6

as δούλους εἰς ὑπακοήν, you are no longer your own masters, or at your own disposal; you have put 'yourselves within the power, and at the disposal, ' of another master." The language of the Apostle is not designed to prove that, by presenting themselves to a master, they are bound to his service, but to state the obvious fact that they are the servants of him whose work they do. If we see a nunber of labourers in a field, we know they are the servants of the proprietor of the field of the person in whose work they are employed. The application of this fact to the Apostle's purpose is obvious and important. If men are doing the work of Satan, must they not be Satan's servants? -If they are doing God's work, must they not be the servants of God? Mr Stuart's exposition leads entirely away from the Apostle's meaning.

Of sin.-Sin is here personified, and sinners are its servants. Unto death. That is, which ends in death. This is the wages with which sin rewards its servants. Obedience unto righteousness.—Obedience is also personified, and the work performed to obedience is righteousness; that is, the works of the believer are righteous works. Nothing can be more false as a translation, or more erroneous in sentiment than the version of Mr Stuart. "Obedience unto justification." In his paraphrase, he says, "But if you are the servants of 'that obedience which is unto justification, i. e., which ' is connected with justification, which ends in it— 'then you may expect eternal life." Alkaloσvvn, which he here translates justification, is righteousness, and never justification. In verses 18, 19, and 20, that follow, he himself translates it righteousness. And what can be more completely subversive of the doctrine

of justification, and of the gospel itself, than the assertion that obedience " ends in," or, as he says afterwards, will lead to justification? This is the translation of

the English Socinian version, and of that adopted in their different editions of the New Testament by the Socinian pastors of the church of Geneva. "De l'obeissance qui conduit à la justification." Of obedience which leads to justification. They have, however, printed the word "conduit" (leads to) in italics, to show that it is a supplement.

Mr Stuart says that his view seems to him quite clear, from justification being the antithesis unto death. But justification is not an exact antithesis to death. It is life that is the antithesis to death. There is no need, however, that there should be such an exact correspondence in the parts of the antithesis as is supposed. And there is a most obvious reason why it could not be so. Death is the wages of sin, but life is not the wages of obedience. Mr Stuart asks, "How can dɩkaιoσůvŋy here mean holiness, uprightness, when • ὑπακοή itself necessarily designates this very idea ? 'What is an obedience which leads to righteousness? 'Or how does it differ from righteousness itself, inas'much as it is the very act of obedience which con'stitutes righteousness in the sense now contemplated ?" It is replied that obedience is here personified, and therefore righteous actions are properly represented as performed to it. Mr Stuart might as well ask why are obedience to sin, and the lusts of sin, supposed to be different things in verse 12. In like manner we have righteousness and holiness in verse 19, and fruit and holiness in verse 22. Besides, obedience and righteousness are not ideas perfectly coincident. Righteous

ness refers to works as to their nature; obedience refers to the same works as to their principle. Mr Stuart's remark is both false in criticism, and heretical in doctrine.

V. 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.

The Apostle here expresses his thankfulness to God, that they who had formerly been the servants of sin were now the servants of righteousness. To suppose, as some do, that sin itself could be a matter of thankfulness, is a most palpable error, than which nothing can be more remote from the meaning of this passage. Obeyed from the heart.-Christian obedience is obedience from the heart, in opposition to an obedience which is by constraint. Any attempt at obedience by an unconverted man, is an obedience produced by some motive of fear, self-interest, or constraint—and not from the heart. Nothing can be more convincing evidence of the truth of the gospel than the change which, in this respect, it produces on the mind of the believer. Nothing but Almighty power could at once transform a man from the love of sin to the love of holiness.

That form of doctrine which was delivered you.There are various solutions of this expression, all substantially agreeing in meaning, but differing in the manner of bringing out that meaning. The most usual way is to suppose that there is a reference to melted metals transferred to a mould, which obey or exactly conform to the mould. It is, perhaps, as probable that the reference is to wax or clay, or any soft matter that takes the form of the stamp or seal. There is another method of explaining the phraseology not unworthy of

consideration-Ye have obeyed from the heart that form or model of doctrine unto which you have been committed. In this way, the form of doctrine or the gospel is considered as a teacher, and believers are committed to its instructions. The word translated delivered, will admit of this interpretation, and it is sufficiently agreeable to the general meaning of the expression. The substance of the phrase, however, is obvious, and let it be translated as it may, there is no essential difference in the meaning. It proves the holy tendency of the doctrine of grace which believers have received, the blessed effects of which they have felt, and manifested in its fruits. Titus, ii. 11, 12.

V. 18.-Being then made free from sin, ye became the servants of righteousness.

Being then made free from sin.-The original word here rendered free, as also in verses 20 and 22, is different, as has been observed, from that improperly rendered freed in verse 7th, and has no respect to the justified state of the believer as is clear from the context, but relates to his freedom from the dominion of sin assured to him in the 14th verse. There is here a reference to the emancipation of slaves from their masters. Formerly they were slaves to sin, now they have been emancipated by the gospel. This deliverance is called their freedom. It does not, however, by any means import what has been called sinless perfection, or an entire freedom from the influence of sin. Ye became servants of righteousness.—Here we see the proper meaning of the word dikaιoσv. The servants of righteousness are men obedient to righteousness, being devoted to the practice of such works as are righteous, or as is said in other words, in verse 22,

VOL. II.

D

"servants of God." What meaning could we attach to servants of justification? The idea is that the be

liever ought to be as entirely devoted to God as a servant or slave is to his master. Mr Stuart is here of necessity compelled to allow the true meaning of the same word, which in the 16th verse, in consistency with his unscriptural system, he had mistranslated, by rendering it justification.

V. 19.-I speak after the manner of men, because of the infirmity 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.

6

I speak after the manner of men.—' -This refers to the illustration of the subject by the customs of men as to slavery. Mr Stuart has either missed the idea here, or expressed it too generally. He translates, in language usual to men,' and expounds, 'I speak as men are accustomed to speak, viz. I use such language as they usually employ in regard to the affairs of com6 mon life.' This makes the reference merely to the words used; whereas the reference is to the illustration drawn from human customs. In what way could the Apostle speak but as men are accustomed to speak? Could he speak in any other language than that which was usual to men? This is a thing in which there is no choice. If he speaks at all he must use human language. But to illustrate spiritual subjects by the customs of men is a matter of choice, because it might have been avoided. This establishes the propriety of teaching Divine truth through illustrations taken from all subjects with which those addressed are acquainted. This method not only facilitates the right perception or apprehension of the subject, but also assists the me