happiness they take no knowledge of, or they give no heed to what concerns their own true welfare, or that of others.'

(18) Οὐκ ἔστι....αὐτῶν, is exactly quoted from the Septuagint, and corresponds to the Hebrew, excepting the final avrov, which in the Hebrew and Septuagint is in the singular number. But then it is the singular generic, and so corresponds exactly in sense to the plural avrov of the apostle. The Hebrew original is in Ps. xxxvi. 1, and it

there is no fear of God before אֵין פַּחַד אֱלֹהִים לְנֶגֶד עֲנָיו : runs thus

his eyes; i. e. he has no reverence for God, no fear of offending him which puts any effectual restraint upon his wickedness.

(19) Οἴδαμεν δὲ ....λαλεῖ· now we know that whatsoever things the law saith, it addresses to those who have the law; i. e. we know that whatever the Old Testament Scriptures say, when they speak in the manner now exhibited, they address it to those who are in possession of these Scriptures, viz. to the Jews.-Aé continuativum, nunc, German nun, English now in the sense of a continuative. Toìç ¿v tw vóμw, those who have a revelation, év conditionis; compare on έv under chap. I. 24.

The object of the apostle is to shew, that the Jews can in no way avoid the force of what is here said. It was originally addressed to the Jews, in a direct manner. What he has quoted was indeed spoken at different times, to different classes of persons, and uttered by various individuals. But still the principle is the same. Jews are addressed; and Jews are accused in the very same manner, i. e. with equal force, by their own prophets whose authority is acknowledged, as they were accused by Paul. The principle then by which such an accusation is to be supported, is thus established. As to the actual application of this, and the facts respecting the conduct and character of the Jews in the apostle's time; all the writings of the New Testament, of Josephus, and others, and the direct assertions of Paul in this epistle, go to shew that no injustice at all was done to them in the present case.

It is this principle, viz. that in consistence with the fidelity of God to his promises, and consistently with the ancient Scriptures, the Jews might be charged with wickedness even of a gross character, and such as brought them as truly under the curse of the divine law as the polluted heathen were under it, it is this, which the apostle has in view to establish by all his quotations; and this he does entirely establish. When thus understood, there remains no important difficulty respecting the quotations. He did not need these, in order to settle the question about the depravity of the Gentiles. The Jews

would reluctate only against the truth of the charges made against themselves. The character of the heathen was too palpable to be denied. That of the Jews, indeed, was scarcely less so; but still, they themselves expected to escape divine justice, on the ground of being God's chosen people. All expectation of this nature is overturned, by the declarations and arguments of the apostle, in chaps. ii. iii. of this epistle.

Such as undertake to prove universal depravity directly from the texts here quoted, appear to mistake the nature of the apostle's argument, and to overlook the design of his quotations. It is impossible to make the passages in the Old Testament, as they there stand, to be universal in their meaning, without doing violence to the fundamental laws of interpretation. And surely there is no need of doing thus. The whole strain of the apostle's argument at large, goes to establish universal depravity; I mean the universal depravity of all who are out of Christ, and are capable of sinning. The doctrine is safe, without doing violence to any obvious principles of exegesis; which we never can do with safety. I need scarcely add, that Flatt, Tholuck, and all enlightened commentators of the present day, so far as I know, agree in substance with the interpretation which I have now given.

“Ivа πāν.... Ôɛy, so that every mouth must be stopped, and the whole world become guilty before God. Πᾶν στόμα φραγῇ, i. e. every man, all men whether Jews or Gentiles, must be convicted of sin, and be unable to produce any thing to justify their conduct; compare Job v. 16. Ps. cvii. 42.—'Ywódikoç, reus, sons, guilty, deserving of condem

nation.

But how extensive is the conclusion here? I answer, (1) It extends to all who are out of Christ. I draw this conclusion, not so much from the mere forms of expression, such as πᾶν στόμα and πᾶς ὁ κόσμος, as I do from the nature and object of the apostle's argument. What is this? Plainly his design is, to shew that there is but one method of acceptance with God now possible; and this is in the way of gratuitous pardon or justification. But why is this necessary in all cases? The answer is: Because all have sinned. Certainly, if those who do not believe in Christ, can be pardoned only for his sake, this is because they are sinners and have need of pardon on the ground of simple mercy. Consequently all who are out of Christ, as they cannot be justified by the deeds of the law, are sinners.

But (2) All who are in Christ, i. e. are justified, have once been sinners, and do still commit more or less sin, for which pardoning

mercy becomes necessary. Once they were among the impenitent and unregenerate. What the apostle asserts, then, in our text, of all men, need not be limited, and should not indeed be limited, merely to those who are out of Christ at any particular time, but may be extended to all who were ever out of him.

That this is a bona fide application of the principle which he here contends for, is clear from his own commentary on this doctrine in chap. iv. For what does he say there? He shews, that even Abraham and David, as well as the grossest sinners, were justified only in a gratuitous way, being utterly unable to obtain the divine approbation on the ground of perfect obedience. What is the inference from all this? Plainly, that all men are sinners, and that none therefore can be saved by their own merits. So does ver. 20 virtually declare; so, explicitly, says ver. 23.

In form, the argument of Paul extends only to those who are out of Christ; but as this has once been the condition of all men without exception, so in substance it embraces all men without exception, who "by nature are children of wrath, being children of disobedience;" for "that which is born of the flesh, is flesh."

I cannot forbear to add, that it seems to me a wrong view of the apostle's meaning in vs. 10-19, which regards him as labouring to prove directly the universality of men's depravity, merely by the argument which these texts afford. Paul has other sources of proof, besides that of argument; for if he himself was an inspired apostle, then surely his own declarations respecting the state of the heathen or Jews, were to be credited on just the same grounds as those of the ancient Psalmist and of the Prophets. Why not? And then, why should we be solicitous to shew that every thing in Paul's epistle is established by argumentation? Had the apostle no other way of establishing truth, except by argumentation? Are not his own declarations, I repeat it, as weighty and credible as those of the ancient prophets? If so, then we need not be anxious to retain the argument as a direct one, in vs. 10-19. Enough that it illustrates and confirms the PRINCIPLE which the apostle asserts, and for which he contends. The argument from this principle is irresistible, when we once concede that Christ is the only Saviour of all men without exception; for this cannot be true, unless all men without exception are sinners. Of course I mean, all who are capable of sinning.

(20) Aióri.... avrov, wherefore by works of law shall no flesh be justified before him. Atórt, an abridgment of cià TOUTO Ori, on account of, because that, therefore, wherefore; so it often means, at the beginning

of a conclusion deduced from preceding premises; e. g. Acts xvii, 31. Rom. i. 21. viii. 7. 1 Pet. ii. 6.

"Epywr vóμov, works of law, i. e. such works as law requires; just as pya ɛou means, such works as God requires or approves; and so epya τοῦ ̓Αβραάμ, John viii. 39; τὰ ἔργα τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν [τοῦ διαβόλου], John viii. 14; τὰ ἔργα τῶν Νικολαϊτῶν, Rev. ii. 6; and so ἔργα τῆς πόρνης-τῆς σαρκός τοῦ διαβόλου—τῆς πίστεως, &c. &c. From these, and a multitude of other examples which every good lexicon and every concordance will supply, it appears entirely plain that epya and epyov, followed by a Genitive which qualifies it, mean something to be effected or done, which is agreeable to the command, desire, nature, &c. of the thing which is designated by that Genitive noun.

Concerning this usage, there is no just room to doubt. But the sense of vóμov has been thought to be less obvious. Does vóuoc then mean ceremonial law, revelation in general; or the moral law, whether revealed or natural? Ambrose, Theodoret, Theophylact, Pelagius, Erasmus, Cornelius a Lapide, Grotius, Koppe, Ammon, and others, have explained vópos as meaning the ceremonial law. But is this correct? The meaning of a word which is capable of various significations, is always to be judged of by the object or design of the writer, so often as this is practicable. What then is the object of Paul in the present case? Surely it is, to shew that both Gentiles and Jews need that gratuitous justification which the gospel proclaims, and which Christ has procured; compare iii. 9, πᾶν στόμα and πᾶς ὁ κόσμος in iii, 19, TάVTE in ver. 23, together with ver. 29. Compare also chap. i. 19— 32 with ii. 17-29. Nothing can be more certain than that the conclusion of the apostle is a general one, having respect to Jew and Gentile both. But how can it be apposite to say, in respect to the Gentiles, that they cannot be justified by the ceremonial law? Did the apostle need to make a solemn asseveration of this? Were the Gentiles sinners, because they had not kept the ritual laws of Moses? So the apostle does not judge; see ii. 14, 15, 26. How then can he be supposed to say in reference to the Gentiles (for the present verse refers to them as well as to the Jews), that by the law is the knowledge of sin? What knowledge of the ceremonial law of Moses, did the heathen possess?

I remark in the next place, that transgressions of the ritual law are no part of the accusation which the apostle here brings against the Jews. In chap. ii. 17-29, he accuses them of breaking moral laws; and after having enumerated a long catalogue of crimes common among the Gentiles, in chap. i. 19-32, he goes on immediately to

L

intimate in chap. I. 1, seq., that the Jews were chargeable with the same, or with the like crimes. In ä. 14, seg., and E. 26, seq., he intimates that the law inscribed upon the consciences and minds of the beathen inculcated those very things, with regard to which the Jews were sinners. In 9. seq., be brings Jews and Gentiles under the same accusation, explicitly charging 1 vit being inners: and sinners against a law which was common to both; as chap. 15, 16, 26, seq., most explicitly shews.

Again; when it is asked in Rom. vi. 15. Siaä ve sin because we are mot úre vouov but under grace? what sense would there be in this question (which is supposed to be urged by an objector), provided the ceremonial law be meant? Would an objector in the possession of his senses, ask the question: Have we liberty to break the moral law, i.e. to sin, because we are not under the ceremonial Or. because the ceremonial law will not justify us, may we not break the moral law?' Yet youov in Rom. vi. 15, is plainly of the same nature as vouos in iii. 20.

Finally; the apostle every where opposes the cucntis or cuaweúvn of the gospel, to that justification which results from works in general, works of any kind whatever; e. g. 2 Tim. i. 9. Eph. ii. 8, 9. Tit. iii. 5. Rom. iv. 2-5, 13—16. iii. 27. xi. 6, and in many other places.

From all this it results, that vouce must here mean the moral law, whether written or unwritten, i. e. law in general, any law whether applicable to Gentile or Jew, any rule which prescribes a duty, by obedience to which men might claim a promise of reward. Nor can this duty be limited merely to what is external. Surely the law of God, whether natural or revealed, does not have respect merely to the external conduct of men; it also has reference to the state of their heart and feelings. So, most explicitly, does Paul teach, in Rom. ii. 28, 29, in Rom. ii. 16, and very often elsewhere.

Understood in this way, the phrase toya vopov is plain. Neither Jew nor Gentile can be justified before God on the ground of obedience; "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God;" each one has broken the law under which he has acted; the Gentiles, that which was written on their minds and consciences, ii. 14, 15; the Jews, that which was contained in the Scriptures, ii. 27. Now as the law of God, revealed or natural, requires entire and perfect obedience, just so far as it is known and understood, or may be so without criminal neglect on the part of men; and since "the soul which sinneth must die," and "he who offendeth in one point is guilty of all;" it follows of necessity, that all men, whether Jews or Gentiles, while in an unconverted state,