we should be actually putting ourselves under its dominion, from which we have been freed. Besides, its fruit-we ourselves being judges of it in our former lives-is shame, and ends in death, its wages: whereas we are servants of God, being made holy, and being heirs of His gift, everlasting life.

But now this assertion, that we are not under the law, but under grace, comes in for further explanation and elucidation. In ch. vii. 1-4, he illustrates it by the comparison of a woman freed from the marriage vow by the death of her husband. Then he carries the subject on, by showing that, as the law was the multiplier of sin, tempting the evil in our hearts to break forth into transgression, so we, when we were under it, served in the bondage of the letter, and brought forth fruit unto death; but now, having died with Christ, we are freed from the law, and serve in the newness of the spirit, in liberty, which is where the Spirit of God is.

But then does it follow that the law was sin? It looks very like it, if it brought out and multiplied sin. But it may not be. It is not sin, but the detector of sin. Sin is brought out by it, and its

working discerned. It is not the poison, but the test. And here the Apostle introduces a very remarkable form of illustration, suddenly turning his discourse into the first person, and relating apparently his own experience. The inquiry into and explanation of this are so important, and the progress of the argument from this point to the end of ch. viii. so unbroken, that we must here make that pause which the length and weight of the Epistle necessitate, and reserve the rest of it for our next part.

We will here give our usual corrections of the text, and the English rendering, for the former portion of the Epistle.

As regards the text, the following alterations should be made, in order to conform it to the testimony of the most eminent and trustworthy authorities. It will be observed that they are very few in comparison to the number in some other books of the New Testament.

In chap. i. 16, omit the words "of Christ." In ver. 29, omit fornication. In ver. 31, omit 'implacable.'

In ch. ii. 17, for Behold, substitute 'But if,' which is the reading of all our earliest MSS. In

the Greek the two expressions differ by one letter only, and that letter one frequently expressed or not, indifferently, in the ancient manner of writing.

In ch. iii. 22, ‘and upon all,' is omitted by most of our early MSS. This may have been done by a transcriber's mistake: as nothing is more common than to find that the copyist's eye passed from a word or a syllable to the same word or syllable again occurring near. But this omission requires notice, being found in so many ancient MSS. of different origin. In ver. 28, our earliest MSS. are divided between therefore,' and 'for:' see below in corrections of rendering.

In ch. iv. 1, for 'father,' read 'forefather.' In ver. 19, many of our oldest authorities omit the word 'not.' If we adopt this reading, the meaning will be, 'He considered, was well aware of, his own body, &c., and, &c. ; but staggered not,' &c.

In ch. v. 1, occurs a very remarkable various reading. Where our text has we have peace,' all the very ancient MSS., without exception, have 'let us have peace.' The difference in the Greek is only that of one letter: echomen, with the short o, or omicron (0), being we have,' and echōmen,

with the long o, or omega (w), being 'let us have.'

What complicates the difficulty of deciding between the two in this case is, that the two letters are not unfrequently interchanged in the early MSS., where no difference of meaning could have been intended. Thus the Vatican MS. reads, ‘As let us have opportunity,' in Gal. vi. 10, which would be nonsense, and cannot have been meant; the Alexandrine and Parisian read, 'let us which have believed enter into rest,' in Heb. iv. 3, of which the same may be said; and the Alexandrine reads, 'let us receive,' of which the same may be said, in I John iii. 22. So we are really uncertain whether this is to be treated as a substantial variation or not. If we adopt 'let us have,' the meaning will be, although unexpected and somewhat obscure, yet in substance the same, 'let us have,' i.e., having it, let us recognise that possession, and act accordingly. In ver. 2, omit by faith.' In ver. 6, for 'for when,' the Vatican MS. has, if, that is, when.' In ver. 8, the same MS., for 'God,' has 'He.' Many of the MSS. which read 'God,' have it variously placed in the sentence: a sure sign that it is a later addition.

In ch. vi. 1, for shall we continue,' almost all our early MSS. have, are we to continue,' i. e.,

'may we continue.' The received text has hardly any MS. authority. In ver. 11, omit our Lord;' and in ver. 12, omit 'it in.'

In ch. vii. 6, for that being dead wherein we were held,' all our earliest MSS. have, 'having died unto that wherein we were held.'

The necessary changes in rendering, owing to the mistakes of our translators, are far more numerous. Indeed, it is hardly possible for the merely English reader to make himself master of this argument of this great Epistle, so much has it been obscured for want of accurate translation.

In ch. i. 5, for 'obedience to the faith,' substitute 'obedience of faith.' In ver. 8, 'published,' should be spoken of.' In ver. 10, for I might have a prosperous journey,' 'I shall have a way opened.' In ver. 12, for 'by the mutual faith both of you and me,' each by the faith that is in the other, both yours and mine.' In ver. 17, the words 'the just,' or 'the righteous shall live by faith,' might also be understood, the righteous by faith,' 'those that are righteous by faith,'' shall live.' In ver. 18, 'hold,' ought to be 'hold back,' or 'hold down,' i.e., having it and knowing it, quench its testimony and its power by their unrighteous lives. In ver.