A COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, WITH A TRANSLATION AND VARIOUS EXCURSUS. BY MOSES STUART, Prof. of Sacred Literature in the Theol. Sem. at Andover. REESE LIBRARY UNIVERSITY CALIFORNIA ANDOVER: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY FLAGG & GOULD. 1832. Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1832, by MOSES STUART, in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of Massachusetts. 25277 PREFACE. I PUBLISH to the world the result of my labours upon the epistle to the Romans, with unfeigned diffidence, and with a trembling sense of the responsibility which I incur by so doing. This epistle has been the grand arena, if I may so express myself, on which theological combatants have been contending, ever since the third century; and perhaps still earlier. The turn which the apostle James has given to his discussion respecting justification, makes it probable, that even in his time there were some who abused the words of Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, concerning the doctrine of 'justification by faith without the deeds of law.' If so, then it would seem, that there has been no period since this epistle was written, in which its meaning has not been more or less a subject of contest. How could this be otherwise, since it discusses the highest and most difficult of all the doctrines which pertain to the Christian system? Men must be more alike in their early education, their illumination, their habits of reasoning, and their theological convictions, than they have hitherto been; and they must love God and each other, better than they have ever yet done; not to differ in their interpretation of the epistle to the Romans. It strikes at the root of all hu-. man pride and vain glory; it aims even a deadly blow. And where a passionate attachment to these is rankling in the breast, how is it possible that this epistle should meet with a welcome reception, and the authority of its simple and obvious meaning be admitted? Even where the remains of such an attachment are still lurking within, and only now and then developing themselves, because the heart is in some measure unsanctified, there we cannot expect to find an unprejudiced interpretation of the writing in question. An epistle, which is as it were the very Confession of Faith that a true Christian is to make, must needs receive an interpretation more or less forced, on the part of all who are influenced by pride, by passion, by prejudice, by ill-directed early instruction, or by ignorance. For these reasons, an interpreter of this epistle must expect opposition at the present day, let his views be what they may. Be he Calvinist, Arminian, Pelagian, Antinomian, Socinian, or of any other sect, it is in vain for him to think of escape. Paul is a writer too formidable to be acknowledged as an opponent. Hence, when he is interpreted so that the views of one party in any particular point seem to be favoured, the others are very apt to unite in condemning the interpretation. Nothing will satisfy them, but to have such a writer explained as siding with them. Alas then for the interpreter ! While he meets, perhaps, with the approbation of a few, he must of course expect the vehement dissent of many. He must make up his mind, therefore, before he publishes, to bear with all this, and to bear with it patiently and firmly; or else he had better abstain from publishing. It may appear to him as a very undesirable remuneration for painful and long-protracted labours; but it is one which others have been obliged to receive, and which he also must expect. The only offset for all the pain which this may occasion him, must be the hope, that his labours after all may do some good; and that, if they do not themselves on the whole directly advance the cause of truth, they may at least be the means of exciting others to make inquiries, which will result in the accomplishment of such an end. For myself, I do not profess to be free from all prejudices of education and all attachment to system, in such a degree as to make it certain that my views may not sometimes be affected by them. Nor do I profess to be so illuminated in respect to divine things, and so skilled in the original language and criticism of the New Testament, as to be certain that all my conclusions respecting the meaning of the epistle before us, are correct. Homo sum, et nihil ab hominibus me alienum puto. When, therefore, I speak in the indicative mood, and say that this means thus and so, the reader will not understand that any thing more is intended, than that this is true in my opinion. To be always dealing in the conditional mode, and filling one's pages with if, perhaps, probably, possibly, may it not, can it not, etc., etc., would be intolerable in such a writing as a commentary. Besides, it would represent the author himself as in a perpetual state of doubt or uncertainty. This I cannot truly say of myself. My convictions, for the most part, have become definite and full in respect to far the greater portion of the epistle to the Romans. To represent them otherwise, would be to misrepresent them. But this does not imply, that I am insensible of the weakness of human nature, or of my exposedness to err. If I have any knowledge of my own heart, it is very far from such insensibility. After all, however, a man who is liable to err, may form opinions, and may be satisfied that they are correct. This all men do, and must do; and all which can be properly demanded of them is, that they should hold themselves open to conviction, whenever adequate reasons are offered to convince them of their errors. In this position, I trust and believe, do I hold myself, as to the opinions advanced in the interpretations that follow. I can say truly, that there are no opinions advanced here, which have been hastily taken up. I have been long engaged in the exposition of the epistle to the Romans, and have studied it much more than any other part of the bible. I have taken an extensive range in consulting commentators ancient and modern, as well as exegeses contained in theological essays and systems. This, however, I mention for one pur |