Chapter 7

1 Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? 2 For the woman who is in subjection to a man is bound by the law to the man while he lives; but if the man be dead, she is delivered from the law of man. 3 So then, if while the man lives she take another man, she shall be called an adulteress; but if the man be dead, she is free from the law, so that she is not an adulteress, though she take another man. 4 So you, my brethren, are dead also to the law by the body of Christ, that you should be joined to another, even to him that is raised up from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit to God,

Although he had sufficiently (as in such brevity it could be) unfolded the question of the abrogation of the law: yet because it was both a difficult question, and of itself might bring forth many others, he does more copiously declare how the law is abrogated from us: secondly he shows what profit we get thereby: because while it does hold us bound without Christ, it can do nothing but condemn us. And lest any should thereby accuse the law, he meets with the objections of the flesh, and refutes them: where he excellently handles a notable place of the use of the law.

1 Do you not know. Let the general proposition be, that the law was given to no other end to men, than that it should govern this present life; with those who are dead it has no place. To which afterward, he adds a more special one: namely, that we are dead to the law in the body of Christ. Some others understand that the dominion of the law abides so long to bind us, as the use thereof is in force. But because this sentence is somewhat obscure, and it does not so properly agree to that special proposition which follows straightway, I had rather follow those who take it to be spoken of the life of man, and not of the life of the law. And the interrogation verily has more strength to set forth the certainty of the matter spoken of. For it shows that that is not strange or unknown to any of them: but is indifferently granted among all. For I speak to those who have knowledge. This parenthesis is to be referred to where the proposition is referred, as if he should say that he knew they were not so unskilled of the law as they could doubt of that. And albeit both might be understood of all laws together, yet it is better to understand it of the law of God, which is now in question. Whereas some think the knowledge of the law is attributed to the Romans because the best part of the world was under their empire and government, that is very childish. For partly he speaks to Jews, or other strangers, partly to vulgar and obscure men. Indeed, he chiefly respects the Jews, with whom he had to do concerning the abrogation of the law. And lest they should think they were dealt with very captiously, he shows that he takes a principle common and known to them all, of which they could not be ignorant, who were brought up from their infancy in the doctrine of the law.

2 For the woman who is in subjection to the man. He brings a similitude, whereby he proves that we are so freed from the law, that it has properly and by right no power over us any more. And albeit he could have proved it by other reasons: yet because the example of matrimony served very well to set out the matter, in place of a confirmation he has inserted a similitude taken from there. However, lest it should trouble any man, that the members compared one with another do not agree at all: we are to be admonished, that the mind of the Apostle was purposely by a little inversion to avoid the spite of a more rigorous or severe word. He should have said, that he might have framed his similitude in order, the woman after the death of her husband is loosed from the bond of matrimony: the law which is in place of a husband to us, is dead to us. Therefore we are free from the power thereof. But lest he should offend the Jews with the asperity of the word, if he had said that the law was dead, he used a digression, or deflection, saying, we are dead to the law. He seems to many to argue from the lesser to the greater: yet because I fear lest that be more wrested, I rather allow the former interpretation, which is more simple. The whole argument therefore is to be directed into this order. The woman is bound to her husband by the law, so long as he lives, so that she cannot take another; but after the death of her husband she is loosed from the bond of that law, so that she may marry whom she will.

Then follows the application,

The law was as it were our husband, under whose yoke we were held, till it was dead to us.

After the death of the law, Christ took us, that is, joined us being freed from the law, to himself. Therefore we being joined to Christ risen from the dead, ought to cleave to him only: and as the life of Christ after his resurrection is eternal, so after this there shall be no divorce.

Moreover, the word law is not always here put in one and the same sense: but sometimes it signifies the mutual right of wedlock, sometimes the authority of the husband, to whom the wife is subject, sometimes the doctrine of Moses. And we are to remember, that Paul does here touch that part only, which is proper to the ministry of Moses. For as concerning the ten commandments wherein God has delivered what is right, and has ordered our life, we are not to dream of any abrogation of the law: because the will of God ought to stand forever. Therefore we are diligently to remember, that this deliverance is not from that righteousness taught in the law: but from the severe exaction of the law, and that curse proceeding from there. Then the rule of life, which the law prescribes, is not abrogated: but that quality which is opposed to the liberty purchased by Christ, namely, while it requires absolute perfection: because we do not perform it, it holds us bound under the guilt of eternal death. But because his meaning was not here to decide what the right of matrimony is, he was not greatly careful to reckon up the causes which make a woman free from her husband. Unapt therefore would sure doctrine in that respect be sought for here.

4 By the body of Christ. First of all, Christ having erected the banner of his cross, did triumph over sin: which could not be, unless the handwriting were canceled, wherein we were bound. That handwriting is the law, which, while it stands in force, makes us debtors to sin, and therefore is called the strength of sin. From the power therefore of this handwriting we are delivered in the body of Christ, while it is fastened to his cross. But the Apostle goes further, namely, saying, that the bond of the law was loosed. Not that we should live according to our minds, as a widow woman is left to her own mind while she is a widow: but we are now bound to another husband: indeed, from hand to hand (as they say) we are passed from the law to Christ. In the meantime he mitigates the austerity of the sentence, when he says, that Christ delivered us from the yoke of the law, that he might graft us into his own body. For although Christ did voluntarily subject himself to the law for a time, yet it is not fitting that the law should have dominion over him. Furthermore, that liberty which is proper to him, he communicates also to his members. Therefore it is no marvel if he delivers those from the yoke of the law, whom he couples to himself by a sacred connection, that they might be one body with him. His, who was raised from the dead — we have already said, that Christ is put in the place of the law, lest any liberty should be imagined without him, or lest any should dare to make a divorcement from the law, not being yet dead to himself. Now he uses this circumlocution to note the eternity of that life, which Christ has purchased by his resurrection: that Christians might know, this union is perpetual. Finally, he speaks more clearly of the spiritual matrimony of Christ with his church, to the Ephesians. That we might bring forth fruit to God. He always adds the final cause, lest any under this pretense, that Christ has delivered us from the servitude of the law, should pamper the flesh and the lusts thereof, for he offered us with himself in sacrifice to the Father, and to this end he regenerates us, that we might bear fruit to God in newness of life. And we know what fruits our heavenly Father requires of us: namely, holiness and righteousness. Neither is it prejudicial to our liberty, if we serve God. Indeed, if we will enjoy so excellent a benefit of Christ, afterward we are not, but to study how the glory of God may be advanced, for which cause Christ has taken us: otherwise we abide still not only the servants of the law, but of sin and death.

5 For when we were in the flesh, the affections of sins, which are by the law, worked in our members to bring forth fruit to death.

6 But now we are delivered from the law, being dead to it, wherein we were held: that we should serve in newness of the spirit, and not in oldness of the letter.

5 For when we were. By the contrary he shows yet more plainly, how ill those, that are zealous of the law, deal, to detain the faithful yet under the power thereof. For so long as the literal doctrine of the law rules and bears sway, the lasciviousness of the flesh is not bridled, but rather it increases. Whereby it follows that the kingdom of righteousness is not established, till Christ has freed us from the law. And withal Paul admonishes what works become us being loosed from the law. So long therefore as a man is held under the yoke of the law, by sinning continually, he can bring nothing to himself but death. If the service of the law begets sin only, then deliverance which is contrary must tend to righteousness: if that leads to death, then this to life. But let us consider the very words of Paul. While he goes about to describe that time, wherein we were under the dominion of the law, he says we were in the flesh. Whereby we understand, that all they which are under the law, reap nothing else thereby, than that without fruit and efficacy their ears are beaten with the external breath thereof: seeing they are inwardly destitute of the spirit of God. Therefore they must needs abide altogether corrupt, and perverse, until a better remedy comes to heal their disease. And note the usual phrase of the Scripture, to be in the flesh, for, to be endued only with the gifts of nature, without that special grace, with which God vouchsafes his elect. Furthermore, if this whole state of life is corrupt it is apparent that naturally there is no part of our soul sound: neither is there any other power of free will, but that it may send forth evil affections as darts into every part. Affections of sins which are by the law. That is, the law did stir up evil affections in us, which did declare their efficacy in all our members. For there is no part, which did not serve the evil affections. This is the work of the law: namely, to inflame our hearts the more, that they should burst forth into such lusts, if that inward master of the spirit is not present. But observe here, that the law is matched with the corrupt nature of man: whose perversity and lust, the more it is restrained by the bars of the law, the more furiously it bursts forth. He adds again, so long as the affections of the flesh were ruled under the law, they brought forth fruit to death, that they might show, how the law by itself kills, whereby it follows that they are foolish, who so greatly covet after that service, which brings death.

6 But now we are freed from the law. He pursues his argument from contraries: if the bond of the law did so little prevail to bridle the flesh, that it was rather an increment of sin, then of necessity must we be loosed, that we may cease to sin. If then we be freed from the bondage of the law, that we might serve God, they do wickedly, which take from here liberty of sinning. And they speak wickedly, which say that by this means the reins are loosed to concupiscence. Note therefore, we are then loosed from the law, when God does endow us, being freed from the severe exaction and curse thereof, with his Spirit, that we might walk in his ways. Being dead to it. This part contains a reason, or rather shows the manner whereby we are delivered: namely, while the law is so far forth abrogated from us, that we be not oppressed with the burden thereof, or lest that the severe rigor thereof overwhelm us in the curse. In the newness of the Spirit. He opposes the Spirit against the letter, because before that our will, by the Holy Ghost, be formed to the will of God, we have nothing in the law but the outward letter, which indeed bridles our external actions, but it restrains not the fury of our concupiscence at all. He attributes newness to the Spirit, because it succeeds in the stead of the old man, as the letter is called old, which perishes by the regeneration of the Spirit.

7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. But I knew not sin, but by the law. For I had not known concupiscence, except the law had said, you shall not lust.

8 But sin took an occasion by the commandment, and wrought in me all manner of concupiscence.

7 What shall we say then? Because it was said, we must be delivered from the law, that we might serve God in the newness of spirit, this fault did seem to be in the law, as though it did drive us to sin. But seeing that is very absurd, the Apostle did very well to take in hand to refute it. When he demands therefore, whether the law be sin, his meaning is, whether it begets sin so, that the fault thereof ought to be imputed to the law. But I knew not sin. Then does sin abide in us, and not in the law: because the cause of sin is the wicked concupiscence of our flesh, and we come into the knowledge thereof by the knowledge of the righteousness of God, which is declared to us in the law. But you are not to understand it, as though there were no difference at all between right and wrong without the law. But that either we are too blind in seeing our corruption, or else while we flatter ourselves, we are altogether secure, as also it follows. For I had not known concupiscence. This is therefore a declaration of the former sentence, wherein he shows that that ignorance of sin of which he spoke, did stand in this, that men marked not their concupiscence.

And purposely he persists in one kind, wherein chiefly hypocrisy reigns, to which reckless pampering and security is always annexed. For men are never so deprived of judgment, but external works keep with them their difference. Indeed they are forced also to condemn wicked counsels, and such like devices, which they cannot do, but they must needs give to a right will, that praise is due to it. But the fault of concupiscence is more hidden, and more deeply laid up, whereby it comes to pass that it never comes into question, so long as men judge according to their sense. For he does not boast himself to have been void of it, but he did so flatter himself, that he made no account of that sin lurking in his heart. For seeing he was deceived for a time, when he thought that righteousness could not be hindered by concupiscence, then at length he perceived he was a sinner, when he saw concupiscence (of which no man is void) to be forbidden by the law. (Augustine says that Paul under this word contains the whole law, which, so that we understand it well, is true. For when Moses shows of what things we are to take heed, lest we offend or hurt our neighbor, he adds, you shall not lust, which is to be referred to all those precepts that went before. There is no doubt but in the former commandments he had condemned whatever wicked affections our hearts conceive, but there is great difference between a set will and affections whereby we are tickled. Therefore by this last precept, God requires such integrity of us, that no corrupt lust should move us to evil, however it be that we consent not to it. And for this cause it was, I said, Paul did mount higher than the common capacity of man is able to reach. For civil laws declare that they punish the counsels and not the events, and the philosophers more subtly place both vices and virtues in the mind, but God by this precept pierces to the concupiscence, which is more secret than the will. And therefore men did not count it for sin. Neither was it only pardoned by the philosophers, but at this day the Papists contend mightily, that it is not sin in the regenerate. But Paul says he found out his guilt by this lurking disease, whereupon it follows that they are not excusable, who so are sick of it, but so far forth as God does pardon the fault. In the meantime we are to hold that distinction between evil lusts which come to consent, and concupiscence which only so tickles and moves the hearts that it stays in the middle way.)

8 But sin took an occasion. So then whatever is evil, it arises of sin and the corruption of the flesh; the occasion only is in the law. And although he may be supposed to speak of that provocation only, whereby through the law our lust is so stirred up, that it bursts forth into greater madness, yet I refer it chiefly to knowledge, as though it were said, it discovered in me all concupiscence, which, while it lay hidden, seemed in a manner to be none. And yet I deny not, but the flesh is more vehemently provoked to concupiscence by the law, and so this way it comes into light, which thing might also happen to Paul. But that which I said of manifestation agrees rather to the text. For straightaway he adds.

For without the law sin is dead.

9 And I lived sometime without law. But when the commandment came, sin revived.

10 But I died, and that commandment which was ordained to life, was found to me to be to death.

11 For sin, taking an occasion by the commandment, led me out of the way, and by that killed me.

12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

For without the law. Here he does plainly express the meaning of the former words. For it is as much as if he said, that knowledge of sin without the law is buried. And it is the general sentence, to which he does by and by apply his example. Therefore I marvel what the interpreters meant to translate it in the [reconstructed: preterite imperfect tense], as though Paul spoke of himself: seeing it is apparent that his mind was to begin at a universal proposition, and afterward to open the matter by his example.

9 And I lived sometime without law. His meaning is to insinuate, that there was a time wherein, to him, or with him sin was dead. For it is not to be understood that he was at any time lawless: but this word I lived is very significant: because the absence of the law made that he lived, that is, being puffed up with the confidence of his own righteousness, he challenged life to himself when nevertheless he was dead. That the sentence may be more clear, resolve it thus, when sometime I was without law, I lived. And I said, that this word was significant, because in feigning himself righteous, he claimed to himself life also: this then is the meaning, when I sinned without knowledge of the law, sin was so drowned, that I did not observe it, and that it seemed almost to be dead. On the other side, I, because I did not see that I was a sinner, did please myself in myself, thinking that I had life at home with myself. For the death of sin is the life of man: again the life of sin is the death of man. But the question is, what time that was, wherein by the ignorance of the law, or (as he says) by the absence of the law, he did confidently claim life to himself. For sure it is he was brought up as a child in the doctrine of the law: but that was a literal divinity, which does not humble its disciples. For as he says in another place, the veil was interposed, that the Jews could not see the light of life in the law (2 Corinthians 3:14): so he also, so long as he being void of the Spirit of Christ, had his eyes covered, did please himself in the external show of righteousness. He therefore counts the law absent, which though it were present before his eyes, yet did not smite him with a perfect sense of the judgment of the Lord. Thus are the eyes of hypocrites covered with a veil, that they see not how much this precept requires, wherein we are forbidden of concupiscence. But when the commandment came. So now on the contrary he counts the law then to come, when it began truly to be understood. The law therefore did (as a man would say) raise sin from the dead, because it discovered to Paul, with how much corruption the inward parts of his heart abounded, and also did flay him. And let us always remember, that he speaks of a secure confidence, wherein hypocrites rest, while they flatter themselves, because they wink at their sins.

10 Was found to me, etc. Two things are said here: 1. namely that the commandment shows to us the way of life in the righteousness of God, and therefore was given, that we observing the law of the Lord, might obtain eternal life, if the depravity of us all did not hinder it. 2. But because there is none of us that keeps the law, but rather we are altogether carried headlong into that kind of life, from the which it does call us, it can bring nothing else but death. Thus we are to distinguish between the nature of the law, and our corruption. Whereby it follows that whereas the law does wound us to death, that is accidental: as if an incurable disease should be stirred up the more by a wholesome medicine. Indeed I confess it is an inseparable accident, and therefore the law in another place in respect of the Gospel, is called the minister of death (1 Corinthians 3:7): but yet this abides firm, that it is not hurtful to us of its own nature, but because our corruption does provoke and cause its curse.

11 Has led me out of the way. Truly it is so, although the will of God is hidden from us, and no doctrine does shine to us, the whole life of men is wandering and full of errors: indeed until the law does show to us the way of a right life, we can do nothing but wander. Yet because then we begin to feel our error, when the Lord does reprove us aloud, Paul worthily says, that when sin is discovered, then we are led forth out of the way. So then the word Ex apatan, that is, to lead out of the way, is not to be understood of the thing itself, but of knowledge: namely, for that by the law it is apparent how much we have declined from the right course: therefore of necessity it was to be translated, has led out of the way, because hereby sinners (who went on securely before) began to have a loathing and disliking of themselves, while after the filthiness of sin was revealed by the law, they understood how they made haste to death. Finally he infers again the name of occasion, that we might know how the law by itself is not deadly, but that comes otherwise, and is (as a man would say) foreign or such as comes by some other means.

12 Therefore the law is holy. Some think there is a repetition doubling in words, law and commandment: to whom I do so consent, that I judge there is included a great emphasis or force. To say, the law itself, and whatever is commanded in the law, that is all holy, and therefore is greatly to be reverenced: it is just, and therefore not to be charged with any unrighteousness: it is good, and therefore pure and clean from all corruption. So he clears the law of all accusations, lest any should ascribe that to the law, which were not good, just, and holy.

13 Was that then which is good, made death to me? God forbid. Indeed sin, that it might appear sin, worked death in me by that which is good: that sin might be out of measure sinful by the commandment.

13 Was that then which is good. Hitherto he has so cleared the law from all calumniations: that yet notwithstanding it remained doubtful, whether it were the cause of death or no. Indeed here are men's minds wonderfully plunged, how it may be, that we should reap nothing but death, of so singular a benefit of God. Now therefore he answers that objection, denying that death is of the law, although through occasion thereof, it is brought upon us by sin. And although this answer seems to be contrary to that which he said before, namely, that the commandment which was ordained to life, was found death to him: yet in deed there is no contrariety. For before, he meant, that by our wickedness it comes to pass, that we abuse the law to our destruction, otherwise than the nature of it does bear: and here he denies it to be the matter of death, that death should be imputed to it. In the second to the Corinthians he speaks more freely of the law, where he calls it the administration of death. However, he does, as it is wont to be, in the heat of disputation: not respecting the nature of the law, but the opinion of the adversaries.

Indeed sin — under the correction of others, I think it is to be read as I have put it down — and therefore I suppose this to be the sense, sin in a manner is justified, before it be detected by the law: but when by occasion of the law it is revealed, then truly it takes the name of sin: and so much the more mischievous and (that I may say so) sinful it appears then, because it converts the goodness of the law being perverted to our destruction. For that must needs be a very poisonous thing, which causes that, which otherwise by its own nature is wholesome, to be hurtful. The meaning is, that it was fitting the outrageousness of sin should be discovered by the law: for unless sin did (as they say) burst forth by an outrageous and enormous excess, it should not be acknowledged for sin.

This excess does pour out itself more violently, while it converts life into death. Therefore, then is all excuse taken away.

14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

15 For I know not that which I do. For what I would that do I not: but what I would not that do I.

16 If I do then, that I would not: I consent to the law of God that it is good.

17 Now then, it is no more I that does it, but the sin that dwells in me.

14 For we know. Now he begins more nearly to compare the law with the nature of man, that it might more clearly appear, from where the fault of death proceeds. Secondly he propounds an example of a regenerate man: in whom the relics of the flesh do so dissent from the law of the Lord, that yet the spirit does willingly obey the same law. But first of all (as we said) he sets down a bare comparison of man's nature and the law. Seeing there is no greater variance in the world, than of the spirit and the flesh: the law is spiritual, man is carnal. What concord then has the nature of man with the law? Namely such as the light has with darkness. Furthermore, whereas he calls the law spiritual, thereby he does not only signify that it requires the inward affections of the heart (as many expound it): but according to the nature of an antithesis, it has a signification contrary to the word carnal. The former interpreters we spoke of expound it thus, the law is spiritual, that is, it does not only bind our hands and feet, in respect of external actions: but also is imposed upon the affections of the heart, and requires the sincere fear of God. But here is expressed an antithesis or contrariety between the flesh and the spirit.

Finally, by the text it may sufficiently appear, and partly it has been already declared, that under the name of flesh, is comprehended whatever men bring with them out of their mother's womb. And men being taken for such as they are born, and for such as they be so long as they retain their own wit, are called flesh: for as they are corrupt, so they neither savor nor breathe anything, but that is gross and earthly. On the contrary the spirit is called the renewing of our corrupt nature, while God reforms us to his image. And from here comes that kind of speech, because that newness which is wrought in us is the gift of the spirit. Therefore the integrity of the doctrine of the law, is set against the corruption of man's nature. The meaning therefore is, the law requires a certain celestial and angelical righteousness, wherein there should appear no blot, to whose cleanness nothing ought to be wanting: but I, carnal man, can do nothing but strive against it. And that interpretation of Origen, which notwithstanding before this time, it has pleased many, is unworthy to be refuted. He says the law is called spiritual by Paul, because the Scripture is not literally to be understood. What is this to the present cause? Sold under sin. By this parcel he shows, what flesh is of itself. For by nature, man is no less the bond slave of sin, than those bondmen are bought with money, whom their masters abuse at their pleasure, like oxen or asses: we are so utterly mastered under the power of sin, that our whole mind, heart, and all our actions bend toward sin. I do always except coercion: for voluntarily we sin, because it were no sin, unless it were voluntary. But we are so addicted to sin, that we can do nothing freely but sin: because that corruption rules in us, draws us to this. Therefore this similitude imports not (as they say) a coerced or forced binding, but a voluntary compliance, to which the ingrafted servitude addicts us.

15 For that which I do I know not. Now he descends to a more particular example of a regenerate man: in whom, both those things he intends, do more clearly appear: namely, how great discord there is between the law of God, and man's nature, and how the law does not of itself bring death. For truly seeing the carnal man, with all the inclination of his mind, does rush into the lust of sinning, he seems to sin with such free election, that he might moderate himself if he would: as this pernicious opinion has almost prevailed with all men, namely, that a man by his own natural strength, without the help of God's grace, is able to elect whether he will. But verily while the will of a faithful man is led to good by the Spirit of God, thereby appears plainly the corruption of nature, which obstinately resists and strives to the contrary. Therefore you have in a regenerate man a very fit example, whereby you may know, how contrary the righteousness of the law is, to our nature. Hence also the declaration of the other member is more aptly drawn, than from the bare consideration of man's nature. For the law, because it brings forth nothing but death in that man who is altogether carnal, is there more easily charged: for it is doubtful from where the fault proceeds. In the regenerate man it brings forth wholesome fruits: whereby appears, that the flesh only is the cause that it quickens not: so far is it from generating death of itself. That this disputation therefore may both more faithfully and more certainly be understood, we must note, that this conflict of which the Apostle speaks, is not in any man, before he be sanctified by the Spirit of God. For man being left to his own nature, is wholly carried without resistance to concupiscences: for although the wicked are tormented with the sting of their conscience, and can not so flatter themselves in their vices, but that they have some taste of bitterness: yet you can not gather thereby, that they either hate evil, or love that which is good. Only the Lord does suffer them to be so tormented, that he might partly show to them his judgment: not that he might put into them, either a love of righteousness, or hatred of sin.

This difference therefore there is between them and the faithful, that they (meaning the wicked) are never so blinded, and hardened in their minds, but if they be admonished of their abominations, in the judgment of their own conscience they condemn them. For knowledge is not utterly extinguished in them, but they retain a difference of right and wrong. Sometime also through the feeling of their sin they are so shaken with horror, that even in this life they sustain a kind of damnation. Nevertheless they like sin with their whole heart: and therefore without any true resistance of the affection, they give themselves to it.

For those stings of conscience with which they are stung, arise rather of the contradiction of judgment, than the contrary affection of the will. On the contrary the godly, in whom the regeneration of God is begun, are so divided, that with a special desire of the heart they fervently aspire to God, they covet celestial righteousness, and hate sin: but again by the relics of their flesh they are drawn toward the earth. Therefore while they are thus distracted, they fight against their nature, and their nature fights against them. And they do not only condemn their sins, because they are forced to it by the judgment of reason: but because from the very heart they abhor them, and are displeased with them. This is that Christian warfare, between the flesh and the Spirit, of which Paul speaks to the Galatians (Galatians 5:17). And therefore it is well said, that the carnal man with the whole consent, and agreement of mind does rush into sin: and that the division or struggle, then first begins, when he is called of the Lord, and sanctified by his Spirit.

For regeneration is only begun in this life: the remnant of the flesh which remains, does always follow its corrupt affections, and so moves war against the Spirit. The unlearned who consider not what the Apostle is about, or what kind of dispensation he holds, do think that the nature of man is here described. And certainly such a description of human wit there is among the Philosophers. However the Scripture sets down a more deep philosophy, because since the time that Adam was spoiled of the image of God, it saw nothing to remain in the heart of man, besides perversity or stubbornness. So Sophists when they go about to define free will, or to estimate of what value the strength of nature is, seize upon this place: however Paul (as I said) does not here propound the bare nature of man: but under his own person, Paul describes, what, and how great the infirmity of the faithful is. Augustine was sometime in this common error: yet when he had more nearly sifted the place, he did not only retract that which he had taught amiss, but in his first book to Boniface, by many strong arguments he proves, that it can not otherwise be understood, but of the regenerate. And we will do our endeavor that the readers may clearly see it is so. I know not. His meaning is, that he did not acknowledge those works, which he did commit through the infirmity of the flesh, for his: because he did detest them. Therefore it is not amiss that Erasmus has used the word approve: but because that might be ambiguous, I chose rather to retain the word, know, or understand. Whereby we gather that the doctrine of the law is so agreeable, to right judgment, that the faithful refuse the transgression thereof, as a brutish thing. And because Paul seems to confess, that he taught otherwise than the law commanded, many interpreters have been deceived, who have thought that he took upon him the person of another: hence came that common error, that some have supposed the nature of an unregenerate man to have been described in this whole chapter. But Paul under the transgression of the law includes all the offenses of the godly, who, neither shake off the fear of God, nor the study of well doing. Therefore he denies himself to do that which the law commands, because he does it not absolutely, but in a manner faints in his endeavor.

For what I would do. You may not understand this to have been always in him, as though he could never do any good: but only he complains that he could not do that he coveted: namely that he could not prosecute that which was good, with such alacrity as was meet, because he was held in a manner bound: again, that he fainted in that wherein he would not, because he was feeble through the infirmity of the flesh. The godly mind therefore does not that good it would, because it stands not with courage as were meet: and it does the evil it would not, because it desires to stand, and falls, or at the least shakes.

However this will and refusal must be referred to the spirit, which ought to have the principality in the faithful. Indeed the flesh has its will: but Paul calls that will, which he coveted with the special affection of his heart: and he calls that contrary to his will, which did withstand the same.

Here truly we may gather that which we said, namely that Paul here treats of the faithful, in whom that grace of the spirit flourishes, which does illustrate the consent of a sound mind with the righteousness of the law: because the flesh cannot hate sin.

15 And if I do that I would not, I consent to the law. That is to say, while my heart does recreate itself in the law, and is delighted with the righteousness thereof (which thing undoubtedly comes to pass, when it has the transgressing thereof) therein it feels and acknowledges the goodness of the law: so that we are sufficiently convicted, indeed even by experience: that no evil is to be imputed to the law. Indeed it would be wholesome to men, if it happened upon right and pure hearts. And here we are not to take consent for such as we hear to be in the wicked, whose words are, I see better things, and I allow of them, I follow after worse. Also, I will follow those things which are hurtful: and flee those things, I think may profit. For they do it by compulsion, because they subscribe to the righteousness of God, from which otherwise their will [reconstructed: is] altogether adverse: but the godly consents in deed, and with a most cheerful desire of heart: for that he covets nothing more than to mount up into heaven.

17 Now it is no more I that works it. This is not the speech of one excusing himself, as though he were without fault: as many triflers think they have a good defense, whereby they may cover their sins, while they cast them upon the flesh: but it is a declaration, how far he dissents from his flesh, in his spiritual affection. For the faithful are carried with such fervor of spirit to obey God, that they deny their flesh.

Furthermore this place proves, that Paul disputes not here of any other, than of the godly who are already regenerate. For so long as man abides like himself, whoever he be, he is worthily counted corrupt. But Paul here denies himself to be altogether possessed of sin, indeed he exempts himself from the bondage thereof: as if he said, that sin remained only in some part of his soul, seeing he does earnestly from his heart labor, and strive to the righteousness of God, and in deed declares himself to bear the law of God graven within him.

18 For I know that in me (that is in my flesh) there dwells no good thing. For truly to will is present with me: but I find no means to perform that which is good.

19 For the good that I would, that I do not: but the evil that I would not, that I do.

20 And if I do that I would not: now then I do it not, but sin that dwells in me.

18 For I know. He says that there dwells no good thing in him, in respect of nature. Therefore it is as much as if it were said, in me, so far as of myself. For even by the first words he condemns himself wholly of corruption, when he confesses there dwells no good thing in him: then in the second place he adds a correction, lest he should be contumelious against the grace of God, which did also dwell in him: but was no part of the flesh. And here again he confirms that he speaks not of every man, but only of the faithful man, who through the remnants of the flesh, and grace of the spirit is divided in himself.

For to what purpose were this correction, except some part were free from fault? And therefore not carnal. Under the name of flesh he always comprehends all the gifts of man's nature, and also whatever is in man, besides the sanctification of the spirit. As under the name spirit, which he is accustomed to oppose against the flesh, he signifies that part of the soul, [reconstructed: which] being purged from corruption, the spirit of God has so fashioned it, that the image of God does appear in it.

Both these names therefore, as well of the flesh as the spirit agree to the soul: but the one to that part of the soul which is regenerate, the other to that which retains still his natural affection. To will is present with me. His meaning is not, that he had nothing but an ineffectual desire: but he denies that the efficacy of the work answered his will: because the flesh hindered him, [reconstructed: that] he could not exactly do [reconstructed: that] which he did. And so also understand [reconstructed: that] which follows, namely, to do the evil he would not: because the flesh of the godly does not only hinder them, that they cannot run speedily: but also puts many impediments in their way whereat they stumble. They do it not therefore, because they perform it not with such alacrity as were meet. Therefore this will he speaks of, is the readiness of faith, while the Holy Spirit does so frame the godly, that they are ready, and study to give their members to obey the Lord. And because their strength is not sufficient, Paul says, he found not that which were to be wished: namely the effect of a good desire.

To this pertains the confession that next follows: namely, that he did not the good he would, but rather the evil which he would not: namely, because the faithful, however they be right minded, yet being privy to their own infirmity, they esteem no work to proceed from them without fault. For seeing Paul treats not here of a few faults of the godly, but in general notes the whole course of their life, we gather that their best works are always stained with some blot of sin: so that no reward is to be hoped for, but so far as God does pardon them.

Finally, he repeats that sentence, namely that so far forth as he is endowed with celestial light, he is a faithful witness and subscriber to the righteousness of the law. By which it follows, that if we had the pure integrity of nature, the law should not be deadly to us: for the law is not adverse to that man, who being of a sound mind, abhors from sin. However, health is of the celestial Physician.

21 I find then by the law, that when I would do good, evil is present with me.

22 For I consent to the law of God, concerning the inner man.

23 But I see another law in my members, rebelling against the law of my mind, and leading me captive to the law of sin, which is in my members.

21 I find then. Here Paul imagines a fourfold law. Namely, 1. the law of God, which only is properly so called, because it is the rule of righteousness, by which our life is fashioned aright. 2. To this he adds the law of the mind, so learning the readiness of a faithful mind to obey the law of the Lord: because it is a certain confirming of us to the law of God. 3. On the contrary side, he opposes the law of unrighteousness, and by a certain allusion, he so calls the dominion which iniquity has as well in a man not yet regenerate, as in the flesh of a regenerate man. For the laws of Tyrants however wicked they may be, yet abusively are called laws. 4. To this law of sin, he makes the law of members answer: that is, the concupiscence resting in our members: for that consent it has with iniquity. Concerning the first member, because many interpreters take the name law, in its proper sense, they understand Cata or Dia: and so does Erasmus translate it, by the law. As though Paul had said, by the instruction, and direction of the law he found out that corruption was grafted in him. But that you may understand or add nothing, the sentence shall run well thus, the faithful while they go about to do good, they find a certain tyrannical law in themselves: because there is grafted in their marrow and bones a corruption contrary, and rebelling the law of God.

22 For I consent to the law of God. Here then you see, what manner of division there is in godly minds, from where arises that battle of the flesh and the spirit, which Augustine in a certain place, does notably call the Christian warfare.

The law of God calls man to the rule of righteousness: iniquity which is (as it were) a tyrannical law of Satan, pricks forward to wickedness. The spirit carries to the obedience of the law of God: the flesh draws back to the contrary part. Man thus distracted with various desires, is now in a manner divided, and of one made two men: but because the spirit ought to hold the principality, he judges and estimates himself chiefly by that part. Therefore Paul says he was bound captive of his flesh: because whereas he is yet tickled and moved with evil concupiscences: that is a coaction, in respect of the spiritual desire which altogether resists. But the meaning of the inner man and members is diligently to be noted, which while many did mistake, they have fallen upon this rock. Therefore the inner man, is not simply taken for the soul, but for that spiritual part of the soul which is regenerate of God: the word members signifies the other part that remains. For as the soul is the more excellent part of man, and the body the inferior: so is the spirit more excellent than the flesh. By this reason therefore, because the spirit occupies the place of soul in man: and the flesh (that is, the corrupt, and contaminated soul) the place of body: spirit has the name of inner man, and flesh the name of members.

The outward man is taken in another sense the second to the Corinthians. But the circumstance of the present place necessarily requires that interpretation I have put down, and it is called inner, by the way of excellence, because it possesses the heart and hidden affections, seeing the appetites of the flesh are wandering, and as it were out of man. Or surely it is like, as if a man should compare heaven with earth. For Paul by the way of contempt, under the name of members, notes whatever appears in man, that he might the better declare how the secret renewal is hidden, and covered from our senses, save so far forth as it is apprehended by faith.

Now then, seeing the law of the mind without question, signifies an affection rightly composed and set in order, it appears that this place is wickedly wrested to men not regenerate.

For Paul teaches that such are without mind, because their mind or soul degenerates from reason.

24 O wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?

25 I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. Then I myself in my mind serve the law of God, but in my flesh the law of sin.

24 O wretched man. He winds up the disputation with a vehement exclamation, whereby he teaches that we are not only to strive with our flesh, but with continual sighing to bewail both with ourselves, and before God our unhappiness. And he demands not by whom he might be delivered, as though he doubted, as unbelievers do, who hold not that there is one only deliverer. But it is the voice of one panting, and almost fainting, because he does not sufficiently see present help. And therefore has he used the word take or deliver, that he might show how there is required to this deliverance a special power of God. By the body of death, he means the mass of sin, or heap of which man is compacted: saving that in him there remained only certain relics, with whose bonds he was held captive. The pronoun this, or of this, which I with Erasmus have referred to body, may also aptly be applied to death, but almost in the same sense: because the mind of Paul is to show, that the eyes of the sons of God are opened, that they might prudently discern from the law of God, the corruption of their nature, and death which proceeds from there. However, the name body, is all one with the name external man, and members: for Paul notes this to be the original of sin, that man is fallen from the law of his creation, and so is become carnal and earthly. For although he does yet excel brute beasts, yet his true dignity is taken from him: and that which remains, is filled with innumerable corruptions: so that his soul, as it is degenerate, may be said to be changed into a body. So God says with Moses, my spirit shall strive no more with man, because he is but flesh: where by the way of reproach, he compares man being spoiled of his spiritual dignity, to brute beasts. And this place of Paul serves notably to beat down all the glory of flesh. For it teaches, that the most perfect men of all, so long as they dwell in their flesh, are addicted to misery, because they are subject to death: indeed, while they do diligently examine themselves, they find nothing in their nature but misery.

Furthermore, lest they should cocker their dullness, by his example Paul provokes them to careful mournings, and commands them so long as they wander in earth, to desire death as the only remedy of their evil. And this is the right end of coveting or desiring death. For oftentimes desperation drives profane men to the same desire: but rather for the loathsomeness of this present life, than for the weariness of their sin, they do wickedly wish for death. Add also that the faithful, albeit they level at the true mark, yet they are not carried with an unbridled or outrageous passion to wish for death, but submit themselves to the will of God, to whom we ought to live and die. Therefore they do not rage with indignation against God, but they do humbly lay their griefs in his bosom: for they do not so stay or rest in the cogitations of their miseries, but being mindful of the grace received, they temper their sorrow with mirth as it follows.

25 I thank God. He therefore adds this thanksgiving immediately, lest any should think he murmured stubbornly against God in his complaint. For we know how easy it is, indeed even in just sorrow to fall to murmuring or impatience. Notwithstanding therefore Paul bewailing his estate, did fervently covet death: yet he confesses himself to rest in the grace of God. For it is not fitting that the saints while they examine their own imperfections, should forget what they have received of God. Finally, this cogitation suffices to bridle impatience, and nourish peace, namely that they are received into the custody of God, to the end they should never perish: and even now feel themselves endowed with the first fruits of the Spirit, which assures them of the eternal inheritance. And albeit they do not yet enjoy the promised glory of heaven: yet they being content with that measure which they have obtained, never want matter of joy.

Then I myself. A brief conclusion, wherein he teaches that the faithful never come to the mark of righteousness, so long as they dwell in their flesh: but they are in the way, until they have put off the body. By mind he understands, not that reasonable part of the soul, which the Philosophers make so much of: but which is illuminated with the Spirit of God to understand and will aright. For there is not only mention made of the understanding, but also the serious desire of heart is joined. To conclude, by this exception he confesses that he is in such sort addicted to God, that yet creeping upon the earth, he is defiled with many corruptions. This is a notable place to convict that pernicious doctrine of the Catharites or Novatian heretics, which some tumultuous spirits go about to renew again at this day.