A treatise on sanctification

Scs^^S"

-fh -rsv^**^-

SCS #'S"<^5"

JUST PUBLISHED.

SANDY SCOTT'S BIBLE CLASS. A work of
religious instruction set forth in a homely and
humorous way. Crown 8vo, cloth extra, price
is. 6d.; paper covers, price is.

A TREATISE ON SANCTIFICATION

The Rev. JAMES FRASER {of Alness)

A Treatise

on

SANCTIFICATION

BY

The Rev. JAMES ERASER

(OF ALNESS)

NEW AND REVISED EDITION

WITH BIOGRAPHICAL AND CRITICAL INTRODUCTION
BY

The Rev. JOHN MACPHERSON, M.A.

LONDON
SANDS & COMPAN Y

12 BURLEIGH STREET, STRAND, W.C.

MDCCCXCVIII

PREFACE

/^OPIES of this excellent book are not easily pro-
^^^ curable, and when they are obtained their form
in the matter of printing and paper is anything but
attractive. It occurred to the present Editor that a
re-issue of the work, carefully revised, would meet a real
want, and serve to secure a favourable introduction for
what seems to him a masterpiece in its own department
to those who might be repelled by the aspect of earlier
editions, or might, in consequence of its comparative
rarity, remain altogether ignorant of its existence.

It has been the aim of the Editor, first of all, to produce
a pure text. He has much pleasure in making grateful
acknowledgment of the kindness and courtesy with
which Mrs Mackintosh allowed him the use of the
original manuscript, which had come into the possession
of her husband, the late eminent and revered Dr
Charles Calder Mackintosh of Tain, and afterwards of
Dunoon. The present edition is the result of a careful
collation of previous printed editions with the manu-
script.

The older editions were prefaced by a Biographical
Introduction of six pages, five of which were devoted

VI 11 PREFACE

to the story of the sufferings undergone by Mr Fraser's
father, only the closing section being given to a vague
and general encomium on Mr James Fraser, the only
facts given being the dates of his birth, ordination, and
death. It seemed therefore extremely desirable to gather,
if possible, some details regarding the life and work of
the author, and to present them in the form of a brief
introductory biography. For the several particulars
which have been embodied in the following notice,
the Editor is almost wholly indebted to Dr Gustavus
Aird of Creich. Probably no one living has anything
approaching the information of the venerable Doctor
with regard to the inner and outer history of the
Highlands, especially of Ross and Sutherland, from the
time of the Reformation down to the present day. In
the kindest manner, Dr Aird wrote long and interest-
ing letters, giving authentic information, often going
into minute genealogical details in order to show the
accuracy of some statement, and drawing upon his
wide knowledge of family history in order to mark
changes in the possession of properties more or less
closely connected with the story of our author's life.
It is earnestly to be hoped that Dr Aird may be
persuaded soon to give to the world his reminiscences
of interesting persons whom he has met, and remarkable
incidents in which he has taken part, as well as his
splendid collection of incidents and traditions of earlier
times.

r RE FACE IX

Special thanks are also due to John Mackenzie, Esq.,
C.E., of Inverness, who has placed at the disposal of
the Editor the portrait of Mr Fraser of 1747, now in
his possession, of which the frontispiece is a copy.

The present accomplished and respected Free Church
Minister of Alness, Rev. A. R. Munro, has also given
much encouragement in the preparation of this edition
by his advice and hearty sympathy.

May the issue of this new edition lead to increased
interest in the study of this important and profound
portion of the Divine Word.

JOHN MACPHERSOX.

Free Church Manse,
Findhorn, August 1897.

CONTENTS

PAGES

vii. ix.

Xlll.-XXXl.

1-32
33-106

107-

PREFACE .....

Biographical Introduction

Introduction to Explication of Romans vi.

Explication of Romans vi.

Introduction to Explication of Romans vii.

Explication of Romans vii. i-S

Essay on Penal Sanction of the Law

Explication of Romans vii. 9

v on Promise under Old Testament
Explication of Romans vii. 10-13
Dissertation on Scope of Romans vii. 14-25
Sect. 1. Introduction

„ 2. General Considerations

„ 3. Nothing Inconsistent with State of Grace 270-281

„ 4-6. Much Inconsistent with Unregenerate

State ..... 2S1-331

132-186
187-214

214-223
223-242
242-254
254-352
254-259
259-270

„ 7. Answers to Objections
„ 8. Practical Uses
Paraphrase of Romans vii. 14-25
Explication of Romans viii. 1-4

331-345
345-352
352-356
357-396

Xll CONTENTS

APPENDIX.

PAGES

The Apostle's Doctrine, Principles, and Reason-
ings APPLIED TO THE PURPOSES OF HOLY

Practice and of Evangelical Preaching—

Sect. i. Recapitulation of Apostle's Doctrine and

Principles .... 397-400

„ 2. Advantage to Holiness from being under

Grace ..... 401-427

„ 3. Directions to those anxious about Salva-
tion ..... 427-456

„ 4. Concerning True Evangelical Preaching 456-493

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE OF MR FRASER, AND
CRITICAL ESTIMATE OF HIS WORK.

During the latter half of the seventeenth century Ross-shire
and the province of Moray were singularly favoured by the
presence of several highly distinguished and zealous witnesses
for evangelical truth. Throughout this district, as well as in
other parts of the country, there were no doubt prevailing
deadness and indifference to spiritual things, while in most of
the parishes conforming ministers and curates represented
Moderatism of the most objectionable kind. But though
many districts remained in a state of ignorance and rudeness
that seemed more pagan than Christian, there were here and
there throughout these provinces communities gathered around
devoted and earnest ministers, whose profound personal ex-
perience of spiritual truths, and minute acquaintance with the
doctrinal and religious teaching of scripture, has been the
astonishment and admiration of all who have studied the
history of this locality and age.

The parish of Alness lay in the heart of the district in which, dur-
ing that period, spiritual religion flourished in the highest degree.
It lies on the northern shore of the Cromarty Firth, almost
directly opposite the town and parish of Cromarty, not far re-
moved from Kilmuir, Logie Easter, Fodderty, Killearn, Redcastle,
and Urquhart, all famous as centres of light in those dark days.
In 1695 the curate, who had been a legacy to the parish from

XIV BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

the prelatical Government, died, and the people, headed by one
of the most influential and powerful of the northern lairds,
Munro of Fowlis, determined that they should have a minister
who should preach a pureGospel, and show himself zealous for
the conversion of sinners unto God. During the preceding
years Gaelic-speaking ministers settled in southern parishes had
been sent to these northern parts to evangelise among the
people, for the number of such men was small and the need
was great. Among others, Mr John Fraser, minister of
Glencorse, in the Presbytery of Dalkeith, had visited Alness
and preached among the people. Now that they had the
opportunity of calling a minister, their hearts turned towards
him, of whose gifts and graces they had had sufficient evidence.
This Mr Fraser, the father of the author of our treatise on
" Sanctification," had previously passed through severe trial
and persecution in consequence of his faithful adherence to
the cause of Protestantism. Having withdrawn to London in
1680, he associated with various Nonconformists, and enjoyed
much refreshing fellowship with pious ministers and members
of some of the smaller and proscribed sects which abounded
in that age. For some years considerable freedom of assembly
was enjoyed, but by-and-by the system of espionage became
more regularly organised and more rigorously carried out,
informers being encouraged in their despicable calling by the
payment of a considerable reward for each discovery of a house
in which a conventicle was held. Preachers and hearers were
also subjected to fines, and these too were paid over to the
informer. And so it happened that in the beginning of 1685,
as a famous Scotch preacher, Alexander Shiells, was addressing
an assembly composed mostly of Scotsmen, among whom was
Mr Fraser, he and others were apprehended and sent down as
prisoners to Scotland to stand their trial in their own native
country. Mr Fraser was one of seven who were sent down by
sea to Leith, along with Mr Shiells, in the month of March.

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XV

Of the whole party, Mr Shiells was the only one who flinched
from a plain and honest acknowledgment of their political
position and religious belief. The seven faithful men were
sent on the 18th of May to Dunnottar Castle, near Stonehaven,
on the Kincardineshire coast, which had been purchased from
the Earl Marischal by the Government for a State prison. No
less than 167 Covenanters were at this time confined within
the narrow walls of this old castle, where they were subjected
to the most barbarous cruelties. The condition of the dungeons
in this place was deplorable, as many as forty-two prisoners
being confined in a chamber measuring fifteen feet by nine,
to which air and light were admitted by a single narrow slit
placed near the floor. Many died here, and others contracted
diseases which continued with them during all the subsequent
years of their lives. After about three months of misery in this
pestilential prison, they were brought back to Leith, and again
subjected to examination before the judges. A large number
of them received sentence of exile, many were sold to un-
scrupulous men, who made considerable profit by selling them
as slaves to work on plantations in one or other of the American
colonies. Mr Fraser was one of a party of eighty or a hundred
sold to the laird of Pitlochie, who, along with his wife, sailed
in the ship with them from Leith for New Jersey. Altogether,
there were about 300 souls on board. The provisions were
bad j the health of many of those who came from Dunnottar
had been utterly ruined ; the weather was stormy, and the
winds contrary. Often three or four died in one day, so that
during the wretched voyage of seventeen weeks no less than
sixty deaths took place on board, among these that of the laird
of Pitlochie and of his wife. That poor man had bought the
prisoners for four years' service, and his son-in-law, who had
also been in the ship, sought to enforce his claim before the
courts of the State. The jury summoned by the Governor to
try the case refused the claim, on the ground that these men

XVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

had not voluntarily accepted service, nor gone on board the
ship of their own free will. Soon after this Mr Fraser, along
with others who had been his companions in suffering, left
New Jersey, and went northward into New England. He
settled for some time in Waterbury — well known in these
days for its extensive watch manufactories — a city on the
coast of the State of Connecticut, about half-way between
New York and Boston. It was here that Mr John Fraser
was licensed as a preacher of the Gospel, and for about two or
three years he remained in this place, engaging laboriously in
pastoral duties, not without encouraging tokens of the Divine
favour and blessing. Among those who had gone out with
him from Scotland in the ship was a certain Miss Jean Moffat.
She was from Tweeddale, her home having been in the neigh-
bourhood of what is now known as Abbotsford, so celebrated
as the residence of Sir Walter Scott. Her repeated refusal to
attend the services of the curates, and her attending of the
conventicles or field meetings of the Covenanters, led to her
being denounced as one disaffected towards the Government,
and after repeated finings had proved ineffectual, she was
sentenced to be sent beyond the seas. Mr Fraser married
the lady, who proved an excellent, and in every way a suitable
partner to her husband, and a sympathiser and helper in his
work. On the news of the accession of William of Orange
reaching them, they left America and returned to Scotland, his
settlement in the parish of Glencorse speedily following his
arrival. The call which the people of Alness addressed to him
in 1695 having been set aside by the Assembly, the northern
congregation refused to regard this decision as final, and
renewed their call in the following year, making an appeal
to the Assembly of 1696. In order to strengthen Mr Fraser
in his purpose to stay with them, the people of Glencorse built
him a new. church; but just on the eve of the meeting of the
Assembly, when the finishing touch had been put to the

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XVll

internal fittings of the church, and before it had been occu-
pied, the building was burnt to the ground. The minister and
his wife were agreed in regarding this as an indication of God's
mind and will. He felt that he was called to use his Gaelic
where it was needed, and accordingly he accepted the call to
Alness, and was inducted to that charge in that same year —
1696. His ministry in Alness extended over a period of fifteen
years. It was a ministry singularly fruitful and richly blessed.
He died in the manse of Alness in November 1 7 1 1.

Mr James Fraser was born in Alness in the year 1700. An
older brother, a young man of great promise, died while James
was still a youth of twelve. He recognised signs of more than
ordinary talent in his younger brother, and strongly urged his
mother to endeavour to secure for him the advantages of a
University education. He passed through the regular curriculum
in arts and theology, and was in due course licensed as a
preacher of the Gospel. No record remains of the reputation
he secured at College, but owing to the evil custom which
prevailed then, and for a long time afterwards, of sending boys
to College at the absurdly early age of twelve or thirteen, it is
probable that his mental powers were not developed or his
abilities seen till long after his University course had ended.
His father had been succeeded in 17 11 by Mr Daniel
Mackilligan, who was translated from Kilmuir Easter to
Alness. This minister, who proved in every way worthy of
his pious and popular predecessor, was the son of the famous
Mr Mackilligan of Fodderty, the Covenanter. On his death,
in 1726, Mr James Fraser, now in his twenty-sixth year, was
called to his father's parish, and ordained and inducted as
minister of Alness.

The records of his life and work in Alness are very scanty.
The " Statistical Account of Ross-shire " speaks of him only in
general terms. " He appears to have been a man as much
distinguished for the talents necessary to eminence as a public

xvill BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

character as for the virtues which rendered him so much
esteemed as a private Christian." These words seem to sum
up very accurately what we might be led to suppose, from the
few recorded incidents of his ministry, would have been his
leading characteristics. From the very outset of his ministry
he established a high reputation as a preacher, and was soon
recognised as one of the most impressive and instructive
preachers in a district where men of great and distinguished
pulpit gifts were remarkably numerous. In his sermons he
seemed to aim specially at the conviction of sinners. And so
we find among the people attending his ministrations much
spiritual anxiety and great searchings of heart. According to
the mode of expression current in that age, the law work was
very prominent in their experience ; they were made to feel
the terribleness of sin, the awful and inexorable demands of
the holy law. Christ was very faithfully and tenderly preached,
but it was as the Saviour of sinners, who had been painfully
driven and unweariedly hunted out of every refuge of lies.
The good people of Ross-shire seem to have quite understood
the peculiar fitness of the different ministers in that neighbour-
hood for dealing with special conditions of the spiritual life, so
that, when their personal condition of mind and experience
called for special treatment, they would go to hear the minister
whose gifts were supposed to lie in the imparting of the needed
help. In Kilmuir, Mr Fraser's contemporary was his own
cousin, Mr Porteous, the son of his father's sister. He was
one of the most famous ministers of his time, and between him
and Mr Fraser there existed throughout their whole lifetime a
friendship of the closest intimacy. Some of those who were
awakened under Mr Fraser's ministry were wont to go occa-
sionally to Kilmuir to hear Mr Porteous. The good people of
Kilmuir became alarmed on account of these visits of members
of the Alness congregation, lest it might produce any mis-
understanding and coolness between the two ministers, both of

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XIX

whom they venerated so much and loved so dearly. Accord-
ingly they asked Mr Porteous to speak to Mr Fraser on the
subject, and to assure him that he had done nothing with the
object of inducing these people to become occasional wor-
shippers in his church. Mr Porteous, who was himself some-
what vexed and anxious about the matter, readily complied
with this wise and well-considered request. Mr Fraser's answer
was characteristic, and in every way worthy of the man. " My
dear brother," he said, "this will never produce any alienation
of feeling between us. It is entirely of the Lord. He has
given me a quiverful of arrows, and it is not yet exhausted, and
these arrows are piercing their consciences ; hence their pain
and cry for relief. But the Lord has given you a breast full of
oil, and they run to you for relief. The whole is from the
Lord, and no coolness shall arise between us." This incident
not only reflects most creditably the unselfishness of Mr Fraser,
and his absolute surrender of himself to the interests of his
Master's kingdom, and the wise considerateness and modesty
of Mr Porteous, but also the sterling Christian good sense of
the people, who loved them both.

Besides his pulpit services on Sabbath, for which he made
very laborious and careful preparation, he had frequent meet-
ings in different parts of his parish, and for different classes of
men and women, during the week. Once a month, Monday
was observed as the question day, when meetings were held
for conference on topics of doctrine and experience. The
exercise at these Monday meetings seems to have been
similar to that of the Friday before the Communion Sabbath,
according to the mode of preparation for the Sacrament which
still prevails throughout the Highlands. Besides this, there
was also once a month, on Tuesday, a meeting of pious
women, many of whom resided in a part of the parish, which
was then thickly peopled, called Clachnambuaig. This also
seems to have been a question meeting, for we are told that

XX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

these pious females, who were not allowed to speak in other
meetings, came to these Tuesday gatherings with a great
variety and wealth of difficult questions in what might be
called casuistic divinity. It was the minister's rather un-
enviable task to do as best he could to supply a reasonable
and satisfactory solution of these hard problems. Mr Fraser
seems often to have found the work more than ordinarily
irksome, and confesses that the puzzles presented to him on
such occasions were often so perplexing that the ordeal of
these Tuesdays constituted the most serious and trying part of
his work as a minister. So much did he feel this burden, that
on parting with his elders at the close of the monthly Monday
meeting, Mr Fraser was in the habit of asking them most
earnestly to remember him in their prayers, that he might be
enabled at the meeting on the following day to answer discreetly
and profitably the questions put to him by the women.

Mr Fraser inherited from his father a small estate in the
parish of Nigg called Pitcalzian, or Meikle Pitcalzian. To this
property his sister Catherine retired, and there she resided
during her widowhood. She was married to the Rev. John
MacArthur, who was minister of Killearnan or Redcastle from
1 7 19 to 1730, and of Logie Easter, in the Presbytery of Tain,
from 1730 to 1744. Mrs MacArthur lived in Pitcalzian till
her death in January 1785. Tradition represents her as a
woman of high character and strong will. She was in the
habit of attending the county meetings, and was wont sharply
to reprove anyone who might use rough or unseemly language,
even bringing down her stick upon the backs of the offenders.
Some time after Mr Fraser's death this property passed away
from the family, and was purchased by Mr William Murray,
Provost of Tain, and it is now possessed by Captain Murray
of Geanies, the great-grandson of the original purchaser.
Mrs James Fraser of Alness was one of the Macleods of
Geanies, in the parish of Tarbat, a family who came from

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXI

Assynt, although disclaiming all connection with the un-
pleasantly notorious captor of Montrose. Her nephew,
Donald Macleod of Geanies, was Sheriff-Depute of Ross for
upwards of half a century, and his jubilee as Sheriff was
celebrated by a great gathering of all the north - country
lawyers at Dingwall in 1625. After the Sheriff's death,
Geanies was sold to the Provost's son, and so Geanies and
Pitcalzian are now held by one and the same proprietor.

In 1752 there was a forced settlement in the parish of Nigg.
The patron's presentee, a certain Mr Grant, was keenly opposed
by the great body of the people, and when, in spite of all their
protest, this clergyman was inducted to the parish church, the
people refused to attend the services conducted by the intruder,
or to recognise in any way his ministry. The dispute between
the patron and the people had lasted for about three years, and
when at last, by order of the General Assembly, the presentee was
ordained, it was found that not more than three or four families
out of the whole population of the parish adhered to him. It was
now a difficult question for the people to decide where they
should go to hear the Gospel. For a time the most of them
went to Kilmuir, where they enjoyed the rich and comforting
discourses of Mr Porteous ; and it would seem that Mr Fraser
of Alness occasionally preached in Nigg, and that he regularly
baptized the children of the Seceders. The elders and all the
good Christian people in the surrounding parishes sympathised
with them, and tokens of admission to the Lord's Table were
readily granted them by the Kirk-Sessions of the neighbourhood.
The intruded minister, feeling offended at such conduct, wrote
to Mr Fraser of Alness, threatening him that, if he persisted in
preaching to the people of Nigg and baptizing their children,
he would take steps to have him deposed from the ministry of
the Church of Scotland. When the Alness people heard this,
most of them assembled in a body about the manse, and
besought the minister that he would not expose himself to

XX11 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

ejection from the parish, and them to the loss of the minister
whom they so dearly loved. He replied to the intruder that
no doubt, owing to the temper prevailing at that time in the
Assembly, he could easily secure his deposition at its hands.
However, should matters be brought to such an issue, he
assured him that this would by no means improve the case of
the persecutor, or in any way make matters smoother for him
in the parish of Nigg. If deposed, he would simply go and
reside upon his own property of Pitcalzian, build a church
there, and become the minister of the Seceders, preaching and
baptizing at his very door. Eventually a minister of the
Secession Church was sent to Nigg, represented by the United
Presbyterian congregation of Nigg in the present day.

Not only among the people as an edifying preacher and a
sympathetic and faithful pastor, but also among his brethren
in the ministry as a wise counsellor and a man of deep
and varied Christian experience, Mr Fraser was greatly
valued. On the opposite side of the Cromarty Firth from
Alness lay the parish of Resolis, in what is known as the Black
Isle. Mr Hector MacPhail was minister there, the warmly
attached and loving friend of Mr Fraser. For a time he was
greatly depressed in mind. He regarded himself as unfit for
the office of the ministry, and concluded that this was the
cause of that apparent want of success in his labours which he
deplored. His distress and discomfort were so great that,
notwithstanding the remonstrances of his friend the minister
of Alness, he determined to resign his charge and leave the
parish. At length Mr MacPhail concluded that the time for
his departure had come, and so he summoned Mr Fraser to
come to preach in Resolis, and intimate to his people the
resolution to which their minister had come. With the greatest
reluctance Mr Fraser went to Resolis, but he preached that
day doctrine at once so encouraging and so clear in the way of
pointing out. the path of duty, that Mr MacPhail interfered

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XX1I1

before the intimation of his resolution to resign had been
made, and, to Mr Fraser's great joy, announced that all his
bonds were loosed, that he was never united to the parish of
Resolis until that day. This fruit of Mr Fraser's preaching
was destined itself to prove abundantly fruitful. From that
day onward Mr MacPhail seldom appeared in the pulpit
without good being done by his ministry, either in the
awakening and convicting of sinners or in the notable and
evident edifying of the Church.

Little is known of the details of his family and private life.
His whole ministry of over forty years was passed in the one
parish, and his life, though active, was probably uneventful.
He died in the manse of Alness on the 5th October 1769.
His cousin, Mr Porteous of Kilmuir, having heard of his ill-
ness, went to Alness to see him, but when he arrived he was
already gone. Being his nearest relative, Mr Porteous remained
to make arrangements for and to superintend the funeral. On
Sabbath he preached in the church of Alness the funeral
sermon, from the text (Gen. v. 24), " Enoch walked with God ;
and he was not, for God took him." In his own pulpit at
Kilmuir, Mr Porteous's nephew, a young man, Mr Lewis
Fraser, son of Rev. Alexander Fraser of Inverness, preached
that day on the same text, without any knowledge of his
uncle's choice.

Mr Fraser was a man of imposing appearance. An excellent
portrait of our author — an oil painting, half size — was for many
years, during Sir Henry Munro's time, in Fowlis Castle. It
was sold in 1826 by the late Hugh Munro, and bought by the
late Mr Flyter of Alness, when it found its fitting home in the
old manse. Photographs of it were taken in 1SS8, and the
picture itself exhibited during the sittings of the General
Assembly of the Free Church in Inverness. It is now the
property of John Mackenzie, Esq., Inverness, the grandson of
Mr Flyter, who has most courteously placed it at the disposal

xxiv BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

of the Editor of this new edition of Mr Fraser's great work.
The frontispiece picture, copied from this portrait, will be
regarded by all as a most attractive feature of the present
publication. The original painting is dated 1747, and conse-
quently represents Mr Fraser in his forty-seventh year.

So far as is known, Mr Fraser published nothing in his life-
time. His principal work, the treatise on " Sanctification,"
in the form of an introduction, explication, and paraphrase of
Romans vi.-viii. 4, with several important essays or excursuses,
was carefully written out and prepared for the press. The
beautiful manuscript, in which scarcely an error, and seldom
even an erasure can be found, is dated at the end "July 1769,"
only between two and three months before his death. This
important manuscript came into the hands of Mr Hugh
MacKay, a native of the parish of Kilmuir, who was converted
under the ministry of Mr Charles Calder of Ferintosh. Even
when engaged in business in the parish of Kincardine, he was
wont to travel through the intervening parishes of Edderton,
Rosskeen, Alness, and Killearn, crossing the ferry in the boat
commonly known as " the Gospel Packet," in order to attend
the services of the minister of Ferintosh. In after years he
lived in Glasgow, where Mr Calder's grandson, Charles Calder
Mackintosh, during his student course, was a lodger in his
house. The young student was a great favourite with the old
man, and he showed that his regard was of no ordinary kind
by bestowing upon him the gift of this highly-prized manu-
script. It still survives as a valued treasure in the possession
of Dr Mackintosh's family, and by the courtesy of Mrs
Mackintosh, the present Editor has been enabled to compare
it word by word with the printed text. The first edition of
this work was issued in Edinburgh in 1774, with a short note
of commendation by the celebrated Dr John Erskine, who had
read the treatise in manuscript and reaped much instruction
from it. A reprint appeared in 1813, and after this an undated,

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXV

abridged edition was issued by the Religious Tract Society.
Another edition was issued in Edinburgh in 1834, which con-
tained, in addition to the matter of the present volume, three
sermons preached on sacramental occasions. Besides these,
another sermon of Mr Fraser's, on the text 1 Cor. i. 30, was
printed in the Christian Instructor for May 1823. It is also
said that there exists somewhere a manuscript volume of
sermons, carefully transcribed, but nothing has been learnt
as to the party into whose hands this volume has passed. The
three sermons appended to the edition of " Sanctification " of
1834 are introduced by two short notes, signed respectively
by John Russel and James Robertson, ministers of Kilmar-
nock. Mr Russel says of the writer : " I had the honour to
be personally acquainted with the author, and consider that
acquaintance as one of the happiest circumstances of my life.
In him concentred all the amiable qualities of the divine, the
scholar, and the Christian. Indeed, one may say, without
exceeding the bounds of truth, that the illustrious title marked
out for gospel ministers by Paul, when he says that ' they are
the glory of Christ,' eminently belonged to him." These
introductory notices are dated 16th August 1785, at which
time apparently these sermons appeared in a volume by them-
selves. The first of these sermons is an elaborate treatise on
the text Heb ix. 14, and occupies no less than fifty-two closely
printed pages. It was usually called the " great sermon," in
Gaelic, "an t-searmon mhor." The late Principal Cunningham,
of the New College, Edinburgh, said of it that the sermon was
eminently good ; but what astonished him most was where a
congregation could be got which would intelligently follow and
appreciate it. Those best acquainted with the spiritual history
of these districts at that time confidently affirm that when
originally delivered there would be considerable numbers
present who could thoroughly and appreciatively follow ail
the details of the preacher's arguments and doctrinal dis-
cussions.

XXVI BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

The profound and thorough character of Mr Fraser's preach-
ing will appear from this, that apparently at least the substance
of the treatise on " Sanctification " had been delivered from
the pulpit in the form of sermons or lectures. Hugh Ross, a
native of Alness, had been brought to a knowledge of the
truth under Mr Fraser's ministry at the early age of fifteen.
In extreme old age he lived in the parish of Resolis, in the early
years of Mr Sage's ministry. Being in the manse one Sabbath
evening, Mr Sage read to him a part of Mr Fraser's work on
" Sanctification." Seeing him excited and uneasy, Mr Sage
asked him what was the matter. " What book is this that you are
reading from ? " he asked. " Why do you ask ? " said Mr Sage.
" Well," answered Ross, " I do not know what book it is ; but
this I know, that seventy years ago I heard these sentiments
on that passage delivered by Mr James Fraser, when lecturing
on Romans, and they are as fresh in my memory as when I
heard them from his lips." This strong meat was not too
strong to be assimilated by men of this type, and such pro-
found preaching was evidently not over the heads or beyond
the comprehension of all the hearers.

In the " Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification " we have an
extremely interesting specimen of eighteenth-century exegesis.
The style and composition are undoubtedly somewhat old-
fashioned. But if this work be read, not alongside of treatises
of the present day, but alongside of the writings of the author's
own contemporaries, it will be found that his style is good, and
that, judged by the standard of a hundred and thirty years ago,
it does not deserve to be called " cumbrous " and " rude," as
Dr James Morrison and Dr John Brown have characterised it.
As to the matter, Dr Morrison says that its exegesis is massive
and judicious, and that, among treatises on the subject, this
work deserves a special niche ; and Dr BrOwn says that it is
well worth studying; that it is rude in speech but not in
knowledge. The method of the author in this treatise is

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXV11

singularly like that adopted by our latest and most scholarly
commentators. It is avowedly a doctrinal commentary. His
exegesis of the sixth and seventh chapters of Romans is
honestly entitled the Scripture Doctrine of Sanctification.
These chapters are themselves doctrinal, expressly devoted to
the exposition of the doctrine of sanctification, and any com-
mentary on them worthy of its original must prove nothing less
than a section of New Testament theology. The commentary
deals first with the sixth chapter and then with the seventh
chapter, giving a careful introduction to each, treating of the
general scope and contents of the chapter, and especially com-
bating defective or erroneous views of the standpoint and
intention of the apostle. Each verse is commented on separ-
ately, and the results of this exegetical study are then given in
a paraphrase. In the latest, and in every way most excellent,
commentary on Romans, by Dr Sanday and Mr Headlam, the
paraphrase is given first, and then the detailed exposition
follows. In the seventeenth century, and during the first
half of the eighteenth, paraphrases largely took the place of
commentaries. Some of the most highly-prized works of that
age on the New Testament were simply paraphrases, with
occasional notes, e.g. those of Hammond, Locke, Whitby,
Taylor, Guise, and Doddridge. Where the paraphrase is
made quite subordinate to the exegesis, so that nothing is put
into it which has not been shown to be already in its text, a
paraphrase may admirably serve the purpose of exposition.
In dealing with those whose views he had to refute, Mr Fraser
had occasion to call attention to the readiness with which
something quite foreign to the text might be either dexterously
or unwittingly imported into the paraphrase ; and so we find
that in his own paraphrasing he was always watchful to avoid
himself committing the mistake which he reproved in others.
As to Mr Fraser's equipment for the task of expositor, we find
him well abreast of the theological and biblical literature of the

XXV111 BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

day. He had access to the splendid compilation known as
the Ctitici Sacrz, originally issued in 1660, and again in
thirteen folio volumes in 1693-1732, presenting a catena of the
notes of the most illustrious commentators up to that date.
He makes ample use of the materials which this immense
thesaurus placed at his command. Besides this, for the
immediate purpose of his work, he studied with great care
the works of Locke, Whitby, Hammond, and Taylor of
Norwich, whose position, as fitted to overthrow the founda-
tions of all evangelical truth, he laboriously, and often with
great acuteness and success, controverts. He was also well
acquainted with the writings of Augustine, and he was not less
familiar with the works of Socinus and Arminius. On two or
three occasions he shows a somewhat remarkable skill in deal-
ing with questions of textual criticism, and discussing the
merits and demerits of various readings. The exegesis will
be found natural and unstrained. Our author made diligent
use of his Greek lexicon, as well as of all these other available
helps. And then, not instead of, but on the foundation of,
such investigations, he proceeds to consider the passage in
hand in the light of the whole drift of the Pauline and New
Testament doctrine. The exposition of the several verses will
stand comparison creditably with the work of the most approved
exegetes of modern times. A very good specimen of his logical
power is given in the essay on the " Penal Sanction of the
Law" (pp. 187-214), in which, with remarkable patience, he
follows from point to point the strange idea of Locke and
Whitby that sin could not hurt a man before the giving of the
law of Moses, which first denounced death as the punishment
of sin. But perhaps the gem of the whole work will be found
in the " Dissertation Concerning the General Scope and Pur-
pose of Rom. vii. 14-25 " (p. 254), which takes the place of a
detailed exposition of that section, verse by verse. In this
long dissertation, divided into eight sections, he seeks to show

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE XXIX

that the apostle is representing the case of a regenerate, not an
unregenerate, person, pointing out that there is much said in
that passage that could not possibly be said of an unregenerate
man, and much that is characteristic of and peculiar to the
regenerate. I certainly do not know where, in all the range of
Biblical literature, there is to be found anything like this dis-
sertation as an acute and thoroughly satisfactory demonstration
of the thesis which he undertakes to make good. In his
introduction to the seventh chapter, and in his explication of
the first thirteen verses, our author had shown that the apostle
there obviously represented those under the law as under the
dominion of sin. But in the last twelve verses the apostle in
his own person describes the case of a regenerate man suffering
from the remnant of indwelling sin, which yet he hates and fights
against, so that, though often made to feel bitterly his extreme
wickedness, he has yet well-grounded comfort in the assurance
of full deliverance in Christ Jesus. The use made by this able
divine of the closing verse of the chapter (pp. 307-330) is specially
admirable. His careful examination of the three expressions :
" I myself," " with the mind," "serving the law of God," seems
to make it impossible to understand the apostle as speaking of
an unregenerate person, without having recourse to the most
patent devices of the party pleader. It is most disappointing
to find one of the ablest and most candid of recent German
theologians, the late Dr Lipsius, in his admirable commentary
on Romans (1892), still occupying the position of those ex-
positors who were so completely vanquished by Mr Fraser.
Most admirably does he sum up the contents of verses 7-13 :
11 Proof that man, under the dominion of the law, stands also
under the dominion of sin, against the might of which the
inner man, until Christ has redeemed him, is powerless." But
then, quite in the style of Locke and Whitby, he sums up
verses 14-23 thus : " That sin through the law works death to
man is to be explained from our fleshly nature, by reason of

XXX BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE

which we are subjected to the might of sin against our better
knowledge and will." Under verse 15 Lipsius distinctly main-
tains that the man under the law, not yet regenerate, can
inwardly hate what is evil; and he understands Paul in verse
24 as taking a painful retrospect of his own unregenerate past.
Our author finds himself in a good succession, preceded as he
is by Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Reformers generally.
In later times this view has been ably supported by Olshausen,
in whose "Commentary on Romans" (Edin., 1849), pp.236-257,
we are presented with a singularly clear statement and powerful
argument, showing that in the latter half of the chapter the
reference must be to the regenerate and not to the unregenerate.
A very thorough discussion of this question will also be found
in the too much neglected " Commentary on Romans " of
Philippi (Edin., 1870), vol. i. pp. 347-358. This subject is
also treated by Dr Sanday and Mr Headlam in their detached
note "The Inward Conflict " in "Commentary on Romans"
(Edin., 1896), pp. 184-186. After a clear summary of the
history of the interpretation of the passage, showing how the
Greek Fathers generally regarded it as describing the unre-
generate, and the Latin Fathers as describing the regenerate,
they distinguish what may be called lower and higher stages
in the condition of the regenerate. If the term regenerate be
applied to all baptized persons, then, they admit, the experi-
ence described by the apostle may be that of the regenerate.
And so we are prepared for the statement of a later part of
this note, in which the writers say : " Without putting an exact
date to the struggle which follows, we shall probably not be
wrong in referring the main features of it especially to the
period before his conversion." They remark that the experience
described is one that comes earlier to one man, later to another;
in one case leading to Christianity, in another following it.
That it comes earlier to one and later to another ; in one degree
of intensity to one, and another degree to another, is true ; but

BIOGRAPHICAL NOTICE xxxi

to say that it may precede conversion or follow it, seems to
ignore the critical character of the change which is designated
as conversion. No doubt the rigid doctrine set forth so ably
by Mr Fraser had been at times abused by those who sought
to excuse their own remissness and corrupt lives by the pre-
tence that these were not inconsistent with the fact of regenera-
tion. And, on the other hand, Pelagians, who deny that
concupiscence is sin, and Donatists and other rigorists, who
judge harshly of all who show the presence in them of
sinful imperfections, must regard the state described as that of
the unregenerate. In the calm and well-considered exposition
of our author, while the latter are convincingly answered, all
ground is taken away from those who would seek to use the
doctrine of the apostle thus understood as an apology for their
moral laxity. What shows the condition of the man whose
experience is described to be that of the regenerate is just his
refusal to make any apology for his sin, and his longing to be
rid of its dominion. He only is entitled to take comfort to
himself from this passage who is able of himself to say, like the
apostle, " I delight in the law of God after the inward man ;
the good is that which I would, the evil is that which I would
not do."

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI.

SHOWING

That this, and the preceding Chapter, are not meant, as Mr Locke
interprets, of Believers of the Gentiles separately, and as contra-
distinguished to Jewish Believers.

It is of great consequence in interpretation to discover
and observe carefully the general scope and purpose of a
writer, and of his argument. When this is justly con-
ceived and understood, it serves in a great measure as
a key in interpreting particular passages that might
otherwise be ambiguous or dark. But when the general
scope is mistaken, through the influence of prejudice
against the truth, or of an hypothesis and preconceive:!
opinion possessing the mind, this often occasions a forced
and unnatural interpretation of particular passages, and
giving meanings to particular expressions that are not
agreeable to Scripture use, or to the use of speech other-
wise, or to the real scope of the writer, and of his
argument.

I cannot help thinking that this hath, in some degree,
happened to the celebrated Mr Locke;* when he under-

* The work of Locke (1662- 1704), so constantly referred to and
controverted in this treatise, was entitled : " A Paraphrase and
Notes on the Epistles to Galatians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Romans,
and Ephesians : with an Essay for understanding St Paul's Epistles
by consulting St Paul himself." London, 1705-1707. It is a very
vigorous and spirited attempt to carry out an historical interpretation

A

INTRODUCTION TO THE

stood the fifth and sixth chapters of this epistle to
the Romans, as addressed to the Gentile converts to
Christianity separately, and as contradistinguished to
the Jewish converts ; to whom he supposed the seventh
chapter to be addressed, as contradistinguished to the
Gentiles. I see little in this sixth chapter itself, that he
brings to prove it to be addressed to the Gentile con-
verts separately. But as he supposes it to be addressed
to the same persons as the fifth, it is from that chapter
especially that he brings the proof that the whole
discourse contained in both is directed to the Gentiles.
This notion of his appears to have brought him under
great disadvantage in interpretation ; and an ill super-
structure has been raised upon it. It is therefore
needful that I give the reasons why I cannot fall in with
it, and show it not to be well founded.

His proofs are taken chiefly from the first eleven
verses of chap. v. The word we, in the first verse, he
will have to mean the Gentiles ; and thus he reasons :
It is in their name that St Paul speaks in the three last
verses of the foregoing chapter, and all through this
section, as is evident from the illation here, Therefore
being justified by faith we — / it being an inference
drawn from his having proved in the foregoing chapter,
that the promise was not to the Jews alone, but to the
Gentiles also. Very well ; if he proved that the promise
was not to the Jews alone, but to both Jews and
Gentiles — that is, to all true believers, — the natural
consequence is, that we should understand the illation,
therefore, as introducing not privileges and comforts
belonging to one sort of believers separately, but to all
believers in common, whether of the Jews or of the
Gentiles.

As to the three last verses of chap. iv. with which
the illative word therefore is most immediately con-

of these sacred writings in opposition to the previously prevalent
style of commenting, which gave little or no consideration to the
historical setting of the passages discussed. It was a work in every
way deserving the thorough examination bestowed upon it by Mr
Fraser.

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI.

nected, there is no colour of reason for supposing them
to be spoken in name of the Gentiles separately.
It was not written, saith the apostle (chap. iv. 23) for
his [Abraham's] sake alone, that it [faith] was imputed to
hint ; but (ver. 24) for us also, to whom it shall be imputed,
if we believe ; — that is, it was written for the sake of us
also, who live in these latter times, if we believe. What
other sense can be given these words ? or what is there
in them of anything special respecting the Gentiles as
contradistinguished to the Jews? Yea, I do not see in
Mr Locke's own paraphrase and notes on these three
verses anything that tends to restrict their meaning to
the Gentiles separately. Instead of that, here is his note
on ver. 24 — u St Paul seems to mention this here in
particular, to show the analog}- between Abraham's faith
and that of believers under the gospel ; see ver. 17."
Right ; believers under the gospel, both of the Jews and
of the Gentiles. It being so, then, what reason to think
that the illative word therefore is meant to introduce any
other matters than such as belong in common to believers
of both denominations?

However, having fixed it in his mind that the apostle
here (chaps, v. and vi.) means the Gentiles, as contra-
distinguished to the Jews, he says in his contents of
chap. v. i-u,"In this section he comes to show what
the convert Gentiles, by faith without circumcision, had
to glory in." They had indeed these things to glory
in : but had not Jewish believers the same cause to
glory ? Or, is there any reason why all believers,
Jews and Gentiles, should not be understood to be
meant ? The author mentions three things : for thus
he goes on — " viz. the hope of glory (ver. 2)." Surely
this was common to all believers of the Jews and of the
Gentiles. But had they not, previous to this, cause to
glory in being at peace with God (ver. 1) and in being
brought into a state of grace and favour with God
(ver. 2) ? But the author here, without reason, doth,
in mentioning the causes of glorying which the believer
hath, confine himself to the three instances in which the
apostle uses the word glorying.

INTRODUCTION TO THE

The next thing he mentions that the Gentiles had to
glory in was " their sufferings for the gospel (ver. 3)."
Surely these, and the consolations of faith respecting
them, were common to believers of both denominations.
The chief tribulations of the Christians of these times
were by persecutions, and the chief persecutors then were
the unbelieving Jews, — the weight of whose malice and
wrath fell especially on the believers who were of their
own nation, whom they considered as the betrayers and
enemies of their nation and religion. But it appears not
that the apostle's view was confined to sufferings for the
gospel, when he mentions tribulation. As to tribulations
for religion and the gospel, Christians may lay their
account with them, in one form or other, in all times ;
for the truth is, as the apostle writes (2 Tim. iii. 12), All
that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecu-
tion. However persons religious in another way may
be respected in the world, they who will be evangelically
religious (godly in Christ Jesus) will be hated by the
world, and be pursued with the malice and contempt of
the world, in one way or other. But what is there in
this to distinguish the case of Gentiles from that of
Jews ?

In the third place, our author says, " The Gentiles had
cause to glory in God as their God " (ver. 1 1). This is of
the three the point on which he labours most. He
observes how the Jew is represented (chap. ii. 17) as
making his boast oj God. The word is the same that is
rendered here by glorying. In Mr Locke's note on chap,
v. 2, he writes thus — " Glory. The same word here for
the Gentile converts that he used before for the boasting
of the Jews — plainly shows us here that St Paul in this
section opposes the advantages the Gentile converts to
Christianity have by faith, to those the Jews gloried in
with so much haughtiness and contempt of the Gentiles."
But, allowing that the apostle meant an opposition of
the glorying of different sorts of people, Mr Locke hath
not conceived or stated the opposition in a just or right
manner. He should have stated it as between the
glorying of the true Christian, of whatever nation, and

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 5

that of the unbelieving carnal Jew, mentioned chap. ii. ;
not between the Gentile converts and the Jews without
distinction. For (Acts xxi. 20) there were many thousands
of the Jews who believed, and were zealous of the law.
These undoubtedly had their part in the glorying, and
cause of glorying mentioned here (chap, v.) together with
Christians of the Gentiles.

To conceive the matter justly, the opposition and
contrast stands thus : Upon the one hand, the carnal
unbelieving Jew gloried on the grounds mentioned (chap,
ii. 17), he rested in the law, and made his boast of God, of
his knowing his will, and approving the things that are
most excellent, etc., on such grounds as the apostle
mentions as in his own case (Phil. iii. 5, 6) Circumcised
the eighth day, etc. The carnal Jews their glorying in
God, was the glorying of an ill-founded carnal confidence
in men insensible of their own sinfulness, and of what
their true case required, in order to their having a well-
founded glorying in God. Upon the other hand, as to
the Christian's glorying in God here (ver. 11), if he
glorieth in God, it is through Jesus Christ, by whom we
haze received the atonement : by virtue of which, sinners,
reconciled to God, admitted unto his grace and favour,
and unto covenant with him, have the most sure and
solid ground of glorying in God. Here is a clear
opposition between the glorying of the carnal Jew, or
hypocrite of that denomination, and that of true Christians
through faith : and we may now justly substitute in place
of this, and as of the same general kind, the opposition
that still subsists between the glorying of the true believer
and that of hypocritical professors in the Christian church.
But there is nothing here in the glorying mentioned (Rom.
v. 11) that is peculiar to Gentiles, and that is not common
to believers of whatever nation. When the apostle -

(Phil. iii. 3), We are the circumcision, which rejoice in

Christ Jesus (the word is the same that is rendered
glorying) and have no confidence in the flesh ; there is an
opposition between the glorying of the true Christian, and
that of the unbelieving carnal Jews, mentioned under
very unfavourable character in the preceding verse ;

INTRODUCTION TO THE

whose grounds of confidence and glorying are mentioned
in the next following verses. But I expect none will
take it in his head to say, that this glorying in Christ
Jesus is peculiar to Gentiles. Mr Locke himself, in a
note on ver. 1 1 of Rom. v , writes thus : " And not only
so, but we glory also in God as our God " (so the author
paraphrases there) — " And thus he (the apostle) shows,
that the convert Gentiles had whereof to glory, as well
as the Jews." Doubtless ; as well as the Jews : why
then not understand what is there of believing Jews and
Gentiles ?

We are not indeed to understand Mr Locke to have
meant that the three subjects of glorying mentioned by
him did not belong to believers of the Jewish nation :
that were too absurd. These, then, afforded no reason for
supposing that the apostle in the first context of chap. v.
and in chap. vi. meant the Gentile Christians, as contra-
distinguished to the Jews. Upon what, then, doth the
learned writer indeed found that notion? This we have
in the following passages: "Another evidence St Paul
gives them here of the love of God towards them — is the
death of Christ for them, whilst they were yet in their
Gentile estate." But did not Christ die for those of the
Jewish nation (John xi. 51, 52), though not for that
nation only ? He goes on — "which (their Gentile estate)
he describes by calling them da-Oevds, without strength,
daefSeis, ungodly y d/xapTwAot, sinners, kydpol, enemies. These
four epithets are given to them as Gentiles, they being
used by St Paul, as the proper attributes of the heathen
world, in contradistinction to the Jewish nation." So
then under these epithets he doth not include the Jews,
or any others than the Gentiles in their heathen state.
As the criticisms of this eminent writer on these four
epithets tend to establish misinterpretation of scripture,
of considerable and hurtful consequence, it is the more
needful that we consider them carefully.

1. acrdtveU, rendered here (chap. v. 6) according to its
precise meaning without strength — " The helpless con-
dition (saith Mr Locke) of the Gentile world in the
state of Gentilism, signified here by without strength, he

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI.

terms (Col. ii. 13) dead in sin, a state, if any, of weakness."
I am hereafter to consider by itself this expression, dead
in sin ; and to show that it doth not contradistinguish
the Gentiles to the Jews ; and if not, then, having been
dead, as in chap. vi. 13, the other text he adduces
certainly doth not distinguish them. Mr Locke himself
says, in the contents prefixed to his paraphrase of chap,
iii. I- 1 3, whatever advantages the Jews had, that, in
respect to their acceptance with God under the gospel,
they had none at all. " He (the apostle) declares that
both Jews and Gentiles are both equally incapable of
being justified by their own performances/' And in his
paraphrase of ver. 20, he gives the apostle's sense thus :
" It is evident that by his own performances, in obedience
to a law, no man can attain to an exact conformity
to the rule of right, so as to be righteous in the sight of
God." One would think, that, according to this general
doctrine, he should have understood the epithet, without
strength, to belong to all. For if all are equally incap-
able of being justified by their own performances, this
clearly implies that all were without strength.

We have seen all that Mr Locke adduces to support
his interpretation of this word. Let me now give my
view of it, and of that text (Rom. v. 6). There are two
things in the wretched, natural, and common condition
of men. One is, to be ungodly, guilty, destitute of
righteousness with which they can appear and stand
before God. The other is want of strength to help
themselves, to do what is pleasing to God or to walk
with God. This text directs sinful men to look to
Christ, for righteousness and strength, by virtue of his
death, and the purchase thereof. So it answers well to
the prophecy concerning him (Isa. xlv. 24), Surely,
shall one say, in the Lord have 1 righteousness and
strength. I am satisfied with this view of that text
(Rom. v. 6). If any others are not, they may consider
what is offered by Dr Whitby on the place ; where he
brings a good many instances from the Seventy, of their
translating the Hebrew word that signifies to stumble
or fall, by the Greek word rendered here, without

8 INTRODUCTION TO THE

strength. His paraphrase gives it thus : " We being
fallen, at the appointed time, Christ died for the ungodly,
for us who since our fall had no righteousness of our
own." But neither will this suit Mr Locke's purpose ; for
being without strength in this sense, is the natural con-
dition of Jews and Gentiles ; all have fallen.

2. The second epithet, specially denoting, according
to him, the Gentiles, is, do-efieis, ungodly, which occurs in
the same text with the former (chap. v. 6). The whole
of what he adduces in his note on this text to his pur-
pose, respecting this word, he gives thus : " How he
describes, do-ejSeiav, ungodliness, mentioned (chap. i. 18),
as the proper state of the Gentiles, we may see (vers. 21,
23). That the Gentiles were chargeable with ungodliness
in a very high degree, yea, and with holding the truth in
unrighteousness, is not a matter in question. But if the
apostle proves that against the Gentiles, in what remains
of that first chapter, he thereafter proves the charge of
ungodliness, and unrighteousness against the Jews ; and
certainly they were more chargeable with holding the
truth in unrighteousness, as mentioned ver. 18, than the
Gentiles, as they had more knowledge of the truth,
having, besides nature's light, that of revelation.

However, Mr Locke's meaning is, that this and the
other epithets denote the Gentiles nationally, not single
persons of them universally. For in his note on this
place (vers. 6 and 8), he writes thus: "That there were
some among the heathen as innocent in their lives, and
as far from enmity to God, as some among the Jews,
cannot be questioned. Nay, that many of them were
not da-ifSels, but crefS6fX€vot, worshippers of the true God,
if we would doubt of it, is manifest out of the Acts of
the Apostles."

As to this it is agreed, that the persons so called in
the book of Acts (chap. xiii. 43) and chap. xvii. 17,
were Gentiles by nation and descent : that they were
heathens in' religion is very wrong, as heathen, in our
use of speech, imports idolatrous religion. According
to this, heathens, worshippers of the true God, as Mr
Locke's passage hath it, is very improper speech. These

EXPLICATION OF ROMAXS VI.

mentioned in the Acts were proselytes, and are so
called expressly in the first of the texts now mentioned :
Religious (<re/36fi€voi) prosch tes. They were persons who
knew and received the faith of the church of God,
though they had not become members thereof by cir-
cumcision.

But to bring what concerns this epithet to some
issue, — Mr Locke proposed it as a general rule to inter-
pret St Paul by St Paul himself. But in this, and in
too many other instances, he is not lucky in applying
that rule. According to that rule, it is reasonable to
think that he means ungodly here (chap. v. 6), in the
same sense in which he uses it in this same discourse
(chap. iv. 5). In his note on the word there, Mr Locke
writes thus : " By these words St Paul plainly points
out Abraham, who was acre/?-/^, ungodly, i.e. a Gentile,
not a worshipper of the true God, when God called
him." Here are several things not justly conceived.

1. Ungodly cannot be a designation given to the Gentiles
of Abraham's time, in contradistinction to the Jews,
who did not then exist. All the people God had then
on earth were among the several nations of the world.

2. There appears not sufficient cause for calling Abraham
ungodly, as not being a worshipper of the true God. I
know that Joshua says (chap. xxiv. 2), Your fathers
dwelt on tlie other side of the flood in old time, even Terah
the father of Abraham, and the fatlicr of Nachor; and
they served other gods. Yet it is not clear that Abraham
personally served other gods. But the expression we
are considering is, that God justifieth the ungodly; and
it is at any rate unreasonable to think that Abraham
was ungodly in Mr Locke's sense — that is, a worshipper
of other gods, when God justified him.

But to apply Mr Locke's rule, and interpret St Paul
by St Paul himself. He says (ver. 5) that the man is
justified, or his faith imputed to him for righteousness,
who bclieveth on him that justifieth the ungodly. The
blessed apostle explains the meaning in the very next
following words (vers. 6, 7), Even as David also deseribeth
the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth

10 INTRODUCTION TO THE

righteousness without works, saying, Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven. Here it is plain, that the
apostle states in opposition, justifying the ungodly, and
justification by a man's own works ; which behoved for
that purpose to be perfect and sinless. Every trans-
gressor is in the eye of the law ungodly ; and it is
evident that the apostle means by ungodly every one
who needs to have his iniquity forgiven : as he explains
himself, and proves his doctrine by the Psalmist's words
to that effect. It was not the case of the Gentiles, but
his own case, who was a Jew, that suggested these words
to the Psalmist. It is then very clear, by the manner
in which the apostle introduces these words of David
that by ungodly he means every one who can be chargec
with sin, and needs forgiveness. Thus we have the
meaning of Ungodly (chap. iv. 5), and there is no reason
to think, that in the continuation of his discourse (chap,
v. 6), he uses the word in any other meaning. The
consequence is, that ungodly (chap. v. 6) is by no means
to be understood as a special epithet of the Gentiles, as
contradistinguished to the Jews.

3. Of the third epithet Mr Locke thus writes,* " That
he (the apostle) thought the title, a/xapTcoAoi, sinners,
belonged peculiarly to the Gentiles, in contradistinction
to the Jews, he puts it past doubt in these words, We
who are Jews by nature and not sinners of the Gentiles
(Gal. ii. 15). See also chap. vi. 17-22." This last-
mentioned context does indeed represent those he writes
to, to have been formerly servants of sin. But if that
is the case naturally of Jews, and of all men, it says
nothing to the purpose for which it is adduced here.
His arguing from Gal. ii. 15 is no better than if one
should say, sinners is the peculiar character of a parti-
cular nation, to be presently named, who were noted for
wickedness as 1 Sam. xv. 18, Go and utterly destroy
the sinners, the Amalekites.

To consider the matter more closely ; the truth is,
the name sinners is often used to signify persons flagi-

* Note on chap, v., vers. 6, 8. '

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. II

tious, distinguished for impurity or iniquity.* In this
sense might the name sinners be sometimes given to
the Gentiles. If, however, when the name sinners is
joined to the name Gentiles, it is to be understood as
a character of them, must it be so understood when
the name Gentiles is not mentioned ? I would think
it so should, if the word expresses the peculiar character
of Gentiles. For instance (Luke vii. 37), A?id behold,
a woman in the city which was a sinner; doth this mean
a woman which was a Gentile? If the apostle had said
(Gal. ii. 15), We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners,
and not to have explained the matter by adding of the
Gentiles, there had been some colour for the criticism :
the scope of the place would say much for understanding
it there of the Gentiles. But when he explains, and
expresses as he does, it is rather contrary to the purpose
for which it is brought, and looks as if he was sensible
that the word sinners would scarce be understood of
the Gentiles, if he had not so added expressly.

Again : If a designation, epithet, or name, is given
to the Gentiles on some particular occasion, are we to
understand of them these names on all occasions ? The
Jews called the Gentiles dogs (Matt. xv. 26, 27). Shall
we, wherever dogs are mentioned metaphorically, under-
stand it of the Gentiles ? The apostle says (Phil. iii. 2),
Beware of dogs. If one should say that this denotes
the Gentiles, as contradistinguished to the Jews, he
certainly would mistake greatly ; for it is plain the Jews
are meant.

If we are to interpret the apostle Paul by himself, it
is needless to go so far as Gal. ii. 15. to interpret the
word sinners (Rom. v. 8), when the apostle's style and
words in this same discourse contain enough to deter-
mine the meaning of the word in the last-named text.
Mr Locke himself observes in the contents prefixed to

* So Luke vii. yj, 39 ; Matt. xi. 19 ; xxvi. 45 ; Luke vi. 52 ;
xv. 1, 2 ; John ix. 16, 24, 25, 31 ; and so in many instances in
the New Testament, and likewise in the Old Testament, which one
will easily find by the help of his Concordance.

12 INTRODUCTION TO THE

Rom. iii. I- 13, that" he (the apostle) declares that both
Jews and Gentiles are sinners." In this same chapter (ver.
19), By one man's disobedience many ivere made sinners;
is this, many were made Gentiles? The apostle had in
the first three chapters of this epistle proved, that none
can be justified by the law ; and that by this general
principle (chap. iii. 23), That all have sinned. So all
whom God justifies, they being sinners, he justifies them
freely, as in the next verse. If, then, in the continuation
of his discourse, he draws (chap, v.) consolatory in-
ferences from this doctrine, no man, if an hypothesis or
peculiar conceit did not give a wry cast to his mind,
could be at a loss or in danger to mistake the meaning
of the word sinners, when the apostle says (ver. 8),
When zve were yet sinners Christ died for us. Surely
Christ died for all his people ; as the apostle had proved
(chap. iii. 9), that both Jews and Gentiles are all under
sin. This epithet, then, or character, doth by no means
contradistinguish Gentiles to the Jews.

4. The fourth epithet, said to be peculiar to the
Gentiles, and to denote them separately, is ^x^P°\ enemies.
" As for exOpoi, enemies (saith Mr Locke) you have the
Gentiles, before their conversion to Christ, so called,
(Col. i. 21)." The words are, And you who were some-
time alienated, and enemies in your minds by wicked
works, yet now hath he reconciled. But, strange ! is
everything that is said to Gentiles peculiar to Gentiles ?
If so, then all that Paul says to the Gentile churches
he writes to, concerning men's natural condition, or con-
cerning the grace of the gospel, must be understood to
mean something peculiar to Gentiles. Some do indeed
labour hard to turn things that way as to both, absurdly
enough. As to this text (Col. i. 21) — enemies in your
minds, — this enmity is in the mind, or is inward ; not
in their outward condition or state. This makes it
reasonable to understand when he adds — by wicked
works — that there is a metonymy of the effect for the
cause ; wicked works, for wicked lusts, that are the
cause of such works. The like metonymy seems to be
(Rom. viii. 13), If ye — mortify the deeds of the body, —

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 1 3

body meaning the same as flesh ; and deeds for lusts, the
inward cause of deeds. Now, if the Colossians are said
to be enemies in their minds by wicked lusts, there is
nothing in that but what is ascribed to the carnal mind
(Rom. viii. 7). The carnal mind is enmity against God.
But as it is not reasonable to restrict the enmity of
the carnal mind to the Gentiles, neither is it reason-
able to restrict to them being enemies in their minds
(Col. i. 21).

Let us consider the text itself (Rom. v. 10), the
expression of which is in question : When we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.
Being reconciled, doth certainly presuppose a previous
enmity. The Sovereign and Judge of the world views
sinners as rebels and enemies previously to this recon-
ciliation. But Jews, being sinners, needed to be, and
many of them were, reconciled to God by the death of
his Son. Therefore the character of enemies, in the sense
of this place, doth not denote the Gentiles as contra-
distinguished to the Jews.

Mr Locke, however, gives an account of this reconcilia-
tion and peace, that tends to invalidate the account I have
given of enemies. Thus he says — " Hence St Paul, who
was the Apostle of the Gentiles, calls his performing that
office, the mmistiy of reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18)." As to
this, let it be observed, that Christ by his cross hath
procured reconciliation, according to Eph. ii., first of
Jews and Gentiles; (ver. 15), Having abolished in his
flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments ; so he
hath reconciled Jews and Gentiles, making them one
bod)' and church. Next, the reconciliation of BOTH
(Jews and Gentiles) UNTO God in one body by the cross,
having slain the enmity thereby. The consequence is
(ver. 17), he came to preach peace, even this reconciliation,
to them who :vere far off (the Gentiles), and to them who
were nigh, that is, the Jews. It is to be observed, in the
next place, that Christ preaching this peace, after his
undergoing the cross, was not in his own person ; but he
preached by his apostles and other ministers. Particu-
larly the preaching of it to the Gentiles was committed

14 INTRODUCTION TO THE

to Paul : the preaching it to the Jews was committed
to Peter. But surely it was preaching the same peace :
it was the same ministry of reconciliation that was com-
mitted to both.

Let us consider the subject of this ministry and
preaching. It was (ver. 19), That God is in Christ, recon-
ciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses
unto them. Here the word world includes the Gentiles ;
but no good reason can be given why it should not
include Jews also. For though world is sometimes
meant in contradistinction to the people of Israel, yet
sometimes it is used with respect to the Jews especially ;
as on occasion of going to attend the solemnity of the
feast of tabernacles, Christ says to his brethren (John vii.
7), The world connot hate you : but me it hateth. World
in this place appears to be particularly meant of Jews.
Christ says to Nicodemus (John iii. 16), God so loved the
WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSO-
EVER believeth on him might not perish. If world
includes here the Gentiles, must it even be restricted to
them ? That were poor comfort to Nicodemus, a Jew.
At that rate, we behoved to restrict to the Gentiles the
next clause, That whosoever believeth might not perish ;
and understand it, Whosoever of the Gentiles ; which
were very absurd. If the reconciliation (2 Cor. v. 18, 19)
imports God's not imputing to men their trespasses, I
hope it will be allowed that Jewish believers had their
part in this, as the Gentiles had.

Finally, the ground on which this reconciliation and
peace is founded, is what Jews and Gentiles were alike
concerned in ; and that hath an equal respect to both
(ver. 2 1 ), For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew
no sin ; that we might be made the righteousness of God
in him. Upon the whole, though the apostle Paul was
the apostle of the Gentiles, and in teaching the
Corinthians, as he doth (ver. 18-21), is representing the
subject and end of his ministry, yet there is nothing there-
in peculiar to the Gentiles. If, according to Christ's words,
(Luke xxiv. 47), Repentance and remission of sins should
be preached in his name amo?ig all nations (which is

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI 1 5

indeed the ministry of reconciliation, 2 Cor. v.) our Lord
adds, beginning at Jerusalem. The ministry of recon-
ciliation was designed for all nations ; but first for the
Jews. So it was very unreasonable for Mr Locke to
restrict the ministry of reconciliation to the gathering in
of the Gentiles, and to understand being enemies pre-
viously to that reconciliation, as an epithet or character
distinguishing Gentiles from Jews.

Mr Locke's views we shall more fully understand, by
observing what he adds in the place before mentioned
(note on chap. v. 6, 8) — "And here in this chapter
(Rom. v. 1) the privilege which they (the Gentiles)
receive, he tells them is this, that they have peace with
God, i.e. are no longer incorporated with his enemies, and
of the party of the open rebels against him in the king-
dom of Satan ; being returned to their natural allegiance,
in their owning the one true supreme God, in submitting
to the kingdom he had set up in his Son, and being
received by him as his subjects." As to this, it is true,
that in their conversion by the gospel, the Gentiles
turned to God from idols, to serve the living and true
God (1 Thess. i. 9), and God received them as his
subjects. But certainly all they, whether Jews or
Gentiles, who truly believed in Jesus Christ, and were
justified by this faith, have received the remission of
their sins (as chap. iv. 5, 6, 7). This is the principal
thing in the reconciliation ; God not imputing to them
their trespasses, but receiving them, as to the real state
of their souls, unto grace and favour. So that they are
not any longer under the curse of the law, nor have the
wrath of God abiding on them ; as is the state of many,
who are not heathens, in the party of open rebels, but are
outwardly of the kingdom which God hath set up in his
Son. To neglect this, and to interpret the peace with
God (Rom. v. 1), of the outward common privilege of all
who are members of the church, is what I cannot consider
otherwise than as enervating and grossly perverting the
scripture.

I know that in the eleventh of Romans, the apostle
teaches (ver. 15), that on occasion of casting away the

1 6 INTRODUCTION TO THE

Jews, the world [the Gentiles] were reconciled, which
implies that formerly they were enemies, in a particular
sense. And he represents (ver. 28), that the Jews cast
off, and no longer in a church-state, were thus become
enemies. But let the expressions be understood in the
sense to which the scope and argument in that place
determines them. It appears, however, that in this place
(Rom. v. 10), all men, being sinners, ungodly in the eye
of the law, and needing (as chap. iv. y) the forgiveness
of their sins, are in the apostle's meaning and view
enemies, whether Jews or Gentiles, until they are recon-
ciled to God by the death of his Son, being (as ver. 9)
justified by his blood, and (chap. iii. 25) through faith in
his blood. So that enemies is not a character peculiar to
Gentiles.

These criticisms of Mr Locke's on the four epithets
have some appearance of being ingenious. But the
ingenious have often produced conceits, that would not
bear strict examination, while they have been, however,
the source or support of very gross misinterpretation.
That it hath thus happened as to Mr Locke's criticisms
and interpretations of Rom. v. in particular, may
appear in a strong enough light to such as will peruse the
writings of the late famous Dr Taylor.* Therefore I
expect to be excused for looking a little farther into
these interpretations of Mr Locke's. His notions of the
four epithets come to this, That they import the national
character of the Gentiles in their state of heathenism ;
and that the comfortable things, stated in opposition to
these in the Christian state of the Gentiles, do import
national privileges and advantages accruing to the
Gentiles by the grace of the gospel : and that in such
way, on the one side and the other, as to their former
state of heathenism, and their latter state under the
gospel ; that from these there could no conclusions be

* The two works of Dr John Taylor of Norwich, so frequently
referred to. and controverted in this treatise, were published in one
volume under the title : "A Paraphrase, with Notes, on the Epistle
to the Romans. To which is prefixed : A Key to the Apostolic
Writings." London, 1745.

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. \J

formed concerning the real spiritual condition of par-
ticular persons before God.

To this purpose the author expresses himself thus
(note on Rom. v. 6, 8), "If it were remembered that St
Paul all along, through the eleven first chapters of this
epistle, speaks nationally of the Jews and Gentiles, as it
is visible he does, and not personally of single men,
there would be less difficulty, and fewer mistakes in
understanding this epistle." So he. Concerning these
things, I say, in the first place, if in the 9th, 10th, 11th
chapters, the apostle doth frequently speak of Jews and
Gentiles nationally, let him be so understood whensoever
his expression, or the scope of the argument gives cause
for it. But to apply this notion to the preceding eight
chapters is altogether without reason ; yea, is contrary
to the evident design and meaning.

This will be very clear, if we consider the two subjects
he insists especially and most largely upon. The first is
that of man's sinfulness : concerning which he hath this
conclusion (chap. iii. 19), Tliat every mouth may be stopped,
and all the world may become guilty befoi c God. Every
mouth — is not this to every one singly ? and that all
the world may become guilty, — is this as to general
national character, while thousands may happen not to
be guilty? Surely the apostle means to represent the
case of all men, and of every man singly, and indis-
criminately, without distinction of nations, or of any
peculiar national character. This is the more to be
observed, that it is the result of all his reasoning hitherto
in this epistle. When he adds (ver. 20), Therefore by the
deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight ;
surely this is not to be understood nationally, but of
every man singly and personally ; as it is plain he
includes every one singly, when he says 'ver. 23), All
have sinned, and come short of the glory of God.

As by these texts just mentioned it appears, that all
the apostle's reasoning in the three first chapters ter-
minates in conclusions that respect and inclu.de every
man singly, and that prove the sinfulness of every one ;
we might from this expect, that what he next produces

B

1 8 INTRODUCTION TO THE

for men's encouragement and comfort should be designed
for men singly — for every man with respect to his own
case in particular. So it is indeed ; for he immediately
passes to a doctrine concerning justification through
faith, which, without distinction of nations, concerns
every one singly who truly believeth in Jesus Christ.
So ver. 2, Even the righteousness of God, which is by
faith of fesus Christ unto all, and upon all them that
believe. The apostle's conclusion respecting justification
is (ver. 28), That a wan is justified by faith without the
deeds of the law. A man — certainly this respects men
singly and in particular. As he had said (chap. i. 16)
that the gospel is the power of God unto salvation, to
every one that believeth, to the fieiv first, and also to the
Greek.

Upon a just view of the apostle's expression and
doctrine, it must appear extremely absurd to suppose,
that with him believing is a national character; or that
justification through faith is a national privilege, blessing,
or attainment. It is very evident, that the faith he
speaks of is true, or, as he calls it elsewhere, unfeigned
faith; and that this is not a national, but a personal
thing. It is no less evident, that justification through
faith is a personal, not a national blessing. It appears,
then, though Jews and Gentiles are national names, that
what the apostle asserts of men's sinfulness is not to be
understood nationally, but personally of all and every
one of mankind; and that his doctrine of justification
through faith is applicable to every true believer, whether
Jew or Gentile, singly, and to none else. All and every
one having sinned, they who are justified, are so,
freely by grace, through the redemption that is in Christ
(chap. iii. 23, 24), in whom (as Eph. i. 7), we have redemp-
tion through his blood, even the remission of sins ; he being
(as Rom. iii. 25) set forth as a propitiation, through faith
in his blood. The reality of this faith, and of the blessed-
ness that Cometh by it, are not national, but personal, to
every true believer.

Now, when the apostle proceeds (chap, v.) to set forth
the blessedness and consolation arising from this faith,

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 1 9

and justification through faith, what should we expect
from a view of his preceding discourse, and of the evident
scope and drift of it, but a representation of blessings,
consolation, and hope, belonging to true believers singly ?
not national advantages, which are but external, and take
effect for the salvation but of a few commonly.

Let us consider the first of these privileges and
blessings (chap. v. 1), Being justified by faith, we have
peace with God. It is easy judging from the apostle's
preceding discourse, how this peace is to be understood.
He had proved that all and every one had sinned ; that
they are the ungodly (chap. iv. 5, 7), who are justified by
the forgiveness of their sins. Previously to this, being
guilt)', and the wrath of God abiding on them (John iii.
36), the\- are considered as enemies ; and in this wretched
state are without strength or ability to help themselves.
What then should we understand by the blessing set in
opposition to all this, even the peace which believers
have with God? but as it is expressed (ver. 10) that
they are reconciled to God, who is (2 Cor. v. 19) reconciling
the world to himself, not imputing their trespasses unto
them: and that (as Rom. viii. 31) God is for them, and
that they are admitted, as in the next following words
of chap. v. 2, unto a state of special grace and favour
with God.

Mr Locke's account of this peace with God we have
seen already. It is, that the Gentiles were not now in
the state of open rebels, as when in heathenism and
idolatry; but are admitted as members of the kingdom
of Christ : and this he would have understood of the
Gentiles nationally. If so as to the peace with God
(ver. 1), then certainly all that follows must be so under-
stood ; nationally rejoice in the hope of the glory of Goc ;
nationally glory in tribulation; nationally have the love
of God shed abroad in our hearts, &c. &c. How contrary
this is to the apostle's view, appears from what hath
been said already.

It is fit to consider in this place one argument that
remains, and which he takes from the connection of the
apostle's discourse, which cannot, he thinks, be accounted

20 INTRODUCTION TO THE

for, without understanding this context (chap. v. i-ii)
as he has done. But as it hath been shown here, that
his interpretation is altogether without foundation, that
gives good cause to think, that he has mistaken the
connection, or that it can be well accounted for without
receiving his interpretation.

Let us, however, observe how he manages this argu-
ment, in the last paragraph of his note on ver. 6, 8.
" And, indeed, if the four epithets be not taken to be
spoken here of the Gentile world, in this political and
truly evangelical sense, but, in the ordinary systematical
notion, applied to all mankind, as belonging universally
to every man personally, whether by profession Gentile,
Jew, or Christian, before he be actually regenerated by a
saving faith, and an effectual thorough conversion, the
illative particle wherefore, in the beginning of ver. 12,
will hardly connect it and what follows to the foregoing
part of this chapter. But the eleven first verses must be
taken for a parenthesis, and then the therefore, in the
beginning of this fifth chapter, which joins it to the
fourth with a very clear connection, will be wholly
insignificant.

Here he calls the sense he gives of the four epithets,
the political and truly evangelical sense. I shall add
nothing about the political sense to what hath been said
already about the national sense, as he had been calling
it before ; but only take occasion from the word to say,
it had been well if Mr Locke had written on subjects
in divinity as well as he did on some political subjects.
Meantime, I think his sense is far from being truly
evangelical. A sense and interpretation that enervates
quite a context so full of consolation, that deprives
Christians singly and personally of the special consola-
tions belonging to them as true believers, justified by
faith, and turns all to matter of external and common
privilege, common to them and others, members of the
church, who are not actually regenerated by a saving
faith, as he speaks, and an effectual thorough con-
version.

Whatever contemptuous notion this author and some

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 21

others, adversaries tothedoctrine of the reformed churches,
have affixed to system and systematical (though they have
their own systems and systematical notions themselves)
it is very evident that what he calls the systematical
notion is the true notion of the four epithets in Rom. v.,
and that his conceit concerning them cannot be supported
by any argument or just criticism.

As to the connection of chap. v. I with the preceding
discourse, expressed by the illative therefore, it is very-
clear : nor is there need of Mr Locke's notion to make
it so. He had asserted justification by faith, and now
infers, — Therefore being justified by faith we have peace
with God : justification imports the forgiveness of sins,
and this of itself imports peace with God. All that
follows to ver. u is comfortable inference from justifica-
tion, and the apostle's doctrine concerning it. So the
illative therefore (ver. i) represents a clear connection ;
and is fraughted with inferences of the utmost importance
and consolation. There is no need of making the inter-
vening context to ver. 12 a parenthesis. There is nothing
in it but what the illative therefore (ver 10) conveys clearly
from the preceding discourse.

Now, as to the connection by the wherefore (ver. 12),
let us observe how Mr Locke himself represents it. He
gives it at the end of his long note on vers. 6, 8, thus —
" We Gentiles have by Christ received the reconciliation,
which we cannot doubt to be intended for us, as well as
for the Jews, since sin and death entered into the world
by Adam, the common father of us all ; and as by the
disobedience of that one condemnation of death came
upon all, so by the obedience of one, justification to life
came upon all." Let us now see whether the connection
here may not be as clearly and justly accounted for, and
as much produced by it for the interest of the Gentiles,
according to the common interpretation, as Mr Locke's
view of it has produced. Let us for this take the para-
phrase of ver. 12, by the judicious Dr Guise (from which
that of a more late very worthy writer might receive
correction in somethings) the sum of which is as follows —
" Since therefore under the gospel state, Gentiles as well

27. INTRODUCTION TO THE

as Jews are in fact reconciled by the death of Christ, and
have received the atonement by faith in him (vers. 10, 1 1) ;
and since persons of all nations were on a level as to
their guiltiness before God, and their need of the gospel
way of justification, let us now go back as far as the
original apostacy, in which the Jews were without doubt
equally involved with the Gentiles. — Now, as this is the
case of one and all in Adam, and shows that the Jew is
as much under guilt, and has as much need of the gospel-
salvation as the Gentile ; so, as we shall see anon (vers.
1 8, 19), spiritual blessings, opposite to all this ruin by
the first man, are brought in by Jesus Christ, as a public
head of recovery to one as well as another of these sorts
of people, through faith in him."

By what hath been observed, it is evident that there
is no need of Mr Locke's notions concerning the scope
and meaning of the first context of chap, v., in order to
give a satisfying account of the connection therewith of
the latter context of that chapter. The apostle having
proved that all and every one of mankind are in their
natural condition, under condemnation, he next asserts
the doctrine of justification through faith, and lays open
the great consolations that arise from it : and concludes
his discourse on these subjects, with giving a view of the
origin, source, and ground, both of condemnation and ot
justification ; the former by the offence and disobedience
of Adam, and by the many offences men have added
thereto ; the latter by the obedience of Christ. He then
finishes his discourse on these subjects with the most
comfortable conclusion, contained in ver. 21, which may
be considered as a very brief epitome of all that precedes
it in this epistle — That as sin hath reigned unto death,
even so might grace reign through righteousness (the
righteousness of one, ver. 18, the gift of righteousness, ver.
17, or, the gifted righteousness) unto eternal life, by fesus
Christ our Lord.

There remains one argument yet, by which Mr Locke
endeavours to establish his notion of the four epithets,
and by that means to warrant his interpreting the first
context of Rom. v. concerning the Gentiles separately.

EXPL1CATI0X OF ROMANS VI. 2$

It is this, that the sense of each of them is to be found
in the description the apostle gives of the heathen state
of the Gentiles (Eph. ii.). But what doth this prove? It
hath here been made very evident, that the four epithets
mean what is. in natural condition, common to Jews and
Gentiles : if then that meaning be found in a description
of the state of the Gentiles, that doth by no means
weaken the evidence already brought, that these epithets
belong both to Jews and Gentiles. However, to obviate
or remove all difficult}-, I shall consider what the learned
writer takes notice of as to his purpose in Eph. ii. And
I expect it will appear that some things which he under-
stood to be there said of the heathens, as peculiar to
their case, are not so, as he conceived.

The first thing is, that the epithet weak (or, without
strengtJi) is in the meaning of dead in trespasses and sins
(Eph. ii. I, 5), which he understands as restricted, in the
sense of it, to the state of heathenism : and this " being
dead" is, he says, a state, if any, of weakness; and the
state of heathenism being represented, as he understands,
by being thus dead, is the only argument that I see he
brings to prove, that weak or without strength (Rom. v.)
is an epithet meant in a peculiar sense of the Gentiles, as
contradistinguished to the Jews. But being dead does
not import merely being weak, but represents a state of
utter incapacity, until new life is given by Divine grace ;
and if it be peculiar to heathens to be dead in sins, as he
understood, yet how can this prove that to be weak is
not applicable both to Jews and Gentiles ?

But further, if being dead in trespasses and sins is not
meant as a character peculiar to the state of heathenism ;
and if it shall appear that, according to the apostle's
view, the Jews in their natural condition were also thus
dead, there will remain no colour of argument to Mr
Locke's purpose. Let us then direct our inquiry to this
point, and see how the matter shall come out.

In order to this, it is to be observed, that upon a
general view of the chapter, Gentiles and Jews are therein
spoken of distinctly and separately. This is very clear
from ver. u downwards. If we consider it closelv. we

24 INTRODUCTION TO THE

shall see good reason to think that it is so from the
beginning of the chapter. So ver. i, You who were
dead, i.e. you Ephesians, Gentiles ; ver. 3, Among
whom also we all (that is, believers of the Jewish nation)
had our conversation. — They who will have the Gentiles
meant in this third verse, account for the pronoun we by
saying that it means not the Jews but the Gentiles ; the
apostle including himself with them as being the apostle
of the Gentiles. But this would be as likely to have led
him to say (ver. 1) we, or us, who were dead. We see
that in those parts of the chapter, wherein it is evident
that the Gentiles separately are meant, he avoids using
the words we, or us, or our. He in these places says,
ye, or you. So ver. I, You hath he quickened; vers. 11,
12: Ye being in time past Gentiles, — ye were without
Christ ; ver. 1 3, Ye who were far off. And so again
ver. 17, To you who were far off ; ver. 19, Ye are no
more strangers ; ver. 22, In whom ye also. — On the
other hand, in those places wherein it appears that he
includes others besides Gentiles under we, or our, or us,
it is evident he doth not include merely himself with the
Gentiles, as being their apostle; but means both Jews
and Gentiles together. So ver. 14, He is our peace,
who hath made both one ; ver. 15, To make to himself
of twain one new man. — So the word us, in the end of
ver. 14, The middle wall of partition between us. And
ver. 18, Through him we both have an access. — This
being observable in the apostle's style through the
chapter, it gives good cause to think that we all (ver. 3)
is meant of the Jewish believers with regard to their
former state. We shall see presently something more
that tends to establish this point.

Let it then be admitted, that the first verse is meant
of the Gentiles, and these words of ver. 2 : Wherein in
time past ye walked according to the course of the world,
according to the prince of the power of the air ; yet I
cannot agree that they are the Gentiles who are meant
in the last clause of that verse — the spirit that now
worketh in the children of disobedience. I think these
words are so introduced as to indicate that another sort

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 2$

than Gentiles are meant. This designation seems more
likely to be designed for the character of the Jews. The
Gentiles were become remarkable for the obedience of
faith. The prophecy set forth (Isa. xlix. 18, 22) was now
a-ful filling. When the apostle describes (Gal. iv.) the
gospel-church, in opposition to the Jerusalem that now is
(as he speaks, ver. 25) he doth it (ver. 27) in words cited
from Isa. liv. 1, which do evidently mean the Gentiles and
the Gentile church.

The Jewish nation, with the exception of a small
remnant, were disobedient to the gospel, cJiildrcn of
disobedience (a-eifoias) : and if the character of disobedient
(u-eLdovv-es) is given to the Jews of a particular place
(Acts xiv. 2), we find it elsewhere the character of the
nation.

There seems to be good cause to think that the Jews
are the disobedient, whom the apostle Peter hath par-
ticularly in his eye (1 Epist. ii. 7, 8), as the two texts he
there cites (Ps. cxviii. 22, and Isa. viii. 14) are certainly
meant of Jews ; and if those meant by Peter (ver. 8),
STUMBLED at the word (that is, the doctrine of the
gospel), being disobedient, we see the apostle Paul using
the same expression concerning Israel (Rom. ix.) ; there,
speaking of Israel in general and nationally, he says
(vers. 31, 32), They attained not to the law of rightcous-
?iess, because tJicy sought it not by faith, but as it were by
the works of the law; for they STUMBLED at that
stumbling stone. — They stumbled at the word, as to that
essential article of gospel-faith.

This matter will become more clear, if we consider
Rom. xi. 30, 31, 32. The Apostle observes, that the
Gentiles in times past had not believed (ij-eiOi'jo-aTc, obeyed)
God ; but that now the Gentiles had obtained mercy
through their unbelief (a-adda) ; and (ver. 32), he says,
God had concluded them (N.B. — them should not, according
to the Greek, be here) all in unbelief (t's a-ziOziav, dis-
obedience) that he might hare mercy upon all. The inter-
preters whom I have seen do generally understand all
here to include Gentiles and Jews ; not at once, but in
their turns, and at different times, concluded in unbelief.

26 INTRODUCTION TO THE

The Gentiles in time past (as ver. 30), the Jews now
(as ver. 31). By this it appears, that at the time the
apostle wrote, to be disobedient, or (according to the
Hebrew idiom) children of disobedience (as Eph. ii. 2),
was the general and national character of the Jews, as
contradistinguished to the Gentiles, who had now
obtained mercy, and were become very remarkable
for the obedience of faith.

According to this view of matters, we see that in Rom.
x. 20, 21, where the apostle is clearly contradistinguish-
ing Gentiles and Jews to one another, he applies to them
thus the words of Isa. lxv. 1, 2, / was found of them that
sought me not ; I was made manifest unto them that
asked not after me : (this of the Gentiles). But (so the
apostle goes on) to Israel he saith, All the day long have
I stretched forth my hands unto a disobedient people.
Upon the whole, it appears, that the scripture-style in
other places warrants us to understand Eph. ii. 2,
Children of disobedience, as the national character, at that
time, of the Jews.

Other circumstances and expressions there used
accord well with this sense of children of disobedience,
and tend to establish it. Particularly when it is said of
the prince of the power of the air [Satan], that he is the
spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience.
Satan reigned openly among the heathen Gentiles ; he
and his inferior demons were openly and solemnly
worshipped by them. This idolatry was the thing most
obvious, remarkable, and universal in the course of the
world. It was not so indeed among the Jews. Yet the
unbelieving Jews (as was now their national character)
were no less truly under his influence, and practically
conformed to him. So the Lord says to a company of
them (John viii. 44), Ye are of your father the devil;
and the lusts of your father ye will do. Accordingly
Eph. ii. 2, though the Jews did not so openly and
directly serve Satan in idolatrous worship, since the
Babylonish captivity, as the Gentiles ; yet he was hepyCov,
working in them. The Greek word sometimes signifies
working effectually ; but most strictly signifieth, working

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 2y

inwardly. Dr Whitby* takes notice of this meaning of
the word in his note on the place. "This evil spirit
(saith he) is here said hepyeiv inwardly to work in the
children of disobedience." It was not so always as to
the Jews nationally, when they were the church, the only
church of God. But now he wrought inwardly in them
by various lusts and delusions, by which, becoming
disobedient to the gospel, he wrought them up to the
utmost malice and fury against it.

It is likewise to be observed, that when the apostle
doth more particularly describe the conversation and
practice of these children of disobedience, there is not
any hint of outward idolatrous practice. Their con-
versation was, he says, in the lusts of the flesh, fulfilling
the desires of the flesh and of the mind.

Some may readily suggest on this occasion thus :
Paul here ranks himself, as to his former state, with
these children of disobedience: but can it be thought,
that when he was the Pharisee, so very devout, and
strictly righteous, that he had his conversation as is here
described? For conceiving justly of this, let us re-
member the distinction he makes (2 Cor. vii. 1) between
filthiness of the flesh and spirit. Both sorts come under
the general name of the flesh, as that word is sometimes
used. So here there is first the general thing ; their
conversation was in the lusts of the flesh : then he dis-
tinguishes and adds, fulfill 'ng the desires of the flesh and
of the mind. This last, the mind, is the thinking and
understanding faculty. By the account Paul gives of
himself when under the law, yea, and when under grace,
(Rom vii.), he well knew the motions of sin, and of the
flesh, in various forms. But what was most remarkable
in his case was, that error and delusion possessed his
mind, attended with what may be called intellectual

* The work of Dr Daniel Whitby referred to here and often
subsequently is entitled, " A Paraphrase and Commentary on the
New Testament," 4th edition, 2 vols., London, 1718. This was a
useful Commentary, commonly joined with those of Patrick, Louth,
and Lowman.

28 INTRODUCTION TO THE

lusts and passions. There was the pride of self-right-
eousness, with an ignorant furious zeal for the Mosaic
law, and for the honour and dignity of Israel beyond
all nations ; by which he became the blasphemer,
persecutor, and injurious. So it is not without cause he
ranks himself with the children of disobedience, as to his
former condition and conversation. What was his case
seems to have been pretty generally the case of the
Jewish nation ; to whom he ascribes, in general terms,
a zeal of God (Rom. x. 2).

The apostle's general purpose (Eph. ii.) appears to
be to set forth the riches of divine grace towards Jews
and Gentiles. As it is his way on other occasions, he
first represents men's former and natural conditions ;
and having described the state and way of the Gentiles
in the first verse, and in the first part of ver. 2, what
immediately follows makes an answer to such a question
as Rom. iii. 9, Are we better than they? By no means.
For though Israel had great advantage of outward
privilege and means of salvation, yet otherwise, as to
real spiritual state, whilst Satan reigned with more open
sway among the Gentiles, he worked inwardly and
efficaciously in us Jews, by means of various delusions,
passions, and lusts, and we were (ver. 3) by NATURE
children of wrath even as others: even as Gentiles.

I see not that any well-founded argument against the
interpretation given of children of disobedience arises
from what Mr Locke observes in his note on Eph. v. 6,
" Children of disobedience here (saith he) and chap. ii. 2,
and Col. iii. 6, are plainly the Gentiles, who refused to
come in and submit themselves to the gospel, as will
appear to any one who will read these places and the
context with attention." I have done so ; but what
the learned writer says is far from appearing to me.
What appears is plainly this ; if there were whore-
mongers, or unclean persons (as Eph. v. 5), or persons
given to fornication, uncleanness, &c. (as Col. iii. 5),
they were well entitled to the designation of children of
disobedience as their personal character, in ver. 6, of each
context, whether they were Jews or Gentiles. But as

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 29

to refusing to come in, and submit to the gospel, what
hath been here above observed makes sufficient reason
for understanding children of disobedience (Eph. ii. 2),
as the national character, not of the Gentiles, but of
the Jews.

Having fixed the meaning of children of disobedience
(Eph. ii. 2), we may take the meaning of the three
verses, as if he had said — You Ephesians, Gentiles, in
time past dead in trespasses and sins, walked according
to the course of this world, according to Satan, whom
ye openly served, and worshipped ; and who indeed
doth nozv (since divine grace is manifested to the
Gentiles) work inwardly and effectually in the unhappy
Jews, children of disobedience : among whom we of the
Jews, who are believers in Christ, all of us had our
conversation in time past ; and by nature our spiritual
condition was no better than yours, being by nature
children of wrath, even as others.

One step yet farther forward. The apostle says (vers.
4, 5), But God who is rich in mercy — even when WE were
DEAD in sins, hath quickened US. In ver. 1 it was, you.
Here it is, when we were dead in sins. I have formerly
observed that the apostle in the latter part of this
chapter doth not use such words as zve, us, our, but
where it is plain that Jews and Gentiles together are
comprehended. It appears to be so here. Having said,
you and ye (ver. i. 2), he now (ver. 5) hath we; and as
upon the intervening part of the context it hath been
shown, that therein he means the Jews, it is plain that
when he says (ver. 5), when WE were dead in sins, he
means that Jews and Gentiles, in their former and
natural states, were dead in sins.

If any shall yet hold, that children of disobedience
(ver. 2) means all who are in unbelief and disobedience
to the gospel, whether Jews or Gentiles, and that
all (ver. 3) means all believers of both denominations ;
this is still cross to Mr Locke's purpose, and is incon-
sistent with understanding dead in sins as the dis-
tinguishing characteristic of Gentiles, in the state of
heathenism. According to this interpretation also, when

30 INTRODUCTION TO THE

we were dead in sins (ver. 5) must mean the former and
natural state of all believers, both of the Jews and of
the Gentiles.

I have, however, given good reason for understanding
children of disobedience (ver. 2), as the national character
at that time of the Jews. It, at any rate, tends to con-
firm the sense of dead in sins (ver. 5), as meaning the
natural state of Jews and Gentiles, according to both
interpretations, that the immediately following context
represents comfortable effects of divine grace common
to persons of both denominations, without the hint of
anything peculiar to Gentiles, while he uses the words
we and us — Quickened together with Christy — raised up
together ; made to sit together in heavenly places in Christ
Jesus, — God purposing in this way to shoiv the exceeding
riches of his grace. On occasion of mentioning this
divine grace, he says to the Ephesians (ver. 8), By
grace ye are saved, — and (ver. 9), not of works lest any
man should boast. Though he speaks so in those two
verses to the Ephesians apart, who were Gentiles, shall
we say that these verses contain anything peculiar to
Gentiles ? No, surely ; for salvation by grace, not by
works, is salvation, and a way of salvation common to
Jews and Gentiles. So also is what follows (ver. 10),
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto
good works.

The characters of weak, sinners and ungodly, Mr Locke
pretended to find ascribed to heathens here (Eph. ii.
2, 3). But who ever doubted that these heathens were
weak, sinners and ungodly? But it hath been there
proven that (Rom. v.) these three characters or epithets
are meant of Jews and Gentiles. The epithet enemies
he finds in the nth and 12th verses of Eph. ii., though
the word is not there used. It is, however, true, that
those verses represent what comes up to the meaning
of enemies (Rom. xi. 28). But it hath been here proven,
that all men are -enemies, in the sense of chap, v.,
until they are reconciled to God by the death of his
Son.

Upon the whole, it appears now very evidently, that

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI. 3 1

there is nothing in the import of the four epithets, from
which Mr Locke argues, or in what he adduces, to sup-
port his meaning of these from Eph. ii., that gives
cause to understand that context (Rom. v. 1-11), to
respect the Gentiles as contradistinguished to the Jews,
or to understand it otherwise than as it hath been
hitherto generally understood by judicious and worthy
interpreters, viz. as representing privileges, blessings,
and consolations common to all true believers, of Jews
or Gentiles, or of whatever nation ; as well as the natural
condition, expressed by the four epithets, of Jews and
Gentiles, that is, of all mankind : and Mr Locke's notion
having no good reason to support it, it can make no
solid foundation for the superstructure which Mr Taylor
of Norwich has raised upon it.

Thus I have endeavoured to clear out of our way a
wrong notion of the general scope and design of the
sixth chapter. The chief ground of this notion is, that
the sixth chapter must be meant of the same sort of
men of whom the fifth is meant; and as it is meant of
the Gentiles separately, and as contradistinguished to
the Jews, that the sixth chapter should be so understood
likewise. But it now appearing that this notion is not
well founded, it cannot give us cause to interpret any
part of this sixth chapter of the Gentiles separately. So
we have got rid of one thing that hath led some men
to a wrong interpretation of some parts of it.

I shall not say much here concerning the scope of the
sixth chapter, and of the following context, so far as
I have proposed to explain. Only, in the general, that
the apostle's subject is sanctification, and the freedom
from the reign and dominion of sin that is necessary in
sanctification, and in order to the true practice of holi-
ness. As he had asserted and explained a doctrine of
justification common to Christians of the Jews and of
the Gentiles, we have cause to think, from a general
view, that his doctrines and explications concerning
sanctification have an equal respect to Christians of both
sorts — to all Christians.

I shall not endeavour to prepossess the mind of any

32 EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VI.

reader by a more minute account of the scope and
design of the particular parts of the context, or by pre-
fixing an account of the contents. Let us search for
that in the context, as we go along in the explication.
When that is finished, the contents and scope of every
part will appear, in a more clear and satisfying light, in
such a recapitulation of the apostle's principles, doctrine,
and reasoning, as may fitly have place in an appendix.

EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE

ROMANS VI.

TEXT. — Ver. I. What shall we say then? shall we continue in sin,
that grace may abound ?

Explication. — The first clause, which is in form of a
question, is according to the apostle's usual style, when
he is to introduce an objection to his doctrine, or a
question implying an objection.*

The objection in this place appears to take its occasion
from what the apostle had said two verses before this ;
to wit, chap. v. 20. The entering of the law, there men-
tioned, is certainly meant of the solemn promulgation of
it to Israel at Sinai. As Mr Locke explains the whole
of that verse, and the next after it, concerning the Jews,
one would think, that this should have led him to ascribe
the objection in the next following verse rather to the
Jew than to the Gentile ; as, indeed, the Jews were the
greatest adversaries to the apostle's doctrine, particularly
to his doctrine of justification, and the most ready to
cavil at it ; and so to suppose that in this chapter the
apostle is directing his reasoning to them, rather than to
the Gentiles, as he understood it.

But as I do not think the apostle is directing his
reasoning here to Jewish or Gentile converts separately,
some consideration of chap. v. 20, from which occasion is
taken for the objection, will tend to make the matter

* So chap. iii. 5 ; vii. 7 ; ix. 14.
C

34 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. I

clear. There it is said, The law entered, that the offence
might abound. To say, that the design of giving the law
at Sinai to the Israelites, was to increase their sin, or the
aggravations of it, cannot be easily received. For though
the consequence might be the actual abounding of sin,
and of its aggravations on the part of the Israelites,
through their corruption and perverseness ; yet it cannot
be admitted that this was the design of giving them the
law. Therefore another interpretation of the words
must be looked for.

In order to this, let it be considered, that often in
Scripture things are said to be, when the meaning is, that
they appear, or are proved to be. So John xv. 8, Christ
exhorts his disciples to bring forth much fruit, by this
argument, So shall ye be my disciples ; that is, so shall ye
appear or prove yourselves to be my disciples. For the
true order of things is, that men must be Christ's disciples
before they can bring forth good and acceptable fruit ;
not that they first bring forth good fruit, and thereby
become his disciples. So 2 Cor. xii. 9, For my strength is
made perfect in weakness ; that is, the Lord's strength
appears — is proved to be perfect by the weakness of his
se.vants, and the effectual support he gives them. So
James ii. 22, By works was faith made perfect ; that is, by
works did faith appear, and was proved to be perfect —
to be sincere ; as is in Scripture a very common sense
of the word perfect. Thus, I doubt not, is to be inter-
preted Rev. xxii. 14, Blessed are they that do his com-
mandments, that they may have right to the tree of life ;
that is, may appear to have right — that they are the
persons who have right, as sons and heirs (Rom. viii. 17).
In this way, the sense of Rom. v. 20 comes out thus:
The law entered, that the abounding of sin might appear
by its light.

Thus did matters stand in the world before the giving
of the law to the Israelites. The writing of the law in
the natural consciences of men was very much obliter-
ated ; and in the heathen world idolatry and all sorts of
wickedness were come to a great height. The ancestors
of the Israelites had indeed divine revelation, but two or

Ver. i] OF ROMANS VI. 35

three generations before this time ; but that light even
among them was become very dim and obscure. They
were become very ignorant ; and the infection of Egypt,
as to idolatry and other sorts of wickedness, had prevailed
greatly among them. By the increase of ignorance, and
of all wickedness, the distinction between moral good
and evil was in danger to be quite forgot, and lost in the
world. In this state of things, God being to set apart a
peculiar people to himself, he thought fit to set up the
light of the law among them, by a new, clear, and very
solemn promulgation. By this light might Israel perceive
how much sin abounded with themselves ; as by the law
is the knoii'ledge of sin (chap. iii. 20). By it appeared in
what fearful degrees sin abounded in the heathen world
about them, from which the)' had cause to adore the
grace that had so favourably distinguished themselves.
By this light of the law, by which the abounding of sin
appeared so clearly, might Israelites, and such of the
Gentiles as came to the knowledge of this law, discover
the need they had, on both hands, of the grace that
pardoneth sin, and of that Saviour, and gospel-way of
salvation, which Moses and the prophets were, from time
to time, setting before them. When, therefore, on
occasion of mentioning the abounding of sin, which it
did to a high degree among Jews and Gentiles, the
apostle takes occasion to say, that where sin abounded,
graee did muck more abound, it is plain, that this hath
respect to both Jews and Gentiles ; sin had abounded
with both ; grace did much more abound towards both
sorts. Now, as it is from a proposition, which hath
respect to both Jews and Gentiles, that occasion is taken
for the objection here (chap. vi. 1), what cause can we
have to ascribe the objection to one sort, when there is
nothing said or insinuated, that implies it; or to suppose
that, in answering the objection, the apostle means any
other than doctrine and arguments, which all believers,
whether Jews or Gentiles, are alike concerned in ?

The case then plainly is, that the apostle here suggests,
in way of question, an objection which he was aware
some might make, perhaps did make, against his doctrine

36 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I

of men's being justified and pardoned by the abounding
of grace through Jesus Christ ; and not by the works of
men's own righteousness : as if this doctrine was un-
favourable to holiness, and encouraged men to continue
in sin. It is not the apostle's way to proceed in logical
or systematic method ; but he takes proper occasion
commonly to make an easy transition from one subject
to another. So here, by suggesting an objection against
his own doctrine of justification, as if it were unfavour-
able to holiness, he takes occasion to pass to that subject
of holiness and sanctification ; and he answers, explains,
and argues in such manner as to prove (as we shall see
ere all is done) that there can indeed be no true sancti-
fication of a sinner, but by means, and in consequence
of grace abounding in justification by faith, and not by
works.

I must here likewise observe Dr Whitby's annotation
on this verse. "Note here," says he, "that if the faith
to which St Paul in this epistle doth ascribe justification,
did not only oblige us to, but even comprehend evan-
gelical and constant obedience, there could be no colour
for this objection. That therefore must be a mistake."
It had indeed been so observed, and argued formerly by
many ; but it is fair of this learned writer to make such
observation and concession. As to his own notion of
justification by faith, it were easy showing it to be far
from being right, if this were a proper place for it.

The sense of this first verse may be given in the
following paraphrase : —

Paraphrase. — (Ver. i). How shall we judge of this
doctrine, that justification is wholly and merely by grace ;
even by grace super-abounding where sin hath abounded ;
and that a sinner is justified by faith, without the deeds
of the law? It seems indeed to be well calculated for
those who find themselves destitute of righteousness ;
for the self-condemned and humbled sinners, it affords
great consolation on that side. But is it not, at the
same time, very comfortable and encouraging to the
flesh, and unfavourable to holiness and good works?
For if it is the glory of divine grace, that where sin hath

Ver. 2] OF ROMANS VI. 37

abounded it doth much more abound, is it not a just
inference, that we should continue in sin, that grace may
be thus glorified ? For, however contrary the practice
of sin may be to the Divine holiness, yet as a special
design of God, in the salvation of sinners, is to magnify
his grace, should not we contribute to advance the glory
of super-abounding grace, by continuing in sin ; and so
give occasion to grace to display its utmost richness
and glory ?

Text. — 2. God forbid : how shall we that are dead to sin, live any
longer therein ?

Explication. — The Greek words /*-/) yivoiro, that
make the first clause, do represent such an aversation
and abhorrence of an event or practice, as is commonly
expressed in our language by saying — God forbid, or —
Far be it from us.

Here we have occasion to observe, if the apostle had
meant the faith, to which he ascribes justification, as
including evangelical obedience and good works, or,
that its virtue and effect in justifying did arise from its
certain connection with subsequent holiness and good
works, he could not have missed to answer, and say to
this purpose — You unhappily mistake my doctrine of
justification by faith, and the true sense of my words ;
the faith I mean includes good works, and its justifying
virtue is from its connection with holiness and good
works, which necessarily flow from it, and which I include
in my notion of faith. What absurdity, yea, what non-
sense is it, to charge such a doctrine of justification by
faith with being unfavourable to holiness, or with
favouring and encouraging sin ! This answer, if such
were his notion of justifying faith, were so much in point,
so full, and withal so very obvious, that when he says
nothing to that purpose, it gives us cause to be well
satisfied that his notion of justifying faith is not such as
would afford that answer.

Another thing yet with regard to this point. Accord-
ing to the sentiments of those who hold that faith

38 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2

justifies by virtue of its connection with holiness and
good works ; it could not be truly said, that a man is
justified by faith. They generally hold, that the faith
of the hypocrite, which is not attended with good works,
is in itself of the same nature and kind with the faith of
the true Christian, who is fruitful in good works ; and
that it is good works, and perseverance therein that
makes the distinction ; not the faith itself, which is of
the same kind in both. So then the case stands thus :
Very many who have the same true faith, as to its own
nature, that the sincere Christian hath, yet not having
good works, are not justified ; whereas whoever hath
good works, he is thereby justified. From this it is very
plain, that it is not faith that justifies, according to these
men's sentiment, but a man's good works, which he
connects with his faith.

But, for explaining our text, although he doth not
answer to the objection, as the above-mentioned notion
of faith would suggest, yet he answers and suggests
an argument against the practice of sin, arising from
his doctrine, that is of the utmost force. Let us look
into it.

It is of great consequence, not only for understanding
the apostle's answer and argument here, but for under-
standing his whole discourse in this chapter, that we
discover and fix the true meaning of that expression —
dead to sin. Mr Taylor of Norwich's paraphrase gives
it thus : " How can any man imagine the gospel allows
us to continue in a wicked life, when, by its principles
and obligations, we are set at the greatest distance from
all iniquity ; even as far as the dead are separated from
all society with the living ? " Is this, that we are
actually put at such distance from sin? for the apostle's
expression says something positive and actual — We
ARE dead to sin. Surely to be actually at a distance
from sin, as far as the dead are separated from all
society with "the living, is the attainment only of that
place whither nothing shall enter that defileth.

Dr Taylor explains himself in this note on this verse :
" (Ver. 2), How shall we that are dead to sin. He doth

Ver. 2] of Romans vi. 39

not mean they were actually dead to sin ; for he supposes
they might, in fact, live after the flesh (chap. viii. 13);
he therefore must mean, they were by their profession
obliged to be dead to sin (274), see ver. 11, and the
note upon it." We shall soon see ver. 11. As to his
note upon it, there is nothing in it, but his quoting
Col. hi. 3. And as I cannot see how it makes for his
purpose, so neither doth he say a word to show that it
doth, or how it doth so. As to the citation from Rom.
viii. 13, the words do not imply that the true believer
may in fact live after the flesh, and perish ; the apostle
doth only warn Christians, by that hypothetical pro-
position, of the certain connection between fleshly living,
and perishing. But, as that text comes again in my
way, I defer till then speaking more largely concerning
the import of it. Here I only observe, that Dr Taylor
doth not argue agreeably to his own sentiments con-
cerning perseverance, when he says, that the apostle
doth not mean that the believers he wrote to were
actually dead to sin ; nor can be so understood, by-
reason of what he supposes (according to this inter-
preter) in that other text (chap. viii. 13), for they might
actually be dead to sin at that present time, as much
as ever Christian did, or could, attain in his life ; and
the apostle might be understood to assert so in our text,
consistently (by Dr Taylor's sentiments) with their falling
afterwards to fleshly living, and perishing.

He therefore must mean, saith this writer, they were
by their profession obliged to be dead to sin. But in
this way there is no answer to the objection (ver. 1).
That men were obliged to be dead to sin, is what the
objection itself implies ; otherwise the alleged conse-
quence could not be charged as an absurdity against the
apostle's doctrine. We may conceive the matter thus
on both sides. — Objection. All men are obliged to die
to sin ; that is, to forsake it, and put themselves at the
utmost distance from it ; yea, what man is there who
doth not profess himself to be so obliged? Yet your
doctrine encourages men to do otherwise ; even to
continue in sin and live in it. Answer^ according to

40 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Vcr. 2

Dr Taylor, Gocl forbid ! how shall we, who by our pro-
fession are obliged to be dead to sin (which is implied
in the objection itself), live any longer in sin? Here
plainly there is no answer to the objection, or argument
against what it imports, though it is clear that the apostle
means, from the Christian's being dead to sin, to bring
an argument of special evidence and force against what
the objection imports.

But what argument doth this interpreter bring for
our understanding by being dead to sin, that we are
obliged to be so? He says,* "It should be carefully
observed, that it is very common in the sacred writings
— to speak of that as done, which only ought to be done,
and which, in fact, may possibly never be done." One
of the instances of this he gives thus: (Matt. v. 13) Ye
are (ought to be) the salt of the earth. The other texts
he there mentions are Mai. i. 6, Rom. ii. 4, chap. vi. 2, 11,
chap. viii. 9, Col. iii. 3, 1 Pet. i. 6, 2 Cor. iii. 18, 1 Cor.
v. 7, Heb. xiii. J4, 1 John ii. 12- 15, chap. iii. 9,
chap. v. 4, 18. All these texts, however, admit of a
commodious interpretation, without such supplying of
words. Translators, indeed, sometimes found themselves
obliged to supply a word or two to make a complete
expression of the sense ; but that should be admitted
only when the scope of the place appears to require it,
and words should be supplied only to make a sense
agreeable to the evident scope. But if words may be
supplied in Dr Taylor's way, contrary to what the text
expresses, without anything in the scope of the place
that requires it, every text may be turned to whatever
a man pleases, and so the scripture become an uncertain
rule, good for nothing.

In the instance we are considering, the matter stands
thus between the apostle and this interpreter. The
apostle says positively, We arc dead to sin. No, saith
Dr Taylor, not actually dead to sin, but that we ought
to be so. This is contradicting, not explaining ; which
is a way not uncommon with this interpreter.

* In his " Key to the Apostolic Writings," § 274.

Ver. 2] CF ROMANS vi. 41

Eisner, a learned writer, shows, as Dr Doddridge
reports,* how frequently moral writers among the
heathens speak of wise and good men, as dead to sen-
sualities and animal pleasures. But Wolfius, who reports
likewise these observations of Eisner's, says, that the
learned writer himself adds, whatever fine expression
the heathen philosophers used on this subject, that we
are not to expect to find with them what will come up
to the apostle Paul's meaning. This is very right.

Others take in here the profession, serious purpose,
and strict engagements of Christians against sin. The
truth is, it hath of a long time, and generally, been
understood to be the apostle's meaning, by being dead
to sin, to denote matter of duty (as to abstain from, to
resist, to mortify sin), in which a Christian ought to
advance from one degree to another. Hence hath come
into use that expression, "to die more and more unto
sin." This sense is in itself good and right, and agree-
able to scripture-doctrine. But I am not satified that
this manner of expressing that sense is agreeable to
scripture style. I do not see that the scripture expresses
mere duty, and the Christian's progress in it, by " dying,
and dying more and more unto sin." The scripture-
expression here is dead unto sin; and (ver. 11), Reckon
yourselves t ) be dead indeed unto sin; and (1 Pet. ii. 24),
That we being dead to sin, &c. I do not see, that to be
dead can be a proper and right expression for mere
matter of duty : and if a man is actually dead, that doth
not admit of degrees or progress. If he is once truly
dead, he cannot be more and more dead.

It seems therefore more reasonable to think, that to
be dead to sin, signifies an advantage, blessedness, and
privilege of a true Christian's state, rather than mere
matter of duty. Upon this view, the meaning of the
expression ma)-, I think., be taken from what is said of

* Eisner, " Observationes Sacrae in Novi Foederis libios,'' 2
vols., Traj. 1720. Dr Philip Doddridge, "The Family Expositor,"
or a Paraphrase and Version of the New Testament, with Critical
Notes and a Practical Improvement of each Section. 6 vols
London, 1739.

42 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2

death and the grave (Job iii. 19), There the servant is
FREE from his master. The poor slave (such were
commonly the servants of these countries and times) is
free from the yoke of the rigorous lord, under whose
dominion he was. As the case continued to be the
same, it needs not be wondered at, that the expression,
in somewhat the proverbial way, should continue in
language from the time of Job to the time of Paul. We
shall likewise find a great deal in Paul's discourse here
that directs us so to understand the expression.

Upon the one hand, sin is represented as reigning ;
(chap. v. 21), sin hath reigned unto death ; so grace reigns,
as in that same verse. Doth then grace greatly abound,
even where sin hath abounded? It is it that doth, by
so abounding, put an end to the reign of sin ; so that the
abounding of grace can give no encouragement to con-
tinuing in sin. Thus the apostle brings a pertinent
answer to the objection from that very passage, on
which it is pretended to be founded. In ver. 14, and
downwards, sin is mentioned as having dominion, such
as a lord or master hath over his slaves, whom he
employs according to his will, in all his service and
drudgery. So Christians are represented as having
been the servants (that is, slaves) of sin. Thus (ver. 17),
ye were the servants of sin — (ver. 20), when ye were the
servants of sin.

Upon the other hand, Christians being made free from
sin is much in the apostle's view through this discourse.
Yea (ver. 7), he seems himself to explain being dead, by
being made free from sin. So also ver. 18, Being then
made free from sin; ver. 22, But now being made free
from sin. Yea, when the apostle comes towards the
conclusion of his explications on this subject he says
(chap. viii. 2), The law of the Spirit of life — hath made
me FREE from the law of sin and death. All this gives
sufficient cause to think, that the true believer's being
dead to sin, is no other than the privilege and blessedness
of his state, viz. to be made free from the reism and
dominion of sin. More particular explications respecting
this subject we may look for in the apostle's subsequent

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VI. 43

discourse and reasoning. In the meantime, what a
pointed and pertinent answer he makes here to the cavil,
and objection in ver. 1, we may see in the following

Paraphrase. — 2. By no means: how shall we believers,
who are made free from the reign and dominion of sin,
(dead to it) prove, by continuing to live in sin, that we
are not made free from its dominion, but are yet its
slaves ? yea, can it so happen, as to the common,
ordinary, and final course of the believer's practice, that
being made free from the dominion of sin, he should, in
practice, continue under its prevailing influence and
power ? or, whatever we might be capable of, considering
us as we are in ourselves, free agents, in whom there is
considerable remainder of corruption, can it be supposed
that the grace which, in the superabounding thereof, hath
made us free from the reign of sin, hath not provided
various and effectual means, consistent with our liberty,
for preserving us from continuing in sin, and so (see
ver. 14) coming again under its dominion? But though
there is such real inconsistency in the case, that it cannot
reasonably be supposed, yet if it shall be supposed but
in imagination that a believer should be made free from
the dominion of sin, and yet, at the same time, should, by
living ordinarily in the indulged practice of it, affront
the grace that hath abounded towards him, and give
dishonour to the precious ransom by which he hath been
redeemed and made free, will not the very imagination
of it give horror to even' sincere heart of a Christian, to
every reasonable and ingenuous mind ?

TEXT. — 3. Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into
Jesus Christ, were baptized into his death ?

Explication. — As to the expression in the first clause,
baptized into Jesus Christ, there is a similar expression
(1 Cor. x. 2): Our fathers — were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud, and in the sea. Though Moses is commonly
considered as the law -giver, yet from the import of
baptism, and the spiritual meat and drink mentioned

44 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 3

(vers. 3, 4), it is plain that Moses is set forth there as a
minister of grace : and being baptized unto Moses must
mean chiefly, being baptized unto the faith of the Saviour,
and the salvation to which Moses bare witness ; and
receiving the typical baptism, as a sort of seal of that
grace.

But we are directed to conceive of Christ differently,
as to this matter, than of Moses. Christ sets forth him-
self as a vine (John xv. 1), and his people, as being (not
by nature, surely, but by ingraftment and by grace)
brandies of that vine. He is a head, which hath its
body; and each believer in particular is a member of
that body. The apostle says (1 Cor. xii. 13): By 07ie
Spirit are we all baptized into one body. By one Spirit,
and by the faith which under his influence we exert, we
are truly united to Christ, as by the external ordinance
we are admitted into his visible body the church. To
be by one Spirit truly united to Christ, is not likely to
be the case of every one who is externally baptized, as
all the Roman Christians probably were. This is, perhaps,
the reason of that manner of expression, As MANY OF US
as were baptized into Jesus Christ. Though the apostle
commonly addresses the churches he writes to as true
believers, yet there is frequently the hint of exceptions ;
nor can it be thought, that Simeon the sorcerer, though
externally baptized, was by this one Spirit truly united
to Christ.

But so many as are so, and to whom this grace is
sealed by baptism, they are baptized into CJirisfs death.
This last clause of the verse comes next to be explained.
It has been indeed explained by many, as meant of the
professions and vows which Christians come under at
baptism, to die unto sin, and to mortify it, in conformity
to the death of Christ and the design of it. That adult
persons at baptism came under such engagements is not
to be doubted. This is likely to be included in that
answer of a good conscience towards God, mentioned in
view to baptism (1 Pet. hi. 21). Nor is it to be doubted
that baptism, and the grace thereby exhibited, doth of its-
own nature fix such obligation upon infants. But that

Ver. 3] OF Romans VI. 45

cannot be the thing here intended, as there is not the
least mention or hint of baptismal vows and engage-
ments ; and that good reasons have been here given why
being dead to sin should be understood, not of matter of
duty and practice, which is the proper subject of vows
and encasements, but rather of the blessedness and

privilege of the state of believers. It is said (ver. 10) that
Christ died unto sin ; and therefore believers are directed
(ver. 1 1 ) to reckon themselves to be dead indeed unto sin
— through Jesus Christ. It is said of Christ (1 Pet. ii. 24)
that he bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that
being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness.
They who consider being dead to sin as matter of duty,
do refer it to men's purposes and to baptismal vows and
engagements. But in these two texts, we see being dead
to sin referred to the death of Christ, and immediately
connected therewith. So when, in the text under con-
sideration, Christians are said to be baptized into Christ's
death, we have cause to understand by it that baptism
doth apply, exhibit, and seal to them the benefits of
Christ's death, ; it ;'- a .^olcmn rite] whereby

believers are invested, in a fellowship of interest in his
death and in the benefits and happy es o[ it :

so that as he died to sin, dying in their vice. s« 1 by virtue
thereof the)' are dead to sin ; that is, macfe free from_ its
reign and dominion. This the ordinance o> baptism doth
exhibit and seal to their faith.

Baptismal vows and engagements do greatly enforce
the duty of forsaking, resisting, and mortifying sin.
Baptism, according to its own nature, as here explained,
doth afford strong argument and powerful excitement to
that duty. But to restrict the apostle's meaning here to
these hath this great inconvenience, that it tends to hide
from Christians the great consolation and encouragement
to that duty, that is properly and directly meant, viz.
that the\- are by the death of Christ made free from the
reign and the dominion of sin, and that the same is
ascertained and sealed to them bv their baptism.

* [I.e. in their place].

46 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

Text. — 4. Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death ;
that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of
the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Explication. — Christ" being our representative and

surety ; when he died Tor our sins, it is as if we by our
own death had expiated our sins ; and as he is said to
be raised for our justification, the case is, that the release
of our Surety is virtually, and in effect, our release. When
he was raised, we might be considered as having been
raised from the dead. The apostle gives this view of
the matter when he says (Eph. ii. 4-6) : God — hath
quickened us together with Christ, and hath raised us up
together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in
Christ Jesus. So he speaks when he is setting forth the
application of the virtue of Christ's death and resurrec-
tion to believers.

Again (Phil. iii. 10) the apostle expresses his aim and
desire thus : That I may know him, and the power of his
resurrection, and the fellowship of his sufferings, being
made conformable unto his death. As to these latter
clauses, it is true that Christians, in their sufferings in
this life, have a fellowship of suffering with Christ, and
a conformity to his death ; yet there is no good reason
for restricting these clauses here, in Philippians, where
the context hath nothing concerning sufferings, to that
meaning and view, more than there would be for restrict-
ing the power of Christ's resurrection, in the first clause,
to the supports the apostle had under his tribulations,
by virtue of the resurrection and life of Christ, of which
he speaks (2 Cor. iv. 10, 11), which I scarce think any
would agree to. The desire and aim of the apostle here
(Phil. iii. 10) seems to be this : as he had already known
and experienced the power of Christ's resurrection, he
earnestly desired and longed for the full fruit and effect
of it, as in perfect and final justification, so in the per-
fection of holiness, and in eternal life. As he had already
the fellowship of Christ's sufferings, and conformity to
his death, in being by means thereof dead to sin, and

Ver. 4] of Romans VI. 47

made free from its reign and dominion, so he earnestly
desires to attain the full effect of his death, in being not
only free from the reign of sin, but also from all molesta-
tion and danger by it, in the perfection of holiness, when
nothing of sin should remain in him.

In these places (Eph. ii. and Phil, iii.) the apostle does
not appear to have baptism at all in his view. He con-
siders our fellowship of Christ's sufferings, and conformity
to his death, — our being quickened, and raised together
with Christ, and sitting together with him in heavenly
places, as matters of privilege, comfort and hope, arising
from our relation to Christ and union with him. A true
believer is united to Christ, and is dead indeed unto sin,
and alive unto God through Jesus Christ (as here, Rom.
vi. 11) previouslvtoh^sbap_tism ; or if he should never
have \\\^^ox^I^cf^ChSm% baptized. So. that turning
the matter of being dead iliUq sin on this point of 1 1
bapti5Tna1~vo^s~~1md obligations, falls greatly short ot *
the apostTe's argument, and tends to obscure instead of
giving light to it.

The part of baptism in this matter is, that the privilege,
blessings, and comlort meant by the apostle (and from
which there arise the strongest obligations and encourage-
ments to holy living) are represented, further applied,
sealed, and confirmed "to the" "Christian's faith by it.
Thus (Col. ii. 12) : " .buried with him In baptism,
wherein also you are risen with him, through the faith
of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the
dead." Here our being buried with him in baptism (it
is in view to the baptism of adult persons he speaks), and
our rising therein with him, are both ascribed to faith ;
not our rising with him only. Beza's note on the place
seems to be a good one : " Per fidem, id est, Mam fide a
vobis apprehensam virtutem Dei, ejfieientem ut Chris to
mortuo, et a morluis exeitato, sitis conformes? To this
purpose in our language : " By faith, that is, by your
laying hold on (or apprehending) through faith, that
divine power, by the efficiency of which you become
conformed to the death and resurrection of Christ.''

Let it be further observed, that in this text (Col. ii. 12)

48 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Vet. 4

Christians being buried, and rising with Christ in
baptism, is not ascribed to baptismal engagements to
die, or (as they speak) to die more and more unto sin,
and to live unto righteousness ; but to their faith, by
which the ordinance is made effectual to its proper
purpose, and by which Christians perceive the comfort-
able matters which it is designed to represent and seal
to them.

The apostle's argument in this place I do not take to
be, that Christians are by their baptismal engagements
obliged to that duty, or course of duty which some
understand by dying to sin ; though undoubtedly
baptism, and the grace it exhibits, doth fix such
obligation to duty on them. Put his argument is
plainly to this purpose, that the baptism of Christians
doth, in way of figure, signify the' blessings thereby
represented, and is a means whereby they are applied to
them ; and is, at the same time, a comfortable, solemn,
divine ratification of their interest in the fruits of Christ's
death and resurrection ; this particularly of being dead
to sin, made free from its reign and dominion, and so
brought unto a capacity of holy living. Christians
having in their baptism this comfort, with respect to the
dominion of sin, and a capacity of holy living, with the
strongest obligations thereto, and that by the grace which
hath abounded towards them ; how extremely absurd to
suppose continuing in sin a consequence of that grace,
or that it is at all consistent with it?

To look now more closely to the expression of this
ver. 4, the first clause is : " Therefore we are buried with
him by baptism into death." In the common course of
things, a man's burial ascertains his death to beholders:
they have no doubt of his being dead, when they see him
buried. Thus the baptism of a Christian represented, in
a very strong manner, his being dead ; for in it he
appeared to be buried by his immersion under the water ;
which was anciently the most common way, at least as
to adult persons, in that hot climate.

But there remains one difficulty in the apostle's
manner of expression, Buried — infa-dcath. Now death

Ver. 4] ROMAKS vi. 49

is previous to burial ; but by the form of the expression
here, the baptismal burial seems to be previous to the
death mentioned, and in order to it, a burial unto death.
To understand this, let it be considered, that the adult
believer, while yet unbaptized, was by faith truly united
to Christ, and so saved, according to the general meaning
of that word : and yet the apostle Peter ascribes to
baptism his being saved ( 1 Pet. iii. 21). "The like figure
whereunto, even baptism, doth also now save us." Again,
though when the Christian did first truly believe in
Christ (under the influence of the Spirit cf faith he was,
by his faith and by t it, united to ChristT vet that

J his bodv, is ascribed to baptism
(1 Cor. xii. 1 3), " For by one Spirit are we alT baptized
into one body.'*' So here in the text under consideration,
t h e d e a th meant is ascribed to baptism r as the effect of
it, according form of the expression, though the

thing that a

baptismal fL e:\n\ represented, and sealed to

the ]./.'_ r. :" : ' '- _■ .'cr establishment and comfort,
his death, his being dead to sin. The may be

taken briefly thus : in our baptism, as by a figure, we are
buried with Chr:-- 1 . ' ' ratify to our fii::h}

that by virtue of Christ's death, we are dead unto sin.

Follows the latter part of the verse, "That like as
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory " (that
is, by the glorious power and operation) "of the Father."
He doth (Col. ii. 12) mention our being risen with
Christ in baptism. Here, after mentioning Christ's
being raised from the dead, instead of adding, as
there, our rising with him, he mentions the effect of our
so rising, in our practice of life, thus, " Even so we also
should walk in newness of life." So, to continuing
in sin, as in the objection (ver. 1) which is expressive of
the practice of sin, he, with great propriety, and very
emphatically, opposes the practice of newness of life
the proper and necessary consequence of the Christian's
fellowship in the death and resurrection of Christ,
represented and sealed to him by baptism.

Paraphrase. — 3. Dead, I say, unto sin. For you

D

-h

50 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE f Ver. 5

cannot but know concerning that baptism, by which we
are externally admitted into the churcriTand to the par-
ticipation of its privileges, and by which the new
covenant, with all its grace and promises, is sealed to us,
—'that to all those of us, to whom it is truly and
effectually the seal of our ingraftment into Christ, and
aToiir" fellowship With him (/coawta, 1 Cor. i. 9), it doth
particularly signify and sea], to our great comfort, that
fellowship of his sufferings and death, by virtue of which,
as he (ver. 10) died unto sin, so we (ver. 11) are dead
unto sin.

Therefore (to put this matter out of question), as
Christ's being actually buried, proved his being truly
dead, so we have, in this divine ordinance, a baptismal
figurative burial, which ascertains, demonstrates, and
seals to our faith, our being truly dead unto sin, set free
from its reign and dominion, by virtue of his death, and
that in order to this further consolation and benefit, that,
like as Christ was raised from the dead by the glorious
power and operation of the Father, even so we also,
being by our fellowship with him in his resurrection, and
by the power thereof, raised together with him, which
our baptism also represents and confirms to us (Col. ii.
12), should be engaged, disposed, and enabled to a new
manner of life, in the inward and outward practice of
holiness and righteousness. How unreasonable then,
how calumnious and absurd, to suggest as if the grace
that had abounded towards us, with such design and
effect, did indeed favour sin, or men's continuing in it !

Text. — 5. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of
his death ; we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection.

EXPLICATION.— It is generally agreed, that the apostle
hath here in his eye the true Christian's ingraftment into
Christ, as a scion into a vine, to which Christ compares
himself (John xv. 1). I see with the learned a good
deal of criticism here, and somewhat various notions of
the sense ; which seem, for most part, to come to the

Ver. 5] OF ROMANS VI. 5 I

same general purpose. I conceive the scope and mean-
ing to be in general thus: If by our ingraftment into
Christ we have a conform it}- to his death, being dead to
sin ; that we shall also have a conformity and likeness
to his resurrection.

But more particularly ; the apostle had mentioned
(verse 2), Christians being dead to sin, and ver. 3, that
their baptism invested them in an interest in Christ's
deatb^atid in this special benefit thereby, to be dead to
sin, and ver. 4, that their baptism ascertained this death
to them by the baptismal immersion, which was a kind
of baptismal figurative burial. When he mentions here
(ver. 5) Christians being planted together in the likeness
of Christ's death, he but resumes what he had said in
the three preceding verses, without any additional sense,
though there is some variation of metaphorical ex-
pression and ideas. But having added in the latter part
of ver. 4, " That like as Christ was raised from the dead
by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk
in newness of life," this is what he had said nothing of
before ; and what he says here (ver. 5) is added to
explain and confirm it, and to assert the connection of
these things, viz. that if by our ingraftment into Christ,
our union and fellowship with him, we are dead to sin,
and made free from its reign, so we shall certainly have
the fellowship of his resurrection in newness of life. To
be made free from sin, that is, that sin hath not dominion
over us, is a negative proposition ; it expresses nothing
of itself concerning fruitfulness in holiness and good
works. But the Christian is not made free from the
dominion of sin, in order only to be barren and unfruitful
in the knowledge of Christ. If by means of his fellow-
ship with Christ in his death, he is dead to sin, he at the
same time, by virtue of his fellowship with Christ, is
risen together with Christ ; his baptism represents to him
the one as well as the other. There is, however, this
difference: When the Christian came unto union with
Christ, he from that time became free from the dominion
of sin. Though it remains, infests, and, in several
respects endangers the Christian, yet it doth not reign,

52 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver.

nor hath dominion. But as to conformity to the resur-
rection of Christ in the actual practice of newness of life,
that is but begun. The progress in this life, and the
perfection hereafter of conformity to Christ's resurrection
is future ; and that may be the reason why, in this latter
part of the verse, the apostle uses the future tense,
tVo/xe^a, we shall be.

Paraphrase. — 5. For if all we believers are together
ingrafted into Christ, and united to him, and so in a
likeness to his death, and by virtue thereof, are dead
unto sin, free from its dominion, we are not to conceive
the matter merely under that negative notion. By no
means ; by virtue of our fellowship with Christ, we are
risen together with him : and, as his resurrection gives
us, through faith, the certain prospect of a resurrection
to eternal life, when we shall be brought to a perfect
likeness to his resurrection, in holiness, happiness, and
glory, so on this side of that, we are, by the power of
his resurrection, raised, and shall be more and more so,
to a new, active, and fruitful life of holiness, by our
continuance and progress in which we are to reach a full
conformity to his resurrection, in the perfection of our
resurrection state.

Text. — 6. Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,
that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we
should not serve sin.

Explication. — The subject of inquiry in the first
clause is, what is meant by the old man ; and what by
his being crucified.

As to the first, Dr Taylor gives for it in his paraphrase,
our heathen state. The old man he explains by the
account he gives of the new man ; and that he founds
on Eph. ii, 15, so he says,* "The new man included two
sorts of people, viz. believing Jews and Gentiles ; and
was created (Eph. ii. 15) when Christ abolislied in his

* " Original Sin," 3rd ed. p. 426.

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS vi. 53

flesh the enmity, or that which separated the Jews and
Gentiles, for to make or create (K-un]) in himself of twain,
(i.e. of believing Jews and Gentiles) one new man" So
he says,* " The new man is either the Christian state,
or the Christian church, body, or society." According
to this notion, he explains what is the old man. In the
page just now cited, he says, "The old man relates to
the Gentile state," and " the old man has reference to
the life these Christians had lived while they were
heathens." t And in the text under consideration, he
gives for our old man, our heathen state, as was before
observed.

But this account cannot be admitted. It is to be
considered that the gospel-church, called the one new
man (Eph. ii.), had, for a considerable part, converts of
the Jews, many of whom were truly godly, and true
believers, according to the light and promise of the old
Testament, before they knew that Jesus was the Christ,
or became members of the gospel-church. (Acts ii. 5),
"There were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men,
out of every nation under Heaven." Another very
considerable part of the new gospel-church had been in
a state of proselytism before they knew the gospel. A
great many of these proselytes were men that feared God,
and were truly devout and godly. Such was Cornelius,
a proselyte of the gate, and such was the Ethiopian
eunuch. Yea, it is very likely that the greatest part of
the new gospel-church in these times, and at first, were
the Jews and proselytes of the Gentiles. The notion of
the old man will not suit these ; and the old man, as to
them, cannot mean the state or practice of heathenism.
Dr Taylor, as if he were sensible of this, although he
makes the new man to include Jews and Gentiles, yet
he commonly interprets the old man of the heathen
state— a state which a great, perhaps the greatest part,
at first, of the Christian church had not been in. If the
• man means the gospel state and church, the old man
is of the same extent of meaning; for all, before be-

Original Sin," 3rd cJ., p. 430. t //>/</., p. 178.

54 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

coming members of the neiv man, the gospel-church,
were in a previous state ; which, according to this way
of interpretation, should be called their old man. But
the character of old man will not apply to the previous
state of a great part of the gospel-church of these times,
devout Jews and devout proselytes.

One would think, that the character and description
given (Eph. iv. 22) of the old man, corrupt according to
the deceitful lusts, and (ver. 24) of the new man, after
God created in righteousness and ti'ue holiness, might lead
a man to different notions of both. Surely the char-
acter of corrupt according to deceitful lusts, will not suit
the state of devout and godly Jews and proselytes. But
the Christian may be sensible what that hath been in
himself, some time prevailing and dominant (and of
which too much continues in him), that is corrupt
according to the deceitful lusts. That, whatever other
name be given it, is the old man, according to the
apostle's account, as that in him, which after God is
created in righteousness and true holiness, is the new
man. Words and expressions bear sometimes different
meanings in the different places of scripture, which the
scope of each leads a reader to observe and understand.
In one, and but in one place (Eph. ii.), the new man
signifies the gospel-church, consisting of Jews and
Gentiles. It is unreasonable so to understand the new
man in other places, where the scope, yea, and the
description and character added, require a different
meaning to be understood. It is also to be observed,
that the apostle never uses the old man to signify the.
Christian's previous state of heathenism. The Christian
having in profession, and serious, earnest purpose (Col.
iii. 9), put off the old man, and having in like manner,
under the influence of the grace that hath renewed his
heart (ver. 10), put on the new man, it becomes him to
advance further on both hands ; to put off — anger, malice,
&c. (as vers. 8, 9), which belong to the old man, and to put
on bowels of mercies, &c, which belong to the new man
(as vers. 12-15). Many a Christian in these times hath, by
a good light and thorough conversion, put off all at once,

Ver. 6] of Romans n. 55

and renounced everything peculiar to heathenism, and
hath not needed to make this sort of progress in putting
off the old man of heathenism, according to Dr Taylor's
sense of it.

But Dr Taylor himself doth bring the matter to this.*
" In Eph. iv. 22, 24, he considers (saith he) the one and
the other, as a Christian duty, That ye put off, &c. —
That ye put ou, &c. The Ephesians as well as the
Colossians had, by profession, put off the old, and put
on the new man ; and therefore were obliged to do it
effectually, by renouncing the spirit, deeds, and conver-
sation of the one, by being renewed in their minds, and
by practising the virtues of the other." He then refers
to 1 Cor. v. 7, chap. vi. 8-1 1, 2 Cor. vi. 1. But did the
author mean renouncing the spirit, deeds, and conver-
sation of heathenism, restricting the apostle's view to
that ? the texts he refers to do not serve that purpose.
His subject (1 Cor. v. 7) is particularly enjoining the
church to cast out a lewd man for that sort of fornica-
tion which he says (ver. 1) was not so much as named
among the Gentiles. Among the many things named
(1 Cor. vi.), there is no instance but idolatry that was
peculiar to the heathens. As to this third text (2 Cor.
vi. 1), there is nothing at all in it that can serve his
particular purpose. I need say no more about it : let
the reader look to the place.

Anything that is right in the passage just now cited
might have been reached, without Dr Taylor's new
conceit concerning the old man's being the Christian's
previous heathen state; which is a notion without any
solid foundation.

What then are we indeed to understand by the old
man? That certainly signifies the corruption of nature
(this is it that Dr Taylor could not bear, and that put
all his critical wits to work on this occasion), the prin-
ciple of sin, with all its various lusts, which possess and
influence a man's faculties and powers ; and that, so far
as it remains in the true Christian, who is renewed by

Original Sin," p. 427.

$6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

grace, and in whom is the new man, by virtue of, and
in comparison with which in him, and in him only, the
former is the old man In persons unregenerate, this
evil principle is not the old man, but continues young,
in full strength and vigour. It is the old man only in
persons regenerate — in true Christians.

The next inquiry on this first clause of the text (ver.
6), is, what it means, that the old man is crucified? The
Greek word might be rendered, if the use of our language
would admit the word, by co- crucified, without expressing
what or whom the conjunctive particle in the compo-
sition of the word hath respect to. The English doth
for that, with good reason, supply him — crucified with
him, Christ.

The apostle Paul says (Gal. ii. 20), I am crucified with
Christ. But there is great difference between Paul's
being crucified with Christ, and the old man's being
crucified with him : they mean very different things.
The crucifixion of the one, the old man, tends to his
death and destruction ; the crucifixion of the other, of
Paul, with Christ, imports his interest in Christ's cruci-
fixion, and tends to the man's consolation and life.

Again, it is said (Gal. v. 24), They that are Christ's
have crucified the files J 1 with the affections and lusts. But
this seems to express the Christian's doing his duty in
mortifying sin, with its lusts ; opposing and repressing
their motions. Whereas the old man's being crucified
with Christ seems to mean an effect and virtue of the
cross of Christ, that is previous to the Christian's practice
in mortifying sin. Except we take the matter thus :
The Christian hath taken an effectual course to crucify
the flesh, by his believing in Christ ; whereby the virtue
of his cross reaches the flesh, the old man, to crucify
him, with the affections and lusts ; and whereby the
Christian himself is enabled to resist it effectually, and
mortify it.

I think, however, that our text may be best explained
by Col. ii. .15, Having spoiled principalities and pozvers,
he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in
it. Here, with principalities and powers, may justly be

Ver.6\ of rovans vi. 57

included, in the apostle's view and meaning, sin. So
Bishop Davenant on this place : * " Therefore those
spiritual princes and commanders being overcome, there
is overcome whatever served them against man's salva-
tion,— the old Adam, death, hell, the world, and our
sins." A little downwards, after citing divers scriptures,
particularly I Cor. xv. 55-57, he adds:! "You see that
death, the grave, the law, and sin, have been in the
number of the enemies whom Christ hath overcome."
So this eminent person. Surely when it is said (Gen.
iii. 15) that the seed of the woman would bruise the
head of the serpent, there is meant, not only Satan, but
sin likewise ; that with him it also should be deprived
of its power and dominion, and be finally destroyed :
as it is said (1 John iii. 8), For this purpose was the Son
of God manifested, that he might destroy the works of
the devil.

Now, what is the effect of Christ's cross against prin-
cipalities and powers, and against sin ? The apostle says
to the Colossians, that he spoiled them ; he deprived
them of their armour wherein they trusted (as Luke
xi. 22). Christ, by his expiatory sufferings and death,
redeemed his people from the curse, brought them under
grace, and procured for them the blessing of the Spirit,
who creates in them the new man, and, dwelling in
them, supports the new man against the old man, and
gives complete victory over him at last. It is said
there (Col. ii. 14), of the handwriting of ordinances that
was against us, that Christ nailed it to his cross. So
may be understood the apostle's view as to devils and
sin ; Christ nailed them to his cross, and so, to the eye
of faith, made an open show of them. Himself victorious
left the cross and grave, and left principalities, and
powers, and sin, nailed fast to the cross, crucified, and
hard bound, in order to final destruction. The virtue of

'• Principibus igitur et imperatoribus hisce spiritualibus pros-
tratis, prostcrnitur simul quic quid il lis militabat, contra humanam
salutcrn. vetus Adamus, mors, inferi, mundus, peccata nostra.'5

t "Mortem, sepulchrum, legem, peccatum, fuisse vidctis in
nnmero hostium a Christo superatorum."

58 EXPLICATION AND PA RATH RASE [Ver. 6

his cross reaching in due time his people in their own
persons, they are justified, delivered from the curse,
brought under grace ; and they are to consider the old
man in them as crucified ; in order to his death, and
total extinction.

The true meaning of the old mans being crucified
with Christ is as hath been said. At the same time,
we may consider crucifixion as representing otherwise,
as by a very just metaphor, the condition in which the
old man, sin and the lusts thereof, do remain in the
believer, not, as some time, at full liberty, and in full
force and prevalence, but, though alive, living in pain,
checked, resisted, repressed, and mortified. His efforts,
as of one in desperate condition, may be with consider-
able force, and too often with ill effect to the slothful,
unwatchful Christian. Yet at last, like what happened
outwardly to the crucified thieves, this malefactor, the
old man, will, in the end of the day, be slain by one
blow of Almighty grace.

Before we leave this point, it is fit to observe Dr
Taylor's paraphrase of this first clause of ver. 6, " When
you consider him [Christ] as crucified, and put to death,
you may take in this sentiment, That our heathen state
was, at the same time, put to death/' Our state put to
death ! this is rare style. But what may not a masterly
critic venture to say, however improper or incongruous ?
The expression, however, in this first clause, is not, that
the old man is put to death. Persons might live a
considerable while, yea, some days, on the cross. Cruci-
fixion is not a state of death, but a state of pain and
torment, tending to death.

The worthy Dr Doddridge hath, in his paraphrase of
this first clause, thus : " The whole system of our former
inclinations and dispositions — hath now, as it were, been
crucified together with [Christ] ; the remembrance and
consideration of his cross co-operating in the most
powerful manner, with all the other motives which the
gospel suggests, to destroy the former habits of sin, and
to inspire us with an aversion to it." This is in itself
a just thought, and of high importance in religion.

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS IV. 59

Among the arguments and motives that can be suggested
against sin, the remembrance and consideration of Christ's
cross hath the most special virtue and efficacy. Yet
this doth not come up to the full meaning of the old
man's being crucified with Christ. For that I refer to
what hath been here above said on Col. ii. 15. The
cross of Christ hath virtue against sin otherwise than
merely as a motive.

Concerning the second clause of this sixth verse, That
the body of sin might be destroyed, there come in like
manner to be explained— 1. What is meant by the body
of sin? 2. What by its being destroyed?

As to the body of sin, Dr Whitby's paraphrase hath it
thus: "i.e. The appetites of the body, which subject us
to sin." By the first clause, the old man, is certainly
meant sin, in all the extent of its power and influence in
us ; and the body of sin can be understood in no less
extent of meaning. But have we sin no otherwise in
us to be crucified and destroyed than by the appetites
of the body? Dr Whitby's paraphrase looks that way ;
and so doth that of Mr Locke, which gives for this
clause thus : " That the prevalency of our carnal, sin-
ful propensities, which are from our bodies, might be
destroyed." And his paraphrase oi ver. 12 hath thus:
" Permit not therefore sin to reign over you by your
mortal bodies." This last he gives instead of, in your
mortal bodies; and in his note he observes that Ik, in the
apostle's writings, often signifies by. Then he adds,
"And he here — and elsewhere, placing the root of sin in
the body, his sense seems to be, Let not sin reign over
you by the lusts of your mortal body." There will be
occasion to consider this again on ver. 12. Here I
observe, that the learned writer makes our carnal sinful
propensities to be from the body, and places the root
of sin in the body ; as Dr Whitby to the same purpose,
makes the body of sin to mean the appetites of the
body.

These things are very wrong. If we will- speak with
strictness and propriety, all lusts, affections, passions, and
appetites have their seat and root in the soul, in the

6o EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

spiritual substance ; mere body is not capable of any of
these, nor of moral good or evil. But as man is composed
of soul and body, so united that the one powerfully in-
fluences the other, he hath propensities and appetites by
the influence of the body, which receive excitement from
it, and in the gratification of which he hath pleasure by
means of the body ; as he hath at the same time pro-
pensities, affections, and appetites, such as a mere spirit
might have that hath no connection with the body. In
the one sort, man partakes with the brutes ; in the other
sort, with mere spirits, with angels. In man's corrupt,
fallen state he hath spiritual lusts, such as pride, hatred,
malice, envy, deceit. In view to such sort of unholy lusts
and passions, our Lord says to the Jews (John viii. 44),
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your
father ye will do : he was a murderer — and abode not in
the truth.

If the mention of body gave occasion to Dr Whitby to
think of appetites of the body, he might, from sin in us
being called the old man, have considered that a man
hath a soul as well as a body ; and therefore that the old
man comprehends evils arising from the soul as well as
from the body. If the apostle does (in Gal. v. 19, 20)
ascribe all sinful lustings and works to the flesh, he is far
from thinking or meaning that all sin hath its root or
source in the body. For elsewhere (2 Cor. vii. 1) he
distinguishes between filthiness of the flesh and of the
spirit ; and Dr Whitby had no reason to restrict filthiness
of the spirit to idolatry ; nor to restrict idolatry, as he
doth on Gal. v. 19, 20, to the notion of a sensual crime :
there might be idolatry without sensuality.

It is true, indeed, that in man's embodied state the
influence of the body doth give a turn or bias even to
these lusts and passions that have their special root in
the spirit or soul towards things external and earthly ;
and it is according to this view that Dr Whitby explains
all the works of the flesh mentioned (Gal. v. 19, 20).
But if man's. pride, selfishness, and ambition (for instance)
are in this life turned towards things earthly or bodily, per-
taining to this life, yet it were most unreasonable to say

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VI. 6 1

that therefore these lusts have their source and root in
the body. Let us consider how sin entered, as the said
story is told (Gen. hi.). If it be allowed that, in our first
parents considering and desiring the forbidden fruit as
good for food, and pleasant to the eyes, there was what
some mean by appetite of the body, yet, considering and
desiring it, in order to be wise, and as God, knowing
good and evil, it is not easy to conceive how this can be
ascribed to bodily appetite.

If sin hath its root in the body, it seems to be a
natural consequence, that when the soul comes to be
separated from the body it should have no sin in it.
Vet I scarce think that any will say so ; and at the same
time I see not how they can avoid this, if it be not by
saying that the soul having been engaged in the practice
of sin, by the influence of the body, it hath contracted
habits, which it brings unto a separate state. Indeed,
some Protestants (if they should be so called/ have in
our time said, it is so far thus with many of the souls of
the righteous, that these habits must be wrought off in
the separate state, even by means painful and distressing
to a high degree. This notion does not fall to be con-
sidered in this place. Only, as to the present purpose,
if it be allowed that a mere spirit, a separate soul, may
have in itself sinful habits, propensities, and passions,
though it may be said that these in them are owing
originally to bodily influence, yet what reason can
possibly be given why such a spirit may not have
sinful habits and propensities from another cause and
source? Can we not hold that fallen angels have sinful
lusts and propensities, without holding that they have
bodies in which sin hath its root, as Mr Locke speaks ?

What, then, is meant by the body of sin ? Plainly, as
the expression in the preceding clause, the old man, is
figurative, so is this other, the body of sin, and doth not
mean the human- body, but that whole system of corrupt
principles, propensities, lusts, and passions, which have,
since the fall, possessed man's nature, and is co-extended
and commensurate to all the human powers and faculties.
Let us observe how Bishop Davenant, on Col. ii. i.

62 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

explains this expression, the body of the sins of the
flesh* The original may be rendered in English thus : —

This inward circumcision abolisheth the whole body of
sin, the body of the sins of the flesh ; that is, the mass of
vitiosity and sin which springs from the flesh ; that is,
from our original corruption, with which flesh the soul of
every one is no less vested than with the natural flesh. —
This learned writer had more extensive views of sin in
men than to express it by appetites of the body. In
this, as in divers other instances, that worthy Bishop of
Sarum conceived the apostle's meaning, and the true
doctrine, much more justly than the learned chantor of
Sarum. To say that the body is the chief seat and
source of sin in men, and that sin in them hath its root
in the body (as Mr Locke said), as it is an error in
divinity, it is a downright blunder in philosophy.

The remaining thing in this second clause to be ex-
plained is, the destroying the body of sin. It is true that
the Greek word signifies sometimes to be abolished or
destroyed. If we take it so here, the meaning must be,
that the old man is crucified with this design, that sin
may in due time be totally destroyed and extinguished
in God's people. But at the same time it is true that
the word often signifies, to render ineffectual or useless,
to deprive a thing of its substance, virtue, or force, to
quite enfeeble it. For this sense are adduced Rom. iii.
31, chap. iv. 14, 1 Cor. ii. 6, chap. xiii. 8, chap. xv. 24,
Eph. ii. 15, 2 Tim. i. 10. There might be added, Luke
xiii. 7. According to this sense of the word, the meaning
is that the present effect of the old man's being crucified
is that the body of sin hath not now its reigning power
and force, but is enfeebled and enervated. f

* " Haec interna (circumcisio) totum corpus peccati solet abolere
— corpus peccatorum carnis, id est, massam vitiorum et peccatorum
quae pullulat ex came, hoc est, ex corruptione nostra insita et
originali ; qua'carne anima uniuscujusque non minus circumdata
est quam carne hac naturali."

t The rendering- which Sanday gives of the word Karapyiiv, in
the twenty-five cases in which it occurs in Paul's writings, is "to
render inert or inactive," either in a material or in a figurative

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VL 6$

Dr Taylor's paraphrase gives this second, and the
following clause, thus : u With this view that the whole
body of sin, in all its various lusts and corrupt practices,
being destroyed, we should from henceforth, in our
Christian state, be quite disengaged from the servitude
of sin." He renders here destroyed, and, as I observed
before, that rendering may be retained with this meaning,
that the end and design is that sin may in due time be
finally and wholly destroyed. But he does not take it
so, but has it, being destroyed, as respecting the present
time. But the whole body of sin, in all its various lusts
and corrupt practices, being destroyed in this present
time, is so contrary to the Scriptures, and the common
experience of Christians, that it is needless to offer a
more particular confutation of this interpretation.

Follows now the third clause of this sixth verse, That
henceforth we should not serve sin ; that is, might not be
the servants or slaves (SovXevew) of sin, now that it is
enfeebled and deprived of its reigning power and
dominion ; but might assert our liberty by resisting,
repressing, and mortifying it.

Paraphrase. — 6. I have said that the consequence
of Christ's rising from the dead is that we, in conformity
thereto, should walk in newness of life, in which we bear
the begun likeness of his resurrection. But this is not to
be so understood, as if this newness of life were already-
perfect. Alas, no ! sin remaineth in us : we have still
our old man, and this is very nearly connected with us.
It is we, our own very selves, in an unholy and vile form.
All the sin he doth is my sin, which the holy and
righteous law of God would charge against me, though
grace allows me to distinguish, and say, It is not I, but
sin that dwelleth in me ; while I do truly distinguish
myself from this old man, this evil principle, by habitually
resisting it, having sorrow and regret for it. This evil

sense. The phrase in Rom. vi. 6 is rendered, u that the body as
an instrument of sin may be paralysed, rendered powerless." It
has become impotent as though it were dead. This is practically
the same interpretation as that given in the text.

64 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. f

principle, which, like another man, is superinduced upon
mc, pervades all the faculties, powers, and affections of
my soul ; and so hath the dimensions, form, and members
of a man. But happily this man is become old ; the
new man created in us hath made this become the old
man; and (let me here allude to Heb. viii. 13) that
which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away,
and to be quite extinguished. Yea, we know by our
faith that this old man, by a power superior to that of
the new man in us, even by the power and virtue of
the cross of Christ, is adjudged to death, crucified, and
bound fast, as to Christ's cross ; so that as sure as the
cross of Christ exists, in virtue and efficacy, so surely
shall he die ; and the present effect of this his crucifixion
is, that this old man, the body of sin, is deprived of its
force and reigning power, is enervated and enfeebled ;
so that from henceforth we are not in servitude to it, or
under its dominion, though it remaineth in us.

Text. — 7. For he that is dead, is freed from sin.

Explication. — It is to be observed that the word
here rendered is freed (or made free) should, according
to its common use and meaning, be rendered is justified ;
and so the margin of our books hath it. I see that the
apostle's using the word justified (the Greek word that
so means) has given some difficulty to the learned ; and
they have accounted for it somewhat differently, though
they seem to be generally agreed that the scope of the
place directs us to understand it of being made free from
sin, as we translate it.

One way in which it has been thought that the matter
might be taken is this : — Sin is in the context set forth
in the figurative way as a person, as hath been often
observed by the learned and as a person that hath
exercised tyranny and dominion. Now, if we consider
this person (sin) as still claiming to reign, and to have
dominion, the apostle here asserts that the Christian
being dead with Christ, and by virtue of his death he is

Vcr. 7] OF ROMANS IV. 65

justified, that is (as Dr Guise * expresses it), he is legally
acquitted from any claim that this tyrant could pretend
to have to his obedience. I shall not contend with any
who shall thus interpret and understand this text.

Yet as this seems to be a somewhat uncommon mean-
ing of the word justified, it were well if we could light on
an interpretation that would more clearly accord with
the meaning in which the apostle commonly uses the
word in this epistle. With this view, let what here
follows be considered by the learned and judicious.

Let it then be observed, that the apostle having
mentioned (ver. 2) the Christian's being dead to sin, he
comes now to speak in a more particular way, to dis-
tinguish and explain, in order to show more clearly, how,
by the death of Christ, and the believer's fellowship and
interest therein, he becomes dead to sin, and is made
free from its dominion.

As to the reign and dominion of sin, there is to be
made this distinction, which we shall find the apostle
hath in his view in the following discourse. There is
(i) The reign of sin as to penal consequence, which
hath respect to the penal sanction of the law, and is
derived from it, as it denounces death to the transgressor
This is the reign of sin mentioned (chap. v. 21), sin JiatJi
reigned unto death. There is (2) The dominion of sin
with regard to inherency in nature, its reigning prevalence
in men's nature and practice, with respect to which men
are the slaves of sin : it requires and commands their
obedience to it, in all its work and service. The reign
or dominion of sin in these two respects is connected.
Whilst a man is under the reign of sin as to penal con-
sequence, obnoxious to the penal death which the law
denounces against transgressors, he is, at the same time,
under the dominion of sin in the second respect before
mentioned ; he is the slave of sin, detained and employed
in serving it. But when he is made free from the reign

* Dr John Guise, " The Practical Expositor, or an Exposition
of the New Testament in the form of a Paraphrase, with occasional
Notes and Serious Recollections at the end of each Chapter.''
3 vols. 1739-1752.

66 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. ?

of sin as it reigneth unto death, and from that penal
consequence of it, he is at the same time made free from
the dominion of sin in nature and practice.

Now, let us look closely into the words of the text
(ver. 7), For lie that is dead — This is to be understood, as
it is more largely expressed in the next following words
(ver. 8), If we be dead with Christ — This expresses the
believer's fellowship and interest in the death of Christ.
When his blessed Representative and Surety underwent
the death denounced by the law, it was the same virtually
as if the sinner himself had undergone in his own person
the punishment of his sins, and had died for them, and so
the Christian is taught to conceive the matter by faith.
The consequence is, that by virtue of Christ's death, of the
redemption that is in Christ, and by his blood, and by faith
in his blood, the believer is justified ; and what now is the
consequence of his being thus justified ? It is, that his
sins being pardoned, he is at peace with God, is relieved
from the curse of the law, is dead to sin ; that is, made free
from its reign, as it reigned unto death, and from all the
penal consequence allotted to sin by the law, instead of
that sad view and prospect, being by the adoption of
grace a son and heir, he hath cause to rejoice in hope
of the glory of God, and in the prospect, by virtue of
his fellowship and interest in Christ's death, of living
eternally with him. Thus, he that is dead, as here
(ver. 7), that is, dead with Christ, is justified from sin ; so
delivered from the reign of sin as to penal effect, and
hath the prospect of eternal life. This purpose and view
the apostle seems to insist in to ver. 1 [.

Then he brings into view what I may call the practical
dominion of sin ; and after a few words of exhortation,
he expresses his comfortable doctrine clearly, and says
(ver. 14): "Sin shall not have dominion over you ; for
ye are not under the law, but under grace." Now, let
us consider what respect the sinner's being justified hath
to this matter. ' It is plain, it is by justification he is
brought from under the law and its curse ; it is by justi-
fication he is brought under grace; it is by justification
that he is brought unto that state in which sin shall

Ver. 7] OF ROMANS VI. 67

not have dominion over him, to hold him as a slave in
its service.

We see then how much to the apostle's main purpose
is what he asserts here (ver. 7), that he who is dead, viz.
with Christ, is justified from sin. It is a principle he
improves to great account in the following discourse ;
and the mention of being justified is in this place
exceedingly congruous and fit. It was against his
doctrine of justification by grace through faith, and not
by works, that the objection (ver. 1) was brought, as if
it favoured men's continuing, in sin. In opposition to
this, the apostle, by the principle he lays down here
(ver. 7), and by what he derives from it in his following
discourse, shows that justification through faith doth
indeed deliver a man from sin, with respect to its legal
reign and its practical dominion at once. How unreason-
able then, and absurd, to charge such a doctrine with
favouring sin !

There is this advantage likewise by the explication
given of ver. 7 that it gives to justification in that verse
the precise meaning the word hath in all the apostle's
preceding discourse on the subject of justification.

As to that manner of expression, justified FROM sin, we
see the apostle expressing himself in a similar manner
concerning the remission of sin (Acts xiii. 39), " By him
all that believe are justified FROM all things, from which
ye could not be justified by the law of Moses."

Paraphrase. — 7. For (to come now to give a more
full answer to the cavil above suggested) he who is dead
with Christ, who hath fellowship and interest in his death,
is justified from sin by grace superabounding in pardoning
it ; which is the point from which the cavil pretends to
derive its strength. For the truth of the matter is, that
this justification by abounding grace, through faith, is
that which doth effectually destroy the interest of sin,
puts an end to its reign and dominion in those who are
justified, and insures their sanctification ; as will appear
clearly by the explications I proceed to give.

68 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8

Text.— 8. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we
shall also live with him.

Explication. — The first clause, If we be dead with
Christ, has been explained already. It has been taken
to signify our being dead to sin, as the expression is
(ver. 2). I take it as meaning, more precisely, a man's
fellowship and interest in the death of Christ, the actual
benefit and comfort of which he attains through faith ;
and then being justified (ver. 7), the consequence is,
being dead to sin, that is, made free from its reign and
dominion. This seems to be the true order of things.

In the meantime, the conclusion which the Christian's
faith infers is, as here, that we shall also live with Christ.
As Christ rose from the dead to life, his people, included
as it were in him, and represented by him, have (as Eph.
ii. 5, 6) been " quickened together with Christ," and have
been " raised up together, and made to sit together in
heavenly places in Christ Jesus." The fellowship and
part which Christians have in the resurrection of Christ
being so expressed in that place, it gives us cause to
think that here, being dead with Christ hath a similar
meaning, and is to be understood, as I have said, of the
Christian's fellowship and interest in the death of Christ.

If Christ died, he also rose again to life, even to a new
and never-ending life ; and by the fellowship and part
his people have in . him, and in his resurrection, this
insures to them a happy resurrection to eternal life.
There is in this a great deal against the practice of sin,
and to recommend and enforce newness of life, men-
tioned ver. 4. The Christian hath cause to think, that
perfect freedom from sin, and the perfection of holiness
is included (Phil. iii. n, 12) in this his hope; and there-
fore, agreeably to that hope, he should, not having
already attained, nor being already perfect, follow after,
and reach forth unto what is before him in this respect,
pressing towards the mark, the perfect holiness, as well
as the happiness of the resurrection state ; and to
consider the practice of sin as quite inconsistent with

Ver. 9] OF ROMANS VI. 69

that hope. But though this argument for holy living is
implied, and by most just inference deducible from what
is said in this second clause of ver. 8, yet I take the
words, shall also live with hint, to have, for their direct
and most proper meaning, the attainment and enjoy-
ment of eternal life. This seems to be most agreeable
to the expression ; and we shall find in the following
verses what tends to establish this sense.

Paraphrase. — 8. Now if we have fellowship and
interest in the death of Christ, surely we have so also in
his resurrection to life (which affords arguments of the
utmost force for newness of life) ; and if we are risen
together with Christ, what a glorious prospect opens to
us, and what a sure and blessed hope ariseth thence,
through faith ? even that we shall live a happy and
glorious life with him, that shall not be cut off or inter-
rupted by death.

Let me explain a little this most comfortable subject,
by saying a few words (vers. 9, 10), concerning Christ's
resurrection to life; and then (ver. 11) concerning its
consequence to you and all true believers.

Text.— 9. Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead, dieth
no more ; death hath no more dominion over him.

EXPLICATION. — The import of this 9th verse is very
clear, and needs little or nothing to be said for explain-
ing it, if it is not what is said in the second clause
concerning the dominion of death, which implies, that
death had sometime dominion over Christ. So indeed
it had, but its dominion over him was not absolute.
\\ hen he came in the vice of sinners, charged with their
sins, death had a right to have him subjected to it by
virtue of the law. But the law being satisfied, death
could not retain its dominion, nor hold him in subjection.
God his Father raised him up: yea, he rose by his own
power (John ii. 19; chap. x. 18) victorious over death,
which cannot seize him, or bring him under its dominion
any more.

70 Explication and paraphrase [Ver. 10

Text. — 10. For in that he died, he died unto sin once : but in
that he liveth, he liveth unto God.

Explication. — The expression here of greatest
difficulty is, that Christ died UNTO sin. The learned
appear to have been much at a loss to account for the
expression, and have given various senses of it. Some
have interpreted it by saying, he died to procure to us
power and grace to mortify sin ; or, to give us cause,
reasons, and motives to do so. But there is nothing here
of our mortifying sin ; not the least word that imports it.
It is of Christ himself it is said, directly and expressly,
that he died unto sin.

Dr Whitby's paraphrase gives it thus (as divers inter-
preters before him had given the same sense) : " For in
that he died, he died once to sin (or for sin, i.e. in that he died
to the putting away of sin (Heb. ix. 26, 28), he died thus
once for all)." As to the expression, he died to sin, they did
not know what to make of it, it seems, in this place : so
they substituted for it, he died for sin. But however
inseparable these things are, that Christ died for sin, and
that he died unto sin, as appears in this very place, yet
as the expressions are different, they must mean very
different things. Dying for sin, and dying to sin, are not
convertible terms, to express the same sense. If Christ
died to sin, Christians do likewise die to sin : but Christians
do not die /or sin, as he did.

For interpreting this expression, that hath appeared
so dark and puzzling, I venture to offer what follows.

Being dead to sin signifies being made free from the
reign of sin ; as hath been shown on ver. 2. I see no
cause for understanding the expression otherwise here :
Christ died unto sin, that is, he became free from
the reign of sin. This implies, that our blessed Lord had
been under the reign of sin ; which, at first sight, may
appear shocking ; but will soon cease to be so, if the
matter be duly considered.

It hath been already observed, that it is said (chap,
v. 21), that sin hath reigned unto death. So sin exercises
its reign in giving death. Now, Christ having put himself

Ver. 10] OF ROMANS VI. 71

in the vice of sinners, and bearing our sins in his own
body on the tree, he was there, and then, under the reign
of sin, — that reign which I have called the legal reign of
sin, the power of which it derives from the law. Sin
finding him in the vice, or place of sinners, and bearing
their guilt, it reigned over him unto death.

The apostle says (1 Cor. xv. $6), The sting of death
is sin ; and the strength of sin is the /azi>. Now, it will
be acknowledged by every Christian (the Socinian hath
not, I think, a good title to that denomination) that
Christ came under the strength and power which the
law gives to sin ; and that the sting of sin was truly and
fully in the death which he underwent, in order to mi-
sting it to his people. Now, this amounts to as much as
to say, that he was under the reign of sin in so far, and
in the sense that hath been explained; and that in regard
to him, sin reigned unto death.

Further, this view makes the connection clear between
this and the preceding verse, yea, that connection seems
to make this sense necessary. He had said (ver. 9) that
Christ dieth no more ; death hath no more dominion 1
him. It is plain, that the words here (ver. 10) are in-
tended to give the reason of this ; and, by the interpreta-
tion given, the reason is clear and strong. Death derives
its dominion, mentioned, ver. 9, from the reign of sin :
and where sin hath no right or power to reign unto death,
there death can have no dominion. So it is then that
Christ, by dying and expiating sin, satisfied fully the law ;
and so the law gives no more strength to sin to reign
over him unto death ; and death can have no more
dominion over him ; which is the thing asserted
(ver. 9), that is meant to be proved by this argument
(ver. 10). As by once dying he took away sin, — even
that guiltiness by which his people, and himself, when
substituted in their stead, became obnoxious to death, —
he at the same time became dead to sin once for all and
for ever ; that is, he became free from the reign of sin, so
that sin cannot, and death by virtue of sin cannot, any
more reign, or have dominion over him.

With respect to the explication that hath been given

72 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 10

there may occur to some a difficulty, arising from the
connection that hath appeared, in the case of mankind
universally, between being under the curse of the law, or
the reign of sin, as it reigneth unto death, and being under
the practical dominion of sin, with regard to inherency
in nature, and prevalence in practice : so that to say,
Christ was under the reign of sin, in the one respect,
would give cause to say, he came under its dominion in
the other respect also, which were very absurd.

But if the matter be considered, this difficulty will soon
disappear. Whatever connection hath appeared in the
case of mankind between incurring guiltiness and becom-
ing corrupt and depraved in nature and practice, yet it
is certain, that this corruption or depravation (however it
may be justly reckoned to be, in itself, death in a moral
sense) is not included in the death threatened by the
law for transgression, such as was to be inflicted by the
Supreme Judge. So it is no part of the punishment of
sin, which Christ was to undergo for us ; and when he
underwent that punishment in our stead, he had the
perfect purity of his own human nature ; he had the
Holy Spirit, that was given him without measure, dwell-
ing in him ; and also the continued union of his divine
with his human nature, to keep him even from the
possibility of sinning. So that however depravation
was the consequence of incurring guiltiness and the curse
of the law, in the case of mankind, yet nothing similar to
this can be inferred from Christ's coming under the reign
of sin, as it reigned unto death ; which, as to the reality
of things, imports no more than what Christians have
ever held, according to the scriptures, viz., that Christ
underwent the death that was the punishment of our sins.

There remains the second clause of this ioth verse,
In that he liveth, he liveth unto God. The meaning of
this will be more clear, by what will be largely and more
fitly suggested in explaining the latter clause of the
following verse. Here I give for it the short note of the
judicious Samuel Clarke. He liveth unto God — an
immortal, heavenly, glorious life, in the presence of God,
and to the glory of God.

Ver. Il] OF ROMAS'S VI. 73

Text. — il. Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed
unto sin ; but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

EXPLICATION. — This last clause, through /esus Christ
our Lord, is to be considered as connected with the first,
as well as with the second clause ; thus, dead unto sin
through Jesus Christ — alive unto God through Jesus
Christ.

As to the first clause, it is not, ye are obliged to die,
or be dead to sin, but RECKON yourselves to be dead IN-
DEED unto sin : not merely by virtue of profession, vows,
and gospel obligations, as if matter of duty were meant ;
but through Jesus Christ, and by virtue of union and
fellowship with him ; it being the advantage and blessed-
ness of the believer's state, through Christ, that the
apostle means. So Calvin chooses to render it more
precisely according to the Greek (cv X^io-no) in Christ, as
more expressive of our ingraftment into Christ, and our
union with him, by virtue of which we have fellowship
with him in his death, so as to be dead with him, rather
than as others render per, by, or through Christ. But in
the one way or the other, it comes to much the same
thing. He had said (ver. 10) that Christ died unto sin ;
and it is with a view to the union of Christians, and
their communion with him in his death, that now (ver. 1 1)
he directs Christians to infer, and reckon themselves to be
dead indeed unto sin. Christ being dead unto sin, that is.
having become free from the reign of sin he had been under,
sin cannot any more reign over him unto death. In like
manner, the believer being in Christ, in union and fellow-
ship with him, and so dead with him unto sin, it cannot
reign over him unto death. The law, which is the
strength of sin in this respect, will never give it strength
cr power so to reign over the believer.

But doth not every Christian, even the best, die ? True ;
but there is nothing penal in their death ; whatever there
may be of fatherly chastisement in the circumstances of
it. there is nothing of the reign of sin in it. By a con-
stitution of divine wisdom (happy for the general interest

74 EXPLICA TION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1

of this sinful world), it is appointed for all men once to
die. With regard to them who are under the law and
its curse, there is in their death the reign of sin. Not so
in the death of those who have interest and fellowship
in the death of Christ. Tribulations, afflictions, sickness,
and death, came originally by sin, and the curse of the
law for sin ; for the breach of the first covenant. But
now these are adopted by the new covenant, not for
penal but for salutary purposes. Sin did originally reign
in them. But now the reign of sin, as to penal effect,
being at an end with regard to true believers, what
succeeds to that reign is (Rom. v. 21) that grace now
reigneth. Tribulations, afflictions, and death, do, in their
case, belong to the reign of grace, terminating in eternal
life. There is no sting of sin in their death, nor is it by
the strength that the law gives to sin that they are
chastised, or die.

Follows the second clause, But alive unto God. The sense
of this clause, is, I think, to be taken from these words of
our Lord, in arguing with the Sadducees concerning the
resurrection of the dead (Luke xx. 37, 38): Now that the
dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he
calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac,
and the God of facob. For he is not a God of the dead,
but of the livi?ig ; for all live unto Jiiin. It is plain that
our Lord doth not mean this merely to prove that
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob lived, as to their souls, in
their separate state; which indeed the Sadducees did
also deny ; but to prove the resurrection of the body,
against which they had on this occasion pretended to
bring their argument, which the existence and life of
their separate souls would not prove. Now our Lord
argues from God's covenant of grace by which he be-
came the God of Abraham and of all his spiritual seed ;
and from this he argues (as ver. 38), He is not a God of
the dead; that is, they who are dead, in a state of death,
dead in the eye of God, and by his righteous destination,
God cannot be supposed to be, nor can be called, their
God. He would be ashamed to be called their God, to
have been the God of such as perish. If he is the God

Ver. Il] OF ROMANS VI. 75

of any, they must be supposed to be living, that is, in
God's eye, and by his destination, and by the grace of
his covenant. So it is said, He that believeth — HATH
rlasting life; and whosoever livetJi, and believeth in
vie, shall never die*

As to the word all, in the last clause of Luke xx. 38,
the universality of its meaning is to be restricted (as in
innumerable instances) according to the subject and
argument, and the clause to be understood thus : For
all who have part in the covenant, and to whom the
Lord is their God, do live unto him : they are in a state
of life in his sight ; they have passed from death to life;
they are by divine grace entitled to life, and so shall
be raised in their bodies to eternal life, which was the
point which our Lord's argument was designed to prove.

Now if this be the consequence of being interested in
God's covenant of grace, and of persons having him, by
special relation and interest, to be their God, that they
live to him in the sense now given, it follows, that
believers, from the time they come unto union with
Christ, and have part in the covenant, do even in this
life on earth live unto God, in the sense in which Christ
meant the expression ; that is, are the heirs of eternal
life, to the full possession and enjoyment of which they
shall be brought in their complete persons at the resur-
rection. In this sense doth the apostle desire the
Christians to reckon themselves to be alive unto God;
that is, heirs of eternal life, through Jesus Christ our
Lord.

This may satisfy us concerning the true meaning of
the words concerning Christ in ver. 10, In that he livetJi,
he liveth unto God. To interpret this, as some have
done, merely of his living a life acceptable to God, and
to his glory, doth not come up to the present purpose
and argument. He lived such a life before his death
and resurrection as truly as after these. Whereas it is
evident, the words mean some special thing that is the
proper consequence of his death, by virtue of which it

* John iii. 56 ; xi. 26.

76 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1

was that he became dead unto sin, and liveth to God ;
and a consequence of his resurrection, viz. that he is
entitled to, yea possessed of, an eternal life, out of the
reach of the reign of sin, and of that dominion of death
mentioned in the immediately preceding words of
ver. 9.

It is needless to perplex things here, by asking an
account how a right to, and the certainty of, eternal life,
should come to be expressed by living unto God. Some
account of that may be learned from what hath been
already suggested. But without that, the use of speech
is enough for determining the meaning of words, whether
the manner and view in which they came to that use
and meaning can be accounted for or not. It is evident
our Lord used the words in the meaning now explained
(Luke xx. 38). The scribes understood him so, and
approved ; the Sadducees so understood, and were put
to silence ; while the multitude understood in the same
way, and were astonished (Matt. xxii. 33, 34); nor do
I see that any other sense better suits the similar ex-
pression of the apostle here (vers. 10, 11).

The sense of these three verses I have been last
explaining may be conceived thus :

PARAPHRASE. — 9. Having said (ver. 8), that in conse-
quence of our fellowship in the death of Christ, being
dead with him, we shall certainly live with him, I come
now to explain that matter by a few words concerning
his living and ours. So it is then, as we know with the
utmost certainty, that Christ having, in his resurrection
from the dead, overcome death, he is no more obnoxious
to it. If he was once, for a time, under its dominion, it
now can no more for ever have dominion over him.

10. For the dominion of death, which it exercised
over him for a season, being no other than the reign of
sin, as it hath reigned unto death, our blessed Lord
being substituted in the vice of sinners, and so coming
under the reign of sin in that respect, and actually
undergoing death ; he did, by that expiating death,
fully satisfy the law ; and it, according to its perfect
justice, can never more give strength or power to sin

Ver. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 77

to reign over him unto death. It is the consequence of
his dying for sin, that he hath thereby died unto sin, and
become for ever free from its claim to reign over him,
once for all and for ever : and that having gloriously
overcome sin and death, in rising anew to life, he liveth
a glorious eternal life, out of the reach of all reign of sin
or death.

11. In like manner, as I have said (ver. 8) that in
consequence of our fellowship with him in his death, we
shall also live with him, so accordingly, from what I
have said just now (ver. 10), you have cause to reckon,
with assured faith, that through Christ, and by virtue of
his having died unto sin, yourselves are indeed dead
unto sin, and so are made free from it, as it reigned unto
death ; and that never can give you death in the penal
way, in which the righteous law enabled it to subject
you to it ; and at the same time that you have through
him a sure and unquestionable title to eternal life,
wherein you shall live with him, in a perfect conformity
to his life, in holiness, happiness, and glory.

Tf.xt. — 12. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that
ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.

Explication. — The apostle now proceeds to exhort
the believers against sin, and to the practice of holi-
ness ; and insists to that purpose to the end of the
chapter. Having represented the privilege, advantage,
and blessedness of the state of the believer, of the
sincere Christian ; what he had brought forth on that
subject gave him great advantage with regard to the
exhortation he now enters on ; and suggests the strongest
arguments and motives imaginable to enforce it. The
grace that hath made believers free from the reign of
sin, hath put them under the greatest obligation to avoid,
resist, and mortify it ; under the greatest obligation to all
duty, and to the practice of holiness. If by being made
free from the reign of sin, in the sense that hath been
here explained, they are alive unto God, and have the

7% EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 12

prospect of eternal life, they are to consider that they
are to enjoy that life in the perfection of holiness: so
it becomes them to have greatly at heart to advance in
their practice towards that perfection of holiness that is
included in their most comfortable hope.

Besides, it is to be remembered what was said before,
viz. that while one is under the reign of sin, as it by
virtue of the law reigneth unto death, he is at the same
time under the dominion of sin, as a slave in its service,
and no longer. So the apostle, having asserted that
believers are made free from sin in the former respect,
his exhortation proceeds on this view, that they are
made free from it, at the same time, in the latter respect
also ; which he is to bring forth more clearly a little
hereafter, in order to be explained and established.

It appears by this same text, that whilst Christians
are in this life, they will have sin, and the lusts thereof
in them. For the exhortation is not to resist tempta-
tions from without, but not to obey sin, or the lusts
thereof within them ; and why should Christians be
warned (as it will be allowed to be a warning fit to be
given to every Christian, in every time of life) not to
obey sin in the lusts thereof, if there would be no such
lusts in them ?

Further, when he speaks of obeying^ this, I think,
imports something deliberate and voluntary. For it
would seem, that what a man doth with absolute re-
luctance, by surprise and force, doth not deserve to be
called obedience.

Further yet ; the exhortation proceeds on this view,
that the Christian made free, is in such condition to
resist the reign of sin, and to refuse obedience to it, as
he was not in formerly. Christians are now in condition
to resist it effectually ; and to prevent its reigning, or
prevailing in their practice. If sin shall now reign and
prevail, it must be owing to their own indolence, un-
watchfulness, faulty weakness, or treachery. Sin hath
not now force enough to restore and maintain its own
dominion. However, as unholy lusts are not quite
eradicate, it should be the care of the Christian to resist

Ver. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 79

their motions carefully and seasonably, and to endeavour,
through divine grace, that they do not take effect, or
prevail.

It is fit now to offer some explication of that expres-
sion, your mortal body. Let it then be observed, that,
according to the Hebrew idiom, and that of some other
languages, soul is often put for person ; and his soul, or
our soul, often mean no more than he or himself, we
or us. This hath been so often observed, that it were
not needful, for the sake of any of the learned, to
produce such instances. However, here are a few.
Exod. xxx. 12, Then shall they give every man a ransom
for his soul ; that is, for himself ; Job xxxiii. 22, His
soul (that is, he) draweth near unto the grave ; Num. xi. 6,
Our soul is (that is, we are) dried away ; Ps. xliv. 25,
Our soul is (that is, we are) bowed down to the dust ;
Ps. cxxiv. 4, The stream hath gone over our soul (that
is, over us). So, when God is said to swear by his
soul, it is rightly rendered, that he swears by himself.
Hundreds of instances may be given, wherein soul may
be rendered by person, or by the pronoun denoting the
person.

The word body is often used in the same manner. So
Rom. xii. 1, Present your bodies (that is, your persons,
or yourselves) a living sacrifice ; I Pet. ii. 24, Christ
bare our sins in his oivn body (in his own person, or in
himself) 071 tlie tree ; Exod. xxi. 3, Of the Hebrew
servant it is said, If he came in with his body (so the
Hebrew and the English margin), he shall go out with
his body ; justly rendered in both clauses by himself. So
the Hebrew in the last clause of ver. 4, he shall go out
with his body ; which we render as before, by himself
Thus also Matt vi. 22, Thy whole body {i.e. thy whole
person) shall be full of light ; for otherwise the body in
itself is not luminous, nor hath visive faculty. So James
iii. 6, The tongue defileth the whole body ; that is, the
whole person. According to this use and meaning of
the expression, the apostle is to be understood thus :
Let not sin reign in your mortal persons^ or in you, in
this your mortal state.

80 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 12

It appears, then, that from the mention of mortal body
in this place, Mr Locke had not good cause to say, that
sin hath its source and root in the body. However, Dr
Taylor had the same view ; for his paraphrase gives it
thus: "I exhort you — not to suffer sin to have a
governing power in your mortal bodies, by yielding
obedience to it, in gratifying the appetites of a cor-
ruptible mass of flesh." Was there indeed no danger of
sin, but by the appetites of the corruptible mass of flesh ?
One might think from these notions and expressions,
that these writers have had very narrow and restricted
views of sin, and that a great deal of sin had escaped
their observation.

It has, I know, been observed, that the gender in the
Greek makes it necessary to connect and construct these
last words, the lusts thereof, not with sin, but with the
word body. True ; as body is mentioned, the word con-
structed with it behoved to be of the same gender. But
that makes no reason against the interpretation of mortal
body, here given. The last clause, consistently with that
interpretation, may well be understood thus : The lusts
thereof, that is, of your mortal persons, or the lusts which
remain in you, in your mortal state.

Yet it is not without special reason that the apostle,
exhorting against sin, and the danger of it in this mortal
state, mentions the mortal body. For though the general
proposition is very wrong, that sin hath its source and
root in the body, yet it is certain, that much sin hath its
source and root in the body; and that the Christian hath
great cause to be watchful against the danger from that
side.

There is this further reason for the apostle's using this
expression here, that indeed death hath the'chief unfavour-
able effect on the body. The soul, separately considered,
is immortal, not capable of being dissolved into corruption
and dust, as the body : and as to the soul of the believer,
except that death dissolves its natural union with the
body, the. effect otherwise is altogether favourable. It
departs, and is with Christ, which is far better.

Paraphrase. — 12. Alive you are, I say, unto God,

l\r. 12] OF ROMANS VI. 8 1

through Jesus Christ ; through him, and by virtue of his
resurrection, entitled to eternal life, to a happy im-
mortality ; when there will be no molestation or danger
from sin ; no cause of fear. But on this side of that, in
your present embodied mortal state, there is much
danger of sin. It remains in you, its law is in your
members, and its various lusts, as the particular com-
mandments of that law. But as you are made free from
its reign, as it reigned unto death, and at the same time
made free from its dominion by which it enslaved you,
and so are brought into a capacity to resist it, and main-
tain war against it ; let me earnestly exhort you to
maintain your liberty by doing so ; and to be anxiously
careful that sin be not allowed to resume its dominion
in any sort or degree, in this your mortal embodied state;
so as that you should yield a voluntary obedience to the
lusts which infest that state. Oh, maintain your liberty
against the dethroned tyrant, by constantly recusing
obedience to these his commandments, however much
they be urged upon you during this your mortality, when
sin hath so great advantage from the wretched condition
of your bodies, besides the deep root it hath otherwise in
your souls. If I have been thus putting you in mind of
your mortality, and your danger from sin during the
continuance of it, until your actual death ; yet be en-
couraged concerning this : There is nothing of the reign
of sin, by virtue of the law and its curse, in your mortality,
or in the tribulations connected with it, or in the dissolu-
tion you are to undergo. Now life and death, things
present, and things to come (1 Cor. hi. 22), all are yours,
and under a powerful influence and direction, to work
for you, and not against you. Yea, let the consideration
of your mortal state, as a state that will soon be at an
end, encourage you with respect to these lusts, the
motions of which will so often perplex and distress
you. Not one of them in you will survive that state for
a moment. Therefore, as the time of your warfare and
conflict is short, acquit you against them like men, like
Christians, like Christ's freed men.

82 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3

Text.— 13. Neither yield ye your members as instruments of un-
righteousness unto sin : but yield yourselves unto God, as those
that are alive from the dead ; and your members as instru-
ments of righteousness unto God.

EXPLICATION. — The apostle's exhortation in these two
verses implies two things. First, that the Christian, now
dead to sin, was come to a capacity of avoiding and
resisting sin effectually, and of declining its service. In
the next place, made free as he was, that possibly he
might, much to his own hurt, return, in too great degree,
and in too many instances, to the service of sin. The
freed man, anciently called by the Romans libertus, might
perhaps retain a considerable attachment to the master
he had served, and perhaps a great liking to the service
he had been used to, so as voluntarily, habitually, and
commonly to do the service, yea, the meanest and
coarsest drudgery, of his former master. As to a Roman
freed man, gratitude might make a good and laudable
reason for such conduct ; but sin is a master to whom,
being once made free, we owe no gratitude, nor can expect
better from its service than hurt and mischief to our-
selves, with the charge of the greatest ingratitude and
undutifulness to him whose grace hath made us free.

In this verse there is mention of two masters ; sin the
first mentioned, and God the other. The service of the
former is termed unrighteousness ; the service of God is
righteousness : and a man's members are represented as
employed in the one sort of service or the other.

As to the mention of members here, it is true that sin,
and the lusts thereof, do exert themselves by the
members of the body. Yet the apostle's view and
meaning here is by no means to be restricted to these.
By comparing other texts, we shall find that under the
name of members arc comprehended the various faculties,
powers, passions, and affections of the soul, as well as
members of the body. Thus James iv. 1, From whence
come wars and fightings among y oil ? come tJiey not hoice,
even of your lusts that war in your members? Pride,

Ver. 13] OF ROMANS VI. 83

revenge, covetousness, &c. (that are such common causes
of outward wars and fightings), having their inward
warring, even when there is no outward exertion o<*them
by the members of the body. These unholy lusts war
against judgment and conscience: and thus mind, will,
affections, all that is within, have inward war before the
members of the body come to be employed. So these
lusts raise war in and among all the faculties and powers
of the soul. Again (Col. iii. 5), Mortify therefore your
members which are upon the earth ; inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry.
Surely by the working of these inwardly there is much
unholiness and sin, when the members of the body are
not at all employed.

Xow, as servants or soldiers should sist themselves
with their arms or tools (o-Aa signifies both) to their
sovereign or master, to be employed in his service ; so
the apostle here exhorts Christians not to sist or present
(so the word we render yield more properly signifies)
their members as weapons or tools for serving sin ; but
first to sist or present their whole selves to God, and
then to sist or present all their members, that is, powers
of soul and body, to be the instruments of righteousness
by which he is served.

Upon the word obey, in the preceding verse, I observed,
that obedience implies being unforced and willing. This
is still more to be observed concerning the word here,
which signifies to sist, or present. For a man to sist or
present himself, or his members, to sin and its service,
it implies as when one man says to another — I am at
your service, that is, quite willing and ready to serve
you. This is the real disposition of an unregenerate
man's heart — the prevailing disposition ; however con-
science may remonstrate and check, however conscience,
aided by considerations that may be ascribed to prudence
rather than to conscience itself, may give restraint,
especially as to the outward work. But the prevailing
disposition and purpose of the sincere Christian is ac-
cording to the latter part of the verse.

The argument by which this is urged is insinuated in

84 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I 3

these words, as those that are alive from the dead. It is
the happy state of all true Christians (as ver. 11), that
they are dead, not in sin, but to sin, and alive unto God :
and the words here (ver. 13) are so evidently used with
a view to these words (ver. 11), that if we restrict the
words in ver. 13, alive from the dead, to a particular sort
of Christians, we must also restrict the meaning of ver.
1 1 to them ; which it were unreasonable, yea, absurd to
do. However, the Greek, Ik veKpuv, Mr Locke renders, from
among the dead ; and in his note interprets thus : " The
Gentile world were dead in sins — those who were con-
verted to the gospel were raised to life from among
these dead." This is according to his general view of
the chapter, as addressed to the Christians of the Gentiles
separately, and as contradistinguished to the Jews ; and
is one instance of wrong interpretation that that general
view of the chapter led him to. Yea, this is one of the
things in this chapter, by which he pretends to support
that notion. But if the expression may on some
occasions perhaps signify from among the dead, yet the
learned writer would not say, it should still be so ren-
dered. For in one verse (chap. viii. 11) Mr Locke him-
self in his paraphrase renders it twice, from the dead. So
then, as in the introduction to this chapter, I have proved
that dead in trespasses and sins is the natural state of all
men, Jews and Gentiles, it is plain there is nothing in
the expression here, alive from the dead, to support Mr
Locke's notion, that this chapter is designed peculiarly
for Gentile converts.

Paraphrase — 13. And do not present or sist the
faculties, affections, and powers of your soul, or body, to
sin, that usurper, to be the tools of unrighteousness in
his service ; but present your whole selves to God, in a
constant and willing readiness for his service, who is
your rightful Lord ; and that as becomes those who by
his wonderful grace are dead unto sin (made free from
its reign), and are become alive unto God : and present
all your powers to God, as weapons or tools fit and
ready for the warfare and work of righteousness in his
service.

Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 85

Text. — 14. For sin shall not have dominion over you : for ye are

not under the law, but under grace.

Explication. — It is of much importance to conceive
aright the meaning of this verse. What is fit to be first
considered and explained is, the dominion of sin
mentioned in the first clause. I have before observed
a distinction between the reign of sin, with regard to its
penal consequence, as it hath reigned unto death (chap,
v. 21), and its practical dominion in men's nature and
practice; and have shown that vers. 10, 11 are to be
understood to respect the former.

Divers commentators appear to think that this is the
dominion of sin meant here (ver. 14). Mr Locke, indeed,
in his note on the first clause, interprets thus : " Sin
shall not be your absolute master, to dispose of your
members and faculties in its drudgery and service."
This is according to the second sense of dominion above
mentioned, and respects what I have called the practical
dominion of sin. In his note, however, on the next
clause, in a sort of paraphrase, representing the obliga-
tions Christians are under not to be the slaves of sin, but
to yield themselves up to God to be his servants, in a
constant and sincere purpose and endeavour of obeying
him in all things ; he adds, " This if ye do, sin shall not
be able to procure your death, for you Gentiles are not
under the law, which condemns to death for every the
least transgression, though it be but a slip of infirmity."
According to this, the dominion of sin here is its procur-
ing death to transgressors. These two notes of the
learned writer seem to give very different views of the
matter.

Dr Whitby's paraphrase gives the whole verse thus :
" And say not, this is beyond your strength, seeing the
law in your members leads you captive to sin ; for sin
shall not have dominion over yon, for ye are not under the
pedagogy of the laze, which gives the knowledge of sin,
but not sufficient strength to mortify it ; but under that
economy of graee which affords that spirit of life in

?6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 4

Christ Jesus, which frees us from the law of sin and
death." The words, pedagogy and economy, should not
have been here, for reasons that will probably be
suggested in another place ; otherwise this paraphrase
is right. But though in his note the Doctor calls this a
pious sense, he adds, " but seems to give no place for
the following objection. Others, therefore, paraphrase
the words thus." And after giving that paraphrase, he
interprets the text concerning the power that sin hath
by the law to condemn and give death for transgression.
What the occasion is of the objection in the following
verse, we shall see when we come to it ; and that there
is not for that a sufficient reason for the Doctor's
receding from what he calls the pious sense. Mr John
Alexander, in his posthumous commentary on this
context, follows Dr Whitby's interpretation in his note ;
and I think Dr Doddridge's interpretation, especially in
his note, gees much the same way. The paraphrase of
this verse given by the judicious Dr Guise is too large to
be inserted in this place. It gives the sense of the text
in a clear and just manner. I much wish the learned
writer had added a note to support his interpretation,
which would probably have been done by him with
greater advantage, than it is likely to be done here.

However, as I am convinced that the dominion of sin
here, means that power which sin hath in the nature and
practice of persons under the law, by which they are its
slaves, obey it, and do its service, I come now to give
my reasons for understanding it so. —

1. I observe, then, in the first place, that the apostle
appears to have much in his view, a dominion of sin by
which men are its servants (slaves, as was in those times
the common condition of servants), doing its service and
obeying it. So ver. 16, His servants ye are to whom ye
obey ; whether of sin unto death; ver. 17, Ye were the
servants of sin ; ver. 1 8, Being made free from sin, ye
became the servants of righteousness ; ver. 20, When ye
were the servants of sin ; ver. 22, Now being made free
from sin, and become servants to God. Now, as having
dominion, and being slaves, are characters and states

Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 87

that are correlates, that is, have mutual relation, as it is
the scope of the exhortation that begins ver. 12, to
exhort Christians not to obey sin, but to serve and obey
God, and as he encourages Christians with this considera-
tion, that having been the slaves of sin, they had been
made free from that slavery and dominion, and with this
consideration, that sin shall not have dominion over
them, it is exceeding clear, that the whole drift and scope
of the discourse and reasoning leads us to understand,
by the dominion of sin here (ver. 14), that dominion by
which it holds men as its slaves and employed in its
service.

2. The same thing will appear in a clear and strong
light, if we observe what he hath concerning this subject
in the seventh chapter. There, in the first context (vers.
1 - 1 3), it appears the Christians behoved to be dead to
the law, and to be married to Christ, in order to bring
forth fruit unto God ; this (ver. 4) and (ver. 5), we see
such a prevalence of the flesh (of depravation), in those
who are under the law, that sinful motions and lusts do
prevail, even by occasion, in some sort, of the law itself,
to bring forth fruit unto death. One must (ver. 6) be
delivered from the law in order to be capable of serving
God in newness of spirit, in an acceptable manner.
Yea, such is the prevailing of sin, and of sinful deprava-
tion, in persons under the law, that (ver. 8) it takes
occasion by the commandment itself, to work in a man
all manner of concupiscence. It takes occasion (ver. 11)
by the commandment, and slays a man. Though the
commandment is holy, just, and good, yet sin discovers
its most malignant nature, and its power, by working
death in a man bv that which is crood.

It is true there is frequent mention in that context
chap. vii. of sin's working death to a man, but it doth so
by working in him all manner of concupiscence, and by
bringing forth fruit unto death.

We see in that context, sin holding men, who are
under the law, as in strong fetters, detaining and dis-
abling them from serving God acceptably, or bringing
forth fruit unto God. Wc sec in it sin putting a man

88 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 14

under the law to its service, in defiance of the light and
authority of the law. Surely, according to this, men
under the law are the slaves of sin, and it hath great
power and absolute dominion over them to command
their service. Now, as it is generally agreed, that in the
first context of chap. vii. the apostle is explaining what
he had said here (chap. vi. 14), can any unbiassed and
thinking person doubt, after the account he gives
there of the condition of persons under the law with
regard to sin, that by the dominion of sin, connected
(chap. vi. 14) with being under the law, he means its
practical dominion in men's nature and practice?

This point is exceeding clear by what hath been
observed, and its evidence doth by no means depend on
what I now further suggest and submit to the judgment
of learned readers. I observe, then, that in the preced-
ing context of chap, vi., when there is mention of sin
reigning, the word is Pao-cXeveiv, to act the king, from
fSao-uXevs, a king. But the word in our present text
(ver. 14) is KvpieCew, to act the lord or master, as a man
over his slaves. These words represent quite different
ideas.

A legal kingly government receives direction and
limitation from law, and is to be exercised by fixed
established law; so if sin is said (chap. v. 21) /Sao-iXevetv,
to act the king — to reign unto death, it doth so according
to law, and by authority of law. Again, under a legal
and limited kingly government, the subject enjoys liberty,
more or less, and the kingly government is supposed to
be founded, in some sort, on the consent of the people
who are the subjects of the government ; so here (ver. 12),
the exhortation, not to let sin, Pao-iXevetv, to reign, or act
the king — as addressed to Christians by divine grace
made free, in whom sin could not attain considerable
prevalence, or reign without their consent.

The case is very different when the ruler is Kvpios, as
here (ver. 14), or, SeoTro-n/s, lord or master. Then the
government is despotic; the subjects are all slaves
absolutely, and cannot claim benefit by laws, but are
governed by the mere arbitrary will of the sovereign or

Ver. 14] OF ROMANS VI. 89

lord. That is the only rule of his government, and of
their subjection, which hath no other limitation. Thus,
in our present text (ver. 14), the dominion of sin is
expressed by Kvpieveiv, to act the lord or master, as over
slaves, who arc absolutely in the power of their lord ; and
must act according to his will, whatever service or
drudgery he shall put them to.

Mr John Alexander allows, that the dominion of sin
here is such dominion as one hath over his slaves ; but
he makes it to mean "the power that sin acquires, in
consequence of this (of obeying it in the lusts of the
flesh), to destroy his captives, and which he exercises
with a merciless hand." But besides that among men,
from whom the similitude is taken, such power was very
rarely exercised, and was not consistent with justice or
the law of God, it hath been already shown that this
dominion of sin is not that by which it gives death to its
slaves, but that by which it commands their obedience
and service ; which is made very clear by the several
verses and expressions of the context above observed,
and adduced to that purpose.

The next inquiry is, What is meant by being under
grace ? Mr Locke's paraphrase gives it thus : " You are
not under the law, in the legal state, but are under grace,
in the gospel-state of the covenant of grace." The
expression here seems to respect different dispensations
or states of the covenant of grace, the gospel dispensation
of it, and a previous dispensation, which may be justly
denominated the legal dispensation of the covenant of
grace. Mr Locke, indeed, does not seem to understand
the legal Mosaic state to have been a state or dispensation
of the covenant of grace. Of this more hereafter. But
as to his expression here, when he says, the gospel-state
of the covenant of grace, to what other state or dis-
pensation of the covenant of grace doth he contra-
distinguish this gospel-state of it ? Any who shall take
pains to inquire into his sentiments will find things in-
consistent, yea, absurd enough, with the learned writer
concerning this point ; some of which may come in our
way hereafter.

90 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 4

Meantime, in his note he gives the sense of the last
clause, under grace, thus : " You Gentiles are not under
the law, which condemns to death for every the least
transgression — but by your baptism you are entered into
the covenant of grace ; and being under grace, God will
accept of your sincere endeavours in the place of exact
obedience."

As to this, though we are far from thinking that
sincere endeavours do now come in the place of exact
and perfect obedience, in what concerns the sinner's
justification, yet it is certain, that the sincere endeavours
of believers in a justified state are now acceptable to God
through Jesus Christ From the beginning of the world,
all they who believed in the promised Saviour, and in the
promise concerning him, being justified, their sincere
endeavours were accepted. Yea, faithful Israelites under
the Mosaic law, being justified through faith, as was their
father Abraham, themselves and their sincere endeavours
were accepted, when they were far from exact and
perfect obedience. This, therefore, is not peculiar to the
gospel-state ; nor is there anything in it of privilege
peculiar to Gentile converts, as contradistinguished to
the Jews, as Mr Locke would have it.

To understand being under grace, merely of being
under a dispensation or constitution of grace that accepts
sincere obedience and pardons imperfections, will makethe
apostle's declaration in our text not consistent with truth.
For how many millions are under grace in that sense,
who are under the dominion of sin, and perish? Some
may endeavour to make this right by giving it thus : If
you decline obeying sin, and endeavour to mortify it, —
and if you shall yield your faculties to God, and his
service sincerely, — then sin shall not have dominion over
you, being under grace. This, however, is making the
declaration and promise in the text conditional, whereas
it is given forth by the apostle as absolute and certain,
not suspended on. the Christian's endeavours, but insured
by the grace they are under. As there is nothing in the
apostle's' speech, so neither is there anything else, to
make a good reason for understanding otherwise. There

Ver. 14] OF A 0. VANS VI. 91

arc many conditional promises, but this is none of
them.

If we observe the apostle's own doctrine and style, it
will direct us how to understand being under grace. In
the beginning of the preceding chapter he acquaints us,
that Christians, being justified through faith, are recon-
ciled and at peace with God ; and further, that they
have access, -poo- ay wyqv, the bringing, or introducing
them unto that grace, wherein, sd.ith he, we stand ; not in
a fleeting and changing condition, but as in a fixed
state. It is said (John iii. 36), He that believeth ?wt the
Son (that doth not so, truly and sincerely), the wrath of
God abidetJi on him. But the Christian, being by his
justification through faith delivered from the wrath and
the curse he had been under, — he is now personally
under the actual grace and favour of God, and in a
state of grace, as to his real spiritual state before
God.

Though it hath been observed, that grace doth
commonly signify favour, even free unmerited favour,
yet in this place grace certainly signifies more than
being in favour at present with God. Being at present
in favour with God would not secure things for the
future, as in our text. Whilst Adam continued in his
innocence, he was under Divine favour; but this did not
secure against his falling under the dominion of sin. If
the apostle meant nothing here, but that Christians,
being under grace, would be secure against falling under
the dominion of sin, upon certain conditions, depending
merely and altogether on themselves, the comfort would
amount to little. If man in his state of perfection fell
short of the conditions prescribed to him, how likely
would fallen man be to fall short? But the grace of
the new covenant doth (as chap. v. 21) REIGN unto eternal
life, and makes it sure to the seed. So chap. iv. 16, // is
of faith, that it might be by GRACE (the consequence
that the promise might be SURE to all the seed. The first
covenant, though it promised much good, upon most
reasonable and equitable conditions, yet it made nothing
sure. But the grace and promise of the new covenant

92 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 5

made all sure. It secures to the believer eternal life,
and the safety and success of his course and way to the
enjoyment of it, according to Jer. xxxii. 40.

In what manner, and by what means grace doth
contribute to preserve them who are in a state of grace
from falling again under the dominion of sin, must be
referred to another place, where the important matter
may be explained more largely than would be fit
here.*

There remains this clause of ver. 14, Ye are not tmder
the law. But this falls to be explained at some length
in the explication of the following chapter, and it is not
fit to anticipate here what must be there said. (See on
chap. vii. 4).

Paraphrase. — 14. For animating you to refuse the
service of sin, and earnestly to resist its demands and
urgency, and to endeavour through the Spirit to mortify
it, you have this great encouragement and consolation,
that, being made free from the reign and dominion of
sin, you certainly shall never come again under its
dominion : and of that you may assure yourselves from
this, that you are not now, as formerly, under the law,
which could not subdue sin, nor enable you to subdue it,
so that you then remained the servants (the slaves) of
sin ; but that you are under that grace which hath made
you free ; and which, according to the tenor and
promises of the covenant of grace, will preserve and
uphold you in that freedom from the dominion of sin,
until it perfectly accomplish all its purpose, to your
eternal comfort and happiness.

Text. — 15. What then? shall we sin, because we are not under
the law, but under grace ? God forbid.

Explication. — I do not take this to be a new-
objection different from that which was suggested
(ver. 1). But the apostle having here (ver. 14) asserted,

* Sec Appendix, % 2.

Ver. 1 6] of Romans vi. 93

that the Christian is not under the law, he supposes an
adversary might from this reinforce his argument and
objection, putting it in a new form, suited to the
expression of ver. 14. T cannot express my views of
this verse, or explain it better than by the following

Paraphrase. — 15. What, then, may I suppose that
a Christian, who mistakes my doctrine, or inclines to
abuse it, or that an adversary of grace, may infer or
object ? Possibly, such may suggest and argue thus :
You have said, that where sin abounded, grace hath
much more abounded ; viz. in pardoning. This hath
great appearance of encouraging persons to continue in
sin. But now you have made things much more strong
to that purpose, by saying, that the Christian is not
under the law. The law strictly prohibits sin, and
denounces fearful judgment for transgression ; and
might by that means greatly discourage and repress sin.
But is it indeed the state of the believer, to be under the
covert and protection of grace that superabounds in
pardoning, and at the same time to be delivered from
the law, and to be no longer under the law, that breathes
forth so strongly against sin, particularly in its awful
threatening? May not such sin freely? for what cause
can they have to apprehend hurt or danger to them-
selves by doing so? So some may argue ; but far be it
from us so to abuse the happy privilege which we have
by grace. Surely the doctrine of grace imports nothing
that would encourage us to do so.

Text. — 16. Know ye not, that to whom ye yield yourselves servants
to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey ; whether of sin
unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness ?

EXPLICATION. — One might readily think at first sight,
that the apostle doth not here answer so directly and
clearly to the objection and argument in the preceding
verse as might be wished. But on considering this text
closely, we shall find two things in it. First, that the
apostle doth here insist in the exhortation he had begun
(ver. 1 2] ; and next, that he doth so in such manner in this

94 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Ver. 1 6

verse, as to make a very sufficient answer to the argument
or objection in the preceding verse.

. I say, the apostle here insists in the exhortation begun
(vers. 1 2, 1 3). One may be satisfied about this, by observ-
ing the style of this verse so suited as it is to the style of
ver. 13, and the argument here so much suited as it is to
the purpose of the 13th and preceding verse. There he
exhorted Christians not to yield themselves, or their
members, to the obedience or service of sin, but to the
service of God. Here, again, is mention of yielding
themselves, and of both sorts of service. So the con-
formity of style is evident.

It was observed before, that the word we render by

yielding, properly signifies to sist, or present one's self,
with his arms or weapons, to a master or commander.
So Mr Locke observes, and, long before him, Beza. I
also observed, that one's thus sisting, or presenting
himself, is something fully voluntary, and deliberate.
In the latter context of chap. vii. there is much repre-
sented of the motions and strength of sin. But there
is much regret, sorrow, conflict, and outcry of misery.
The case, directly opposite to that is here hinted ; the
case of one deliberately and voluntarily sisting or
presenting himself, and his faculties, to sin and its
service. A Christian may sin through mere infirmity,
or by the surprise and force of temptation: the effect
of which becomes afterwards very bitter to him. But
for a man to present or sist (deliberately, voluntarily)
himself and his faculties to the service of sin, whether
in his general course of life and practice, or in the
service of a particular predominant and indulged lust;
this makes a very ill case, against which Christians are
here earnestly exhorted, and this enforced by a strong

. argument.

The argument seems to be to this purpose. A person,
thinking that himself hath been made free from the
dominion of sin, may imagine himself to be acting with
liberty in serving sin, in this, and the other, and in very
many instances. But the reality of the case is, that by
thus sisting himself to sin and its service, he doth prove

Ver. 1 6] OF ROMANS vi. 95

himself to be indeed the servant of sin, and its slave.
Now, to a Christian, who hath been made sensible of the
misery of such a slavery, and of the valuable privilege
and advantage of being made free from that slavery, the
thought of coming in any sort or degree into it again, and
showing so by his practice, should be so frightsome and
shocking, as to awaken him to earnest carefulness to keep
himself at the utmost distance from it. This I take to be
the import of the argument, as it respects the subject of
the exhortation in vers. 12, 13.

I said, that the apostle manages this argument, so as
at the same time to suggest a sufficient and very proper
answer to the objection in ver. 15. He had said (ver. 14)
that sin would not have dominion over the believers,
they not being under the law, but under grace. Ay,
then, says the supposed adversary, if so, the stroke of
the law cannot reach us, we not being under it; and
grace will protect us and keep us safe : therefore we
may, without any apprehension, take full liberty in
sinning. But by no means ; such an abuse of grace
were horrible, and the reasoning is vain. By taking
such liberty to sin, a man will prove that he is truly
its servant and slave, and so demonstrate that he is not
under grace, but indeed under the law, whose curse and
judgment will yet reach him with fearful effect. Thus
ver. 16 contains this very pointed and striking answer to
what was suggested in ver. 15.

One thing yet on the last clause — or (servants) of
obedience unto righteousness. The service of God is (as
ver. 13, and here) righteousness, and men fulfil and do
that service only in way of obedience, which pre-supposes
divine command and institution. Therefore superstitious
practices in religion, and will-worship, which have not the
warrant of the Divine command and institution, and do
not come under the notion of obedience, whatever show
they may have of wisdom, yet do not truly belong to the
service of God, or to the practice of righteousness.

PARAPHRASE. — 16. But let me not be diverted from
the exhortation I have begun ; but let mc still* earnestly
entreat you not to obey sin in the lusts thereof, nor

g6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Vcr. 1 6

to sist your faculties to its service ; but to yield your-
selves, with all your faculties and powers, to God and to
righteousness, in way of obedience. For if I have said
that ye are not under the law, it was far from my
meaning that you might withdraw yourselves from the
authority and obedience of the holy commandment,
which is the rule of righteousness ; so that nothing can
be counted righteousness, or the service of God, that is
not obedience and conformity to that rule. Let me
then enforce my exhortation by the consideration of
what you know, — what every one knows ; viz. that to
whom one sists himself voluntarily and habitually to
obey and serve him, he thereby proves, that he whom
he so serves and obeys, is indeed his master and lord,
whether it be sin, who gives death for wages (ver. 23) or
God, in way of obedience to his will, commandment,
and institutions, in order to complete that service of
righteousness, which will issue in eternal life. Have you
then been sensible of the great wretchedness of being
the servants of sin, and of the great good that grace
hath done you, in making you free from that thraldom ?
be wrarned to keep yourselves at the greatest distance
from that way of practice that would give suspicion that
you are again entangled and engaged therein.

Now, will any say, because persons are not under the
law, but under grace, that therefore they may freely and
safely go into a course of sin ? surely if any, with the
high praise, perhaps, of grace in their mouths, shall so
believe, and shall presume so to live, the reproach and
real abuse of grace will recoil, and fall with fearful
weight on their heads. There is no fallacy in the
promises of the new covenant, or in the doctrine of
grace ; but there may be much fallacy and deception
in men's notion and opinion of their own state. They
who so argue, and so live, as I have been just saying,
will prove nothing truly dishonourable to grace ; but they
will prove, to their own confusion, that they have not
been truly under grace, but indeed under the law in the
flesh, under the dominion of sin, serving it ; for which
the stroke of the law will reach them fearfully, especially

Ver. 17] OF ROM ass VI. 97

in the great day of the vengeance of grace, and of the
wrath of tJie Lamb, when grace, which they have so
much counteracted and affronted, will not interpose to
screen them from the righteous judgment.

Text. — 17. But God be thanked, that ye were the servants of sin ;
but ye have obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine which
was delivered you.

Explication. — When the apostle says here, that they
had been the servants of sin, it may give occasion for
some question concerning the ground on which he says
so. If the Roman Christians had been universally
converted immediately from heathenism, some might
suppose he had no other in view than their former
state of heathenism. But that was not the case. There
were in that church a good many Israelites, or Jews, as
appears in chap, xvi., who were brought up in the
church of God. There might be also a good many
who were brought up from childhood in a state of
proselytism, and in the early knowledge and faith of
the holy scriptures, as was Timothy, under his pious
and believing mother and grandmother. Though these
Romans, who had been converted from heathenism, had
certainly been the servants of sin, yet how comes he to
say of that church universally, and without the hint of
any exception, that they had been formerly the servants
of sin ? If he addresses the churches he writes to, under
the character and designation of believers, without giving
the hint of any exceptions, there was reason for this
from their profession, and from the favourable judgment
of charity. But such Jews, and persons brought up from
childhood in proselytism, as were members of'that church,
had not been by profession the servants of sin ; nor would
the judgment of charity direct or permit him to call them
so, if he knew them not better, and their having universally-
proved by their practice that they were so, than it is
likely the apostle did, who had at that time never been
in Rome. How, then, can we account for it, that he says

G

98 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I?

of them universally, that they had been without exception,
the servants (the slaves) of sin, but on this ground that it
is the common and natural condition of all men to be the
servants of sin ?

The last clause of this text, which was delivered you ,
is as Castellio renders, and which Beza calls a perverse
rendering. He would probably have spoke more softly
of our translation ; though he and the Vulgar had good
reason to render otherwise. The word rendered form
doth signify, form, rule, or pattern. Sometimes it
signifies a mould ; and it seems to be here determined
to that sense by the expressions connected therewith ;
which, as they run in the Greek, are to be thus rendered,
into which ye were delivered over or cast. Here are very
different ideas. Obeying respects the authority of the
doctrine. Being delivered over, or cast into it, respects
the doctrine under the notion of a mould, which gives
its own a new form to that which is cast into it. This
verse, then, doth in the general, represent the doctrine
of the gospel, and men's obeying it, yielding it the
obedience of faith, as the great means of sanctification,
and of freedom from the slavery of sin: — Ye were the
servants of sin ; but ye have obeyed.

For explaining the matter briefly, as here set forth :
I. The word of Christ is, as hath been said, the mean of
purifying, and of freedom from the slavery of sin. So
John xv. 3, Ye are clean through the word which J have
spoken unto you.. So also John viii. 32, Ye shall know the
truth, and the truth shall make you free. 2. The truth,
or doctrine of faith, hath this effect, through men's obey-
ing it, or yielding it the obedience of faith, and that with
great freedom of will. To this obedience the matter is
ascribed in our text. But is this obedience merely from
man's own will? By no means; for, 3. There is in it
the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is expressed with
regard to a main branch of holiness, viz. brotherly love
(1 Pet. i. 22), Ye have purified your souls in obeying the
truth THROUGH THE SPIRIT, unto unfeigned love of the
brethren. Here Christians are represented, in obeying
and purifying their souls, as acting with the freedom that

Ver. 17] OF ROMANS VI. 99

is essential to moral agency ; yet so acting and purifying
their souls, the one and the other, by the Spirit and his
powerful influence. There seems to be some hint of this
intended in our text, cis ov irapahod^re, into which ye were
delivered, or cast. The verb here is passive ; the Christian
hath been so delivered over and cast by another hand.
They obeyed the doctrine heartily ; in this they were
active : yet they were cast into the mould of this doctrine,
and thereby received the new form of faith, obedience,
and holiness, from another hand and influence. So that
they were active in obeying the truth ; and at the very
same time and instant, were passive with regard to the
superior influence. — Beholding — the glory of the Lord
(2 Cor. iii. 18), we are changed into the same image, from
glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord. No created
being can absolutely, and by immediate influence,
determine the will. But cannot the Creator do, by his
instruction and influence, what no created being can ?
The Psalmist thought so, when he argued and prayed,
as Ps. cxix. j$, Thy hands have made me, and fashioned
me ; give me understanding, that L may learn thy com-
mandments. They who hold that the superior influence
of the Creator, effectually determining and disposing the
heart to that which is good, is inconsistent with free
agency, are as destitute of foundation in sound reason
as they are grossly contrary to the scripture.

Paraphrase. — 17. But I hope better things of you
than to sist yourselves to the servic: of sin, and see cause
of thankfulness to God, the author and true cause of the
great effect ; that, whereas you had been the servants of
sin, you have sincerely and heartily obeyed the doctrine
of the gospel ; into which, by the power and efficiency
of a superior hand, as into a mould, ye were delivered
over and cast : and so the truth hath made you free from
the dominion which sin unhappily had sometime over
you.

IOO EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Vers. 1 8, 1 9

Text. — 18. Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants
of righteousness.

Paraphrase. — 18. Being, then, through your obeying
the truth, which conveyed the knowledge of Christ, and
of divine grace through him into your hearts, and through
the faith thereof, under the powerful influence of the Holy
Spirit, made free from the wretched thraldom of sin, —
ye became the servants of righteousness, I mean the
servants of God (ver, 22), having the principles of
righteousness prevailing and dominant in your hearts,
in place of the vile principles of sin, unrighteousness,
and impurity, which formerly reigned therein.

Text. — 19. I speak after the manner of men, because of the in-
firmity of your flesh : for as ye have yielded your members
servants to uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity ; even
so now yield your members servants to righteousness unto
holiness.

Paraphrase. — 19. You have, through the infirmity
of your present condition in the flesh, such disadvantage
and weakness of understanding, in conceiving spiritual
things, except they be set before you under the simili-
tude of things earthly (John iii. 12), that I have judged
it needful to speak of what concerns your spiritual
condition, with regard to sin and holiness, in language,
and under a similitude taken from the manner and affairs
of men, respecting masters and their bond-servants,
which you Romans are well acquainted with. Upon
the same view to your infirmity — though I might, upon
comparing both sorts of service together, reasonably
require of you a zeal, fervency, and assiduity, in the
better service of righteousness, incomparably beyond
what you showed in the service of sin ; yet, as this
perhaps goes beyond any attainment which, in your
present infirmity in the flesh, you are likely to reach —
and sd might, through your weakness, occasion your

Vers. 20, 21] of romaxs vl ici

forming conclusions too unfavourable and discouraging
concerning your condition — let me exhort you to some
purity, at least, of endeavour in the better service you
are through grace engaged in ; and that as you have
heretofore yielded your members servants to impurity
and iniquity, to the practice and increase of iniquity;
so now that you sist all your faculties, affections, and
powers, servants of righteousness, to the practice and
advancement of holiness.

Text. — 20. For when ye were the servants of sin, ye were free
from righteousness.

PARAPHRASE. — 20. It maybe a very cogent argument
to move you to this, that when ye were the servants of
sin, you were free from the dominion of righteousness.
However you might, even from carnal motives and ends,
comply with the natural notions of men concerning
virtue and decency, at least in the appearance of these,
yet ye were in no true subjection to righteousness, or
to the law of God, which is the rule of it ; nor had the
necessary principles of acceptable righteousness any
influence in your hearts. Should you not then be ex-
cited by the consideration of this, to be very careful,
now that you are the servants of righteousness (ver. 18),
to maintain your liberty from the dominion of sin, not
to allow it to prevail with you in any sort, to yield
yourselves, or your members to its service ; but that ye
should, as I have been exhorting you, be faithful and
assiduous servants to your new and better Master, ever
sisting all your powers of soul and bod)- ready for his
service, in the practice of holiness ?

Text. — 21. What fruit had ye then in those things, whereof ye are
now ashamed ? for the end of those things is death.

Paraphrase. — 21. Let me further argue from the
comparative consideration of the fruit and consequence

102 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 22

of both sorts of service and practice : First, as to the
service of sin, what fruit, may I ask you, had ye by
yielding your members to its service? did not pride,
envy, malice, wrath, revenge, covetousness, and deceit-
fulness, that defiled your spirits, bring present disturb-
ance, distress, and misery upon your souls? did not the
gratification of brutal appetites, that are the filthiness
of the flesh, waste your bodies and estates, and bring
misery upon your families? were not these malignant
passions and foul pleasures of sin for a season, always
attended with pricking and painful remorse in time,
and with sad misgivings of heart with respect to future
judgment and eternity? Indeed, now that the Lord
has been gracious to you, these practices, in which ye
served sin, do, on recollection, give you that shame and
confusion of face that ever accompanies true repentance ;
and that is all the fruit that remains with you of a
practice and course, which, if the rich grace of God do
not interpose, doth always terminate in death and eternal
misery. Let me next observe the matter to you on the
other side.

Text. — 22. But now being made free from sin, and become
servants to God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end
everlasting life.

Explication. — The apostle having designed to give
a comparative view of the fruit and consequence of both
sorts of service — that of sin and that of God — he did so
as to the former in the preceding verse; and now he
proceeds here to give a view of the fruit and consequence
of serving God in righteousness and holiness.

The servant of God here is the same as the servant
of righteousness (ver. 18), God is the Lord and Master;
righteousness is the service.

It hath been observed before that the notion of
servants, according to these times, includes the notion
of slavery, — by which a servant was the property of his
master, as to his person ; and behoved to be absolutely

Ver. 22] OF ROMANS IV. 1 03

subject, as to his service and employment, to his master's
will, to be commanded and disposed of as he pleased.
The servant of God is absolutely his as to his person,
and that by the original right of creation and sovereignty,
and by the superadded right of grace and redemption.
Yea, the servant of God hath freely and fully, by his
own choice, given himself up to the Lord, to be his, as a
man's bond-servant is his, being bought with his money,
or born in his house. So the Psalmist acknowledges
(Ps. cxvi. 16), I am thy servant, and the son of thy hand-
maid. But there is otherwise great odds, with regard to
the liberty of mind and spirit, the confidence, consolation,
and hope, very opposite to a state of slavery or bondage,
which the Christian hath in the service of his natural and
rightful Lord ; whom he is, at the same time, to consider
as his Father, and himself as a son by the adoption of
grace, and an heir. On these accounts, though the
Christian is the absolute property of his Lord, and
absolutely subject to his sovereignty and will, yet his
state is not that of slavery and bondage. To him the
law, which expresses his Master's will and is the rule of
his service, is the perfect law of liberty (James i. 25).

We may now be fully satisfied concerning the dis-
tinction suggested with regard to the reign and dominion
of sin. If Christ died unto sin (ver. 10) this can be
understood in no sense suiting the expression, but that
of his becoming by his own expiating death free from
sin, as to its penal consequence, as it reigned unto death.
Sinners under the reign of sin in that sense, are not so
properly the servants of sin, but rather the victims of
justice, in consequence of their having served sin. But in
this exhortation which was begun at ver. 12, and is
insisted in downwards throughout the chapter, till we
are now at the end of it, when we have mention of
sinners as the servants of sin, sisting themselves and
their faculties to its service, and obeying it, and some
made free from that slavery, and engaged in the service
of God and righteousness ; this, on the one hand, and,
on the other sin set forth as a master, whose' service is
done, and as Kvpios, a lord having dominion

104 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2$

clear as any thing can be, that this can be understood of
no other than what I called a practical dominion — a
dominion by which sin powerfully holds sinners its slaves,
employed in its service.

One thing yet on this first clause, and its connection
with what next follows. — They who have at heart to be
the servants of God, and have some perception of the
happiness of that state, should be very solicitous, that,
in order thereto, they may be made free from the
dominion of sin. For that is the connection of things
in our present text, Being made free from sin and become
servants of God. There is needful here, not merely good
purposes and some sort of change of practice, but a
change of nature and of a man's spiritual state ; that the
death of Christ, and his resurrection, with the benefits
thereof, be truly and effectually applied to them by the
Holy Spirit, and by faith ; the Holy Spirit, renewing the
heart, and being in it the Spirit of faith. Good purposes
and resolutions, and some sort of endeavours, without
this, may make a self-deceiving and shining hypocrite,
but will not make a genuine sincere servant of God.

Paraphrase. — 22. Let us next, then, consider the
other side of the comparison, and the advantage of
being the servants of God. For now, being, by means
of Christ's death and resurrection, brought under grace,
made free from the dominion of sin, and become the
servants of God (which ye could not be without being so
made free from your former master), ye have your fruit
in that service, to the advancement of holiness, — fruit at
present sweet, healthful, and comfortable, and, as to
futurity, terminating in eternal life.

TEXT. — 23. For the wages of sin is death ; but the gift of God is
eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.

EXPLICATION. — The Greek oifwiov, rendered wages,
was commonly meant of the pay of soldiers in provisions
or money. Dannhauerus, cited by Wolfius. gives an
account of it to this purpose and sense : It commonly

Ver. 23] OF ROMANS VI. 105

signified, he says, the wages, in particular, by which
gladiators were hired to sell their blood, to give pleasure
to the populace. So as the gladiator, for wages and
provisions afforded him, gave himself up to butcher)- and
destruction, for the amusement and diversion of the cruel
and barbarous Roman rabble ; so the sinner doth, for
the present pleasure of sin, give himself up to eternal
destruction : whereby he gratifies and satiates the malice
of devils.

Let this be further observed. The apostle had said
of men's sins (ver. 21) that the END of those things is
death. So to believers in a course of holiness (ver. 22),
the END is everlasting life. But these ends, severally, do
happen in a very different way, as is represented here
(ver. 23). Death is the proper wages of sin, and is given
according to the law, and the true demerit of men's
works. Eternal life is the gift of God, Xa/noyxa, the most
free gift. But though eternal life is freely given to us
of God, yet it is through fesus Christ our Lord ; by his
mediation and merit. Yet still not the less to us the
free gift of God, who hath of grace provided, afforded,
and accepted the price of our redemption and life.

Paraphrase. — 23. For the wages which sin, by the
strength of the law, and according to the tenor of its
righteous sanction, doth pay, is eternal death, suited,
and justly proportioned to the true demerit of the work
and service. But eternal life, in which the believer's
course of holiness terminates, is not for any merit of
ours, but is to us the most free gift of God, and that
through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through his mediation
and merit.

Now, what arguments, motives, and means of suasion
can any created mind conceive more strong and power-
ful in themselves? When the prospect of eternal life,
so clearly set forth in God's word and promises, and the
terrors of eternal death, the just punishment of sin, so
much inculcated by the word of God, so agreeable to the
light of reason, and to the dictates and impressions of
conscience in every man, do not prevail with sinful men
to betake them to Christ by faith, to forsake their sins

106 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 23

by true repentance, and to engage them in the service of
God ; what a demonstration is it of the dominion that
sin hath over them, and how absolutely it hath subjected
them, with all their faculties and powers, to itself, and
its service, in so far that no means of suasion whatsoever
are sufficient to work the good effect ?

Therefore the apostle goes to show that the law, how-
ever much its precept and sanction be inculcated on the
minds and consciences of men, cannot make them free ;
that no other than the law of the Spirit of life in Christ
Jesus (chap. viii. 2) can make them free from the
dominion of sin, from that unhappy law of sin and
death, by which they have been ruled.

INTRODUCTION

TO THE

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII.

SHOWING

That the Apostle's doctrine and reasoning in this Chapter do not
respect the Mosaic ceremonial law, or the abolition hereof.

It is of great consequence, in explaining the first context
(vers. I -1 3) of this chapter, to determine what is to be
understood by law ; and from what law the believers
are therein said to be delivered. This requires to be
more largely treated oi than were fit in explaining any
particular verse.

Many have understood it of the Mosaic law. This, in
the largest sense, comprehends the whole system of laws
given to Israel in the wilderness. But more strictly, it
signifies the law that prescribed the ordinances of worship,
the rites, ceremonies, and peculiar observances of the
church of Israel ; commonly called the ceremojiial law.
When I observe every place in this epistle in which law
is mentioned, I do not see cause to think, that the cere-
monial law is meant in any one of them, or that the
apostle's explications and reasoning have respect to it.
If in some places he hath at all in his eye the Mosaic
law, as chap. v. 15, 20, it is only the Mosaic, or Sinaitic
promulgation of the moral law he means : his argument
doth not appear to have any respect to the ceremonial
law. In proving the sinfulness of the Gentiles (chap, i.),
they are only sins against the moral law he mentions ;
as indeed they could not be charged with transgression

108 INTRODUCTION TO THE

of the ceremonial law, which had not been given them.
It is plain it is the same moral law that was common to
Jews and Gentiles (chap. ii. 14, 15) that he hath in his
eye, even the law of which some light and impression
remained in the consciences of the Gentiles, when he
says (chap. ii. 26), If the uncircumcision keep the righteous-
ness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for
circumcision ? It is plain that the ceremonial law is
excluded from all concern in the argument, for the un-
circumcised had not access to observe the ceremonial
law. As this concerning the uncircumcision is a part of
his reasoning with the Jews, it shows that in his reasoning
with the Jew in the preceding context he meant no other
than the moral law.

In that second chapter, reasoning with the Jew, who
(ver. 17) rested in the law, he charges only transgressions
of the moral law (vers. 21, 22) ; and when (chap. iii. 10-18)
he cites several texts of the Old Testament to prove
sin against them, in many instances there represented,
every instance respects the moral law, and none other.

The apostle doth indeed manage his argument, respect-
ing justification, in such way, that he had no occasion
to mention the ceremonial law ; at least, when he might
take occasion to mention it, it is evident that he avoids
it. For making this clear, it is to be observed, that
moral and accountable agents may be justified in one
of two ways. 1. Such may be justified, as personally
and perfectly righteous ; and so the angels, who kept
their first state, stand justified before God, according
to the law they are under. It is a point the apostle
labours much, that no man, Jew or Gentile, can be
justified in this way, as he proves that all have sinned.
2. The way, and the only way, for the justification of
the sinners is by grace : and he shows that this grace
in the exercise of it, is founded on expiation, or
redemption, even the redemption that is in Christ, whom
God hath set forth as a propitiation, through faith in his
blood ; so he says (chap. iii. 24, 25). Here indeed he
might have taken occasion to treat of the expiations
and purifications of the Mosaic law, and to have proved

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII IO9

their insufficiency for taking away sin, or removing the
guilt of sinners. This indeed he does in the epistle to
the Hebrews. This was especially needful for them, the
Jews of Palestine and the east, who were so exceedingly
zealous for the Levitical service and Mosaic institutions.
But the Romans were a church of Christians, who were,
for most part, of the Gentiles, whose liberty from the cere-
monial law had been declared before this time. This
liberty the Gentiles had cause to value much : and it
appears that the apostle saw no occasion for proving
to them the insufficiency of the ceremonial expiations
(which the\- had nothing to do with) for the justifica-
tion of sinners ; and it is evident, that in treating of
that subject in this epistle he doth not touch that
point at all.

In the sixth and seventh chapters, sanctification, and
deliverance from the dominion of sin is the subject ; and
it is clear that there, particularly in this seventh chapter,
it is the moral law he hath still in his view. As it is by
it that there is the knowledge of sin, it is bv it he came to
know sin ; giving an instance only of a transgression of
the moral law : so ver. 7.

It hath, however, been the opinion of divers inter-
preters, that in the first context of this seventh chapter
the apostle asserts the abrogation of the Mosaic cere-
monial law. Dr Hammond* says, on ver. 1: "The
design arid matter of the discourse is discernibly this,
to vindicate his doctrine (charged on him, Acts xxi.
21, it is not certain whether then truly or no, but with-
out doubt now professedly taught by him), that the
Judaical law was abolished by the death of Christ

* Dr Henry Hammond (1605-1660) published "Paraphrase and
Annotations on the New Testament," 1653. Sanday says of him :
"He has been styled the father of English Commentators, and
certainly no considerable exegetical work before his time had
appeared in this country. But he has a further title to fame. His
' Commentary ' undoubtedly deserves the name historical. In his
interpretation he has detached himself from the dogmatic Strug
of the seventeenth century, and throughout, he attempts to expound
the apostle in accordance with his own ideas and those of the times
in which he lived."

IIO INTRODUCTION TO THE

(Eph. ii. 15, 16; Col. ii. 14), and so was not now obliga-
tory to a Jew." This certainly the learned author means,
not of the moral, but of that called the ceremonial
law. Downwards he says : " This abolition of the law
to the Jews is here evidently proclaimed." Grotius
and Whitby have the same view of the general scope
of this context.

Now, when Dr Hammond says, that it is uncertain
whether the preaching that the Judaical law was
abolished, and was not obligatory to the Jew, was
charged on him truly or no on that occasion (Acts
xxi. 21), but that now without doubt it was professedly
taught by him in this epistle, this clearly implies, as if
the writing of this epistle was posterior to that story
related Acts xxi. But it is evident, that here the
learned man hath fallen into an inadvertency scarcely
excusable. We learn from Rom. xv. 25, 26, that the
epistle was written when he was in his way to Jerusalem,
with the contribution for the poor saints that had been
made by them of Macedonia and Achaia. It was there-
after, when he was actually arrived at Jerusalem, with
these contributions, that the things happened, of which
we have the story, Acts xxi. Certainly, any who will
consider the apostle's conduct on this latter occasion,
may be well convinced, that to interpret any passage in
this epistle, as declaring or asserting the abolition of the
Mosaic law, must be mistaking his meaning. Of this
more hereafter.

To proceed the more distinctly in our inquiry con-
cerning this matter, I observe, that there are two things
on which the apostle labours in this epistle, and in that
to the Galatians, which is thought to have been written
before it :

1. That a sinner is not justified by the law, or by the
works of the law. This he proves by principles and
arguments that have no respect particularly to the
Mosaic law and institutions, or to the abolition thereof.
This is the subject of the first five chapters to the
Romans, wherein he establishes the one way of justi-
fication, common to both Jews and Gentiles.

EXPLICA TION OF ROMANS VII. I I I

2. He proves, that the Gentile converts were relieved
by the gospel from the necessity of undergoing the
Mosaic yoke. This he is zealous about, and considers
it as an essential point of the gospel. The truth is, as
the Mosaic or Judaical law was originally given to the
Jews, and not to the Gentiles, there were divers institu-
tions in it which it was morally impossible for the Gen-
tiles generally to observe ; for instance, the three great
annual feasts in Jerusalem. The case was, that the
wisdom of God thought fit to have, in these times, one
nation only for his church ; and so he appointed ordi-
nances of worship, and other various institutions, suiting
that one national church. If particular persons of other
nations came to be converted, and would enjoy the
privilege of members of the church of God, they be-
hoved to accede to that one national church, and submit
to its rules and institutions. But when, under the gospel,
the church became catholic, consisting of people of all
nations, it was thought fit by divine wisdom, that those
of other nations, the Gentiles, should be declared
free from the obligation of Mosaic ordinances, which
were not suited to such a state of things ; and should
enjoy the privileges of the church of God, without sub-
mitting to these.

As to the first of these subjects, justification not by
works, but by faith, as it is a fundamental point, and
essential in religion at all times, the apostle is full and
clear upon it in both epistles. As to the other subject,
the liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, he
insists on it especially in the epistle to the Galatians,
whom he exhorts to stand fast in this liberty, and warns
them, in very strong terms, of the danger of doing
otherwise. In this epistle to the Romans, he does,
greatly to the comfort of the Gentiles, establish the
doctrine of one way of justification by faith, common to
Jews and Gentiles. But the liberty of the Gentiles from
the Mosaic yoke does not appear to be the special and
immediate subject in this epistle to the Romans. The
churches of Galatia appear to have been greatly dis-
turbed and divided by disputes, and by the arts and

112 INTRODUCTION TO THE

importunities of false teachers, concerning this subject
I do not see anything in the epistle to the Romans, that
gives cause to think they had much question concerning
it. Therefore though the apostle still manages his sub-
ject, particularly that of justification, in a way very com-
fortably favourable to the interest of the Gentiles, yet I
do not see that the freedom of the Gentiles from the
Mosaic law is his proper and direct subject ; so that
Mr Locke certainly had not cause to consider that as
the main scope and drift of the apostle's discourse and
reasoning in a great part of this epistle, as much as he
does. Viewing matters so much in that light, has given
him a wrong bias in interpreting many texts, and has
occasioned his falling often short of the true meaning,
in a manner very detrimental to the faith and comfort
of Christians.

There are yet two things fit to be considered respect-
ing the case of the Gentiles during the Mosaic and Old
Testament times.

i. The Gentile converts to the faith of the church of
Israel would certainly, in these times, have great advan-
tage in being outwardly admitted by circumcision to be
actual members of the Jewish church. Without this they
would not have the comfort of partaking of the paschal
lamb, or of other ordinances, by which the Lord repre-
sented and conveyed the blessings of his grace more
abundantly, according to the measure of these times, to
his people. Yet,

2. This disadvantage did not amount to so much, but
that persons of the Gentiles, enlightened with the faith
of the church and word of God, and fearing God, were
in these times truly accepted of him, without being cir-
cumcised, or coming under the Mosaic yoke. Solomon's
prayer at the dedication of the temple (i Kings viii. 41,
42, 43) gave reason to think so long ago. But the matter
is clear in the case of Cornelius (Acts x.), when the Lord
said to Peter in the vision (ver. 15), what God hath cleansed,
call not thou unclean ; that is, though he be not purified or
cleansed by the blood of circumcision. The apostle thus
instructed, says (vers. 34, 35), Of a truth I perceive that

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS I VI. I I 3

God is no respecter of persons; but in every nation, lie that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with

him. To say, or infer from this, that persons who know
not the true God, or the way of salvation he hath
revealed, may, walking honestly according to the light
of their own religion and conscience, be saved, hath no
foundation in the words of the apostle Peter. He is by
no means speaking in that latitude of meaning. He is
speaking of what God had cleansed, of Cornelius, whom
even Dr Whitby considered as a proselyte of the gate,
and such as he, of whatever nation, who were enlightened
with the true faith, as the same was revealed and pro-
fessed in the church of God, and who, by the influence
and direction of that light, feared God and wrought
righteousness, though they were not Jews, nor initiated
by circumcision into the Jewish church. But though the
sentiment just now mentioned hath no foundation in the
apostle Peter's words, yet it may be justly inferred from
what he says, that whatever might be the advantage of
being members externally of the Jewish church, yet
believing and pious Gentiles might, without that, and
without coining under the yoke of the Mosaic institu-
tions, be accepted of God, and be saved, even during the
Old Testament times.

This being so, the Jewish Chistians had the more
reason to be reconciled to the exemption of the Gentile
converts from the Mosaic yoke ; and it appears that
some were so (Acts xi. 18), who had no thought at that
time that the Mosaic law was abrogated. The Mosaic
law had been given to Israel. Though proselytes of the
Gentiles were admitted by circumcision to the privileges
of the church of Israel, yet their being so does not appear
to have been strictly required ; and it is certain, that
when the counsel of Jerusalem declared the liberty of
the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, this did not import,
nor imply, the abrogation of the Mosaic law ; nor was it
so understood by the apostles or believing Jews, who
had agreed to the exemption of the Gentiles from that
law.

However, Dr Hammond says, "That asserting the

II

114 INTRODUCTION TO THE

liberty of the Gentiles from the Mosaic yoke, and
preaching the gospel to them, did both together, by way
of interpretation, and necessary consequence, contain
under them this of the unobligingness of the law to a
Jew ; for the law of the Jews commanding a strict
separation from the Gentiles, all that were not their
proselytes and circumcised, and Paul and others being
Jews, their conversing with, and preaching to the
Gentiles, could not be allowed on any score, but that
of the abrogation of the Jewish law, which accordingly
was of necessity to be revealed to St Peter in a vision
(Acts x., and so seems to have been to St Paul, Eph.
Hi. 3)-"

There is an evident mistake here We have seen
that the thing revealed to the apostle Peter (Acts x.)
was no more than this, that the Gentiles were to be
preached to, and to be admitted members of the church,
without being subjected to the Mosaic yoke. The
mystery made known by revelation to the apostle Paul
(Eph. iii. 3), was no other, as himself tells expressly (ver.
6), than that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs ■, and of the
same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the
Gospel. There is nothing in either place of the abroga-
tion of the Judaical law, with regard to the Jews
themselves, to whom it was given.

But the learned writer supposes this to be implied in
the other ; for the Jews could not so much as eat with
the Gentiles, by reason of certain rules and prohibitions
of their law, except that were abolished. But this seems
to have been provided for in the decree of the synod of
Jerusalem, which required (not the Jews to neglect any
rules of their own law, as no longer obligatory, but) that
the Gentile converts should abstain from things strangled
and from blood. It has been pretty commonly said,
that this was ordered to prevent too great offence of the
Jews. But I do not see what this could amount to, as
to the offence of those who were zealous of the Jewish
law, whose offence no concessions could prevent, without
the Gentile converts submitting to circumcision, and the
whole Mosaic yoke. But it did much to obviate this

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 1 5

difficulty, how Gentiles, and such Jewish converts as
were zealous of their own law, yet agreed to the liberty
of the Gentiles, might, members as both now were of the
body and church of Christ, converse and eat together,
notwithstanding the distinctions and prohibitions of the
law of Moses respecting meats. I doubt not but the
Gentiles would understand, from the general reason of
it, that the injunction was meant to extend to all meats,
which by the law of Moses were prohibited. Thus
Jewish and Gentile Christians might converse and eat
together freely ; which they could not do if it were not
for this limitation, wisely put, for a season, on the liberty
of the Gentiles. So the asserting the liberty of the
Gentiles from the Mosaic law, did by no means imply
the abrogation of that law, with respect to the Jews ; as
necessary in order to the believers of the Jews and
Gentiles conversing and eating together.

Having premised these things, in order to clear our
way, let us now come more close to the subject and
question, concerning the abolition of the Mosaic law, as
alleged to be meant by the apostle in his seventh to the
Romans. That that is not meant or asserted by him in
it, is very evident from his reasoning in it concerning
the law. He does (ver. 4) consider men's being dead to
the law, or delivered from it, as necessary in order to
their having part in Christ, or, as he expresses it, being
married to him ; as necessary to their bringing forth
fruit unto God, not in the old n ess of the letter, but in the
nearness of the spirit. Yea, he intimates (chap. vi. 14),
that being under the law, gave advantage to sin to
have dominion over them. Now, if all this is to be
understood of the Mosaic law of ordinances, rites, and
ceremonies, surely the apostles would not have preached
the gospel at all to the Jews, without intimating to them
clearly and loudly, that the abolition of the Mosaic law,
their being free from it, and renouncing it, was absolutely
necessary for their salvation. For I scarce think any
will deny the things I have mentioned to be so,
especially when the gospel was so fully revealed. Yet
if we observe the preaching of the apostles to the Jews,

Il6 INTRODUCTION TO THE

and their discourses to them on divers occasions, as set
down in the book of the Acts, we shall not find any-
thing to that purpose in them all. Instead of that, the
thousands in Jerusalem and Judea, who believed, con-
tinued zealous of the law ; and it does not appear, that
the apostles or elders, who dwelt among them, or
resorted to them, did at all disturb them with declaring
the abolition of the law. So far from it, that the apostle
Peter was influenced by the brethren, who came down
from Jerusalem to Antioch, to behave in a manner that
tended to betray the liberty of the Gentiles, with regard
to the Mosaic law, which had been first intimated by
revelation to himself, — so far were the apostles from
touching the law, as to its obligatory force with respect
to the Jews. Could this have been their conduct, if the
freedom of the Jews from that law had indeed been
necessary for purposes so essential to salvation, as are
mentioned (chap, vii.) by the apostle Paul, in his dis-
course concerning the law?

But there is something very clearly decisive on this
subject in that story (Acts xxi.) here before mentioned.
Let us now consider it. Sometime after writing this
epistle to the Romans, Paul having arrived at Jerusalem,
James and all the elders being present, they said unto
him (vers. 20, 21, 22, 23, 24), " Thou seest, brother, how
many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they
are all zealous of the law. And they are informed of thee,
that thou teachest all the fews which are among the
Gentiles, to forsake Moses, saying, that they ought not to
circumcise their children, neither to walk after the customs.
What is it, therefore ? &c. What ! zealous of the law,
under the law, and married to the law, and yet believ-
ing, and so married to Christ ? Could the fidelity of the
apostles allow them to connive at such pernicious, incon-
sistent pretensions ? Would it not be expected, that,
on this occasion, they would have asked the assistance
of the apostle Paul, who had been so successful among
the Gentiles, and have endeavoured to awaken his zeal
to exert himself to the utmost to recover his country-
men who believed, from this sad mistake? Instead of

EXPLICATION OF ROMAXS VII. 11/

that they gave Paul, and Paul observed, an advice of
very contrary tendency.

But what is it now that the Jews of Jerusalem were
informed of concerning Paul ? The very same thing
that Dr Hammond, and others before and after him,
assert that he did actually in this epistle to the Romans,
that was written before that time, and on other occa-
sions ; viz. that he taught the Jews, which were among
the Gentiles, that they ought to forsake Moses and his
law ; and that this was a liberty that they ought to
stand to, and assert, on considerations of the utmost
importance to their salvation.

Let us now consider the advice that is unanimously
given by James and all the elders present. It is, that
he should confute these reports, which the Jewish Chris-
tians had heard, and which, according to Grotius, Drs
Hammond and Whitby, all three learned men, were
very true reports ; and that he should give the most
effectual proof, by avowed public practice, that these
things of which they were informed concerning him,
were nothing, — had no foundation in truth, and that
himself walked orderly, and kept the law ; and the
apostle Paul, we see, did punctually observe this advice.

We may, on this occasion, observe the apostle Peter's
conduct at Antioch, related by Paul (Gal. ii.), and how
Paul then behaved and argued ; and what a Jewish
Christian, who had seen his epistle to the Romans if
it is to be understood according to the interpretation of
the learned men lately mentioned) might very reason-
ably have said to him, when he celebrated the expira-
tion and fulfilment of his Xazarite vow. What is this,
might he say, that I have seen thee doing? thou hast
been openly teaching, that these Mosaic laws are no
longer of force, even to Jews; and hast suggested con-
siderations of the utmost consequence, for which even-
Jew ought to assert his liberty from the obligations of
these ordinances and observances ; yet now I have seen
thee showing serious regard to these institutions in thr-
own practice, and thereby proving openly, that there
was no truth in what was reported of thy urging the

Il8 INTRODUCTION TO THE

Jews to forsake Moses and his law. Surely this is not
upright. You cannot have forgot how you treated the
apostle Peter at Antioch, when for such fear of the
Jewish believers, which yourself do now show, he with-
drew from the society of the Gentile Christians. You
withstood him ; you said he was to be blamed ; that he
dissembled himself, so that the Christians of Antioch,
and even Barnabas himself, were carried away with his
dissimulation. So you said when you reported that
story. You said, that he walked not uprightly accord-
ing to the truth of the gospel. You did obliquely
charge him with building up the things he had destroyed;
as he had so great a part in declaring the immunity of
the Gentiles from the Mosaic law. Thus did you treat
that eminent apostle, who was in Christ before you, and
was so eminent among Jews and Gentiles in the service
of the gospel, when you was persecuting it. You excused
yourself in this, by the necessity of doing so, for main-
taining the truth of the gospel : but, alas ! how shall we
now understand your conduct? after teaching that the
Jews should no longer observe the Mosaic law, you
have gone to the temple and to the priests, you have
brought your offering (according to the law, Numb. vi.
13, 14), one he-lamb for a burnt-offering, one ewe-lamb
for a sin-offering, one ram for a peace-offering, with the
proper meat-offering and drink-offering. Is this the
very man who told the Jews at Rome, so very lately,
that the Mosaic law was no longer of force, and that
they should assert their liberty from it, as they wished
that sin should not have dominion over them, — that
they should be married to Christ, and bring forth fruit
unto God? Surely this is not walking uprightly, or
according to the truth of the gospel. This is building
up very openly the things you have been destroying
with so great labour and zeal.

Dr Whitby, on Acts xxi., doth not take notice of the
objection arising from Paul's conduct there related,
against his own interpretation of Rom. vii. But he
seems to have it in his view, and to be greatly at a loss
to account for the apostle's conduct on that occasion ; at

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 1 9

least, that is likely to be the case by the considerations
he suggests to that purpose (annot. on vers. 26, 27), they
fall so very far short of the purpose: as, " 1. That the
vow of Nazaritism being only a stricter sort of separation
from all pollution to the service of God, and to be holy,
and free from all kind of defilement, seems very con-
sistent with the spirit and design of Christianity."

But if we consider the moral and spiritual design of
Mosaic institutions, which of them is it that was not
consistent with the faith, spirit, and design of Chris-
tianity? The present question doth not concern what
was moral or spiritual in these institutions, but respects
the external administration and observance of cere-
monial ordinances. Now, what can be named in all the
system of Mosaic laws, that was more peculiarly Mosaic
and ceremonial than the appointments concerning
Nazaritism ? Were the Jewish Christians to believe
and assert their liberty from all the Mosaic ceremonial
laws (as the Doctor and others say is taught the
Romans here), and yet might they voluntarily use these
very ceremonial regulations of Nazaritism, when the
Mosaic law itself, when in its fullest force, left them free
not to vow Nazaritism at all?

2. "Observe," says the Doctor, "that the offerings of
the temporary Nazarite, at the completion of his vow,
being a burnt-offering, and a sin-offering, and a peace-
offering (Numb, vi. 14) and two of them being sacrifices
not appointed for expiating sin, but offerings of thanks-
giving to God, who had enabled them to perform their
vow, and of acknowledgment of God's sovereign dominion
— this action seems to have little or nothing inconsistent
with the doctrine of St Paul."

Little or nothing? — I think, considering the person,
and the advice by which he acted, the Doctor should not
have discovered any disposition to yield, that there was
even a little, or anything at all, in the action, incon-
sistent with St Paul's doctrine. But let us consider the
matter more closely. The law concerning the sin-
offering (Lev. iv.) is so express to that purpose, that
none can deny (nor do I know of any that doth deny'

120 INTRODUCTION TO THE

that it was expiatory, and designed to make atonement.
The two sacrifices, then, which, according to the Doctor
in this place, were not expiatory, were the burnt-offering,
and the peace-offering. It is likely to be the former that
he means by the offering of acknowledgment of God's
sovereign dominion ; and the latter, by the offering of
thanksgiving. Thus some others of the learned have
spoke ; though without good reason. For though they
were not intended to be offered for expiation of par-
ticular sins and trespasses, there is good reason to
think they were offered for expiation of sin in general.
As to the burnt-offerings not being expiatory, that
notion is of set purpose, and fully confuted by Dr
Whitby himself, in his notes on Eph. v. 2, and on Heb.
ix. 19, to which I refer. I wonder it should be denied
by any who considers Lev. i. 4, and I think it strange
that any should suppose the burnt-offering of the morn-
ing and evening sacrifice, accompanied with the burning
of incense in the holy place, not to have been expiatory,
and, indeed, the most common solemn type of the
expiation to be made in due time by our Lord Jesus
Christ. These daily sacrifices signified clearly, that God
would accept of no service or worship from men, but by
means of the expiation of sin. That all bloody sacrifices
were in some sort expiatory, is, I think, very plain from
what the Lord says concerning the blood, when he pre-
hibits the common use of it (Lev. xvii. 1 1), For the life of
the flesh is in the blood \ and I have given it to you upon
the altar, to make an atonement for your souls : for it is
the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul. It is
reasonable to think, that in this all the bloody offerings
of the Old Testament did typify that one great sacrifice
that hath truly expiated sin.

But to what purpose doth the Doctor here mention
expiation at all ? Is it, that it would be ill to account
for, that the apostle should concur in offering an expia-
tory sacrifice, as being inconsistent with the gospel faith
of a complete expiation having been actually made by the
blood of Christ ; but that the offering of burnt-offerings
and peace-offerings (neither of which, as he, in contra-

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 121

diction to himself insinuates, was expiatory) was not in-
consistent with that faith, or with the abolition of the
Mosaic law, said to be asserted by the apostle here
(chap, vil)? What else could he mean? and yet if this
was his meaning, it is evidently ridiculous, especially as
the sin-offering was expiatory at any rate.

To this second observation he adds : " And the
advice here not being personally to make, or present these
offerings, but only to purify himself" (how purify him-
self, say I, but according to the purification of the
Mosaic sanctuary ? ) " and to help the Nazarites in bear-
ing some part of the charges of these offerings." He
infers as above, that there was little or nothing incon-
sistent with the doctrine of St Paul.

But these Nazarites were Jewish Christians. Did he
tell such at Rome (Rom. vii.;, that they were dead to the
law that is, as he and some others interpret) free from
the obligation of the Mosaic institutions ; and this
liberty was needful to be asserted, in order to their being
married to Christ, and bringing forth fruit unto God ?
and doth he now contribute to confirm such persons at
Jerusalem in their conscientious regard to that law, and
its institutions, by officiously contributing to the expense
of their sacrifices? These things are not quite con-
sistent : besides, that this assisting merely to the ex-
pense hath no foundation in the story.

3. The third consideration by which Dr Whitby
endeavours to account for the apostle's conduct on this
occasion, he expresses thus : " Though St Paul knew
that these constitutions were not now obligatory in them-
selves, yet, seeing they were rites belonging to that
temple, which was yet standing, and God had not, by
any express declaration made to the Jews, prohibited
the continuance of them, St Paul might lawfully submit
to this compliance with them, to prevent the scandal of
the unbelieving Jews, which might divert them from
that Christianity they had embraced." There must be
an error of the press here (edit. 4). I suppose he meant
to say, who had ?iot embraced Christianity. Put how
comes the Doctor to say, that God had not prohibited

122 INTRODUCTION TO THE

the continuance of these ordinances by any express
declarations made to the Jews? Surely, according to
his interpretation of Rom. vii. which was written before
that time, the declarations there made are express
enough to that purpose. If then the apostle thought it
his duty, to make these declarations some time before to
the Jews at Rome, in addressing them (separately, as is
alleged) in that chapter, in writing which, he was under
the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, it is likely to have
been as much his duty to have made these declara-
tions to the Jews at Jerusalem, instead of confirming
them in the opposite sentiments and way, by such
thorough and remarkable compliance with them, in a
very solemn instance of practice. As to giving offence to
the Jews, by refusing such compliance, let us but consider
how great offence it would give to believing and unbeliev-
ing Jews, when they should have occasion to observe the
inconsistence between his doctrine (Rom. vii.), as that hath
been interpreted, and his posterior practice at Jerusalem.
The Doctor concludes his annotation on Acts xxi. 26,
27, with these remarkable and very instructive words :
" Whence we may learn what great condescendence in
lesser matters may be used for the promotion of the
salvation of others." The condescension he means here
to recommend, seems, from the nature of the subject,
not to be the condescension of men's forbearing to
impose and urge practices contrary to the sentiments
and consciences of their brethren, but the condescension
of others, in complying with the use of rites, ceremonies,
observances, and practices, which they think ought not
to be imposed ; and which, perhaps, they think cannot
be complied with by them, as their light and views are,
without sin. Indeed, if the apostle thought, that being
free from the Mosaic law and institutions, and asserting
that liberty was needful for such reasons and ends, as
are mentioned (Rom. vi. and vii.), I cannot help thinking,
that the compliance mentioned Acts xxi. was a great
deal too much, and was an example not safe for a
Christian to follow, by any principles or rules for keep-
ing good conscience, or concerning offence, that I can

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 23

learn from the writings of the apostle himself, or from
the scripture otherwise. However, such was, according
to the Doctor, the apostle's doctrine (Rom. vii.). And
so did he conceal, yea, contradict, that doctrine by his
solemn practice (Acts xxi.), in compliance with the
dangerous error of the Jews and Jewish Christians, and
that for the promotion of the salvation of others. Alas,
for these poor peevish persons of our times ! some cere-
monial institutions (little, very little ones, matters quite
indifferent in the eyes of the imposers, and so might be
well wanted), are prescribed, not indeed by an authority
altogether so venerable as that which had enjoined the
Mosaic ordinances. We see how Paul condescended
and complied. But these modern precisians will not
comply with these ceremonial institutions for the pro-
motion of themselves to livings, dignities, &c. in the
church, or in the state, at the peril, as these poor narrow
souls conceive, of their salvation, or to save themselves
from low circumstances, and much needless expense!

Yea, the Doctor hath brought his own account of
things, respecting the apostle's conduct, under very great
difficulty, by what he hath in the immediately preceding
annotation on Acts xxi. 20. There he says, " The zealots
among the believers were urgent for the circumcision of
the Gentiles ; — but the whole body of the converted
Jews, bishops, elders, as well as the laity, were zealous
for the observation of the laws and customs by the Jew;."
Then he brings quotations from Philo and Josephus to
show how much the Jews would suffer, rather than
abandon God's ordinances. These are very needlessly
brought, since godly persons of all nations and times
have agreed, that it were better to die, than to desert, or
renounce, or counteract divine institutions and appoint-
ments. Then he tells, that the Jewish Christians knew
of no revelation made by God — that the Mosaic institu-
tions were to cease after the death of the Messiah.
Downwards he hath these words : " Yet it pleased God
not yet to convince them of this error, by any revelation
or any afflatus of that Spirit, which many of them had
received." But was there not any revelation, or afflatus,

124 INTRODUCTION TO THE

or divine inspiration, when the apostle had some time
before written according to the Doctor's paraphrase, thus
(Rom. vii. 4): " Wherefore, my brethren, as the woman is
free from the law of her husband by his death, even so
ye also are become dead to the law, and so free from it by
the crucifixion of the body of Christ, which hath dissolved
your obligation to the law, as the death of the husband
the obligation of the wife to him ; that ye should or may
be married to another?'' There is no removing these
difficulties arising from the apostle's conduct (Acts xxi.),
according to the Doctor's account of things. But upon
a just view of matters, there is no real difficulty at all —
no inconsistence between the apostle's conduct (Acts xxi.)
and any doctrine he had previously taught. He practised
(Acts xxi.) according to the law of Moses, being an
Israelite. But he had not before that time, in Rom. vii.,
or on any other occasion, publicly taught, that Israelites
were made free from the obligations of that law. Yea,
his practice (Acts xxi.), which we have been considering,
is an unanswerable argument, that in Rom. vii. he did not
so teach ; and that he is misunderstood by those who
interpret him in that way.

To what hath been said, we may add what the apostle
offered on different occasions, for vindicating himself to
the Jews, or to others, against the accusations of the
Jews. We are told (Acts xxv. 7) that the Jews laid
before Festus many and grievous complaints against Paul,
wliich they could not prove ; and (ver. 8), He answered
for himself, neither against the law of the Jews, neither
against the temple — have I offended anything at all. It
could not be accounted for, that any man of common
honesty, who had in so public manner, as in an epistle to
the church of Rome, asserted that the law of the Jews
was abrogated, and, consequently, that the service of the
temple ought to be no longer celebrated, — would now,
before the seat of judgment, assert, that he had not
offended against the law of the Jews, nor against the
temple. Nor do I see how, in the supposed case, his
ingenuity could be vindicated, when he said, some time
after this, at Rome, to the chief Jews of that place (when

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 25

it is not unlikely that some of the Christians might have
been present, to whom he had sometime before addressed
this epistle), I have committed nothing against the people
or customs of our fathers (Acts xxviii. 17). What! com-
mitted nothing against the customs of their fathers ! if,
in the epistle he had written some time ago to the
Christians of that place, he had asserted the abolition of
all these customs !

For my part, after all the closest attention I was capable
of, to all that is said of the law, or of any particular
matter respecting it, in this epistle to the Romans, — I am
well satisfied that there is nothing in it of the abrogation
of the Mosaic law with regard to the Jews, or their ex-
emption from its obligation, — that it is nowhere therein
asserted, — that it is not a principle from which the
apostle argues, — nor a conclusion he infers from any
principles.

I see nothing in this epistle to the Romans, that can
be urged with any appearance of force, as importing the
abolition of the Mosaic law ; if it is not what we have in
the 14th chapter. There appears in it a considerable
difference in the practice of Christians about meats and
holy days. This matter was the occasion of judging and
condemning upon one side, and of contempt and un-
charitable neglect upon the other ; and the peace of the
church was much endangered by the difference. This
we may learn from these words (ver. 19/, Let us therefore
follow after the things which make for peace.

It has been generally thought, that these weak
persons were Jewish believers, who did not yet under-
stand or receive their liberty from the Mosaic yoke. If
indeed they were Jews, the apostle's calling them weak,
for their adherence to the rules of that law, would imply,
that the authority and obligation of that law had ceased.
But it does not appear that the Jews generally had
sufficient cause to think, that their law was abrogated.
The consequence of this is that they generally had good
reason to think it their duty to observe that law : and
that they cannot be the persons charged on that account
with weakness. Besides, in the disputes with the Jews,

126 INTRODUCTION TO THE

the question commonly turned on the necessity of men's
being circumcised, and so brought under the obligation
of the whole Mosaic law. But when the question
turned on the subject of meats and holy days, I incline
to think they were others than* Jewish converts whose
scrupulosity is there represented. The many thousands
of the Jews who believed in Judea were zealous for the
law. The apostles themselves at Jerusalem joined with
them in the temple worship and service. The apostle
Paul, a Jew, came under the Nazarite vow, and
celebrated the expiration of his vow according to the
rules of the law, as we have seen. These things being
so, there can be no reason to think, that their brethren
of the Gentiles, who probably held pious Jewish
converts in much veneration, and who might be well
content with enjoying their own liberty, would despise
the believers of the Jews for their Judaical observances ;
or that any differences would arise among them upon
these accounts, that would endanger the peace of the
church. The peace of the church was indeed much
disturbed by the endeavours of some Jews to impose
the Mosaic law upon believers of the Gentiles. But that
the Gentiles would disturb or despise believers who
were of the Jews, for observing their own law, is by no
means likely.

There is nothing in this 14th chapter but may be
well accounted for, by understanding these weak
persons to have been believers of the Gentiles : nor
is it at all unreasonable to think, that there were of
them such weak persons. It is to be considered, that
a great many of the Gentiles, who had been converted
by the gospel, had been proselytes to Judaism, and
perhaps had been the children of such, brought up from
childhood in that way, as Timothy had been. Although
these might agree to the declaration of the liberty of the
Gentiles, as to the main of things, yet we may easily
suppose that something might stick with them. They
had received divine revelation, the word of God, and the
faith, by which they expected to be saved, from the Jews.
It is no wonder if for this they did retain a great

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. \2J

veneration for that people, and for their institutions.
Besides, they might think that the distinction of meats,
clean and unclean, had a more early authority, and
more extensive obligation, as the distinction of beasts
clean and unclean, had been mentioned by God in his
directions to Noah. Nor need we wonder, if they
retained a regard for the Jewish holy days. We know
how tenacious Christians have been to this day, of
ancient festivals, which derive their origin, some of
them from Judaism, some of them from heathenism
itself. Although they knew themselves to be by the
gospel happily set free from these peculiar institutions
of the church of Israel, to which they were obliged,
when, as proselytes of righteousness, they were admitted
by circumcision to be members of that church ; yet they
might think themselves still obliged to these rules,
which, not being members of that church, but proselytes
of the gate, they had carefully observed ; such as the
distinction of meats, and some other things compre-
hended under these, called the precepts of the sons of
Noah. It may also be easily conceived, that they
would be likely to retain a regard for the sanctity of
these days, on which the annual feast, and the several
great festivals were solemnized. This may be the more
easily conceived of some Gentile converts at Rome,
if we consider that the Galatians, Gentiles as they were
for most part, were so prone to desert wholly their
valuable liberty, and to submit to the whole law
of Moses, as appears in the epistle addressed to
them.

The apostle doth indeed say in this chapter (Rom.
xiv. 14), / know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus,
that there is nothing unclean of itself. This may import,
that there is not in any sort of thing, otherwise fit for
food, any intrinsic uncleanness, such that the eating
thereof would bring moral defilement on a man, for
anything in its own nature. This was clearly implied
in the liberty granted to the Gentiles from these regula-
tions concerning beasts clean or unclean ; so that such
Gentile converts as scrupled the use of them, did therein

128 INTRODUCTION TO THE

show weakness. But there is nothing in this decisive
against Jewish converts, or to prove them to be weak,
for observing the regu'ations of a law which they did
not know to be abrogated, with respect to them ; even
while they might acknowledge that there was no natural
or intrinsic uncleanness in the prohibited meats.

But now, upon the whole, to give freely my own
opinion concerning the abolition of the Mosaic law and
institutions, and the ceasing of their obligation, I believe
there was good reason for it from the death of Christ.
So it was said (Dan. ix. 27), In the midst of the week
(so is expressed the time of his suffering) he shall cause
the sacrifice and oblation to cease : his death was the
cause of the ceasing of these services. When the sub-
stance and body was exhibited, the reason ceased for
entertaining the church with these shadows ; and a more
spiritual way of worship did better become the more
spiritual dispensation of the gospel. This became good
reasoning, when it became the reasoning of the Holy
Ghost. Otherwise, this, or any other human reasoning,
could not make a sufficient warrant for men to withdraw
from subjection to a law and ordinances so expressly
and solemnly instituted and promulgated by God him-
self. Nothing could be sufficient for this purpose to
the Jews but a public, clear, express, and well-vouched
divine revelation.

When the gospel was first preached, we do not find
in the book of Acts, that the apostles mentioned on any
occasion, that the gospel was to supersede the obligation
of the Mosaic law, as to the Jews. Therefore, such Jews
as received the gospel observed the Mosaic law, and
were zealous for it ; and we find that the apostles were
so far from giving disturbance or offence on that account,
that they ordinarily joined with them in that way of
worship. Grotius, on Rom. vii., observes, that for a while
after the synod of Jerusalem, Paul contented himself
with intimating wherever he came, their decree concern-
ing the liberty of the Gentiles. As to declaring the
liberty of the Jews from the law of Moses, he says,
Nondum erat tempus, it was not yet the proper season :

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. 1 29

and I say that this was the case when the epistle to the
Romans was written, and for some time thereafter.
Although there is no reason to doubt that the apostles
themselves did, by this time, know (at least Paul
probably did know) that the Judaical ordinances were
to be abolished, they did not, however, think it yet the
fit season for giving out the revelation they had of this
to the Jewish converts, nor were they directed yet to
publish it ; and that for such good reason as their
blessed Lord had mentioned to themselves (John xvi.
12), I have ret many tilings to say unto yon, but yc cannot
bear them now. They might give instruction concerning
this matter to more advanced Christians; and it might
be a part of that wisdom which Paul did speak among
them that were perfect (grown up from childhood to be
men in Christ) ; but being under the direction of divine
wisdom, they did not think fit to give out openly, that
it was the will of God to abolish wholly the Mosaic
s\ stem of ordinances, ceremonial service and observances,
with respect to the Jews themselves, until the gospel-
faith should be well established, and take deep root with
the Jewish Christians.

We find in the second chapter of the epistle to the
Ephesians, and in the second of the epistle to the
Colossians, which were churches of the Gentiles, some-
thing concerning the abolition of the Jewish ordinances.
These epistles were written some while after writing
this to the Romans (three years thereafter, according to
Dr Whitby's chronology), and after Paul's conduct at
Jerusalem, related Acts xxi., which we have been con-
sidering ; Paul himself being then a prisoner at Rome.
It was some time thereafter (about two years) that the
divine revelation concerning this matter was clearly and
fully given forth, in the epistle to the Hebrews. A great
event was to happen, that would tend much to cause
the Jewish Christians more readily to receive the
declaration of the abrogation of the Mosaic law : that
was the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, ac-
cording to the prediction of our blessed Lord ; by
which it became impossible to celebrate the chief ordi-

I

130 INTRODUCTION TO THE

nances of that law. Accordingly, about five years before
that event, was the epistle to the Hebrews written. It
might take that much time for that epistle to be
sufficiently spread among the Hebrew Christians in
the east, and for it to operate somewhat in their minds.
Then, in the seventieth year of our Lord, the revelation
and doctrine of the epistle to the Hebrews was con-
firmed by the dreadful event of the destruction of
Jerusalem and the temple, and the awful vengeance
that was executed on the Jewish nation.

In that epistle to the Hebrews, who of all the Jews
had the warmest zeal for the Mosaic institutions, revela-
tion speaks clear and full of the abolition of these.
There the inspired writer shows the Mosaic sacrifices to
be ineffectual for the purpose of expiating sin. There
he proves, from the scriptures of the Old Testament,
that God intended to set up a priesthood different from
the Aaronic ; and to constitute Christ a high priest after
the order of Melchizedek. From this he argues in a
manner clear and just (chap. vii. 12), The priesthood being
changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the
law. So with the abolition of the Levitical priesthood,
the whole system of the Levitical and Mosaic institutions
fell down, and were no longer of force.

What hath been said may satisfy us, that when the
apostle says here (chap. vii. 4) Ye are become dead to the
lazv ; and (ver. 6) We are delivered from the law ; he doth
not mean it of the Jews being made free from the obliga-
tion of the Mosaic ceremonial law, or of its precepts
and institutions. None mention the judicial law of the
commonwealth of Israel on this occasion ; nor can we
understand him as meaning to derogate, in any degree,
from the authority or obligation of the commandments
of the moral law. What the apostle means by being
dead to the law, and being delivered from it, will be the
subject of inquiry in the following sheets : where ex-
plaining of the marriage with the law that he speaks of,
and the dissolution of that marriage, will make it clear in
what sense he means being delivered from the law.

This might be a fit place for representing the general

EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 3 I

scope and contents of this seventh chapter. It seems to
be acknowledged by learned interpreters, that the apostle
designs in it to explain what he had said (chap. vi. 14).
He there insinuated, that they who are under the law,
are under the dominion of sin. It is obvious, that his
explanations in the first part of the chapter (vers. I- 1 3)
do respect that point. Whether the latter context (vers.
14-25) doth represent the condition and circumstances of
those who are under grace, with regard to sin, is to be
inquired into in the proper place. For anything more
particular, it is fit to refer to the explications here
followiner.

EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE

ROMANS VII.

Text.— I. Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know
the law), how that the law hath dominion over a man, as long
as he liveth ?

Explication. — These writers who suppose the apostle
was, in the 5th and 6th chapters, speaking to the Gentiles
separately, and as contradistinguished to the Jewish
converts, do at the same time suppose, that, in this
seventh chapter, he speaks to the Jews separately, and
as contradistinguished to the Gentiles. There were
indeed a good many Jewish converts in the church at
Rome. But as the apostle doth all along consider the
Romans as a church of the Gentiles, and commonly
addresses them as such ; to say, that in a particular
place, without distinctly intimating that view, he turns
aside to speak to the Jewish converts separately and
apart, would need to be supported by good reasons.
Two things they adduce from this verse to that purpose.
One, that he calls them brethren, for such the Jews were
to the apostle by nation and descent. The other, that
he supposes them especially to know the law ; as indeed
the Jews valued themselves much upon the law, and their
knowledge, of it.

But these things do by no means make out the point.
The apostle does commonly call Christians of any nation,
brethren. In the beginning of chap. x. he uses the com-
pellation, brethren, to the Gentiles, when he is speaking

132

Ver. i] EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VII. I 33

to them concerning the Jews. No church was more to
be denominated Gentile than that of Thessalonica. For
of the conversion of the Jews in that place, it is said
(Acts xvii. 4), that SOME of them believed. The conversion
of the Gentiles is related in these words: Of the devout
Greeks A GREAT MULTITUDE. If we suppose, as we
reasonably should, that the devout Greeks, or proselytes
were not idolaters, it would seem that a great number
were, after this good beginning, soon converted from
heathenism, as it is said (1 Thess. i. 9) that they turned
to God from idols, to serve the living and true God: so
that few comparatively of that church were Jews by
nation. Yet in his first epistle to them, which is a short
one, compared with this to the Romans, he uses the
compellation of brethren to them in common, no less
than sixteen times.

In his supposing that they knew the law, whether he
means the law concerning marriage, of which in the
next verses, and which was common to the Jews and
other nations, or the law in general ; there is nothing in
it but what will suit the Roman Gentile Christians, as
well as those who were Jews by nation. Such of them
as had been proselytes, had been directed to study the
Scriptures. Timothy was brought up from childhood in
the knowledge of them ; and the Ethiopian eunuch
returning homeward, and sitting in his chariot, he lead
in the prophecy of Isaiah. Christians brought from the
darkness of heathenism, did doubtless greatly value the
rich treasure of light and knowledge ihey found in the
scripture, and studied it carefully. So that, whatever
knowledge the Jews had of the law, or of an)' divine
things by revelation, was communicated to the converted
Gentiles by the scripture ; and there, as in the fountain,
they had divine truth, without that mixture of traditional
and superstitious trash, by which the Jews pretty com-
monly explained, darkened, and perverted the Scripture.
The Gentile converts had likewise the more easy access
to the Scriptures, to which the preachers of the gospel
did so commonly remit them, that they were then extant
in a language (the Greek) pretty commonly known in

134 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. I

all civilised nations. So the two things above mentioned
make no reason at all for thinking that he speaks here
to the Jews separately, — a conceit that has greatly per-
plexed things in explaining this chapter.

As to the purpose the apostle now enters upon, it
appears to be this : He had said (chap. vi. 14), Sin shall
not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law,
but under grace. This insinuates, that whilst persons
are under the law, they are under the dominion of sin.
There was great need to explain this. The law is the
rule of holiness, and strictly requires it. Sin is the trans-
gression of the law, and is prohibited by every precept
of it, under a heavy sanction. Whereas, on the other
hand, grace aboundeth in the pardoning of sin. Now,
to say that sin hath dominion over men, by occasion of
being under the law, that thus prohibits it, and denounces
wrath and judgment for it ; and that men become free
from the dominion of sin, by being under grace that
pardons it. hath, at first sight, great appearance of
•paradox, or mystery. It is indeed the mystery of the
gospel, in what concerns sanctification; which the apostle
saw it of great consequence to explain ; as he doth in
the following context. In the first thirteen verses, he
carefully vindicates the law from being in any sort blame-
able for the sinfulness, or actual sins of men. He at
the same time shows, that all the light and authority of
the law is so far from subduing sin in men, that it doth,
as thereby awakened and irritated, the more exert itself,
and show its extreme wickedness.

In the beginning of this chapter, he sets out with
illustrating his doctrine by the similitude of marriage;
and in this first verse, he lays down the general principle
contained in it. It appears by the next following verses,
that the relation between the law and those who are
under it, he compares to that between husband and
wife.

The only thing besides that I have occasion to observe
in this verse is, that the last clause, as long as he liveth,
is so expressed in the Greek, that it may be connected
with the lazv, thus ; as long as it (the law) liveth, or is

Vers. 2, 3] OF ROMANS VII. 135

in force ; or with man thus ; as long as lie (the man)
liveth. Without determining precisely in favour of the
one way preferably to the other, there seems to be occa-
sion rather to observe a special skill in the apostle's
forming his expression in this part, so as that the last
clause may be connected at once with both the ante-
cedents, thus : The lazv hath dominion over a man, as
long as liveth the law (which hath here the place of the
husband), or the person that hath the place of the wife
in relation to that husband. To take the expression
thus, suits the nature of the subject ; as marriage is dis-
solved by the death of either party ; and though in
setting forth the similitude in the two following verses,
he mentions only the dissolution of the marriage by the
death of the husband (here representing the law;, yet in
the 4th verse he asserts the deliverance of Christians
(meant by the wife in the similitude) from the law by
their being dead to it.

Text. — 2. For the woman which hath an husband, is bound by
the law to her husband so long as he liveth'; but if the husband
be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband.

3. So then, if while her husband liveth, she be married to another
man, she shall be called an adulteress : but if her husband be
dead, she is free from that law ; so that she is no adulteress
though she be married to another man.

Anything here which it were of consequence to explain,
will be more fitly considered in explaining the following
verses ; wherein the matter here designed for a simili-
tude, and the principles concerning it, are applied to the
apostle's particular purpose. Any explication fit to be
suggested here, may be comprehended, and expressed
briefly in the following

Paraphrase. — i. I have said (chap. vi. 14) that sin
shall not have dominion over yon ; for ye are not under
the laze, but under grace. I come now to explain the
important subject to you : and I begin to lead you into
the understanding of my meaning and doctrine, some-

I36 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 4

what in the allegorical way, and by a similitude taken
from a matter of which you cannot be ignorant. For I
presume that all of you, my dear brethren and fellow-
Christians, being believers, members of the church of
God, and having his word for the rule of your faith, and
the subject of your study and meditation ; that, I say,
you know the law, and this principle concerning it, that
the law hath dominion over a man ; such as a husband
hath over his wife (eft 6aov xpovov &) for so long time as
liveth either the law, or the person who had been under
the law, and no longer : for the death of either party
dissolves the marriage covenant and relation, and the
obligations arising therefrom.

2. For, to exemplify this upon one side, the woman
which hath an husband is bound by the law of marriage,
and by the marriage covenant, to her husband as long
as he liveth ; but when the husband is dead, she is
loosed from the marriage law and covenant, by which
she was bound to her husband.

3. The consequence then is, if the woman during her
husband's life shall be married to another man, that she
shall be called (shall be indeed) an adulteress ; but if her
husband be dead, she is free from that law, according
to which she might be charged with crime and reproach;
so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to
another man. In like manner, if you have been married
to the law, and have had it, by a sacred covenant, for
your husband, this bond could not be dissolved by mere
will or fancy. It hath been a covenant and relation for
life ; so it is death that dissolves it.

Text. — 4. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to
the law by the body of Christ ; that ye should be married to
another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we
should bring forth fruit unto God.

EXPLICATION.— For the right understanding of this
verse, it is needful to explain — 1. What is meant by the
law. 2. What by being dead to the law. 3. How we
are to understand being married to the law, and after-

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 137

wards to Christ. 4. How the marriage with the law is
dissolved, and by what means. 5. The consequence of
that marriage being dissolved, and of our being married
to Christ. The explaining of these important points,
which will contribute much to our conceiving justly the
scope of this whole context, as well as the sense of this
verse, is likely to come out to a considerable length.

1. What is meant by the law. — It has been proved
already, that the law here is not to be understood of
the Mosaic ceremonial law. Mr Locke's notion will be
considered by itself hereafter. Certainly we can under-
stand no other here by the law than the moral law, that
universal rule of duty that hath been given to mankind
fenced with the sanction of death for transgression,
which may be reasonably supposed to imply a promise
of life for obedience, and which contained the matter of
the first covenant. This law was generally known by
men, though with different degrees of light. The
heathens did, by nature's direction, the things contained
in the law 'chap. ii. 14, 15), and showed the work of the
law written in their hearts (not the work of sanctifying,
for that is not the work of the law, as is here proven,
but), the marking out to men their duty, and giving the
knowledge of sin and of judgment for it, their con-
sciences bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or
excusing, according to the degree of light they had. In
what they thought their duty, they could have satisfaction,
and an agreeable self-approbation. By doing ill, the
peace of their mind was disturbed; their consciences
accused them, and they were self-condemned. As sin
abounded in them, there was a secret misgiving and fear.
They made a shift to make life as agreeable as they
could by the amusement of speculation, or by exercise
and employment, or by temporary earthly enjoyments ;
in which pretty commonly they went to a length, in
various sorts of self-indulgence, according to their abilities
and opportunities, that was extremely criminal. By such
means they often smothered and overcame apprehen-
sions, against which they knew not the true comfort, or
proper remedy.

138 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

But it appears that in the heathens, this habitual latent
fear, that ever attends a state of condemnation, was easily
awakened, so as to rise to a high degree, and to be the
cause of much superstition, and of some horrible
methods for appeasing the wrath of heaven, and averting
judgments.

The church of God anciently had a much more clear
and extensive knowledge of the law, and of judgment
for transgression, and that by the solemn promulgation
of it at Sinai ; and afterwards by the scripture, which
contained the explication and enforcement of it from time
to time by the prophets. Though the apostle doth not
mean here to restrict his doctrine and argument to any
law that was peculiar to the Jews, yet in speaking of the
law, he seems to have in his eye that clearer light of the
law by revelation, which the Jews enjoyed ; as we have
cause to think from his mentioning a commandment
expressly set forth in the decalogue, in which the sum of
the law was given them, Thou shall not covet.

In the scriptures of the Old Testament, we find men,
on divers occasions, expressing the conviction of sin, and
fearful impression of judgment, which they conceived by
the law in their consciences. In the first time of the
gospel, it was the impression and authority of the law in
their consciences, roused and awakened by the sermon of
the apostle Peter (Acts ii.), that caused his numerous
hearers, pricked in their heart, to cry out to him, and to
the other apostles (ver. 37), Men and brethren, what
shall we do ? Though the jailor at Philippi was a heathen,
and so a stranger to that light of the law that shined in
the church, yet it was the conviction of sin. and impression
of judgment, that was by the law in his conscience,
suddenly and powerfully awakened, that made him cry
out to Paul and Silas (Acts xvi. 30) What must I do to
be saved? And the law hath still the same effect to
produce in souls that have been at ease in their sins, to
awaken them' to a serious concern about their salvation.
All men are, — every man singly is, as to his real spiritual
state, either under the law, and under the curse and
wrath that it denounces for sin ; or, by being in Christ,

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 139

united to him truly by faith, under grace, in actual grace
and favour with God. They are these who are not thus
under grace, but under the curse, having the wrath of
God abiding on them, that are under the law in the sense
of the apostle here ; as we shall see in considering the
several verses of this context.

As I have given my view of what the apostle means
here by the law, and by being under the law, I desire the
reader to observe, as we go along, if there is anything in
this context that doth not suit this view ; there certainly
is not. Some learned men, who, from attachment to their
particular system, are averse from this view, and en-
deavour to turn things another way, to the ceremonial
law and dispensation, or to something or other peculiar
to the Jews, do an ill-office to Christians, and labour to
shut up from them a source of much useful instruction.
Certainly, several things are here said of the law, and of
being under it, that cannot be applied to anything
peculiar to the Jews, or to the Old-Testament dispensa-
tion, without much absurdity. The evidence to this
purpose will come in our way, as we go along.

2. What is meant by being dead to the law. — The conse-
quences of death are various, with respect to various
subjects. Here the death mentioned hath respect to
marriage ; and evidently means the dissolution of that
marriage that hath been between persons and the law.
As death dissolves marriage, so the dissolution of this
marriage is expressed by being dead to the law. The
believer is no longer married to the law ; he is made tree
from that yoke ; and from all obligation arising from
that connection and relation.

He had also mentioned (ver. 1) the law's having
dominion over a man. In so far as that dominion coin-
cides with the right and claim of the law as a husband,
being dead to it imports being made free from that
dominion of the law.

But it is the explication of the remaining points that
are proposed to be the subject of inquiry on this verse,
that will fully explain the meaning of being dead to the
law; and that will, at the same time, show a special

140 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. \

reason why the apostle expresses, being made free from
the law, and from its dominion as a husband, by being
dead to it. Without anticipating things out of their more
proper place, let us now be satisfied with the general
view of the matter that hath been given, and proceed to
the next point.

3. How is to be understood being married to the law,
and being married to Christ. — The special thing which
Dr Whitby supposes to be in view under the metaphor
of marriage, is, the subjection of the wife to her husband,
and so the subjection of persons to the law, who were
under it and married to it. The Mosaic law he means,
for he was far from thinking that persons are disobliged
from subjection to the precepts of the moral law. His
paraphrase runs thus (ver. 2) : " The woman which hath
a?i husband, is bound by the taw to be SUBJECT to her
husband — But if the husband be dead, she is then free
from the lazv of SUBJECTION to her husband. — And
ver. 3. — If her husband be dead, she is free from that law,
which bound her to be in SUBJECTION, and yield con-
jugal affection to her husband only. — And ver. 6, that
being dead wherein we were held in SUBJECTION, as the
wife is to her living husband." Here it appears, that
the Doctor understood, as indeed several others have
done, the apostle's scope and meaning to be, to show
the freedom even of Jews and Jewish converts from the
Mosaic ritual and ceremonial law ; and from the
obligation or subjection thereto. This notion has
been sufficiently disproved in the introduction to this
chapter.

In order to reach the apostle's meaning, it is fit to
consider the special things that do naturally arise from
the marriage covenant and relation between a woman
and her husband.

In the first place, the woman is entitled, by the
marriage covenant and relation, to support and pro-
tection from her husband ; and that he provide for her
welfare and happiness ; and she hath cause to depend on,
and confide in him for this, so far as she shall show herself
dutiful to him. It is said to the woman (Gen. iii. 16),

Ver. 4] OF ROMA XS VII. 141

Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule
over thee. There is no question but the expression, thy
desire shall be to thy liusband, implies her dependence,
as it does when it is used concerning Abel (chap. iv. 7).
But then it implies not only dependence of inferiority
and subjection, but likewise dependence of trust and
confidence. So that applying this to the apostle's
subject and design in this place, it comes to this : That
persons married to the law have had dependence en
that husband for support and protection, and his
providing for their welfare ; and this as connected with
subjection to the rule of that husband, and obedience to
his commands.

To establish the meaning I have given of that
expression, it is fit to observe the meaning and use of it
in some other places ; and I expect that fixing the
meaning of the expression will give considerable light
concerning the meaning of these texts I am to
mention.

One of them is Isa. xxvi. 8, Yea, in the way of thy
judgments, 0 Lord, ha: rated for thee, — that is,

trusted in thee. It looks strangely, to profess trust and
confidence in God, when he is dealing in way of wrath
and judgment with men. But the church accounts for
this trust and confidence, and shows the reason and sure
ground on which it is founded, by adding, The desire of
our soul 'an Hebraism, the same as our desire — see on
chap. vi. 12) is to thy NAMF, and to the renicmbranee of
thee, — rather, to thy memorial, as the word is rendered
in the text to be presently cited. The sense of this is to
be taken from Exod. hi. 15, / am Jehovah, the God of
Abraham — this is my NAME for ever, and this is my
MEMORIAL to all generations. The God of Abraham
is the summary of the covenant of grace, as exhibited to
Abraham, and to the faithful, as his spiritual seed. So
when the church expresses her trust and confidence in
God Isa. xxvi. 8), even when he was dealing with her in
way of anger and judgment, she gives a good reason for
it. when she says, Our desire is to thy name, and to thy
memorial ; our dependence is on what thou hast given

142 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

to our fathers for thy everlasting name and memorial ;
and so we are confident, that angry as thou justly art,
yet thy covenant, O unchangeable almighty JEHOVAH,
shall stand firm, and take full effect in our behalf.

Thus also 1 Sam. ix. 20, On whom is all the DESIRE
of Israel? is it not on thee, and on all thy father's house ?
This is not said historically, for few of Israel at that time
knew Saul, but prophetically, as if he had said, — Thou
art to be King, — the anointed of the Lord, on whom all
Israel shall have their dependence, that under thy
shadow (Lam. iv. 20) they shall live among the
heathen.

So likewise 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, after mentioning God's
covenant, everlasting, well ordered, and sure, David
adds, For his is all my salvation and all my DESIRE.
Of which last expression this is likely to be the
meaning : This covenant of God's grace is that on
which I have my dependence, and found my confidence
for all my hope and my salvation.

It seems reasonable to understand in the same sense
that expression, (Hag. ii. 7), The DESIRE of all nations
shall come ; which is to be taken as said, not historically
(as was observed concerning, the words of Samuel to
Saul), but prophetically — He who shall be the desire of
all nations, on whom God's people of all nations shall
have their dependence, and found their confidence ; as
all nations are to be blessed in him.

The sense of the expression is now pretty clear ; and,
as the Lord said to our first mother, Thy desire shall be
to thy husband, so, according to the apostle's similitude
and style, if sinners are married to the law, the con-
sequence is, their desire is to that husband ; they confide
in and depend on that husband (the law) for protecting
them, for securing their standing before God, for pro-
viding and insuring happiness to them, in consequence
of their obedience to the commandments of that husband.
But, alas ! this wife hath broken her covenant with her
husband ; she hath gone astray from him, and preferred
the interest and gratification of others, to his commands,
honour, and pleasure; she hath disregarded his com-

Ver. 4] of roma xs vii. 143

mands, and dealt most undutifully with him. Whatever
imaginary hopes she may still entertain of good from
him, being insensible of her own ill behaviour, she hath
indeed nothing to expect from him but just rigour and
wrath. This, viz., that the sinner cannot attain justi-
fication, or any of its comfortable consequences, by the
law, hath been the apostle's subject in the first four or
five chapters of this epistle. But though the explaining
the apostle's similitude of marriage led us to say so
much of the matter, and that by the way we found
occasion to offer light concerning some texts of scrip-
ture, yet, if we consider somewhat closely, we may be
soon satisfied, that that is not the particular matter in
his view in the present context (chap. vii. 1 - 1 3) ; and
that it is another consequence of the marriage covenant
and relation that he hath in his eye.

In the next place, then, the wife expects to be fruitful
b*r means of her husband. That this is the particular
point now in the apostle's view is evident. During the
former marriage with the law, the fruit was, as ver. 5, to
bring forth FRUIT unto death. But, as in this 4th verse,
the consequence of the dissolution of the marriage with
the law, and of being married to Christ is, to bring fortJi
FRUIT unto God ; and being delivered from the law, the
Christian is enabled to serve in newness of spirit, and
not in the oldness of the letter. This evidently suits
what is generally observed and acknowledged to be the
scope and design of this context, viz., to explain what
the apostle had said, chap. vi. 14, where in enforcing the
exhortation to holiness, he suggests this encouragement,
Sin sJiall not have dominion over you ; for ye are not
under the lawi but under grace ; which clearly implies,
that whilst under the law, and married to it, sin having
dominion over them, they could not bring forth fruit
unto God.

These things have no special respect to the peculiar
institutions of the Mosaic law. The case plainly is,
that men in all times are concerned with the law of God,
particularly the moral law ; which includes under its
authority, and in the comprehensive meaning of its

144 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

precept, all positive divine institutions, whether before
the fall or after it, whether under the Old or the New
Testament dispensation. The marriage with the law
is dissolved but in one way here mentioned. Every one
is married with the law, and is under the dismal con-
sequence of being so, as matters stand with sinners,
until they be delivered from the law in the way here
suggested.

To take a general view of the matter, we may say, that
this marriage with the law hath its foundation in the
original constitution of things, and in the covenant God
made at first with man. When God made man, and gave
him his law, with the threatening of death denounced
against transgression, and the promise therein im-
plied, of life for obedience, it was by obedience to
the law that man was to live, and by the influence of its
light and authority, he was to be fruitful in all holiness
and righteousness. Although there hath happened, by
sin, a sad alteration in man's condition, yet still the
ri^ht of the law, that first husband, hath subsisted. It
continues to be the right of the law, that none shall
attain justification and life but by its means, and by
perfect obedience to it. It continues to be the right
of the law, that men should, by the influence of its light
and authority, bring forth fruit unto God. Though man
by the guiltiness and corruption he hath incurred, hath
become incapable of justification or sanctification by the
law (which tends to make his condition quite deplor-
able), yet such doth the right of the law, the first husband,
continue to be, until the marriage with the law is dis-
solved in the way pointed out here by the apostle.

Upon the other hand, if we consider the matter on
man's part, we shall find, however obnoxious man is to
the law by transgression and guilt — and however opposite
to the holiness of the law in his nature and practice —
that there is still naturally in men a strong attachment
to this first marriage, and inclination to look for protec-
tion or justification, for fruitfulness, sanctification, and
final happiness, by the first husband, the law. The
light, principles, and sentiments, which are naturally in

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. I 45

the minds of men, mark out to them no other way to
life, but by the law, and obedience thereto. Nor doth
nature show any other way to holiness and fruitfulness
but by the concurrence of their own powers, and earnest
endeavours with the light and authority of the law.

Besides the sentiments that are naturally in the minds
of men, there are naturally principles in the hearts of
men that favour this first marriage, and that contribute
to its subsisting, even when it can yield no comfort or
real benefit. The way of life and fruitfulness (however
now impossible) between this first husband, and the
natural human powers, hath something in it that greatly
suits the pride — that self-exalting principle — that is
naturally in the hearts of men ; which, while it honours
the law in appearance, doth indeed give to men them-
selves the honour of all their good works, and of their
hope of eternal life.

Thus, by the original right of the law, by the senti-
ments of men's own minds, and by the principles that
naturally prevail in their hearts, this marriage, with the
law, subsists until it is dissolved by the death of one or
other party, or of both, according to the apostle's
figurative way of representing the matter.

From what hath been said, it is the more easy to
understand what it imports to be married to Christ.
The less needs be said on it in this place. Briefly, and
in the general, the believer's being united to Christ by
faith, and by the Spirit of Christ — being called of God
to the fellowship of his Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, —
and he and they being in the sight of God, and accord-
ing to the law of grace, held as one ; they have the
fellowship of his righteousness for their justification, and
of his grace otherwise for sanctification and fruitfulness,
and for their complete salvation and happiness. The
fourth thing which this verse offers to our considera-
tion is,

4. How the marriage with the law is dissolved a)id by
what means. — The apostle, in setting forth the similitude,
by which he illustrates his subject, had observed, that
marriage is dissolved by death ; and now here (ver. 4),

K

I46 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

he tells the believers, that they are DEAD to the law.
The question then comes to this : How is this death to
the law, that dissolves the marriage with it, brought
about ?

The law itself contributes its part to this event. So
the apostle says (Gal. ii. 19), / through the law am dead
to the law. The law, the first husband, is indeed dead
itself, as to the power of effecting the design of marriage.
Never was any more dead than the law is, as to the
power of giving justification, or fruitfulness in holiness,
to sinners. Yet it lives in the fearful sanction of death
and the curse to sinners : and they must all have died
by its hands, in rigorous and just revenge of their
undutifulness and disobedience, if a way had not been
found for their relief. A sinner, whose ear hath been
opened to the law, and his conscience and heart
awakened by it, finds its demands, as to a justifying
righteousness wholly beyond his reach ; and that there
can be nothing to him from it, but wrath and destruc-
tion, as he is a transgressor. If it requires fruitfulness
in holiness, it is as a hard task-master, and doth not
afford the means and assistance necessary for the work.
The sinner, receiving a just view of this with deep im-
pression, can no longer have his desire to that husband,
or have his dependence on him, for any good to himself.
Despairing of himself, and of the law, he must look
another way for relief.

God himself, of his manifold wisdom, uncontrollable
sovereignty, and rich grace, hath provided a way of
relief. Matters having failed between mankind and this
first husband he had assigned them, he hath provided
a second husband for them, even Christ. So in our text
(ver. 4), Ye also are become dead to the law by tlie body of
Christ, that is, by Christ crucified. By this most
properly and effectually are persons made dead to the
law. The law itself hath its subserviency, as we have
seen, in separating sinners from that its first husband.
But by the body of Christ crucified is the happy event
truly brought about. If the first husband had a claim
of justice against them for their undutiful behaviour, the

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII 14/

crucifixion of the body of Christ, whereby sin hath been
expiated, and which is the consummation of that
righteousness by which he hath fulfilled the law, hath
answered the claim of the law. So the resentment of
that first husband cannot reach them. They are, as by
death, delivered from it ; as a bond servant is by death
delivered from a hard master, or a wife from the yoke
of a rigorous husband. By his death Christ hath
acquired his people, or church, to be his own spouse.
Thus the first marriage is dissolved ; the law cannot
claim, as a husband, that persons should have dependence
on it, as they are provided for in a better way.

Here likewise we may observe a reason why the true
believer's deliverance from the law is very properly ex-
pressed by being dead to it. It is by being dead with
Clirist (chap. vi. 8), by their fellowship with Christ in
his death, and by their interest in his death, and in
the fruits thereof, that they are thus delivered from
the law, and that an end is put to their relation to
the law as their husband ; as they are also said to
have been raised together with Christ. If they are
said to be dead to the law (which they are by their
fellowship with Christ in his death), and yet after this
their death to be married to another, there is no incon-
gruity in it. If they are dead in one respect, in another
respect they live, being risen together with Christ to a
new being and life, as his spouse or wife ; as he having
died to acquire them to himself for his spouse, hath, by
rising from the dead, proved himself capable to cause
them to live, and to do the part of a husband to them, in
protecting, caring for them, and securing effectually
their eternal welfare. Hence the desire of true Chris-
tians is to this their new husband, and they have
their dependence on him for all things ; until at length
he bring home his church to himself, when she shall
have the full fruition of him, in everlasting glory and
blessedness.

Now as to all this blessed fruit of Christ's death and
resurrection, we are not to think that it did' not at all
take place until he was actually crucified, died, and rose

148 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

again ; or until the subsequent more full display of
gospel light. These things are indeed now set forth by
the gospel in a much more clear light, and are better
understood than under the former more dark dispensa-
tion. The grounds of our confidence and our liberty are
now fully exhibited to us ; and since Christ ascended up
on high, and hath received gifts for men, the fruits of his
death and resurrection are much more abundant and
plentiful to the church. But we are not to connect the
disadvantages of being under the law, here mentioned,
with the legal pedagogy of the Old Testament ; or to
suppose that the advantages by Christ, here set forth
under the figure of being married with him, do solely
belong to the gospel times and dispensation, and are
connected with the abrogation of the Mosaic law. They
who understand the apostle's scope and meaning in that
way, do, in explaining the matters contained in this
context, bring themselves into absurdity and embarrass-
ment, out of which there is no disentangling them on
their general view of the apostle's argument. This may
be somewhat understood by what hath been said, and
will be more and more clear as we proceed in the con-
sideration of this context. It is certain, that as Christ
is called the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,
his expiatory sufferings and death have had effect from
the beginning of the world, for remission of sins to all
true believers. In like manner, his death hath had
effect for the sanctifying of his people by his Spirit,
from the beginning. As it was the Spirit of Christ who
spoke by all the ancient prophets (1 Pet. i. 11), so did
his Spirit operate powerfully in the hearts of his people,
to make them fruitful in holiness. We may then con-
fidently conclude, that the apostle doth here, by being
married to the law, by the dissolution of that marriage,
and by being married to Christ, set forth, as to the sub-
stance of things, and as to what is most essential, the
different conditions of men, in the state of nature, and in
the state of grace ; both under the legal pedagogy of the
Old, and under the gospel-dispensation of the New
Testament.

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VII. 149

The last thing in this verse that I proposed to
explain is,

5. The consequence of the dissolution of the marriage
with the law, and of being married to Christ. — It is, first,
that the law hath no longer a right to execute its ven-
geance for disobedience on them who believe in Christ ;
and next, that they bring forth fruit unto God, — that is,
the fruit of holiness and righteousness, by which God
is served in a conformity to his will and holy com-
mandment. God delighteth in having fruit by his only
begotten Son, and that he hath by his marriage with
the spouse which he hath given him ; and she, however
formerly unfruitful, is made fruitful by the power and
grace of her glorious Husband, to bring forth fruit by
which his Father is glorified (John xv. 8), and by which
she is (Eph. i. 6) to the praise of the glory of his grace.
How this fruitfulness is the consequence, is a point to be
hereafter explained ; and it is needless to say more on it
here, as the explication of the verse under consideration
doth not require it.

Though the explication of this verse hath come out to
such length, yet it is not fit to leave it without taking
notice of the interpretation given by Mr John Alexander,
in his posthumous commentary on this context, lately
published. He will have it, that sin is meant here as
the husband. In the account he gives of the sense of
these three verses, he says, in a sort of paraphrase of
ver. 4, " You have been formerly under engagements
to sin, to whom the law hath bound you as to the
husband of your choice, in a connection which nothing
but the death of one of the parties could dissolve." A
few lines thereafter he says : " When they (men) forsake
their sins, and turn to God, they become dead to the
law." And in the next sentence, — " There are two ways
(saith he) by which a sinner becomes dead to the law ;
either by breaking off his sins, or by suffering the punish-
ment due to them." But our text doth not ascribe one's
being dead to the law to his breaking off his sins, but to
the body of Christ. That one should become dead to the
law by undergoing the punishment it prescribes, is not

150 EXPLICATION AMD PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

easily understood, except he meant that that punishment
is annihilation ; which, indeed, by putting an end to the
sinner's existence, would withdraw him from the power
and dominion of the law. This, however, is one way of
escaping punishment, rather than undergoing it. But if
a sinner exists under punishment, he is certainly not
dead to the law, or delivered from it, as is the expression,
ver. 6, but the dominion and power of the law is exerted
upon him, so long as he is under punishment.

Leaving this, let us look again to this fourth and the
two preceding verses. There, after setting forth the
similitude of marriage (vers. 2, 3), he adds (ver. 4), Ye are
become dead to the /aw — that ye should be married to
anotJier. It is death that dissolves the first marriage,
and leaves one at liberty to make a second marriage.
The believer is dead to the law, in order to be married
to another. Can any one doubt that the first husband
here is the law ?

Mr Alexander's thought had been much more con-
gruous and just, if he had considered sin as the
adulterer, and the wife as incurring the guilt and infamy
of an adulteress, by complying with him, to the dis-
honour and injury of the husband to whom God had
joined her. But how came these parties to be joined and
bound together, sin and the sinner? We have that in
the author's paraphrase above cited : " To whom {viz.
sin) the law hath bound you, as to the husband of your
choice." This, truly, is telling an odd tale of the law.
The dominion which sin hath in a sinner we know that
the law cannot break or subdue, or set him free from it.
That is what the apostle asserts and proves in this
context. But the sinner having made such a vile
choice, as of sin for a husband, that the law should
bind them together, so that nothing but death should
part them, — that till then the wife (the sinner) should be
obliged tolove, honour, and obey this husband (sin), as
all these are due from a wife to her husband, and that in
opposition to the authority, right, and holiness of the
law itself; — is a very strange way of thinking and
interpreting.

Ver. 4] of romaxs vn. 151

What, then, is the death that dissolves this marriage
with sin ? This he gives in these words of the para-
phrase before mentioned : " For which reason you have
been crucified with Christ, that the body of sin, which
was the former husband, being destroyed, you might be
freed from those fatal engagements, and be joined to him
who is risen from the dead." So, according to him, it is
the death of the husband (that is, of sin) that dissolves
this first marriage. But what occasion, then, did the
apostle's subject, or argument, give him to mention
those who held the place of the wife, being made dead
to the law, in order to be married to another? I do not
see that he does, or can give, an account of this. There
is enough of this interpretation, of which one might
think there needed no other confutation than to repre-
sent it. As to some errors in doctrinal sentiment, that
are more than hinted in this writer's comment on this
verse, this is not a proper place to consider them.

PARAPHRASE. — 4. So accordingly it hath happened
to you, my brethren, as to your condition and state.
You have, indeed, been married to the law by the first
covenant, according to which, that husband, in con-
sequence of your dutiful obedience to his will, was
to protect you, and to secure your standing before God,
and to make you fruitful in all holiness: and happy for
ever. At the same time, from the sentiments that were
naturally in your minds, and the principles that naturally
prevailed in your hearts, your desire was to that husband,
your dependence was on him for justification and pro-
tection, and for fruitfulness ; and this, when, for your
undutifulness and disobedience to him, you had the most
fearful things to expect from him, when, through the
weakness yourselves had incurred, ye were become
incapable of fruitfulness by his instructions or authority.
But now there is a happy change in your condition.
You are made free from that marriage covenant, and
from your relation to the law as a husband. The law
itself (Gal. ii. 19) hath had its subservience in bringing
this about on your part, by convincing you of the sad
things you had to expect from it, and that as a husband

152 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. $

it could not help your wretched state ; so that you were
determined to betake you to the better hope which the
gospel set before you, even Christ crucified ; and by the
crucifixion of the body of Christ it is, that the demands
of the law being satisfied, he hath acquired you to
himself. So that, by your fellowship with him in his
death, having died with him, you became dead to the
law, so far as concerns marriage therewith, and its con-
sequences ; and you having risen together with Christ,
are married to him, and through faith your desire is to-
wards him, your dependence is on him, as your most
loving husband, — who, by his resurrection from the
dead, and its glorious consequences, is capable, as to
secure your favourable standing before God, so to
dispose and enable you to bring forth fruit unto holi-
ness and righteousness in the service of God, and to his
glory, and to make you eternally happy with himself.
These ends and purposes, once you became sinners,
could not be attained by your marriage with the law.

Text. — 5. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins
which were by the law, did work in our members to bring
forth fruit unto death.

EXPLICATION. — We shall now have occasion to ob-
serve and explain the effects of the law, and of sin by
the law, in those who" are under the law, and married
to it, in so far as concerns the fruit they bring forth ;
and shall have occasion, at the same time, to observe
and explain what are the consequences of being married
to Christ, so far as is mentioned in this context.

It will tend much to clear our way as to these matters,
that we, in the first place, explain what is meant by flesh,
fleshly, or carnal, and being in the flesh, mentioned in
this ver. 5.

The use ' of these words is somewhat various in
scripture. When they appear to have a moral
signification, they have commonly one or other of
these meanings.

Ver. 5] of ROMANS vii. 153

1. The epithet and character of carnal or fleshly is
given to the Mosaic ordinances or institutions. The
epistle to the Hebrews calls the ceremonial law, the law of
a carnal commandment (Heb. vii. 16); and by purifying

of the fleshy or a fleshly purifying, appears to mean an
external ceremonial purification (Heb. ix. 13). In these
ordinances there was much external labour, and great
variety of external observances ; and the Levitical insti-
tutions and worship had in them great external ceremony,
stateliness, and pomp, which suits the disposition of the
flesh, and hath been ever, and continues to be, most
agreeable to men that are carnal, whose hearts are not
sufficiently well disposed for spiritual worship. Hence,
it hath happened, that a prevailing carnal disposition,
which increased as men's relish of spiritual worship
decreased, hath introduced into the Christian church
and worship much external ceremony, pageantry, and
pomp. Many, in latter times, have complained, that
the reformed churches have made divine worship too
naked, simple, and unadorned. The great men of the
world seem to think as if there ought to be that
stateliness in the house of God that becomes their own
courts and attendance; and carnal men are commonly
of the same disposition and way of thinking. But as
we think it most right and safe that the Lord should
not have occasion to say of anything in our worship,
It is what I commanded not, neither came it into my mind
(Jer. vii. 31); so we reckon, that external plainness and
simplicity is, in its own nature, most suited to the
worship of God, who is a Spirit, and desires to be
worshipped in spirit and in truth ; and most suited to
the more spiritual gospel dispensation.

It is agreeable to the notion which scripture gives us,
to call the Old Testament state of the church, its state
of childhood, or nonage ; and the Lord condescended
to the weakness of his church in that its childhood, in
appointing ordinances suited to it. As in the case of
the Corinthians, the apostle doth, to the notion of their
being babes, join that of being carnal, so to the childhood
of the church the Lord accommodated carnal ordinance-.

154 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 5

But then there is a great difference between being, in
some sort and degree, carnal, and being in the flesh,
which is the expression here (ver. 5). The former is
said of the Corinthians who were in Christ, and saints
(1 Cor. iii. 1, 3), and who could not be said to be in the
flesh. They indeed are said to be carnal, for the carnal
lusts, passions, and divisions that prevailed among them.
But though the Old Testament ordinances are called
carnal, I do not see that even carnal or fleshly is given
as the character of the Old Testament church, or of
men as members of it. But to be in the flesh, can by
no means be understood as their character ; as will
appear by explaining that expression hereafter.

Yet some learned men, who understood the apostle
as reasoning here concerning the Mosaic law, and the
abolition of it, endeavour to bring about this of being
in the flesh, to be the character and state of the Old
Testament church and its members ; and for this do
found, in some sort, on the character of carnal given to
the Mosaic ordinances. Dr Whitby attempts this ; but
somewhat awkwardly. His. paraphrase gives the fifth
verse thus : " For when we were in the flesh {i.e. when
we lived under the carnal ordinances, without the assist-
ance of the Spirit), the lustings of sin," &c. But by
what warrant, or for what reason, would he connect
these things, to be under the Old Testament ordinances,
and to be without the assistance of the Spirit ? The
Doctor himself is not satisfied with this ; and he corrects
it, for a good reason mentioned in his note. " I judge,"
saith he, "that when we were in the flesh here doth not
only signify to be under the carnal ordinances of the
law, for so were all the pious Israelites, from Moses to
the gospel times." — If, say I, true Israelites, Israelites
indeed, were pious, free from the dominion of sin, and
holy men, as there were many such under the Mosaic
ordinances, carnal as these ordinances were, then surely
the abolition of these ordinances and of the Mosaic
law, was not necessary, in order to free men from the
dominion of sin, and of carnal lusts.

The Doctor goes on : " But more especially relates to

Ver. 5] of Romans vii. 155

them who, living under these ordinances, were them-
selves carnal, and without any assistance of the Holy
Spirit — And if of such only we understand the apostle's
following discourse in this chapter, the sense will be
clear." But in that way the sense will be far from being
clear ; yea, the apostle's argument will be quite per-
plexed and unintelligible. The Doctor, and several
other learned men, make the design of the apostle's
argument to be the abolition of the Mosaic ordinances,
making the church free from the obligation of that law ;
and to give reasons for it But what subservience will
this ver. 5 have, according to this interpretation, to that
scope and purpose? As there were many pious Israelites,
hohr men, having the assistance of the Spirit, so there
were many who were carnal themselves, and had not
the assistance of the Spirit. But what doth this say for
the abolition of the Mosaic ordinances, more than it
would for the abolition of gospel ordinances, that there
are now under these many who are carnal themselves,
and have no prevailing assistance of the Holy Spirit?

Dr Doddridge's paraphrase gives it thus: " When zve
zee re in the fleshy that is, under the comparatively carnal
dispensation of Moses, a variety of sinful passions," &c.
If the character of comparatively carnal, should be allowed
to be given to the Mosaic dispensation, yet that makes
no good reason for holding, that men for being under it
were IX the flesh, or that these mean the same thing, to
be in the flesh, and to be under the comparatively carnal
Mosaic dispensation ; as will fully appear in explaining
a little hereafter what it is to be in the flesh. The
worthy writer certainly did not reach the true meaning
of this place.

2. The flesh is sometimes mentioned with respect to
men's false confidences before God, and the grounds
thereof. So of the true circumcision it is said (Phil, ill
that the\- have no confidence in the flesh. Dr Whitby
paraphrases it, " no confidence in the circumcision of the
flesh." I see no reason he could have for restricting the
matter to circumcision ; since, a little below, the apostle
puts a great deal more in the grounds of this carnal

156 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 5

confidence, particularly his zeal; and that touching the
righteousness wJiicli is in the law, he was blameless. As
he doth (ver. 3) to confidence in the flesh, oppose rejoicing
in Christ Jesus, so (ver. 9), he represents, as the true
ground of a sinner's confidence before God, that righteous-
ness which is by t lie faith of Christ. So, upon the whole,
we may justly reckon, that by carnal confidence, he
means everything different from this righteousness by
the faith of Christ, upon which carnal self-deceiving
hearts may found their confidence, such as external
privileges and advantages, and men's own righteousness,
which tends to self-exaltation, and so is agreeable to the
temper and disposition of carnal hearts. As to the
evangelical grounds of confidence, these are the things
of the Spirit ; and so it is the illumination and influence
of the Spirit that prevail with our hearts, and effectually
direct us to found upon them ; according to Gal. v. 5,
We through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness
by faith. Every confidence different from this is what
natural principles, and the self-exalting disposition of
the heart, lead men to. As the flesh draws a quite
different and opposite way from the Spirit, in what
concerns purity and holiness, so it doth also in what
concerns men's confidence, and the grounds thereof.

How far fleshly, or carnal confidence, is concerned in
the subject of our context, we may see hereafter. But
certainly it is not in view in this fifth verse, where being
in the flesh is mentioned in view to the motions of sin,
and bringing forth fruit unto death.

3. Most commonly the flesh (used in a moral sense)
signifies the corruption of nature, the evil principle of
sin in men ; or human nature as corrupted by sin. The
word flesh may have been transferred to this use and
meaning, from a view to the body, and the excitement
it gives to various evil affections and lusts, which are
accomplished and gratified by the body. It was in this
part that the moral depravation of nature was most
obvious, striking, and sensible ; which might have
occasioned the corruption of nature in general to be
called the flesh. But it would make odd work in

Ver. 5] of Romans vii. 157

language and interpretation, to confine the meanings of
words to what they would import by their derivation
and original meaning. The sense of words is to be
determined by the use of speech, and the meaning of
scripture-words is to be determined by the scripture-use
especially.

If we observe the scripture-use, we shall find the flesh,
and the lust of the flesh in a more restricted sense. So
1 John ii. 16, the lust of the flesh means that sort of lust,
in particular, which receives its excitement from the body,
is accomplished by, and brings special defilement and
dishonour on, the body. But the ill moral meaning of
the flesh is not to be restricted to this. In 2 Cor. vii. I,
if there arefllthinesses of the flesh, there are also filthinesses
of the spirit ; and the Lord doth (John viii. 44) mention
to the Jews the lusts of their father the devil. But there
is in scripture mention of the flesh in so large a sense, as
to comprehend filthinesses of the flesh and of the spirit ;
yea, all sinful lusts, and corrupt unholy affections what-
soever. In this large sense of the word is flesh mentioned
(Gal. v. 19, 20, 21), where we have a numerous list of
these called works of the flesh, some of which, it is plain,
have place in creatures that have no body, no connection
with flesh in their personal constitution.

But what is it to be IN the flesh ? We have several
similar expressions in our own language. A man is said
to be in good humour, when good humour is prevalent in
him ; to be in wrath, or in anger, when wrath or anger is
prevalent in him ; to be in drink, when the influence and
effect of drink is prevalent. This would lead us to think,
that to be in the flesh, signifies to be under the prevalent
influence and power of that corrupt principle or deprava-
tion, which, we have seen, the scripture means by the
flesh.

The apostle Paul directs us, in a very clear manner,
to understand the expression thus : He mentions (chap,
viii. 5), being after the flesh, which is certainly the same
as to be in the flesh (ver. 8), where he says, They who
are in the flesh eannot please God. Will any say, that
Israelites of old, for being under the carnal ordinances

158 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 5

of the Mosaic law, were in the flesh, and so cruld not
please God ? As none will say this, it is plain that the
apostle cannot here mean the Mosaic law, or the state of
men under it. He helps us to understand fully what he
means by being in the flesh, by what he states in opposi-
tion to it (ver. 9), Ye are ?wt in the flesh, but in the Spirit,
if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now, if any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of J lis.

Here it is evident, that -being in the Spirit doth not
signify merely having a temper and disposition conformed
to Christ, and suitable to the spirituality of the gospel.
It imports to have the Spirit of Christ, — the Spirit of
him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwelling in a
man, as ver. 10, even that same Spirit by whom (as in
that same ver. 10), God shall quicken the mortal bodies
at the resurrection : which doth not dwell in any that arc
under the curse of the law, or in any but those he hath
brought unto union with Christ, who are born of the
Spirit, and so are renewed in the habitual and prevailing
temper and disposition of their hearts. It is clear, in
the apostle's words, that it is by that Spirit, and by his
operation and influence in men, that they come out of
their carnal state, and from being in the flesh. Being in
the Spirit, and having the Spirit of Christ, upon the one
hand, and being in the flesh, destitute of the Spirit on the
other, are the characters and states of men that are
contradistinguished. As the Spirit cometh not by the
law, they that are under the law, being without the
Spirit, must be in the flesh ; and they who, having the
Spirit, are led by him (Gal. v. 18) are not under the law,
as is there said. By being in the flesh, is certainly meant
a character and state commensurate to being under the
law. This evidently suits the apostle's scope, and his
view of explaining these words (chap. vi. 14), Sin shall
not have dominion over you, for ye are not under the law.
But what concerns the Mosaic ritual and ceremonial law
hath in this, none -of the learned, who suppose it to be
here meant, have been able to explain to the satisfaction
of any, who are not disposed to take things from them
implicitly.

Ver. 5] of ROMANS vii. 159

Let us now look to Mr Locke's interpretation of being
in the flesh. His paraphrase gives it thus: "When we
were after so fleshly a manner under the law, as not to
comprehend the spiritual meaning of it — our sinful lusts/'
&c. But the apostle is speaking in general of being
under the law, and married to it ; not of being under it
in a particulary7^///r manner. Indeed, in the latter times
of the Old Testament, the Jews did become generally
ignorant of the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic law. But
the true seed of Abraham, the truly faithful, in all times
of the Old Testament, were not so. Yea, in that very
evil time of the Jewish church, when the Son of God
came in the flesh, there were such as Zacharias, Simeon,
Anna, and many others, who waited earnestly for the
consolation of Israel (Luke ii. 25^, and those who looked
for redemption in Jerusalem 'ver. 5S], who ccrtainly
understood much of the spiritual meaning of the Mosaic
law and institutions. It appears, then, that being under
the Mosaic law did not of itself disable men to under-
stand the spiritual meaning of it. So there is nothing
here, according to this interpretation, that can be con-
nected with the general purpose, as this writer understands
it, of the necessary abolition of the Mosaic law.

The same writer says in his note : " The understanding
and observance of the law in a bare literal sense, without
looking any farther for a more spiritual intention in it,
St Paul calls being in the flesh." But it has been here
proven that that is not Paul's meaning. In the latter
part of that same paragraph, he doth, with respect to
the ritual law, refer to Heb. ix. 9, 10, and adds, " Which
whilst they lived in the observance of, they were in the
flesh. That part of the Mosaic law was wholly about
fleshly things (Col. ii. 14-23 , was sealed in the flesh, and
proposed no other than temporal fleshly rewards." But
if that part of the Mosaic iaw employed men outwardly
about fleshly things, were they not, at the same time,
shadows of good things to eome ? (Heb. x. 1.) Did not
the Mosaic sacrificial service assure them of a future real
expiation of sin, — yea, foreshadow heavenly and eternal
blessedness? The enlightened holy persons, who under-

l6o EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. $

stood in some good degree the spiritual meaning and
intention of the law (as there were such in every part of
the Mosaic period), were they indeed in the flesh, accord-
ing to the meaning of the context under consideration ?
This learned writer makes great show of his method of
studying, and, the rules he observed in interpreting the
parts of Scripture he wrote upon ; but we may observe,
on divers occasions, that these rules were better observed
by former writers, whom he does not mean to advance
in the esteem of his readers. If he meant to interpret
Paul by Paul himself (which is one principal rule he
frequently mentions), he had not far to go, in this same
discourse of his, to find the apostle (chap. viii. 5, 8, 9)
interpreting very clearly what he meant by that ex-
pression, being in the flesh, as hath been shown here
above.

As these things are so clear, I cannot but wonder
that Dr Hammond should thus paraphrase this fifth
verse: "This (viz. to bring forth fruit unto God, ver. 4)
while we lived under the pedagogy of the law, was not
done by us — For while we were under these carnal
ordinances, though all sinful practices were forbidden by
that law — yet our sinful desires and affections — that law
had not power to subdue."

Some men write as if being under the pedagogy of the
law, and being under the law in the sense of our context
(in that sense in which they who are under the law are
under the dominion of sin, chap. vi. 14) were the same
thing, which is very wrong. The true church of God.
the heir (Gal. iv. 1, 3), whilst a child, was under that
dispensation and pedagogy. But we must not say, they
were in the flesh, in the sense the apostle here evidently
means, and wholly destitute of the Spirit ; or that there
were so many holy men in these times, without the
sanctifying grace of the Spirit. Some men do not allow
the Spirit his proper work, in sanctifying men under the
New Testament dispensation. It would sometimes seem
as if they thought that, under the Old Testament, men
pleased God, and became good men, without the Spirit
altogether. This needs be the less wondered at, that

Ver. 5] OF ROMANS VII. 161

they suppose that heathens may please God with their
virtue, without any revelation of the law or gospel, or of
the promise of the Spirit. But the scripture gives another
view of things. If under the gospel dispensation men
are destitute of the Spirit, as very many appear to be,
they are in the flesh ; and men under , the Mosaic
pedagogy, who proved by their disposition and practice
that they had the Spirit of God dwelling in them, they
were not in the flesh, nor under the law, as laiv is meant
in this context, but, as to the real state of their souls,
under grace, and in favour with God ; though still, as
hath been said formerly, allowance is to be made of
greater abundance of the Spirit, and of spiritual blessings
in the period that hath succeeded the actual propitiation
by the blood of the cross, and the actual resurrection and
ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ. What a strange
interpretation, then, is this of Dr Hammond ! Did not
believers anciently, the true seed of faithful Abraham,
did not the heir, though a child, yet being truly a child
and heir, bring forth fruit unto God? If the law did
not subdue sinful desires and affections then, neither is
it the law (to the authority and obligation of which men
are still subject) that doth now subdue and mortify these
desires and affections.

By what hath been said, it is evident that to be in the
flesh, and destitute of the Spirit, is not to be connected
with being under the Mosaic legal pedagogy ; but with
being wider the law, in that sense in which all men are
naturally so, until they become dead to the law by virtue
of the cross of Christ, and by being united to him by
true faith.

The expression that falls next to be considered is, the
motions of sins which are by the law. The Greek word
7ra0?}/xaTa signifies more precisely passions, or affections,
as the English margin gives it ; and the affections of sins,
a Hebraism, is the same as sinful affections, or lustings.
These are naturally in men, but they are considered
here as put in motion, or excited ; and this by occasion
of the law. Mr Locke's paraphrase hath it, "That
remained in us under the law ; " and he brings some

1 62 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. $

instances in which 8id is so used. Our rendering BY the
law, which is according to the most common meaning
of that preposition, he says in his note, " is a very
literal translation of the words ; but leads the reader
quite away from the apostle's sense, and is fain to be
supported by interpreters that so understand it, by say-
ing, that the law excited men to sin by forbidding it.
A strange imputation on the law of God." But this is
said without any good reason.

It is just to say, that the precept, prohibition, and
fearful threatening of the law, do, instead of subduing
sinful affections in an unrenewed heart, but irritate them,
and occasion their excitement and more violent motion.
Nor is this a strange imputation on the law of God,
which is not the proper cause of these motions. These
are to be ascribed to the corruption of men's hearts,
which the apostle insinuates, when he ascribes these
sinful motions by the law to men in the flesh. The true
state of the case between the flesh, or the evil principle
of sin, and the law, is, that the flesh or sin worketh
death in a man by that which is good, as is represented
here (ver. 13). The matter has been often illustrated
by the similitude of the sun, by whose light and heat
roses and flowers display their fine colours, and emit
their fragrant smell ; whereas by its heat, the dung-hill
emits its unsavoury steams and ill smell. These various
and opposite effects are from the different objects, and
their different natures. So the law, which to a sanctified
heart is a mean of holy practice, doth, in those who are
in the flesh, occasion the more vehement motions of sin-
ful affections and lustings, not from any proper causality
of the law, but from the energy of the sinful principles
that are in men's hearts and nature. There was great
wrath and sinful passion in Jeroboam, by the reproof of
the prophet (1 Kings xiii. 4). This was not to be
imputed to the prophet, but to Jeroboam, a man in the
flesh. In David, a man of very different character,
Nathan's very sharp reproof had no such effect. If the
apostle meant here (ver. 5) only motions of sins under
the law, this would give him no occasion to vindicate

Ver. 5] of Romans VII. 163

the law, as he does (ver. 7), Is the law sin ? God forbid.
Dr Whitby, in answering Mr Locke concerning this
point in his note, says, " Is this any more an imputation
upon the law of God, than it is an imputation on his
providence, that it provides the corn and wine, which
carnal men abuse to drunkenness and excess?"

Mr John Alexander's late commentary before men-
tioned, says on this verse," To ascribe the motions of sin
directly to the law of God as their origin, is not more
impious than it is nonsensical." (It is not to the law,
but to the flesh, that interpreters ascribe sinful motions
as to their origin.) He goes on : " And to account for
this afterwards by the proneness there is in man to
break through the restraint of a law, merely because it
is a law, and something commanded, is, to say the least,
highly ridiculous." (Not merely because it is a law, but
because it commands what the corrupt heart is averse
to, and prohibits what the corrupt heart loves.) In his
next paragraph he says, " To ascribe the existence of sin
to the law of God inciting and irritating it, must be
quite out of the question — I do not say with an inspired
writer, but with any writer of common sense." But
none ascribe the existence of sin to any influence of the
law of God. It exists as an evil principle in the corrupt
nature of man, and exerts itself in sinful affections and
lustings by occasion of the command, prohibition, and
threatening of the law. I do not think there needs any
more answer to this writer than hath been already
suggested. The young man's heat put forth strong
words (impious, nonsensical, highly ridiculous, and con-
trary to common sense). But when he was so warm for
the honour of the law, would he not have been in great
commotion if he had heard a man say, even of the
gospel itself, that to some (2 Cor. ii. 16) it was the
savour of death unto death ?

For the last clause of this verse, — did work in our
members to bring fortli fruit unto death, Dr Doddridge's
paraphrase hath thus — " were active in our members to
produce visible sinful actions." So indeed they do, very
commonly, in men who are in the flesh. Yet I do not

1 64 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

see that the Greek words suggest anything about visible
external actions. One sense, and indeed the primary
sense, of the verb ^epyetv, is, intus efficere, to effect inwardly.
According to this, one sense given by Erasmus and
Vatablus (in Poole's Synopsis) is sea'eto age bant ; nam
occulta vis (so is added there), dzcitur, hepyeia, velut in
semine, et vis mentis in komine — acted secretly ; for a
hidden power is meant by the Greek word, such as is in
the seeds of things, or in the human mind. The inter-
pretation our Lord gives of the seventh commandment
(Matt. v. 28) proves that sinful lusts may be very
effectual, bringing forth fruit unto death, when there is
no outward or visible action. A particular reason for my
taking notice of this here may appear hereafter.

Paraphrase. — 5. So far were we, whilst under the
law, from bringing forth fruit unto God, that, being then
in the flesh, in our corrupt and unregenerate state, under
the dominion of sin, — our sinful affections or lusts,
awakened by the prohibition and threatening of the law,
did work in all our faculties and powers such unholy
fiuit as tendeth to death; and, if grace prevented not,
would certainly terminate in death ; the law, with
all its strict prohibitions and fearful denunciations,
being weak, through the prevailing power of the flesh,
and not able to subdue these sinful affections and
lustings in us.

Text.— 6. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead
wherein we were held, that we should serve in newness of
spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.

EXPLICATION. — The expression (ver. 4) was dead to
the law — here it is, delivered from the law. The sense in
general is the same. But there is some question about
the right reading of the next clause, — That or it (viz. the
law) being dead wherein we were held. If we take it not
thus, there will be this seeming inconvenience or impro-
priety,— that, though in setting forth the similitude he
had mentioned — marriage to be dissolved by the death

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VII. 165

of the husband, without any mention of the death of the
wife, — yet there is nothing of the death of the husband
(the law) in the application of the similitude to his
subject. This seeming impropriety is avoided by our
reading, which is supported, as some of the learned relate,
by one ancient copy (that of Vienna) and by the authority
of Chrysostom ; and thus later writers do commonly
take it. There is besides a suitableness in the expression
to that of ver. 2, which tends to favour our reading.
There, setting forth the similitude, he says, If the husband
be dead she is loosed (k ar i)py,)T at) from the law of her
husband. So here (ver. 6), where, according to our reading,
there is mention of the death of the law, the expression
is (K<xTiipy>]OiifjLev/} we are loosed or delivered from the
law.

The other reading, the English gives on the margin :
we being dead to that wherein or whereby we were held,
— and so the matter is expressed (ver. 4), Ye also are
become dead to the law* This is the reading of the ancient
MSS. generally, according to which several ancient
translations render ; and so the text is cited generally
by the ancient writers of the church. It is not easy to
find arguments sufficient against a reading so well sup-
ported ; though, at the same time, after saying so much
about it, it makes no odds as to the main subject and
argument.

Concerning serving in newness of spirit, and. not in the
oldness of the letter. — The last part of the verse comes
now to be considered, — That we should serve in newness
of spirit and not in the oldness of the letter. It is plain
the apostle hath in his view the difference in practice of
those who were under the law and married to it, and of
those who are disengaged from that first marriage, and
married to Christ. He had represented (ver. 4) the

* On KaTapydv, see note on Rom. vi. 6. It means here literally
"we were paralysed," an absolute end has been put to our relations
with the law. — The reading d-oduvovTos, which Mr Fraser seems
to prefer, and which was accepted by the translators ofthe A.V., has
no MS. support ; all the ancient MSS., as he allows, giving
uTTodavovres.

1 66 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 6

consequence of being dead to the law, to be, to bring
forth fruit unto God. Here he so varies the expression
as to give the hint of the particular sort and manner of
fruitfulness ; — it is to serve God in newness of spirit. But
as to these who are married to the law, shall we say, —
they had no religion at all — no design to bring forth fruit
unto God, or to serve him ? this is not to be thought, yea,
were scarce consistent with being married to the law.
But they served in the oldness of the letter. When was it
then, that men served in the oldness of the letter? In the
general, according to the opposition here stated, it was
when they were not delivered from the law — when they
were under the law and in the flesh — as we have seen
these things conjoined. As the flesh hath its impurity
and wickedness, it hath its religion too ; but this is not
to be connected with the Old Testament dispensation,
as peculiar to it. If many were carnal in religion under
that dispensation, many are likewise now carnally
religious under the New Testament dispensation.

It will make matters the more clear respecting this
sort of religion, called here, serving in the oldness of the
letter, that first we understand what it is to serve in new-
ness of spirit. It is, in general, to serve God sincerely
from such principles, dispositions, and views, as the
Spirit of God gives to hearts renewed by him, and
under his influence. More particularly, it is to serve
God with faith and love ; with thankfulness ; with
entire submission and resignation ; with supreme pur-
pose to honour and please God ; submitting every
desire and interest to the chief end of the advancement
of his glory ; with a sincere purpose and course of
uniform, universal, and cheerful obedience, joined with
a true hatred and fear of sin. This new way of serving
God hath in it spirituality of desire and affection, raised
above the earth and earthly views ; purity of aim and
intention ; a most self-abasing humility, and self-denial,
that suppresses the carnality of self-confidence, with
respect to our righteousness or strength ; and founds a
solid confidence on Christ only, for both righteousness
and strength, which is the sort of confidence the Holy

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS VII. 167

Spirit directs to, and which he inspires into all that are
taught by him, and under his influence.

As this new way of serving hath for its principle in
the heart the prevailing love of God ; so there is joined
with that love, and flowing from it, the true love of
man ; by which, besides that special brotherly kindness
which Christians owe to one another, the heart is turned
to a sincere, universal, and fruitful benevolence towards
all men : this love prevailing over these malignant
passions and lusts that are contrary to it, such as selfish-
ness, pride, malice, wrath, envy, revenge, cruelty ; which
are to be ascribed to the flesh. Such is serving in
newness of spirit, by the Spirit of God renewing and
influencing the hearts of men.

Opposite to this is, serving in the old n ess of the letter.
Let us now consider what this is. Some have said,
that this is serving according to the literal expression of
the law, in outward work and service only. But this
doth not define the subject justly. The literal expres-
sion of the law reaches further than to outward work
and service. The law says in plain and literal expres-
sion, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and thy neighbour
as thyself ; and the sincerity of neither is in serving
according to the oldness of the letter.

For further understanding this subject, it is fit we
have recourse to that place (2 Cor. iii. 6, 7), Who hath
made us able ministers of the uezv testam mtt not of the
letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the
spirit giveth life. But if the ministration of death written
and engraven in stones, was glorious, &c.

Here it strikes at first sight, that when the apostle is
speaking of the letter, the law he hath in view is not the
ceremonial law. It is plain, that by letter he means
the moral law ; as it was it, and it only, that was written
and engraven in stones.

The word (y/>a/z/xa) signifies letter, as we render it, but
is often put for writing ; and seems to be so meant
here, where the discourse is of the law written — in stones.
He hath made us able ministers, not of the writing ; that
is, not of the law written in stones. Wolfius on this

1 68 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 6

place (2 Cor. iii. 16) relates, that some of the learned
would have the word we render letter, rendered simply
law. He adduces some instances to this purpose, and
gives a particular passage of Isocrates, which is to this
sense : That wise rulers should be careful to have the
love of justice implanted in the hearts of their people,
rather than (rots crroas kjXTrnrXavaL ypdfifiaTMv) to have their
public galleries filled with letters, or writings ; that is,
with laws published by writings on their walls. Accord-
ing to this, the apostle's words to the Corinthians (ver. 6)
may be thus understood : God hath made us able
ministers of the new testament, not of the law, which
conveys nothing to the hearts of men, to give it effect,
but of the gospel, which is the ministration of the Spirit.
Let it be next observed, that serving in the oldness of
the writing, or of the law, — that is, in the old manner,
as when under the law, is to be so understood, as to
include nothing in it that proceeds from the special
grace and influence of the Holy Spirit ; for serving God
in newness of spirit, and serving in the oldness of the
letter, are the things that are here (Rom. vii. 6) stated
in opposition.

The consequence is, as the Spirit cometh not by the
law, that serving God in the letter is : — such service as
the law, by its authority, light, and terror, can procure
from one under the law and in the flesh, not having the
Spirit, or his sanctifying grace and influence. It im-
ports such service as the law in the conscience, and the
carnal unregenerate heart, by natural strength, with the
exertion thereof in earnest endeavour, can work out
between them. The authority of the law in the con-
science may procure from one in the flesh and unre-
generate, not having the Spirit, a considerable outward
conformity, without any principle within better than a
selfish, slavish, mercenary, carnal disposition, influenced
by the terrors of the law, and the pride of self-righteous-
ness ; but the law, and the greatest efforts of one under
the law, in the flesh, cannot set the heart right with
regard to the love of God, overcome worldly lusts, or
give truth and sincerity in the inward parts.

Ver. 6] OF ROMANS Vll. 169

If there is in any such persons the semblance of good
affection and devotion towards God, with a serious
design to do well, yet to such we cannot ascribe any-
thing that cometh not but by the special sanctifying in-
fluence of the Holy Spirit. Such indeed may sometimes
bear amiable appearance and character in the world, and
be useful in it. Such, doubtless, was that rich virtuous
young man in the gospel history; which relates that Jesus
loved him ; yet being put to trial, his insincerity soon
appeared. Though Paul asserts of himself before the
Jewish counsel, I have lived in all good conscience before
God until tliis day, yet, whilst he was under the law, he
and his righteousness were not pleasing to God, nor
pleasing to himself, when he came to be better instructed.
The unbelieving Jews had a zeal of God, and followed
after the law of righteousness ; yet their religion was
wholly carnal, there was no true holiness in it. Men may
have their minds well furnished with sublime sentiments
concerning the amiableness of virtue, and with this
abound in external works of righteousness, and be in
condition to recommend the virtuous course, from the
peace and self-approbation men may have in that way ;
and yet all the time their righteousness be essentially
defective, not rising above the oldness of the letter, nor
having at the root of it in the heart the necessary and
essential principles of true holiness. In the meanest
soul, united and truly married to him that rose from the
dead, there is (often with great disadvantage otherwise)
a sincerity of holiness, as to inward principles and
uniform practice, that makes his righteousness to exceed
the righteousness of the scribes.

Mr Alexander, in his note on this verse, says, ''ypd/x/xa,
which we translate the letter, denotes the writing or
contract supposed to be made between sin and sinners."
Well ; marriages are wont to be preceded by contracts.
This is fanciful enough ; but to what hath been said on
this, nothing needs be added.

At the same time, I cannot but somewhat wonder at
Dr Whitby's way of expressing himself. He says (an not.
on Rom. vii. 3), " That Israel was married to the law, or

170 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 6

to him that put them in subjection under it, and were
his spouse (Jer. iii. 14), and so obliged to serve God in
the oldness of the letter." I think it very clear, that
serving in the oldness of the letter, is of very different
kind from that service which men in every state and
time have been obliged to, even after all the allowance
that is to be made of a greater abundance of the Spirit
under the gospel dispensation. But the learned writer
thought it was the Mosaic ceremonial law that the apostle
meant in this context ; a notion which hath been shown
to be quite destitute of foundation. According to this
notion, he seems to have thought, that serving in the old
manner of the letter, or law, was serving God in the
ceremonial service of the Old Testament. But that
service certainly was not incompatible with serving in
spirit, according to the degree of these times. Whereas
here these two ways of service are set forth as opposite
and incompatible ; and it is plain, that serving in new-
ness of spirit here (ver. 6), is the same with bringing
forth fruit unto God (ver. 5).

Let us observe how the Doctor doth in his note on this
verse explain serving in the newness of the spirit. He says,
To serve God in the spirit is, 1. To serve him with a
freedom from the prevalency of the flesh, by virtue of the
Spirit. 2. To serve God, not chiefly with bodily service,
and carnal ordinances, but in the spirit of our mind. 3. To
serve him by the assistance of the Spirit, so as to live
and walk in the Spirit. But did not the Lord require
under the Old Testament, that all these three things
should be in the service of his people ? and did not holy
men indeed so serve him ? I know the Doctor would
acknowledge so. According to him, then, persons under
the Mosaic law were obliged to serve God with all that
he includes in serving in newness of spirit, and were, at
the same time, obliged to serve in the oldness of the
letter ; which doth by no means consist with the apostle's
way of representing things here.

Paraphrase. — 6. But we believers in Christ Jesus
are now delivered from the law, by which we were held
fast, to be dealt with as to life and death absolutely

Ver. 7] OF ROMANS VII. 1 7 1

according to the conformity or nonconformity of our
behaviour to its will and command, though it could not
enable us to bring forth good fruit, or do acceptable
service ; and we are so delivered by its being dead to
us (or, our being made free, as by our own death, from
our relation to it, and from its consequences) ; and this
in order that we, being married to Christ, might serve
God in a new manner, agreeable to the principles and
disposition of souls renewed by his Holy Spirit, and
under his influence ; not according to the old manner of
a carnal religion, produced by a fleshly heart, under the
mere influence of the light, authority, and terror of the
law, which can produce or procure no true holiness or
acceptable service.

Text. — 7. What shall we say, then ? Is the law sin ? God forbid.
Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law ; for I had not
known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet.

Explication. — The expression here in the first clause,
is such as the apostle uses on several occasions, when he
introduces an objection against his doctrine or explica-
tions, as hath been observed on chap. vi. 1. The
objection here seems to be levelled against what he
had said (ver. 5), The motions of sins which were by the
law. — The objection means as if what he said implied
that the law favoured sin, and was the cause of it ; the
absurdity of which were very evident. He rejects that
inference and conclusion with abhorrence ; and brings
an argument to prove that the law does not favour sin,
nor is the cause of it. He shows that the law forbids
sin, and not only prohibits it in the outward practice,
but pursues it in the innermost recesses of the soul, and
directs its strict prohibition, and awful sanction, against
the first motions of it there. It not only forbids the
outward act of unrighteousness and rapine, but speaks
with all its force and authority to the heart, saying,
Thou shalt not covet. It discovers by its light the
secret motions of sin inwardly; reproves and judges

172 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 7

them. Therefore the cause of sinning must be looked
for elsewhere than in the law; and indeed he had
given the hint of the proper source and cause of every
sinful motion by saying (ver. 5), When we were in the
flesh. It was the flesh (the corruption of nature thereby
meant) that was the true cause of sinful motions by
occasion of the law.

These words, Thou shalt not covet, are the general
expression of the tenth commandment ; and the apostle
may mean, that this last of the commandments served
him for a key to all the commandments, to lay open to
him the spirituality of them. Yea, we may suppose the
apostle to be speaking on a more extensive view, than
to design merely the tenth commandment. I had not,
saith he, known EPITHYMIAN, except the law had said,
OUK EPITHYMESEIS ; and ver. 8, Sin wrought in me
PASAN EPITHYMIAN. The English reader, seeing the
words in our common characters, has access to observe,
that what we render by three different words, lust,
covet, concupiscence, ought strictly to be rendered by
one of them, thus : I had not known lust, except the law
had said, Thou shalt not lust ; and, Sin wrought in me
all manner of lust. Now, as the carnal mind is not
subject to the law of God, there is in it lusting in
opposition to every command in particular, and every
commandment is so to be understood as prohibiting the
particular lusting or concupiscence that hath the least
tendency to the prohibited act. This appears by our
Lord's interpretation of the sixth and seventh command-
ments, in Matt. v. ; and the expression in our context
(ver. 8) seems to favour this interpretation. The com-
prehensive expression, all manner of conmpiscence,
includes each particular sort of concupiscence as
directed against each commandment, — not merely the
concupiscence that is a transgression of the tenth
commandment, though the expression of that com-
mandment,' respecting the heart only, might be the
mean leading him to the view of all the commandments
I have been representing.

The apostle doth here give an instance of something

Ver. 7] OF ROMANS vii. 173

which, by the teachers and other Jews of his time, was
generally thought not to be sin. They thought there
was no transgression or sin but in external omission or
commission. Though some Jewish writers since that
time appear to have thought more justly on this point,
yet it was in former times as hath been said. It is
needless to produce quotations from Jewish writers to
this purpose, though some are produced by the learned.
When our Lord, after mentioning (Matt, v.) the sixth
and seventh commandments, adds concerning them
severally, But I say unto you, Whosoever is angry with-
out a cause — Whosoever looketli on a woman to lust after
her (vers. 22, 28), it is plain, it had been needless for him
to have expressed himself in this manner, as in opposition
to others, if there were not those who held that the out-
ward work only was sin, — not the inward affection or
lusting.

But then it is likely that the apostle meant something
more than to say, that it was the prohibition of the law
that showed him this to be sin in its own nature. If he
meant no more than that, he might as well have given
the instance of some outward work, as, Thou sJialt not
steal ; as the sinfulness of any work, outward or inward,
consists in its contrariety to the law. But he seems to
design not only to say, that by the law he knew what
was sin in itself, but that it was the law that showed him
sin in himself that he had not been sensible of. He had
been a Pharisee, and with great zeal and earnest effort
serving in the oldness of the letter, as he understood it.
His mind being biassed by corrupt teaching and
sentiment, he thought himself chargeable with no sin,
until the law struck at his heart within him, as subject
to its authority and direction no less than the outward
man. Then (as if he had said), alas ! how much sin
had continued in power, and at rest within me, un-
reproved, unresisted, under the cover of external
righteousness, and screened with the most full self-
approbation ; until the law entered, and darted its
light into my heart with awful authority, and found
there what proved me a wretched sinner, as it says in

174 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. J

the sense of every commandment, Thou shalt not lust.
Until then he thought all his works were good. Now
he sees all his works, taking into the account the evil
principles, and the concupiscence which, in various forms,
was set at the root of all his works, to be evil. Instead
of keeping all the commandments from his youth up,
he then saw he had truly fulfilled none of them.

Grotius, and after him Dr Hammond, were of opinion,
that in this context the apostle doth but personate others,
and represent their case as if it had been his own ; and
in thus thinking, they, and some others since, do proceed
on a very imaginary supposition, as if the apostle had
used this method to avoid the offence of the Jews, yet
adhering zealously to the Mosaic law ; though it is
indeed, they suppose, the case of these Jews he means.
We do not, however, see that the apostle is so very
artful, or shy of displeasing the Jews, when he is ex-
plaining and defending the truth against them, in
matters wherein their salvation and his own fidelity
were much concerned. If any Jews were to read the
ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters of this epistle, I dare
say themselves would not think that he much feared
their displeasure.

Possibly there was something more than they express
that pinched these learned men. Perhaps they had so
good opinion of Paul's religion before he knew Christ
(for he here speaks of that time), that they could not
think such things as he mentions could be applicable
to him, even when he was in that condition and way.
For if Paul, who, having the advantage of revelation to
direct him, laboured so hard and with zeal of God to be
righteous, even before he knew Christ, had no true holi-
ness, nor was acceptable to God, or in the way of
salvation, — will not this tend to bring very low, on the
one hand, our opinion of the powers of nature and free
will, and our opinion, on the other hand, of the salvation
of virtuous heathens and Mahomedans, who never in this
life come to the knowledge of Christ ? I leave to the
living to explain themselves on this matter when they
please.

Ver. 7] OF ROMANS V1L 175

I see that Dr Doddridge falls in with the notion of the
apostle's personating others even in this first context of
chap. vii. In his note on this text, he says, " The character
assumed here is that of a man first ignorant of the law,
then under it, and sincerely desiring to please God."
Those under the law, as the apostle represents, are
persons in the flesh ; and there are great exceptions to
the sincerity of persons in the flesh, as to desire to
please God. " But finding, to his sorrow (so the Doctor
goes on), the weakness of the motives it suggested, and
the discouragement under which it left him, and, last of
all, with transport discovering the gospel, and gaining
pardon and strength, peace and joy by it." It is the
Mosaic law, and the condition of persons under it, that
the doctor means, as appears fully by his paraphrase
and notes on this context. Now as to that, allowing
still that there is greater degree of light, comfort, and
strength by the gospel and gospel dispensation, yet, I
would ask, did not Abraham — did not his spiritual seed,
the faithful of the Old Testament, under the Mosaic
law, perceive, in the promises made to him and them
(which the law did not annul, Gal. iii. 17), motives very
powerful to engage them to holiness? did they not
receive pardon and strength, peace and joy, by these
promises, by which they were encouraged and supported
in a course of holiness, integrity, and fruitfulness, until,
through faith and patience, they at last actually inherited
the promises ?

The Doctor concludes that paragraph and note thus :
— "But to suppose he speaks all these things of himself,
as the confirmed Christian that he really was when he
wrote this epistle, is not only foreign, but contrary to the
whole scope of this discourse, as well as to what is ex-
pressly asserted (chap. viii. 2)." It is plain, however, that
these things the apostle speaks here of himself in the
past tense; he speaks not of himself as the confirmed
Christian and true believer. But being the confirmed
Christian, when he wrote these things, he had that ex-
perience on both sides, under the law, and under grace;
in the flesh, and in the Spirit; which, on different

176 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. J

occasions he has brought forth, sometimes in the past,
sometimes in the present tense, under the direction of
the Spirit of God, for the benefit and instruction of the
church to the world's end.

Before we leave this verse, there is yet one thing fit to
be observed respecting that question, What sort of
concupiscence or lusting is here meant ? The Papists,
and some others, have held, that the very first motions
of lusting, which spring up spontaneously in the heart,
previous to all deliberation, and that are not entertained or
consented to by the will, are not sin. Concerning this, I see
in the Synopsis on this verse, a passage of James Capel, a
French divine, which is to this purpose and sense. He
speaks here, saith this writer, of that concupiscence
which Paul would not have known but by the law, as
is here said. But Paul could not be ignorant of that
which was known even by the heathens, viz. that a de-
termined purpose of commiting a wicked action is sin,
or that avarice, which is also called concupiscence, is
sin. He must therefore be understood to mean, the
indetermined will of sinning, or the very first motions
of appetite, by which the will is tickled and provoked ;
which, because it is not in our power to prevent them,
many have believed not to be sin, nor had Paul known
them to be sin, if he had not looked more closely into
the meaning of the law. For it is this sort of concu-
piscence that is meant by the prohibition of the tenth
commandment, as the former sort is in the preceding
commands. So that learned Professor of Sedan.

As to these things, it may well be doubted if there is
any so spontaneous and indeliberate motion of concu-
piscence of any sort, that hath not, in some degree, the
consent of the heart and will ; and there is good
appearance of reason for thinking there is something of
will in the very first motions of irregular appetite. And
if the law of God enters, with its proper light and
authority, it will surely find that the very first and
spontaneous motions of irregular desire are contrary to
the purity and rectitude which it requires, are to be
ascribed to the pravity of the heart, and consequently

Ver. 7] OF ROMANS VII. 177

are sinful, and so are comprehended in the sin of which
Paul got the knowledge by the law. But the matter
seems not to be restricted to this. It appears, by what
our Lord says, in interpreting the seventh command-
ment (Matt, v.), that there were those who then held
that inward lusting, however much entertained, was not
sin. There is a further proof of this in that passage of
Josephus, the Jewish historian, mentioned by Dr Whitby
and by others before him, wherein that historian says,
that the sacrilegious purpose of King Antiochus was not
sin, as it was not brought to execution. Some heathens
may have known better than so. But there hath been
sometimes occasion to observe, that a preconceived and
darling opinion or principle hath occasioned men's over-
looking, and even denying, truths very evident in the
scripture, and known by the very heathens. If I
mistake not, we shall see notable instance of this before
we have done with the very next following verse. Paul,
having been brought up in the Pharisaical school, he
might have it to learn, by the entrance of the light and
authority of the law into his conscience, that any
inward lustings, however much entertained, were sin ;
which some of that sect, as Josephus in particular, did
not think to be so.

Paraph rase. — 7. What shall we think then of this
account of our former state, as we stood in relation to
the law, and of my mentioning motions of sins which
were by the law ? Some will say, that this great
absurdity may be justly inferred, that the righteous law
of God doth indeed favour sin, and is a cause of it : but
by no means — I can relate from my experience, that it
was by the law that I received the knowledge and
conviction of sin in every instance. The law forbids it,
and that not only in the outward work, but in the
first appearance of it in the heart, in the secret workings
of irregular desire, and the very first motions of irregular
affections. It is by its prohibition that I came to know
lust inwardly, more or less consented to and entertained,
to be sin, as the tenth commandment says, Thou shall
not covet, and as every commandment implies the pro-

M

178 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8

hibition of every inward lusting in opposition to the
duty commanded, or that hath the remotest tendency
to the outward sinful work forbidden ; and it was by the
law discovering sinful lustings and affections within me,
and directing its sharp reproof and awful threatening
against them, that I, who had been very righteous in my
own eyes, saw first my great sinfulness and very
dangerous condition. It being then the truth of the
matter, that the law is so adverse to sin, surely the
cause of sin, and of sinful passions and lustings in the
heart, is to be looked for elsewhere than in the law.

Text. — 8. But sin taking occasion by the commandment, wrought
in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin
was dead.

Explication. — In the fifth verse there is mention of
the motions of sin which were by the law. Here it is,
Sin taking occasion by the commandment. The one
place explains the other. If there are, as ver. 6, motions
of sin by the law, that is not that the law is the cause
of sin, but, as here, that sin taketh occasion by the
commandment.

The word rendered occasion, Grotius renders impunity, —
sin having impunity by the precept or commandment ;
and he adduces a place of Thucydides, where he thought
the word signifies so. The dictionary mentions no such
meaning ; and Raphelius, cited by Wolfius, shows that
Grotius did mistake the place referred to, where the
word hath no such sense.*

However, Grotius understanding it so in this text,
explains himself by saying, Because to that command-

* The passage in Thucydides, " History," 1, 90, 2, in which the
word in question, a^opjxrj, occurs, refers to " a base of operations "
in a military sense. -In the statement of the apostle before us
here, it undoubtedly means that sin apart from the law has nothing
to work from, wants a starting-point, and that this opportunity or
occasion is furnished by law. See Sanday, " Crit. and Exeg.
Comm. on Romans," 2nd ed., Edin. 1896, p. 179.

Ver. 8] OF ROMANS VII. 179

ment (respecting inward lusting, Thou shalt not c
there was no punishment annexed, as to the commands
forbidding adultery and theft, therefore it was despised.
Dr Hammond, who very commonly follows the other
learned writer, speaks full to the same purpose.

But if the Lord, the Lawgiver of the commonwealth
of Israel, in prescribing to them the punishment they
should inflict on these transgressions of his laws which
should come under their cognizance, did not prescribe
punishment of transgressions which did not come under
their cognizance, such as inward transgressions and im-
purities ; shall we therefore say, that the law of God
allows impunity to inward unholiness and impurity ?
or that the Supreme Judge, who sees men's hearts, is
not to punish it? Dr Whitby brings for one reason
against this interpretation, that it contradicts the words
of the law, which pronounces a curse on every one who
continues not in all things that are written in the law
to do them.

But notwithstanding what Grotius and Dr Hammond
have said of the impunity of inward transgressions, yet
it must be agreed to on all hands, in the general, that
the law denounced punishment for sin. Dr Hammond
makes use of this too for explaining the present subject.
Sin had, or took occasion, or advantage, from this,
according to him, that the law prescribed punishment
without giving the hope of pardon. So sin took occasion
from impunity, and likewise from the apprehension of
punishment. Though he is wrong as to matter of fact
(so I may call it), with respect to the law, on both sides ;
yet on the general and abstract view of the matter, these
things are not inconsistent. For as to them who are
in the flesh, which is the common character of persons
under the lan\ in the sense of this context, if through
the delusion of their mind there is confidence of impunity,
or if there is despair of mercy, sin dominant in such
souls will take occasion, in the one case and the other,
to exert itself, and show its great power and malignity.

By the laiv, it is the law of Moses that these writers
mean. Concerning it, it is needful, before we go farther,

180 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8

to observe a distinction that is proper to be made.
First, the law maybe understood to signify the whole
system of religion in the Mosaic times of the Old
Testament. Dr Hammond expresses it thus (annot on
Matt. v. 17): "In scripture the law signifies sometimes,
yea often, in one general notion, the whole way of
economy among the Jews under the Old Testament
(taken precisely by itself, without opposition to the
reformation wrought by Christ, and that way that men
were put into for their eternal weal), — the Old Testament
course, the religion of the former age, — the whole body
of their religion." 2. The law may be understood, in a
more narrow sense, to mean the system of precepts, or
commandments, statutes, and judgments, which God
gave to Israel by Moses, to be the rule and practice.
Again, as to this last, the law may be understood of
the moral law, which hath been, and continues ever to
be in force, in all times : or it may signify the ceremonial
or ritual law given by Moses, which was peculiar to the
church of Israel, and times of the Old Testament : which
last is most strictly the Mosaic law.

Now, to answer on the question about remission of
sins, according to this distinction ; the case was, that
the preceptory moral law contained nothing about re-
mission of sins ; nor doth it now. The moral law is
still in force, and hath annexed to it the curse and
denunciation of wrath against transgressors ; the conse-
quence of which it is, that he who believeth not the Son.
hath the wrath of God abiding upon him. It cannot be
inferred from this, that there is no remission of sins now.
For remission of sins, and the happy consequences of
it, come not, at this time, by the law, but by grace.
Thus as to the ancient Israel ; if remission of sins came
not by the law, yet they had then the hope of remission,
of acceptance with God, and of blessedness, and that by
grace, and by the promise, which was manifested to
Abraham for himself, and for his spiritual seed, the
faithful ; and which the law afterwards given could not
disannul, as Gal. iii. 17. Now, if in the religion of the
former age, the whole body of the Jewish religion, as

Ver. 8] OF ROMAXS VII. 1S1

Dr Hammond speaks, that is, in the law in the com-
prehensive sense, which is the first sense he gives of the
law, there was ground for the hope of the remission of
sins ; it is not just to say, that sin took occasion by the
law of Moses, as not giving the prospect of pardon ; or
to mention that at all, in interpreting what he takes to
be a reasoning concerning the abrogation of the Mosaic
law; as if that was needful for giving men the prospect
of remission ; and thereby encouraging them to repent-
ance and reformation. It is undeniable, that Israel, under
the Old Testament, were encouraged to repentance by
the promise of forgiveness ; nor is it in this that the
difference consists between the Old and New Testament.
Let us, however, consider more closely how Dr Hammond
expresses himself concerning this matter.

Thus then he writes in his paraphrase of chap. vi. 14,
" It were the vilest thing in the world for sin to have
dominion over you, who are no longer under the weak
unefrlcacious pedagogy of the law (which could only
forbid sin, and denounce judgment, but never yield any
man that hope of mercy, on amendment, which is
necessary to the working reformation on him, or check-
ing any sin that men are tempted to), but under a
kingdom of grace, where there is pardon for sin unto
repentance/'

This passage must be meant of sin in outward practice :
as the writer allowed, with Grotius, that the law allowed
impunity to the inward working of unholy lusts. But
what meant he by the pedagogy of the law? The word
is taken from Gal. iii. 24, The law was our schoolmaster
(TraL&ayuiyus, pedagogue,) to bring us unto Christ. Now, if
the children, the heir, was under tutors or governors
(Gal. iv. 1, 2), or under a pedagogue during the Old
Testament, surely we are not to say, that it was his
condition by this pedagogy, not having the remission of
sin, to be only under judgment and wrath. The apostle
gives us to understand otherwise, but that it was to the
Jewish church a pedagogue to bring them unto Christ ;
except any shall be so absurd as to say, that the Mosaic
law had this tendency and effect only when the gospel

1 82 EXPLICATfON AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 8

was revealed, and the law came to be abolished ; but
that, whilst it subsisted, it had no such effect to those
who were under it.

It is plain, that if in the pedagogy of the law there
was denunciation of judgment, there was also the hope
of mercy through Jesus Christ ; and that the special use
of the law, as a pedagogue, was to lead men to Christ,
that they might be justified through faith. This was
the way in which Abraham was justified, and so he
became the father of all them who believe, particularly
of those who, being of the circumcision, did also walk in
the steps of the faith of their father Abraham (Rom. iv.
12). Certainly the Doctor would not deny that there
were many such under the pedagogy of the law ; so
that it was quite wild for him to say, that the pedagogy
of the law denounced judgment, but gave not the hope
of mercy.

But some men speak of the pedagogy of the law as if
they who were under it had been under a proper and
strict covenant of works, that gave no hope to trans-
gressors. This is very wrong. God did never make
a new promulgation of the law, by revelation, to sinful
men, in order to keep them under mere law, without
setting before them, at the same time, the promise and
grace of the new covenant, by which they might escape
from the wrath which the law denounced. The legal
and evangelical dispensations have been but different
dispensations of the same covenant of grace, and of the
blessings thereof. Though there is now greater degree
of light, consolation, and liberty, yet if Christians are
now under a kingdom of grace where there is pardon
upon repentance, the Lord's people under the Old
Testament were (as to the reality and substance of
things) also under a kingdom of grace.

Terrible as the appearance was at giving the law from
Mount Sinai,, yet when the Lord was to renew the
writing of the law on tables of stone (Exod. xxxiv. 1-9),
he declared his name, and proclaimed, The LORD, the
LORD God, merciful and gracious, &c. There certainly
could be no religion or sincere worship in the Mosaic,

Ver. 8] of Romans vrr. 183

or in any times, without the prospect of forgiveness. So
David understood (Ps. cxxx. 4}, There is forgiveness
with thee that thou may est be feared. With what earnest-
ness and humble confidence did the Psalmist, as often
in his other psalms, so in Ps. li., plead for pardon, even
when his prayer was for the pardon of sins in particular,
for which the Mosaic law had provided no sacrifice, but
had ordered capital punishment ? Which shows, that
in the case of presumptuous sins, for which capital
punishment was ordered — yet, even in such cases, that
the penitent was not precluded from pardon.

Now, if there was under the legal Mosaic dispensation
that grace manifested, that taketh away sin and pardons
it, it is certain there was nothing in the Mosaic institu-
tions to intercept from the Lord's people the comfort of
that grace. Though there was not in the Mosaic sacri-
fices a true expiation, but instead of that a remembrance
kept up of sin, as not yet truly expiated, yet in these
Israel had the assurance and pledge of a true expiation
promised and provided. This was according to the
import of the name which Abraham gave to the mount
on which the temple was afterwards built, JEHOVAH-
JIREH, The Lord will provide himself a lamb for a burnt-
offering Gen. xxii. 14). Such language had all the
sacrificial service in that place, until at length He
appeared, who was to be the true burnt-offering, and the
Baptist marked him out to the people, saying, Behold the
Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world
John i. 29). The virtue of this sacrifice availed to the
Lord's people from the beginning of the world, for the
remission of sin.

But did Dr Hammond indeed think that the Mosaic
legal pedagogy did not yield to men the hope of mercy,
and that it is only now under the gospel dispensation
that men are under a kingdom of grace, in which there
is pardon upon repentance? How should I then under-
stand what he says in the passage quoted above, that
the law, in the most comprehensive sense, signifies that
way that men were put into for their eternal weal — the
religion of the former age ? Could men be put into any

184 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 8

way for their eternal weal, without the remission of sins ?
These things that the learned writer hath, concerning
the Mosaic pedagogy and law, are by no means con-
sistent.

What hath been said, makes it evident that the
advantage which sin hath, to have dominion over men
who are under the law, and to work in them all manner
of concupiscence, is not to be understood of the Mosaic
law ; and that the apostle's reasoning in this context
(Rom. vii. 1-13) proceeds on a quite different view.

What then doth it mean, that sin takes occasion by
the commandment, to work in a man all manner of con-
cupiscence ? The very words as they are expressed show
that the law is in no wise the cause of this ill effect ; but
sin taking occasion by it, even sin reigning in them who
are under the law. Sin, that evil principle that spreads
its influence over all the faculties of the soul, finding the
law entering with great force into the conscience, and as
it were making great efforts there against it, doth there-
upon awaken all its powers ; and instead of submitting
to the prohibition or reproof of the law, or fleeing before
the threatening, it puts every sinful affection in motion
against the commandment. Pareus illustrates the matter
by this similitude : A physician forbids his patient the
use of wine, or other strong drink. The patient, who
perhaps was not thinking of strong drink, does now
eagerly long for it, and calls for it with great impatience.
The proper cause of this is not the advice of the physician,
which is good and right, but the man's own heart under
a sickly disposition.

Concerning this Dr Doddridge says in his note: "It
must surely be acknowledged, that all lust does not
arise from hence (viz. from sin taking occasion by the
commandment), much being previous to all possible
knowledge of God's law, whether revealed or natural."
This will be readily agreed to, that all lust doth not
thence arise, nor does any say that the apostle means
so. But sin, the evil principle or corruption that is in
the heart, previous to all knowledge of God's law (as
the worthy writer says) is ever lusting one way or other,

Ver. 8] OF ROMANS VII. 185

but most remarkably when the law presses hard upon
the conscience.

Mr Alexander says, " In the most corrupted ages of
the world, laws have a natural tendency to lessen the
number and prevalence of crimes." True, as to crimes
outwardly committed. But as the apostle is speaking
here of inward concupiscence, it requires something else
than the laws of men, even than the law of God itself, to
restrain and subdue that.

Of the last clause, without the law sin was dead, there
hath a strange interpretation been given of late. Mr
Locke gives it thus in his paraphrase: "Without the
law (he means the law of Moses) sin is dead, not able to
hurt me." And in his note he says, " Without the law,
which annexes death to transgression, sin is as good as
dead, is not able to have its will of me, and bring death
upon me." But as I am, to the explication and para-
phrase of this verse, to subjoin an essay on the penal
sanction of the law, and his notion concerning it, I say
no more of it here.

In the meantime, what I take to be the true meaning
of this clause I give as follows. The first part of the
verse represents sin as not subdued by the law, but (on
occasion of the law entering with force into the conscience)
exerting itself vehemently against the authority of the
law, in all manner of concupiscence. This, doubtless,
behoved to give the sinner great disturbance of mind,
between the authority of the law pressing hard upon one
side, and the opposite vehement motions of sin on the
other. The apostle seems to mean by the last clause a
very different and opposite case. Whilst the law did not
enter into the man's conscience with its light, authority,
and force, sin was asleep, or even as dead, and gave no
more trouble or uneasiness than a dead ravenous beast,
that he carried, would do. If it had its motions inwardly,
as it certainly had, they were not violent, or much
observed. That they were little observed was in part
from the love of sin, in part from ignorance of the law,
and lastly, from the absence of the law, with regard to
the authority and force of its precept and threatening in

1 86 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 8

the conscience ; so that sin was not ruffled, nor disturbed
by it. In this condition sin was as a strong man keeping
his palace, and having his goods in peace. Yea, what
increases this deadness of sin is, that it is often coloured,
or covered, and as it were screened, under the cover of
some sort of self-righteousness, that keeps it quite out of
view ; yea, perhaps, under the cover of some fine-spun
sublime speculation and theory concerning virtue ; as
there are many who seem to have little of the force of
the law in their conscience, who have a great deal of
virtue in their head. The opposition that appears in
this text, between sin, by occasion of the law, working in
a man all manner of concupiscence on the one hand, and,
on the other, sin dead without the law, gives good reason
for understanding the last clause according to this inter-
pretation.

Paraphrase. — 8. Certainly the law, which prohibits
all sinful motions and affections, is not a proper cause of
these in the hearts of men. I hinted to you the true
cause, when I said (ver. 5), that the vehement prevailing
motions of sins, which are by the law, do happen in
persons who are in the flesh. Take some explication
briefly thus : Sin, or the flesh, that evil principle in
corrupt nature, which is enmity against God and his
authority, and not subject to the law of God ; but being
roused and awakened by the strict prohibition and
fearful threatening of the law ; and not finding, in its
commands or terrors, what would subdue it, and with-
draw the heart from its dominion ; did but take occasion,
from the law, to exert itself in all manner of con-
cupiscence, in a rebellious and vehement opposition to
its authority, and to every precept thereof in particular ;
as the same came to be borne home, and to press hard
upon the conscience ; for without the law thus entering
with authority and force, sin was as asleep, without such
vehement and sensible motion, and, as it were, dead
comparatively, under the cover perhaps of a shining
self-righteousness, or of refined speculation concerning
virtue, with little reality of it.

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW I S;

AN ESSAY

Concerning the penal sanction of the law, in view to the notion
of Mr Locke, and of some others, concerning that subject.

In explaining the 8th verse of Rom. vii. we have seen,
how Mr Locke's paraphrase gives the last clause thus :
" Without the law sin is dead, not able to hurt me." A
reader, who knew that Mr Locke's view of the law in
this place was restricted to the Mosaic promulgation of
it, could not be surprised at such a sentiment. Mr
Locke's notion comes now to be represented and con-
sidered.

It has been the opinion of divers learned men, that the
apostle's reasoning (Rom. vii. I - 1 3 ) respects the Mosaic
ceremonial law. But as there appears nothing particular
in that context that can be understood to have any
respect to the rites and ceremonies of Moses' law,
others of late, still retaining the general notion that it is
the Mosaic law that is meant, have supposed that it is
something peculiar to the Mosaic promulgation of the
moral law that is especially in the apostle's eye ; and
having fallen in with an opinion that hath been first
broached (for aught I know) by Mr Locke, I shall, for
the reader's more full satisfaction concerning their views,
represent his sentiments ; then these of Dr Whitby ;
and thereafter these of Dr Taylor of Norwich, in their
own words ; and then suggest some arguments against
their opinion on the subject.

Mr Locke expresses his mind thus, in his paraphrase
of Rom. v. 13. " There is no certain determined punish-
ment affixed to sin, without a positive law declaring it."
And in his note there, he writes thus : " Sins can never
be taxed, or a rate set upon them, but by the positive
declaration and sanction of the Law-maker. Mankind,
without the positive law of God, knew by the light of
nature, that they transgressed the rule of their nature,
reason, which dictated to them what they ought to do.

1 88 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

But without a positive declaration of God their
Sovereign, they could not tell at what rate God taxed
their trespasses against that rule : till he pronounced
that life should be the price of sin, that could not be
ascertained, and consequently sin could not be brought
to account. And therefore we see, that where there
was no positive law affixing death to sin, men did not
look on death as the wages or retribution for their sins :
they did not account that they paid their lives as a debt
and forfeit for their transgressions."

At first sight, one might readily suppose the author
meant no more, than that men could not know or deter-
mine what is the punishment of sin, except that was
determined by the law itself, or by the declaration of the
Lawgiver otherwise. But it means more when he says,
that sin could not be brought to account. That he so
meant, is very clear and express in what he says in his
note on Rom. v. 14 : " In this verse (saith he) St Paul
proves that all men became mortal by Adam's eating
the forbidden fruit, and by that alone, because no man
can incur a penalty without the sanction of a positive
law declaring and establishing that penalty ; but death
was affixed by no positive law to any sin, but the eating
of the forbidden fruit : and therefore men's dying before
the law of Moses was purely in consequence of Adam's
sin." Here we are to observe, that positive law is not
meant in the ordinary sense ; as positive law is
commonly meant of a law enacted for a time by the
mere will of the Lawgiver, in contradistinction to a law
moral in its own nature and of perpetual obligation. It
is plain, the author, by positive law here, means a law
clearly revealed, and fully promulgated, expressly deter-
mining the punishment of transgression. We see then in
the passage last cited, that Mr Locke held that no man
can incur any penalty without the sanction of a positive
law declaring and establishing that penalty; and that
from giving forth the command concerning the forbidden
fruit, which alone enacted death for the transgressing of
it, death was denounced for no sin till the law given by
Moses : and we have seen, that in his paraphrase of

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 89

Rom. vii. 8, and in his note on it, he said, that without
such law, and previously to the law of Moses, sin could
not hurt a man or bring death upon him.

Thus also he writes in his note on Rom. v. 13 : " This
is plain, that St Paul's notion of a law was conformable
to that given by Moses ; and so he uses the word vo/ios,
in English, lan\ for a positive command of God, with a
sanction of a penalty annexed to it ; of which kind
there never having been any one given to an)- people
but that by Moses to the children of Israel, till the
revelation of the will of God by Jesus Christ to all man-
kind— no penalty," &c. So, according to him, till Moses'
time, no man could incur a penalty for any sin, except
that of eating the forbidden fruit. These things are
exceeding crude. However much the celebrated name
of Mr Locke, or the interest of an hypothesis, may give
to some a bias towards these notions, I must for myself
confess, that it gives me concern to see a man who wrote
so accurately and judiciously on divers subjects, fall into
such absence of thought and reason, as to be capable of
writing at this rate. However, he hath, as to this subject,
had his followers.

According to this notion of Mr Locke's, the Lord
made his chosen people Israel unhappy beyond all
people, by giving them that law, by which, for even-
sin, yea, as he speaks somewhere, for the least slip of
infirmity, they were obnoxious to death, which, by his
sentiments, persons of other nations were not. But he
pretends to prove, that there was no hardship in this to
the Jew, but a privilege; and what cannot be proven by
so great a master in reasoning? In his note on Rom. v.
20, he thus states the matter: "All mankind was in an
irrecoverable state of death by Adam's lapse. It was
plainly the intention of God to remove the Israelites
out of this state (viz. this irrecoverable state of death)
by the law — By the law the children of Israel were put
into a new state — their remaining under death, or their
recovery of life, was to be the consequence, not of what
another had done, but of what themselves did. — In their
former state, common to them with the rest of mankind,

190 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

death was unavoidable to them. But by the law they
had a trial for life. Accordingly, our Saviour to the
young man answers — Keep the commandments." Here,
one might ask, Did the law, in giving them a trial for
life, give them a chance of avoiding death wholly? No;
they were to die at any rate, in consequence of Adam's
sin. But the author means, a chance of continuing
irrecoverably under death or recovering life, according
as they should behave. But was it easy, or even
possible, for an Israelite to keep the law so perfectly,
that he would not, by some deed of his own — some one
transgression, or slip of infirmity, bring death on himself
irrecoverably? If this was neither easy nor possible,
the privilege in the case evanishes quite. Even Dr
Taylor ventures to say, that here Mr Locke has a wild
conceit.

The objection arising from this did not wholly escape
Mr Locke's observation. In his note on Rom. vii. 8 he
writes thus: "Laying aside the figure (viz. sin's being
set forth as a person), the plain meaning here of St Paul
is this : Though the law lays a stricter restraint upon sin
than men have without it, yet it betters not my condition
thereby (may the well - meaning Jew say), because it
enables me not wholly to extirpate sin, and subdue con-
cupiscence, though it hath made every transgression a
mortal crime. So that being no more totally secured
from offending under the law than I was before, I am
under the law exposed to certain death." So our author
supposes a Jew to argue and object; and this objection
he supposes the apostle means to obviate. In his note
on Rom. vii. 13, he says, "In the five foregoing verses,
the apostle had proved that the law was not sin. In
this, and the ten following verses, he proves the law not
to be made death, but that it was given to show the
power of sin which remained in those under the law, so
strong, notwithstanding the law, that it could prevail on
them to transgress. the law, notwithstanding all its pro-
hibition, with the penalty of death annexed to every
transgression. Of what use this showing the power of
sin by the law was, we may see, Gal. iii. 24." The

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 191

words of that text arc, Wherefore the laze was our school-
master to bring us unto Christ, that zee might be justified
by faith. Well, this is a good use and design of the
law. But if Jews did not fall in with this design of the
law, were not actually brought to Christ, or justified by
faith, did not they die irrecoverably, for their own sins,
according to the sanction of their own law, which men
of other nations were not under? It showed the power
of sin, that it prevailed on men to transgress, not-
withstanding the threatening of death. But still it is
not proven that the law did not give death to the
transgressing Jews, or that they were not, by being
under such a law, in worse condition than men of
other nations, on whom their personal sins could not
bring death, as not being under a law fenced with such
a sanction. They indeed, by wanting such a law,
wanted the schoolmaster to bring them to Christ that
the Jews had. But at the same time, according to this
writer's notions, they did not so much need Christ for a
Saviour as the Jews did.

I go now to observe how Dr Whitby thought on this
subject. He gives this paraphrase of Rom. v. 13, "For
it must be indeed confessed, that until the taw, sin was
in the world; but it must also be acknowledged, that
sin is not generally then imputed to death, when there is
no laze condemning men to death for it." And in his
annotation, he says, " I add generally, because, though
all men died after Adam, all were not punished with
death for their own personal sins, but only the Ante-
diluvians and the Sodomites." We shall hereafter
observe, that a great many besides these died for their
own sins before the Mosaic promulgation of the law. But
if a whole generation of mankind, except eight persons,
were destroyed by the flood for their own personal sins,
as the scripture asserts (Gen. v.), it shows that all man-
kind were then, before the law of Moses was given, under
a law by which they were obnoxious to death for their
own sins ; and when was that law repealed ?

In the next paragraph Dr Whitby says : "Here also
note, that the apostle cannot be rationally conceived to

192 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

assert, as Mr Locke suggests, that no man can incur a
penalty, without the sanction of a positive law declaring
and establishing that penalty." It seems indeed to be
a strange argument that the Doctor here suggests against
Mr Locke : " For," says he, " this assertion entirely
destroys the obligation of the heathens to perform any
duty, since no man can be obliged to do that which he
may omit without fear of punishment, and renders the
heathens, who had no positive law given them, incapable
of incurring any penalty by any sins they had com-
mitted." This were indeed absurd. Yet doth this
entirely destroy the obligation of the heathens to do
their duty ? Are men indeed under no obligation to
duty, but what arises from the consideration of punish-
ment ? However, as this writer asserts here, that no
man can be obliged to do that which he may omit
without punishment, one might readily think, that such
a writer should necessarily hold, in consequence of such
a sentiment, that nothing could be accounted a law that
had not a sanction prescribing punishment.

Let us, however, observe the Doctor's paraphrase of
Rom. vii. 9, which is precisely thus : " For I the seed of
Abraham was alive ; or, indeed lived without the law once,
before the law was given, I not being obnoxious to
death for that to which the law had not threatened death ;
but when the commandment came, forbidding it under
that penalty, sin revived, and 1 died, i.e. it got strength
to draw me to sin, and to condemn me to death." Here
there is only mention of the seed of Abraham, in the
interval between him and the giving of the law by
Moses. But if they whose sin was aggravated by the
advantage they had of divine revelation in that interval,
were not obnoxious to death for their sins, much less
the heathens, who, as the Doctor says, had no positive
law given them, nor revelation, in that interval, or until
the times of the gospel.

I now observe the Doctor's paraphrase of Rom. v. 14,
which is thus: "Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam
to Moses, the giver of a new law, threatening death to
the transgressors of it, even over them who had not

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 93

sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression; i.e.

men were all the while subject to death, though they
sinned not as Adam did against an express law, threaten-
ing death to them for it, and therefore death must reign
over them for the sin of Adam." We have seen the
Doctor contradicting Mr Locke's notion ; but wherein
does he differ from him, if it is not that Mr Locke says,
a man could not incur punishment ? Dr Whitby says,
a man was not obnoxious to dcatJi, until the law was
given by Moses, for his own personal transgressions, as
no law until then was given to mankind threatening
death. However, if a man was not obnoxious to death,
unless the law he was under did denounce death for
transgression expressly, as Dr Whitby thought, certainly
there is as good reason for saying a man could not incur
punishment unless he was under a positive law denounc-
ing punishment expressly for sin. Upon the whole, it
is evident, though these writers contradict one another,
that they were on the main of the same opinion. Dr
Whitby contradicts Mr Locke's notion, and brings argu-
ments against it ; and yet adopts it when he finds use
for it to explain some texts, without hurting his own
hypothesis and opinion in a matter of doctrine.

Let us now observe the sentiments of Dr Taylor of
Norwich on this subject. The writings of this author
are now in the hands of many ; and with some he bears
the character of a masterly critic. We shall here have
a swatch of his skill in that way, and of the accuracy of
his notions and expression. Dr Taylor held, that Christ
did not undergo the punishment of our sins in order to
redeem us from punishment for our sins, and so to
satisfy the sanction of the law, which denounced punish-
ment and death for transgression. Suitable and helpful
to this doctrine (hitherto held by the Christian church
to be very heretical) is this notion, That a sanction de-
nouncing punishment and death for sin, is not essential
to the law itself; but that the law hath been for mam-
ages without having any such sanction or threatening
annexed to it. There is no cause then to wonder he
should very readily fall in with this notion of Mr Locke's.

N

194 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

This is not the only instance that gives occasion to
say, that Dr Taylor, mounted as it were on the shoulders
of Dr Whitby and Mr Locke, has pretended to see
farther than either of them, and to reject every particular
article, almost even the most essential, of Christian faith
and gospel doctrine.

In the general, he acknowledges that every transgres-
sion of the law doth, in its own nature, and in strict
justice, deserve death. It may seem hard to think that
the other two writers did not think and mean so too. Yet
how could they say, that a man could not incur punish-
ment or death for his sin, but by virtue of a positive law
expressly threatening it ? which amounts to this, that
however men's sins deserved punishment and death, yet
they could not incur it ; or, which is the same thing, God
could not punish, according to their deserts, the sins of
the far greatest part of mankind, to whom such a law, as
hath been mentioned, was not given.

To proceed distinctly, it is fit to represent this writer's
account of the different senses of law. In his note on
Rom. v. 20, he says, " The apostle uses the word law
in various senses; sometimes for a rule in general; some-
times for the whole Jewish code, or the Old Testament ;
sometimes for a rule of action ; sometimes for a rule of
action with the penalty of death annexed, as here (Rom.
v. 20, and chap. vi. 15 ; vii. 4, &c). Such a law Adam
was under (In the day thou eatest thereof, dying thou shalt
die), and such a constitution the law of Moses was, sub-
jecting those who were under it to death for every trans-
gression." In like manner* he says, "By law, the
apostle here (Rom. v. 13, 14) doth not only mean a
rule of duty, but such a rule with the penalty of death
threatened for every transgression of it. Such was the
covenant at Sinai, or the law given by Moses — and such
was the covenant under which Adam originally was." I
wish he had proven this last assertion. The penalty of
death was indeed annexed to one special probatory
precept respecting the forbidden fruit. But I see not in

* " Original Sin," p. 390, ed. 3.

TILE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 95

the history, in the first chapters of Genesis, the mention
or hint of such threatening annexed to the law in general,

or to any other particular precept. So, for aught that is
mentioned there, Adam might, according to this writer's
notions, have transgressed a thousand times, and not be
obnoxious to death, if he had not meddled with the for-
bidden fruit. I would be glad to see how one of his
sentiments would prove Adam to have been under a
covenant or law, making him obnoxious to death for
y transgression, so as not to prove that men in all
times were under such a law.

Lai<\ with ihe penalty of death annexed to the pre-
cept, is what this writer calls rigour of law ; and Adam
having been under such a law, he says it was abolished
upon his fall. So he says,* " That covenant (under which
Adam was) was the covenant of works, the same in
nature with the Sinai covenant. Under this covenant
Adam was when he sinned. But it was disannulled
immediately after that. For even before God passed
sentence upon Adam and Eve, grace was introduced by
that promise (Gen. iii. 15)." According to him, then,
from the time that promise was given, all mankind were
under grace, until the matter was altered, with respect
to the Jews, by the law of Moses. "From Moses to
Christ (saith he) t the Jews were under the law. But the
rest of mankind, though they always had a rule of
action, yet never were under the law, in the sense above
explained." That is, not under a law fenced with a
threatening of death. All mankind, according to him,
have been, from the time of the first promise, under grace.
So, then, by this writer's notion of things, the first
promise (Gen. iii. 15) disarmed the law of its penal
sanction, and disannulled the covenant of works. But
this is a great mistake, and is asserted without any
warrant or good reason. It is true, the law, or covenant
of works, by its tenor could not be a covenant of life to
sinners. Grace showed them a way to escape the wrath
denounced by the law for sin ; and we know by gospel-

Original Sin," p. 389. t "Original Sin," p. 394.

196 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

light, that this was such a way as did not abrogate or
disannul the penal sanction of the law, but satisfied it.
Though man transgressed, and broke the covenant of
works, there is no reason to say, that that covenant was
disannulled, or the law disarmed of its penal sanction.
The case plainly is, grace being manifested, it took effect
from thenceforth, for the salvation of those who laid
hold of it by faith, and improved it for salvation. But
the penal sanction of the law continued in force, takes
effect at all times, and for ever, against the impenitent
and unbelievers.

Law, and the penal sanction being, as he says,
abolished, let us observe some of the consequences.
Dr Taylor hath as follows:* "When he says (Rom. v.
13), But sin is not imputed when there is no law, or, when
law is not in being, he means the sins of those persons
(from Adam to Moses) were not imputed to them, so as
to subject them to death, because law, which subjects
transgressors to death, was not in being. Take good
notice " (pray do, reader, for it is a notable sentiment
that now comes forth), " according to the apostle, and the
true nature of things, it is only law which slays the
sinner. For did not the law, or the constitution of the
Lawgiver, condemn him unto death, he might, notwith-
standing his sin, live for ever, for he might from time to
time be pardoned."

Here are rare things. Pardon imports remitting the
punishment which the sinner is obnoxious to, and obliged
to undergo ; and must be so understood in this passage,
where pardon is mentioned as that by which the sinner
might live for ever, and be saved from dying. But what
need of pardon to save a man from death, who is not for
his sins obnoxious to it, and is not under a law con-
demning him to death for his sin ? I would likewise ask,
if a man was under a law condemning him to death for
sin, might not a pardon relieve him, and save him from
it? Old Luther and Calvin, who were in use to call
things by. their proper names, would have called the

* " Original Sin," p. 393.

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 97

author of such a passage, nehilo. However, according
to this author, from Adam to Moses there was no law
condemning men to death for their sins ; all mankind
were, yea, are now under grace, the grace of the new
covenant ; even pagans, who never heard of grace, or
of the promise, or of Christ, through whom grace is
conveyed to sinners. We know from what source
this notion is derived. But this is not a proper place
to enlarge on that subject. Let us now sec the evidence
Dr Taylor brings, that such law, as he describes, was
introduced among the Jews ; for he is at pains to
prove it. He puts the question,* " What evidence have
we that the law of Moses was law in the rigorous sense,
subjecting to death for every transgression?" I would
not have troubled the author with such a question, or
have asked a proof of what every one knows, and none,
I think, denies. Let us, however, observe how he answers
it, and what proof he brings, " The apostle (saith he-
did — certainly so understand it, as appears by this place
here ; where, having spoken of Adam's one jro/oaxrw/ia,
lapse, or offence, he tells us, that the law entered that
the lapse or offence might abound, or be multiplied.
Now the law entered only among the Jews, and it could
not enter so as to multiply the lapse or offence, which
before was but one, if it were not of the same nature
with the law given to Adam." By the explication I have
elsewhere given of this text, it is made very evident that
it will by no means answer this writer's purpose.!

Dr Taylor supposes, that z-apn-rbifm, rendered offence,
is to be restricted to such as subjects the guilty to death,
which he thought sins of men before the Mosaic law,
since the fall of Adajn, did not ; and so, whereas Adam's
sin in eating the forbidden fruit was the only lapse
before, yet now the Mosaic law, annexing death to sin,
the lapse, or 7rapd~7iofia, was multiplied to as great a
number as all the sins of the millions who were under
that law. But what warrant had he to make this dis-

* In his note on Rom. v. 20.
t Sec on chap. vii. 1.

198 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

tinction between lapses and other sins ! He did not, he
could not say, that a/xa/ma had anything special in the
sense of it more than our language expresses by the
word sin. Yet every one knows, that these two words
are interchangeably used, yea, are so in the very verse
he is commenting on. The first clause is, The law
entered, that the offence (7ra/oa7rrw/xa) might abound. The
next clause is, But where sin abounded. — It is plain, that
sin in the one clause, and offence in the other, are words
of the same meaning. It were vain to say, that as the
words are different, they mean differently. The evident
design and scope of the verse will not allow it ; and the
matter is put beyond question by ver. 16, the last clause
of which is, The free gift is of many offences unto justifica-
tioit. Here the word is TrapaTTTUfxa, the same as in the
first clause of ver. 20. And it is plain, that the word
(ver. 16) includes the offences of men of all nations and
times, who are justified or pardoned. It appears, then,
though the word is used in this context, concerning the
one sin of Adam, that there is no good reason for restrict-
ing its meaning in the first clause of ver. 20, since in the
last clause of ver. 16, in the same context, the word
appears without restriction to Adam's sin, or to sins
against the Mosaic law; but includes sins that are neither
the one or the other of these.

To this he subjoins another argument, to prove that
the law of Moses subjected the transgressor to death for
every sin ; thus : " Besides this (saith he), he (the apostle)
gives a substantial and undeniable proof, taken out of
the law itself (Gal. iii. 10), Cursed is every one that con-
tinueth not, &c. This denunciation of the law we find,
Deut. xxvii. 26." A few lines downwards he argues
and says, " This curse, without doubt, rendered the
transgressors obnoxious to death." It certainly did so.
But did he indeed think that the law which the Gentiles
were under, which was not the law of Moses, did not
assign the curse to transgressors ? Alas ! many were
the sad symptoms that proved that the curse lay heavy
upon them. He might in Gal. iii., a few verses below
that cited by him, have observed (vers. 13, 14), Christ

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 1 99

hath redeemed us from the curse. — The Galatians were
Gentiles who had not been under the law of Moses.
The apostle all along considers them as such, and warns
them to hold fast the privilege and liberty he had been
asserting for them as Gentiles. But how vainly had he
said to them, Christ hath redeemed US from the curse of
the law, being made a curse for us, if the law they had
been under, not that of Moses, did not subject them to
a curse for their sins ? Thus far, in order to be the better
acquainted with Dr Taylor's way of reasoning and
criticism, we have followed him in the arguments he
brings laboriously to prove what none ever denied, viz.
that the law of Moses denounced death and the curse to
transgressors, which he calls law in the rigorous sense.

Let us now proceed to observe the consequence to the
Jews, of law in the rigorous sense being introduced
among them. The effect of it is thus expressed by Dr
Taylor/'" " When the commandment came with the
penalty of death annexed to it, then sin, the sting of
death, revived ; then it acquired full life and vigour, and
the Jew died, i.e. was a dead man in law, upon the
first transgression he committed." Alas, for the peculiar
and favourite people ! How could a man of Israel, or
the nation subsist for a day, under such a law, which,
according to our author, no other nation were burdened
with? But the author (we thank him) soon relieves our
anxiety for the Jew, in the next following words :
" Though he had the relief of the gospel as well (so this
author) as the rest of mankind, to heal the deadly
wound." I can understand that the Jew had relief by
the gospel ; for the gospel (according to Gal. hi. 8) was
preached to Abraham ; but it is not so easily understood,
how the rest of mankind (during the peculiarity of the
Jews) had the relief of the gospel. However, by this
account all is well for the Jew ; now we see the differ-
ence, as to their spiritual state, between the Jews under
rigorous law, and the Gentiles. The Jews, obnoxious
to death by the law they were under, might attain

* " Original Sin," p. 292.

200 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

salvation by the grace they were under at the same
time. The Gentiles, continuing impenitent, were to
perish eternally (Rom. ii. 12), which they could not be
adjudged to, but according to the law they were under.
Is this now all that Dr Taylor's critical labour on this
point has produced ?

Having given a view of the sentiments of these writers,
with such remarks on the several passages as occurred,
I now come to consider more closely and distinctly the
subject itself. The truth which we hold is, — That every
man, of all nations and in every time, hath been
obnoxious, for sin, to death, in all its extent and mean-
ing, by the law of God, and its just sanction. The
opposite notion is — That as no man is obnoxious to, or
can incur death or punishment, but by a positive law,
expressly determining that punishment ; so no man or
nation, since the fall of Adam, hath been under such a
law, adjudging them to death for their personal sins,
until the law given by Moses, under which the Jews
alone were.

The case of the Antediluvians and Sodomites doth
strongly contradict this notion. Dr Whitby speaks
concerning the former thus,* " To say that they who
were swept away by the flood with an untimely death
did not die for their own sins, but for Adam's sin, is to
contradict God himself, saying, / will destroy man from
the earth ; for the iniquity of man is very great" &c.

Something hath been said on this case before. Mr
Locke answers, and says,*f" That some have been led so
far out of the way, as to allege, that men in the deluge
died for their own sins. Was this going far out of the
way, or was it not true? His own very next words do
so acknowledge. "It is true," says he, "they did so;
but it is as true, that by their own sins they were not
made mortal : they were so before by their father
Adam's eating the forbidden fruit. So that what they
paid for their own sins, was not immortality, which they

* Note on Rom. v. 13.
t Note on Rom. v. 15.

THE TENAL SANCTJON OF THE LAW 201

had not, but a few years of their own finite lives ; which
having been let alone, would every one of them in a
short time have come to an end." This answer is far
from being- satisfying. Men became universally mortal
by Adam's sin. But the infliction of actual death on
the antediluvians for their own personal sins, as is
asserted in Scripture, behoved to be by a law the}' were
under, which assigned death to men for their personal
sins ; and by that sad instance, it appears to have been
a law that would have adjudged them to death, though
they had not been in a state of mortality before. But
I say further, when the law of Moses entered, threatening
death to the men of Israel for every transgression, was
it by this law the men of Israel became mortal ? This
will not be said. It might then be said of the men of
Israel, of the Mosaic period, as Mr Locke says of the
men of the former period, what they paid for their own
sins was not immortality, but a few years of their own
finite lives. As to those who held that no more was
imported by the death threatened for eating the for-
bidden fruit, than mere natural death, or the dissolution
of their natural frame, I would ask one thing yet : Did
the Israelites under the Mosaic law undergo death
more, or in a more terrible manner, than other nations?
For if Israel was brought under a law, with such a
sanction, which other nations were not under, we might
reasonably think the consequence would be — more
dying, more of sudden and premature deaths, death in
a more terrible manner and form, than in any other
nation. But as to the ordinary course of things, this
distinction did not appear. Other nations were cut off
by sword, famine, and pestilence ; and death appeared
among them in every terrible form. If, on some
occasions, Israel were subjected to distinguishing judg-
ments, this was owing to the special aggravations of
their sin, to God's special care of them, and his special
attention to their behaviour and welfare (Amos iii. 2 ;
yet when he made an end of other nations, he. did n<
deal with them to this day. These things give good
cause to think, that Israel were not brought under any

202 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

penal sanction but that which other nations were
under.

Dr Whitby says/ that in the ante-Mosaic period, the
seed of Abraham were not, by any law they were under,
obnoxious to death for their personal sins. But here
are two notable instances, even of the seed of Abraham,
who suffered death for their personal sins in that period
(Gen. xxxviii. 7), Er — was wicked in the sight ef the Lord.
and the Lord slew him ; and ver. 10, The thing that he
[Onan] did displeased the Lord, zvlierefore he slew him also.

In the period before giving the law at Sinai, when
according to these writers, none of mankind were ob-
noxious to death for their personal sins, Pharaoh, and a
great army of Egyptians, were put to death in the Red
Sea, for their personal sins, by the immediate hand of
God. The Mosaic law could not be a rule of conduct
or judgment respecting the seven nations of Canaan ;
yet, when the measure of their iniquity came to be full,
they were appointed to be destroyed, and the whole
nation of the Amalekites were ordered to utter excision
for other sins than that of Adam.t

One argument respecting this subject from Gal. iii.
13, 14 has been urged before, and it has been proved by
it, that the Gentiles, who were not under the Mosaic law,
were nevertheless under the penal sanction and curse of
God's law, by the law they were under. I go now to
observe what the apostle Paul says (Rom. ii. 12), As
many as have sinned without law, shall also perish without
law ; and as many as have sinned in (or under) the law,
shall be judged by the law. Mr Locke's note on this
observes the different words in the first and second
clause, airoXovvrai, shall perish, and KpLO-qo-ovrai, shall be
judged ; and says, " St Paul doth not use these so
eminently differing expressions for nothing." The
eminent difference of meaning in this place I have not
perceived. What he understood himself here by perish-
ing, he hath not explained. It is very likely he meant the

* On Rom. vii. 9.
t Dcut. vii. and xx.

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 203

same with a writer to be presently mentioned, viz. going
to non-existence, or ceasing to be. But if this same is
what the law they were under adjudged impenitent
Gentiles to, that law had a heavy and awful sanction.
However, his notion of the word rendered perish, is fully-
confuted by Dr Whitby and Wolfius on the place.
The former, in opposition to the extravagant opinion of
Dr Dodwel, brings divers texts, wherein the word is used
with regard to persons, who, Dr Dodwel would acknow-
ledge, would be subjected to everlasting suffering and
misery, as the reader may see by looking to those texts
themselves wherein the word is used, without my saying
anything particular concerning them.* Dr Taylor gives
this text 'Rom. ii. 12), thus : " They who shall be found
to have transgressed against the mere light of nature,
shall not come under the same rule with such as have
enjoyed an extraordinary revelation." Xo, they shall
not be so heavily punished as they whose sin is more
aggravated. But Dr Taylor's paraphrase is contrived to
hide much of the light of this text from his reader. The
text says, they shall pcrisli ; the true sense of which
appears by the text just now cited. Gentiles then were
under a law that adjudged them to perish for sin. As
to the latter word, rendered shall be judged, it also very
commonly means, condemned : of which it is needless to
bring instances, as none will deny it. But to what were
Jews sinning under the law condemned, but to perish or
die eternally ?

Further, the point we are upon is very clear by what
we have besides in that chapter Rom. ii.). If we trace
from ver. 5, there it is said, that the impenitent do treasure
up to themselves wrath against the day of wrath ; when
(ver. 6) Cod will render to every man according to his deeds ;
to some ver. 7 , eternal life ; to others (vers. 8, 9 . indigna-
tion and wrath ; tribulation and anguish upon every soul
of man that doth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the

* Rom. xiv. 15 ; 1 Cor. viii. II ; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; 2 Thcss. ii. 10;
2 Peter iii. 9 ; John xvii. 12; Mark i. 24 : Matt v. 29, chap, xviii.
14 : Matt. x. 39, chap. x\i. 25 ; Matt. x. 28.

204 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

Gentile. By this it appears, that the Gentile, though not
under the law of Moses, was under a law that assigned
to him for sin indignation and wrath, tribulation and
anguish. What we have seen in this chapter (Rom. ii.),
on which these learned writers have been able to say so
little, to support their opinion, is as good as a hundred
arguments, to confute the strange notion concerning the
law that we are considering.

I here observe an odd sentiment of Dr Whitby's, or a
sentiment oddly expressed, concerning the law, on Rom.
vii. 8- II. Arguing against those injudicious com-
mentators, as he calls them, who thought that the advan-
tage which sin got by the law, was because the law
assigned no penalty for inward impurities, covetousness,
for instance : " If," says he, "the law given them encour-
aged them to covet, because it had no present penalty
annexed to it, they must be more free to covet, or follow
their natural or carnal inclination, when there was no
law at all forbidding them to covet." No law at all !
when was it so? He must mean, before the Mosaic
promulgation of the law ; and those at all times, who had
not the light of that law. Yet as to the Gentiles, against
whom the transgression of that law could not be charged,
we find covetousness mentioned among the sins which
they are said (Rom. i. 32) to have known, by the light of
the law in their own consciences, to have been sins, and
worthy of death by the righteous judgment of God ; and
so, according to what did appear on Rom. ii. 12, for
covetousness unpardoned, they behoved to perish by the
law written in their own conscience.

Let us now consider what the apostle says of the
heathen Gentiles (Rom. i. 32), Who knowing tlie judgment
of God {that they who commit such things are ivorthy of
death), not oitly do the same, but have pleasure in them
that do them. On this Dr Whitby says, " That murder,
adultery, and unnatural lusts deserved death, they knew,
not only by the light of nature and of conscience, but by
their own laws, condemning them to death." But in the
list there given by the apostle of sins common among
the Gentiles, he mentions not only these three very

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 205

atrocious sorts, but also eoretousfiess, maliciousness, back-
biting, envy, &c. Therefore the Doctor adds, " That all
these sins, being species of injustice, condemned by the
law of nature, rendered them obnoxious to the displeasure
of God, who is the governor of the world, and the avenger
of all unrighteousness, and so obnoxious to death for
violating the law he had given them." Thus the learned
writer, who said on Rom. vii. 9, that even the seed of
Abraham, whose sins before the Mosaic law were more
aggravated than those of the heathens, were not obnoxious
to death for their sins until that law was given, — says
here, that the heathens, who were never under that law,
were obnoxious to death, even for inward sinful lusts.

This text bears hard on Mr Locke's notion of the law.
Let us observe how the learned gentlemen endeavours
to evade or prevent the objection by a various reading
of the text, thus : " Who knowing the judgment of God,
did not understand [ovk evoija-av) that they who commit
such things, are worthy of death."* So he would have
the text say the quite contrary to that for which I have
adduced it. However, the text, acording to this same
reading, says, the heathens knew the judgment of God ;
and (saith Dr Whitby) what righteous judgment of God
could the)- know to be due to them who did these things,
who knew not that they were worthy of death?

Mr Locke says, there is another, besides the Clermont
copy, that reads so ; but tells not which. Beza mentions
the Clermont copy, and says, it is according to our
common reading in all the Greek MSS. copies besides
that he saw ; and he saw a great many. Dr Mills,
according to his humour of unfixing the reading of
ever)- text, when he could find any the least pretence

* In the Codex Claromontanus (D) of the 6th century, and other
western texts insert here the words ovk evoiprav, non inteUexerunt.

It seems quite easy to account for the introduction of this
clause. It would make the conduct of those who knew the judg-
ment of God, and yet committed and took pleasure in these offences,
more conceivable, if it were said that they did not understand that
the death sentence had gone forth against such deeds. But there
is nothing to justify the insertion of these words.

206 AN ESSA V CONCERNING

for it, prefers the Clermont reading. Dr Whitby in his
" Examen Millii," confutes him, and does very sufficiently
support the common reading. Wolfius hath done so
more lately ; and to them I refer, to avoid prolixity.

The Clermont reading seems by no means to suit the
apostle's scope. That appears to be, not only to show
men's guilt, but also to show the aggravations of their
guilt ; as, that they sinned against light, and the natural
notions of God (vers. 20, 21). And so in this ver. 32, it
would tend to aggravate, that they knew that, by doing
such things, they became obnoxious to death. But to say
that they understood not this, tends greatly to alleviate,
which is cross to the apostle's evident purpose.

But what could be the view in saying, as this reading
hath it, that they understood not, or knew not, that they
10 J 10 did sue] 1 things were worthy of death ? It doth
clearly hint, or insinuate, if they had known so, that
they would not have behaved as they did. This were to
make the apostle speak contrary to the truth of experi-
ence and to the most certain common observation, which
shows, that ill men practise in the same way, who know
the penal sanction of the divine law, by the most sure
and clear revelation : and it were unreasonable to in-
sinuate the contrary concerning persons of whom it was
said, a few verses before, that they were given up to a
reprobate mind.

After all, if we allow the reading that Mr Locke
prefers, the text affords a strong argument to the
purpose for which it hath been adduced. For,

1. According- to it, though thev did not know or
understand it, yet so indeed the case was, that they,
Gentiles as well as Jews, who commit such things, are
obnoxious to death. Why should notice be taken of
their ignorance, if it was not a point of truth which they
are said not to have known or understood ? But,

2. We are not obliged to understand the word, as
meaning their ignorance. I find by my lexicon (Hederici)
that the word may be understood to import, that they
did not advert, think of it, or consider it. So, according
to that same reading, the text may be understood thus :

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW 20 J

Who knowing the judgment of God (the rule of
righteousness God gave them in the precepts of his law,
and the rule of his own righteous judging, set forth in the
sanction of it), they, being given up to a reprobate mind
(ver. 28), did not advert, think of it, or consider duly,
that by such practices they became obnoxious to death.

Whichsoever, then, of the readings mentioned shall
be chosen, there is still a good argument from this text
to prove, that by the law the Gentiles were under, the
impression of which was in their consciences (though
they, being fully possessed, and hurried on by their
lusts, did not advert to, or consider it), they were ob-
noxious to death for their sins.

We may now judge of the justness of the interpre-
tation given by Dr Whitby and some others, of Rom. v.
14. I much suspect that this is one of the texts, for
interpreting which, without hurt to their own scheme
and hypothesis, they are so fond of the notion concern-
ing the sanction of the law we are considering. Dr
Whitby gives it thus in his paraphrase : " Death reigned
from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned
after the similitude of Adam's transgression: i.e. men
were all the while subject to death, though they sinned
not, as Adam did, against an express law threatening
death to them for it." But by the evidence that hath
been brought, it appears that this interpretation cannot
stand ; as from Adam to Moses, and at all times, the
sins of men were against a law that assigned death to
them for their sins.

If it be objected or asked, When, or how was the
promulgation of the law, with penal sanction of death,
made to men universally? — for it cannot be held to be
law that is not made known to those concerned, and
promulgated — I answer, The sanction assigning death
for transgression, was promulgated to mankind when
God said to Adam concerning the forbidden fruit, /;/ the
day thou eatest, thou slialt die ; which did sufficiently
intimate, that the punishment of all and every trans-
gression of the law of God was to be death. Since that
time, besides the divine revelation, of which the church

208 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

had ever the advantage from the beginning, the sanction
of the law appears to have been universally made known
by the light and impression of it in the minds of men, of
the Gentiles, even of the worst sorts of them, as we have
seen in Rom. i. 32. If they had their bloody sacrifices,
there hath been observed by the learned, in their
writings, and in history, what shows that they considered
the victims as substituted in their stead, to save them
from the death and destruction they were obnoxious to
for their sins. Whatever shift they made ordinarily to
keep their minds easy, yet their apprehensions of
destruction by the wrath of heaven for their sins were
easily awakened. On such occasions they multiplied
their sacrifices, and whole hetacombs were offered.
If there were greater appearance of judgment and
destruction threatened, human sacrifices, sometimes in
considerable number, were offered. There is a very
shocking instance of such human sacrifice recorded
(2 Kings iii. 27), when the King of Moab saw providence
giving the advantage to his enemies against the greatest
efforts of him and his people ; he, to save himself and
them from destruction, and to appease the wrath of
heaven, took his eldest son that should have reigned in
his stead, and offered him for a burnt-offering on the wall.

But the light and impression of the precept and penal
sanction of the law in the minds and consciences of men,
having become dim and weak, the wisdom of God saw
meet to make to his church a new, clear, full, and very
solemn promulgation of the law, and of its sanction, at
Sinai, and otherwise, by the ministry of Moses. But by
what hath been adduced from the scripture to that
purpose, it appears how vainly, and without any good
reason, it hath been said, that the Sinaitic and Mosiac
promulgation added anything, as to penal sanction, to
what was originally in the law given to mankind, and
under which, with different degrees of light and im-
pression, men have' been everywhere, and in all times of
the world..

Before leaving this subject, it is fit to say something
concerning the death which the law hath annexed to

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 2CX)

transgression, and concerning the extent of meaning, in
which the death threatened is to be understood. Dr
Taylor held,* that in the threatening, and afterwards
sentence, intimated to Adam, there was not meant "any
other death but that dissolution which all mankind
undergo when they cease to live in this world, whatever
that dissolution be." It seems it was a question with
this writer, what the dissolution is which men undergo
at death? It has been generally agreed, that it is the
dissolution of the union between the soul and body, by
which the soul goes into a separate state, and the body
is dissolved into dust. In this there appears to be
nothing but what is clear, and easily understood. But
this writer makes it matter of question, what the dissolu-
tion is that happens at death, and seems not to be
satisfied with the common notion of Christians concern-
ing it. Did he think or suspect, as some have held, that
the soul itself is mortal ; and, being material, is dissolved
in the dissolution of the body, and hath no existence or
life until the resurrection, when the body shall arise,
endowed with the breath of life, and with rational powers
and faculties? He was shy of giving his mind clearly
on this point — only gives the hint by the doubt above
mentioned. What important or fundamental truth is
it, on which this author would not, in some sort, blow
his baneful breath !

It is true, he speaks of eternal death as meant by the
threatening of the law. But let not the reader mistake
him. The passage is in his note on Rom. v. 20. There
having observed that laiv sometimes signifies a rule of
action, with the penalty of death annexed, he says,
" Such a law Adam was under, and such a constitution
the law of Moses was, subjecting those who were under
it to death for every transgression, meaning by death
eternal death, without hopes of a revival or resurrection."
The death, then, that the law of Moses denounced, was
the same death that was threatened for eating the for-
bidden fruit ; and we saw just now, that that death

* "Origin.il Sin," p. 20.
O

210 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

imported no more than the dissolution which men
undergo, when they cease to live in this world. So by
eternal death, it appears that he means here as denounced
by the law nothing more than that, undergoing dissolu-
tion, they should continue so for ever, without revival or
resurrection. However, he also held that Christ procured
resurrection to life for mankind universally. But if men
shall then be punished with eternal misery for their sins
and impenitence, this, according to what we have seen
of his opinion, cannot be by virtue of the law, which, by
his account, did not threaten or denounce any such
thing.

But if the law given to Adam, and that of Moses, were
of the same nature, and threatened the same death, there
is something in the matter that is not easily understood,
or accounted for, if this death were no other than the
deprivation of natural life. All mankind were, in con-
sequence of Adam's sin, doomed to death in that sense,
and were undergoing it universally, with the certainty
that it would so continue to the world's end. This being
the case, and the established constant course of things,
what occasion for threatening this death by the law of
Moses ? Is it not impeaching the divine wisdom, to say,
that God would with such solemnity give forth the
threatening of death for transgression, if that death
signified no more than the deprivation of natural life?
Why pretend to make a new addition to the law as
given to Israel, beyond what was in the law, which other
nations were under, if there was nothing in the additional
threatening of death, but what Israel and all other
nations were in common subjected to from the begin-
ning ? Ay, but the law given at Sinai threatened death
for every transgression : not so the law given to other
nations, who were only suffering death, not for their own
sins, but in consequence of Adam's sin. But what
alteration did this make in the state of the Israelites?
If they underwent death, those of other nations did so
too. If the Lord cut off some Israelites with sudden
and fearful strokes, many instances of that sort happened
in other nations, who were not under the Mosaic law.

THE rENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 211

Yea, among Israel in the Mosaic period it was observed,
that the worst of men passed the course of life often in
an easy and prosperous manner, and underwent death
without an)- unfavourable visible symptom. So we
in Psalm Ixxiii. Shall we say, that, the law prescribing
for men's sins nothing but the dissolution of their frame
by death, in the manner common to all men, these men,
after passing life more prosperously, and death more
easily, than other men, had nothing further to fear as
the consequence of their distinguished wickedness? As
this will not be said, shall we say that after this life
punishment awaited them beyond what the law they
were under prescribed ? Certainly this were absurd.

Let us then consider what, besides deprivation of
natural life, is included in the death threatened by the
law. It is a just sentiment, that as the natural life of
the human person consists in the union of the soul and
body, so it is the spiritual life of the person to be in
union with God, enjoying his favour. So Psalm xxx. 5.
In his favour is life. But sin separates the sinner from
God, and from his favour ; which must be accounted
death by every one who comfortably enjoyed it, by every
one who thinks justly. The curse imports so much,
though what Dr Taylor says of it amounts to no more
than this (note on Rom. vi.), "This curse without doubt
rendered the transgressor obnoxious to death ; as Saul's
curse was understood to touch Jonathan's life." A* to
Saul's curse, it could indeed reach no farther than
Jonathan's life ; but the curse of God, and of his
righteous law, can and cloth reach much farther. This
curse certainly imports, besides deprivation of natural
life, to be cast out of God's favour and fellowship,
deprived thereof, and of the light of his countenance ;
which they who judge that in God's favour is life, will
certainly consider as a real death. If, according to the
scripture, we consider it in that light, what good reason
can be given, why it should not be included in the death
threatened by the law for sin, which certainly separates
between men and God?

But there is what the scripture calls the second deaths

212 AN ESSAY CONCERNING

which imports everlasting pain and misery. As it is
called the- second death (Rev. xxi. 8), so it is expressed
by the name of death (Rom. viii. 13), If ye live after the
flesh, ye shall die ; and chap. vi. 23, The wages of sin is
death. Some endeavour to answer, or prevent the argu-
ment, by suggesting, that in both places the apostle hath
in his eye a course of fleshly living and sinning, con-
tinued in impenitently to the end. But though it be
allowed that this is the case, as to the two places now
mentioned, yet this doth not hinder our understanding
the apostle as giving forth a general doctrine or maxim,
particularly in Rom. vi. 23, The wages of sin is death.
What determines the wages of sin is the law. Now we
know of no determination of the law on this subject,
other than that it determines the curse and death for
the wages of sin. Therefore the second eternal death,
and the spiritual death before mentioned, must be in-
cluded in the death assigned by the law as the wages
of sin.

Dr Taylor himself expresses something that tends to
this purpose.* " And certain it is," saith he, " that now
we are not under the law, but under grace (Rom. vi. 14).
Nor will the law be in force, to give sin its deadly
destructive power, till the great and terrible day of the
Lord, when those who impenitently have lived after the
flesh shall die (Rom. viii. 13)." Passing the inter-
pretation he hints of Rom. vi. 14, of which formerly, I
now say concerning this passage : 1. Dr Taylor's notion,
as here expressed, clearly implies, that the law, with
regard to its penal sanction, hath not the authority and
force of a law till it comes to be executed, which is very
absurd. The Supreme Ruler brings men under a
dispensation of grace, uses forbearance, delays executing
of judgment, and hath appointed a day wherein he will
judge the world. Is it therefore just to say, that the
sanction of the law hath not all along and still authority
and force, nor will be in force till the last day? Surely
it must be by virtue of the law and its sanction, that it is

* "Original Sin," p. 394.

THE PENAL SANCTION OF THE LAW. 21 3

said of a man in this life, of him that believeth not the
Son (John iii. 36), that the wrath of God abideth on him.
For (Rom. iv. 15) it is the law that worketh wrath,

2. The Doctor says, that it is the law that will give sin
its deadly and destructive power in the great day. But
certainly it could not do so, but as in its penal sanction
it adjudges death and destruction for sin. As God hath
given to men his law to be the rule of their behaviour,
so when he shall come to act as a Judge, he certainly
will make that same law his rule in judging them. It
were dishonourable to God as a Judge, to say that he
would judge moral agents at last otherwise than accord-
ing to the law he had put them under when the)' acted
their part in life.

It appears, then, by Dr Taylor's sentiment, as set
forth in this passage, that the damnation and perdition
of sinners at the day of judgment will be by virtue of
the sanction of the law, which denounced death for sin ;
which proves very clearly, that this everlasting perdition,
this second death (and not merely the deprivation of
natural life), must be understood to be included in the
death threatened by the law. It proves further, as this
second death, this eternal perdition, will happen at last
to every man, of every nation, and of all times, who is
not saved by grace, and in the way marked out by it.
that, besides deprivation of natural life, the second
death is adjudged for sin by the law, which men of all
nations and times have been under. So that it is not
the law given to Adam, concerning the forbidden fruit
only, or thereafter only the law given at Sinai, that
denounced death and a curse for sin. How far these
things are consistent with Dr Taylor's other speculations
concerning the law, which we have seen formerly, the
reader may judge. That writer had very crude and
undigested sentiments and reasonings on this, as on
divers other subjects.

Upon the whole, it has been sufficiently proved, that
the law of God, which is the rule of duty to all men in
common, hath at all times, and with regard to men of
all nations, been fenced with a penal sanction, which

214 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 9

adjudged death to transgressors, — even death in all the
extent of meaning, that hath been here shown from the
scripture. So that we may now be satisfied, how
destitute of all foundation in scripture or reason, is the
conceit of Mr Locke, expressed in his paraphrase, and
note on Rom. vii. 8, where he says, that without the
law (of Moses) sin could not hurt a man, or bring death
upon him ; and his notion, that since the fall, mankind
were not under a law threatening death for transgression,
until the law given by Moses, which was given only to
Israel ; which notion appears to have been adopted by
Dr Whitby, in his paraphrase of ver. 9, which I come
now to consider. Most of readers would not, I suppose,
need to have so much said on this point. But, consider-
ing what weight the characters of these writers might
give to their sentiments and arguments in the eyes of
many, it seemed fit to consider the subject the more
thoroughly and largely.

Text. — Ver. 9. For I was alive without the law once : but when
the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.

Explication. — As to the first expression here / was
alive, some render it, / lived once, or sometime ; I lived
without the law ; as if he meant no more than to say,
that sometime, for a part of the time of his life, he had
been without the law ; supposing there is no particular
emphasis, or more special meaning of being alive. But
as the expression in the end of the sentence, / died,
certainly means something else than the death that puts
an end to natural life, so the antithesis, or opposition
that is evidently intended, requires that, by saying, / was
alive, we understand something else than natural life, or
a part of its duration. It is, in short, that being without
the law, and so not' knowing his great guiltiness, and the
prevailing of sin in him, he was alive, with respect to
confidence and conceit of his own good state ; confident
of the favour of God and of eternal life : which con-

J rer. 9] OF ROMANS VII. 2 1 5

fidence was destroyed by the coming of the command-
ment.

Grotius, Drs Hammond and Whitby, and also Mr
Locke, agree in holding, that the apostle means not here
himself personally, but the Jews in general; that being
without the law, he means of the time before the law was
given at Sinai ; and by the coming of the commandment,
the promulgation of the law on that occasion, with the
curse, or penalty of death annexed. This the two last
named did suppose was not threatened, except in the
single case of eating the forbidden fruit, until that
time.

But why suppose that Paul here personates others ;
or that he does not represent his own former personal
case ? Considering his style and expression, there can
be no cause for understanding him otherwise, except
there can be shown some absurdity in applying to him-
self personally what he says. I see not that Grotius
brings any reason from the verse itself for this notion of
his ; but Dr Hammond does. " That he was once without
the law, can," he says, " with no appearance of truth be
affirmed of Paul's person, who was born and brought up
a Jew, in the knowledge of the Mosaic law." But Paul
might have had great knowledge of the Mosaic law, and,
being brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, might have
been very learned in the various cases and questions
respecting the Mosaic rules of divine service, cere-
monial pollutions, and ceremonial methods of purifica-
tion, and yet have little knowledge of the moral law in
its extent, and very little knowledge of the power and
energy of the law in his conscience and heart.

He mentions in the same context, what proves his
knowledge of the law to have been very defective. He
says (ver. 7), I had not known Inst, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not Inst. There was a time when he did not
know the inward lustings of the heart to be sin ; when
he had no concern or anxiety about the disposition,
aims, or affections of his heart ; but thought all was well
if he did what was externally good. As to this, it is to
be considered, that the moral actions of rational creatures

2l6 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 9

are not to be judged of merely by what they are in the
outward work, but also by the inward principles and
disposition of the heart ; so that an action may, as to
the outward part, be good materially, when, on the
whole, as it comes to be judged of by an all-seeing,
heart-searching God, according to the holiness and
spirituality of his law, it is sin, and that, perhaps, of
the most atrocious and aggravated kind and degree.
By this it appears, that when Paul was a Pharisee, if his
works were outwardly good, or in their outward nature
indifferent, yet, not knowing that the law reaches the
heart, he had not that light and knowledge of the law
which would enable him to judge justly in what class,
of good or evil, to state even those outward works,
as connected with his inward views and disposition :
besides, that much sin inwardly, not immediately con-
nected with any outward action, was not known or
observed by him. This was to be without the law in
a great degree. However learned Paul had been in the
divinity of the Pharisaical school, yet his knowledge
being so essentially defective, with respect to duty and
sin, certainly there was no impropriety or exaggeration
in saying, when he came to know better, / was without
the law once.

But besides, an important thing to be considered here
is, that the law did not enter into his conscience with
its proper authority, energy, and impression. Many a
man there is of very clear and extensive knowledge,
into whom the law doth not thus enter, to give the view
and conviction of sin, with the proper impression. Upon
the whole, Dr Hammond was far from having reason to
say, that it could not be affirmed of Paul personally,
that he was without the law once.

However, the sentiment, particularly of Dr Whitby
and Mr Locke is, that the apostle, personating others,
says, / was without the law once ; that is, for between
two and three thousand years from the fall of Adam. For
though they sometimes speak only of the Jews, the seed
of Abraham, and seem to restrict the matter to the time
between Abraham and the giving of the law, yet their

Ver. 9] of Romans }'ii. 217

scheme and opinion allows no room for this restriction.
All mankind were, according to them, without a law
denouncing death for transgression, from the fall until
the law was given at Sinai. So that, in interpreting
this verse, by the notion of Paul's personating others,
they view mankind as contracted into one long-lived
man, who was indeed very old (more than four thousand
years old), when he says in the text, / was alive without
the law oucc. It seems to have required considerable
vivacity and force of genius to have thought of interpret-
ing the text by a figure so very bold — rather, wild and
extravagant. But what is it that gives the hint of such
a meaning, or that makes it necessary to have recourse
to so strange an interpretation ? That which hath been
more commonly given, is simple, natural, obvious, and
agreeable to the proper import and use of the expres-
sions of the text, embarrassed with nothing that deserves
to be called difficulty or inconvenience. Mr Locke's
opinion has indeed led him to express himself in a
strange manner, particularly in his paraphrase of this
verse. " There was a time (saith he) when I, being
without the law, was in a state of life." And this he
means not of men's own conceit, or sense of things
respecting their state, but of a real state of life, not
obnoxious to death. So that for one instance, for many
instances, for a million of instances of transgression,
sinners had not death to fear. Dr Whitby's notion to
the same purpose, we have seen in his paraphrase of
this verse. I should think, with due deference to Mr
Locke's and Dr Whitby's characters, that representing
fairly such extravagance of sentiment and exprcssiuii,
were enough for confutation to any thinking or judicious
reader. I have, however, bestowed an essay on the
subject, to which I refer.

After all, the expression of the text is not, When
the threatening of death for transgression came; nor
yet, When the law came; which they would suppose
included or implied that threatening ; but, ichcu the
commandment came, which is something very different
from the threatening. I can easily admit, that law and

21 8 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 9

commandment may be interchanged in expressing the
same meaning ; and I see they are so interchanged here,
as I believe, at the same time, that the divine command-
ment is to be understood to have had, at all times, the
penal sanction of death for transgression annexed to it,
whether expressed or not. Yet if it were otherwise, and
that the commandment had been for many ages without
such penal sanction, we may be confident, when mention
was to be made of introducing a law fenced with such
a new and unusual sanction, that the expression would
not be simply, When the commandment came, which,
according to the notion of these writers, implies no such
thing as the threatening of death.

This then is the second clause, But when the command-
ment came, sin revived. It did so in two respects. 1. By
the conviction he received of his own manifold guiltiness.
He had become guilty in many respects, especially by
the inward prevailing of sin, which, through his ignorance
of the law, he had no sense of. Besides, the conviction
and impression of sin, that he had sometime been
conscious of, came by time to disappear and be defaced.
But when the law entered into his conscience with light
and force, armed with a terrible denunciation of wrath,
it showed him sin that he had not been sensible
was sin ; and what sin he had, in some sort, been
conscious of, it brought to remembrance with a fearful
sting.

2. Sin revived in these sinful affections that are by
the law, as ver. 5 ; and the more the law, with its
authority, light, and terror, reached the heart and sin in
it, sin exerted itself the more vehemently, in all manner
of concupiscence, as ver. 8, in opposition to the law.
The consideration of the context seems to lead us to
think, that it is the reviving of sin in this second respect,
not excluding the former, that the apostle hath chiefly
in his eye. The sinner, convinced of his. guiltiness and
danger by transgressing the law, doth yet incline to
hope well of himself, if he shall do well in all future
behaviour. So, being sensible by the coming of the
commandment, that it is necessary that the heart be

Ver. 9] of Romans vii. 219

right, he labours upon it. But the more he doth so, the
more he perceives the wickedness of his heart. Hence
awakened sinners so commonly complain, that they find
their hearts become daily worse, instead of becoming
better. They find in it a perverse aversion to God and
to his holiness, that the carnal mind is enmity against
God, and is not subject to his law ; and if, through
manifold guiltiness by past practice, they find them-
selves under the fearful sentence of the righteous law,
sin also reviving in the unholy workings of an evil heart,
and in those motions of sin which are by the law, this
especially destroys every false confidence.

Thus the consequence of the coming of the command-
ment, with its light, authority, and terror, and of the
reviving of sin on that occasion, is, as the apostle
expresses it,/ died, — I found myself a dead man, and
nothing on my part to encourage me to entertain any
confidence or hope.

Though the word here used concerning sin is, sin
revived, that doth not oblige us to think, as if it had
been altogether, as to the conviction of sin, or as to its
rebellious motions by the law (as the apostle speaks,
ver. 5), even before the commandment came, in the
manner here meant. The preposition dvo, that is in the
composition of the Greek verb here, hath not always that
effect in the signification of a word ; for sometimes a
verb so compounded, hath no other than the simple
meaning of the uncompounded verb ; as instances of

which are mentioned, avafiXacrraveLV, ura-eAAai', av'uTTavOai,

for which the dictionaries may be looked into.

I represented before* Dr Whitby's paraphrase of this
verse, by which he would have it mean, that before the
law of Moses was given, a man of the seed of Abraham
was not obnoxious to death for sin, as there was then no
law that threatened death for it. His note on this verse
is in these words: ''-p. tow Mwvo-edK, before the law of
Moses came. So Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Theophylact."
It is a way not uncommon with this writer, to give such

* In the " Essay on the Penal Sanction of the Law."

220 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. g

a list of names when he hath not a better argument to
support his interpretation.

Before I leave this verse, there is one thing yet which
it is needful to consider. It may, perhaps, be objected,
that, in the history of Paul, we cannot find any period or
time when he could observe in himself that revival of sin,
on the coming of the commandment, or could have that
experience of the workings of sin, on occasion of the law,
in persons in the flesh, that are represented in this con-
text : and if so, then he must necessarily be supposed to
be personating others, not setting forth his own experi-
ence. The argument may be conceived thus. He was,
on his journey to Damascus, a Pharisee, possessed with
the delusions of that sect, and in full confidence of his
own good state ; when the Lord having manifested him-
self to him, he did, at the same time, manifest to him
the consolations of grace; yea, said (Acts xxvi. 16), /
have appeared to thee for this purpose to make thee a
minister, &c, adding words of the utmost encouragement
and comfort. Here there was no interval or time, to
observe the motions of sin that are by the law. This
was prevented by the speedy manifestation of grace ; by
which being brought under grace, he could not have in
himself the experience of a man in the flesh, and under
the law, that is represented in this context. This
deserves to be considered.

I begin with observing what the learned and judicious
Dr Guise suggests (note on Acts xxvi. 16) to this
purpose : That it is not necessary to think that all the
comfortable things related there (vers. 16, 17), were
spoken by the Lord to Paul on the road to Damascus,
at his first appearing to him. The historian Luke, or
Paul himself, may have joined together what the Lord
spoke to him at different times. Paul himself reports
(chap. xxii. 14, 15) that Ananias spoke to him of the
future revelations and ministerial commission that the
Lord was to vouchsafe to him ; and the Lord himself
might have said more fully to him, to the purpose
expressed (chap. xxvi. 16, 17) on that other occasion
mentioned (chap. xxii. 17), and afterwards. If in his

Ver.g] of Romans vir. 221

first appearance to him on the road to Damascus, the
Lord said anything to him of ministerial office, and of
protection and support in it, it might be in general and
dark hints (not so well understood or attended to by
Paul, in the condition he was then in), to be more fully
explained afterwards. Indeed in the account given,
Acts ix. 6, when Paul, upon hearing the Lord's reproof
and expostulation, trembling and astonished, said, Lord,
what wilt tliou have me to do? the answer is, Arise, and
go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must
do. This, I think, makes it probable, that any special
comfort to him was referred to the time when Ananias
in Damascus was sent to him.

If any shall happen not to be satisfied with this, yet
the matter may still be accounted for by what we find
in his history. Let it then be allowed, that on his first
appearing to him, the Lord said very comfortable things,
as it is not uncommon for him to suggest some comfort-
able matters for the present support of distressed souls,
when they are not yet capable of receiving full con-
solation through faith. So, whatever matter of comfort
was suggested, Paul was not yet susceptible of the
comfort. The sense of his guiltiness by the wicked
course he had been in, and the apprehension of judgment
for it, even the terror of the Lord (2 Cor. v. 10), was
uppermost, and possessed his whole soul. As he
trembled and was all astonished when he heard the
Lord's reproof and expostulation, so, being blind, he
did not eat or drink for three days and nights. This
represents a condition of great distress ; nor do we find
with him any symptoms of comfort till Ananias came
to him, acquainted him of the ministry to be committed
to him, and called on him to receive baptism, the seal
of divine grace; and, using it with faith to wash away his
sins, calling on the name of the Lord (Acts xxii. 14-16).

In these primitive times, the law and the gospel had
very powerful and speed}* effect on the souls of men, as
we may observe in divers instances. If we suppose
a man blind, and diverted by no external objects,
having his heart filled with the sense of his sinfulness.

222 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. g

and of the great aggravations and fearful consequences
thereof, with his mind turned to the most serious thought
about his most important interests, with the most intense
application ; if with this we consider the velocity with
which things pass in the human mind, especially in such
a condition, we may be assured, that in these three days
and three nights, Paul acquired great experience of his
own heart, of the flesh, that corrupt principle in him, and
the law now come clear and strong into his conscience,
— these, the flesh and the law, striking powerfully the
one against the other. Paul, deeply sensible of his own
wretchedness, did doubtless labour much on this occasion
to reform his heart unto a conformity with the holiness
and spirituality of the law, which he now understood
better than ever before. He might at that time have all
the experience he represents in this context, of sins
reviving, and exerting itself vehemently, and of the pre-
vailing power of the flesh, with all its sinful affections
and lustings, in opposition to the authority and holiness
of the law. Thus we find a period in his history wherein
he was likely to have personally all the experience here
set forth ; which makes a sufficient answer to the
difficulty or objection suggested.

Some have explained and accounted for the advantage
that sin hath by the law, by this : That the law did
not promise, to those who were under it, spiritual
blessings and eternal life, which is necessary for purify-
ing the heart and subduing sin. This is of importance
to be more largely considered ; and I subjoin an Essay
concerning that subject, after representing the sense of
this ninth verse, according to the interpretation I have
given of it, in the following.

Paraphrase. — 9. Sin being thus dead, as in the
absence of the law, a self-flattering deluded heart
entertains great confidence of a man's good state, until
the coming. of the commandment discovers to him the
delusion he hath been in. Of this I have had sad
experience. For, being sometime without the law, I was
alive, in great confidence of my good state, of my
interest in the Divine favour, and eternal life. But

Ver. 9] of Romans vii. 223

when the commandment came, and entered into my
conscience in its extent and spirituality, and with its
proper authority, light, and force ; as this awakened me
to a more serious consideration of my spiritual state, sin
awakened also. Not only did the conviction of by-past
guiltiness revive in me, but sin, not subdued, but
awakened and ruffled by the reproof and threatening
of the law, did exert itself in all manner of concupiscence ;
and give me such proof of the pravity of my nature and
heart, as did especially contribute to overturn all my
false confidence, and to make me sensible that I was a
dead man, by virtue of the judgment of the righteous
law, my guiltiness, and the extreme wickedness of my
heart ; by which my case became quite deplorable.

AX ESSAY

Concerning the promise and hope of spiritual blessings, and of
eternal life, under the Old Testament.

I AM now come to consider another account, that of
Grotius, of sin's having advantage by the law, and by
men's being under it. He says upon Rom. vi. 14, that
as the law promised nothing beyond what is earthly,
it gave not strength enough for purifying the soul. But
the gospel, by the promise of things heavenly, gives
great strength to those who will use it. The gospel
indeed gives great strength in this way, and otherwise
too than by proposing the best of motives, and that in a
way very effectual, though not quite agreeable to this
writer's notions. On chap. vii. 5, he says, "Most men in
these times were carnal, and had no hope, or but small
hope, of another life ; and so were addicted to the
present life, and to the pleasures of it."

The former account, that of Dr Hammond considered
in explaining ver. 8), and this, arc so far connected, that
if under the law there was no ground for men's hope of
the remission of sins, there could be no hope of eternal

224 AN ^SSA Y CONCERNING THE PROMISE.

life. Yet, on the other hand, if there was then no ground
for the hope of forgiveness, as there certainly was, there
behoved to be good warrant for the hope of future life
and happiness. For men might justly conclude, that
God would not pardon sin, and so bring men into favour
and amity with himself, without providing for them, as
the fruit of that amity, something better than an earthly
portion, which is more commonly enjoyed in its highest
degree by those who are strangers to God, and under
the guilt of unpardoned sin.

What the words last cited say, " that most men in these
times were carnal," is, I apprehend, the case now, even
under the light and encouragement of gospel revelation.
If it was so with the ancient Israel, the cause of it was
not, that God did not encourage them, or that piety was
not encouraged with the hope of eternal life. Grotius
says, in the words immediately preceding those last
cited, that the few who in that state were spiritual, were
not so ex sola vi legis, merely by virtue of the law. In
this I agree with him ; and I believe the law, strictly so
called, will not in any time make men spiritual, as of old
the promise that he should be heir of the world, was not
to Abraham, or to his seed through the law. But that is
nothing to the present purpose. For, if the ancient Israel,
together with the law, had the promise of future life and
happiness, to encourage their pursuit of holiness, and of
spiritual and heavenly things, then their being under the
legal pedagogy could not be a cause of men's being under
the dominion of sin, or in the flesh. When this eminent
writer doth, on Rom. vi. 14, contradistinguish the gospel
as having the promise of heavenly things, to the law as
having no such promise, he must by the law be under-
stood to mean the whole system of the ancient Jewish
faith and religion. So that when he says, on Rom. vii. 5,
that men had then generally small hope, or none at
all, of future life, it was evidently his mind, that God
gave them not sufficient ground for such hope, by his
dealing with them, or by the revelation he gave them,
however some of them might console themselves with
some weak hope of that sort. This is a matter of such

UXDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 225

importance as deserves to be seriously considered, and
carefully explained.

In the first place, I say, in general, that an Israelite
might, from God's dealing with their nation, and with
particular persons in it who feared him, conclude, with
the utmost certainty of rational deduction, that he had
provided a future happiness for pious persons. He
exalted them to be his peculiar people, and gave them
very sensible proofs of his favour and regard, beyond
what he had ever given to any nation. Could any
rational person allow himself to think, that the Lord
had in view no other than an earthly transitory
happiness for such a people? that they who honoured
him most with their faith, confidence, and obedience,
were, if they prospered in this world, but as fed for
the slaughter ; when death should feed on them without
any hope beyond it? Surely it might be rationally
concluded that God would account it dishonourable to
himself to assert any special friendly relation to them,
if he made no special provision for them beyond this
life. If, serving and fearing God, they had earthly
felicity, nations had so too, in a greater degree than
the}- had whom God accounted and declared his
enemies. Israel, in all times, had occasion to see
pious persons in worldly and external misery, and
dying without any change to advantage in their con-
dition outwardly. It was not only so on occasion of
the distresses of the Babylonish captivity, and the
following times of their church and nation, when
Grotius allows, that hints were given, and more hope
conceived, of eternal life : but in ancient times pious
men often underwent great misery of outward condition.
They were for a considerable time in great misery and
distress in Egypt. Shall we say, that the many pious
Israelites, who died in that time, had no ground or
warrant given them for the hope of better things after
death?

In the times of the Judges, yea, in all the times
preceding the reign of King David, they had great
vicissitudes, and recurring times of great and long-

226 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

continued distress. Many thousands, who were pious,
are likely to have died in these calamitous times of
their nation, in circumstances of much external misery,
without seeing what the renewed mercy of God did
for their people. Had all these no hope for themselves
in their death ? or might they, after all the privilege
God had dignified them with, — after all their faith in
him, and their upright walking with him, amidst the
backslidings of their nation, that brought judgments on
them, — might they say, that they had nothing by it, but
to be of all men the most miserable? If the Ephesians,
in their state of heathenism, being aliens from the
commonwealth of Israel, were without hope, it certainly
were very unreasonable to say, that those of the common-
wealth of Israel were so too. Upon the general view of
these things, it is certainly just to say, that from God's
dealing with that people, in such instances and cases
as are before mentioned, an Israelite, thoughtful about
futurity, might infer the hope of future happiness to
pious persons, with as great certainty, and acquiescence
of judgment and understanding, as he could infer any
conclusions from any principles.

It will perhaps be said, that indeed pious persons did,
from such views of things as I have been representing,
form the hope of future happiness, and that not altogether
without reason; but that it is still true that God did not
give them ground for that hope by any revelation or
promise he gave them. As to this, it hath been shown,
by what is above written, that God did give them ground
for that hope. As to what his revelation or promise
imported to that purpose, let us now direct our inquiry
to that point, and see what God gave to Israel by his
word and promise, to found the hope of eternal life.

The Lord called himself their God, and denominated
himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Exod. iii.
6, 15). This expressed the covenant ; the sum of which
was in these few words, / will be their God, and they
shall be my people. Let us consider what this imported.
It is not merely, that as he was the God they acknow-
ledged and worshipped, so they were the people he

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 227

would acknowledge as his, and whose services he would
accept. The expressions import a great deal more ;
even a most special mutual interest which God and his
people should have in one another, by virtue of the
covenant. When the true Israel agreed sincerely to be
his people, it imported a resignation of themselves to
him, to be wholly his : to be disposed of for his glory,
and separated to his service. Hence, as God hath an
original right to them of property and dominion, as
his creatures, so he had a special acquired right to
them by the covenant, and by their own choice and self-
dedication.

In like manner, on the other hand, when God con-
descended in the covenant to be their God, it imported,
that, of infinite grace, he engaged himself to be theirs,
that, as the Lord's portion is his people, so the Lord
should, by the covenant, be their portion — The portion
of Jacob (Jer. x. 16). I am my beloved's, saith the church,
and my beloved is mine (Cant vi. 3). That promise, in-
cluding all the grace of the covenant, imports no less
than — for all that is signified in being God, I am thine,
so far as is requisite ' for thy support, protection, and
endless happiness. I am thine, to be thy shield and
exceeding great reward (Gen. xv. 1). There was suffi-
cient and very evident ground for every pious soul,
laying hold of God's covenant, to entertain the hope of
eternal life. Sadducees of old might overlook, modern
critics or philosophers may overlook or dispute it, when
the scheme of doctrine they have adopted requires their
doing so. But certainly a thinking rational soul,
believing God's word, would, at departing this life, find,
in this expression and promise of the covenant, a very
sufficient foundation to rest on comfortably, for the hope
of future life and happiness. If a pious Israelite com-
forted himself by the Lord's saying, / am tliy God, in
going through all the stages and vicissitudes of this life,
often foregoing the comforts of this life for keeping a
good conscience towards God ; shall we say, that the
Lord's being his God imported nothing at all to him in
his last gloomy and solemn hour ; but that all the

228 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

consolation, arising from the Lord's being his God, was
to expire with his last breath? If one's hope in man
should thus terminate, yet God is not man. If enemies
were despatching a pious person from this life with
bloody hands, how would it especially be as a sword in
his bones, if he had not in the promise, / will be thy
God, what would fortify his heart against the reproach
and insult, Where is now thy God? Such a pious person,
when death was on his lips, — when the failure of natural
spirit and strength prognosticates the speedy dissolution
of his frame, — yet from this, / am thy God, he had cause
to say, When heart and strength fail, thou art the strength
of my heart, and my portion for ever.

We have the best confirmation possible of the justness
of this reasoning from our Lord's using it to the same
purpose against the Sadducees, in Matt. xxii. 23, and
Luke xx. 37, 38, Now that the dead are raised, Moses
showed at the bush, when he calls the Lord the God of
Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. As it
was fit to argue out of the writings of Moses against the
Sadducees, who are said to have acknowledged no other
Scripture, it is certain that nothing is to be found in
all the Scripture more to the purpose of proving the
resurrection, than God's covenant expressed in these
words. The Lord's argument from them, as expressed
(Luke xx. 38), comes to this ; — he is not the God of the
dead — of those who at death shall perish; for it were
highly dishonourable to him to be reckoned to be, by
special relation of grace and covenant, their God. He
is not the God of any but of such who, by virtue of his
being so, are the heirs of eternal life, and who shall be
introduced to it by a happy resurrection. Shall now
any, who shall consider the matter itself, or who regards
the authority and judgment of the greatest Master of
reason that ever appeared in our nature, say, that an
ancient Israelite, who had at heart to lay hold of and
improve the grace of the covenant, had not in these
words, / am the Lord thy God, a most sure ground to
rest on for the hope of a happy futurity, and the most
sure warrant for the hope of eternal life ? The inspired

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 229

writer to the Hebrews thought so, when he said (Heb.
xi. 16), Wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their
God, for he hath prepared for them a city.

I shall now show by another Scripture, that God's
covenant, as it was proposed to his people anciently, did
found the hope of eternal life, and that the promise
thereof was so meant. In Isa. lv. 3 mention is made of
the sure mercies of David. Indeed the mention oi sure
mercies might, at first sight, convince any, that other
sort of mercies are intended than such as are earthly,
temporary, and transient. We need be at no loss to
understand who this David is. David, King of Israel,
had been dead some centuries before. This David was
to come when Isaiah wrote, as appears by the following
words : Behold I have given him for a witness to t lie people,
a leader and commander to the people. Behold, thou shalt
call a nation that thou know est not, and nations that knew
not thee shall come unto thee. It is plain it is the Lord
Jesus Christ, mentioned on other occasions by the
prophets under the name of David, who is here in-
tended ; and the expression of " mercies being sure to
him," imports that God would raise him from the dead
to eternal life. We may be the more confident of this
interpretation, when we observe the blessed apostle
going before us in it (Acts xiii. 34), where, proving to
his hearers from the Scriptures of the Old Testament,
that God was to raise Christ from the dead, his Scripture
quotation and argument he gives thus : As concerning
that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to
return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give unto
you the sure mercies of David. We see what the sure
mercies promised to Jesus Christ do mean. To bring
this to the purpose of our present argument, I next
observe, that these sure mercies, importing resurrection
to eternal life, arc by Isaiah extended to all the faithful,
as the mercies of the covenant. It is implied, agreeable
to the common doctrine of the Scriptures, that the
covenant is, in the first place, made with Jesus Christ
the "second Adam ; and hence God is called the God and
Father of our Lord fesus Christ. Therefore the prom

23O AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

and blessings of the covenant descend through Christ,
and, in his right, to them who believe in him. Accord-
ingly, these are the prophet's words (Isa. lv. 3), Hear,
and your souls shall live ; and I will make an everlasting
covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David. Here
it is evident, that as the resurrection to eternal life was
promised to Christ, so it is set forth as the promise of
the covenant to his people, that they should partake in
the same sure mercies, in the like resurrection and eternal
life. If the Jews, who were Paul's hearers, did not, and
could not, contradict Paul, and say, that sure mercies did
not import to Christ the raising him from the dead to
eternal life, as little can any say that the promise,
as it is extended by the prophet, does not mean
resurrection and eternal life to believers of these, and of
all times.

As to the law itself, it is very true, that, considered
separately from grace, it gave no promise of eternal, nor
even of temporal life to sinners. Yet, at the same time,
it is to be observed, that when God gave his law to Israel
from Mount Sinai, he introduced it thus : / am the Lord
thy God. The reason was this : He then gave out his
law with circumstances of the utmost terror to sinners.
Yet, according to the hint given in the preface prefixed
to it, he designed it in subserviency to his grace. It
appears to have been his declared and special view to
give his law on this occasion to them whom he took for
his peculiar people, to whom he was their God, and who,
from his being so, were to expect to have, for the end of
their conformity thereto in holiness, eternal life ; and to
have their obedience to it rewarded, according to the
grace of the covenant, with an eternal inheritance. So
it cannot be said that, even as the law was given by
Moses, and terribly promulgated at Sinai, Israel were
not encouraged to obedience by the promise of eternal
life, though this was not included from the law itself, but
from the grace of the covenant, by which the Lord became
their God ; for such he could not be to sinners by virtue
of the law, but of grace, and by virtue of the covenant
of grace.

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 23 1

In the time of Moses, Balaam says (Num. xxiii. 10),
Let me die the death of the righteous^ and let my last cud
be like his. Grotius gives, from the Jewish Gemara, an
interpretation of this, as if it was only a wish that he
might not die an immature or violent death, as the Lord
promised to those who obeyed him. Himself did well
to add, that these expressions do, however, hide a more
deep mystical sense ; yet this that he calls a mystical
sense appears more open and obvious than that other
given by the Gemara. It is plain, that the words mean
the hope that is in death possessed by righteous persons,
even if their death should be immature or violent (as
that afterwards of Eli and Josiah, and, long before
Balaam's time, that of righteous Abel) or with whatever
external circumstances it should be attended.

Solomon saith (Prov. xiii. 32) that the righteous hath
Jiopc i)i his death. But it is not easy to see what should
furnish hope to a man leaving this life with all its satis-
factions and enjoyments at death, if there was not the
hope of future life and happiness.

The view that Solomon gives of the course of things
in the world makes clearly and strongly to the present
purpose, when he says (Eccl. ix. 1, 2), No man knoweth
love or hatred by all that is before them : all tilings come
alike to all : there is one event to the righteous and to the
wicked. What the words intimate is, that there happens
not, in the course of providence respecting men in this
life, anything that proves God's special favour and love
to one sort beyond others. So the wise man observed,
even in these times of the Old Testament. Yet it could
not be thought that God's special favour and love to his
people does not produce suitable effects and fruits to
their advantage. Therefore the Holy Ghost declaring,
that none such are to be looked for in this life, it
amounts to an assurance, and could not but be so
understood in these times, that the special fruits of
Divine favour are certainly awaiting them in a future
happy state.

Let us likewise consider these words (Isa. iii. 10), Say
ye to the righteous, it shall be well with him, for they shall

232 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

eat the fruit of their doings. Woe unto the wicked, it
shall be ill with him, for the reward of his hands shall
be given him. The former text showed that there is
nothing distinguishing in God's providential dealings
with the righteous and wicked in this world. Yet this
text asserts, that it shall be well with the righteous —
that he shall enjoy the fruit of his works ; and that it
shall be ill with the wicked — that he shall receive a
reward suited to his works. Now, if, according to
Solomon's observation, the one or the other happens
not in this world, it is certain, and might have appeared
so in Isaiah's time, from these scriptural declarations,
that it behoved to be after this life.

God gives warrant and commission here, in the words
of Isaiah, to say to the righteous, without excepting any
condition or time of life, that it shall be well with him.
It is at death especially, when a man is finishing his
course of righteousness, that he may be determined to
be righteous ; and it is then especially that a man needs
the consolations of God's Word. Let us suppose such a
one in the convulsions and throes of death, and that a
pious friend says, Fear not ; God hath said it shall
be well with the righteous : you are now to eat the fruit
of your doings. Let us suppose such a one to answer
(as persons in darkness of condition are often very ready
to argue against themselves) — How can it be well with
me, and what can my hope be ? Alas ! my course is
at an end : I shall enjoy no more time, nor any good
in this world. Surely it would, in this case, be replying
justly, to say : God's promise to such as you is absolute,
and without limitation to time, or the things of time.
The power of God can cause you to live. Imitate the
faith of Abraham concerning his son Isaac, through
whom the promises were to have their accomplishment :
He accounted (Heb. xi. 19) that God was able to raise
him up, even from the dead. Death itself is not strong
enough to disappoint the promise, or make it of none
effect. You need not apprehend, that the power or
faithfulness of God shall fail in anything that is com-

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 23 ;

prehended in the extent of his word and promise. It
shall therefore be well with you when you depart hence :
you shall enjoy the fruit of your doings.

This text indeed doth not say eternal life ; and the
demand of some is, to find in the scriptures of the Old
Testament a promise or declaration mentioning explicitly
and expressly eternal life ; not merely inferring it by
reasoning from dark texts. This, however, is very un-
reasonable, and not better than if the Sadducees had
replied to our blessed Lord, — You do but argue from a
dark text, in which there is no express mention of
resurrection, or of eternal life. The force of the argument
did so strike them as to disable them to make such
answer to it. It doth not become us to contend
captiously with God about words and vocables. Certainly,
no words of any promise could more clearly and strongly
ensure future life and happiness to a righteous man when
dying, than the promise of Isaiah doth. As to the
expression, eternal or everlasting life, we shall even find
it in the promise presently.

We see Daniel writing expressly of the resurrection
of the dead (chap. xii. 2, 3), And many of them who sleep
in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And
they that be wise shall shine as the firmament, and they
that turn many to righteousness, as the stars for ever and
ever. If Daniel had, in the preceding context, been
prophesying of the distresses of the Jews by the op-
pressions of Antiochus, he doth here promise, not merely
outward deliverance from these, but sets forth what
makes the chief consolation of the church against all
temporal distresses and afflictions. It is common with
the prophets, Isaiah in particular, to comfort the church
of Israel, against the tribulations they foretell, by lofty
representations of the glories of Christ's kingdom to the
end of the world, and after it for ever. Thus doth
Daniel here comfort the church against the extreme
distresses he had foretold, by representing the resur-
rection of the dead, and the glory that shall follow. If
the word is many, it hath been observed, that sometimes

234 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

the word signifies the same as all. So Rom v. 19, By
one maris disobedience many were made sinners. It is
plain that nothing less than the resurrection of the dead
comes up to the propriety and obvious meaning of
Daniel's words ; and the promise to himself can mean
no less than his having his part comfortably in that
resurrection ; ver 13, But go thou thy way till the end be ;
for thou shall rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of
the days.

Let us now look into the New Testament, and to
some of the accounts which we find therein of the faith
of the Old Testament church respecting heaven and
eternal life, and the hopes which believers of these
times entertained of it. For Christians may be well
assured, that the Holy Ghost would not in the New
Testament represent these to have been otherwise than
as indeed they were.

The apostle Paul put the cause between him and his
persecutors on this (Acts xxiii. 6), that it was con-
cerning the hope and resurrection of the dead that he
was called in question. And he says before Agrippa
(Acts xxvi. 6, 7, 8), I stand and am judged for the hope
of the promise made of God unto our fathers : unto which
promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and
nig Jit, hope to come ; for which hope's sake, King Agrippa,
I am accused of the fews. Why should it be thought a
tiling incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
In like manner (vers. 22, 23) he asserts, that he said
none other things than Moses and the prophets did say should
come, that Christ should suffer, and that lie should be the
first that should rise from the dead. Indeed, this promise
of rising from the dead, to Christ and his people, is
clearly enough expressed (Isa. lv. 3), as hath been shown
formerly. It may have the appearance and pretence of
advancing the honour and value of the Gospel, and of
the Christian revelation, to assert that it was by it first,
and never before, that the promise was given, and a
foundation laid for the hope of the resurrection, and of
eternal life. But I do not understand that it can consist
with the credit of the Christian revelation to suppose,

CX PER THE OLD TESTA M EXT 235

that Christ and his apostles pretended to find in Moses
and the prophets what was not truly in them.

We find (Hcb. xi. 9, 10, that Abraham, while he
received believingly and thankfully the promise of
Canaan to his posterity, as a pledge of something better
to himself, and to his spiritual seed, yet for his own
personal and chief interest, he by faith sojourned in the
land of promise, as in a strange country, very con-
tentedly dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob,
the heirs with him of the same promise. So he and
these other patriarchs showed by their conduct, that they
looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder
and maker is God.

Thus too the same inspired writer gives an account of
the faith and hope of these fathers (vers. 13-16). He
says, TJicse all died in tJie fait//, not having received tJic
promises, but having seen them afar off, and ice re
persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed
that they were strangers and pilgrims on earth. He then
says, they hereby declared plainly, that they did seek a
connt)y; not that from whence they came out: they
showed that they desired a better, that is, a heavenly
country. Whatever besides was in these promises, it is
evidently the apostle's view, that there was that in them
that determined these fathers to account themselves, yea,
to choose to be, strangers and pilgrims on earth, and to
desire a heavenly country.

Downwards (vers. 24-26), he represents how Moses
did forego the prospect of high worldly advancement,
took a share in the afflictions of the people of God, and
in the reproach of Christ : for, saith the inspired writer,
he had respect unto the recompense of reward. This was
not a reward on earth, or to share in the rest and
happiness of Israel in Canaan, which he did not attain ;
but a recompense and reward, the hope of which did not
disappoint him. Thereafter (ver. 35), he mentions some,
who were tortured, not accepting deliverance, that they
might obtain a better resurrection. After all this, I cannot
but wonder that some learned men should hot be able to
find in the religion of the Old Testament, or in the

236 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

covenants of promise, which were the grounds and
principles of that religion, a clear and sufficient
warrant for the hope of future happiness, and of eternal
life. Our blessed Lord himself (John v. 39) bids the
Jews to search the Scriptures ; for in them, saith he, ye
think ye have eternal life. He gave them no hint on this
occasion, that their opinion of finding eternal life in these
Old Testament Scriptures was ill founded. Yea, if it
were, it had been deluding them to direct them to look
for it there.

It were easy to add here divers instances of holy
persons in these times, whose profession of their faith
and hope of future life appears in the Scriptures of the
Old Testament, and who profess this hope in such a
manner as did sufficiently warrant the same hope to
others, in their own and after times. There is less need
to enlarge in that way, that even Socinus and his
followers acknowledge that several of them did actually
entertain that hope ; at the same time that they assert,
that God gave them no such promise, nor the warrant of
such hope ; and allow that the heathens also had that
hope : so that God's Israel were without hope, as to any
sure ground of hope, as well as the heathens who were
aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers
from the covenants of promise (Eph. ii. 12). But the
great difference between Israel and the heathens, as to
the grounds of their hope, doth very clearly appear by
what we have said on the subject. However, as to the
hope actually entertained by them, these few instances
(besides what hath come in our way before) may be
observed, Gen. xlix. 18; 2 Sam. xxiii. 5; Ps. xvii. 15;
Ps. xlix. 14, 15 ; Ps. lxxiii. 24-26.

If we consider attentively how matters were ordered
under the Old Testament as to Israel, we may see cause
to conceive of them thus. When the Lord chose and
separated the seed of Jacob to be his church, and brought
them into covenant with himself, he dealt with them as
he never did before, or since, with any people. A par-
ticular article of his covenant and promise to them was,
to give them a good land, Canaan, for an inheritance.

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 237

He promised them the enjoyment of that land, and
prosperity in it, on condition of maintaining his truth
and worship, and the purity of his institutions, with
which he had dignified them beyond any other people,
and of universal obedience to all his commandments :
intimating to them, that, from a contrary behaviour, they
should expect his judgments to come on themselves and
their land ; to make them unhappy in it, or to expel
them from it. At the same time, he assured them of his
merc\-, by which he would, upon their repentance, renew
the prosperity of their nation, and restore them to the
possession of their earthly inheritance, if they had been
dispossessed of it.

Upon this view of things, we need not wonder that,
in giving them his law by Moses, the Lord should
encourage their nation to a due regard to his laws and
ordinances, by the promise of national and temporal
prosperity, in the land he gave them for an inheritance,
and should deter them from disobedience, by denounc-
ing temporal judgments and strokes to come on them
and on their land, in consequence of it. In like manner,
when their prophets did deal with that people about the
unhappy circumstances in which they often were, as they
did acquaint them that their sins were the cause, so they
commonly encouraged them to repentance and reforma-
tion by the promise of temporal prosperity to their
nation, and the affluence of the good things of the earth.
Indeed, when the weal and prosperity, the misery and
distresses of nations are the subject, these views will
suit the case of all nations at all times. God doth not
give heaven to whole nations, but doth commonly
connect national good behaviour and obedience with
temporal national prosperity. It is likewise true, that
under the Old Testament, as heavenly and eternal
things were more sparingly revealed, temporal pros-
perity and success was more commonly bestowed, to
encourage the integrity of single persons, than under the
gospel, when the cross is recommended to Christians,
after the example of Christ himself, as the way to glory.
These things may account for a great deal of what is to

238 AN ESSAY CONCERNING THE PROMISE

be found with Moses and the prophets, of which an
improper use hath been made, with regard to the
spiritual state and hope of the Lord's people in ancient
times.

What is expressed in the Old Testament Scripture,
on such views as I have been observing, is by no means
to the purpose of the doctrine of justification, nor doth
it derogate from the hope of eternal life in the times of
the Old Testament If Moses or the prophets are
signifying to Israel, by what means their nation may
attain or recover the Divine favour and their national
prosperity, we are not to conceive it, as if the Holy
Ghost were showing how a sinner is justified before
God, with spiritual and eternal consequences. I believe
a nation may, according to the common rule and method
of Divine conduct, attain the favour of Providence by
their own works and good behaviour ; and the favour of
Providence may sometimes, by Divine sovereignty, be
bestowed, as the reward of the integrity and well-doing
of single persons, as more commonly happened in the
times of the Old Testament. But it doth not by any
means follow, that a sinner is justified before God by his
own works or righteousness, or that it is by these that
a sinner is introduced into a state of grace and favour
with God. At the same time, if the Lord encouraged
Israel to obedience, repentance, and reformation, by the
promises of peace, earthly prosperity, and national happi-
ness, they shall greatly mistake, who shall think that he
invited men to piety by no higher views, and by no
better promises.

The case, in short, hath stood thus : Godliness hath
still had the promise of the life that now is, and of that
which is to come. Under the gospel, the promise of the
life that is to come is more clearly exhibited, and more
inculcated. During the Old Testament, the promise of
the life that now is, did, in a greater degree, include
temporal prosperity, and was more inculcated than
since. They who were carnal followed after righteous-
ness with that view ; and generally they did not miss of
their reward. But they whose hearts were formed to

UNDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 239

spiritual things, as their views entered farther into true
holiness, they pursued that course with a higher aim of
spiritual good things, and of eternal blessings, and found
sufficient ground for such aim and hope in the promises
of the covenant.

It doth not become us to prescribe rules to divine
wisdom, concerning the measure of light that ought to
be afforded in the different periods of time. It is said
(2 Tim. i. 10) that Christ JiatJi — brought life and immor-
tality to light through the gospel. Much use hath been
made of this against what hath been here advanced. But
no more can be justly made of these words, than that life
and immortality is brought out of the obscurity of the
Old Testament ; and is, together with the special grounds
of the hope, set forth in a clear and full light by the
gospel. But this doth by no means import that in the
preceding state and period there was no revelation or
promise of life and immortality.

That the expression used in writing to Timothy doth
not import so, will appear by considering expressions
fully as strong, used concerning other subjects. For
instance (Eph. hi.), the apostle says, That the Gentiles
should be fellow-heirs and of the same body, and partakers
of his promise in Christ, by the gospel (ver. 6 was a
mystery made known ver. 3) to himself by revelation. A
mystery (ver. 5) which in former ages was not made
known to the sons of men, as it is now revealed to his holy
apostles and prophets by the Spirit. We must not for this
say, that the mystery of the calling, and incorporating
of the Gentiles into the church, was not at all revealed
in the Old Testament Scriptures. For we find these
Scriptures, on divers occasions, quoted to that purpose ;
and particularly (Rom. xv. 9-12) we see the apostle
observing the prediction of that event in divers places of
the Old Testament : and we shall easily find it foretold
in several places, not less, rather more, clearly than in
those mentioned by the apostle. As if he intended to
assist those he wrote to, to observe the prediction in these
places where there were but dark and brief hints of it;
leaving to themselves to observe these places where the

240 AN ESS A Y CONCERNING THE PROMISE

matter was more obvious, and presented in a more clear
and full light. But as he says to the Ephesians, of the
calling of the Gentiles, that it was not formerly made
known, as it is now revealed by the Spirit to the holy
apostles and prophets ; so we may justly paraphrase the
words to Timothy thus : Life and immortality were not
formerly made known as they are now revealed by the
Spirit to the holy apostles and prophets, and by them to
the church through the gospel. Life and immortality
are now brought to light, compared with the former
obscurity.

In like manner, the apostle Peter says of Christ to
those he writes to, that he was fore- ordained before the
foundation of the world ; but (so he adds) was manifested
in these latter times for you. The word manifest, here, and
in 2 Tim. i. 10, brought to light, do very precisely render
the words of the Greek ; and to bring to light and to
make manifest, are expressions evidently of the same
meaning. But if Christ is said to be made manifest in
the latter times, those of the gospel, would any infer that
there was no revelation, no promise of him under the Old
Testament? To make the like inference concerning life
and immortality, from 2 Tim. i. 10, were no less absurd.

It cannot be understood how religion could be at all
maintained in ancient times, or at any time sincerely, in
the church, without the promise and hope of spiritual
blessings, and of eternal life ; or how without the pursuit
and hope of these, there could be true purity of heart, or
true holiness. When the apostle Paul proceeds in the
latter part of his epistle to the Colossians, as is usual with
him in all his epistles, to exhort the Colossians to holiness,
he begins (chap. iii. i) with exhorting them to seek the
tilings that are above ; to set their affections on things
above, not on things on the earth, and to mortify their
members (their corrupt lusts and affections) that are
upon the earth. If we observe the view the Scripture
gives us of the matter, we shall see there is nothing more
contrary to holiness and purity of heart, than to have the
heart set on the earth, and addicted to earthly satisfactions
and enjoyments, and to the pursuit of them. Though

CXDER THE OLD TESTAMENT 24 1

Grotius is wrong, when he writes so unfavourably of the
hope of eternal life during the Old Testament, yet his
view is so far right in general, that, supposing the Lord
not to give the hope of any good beyond what is earthly,
there would not be the strength (nor, I say, the disposition)
needful for purifying the heart. To say the truth, how
could men be found fault with for pursuing and resting
in the happiness of earthly wealth and pleasure, if nothing
better was set before them ? And however, on occasion
of remarkable Divine pleasure, fasting and prayer might,
at any rate, be proper, even for the recovery or con-
tinuance of earthly enjoyments ; yet, in the common
course of things, might it not be reckoned just and
prudent to say, I.ct us cat a)id drink, for to- m or r 01.
die ? For why should not men set their hearts on that
good, which is the greatest object of hope, that they find
even revelation setting before them ?

The Lord might indeed, by the regulations prescribed
to civil and ecclesiastic rulers ; by the severity of his
judgments on Israel for their sins; and by the extra-
ordinary interpositions of his providence, at other times,
in their behalf; by the ministry of his prophets, and the
authority he conciliated to them by extraordinary gifts
and miraculous powers ; he might, I say, by all these
means procure considerable regard to his laws as to
outward obedience, and deter men from the outward
practice of wickedness ; and so maintain some order in
society. But I am confident, it is agreeable to the
Scriptures, and to the nature of things, to say, that all
these means could not procure true holiness and sincerity
of obedience, or the purifying of the heart, if the word
of God proposed, for the object of hope, nothing above
what is earthly.

It will not be enough to say, that many, in these
times, from the direction of their reason or understanding,
from the inclination of their own hearts, or from some
secret instinct of grace, did indeed desire and hope for
spiritual blessings and eternal life, though God did not
by any revelation or promise give them any direction or
ground to warrant such desire and hope Even the

Q

242 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 10

Socinians allow so much. But that certainly must be
deemed sufficient in religion, which is agreeable to the
revelation God hath given. If the revelation did not
warrant and found the hope of spiritual blessings and
of eternal life, we must either say, that the desire and
hope of these is not necessary in religion, or that divine
revelation in the times of the Old Testament was
essentially defective ; which were so dishonourable to
God and to revelation, that I scarce think it will be
admitted by any persons of Christian profession.

I apprehend that, of the two things I have mentioned,
those I have in my eye will choose the first ; viz. to say,
that though the desire and hope of spiritual and eternal
blessings are of great advantage in religion, yet they are
not absolutely necessary. Accordingly, I observe, that
they who hold that ancient Israel had little hope of
eternal life, and no ground for such hope by God's word
or promise, do generally incline to think favourably of
those they call virtuous heathens ; and that their wanting
this hope, and good grounds for it, and the want of its
influence in their heart and practice, was not such an
essential defect in the religion of the heathens, but that
without it they might attain to the pleasing of God, and
to future happiness. Whatever arguments he used to
guard against the consequence of these sentiments, yet
their tendency is, and their consequence will commonly
be, with those who receive them, though they themselves
have presented to them the revelation and promise of
eternal life, that they will be led by such notions to
think (what the carnality of men's hearts is otherwise
prone to) that the way to the kingdom of heaven is
more easy than it is indeed, and that with fatal effect to
the souls of men.

Text. — Ver. 10. And the commandment which was ordained to
life, I found to be unto death.

EXPLICATION. — The unfavourable consequence of the
coming of the commandment here seems not to be

Ver. io] OF ROMANS VII. 243

merely condemning the transgressor, and adjudging
death to him, which, according to the notion of some
late writers, it never did but in one instance, until the
Mosaic promulgation, which, they say, first added to the
commandment the sanction of death for transgression.
If we consider the context from ver. 5, we may see cause
to think, that the apostle hath especially in his view the
effect produced by the unregenerate heart and the law,
between them ; viz. the revival of sin in its more vehement
lustings and unholy affections.

As to the law's being ordained to life, it did originally
promise life to those who should perfectly obey it. It
was designed, and in itself calculated to lead them in
the way that would terminate in life. It represents an
amiable scheme of holiness, a perfect system of duty, by
which it might recommend itself to every rational mind,
as tending in its own nature to make man happy. By
its light it marked out to men the way to life ; the
Divine authority in it did powerfully enforce it ; as did
the promise of life, and threatening of death annexed to
it. To the rational and undepraved mind and heart it
gave the most powerful excitement to holiness. Thus
the commandment was ordained to life.

But, alas ! human nature hath undergone a sad change,
a powerful depravation. Now, sin, or the flesh, that evil
principle dominant in the unregenerate soul, being urged,
reproved, and condemned by the law, it doth awaken
with all its force, and exert itself in sinful affections, in
all manner of concupiscence, terminating in death. As
the evident scope of the preceding context tends to gi\e
this view of the present text ; so we see the expression
and sense of the next following (ver. 11) suits the same
view.

I do not, however, think that the death here meant is
to be understood merely of the death denounced by the
law, to which the activity of sin deservedly exposes a
man. It seems likely, that by death he especially means
here the prevalence of sin itself in his soul. He mentions
(chap. vi. 6) the body of sin, and, ver. 24, of this chapter,
he cries out, Who shall deliver me from this body of

244 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. IO

death? We have no cause to think that the object of
his earnest wish in this latter text is, to be freed from
the body. It is rather what he had in the former text
called the body of sin, that he calls here, the body of death.
The inherent plague of sin showing, by occasion of the
law, its great power and prevalence, was to him as
death; and why might he not justly call it death, that
disabled him from all vital activity, from activity in
holiness, without which he would not reckon that he
had life ?

Some writers, whom I have often had occasion to
mention, have held that law in this context is to be
understood in a restricted sense, of a law with the
sanction of death for transgression, such as never was
given forth to sinful men until the Mosaic promulgation ;
and this some of them call rigour of law. But how
could it be said that this law was ordained to life to
sinful men ; for it was to such it was given at Sinai? it
could not possibly bring sinners to life. If they should
say the law was ordained to life, as it was first given
to Adam in innocence, yet even thus it will not answer,
according to the strange notion of Dr Taylor who says,
that Adam, in his first state, could not stand under what
he calls rigour of law (that is, law denouncing death for
every transgression), more than any of his posterity. If
so, then, according to him, the law could not bring man
in his best state to life ; and none will say that the law
could give life to sinners. How then, according to
these men's notions, could Paul say, the law was ordained
to life ?

Paraphrase. — 10. And thus the commandment, which
was originally designed to give life to all who would
perfectly obey it, and which to undepraved and innocent
man gave the best direction, and the most powerful
excitement to the holiness and obedience that is the
way to life, did, as by accident (as causa per aeeidens),
through the sad corruption of my nature, which did not
yield to its authority, nor was subdued by its power, but
exerted itself the more vehemently in all sinful affections
and lustings, work a real death in me, as it denounced

Ver. Il] OF ROMANS VII. 245

eternal death to me ; and so (ver. 9) destroyed that
confidence by which I was sometime vainly alive in my
own conceit.

Text. — 1 1. For sin taking occasion by the commandment, deceived
me, and by it slew me.

EXPLICATION. — Dr Whitby in his annotations on
vers. 8-1 1, and after his particular annotation on ver. 10,
says, " The old and common interpretation is this, that
the prohibition of what we desire makes us to think the
enjoyment of it more sweet and valuable ; or at least
provokes the carnal mind, which is not subject to the
law of God, to a more fervent lusting after it, dum
proJiibita non tarn refugit qitam ardentius expetit, and this
agrees very well with the expression." The matter may
be illustrated by this similitude: — If a man who bears
an inveterate hatred to another, whom he reckons his
enemy, ever desiring and endeavouring to destroy him,
should see this other man before him and near him, this
would readily awaken his passion to an extreme degree
against him, and put him upon showing his hatred and
opposition to him in a vehement manner. So sin, finding
the commandment come home upon the conscience with
much force, seeking its destruction ; this awakens the
malignity of sin, and it exerts itself, and all its members,
its various lusts and passions, in the most keen opposition
to the law.

He had said before, that sin taking occasion by tlic
commandment, WROUGHT in him all manner of con-
cupiscence. Here he says, sin taking occasion by the com-
mandment, DECEIVED him. So there is deception in the
case. There is so great evil in sin, and the consequences,
as set forth by the righteous law, arc so terrible, that it
were not likely the heart of man would fall in with it,
without being in some way deceived. So the Greek here
is ef>/7raT?7o-e, it deceived, as the Seventy hath in Eve's
answer (Gen. iii. 13), the serpent y-u-yre beguiled me.
We know that men's lusts and passions have great

246 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 1 1

influence on their mind and imagination. Thus sin,
and the various lusts thereof, awakened and irritated by
the contrary commandment, set the imagination to work
according to their own turn and disposition, to represent
in the most alluring colours the pleasure to be attained
by their gratification and enjoyment. This further
inflames the sinful passion and lusting. These sinful
passions and desires upon the one hand, and on the other
the false colours in which the imagination represents the
object, do mutually co-operate to give advantage to sin
and its deceit.

Dr Doddridge, in his paraphrase, mentions another
way of deception (to which, however, the deceiving is
by no means to be restricted), thus : " Sin — taking
occasion by the terrors and curse of the violated command-
ment, and representing the great Lawgiver, as now be-
come my irreconcilable enemy, deceived me into a
persuasion that I could be no worse than I was." The
truth is, a persuasion that a man cannot be in a worse
state, or, in other words, a despair of mercy, doth in
persons under the power of their lust, very commonly
operate in this way, even for a man to run the more
vehemently in an evil course, with an affected thought-
lessness about futurity.

At the same time, there is another sort of deception
no less common, arising from the suggestion of im-
punity: thus, Deut. xxix. 18, 19. — Lest there should be
among yon a root bearing gall and wormwood, and it
come to pass when he heareth the words of this curse, that
he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace,
though I walk in the imagination of mine heart. A self-
flattering heart {deceitful above all things, Jer. xvii. 9),
can readily enough suggest, in flat contradiction to the
law, as the tempter did of old (Gen. iii. 4), Ye shall not
surely die. This is perhaps supported by some delusion,
which the heart is very ready to entertain concerning
the goodness of God, and by extenuating thoughts of
sin, and perhaps by the notion of some works, or some
particular virtue on which a man values himself, and
which he vainly thinks makes compensation for his sin.

Ver. Il] OF ROMANS III. 247

Thus, for instance, some worthless men of our times, who
have sold themselves to their lusts in the practice of
lewdness, do abound in almsgiving, from a senseless
notion of the meaning of that text (1 Peter iv. 8), Charity
shall cover a multitude of sins. Thus sin makes out its
purpose by one way or other of deceiving.

Dr Taylor doth here alter the translation, and, instead
of sin taking occasion, he renders, " sin having received
force by the commandment." He says (note on ver. 8),
that all the commentators (and some of them understood
the Greek exceeding well) have mistaken the signifi-
cation of the Greek word here rendered occasion, when
it really signifies force, advantage. That force he under-
stands of the force which sin hath got by the Mosaic
law to give death to the transgressor. Grotius on ver. 8
renders the Greek word, impunity, which implies the
law's wanting force. Dr Taylor will have it mean, the
law's having force, and giving destructive force to sin.
Enough has been said elsewhere concerning Grotius'
rendering. I see not that Dr Taylor gives any authority
or reason for his sense of the word ; if it is not that it
best suits his notions and doctrine, and the misinter-
pretation he has given of divers other texts. I see in
my dictionary, occasion, given for a sense of the word.
But that of Grotius, or of Dr Taylor are not among the
senses given of it. If critics will, in interpreting Scrip-
ture, give senses to words upon no better authorities,
they may assert and establish what doctrines they please.
The sense of this verse may, with little variation from
the paraphrase of the worthy Dr Guise, be given thus :

Paraphrase. — 11. For sin in me, that evil principle
so deeply rooted in my depraved nature, being impatient
of restraint by the law, took a perverse occasion from
the strictness of the commandments contained in it, to
rise up in rebellion against it, as if it was too unreason-
able and severe an imposition to be laid upon human
nature ; and by this and various other means of decep-
tion, beguiling me as the serpent did Eve (Gen. iii. 13),
it ensnared me, and drew me to the commission of
many evils, which God had forbidden ; and by this

248 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Vers. 12, 1 3

means, brought me more and more under the heaviest
sentence of condemnation and death ; and when after-
wards it came home, in its spirituality and power, to my
conscience, it slew the high towering thoughts and con-
fidences which I before had entertained about my own
sufficiency to keep it, and my own righteousness to
recommend me to God.

Text. — 12. Wherefore the law is holy ; and the commandment
holy, and just, and good.

I have no occasion to enlarge on the epithets and
characters here given to the law and commandment,
the sense of which is obvious. The purpose and sense
of what this verse contains may be conceived and ex-
pressed briefly according to this.

Paraphrase. — 12. I have shown the true cause of all
sinful motions ; of every sinful concupiscence. Where-
fore, although the evil principle in the hearts of men
doth produce such concupiscence, and sinful motions
more vehemently, by occasion of the commandment;
yet the law in itself is holy, and the commandment holy,
just, and good : and so not at all favourable to sin, which
it pursues into the heart, discovers, and reproves in the
very inward motions thereof.

Text. — 13. Was then that which is good, made death unto me?
God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death
in me by that which is good: that sin by the commandment
might become exceeding sinful.

Explication. — Let us begin with observing Dr
Taylor's interpretation of. the first part of this verse.
According to the notion that has been entertained by
him, and some others, that this chapter is addressed to
Jewish converts separately, he makes several passages in
it to be the words, question, or objection of a Jew, with
the apostle's answer annexed. So here his paraphrase
gives, in way of dialogue, thus : "Jew. And yet you say,

Ver. 13] OF ROMANS VII. 249

we were made subject to death by the commandment.
Could that which is so good (ver. 12), become deadly to
us?" By this the Jew, as he is represented here,
considers the law's denouncing death for transgression
as a doctrine of the apostle's, which Jews had not known,
nor ever received ; and reasoning against it as hard, and
inconsistent with the goodness of the law. But it is very
incongruous to put an objection against the law in the
mouth of a Jew. The Jew gloried in the law, and
would not object against it on the account here
mentioned, or on any account. ' When the curses were
solemnly proclaimed from Mount Ebal (Deut. xxvii.), all
the people were directed to say at hearing each, Amen.
They did so at hearing the last comprehensive one
denounced against all and every transgression (ver. 26).
Their assent and consent to this, on that solemn
occasion, appears as a condition of the covenant of that
nation with God. They greatly mistake, who think the
design here is to vindicate the penal sanction of the law
against the objection of a Jew. What the vindication
hath respect to, we have seen in part, and will presently
see more fully.

Let us now see the answer, as Dr Taylor gives it thus :
" Apostle. No ; take me right. It was not the command-
ment itself which slew us, but sin. It was sin which
subjected us to death, by the law justly threatening sin
with death." The truth in this matter is easily conceived.
Sin merits death : death is threatened and inflicted by
the law and by the Lawgiver. There is faultiness in
sin, so meriting; but no faultiness on the part of the law,
or Lawgiver. But to say, it was not the law that slew
sinners, or subjected them to death, is not agreeable to
truth ; nor is it consistent with what this Doctor says
elsewhere. In his note on ver. 8, he writes thus : " That
sting (viz. of death) is sin. But death would have no
power to thrust that sting into the sinner's heart, were it
not for the law of God condemning him to death."' And
a little downwards: "The law is the force, by which the
terrible sting is plunged into the sinner's vitals. For
(ver. 8) without the law, sin, the sting of death, is itself

250 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3

dead, and quite unable to slay the sinner." Thus this
acute Doctor introduces the Jew, quite out of character,
objecting against the law, and its penal sanction ; and
makes the inspired apostle give an answer inconsistent
with the Doctor's own account of things : an answer
contrary to truth and common sense. How could the
man say, it was not the commandment that slew
us, but sin, when he held that sin prevailing for many
ages did not slay men, until the law was given at
Sinai ?

As it is quite vain to think that the apostle means
here to introduce a vindication of the law, for assigning
death as the punishment of transgressions; so the just
view of his design is easily learned from the preceding
context. He had mentioned (ver. 5) the motions of sins
which were by the law. He had said (ver. 8) that sin,
taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in him all
manner of concupiscence : and (ver. 10) that the command-
ment which was ordained to life, he found to be unto
death : and (ver. 1 1 ) that sin taking occasion by the
commandment, deceived him. By this it is evident, that
what is here meant is a vindication of the law from the
charge of being truly the cause of sin in a man's heart
and practice, or of these motions of sins, and of that
concupiscence and deception that is by occasion of the
law. As we distinguish, with regard to offence, between
offence given and offence taken, which last may be when
indeed there is no offence, or cause of offence, given : so
here, as to occasion, the law did not give occasion ; but
sin did perversely and wickedly take occasion, such as
the context represents. The vindicating of the law with
regard to this, and showing that it is not by any means
the cause of sin, is the evident and special scope of this
place.

The true cause, then, of these motions of sins (ver. 5),
of that unholy concupiscence (ver. 8), of that deception
(ver. 11), is sin. So the apostle says here : Sin that it
might appear sin, working death in me by that which is
good. Here two things are to be considered and inquired
into. 1. What is here meant by death? I have said

Ver. 13] OF ROMANS I'll. 251

before, that the holy apostle would certainly reckon as
a very death in his soul, the prevailing of sin in its
motions and activity in his heart. Yet this not to
exclude sin's working death in and to him by virtue of
the sanction of the law. Not as if this was the effect by
a peculiarity or peculiar sanction of the Mosaic law, but
by virtue of the sanction that was ever in the law, and
connected with the commandment : the consequence of
which was, that every new motion or act of sin, or con-
cupiscence, subjected him to new condemnation to death,
by virtue of the threatening of the law.

2. The other thing to be here inquired into, is, what
is meant by sin in this clause, — sin that it might appear
sin. Divers commentators have observed, that sin is in
this context, by a figure, represented as a person ; and
some seem to mean no more by this figurative person,
than a general notion, comprehending or including all
particular sorts of sin. But we see in this context sin dis-
tinguished from sinful acting, as we have (ver. 8) sin
working in a man all manner of concupiscence. This last
imports inward acts of sin, previous to which is sin
working this concupiscence, and the efficient cause of it.
So that sin thus working is not to be considered as a
thing merely ideal, an abstract idea, or notion, which
cannot be truly the cause of anything. Sin here is
something real — a cause, which, by its powerful influence,
works concupiscence, every particular lusting, or unholy
affection. It is the cause or principle of sinning, deeply
rooted in men's nature, in this state of depravation, what
the learned have called peccatum peceans — the sinning
sin — sin the cause of all actual sins in the inward and
outward practice. The remainder of which evil principle
in the regenerate he had called (chap. vi. 6) the old man.
It is otherwise called the flesh ; which is itself, previous
to these unholy actings, inward or outward, called (Gal.
v. 19, &c. the works of the flesh. How, on any other
view, can be understood sin working concupiscence ? This
activity, in the way of concupiscence, or of deceiving,
doth certainly presuppose a previous acting cause. The
sum, then, of the apostle's argument is, as hath been

252 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 1 3

several times said, that the law or commandment is but
the innocent occasion, and by no means the cause of
such sinful motions as are said (ver. 5) to be by the law ;
but that sin, that evil principle in human nature, is the
true proper cause of all sinful motions and actions.

Nor will it make a valid objection against this, that is
somewhere suggested by Mr Locke, that sin cannot be
the cause of itself. True ; nothing can be the cause of
itself. But sin, in one sense and respect, may be the
cause of sin in another sense and respect. This is easily
explained by James i. 15. It will be acknowledged that
the lusting there mentioned is sin, especially when it
hath inwardly conceived ; and there it is said, When lust
hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. Here, then, sin (lust
inwardly conceiving) is the cause of sin in the outward
work and deed. Besides this, it appears in our context
that there is sin in nature, previous even to the inward
lusting, and which is the cause of it, — sin working in a
man all manner of concupiscence.

Now, as to the last clause, That sin by the command-
ment might become exceedingly sinful ; it has been observed
before, that sometimes things are said to be, when the
meaning is, that they appear, or are proved to be. To
the instances of this sort adduced on chap. vi. 1, may be
added (chap. iii. 19) That all the world may become guilty
before God. It is not by the declaration or testimony of
God's word that men, properly and indeed, become
guilty ; but thereby it appears that they are guilty. So
here, as in the preceding clause, it is said, Sin that it
might appear sin ; to the same purpose, with some varia-
tion of expression, it is in the last clause, That sin by the
commandment might become (that is, might appear, or be
proved to be) exceeding sinful.

Paraphrase. — 13. But after all that hath been
offered to vindicate the law from the charge of being the
true and proper cause. of sin, yet having (ver. 5) mentioned
the motions of sin which are by the law, and (ver. 8) all
manner of concupiscence arising by occasion of the law,
and (ver. 10) that you found the commandment to be
unto death to you; and (ver. 1 1) that sin, by occasion of

Ver. 13] of ROMANS vii. 253

the commandment, deceived and slew you ; may it not
be justly concluded, that the law which you have
commended for its goodness is, indeed, made death to
you, not merely by adjudging death to you for trans-
gressing and rebelling against the commands and
authority of the Almighty (which all the world must
acknowledge to be agreeable as to the holiness and
justice, so also to the goodness of the law), but that it is
also made death to you by increasing the activity of sin
in you, or in me, which is so contrary to, so inconsistent
with, the activity of a better and true life in our souls ;
and thus it is a true cause of death in us of sin, as well
as of death to us of punishment? That the law should
in this way be made death to me, or to any, I cannot
easily conceive to be consistent with that holiness or
goodness which you ascribe to the law.

But far be it from us to think so concerning the divine
law and holy commandment. The effect mentioned is,
as I hinted (ver. 5), only in them who are in the flesh,
under the dominion of sin (chap. vi. 14) ; and I still say,
that it is sin, or the flesh, that evil principle and plague
inherent in my depraved nature, that wrought death in
me and to me ; thereby appearing in its own colours,
and to be what it truly is, the vilest thing in the world,
even to be sin (than which nothing worse can be said of
it), the fruitful and abounding source of all transgression
inward and outward, meriting death ; and proving at once
its wickedness and power, in working death in me by that
which is good that so (not only by its ordinary motions,
but especially by its more lively and powerful activity,
on occasion of the commandment's coming home into
my conscience, then exerting itself, as in defiance and
despite of its light and authority, and of the divine
authority in it), sin in me might appear by the light of
the commandment thus outrageously despised and
counteracted, to be a most aggravated evil, — evil beyond
all conception — an abounding and overflowing source of
transgression, impurity, and iniquity, — the powerful cause
of increased condemnation and death, — yea, in a word,
to be (as Jer. xvii. 9) desperately wicked.

254 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

We have seen the case of persons under the law in the
flesli, and so under the dominion of sin. Whether the
latter part of this chapter, which now follows, doth
represent the case, with respect to sin, of persons under
grace, whilst they continue in this life, is to be the next
subject of inquiry. But here I find it expedient to alter
my method.

A DISSERTATION

Concerning the general scope and purpose of the latter part of
Chap. vii. 14-25, in order to determine whether it represents the
case of a regenerate or unregenerate person ; the case of a
person under the law, or of one under grace ; wherein the
particular expressions of that context are explained.

SECT. i. — Being an introduction to this subject and
inquiry. It has been said, that the ancient writers of the
church did universally understand the apostle as here
personating an unregenerate person, until Augustine
introduced a different interpretation. Wolfius, on ver. 9
of this chapter, mentions a learned writer (Calovius) who
has proved, he says, that these ancient writers before
Augustine did not universally so understand the apostle.
Augustine himself, who had at first so understood, says,
that in the opinion which, on more close consideration of
the context, he fell in with, he followed the interpretation
of several writers of note, whom he mentions. By the
passages he quotes from Ambrose of Milan, it is very
evident that that eminent person, who wrote before him,
understood Paul as representing here his own case and
experience in a state of grace. This is in Augustine's
second book against Julian.

In later times, Socinus, that noted adversary, under
Christian profession of the Christian faith, said, Beware
as of the pestilence, that you understand not this context
of persons regenerate and under grace. Arminius, the

THE SCOPE OF ROMANS VI L 14-25 255

first who did, in the bosom of a reformed church, broach
that scheme of doctrine that hath its name from him,
made the first discovery of his sentiments in his lectures
on this context, in which his interpretation differed from
that which was generally given by the reformed divines.
He afterwards published an elaborate dissertation upon
it, written with considerable learning and acuteness. On
the former part of the chapter we saw different opinions
and interpretations ; but on this part men have become
more warm and keen in their reasoning, and whilst they
differ otherwise, they seem on all hands to agree in this
one thing, the importance of understanding this context
aright.

Among those who think the apostle here personates
an unregenerate man, there is, however, some difference
in their manner of stating the matter. Arminius supposes
we have here the case of a man under the powerful in-
fluence of the law in his conscience, the law doing in his
conscience all that could be done by its light and authority,
convincing of sin, condemning, and giving him great in-
citement to his duty ; the case of a man in the very next
step to regeneration and conversion. But the writers on
that side do appear sometimes to change their ground.
Some understand the man personated to be the Jew
under the law, and even of such an one as Ahab, one of
the worst of Jews, one of the worst of men, far from
regeneration. Several have recourse to heathen fable,
and introduce the story of the witch Medea, and the
words which the poet puts in her mouth, to exemplify
and illustrate their interpretation of this context ; as if
we had nothing here but what suits the character and
disposition of an Ahab, or a Medea.

i)r Whitby states the question thus: "Whether Paul
spcaketh here in his own person, or in the person of a
regenerate man, or only in the person of a Jew con-
flicting with the motions of his lusts, only by the assist-
ance of the letter of the law, without the aids and power-
ful assistance of the Holy Spirit."

It is not easy to see with what propriety the name
and character of Jew is here introduced at all. Holy

256 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

men from Moses to Christ were generally Jews ; and
it cannot be said that they were without the aids of the
Holy Spirit, according to Dr Whitby himself on ver. 5.
It seems to be especially hard that he should thus
represent a Jew, as not having the aids of the Spirit,
even when conflicting against the motions of his lusts,
considering what himself allows in favour of the heathens
(annot. on Rom. ii. 14), where he says, "If any of them
did arrive at such a state, as made them indeed to fear
God, and work righteousness, they did this not merely
by the strength of natural light ; for though some of
them seem to say, that nature or philosophy was a
sufficient guide to virtue, yet that they meant not this
exclusively of the Divine assistance, which they saw
necessary to preserve them against the infirmity of
human nature, their own words do fully testify." I stay
not to make observations on the doctrine or interpre-
tation contained in this passage. Only as to what
concerns the present purpose, it represents to us, heathens
arriving, according to this writer, at the character of
fearing God, and working righteousness (which they
could not do without conflicting successfully against
their lusts), and that not without Divine assistance.
Alas for the poor Jew under the law, and having the
advantage of Divine revelation, that to his character it
should be affixed, as a thing distinguishing him from
both the Christian and the heathen, to be conflicting with
his lusts without that assistance !

I would ask, was there any universal sufficient grace
in these Jewish and Old Testament times ? I should
think, that the principles that would necessarily infer
the doctrine of such grace at one time, would prove it
with respect to every time. If there was, as Dr Whitby
held, I see not how a Jew could be supposed to be
sincerely, seriously, earnestly (I think the author must
mean so — certainly our context represents so) in conflict
with the motions of his lusts ; and yet not have sufficient
Divine aids to enable a person so disposed, and so
exercised, to overcome them.

After all, how comes he to suppose a Jew of the

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 257

apostle's times to be conflicting with his lusts at all,
when these Jews were generally of opinion that the
motions of lusts in the hearts of men were not sins or
transgressions of the law, if they did not take effect
externally? as this learned writer proves in his anno-
tation on Matt. v. 20, 21, to have been the opinion of
the most prevailing sect, and of their teachers, as they
were indeed comparatively but few of the Jews who
were not followers of that sect of the Pharisees. Upon
this view, it were certainly more congruous to have
marked out and distinguished the Jew as one who,
whatever guard he kept on his outward behaviour, did
not inwardly maintain a conflict with his lusts at all,
rather than as one who, without the aid of the Spirit,
was in earnest and sad conflict with them, crying out,
as in this context, Wretched man that I am, who sJiall
deliver vie? For my part, I cannot help considering
it as very opposite to the clear doctrine of the Scripture,
to suppose the Jew, or any man, to be in sincere conflict
against the motions of his lusts and corrupt affections
within him, with the view and desire of holiness, and
purity of heart, without being under the present influence
of the Holy Spirit.

It seems some followers of Pelagius of old did likewise
understand this context, as if it set forth the language
of a Jew personated. But Augustine* did well observe
that these words, Wretched man tJiat I am, who shall
deliver me? — The grace of God through Jesus Christ our
Lord (so he read, instead of, / thank God, as we have it),
could not be the language of a Jew, or be used by the
apostle, as personating a carnal Jew, who would not
speak thus of Jesus Christ. It is the same person, he
observes, who says, Grace will deliver me through Jesus
Christ, who said, / see another law resisting the law of
my mind. How Dr Taylor endeavours to hide this
glaring incongruity, we shall see when we come to
explain that part of the context.

Though Dr Whitby in stating the question (when, if

* " Contra Julianum," lib. 3, cap. 26.
R

258 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

ever, he should have spoke with some exactness) will
have the apostle to be speaking here as in the person of
a Jew, yet in his paraphrase of ver. 14 he expresses a
more extensive view, thus : " The law is spiritual: but
every NATURAL man hath cause to say of himself, / am
carnal!' As there is then no colour of reason for
mentioning the Jew on this occasion, let us take the
view of the writers of that side, on the general point that
the apostle here personates an unregenerate man, that
none may complain of unfairly representing their opinion
by restricting the matter to the Jew.

They who hold this interpretation do most commonly
seem to understand by what good is here ascribed to the
unregenerate, no more than the light of reason in the
mind or understanding, with the urgent testimony for
duty, and against sin, that is in the conscience of the
unregenerate, with different degrees of light and force.
But if they can by any arguments persuade men that it
is the case of the unregenerate that is here represented,
I see they have further use to make of that interpretation
in the dispute concerning the moral powers of nature.
But this will come in our way more fully hereafter, in
explaining the particular parts of the context that they
argue from.

There is another point of doctrine which writers of
that side have at heart to support. As they labour much
to advance the moral powers of nature, and of free-will
in men's natural and unregenerate state, they are no less
anxious to advance the power of free-will in a state of
grace, beyond proper bounds. This has led them, at
least some of the most eminent of them, to hold, that a
sinless state, and perfection in holiness, is within the
reach' of free-will in this life. But it tends utterly to
confound that notion, if this very eminent saint and
apostle shall be understood to speak in this context as
in his own person, and to be representing how matters
stood with himself as to sin and holiness.

So these writers have their system to take care of and
support, in interpreting this part of Scripture ; — none,
however, more ready to accuse their neighbours, the

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 259

divines of the reformed churches, of interpreting
Scripture by their system. Whatever may be of this
upon one side or other, yet there is no good cause for
scepticism. The true and certain meaning of scripture
may be reached by humble, sincere, and impartial
inquiries after truth. Let the reader be warned to be
on his guard, that none impose the mere notions of his
system upon him for Scripture. At the same time, I
may be allowed to warn him, not to let a pre-conceived
opinion shut out the truth from his mind, or harden him
against its evidence and impression. Let us now go a
step nearer to the main subject.

Sfxt. 2. — Containing general considerations tending to explain
the scope and purpose of this context.

I. The first consideration arises from the great
difference in the style and expression between the
former and this latter context. He had been speaking
of himself in the past tense, showing how matters had
been with him formerly, when under the law ; and, in his
own case, representing how it is with persons under the
law, who, as long as they are so, are in the flesh, and
under the dominion of sin. He now (from ver. 14)
speaks of himself in the present tense. It is what
naturally occurs to one's mind from this change of the
tense, that, as formerly he had been showing his own
case whilst under the law, so now he shows how things
go with him at present, in a state of grace, as he was
when he wrote. They would need to bring very cogent
reasons, who would have us understand him in a sense
so very different from what his expression naturally
leads us to. He could easily set forth in plain speech
the case of persons unregenerate, as he had done before
in this and the preceding chapters, without darkening
matters, and making his discourse quite ambiguous,
by altering his style. He had in a very plain manner
represented, from his own past experience, the case of
persons under the law ; what good reason can possibly

260 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

be given for his becoming obscure now, by speaking in
the present tense, as of himself (a person regenerate and
under grace), what must be understood of persons unre-
generate and under the law, without giving any hint
that he so means ?

It hath been said, that the apostle doth on divers
occasions speak in his own name, when he doth indeed
personate others. Several instances are adduced, some
of which cannot be justly so interpreted. But if it be
allowed, that, on some occasions, he doth in very few
words express the arguments, objections, and reproaches
used by others against himself, his doctrine, or conduct,
yet in every such case the thing evidently appears by
the obvious import of the expressions, and by the
answers immediately subjoined, so that there is not
room left for mistaking. But it is quite unlikely that
he would continue to speak, as of himself, through so
long a passage, and yet mean it of others all the time,
without intimating by any expression or hint, that to be
his design. At any rate, his personating on some other
occasions does not give us cause to think he personates
here, unless very good reasons were given for our under-
standing him so ; and what reasons are offered to that
purpose are to be here considered.

One account of the matter, somewhat plausible, is
given by Dr Whitby (annot. on Rom. vii. 25) thus :
" He saith not, as he might have done, you that are
under the law are carnal ; but, representing what
belonged to them in his own person, and so taking off
the harshness and mollifying the invidiousness of the
sentence, by speaking of it in his own person, he saith,
I am carnal, sold under sin. So Photius and Oecumenius."
This is far from being satisfying ; and I wish the learned
writer had told us what there is in the names Photius
and Oecumenius, to make a bad reason a good one.
" He saith not, You that are under the law." Surely he
could neither say nor mean this with respect to these he
writes to. For, even supposing, as some would have it,
that this chapter is addressed to the Jews separately, yet
it must be supposed, that it is to the Jewish converts or

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 26 1

believers. Now, to them he had said in this chapter,
that they were dead to the law, and delivered from it ;
nor could he, in the personating way, or otherwise, say
that they were sold tinder sin, in the sense in which Dr
Whitby and other Arminians explain that expression.
If it shall be supposed, that he means the infidel Jews,
how was this grave lecture, contained in an epistle to the
Roman Christians, to be conveyed to them? If it
should be conveyed to them, certainly the strong
things he says, as of himself, they would all agree to
belong to himself in the worst sense ; and if having
sold themselves to sin and wickedness is said of these
revolters from the true religion, in the times of the
Maccabees, who are mentioned in the interpretation of
this context, surely the infidel Jews would readily say
that, in as strong sense as Dr Whitby uses the expression
(ver. 14}, it belonged to Paul himself, that noted revolter,
as they judged of him. This is all the advantage the
apostle would be likely to gain at the hands of the
infidel Jews, by his mollifying art.

But why speak of mollifying? When the pravity of
men's nature, and the wretchedness of their condition is
to be shown, it doth not suit the fidelity of God's
messengers, and was far from the apostle's way, to take
off the harshness of truths, and to mollify them, though
too many do often manage in that way, when indeed
the hearts of men do more need to be roused and
awakened to a sense of their extreme wretchedness in a
state of sin.

A prudent caution, a holy art (as they represent in
this case), to avoid giving offence by plain speech to
those he writes to, is on some occasions ascribed to the
apostle without cause. His words (ver. 5) imply, that
they who are under the law are in the flesh. Is not this,
compared with chap. viii. 8, 9 strong and harsh? Is it
not so, when his words (chap., iv. 14 clearly imply, that
they who are under the law are under the dominion of
sin? He had in the preceding sixth chapter told the
Romans they had been the servants (the slaves) of sin,
in a shameful course, and in the way to perdition and

262 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

death eternal. Is he now afraid to provoke the self-
righteous legalist, or impenitent sinners, so as to put on
caution here (from ver. 14) to avoid offence, and soften
things, by telling very darkly their case, and saying as
concerning himself, what it would be very dangerous
(so Dr Whitby says) for them to understand as true of
such a man as he then was, and that without cautioning
them by the least hint against that dangerous notion ?
In fine, whatever be understood by law, it is plain that
the apostle doth, without mincing or mollifying, set
forth in a clear and strong light, in the preceding
context of this chapter, and chap. vi. 14, the very
unhappy condition of persons under the law.

Let us now go a little farther in observing the varia-
tion of the apostle's style (of which see Dr Guise, note
on ver. 14), and compare his expression here (vers. 14-
25), with what he hath in this and the preceding and
following chapters, concerning the unregenerate. These
(chap. vi. 16-20), yielded (that is, sisted or presented)
themselves servants to sin ; they yielded, or sisted their
members as servants to unclea?mess, and to iniquity ;
which implies the full and habitual consent of the will.
But here (ver. 23) there is a law in a man's members
zvarring and bringing into captivity that which is
against the habitual bent and inclination of the man's
will.

As to the unregenerate who are after the flesh and
in the flesh, they are (chap. viii. 7), enmity against God,
and not subject to his law. But the man, in our context
(from ver. 14), consents to the law, that it is good ; delights
in the law of God after the inner man ; and with his mind
he himself serves the law of God.

As to the man in our context, what is holy and good
is what he willeth ; sin is what he willeth not. But in
the context preceding ver. 14, where the case of the
unregenerate man under the law is certainly set forth,
sin doth by occasion of the law work in him all manner
of concupiscence, deceives him, slays him, and reviving in
him, destroys all his confidences ; but it is not said of
him that he hates it, that it is the thing he would not,

'JIIE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 263

nor doth he cry out of wretchedness by it, as in the
latter context.

They who interpret this latter context, of a man in
the flesh, and under the law, do ascribe all the good
mentioned in it to the man's understanding, reason,
and natural conscience. But though these are in the
unregenerate, who are certainly meant in the context
preceding ver. 14, yet in no part of that context are
they said to love, to hate, to delight, to will, to serve,
as in this ; nor in the former context is there any
mention of the inner man, of the mind, or of the law
of the mind.

The several expressions in the latter context come
again in our way, to be more particularly explained. I
here only observe the variation of the apostle's style and
expression. Upon a general view, the great difference
and variation of the style and expression gives good
cause to think, that from ver. 14, there is represented a
person and state very different from being under the law,
in the fleshy as we have here a style and expression never
used concerning such.

2. Here we see that the apostle speaks with a special
view to the spirituality of the law of God, as it gives
rule to a man's heart and spirit within, and to all inward
thoughts and motions in the soul. It seems indeed to
be clear, that it is with this view he speaks all along,
even in the preceding context. The motions of sins
working in a man's members (ver. 5) are inward : the
particular instance condescended on (ver. 7), Thou sJialt
not covet, is inward. So it is (ver. 8), when sin works in a
man all manner of concupiscence ; and when (ver. 9) sin
revives. If it were the practice of sin in outward works
and behaviour that were meant in that context, certainly
what he says would not universally suit the case of
persons in the flesh, and under the law. Many such
have been outwardly, as to the righteousness which is
in the law, blameless. So the apostle himself was when
in that state, and in appearance very religious, yea,
having much at heart to be so. It had been a too
partial, restricted, and incomplete view of the general

264 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

character of persons in the flesh, and under the law,
if he had considered and represented only the outward
practice; nor would it give a just account of the
character in general of persons in the flesh ; whereas
upon the view we are taking of the apostle's discourse,
it answers to that character and state universally. Those
in the flesh, as the apostle represents, do mean in their
way to serve God, if not in the newness of spirit, yet
according to the oldness of the letter. It is so that the
distinction is stated (ver. 6). Not that the one sort serve
God, and the other sort do not intend to serve him at
all. If those in the flesh have their unholiness, and un-
holy lustings and affections (which in many of them
break forth outwardly in much impurity and iniquity),
yet they have also their carnal religion, and their carnal
confidence founded upon it. If the impurities and
iniquity of the flesh have fearfully prevailed in the world,
a carnal religion, in one form or other, hath no less
overspread the world.

But when the apostle doth (ver. 14), where he begins
to speak of himself in the present tense, mention
expressly that the law is spritual, it serves as a key to
the following context, with which that expression and
assertion is more precisely connected. Now, it is not only
that his nature and heart had been, as to its inward
workings, in the utmost rebellious and unholy opposition
to the law, in his unregenerate state, but, as if he had
said, When I consider the law in this point of view,
as it is spiritual, alas, I am (yet, I am still) carnal, even
in my present more comfortable state ! alas, what of
impurity and iniquity remains inwardly with me ! If he
had considered the law as a rule only to the outward
actions and behaviour, he might at any rate say, that it
is holy, just, and good; but might easily, at the same
time, think himself likewise holy, just, and good. But
when he views the law as spiritual, he finds great
opposition and disconformity to its holiness to observe
with sorrow, even now in his better state under grace.
When he considers that the law requires not only the ex-
ternal acts of worship, but also requires the worshipping

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 265

of God in spirit and in truth ; that it not only re-
quires the external acts of obedience, but also demands
to love God sincerely, yea, intensely to the utmost of
our faculties and powers, with all our might and strength ;
that it not only prohibits outward acts of impurity and
iniquity, but also prohibits all deviation of the heart
from God, and from holiness by evil lusting inwardly ;
that it not only requires all outward duty to our
neighbour (including our enemies), but also that our
heart inwardly be sincerely well affected to him ; that
not only killing a man, but also to be angry at him
without a cause, is a transgression of the sixth command-
ment ; that not only the outward act of adultery, but also
to look on a woman to lust after her, is a transgression
of the seventh ; — it is, I say, considering the law as
thus spiritual, thus giving rule to his heart and spirit
within him, and prohibiting the inward motions and
activity of sin, and comparing himself, and the inward
motions and inclinations of his heart, with the strict
holiness and spirituality of it, that he represents his
present feelings and observations concerning himself as
he doth.

It hath been argued by some, that whatever may pass
inwardly in the heart, even of a true Christian, yet the
expressions of this context convey more than what is
merely inward, even the doing of evil in the ordinary
outward course and practice of life, which is certainly
inconsistent with a state of grace. It has been said, that
the three words here rendered — to do or to perform, viz.
ttoiw, -pdo-o-ij), Ka-tpya&ixai, can be understood of no less
than external work, action, and course.

But this is not so clear or evident. Not to enlarge
more than is needful on this point, it is enough to observe,
in general, that in all languages commonly the actions
and operations of the mind are very often expressed by
words which do primarily signify bodily action or opera-
tion in general, or bodily sensation. So, although the
words mentioned should be allowed to be used most
commonly concerning outward doing or work, it doth
not follow that the operations of the mind may not be,

266 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

yea, are not often, meant by them in the use of speech.
The only word of the three that would be most likely to
import more is KaTepyd(o[xai. But I observe, in ver. 20,
If I do (ttoluj) that 1 would not, it is no more I that do it
(Karepya^o/xat avro), that this latter verb is interchanged
with the other ; and as it is certain that the former hath
not always that force and meaning to signify full doing
or performing in the outward work, there is reason to
think that neither hath the latter, as used here. It is
likewise to be observed, that, in this same chapter (ver.
8) the apostle says — Sin wrought in me (Karetpydo-aTo) all
manner of concupiscence ; where, it is plain, that the word
respects the motions and lustings of sin inwardly ; or, as
Dr Whitby's paraphrase hath it, all manner of concu-
piscence, or vehement desires after that which is forbidden
by the law. So there is nothing here to disprove the
account given of the apostle's view with regard to the
spirituality of the law. Men's overlooking the apostle's
view and respect to the law as spiritual, and to the
disconformity of his heart, to what the law requires in
this respect, and considering all the accounts here given
by him as respecting the outward ordinary practice, has,
I apprehend, been a main cause of their falling in with
the notion, that though he speaks of himself in the present
tense, yet he must be understood as personating unre-
generate persons.

3. The third general consideration I suggest is this :
The more holy a person is, and the more his heart is
truly sanctified, it is reasonable to suppose he shall have
the more quick sense and painful feeling of what sin may
remain in him ; and that he shall utter his complaint of
it in the more strong expressions, and with the greater
bitterness of heart.

A person nasty and drabbish, who hath been commonly
employed in the dunghill, Can be nasty all over, without
any uneasiness; whereas it gives a person of more delicate
breeding and manners much shame and uneasiness to
observe a small spot of filth upon himself. An un-
regenerate person, who is in a course of impurity and
iniquity, like a sow wallowing in the mire (that is

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 267

the scripture similitude), his sins give him little or no
uneasiness, not even the unholiness of his outward
practice ; much less the unholiness of his heart. There
is a notable difference between the sense of things the
two sorts of persons entertain, and often express. Such
an unregenerate person as I have mentioned, however
freely he takes his course in ill practice, will often give
favourable accounts of himself for an honest heart, for
certain praiseworthy qualities, and good deeds ; will often
represent himself as righteous, and say such things of
himself as, according to their true import and meaning,
can suit only righteous persons, and those truly re-
generate ; when persons truly holy, however pure and
fruitful the\- are in outward behaviour, yet, from what
they observe of the evil of their hearts, will be heard
sometimes to speak of themselves in a style that may
seem, at first sight, to suit only the worst of men.

Thus the matter stands on both sides. A person
unholy and impenitent fixes his attention on any good
thing he can observe with himself, whereby he can in
any degree support a favourable opinion of his own state,
and be somewhat easy in an evil course. On the other
hand, a person truly sanctified is ready to overlook his
own good attainments, to forget the things that are
behind in this respect, and rather consider how far he is
behind, and defective in holiness, and to fix his attention
with much painful feeling on his remaining sinfulness,
for matter of godly sorrow or serious regret to him.
With a just view of the majesty and holiness of God, he
is ready to say with Job (chap. xlii. 6 , / abhor myself.

All professed Christians will acknowledge, that it is
very consistent with a state of grace, to have much
imperfection in holiness, and much remaining sinfulness.
Upon this view, it is most reasonable to- suppose,
according to what hath been said above, that the
farther one is advanced in holiness, and the more his
heart is truly sanctified, he will have the greater
sensibility with regard to sin, and it must give him the
more pain and bitterness. If we shall suppose that an
angel should find an unholy thought, or imagination, to

268 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

spring up in his mind, surely the first view and feeling
of it would give him great apprehension and distress,
and could not miss to put such a holy being into
agonies. Let us, but for once, make the supposition,
that the blessed apostle Paul found some sin and unholy
affections remaining and stirring in his heart ; as he was
a person advanced to a very uncommon degree in holi-
ness, it would be the natural consequence, that he would
express himself, concerning the matter, in language
uncommonly strong and bitter. Followers of Arminius,
at least some of them, have held, that Christians may, in
this life, attain the perfection of holiness, yet they would
acknowledge that this is not the attainment of many. If
then they should suppose a man to be so holy as to be
in the very next degree to perfection, should they not
acknowledge, even consistently with their own notions,
that such a person will have a much more quick feeling
and bitter complaint of sin than another good man, who
is yet less holy ?

There is something here of important consideration
and usefulness in dealing with souls serious and sincere.
A Christian says, I have tasted that the Lord is
gracious, and methinks I have found my heart undergo
a happy change, with a powerful determination towards
God and holiness. I have thought that I had good
evidence of true conversion, and of a heart truly
regenerated by grace. But then I know that the effect
should be to grow in grace, to advance in holiness, and
that sin remaining in my heart should become weaker
and weaker. But I find otherwise ; I find grace rather
become more weak ; and, however my outward deport-
ment is regulated by a good conscience in ways of
purity and integrity, yet in my heart I feel sin very
strong, and rather growing more and more so. - Evil
lusts, carnal affections, and disorderly passions are daily
stirring, often with great vehemence, and defiling my
heart and spirit. Alas ! after all I have experienced of
divine goodness, I have cause to apprehend, that I may
be found to have been in a delusion, and that matters
may have a fatal issue with me at last. The unholiness

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 269

of my heart, in which grace feels so weak, and sin so
strong, gives me constant regret and sorrow ; and the
dread of the final consequence sometimes strikes terror
through my whole soul.

To consider the case with judgment ; as it is, in the
first place, to be acknowledged that a Christian hath
great cause of serious regret, and to be greatly humbled
for his remaining sinfulness, yet it is one thing for sin to
be growing more and more strong indeed ; it is another
and very different thing, for his sense of sin to be
growing more and more so. If sin was indeed growing
more strong in a Christian's heart, he would feel it less,
as the increasing strength of sin is always attended with
a proportional hardness of heart and insensibility. When
Hezekiah was humbled for the pride of his heart, it is
likely that he observed the motions of that evil lust
strong in him, and as if it had grown more and more so,
compared with his former feeling and observation. Yet
it was now that that lust was truly become weaker, and
the real growth of grace appeared in the quick and
humbling sense he had of it. On a former occasion,
when he was gratifying his vanity in entertaining the
ambassadors of the king of Babylon, the pride of his
heart had much influence, yet gave him no annoyance
or uneasiness. It was then that the interest of sin was
strong and prevailing, and that of grace and holiness
weak. There are too many Christians whose sense of
sin and of its motions in them is not so great as it ought
to be ; and this, alas ! comes too often to discover itself
in outward instances of unholy conversation and
practice. Christians may be assured, that a growing
sensibility of conscience and heart with respect to sin,
outwardly and inwardly, is among the chief evidences of
the growth of grace, and of good advances in holiness,
that they are likely to have on this side of heaven. For
the more pure and holy the heart is, it will naturally
have the more quick feeling of what sin remaineth in it ;
and it will be taking the just view of the context now
before us, to consider it in this light.

4. The last general consideration I suggest is, that the

270 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

expressions here are not used by another concerning a
person historically, but by himself in the way of bitter
regret and complaint. A man may in this way, and in
the bitterness of his heart, say very strong things con-
cerning himself and his condition, which it were unjust
and absurd for another to say of him, in giving his
character historically. But this will come in our way

Sect. 3. — That nothing represented in this context (vers. 14-25) is
inconsistent with a state of grace.

The arguments of those who will have the apostle to
be here personating others, come under this general
head, that there are divers things in this context which
he could not say or mean of himself, and which are in-
consistent with a state of grace. Let us consider the
particular things that are observed and alleged to this
purpose.

1. The first thing of this sort that is adduced is in
ver. 14, — / am carnal. To be carnal, or to be in the flesh
(so it is argued), is the character of a person unregenerate,
and under the law, and not applicable to a person in a
state of grace, as the apostle was.

Answer. — To be IN the flesh, can indeed be said of
none who are in a state of grace, according to the
scripture use of the expression. But to be in the flesh,
and to be in some respect carnal, are not words con-
vertible, or of the same meaning. They may be, and
are said to be carnal in particular respects, and on a
special view, who are in a state of grace. Here is a
clear instance. The Corinthians the apostle addresses
as saints, and considers as being in Christ ; yet to them
he writes thus (1 Cor. iii. 1-3), / could not speak unto you
as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in
Christ. — For ye are yet carnal ; for whereas there is
among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not
carnal, and walk as men ?

I know not what can be replied here, if it is not this.

THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 27 I

The apostle severely blames the Corinthians for being
carnal ; so that we cannot suppose that he means of
himself, when he says here, / am carnal.

Yet still his charging the Corinthians, whom he con-
siders as saints, and truly in Christ, with being carnal,
it makes out this general point, that persons regenerate
may be carnal in particular respects. To be in the flesh
denotes persons absolutely unregenerate and destitute
of the Spirit, as we see Rom. viii. 9. But as to Chris-
tians being charged with carnality, in particular respects,
this admits of great variety. The blessed apostle was
by no means carnal in the same respect or degree as the
Corinthians. He charges them with being so, because
they could be fed only with milk ; had envyings, strifes,
and divisions among them ; in a word, that they were
but babes in Christ ; though grace was real and sincere
in them, it was weak : so the flesh remained strong and
little subdued in them. This was shameful to them,
and very reprovable. But it was, on comparing himself
with a much higher standard than that of men adult
and come to full stature in Christ, even with the strict
holiness and spirituality of the law of God, that he here
calls himself carnal. This was matter of bitter regret
to himself; but was far from that more blameworthy
kind and degree that he charges the Corinthians with.

As here, speaking to the Corinthians, he states the
opposition between spiritual and earual, even as to
persons, each sort, in a state of grace, it is plain that he
hath the same opposition of characters in view as to
persons in the same state of grace (Gal. vi. 1): If a
brother be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual
restore sueli an one. Where it is plain, he considers the
person overtaken in a fault as carnal, though a brother.
All this is enough to show, that his saying / am eamal,
though it imports something in its own nature, contrary
to holiness, yet doth not import the man's being in the
flesh, unregenerate.

2. The next thing objected is in the same ver. 14,
Sold under sin. And the argument from this expres-
sion is thus stated. Anciently, when regular cartels

272 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

were not agreed on between powers at war, the prisoners
or captives became the slaves of the victors, or, being
sold by them, the slaves of such as bought them. Some-
times men became slaves by their having of their own
will resigned their liberty, and sold themselves : so in
general this expression, sold under sin, imports to be a
slave of sin (so it is argued) ; and this cannot be said,
in any sense or degree, of a person regenerate and
under grace. On this occasion (as we have already
seen in a citation from Dr Whitby), is introduced the
expression used concerning Ahab, that surely can never
be applicable to a regenerate person (i Kings xxi. 25),
But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell him-
self to work wickedness, in the sight of the Lord.

To this I answer, that the instance of Ahab (to begin
with that) is very improperly adduced to explain or
illustrate the expression in our text. In the words quoted,
Ahab is represented as singular among, yea, above the
most wicked. The inspired historian says, There was
none like unto Ahab ; and it is to explain this that he
adds, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight
of the Lord ; that is, he wholly abandoned himself to all
manner of wickedness, in open defiance of the Almighty.
Now, if the apostle shall be supposed to be representing
in our context the general and common case of persons
unregenerate, in the flesh, and under the law, can the case
of Ahab answer that purpose ? can such things be said of
all who are unregenerate ? Arminius supposes that our
context exhibits the case of a man who is not regenerate,
but is in a very promising way, as in the next step to
conversion ; but by the description given of Ahab, he was
at the utmost distance from it. Yea, Dr Whitby, in
explaining this place by the character given of Ahab,
seems not to be quite consistent with himself. In a
passage of his, to-be hereafter quoted, he labours to prove
from this context what good an unregenerate man can,
in that state, attain and do. He can will that which is
good, hate sin, and delight in the law of God after the
inner man. Could such things be said of one, who, as
Ahab, had sold himself to work wickedness ? It is plain

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 2 J I

that the expression used concerning Ahab, and that of
our text, / am — sold under sin, are not of the same import
or meaning. If the latter should mean as the former, it
would not express the common case and character of
persons regenerate or unregenerate, under the law or
under grace.

As to slavery, there was a great difference, according
to the different ways in which a man came into that state.
If in the course of war a man happened to be taken
captive, he was unwillingly a slave, regretted his own
condition, and truly longed for deliverance, as he might
expect it from the future successes of his proper lord. A
man having such a disposition and prospect, though
captivated for a season, might still justly reckon himself
the subject and soldier of the lord under whose banner he
had fought, and solace himself with the prospect of his
working his relief. But if a man peacefully and volun-
tarily sold himself, he had not the same reason to look
for relief ; and would be likely to live without the hope
of it ; without being anxious about his condition.

It must accordingly be allowed, that there is a great
difference between a person, who with full determination
of heart and will, peacefully yieldeth himself a slave to
sin, to the outward and inward practice of it, and a person
who, to pure and upright inward behaviour, adds the
utmost solicitude about inward conformity to the strict
holiness and spirituality of the law, with an ordinary
conflict against everything within him contrary thereto.
The former proves himself to be in an unregenerate
state ; the latter, with all his bitter and tragical complaint,
is not so ; yea, this can suit none other than a person in
a regenerate state.

As to the instance of Ahab, if instead of its being
liistorically said of him that he sold Jiimsclf, we had over-
heard him, or any other such, striking his thigh like
Ephraim, and bemoaning himself, saying, Ah, how carnal
I am, and sold under sin ! it would surely have made a
vast difference ; we should see cause to judge such a man.
like Ephraim, to be a true penitent, under the full influence
of regenerating grace.

S

274 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

In interpreting the language of sorrow and complaint,
great allowance is to be made, so as not to take strong
words rigidly, in their most full ordinary meaning. They
would make absurd and foolish work of it, who would so
interpret it in many instances that occur in holy writ. In
this way, for instance, one might argue and say, Job was
certainly an ill, yea, a vile man, for so he testifies of
himself (Job xl. 4), Behold, I am vile. Job uttered this
humble expression on his having got a very affecting view
of the Divine majesty and holiness. In like manner, with
an eye to the authority and holiness of God revealed in
his law, and of the inward purity it required, as being
spiritual, the apostle cries out, I am carnal, sold under sin.
If one overheard a serious upright Christian saying, on
some occasion, with much deep regret (as many such
have done), Ah, what a slave am I to carnal affections, to
unruly passions ! how do they carry me away, and capti-
vate me ! would he hastily say, that this complaint had
no foundation at all in truth? or would he conclude, if it
had, that this man was truly and absolutely a slave of
sin, and a person unregenerate ? I should think, that
a person so judging, would deserve no other than to be
unfavourably regarded. If the apostle's exclamation,
sold under sin, shall be considered in this view, as it
certainly ought to be, it is so far from proving the person
who thus speaks to be truly a slave of sin, that it evidently
tends to prove the contrary.

3. To the expression we have been last considering
(ver. 14), we may join that other, as near of kin to it in
meaning (ver. 23), / see another law — bringing me into
captivity to the law of sin. To be actually brought into
captivity to sin, and to be sold under sin, signify much
the same thing ; so that what hath been said of the
other expression (ver. 14), may be applied to this.

We have no cause to think, that the apostle was, even
in his regenerate state, altogether a stranger to the
sudden hurry and surprise of passion, such as cannot be
without some degree of sin, however soon checked and
overcome, yet not so soon but that he might observe as
much of it as would greatly annoy his holy heart. If we

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 275

consider things in view to the third general consideration
above suggested, we ought, from a heart so sanctified as
was that of the Apostle Paul, to expect no less than the
expression of bitter regret on such accounts.

Dr Whitby in a descant he hath on these words of
ver. 23 speaks as if they expressed the case of one yield-
ing himself captive to the law in his members. But
certainly they do not represent one so yielding himself
captive, but one in earnest struggle against that law,
which he found warring against his soul, and striving to
bring him captive. Whatever may, on some occasions,
have happened, these expressions do not truly import
the law in its members to have got the better, or to have
actually overcome him. To this purpose serves what
hath been observed by the critics. That words properly
signifying the action and the effect together, are some-
times so used as to mean no more than the action, and
its tendency. Here is an instance (Ezek. xxiv. 1; .
/ have purged thee, and thou wast not purged. If the
first clause, / have purged thee (which imports, in the
common use of speech, both the action and the effect),
should be understood in the proper and full sense, it
would be a contradiction to say, as in the next words,
thou wast not purged. But it is plain, that the words,
/ have purged thee, mean no more than the Lord's having
used means tending greatly to that effect. This use of
such words cannot be denied by any who shall agree to
Dr Whitby's interpretation of John vi. 44, according to
which, the Father draweth many to Christ, who yet are
not effectually drawn, or actually brought to him. So
here, / find a laiv in my members bringing me into
captivity j means no more than working hard, and of
strongly tending to captivate me, and to make me a
slave of sin in this and the other instance. So that they
who infer from this expression, that the person here re-
presented was, in fact and in good earnest, according to
the full sense of the words, habitually a captive and
slave of sin, and that he yielded himself to be so, do infer
what the expression doth by no means import or give
any ground for.

276 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

4. A fourth thing that is said to be inconsistent with
a state of grace, is, a will to do good that hath not effect
in practice. Thus, ver. 15, What I would that I do
not ; ver. 18, To will is present with me, but how to
perform that which is good, I find not ; and ver. 1 9,
The good that 1 would, I do not. This, say they, cannot
be the case of a person in a state of grace ; for of such
the apostle says, that God worketh in them to will and to
do, or perform.

This is to come in our way elsewhere hereafter. But,
as to the purpose of this place, if the apostle says, How
to perform that which is good, I find not, we have not
reason to think from this, that it was still, or most
commonly so with him ; nor do the words oblige us to
understand him so. I doubt if our opposites will allow,
that it is always, and in every instance, thus even with
persons unregenerate. I put the question, Is it so,
indeed, that an unregenerate man is still, and in every
instance, unable to perform that which is good ? Is it
so, that he cannot by the grace of God, that is ever
ready to assist men of every condition and state, who
sincerely will that which is good, perform it in any, yea,
in many instances ? I would be glad to know how they
would answer this upon their own principles. If they
shall say, that an unregenerate man, willing that which
is good, can perform it in some, yea, in many instances,
they must at the same time, acknowledge, that these
words, How to perform that which is good, I find not, do
not mean that this is always the case with him who here
speaks. What good reason then can they give for think-
ing that the apostle could not say so of himself, con-
sistently with his performing his duty in many, yea, in
most instances, though in some instances, to his great
regret, he found himself unable to perform it, as he here
says? If they say, that an unregenerate man doth
indeed sometimes perform that which is good, but not
so constantly, or in so good a manner as he ought, is it
not still more reasonable, understanding the words
here of Paul himself, to say they only mean that even
he doth not perform that which is good, so constantly,

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 2J7

and in so good a manner as he ordinarily willeth and
wisheth ?

Yea, even from the representation here given, it is
certain that the person whose case is meant, must be
supposed to do and to perform a great deal that is good.
He saith several times, that it is good that he willed to
do, and that to will it was present with him. He saith
not, that he willed that which was evil ; though it is
true that he could not do evil without his will being in
it in some sort and degree. But as he never says, that
he willed that which was evil, it implies that such will
was not the habitual and prevailing will. But when he
mentions oftener than once that he willed that which
was good, and says, that to will so is present with him,
he hereby shows, that the prevailing habitual inclination
and determination of his will was towards good. Now,
if it was so, it is certain from the nature of things, and
from the natural course of things in rational agents, that
good behoved to prevail in his conduct and practice
outward and inward. But whatever good he attained,
or whatever good he performed, yet, according to what
hath been formerly said, overlooking his attainment in
that way, his attention is fixed, with great concern and
regret, on what he hath not attained or performed.
Alas ! (as if he had said) in how many instances doth it
happen, that I do what I allow not ; that I do not that
which I would ; that when to will is present with me.
yet how to perform that which is good I find not !
Surely this is very consistent with the prevailing of
grace in the heart. The truth is, serious Christians are
so much often in this way, and thus expressing their
complaint, that if one was to form a character of them
according to what they say and represent in this style,
it would often be more unfavourable than just.

Further, we are to remember that the apostle hath in
his eye, all along, what, at first setting out in speaking
of himself in the present tense, he had mentioned (ver.
14), even the spirituality of the law, as a rule not only
to his outward behaviour, but also to his heart and spirit
within him. If with this in view he should say, To will

278 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

even the absolute perfection and purity which the law
of God requireth, is present with me ; but how to perform
that which is good, according to the strict holiness and
spirituality of the law, I find not; alas, I find not in any
instance whatsoever ! will any say that this is incon-
sistent with a state of grace ? Let us consider what is
likely to have been the aim, the will and wish of so holy
a person. He willed that the love of God should fill his
heart, and prevail in it in the most intense degree ; that
his heart should be wholly spiritual and heavenly, in all
its thoughts and affections ; that when he came before
God in exercises of worship, his whole soul should be
animated and elevated with a heavenly flame of devotion ;
that vain thoughts, sin and sinful imperfections should
never hold him short of such perfect attainment in his
duty. Will any say it is unreasonable to suppose this
to be what he willed ? or can any good reason be given
for supposing that Paul, whilst he was in the body, found
nothing that made him fall short of so high an aim in
holiness ?

Let it be added here, when the apostle says (ver. 18),
Hozv to perform that which is good, I find not, that the
word rendered perform, is, KaTepyd^eaOau ; which, though
it may sometimes mean no more than simply, facere, to
do, as hath been shown formerly, yet it more properly
signifies, perficere, peragere, to do thoroughly, or completely.
The apostle, having the strict holiness and spirituality of
the law in his eye, willed to do what is good thoroughly
and completely ; as in the outward work, so in his heart
and spirit within him. But, after all that the Christian
attains, there is something as to doing thoroughly and
completely that he doth not reach in this life. There is
not a just man that doth good, and sinneth not. There is
still imperfection ; something of sin that cleaves to men's
best doings. So that, in view to the proper standard
and rule, the best may say (according to Isa. lxiv. 6),
that even all their righteousnesses are as filthy rags. The
common case of Christians is according to Gal. v. 17,
T lie flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the flesh; so that ye cannot do the tilings that ye would.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 279

These considerations account for the apostle's saying,
How to perform that which is good, I find ?iot ; and show
that therein there is nothing inconsistent with being
regenerate and under grace, and nothing to give cause to
think that the apostle personates the unregenerate man.
5. Some have argued from that expression (ver. 20),
Sin that dwelleth in me. Arminius labours to prove,
and boasts of having proved, that sin dwelling in a man
signifies its ruling, or having dominion in him. Indeed,
if he had proved this, it might have saved him all the
labour he bestowed on other arguments. This one were
absolutely decisive ; and his long dissertation on this
context might have been a very short one. But if a
man, who is head of a family, dwelleth in his own house,
it is true that he ruleth there ; but he doth so as being
head of the family, not merely because he dwelleth there,
for it is as properly said of the family, that they dwell
there, as of him. If the Spirit of God dwelleth in a
Christian, it is true that he ruleth in him ; and so, if
Christ dwelleth in a man's heart through faith ; but still
it is not the word dwelleth that imports so. If Arminius
found that any expression, where the word dwell occurs,
did import ruling, as in several texts mentioned by him,
yet that notion arises from something else than merely
the word dzvelliug.

If a man dwells in this city, or in that country, and
it is so said, doth indeed the expression import that he
ruleth in that city or country ? The prophet says
(Amos hi. 12), So shall the children of Israel be taken
out that dwell in Samaria, in the corner of a bed, and in
Damascus in a couch. Is it that Israel had dominion
in these places, where they are said to dwell ; when it
is plain they are represented as in distress, and hiding
themselves in these places? So Zech. ii. 7, Deliver
thyself, 0 Zion, that dwelleth with the daughter of
Babylon. Surely it would be very ill to infer from this,
that the Jews in captivity at Babylon had the dominion
there.

Now, if the word in its proper use doth not import
rule, or dominion, there can be no reason for making that

280 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

the meaning of it, when it is transferred to the figurative
use. Christ says (John vi. 56), He that eateth my flesh,
and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
So I John iv. 13, Hereby we know that we dwell in him,
and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit. It
is just to say, that God or Christ dwelling, or abiding in
a man, do rule in him. But it were nonsense and blas-
phemy to put that in the meaning of the word, when
the Christian is said to abide or dwell in God or in
Christ. So it is plain that the word dwell doth not of
itself import rule or dominion ; and that there is good
reason for the distinction between sin reigning in men,
as it doth in the unregenerate ; and sin merely dwelling
in them, as it doth in them who are regenerate. This
argument rather gives the hint of an argument against
the exposition of Arminius. If the apostle meant to
represent here persons unregenerate, he had a fair occa-
sion to make the matter clear by that one word, by
saying, instead of dwelling, Sin that ruleth, or hath
dominion in me. When he doth not so, but uses a word
that hath no such meaning, this rather gives the hint
at least, or makes a likelihood in favour of the interpre-
tation against which Arminius argues.

6. It is likewise argued, that there is something in-
consistent with a regenerate state in the expression
(ver. 23) 0 wretched man that I am ! — Arminius gives
it in the form of syllogism, to this purpose : All that are
regenerated and under grace, are happy ; by no means
wretched : but this man is wretched ; therefore he is
not regenerate.

But this is a most wretched argument. Though a
man who is regenerate is happy on the whole, yet such
a man may be wretched in several respects, and may
complain bitterly of being so. If a good Christian, in
the distressing paroxysm of a chronical disease, of gout
or gravel, should cry out, 0 wretched man that I am !
or if Job, in his great distress, had used these very words
(as he used very strong ones), it were surely rash and
foolish to conclude that he was unregenerate, and not
under grace. A sanctified heart, conscious of the motions

THE SCOrE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 28 1

of sin in itself, hath certainly no less cause to cry out
of wretchedness.

Arminius concludes what he hath on this argument,
by saying, men cannot be called wretched, who have
conflict by sin, and are buffeted by a messenger of
Satan ; but it is truly wretched to be overcome. Yet
a man cannot be called wretched, who being sometimes
overcome, is more commonly victorious against the world,
sin, and Satan. This appears to be so much the case
in our context, that Arminius hath, by these concessions,
quite undone his own argument.

7. Some have argued from that expression in this
same ver. 23, Who shall deliver Die? as if it implied
despair ; which is inconsistent with a state of grace.
As to this, it will be allowed, that final absolute despair
is so. But we must not judge so of the suggestions of
despair, even when these are uttered in strong enough
terms, from the force of temptation. There are not
wanting instances of this sort in Scripture, in the case
of some of the saints. But the apostle's expression here
doth not amount even to so much. It expresses the
painful feeling he had of sin; the great difficulty he
found in overcoming it ; and that it required the hand
of one more powerful than himself, together with his
solicitude, his most vehement desire, and longing to be
delivered. That there is no despair, appears in the
words he utters, as with the same breath, — / thank my
God through Jesus Christ.

Thus I have considered all that I have observed
to be adduced with any colour, from the apostle's words,
as inconsistent with a state of grace ; and I think it
may by this time be reckoned very clear, that none
of these things in particular, nor the whole together,
are so.

Sect. 4. — Showing that this context contains a great deal that
is inconsistent with an unregenerate state.

I come now to show, that in the case here represented,
there is much that is inconsistent with an unregenerate

282 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

state, and such as none else than a true believer under
grace and regenerated, is capable of. To this purpose,
the general appearance hath something at first sight
very striking, I mean the bitter complaint that is all
along of sin dwelling in the man, or in his flesh. / am
carnal, sold under sin. Taking this as the language of
bitter and heavy complaint, as it evidently is, what
unregenerate man hath such a sense of sin prevailing in
him as would produce in sincerity such a complaint?
or if the unregenerate man hath right sentiments in his
head, what man in this state hath so sad an impression
of the case in his heart ? How sad the impression, and
the exclamation (ver. 24), 0 wretched man that 1 am,
who shall deliver me from this body of death ?

As to this last expression, this body of death, some
have understood it of the body properly so called. But
however the apostle knew it was better for him to depart
and be with Christ, yet amidst all his distresses in the
body, we never find him wishing and crying out to be
disunited from the body, or to be by such an event with-
drawn from the service of Christ, and of his church on
earth. Much less is it congruous to suppose an unre-
generate man (who is said to be here personated), crying
out for death, in order to be without sin. No such man
was ever so weary of sin, or had such a prospect
respecting it, for futurity, as to wish and cry out for his
dissolution on such account. But, as hath been formerly
said, the body of death, in this 24th verse, is likely to
mean the same thing as the body of sin (chap. vi. 6), and
shows how bitter and sad the sense of sin is in the man
who cries out, as in this place.

I know that an unregenerate man may, in great terror
of the penal consequence of sin, loudly complain of it.
But it is not sin itself, but the penal consequence that is
bitter to such. I know also, that a person who labours
to establish his own righteousness (which is in great
opposition to God, and to the sincerity of holiness), may
have much vexation, and much discouragement to that
sort of hope, by sin. But that sin itself, for the evil it
hath in its own nature, and its contrariety to God, to

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 283

duty, to holiness, in view to the spirituality of the law,
should be so bitter to a man, is quite remote from the
disposition of such a self-righteous unregenerated soul.

Dr Whitby will have the case of a man who had sold
himself to work wickedness, as Ahab, to come under the
representation in this context : and there are few of his
way of thinking, who do not use that instance in inter-
preting it. Can any imagine, that such an abandoned
person would be thus affected with regard to sin ? or
would he be thus truly sick of sin ? We read, indeed,
of Ahab's once retiring to his bed, turning away his face,
and refusing to eat. Something, doubtless, lay heavy on
his mind. But it was his lust's being crossed by Xaboth's
refusal of his vineyard ; not his sin. We also read of
his humbling himself, and wearing sackcloth ; but it was
for the terrible denunciation against him and his family,
by a person of very established character as a prophet ;
not merely or chiefly for his sin. Can any one conceive,
that a man is truly, and willingly, a slave of sin, yielding
himself to its service, and selling himself to work wicked-
ness, and yet finding sin so bitter, so painful to his heart ?
The notion is quite absurd. The sincere expression of
pain and bitterness by sin, and the sorrowful exclamation
against it that is here used, is altogether incompatible
with an un regenerate state.

To be more particular: he says 'ver. 15), That which
I do, I allow not. The Greek word rendered allow, is
not the same that is so rendered, chap. xiv. 22. The
word here is yivuo-iw, / know not. But as this more
common meaning of the word doth not suit this place,
it is fit to take another meaning that is not uncommon
in Scripture use, by which the word signifies, to love.
So Ps. i. 6, The Lord knoweth (that is, lovctli) the way
of the righteous. Matt. vii. 43, / never knew (i.e. loved,
or had complacence in) you ; depart from me. Ps. xxxi.
7, Thou hast known {hast loved, or testified thy love to)
my soul in adversity. John x. 14,/ am the good Shepherd,
and know {i.e. love) my sheep ; and am known fi.e. l< 1
of mine. This sense well suits our text (Rom. vii. 1 ; >.
That which I do, I allow, or knozv not, that is, love not.

284 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

For what in the last clause of the verse he opposes to
this, is not mere disapprobation, but hatred : what I hate,
that I do. So he expresses here, that sin he loved not ;
he hated it. This is emphatic. Nature did spontaneously,
and with strong inclination, produce the motions of sins;
the flesh, depraved nature, produced irregular unholy
passions and lusts, which he understood by the spirituality
of the law to be sin ; but by the fixed, deliberate, and
prevailing disposition of his sanctified heart, he loved it
not, — he hated it.

What nature, or the flesh produceth in the manner
that hath been said, being what, by the prevailing dis-
position of his heart, he would not, he infers (ver. 16), I
consent unto the law, that it is good. Assent and consent
do differ, as the former is of the understanding, respecting
truth, which is its proper object ; the latter is of the heart
and will, respecting good, which is the special object of
the will. Now, though the Greek a-vfi^rj^ may sometimes
be used, and but very rarely, for the assent of the mind
and judgment, as that use of the word is observed by
Grotius and by Hedericus's lexicon, to occur in Sophocles
and Euripides, yet that cannot be the meaning in this
place, as it is here used expressly with relation to good,
that the law is good, which is the object of the will ; and
it is from the inclination of his will, If I do that which I
WOULD not, that he makes the inference, / consent unto
the law, that it is good. This, however, doth not suit the
disposition and prevailing principles of the unregenerate.
Let such argue in rational theory ever so much, for the
goodness of the law, and assent to all that can be said to
that purpose, yet the heart and will do not consent unto
the law that it is good ; and, as Dr Whitby hath it,
commands what is good for me to do. When it comes
from mere theory to doing, the heart and will give it
against the holy and spiritual law ; and every unholy
lust, inordinate affection, and irregular passion, hath the
consent of the will' to the goodness of itself, and it hath
its course inwardly, in opposition to the holiness of the
law ; even when there may be great restraint, from various
causes and means, as to outward practice.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 285

I am aware of what ma}- be excepted against this
reasoning. The case described in the lines here im-
mediately preceding, that, viz. of the unregenerate, is
the very case, may one say, described in our context.
Whatever favourable views the man's mind may give of
the law ; yet when it comes to doing, his unholy lust
and passions decide against the holiness of the law, and
he doth what he would not. For answer to this, it is
certainly without reason that the will of the unregenerate
can be supposed to be, as to its prevailing bent and
inclination, on the side of the law and its holiness. As
to doing, the apostle doubtless found it with himself in
too many instances, as he reports. Nature, so far as
unrenewed, or the flesh in him, was producing or doing
what he would not ; at least by its activity or inward
working ; which he appears to have in his view here
especially. Yet as to habitual, ordinary, deliberate
practice, and the common disposition and course of
life, we must suppose that this was according to what
he willed, according to the inclination of his heart,
consenting to the goodness of the law. To suppose
otherwise, were to suppose what is inconsistent with
the nature of things ; inconsistent with the natural con-
nection of the faculties in rational and moral agents. It
is reasonable then to consider it as a fixed point, that to
consent to the goodness of the law, as it is spiritual,
giving rule to men's hearts and spirits, which is the
apostle's special view in this place, is far from the
disposition of any unregenerated soul.

To proceed ; the apostle says (ver. 17), Now then it is
no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. What
here would strike every mind free of bias is, that this " I "
on the side of holiness against sin, is the most prevailing,
and what represents the true character of the man ; and
that sin, which he distinguishes from this " I " is not the
prevailing reigning power in the man here represented ;
as it is, however, in every unregenerate man.

Further, we see all along in this context, the man-
is represented as on the side of duty and holiness, and
against sin. It is true, that sin could not do or effect

286 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

anything, without having the will and affections in its
interest in some degree. Yet he never saith here, that
sin or evil is the thing that he willeth ; but still what he
willeth not. Often as he mentions willing, and sin, and
doing, yet he never mentions his willing as on the side
of sin ; that is still what he would not. How shall we
account for this, if it is not by saying, that the will to
duty and holiness is prevailing, and his will is habitually
on that side, which cannot be the case with a man in the
flesh under the dominion of sin? He says (ver. 18), To
will is present with vie ; that is, to will what is good and
holy ; and thus it is with him habitually. This can
import no less than that the will to holiness, and to the
very perfection thereof, is habitually ready with him. He
says indeed (ver. 2 1 ), I find a law, that when I would do
good, evil is present with me. So it was ; the flesh re-
maining in him, sin was its natural production, it was
spontaneous and ready on the side of sin ; ever ready to
avoid, and resist every holy thought, motion, or action.
Yet sin was not what he willed. It was against the
deliberate, fixed inclination and determination of his
will ; and so was not the dominant principle in him, as
it is in all who are in the flesh. Sin could not be
dominant in him, without having the prevailing inclina-
tion of the will favourable to it. But here there is no
hint given of this concerning the will.

Let us now observe how these expressions I have
been taking notice of are accounted for and interpreted
by those who apply them to the unregenerate.

Grotius says, that these things are spoken figuratively,
and by metonymy ; giving to the cause, that is, to reason
or conscience, a name from the effect it ought to
produce. That is, for instance, the man is said to hate
sin, and to will what is good, because conscience and
its dictates ought to have that effect. As to this, we
know that metonymy gives to the cause a name from
the effect which it naturally and commonly produces ;
but to give- to a thing, under the notion of a moral cause,
a name from the effect it ought to produce, but most
commonly it doth not produce, hath no warrant in the use

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 287

of speech; yea, is quite absurd. In this way a very
wicked man might brag, and say, My heart is pure,
sincere, and holy ; my outward conversation and be-
haviour is according to the rule of purity and righteous-
ness. A person acquainted with his character, over-
hearing him, would readily say, Strange ! a person
notoriously lewd, profane, and wicked to a high degree,
to talk so impudently of his purity and virtue. But
one might vindicate him by Grotius' notion of metonymy,
and say, The man speaks rightly enough by a metonymy,
which gives him, by virtue of his conscience (for ill as
he is, he hath a conscience within him) a character from
the effect it ought to produce ; for it requires all that he
has been ascribing to himself. What adds to the un-
reasonableness of this interpretation is, that conscience,
whatever good a man ought to do by its dictates, is by
no means a cause adequate, in sinful men, to such effect
as is here mentioned. There is not such an effect in
any soul without the influence of a superior cause and
power. To give to a thing, as a cause, the name of an
effect, which it doth not naturally or commonly produce,
yea, is insufficient of itself to produce, is a sort of
metonymy, which the use of speech cannot, never did,
admit. This is a criticism which Grotius, as he was in
that way, could not support.

Let us now see how Dr Whitby accounts for these things.
He has not recourse to metonymy ; but takes the
expressions in their true and proper sense, without any
figure ; and hath an important purpose to serve in doing
so, — even to give a favourable idea of the moral powers
of a natural and unregenerated man, such as he thinks is
here personated. Some men have not been contented
with so interpreting this context, that the general
interest of their system shall not lose by it : they expect
to gain considerably by it for the establishing of their
own sentiments. This view and interest has, doubth
made them the more warm and keen. Dr Whitl
in answering an argument taken from this context,

* "The Five Points/'* ed. 1710, pp. 331, 332.

288 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

among other things, writes thus : " Whereas they make
their lapsed man to have lost the power even of willing
to do good, and to be totally enslaved both as to his
will, mind, and action (perhaps affection), the man here
mentioned hath a will to do the good he doth not, and
to avoid the evil that he doth ; yea, the evil that he doth
is hateful to him ; and he delighteth in the law of God in
the inner man, and with his mind serves the law of
God." He then quotes a passage from Origen (one of
his masters in orthodoxy — not the very best), which
imports, that he (the unregenerate man) is not wholly
alienated from good things, but is in his purpose and
will inclined to them, though not yet sufficient to perform.
The Doctor then argues, and puts the question, thus,*
" Now I inquire (saith he) whether in this will to do
good, this delight in the law of God, this hatred of sin,
this man doth well or ill ? If well (so the Doctor
thought, and so do I), he can, even in the state here
mentioned, do something that is good ; " in an un-
regenerate state, as he understood.

Well, it is no small acquisition the Arminian makes
here in favour of nature and free will. But that the
expressions, delighting in the law of God, and with the
mind serving it, suited not this purpose, will appear
when I come hereafter to consider them, and vers. 22, 25,
separately. But to say a little in this place, it is certainly
reasonable to think, that he who willeth, hateth, delighteth,
in the manner here said, can not only do something
that is good, but can do a great deal in the way of holy
practice and duty. But as Dr Whitby and others of his
sentiments, do interpret our context as representing the
case of persons who, like Ahab, sold themselves to work
wickedness (1 Kings xxi. 20), or like these revolters from
the true religion (1 Mace. i. 15), surely they put very
opposite and inconsistent things in their character, — to
have abandoned themselves to wickedness, and at the
same time, to hate sin, to will that which is good, and
to delight in the law of God, even when they are

* "The Five Points," ed. 1710, p. 332.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 289

under the thraldom and dominion of sin. I cannot but
wonder, that reasonable and thinking men would not
find their reason quite shocked, at expressing sentiments
and reasoning that proceed on joining in the state,
character, disposition, and practice of any description
of persons, things so evidently and grossly inconsistent.

But if a natural man, destitute of the Holy Spirit, can
sincerely will, love, delight, and hate, as is here said, I
would wish to know, what is left for Divine grace to do
in regeneration, according to the sentiments of these
writers ? What but external revelation, and moral
suasion well inculcated, to give the proper excitement
to the more languid will, inclination, and affection
towards holiness, which a man in nature hath, from
rational nature itself, that these may exert themselves
with due activity and force ? This is Divine grace, and
the human will consenting to this suasion, and so exert-
ing itself in practice, is, according to them, regeneration.

Moral suasion must indeed have its own place in
dealing with rational creatures. They are not dealt
with as stocks or stones under the hand of the mechanic.
Conversion to God through Jesus Christ, and to holiness,
is the consequence of proper evidence, and of proper
motives. Conversion is the effect of suasion, but not of
that merely — suasion is not of itself a cause adequate
to such an effect in sinful men. In using that suasion,
and that the proper evidence and motives should have
effect on the hearts of men, there is needful the im-
mediate operation and influence of Divine power and
grace on the hearts of men ; not to work on them as
the mechanic doth on a stock or a stone (as some men
foolishly speak, in arguing against the doctrine of grace),
but with a much greater efficacy of power, by which
God quickeneth the dead, gives sight to the blind, or
causes the lame to walk, which are similitudes the
Scripture affords respecting this subject.

The minds of men are spiritually so blind as to be
incapable of perceiving, in a just light, the evidence
and excellency of spiritual things ; and their hearts are
so possessed by sin, that they cannot be duly affected or

T

290 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

excited by the best motives, until of Divine mercy they
are saved from the prevailing influence and effect of sin,
by the washing of regeneration and renewing of the
Holy Ghost. If it were not so, how could it happen,
that on so great a part of mankind, yea, of the wise and
prudent, whose intellectual faculties have been highly
improved with respect to other subjects, yet the best
evidence and motives set before them by the gospel,
have no effect for their good and salvation, when these
things are happily and effectually revealed to babes?
The gospel hath effect beyond what the law ever hath,
not merely by its better light and means of suasion, but
especially as it is the ministration of the Spirit, and that
thereby is conveyed into the souls of men the Holy
Spirit, to give efficacy to its suasion, to enlighten, con-
vert, and sanctify. To say that without this, men in
their natural condition can have their will truly inclined
to holiness, and can delight in the holy and spiritual
law of God, is to depreciate grace, and to feed nature
with delusion.

Another query yet : If a man in nature, and in the
flesh, doth will, love, delight, and hate, as is here said,
what remains to distinguish between him and a person
truly regenerated and in a state of grace ?

The answer to this that is given by some, is taken
from ver. 18, To will is present with me, but how to
PERFORM that which is good, I find not. So the defect
of the natural man is not in his will, which is inclined
to what is good and holy ; but he cannot perform.
Whereas (so Dr Whitby argues) in the true Christian,
God worketh not only to will, but to do (Phil. ii. 13);
so he not only willeth, but can perform that which is
good.

To this I answer : There is certainly great inadvertency
in the Arminians so arguing from this text of Philippians,
which ascribes to Divine grace, not only to work in the
true Christian to do, but also to will. God not only in
creating him works in him, to fleAr/^a, the will, or the
faculty, but (so the Greek hath it) to dkkeiv, to will, or
the exercise and act of the faculty. So this text

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 29 1

effectually confutes their interpretation, who understood
the willing of that which is good and holy, in our
context (Rom. vii.), to be of a man un regenerated. To
suppose that God worketh in men to will that which i.^
good, without enabling them at all to perform that which
is good, is not agreeable to this text (Phil. ii. 13), which
joins both together, and both as the work and effect of
Divine grace ; not, the one as the production of nature,
the other as the working or effect of grace.

It is true, indeed, that a sincere Christian may oc-
casionally be so much under the influence of the flesh,
as to be thereby unable to perform what he habitually
willeth and wisheth ; yea, so as to be much ensnared in
evil ; and God, who worketh in Christians to will and to
do of \i\s good pleasure, may leave him in some instances,
thus to prove his weakness, for making him more humble,
watchful, and dependent. But to say that a man can
sincerely and habitually have his will well affected to
God and holiness, with a true hatred of sin, and not
habitually and commonly perform that which is good,
is quite contrary to the nature of things. The sincere
Christian willing that which is good, doth also in practice
perform it in a manner that the unregenerate man is
incapable of; and notwithstanding the imperfection of
his doing, he is therein accepted through Jesus Christ.

Let us now see how Dr Taylor of Norwich accounts for
these things I have been observing, as peculiar to a
regenerate man, and which he supposes to be in the case
and character of the Jew under the law, and the unre-
generate, even the worse sort of them. Here are some
instances from his paraphrase.

The words (ver. 15), What I would, that I do not, his
paraphrase gives thus :" What his (the sinner's) reason
approves and dictates, that he doth not." But if a sinner's
reason approves and dictates what is right, is that the
same as to say, what is holy and right is what he willeth
o 6e\u), as the apostle's expression is?

The next words, — What I hate, that I do, he gives thus :
" What he (the sinner) hateth (this he explains by what
he adds) what is abhorrent from his reason, that he doth."

?92 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

But if sin is contrary to, or, if you please to give force of
sound to the expression, abhorrent from his reason, is it
true that the unregenerate hateth it? or do these ex-
pressions mean the same thing ? Drunkenness is con-
trary to, is abhorrent from the reason of the habitual
drunkard. Were it for this just to say, that the habitual
drunkard hateth drunkenness ?

These words (ver. 17), It is not I that do it, his para-
phrase gives thus : " It is not I in the best sense, it is not
a man's reason separately considered, that produces the
wicked action." But what sense or philosophy is here ?
a man's reason considered separately from his other
faculties, produces no action, good or bad.

The words (ver. 18) To will is present with me, he gives
thus : " To will is present, is adjoined to a man — God
hath endowed him with faculties, to approve and choose
what is good." But if a sinner's understanding and
conscience approve what is good, doth it mean no more
to say that to will what is good is present with him ?
This is gross dealing with words. The apostle's words
do not say merely that the faculty to distinguish between
good and evil, and to approve and choose what is good,
is given him. The natural faculty in general every man
hath. But the apostle's expression, as hath been formerly
observed is, to Okkav, actual willing and choosing what is
good.

These words (ver. 19), The good that I would, he gives
thus : " What good actions his (the sinner's) reason
chooses." And as the apostle had said (ver. 16), If then
I do that which I would not, he gives it thus : " If a carnal
man doth these things which are not the choice of his
own reason." But choosing is not an act merely of a
man's understanding or reason. A man doth not choose
but by the determination of his will to that which his
understanding or reason recommends to it. To say, the
choice of reason, or, what reason chooses, is but an artful
impropriety, if not rather nonsense.

The words (ver. 22), / delight in the law of God, he para-
phrases thus : " It is granted, that the Jew in the flesh
may esteem the law of God." Do delight and esteem

THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 293

truly signify the same thing ? If it were said that a lewd
man delighted in the practice of uncleanness, would that
import that with his mind and reason he esteemed it ?
I doubt if this author himself would admit that
paraphrase.

In these instances, we see that Dr Taylor doth all
along ascribe to reason, willing, delighting, hating, choos-
ing. This is throwing aside the distinction of human
faculties ; it involves our thoughts in confusion, and tends
to make language useless. The understanding is the
seat of reason, and is the reasoning faculty. There is
besides in the human soul, the will and affections. But
according to Dr Taylor if the understanding perceives,
judges, reasons, it also wills, loves, hates, delights,
chooses. But the author may have had his own reason
for this strange and unnatural way of representing
things. They who interpret this context of a person
regenerate, have observed, that in an unregenerate man,
his conscience, or (as some choose to speak) his reason,
that one faculty, is on the side of duty and holiness,
testifies for it, and requires it, God having maintained in
this one faculty a testimony for his authority and holi-
ness within man. But in one unregenerate, sin possesses
his will and affections, hath these wholly on its side, and
so hath the man under its dominion. That in persons
regenerate, and under grace, as by Divine grace their
conscience is more enlightened and strengthened, so
their will and affections are, by habitual and prevailing
inclination, on the side of duty and holiness, and grace
hath its powerful influence and effect on all their faculties.
That this is evidently the case proposed in this con-
text, the mind, conscience, or reason, representing holy
practice and duty as good, lovely, and delightful, the
man doth actually will that which is good, loves it,
and delights in the law of God and its holiness. So
they conclude with good reason, as it cannot be thus
in the unregenerate, that it is certainly the case of a
person truly regenerate, even of the apostle himself (so
his expression and style import) that is here exhibited.

Dr Taylor doth by a bold stretch of genius evade

294 A DISSERTATION CONCERNJNG

this argument. He forms reason into a person, and
the willing of good, hating evil, and delighting in the
law of God in our context, which are the exercise of
human personal faculties, he ascribes to that one faculty,
that fictitious person, reason.

We have seen how, according to him, that person, of
his own creating, wills, chooses, hates, and delights.
The question remains, as to the person, the man speak-
ing, or personated in our text, how is it that he willeth ?
Dr Taylor gives his mind thus,* on these words here
(ver. 14), Sold under sin. "He means/' said he, "a will-
ing slavery, as Ahab had sold himself to work evil."
Truly the apostle crying out, as of his wretchedness, in
these words, is far from representing a willing slavery.
However, the slavery of sin must be a willing slavery.
A man's body may be bound, and carried hither and
thither, and he may be a slave as to his bodily or out-
ward condition, much against his will. But he cannot
be a slave in a moral sense, as to his fixed ordinary
character, or a slave to ill principles, habits, or lusts, a
slave of sin, without his will being on the side of these.
So that Dr Whitby's supposing, as we have seen with
him, a man to will what is good, to hate evil, and to
delight in the law of God, whilst he is a slave of sin,
and under its dominion, is quite absurd.

A sentiment of Dr Taylor's! is this: "A man may
assent to the best rule of action, and yet still be under
the dominion of lust and sin." I do not see cause to
differ from him concerning this. But it is plain, that
by his notions, and way of interpreting, he lays a good
ground for one to argue and object against the person
speaking in our context, thus : You say, that you will
that which is good, holy, and right, &c, but that cer-
tainly is not true of you. You in words artfully give
a favourable, but false colour to every ill matter and
case. You deceitfully ascribe to yourself personally
what belongs to reason, that excellent person that lodges

* h Original Sin," p. 216, marginal note,
t Ibid. Note on Rom. vii. 15.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 295

in every man's breast. But reason and you are very
different persons, whose will, inclination, and affections
go very different ways. How can you ascribe to your-
self a will to do what is good and holy, when you are
a willing slave of sin ? You say o{ the propensity that
is in you to evil, it is not I. But if you have any faint
ineffectual inclination to what is good in any instance,
you might say much more justly, It is not I, but reason
that dwelleth in me : even reason, whose suggestions
within me are too weak against the prevailing force
and dominion of sin. You might add, according to the
truth of your case: I do indeed by the evidence and
force of reason, assent in my mind to the best rule of
action ; I rather wish I could avoid that assent, for I
am, myself personally, in opposition to that best iule of
action, still under the dominion of sin, and of my lusts.
Thus, while Dr Taylor sets forth reason as an imagin-
ary person, ascribing thereto the various faculties, and
qualities of a person, he denies what the apostle asserts
of himself personally, or of the man personated by him,
as to the prevailing habitual inclination of his faculties,
consenting, loving, hating, willing, and delighting on the
side of duty and holiness ; so that, upon the whole, his
account of things is flatly contradicting the apostle,
instead of interpreting.

There remain several things to be adduced to the
same purpose from two verses, which it is fit to consider
separately, and more largely.

Sect. Y.— The subject continued, and ver. 22 explained.

Yer. 22. I delight i?i the law of God y after the inward
man. There hath been great labour and difference in
interpreting this verse. The inquiry is: 1. What is
meant by the inward man ? 2. What is meant by
delighting in the law of God?

1. What is meant by the inward man? We say, it
means the same as the neiv man, or the soul so far as
renewed by divine grace. Dr Whitby says, it cannot

296 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

mean the new man, which is not put on till we have
put off the old man with his deeds. Did the learned
writer truly think, that the new man could not be in a
Christian state whilst anything of the old man (even in a
crucified state, as chap. vi. 6) remained to be put off, or
of his deeds ? There is something in this matter that
he seems not to have adverted to, and that is, when the
Christian hath put off the old man, it is not so perfectly
done but that there remains occasion for the exhortation,
to put off the old man, and to put on the new man, as
Eph. iv. 22, 24. And though the Colossians had put off
the old man, as in the verses of Col. iii. cited by the
Doctor, still there remained in them members of the old
man to be mortified, as he exhorts them (ver. 5) ; and he
found in them what occasioned his saying to them (ver. 8),
Now also put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, &c, which
pertained to the old man. The Doctor goes on : " For
sure this (viz. that he had put off the old man) cannot
be said of him who is still carnal, sold under sin, and
captivated to the law of sin." This argument hath a full
answer in what hath been said already on those ex-
pressions of our context on which it is founded. These
expressions convey the sorrowful complaint of one who
appears to have indeed put off the old man ; who grieves
much for what he still finds of the members of the old
man remaining and stirring in him ; and who hath at
heart, according to the exhortation directed to the
Ephesians and Colossians, to put off the old man, and
to mortify his members, more and more, and longs to
be delivered from the body of death.

The learned writer proceeds, and having asserted that
it only means the mind of man, the rovs, as he says the
apostle explains himself (ver. 25), he adduces the authority
of Origen (none of the best divines, or interpreters of
Scripture), and of three others of the ancients, who say,
that the soul, using the body as its instrument, is called,
6 etnu avdpwTros, the inward man. But there needed no
authority to prove, that in the composition of the human
person, the body is the outward, the soul the inward part
of man, and the principle of life and action, which useth

THE SCOTE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 297

the other as its instrument ; nor is there any absurdity,
if men, in expressing their own mind in common speech,
shall call the one the inward, the other the outward
man. But we are now inquiring concerning the
Scripture use of the word, inward man, and that cer-
tainly is not, to signify the soul, in contradiction to the
body.

This is certain from the apostle's evident scope and
argument in the place we are considering. From that
it is clear, that he means by the inward man, that in
him to which nothing contrary to delighting in the law
of God could be ascribed. He had said (ver. 21), I find
tJicn a law, that when I would do good, rcil is present
with inc. For (so he adds, ver. 22) / delight in the law
of God, after the inward man. It were making the
apostle talk in an inconsistent manner, to give delighting
in the law of God, as the peculiar and distinguishing
character of his inward man, in opposition to that law,
by which evil was present with him, if that law was like-
wise to be ascribed to his inward man, which were
certainly the case, if the inward man signified the soul,
in contradistinction to the body. The body, considered
separately, is not the subject of moral good or evil.
In the human person the soul is especially and most
properly the seat of moral good and evil. If, as Origen
speaks, it uses the body as its instrument in doing good,
it also uses it as its instrument in accomplishing and
gratifying the corrupt lusts and passions that are in-
herent in the soul. It is plain, that the apostle means
to ascribe delighting in the law of God to a good
principle in him, which he contradistinguishes to another
principle in his soul, by which, as in the preceding
words, evil was present with him ; and that good
principle can be no other than that called in Scripture
the nezv man, and here, the inward man.

If we look into the writings of our adversaries on this
point, we shall see, that though their general arguing
sometimes tends to prove that the inward man signifies
the soul, in contradistinction to the body, yet themsel
do not indeed mean so in explaining this context. By

298 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

their explications they appear to mean the mind, under-
standing, or conscience. So Dr Whitby understood the
mind of man, the vov<s, to be meant; and though in giving
Origen's sense, he makes it to be the soul, yet in the
citation he gives from Origen against Celsus, the word is,
vovs, the mind or understanding, which is not the same as
soul, but signifies a particular faculty of the soul. Now,
though there might be some reason from the nature of
things, why we might, in our own use of speech, call the
soul, which is the inner part in the composition of the
human person, the inward man, there is not the same
reason to distinguish the mind or understanding from the
other human faculties by that name. The will of man
and his affections are as inward and as essential to the
soul as the mind.

I see it observed, that Plato uses the phrase, 6 ivrhs
avOpuiros, for the rational part of our nature. I would
have no quarrel with Plato for so conceiving and
expressing ; though, at the same time, I would not
expect to find with the heathen philosopher, the apostle
Paul's particular notion and view of the inward man.

That is the subject of our present inquiry, and in
proceeding to consider the only two other places in which
the expression occurs, I begin with 2 Cor iv. 16, For
which cause we faint not ; but though our outward man
perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day.

Dr Whitby says, that the outward man which perisheth,
signifies only the body ; the inward is only the soul and
spirit that is in man. One thing that occurs on a general
view of that interpretation, is this, that it makes the
apostle's words represent something that is not common
or natural, and which Christians ordinarily have not
cause to expect. For when the body becomes weak and
fades, most commonly and naturally weakness comes on
the mind and spirit of a man too, instead of the perishing
of the outward man occasioning the soul to be renewed
in vigour and alacrity, which are the words of his para-
phrase. But understanding the inward man of the new
man, the matter becomes intelligible and very clear. The
Christian, though the gifts by which he perhaps shined

THE SCOPE OF A'OJlf. VII. 1 4-2 5 299

do as the flower of the grass fall away, yet he becomes
more humble and poor in spirit, more sincere and upright,
holds Christ more precious, hath his heart more weaned
from the world, doth more earnestly desire the things
that are above, and is more solaced by the hope of the
eternal inheritance. In all this there is great improve-
ment of the new man. While the Christian fades and
declines in his body, and likewise in his spirit, and the
natural faculties thereof, yet at the same time, as to what
belongs to the new man, and what truly constitutes the
character of the Christian, or righteous person, he flourishes
like a palm-tree, he bringeth forth fruit in old age, and is,
under all his natural fading, fat and flourishing in the
best sense. As this doth show that the Lord is upright,
so, to the praise of his faithfulness, it is no uncommon
case among those whom grace hath sanctified.

That in 2 Cor. iv. 16 the inward man, and the
renewing thereof, means the new man, or principle of
grace and holiness, and its improvement, is very evident
by the account the apostle himself gives of that improve-
ment, or renewing, in the very next words : For our light
afflictio?i, saith he, which is but for a mom cut, worketh for
us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, while
we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things
-which are not seen. — Thus then it is that the inward man is
daily renewed and improved by tribulations, while these
do more and more fit the Christian for glory, dispose and
determine him the more to look, not to the things that
are seen, but to the things that are not seen. This cannot
be said of the soul simply, but of the principle of grace
and holiness, or the new man, which alone is capable of
such improvement, or of the soul, so far as it is renewed
by Divine grace. Otherwise, how many souls are there
which, being unrenewed, receive no such improvement
by tribulations and afflictions !

Another place, in which this expression, the inward
man, occurs, is where the apostle prays for the Ephesians
(chap. iii. 16, 17) thus : That he would grant you, accord-
ing to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might,
by his Spirit in the inner man ; that Christ may dwell in

300 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

your hearts by faith ; that ye, being rooted and grounded in
love, &c. It may be easy to understand the meaning of
the inner man, for any who shall observe the scope and
connection of this passage, which are easy and obvious.
He wishes Christ to dwell in their hearts by faith, which
is not merely wishing them to have faith, for that he
supposes these Ephesians to have already ; but that they
might be more steady and established in faith, that they
might be more habituated to living practically by faith,
that so Christ might be in them, not as by transient
visits, but might dwell in them, for their most established
consolation and abounding fruitfulness. His wish is not
merely that they may have love, but that they may be
rooted and grounded in love. Now, it is in order to this,
that he prays that they may be strengthened with might
in the inner man. Their being so he considers as having
for its natural consequence, that Christ shall dwell in their
hearts by faith, &c. He considers these things as naturally
connected.

But there is no such connection, if the inner man's
being strengthened shall be. understood merely of the
soul, with its natural faculties, that inward part in
the composition of the human person, and its being
strengthened with might, even by the Spirit of God ;
for we read of the Spirit of God coming, on divers
occasions, upon men, to give them vigour of spirit, and
to inspire them with zeal and fortitude for public service,
— not to strengthen their faith or love, as these are the
principles of spiritual life and of true holiness. Yea, in
our times, if there are men who give signal proof of
prowess and of heroic fortitude, we have cause to con-
sider it as a particular gift of God and of his Spirit,
strengthening them with might in their souls and spirits,
while, without this, others do show themselves weak and
dastard ly. Yet as to these gallant persons, so strengthened
with might and fortitude of soul and spirit, how commonly
doth this appear, without any symptom of having Christ
dwelling in their hearts by faith, or of any other thing
that doth accompany salvation ? Upon the whole, if the
inner man shall be understood here of men's soul and

THE SCOPE OF KO.U. VII. 1 4-2 5 3c I

spirit in general, there appears no connection of these
things, which yet it is evident the apostle means to
connect. But understanding the inner man of the new-
man, or principle of spiritual life, the connection is quite
clear, and easily understood. As the new man owes his
being to the Holy Spirit, so it is by the influence and
power of the same Spirit that he on all occasions receives
might and vigour. Then if the new man, the principle
of spiritual life (or the inner man , is strengthened, the
natural consequence will be what the apostle mentions,
that the Christian will have great establishment in faith,
unmoved by the shocks of tribulation, or by the tempta-
tions of the enemy; so that Christ shall dwell in him,
and he shall be rooted and grounded in love.

Thus we have seen how we are to understand the
inward man in these two texts (2 Cor. iv. 16, and Eph.
iii. 16). And by what hath been observed, it appears,
that we cannot justly conceive the apostle's argument, or
enter into the views which he appears to have in these
places, without understanding the inner man of the new
man. As to the text especially under our consideration
Rom. vii. 22), it has been observed before, that the
inward man there must be understood, not of the soul
merely, but of that special principle in the soul, by which
the man delighted in the law of God ; and that as distin-
guished from another principle also in the soul, by which
evil was present with him. All these things make it
appear, that by the inward man here we are to under-
stand what the apostle calls elsewhere the new man.
What is here ascribed to the inward man is very decisive
to the same purpose. This brings us to the next thing
proposed, for explaining verse 22.

2. What is meant by delighting in the law of God?

The Greek word properly and strongly signifies
delighting: and none need to be told what delighting
But the preposition, ow, -with, being joined in com-
position with it (ow7J(5o/zcu), it has been endeavoured to
make something of that. If indeed it was said by one
man, with respect to another, it might signify joining in
delight, or pleasure, with him. But when it is spoken

302 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

with respect to the law of God, what can be made of it
but as we render, to delight? If we consider the law
by way of prosopopoeia, as a person, then o-vvrjSofxou,
condelectOT) may mean as if he had said, I delight in the
same that the law delights in, and that is, true and
perfect, outward and inward, obedience and holiness.
This is what the law requires, and recommends to me,
as delightful ; and what, agreeably to the law, I delight
in ; what would be most delightful for me to attain ;
what I aim at, and pursue with delight, whatever
bitterness and pain I have from the law in my members,
in my way to that attainment. At any rate, delighting
in the law of God, and in the holiness thereof, doth very
much distinguish a person regenerate from the unre-
generate, who are incapable of such delight in the law,
or in holiness.

However, Dr Whitby's paraphrase gives it thus : " /
delight in the law of God, my mind approving, for some
time, and being pleased with its good and holy precepts."
But doth the mind or judgment approving, or being
pleased with a proposition or law, as true or right, come
up to the meaning of delighting? Words will be useless
for the expression of meanings, if they may be paraphrased
or perverted at this rate. Besides, as to approving, or
being pleased with the law for some time, what these last
words import is taken from the Doctor's own notion, that
it is the hypocrite or unregenerate person that is here
represented, as such may have a good disposition for
some time. But it is plain, that the apostle means
delighting in the holiness of the law, as the quality
and disposition, not for a time, but always habitually of
his inward man : there is nothing in the expression to
restrict it to some time. Finally, this addition, " for
some time," doth not well suit Dr Whitby's own notions.
For though some sort of disposition, favourable to holi-
ness and good practice in an unregenerate man, may last
but for a time, and soon go off, yet the Doctor would
allow that his vovs, his mind or judgment, which he
supposes to be meant by the inward man (to which he
ascribes all the good things expressed in this context),

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 303

would nevertheless continue to approve the law, and
what it prescribes, even though the man had sold himself
to work wickedness, like Ahab : so that by his own prin-
ciples he should not have added, " for some time."

The Doctor says in his annotation : " That this delight
is no evidence of a regenerate man, is evident from the
example of the stony ground, which heard the word
with joy (Matt. xiii. 20) ; of Herod, who heard John the
Baptist (V/<$€ws) with delight (Mark vi. 20); of the Jews,
who rejoiced in his light (John v. 35) and heard our
Saviour gladly (Mark xii. 37)."

I shall begin my answer to this by observing, that the
instance of the hearers compared to the stony ground,
must be very improperly adduced on this occasion by an
Arminian divine. Those of that denomination do
generally hold that temporary faith is the same for
nature and kind with saving faith, and falls short of
being saving only by the want of fruitfulness and per-
severance ; and therefore, they argue from instances of
this sort of faith, and persons, against the doctrine of the
certain perseverance of the saints. If it is so, then
certainly they who have this sort of faith (which the
stony ground hearers are said to have) are regenerate for
the time, as I do not expect it will be said, that persons
may have true faith, who are not, for the time, regenerate.
So that this is an instance, according to their notions, of
persons regenerate brought to prove what persons
unregenerate are capable of, which is very far from just
reasoning.

This is a sufficient answer upon their principles. I
shall now give an answer more suitable to my own
sentiments, and to the truth of the case. It is said
Matt. xiii. 20) that the hearers there mentioned heard
the word, and anon with jay received it; and it is true,
that nothing gives joy that would not give delight.
But then it is to be observed, that our Lord is not there
speaking of the law, but of the gospel, called in the
preceding verse, the word of tJic kingdom. Now there
can be no question but the good things thereby repre-
sented, such as remission of sins, deliverance from the

304 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

wrath to come, with eternal happiness and glory, may,
in the hearing, affect with some sort of delight and joy
souls that do by no means delight in the law of God, or
in the holiness which it manifests and requires. Yea,
will not all Christian divines acknowledge, that gener-
ally this is one thing that especially demonstrates that
the delight and joy which some have had by the gospel,
real as it hath been in its kind, is no sufficient evidence
of regeneration or true conversion, nor is it profitable or
saving in its nature or effect ?

Whatever freedom, or severity of reproof, was in the
preaching of John Baptist, yet (as Matt. iii. 2) he preached
that the kingdom of heaven was at hand ; which, as they
understood it, might give delight and joy to the most
carnal of the Jews, his hearers ; and to those of them
who were farthest from delighting in the law of God.

It is certainly not uncommon for men to hear the
gospel (especially when it is preached with some
advantage in the manner) with present satisfaction and
affection, whose hearts were never reconciled to the
holiness of the law of God. Though Ezekiel often
brought heavy messages, yet there were unregenerate
unholy men, who had some sort of pleasure in hearing
him ; concerning whom the Lord saith to him (Ezek.
xxxiii. 31, 32), They come unto tJiee as the people cometh,
and they sit before thee as my people, and they hear thy
words, but they will not do them : for with their mouth
they shoiv much love, but their heart goeth after their
covetousness. And lo, thou art unto them as a very lovely
song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play well
on an instrument : for they hear thy words, but they do
them not. Though carnal men have some pleasure in
hearing the word of God, yet they are so far from
delighting in the law of God, that the prevailing of the
contrary disposition is a chief cause why the word of
God is not truly, or with saving effect, received into
their hearts. Men in our times can be greatly pleased
with a sermon preached or read to them : may admire
the skilful composition, the propriety and elegance of
the expression, with the strong reasoning in favour of

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5. 305

goodness and virtue ; may in the hearing be as much
affected almost as with the- best composed and best
acted tragedy, and bestow enconiums on the preacher
that might shock the most vainglorious ; when yet
their disposition, conversation, and behaviour prove that
they never truly delighted in the holiness of the law, or
in the grace of the gospel.

As to Herod, if he heard John Baptist gladly, or with
delight, shall we say, that the tyrant, who was in the
common practice of iniquity and oppression, living
openly in incestuous lewdness, did indeed delight in the
law of God ? This is too absurd to be deliberately main-
tained. What hath been said on these several instances
accounts likewise for Dr Whitby's last instance of the
common people's hearing our Saviour gladly, though
many of them unprofitably.

Dr Taylor* brings Isa. lviii. 2, where it is said of a
nation that did not righteousness, They seek me daily,
and DELIGHT to know my ways. It is easy answering
this.

There is in mankind a lust of knowledge, of knowing
good and evil. Many Jews became learned in the law ;
and it is very likely that Paul, in his unregenerate state,
brought up at the feet of Gamaliel, became very learned
in this way, and could resolve man)' a question respect-
ing the Mosaic Law. Their scribes and lawyers
delighted in increasing their knowledge of it. The
apostle says to the Jew (Rom. ii. 18, 19), Thou know-
est his willy and approvest the tilings that are more
excellent, and art confident that thou thyself art a guide
to the blind ; when he doth (ver. 21-24) charge them with
much wicked practice. The Jews in Isaiah's time did
seek God daily, and did delight in approaching to God,
as he says in the text cited, which can be understood of
no other than external worship, in which they were
zealous and laborious. Yet as it is not said or meant,
that they sincerely sought God, or approached him
with their heart ; so if they delighted to know God's

* "Original Sin," p. 218.
U

306 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

ways, yet it is not said or meant that they delighted in
these ways, or in the law of God, which marks them out
to men. That is a very different thing. The apostle's
words in our context represent one delighting in these
ways, not merely in the knowledge of them ; and who
delighted in the law itself, with a view to its holiness
and spirituality, which he had asserted (ver. 14).

We see then that the instances of joy and delight, in
the case of hypocrites and persons unregenerate, that
have been adduced, do not come up to the meaning of
delighting in the law of God, in the text under con-
sideration.

On the other hand, we find in Scripture, that delighting
in the law of God is given as a special evidence of a person
regenerate, holy, righteous, and blessed. The Psalmist
in Psalm cxix. hath divers expressions to this purpose
concerning himself; particularly ver. 47, / will delight
myself in thy commandments, which 1 have loved. Indeed
the commandments cannot be the delight of any man
farther than they are loved by him ; which shows the
absurdity of understanding delighting in the law of God,
in our text, of an unregenerate man who is incapable of
loving the law. The Psalmist's words are very direct
and clear to the present purpose (Ps. i. 2), where he
gives it as the mark of a man who is truly blessed, that
his delight is in the law of the Lord : as he likewise gives
it for a mark of the righteous (Ps. xxxvii. 3 1 ), that the
law of God is in his heart. Now, shall we say there
is anything so weak or silly in the inspired writings,
as to give for the mark of persons blessed, righteous,
and regenerate, anything they have in common with
persons unregenerate and ungodly? or can it be good
arguing that proceeds on such a supposition ?

We have now seen that the new man, the principle of
spiritual life and holiness, is the same that is meant by
the inward man, according to the constant use of scrip-
ture. We. have likewise seen, that to delight in the law
of God, is, according to the scripture, a most special and
distinguishing mark of a person righteous and blessed.
So that in this one proposition (ver. 22), / delight in the

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5. 307

law of God according to the inward man, we have two
arguments of great clearness and force, proving that the
case represented in our context is that of a person
regenerate and under grace.

Sect. VI.— The same subject continued, and ver. 25 explained.

We might be well satisfied with the evidence that has
been already brought from this context, to determine
the general scope and purpose of it ; but there remains
a great deal more evidence in the concluding verse of
this seventh chapter. The first clause is, / thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Here we have the
expression of the Apostle's thankfulness for the advant-
age he had already obtained against the flesh ; and the
freedom he had by divine grace attained from the law
in his members. By no means, say others. It is but
his thankfulness for the prospect and comfortable ex-
pectation he had, through the grace of God in Jesus
Christ, of being delivered from the body of death ; for
which he had expressed such an earnest wish and long-
ing in the preceding verse. Be it so ; as indeed both
his past experience, and his good prospect for futurity,
may be well together, as the matter of his thankfulness.
But if we should restrict it to the matter last mentioned,
his thankfulness in that same view implies his faith and
confidence of being delivered from what he calls the
body of death. It is easy using words, and many have
used the preceding words, 0 wretched man that I am !
who never had any true sense of wretchedness by the
strength of sin in them. So it is easy for men to express
thankfulness, and to profess the faith of total deliverance
from sin, in such words as are here used, who have not
the faith they express in their hearts. But for a man,
who hath great bitterness of heart by the experience of
sin in him ; who finds the working out of deliverance
from it exceed all his own powers, and utmost efforts,
and all created power besides ; who cries out, with a
complaint sincere and earnest, of his wretchedness by it :

308 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

for such a man, I say, to express, as with the same
breath, his joyful thankfulness for the prospect and
hope of deliverance from the body of death, could not
be without that faith supporting and solacing his heart,
that is a certain fruit and evidence of regeneration. For
it will be often found that the children of God have no
greater trial of faith, or greater difficulty in exercising it,
than in what concerneth their comfort in reference to
sin that dwelleth in them, and their hope of deliverance
from it. But to suppose that an unregenerate man,
having such a painful feeling of sin, of which he is the
absolute and willing slave, to have at the same time
such thankful confidence of deliverance from it, is to
suppose what is quite inconsistent with that character
and state.

It was observed before, that it is charging the apostle
with a very gross incongruity and inconsistency, to
suppose him to be personating an infidel Jew, and yet
to represent that Jew speaking of Jesus Christ, as in the
first clause of this verse. Dr Taylor endeavours to hide
the absurdity by the sort of a paraphrase he gives of
vers. 24, 25, thus: "Now what shall a sinner do in this
miserable condition ? — How shall such a wretched,
enslaved, condemned Jew be delivered ? He is deliv-
ered and obtains salvation, not by any strength or
favour the law supplieth, but by the grace of God in
our Lord Jesus Christ, for which we are bound to be
for ever thankful." So indeed the Apostle himself
might say of the Jew, or any other man in the supposed
condition, in a doctrinal way ; but though the nature and
rule of paraphrase allowed him to vary somewhat and
amplify the expression, yet if the design was to person-
ate the Jew, as this Doctor thought, that did not give
him a right to represent any other as speaking than a
Jew ; and if there was anything said inconsistent with
that character, he should have been convinced that the
design was not to personate the Jew. Was the man
indeed sensible of this difficulty, that he avoids it in the
manner we have seen in his paraphrase? However,
this is no other than a too artful and unfair way of

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5. 309

hiding, not removing the difficulty that occurred with
regard to his interpretation. Surely the Apostle was
not capable of such incongruity, rather gross absurdity,
as to make an infidel Jew to speak of Jesus Christ, in
the manner here expressed.

In the remaining part of this ver. 25, we have the
result and conclusion of all the representation the
Apostle had been making from ver. 14. And here surely
we may expect something that will further help us to
understand and fix the general scope and purpose of
the preceding context. The words are, So then, with
the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but with the
flesh the law of sin. In the first of these clauses we
have occasion to consider these three expressions, and
the sense of them : 1. I myself. 2. The mind. 3. Serv-
ing the law of God.

1. avrbs lyw, / myself ; so rendered precisely according
to the Greek. But some, without giving any good reason
for it, will have it rendered, / the same man (of whom he
had before spoken, not I Paul writing this epistle). So
Dr Whitby. But if that were the sense designed, we
should have had in this place, not avros lyw, but 6 dvros eyu>,
as Beza observes, who says, he never saw it so in the
text, in any copy, and he had seen a great many. The
reason with these interpreters for attempting to make
this alteration in the text, may, I think, be learned from
these words of Dr Whitby's annotation, " Not I Paul
writing this epistle." If the expression I myself be
retained, however, precisely according to the Greek,
they seem to be sensible that it will strongly intimate
that the apostle is indeed representing his own present
case, and how it was then with himself. So indeed the
words import ; and must we agree to alter the text, to
be free of this inconvenience? In order to have this
agreed to, they should have shown us their translation
to be warranted by the use of speech in the Greek, or
else have shown us a different reading, to be warranted
by ancient manuscripts of good authority. It seems
neither of these could be done. My lexicon for the
Latin, idem, the same man, gives, o dvros, and the words

310 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

in our text, dvrbs eyw, are still rendered as here, / myself.
So Luke xxiv. 39: That, dvrus eyw dpi, it is I myself.
Rom. ix. 3 : For I could wish that, dvrbs eyw, myself were
accursed. Rom. xv. 14: And, curros eyw, I myself also am
persuaded. 2 Cor. x. I : avrbs Se €yw TLacXos, Now I Paul
myself beseech you ; chap. xii. 1 3 : Except that, auros eyw,
/ myself was not burdensome to you. This is enough for
vindicating our translation, and to show that the differ-
ent rendering is not warranted by the use and common
meaning of the words.

As this expression shows, that it is the case of the
apostle himself, writing this epistle, which is here repre-
sented, there is this further in it, the expression clearly
implies, that the character of the person he represented
is to be taken, and himself to be denominated from this,
as from the most prevailing principle in him, and in his
course, that with his mind he served the law of God ; he
himself did so. Surely if this was the prevailing dis-
position and practice, it must be allowed to be a strong
argument and proof of regeneration ; and that the
Apostle is not here personating an unregenerate man,
or a carnal Jew. Indeed, this way of expressing the
matter is quite suitable to what he had said (ver. 17),
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
in me. And again (ver. 20), If I do that I would not, it
is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. It is
putting his conclusion in language very suitable to such
premises and declarations, to say here (ver. 25), So then I
MYSELF with my mind serve the law of God.

However, his distinguishing thus pathetically and
anxiously between himself (vers. 17, 20), and sin dwelling
in him, is not to be understood as if he designed to
alleviate his sin, or to excuse himself. That were not
like the disposition of a man, who was making such
sorrowful confession and complaint of sin. For if he had
whereby to excuse himself, or meant so, why should he
cry out, Wretched man that I am ? But though he was
far from designing to excuse himself, or sin in him, yet
having such sorrowful sense of his condition by sin, he
much needed, as the true state of the case gave him

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII 1 4-2 5. 3 I I

ground, to encourage himself by observing, that the
better principle prevailed in him, and that with his mind
he himself 'served the law of God.

2. The word in this clause to be next considered is,
the mind) for which the Greek word is wvs. Now, shall
we say, that an unregenerate man may justly demand that
his character be taken from his mind and conscience, and
from the office which it performs within, so that it should
be said that this is he himself, and that the apostle is so
to be understood in this place ?

It would seem that Dr Whitby inclined to think so.
For on the words of ver. 17, just now quoted, he says :
" Here the apostle seems to speak according to the
philosophy of the heathens, with which the Jews began
to be acquainted, that a man was not to be denominated
from his body, or his sensual and carnal part, but from
his mind, his vovs, or AoyiK?) SiaVoia, which, in Philo's
phrase, is the man within us — the true man, the man
properly so called." So the unregenerate man may say,
in the apostle's words, that with his vovs, his mind, which
is himself (the true man, the man properly so called) he
serves the law of God. This is what the Doctor aims at.

As to this, if human nature is to be considered in the
most general view, and man is to be described as he is
to be distinguished from the other animals on this globe,
I allow that he is to be denominated from his soul or
mind, and rational faculty and conscience, which is the
better and the distinguishing part in his frame. So
when we say, that man is a reasonable creature, endowed
with a conscience, that is denominating him from his
soul or mind, which alone is capable of rationality and
conscience.

But all this is nothing to the present purpose. The
apostle's view doth not respect the general frame or con-
stitution of man, or of human nature. His discourse
respects moral character, and the different case of a
person regenerate, and under grace, and of a person
unregenerate, under the law, with regard . to moral
character. Though I denominate man in general from
the reason and conscience he is endowed with, shall I

312 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

therefore give the moral character of an ill man, of one
who has abandoned himself to work wickedness like
Ahab, from reason and conscience, and say the man is
a person of reason and conscience ? What Dr Whitby
suggests on this occasion from philosophy, is but an
attempt to give his interpretation a colouring, which, if
duly considered, must appear fallacious, yea extremely
absurd.

The writers on that side express themselves as if they
thought that in every man all was right on the part of
the vovs, the mind or reasoning faculty, whatever pravity
may have affected the will, affections, and body, through
acquired ill habits or otherwise. In interpreting this
context, they do not advert, that in this fallen state the
human mind hath come under great weakness, yea blind-
ness, in spiritual matters, and in the things of God.
Besides what there is of this common to all men in their
natural condition, the Scripture distinguishes some men
as of corrupt minds in a special degree. The persons
spoken of (Tit. i. 15) had their mind (6 vovs) and conscience
defiled. These in Rom. i. 28 were given up (cfs aSoKcpov
vovv) to a reprobate mind. Paul says (Eph. ii. 3) that, in
an unconverted state, we all — were fulfilling the desires of
the flesh, and (tQ>v Stavoiwi') of the mind. Chap. iv. 17 he
exhorts the Christians not to walk, as other Gentiles do,
in the vanity {jov vobs dvruv) of their viind. He speaks of
a man (Col. ii. 18) vainly puffed up by (rov vobs rijs o-apKos
dvrov) his fleshly mind. He mentions (1 Tim. vi. ^per-
verse disputings of men (SucfiOapfieviov rov vovv) of corrupt
minds, and so likewise 2 Tim. iii. 8. It appears then,
that in unregenerate men, even the vovs, the mind itself, is
not so good a thing as some imagine, but is sadly tainted
with sin ; and is so in some to a high degree. Such men
as Ahab, who have sold themselves to work wickedness,
have their vovs, their mind as corrupt as any men ;
and such are supposed, by the interpreters we have to
do with, to be here personated by the apostle. Can
such men justly say, With these our minds, fleshly
minds, corrupt minds, reprobate minds as they are, we,
even we ourselves, serve the law of God ? or, when such

THE SCOPE OF ROM. J 77. 1 4- 2 5 313

a one sins, can he say, It is not I, for I am to be
denominated, and my character taken from my vovs,
mind, my Aoyi/o) Su'wolo., my rational understanding, vain,
corrupt, and fleshly as that is ?

Let us now consider the natural course of things in the
human soul and practice. It is certain that a man doth
not follow any sinful course farther than even his mind
and understanding is on the side of sin. The mind or
understanding is on the side of duty in many cases in
theory ; but when it comes to the actual practice of sin,
it is certain that the mind doth first represent it as good,
before it can proceed to practice. The mind may in
this be biassed by affections, senses, lusts, and appetites.
But from whatever source the bias comes, so it is, that
the mind doth represent evil under the notion of good,
before the will can possibly be determined to it. This
is the fixed and unalterable order of things in rational
agents. To suppose the will to determine itself to any
sort of action or course without this, were to make it a
brutal faculty, not the faculty of a rational agent. To
say that the human will may, by a sort of sovereign
liberty, determine itself to any action or pursuit de-
liberately, without the mind representing it as good, is,
in order to ascribe to man the liberty of his will, to
degrade him from the rank of a rational agent. It is
certainly impossible in nature, that such an agent can
will or choose anything, good or evil as it may be in
itself, but what the mind represents as good. Be it so,
then, that the mind, understanding, or conscience, hath
a certain light and urgency on the side of holiness
or of duty, so far as they are enlightened in an unrc-
generate man ; yet this light and urgency is faint and
weak. On the other hand, the mind, influenced by a
corrupt heart, represents the pleasures of sin as good,
and this it performs in a strong light, and ur
powerfully ; which, being agreeable to the corrupt
disposition of the heart, prevails against the weak and
ineffectual suggestion of mind and conscience, in favour
of holiness and duty, and so takes effect in the practice.
Thus, even the vovs, the mind itself, comes to be on

3 H A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

the side of sin, in men corrupt, unsanctified, and
unregenerate.

This being the case, from which part is the unregenerate
man to be denominated? Is it from the faint light in his
mind, and the weak ineffectual urgency of his conscience
in favour of duty ? or is it from the more prevailing bias
of his mind itself, of his will and affections on the side of
sin ; and from the free course it hath in his practice ?
How much soever he is in the several faculties of his
soul determined on the side of sin, in opposition to true
holiness, yet as any degree of light that remains in his
mind and conscience is the better part in him ; is he,
from this, even when he goes on in sin, yea, is under the
dominion of it, entitled to denominate himself, as to
moral or spiritual character, from this better part ; and
to say, of all the evil that he practises, It is not I ? —This
is absurd.

But to come still closer to the subject, let us endeavour
to explain what is here meant by the mind. We have
here (ver. 25) the mind and the flesh, instead of the law of
his mind, and the law in his members, mentioned ver.
23. It is needless to seek a reason from this variation
in the expression. If there had been a repetition in this
ver. 25 of the word law four times, thus : I with the law
of my mind serve the law of God ; but with the law in
my members the law of sin ; there might be some
disadvantage in sound and elegance. One word, striking
the ear so often in one sentence, might be unpleasing,
which is avoided by substituting the words, his mind,
and the flesh.

It is likely, however, that by his mind here he means
the same thing as the law of his mind (ver. 23). Let us
then inquire into the meaning of the law of his mind.
We may be helped in this by considering what is meant
by the law in his members, which he states in opposition
to it. This last certainly is not any directing light, to
be opposed in that respect to the light of his mind and
conscience. In general, the law in his members is a
powerful, energetic, operative principle. We must then,
as the opposition is stated, understand the law of his

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5. 3 I 5

mind, not merely of the light of his mind and conscience,
suggesting to a man the law and rule of practice, but of
another powerful, energetic, operative principle. So that
here we have one active principle disposing and deter-
mining the man's heart to holiness ; and it is plain that
this is here represented as the more prevailing and
ruling principle in him. There is another active
principle, the law in his members, the flesh, exerting
itself in various lusts, carnal affections, unruly and
unholy passions ; and by these warring against that
other and better principle of life and action, and so
serving the law of sin.

It will tend to our better understanding this subject,
and at the same time show a reason of the expression,
the law of my mind, to observe that Scripture
(Heb. viii. 10), This is the covenant that I will make
with the house of Israel after those days, saitJi the Lord:
I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in
their hearts. This is not merely what the apostle
mentions, when he speaks of the natural conscience
that is in the Gentiles (Rom. ii. 15). The work of the
law, as there mentioned, is not the work that the law
prescribes, but the work which the law itself in the
conscience performs ; representing duty and sin,
excusing or accusing. But it is something very
different from what was naturally in the Gentiles, and
something more excellent and effectual that is meant
by the promise of the new covenant, when it is said
(Heb. viii.), / will put my laws into their minds, and
icrite them in their hearts. This is something more
than natural conscience can arrive to in any man : it is
a writing by the Spirit of the living God in the fleshly
tables of the hearts. It is, that God by his Spirit puts
the holiness of the law, or puts the love of God (which is
the great commandment, and the sum of holiness) in the
minds and hearts of his people ; implants in them a new
and efficacious principle of spiritual life, effectually
producing in them conformity to his law, and securing
against the breaking of the covenant, as had happened
with respect to the first covenant, before mentioned. So

3l6 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

that this promise is so far parallel to that (Jer. xxxii. 40),
/ will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not
depart from me.

From what hath been observed, we have good reason
to think, that the law of the mind here is the principle
of holiness in a mind and heart enlightened and
sanctified by the Holy Spirit, which is a powerful,
operative, and prevailing principle in every regenerate
person.

3. The third expression in this second clause is,
serving the law of God. This can import no less than a
true conformity to the holiness of the law of God, with
submission and obedience to its authority, in the sincere
and constant purpose of the heart, and in habitual
endeavour ; and this is incompatible with the character
and state of an unregenerate person, under the dominion
of sin. It is, however, endeavoured to reconcile this
serving the law of God, with the condition of such a
person. Dr Hammond hath it thus in his paraphrase :
"The carnal man — with his understanding he serves
the law of God ; is delighted and pleased with those
things wherewith that is delighted." Dr Taylor thus :
" That same I, the same person, in his inward man, his
mind and rational powers, may assent to, and approve
the law of God." Dr Whitby's mind we have seen
to the same purpose. Let us consider these things a
little.

These writers suppose, that this context represents
the case of a person enslaved by his lusts, habitually led
captive by them, and quite destitute of the spirit. Yea,
they explain and exemplify the case in instances of the
grossest sinners. On the other hand, they observe, that
the unregenerate man hath naturally a rational mind
and conscience, but of small force or effect in practice.
The light in his rational mind, so far as it is enlightened,
shows him what is duty, and what is sin. Yea, in some
cases, his conscience incites him with great urgency to
do his duty ; and when he acts in the contrary way,
accuses and condemns him. But with regard to the
light in his conscience, the person under the dominion

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 317

of sin is altogether passive, reluctant, and rebellious.
As to serving the law of God, the conscience doth
indeed serve it, as a witness for its authority and
holiness; and God serves himself of the conscience, for
the interest of his justice, and for that likewise of his
grace and holiness. But shall we say, and give it for the
interpretation of this place, that an unregenerate person.
because he has reason and conscience marking out to
him duty and sin, may be said to serve the law of God :
when, in the prevailing disposition of his heart, and his
whole course of life and practice, he is in the utmost
contrariety to it? may such justly say, I myself, or (if
you please) I, the same carnal man and slave of sin, do
serve the law of God with my reason and conscience,
which, with my will and affections, I do resolvedly
disobey and counteract, in the allowed lustings of my
heart, and in all my conversation and practice ? Surely
such an interpretation is intolerable, and an insult upon
common sense.

The great hurt which these writers pretend to fear
from the interpretation the)- oppose is, that wicked and
unholy persons are thereby encouraged, as they think,
to consider their practice as not inconsistent with being
truly in Christ, and in a state of grace. But by this
time it may be pretty clear to any impartial person, that
the interpretation of the context here given affords no
encouragement to men in unholy practice ; and the
proper consequence and improvement of it is to be here-
aftcr shown. In the meantime these interpreters, and
the}' who receive their notions, would do well to consider
if their own interpretation tendeth not greatly to
encourage men in an ill condition and course, when they
make Paul teach persons unregenerate, wicked, and
unholy, that when they do ill, they may justly and
warrantably say, according to the style of this scripture,
It is not /, but sin that dice lie tJi in me ; for with the
mind I do serve the law of God. Is it possible that
unholy persons can apply such language to themselves,
without conveying thereby alleviating notions of their
wickedness, and favourable notions of their condition,

318 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

into their own hearts, already woefully deluded by their
lusts, and that with the worst consequences to them ?

Dr Taylor (note on ver. 25) says, " Serving the law of
God, is not a stronger expression than hating sin (ver. 15),
and delighting in the law of God (ver. 22). But these
expressions are applied to the Jew in the flesh, or
enslaved with sin ; consequently, so may serving the law
of God."

Good reason hath been here given, why we should
reckon it very absurd to apply any of these expressions
to a person enslaved to sin. But it is not only the Jew
in the flesh, and under the Mosaic law, to whom what
this context represents is applied by these interpreters :
recourse is had to heathen fable ; and Medea, whom the
poets represent as a monster of wickedness, is brought
on the stage, to have her part in this farce of interpreta-
tion. So the perfidious cruel witch Medea (if she had
been the apostle's contemporary) might say of all her
wickedness, " // is not /, but sin* that dwelleth in me.
Do not denominate me, or take my character, from this
wickedness, but from that best thing that is in me, my
reason and conscience, which accuse and condemn me
for it ; for I myself, or, I the same person, who so
grossly counteract my reason and conscience, in all my
practice ; even the same person whom the apostle Paul
has so notably represented (though, good man, he writes
as in his own name and person, to mollify the harshness,
and to avoid giving offence to my delicate ladyship, and
to such as I) even I, the same person do, notwithstanding
all my ill practice, yet with my mind and reason serve
the law of God." It were indeed mollifying with a
witness for the apostle to write as he has done, with such
meaning and intention. Was he indeed so shy of giving
offence even to the Jews, whom he had it so much at
heart to do good to? (See Acts xxviii. 25-27, Rom. xi.
8-10, 1 Thess. ii. 15, 16.)

Medea is introduced in this interpretation particularly
for the words which Ovid (a man not very noted for
sanctity himself) has put in her mouth ; by which several
interpreters have exemplified the expressions of our

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5. 319

context. Dr Taylor brings them in thus (note on
ver. 15). "A heathen poet, saith he, gives us a like
description of the combat between reason and passion."

Sed trahit invitam ?icr,'a vis, aliudque cupido
Mens aliud suadet, video meliora probo$W£
Deteriora sequor —

He gives it in English thus :

My reason this, my passion that persuades,

I see the right, and I approve it too,

Condemn the wrong ; — and yet the wrong pu rsue.

By the interpretation here given, our context represents
a conflict between a prevailing principle of holiness, under
the influence of the Spirit of grace, in a sanctified heart,
with so much of the flesh, and its lustings and passions,
as remains in it. It is true, at the same time, that in the
unregenerate, reason and conscience oppose sin ; and
especially in its grosser actings, according to the words
of Ovid, they have some sort of conflict with it. The
distinction between these different sorts of conflict I leave
to the practical writers. But it is fit to say something
here, to account for the words ascribed by the poet to
Medea.

Notwithstanding the fearful effect of the fall upon
human nature, mankind have ever retained some notion
and impression of the Supreme Being, and that he ought
to be worshipped. There have been at all times notions
of social virtues, with considerable impression and effect
in the minds of men. Every man in particular is sensible
of his own interest in these, and of their importance in
society. God, the great patron of human society, hath
in great mercy to the world, carefully maintained the
impression of these in the minds of men, even in those
whose disposition and practice are very remote from
holiness. Gross acts of iniquity, that are contrary to all
social virtue, excite horror, even in those who are guilty
of them. Medea's character is that of a noted sorcei
She betrayed her father, and her country ; she murdered
her brother, and mangled his body in a most inhuman

230 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

manner ; having formed an extravagant and passionate
love to Theseus, she bore him several children ; and when
she followed him to his own country, being there dis-
appointed of her expectation from him, she murdered the
children she had by him. In the end, being a witch, she
raised wind and tempest, went aloft, and made her way
through the air to a remote region. So the poets have
told the story of Medea. Such acts of perfidy, cruelty,
impetuous lust, and sorcery, are shocking to humanity
itself. She is made to speak as sensible of this herself,
and as if her own heart recoiled at the thought of them.
But our context represents one who viewed the spirituality
of the law of God, as it prescribes a rule to the motions
and temper of the heart inwardly ; one who bitterly
laments the motions and activity of sin within him, with-
out mentioning any gross acts of sin outwardly. All
that is here said, can be accounted for without supposing
anything of that sort. To interpret this context by such
instances as Medea, and by the account given of her in
the lines inserted above, is utterly unwarrantable.

So then, in the second clause of this ver. 25, we have
these three things: — 1. The man here represented is to
be denominated, and his character taken from the better,
as it is the most prevailing principle. Reason and
conscience are not the prevailing principles in an un-
regenerate, unholy person. But, as in the man here, the
better principle prevails, it is he himself. 2. There is not
only reason and conscience requiring him to serve the
law of God ; but he doth actually serve it : so the text
expressly says. 3. This he doth by a new principle, his
sanctified mind; the law of his mind; even the law of
God put in his mind and heart by the grace of the new
covenant, a law or principle opposing, in a prevailing
manner, the law in his members. Thus in the conclusion,
in this last verse, of the representation given in this
context, we have three things very decisive concerning
its general scope, that it is the case of a regenerate
person, under grace, that is exhibited in it.

There remains the last clause of this text, But with the
flesh the law of sin. The words, I serve, which are in the

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 32 1

preceding, are to be understood to be in the sense of this
clause, though not repeated in it, thus: With the flesh I
serve the law of sin. For the apostle doth not mean to say,
that what of sin came from the flesh was not his sin, or
done by him, having said (ver. 1 5) What I hate, that I do,
and (ver. 19) The evil which I would not, that I do. Vet
it is evident, by the way this last clause is introduced and
connected, that the flesh was not the dominant or reigning
principle in him. Dr Taylor will have it understood that
it was. For in the last paragraph of his note on this
verse, he says: "Serving with the flesh the law of sin
cannot well be applied to a true Christian, or such an one
as Paul was." To confirm this, he uses the words of
chap. viii. 1, 2. When we come to consider these verses,
it will appear very evidently, that they do not by any
means suit the purpose for which he refers to them. He
adds there : " Serving and delighting in the law are
properly enough used in the case of a wicked Jew. For
how little soever his life was conformed to the law of
God, he would notwithstanding glory in it, and profess a
high esteem for it (chap. ii. 17, 24) ; see also Isa. lviii.
i, 2." Of this last text enough hath been said before.
The wicked Jew might profess an esteem for the law,
without loving it ; and he might glory in it, as the
peculiar privilege of his nation, and in his own knowledge
of it, without delighting in it, or in the holiness it
represents and requires. Serving and delighting in the
law cannot be ascribed to a wicked Jew, or to any other
wicked man, but with the utmost impropriety, yea
glaring absurdity.

That writer paraphrases the two latter clauses thus :
" To conclude ; the sum of what I have advanced
concerning the power of sin in the sensual man, is this ;
namely, that the same I, the same person, in his inward
man, his mind, and rational powers, may assent to, and
approve the law of God, and yet notwithstanding, by his
fleshly appetites, may be brought under servitude to sin.*'
But how came he to express serving sin by being
brought under servitude to sin ? That with the flesh he
served sin may be accounted for by single instances and

x

322 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

acts in the full sense of the expression, but to be brought
under servitude to sin denotes a man's state, — to be
under the dominion of sin, its servant or slave. For
example : if a sincere Christian shall, from the influence
of the flesh, be angry with his brother without a cause,
and through the impetuosity of his passion shall call him
Raca, or, Thou Jool, he, in that instance, doth serve the
law of sin ; yet it would be unjust and absurd to say, he
is under servitude to sin. This author, however, seems
to have understood by the flesh here only sensuality and
fleshly appetites, as in his paraphrase. To what then
shall we ascribe causeless anger, and one's calling his
brother Raca, if it come not under the general de-
nomination of the flesh ?

But how came he for, serving the law of sin, in the last
clause, where serving is not expressed, to give, brought
under servitude to sin ; and, at the same time, in the
former clause, where it is expressed, to render it by no
more than assenting to, and approving in his rational
powers, the law of God, which might be without serving
it at all ? When the Apostle says, With my mind I
serve the law of God, surely there is good reason to
conclude, that the man, being made free from sin (from
its dominion), was the servant of righteousness, the
servant of God (as chap. vi. 18, 22), rather than to say,
he was under servitude to sin ; even though the flesh in
him prevailed, in too many instances, to serve the law of
sin.

Mr John Alexander, who understands this context of
an unregenerate man, yet differs from all that I know of,
in the interpretation of this verse. As to serving the
law of God, he says, it is more than to assent to the law
that it is good, — yea, it can be said of none but the true
Christian and servant of God ; of whom, according to
him, it cannot be said, that with the flesh he serves the
law of sin ; which could not, he thought, agree with what
our Saviour says, — no man can serve two masters. "It
must," he says, "be predicated of the same person at
different times of his life." Yet it is plain, the man here
speaking represents his own case in both clauses, as it

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VIL 1 4-25 323

was at the present time ; nor can he be otherwise under-
stood, without taking a liberty in interpretation that
were quite intolerable. However, the writer speaks very
strongly thus : " Surely he (the Apostle) could not
intend to speak of a monster which never existed in
nature, equally governed by two opposite principles,
which are directly subversive of each other." I shall not
say that true believers are monsters, but certainly they
possess a very peculiar character in their present state.
Angels are all holiness, without any sin ; devils are all
sin, without any holiness. Unregenerate men are
wholly under the dominion of sin, its servants or slaves,
— quite free from righteousness ; whereas the true
believer is holy by his general character, and prevailing
disposition ; yet, having the flesh in him, he thereby
serves the law of sin. But the monstrosity will evanish,
and the difficulty disappear, if you throw out of Mr
Alexander's sentence the word equally, which the
apostle's language gave him no warrant to put in it. It
is very clear in the expression of this ver. 25, that he did
not say or mean that he was equally governed by two
opposite principles.

A little afterward, Mr Alexander says : " Teaching us
that the mind or understanding must lead and predominate
in the servant of God, as the flesh does in the servant of
sin, he shows us how the mind being restored to its
dominion over the man by the gospel, and the flesh at
the same time subdued or crucified, the law of God
comes to be kept." But did this writer think, that in the
servant of God the flesh is so subdued or crucified, that
it hath no motion or activity at all? If so, where shall
we find a servant of God in this world ? If not, then the
flesh, though crucified, yet having life and motion, exerts
itself, for instance, in a fit of sinful anger, and thereby
serves the law of sin. Doth the man, for this, cease ail
at once to be the servant of God ? But there is enough
of this conceit of Mr Alexander's.

We must not, however, leave this verse and chapter,
without observing how Dr Taylor connects this last
verse of it in his paraphrase, with the preceding and

324 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

following ones. He paraphrases ver. 24, with the
following one, thus : " And now, what shall a sinner do
in this miserable situation ? He is under the power of
such passions and habits as the law declares to be sinful,
and which even his own reason disapproves, but is too
weak to conquer ; and being a Jew under the law, he
stands condemned to death for his wicked compliances
with them. How shall such a wretched, enslaved,
condemned Jew be delivered from the dominion of sinful
lusts, and the curse of the law, which subjects him to
death ? " Then, after giving ver. 25, as we have seen, he
adds, " Thus under the weak and lifeless dispensation of
the law, the sinner remains in a deplorable state, without
help or hope, and sentenced to death. But now
(chap. viii. 1), under the gospel the most encouraging
hopes smile upon us, and we have the highest assurance,
that those are quite discharged from the penalty of the
law, and disengaged from the servitude of sin, who
embrace the faith of the gospel ; if so be," &c.

By the first of these passages, the sinner is miserable
by the power of sinful passions and habits. There is
some further unhappiness in the case of the Jew ; being
a Jew, under the law, he stands condemned to death.
According to this writer, a heathen, however wicked,
was not obnoxious to death, as not being under a law
that allotted death for sin, but the Jew, and he only, was
under such a law ; so he stood condemned to death for
transgression. But we have had enough of this absurd
notion before.

It appears that, according to this author, the Jews
were in a most wretched condition during the Mosaic
dispensation, being enslaved, and condemned, without
help or hope from the weak and lifeless dispensation of
the law they were under. Yet there were many thousands
of pious persons in these times, who were not under
condemnation, nor enslaved to sin. As to the dispensa-
tion they were under, it was not a weak and lifeless
dispensation of mere law. God never brought his people
under such a dispensation, since grace was first manifested
(Gen. iii. 15), nor were such a dispensation consistent

THE SCOPE Of ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 325

with God's having a people at all. Sinners of the Je\vs>
who were the slaves of sin, might come out of that state
by a proper improvement of the grace that was set
before them under that dispensation, as others had done.
Dr Taylor could not deny this.

The Jews, who were in the worst condition, were such
as delusively turned the dispensation they were under to
a dispensation of mere law to themselves, by neglecting
and rejecting grace, and founding all their confidence on
the law, and works thereof. Of these the apostle says
(Gal. iii. 10), As many as are of the works of the law
are under the curse. They at the same time persecuted
outrageously the teachers and professors of the gospel,
rejecting and opposing it with great zeal and fury. Let
us observe how Dr Taylor gives his thoughts concerning
these in other places of his book. When we state these
thoughts of his in contrast with what he says of them in
his paraphrase and notes on the texts we have been last
considering, we shall see some things that are not quite
consistent. But before we observe his opinion of the
infidel Jews, let us make our way to it, by taking some
notice of his opinion concerning the heathens.

In the title and contents of chap xiii. of his Key are
these words concerning the heathens: "Virtuous heathens
shall be eternally saved." He labours this point much.
He says : * " This noble scheme (that of the gospel) was
not intended to exclude any part of the world, to whom
it should not be revealed, from the present favour of God
or future salvation." And a little below: "There might
be some virtuous persons among them." And down-
awards : "In that solemn day (the day of judgment) the
virtuous heathen will not be rejected because he did not
belong to the visible kingdom of God in this world,
but will then be readily accepted and received into
the kingdom of glory."

For a further discovery of this author's opinion on this
subject, let us observe how he expresses himself concern-
ing the necessity of revelation. In his note on chap. ii.

* " Key to the Apostolic Writings," § 289.

326 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

1 5 he hath this proposition : " There is a law of nature
which is a true guide, and sufficient to bring a man who
has no other light to eternal happiness. Objection. But
if the law of nature be so sufficient, what occasion for the
gospel ? A nswer. Reflect upon chap. i. 17 to the end.
No law, or light, how sufficient soever of itself, to save
mankind, when duly attended to, is sufficient to reform
them, when they generally neglect and pervert it; because
that very thing that should reform them is neglected
and perverted." All this might be said concerning the
gospel, and says no more for the necessity of the revela-
tion that hath been given than it doth for the necessity
of a new revelation besides the gospel. He adds another
objection and answer. " Objection. But if we live accord-
ing to the light of nature, we shall be saved, though we
pay no regard to revelation. Answer. To despise or
disregard any discoveries of God's will and goodness, to
neglect any scheme he has formed to promote virtue and
happiness, especially such a glorious and noble scheme,
is foolish, wicked, and a capital transgression of the law
of nature." So the gospel is a valuable discovery of God's
will and goodness, and is a glorious and noble scheme
for promoting virtue and happiness : but, according to
this writer, men might be virtuous, so as to reach
happiness, and the kingdom of glory, though they had
never heard of it ; yea, if such revelation had never been
made, I know that several, who have showm much ability
in defending the general truth of the Christian revelation,
have been of the same mind with this writer on this
subject ; and I cannot help thinking that, on this account,
their writings against the infidels are essentially defective.
They have entertained notions and principles that have
disabled them from making a thorough confutation of
Deism ; and that they have too great tendency to make
the infidel easy in his mind, in rejecting the gospel.

Let us now observe this author's notions concerning
the infidel Jews ; and certainly we may expect he would
not think their case, if they were virtuous, who had the
divine law by a clear revelation, worse than that of
virtuous heathens. Heathens might be, he says, virtuous

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VI 1. 1 4-2 5 327

and finally happy, which they could not be, without
obtaining pardon, and being made free from the slavery
and dominion of sin. Surely the Jew under the law
was not in worse condition as to this. Concerning these
Jews, who seem to have been in the worst case that ever
Jews were in, Dr Taylor's opinion was what I come now
to show. In his fourth note on Rom. v. 20, he puts this
question : " But suppose the Jew through mere mistake
should verily believe that he ought to continue under the
law of Moses, doth it follow that he was therefore to
remain under condemnation for ever ? " I would not
indeed have expected that any Christian, who would be
at the pains but of a little thinking, would ever put such
a question ; as it is certain that many Jews (thousands,
Acts xxi. 20) who were true believers, and holy persons,
did, for some time after their conversion by the gospel,
verily believe in the manner the question supposes.
Though probably many of them died in that persuasion,
yet I scarce think that ever Christian imagined they
would for this continue under condemnation for ever.
But the author inclined not to disturb or shock his
reader all at once, by putting the question in the full
form that he meant. It is plain he meant Jews, who to
believing the perpetuity of the Mosaic law joined the
rejection of Christ and the gospel ; as we shall see
presently.

He answers the question thus : " No, surely ; no more
than it follows, that any other man shall remain under
condemnation for any mere mistake of judgment in
religious affairs. Such a Jew must be in the same state
with any other honest man, who is in a simple error."
What he means by mere mistake of judgment and
being in a simple error, I shall not determine. But if he
meant (and I see not what else he could mean) mistakes
and errors that are not connected with anything very ill
in the disposition and practice of men ; as it is not
reasonable to think that errors can be such, that amount
to a denial of the important and essential truth of faith,
so it is evident that the error of the Jew was connected
with what was very ill in his disposition and practice.

328 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

He proceeds in the same place thus : " Notwithstanding,
it was the apostle's duty. to set him right; because such
a mistake was very prejudicial, not only as it led him to
place his dependence and hope upon the law, a weak
and ineffectual principle." — (This indeed was extremely
prejudicial, if we consider the matter as the apostle doth,
Rom. ix. 31-33, and chap. x. 3, 4.) He goes on thus:
" Not only as it hindered him from seeing and improving
the gracious provision God had made for purifying his
heart, perfecting his joy and comfort, and preparing him
for happiness." (But might not a virtuous person,
even a heathen, have his heart purified, and he be pre-
pared for happiness, though he had never known or
heard of the gracious provision God had made for these
purposes ? He might, according to this author ; who
thus proceeds), " But also as it engaged him to oppose
the preaching and reception of the gospel, the only
scheme of life, peace, and salvation, and to despise the
very grace which must pardon his mistakes and errors,
if ever he was pardoned and saved." Concerning Paul,
this writer says,* " Being fully persuaded, that the Jewish
dispensation was instituted by God, never to be altered,
but to abide for ever, he really believed that Jesus and
his followers were deceivers ; and that it was his duty to
oppose them, and to stand up courageously for God and
his truth. Thus he honestly followed the dictates of his
own conscience."

We have now Dr Taylor's notions concerning the
subject, for which these passages were here transcribed
pretty fully ; and we see that, according to him — (1) The
salvation and future happiness of the virtuous heathen
is not to be doubted of ; and if so, why should there be
any doubt of the salvation of an honest and virtuous
Jew? For what virtuous heathen was ever heard of, of
whom there is a higher character for virtue, and better
supported, than that which is given of the Jews (Rom.
x. 2), that they had a zeal of God ; and (chap. ix. 31),
that they ■ followed after the law of righteousness ?

* " Key to the Apostolic Writings," § 302.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 329

(2) That the Jew's error concerning the perpetuity of the
Mosaic law was a mere mistake of judgment, and a
simple error, such as would not hinder the salvation of
any honest man. Yea (3), It is to be considered as such
a simple error and mere mistake of judgment, even as
connected with the consequences above mentioned, of
trusting to the law, of rejecting and persecuting the
gospel in a furious manner ; as for these consequences,
he says, that such a mistake was very prejudicial. Now,
if the Jews' mistake respecting the law, and respecting
Jesus Christ, really believing him and his followers to be
deceivers, was consistent with honesty and sincerity, it
were hard to say, that acting consequentially would not
be consistent with honesty. Accordingly, the author
says, that Paul in opposing the gospel acted honestly,
according to his conscience ; though Paul himself says,
that in doing so, he was the persecutor, blasphemer,
injurious, and the chief of sinners. But though Dr
Taylor considered the error of the Jew as a mere
mistake of judgment and simple error, consistent with
one's being an honest man, yet Christians, who will
consider the matter in the light in which the Scripture
presents it, cannot but be convinced that there was
great and wilful blindness, hardness of heart, perverse-
ness, and insincerity, in the error of the Jews concerning
Christ and the gospel ; considering the evidence, and
powerful demonstration with which it was proposed and
supported ; and that by this, and their conduct in conse-
quence of their inexcusable error, they brought on them-
selves great guilt, and fearful wrath.

This author indeed says, as we have seen above, that
the error of the Jew was very prejudicial, as it led him,
among other things, to oppose the gospel, the only
scheme of peace, life, and salvation, and to despise the
very grace which must pardon his mistakes and errors,
if ever he was pardoned. But though the error of the
Jew was in these respects very prejudicial, it does not
follow, that, according to the notions of this. writer, it,
and the Jews' consequential honest conduct, did hinder
the Jews being at present accepted of God, or hinder his

330 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

future salvation and happiness. For if the virtuous
heathen was to be saved, without knowing Christ or the
gospel, why should it not be thought, that the virtuous
Jew, acting from a zeal of God, in opposing and de-
spising the scheme of grace, might not be saved ; as all
this on his part proceeded from a mere mistake of judg-
ment, that put him in no worse condition, as our author
says, than any other honest man ? This, however, is not
a proper place for enlarging on these subjects. We
have seen that, according to Dr Taylor, the infidel Jew,
even continuing such, was far from being in a hopeless
condition.

Upon the other hand, if we look into the same author's
paraphrase of Rom. vii. 15, there, according to him, the
person represented is the enslaved Jew, under the
dominion of sinful lusts, and the curse of the law ; under
the weak and lifeless dispensation of the law he remains
in a deplorable condition, without help or hope, enslaved to
sin, and sentenced to death. This is his account of the
Jews in general in this place. The author says there
indeed, " He is delivered, and obtains salvation by the
grace or favour of God, in our Lord Jesus Christ." How
shall we understand this, but as he explains in the para-
phrase of the next following verse (chap. viii. 1), " Now
under the gospel the most encouraging hopes smile upon
us, and we have the highest assurance that those are
quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and dis-
engaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the
faith of the gospel." But according to this, whatever
effect the encouraging hope of the gospel may have in
favour of them who embrace it, it can have no good
effect for them who reject and oppose it ; and however
they who truly embrace the faith of the gospel may be
thereby discharged from the penalty of the law, and the
servitude of sin, yet these expressions imply, that the
Jew who embraces it not continues under the condem-
nation of the law, and servitude of sin, still in a deplorable
condition.

Any who can reconcile Dr Taylor's notions concerning
the unbelieving Jew, in his notes on Rom. v. 20, and in

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 33 I

his "Key " to the apostolic writings, with what we have
seen in his paraphrase of Rom. vii. 25, may do it ; I
cannot. But in making the paraphrase, the writer
minded carefully his general notion, that the context
represents especially the case of the Jew under the law,
the slave of sin : he did not mind the sentiments he had
elsewhere expressed concerning such a Jew.

The true meaning of this text (chap. vii. 25) has been
made sufficiently clear, and I now proceed to

Sect. VI I. — Containing answers to the objections brought
against the foregoing interpretation.

Clear and full evidence hath been brought, proving
that in this context the apostle represents his own case
and experience, in the state wherein he was when he
wrote it ; which was a state of grace.

As to those who hold that the apostle personates a
man unregenerate, the slave of sin, their strongest
argument consists chiefly in two things : 1. In this, that
they understand the apostle's language here of bitter
complaint concerning sin, in the fullest and most extended
meaning of the words; as if those were used concerning
the man in the cool historical way. 2. In this, that in
interpreting, they ascribe to the understanding, conscience,
or reason, what can by no means be ascribed to that
faculty. Their unreasonableness in both hath been
shown. I go now to consider arguments of another sort,
that are used by way of objection against the interpreta-
tion itself in general.

Dr Hammond, on Rom. vii. note (V), brings what is
contained (vers. 8, 9) to prove, that in this chapter the
apostle doth not represent his own case in his regenerate
state. But as the question only concerns the latter
context, where he alters his style, and speaks of himself
in the present tense, from ver. 14 to the end of the
chapter, the learned writer's arguments, so far as he founds
on anything preceding that verse, are quite wide of the
purpose.

The writers on that side would have it thought, that

332 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

Augustine was the first who interpreted this context, as
hath been done here, contrary to what he sometimes
thought ; but that he was led to change his opinion by
the heat of dispute with the Pelagians. But this amounts
to no more than some sort of prejudice, and is no real
argument against our interpretation. He was not the
first who did so interpret, as hath been observed before;
and as to the heat of dispute with the Pelagians, it is
certain that the false doctrines of heretics, and their
subtility in defending them, have often given occasion to
good men to consider things more closely ; to think, and
speak, and interpret Scripture more correctly. If
Augustine saw cause to change his opinion concerning
this context, he seems to have the better of Dr Whitby,
who suggests these prejudices against him ; and who did
himself, without such good reason, change his mind on a
subject of much greater importance. After he had, in
his annotations on the New Testament, maintained the
divinity of our Saviour by many good arguments, insisted
on by the learned before him to good purpose, and to
which neither himself, nor any one else, could give a
good answer, he left, as his legacy to the church, his
posthumous treatise against that fundamental article of
Christian faith. As to the present subject, and these
prejudices against Augustine, the reader's best method
will be to divest himself of prejudice, to consider
arguments carefully and coolly, and to judge as evidence
shall determine his mind.

I go now to consider more particularly the objections
of Dr Whitby and Arminius. The former brings about
seven arguments, or considerations against our interpre-
tation. The sum of all comes to this : — The person here
represented is carnal, sold under sin (so indeed the
apostle bitterly complains) ; hath no power in him to do
any good — (the apostle doth not say so, though he
bemoans himself that he could not do good in the degree
and manner he willed. Yea, how could it be thus argued
by Dr Whitby who, in a place formerly noticed, argues
strenuously, from the language used in this context, that
the person here represented, even the unregenerate, of

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 333

whom he understands it, is not without a power to do
good? "Living" (unfairly; as this word imports the
habitual outward and inward practice of life " in the
commission of things that he hated" — indeed the
flesh in him served the law of sin ; and in that part
there was a too ordinary activity of sin, springing up
spontaneously, and sometimes impetuously. But the
character of his life was not betaken from this; as he
says of it, // is not /, but sin that dwelleth in me).
" Still" (unfairly still ; nothing in the apostle's expressions
imports what that word means) " doing that which he
allowed not : " the flesh indeed was commonly active in
that way ; but the man himself and his manner of life
were to be denominated from a better principle, by which
he served the law of God : — " made captive to the law of
sin ; " (to that tended indeed the efforts of the law of
sin ; and the apostle's words import no more. Dr
Whitby in his second argument represents unfairly, as if
the man confessed that he yielded himself a captive to
the law of sin, whereas he appears all along in resistance
and conflict against it, however much in some particular
instances it might prevail).

With these and such-like expressions, unfairly enough
represented, the Doctor compares, under so many differ-
ent heads, and in so man}' different paragraphs, a con-
siderable number of texts, which prove that the apostle
could not, and that a true believer cannot, be the slave
of sin, &c. Some of his readers, of no very extensive
acquaintance in the learned world, might, from his way
of reasoning, conceive very strange notions of the men
whose interpretation he pretends to confute. They
might readily ask. What sort of persons can these be,
who can join in one character the true believer, yea, an
apostle, and at the same time a slave of sin, captivated
to his lusts? Yet the interpretation here given, is that
of the generality of the divines of the reformed churches ;
of many men eminent for piety, and of as great ability
and learning as any Protestant church or nation hath
produced ; of the learned Bishop Davenant, and of
divers other eminent writers of the Church of England.

334 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

From this consideration one might suspect, upon a little
reflection, that Dr Whitby in this arguing of his had not
hit the point. However, he has proved that a regenerate
man cannot be a slave to his lusts, and on this he has
bestowed more than a folio page, in which, though so
much writing amounted to some labour, yet the work
otherwise was very easy. Now, let us observe more
particularly his objections and reasonings, in his note on
ver. 25.

1. Our interpretation, he says, makes the apostle con-
tradict what he says of himself to the Thessalonians
(1 Thess. ii. 10) and to the Corinthians (2 Cor. i. 12 ;
1 Cor. iv. 4 ; 1 Cor. ix. 27). Could he say such things as
he says of himself in these texts, who is carnal, sold
under sin, &c. ? A?iswer. He could say such things as
in these texts, very consistently with the sorrowful and
bitter complaints he hath of sin, and of the flesh, in our
context. Yea, it is the man who shows such sensi-
bility with regard to the motions of sin within him, and
conflict against them, who is most likely to have all his con-
versation and behaviour which the cited texts represent.

2. How often doth the apostle propose himself as a
pattern to the churches ; requiring them to be followers
of him, as he was also of Christ? (1 Cor. xi. 1) and
again (Phil. iv. 8) ; that is, be ye carnal, sold under sin —
and the God of love and peace shall be with you — this
sure (so he adds) is an absurd, if not blasphemous exhor-
tation ; and yet, according to this interpretation, it must
be suitable to the mind of the apostle. Answer. Blas-
phemous indeed, as he interprets these expressions of
our context ; he needed not have spared his censure.
But no such absurdity or blasphemy follows from our
interpretation. If the apostle's outward conversation,
which the churches had access to observe, set before
them a good pattern, surely when he lays open his
inmost heart to them, and shows himself in a sorrowful
struggle .and conflict against the flesh, and the first
motions of sin within him, that is not the part of his
example least worthy to be followed by those who have
at heart to live holily and righteously.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. V1L I4-25 335

3. With what indignation doth he reject the accusa-
tions of them who looked upon him as walking after the
flesh ? yet if he were carnal, sold under sin, if with the
flesh he served the law of sin, &c, he doth here in effect
confess what there he peremptorily denies. Ans\
By no means. In the explication it hath been made
very clear, that none of the expressions in our context
imports what this writer interprets. It doth not represent
him as one that walked after the flesh : but as one who
had it qreatlv at heart not to walk so. That he did so
walk is not said. But more of this on chap. viii. 1. In
the meantime, as to serving with the flesh the law of sin,
should it not be observed, that he says (ver. 25), that
with his mind he himself served the law of God ?

But why should I tire the reader with more of this
sort ? all this Doctor's arguments derive their force from
his own interpretation of the particular expressions of
the apostle's doleful complaint of sin remaining in him,
which I have shown not to be just or well founded.
There is no appearance of force in his objections, com-
pared with our interpretation ; but all his seven argu-
ments come to nothing if it stands good, and the
expressions are to be understood as we have showed ;
and for that I refer to what hath been said to establish
our interpretation.

However, to make it the more easy for readers to
satisfy themselves with regard to what remains of Dr
Whitby's objections, I shall suggest a few considera-
tions.

1. It is given as a certain mark of persons who are in
Christ (2 Cor. v. 17) that old tilings arc passed an*a\\ and
all tilings are become new. Yet I do not. expect any will
say, it is meant, that sin doth not remain in such as are
in Christ. If it doth remain, it may be justly said, that
among all the new things that, by divine grace, are in
such a man, there is nothing more new, and more dif-
ferent from a man's former disposition and exercise in
his natural state, than to have his heart so affected with
regard to sin, as is here expressed. Sin had formerly
the dominion, and was served by sinners, in the day of

336 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

its power, as by a willing people Now it is dethroned,
sorrowed for, sincerely and vigorously opposed, even in
its first motions within. The man had been hardened,
and sin was sweet and pleasant to him. But old things
are passed away ; things are become new with him in
this respect. All the great and multiplied distresses he
underwent from without, never brought such a doleful
cry from his heart, as now uttered itself, 0 wretched
man that I am !

2. There is nothing in this latter context of chap. vii.
that shows the person therein represented to be in the
same case as formerly, with regard to what is mentioned
(ver. 5), where first mention is made of the motions of sin
that were by the law ; and next, that these did bring
forth fruit unto death. The disparity appears clearly.
The man now feels the motions of sin in him : what true
Christian doth not ? But it is not said, that these
motions of sin are by the law. A renewed soul is, by
its prevailing disposition, well affected to the law ; and
hath a prevailing habitual delight in the holiness thereof.
There is in such a heart what dutifully entertains the
precept, though the flesh inclines a different way. Such
a soul is relieved from the curse of the law. The chief
effects of the law in the heart are not, as in the unre-
generate, that the holy commandment rouses the powers
of sin, or that the curse irritates the rebellious disposition
of the heart. In the precept the regenerate person
perceives the beauty of holiness ; and the curse of the
law being altogether just and right in his eyes, his
deliverance from it exalts the Lord in his eyes, endears
his grace, and engages him more and more to the Lord's
yoke, disposing him to set to his seal, that now, by divine
grace and love, it is easy.

Again, it is not said, that the motions of sin have
ordinarily their course, to bring forth fruit, as in the man
in ver. 5. If he finds himself enticed by his lust, it is not
said, that lust conceiving doth ordinarily bring forth fruit
in the practice. It may so happen in particular instances
to true Christians ; but there is nothing that imports

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 337

that that is commonly the case with the man in our
context.

3. The regenerate man truly mortifies sin, and the
lusts thereof; and hath habitually at heart to do so.
There is nothing contrary to that in the person who here
speaks. Would to God that all Christians had the quick
sense, and painful feeling, with the conflict against sin
that is here represented ! We might justly say, in that
case, that sin, corrupt lusts, and carnal affections, were
more in the way to be thoroughly mortified, than they
commonly appear to be in most Christians.

4. In persons regenerated, sin is crucified, and Gal. v.
24, They that are Christ s have enieified the flesh, with the
affections and lusts. True, they have done so. Accord-
ingly, as to the man in our context, it is very evident,
though sin exerted great vigour, that indeed it was
bound, did not act at liberty, but was in a crucified,
suffering, and dying condition.

The great objection against our interpretation is, that,
according to it, the context presents what is of dangerous
tendency to the morals of Christians. After considering
what Dr Whitby hath offered to that general purpose,
let us now consider it as it is urged by Arminius, who
has bestowed much labour upon it in the dissertation
formerly mentioned, and has enlarged much on the ill
use that may be made of our context, as we interpret it.

I do not, however, expect that any will sustain it as a
good argument against a proposition, interpretation, or
doctrine, that men make an ill use of it. God is merciful,
and gracious ; and I doubt if any doctrine or proposition
hath ever been published to the world, of which men very
commonly do make a worse use, hardening themselves
therefore in their sins ; yet it is not the less true, or the
less needful to be held and proclaimed. Arminius
relates, that Augustine had observed what ill use men
might make of his interpretation ; and he brings, very
needlessly, some large quotations from him,, to prove
that he did so observe. But he might, at the same time,
have observed, that this great asserter of the truth did
not see in this a good argument against the interpretation

v

338 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

he had given. The truth may still be vindicated against
all abuse, by arguments consistent with itself, and that
do not overthrow it. It is the proper work of all the
preachers of the truth, as to show the right and proper
practical use, so to guard in a proper manner, against the
abuse of it. For what important truth is there that may
not be abused ?

The abuse Arminius insists on is this, that a man,
doing what is evil against some reluctance of his mind,
and the witnessing of his conscience, may make himself
easy, and encourage himself in doing it, by supposing
himself to be thereby in the case of the Apostle Paul,
and other true believers, according to our interpretation.
But there is no encouragement to this abuse by it, as we
shall see presently. Persons who are bent on sinning
may imagine other encouraging matter to themselves in
that course, by which they will be more likely to serve
themselves, than by anything in this context, as we
interpret. For instance : as it will be acknowledged on
all hands, that a person in a state of grace may commit
sin against the witnessing of his conscience, and some
reluctance of his mind, through the surprise and force of
temptation ; and that such a person may be recovered
by repentance, and be finally saved ; so from this some
may encourage themselves to commit sin. Is therefore
the doctrine not true, that even the chief of sinners, or
a regenerate person, after falling into heinous sins, may
upon repentance be saved ? or is it to be rejected, as
calculated to encourage men in sin ?

Arminius relates an instance that came within his
own observation, of a person's encouraging himself to sin
from this context, according to our interpretation. I
apprehend there is need of some caution in taking such
stories on the report of an adversary. There is, however,
one instance so plain, that it could not easily be
mistaken ; and as he swears to the truth of it very
solemnly, (much in the words of Paul, Rom. ix. i), it
were not reasonable to question his veracity. A man,
he says, being warned against committing sin in a
particular instance, answered, that indeed the inclination

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VI 1. 1 4- 2 5 339

of his will was against it ; but he had to say with the
Apostle Paul, that he found himself not able to perform
the good that he would ; and so he went on his way,
against his conscience and the warning given him.
Could not such an acute person have found in the
context, as explained by his brethren, a proper and
sufficient answer to this? surely he might have argued
and said, The apostle having a heart that delighted in
the holiness of the law, had it greatly at heart to perform
his duty, though he did not attain to perform it in the
perfect manner he willed. He struggled, and was as a
man grievously oppressed by the motions and resistance
of the flesh disabling him. The very first motions of
sin within him gave him grief. If, by the lusting of the
flesh against the Spirit, he could not do or perform as
the Spirit suggested, so, by the effectual opposition of
the Spirit, he could not do what the flesh prompted him
to. But you are in a case quite contrary to that of Paul.
You grasp at a pretence to make yourself easy with
regard to the inward motions of the flesh prompting
you to evil — you encourage yourself to overcome the
urgency of your conscience — and against its light you
resolutely go on, even in the outward practice, to do
evil ; and so you are, as with your eyes open, deliberately
putting yourself in the road to perdition. A man less
acute than Arminius could easily have suggested such
an answer ; but the man was then forming his scheme,
and seems to have been more disposed to have some-
thing whereof to make a handle in dispute, than to give
the proper answer to the wicked excuse and pretence he
represents.

As to another case he relates of a man, who, being
reproved for something he had actually done, contrary
to the commandment of God, answered, that he therein
came into the case of the apostle, who said, The evil that
I would not, that I do ; an answer could be given in like
manner. The apostle represents in our context the
greatest sense of wretchedness by the force of sin within
him. This man makes himself easy -~- screens and
hardens himself against reproof for sin outwardly com-

340 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

mitted by him. Upon the whole, if a man doth, on any
pretence whatsoever, previously encourage and harden
himself to commit sin ; or doth, after committing it,
harden himself against reproof, and exclude from his
heart the sorrow and contrition he ought to have for sin ;
this is so opposite to the disposition and sense of things
expressed by the apostle, as we interpret, that no such
person can encourage himself by it, without the utmost
absurdity. Certainly no sentiment or interpretation
can be charged with falsehood or faultiness, by reason
of such abuse, as hardened sinners cannot make of them,
but by means of misconception, delusion, and absurdity.

The reader will, perhaps, see cause to think I have
considered these things too largely, when he observes
what I am next to set before him.

It is fit then to inform him, that the abuse concerning
which Arminius argues, respects what he calls actual
good or evil [malum et bonum actuate); that is, as I
understand it, the acting of sin in the external work
and practice ; and so is directed against their inter-
pretation (if there are any such, who understand here
of the apostle himself, or the regenerate man), who
extend the meaning of these and such like words, The
evil that I would not, that I do, to the outward practice
and conduct of life, and to the common character and
course thereof.

But concerning Augustine's interpretation, which is
the same with ours, he hath these words, " Fateor enim
Augustini sententiam, quce de concupiscenticz tantum actu
et motu, locum interpretatur, nihil neque gratia, neque
bonis moribus injuries aut detrimenti inferte, etiamsi de
hoi nine regenito locum explicet!' That is, " I confess that
the opinion of Augustine, who understands this place of
Scripture only as respecting the actings and motions of
concupiscence (inwardly) imports nothing detrimental to
grace or good morals ; even interpreting it in that way
of persons regenerate."

One might readily think, that this acknowledgment
would put the argument, from the ill consequence to
men's morals, quite off the field. Yet he insists upon

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 14-25 341

it still, though I apprehend the reader will be greatly
at a loss to imagine how he can do so, after the
acknowledgment we have seen. Thus, however, he
proceeds. If once the general notion be impressed on
the minds of men, that it is the case of a regenerate
person that is here treated of, it is not in our power to
hinder them from understanding what remains of the
context, and is therein ascribed to the person spoken of,
in the sense in which (according to him) it ought to be
understood ; agreeably, as he asserts, to the text itself,
and to the apostle's scope ; that is, as these expressions
are to be understood of a person under sin, and under
the law. Of this abuse the story he had related, and is
here lately mentioned, is, he says, an instance.

The occasion of the abuse here mentioned is the
tacking of his interpretation very improperly to ours.
Did the author suppose, that a man would understand
the particular expressions, as setting forth what denotes
one a slave to sin, and to his lusts, as Arminius under-
stood without good reason ; and that, at the same time,
he would think the context represented the case of a
person regenerated and sanctified ? This were supposing
a man to be absurd and thoughtless to a great degree.
All that the arguing of Arminius here doth prove, is,
that his interpretation of the particular expressions
(which hath been shown to be very ill founded), joined
with our account of the general scope, as expressing the
case of a regenerate person, makes a very ill composition,
dangerous to the souls of men. ■ Although there have
been men inattentive, not given to much thinking ; men
blinded by their own lusts; perverted by wrong senti-
ments, which their corrupt minds have entertained, and
tenaciously held ; and those who have wrested the
writings of Paul (2 Pet. iii. 16), as they have the other
scriptures, to their own destruction, we are not, for the
abuse of such, to charge faultiness on the Scripture, or
any interpretation of it, that is otherwise just, and well
warranted.

Upon the whole, it appears that Arminius had no
cause to retract or enervate the concession he had made ;

342 A DISSERTATION- CONCERNING

and if he said, that Augustine's interpretation had
nothing in it prejudicial to good morals, we have right
to use the concession as superseding all occasion of
dispute with him on that point.

Some do seem to have found difficulty respecting our
interpretation, as they could not allow themselves to
think, that this blessed apostle had any remainder of
sin in him, or could be charged with any disconformity
to the holy commandment, in these times wherein he
wrote. There is cause to wonder that any should doubt
or find difficulty concerning this, considering what the
apostle John says,* and that Paul f himself doth deny
his being perfect. This cannot mean, that he was not
perfect in the sense in which the spirits of just men
made perfect are mentioned (Heb. xii. 23), or that he
had not attained that perfection of his human nature, in
all respects, that belongs to the resurrection state. It
were idle for a man to disclaim perfection in these
senses, while he was seen in an embodied state, sharing so
much in the infirmities and miseries of this life. So we
must understand it of his not being perfect in holiness,
nor altogether without sin.

What if no instance of his falling into sin or particular
transgression were recorded in sacred history? That is
but a negative argument, such as none would sustain in
proof. His own account in our context is a sufficient
proof that he was not without sin, or without the
stirrings and activity of it within him. When he relates
(2 Cor. xii. 7) a thorn given him in the flesh, lest he
should be exalted above measure through the abundance
of the revelations, may we not think that he was likely
to have felt some stirrings of that evil tendency that
made him so readily understand, and be so much
reconciled to the salutary though painful remedy that
Divine wisdom had administered to him ?

There are two places besides, in which the matter
seems to be more clear. One is Acts xxiii. 2-5, the

* 1 John i. 8.
+ Phil. iii. 12.

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 343

high priest Ananias having commanded to smite him on
the mouth, Paul said to him, God shall smite thee, thou
whited wall. On this Dr Guise says, " Perhaps the
apostle might use this opprobrious title with rather too
much warmth of temper, under a violent effort of the law
of his members against the law of his mind, according to
his complaint (Rom. vii. 23, 24), through inattention,
sudden surprise, and high provocation." So that
judicious divine. In whatever way this speech be taken
or accounted for, it is plain it was not according to his
example, who, when he was reviled, reviled not again,
and when he suffered, he threatened not* It has been
thought that Paul spoke under the influence of the
spirit of prophecy on this occasion, and uttered a
prophecy against Ananias, which, according to history,
was afterwards accomplished. But this, if it was so,
doth not prove that there was no sinful infirmity in the
case. We find that wicked Caiaphas, the high priest,
uttered something very remarkable, of which the sacred
historian says, This spake he not of himself ; but being
high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die
for that nation, t Here it is clear that Caiaphas spoke
according to the wicked passion of his own heart. Yet,
on the other hand, he was so under the overruling
influence of the spirit of prophecy (being high priest),
that his words were clearly prophetic. Paul had a heart
very much sanctified ; yet there is no inconsistency in
supposing that, by the sudden provocation of an
atrocious injur}-, he fell into a violent passion, and
uttered words expressive of that passion, which, as to
the threatening part of them, might be prophetic, by a
superior influence and direction.

The apostle being found fault with for so reviling God's
high priest, said (ver. 5), I wist not that he was the high
priest ; for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the
ruler of thy people. But though he knew him not to be
high priest, he knew himself to be standing before the

* 1 Pet. ii. 23.
+ John xi. 51.

344 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

Sanhedrim, or supreme council of his nation, and that the
person he spoke to was a member of it, and then sitting
in the seat of judgment. So his words import (ver. 2),
Sittest thou to judge me after the law ? He knew then
that he was one of the rulers of his people, and so came
under the meaning of the text he mentions. The matter
being thus, may we not take this to be a just paraphrase
of the apostle's words (ver. 5), " I wist not that he was
high priest at this time ; but being a member of this
august court, I call to mind that law, Thou shalt not
speak evil of the ruler of thy people. And therefore,
however ill I have been treated, I insist not in justifying
my emotion, or all the expressions I have uttered."

Another place we may consider on this occasion is
Acts xv. 37-40. It may well be allowed that Paul was
in the right to urge that there should be some testimony
of their disapprobation of John-Mark's conduct in the
matter mentioned. But there is cause to suspect that
the dispute on this subject was not without human and
sinful infirmity. The sacred historian says (ver. 39) that
the contention was so sharp between Paul and Barnabas^
that they departed asunder one from the other. Contention
is rather too soft a word for the Greek Trapogvo-fjios
(paroxysm). It signifies a mutual irritation, or (as
Beza renders, exacerbatio) that their temper and spirit
became hot and embittered. Nor is there any hint that
this heat and discomposure of temper was greater upon
the one side than the other ; it was mutual.

The matter being so, it is not unreasonable to think, that
on cool reflection, the blessed and holy apostle Paul might
reflect and say with himself to this purpose : Though I
am satisfied I was in the right in advising and urging as
I did with regard to Mark, yet, alas ! that my corrupt
heart and violent passion should have got so much the
better of me in dealing with my blessed brother Barnabas,
who was in Christ before me, who was preaching Christ
when I was persecuting him and his gospel, who con-
descended with so much tenderness and affection to me
when other disciples avoided me, who introduced me in
so kindly manner to the acquaintance and confidence of

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 345

the apostles, who was assigned me by the Hoi)' Ghost, as
a special companion in the service of the kingdom of
Christ, who laboured with me in that work with so much
zeal and success ; even Barnabas, that son of consolation,
justly so surnamed by the apostles ; whose conversation
and preaching have often been so comfortable to myself
and others. If I have peace of mind with regard to the
matter of duty itself about which we differed, yet how
much doth my manner of doing duty sometimes give me
disquiet of mind ! How much hath my irregular and
unholy passion hurried me away ; as it were bringing me
captive with great violence — Wretched man that I am !
There is nothing unreasonable in supposing, that on
occasion of this paroxysm, or passionate debate, Paul
might see occasion for such reflections. Another man
confident of his being right as to the main of the difference
might thereby, perhaps, justify all the passion he showed
in defending his own opinion. It would not be likely to
be so with this holy apostle. What the judicious, elegant,
and pious Calvin has written on this story in his com-
mentary deserves to be often read.

Having answered all the objections that have any
appearance of force against our interpretation, let us now
proceed to —

Sect. VIII. — Marking out some of the practical uses to be made
of this context, according to the foregoing interpretation ; to-
gether with the paraphrase of the several verses 14-25.

Having vindicated our interpretation against the
charge of ill consequence in practice, it is fit, before we
leave it, to mark out some of the good uses that are to
be made of it, which are of great importance with regard
to holiness and the comfort of Christians.

I. From the case and example here laid before us, we
learn how careful a Christian ought to be about the
inward purity of his heart, and what constant earnest
opposition he should make to the very first motions of
every unholy passion and inordinate affection or lusting

346 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

in his heart. The heart is the proper and chief seat of
holiness. Holiness in the heart is the chief part of our
conformity to the holy and spiritual law of God ; nor is
any outward work considered as holy, if the heart
within is not right before God, who sees and tries
the heart, and to whom it cannot otherwise be ac-
ceptable.

Every unruly passion and unholy lusting is, in the
nature of things, contrary to our own happiness. By the
prevailing of these in the heart, the conscience is hurt
and disquieted ; and inordinate affections make the
heart itself incapable of happiness. Holiness of heart is
absolutely necessary to bring us into a capacity of
happiness, which can be had, properly and perfectly, by
no object but one, a holy God.

Yea, inward purity of heart, and conflict with the
motions of sin therein, are absolutely necessary for
maintaining external purity of practice, integrity, and
faithfulness. What prevails in the heart will be likely
to come forth. When sin in general, or a particular lust,
prevails in the heart, and is there entertained, it will be
likely some time or other to force an eruption. The
many snares of an evil world, the devices of invisible
enemies, yea, the righteous judgment of God, will all
concur in this, even to discover what is in a man's heart.
Keep thy heart with all diligence (Pro v. iv. 23).

From what hath been said, the impartial reader may
judge if our interpretation hath anything in it unfavour-
able to holy and righteous practice. Arminius saith it
hath not, and afterwards endeavours to prove, without
reason, that it hath. Dr Whitby reckons it a dangerous
interpretation ; and, as he would have the particular
expressions mean, it would be extremely so. It is well
if, when the sentiments, reasoning, and explications of
men of their way of thinking are well examined, they be
not found to fix the standard of purity and holiness
much lower than this context doth, according to our
interpretation. If they did not, I apprehend they would
have lower thoughts of the moral powers of nature, and
higher thoughts of the necessity and efficacy of divine

THE SCOPE OP ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 347

grace. But it is some men's way to bring up the power
of free-will to holiness, by bringing holiness down to the
power of free-will. There will not, however, be wanting
sublime speculations, and general language, strong and
lofty enough, concerning holiness and virtue.

2. We have something here that may be exceedingly
useful to support and encourage those who go heavily
under the evil of their hearts. It were not right to
suggest anything that would tend to exclude the
contrition for sin, that ought to be in the heart of every
child of God. Yet from the light and sensibility that is
in every sanctified heart with regard to sin, the conse-
quence might be extremely hurtful to the comfort and
stability of a Christian, if the word of God hath not
provided something encouraging respecting the case, as
there is in this context. So, if there are those who may
abuse this passage, as they do also the other scriptures,
to their own destruction, serious Christians find cause to
bless God for having provided for their comfort and for
their direction in faith and duty, by this very valuable
portion of holy writ.

I only add concerning this point the following words
of Augustine:* 'He hath set before thee his own conflict,
that thou mightest not fear thine. For if the blessed
apostle had not thus spoke, when thou should st observe
the moving of lust in thy members, to which, however, thou
didst not yield thy consent, yet finding it to move, thou
wouldst perhaps despair of thyself, and say, If I be-
longed to God, there would be no such motions in me.
Observe the apostle in conflict, and do not thou
despair."

3. I add an observation and inference respecting a
doctrinal subject. We have here occasion to observe the
sad corruption which human nature hath undergone;

* " Constituit tibi ante occulos pugnam suam, nc timeres tuam.
Si enim hoc non dixisset bcatus apostolus ; quando videres
moveri concupiscentiam in membris tuis, cui tu non consentiris,
tamen cum earn moveri videres, forsitan desperares de te, et
diceres, Si ad Deum pertinerem, sic non moveret. Vide
apostolum pugnantem, et noli te facere desperantem."

34-8 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

how deep the root of sin hath gone in the hearts of
men, and how great its force and activity is in the best
of men.

We have seen in the context preceding ver. 14 the case
of a person unregenerate with respect to this. He is
under the law, and when the commandment cometh (as
ver. 9) with its light, authority, and force, into the
conscience, it may be supposed to awaken him to great
carefulness about curbing, subduing, or restraining the
motions of sin in his heart. It might be thought that
the authority and light of the law in the conscience, with
the impression of the terrible threatening, might give
great excitement to this, and help a man much to it ;
yet we have seen how little the law could do in this way.
So far was it from subduing sin, and the motions of it in
the heart, that sin did but move the more vehemently,
and show the more its great wickedness and force.

In this latter context from ver. 14 we have the case of
a man under grace, who had, with great sense and ex-
perience of the love of God, his heart commonly full of
consolation by the assured prospect of eternal happiness
and glory ; whose heart was greatly raised above things
earthly and temporary, in full desire and pursuit of the
things that are above; whose soul was animated with
the warmest zeal for God, and for holiness ; and who
had made great advances in holiness, inferior to no mere
man we know of. Yet what heavy and sore complaint
doth he make of sin dwelling in him ? He did by its
force what he allowed not ; and what he seriously would,
he could not perform. Though he delighted in the law
of God according to the inward man, yet he found a
law in his members warring against the law of his mind,
and working hard to bring him into captivity to the law
of sin ; so that he cries out, 0 wretched man that I am !

Shall we now say, that the greatest advantage and
strength which sin hath in the heart of any man is only
by deep-rooted habits, contracted merely by frequent
acts, and the continued custom of sinning, proceeding
only from the unhappy use that each man makes of his
free-will ; who hath come into the world with his nature

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4-2 5 349

in the same original purity with which man was at first
created ? or (if we rise not so high) with no more de-
pravation than a man can get the better of by his own
efforts, and exertion of his moral powers? We have
here before us what doth not allow us to think so. If
man's nature itself were not depraved and corrupted to
a high degree, — if human nature retained its full liberty
and moral powers, without any greater disadvantage
than acquired habits could have brought upon them, —
what mere habits could be so strong but they might be
fully overcome by the most serious and earnest en-
deavours of a man under the sharp discipline of the law
in his conscience? But if, in this state and way, a man
could not do it ; might we not suppose that a man
made free from the dominion of sin, by the washing of
regeneration, and the renewing of the Holy Ghost, and
brought under grace (which hath that in it that tendeth
to engage a man most effectually to holiness), would be
able, by his more sincere and powerful endeavours, and
earnest exertion of all his moral powers, with the assist-
ance of the Holy Spirit dwelling in him, to overcome
any small remaining degree of natural depravation, and
every evil habit, in the most effectual and complete
manner ; so that there should not be the least remainder
of any evil habit, or of sin at all in him !

But which of the saints is it whose experience hath
testified any such thing? There is none of them in
whose experience we might more readily expect to find
it than this eminent apostle, considering his attainment
in grace, light, and holiness. Yet how far from this is
the case here represented ? In the persons most eminent
for holiness, of whom we have the history at any length
in the Scripture, this evil fountain hath discovered itself
by the streams it hath sent forth. If this blessed apostle
was preserved from remarkable lapses in outward practice,
yet here, where he lays open his heart, he shows the
source of sin yet remaining within him ; by which he
had matter of constant exercise, of struggle and of godly
sorrow, and what, from his own experience, afforded good
reason for giving the salutary advice to every other

350 A DISSERTATION CONCERNING

Christian, Thou standest by faith : be not high-minded but
fear. The Scripture acquaints us, that there is not a just
man that doeth good, and sinneth not. We have here
what accounts for it, and shows it shall ever be so, whilst
Christians are in this life.

This is that original sin, which every one hath derived
from a corrupt original ; and which is itself the original
and source of all a man's moral deficiencies, and actual
transgressions in outward and inward practice ; and
whose root is so deep in human nature, as never to be
wholly eradicated in this life. The power of divine
grace, and of the Holy Spirit, could doubtless soon do
it perfectly, if Divine wisdom had not thought otherwise
fit, and that Christians should labour under imperfection,
and having the remainder of sin dwelling in them to
struggle with ; that with minds well enlightened, and
hearts truly sanctified, they might, from what they con-
stantly feel, perceive sensibly, and understand thoroughly,
the wretched state from which divine grace saves them ;
might be kept from trusting in themselves, and might
ever hold all their consolation and hope of the rich and
free grace of God in Jesus Christ, through faith.

It is matter of very serious consideration to observe,
after what high attainments eminent saints have dis-
covered much of sin remaining in them. Moses was at
two different times forty days and forty nights in the
mount with God, and God had often spoken to him face
to face, as a man doth to his friend ; yet it was after this
that an unholy passion in him made its eruption, in a
manner very provoking to God. David was under great
influence of grace in his ordinary course and behaviour,
and was often under divine inspiration ; yet thereafter it
appeared, in fearful instances, that the root of sin still
remained in him, so as to give him occasion to look back
to his original depravation, and to say (Ps. li. 5), Behold,
I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother
conceive me. The sinful failures of prophets might
be here mentioned. For one instance, Jonah had re-
ceived frequent revelations from God, yet after this, how
great proof did he give of sinful mistrust and fear, of

THE SCOPE OF ROM. VII. 1 4- 2 5 35 I

remaining rebelliousness against the government of the
Almighty (even after being delivered out of the whale's
belly), and of turbulent and violent passion, as is narrated
in the short history that bears his name.

Paul, a New Testament saint, made great advances in
light and holiness ; he laboured hard against sin within ;
he kept under his body ; he had great helps to the
mortifying of sin, even in the various outward trials and
distresses that he was very commonly exercised with.
With all this, he had abundance of revelations, and was
even rapt up into the third heavens some years before he
wrote to the Romans. But after being in heaven, he
needed the acutely painful thorn in the flesh, to keep the
evil root that yet remained in him from springing, and
lest lie should be exalted above measure ; even lest (so he
emphatically repeats it) he should be exalted above
measure. In our context, how sad the representation he
gives of sin dwelling in him ! Ah, how deep hath sin
gone in human nature ! Christians have the use to
make of the case here set before them, that Paul himself
made of it, who not only at his first conversion, but ever
after, had it greatly at heart to be found in Christ, not
having his own righteousness, which is of the law, but
that which is by the faith of Christ, the righteousness
which is of God by faith. Christians will, whilst in this
life, carry about with them what may give them a sensible
proof and deep impression of the obligation they are
under to the free grace of God ; what great power
of grace it requires to present them at last a church
glorious and without spot ; and what is the exceeding
riches of God's grace, in his kindness towards us, through
Christ Jesus.

Enough seems to have been said to vindicate the true
sense of this context ; and some of the practical uses
thereof have been marked out. Though the learned Dr
Whitby shows no great superiority of genius, and his
arguments on this subject are sometimes extremely
blunt, yet he could give a keen enough ed\;c to his
expressions otherwise; as when he says of our inter-
pretation : " That it is as great an instance of the force

352 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII 1 4

of prejudice, and the heat of opposition, to pervert the
plainest truths, as can be haply produced." For my part,
when I observe that the man who speaks here is one who
delighted in the law of God, and in the holiness thereof
in the inner man ; who willed, loved, and endeavoured
what was good and right ; who hated sin, and was
conflicting against it, crying out sorrowfully of his
wretchedness by it ; and who (himself) with his mind
served the law of God : I cannot help considering it as
one of the phenomena in the learned world the most
difficult to account for, that any men of learning and
judgment could interpret these things of persons
unregenerate, under the law, destitute of the Holy
Spirit ; yea, of persons who have abandoned themselves
to wickedness, as Ahab, and the revolters from the true
religion before mentioned. Let the reader judge for
himself.

Text. — 14. For we know that the law is spiritual ; but I am
carnal, sold under sin.

Paraphrase. — We know that the law of God is
spiritual : that its authority and demand reaches to a
man's spirit and heart, to prescribe rule thereto, and to
every inward motion of the soul ; and it is by its being
thus spiritual that I heretofore received the thorough
conviction of my sinfulness. When, upon this extensive
view of the law, I do now compare myself with it, and
consider the perfect inward as well as outward purity it
requires, how great a disconformity to its holiness doth
still remain with me ! I do not only refer to the time,
when I was in my natural condition, in the flesh (ver. 5),
when that evil principle was absolutely dominant in me,
being under the law, and its curse, destitute of the Spirit,
when sin had its full course in me, in one form or other ;
but even, at this time, being under grace, thereby
delivered from the law, and made free from the domi-
nion of sin ; even yet alas ! though now in such a
comfortable state, how far from that holiness of heart

PARAPHRASE OP ROMANS VII. 15,16 353

which this spiritual law requireth ! I am carnal ; the
flesh, that corrupt source and principle of evil, though
deprived of its dominion, yet still remaineth in me, with
much force and activity ; and though by the grace of
God, I am not as Ahab, who, with full determination of
his heart, sold (abandoned) himself to work evil, yet the
flesh, with its violent corrupt affections, and unholy
passions, having the advantage of concurring tempta-
tions, doth often, yea too commonly, carry me away as
a captive and slave, contrary to the habitual, and
habitually prevailing inclination of my heart and will.

Text. — 15. For that which I do, I allow not : for what I would,
that do I not ; but what I hate, that do I.

PAR. I say, against the habitually prevailing inclination
of my will. For what I do, through the unhappy influence
of the flesh in the way I have mentioned, is what indeed
I do not favour or love. For what my will inclines to by
its habitual determination, that, obstructed by the flesh,
and the weakness which remaining corruption brings
upon me, I do not ; but what I truly and sincerely hate,
that, through its influence, I too often do.

Text. — 16. If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto
the law that it is good.

Par. If then what my heart worketh and doth within
me by means of the evil that springeth up from the flesh
and corrupt nature, contrary to the holy and spiritual
law, is indeed what is contrary to the fixed and habitual
inclination of my will, then I do not only by my under-
standing or mind assent to it as a truth, that the law is
good, but this habitual inclination of my will shows that
I heartily consent to the goodness of the law ; . that it is
good in itself, as I said but just now (ver. 12), and that
it prescribes that which is good for me, with respect to
my duty and happiness.

z

354 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII 1 7- 1 9

Text. — 17. Now then, it is no more I that do it, but sin that
dwelleth in me.

PAR. Now then, though, strictly speaking, it is I who
do all that is done by the activity of sin in my heart, and
though I cannot justify myself before this holy and
spiritual law, nor say, I am not chargeable with it ; yet
grace, under which I am, and which hath special and
tender regard to the sincerity of the heart and will, allows
me to take some comfort, with respect to the sad case, by
distinguishing, and saying, It is not I myself who do the
evil, which I sincerely hate, and is so contrary to the
habitual inclination of my will ; but my most hateful
enemy sin, which continueth its habitation, though not
its dominion, in me.

Text. — 18. For I know, that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth
no good thing : for to will is present with me, but how to per-
form that which is good, I find not.

PAR. It is grace that alloweth me thus to distinguish ;
yea, the real distinction that is in me is of grace, the
honour of which is to be ascribed to its blessed Author ;
for as to me otherwise, as I am by nature, and so far as
my nature is yet unrenewed in me, that is, in my flesh
(which is what naturally, and abstracting from grace, I
call my own, and myself), I know that no good thing
dwelleth. For though, through grace, there is a readiness
in me to will that which is good, yet, through the
obstruction which the flesh giveth, I find not myself able
to perform, in the constant, thorough, and perfect manner
which I will, and which the holy law requires.

Text.— 19. For the good that I would, I do not ; but the evil
which I would not, that I do.

PAR. For the whole good that my will is fully bent on.
and inclined to, I do not ; but sin ever springing up in
me, through remaining corruption, is what, on the part
of the flesh, I do ; and that against the fixed determination
of my will.

PARAPHRASE OF ROMAXS VII. 20-23 355

Text. — 20. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it,
but sin that dwelleth in me.

PAR. Now as a man's moral character is to be taken
from the sincere habitual inclination of his heart and will ;
if, by the influence of the flesh, I do what is contrary to
the spiritual and holy law, and what my will is averse to,
it is not I (let me again encourage myself somewhat with
the thought), it is not my very self that does it, but sin
that dwelleth in me.

Text. — 21. I find then a law, that when I would do good, evil is
present with me.

Par. I find then a law, not such as hath a true light,
and just authority, but a principle strong and effective,
that when my will is well determined to that which is
good, evil, even the unholy motions that are spontaneous
in corrupt nature, takes the start of my better will, and
prevents its effect ; so that I cannot do what I would in
the inward and outward practice of holiness.

Text. — 22. For I delight in the law of God, after the inward man.

Par. As I have been saying, that now when I am under
grace, my will by its habitual inclination is really on the
side of holiness ; the truth of the matter is, that I sincerelv
delight in the law of God, and in the holiness which it
recommends and requires, according to my inward man,
that new man in me, which after God is created in
righteousness and true holiness.

Text. — 23. But I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the
law of sin, which is in my members.

PAR. But though by this delight in the holiness
of the law, my heart hath got an habitual and pre-
vailing determination to holiness, yet I find a law in my
members, which hath in some degree taken possession

356 PARAPHRASE OF ROMANS VII. 24-25

of all my faculties, giving false light and prejudice to my
mind and judgment ; a corrupt bias often to my will,
putting my affections and passions in irregular and
impetuous motion, and so warring against the law of my
mind, that good principle and law, which God, according
to the promise of the new covenant (Jer. xxxi. 33 ; Heb.
viii. 10), hath put in my mind, and written in my heart ;
so warring againt my soul (1 Pet. ii. 11) and labouring
hard, and with too much success in some particular
instances, to captivate me to the law of sin which is in
my members.

Text. — 24. O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from
the body of this death ?

PAR. What a miserable condition this ! To be
free of this, I would count myself happy in all such
various perils as I have gone through, such multiplied
tribulations as I have undergone. Those have not made
me miserable ; but this worst of enemies within myself.
By means of this, ah, what a wretched man am I ! who
shall deliver me from this body of death, from which it
hath hitherto exceeded all my powers of nature or grace
to rescue me ?

Text. — 25. I thank God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then,
with the mind I myself serve the law of God ; but with the
flesh the law of sin.

PAR. I thank God, who hath provided comfort
for me with respect to this my present wretchedness
through Jesus Christ our Lord ; by virtue of whose cross
the old man in me is crucified ; which gives me the sure
and delightful prospect, that this body of sin and death
shall, in due time, be absolutely destroyed, and I com-
pletely and for ever delivered from it.

So then,, the conclusion of the whole is : With my
mind, that good and most prevailing law which divine
grace hath put in my mind and heart, I my very self do
(if imperfectly, yet) truly and sincerely, serve the law of
God ; though, alas, with the flesh, the cause of my
greatest sorrow, the law of sin.

EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE

OF

ROMANS VIII. 1-4.

Text. — 1. There is therefore now no condemnation to them
which are in Christ Jesus,, who walk not after the flesh, but
after the Spirit.

EXPLICATION. — This proposition is introduced in way
of inference, expressed by the word therefore. Without
mentioning the different views that interpreters have had
of this, I take it to be an inference from the apostle's
whole discourse and doctrine in the preceding part of
this epistle. He had treated largely of the justification
of sinners by grace through faith, in the first five chapters.
A proper inference from that is this : There is tlierefore
now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus.
In the sixth and seventh chapters he had treated of
what concerns sanctification. He had represented
persons under the law as being in the flesh, under the
dominion of sin, and its servants ; but persons brought
under grace by free justification, as being made free
from that servitude — as being become the servants of
God, and having their fruit unto holiness. From his
doctrine in this part, which he insists on to the end of
chap, vii., he had proper occasion to add, as the mark of
persons in Christ, justified and free from condemnation,
that they walk not after the flesh, but after, the Spirit.
It is not their so walking that frees them from condem-
nation, but being by gratuitous justification freed from
condemnation, and brought under grace, and thereby

357

358 EXP 1 1 CATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I

made free from the dominion of sin (chap. vi. 14), they
will, in their ordinary course, walk as is here said ; and
that so certainly, that if any do not so walk, but walk
after the flesh, it may be justly concluded, that they are
not truly in Christ as to their real spiritual state. This
is the view that the apostle's discourse directs us to take
of the matter. After making the complex inference
(ver. 1) from his doctrine of justification and sanctifica-
tion, the apostle doth, through this whole eighth chapter,
discourse in the mixed way, with an eye to both subjects,
and concerning the consolation, and the obligation to
duty and holy living arising from both, according to the
inseparable connection that is established between them
in the economy of salvation. So that, if we look through
this whole eighth chapter, it is a discourse that hath this
first verse, in both parts of it, for its text.

If, in all the seventeen or eighteen verses immediately
preceding, he had been describing the case only of
persons unregenerate — the slaves of sin, one might
readily think that the inference in our text comes in
somewhat awkwardly, and not in its proper place. But
if, from the fourteenth verse of the preceding chapter,
the case of a person is represented who walked not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit, which is the truth of the
matter ; then the comfortable inference and description
in this text are very properly introduced.

Let us now look more closely to the particular expres-
sions of the text. Them which are in Christ Jesus, some
have rendered or interpreted thus : Them who are
Christians. So Castalio and Le Clerc, as is observed by
Dr Whitby, who adds — " But if either of them mean
only Christians by profession, or being only members of
the Christian Church, this, will by no means agree with
this place, or any other of the like nature ; since freedom
from condemnation, and other benefits conferred upon
us through Jesus Christ, will not follow our being
Christians in this sense, but upon a lively faith in Christ,
our union to Him by the Spirit," etc. Le Clerc says,
that being in Christ is often used by St Paul for being a
Christian. I do not observe instances of his using the

Ver. 1] of komaxs via. 359

expression in that lax and large sense, but quite the
contrary. For which see I Cor. i. 30 ; 2 Cor. v. 17;
Thess. iv. 16; and to these places of Paul we may add,
I John v. 20 ; Rev. xiv. 13 ; John xv. 5 ; and the words of
Paul, Phil. iii. 9. In which places it is plain, that being
in Clirist means not only being Christians by profession
and outward church privilege ; but being sincere
believers, in real union with Christ, and in consequence
thereof, being holy in life, happy and blessed in death.

As to the second clause, — who walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit — the reading in the Greek, and in
our translation, is vindicated by Dr Whitby in his Examen
Milliu This way of walking, as to the ordinary course
of life, is a certain consequence of being in Christ. For
(2 Cor. v. 17), If any man be IN Christy he is a
creature; and (i Cor. i. 30) to them who are IN Clirist
fesus, he is made wisdom^ and righteousness, and
sanetif cation.

Some interpret and object thus : Mention is here
made of walking after the flesh ; which is certainly
expressive of the case represented in the context
immediately preceding, in which the man speaks so
strongly of the flesh in him, and the law in his members
captivating him. So some.

But, if we consider the matter, we shall find that this
is far from being the case in the apostle's view. There
is indeed a man represented complaining bitterly of the
flesh, and the law in his members, and of its force and
too great prevalence. I cannot but wonder that any
should take such a sense of things, and such a complaint,
as proof of a man's walking after the flesh. A man may
come under such consequences of an ill life with respect
to his person outwardly, or his affairs, that may set
him a complaining bitterly of his prevailing lusts and ill
practice, when it is not sin that is truly bitter to him,
but these outward ill consequences of it ; but in the
preceding context, we find a man feeling painfull}', and
lamenting bitterly the motions, force, and prevalence of
sin within him, in opposition to the spiritual and holy
law of God, without mentioning any ill consequence

360 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE \Ver. I

externally. Sin, and sinful affections, and their motions
within him, are what he would not, and what he hates,
abstracting from all penal and ill consequences. If sin
remains in him, we see him in conflict with it. This
doth not suit the notion of WALKING after the flesh.
Walking imports a man's habitual and deliberate course,
in which he freely proceeds, without force, struggle, or
constraint, neither violently drawn, carried, or captivated ;
but going according to the motion and inclination of his
own will. If the flesh hath its law or commandment, it
may be said of the unregenerate man, with respect to
the commandment of that law, as is said of Ephraim,
with respect to a particular instance of fleshly walking
(idolatry, Gal. v. 20), and the law requiring it (Hos. v. 1 1),
that he walked zvillingly after the commandment. So
the unregenerate man doth with regard to the com-
mandment of the law of sin, as to the habitual and
prevailing inclination of his will, whatever check con-
science may give. If this is, as it certainly is, walking
after the flesh, the preceding context represents a man
whose character, disposition, purpose, and earnest
endeavour, are very contrary to it.

I here add a passage of Dr Davenant (afterwards
bishop of Sarum) on Col. i. 7 : * " The regenerate may
fall into sin ; but they are not wont to walk, nor can
they live in sin. For he walketh in sin who sinneth by
his hearty choice, in his constant curse, and with the
full consent of his will."

The mention of the Spirit has here been the occasion
of another argument, respecting the meaning of the im-
mediately preceding context. On occasion of speaking
on the subject of holiness, the apostle very commonly
mentions and brings into view the Spirit of God, with
his powerful operation and influence : and the mutual
opposition is commonly stated between the Spirit and
the flesh. But there is no mention of the Spirit in the

* " Renati possunt incidere in peccata, sed non solent ambulare,
nee possunt vivere in peccato ; ambulat enim in peccato, qui
lubenter, assidue, et plena voluntate peccat."

Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 36 1

case proposed in the latter part of chap. vii. as there is
here; which, according to them, gives cause to think, that
it is here only (chap. viii. 1) that the apostle begins to
speak of the case of true believers, truly regenerated ;
and that in the preceding context, where there is no
mention of the Spirit, the case of the unregenerate,
destitute of the Spirit, is represented. So Arminius and
others argue.

I would not indeed expect (if there were not a point
of dispute in the case) that the mention of the Spirit
would be the thing of which some men, though de-
nominated Christians, would perceive the greatest want
in the reading of any context ; as I do not see, if their
scheme and sentiments are well looked into, that they
generally put anything in religion, as to its ordinary
causes, principles, and practice, but what might be
accounted for, if there was no mention of the Holy
Spirit in the Scriptures, or in the world at all. As to
the argument, —

It is true, that the Spirit is not mentioned in the
preceding context, nor is he mentioned in all the sixth
chapter, where the case of sincere believers, with respect
to sin and holiness, is so largely treated of. They have
in them the old man and the body of sin (ver. 6) ; they
are (ver. 22) the servants of God, and have their fruit
unto holiness. Yet all along in that chapter there is no
mention of the Holy Spirit. If it be said that there is,
however, in that chapter what sufficiently distinguishes
the case of the true Christian, and regenerate person,
as there meant, the same may be said of the latter
context of chap, vii., as hath been shown largely and
clearly in the explication of it.

At the same time it is to be considered, that the lazu
of the mind, and the law in the members, are expressions
that are to be found nowhere else in the Scriptures.
Yet we cannot justly infer, that what is meant by these
expressions occurs nowhere else. That the opposition
and conflict of the law of the mind against the flesh,
or law in the members, is not that of natural conscience
or mere reason, hath been shown, as it hath been, that

362 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I

the law of the mind as to its principle is holiness, implanted
in the soul by the Holy Spirit ; or the law of God put
in the mind and heart, according to the grace and promise
of the new covenant.

There is indeed great complaint of the flesh ; yet
nothing appears in the preceding context that amounts
to walking after the flesh. But on the contrary, we
have cause to conclude, that a heart habitually delighting
in the holiness of the law of God, and in ordinary conflict
with the inward motions of sin, as is there represented,
is as great an evidence of a man's not walking after the
flesh, as can possibly be imagined to be in the case of
any man in whom sin remaineth at all.

Let us now observe how Dr Taylor interprets this text.
Here is the first part of his paraphrase of it : " But now
under the gospel the most encouraging hopes smile upon
us, and we have the highest assurance, that those are
quite discharged from the penalty of the law, and dis-
engaged from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith
of the gospel : if so be they make that faith a principle
of obedience, and do not choose to live in wickedness,
according to the instigation of fleshly appetite."

In this passage several things come to be observed.
1. For — them which are in Christ Jesus, — he gives,
a Who embrace the faith of the gospel." This falls in
with the notion of Castalio and Le Clerc, for confuting
which enough hath been said already. 2. The para-
phrase expresses what is now under the gospel ; and
what the writer states in opposition thereto, is the
Mosaic law, the weak and lifeless dispensation, as he
calls it, of the law (which is an erroneous and absurd way
of representing that dispensation), and the condition of
a wretched, enslaved, condemned Jew under it. Yet
nothing can be marked out in the paraphrase, as now
under the gospel, but what did truly (though not with
the same degree of light and comfort) take place under
the Mosaic legal dispensation. In that time and state
of things, the most encouraging hopes did smile on men,
and they had the highest assurance of being quite dis-
charged from the penalty of the law, and disengaged

Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 363

from the servitude of sin, who sincerely embraced the
faith of the promise, by which, even in these times, the
gospel was preached to them. In these times there were
good men, who made their faith a principle of obedience,
etc. 3. The expression of the paraphrase implies, that
persons may be in Christ in the sense of the text, who
do not make their faith a principle of obedience ; which
is inconsistent with what hath been shown to be the
apostle's meaning.

The paraphrase proceeds thus : — " But (do choose to
live) in faith and holiness, according to the dictates of
the inward man, or the rational faculty." That the in-
ward man means something more than merely the
rational faculty, hath been here proved, on chap. vii. 22.

His putting "the rational faculty," for the Spirit, as in
the text, he endeavours to justify in his note. There he
says, li7rv€Vfj.a} Spirit, certainly is not used in the same
sense throughout this chapter. Vers. 10, 16, it signifies
the spirit of our mind — the supreme part of our con-
stitution, or the principle of reason, by which we discern,
approve, and choose the truth." These two are all the
places in this chapter that he brings as meaning by the
Spirit the human spirit, or principle of reason. But
they do not answer his purpose in interpreting this first
verse. For in ver. 16, our spirit being set in opposition
to the Spirit itself, shows, that by the former is there
meant the human spirit. The expression is not so (ver.
1), but absolutely, the Spirit. If the word spirit is in
any place so connected with another word, expression,
or argument, as shows it is there to be understood of
the human spirit, this makes no reason for understand-
ing it so, when the spirit is mentioned absolutely, without
any such connection, or particular reason for understand-
ing it in that way.

As to ver. 10, he there alters our translation in the
column opposite to his paraphrase, and for, The body is
dead, BECAUSE of sin, he translates, with RESPECT to sin,
and so he gives the next clause, The Spirit is life (not
BECAUSE, as in our translation, but) with RESPECT to
righteousness. . And to this translation of his own, he

364 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I

suits his paraphrase thus: "The sinful appetites and
affections of the body are slain in you, — your spiritual
part is alive, is in a healthy vigorous condition with
respect to righteousness."

This method is far from being fair. If he would give
our translation in one column, as he pretends to do, he
should give it as it is, and if he should prove in a note
that our translation was not just, he might thereby
warrant his paraphrase. It occurs happily, however,
that in his note, when he meant to support his para-
phrase, himself brings forth what justifies our translation.
Am, with an accusative, says he, signifies with reference
to, or on account of. But could the preposition, as him-
self relates, be rendered, on account of sin, and on account
of righteousness, doth this make such odds of sense
from, because of sin and because of righteousness, that
our translation should be altered for it, when it could
well stand, according to what he mentions concerning
the preposition ?

But what reason can be offered for using, instead of
body (ver. 10), u sinful appetites and affections of the
body," and for the Spirit, to put " your spiritual part ? "
Dr Taylor has certainly mistaken the meaning of this
tenth verse. I venture to express myself concerning it as
follows. As the apostle hath in his eye the comfortable
subject of the resurrection of the dead, suggested more
fully in the following verse, I think the word body (ver.
10), may be taken for person (see on chap. vi. 12); and
the Spirit is evidently meant of the Spirit of God,
mentioned in the preceding 9th verse, and twice in the
immediately following verse.* So the sense of the
whole verse may be thus expressed : " If Christ be in

* Moule on Romans (in "Expositors' Bible'"') supports this view.
" We refer,"' says he, " the word Trvevfxa here, as throughout the
passage to the Holy Ghost. No other interpretation seems either
consistent with the whole context, or adequate to its grandeur."
Sanday, however, has no hesitation in understanding the 7rv€Vfia
here of the human 7rvev/jLa which has the properties of life infused
into it, by the presence of the Divine -rrvev/jia. This is precisely the
view maintained by Alford, and is undoubtedly the correct one.

Ver. i] of Romans viii. 365

you by your having his Spirit, even the Spirit of God
dwelling in you (as ver. 9), you are, as to the present
bodily state and frame of your persons, appointed indeed
to die because of sin, even the sin of the first Adam, for
which all mankind have been adjudged to death ; but
the Spirit of God, and of Christ in you, will bring you
to life at the resurrection, because of righteousness, even
the righteousness of One, the second Adam," as is more
fully expressed in the next verse.*

We have Dr Taylor's criticism concerning the Greek
preposition Aia, with an accusative, in ver. 10 ; we may
next see how he manages with it as constructed with a
genitive. This is in ver. 1 1 , and as we have come so
near it, it is not amiss that we observe it. There for
Slo. — Trvevfiaros, he gives, Because of the Spirit. What
reason could he give for this? It is the case that Sta in
that construction very commonly signifies per, by; and
my lexicon gives that as the first sense of the preposi-
tion in that construction, according to which we translate.
Hedericus gives no sense of the preposition with a
genitive that will answer this writer's purpose ; nor doth
Pasor, who mentions very many instances of it in that
construction. But the author seems to have been more
anxious to screen his particular hypothesis and opinion
from hurt, than to give a just and well-warranted inter-
pretation of this text. That heavenly Being or Agent,
which is commonly called the Holy Ghost {; he did not
believe more than he believed the Son to be truly and
by nature God. But he was sensible that it would be a
striking proof of his being so, if quickening the dead, or
raising the dead, were ascribed to him. So, instead of
our translation, which renders justly, according to the
use of the Greek language, He that raised up Christ
shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit, — he
gives — because of his Spirit; and, according to this, he
gives in his paraphrase thus : " He who raised Christ,
will restore to a glorious immortal life, — even your

* See Dr Whitby on the place.

t As Dr Taylor speaks in his note on ver. 1.

366 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. I

bodies, because you are sanctified by his Spirit." But
this cannot be supported by any just criticism. *

We have seem that the two texts, f which Dr Taylor
brings out of this same chapter, do not answer his
purpose in rendering, after the Spirit, by, "according
to the dictates of — the rational faculty." Neither these
two verses, nor any other that he could bring, give any
countenance to that paraphrase. In that expression
(ver. i) which walk — after the Spirit, the apostle
certainly speaks in relation to the Spirit of God. We
have sufficient cause to think so, from the manner in
which the apostle states the opposition between the flesh
and the Spirit (mentioned here, ver. i), and follows it
out through the following context ; wherein after
opposing flesh and Spirit several times, he at length
explains what he means by Spirit in this opposition
when he tells the Roman Christians (ver. 9), that they
were not in the flesh but were in the Spirit, by having the
SPIRIT of GOD dwelling in them. It is that Spirit that
is meant (vers. 10, 11), as hath been just now observed ;
and when (ver. 1 3), he mentions Christians through the
Spirit mortifying the flesh, it is the Spirit of God, in
opposition to the flesh, that is meant, even according to
Dr Taylor. Nor can it be doubted, that walking after
the Spirit, in the first verse, means the same way of
walking and the same influence that is meant (ver. 14),.
where it is said, As many as are led by tJie Spirit of Godr
they are the sons of God. They who walk after the

* For the genitive, Sia tqv £volkovvtos avrov Uvevfiaros^
supported by Alexandrian authorities, tf. A.C., etc., as against the
accusative, Sia to zvolkovv avrov Ilvtv/xa, supported by Western
authorities, b.d. &c, there is no preponderating evidence, but at
most a slight advantage. With the genitive Bta undoubtedly
means "by means of," "through ;" with the accusative 81a means
" on account of," " because of." The opponents of Macedonius,
who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost, preferred the genitive
reading, as bringing out more clearly the personal working of the
Holy Spirit. The accusative reading, however, is quite capable of
an orthodox interpretation.

t Namely, vers. 10, 16.

Ver. i] OF ROMANS VIII. 367

Spirit (ver. 1) are the same who are led by the Spirit of
God (ver. 14).

Upon the whole, I conceive the matter thus : In the
7th chapter he mentions the inward man as delighting
in the law of God, and says (ver. 2 5 J, With the ?nind I
myself serve the law of God. These expressions, the
inward man, the mind, and the law of his mind, signify
the soul itself as renewed, — the new man, and principle
of holiness within him. Here in the next following;
verse (chap. viii. 1), he means the same way of walking
and serving God, according to the inward man, and law
of his mind, with the superadded idea of the Spirit of
God dwelling in the Christian, and continuing to
influence the inward man and law of the mind, in this
way of walking. Having here (ver. 1), once mentioned
the Spirit, we see he keeps him much in view, with
regard to his various influence and assistance granted to
Christains, down to ver. 27.

The dictates of the rational faculty (if men understood
them) and the Spirit of God, do direct and lead to the
same way of walking. But there is a power and efficacy
in the influence of the Spirit, that is not in the dictates
of the rational faculty. The apostle's meaning by the
Spirit, as stated in opposition to the flesh in this 8th
chapter, is so very clear, that it was very wrong, and
somewhat perverse, to use in paraphrase for the Spirit,
the rational faculty.

Paraphrase. — i. As I have showed, that true Chris-
tians are, by the faith that hath truly united them
to Christ, brought into a justified state, and have the
blessedness that God imputeth righteousness to them ;
and have showed that true believers, being dead to sin,
and made free from its dominion, are become servants
of God and of righteousness in ordinary, sincere, and
earnest conflict against the motions of sin within them ;
it clearly follows on the one hand, that there is now no
condemnation to them who are truly united to Christ,
and on the other hand, that it is the certain characteristic
of such, that their conversation and walk is not regulated
or directed according to the flesh, or the lusts thereof,

368 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 2

(whatever temptation and sad exercise they may have by
these) but by the principle of holiness in the new man,
and by the holy Spirit of God, under whose special
influence the new man, the law of their mind, is.

Text — 2. For the law of the Spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath
made me free from the law of sin and death.

Explication. — In the preceding verse there is a
doctrinal proposition by way of inference, which in
the comprehension of the expression, includes and
respects all true believers. Here the expression is of
himself personally ; yet so as to be evidently designed
to explain the general doctrine of the preceding verse.

Some have considered this second verse, as particu-
larly connected with the first clause of the preceding,
There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ
Jesus ; and as being designed to give some explanation
about being made free from condemnation. But as in the
sixth and seventh chapters, those immediately preceding
this, the subject is sanctification, anything concerning
justification falls in but incidentally, and as connected
with sanctification, and in subserviency to his explana-
tions on that subject.

I therefore think this second verse is to be considered
as particularly connected with the second clause of ver.
I, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. It
might have been suggested thus : Men in their natural
condition are the slaves of sin, and, in that state, certainly
they cannot walk after the Spirit, being destitute of the
Spirit. Men's so walking shows them to be blessed with
a happy liberty from the slavery of the flesh, and of the
law of sin, which they have been under formerly. This
second verse explains how Christians have been made
free from that slavery and dominion, as the third verse
doth still further explain the matter.

As to the particular expressions of this text, the word
law comes first to be explained, as it seems to have
different senses in this one verse. In the latter clause,

Ver. 2] of Romans via. 369

the law of sin and death hath by some been undcrsto cl
of the law of God, as it assigns death to the transgressors ;
and whilst men are under it, they are under the dominion
of sin. Sin is so far from being subdued by it, that there
are motions of sins by the law, and sin taketh occasion
by the commandment. This, however, cannot be the
meaning. It were not consistent with the reverence due
to the law of God, nor with the truth, to call it the law
of sin and death. Yea, it could not be so called, but in plain
contradiction to the vindication the apostle hath made of
it (chap. vii. 7), Is the law sin ? G d forbid ; and (ver. 13),
Was that which is good made death unto me ? God forbid.

We need not be at a loss for the meaning of this last
clause of the text. He had (chap. vii. 25, the next
verse save one preceding this) mentioned the law of sin \
which, by means of the flesh, had held sinners in subjec-
tion and slavery ; and, in the verse preceding that, he
had mentioned the body of death. The lawt then, of sin
and death, is no other than that evil principle dominant
in a man, from which the true Christian is made free.
How made free ?

This the apostle ascribes to the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus. Here is another law ; and if the
law in the last clause signifies a principle within a man,
this may seem to signify also an inward principle — a
better principle wrought and implanted by the Spirit of
life, even the same which he had called (chap. vii. J |
the law of his mind. By this principle is a man made
free from the dominion of the other principle or law.
This is not widely different from what I take to be the
more precise meaning.

It seems most likely, that the law of the Spirit of life
means the gospel. So it was understood by Methodius,
an ancient writer, as mentioned by Dr Whitby.* If the

Methodius, Bishop of Olympus and afterwards of Tyre,
antagonist of Origen, martyr in a.d 312, in his " Discourse on the
Resurrection" (Ante-Nicene Library, vol. xiv., Edin. 1869, p. ;
says : " The law of the Spirit of Life, which is the gospel, being
different from earlier laws, leading by its preaching to obedience and
the remission of sins, delivered us from the law of sin and death,
having conquered entirely sin which reigned over our flesh."

2 A

370 EXPLICATION AMD PARAPHRASE [Ver. 2

apostle mention (chap. iii. 27) the law of faith, he doth
not recede any farther from strict propriety in giving
here the name of law to the gospel, that is the means of
faith. It is certain that law is often in the Old Testament
put for the word of God in general, of which there are
many instances in the 119th Psalm. The Psalmist says
(Ps. xix. 7), The law of the Lord is perfect \ converting
the soul. It is plain that he there means the doctrine of
gospel-grace, as then set forth in the word of God ; for
without this, the law, strictly so called, doth not convert
the soul. At the same time it is to be observed, that the
designation given here to the gospel is not absolutely
the law, but the law of the Spirit of life ; thus distinguish-
ing it from the law, by which the Spirit is not given.

The gospel brings men to the liberty here mentioned,
only as it is the law of the Spirit of life. He is called
here the Spirit of life very appositely, in opposition to
that other law of sin and death, as he now gives a
spiritual life in the souls, of men ; and hereafter, when
he shall quicken their bodies at the resurrection, shall
raise them to the perfection of life in soul and body.

Now this is a very important thing, in which the
gospel is set in opposition to the law, and hath the
advantage of it, that it is (2 Cor. iii. 8) the ministration
of the Spirit which (ver. 6)giveth life ; and so the gospel
is the law of the Spirit of life.

In our text is added, in Christ Jesus ; which may be
understood thus : The Holy Spirit was bestowed on
Christ the Mediator without measure ; he hath been
anointed with this gladdening oil ; and it being poured
on him as our great High Priest and Head, as on the
head of Aaron (Ps. cxxxiii. 2), it runs down on the
body and members. So the Holy Spirit is in Christ,
as in a fountain, out of which every one receives accord-
ing to the measure of the gift of Christ (Eph. iv. 7). Or
the expression may be taken thus : as the preposition
iv, iny is often put for Aia,/^r, by (so Matt. v. 13, 35, and
vii. 6, and in divers other places), the sense may be
taken thus : The Spirit of life by Jesus Christ, — by him
purchased and bestowed.

Ver. 2] OF ROMANS VIII. 37 1

We now come to consider the good effect, and that is
to be made free from the law of sin and death. This, the
interpreters of opposite sentiments to ours, concerning
the scope and meaning of the preceding context, con-
sider as a key to open and determine the scope and
sense of it. Here, say they, the apostle, after giving a
general doctrine (ver. 1), begins to speak of himself
indeed. He had (chap. vii. 14-25), been setting forth
the case of one carnal, sold under sin, a captive and
slave to the law of sin. The apostle, though speaking
as of himself, yet could not truly mean himself, as then
in a state of grace, but was certainly personating another,
a man under the law ; and of such an one it could not
be said, as here, that he was free from the law of sin and
death. Here, then, is he speaking of himself indeed,
and stating his own present condition in opposition to
that he had been representing : this is clear, express,
strong, and decisive on the subject, according to some.
Softly ; let us consider the matter a little.

It hath been made to appear very clearly, that the
strong expressions in the preceding context being the
language of sad complaint, there is nothing in it incor-
sistent with a regenerate state. None will say, that true
believers, made free in the sense of our text, have not
sin remaining in them ; yea, oftentimes too much pre-
vailing, especially as to its inward motions. Surely the
bitter complaint of persons on this account is no sign of
their being under the dominion of sin ; but the contrary.
Persons under the dominion of sin may indeed have
much outcry against it, on account of its consequences
of misery and punishment, as hath been formerly
observed. So a passionate man, for instance, may cry
out of his own hasty and outrageous passion, merely
because it brings him into much inconvenience, into
many a fray, and perhaps to the commission of crimes
of capital consequence. A lewd man may cry out
against his own practice, for the loathsome rottenness of
disease it hath brought on him, and the ruin it hath
brought on his affairs. Yea, an awakened sinner may
cry out still more seriously and earnestly against sin,

372 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 2

under the sad impression, by the force of the law in his
conscience, of Divine wrath, and eternal judgment. Yet
in these cases the prevailing disposition of heart, w\\\y
and affections may be still truly on the side of sin itself,,
though under considerable restraint. But to say that a
man who, setting before him the holiness and spirituality
of the law, doth delight in the holiness of the law after the
inward man, habitually willeth that which is good, hateth
sin, crieth out sincerely against it, and is habitually in
earnest struggle and conflict against its inward motions ;.
— to say that such an one (however strongly he may
express his feelings of sin) is indeed under its dominion,,
and its slave, is what I cannot help considering as a
most glaring absurdity. When a man is inclined and
affected with regard to sin and duty, and maintains a
struggle and conflict with sin, as is expressed in the
preceding context, it makes a clear and full proof that
he is not the slave of sin, but that he is indeed made
free from its dominion and tyranny. It is not easy to-
imagine a stronger proof that he is so, whilst sin doth
at all remain in him.

A similitude taken from human affairs may somewhat
illustrate the matter. Our neighbours, the Hollanders,,
cast off the yoke of a cruel arbitrary tyrant, then the
most powerful monarch in Christendom, and asserted
their liberty. For this they had war a long time,,
between seventy and eighty years, with some interval
of truce. In the course of it they were very successful
on the whole, and became truly rich. Yet there was
great distress and danger. They were sometimes foiled
in battle; their country was plundered; towns sacked;
ships and rich merchandise lost ; their men taken, and
brought into captivity. Private persons in these times
might, yea, the republic might, often cry out, Ah, what
wretchedness, what misery ! Yet still in all this distress
and wretchedness they were a free people ; they suffered,
they groaned, they struggled, they fought, and were free.
They proved themselves to be so, whilst they held their
arms in their hands, and stood out with noble resistance
in the war which their old master carried on against

Ver. 2] of rom ax s vni. 373

them, to subject them again to his tyranny. They found
themselves sometimes very weak ; but when their affairs
were lowest, yet weak and resisting, still they were free.
At length the most illustrious republic attained a state
of complete liberty, and their old tyrant ceased from
having pretensions to their service in any instance.

It is thus as to the matter before us, which is of
incomparably greater importance to individuals, than
their interest in the worldly condition or affairs of any
state or commonwealth. True Christians are in earnest
conflict and struggle with sin. as represented, chap, vii.,
by which they have often much distress ; so that one of
that character may find just cause to cry out, Wretched
man that I am, zi'ho shall deliver me from this body of
death? Yet by this sense of things, and by this conflict,
however distressing, they show themselves to be. not the
slaves of sin, but to be free from its dominion.

Upon the whole, Christians are made free from the
dominion of sin, whose willing slaves they had been ;
and that by the power of the gospel in their hearts, as it
is the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and by the
grace of God, which, sin remaining in them, hath, accord-
ing to the first promise, put enmity in them against it ;
against the serpent, and what of his poison remaineth in
them. Continuing in this resistance to sin, they will at
length attain a state of most perfect liberty, when sin
shall do them no more hurt, nor ever more give them
any molestation.

Paraphrase. — 2. I have represented my sad condition
by sin which dwelleth in me, and have expressed my
thankfulness to God through Jesus Christ, by whom I
have been disposed and enabled to resist and main-
tain conflict with it, with good prospect of success,
final victory, and to be, amidst all the disadvantage
that sin brings upon me, serving God and his law with
earnest and sincere endeavour, walking not after the
flesh, but after the Spirit. I now come to account for
it, and to explain to you how I have been brought into
a capacity thus to resist and struggle, and thus to walk,
who have been sometime the slave of sin. This hath

374 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3

not happened by the force of the mere dictates of reason
in my mind, nor by any resolutions or endeavours that
were the mere consequence of these. Nor did it happen
by the power and effect of the law in my conscience.
I have represented, that when I was most affected with
the authority, light, and terrors of the law, I found my-
self but the more fastened in the fetters of sin ; and sin
awakened and irritated by the law, did then move the
more vehemently in me, and show itself to be exceeding
sinful. I acknowledge, to the praise and glory of Divine
grace, that it was the power of the gospel, that better
law for us, as it is the ministration of the Spirit, the law
of the Spirit of life, which is in Christ Jesus as in a
fountain, and cometh by him to us, that hath made me
free from the dominion of sin, putting within me that
inward principle of holiness, which I have called the law
of my mind, and which now resists these evils and
enemies that war against my soul, and maintains warfare
against the law of sin and death, over which it will be
finally and completely victorious.

Text — 3. For what the law could not do in that it was weak
through the flesh, God sending his own Son, in the likeness
of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh.

Explication. — This is a text of great importance to
be rightly understood ; as it contains a summary of the
most essential doctrines of the gospel, and at the same
time, completes the apostle's explications concerning
the subject of the two preceding chapters. Yet few
texts have been more teazed with the criticisms of the
learned, which do often tend rather to darken, than to
give light to it, or to the subject of it. I shall lay open
very freely what I think concerning the general scope of
it, and concerning the sense of the particular expressions,
in the order in which they lie.

For what the law could not do, in that it was weak
through the flesh — The first inquiry is, What is it that
the law could not do ? Divers commentators, whom I

Ver. 3] of Romans viil 375

much esteem, do understand this to be the justifying of
sinful men. This is likewise Dr Whitby's view of it.

Yet I am not satisfied with this interpretation ; yea,
I am well satisfied that it doth not hit the apostle's view
and meaning. For, 1. Though it is true that the law
cannot justify a sinner, as the apostle had proved in the
former part of this epistle, yet that is not the present
subject. It is evident, that sanctification hath been the
subject from the beginning of chap. vi. and the deliver-
ance of persons from the dominion of sin. The subject
of the immediately preceding verse is, the making a
sinner free from the law of sin and death ; that is, from
the power of natural corruption, and the dominion of sin.
This was the last thing the apostle had mentioned ; and
it seems very clear from the connection, and the manner
in which this third verse is introduced with the casual
particle (ydp,for) that the great thing thus to make free
(ver. 2) is what tJie Law (ver. 3) could not do: it could not
make free from the dominion and law of sin.

2. The reason he gives suits that subject more properly
than it doth the doctrine of justification, — In that it was
weak through the flesh. Now, that is not the reason why
the law cannot justify. Though in proving the sinfulness
of Gentiles and Jews (chap. iii. 10-18), the apostle's
reasoning, and quotations from the Scripture, do abund-
antly prove the dreadful universal corruption of human
nature, yet the precise point upon which his argument
turns is (ver. 23) that all have sinned ; whereby they
have incurred the curse of the law, as he elsewhere
suggests (Gal. iii. 10). Though there were no such
inherent pravity of nature, as the Scripture sets forth
under the name of the flesh, yet the law could not justify
any who had sinned, who had at all incurred guilt.

To turn the disability of the law to justify the sinner,
upon the corruption of his nature, as this text would do,
according to the interpretation I am considering, would
imply something by no means consistent with the
apostle's clear doctrine ; viz. that after a person had
transgressed, he might be justified, even by the law, for
returning to his duty, and for his subsequent righteous-

376 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. J

ness, if the weakness and pravity of his nature, called the
fleshy did not disable him from doing his duty ; which,
how contrary it is to Scripture doctrine, I need not stay
to prove, the thing is so clear.

We have next to inquire, what law is here meant. As
to the ritual or ceremonial law of Moses, which is most
strictly the Mosaic law, and which some do so commonly
bring into view in interpreting this context, the institu-
tions of it were appendages to the gospel, as obscurely
represented during that more dark dispensation. They
were figures or shadows that prefigured Christ, and
divine grace through him. So to those who used them
with faith, they could not be absolutely denied to have
virtue and effect, with regard to sanctification.

It remains, that the law here must be the moral law,
which all mankind are, and ever were concerned with ;
and which can be called Mosaic only with respect to the
particular manner of its promulgation at Sinai, and the
subsequent explanations of it by Moses. This law
expressing the conditions of the first covenant, doth by
its precept require holiness and obedience. In its penal
sanction is terrible denunciation against sin, and its
promise gave great encouragement to obedience. By all
this the law might have had great effect with man in a
state of perfection, had he duly attended thereto. But
as it could not hinder the transgression of man in a
state of perfection, much less can it recover the fallen
sinner from the slavery of sin, or set him free from its
dominion.

The apostle had shown (chap. vii. 5, and vers. 7-13)
how matters stand in this respect between the law and
persons under it, in their natural condition, in the flesh ;
and represents them so as to prove what he had
insinuated (chap. vi. 14), viz. that persons under the law
are under the dominion of sin. It is evident then, that
what the law could not do, was, to make a man free from
this dominion of sin. The law's being weak through the
flesh comes to the same thing as to say, that the flesh is
too strong for the law, with all its light, authority, and
terrors, and could not be subdued or cured, but by the,

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. $77

Spirit of life mentioned in the preceding verse ; and this
Spirit comes not by the law.

God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful
flesli. — The Son of God did not assume human nature in
its beauty, strength, and natural perfection, as sinless
flesh, or as Adam's in his creation-state ; he assumed it
in \^ present natural weakness, obnoxious to the miseries
of this life, as sinful men are; designing to bear our
griefs, and carry our sorrows.

We have occasion here to observe Dr Taylor's sense
of this clause, as he gives it in his paraphrase thus :
*' God by sending his Son to live as we do, in the flesh,
frail, and liable to sin." — That Christ's human nature
had the frailty that is now natural to man, is certainly
meant by the apostle's expression. But to extend it to
moral frailty, is extremely shocking. That Christ's
human nature having come into being by the operation
of the Holy Ghost, and subsisting in personal union with
the divine nature ; that, I say, this blessed divine Person
should be said to be liable to sin, must by Christians be
accounted quite blasphemous.

But this writer differs from Christians in this essential
article of their faith, the divinity of the Son of God. He
-considers him as a glorious being (on whom he fails not
to bestow high language), who was by God truly created
before the world ; and in the question of his catechism
respecting the incarnation of the Son of God, he says,
"He became man by assuming a body like unto ours,"
without mentioning a human reasonable soul. A human
body animated by this pre-existent created being, is
according to him, the person of Christ ; which, by his
account, is a person neither truly God nor truly man.
That this created spirit, and human body united, should
be a person liable, in a state of probation, to sin, does
well enough suit his notions.

This is not a proper place for considering or confuting
the heretical doctrine of the Arians concerning the
divinity of our Saviour. They who would study that
subject, if they will not, or cannot read the writings of
learned foreigners, in the Latin tongue, in defence of the

378 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 3

truth, will find that great article of Christian faith
sufficiently established by what hath been written in our
language above forty years ago ; whereby the Scripture
evidence of the truth hath been set forth in a clear light*
and the subtilty of the Arians hath been exposed and
confuted with great ability and learning.

To be liable to sin (as in Dr Taylor's paraphrase)
doth not suit the expression of our text. The likeness of
sinful flesh must certainly mean something that could
not be said of sinless flesh ; otherwise, why should the
distinction and character of sinful 'be here used at all?
There is a great difference between being actually sinful,
and being liable to sin. Adam, in his creation-state, was
liable to sin, yet could not, in that state, be called sinful
flesh. To be in the likeness of sinfid flesh must certainly
mean something else than to be liable to sin ; for even
sinless flesh was liable to sin.

Dr Taylor did indeed hold, that no man is chargeable
with sin, in any respect, or is sinful, until he becomes so
by his own actual transgression. But this clause we are
considering doth not look favourably on that sentiment.
Our Lord underwent the infirmities common to man,
and the miseries of life meant in this clause, in his birth
and early infancy, and therein was like unto sinful flesh.
The common infirmities of human nature, in this lapsed
state, and the miseries of life in every period of it, with-
out distinction, are, by this clause, connected with men's
sinfulness, or their being sinful flesh. If, then, mankind
are subjected to the now natural infirmities and miseries
of human life, in that early period of infancy and child-
hood,— and if Christ was in the likeness of sinful flesh
in that early period, wherein men are incapable of moral
agency, or of actual transgression, it is plain that they
are sinful flesh, before they are capable of actually
sinning in their own persons. The sense of this clause
being clear, we proceed to the next :

And for sin. — The Greek 7re/n d/xapTia?, which is the
expression here, is very commonly the name of the sin-
offering, or sacrifice for sin, of which the English margin
gives the hint, rendering thus : and by a sacrifice for sin.

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 379

Dr Whitby, on the place, mentions between thirty and
forty instances of the Septuagint translation, wherein
this expression means the sin-offering; and hints that a
good many more instances might be given. In the New
Testament we see that (Heb. x. 6) the expression occurs
in that sense. Our translators have supplied the word
sacrifice, putting it in a different character, which scarce
needed to be done, as sacrifice for sin is so common a
sense of the words as they are in the Greek.

This did not so well suit Dr Taylor's notions, and
therefore he gives for it in his paraphrase — " And by
sending him about the affair of sin." This writer had
unhappily adopted the doctrine of the Socinians, in
denying the substitution of Christ in bearing the punish-
ment of our sins; and what important article of Christian
faith hath he not laboured to subvert? In his note on
this verse, he says the expression means, as Dr Whitby
mentions, when joined with a bullock, lamb, &c. (either
expressed or understood) appointed by the law for a
sin-offering ; " but," saith he, " offering here is not the
thing to which -e/n apapTias hath relation, but to God's
sending his Son."

Mr John Alexander, who follows the sentiments of
the other writer pretty closely, observes that rpdyos -epl
apap-Las may be rendered, the goat for the sin-offering.
" But (so he adds) this will not prove that the words
have such a signification in themselves, or when joined
with things not usually offered in sacrifice for sin, which
is the thing that ought to be proved, in order to show
that — (the Greek expression here) may properly be
rendered, sending his Son an offering for sin." In the
beginning of the next following page (123) he says:
" Since, therefore, there is nothing in the context or
phraseology in this place, which directs us to understand
-e/5i afjLaprias in a sacrificial sense, we must necessarily
take the words in their more common acceptance of
for or concerning sin, and explain them of one of the great
ends of Christ's mission, which was, to reform the world."

It is true, that one great end of Christ's mission was
to reform the world — to purify to himself a peculiar

380 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3

people ; but the doctrine of these writers tends much to
counteract that design, by denying what the wisdom
and righteousness of God found necessary for accom-
plishing it, even Christ's delivering men from the curse
of the law, and from the punishment of their sins, by his
own bearing it. They allow that the Greek expression
here signifies a sacrifice for sin, when joined with things
usually offered in sacrifice. Now, thugh Christ was not
usually (being but once) offered in sacrifice, yet it is
plain that the Scripture very usually represents him as
a sacrifice, and as offering sacrifice, and the sacrificial
style is very often used concerning him. For this see
particularly Eph. v. 2 ; Heb. ix. 26, 28. Yea, Dr Taylor
adopts this style of Scripture, and frequently uses sacri-
ficial language concerning him.

Mr Alexander says (p. 123) there is nothing in the
context or phraseology in this place, which directs us to
understand -nrcpl afxaprias in a sacrificial sense. But he
much mistook the matter;, for the apostle's subject and
argument in this place do direct us to understand the
expression in the sacrificial sense ; and the phraseology
or expression being so very commonly used in that
sense, there is very special reason, arising from the
subject and argument, for understanding it in that sense
here.

To explain this, let it be observed, that, as hath been
formerly shown, the subject here is making men free
from the dominion of sin, and sanctifying them. Let it
next be observed, that purifying and sanctifying is often
in Scripture connected with the sufferings, death, and
sacrifice of Christ, as the consequence thereof. For
instance (John xvii. 19), For their sakes I sanctify myself
that they also might be sanctified through the truth. More
clearly (Tit. ii. 14), Who gave himself for us, that he mi° lit
redeem us from all iniquity \ and purify unto himself a
peculiar people. More clearly still (Eph. v. 25, 26), Christ
— loved the church, and gave himself for it, that lie might
sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the
word. So likewise 1 Pet. i. 18, 19, Forasmuch as ye know
that ye were not redeemed (iXvTpa>Or]Te) with corruptible

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 38 1

tilings, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation
received by tradition from your fathers, but with the
precious blood of Christ.

Thus the general point is clear, that the Scripture
connects making men free from the dominion of sin,
with Christ's sufferings and sacrifice. More particularly,
the verse preceding our present text, mentions the Spirit
of life in Christ Jesus, as making the Christian free from
the law cf sin. But how cometh the Spirit to sinful men,
the wretched objects of the curse? Of this we are told
(Gal. iii. 13, 14), Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of
the lazv, being made a curse for ?is ; — that we might
receive the promise of the Spirit through faith (that is,
through the gospel, the doctrine of faith ; compare
ver. 25). And thus the gospel becomes the law of the
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus. Having then mentioned
the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, the explaining
of this in our present text evidently required the apostle's
representing Christ as a sacrifice for sin, the condemning
of sin as the consequence thereof, and his procuring the
Spirit of life for freeing men from the slavery of sin,
and sanctifying them. The true sense of the expression
in question is now sufficiently cleared and vindicated,
and it appears that Dr Taylor and Mr Alexander were
very wrong in thinking that there is nothing in the
context or phraseology in this place, which directs us to
understand 7re/n d/xa/aWas in the sacrificial sense.

I had written an essay, to be inserted in this place, on
redemption, against the pernicious notions, explanations,
and reasoning of Dr Taylor ; but have laid it aside, as
too large for this place, though too contracted for the
important subject. Enough has been here said to prove
the true sense of the expression in our text ; and
whether I shall overtake to finish what I have written
and designed on the subject, the Lord knows. If I
should not, there remain many abler friends and asserters
of the truth.

One thing, however, it is fit not to neglect. The
English translators have, in the margin, prefixed the
particle by (and by a sacrifice for sin). It seems they

382 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [Ver. 3

considered the word a/xapria, as signifying by itself a sin-
offering, or sacrifice for sin. So it doth (2 Cor. v. 2),
and the Hebrew word answering to it, is very often in
the Old Testament put for sin-offering. Upon this
view, then, that the substantive noun doth of itself
signify sin-offering, they for the preposition prefixed
translate by. It may, however, be doubted that the use
of the Greek warrants that rendering of the preposition.
There is no need or reason for understanding it so here,
as both the words together, the preposition and the
noun joined in the expression, make so very commonly
the name of the sin-offering. God sent his Son a sacrifice
for sin. By his being subjected to the infirmities of
human nature in this lapsed state, and to the miseries of
this life, he, being in himself perfectly innocent and
guiltless, was so far bearing our sins all along, and was
marked out from the womb as the sacrifice for sin. He
was accordingly, in due time, completely and solemnly
offered up as such. We go on to the following ex-
pression :

Condemned sin. — In general, we must understand this
as corresponding with the subject the apostle means
here to explain, which is, as he had expressed it (ver. 2),
making men free from the law of sin, or relieving them
from its dominion. But it is necessary to give an exact
explication of the words.

I observe, that KaraKplvziv, to condemn (which is the
word here), and Kpwew, to judge, are sometimes in
Scripture used in the same sense ; that is, that the latter
sometimes means the same as the former. For though
the latter word strictly and properly signifies to judge,
yet sometimes it hath a more restricted sense, and
signifies judging favourably, as Ps. xxvii. 1, Kpivov fie (so
the Septuagint), fudge me, 0 Lord ; that is, judge in
my behalf; and so in many other instances. Some-
times it hath the restricted sense of judging unfavourably,
of which there are likewise divers instances. So John
xvi. 11, Of judgment, because the prince of this world is
judged ; that is condemned. The word is to be understood
in the general meaning of judging, or in one or other,

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 383

the favourable, or unfavourable restricted meaning,
according to the scope or circumstances of the par-
ticular passage.

Now I observe, that in the last clause of John xvi. 11,
the prince of this world is judged ; it evidently bears the
unfavourable sense (as I said before) of condemning, as
KaraKpiveiv, in our text : the prince of this world is
condemned. For the meaning of this we may have
recourse to John xii. 31, Now is the judgment of this
"world ; now shall the prince of this world be cast out.
As to the first of these clauses, Dr Whitby's annotation
on it is : " Now shall the men of this world be con-
demned, who believe not in me." But I think the
favourable meaning best suits the place, thus : Now is
judgment in favour of this world, to deliver it from
Satan's delusions and thraldom. Agreeable to this, is
the consequence (ver. 32) that Christ being crucified,
shall draw all men after him ; that is, not only Jews,
who had of a long time been God's peculiar people, but
men of all nations ; as the expression, all men, must be
here understood, and is so explained even by Dr Whitby.
The case was thus : in consequence of Christ's death,
which he had now in near view, judgment was to be
given in favour of the world, and Satan the prince of the
world to be cast out from his throne and dominion, so
that Christ by the gospel would draw men of all nations,
among whom Satan had reigned, to himself. So then,
that Satan the prince of the world is judged (John xvi.
11) means (as John xii. 31) that he is cast out from his
dominion and kingdom.

We have seen what it means, that Satan is judged or
condemned. We are, I think, to understand most reason-
ably the condemning of sin here (Rom. viii. 3) in the
same way ; as sin, with the lusts thereof, is that by
which Satan had ruled in the hearts of men, and in the
world. Sin hath had the dominion in men. It is the
fruit and effect of the death of Christ, and his being
therein a sacrifice for sin (as in our text), that sin is
condemned, and cast out from its dominion over men,
in order to its final and complete destruction. Thus a

384 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. $

judgment in favour of men being passed against sin.
they are made free from the law of sin and death, and
are no longer under its thraldom. This was the thing;
mentioned (ver. 2), which the apostle has explained in
this ver. 3. It is by his being thus made free, that the
Christian hath the liberty, disposition, and power to
maintain such conflict against sin, as is represented in
the latter context of the preceding chapter. That a
person, who expresses so much sorrow with regard to
sin dwel'ing in him, should, by the prevailing disposition
of his soul, yet be adverse to sin, and in conflict with it,
is well accounted for and explained by what we have
here (chap. viii. 2, 3). The last expression of our text
is this :

In the flesh. — What flesh is here meant ? or, in what
flesh is sin condemned ? I take flesh here in its more
general meaning, as signifying human nature. It so
means in this same verse. Christ was sent in the like-
ness of sinful flesh. Here flesh signifies human nature
in general. The corrupt state of human nature is ex-
pressed by the prefixed epithet, sinful. It was by
what Christ suffered in the flesh (in his human
nature, being a sacrifice for sin) that sin came to be
condemned, and to lose its dominion. This hath been
accomplished.

1. With respect to the flesh, or human nature of Christ
himself. The apostle, as was formerly observed, saith
(Rom. v. 21) that sin hath reigned unto death. Men, by
virtue of the law, became obnoxious to death by the
power and reign of sin. Now the greatest instance,
beyond all that ever have been, or ever shall be, of this
power and reign of sin, appeared in the death of the Son
of God, when he put himself in the place and stead of
sinners. But then it is condemned, and by this great
exertion of its reigning power and strength on the Son
of God, it hath lost its power of thus reigning any more,
with respect to him, and his human nature. So the
apostle says (chap. vi. 9), He dieth no more ; death hath
no more dominion over him. If, as Heb. ix. 27, 28, It is
appointed for all men once to die ; so Christ was once offeredy

Ver. 3] of Romans viii. 385

by which the whole power of sin and death over him was
exhausted.

The consequence to his people with regard to the
reign of sin in their bodily part, and as to this effect, is,
that, though according to God's wise constitution it is
appointed for them, as for all men, to die ; yet as to
them death hath not that penalty in it which the sentence
of the law imports ; the sting of sin and the curse of the
law are not in it. There is nothing of the reign of sin in
their death. There is blessing in their death, by virtue
of the grace of the new covenant.

2. Sin is condemned to lose its dominion with respect
to its inherence in the souls of God's people, and the
absolute prevalence it hath had in their hearts and
practice. Though the flesh or human nature, absolutely
and generally expressed, includes the whole human race,
yet here it must be understood with such limitation, as
must reasonably be admitted in many places of Scripture,
in which divine grace, its design and effect, is mentioned
in general terms. Here is an instance (Tit. iii. 4, 5),
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour
toward man appeared — according to his mercy lie saved
us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the
Holy Ghost. In the first clause of these the expression
is general and comprehensive — The love of God toward
man. Yet the effect in view and expressed, the renewing
of the Holy Ghost, is not to all men. So in our present
text, though the expression, — condemned sin in the flesh,
in human nature, is general, it is not meant that the
happy effect takes place in all men universally and
singly.

This second point is certainly the special thing (not
altogether excluding the other}, which must be especially
in the apostle's view here. The matter he is explaining
is the making men free from the law of sin (ver. 2),
which had dominion over them. The condemning of
sin in human nature must respect the ejecting it from
this dominion, and depriving it of its power.

Interpreters do generally think there is in this verse
an ellipsis, a word or two wanting, that must be supplied,

386 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 3

to express fully the sense ; and some supply thus :
What the law could not do, God hath done. But I think
there is scarce any need of supposing such an ellipsis, or
of supplying it. The sense seems to be fully expressed
by the words as they are ; and the construction seems to
be clear and regular without supplying. The verb to
be constructed with the word God, is expressed, God
condemned sin. These words, What the law could not
do, in that it was weak through the flesh, may be con-
sidered as in parenthesis ; or in interpreting by way of
paraphrase, may be transposed to the end of the sentence,
thus : God hath condemned sin — which the lazv could
not do.

The matters contained in this verse are so very
important, and it hath appeared so dark, that very
learned and judicious interpreters have differed widely
about the scope and meaning of it. By all this it
became needful to consider it in the most careful and
exact manner ; and so the explication hath reached to a
considerable length.

Paraphrase — 3. I have represented to you in my
own name, and from my own sad experience, the case of
a true Christian whilst in this life, groaning under sin,
which dwelleth in him ; and in ordinary conflict with it,
in its inward motions. Such a person, as to the general
character of his behaviour, must certainly be one who
walketh not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. A person
so exercised inwardly, and so walking, is certainly not
the slave of sin, or under its dominion. He hath been
made free from its law and ruling power ; as I have told
you, that I have been by the law of the Spirit of life in
Christ Jesus. I come now to explain to you further,
how this happy deliverance from sin's dominion hath
been brought about, and to show you what part a
gracious God, and his ever-blessed Son, have had in this
great change ; which hath been actually effected by the
more immediate operation and influence of the Holy
Spirit. Thus then it is :

God, the blessed Author and original cause of all our
salvation, hath sent his own only-begotten Son in our

Ver. 3] OF ROMANS VIII. 387

nature ; not vested with the dignity, beauty, and vigour
of its first and best state ; but in a humble condition,
partaking in the infirmities that are natural to us in our
lapsed state, and in the common miseries of human life,
which on account of sin we have been subjected to : so
that from his birth, being perfectly innocent himself, he
bore the penal consequences of our sin, and at length, in
due time, became a proper sacrifice for our sin, God
having made him a sin-offering for us. On which
account he hath given forth judgment, as against Satan,
so against sin ; the gracious God, by the sacrifice of his
Son, and through faith in his blood, bringing sinners into
a state of reconciliation and peace with himself; and
under grace, hath condemned sin to be dethroned, and
deprived of the dominion it hath unhappily had in them ;
and so, making them free from its thraldom, he hath put
enmity between them and it, which will end in its com-
plete destruction, and in their complete salvation.

Thus, by the death and sacrifice of Christ, God hath
put an end to that power of sin, by which it reigned unto
death, even over his Son, so that death can have no more
dominion over him, and so that the death of his people
hath nothing of the penal consequence or reign of sin in
it ; and he hath, by the same means, deprived sin of its
dominion in them, by which it hath held them its
servants and slaves ; Christ having, by bearing our
curse, redeemed us from the curse, and made way for
our receiving the blessing of the Spirit through (the
doctrine of) faith, the gospel ; the gospel is thereby
become the law of the Spirit of life, making us free from
the law of sin and death.

This great deliverance from the dominion of sin, and
making us free from it, the law, however contrary to sin,
could not effect ; for as it conveyed not the Spirit, the
flesh (the total corruption of nature so called), and the
power of sin in it, was too strong for the law, with all its
light, authority, promises, and terrors.

Thus have I explained to you what I intimated
(chap. vi. 14), and what might, at first sight, appear a
strange paradox, viz. that persons under the law and its

388 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

curse, are under the dominion of sin, its servants and
slaves ; and that sin shall not have dominion over them,
who, by the sacrifice of the Son of God, by the blood of
his cross, and by faith in his blood, are brought under
grace.

Text — 4. That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled
in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Explication. — The Greek word, SiKcuw^a, admits,
yea, requires, to be somewhat variously understood in
different places. In the plural number SiKcuwyuara
sometimes means the commands of the moral law, and so
it is to be understood in Rom. ii. 26, If the uncircumcisiou
keep the righteousness (Si/couw/xaTu) of the law. The word,
in the singular number, signifies the rule of right taken
in general (saith Mr Locke on the place) ; and the plural
word here (chap. ii. 26), signifies the particular branches
of it contained in the law of Moses, that is, the moral
law of the Mosaic promulgation. In Heb. ix. ir
SiKaitofiaTa Aarpeias, means, as our translation gives it, the
ordinances of divine service.

In the singular number, as in our text, it may be
rendered righteousness, as in our translation, or right
(Jus), as rendered by Beza and the Dutch. It seems to
make little difference in the sense which of the two
words be taken : though I think the latter word suits
the place best, and to render the clause thus : That the
right of the law might be fulfilled, or take its full effect.
Now, the righteousness of the law which it requires, or
the right of the law, is twofold.

[. That sin be punished or expiated according to the
sanction of the law. This right of the law is fulfilled, or
hath taken full effect, in us, by means of Jesus Christ
made a sacrifice for sins, and by means of our union
with him, he being in us, and we in him by faith, — the
righteousness of God in him (2 Cor. v. 21). This Dr
Whitby takes to be the subject of the preceding ver. 3,
and he does not allow it to be in the meaning of this

JVr. 4] OF ROMANS VIII. 389

fourth verse, which he gives thus in his paraphrase :
u That the righteousness of the law 'i.e. the inward purity
and righteousness the law required) might be performed
and fulfilled in and by us, who walk not after the lusts of
the flesh, but after the motions of the Spirit^ Toward
the end of his annotation on this verse, he writes thus :
u Now, these two, viz. freedom from condemnation, and
the vouchsafement of the Spirit, being always connected,
the apostle goes frequently from the one to the other,
first mentioning our freedom from condemnation, then
our walking in the Spirit (vers. 1,2); our freedom from
the guilt of sin by the death of Christ (ver. 3) ; and then
our fulfilling the righteousness of the law bv the Spirit
of Christ " (ver. 4).

I have given good reasons for not understanding
ver. 3, as this writer does ; and have shown that what
the laic' could not do (ver. 3), is not justifying the sinner,
but the making him free from the law of sin and death.
Though the doctor is right in interpreting, tc/h a/iaprias,
as divers critics have done, of Christ's being a sacrifice
for sin, yet, as to the following clause, — condemned sin, —
the learned writer has certainly come short of the
meaning, when he interprets it, in his paraphrase, of
taking away sin's power to condemn us. It hath been
here proved, that, according to the scope of the place,
and the style of Scripture elsewhere, the expression is to
be understood of taking away the dominion which sin
had in us, so that we should be free from its power, and
from being its slaves. The just way, then, of conceiving
the connection and sense of these two verses, is not that
the apostle passes from one subject, oUr freedom from
condemnation (ver. 3), to our fulfilling the righteousness
of the law by the Spirit (ver. 4) ; but having mentioned
(ver. 3) Christ's being a sacrifice for sin (by which we
are freed from condemnation), and also the condemning
of sin to be deprived of its dominion, by which it made
powerful and successful opposition to the law of God ;
he proceeds to give a comprehensive view of the end
and design of the blessed scheme of divine grace (ver. 4),
viz. that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled, or

390 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

that the right of the law might take full effect ; and it
being certainly the right of the law, that the transgression
of it should be punished, as it hath been by Christ's
bearing our sins ; surely there is good reason for
including this in the righteousness, or the right of the
law, in this first clause of ver. 4.

2. It is the right of the law that the authority of its
commandments should be made good and maintained,
and that it should be the rule of life and practice. This
is an unalterable and unalienable right of the law of
God. The Lord could no more dispense with the
authority, holiness, and righteousness of his law, than
he could deny himself. The grace of God manifested
in the gospel is by no means to be conceived as deroga-
tory to this right of the law ; nor can any atonement
for transgressing the law set God's creatures free from
the authority and obligation of his holy commandments.
Divine grace, and the expiation made by Christ, are
wholly calculated for establishing the law, even in this
view, and for giving it full effect.

We have seen that Dr Whitby would allow this ver. 4
only to mean that righteousness of the law which
Christians perform by the Spirit, walking according
thereto. Some other very learned persons will have
this verse to respect only that right of the law I have
first mentioned, which hath been fulfilled in Christ's
bearing our sins, and in us by the application thereof to
us ; and will not, by any means, allow that sanctifkation
and holy practice is included in the righteousness of the
law here mentioned, as to be fulfilled in us. Thus
Wolfius (a learned Lutheran divine) says on the text,
that this phrase, ev rjfiw, in us, hath by no means any
respect to the obedience to the law to be performed by
us, but, to the satisfaction given by Christ as an ex-
piatory sacrifice, without us, and for us. He adds, if
the apostle had meant the demand of the law to be
performed by us, his expression would not have been
6v tJ/xu/, in us, but such as behoved to be rendered, /^r
nos, or a nobis, by us. This argument seems not to
amount to much. As our obedience to the law in actual

Ver. 4] OF KOMA.VS VIII. 39 1

and active practice is the immediate and certain conse-
quence of making us free from the dominion of sin, and
the sanctifying of our nature and heart, which are effects
produced by divine grace in us, it is but reasonable to
include in the meaning of the right, or righteousness of
the law to be fulfilled in us, our conformity to that law
in holiness : as the general scope of the apostle's dis-
course requires that the words be so understood.

Dr Guise, in his note on this verse, says : " We can-
not be properly said to fulfil the righteousness of the
law by our own imperfect (though sincere) obedience
to its precepts ; much less to give satisfaction to its
threatenings, both of which go into the righteousness
that a broken law demands." These sentiments of the
judicious and worthy writer are quite just. But the
interpretation here offered doth not make the words to
mean, that the right of the law takes full effect, or that
the righteousness of the law is fulfilled by the imperfect,
though sincere, obedience of any Christian in this life.
This seems, indeed, to be Dr Whitby's opinion. But,
however, the true believer being, and continuing to be,
in union with Christ, and in a justified state through
faith, both himself and his sincere (though imperfect)
services are graciously accepted, yet to say, that the
righteousness of the law is fulfilled by this imperfect
obedience, is evidently absurd, and amounts to no less
than a contradiction in terms. For imperfect obedience
is an obedience that comes short of what the law
requires ; if it did not, it would be perfect obedience.
Now, to say that the righteousness of the law is fulfilled
by an obedience that falls short of what the law require-,
is evident contradiction.

On the other hand, though it be allowed that both
the active and passive perfect obedience of Christ was
necessary, in order to the sinner's being not only freed
from condemnation, but also being received into a state
of adoption, — an heir of eternal life, and of the heavenly
inheritance ; yet still the right of the law subsists as to
the demand of perfect obedience and conformity on the
part of them who are in a justified state, and under

392 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. \

grace. If, sincerely aiming at walking in the light, they
fall short and sin, it is happy for them, that the blood
of Jesus Christ (i John i. 7) cleanses them from and
takes away their sin. But there would be no need of
this to persons in a state of grace, if the right of the law
to require perfect obedience did not still subsist with
respect to them. But it is the design of divine grace
to bring God's people to a state wherein the righteous-
ness which the law hath right to require, shall be ful-
filled in the perfect obedience and conformity of these
objects of grace. The text doth not say, that it is ful-
filled in their walking, in this state of imperfection, not
after the flesh, but after the Spirit. But as (ver. 1) it
was given as the mark of them who are truly in Christ
Jesus, and made free from condemnation, that they so
walk ; so here (ver. 4), as to them in whom divine grace
hath purposed that the right of the law shall take full
effect, or the righteousness of it be fulfilled, on the one
hand, by the fulfilment thereof by their blessed Surety
in their stead and behalf, and on the other, by their own
personal perfect conformity thereto at last; it is again
given as their distinguishing mark and characteristic, even
in this life, that they walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit. Their so walking, though with much imper-
fection, is the sure mark of them in whom the righteous-
ness of the law will sometime be fulfilled, in their
perfect conformity thereto in holiness. The apostle's
mentioning here again this very distinguishing mark,
gives him occasion to pass to these doctrines and ex-
plications concerning the flesh and the Spirit, which are
presented in the following context, which hath not fallen
within my design to explain in this work.

With respect to the explication here given of ver. 4,
I subjoin the following passage of Paranis.

" In explicatione dubiorum in cap. 8 ad Romanos ; et
in responsione ad dubium quartum, ex versu quarto.

" Est autem jus legis duplex, 1. Condemnandi et
puniendi peccatores. 2. Post paenam, si, emerserint,
rursus exigendi perfectam obedientiam. — Significaturergo
geminus mortis Christi effectus in nobis; justificatio et

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VIIL 393

sanctificatio. Per illud impletur jus lc^is in nobis im-
putatione — per istam lex impletur in nobis inchoatione

— hrcc inchoata obedientia perfecta dici potest, perfectione
partium — perfecte vero implebitur in nobis quando id
quod est ex parte cessabit" It is needless to translate
this passage, as I have given the sense of it largely in
the explication of this verse 4, immediately preceding,
which it appears is not new, as the same hath been given
long ago by this eminent divine

Before we conclude our explication of this fourth verse
with the paraphrase of it, it is fit that from what we have
seen in this context, we observe what hath been the
design, and what the real consequence of the wonderful
grace of God, the Father, of his Son Jesus Christ, and of
the Holy Spirit, with regard to the holy, just, and good
law of God. This is the more to be adverted to, that the
most true and just account of the doctrine of grace hath
been considered and represented by some, as derogating
from the honour and authority of the law. But if the
apostle has proved that the law cannot justify any man,
this reflects no dishonour on the law. man having trans-
gressed. In this case it became the law, not to justify,
but to assign just punishment. The honour and authority
of the law required this.

He hath also proved, that the law cannot sanctify a
sinner. But this is owing to the pravity and perverse-
ness of men's nature, in which sin, with its various lusts,
hath dominion, not to the defect of any thing that should
be in the law, which marks out to men perfectly their
duty, with a sanction of suitable promise and threatening.

Surely there is no honour given to the law by those
proud zealots of the law, who think by their own righteous-
ness, doing in some poor sort what it was at anvrate and
ever their duty to do perfectly, that they can cover the
defects of their obedience to the law, and make the trans-
gression of it pass for nothing.

Nor do they give honour either to grace or to the law,
who suppose that the grace of the new covenant hath
made abatement of the holiness required by the law, and
hath substituted sincere, though imperfect obedience, m

394 EXPLICATION AND PARAPHRASE [ Ver. 4

the place of the perfect obedience which the law hath
originally and ever required. Grace hath provided much
otherwise for the comfort and salvation of sinners, and
for the honour of the law. The righteousness of the law
must at anyrate be fulfilled in us, and its right have full
effect.

If they who give full scope to their lusts, in the
indulgence and gratification of them, do offer dishonour
to the law of God, some noisy and pretending zealots of
the law, and of good works, come into the next class to
those for offering dishonour and disgrace to the perfectly
holy and righteous law of God.

If sinful man was to be saved, it did not fall to the
part of the law to produce the great effect. It could not
possibly be effected but by grace : and the sinner is
justified by grace through faith, not by the law or by his
works. He is, at the same time, made free from the
dominion of sin in him, not by the law properly so called,
but by the gospel, as it is the law of the Spirit of life ;
and by the sanctification of the Spirit is he made holy ;
and all this of the most free and abounding grace. But
we proceed to the

Paraphrase. — 4. The divine scheme and method of
grace effects and accomplishes the salvation of God's
people in a way highly honourable to the law. Grace
frees from condemnation and justifies them through the
redemption that is in Christ, and by his blood, and by
his having become a sacrifice for sin : God, as from infinite
love to his people, so from infinite regard to his righteous
law, not sparing his own Son, when he was substituted
in their stead to bear the punishment of their sin : and
thus the right of the law, with respect to the punishment
of transgression, hath taken full effect, for the redemption
of the transgressors, in a manner most honourable to the
law, and to its authority, and hath taken effect in them
by virtue of their union with Christ, and their being the
righteousness of God in him.

God's people being thus brought under grace, sin
cannot have dominion in them. Being made free from
the curse of the righteous law, sin is at the same time

Ver. 4] OF ROMANS VIII. 395

deprived, by a just sentence of condemnation, of its
dominion ; they are blessed with the Spirit ; by him
they are made free from the law of sin ; and being
sanctified, they are advanced in holiness from one degree
to another, until at length they are perfected therein.
Nor doth grace bring its blessed objects to the perfection
of bliss and happiness, but at the same time that it brings
them to the perfection of obedience to the authority of
the law, and to perfect conformity to its holiness ; and
thus the right of the law taketh full effect in them, as to
all its demand of punishment, or of obedience and con-
formity. Thus, if from the law there arose a necessity,
for the saving of sinners, of the most rich and abounding
grace, grace doth save them in such way as not to make
void the law, but to establish it. The hoi)' divine law and
divine grace reflect glory ; the one upon the other
reciprocally ; and both will shine forth with joint glory
eternally in heaven. The law setting forth, in the
brightest light, the beauty of holiness, and the vileness
and fearful demerit of sin, will show the abounding
grace that hath brought the children of wrath thither,
with infinite lustre and glory ; and grace will do honour
to the law, by showing in sinners, formerly very vile and
polluted, the purity and holiness of the law full)'
exemplified in their perfect sanctification ; and Christ,
the Lamb that was slain, by whom the interests of the
law and of grace have been happily reconciled and
inseparably united, will be glorified in his saints, and
admired in them who believe.

We, in whom the righteousness of the law doth
already take place in a good degree, and in whom it
shall be completely fulfilled hereafter, being such as are
distinguished, in this life, by walking, not after the flesh
(which is not subject to the law of God), in the grosser
gratification of its lusts, or in the more refined way of
a slavish, mercenary, self-exalting, carnal religion ; but
after the Spirit, who writes the law, with its authority
and holiness, in our hearts, enabling us to mortify fleshly
lusts, and to serve God in newness of life, under his
influence ; who is not a spirit of fear, but of power, of

396 EXPLICATION OF ROMANS VIII. [ Ver. 4

love, and of a sound mind ; we having, according to the
necessity of our state of imperfection, the blood of Jesus
to cleanse us from all sin ; even that blood, in the
shedding of which the right of the law did so remark-
ably take effect, and by the daily and constant application
whereof to us, the right of the law takes effect, and its
righteousness is fulfilled in us.

APPENDIX

WHEREIN THE APOSTLES DOCTRINE, PRINCIPLES, .\Nl>
REASONING, ARE APPLIED TO THE PURPOSES OF
HOLY PRACTICE, AND OF EVANGELICAL PREACHING.

SECT. I. — Containing a Recapitulation of the Apostle's Doctrines
and Principles in the context before explained.

HAVING searched carefully into the scope of this context,
and the meaning of the particular parts thereof, it now
appears very clearly, that the apostle's design is, therein
to set forth and explain the gospel doctrine of sanctifica-
tion. This subject he keeps all along in view, until he
doth, in the first four verses of chap. viii. give the
summary of all the doctrines and explications contained
in the two preceding chapters concerning it. In the
course of his reasoning, he labours carefully to show the
different condition of persons under the law, and of those
under grace, with regard to sin and the practice of
holiness.

Divers interpreters have, by being under the law or
under grace, understood being under the Mosaic law, <>r
under the grace of the gospel-dispensation ; and that the
apostle's view and purpose is, to show to believers who
were of the Gentiles, that they were free from the obliga-
tion of that law, had no need of it, nor had any disadvan-
tage by not being subjected to it ; and to convince
those believers who were of the Jews, that they acted
contrary to their real, and most valuable interest, by

398 RECAPITULATION OF APOSTLE 'S DOCTRINE

their attachment to the Mosaic law, now that God did
set even them also free from its obligation.

Enough hath been said to disprove this interpretation ;
and it hath been shown, that we have no reason to think
the apostle means by the law in this discourse, any other
law than that which all men have been concerned with.
To say, that by being under the Mosaic law, persons
were under the dominion of sin (mentioned chap. vi. 14)
were extremely unreasonable. True believers, the
spiritual seed of Abraham, were, during the Old Testa-
ment, under grace ; and the case of millions proves, that
men may be under the New Testament dispensation of
grace, and not be under grace as to the real state of
their souls, nor made free from the dominion of sin.
But referring for these things to what hath been said in
the proper places, we find with the apostle in this context,
these important matters : —

1. To be under the law, and to be married or united
to Christ, are conditions of men that are incompatible.
Persons become dead to (free from) trie law (chap. vii. 4),
that they may be married to another, even to him who
is raised from the dead.

2. Persons under the law, not married to Christ, are
incapable (while in that state) of bringing forth fruit unto
God. Persons not delivered from the law, are (ver. 6)
incapable of serving in newness of spirit. What accounts
for this is,

3. That whilst persons are under the law, they are
(chap. vii. 5) in the flesh, under the power and prevalence
of natural corruption ; being (chap. viii. 9) destitute of
the Spirit, which cometh not by the law (Gal. iii. 2). So
that they who are under the law, in the flesh, cannot
please God, cannot do what is acceptable to God
(Rom. viii. 8).

4. In this state, the law, with its whole force directed
against sin, yet doth not subdue sin. Instead of that,
there are in men in the flesh, under the law, motions of
sins by the law (chap. vii. 5, and ver. 8). Sin taking
occasion by the commandment, and thereby awakened,
worketh in a man all manner of concupiscence. Hence,

IN THE CONTEXT BEFORE EXPLAINED 399

5. Sinners under the law, and in the flesh, are under
the dominion of sin, its servants and slaves (chap. vi.
14, 17, 20), unable by any powers of their own to deliver
themselves from that slavery, or from under that
dominion. The notion of dominion and slavery imports
no less.

6. It is Christ who maketh a sinner free from this
slavery, and from the dominion of sin. Whosoever
committeth sin is (John viii. 34) tlie servant of sin. So
here (chap vi. 16), To whom men yield themselves servants
to obey, his servants they are to whom they obey. But
(John viii. 36), They whom the Son shall make free, shall
be free indeed. The apostle's discourse explains this
general matter by the following particulars.

7. Sinners owe their being made free from sin, or being
dead to sin, to the death of Christ, and to their fellow-
ship with him in his death, and in the benefits and fruits
thereof, which is exhibited and sealed to Christians in
their baptism (chap. vi. 3, 4). For,

8. Christ, in his death, was a sacrifice for sin (chap,
viii. 3). And as this was not for his own sin, but for the
sins of his people, the law which denounced death to
sinners in its righteous sanction, is satisfied in their
behalf, by his death. So,

9. Christians are redeemed from the curse of the law
(Gal. iii. 13) by Christ's being made a curse for them;
and, as here (chap. vii. 4), they are dead to (made free
from) the law, and the death and fearful curse it
denounces, by the body of Christ crucified. If sin, by
virtue of the law which gave it that strength, hath
reigned unto death, Christ, coming in our place and
stead, did become subject to that reign of sin. But by
his death (chap. vi. 10) he died unto sin, and so became
free from that reign of sin unto death ; and therefore it
is (as ver. 9) that he dietli no more — death hath no more
dominion over him ; in consequence of which, .believers
should reckon themselves to be dead INDEED unto sin
(ver. 11). So that now their death is not by the reign of
sin, nor is the sting of it in their death.

10. The consequence of Christ's becoming a sacrifice

400 RECAPITULATION OF APOSTLES DOCTRINE

for sin is, likewise, that God hath condemned sin to be
dethroned and deprived of the dominion it hath had in
his people (chap. viii. 3).

11. This judgment and condemnation is executed by
the gospel conveying the Holy Spirit into the souls of
God's people, and so becoming the law of the Spirit of
life (in or through) Jesus Christ, making them free from
the law and dominion of sin and death.

12. Thus sinners, being justified through faith in Jesus
Christ, even through faith in his blood (Rom. iii. 24, 25),
and sanctified by being born of the Spirit (John iii. 5 ;
2 Thess. ii. 13), they pass from death to life ; from being
under wrath and the curse of the law, to be under grace
(Rom. v. 1, 2). And so sin shall not have dominion over
them, according to chap. vi. 14.

13. Yet, whilst they continue in this life, sin remaining
in them will give them trouble, and they will be ever in
such danger of hurt by it, that their case will require
constant fear, watchfulness, and conflict. But whilst, by
their groaning for sin that dwelleth in them, and their
conflict against it, they prove that they are not its
slaves, nor under its dominion, they have, at the same
time, cause to thank God through Jesus Christ, as for
making them free from its dominion, so for the sure
prospect of being hereafter perfectly delivered from it.

14. Christians having sorrow or serious regret for sin
in them, and being in earnest conflict with the law in
their members, with the lusts, and irregular passions, and
inordinate affections of the flesh, their way of walking
cannot (as to their ordinary and habitual course) be after
the flesh ; nor can they be the slaves of sin ; but being
made free from sin, and become servants to God (chap,
vi. 22), they walk after the Spirit, have their fruit unto
holiness (which is the necessary and certain characteristic
of the true Christian), and the end everlasting life; to
which end and final issue holiness is indispensably
necessary — though, however necessary, yet eternal life is
not proper wages which men win by their holiness, but
is the gift of God through Jesus Christ.

THE ADVANTAGE OE BEING UNDER GRACE. 4OI

SECT. II. — Showing the advantage, with regard to holiness, that
ariseth from persons being under grace.

The advantage to sinners, with regard to holiness, is
either such as is, in some sort, extrinsic, arising from the
blessed privilege and benefits of a state of grace ; or such
as ariseth from genuine principles of holiness, and of
holy practice in the souls of those who are under grace,
that cannot have place or operate in any who are not so.

To explain the advantage, with regard to holiness and
holy practice that is in some sort extrinsic, arising from
the privilege of a state of grace, let the following matters
be considered.

1. When men, by their guiltiness, were under the curse
of God's law, this withheld from them these blessings
and favourable influences of heaven, by which their souls,
being made good soil, might become fruitful in holiness
and good works. As the earth, when the curse seized it,
was to produce naturally thorns and thistles, so the
hearts of persons under the law and its curse, do produce
no fruit truly good and acceptable. Men being in the
flesh, in an unjustified state, and sin having the dominion
over them, Satan hath ruled in them, and by means of
sin, and the lusts thereof, he hath wrought effectually in
them. But it will not be so with them who are under
grace, in a state of favour with God. These enemies may
infest, but shall not have the dominion over them. The
virtue of Christ's death having reached them in their
being born of God, and in their gratuitous justification,
sin is condemned to lose its rule in them ; the prince of
this world is judged and cast out. If it is comfortable
in relation to our outward enemies, it is especially
with respect to our invisible and spiritual enemies, as
Rom. viii. 31, If God be for us, who can be against us?

Christians being justified by faith and under grace,
this, as hath been hinted above, opens to them the
treasures of heavenly blessings. The God and Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ (now become their God and
Father through him) blesseth them (as Eph. i. 3) with

2 C

402 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ. This
must have much sanctifying effect. Particularly and
especially having been born of the Spirit, justified, and
brought into a state of grace, God giveth them His Spirit
to dwell in them (chap. viii. 9), and they are sealed by
the Spirit unto the day of redemption. Formerly Satan
wrought in them by means of the blindness and errors
of their mind, and by means of the various lusts that
prevail in their unrenewed hearts. But now the strong
man is despoiled of his armour, the curse of the law,
and sin dominant in them ; and he hath not the ad-
vantage over them that he hath formerly had. Being
renewed in the spirits of their minds, and having the
Holy Spirit dwelling in them, he doth direct and rule
their renewed faculties for the advancement of their
sanctification. His more special reproofs and consola-
tions, his humbling and quickening influences, he
measures variously to them, with infinite wisdom, in
the manner most proper for further subduing sin, and
promoting holiness. Dwelling in them, and being in
them as a well of water springing up unto everlasting
life, he will be in them an effectual principle of spiritual
and heavenly desires and pursuits, and a true source of
holiness, — a principle effectually directing and disposing
them to walk after the Spirit.

2. By reason of the influence of the Spirit thus dwell-
ing in them who are under grace, and entitled to the
comforts of it, they will find their comfort much concerned
in holy living and practice. The comfort of Christians
arises from objects which, however agreeable to right
reason when revealed, yet are above the reach of reason
to discover, and are not suitable to the principles and
disposition natural to the hearts of men ; such objects as
eye hath, not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath entered
into the heart of man. So the apostle says concerning
the doctrine of Christ and of grace ( 1 Cor. ii. 9) : As we
need the Spirit that is of God (ver. 12), that we may
know the things that are freely given us of God ; so to
maintain usually, and with advantage, the comfort of our
heart on such grounds, requires the ordinary and favour-

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 403

able influence of the same Spirit of grace. But, as sin
indulged and entertained in the heart, or having course
in men's speech and behaviour, grieveth the Holy Spirit
(as the apostle speaks, Eph. iv. 30), the consequence will
be, that he shall withhold his favourable influence, and
leave them to that sense of condemnation that is natural
to the hearts of the guilty, and to the darkness of mind
and inward frame that naturally flows from it. In this
case the reasoning of their own minds, however just, will
have but very weak influence or effect for recovering
their peace, and for enabling them to overcome the
temptations which the enemy of their peace and comfort
will in such cases be ever ready to suggest. Now, as the
peace and comfort of his mind from grace is a very
important interest of every one who is under grace,
the connection between holiness and comfort by the
influence of the Holy Spirit, which I have been repre-
senting, is a constant and most cogent reason to every
such person to be watchful against sin, and earnestly
studious of holiness.

3. Holiness is greatly promoted by the advantage
which persons under grace have in worship. Divine
worship, inward and outward, public and private, makes
of itself a considerable branch of holy practice ; and
when it is followed out with good conscience, sincerity,
and success, hath much good effect in all the course
of holy practice and good works. One under grace
approaches God in worship with great advantage. I
observe this connection in the apostle's words (Heb. ix.
14 , where he represents the blood of Christ as purging
the conscience from dead works, to serve [Xarpefeiv] the
living God. When the conscience unpurged lieth under
guilt and condemnation, one is greatly at a loss in serv-
ing and worshipping God. But when one is justified,
brought under grace, and hath his conscience purged
from guilt and condemnation, he may approach and
worship God with confidence and comfort. Godly
persons under the Old Testament, however truly under
grace, had not this benefit in so great a degree as now
under the New Testament, when grace is more fully

404 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS

displayed, and the Spirit given in greater than ordinary
measure. Now all believers are priests, with respect to
the privilege of near approach unto God. Yea (which
exhibits the matter in a still stronger light), whereas
anciently the high priest only went into the most holy
place, in near approach to God's throne, the mercy-seat ;
now all believers have boldness to enter into the holiest
by the blood of Jesus, through the vail that was rent, —
that is to say, his flesh, and to come up as to God's very
throne of grace. Believers have, according to Eph. iii. 12,
boldness, or liberty (in opposition to bondage of spirit)
and access with confidence, by the faith of him. This
makes the worship of God comfortable. When the Spirit
helpeth our infirmity in such holy exercise, making inter-
cession for us, according to the will of God, and likewise
in return intimates, in due time and measure, the love,
mercy, and favour of God to the heart, this further
engages the heart to God, which is of itself the further
sanctifying of it, and gives great alacrity and vigour in
walking with God, and in all good works. When in
worship God gives inwardly the sense of his favour, and
the light of his countenance, or when he gives in outward
providence proofs of his faithfulness, mercy, and care, in
consequence of earnest recourse to him, and as in answer
to prayer, it powerfully disposes the heart to say (as
Ps. cxvi. i, 2), I love the Lord, because he hath heard my
voice, and my supplications. Because he hath inclined his
ear unto me, therefore will I call upon him as long as I
live. And ver. 9, / will walk before the Lord in the laud
of the living. And ver. 12, What shall I render unto the
Lord? Such is the good consequence of comfortable and
successful recourse to God in worship. It is easy to
understand what happy effect this sort of intercourse
with God must have in all holy practice, and in walking
with God. Thus they who are under grace have the
strongest engagements, and the greatest excitements to
holy living, by the advantage which they comfortably
have, in their intercourse with God in worship, beyond
what men can have who are under the law and its
condemnation.

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 405

4. The grace they are under cloth especially give
efficacy to the doctrine of the word of the gospel, to
every part of the word of God, and to all divine
institutions, as the chief ordinary means of promoting
holiness. The prayer of the great Intercessor, that God
miglit sanctify them through his truth, will have effect
upon all his true disciples. The light of God's word
doth mark out to them, in every part, the way in which
they ought to walk ; and giveth them instruction in
righteousness. God's Spirit bringeth his holy command-
ments and righteous judgments into their renewed
hearts, in such a manner as makes them sweeter to them
than honey — than the honey-comb. By God's word
they receive seasonable and apposite correction and
reproof, agreeably seasoned with the love of their best
friend. If the threatenings of it are made useful for
curbing the rebelliousness and wickedness of the flesh,
the promises and comforts of it are especially made
useful for strengthening and quickening the principles of
grace, and for making them active in all fruits of holiness.
The good hope through grace which God's word holds
forth before them, is made effectual for raising them
above the world, and making them victorious over the
terrifying and alluring temptations of it, and for en-
couraging- them to be steadfast and immovable, alwavs
abounding in the work of the Lord. The securities of
God's promises give vigour to their hearts in walking
with God, and in maintaining the Christian warfare
against sin inwardly, and outwardly also ; even if there
should be occasion to resist unto blood, striving against
sin. If we observe how it happens as to them who are
yet in an unconverted state, and under the curse, whilst
they are under the same dropping of the word of God,
usually with little effect ; we have occasion to say, it is
happy, with a view to the sanctifying effect of the truth,
for one to be under grace, as to his real state before
God.

5. The grace which God's people, freely justified, are
under, will direct everything in an effectual tendency to
their sanctification and furtherance in holiness. It will

406 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

give that direction to all providential dispensations. If
these be favourable, it will be for encouraging and
strengthening them in the Lord's ways. For sometimes
they are encouraged to serve the Lord their God with
joyfulness and gladness of heart, in the abundance of all
things* If they have the cross to bear, that will tend
to make the fruits of the cross of Christ the more
precious to them ; to take off their hearts from the
world ; to preserve them from the prevailing evils of it ;
and for that end, to co-operate with divine grace to
mortify their members that are upon the earth ; to cause
the consolations of grace have the better relish in their
hearts ; to humble them, and keep them in the greater
dependence on the Lord and on his grace.

Nor are strokes and crosses dispensed to them in-
discriminately. The Lord corrects them in judgment,
not in mere anger. t In measure when it shooteth
forth, doth he debate with it ; he stayeth his rough wind
in the day of the east wind.; Judgments are not pro-
portioned to the demerits of those who are under grace,
but are suited to their strength, and the good purposes
to be accomplished by them. God is faithful, and will
not suffer that the objects of his grace and special
favour be tempted above that they are able.§ If they
are chastened, it is in order to separate them from their
sins. The declared intention of all God's chastisements
is the profit of his children, that thereby they may be
made partakers of his holiness.]] If there is special
danger from a particular lust of the flesh (for instance,
from pride, or being exalted above measure), the Lord
.knoweth how to give some special trial or thorn in the
flesh, to prevent its operation and effect. If the flesh
breaks forth in evil works, he will visit their transgres-
sion with • the rod, and their iniquity with stripes.^I .
When the Lord sees that, through their weakness and
the greatness of their distress and trouble, they are in
clanger to fail in their faith, or in their general integrity,

* Deut. xxviii. 47. t Jcr. x. 24. X Isa. xxvii. 8.
§ 1 Cor. x. 13. lleb. xii. 10. % Ps. lxxxix. 32.

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 407

he will relieve them by a seasonable interposition of his
providence. — He repentetli himself for his servants, when
he seeth that their power is gone* If, through their un-
watchfulness, the flesh and the devil prevail against
them, and they fall into grievous sins (the leaving them
to which is the most fearful of all providential dispensa-
tions), yet divine grace, wisdom, and omnipotence, will
make even this to contribute, as to making them more
humble, so to the making them more circumspect and
holy in all their ways ; as we have cause to think con-
cerning David and divers other saints. What wonder
of grace this ! Such is the direction which the grace
they are under gives to every sort of providences re-
specting God's people, causing all things co-operate with
grace for good to them, sanctifying all dispensations to
them, to be the means of sanctifying them. How
different the case of men of the world, who, though
under an external dispensation of grace, yet are not
under grace as to the real state of their souls !

6. The habitual view and impression of the great day
of the Lord must give great excitement to watchfulness
against sin and temptation, to holiness and fruitfulness
in good works. But to them who are under condemna-
tion, the thoughts of that day bring so great terror,
as tends to turn away their mind from the view of it ;
or, if they cannot do so, to give them such alarm and
confusion, as bring distress and perplexity upon them,
with so much weakness as is prejudicial to holiness.
But a soul truly converted to God, justified and under
grace, has cause to think of that day with great comfort ;
looking for the grace that is to be brought unto him at
the revelation of Jesus Christ,! which will bring him
complete deliverance from sin, redemption from misery
and death, with the consummation of holiness and happi-
ness. He may with confidence wait for the Son of God
from heaven, whom God raised from the dead, even
Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to comet
Such is the advantage of being under grace, whereby

+ r Pet. i. T3. X 1 Thess. i. 10.

408 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

a Christian, delivered from the wrath to come, may fix
his mind on that day with peace and comfort ; excited
by the hope he hath in Christ Jesus against that day,
to purify himself as he is pure ; * while there remain
to be considered, consistently with the consolations of
grace, those awful circumstances of the coming of the
Lord, that may, though without confusion or amazement,
awaken in the Christian the utmost concern, to be found
of him in peace, without spot and blameless.t

7. As the people of God are the purchase of Christ's
blood, so when his blood is actually applied to them,
and they are justified and brought under grace, they are
from thenceforth his most special charge, committed to
himself to rule and preserve them, and complete their
salvation. He is sufficient for the charge, and faithful
in the execution of it. He doth fulfil the will of his
Father, of which he saith (John vi. 39), This is the will
of him that sent me, that of all which he hath given
me, 1 should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at
the last day. With a view to this important charge of
its happy objects, which divine grace commits to the
Redeemer, all things are delivered to him of his Father,
who hath given him power over all flesh, that he should
give eternal life to as many as he hath given him.j All
power is given him in heaven and in earth ; § and it is
given him to be Head over all things to the Church.||
The Captain of our salvation, infinitely powerful in
himself, and mighty to save, being furnished with such
extensive power in his mediatory character for bringing
many sons unto glory, the great work he hath to do
upon them, upon his church, is, that he may sanctify and
cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that
he may present it to himself a glorious church I % It is
when all. his church shall be gathered in, and fully
sanctified, that he shall bring them home to God (his
and their Father), to be perfectly happy in the im-
mediate fruition of him — when God himself shall be

* 1 John iii. 3. t 2 Pet. ii. 14. $ John xvii. 2.

§ Matt, xxviii. 18. II Eph i. 22. H Eph. v. 26, 27.

ARIS1XG FROM RERSOXS BEIXG LXDER GRACE 409

to his people eternally all in all* Thus the sancti-
fication of believers is insured by their being given in
charge, for that purpose, to him who died for them, and
rose again.

He is the great Shepherd of the sheep, who saith (John
x. 28), They shall never perish^ neither shall any pluck them
out of my Jiand. Is this merely, that the enemy cannot
pluck them by force out of the hands of Christ or of his
Father? Surely this is not the way in which the enemy
chiefly attempts to work against Omnipotence. " But
this maybe done" (saith a learned writer. Dr Whitby)
" by deceit and allurements, through the negligence of
men who have the freedom of their wills ; for such men
who, by the allurements of the world, the flesh, and the
devil, thus cease to obey Christ's laws, are not snatched
out of Christ's hands, but choose to go from him." But
if souls may, in this way, be brought away from Christ,
and from His ways, to perdition (as this is the way in
which the enemy doth ever attempt it, even by allure-
ments or terrors, or some means or other of deceiving,
to gain their will), is not this snatching them out of
Christ's hands? And if, through the cunning of the
enemy, and their wandering disposition, the sheep are
brought aside from their pasture and from the right way,
and finally perish, alas ! what a small matter doth the
care of the great Shepherd amount to? If one might
perish by these means, and by the choice ol their own
will, however influenced, might not all ? and so this great
Shepherd have no flock to bring home to the fold in the
end of the day; and Christ, having died for his church,
that he might sanctify it, and present it a glorious
church, in the end have no church to present? Can we
not hold what is just concerning the liberty of human
will, without holding concerning it what would make it
possible that the Son of God should have no work to do
at his glorious second coming, but to execute eternal
vengeance upon them all whom, when he came first, he
redeemed with his blood? Surely the divine council of

* 1 Cor. xv. 28.

410 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

grace, and the death of the Son of God, have been
contrived by infinite wisdom with greater certainty
of effect.

8. It appears, then, that the Lord's people have very
great advantage with regard to sanctification and the
preserving them in holiness, by their being under grace.
But, further, this is secured by a sure covenant. The
grace they are under is the grace of the new covenant.
If we consider, that man, in his first and perfect state,
did fall from God through the temptation of the enemy,
and his abuse of the freedom of his own will — if we
consider what place and strength sin retains now in the
hearts of the best whilst in this life, how weak they arey
and what innumerable snares and temptations they are
surrounded with — we may venture to say, that it were
not becoming the wisdom of God to make a new display
of his grace to such creatures, in a new covenant, without
ordering it so as would secure the effect of grace. It
becomes us, indeed, to reason modestly concerning the
wisdom of God, and what becometh it. But with regard
to the present subject, we may thus reason the more
confidently, that his word hath declared his new and
second covenant to be everlasting, well ordered, and sure.

Here is the sum of it, as the Lord hath given it forth
(Jer. xxxii. 40), / will make an everlasting covenant with
tli em, tli at I will not turn away from them (Heb. from
after them) to do them good ; but I will put my fear in
their hearts, that they shall not depart from me. Here,
besides the general declaration, that the covenant will be
everlasting, the Lord doth more particularly describe
how it shall become so. Upon the one hand, he promises
that he will not turn away from after them to do them
good. Thus he expresses and promises his constant
care of them. As they are, whilst in this life, but as
children learning to walk, and still in danger of stumbling,
he will set them before him — he will follow after them,
to observe them, to care for them. Thus the Psalmist
(Ps. xli. 12) : As for me, saith he, thou upholdest me in
mine integrity, and adds for comfortable explaining this,
Thou settest me before thy face for ever. As if he had

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 4II

said, I am ever before thy face — under thine eye, to be
seasonably corrected and helped by thee ; and thus it is
that thou upholdest me in mine integrity. Thus also
(Gen. xvii. 1), The Lord said unto A brain, I am the
Almighty God ; walk before me and be thou perfect.
Here there is a hint to him of being careful to be
perfect, or upright and sincere, as walking before an
all-seeing God. Yet God's omniscience is only implied,
not expressed. The thing expressed is God's being
almighty ; and the encouragement meant we may
conceive thus : When I have engaged thee to walk
in my way, have good courage ; consider thyself as a
child walking before, and under the eye of a kind father;
consider me as ever after thee, to observe and care for
thee, to assist, support, and protect thee. Thus the
Lord promises (Jer. xxxii. 40) that he will not turn from
after his people, to do them good.

The only thing, then, that can be imagined to deprive
them of the benefit of this divine care and grace, is, that
they should depart from the Lord, and from his ways,
and so refuse his care, resist it, and withdraw themselves
from it. But this is provided against by the promise,
/ will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart
from me. If the tenor of the covenant were thus : I will
not cease to do them good, on condition that they cleave
to me, obey me, and not depart from me ; if, I say, the
covenant amounted to no more than this, it would be
a law-covenant, even if there should be some abatement
in the condition, in condescension to human infirmity.
Whereas the covenant of grace is a covenant of promise,
that gives security, by mere grace, on all hands, with
regard to the sanctification of God's people, and their
preservation in a state and course of holiness, to their
final salvation. The right inheritance is not by the law,
or by works. For if they which are of the law be heirs,
faith is made void, and the promise made of none effect.
Tlierefore it is of faith, that it might be by GRACE, to the
end the PROMISE might be SURE to all the seed (Rom. iv.
H, 16). .

But is it not true, if the Christian should wholly and

412 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

finally depart from God, that this would deprive him of
all the benefit of grace ? I answer, This hypothetic pro-
position is of undoubted truth ; yea, the truth of it is
implied and pre-supposed in the promise itself, which is
likewise of certain and infallible truth, — / will put my
fear in their hearts, that they SHALL NOT depart from me.

But how can it be consistent with that freedom of will
that is essential to moral agency, that the sanctification
and perseverance in holiness of God's people should be
thus previously secured by grace, and by the promise ?

Answer. It is acknowledged that none can be called
moral agents who do not act with freedom of will ; yet
there are moral agents who are incapable of doing what
is evil, and at the same time, do not act with the less
freedom of will ; yea, they enjoy the liberty of the will
in its perfection. There are likewise moral agents who
cannot do what is truly morally good, yet act with free
will. This is acknowledged by the greatest patrons of
the pretensions of free will. So, the general proposition,
that the power alike to do good or evil is essential to
the freedom of the will, and is necessary to moral agency,
is deserted, I see, by the most able and learned of them.
The saints in a state of glory will, by the grace that
brought them to that state, be preserved in holiness
eternally, and that very consistently with the freedom of
their will. Shall it be said concerning the saints on earth,
amidst their own imperfections, and the snares that
abound in the world, that it is indeed beyond the reach
of infinite wisdom and grace to preserve them in holiness,
to advance and perfect them therein, without destroying
the freedom of their will ? It certainly were very un-
reasonable to say so. As it is certainly true, that men,
as all other moral agents, do act with free will, so we
have seen that God's covenant of grace and promise hath
secured the sanctification and perseverance of those who
are under grace. The word of God abounds with
promises to that purpose. If any say that God cannot
accomplish with certainty these purposes of his grace and
providence, that are to be brought about by means of
moral agents endowed with free will, without destroying

AR/SEYG FROM PERSONS BEIXG UNDER GRACE 413

the freedom of their will, they are far from being well
founded in philosophy or sound reason, and speak in
extreme opposition to the word of God, yea, to the
common notions of mankind, who pray to God to bring
about events that must, by the nature of things, be
brought about by the free will of rational agents, without
ever thinking that he is to destroy or suspend the liberty
of their will.

We have been considering the advantage, in some sort
extrinsic, respecting holiness and freedom from the
dominion of sin, even that which ariseth from a state of
grace, from the believer's being under grace, the object
of special divine favour. Let us now consider the advan-
tage of an intrinsic sort, which the true Christian hath
by being under grace, as to the true and necessary inward
principles of genuine holiness, which cannot take place
or have effect in any soul that is under the law and its
curse, under guilt and condemnation.

It is of essential consequence with regard to holiness,
that a man have right inward principles in all his actions.
A man's external actions and behaviour may be gocd,
and yet have nothing of true holiness, if all doth not
proceed from right inward principles. Yea, a man doing
much good outwardly, from evil principles, and to a
wrong end, his course upon the whole may be quite
diabolical and wicked. A man's external practice when
it is good, makes but one side, the outside of practice.
From rational moral agents, God, who is a Spirit, requires
the worship and service of the heart and spirit ; and their
practice is to be judged of by him who searcheth the
reins and heart ( Jer. xvii. 10 ; Rev. ii. 23), according to
the inward disposition and principles that influence it.
If one should, from ambitious views, as Absalom, strive
to reach by iniquity a state of life in which he might
gratify every lust, and after obtaining it, recommend him-
self to men by all acts of kindness and beneficence, by
mercy and liberality to the poor, by avoiding every
immorality, yea, and by showing great regard to religion
and devotion; should this man's practice be denominated
holiness? Xo, surely; all his apparent goodness is from

4H THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

sinful lusts dominant in him. Men may, yea ought, to
judge favourably of one, when his speech and behaviour
express only what is good ; but this is still with a reserve
to the judgment of the heart-searching supreme Judge,
who only can with absolute certainty judge of a man's
holiness. It is therefore of essential consequence to
advert to the inward principles of practice and behaviour;
and if even the good outward behaviour of a person yet
under the law and its condemnation, cannot proceed from
right and holy inward principles ; if these can only have
place and effect in the heart of one under grace, it proves
the advantage with respect to holiness, of being under
grace ; yea, that sin will have dominion, and there
cannot be true holy practice with any who is not in a
state of grace.

We learn from the word of God, that there is no good
or acceptable work without faith and love. The doctrine
concerning the first of these is precise and clear (Heb.
xi. 6), Without fait] i it is impossible to please God. The
inspired writer explains this, and gives the reason thus :
For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is a
rewarder of them that diligently seek him. Dr Whitby
says, in his annotation, that this is the heathen's creed —
(I thought there could be no creed without revelation) ;
and thereafter he says : " God must either have laid upon
them no obligation to please him, or required what he
knew to be impossible, or given them sufficient means to
know this," — viz. that he is a rewarder to sinful men who
seek him, and are virtuous. This is rare divinity. One
thing appears in it at first sight, viz. that the gospel
revelation was not necessary to lead men to a state of
acceptance with God, and to happiness ; natural religion,
influenced by the heathen's creed, being sufficient for that
purpose. ' As many who write well in defence of the
truth of the Christian revelation, do yield this point, I
apprehend their doing so hath a greater tendency to
make many infidels easy in their mind than their ingenious
defences of revelation have to bring such over to the
faith.

I observe the speculations of divers heathen philb-

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 415

sophers adduced by Dr Whitby concerning the regard the
gods (as they spoke, according to their creed) have for
good men, and their care of such. It was indeed easy
for the self-flattering hearts of men, who esteemed their
own goodness and virtue, to entertain such favourable
notions, overlooking their own sinfulness, and the
charge which the holy and righteous Sovereign of the
world had against them on that account. But certainly
the learned writer could not show, from all the heathen
writers he was acquainted with, that they knew any
true and sufficient grounds on which they could
believe that God would be a rewarder to sinful men.
They could, at best, have but doubtful unfounded specu-
lations concerning it — could not possibly have the faith
of it, according to the description of faith there (ver. 1).

The Scripture shows us the only true and solid ground
on which sinful men can have faith in God (1 Pet. i. 21 ),
Who by him (Christ) do believe in God that raised him up
front the dead \ and gave him glory, that your faith and
hope might be in God. The atonement made for men's
sins by Christ's sufferings and death, and God's testifying
his acceptance thereof by raising him from the dead,
together with the testimony of the word of God concern-
ing divine grace through Christ, makes the only proper
and solid ground upon which sinful men can have faith in
God, or believe him to be to them a rewarder. Now it
is by this sincere faith in Christ, and in God through
Christ, that sinners do pass from death to life, and, being
justified, come under grace ; nor can it be an habitual
principle of practice, in any who are not so, as to their
real state before God. So, whatever appearance of virtue
or goodness they may'have, they who are in the flesh
(and so are yet under the law) cannot please God
(Rom. viii. 8), nor have for a principle of action and
service that faith, without which it is impossible to please
God.

The other principle essential to true holine-
acceptable obedience, and good works, is love. This, ac-
cording.to the apostle (Rom. xiii. 8) is the fulfilling of the
law; and if it is so with respect to the second table, which

416 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

he hath there particularly in his view, it is so as to the
first, according to Matt. xxii. 36, 37, The great command-
me?it in the lazv is, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God.
This is indeed the sum of the whole law, and a necessary
principle of obedience to it in every part. But how doth
this love enter, and reside in the heart of man, to whom
it certainly is not natural ? The apostle accounts for
this (1 John iv. 10), Herein is love, not that we loved God,
but that lie loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitia-
tion for our sins. Faith representing, with satisfying
conviction, to the heart of an awakened, serious, and
humbled sinner, this most wonderful and endearing love
of God, testified in redeeming us from death and wrath
by the death of his Son, engages the heart to him, to
love, and to serve him. When the love of God, thus
manifested in Christ Jesus, touches the heart with com-
fortable effect, it doth, as the flame of one candle touching
another, kindle the love of God in the heart. But then,
if this love, that is essential to holiness, enters into and
arises in the heart only by means of that faith by which
one comes under grace, it is plain it can be a principle
of practice only in the hearts of such as are under grace.
It is faith that worketh by love (Gal. v. 6).

The true inward progress and connection of things
respecting the principles of holy practice and obedience,
we find I Tim. i. 5, Now the end of the commandment
is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good conscience,
and of faith unfeigned. It is worth while to consider
this verse somewhat closely.

As to the first clause, The end of the commandment ;
this, saith Dr Whitby's annotation, some refer to the
law. Himself rather thinks it here refers to the gospel ;
and to this purpose observes, that the Greek word here,
and the two other words he mentions, are always, in the
epistles, used of the gospel. But as these three words
have not in the use of language the same meaning, so
as to the word in this text (irapayyekta), I see not in my
lexicon any sense of it that would favour that interpre-
tation. As to the only two texts he mentions (1 Thess.
iv. 2, and here, ver. 18), the word is justly rendered as

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 417

we translate; nor is there anything in the scope that
requires rendering otherwise than by commandment and
charge. It is plain that the apostle hath in his eye
some who (as ver. 7), desired to be teachers of the law ;
against whom he reasons concerning the law in the
following verses. The law, or commandment, is the
subject in this place. As he charges these men with
ignorance- (ver. 7), not understanding (so the Doctor's
paraphrase) the scope or true meaning of the law ; here
he (ver. 5) goes on to speak concerning the law, or
commandment, by representing, in opposition to them,
the true scope and end of the law in its holy command-
ment. But though the rendering and sense is to be
retained as we have it (the end of the commandment) yet
it is certain this end of the commandment cannot be
attained by sinful men, as to the conformity it requires,
but by means of the gospel, and the grace which it
exhibits ; and the apostle gives such a view of the
subject here as makes this clear, as we shall see.

The end of the commandment is charity. — This word
in our language hath undergone a considerable change
of meaning in the use of speech. The Greek word is
no other than the common word for love; as it hath
been observed, that love is the fulfilling of the law. The
apostle shows here how this love is connected in the
heart, and mentions a series of causes by which the true
love, whereby the end of the commandment is obtained
in the practice of men, is produced.

1. It is love oil t of a pure heart. Without giving any
prolix explication of this, we ma)' learn what a pure
heart means, from James iv. 8, Purify your hearts, ye
double-minded. The pure heart here is the same with
a true heart (Heb. x. 22), and means its sincerity. So
love out of a pure heart is the same as out of a sincere
heart ; and the apostle's expression means the sincerity
of love.

2. This sincerity of love comes from a good conscience.
A man's conscience may be called good, in general,
when it hath in it a true light to direct a man's way
and behaviour, with such impression of the authority

2 D

418 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

of God, the great Lawgiver, as powerfully and effectually
enforces conformity and obedience to its dictates. In
short, it is a good conscience that doth its office in the
proper manner. But the apostle's special meaning of
a good conscience here, is, I think, to be understood as
opposed to an evil conscience, mentioned Heb. x. 22,
Having your hearts spi'inkled from an evil conscience.
There is evidently in these words an allusion to the
ancient typical sprinkling of the blood by which atone-
ment was made, and persons were made free from the
charge of guiltiness and defilement, and from the con-
sequences of it. An evil conscience is a conscience
charging guilt, a condemning conscience, that gives the
sad impression of wrath and judgment for sin.

Now, it is (Heb. ix. 14) the blood of Christ that purgeth
the conscience, so as that (Heb. x. 2) there shall be
no more conscience of sins; the conscience once purged,
retaining no longer a charge of guiltiness, and of judg-
ment for it. So there are two ways of having a good
conscience; one is, by not having transgressed ; the
other is, by having the guilt taken away by the appli-
cation of that blood which taketh away the sin of the
world.

By means of a conscience condemning, and terrifying
with the apprehension of wrath and judgment, God's
enemies may (as Ps. lxvi. 3) submit themselves unto him
(or, according to our margin, yield feigned obedience : Heb.
lie unto him). But whilst the conscience retains the
charge of guilt, condemnation, and wrath, there cannot
be purity, or sincerity of heart toward God, or sincerity
of the love of God. Human nature is so formed, that it
cannot love any object that is adverse and terrible to it.
There is good sense in a passage of Simplicius, a heathen
writer, as Dr Whitby (on Heb. xi. 6) gives it thus : " We
cannot love, honour, and worship the Deity, whatsoever
reasons may be alleged for so doing, if we conceive him
hurtful, and not profitable to us, because every living-
creature flies what is hurtful, and the causes of it ;
and affects and follows what is profitable." So that
philosopher. As to the purpose for which Dr Whitby

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 419

adduces this passage (on Heb. xi. 6), upon what good
grounds could such a man assure himself that the holy
and righteous Ruler and Judge would be favourable to
the guilt)-, or that such could have profit by him, with
regard to their spiritual, everlasting state ; if they had
any firm belief of an everlasting state, which many of the
most eminent heathen philosophers had not ? Here was
an essential defect in the religion of the heathen. This
by the by. Now to our present purpose.

It is when the conscience is relieved from the sense of
condemnation and wrath, and from the sad misgivings
which haunt them who do most labour to be easy in that
condition ; I say, when it is relieved from these im-
pressions and apprehensions, and that by means so
wonderfully endearing as the redeeming love of God
and of our Lord Jesus Christ ; it is then that the heart
kindles in love, and comes, with purity and sincerity of
heart, to be well affected to God, and to his service.
Then God's people come to serve him (Luke i. 74, 75)
in holiness and righteousness^ without FEAR; then the
Christian hath boldness and access with confidence ; the
conscience being purged from dead works, he serves God
comfortably. The fear arising from an evil conscience
hath torment, and excludes love. But this fear being
removed by the heart's being sprinkled from an evil
conscience, and love entering, it casteth out fear ; for
there is no fear in love* If, through the Christian's
neglect and unwatchfulness, fear shall return with some
bondage and torment, love recovering itself, with the
proper force, casts it out. The Christian, sensible of
being under Divine grace and favour, love hath free
course and prevalence in his heart, and alloweth him not
to entertain harsh, or unfavourable, or discouraging
thoughts of God. So wisdom's ways become to the
Christian ways of pleasantness ; he walks cheerfully in
them, and is encouraged to say, If God be for us, icJio
can be against us ? — There is,

3. Unfeigned faith. This is at the top of the series

* 1 John iv. 18.

420 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

in this text ; and is in the Christian the proper source
of those other principles of holy practice here mentioned.
Concerning it these general things are to be considered :

(i.) It is unfeigned. Not merely as opposed to a false
and lying profession, when there is not within a faith of
any sort. It is a sincere, in opposition to an insincere
faith : which, however, may be real in its kind.
*Avu7roK/)tTos (if the use of speech with us would admit
it) might be rendered precisely, unhypocritic ; a faith of
such kind as hypocrites never have. The apostle John
says (i epist. v. 3), Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the
Christ, is born of God. This faith is not a mere assent
of the mind to the truth of the proposition, that Jesus is
the Christ ; for such faith the devils have : it is such a
faith as is an evidence that one is born of God, as this
text says. So also, they who believe in Christ are born
of God.* When Philip preached Christ at Samaria, it is
said that Simon (the sorcerer) himself also believed. It
is not said merely, that he professed to believe, which
one might do who had inwardly no faith at all. The
Scripture is not to be contradicted, that says expresslyr
he believed: yet the man remaining in the gall of bitter-
ness and in the bond of iniquity, surely he was not born
of God, nor had the faith that is the fruit and consequence
of being so.f We see (2. Thess. ii. 13) that sanctifi 'cation
of the Spirit and belief of the truth are connected.

It is said (John ii. 23, 24) that many believed in his
name, but Jesus did not commit himself unto them. Can
it be said, that these were born of God, or had that faith
that comes by being born of God ? We are told that
many of Christ's disciples murmured and were offended
at his doctrine ; and Christ said to them, There are some
oj you that believe not ; for (so the evangelist adds) fesus
knew from the beginning who they were that believed not,
and who should betray him.% Here, upon the one hand,
these men were disciples, which they could not be with-
out some sort of faith; yet, on the other hand, they
believed not — Christ told them so — they had not the

* John i. 12, 13. t Acts viii. 13, 23. % John vi. 60, 61, 64.'

ARISIiVG FROM FERSOXS BE IXC UNDER GRACE 42 1

unhypocritic, the unfeigned faith, which they have who
are born of God.

By what hath been said, we may be satisfied that the
opinion is far from being well founded which hath been
held by some learned men, agreeably to their scheme
and system, viz. that the faith of hypocrites and that
of sincere Christians are, in themselves, of the same
nature and kind.

(2.) This unfeigned faith is such as hath for its natural
and proper consequence a good conscience, with love in
purity and sincerity of heart. We have here occasion
to observe the sentiments expressed by Dr Taylor in
his paraphrase of Rom. viii. 1, and which he gives as
the meaning of the blessed apostle in that place : " Nozu
— we have the highest assurance that those are quite
discharged from the penalty of the law, and disengaged
from the servitude of sin, who embrace the faith of the
gospel, if so be they make that faith a principle of
obedience, and do not choose to live in wickedness,
according to the instigation of fleshly appetite, but in
truth and holiness," &c.

I had occasion to make observation on this passage
formerly : what I now observe is, that it is therein
implied, that a man may have that faith by which he
comes to be in Christ which is the expression of the
text, and which is the effect of being born of God), and
yet continue under the servitude of sin, and choose to
live in wickedness. As to this of choosing, it is true,
that if a man live in the practice of wickedness, or of
holiness, he doth the one or the other by his free choice ;
though, in the last mentioned sort of practice, there is
a superior hand, to which the right choice is especially
owing. It is also true, that a Christian should have at
heart to advance, as in faith, with regard to light and
establishment, so in holiness, obedience, and all good
works; and that Christians do too often fall short in
these, yea, deviate too often from purity and holiness.
But to say, that a man may have true faith, by which he
comes to be indeed in Christ, and unto real union with
him, as that expression imports ; and that holiness and

422 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

obedience, in the man's habitual and ordinary practice
only comes by an uncertain and merely arbitrary choice
and determination of his will, which might determine
him to live in wickedness, notwithstanding his faith ;
is in extreme opposition to the Scripture, yea, to the
nature of things, if we consider the human faculties, and
the natural order of their operation.

We have seen,* that faith is connected with the sancti-
fication of the Spirit. To say that a man having the
faith that comes by the sanctification of the Spirit, may
choose to live in wickedness, is evidently absurd.

As it is said that he who believeth is born of God, so
it is said, Whosoever is born of God doth not commit siny
for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God A Dr Taylor says,! that it is very
common in the sacred writings to speak of that as done,
which only ought to be done, and which, in fact, may
possibly never be done. To this purpose he adduces
several texts, in not one of which there is reason for
that way of interpreting ; and in some of them there
appears what clearly forbids it. However, according to
this observation of his, he supplies in such texts, or
substitutes in place of the scripture words, ought to be,
or some such expression. Thus (Matt. v. 13), Ye are
(ought to be) the salt of the earth. Thus he makes a
way for himself to contradict very express declarations
of Scripture. Among other texts, he mentions this
( 1 John iii. 9) without quoting the words. But, according
to his rule, the first clause is to be understood thus :
Whosoever is born of God doth not (ought not to) commit
sin. But what reason to mention being born of God to
that purpose, when it might be said of any man, whether
born of God or not, that he ought not to commit sin ?
What then would the writer say of the following clause :
He cannot sin because lie is born of God? It seems he
did not extend his view to that clause. Concerning the

* 2 Thess. ii. 13.

1 1 John v. 1 ; iii. 9.

% " Key to Apostolic Writings," Sect. 274.

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 423

interpretation of the first clause just mentioned, Dr
Whitby says, "Vain is that sense which some put upon
these words, viz. He that is born of God, non debet
peeeare, ought not to sin, or that it is absurd for him to
sin ; for the apostle speaks not of what he ought not to
do, but of what he doth not."

The interpretation of Dr Hammond on the place,
note e, comes to this : " The affirming here, of the re-
generate pious convert, that he cannot sin, is not the
affirming that he cannot cease to be what he is — but
that remaining thus, a pious follower, imitator, and so a
child of God, he cannot yield deliberately to any kind
of sin." Dr Whitby on the place, says, " False seems to
be the sense which Origen, &c. put upon the words, that
Jie that is born of God, sinneth not, quamdiu renatus est,
whilst he is born of God, because he ceaseth to be a
child of God when he sins." Indeed, according to
Origen's and Dr Hammond's interpretation, these two
contradictory propositions are true at once : He that is
born of God, cannot sin ; and, He that is born of God,
can sin : even understanding sinning in the same sense
in both propositions.

It is true, Dr Whitby is not quite consistent with
himself as to this text, in different parts of his writings.
His long annotation on this text seems to be pretty
harmless, with respect to the doctrine of the reformed
churches concerning the perseverance of the saints, and
the argument taken from this text to that purpose. But
in his book on the five Arminian points (ed. 17 10), he
says, p. 468, " The interpretation which many of the
ancient fathers gives us of these words, are a demonstra-
tion that they believed not the doctrine of the saint's
perseverance, for they expound the words thus : He that
is born of God sinneth not, neither can sin, quamdiu
renatus est, whilst he is born of God, because he ceaseth
to be a child of God when he sins ; and this (saith the
Doctor) must necessarily be the import of the words, if
you interpret them of living in an habit or an)- course of
sin." So indeed they must be understood ; for as to
acts, even gross acts of sin, the Doctor had with good
reason, rejected the interpreting of them by these. So

424 THE ADVANTAGE, WITH REGARD TO HOLINESS,

the interpretation which he called false, when he wrote
his annotations, he considered as the necessary and true
interpretation when he wrote on controversy.

But the text says clearly and expressly, that he who is
born of God hath his seed remaining in him (which is
inconsistent with his ceasing to be born of God) ; and he
cannot sin, because he is born of God; which shows clearly,
that by being born of God, and having his seed remain-
ing in him, he hath a sure preservative against sinning,
or falling into a course of sinning. This sufficiently
proves, against Dr Taylor, that a man having true faith,
that is, the fruit and evidence of being born of God,
cannot be, or choose to be, in servitude to sin, or to live
in wickedness.

The same thing appears from its being said (Acts xv.
9) that God put no difference between believing Jews
and the Gentiles there mentioned, purifying their hearts
by faith. But though God conveyed to them the light
of faith, how could it be said, that he purified their hearts
by faith, if faith had not efficacy by its proper influence
in the heart to purify it; but that a man, notwithstanding
his faith, may still choose to live in wickedness?

It is said (Gal. v. 6), In Christ fesus, neither circum-
cision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith
which worketh by love. Here the true, unfeigned, un-
hypocritic faith is distinguished from the false faith of
hypocrites, by this, that it worketh by love. But how
could love, and working by love, be ascribed to faith, if
faith hath in itself no efficacy or power in the heart thus
to work ? Christian love and holy walking might be
ascribed to the will of the man, who so chooses, when he
might choose to live in. wickedness. But when working
by love is ascribed to faith, it certainly import?, that true
faith hath efficacy so to work, and to determine the heart
to the choice of what is right and holy. So this shows,
that there is in the nature of the true unfeigned faith that
which is not in the faith of hypocrites, whose faith hath
no such efficacy, no such fruit ; whose faith therefore is
in itself of a different nature and kind from the genuine
faith of the true Christian.

ARISING FROM PERSONS BEING UNDER GRACE 425

However, the notion of some has been, that a person
coming to true faith, and having faith of the same nature
and kind with that of the true Christian, doth neverthe-
less, at believing, stand as (in bivid) where roads part, to
choose going to the right or left, without anything in his
faith to determine effectually his 'choice, as to wicked or
holy living. How contrary this is to the views the
Scripture gives of the matter, hath been shown.

Upon the whole, as the apostle doth (Rom. viii. 1 ) give
it as a certain distinguishing mark of them that arc in
Christ, united to him by faith, that they walk not after
the flesh, but after the Spirit (much contrary to Dr
Taylor's interpretation) ; so in the text we are now
especially considering (1 Tim. i. 5), it is plain that the love
that is the end of the commandment, is as to the ordinary
habitual disposition and practice of the Christian, certainly
connected with unfeigned faith, and is its native certain
consequence. One thing remains yet to be observed for
explication, concerning faith as here meant.

(3.) Faith, in the comprehensive view of it, doth in
various ways influence holy practice. When the inspired
writer is to show Tieb. xi ) how faith enabled hoi)- men
of ancient times to do and to suffer as they did, he sets
out (ver. 1) with giving this general and comprehensive
description of it : Faith is the substance of things hoped
for, the evidence of things not seen. Faith doth, by the
light and authority of the word of God, demonstrate with
powerful conviction and impression, and realises to the
heart the being, and grace of God vers. 6, 2j\ It
inwardly realises divine threatenings and promises (vers.
7, 13", &c. It realises Christ, and the things of Christ,
to the heart.

But, then, as I have said before, that a good conscience
is most fitly to be understood here (1 Tim. i. 5), as
opposed to an evil conscience ; so that a good conscience
is a conscience relieved from condemnation, a conscience
that enjoys and gives peace ; it seems, upon this view,
that faith is to be considered herein the special view and
precise notion, as it is connected with our justification, re-
conciliation, and peace with God. The apostle's doctrine

4^6 THE ADVANTAGE OF BEING UNDER GRACE

concerning that subject he thus expresses (Rom. iii.
24, 25), Being justified freely by His grace, through the
redemption that is in CJirist Jesus (compare Eph. i. 7),
whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through FAITH
IN HIS BLOOD.

It is the blood of Christ (he having given his life a
ransom for many) that hath made peace. It is by
the application of it to the conscience, that the sinner,
thereby truly purged, hath no more conscience of sins
(Heb. x. 2). It is (chap. ix. 14) this blood that purges
the conscience. It is by it (chap. x. 22) that our hearts
are sprinkled from an evil conscience. This is that blood
of sprinkling (chap. xii. 24) that speaketh better things
than the blood of Abel.

Now faith in Christ, faith in his blood, is, under the
influence of the Holy Spirit, the intellectual means, or
instrument, by which this blood is effectually applied, as
by sprinkling, to the conscience, to free it from con-
demnation, and to give it peace ; to free it from fear and
terror of wrath, and so to diffuse comfort through the
soul, from a sense of reconciliation and peace with God.

Let us now take a brief view of the series of inward
principles of holiness, as contained in the text under our
eye, beginning at the first. An unfeigned faith in Christ,
and in his blood, gives peace in the conscience, and
removes that apprehension of wrath that is so powerful
a cause of the alienation of the heart from God,
By this the heart comes to be reconciled to God's
sovereignty; and holiness, and love, out of a pure sincere
heart, prevail ; and thus the end of the commandment
is truly attained, according to the Christian's measure in
this state of imperfection.

Though these principles of holiness are formed, and
have real effect in the heart of a Christian, yet often he
is not so sensible thereof as he hath cause, and as his
comfort would require. This is often owing to ignorance
and mistake, to the remaining darkness of his mind, to
the perplexity that sin which dwelleth in him, and the
motions thereof, give him, and to the various temptations
of the enemy. Yet these principles have place and real

DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS 427

effect in every soul that is, through Christ, brought under
grace, however much such souls may, for the causes just
mentioned, not have the distinct view or sense thereof,
nor the proper degree of comfort.

At the same time, it is evident that these essential
principles of true holiness cannot exist in a soul yet
under the law and its curse, and not under grace. Such
an one being destitute of the faith that would unite him
truly to Christ, and bring him under grace, and not
having his heart sprinkled from an evil conscience, is
incapable of the love of God, that is the end of the com-
mandment ; and so is incapable of true holiness, what-
ever appearances may have.

Sect. III. — Containing several directions, which the doctrine of
the context before explained affords to the souls of sinners who
are seriously concerned about their most important interests,
with the explication and solution of divers questions respecting"
the conversion of sinners.

We have been observing the advantage, with regard to
sanctification and holy practice, which they have who
are under grace, by the privilege of their state, and the
benefit thence arising of having divine grace, faithfulness,
care, and power to act for them : and by the true and
genuine principles of holy practice in their existence and
operation, and which cannot be in any such as are under
the law, and its curse, and not under grace. From the
scripture light and doctrine concerning these matters,
there is important direction to those who have at heart
their greatest interest. I begin with suggesting two
things that ought to be particularly adverted to.

One is, that persons should not rest or found their
hope on mere external privilege. All the members of
the visible church are under a dispensation of grace, that
encourages sinners to seek God, and to return from their
strayings, by the prospect of pardon and acceptance
through Jesus Christ. But, as hath been formerly
observed on chap. vi. 14, many are thus under a dis-

428 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

pensation of grace, who are not under grace as to their
true spiritual state before God, but remain under the
curse of the righteous law, and have the wrath of God
abiding on them. Men's trusting to external privilege
with regard to the state of their souls, is not better than the
vain confidence of Jews heretofore, who said within them-
selves (Matt. iii. 9), that they had Abraham to their father,
and so were entitled to the privileges of the covenant
A man may have been, by virtue of birth-right, solemnly
admitted a member of the church — he may have a sort
of faith that is no effect or evidence of being born of God,
and, by virtue of his profession of it, may externally enjoy
all external church-privileges as a believer, as one in
Christ, and under grace; but how little may all this
amount to as to his present real state? as he may all the
time be destitute of that faith by which he would be truly
united to Christ, and so be a member of that church of
the first-born (Heb. xii. 23), which are written in heaven.

Another thing that should be carefully adverted to is,
that persons trust not to their own works of righteous-
ness for their acceptance with God, or for changing their
natural state into a state of grace and favour. All have
sinned, ana so incurred the curse of the righteous law.
If a man should thereafter do his duty as completely in
every part as an angel, he but doth in so far what he
was bound to do ; and this doth not make amends for
transgression, nor is pleadable against the curse of the
law. This must be removed by other means than the
righteousness of a man's own works. What makes the
delusion of trusting to these, for bringing a man into a
state of grace, still the more absurd is, that, according to
the apostle's doctrine, which we have been illustrating,
a man is incapable of the true acceptable practice of
righteousness and holiness, until he is under grace as to
his real spiritual state, being, until then, under the real
dominion of sin.

We learn from the apostle's doctrine, that the condition
of a person under the law is truly very wretched. To be
delivered from the law (chap. vii. 6) is a great deliver-
ance ; and to be dead to the law (that is, to be set free

COXCEKXED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 429

from the thraldom and bondage of it (as ver. 4) is a
happy freedom. Without this, one is incapable of
bringing forth fruit unto God, and of serving in the
newness of the Spirit. This deliverance and liberty
hath been purchased at a costly rate — the crucifixion of
the body of Christ. For the law (chap. iv. 15) worketh
wrath to sinners ; it denounces a curse against even-
transgressor, so that the natural condition of every one
not delivered from the law is, to be under wrath, and
under the dominion of sin.

As divine love and mercy hath, with infinite wisdom,
made a way for the relief and deliverance of sinners,
which is set before them by the gospel of the grace of
God, it is of the utmost consequence, in order to persons
improving seasonably, truly, and effectually, the great
means of salvation which the gospel sets before them,
that they should have the most serious consideration r
and deep impression of their most wretched spiritual
condition by sin, and the curse of the law.

Such, however, is the vanity of the mind — the self-
flattering disposition of the heart, with a strong inclina-
tion in men to keep their mind at ease, and this often
supported by erroneous notions and principles, that it is
a matter of the utmost difficulty to bring persons to a
fixed consideration, just views, and serious impressions
of their present spiritual wretchedness, and of their
fearful prospect of a future eternal state. The strongest
reasoning, and the most cogent arguments, often appear
to have little or no effect in this way. They who become
truly serious about their salvation, have commonly
occasion to observe a superior hand bringing them
to it ; by some sudden alarming providence, bringing
their sins to remembrance, awakening their conscience
and heart — by continued or repeated tribulation and
affliction opening their ears to discipline — or by the
word of God, particularly of the holy and righteous
law, conveyed in a striking manner into the conscience.

But when it so happens, the love of inward ease
inclines the heart to avoid and divert these sad views
and apprehensions. As when Felix trembled, on hearing

430 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

Paul reasoning of righteousness, temperance, and judgment
to come, and said, Go thy way for this time ; when I have
a cojivenient season, I will call for thee ; * so men often
deal with their own consciences, suggesting to them
fearful, but just apprehensions ; they divert them, and
resolutely endeavour to avoid them. So it is done by
many sinners, with fatal consequence to themselves.

It were well that sinners would lay their heart and
conscience open to the light of God's word and holy
law ; that they should have full views of their manifold
sinfulness ; that their sins and transgressions should
come particularly to their remembrance ; and that the
righteous judgment of God, and the wrath to come,
should appear in their awful reality to their apprehension.
But as nature avoids and abhors everything that gives
dread and terror ; and as men's hearts are disinclined to
every view of things that tends to give them low and
humbling views of themselves, there is need of the Spirit
of God, whose office it is to convince of sin. If the law
gives the knowledge of sin, and worketh wrath in the
sense and apprehension of sinful men, it doth not so
with the proper force and effect, until it is conveyed into
the heart and conscience by the power of the Spirit of
God, and that with a degree of light, impression, and
energy, such as the self-conceit, the vanity, and carnality
of the heart, cannot surmount or overcome, so as to
divert or extinguish it. If awakened sinners understood
their true interest, they should, instead of avoiding or
resisting the Spirit of God, or the convictions of sin, and
the impressions he gives, rather pray earnestly for the
Spirit to do this his office more and more powerfully in
their hearts and consciences. If they understood the
merciful design of God, during this day of salvation, in
thus awakening, searching, bringing their sins to re-
membrance, and pleading with them by his Spirit and
law in their consciences, they might see cause thankfully
to submit themselves to this his discipline in their
conscience, and be disposed to fall in with the gracious

* Acts xxiv. 25.

CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 43 1

design of it, betaking themselves by faith to Christ, who
is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that
believeth.

But matters do not commonly take this turn all at
once. If the conviction of sin, and the impression of
wrath continue to go deep in the heart, and the arrows
of the Almighty stick fast in it, the sinner is led naturally
from this to groan and cry out, What shall I do to be
saved? And whatever encouraging and comfortable
answer to the important question is suggested by the
gospel revelation, nature doth secretly insinuate its own
way, and gives a different direction. The awakened
conscience, sensible of the eternal and indispensable
obligation to holiness, to all manner of duty and good
works, applies itself thereto, and labours in reformation
of life and practice. So far it is right in itself. Indeed,
if there is in an awakened conscience a sense of the
danger of sinning, with an impression of divine wrath
for sin, and yet the lusts of the heart so far prevail, as
to have a free course, and to exclude reformation in
practice, it makes, for the present, a condition of very
unpromising appearance.

But although practical reformation is right in itself,
the unhappiness often in the case is, that sinners incline
to trust thereto, and to found their confidence of pardon,
reconciliation, and acceptance with God, on their own
righteousness and good works. Indeed, in the first state
of mankind, it was by the law, and by works of righteous-
ness in conformity thereto, that men were to be justified.
Man being without sin, in" the perfection of his nature
and moral powers, the law could have given life ; and in
that state of things, verily righteousness should have been
by the law ; but the state of things is altered ; the
Scripture hath concluded all under sin;* and the law,
with all the righteousness of a man in conformity thereto,
cannot justify the sinner, or bring him to a state of
acceptance with God. Yet this having been the old
way, the bias of nature is still towards it. Though the

* Gal. iii. 21, 22.

432 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

minds of men under the gospel may have orthodox
notions, yet the ground of hope which the gospel sets
before them is contrary to the previous conceptions of
the natural mind. It is necessary that the ground of
confidence and hope which the gospel presents should
be realised to it by a superior light and power. Until
it is so, the natural man doth not receive the things of
the Spirit, which are no other than the things of Christ,
which he is to show to men effectually : * I say, the
natural man doth not receive these things of Christ and
of the Spirit, so as to rest his soul on that sure founda-
tion which God hath laid in Zion. In that view, the
heart treats them as foolishness, and doth not trust to
them for hope and salvation. The self-exalting way
of self-righteousness is what the natural mind suggests,
— is what the natural heart inclines to trust to. It was
not owing to anything peculiar to the Jews, but to
principles that are natural to mankind, that going about
to establish their own righteousness, they submitted not
tJiemselves to the righteousness of God. }

However, an awakened serious sinner, going on in
this way of self-righteousness, hath what the apostle
dignifies (Rom. x. 2) with the character of a zeal of God.
He labours earnestly for higher and higher degrees of
devotion ; he labours hard in reforming his practice, and
in every good work. But they to whom the Lord doth
at length give a better light, whom he brings unto a better
way, have occasion to observe and acknowledge, that,
whilst they were in the course I have been now represent-
ing, they have felt a struggle between the law in their"
conscience and the flesh, or the power of sin in their
hearts, according to the sad experience represented in
the past time by the blessed apostle (Rom. vii. 5-13),
and that, all their concern and labour to avoid and
subdue sin, and to be truly holy, hath been miserably
unsuccessful.

Being yet in the flesh, not having their nature renewed,

* 1 Cor. ii. T4 ; John xvi. 14.
1 Rom. x. 3.

COXCERXED ABOUT THEIR SAW ATI OX

nor being under the sanctifying influence of the Spirit
of grace, if the law in their conscience hath strict and
urgent demands of holiness, and all manner of duty, yet
the flesh, which is not subject to the law of God,* acts
rebelliously against it, and exerts itself in unholy lust'
and affections. So that with those who are in the flesh,
there are motions of sin, even by the law, though it
opposes sin with all its light and authority. If the
deluded sinner formerly thought of the law as only
requiring external conformity, and so found it easy to
have a good opinion of his own purity and righteous-
ness, yet now the law, which is spiritual, entering into
the heart, saying, Thou slialt not lust, prohibiting and
condemning the inward lustings and affections of the
heart that are contrary to holiness ; he now hath by the
law the knowledge of sin in good earnest, — hath amazing
and confounding views of the extent of sin's dominion —
of the deep root and great power it hath in his nature.
But though sin is thus discovered in its extent and
power, all the endeavours of a serious soul, with all the
authority of the law in the conscience, are not able to
subdue it. Instead of that, sin taking occasion by the
commandment, thereby awakened and irritated, works
in the heart all manner of concupiscence.t If the
conscience of the sinner is awakened by the law coming
with force into it, sin in the heart, with its unholy lusts
and affections, is thereby likewise awakened, and exerts
itself with the greater vehemence. So sin, working death
to the wretched sinner by that which is good (ver. 13 .
becomes (shows itself to be/ exceeding sinful, exceeding
rebellious and wicked, unconquerable by mere human
power.

The consequence will be, as Paul found it, and re-
presents (chap. vii. g/} I was alive without the law once
(without its light and authority he entertained a good
opinion of his own condition) ; but when the commandment
came, sin revived, saith he, and I died. Former sins

* Rom. viii. 7.
t Rom. vii. 8.
2 E

434 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

revived in his conscience with a fearful sting-, and appre-
hension of wrath ; and the conscience, enlightened by
the holy commandment, feeling the force of its authority,
and insisting most urgently for present conformity, the
issue is far otherwise than it ought. Instead of the
heart's conforming cheerfully and dutifully with the holi-
ness of the law, sin revives in its various lustings, unholy
affections, and rebellious motions ; nor doth the sinner
find that the authority of the law, or the force of his
conscience, or all the endeavours of his yet carnal heart,
under the bondage of the law, and not truly sincere on
the side of holiness, can subdue these unholy motions
and lustings of his soul. His heart being searched by
the holy law, his best devotions, good works, and
righteousnesses, do now appear to him as filthy rags.*
However wretched his condition had appeared by the
wrath which his guiltiness subjected him to, yet whilst
he expected, by his serious care and earnest endeavours,
to bring not only his outward practice, but his heart
inwardly, unto a conformity with the holiness of the
commandment, he still had, in his own apprehension,
some resource in himself, with regard to his comfort,
and the confidence of divine mercy and acceptance.
But when, after serious endeavour, under the authority
and impression of the law, to restrain sin, and to work
up his heart to a holy temper and practice, the effect is,
that sin taking occasion by the commandment, worketh
in him all manner of concupiscence ; that sin, actively
disposed to lust, taking occasion by the commandment,
deceives him, and so slays him ; that sin, that evil
principle, showing its extreme wickedness and power,
worketh death in him by that which is good, even by
that good law, by the direction and influence whereof
he sometime hoped to come to a good condition and
state; it is now that the sinner dieth indeed, in his own
sense and apprehension, and that his self-confidence
evanishes.

But there is hope in Israel concerning this case. God

* Isa. Ixiv. 6.

CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 435

is merciful. So he hath proclaimed his name (Exod.
xxxiv. 6), The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious.
He hath favoured, yea, he hath purposed the salvation
of sinful men, and hath, with infinite wisdom, provided
for accomplishing of it, in a way consistent with all his
perfections, tending to establish the authority of his
law, and to maintain the honour and dignity of his
government. He hath provided a Saviour, and laid
help upon One who is mighty. He hath sent his Son
in the likeness of sinful flesh, and hath made him to be
a sin-offering for us, though he knew no sin, that we
might be made the righteousness of God in him. A
good ground is laid for the reconciliation and peace
of sinners with God by the blood of the cross. If God
doth, by the instructions and discipline of the law in
the consciences of sinners, as with a violent shower of
hail, sweep away the refuge of lies, which, through the
delusion of their hearts, they have trusted to, he doth,
at the same time, acquaint them in the preceding words,
that he hath laid in Zion for a foundation, a stone, a tried
stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation : he that
believeth, shall not make haste — He that belicvcth on him
shall not be confounded* A Mediator hath, by the
appointment of the Father, interposed to make re-
conciliation for the sins of the people, and to maintain
the peace, and all the interests of his people, by his
continued intercession, being able to save them to the
uttermost that come unto God by himy seeing he ever liveth
to make intercession for them.j He is a Captain of
salvation, appointed to bring the many sons unto glory,
and as he hath been consecrated to this office through
sufferings, he is able to execute it by his power.

It is, at the same time, to be considered, that, accord-
ing to the various ways in which Christ is set forth and
represented to us in the word of God, there is requisite a
suitable acting of men's minds and hearts corresponding
thereto. Is he set forth as a propitiation, and his blood

* Isa. xxviii. 16 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6.
t Heb. vii. 25.

436 DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

(his giving Irs life a ransom) as that which taketh away
our guiltiness and condemnation ? This requires faith
in his blood, — the faith by which the sinner shall trust in
that blood for pardon and peace, — the faith by which the
heart shall be sprinkled from an evil conscience, and so
the conscience purged from dead works, — the faith that
giveth confidence, with reference to that blood, in
approaching unto God, even as unto the holiest, accord-
ing to Heb. x. 19, 22, Having — boldness to enter into the
holiest by the blood of Jesus, &c. ; and according to Eph.
iii. 1 2, In whom we have boldness and access zvith confidence
through the faith of him.

Is Christ represented as the sure foundation which, not
man, but God hath laid in Zion? then believing on him
is the soul's secure resting on that foundation, and
building thereon a good hope, which will not give
disappointment or shame to any, not to the chief of
sinners. For (1 Pet. ii. 6), He (any sinner; whosoever
heareth the gospel) who believeth on him shall not
he ashamed.

Is Christ set forth as a Saviour, and offered as such to
perishing sinners? then faith is a receiving him (John i.
12), with an eye to the several offices, by which he
executes the great undertaking of saving sinners : to
receive him not only in the character of our great High
Priest, to procure for us reconciliation and peace, and all
the blessings of grace, but also in the character of the
great Teacher and Prophet, submitting our minds
absolutely to his light and instruction, with regard to all
the truth he reveals ; and likewise in the character of
Lord and King, subjecting ourselves to his government
in the way of cheerful universal obedience, yielding our-
selves to be ruled by him, and trusting in his power for
all the purposes of our salvation.

Thus, I say, faith in Jesus Christ is, in the acting
thereof, somewhat varied according to the various views
in which the word of God exhibits him to us. Yet we
are not to conceive as if this variation in the acting of
faith in Jesus Christ made so many different kinds of
faith. For the truth is, that true faith in every soul in

CONCERNED ABOUT THEIR SALVATION 437

which it is, hath in it all that these different form? of it
import ; and that either implicitly, or more explicitly
and sensibly, according as the different Scripture views
of Christ do strike the mind, suitably to the different
views and feelings of the soul, in which the influence and
power of a superior hand is to be acknowledged.

But man is a reasonable being. His trust, and his
whole conduct, will be directed naturally according to
the light that is in his mind. He cannot found his
confidence or hope on anything, without having in his
mind a true perception of it, and a satisfying conviction
of its truth and reality. Now the Scripture represents
the minds of sinful men as ignorant and blind with
regard to the matters of God, the things of Christ and of
the Spirit. These things of Christ, and of salvation
through him, are not deducible from any principles or
notions that are naturally in the minds of men. They
are such as eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have
entered into the heart of man* Now, as it was the Spirit
of God that discovers these divine counsels of grace in
the gospel-revelation, so it appears that the inward
instruction and illumination of the mind by the same
Spirit is needful, in order to men's knowing effectually
these spiritual and gracious truths, according to ver. 12,
We have received, not the spirit of the w or Id y but the Spirit
which is of God, that zee might know the things that
freely given to us of God J It is to be considered, besides,
that this method of salvation is not agreeable to the
disposition of the natural and carnal heart ras hath been
formerly observed", which powerfully inclines to seek
the grounds of a man's justification and acceptance in
himself, and to trust to a man's own powers and
endeavours for sanctification. Hence it is that men are
so averse to submit themselves unto the righteousness
of God, or to despair of their own powers and endeavours
with regard to anything in the practice of religion. As
there is need of a divine illumination of the mind, there

* 1 Cor. ii. 9.

t See also 2 Cor. iv. 6.

43§ DIRECTIONS TO SINNERS

is need of a powerful divine influence to renew the heart,
and change the disposition of it.

Until this divine illumination and influence take effect
in the mind and heart, the awakened sinner must be in
great perplexity, being painfully sensible of the curse of
the law for transgression, that excludes all possibility of
the sinner's working out a justifying righteousness for
himself; and having a deep impression and experience
of such dominion of sin, as makes it impossible for him
to subdue it, or to sanctify himself in any true degree, or
in sincerity, whilst under the law, and in his natural state
in the flesh. Under these views and impressions, I say,
the condition of a serious awakened sinner will be very
doleful. His condition may be fitly represented, in the
figurative way, by the case of Hagar the bond- woman,
as related, Gen. xxi. 15, 16, 19. When her own provision
was spent, she sat desponding and weeping, until God
opened her eyes, and she saw a well of water ; which, it
seems, was near, when she was most sorrowful and de-
spondent, though she did not perceive it until God
opened her eyes.

In this condition the sinner is called to be assiduous
and earnest in prayer to God for his mercy, and for his
Holy Spirit, to give that illumination and influence that
will enable him to live by faith in Jesus Christ, and to
attend in the most careful and earnest manner on the
preaching of the gospel, by which divine grace works so
great effects on the souls of men ; thus endeavouring to
watch daily at Wisdom's gates, waiting at the posts of
her doors.

There is an objection that may be suggested here to
this purpose; viz. — By what good reason, or to what
good purpose, can such sinners be urged and exhorted
to do as hath been now said, if the truth of the case is
indeed, that a sinner in his natural condition, in the flesh
and under the law, cannot do anything pleasing to God,
or acceptable ; and that no assurance can be given him
of any spiritual mercy or blessing to be certainly con-
nected with the utmost exertion of his natural powers,
which in that state he is capable of, in seeking God aiid

AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 439

his mercy? Yea, if we will deal reasonably with such
sinners, in advising and exhorting them to earnestness
in using the means of grace and of salvation, should we
not assure them, if they do what they can by their
natural powers, that grace will not be wanting, to connect
certain spiritual blessings with their earnest endeavours?
Are we not well warranted in giving them such assur-
ance, by what our Lord says (Luke xi. 9-13), Ash, audit
shall be given you — For every one that asketh, receiveth,
&c.

Concerning this, I have these several things to
suggest. —

1. It does not appear, that the meaning or design is
to connect the promise in this text with anything of duty
or means that a sinner is capable of by his natural powers,
whilst in an unregenerate state. The foregoing and
following parables show the contrary. Which of yon
(ver. 5) shall hare a friend — and ver. 8, Though he will
not rise and give him, because he is his friend — and ver. 1 3,
If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto
your children. It appears then, that the)' are these, who,
by their spiritual state, are the friends and children of
God, that the Lord means by this declaration and
promise to encourage to importunity and perseverance
in prayer. It appears by the Scripture, that it is only
the prayer of faith that will be acceptable, and will pro-
cure blessings : Ask (in faith), and it shall be given you ;
and, Every one that (thus) asketh, receiveth. So Dr
YVhitby's paraphrase of vers. 9, 10. And the faith by
which men please God, and by which their prayers
become acceptable, cannot proceed from the heart of any
sinner without special divine influence. But, however,
we understand the promise in this place, it must be
acknowledged, on all hands, that a command to seek God,
and to pray to him, is directed to persons who are in
their natural unregenerate state. So also are they com-
manded to turn to God with their whole heart, to repent.
and to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, with the
encouraging promise of mercy and acceptance through
him. But these commands to repent and believe, with

440 AN OBJECTION ANSWERED

the promises annexed, do not establish a connection
between the promised mercy and anything that sinful
men are capable of doing, by the utmost exertion of their
mere natural powers.

2. Though sinners, yet in the flesh, and under the law,
can do no work in the manner pleasing to God, or that
would entitle such to any spiritual blessings by any
divine promise, yet such are capable of conceiving, with
deep impression, their extreme wretchedness by sin, and
its consequences. Though their sense of sin and misery
does not proceed from the same principles and views as
in the children of God, yet they may have a deep sense
of their misery by the curse of the law, and the divine
judgment, to which, by sin, they have become obnoxious;
and by their inability to make themselves free from the
dominion of sin in their nature and heart, to subdue sin
and the lusts thereof, or to sanctify their own hearts.
They are, even in their yet unregenerate state, capable
of such a sense of things in these respects, as will destroy
their carnal confidences, and bring them very low in
their views respecting their state, despairing of all help
from themselves or others, — sensible that there can be no
help for them but from divine sovereign grace and
mercy alone. Surely it is in this posture, and with this
sense of things, that sinners ought to lay themselves
before the footstool of divine mercy. If the Lord will
show the riches of his mercy, and the abounding of his
grace, surely he will be most likely to do it to those by
whose views of their own state his grace and mercy will
be most exalted and most glorified.

3. It were most unreasonable to say, that sinners, in
their natural condition, should not be exhorted to pray,
to repent, or believe in Jesus Christ, without assuring
them of a' certain connection between their own exertion
of their natural powers, and their obtaining saving mercy
and blessings. The apostle Peter did not think so, when
he said to that vilest of men (Acts viii. 22), Repent and
pi'ay God, if PERHAPS the thought of thine heart may be
forgiven thee.

4. The command to seek God, and to believe in Jesus

AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 44 1

Christ — to believe the testimony and record of God con-
cerning him, lays obligation to these duties on every one
to whom such command is directed, as it is to every
one who hears the gospel. It therefore becomes every
such sinner to be very careful that his conscience and
heart be duly affected with the authority and encourage-
ment of such command, and with the obligation it lays
upon him, so as to exert himself in the duties required,
and that with the most earnest endeavour. Will a person
under the law, and feeling its force and authority in his
conscience, exert himself in other commanded duties, as
prayer, aim-deeds, and every good work besides ; and
should he not, with a view to the authority of the divine
commandment, exert himself in earnest attempts to obey
it in such duties as have been now mentioned ; yea,
should he not be very much excited thereto, by con-
sidering that it is a matter of very great encouragement
to his dark and comfortless soul, that such command
hath been directed to him?

Christ is offered to the sinner — he should attempt to
lay hold of him. His hand is withered ; but he should,
without hesitation, stretch forth his withered hand at
Christ's command, which is a command of grace, and
often conveys the strength needful for the obedience
required. He should endeavour to apply to his wounded
conscience and troubled heart, the blood of sprinkling,
by which there is peace. He should, as his need requires,
endeavour, on every occasion, to feed his famished soul
with the bread of life, — with the flesh and blood of a
crucified Saviour, as the gospel represents it before him.
Nor should he for this require any other internal call
than that of his needy condition. Neither should he
require to have his faith warranted, by having the secrets
of the divine counsels displayed to him ; nor needs he
to entertain notions, not sufficiently warranted in the
Scripture, as that Christ gave himself alike a ransom for
all and even- one of mankind. He hath most sufficient
warrant for his faith in Jesus Christ by the full and free
offer and call of the gospel, and by God's testimony and
command.

442 AN OBJECTION ANSWERED

The sinner, continuing in this way of serious efforts,
hath no cause to despond, being under such a dispensa-
tion of grace. Though his natural powers and endeavours
come short, it may happen to him as to the impotent man
at the pool of Bethesda (John v.) with respect to an outward
bodily case. Still sensible of his ill condition, he con-
tinued to make earnest efforts. But being quite impotent,
his natural powers and his endeavours came short. When
he had, however, cause to despair of any good coming in
that way, divine mercy interposed seasonably, and the
Saviour cured him with a word of power. Such an issue
the sinner may look for, in continuing the serious use of
means and suitable endeavours.

What gives effectual relief to the heavy laden soul of a
sinner is, when, by the direction of divine sovereign grace,
the word of the grace of God doth seasonably impress
the mind with special light and power, so as to realise to
it the unseen things of Christ, and of his gospel, with
full and satisfying conviction of the truth thereof, and of
the report of the gospel concerning the abounding grace
of God, the sufficiency and efficacy of the blood of the
cross, and the sufficiency of Christ as a Saviour, mighty
to save ; as well as of the free offer and call of the
gospel, as warranting him in particular to receive Christ,
to apply the blood of sprinkling to his conscience, and
to have peace thereby. By this light, and by the
satisfying views of the love of God, as manifested in
Jesus Christ, the heart is gained to God : and if a sense
of guiltiness and condemnation in the conscience, and
if the terrors of the law affecting it, do tend to put the
soul to a distance, with alienation of heart from God ;
yet by the comfortable light, which the word and Spirit
of God have diffused into the mind, it conceives such
satisfying .views of Christ and his redemption, as dispose
and enable the sinner to have that faith in his blood
by which he is justified, and comes under grace ; even
unto that happy state, in which he hath the advantages
with respect to communion and intercourse with God,
and walking with him in newness of life, that have been
formerly explained. Nor is there, with respect to the

AN OBJECTION ANSWERED 443

particular things I have hinted, in the conversion of a
sinner, occasion to think of priority or posteriority of
time, or of a progressive work or exercise ; all is in-
stantaneous in the soul, and in the exercise of its
faculties, with regard to these blessed objects, from
which, by a divine illumination, it receives peace, life,
and comfort.

There are, however, some things respecting the subject,
of which it may be fit to give some further explication.
We learn from John i. 12, 13, that they who truly and
sincerely believe in Jesus Christ, are born of God, and
their faith is a consequence and evidence of their being
so. Xow, this new birth is sometimes ascribed to the
Holy Spirit, as John iii. 5, Born of water, and of the
Spirit. Sometimes it is ascribed to the word of God,
as 1 Pet. i. 23, Being born again, not of corruptible
seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God. So
James i. 18, Of his own will begat lie us with the word
of truth. How is it to be understood, that this new
birth is ascribed to these different causes?

But there is no difficulty in the matter. These are
not opposite or inconsistent causes ; but causes co-
operating, the one in subordination to the other. For,
on the one hand, according to Gal. iii. 14, we receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith; that is, the
doctrine or word of faith, the gospel : and (as 2 Cor.
iii. 8), the gospel is the ministration of the Spirit. So
by the gospel the Spirit is conveyed into the heart.
On the other hand, the Spirit gives efficacy to the
gospel in the minds and hearts of men. He doth by
a pleasant exertion of might}' power change the dis-
position of the heart, forming it for God, and putting
a new spiritual life and strength into it ; while, at the
same time, by the word of the promise, or of the gospel
(the blessed means by which he worketh , he conveys
that comfortable light, and satisfying conviction into
the mind, that hath the happy effects before mentioned,
of turning the heart to God, with faith in the Lord Jesus
.Christ : thus working on the souls of men in a manner
suitable to their faculties and rational nature.

444 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

On this occasion some may readily suggest what they
consider as a considerable difficulty, thus : In that re-
generation by which men are begotten, or born of God,
the principles of holiness are infused into the soul. If
then this being born of God, is previous, in order of
nature, to the faith by which the sinner is justified, it
follows that the sinner's sanctification is previous to his
justification, by which he comes under grace ; which
they may readily consider as a notion of hurtful tendency,
and contrary to the statements concerning sanctification
we have given.

It will tend to elucidate this matter, that we distinguish
between the habit, or physical principle of sanctification,
and the practice of holiness. As to the first of these,
it is plain from the texts formerly cited,* that being
born of God, is previous to a man's truly believing in
Jesus Christ. Yea, we may be satisfied about it, by
considering the nature of things. If faith is not properly
or merely an act of the Holy Spirit, but an act of the
human soul, it cannot be produced without a principle
in the soul that shall be an adequate cause of such an
act. A gracious act, as faith is, cannot be without a
gracious principle producing it.

It is, at the same time, to be observed, that when, for
the relief of a burdened and distressed soul, the word
of faith enters into the mind, with the influence of the
Spirit of faith, whose power renews the heart, the first
thing that must follow in such a soul, by means of the
light which the Holy Spirit introduces into it by the
word of God, is that faith in Jesus Christ, and in his
blood, by which the sinner is justified, and so comes
under grace.

From this it follows, that the practice of holiness and
good works cannot intervene between a man's being
born of God, and his coming under grace by his justifica-
tion. It appears also, that asserting a man's being born
of God to be previous to justifying faith, is very con-
sistent with what hath been said in the explanations

* John i. 12, 13 ; 1 John v. r.

QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 445

formerly given, viz. that a man cannot have all that is
essentially requisite to the true and acceptable practice
of holiness, until, being justified by faith, he comes
under grace.

As it appears by the texts formerly cited, that being
born of God is previous to one's exercising faith in Jesus
Christ, the same thing appears further from the language
used in these texts which mention the sanctification of
the Spirit previously to believing. So God hath from the
beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of
the Spirit and belief of the truth* So also, Elect — through
sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience f (that is, obedi-
ence to the gospel by that faith in Jesus Christ which it
especially requires) and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus
Christ. It is still to be remembered, that this sanctifica-
tion of the Spirit is the consequence and fruit of Christ's
having died — having risen again — having ascended to
the right hand of God — and his having received power
over all flesh, that he might give eternal life to as many
as the Father hath given him.i

As the Scripture evidence respecting this point is
clear, I think none need to apprehend any ill con-
sequence from asserting, that the sanctification of the
Spirit, which is the same in the stricter sense as being
born of God, is, in the nature of things, previous to the
faith by which the sinner is justified.

But with respect to holy practice — as it is a rational
practice, proceeding from a right and sincere disposition
of the heart, influenced by right views, to a right end,
the truth stands that hath been here asserted, that none
is capable of such a practice and course but one who is
justified and under grace ; and that such practice of
holiness and good works cannot intervene betwixt the
sanctification of the Spirit and the sinner's being, through
faith, justified, and brought under grace, as hath been
said before.

What hath been now observed, may serve to answer
a question which has been thought to have some diffi-

* 2 Thess. ii. 13. t 1 Peter i. 2. X John xvii. 2.

446 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

culty ; viz. How can it be accounted for, that in the
chain of grace represented Rom. viii. 30, a matter so
important as sanctification is not mentioned? It has
been endeavoured to solve this difficulty in various ways.
But as the calling is by the sanctification of the Spirit,
and belief of the truth, I see no good reason why
sanctification may not be understood to be included in
the calling there mentioned, which is a holy calling
(2 Tim. i. 9) ; and Christians are said to be called saints
(Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2), that is, saints by their calling.

It will not be amiss, in this place, I think, to consider
another question respecting the conversion of a sinner,
viz. Which takes place first in such souls, repentance, or
faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? I expect it will appear,
by a due consideration of this point, that it is not of such
importance as some have thought. But to proceed
distinctly —

Sometimes repentance is mentioned in Scripture in a
more large and comprehensive meaning. That repent-
ance and remission of sins should be preached in his name.*
Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may
be blotted out. f Him hath God exalted — to be a Prince and
a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and remission
of sins. % Now, as justification and remission of sins are
by faith in Jesus Christ, which is not mentioned in these
texts, it is plain that repentance, which alone is men-
tioned in them, as required in order to remission of sins,
includes that faith in Jesus Christ, with which justifica-
tion and remission of sins is connected. We are there-
fore by repentance, in such texts, to understand all that
is comprehended in the conversion of a sinner ; and so
it seems to be for explication of repentance, according to
this larger meaning, that, being converted, is added
(Acts iii. 19), Repent — and be converted.

At other times, repentance, and faith in Jesus Christ,
are distinguished, and distinctly expressed ; Testifying
both to the Jews, and also to the Greeks, repentance towards
God, and faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ.%

* Luke xxiv. 47. t Acts iii. 19.

% Acts v. 31. § Acts xx. 21.

QUESTIONS RESPECTIXG CONVERSION 447

1. Repentance towards God. The sinner hath strayed
from God. He set up his own will, his lust, and the
desire of self-gratification, in opposition to God. He
withdrew himself from his authority and rule, and sought
his happiness in the creature, and not in the Creator, who
is blessed for ever. The heart, under the influence of
carnal lusts,, wanders in pursuit of good and happiness in
the enjoyment of the creatures ; and being insatiable by
anything found in them, says (so do the many, Ps. iv. 6),

Who will show us any good? But the soul of the sinner,
deeply convinced of sin, and its fearful consequences, by
the law, distressed with its terrors, persuaded of the
vanity of its former pursuits after imaginary happiness ;
being now renewed by the sanctification of the Spirit
before mentioned ; and viewing God in the encouraging
and amiable light, in which the gospel represents him,
doth, with shame and sorrow for his past conduct and
straying from God, return to him, to seek his happiness
in him, in his favour and enjoyment. Lord, lift thou up
the light of thy countenance upon US ; * yields himself to
his government and rule, with sincere purpose of dutiful
obedience. Thus we see repentance explained by turn-
ing to God, TJiat they should repent, and turn to God. t

2. Faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. The faith
here mentioned is not the faith of God's being and per-
fections ; nor the faith of the word of God, as it marks
out to us the way in which we ought to walk ; nor the
faith of a future life and happiness. All these are
indeed comprehended in faith, in the large sense of it.
But the faith here mentioned, with respect to the con-
version of a sinner, is faith towards the Lord Jesus Christ.
God hath in himself infinite glory,excellency, and amiable-
ness ; but it is the glory of God that shineth in the face
of Jesus Christ,^ that makes him especially amiable in the
eye of the sinner, and that doth effectually attract his
heart toward God. It is Christ, and him crucified, that
the sinner needs to be told of, to encourage his conver-

* Ps. iv. 6. + Acts xxvi. 20. See also 1 Thess. i. 9.

t 2 Cor. xv. 6.

448 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

sion and approach to God. It is the blood of sprinkling
that alone gives confidence to the guilty soul in return-
ing and approaching to God. By his mediation, Christ
is the way (John xiv. 6), and no man cometh unto the
Father but by him. In the conversion of the sinner,
God is the end, and Christ is the way to that end ; and
thus it is that the conversion of the sinner imports
repentance towards God, and faith towards our Loi'd
Jesus Christ.

Now, as to the question concerning the priority of
repentance or faith, the one to the other, it is right to
understand and hold, that the light which entereth into
the mind by the illumination of the Holy Spirit,
and by the word and doctrine of the gospel, showing,
in the most satisfying manner, the truth, reality,
and excellency of the things of God, of Christ,
and of things unseen, must be prior in the soul to any
particular acting of grace, which is necessarily directed
and influenced by this light, which is the light of faith,
as it is the evidence of things not seen.

But if we consider the question as respecting the
activity of the soul in conversion, then, as I have said,
that in conversion God is as the end in which it
terminates, and Christ the way to that end, through
faith in him ; the only way in which the sinner can
come to God acceptably, and with any well founded
confidence ; then the question concerning the priority of
repentance or faith is such as this other question :
Which is first, in order of time, or of nature, my setting
out for Edinburgh, or my taking the way to it? which
were an useless question.

It has been right and useful to consider faith in Jesus
Christ, and repentance, separately, and to give different
definitions of them. Yet as they are acted in the soul,
they are involved the one in the other ; and as they are
acted inwardly, both might well be comprehended in
the following definition — " Repentance unto life, or the
conversion of the sinner, is a saving grace, whereby a
sinner, from a true sense of his sin, and apprehension of
the mercy of God in Christ, turns from sin unto God,

QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 449

founding- his confidence, and resting on Jesus Christ for
pardon and acceptance with God through his mediation,
and for complete salvation."

I know that some will not bear to hear that repent-
ance is previous to justification, but will have it to be
wholly the consequence and effect of a sinner's being
justified, and coming under grace, and that repentance
is, from thenceforth, the continued exercise and practice
of the Christian to the end of his course. I doubt not
but many such do mean what is right in the main,
though their way of conceiving things hath this evident
inconvenience, that it would direct them to express them-
selves in a way contrary to the language of Scripture,
which calls on sinners to repent, in order to (and so
previously to) the remission of sins.

It may tend to give some further light concerning
this point that we consider how, and in what cases, the
true believer is required in Scripture to repent, or, is said
to repent.

1. I observe, that when such have considerably declined
with respect to their love, fruitfulness, or integrity, they
are called on to repent. Thus, after giving commenda-
tion to the angel of the Church of Ephesus, the Lord
says, / have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left
thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou
art fallen, and repent, and do the first works* Thus,
also in that same chapter, the angel of the church of
Pergamos having much offended the Lord, by suffering
those who held the doctrine of Balaam, and those who
held the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, the Lord says to
him (ver. 16), Repent. So likewise the angel of the
church of Laodicea having fallen into a fearful condition
of lukewarmness, the Lord says to him (chap. iii. 19),
Be zealous, therefore, and repent.

2. When a Christian hath come under the predomi-
ance of any particular lust, he is called to repent and
forsake it, and the practice that hath been the consequence
thereof. Thus the apostles, having shown pride and

* Rev. ii. 4, 5.
2 F

450 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

ambition to be very predominant in them, the Lord said
to them, Except ye be converted (the same in meaning as,
Except ye repent), and become as little children, ye shall
not enter into the kingdom of heaven* Job was happy
as to his state and general character, and gave a very
exemplary proof of patience ; yet in one thing he was
dangerously wrong, because (chap, xxxii. 2) he justified
himself rather than God ; so far even as to insinuate
what was reproachful to God with regard to his dealing
with him ; saying / am clean, without transgression —
Behold, he findeth occasions against me.j — This in Job's
views and disposition might continue to be matter of
controversy between God and him. But by Elihu's
pleading with him, and more especially by the Lord's
own appearance and pleading, he was at length brought
down from his height ; and after so confident pleading
his own righteousness, and impeaching divine providence,
he comes to this (chap. xlii. 6), / abhor myself, and repent
in dust and ashes.% It was then, and not till then, that
the Lord gave forth judgment for him against his friends,
and turned the captivity of Job. It is only in such
special cases as these, that I observe sincere believers,
or true Christians, called on to repent, or the word repent
used with respect to their disposition and course.

According to our conception, we may, perhaps, say,
that the whole life, exercise, and practice of a true Christian
is no other than repentance continued and extended to
the end of his course ; nor can I think that way of con-
ceiving things is to be found fault with. But we are
inquiring here concerning the Scripture meaning of the
word, and as to that, I have not observed anywhere in
Scripture, that the ordinary exercise and practice of the
Christian is set forth under the name of repentance.
These things, which some do conceive as a continuation
of repentance, should, according to Scripture style, be
accounted fruits, or works meet for repentance, rather

* Matt, xviii. 1, 3.

+ Saying, as Elihu represents, Job xxxiii. 9, 10.

\ Matt. iii. 8; Acts xxvi. 20.

QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 45 I

than be called any of them, or the whole together, by
the name of repentance.

Let me observe, by the way, this affords what may
satisfy us about the meaning of our Lord's expression
(Luke xv. 7) where he explains his parable of the
hundred sheep, whereof one was lost, and recovered,
to the great joy of the owner : / say unto you, that
likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that
repenteth, more than over ?iinety and nine just persons,
which need no repentance. It seems reasonable to think,
that the ninety and nine sheep are creatures of the same
species with the sheep that went astray ; that is, not
angels, but men. Who then are the ninety-nine just
persons among men, who need not repentance ? What
hath been just now observed helps us to answer — They
are those sincere Christians, who walk uniformly in a
pure and upright course, free of any remarkable sins, or
predominant lust, labouring earnestly to perfect holiness
in the fear of God. These, according to the Scripture
style and use of the word, need not repentance

Some earnestly maintain, that repentance is not
previous to, but is a consequence of justification, in
order to secure against the legal disposition, which men
are so naturally prone to, or rather, that is so deeply
rivetted in men's hearts naturally, and which is indeed
of the worst tendency and consequence to the souls of
men. Upon the same view, some have denied regenera-
tion, or the sanctifkation of the Spirit, to be previous to
faith or justification. It is certain, however, where true
regeneration is, and the sincerity of repentance, that
there is a disposition of heart the most remote from
legal. At any rate, when men would provide an
antidote against error upon one hand, they should be
very careful that they strike not against the truth, on
the other hand, or give advantage to the adversaries of
the truth. To me it appears to be the truth clearly set
forth in the word of God, that no sinner is justified but
the penitent sinner ; and that the penitent, or repenting
sinner, is justified by faith alone, by faith in Jesus Christ,
and in his blood ; from which blessed object faith

452 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

derives its virtue to justify the sinner, and not from
anything in a man, previous, concomitant, or subsequent
to his faith, however certainly connected true unfeigned
faith is with good dispositions and good works. To
represent repentance distinguished from faith, as in a
class of co-ordinate conditionally with faith in the
matter of justification, or attaining an interest in the
covenant of grace and blessings thereof, I cannot
consider otherwise than as a notion ill-founded, and of
hurtful tenden cy.

Thus we take considerable time, and use many words,
in explaining what happens instantaneously in the
human soul, so as not to be measured by time. A ray
of divine light, by one declaration or promise of God's
word, entering the mind and heart, with an effectual
touch of divine power, may effect, in an instant, in the
soul of a serious and humbled sinner, all that hath been
here said concerning the sanctification of the Spirit,,
repentance towards God, and that faith in Jesus Christ,
and in his blood, with which the justification of the
sinner is immediately connected, and that hath for its
certain consequence, freedom from the dominion of sin,
and holy practice.

One or two things remain, however, which it is fit to
add in this place. Though as to the great substance of
it, the conversion of the sinner is effected as hath been
represented, yet there may be a considerable variety as
to manner and circumstances. The spiritual state of all
men by nature is the same, yet there may be a great
difference, as to circumstances. Some are in great igno-
ance; their course hath been in remarkable opposition to
purity, and they have perhaps fallen into ways of gross
wickedness, highly dishonourable and provoking to God.
In such, the law giving the knowledge of sin, and work-
ing wrath, often strikes the conscience with greater force
and terror, and alarms the whole soul to a high degree;
so that, if divine goodness and care did not secretly work
to prevent it, the consequence might be fearful. In such,
when divine grace directs these convictions to a happy
issue, their conversion and relief by faith may be more

QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 453

evident and observable, and sensibly comfortable in a
higher degree. The Lord may likewise design to prepare
some for more special usefulness, or for more special
trials, by greater experience of the terrors of the law, and
of the consolations of grace. Yea, some have greater
softness, vivacity, and sensibility in their natural spirit
and temper ; and thereby more sensible terrors and con-
solations than others who have perhaps the reality of
this work in greater degree, and with greater effect in all
holiness and good fruits. Upon the other hand, some
have been brought up under the purity of the gospel, and
with a greater degree of light and knowledge, perhaps
under the best examples, which have not altogether been
without effect, being preserved from the more gross ways
of the world ; and possessing, perhaps, greater natural
vigour of spirit, with greater equality and sedateness of
natural temper. Though such have experienced most
serious conviction, and deep impressions of their sinful-
ness, and their wretchedness by sin, yet, perhaps, the law
of God doth not strike them with such sensible force, or
alarm them so very much by its terrors. The law may
impress them more gradually, and may (if I may with
propriety use the expression) soak by degrees into their
minds and consciences. In such, their relief, peace, and
comfort, through faith, may at first be less sensible and
observable ; but the word of the grace of the gospel
entering into their minds and hearts by slower degrees,
their faith grows up to greater strength, and with its
proper effect in holiness and fruitfulness in every gooj
work.

At any rate, as to vital principles, whatever difference
may be as to manner and circumstances, vet matters will
be with every soul truly converted to God, according
to the general views given by the Scripture, which
acquaints us, that they are (Matt. ix. 12) the sick who
need the physician; that (1 Pet. ii. 7) to them who
believe, Christ is precious ; that true faith will not allow
the Christian to be habitually (2 Pet. i. 8) idle and
unfruitful in the knowledge of Christ. It will be an
active working principle, a faith that worketh by love.

454 QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION

Another thing fit to be added here is this : However
needful the ministry and discipline of the law in the con-
science and heart of a sinner, giving the knowledge of
sin and of wrath, is to determine him to flee for refuge,
yet he is not to consider the views and impressions that
come in this way, as qualifications that entitle him to the
comforts of the gospel, or to think, as if without these in
a certain measure and degree, it were unwarrantable and
unfit for him to lay hold of Christ, or of any comforts of
grace. If he is truly and seriously convinced of his need
of a Saviour, it were well for him even immediately to
betake himself to him, believing in him. If they are the
sick that need the Physician, it were vain and highly
imprudent to stand off till they were more sick. Many
a life has been lost in that way. Whatever the disorder
whatever the pain, as to the degree of it, it were good for
a man to betake himself soon and seasonably to the
Physician. Delay in such cases is often hurtful, and
extremely dangerous. It were good for a man to be
often thinking seriously concerning his spiritual condition,
which is his most important interest. When he is so, and
obtains increased views and impressions of sin and wrath,
it were good for him, having Christ and his grace set
before him, and freely offered, to endeavour, having an
eye upward for divine influence, to lay hold of Christ by
faith, to apply the blood of sprinkling to himself, for
giving him peace; and to apply the comforts of free and
rich grace, and of the promise, suitable to his condition ;
yet this still so as that the conscience and heart shall be
kept open to further views and convictions of sin, and of
judgment for it, from the law ; in order to cause a man
take the more fast hold of the hope set before him (which
is the hope of riglitcotisncss through faith, Gal. v. 5), to
hold Christ the more precious, to have the greater relish
of the consolations of grace, and of the promise, and to
have ever the greater fear of sin, as of the greatest of all
evils.

The special design of this section was, to point out
what direction the Scripture, particularly the context
we have been considering, gives to sinners yet in their

QUESTIONS RESPECTING CONVERSION 455

natural, unconverted state, with respect to their most
important interest, especially with regard to their justifi-
cation and sanctification. When the sinner, who hath
been at ease in his sins, is first awakened to seriousness,
what especially affects his mind and conscience is, the
law as it worketh wrath ; and the great concern is, to
be freed from condemnation and judgment. Some, when
they have got some kind of peace and settlement of
mind with regard to this matter, take their ease, and
have no further concern. They rest in a form of religion
with no real holiness, or fruitfulness.

But they, in whom this work comes to a better issue,
through the mercy of God, are led farther into them-
selves, to perceive the alarming dominion which sin
hath in them, and their inability to sanctify themselves.
This becomes matter of weight}' concern with them.

The remedy with respect both to the sinner's guilt
and his depravity, is, to be made free from the law and
its curse. Whilst he is in this condition, as he is under
wrath, so sin hath dominion in him. He is at once
delivered from the divine wrath, from the dominion of
sin in his heart and nature, and made capable of holy
practice, by being justified through faith, and brought
under grace.* Sinners coming into union with Jesus
Christ by faith, they become dead to the law (free from
its curse and bondage) by the body of Christ, that they
should be married to another, even to him who is raised
from the dead, that they should bring fortli fruit unto
GodA This is the doctrine of the Scripture, and the
way which it marks out to sinful men, in which alone
they can come to a capacity of bringing forth fruit in
a practice truly holy and acceptable to God through
Jesus Christ.

We should now show what direction our context
affords, as to comfort, and holy practice, to persons now
truly in a state of grace. But as this will, in some form.

* Rom. v. 1, 2, with chap. vi. 14.
t Rom. vii. 4.

456 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

come in our way hereafter, I shall not lengthen this
section, by saying anything particular concerning it in
this place.

Sect. IV. — Concerning True Evangelical Preaching.

We proceed now to point out some directions that our
context, and the apostle's doctrine in it, afford to the
preachers of the gospel. As there are commonly persons
differing as to their spiritual condition and state in every
public audience, the discourses should exhibit things
suited to such various conditions of men. There may
be such difference in the case, even of persons in the
same unconverted state, that may require their being
addressed and treated in a different manner. Some
such are quite secure and thoughtless about their condi-
tion, whilst others of them are serious, and under the
sharp discipline of the law in their conscience. There
may also be considerable difference in the particular
condition and circumstances of persons in a state of
grace ; some such are weak, others are strong. A dis-
tinction that includes all the members of the church is,
That some are, in their natural conditon, under the law
and its curse, and under the dominion of sin ; and that
others are in a state of grace. As the apostle says of
the ancient Israel, He is not a Jew which is one out-
wardly, neither is that circumcision which is outward in
the flesh ; They are not all Israel which are of Israel ;*
so may be said of the New Testament Israel, the gospel-
church, all members of the church externally are not
the true circumcision described. f

It is, however, the way of some preachers to consider
all their audience under the general character of believers
and Christians (as they are by profession and outward
privilege), and to exhort them indiscriminately, without

* Rom. ii. 28 ; ix. 6.
t Phil. iii. 3.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 457

any hint of the difference that may be, as to their real
spiritual state, to the practice of holiness ; explaining it
and each particular virtue, and enforcing these with such
motives as the nature of the subject affords ; pressing
them to labour earnestly to overcome their evil habits,
and withdraw themselves from under the power of them,
and by careful attention to their heart and practice, to
acquire new habits of holiness and virtue ; encouraging
sometimes their sincere endeavours in this way, with the
prospect of the aids and assistances of the Holy Spirit.
As to these, the children of God do indeed need them,
with regard to all their course, work and exercise; but
persons in their natural state need much more than
particular aids and assistances.

This way of preaching tends to keep persons in
ignorance of their natural condition, and of the sad
disadvantage which they therein labour under with
respect to true holiness ; or to cause them overlook it,
and to imagine their powers amount to more than they
do. It is certain there can be no true holiness, no
sincere serving of God, until a person is made free from
sin — from its dominion. It is in that order that the
apostle conceives and represents things (chap. vi. 22),
Being made FREE FROM SIX and become servants to God,
ye have your fruit unto Jioliness. It is right that a man
should strive against ill habits ; but there is a crreat deal
more in the dominion and slavery of sin than acquired
evil habits. The dominion of sin is too strong for any
human power or endeavour. The apostle says* that
the law could not make a man free from the law of sin
and death. Why ? the law doth not encourage reforma-
tion (so some explain) by any promise of pardon. True;
but this is not all ; nor is it to this that the apostle
ascribes the disability of the law : but he says, the law
could not make a man free, in that it was weak through
the flesh, the corruption of our nature, that evil principle
in men, whose tendency and influence is ever in opposi-
tion to the direction and demand of the holv law.

Rom

45^ CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

The case hath required a great deal more than were
requisite for curing and reforming any mere ill habits.
It required, as we have seen, that Christ should become
a sacrifice for sin ; as to procure pardon, and to bring
sinners under grace, so to procure that sin should be
condemned to be ejected from its throne and dominion.
It becomes sinful men to labour in every way of duty
and means against sin. But the condemning sentence
against sin must be first truly executed by a superior
hand, before a man can do anything sincerely and
successfully in the matter. So the apostle says, The
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death.*

The first main intention, therefore, of the preacher
with respect to such sinners, should be, to bring them
truly to Christ, by the faith that would truly unite them
to him, and derive from him peace and comfort, sanctify-
ing influence and strength, that so, being married to him,
they might bring forth fruit unto God.

Subservient to this main intention is this other ; viz.
to acquaint such sinners with the wretchedness of their
condition, by the light of the law ; to show them the evil
of sin in itself, and the fearful judgment, curse, and
wrath, which by the law is due to it ; to explain to them
the holiness which the holy and spiritual law requires ;
and besides their actual sins, to mark out to them the
contrariety to this holiness, which they may observe in
their own nature and heart, by comparing these with the
perfect rule, and the light of the word of God ; and to
convince them by the word of God, and what they may
find in their own experience, how impossible it is for
them (being slaves of sin. and it having invested all
their faculties and powers), to reform or sanctify their
own hearts, or to practise holiness in a manner truly
sincere and acceptable to God.

At the same time, with a view to sinners becoming
serious and earnest in the matter of salvation, it is fit
that the preacher lay fully before them the abounding

;:" Rom. viii. 2.

COXCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 459

and exceeding riches of divine grace ; the sufficiency
of the Saviour ; his love to sinners ; the complacency he
hath in their betaking themselves to him ; and the
absolute freeness (without money and without price)
with which Christ, and all grace, is offered in the gospel,
even to the chief of sinners. This should be done in
such a manner as to obviate the temptations of various
sorts, which arise from their own ignorance and mistake,
or from the device of the enemy ; which, by reason of
the darkness and weakness of their minds, they are
commonly too ready to entertain to their great hurt. It
was appointed anciently, that the highways to the city
of refuge should be open and clear, that nothing might
impede the course of a man thither, when he was fleeing
from the avenger : So should the preacher labour, by
the direction of the word of God, to obviate and remove
everything that might discourage or hinder the motion
of a serious and humbled sinner towards Christ by faith,
for refuge and salvation.

I have noticed the directions which our context affords
to sinners themselves, with regard to their wretched,
natural state. As these may serve likewise for the use
of the preacher in dealing with such, I shall insist no
longer on this part of the subject.

The other class, of whom the preacher ought to have
much consideration, are sincere believers, who are truly
in a state of grace. The important intention with regard
to them is, the building them up in holiness and comfort;
— in comfort, particularly in what concerns their sanctifi-
cation ; as indeed their feelings and experience do often
occasion more sorrow and discouragement with regard
to this subject than with regard to any other. Yet it is
of great importance that their comfort and joy should
be maintained, as the joy of the Lord is their strength.

We see the apostle in our context acting on this view
very remarkably. His special purpose is to exhort to
the practice of holiness, to the avoiding and resisting of
sin. But he brings forth every argument, clothed, as it
were, with consolation, respecting the subject 'concerning
which Christians do commonly find such cause of dis-

460 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

couragement) and respecting the happy and certain issue.
To be dead to sin* affords a strong argument why
Christians should not live in sin. But how great the
comfort, to be made free from its dominion, as that
expression imports? Christians are obliged to be in
practice conformed to Christ's death, and to the design
of it. But how great the comfort, that they have
fellowship with him in his crucifixion and death, so that
though sin remain in them, and gives them much
molestation, yet the old man is crucified by virtue
of the cross of Christ, and so being enervated and
weakened, they may take courage to decline its service !
If Christians have fellowship with Christ in his death,
whereby they are made free from the dominion of sin,
how unspeakably great the consolation, that they shall
be planted together in the likeness of his resurrection,
and, having died with him, that they shall live with him
in newness of life here, and in eternal life hereafter ; and
may reckon themselves to be dead indeed unto sin
(made free from its reign and dominion), and alive unto
God through Jesus Christ ! Such consolations tend
greatly to sweeten and recommend to the heart the
arguments enforcing holiness and holy practice.

This particularly hath that tendency, Sin SHALL NOT
have dominion over you ; for ye are not under the law, but
under grace. j As if he had said, The law would have
left you wholly to your own free will, to stand or fall
according to its direction and determination. If a
sinner were delivered from the law, and that miserable
condition into which his sin had brought him, and put
anew under the law, he could have no security for
preserving himself from coming anew and quickly under
the dominion of sin. But the Christian being under
grace, the object of special divine favour, yea, a child of
God, divine grace will take care that he fall not under
that thraldom again, according to the declaration of the
last mentioned text, and according to the promise of
God's covenant of grace (Jer. xxxii. 40). And though

* Rom. vi. 2. t Rom. vi. 14.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHIXG 46 1

the means needful to be used, by way of chastisement,
may be so bitter and painful as may make sin ever fear-
ful to him, yet he will be recovered from his straying, and
from his disordered frame ; his faith shall not fail, or be
quite eradicated, but his seed shall, by Divine influence
and care, abide in him. Thus the apostle goes on, com-
forting and exhorting at once, by the most encouraging
considerations, and the most cogent arguments, to ver. 22,
But nawt being made free from sin, and become servants to
God, ye have your fruit unto holiness, and the end ever-
lasting life; in which words he gives a summary of what
he had said more largely in the whole chapter.

Let us go a little farther in observing how the apostle
manages this subject. As the condition of sinners under
the law is so extremely miserable, the apostle sets out on
that subject (chap. vii. 4) with stating this very comfort-
able sentiment to Christians ; viz. that they were dead
to the law, and entered into marriage with a better
husband, by whom they would become fruitful in holi-
ness. It is not until after this, that he shows from his
own experience, when under the law, how great the
power of sin, in opposition to holiness, is, in the case of
those who are under the law. But as sincere Christians,
acquainted with the spirituality of the law, and with
their own hearts, might find still with themselves what
was very opposite to the holiness q{ the law, there wa^
great need of providing comfort against this. He doth
so by representing his own case and experience in his
state of grace, in order (as Augustine said judiciously)
that a sincere soul might not conceive excessive dread or
discouragement from what the apostle found in his own
case ; and in the end he leads the true Christian (ver. 25)
to a joyful thanksgiving to God for what he had attained,
and for his happy prospect.

Thus the apostle's arguments against sin, and for
enforcing the practice of holiness, are all along dipped
in consolation, and this way ought the preacher of the
gospel to follow in exhorting Christians to holiness.

Yet often it is needful in dealing with Christians, to
administer something else than mere consolation. The

462 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

case even of true Christians is commonly various. If
some especially need comfort, others need something else
in the meantime.

For this we may observe the apostle's distinction and
advice, Warn them that are unruly, or disorderly.*
If a Christian doth in his practice, perhaps in a remark-
able degree, leave the rule of holiness, and act contrary
thereto, it is needful, for recovering him, to warn him
with proper authority, and sharpness of rebuke, acquaint-
ing him with the danger of his present course : it is not
comfort that is then most needful or fit. Comfort the
feeble-minded. — Some Christians, through the weakness
of their spirit, do not retain their comfort ; but it is
easily shaken or overturned ; especially when there is
the pressure of heavy affliction and tribulation, with
various temptations. Their case needs to be carefully
attended to, and all proper means used to revive and
strengthen them, and to establish them in comfort and
hope through faith. Support the weak. — Some labour
under too great degree of ignorance (as, for instance,
of the Christian Gentiles, their full liberty from all the
Mosaic yoke, which was the weakness of some hereto-
fore, Rom. xiv.) and with unsteadiness of temper other-
wise ; their ignorance makes them easily stumble, or
puts them in danger of going out of the right way.
Such need to be supported by those who are strong,
particularly by their teachers, with proper instruction,
increase of light, and with charitable condescension to
their weakness, so as not to give them needless offence.
Though, as to matters of necessary and strict duty, other
Christians or ministers are not to be brought into
bondage to their weakness, by virtue of any claim they
can found on considerations of offence.

Thus true Christians should, according to their
different cases, be somewhat differently treated. But it
is still true in general, that Christians, from their inward
and outward condition in this evil world, do need that
care should be taken by preachers and others, to labour

1 Thess. v. 14.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHLNG 463

in advancing and establishing their comfort, in the
proper, seasonable, judicious, and well warranted manner.
— I should now proceed to the other special purpose
which a preacher of the gospel should have in view,
with respect to true Christians, and that is, the
advancing them in holiness. But I choose a following
place for that subject.

Before we go farther, we have full occasion to observe,
of how great importance it is, to preach the special
doctrine of the gospel, the doctrine of faith ; and that,
not only in order to give sinners encouragement respect-
ing free justification, but also with regard to sanctifica-
tion. The Gospel, the doctrine of faith, is the special
truth of God, and of divine revelation ; this is the great
means of sanctification, according to that declaration
and petition of our blessed Saviour to his Father :
Sanctify them through thy truth ; thy word is truth*

It is not always the Gospel that is delivered from the
pulpit. A man may preach very sensibly concerning
the divine perfections, and the authority of God's
government and laws. He may set forth the general
obligations to duty and obedience. He may inculcate
the amiablensss of virtue in general, or of particular
virtues ; and may represent many worthy examples,
for men's encouragement and excitement. He may
earnestly call on men to repent of their sins, and to
reform the disposition of their hearts, and their course
of life. He may inculcate this with all the advantage
of elocution, earnestness, and action, that would entitle
him to the character of the complete orator. The
composition may be very skilful, the language elegant
and pathetical, and the preacher may be so greatly
applauded, that it may sometimes be said, He hath his
reward. Not only may the ears of the hearers be
tickled, but their minds may be very agreeably enter-
tained with sentiments that are in themselves just, and
with many a good thought. Yet in all this there may
be nothing by which a soul ma)- be relieved and re-

* John xvii. 17.

464 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

freshed, that labours and is heavy laden ; nothing by
which a serious soul may be directed to the proper
sources of sanctification. A discourse may have in it
much truth that is consistent with the gospel, and
presupposed by it, and yet have nothing in it of the
gospel, properly so called. Of such a discourse, with all
its advantage of sentiment and expression, it may be
said, as the apostle says of the law, that it is weak
through the flesh. The corruption of nature, in which
sin hath dominion, is too strong for philosophy, logic,
and rhetoric — too strong for refined speculation, strong-
argument, and the greatest oratory.

It is only the law of the Spirit of life that can make
men free from that unhappy law of sin and death, that
prevails naturally in the hearts of men ; and what
arguments or exhortations will prevail with the hearts
of men to be truly holy and virtuous, whilst they are
under the miserable law and dominion of sin? It is the
gospel that is the ministration of the Spirit. Men receive
the Spirit through faith (Gal. iii., 14), by the hearing of
faith (Gal. iii. 2). It is the gospel that exhibits God's
highest glory, which he chiefly designs to display before
sinful men, even that glory of God that shineth in the
face of Christ. It is the gospel that sets forth the glory
of Christ, and by which the Holy Spirit himself is
glorified ; and it is it that will be honoured with the
concomitant influence of the Holy Spirit. It is true,
after all, that whilst the faithful preacher may be to
God, a sweet savour of Christ he may be to them who
perish the savour of death, through their own fault ; *
vet the powerful influence of the Holy Spirit is not
likely to attend any other means, even any other truth,
than the truth and doctrine of faith, the gospel, which
will be the savour of life unto life to some. But, however
it may happen to hearers, or however the blessings of
grace may be dispensed, it is happy for the preacher
that himself should be to God a sweet savour of Christ.
If it should now be asked what is that special doctrine

* 2 Cor. ii. 1 ;, 16.

CONCEKiYIXG TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH 1XG 465

of the gospel, and, strictly speaking, the doctrine of faith ?
I shall answer briefly —

All revealed truth ought to be greatly valued, and
received by faith ; and, if properly used, may be sub-
servient to the main subject and design of the gospel.
But the special subject of the gospel is Christ ; and
preaching Christ, according to the light and direction of
the word of God, is preaching the gospel. The angel
preached it to the shepherds, saying, Fear not ; for
behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall
be to all people. For unto you is born this day, in the eity
of David, a Saviour which is Christ the Lord* To
preach Christ the Saviour and the LORD, is the sum of
gospel-preaching. To exhibit him as a powerful Saviour,
not merely to save us from our ignorance or our errors, as
a Prophet and Teacher sent from God, or merely as a
powerful Lord to protect us during our course of
obedience to him in our way through this world, and at
last to raise us up by his power to eternal bliss ; but in the
most comprehensive sense to save us from our sins.
Under this character was he introduced into the world.
Thou shalt call his name JESUS; for lie shall save his
people from their siusA The whole extent of this salva-
tion is comprised in these few words, He is of God made
unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption.^ Besides that illumination of our minds, and
instruction by his word, that is contained in the sense of
his being made unto us wisdom, the two great parts of
our salvation that are to be carried on and effected in
this life, are his being made unto us righteousness and
sauetif 'cation, and how he is the Saviour to us with respect
to both these, is what the blessed apostle explains and
asserts in the context I have been explaining, and in the
preceding part of the epistle.

With regard to the first of these, as he had proved
'chap. iii. 19), that all the world is guilty before God ; so
he had shown how Christ is made unto us righteousness,
and how sinners are justified, vers. 24, 25, formerly cited ;

* Luke ii. 10, 11. t Matt L 21. 1 1 Cor. i. 30.

2 G

466 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

to which is to be added, Eph i. 7. And as to the other
part, our sanctification, — as by his being a sacrifice for
sin, he hath procured the condemning of sin in the flesh,
so he doth make sinners free from its thraldom by his
Spirit, and carries on their sanctification by his
Spirit, by his word, and by his providence, until at
length he shall present his church a glorious church
without spot. Thus is Christ a Saviour, saving us from
our sins. When we were under the guilt and dominion
of sin, thus hath he saved us by him. " Not by works of
righteousness, which we have done, but according to his
mercy he saved us by the washing of regeneration, and
renewing of the Holy Ghost ; which he shed on us
abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour ; that
being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs
according to the hope of eternal life."*

We may observe how exceedingly careful the apostle
was, in preaching, to make Christ and his cross the chief
subject. To the Corinthians, those Greeks who were as
much taken up about wisdom of sentiment, refined
-speculation, and elegance of language, as the men of
most politeness and fine taste in our times, he says,
Christ sent me — to preach the gospel ; not with wisdom of
words, lest the cross of CJirist shoidd be made of none effects
When men labour greatly about artful composition,
refined philosophical sentiment, and well turned expres-
sion, it were well that this saying of the apostle should
occur to their minds ; and that they would beware lest
the tendency of their labour should be to make the
cross of Christ of none effect. It appears the blessed
apostle wished not that the brightness of the preacher,
or his performance, should obscure the glories of the
cross, or should obstruct its virtue and effect in the con-
sciences and hearts of men. We preach not, saith he (2
Cor. iv. 5), ourselves, but Christ fesus the Lord.

Although the preaching of Christ crucified was to the
Greeks foolishness, yet he asserts, that Christ crucified is
(ver. 24) to them who are called, the pozver of God, and

* Tit. iii. 5, 6, 7. t 1 Cor. i. 17.

CONCERN! AG TRUE EVANGELICAL /"REACHING 467

the wisdom of God. So, to these same polite, speculative,
wise, and elegant Greeks, he says again, " And I,
brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency
of speech, or of wisdom, declaring to you, the testimony
of God. For I determined not to know any thing
among you save Jesus Christ, and him crucified."* We
have reason to think the apostle had very extensive
knowledge ; but from whatever part in the circle of
knowledge he drew his lines, they all, with him and in
his preaching, centred in Christ, or were drawn from that
centre in every direction.

In all this, the preacher hath large scope for his
meditations and discourses. But, with propriety, purity,
and gravity of language, it is only the most unaffected
plainness and simplicity of style that can suit subjects
so very sublime. To endeavour to set forth such
subjects with flourish and ornament of speech, is silly
and pedantic, hath nothing in it of true oratory, and
shows that the man's own heart is not seriously enough
affected with the importance of the subject to himself
and to his hearers. Though propriety of style, with
gravity and plainness, is commonly fittest, yet there
seems to be a great deal in what was said long ago
by an eminent person : Qui pucrilita\ qui trivialitcr ( I
would add here, sed non futilitcr), is utiliter. The low,
but decent and grave homely style, is most adapted
to the profit, commonly, of the greatest part of an
audience; and they of better rank and education who
wish to have their conscience open to, and their hearts
seriously affected by, the word of God, may reap the
most valuable advantages by those sermons that are
most profitable to persons of lower condition.

What shall I say of that most foolish custom of
reading sermons to the congregation, which hath come
from the Southern (I know not if it takes place in any
other countries) to be in use of late with some in the
Northern part of the Island? It is too dull for the
orator, and puts such a man in fetters ; and it hath a

* 1 Cor. ii. 1, 2.

468 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

strange appearance, that an ambassador of Christ should
deliver his message in this way. What the Lord hath
given in writing, he should read to his people ; and if
the minister should from a distance send an epistle to
his congregation, the clerk might read it to them from
the desk. But that the messenger of Christ should
appear personally, and address the consciences and hearts
of his people, praying them, beseeching them, earnestly
exhorting them from his papers, is extremely incon-
gruous. We speak of a man's getting a discourse by
heart ; and it were right that preachers should (in a
sense somewhat different from the more common mean-
ing of that expression) have their sermons by heartr
and preach from the heart to the heart. At any rate,
the appearance of this is the most becoming, the most
likely to be profitable, and generally the most acceptable.
Some hearers who have, or pretend to have, better judg-
ment and taste than their neighbours, may like the
reading of sermons ; but it may well be doubted if these
are the sort who have the best taste of gospel-preaching,,
or are most serious in religion. With us, this way is
hitherto so generally disgusting to congregations, some-
times without the exception of a single person, that often
the reader may be vindicated from the charge of setting
up for applause ; if it is not, perhaps, the self-applauser
which his notion of his own superiority makes him fond
of, with the contempt of others. I would not, however,
be understood to mean, that the church should be wholly
deprived of the useful preaching of those who, through
old age, or accidental infirmity, are disabled from deliver-
ing sermons in any other manner ; but I have known
very few instances of that kind among those who could
prepare such discourses, or could preach at all.

I have been saying, that the chief thing in preaching
should be to preach Christ, and the doctrine of the
gospel concerning him. Too many sermons come abroad
into the world that are much wanting fn that respect.
I venture to give, for an instance of this, a sermon of
the Reverend John Alexander, said, in the title-page of
the book in which it is contained, to have been composed

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 469

(which I much doubt of) by the author the day pre-
ceding his death. This circumstance might have afforded
reason not to mention it here in this way, if, after its
being published, it did not appear needful to report such
a circumstance, in order to make some observations on
it, for the sake of the living.

The text is (Eccles. ix. 10), " Whatsoever thy hand
fmdeth to do, do it with thy might ; for there is no work
nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave,
whither thou goest."

The heads under which he enlarges on this text are
two. The first, What is implied in the advice in the
text. On this he says: I. It teaches us diligence and
assiduity in the daily employments of life. 2. The
speedy execution of every worthy and important scheme.
3. The constant and strenuous exertion of all our faculties
in the proper business of reasonable and moral agents ;
the improvement of our minds, and the government of
our passions and affections, &c. The second general
head is, to illustrate the motive contained in the text. As
to this, there is, 1. The nature of that state upon which
we enter by death. There is neither work, &c. It is a
state of perfect ignorance and inactivity, in which we
retain no sense of our present condition, no memory of
former transactions, nor any of the pleasing capacities of
action and enjoyment — so it is indeed in the full sense,
if after death there remain no more of man than what
goes to the grave. 2. This state, as it is real and
certain, so it is continually approaching — the grave to
which thou goest.

This is the sum of the sermon. He mentions the
second life, to which we aspire, by the favour and good-
ness of the Creator ; and a little thereafter, mentions the
reviving prospect of immortality, and that glorious hope
of a resurrection, which is promised in the gospel. One
might think, if the writer relished that subject, that here
was a fair opportunity of mentioning Christ, who by his
death and resurrection abolished death, and brought life
and immortality to light through the gospel. A few
lines from the end of the sermon he says, M We must live

470 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

to God, and lead an heavenly life, if we ever expect to
reach those blissful abodes ; and we must form the habits
of goodness and holiness, in order to be admitted there."
Would the apostle Paul have discoursed of living to
God, of living a heavenly life, of forming habits of good-
ness and holiness, without making mention of Christ, or
of his death and resurrection ? This may be judged of
from the context we have been considering. This author
had learned from the gospel, that there is the hope of the
resurrection and future life ; but there is nothing in all
the sermon by which one would learn that ever he had
heard of Christ the Saviour, or of the Spirit of Christ, or
the need which sinful men have of the one or the other :
nothing of these subjects is insinuated or hinted in the
remotest manner ; only the name Christian occurs, from
whatever root that word is derived. It might be thought,
that in the full light that hath come by thegospel,a preacher
of the gospel could not easily preach on that same text
(Eccles. ix. 10), without setting Christ before his hearers.
There has an apology been provided for such a case
by a very celebrated preacher, who gave as his excuse
for not mentioning Christ in his sermon, that he was not
mentioned in his text. Nor is he mentioned in that text
(Eph. ii. 8), By grace ye are saved, through faith ; yet one
might think it were not easy to preach properly on it,
and give the proper explanations, exhortations, and
directions, without mentioning Christ. It is however
possible, that though the name Christ is not mentioned,
the sermon may be truly evangelical ; and also that
Christ may be often mentioned, and the sermon be far
from being evangelical. After all, it would seem more
becoming a minister of Christ, to take all occasions to
set Christ and his grace before his hearers, rather than
be so ready to sustain for himself, and offer to others, an
excuse for having nothing about him at all. Such
preachers would do well to compare their sermons with
our context, yea, with all the epistles of Paul, where we
see he could not proceed a step without introducing that
important, necessary, and favourite subject. But since
the time of that blessed apostle, many have appeared to

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 47 I

be far from the disposition he expresses (Rom. i. 16, 17),
/ am not ashamed of the gospel of Clirist: for it is the
power of God unto salvation — For therein is the righteous-
ness of God revealed. — There are some who speak much
about righteousness, who seem not to be fond of that
righteousness of God meant by him, and which he
counted the glory of the gospel, and a special cause why
he should not be ashamed of it. As they incline not to
borrow righteousness from Christ for justification, so
neither do they appear to see need of Christ for practical
righteousness and holiness ; if it is not for a clearer
illustration of the law that is the rule of it. Many, who
wish not to bear the character of infidels, do, under
Christian profession, appear to have gone far in the
way to a sort of philosophical heathenism, borrowing
from the gospel-revelation what they think fit for adorn-
ing and recommending their new form of heathenism.

But if it is fit and necessary to preach Christ, and him
crucified, and the special doctrine of the gospel concern-
ing him, it is also necessary to set forth and to inculcate
earnestly the design of his death, and of the grace
manifested in the gospel through him. If it was his
gracious design to bring sinners to peace, grace, and
favour with God, and at last to a state of blessedness
and glory, it was no less his design to sanctify them.
So Eph. v. 25-27, He gave liimself for his churchy that he
might sanctify it ; — and Tit. ii. 14, He gave himself for
us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify
to liimself a peculiar people, zealous of good zvorks. The
demand for preaching Christ and free grace is so far
from being opposite to the end of preaching holiness and
good works, that indeed men cannot preach holiness
and good works to good purpose, and with good effect,
without bringing along with them all the way the
doctrine of Christ, and of free grace. It is at the same
time true, that men's preaching is essentially defective,
if they preach not Christ in a manner subservient to
holiness. Some men, when they hear a demand for
evangelical preaching, and the doctrine of grace, with
complaints of legal doctrine, have been ready to ex-

472 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

claim, and to say, that those who make them cannot
bear to hear of holiness and good works. This is far
from the disposition of pious souls who have a true
relish of the truth of the gospel, and a just zeal for it.
Yet, if the manner in which some preach holiness and
good works gives disgust, there is often too much cause
for that disgust. They are particularly happy who~have
the skill to give free grace through Jesus Christ, and
holiness, their proper place, in a proper connection the
one with the other.

In the meantime, if faithful men are most frequently
employed in preaching Christ, and the doctrine of grace,
there is special reason and need for it. The consciences
of men have naturally in them light and impressions
favouring holiness and good works ; whereas the peculiar
doctrine of faith, in which all the comfort and hope of
sinful men are founded, are such as nature gives no
hint of. They are, according to that text formerly cited,*
things which eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man, and which we could
not have discovered by any light or principles naturally
in our minds, nor have come to the knowledge of them,
if God had not revealed them to us by his Spirit. Yea,
as hath been also formerly observed, there are principles
and dispositions naturally in the hearts of men, which
tend to lead them to some other foundation of their
confidence and hope, than that which the gospel and
the doctrine of grace directs them to. It is the more
necessary to labour much in explaining and establishing
the truth concerning Christ crucified, and all the proper
doctrines of faith that are connected with that funda-
mental subject, and in inculcating these upon the
consciences and hearts of the hearers. When the truths
of faith are effectually received into the heart, they of
themselves dispose it to holiness ; and the true faith of
these truths works by that love which is the fulfilling of
the law. Indeed, in sincere Christians, love to God and
men, with its fruits, in all kinds of duty, and of holy

* i Cor. ii. 9, 10.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH1XG 473

dispositions, is to be considered as the effect rather of
the doctrine of grace itself received into the heart, than
as the consequence of the direct exhortations to that
love and duty : so that when a preacher is not employed
in direct and explicit exhortations to holiness, but in
setting forth the love and grace of God in Christ Jesus,
he is not so remote from the purpose of advancing
holiness as some apprehend.

But still the practice of holiness and good works is
of too much consequence not to be insisted on and
urged in the most careful, direct, and earnest manner.
Some who insist only on the encouragements and con-
solations of grace, are defective in this respect. I am
not apprehensive of very considerable danger by this
to true believers, sincere Christians, for the reason I
have been just now suggesting. But as all who have
the appearance, are not truly such, man}- may be much
hurt in this way. The doctrine of Christ crucified, and
the consolations arising from the richness and freeness
of divine grace through him, may be to many as a very
lovely song of one that hath a pleasant voice, and can play
well on an instrument ; * when these doctrines have
never been truly, and with proper effect, received into
their hearts. There is a description of sermons that
do not urge the holiness which the hearts of too many
professed Christians are not disposed to, that do not
reprove their vices and unholy passions, or the false and
foul steps in their walk, or their unfruitfulness in the
knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ ; and the preachers
themselves may be greatly applauded, whilst their
preaching is very defective. Yea, as the children of
God themselves have the remainders of the flesh in
them, they sometimes have much of the fruit thereof
in their disposition, temper, and behaviour, that they do
not choose should be touched or exposed in a proper
light, even to their own view. Yet the health and purity
of their souls require that these evils should not be
cherished under any disguises.

* Ezek. xxxiii. 32.

474 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

The doctrine, then, of faith, and of Christ crucified,
should be exhibited in its proper connection with holi-
ness and good works. This connection hath been much
mistaken by some, who represent holiness and good
works as necessary to men's having an interest in Christ
and being justified, which is very contrary to the gospel,
and is extremely hurtful and dangerous. Some, upon
the other hand, who teach justification by faith, and not
by works, and have just sentiments concerning the
necessity of holiness in the general, yet in preaching are
too negligent in insisting upon the certain and necessary
connection between faith and good works — between
justification and true holiness ; the one as the fruit and
consequence of the other. As this may be of pernicious
effect to hypocrites in the church, it cannot be doubted
but it must be very hurtful to those who are sincere, not
to have the instructions and excitements, with respect
to holy disposition and practice, that are proper.

It is then to be considered, that the gospel and doc-
trine of grace is the doctrine that is according to godliness,
which tendeth, in the whole and in every part of it, to
promote the practice of godliness. Let us likewise con-
sider what the apostle in divers places, means by soimd
doctrine, and wholesome words, particularly I Tim. i. 9,
10, 11, — The law is made— for the lawless— for liars and
perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is
contrary to SOUND DOCTRINE, according to the glorious
gospel of the blessed God. Here it is plain, that sound
doctrine (vyiaivovcnj StSaa-KaXta^ healthful, wholesome doc-
trine), is the doctrine of the holy commandment, the rule
of duty, as enforced by the gospel. So (chap, vi.) after
he had (vers. 1, 2) enforced the duty of Christian servants,
he adds (ver. 3), If any man teach otherwise, and consent
not to wholesome words (yyiatvovo-i Aoyois), he is proud,
knowing nothing* Thus also, Tit. ii. 1, But speak thou
the things which become sound doctrine (ver. 2), that the
aged men be sober, &c. And so he goes on, speaking of
practical matters, the duties of Christians in the several

* 1 Tim. vi. 3.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 475

relations, ranks, and conditions of life. I conclude, if
any do urge holiness and good works, without connecting
these, as the proper consequences, with the doctrine of
Christ crucified, and with faith, they certainly, according
to the whole tenor of the gospel, have not sound, health-
ful doctrine. At the same time, if any do separate the
doctrine of faith and of Christ crucified from that of
holiness, practical righteousness, and good works, surely,
according to the apostle Paul, in the places I have been
observing, neither is their doctrine sound, wholesome, or
healthful doctrine.

It appears in the context we have been considering,
how much the apostle had at heart to excite Christians
to the practice of holiness. This is so obvious through
the whole of it, that after the close view we have been
taking of it, we need not speak more particularly on it
here.

Let us then proceed to observe what arguments remain,
consistent with the doctrine of grace, by which the preachcr
may excite Christians to watchfulness against sin, and to
the practice of holiness and all kinds of good works.

It is, in the first place, needful that Christians should
be deeply impressed with the authority of the laws of
God, their Creator and Supreme Lawgiver, and that
preachers should inculcate this on all classes of their
hearers. Some who, I am persuaded, did not mean any-
thing unfavourable to holiness, or to any duty, seem to
have thought as if the believer's being delivered from the
law included in its meaning their being released from
this original obligation of the law, and their having
substituted in its place to them the law of Christ. That
expression, the law of Clirist, doth indeed occur in one
place (Gal. vi. 2), where it evidently signifies the law of
mutual brotherly love, by which Christians bear one
another's burdens, which is the subject of exhortation
there. As to the law in general, it is to be acknowledged
that the law and holy commandment coming to believers
from the great Prophet and Apostle of their profession,
and being the instrument and rule of his kingly govern-
ment over them ; there is a great deal in this view, and

476 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

way of conveyance of it to them, to sweeten and recom-
mend it to their hearts.

But still it is wrong to set up the law of Christ in
opposition to the authority of the law of the great
Creator and Sovereign of the world, or to suppose that
the doctrine of faith gives any reason for this, or any
countenance to it. When the apostle is (Rom. vii.)
giving an account of things respecting those who were
strangers to Christ, being in the flesh, and under the law,
he commends the law as holy, just, and good. This
certainly is the law of God, the Creator. When, a few
words thereafter, he says (ver. 14), the law is spiritual, it
is plain it is the same law he speaks of, as he gives no
indication of his using the word in a different sense, now
that he speaks with a view to the case of a believer. A
little downward he says of the same law, that he
delighted in it according to the inward man ; and con-
cludes the chapter with saying, that with his mind he
served the lazv of God. If he served it, surely he was
under its authority.

Our apostle says, that the carnal mind is not subject
to the law of God* Shall it be said, that the spiritual
mind and spiritual man, under the influence of the
Spirit of grace, doth voluntarily conform to the law of
God, but is not indeed subject to it, or to its authority?
This would seem to be too absurd. For as the unhappy
distinction of the carnal mind is not to be subject, we
must suppose the spiritual mind to have the opposite
character of being subject to the law, and its authority.

The apostle says, Do we make void the law through
faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the law A It is
true, that the law was greatly established and magnified
by the satisfaction Christ gave it ; yet it is not easy to
conceive that a doctrine did not tend to make void the
law, if indeed it released all true Christians from its
authority and obligation.

If the matter be justly considered, the obligation
which true believers, or others, are under to regard and

* Rom. viii. 7. t Rom. iii. 31.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 4;/

submit to Christ the Mediator's kingly government, and
his other mediatory offices, is founded upon, and pro-
ceeds from the authority of God the Sovereign Law-
giver, and of his law. If it were possible for them to be
loosed from the obligation of the law of God the Creator
and Supreme Lawgiver, they would at the same time be
set free from the government of the Mediator. But they
are subject to the kingly government and authority of
the Mediator, by virtue of their being, and continuing to
be, under the authority and law of him who said, / have
set my King upon my holy liill of Zionr They regard
him as the great Prophet, by virtue of his authority, who
said from heaven, Hear ye himA They consider him as
their great High Priest, for his being called of God, as
was Aaron. \ Let not then the Christian think, that, by
being free from the law in the sense meant by the
apostle (Rom. vii.) he is not under the authority of the
holy commandment, as it is the law of the Creator and
Supreme Ruler of the world.

Another set of arguments that ought to be carefully
urged and inculcated, are these that arise from the grace
of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ. The authority of
God in his laws is that which doth, and still ought to
effect the conscience. But consolatory arguments are
these which do most effectually and powerfully affect
the heart. The exceeding riches of the grace of God, in
his kindness to us through Jesus Christ, should make
the authority of his government and laws venerable and
amiable to us, and every one of his commandments
acceptable to us ; and ought for this end to be much
inculcated. The love of our Lord Jesus Christ, who
loved his people, and gave himself for them, is a most
powerful argument for that love, which engages the
heart to the Lord, and to the study of holiness. Ye are
not, saith the apostle, your own ; ye arc bought with a
price.% This is wonderful grace, inexpressibly comfort-
able ; and how strong and en£ragincr the argument it

* Ps. ii. 6. t Matt. xvii. ">, as in Deut. xviii. 15-1S.

{ Heb. v. 4-6. I 1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.

478 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

affords for Christians to glorify God in their bodies, and
in their spirits, which are his! In temptations to sin,
how powerfully may that thought, Do ye thus requite the
Lord, strike the heart that hath any sincerity in it !

A strong argument to enforce holiness, arises from the
necessity of it, in order to the actual attainment of
future happiness and eternal life; and the certain
inseparable connection between fleshly, unholy living,
and eternal death. Heb. xii. 14, Follow peace with all
men, and holiness, without which 110 man shall see the
Lord. On the other hand (Rom. viii. 13), If ye live after
the flesh, ye shall die. Upon this latter text some have
unreasonably commented, and argued thus : Therefore
it is evident, say they, that true believers and saints
(and the apostle considered the Romans he wrote to as
such), may fall wholly off from holiness to fleshly living,
and die eternally, else why should they be thus warned ?
But there is no ground for this argument in the apostle's
proposition. The thing asserted is, according to the
nature of such hypothetical propositions, the certain
connection between one thing and another : between
continued fleshly living, and dying eternally. Let us
apply this way of arguing to such another hypothetical
proposition, and see how it will hold. When the
mariners attempted to leave the ship wherein Paul was,
he said, Except these abide in the ship, ye cannot be saved*
Would it be inferred from this, that the mariners might
actually leave the ship, and that the other people aboard
might all actually perish, notwithstanding God's having
absolutely promised them by his angel and by Paul, that
there would not be the loss of any man's life among
them ? Surely this could not be inferred. Neither from
the conditional proposition (Rom. viii. 13) can any
thing be inferred -contrary to the absolute promises of
God's covenant (Jer. xxxii. 40). The truth declared to
the Romans is, that eternal death will be the certain
consequence of living after the flesh ; and the conviction
and impression of this in the minds and hearts of God's

* Acts xxviii. 34.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 479

people, and powerfully affecting them, is one considerable
means by which the purpose and promise of God will
take effect, in their perseverance and salvation. There
is nothing in the promises of God that derogates from this
certain truth, — If men shall live after the flesh, that they
shall die ; nor any thing in this that derogates from the
truth and certainty oi the promises of the new covenant.

It is likewise needful and fit that Christians consider,
and that preachers inculcate upon them, that the
practice of holiness and good works is the sure way to
attain and maintain the fixed and habitual assurance of
their good state, and of their eternal salvation. If (as
Rom. viii. 16), the Spirit of God shall bear witness with
our spirits, that we are the children of God, and so heirs
of God, this is the evidence by which our spirit, mind,
and conscience have their part in this witnessing. It is
by their fruitful ness in holiness (as 1 Pet. i. 4-7), that
Christians are exhorted (ver. 10. to make their calling
and election sure. When the apostle commends the
Hebrews for their good works, he desires them to show
the same diligence, to tlie full assurance of hope unto the
end)* A Christian may have well-founded present con-
solation by the direct exercise of faith on Jesus Christ,
and the promises of a new covenant ; but fixed, habitual,
and well-established comfort, as to their state and hope,
cannot be maintained but in the way of purity and
upright walking with God ; nor will the Holy Spirit,
whose influence is needful in this case, countenance or
support the comfort and hope of the Christian in any
other course. As something hath been formerly said on
this and the next following point, the less needs to be
said on either in this place.!

There occurs next the consideration of divine chastise-
ments. Fatherly chastisements indeed they are to
believers, the children of God, and designed to make
them partakers of his holiness ; but how fearful may
these chastisements be for what is wrong or defective in
the Christian's general course, or for particular deviations

* Heb. vi. 10, 11. + See Section II

480 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

from purity and integrity ! Many instances of this sort
are related in the word of God, with respect to those to
whom grace did abound in pardoning. Thus, Ps. xcix. 8,
Thou wast a God that forgavest them ; though thou
tookest vengeance of their inventions. What terrible dis-
pensations, outward and inward, may be included in this
vengeance ! A child of God, who had great assurance
that things would go well with him finally, felt as he
expresses, My flesh tremble th for fear of thee, and 1 am
afraid of thy judgments*

Further, it is in the way of holiness that the Christian
may have, not only inward peace, but that fellowship and
intercourse with God, and light of his countenance, that
will make wisdom's ways ways of pleasantness to him.
Thus, I John i. y, If we walk in the light, as he is in the
light, we have fellowship one with another. By this the
Lord sometimes putteth more gladness in the hearts of
his people than the world have by the increase of their
corn and their wine.f The apostle John's words show us
in what way and course this may be looked for. Indeed,
in any course that the Christian can hold, whilst in this
life, sin will cleave to him and to all his best works and
righteousness, which might make him very uncomfort-
able, if it were not for what is added, — And the blood of
fesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. But if the
Psalmist had so much gladness by the light of God's
countenance, he experienced also a contrary dispensa-
tion. Thou didst hide thy face, and I was troubled. I
cried to thee, O Lord. What profit is there in my blood,
when I go down to the pit? i They who have the experi-
ence of these various dispensations, and of walking in
the light of God's countenance,§ will feel great weight in
this argument and motive for fruitful and holy walking
with God.

Finally, a very powerful argument to encourage and
excite the Christian to holiness, to advancing therein, to
avoid and strive against sin, arises from that comfortable

* Ps. cxix. 120. t Ps. iv. 7.

X Ps. xxx. 7-9. § Ps. Ixxxix. 15.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 48 1

consideration and principle suggested, that sin shall ?iot
have dominion over hint* This is express and clear, and
the inconceivably valuable advantage of this is repre-
sented, not as depending merely on the slippery free-will
of man, but on the Christian's being under grace. This
grace he is under ; and that Christ is set at the head of
the kingdom of grace, a Captain of Salvation, secures the
Christian from ever falling again under the dominion of
sin. There is a great deal in this to excite the
Christian to labour in advancing in holiness and good
works, maintaining warfare against sin, an enemy already
dethroned and deprived of its power and dominion, with
a sure prospect of complete victory over it at last. The
apprehended impossibility of accomplishing their design,
doth often hinder men from beginning or proceeding
with courage even in a laudable attempt or undertak-
ing. But to be called to a course of holiness, in warfare
against an enemy already deprived of his power, and that
with sure prospect of victory and glory, surely there is
in* this very much to give incitement to every soul that
can think wisely and dutifully on the important subject.

Such are the arguments that may be suggested to
Christians for enforcing holy practice, consistently with
the doctrine of grace, and with the comforts of the grace
they are under. Yet the cry with some is, as if by this
doctrine the necessity and care of holiness were quite
superseded, and as if there remained not arguments and
motives sufficient to enforce holiness. But do there not
remain sufficient reasons and motives for holiness and
good works, unless we delude sinners, by directing them
to look for their justification before God by their own
righteousness and works ? which is a way of justification
incompatible with the condition of a sinner. If there
were no other way of justification, certainly sinners
behoved to be under condemnation for ever. Yea, this
would exclude true holiness and works truly acceptable
to God, from among men for ever, as is clear from the
apostle's doctrine in the context which we have been

* Rom. vi. 14.
2 H

482 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

explaining ; in which it is evident, that the sinner must
be gratuitously justified, through the redemption that is
in Christ, and by faith in his blood, and so brought
under grace, before he is capable, being delivered from
the dominion of sin, of holy and righteous practice, or of
works truly good or acceptable to God. However, though
men's good works have no place or part in justification,
yet the doctrine of grace, and the experience of that
grace, directs Christians to say, We are God's workman-
ship (not our own workmanship), created in Christ Jesus,
unto good 'works, which he hath before ordained ' (7373077™ i/xao-ev,
before prepared {that we should walk in them).* And the
glorious preparation which divine wisdom and grace have
made, for bringing sinners, who were at the same time
under the curse of the law, and under the dominion of
sin, unto a state of grace and favour, and unto a course
of holiness and good works, is what our context explains
and proposes in a clear and strong light.

But can there be arguments sufficient to enforce holi-
ness and good works, if God's purpose and promise do
absolutely secure the salvation of every one of God's
true people? We have seen in the various arguments
formerly suggested, that there are indeed such; and if
these have not effect, it proves the person to be under
such dominion of sin, as will be too strong for all argu-
ments and motives whatsoever.

Some seem to think it the only way to enforce holiness
effectually, to acquaint men that their salvation depends
absolutely and merely on their own behaviour, and the
determination of their own will ; and that if Christians
are delivered by God's promise and covenant, and by
their faith therein, from the terrors of damnation and
the wrath to come, that there can remain no sufficient
force in any argument or motive to holiness. But the
truth is, if Christians have no security against the wrath
to come, otherwise than from their own behaviour and
use of their free-will, they, conscious of the deceitfulness
of sin, and of their own hearts, and of all the temptations

* As Eph. ii. 10.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 483

and hazards attending their course, might see reason
always for terror and dread, in a manner and degree not
favourable to holiness. For, though fear hath its use for
the restraining and curbing of sin, yet the proper prin-
ciple of true holiness is love, and the faith which worketh
by love. But if the Christian hath nothing to look to
for securing him against damnation and wrath but his
own use of his free-will, with such aids and assistances
as his free-will may use or neglect, there will be cause for
continual fear and terror, even such fear as hath torment,
and is inconsistent with the love that is the principle of
holiness.*

But the divine scheme of grace hath mixed and
tempered things well for the advancement of holiness.
Is the salvation of God's people secured upon the best
and most solid foundation ? yet there remains a great
deal for the children of God to fear, with regard to sin
and its consequences — with regard to God's threatenings
against the sins of his children, and the terrible dispensa-
tions, outward and inward, that may be the actual con-
sequences of their sins. This, in so far that it is among
the marks of God's people, that they tremble at God's
word ; and we see that the special designation and
character of godly persons is, that they tremble at the
words of the God of Israeli

There is, at the same time, a sure and well founded
hope, a strong consolation, an exalted prospect, the most
endearing and attractive motives, tending to increase love
to God, to his sovereignty and holiness, and to strengthen
the hearts of Christians in labouring for conformity to
it. Certainly it was the best scheme for promoting holi-
ness, that, with a proper curb of fear upon the unholy
lusts and unruly passions of the heart, did and still doth
contribute most to the advancement of love, and
strengthening the hearts of Christians in their course.
Thus then it is, while by divine grace the Christian hath
the greatest cause for the love that is the true principle
of holiness, there remains at the same time a fear sub-

* According to 1 John iv. 19. t Ezra ix. 4.

484 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

servient to this love, and to holiness, not a tormenting
fear, inconsistent with love, but a fear that hath its root
and spring chiefly in love.

Some who seem not to employ much thought on the
argument, express it thus in general : — If God's purpose
of grace, and his promise, hath absolutely secured the
salvation of God's people, then they may go on as they
please in unholiness and fleshly living, — their salvation
being so well secured. But for the argument to strike
against the doctrine of grace we have been asserting, it
should be formed thus: — If God's purpose and promise
have secured the perseverance of his people in faith
and holiness, to the attainment of a final and complete
salvation, then they may live as they list in unholiness
and impurity. This is the only form in which the
argument can strike against the doctrine of grace; and
the glaring absurdity it contains supersedes all occasion
of giving it any direct answer.

Concerning holiness, this is evidently the issue of our
whole discussion, viz. that the grace of the new covenant
hath provided for the advancement of holiness and good
works, and for the sanctification of God's people, in a
manner and degree much beyond what the sentiments
of the adversaries of grace will allow them to admit.

As to the argument taken from the liberty of the will,
that impotent idol, that hath been set up against the
glories of divine grace, something hath been said before
concerning it, and I shall here add but a little, briefly.
All moral agents act with free will. But there is a
principle in nature of powerful influence and effect,
previous to all exercise of free will, that directs and
determines the will in its actings, and in the use of its
liberty. In angels and saints in a confirmed state of
holiness, this principle is the perfect rectitude of their
nature, that directs their free will to that only that is
holy, just, and good. In some other moral agents, the
previous principle is the corruption or pravity of their
nature, or the dominion of sin therein, which directs the
will to that which is evil, and makes it at present in-
capable of true holiness. In both cases the moral agent

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 485

acts freely, according to the direction of his own mind, and
according to his inclination, without any sort of force or
violence ; and so the will may have all the liberty that is
necessary to moral agency, whilst, at the same time, it,
and all the faculties of the soul, may be enslaved, and under
the dominion of sin, until it shall be made free according
to the glorious scheme of grace through Jesus Christ, and
by him. So that when Luther was publishing his answer
to Erasmus' book on Free-will, he did very properly
entitle his own excellent treatise. Concerning the En-
slaved Will (de Servo Arbitrio). Free it is in its manner
of acting, yet truly enslaved to sin in ever}- natural man
until the Son shall make him free indeed.

True believers, whilst they are in this life, are in a
sort of middle state between the two characters before
mentioned. Their nature is renewed by grace, and they
have the seed of holiness in them, which seed shall
remain in them. They have also in them a sad re-
mainder of the original corruption ; and both these draw
different ways, so that they cannot do completely the
things that they would.* But though this remaining
corruption considerably disables them, and too often
draws them aside from the right way, yet the grace they
are under will preserve them from ever falling under the
dominion of sin, and will rather care effectually for their
safety in the final issue, according to our context.!
Should it be thought a thing incredible that the sincere
Christian should be certainly kept by the power of God
through faith unto salvation ?

But how can we conceive or comprehend, that the
previous certainty of God's prescience of future events,
that are to be brought about in concurrence with the
will of man, or that the certain accomplishment of divine
counsels and purposes that are accomplished by means
of the human will, can be consistent with the freedom
of the will ? Can the will be free in its determination,
and yet, at the same time, that determination of the will
be fixed and certain in the divine prescience and decree?

* Gal. v. 17. t Rom. vi. 14.

486 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

So it is, however, on both sides ; there is such a previous
certainty of events, and the human will having its part
in bringing about those events, is free. Besides that the
divine prescience and decree, and the certainty thereof,
can be proved by just reasoning from the infinite per-
fection of the Divine nature, so the doctrine can be
satisfactorily confirmed from the Scripture ; and it can
be shown, by very many particular instances recorded
in the word of God, that this previous certainty of events
in the counsel and purpose of God, is consistent with the
liberty of the will.

What if we cannot conceive or comprehend how it is
so ? We shall comprehend it when we shall be as gods.
The mischief of aspiring to know and comprehend
beyond our sphere and capacity began very early with
us. But it becomes us to confine our understanding,
as to knowledge, inquiries, and conceptions, within its
proper limits and capacity. It will be a happy time and
state, when the mind shall be satiated with the best
knowledge, without aspiring to comprehend all things ;
even things which no finite mind can comprehend ; more
than we shall aspire to the dignity and glory of God in
general. I do indeed suspect, that in this matter, — viz.
to comprehend the consistency of the liberty of the will,
with the previous certainty of events to be brought about
by it, there is something of this sort, — something that
cannot be fully comprehended by finite beings in any
state. I therefore cannot think they have been wisely
employed, who have pretended to explain this matter, so
as to bring it within the grasp of human minds. I see
that some with great and vain pretension to be ingenious,
have produced on this subject speculations of most
mischievous tendency, — speculations adverse to all
freedom of will, and at the same time to all moral
agency ; consequently adverse to all virtue and religion.
The rule of our faith and duty is set before us, and we
should be satisfied with it. To pursue our inquiries in
divine things beyond what this light and rule direct us,
will be vain and dangerous.

But as this is not a proper place for enlarging much in

COXCERX/XG TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACH IXG 48/

the controversial way, I shall conclude this point with
giving the sense of a passage of the great Augustine, in
his book De Spiritu et Litera, thus : " Do we then make
void free-will by grace? Far be it from us: we rather
establish free-will. For as the law is not made void by
faith, so neither is free-will by grace, but established. For
the law is not fulfilled but by the free-will. But by the law
is the knowledge of sin ; by faith is grace obtained
against sin ; by grace is the soul cured of the disease of
sin ; by this cure or health of the soul is the will free.
By the will's being made free, is delighting in righteous-
ness : by delighting in righteousness, comes the doing of
the duties of the law. So, as the law is not made void,
but established by faith, as faith obtains the grace by
which the law is fulfilled ; in like manner, free-will is
not made void, but established, because grace so heals
the will, that righteousness is freely delighted in. These
things which I have connected as in a chain, can be
warranted by texts of Scripture to the sense of each.
The law saith, TJwu sJialt not lust. Faith says and
prays, Heal my soul, for I have sinned against thee.
Grace says, Lo, thou art made whole, sin not, lest worse
happen to thee. The soul healed saith, Lord my God, I
have cried unto thee, and thou hast healed me. Free-will
saith, / zi'ill offer a FREE-WILL offering to thee. Delight-
ing in righteousness saith, The unrighteous have told me
what they delighted in, but they are not according to thy
law. How then should wretched men dare to be proud
of their free-will before they are made free, without
observing that the very word free-will imports the will
being made free? for where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty. If then persons are the slaves of sin,
why should they boast of free-will? for his slave one is,
of whoni he is overcome. But if the}- are made free, why
should they boast as of their own work, and glory as if
they had not received? Are they so free, that they will
not submit to have him for their Lord, who saith to
them, Without me ye can do nothing ; and, If the Son
shall make you free, then shall ye be free indec So

far the excellent Augustine.

488 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

But with all this excitement to the practice of holiness
and good works, there is one thing yet remains which
Christians should have much at heart, and in which
faithful preachers should labour to assist them. As
Christians should look anxiously to the sincerity of their
hearts, to the sincerity of grace and love in them ; so
ought they to labour carefully for the increase of that
knowledge and light that is needful to direct the good
principles that are in them, in their operations ; and
herein they may have great benefit by faithful and
judicious teachers.

There are two places of Scripture especially worthy to
be considered on this occasion. One is Col. i. 9, 10,
where the apostle earnestly prays for the Colossian
Christians thus : That ye might, saith he, be filled with
the KNOWLEDGE OF HIS WILL, in all wisdom and
spiritual understanding : that ye might walk worthy of
the Lord unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good
work, and increasing in the knowledge of God. Here,
after great commendation of their faith and love, in the
preceding verses, we see he reckons their being filled with
the knowledge of the will of God, so necessary in order
to their walking worthy of the Lord, and being fruitful
in every good work, that he makes the most earnest
addresses to the throne of grace, on this account for
them.

The other place is Phil. i. 9, 10, II, "And this I pray,
that your love" (some would express it in our more
usual language, " that your grace " ) " may abound yet
more and more in knowledge, and in all judgment; that
ye may approve things that are excellent." The margin
hath it, That ye may try things that differ. I take the
meaning to be, that they might have that knowledge,
good judgment, and spiritual sense by which they might
be able to distinguish between duty and sin, and to
discover their duty in every case, however dark, doubtful,
or disputable it might appear. He wishes their love to
increase and abound, but at the same time that their
knowledge and judgment might, for giving their love the
proper direction, in every instance of conduct and be-

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 489

haviour. It is in this way, and not otherwise, he expects
they might be, as he adds, " Sincere, and without offence
till the day of Christ ; being filled with the fruits of
righteousness, which are by Jesus Christ, unto the glory
and praise of God." There is nothing has a more un-
pleasant and painful effect, than when a Christian, truly
sincere in love, and in a zeal of God, falls into mistaken
courses, through want of needful light, by which to
distinguish between sin and duty, and which might
obviate and counteract the influence of his own, and
other men's passions. Yet so it happens. Some abound
in light and knowledge, who are not so anxious about
the sincerity of their hearts, and the uprightness of their
walk, as they ought to be. Others, conscious and
confident of their own sincerity, are no less confident
on that account, whatever light or arguments oppose it,
that their course is right ; and so they despise and reject
the offer of better light, that might show them what
is wrong in their way. Therefore it were good not
to engage hastily in any new course; for when once
Christians are so engaged, too many things concur to
exclude the light that may be unfavourable to their course.
In this preachers should labour much to be useful to
Christians, for increasing their light and knowledge, and
improving their judgment in all cases of duty and sin.
Here they have a very large field, and great scope for
showing at once their ability and fidelity, in setting forth
the obligation and necessity of holiness, in explaining
its general nature and ingredients, in explaining parti-
cular virtues and duties, and in enforcing them ; showing
the fallacy of the various colours and disguises, under
which a sinful work or course may be recommended to
them. It is from the word of God that Christians are
to derive all their light and knowledge concerning such
subjects ; and as their teachers have commonly more
opportunities, and greater advantage for studying and
understanding the word of God, so should they endeavour
to enlarge their own stores, for the use of Christians, out
of that treasure of divine wisdom. Let a man exert all
the vivacity and vigour of his mind in refined speculation

490 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

— let him abound in quaint and striking thought and
expression — let him collect all that is most valuable
concerning virtue, in the writings of the philosophers
and wise men of the world, — all will come much short
of the light and instruction, concerning such subjects,
that is to be obtained from the word of God. "All
Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in
righteousness" — (is profitable for giving the knowledge
of divine truth ; for convicting and refuting contrary
errors ; for conveying the light and reproof that tend to
the correcting of what may be wrong in men's course
and works ; and for instruction in all that concerns the
practice of righteousness) — " that the man of God may
be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works;"
that the Christian may be complete in that character,
and furnished for every good work ; that the man of
God, so called in a more special sense, may be complete
in the character of a minister of God, and thoroughly
furnished for every good work pertaining to his office ;
for advancing the profit and salvation of his people ;
particularly in giving them from the Scripture all the
instruction needful with regard to the practice of
righteousness.*

There are, however, several things respecting this
matter which it were fit for preachers to observe. I.
That they especially use the language of the word of
God. This is the style most proper for such subjects ;
the style most grave, serious, and emphatic. Human
language, especially when it is much laboured, and
wrought up to elegance and oratory, may tickle the ears
and minds of hearers, and conciliate their esteem of the
preacher's talents ; but will never make such impression
on the hearts of persons serious in religion, or be received
with such relish, as the language of the Holy Ghost,
properly used. He was a good, and very successful
preacher, who said, Which things also we speak, not in
the words which mans wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with

* 2 Tim. iii. 16, 17.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 49 1

spiritual; * that is, as some understand the last clause,
very suitably to the matter and scope of the verse, suiting
spiritual language, such as the Holy Ghost himself useth,
to spiritual things ; which, in the next following verse,
he calls the things of the Spirit.

2. That on occasion of explaining and urging duty, or
particular instances thereof, they direct Christians to
discover and observe what may have been, in omission
or commission, contrary thereto in their practice ; and to
the renewed application by faith, of the blood of
sprinkling, for renewing and supporting their inward
peace and comfort. With thee there is forgiveness, that
thou niayest be feared. \ Faith's views and improvement
of the blood of sprinkling, and of pardoning grace, is
essential in the religion of a sinner. Whatever improper
use hypocritical and insincere persons may make of
pardoning grace, the view and comfort of it is exceeding
needful for every serious and sincere soul, for encourage-
ment and support in godliness, amidst the views such
may have of their own strayings and failures.

3. That in explaining holiness, and the particular
virtues and good dispositions that are included in it, they
mark out the opposite vices and corrupt tempers that are
naturally in the hearts of men, that they show the
fallacy of these appearances of virtue, that do oftentimes
but colour over a very sinful disposition and practice ;
that they mark out to Christians the opposite plagues,
lustings, and unholy affections, which, through remaining
corruption, are yet commonly and in too great a degree
in their hearts, with the difficulty thence arising in the
practice of each virtue, and the hinderance this gives to
their progress and advancement in holiness. To repre-
sent, as in contrast, the several virtues and holy disposi-
tions, with the opposite evils of men's hearts, happily
suits the real case of Christians. Without this, mere
theories concerning virtues and duties, however just, and
however much the nature, amiableness, excellency, and

* 1 Cor. ii. 13.
+ Ps. exxx. 4.

492 CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING

advantage of virtue be set forth, will not be really
profitable. Some content themselves with setting forth
the righteous and good man, and the man to whom they
give a designation from some particular virtue, in such a
way as if indeed the man, in his real disposition and
practice, did represent righteousness and goodness, or the
particular grace or virtue, as completely as the preacher's
definitions and illustrations do. This is flying too much
above the heads of Christians. It is by all means fit to
acquaint them fully with the operation and influence of
the opposite principles that remain in them, in order to
put them on their guard against those evils on the part
of the flesh, which, if unobserved, may have a very ill
effect with regard to their disposition and course.

It is fit, at the same time, that for their encouragement,
Christians be acquainted with the condescensions of
divine grace, which often doth grant favourable accept-
ance, through Jesus Christ, of the sincerity that is
attended with much failure and imperfection, yea, hath a
very considerable mixture of what is evil.

But if, with proper descriptions of Christian virtues
and duties, men's hearts be searched, with a view to
show the opposite evil dispositions and corrupt biases
which, on the part of the flesh, are in them, as this will
tend to make them the more watchful, so will they be
thereby led to have the necessary recourse to the fulness
that is laid up for them in him in whom it hath pleased
the Father that all fulness should dwell, and that for
the renewed and more powerful influences of the Spirit.

Christians are often too easily satisfied with the dis-
position and frame of their own hearts. But if, with
sincere and earnest desire to advance in holiness, they
looked more closely into the law, as it is spiritual, and
into their own hearts, they would see, to their great
benefit, more of these motions of sin in them, by which
they do what they would not, and are unable to do, in
manner and degree, as they would ; as the blessed
apostle represents in our context.* Such views and

* Rom. vii. 14-25.

CONCERNING TRUE EVANGELICAL PREACHING 493

feelings contribute greatly to the Christian's purity in
heart, and in the practice of life, and to his advancement
in holiness. The things above suggested in this section
belong to the profitable and evangelical way of preach-
ing, and enforcing holy practice.

But now, to bring this work to a conclusion : it is good
for them who are the servants of sin, and under its
dominion, to become sensible of the wretchedness of
that condition, and to betake themselves to the Son, to
make them free indeed ; to pray earnestly for that Spirit
of life, which cometh by Christ Jesus, to make them
free ; without trusting to an)' powers or endeavours of
their own for recovering their liberty. It becomes them,
who, by being justified through faith, and brought under
grace, are made free, to acknowledge the grace which
hath made them so ; to keep ever in their eye the rule
of duty, with earnest endeavours to attain conformity to
it ; knowing that the design of divine grace, in delivering
them from the law and its curse, and in making them
free from the dominion of sin, was, according to our
context, that they might be the servants of righteousness.
It becomes them to have habitual recourse to the Lord,
and to the promises of the new covenant, for renewed
influences of grace, to enable them to hold on in their
course of faith and holiness; and to encourage their
hearts, and support their hope with this comfortable
consideration, that sin shall not have dominion over
them, as not being under the law, but under grace. It
becomes ministers to labour in leading persons to know
themselves and to know Christ, to mark out to them by
the light of God's word the way in which they ought to
walk, and to enforce holy practice by evangelical
principles, arguments, and motives, which alone will
have effect.

THE END.

PRINTED AT THE EDINBURGH PRESS, 9 AND 11 YOUNG STREET.

BOOK LOVERS' CLASSICS.

PRESS OPINIONS

On " THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD:'

<&TAWCHESTE% gUARDIAN.—" A beautifully printed and wonderfully

cheap facsimile."
QLOcBE. — "A very attractive edition."

CHURCH TIMES.—" Beautifully printed, tastefully bound .... it would be
difficult to conceive a more worthy representative of Goldsmith's immortal
work."

On "GULLIVER'S TRAVELS:'

t&fAWCHESTE^ GUARDIAN.— "A marvellously cheap and taking reprint."
TIoM'ES. — " The book is handy in shape, and the print is excellent."
PALL zMALL. — " A verbatim reprint . . . exceedingly well bound."

THE SENTIMENTAL JOURNEY. By Laurence Sterne,

with ioo new Illustrations by T. H. Robinson. Uniform with the Vicar
of Wakefield.

THE SCARLET LETTER. By Nathaniel Hawthorne,
with eight new full-page Illustrations by T. H. Robinson. Uniform with
the Vicar of Wakefield.

CRANFORD. By Mrs. Gaskell, with Sixteen Full-page
Illustrations, specially drawn for this edition by T. H. Robinson, and
separately printed on the finest-surfaced plate paper, and inserted in the
volume. 320 pages. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield.

GULLIVER'S TRAVELS. By Jonathan Swift, with re-
productions of the original plates. A verbatim reprint of the First Edition.
320 pages. Uniform with the Vicar of Wakefield.

THE VICAR OF WAKEFIELD. By Oliver Goldsmith,

with careful reproductions of the whole of the Illustrations by William
Mulready, R.A. A facsimile and verbatim reprint of the First Mulready
Edition. 320 pages, large crown 8vo.

*#* The above teorks are all re-set from next type, ivith title-pages in red and
black, designed by J. Walter West, and are printed on choice paper, and
bound in vno styles:

(a) Cloth extra, gilt lettered on back, gilt top, and gilt panel on
front, price 2/6.

(b) Cloth extra, gilt lettered on back and front, gilt edges, and pro-
fusely decorated with gold on front and back, price 3/6. .

THE PROGRESSIVE SCIENCE SERIES.

Edited by F. E. BEDDARD, F.R.S.

The object of this series, as its name implies, is not merely
historical or expository.

Each volume, where practicable, will treat its particular
branch of" science from three points of view. Firstly, it will
give a brief history of its subject ; secondly, the bulk of the
work will be devoted, as in other scientific series, to an
exposition of the present state of knowledge in regard to it ;
and thirdly, as the title of the series indicates, it will endeavour
to point towards the line of future discovery, and by giving a
brief resume of recent experiment and research, will save
investigators the trouble of going over ground that has recently
been trodden without result.

The following Volumes are ready or in course of preparation :

EARTH STRUCTURE. By Professor Geikie, LL.D.

VOLCANOES. By Professor Bonnet, D.Sc, F.R.S.

THE GROUNDWORK OF SCIENCE.

By St. George Mivart, M.D., Ph.D., F.R.S.

VERTEBRATE PALAEONTOLOGY. By Professor Cope.

SCIENCE AND ETHICS. By M. Berthelot.

And wor\s on the following subjects are arranged for :
ON THEORIES OF MATTER. ON HEREDITY.
ON THE ANIMAL OVUM. ON MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE.

ON HYPNOTISM.

Other Volumes will shortly be announced, and the Series in its entirety
will comprise Volumes on every branch of Science.

Where necessary, and to whatever extent may be necessary,
the volumes will be illustrated. No expense will be spared in
this connection.

Large 8vo, cloth extra, price 6s. per volume.

FICTION.

Edward Jenkins. A WEEK OF PASSION. A Novel. By

Edward Jenkins. Large Qroivn %vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s.

Gabriel Setoun. .GEORGE MALCOLM. A Novel. By

Gabriel Setoun, Author of "Robert Urquhart." Large Qroivn %uoy
cloth extra, gilt top, price 6 s.

Samuel Gordon. IN YEARS OF TRANSITION. A Novel.

*By Samuel Gordon, Author of "A Handful of Exotics." Large Qroivn
8 t/o, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6 s.

Darley Dale. CHLOE. A Novel. By Darley Dale, Author of

"The Village Blacksmith." Large Qroivn 81/0, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s.

Portland Board Akerman & Norman Hurst. TRISCOMBE

STONE. A Romance of the Qjiantock Hills. 'By Portland Board
Akerman and Norman Hurst. Large Qroivn %-vo, cloth extra, gilt top,
price 6s.

A. B. Louis. MALLERTON. A Novel. By A. B. Louis.

Large Qroivn S-vo, cloth extra, gilt top, price 6s.

S. R. Crockett. LADS' LOVE. An Idyll of the Land of

Heather. A Novel. 'By S. R. Crockett, Author of " Bog-Myrtle and
Peat," etc. Illustrated by Warwick Goble. Large Croivn %uo, cloth, gilt
top, price 6s.

S. R. Crockett. BOG-MYRTLE AND PEAT : Tales chiefly

of Galloway, gathered from the years 1889 to 1895. By S. R. Crockett,
Author of " The Stickit Minister," " The Raiders," etc. Third Edition,
Large Crown %-vo, cloth, gilt top, 6s.

Walter Raymond. CHARITY CHANCE. A Novel. By

Walter Raymond, Author of "Tryphena in Love," etc. With a Frontis-
piece by T. H. Robinson. Large Croivn %uo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s.

Oliphant Smeaton. OUR LADDIE. A Novel. By Oliphant

Smeaton. Illustrated by Anthony Fox. Large Croivn %vo, cloth, gilt top,
price 6s.

Frederic Carrel. THE ADVENTURES OF JOHN JOHNS.

A Novel. 'By Frederic Carrel, Author of " The City." Large Croivn
%vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s.

Riccardo Stephens. MR. PETERS. A Novel. By Riccardo

Stephens, Author of "The Cruciform Mark." Large Crown 81/0, cloth,
gilt top, price 6s.

Arabella Kenealy. BELINDA'S BEAUX, and other Stories.

By Arabella Kenealy, Author of " Dr. Janet of Harley Street," etc.
Large Croivn $vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s.

H. D. Lowry. A MAN OF MOODS. A Novel. By

H. D. Lowry, Author of "Wreckers and Methodists," etc. Large
Croivn %vo, cloth, gilt top, price 6s.

1