against a preceptive law. But, by the omission of concupiscence, no offence is committed against a positive or preceptive law, but a prohibitive law is fulfilled; and by obedience, which consists in not lusting, Good is not performed, but Evil is omitted. That we may point out this absurdity [of St. Augustine's exposition] we will invert in the following manner what the apostle has said: "The Good that I would, I do," that is, I do not lust; "but the Evil which I would not, I do not," that is, I do not lust. For I will not to lust, and I do not lust; I nill to lust, and I do not lust: Therefore, in this case, the very same act is the performance of Good and the omission of Evil,-a complete absurdity! And that is called the PERFORMANCE of a good action which is the OMISSION of an evil one,—an equal absurdity! O Augustine, where was thy usual acumen ?; let the expression be pardoned: For a Good Philosopher is not always a Philosopher; and our Homer himself will sometimes nod.

FOURTHLY. It is an illogical mode of expression to say, "I will to lust," and "I will not to lust;" because actual concupiscence is prior to volition and nolition, and the act of concupiscence does not depend upon the choice or determination of the will: According to the trite and true saying, "First motions are not in our power, unless they be occasioned by some act of the will," as the School-men express themselves. But we must say, "I could wish not to lust," that is, "I could wish to be free from the impulse of concupiscence." And this is an expression of desire, not tending or going out towards the performance or omission of our act, but earnestly demanding the act of another person for our liberation from that evil which impels us to an evil act, and which hinders us from a good act, we approving of the good act and disapproving of the bad one.

(3.) He was compelled, when expounding what the apostle says in the 18th verse," But to perform that which is good I find not," to interpret it by "completing what is good," that is, "I find not perfectly to do what is good," as is evident from those passages which we have cited from St. Augustine. (Pp. 540, 647-650, 661, &c.) This interpretation is absurd, distorted, and contradictory to the sentiments and meaning of the author. For,

FIRST. The word, Kaτepyageσbar, does not signify "to perfect," that is," perfectly to do any thing;" but it signifies "to operate, to perform, to effect, or to do," as this word is most commonly used, not for" doing any thing perfectly," but for " producing an effect." My observations on this point are evident from the text itself. For the same Greek word is employed in the first

clause of the 15th verse, when the apostle says, " For that which I do, I allow not; " yet he does not perfectly perform the evil of which he disapproves. It is also used in the latter clause of the 20th verse, "Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me:" But sin does not perfectly perpetrate evil in this man, especially if he be regenerate, as St. Augustine supposes; and he openly says himself the contrary to this, as is evident from the passages which we have already cited in the Fourth Part of this Treatise.

SECONDLY. The synonymes of this verb, which are promiscuously used in the Seventh chapter, πράσσειν, and ποιειν, prove the same thing. For the apostle says, that he does and performs the evil which he would not, (verses 15, 16, 19,) yet he does not perfectly perform that evil; this is obvious from what he adds, "which I would not:" Therefore he performs it not with a full consent of his will. For this is confessed by St. Augustine, when he explains the passage about the regenerate: But he does it not with a full consent of the will, that is, he does it not perfectly.

THIRDLY. "The GooD which the apostle would but which he does not," (19,) is, according to St. Augustine, not to lust. But how is it, that the apostle indeed does this " good," [by willing it,] but does not perfect it? Therefore, a two-fold omission of concupiscence must be laid down, [by those who adopt St. Augustine's argumentation,] one, under the term to do, is called an imperfect omission; the other, under the word to complete, receives the appellation of perfect. According to St. Augustine's sense, the apostle says in this verse, (19,) "I will not to lust, and this good I indeed do, but I do not perfect it." From this remark, the absurdity which I have mentioned is most manifest.

FOURTHLY. More Good is attributed to the will of this man, than to its capability and powers or efficacy:-But the perfect volition of Good is not attributed to his will, neither can it be attributed :-THEREFORE, from its capability and efficacy not only can the perfect performance of good be taken away, but the imperfect performance is likewise taken away from them: That is, it is denied respecting this man, not only that he perfects. good, but that he even performs it. Wherefore this passage must not be understood concerning perfection, that is, the perfect performance of good.

(4.) He was forced to interpret " sin that dwelleth or inhabiteth within me," by "sin existing within," and to create a distinction between it, and "sin reigning and exercising the dominion over a man ;" while the phrase, "dwelling within me," denotes dominion,

and the full and supreme power of Him who is the resident, as we have previously shewn in its proper place. (Pages 529, 530.) But it is apparent that sin reigns in this man: For it commits that sin in him which he himself would not, and leads him away as a captive under its power.

(5.) He was under the necessity of interpreting "the law of the mind," by "the law of the Spirit," though in contradiction to the great contrariety subsisting between the attribute which is given to "the law of the mind," and that which is ascribed to "the law of the Spirit." For, in Romans vii, 23, "the law of the mind" is said to be overcome in combat by " the law of the members;" from which event the man "is brought into captivity to the law of sin:" And in Romans viii, 2, "The law of the Spirit" is said to make the man "free from the law of sin and death;" that is, it is stronger and superior in the conflict against "the law of the members;" and, when the latter is conquered and overcome," the law of the Spirit" delivers the man from the captivity, into which he had been brought by the force of "the law of the members."

(6.) St. Augustine was compelled to pervert the phrase, “captivity to the law of sin," and to give it the meaning of our primeval state in Adam, from whom we are born corrupt and under the captivity of sin and Satan; when, in this passage, the apostle is not treating on that captivity, but on another which is produced from it; that is, by "the law of the members," which we have contracted from Adam, waging war against "the law of the mind," overcoming it, and bringing man by his own act under captivity to the law of sin. For we have the former captivity originally from Adam, but we bring down the latter upon ourselves by our own act. Even if the discourse of the apostle had referred to our primeval state, yet, because the regenerate have received remission of sins and are endowed with the Spirit of the grace of Christ, they cannot be said to be captives under sin. For though the fuel has not been extinguished, yet the power of commanding, and of subjecting us to itself, is taken away from sin by the power of regeneration.

(7.) He is forced to torture the votive exclamation in the 24th verse, to a different desire from that on which the apostle is here treating, and with which the thanksgiving in the 25th verse does not correspond. For in this passage St. Paul treats upon the desire by which the man requests to be delivered from the dominion of sin, which he calls "the body of death;" and St. Augustine is compelled [by the scheme of interpretation which

he had adopted] to explain it in reference to the desire by which he desires to be liberated from this mortal body, and when that event occurs he will at once be free from the concupiscence of sin. A thanksgiving, however, seems [in this case] to be most unadvisedly subjoined to the votive desire, before the fruition of the thing which is said to be wished: Yet this is done in this passage, according to the interpretation of St. Augustine.

(8.) Lastly, St. Augustine is forced to assign a double servitude to a regenerate man :-the one, as he serves God;-the other, as he serves sin: And this in contradiction to the express declaration of Christ, "No man can at one time serve two masters." It is objected, "that in a different respect, and, according to his different "parts, man is said to serve God, and to serve sin;" but this remark does not clear this opinion from the stain with which it is aspersed. (i.) Because the Scriptures are unacquainted with that distinction, when they are speaking about regenerate persons: Let a passage to the contrary be produced. (ii.) Because, if even the flesh war against the Spirit or the mind by lusting; yet a man cannot be said, solely on account of this resistance and warfare, "with his flesh to serve" sin, or " the law of sin;" for, with St. Augustine, these two are the same things.

He is likewise compelled to use the word, "the mind," for the regenerated part of man, for the man so far as he is regenerate, in opposition to Scripture usage and phraseology, as we have explained in the First Part of this Treatise. (Pages 547, 579.)

These appear to me most equitable reasons for rejecting the latter opinion of St. Augustine, and for appealing from him when asleep to St. Augustine in his waking moments. I have no doubt that he would also have abandoned this his second opinion, had he taken into his consideration the arguments which are now adduced, especially when he had perceived the explication of the whole chapter to be so suitable and proper, and impossible to be wrested in any point by the Pelagians for proving their doctrine.

2. OUR Divines have fallen into some of those errors with which we have charged the opinion of St. Augustine, such as the following:-They ' are forced to interpret “ to be carnal,” and “ to be sold under sin," in a manner very different from that which the meaning of the apostle will allow ;-they call "sin that dwelleth in a man," "sin existing within," thus distinguishing it from reigning sin;—they assert that "the law of the mind " signifies "the law of the Spirit ;"-they explain in a corrupt manner the votive exclamation;-and, lastly, they attribute a two-fold servitude to a regenerate man :-In addition to these mistakes, they

fall into others which are peculiar to their interpretation, but which are agreeable neither to the meaning of the apostle in this chapter, nor to the rest of the Scriptures. For,

(1.) They are compelled to interpret that which, according to the meaning of the apostle, belongs to the continuous state of this man, as if it happened to him only occasionally, in contradiction to the express phraseology of the apostle, who says, "The good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do." This phraseology is by no means in accordance with the signification by which any one is said occasionally to perpetrate evil and to do good, as we have already rendered very manifest. (Page 664.)

(2.) They are under the necessity of interpreting the phrase, "The Good that I would, I do not; " by, "I do not Good in the perfection in which I ought," or, "I do not so much Good as it is my will to do:" Yet neither of these explanations is agreeable to the meaning of the apostle, as we have previously seen. (Pages 663-666.)

(3.) They broadly assert, that while the regenerate are actually committing sin, they are unwilling to commit sin in the very act of sinning,-in opposition to the whole of the Scriptures and to the nature of actual sin itself, which, if it be not voluntary, ceases to be sin.

(4.) They are compelled to say contradictory things about this man. For they take away from sin, which exists within him, the dominion over him; and yet they attribute to it a habitation or indwelling, and they ascribe such force and efficacy to it, that it perpetrates evil itself in the man in opposition to his will, and brings him into captivity to the law of sin: These are most undoubted effects indeed of sin reigning and exercising dominion.

(5.) Lastly, As there are many passages of Scripture, which attribute to the regenerate the willing of Good, a delight in the law of God, and things of a similar kind, they are compelled to interpret those passages by this restrictive particle, "after the inward man," while, in the rest of the Scriptures, such attributes are simply ascribed to a regenerate man, because they have the predominance in him. But it is not necessary, at this time, to repeat all those things which we have before written and proved against that opinion.

3. BUT the opinion which I have undertaken to explain, is plain and perspicuous, under no necessity to affix any thing to the phraseology of the apostle, or to impinge against any other portions of Holy Writ. This may be perceived at one glance, by him who will cast his eyes upon these two things, that the man who