A paraphrase and annotations upon all the books of the New Testament briefly explaining all the difficult places thereof / by H. Hammond.

Annotations on Chap. VII.

[ a] * 1.1 V. 1. The law hath power over—] The constru∣ction and meaning of these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which are commonly ren∣dred, the law hath power over a man as long as he li∣veth, is somewhat uncertain; and for the determining of it, the first thing to be considered, is the designe and matter of the discourse in this chapter, which is discernibly this, To vindicate his doctrine, (charged on him Act. 21. 21. it is not certain whether then truly or no, but without doubt now profess'dly taught by him,) that the Judaical law was abolished by the death of Christ, Ephes. 2. 15, 16. Col. 2. 14. and so now was not obligatory to a Jew. This he now thinks fit to declare to the Jewish Christians at Rome, as in the former chapters he had vindicated the liberty of the Gentiles from the obligation of it to them, and justified his preaching the Gospel to them, both which together did, by way of interpretation, and necessary consequence, contain under them this of the obliging∣nesse of the Law to a Jew. For the Law of the Jewes commanding a strict separation from the Gentiles, all that were not their Proselytes, and circumcised, and Paul and other the Apostles being Jewes, their con∣versing with, and preaching to the Gentiles, could not be allow'd upon any score, but that of the abrogation of the Jewish Law, which accordingly was of necessity to be revealed to S. Peter in a vision, Act. 10. (and so seems to have been to S. Paul Ephes. 3. 3.) be∣fore he durst preach to Cornelius, who though a Pro∣selyte of the Jewes, yet was not a Proselyte of their Covenant, or righteousness, that is, was not circum∣cised. This abolition of the Law to you, that is, to his brethren the Jewes v. 4. and to the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 us v. 6. that is, to S. Paul, and those he speaks to, that is, to them that know the law, v. 1. and so still the Jew-Christians at Rome, is here evidently proclaimed, v. 4. and 6. And therefore in all probability that must be the im∣portance of these words, which may most directly pre∣pare, and contribute to the inferring of that conclusion. To which end first it is necessary,* 1.2 that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 must be rendred, as long as he (the man, not as it) liveth. This appeareth by the instance v. 2. by which that which is said v. 1. is exemplified,* 1.3 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, The woman which hath an husband is by the (conjugal) law bound to the living husband; where the husband is the person whose life is considered in this case, who as long as he lives, hath power over his wife, and so long the wife by law is bound unto him, but if he die, she is free, &c. By this also it is manifest in the second place, that the man which is meant in the latter part of this first verse, as long as he liveth, cannot be the person on whom the Law hath power or force, but some other, who by law hath power and authority vested in him. For it is apparent, v. 2, and 3. that the life or death of the person under subjection is not the thing taken into consideration, and if it were, it would not tend to the inferring of the designed conclusion; for the Jewes could not be supposed to be dead, but the Law that had power over them, and though v. 4. the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you are put to death may make that seem possible to be here meant, yet the contrary being so evident by the whole drift of the discourse, it is cer∣tain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 there,* 1.4 you are put to death to the law, must be interpreted as a figurative speech, to signifie the law is put to death to you; as when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies to be made 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 void,* 1.5 to be evacuated or cancelled, and so is all one with being put to death, (and is so used Ephes. 2. 15. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, having cancell'd the law, all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having blotted it out, Col. 2. 14. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 having nailed it to the crosse) we read of the woman v. 2. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which would literally be rendred, she is cancell'd from the law of the husband, but indeed signifies, the law of the husband is cancell'd, or ceaseth to be in

force, to her; and so v. 6. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are cancelled to the law, signifies, the law is cancelled to us. Which being thus farre deduced, it remaineth in the third place, that the former part of the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, must either thus be rendred, the law of the man hath power, or force, or remains valid (joyning 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of the man to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 law, not to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 hath power,) or else (because the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 is otherwise placed, being affix'd to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and indeed 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 properly governs a Genitive case, and is used with one, Lu. 32. 25. just as here it will be, if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 be governed by it,) it is possible that the word man, which is the he in the latter part, may be implied and understood (though not specified) in the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 law, thereby signifying not Law in generall, but more specially any law which convey∣eth a right, or giveth power or dominion to one man over another; according to the primitive notion of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 law, from 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 distribuo, noting an assigna∣tion, or distribution of every mans right unto him, (and so 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ver. 2. evidently signifies the conjugal law, which subjects and binds the wife to the hus∣band) for of such a law it will be truly said, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, it is in validity, or force, over the man, (meaning the subject,) as long as he, that is, the owner, or the Lord, liveth. That this is the true sense and aime of the words is unquestionable, and the latter way of expressing it seems to be the most commodious and easie, though the former may pos∣sibly be it, (by an easie and ordinary 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉:) and then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 the law of the man will be a fit phrase to signifie any such law,* 1.6 wherein mens interests are concerned, Municipall, or humane laws, which are in force till they be abolished legally.

[ b] * 1.7 V. 4. Dead to the Law] That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 you are dead to the Law signifies the Laws being dead to them, being abolished, having no power over them, hath been said, (Note a.) and may farther appear by v. 6. where the ground of their freedome from the Law is express'd by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 that being dead by which we were held; where the law be∣ing by an ordinary prosopoeia (as when sin is said to reigne c. 6. 12.) used for a person, is said to be dead, (and to be nail'd to Christs crosse, Col. 2. 14.) and so under the fiction of a person, is more fitly answera∣ble to the Husband, whose death frees the Wife from all obligation to him, that she may lawfully marry and subject herself to any other; and so in like man∣ner may Jewes to Christ, upon the abolition of their Law.* 1.8 As for the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by the body of Christ, by which the Judaical Law is abolished, that sure notes the crucified body, the death of Christ, and is accordingly express'd in this very matter Ephes. 2. both by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by his flesh, v. 15. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by the crosse, ver. 16. and so Col. 2. 14. by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 nailing to the crosse.

[ c] * 1.9 V. 5. Were in the flesh] That 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when we were in the flesh, signifies the Judaical state under the Law, appears by the whole discourse in this chapter, which is of the state of men considered un∣der the Law (see Note d.) and particularly by the opposition here betwixt this, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we are freed from the Law. For so 'tis manifest the opposition stands, For when we were in the flesh—But now we are freed from the Law,—And it is thus styled in opposition to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, being in the spirit, used for them that have received the Go∣spel, and are partakers of the grace which is afforded there, to which that they have not attained, but are only under the Paedagogie of the Law, they are only in the flesh, have no other but that weak and corrupt principle of their own nature (which is so prone to carnality) abiding in them. And thus it is used c. 8. 8. They that are in the flesh, cannot please God: but you are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, if so be the spirit of God dwelleth in you, that is, if, as ye are out∣wardly professors of the faith, baptized Christians, so ye are sincerely so, such as in whom the holy Spirit of God may vouchsafe to inhabit, which will not abide when unrighteousnesse cometh in. And accordingly Christianity is call'd the law of the Spirit of life, ch. 8. 2. and here v. 6. the newness of the Spirit, in oppo∣sition to the oldness of the letter, the Mosaical Law. And a peculiar propriety there is in this phrase for this matter in many respects; First, in respect of the nature of the Mosaical precepts, which were external, Wash∣ings, Circumcision, bodily rests, &c. (all which are seated in the flesh) and so proportionably carnal pro∣mises, and threats; whereas the precepts of Christ go deeper to the mind and spirit, require the purity of that, and accordingly are back'd with spiritual promises and terrors: Secondly, in respect of the assi∣stance that Christ affords toward his obedience, by giving of his spirit, to assist (if it be not grieved and resisted) our spirits, in opposition to which the state under the Law having none of that strength joyned with it, may justly be called the being in the flesh. To which may be added, that one eminent effect of the Spirits descending, was the commissionating of the Apostles for their office of preaching to the Gentile world remission of sinnes upon Repentance, and in opposition to that, the Law allowing no place for re∣pentance for any presumptuous sin, but inflicting pre∣sent punishment on the offender, that state may be fitly styled being in the flesh. Mean while as there is a difference betwixt the weakness of the natural estate considered without any other aid, then what the Law affordeth, and the sinfulnesse of carnal acts and ha∣bits continued and indulged to, and on the other side, betwixt the state of a baptized Christian, afforded the grace and strength of Christ, and of him that makes use of that grace, and leads a pure Christian life; so the being 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, in the flesh, differs from living, or walking 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, after, or according, to the flesh, and on the other side, being in the Spirit, or being in Christ, from walking after the Spirit: All which phrases are to be met with here, and in the next chapter. Here and ch. 8. 9. we have being in the flesh, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they that are after the flesh, v. 5. that is, under the Law, not elevated above the flesh, or rescued out of the power of it by Christ; and c. 8. 1. walking after the flesh, (and so v. 4. and 12. all in the same sense) for going on in a carnal course, obeying and following the flesh in the lusts thereof. And so c. 8. 9. being in the Spirit, or having the Spi∣rit of Christ, and being in Christ Jesus, v. 2. all to the same sense, of having the Spirit of Christ be∣stowed on us, which as it enableth, so it obligeth us to walk, and lead a Christian life, and if we doe so, then that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 walking after the Spirit, v. 1, and 4. All which must thus nicely be distinguished, or else they will be apt to betray to some mistake.

[ d] * 1.10 V. 7. I had not known] It is an ordinary figure to speak of other men in the first person, but most fre∣quent in blaming, or noting any fault in others; for then by the putting it in this disguise, fastning it on ones own person, it is more likely to be well taken by them to whom it belongs. So saith S. Chrysostome of this Apostle, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, when he mentions things that are any way grie∣vous, or likely to be ill taken, he doth it in his own person. And S. Hierome on Daniel, Peccata populi enumerat personâ suâ, quod & Apostolum in Epi∣stola ad Romanos facere legimus, Confessing the sins of the people, he doth it in his own person, which we read practised by the Apostle in the Epistle to the Romans, that is, most probably, in this place. Thus

when 1. Cor. 4. 4. S. Paul had spoken in his own person, I know nothing by my self, but hereby I am not justified, he tells them plainly v. 6. that he had in a figure transferred these things unto himself for their sakes,* 1.11 that they might not be puff'd up, as coun∣ting such schemes and figures as these, the most pro∣fitable & efficacious on the Reader. Thus the same A∣postle, 1 Cor. 6. 12. All things are lawfull to me, but all things are not expedient, that is, those things which are by you look'd on as indifferent, if they be yielded to, may be very hurtfull in you; and 1 Cor. 13. 2. If I have all faith, and have not charity, that is, if ye want charity to your other gifts. So Gal. 2. 18. If what I have destroyed I build the same again, I make my self a transgressor, that is, whosoever doth so, or whensoever ye do so, it must needs be a fault in you. Thus Rom. 3. 7. If the truth of God have a∣bounded by my lie unto his glory, why am I also judg∣ed as a sinner? Which words are certainly the perso∣nating of an impious objecter, which speaks or dis∣putes thus, not of the Apostle himself. And the same scheme or fashion of speaking or writing is very fre∣quent among all Authors. And that it must be so taken here may appear by these evidences. First by v. 9.* 1.12 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I indeed once lived without the law, which can with no appearance of truth be affir∣med of Paul's person who was born and brought up a Jew in the knowledge of the Mosaical Law, and must therefore be the personating of a man first con∣sidered without, then with the Law, to whom because the Law is given in the second person, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Thou shalt not covet, v. 7. therefore he to whom it is given is in the following verses fitly set down in the first person, I, being relative to the thou antece∣dent: and so Marcus Eremita, De baptism. p. 921. E. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. Thus doe men pervert other Scriptures. Read the chapter from the beginning, and you shall find that S. Paul speakes not of him∣self after his baptisme, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but assumes the person of unbelieving Jewes. And so Theophylact distinctly affirmes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In his own person, he speakes of humane nature; and again on v. 15. he speakes of men before Christs coming, though he sets it in his own person. Secondly, by the seve∣ralls affirmed in this chapter, which cannot belong to S. Paul. For that Paul was at the writing of this a reformed, regenerate person there is no doubt, and they which would have it spoken by him in his own person, make that advantage of this chapter, by re∣conciling those things which are here mention'd to a regenerate state. But if we compare the severals which are here mention'd with the parts of a regene∣rate mans character, given by the same Apostle in other places, we shall find them directly contrary. Here in the 8^th verse, he saith, that sin had wrought in him 〈◊〉〈◊〉 ••anner of concupiscence, whereas of the regenerate man it is affirmed, Gal. 5. 24. they that are Christs have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. Here in the 9^th verse 'tis said, sinne revi∣ved, and I died; whereas of the regenerate man 'tis said c. 6. 2. How shall we that are dead to sinne, live any longer therein? Here in the 14^th verse 'tis said, I am carnal; whereas of the regenerate man 'tis affirmed c. 8. 1. that he walketh not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. Here again in that 14^th verse 'tis said, I am sold under sinne, (of which see Note f.) whereas of the regenerate 'tis affirmed c. 6. 18. that he becomes free from sinne, and becomes the servant of righte∣ousness. Here v. 20. sinne dwelleth in me, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 accomplisheth, worketh, that which I will not, like not with my mind, or conscience, and so 'tis said ver. 23, 24. that the law in the members carries him into captivity to the law of sinne, and, who shall deliver him from this body of death? and so that he is under the power of the law of sinne and death, that he obeyes the law of sinne v. 25. whereas c. 8. 2. of the regenerate 'tis affirmed that the law of the spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made him free from the law of sin and death. Nothing can be more contrary and unreconcileable to a regenerate state in these so many particulars, then what is here affirmed of the 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I, the person here thus represented. And indeed unlesse sinning against Conscience be the only way of allevi∣ating (and not aggravating) sinne, it is impossible that the doing that ill he would not, and the not doing that good he would, v. 19, 20. can be deemed a fit ingre∣dient in the character of a regenerate man: 'tis cer∣tain this was, in the person of Medea, made, by the Heathens, the highest pitch of villany, to see and like that which was good, and doe the direct contrary (see Note f.) and therefore cannot in any reason be thought to be the Apostles description of a regenerate man, or good Christian.

[ e] * 1.13 Ib. Lust] That by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 coveting here is meant the sin forbidden in the tenth commandement of the Decalogue, appears by the end of the verse. But how the Apostle can truly say, that he had not known it had been a sin, if the Law had not told him it was, will be all the difficulty. To which may be answer'd, 1. that the Apostle doth not speak particularly of himself (see Note d.) but in the person of a Jew, or man in generall, and then it is not onely true of this, but of all other the Commandements (of which this one may be set as the instance) that the knowledge of sin is by the promulgation of the Law, that forbids it. But then there may from the Jewish doctrine ap∣peare some reason why the Apostle should rather in∣stance in this commandement, then any other. For the Jewes before and under Christ's time, seeing that there was no punishment judicially appointed for thoughts or desires, whether unclean, or of getting any thing from their neighbours, had resolved this to be no sin, and consequently that the tenth comman∣dement was but a Moral proverbial essay or counsel, like that of Menander,

—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

Not to covet so much as a pin of anothers, but not any precept of God, or of nature, affirming that, unlesse it be in case of the worship of false gods, no sin is com∣mitted by the bare will, without some actual com∣mission following it. Thus saith Aben-Ezra in the beginning of the Decalogue, Kimchi on Psal. 66. 18. and Josephus concerning Antiochus's designed sacri∣lege, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to have consulted only, and not acted, doth not deserve punishment. According to which S. Paul might well say of any Jew brought up under such Masters, that he had not believed Coveting to be a sin, had not the more exact consideration of the direct words of the Law assured him that it was.

[ f] * 1.14 V. 14. Sold under sin] The phrase sold under sin signifies as it doth, when 'tis said of Ahab, that he was sold to work wickedness, or of the revolting Jewes 1 Mac. 1. 15. as a slave or captive sold from one Master, one sin, to another: and so here 'tis joyned with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a carnal man, and is farther express'd by the character of him following, that the evil that he would not, that he doth, and the good that he would, that he doth not; just like that which the Poets say by way of aggravation of that wicked condition of Medea, the witch,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, Eurip.

I understand the evils that I am about to commit, but my passion overcomes my reason: and of him in the Tragedy,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

I am ignorant of none of those things of which thou ad∣monishest me, but my nature (or custome) forces me contrary to my opinion. Which is so farre from being matter of alleviation, or lessening of the sin, that as Euripides saith of it,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,

It is the author of the greatest evils unto men, so 'tis by Plutarch set down for the greatest aggravation; for citing that in the Tragedy of Acreus,

〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.

that 'tis an evil that falls on men from God, to doe evil, when they see their duty, he corrects it thus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 'tis the most bestial, irrational, miserable condition for a man that knowes what is best, to be led by incontinency and effeminacy from it. And so* 1.15 Xenophon from Socra∣tes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; he that considers not the best things, but by all means seeks the most pleasant, how differs he from the foolish beasts? And so Simplicius upon E∣pictetus c. 11. p. 74. upon occasion of those verses of Medea, resolves, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we ought not only to think right, and be affected accordingly, but to con∣form our works to our right opinions. And till we doe so, the best that he can say of us is, that perhaps we are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 beginning to learn, are come as farre as the knowing of the Law, which notwith∣standing 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, men sin and accuse themselves for ••••nning; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for irrational affections are not presently brought within measure and proportion, nor suddenly subjected to reason.

[ g] * 1.16 V. 23. Anothers law] For the understanding the sense of the Apostle in this whole chapter, 'tis usefull to compare this passage with Gal. 5. 17. The spirit lusteth against the flesh, and the flesh against the spirit, &c. Which is thought to be parallel, and to import the same sense with this. Of these two places therefore it must first be remembred, that the diffe∣rence which is between these Texts ariseth not from the distinction between the spirit in the one, and the Law of the mind in the other, nor consequently is it to be placed betwixt the lusting of the flesh against the spirit, simply taken, and the warring of the Law in the members against the Law in the mind, as that is no more than a warre; but betwixt the former simply taken, or with the addition of the spirit lusting back again against the flesh, or with the circumstances men∣tioned Gal. 5. 17. (none of which imply a yielding to the lusts of the flesh) and the latter, taken with that addition, here mentioned, of bringing the man into captivity to the Law of sinne. And this indeed is all the difference that can be assigned betwixt a rege∣nerate and unregenerate man, that in the one the spi∣rit prevailes, in the other the flesh is victorious; that is, the will of the one is led by the spirit, chooses and acts the deeds of the spirit (the will of God) but the will of the other followes the carnal dictates 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 performes the will of the flesh, and so falls under the condemnation which belongs to such: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith Doro∣theus 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. such a state is altogether subject to punishment, for every sinne that is acted is under hell, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, they are all under hell, in that they act. And if it be sug∣gested, that the consequents in the place to the Galath. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, so that what things you would, ye do them not, seem parallel to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what I would that I do not, here, v. 15, 19. and so neither of them signifie this carnal state; to this it must be answered that these two are not parallel, but on the contrary that passage, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what I would, I do not, is really equivalent with the captiva∣tion to the Law of sinne, (as by the whole Context ap∣pears) though indeed there is some obscurity in it, which till by the Context it be explained, may mislead one to think otherwise. The truth is evident, these two things are conjoyned in both those verses, what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that I do, v. 15. and the good that I would, I do not; but the evil that I would not, that I do, v. 19. And being so conjoyned in the same person, the subject of the dis∣course, and but equivalent phrases with those other of captivation to the Law of the members, and being car∣nal, and sold under sinne, the meaning must be, that he neglects to doe the good that the Law of God and his own mind dictates to him, and doth commit, on the contrary, the evill, that according to his mind and the declaration of God's willin the Law he disliketh and hateth, and so evidently acteth in opposition to conscience, commits the sins of the fl••sh willingly and knowingly, non obstante the contrary dictate and so∣licitation of conscience. But then this is much more than is contained in that lusting of the flesh against the spirit, Gal. 5. (styled by Nemesius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. c. 37. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the strife of the reason and lust, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a dissention and emulati∣on betwixt them.) For as there the flesh lusteth, so the spirit lusteth too, and it is not affirmed of either of them,* 1.17 that it leads the other captive. All the event that is taken notice of is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that what you would that you do not; which be∣ing the effect of the double 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or lusting, must have such a sense proportioned to it as shall be found∣ed in that double 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and that can be no other than this, that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to will be taken in the sense of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to lust, and so not for an act of the elective faculty which to one matter is but one, either choosing or refusing, but for an act of some kind of woulding, or appetite, and that is constantly two fold to the same matter; the flesh hath one woulding, and the Spirit hath another: the flesh desires, and would have a man yield to the pleasant proposal, the Spirit would have him resist it; and both these are evidently mentioned in that verse, one called the lusting of the spirit, and the other of the flesh. From the contrariety of which it necessarily followes, that whatsoev•••• matters of this nature, good or evil) any man 〈◊〉〈◊〉 doth against one of these wouldings, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he doth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do what he would. Whereas if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 were taken for the elective faculty, which we ordinarily call the will of man, it is evident every voluntary agent doth 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do what he will, his actings follow his will or choice, and whensoever he doth not so, he acts by violence, or rather is acted, and to that is required, that he be conquered by some other; and yet of any such conquest there is no men∣tion in that place of Gal. 5. 16. which mentions onely an 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 lusting equally on both sides: and so the result is, that Gal. 5. 16. there is no more said but this, that which way soever a man act, he acts against some 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 desire, or lusting of his; if he act ac∣cording to the flesh, he acts against the solicitation of the mind and spirit; and if he act according to the spirit, he doth not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but acts contrary to all its importunities: and he that doth the latter of these is far from being led captive to the law

of sinne, which is in the flesh, or members, being in∣deed a conqueror over it, though he have not eradi∣cated or extirpated it. For the yet fuller clearing of this, take the plain importance of those two verses, and set them severally, and then you will soon see how no correspondence there is between them. Gal. 5. 16. the Apostle sets down this plain Aphorisme, that the desires of the flesh and spirit are one contrary to the other, and consequently that to whichsoever of them the Will of man consents, it must needs reject the other. But Rom. 7. 15, 19. the Apostle sets down the state of a particular man, which delibe∣rately chooses and acts the evil which he knowes he should not do, or which the Law of God in his own mind tells him distinctly he ought not to do; as when Nemesius 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. ch. 33. speaks of an intem∣perate man, that he is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, his election is contrary to his lust, yet he is overcome by his lust, and acts what that suggests. And so S. Augustine confess. l. 8. c. 5. Lex peccati est violentia consuetudinis, quâ trahitur & tenetur etiam invitus animus, The law of sinne (in that place) is the violence of custome by which the mind is drawn and held against its inclina∣tion; plainly signifying the state of the person spoken of Rom. 7. to be that of an habitual sinner. What agreement now is, or can there be betwixt these two verses? 'Tis true indeed, that they which do what they hate, and would not, may well be said not to do the things which they would, and so are included in those words, Gal. 5. 17. but that proves not that those places Rom. 7. and Gal. 5. are parallel; because Rom. 7. 'tis determined to doing the ill which he hates, whereas Gal. 5. the speech lyes open to both parts, to the doing the good which the flesh hates, as well as the evil which the flesh loves. Now this being spoken of men indefinitely, is very distant from defining it on one side, and applying it to a particular person, as it is evidently done, Rom. 7. when he saith, Non quod volo bonum, hoc ago, sed quod odi malum, illud facio, I do not the good that I would, but the evil which I hate that do I: and consequently, though the flesh's disliking the virtuous actions, and liking the vitious, be perfectly reconcileable with walking in the spirit, and so with a regenerate state, and so the place to the Galatians, (though not spoken particularly of the acti∣ons of regenerate men, but delivered as an Aphorisme indefinitely, appliable to mens actions whether good or evil) may be appliable to the actings of such; yet the place to the Romans being determined to the facio malum, I do the evill, and that evidently against the dictate of the mind, the resistence of the consci∣ence, is 〈◊〉〈◊〉 reconcileable with that spiritual walking, and so 〈◊〉〈◊〉 the regenerate state, Rom. 8. 1. Another notion 〈◊〉〈◊〉, which some of the ancients have had of the words 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉,* 1.18 what I hate that I do, viz. that it should belong only to* 1.19 desires or thoughts uncon∣sented to. So S. Jerome, and S. Augustine also l. 1. Cont. 2. Epist. Pelag. c. 10. being perswaded by some Doctors, and a conceited advantage against the Pe∣lagian heresie, to retract in some part what before he had asserted, and spoken the most for of any man. And of this opinion is* 1.20 Methodius also, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, saith he, that which I hate, I do, is to be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, not of the doing that which is ill, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but only of think∣ing, or imagining; and again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, of aliene imaginations which fre∣quently make incursions on us, and bring us to phansy things which we would not, adding, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for it is not wholly in our power, to think or not to think absurd things, but either to use or not to use such thoughts or phansies; for we cannot hinder thoughts from coming upon us, but we can choose whether we will be per∣swaded by them, or use them. And again, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; How did the Apostle do evil, if he spake not of absurd thoughts? This interpretation of S. Paul's words, if it were secure from being any farther ex∣tended then the authors of it designed, could have no hurt or noxiousness in it, it being certainly true, that every regenerate man is thus infested with phan∣sies and thoughts which he hates, and gives no con∣sent unto. Yet if the words of the text be well con∣sidered, this cannot but appear a strange interpreta∣tion. For when it is certain that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies nei∣ther less, nor other, then 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to do, and when that word is varied into 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, v. 15. and both those are directly all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and when 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what I hate in one place, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 what I would not, v. 16. and that again 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, the evil that I would not, v. 19. and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 are directly all one, 'tis not imaginable how 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, what I hate, I do, should not be understood 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 of doing evil, this being no less than a direct contradiction, to interpret 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, for that is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do, by not do, which neither Methodius nor any other mans authority can prevaile with any reasonable man to re∣ceive from him. This inconvenience when Methodi∣us foresees, his onely answer is, that he desires them who make this objection, to declare what evil it was that the Apostle hated, and would not do, and yet did; whether when he willed to serve God, he yet commit∣ted Idolatry. But sure the whole force of this answer (if there be any) is founded in interpreting the words to be spoken by S. Paul in his own person, and so is perfectly prevented by him that understands the A∣postle not of himself, but of an unregenerate man. From which process of Methodius, and what he there addes in that place of the Apostles pronouncing against Idolaters, and other such sinners, that they cannot inherit the kingdome of heaven, the conclusion is re∣gular and unavoidable, that if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 signifies 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, do, and work, be interpreted of actions, or of any more then thoughts unconsented to, then the person that is spoken of by S. Paul, Rom. 7. is one that shall not inherit the kingdome of God, and then sure no regenerate person, by Methodius's arguing: Which therefore is most constringent, and convincing, that this chapter speaks of an unrege∣nerate person; for that 'tis beyond all controversie, that he cannot use those words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 I do, &c. of meer 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, thinking or phansying only, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, or 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and not of consenting, or doing. And so in like manner, that being carnal, and sold under sin, (which is all one with a servant of sin, in other places of the same Apostle, it being then so or∣dinary to sell servants sub hastae, under his speare, as it were, that had taken or conquered them) and carried captive by the law in his members, (that is, by his own carnal heart) cannot be affirmed of him that lives in, and walkes after the spirit. To which this farther evidence may also be added, from the using the phrase the Law of sin, v. 23. the unquestionable importance of which we have from the immediate consequents. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 or law of sin,* 1.21 is sure the command or empire of sinne, to which he that is captivated, as the person here spoken of is, must be acknowledged to be under the dominion of sin, and that certainly is unreconcileable with a regenerate state. This is far∣ther express'd v. 24. by the body of death, and so beares

proportion to what had been said v. 5. when we were in the flesh, as that is there opposed to the spirit, the m••tions of sin did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death, which concludes that condition which is here spoken of to be a damnable condition. And it is remarkable that ch. 8. 2. the law of the spirit of life which is in Jesus Christ is said to have made the Apostle free from this law of sin & death. From whence the argument is irrefragable; That to which the person Rom. 7. 23. is said to be captivated, is the same from which the grace of Christ hath deli∣vered the regenerate justifyed person ch. 8. 2. But the grace of Christ doth not free the regenerate man in this life from injections of phansy, or thoughts un∣consented to (for certainly the regenerate man doth not pretend to that measure of grace as shall free him from all such) Therefore, that of thoughts uncon∣sented to is not it to which the person Rom. 7. 23. is said to be captivated. Against the evidence of this I foresee not what can reasonably be suggested.

Notes

• * 1.1

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.2

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.3

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.4

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.5

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.6

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.7

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.8

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.9

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.10

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.11

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.12

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.13

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.14

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.15

  li. 4. de dict. & fact. Sar.
• * 1.16

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.17

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.18

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉
• * 1.19

  Concupi∣scend••, sed eidem con∣cupiscenti•• non consenti∣••ndo.
• * 1.20

  Ap. Epi∣phan. haer. 64. Basil. Ed. p. 252.
• * 1.21

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉