Appendix

In the preceding Exposition several references have been made to Professor Stuart’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a view to counteract the danger arising from the circulation of that work in this country. The baneful effects of his system, there is reason to fear, will be very extensive. Is it strange that speculations which teach men to deny, or receive with hesitation, or modify with fanciful limitations, the doctrine of their connexion with the first man in his sin, should lead to every error that pleases the carnal mind? Wrong views of Divine truth among the people of God are always the immediate forerunners of a total departure from the gospel on the part of the great body of the professors of religion.

In the preface to his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Professor Stuart advertises his readers that they are not to expect from him a sermonizing commentary; and that his design does not coincide with that of several English commentators, to whose practical works he refers with approbation. But this is not the only difference between him and the generality of the writers mentioned. He does not hold the same doctrines with them. He has not only a different object, but he has a widely different system. It may further be remarked, that many of these “sermonizing commentaries” have exhibited the meaning of; the inspired language with greater correctness than he has done by his criticisms. There is no complaint with respect to the propriety of his confining himself to the work of a critic and translator; the complaint

is, that by false criticism he has misrepresented the Divine testimony in some of the most momentous points in the scheme of Christianity.

Mr. Stuart’s explanations of the contents of the five first chapters of the Epistle to the Romans are calculated not to enlighten but to perplex and mislead his readers, and overthrow their faith. He commences, in the first chapter, by denying that Jesus Christ was declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead, in support of which he asks if the resurrection of Lazarus and others was a proof that they were the sons of God. After this what can be expected? The words cited from the prophet, contained in the 17 th verse, are, according to him, an example of quotation by accommodation. This is highly derogatory to the word of God, and proves that he is unacquainted with the doctrine of the inspiration of the Scriptures. The meaning of the leading expression, the righteousness of God, in the same verse, which lies at the foundation of the whole of the Apostle’s reasonings, he has altogether misapprehended.

In expounding the second chapter, he errs at its commencement, asserting that the Apostle does not directly address the Jews; but that, although he has them “constantly in mind, he still advances only general propositions, applicable in common to them and to others;” the meaning and force of the reasoning, in the first part of that chapter, are thus misconceived and made void. The propositions in the five first verses are not general; neither are they applicable to others, but exclusively to the Jews, to whom they are directly addressed. In the third chapter, he removes the foundation of the Apostle’s proof, taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, that all men are under sin, by denying that the passages quoted have * a di- ’ reel bearing on the universal depravity of the human race.’ And after again misrepresenting the signification of the leading term in the epistle to which the Apostle there recurs, he entirely sets aside the meaning of the last verse of that chapter, which contains the important affirmation, that the justification of sinners by faith without works, so far from making void the law, establishes it. This assertion, indeed, must, according to ]Ir. Stuart’s account of justification, be explicitly contradicted, for the view he gives of it does make void the Law. The great doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, as illustrated in the fourth chapter, and that of the imputation of Adam’s sin, as exhibited in the fifth, are entirely perverted by Mr. Stuart. The above are not mistakes respecting the signification of particular expressions, but respecting great leading points in these five chapters.

Mr. Stuart has totally subverted the doctrine of justification. According to him a man is not justified by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, which, in contradiction to the Apostle, M’ho affirms that it is imputed, he holds to be impossible. Instead of this, he maintains that faith is “counted as complete obedience” p. 177. And this statement, so derogatory to the character of God, is made, in order to shew that justification is gratuitous. Justification is, indeed, gratuitous, but not in this manner of man’s devising, according to which God would regard a fiction as a reality, counting to a man as complete obedience that which in no respect whatever answers the demands of his law. Mr. Stuart may speak of gratuitous justification; but let no one be misled by this. Such language may be used, while the gospel of the true grace of God is rejected.

After declaring that faith is counted as “complete obedience,” Mr. Stuart himself appears not quite satisfied with this statement. Accordingly, he afterwards asks, p. 506: * But where

* has Paul taught, that a man is justified by faith alone; and

* that evangelical good works are not an essential condition of

* bis justification before God?’ From this it appears that complete obedience alone will not do. Evangelical good vi’orks must come in to complete what was before complete! And shall Christians give up the doctrine of the Apostles to give place to such absurdities? Lest, however, any one should mistake his meaning, Mr. Stuart hastens to add, * good works,

* in the gospel sense of these words, are an essential condition

* of our acceptance with God:’ Is this assertion less heretical than the doctrine promulgated by the false teachers who troubled the churches of Galatia — those teachers whom Paul wished to be cut oflT, and of whom he affirmed that they should bear their own judgment? It is a perversion of the gospel of

Christ. It is another gospel, as that of which Paul declared, that if an angel from heaven preached it, he should be accursed; and that, if any man received it, Christ should profit him nothing.

If, however, Mr. Stuart, in this manner, contradicts the whole testimony of Scripture respecting the doctrine of justification and acceptance with God, in doing so he does not stand alone. Whether or not he has borrowed it from them, his system here is precisely that of Arminius and Socinus. In proof of this assertion I give the following extracts from Witsius, on the economy of the Covenants, from the chapter on justification, where he is animadverting on the sentiments of some learned man whom he does not name. After asserting that the ’ thing for which we are justified, and which some

* call the matter of our justification, is the perfect righteous-

* ness of Christ alone,’ and after supporting this position by suitable quotations from Scripture, Witsius observes; * Armi-

* nius, by his subtlety, frames vain empty quibbles, when he

* contends that the righteousness of Christ cannot be imputed ’ to us for righteousness, because it is his very righteousness; ’ laying this down as a foundation, that which is imputed to

* us for righteousness is not properly our righteousness.

* Which none will admit, who has considered that every judg- ’ ment of God is according to truth: whence it follows, that

* nothing can be imputed to any one for righteousness which is ’ not ‘really righteousness.’ And again, * It is well known ’ that the reformed churches condemned Arminius and his fol- ’ lowers, for saying that faith comes to be considered in the ’ matter of justification as a work or act of ours; whereas the ‘Dutch confession speaks far more accurately; namely, that ’ faith is here instead of an instrument; whereby we are join- ’ ed together with Christ in a partnership or communion of ’ all his benefits.’ We thus learn the perfect coincidence of the views of Professor Stuart with those of Arminius, both as to the denial of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness, and respecting the office of faith in justification, only Arminius does not, according to these quotations at least, assert with Mr. Stuart, that the imputation of Christ’s righteousness is impossible, nor propound the moitstrous absurdity, that faith is “counted as complete obedience.” Let us now turn to Socinus.

* Some time ago, says Witsius, * / read in Socinus, before

* the sentiments of this celebrated person came to hand, the ’ same exception which he makes, that by the works which ‘Paul excludes from justification is understood the perfect ’ observance of the law, such as the legal Covenant requires.

* For thus, he says, de Servat, p. iv. c. ii.,” The works to

* which faith is opposed are not every kind of works, nor

* taken and considered in every light, but, as we have observ-

* ed elsewhere, these works denote an absolute and perpetual ’ observance and performance of the Divine law, through the

* whole course of life.” But our divines openly declared ’ against this exposition; who contend that all works, how- ’ ever considered, are opposed to faith.’ And again, ‘But ’ we are farther to enquire, how faith justifies. Not certainly

* in that sense, as if God graciously accepts the act of faith,

* and new gospel obedience flowing therefrom in the room of ’ the perfect obedience, which, from the rigour of the law, we ’ are bound to perform in order to justification: as the Socinians, ’ and Curcellaeus, who imitates them in this respect, explain

* it; understanding by the faith the observance of the precepts of the

* gospel, which God has prescribed by Christ. For this is to

* make void the whole gospel. The gospel has not substi-

* tuted our faith, but Christ’s obedience, by which the righte-

* ousness of the law is fulfilled, in the room of that perfect ’ obedience, which the law required in order to justification.’ Witsius afterwards adds, that the Socinians and Remonstrants say, * that in the room of perfect obedience, which the law ’ prescribed as the condition of justification, the Gospel now ’ requireth faith, as the condition of the same justification.’ Such is the complete agreement of Professor Stuart, on points of the most essential importance, with the worst of the heretics who have perverted the truth as it is in Jesus.

‘The doctrine of justification,’ says Witsius, * difFuseth it-

* self through the whole body of divinity, and if the founda-

* tion here is well laid, the whole building will be the more ’ solid and grand; whereas a bad foundation or superstructure ’ threatens a dreadful ruin.’

The doctrine of the imputation of the sin of the first man, Mr. Stuart positively rejects. In the exposition of the fifth chapter, I have called the attention of the reader to the manner in which he has there wrested the testimony of the Apostle, especially in the nineteenth verse. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners ,- so by the obedience oj one shall many be made righteous.” And is there here any darkness? Is there any one not able to discern the meaning of the Apostle? Could it be said more expressly that we were made sinners by Adam, and that we are in the same sense made righteous by Christ? What phrase, what word in this sentence is ambiguous? Yet, in the face of this explicit testimony of the word of God, Mr. Stuart asserts,

* We may just as well say, that we can appropriate to our-

* selves, and make our own, the righteousness of another, as ’ his unrighteousness.’ He lays it down as an axiom, that the imputation of sin or righteousness is impossible. * A transfer,’ he says, ’ of moral turpitude is just as impossible as a trans-

* ference of souls,’ and by criticism the most violent he perverts the clear and strong language of inspiration. Is it not then palpably evident that this criticism has been made to subserve his opinion: and that this opinion is not the result of his criticism? He disowns all regard to human systems; but there is an authority as deceitful and dangerous as any other from which he cannot boast exemption. This is a regard, in explaining Scripture, to the prepossessions of the human mind. To these he has evidently listened. If he looks on it as a self-evident truth that certain doctrines are false, is this conviction less likely to influence his interpretation of the words of the Apostle that express the contrary, than names and systems to act upon the minds of others?

If we cannot be one with Adam, neither can we be one with Christ; and if the imputation of Adam’s sin be impossible, so likewise is the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. But this does not startle Mr. Stuart. He scruples not to deny the imputation of Christ’s righteousness as well as the imputation of Adam’s sin. Surely Christians should pause before they listen to these destructive heresies. Since the Scriptures explicitly attest that we are guilty in Adam’s sin, is it not awful hardihood

to wrest on this point the Divine testimony; and if we cannot be saved but by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, what shall we say of him who declares it to be impossible to have either sin or righteousness transferred?

If a right view be taken of the fifth chapter, from the 12th to the 19th verse, all is consistent and easy to the Christian. If the obvious testimony of the Spirit be rejected in order to suit human theories, or indulge the pride of the carnal heart; no scheme will ever reconcile its various parts. Mr. Stuart finds many difficulties, which it costs him a great deal of trouble to remove. He is ever fighting with the Scriptures and contradicting himself. From first to last he is explaining, and defining, and guarding, and straining; but all his ingenuity has not enabled him to give a scheme that will either be self-consistent, or consistent with the language of inspiration.

In the American “Biblical Repertory,” in which Professor Stuart’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is reviewed, and a multitude of his errors pointed out, the reviewer, although very inconsistently he begins with speaking in his praise, observes, ‘It is in these discussions,’ (viz. theological discussions) ’ the writer has most signally failed; misappre- ’ bended the subject in debate; misconceived the meaning of ‘the authors whom he quotes; contradicted himself; done ’ violence to his own theoretical rules of interpretation, and

* gratuitously denounced doctrines, which have not only always ’ been regarded as part of the common faith of Protestant ‘Christendom, but which he himself over and over either as- ’ serts or implies.’ -. And again in the same review it is said,

* We think that no man can fail to observe that Professor ‘Stuart’s rejection of certain doctrines, is the result of a mere ’ prejudice awakened in his mind, and strengthened into an ’ antipathy. That he was never led to it by the process of

* interpretation is clear, in the first place, from the evident la-

* hour which it has cost him to force even his own mind to ’ accede to his interpretations; and in the second, that he ad- ’ mits propositions which involve every one of the offensive

* principles involved in the doctrines which he rejects. Here

* then is precisely the point where Professor Stuart is most

* deceived. Just when he thinks himself most independent

* because he differs from his former self and his present friends,

* he is most obviously led by other writers, and his own prejii- ’ dices.’ Such is the view given in America of Mr. Stuart’s interpretations, in a commentary which has been strongly recommended to Christians in this country.

Since the publication of that commentary, Mr. Stuart has inserted a paper in the American Biblical Repository of July 1836, in which his system, so directly opposed to the Word of God, is still more fully developed. He there explicitly denies that, in the execution of the plan of salvation, the claims of justice are maintained. ‘The law,’ he says, ’ enjoins fully ’ and simply our own personal obedience, and pronounces a ’ curse on us solely, when we disobey it. But in every go-

* vernment, in heaven and on earth, there is reserved to the ’ supreme power which made the law, a right of dispensing ’ with its demands, when the general good admits of such a

* dispensation.” Of what real use, then,’ he adds, can it be,

* to retain a mere fiction of law in the process of our final

* justification and acceptance? Salvation by pure grace, is sal-

* vation purely gratuitous and of mere mercy, and not at all

* on any legal ground. The very fact of its bestowment, is a

* superseding of the claims of law, and acting on grounds of a

* different nature.’ Here is an open avowal of that part of the Socinian heresy which denies that justice is an essential attribute of God, since its exercise may be suspended. Thus Mr. Stuart misrepresents the character of God, and makes void the law. He overturns the gospel, the glory of which is, that grace reigns through righteousness, while he sets aside the necessity of the sacrifice for sin. If God can consistently with his character remit the claims of law and justice, to what purpose, beyond what Socinians admit, were the incarnation and death of Christ? According to Mr. Stuart, the imputation of his righteousness is * a mere fiction of law in the process of

* our final justification and acceptance.’ Could an Arian or an infidel show greater opposition to the gospel than Mr. Stuart? All this explains the reason why Mr. Stuart so often substitutes the word justification for righteousness, in his translation and Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans.

Let those who know the truth, as it is in Jesus, consider what they have been doing in recommending Mr. Stuart’s work. He has been extolled as an able Biblical critic. In Mr. Carson’s work, entitled “Examination of the principles of Biblical interpretation of Ernesti, Ammon, Stuart, and other philologists,” it may be seen how unfounded are Mr. Stuart’s pretensions to such a character. Mr. Carson intends, in another publication, to go forward with the consideration of Mr. Stuart’s defects as a critic, and also to develope the false principles of criticism on which Mr. Tholuck, like Mr. Stuart, has proceeded in his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans. Let the reader observe the manner in which Mr. Stuart has misrepresented the type of Melchisedec, as pointed out in Mr. Carson’s very able work, p. 249, &c. Of the German writers, whose books he criticises, Mr. Carson asks — “What is it that entitles those men to the exalted seat to which common opinion has raised them? They are learned men, I admit; but they are not critics; they are universally acquainted with books, but not with the philosophy of language. Their interpretation is as destitute of science, as their theology is of truth.” P. 129. If the Word of God be true, if Paul was really an ambassador of Christ, Mr. Stuart has grossly corrupted the gospel. How deplorable must be the state of those churches, that, after he has promulgated such doctrines in an elaborate work, retain him as an instructor in their theological academy.

Professor Stuart appears to be well acquainted with the writings of German Neologians, and he has not read them in vain. From him we have abundance of Neology at second hand. And is there no danger of its spreading in this country? Many suppose that fears about Neology are visionary, and that whatever influence that baneful system might have had hitherto, it is happily now entirely without effect. The grossness of the system is, it may be admitted, too monstrous to be received. But while the system itself is reprobated, the spirit of it may nevertheless insinuate itself into the minds of many who have a respect for the names of those who have embraced it. It is a spirit in direct opposition to the gospel, subversive of the truth and authority of Divine revelation.

Influence among religious bodies is a talent of immense im-APPENDIX.

portance, and one of the most serious responsibility. It is a great privilege to be fellow-helpers with the truth by contributing to bring before the public every work that is suited to illustrate the word of God. But how sinful must it be when this influence is employed in circulating what is calculated to lower or overthrow its fundamental doctrines 1

The recommendation of Professor’s Stuart’s commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, cannot be excused, by the allegation that the errors are trivial, and that its patrons do not pledge themselves for its entire accuracy. The departures from the truth are so gross that they overturn the gospel. Whoever knows any thing of human nature, is aware that it is prone to receive the evil rather than the good, and that even Christians are liable to be perverted by the sleight of men. What a melancholy reflection would it be to a man of God, if this impious rejection of God’s testimony as to the imputation of sin and righteousness, should spread among students and religious bodies in this country, in consequence of Professor Stuart’s book having been recommended by names they have been accustomed to respect.