not there be referred to, when language equally strong is so frequently applied to him in other parts of the Bible. 2d. Precisely similar language was at this time in common use among the heathen, and by them applied to men as sinners. "He that sins," says one, "does not what he would, but what he would not, that he does." "I see the good," says another, "and approve it, but follow the bad." "I have forgotten none of the things about which you admonished me, but although I have a desire to do them, nature struggles against it." "I knew that it was becoming, but me miserable! I could not do it." Such is the language common with those very heathen converts to whom the apostle was writing, and applied by them to sinners as such. On what principle, I ask, is it asserted, that they would understand this language, in opposition to all previous usage, as applicable to the Christian only.

We will now consider a few of the reasons in favor of the supposition that the sinner under the action of legal influences, and not the Christian under the gospel, is the subject of the apostle's remarks in this passage.

1. It was so understood by the entire primitive Church for the first two or three centuries after the epistle was written. This, none, I believe, acquainted with the records of the primitive

Church, will deny. Did the entire Church who received the passage directly from the apostle, mistake his meaning?

2. The supposition that the Christian is here referred to, places what the apostle says of himself as a Christian in this passage and elsewhere, in palpable and irreconcilable contradiction to each other. In the state here described, the apostle says of himself, "I am carnal, sold under sin," that is, a bond slave under the power of sin, as the slave is under the absolute control of his master. We might here ask, Is this the Christian? Again, "The good that I would," i. e. approve, "I do not, but the evil that I would not," i. e. disapprove, "that I do ;" "I find then a law," an invariable order of sequence, for such only is law, "that when I would do good, evil is present with me." Speaking of himself as a Christian, the apostle says, "I keep my body under, and bring it into subjection." Again, "The life that I now live the flesh, I live by faith on the Son of God." Are these states compatible? Are they one and the same? Again, the Christian is represented in the Bible as "overcoming the world." The individual here referred to is invariably overcome by the world. Are these characters identical?— Again, in the state here described, the apostle declares himself to be in "captivity to the law of

sin and death." In chap. viii. 2, he says, that as a Christian he is free from that very law. How can

an individual be a captive under a law, and free from that law at one and the same time? Once more: In the state here referred to, the apostle says, "I am carnal." In chap. viii. 9, he declares absolutely, that every real Christian is "not in the flesh," that is, carnal, "but in the spirit!" How can these states be identical!

3. If the apostle has described the condition of the Christian under the gospel, in the passage under consideration, he has defeated his own object, by showing that the gospel is equally impotent with the law in producing holiness of heart, the opposite of which he designed to show. The law convicts of sin, and then leaves the subject in bondage under sin. What more does the gospel, if the Christian also is "carnal, sold under sin ?"

Well might the Jew ask, in view of such a presentation of the power of the gospel, What advantage hath the Christian, and what profit is there in faith in Christ, as far as holiness is concerned? Do the "motions of sin which are by the law work in my members to bring forth fruit unto death?" So is the Christian, by the same influence precisely, "brought into captivity to the law of sin, which is in his members." Am I in the flesh? The Christian, also is "carnal."

Am

I in bondage under the power of sin? The Christian, also, is a bond slave, "sold under sin?" Do I "approve of the things which are more excellent," and delight to know God and the "ordinances of righteousness," and at the same time remain in a state of disobedience to God? The Christian, also, (6 delights in the law of the Lord, after the inward man," without obeying that law. "The good that he would he does not; but the evil that he would not, that he does." How could the apostle, by such a train of reasoning as this, convince the Jew, that in depending upon the law for sanctification as well as for justification, he was as a sinner leaning upon a broken reed? and that the gospel alone not only justifies but sanctifies the sinner?

4. The apostle, in the passage before us, declares expressly that he refers to his state as a sinner. "In me, that is, in my flesh," that is, in my carnal unrenewed state, "dwelleth no good thing."

5. The individual here described is by the apostle's own showing, totally depraved. Notwithstanding all the opposition which the law of God and the law of his mind make to sin, he invariably practices it, on all occasions and under all circumstances. If such a state does not indicate the entire absence of holiness, nothing can do it. The whole matter is summed up by the apostle in verse

25, "So then, with the mind, I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.' That is, in the language of Professor Stuart, "While my mind, i. e. my reason and conscience, takes part with the law of God and approves its sanctions, my carnal part obtains the predominance, and brings me into a state of condemnation and ruin. For a full and complete illustration of the meaning of the entire passage, the reader is referred to the commentary of Professor Stuart.

I conclude, then, that this chapter, as it refers to another subject, has nothing to do with the question whether entire holiness is attainable in this life.

Gal. v. 17, "For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would." The apostle here gives the reason for the declaration found in the verse preceding, "Walk in the Spirit and ye shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh." The reason assigned is this. The dictates of the flesh and of the spirit are in contradiction the one to the other. Obedience to one excludes subjection to the other. Hence, if we "walk in the Spirit," we "cannot do the things that we would," i. e. "fulfil the lusts of the flesh." Strange that an objection to the doctrine of holiness should be drawn