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. xxii. 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."

at all identical.

But these propositions are not

The heathen confesses that he practises what he knows to be wrong, but he acts so from the love of the evil. Paul confesses that he does what is wrong, but declares that instead of loving the evil he hates it.

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 he approves not, but in doing so he does not act contrary to his inclination. Inclination is bent, and the bent of every man naturally is 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, there is the testimony of his own mind that he looks on the law that forbids the thing which he has practised to be a good law.

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

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 say 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 as long as they are in the body. It is not, then, to extenuate the guilt 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, it still subsisted in him in its root, 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 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 represented; as it is, however, in every unregenerate man.'* On this verse Calvin also has remarked-This passage clearly proves

Paul is disputing concerning none but the 'pious, who are now regenerated. For man, while he continues like himself, whatever his character may be, is justly considered to be ' vicious.'

V. 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 perform that which is good I find not.

I know. This is a thing which Paul knew as an Apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ, and that he must have known by experience also. Whoever has a thorough knowledge of himself will be convinced that naturally there is nothing good in him. What Paul knew was, that in him dwelt no good thing. This goes beyond what he had asserted in the end of the preceding verse. There he asserts that the evil which he did was caused by sin dwelling in him. Here he asserts not only that sin dwelt in him, but that no good thing dwelt in him. But how could he

*

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 eminent may be his talents and learning. With eminent godliness Mr Frazer possessed a remarkable portion of profound penetration and discrimination, qualities in which many critics who attempt to expound the Scriptures are greatly deficient.

say so if he was a regenerated man?

If there

was something in him that he calls himself which he would not allow to have any share in his sin, how can he say that there is no good thing in him? Is not this principle that hates he commits a good principle?

the sin which

Certainly it is.

And to prevent such a consequence from being deduced from his words, he explains by a parenthesis the sense in which he asserts that no good thing dwelt in him. That is, in my flesh.-He confines the assertion to his carnal nature. Nothing can more clearly and expressly show that this description is a description of the regenerate man. What has an unrenewed man but flesh? His very reason and conscience are not uncorrupted.-Titus, i. 15. To will is present within me, but how to perform that which is good I find not. That is,' says Mr Frazer, to will what is good and holy : and thus it is with him habitually and ready ' with him.' Mr Stuart, in his commentary, renders this, for to will that which is good, is in my power; but to do it, I do not find (in my power).' Yet in the text he translates it, for to desire what is good, is easy for me, but to do it I find difficult,' which is an entirely different and contradictory idea. A thing that is very difficult may yet be performed. Dr Macknight renders it, indeed to incline lies

6

6