The word a^opl^co is not, it is true, found in connexion with fcoiXlas in the passages in Job, and the Psalms. The word etccnrdcras (Ps. xxii. 9) seems most strictly appropriate; but the word dcpopl^co seems by no means inappropriate. u 'Aopl$ co separo, discerno, quocunque modo hoc fiat .” — Schleusner. Its approximation to acfrcupeco, which might not be inappropriate, is shown in the kindred use of their deri- vatives cufcopLo-pa atyalpepa in the Septuagint; i£d? 7 roXXayv ayaOcov in TLG'xyovpLevov % oprjylav * evar/yeXl^erai yap ra? rov Geov icaraX- Xayas, rrjv rov Bidj3oXov /cardXvaiV, rcov dpaprrjpdrcov r rjv dipeacv, rov OavaTov rrjv n ravXav, tmv vefcpwv ttjv dvdaraaiv , rrjv £ corjv rrjv aidovioV , rrjv ftacnXelav tcov ovpavcov. 1 — Theodor. *0 irpoeirriy- yetXaro, which He published or preached before. Supply 0eo?. “ Published” or “ announced” seems to express the sense more cor- rectly than “ promised.” Christ himself was promised before, hut the Gospel is that promise itself, the glad tidings of Christ; and it seems a pleonasm, at least, to speak of the promise as promised before. It might be published before, as it was to our first parents, and to Abraham, rj ypacprj TrpoevayyeXlaaro rS 'Afipaap,. The Scripture preached before the Gospel unto Abraham. (G al.iii.8). In this latter passage the ev is incorporated with dyyeXXco , to supply the place of evayyeXiov; but, in the one now under con- sideration, the incorporation of the ev with the verb would have been pleonastic, as the ev is previously expressed. Compare Heb. iv. 2, where, speaking of the Jews of old, it is said, Kal yap ecrpev evrjyyeXiapevoi KaOdrrep /ca/celvot; and ver. 6, oi i rporepov evayyeXiaOevTes. Verse 2. — Aid tmv TTpo^rSiv avrov, By His prophets. The promise of a Deliverer made to our first parents, was subsequently expanded ; and its character more and more clearly revealed at each repetition, from Abraham to David, who testified very fully of the particulars of Christ’s person, kingdom, and history; and it was further elucidated by the succeeding prophets, especially by him who has been styled emphatically the Gospel Prophet. The apostle’s object, in thus referring to the ancient testimonies of the Gospel, and to its declaration by the prophets, is to prove that it was no novelty or new doctrine. “ Pie answered the objection, that what he preached was new.” — Theophyl. We find St. Paul adopting the same line of argument in iii. 21, and x. 11, of the present epistle, in Acts xxiii. 6, and xxvi. 22. The promise was made to our first parents. The subsequent 1 But he styles preaching the Gospel (good-spell), as promising supply of an assemblage of good things ; for it announces the good tidings of the reconciliation of God, the destruction of the devil, the remission of sins, the cessation of death, the resurrection of the dead, the life eternal, the kingdom of heaven. 12 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. renewals of it are to be regarded as additional testimonies to its certainty, and explanations of its character, which may be justly spoken of as a publishing of the glad tidings of God respecting His Son. Search the Scriptures , said our Lord, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me ... . To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name , who- soever helieveth in Him shall receive remission of sins , than which there could not be a clearer preaching of the Gospel. The ex- pectation of this deliverer had extended even to the heathen, “ Pluribus persuasio inerat, antiquis sacerdotum literis contineri, eo ipso tempore fore, ut valesceret Oriens, profectique Judaea rerum potirentur.” — Tacit. Hist, v. 13. “ Percrebuerat Orienti toto vetus et constans opinio esse in fatis ut eo tempore Judaea profecti rerum potirentur,” — Sueton. in Vespasi. c. 4. Most pro- bably the visit of the Magi at our Saviour’s birth was the result of this general expectation, of which the appearance of the star was regarded as marking the fulfilment. Compare also Virgil, Eclog. iv., for a description of the happy advent of this deliverer, closely resembling, in some parts, the prophetic descriptions of our Saviour’s reign. Ev 'ypa(f>alr] the singular or 7 pacfral the plural indifferently. The first means the corpus librorum sacrorum; the second refers to the same collection, as made up of several particular writings. The epithet aylcu is given to ypa<£at, because the Scriptures were regarded as worthy of all reverence, or because they were looked upon as being inspired by to 7 rvevpa to ayrnv.” — Stuart. The distinction here made by Stuart must be received with consider- able qualification. Generally speaking, when the singular is used, it will be found to refer to some particular passage. The remarks of Erasmus on this passage are forcible. “ Promissus fuit non a quovis, sed ab ipso Deo, nec per quosvis, sed per prophetas suos, h. e. veros ac divinos, nec id quibuslibet instruments, sed in scrip- turis sacris.” “The article is omitted before 7 palais ay tat? , simply because the expression denotes a well-known whole.” — Olshausen. Verse 3. — Hepl rod Tiov avrov, Respecting His Son. It makes little difference, whether with some we connect these words im- mediately with the word 4 Gospel ’ in the first verse, or with 4 declared before ’ in the second. Christ was the subject of the Gospel, and of the prophet’s declarations relating to it. Search SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 13 the Scriptures , for they are they which testify of me ( John v. 39). To Him give all the prophets witness (Acts x. 43). Tov 7 evopevov Ik crirep pharos Aajdih, Who was horn of the seed of David. It had been declared that the promised seed should spring from Abraham ; afterwards, from the particular branch of his offspring, called the tribe of Judah; and, lastly, it was limited to the royal lineage of David, who was himself an eminent type of Christ. On this account, as well as because this was the last and narrowest limit, within which they were to seek the Messiah, the Jews constantly spoke of Him as the Son of David. The glories of David’s reign, which were to be more than renewed under that of his son, endeared the Messiah’s title of the Son of David by its associations, to a degree which none but a Jew could realise; and that title was not introduced without an object by St. Paul in an epistle, in which his wish to conciliate his brethren according to the flesh, by every means consistent with the truth, continually exhibits itself. In associating our Lord with David according to the flesh, he associated him with the Jewish nation at large, and with their most cherished hopes and expectations. Haldane observes here, that, if Christ had not yet come, it was to no purpose that the prophets foretold that He should descend from a certain family, since all the genealogies of the Jews are now lost; and that it must, therefore, be admitted, that these predictions, thus restricted, were given in vain, or that the Messiah must have appeared, while the distinction of Jewish families still subsisted, and the royal house of David could still be recognised. Kara aap/ca , According to the flesh. “ 2dpi; denotes literally flesh, that is the flesh of a living or animated being, in distinction from that of a dead one which is /cpeas. It denotes body also; not in the sense of o-copLa, which has reference to the compacting of the whole of the parts into one mass, but body as distinguished from mind, the visible as distinguished from the invisible. Hence crapf is very often used in the Old Testament and in the New, for our animal nature, the animal man, so to speak. Frail, perishable man also, and man with carnal appetites and passions, are often designated by it. As kindred with this, it often means man, as living in his present and dying, or transitory state, in distinction from another and different condition in a future world; so Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 21, 22, Heb. v. 7, applied to Christ, 1 Pet. iv. 1 , 2 Cor. x. 3.” — Stuart. “ Selon la chair, selon sa 14 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. nature humaine, exprimee par le mot de chair dans l’Ecriture sainte, h cause de son infirmite et de sa mortalire.” — De Sacy. “ When applied to Christ, it denotes all that He had in common with other men, 1 Tim. iii. 16, 1 Johniv 2, 2 John 7, compare Heb. ii. 14, and forms the contrast to the Divine element in His person.” — Tholuck. The force of Kara, in this place, is clearly restrictive, signifying that He was the Son of David only in a certain limited sense, that is to say, in His human nature — in as far as He took on Him the seed of Abraham, and became the son of David, the son of Abraham; and it, therefore, clearly implies, that there was a sense, in which He was not the son either of David, or of Abraham, and in reference to which He said while upon earth, Before Abraham was I am. Kara has the same force in Rom. ix. 3, 11 my brethren /caret, aap/ca ,” that is, of the same fleshly descent, but in other respects not his brethren, not being disciples of Christ, nor incorporated into the same body, nor animated by the same principles arid hopes as the apostle was 1 ; ft)? /card /JL6V to (fipovr/ya dWorplovs oVra?, Kolvrjq Be avrj) kolvco- vovvras tt}? avyyeveias. — Theodor. Thus also Ephes. vi. 5, Coloss. iii. 22, Servants obey your masters Kara aap/ca, that is, who have a right to your active services, to your bodily labours, masters in this respect, but with respect to your spirits, your religious principles and possessions not so ; For one is your master Christ . Ov yap nrepl dvOpdo'irov ^jn\ov , cfrrjalv 6 \6yos r)p,LV Bt,a rovro irpoaedrj/ca to, Kara crdp/ca, alviTTopLevos otl /cal Kara rrvevya yevvrjais ian rod avrov, koX tlvos eve/cev evrevdev rjp^aro. — St. Chrys. “ When the evangelist St. Matthew says, Abraham begat Isaac, and Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat Judah, and follows out the whole genealogy, he never added, according to the flesh, 2 for such an addition did not suit those who were mere men. But here, where not only man is spoken of, but the Eternal God becoming man, the Divine Word, the blessed apostle, in reminding them of the seed of David, necessarily adds according to the flesh, clearly teaching us, how He is the Son of God, and how said to be the Son of David.” — Theodor. FvravQa (fravepebs 1 As being in thought alien, and participating with him only of a common relationship. 2 For our discourse is not, saith he, of any bare man. Such was my reason for adding, according to the flesh, as hinting that there is also a generation of the same after the Spirit. SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 15 ra? Bvo yevvr)crei<; BrjXol. — Theoph. Arians and Socinians may safely be challenged to produce any passage, in which such lan- guage is applied to any created being. Verse 4. — Tov optcrOevTos Tlov Geov , Who was marked out to he the Son of God. The phrase marked out is more consistent with the general sig- nification of opicrdevTos, than declared; and more applicable to a proof furnished by an event. Declared is more strictly predicated of a rational agent, endued with speech, — of an articulated testi- mony. Our Saviour was declared to be the Son of God, by the voice w r hich came from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son , but He was marked out to be the Son of God , in the most distinct and incontrovertible manner, and in the way most universally capable of appreciation, by the close, undeviating, and complete fulfilment, in His sufferings, death, and resurrection, of all the circumstances, w r hich had been foretold in the prophecies that went before upon Him . 1 The word opuadevro^ is emphatically expressive of the exact correspondence of the fulfilment by our Lord, with the programme drawn out in prophecy, of a compre- hensive plan, all the minute details and particulars of which were previously and distinctly sketched; and which was as minutely and distinctly filled up by the events, which thus marked out our Saviour to be the Messiah. This I find to be the view taken by Lud. De Dieu. He says: — “ Videtur quidem vicinum esse Logi- corum opL^ecv. Sed id amplius quid dici quam declarare , nempe definire, determinare, id est rem intra suos fines ac terminos ita constituere, ut ex iis natura rei intelligatur, qualis in se sit et quo modo ab aliis differat. Sic et in grammatica Modus Indicativus opicTTUcbs dictus est Graecis, non tantum quod certum aliquid indicet ac declaret, sed quia rem sive praesentem, sive prseteritam sive futuram certis temporum limitibus includit ac determinat. 1 “ And if we consider what necessary preparations were required for the coming of the Messias, and for His reception in the world when He should appear, it will satisfy us how wisely this was designed by God. The appearance of the Son of God in the world was very surprising, and it could not be thought that any one who made such pretensions, should find credit, unless the world had been prepared before-hand to expect Him, and had some infallible marks and characters , whereby to know Him when He came. And this was the principal end of all the types, and figures, and prophecies of the law, to contain the promises and predictions of the Messias, and the characters whereby to know Him.” — Sher. on Prov. 16 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Hinc verto, qui determinates est esse Filius Dei, id est, qni intra tales terminos est constitutus, iisque ab aliis ita est diremtus ac disterminatus, ut judicari aliter nec debeat, nec possit, quam quod sit Filius Dei.” So also Scbleusner: “ Terminis ac limitibus aliquid describere and Hesychius as given by De Dieu ‘ opov BlBccktl. 1 “ Significat demonstrare, ita clare definire ut nulla possit esse am- biguitas.” — J. Leclerc. So also Melanctbon. “ Al opiapLcov tlvcov i'jn'yvMcncGLv. To know by certain marks or boundaries.” — CEcumen. Comp. Acts ii. 22, where Christ is said to have been a man, d7roSeSety//,evo?, shewn or proved of God by miracles. Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, Theophylact, Theodoret, and the Lexicon of Zonaras, as well as the great majority of modern critics agree in rendering opiaOevros by d7roav0evTo?, 8gc^6gvto<;, and the Syriac by yT nK cognitus est. 'Opt^co “ est definio vel certis limitibus et terminis circumscribo.” — Bullinger in loco. So also Limborch, terminos seu limites ponere. Arias Montanus renders it definito; the Nu. It. B., dichiarato ; the modern Greek, aTreSelxOr) ; l Luther’s Ger. Bib. frdftigltd) erttuefen. The rendering of the Yulgate, prcedestinatus, is clearly erro- neous, and is said by Beausobre to be founded on a single Gr. MS. which reads 'irpoopio-Oevros. “ L’Interprete Latin a traduit pre- destine, mais cette version n’est appuyee que par un seul MS. Gr., qu’on a vraisemblement voulu rendre conforme a la Vulgate.” — Beaus, et Lenf. Eusebius of Caesarea accuses Marcellus, the Sabel- lian heretic, of substituting irpoopLaOevTO? for bpicrOevros, with a view of maintaining that our blessed Lord was the Son of God, only in the same way that other predestinated persons were. Calmet maintains that it is found in some Greek MSS.; but he adds, after saying all that he can in favour of the Vulgate reading , — vcrcv delay, as to His Divine nature, would, if literally understood, have been a useless pleonasm; for, as there is but one God, if Christ was literally and substantially His Son, He must be Divine, and if literally and substantially Divine, it must be from His being one with the Father or His only begotten c 18 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Son. There is also this objection to such an expression, namely, that it would have been very liable to misconstruction ; for believers are said to be partakers Oelas <£uo-e«?, of the Divine nature, and it might therefore have been supposed, that Christ was the Son of God, only in the same qualified and distant sense, and not literally and substantially. Although the expression, ev Tlyevpan ayi(D uoyv , nor simply Kara Uvevpa ayccoavv? 7?, but ev hvvdfjbet Kara Uvev/ia ayiwavvr)?. that is, in the possession of power, which is the exclu- sive attribute of Deity, namely life in Himself, the attribute of J ehovah only ; and, therefore, the Son of God, not in a qualified sense, as men and angels are His sons, but literally, fully, and substantially, as one in whom dwelt all the fulness .of the Godhead bodily. Kal yap rovrcov air dvr wv rj avySpopbrj huopl^eb Kal enrobe- icrrrja-iv avrov twv aXXcov diravrcov, oaois Kara xapiv yeyovev vlovs errovofJbao-OrjvaL. Kal SetKWcnv Kal bibacrKeu irdvras, avrov etvae rov aXiyOw Kal c^vaei vlov rov ©eov Kal ©eov. 1 — Phot. Amphi- 1 “ For the concurrence of all these things (the correspondence of His life and death with the prophecies — His possession of the Spirit— His SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 19 loch. Qucest . clviii. Probably there is also a reference to our blessed Lord's sanctifying influences upon his people. This interpretation seems to be established by comparing the present passage with those which are parallel to it, and in some of which the same antithesis is strongly marked, Who is a priest not after the law of a fleshly commandment , but after the power {Kara Bvvapuv) of an endless life (Heb. vii. 16). For though He was crucified by weakness , yet liveth He by the power of God (etc Swa/iecos Geov ), that is, by Divine power (2 Cor. xiii. 8). “ And this phrase of Christ’s being justified by the Spirit seems to be of the same sense with that expression (Eom. i. 4), Declared to be the Son of God with power, etc. ; that is He was evidently proved to be the Son of God, by the great miracle of His resurrection.” — Tillotson , Ser. clxxii. “ Caro quidem gustavit mortem, sed im- passibilis Dei virtus.” — St. Amb. Bishop Terrot argues against the application to Christ's Divine nature of the words Tlvevpa ar/Lcoo-vvrjs, because, he says, this expression is specifically used, in the New Testament, for the Third Person of the blessed Trinity. But this assertion must have arisen from confounding the phrase in question with Ilvevpa ayiov, for the word ar/Lwcrvvrj occurs only three times in the New Testament, and only here in connection with Tlvevpa. “ That is to say manifested to be the eternal Son of God, according to His Holy Spiritual Divine nature, by His resurrection.” — Waterland. Ignatius thus speaks of the two natures in Christ. Eh larpo^ eanv, aapKLKO^ re /cal n ryevparc/cbs, yevgrbs /cal dyev^TO?, ev (Tap/cl yevopevos 0609, iv Oavarw £a>?) akpOiVT], /cal i/c Map las /cal i/c Geov, irpMTOv n ra6rjrb<; kcu Tore diraOr 79 , 'Ipaovs Xpioro ? 6 /cvpios rjpicbv, 1 and 5 Irjaov Xpcara>, to3 Kara aap/ca i/c yevovs Aa(3lB , to5 vico dvdpd)7rov /cal vim Geov. 2 St. Augustine says, Qui erat, factus est. Quid erat? Quid factus est? Verbum erat, caro factus est; filius Dei erat, filius hominis factus est; Deus erat, homo factus est. Suscepit humanitatem, non amisit resurrection by His own power) distinguish and separate them from all who by grace have been called sons, and shews and teaches that He is truly and by.nature the Son of Ood and God.” 1 There is one physician, fleshly and spiritual, born and unborn, God begotten in the flesh, in death the true life, both of Mary and of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord. 2 J esus Christ, who was according to the flesh of the race of David, the Son of man and the Son of God. c 2 20 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Divinitatem, factus est humilis, manet sublimis: natus est homo, non destitit, esse Deus. Again. In quantum Deus est, omnia per ipsum facta sunt; in quantum autem homo est, et ipse factus est. f ‘ The expression, Son of God, is applied to Christ no less than twenty-seven times, in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, and fifteen times in the Epistles and the Revelation. The expressions, My Son, His Son, Thy Son, k. t. X., is applied to Him in this peculiar relation to God times almost without number.” — Barnes. The Socinians endeavour to evade this clear and incon- trovertible declaration of our blessed Lord’s Divine nature, by translating the word opiaOevTO?, constitutus, effectus, vel factus. Professor Stuart also raises various objections against the interpretation, marked out , declared. But no one, after an exami- nation of the various interpretations, can, I think, hesitate in adopting that given by the Greek fathers, and vindicated by Bishop Bull, Pearson, Magee, and the greater number of modern critics. This passage is indeed a most powerful two-edged weapon, repelling Valentinian and Marcionite errors on the one side, and Arian and Socinian corruptions on the other. “Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in Him, even Divinity and humanity. His Divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to us.” — Calvin. ’Eg avacrTacrews ve/cpwv, By His resurrection from the dead. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. These were the words of prophecy respecting our Lord, and the sign to which He constantly directed those, who sought by a sign from heaven some more convincing proof of His Divine mission than that furnished by His miracles. I have power to lay down my life , and I have power to take it again (John x. 18). This, therefore, was the most convincing proof to be afforded, the proof, sign or mark, beyond which none should be given. An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign ; but no sign shall be given it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas, tc. r. X. Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up. This was the key-stone of the esta- blishment of the character assigned to himself by our Saviour, and is justly referred to, as an incontrovertible proof of His being, what He had declared himself to be, the Son of God. Omnis enim ambiguitas et diffidentia resurrectione ejus calcata SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 21 est et compressa. . . Nam et discipuli in morte ejus dubita- verunt, dicente Cleopha in Emmaus: Nos putabamus, quia ipse erat, qui incipiebat liberare Israel. Et ipse Dominus ait: Cum exaltaveritis Filium hominis, tunc cognoscetis quia ipse ego sum; et iterum cum exaltatus fuero a terra, omnia trabam, ad me, id est, tunc cognoscar omnium esse Dominus .” — St . Ambr. The answer to Stuart’s objection, How could the resurrection declare, in any special manner, that Christ was the Son of God?. Was not Lazarus raised from the dead? k. t . X. is most obvious. Christ's resurrection proved His Divinity, not only from its corres- pondence with the prophecy that went before upon Him, but because He raised himself by His own power, and because the co-operation of God the Father in raising Him gave the highest possible sanction to Christ’s being all that He professed to be ; since this was the pre-declared sign, which our Lord had said He would give. Did Lazarus raise himself? Did he claim to be the Son of God ? Did he say that he would prove that he was so by rising again? Was he raised to prove such claims, or in any connexion with them? In all these most important points, the distinction between our Lord’s resurrection and any other is broadly marked. “ But if Christ had done no more in the resur- rection, than lifted up His body, when it was revived, He had done that, which any other person might have done, and so had not declared himself to be the Son of God. It remaineth there- fore that Christ, by that power which He had within himself, did take His life again, which He had laid down, did re* unite His soul with His body, from which He separated it, when He gave up the ghost, and so did quicken and revive himself: and so it is a certain truth not only that God the Father raised the Son, but also that God the Son raised himself.” — Pearson. IIp(i)TO<; yap outo ? //, ovo ? eavrov rjyeipev. 1 — St. Chrys. Referring to the general form of the expression dvdaraaL<; vercpcbv, and the absence of any pronoun or preposition to confine it to our Saviour, Olshausen says, “ Perhaps St. Paul here chose an expression which does not so emphatically designate the resur- rection of Jesus alone, dvdcrraai ? e/c ve/cpcov, in order to intimate that with Him the saints of the Old Testament had risen (Matt, xxvii. 53). At the same time, this also was but a partial dvda- racns, and it was therefore necessary to distinguish the dvdaTaai^ 1 He first and alone raised himself. 22 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. veKpcov once more from the avdaTacns t?, and indirectly with the whole of the preceding part of the verse, combines both interpretations, and seems the best. He had received grace and apostleship, that obedience, springing from faith in Christ, or obedience to Christ in believing in Him, might be promoted among all nations; that His name might be glorified. Comp. Actsix. 15, He is a chosen vessel unto me, to hear my name before the Gentiles. This confirms what was stated in the remarks on the first verse, namely, that the means, employed in bringing St. Paul into God’s household, had not reference merely to himself as an individual, but to the advantage of the whole household. He received grace first, as an introduction to the apostleship, and both grace and apostleship, in order that he might be eminently useful in extending the 24 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans.' knowledge of the truth, and in bringing men to submit to the obedience of faith. The Mons French Bible published 1683 renders it singularly, “ par la vertu de son nom.” Verse 6. — ’ Ev oh eVre teal v/neh, Among whom are ye also. “ Of whose nombre be ye.” — Cran. Genev. Macknight singularly enough supposes the apostle to include all the inhabitants of Rome, unbelieving as well as believing ; but, as Slade remarks, the very next verse proves the contrary. “ He teaches, therefore, that he writes not to unbelievers, but to those who had believed already.” Theodoret. EXrjrol At)(tov Xpicrrov , Called of or by Jesus Christ. “ Ihesus Christ’s by vocacion.” — Tynd. Genev. This has been rendered by Tholuck, Reiche, and others, effectually called , an interpretation with which Stuart, Hodge, and others fully agree. The expres- sion in Galatians, I wonder that you are so soon removed from Him that called you, might be considered a sufficient answer to such an opinion. The inserting effectual, in the present clause, as assert- ing any peculiarity of power, or irresistibility in the call, or even a certainty of present faithful reception in the case of all to whom it is applied, is an interpretation for which nothing in the context affords any sober grounds. On the contrary, since, in the follow- ing verse, /cXgroh is joined with 7 it involves the supposition that all the professed believers at Rome were peculiarly or irre- sistibly called, and had faithfully obeyed the call. The assertion, that k;X?/to? indicates a peculiarity in the force, or power of the calling, has been so frequently and so positively made, that it demands further notice. Stuart says, that the word /CX 77 T 0 ? has sometimes the sense merely of invited or bidden; e.g. Matt. xx. 16, xxii. 14; but that, in the writings of St. Paul, it is not so used ; but, always, in the sense of efficient calling. Both of these statements I believe to be incorrect. The word occurs only eleven times in the New Testament; and in all these cases has the same signification, being applied in the gospels, in which it occurs twice, as well as in the epistles, not to persons who have merely been invited, but to those who had, professedly at least, accepted the invitation. The word used to signify merely invited , and which is therefore applied to all who were bidden, is /ce/c\rj~ fjbivoi (comp. Matt. xxii. 3, where all that were invited are spoken of, with the 14th verse of the same chapter, in which the actual guests are referred to; and where, therefore, kXtjtos, not Ke/c\r)- /jLevos ? as in the third verse, is used). So also in the only other SECT. I.— THE SALUTATION, I. 1—7. 25 case in which it occurs in the gospels, namely Matt. xx. 16, /cXrjrol means all the actual labourers in the vineyard, all who had accepted the call to work therein. It does not, however, by any means follow, that the word is significant of any peculiar power or irresistibility put forth in the calling. St. Paul did not use the word without an object; and the nature of that object, if it can be clearly pointed out, must materially contribute to fix the sense in which he used it. Of the seven instances in which he employs the word /cXrjros in the epistles, two have reference to himself. In these cases there can be little doubt as to his object. In the opening of his epistles, nothing could be more appropriate than his assertion of his apostolic office, and of the authority which he possessed in virtue of ^is not having intruded himself into it, but having been duly called by God himself. Ou% apTracras avrrjv, aX\a Trap avrov tov AeaTTOTov Setjapuevos 1 . — Theodor. “ Rite consti tutus apos- tolus. v — Schleus. The causes which contributed to make this vindication specially necessary, in the case of St. Paul, have already been noticed; and we find him, in consequence, frequently vindicating his calling and title to the apostleship (Rom.xi. 13, 1 Cor. ix. 1,2, 2 Cor. xii. 12, Gal. i. 17). In all the epistles ad- dressed to churches and having no other name associated with his own in the address, he prefaces his salutations with the asser- tion of his apostleship; and, in the Epistle to the Galatians, he relates his vocation at length from i. 11 to ii. 9. His object in doing this was, not to impress, upon those whom he addressed, the conviction that he had obeyed the call to the apostleship, for that was self-evident: nor that he had been so called that he was compelled to obey the call. To have set his resistance to God’s grace in the strongest light, by representing an irresistible impulse as necessary to overcome it, would have been by no means calcu- lated to give weight to what he said ; but to vindicate his apostle- ship, by asserting his having been called and delegated by Christ himself, would give to his words the strongest possible sanction and authority. An examination of the object which the apostle had in view, when he applied the word kXtjtoI to those whom he addressed, will afford corroborative proof that the word does not denote any peculiarity in the force of calling in any particular instances, but Not having seized it, but having received it from the Lord himself. 26 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. that it has, in these cases, a sense similar to that which it had when applied to the apostle himself; and refers to the honour of being guests, called, or invited by God, intimating that they had not unwarrantably intruded themselves in their unworthiness upon God, but had been called and admitted to this access, through divinely instituted means, and by one who had dearly purchased for them so glorious a privilege. IlavTa'Xpv kXtjtov gclvtov /caXei Becrcvvs rr)U ohcelav evr/vcoj ucxrvvrjv /ecu otl ov/c chIto? ty) rrjera ? evpev, aXXa /cXrjOeis irapeyevero ical virr)Kovore. Kal tovs Be ovTcos ovofid^ei /cXtjtov 9 dyiov?. 1 — St. Chrys. This meaning is well brought out in De Sacy’s Bible, “ Au rang desquelles vous etes aussi, comme ayant ete appele par Jesus Christ In the rajnk of whom you also are, as having been called by Jesus Christ. Beausobre does not bring this meaning out quite so forcibly. “ Entre lesquels vous etes, vous que Jesus Christ a appelez .” Regarded in this light, the word kXtjtoI would inspire them with confidence in God’s love towards them, and in the wisdom, power, and goodness engaged in their behalf. The employment of the word was also intended to beat down all Jewish and Judaizing ideas of merit, and to act as a preservative against all self-right- eous imaginations which might lead Christians to forget that they had been brought near to God, in virtue of His merciful inter- position, and not by any deserving of their own. “ Haac vox peculiaris est Paulo, cui studium est omnibus adimere fiduciam operum humanorum, totamque gloriam transferre ad vocantem Deum, cui vocanti qui auscultat salvus est.” — Eras. Nor was this the only object of using this peculiar word. It was, no doubt, also intended to vindicate the claims of the Gentile con- verts to gospel privileges, and to silence Judaizing objections, by declaring, that the Gentiles had been called by God himself into the light and liberty of the gospel. There were other important associations connected with this word. It reminded them of the happiness to which they were called; and of their obligations to holiness, from the Author, nature, and object of their calling. All these motives for the apostle’s use of the word are clearly expressed in other passages, in which the calling of believers is referred to more at length. 1 He everywhere designates himself called, shewing his own ingenuous- ness, and that he had not found by seeking, but came, having been called, and obeyed. And the faithful he also in like manner names “ called saints.” SECT. I. — THE SALUTATION, I. 1 — 7. 27 Thus in 1 Cor. i. 9, connected with the preceding verse, the truth, that the believers at Corinth had been called of God, is adduced as a reason for confidence in the continuance to them of that goodness which had led to their calling; and which, in its future exercise, would furnish them with supplies of grace and strength, suited to their need, and sufficient to carry them safely through their Christian course. Verse 8: Who will also confirm you unto the end , that ye may he blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9. God is faithful , by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of His Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 1 Thess. v. 4. Faith- ful is He that calleth you , who also will do it. These passages may be considered explanatory of the apostle’s use of kXtjtos in the connexion of being called by God. We are said to be called by the God of all grace , to be called of Jesus Christ , to be called by the Gospel, expressions which may farther illustrate the signifi- cancy of the word kXt/tos, as expressive of the calling of be- lievers by Him, who has purchased redemption, and who has therefore a right to dispense it 1 ; as denoting that the Gospel, by which they are called, is not a means of human invention, but of divine institution; and, farther, as suggesting the confidence with which the remembrance of these truths should inspire those who draw near to God in virtue of their calling. The expression called saints , or to be saints , is illustrated by the declaration, that God hath not called us to uncleanness , but to holiness (1 Thess. iv. 7), that God hath called us with an holy calling (2 Tim. i. 9), to peace (1 Cor. vii. 15; Colos. iii. 15), and by the exhortation, to walk worthy of God who hath called us (1 Thess. ii. 12); to be holy as He which hath called us is holy , in all manner of conversation (1 Pet. i. 15) ; and to walk worthy of the vo- cation wherewith we are called (Ephes. iv. 1). The apostle St. Peter also reminds believers of the ultimate object of their calling: Knowing that ye are thereunto called that ye should inherit a blessing (1 Pet. iii. 9), that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet. i. 3). St. Paul also refers to the same, Even as ye are called in one hope of your calling (Ephes. iv. 4). The word /caXea) occurs in different persons and tenses about fifty times in the Epistles. In several instances*it is merely sig- 1 “ C’est une remarque, qui a ete faite il y long temps par un ancien Auteur Chretien, ‘ Comme tous les hommes, dit-il, ont ete appelez, ceux qui ont voulu obeir a la vocation sont nommez les Appelez .’ ” — Beaus, et Lenf. 28 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. nificant of designation, as in Rom. ix. 25, 26. In 1 Cor. viii. 15, 24, where it is used several times, it refers to the circum- stances or condition in which persons were at the time of their calling; but in almost every other case in which it is applied to those who have been called, it is indisputably with one of the definite objects which have been pointed out. If, then, the word /c\? 7 to? is used with any object, or has any force, what can be regarded as a more decisive proof of that object, or a more satis- factory illustration of its meaning, than those passages in which the same subject is treated at large, and its objects and meaning more definitely expressed? Hence, we are warranted in con- cluding, that the word kXtjtos is used, not to express the force or power with which the calling was made ; but, in some instances, to remind believers of the source of their calling, as being of God; of its meritorious cause, through Christ; and of the means of calling, the instrumentality of the Gospel : while, in others, it points out the character of the calling, as being holy in its nature ; and the end to which it calls, eternal felicity. Compare St. Clement’s second epistle to the Corinthians, in which he exhorts them to cultivate high views of Christ and His salvation, and describes the pernicious effects of a contrary course. Kal ol atcovovres cocrirep (u/cpwv, ap,aprdvop,ev, ovk elbores iroOev i/c\rj0r]pL6V Kal vito tlvoi ?, Kal et? ov tottov, Kal baa virepLeivev ’ Irjaov ? Xpurro ? n raOelv eveKa rjpicbv. 1 Theophylact says, TldXivbe to k\t)tol<> irpoaeO'qKe, rr}<; evepyecias avrovs dva- fUflVrj V ^ T V V PV V V V iScoprjaaTO , cos ev rd^ee irpcocrrjyopLa^ avrd dels, eirevyeTai peeve cv Serjve/crj /cal d/cevrjra. 1 — St. Chrys. 'Atto Seov Trarpos f]pewv, /cal Kvplov ’Irjaov Xpio-rov, From God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace and peace are bestowed both by the Father and by the Son; by the Father, as giving the Son for us, and in Him giving us all things; by the Son, as the meritorious purchaser of our re-admission into the relation of the beloved children of the Author of every good and perfect gift. § II.— INTRODUCTION. Chap. I. 8—17. Having thus addressed the Roman Christians, St. Paul notices their cha- racter as a church, thanks God that their faith was universally spoken of, and assures them of the sincerity of his joy on this account ; since his interest in them was so great, that without ceasing he made mention of them in his prayers. For the truth of this proof of his affection he appeals to God as a witness ; declaring that he continually prayed to be blessed with a favourable opportunity of visiting them, in order that he might bestow upon them some spiritual gift, and be comforted by the mutual exercise of faith, on his part, in bestowing, and on theirs, in re- ceiving the advantages of an apostle’s presence (ver. 8 — 12). He accounts for his not having yet accomplished what he so much desired, by stating that he had often proposed to visit them, but had hitherto been as often prevented (ver. 9). He declares that his object in desiring to come to them was to have fruits of his ministry among them, as among the other 1 0 salutation, fraught with innumerable blessings ! This was what Christ enjoined the apostles to say, on their entering into men’s houses. And hence it is that Paul prefaces all his epistles, by wishing grace and peace. For truly it is no petty warfare to which Christ has put an end. It is manifold, various, and protracted. Neither has this been terminated by our own toils, but by His grace. So then, as love bestowed grace, and grace peace, he places them side by side in the salutation, and prays that they may continue immovable and for evermore. SECT. II. — INTRODUCTION. I. 8 — 17. 31 nations ; that he was a debtor to all men to preach to them the Gospel and, so far, therefore, as it depended upon him, that he was eagerly ready to preach it even at Rome ; since he was not ashamed of that which was the power of salvation to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile, even the Gospel of Christ, by which was revealed the means of being just before God (ver. 10 — 17). Verse 8. — IIpwTov piev, First indeed. The tidings of their faith had, no doubt, in some measure suggested this epistle; and this was the most courteous and conciliatory topic, with which, in connexion with his desire to confirm this grace, he could intro- duce his instructions and exhortations to the believers at Kome. His object evidently was to congratulate them on their faith, and to do all in his power to confirm it. “ St. Paul opens most of his epistles with giving thanks to God for the faith of his readers : it is only in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, and in that to the Galatians, where he was obliged to find decided fault, that this thanksgiving is wanting.” — Olshausen. Ev^apiard) tg3 0ec5 piov, I thank my God. Ev^apiGrco, for the more classical eibevai.— Blomf. 0eo> piov , my God, that is, not in the general sense, in which He is God over all ; but in this sense, that I am His by redemption as well as creation, His SofXo?, and that He is the master whom I serve. Compare ver. 9, and 2 Tim. i. 3. “ Notat Chrysostomus hie et in priorem ad Corin- thios, magni esse affectus, quod eum qui est omnium Deus, sibi facit proprium., Frequens in Davide.” — Grot. Hoc verbum Deits meus exprimit fidem, amorem , spem . — Bengel. Aid It)gov XpiGTov ) Through Jesus Christ. Our thanks and praises, as well as our prayers, must be offered through Jesus Christ, (Heb. xiii. 15), By Him therefore let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually. Evxapiareiv $e (f>rjGi Sia ’ Irjaov Xpurrov, ouTo? 7 dp /cal rrj^t 7 rpo? rov rrarepa ev^apiarla^ rjpuv 6 pbealrrjf;, ov piovov & 8 afa? ev^apiGreiv, aXXa koX n rpoadyoov ttjv rjpberepav evyapiGriav rco 7 rarpl. 1 — Theoph. Compare John xiv. 13, Ephes. v. 20, Heb. xiii. 15. 'Trrep ttuvtcov vpiwv , For you all. A conciliatory, and, if we may so speak, an amalgamatory expression, intended to lead them to regard themselves as all one in Christ. "On rj 7 t/ctt £9 vpiwv KarayyeXXeTao eV oXp tw Koapuo, That your 1 He tells them to give thanks by Jesus Christ, because He is the mediator of our thanks to the Father, not only having taught us to give thinks, but presenting our thanks to the Father. 32 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. faith is spoken of throughout the whole world. iC Because your faith is renoumed in the whole world.” — Rheirns. This statement had a tendency, of which the apostle no doubt desired to avail himself, to expand the views of those whom he addressed re- specting the nature of the Gospel; by indicating its universal applicability, without any national preference, and by reminding them of its actual wide extension at the time of his writing this epistle. This was also calculated to excite in their hearts an enlarged sympathy, which might assist in overthrowing the prejudices of the Jewish converts, by reminding them that they were objects of interest to all the world, that is, to all Christians in the Roman dominions. They would naturally be led by the consciousness of this fact to cultivate a feeling of communion, which would overleap the narrow limits within which they had been disposed to confine their sympathies ; and to cherish a fellow feeling for others, as extensive as that which was entertained towards them. - Rome was the queen of the world, the centre of universal dominion ; and from the large influx of persons from all nations, the extent of her intercourse, and the continual departure, from time to time, of her citizens of all ranks to every quarter of the world, to recruit her armies, and to manage her provinces, there was no place from which the beams of faith and righteousness would radiate so rapidly or to so great an extent. The church at Rome would indeed be as a city set on a hill. Ov yap dagpo^ 7] 7 roXt? rjv , dAA,’ wairep err l rcvo? fcopvtyry ? Keipevv), hia n ravra KardhrfXos rjv. . . . 0 pev yap t?}? tcparovarjs 7ro\e&)? irepi- yevopevos teal rots ap'^opevois pah levs errrjeL, 6 he rrjv fiaaCkucasrepav dcj)eU, Tot9 3e v7T7]k6ol<; efahpevcov to /cecpaXaiov el^ev r/peXypevov. 1 — St. Chrys. Verse 9. — MaprviTa rov yvcovcu el evcbScoice Kvpcos rrjv o&ov avjov. And he held his peace, to know whether the Lord had prospered his journey. Here the reference clearly is to success in the object of the journey, not to the nature of the journey itself. This seems to be the sense in which Tyn- dale and our common version take this clause, as well as the Nuremberg Italian Bible, 1 “ havere prospero camino.” “Pros- perum iter contingat.” — Eras. The same word is used in Ps. i. 3, in the sense of prospering or succeeding. And all things that he doeth shall prosper (/ carevobcoOrjo-eTcu ). — Sept. Lastly, the word evo8co0rj(ropaL may refer to the happiness which he would expe- rience in undertaking a journey to them, of which God had signified His approval by removing, in His providence, the impediments that had hitherto interposed to prevent it. The indication of God’s will was all that could be required to consummate the pleasure of a journey which would, on account of the apostle's love to the believers at Rome, and the objects to be promoted by his visit to them, be most gratifying to his feelings. This interpretation, which connects the ev in evo8(o0r/5 and 7roTe, which precede, are quite sufficient to intimate the apostle’s sense of the uncertainty of all human plans, and do not require the addition of a Deo volente , in the simple and common acceptation of that phrase; and because, while it has a peculiar force of its own, it combines with it the force and beauty of the other interpretations. The consciousness of being on a mission which God willed would be the source of the highest pleasure which St. Paul could enjoy on his journey, as well as the firmest security for his being delivered from its most imminent dangers, and supported through all its fatigues. In this sense how fully was the apostle’s prayer answered in his dream on the eve of shipwreck, when the angel of God addressed him, Fear not Paul , thou must he brought before Caesar. God’s approval and furtherance of his journey would also afford the strongest assu- rance of his coming to them in the fulness of the blessing of the gospel of Christ. “ As it proved a few years afterwards, when in the providence of God he did accomplish his wish.” — Sumner. 1 Published by Mattia d’Erberg, 1711. SECT. II. — INTRODUCTION, I. 8 — 17. 35 VERSE 11. — EiraroOd) yap ISeiv vga$ iva rt pueraSd) ydpicrya vpuv TTveypLaTucov, For I desire to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift. That is to say, some miraculous gift. If, as it has been supposed by some interpreters, the apostle merely meant, that he desired to confirm them in Christian graces and virtues, by instruction and exhortation, there was no absolute necessity for his seeing them for this purpose, as he could have done so, though not perhaps so fully, by epistle. The present epistle had, no doubt, that effect; for it was admitted, even by his opponents, that his epistles were weighty : So far as mere instruction, exhortation, and the ordinary confirmations of faith were concerned, it may be questioned if the great truths and powerful motives of the gospel could have been more clearly or fully unfolded by word of mouth, than they are in this epistle; while, on the other hand, the remembrance of his words could not have a more permanent influence than the litera scripta , which could be more fully investigated and deliberately weighed than any oral discourse. It is not, however, upon this objec- tion to interpreting %dpicrpa as spoken of ordinary gifts, that a different interpretation is proposed, but upon the following grounds. The great object of St. Paul, in this epistle, is to vindicate the freedom of the Gentile converts from any obligation to observe the Jewish rites, ceremonies, and legal observances, as if necessary to their justification and acceptance with God. This he endea- vours to do in the manner least offensive to the Jewish converts, in trying to reconcile them to the admission of the Gentiles to the same privileges in Christ, which they themselves enjoyed; by pointing out to them clearly the only ground of acceptance of Jew and Gentile. Judaizing principles were the stumbling-block to the security and peace of the Church at Kome, as in many other places ; and the most effectual and incontrovertible argu- ment that could be adduced to overthrow those erroneous prin- ciples, would be the bestowal of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost upon converts who had not submitted to the rite of cir- cumcision. This was the practical argument under the influence of which St. Peter administered baptism to the first Gentile converts (Acts. x. 47), and by which he justified himself at Jeru- salem, in having acted, as he had done, to men uncircumcised (xi. 17); declaring the reception of miraculous gifts to have been a proof of the acceptance of the Gentiles, to resist which would D 2 36 ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. be to withstand God himself. This was also the proof which St. Paul used in the conviction of a church which had succumbed to the influences which threatened the Church at Rome (Gal. iii. 5), He that ministereth to you the Spirit and worketh miracles among you , doeth he it by the works of the law or by the hearing of faith ? It was, therefore, a proof which, being incontrovertible, we may rest assured that the apostle would have rejoiced to apply, in order to demonstrate the exemption from Jewish obligations of the Gentiles at Rome also. In his epistle to the Colossians, St. Paul declares that he would that they knew what great conflict he had for them, and those of Laodicea, and for as many as had not seen his face in the flesh, wrestling, no doubt, for them as for the Romans, in his prayers, that their hearts might be comforted being knit together in love , and unto all riches of the full assurance of understanding, to the acknow- ledgment of the mystery of God , and of the Father , and of Christ. Here we find persons similarly circumstanced with the Roman believers, in respect of St. Paul's absence from them in the flesh, and for whose advancement in the truth he struggled or engaged in conflict; but there is no expression of any anxious desire to see them. This difference of address may partly be accounted for by the presence among them of Epaphras, while, from St. Paul’s anxiety to visit Rome, there is every reason to believe that that city had not been blessed with the presence of an apostle. But his wish to visit it was no doubt strengthened by an eager desire that the church in that metropolis, the influence of which was co-extensive with the known world, and the faith of which would therefore be most conspicuous and influential, should enjoy the highest possible confirmation of Christian faith, in the possession of the miraculous powers of the Holy Ghost. These could be imparted only by the laying on of an apostle’s hands, and indispensably required his personal presence. We have, therefore, strong ground for attributing St. Paul’s earnest desire to see the Church at Rome in the flesh, to a wish to impart to it, and especially to the Gentile members, those miraculous gifts which, thus bestowed, would not only contribute to extend the faith, but to preserve it from corruption, by vindi- cating it from the yoke of Judaism. This interpretation of yagiafia is confirmed by the tl which is associated with it. This word, signifying some one , combines a limitation with an indefiniteness of meaning, most consistent with SECT. II. — INTRODUCTION, I. 8 — 17 . 37 miraculous gifts, one of which would be sufficient for the accom- plishment of the end in view, namely, the confirmation of their faith; and among which, simply as proofs that the power of God rested upon believers, there was no room for selection, nothing- being necessary but that the gift, whatever it was, should be clearly and indisputably miraculous. With respect to the Chris- tian character, on the other hand, an expression, desiring their advancement merely in some one grace, would be very defective, both from its limitation and its indefiniteness. The perfection of the Christian character consists not in the presence of any isolated grace, but in the union, just proportion, and combined advancement of them all. In selecting one of these, there is also a choice. And now abideth faith , hope , charity , these three , but the greatest of these is charity. In accordance with these remarks, St. Paul, in the passage of the Epistle to the Colossians already referred to, and in all the other passages of a similar character, in which he unquestionably repre- sents himself as desiring or struggling in prayer for the growth in Christian graces of those to whom he is writing, uses language as comprehensive and definite as the expression tl % aptcr/m is the reverse. TV? indefinite occurs more than four hundred times, but never once in a connection which would cause a similar limitation to that contended for by those who reject the interpretation which takes yapiapa to mean here a miraculous gift. The verb fierahoS also confirms this view. The simple verb hihcofu occurs about ninety times in the Epistles ; but it is never once used to intimate the direct bestowal of grace by the apostles. Paul might plant , and Apollos water , but God gave the increase. The use of the verb /ubeTaSlScofju is, like that of the simple verb, more consistent with a gift, which by its immediate and palpable manifestation upon the laying on of the apostles’ hands, was clearly proved to be in their power to give, even to unre- newed persons, and in a more absolute sense than ordinary Christian graces. These were indirectly given by the apostles, inasmuch as they were the agents employed by God to preach the word, and to confirm, by the imposition of hands, and the accompanying bestowal of miraculous gifts, the faith of their con- verts. Merahlhwfu occurs in four instances besides the present, and in each of them it refers to proper subjects of immediate and absolute donation. Its distinctive meaning is to give a share or part of what we have. “ To parte summewhat.” — Wickl. He, 38 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. however, renders 'xapiafia grace, as does also the Rheims version. Tyndale, Cranmer, the Geneva, and our authorised version, render it more properly u gift.” There are only two other places in which the word “ spiritual” is associated with “ gifts,” namely, 1 Cor. xii. 1, and xiv. i. In both cases, the word “ gifts” is not expressed, but understood; but as there can be no doubt that papier /Jbara is the word which supplies the ellipsis, the fact, that in these passages the reference is undeniably to miraculous gifts, confirms the same interpretation here. Olshausen’s argument against this view is without solid foun- dation. He says, tc We are not to think, as Reiche justly re- marks, of any of the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii.) as intended by this spiritual gift ; for St. Paul did not estimate these so highly as to consider the communication of them the business of his life : but we are to understand by it the renewal of faith, and love, and hope, in short, of the Christian life in general.” The answer to this is obvious. No person ever for a moment supposed, that St. Paul estimated these gifts by any other standard than that which he has himself expressly assigned, namely, their tendency to edify the church. On this account he esteemed them very highly, called them the signs of an apostle , and regarded their bestowal and possession as a most effectual means of extend- ing the faith of Christ. HZ? to crrgpi^O^vaL vpias, That you might he confirmed. “ To strengthen you withal.” — Cran. This was the object for which the gift was to be imparted. But to make any one of those Christian graces, which are the ordinary fruits of faith, the means of con- firming or establishing the Roman believers to such a degree as is here implied, seems to be reversing the natural order, by making the branch bear the tree, and not the tree the branch. This objection does not exist against miraculous gifts, which were the highest possible confirmation of faith, and which are expressly spoken of as such (Mark xvi. 20; 1 Cor. i. 6). We can scarcely suppose, that the apostle intended to say, that he desired to impart unto them some one spiritual grace, that they might be confirmed in spiritual graces generally. Verse 12.— Tovto Be iaTi, o-vp,7rapaKkr)dr}vcu iv vyZv, That is , to he comforted with you. The tovto Be £gtl is regarded by some critics as simply exegetical of the yapiapa 7 TvevpaTLKov, and they conclude that it proves that no miraculous gift was intended by SECT. II. — INTRODUCTION, I. 8 — 17 . 39 the latter; but in all the other cases in which tovt iaro occurs, it is not simply exegetical of what precedes, but, on the contrary, refers to something which is to result from it. In the same way here, the confirmation of their faith would be the result of his working among them the signs of an apostle, in bestowing the 'XapLafia 'rrvevpaTucbv. This verse contains a conciliatory qualification of his former words. Fearing that by representing their confirmation in the faith as the sole ground of his desire to see them, he might give rise to that distaste which exists in ingenuous minds to an inter- course with their fellow-creatures, in which all the advantages are on one side, or at least that he had not placed the subject in the most attractive light, the apostle, as it were, corrects himself by introducing o-vpTrapa/cXgdgvaL , to intimate that the happiness arising from his intercourse with them would be mutual, and that the confirmation of their faith would be to him a source of corresponding comfort. i( C’est a-dire, ou bien comme nous dirions, ou plutot { or rather) car c’est le sens. S. Paul, adoucit ces mots, afin que vous soyez amrmis.” — Calmet. I see no reason for sup- posing that he intended to represent any other benefit arising from his visit as mutual, except the comfort. He was not to be established together with them; the establishment would be all on their side, but the comfort would be reciprocal. St. Paul no where represents himself as deriving any benefit, similar to that which the Romans would derive from his visit, from any other source except from God directly. On the contrary, speaking even of the other apostles, he says, Theij who seemed to be some- what in conference added nothing unto me, but of comfort derived from the steadfastness or progress of believers he constantly speaks. Hence Calvin, in representing the apostle as expecting other advantages of a spiritual nature as well as comfort from his visit, seems to be in error ; while the apology of Erasmus, resting upon a similar foundation, “ pia vafrities et sancta adulatio,” is an imputation as uncalled for by the passage itself, as it is incon- sistent with the practice of one who always thought and spoke, as of sincerity, as of God, in the sight of God. “ And this he said, not as though he himself needed any assistance from them (far from it; for how should the pillar of the church, who was stronger than iron and the rock, the spiritual adamant, who was equal to the charge of countless cities), but that he should not make his language impetuous and his reproof vehement, he says, 40 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. that lie himself also needs their consolation. But if any one here should say, the increase of their faith was the comfort and glad- ness, and that Paul needed this, he would not be mistaking his meaning in this way either.” — St. Chrys. A La rf}<; ev aXkijkois Trto-reco^^vpcov re teal ifiov, By the mutual faith both of you and me. Faith, upon the part both of the bestowers and recipients of miraculous gifts, was indispensably necessary; and the existence of these powers was a proof of mutual faith, and a source of confirmation and rejoicing. Verse 13 . — Ov 6e\w Se vpas ayvoeiv a$e\cj)ol otl 7 roXKdtas 7rpoe06/jLrjv ihOelv 7rpo9 vpas, But I would not have you ignorant brethren , that I often purposed to come unto you. Having spoken of his desire to visit them, this verse, in which he states that he had been prevented from gratifying that desire, is an answer to the thought, which would naturally suggest itself to them, “ If this is the case why have you not come?” To this he replies, by intimating, that the desire expressed had not been, as his not having visited them might lead them to suspect, inoperative ; but that it had led to an actual intention, which he had hitherto been prevented from fulfilling. Kal eKco\v6rjv a%pi rod Sevpo, But have been hitherto prevented. EpirohlaO^v. — Mod. G. V. Kal has here, like the Hebrew 1, an adversative force, from its uniting clauses which are in opposition. His having been hitherto prevented from fulfilling his intention of going to Rome, proves that the apostles were not under the influence of divine inspiration in all their intentions. His con- tinuing instant in prayer, under such circumstances, demonstrates the strength of his zeal and love. iC See then two things thrive extremely in him — fear of God, and also longing to the Romans. For to be praying continually, and not to desist when he obtained not, shews exceeding love. But so loving to continue yielding to the will of God shews intense reverence.” — St. Chrys. “ Thus the hinderances of the godly and the unbelieving differ : the latter perceive only that they are hinderances, when they are restrained by the strong hand of the Lord, so as not to be able to move; but the former are satisfied with a hinderance, that arises from some approved reason; nor do they allow themselves to attempt anything beyond their duty, or contrary to edification.” — Calvin. “ How beautiful, how truly Christian is this combination, which is so frequent in St. Paul’s writings of the most ardent desire of some loved object, and the most submissive resignation to the will SECT. II. — INTRODUCTION, I. 8 — 17. 41 of God, which denied it.” — Ewbank. It seems probable, from a comparison of xv. 22 of this epistle, that the urgent calls upon his evangelizing labours nearer Jerusalem, had been the obstacle to his going earlier to Rome; but Providence saw best that he should go, when and as he did. After rod Bevpo supply ^povoO. r Tva tcapirov rtva a%w /cal iv vpXv, That I may have some fruit among you. u For since it was his work and earnest desire that the nations might bear fruit, Paul's fruit-bearing was shewn in theirs.” — (Ecumen. Our blessed Lord said to His apostles (John xv. 16), I have chosen and ordained you , that ye should go and bring forth fruit; that is, that ye should effect those objects, for which ye have been trained, and for which ye are to be endowed with suitable gifts. Ka6dy$ /cal iv rot ? \ot7roi? eOveaiv, Even as among the other Gen- tiles, or nations. Having mentioned his earnest desire to visit them, the apostle, in these words, guards against any suspicion of his sincerity, or misconstruction of his motives, which might suggest itself from the warmth of his expressions, by shewing, that his desire originated in no capricious or partial predilection, a thing which they might have been tempted to imagine, and to connect with something in their political or temporal position, and more or less unconnected with the cause of Christ. He, therefore, shews that the earnestness of his wish did not spring from feelings, confined in their channel, and which, from mere restraint, manifested themselves with proportionately increased strength ; but that his longing to see them was simply the yearning of a heart, of which the aspirations embraced the salvation of the whole world — the payment in part of an incalculable debt which he had incurred, and by which an obligation was laid upon him to devote all the powers of his whole life to the extension of the Gospel. Verse 14 .—EWrja feltg macl)t alle bie baran glauben. — Luther Ger. B. Similarly Beau- sobre, “ La puissance ou le moyen efficace de Dieu pour sauver ceux qui croyent.” “ The mighty power whereby God brings salvation to every man that has faith therein.” — Comjbeare and Howson. Tholuck, referring to the apostle’s intrepidity in carrying the gospel arms against imperial Rome, says: “ He alone has power to overcome the world, whom the world has not over- come.” Alexander Morus observes: “ Audax facinus ad crucem vocare terrarum dominos.” He supposes also, that, in saying he is not ashamed of the gospel, St. Paul alludes to the Eleusinian mysteries, of which there was just reason for their votaries to be ashamed; a view also held by Stillingfleet. “Non quaerit enim ra Kpv7rrd t/}? ai7rT€Tcu; and that the possession of a faith which apprehended God’s righteousness, although with a degree of dimness and indistinctness, propor- tioned to the obscurity of tradition, of reason, or even of prophecy, when compared with its actual fulfilment, prepared the mind for the reception of the fulness of the truth, as manifested in the Gospel; and is an illustration of our Saviour’s declaration, that to them who have, or improve what they have, shall be given, and they shall have more abundantly ; as also of His saying to the Jews (John v. 45), Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me : for he wrote of me. This dim, indistinct, and comparatively more general faith, significantly called by Theophylact, 7 tlgtls elaarycoyL/crj, intro- ductory faith, our blessed Lord acknowledged that His disciples had, and through it He led them on to that which was more definite and clear, ttlgtis re\eiwrepa. Ye believe in God, believe also in me. It was through this faith, which was generally dark- ened with many prejudices, that all the Jews who embraced the 48 st. Paul’s epjstle to the romans. Gospel were led to do so, proceeding from tlie discoveries of God made in tlie law and the prophets, to the brightness of our Sa- viour’s revelation of Him. “ The first i tlo-tls is faith in the Old Testament; the second, faith in the New.” — Origen , Theodoret , and others. This view is confirmed by the prophetic quotation, preceded by kclOoos yeypairrai^ which is given as an illustration of this truth. Probably the allusion made in the second verse of this chapter to the testimony of the prophets, affords the reason why the apostle did not more fully expand the expression, i/c 7r/<7Teo)? eh ttlo’tlv. He had already so distinctly suggested the idea of introductory prophecies, which involved an introductory faith, that there was no occasion of farther explanation. A el n tig- revcrcu rot? 7rporj, &)? rod Seov /cal acoirjpo ^ ? fjpLoiv e/celOev iiricjiavgcropbevov. 1 — Theodor et. “For,” he says, “ mankind have been living as if there were no righteous law to govern them, no God to notice them, no judge to punish. And the times of this ignorance God winked at. He has not hitherto seen fit to interpose. But now the wrath of God is revealed against all ungodliness. He now commandeth all men everywhere to repent and believe the Gospel .” — Sumner. The interpretations, which refer these words to any other indi- cations of God’s wrath, than those revealed by the gospel, besides their inconsistency with a present revelation, parallel to that of His righteousness, and with the usus loquendi , give to the text a feebleness of meaning which seems altogether inconsistent with the character of the whole passage. “ But consider the scope of this speech. The Lord, he says, has come, bringing you right- eousness and remission ; which if you do not receive, then the wrath of God is revealed from heaven ; namely, that that is to be manifested at His second coming.” — Theoph. “ The clear revela- tion of the wrath of God in the gospel against the impiety and wickedness of men, renders it a very likely and powerful means for the recovery and salvation of men. Its being said to be revealed from heaven imports the clearness of the discovery. The punishment of sinners in another world is not so obscure as it was before ; it is now expressly declared by the gospel, together with the particular circumstances of it.” — Tillotson, ser. lvii. “ Le tour est fort vif, St. Paul represente Jesus Christ, comme descendant deja du ciel pour juger le monde. C’est une raison, pour obliger tout le monde a embrasser promptement l’Evangile.” — Beau, et Lenf. 1 “ He says 1 it is revealed from heaven,’ our Lord and Saviour being to appear from thence.” He adds, “For this the Lord Himself says, Then shall ye see the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven k. t. A . SECT. III. — NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL, I. 18 — 20 . 55 EttI iracrav aaefieiav teal abuclav avOpooircdV, Against all impiety , or ungodliness, and iniquity, or injustice of men. The sum of human righteousness is a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man ; and all sin is included in what is contrary to one or the other of these. The former of the words here introduced may, therefore, be regarded as embracing more particularly sins against God ; the latter, sins against our neighbour. 'H fiev yap els Oeov acrefieia, rj Se ahutla els avOpdiirovs^ — Theoph. The terms are particularly definite and comprehensive, em- bracing all possible sin ; but no revelation of God's anger, except that declared by the gospel, can be said to have been thus made against every species and degree of iniquity. The other exhi- bitions to which these words are applied by many commentators were only against notorious crimes. It was only upon such occa- sions that the providence of God was believed to interpose, and many sins w r ere supposed not only to be overlooked, but even indulged in by the heathen gods themselves. “ Nature discovers not the extent of sin, in the invisible and secret veins of it : many branches of sin are invisible to nature; it does not discover sin in its latitude. Nature acquaints not with all the duties to be done, nor the manner how we are to do them ; therefore tells not of all the sins we are to shun, nor the manner how to avoid them.” — Cham. St. Paul’s object is to declare God’s wrath, not only against all those who impeded the course of the gospel by rejecting it, from the love of sin, regarded in its aspect of transgression against God, but against those also who threw obstacles in its way by sins which were more directly against their fellow men. Such was the sin, for instance, of the Jews, who forbade the apostle to speak to the Gentiles, and could not bear the idea of their being admitted to equal privileges with themselves. Such also was that of the Judaizing converts who made the gospel repulsive, by associating with it an intolerable yoke; who corrupted it by introducing a legal spirit, contrary to, and interceptive of that grace, which made believers to abound in the fruits of righteous- ness, as well as in joy in the Holy Ghost; and who, by their aggressions upon the liberty of the Gentile converts, disturbed the peace and charity of the Church. Tcov TTjv aXtfOeiav ev aZuclq Kare'Xpvrwv, Of those who keep back the truth in iniquity . That is, who, under the influence of un- 1 For impiety indeed is against God, but injustice against men. 56 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. righteous motives, keep back or oppose the progress of the gospel, or prevent it from having free course. Alford says, “ That /care - 'XpVTcov means ‘hold back ’ here is plain from this circumstance; that wherever Karelin in the New Testament signifies ‘ to hold,’ it is emphatic, to hold fast , or to keep to, or to take or have complete possession of . (See for the first, Lukeviii. 15; 1 Cor. xi. 2; xv. 21; 1 Thess. v. 21; Heb. iii. 6, 14; x. 23; for the second, Luke xiv. 9 — every other place except the lowest being excluded — for the third, Matt. xxi. 38 ; 1 Cor. viii. 30).” Now no such emphatic sense will apply here. If the word is to mean “ holding ” it must be in the loosest and least emphatic sense. Our Saviour, speaking of various sins and sources of sin, describes them as causing men to stumble, leading them to reject anything which placed, as the gospel did, a restraint upon their lusts; and in 2 Thess. ii. 12, St. Paul, previously to requesting their prayers that the word of God might have free course and be glorified , adduces the love of sin as the chief, if not the only source of its rejection. That they all might be damned who believed not the truth , but had pleasure in unrighteousness. This passage may help to illustrate the one under consideration. The apostle in both associates the final wrath of God with sin, not simply on its existence, but because of its leading to resistance to the truth and rejection of it. How fully does this correspond with our Lord’s declaration. This is the condemnation , that light is come into the world , and men loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil ? Final inexcusableness and condem- nation came upon them, not simply because their deeds were evil; this the gospel might have remedied, but because the love of these evil deeds led them to oppose and reject the truth, and thus to defeat the last and only means by which the moral contagion could be arrested and remedied. “ If unbelief be removed from a soul, the guilt of all other sins departs with it: if that remain, the guilt of all other sins is bound with an adamantine chain upon the soul, and that with more crimson aggravations; where the notices of a mediator have been revealed, there is a superadded guilt to all the rest. As faith is the only means whereby we gain a pardon, so unbelief is the only formal cause of condemnation, though other sins are the meritorious cause of eternal death. As no price hath been paid for our redemption, unless Christ had offered His blood, so no application can be made of that price to us without faith in His SECT. III. — NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL, I. 18 — 20. 57 blood : upon this all our sins are cast into the depths of the sea ; upon the other, they remain with their whole weight upon the soul.” — Cham. The truth here referred to is clearly the gospel. “ The expression ‘ the truth ’ generally, in the New Testament, when not specially qualified, signifies the gospel.” — Haldane. Tholuck says : “ Here all depends on what is the signification of dXrjOeia. One might consider it as standing absolutely for the Christian truth , and view the words of the apostle as directed against those who, by their carnal minds, hinder the spread of the gospel ; who hostilely oppose it.” This he seems justly to consider the most obvious interpretation, but he thinks that the context presents two obstacles to its adoption. “ First,” he says; “ the y ap at the commencement of the verse leads us to expect the reason of a thought enunciated in the preceding one; but, according to this explanation, there results only a contrast:” and he adds, that if this was the relation “ we should have looked, not for a y ap but a Se.” This difficulty is, however, entirely removed, and the y ap is absolutely required, if the righteousness of God, in the pre- ceding verse, is regarded as indicating, as it does in iii. 26, His righteous character in His plan of justification, or that by which He is just, as well as the justifier of those who believe in Jesus ; or, if we connect the 18th verse with the 16th, making the interme- diate verse exegetical and parenthetical. In either case the y ap is not only appropriate but indispensable, and the truth spoken of is clearly the gospel. In the following paraphrase I combine the two : — Verse 16. “ For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, since it is the power of salvation to every one that believeth, to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Verse 17. “ Because in it the righteousness of God in the justification of men is revealed and received by faith, unto the production of a stronger and more distinct faith, by which those who believed in God are led to believe in His Son also. As it is written, The just shall live by his faith. Nor is this salvation, of which the gospel is the appointed means, to be lightly esteemed ; as if it was a deliverance from merely imaginary, or uncertain, or trifling evils, or as if men might reject it without danger.” Verse 18. “ Because God has now vindicated His righteous character, which his past forbear- ance, in the times of comparative ignorance, might have led men to doubt, by commanding all men every where to repent, in the 58 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. prospect of a judgment, which He has clearly revealed in His gospel, against all unrighteousness of men, who allow any love of iniquity so to prevail as to lead them to reject or keep back the truth.” The other difficulty mentioned by Tholuck is, — “That this interpretation does not agree with the following verse which speaks of a knowledge of God, not now for the first time imparted, but that had already and for a long period been accessible to man.” But all this is assumed, and not only so, but assumed in opposition to the natural interpretation of what follows. That which may be known is spoken of as being now manifest. The revelation of God’s righteousness, and of His wrath, and what may be known of Him are all spoken of as contemporaneous, all in the present tense. It is true, indeed, that it is added, that God revealed it to them. eavepo?, (fravepoco , in the New Testament will show, that the certainty and power of evidence which they indicate, are such as could be applied only to the greatest possible clearness of discovery of which the subject was susceptible. In no one instance is cfravepoco applied to God the Father or His attributes, except as they appear in Christ. To our Lord and His manifestations of Deity it is frequently applied. The following are additional instances: John xxi. 1, 14, Coloss. iii. 24, Heb. ix. 26, 1 Pet. i. 20, v. 4, 1 John i. 2, ii. 28, iii. 5, 8. This manifestation and personal appearance of God in His Son corresponded with the expectations of the Jews, although the manner of manifestation, and the indications of divine power, as well as the object to which they were applied, were repulsive to the carnal hopes of the nation at large. “ Yet all this 62 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. was not the only or the principal use which the godly and learned amongst the Israelites made of the psalmist’s doctrine. They were taught by their fathers to expect that the Lord Himself would come to feed them with His own hand, and would set prisoners free viva voce , with the words of His own mouth ; that this Lord was to live amongst them , and to converse with them, from the greatest to the least, in more visible manner than He did with Moses on the mount, or in the wilderness, at the time appointed for the exact fulfilling of this and other prophecies. .... Thus you see that Jesus, by feeding the hungry with His own hand, by opening the ears of the deaf with the breath of Llis mouth, and the eyes of the blind with His finger, doth prove Him to be that very Lord and God in whose praises that excel- lent hymn (the 146th Psalm) was written, and daily sung by the Jews and Pharisees, although their eyes, because they winked with them, and hated the light, were not open to understand the meaning of it.” — Jackson . “ Christ is the mirror that represents to us the perfections of God, being the brightness of His glory. Every beam, whereby God is manifested is shot through Him; as every pardon, whereby the grace of God is discovered and the soul refreshed, is dispensed through Him. The Jews expected the discovery of the face of God by the Messiah, and to that purpose interpreted, He reveals deep and secret things , and the light dwells with Him (Dan. ii. 22).” — Cham. This seems to have been the light in which the immediate successors of the apostles regarded this passage, to which the following quotations seem to refer. ''Otl el? 0eo? eanv, 6 tyave- pdocras eavrov Sia ’ Irjcrov Xpccrrov rod vlov avrov. 1 — Ignatii Epist. ad. Mag. “ For, as I have said, this discovery was not made to them from the earth, nor do they deem it worthy to keep so carefully a mortal invention, nor are they entrusted with the economy of human mysteries; but the universal Ruler and uni- versal Maker, and the invisible God Himself from heaven ( aopa - to? 0eo?, aoro? «7r’ ovpavwv) not sending to men some servant or messenger, or rider, or any of those administering earthly things, or those entrusted with heavenly administration, but the very artificer and maker of all things. . . . For who of men considered what God is before He came, or understood the empty and frivo- 1 For there is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son. SECT. III.— NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL, I. 18 — 20. 63 lous words of those trustworthy philosophers, some of whom said that fire was God, others water. . . . But when He revealed and manifested by His beloved Son the things prepared from the be- ginning, He at the same time gave all things to us.” — Epist. ad Diognetum. Theophylact defines the proper force of the word v dv6pd)7rcov. Iloorjpara might also include the creation, since it was by His Son that God created the worlds. u Christ was only capacitated for this discovery of God in regard of His being the medium of the first discovery of God in the creation. . . . He is the wisdom and power of God in SECT. III. — NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL, I. 18 — 20. 65 creation, as well as redemption. Now, as in the creation the Son communicated to all creatures some resemblance of God, and the end of the creation being to declare God to the rational creature, it was most proper for the Son of God, to make those further declarations of Him, which were necessary, who at first made the manifestation of God in the frame of the world .” — Charnock , on the Knowledge of God in Christ. “ The Godhead, which compre- hends the whole nature of God as discoverable to His creatures, was not known, yea, was impossible to be known by the works of creation ." — Idem. Charnock indeed interprets Oetorr]^ goodness; but this seems to have originated from the impossibility of recon- ciling the usual interpretation of the passage with the true state of the case, and with t the doctrine above stated, without doing violence to the language ; and is a limitation of the sense of the original, for which there is no support. “We are to consider Him (Christ) as Creator of the terraqueous globe, the earth and all things in it. . . . Every herb that grows, every spire of grass that springs up, every creeping thing that moveth upon the face of the earth, proclaims the wisdom of its Maker, sounds forth the praises of the Son of God. . . .We have often triumphed over Atheists upon this head, alleging that no power or wisdom less than infinite could be equal to the task. The very same topics, to such as believe the Scriptures, may be as justly urged for the Divinity of God the Son.” — Water land's Serm. Christ properly Creator , or Christ's Divinity proved from Creation. “If, then, . . . the work of creation proclaims the eternity and divinity of its Creator , it will follow from thence, that God the Son as Creator must be eternal and strictly divine. I am sensible that St. Paul’s argument may be taken under another view; for it may mean, not that every creator must be eternal or God ! but that there must be one eternal cause of all things. The first con- struction I take to be the more probable, as it is more obvious to common capacities,” etc. — Idem. But it is, evidently, not to an early, but a recent manifestation, made by the Gospel, that the apostle principally refers. IIoitfpaTa is generally used in the Septuagint in the sense of our English word doings , which has been suggested to me as bearing a similar large sense. It applies more frequently to acts, than to works in the sense of things made. In the next chapter we have the doers of the law designated as iroLyTal r ov vopov , in which sense rroi^rr]^ is used in every instance but one in which it occurs in the New F 66 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Testament. In the one excepted, Acts xvii. 28, it means a poet. "Hr e aiBio? avTOv Svva/ju? /cal Geiorr)?, namely , His invisible power and Godhead. All power in heaven and earth is Christ’s, by whom and for whom all powers were created. This divine power was exhibited by our Lord in various ways, while He was in the world ; but most strikingly to men in the performance of those miracles, which He not only wrought Himself, but the power of working which through His name He communicated to His disciples. Oeiorg?, essential Deity, self-existence, power, wisdom, and holiness, are the principal attributes of the Deity; and these all dwell in Him in whom dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily , for in Him are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge. He enjoys the power of the Father, and as the Father hath life in Himself so hath He given power to the Son to have life in Himself. These attributes our Lord manifested in the clearest manner during His ministry, and also by His resurrection and its consequences; and in virtue of His Divinity, He receives the worship of all the heavenly host. In Colos. ii. 9 the word used is 6eon 7 ? ; from which circumstance Olshausen takes occasion to state, that the fulness of the Geiorg 9 is what resides in the world, of the Georg? what resides in Christ. It is evident, however, that both terms refer to the divine nature itself, and that the manner of its manifestation did not require to be implied in the present passage, because it is actually expressed. I would also ask, Does God’s fulness reside in the world apart from Christ? Does not Christ, as the fulness of the Father, jtf// all in all ? Qeiorg? and Georg? occur each only once ; and we can, therefore, adduce no other passages to illustrate the use of either of them. The adjective Gelo ?, however, occurs three times, and two at least of these contradict Olshausen’s distinction. In Acts xvii. it is used to denote the Godhead or invisible Deity, which is as far as possible removed from gold, or silver, or stone; in St. Peter i. 3, it is applied to the Divine power, and, in the next verse, to that nature of which we are made partakers by Christ, through His grace, and therefore in indisputable connexion with His Gospel. In the Septuagint Gelov is used for El, Eloah, or Elohim (Job xxxiii. 4). Olshausen also argues, from the circumstance that the invisible power and Godhead are the only things mentioned, that there is a reference here only to that knowledge of God, to which men SECT. III. — NEGLECT OF THE GOSPEL, I. 18 — 20. 67 can attain by means of the mere contemplation of nature. On the same principle, we might have reasoned respecting the power mentioned in verse 16, had it not been so qualified as to prevent such conjectures; for the Gospel itself is there spoken of as an exhibition of the power of God, without referring to any other of the Divine attributes. There is more ground for reasoning, that the restriction to invisible power and Godhead is just such a limitation, as the application of these words to God’s manifestations of Himself through His Son would lead us to expect. Our blessed Lord’s appearing upon earth, His life and death, proved His own love and goodness, as well as the Father’s, who sent Him into the world. All that was required to establish men’s faith in His mission, and in His discoveries to them of God’s character and will, as well as in His redeeming power, was to prove, that He was as able as willing to save; that His ministry was accompanied by indications of Divine power as well as goodness, that He was God as well as man. That this was the case was proved by His miracles while He lived, by His resur- rection through His own inherent power, and by the bestowal of the Spirit and His manifold gifts after His ascension. Our Saviour’s appeals were almost universally made to proofs not of goodness but of Divine power. Their character spoke for itself. “ Some of the Fathers interpreted invisible power of the Son and Godhead of the Holy Ghost.” — Theoph. Els to elvcu avrovs avaTroXoytfrovs, that they might be without excuse. It is very evident, that they who are intended by avrovs , are the persons who kept back the truth; and that which rendered them inexcusable was the clear discoveries which God had made to them of His character and will. All God’s revela- tions of His attributes and will are intended to lead men to draw near to Him, and to deprive of all excuse those who continue in a state of ignorance of and alienation from Him, and, conse- quently, of sinfulness and misery. Just in proportion as He makes Himself known are men inexcusable for continuing in sin; and that, therefore, which renders them inexcusable in the highest degree, is the clear and simultaneous discovery, in His gospel, of His hatred of sin, and of His readiness to forgive those who turn from it. So much brighter and clearer were the discoveries of God, made by His gospel, than any that had preceded, that, until our Lord came, men were compa- ratively excusable. If I had not come and spoken unto them they F 2 68 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. had not had sin ; but now have they no cloke for their sin. ... If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin , but now have they both seen and hated both Me and My Father. All God's remedial measures have a twofold object, either to pardon and remove sin, or to vindicate His justice in its punish- ment; to prove to men that they are without excuse; that, pleading guilty, they may be received to mercy, consistently with the divine justice and government; or that, refusing to do so, their condemnation may be proved to rest upon themselves; so that all God’s creatures, realizing the perfect justice and goodness of God, in cutting off the incurable rebels against His supremacy and glory, and against the peace and happiness of His household in heaven and in earth, may be impressed with a perfect sense of His righteousness not only in them that are saved , but also in them that perish. The coming of our Lord, whilst it was a blessing of the highest order to those who embraced His gospel, deprived of every excuse, all those whose unconquerable love of sin led them to reject it. God had threatened to punish the perverseness of the Jews, when it reached a certain point, by setting before them the stumbling- block of their iniquity, that is, a trial adapted to elicit full proof of the depth of their sinfulness and inexcusableness. This Christ^ and His gospel were to both the houses of Israel. They stumbled, at God’s last and clearest discovery of Himself; and this proved them to be inexcusable, as well as all those who from a similar love of sin, rejected Christ and His salvation. " flcnrep yap 6 aicrdrjrb 9 ovtos /cal irepLKaXX ys rjXios XapTTpas tov Sla/cov to.? a/cTLvas evacfneU eXey^ec tovs voaovvTas ra oppaTa. ovtco /cal 6 voyTOS yXios, to cpcbsTo ciSvtov /cal avea7repov, XpLaros, 6 0eo? ypdjv, eiribypycras r

? Oeov eho^aaav rj ev^apiaT^aav^ they glorified Him not as God , neither were thavikful. This was the first step in their downward course. They knew God, but did not give Him the honour due unto His name. They neglected to ascribe to Him that glory which their knowledge of His existence and character rendered it a duty to recognise. They had not to seek out the knowledge of God, they actually possessed it; and if they had habitually given expression to just conceptions of His character, their doing so would have preserved unimpaired their knowledge of Him. But they neglected to do this, nor did they recognise their entire dependence for all things upon His power, wisdom, and goodness. As a natural consequence of their oblivion, of their dependence upon Him, they were not duly thankful for His benefits, which were ultimately attributed to fate, or to false gods. The alienation, which became so great, commenced with neglect; the corruption, which finally pervaded the whole cha- racter, took its first rise in a sin of omission. For references to the forgetfulness and ingratitude of the Jews towards God, see Isa. i. 2, et seg., Ps. lxxviii., Jer. v. 24, et passim. e/iaraicoOrjaav eV Tots StaXoytcryaot? avrwv, hut became vain in their reasonings. u Thei vanyschiden in hir thouztes.” — Wick. “ Wexed full of vanities in their imaginacions.” — Tynd. Cran. Not giving to God the glory due to Him, and falling into forget- fulness of His existence, they were then led to the most frivolous views and reasonings upon the causes and authors of those things, 80 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. which should have been attributed to Him alone. This is prin- cipally applicable to the Gentiles; but it may also include the pretexts, which upon various occasions the Jews assigned, for practising idolatry, as in the case of the golden calf. For in- stances of such reasonings and vanity on the part of the Jews, see Jer. xliv. 17, 18, 2 Kings xvii. 15, Jer. ii. 5. Kao icncoTLcrOr) r\ dowero? avrcjv KapSla, and their foolish heart was darkened. Having forsaken the light of the knowledge of the true God, they wandered farther and farther from Him, and became proportionally immersed in intellectual and moral darkness. Verse 22. — QaaKovres elvai crofyol, ipoopavOrjaav, professing to he wise they became fools. A nominative is used with the infinitive here, because it refers to the subject of the verb on which the infinitive is dependent. St. Paul most probably had principally in view the lofty pretensions of the heathen philo- sophers; 1 but the reproof would be also applicable to many among the Jews. Of such he says elsewhere — Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe ? and Isaiah, Woe to them that are wise in their own eyes. See also Jer. viii. 8, 9, Matt. xi. 25. Verse 23. — Kal rjWa^av tjjv So^av rov d(f>Qdprov Qeov iv bpoidiparL glkovos (ffOaprov dvOpcojrov , Kal 7 rereivcov Kal rerpa- ttoScov Kal ep7T6T(bv, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of corruptible man , and of birds , and of four-footed beasts , and of creeping things. God is unchangeable, and therefore the change here spoken of is that of substituting one thing for another, or a change in the views of the persons spoken of. Thus Jeremiah says ii. 11 — Hath a nation changed 1 “ It is observable, that before the arising of the several sects of con- tending philosophers, it was a general tradition, that the world itself was made by God. This is evident from all the ancient poets, etc And there is no doubt but that the first poets and philosophers too, set up upon the stock of tradition, though as the world grew older, they found out different ways of embellishing, and, by that means, of gradually cor- rupting the ancient doctrine. And as the practice of the world grew on to more kinds of idolatry, so the original tradition grew daily more and more debased. Aristotle owns that all the ancients believed the world was made, though they differed much about the manner of its production. And, indeed, when they began to philosophise about it, and to desert the ancient tradition, they were greatly divided in their opinions ; and the lcve of disputation, and the desire of saying something new and different from others, led them into a still greater diversity of opinion .” — Bishop Leng's Boyle Led. Ser. vi. SECT. IV. — man’s CORRUPTION, I. 21 — 32. 81 their gods which are yet no gods , but my people have changed their glory for that which doth not profit. Whitby refers the Sogav to the Shecinah; Macknight, to the perfections of God. 1 It has been observed, “ that the higher the advancement of the nations in refinement and philosophy, the greater as a general rule the degradation and folly of their systems of religion.” This verse ig nearly a quotation from Ps. cvi. 20. The following quotation from Juvenal has suggested itself to most commentators on this passage : — Quis nescit, Volusi Bithynice, qualia demens iEgyptus portenta colat ? Crocodilon adorat Pars haec : ilia pavet saturam serpentibus Ibim. 1 The world, saith the apostle, by wisdom knew not God, , which might mean, either that men were not indebted to the highest exertion of their intellectual powers for the discovery of a Creator ; or that, having that information, they corrupted its purity and weakened its effects by incor- porating with it the devices of human and carnal wisdom. And the im- purity which had mingled itself with their religion became alike attached to their moral practice. The errors and absurdities into which the heathen nations fell, even they who had been permitted to make the most astonish- ing advances in human arts and sciences, are a sufficient proof, not only of the inability of human reason, when unassisted, to attain religious truth, but even of preserving it, for any considerable time, pure and undefiled, without frequent and continued communication of divine instruction.” — Browne's Bampton Lect ., Ser. iii. At the time that the author adopted the interpretation here given of this passage he had not read those Boyle and Bampton Lectures which bear upon the question ; and he adopted it purely from what a strict regard to the ver- bal structure seemed to require. It was a source of much pleasure to him to find that this interpretation harmonised with the conclusions arrived at by Bishops Leng and Van Mildert, Browne, Chandler, and others, con- clusions at direct variance with the hitherto adopted interpretation of the present passage, according to which man would have been inexcusable for not discovering what these eminent writers maintain he could not , and did not discover. “ That human duty is determinable by human reasonings and human feelings, [is] a position full as dangerous to the interests of true piety as that the being and attributes of God were primarily discoverable by man’s unassisted reason.” — Browne's Bump. Lect., Ser. v. “ Surely then we imagine a vain thing , when we speak of natural religion, in the sense of that religion which man has discovered for himself by his own un- assisted powers. The question is not one of speculation or of antecedent probability , but to those who admit the authority of the Bible, of historical fact. In consideration of human want, in pity to human infirmity, religion was in the beginning communicated to the original progenitors of mankind, and from them derived to their posterity, and seldom derived in its pri- mitive purity.” — Chandler's Bamp. Lect ., Lect. ii. G 82 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Effigies sacri nitet aurea Cercopitheci, Dimidio magicae resonant ubi Memnone chordae, Atque vetus Thebe centum jacet obruta portis. Illic cseruleos, hie piscem fluminis, illic Oppida tota canem venerantur, nemo Dianam. Porrum et coepe nefas violare ac frangere morsu. O sanctas gentes, quibus hsec nascuntur in hortis Numina ! 1 Of the Jews the prophet said, Jer. xi. 13, According to the number of thy cities were thy gods , O Judah ; and according to the number of thy streets , 0 Jerusalem , have ye set up altars. The description which Ezekiel gives of Jewish idolatry shews it to have been as debased as that of the Egyptians — And I went in and saw ; and behold every form of creeping things , and abominable beasts , and all the idols of the house of Israel, pourtrayed on the walls round about (viii. 10). See also Ps. cvi. 20, Jer. ii. 11. Among the Gentiles there was scarcely anything that was not deified and made an object of worship; men, beasts, fishes, birds, creeping things, groves, rocks, and rivers, all furnished objects for their religious veneration. These various forms of idolatry “ sprang from the proneness of man to ascribe the benefits they enjoyed, rather to the agency of such secondary causes as fell within the range of their senses, than to that of a Supreme Pro- vidence. Thus great or good kings and eminent warriors were deified; and at length even animals; whether from their great usefulness or as being typical of the great operations of nature ; the origin and progress of which is traced with a masterly hand by Grotius and Perigord, and copied by Bishop Warburton, Div. 1 How Egypt, mad with superstition grown, Makes gods of monsters, but too well is known. One sect devotion to Nile’s serpent pays : Others to Ibis, which on serpents preys. Where, Thebes, thy hundred gates lie unrepaired. And where maimed Memnon’s magic harp is heard, — Where these are mouldering, lo ! the sots combine, With pious care, a monkey to enshrine l Eish-gods you ’ll meet, with fins and scales o’ergrown ; Diana’s dogs adored in every town : Her dogs have temples, but the goddess none ! ’Tis mortal sin an onion to devour, Each clove of garlic is a sacred power. Religious nations, sure, and blest abodes, Where every garden is o’errun with gods. SECT. IV. — MAN’S CORRUPTION, I. 21 — 32. 83 Leg., vol. iii., p.272.” — Bloom/. Has not the same craving for the tangible and material, which formerly led men to relinquish their knowledge, and, as it were, hold of the Supreme Creator, and to raise the agents and instruments of conveying His blessings to an equality with, nay, a superiority over Him, much to do with the proneness of some religionists to relinquish direct communion with the great Head of the Church ov /cparelv ttjv K ea\rjv , Colos. ii. 19, and to give themselves up to the invocation of saints and the worship of relics and images? And is not this the less excusable, if one purpose of our blessed Lord’s incarnation was, that we might have in Him a manifestation of the Godhead, upon which the natural desire for sensible indications of God’s existence, and of visibly adoring Him who is invisible, might repose as upon its proper and legitimate object? Verse 24. — A to /cal TrapeSco/cev clvtovs 6 0eo?, Wherefore God even gave them up. This is not significant of any active influence exercised by God in producing the state of mind described in the words that follow, but of a restraint previously exercised, but resisted, and, therefore, at length withdrawn. After this, their own depravity would hurry them into a precipitate career of moral degradation. “ We see in this the natural course of the human heart. Its natural course; — for there was nothing to force it away from God; nothing to urge it on to such wickedness as is described in the apostle’s sad picture. Men were left to their natural tendency: and we see in what course they were carried.” — Sumner. “ Even the heathen observed how irreligious men became blinded and enslaved to error as to practical duties, falling into the aho/apo? vov 9 of which Paul speaks (v. 28), and in this they saw a moral Nemesis of the gods.” — Lycurg. adv. Leocr ., p. 213. “ There is nothing more common for the gods to do than pervert the minds of wicked men.” — Tholuck. Quern vult perdere Deus, prius demen tat. 'Ey rat 9 err lOv plat 9 twv Kaphiwv avrwv, in the lusts of their own hearts. This indicates the depravity, which, when God gave them up, led them on to the state described in the context. They are on this account translated by some commentators by, per cupiditates eorum, and may be illustrated by the words of Ps. lxxxi. 11, 12 — But my people would not hearken to my voice ; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts' lusts : and they ivalked in their own counsels. See also Hos. iv. 17. Ek a/cadapalav , unto uncleanness. Of the impurity of the G 2 84 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Gentiles it is unnecessary to adduce proofs. It was a natural consequence of their idolatry. When they worshipped as gods beings who were represented as having practised such vices, and beasts which are without reason to control them, the well-known principle that we naturally conform ourselves to what we worship, led them to act like brute beasts which had no understanding. Toy drtpd^eaOat ra acopara avroiv iv eavrol ?, To dishonour their bodies among themselves. u That thei punysche with wrongis her bodies in hem self.” — Wick. This is generally supposed to refer to the unnatural practices mentioned in the 26th and 27th verses. The apostle, speaking elsewhere of the opposite virtue, designates it the keeping his vessel in honour. The words “ to dishonour their own bodies” may, therefore, refer to any or every species of incontinence. VERSE 25. — Omve? pergWa^av rrjv aKrjOeiav rod Geov iv tm yjrevSei, Who changed the truth of God by their lie. The truth of God is the true view of God’s character and attributes. The generality of commentators regard this as a repetition of what was stated in the 3rd verse ; but the iv tgS here seems to me to be equivalent to the eV toS ^eyapan, in chap. iii. 7 ; and to be significant of the means by which the truth of God, once known to men, had been lost. I would therefore render it, who changed or corrupted the truth , that is, the true knowledge of God’s character, and of the consequent difference between good and evil, by their own unfaithfulness , and by substituting for it false and lying views on these subjects. The other sense of namely, an image, is good ; but it is not found in the New Testament. In the Old the images of idolaters are often called lying vanities, and Philo, Book III. of the Life of Moses, alluding to the worship of the golden calf, says, that Moses wondered, “ oaov 'frevdos dvd ’ dags aXgOeias vTrrjXkd^avro, how great a lie for how great a truth they had substituted.” Kal iae(3da6gaau kcli iXdrpevaav rfj icrlaei irapa rov icrlaavra, And worshipped and served the creature to the neglect of the Creator. A difference in the signification of these two verbs has been con- tended for. The former occurs only in the present instance in the New Testament. Combined, they no doubt comprehend all possible adoration and worship. The proper force of irapa here seems to be that of a passing by. “ Lasciando il Creatore.” — Nur. It. Bible. “ And worshypped and serued the thinges that SECT. IV. — man’s CORRUPTION, I. 21 — 32 . 85 be made more than He that made them.” — Cran. “ And wor- shypped and serued the creatures neglecting the Creator.’’ — Genev. The rendering, which makes i rapa to signify a passing by or neglect, seems preferable to that which makes it significant of comparison, because it agrees with the facts of the case. Men once knew God, but they passed Him by, as it were, to offer to His creatures the worship due to Him; and in doing so they did not divide their worship between Him and what He had made, giving the latter a larger proportion, but, forsaking Him alto- gether, they gave all their religious worship to created things. f/ 0? ear tv evXoyrjTos eh tov? ai&svas' ctptfv, Who is blessed for ever . Amen. This doxology is introduced by the apostle, con- formably to a custom of the Jews, who, when they spoke of God, particularly in anything in which His honour was concerned, generally added some benediction, to intimate their reverence for Him. The Mahometans have adopted this usage; and the fre- quency with which they introduce it is familiar even to those who know nothing more of Eastern literature than the . “ Arabian Nights.” “In an Arabian work, cod. MS. Bibl. Reg. Berol. on the various sects of Isfrajim, the pious Mahometan subjoins after every heresy of which he makes mention : 4 God is exalted above what they say.’ ” — Tholuck. Verse 26 . — Ata tovto 7 rapeScoKev avrovs 6 Oeo ? eh iraOg art- ptas, For this cause God gave them up to disgraceful passions. The repetition of n rapeScotcev here, and in the 28th verse, seems to intimate an increasing departure and alienation, on God’s part, from those whose depravity had led them to wander farther from Him. Ilddrj drtpia 5 for TrdOrj art pa. At re 7 dp Orfketat avrwv perrjXka^av rrjv (pvatfcrjv Xpfjcnv eh ttjv 7 rapd (frixrtv, For even their women changed their natural use into that which is against nature. “ Besides the evidence here adduced by commentators, who refer to Seneca, Epist. 95 , Martial Epigram, i. 90 , Athen. Deipn. xiii. p. 605 , Stuart refers to Tholuck on the moral state of the heathen world. I add, that the disclo- sures which have been made by the disinterment of Herculaneum and Pompeii are such as to confirm and illustrate fully all that the apostle says or hints of the tremendous abominations of even the most civilised nations of the ancient world. Indeed the most civilised were plunged the deepest into the mire of pollution, the barbarous being comparatively virtuous. See the Germania of Tacitus.” — Bloomfield. See also Lev. xviii. 2 — 25 , where, after 86 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. an enumeration of the most detestable abominations, it is added : For in all these the nations are defiled which I cast out before you. Verse 27. — 'O/jlolcds re Kal ol appeve ? acfevre? t tjv (f)V(n/crjv XPW LV T ys OyXelas, ege/cavcrOrjo-av ev rg opetjei avrcov et? dXA^Aou? apaeves eV apaea i rr\v ao’xyP'Oavvyv Karepyatypievoi. And in like manner also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman , burned in their lust toward one another , men with men working that which is unseemly . That not only the ignorant common people, but the great men and philosophers were guilty of this crime, is affirmed by ancient authors of good authority. See Lucian, Dial. Amor., Cic. de Nat. Deor. i. 28, Virg. Ecl.ii., Senec. Epist. 95, 2 Macc.vi. 4. That the Jews were not free from it appears from 2 Kings xxiii. 7. Kal rrjv avnpUcrOiav rjv ehei rrj 9 ifxdvg^ avrcov ev eavrois airoXapiftavovTes. And receiving in themselves the due reward of their error. This refers to the awful consequences, not only moral, but social and physical, which by God’s fixed laws are made to follow such departures from nature. “ Sexual impurities are set forth as the source of all other vices, because they destroy the most sacred and delicate relations of human nature/’ — Olsh. 11 The licentious habits of the heathen, as they disordered the frame of society, and rendered men incapable of enjoying the natural affections, were to be considered as the just penalty of their wandering from the true God.” — Terrot. Idolatry has been in all ages, and particularly in the East, the fruitful source of lust and impurity. Compare Wisdom of Solomon xiv. for a vivid description of this course. Verse 28. — Kal KaOcos ovk iBo/clpLaaav rov Oeov ev em- ryvcbcret, And as they did not approve to retain God in their know - ledge. “ And as they regarded not to know God.” — Cran. Gen. “ Were not solicitous.” — Dodd. “ Did not choose or care.” — Bloomf. “ Non fuerint soliciti de conservanda cognitione Dei.” — J. Cler . This seems to agree with the facts of the case* Men originally had the knowledge of God, but did not appreciate its value, and showed an indifference to its retention. It has been contended by the author last quoted, that execv ev emyvcoaei is tantamount to a similar expression in Polybius, e^etv ev 7rapa8oaeL, traditum acceptum servare. The knowledge of the one true God was once present to the minds of all mankind; and they had only to prove its worthiness in comparison with the foolish and idolatrous con- ceptions which might at times present themselves to their imagin- ations or reasonings. But, instead of cleaving to and retaining SECT. IV. — man’s CORRUPTION, I. 21 — 32. 87 with care their original knowledge of the one true God, they departed increasingly from Him; although the indications of His attributes, in His works, and in His providential dealings, af forded additional and continual testimony to the truth and cor- rectness of that original knowledge. IJapeBco/cev avrov 9 0 ©eoovov. full of envy, murder. This is an instance of paronomasia. ''Epuhos, contention; SoXov , deceit ; Ka/corjOelas, ma- lignity. Some critics interpret this of that disposition which always views things in the worst light, or puts the worst construction upon them; and others, of roughness and asperity of demeanour. Verse 30. — WcOvpuTTa^, probably secret slanderers, KCLTaXaXovs, open revilers ; or the former may be more properly applied to persons who separate chief friends by repeating or circulating such reports as are likely to set them at variance, and the latter to revilers or slanderers, secret or open. Qeoo-Tvyels or Oeoarvye^, may mean either according to the former accentuation, haters of 89 SECT. IV. — man’s CORRUPTION, I. 21 — 32. God , or according to the latter, hated of God. Haters of God is the meaning to which the context points, for it is an enumera- tion of vices. ‘TfSpio-ras, injur ers, those who violently and with a high hand lord it over others; vireprjcfidvov^, proud or haughty , who look down upon others; d\a£o'va?, empty boasters ; e^eupera? kcucwv, either those who invent new vices, or those who plan sins for others to perpetrate. Verse 31. — Aavverovs, imprudent . — MacJcn. Some interpret it quasi do-vveiSijrovs, without conscience ; others, obstinate . Perverse or of perverted understanding, would perhaps come nearest to the apostle’s meaning. Some distinguish do-vvOeTovs and ao-7rov8ov?, by making the former apply to private good faith ; the latter, to public. The interpretation which refers the former to the break- ing or disregard of covenants, and the latter to an aversion to entering upon them, seems preferable, and harmonises with dveXegpovas, unmerciful , which follows. Of the obnoxiousness of the body of the Jewish nation, as well as the Gentiles, to these various charges, it is unnecessary to adduce proofs. The following texts may, however, be referred to, 2 Kings xvii. 5; Is. lix. 3; Jer., passim ; Mic. viii. 2; and the Psalms in various places. Josephus himself says, “ There was not a nation under heaven more wicked than they were.” ‘ What have you done,’ he says to them, 4 of all the good things required by our Law-giver? What have ye not done of all those things which he pronounced accursed?’” And again, 44 Had the Ro- mans delayed to come against these execrable persons, 1 believe either the earth would have swallowed them up, or a deluge would have swept away their city, or fire from heaven would have consumed it, as it did Sodom, for it brought forth a genera- tion of men far more wicked than they who suffered such things.” Whitby, to whose work I am indebted for these ex- tracts, says, 44 There is not a sin mentioned in the first chapter of this Epistle, of which Josephus doth not in his history accuse them, not excepting that of unnatural lusts: for of their zealots he saith, 4 It was sport to them to force women; they freely gave up themselves to the passions of women, exercising and requiring unnatural lusts, and filling the whole city with impurities.’ ” And again, “ They committed all kinds of wickedness, omitting none which ever came to the memory of man, esteeming the worst of evils to be good, and finding that reward of their iniquity which was meet , and a judgment worthy of God." 90 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Verse 32. — Omvev -” 1 — Theodor. Jackson uses this passage as an argument against personal reprobation by an eternal decree. “ But if to such as finally perish no true or real possi- sibility of repentance during the whole course of this mortal life be allotted by the everlasting irresistible decree, in what true sense can God be said to allow them a time of repentance ? How doth our apostle say, that the bountifulness of God doth lead or draw them to repentance, if the door of repentance be perpetually mured up against them by His irresistible will?” Merdvoca , associated with the expression, the riches of God’s goodness and forbearance and long-suffering, clearly points to the Gospel by which God, who had hitherto winked at the times of ignorance , now commanded all men everywhere to repent. It is to be observed, that, although the prominent features of the person here por- trayed are those of the Judaizer, the address, as expressed by the 7 ra? of the first verse, is general. Now the knowledge of God's willing men everywhere to repent was one which the light of nature could not, and which we know that nothing but the 1 For He forbears and suffers long, awaiting your repentance. 104 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Gospel did teach to the Gentiles, who are included, though not principally aimed at. The usus loquendi gives the strongest possible confirmation of this view. In every other case in which perdvoia occurs, it refers to a Gospel repentance, except Heb. xii. 17, where it is applied to Esau. Haldane’s observation, “ that the apostle had said nothing like this in the first chapter,” which he regards as applying exclu- sively to the Gentiles, is incorrect. In that chapter there is a mention of salvation by faith to both Jew and Gentile, and there, as here, of wrath to the uttermost against all who despise or abuse its mercy. VERSE 5. — Kara Be rrjv G/cXppOTprd gov /cal dperavorjrov /cap- Blav , But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart. Both these terms imply resistance to a softening, convincing, and con- verting influence, and are more strictly applicable to that which God exercises through the Gospel than to any other. The more powerful the influence exercised, the greater is the degree of hardness and impenitence involved in resistance to it; and that heart can only be regarded as inveterately and incurably har- dened and impenitent, to which the most powerful counteracting influences have been in vain applied. 'A per av opr os occurs only here in the New Testament, and means more than impenitent. It implies at least a course of impenitence. "Orav yap ppre XprjGTOTrjTL paXaGagrai, prjre (f>o/3(p Kapirr^rac, tl tov tolovtov GKrjXpoTepov yevoir av.” 1 — Chrys. 11 Quid est cor durum? id ipsum est quod nec compunctione scinditur, nec pietate mollitur, nec movetur precibus, minis non cedit, flagellis induratur; ingra- tum ad beneficia est, ad consilia infidum, ad judicia saevum, invereeundum ad turpia, impavidum ad pericula, inhumanum ad humana, temerarium ad divina; praeteritorum obliviscens, prae- sentium negligens, futura non providens. Ipsum est, cui praeteri- torum , praster solas injurias, nihil omnino non praeterit ,praesentium, nihil non perit, futurorum nulla nisi forte ad ulciscendum pros- pectio, seu praeparatio est : et ut in brevi cuncta horribilis mali mala complectar, ipsum est quod nec Deum timet, nec hominem reveretur.” — Bernard. SrjGavpi^eis Geavrco opyrjv, Treasurest up for thyself wrath. SriGavpl^co signifies increase by long continued and frequent accumulation. “ Hue spectat etymon Graeci hujus vocabuli n rapa 1 For since it is neither softened by goodness, nor bent by fear, what can be harder than such a thing ? SECT. V. — JUDAIZING ERRORS, II. 1 — 16. 105 to et? avpiov nOevai, id est, in crastinum recondere, ita expresse significante Paulo istos, sicut peccata peccatis adjicere perseverant, tandem parem poenarum gravissimarum cumulum se sibi recon- disse re ipsa comperturos.” — Beza . “ Yous vous amassez a vous meme un tresor de colere.” — Beaus . et Leaf. “ Zeavra) yap (jyrja-l 0r]o-avpL%ei? as well as hiKaioKpicrias obviates his objection. Compare Titus ii. 13, where the same event is spoken of as the appearing of the great God , even Jesus Christ our Lord.. “ Quum Deus revelabitur, occulta hominis revelabuntur.” — Bengel. Kal Si/ccuofcpcaLas tov Qeov , And of the righteous judgment of God. The judgment of Him who has declared that God hath committed all judgment to the Son, and of whom it was foretold, that He should judge with righteousness, and bring true judgment unto the people. “ Dei justitia quae nunc latet dum pessimus quisquis beatissimus videtur, reducto velo clarissime conspicietur.” — Brad. Numquid quoniam iste in sua nequitia perse verat, ideo Deus in sua patientia perseverat, perpauca in hoc seculo puniens, ne divina providentia non esse credatur, et multa serviens ultimo examini, ut futurum judicium commendetur.” — St. Aug. ie The judgments of God do not always follow crimes, as thunder doth lightning, but sometimes the space of many ages coming between. When the sun hath shined fair the space of six days upon the tabernacle, we know not what clouds the seventh may bring. And when their punishment doth come, let them make account in the greatness of their sufferings to pay the interest of the respite which hath been given them.” — Hooker s Ser. In that day God will fully and finally vindicate His perfect justice in all His doings. VERSE 6. — : '09 aTroBcocrei e/cavra) Kara ra ep\rla irapa ®ec3, For there is no respect of persons with God. “ Parce que Dieu n’ a point d’ egard aux qualites exterieures des homines.” — Beaus, et L'Enf The clear discovery of this truth, and of the acceptance of Gentiles as well as Jews through Christ, was reserved for Gospel times. St. Peter was instructed in the admission of the Gentiles to God’s power, first, by a special vision, and, subsequently, by the actual descent of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his household. Then, and not till then, he perceived that God was no respecter of persons, hut that in every nation he that feared Him and worked righteousness was accepted of Him ; and the mystery , which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men as it was then revealed unto the holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, That the Gentiles should he fellow-heirs , and of the same body , and partakers of the same promise in Christ hy the Gospel , was laid open to him. IIpoaid'jToXytyla occurs in three other passages in the New Testament: Ephes. vi. 9, Colos. iii. 25, Jas. ii. 1. “The phrase irpoacvirov Xapfiavecv or fiXenreiv, and also rrpocrw'rroXri^la, are entirely Hebraistic in their origin; the classic writers never employ them. In the New Testament it is always used in malam partem ; in the Old it is frequently used in a good sense.” — Stuart. “For accepcioun of persones is not anentis God.” — Wick. 61 God is indifferently affected towards SECT. V. — THE GOSPEL IMPARTIAL, II. ] — 16. 117 persons as such, nakedly and privately considered; or as divested of moral conditions or qualifications and actions: He, in His dealings, whether as benefactor or judge, purely considereth the reason and exigency of things, the real merits of each cause; He maketh no arbitrary or groundless discriminations; He neither loveth or favoureth, nor loatheth and discountenancetli any per- son unaccountably : He doth utterly disclaim partiality, or respect of persons as a calumnious aspersion on Him, and a scandal to His providence.” — Barrow's Serm. Verse 12. — -Oaoi yap drop oj? rjpapTov, For as many as have sinned apart from the law. That is upon other principles than those of the law — against other provisions than those of the law. Stuart says, that the octol here employed is of the most general signification, and that omve? would be the word to express a limited sense. According to Matthiae, § 483, and Arnold, § 1229, omve? never follows iravre^, and we find 7ra? oWt?, never n ra? ocro?, and 7 ravre? octol, never i rdvTe? omve?. The preceding 7 ra? may therefore have made ocroi more appropriate here. It is evident that either of these words after 7ra? must exercise a restrictive influence. The antithetical expression to dvopw, namely, eV vopcp, will assist materially in fixing the sense of the former expression. Jewish converts, and even faithful Jews, before the coming of our Lord, were, like St. Paul, dvopoi in one sense, and evvopoi in another. They were avopot in this respect, that, in common with other believers, they did not look for life through their own merits, or from the works of the law; and they were evvopoi in another, that they knew the law, and observed its various pre- cepts. The eV vopco cannot, it is evident, mean, that all who possessed or knew the law would be judged by the law; for then the faithful Jews of all ages, as well as the dewish converts, would be judged by a law, the terms of which are a perfect and undeviating obedience; they would be judged by that by which no man can be justified, and on terms which must involve them all in condemnation. Nor can avopco 9 , on the other hand, mean that men could sin without a law. Both expressions concur to prove, that they who are to be judged by the law are not those who simply possess or know it, but those who trust in it, and in their own merits for acceptance; and that they who sin dvopws, are those who sin, not without a law, for this they could not do, since where no law is there can be no transgression, but against 118 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. other provisions and upon other principles than those of law, namely, against the Gospel and its grace. Olshausen admits, that the opposite terms, hid vogov , and dvogcos, are naturally to be understood as signifying with or without reference to the law; and that " dvogws is not intended to express the absolute absence of all law, as ver. 15 shows, hut only the want of the ^positive law of Moses.” There are only two ways of acceptance; a legal and a gracious one. These are, therefore, the only ones which are capable of being contrasted. In the one, the parties are judged with reference to law and to a legal claim; in the other, without reference to law, as giving a claim, and upon gracious principles. Judged by law, no man could escape condemnation; for law and transgression are insepa- rable in man. He who trusted in his observance of one law for acceptance with God, would be as far from the path to God’s favour as he who trusted in another; and, so long as a man depends upon any law, he trusts in a false confidence. To him that , worketh, that is, who expects to earn the reward as his strict and legal due, the reward is reckoned , not of grace , but of debt. The same commentator observes that the dmokeia here meant cannot be absolute; and he supposes that it indicates a mitigated punishment. An examination of the various passages in the New Testament in which d'rroWvgi^ aircoXeia, occur, supports a different conclusion, and shows that they rather indicate, in connexion with sin, the punishment due to those who reject the Gospel (see 1 Cor. i. 18 ; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; iv. 3). In Rom. ix. 22 it is applied to the vessels of wrath, and in Phil. i. 28 to the perdition of persecutors. Indeed, in every case except two in which it is applied to inanimate things, in the sense of waste, and one in Acts, d7T(b\eta , means perdition. There is, therefore, more reason to conclude that it indicates a severer and not a gentler punish- ment, and that it refers to the deeper guilt and condemnation of those who sin against God’s love and grace, and of whom it is said, (Heb. x. 28, 29,) He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses ; of how much sorer punishment suppose ye shall he be thought worthy who hath trodden under foot the Son of God , /c. t. X. Kal octol iv vo gw rjgapTOV hid vogov tcpiOgaovTCU, And as many as have sinned in law shall be judged by the law. The iv here is not significant of the nature of the sin, nor of the mere possession of a law; for, as all sin is a transgression of law, they only can SECT. y. — THE GOSPEL IMPARTIAL, II. 1—16. 119 sin who have a law. It is expressive of the views and the position maintained by those who do sin, and indicates that they hold to the law for justification and acceptance. Trusting to fulfilment of the law, they shall be judged by that law, in their obedience to which they trust. All the Jews would not be judged by the law, which says, Do, and thou shalt live; Trans- gress, and thou shalt die; for, at all times, there was a remnant according to grace, who saw their need of God’s mercy, and who looked in faith to the promised Messiah, as the end of the law, and as shadowed forth in the various sacrifices. Much less would all the Jewish converts be judged by the law, simply because they possessed it. It was not possession , but reliance on their defective observance of the law, that would exclude from a merciful acceptance. The class here named is not national but doctrinal; and would include any Gentile converts who had been betrayed into a legal spirit. The apostle is contending that the distinction to be hereafter made will not be national, nor between Jew and Gentile, as such, but between a legal and an evangelical spirit, whether in Jew or Gentile. All who look to their fulfil- ment of the law as making acceptance a debt due to them, shall be judged on a corresponding footing. VERSE 13. — Ov yap ol d/cpoaral tov vopov Bl/catoi 7 rapa tg3 Oea 5, dXX OL7rocr)Tal tov vopbov 'ducaiadOgaovTai, For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 1 The mere possession of the law neither condemned him who trusted in God’s mercy, nor justified the man who did not; but, on the contrary, it rendered his trangressions more criminal. The terms held out by it were, The man who doeth these things shall live in or by them (Gal. iii. 12 ; Kom. x. 5); and this justification no mere man ever attains. It is not, therefore, to be supposed, that St. Paul here intimates the possession of a justification, or an abiding of judgment on the part of either Jew or Gentile upon legal principles, or by a perfect obedience to the law. He is either setting forth the real nature of that justification which was associated with the law, or else vindicating, on the plea of superior holiness of life, the claims to acceptance of the Gentile above the J udaizing converts. Through their full and entire reliance upon the grace of God, and their renunciation of all legal and self- righteous claims, the Gentile converts evinced a holiness superior 1 We may observe here, that to be just before God and to be justified are used as convertible terms. 120 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. to that of the Judaizers; and thus, through the obedience of faith, possessed higher claims than the latter, even upon the principle of obedience to the law. The Modern Greek Version has €kt eXeo"T aX for iroigial. “ The word a/cpoarr 7 ? is to be explained by the fact, that, to the great majority of the Jewish people, the Mosaic law was known, not by their own reading, but by listening to the Sabbath lessons. Even the Greeks, however, sometimes styled readers ol a/covovres ( Polyb . Hist. i. 13, 6 ). — Tholuck. Olshausen remarks, on the latter clause of this verse, that (tcd&o-Ocu might have been substituted for BuccuovcOcu. The employment of the latter, in the sense of being justified, supports, so far as it goes, the view that a gospel justification is intended, namely, one which applies to those who are fulfillers of the law, through an internal principle. “ Unde autem factorem legis Graecum justificari diceret, sine gratia salvatoris? .... Quid est enim aliud justificari quam justi facti, ab illo scilicet qui justificat impium, ut ex impio fiat justus.” — St. Aug. “ Cum vero dictum est, factores legis justificabuntur, quod alium dicitur quam justi justificabuntur? . . . . Ut sic intelligerent etiam Judaei legis auditores, indigere se gratia justificatory, ut possent esse factores. . ... Si ergo Gentes commendans quae naturaliter legis sunt facientes, et scriptum habentes opus legis in cordibus illos intelligi voluit qui credunt in Jesum Christum, quia non si cut Judaei praemissa sibi lege veniunt ad fidem, non est cur eos conamur decernere ab his quibus Dominus per Prophetam promittens testa- mentum novum, dixit leges suas se scripturum in cordibus eorum; quia et ipsi per insertionem quern oleastro praestitam dicit, ad eandem oleam,hoc est ad eundem Dei populum pertinent. Poti- usque concordat prophetico etiam hoc apostolicum testimonium, ut hoc sit pertinere ad novum testamentum, legem Dei habere non in tabulis sed in cordibus scriptum, hoc est, in intimo afiectu justitiam legis amplecti, ubi fides per dilectionem opera tur, quia ex fide justificat gentes Deus.” — St. Aug. De Spir. et Liter a. “ Nec istam inscrip tionem, quae justificatio est, poterat efficere in Judaeis lex in tabulis scripta sed solam praevaricationem. Nam et ipsi homines erant, et vis ilia natura inerat eis, qua legitimum aliquod animal rationale et sentit et facit. Sed pietas quae in aliam vitam transfert beatam et aeternam, legem habet immacu- latam, con verten tern animas ut ex illo lumine renoventur, fiat- que in eis quod dicunt; signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui SECT. V. — THE GOSPEL IMPARTIAL, II. 1 — 16. 121 Domine. Unde et aversi obolescere meruerunt, renovari autem nisi gratia Christiana, hoc est nisi Mediatoris intercessione non possunt. .... Quid ergo Apostolus efficere voluit, quod jactan- tiam cohibens Judseorum, cum dixisset non auditores legis justi sunt apud Deum, sed factores legis justificabuntur, continuo sub- jecit de iis, qui legem non habentes naturaliter quae legis sint faciunt, si non illi sunt intelligendi qui pertinent ad gratiam Mediatoris.” — Idem. Verse 14. — 'Orav yap eOvrj ra pur] vopbov e^ovTa, (pvaec ra tov vogov 7 roiy, For when the Gentiles who hold not the law do by nature the things of the law. The force of the article with the participle in this verse is to define , by the action which belongs to them, the persons who are only designated generally as the edvr). See Matt. Gr. Gr. § 266. 'E%ovra means here not simply to have, but to hold, in which sense St. Paul uses e %(0 in several instances (Comp. 1 Tim. i. 19). Holding (e^wv) faith and a good conscience (iii. 9). Holding (e^ovTa?) the mystery of the faith (2 Tim. i. 13). Holdfast (e%e) the form of sound words. In opposition to the strict and undeviating fulfilment of the law, which was necessary to ensure the legal justification sought by the body of the Jewish nation (Rom. x. 2), and inculcated by the Judaizing teachers, the apostle unfolds the nature of that fulfilment of the law, which consisted in the possession of its pervading principle within the heart; for love is, in this sense, the fulfilling of the law, the source of the spontaneous fulfilment of its provisions ; and this love is the result of faith in Christ, as well as the operative principle by which faith works. We love God because He first loved us ; and because He has so loved us we love the brethren also. Whitby has a long note to prove that the Gentiles here spoken of are unconverted Gentiles; in favour of which opinion he adduces a quotation from Origen, the whole force of which vanishes, unless we admit that some of the heathen glorified the true God professedly, and in practice, and did what they are all represented as culpably neglecting. But such a supposition is inconsistent with St. PauPs language in the conclusion of the first, and in the ninth and following verses, of the third chapter, and with the declaration that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God. “ The whole drift and scope of the apostle is to prove that no law could justify but the law of faith by Jesus Christ. And as his argument concludes against the Jewish law , 122 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. so it still more strongly concludes against the law of Nature, less perfect than the Jewish law, as being contained in it, and making but a part of it.” — Waterl. Sup. to Nat. of Chr. Sacr. There is, however, one observation made by Whitby, which harmonizes with what we discover to have been God’s way of dealing, in all the cases of heathens who are favourably spoken of in the New Testament, namely, that His providence finds out means of imparting the gospel to them, as in the case of Cornelius, the Ethiopian eunuch, and the men of Macedonia. It is also to be observed, that, in the case of Cornelius, who had probably im- bibed correct notions of the one true God, from intercourse with God's people, the Centurion is directed to Peter, as to one who should tell him words Whereby he might be saved , evidently excluding the idea of salvation without them. Another remark, which the same commentator has made, might have led him to suspect the interpretation that he has adopted. He does not suppose, that these unconverted Gentiles, of whom he imagines the apostle here to speak, will attain “the same glorious reward as the Christian.” If the terms employed in the present passage, to express the punishment denounced against those who perished apart from the law, were such, as to indicate a mitigated con- demnation; or if those, expressive of the reward to be given to the Gentiles in question, were such as to intimate rewards, dif- fering from, or less than those of believers, then the interpreta- tion, of which a mitigated punishment and a lower reward are conditions, would have all the support of the context. But, since the terms employed are expressive of the very reverse, connecting the severest punishment, or perdition, with sinning apart from the law, and allotting the very same and the highest rewards promised to believers, namely, glory, honour, peace, incorruption, and eternal life to the Gentiles spoken of; such an interpretation as Whitby’s derives no support from the context, which, on the contrary, upholds the interpretation that refers the severest punishments to sinners against God’s grace, and the peculiar rewards promised to believers, and in no other passage in the New Testament assigned to any others than believers — to converted Gentiles. Olshausen, and some others, who seek to confirm the interpre- tation of this chapter which refers it to unconverted Gentiles, but who almost or altogether, without exception, break down w T hen they come to the 29th verse, lay, on the case of Cornelius, a stress SECT. V. — THE GOSPEL IMPARTIAL, II. 1 — 16. 123 quite disproportioned to its proper value, even if it were an indisputably established fact that he was a mere heathen. As has been already observed, he was not saved but by a knowledge of Christ; and Bishop Bull states, that he has no doubt that he was a proselyte of the gate, assigning very cogent arguments for such a conclusion. His words are: “ Centurionem ilium fuisse J udese religionis proselytum, ex eorum classe, qui proselyti portae dicebantur, hoc est, qui relicta quidem idolatria vero Israelitarum Deo sese dederant, nondum tamen circumcisioni cseterisque Mo- saics legis ritibus ac ceremoniis sese subjecerant (quanquam video nunc esse dierum viros doctos qui illud in dubium vocant) mihi extra controversiam videtur. Nam praeterquam quod centurio a Luca dicitur evae/3rjucrt? necessarily refers to the former; but, in other circumstances, it is equally applicable to any dis- position which exists within the man, and which forms a part of his bodily or mental constitution, whether it be good or evil, of recent or early formation. “ Simili ratione voce naturae usus est Cicero Tusc. Quaest. i. 16, 4. etiam res dicuntur, quae sic abierunt in consuetudinem, ut propemodum factae sint altera natura, consuetudines, quae inde a longo tempore et apud ple- rosque ita sunt receptae et invaluerunt, ut naturae maxime con- sentaneae et ab instinctu quodam naturali profectae videantur.” — Schleus. “ vaei bc/cala) according to the faith and love which is in Christ Jesus;” and in his epistle to the Trallian3, “ I have understood you to possess a blameless and 126 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. irreprovable understanding in patience, not according to assumed or borrowed use (< Kara xpfjo-iv), but according to nature ( Kara uoyv).” “ Et propterea in domo veri Israel, in quo dolus non est, participes sunt testamenti novi, quia dat Deus leges in mente eorum, et cordibus ipsorum scriptas digito suo spiritu sancto, quo ibi diffunditur cbaritas, quae legis est plenitudo, Nec moveat quod naturalitur eos dixit, quae legis sunt, facere non Spiritu Dei, non gratia, non fide. Hoc enim agit spiritus gratiae, ut imaginem Dei in qua naturaliter facti sumus, instauret in nobis. Yitium quippe contra naturam est, quod utique sanat gratia, propter quam Deo dicitur, ‘ Miserere tnei, Sana animam meam quia peccavi tibi,’ proinde naturaliter homines, quae legis sunt, faciunt. Qui enim hoc non faciunt, vitio suo non faciunt. Quo vitio? Lex Dei est deleta de cordibus. Ac per hoc vitio sanato, cum illic scribitur, fiunt quae legis sunt naturaliter, non quod per naturam negata sit gratia, sed potius per gratiam reparata natura.” — St. Aug. De Spir. et Liter a. And again, “ Hoc enim ibi scribitur per renovationem, quod non omni modo deletum per vetustatem. Nam sicut ipsa imago Dei renovatur in mente credentium per testamentum novum, quam non penitus impietas aboleverat, (nam remanserat utique id, quod anima hominis nisi rationalis esse non potest,) ita etiam ibi lex Dei non ex omni parte deleta per injustitiam, profecto scribitur renovata per gra- tiam /’ To tcl tov vogov supply epya, or hucai&gara. Ovtoi vo gov gg e^ovre?, These not holding the law. They did not seek justification upon the principle of obedience to the Mosaic law. The Gentile converts had the law in this sense, that they had access to it and might have been initiated into it, for the Jews and Judaizing converts were most eager to make and instruct proselytes ; but they did not hold to, or place their dependance upon it for acceptance, they refused to submit to it as necessary to salvation. 'Ecivtols elat vogo<;, Are a law unto themselves . In opposition to the legal principle which bestowed all its attention on the mere outward conduct, and on ceremonial observances; and which looked for justification through these, the Gentile converts, who held not the law, directed their care to the cultivation of those inward principles of faith and love, in the possession of which they were a law unto themselves. Compare remarks on xv. 16. The commentators who refer these words to unconverted Gentiles are either betrayed into contradiction between their SECT. Y. — THE GOSPEL IMPARTIAL, II. 1 — 16. 127 statements here and those in the conclusion of the first chapter, or driven to expedients to avoid it. In the first chapter they re- present in the strongest terms the universal and gross corruption of the Gentiles, and bring proofs of it from the writings of the heathen poets, historians, and philosophers, the best of whom justify some of the greatest crimes. Even such as Socrates and Aristotle are not excepted. lc Not only the Epicureans but the Stoics themselves taught that TratSepao-Tia and other similar crimes were indifferent, as appears from the words of Sextus Empiricus, which are not to be transcribed. Aristotle and Cicero approve of the desire of revenge. The former also called war with bar- barians a kind of hunting, and therefore a just thing by nature, as well as abortion previously to the quickening of the foetus. Many of them also defended all crimes, saying that nothing was wicked in its nature, but that the only difference was of human appointment.” — Menoch. None of them were free from idolatry, and from conformity to the common worship. Macknight admits that Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, and the other philosophers countenanced the idolatrous worship of their fellow countrymen, and expatiates at length upon their guilt in so doing. After thus describing in one place the corruption of man- kind, as being so great and universal as to prove the apostle's declaration, That there is none that doeth good , no not one , and depicting most truly and literally the state of those who pos- sessed not better promises, the same persons, in their remarks on the present passage, either represent the writings of the heathen as proving that they had the substance of the law written in their heart , that they kept the law , and were even circumcised in heart; or else take refuge in some qualification of their former descrip- tions, or in the hypothetical theory that St. Paul only meant, that if they did so they should be rewarded. This last resource proves how hard its maintainers are pushed in their attempts to reconcile their interpretation of the first chapter with their expla- nation of the second, as applying to the same persons, or the unconverted Gentiles. To say that the expression, When the Gentiles who hold not the law do by nature the things contained in the law , these , not holding the law , are a law unto themselves , refers to an hypothetical but impossible case, is doing no small violence to the language of the apostle. To say that it refers to one or two philosophers seems as little to the purpose; and to maintain, as 128 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Macknight and Olshausen do, that they fulfilled the law of God, and had even snch a faith in God as Christ required , is altogether at variance with the apostle’s declarations and reasonings, as well as with the known facts of the case. Verse 15. — Omve? ivhebcvvvrai, As many as shew within. The omve? is here clearly restrictive; not all the Gentiles, but those who spontaneously fulfil the duties of the law, and who, by this outward indication, exhibit and prove within, so far as it can be shewn, a directing and controlling principle. So long as they faithfully guide themselves by this principle, God has asserted their right to claim exemption from any other law. The Son has made them free from outward bonds. As sons of God they have received freedom from Christ, they are under a law ; but it is a law within themselves. They are led by the Spirit. To ep

& 'iravres ryiapTov ; i zee Lvov irecrovTOS, /cal oi purj (frayovres airo tov %v\ov yey ovacriv ef eieeivov iravre 9 6vt)tol. 1 — St. Chrys. The statement of Theodoret, “ Because each man for his own and not the sin of Adam, comes under the decree of death,” is correct if understood, as it was in all probability intended, of original sin. Tholuck gives some interesting illustrations of this doctrine from the Babbins. He says, “ In conclusion, it deserves also to be taken into consideration, that when the apostle here teaches, that all evil has its source in sin, and all sin in that of the author of the human race, he by no means propounds an entirely new doctrine. It is substantially contained in the third chapter of Genesis, and is frequently declared in the Apocrypha — Wis. of Sol. ii. 23, 24; Ecclus. xxv. 24. It has likewise been handed down in the exegetical tradition of the Babbins, among whom, for example, are to be found such sentiments as the following. The Targum on the text, Ecclesiastes vii. 29, f God hath made man upright/ observes, ‘ But the serpent and the woman seduced him, and caused death to be brought upon him and all the inha- bitants of the earth.’ And on Buth iv. 22, when relating that David's father was also called it adds, ‘ Jesse lived many days, until the counsel which the serpent gave to Eve was called to mind before God. In consequence of this counsel, all men are obnoxious to death.’ To the same purpose, the words of B. Shemtob (died in 1293), in the book of Sepher Haemunoth. ‘ In their mystical commentaries our doctors say, that if Adam and Eve had not sinned, their descendants would not have been infected with the propensity to evil; their form would have re- mained perfect like that of the angels, and they would have con- tinued for ever in the world, subject to neither death nor change.’ Bereschith Babba, a mystical commentary upon Genesis, from an early period of the middle ages, par. 12, 14, 1 Although created perfect, yet when the first man sinned, all was perverted, and shall not return to order until the Messiah come/ B. Mosche of 1 But what means, Unto which all have sinned 1 This : he having once fallen, even they that had not eaten of the tree became by him all mortal. SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. . 251 Trana, in the fifteenth century (Beth Elohim, f. 105, c. 1), ‘ The whole world sinned the same sin with Adam, for he was the whole world.’ R. Jacob (Neve Shalom, trac.ix. c. 5, fol. 160, 2), 4 As the first man was the one that sinned, so shall the Messiah be the one to do sin away.’ R. Mayer Ben Gabbai in Avodath Hakkodesch, f. 52, says, ‘ Adam by his fall opened a fountain of impurity, so that uncleanness and poison have overspread the world.’ ” Olshausen’s remarks here are comparatively free from transcen- dentalism, and worth quoting. “ The fall of Adam is set forth in the Bible as the opening of a gate that leads to the spiritual world; so that it is not his act outward and isolate which is effi- cient, but that act in connexion with the frightful element to which it conceded entrance. So that, as a spark thrown into inflammable matter can enkindle a fire, to consume the greatest wood, or one stone taken from a protecting dam causes a whole stream to pour away; so also Adam’s sin, which might appear so trifling. Spark and stone, without touchwood and stream, could do no essential harm ; so without the existence of a kingdom of darkness, Adam’s sin could not have caused such hurt. In rela- tion to this kingdom, Adam stood like the porter, holding also as he did then in his hand the keys of the kingdom of light; he opened that door, and the lot was cast for ages. In the same position we behold the Saviour. According to the history of the temptation, the key to the kingdom of this world’s prince was offered also to Him ; but He refused it, and opened for mankind paradise instead, whereby the stream of light then breaking in had power to scare off the shades of former night, which ages had been gathering. Thus comprehended, Adam and Christ alone appear in their complete central meaning, as the Scripture sets them forth. They are the hinges, round which the doors of the powers of the universe move ; the poles, from which life and death, light and darkness, stream, which reveal themselves as well in the totality, as in every individual, in the power which they exercise in the world. The life of the great collective body, which we call mankind, oscillates between Adam and Christ, aye, the life of the whole universe; for Adam's fall and Christ’s resurrection are turning-points for the development of it all. And even so the being touched by the life-stream of Christ is for individuals greater or less, for nations and men, the turning-point of their existence.” 252 • st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Verse 13. — "A ^pc ? to 'irapa'TTTWfia , outgo kcli to ya~ pidfia , But not as the offence , so also was the free gift. The offence is the first sin, from which Adam’s guilt and corruption and that of the human race date, and owing to .which sentence of dissolution went forth. The free gift is that which God of His free will has bestowed in Christ, viz., influences counter- acting those of Adam, and benefits in direct contrast with the evils which Adam introduced. These benefits are declared to be greater than the offence. “ But the apostle, having insisted on the first part of the comparison thus far, and finding that the grace of Christ rose so much higher than the condemnation in Adam, he is fain to forsake that comparison, not with a so, but a not only so.” — Hammond. El yap tu> tov evo? irapairToopwri ol 7 roXXol aireOavov , For if by the offence of one the many have died. The many here means the multitudes who have actually died since the fall. Reasons existed for not employing the same word (7ravTe?) here, which is employed in the 12th and 18th verses. In both of the latter, St. Paul refers to the sentence of death, which is said in the 12th verse to have passed upon all men ; and in the 18th, to have come or to rest upon all. In the present verse he is speaking of its actual execution upon all who have hitherto been born into the SECT. XTI. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. 259 world, as he does, in the 14th verse, of the actual death of all between Adam and Moses. Probably, also, its being strictly antithetical to evo? may have contributed to the insertion of 7ro\\ol. The former reason, however, is most satisfactory and quite sufficient. IloWat pbdXkov rj rov Oeov /cal rj Scoped iv yapiri rfj tov evo<; dv0pcD7rov ’ Irjaov Xpicrrov els rou? ttoWovs iirepicraevo-e , Much more has the grace of God and the gift through grace abounded unto the many. The Scoped iv x^P LTL equivalent to the ^apicr/xa of the preceding verse; but it develops fully both the ideas in- cluded in the latter, and makes the gift and the source of the gift equally prominent; whereas the former is most prominent in the single word. Of the gift through favour, Christ is the meritorious cause, the person by whom God can show favour without compromising justice. The gift has abounded unto the many, or exceeded the effects of the offence upon them — not in numerical extent, but in the degree of benefit to the recipients. What the benefit thus resulting to the many was, is discoverable from the antithetical evil, which was, that they had died. The sense seems to be, that as by Adam they had been all involved in a dissolution which was not irremediable, so they had by Christ received a title to a reviviscence which should not, like their dissolution, be temporary or changeable, but eternal and indis- soluble. Stuart, who maintains that OavaTos here means the whole penalty of sin (a view which, as has already been remarked, in- volves the supposition that all between Adam and Moses had suffered eternal death), says, “ I do not deny that the resurrection is a blessing to the righteous But it must be remembered, that the wicked will be raised from the dead as truly as the righteous; yet surely no one will account this a blessing to them.” The answer is obvious. The resurrection, like the first bestowal of life, is in itself a blessing. That wicked men convert it into a curse, is the result of their own depravity and personal sin. Christ delivers them from that death which they incurred by Adam ; the consequences of their personal sins is a separate con- sideration. There is no blessing however great, which wicked men may not turn to a curse. “ The conditional sentence here preceded by el is what gram- marians name the ‘ absolute conditional,’ namely, that in which the In lie. stands in the protasis and apodosis. So here aireOavov — S 2 260 sx. Paul’s epistle to the romans. eirepLo-oevcre. In such cases the protasis is assumed as being conceded.” — Stuart. VERSE 16 . — Kal ov% &>? St evo? apLaprg tov evo? 7rapa7TT(bpaTL clearly refers to the cause, and the Sea tov evo? to the means or channel through which the evil flowed, namely, our connexion with, or descent from, the one man Adam, as justification and reigning in life flow from union with one (Sea tov evo?) Christ. A La tovto ovk €i7rev evTavda yapiv, aXXa irepiacrelav %dpiTo<; f ov yap oaov i'Xpg^opeOa eh ttjv tt)aXf), ovtco 9 fycopeOa } — 1 Therefore he says, not here grace, but excess of grace, for we have not only received by grace what we needed for the taking away sin, but much more, for we have been both delivered from punishment, and have put off SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. 265 St. Chrys. “ All these things Paul calls a superabundance of grace, shewing that it was not a medicine that we received to be a mere countervail of the wound, but even health, and comeli- ness, and honour, and glory, and dignities, far transcending our natural state.” — Idem. u If one man’s eating of the tree has made death to reign, how much more shall we who have received the abundance, nay, profusion, of grace, and who have been justified, live and reign by one Jesus Christ, whose brethren we are, and of the same body, being united to Him as the body to the head. For neither have we received a simple good, and of only one kind, so that we might doubt of the future, but our good things are an exuberance of grace, as of some deeply in- volved debtor, and cast into prison, with his wife and children, should not only be freed from prison, but even receive untold riches, and, being introduced into the royal court, should be dignified with high honour, and adopted as the king’s son.” — Theophyl. Verse 18. — ’ 'Apa ovv &>? Bl evos Trapairrcoparo^ eh rzavra^ dv6 pcoirovs eh /cara/cpipa, Wherefore as by one offence judyment came vpon all men to condemnation. The cipa ovv refers to the argument of the parenthesis which began at verse 13, and which was introduced to prove what was asserted in the 12th verse, and to enter into the contrast or antithesis between Adam and Christ. Wherefore, since it is as we have shown, &>? Si evo9, it is a repe- tition of the idea in the 12th verse, or a reiteration of the prota- sis, modified by what had been stated in the intervening verses, and adducing the one offence referred to in them, instead of the one man spoken of in the twelfth. Before eh TzavTas, Kplpa or some similar word must be introduced, judgment came upon all. Outgo /cal Bo evos Bucaicoparos eh rravra 9 avd pcbirovs eh Bi~ /calwGiv Thus by one righteous act , the gift (supply papier pa) came upon all men , to vindication to a claim of life. Ovrco here is the apodosis to coarrep in the 12 th verse. Aucalcoaiv %cor)<; is evi- dently a claim to life, being the antithesis to /cara/cpipa , condem- nation to death. Peile’s rendering, “ serving unto adjudication of life,” is very good ; but in that case it would be better, per- haps, to render the preceding Bucaicbparos as Gussetius renders it all viciousness, and have been born from above, and have arisen, the old man having been buried, and have been redeemed, and sanctified, and brought into adoption, and justified, and become brethren of the Only- begotten, and fellow heirs, and constituted of the same body, and regarded as His flesh, and united to Him as the body to the Head. 266 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. in his Heb. Lex., viz. a judicial satisfaction , which would be strictly the correlative of an adjudication of life . Sentence to death, that is, to temporal death, evidently requires as its anti- thesis, an adjudication or sentence of life — that is, a resurrection. As in Adam all die f even so in Christ shall all be made alive . A universal death temporal, and a universal resurrection — the one flowing from Adam, and the other from Christ — are the only things which will be commensurate with St. Paul’s language, without an interpretation more or less forced; and without coun- tenancing, on the one hand, a universal redemption from all actual as well as from original sin — or, on the other, so limiting the benefits accruing from Christ, as to make them incalculably less than the evils derived from Adam; which is in direct con- tradiction to the apostle’s argument and express assertion. Professor Hodge brings forward several passages to prove that the word all is frequently used to signify some ; but they are alto- gether inconclusive, and, in fact, not to the point. What is necessary to support that interpretation here is, not passages in which “ all” is simply used in a limited sense, but in which it is used in a universal sense in one clause of an antithetical sentence, and in a limited sense in the other. “ H. Dodwell, in his curious work on the natural mortality of the soul” (and Professor Hodge after him), “glosses the parallel verse, 1 Cor. xv. 22, thus: ‘As all who are in Adam die, so all who are in Christ shall be made alive/ But in order to give this sense, the Greek ought to have been, not iv r&> XpiGTcp 7rdvre < ? ^(ooTrocrjO^o-ovTat, but 7 rdvres oi iv T(j> Xpio-Tco fc ooTToiTjOricrovTcu . Much to the same purpose Doddridge, ‘ We all shall be made alive,’ as if the assertion extended only to Christians.” — Terrot. The context may, as Mr. Hodge observes, modify 7 ravre? in certain instances; but here the context, so far from limiting it, precludes limitation. It is undeniable, that all men will be restored to existence at the last day; and as undeniable, that their restoration to life is in virtue of Christ’s work and atonement, as that their death was the result and moral consequence of Adam’s sin. “For as the obedience of Christ has transmitted life and a resurrection to all, in the same way the disobedience of Adam brought death to all.” — (Ecumen. “As he was the cause of death to all, so Christ was the cause of a resurrection to all.” — Idem. “ And as in consequence of the disobedience of Adam, the mass of mankind were treated as if they themselves had broken the paradisiacal law ; so by the obe- SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, Y. 12 — 21. 267 dience of Christ, all shall be restored to immortality, and treated as if they themselves had kept that law.” — Terrot. While Professor Hodge claims the verb KaOlarrjfu to establish the imputation theory, Mr. Newman, in his lectures on justifi- cation, claims it as positively, to prove that a transmission of inherent righteousness is here asserted. Mr. Newman pours such contempt on verbal criticism, that it justly seems a matter for surprise that he should have built so much upon it as he did in his fifth lecture; and his unskilfulness or unfairness proves that he thought the science either a very loose or a very partial one. No verbal critic, of any judgment or fairness, would lay hold of one or two instances of the use of a word in a particular sense, as proving, without any doubt, that that was what it meant in any proposed passage. All that those instances can prove is, that such may be the sense, not that it is so. This must be decided by proving, either that the sense contended for is the only sense of the word, or that it is the most suitable one for the passage under examination. Neither Professor Hodge nor Mr. Newman, who, in their views of this word, may be regarded as opposite extremes, seem to have given the right sense. It means neither, on the one hand, to be counted, nor, on the other, to be made in the sense of essential transformation. Its primitive meaning has a reference to position; and it is in a sense closely related to this that it is generally, if not in every case, used in the New Testa- ment. It occurs twenty-two times. In twelve instances it is applied to the placing men in positions or offices of temporal authority, and in four to placing them in office in the church; and in the latter it is rendered ordain. In one case it means to conduct. The two instances in the present passage deducted, there remain three on which Mr. Newman grounds his theory, with as much confidence as if they were the only other passages in which the word occurred, instead of forming but a seventh part of them, or as if this were the only meaning of the word. But even in these instances, or in two of them, at least, the sense for which he contends is far from incontrovertible. The first is 2 Pet. i. 5 — And besides this, giving all diligence , add to your faith virtue ; and to virtue knowledge ; and to knowledge temperance ; and to temperance patience ; and to patience godliness ; and to god- liness brotherly kindness ; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things abound in you , they make you (according to Mr. New- man’s rendering) they constitute or prove you (according to what 268 st. paui/s epistle to the romans. it may be proved the passage requires), neither barren nor unfruit- ful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. Now it is to be admitted, in the first place, that there is a sense in which the cultivation of the Christian graces enlarges our knowledge of Christ, and that, in proportion as we become pure in heart, we become capable of seeing and knowing God. But that this is not the truth which St. Peter here propounds, may, I think, be proved from the following considerations: — First. St. Peter had, in the preceding verses, spoken of the knowledge of Christ as of one that had called believers to glory and virtue, and through whom exceeding great and precious promises had been given to them, that, through the influence of these, they might be made partakers of the divine nature. He then, in the eighth and following verses, above quoted, exhorts them to cultivate the various Christian graces, and states that if they possess these elements of Christian character in abundance, it is a proof that they are not unfruitful in the knowledge of Jesus Christ, but that they possess that knowledge, and bring forth fruits worthy of it, and that the promises have made them partakers of the divine nature ; while, on the other hand, he who lacketh these things is blind , and cannot see afar off, and brings forth no fruit of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, but has forgotten that his sins were blotted out. Secondly. That knowledge of Christ, which is to be progressive, is enumerated among the graces men- tioned in verses 6 and 7, which proves that the knowledge spoken of in the eighth verse is not the ultimate progressive Christian grace, but that first knowledge of Christ crucified, which is the foundation of the believer’s hope and the fountain of all his graces, and, among them, of his increased acquaintance with the character and offices of his Great High Priest. The apostle cannot be supposed to say, “ If you add to your faith knowledge, it will make you increase in knowledge”; but what he says is, “ If you have faith, and virtue, and heavenly know- ledge,” rc.T. A., they prove that your knowledge of Christ crucified, and of the precious promises made in Him, is not unfruitful. Thirdly. It is also to be observed that the verb is not in the future tense, but the present. It is not they will hereafter make, but they do now constitute or prove you a true believer, a fruitful branch; they are the elements, not the causes, of your fruitfulness; they are proofs of your election, and, in proportion to their abundance, prove and make it sure to you. SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. 269 The two other instances are still more controvertible, Jas. iii. 6, where it is said, So is the tongue among our members , seems clearly to indicate not a change, but a relative position and power. The tongue is a little member , but it boasteth great things ; it is a fire , a world of iniquity ; so is the tongue among our members . Such by our nature and constitution is its relative importance and poAver over the other members, that it defileth the whole body. The question is not of any change in the tongue, but of its natural relative position, and the necessity of governing it, as the prin- cipal member of the body, which, if not restrained, will set on fire the whole course of nature. So also in James iv. 4, Whosoever will be the friend of the world , is not thereby changed into the enemy of God, but actually is so; his friendship for the world constitutes him the enemy of God ; it is the present element, not the past cause of the enmity between him and God. And in the present passage, in the same way that persons are placed in authority, temporal or spiritual, by having that autho- rity delegated, not infused into them ; or as the Christian graces are the constituents of Christian fruitfulness; or as the tongue occupies a certain position among the members; so men have, as it were, delegated to them the righteousness of Christ: they are invested with His merits as rulers are with authority; the righteousness of Christ is the constituent of their righteousness in God’s sight, and they are constituted and placed in the cha- racter and position of righteous persons. Erasmus, after Jerome, renders it constituti , not factil There is also much fallacy in Mr. Newman's other remarks on the subject. He says, “ Who will deny that Adam’s sin is both imparted and imputed unto us?” and he argues hence that the present passage must, and does assert, a communication of actual or inherent righteousness. But, while the slightest taint of sin is sufficient to constitute a man a sinner, it requires such an in- fusion of righteousness as shall blot out every taint of sin, and restore man to such an innocence as he possessed before the fall, 1 “Compose and constitute are said only of those things which have complex forms : the former as respecting the material ; the latter, the es- sential parts of an object.” — Crabbers Syn. “ Whatever is so put together as to form another thing, is made ; a chair or table is made.” — Idem. This may help to illustrate the present passage. The difference between con- stituting and making is, that in the former an alteration is made by the introduction of some additional element ; in the latter, by a change of the character or form of the original elements. 270 st. Paul’s epistle to the komans. to constitute him righteous. As we receive from Adam both the guilt and the taint of original sin, so we receive from Christ de- liverance from the dominion, as well as the guilt of sin, actual and original; but it is only in His righteousness that we can trust to answer God's justice, the inherent righteousness which we receive from Him never is, never can be, such as to enable us to stand before God in it. According to Mr. Newman, KaOio-rrjiu , however, means not only to make but to establish. Now, as he holds, that whatever is stated of Christ or of Adam antithetically to one another, must be interpreted in the same way on both sides, it may be asked, whether we are established as sinners by Adam, or whether we only receive from him that corruption, by refusing to restrain which, and in the exercise of our own wills, we become esta- blished sinners; and if it cannot be said that we are established as sinners by Adam ; so, upon his own principles, the meaning that we are established as righteous persons, in the way of actual and inherent righteousness, is not to be here attached to what we derive from Christ. It would have been well, also, if the same author had kept in mind his own declaration, Lect. V., of the inconsistency of taking one clause of a sentence, or one point of a resemblance, and rejecting another, in his remarks in his eleventh lecture. Dis- cussing in it the apostolic definition of faith, he says — “ There is nothing in the text to confine its definition to religious faith, ex- cept the indirect expression ‘ hoped for,’ which no one would say was strictly part of the definition .” If verbal criticism were conducted on principles so lax, and if it habitually took such liberties as this, it might indeed make the Scripture a nasus cereus , and shake all confidence in anything but an infallible interpreter. One of our best divines, who has written largely on the subject, and clearly proved that desirableness, as well as truth, is an object of faith — 1 mean Thomas Jackson — would have protested very strongly against this quiet dismissal of one half of an inspired definition of faith 1 ; and no verbal critic, of ordinary judgment or fairness, would have taken such a liberty with the sacred text, or have pretended to take for granted, that the signification at- tached to a word in one or two passages of Scripture, even if incontestably proved in those instances, established that meaning wherever the word occurred. 1 See remarks on vi. 17, where some of Jackson’s words are quoted. SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. 271 The following arguments, proving that the word Succuoco is used in the forensic sense of pronouncing just, and of absolving from guilt and punishment, and not in that of making just by an infusion of inherent righteousness, may be added. First, The antithetical expressions are all of a forensic character: thus Rom. viii. 33, Who shall lay anything to the charge of, or bring any accu- sation against (iy/caXeaei), the elect of God? God that justifieth (o Si/ccuwv). Who is he that condemneth? (6 /carafcplvcov) Now, it is very evident that men are not freed from judicial charges or condemnation by a transformation of character, or an infusion of innocence, but by a judicial declaration; which judicial declara- tion constitutes the man innocent in the sight of the law, and is his protection from all penalty. Secondly, The various words used in connexion with the subject of justification point to a judicial, not physical, process. Thus, Acts xvii. 31, we have an indictio judicii ; Rom. iii. 19, the guilty silence of arraigned crimi- nals; a judge, a tribunal, a criminal, passim; an accuser, John v. 45, Rev. xii. 10, ei alibi; an advocate or pleader, Rom. viii. 34; redemption from the curse of the law, Gal. iii. 13 ; acquittal (i afacTH ; et 7rape<7t?), Rom. iii. 17. Thirdly, The synonymes of hiKatoco have no reference, and cannot be applied to an infusion of inherent righteousness. Such is the one just examined, kclOi- ardvcu Blkcuov ; so also dpapncov and 7 rapeo-is dpapTrjpd- tcov can refer only to the forgiveness of existent sins, and not to the acceptance of an inherent righteousness. KaraXkcuyr ), “ re- conciliation” (2 Cor. v. 18), is a word of forensic derivation, and at least indicates, like afecris, something to be pardoned. So also ov pg \oyt%€Tcu dpaprlav denotes that there is sin which is not reckoned ; for what blessedness could there be in covering or not imputing the sins which, owing to the presence of an inherent righteousness, did not exist ? (see Carpzovii Strict.). The only passages which can, with any show of reason, be adduced to con- trovert the forensic meaning of Si/caioco, seem to be Dan. xii. 3, the apocryphal passage Ecclus. xviii. 22, and Rev. xxii. 11. Even if proved to have, in these cases, the sense of making just, the circumstance would not materially affect the question; because the dogmatic exhibition of justification is not the subject of these passages. Wherever justification is the express subject, and its cause, and manner, and benefits are set forth at large, the forensic sense is clearly to be taken, as is admitted by many Romanists in particular passages enumerated by Bishop Forbes. Marinarius in 272 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Rom. viii. 33,34, Vega besides many other passages vi. 7, Tole- tus, Estius, Pererius, Tapper, Bellarmine, and many others. — Forbesii Cons. Mod., p. 151. Of the three passages above referred to, that in Rev., as the only one in the New Testament that can with any fairness be adduced as having the sense of making righteous, is the most im- portant; and it seems difficult to see how it can be made to bear such a meaning. Can it for a moment be supposed that the expressions, He that is unjust let him be unjust still , and He that is filthy let him be filthy still , mean, Let these respective persons become more unjust, more deeply filthy? The passage clearly imports, that they who are not influenced by God’s matured and perfect scheme for turning men from sin to righteousness, will have no other vouchsafed to them, but will remain in their sinful state; and that those who avail themselves of the gospel remedy, and continue in God’s favour, will, in virtue of so doing, continue in a justified state, and in the enjoyment of its sanctifying influ- ences. The word en is frequently translated more ; but wherever it means increase, it is indirectly and always an increase by con- tinuation, not of greater degrees. Why yet (ere) am 1 judged as a sinner ? i. e. Why do I continue to be so? (Rom. iii. 7). Can they die any more ? (Luke xx. 36), i. e. Can they die again? How shall we that are dead to sin live any longer (ere) therein ? that is, not How shall we sin more deeply? but, How shall we continue to sin as we used to do? (Rom. vi. 2). Why doth He yet find fault? i.e. not, Why doth He find greater fault? but, Why does He continue finding the same fault, or censure? (Rom. ix. 19, et pas- sim). Moreover, if Bc/ccuoco means there the increase of inherent righteousness, what is the use of the exhortation or statement of larger measures of holiness which is added? The passage in Daniel seems scarcely to require examination; for whether we speak of inherent righteousness, or that derived from Christ, man’s office is the same: he promotes righteousness by bringing sinners to Him who alone can either pronounce or make them inherently righteous; and there could, in this case, be no better translation than that of our common version — They that turn many to right- eousness. “ Pro certo igitur statuatur vocabulum justificationis in hac materia forensem significationem obtinere ; atque actionem designare Dei more judicis, ex lege Christi gratiosa, absolventis accusatum, justum pronuntiantis, atque ad prsemium justitise, i. e. vitam aeternam acceptantis.” — Bishop Bull. SECT. XII. — ADAM AND CHRIST, V. 12 — 21. 273 Verse 19 . — -flaTrep yap Sect rfjs nrapaKorj 9 rod evo? av0pco7rov agaprcoXol tear ear aQijaav ol 7 roXXol, For as by the disobedience of the one f the many have been placed on the footing of sinners. The coarrep here means as, quantum , so far as, and corresponds exactly with the e’’ q> of the twelfth verse. As far as the many have been placed in the character of sinners by Adam, so far shall the many be placed on the footing of righteous persons by Christ. That uxTTrep has sometimes the signification of quantum or 6 co is indisputable; see Matt.v. 48, Be ye perfect as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. See also John v. 26. As the many who existed since Adam’s fall have, without exception, or reference to personal transgression or character, been placed in the position of sinners to the extent of incurring temporal death, so, etc. Ovro) teal dta rrjs vTra/corjs rod evo? SUaiOL tcaraarraOrjaovrai ol 7 roXXol. So (tantum, to the same degree) shall all be placed in the position of righteous persons, that is to the extent of sharing in a resurrection . Ourco has the signification of tantum in several other passages. Mark ii. 40, John iii. 68, God so loved the world ; Acts xix. 20, xxii. 24, Gal.iii. 3, Heb.xii. 21, et alibi ; and in Ephes.v. 33, we find it in connexion with d)? to signify, as here, tantum , quantum. Let every man so love his wife even as (he loves) himself. Theopliylact uses fbairep and ovreo in the same way. The ol 7 roXXol probably refers to the multitudes upon whom the sentence of death had been actually executed, as in ver. 15. These shall be released purely by the interposition of another, that is, by Christ, from that penalty, to which they have been subjected without their own concurrence. KaraaraOrjcrovrac, not have been placed, but will be so, that is, at the general resurrection. Olshausen and some others have endeavoured to evade the difficulty attendant, in this and the preceding verse, upon their interpretation of the passage, by saying that St. Paul intended only to show the tendencies of Adam’s sin and Christ’s righteous work, and not what actually took place; or “ that mention is here made of the divine purpose in the work of redemption, not of its result;” and it has also been stated, that the design is not to describe all men as actually lost in consequence of Adam’s evil, or all men as actually saved in consequence of Christ’s good influence. All men actually though not finally die through Adam’s sin, as all men are actually raised through Christ. To apply the passage to purpose and not to result is, as Olshausen T 274 st. Paul’s epistle to tiie romans. himself says, to evade the obvious sense. “ As oi n roXXol is said as well of Christ as of Adam, i.e. n rdvres, it must be said to evade the restoration, that mention is made here of the divine pur- pose.” I quote, however, from a translation of his work, and perhaps the word translated evade is susceptible of a more becoming rendering; otherwise it is rather singular to talk of deliberately evading the sense of a passage. Although the interpretation given by Calvin, “ That the favour is spoken of as common to all, because it is propounded to all,” by no means meets the exigency of the case, or comes up to the force of the apostle’s language, yet it is pleasing to find him thus expressing himself. “ Nam etsi passus est Christus pro peccatis totius mundi , atque indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur ; non tamen omnes apprehendunt.” This shows that he held universal redemption. V ERSE 20. — Nofio ? Be TrapeiarjXOev iva TrXeovd T ° v avOpconrov 7 TapaSlScocriv. 1 — Theophyl. “ Mors autem dissolutio corporis est, cum anima a corpore sepa- tur. Est ct alia mors, quae secunda dicitur, in gehenna, quam non peccato Adae patimur sed ejus occasione propriis peccatis ac- quiritur.” — St. Ambrose. § XIII.— SOME OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF FREE MERCY CONSIDERED. THE OBLIGATIONS TO HOLINESS ASSOCIATED WITH IT, AS EXHI- BITED IN BAPTISM. GRACIOUS ACCEPTANCE AND HOLINESS INSEPARABLE. Chap, VI. 1 — 23. St. Paul answers the objection which might be suggested, by a misunder- standing or perversion of the concluding verse of the preceding chapter, namely, “ If where sin abounded grace did much more abound, why then not continue in sin, that grace may abound 1 ” He cautions be- lievers against entertaining such an inference for a moment, by shewing that the calling, hopes, character, and position of Christians are such, as to be utterly incompatible with a continuance in sin. The very initiatory rite, by which they were admitted into Christ’s church, was a baptism unto His death, whereby, in virtue of His meritorious passion, they were delivered from the condemnation of sin, for the very purpose 1 For the sin of Adam begot bodily and temporal death, but present sin delivers man to eternal death as its punishment. SECT. XIII.— BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23 . 279 of encouraging them and enabling them to live in that newness of life to which they were, at its reception, most solemnly pledged (ver. 1 — 3). He shews that a true participation of Christ’s death is always asso- ciated with a corresponding participation of His life, since the very end of participation in that death, or of the crucifixion of the old man, is, that the power of sin over believers may be destroyed, in order that they should no longer serve it. Regarding the penalty which had for- merly precluded all motive to obedience, because it had been already incurred, as now actually paid by their participation at Baptism in Christ’s death, they should look upon themselves as men who were de- livered from their apprehensions of an incurred penalty, by having actually and fully undergone it (ver. 4 — 7). He also shews, that, as the death of Christ for sin once for all pre- cluded all necessity for His dying again, and secured His life after His resurrection from all interruption on account of sin, since He then paid its full penalty, so a present and continued death to sin on the believer’s part was necessarily involved, and inseparably associated with his pros- pect of a future and continued life with Christ, and afforded the legiti- mate and strongest assurance of it ; since he, who is united to and identified with Christ in His death, cannot fail of being so in His resurrection and life (ver. 8 — 10). The apostle exhorts believers to regard themselves in this their true position, as already actually dead to sin’s demands, and as having even now entered upon their resurrection with Christ, and to yield all their powers and members to the influence of their new life and their close association with God. He shews that nothing but wilful sin has power to disturb this association ; for that God’s grace and mercy have de- prived sin of its condemning and ruling power, and will ever preserve those who truly serve Him from again falling under it (ver. 11 — 14). St. Paul also vindicates the doctrine of gracious acceptance and con- tinued forgiveness from the charge of antinomian tendency, by declaring that it does not extend to those who are guilty of wilful sins, and who are the willing servants of sin, but is limited to those who yield them- selves up implicitly to the dictates of faith in Christ; and of love and gratitude for what He has suffered for them ; who, under the influence of these principles, truly labour to obey God ; and who shall, therefore, find continued mercy for their short-comings to deliver them from de- spondency, and to stimulate them to fresh and increasing obedience (ver. 15, 16). * He then thanks God that the believers at Rome had passed from the service of sin, and from the dictates of a state without hope, to the dictates of a state full of hope towards God, and to the purity and holi- ness into which these principles mould the soul which yields itself up to their softening and plastic power ; and states, that although such mercy might justly make far higher claims upon them, yet, accommo- dating himself to the weakness of men, he only urged that they would at least give themselves up as unreservedly to the service and dictates of a state of faith and hope in God, as they had formerly done to those of a state of sin and condemnation (ver. 18 — 20). He shews that, when they 280 st. Paul's epistle to the romans. were under the yoke of the latter state, they had neither motive nor en- couragement to righteousness, but were utterly free and detached from it ; but that now, since they had been delivered from that awful state, they were under every possible obligation and inducement to obedience. They were the accepted servants of God ; the fruit of their service was a continual growth in holiness, and its end was eternal life, than which no stronger inducements could be conceived, either if viewed in them- selves, or if compared with the opposite evils that had been associated with their former state ; for, while the gift of God to His servants was eternal life, the wages of sin, that continually impended over its servants, was death, that is to say, eternal death (ver. 21 — 23). Verse 1 . — TL ovv epovgev; impbevovyiev t fj apaprla , iva rj ifkeovacrr ) ; What shall we say then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound. By many commentators, St. Paul is supposed to enter here upon the subject of sanctification. If by this it is meant that he commences a distinct and systematic discussion of sanc- tification, like that which he had given of justification; or that it is even the principal subject here, such a supposition seems to be ungrounded. Sanctification is an object of justification. The latter is intended to promote the former, and when both are mentioned, sanctification may have been supposed to be the principal subject, because the ulterior one. But this by no means follows, and sanctification occupies a subordinate position here, being merely introduced to vindicate the doctrine of justification by grace from any suspicion of its being indulgent of, or consistent with, licentiousness of life. The whole of this chapter is taken up in combating any suspicion of this kind, and in urging and enforcing the obligations and encouragements to holiness of life, imposed by a merciful and gracious acceptance to favour. It shews that these obligations and encouragements are associated with the initiatory rite of the covenant of mercy, and that none are its servants but those who yield an unreserved obedience to its dictates. The seventh chapter is occupied in proving the insufficiency of the law to effect sanctification, because it cuts off all hope of justification; and the eighth, not only in shewing that justification promotes sanctification, but in explaining the manner in which it does so, a process which is entered upon in the present chapter, and fully elucidated in the eighth. The mutual bearing and relation of justification and sanctification, and the dependence of the latter upon the former are very copiously illustrated; but of sanctification, as distinct from justification, or as the prominent subject, there seems to be no systematic treat- SECT. XIII. t — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 281 ment in any part of the argumentative section of the epistle. It informs believers how they are to become holy, and why they are bound to be so; but it is by shewing them how a man is to be righteous in the sight of God, and by pointing out the unspeakable blessedness which attaches to such a state, and its constraining influences. VERSE 2. — Mr) ryivoiro * omve 7 ? to fda'K'riaga , /cal 'TTpcorr] rjgepwv i/celvrj rrp ? TraXiyyeveaLa^ rjgepa. — Basil in Terrot. They are now associated with Christ in His resurrection, and derive from Him those com- munications of grace and strength by which they are enabled to walk as He also walked. The object of their sepulture with Christ, by baptism into His death, was this — that, being released from their connexion with sin and its penalty, they might be delivered into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. They have then a fresh course set before them, are delivered from all former trammels, and are thus animated with a hope for the future, from which they would otherwise have been totally precluded. “ So that baptism is rather a sacramental consecration of us to under- take this fight with the works of our flesh, or corruption of our nature, than an utter extinction or absolute drowning of these enemies.” — Jackson. Verse 5. — El yap crvg(f>vTOL yeyovagev to) 6 go loo gar l tov 6a- vdrov auTov, aWa /cal rrjs avaardaeo)^ eaogeda, For if we have become homogeneous with Him in the likeness of His death , then at least we shall be so in that (supply 6 goto) gar l) of His resurrection. Hvg(j)VTOi is found only in this passage in the New Testament. “ In profane authors it very often occurs, like avgcfrvr}*;, in the signification, grown together, thence, united, bound together. This sense is perfectly suitable here; the faithful are considered as grown together with Christ in one unity.” — Olsh. 11 Zvgtyv- 286 st. Paul’s epistle to tfie romans. tol Grsecis dicuntur, quae in unum coalescunt, uti surculus insitius cum arbore.” — Kultner. “ For if we plauntid togidre been made to the liknesse of His death.” — Wickl. “ Be graft in deithe lyke unto Him.” — Tynd., Cram. “ For if we be graft to the similitude of His death.” — Genev. u For if we be become complanted to the similitude of His death.” — Rhehns. If we have been identi- fied with Christ in His death, surely He will identify us with Himself in the benefits of His resurrection. He will quicken us to a happier state of existence than that to which we have died. The death with Christ is our choice; the life with Him is His gift, which will be bestowed with more readiness in all cases, than the co-dissolution with Him was chosen in any. El yap iv Oavarw i/coLVcovrjcras real ra(pjj, 7 roXXw paXXov iv avaardcret /cal 1 — St. Chrys. El yap direOdvopev cruv Xpiarw Sod rod (3anr- TLcrp,aTO<;, uLarevopev on real ttjv iv /catvoryrt £corj<; dvdaracriv e^opev del irapovaav rjpev . 2 — Theophyl. There is in this passage, as in Rom. viii. 10, 11, a reference to a double resurrection: 1st, to newness of life ; 2ndly, to eternal life. The former is referred to, principally at least, in this verse; the latter, in the 8th verse. Perhaps they are not contradistin- guished in a more marked manner, because they in a sense con- stitute one resurrection. The life which begins at baptism is the first step in the resurrection, and the final resurrection is the attainment of the perfection of that life. All the Greek Fathers suppose that there is a reference to a double resurrection ; a sup- position which is supported by a comparison with 2 Cor. iv. 10 and 14, in which the reference is to a new life here, and to a glorious life hereafter. Auto? Be TrpoKeipevys Tfi? pevovar]^, ere - pav rjpas avdaracnv airatTel, rrjv Kaivrjv iroXiTelav, rrjv /card tov 7 rapovra filov, i/c rrjs reov Tporrcov pLerafioXrjS yivopuevrjv. "Orav yap 6 iropvos y evrjrac crdxppcov, kcll 6 i fXeoveKT^ eXeypcov, teal 6 Tpa^vs rjpepos, teal evravOa avdaracnv yeyovev itceivi /? ovad irpo- olpuov . 3 — St. Chrys. “ So also shall we be partakers of the resur- 1 For if you have participated in death and burial, much rather (will you do so) in resurrection and life. 2 For if we have died with Christ through baptism, we believe that we shall always have the resurrection in newness of life present with us. 3 But He demands of us another resurrection, the new conversation in the present life, consisting in a change of manners ; for when the fornica- tor becomes chaste ; and the covetous, pitiful ; and the rough, gentle ; even in this there is a resurrection, which is the beginning of that (other resurrection). SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS. VI. 1 — 23. 287 rection, because we have attained that resurrection, which consists in good works.” — Theophyl. “It becomes you therefore to live a new life, and agreeable to Him by whom you have participated in the resurrection.” — Theodor. “ This (baptism) is one resurrec- tion, the delivery from sin ; the second resurrection is of the body. He hath given the greater, await we the less also; for this is far greater than that ; for it is far greater to be freed from sins, than to see a body raised.” — Tertull. VERSE 6. — Tovto opovvT€<; iv rfj /capBla tov (f>6/3ov, /cal rrjv iXiriBa els tov ' Irjcrovv e^ovTe? iv tw 7 rvevpLarL.l — Epist. of 1 For we descend into the water full of sins and filth, and ascend bearing u 2 292 st. Paul's epistle to the romans. St. Barnabas. “ Quid est mori peccato nisi damnandis opcribus omnino non vivere, nihil concupiscere carnaliter, nihil ambire? Ut sicut qui mortuus est carne, nulli jam detrahit, nullum aversatur, despicit, nullius pudicitiam callida circumventione corrumpit, nemini violentus existet, neminem calumniatur aut opprimit, non invidet bonis, aut insultat afflictis, non luxurke carnis inservit, non vinolentise deditus in se bibendi sitim bibendo magis ac magis accendit, non odiorum facibus inardescit, non compendia injusta sectatur, non potentibus aut divitibus adulatur, non inquieta curiositate raptatur, non domestic^ solici- tudinis curis distenditur, non officiosis occurrentium salutationibus delectatur, nec superborum injuriis fatigatur; non eum superbia inflat, non ambitio ventosa praecipitat, non vana gloria turpiter jactat, non desiderium gloriosae opinionis inflammat, non dis- tentio alieni actus illaqueat, non ad societatem turpi um tur- pi tud inis amor invitat, non rabies insani furoris exagitat, non sumptuosarum deliciarum studium mactat, non ardor animosae conte ntionis examinat.”— Prosper in C. a. L. As everything con- nected with Christ’s becoming a sin-offering, and that could in any way influence His position with the Father, has been re- moved by His death, and as in His exalted state He is now re-admitted to a perfect communion with the Father, so consider yourselves as living to and united to God, as made one with Him in Christ at baptism. This union has been effected by Christ, and is to be ever maintained by Him, in the continued bestowal of that Spirit, by which His people are all baptized into one body. VERSE 12. — Mrj ovv (3aoc\ev6ro) r] apapria ev Ovrjrcp vp&v oro pan, els to vircucovecv avrf} iv rals eiriQvpiais avrov , Let not therefore sin reign in your mortal body to obey it in the lusts thereof. The employment of the word fiaoLXevco in this verse, and of icvpievco in the 14th, marks a distinction well worthy of obser- vation. The latter of these words is significant of a compulsory or usurped power; the latter, of a legitimate one, grounded, not like the former, merely upon the power of the ruling party, but upon a voluntary submission on the side of the party governed. Thus, in the 9th verse, the word Kvpievco is used to signify the transient dominion of death over our Lord, to which, as one who was holy, harmless, and undefiled, it had no inherent right; in on our heart the fruit of the fear (of God), and having hope in Christ in our spirit. SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 293 consequence of which, though for a time subjected to its power, -He finally overcame it, leading captivity captive. In the present verse, fiaaikevoy is employed to point out with emphatic precision, that nothing but an acquiescence on their own part can give sin the dominion over Christ’s people. They are encouraged reso- lutely to refuse their assent to its solicitations, and to resist its aggressions, by the assurance, that, if they do so, they shall be safe from its dominion ; for that the power which it once pos- sessed over them has been effectually broken, so that if they do not themselves permit it /3ao-ikevei,v, to reign as an acknowledged king over willing subjects, it shall not tyrannize ( ov tcvpcevcrei) over them against their will. Baaikeia rvpavvL$o<; hcafyepei Tavrr), tw rrjv pev rvpayvlSa a/covrcov ylveaOac rcov vtttjkomv^ rrjv Be ftaaLkelav f3ovkop,evcov tojv ap^opuevcov. 1 — Theodor. “ He does not say, Let not the flesh live, neither act, but let not sin reign. For He came not to subvert human nature, but to rectify the will. Moreover, to show that we are not kept by force or necessity in the power of wickedness, but of our own free will, he does not say, Let it not tyrannise, which would have implied a necessary subjection on our part; but the word he uses is reign . And surely it would be absurd for those who are bound for the kingdom of heaven to take sin for a queen, and to choose to be her captives when called to reign along with Christ. As if one were to cast a diadem from his head, and prefer to be the slave of some demoniac, beggarly, and ragged female.” — St. Chrys . “ Think, he says, whether it be better to be the servants of sin, subjected to it of your own deliberate choice (i/corra? vira^op^k" you? ravry) for this is clearly what he means by ‘ Yield ye.’ ” — - Theophyl. The force and intention of Ovr^rw is cognate with that of re'Ao? in ver. 21; and both are antithetical to aiconos, and significant of the truth, that the struggles against sin, as well as its pleasures, are but for a season. Death terminates them both, and the very constitution of our bodies, which are corruptible dying bodies, is a, continual remembrancer of the rapid and inevitable appioach of that termination. “ And then, seeing it is hard to vanquish sin, observe how he proves that it is easy, and encourages us to the task by the words, your mortal body, shewing that our strug- gles are but for a season, and will speedily terminate.” — St. Chrys. 1 A kingdom differs from a tyranny in this, that the tyranny is over unwilling subjects, but the kingdom over persons willing to be ruled. 294 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. 'JBSeifje Se real rov 7 roXe/iov to 7 rpoaicaipov. 1 — Theodor. Qvtjtqj acbfiari Bet/cvvs oti rrpoaKaipos rj rrakr) rj 7 r/309 dpa prices. 2 — CEcumen. So Barnabas, in his 2 Epis. ad Cor., “Know, brethren, that the sojourning in this world of the flesh is brief and of a short space.” “ Significat et certamina contra peccatum, et oblec- tamenta peccati, esse tantum temporaria.” — Willetus. The words avrfi eV reels imQvplaes avrov } are rejected by Griesbach and some other critics. Avrfj alone is retained by Mills. Verse 13. — Mr)Be rrapeardvere ra pe\r) vge&v orrkce abuclces r rj dpaprla, Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unright- eousness unto sin. “N’abandonnez point au peche les membres de vostre corps.” — Mons. Fr . Bib. “ Ni ofrezcais vuestros miembros.” — P. S. Sp. B. The members are here spoken of as under the direction of something else, by which they are yielded up. They are instruments, not agents, things subject to the decision of a controlling power within. It may be asked, if the body is not an agent, and if its members do not exercise an influence in producing sin? As suggesting sinful indulgences, the body and its members no doubt do so ; and the irregular propensities of the body are the great element of indwelling sin; but the language here used clearly indicates the existence of something within the man, the consent of which must be obtained, before the sug- gestions of the body can be developed in action. “ It follows that the body is, as it were, a medium between virtue and vice, even as arms are. The works are either good or bad according to the use made of them, just as a soldier, contending for his country, and a robber, armed against his fellow-citizens, are armed with the same weapons. ... For if you gaze too intently on another’s beauty, the eye becomes a weapon of iniquity, not by its native power, for the office of the eye is to see, nor to gaze immodestly, but by the wickedness of the thoughts which con- trolled it.” — St. Chrys. “For the soul is as it were a certain musician, and the members the instrument. But if the instru- ment is badly struck, it sounds badly.” — Theophyl. “ He shows that the body is not bad, but the work of a good God. . . For it may serve God, if it is rightly and well governed by the soul.” — Theodor. “ Where are the Manicheans who say that the body is bad by nature? For it is a weapon. But a weapon is neutral 1 He shows the temporary nature of the war. ? Your mortal body, shewing that the struggle against sin is for a time only.. SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 295 between good and evil. To the soldier, the sword is a weapon for the citizens; to the robber it is a weapon against them.’’ This statement is, however, to be received with qualification. The body is under the control of the soul, but it also acts upon the latter, and is suggestive of sin. It counsels, as well as executes. The Manichean heresy tended to lead the orthodox Christians, in opposing it, to speak in strong terms against that error, and to underrate the body’s influence in causing sin. “ Surgit ira: noli dare irae linguam ad maledicendum ; noli dare irae manum aut pedem ad feriendum. Non surgeret ira ista irrationabilis, nisi peccatum esset in membris. Sed tolle illi regnum, non habeat arma, unde contra te pugnet. Discet etiam non surgere, cum arma non caeperit in venire.” — St. Aug . It was through the flesh that the law was weak and incapable of con- trolling men effectually. ! ’A\\a i Tapaaryjo-are eavrov 9 t<*> OeS, <09 i/c ve/cpcov fwvra?, /cal ra geXrj v/jlcov oirka hucaLoavvr)*; rat 0ec3, But yield yourselves to God as those that are alive from the dead , and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Yield up your souls implicitly to your connexion with God, as if already risen from the dead ; that you may be one spirit with Him, and that your bodies, being spiritualized by this union, may also be yielded to God and become instruments of righteous- ness to Him. Thus they will exhibit outward proofs of your union to God, in the full submission of your members to His will and guidance. Shuttleworth renders this clause — “ Surrender yourselves to God, living as though you had been already raised from the dead.” Verse 14. — Agaprla yap vgcov ov /cvptevaec * ov yap iare vi to vo gov dXXl vtto % apiv , For sin shall not have dominion over you , for ye are not under the law , but under grace } One great source of sin’s tyrannizing power was the conviction, on the part of its captives, that it had already irretrievably secured them as its victims, and that no future exertions could remedy past offences. All men had died in consequence of the first sin, without any discrimination as to their character or condition; this penalty was, therefore, justly regarded as inevitable. All who arrived at the period of moral responsibility had developed in action the sinful disorder within. Sin thus maintained its dominion, not only by its natural propensities, but by the absence of all motive upon the part of its unhappy subjects to resist its suggestions, and by the dictates of a state without hope. Their case was already desperate, and where a revealed law was possessed, as among the Jews, the irretrievable 296 st. paui/s epistle to the romans. ruin of those who trusted in obedience to it for acceptance was palpable. But by that grace which delivers men from the guilt of sin and sinfulness, both of which have been laid to Christ’s account, and fully expiated on His cross, our bonds are burst, our connexion with sin as a tyrannical ruler is dissolved, and all its attempts to resume its tyrannical dominion, either by recalling past transgressions, or by indicating its surviving existence within, in the suggestion of evil thoughts or indulgences, are completely baffled by the interposition of the body of Christ. This, like an insurmountable barrier and an immoveable bulwark, stays those waves which would otherwise engulph His people, first, in despondency, and then, in its natural consequence, recklessness of living. By resting on this they are encouraged to continued hope and to fresh exertions, to renewed and encreased obedience, which, by the Holy Spirit’s aid, are blessed with success. “But, in the mean time, he here shews, that unless we yield greatly to sin, it shall not overcome us; for there is not now a law only commanding, but also grace which remits sins that are past and secures us against future ones. For that indeed promised us crowns after our labours; but this has first crowned us, and then led us forth to the contest. But to me St. Paul seems not to indicate the whole life of the faithful man, but to institute a comparison between Baptism and the law, even as he also says elsewhere, that the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. For indeed the law itself convicts of transgression, but grace pardons transgression. As, therefore, that, by its accusations, establishes sin ; so this, by pardoning it, does not permit us to remain under sin. So that you are doubly delivered from this tyranny, partly because you are no longer under the law, partly because you are under grace .” — St Chrys. “For there is not now only a law which commands but gives no assistance, but grace, which both remits sins past, and fortifies us against future ones.” — Theophyl. “ It is evident that, by the law here, is not meant the ceremonial law ; for no one could suppose that the abolition of certain external rites would authorize men to break moral precepts. The freedom here spoken of is from the moral law, and the freedom from that law which the believer enjoys, is a freedom from an obligation to fulfil it in his own person for his jus- tification — a freedom from its condemnation on account of imperfect obedience. But this is quite consistent with the eternal obligation of the moral law, as a rule of life to the Christian. Nothing can be more evidently certain, than that, if the moral SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 297 law is not a rule of life to believers, they are at liberty to dis-> regard it. But this thought is abominable. The apostle, there- fore, rejects it in the strongest terms, in the way in which he expresses his disapprobation of what is egregiously wrong.” — Haldane. “As, then, the wisdom of the flesh is ever clamorous against the mysteries of God, it was necessary for the apostle to subjoin what might anticipate an objection; for, since the law is the rule of life, and has been given to guide men, we think that, when it is removed, all discipline falls to the ground, that restraints are taken away; in a word, that there remains no dis- tinction or difference between good and evil. But we are much deceived if we think that the righteousness which God approves of in His law is abolished when the law is abrogated; for the abrogation is by no means to be applied to the precepts which teach the right way of living, as Christ confirms and sanctions them, and does not abrogate them; but the right view is, that nothing is taken away but the curse to which all men without grace are subject. But, though Paul does not distinctly express this, yet he indirectly intimates it.” — Calvin. “ The man’s state is under the law, when it meets him like a strange thing from without, and, by its rigid commandment, checks and confines the life that resists it. This is not in itself a false, though a sub- ordinate state, which is to bring on the higher one of the life in and with the law. For in this state the law establishes itself as the inward principle of life itself; it appears as within on the tables of the heart, and as one with the will of man. Without law, or altogether above the law, the man can never be, for the law is the expression of the Divine essence itself.” — Olsh. Professor Hodge says, “ that law means the whole rule of duty, of which the Mosaic institution was for a long time a prominent part.” A substitution of his definition would, however, have a very singular effect. “ Ye are not under the whole rule of duty,” seems altogether inadmissible. The law here is clearly the Mosaic Law, and refers to the moral precepts as they are set forth in that law, associated with life as the reward of perfect obedience, and death for a single transgression. Believers are not delivered from the whole rule of duty by the gospel; on the contrary, that rule has been enlarged thereby, and connected with more powerful sanctions. They are delivered from the moral law only in one sense. A perfect fulfilment is not required to secure life, a single transgression does not entail death. “Ye are not under the law, 298 ST. Paul’s epistle to the romans. i.e., ye are not bound to the rigour of it, working for life, and ■continually tormented with the fear of death for every defect.” — Adam's Par. Explain the law here mentioned of any other than the .Mosaic Law and its conditions, and the greatest contradictions ensue. Verse 15. — TL ovv ; dpapTrjaopiev ore ov/c iapev viro vopov, dX)C in to x^P LV > PV 7 evocro, What then ? shall we sin because we are not under the law , but under grace ? Some commentators in- terpret grace in the present and the preceding verse as signifying the mercy and forgiveness of the Christian covenant, and others of the spiritual and gracious influence on the heart associated with it. It is evident that both of these tend to deliver from the dominion of sin; and the Greek fathers, as the quotations already given from them prove, combined both these meanings. That grace, in its aspect of pardon and mercy, is, however, the pro- minent and principal subject, is proved by the present question. It would be absurd to say, Shall we continue in sin, because we are under the influence of the grace of the Spirit, or under spiritual and gracious promptings? But it would be a caution of the greatest wisdom to shew, that freedom, through the mercy of Christ, fpom the law, as a means of justification, did not exempt from obligation to obedience to the law, but, on the contrary, rendered obedience more binding. The sense seems to be this — “ Sin shall not, either from its past developments or its present internal surviving, keep you in subjection, as if your case, owing to past transgressions, and to the presence of remains of unsub- dued corruption, was hopeless; for you are not under the law, but under grace. A ransom has been found: Christ has died, and you are so united and identified with Him, that, in Baptism, you are buried with Him; and the connexion both with in- dwelling and actual sin, as to their power of condemning, has been dissolved. What then? Shall we sin, because neither past trans- gressions nor the unextirpated roots of indwelling sin are reckoned as matters of condemnation to us? Because we are not under the law, but under grace, are we delivered to impunity in sin? Mr) yevdLTo. Far be such a thought.” “ Sed aiunt quidam, satis Deum habere, si corde et animo suscipiatur, licet actu minus fiat: itaque se salvo metu et fide peccare: hoc est salva castitate matrimonia violare; salva pietate parenti venenum temperare; sic ergo et ipsi salva venia in gehennam detrudentur, dum salvo metu peccant.” — Tertull. de Pceniten. “ Nati vitas salutaris non accepta, sed custodita vivificat.” — Cypr. in Grot. SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 299 Verse 16 . — Ovtc olSare, on a> Traptardvere eavrov 9 SovXovs eh in To/corjv, SovXol i, otl rjre SovXoc Trjs dpiapria^, v7rrjKov(raTe 8e etc /capita? els oy n rapebodgre tvttov Thanks be to God that ye were the servants of sin , but ye have 302 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine whereunto ye were de- livered. “ But ye have obeischid of herte in to that forme of teching in which ye ben betakun.” — Wickl. The structure of this sentence, by which the full expression of that which is the cause of thankfulness is suspended, and an intermediate reason assigned, which, unless an emphasis, indicating not only what is past , but what has ceased to be, is laid upon the naturally unim- portant word were, would give rise to any feeling but that of joy, leads to an apparent contradiction ; but, by embracing the whole verse in one grasp, this disappears. The cause of thankfulness was their obedience : the joy is heightened by this obedience being a transition from an opposite state of disobedience; as there is joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth. They had been lost, but were found. Viewed in this light, the structure is not only freed from the appearance of embarrassment, but the connexion of ore with rjre, and not with vn TrjKovcrare, has an appropriate emphasis. Tyndale’s translation brings out this meaning. “ God be thanked, that though ye were once the servauntes of synne, ye have yet obeyed with herte unto the form of doctryne wher unto ye were delyvered.” So also Cran. Genev. Tholuck’s view, that the expression. Ye have obeyed from the heart, “ is intended to render conspicuous the idea of the free will with which the sinner first came to Jesus, and received pardon,” is not unsupported by some ancient expositors; but the reference seems rather to be to the present, than the past character of the obedience, as resulting from a faith which combined an inclina- tion of the affections, as well as a conviction of the understanding, embracing the doctrine not only as true, but as good. This has been well defined by Jackson: “ Suitably to this true philosophy, learned out of the best professors of that faculty, and (to omit other schoolmen) out of the wise and learned Gerson, I place faith neither in the will nor understanding, but in the intellectual nature, as subject to both these titles or appellations. The infer- ence hence taken is, that faith, although it be formally an assent, may be as immediately terminated unto the goodness, as unto the truth of revelations divine. And these being of all the matters that can be revealed or known, both in themselves and in respect of us, far the best, I make that faith which primarily distinguish- eth a true Christian from a hypocrite, or fruitless professor of orthodoxal religion, to be an assent or adherence unto revelations divine, as much better than any contrary good the world, the SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL BENEFITS, VI. 1 — 23. 303 devil, or flesh can present, to pervert our choice of what they prescribe for our saving health, or habitually to interrupt or hin- der the prosecution of their designs. By these deductions drawn forth at large in the sixth chapter” [of Jackson’s work], “ the reader may easily perceive the link between faith and works to be most immediate and essential.” — Jackson’s Preface , p. 9. “ It is gene- rally observed by all interpreters of sacred writ, that the terms: which it useth to express the proper acts or exercises of sense and understanding, still include those affections or practic faculties which are most homogeneal to them. The true reason whereof is, not because He who sees the heart, and inspires it with faith, speaks more vulgarly or grossly, but rather more metaphysically than many divines or philosophers do; as supposing the truth before specified, concerning the identity of the will and under- standing with the essential combination of truth and goodness in matters practical.” — Idem. Compare x. 10: With the heart man believeth unto righteousness. Bretschneider, in his Lexicon, gives to tvttov the signification of “ impressio doctrinae animis vestris insculpata,” to which the e/jL(f)VTo<; \oyo? of St. James (i. 21) might give some support; and in 2 Tim. i. 13 we have viroTvirwai ? vy lcuvovtcov \6ycov. “ A similar expression is found in Jamblichus, Vita Pythag ., l.xvi. p.58, Kal rjv avTcg ri }? 7 ratSeta ? 6 tvi ro? tolovto 9 .” — Tholuck. Compare also Horn, on Reading of Holy Scripture. “ And in reading of God’s word, he most profiteth not always, that is most ready in turning of the book, or in saying of it without the book; but he that is most turned into it, that is most inspired with the Holy Ghost, most in his heart and life changed into that thing which he readeth; he that is daily less and less proud, less wrathful, less covetous.” The real meaning seems to refer to the correspond- ence between a seal or mould, and anything which is cast into it, and receives a corresponding shape and impression. “ The teach- ing whereby ye were moulded anew.” u The mould of teaching into which ye were transmitted.” — Con. and Hows. “ As the apprehension of divine infallibility breeds an infallibility of per- suasion, or sure reliance on His promises ; so assent unto His goodness or imitable attributes assimilates our souls to them. Every object rightly apprehended or understood, imprints its similitude upon the apprehensive faculty. The divine nature must therefore leave an impression of stamp in our souls as well of His goodness, as His veracity: otherwise we apprehend Him, 304 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. •who is essentially as good as true, without any lively apprehen- sion of His goodness. The stamp or character of goodness divine, is as a touch to draw the soul, as the adamant doth the iron, after itself; and in this adherence of the intellective nature (once touched with grace) unto the celestial promises, the definition of saving faith is accomplished.” — Jacksons Preface, p. 10. “ Be- twixt every object assented unto, whether as good or true, and the faculties of our souls which it concerns, there must be such a correspondence as is between the character and the letter en- stamped. Our assent unto God’s longsuffering and forbearance of obstinate sinners, will quell unadvised anger against our brethren; our infallible belief of His mercy towards ourselves, and His readiness to forgive our trespasses, though in number infinite, against His most infinite majesty, will cause us to forgive our fellow- servants their offences against us, not until seven times only, but until seventy times seven, k. t.X.” — Idem , book iv. c. 8. By some critics, the construction here is regarded as similar to that in iv. 17, tvttov being put into the accusative instead of the dative, and being governed by eh instead of by v7ryKovaare, or else put into attraction with the relative which is governed by eh. Stuart, however, states, that viratcovco may govern an accusative as well as a dative; and instances Prov. xxix. 12, Deut. xxi. 18. He would construe thus : viryicovcraTe tv7tov BiBa^y^ ....... eh ov TrapeBoOyre. De Dieifs remark upon the last clause is curious. After observing, that the Syriac rendering corresponds in sense with the Greek and Arabic, and in its root with the Syriac, he adds: “ Tamen monemus verti id simpliciter posse, cui credidistis nam — quod 4 conjugationis est sive hiphil, proprie est tradere , ut apud Syros: deinde peculiariter usurpatur pro tradere se Deo, id est, credere. Et quia Mudammedani existimant, solos se vere credere et Deo esse traditos, specialiter dicitur de eo qui religio- nem Muhammedicani est amplexus: inde passim in historia El- macini ..... ille tradidit, id est credidit, factus est Muhammeda- nus, Mussimus tradens, credens, id est, Muhammanus — Islamis- mus, traditio, deditio, fides, religio Muhamedica. Id plane convenire cum phrasi apostolica, nemo non videt.” Verse 18 . — •’ EXevOpcoOevres Be airo Tfi? dgaprla^, eBouXfnOyre rfj Bucaioavvy, But being made free from sin , ye became the servants of justification. Having been delivered from sin and its claims and bonds, the position of believers is now the very reverse of w T hat it was; they are free from sin, and become the servants of SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL OBLIGATIONS, VI. 18 — 23. 305 justification. This manumission is dated from the period of their union with Christ by baptism into His death. Then they were buried with Him, and their connexion with sin, and with its claims as a master, was dissolved as completely as the connexion of a buried man with all the obligations of this life is dissolved. After this they came under the bond, and became the servants, of justification. Released by the death of Christ from the tyranny of sin, His people, by their union with Him, formed a new con- nexion. As indwelling sin, in the exercise of its condemning power, had excluded all motive to resist its operative and reigning power, and had kept them in a state of hopeless, and consequently unresisted, bondage; so now, justification, by destroying the con- demning power of sin, and annihilating this great source of its strength, made them the servants not only of God, but of justifi- cation itself. This was the bond by which they had been restored to God’s service, and by which they were bound to Him as by the strongest possible tie and obligation. Their change of service took place, and its continuance was maintained, under the influ- ence of justification, by which they had hope towards God. God was now their sovereign ruler; but a constant sense of His mercy in Christ, and of their acceptance through Him, was indispensa- bly necessary to preserve them in their new allegiance ; for, with- out this, their case would be hopeless; and where there is no hope, there can be no service. The highest obligation, and the strongest ground for encouragement to embrace and adhere to the service of God, are drawn from justification by faith; so that the apostle justly speaks of it as the bond of their service, and of them as its servants. VERSE 19 . — (' 'AvOpamivov \ey co Sici t rjv aaOeveiav crap/co? vfjLwv), I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh. Either “ I accommodate myself in illustrating Divine things to the language of common life,” or “ I only make such demands upon your service to God as men speak of, because of the prevalence of low views of Divine things, originating in the weakness of the flesh,” or, perhaps still better, “ I only speak of such a service as men expect and can cbnceive, because of the weakness of your flesh, which lets and hinders your services, and prevents them from being so devoted and perfect as they would otherwise be. On this account I do not require such a service as your obligations to God deserve, but such as you can very fairly be expected at the least to yield.” “ I will speake grossly because x 306 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. of the infirmitie of youre flcshe.” — Tynd ., Cran. This ex-» pression is said by Beausobre to be a Cilician phrase. C’est une phrase de Cilicie, comme St. Jerome l’a remarque. — Hieron. Ep. cli. Quest. 10. "flcnrep yap TTapeaTrjcraTe ra pAXg vpd>v Sov\a rfj dtcaOapcla teal rfj avofxla eZ? rr)v dvoplav, For as ye have yielded your members to be the slaves of impurity and of iniquity unto lawlessness. The yap serves to connect the fact of their having been the slaves of sin with the manner in which their subjection and continuance under its power had been accomplished. By once yielding to its suggestions, under the influence of some of its diversified forms, as of impurity or covetousness, their condemnation upon legal terms was sealed; for the legal terms are, “ Do, and thou shalt live; transgress, and thou shalt die.” Every one is cursed who \ continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. The consciousness of this, in proportion as it pre- vailed, would blast all hopes of acceptance on the plea of obeying, and tend to lead them to resign themselves, at each successive offence, more entirely to the future dominion of indwelling sin. In proportion as their case appeared hopeless, a recklessness of living would be induced. Here was one step in riveting its chains. But there is another pointed out, and that is, the ten- dency of transgression to induce lawlessness of living, from the influence of habit. Each transgression must have shocked the moral sense grounded on the knowledge of a law, and a lawgiver and judge, and induced a disregard for its authority; and each successive indulgence contributed also to strengthen the evil propensity in which it originated, for man is the creature of habit, and is never stationary in character. “ Unto iniquity,” that is, unto further sinning. For after you have committed some sin, you rest not satisfied with this, but have it as an incite- ment to further sin.” — Theophyl. “As ye have yielded over your bodies and souls to be servants to uncleanliness and all kinds of iniquity, from one degree to another.” — Bp. Hall. “ El? rrjv dvoplav. Ita ut quo tidie pej ores fieretis.” — Gi'ot. “ It is a beau- tiful saying of the Talmudists, in Pirke Aboth — ‘A good action is the reward of a good action, as a wicked action is punished by a second.’” — Tholuck. That a difference of sense is intended between r rj dvopla and eZ oh vvv eircucr- 'XyvecrOe, What fruit had ye then in these things , whereof ye are now ashamed ? There is an ellipsis of i/ce lvwv before icf) oh. 'Eiraia- 'Xyvopuu usually governs the accusative, but is here construed with ii tl. The habits which they had thus formed, so far from being of any value, were sources of shame to them. Their complete destruction was now one of their most earnest desires. The time past of their life connected with them was worse than fruitless. They had derived no advantage from them then, they were ashamed of them now. “ Now ashamed, intimating that in the state of nature they were not ashamed. They were now ashamed, under the new light, whereby they saw them in their nature, not before, under their natural darkness, when their eyes were closed.” — Cham. To yap tgXo? e/celvcov ddvaros, For the end of these things is death. Death dissolves our present constitution, and terminates these indulgences. They were, therefore, unreasonable, and un- worthy of immortal beings, whose habits and tastes should be formed with reference to eternal existence. This seems certainly to be the sentiment expressed here, and in the 12th verse, by the use of Ovtjtu) , mortal, as well as in the 13 th verse of the eighth chapter. It seems very questionable, whether anything would be gained by forcing upon the passage the meaning of eternal death. St. Paul naturally brings forward every influential motive. Eternal death is one, but there are others also. Here he brings into prominent notice the truth which influenced Moses in his choice, namely, that the pleasures of sin are but for a season; and endeavours to impress upon those whom he addresses a con- viction of their unprofitableness from this consideration, as well as others which he had already adduced. “ Truly the wages of sin, even in this life, are poor wages. Ask the covetous, self- seeking, money-loving man, what his sin has given him? He will answer, if he speaks sincerely, restless nights and disappointed 310 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. days. Ask the revengeful, malicious, envious hater of his neigh- bour, what he has enjoyed? a heart like the troubled sea . Ask the intemperate, the impious, the sensual, the reveller, what their sin has brought? a wretched family: a name of reproach: a ruined fortune: a broken constitution* These earthly consequences of sin are the earnest (so to speak) now given to testify the will of God, and prove the nature of His government. For these effects of sin are His appointment: He has so ordered the world that ungodliness has no promise in the present life, any more than in that which is to come.” — Sumner. Haldane insists upon death signifying here eternal death, and says, “ Death cannot be confined to natural death, for that is equally the end with respect to the righteous as well as the wicked.” In making this remark, he seems to have entirely overlooked the circumstance, that the end spoken of is not that of the righteous or of the wicked, but of their respective advan- tages. It is natural death which terminates the pleasures of sin or of the wicked; but it only introduces the righteous to the full enjoyment of the pleasures of holiness. VERSE 22. — Nvvl Be eXevOepcoOevre^ airo tt}? a/iaprla 9, BovXwdevres Brj to3 @e&, e^ere roy /capirov vgoiv eh arjiaapbov' to Be re\,os, tyogv aloaviov , But now being made free from sin and become servants to God , ye have your fruit unto holiness and the end everlasting life. Tyndale renders eh ayiaapubv, “ that ye should be sanctifyed.” The vvvl here is opposed to the ore in ver. 20 ; and the sense of the whole verse seems to be this, “ But now, being made free from sin, your former master, ye have become the servants of God; and, under the influence of the motives which bind you to Him, you have your fruit unto holiness; you are forming habits and dispositions adapted to your position as immortal beings, and to the consummation of your service, which is eternal life.” “To tcXo? commentators have given a variety of significations. Some make it synonymous with /cap7ro?. Erasmus and Schmidt, vectigal. Others, as Carpsovius and Krebs, penalty. We ought not, however, to give it a different signification from what it bears shortly after in reference to Bi/ccuoavvy. There it is different from /capirbs, and signifies issue, termination . Chr. Schmid, “ ultima linea flagitiorum.” “It is used in the same sense, Phil. iii. 19, 2 Cor. xi. 15.” — Tholuck. “ TeXo? may be rendered either finis or praemium, the ultimate result or the reward. It seems preferable to take the former SECT. XIII. — BAPTISMAL OBLIGATIONS, VI. 18 — 23. 311 sense here.” — Terrot. It may be objected that eternal life cannot be spoken of as an end. It cannot be a termination, but, from this very circumstance, it expresses, in the most forcible manner, that holiness and its pleasures have no end. When eternal life ends, they will end; not before. “Ye are made free from sin, and made servants to God; this is the righteousness of justifi- cation: ye have your fruit unto holiness; this is the righteous- ness of sanctification. By the one we are interested in the right of inheriting; by the other we are brought to the actual pos- session of eternal bliss, and so the end of both is everlasting life.” — Hooker , Serin, on Just. The antithesis of this passage is, between indulgences and tastes which can be gratified only in our present state of existence, and which our dissolution terminates entirely and for ever, and gratifications which death cannot ter- minate, but which will be co-existent with the being of those who possess them. The believer regards his sanctification as a necessary qualification and preparative for the enjoyment of his future state, not as the means of attaining heaven. VERSE 23. — Ta yap o^dvia rrjs dpbapnas, Odvaror to 8e yapLa-pia rov Seov, for) aldvios, iv Xpiard ’ Irjcrov tg3 Kvpl w gpidv, For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord. Death will assuredly terminate the plea- sures of sin, because death has been inseparably and inevitably associated with its very existence. Eternal life has, on the other hand, been as inalienably connected by God's free gift with a union to Christ Jesus our Lord. Both arc, therefore, equally certain to their respective adherents. 'Oyydviov means a soldier’s pay, and xapLcrpa is supposed by Rosenmiiller to contain an allusion to the donations which the soldiers received above their pay. EIttoov oyfrcovca apLaprtas enl rcov ^prjo-rdv ov ttjv avrrjv ir^prjcre rd^cv. Ov yap ehrev 6 puaOos rcov KaropOcopudrcov vpL&v aWa to 8e % dpLcrpba rov Seov , Sec/cvv? on ov/c oltcoOev aTrrjWdyrjaav , ovBi ocjreiXrjv direkafiov, ovSe apboiftrjv ical dvrlSoatv ttovwv , dWa Tavra rravra eyevovTo. St. Chrys. “ The cases, we observe, are not the same. Death is the wages of sin — that which it has deserved or procured. Everlasting life can never be wages ; 1 Having spoken of the wages of sin, he does not observe the same order in speaking of good things. For he does not say the reward of your good deeds, but the free gift of God, shewing that they had not been reconciled of themselves, nor had received anything due, nor a return nor equivalent of their labours, but all these things came of grace. 312 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. for man can never earn or merit it; but it is the gift of God , the free gift of God, reserved in heaven for those, who “ being jus- tified by faith, have peace with Him, through Jesus Christ; and * who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and honour and immortality.’ For them God has prepared a gift, beyond what we can either desire or deserve ; even life eternal.” — Sumner. § XIV.— THE BELIEVER’S LIBERATION FROM THE LAW AND HIS UNION TO CHRIST. HOPELESS STATE OF DESPAIR TO WHICH THE LAW CON- SIGNS THE MAN WHO SEEKS JUSTIFICATION ON ITS TERMS, AND FROM WHICH GOD DELI- VERS BELIEVERS BY CHRIST. Chap. VII. 1—25. St. Paul has, in the sixth chapter, proved the liberation of believers, by union to Christ in Baptism, from all the claims of sin ; and explained and urged the powerful obligations to holiness imposed upon them, not only by their liberation from the penalties and power of sin, but by their having been taken into the service of God under the bond of justification. He now proceeds a step farther, and proves their freedom not only from the claims of sin, but from those of that which was the strength of sin, namely, the law. He shews the absolute necessity of a disso- lution of their connexion with the law, as a means of justifying, because that connexion could not possibly bring forth anything but condemnation (ver. 1 — 5). It was a connexion between an imperfect and sinful nature and a perfect and rigorous law, which made no allowance even for sinful incli- nations ; a law, which proclaimed death for a single offence, and by which a sinful desire was accounted an offence. Such being its character, even the most self-righteous man that had ever lived, or that could possibly be conceived, could not, inheriting, as he did, original sin, be without sinful desires, or just before God, on the terms of the law. On the con-! trary, just in proportion as he strove for the attainment of the righteous- ness which it demanded, would he find the attempt vain and useless, and the more convinced would he be of his inevitable condemnation. 1 1 “ Les Pharisiens, qui etoient les grands adversaires de St. Paul, etoient dans un principe oppose. Ils enseignoient que la raison, eclairee par la loi, pouvoit domter toutes les passions, et nous en avons une preuve dans la petit traits, que Josephe, qui etoient Pharisien, a intitule, ‘ de l’Empire SECT.XIY. — LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1—25. 313 The struggles, conflicting feelings, and final and hopeless disappoint- ment of a righteous man, who, as touching the law, was blameless before men, but whose total inability to staunch the deadly issues of in-dwelling sin, so as to shut out sinful desires from his breast, rendered justification by the law utterly unattainable, St. Paul describes by his own experience, and also the agony of despair from which God’s mercy in Christ had delivered him. Verse 1 . — 'H ayvoelre, aBe\(f>ol ; Know ye not , brethren ? The apostle had briefly stated (vi. 14) that believers were not under the law, and that they were thus secured from sin’s lording it over them, because it was deprived of its strength. He had also shewn the fallacy of supposing that their being released from the law as a law of acceptance, in which point of view it gave sin its strength or condemning power, was calculated to promote im- punity in sinning. He now proceeds, after having shewn that no such consequence followed, to establish and prove at length their freedom from the law, and the necessity of such a liberation ; and addresses them in the same terms which he had used in vi. 3, Or are ye ignorant ? This form of expression is significant of the existence of a reason why they should not be ignorant, and one, which is afterwards expressed, namely, their knowledge of the law. ( Tlv( 0 (t/cov(tl yap vopov \a\co ), For I speak to those who know the law. The Judaizers not only knew the law, but were eager in their endeavours to bring the Gentile converts into subjection to it; and, in their communications with them for this purpose, they would probably have imparted a knowledge of its leading features in so important a point as that of the conjugal relation. This phrase is, however, in all probability used to intimate that his address is now specially to the Jewish converts, and is one of the several instances in the epistle in which the Jewish converts are at one time specially intended, and the Gentiles at another. The Gentiles had never been under the law, the Jewish converts had. This part of the epistle is therefore specially addressed to de la Raison sur les Passions.’ C’est ce traits qu’il se propose moins de faire l’Histoire de la Constance et de la mort des Machabees, que de montrer le pouvoir, qu’a le Libre Arbitre, de vaincre les passions quand il est eclair^e et fortifie par la Loi de Dieu. Or cornme St. Paul prouve 6videm- ment le contraire dans le chap. vii. de cette Epitre, il est fort vraisemblable qu’il attaque cette opinion des Pharisiens, et qu’il veut prouver que ce n’est ce, qu’il n’y a que l’Evangile que puisse justifier l’homme.” — Beaus, et L'Enf. 314 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. them, proving, that so far was the gospel from requiring the sub- mission of the Gentiles to the law, as a means of justification, that it delivered even the Jewish believer from it in that respect. I think it is Melancthon who says, “ To this third head of ob- jections the apostle, in the beginning of this chapter, gives a perspicuous answer, affirming (that which was now necessary to be known, though, perhaps, it formerly had not been affirmed to the Jews at Rome) that they were now no longer obliged to the ob- servance of the ceremonies of the Mosaic law ; which being to Paul revealed from heaven, Ephes. iii. 3, among the many reve* lations which he had received, 2 Cor. xii. 7, he thus declares to them, preparing them first by shewing the reasonableness of it by the similitude of a husband and wife.” "Oti 6 vdyao? Kvpievei rov dv0pco7rov e ocrov % povov £7, That the law lords it over a man so long as he lives . However irksome its restraints may be, however galling its yoke, he is not at liberty to shake it off, so long as he lives. This is the principle of the law. Connexions entered into under it are dissolved only by death. Some commentators supply voybo? before £7, as if the apostle had said, So long as the law liveth. But this does not seem at all natural, nor does it harmonise with the fact, that, in the 4th verse, where the construction would have led us to expect that the law would be spoken of as dead, St. Paul goes out of his way to avoid such an expression. Instead of saying, that the law was dead — which would agree most perfectly with the preceding con- text, and with the liberation of believers from their connexion with it, and their liberty to form another alliance — he says, that they themselves were dead. The interpretation which supplies avOponro 9 before £7 is also supported by the t,d)vn avBpl that fol- lows in the next verse, which is closely connected with the pre- sent verse by a yap, and also by the parallel passage, 1 Cor. vii. 39 : The woman is hound so long as her husband liveth. Zfj 6 avrjp avTrj?. Verse 2. — 'H yap vTravhpos yvvrj tg> &vtl dvBpl BeBerai vopuw, For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth. There is certainly no case in which a connexion is more galling, when not associated with those bonds of affection which keep the legal or compulsory bond out of view, than the conjugal, owing to its closeness and indissolubility. It was for this reason that the disciples said to our Lord (Matt. xix. SECT. XIV— LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1—25. 315 10), that, if a man might not send away hi» wife, it was good not to marry. r 'T7rav8po Oew, That ye should be married to another , even to Him who was raised from the dead , that we should bring forth fruit unto God. fi United to Christ by baptism into His death, and thus dead to the law, the object of His death and yours was, that you might be united to Him in His resurrection; and, drawing from His fulness, bring forth fruit unto God, or form dispositions suited to your present union and your future pros- pects.” At baptism, and in virtue of justification by Christ’s death, and his participation in it, the believer was not so freed from his old connexion as to be at liberty not to form another; but he at that time incurred obligations which rendered it im- perative upon him to enter upon a new union. This was the object for which he was released; and the release itself imposed the obligation of entering upon it. “ Then to prevent them saying, If we do not choose to live with another husband, what then? For the law does not indeed make an adulteress of the SECT.XIV.— LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 317 widow who lives in a second marriage, but for all that it does not force her to live in it. Now that they may not say this, he shews, that from benefits already conferred, it is binding on us to choose it : and this he lays down more clearly in other passages, when he says, Ye are not your own; and, Ye are bought with a price.” — St. Chrys. Christ died to liberate them from the thral- dom of their union, and rose again to espouse them to Himself, and to enable them to bring forth fruit unto God, and to become meet for their eternal inheritance. They were, therefore, bound to Him by every tie of gratitude for past deliverance, and of happiness and hope for the future. Verse 5. — "Ore yap rjgev iv rfj (rap/cl , ra rraQrjgara rd>v dp,apncov, ra Boa rov vopiov ivrjpyeiro iv Tot? pieXeaiv rjpLcov, et? to Kapiro(f)opr](Tat tw Oavdrw, For , when we wer'e in the flesh, the affections of sins which were such by the law worked in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. To be in the flesh, means either to be in our natural unrenewed state, or under Jewish rites and ceremonies (Gal. iii. 3, Phil. iii. 4). Here it seems to mean the unrenewed state of persons who were under the law, and thus to combine both. “ II faut seulement bien remarquer, que dans cette endroit etre dans la chair , signifie avoir les passions char- nelles, et n’avoir que la loi pour les reprimer.” — Beaus, et L’Enf. To be in an unrenewed state, and at the same time under the law, was the heaviest possible bondage. The ra too vogov refer to the clear declaration of their sinfulness by the law. By it the promptings of indwelling sin were declared to be so many sins. Kal ov rrpocreOrjKe, yivopieva, aXY drrXw? Sid rov voyov, rovrean ra Sid rov vogov tyaivopieva. 1 — St. Chrys. “ The motions of sin, which were by the law, the passions which the law condemned, and showed to be sinful — these kept us in a miserable state.” — Sumner. Stuart regards ivrjpyeiro as Mid., Bloomfield as Depo- nent. The bringing forth fruit unto death, is antithetical to the pre- ceding bringing forth fruit unto God, and should be interpreted accordingly. If fruit which was the result of union to Christ, such as springs naturally from the relation of believers to Him, and which is offered up to. God and well-pleasing to Him, but the acceptance of which on His part is for the believer’s advan- tage, is meant in the one case; then, fruit which arose from union 1 And he does not add, that were caused by the law, but simply, By the law ; that is, that were shown by the law. 318 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. to tlie law, such fruit as sprang naturally from the intimate and indissoluble connexion of a being of flesh, a weak and erring creature, with a law which embraced even the desires, and which was as rigid and unbending as it was comprehensive in its require- ments, is meant in the other. The fruits of this union might be regarded as a service offered to death, which was the inevitable consequence of such a union. In the one case, God is regarded as the believer’s exceeding great reward; and in the other, death is described as the reward of the fruit produced by union to the law. United to Christ, all the fruits of believers tended to God’s glory, and were the services of those who, in virtue of this union, had become servants to God (vi. 22); and who were under the continual influence of hope towards Him. The works of those who were united to the law had, on the contrary, tended to death; and were the services yielded to a hated master by those who lived under the continual influence of a dread of Him. This is the spirit of bondage referred to in viii. 15, under which be- lievers are represented as having formerly groaned; which they had not again received, and to which they were not likely to desire to return. VEKSE 6. — Nvvl Se /carrjpyrjOrjpLev arro rov vo/iov , arroOavovre^, iv o5 KareL'Xo/jLeOa, But now we , having died , are completely delivered from the law , by which we were kept back. The position of drroOa- vovre ?, which, in the Greek, comes between the law and in which , cannot be retained in English ; because it would give rise to an ambiguity, as to whether it was the law or the believer who had died. From this ambiguity the Greek is free, owing to the varia- tion in number and case of the participle ; while the insertion of drroOavovres immediately after the declaration that we are freed from the law, marks it out more strongly as alleging the reason why we are so, than if it had been inserted before /carrjpryrjOrjpev. The expression, “ When we were in the flesh,” in the preceding verse, and the reference to the effects of the law in the next verse, point to a description in the present chapter, of the effects of the law on a man in an unregenerate state. That, from which be- lievers had been kept back by the law, was a union with God. To this their connexion with the law opposed as insuperable a barrier, as the life of a husband opposed to a wife’s lawful con- nexion with another man. For diroQavovTes, some manuscripts read airoOavovros, and some rov Qavdrov. For these there seems to be little internal evidence, or none. It was not the law, but SECT.XIV.— LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 319 believers, who were spoken of as dead in tbe 4th verse; and, in accordance with that, we must apply the death in question to them here. The peculiar position of the airoOdvovres, which has been accounted for above, probably originated these, as conjec- tural emendations (comp. Gal. iii. 23) . "flare hovXeveiv fjpas eV Kaivbrr\n 'jrvevparo<;, /ecu ov 'TraXaLorgri ypapparos, So that we serve in newness of spirit , and not in oldness of the letter . The service which directed its attention to a for- mal and literal obedience, was independent of God, and estranged men from Him : that which directs its attention to a spiritual obedience, or an obedience of the inner man or spirit, as it is the consequence of union to Christ, is one of filial dependence, and produces both an increasing conformity to Him, and a closer and more perfect union day by day. The expressions, oldness of the letter and newness of the spirit , are one of the several proofs which this chapter affords, that the Mosaic law is meant, and that Jewish believers are principally intended. They invariably mean, when thus contrasted, the Jewish and Christian dispen- sations. Verse 7 . — Ti ovv epovpev; 6 voyu-o? dpapria; Mrj yevouro • d\\d rrjv apaprlav ovk eyvcov, el prj 8ia vopov , What shall we say then , Is the law sin ? Far be such a thought. On the contrary , I had not known sin but by the law. “ What inference shall we draw from these premises? Do they give any reason for sup- posing that the law is sinful in itself, or the cause of sin? Far from it. On the contrary, I should not have known the existence of a principle within me opposed to control, if a law had not been imposed, if I had not been made aware of a constraint against which it rebelled. 'Apaprla pev ovk cart, < prjal , yvcopLan/co 9 Be tt)? dpaprlas ” 1 — Theophyl. Trjv re yap eiriQvplav ovk y&eiv, el pg 6 vopo<; eXeyev, Ovk €7ri0vprjaeL ? Ka6co\tK(brepov pepiKcorepov. 2 — Theophyl. 1 had not known inordinate desire except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. This was the first and most hidden development of the sinful principle or disordered constitution 1 It is not sin, he says, but the discoverer of sin. 2 A law differs from a commandment as a general from a particular. 320 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. within ; and if there had been no law constituting and marking its existence to be sinful, those who, like St. Paul, were, as touch- ing the law, blameless, and who were free from outward trans- gressions of the commandments, might have obtained life by the law. But the commandment which said, Thou shalt not covet , precludes the possibility of any mere child of him, by whom the original nice balance of the human powers and faculties has been destroyed, and a preponderance given to those which are at best earthly, and which, in their excess and natural course, proceed from earthly to sensual, from sensual to devilish, from obtaining life by the law, or being justified before God. “For the law hath done its part, given us knowledge that the very desires of the heart are sins (and that distinctly in the tenth command- ment), which I had not known had not the law distinctly told me that it was so, and set circumcision as an emblem of that duty of mortifying all carnal desires.” — Hammond. “For men are never so destitute of judgment but that they retain a distinction in external works; nay, they are constrained even to condemn wicked counsels and sinister purposes : and this they cannot do without ascribing to a right object its own praise. But coveting is more hidden, and lies deeper; hence no account is made of it so long as men judge according to their perceptions of what is outward. He does not, indeed, boast that he was free from it, but he so flattered himself that he did not think this sin was lurking in his heart. For though for a time he was deceived, and believed not that righteousness would be violated by coveting, he yet understood at length that he was a sinner, when he saw that coveting, from which no one is free, prohibited by the law.” — Calvin. Law here is clearly the Mosaic law, and the com- mandment its tenth one. The reference also is clearly to its moral, not its ceremonial, requirements. Te with yap corre- sponds to the Latin namque. Vitringa (in Wolfius) observes, that the word ivToXrj answers to the Hebrew WB, which pro- perly signifies the moral law. Verse 8. — ’Afopprjv Be Xa/3ovaa r) agaprla Bia rf}<; ivToXrjs KarecpyaaaTo ev ep,ol 'iracrav emOopuiav^ But sin , taking occasion by the commandment , wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. In the preceding verse, the Apostle gave a special illustration of the knowledge of sin as conveyed by the law; and the com- mandment was indicated which is most searching and efficacious in its character, discovering and laying bare the most secret SECT. XIV. — LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 32 1 motions of the heart. He now proceeds to show how the law, through this particular commandment, had convicted him of a sinful nature, and condemned him. Sin, that is, indwelling sin, took occasion or advantage of this commandment, which was of such a nature as to give every facility for a successful attack. It made its assaults upon his safety by the avenue which so searching a commandment opened. Its success in precluding him from a triumphant resistance, and from the retention of a legal righte- ousness, was greatly promoted by the circumstance, that the transgression of this commandment, particularly in its fainter degrees, was often not perceptible in his approaches to it, but only in the actual commission ; and thus sin succeeded in working in him various breaches of this precept. This verse has been very generally interpreted as if it had asserted that sin wrought in the person here spoken of all manner of sinful desire by means of the commandment. But this is quite reversing the apostle’s meaning. The tenth commandment, so far from increas- ing sinful desires, tends to repress them. It was not, therefore, for the suggestion of increase of sinful desire, that indwelling sin availed itself of this commandment ; but, for the condemnation of all those sinful desires which it had itself wrought, and, through the condemnation of them, the condemnation of the man who had entertained them. The occasion which it took from this commandment of the decalogue, was not the increase of concu- piscence, but the condemnation of the man, so as to preclude him from a legal righteousness. This was the point of assault, and, from want of keeping this in view, the whole passage has been much misunderstood. It is not the being convicted of the increase of sin, but of its actual existence and commission in any degree , or against any commandment that excludes a man from righteousness by the law; and the tenth commandment is the most fatal to all hopes of such a righteousness, and the most accessible avenue for the attacks of indwelling sin upon a legal hope. The meaning of the whole seems obvious, and the illus- tration remarkably felicitous and forcible. Legal righteousness of the highest order is attacked ; sin is the assailant ; the necessity of not yielding even to inordinate desire, in order to secure a perfect legal righteousness, the most favourable approach for the successful attacks of sin, and one which man cannot effectually guard. In making an attack in war, from which the word acfrop/jurj, and the illustrations in general, are taken, those points are most 322 st. Paul's epistle to the romans. favourable to a successful attack, which can be suddenly carried. The facility is still further increased, if such point of attack is not much exposed to view; and still further, if it is a point from which no danger is apprehended by the party attacked, and which is, therefore, weakly guarded. Such is the point of attack to which the apostle refers, namely, the development in irregular desire of indwelling sin, or of a principle that refuses to be com- pletely controlled ; and that will not concede a perfect submission to anything but its own imperious dictates. The approaches to actions and words, the transition from thought to action, are marked; and no person, who exercises the most moderate degree of self-observation, can fail to detect the attack of the enemy in this quarter. The consciousness that our words and actions are under the observation of others, tends, at the same time, to quicken our watchfulness in this direction, and to guard it well. The prospect of sin’s victory on the side of words or actions, however great in itself, is faint, compared to that presented by the desires. The approach to the latter is so concealed, and the attacks of sin through them so instantaneous, that they are frequently known only by their actual presence, and their pos- session of our minds. This was the avenue which the apostle represents indwelling sin as choosing for its stratagems, a point which no -mere man has ever been capable of defending success- fully. Posted here, and keeping an unceasing and unwearied watch for its most favourable opportunities, how could St. Paul, in his unrenewed state, or any mere man, be expected to resist the attacks of so insidious and indefatigable an enemy; which was so closely associated as to be part and parcel of himself? It succeeded, and, not only once, but frequently, in suggesting desires at variance with all the provisions of the law. “ Toutes sortes de mauvais desirs .” — De Sacy . XcopU 7 ap vopuov ap.ap'ria ve/cpa , For without the law sin was dead. The death of sin does not intimate that the desires which the law prohibited do not exist where there is no law, but that they are not then sinful, and do not bring into condemnation. Their sinfulness and condemnation consists in their opposition to some law. Where no law is, there can be no transgression ; where no control, no insubordination. Sin would not have been sin, these desires would not have been irregular, if there had been no regula or rule, the opposition and contrast to which is the essence of sin. The rule not existing, sin is dead; SECT. XIV. — LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 323 because there cannot be an opposition where there is nothing to be opposed. VERSE 9. — Eyco Be e^cov ? vofiov TTore' eXQovarjS Be rr)oppur)V \a/3ovavfj dpaprla , Sia tov ayaOov poi Karepya^opevr) Odvarov , That it might appear sin working death in me by that which was good. SECT. XIV. — LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 327 That is, that its sinfulness might be made manifest in this, that it wrought out death or condemnation by that which is good in itself, or by its opposition to a holy, just, and good rule. "Iva ryevyrat, tcaQ' inrepfioXyv apaprcoXos rj apaprla Blo, rfjs iv- To\r}$, That sin might be made above measure sinful by this com- mandment . By its contrariness or contrast to the holy law, its defective character was seen; by its active opposition to it, and transgression of that which should have corrected its sinful ten- dency, its sinfulness was immeasurably increased, and became condemning guilt. The commandment which involved the per- fection of moral obedience, afforded the strongest contrast to the sinful or inordinate principle; and its trangression, the essence of guilt, which is in the desire. “ The rectitude of the rule, disco- vers the crookedness of our nature; the perfection of the law, the degenerateness of the soul ; the purity of the law, the pollution of the heart; the spirituality of the law, the carnality of our minds; the rule being altogether excellent, discovers a man altogether vile.” — Cham . Verse 14. — OlBapev he crap/avos eipbl, But I am carnal. The most powerful, vigilant, importunate, and unwearied principle within me is not my better part, not the original and lawful ruler and controlling principle; but the fleshly one, the one which derives its strength from my fleshly members, which are earthly in their origin, and sensual in their character, rebellious against their lawful ruler, the law of my mind, and against that God who at first placed them in subjection to it, and whose will it is that they should be sub- ordinate to my spirit, and through it obedient to His will. The gratifications of this fleshly principle consist not in obedience to God, not in being under the control of the spirit, which would guide in a manner consistent with the happiness of the whole man, and with the will of God; but in the abandonment to and indulgence of the solicitations of the members, without any regard to God, or to the spirit with which they are associated, or to ultimate consequences. TLei Tpapbevo? vi to ttjv apbaprlav, Sold under sin. Under the preponderance of a principle to which I have been surrendered by my first progenitor, a principle so unworthy of sovereign power, and so closely associated with my better part, I am sold under sin. The subjection in which I am placed is not owing to my own submission, but to the betrayal of another. “Hoc est venditum esse sub peccato’ ex Adam qui prior peccavit.”— Ambr. By him sin has been planted and rooted in my very constitution, and forms a part of myself; and now I am a hopeless captive, bearing about in my own person the grounds of my captivity. “For this is what sold means; I have been formally surrendered.” — CEcum. There is a great difference between one who sells himself, and one who is sold against his will. The latter is like the captive taken in war, who groans under his bondage, and 1 For by calling it “ spiritual,” he shows it to he a teacher of virtue, and hostile to vice. For this is to be spiritual, to dissuade from all sins. SECT. XIV.— LIFE UNATTAINABLE BY THE LAW, VII. 1 — 25. 329 sadly drags the chains that hind him : the other is a willing slave, who embraces his chains, and who himself rivets them. Verse 15. — -O yap /carepyd£op,aL ov yivd>(TK(D, For what I effect , I know not. “ I vnderstonde not that I worche.” — Wick . “Because I wote not what I do/’ — Tynd. “ For that which I vvorke I vvnderstand not.” — Rheims. That is, the state of mind produced and effected by this connexion and bondage, I per- ceive not, or do not know. It is not effected knowingly or in- tentionally, or with premeditated design, as an object which my mind sets before it and pursues. The force of yivcba/cco here is to be traced to the intimation given of the existence of two opposite principles, each of which, as the man is alternately or more strongly under their respective influences, is spoken of as the man himself. Here it is the nobler which is spoken of, and which the inferior or baser principle, as the most powerful and importunate, overbears. Unceasingly at work, it produces effects which influence the whole man, not only against the remon- strances, but even without consulting, as it were, the nobler part, or obtaining its consent, and, particularly, it works all manner of inordinate desire. Its proximity to the avenue of desire is so close, its operations so insidious, that the mind is often not aware of the attack but by the presence of the enemy within the gates, nor of the solicitations of the members, until the desire is fully developed. Not to know what he did, referring the word “ did” to actions, would seem inconsistent with a sane mind; not to know or per- ceive the effect produced upon him in the way of desire by the insidious, unceasing, and infinitely varied operations of the leaven of corruption within, until these effects exhibited themselves, is not only free from absurdity or contradiction, but strictly true, — consistent more or less with every man’s experience, and strongly expressive of the insidiousness of the attacks of indwelling sin, and of the imperceptible operation of the old leaven. “ I know not,” he says, “ what I do, how I am deceived and hurried away unto sin, for I am stolen away so that I almost know not what I suffer.” — (Ecum. “ But he wishes to show its deception.” — Idem . Ov yap o OiXco tovto Trpdaaco , For not what I would do I. Not what my nobler part dictates, do I. The standard at which I aim I do not reach. The sinful principle, by withdrawing and distracting the energy of my desires from nobler objects, inter- rupts and mars all my higher aims. 330 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. klA-V o /uotw, tovto 7 toloj, But what I hate that I do. That is, The desires which my nobler part teaches me to hate are the ones which obtrude themselves imperceptibly upon me, or so insidiously and unceasingly, that I cannot guard against them so effectually as to obtain justification by the law. Thus I may be said, in this sense, to do what I hate, or to transgress the provisions of a law which my mind approves; since he that lusteth, were it but once, hath committed uncleanness, and he that hateth has been guilty of murder. “ Non quod volo, ago, sed quod odi malum hoc facio. Quia concupisco. Quod ergo bonum ago? Quia concu- piscentise malae non consentio. Ago bonum et non perficio bonum. .... Ago bonum, cum malse concupiscentise non consentio, sed non perficio bonum, ut omnino, non concupiscerem.” St. Augus- tine marks in these words the true sense of KaTepya^ojiat, viz., perficio. “ Frequenter irripit terrenarum illecebra cupiditatum, et vanitatum offusio mentum occupat, et quod studeas vitare, hoc cogites animoque volvas. Quod cavere difficile est homine, exuere autem impossibile.” — St. Bern, in Forbes Con. Mod. “ Quid est hoc Lucili, quod nos alio tendentes alio trahit? et eo unde rece- dere cupimus impellit? Quod colluctatur cum animo nostro, nec permittit nobis quidquam semel velle? Fluctuamus inter varia consilia: nihil libere volumus, nihil absolute, nihil semper.” — Seneca , epist. 52. Verse 16 . — El Se o ov de\a), tovto ttolo), crvfi(j)r)/u t&> vo/md, otl /ca\o ' Irjo - ov , fjurj Kara cap/ca irepiTrarovaLV aXka Kara 'rrvevp.a, There is Ihere- fore now no condemnation to them that are in Christ Jesus , who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. Those who are free from condemnation are specified as those who are in Christ Jesus. This union is the source of their freedom; that they walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit, is a proof of that union to Christ, in virtue of which they are dead, — to the law as a means of justification' — to in-dwelling sin, strengthened by the law, as a source of condemnation — and to their former close connexion with in-dwelling sin, and its consequent ascen- dancy in suggesting desires at variance with the law. By their union with Christ another element has been introduced within the man, and one which interposes between him and the sug- gestions of in-dwelling sin. The force of the vvv here seems to be quite neutralized by those who apply the preceding chapter to the regenerate, and who deny that the apostle refers in this verse to a transition from a state of condemnation to one of safety. The obvious and natural inter- pretation indicates a time and circumstances, in which condem- nation impended, and a transition to circumstances in which it no longer existed ; and directs our attention to justification as still the principal topic. “ And after this, when the gospel is pre- sented, the soul enters into debates with itself, and makes a judicious comparison between the first covenant, and condem- nation by that, and the second covenant, and life by that. Here are flames of wrath, and there are rivers of joy; here is a lake SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 339 that burns, there is a paradise that refreshes ; here is a flying roll full of curses, which will seize upon me — there is a rich gospel, full of blessings, offered to me; here is a death to sinners that will not have God to reign over them — there is a life to believers that submit with the obedience of faith.” — Cham. Some critics suppose that this last clause has been inserted from the fourth verse. It is not found in the present verse in the Syriac, Yulgate, and Armenian versions. Whether it is the true reading or not, it may certainly be predicated of all who are united to Christ, that they walk not according to the flesh, but the Spirit. Verse 2 . — ( 0 yap V0/Z09 rov irvev pharos rrjs fov? Xptarp * It](tov , iXevOepcocre pie a7ro rov vopuov, rrjs apbaprlas /cal rod 6ava- tou, For the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and of death. The yap here is indirectly dependent upon the last verse of the preceding chapter. Jesus Christ has delivered me from the body of this death. Therefore there is no condemnation, tc. r. \. : because the law of the spirit of life, bestowed in Christ Jesus, by the deliverance already refer- red to, has made me free from the law of sin and death. The close connexion between the present verse and the first clause of verse 25 of the preceding chapter, is also shown by the transition from them in the first verse of the present chapter, to me in the second. This indicates that the whole forms one train of reason- ing, and proves that the apostle is speaking of himself, in chapter vii., as a self-righteous man seeking acceptance by the law, but finding that impracticable ; and in the present, of himself as one who has been delivered from the state of condemnation in which he found himself placed by the law. He says (vii. 24), Who shall deliver me? In verse 25 he thanks God for deliverance by Christ Jesus; in viii. 1, he adds, as a consequence of this deliverance, that there is no condemnation to those who, like himself, are in Christ Jesus; and then, in adducing the proof of this, he reverts to himself as the representative of the delivered class, and says, “ For the law of the spirit of life hath made me free.” In both cases, St. Paul speaks of himself as the representative of a class to which he actually belonged; before his conversion, to the self- righteous; subsequently, to that of those in Christ Jesus. “ Sub sua person^, quasi generalem causam agit.” “ That different per- sons are spoken of, or the same person in different states, is clear; for the subject of the former description says (vii. 14), that he is sold as a bond-slave to sin; at verse 23, that he is enslaved to the 340 st. Paul's epistle to the romans. law of sin. The subject of chap, viii., on the contrary, asserts that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made him free from the law of sin and death.” — Terrot. “ Ponit se pro exemplo, ut prius infirmitatum, et luctae, ita nunc fiduciae.” — Bez. et Par. in Poole , The sense of the verse seems to be this: The spiritual union with Christ, by which I was in baptism iden- tified with Him in His death and burial, justified by His resur- rection, and by which I know that because He liveth I shall live also, has, by its dictates and influences, liberated me from the law of sin and death, and from its dictates. The force of royao? here is clearly that of a controlling or ruling motive or dictate, such as is exercised by indwelling sin, or by the sense of hopeless condemnation. The first of these had formed the subject of the apostle’s description and complaint in the pre- ceding chapter; the latter is described in the 5th and following verses of the present one. The clearness of the passage has been much obscured, and its force greatly diminished, by endeavouring to explain away the literal and obvious connexion of voyuo? with tov Oavarov, and by refusing to give the same sense to royito? in both the cases in which it is similarly connected. And this seems to have led to a misapprehension of the whole passage, viii. 5 — 8. To begin with the first departure from the literal and obvious interpretation. The word “ law,” in the expression the law of sin, is generally and freely admitted to signify the influence of sin as a controlling and domineering power, dictating to the man desires inconsistent with the law of God; but the same sense is refused to the word “ law” in the expression, the law of death. The law or dictate of death, it is said, would hardly make a tolerable sense here. Accordingly, the interpretation has been effected so as to make what is supposed to be sense, either by introducing an amb before Oavarov, thus compelling it to signify, “ from the law of sin and from death” — or, without such an obtrusion, “ the law of sin and of death”; that is, which leads to sin and death. The interpretation, which refers these words to the Mosaic Law, seems scarcely deserving of a serious confutation, both from the inconsistency of calling that law a law of sin, and from its destroying, to a great extent, the antithesis which is here plainly intended, between the law of the spirit of life, and that of sin and death. The dictates of the Mosaic Law, and those of the spirit of life, harmonize perfectly in their character, both being SECT. XV. — FIIUITS OP JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 341 holy, just, and good. The dictates of the spirit of life, and those of sin and of death, are diametrically opposed. “ Ov rbv Mcovaecos vo/iov \eyei evTavOa , ovSa/jLrj yap avrov vo/iov dpuaprlas /ca\ei. 7 nw? yap; ov Bt/caiov teal aytov 7ro\\dfci<; oivopucre, teal dfJLapTLas avauperucov' aX\' etcelvov tov dvriaTparevopuevov tco vopLtp rov vod?. 1 — St. Chrys. An examination of the whole passage, including this verse and verses 5 — 8, will prove that, so far from not making a tolerable sense, and from requiring us to do violence to the obvious meaning and construction, “the law,” or “ con- trolling influence,” or “ dictate of death,” is emphatically the sense most consistent with the apostle’s reasoning, and one which frees some of the succeeding verses from an imputation of incon- sequence, from which they cannot otherwise be rescued, except by doing violence to some of the connective particles. It is evident, that death, in the sense of condemnation, must, in the very nature of things, exercise an influence of the most powerful character on the mind. An examination of the nature of the influence which it is calculated to exert, and a comparison of its character, when ascertained, with St. Paul’s language, may shew how far, and how closely it harmonizes with his train of reasoning. A state of known condemnation, as it excludes all hope, excludes, in proportion as it does so, all motive to future obedience; and the consciousness of one sin, involving, as it does under the law, certain condemnation, is quite sufficient to destroy the influence of all the restraints, which the fear of incurring that condemnation previously imposed — to lead to a compliance with all the suggestions of sin, except where the fear of man, or some such motive interposes; and to bring the persons, thus sensible of condemnation, to yield themselves up to the full and unresisted dominion of sin in future. It is also calculated to induce an aversion to the law, and a hostility to the law-giver and law- avenger, proportioned to the known or believed impossibility of escaping the condemnation, and to the certainty and magnitude of the punishment connected with it. 2 Lastly, it is calculated, 1 He does not here speak of the Law of Moses, for he in no place calls it a law of sin. For why 1 Being just and holy, he calls it often the remover of sin. But he speaks of that law that wars against the law of the mind. 2 The thunder from Sinai raises nothing but blackness and darkness, and storms in the region of the soul.” — Cham. “ The law, like a cannon, thunders only bullets and cursing, not a word of promise but to perfect righteousness ; therefore, a legal conviction cannot be attended with any melting fruit.” — Id. 342 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. when believed to be irremediable, to lead men to divert their attention from it, and to make the most of the passing hour ; to enjoy greedily those gratifications which are within their reach, and suited to their taste, and which may assist in banishing recollection and drowning care. How exactly does this coincide with the apostle's reasoning and language. Having fully explained the doctrine of justification, as one which removed condemnation, and thus restored life, hope, and a spiritual appetite, he represents it as the fruit of God’s love in giving His Son for this purpose, that the perfect righteousness which the law required might be fulfilled in those, who, united to Christ, were under the influence of spiritual principles, and not of carnal ones. “ Forf he adds, “ they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh that is, they mind those grati- fications which they have it in their power to enjoy, in the interval between the time of their sentence and its execution. For the thought of the flesh , or of man under its influence — that is, the object contemplated by carnal men, in connexion with God and the future, is death , as the execution of a sentence of con- demnation. Therefore , the thought of the flesh , or the disposition of the flesh arising from this view of God, is enmity ; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. Having once failed to fulfil the law, it has no motive, and, consequently, no power to be obedient in future ; since the mind cannot exert itself with- out a motive. Knowing that death has come upon all men, and regarding it as a sentence of condemnation which has never been, and never can be, evaded — ignorant of, and uninfluenced by a sense or even hope of justification, and of a consequent restoration to life, it considers the wrath of God as inevitable, and not to be appeased; and naturally abandons itself to those enjoyments which may banish the contemplation of so disagreeable a subject; and gives itself up to a rooted enmity against Him whom it regards as its bitterest, even an irreconcilable enemy, and to an utter disregard for His authority. “We cannot wonder that" man shuns, with instinctive aversion and fear, all those contemplations of futurity, and those only which, in conception, confront him with a just and holy God. . . . This is the parent of the multiplied devices of idle and active life, by which we contrive, with destruc- tive ingenuity, to rid ourselves of the intolerable sense of His pre- sence now, and to banish all consideration of the hour when we can escape it no longer. . . . This aversion springs from a sense of SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 343 our own impurity and of God’s holiness — from an apprehension of the strictness of His law, and the knowledge that we have never complied with its requirements, it is extirpated by a prin- ciple which deepens this sense of our own vileness, and exalts our apprehensions of His purity.” — O’Brien Ser. p.201. “An un- easy conscience — a conscience disturbed by sin, and not lawfully set at rest — produces wretchedness in a variety of forms; it generates fresh sin; it may even conduct its unhappy subject to the very extremities of blasphemous despair. — Biddles Bampt. Lect. p. 37. How completely does the general course of interpretation, and the theology grounded upon it, invert the natural order of reason- ing, destroy the force and point of the apostle’s argument, nullify the force of some of the particles, reverse that of others, and substitute for a closely and admirably linked chain of thought a nnmber of unconnected assertions or illustrations, the force of which, in the relation thus assigned to them, cannot be discerned. In the one case, we have a powerful and sufficient reason given for both that abandonment to carnal enjoyments, and that enmity to God, which characterize carnal men, namely, that the object which presents itself to their view in looking forward to the future is death, which is considered by them as their entrance either into a state of punishment, or, in its most mitigated form or aspect, as an inevitable termination of their career. Under the influence of this fearful prospect, they sedulously endeavour to divert their attention from it, and give themselves up aban- donedly to the gratification of the present moment. Let us eat and drink for to-morrow we die. The prospect of death stimulates their devotion to present and carnal gratifications. Again, the object which invariably presents itself in all their contemplations, or intruding thoughts of a superior power, is death, as an act of that power, which, regarded either as the commencement of a state of punishment, or as the termination of their enjoyments, is the most bitter, and the extreme act of hostility which that power can exercise, the indication of an unmitigated hostility. The contemplation of this can, therefore, give rise to nothing, on the part of those who suffer by it, but the deepest and most unmitigated rancour, which nothing can remove, but the conviction that death is not an indication of God’s wrath against us, nor a final condemnation; but that, through God’s mercy in Christ, it may be disarmed of its sting, 344 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. and we may have hope in our latter end ; and this conviction the Gospel labours to produce. According to the other interpretation, we are told that they who are after the flesh mind the things of the flesh, because to mind the things of the flesh is death, a most contradictory reason; or rather a perfect contradiction, if we make the connecting particle yap causal. Nor is anything gained by regarding that particle as significant of illustration; for how is the proposition, that they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh, illustrated by saying, that to be carnally minded is death. In the way of illustration there seems to be no point; and, as assign- ing a cause, it is perfectly paradoxical. Doddridge felt the difficulty of the passage as now interpreted, and says, “ Nothing can be more absurd than to say, that some minded the things of the flesh, because to do so is death.” Again, we are told, that to be carnally minded is death, because the carnal -mind is enmity against God ; and that this enmity against God arises simply from the circumstance of obedience being impracticable. How much more natural is it to trace the enmity to the association of God with death, as inflicted by Him, and in connexion with a law which man cannot obey, than to say, that man hates God, simply because he cannot obey Him, thus making the disobedience a matter of absolute necessity, instead of one which arises from want of will first, and then of motive, and representing the enmity, not as springing from perverted views of God as an in- exorable being which the Gospel corrects, but purely from dis- obedience to Him. That a man should hate God simply because he has disobeyed Him, is unintelligible; that, regarding Him as the inflicter of death, and the requirer of an obedience which man finds himself unable to render, and in consequence of which he is involved in hopeless condemnation, is as scriptural as it is consistent with the apostle’s reasoning, and with the connexion of cause and effect . 1 1 “ And indeed it is impossible for the Spirit to act in an ordinary way,, but according to the nature of that word which is presented to the mind. If a promise be applied, the proper consequent of that is comfort ; if a threatening be imprest upon the mind, the proper consequent of that is terror Therefore the Spirit can be no other but a spirit of bondage, exciting troubles in the mind, as it works by the law What terrors then must seize upon the spirits of men, and what distresses be rooted in their souls, when they consider themselves cut off from all hopes of mercy by the law, etc.”— Cham. SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17 . 345 If we proceed to tlie examination of the antithetical, or spiritual state of life and peace, it most powerfully confirms this view. While death terminates the career of the man who is still in the flesh, not united to Christ, nor by Him dead to in -dwelling sin and to condemnation; and is the ultimate object upon which, in regarding the future, or in contemplating a superior power, the eye of his mind rests; and, while it adds to an abandoned devotion to temporal gratification, and to a deep-rooted enmity to God; the man who is identified with God, and who has become dead to in-dwelling sin and alive to God, regards himself as already dead, that is, to all carnal and exclusively temporal gra- tifications. He is dead, and his life is hid with Christ in God. The body is mortified, and regarded as already dead, on account of its connexion with in-dwelling sin, which renders its disso- lution indispensable; but the spirit, the renewed mind, is life, or lives, because of justification. Under the influence of a con- viction of being in a state of acceptance with God, it overlooks the death of the body, casts forward its glance to the resurrection, and, animated by this hope of life and immortality, it lives already. As the body anticipates its death by mortification of its corrupt propensities, so the spirit, by anticipating its life here- after, enters now into the enjoyment of spiritual and holy plea- sures, in which its life consists. Thus, while death, as the end of his career, or the avenue to a fearful looking-for of wrath, is the gloomy object, upon which the occasional prospective glance of unjustified and unrenewed man rests, that, to which they who are after the spirit direct their view, is life. “ Faith glorifies God, unbelief vilifies Him; one justifies Him, the other con- demns Him ; faith works by love, excites love of God, and is ex- cited by it, unbelief works by hatred. Faith is the spirit that quickens all obedience; all the fruits of the spirit grow upon the root of faith, all the fruits of the flesh grow upon the root of unbelief." — Cham . “ Sed de peccato in quit condemnavit pec- catum in carne. Id enim egit mors Domini ne mors timeretur, et ex eo jam non appeterentur temporalia bona, nec metuerenter temporalia mala, in quibus carnalis erat ilia prudentia, in qua impleri legis prsecepta non poterant." — St. Aug. The man who is after the flesh, under the influence of the thought of death as a final and inevitable end, gives himself up abandonedly to the things of the flesh, making provision for it to fulfil the lusts thereof \ The spiritual man, that is, the renewed believer, on the contrary, 346 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. in the prospect of a future and spiritual existence, minds the things of the Spirit. The one, under the influence of the same view of death, regards God as a bitter enemy and hard task- master ; the other, regarding death in a very different light, looks up to God as his reconciled Father. His thoughts towards God, like those of God to him, are thoughts of peace and love, of love to Him who will raise believers from the grave to live for ever in His favour ; and thus he is saved by hope. This is the manner in which the gospel operates, and of which Professor Hodge well observes on chap. v. 1 — “It is peculiarly an evangelical doctrine that pious affections are the fruit of this reconciliation to God, and not the cause of it. It is when he thus sees justice and mercy embracing each other, that the believer has that peace which passes understanding, that sweet quiet of the soul in which deep humility, in view of personal unworthiness, is mingled with the warmest gratitude to that Saviour by whose blood God’s justice has been satisfied and conscience appeased.” Charnock thus speaks of the two opposite states of mind above described, in that aspect in which Satan and the Spirit of God are regarded as operating to produce them — “ The devil always, in setting sin before the soul, endeavours to drive it to despair , the Spirit to en- courage it to faith ; the one to sink it in despair of pardon, the other to excite it to a mourning for sin. Satan would drive it to blasphemy,” etc. Bishop Bull, on the other hand, seems quite to reverse the apostle's reasoning. He says, in explaining this verse, “ Spiritus file Christi vivificus, qui evangelium comitatur, liberavit me pri- mum a peccandi consuetudine, dein a morte seterna, quas consue- tudinem illam necessario sequitur.” Eternal death is not the result of sinful habits, but simply of sin; and every one is cursed who continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Moreover, the deliverance which the gospel affords is first from the guilt of past sins ; and then — through the sense, or at least hope, of justification, and by the consequent love towards God, and the assistance of the Holy Spirit — deliverance from the dominion of sin. The most powerful influence exercised in promoting future holiness is, under the Spirit, the trust or hope of past sins forgiven; and the whole train of the apostle’s reasoning proceeds upon this principle. We are first told, that our sins are forgiven us; and then told, to go and sin no more. This Hammond expresses in his remarks on vi. 14: “ It were the SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 347 vilest thing in the world for sin to have dominion over you who are no longer under the weak, inefficacious pedagogy of the law (which could only forbid sin and denounce judgment, but never yield any man that hope of mercy and amendment which is neces- sary to the working reformation in him, or checking any sin men are tempted to), but under a kingdom of grace, where there is pardon for sin upon repentance, and strength from heaven to repent, and no want of ability and encouragement to amend our lives. Tovtov yap tov yaXeirov /careXvcre iroXepov OavaTwcracra Trjv dpapTtav rj tov Trvev paros yapts, /cal TTotrjcraaa tov aywva /covava)aacra, /cat tot € peTa TroWfjs T 779 crvppayias eVl ra iraXalcrpaTa eX/cvaacra . 1 — St. Chrys. There is not in this verse an exact correspondence in the struc- ture of the antithesis dpapTtav /cal OavaTov , and irvevpaTos £ 0 ) 779 , which, although antithetical in the terms themselves, are con- nected in the one case by a teal, which is omitted in the other. For this there is doubtless a reason, and one worthy of investiga- tion. The influence exercised by indwelling sin, and by a state of hopeless condemnation, is fully described by the apostle; that of spiritual influence, or of a mind renewed in its spirit, is not described directly, but by its opposite or antithesis. The expression in Ephes. iv. 23, may help to indicate the sense in which “ spirit” is here used. In the preceding chapter of the present epistle, the apostle had referred to the law or dictate of his mind, as opposed to that of indwelling sin; but as inferior in strength, pertinacity, and undeviating adherence to its own sug- gestions, and thus brought into captivity by its more powerful antagonist, viz., the law or dictate of indwelling sin, and thence, to consequent hopeless condemnation, which tended to destroy all motive to obedience as useless, and to deliver the man bound hand and foot to the guidance of the dictates and gratifications of indwelling sin. But, he adds, Christ shall deliver me from the body of this death , abrogating by His death the condemning power of indwelling sin, and of its former actings; and neutral- izing its operative power by introducing other elements of resist- ance, namely, justification from the guilt and pollution of indwell- ing sin; 2 by which the Son makes us free indeed, and by an 1 For this grievous war did the grace of the Spirit put a stop to, by slaying sin and making the contest light to us, and crowning us at the out - start , and then drawing us to the struggle with abundant help. 2 “ It is no mean part of the manifold wisdom of God displayed in our 348 st. taul’s epistle to the romans. intimate union with Himself by His Spirit, by which the believer draws from His fulness strength in every time of need. By this union he becomes more than a match for his former conqueror; for where the Spirit of the Lord is , there is liberty. A man thus united to Christ is one of those against whom there is no condemnation; and in consequence of the bonds of this union, he walks not according to the dictates of indwelling sin, but of the spirit; that is, of that other principle within him which, in the exercise of faith, becomes united to Christ; so that he and his Lord are one spirit. From this union arises a new animus, new views, motives, and hopes; “the impulse of that new and godly life-principle which spiritual life with Christ im- parts.” — Heumann. At the same time, the co-operation of a supe- rior power in the conflict in which it is engaged, enables the mind to subdue and bring into subjection that antagonistic prin- ciple which formerly led it captive. The mind or inner man, when thus united, renewed, and invigorated, is justly designated by a different and higher title, significant of its superior elevation and power; and the subject of it is said to be renewed in the spirit of his mind. This is declared to be the process (Rom. xii. 2), and believers are urged to seek Christian transformation by the renewing of their minds , dvaKaivdoaet tov voo?. “ Quand il s’est agi simplement de l’esprit de 1’homme, S. Paul l’a nomine d’un mot qui signifie l’entendement (vii. 23). Mais il se sert ici d’un autre terme, qui designe l’Esprit de Dieu, et l’esprit du fidele, eclair e par l’Esprit de Dieu.” — Beaus, et LEnf. “ Man doth seek a triple perfection; first, a sensual, consisting in., those things which very life itself requireth, either as necessary supple- ments, or as beauties and ornaments thereof; then an intellectual, consisting in those things which none underneath man is either capable of or acquainted with ; lastly, a spiritual and divine, con- sisting in those things whereunto we tend by supernatural means here, but cannot here attain unto them.” — Hooker , Ecc. Pol., b. i. “ Semper in homine sunt homo interior et exterior, i. e. mens et corpus cum suis afiectibus. At ubi est novus homo, ibi vetus esse desiit. Qui hie o eaco av0pco7ros, is est 6 Kpoirro? ttj? naphta? av0pcD7ro ?. 1 Pet. iii. 4, 6 avdpcorrro? iv enaarov rrj naioi- kg)v. Philo.” — Grot, in Poole. The following beautiful passage salvation, that the Holy Spirit herein worketh according to the constitu- tion of our nature as described in the preceding lecture, and begins His great work by purifying conscience.” — Riddle, Bamp. Beet., p. 49. SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, Till. 1 — 17. 349 from Tertullian, De Anima, and quoted by Conybeare and How- son in loco , is to the same purpose: “ Omnis anima eousque in Adam censetur, donee in Christo recenseatur; tamdiu immunda quamdiu ( = donee) recenseatur, Nam naturae corruptio alia natura est ; ut tamen insit et bonum animae, illud principale, illud divinum et germanum, et proprie naturale. Quod enim a Deo est, non tarn extinguitur, quam obumbratur. Potest enim obumbrari, quia non est Deus ; extingui non potest quia a Deo est Sic et in pessimis aliquid boni, et in optimis nonnihil pessimi Propterea nulla anima sine crimine, quia nulla sine boni semine. Proinde cum ad fidem pervenit totam lucem suam conspicit. Excipitur a Spiritu Sancto, sicut in pristina nativitate a spiritu profano. Sequitur animam, Spiritui nubentem , caro ut dotale mancipium, et jam non animae famula, sed Spiritus. 0 beatum connubium, si non admiserit adulterium!” — C. 40, 41. These considerations may help to indicate the reason of the omission of /cal between 7 rvevparos and far)?. That which con- stitutes the intellectual principle a spiritual one, is its union with Christ, and the infusion of new motives, and consequently of new strength. The union is of a spirit with a spirit, in intimate association and communion of which faith is, in the use of God’s appointed channels, the means ; and justification and life in Christ Jesus is the object. “ The law of the spirit and of life” would not have marked the close causal connexion of justification and the hope of life in Christ, as the means, in association with spiritual union, of invigorating the intellectual principle and enduing it with a new character and superior energy; or rather, it would not have marked, that justification and the hope of life were themselves elements of that newness of the mind, by which it rose superior to its former conqueror, and was liberated from that miserable thraldom in which it had been previously held. The very existence of the spirit, as significant of a renewed mind in persons converted, as those whom St. Paul addresses were, in mature years, is dependent upon the presence of a sense, or, at least, hope of acceptance in Christ. The introduction of a /cal between 7 rvev paros and 7-779 £ft>?}9 would, therefore, have obscured the sense. The insertion of a /cal between apapria 9 and rod Oavarov in the concluding clause, is as necessary as it would have been super- fluous in the preceding one. Justification and life through Christ are the superadded elements which, in the hand of the 350 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Spirit, renew the mind in its spirit, infuse into it a new vigour, and stimulate it to obedience. Death or condemnation, on the contrary, is not the prime mover or source of the law, or dictate of sin, in the first place, but its consequence. It is necessary to say in the first place , because the law of death, or dictate of a state of hopeless condemnation, without doubt aggravates the corruption, and stimulates the power of that indwelling sin which caused the condemnation, and naturally leads to an unreserved and abandoned surrender to its biddings. The connexion be- tween the condemnation and sinfulness is, notwithstanding, very different from that between justification and the spiritual prin- ciple. The sinful principle is intrinsic to man ; the spiritual is extrinsic, and graciously bestowed. The former operates through its own power; the latter through union with Christ, and the influence of a sense or hope of acceptance. Verse 3. — To yap dSvvarov tov vopov, iv a> rjcrOevet Sea tt)<; cap/cos, For what it was out of the power of the law to do, in that it was weak through the flesh. It was not any imperfection in the law, but the imperfection of him who was its subject, that rendered a law, good in itself, fatal to man, as a means of justifi- cation, and inefficient as a rule of government and control. Stuart supplies iTrolrjo-e before dhvvarov. By others aZvvarov is regarded as a noun absolute after the Hebrew idiom. It may, however, be governed by Kara, understood and rendered. For as to that which it was out of the power of the law to effect. Erasmus renders iv & ea parte qua; Calvin, eo quod. Justification is still the leading and principal object which the apostle has in view. The law could not justify: God, therefore, sent His Son to effect the justification of sinful man. “ Tamen dixit earn infirmari, cum ab infirmis non posset impleri.” — St. Aug. This seems to be the passage more particularly in view in the following quotation from the Epist. ad Diognetum, and this the sense in which the writer of that epistle, supposed to be an apostolic father, regarded it. “ Ti yap aXko ra? dgaprias rjpwv iBvvqOrj KaXv'^rat, rj i/celvov hucaioavvr}; iv tlvl hucacwOrjvai Svva- tov tov 5 avopovs qpas /cal dcref3ei<;, rj iv povw ra> via* tov Qeov; 1 St. Chrysostom says, on the next verse, Ti yap i/celvos [yopof | 1 For what else but His righteousness could cover our sins? By whom could we be justified, lawless and godless as we were, but by the Son of God only. SECT. XV.— FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 351 e/3ovKeTO, kcu tL 7 rore eTrerarrev; ava/idpTrjTov elvcu. Tovto tolvvv KarcopOcorac vvv rjplv Bed Xplarov. 1 'O 0609 tov eavrov Tlov TrepL-^ras eV opoidopaTi crapKos dpapTlas, Kal Trepi apLaprias, Kare/cpive rrjv dpapTiav iv rfj aap/cl , God sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and, for sin, con- demned sin in the flesh. “ In the likeness of sinful flesh, that is, in a body like ours” — “ dans un corps semblable aux notres, qui sont des corps pecheurs.” — Beaus et UEnf. The expression 7 repl dpapTias ? refers to our blessed Lord's atonement. ApapTia is used to signify a sin offering as well as sin. “ In lege peccata vocabantur etiam sacrificia, quae pro peccatis offerebantur.” — St. Aug. But even if we do not give it that signification, the words rrepl dgapTLas are at once suggestive of our Lord’s propitiatory office, by which He taketh away the sin of the world. The con- demnation of sin effected by Christ was twofold. He overthrew not only its condemning, but its operative power. He not only offered an atonement for it, but left an example of successful resistance to all those temptations to which, in consequence of His assuming our nature, He was exposed. He was in all points tempted like as we are, but continued without sin. This successful resistance had a twofold object: it qualified Him for a sin-offering, which must be without spot or blemish ; and it proved what our nature, united to the Divine, Qould accomplish ; and it thus stands as a monument of encouragement to Christ's people to resist sin by close communion with God, and in that strength which is derived from being one with God and God with us. By the spirit which God gave unto Him, not by measure, Christ was enabled to baffle all the temptations to which men are ex- posed; by wounding Him to the death, God proved the guilt of sin ; His justice received a full satisfaction in that precious death ; and the condemning power of sin was destroyed. This verse describes the manner in which the deliverance referred to in such passionate terms in the preceding chapter, verses 24, 25, was accomplished by Christ. The /carefcpive evidently has a retro- spective reference to the ovBev /cardfcpipa, ver. 1 ; so that the sense is, There is no /cardfcpipa against them, because Christ has condemned ( /care'/cpive ), and for ever silenced their accuser, that is, sin. Verse 4 . — -Iva TO Bucaleopa tov vopov TrXrjpcoOfj ev rjptv, to 49 1 For what did the law require, or what did it command ? To be with- out sin. This, therefore has been accomplished for us by Christ. 352 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. fir) Kara crap tea, TrepLirarovatv, aXXa Kara irvev/ia , That the righteousness of the law might he fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, hut after the Spirit. By some commentators, the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law here spoken of, is, interpreted as re- ferring to the believer’s fulfilment of it in his sanctified walk. Such an interpretation is altogether foreign to the context, and to the drift of St. Paul’s argument. It may also be asked of those who hold this interpretation, Do believers in the most advanced and perfect stage of sanctification fulfil the righteousness of the law? Must they not at last, as at first, look for acceptance through Him who only has ever fulfilled it? Moreover it is not said that it is fulfilled vef> rjfieov, by us, but ev fjfiiv, in us. By others, who properly refer the fulfilment of the righteousness of the law to justification, the expression, who walk not after the flesh, hut after the Spirit , is regarded as merely intimating that sanctification is a consequence of their being justified; and the clause is supposed to be a guard against the perversion of the doctrines of grace. But it may be fairly asked, Do the words of the apostle, interpreted in their obvious and natural sense, intimate nothing more than a mere consequence? Does not the form in which they are couched intimate the class of persons in whom the righteousness is to be fulfilled, and confine it to that class? An ingenuous and unconstrained interpretation of the passage seems to point to that continued justification, by which faithful believers, walking in the paths of holy obedience, are, notwith- standing their daily infirmities, counted righteous, through the merits and continued intercession of Christ ; and to intimate, that in those, and those only, who thus walk after the Spirit, con- tinually mortifying their members which are upon the earth, is the righteousness of the law, daily and hourly, notwithstanding that at the best they come far short of its perfect observance, regarded as perfectly fulfilled, through Him who has died for their justification, and who has thus, by one offering of Himself, perfected for ever them that are sanctified. To pev yap Bovval aoi rov areepavov , eKeivow to Be Karaayeiv t a BoOevra, adv /cal yap orrep rjv Bucalcopa rov vopov to fir) yiveaQai virevOwov rrj apa , tout r)vvcre crol 6 Xpiaros. Mrj rolvvv irpoBep^ rrjv roaavrrjv Beopeav , aXXa fieve epvXarreov rov koXov tovtov Qrjaavpov. A e (fe- wer i yap evravOa croc , otl ovk ap/cel to Xovrpov f)fi2v eh aeorrjplav, av fir) fiera to Xovrpov ci^cov eTTiBet^eopeOa /3lov rrj 9 Bcopeas. “flare nrakiv rep vopep avvrjyopet ravra Xeycov. Kal yap fiera to SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 353 'rreiQrjvai rc 3 Xpcarcp, irdvTa Set iroieiv /cal 7rpaypaT€V€a6aL, ware to e/celvov hucaioapea peeveuv ev rjpblv oirep iirXrjptocrev 6 Xpicrro ' ?, /cal per) BcacfiOaprjvat ,. 1 — St. Chrys. “ Fides ad hoc proficit, ut, in primitiis credulitatis, accedentes ad Deum justificet; si deinceps in justificatione permaneat. Casterum, sine operibus fidei, non legis, mortua est fides ”~Hieron. Com. in Epist. ad Gal. iii. in Faber • “ These things did Christ, that justification, for that is the scope of the law, should be fulfilled in us.” — CEcumen. “ It is a childish cavil, wherewith, in the matter of justification, our adversaries do so greatly please themselves, exclaiming, that we tread all Christian virtues under our feet, and require nothing in Christians but Faith, because we teach that Faith alone justifieth: whereas by this speech we never meant to exclude either Hope or Charity from being always joined as inseparable mates with Faith in the man that is justified; or works from being added as necessary duties, required at the hands of every justified man. But to shew that Faith is the only hand which putteth on Christ unto justification, and Christ the only garment, which being so put on, coveretli the shame of defiled nature, hideth the imperfection of our works, preserveth us blameless in the sight of God, before whom, otherwise, the weakness of our Faith were cause sufficient to make us culpable, yea, to shut us from the kingdom of heaven, where nothing that is not absolute , can enter.” — Hooker’s Ser. on Just. “ Abraham was thus far known and approved, not by men only, but by God ; yet, when they appear before His tribunal, who best knows as well the imperfection as the truth of their integrity, they must still frame their supplications sub forma pauperis , yea, sub forma impii, always acknowledging themselves to be unprofit- able servants; always praying, Lord forgive us our sins, and be merciful to us miserable sinners. The only complement of all inherent righteousness possible in this life is this perpetual un- feigned acknowledgment of our unrighteousness, whereby we are made immediately capable of His righteousness, which alone 1 For to have given you the crown was Christ’s ; but to retain it when given is yours. For that righteousness of the law, which consisted in not being obnoxious to the curse, Christ has performed for you. Betray not, therefore, so great a gift, but continue guarding this fair treasure. For here he shews you that the laver does not suffice to salvation unless when the laver is received we exhibit a life worthy of the gift. Therefore he again commends the law when he says these things. For after we have believed in Christ, all things are to be done and practised, that the righteousness of it [the law], which Christ fulfilled, may remain in us. A A 354 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. can cover our sins, as being alone without all stain or mixture of impiety.” — Jackson. “The man in whose spirit is no guile (for of such the Psalmist speaketh) is justified , not because of his sin- cerity, but because the Lord imputeth not that sin unto him which he still unfeignedly acknowledgeth to be in him, continu- ally praying, Lord, enter not into judgment with thy servant; always confessing, Lord, in thy sight shall no flesh living be jus- tified; to wit, otherwise than by not entering into judgment, or by non-imputation of his sins. Thus you see even the best of God’s saints seek justification only by faith, with St. Paul, and yet require thereto with St. James’ pure religion and undefiled.” — Idem. b. iv., c. 6. “ When in this manner we resist the corrup- tion which still remains in those who are regenerate, then evils are covered, and sin is not called reigning but venial.” — Aug . Confess. “ This, then, must be applied to forgiveness, for when the obedience of Christ is accepted for us the law is satisfied, so that we are counted just. For the perfection which the law demands was exhibited in our flesh, and for this reason, that its rigour should no longer have the power to condemn us. But as Christ communicates His righteousness to none but to those whom He joins to Himself by the bonds of His Spirit, the work of renewal is again mentioned, lest Christ should be thought to be the minister of sin .” — Calvin in loco. VERSE 5. — 01 yap Kara aapKa ovre? ra rrjs crapKos cfrpovovcnv. ol he Kara rrvevpa, ra rov rrvevparos, For they who are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. “For they that are after the flesh do think upon that which is of the flesh ; but they that are after the Spirit think upon that which is of the Spirit .” — Dutch Annot. Ol Kara aapKa ovres includes all mere natural men; but the con- nexion of iv pr)V , and its derivatives (ppoveco , (ppovipos , (frpovrjpia , are almost, if not quite, exclusively used in the New Testament to signify the mind,’ its acts or states. $pove&>, which occurs thirty times, is, indeed, twice translated “ to savour” in our version; but it is very ques- tionable whether “ thinkest of,” as signifying that Peter was not consulting God’s glory, but promoting Satan’s designs, by giving our blessed Lord such advice (Matt. xvi. 23 ; Mark viii. 33), would not be the most exact rendering even in these two cases. 1 ‘ Alii cogitant , quas interpretationes non repudio.” — Beza. Cogitant is the meaning of the word used in the Syriac. See also the re- marks on chap. xii. 16. Jerome renders it in the last clause sentiunt. The Nuremberg Italian Bible gives the best rendering of this and the following verse that I have seen. “ Percioche coloro che son secondo la carne, pensano , ed hanno Vanimo, alle cose della carne.” “ I have rendered typovovaiv by a large word, cogitant .” — Calvin. “ The word rendered ‘ they mind/ expresses primarily the exercise of the intellect.” — Hodge. Verse 6 . — To 7 ap (fipovrjpa rf)<; aapicbs, OavaTor to 3e povTL%€LV .” — Eras, in loco. “ poviyxa hie idem quod (Gen. viii. 5).” — Grot, and Par. in Poole. “ Non est sensus sed rationis.” “ Cogitatio.” — Syriac. u The cogitation of the flesh.” — Dutch Annot. “ El saber de la carne.” — P. S. Sp. B. “ r)<$ tfjaai, to ctm/acl vvv , iva Tore ^rjo-rp iroi'Yjaov avro cltto- Oavelv iva fir) airoOdvr], eav yap pevrj ov tyaerar eav 3e airo- 6avrj tot e jtfaercu. 1 — St. Chrys. “It is true that you believers are as yet subject to corporal death by reason of the relics of sin that are in all regenerate men, and shall not be quite brought to nought, but only by death. But yet in the gift and presence of the Spirit, you have a beginning of spiritual life, which consists in the conjunction with God, into which Christ hath re-establishd you by His most perfect righteousness, and withal an assurance of everlasting life and happy resurrection.” — Diodati. Transl. of. The natural force of this declaration of the apostle’s is entirely overlooked, according to the general interpretation. Macknight felt this, and to avoid the difficulty he translates Sea as if it had been /ea/ra; and says, naturally enough, “ What sense would there be in saying, that men’s bodies are dead through sin if Christ be in them? Men’s bodies are certainly dead through sin, whether Christ be in them or not.” According to the present interpreta- tion, this difficulty disappears. The death of believers is intro- duced, naturally, as that which, in common with those who are alienated from God, they must undergo. It is an answer to a thought on the believer’s part, suggested by what St. Paul had just said. “ You (the apostle) speak of carnal men’s views, and their dread of death ; but even we who are believers must encoun- ter death, nor are we exempted from the common doom.” “ True,” he replies, “ the thought of the carnal man is death, and you also must have it in your thoughts; but although in your case, as in his, the body dies, yet you regard death in a very dif- ferent light, and without the dread and hatred of God with which it inspires him; because, although the body must undergo its sentence, yet your spirit has received a claim to eternal life through the justification of Christ.” The mention of death, as the object of the unbeliever’s dread, led to the introduction of the subject in its aspect to believers. But, having introduced it, St. Paul gives it an admirable practical turn, by representing the death of the body, and the life of the spirit, as present; thus indi- cating the duty of mortifying the one, and cultivating the duties 1 Suffer not, therefore, the body to live now, that it may then live ; cause it to die, that it may not die : for if it continues living, it shall not live ; but if it dies, then it shall live. SECT. XV. — FRUITS OF JUSTIFICATION, VIII. 1 — 17. 367 flowing from the life of the other. “ Occurrit objectionem, quare cum credentes sint justi et filii Dei, adhuc tamen sunt subjecti morti.” — Melancthon. “ But the Spirit is life because of justifi- cation, that is, because we are justified by God; and that right- eousness or justification is preserved in us ; which being pre- served, there is no sin; and where there is no sin, there is no death: and what remains in us is altogether life, both in this present world, when we live according to God (for that is princi- pally called life, when we are dead to sin), and in the world to come life indissoluble.” — Theophyl. “ Cum enirn prsesentis tem- poris gratiam determinans, diceret quidein mortuum esse corpus » propter peccatum, quia in eo nondum per resurrectionem reno- vato, peccati meritum manet, hoc est, necessitas mortis, spiritum autem vitam esse propter justi tiam, quia licet adhuc corpore mortis hujus oneremur, jam secundum interiorem hominem coepta renovatione in fidei justi tiam respiramus: tamen ne humana igno- rantia de resurrectione corporis nihil operaret, etiam ipsum quod propter meritum peccatum in prsesente saeculo dixerat mortuum, in futuro propter justitise meritum dicit vivificandum, nec sic ut tantum ex mortuo vivum fiat.” — St. Aug. Prof. Hodge observes here, respecting the meaning of 8uccuool , o^eikerai evpev ov rrj vapid, tov icara vdp/ca tfiv, Therefore , brethren , we are debtors , not to the flesh , to live after the flesh. St. Paul does not here definitely express that to which believers are debtors. Probably this may not be stated, because that to which believers are debtors is not fully comprehended in the antithetical term “ spirit,” but resolves itself into several particulars. The flesh includes all that would set itself in opposition to a spiritual life; but believers combat the suggestions of the flesh by various motives, by the love of Christ, by the sense of God’s favour, by the hope or confidence of sins forgiven, by the conviction of the fleeting and uncertain character of the pleasures of sense, and of their speedy and cer- tain termination. Believers are, therefore, debtors, not only to B B 370 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE IlOMANS. the spirit, that is, to their immortal souls, which can afford them an infinite return for every debt they incur (while the body, as dead, can neither give what is worthy, nor ensure a moment's security even of its comparatively worthless goods), but they are also indebted to redeeming love, and, specially, to its exercise in the act of justification — to the bestowal of the strengthening and consoling influences of the Holy Spirit, and to the love of the Spirit Himself in administering them. Each of these is sufficient to bring us in debtors to an infinite amount; and the flesh can bring forward no claims which can even be compared, much less enter into competition with them. “ After so great grace we are bound to live according to the will of God.” — CEcumen. “ The grammatical construction of the twelfth verse, though, for so much as some of our modern translations suggest unto us, it affords but one proposition, and that a negative, we are debtors not to the flesh; yet, according to the original cha- racter or full construction, it contains two emphatical proposi- tions, the one affirmative, the other negative. The affirmative, ' Debtors we are ;’ and debtors for a greater sum than all man- kind’s, either real or personal, estates in this world are able to discharge. The negative, ‘ Debtors we are in no wise, either in whole or in part, unto the flesh,' unto which we owe nothing besides revenge or mortification of it; that is, by delivering it up captive to the Spirit, unto whom we owe more than our temporal estate here on earth, our very souls.” — Jackson. Tlva ovv rjpel<; avra> Bdocropev avTLfuaOiav; rj rlva Kapirbv afyov, ov rj/juv auro? eBco/cev; irocra Be avrS otyelXopev oaia. 1 — St. Clement , 2 Epist. ad Cor. “ Ergo fratres accepto adjutorio, porrecto nobis desuper divino auxilio brachio Domini : et ipso brachio, Domini porrecto nobis auxilio Spiritu sancto, debitores sumus non carni.” — St. Aug. Verse 13. — El yap Kara crap tea peXXere cnro6vri irvevpaTL rjpcov, otl iapkv re/cva Geov , The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit , that we are children of God. Man being reconciled to God through the blood of atonement, the threatening which once interposed between him and God is removed, and believer^ are enabled to regard themselves as God’s children, and to look up to Him as their reconciled Father. In addition to this, the blessed Spirit who applies Christ’s death to their comfort, and works in them corresponding dispositions, gives to this motive to love God its full and final efficacy, by His internal operations. He brings in an additional and corroborative testimony of the acceptance of believers, the confidence of which is then grounded, not only on what Christ has done and what God has promised through Him, but on what they feel to have been wrought by the operation of an assisting power within them in their sanctification, and also by a heartfelt happiness, which they have already experienced in the diffusion, at times, within their souls of a peace that passeth understanding. “ It is the office of the Holy Ghost to assure us of the adoption of sons, to create in us a sense of paternal love of God towards us, to give us an earnest of our everlasting inherit- ance.” — Pearson on the Creed. “ The witness of the Spirit is not to be placed merely in the feeling (1 John iii. 19), but His whole inward and outward efficacy must be taken together : for instance, His comfort, His incitement to prayer, His censure of sin, His impulse to works of love, to witness before the world, and such- like more.” — Olsh. Verse 17.— El 8k TCKva, KaX icXrjpovopor /cXrjpovopoi pkv 0eo{), (Tvyfc\r)pov6p,oc 8k Xpcarov, But if children, then heirs; heirs indeed of God , and fellow-heirs of Christ. Believers are heirs of God ; that is, of that happiness which God can bestow, and which in its highest degree consists in the closest communion with Him, and in beholding and adoring His unspeakable perfections. They are fellow-heirs with Christ, who has purchased for them the inheritance, and who has entered in upon it, to hold it for them. Identified with Christ in His death, and sanctified by His Spirit, they shall be associated with Him in glory. 'ETrel8r] 8k ov irdvra t a TeKva ickripovopoi , 8ehcvvo-iv otl rjpeis KaX TeKva kcll KXrjpovo - pot' 'Eire^r; ov iravTes kXrjpovopoc elcrl peja6Tai airb 8ou\e/a? t?}? tyOopas eh rrjv ekevOepiav rr)<; tcjv t k/cvcov rod Geov 1 In hope that even the creation itself shall he de- livered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the sons of God. That this verse is immediately connected with ver. 19, and that ver. 20 is parenthetical, seems evident. The earnest expectation of the new creation awaits or is suspended upon the manifestation of the sons of God : the glory spoken of is a glory intimately connected with and dependant upon us as Christians, and is to be revealed in association with us ( airo/ca - \v(f)6rjvaL eh rjpd ?) ; and, therefore, the expectation of it awaits or is attendant upon the manifestation of the sons of God, in hope that, at that time, not only shall the sons of God be delivered from the power of corruption to which they have become subject, but that the creation itself also, or even the very material creation, which was subjected to a deterioration on account of man’s de- generacy, shall be restored to more than its pristine glory in connexion with man’s perfection. The form of the expression, avrr] r) ktlgl?, strongly confirms this interpretation. It clearly points out the existence upon the side of the awaiting party of a twofold hope. The first is the hope of the manifestation of the sons of God in a glorious manner or condition; the second is that of a deliverance of the creation itself into a corresponding state. No interpretation which does not embrace this twofold SECT. XVI.— SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 18 — 31. 383 hope, of the glory of the sons of God at their manifestation, and of the deliverance of something else into a corresponding glorious state, will meet the case. “ What then? Was it harshly treated on another's account? By no means, for it was on thy account it was made. What wrong, then, is done it, which was made for my sake, when it suffers these things for my correction? Or, indeed, one has no right to moot the question of right and wrong at all in the case of things void of soul and feeling. ... It was evil intreated for thy sake, and became corruptible, yet it had no wrong done to it. For incorruptible will it be for thy sake again. For it shall be freed, he says, from the bondage of corruption; that is, it shall no longer be corruptible, but shall go along with the beauty given to thy body ; just as when this became corrup- tible, that became corruptible also; so now it is made incorrup- tible, that shall go along with and follow it, too.” — St. Chrys. “And it (the creation) shall share your good things, and it shall not be coriuptible, but shall follow you." — Theophyl. “ The Rabbins likewise taught the glorification of the lifeless creation. R. Beracja, in the name of R. Samuelis, said, Though all things were created perfect, they nevertheless became corrupt when the first man sinned, nor will they return to their right condition until Pherez (the Messias) come, as it is written in Ruth iv. 18 . Here the word nn^n is written ‘ plene’ with the 1, because there are six things (1, as a number, denotes six) which shall return to their primeval state, the beauty of man, his life, the length of his stature, the fruits of the earth , the fruits of the trees, and the lights of heaven .’ R. Bechai in Schulhan Arba, bl. 9, sp. 4, says, ‘ In those days shall the whole creation be changed for the better, and return to her perfection and purity as she was in the time of the first man before he sinned.’ " — Tholuck. “ Even in the things of the world of bodies which surround us, there is an element of life, a yearning of what is bound, which, like that Memnon statue, unconsciously makes symphony when the ray touches it from above.” — Schubert in Olshausen. “ When I stand all alone at night in open nature, I feel as though it were a spirit, and begged redemption of me. Often have I had the sensation as if nature, in wailing sadness, entreated something of me, so that, not to understand what she longed for, cut through my very heart.” — Gothe in Olshausen. This seems to be what the apostle refers to, the bondage of corruption. All that is in the world is perishing : the whole animal and vegetable kingdom 384 ST. PAUL S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. is an unceasing current of decomposition and corruption, and of reproduction. All these things with which our habitation is fur- nished, suited either for our support and ornament or gratification, perish. Those which are for support and protection perish in the using; those for embellishment decay; the form of the fashion of them and all their beauty perish as the flower of the field, so that nothing is in one stay; and even if man himself were delivered into the glorious liberty of the sons of God, the earth as at present constituted would afford him no suitable habi- tation. It would still teem with perishing associations, and, as in the days of Solomon, be all vanity and vexation of spirit. Not so with the new heavens and new earth. The associations there connected with the external display of God’s attributes are abiding; the glory of that place is an abiding glory. The iden- tical beauty, glory, and blessedness of that place, so far as it is connected with external manifestations of the power, wisdom, and goodness of that being who Himself dwells in the light which no man can approach unto, that gladdened the souls of the blessed at its first exhibition, will for ever continue to do so; and the only change which can take place will be that of an in- crease in its glory,, or in their powers of discovering and pene- trating it; no setting suns, no bright days succeeded by gloomy darkness, but the Lamb is for ever the light thereof; no perishing food, no failing strength, no fading beauty as of the flowers which perish, but the perennial tree of life in never-failing vigour, bloom, and virtue. No display of God’s power, wisdom, and goodness, which to-day shall impress glorified souls with ardent love to Him whose works are so wondrous and beneficent, and which to-morrow they will seek in vain, in order to invigo- rate and renew the blessed feeling, and to reiterate its good effects, but a constaht abiding, and increasing glorious exhibition of all God’s wonderful attributes. The abiding glory of the future world will, through the never-ending ages of eternity, invite and attract the attention and admiration, and stimulate the love and praise of happy immortals. Eh ti )v iXevOeplav rrjs ho%r)<$ twv re/cvcny tov Qeov , Into the liberty of the glory or glorious liberty of the sons of God , that is, a liberty corresponding in its character to that of those with whom it is intimately connected. “ But he means, not that all creatures shall be partakers of the same glory with the sons of God, but that they, according to their nature, shall be participators of a SECT. XVI. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 18 — 31. 385 better condition; for God will restore to a perfect state the world now fallen, together with mankind. But what the perfection will be, as to beasts as well as plants and mortals, it is not meet nor right in us to inquire more curiously; for the chief effect of corruption is decay. Some subtile men, but hardly soberminded, inquire whether all sorts of animals will be immortal; but if the reins be given to speculations, where will they at length lead us? Let us then be content with this simple doctrine — that such will be the constitution and the complete order of things, that no- thing will be deformed or fading.” — Calvin. Verse 22. — OiSap,ev yap on r rraaa rj icrlcris avarevd^ei teal epovTa, tclvtcl /cal eivai vopl^ere. teal yap els tovto rf}? 390 st. paui/s epistle to tiie romans tov Qeov SeofieOa fiorjOeia?. 1 — St. Chrys. “ Taraen nos nescientes quid ista prosunt, ab omni optamus tribulatione liberari.” — St. Aug. The declaration, that we do not know what to pray for as we ought, seems intended to afford a marked contrast to the intimation, ver. 28, that we do know that all things work together for good. The two truths, that we know not what is really for our good, and that we do know that all things, even the most adverse in appearance, are made to work for our good, when combined afford an abundant and powerful motive for bearing our afflictions patiently. To encourage and support believers is clearly the apostle’s object; to show them the various and power- ful motives which they possess for bearing afflictions patiently — not to inculcate any abstract dogma, or any belief of absolute safety, but to prove that they have every reason to commit them- selves implicitly to God’s guidance and discipline. 'AW' avro to Ilvevpa virepevTvyyavei vn rep rjfiwv arevay/iois akaXrjTOLs, But the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us, with groaning s that cannot he uttered. “ But the ilke Spirit axeth for us with sorwyne that moun not be telde out.” — Wick. “ Con sospiri ineffabili.” — Nur. It at. Bib. To obviate our natural im- patience and ignorance, the Holy Ghost interposes, spiritualizing our views, suggesting desires suited to our prospects and future condition, and inspiring, by His close association with our spirits, an inexpressible longing for such a frame of mind, and such a submission to God’s discipline, as the Holy Ghost sees to be suit' able to our present state, and to our future inheritance. “Non Spiritus Sanctus in semet ipso apud semet ipsum in ilia trinitate gemit, sed in nobis gemit quia gemere nos facit.” — St. Aug. Thus He intercedes for us, pleading within, and through, and for us to God. Fenelon, in his essay, “ Que l’Esprit de Dieu enseigne en dedans,” says, “ L’Esprit de Dieu est l’ame de notre ame.” “ The work of the Spirit is exciting the heart at times of prayer to break forth in ardent desires to God, whatsoever the words be, whether new or old, yea, possibly without words; and then most powerful when it words it least, but vents in sighs and groans that cannot be expressed. Our Lord understands the 1 For since it was likely that they, when they were scourged and driven out, and suffering grievances without number, should be seeking a respite, and think it was advantageous to them, and ask this favour of God ; by no means, he says, suppose that what seem blessings to you are really so, for for this very thing we need God’s assistance. SECT. XVI. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 18 — 31. 391 language of these perfectly, and likes it best; He knows and approves the meaning of His own Spirit.” — Leightons Exposition of the Lord's Prayer. This passage seems to be one of those on which our collect for Whit- Sunday is founded. “ Grant us by the same Spirit to have a right judgment in all things, and ever to rejoice in His holy comfort.” For instances of prayer which it was not expedient to grant, see Deut.iii.25, 2 Cor. xii.8, Matt. xx. 21. The sentiment of Cambyses, in his advice to Cyrus, as given by Rollin, corresponds very closely with that of this verse. “ Cam- byse lui avoit souvent represente que la prudence des hommes est forte courte, leurs vues fort bornees, qu’ils ne peuvent penetrer dans l’avenir, et que souvent ce qu’ils croient devoir tourner a leur avantage, devient la cause de leur ruine; au lieu que les Dieux etants eternels savent tout, l’av enir comme le passe et in- spirent a ceux qu’ils aiment ce qu’il est a propos d’entreprendre.” %Tevayp,oc<$ akaXrjTOLs, With groanings that cannot be altered. The Holy Spirit inspires desires for which we cannot find equi- valent language. “ The book Sohar observes on Ps. xviii. 16, These are words which cannot be uttered, and thoughts which the mouth cannot express.” — Tholuck. “And whereas we, as of ourselves, know not what to pray for, or how to pray as we ought, the Spirit of God aids us by His gracious work in us; stirring up our drowsy and dull hearts to make powerful suppli- cations to God, with sighs and groans that cannot be expressed. The Holy Ghost stirs us up to praying with inexpressible groans, and, as it were, spells our lesson before us, how we must pray in our troubles.” — Bp. Hall. Verse 27. — f O Be epevvwv ra9 /capSlas olBe t l to (ppovgpa rov IlvevpLaTO ' ?, on Kara Seov evTvyyavei virep dylwv, And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth the mind of the Spirit , because He intercedes for the saints agreeably to God's will. He who discerns the inmost secrets of the soul, clearly perceives, by their com- plexion, those desires or petitions which are the result of the Holy Spirit’s influences; for, so far as His influences are yielded to, they produce a state of mind in exact conformity to the will of God with respect to us, and suggest corresponding petitions on our parts, which, as being the suggestions of the blessed Spirit, may be justly regarded as His intercessions within us. 1 u Tl ro (ppovgpa, k. t. \. id est, quae preces quaeve suspiria a Spiritus sui 1 The following very beautiful expression of the truth enunciated in 392 ST. PAULS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. afflatu proficiscantur.” — Beza. “ What is the meaning or con- sideration or meditation .” — Dutch Annot. The passage evidently describes God as tracing in the lineaments of the mind, and in the petitions of the patient believer, a con- formity to His own will, wrought out by His own Spirit, re- garding them not simply in their source, and as detached from the man, but in their existence in him, as transferred by the sealing Spirit, and so appropriated by the child of God, as to be regarded as his own; and not only as proofs in themselves of conformity to God, but of an association and friendship between the man in whom they are found, and the Spirit commissioned to carry on the work of God in the soul. They are, therefore, tokens of love and submission to God’s own Spirit, and appointed agent, and pleasing to Him on this account, as well as on account of their intrinsic character. Verse 28. — OXBafJuev Be on rocs aya^irwai rov Qeov irdvra (Twepyec els dyaOov, But we know that all things work together for good to those who love God. To confirm in patient continuance in well-doing, and in calm waiting for Christ, the Spirit i'ntercedeth this passage is given by Tholuck, from the Methnewi, in which Dsehe- laleddin thus sings of a Mahometan saint, Dakuki : — “ 0 never think a prayer like this like other prayer ; for know, It is not mortal man, but God, from whom the accents flow. Behold, God prays ! the lowly saint stands deep abased the while ; And God who gave the humbled mind upon his prayers will smile.” And again — “ ‘ Allah !’ was all night long the cry of one oppressed with care. Till softened was his heart, and sweet became his lips with prayer. Then near the subtle tempter stole, and spoke, ‘Fond babbler, cease, For not one, Here am I, has God e’er sent to give thee peace.’ With sorrow sank the suppliant’s heart, and all his senses fled, But, lo ! at midnight, Ohiser 1 came, and gently spake and said, ‘ What ails, thee now, my child 1 and whence art thou afraid to pray 1 And why thy former love dost thou repent 1 declare and say.’ ‘Ah !’ cries he, ‘never once to me spoke God, Here am I, son. Cast off, methinks I am, and warned far from his gracious throne.’ To whom Elias, ‘Hear, my son, the word from God I bear, Go tell — he said — yon mourner sunk in sorrow and despair. Each Lord appear thy lips pronounce contains my Here am I, A special messenger I send beneath thine every sigh. Thy love is but a girdle of the love I bear to thee, And sleeping in thy Come , 0 Lord , there lies, Here, son, from me.’ ” 1 Name of Elias, whom the Easterns describe as the counsellor of men. SECT. XVI. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 18 — 31. 393 for believers and in them, counteracting the impatience of the flesh under trials, by the suggestion and application of those sources of strength afforded by the gospel, and by inspiring a longing for the reception of such a conformity to their future glorious condition as He alone can produce, who, seeing and knowing perfectly that condition which He has prepared, can adapt them exactly to it. Christians cannot, indeed, discern at present the details of this preparation. The nice adaptation of their various trials and afflictions to certain specific objects which God has in view, is a thing which their limited faculties and imperfect views preclude them from comprehending; and all that they can do, under these circumstances, is to commit themselves implicitly to the healing of the great Physician, and to whatever remedial treatment He sees to be good. At the same time, they have one grand and sufficient source of encouragement, which is, that all that is done by Him is done with infinite skill, wisdom, and goodness, and with all the possible tenderness of which the case will admit. We know not what to pray for as we ought . To think that, blind as we are to all the deceits of our own hearts, and to the effect which particular things that we desire to have or to avoid would exercise upon the formation of our character, and upon our spiritual safety — that, ignorant as we are of the insidiousness and ramifications of the moral disease which is to be subdued, and of the most suitable remedies to be applied in its different stages — to suppose that, under these circumstances, we could prescribe successfully in our own case, or instruct the all-wise God what to give, or what to withhold, would be the height of infatuation. But one thing believers certainly know, and that is, that all things are made, under His control and direc- tion, to co-operate in beautiful subordination, and with the nicest mutual dependency, and most exact co-adaptation for good, to those who love God; and in this they may repose, and possess their souls in patience, with the strongest assurance and confidence. It is not a truth grounded upon supposition: it is not matter of hope, nor even of faith only; but of well-known and frequent past experience, and of historical certainty. It is a fact which God’s past dealings, recorded in His word for the instruction of those who should come after, establish; and of which believers may therefore say, emphatically, not that they are merely per- suaded of, or believe, or hope it, but that they know it. It i3 an established and indisputable fact, recorded among those things 394 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. which were written before for our learning , that we through faith and patience, of the Scriptures might have hope ; and it was therefore a full and satisfactory answer to Jewish and Judaizing objectors — that if believers, and specially Gentile believers, were truly the people of God, they would not encounter such afflictions. In refutation of all such objections, St. Paul shows, not only that the ancient church was afflicted and persecuted, but that these afflictions were a part of God’s discipline to her for good, and had been made to co-operate for her purification, and thus to fit her for being glori- fied by God’s presence and blessing, and by admittance into the land of promise and of rest. St. Augustine, Calvin, and those who implicitly follow them, maintain, that even the sins of believers work for their good. But there is a great fallacy in such a supposition. Sin may work for the good of him who is guilty of it, by convincing him that he is sinful, and by humbling him because he is so ; but innocence would be better than conviction of guilt, and a spirit of lowliness which required no farther humiliation, far superior to a mortified and humbled pride. A true sense of our real character and sin- fulness is infinitely better than an ignorant self-righteousness ; and a consciousness of sins which overthrows the latter, and estab- lishes the former, does good. But it would have been far better if we had formed a proper estimate of our character and condi- tion, without the commission of those sins; if we had been duly humble, without requiring to be thus humbled. The only sins which can do any good are those which, in their development, are proofs of the existence of greater sins within, and which thus stimulate men to eradicate the latter; and they are only useful so far as they lead them to do this. But surely it would be much better if believers would take warning of the state of the heart, and of their own demerits by sins committed before conversion, instead of requiring fresh developments to keep them humble. It seems, therefore, a gross error to say, that the sins of believers, as a whole or in the abstract, can do them good. Moreover, such a sentiment is altogether out of character with St. Paul’s object, which was to encourage believers to bear their sufferings pa- tiently, as the discipline which fitted them for future glory. He cannot be supposed either to encourage them patiently to submit to sin, or to think that sin in itself was a qualification for blessed- ness, or that it contributed to its attainment. The truth that all things worked together for good to those SECT. xvr. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, TUI. 18 — 31. 395 who love God was one fully recognised by some of the Jews. f ‘ Thus among the Jews there was formerly one who was called Gam Su (that is, even this), because in every calamity he was used to say, even this (shall tend) to good.” — Wolfius. Tols rcara irpoOecnv fcXrjTols ova tv, To those who are the called according to His purpose or pre- arrangement. The motives of support and consolation, under the tribulations which accompanied the profession of Christ, that St. Paul here adduces, are similar to those which he had employed in the fifth chapter, with this difference, that there he referred to God’s gift of His Son in its actual existence, and in relation to its intrinsic value, while here he traces that gift to God’s eternal purpose, and exhibits the in- creased estimation in which it is to be held, and the proportionate dependance to be placed upon it, because it was an eternal purpose. Pie shows that it was no capricious gift, no impulse of a sudden predilection for any of the human race, but the eternal purpose of Him that changeth not, and who, in purposing it, knew the sins of every individual of the human family, and had them before Him. Those who embraced it might, therefore, place every dependance upon its stability, and upon the continued manifestation, in carrying out its objects, of the same love and wisdom which had dictated it and brought it into operation. The love and faithfulness on which believers were, and are de- pendant for their safety, is that which had for eternal ages, and far beyond the era of man’s creation, adhered invariably to its purpose of redeeming him by the sacrifice of God’s Son. The wisdom on which they were dependant for the promotion of their final welfare and eternal felicity, by all the events of their earthly pilgrimage, was the same which had daily and hourly been con- trolling and directing the affairs of this world from its first existence, so as to subserve God’s purposes of mercy, and to pre- pare for the introduction of that gospel by which men were called to honour and glory. Those who embraced that gospel had the strongest possible encouragement to repose on God’s love, wisdom, and goodness to give them an expected end, not only from the greatness of His gift, but from the firmness and stability of that purpose, which was fixed and rooted in the unfathomable depths of eternity, and which was, therefore, as utterly incapable of varying or shadow of turning as God Himself. Possibly there may also be a reference to the execution of God’s purpose. In the exercise of the same power, by which, subse- 396 ST. PAULAS EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. quently to tlieir calling, He makes all things work together and co-operate in their several spheres and degrees for the final salva- tion of believers, God has also ordered all things according to a certain pre-concerted plan or arrangement to subserve to their calling or invitation by the gospel, and has exercised a providential control over all those steps which have led to the publication of the gospel to them. The system which interprets the references to God’s purpose as significant of anything partial or capricious, or even of anything approaching to a purpose in any way opposed to, or not perfectly connected with His revealed purpose, or of an execution of His purpose on other principles than those which He has re- vealed for man’s guidance, either in receiving God’s salvation himself, or in labouring to communicate it to others, has no countenance from this passage, nor from any of its immediate parallels, nor elsewhere in Holy Scripture. All the references to God’s purpose are associated with declarations of its stability, or of its great wisdom and goodness, points which commend it to all men, and invite the fullest reliance upon it. It is of the utmost importance that these characteristics should be easily in- telligible, and the deductions from them obvious, because every believer is dependant upon them for consolation. The references are, therefore, to its wisdom and eternity, features which recom- mend it to all who will give the gospel consideration, and in which there is no trace of caprice or partiality. Men are told that it is a plan of infinite wisdom, both in its design and execu- tion; that, therefore, every dependance may be placed on its efficacy; that it is an eternal purpose; and, therefore, the most confident reliance may be reposed upon its stability and uniform constancy. These are strong motives to induce all who hear to embrace it, and as strong assurances to those who have embraced it, that they shall never be put to shame; but, submitting to its provisions, shall reap that final safety which must accrue to all who submit to a plan of infinite wisdom and immoveable stability, purposed by a God of infinite love from eternal ages, in His Son, and signed and sealed by that Son’s performance of His stipulated sacrifice. The same system also completely destroys the balance which the words of Scripture here, as elsewhere, preserve between man’s acceptance and God’s bestowal of mercy. To be consistent with the Calvinistic interpretation of the whole passage, the present verse should have been thus worded: — We know that all SECT. XVI. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 18 — 31. 397 things work together for good to them who are loved of God, / c.t.X. , not ‘ who love God.’ 1 Haldane remarks, that those who are the called according to God’s purpose are the effectually called. It follows, that those who are called, but not effectually, are called not according to God’s purpose, which St. Augustine admits. They have not indeed been called in the sense which binds calling and final perseverance indissolubly together; but it cannot be denied that it was God’s purpose, that all those who have been called should be called, and that none are called but in virtue of His purpose, without involving consequences fatal to the rigid predestinarian scheme, as well as contradictory to the whole train of the Epistles, in which simple calling is continually referred to, not only as a part of God’s purpose, but a proof of His love. Beausobre observes, that the expression, “called according to God’s purpose,” is in- tended to exclude all merit on the part of those who are called; and refers to ix. 11, compared with 2 Tim.i. 9, to show that it is opposed to works, and defined to be the grace which was given us in Jesus Christ before the world began. VERSE 29. — "On ov? 7rpoe tcl irdvra fjfuv yapiaeTai, How shall He not with Him also freely or graciously give us all things. “ How can it be that with him he shulde not geue us all thynges also.” — Cran. If, in the accomplishment of His pre-arranged plan for gathering together all things in Christ, He has given up His own Son, in order that the event, upon which the success of the whole plan depended, and to which all the other measures, events, and circumstances were subordinated, might be fulfilled, shall He now fail in carrying out and applying this grand event; shall He refuse to erect a suitable superstructure upon so costly a founda- tion? Having given us the greatest gift in His possession, will He withhold those which are in comparison as nothing? Having consented to His Son’s death for us, will He not render that death efficacious for its objects? “ And so St. Paul draws an argument from the greater to the less, that as He had nothing dearer or more precious or more excellent than His Son, He will neglect nothing of what He sees to be profitable for us.” — Calvin. “ If He gave His own Son, and not merely gave Him but gave Him to death, why doubt any more about the rest since thou hast the Master? Why be dubious about the chattels when thou hast the Lord? For He that gave the greater things to His enemies, how shall He do else than give the less things to His friends?” — St. Chrys. Verse 33. — 7Y? iy/caXeaec Kara i/cXe/cr&v Qeov ; Who shall lay anything to the charge of God's elect ? Of those for whose benefit all things have been made to conspire according to God’s pre-arrangement from the foundation of the world, and who have received assurance of this in being called to be His peculiar people, called out from the mass of idolatry around them; and for whom He has, in His love to their souls, given His own and only-begotten Son. Or l{ Who then shall charge them whom God has designed to receive into His covenant of mercy with the inadequacy of their works?” — Shuttleworth. “ It is that God who hath none above Him to control Him, none below Him to resist Him, that hath performed all the acts of grace to thee. If God by His supreme authority pardon us, who can reverse it? .... Take comfort, 0 my soul, since God from His throne in the SECT. XVI. — SECURITY OF GOD’S PEOPLE, VIII. 31 — 39. 409 highest, and that God who rules over every particular of the creation, hath granted and sealed pardon to thee.” — Cham. This may be regarded as specially in favour of the Gentiles, and as opposed to Judaizing views. Who shall require from believers conditions of acceptance which God has not imposed? Who shall lay anything to the charge of those whom God has Himself received ? 0eo? 6 hi/caccov; God who justifieth ? Interrogatively, i. e. Is it to be supposed that God, who is the only Master of all, and who, therefore, has the only right to bring into judgment, that He who has arranged such a sublime and comprehensive plan, to which all the ages and all the events of this world have been subservient, and which has His own Son as its support and centre, in order that He might justify the ungodly without injury to His own righteous character — can it be supposed, that, under these circumstances, He will condemn those whom in the de- velopment of this plan He has embraced within its limits? Or else, without the interrogative, Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? It is God that justifieth. When He gives peace who then can make trouble ? God is master and judge, and when He acquits, who shall presume to question His decision, or to arraign those whom He has received to favour? ! Verse 34. — TV? 6 /cara/cpfr cov; Xpiard ? o diroOavwv; paXkov he teal eyepOek; 09 /cal eanv ev he^ca rov Oeov; 09 /cal evruy^dvet hi rep rjpbcov; Who is he that condemneth? Christ that died , or , rather , who is risen , nay , who is at the light hand of God , nay , who maketh intercession for us? Both this verse and that which precedes it are capable of being interpreted as containing the interrogatory and its answer, and in each case the sense is good and forcible. If God justifies, and Christ has died to procure that justification, His people may rest in perfect confidence upon these truths, as securities against all charges and all possibility of condemnation. But, notwithstanding this, the construction which interprets the whole of the verse interrogatively, seems decidedly and highly preferable. In the one case, the believer’s security against all charges is made to rest upon the fact, that He who justifies him is God, who is the only master, lawgiver, and pro- prietor of all, who rules in the armies of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth, whose decision is irreversible, and His judgments without appeal. The security of the Christian against condemnation is grounded upon the inestimable price which has 410 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. been paid for bis deliverance — the atonement which has been offered up by Christ — the fulness and perfect sufficiency of the death of his surety, to avert the consequences of his sins, and of all his remaining imperfections. In the other, which regards the whole sentence as interrogative, not only is all this equally ex- pressed, but a significance and consistency with the context, of which the other interpretation is destitute, is added. It does not make the possibility of any charges being brought by others the source of the Christian’s fear; but, regarding God Himself as the only being against whose charges any real ground for appre- hension can be supposed to exist, it makes the interrogative form of the initiatory clause simply a means, or adaptation of lan- guage, to convey, in the strongest possible manner, the absence of all ground of apprehension from Him whom alone there could be any reason to dread. Who shall lay anything to the charge of God’s elect? God who justifieth? That is, can we for a moment suppose, that He who has devised, and during so many ages, and in the employment of such numerous, extended, and sublime agencies, has accomplished the grand scheme of redemption, will go counter to His own designs, by laying any- thing to the charge of any part of that body, to the justification of which all these agencies, and these ages, have, under His own superintendence been employed, and to consummate and give effi- cacy to which He has given up His own Son. Another reason for interpreting the whole passage interroga- tively is, that the idea of judicial condemnation proceeding from any other than God Himself, or of the apprehension of such a thing, as seriously affecting the believer, is not to be entertained even hypothetically. The interrogative form is used simply as a means of expressing, in the strongest manner, the contradictori- ness of supposing that He, to whom all judgment has been com- mitted, who alone has the power of condemnation, and who is the only being to be feared as Judge, should condemn those to avert whose condemnation He Himself submitted to be con- demned and executed. This seems still further confirmed by what follows, Nay, rather , who is risen. If merely the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement to avert condemnation from believers was what was intended, this and the following clauses lose much of their force. But if the more than inconsistency of entertaining any apprehension of Him, who is the only Being whom there is ground to fear, because He is the only Judge, is meant, then SECT. XVI. — SUFFERINGS OF GOD’S PEOPLE VIII. 18 — 31. 411 these claims possess a peculiar and consistent emphasis. Who is he that condemneth? Christ who died to avert our condemna- tion? Nay, hut rather who having fully paid the penalty of our sins, is now risen to rejoice in carrying out His work, who has extracted all the bitterness of the cup which He drank for us, so that the contemplation of our safety is now to Him a source of unmixed joy? Nay, who is exalted to the right hand of God in our nature? Nay, who is ever unceasingly engaged in inter- ceding for us, and in pleading His merits to save us from being condemned? Viewed in this light, the passage has a close re- semblance to chap.v. 8 — 10, and the paWov before eyepdeh has the same force here as in chap.v. 10, to show, that if Christ died to avert our condemnation, He will naturally be more disposed, if possible, to effect that object, now that it requires no such sacrifice to accomplish it — now that He has only to apply the benefits which He then purchased. “ Sitting at the right-hand of God is descriptive of partici- pation in His government. Among the ancients, persons who were to receive honour were usually seated at the king’s right- hand. 1 Kings ii. 19, 1 Sam. xx. 25, 1 Mac. x. 63, Mat. xx. 21, Mark x. 37 ; Sueton, Tiber, vi.; Sallust, Jugurth, xi. Among the Greeks, the deities of chief esteem were, in like manner, conceived as avvdpovi, avveSpoi, as sitting at the right-hand of Jupiter. Callim. Hymn in Apoll, ver. 28, 29.” — Tholuck. Verse 35. — TY 9 r)pa9 twv dyyeXcov tovtw eTri^eipovvTcov, rj twv aXXeov Bvvdpecov , pr) y evoiro, aXXa peO' vi Tep/3o\r)<; dirdar)*; to (f>l\0pov o 7 rpo OavaTw, 7rpos 7rvp, 7 rpo? pd%cupav, n rpos Orjpla ; 'AXh! iyyv? paya'ipas eyyu? Geov, pera^v 6r]pl(ov peral~v Oeov. 1 — Ignat. Epis. ad Smyr. “ But if any one should set before me present and future griefs, temporal and eternal death, and the longest punishment in Gehenna, I would more gladly prefer to undergo all these things with love to Him, than be disappointed of that great, and shining, and inexpressible love.” — Theodor. “ It was not the meaning of our Lord and Saviour in saying, ‘ Father, keep them in thy name,’ that we should be careless to keep ourselves. To our own safety our own sedulity is required. And then blessed for ever and ever be that mother's child, whose faith hath made him the child of God. The earth may shake, the pillars of the world may tremble under us, the countenance of the heaven may be appalled, the sun may lose his light, the moon her beauty, the stars their glory; but concerning the man that trusteth in God, if the fire have proclaimed itself unable as much as to singe a hair of his head; if lions, beasts ravenous by nature and keen with hunger, being set to devour, have, as it were, religiously adored the very flesh of the faithful man ; what is there in the world that shall change his heart, overthrow his faith, alter his 1 But why have I given myself an offering to death, to fire, to the sword, to the wild beasts 1 But near the sword I am near God ; in the midst of the wild beasts I am in the midst of God. E E 418 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. affection towards God, or the affection of God to him? If I he of this note, who shall make a separation between me and my God? Shall tribulation, or anguish, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? No; I am persuaded that neither tribulation, nor anguish, nor persecution, nor famine, nor naked- ness, nor peril, nor sword, nor death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall ever prevail so far over me. 1 know in whom I have believed; I am not ignorant whose precious blood hath been shed for me; I have a Shepherd, full of kindness, full of care, and full of power, unto Him I commit myself; His own finger hath engraven this sen- tence on the tables of my heart, Satan hath desired to winnow thee as wheat, but I have prayed that thy faith fail not : therefore the assurance of my hope I will labour to keep as a jewel unto the end, and by labour, through the gracious mediation of His prayer, I shall keep it.” — Hooker’s Sermon on Certainty of Faith t etc . § XVII.— GOD’S PROMISES CANNOT FAIL, AND ARE TO BE APPROPRIATED, NOT BY WORKS, NOR BY NATURAL DESCENT, BUT BY FAITH. VIN- DICATION OF THE JUSTICE OF THIS PRINCIPLE, AS A MEANS OF RECEIVING SOME, AND RE- JECTING OTHERS OUT OF THE HUMAN MASS. Chap. IX. 1 — 29. In the preceding chapter, St. Paul, with a view of supporting believers under those afflictions which accompanied the profession of Christ, had expressed his conviction, that nothing could separate from Him those who loved God. He had declared that these afflictions were not worthy to be compared with the glory which should hereafter be revealed. What was required to complete and perfect the encouragement derived from this assurance, was, a strong preservative against the apprehension, that these afflictions, owing to their violent and protracted assaults, might cause believers to turn aside or faint by the way, and miss their reward. This preservation he also supplied. To fortify them against the weakening effects of such an apprehension, he assured them that, on the contrary, these afflictions, however contradictory such a state- SECT. XVII. — OBJECTION ANSWERED, IX, 1 — 7. 419 ment might appear to sense, would be made to work together for the good of those who loved God. This truth he illustrated and supported by the example of God’s people of old, whom He led by a way which they knew not, and by agencies and instrumentalities which not only seemed against them, but against which they frequently murmured and rebelled ; and in bringing whom through their various stages of dis- cipline, preparatory to their final and glorious establishment as a nation, the sharpest remedies and most afflictive dispensations were generally most successful and beneficial. Having adduced the example of God’s people of old to illustrate and confirm the statement, that God ordered all things for good, and made them co-operate to the final accomplishment of His designs, and the fulfilment of His promises to those who love Him, nothing could be more natural than the objection, or rather it was an objection which St. Paul’s illustration suggested, “ How is it then that this very people have now, in a great measure, failed of the attainment of that glory which is associated with the Messiah’s advent I” 1 At the same time, the introduction of this objection enables the apostle to introduce that subject, which, above all others, must have been most distasteful to the Jewish converts, particularly in the state of parties at Rome, in the manner most skilfully adapted to disarm their bitter, and soothe their wounded, feelings on the subject. He discusses it not aggressively, but defensively. Regarded as a delicate and skilful approach to a subject most un- palatable to his readers, I consider the apostle’s treatment of it inimi- mitable. He causes himself, as it were, to be compelled to discuss it, in order that he may vindicate from objection the providential care of God over those who love Him, nay, to vindicate from objection His past love and care, and the fulfilment of His promises to the very people whose present exclusion is the painful subject. The tenor of the apostle’s language — directed to the body of believers at Rome, but — from its speaking distinctively of the Jews as a nation, — from its describing their real condition, — asserting their past privileges and claims, and the exemption of many of them from the present blindness of the nation at large — the object and end to be attained by their per- mitted lapse, and the final restoration of the whole nation to God’s favour, places St. Paul, at the very time that he is describing their present rejection, in the position of an advocate for them, before the gentile converts ; while his love, and tenderness, and zeal, for the honour and happiness of the Jewish nation, and his identifying himself with 1 “ If it be further demanded, what peculiar occasion he had to be over- taken with these sudden pangs of sorrow rather in this place (the beginning of this ninth chapter) than any other, the special occasion as I intimated before, was the present opportunity or necessity of answering an exception, which, from the rejection of these Jews, might have been taken against those confident assertions wherewith he had concluded the former.”— Jackson. E E 2 420 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. them as his brethren, are equally calculated to conciliate their patient attention to the truths which are delivered. Those who render the twenty-ninth and thirtieth verses of the pre- vious chapter in the usual way, are quite at a loss for the connexion here. Some even suppose that the apostle resumes the subject of the third chapter with a view of enumerating the other privileges of the Jews. The proper interpretation of ver. 29 — 31 of the foregoing chapter, as applying to God’s people of old, renders the introduction of the subject discussed in the present one indispensably necessary, to vin- dicate from objection the truth of what had been stated in the former passage. This St. Paul does by shewing that, although greatly distressed at the present falling-away of the Jewish nation, his grief did not originate in any suspicion of God’s promises having failed (ver. 6), or in any belief that all the natural seed of Abraham were children in the sense associated with the inheritance of the promises (ver. 7 — 10) ; for, as these promises were not inherited by natural descent ; so neither were they appropriated by works (ver. 11). He vindicates God’s justice in the exercise of His mercy in the case of Jacob (ver. 12 — 16), and in the punishment of Pharaoh, and the deliverance of Israel (ver. 17 — 23) ; and shows that it was on the very same principle by which he had dis- criminated between Pharaoh and his people and the Israelites, that God now amalgamated Jews and gentiles in one body, and rejected a portion of the former, namely, by faith in His promises, in the exercise of which, believing gentiles, as well as Jews, were received to favour, and owing to the want of which, and their dependance on their own works, and their natural descent, the great body of the Jews were now rejected (ver. 23—33). Verse 1. — !dXy0etav Xeyco iv XpccrrS, I speak the truth in Christ . I speak the truth as in the sight of God, and under the full sense and influence of the obligations incumbent upon a disciple and apostle of Him in whom no guile was found, to cultivate and exhibit perfect sincerity in my whole conversation. Ov yjrevBopai , I lie not . There is not the slightest shadow of insincerity or of dissonance between what I say and what I feel. ^vppapTvpovarjs poi ri}? avveiBgcreco^ pov iv IIvevpaTt ary Ip, My conscience hearing me witness in the Holy Ghost. My con- science, open to the suggestions and reproofs of the Holy Spirit within me, bearing witness to my sincerity, by the absence of all reproof, which this enlightening and guiding agent would ad- minister through its internal voice, if there was any insincerity in what I said, and by the presence of an undisturbed peace of conscience while I assert it. Kal avpiraparyei rpels papTvpas, tov XpidTov, rgv eavrov avvelByaiv, /cal to lived pa to cuyiov . — St. Chrys. VERSE 2. — e> O tl Xvttt] poo BcttI peyaXrj , Kal aBiaXeiiTTOs oBvvrj SECT. XVII. — OBJECTION ANSWERED, IX. 1 — 7. 421 tfj /capita gov, That I have great grief and unceasing anguish of heart. In these words St. Paul indicates, with the greatest deli- cacy and tenderness, that the subject upon which he is compelled to enter is a most painful one. Verse 3. — Hv^ogrjv yap auros eyco avdOega elvat diro tov X picrTOv vn rep tcov dBe\(j)d)V gov , tcov v, which is evidently intended to connect o with @609; 3rdly, the abruptness of 6 eirl TrdvTcav as the termination of a sentence. 426 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. u Erasmus shews, that in several manuscripts of Cyprian, Hilary, and Chrysostom, the passage is cited without Deus; this, however, is but an error of the pen, for the best manuscripts contain it. Grotius maintains, that the Syriac translator does not express it, which is not true. He distinctly renders, ‘ Who is God above all.’ Stolz leaves it out in his translation. It re- mains to say, that Whitby, Crell, Taylor, and others, instead of 6 cov read &>v o, ‘ to whom also belong the blessed God,' in viola- tion alike of all the manuscripts and of sound understanding.” — Tholuck. He might also have added, in express contradiction of St. Paul’s own language, iii.29, Is He God of the Jews only ? Is He not of the Gentiles also ? Yea , verily , of the Gentiles also. {C Grabe states, that none of the ancients, whether orthodox, heretical, or schismatic, interpreted these words otherwise than as applying to Christ; and Dr. Burton, in his ‘ Testimony of the Ante Nicene Fathers,’ has satisfactorily established the fact, that the passage is expressly quoted as asserting the divinity of Christ, by Irenseus, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athanasius, etc.” — Bloomfield . “ If then confidence is to be placed in the authority of MSS., in the quotations of the fathers, in the principle of lan- guage, and on the confession of heretics, we have here full and sufficient warrant for our belief, that Jesus, who was born of the seed of Israel according to the flesh, was, at the same time, God over all blessed for ever.” — Terrot. Verse 6. — Ov% olov Be, on eKireirrcoKev 6 Xoyo? rod Geov , But not as if the word of God had failed . This is evidently an elliptical expression for ov Be rolov ecrnv, olov icrnv on, “ I grieve, but my grief is not such as to suppose that the word of God has failed.” This is another proof of the apostle’s delicacy and skill in approaching a subject upon which he knew that a portion of those whom he addressed were peculiarly sensitive. He had, in the previous chapter, been labouring to confirm the converts at Rome in their determination to take up Christ’s cross, and to live to the Spirit. To accomplish his object he had adduced the following arguments — the security, or rather validity, of their title to be the sons of God — the greatness and glory of the re- ward or inheritance to be revealed to such — the mighty agency engaged in their behalf, in leading them to and fitting them for their inheritance, — the great power and undying vigour of that internal principle by which they were to overcome the difficulties of the way, and the wisdom of the discipline by which these very SECT. XVII. — OBJECTION ANSWERED, IX. 1 — 7. 427 difficulties were made to co-operate in the formation of their characters, and in advancing them to their destination. These encouragements he illustrated by the example of God’s people of old, and by the various steps by which God had led them not- withstanding all their troubles without, and fears and murmur- ings within, until He brought them through every difficulty, and established them with all the glory of His peculiar people in the land promised to their forefathers. Such a line of argument would naturally suggest the objection, How do you reconcile with your assurances — of all things work- ing together for good to those who love God and are called by Him — of the certainty of the fulfilment to them of all His designs for their happiness — of their possession of a principle which will make them more than conquerors over all obstacles — how do you reconcile with your declarations on these points the present condition and relation to God of that very nation whose history and experience you adduce for our encouragement? If the word of God has failed with respect to any of them, if any of the children have been separated and estranged from God, as the mass of the Jews upon your own principles now are, what security have we as believers against a similar failure towards us and on our part? 1 This the apostle meets by shewing, 1st, that the coming short of that people was partial, and would be temporary; 2nd, that the remnant in the present age, which, like that that had existed in every age of the Jewish church, the remnant which, as to their own state, looked deeper than the outward man, and were thus brought to relinquish all hope of being justified except by grace, and which, as to their future destination, looked higher than any earthly country, confessing that they were strangers in this world — that that remnant had now, as heretofore, continued faithful to their privileges and hopes. While God had been more than faithful in fulfilling to the body of the Jews those promises of a temporal character which He had made to them, 1 “ Against his former assertions (in chap. viii. 28 — 39) St. Paul saw that the Gentile, or late converted Jew, would be ready thus to object : ‘ If they of whom according to the flesh Christ came ; if they for whose miscar- riage Christ in the days of His flesh was more sorrowful than thou canst be ; yet they, notwithstanding all these prerogatives and peculiar interests in all God’s promises, are fallen away and utterly separated from God ; where is the infallibility of our assurance ? What is the ground of thy boasting, that neither death nor life,’ etc.” — Jackson. 428 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. and beyond which the great body of that people did not look ; He had, in like manner, proved His faithfulness and truth, by fulfilling the greater promises to those who saw their need of a Saviour, and who looked beyond the temporal blessings to those higher blessings which they typified. St. Paul shows, that the children of promise and of faith had now seen, what in common with the same generation in all ages they had longed to see, the salvation of God. In approaching the subject and advancing the position, that all Israel were not Israelites in the highest sense, and in the character and descent of which the name was significant, and that now, as in all ages, the great mass had been blind to the excellence of their privileges, and to the sublime nature of the promises, and had not looked beyond the shadows of good things to come to the things themselves, the apostle does It with inimi- table address. He does not directly introduce the subject, but simply expresses a feeling of deep grief for his countrymen, and a willingness to undergo any suffering for their sakes, in a way which implies that there is something in connexion with them that suggests forebodings of evil; but he does not himself define its precise character. This he leaves to the conception of those whom he addresses, guided by the subject of consideration which had preceded, namely, the security of God’s people, and the power of the love between Him and them to overcome all obsta- cles to their final glory. That this is the train of reasoning, which gives a proper connexion between the present chapter and the rest of the Epistle, is strongly confirmed by the introductory verses; and St. Paul may be regarded as stating the objection indirectly by his answer in these words: “ True it is, that those, to whose history and example I refer you in support of what I say, seem by their present relation to God and to His gospel rather to invalidate my assurances of the fulfilment of all His designs to those who love Him; and I am filled with anguish upon their account. But their shortcoming is not of such an extent, or continuance, or novelty, as to countenance the supposition, that God’s word has fallen to the ground; nor are my feelings of grief of so overwhelming a character as they would be under the idea of such a thing being possible. Such is their state at pre- sent, that it naturally at first sight suggests suspicions of this kind. Such is their state, that I am filled with grief for it; oil tolov $e, but it is not such, neither is the matter, namely, their SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 429 state and my grief, such, olov oti, as it would be if the word of God had fallen to the ground. Ov yap 7 rdvres ol if; TGparjX, ovtoc iGparjX, For not all they that are of Israel, are Israel. Not all the descendants of Jacob are Israelites indeed, or bear the character which that name imports. As it is evident, that many of those who are of Israel have come short of the promises made to those who are of Israel, there might be ground for supposing that the word of God had failed in their case, if all who were called Israel were really Israel. But this is not the case; the reverse can be proved, and it can be shown that, in all ages, there have been classifications among the seed of Abraham; a fact which clearly points out a diversity of character and relation; and so this objection falls to the ground, because all who are of Israel are not, on that account, Israelites indeed. Verse 7. — OvS, otl cigi Girippa Afipaap, TTavres re/cva, Nor because they are the seed of Abraham are they all children. It does not follow, that, because they are natural descendants of Abraham, they are all children in the highest sense, that is, inheritors of the faith of Abraham, who is the father, in this sense, of those, and those only, who believe, and who walk in the steps of Abra- ham, and under the governing influence of that faith which he had, yet being uncircumcised. St. Paul intends to show the fallacy of dependance upon natural descent for the attainment of supernatural blessings, and this he does by stating, that not all whose natural descent was from Abraham were esteemed as his children, in the sense of a partici- pation of even the temporal blessings promised to the Israelites. This mode of reckoning would have included Ishmael, and the descendants of Abraham by Keturah ; neither of whom had any interest in the promised land in a temporal sense. And if natural descent did not secure a participation in the temporal blessings, much less could it secure a share of the spiritual. ’AW’ iv ’ Iaaa/c KXrfOrjaeTal gol air ip pa, But in Isaac shall a seed be called to thee. KaXelaQac is frequently used in the sense estimated, or considered; and the employment of Xoyl^erat in the clause of the succeeding and explanatory verse gives the strongest possible confirmation to this sense. VERSE 8. — Tout ianv, ov ra ri/eva r rjs Gap /cos, ravra re/eva tov Oeov' dXXa 7 a re/eva rrjs iirayyeXlas Xoyi^erai els Gireppa, That is, not the children of the flesh ; these are not the children of 430 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. God . but the children of promise are reckoned for a seed. Comp. Ps. xxii. 30, 31. The meaning of the whole seems to be plain. All in the present day are not Israelites, who bear the name, or are descended from Jacob; nor have they in any generation been so. To begin at the fountain-head, from whence this descent as a separate nation is traced, even at Abraham himself. All those who were descended from him by natural generation were not reckoned as the progenitors of his children, in a special or dis- tinctive sense; but, on the contrary, the seed which typified, in its privileges and separation from all nations, that future seed which should be as numerous as the stars of heaven, or the sand upon the sea-shore, was confined to, and descended in, the line of Isaac alone; and this is an illustration of the truth, that they, and they only, who are, like Isaac, the children of promise, which implies faith, are the true seed, and not those who are descended naturally, or by fleshly generation, or who are born of the will of the fleshy As Isaac, the child of that promise by faith in which Abraham was counted righteous, was regarded as the true seed, the seed associated with faith ; so those only who are possessed of faith, who, by faith, become Abraham’s children, who are thus multiplied in exact proportion to the prevalence of the obedience of faith among all nations, these, and these only, are the children of promise, by whose existence and multiplication the promise of God to Abraham, that as the stars so should his seed be, is ful- filled. “ Pertractata causa, quare nemo eorum ex operibus justi- ficatus sit, sed omnes ex fide; quod exemplo Abrahse probat cujus se filios esse solos Judsei putabant: ostendit rati one, quod non genus nec circumcisio, sed fides, faciat filios Abrahae.” — Hieron. Com. in Epist. ad Rom. v. The children of Abraham, in the Scriptural and higher sense, do not trace their relation by natural generation, but by faith in connexion with promise, that, through this principle, Abraham should be a father of many nations. This promise, and their possession of faith are the only links required to prove their genealogy. “As many, he says, as were born as Isaac was, they are the seed of Abraham and children of God.” — (Ecumen. Verse 9. — !E7rayye\/a? yap o Xoyo? ouro?, For this is the word of the promise. Aoyo? has here both a prospective and retro- spective reference. The latter, namely, the word of promise, has in view the quotation that follows; the former has a regard to the Xoyl&Tcu in the preceding verse, the connexion of which SECT. XVIII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 431 with Xoyo? by yap keeps up the idea of a computation or prin- ciple of reckoning. This sense preserves the unity of the pas- sage ; and the combination of meanings in Xoyo? not only directs the attention to the quotation which follows, but shows that the principle, in virtue of which men were counted children of God, had been the same in all ages. Kara tov /catpov tovtov iXevcropat, /cal ear at 777 Xdppa vlos. According to this very time I will come , and Sarah shall have a son. This proves that Isaac was not a child of mere natural generation, hut of divine interposition. To prove this to all ages, God was very particular, not only in declaring that He would visit Sarah and endue her with powers which she did not then possess, and which were not natural at her time of life, but also in pointing out the precise time of the birth of the child, which is twice done. In Gen. xvii. 21, it is declared that he should be, born exactly a year from that date; and, subsequently, Gen. xviii. 10, the term is again marked out, and the very hour foretold, that it might be seen and known that he was not the child of mere natural generation, but of faith, and of a promise which was marked out clearly by the preciseness with which it was foretold and fulfilled. This gives due force to Kara /catpov tovtov here, and Gen. xviii. 10, where it is rendered et? & pa<; by the Septuagint; but in the Hebrew, according to the time of life, that is, the time of giving birth, or the time that elapses between conception and birth. The whole sense seems to be this. The principle of free and gratuitous promise upon the part of God, and of faith in that promise upon the part of man, has always been that which has constituted men the children of Abraham and of God. Thus it was in Isaac the type of all that should come after. He was the child, not of mere natural generation, but of a promise which marked out the particular interposition of God, in his being given to his parents at an appointed time, and of faith, by which Sarah received strength to conceive. Verse 10. — Ov ptovov Be dXXa /cal 'Pe/3e/aca e£ Ivo? /colttjv e%ovaa ’Iaaa/c tov 7 raTpos fjptcov, And not only Sarah , hut Rebecca also , having conceived at one time of Isaac our father. The con- struction here has been matter of much difference of opinion. Tholuck supposes not only an ellipsis but an anacoluthon, and makes here one of the most objectionable remarks to be found in his commentary. He says, “It is rather evident, from the yap at the commencement of ver. 14, that Paul has let the construe- 432 ST. faul’s epistle to the romans. tion slip” ! ! This is quite consistent with rationalistic reasoning; and perhaps the matter of surprise should be, that men, breathing a rationalistic atmosphere, should not betray, in a greater degree, what seems an irreverent treatment of the scriptures. The reason which he assigns for rejecting the old interpretation which sup- plied Happa after ov yuovov, which was adopted by Ambrose and the Syrian, and which is supplied by the pronoun in some modem versions, e.g., the Spanish Bible of Padre Scio — “ Y no solamente ella: sed tambien Rebecca,” as well as the Yulg. “Non solum ilia,” is destitute of foundation. He says, “ The patriarch himself predominates so greatly in the example of Isaac, that Sarah is thrown into the shade.” The blessings which descended to Isaac he indeed derived, no doubt, from his being the son of Abraham, but they also descended to him through one who through faith received strength to conceive . Moreover, if a comparison is in- tended, and it seems evident that there is y it cannot be between Abraham and any other person, but must be either between Isaac and Jacob, or between Sarah and Rebecca; and the structure of the passage in which Rebecca is introduced before her son shows that it is the former. By an examination of the points of resemblance, this disputed point may be placed beyond contro- versy, and its proper construction satisfactorily established. Sarah and Rebecca were both naturally barren, and both were delivered from this state by Divine interposition. In both cases promises were made to them in reference to their progeny, and this, in connexion with the apostle’s argument and language, gives a clue to the difficulty. The children of the flesh are not the children of God, but the children of promise are reckoned for a seed. Thus it was in Sarah’s case ; her son was the fruit of a promise which is expressly quoted. And not only in Sarah’s case, whose son might seem to have been preferred because he was the child of Abraham’s wife, whereas Ishmael was not, but also in that of Rebecca, the child of promise was preferred; for even in her case there was an express promise respecting him, and it was said. The elder shall serve the younger. The prominent idea clearly is, that not the children of natural descent, even where both born of one mother, are the seed, but the children of promise. That this is the point of resemblance referred to is clear from the whole pas- sage, and from the quotations, which prove that promises were made in both instances. This being the case, the construction is easily explained, and the ellipsis at once suggests itself. Not SECT. XVII.— DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 433 only was Sarah’s child the true seed, because of promise, but Rebecca’s son Jacob was so on the same ground. Not only did Sarah receive a promise respecting her son, but so did Rebecca also — ov fJLovov Be iire\a(3e eira^eXiav , or iwerv^e eVayyeXia? 2 dp pa, dXXa kcli 'Pefie/c/ca, And not only did Sarah receive the promise^ but also Rebecca. Not only was this the case in the instance of Sarah and her son Isaac, who was the only son of Abraham by her, and who might, therefore, be possibly imagined to have de- rived his title to the blessing from something inherent in his descent from Sarah, Abraham’s only wife at the time, in preference to Ishmael, the son of the bondwoman, and not simply on account of his being the child of promise and of faith ; but, further, God more clearly and fully marked out the principle of promise and of faith, as that which constituted those who were such. His children, in a case in which there could be no room for the sup- position of any inherent claim or excellence on the part of him who obtained it, or in his descent, but in which the natural course and order of descent and expectation were reversed. ero?, from one , that is, either from one man, or ex uno concubitu. In the former case, Isaac and Ishmael were sons of different women; in the present, Jacob and Esau not only had the same father and mother, but were conceived at the same time, to which ef evo? most possibly refers; and the passage may be rendered, “Rebecca semen Isaac patris nostri recipiens ex uno tempore concubitus.” “ But also Rebecca hadde tweye sones of o lyggynge be of Isaac our fadir.” — Wichl. If it should be asked, what object could possibly be intended by any reference to time in the passage, it may be answered, that, as at different times the same persons are under the influence of different feelings, and of a greater or less degree of love to God, and of consequently greater or less holiness, it might have been conjectured that a difference in the state of mind of either parent might have been the cause of the preference of the one son to the other, in the same way that it is natural to suppose that, in the case of persons who turn from sin to holiness, or vice versa, the same blessing cannot be expected upon the offspring born under the influence of such different feelings and states before God. It is, I think, Theophylact who says, Todro 7 dp ehrev, ef evo? KohrjV e%ovcra, dvrl rod, /card tov avrov Kaipbv dpL^orepovs cvveXaftev. 1 St. Augustine also 1 For this he said, having seed of one, instead of, she conceived both at the same time. F F 434 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. states this decidedly as the reason. “ Quo pertinuit ut adderet ex uno concubitu, nisi ut non solum de suis neque de parentum meritis aliorum, sed nec de ipsius quidem unius patris mutata forte in melius voluntate gloriaretur Jacob, dicens ideo se a Creatore dilectum, quia pater ejus quando cum seminavit, me* lioribus laudabilior moribus fuit ? Ex uno, inquit concubitu. Unum tunc ad eos seminandos meritum patris, unum ad conci- piendos meritum matris : quia etsi mater eos, donee pareret, visceribus portavit inclusos, et forte voluntates affectionesque variavit non uni sed ambobus utique variavit, quos pariter ventre portavit.” And again, “ Gemini enim concepti erant, ne vel paternis meritis tribueretur, si quisquam forte diceret, ideo talis natus est filius, quia pater erat ita affectus illo in tempore, cum sevit in utero matris, aut erat ita mater affecta, cum concepit.” Verse 11. — MryKoa yap yevvr}6evT(ov, pirjSe TTpa^avrcov rl ayaOov rj /ca/cov, For not being yet born neither having done good nor evil. This confirms the interpretation given of the preceding verse, and proves that St. Paul’s object in the whole passage is to exclude all idea of any claim to be the children of Abraham in the highest sense, owing to intrinsic merit upon the part either of the parents or the children, because such a claim would infringe upon the freedom, fulness, and unmixed character of unmerited favour or grace, appropriated by faith. He shows that all the children in this sense have been children of promise, and men of faith; that all idea of one person being preferred before another because of the merits of their respective progenitors, is excluded by the fact, that Jacob and Esau were the children of the same parents at the same time, and could not, therefore, have had any distinction made between them on account of variety of parental merit; and that, notwithstanding this, a distinction was made, which inverted the natural order, and which, being made pre- vious to their birth, precluded all supposition of respective meri- torious doing on their own part. The force of the 7 dp, and the abruptness and interruption of the structure seem to be significant of the following : u And not only so, but Rebecca also, having conceived, by Isaac our father, two children at one time (which excludes all idea of comparative deserving from any difference of parentage on either side, or from the difference of state on different occasions, and in excluding this upon the part of the parents, we exclude the idea of comparative natural and intrinsic merit, or that from works entirely ) , for (yap), as to the children SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29 . 435 themselves, they having not yet been born, nor done either good or evil, the idea of an intrinsic or comparative merit on the score of works, is excluded by the simple fact, that at the time they had not come into the world. It is evident that all that the apostle says here, as elsewhere, is against acceptance from national privileges, irrespective of their improvement, or from natural descent, or from works. A work must be complete before it is entitled to reward. But as the children were yet unborn, it was evident that this fact excluded the possibility of their meriting reward, for they could not have begun, much less have completed, any work. Whitby, after St. Augustine, observes, that this passage is fatal to the doctrine of the pre-existence of souls. If the souls of these children had existed previously they might have done either good or evil. Tva r) /car i/cXoyrjv rov ©eov i rpoOecn? pevy, ov/c ef epycov aXk 7 etc rov kclKovvtos, That the purpose of God according to election might stand, or be established , not of works but of Him that calleth. Me vy here means to abide or stand fast. Palairet supplies fieftaia, after it, but the simple verb itself seems quite susceptible of the meaning. It indicates the result of firmness, which is to abide or remain unmoved. The purpose of God, the plan which He has devised, is, that He will save men by faith and grace; — grace on His part, faith on theirs. He who believes does not work as if his work en- titled him to reward. Miserable would be his encouragement, and brief the energy of his labour, if he did. God has, on this very account, made faith the medium of communication between Himself and man in this work; for faith is the only medium by which man could rest on Him who justifies the ungodly, for pre- sent acceptance or final salvation. Man’s strength is often to sit still, and when he is weak then is he strong. Had the fulfilment of God’s purpose depended upon man or his works, God could have had no assurance of its success, nor man of his final salva- tion ; but both God’s plans and man’s happiness would have been more than liable to overthrow every moment; but it rests upon a higher power, and is conducted upon a more efficient and secure principle, one which grasps the strength of the Almighty God; and thus the purpose abides, or stands firm, and its final completion rests, not upon man, or his works, but upon Him that calleth, and is grounded upon the eternal faithfulness, and boundless power, and wisdom of God, which are the peculiar F F 2 436 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. objects of faith. “ Not by virtue of any observation of con- dition, depending on man’s will, which might have made the decree wavering and uncertain ; seeing that man is variable in all things which he doeth.” — Diodati. This passage has by some critics been considered decisive in favour of Calvinistic views. It is clearly decisive against all works foreseen, and all merits supposed to exist in such works, as the ground of acceptance or selection. But the argument, that “ St. Paul does not oppose works to faith, but to Him who calls, or to the calling which precedes faith, that is, to that calling which is according to God’s purpose,” is of no value to the Cal- vinistic cause, but, on the contrary, leads to an examination of the subject which supports, if it does not establish, the opposite view. Faith is that which rests upon the power and faithfulness of God for the attainment of salvation. It is not the ultimate means of securing it, but only that by which we pass on to rest upon the mercy and strength of God. In seeking salvation by works, these works are the ultimate object to which we look as securing our reward. In opposing, therefore, the different ulti- mate means of salvation, and their respective firmness and stabi- lity, the proper contrast would lie, not between faith and works, but between our own works and strength, and the power and faithfulness or purpose of God ; and this is the contrast here in- stituted accordingly. This is distinctly and undeniably confirmed by a comparison of the present passage with Kom.iv.16, where we are expressly told that the firmness or security of the promise, which is clearly the same subject as that here referred to, is by faith. In the present instance the subject is regarded in its aspect towards God, or as being His purpose; in the other, in its aspect towards man, as being for his benefit. In the one, it is declared that it was not of works , but of Him that calleth; in the other, that it was not of works , but of faith. In the one, faith involves the power on which it rests; in the other, the power implies a faith which rests upon it. “ Sed quoniam Spiritus Sanctus non datur nisi credentibus, non quidem Deus elegit opera quae ipse largitur sed tamen elegit fidem.” — St. Aug. “ Unde etiam manifeste liquere potest, quo fracto propositum Dei secundum electionem est, aut cum electione conjunctum, ita videlicet ut ex Judaeas pecca- toribus eos eligat, qui sunt ex fide Christi, iis relectis, qui ex lege aut ex operibus sunt.” — Act. Syn. Dor dr. Remonstr . “ Caeterum non est Christiani hominis vel salutem suam libero suo arbitrio SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 437 ascribere, atque peccatum originale extenuare, cum Pelagianis; vel Deum peccati et damnationis nostrae autborem statuere cum Manichaeis; denique cum Stoicis affirmare, Deum fatales legis sanxisse, juxta quas, et vi sortis ineluctabilis alius quidem quasi arrepto capillitio ad caelos protrabat, alios vero in Tartarum praecipites agat.” — Bp. Hooper in Bull. Yerse 12. — ’ EpprjQrj avrg' 'Otl 6 fiei^cov SovXevaec rat iXdcr- (tovl, It was said to her, The elder shall serve the younger. It scarcely requires to be remarked, tbat tbe abiding of God’s pur- pose according to a certain principle could not depend upon wbat was said to Rebecca. The fulfilment or standing fast of His pur- pose depended upon God Himself, and upon faith in Him. What the apostle means is, that the prediction of a difference in the condition of the children of the same parents, and of the same birth, was intended as a proof and illustration of the principle, upon which God’s purpose of happiness to man was to be carried on; and to show that it was not one of works, nor of natural propagation, but by faith, and of the interposition and constant superintendence and support of God Himself. This, at one time at least, was Augustine’s view. “Quid ergo elegit Deus? Si enim cui vult donat Spiritum Sanctum per quern dilectio operare- tur bonum, quo elegit cui donet? Si enim nullo merito, non est electio, aequales omnes sunt ante meritum, nec potest in rebus omnino aequalibus electio nominari. Sed quoniam Spiritus Sanctus non datur, nisi credentibus, non quidem Deus elegit opera quae ipse largitur, cum dat Spiritum Sanctum, ut per charitatem bona operemur, sed tamen elegit Fidem. Quapropter nisi quis credat in eum et accipiendi voluntate permaneat, non accipit donum Dei, id est, Spiritum Sanctum, per quern infusa charitate bonum possit operari. Non ergo elegit Deus opera cuj usque in praescientia, quae ipse daturus, sed fide elegit in prcescientia, ut quern sibi crediturum esse praescivit, ipsum elegerit, cui Spi- ritum Sanctum daret, ut bona operando etiam vitam aeternam consequeretur.” And again: “Non ergo elegit Deus bene oper- antes, sed credentes potius, ut ipse illos faciat operari.” Compare Hosea xii. 3, 4. The elder shall serve the younger. In the case of the preference exhibited for Jacob, the natural order of primogeniture was re- versed, which proved that the preference was not grounded upon natural heirship. The precedence here referred to was a tem- poral one, and one which had its accomplishment, not in Jacob 438 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. and Esau themselves, but in their descendants. *• The Idumeans, as the prediction foretells, were actually made slaves by David, 2 Sam. viii. 14, subdued by the Maccabees, 1 Mac. x. 27, 31, and finally brought wholly into subjection by Hyrcanus, Joseph. Antiq. i. xiii. c. 9.” — Tholuck. “ Per Jacob figuratus est ipse Jacob secundum spiritalem progeniem. Sed etiam historica pro- prietate hoc responsum invenitur esse impletum ubi populus Israel, hoc est, Jacob minor filius superavit Idumeos, hoc est gentem, quam propagavit Esau, eosque fecerunt tributarios per David.” — St. Aug. But the nature of the precedence is not the subject of St. Paul’s argument, which is directed to the principle upon which God dispenses His distinctive blessings, and not to the character of the blessings themselves. Verse 13. — KaOcos rye'ypa'irTcu' Tov ’ Iafc&)/3 rj^airriaa, tov 3e Ecrav igiarjaa, As it is written , Jacob have I loved, but Esau have 1 hated. “ J’ay plus aime Jacob, qu’Esau.” — R. Simon. Hating is here used in a comparative sense. This manner of expressing a strong desire of affection, by contrasting it with a weaker one, and denominating the latter in comparison with the former by the name of the opposite affection, was common among the Hebrews; and we have an illustration of it in Matt. vi. 24, and Luke xiv. 36, compared with Matt. x. 37. In the one passage the disciples are told, that he that loves father or mother more than Christ is unworthy of Him ; and in the other, the excess of love to Christ, which is incumbent upon His followers, is set forth as here, and the inferior love is spoken of as hatred. “ If a man hate not his father and mother, and wife, .... he cannot be my disciple.” Still Esau’s want of faith, and his profaneness, must have been extremely displeasing to God. His lightly regarding the blessings connected with his birthright shows great want of faith and of spiritual-mindedness ; yet, there is every reason to suppose, that his loss of his father’s blessing exercised a powerful influence over him; and although he was violent at first, and evinced, in his intention of cutting off his brother, much spiritual blindness and faithless ignorance, in thinking to prevail over one who was marked out as under the protection of God, yet Jacob’s unworthy stratagem, being an act of injustice and deceit, not only gave just ground for resentment, but was also very much calculated to cast a cloud upon the indications which God had given of His favour towards him, by its opposition to the cha- racter of that Being to whom all deceit is hateful. The inter- SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 439 pretation of this passage given by some Calvinists, as if it expressed a hatred upon God’s part, not only actual and personal, but even arbitrary (in so far, at least, that it has no foundation in its dis- tinctive objects but the will of God only), has something awfully revolting in its character. How much more truly do the words of our collect for Ash Wednesday breathe of the Spirit of God, and harmonize with the declarations of His word? “ 0 God, who hatest nothing that thou hast made.” So also in that for Good Friday, “ 0 God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made.” Professor Hodge is a pleasing exception to those who give such representations of the Divine character. He says, “ It is evident that in this case the word hate means to love less , to regard and treat with less favour. Thus in Gen. xxix. 33, Leah says, she was hated by her husband, while in ver. 30 the same idea is expressed by saying, Jacob loved Rachel more than Leah.” VERSE 14. — Tl ovv epovpev ; pr) ahucia irapa tc3 0eo3 ; Mr) yevotro, What shall we then say ? Is there injustice with God ? Far he such a thought. Esau and Jacob, at the time in which their respective relations to God and His blessings were revealed, had done neither good nor evil, and there was, therefore, no difference, on the ground of intrinsic merit or of works, between them, and yet, notwithstanding this, God reversed the natural order of precedence ; and if, in the very attainment of the blessing itself, Jacob was guilty of a most unworthy artifice, which was altogether inconsistent with truth and justice, are we thence to infer that God is Himself unjust, or has pleasure in injustice? Far from it. VERSE 15. — Tcj3 yap Mcocrfj \iyer 'EXerjcra) ov av e\ew, /cal ol/crelprjaco ov av ol/crelpw, f'or He saith to Moses, I will have mercy upon whom I will have mercy , and I will have compassion upon whom I will have compassion. That is, “ In the dispensing my loving- kindness, where all are entirely unworthy and destitute of in- trinsic merit, I will do so upon the principle which I think proper; I will select, as the medium of communicating my un- deserved mercies, that principle which I think proper, and as its objects those who are willing to receive them in that channel.” “ He that saith, God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth, did never say that it was God’s will to harden any which deny themselves and their own doings, and wholly betake themselves to His infinite goodness. 440 ST. taul’s epistle to the romans. His meaning, sure, in that place is, that as God will have mercy on none that seek salvation by works, or other prerogatives of the flesh, so He will harden none that put their confidence, not in their works, but in His mercy.” — Jackson , book x. 37, § 23. “ What the apostle in this place here inserts, either concerning the hardening of Pharaoh, /e.r.X., is purposely inserted for under- propping or fortifying his former assertion, ‘ That justification or salvation must be sought by faith only, without works/ ” — Idem . The whole error and misconstruction of this and corresponding passages is founded upon the false theory, that there can be no medium between a discriminating principle involving merit, or rather, involving merit adequate to the reward, and the absence of any discriminating principle whatever. Surely a principle, neither involving merit adequate to the blessing associated with it, nor any merit whatever , may yet draw a distinction between classes, and individuals, as belonging to classes, and be perfectly consistent, not only with man’s total and complete demerit, but with God’s justice and mercy at the same time., The present verse is quoted literally from Exod. xxxii. 1 9, as it stands in the Septuagint, and it was spoken for the encourage- ment of Moses on the occasion of the idolatrous worship of the golden calf. Moses had interceded for the forgiveness of the Israelites on that occasion, and God had granted his prayer. Conscious, however, of the fickleness of the people — of their continual liability to fall into similar transgressions, and to provoke God to cut them off, he earnestly entreats God to give him such a view and insight into the Divine character as might afford him a comfortable assurance, that, notwithstanding these obstacles, the Being who had commissioned him to lead them out of Egypt would bring them up to the land which He had promised. He desired to obtain such a view of the God of his fathers as would strengthen him in his mission, — inspire him with confidence in its successful termination, and satisfy him, that, notwithstanding the great unworthiness of the Israelites, God would still regard them as His people, and conduct them to the land of their in- heritance. Accordingly, we find that the view which he was permitted to have was exactly such as he desired, and perfectly adapted, in the position in which he then stood, to support him in his mission against the discouragement that he felt, owing to the deep sense of the people’s fickleness and sinfulness, which had been so painfully impressed upon him by their late defection, and SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 441 to strengthen him against the fears of final failure, excited by God’s recent threat to cut them off. It was clearly intended to apply not to himself, but to the people whom he led — to their need of continual mercy and forbearance, and to show that in God there was a corresponding supply. The Lord God , merciful and gracious y long-suffering and abundant in goodness and truth , beeping mercy for thousands , forgiving iniquity, transgression , and sin. Verse 16. — "Apa ovv ov tov Oekovros, ovSe tov Tpe^ovTos, aWa tov ikeovvTOs Qeov, So then it is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. The distinction which God makes does not originate in the intrinsic merit of progenitors, nor in the works of those who are preferred. The blessing conveyed to Jacob did not descend to him from any intrinsic merit in Isaac, whose will was to confer it in opposition to God’s indications ; nor did it originate in the meritorious works of the recipients, for Esau sought it with much labour, and Jacob’s success, so far as it depended upon himself, was the result of an artifice, treacherous in itself, and even cruel to his aged and blind father, and one for which both he and his mother were severely punished. But the blessing and its appropriation are to be traced to God, who has mercy, and who forgives those who believe on Him; who forgave Jacob’s sin, although he chastened him for it, and who, upon the same principle, heard the prayer of faith offered by Moses, and forgave the more grievous sin of the Israelites in worshipping the golden calf. That this willing and running is only applicable to a willing or labouring on the principle of merit and of works, such as that of the Jews, who, though they followed after righteousness, yet attained it not, because they sought it by the works of the law, is evident from various passages of Scripture. The loss of salvation is ascribed to a perverse will, (Mat. xxiii. 37, John v. 40) ; And whoever willeth is invited to take of the water of life freely (Bev. xxii. 17). Whoever will be saved must run with patience the race set before him, and labour for the meat that endureth, nay, the king- dom of heaven is taken by violence , and the violent take it by force, and those who enter into it must strive to do so. VERSE 17. — Ae yet yap rj ypacprj tg> $apad>' "Oti els avrorouro 6%r} — Theodor. This of course takes for granted the presence of God’s grace, and applies to the will as it consents to submit to or as it rejects that grace. The force of the line of argument here adopted by St. Paul, and of the authority with the Jews of the particular cases ad- duced to support it is very striking. His object is not to vindicate the principle of arbitrary selection, but of selection through and in accordance with a well-known principle, namely, that of faith, in contradistinction to that of works or that of natural descent, the two great Jewish errors, proving it to be gratuitous in its character, a matter of promise, not of the payment of works or of a debt. This principle of faith he proves to have been the channel of acceptance in the cases of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the quasi instrument (for the actual instrument was the sacra- mental blood of the passover), which drew the line of demarcation between the Israelites and Egyptians , 1 winnowing them as the chaff* is winnowed from the wheat, and leading out the one to be disciplined for glory, and involving, by their refusal to submit to it, the others in destruction. He shows that the rejection of this principle implies not only want of positive merit, but flagrant rebellion, and the deepest ingratitude and perverseness. It makes men’s destruction the result, not of a single offence, but, of final and incorrigible obduracy; since faith not only saves men freely and without merit, but notwithstanding positive and great demerit, throwing the’ onus of their security and final attainment of God’s promises, not upon their own discernment, foresight, or strength, but upon infinite wisdom, power, and goodness, which carry on the work through the submission and plastic power of faith by providential discipline and abounding mercy. Thus by mercy and truth iniquity is purged, and by a filial fear of God and humble trust in His mercy, men depart from evil. 1 And in one case, between one Party of Egyptians and another (Exod. ix. 20, 21). SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 463 If we could divest ourselves of the influence of habit in recon- ciling us to what we frequently hear, those expressions which represent God’s counsel secret to us, as a counsel which is secret, not because God alone knows the secrets of all hearts and the true members of that Church which He purposed to save, but because it is a counsel in some degree arbitrary, or at variance in its spirit and principles with what He has revealed, and more or less independent of or dissociated from the general virtue and efficacy of the means of grace which He has given, would shock the ear, as gross imputations on God’s truth and faithfulness. The danger of any error on the part of a man of such power of mind and extensive influence as St. Augustine, and the peril of the church’s practically calling any man master or yielding to him an almost implicit submission, cannot be more forcibly illustrated than by the fact, that it has been the means of introducing an element of dissension which has ever since, and more or less in all her visible branches, disturbed her peace. In its most rampant development, it has been linked with fatalism or philosophical necessity, and wherever it is received, and in proportion as it is received, it introduces an under and invisible counter current in the Gospel dispensation, which must proportionably shake our confidence, not only in the efficacy of the sacraments, and all the means of grace, but of every individual exertion that we make for the salvation of men. But even St. Augustine, at one time at least, was so far from entertaining the belief of this counter current of an arbitrary selection, or from supposing that God’s vocation either of individuals or nations, was secret, owing to its opposition in any degree to the revealed will of God (to our ignorant and blind expectations it must often be opposed), that he even supposes it to be remotely possible of comprehension by believers, and that if they were fully imbued with Christian prin- ciple, and loved God with all their heart and soul and mind, they might comprehend it. “ Hsec autem vocatio quae sive in singulis hominibus, sive in populis atque in ipso genere humano per tem- porum opportunitates operatur, alta et profundae ordinationis est, et comprehendi non potest, ni forte ab eis qui diligunt Deum ex toto corde, et ex tota aniraa, et ex tota mente sua, et diligunt proximos sicut ipsos. Tanta enim charitate fundati possunt jam fortasse cum sanctis comprehendere longitudinem, latitudinem, altitudinem, et profundum. Illud tamen constantissima fide retinendum, neque quicquam Deum injuste facere, neque ullam esse naturam quae 464 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. non Deo debeat quod est.” — St. Aug. Here the vocation of nations and individuals is so far from proceeding on principles at all opposed to God’s revealed will, or to the known spirit of the Gospel, that nothing but a deficiency of the measure of the stature of a perfect man in Christ is supposed to prevent its possible comprehension; and the difficulty of understanding it arises not from anything arbitrary, or in any degree opposed to that Gospel which is the wisdom of God , but because it is hidden in the inmost recesses of that wisdom and rests on the deepest foundations of that love, and these attributes in their outward manifestations, are palpably intelligent to every one who feels the curse of sin, and longs for deliverance from it; but their height, and depth, and length, and breadth, surpass all finite conception. VERSE 24. — Ov? /cal eKakeaev rjpas, ov povov ef 'IovSalcov, aWa teal ef eOvcov, Which (or in which character) He hath called us not only of the Jews but also of the Gentiles. The construction of this passage has been explained in various ways. By some it is regarded as a Hebraistic use of two pronouns ; by others, as an elliptical sentence. It is evident that the 97/xd? points out the persons so clearly, that there is no occasion for any pronoun to mark who is meant. If the apostle had intended to state that the vessels of mercy spoken of were the believers at Rome, or be- lievers generally in the Gospel times, the natural form would have been /cal r/pa? ov s itcdXe9 in the next verse would refer to God’s justice in His treatment of the respective vessels of wrath and mercy mentioned H H 2 468 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. in the verses preceding the present one, which, upon the suppo- sition that there is no change of reference, is still the principal subject of discussion; whereas there is no attempt at vindication, but simply a statement of the fact, that the calling of Gentiles as well as Jews had been foretold by Hosea. If a transition is admitted in the present verse from the vessels of mercy in former, to those of present times, then the calling of the Gentiles as well as the Jews under the Gospel becomes the principal subject, the quotation is apposite and appropriate to it, and St. Paul is not represented as calling the Jews of his time vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, which would be altogether inconsistent with the delicacy with which he treats the subject of his epistle in all those bearings which might irritate the Jews; but the terms “ vessels of wrath” and “ vessels of mercy,” are attached respec- tively to the Egyptians and the Israelites of old, and only by indirect inference to the unbelieving Jews of the apostle’s day. In this way the quotation in the twenty-fifth verse is natural, since the calling of the Gentiles as well as the Jews has become, not a subordinate, but the principal quotation — the reference to the prophecy of Hosea to prove that this common calling had been foretold, as it had already been proved to be consistent with God’s former selection of the Jews, is forcible and in place, and the drift of the whole seems to be this, St. Paul shows that the principle which he is labouring to establish, as that of the Gospel, is the very one to which the Jews themselves were in- debted for their selection as a family in the line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob — for their separation from the Egyptians — for their elevation to be God’s peculiar people — for the destruction of their oppressors — and for their own forgiveness and readmis- sion to God’s favour after their apostasy in the matter of the golden calf. He then answers the objection, that the correspond- ence of the results of Pharaoh’s wickedness with God’s previous designs exonerated him from blame, so far as God was concerned, by saying, “ But who art thou, 0 man, that repliest against God? Shall the thing made say to him that made it, What makest thou ? Has not the potter power of the same naturally worthless material, out of the same lost human mass, to make one vessel to honour and another to dishonour, as it yields to or resists his moulding hand? If also in the application of the distinguishing principle in these very dealings on which your objection is grounded, God was so far from instigating what He not with- SECT. XVII.— -DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 469 standing made subservient to His purposes of mercy, that in order to display a signal exemplification of His wrath, and to make known His power, and to give as signal a proof of His justice and mercy, He bore with much long-suffering these very Egyp- tians, who were vessels already ripe for destruction, and per- mitted them to continue their oppression and detention of those vessels of mercy which, by the instrumentality of Egyptian persecution as a providential influence, and through the submis- sion of faith which Pharaoh persisted in refusing to yield, He had prepared for glory. Who art thou that answerest against God, in calling in question, either in that instance or in the present, the justice or goodness of Him, who now calls believers, on the same principle, to occupy the position of His people, not only from among the Jews but the Gentiles also? In expanding His family, and admitting into it Gentiles as well as Jews without distinction, God is acting on the very same principle on which He originated it, namely, through gratuitous favour on His and faith on man's part. This led Him to choose 'Abraham — to prefer Isaac to Ishmael, and Jacob to Esau; and this now leads Him to receive all who will now believe. All who do so are, what Isaac and Jacob distinctly were, the children of promise; of whom God said to Abraham, So shall thy seed be, and to Christ, Ask of me, and I will give thee the heathen for thine inheritance , and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession. There is a peculiar force and appropriateness in the apostle’s argument, as directed to his Jewish brethren in the faith ; if we suppose, what the language so strongly confirms, that the apostle employs God’s past exercise of His sovereignty in punishing the Egyptians (possibly also with a glance at the extirpation of the Canaanites), and in showing forth the riches of His glory upon the Israelites, as an introduction to the vindication of His present dealings, in the admission of the Gentiles as well as Jews to'His favour, both being referrible to the same attributes, proceeding upon the same principle, and resting upon one and the same foundation ; and the former being adduced as the most influential argument which could be found to reconcile the Jewish convert to the free admission of the Gentile to Gospel privileges; since any impeachment of the latter proceeding must equably affect the former, and any objection against the present calling of the Gentiles applied with equal force to the former vocation of the Jews themselves. 470 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. Verse 25. — T2? kcu iv tw '£lar)e Xeyer KaXecrco r ov ov \aov fiov \aov pov kcu tt]V ovk rjyaTrgpevrjv, r)ya7nyjLev7}v, As He says in Osee , I will call what was not my people , my people , and her that was not beloved, beloved. This passage is from Hosea ii. 23, the Hebrew of which is, “ I will love her who was not beloved; and I will say to her who was not my people. My people art thou.” The Septuagint has rendered it accordingly ayaTTr/aco rrjv ovk r/ya7rrj - piv rjv. St. Paul has deviated from the literal expression by putting KaXecrco before both clauses, “ I will call her beloved,” being substituted for “ I will love.” Verse 26 . — Kcu ecrr at iv to 5 tottco ov ipprjOr] avToi? 2 680 pa av iyevgOypev Kal co? To poppa av oopoicoOrjpev, Even as Esaias had previously said , Unless the Lord of hosts had left unto us a seed we should have been as Sodom and we should have been like to Gomorrha. This passage is quoted literally from the Hebrew, with which the Septuagint coincides, with the exception of a seed being used in the Septuagint, for a remnant in Hebrew. The construction and connexion of this and the preceding verse seem to be this. The Lord, or His prophet in His name, summing up and cutting short his reckoning or controversy (for a sudden reckoning will the Lord make upon the earth), in so doing acts or speaks in accordance with what might have been expected from what Esaias had spoken in a previous passage, L. 9, which clearly points out and proves, 1st. A distinction of character among the Jews themselves; 2nd. A great degree of criminality on the part of one class; and, 3rd. That nothing but the presence of the small and faithful remnant had hitherto arrested the infliction of that swift destruction, which, like Sodom and Gomorrah of old, they had provoked. “ As the word host is used in reference to any multitude ar- ranged in order, as of men in an army of angels, of the stars, or of all the heavenly bodies, including the sun and moon ; so the expression Lord of Hosts may mean Lord of armies, Lord of angels, or Lord of heaven, or of the universe as a marshalled host, see 1 Kings xxii. 19, / saw the Lord sitting upon His throne , and all the host of heaven standing by Him; Ps. cxlviii. 2, Praise ye Him , all His angels ; praise ye Him , all His hosts. In other pas- sages the reference is with equal distinctness, to the stars, Jer. xxxiii. 22, Deut. iv. 19, and frequently. It is most probable, therefore, that God is called Lord of Hosts in reference to His headship over the whole heavens and all that they contain, Lord of Hosts being equivalent to Lord of the universe.” — Hodge. 474 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. UTrepfia refers to the small remnant of grain reserved in Eastern countries for seed. Verse 30 . — Ti ovv epovptev ; What shall we say then t This intimates the object of the apostle’s previous arguments, and the inference to be drawn from them. And what is this? Not an unconditional election or reprobation, but the acceptance of those who received the Gospel and embraced God’s mercy through faith, and the rejection of those who refused this, and sought to establish a claim by works. I believe it is Melancthon who says, “ Hie expresse ponit causam reprobationis, quia scilicet noluit credere Evangelio. Ideo supra dixi, similitudinem de luto non ita acci- piendam esse quasi non sit in ipsa voluntate homines causa reprobationis.” "Otl edvrj ra ptr; Btco/covra Bi/caLoavvrjv, Karekafte Bi/catoavvtjv , hucaioavvrjv Be rrjv etc 'Ktareco^. That the Gentiles who did not follow after justification have attained justification , namely , that justification which is by faith. This passage seems to refer to the different circumstances in which the Jews and Gentiles stood with respect to the Gospel and the means of justification. The Jews had the law to convict them of sin; and the prophets and ritual worship, to foretell and prefigure the atonement. They had, therefore, many advantages which the Gentiles had not; their great object as a nation was to secure the favour of their God, and their whole polity and history directed them to this end. In this sense the nation is properly spoken of as a nation following after God’s favour or justification, a nation whose attention was directed to this object, and whose polity afforded every facility for securing it. But with respect to the Gentiles this was not the case; they were aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and Strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world. Notwithstanding this apparent dis- parity, the latter attained, without the preparatory advantages as a people which the Jews enjoyed, that blessing which these advantages were naturally calculated to secure; while they who possessed the introductory privileges fell short of it. Ovtol Be ol ptrj Bta rov voptov e\#ovTe? dAV erepa? oBov, ptei&va ravTt]^ evpov Bifccuoavvrjv rrjv cltto rrjs 'iriareco Verse 32. — Atari; Wherefore? It might well excite sur- prise, that, notwithhstanding their selection as a nation — their 1 But they that came not through the Law, but by another road, have found a greater righteousness than this, that, namely, which is of faith. SECT. XVII. — DISCRIMINATING PRINCIPLE, IX. 7 — 29. 475 long-continued connexion with God as His peculiar people, and the advantages which they enjoyed as such, the Jews should fall short of the blessing; and that, on the other hand, the Gentiles, notwithstanding their lack of these advantages, should attain it. In the one case a nation had, as it were, come to the birth in the natural course, and there was not strength to bring forth ; in the other, a nation was born in a day. But notwithstanding the apparently contradictory nature of the case, there was abundant reason for it; and it could be fully and satisfactorily acoun ted for. "Otl ov/c i/c 7 Tio-Tecos dXX’ ct >9 ef epycov vo/aov, Because (they sought it) not by faith , but , as it were , by the works of the Law. Instead of cleaving to the principle, to which they had been in- debted for the promises made to Abraham, that of gratuitous favour, to which Isaac and J acob were also indebted for inheriting their promises, and to which the Israelites, as a people, were to attribute their national existence and peculiar privileges; i.e., instead of seeking acceptance in the exercise of that faith, by which Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had attained it, and which had led the nation to depart from Egypt under the guidance of Moses, they forgot the rock whence they were hewn, and the pit whence they were digged. Instead of being led by those shadows which they enjoyed to look to the substance, and to seek God’s favour through faith, they rested on their outward privileges; and, in- stead of expecting acceptance through God’s mercy, they were disposed to claim it as a right in virtue of their own works. This, as St. Chrysostom observes, points out the drift of the apostle’s previous reasoning, which was not to prove an arbitrary selection or rejection ; but to shew that faith was the means of acceptance and the discriminating principle. “ Avrr) rj aa^earaT^Tov % copLoviravTO ' ? Xucrt?.” — St. Chrys. This is the clearest solution of the whole passage. The et>9 before ef epycov may signify the disparity between that fulfilment of the law which would have justified, and that which they yielded, indicating the deficiency of the latter. They sought justification, not through a true and perfect fulfilment of the law, but, through a fulfilment which was only a semblance of it, J)9, but not the reality. Or ef epycov may comprehend their whole polity, and not the moral law alone, and the &)9 may signify their seeking justification through what was a semblance of the real aim of that polity, which semblance they substituted for the reality. “ f /29,” says Hesy chius and Phavorinus, “ is used dvrl tov 6 Vto9 aXrjdct ) 9 as D in the Hebrew.” T29 ef epywv, Sa/evu 9 476 st. paui/s epistle to the romans. otl ovSe ravTfjv e%ov ttjv §ucaLO(rvvr)v” 1 — St. Chrys. “ Observe, however, that he says,- not by works, but as by works, that he may show, that not truly had they such a care for works, but as in pretence.” — Theophyl. Flpoae/co'^rav yap rw \l6(p rod rrpocnco pharos, For they stumbled at that stone of stumbling. The force of the yap, which is de- monstrative here, depends upon the a>? in the preceding clause; if the remarks upon that clause and particle are well grounded. If the Jews had sought justification agreeably to the principles and intention of their polity, all would have been well. That polity was introductory to the Gospel; and its whole aim was to prepare for the Messiah. They did not, however, seek justifi- cation consistently with the real purport and intention of their polity, but only &>?, as it were. They substituted for it a sem- blance, and of this there could be no clearer or more decided proof, than their opposition to the character and declarations of that Saviour who was the end of their law, and their stumbling at that stone upon which the whole structure of their religious polity, their law, moral and ceremonial, rested for its stability and efficacy. Verse 33. — KaOcbs yeypairrau' ’ IBov , rlOripu ev Sioov XlOov 'KpofTKoppaTo^, /cal rrerpav a/cavSaXow /cal 7ra? 6 mcrrevwv eV* avrcp, ov /caraiar'xvvQrjO'era/, As it is written. Behold I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence ; and whosoever believeth in Him shall not be ashamed. The apostle had already proved, that the existence of the the two classes of Jews had been indicated in prophecy, namely, those who were faithful to their privileges, and to the highest objects of their separation as a nation, and those who were not. He now sums up his argument by the one thing which it still required to make it complete, namely, by proving that the rejection of the latter class was associated with the coming of the Messiah, that He was to be the touchstone and test, the means of drawing a line of demarcation between these classes, that this had been foretold, and, therefore, the rejection in the apostle’s time, of a large body of the nation, owing to their stumbling at Christ, was no matter for surprise, much less for questioning the views to which the mass of the nation were opposed, but was to be expected because it had been foreshown. The prophecy adduced is not contained in one passage, but it is a 1 He says, as by works showing that they had not this righteousness either. SECT. XVIII. — FAITH INCULCATED BY MOSES, X. 1 — 21. 477 combination of part of Isaiab xxviii. 16, and viii. 14. In one of these passages, the security of those who believe in Christ is fore- told; in the other, the offence which, owing to their prejudices, and to the opposition of their principles to those of the Gospel, or, in other words, the real intent and aim of their own polity, the Jews would take at His character and circumstances, and at the plan of His salvation. The two passages are, “ Behold , I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone , a tried stone , a precious corner - stone, a sure foundation ; he that believeth shall not make haste ” (Is. xxviii. 16) 11 And He shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence to both the houses of Israel ” (Is. viii. 14). § XVIII.— FAITH INCULCATED BY MOSES AS THE TRUE WAY OF ACCEPTANCE. ADMISSION OF THE GENTILES TO FAVOUR, AND THE COMPA- RATIVE DISOBEDIENCE OF THE JEWS PREDICT- ED BY MOSES AND ESAIAS. Chaf. X. 1 — 21. St. Paul has now vindicated the principle of Gospel election, and proved ~tjat the introduction of the Gentiles who believed, and the rejection of those Jews who did not believe, were perfectly consistent with God’s jnanner of dealing in former times — with the separation of the Jews themselves from the other nations, and with the express words of their own prophecies. He now traces the principle of Faith, as set forth in ^he Mosaic economy, and as inculcated by Moses himself, who had Spoken of the Word of Faith, in contradistinction to that of works, as something planted in the heart, and uttered by the lips, or as consisting in a heartfelt belief of God’s promises, and specially of those which pointed to an atonement and resurrection, and in a corresponding con- fession of love and devotion to God ; a description which harmonized perfectly with the principles inculcated by the Gospel (ver. 1 — 10). He proves, that, as faith has ever been the principle of God’s selection, there can be no room for distinction in the Gospel dispensation between Jew and Gentile, faith, as a principle, affording equal access to all who draw near to' the God of all, and who seek that mercy which is so rich anff abundant as to overflow to every one who seeks it. That faith is the Gospel principle of acceptance he also shows by quotations from the Prophets, proving that the glad tidings of salvation 478 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. predicted by them were not only spoken of as of universal interest, but also as rejected by many of those to whom it was intended that they should be proclaimed, and, therefore, if that proclamation was to be con- fined to the Jews, the rejection of many of the Jews had been foretold (ver. 11— 17). That the Gospel message was not intended to be so confined, but that the Gentiles should participate in its blessedness, and even be more ready to receive it than the Jews, and thus become the means of pro- voking the latter to jealousy, the apostle proves from the words of Moses, as well as from those of Isaiah (ver. 17 — 21). VERSE 1 . — 'ASeXcjwl, r) gev evBo/cla, tt)<; igrj ? icapSlds, /calrj rj TTpos rov 0eov, vi rep avrcov eh o-iarrjpiav, Brethren , my hearth desire and prayer to God for them [Israel], is for their salvation. The sincere desire, that which would be well pleasing to my feelings in their behalf, is, that they might be saved. My sincere desires and prayers tend to that, as a congenial and natural object. This seems very inconsistent with the interpretation which re- presents the apostle, a few verses before this, as speaking of them as vessels of wrath, ripe for destruction, and is a strong argument against that interpretation. VERSE 2. — Maprvpco

cbv is not only free from difficulty, but is absolutely required. That there should have been any hesitation in adopting this arrangement seems singular, when we take into consideration that the words avepos cfravepow are never applied to the light thrown upon the gospel by the prophetic writings. Stuart, indeed, maintains that Rom. iii. 21 concurs with the present passage, and that the yaap- rvpovpevr] vtto tov vopov /cal tcov 7 Tpotyrjrcov there is, in all essen- tial respects, the same with the fyavepwOevTo? Be vvv here used. This seems to be a strange conclusion. In both passages the word (j)avep6co occurs, and in both it is followed by a similar term. In Rom. iii. 21, which is free from difficulty, the mani- festation is merely said to have now taken place ; but it is added, that it is witnessed by the law and the prophets. To infer from this circumstance that the paprvpovgevT] in that, and the cov 7 TpotyrjrL/ccov, /car emraygv rov alcovlov 0eoO, et? vTraKorjv Trlareco^ eU irdvra ra e0vg yvwpio-0evTO<;, And by the scriptures of the prophets , according to the commandment of the ever- lasting God , made known to all nations to bring them to the obedience of faith. The features of the mystery which were least known were two, salvation through faith, and, secondly,, participation in its blessings by all nations. Verse 26. — Moya) crocfxp ®e<5 hid ’ Irjcrov XpLcrrov , &> 7] holja et9 rov 9 aiwvas. Aprjv, To the only wise God by Jesus Christ , to whom be glory for ever. Amen. The apostle commends them to the only wise God through Jesus Christ, by whom alone be- lievers have access to the Father. § XXIII.— FURTHER EXHORTATIONS TO MUTUAL CONSIDERATION AND TO UNITY. Chap. XV. 1—33. VERSE 1. — -Otyeikopev he rjpec 9 ol hvvarol rd d(T 0 evgpaTa tcov ahwaTcav ftaard^eLv, But we who are strong ought to bear the pp 2 580 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. infirmities of the weak. The force of Be is here adversative, and the train of reasoning seems to be this. “ God alone is able to establish you, and that, according to my Gospel ; hut we are bound to strive in a subordinate capacity for the same object, and upon the same principles. The establishment of His church being a purpose for which God has made such long preparations, and given so much, they who are its members are under the most powerful obligations to seek the same end, and, with this view, they who are strong are bound to bear the infirmities of their weaker brethren, and so, to fulfil their part in the great scheme. Avvarol , those who are strong in faith, free from Jewish scruples respecting meats and drinks. Bacrra^eiv to bear or carry, and also to bear with. The former sense is to be pre- ferred here: they were not only to tolerate their weaknesses, but to bear them, to abridge their own liberty, rather than offend a weak brother. Kal fjurj eavroh apea/ceiv , And not to please ourselves: i. e. not to live or act merely with a reference to our own pleasure, or even our own liberty, or personal views. Verse 2. — "E/cclo-tos rjpojv tco TrXrjalov apea/cerco et? to aryaOov 7rpo? olKoBoprjv , Let each of us please his neighbour for his good to edification. Stuart renders this, “ in respect to that which is good,” but not happily. Edification is the ultimate object, mutual regard for each other's good is the means urged for its attainment, which is distinctly marked by the prepositions used. Verse 3. — Kal yap 6 XpLarb<; ov% eavrp rjpecrev, For Christ also did not please himself. The edification of His church is God’s great object in giving the Gospel, and what it is the duty of all its members to seek ; and, in effecting this object by His labours upon earth, even Christ did not carry it out by pleasing Himself, but, both by His example and ministry, He illustrated and enforced the duty of pleasing others. AWa Ka0(b 9 yeypairrav 01 bveiBicrpol rcbv ovecBi^oVTOdv ae eirkireaov eir e/xe, But, as it is written , The reproaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me. This is a quotation from Ps. lxix. “ That this psalm was spoken of the Messiah i we learn, from verse 22, which is applied to Christ, John xix. 28, 29, and from the former part of the verse from which the present quota- tion is made, applied to Christ, John ii. 17. The Jews them- selves say, that the things contained in this psalm shall be accomplished in the days of the Messiah” — Whitby. Our Lord SECT. XXIII. — EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, XV. 1— 33. 581 himself declared that He came not to do His own will, but His who sent Him. The whole force of man’s natural enmity to God, and of the opposition to His holy character which existed among the Jews, fell, therefore, upon Him who allowed neither dangers, nor injurious conduct to turn Him aside from doing His Father’s will, in fulfilling which, He lived a man of sorrows, and died a malefactor’s death. Possibly St. Paul referred to our Saviour’s conduct in the words of prophecy, instead of doing so by a direct appeal to His life, in order that he might impress more strongly upon the Jews the duty of mutual forbearance, as having been inculcated by the prophetic writings, and as being proved to be a part of the Gospel mystery, wrapped up in some measure of obscurity in the words of prophecy, but now clearly made manifest by its fulfilment in our Saviour’s actual life. Viewed in this light the quotation is not inapposite. If Christ, when working out the general salvation upon earth, followed, implicitly, and without any regard to the griefs and pains to which it exposed Him, the will of His Father, it is surely our duty to sacrifice our own feelings, and to exercise the same self- denial, that we may promote, according to our respective oppor- tunities, the same object, namely, the edification of that body, for which He thus toiled, and suffered, and endured reproach. If, with this disregard of His own sufferings, we combine the condescension to the ignorant, the tenderness to the weak-hearted, the compassion on those who were erring, and the inexhaustible patience and long-suffering with those who were slow of heart, that our blessed Lord exhibited, in fulfilling His ministry, the support to be derived from such an example seems complete. Christ entirely resigned His own will, in the first instance, to that of His Father, and, in carrying out the work assigned to Him, He sympathized with, and stooped to enlighten the most ignorant, to reclaim the most vile, to revive the most abject. The same regard for God’s will and the same tenderness to our brethren are incumbent upon us. VERSE 4. — -Ocra yap irpoeypacfr) el 9 rrjv ggerepav BtSaaKaXlav TTpoeypacpr), iva $ia rr}$ inropovr}^ teal rrjs irapaKkqcreods row y pcMpwv, rr)V e\i rlSa e^wyaev, Fur whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning , that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have hope. The connexion here has been considered difficult, and the force of yap not easy to be discovered. The difficulty seems to have arisen from con- 582 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. fining the attention too closely to the immediate context, and from not embracing the scope of the whole. The Gospel was a mystery of which some of the features were designedly involved in greater obscurity than others. Among these was the future fellowship of the Jews and Gentiles in one body. Probably this was so ordered, because, if it had been more clearly made known, it might have operated unfavourably upon the Jews, by leading them to regard with a more favourable eye their idolatrous Gen- tile neighbours. This would have added power to a temptation, often too* strong as it was. When the Gospel was clearly made known, and the Gentiles were converted to God, one consequence was, that the prejudices of the Jews against the Gentiles, which acted as a safeguard against idolatry to the former, when the latter were idolators, became, if persisted in, prejudicial to the unity and welfare of the Christian church. To overcome these prejudices, nothing was more powerful than to shew that the words of prophecy pre- dicted a fellowship of Jew and Gentile through faith in Christ. By so doing, the Jew would be led to possess his soul in patience, and would be comforted when he perceived, that, although con- trary to his early prejudices, the Gospel kingdom and its princi- ples had been foretold, and that there was, therefore, no ground for regarding it as opposed to the Old Testament. The Gentile would also be comforted by perceiving, that, under the Old Testa- ment dispensation, God had shewn His regard for him, and had been preparing the means for his admission to His favour. Some regard “ patience ” as that grace in the abstract, but it seems best to connect it and “ consolation ” equally with the word “ Scriptures .” The Scriptures are a ground for patience, as well as consolation, and, in the present case, this seems to be specially intimated. The Jew was likely to be betrayed into impatience of the admission of the Gentile convert through faith, and not- withstanding his disregard for Jewish ordinances; and nothing could be expected to produce a mutual patience and toleration, under the law of Christ, but a reference to the Word, which would point out to the Gentile that the prejudices of his Jewish brethren were founded upon what had been the will of God, and to the Jew that the same word foretold the admission of the Gentiles, and that, through faith, and without submission to Judaism. Thus both parties would have hope that — though differing in their views in some respects — each was seeking to SECT. XXIII. — EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, XY. 1 — 33. 583 please God, and would finally be made partaker of His glory. Verse 5. — 'O Be ®£o? t?)? u7royaoW} 7 Ttareveiv, els to rrrepicrcreveiv vpa? ev rfj iXirlBi, ev Bvvapei Tlvevparo^ drytov, Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing , that ye may abound in hope , through the power of the Holy Ghost. The apostle’s object in the previous exhortations, and the quotations adduced to support them is here clearly exhibited. He had exhorted them to maintain goodwill and peace, as members of the same body, chap. xii. ; on the principle of love, chap. xiii. 8, et seq.; and, in the present chapter, by urging upon them the cultivation of mutual joy, or of a common rejoicing of Jewish and Gentile converts, as heirs of the same promises. He now invokes this blessing upon them, directs their attention to Him who is the God of all consolation, and to the blessed agent who works in believers all those gifts and graces which God bestows. Verse 14. — Uenreiapai Be, dBe\(f>ol pov , /cal avro<; eyco irepl vpcov, otl /cal avrol pearoL icrre dryaOuxjvvr)*;, nreTrXgpcopevoL Trdcrr)<$ 6rjvai e/cei , eav vpcov irpwTov airo pepovs ipTrXrjcrOch, Whensoever I take my journey into Spain. 1 hope as I pass on to see you , and to he sent forward by you thither , when 1 am first in part filled with communion with you . It is a matter of con troversy whether St. Paul went to Spain, but the arguments in favour of his having gone seem to preponderate. For illustration of the practice of conveying Christian teachers when departing from any city, see Acts xv. 13, xvii. 14, 15, xx. 38, xxi. 5. I have rendered vpcov ep^rX^aOco , be filled with communion with you. It was not for their company, in the present acceptance of that term, that St. Paul desired to see them, but to communicate to them some spiritual gift, and to enjoy a communion with them, which should strengthen and confirm them through his and their mutual faith. Verses 25, 26. — Nwl Be Tropevopac els ‘ IepovcraXrjp , Bia/covcov tols aylois. EvBo/c7]crav yap MatceBovla /cal 'Ayata /coivcovlav Tiva 7roLijcraa0ai ek tow 7rTcoyow tcov dylcov tcov iv ‘ IepovcraXrjp , But now I go to Jerusalem to minister unto the saints; for Mace- donia and Achaia have thought it good to make a certain contribution to the poor of the saints at Jerusalem. Or, For it hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain contribution for the poor saints which are at Jerusalem. Here we again see the apostle’s earnest desire to establish the union of the different members of the Church at Home — to unite Jew and Gentile in sincere and cordial fellowship. To promote this, he dwells upon this proof of love and liberality to their Jewish fellow-Christians at Jeru- salem, on the part of the Gentile church in Macedonia and Achaia. Verse 27 . — EvBo/crjaav yap, /cal otyeiXeTai avTwv elariv, They have thought it good, and they are their debtors. They have thought this right, and so it is, for they owe them much. SECT. XXIII. — EXHORTATIONS TO UNITY, XV. 1 — 33. 593 El yap tol ? irvet 'par lkols avTcbv i/coivcovrjo-av ra eOvrj, dfecXovcTL / cal €V tol ? crap/a/cois XeLTovpyrjcrat avTols, For if the Gentiles have shared their spiritual things , they ought to minister to them in their carnal things. This declaration of the mutual kindnesses, and consequent obligations of Jews and Gentiles to love one another, was powerfully calculated to promote the mutual regard of the proselytes of these respective classes at Rome. The apostle has indeed omitted nothing that could contribute towards this object, and has introduced all the arguments and motives calculated to effect it, in the most convincing and persuasive manner. His desire to accomplish this runs like a vein through the whole epistle from the beginning to the end. It shows itself in the very opening, directs or modifies every argument throughout, while, at the conclusion, it seems as if St. Paul could 'hot be satisfied without repeatedly urging it, and bringing forward every thing that could possibly contribute towards making the converts at Rome regard themselves as one in Christ Jesus. Verse 28. — Tovto ovv 67 rtTe\er)V r)pd)v, ovcrav Blclkovov tt )? iKKXrjcria 9 rrj<; ev Key^peats, Now, I commend unto you Phoebe our sister , who is a servant of the church at Cenchrea. Ae is here, as it frequently is, merely continuative. There were female deacons in the early church ; but it seems very doubtful whether the appointment had apostolic sanction. The evidence against it seems to preponderate. St. Paul’s direc- tion to Timothy (1 Tim.v.) give no support whatever to the opinion that there then existed an order of ecclesiastical women or deaconesses. They are never called by the name, and St. Paul’s instructions in the matter seem clearly to refer to widows, QQ 2 596 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. who were to be admitted to the status of pensioners upon the bounty of their fellow-Christians. Such persons were to he widows indeed, whose age and desolate condition detached them in a peculiar manner from the world, and who had no earthly personal interests or cares to distract their attention from those of another world. No one was to he admitted under sixty years of age, and whoever had believing relatives, able to support her, was to he maintained by the latter. An age which precluded the idea of their engaging afresh in the ties and cares of life, and a destitution of believing friends or relatives to support their declining years seem to have been indispensable requisites to en- title them to admission; and a consistent discharge of their relative and Christian duties before old age came upon them, the legitimate recommendation. The works enumerated in 1 Tim. v. 10, are clearly the works that gave a claim to admittance to the order of widows, not those in which they were to be engaged after their admission; and the women there spoken of were clearly an order of almoners. Cenchrea was the eastern port of Corinth, which, not resting on the sea itself, had two harbours, Cenchrea on the east, and Lechea on the west. It is supposed that Phoebe was about to sail for Rome, and that she took charge of the epistle. VERSE 2. — -Iva avrr/v irpoahe^rjcrde ev Kvplrp tcov ayluiv, /cal TrapaaTTjTe avrfj ev & dv vpiwv XPV^V irpaypLarr That ye may receive her in the Lord in a manner becoming saints , and that ye assist her in what business soever she may have need of you. \ 'Ev Kypicp may refer either to the motive or manner of reception. “ Receive her as those who are in Christ, and who, under the influence of love to Him, are bound to receive those who are His;” or else, “ Receive her in such a manner as one follower of Christ is bound to receive another, in a spirit of fervent Christian love and kindness.” Kal yap avrr) TTpocrraTL 9 'iroWcov iyevqOr], /cal avrov i/iov, For she hath herself been a receiver of many and of me myself. A reference to 1 Tim. v. 10, will perhaps be the best guide to a proper estimate of the kind offices by which Phoebe had earned a title to the sympathy and assistance of her fellow Christians. She had probably lodged St. Paul and others, washed the saints’ feet when they reached her dwelling, had relieved the afflicted, and followed every good work. Verse 3. — Acnrdaacrde UpicnaWav Kal 'AkvXov , tov 9 avvep- SECT. XXIV. — CONCLUDING COMMENDATIONS, XVI. 1 — 24 . 597 7ot>9 fjiov iv Xpurr o5 ’Irjcrov, Greet Priscilla and Aquila , my fellow labourers in Christ Jesus. Priscilla is a diminutive for Prisca (1 Tim. iv. 19). Prisca and Aquila were of Jewish extraction, and, having been driven from Rome by the edict of the emperor Claudius banishing the Jews, they came to Corinth. While there, St. Paul lodged in their house; for Aquila was, like him- self, a tent-maker. Probably they had been converted previously ; but of this there are doubts. When St. Paul departed from Corinth, they accompanied him as far as Ephesus, and remained there, St. Paul proceeding to Jerusalem. Plere they no doubt laboured in disseminating the Gospel, and instructed Apollos. Circumstances seem to prove that they had remained there for some time, for they are among those who are enumerated in 1 Cor. xvi. 19, as sending salutations from themselves, and the church in their house; and, in 1 Tim. iv. 19, greetings are sent to them. They had, however, previously to the date of the present epistle, returned to Rome. VERSE 4 . — Oltlvc 9 vrrep rf ) 9 ^1^779 yaou rov eavrobv rpd'yrjXov, V 7 re 0 r)/cav , Who have for my life laid down their own necks. A striking peculiarity of the present Epistle is the large number of salutations with which it concludes. This may be accounted for by supposing that the apostle, in his anxiety to secure that unity and concord which is so prominent an object, tries to bind them together by the power of all the ties which existed between them individually and himself, and to excite their affection for one another by dwelling upon their affection for the same person, making himself a kind of subordinate centre of social and brotherly feeling in Christ, and reminding them individually of their affection for him and his for them. The occasion on which they risked their lives for the apostle is not mentioned. Probably it was at Ephesus, in the uproar created by Demetrius (Acts xix. 30). Aquila and Priscilla, being of Jewish extraction, were no doubt persons of considerable influence in the church at Rome, particularly among the Jewish converts; and this allusion to their strong affection for St. Paul was calculated to disarm any prejudices which their fellow Christians of Jewish origin might have been disposed to entertain against the apostle. It was, at the same time, calculated to revive and strengthen the regard which these worthy persons entertained for St. Paul, and to arouse all their interest, and engage all their exertions in behalf of the objects of his epistle, the peace and unity of the 598 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. church at Rome, which their influence with their Jewish brethren would probably enable them greatly to promote. Verse 5. — Kal ttjv /car oikov avrcov i/c/ckrio-iav, And the church which is in their house. By Calvin, Tholuck, and others, the church here spoken of is supposed to signify merely the household; but an examination of the passages in which the word church is used, proves that the usus loquendi is strongly opposed to this view. The early Christians met in houses, having as yet no temples, and it is not at all unlikely that those at Rome met in more than one. Possibly the distinction between Jew and Gentile at Rome had already led to such a degree of jealousy, that the Jewish and Gentile converts were beginning to shew a preference for the teaching and assemblies of persons of their own respective origins ; and the house of Aquila might have been the favourite place of assembly of the Jewish believers. If so, the introducing into the salutation the mention of the debt of gratitude, which the Gentile churches felt to 'these persons, for perilling their lives for his sake, was well adapted to promote mutual love between Jews and Gentiles at Rome. AcriracracrOe Eiralverov tov drja'KTjTOV pov, 09 icrriv dirapyj) 7779 Ayalas els Xpicrrov, Salute Epinetus , my well beloved , who is the first fruits of Achaia unto Christ. Griesbach reads Asia instead of Achaia, which is preferred by Tholuck and others. Tholuck says,' “ The external authorities speak for the reading Aalas instead of ’ Ayalas . The internal authorities in favour of it also predominate. Aala here would signify Asia proconsularis, whose capital was Ephesus. It was easy for a copyist, overlooking its special import, and considering Asia to be the name of that entire quarter of the globe, to put the more confined country in its place. If ’ Ayala were the correct reading, there would be here a contradiction of 1 Cor. xvi. 15, although, in that case, we should not require to take airapyr) quite so strictly, but might translate it, one of the first. 1 ' Verses 6, 7 . — AairdaaaOe Mapidpb , f/r£9 TroWd hcoirlaaev els 7] pas. AairdaaaQe AvSpovifcov Kal ’ low lav, tov 9 crvyyevels pov , Kal rov 9 crvvaiypaXodTovs pov , Salute Mary who bestowed much labour on us. Greet Andronicus and Junia , my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. It is probable that these persons had, like Aquila and Priscilla, met with St. Paul in his apostolic travels, and had, like them, returned subsequently to Rome. It is not known where the two latter shared his captivity. They may SECT. XXIV. — CONCLUDING COMMENDATIONS, XVI. 1 — 24. 599 have been either personal relatives, or merely Jews by birth, for the word avyyevr)? is used in the latter sense (see ix. 3). Omve? elacv irrcarjgoc iv roc ? drroaroXoc?, ol /cal 7 rpo igov yeyovaacv iv Xpcara 5, Who are of note among the apostles who were also in Christ before me. The word apostle is here used in its wider acceptation, as given to the companions and assistants of the apostles (see 2 Cor. viii. 23, Acts xiv. 4, 14). In speaking of them as having embraced the Gospel before him, Paul gives them an honourable distinction ; they were his elder brethren in Christ. VERSES 8 — 12. — AarraaaaOe AgrrXcav, rov dyarrrjrov gov iv Kvpccp. AarraaaaOe Ovp/3avov, rov avvepyov rjgcov iv Xpcarcp /cal Xrag^jVy rov dyarrrjrov gov iv Kvpccp. AarraaaaOe ArreXXrjV, rov 8o/ccgov iv Xpccrra/. AarraaaaOe too? i/c rcov Apcaro/3ovXov. AarraaaaOe 'HpoSccova, rov avyyevrj gov. AarraaaaOe row ? i/c rcov Nap/ccaaov, to 1)9 ovrol , cncoirelv tou? Ta? Bt^oar acrLas /cal ra a/cayBaXa, irapd rrjv BiBa'xfjV fjv vpels ipdSere, '/roLovvras, /cal i/acXivare cltt avrcov, Now I beseech you , brethren , to have an eye upon those who cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned , and avoid them. This is evidently aimed at those who should, notwithstanding the apostle’s instruction and exhortation, persevere in disturbing the peace of the church at Rome, by insisting, as Jews, upon the submission of their Gentile brethren, or by so using their Christian liberty as Gentiles as to offend their Jewish fellow Christians. St. Paul speaks of these things as being contrary to the doctrine generally which they had learned, but he is to be regarded as putting his admonition in the most courteous way, and the doctrine spoken of refers no doubt principally to the instructions contained in his epistle. ’E/c/cXlvare is not perhaps to be regarded as enforcing a formal and absolute separation from these persons, but rather the showing a decided disapprobation of their conduct, such as would lead a man to refuse to listen to anything which they maintained that was calculated to cause division, and to cause him to with- draw from communication with them, in proportion as they withdrew from the apostle’s doctrine. It might be thus para- phrased. “ Shew a marked disapprobation of those who refuse to submit to the instructions which I have given, and who are SECT. XXIV. — CONCLUDING COMMENDATIONS, XVI. 1 — 24. 601 enemies to the peace and unity which I have now laboured both by doctrine and exhortation to establish.” VERSE 18. — 01 7 dp tolovtol tw Kvplco gpwv XpicrTcp ov hov\ev- ovcnv a\Xa rfj eavrcov KoCXla’ kcu hid Trj? ^prjaToXoyla? /cal ei )\oyia? i^aTrarwcn Ta? naphta? tcov cucclkcov , For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ , hut their own belly ; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple . The per- sons here spoken of may be individuals who sought to make and attach a party to themselves, or persons who used their Christian liberty as a cloke for the flesh, and who in the matter of meats only consulted their appetites. Verse 19 . — 'H yap vpwv viranor) el? 7 rdvra? dcplnero' ycdpco ovv to 6(f) vplv 6e\(o he vpa? crocfrov? pev elvau el? to ayaOov , a/cepalov? he el? to Katcbv , For your obedience is come abroad unto all men , I am glad , therefore , on your behalf ; but yet I would have you wise unto that which is good , and harmless concerning evil. The faith of the Romans was spoken of throughout all the world, chap, i. 8, and this faith produced a corresponding obedience. The apostle rejoiced in their obedience to the Gospel, but yet he de- sired that they should behave themselves wisely, in a perfect way. This and the preceding verse seem to refer to the wisdom which enabled them to discern and maintain their Christian liberty and at the same time to make a discreet use of it. Verse 20. — O he Geo? Trj? elprjvrj? avvTpl^reL tov XaTavav vtto too? iroha? vpco v iv Target, And the God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly. Some persons understand by Satan, the persecution by Jews and Judaizers. Comp. 2 Cor. xi. 15, xii. 7. It may be regarded as both an intimation (with a special refer- ence to such persons at Rome), that all who fomented divisions were under the influence of Satan, or at least doing his work, and a prayer, or prediction, that those who persisted in so doing would be confounded. Verse 21 . — Ao-ird^ovTai vpa? Tcpodeo?, 6 crvvepyo? pov, /cal Aov/cio? kcu 'Iaacov /cal % cocrliraTpo ? ol avyyevel? pov , Timotheus my work-fellow , and Lucius , and Jason , and Sosipater, my kinsmen salute you . Stuart supposes that the person here called Lucius was Luke the Evangelist, but this seems very doubtful. VERSE 22. — AoTra^opat vpa? iyco TepTio?, 6 ypa^jra? Trjv €7 ruxToXrjv, iv Kvplw. I Tertius who wrote this epistle salute you in the Lord. VERSE 23. — 'Acnra&Tai vpa? Taio? 6 feVo? pov kcu Trj? in/cXi]- 602 st. Paul’s epistle to the romans. alas o\r )< ?, Gains mine host and of the whole church saluteth you. Like Phebe, Gaius seems to have exercised a truly Christian hospitality ; for he is spoken of as entertaining not only Paul, but the whole church. Aaira^erai vfias 'Epacrro^, 6 ol/covoguos rr}$ 7 roXecw?, /cal Kovap- to? o d8eX^>o?, Erastus the chamberlain of the city saluteth you , and Quartus a brother. Verse 24 . — 'H xapi? rod Kvpiov rjgojv Trjaov Xpcarov peer a 'TravTOdv vpbcov. 'Ap,rjv. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen . This may be looked upon as an invocation of that ■which is the fount of all blessings, and as therefore an appro- priate conclusion to an apostolical epistle. PARAPHRASE ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. Chap. I. — -1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, a duly called Apostle, separated, by the express direction of the Holy Ghost, to the propagation of the Gospel of God, 2. which He formerly declared by His prophets in the Holy Scrip- tures, 3. concerning His Son (who was born of the seed of David, according to the flesh, or in His human nature, and was clearly marked out to be the Son of God essentially, or in power according to the spirit of holiness, by rising from the dead by His inherent Divinity), even Jesus Christ our Lord, 5. through whom we have received grace and apostleship, in order to promote obedience to the faith in His name among all nations, 6. (among whom are ye also called of Jesus Christ), 7. to all that are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be holy, grace to you and peace from God the Father. 8. First I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the Roman empire, which may be said to be co-extensive with the whole known world. 9. For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the Gospel of His Son, and upon a consciousness of whose knowledge of the most secret intents of the heart the whole service and devotion of my life to Him are built, that, without ceasing, I make mention of you, 10. always in my prayers, beseeching Him, that, if possible, I may, by some means, soon have a prosperous journey to come to you by the will and providence of God. 11 For I long to see you, that, as an apostle, I may impart unto you, by the laying on of my hands, gome spiritual gift, 12. that ye may be established in faith and in the purity of the Gospel; that is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mu- tual faith of you in receiving, and of me in bestowing, the advantages of an apostle’s presence. 13. How I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that the earnest desire to see you, which 1 have just expressed, has not been confined to wishes and prayers, but that I have fre- quently purposed to come unto you (but have been hitherto as often hindered), that I might have some fruit among you Salutation. Introduction. PARAPHRASE. even as among other Gentiles. 14. For 1 am a debtor through Christ’s mercy, to Greeks and to Barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise; and, as such, I feel a necessity laid upon me to preach the Gospel everywhere. 15. So that you may rest assured that, so far as it depends upon me, I am promptly ready to preach the Gospel to you that are at Rome also. 16. For I am not ashamed of preaching, even in imperial Rome, the Gospel of Christ, because it is the most wonder- ful exhibition of the infinite power of God, directed to the attainment of man’s supreme happiness; even to the salva- tion of the soul of every one that believeth ; and which is, indeed, offered first to the Jew, because his previous ad- vantages should prepare him to embrace it most readily ; but which embraces equally within its purposes of mercy, and is equally adapted to the Gentile also. 17. For in it the righteousness ✓ .