plaining the phraseology that may be worthy 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.

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

Being then freed from sin.-There is here a reference to the emancipation of slaves from the power of 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 by any means import what has been called sinless perfection, or an entire freedom from the influence of sin. Indeed it has no reference at all to this subject. Ye became servants of righteousness. Here we see the proper meaning of the word dixaloo uvm. The servants of righteousness are men devoted to the practice of such works as are righteous. What would be the meaning of servants of justification? The idea is that the believer ought

to be as entirely devoted to God as a servant or slave is to his master. Mr Stuart is here 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.

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 ac'customed to speak, viz. I use such language

6

as they usually employ in regard to the affairs ' of common 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 per ception or apprehension of the subject, but also assists the memory in retaining the information received. Accordingly it was much used by our Lord and his Apostles.

Calvin has not caught the spirit of this passage: Paul,' says he means that he speaks ' after the manner of men with respect to forms, not the subject-matter, as Christ (John iii. 12) says "If I have told you earthly things," ' when he is, however, discoursing on heavenly mysteries, but not with so much majesty as 'the dignity of the subject demanded, because 'he accommodated himself to the capacity of a

rude, dull, and slow people.' Here Calvin also makes the reference to be not to human customs, but to human language and style. It may also be justly asked why the Lord did not express himself with so much majesty as the dignity of the subject demanded? It cannot be admitted that his language, or the language of inspiration, ever falls short of the degree of dignity demanded by the subject.

Because of the infirmity of your flesh.—That is, the weakness of their spiritual discernment through the corruption of human nature. This

does not refer, as Mr Stuart supposes, to the ⚫ feeble or infantile state of spiritual knowledge Samong the Romans,' but is applicable to man kind in general. Men in all places, and in all ages, and in every period of their lives, are weak through the flesh, both in spiritual discernment, and in the practice of holiness. Men of the most powerful mental capacity are naturally dull in apprehending the things of the Spirit. Accordingly, errors abound with them as much as with the most illiterate, and often in a far greater degree. Besides, such a peculiar application to those in the church at Rome is inconsistent with ch. xv. 14, where the Apostle that they were "filled with all knowledge, able also to admonish one another."

says

For as ye have yielded your members servants to uncleanness.-This shows the state of men by nature, and especially the state of the heathen world at the period of the highest refinement. Uncleanness means all impurity, but especially the vice opposed to chastity. Iniquity, as distingished from this, refers to conduct opposed to laws human and divine. The one refers principally to the pollution, the other to the guilt of

sin.

Unto iniquity.-Some understand this as signifying from one iniquity to another, or from one degree of iniquity to another, which is not

its meaning. Neither can it signify, as sometimes it is understood, for the purpose of iniquity, for men often sin when it cannot be justly said that they do so for the purpose of sinning. They often sin from the love of the sin, when they wish it was not a sin. Their object is selfish gratification. It is evident that the phrase is to be understood on a principle already mentioned, namely, that iniquity is in the first occurrence personified, and in the second, it is the conduct that obedience to this sovereign produces. They give their members as slaves to iniquity as a king, and the result is, that iniquity was practised. This corresponds with the sense, and suits the antithesis. Righteousness unto holiness.-Righteousness is here personified as iniquity was before, and obedience to this sovereign produces holiness.

V. 20. For when ye were the servants of sin ye were free from righteousness.

Mr Tholuck misunderstands this verse, which, in connexion with the 21st, he paraphrases thus: • While engaged in the service of sin, you possessed, it is true, the advantage of standing ' entirely out of all subjection to righteousness; ' but let us look to what is to be the final result.' The Apostle is not speaking of freedom from righteousness as an advantage either real or supposed. He is speaking of it as a fact; and from