passions." But this has the appearance of asserting that the evil passions of our nature have their origin in the law. The Apostle does not mean what, in English, is understood by the passions, but the working of the passions. Which were by the law, rather through the law. Dr Macknight translates the original thus, "which we had under the law." But the meaning is not which we had under the law, but that were through the law. The motions of sin, or those sinful thoughts or desires, on our knowing that the things desired are forbidden, are called into action through the law. That it is thus natural to the corrupt mind to desire what is forbidden is a fact attested by experience, and is here the clear testimony of Scripture. With the philosophy of the question we have nothing to do. Why, or how this should be is a question we are not called to resolve. Thus, the law as a covenant of works not only cannot produce fruits of righteousness in those who are under it, but excites in them the motions of sin, bringing forth fruit unto death. Did work in our members.-The sinful desires of the mind actuate the members of the body, to gratify them, in a manner adapted to different occasions and constitutions. Members appear to be mentioned here rather than body, to denote that sin, by the impulse of their various evil desires, employs as its slaves all the different members of the body. To bring forth fruit unto death.—In the same way as bringing forth fruit unto God is spoken of in the 4th verse, so here the Apostle speaks of bringing forth fruit unto death, that is, doing works which issue in death. parent of the works. parents of the works.

Death is not viewed as the It is the desires that are the

This is contrasted with fruit

unto God, which does not mean that God is the parent of the fruit, but that the fruit is produced on God's

account.

V. 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.

But now we are delivered from the law. This does not import merely that the Jews were, according to Dr Macknight, delivered from the law of Moses, but that believers are delivered from the moral law, in that sense in which they were bound by it when in unbelief. Christ hath fulfilled the law, and suffered its penalty for them, and they in consequence are free from its demands for the purpose of obtaining life, or that, on account of the breach of it, they should suffer death. Mr Stuart paraphrases thus, "No longer placing our reliance on it as a means of subduing and sanctifying our sinful natures." But ceasing to rely on the law for such a purpose was not, in any sense, to be delivered from the law. The law never proposed such a thing, and therefore, ceasing to look for such an effect is not a deliverance from the law.

That being dead wherein we were held.-By death, whether it be considered of the law to believers, or of believers to the law, the connexion in which they stood to it, and in which they were held in bondage under its curse, is dissolved. All men, Jews and Gentiles, are by nature bound to the moral law, under its condemning power and curse, from which nothing but Christ can to all eternity deliver them. Dr Macknight translates the passage, "having died in that by which we were tied," and paraphrases thus, "But now we 'Jews are loosed from the law of Moses, having died

with Christ by its curse, in that fleshly nature by 'which, as descendants of Abraham, we were tied to

the law." But this most erroneously confines the declaration of the Apostle to the Jews and the legal dispensation.

That we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter.-This is the effect of being delivered from the law. The Apostle here refers to the difference in practice between those who were married to Christ, and those who were still under the law. A believer serves God from such principles, dispositions, and views, as the Spirit of God implants in hearts which he renews. Serving in the spirit is a service of filial obedience to him who gave himself for us, as constrained by his love, and in the enjoyment of all the privileges of the grace of the new covenant. Believers have thus, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, become capable of serving God with that new and divine nature of which they partake, according to the spiritual meaning of the law, as his children, with cordial affection and gratitude. It is the service not of the hireling but of the son, not of the slave but of the friend, not with the view of being saved by the keeping of the law, but of rendering grateful obedience to their Almighty Deliverer.

Serving in the oldness of the letter respects such service as the law, by its light, authority, and terror, can procure from one who is under it, and seeking life by it, without the Spirit of God, and his sanctifying grace and influence. Much outward conformity to the law may in this way be attained from the pride of selfrighteousness, without any principle better than that of a selfish, slavish, mercenary, carnal disposition, in

fluenced only by fear of punishment and hope of reward. Serving, then, in the oldness of the letter is serving in a cold, constrained, and wholly external manner. Such service is essentially defective, proceeding from a carnal unrenewed heart destitute of holiness. In this way Paul describes himself, Phil. iii., as having formerly served, when he had confidence in the "flesh," as he there designates such outward service. Serving in newness of spirit and in oldness of the letter are here contrasted, as not only different, but as incompatible the one with the other.

V. 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.

What shall we say then? Is the law sin?-In the 5th verse Paul had described the effect of the law on himself and those whom he addressed before conversion, while he and they were under its dominion. In the 6th verse he had spoken of their deliverance and his own from the law, here and in the four following verses he illustrates what were the effects of the law on himself. While he peremptorily rejects the supposition that there was any thing evil in the law, he shows that, by the strictness of its precepts exciting the corruptions of his heart, it was the means of convincing him that he was a sinner, and under its condemnation, and was thus the instrument to him of much good, for he would not have known sin to be sin but by the law.

Mr Stuart says this is the language of an objector against the Apostle. For this there is no foundation whatever. It is a mere figment to suppose that there is here a kind of discussion between the Apostle and a Jewish objector. It is an objection stated by the

Apostle in his own name, an objection that will occur to the carnal mind in every age and country, and is therefore properly introduced by the Apostle. If the law occasions more sin is it not itself sinful? God forbid.-Literally, let it not be-by no means. It is the expression, as formerly noticed, by which the Apostle usually intimates his abhorrence of whatever is peculiarly unworthy of God. Paul now begins to describe his own experience respecting the operation of the law.

Nay. Mr Stuart says that this expression intimates, that the Apostle had some exception to the universal sense of the words translated God forbid. But this is not the effect here of the word rendered "Nay." There could be no exception to the denial of the consequence in the sense in which the thing is denied. Is it possible that there can be any exception to the denial that the law is sinful? It is not possible. That the law is the occasion of sin, or, as Mr Stuart expresses it, though "not the sinful or efficient cause of sin," is no exception to the universal denial in any point of view. An occasion of sin and a cause of sin are two things essentially different. It is no exception to the assertion that the law is not the cause of sin, to say that it is the occasion of sin. The word here translated nay, intimates opposition. So far from the law being sinful, I had not known sin, says the Apostle, but by the law.

Known sin but by the law.-Paul does not say that he would not have been a sinner without the law, but that he would not have known sin as now he knew it, or have seen himself to be a sinner. Now, though no man is without sin, yet a proud Pharisee might think himself free from sin by his keeping the law, when he