plaint, as appears from the sequel, and especially from the 24th verse, which expresses a feeling respecting sin that does not belong to any unregenerate man.

It is, then, in comparing himself with the holy, just, good, and spiritual law, now come home in its power to his conscience, that the Apostle here declares himself to be carnal, sold under sin. The law requires us to love God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our mind, and with all our strength; and our neighbour as ourselves. Of this, every man in his best state and in his very best thought or action falls continually short. He proceeds a certain length in his obedience, but beyond that he cannot go. And why is it that into the region beyond this he does not advance ? Because he is carnal, sold under sin. The sin that remains in him binds him so that he cannot proceed. Sin, however, does not reign over him; otherwise, as it is directly opposed to every degree of obedience to the law, it would not suffer him to do any thing, even the least, in conformity to the will of God. Yet it so far prevails, as to hinder him, as is here immediately added, from doing the good that he would; and in so far, he is sold under it. It therefore prevents him from attaining to that perfection of obedience to the law of God which is the most earnest desire of every Christian, and to which the believer shall attain when he sees his blessed Lord as he is, 1 John, iii. 2. That Paul had not attained to this state of perfection he, in another place, assures us, Phil. iii. 12. "Not as though I had already attained, either were already perfect." How then are these expressions, carnal, sold under sin, inapplicable to the Apostle?

If Paul had said he had no sin, he would have de

ceived himself, and the truth would not have been in him, 1 John, i. 8. And if he had sin, and was unable to free himself from its power, was he not carnal; sold under it? There was spirit in him, but there was also flesh, and in his flesh he tells us dwelt no good thing: it was still sin or corrupt nature, and nothing but sin. In one point of view, then, Paul the Apostle could truly say that he was spiritual; in another, with equal truth, that he was carnal, literally and truly both spiritual and carnal. "The flesh lusted against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, and these were contrary the one to the other." He was sold under sin as a child of the first Adam, and he delighted in the law of God as a child of the second Adam. Accordingly, through the whole of this passage, to the end of the chapter, Paul describes himself as a twofold person, and points to two distinct natures operating within him. This is a universal truth respecting all believers. As Paul declares to the churches of Galatia, and, as in the passage before us, he affirms of himself, they cannot do the things that they would, Gal. iv. 17. In the end of this chapter he asserts the same truth. So then with the mind-what he before called the inward man-I myself serve the law of God, but with the flesh-what remained of his corrupt nature, in which dwelt no good thing-the law of sin.-Sin was displaced from its dominion but not from its indwelling. There was, then, in the Apostle Paul, as in every Christian, "as it were the company of two armies," Song of Solomon, vi. 13. From this warfare, and these opposing principles within, no Christian in this world is ever exempt ; and of this every one who knows the plague of his own heart is fully convinced.

V. 15.-For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.

not.

For. This verse explains and confirms the preceding. That which I do, I allow not.-Literally, I know The English word know, as well as the word in the original, is often used as implying recognition or acknowledgment. We are said not to know a person whom we do not choose to recognise. Paul committed sin, but he did not recognise or approve it. He disclaimed all friendly acquaintance with it. For what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. Every man, regenerate or unregenerate, must be sensible of the truth of this, so far as it imports that he does what he knows to be wrong. As there is no regenerate man in whom this is not verified, it cannot be confined to the unregenerate. But as it is of the regenerate the Apostle is here speaking; that is, as he is speaking of himself at the time of writing, it is necessary to apply it here peculiarly to the regenerate. Besides, as it is said that he did what he hated, it must be here applied exclusively to the regenerate. Though an unregenerate man disapproves of evil, he cannot be said to hate sin. This is characteristic of the regenerate, and of such only. "Ye that love the Lord, hate evil.”—Ps. xcvii. 10. It is characteristic of the Redeemer himself: "Thou hast loved righteousness and hated iniquity."Heb. i. 9. The following words are decisive on the subject:"The fear of the Lord is to hate evil."Prov. viii. 3. Some suppose that what the Apostle says in this verse is to the same purpose with the noted heathen confession,-" Video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor." "I see what is better and approve of it; I follow what is worse." But these propositions

VOL. II.

H

are not at all identical. The heathen confesses that he practises what he knows to be wrong, but his inconsistency arises from the love of the evil. Paul confesses that he does what is wrong, but declares that instead of loving the evil he regards it with hatred and abhorrence.

V. 16.-If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

If then I do that which I would not.-Dr Macknight translates "which I incline not." But this is not according to fact. A man may do what his conscience disapproves, but in acting thus he does not thwart his inclination. Inclination is a tendency or bent in a particular direction, and the bent of every man is naturally to sin. Mr Stuart translates the word "desire," but neither is this correct. Sin may be contrary to reason and conscience, but it is agreeable to desire. I consent unto the law that it is good.-When a regenerate man does what he hates, his own mind testifies his approval of the law that prohibits the sin which he has practised.

me.

V. 17.-Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in

By the I here, Dr Macknight and Mr Stuart understand reason and conscience. But reason and conscience can in no sense be called a man's self. In this way a murderer might affirm that it was not he who committed the crime, for no doubt his reason and conscience disapproved of the action. It is quite obvious that the reason why Paul says that it was not he but sin in him, is because, as he had just stated, that which he did he allowed not, for he did that which he would not. This implies more than reason and conscience. It was, therefore, sin that dwelt in him—

the old man, his carnal nature, which not only existed and wrought in him, but had its abode in him, as it has in all those who are regenerated, and will have so long as they are in the body. It is not, then, to extenuate the evil of sin, or to furnish an excuse for it, that Paul says, it is no more I, but sin that dwelleth in me; but to show that notwithstanding his seeing it to be evil, and hating it, the root still subsisted in him, and was chargeable upon him. It is not necessary to be able to point out metaphysically the way in which the truth that all sin is voluntary, harmonizes with Paul's declaration, the good that I would I do not. Things may be consistent which the human mind cannot penetrate. We are to receive God's testimony from the Apostle, and believe it on God's authority; and every Christian knows, by painful experience, the truth of all that the Apostle asserts.

'What here would strike any mind free of bias,' says Mr Frazer in his excellent exposition of this chapter, in his work on Sanctification, 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 re'presented; as it is, however, in every unregenerate man.'* On this verse Calvin also has remarked"This passage clearly proves Paul is disputing concern

6

* A man of God, so deeply acquainted with the human heart, and so advanced in the divine life as this writer evidently was, is a much better judge of the import of this chapter than a mere critic, however distinguished for talents and learning. To eminent godliness Mr Frazer added profound penetration and remarkable discrimination; qualities in which many critics who attempt to expound the Scripture are greatly deficient.