A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, with a translation and various Excursus. By MOSES STUART, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theological Seminary at Andover. Andover: Printed and published by Flagg & Gould. New York: S. Leavitt, No. 182, Broadway. 1832. Pp. 576. PRINCETON REVIEW, July, 1833.
PROFESSOR Stuart’s Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans is undoubtedly one of the most important productions of the American press. Whether we consider the importance of the subjects which it discusses, or the research and learning which it displays, it is clearly entitled to this elevated rank. Every reader must observe that the author is familiar with all the usual sources of modern criticism, that he has been long trained in the school of philological interpretation, that he is habituated to minute examination, and that, on all ordinary matters, he has a clearness of view, and a perspicuity and order of style and method which confer on his work a great and lasting value. This value is greatly enhanced by the consideration, that Professor Stuart having formed himself on the modern German school of expositors, has produced a work very different from the usual productions of the English school. These latter are generally doctrinal and practical, rather than philological. However important works constructed after the English model may be to the general, and even the professional reader, yet, for the careful student of the Scriptures, who is desirous of ascertaining with accuracy and certainty, the meaning of the Word of God, there can be no question, that the German is immeasurably the better and the safer plan. There can be no solid foundation for theological opinion, but the original text of Scripture fairly interpreted. We have, therefore, long been in the habit of regarding Professor Stuart as one of the greatest benefactors of the church in our country, because he has been the principal means of turning the attention of the rising generation of ministers to this method of studying the Bible. This we doubt not, is the great service of his life; a service for which the whole church owes him gratitude and honor, and which will be remembered when present differences and difficulties are all forgotten. We do him, therefore, unfeigned homage as the great American reformer of biblical study, as the introducer of a new æra, and the most efficient opponent of metaphysical theology. Alas, that he should himself have fallen on that very enchanted ground, from which it was the business and the glory of his life to recall his younger brethren!
In perfect consistency with this high opinion of Professor Stuart’s services, and of the value of his work, we still think the latter has very numerous and very serious faults. The first and most fatal seem to have arisen from his not having discovered, before writing the 542d page, “that his main design was commentary, and not didactic theology.” The work is too theological. The frequent discussions of this nature, in which the author indulges, are rather out of place, in a work of this kind, and are, moreover, singularly unfortunate. It is in these discussions the writer has most signally failed; misapprehended 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 asserts or implies. Evidence of the justice of these remarks will be given as we proceed.
It is a difficult task to review a commentary satisfactorily. It would be of little use to go over the chapters in detail, and commend the instances of happy interpretation. And to attempt to refute those of a contrary character, would require us to write a commentary ourselves. We intend, therefore, to pass by much that we think excellent, and much that we think erroneous, and to confine our attention, at least for the present, to Professor Stuart’s exposition of Romans v. 12–19, and the Excursus therewith connected. This is the most characteristic and important part of his work.
It cannot be denied that this passage is a very difficult portion of the word of God. As such it has always been regarded, and must still be considered, after all that has been written on the subject. Still, we have no hesitation in saying, the grand difficulty is to get round it. It inculcates a doctrine which many men are very unwilling to admit. To get rid of this doctrine, is the difficulty. Hence these lamentations over its obscurity. A similar obscurity rests, in view of many, over the ninth chapter of this epistle; and for a similar reason. Now, we venture to assert, that those who have no special prejudice against the doctrine of imputation, and the federal headship of Adam and Christ, are not so much disposed to complain of the obscurity of the passage before us. It is only when a man is predetermined that it does not, and that it shall not, teach either these doctrines, or that of the transmission of a corrupt nature, that he is so much at a loss to know what it does teach; and it is really enough to move any one’s commiseration, to see such a man as Professor Stuart so obviously and hopelessly in conflict with the plain meaning and argument of the apostle; fruitlessly struggling to disengage himself from its toils, forced to admit what he denies, and teach what he rejects, traveling backwards and forwards bewildered in the mazes of own exposition. We feel entitled to express this confidence, in the first place, because we feel it; in the second, because the great body of impartial commentators, not merely Calvinistic, but Pelagian, Neological, and Infidel, agree in every essential part of the ordinary view; and thirdly, because the objections to this interpretation are all theological: we say all, because those of an exegetical character are hardly worthy of consideration. But let us proceed.