lso Gibson, _Thirty-Nine Articles_ (Methuen), ii. p. 420.

[12] Rom. viii. 4.

[13] Isa. lii. 5.

[14] See in Ezek. xxxvi. 22: 'My holy name, which ye have profaned
among the nations, whither ye went.'

[15] Dr. Gifford suggests that the LXX was subsequently modified by St.
Paul's citation (as in the next chapter, iii. 10-18), instead of his
citation being moulded by the LXX. Is there any evidence in support of
this view?

{114}

DIVISION I. Sec. 3. CHAPTER III. 1-8.

_Jewish objections._

This passage is interesting as showing us, what is more often the case
than appears on the surface, that St. Paul has in mind as he reasons
the familiar objections of an opponent--his own objections, perhaps in
part, before he was a Christian. St. Paul, that is to say, very
frequently writes controversially, and argues _ad hominem_: and his own
reasoning is only rightly understood when we have clearly in view what
he is opposing. It of course very frequently happens in literature
generally that a saying is completely misunderstood, because that with
which it is contrasted is overlooked. Thus, John the Baptist's advice
to the soldiers to 'be content with their wages' is commonly
interpreted to mean--'Be satisfied with your wages {115} as they are,
and do not ask for more.' This might have been good advice or bad
advice to give to the soldiers, but it is not John the Baptist's. He
means, 'Be satisfied with your pay and do not supplement it by robbery
and unauthorized exaction.' Here then the implied contrast is
necessary to enable us to interpret aright the positive advice.
Similarly in the case of St. Paul, his doctrine of the absoluteness of
the divine election, as stated later in this epistle[1], has been
misunderstood, because it has been supposed that he is asserting the
divine absoluteness as against the claim of man to moral freedom, and
to equitable judgement in accordance with responsibility. But in fact
this is what he is indirectly vindicating. What he is arguing against
is the claim of the Jews that God was bound to their race. It is
against this claim--this immoral claim to perpetual privilege on the
part of one race, however they might behave--that St. Paul exalts the
absolute freedom of God to choose or reject as He sees fit. It is of
great importance then, especially with a writer so frequently
controversial as St. Paul, to watch continually to see which is the
phase of thought or feeling th