can work by his spirit without faith on their part," for when Christ says, He that believeth shall be saved; he that believeth not shall be damned; he obviously means to speak only of such as are capable of believing.” And the same, says the Professor, of repentance.

Christ then can save [infants without faith and repentance." This the Professor admits. So then, “ faith in Christ's atoning blood” is necessary, and is not necessary. It is not necessary in the case of infants. And how is it with others ? How was it with Abraham, for example ? had he faith in the blood of the offered victim”? No, by no means. "The faith of Abraham, as described in Gen. xv. 6." says the Professor, “is not appropriately faith in Christ.” But then, “all true faith is of one and the same nature, and is connected with the like blessings. All true faith is confidence in God.* Very well. But what then becomes of the Professor's principle that Christ can save only such as "put confidence in his atoning blood ” ? It is given up, for aught we can see.

One word in regard to the ransom. Christ,” the Professor tells us, “ has paid the ransom and procured our freedom, when we were slaves and captives of sin and Satan.” † Will the Professor have the goodness, to inform us to whom the ransom in this case was paid. It is usual, we believe, to pay it to the party holding another in bondage, to the party to whom another is captive. This, in the present case, the Professor asserts to have been “sin and Satan." Was the price then paid to “ sin and Satan,” as an equivalent for setting sinners go ? This the Professor must admit, if he insists rigidly, as he seems disposed to do, on his metaphor. The price could not, to adopt the words of Locke, paid to God, in strictness of justice, (for that is made the argument here); unless the same person ought, by that strict justice, to have both the thing redeemed, and the price paid for its redemption.” Besides, if God received the equivalent, then is not the sinner pardoned freely, but is authorized to demand forgiveness as matter of justice.

We have taken occasion to exhibit some specimens of the Professor's orthodoxy. We will now, by way of compensation, give a few examples of his liberality of sentiment. We

suppose that we ought not to include in these the lan

66 be

* p. 177.

\ p. 164.


in which he speaks of the Saviour as possessing derived power and glory, since we take it for granted that w never he thus speaks of him, he will tell us that he refers not to his divine, but either to his human, or “Messianic nature, for, as already observed, he has innovated a little in regard to his natures, assigning to him three instead of two, with which Trinitarians were formerly content. Some of this language however; is too remarkable not to be quoted. We view it as an involuntary homage paid to Unitarianism." The Professor may explain it as he will, its natural import is Unitarian, and the extent to which he has used it, only shows that it is no easy matter to be a consistent and practical Trinitarian.

The Professor is at some pains to prove by several references, what no Unitarian ever doubted, that “the Gospel is of God, and that Christ taught it as received from him." * Again, he says, “God did indeed prepare the way for universal dominion to be given to Christ, by raising him from the dead.” † Again, he states the proposition, that “God has raised him [Jesus] from the dead, and exalted him to a throne of universal dominion," as part of the faith of every Christian. He adds, “the Apostle means to say, not that universal dominion was the principal object of Christ's death, but that this was a fruit or consequence of it.” F.

The Professor's views of the inspiration of the Saviour and his Apostles, may be learned from the following passage, which must sound strange, we suspect, to some orthodox ears.

“But one thing is clear from this, and many other like pasages, viz. that the apostles were not uniformly and always guided in all their thoughts, desires, and purposes, by an infallible Spirit of inspiration. Had this been the case, how could Paul have often purposed that which never came to pass ? Those who plead for such a uniform inspiration, may seem to be zealous for the honor of the apostles and founders of Christianity ; but they do in fact cherish a mistaken zeal. For if we once admit, that the apostles were uniformly inspired in all which they purposed, said, or did; then we are constrained of course to admit that men acting under the influence of inspiration, may purpose that which will never come to pass or be done; may say that which is hasty or incorrect, Acts xxiii. 3,

*p. 58.

fp. 63.

I p. 496.


or do that which the gospel disapproves, Gal. ii. 13, 14. But when this is once fully admitted, it makes nothing for the credit due to any man, to affirm that he is inspired; for what is that inspiration to be accounted of, which, even, during its continuance, does not guard the subject of it from mistake or error ? Consequently those who maintain the uniform inspiration of the apostles, and yet admit (as they are compelled to do) their errors in purpose, word, and action, do in effect obscure the glory of inspiration, by reducing inspired and uninspired men to the same level.

"To my own mind nothing appears more certain, than that inspiration, in any respect whatever, was not abiding and uniform with the apostles or any of the primitive Christians. To God's only and well beloved Son, and to him only, was it given to have the Spirit αμετρώς or oύ εκ μέτρου, John iii. 34. All others on whom was bestowed the precious gift of inspiration, enjoyed it only &x pét pou. The consequence of this was, that Jesus 'knew no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth'; but all his followers, in so far as they were left without the special and miraculous guidance of the Spirit, committed more or less of

“This view of the subject frees it from many and most formidable difficulties. It assigns to the Saviour the preëminence which is justly due. It accounts for the mistakes and errors of his apostles. At the same time, it does not detract, in the least degree, from the certainty and validity of the apostolic sayings and doings, when these ministers of the gospel were under the special influence of the Spirit of God.” - pp. 78, 79.

The Unitarians have been much blamed for expressing similiar views, and doubtless, an Orthodox professor may say many things which it would be exceedingly wrong in us to utter.

pon the assertion of the Apostle, “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be, » Rom. viii. 7, the Professor observes,

“ The very nature of a carnal mind, is to gratify carnal and sinful desires, viz. those desires, which the law of God prohibits. Of course this mind or disposition, just so far as it prevails, leads to the very opposite of subjection to God's law, i. e. leads to disobedience. From its very nature, this cannot be otherwise." - p. 315.

How,' says Augustine (and much to the point), can snow be warmed? For when it is melted and becomes warm, it is no longer snow.' And so it is with the carnal mind. Just so long as it exists, and in just such proportion as it exists, it is and will be enmity against God, and disobey his law. But whether the sinner who cherishes this ogóvnuo odoxos, is not actuated by other principles also, and urged by other motives, and possessed of ability to turn from his evil ways — ability arising from other sources - does not seem to be satisfactorily determined by this expression. So much, however, does seem to be decided by it, viz. that so long as this opóvnua oaprós is the predominant principle within him, so long he will continually disobey the law of God. Such a disposition is in itself utterly incompatible with obedience." - p. 316.

We have no very serious objection to this.

The Professor seems to have come over to the Unitarian views too, if we may believe him, as regards the Reformers, at least so far as relates to the doctrine of original sin.

“Much then and sincerely as I reverence the immortal men who fought the battles of the Reformation, and those who have followed in their steps, and illustrated and defended what they wrote ; much as I reverence that most eminent man of God, President Edwards, one of the deepest thinkers, clearest reasoners, and yet most pious ministers that has lived in any age or country; yet I feel bound to reverence what I must regard as the decisions of the Bible still more. Those decisions relative to the point in question, do seem to me, after long and painful examination, to be plainly and explicitly against them.” — p. 544.


“ The result of extensive and candid reading, in regard to the history of the doctrine in question, will be, as I must think, a full persuasion, that in the form and shape in which this doctrine was maintained by most of the Reformers, it was first introduced by Augustine, in his dispute with Pelagius; from whose works, and those of his friends and followers, it came into the creeds of the Reformation ; and thence it has come down to us. The whole subject needs, in this country, an investigation and review de novo, such as it has not yet received.

- pp. 552, 553. If from all this, our readers deduce the inference that Professor Stuart's opinions are in a somewhat chaotic state, all we can say is, we are much of the same mind. The volume too is disfigured with a good deal of pedantry. Why cannot the Professor condescend now and then to write a little English ? We are greeted with Latin on the very title

[ocr errors]



[ocr errors]

page, — "A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a Translation and various Excursus; and the whole volume bristles with the Professor's favorite “usus loquendi. Then we hear not a little of “epexegetical clauses; attention is called to the “ Messianic interpretation of Isaiah, viii. 14,”--to the "yóg illustrantis vel confirmantis"; to the μεν

of a protasis, to which indeed no apodosis succeeds;' to the “ Genitivus auctoris," and the “Genitivus objecti." But these phrases are used, we suppose, as the Professor says, breviloquentia causâ.

Some of the Professor's philological criticisms are such as we should hardly expect to find in any but the most elemental treatise, and could hardly be necessary to the class of readers to whom the Commentary is addressed. Now and then one occurs at which we can scarcely suppress a smile. Thus the Professor very gravely tells his readers that the expression, sufferings of this present time, Rom. viii. 18, “surely does not mean the sufferings which time endures as the subject of them, but those which Christians endure while they continue in the present world. The Genitive here is the Genitivus temporis, i. e.it marks the time belonging to the noun which precedes it, the designation of which is intended to qualify that noun ”!*

On the whole, however, we think, the publication will be useful. Taken all in all, to be sure, we do not regard it as constituting any very valuable accession to the treasures of theological criticism. It is exceedingly prolix, abounding in crude, forced, and unnatural interpretations, remarks, and inferences, and as a whole is inferior to several Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, already in existence. Still we say, it may be useful, for it contains views which, though not novel, though familiar to the best theologians of the old school, Trinitarians too, as far back as the time of Grotius, the Orthodox of our own country have been slow to receive, or have even regarded with horror, but for which the estimation in which Professor Stuart is holden by a certain portion of the community, may tend to procure some degree of favor.

p. 326.

« ElőzőTovább »