that do I,' and then in verse 19, 'For the good that I would I do not:
but the evil which I would not, that I do.' This is my experience.
I do many things I ought not to do, and I leave undone many things I
ought to do. This old tongue of mine says many ugly things, and when
I get with wicked boys and men I crack my jokes too, and these hands
often do wrong, but, friends, I am trying in my weak way to serve the
Lord and to make heaven my home. But I do not expect to be better than
Paul. He said that when he would do good, evil was present with him.
This is my experience. I would like to do good, but the flesh is too
weak, and there is too much sin in me." Peter sat down.

Robert Davis arose. Every eye was upon him. Bibles and Testaments
were opened. Old Mr. Stephenson was there with his Bible, and very
attentive was he. Charley Moss had his Testament open at the proper
place.

"At first glance, it may seem," Robert said, "that Romans 7 upholds a
life of more or less sinning in a Christian. A closer view, however,
reveals that it does not. The first night that I was present at
these prayer meetings, Brother Newby laid down one sound method for
interpreting the Scriptures. He said, 'First, one should know who was
writing, second, one should know to whom he was writing, and third,
one should know what he was writing about.' This is a sound theory.
Let us apply it to the text in question. First, who was writing? Paul.
Second, to whom was he writing? To the Christians at Rome. Third, what
was he writing about? His experience under the law."

This assertion came like a thunderclap from a clear sky. Peter Newby
saw, at once, the significance of the statement, and he shifted
uneasily in his seat. He riveted his eyes to the text, in an effort to