Excursus. By Moses Stuart, Professor of Sacred Literature in the Theoloj^ieal
Seminary at Andover. Andover: Printed and pabhshed by Flagg & Gould. New
York : S. Leavitt, No. 182, Broadway. 1832. Pp. 576. Princetox Rkview, July,
1833. 4



50 STUARTONTHEROMANS.

of the rising generation of ministers to tins metliod 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 he remembered when present differences
and difficulties are all forgotten. We do him, therefore, un-
feigned homage as the great American reformer of biblical study,
as the introducer of a new ^ra, 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 gloiy 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 com-
mentary, and not didactic theology." The work is too theologi-
cal. 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
wi'iter 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 theoret-
ical rules of interpretation, and gratuitously denounced doc-
.trines, which have not only always been regarded as part of the
common faith of Protestant Christendom, but which he himself
aver and over either a.sserts or implies. Evidence of the justice
'Crf 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 com-
mend the instances of happy interpretation. And to attempt to
j-efate those of a contrary character, would require us to write a
commentary ourselves. We intend, therefore, to pass by much
■^hat 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 there-
•^itli 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 writt(!n on the



STUART ON THE ROMANS. 51

subject. Still, we have no hesitation in saying, the grand diffi-
culty 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 difiiculty. 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 doc-
trine 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 doc-
trines, 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 Avith the
plain meaning and argument of the apostle ; fruitlessly strug-
gling to disengage himself from its toils, forced to admit what he
denies, and teach what he rejects, traveling backwards and for-
wards bewildered in the mazes of own exposition. We feel en-
titled to express this confidence, in the first place, because we
feel it ; in the second, because the great body of impartial com-
mentators, 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 theo-
logical : we say all, because those of an exegetical character are
hardly worthy of consideration. But let us proceed.

According to the common viev; of this passage, it naturally re-
solves itself into four parts :

I. Verse 12, which contains this general proposition : All
men die, or are regarded and treated as sinners, on account of
Adam — i. e., of his sin.

II. Verses 13 and 14, vv-hich prove this proposition. The
proof is this : the universality of death can in no other way be
accounted for. Neither the law of Moses, nor the law of natm-e,
is sufficiently extensive to account for all bearing this penalty ;
therefore it must be, that men arc subject to death, on account
of Adam.

He is therefore a type of Christ— that is, there is this striking
point of resemblance between them : as we are condemned on
account of the one, so are we justified on account of the other.



52 STUAKTON THE ROMANS,

III. Verses 15, 16, 17, are a commentary on this proposition,
by which it is at once illustrated and limited.

1. In the first place, if it is consistent with the divine charac-
ter, that we should die for the offence of one, how much more,
that we should live for the righteousness of one.

2. We are condemned in Adam, for one sin only ; Christ saves
us from many.

3. Christ not only saves us from evil, but advances us to a state
of endless life and glory ; (or this verse 17 may be considered as
a repetition and amplification of the 15th.)

IV. Verses 18, 19, resume and carry out the sentiment and
comparison of verse 12th. As we are condemned for the ofience
of one, so are we justified by the righteousness of another ; for if
on account of the disobedience of one, we are regarded and
treated as sinners, so on account of the obedience of the other,
we are regarded and treated as righteous.

Verses 20 and 21 form the conclusion of the chapter, and are
designed — 1st. to answer the natural objection, that this view of
the method of salvation makes the law useless ; and 2d. that
the grace of Grod in the gospel of his Son, superabounds and tri-
umphs over sin, however produced or increased.

In this analysis, we have stated in general terms the meaning
of the several portions of the passage. The correctness of this
statement, and the force of the several subordinate clauses, we
shall endeavor to exhibit as we proceed.

Professor Stuart, in his introduction to chap, vi., viii., properly
remarks, that correct views as to the general course of a writer's
thoughts in a given passage, " is a sine qua non to a right ex-
egesis of the whole. How can we correctly explain a writer,'
unless we rightly apprehend his aim, and the scope of his dis-
course ? It is impossible," etc., p. 249. It will, therefore, not
be questioned, that it is a matter of no little importance, to as-
certain the design and scope of the apostle in the passage be-
fore us. On this subject, there are various opinions : we shall
give but three :

1. Some say the apostle's main design is, to exalt our views
of the blessings procured by Christ, and to show that these bless-
ings superabound over all the evils of the fall.

2. Others say, that his object is, to counteract the narrow-
minded prejudices of the Jews, by showing that, as the evils of



STUART ON THE ROMANS. 53

the fall extended to all, Gentiles as well as Jews, so do the bless-
ings of the gospel.

3. Others think, that his design is, to illustrate the great gos-
pel truth of justification on the grounds of the merits of Jesus
Christ, by a reference to the other grand analogous fact in the
history of our race — the condemnation of men, on the ground of
the demerit of Adam ; and thus answer the natural objection,
How can the merit of one man justify others ?

Professor Stuart says, p. 200, that the first view here given is
so obviously correct, that, " the most unpractised critic can
hardly fail to discern the general object, as thus stated." If he
is wrong here, he must, on his own principles, be wrong all the
way through ; and that he is wrong, we think no critic, prac-
tised or unpractised, can fail to discern, who will attend to the
few following considerations. In the first place, the idea of the
superabounding of the blessing of the gospel over the evils of
the fall, is not expressly stated until the 21st verse (that is,
until the whole comparison is gone through with) ; and then, in
immediate connection with the question, For what purpose did
the law enter ? Secondly, although this idea is contained in
verses 15, 16, 17, yet, as Professor Stuart admits, these verses
are parenthetical, and, of course, might be left out, and still the
main design be expressed. As verses 13, 14, are subordinate to
verse 12, and verses 15, 16, 17, to the last clause of verse 14, it
is evident that verses 12, 18, and 19, must contain the main idea
of the passage. In these verses, the idea of the superabounding
of grace is not included at all. Professor Stuart has exalted a
mere corollary into the main design and scope of the passage.

2. More might be said in favor of the second view ; but this
also, as will appear in the sequel, is inconsistent with the course
of the argument. Paul is not yet speaking of the applicability
of the gospel to the case of the Gentiles.

3. That the third view mentioned above is the only correct
one, we think will appear from the following considerations :
Let it be remembered, that there are two grand subjects of dis-
cussion in this epistle, viz., the doctrine of justification, and the
calling of the Gentiles ; in other words, the method of salvation,
and the persons to whom that method is to be proposed. The
consideration of the first extends to the close of the eighth chap-
ter ; the discussion of the second commences with the ninth.



64' STUART ON THE ROMANS.

From the 18th verse of the first chapter, Paul argues against
the possibility of justification by works, because all men, Gen-
tiles and Jews, are sinners, and guilty before God. Having, in
verses 19 and 20 of cliapter iii., arrived at that conclusion, Irom
the 21st verse he unfolds the gospel method. This he conlirms
thi-onghout the fourth chapter from the case of Abraham, the
declaration of David, the natui-e of the law, etc. In the fifth, he
commences by stating some of the consequences of this method
of justification ; we have peace with God, access to him, confi-
dence in his favor, and assurance of eternal life founded on the
love of God, and the fact that we are justified (not for any thing
in us, or done by us), but by the blood of his Son. Wheeefore,
verse 12, (that is, since we are justified for what one man has
done,) as we have been brought into a state of condemnation by
one man, so by one man arc we justified and saved. There is
nothing more wonderful in the obedience of one saving many,
than in the disobedience of one- destroying many ; nor so much.
If the one has hapjoened, much more may the other.' This
is a brief, but, as we believe, coi'rect view of the context, and
shows clearly enough the design of the a^iostle in the passage be-
fore us.

As the general context requires this view of the apostle's ob-
ject, so it is the only one Avith which the course of the argument
can be made to agree. The fact is, that the whole argument
bears so lucidly and conclusively on this ])oint, that it is no
■wonder that men arc involved in perplexity, when they wish to
make it bear on any other. What the course of argument is, we
have stated above. All men are subject to death, on account of
Adam. This is proved m verses 13, 14 ; and being proved, is all
the way through assumed to illustrate the other great truth. If
we thus die, are thus condemned, much more may we, by a simi-
lar arrangement, be saved. This is so clearly the prominent idea
of the apostle, that Professor Stuart cannot avoid seeing and
admitting it before he gets through.

Thirdly, not only the general context and the course of argu-

' In chapters vi. and vii. tlio apostlo answers tlie standing objection, that this
met'.:od of justification leads to licentiousness, by proving that it is the only effectual
means of sanctiCcation ; the law being as incompetent for the one purpose as the
other. Then comes tlie swelling grandeur of the eightli chapter, in which he exults
in tlie certainty and security of this method of salvation.



STUART ON THE ROMANS. 53

ment require this view of the apostle's object, but also all the
leading clauses separately considered. This point, therefore, will
become clearer at every step, as we advance. The delightful
fact, that the grace of the gospel superabounds over the evils of
the fall, is, however, not the less true, because its exhibition is
not the main object of the passage before us.

As Professor Stuart takes a false view of the design of this
passage, we are not surprised to find him involved in perplexity,
at the very first step in his exposition. He is very much at a
loss about the connection, as indicated by the words Sid tovto, in
the beginning of the 12th verse, which he says " are so difficult,"
in this connection. He devotes more than two pages to this
point. We suspect his readers see very little difficulty in the
case. The whole doctrine of the preceding part of the epistle,
and the assertion of the immediately preceding verses, is, that by
one man, not by our merits, we are justified. What more
natural association, or what plainer inference, than the analogy
between this and the other grand fact in the history of men.
Tholuck and Flatt, Professor Stuart remarks, both represent
these words as illative, " but they do not show Jioiv the sequel is
a deduction from what precedes." Neither of these writers seems
to have felt any difficulty in the case. Tholuck dismisses the
words in two lines, explaining them thus, '■^ Aus dem bisher
Gesagten geld hervor" — i. e., " It follows from what has been
said."

So much for the scope of the passage and its connection. Let
us now inquire into the meaning of

VERSE XII.

" Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and
death by sin ; and so death passed on all men, for that all have
sinned."

Every reader feels that something is wanting to complete the
sense in this verse. Wc have here only one lialf of the compari-
son. The question is, AA'here are we to seek the other. We
think with Professor Stuart, that the majority of interpreters are
right, " in regarding verses 13-17, as substantially a jiarenthesis,
(thrown in to illustrate a sentiment brought to view in the pro-
tasis verse 12) ; and I find," he continues, " a full apodosis only
in verses 18, 19, where the sentiment of verse 12 is virtually re-



56 STUARTONTUEROMANS.

sumed and repeated, and where the apodosis regularly follows,
after an ov-co Kai." As this is the only satisfactory view of the
passage, it is important that it should be borne in mind. Verses
18, 19, then, it is admitted, resume and repeat the sentiment of
verse 12 : of course, whatever is obscure in verse 12, may fairly
be illustrated from verses 18 and 19.

It is by no means unusual for the apostle thus to interpret
himself ; and after qualifying or confirming a position, resume
and carry out his original idea. In the present instance, Paul,
intending to run a parallel between the fall and the restoration
of men, begins with the usual sign of a comparison — as by one
man sin and death entered into the world, so by one man justifi-
cation and life. But the protasis needed confirmation, and he
therefore gives it, before fully expressing the apodosis ; and, as
at the close of this confirmation, the idea of the correspondence,
which he had in his mind, is really expressed by calling Adam a
type of Christ, he feels that this position needed limitation and
illustration, and he, therefore, gives both in verses 15, 16, and
17, and then resumes and states fully the main idea.

There is considerable diversity of opinion, as to the meaning
of the clause, sin entered into the loorld, and death by sin.

1. By dimpria, or sin, in this case, Calvin and a host of com-
mentators, ancient and modern, understand corruption, deprav-
ity, vitiositas; and by entered into the loorld, not simply com-
menced, but was spread over the world : so that the idea is, all
men became corrupt, and consequently, subject to death through
Adam.

2. Others, suppose that the meaning is merely, sin commenced
with Adam, and death as its necessary consequence. He was
the first sinner, and the first sufi'crcr of death,

3. Others understand the apostle as saying — through Adam,
men became sinners. Adam was the cause of sin and death —
tlq rvv KooiLOV being equivalent with dg Trdvrai; rovg dv-Bpuirnv^.
Hence the phrase, sin entered into the world, is equivalent with
all sinned, or became sinners.

We think the last is the true sense, because the second leaves
out of view, the main idea expressed by t^f' ti'oc, and because
Paul evidently intended to express a conn)arison, which is not,
as Adam died for his sin, so all men die for theirs ; but, as
Adam was the cause of sin and death, so Christ of righteousness



STUARTONTHEROMANS. 57

and life. We shall not however, discuss this point here, as the
whole matter will come up more advantageously when we come
to the latter part of the verse.

Another interesting inquiry is, as to the meaning of the word
death in this passage. And here again we are happy to be able
to agree with Professor Stuart, who, in accordance with the
views of the great body of evangelical commentators, understands
the word in its ordinary biblical sense, when connected with sin.
The death Avliich is on account of sin, is surely the death which
is the wages of sin. All the penal consequences of sin are, there-
fore, included in the term. " Indeed," says Professor Stuart,
" I see no philological escape from the conclusion, that death in
the sense oi penalty for sin in its full measure, must be regarded
as the meaning of the writer here." — P. 208. As it is not our
purpose to write a commentary on this passage, we do not ad-
duce the grounds of this conclusion. They may be seen in Pro-
fessor Stuart, and other commentators. Where we agree, there
is no necessity for argument.

An important inquiiy. Professor Stuart says, arises respecting
the words nal ovrojc, viz., does the apostle mean to say, that in
consequence of Adam's sin, sin and death came upon all men ?
Or, does he mean, that as Adam died on account of his sin, so,
in like manner, all men die, because all sin ? In other Avords,
do these words intimate a connection between the sin of Adam,
and the sin and condemnation of his race ? or, merely the inva-
riable connection between sin and death ? Professor Stnart de-
cides for the latter. On page 215, he says, " Consider what the
writer asserts : ' Death came on Adam on account of sin, and in
like maimer death came upon all men, because all have sinned.' "
But what becomes of the 61 tv6g, if this be a correct view of the
substance of the verse ? Surely, these words are too prominent
here, and in their frequent repetition throughout the passage, to
be thus left out of view. It was through one man, that sin came
upon all men, and that all die. Besides, as remarked above, it
was confessedly not the oltject of the apostle to compare the case
of Adam with that of other men, and say, as Adam died, so all
men die ; but to compare Adam and Christ, as the one caused
death, .so the other caused life. Again, Professor Stuart himself,
admits that verses 18, 19, resume and repeat the sentiment of
verso 12, and that those verses clearly convey the idea, that



I

58 S T U A U T O N T )l K It () M A N S .

Ailiun's sill Is the Ciiuse ol' I he roinhMunatiuii ol' his race. Of
course, tlieii, verse 12 must express this \dv.a. lie says, indeed,
it is '■•hinted" in the words i-iaqAOr and thi'iXiit: ; hut if the com-
parison hetween A(hiiii and Christ he th.' th'sigu of the whole
passajne, ihis, which is the main itlca, shonKl he something more
than ^^ hijifcd at," in this verse, wliieh is aeknowledj^ed to con-
lain Ilk- fn-st hair of the coniparisiiii.' This matter, liowevcr,
will a[>|)ear clearer when we have considereil the last clause iu
the vei-sc, t((i' (0 mivTt'^ I'ifiainor.

Wo agree with Professor Stuart in thinking, that rendering
<5f/)'a), in ivhom, is ineunsistiMit, if not ahsolutely with usage, yet
with the construction of the sentence, and therefore cheerfully
accede to the rendering in lliat, or because that. The imi)ortant
question now presents itself, what is meant hy ndvTt(; i'limpTov?
On this suhjeet, there arc three opinions,

1st. 'VUiit it means, all have actually and personally sinned.

2d. All have hecome corin])t or depraved ; and

3d. All hecame guilty, /. c., became sinners, and were so re-
garded and treated.

Trofessor Stuart and a nuihilude of others adopt the first
view. Then, the sentiment of the verse is, " As by one man sin
invaded the world and death on account of sin, so in like man-
ner, death has passetl on all men, because all sin," Sin began
with Adam, as lu> died for his sin, so all men die for theirs. The
connection between Adam's olfenee and the sin and condemna-
tion of men, is not expressed : it is merely ''hinted at."

' Wo luivo Ibuiul coiisidoniblo (lillU'iilty, in R-t>ttiii<;- a clear idea ofTrofessor Stuart's
view of this ii:issivj>:e. On page 200, lio says, tliat versos 18, 19, virtuall,y resume
and repeat tlio soiitlniont of verso 12; and yet, on page 213, ho sa,vs, "But it does
not follow, bcoauso verso 19 assort.'? an influouco of Adam upon tho sinfulness of
nion, that tlio same sontinient nm.st theroforo bo adirnied in verso 12 ; certainly not,
that it sliould be directly asserted in the sanio manner."

On tho same j)ag-e, ho says, " It is possible that Kal ovtcjc may imply this ; (the
connection between Adam's offenco and tho sinfulness of his posterity,) which, with
J'^rasmus and Tholuck, wo might construe, et ita factum est, i. e., and so it happened^
or and thus it loas bmtgJit about, viz., thus it was brought about, that all men carao
under sontonco of death, and also became sinners, etc. * * * Yet I am not por-
Buaded, that this is tho true method of interpreting tlio words Kal ovrut;." What lioro
is admitted as po.ssiblo, is declared in page 215, '"to be wholly inadmissible."

Wo sus[)cct, by tho way, that Tholuck would hardl}' recognise, "so it happened
tJiat all men sinned in Adam, and were sentenced to dealli, by reason of this sin,"
as a correct e.\po.>?ition of his, " Tnsofern iu Jenem ] ging OS aueh auf alto Theilo des Oesehlechts iiber."



STUART ON THE ROMANS. 59

The second view is given by Calvin, and by a largo body of
the most respectable commentatoi's, ancient and modern. The
meaning of the verse, according to them, is, " As by Adam de-
pravity or corrnption entered the world, and deatli as its conse-
quence, and hence death has passed on all men, since all are
corrupt," so, etc. This, although it expresses a truth, is a view
of the passage which, as we shall sec, cannot be carried consist-
ently through ; and it misses the real point of comparison be-
tween Christ and Adam. Paul does not mean to say, that as
Adam was the source, or cause of corruption, so Christ is the
cause of holiness ; but as the offence of the one was the ground
of our condemnation, so the righteousness of the other, is the
ground of our justification.

According to the third view, the sentiment of the verse is,
" As through one man men became sinners, and consequently
exposed to death, and thus death has passed on all men, because
all are regarded and treated as sinners, (on his account)," (so,
on account of one are they regarded and treated as righteous.)
In favor of this view, the authority of a large number of com-
mentators might be adduced. To us, it appears decidedly the
correct one, and that which alone harmonizes with the rest of
the passage. In support of this interpretation, we would re-
mark :

1. That it is on all hands admitted, that the tisiis loquendi
admits of this sense of the words " all have sinned." Thus in
Genesis, xliii. 9, Judah says to Jacob, " If I bring him not again,
let me hear the blame." In Hebrew and Greek, it is, "I will be