ein BS %: “ cd splint trick Fe a a Library of The Theological Seminary PRINCETON : NEW JERSEY C=): BS23444 YG |S oz i ' Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2009 https://archive.org/details/criticalexegetic62meye T. and T. Clark's Publications. Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s., Nee ODS Eben Mik, PAULINE ERISI.LE>. BY PATON 4. ELOAG, DES, Minister of Galashiels. ‘This work will commend itself to all competent judges, alike by the candour and earnestness of its spirit, the breadth of its learning, and the cogency of its reasoning.’— Baptist Magazine. ‘We congratulate Dr. Gloag on his production of a work at once creditable to our Sacred Scholarship and helpful to the cause of truth. His aim is to furnish an Introduc- tion to the Pauline Epistles, each of which he takes up in the chronological order which he accepts. . . . The volume has a real and permanent value, and will take a high place in our Biblical literature.—London Weekly Review. ‘ We recommend it as the best text-book on the subject to students of theology and to clergymen, as a most reliable guide, from the orthodox standpoint, to a knowledge of the present position of the historical criticism of the Pauline Epistles.’—Cowrant. ‘It everywhere bears the marks of an impartial judgment and of thorough research. — New York Evangelist. ‘A safe and complete guide to the results of modern criticism. At the same time, it gives a fair idea of the processes by which those results are arrived at.—Literary Churchman. By THE SAME AUTHOR. In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., A GRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE ACIS (OF THE “APOSTLES. ‘With satisfaction do I recognise Dr. Gloag’s “Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles” as a valuable literary production. I find in it an extensive acquaintance with exegetical literature, not only in the English, but also in the French and German languages. Further, the impartiality and justice with which he judges writings which are entirely opposed to his views, without in the least degree giving up his own convictions and the belief of his Church, are worthy of all praise. His method of examination is distinguished by calmness, moderation, thoroughness, and an excellent judgment.’—G. LECHLER, D.D., Leipsic. ‘The Commentary of Dr. Gloag I procured on its first appearance, and have examined it with special care. For my purposes I have found it unsurpassed by any similar work in the English language. It shows a thorough mastery of the material, philology, history, and literature pertaining to this range of study, and a skillin the use of this knowledge which (if I have any right to judge) place it in the first class of modern expositions, —H. B. Hackett, D.D., Rochester, America. Just published, in demy 8vo, 570 pages, price 10s. 6d., MODERN DOUBT AND CHRISTIAN BELIEF. A Series of Apologetic Lectures addressed to Earnest Seekers after Truth. By (THEODORE. /CGHRISTLIEB, 7D.Bz UNIVERSITY PREACHER AND PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT BONN. Translated, with the Author's sanction, chiefly by the Rev. H. U. WEITBRECHT, Ph.D., and Edited by the Rev. T. L. Kınasgury, M.A., Vicar of Easton Royal, and Rural Dean. CONT ENTS. FIRST LECTURE.—Tase Existing BREACH BETWEEN MODERN CULTVRE AND CnristiANiry.—Introduction.—I. Causes of the Breach. II. Present Extent of the Breach, ILI. Can the Breach be filled up? SECOND LECTURE.—Rerason AND REVELATION.—Whence do we derive our Know- ledge of God?—I. Natural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Nature and Reason. Il. Supernatural Theology, or the Knowledge of God derived from Revelation. III. Relation between Revealed Religion and Natural Theology. THIRD LECTURE.—Mopern Non-BivLIcAL CONCEPTIONS OF Gop.—Present condi- tion of the controversy respecting the Idea of God.—I. Atheism. II. Materialism. III. Pantheism. IV. Deism and Rationalism. FOURTH LECTURE.—THEOoLoGyY or SCRIPTURE AND OF THE ÜHURCH.—1. Biblical Theism. IJ. Trinitarian Conception of the Divine Nature. FIFTH LECTURE.—THE MODERN NEGATION oF Miracies.—Miracles the greatest stumbling-block to the spirit of our Age—The consequences of their Negation—Annihila- tion of all Religions, and of the Moral Personality of Man—Fundamental importance of the question.—I. Nature and Possibility of Miracles. II. Necessity and Historical Manifestations of the Miraculous. III. Are Miraculous Manifestations still vouchsafed? SIXTH LECTURE.—MOoDERN Anti-Miracutous ACCOUNTS OF THE LIFE OF CHRIST. — The Christological Problem, the great Theological question of the present day— Variety in the Rationalistic methods of treating the Life of Christ—All combine in the denial of the Miraculous—Rationalism and Mythicism.—I. Old Rationalistic Accounts of the Life of Christ. II. Schenkel’s ‘Sketch of the Character of Christ.’ III. Strauss’ ‘Life of Christ.’ IV. Rénan’s ‘ Vie de Jesus.’ SEVENTH LECTURE.—Mopern DENIALS OF THE RESURRECTION.—I. Anti-Mira- culous Theories. II. The Historical Testimonies. III. Collapse of the ‘ Visionary Hypothesis.’ EIGHTH LECTURE.— THE MODERN ÜRITICAL THEORY OF Primitive Curistr- ANıTy.— The Tübingen School and its Founder, F. ©. Baur.—I. The Principles of the Tübingen School, 1I. Critique and Refutation of this Theory. ‘We express our unfeigned admiration of the ability displayed in this work, and of the spirit of deep piety which pervades it; and whilst we commend it to the careful perusal of our readers, we heartily rejoice that in those days of reproach and blasphemy, so able a champion has come forward to contend earnestly for the faith which was once delivered to the saints.— Christian Observer. ‘The book is written with a distinet aim of a most important kind, viz. to give to intelligent laymen a fair and full idea of the present state of the never-ending con- troversy between doubt and Christian faith. ... The lectures are, in animation, in clearness, in skilful grouping of topics, in occasional and always appropriate eloquence, worthy of the author's reputation as one of the most eloquent preachers of the day.’— British and Foreign Evangelical Review. ‘These lectures are indeed an armoury of weapons—arms of precision, every one. We have the very highest admiration for them, and recommend them warmly to our readers.’ —Literary Churchman. ‘Compact, firm, clear, logical, and symmetrical, may all be said of it; and it is exhibited to the English reader in a translation possessing peculiar advantages, making it almost an original work.’—Church Bells. ‘We do not hesitate to describe this as the clearest, strongest, and soundest volume of apologetics from a German pen we haye read. The author takes hold of the great central and critical points and principles, and handles them with extraordinary vigour and wisdom.’— Watchman. ‘It is one of the best works on Christian Evidences as a modern question to be found in any language. —/’reeman. CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL HANDBOOK TO THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. BY Vv HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tı.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. TRANSLATED FROM THE FIFTH EDITION OF THE GERMAN BY REV. JOHN C. MOORE, B.A., AND REV. EDWIN JOHNSON, B.A. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WIELIAM Py DICKSON, DD; PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF GLASGOW. VOL Il. EDINBURGH: 7..& DT. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXIV. PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBP, FOR T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH. LONDON, . . DUBEEN, ee NEW YORK, . HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. . JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO. SCRIBNER, WELFORD, AND ARMSTRONG. MAY 11 1961 7 aS ‘ Ai ns ch WN Urt Sc in, SL AL nn am mau CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT. BY 74 Vs HEINRICH AUGUST WILHELM MEYER, Tu.D., OBERCONSISTORIALRATH, HANNOVER. From the German, With the Sanction of the Author. THE TRANSLATION REVISED AND EDITED BY WIELTFAM Py DIEKSON, DD, AND FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D. eV -Oswy DOVE THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. VOL. II. EDINBURGH: Te © CLARK, 3% GEORGE STREET. MDCCCLXXIV. >. 7 A en Alan ERO ya AU rt JR ‘v4 1% f 7 ~ Zara Py Due ai m ADRS uv A € m Rn Ms PREFATORY NOTE. 3 HE work of translating Dr. Meyer’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans was, for reasons of prac- tical convenience, divided between the Rev. John C. Moore, B.A., Hamburg (now of Galway), and the Rev. Edwin Johnson, B.A., Boston, Lincolnshire. The first portion of the present volume—down to the close of the eighth chapter-—has been translated by the former, and the remainder (nearly three-fourths of the volume) by the latter. I have bestowed considerable care on the revision of the translation, and have carried it through the press. With a view to expedite the progress of this undertaking, in which my interest deepens as it advances, but which I find to involve a greater expenditure of time and labour than I had anticipated, I have, with the consent of the Publishers, asked Professor Crombie of St. Andrews to join me in the editorship ; and I am glad that a volume of the Commentary on the Gospel of John, edited by him, is ready to be issued along with this one on my part. War. GLASGOW COLLEGE, August 1874. THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. CHABTER , Vik Vv. 7-13. How easily might the Jewish Christian, in his reverence for the law of his fathers, take offence at ver. 5 (ta dua T. vowov) and 6, and draw the obnoxious inference, that the law must therefore be itself of immoral nature, since it is the means of calling forth the sin-affections, and since emancipation from it is the condition of the new moral life! Paul therefore pro- poses to himself this possible inference in ver. 7, rejects ut, and then on to ver. 13 shows that the law, while in itself good, is that which leads to acquaintance with sin, and which is misused by the prin- ciple of sin to the destruction of men. Paul conducts the refutation, speaking throughout «u the first person singular (comp. 1 Cor. vi. 12, xiii. 11). This mode of ex- pression, differing from the wetacynpwaticpds (see on 1 Cor. iv. 6), is an ööiweıs ; comp. Theodore of Mopsuestia on ver. 8: To Ev Emol OTE Akyeı, TO KOLVOY Ayes TOV avdpwrwv, and Theophy- lact on ver. 9: ev T@ olKel@ de TpocwT@ THY avOpwrivyHY pvow réyet. Thus he declares concerning himself what is meant to apply to every man placed under the Mosaic law generally, in respect of his relation to that law—before the turning-point in his inner life brought about through his connection with that law, and after it. The apostle’s own personal experience, so far from being thereby excluded, everywhere gleams through with pecu- larly vivid and deep truth, and represents concretely the universal experience in the matter. The subject presenting itself throush the ey® is therefore man in general, in his natural state under ROM. II. ; A 2 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. the law, to which he is bound, as not yet redeemed through Christ and sanctified through the Spirit (for which see chap. viiL) ; without, however, having been unnaturally hardened by legal righteousness or rendered callous and intractable through de- spising the law, and so estranged from the moral earnestness of legal Judaism. Into this earlier state, in which Paul himself had been before his conversion, he transports himself back, and realizes it to himself with all the vividness and truth of an experience that had made indelible impression upon him ; and thus he becomes the type of the moral relation, in which the as yet unregenerate Israelite stands to the divine law. “He betakes himself once more down to those gloomy depths, and makes all his readers also traverse them with him, only in order at last to conclude with warmer gratitude that he is now indeed redeemed from them, and thereby to show what that better and eternal law of God is which endures even for the redeemed,” Ewald. Augustine (prop. 45 in ep. ad Rom.; ad Simplie. 1. 91; Conf. vii. 21), in his earlier days, acknowledged, in harmony with the Greek Fathers since Irenaeus, that the language here is that of the unregenerate man ; though later, in opposition to Pelagianism (especially on account of vv. 17, 18, 22; see fe- tract. i. 23, 26, ü. 3; ¢. duas ep. Pel. i. 10; ¢. Faust. xv. 8), he gave currency to the view that the “ 7” is that of the regenerate. In this he was followed by Jerome, who likewise held a different opinion previously; and later by Luther, Melancthon, Calvin, Beza (not by Bucer and Musculus), Chemnitz, Gerhard, Quen- stedt and many others, more, however, among Protestant than among Catholic commentators (Erasmus says of him: “dure multa torquens;” and see especially Toletus). On the other hand, the Socinians and Arminians, as also the school of Spener, returned to the view of the Greek Fathers, which gradually be- came, and has down to the present day continued, the dominant one. See the historical elucidations in Tholuck and Reiche ; also Knapp, Ser. var. arg. p. 400 ff. The theory that Paul is speaking simply of himself and exhibiting his own experiences (comp. Hofmann), must be set aside for the simple reason, that in that case the entire disquisition, as a mere individual psycho- logical history (7-13) and delineation (ver. 14 ff.), could have CHAP. VII. 7-13. 3 no general probative force whatever, which nevertheless, from the connection with what goes before and follows (viii. 1), it is intended to have. Others, like Grotius, who correctly referred it to the state anterior to regeneration, and among them recently Reiche in particular, represent Paul as speaking in the person of the Jewish people as a people." But, so far as concerns vv. 7-13, it is utterly untrue that the Jewish nation previous to the law led a life of innocence unacquainted with sin and evil desire; and as concerns ver. 14 ff., the explanation of the double cha- racter of the “ I,” if we are to carry out the idea of referring it to the nation, entangles us in difficulties which can only force us to strange caprices of exegesis, such as are most glaringly apparent in Reiche. Fritzsche also has not consistently avoided the reference of the “I” to the people as such, and the impossi- bilities that necessarily accompany it, and, in opposition to the Augustinian interpretation, has excluded, on quite insufficient grounds, the apostle himself and his own experience. Paul, who had himself been a Jew under the law, could not describe at all otherwise than from personal recollection that unhappy state, which indeed, with the lively and strong susceptibility of his entire nature and temperament, he must have experienced very deeply, in order to be able to depict it ashehas done. Tes- timonies regarding himself, such as Phil. iii. 6, cannot be urged in opposition to this, since they do not unveil the inward struggle of impulses, etc. Similarly with Paul, Luther also sighed most deeply just when under the distress of his legal condition, before the light of the gospel dawned upon him, and he afterwards lamented that distress most vividly and truly. Philippi has rightly apprehended the “I” coming in at ver. 7 as that of the unregenerate man; but on the other hand, following the older expositors, has discovered from ver. 14 onwards the delineation of the regenerate state of the same “I,’*—a view ! Jerome on Dan. had already remarked : “ Peccata populi, quia unus e populo est, enumerat persona sua, quod et apostolum in ep. ad Rom. fecisse legimus.” * Comp. Calovius on ver. 14: ‘‘ Postquam legem divinam vindicavit vel pravae concupiscentiae omnem culpam transscribendam docuit, ejus vim sese etiamnum experiri ingemiscit apostolus, etiamsi renatus jam sit et justificatus.” See also Calvin on ver. 14: ‘‘Exemplum proponit hominis regenerati, in quo sic carnis reliquiae cum lege Domini dissident, ut spiritus ei libenter obtemperet.” 4 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, inconsistent in itself, opposed to the context (since Paul does not pass on to the regenerate till viii. 1), and, when applied to the details, impossible (see the subsequent exposition). Ham- mond very truly observes: “ Nihil potest esse magis contrarium affections animi hominis regenerati, quam quae hic in prima persona Hgo exprimuntur.” Still Umbreit, in the Stud. u. Krit. 1851, p. 633 ff., has substantially reverted, as regards the entire chapter, to the Augustinian view, for which he especially re- gards ver. 25 (aurös eyw) as decisive ; and no less have Delitzsch (see especially his Psychol. p. 387 ff.); Weber, v. Zorne Gottes, p. 86; Thomasius, Chr. Pers. u. Werk, I. p. 275 f.; Jatho; Krummacher in the Stud. u. Krit. 1862, p. 119 ff; and also Luthardt, v. freien Willen, p. 404 f., adopted this view with reference to ver. 14 ff. Hofmann, who in his Schriftbew. I. p. 556 to all appearance, though he is somewhat obscure and at variance with himself (see Philippi, p. 285 f., and Glau- benslehre, III. p. 243), had returned to the pre-Augustinian interpretation, in his N. 7., hampers a more clear and candid understanding of the passage by the fact that, while he decidedly rejects the theory that the “I” of ver. 7 is that of the unregene- rate man, he at the same time justly says that what is related of that “I” (which is that of the apostle) belongs to the time which lay away beyond his state as a Christian; and further, by the fact, that he represents vv. 14-24 as spoken from the same pre- sent time as ver. 25, but at the same time leaves the enigma unsolved how the wretched condition described may comport with that present; and in general, as to the point in question about which expositors differ, he does not give any round and definite answer. For if Paul is to be supposed, according to Hofmann, in ver. 14 ff., not to treat of the natural man, and nevertheless to depict himself in the quality of his moral state apart from his life in Christ, we cannot get rid of the contradic- tion that the “I” is the regenerate man apart from his regene- ration, and of the obscuring and muffling up of the meaning thereby occasioned. The view which takes it of the unregenerate is followed by Julius Miiller, Neander, Nitzsch, Hahn, Baur, Tholuck, Krehl, Reithmayr, van Hengel, Ewald, Th. Schott, Ernesti, Lipsius, Mangold, Messner (Lehre der Ap. p. 220), and CHAP. VII. 7. 5 many others, including Schmid, bibl. Theol. II. p. 262; Gess, v. d. Pers. Chr. p. 338; Lechler, apost. u. nachapost. Zeitalt. p. 97 ; Kahnis, Dogm. I. p. 595; the anonymous writer in the Erlangen Zeitschr. 1863, p. 377 ff.; Weiss, bibl. Theol. § 95; Märcker, p. 23; Grau, Entwickelungsgesch. II. p. 126. The just remark, that the apostle depicts the future present of the state (Th. Schott) does not affect this view, since the future state realized as present was just that of the unregenerate Israelite at the preliminary stage of moral development conditioned by the law. Compare Ritschl, altkath. Kirche, p. 70 £.; Achelis,’ Le. p. 678 ff.; Holsten, z. Ev. d. Paul u. Petr. p. 406. Ver. 7. ‘O vonos änapria ;] Is the law sin? a something, whose ethical nature is immoral? Comp. Tittmann, Synon. p. 46; Winzer, Progr. 1832, p. 5; also Fritzsche, Riickert, de Wette, Tholuck, and Philippi. For the contrast see ver. 12, from which it at once appears that the formerly current interpretation, still held by Reiche and Flatt, “ originator of sin” (dvdkovos auaprias, Gal. ii. 17), is, from the connection, erroneous; as indeed it would have to be arbitrarily imported into the word, for the appeal to Mic. i. 5 overlooks the poetical mode of expression in that passage. The substantive predicate (comp. viii. 10; 2 Cor. v. 21, al.) is more significant than an adjectival expression (duaptwdds), and in keeping with the meaning of the remonstrant, whom Paul personates. The question is not to be supposed preposterous, setting forth a proposition without real meaning (Hofmann), since it is by no means absurd in itself and, as an objection, has sufficient ap- parent ground in what precedes — After adda we are no more to understand époduev again (Hofmann) than before o von. apapt., for which there is no ground (it is otherwise at ix. 30). On the contrary, this adda, but, brings in the real relation to sin, as it occurs in contrast to that inference which has just 1 Who transfers the personal experience of the apostle, so far as it is expressed in ver. 14 ff., to the last stage of his Pharisaism, consequently to a period shortly before his conversion. But we have not sufficient data in the text and in the history for marking off, and that so accurately, a definite period in Paul’s life. We may add that Achelis has aptly and clearly set aside the interpretation of the regenerate in the case of the several features of the picture sketched by Paul. 6 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS, been rejected with horror: auapria uev our Eorı, nal, yvwpıc- TuKos de auaprias, Theophylact. — tiv ap. our E&yvov, ei pr) 5. vouov] Sin I have not become acquainted with, except through the law. The duapria is sin as an active principle in man (see vv. 8, 9,11, 13, 14), with which I have become experi- mentally acquainted only through the law (comp. the subse- quent ov« ndeıv), so that without the intervention of the law it would have remained for me an unknown power ; because, in that case (see the following, and ver. 8), it would not have become active in me through the excitement of desires after what is forbidden in contrast to the law. The tiv dp. ove &yv., therefore, is not here to be confounded with the eriyvwaıs ap. in iii. 20, which in fact is only attained through comparison of the moral condition with the requirements of the law (in opposition to Krehl); nor yet is it to be understood of the theoretic knowledge of the essence of sin, namely, that the latter is opposition to the will of God (Tholuck, Philippi; comp. van Hengel and the older expositors), against which view ver. 8 (xwpis vouov dmapt. verpa) and ver. 9 are decisive. The view of Fritzsche is, however, likewise erroneous (see the follow- ing, especially ver. 8): I should not have sinned, “ cognoscit autem peccatum, qui peccat.” —ov« éyvwy is to be rendered simply, with the Vulgate: non cognovi. The sense: I should not have known, would anticipate the following clause, which assigns the reason.—The vowos is nothing else than the Mosaic law, not the moral law generally in all forms of its revelation (Olshausen) ; for Paul is in fact declaring his own experimental consciousness, and by means of this, as it developed itself under Judaism, presenting to view the moral position (in its general human aspect) of those who are subject to the law of Moses. — nv Te yap emid. x.7.r.| for the desire (after the forbidden) would in fact be unknown to me, if the law did not say, Thow shalt not covet. The reason is here assigned for the foregoing: “with the dawning consciousness of desire conflicting with the precept of the law, I became aware also of the prin- ciple of sin within me, since the latter (see vv. 8, 9) made me 1 giz Ade, I should not know, more definite and confident than bx zu Ade. See Kühner, II. 1, p. 175 f. Comp. also Stallb. ad Plat. Symp. p. 190 C. CHAP. VII. 8. 7 experimentally aware of its presence and life by the excite- ment of desire in presence of the law.” What the law forbids us to covet (Ex. xx. 17; Deut. v. 21), was no concern of the apostle here, looking to the universality of his representation ; he could only employ the prohibition of sinful desire generally and in itself, without particular reference to its object.—On re ... yap, for... imdeed, comp. i. 26 ; it is not to be taken elimac- tically (van Hengel), as if Paul had written cat yap tiv Emid. or ovdé yap tiv Emid. 75. To the re, however, corresponds the following de in ver. 8, which causes the chief stress of the sentence assigning the reason to fall upon ver. 8 (Stallb. ad Plat. Polit. p. 270D); therefore ver. 8 is still included as dependent on yap. Respecting the imperative future of the old language of legislation, see on Matt. 1. 21. Ver. 8. 4é] placing over against the negative declaration of ver. 7 the description of the positive process, by which the consciousness of desire of ver. 7 emerged: but indeed sin took occasion, etc. In this adopunv placed first emphatically, not in 7 äuapria (Th. Schott), lies the point of the relation. — 7 dänapria] as in ver. 7, not conceived as Kaxodaiuwv (Fritzsche) ; nor yet the sinful activity, as Reiche thinks ; for that is the result of the emidvwia (Jas. i. 5), and the sin that first takes occasion from the law cannot be an action.—For examples ot abdopumv Aauß., to take occasion, see Wetstein and Kypke. The principle of sin took occasion, not, as Reiche thinks, received occasion; for it is conceived as something revived (ver. 9), which works. — dia ths Evroxns] through the command, namely, the ov« Emıdvn. of ver. 7. This interpreta- tion is plainly necessary from the following xateipydcato #.TA. Reiche, following De Dieu and several others, erro- neously (comp. Eph. ii. 15) takes &vroAn as equivalent to vowos. We must connect dia T. Evr. with kareıpy. (Rückert, Winzer, Benecke, de Wette, Fritzsche, Tholuck, Umbreit, van Hengel, and Hofmann), not with adopy. Aaß. (Luther and many others, including Reiche, Köllner, Olshausen, Phi- lippi, Maier, and Ewald), because abopu. Aaußaveıv is never construed with dua (frequently with ex, as in Polyb. iii. 32. 7, iii. 7. 5), and because ver. 11 (80 aurns amekr.) and ver. 13 8 THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS. confirm the connection with xareıpy. — kareıpy. év Enoi macav Emıd.] it brought about in me all manner of desire. Respecting xarepya£&, see on i. 27. Even without the law there is desire in man, but not yet in the ethical definite character of desire after the forbidden, as émvOupia is conceived of according to ver. 7; for as yet there is no prohibition, and consequently no moral antithesis existing to the desire in itself (“ ignoti nulla cupido,” Ovid, A. A. 397), through which antithesis the inner conflict is first introduced. very desire is, in accordance with the quite general ov« Emidvunaeıs, to be left without limitation. No desire (as respects category) was excluded.