Happily, there is no necessity for arguing this point at present.
Professor Stuart interprets the phrase precisely as we do. He
teaches very explicitly, that the apostle does not make the of-
fence of Adam the mere occasion of the death of his posterity,
but that it was the ground of its infliction. They die 07i account
of his sin, independently of, and antecedent to, any offence of
their own. This, which we submit is the true unsophisticated
doctrine of imputation, is, according to Professor Stuart, the
doctrine of Paul. It will, therefore, not do for him any longer,
either to disclaim the doctrine, or contemn its advocates. Lest
the reader should be incredulous on this point, and deem it im-
possible that so warm an opposer of a doctrine should thus him-
self expressly teach it, we refer him to the analysis of verses 15,
16, 17, on page 226, and to all that is said on verse 15. We can
here give a few specimens only of his language. " Adam did by
his offence cause â– ddva-og to come on all without exception, inas-
much as all his race are born destitute of holiness, and in such a
state that their passions will, whenever they are moral agents,
lead them to sin. All too are heirs of more or less suffering. It
is true then, that all suffer on Adam's account ; that all are
brought under more or less of the sentence of death," page 227.
Of course, a man's being born destitute of holiness, exposed to a
certainty of sinning, is not on account of any thing in himself.
It is not on account of his own sins, that this evil (Sdvarog)
comes upon him ; its infliction is antecedent to any act of his
70 STUAKTONTHEROMANS.
own. This is imputation. This is what Professor Stuart says,
has happened to all the posterity of Adam ; although, it is pre-
cisely what he affirms, page 239, is entirely repugnant to Scrip-
ture, in opposition to justice, and to the first principles of moral
consciousness.
Again, " To say that ol ttoXXoI dirtdavov dm Af5a/.i, is not to say,
that all have the sentence executed on them in its highest sense
(which is contradicted by fact) ; but it is to say, that in some
respect or other, all are involved in it ; that, as to more or less of
it, all are subjected to it ; and that all are exposed to the whole
of the evil which death includes," page 228. We presume, few
believe that death in its highest sense, eternal misery, is actually
" executed" on all men, on account of Adam's sin. We readily
admit, Paul teaches no such doctrine ; but, according to Profes-
sor Stuart, he does teach that death (penal evil, according to his
own subsequent explanation), comes on all men antecedently
" to any voluntary act of their own." This is the whole doctrine
of imputation. It is but putting this idea into other words, to
say, " that men are regarded and treated as sinners on Adam's
account ;" for, to be treated as a sinner, is to be made subject to
the â– &dvaTog threatened against sin. It matters not what this
â– &dvaTog is. Professor Stuart himself says, it is " evil of any kind."
The mere degrees of evil surely do not alter the principle. It
never entered any one's mind, that the death threatened against
all sin and all sinners, was the same precise form and amount of
evil. It is evil of any and every kind consequent on sin, and
differs, in character and amount, in every individual case of its
infliction. Taken, therefore, as Professor Stuart explains it, ia
this general sense, it is mere trifling to maintain that the doc-
trine of imputation is rejected by one man, who holds that it
involves, in a given case, so much suffering, and retained by an-
other who hoMs it involves either less or more. Zachariae makes
it include, in this case, only natural death, and yet avows the
dogtrine of imputation ; Professor "Stuart makes it include a
thousand-fold more, yet says he rejects imputation. According
to him, it includes the loss of original righteousness, the cer-
tainty of actual sin, and temporal sufferings. Now, these are
tremendous evils ; viewed in connection Avitli the moral and im-
mortal interests of men, they are inconceivable and infinite. AU
STUART ON THE ROMANS. 71
this evil comes on men, not for any offence of their own, but
solely on account of Adam's sin.
We are at a loss to conceive what Professor Stuart can object
to in the common doctrine, that all men are subject to death,
i. e,, penal evil, on account of the sin of Adam ? Will he say,
that it is shocking to think of myriads of men suffering forever,
simply for what one man has done ? Happily, we hold no such
doctrine. We believe as fully and joyfully as he does, that the
grace, which is in Christ Jesus, secures the salvation of all who
have no personal sins to answer for. Will he say, that it is in-
consistent A^dtll the divine goodness and justice, that men should
be condemned for the sin of another ? But this is his own doc-
trine, taught too plainly and frequently, to be either mistaken
or forgotten. Will he say, I do not hold the penalty to be so
severe as you do ? Loss of holiness, temporal suffering, certainty
of sinning, and a consequent exposure to eternal deatli — this is a
heavier penalty than that which Turrettin supposes to be di-
rectly inflicted on account of Adam's sin. Will be further
answer, I hold that Christ has more than made up the evils of
the fall ? For whom ? For all who have no personal sins ? So
say we. Yea, for all who will accept of his grace ; so say we
again.
We w^ould ftiin hope that no film of prejudice or prepossession
is so thick as to prevent the reader from perceiving, that Pro-
fessor Stuart teaches the doctrine of imputation as fully as any
one holds or teaches it ; and secondly, that his objections are
either founded in misconception, or directed against what he ad-
mits to be a doctrine of the Bible. If he is so constituted as to
believe, that the evils, above referred to, come upon us on ac-
count of the sin of Adam, and yet be horrified at the idea that
one man should die for the iniquity of another, we must console
ourselves with the conviction, that it is an idiosyncrasy, with
which no other man can sympathize.
The second point of difference between Christ and Adam
which the apostle mentions, is stated in the 16th verse, viz. :
Adam brings on us the guilt of but one sin ; Christ frees us from
the guilt of many. In other words, in Adam we are condemned
for one offence ; in Christ, we are justified from many. We give
this verse in the translation, and with the explanatory clause of
Professor Stuart, as it appears on page 230 : " Yea, [the sen-
72 STUART ON THE KO MANS.
tence,] by one who sinned, is not like the free gift ; for the sen-
tence by reason of one [offence] was unto condemnation [was a
condemning sentence]; hut the free gift [pardon] is oi many of-
fences, unto justification, i. e., is a sentence of acquittal from
condemnation." We think this a correct exhibition of the mean-
ing of the original. The most interesting clause in the verse, is
the second, " the sentence was for one offence unto condemna-
tion" — K^ijia ef ivoq elg icaraKpijm. The same question presents
itself with regard to these words, as in relation to the correspond-
ing clause in the preceding verse. Does Paul mean to say,
that the one offence of Adam was the occasion of our being
brought into condemnation, inasmuch as it occasioned our be-
coming sinners ? Or, does he mean that his offence was the
ground of our condemnation ? The latter is, as we think, the
only interpretation which the words in this connection can possi-
bly bear. This seems evident in the first place, from the ordin-
ary meaning of the terms. It is admitted on all hands, that
Kpiim means properly a judicial decision ; and we are willing to
admit, that it often by metonomy means, punishment or con-
demnation. But it cannot have that meaning, here ; for it is
connected with KaraKpiiia, since the apostle would then say con-
demnation or punishment leading to condemnation, has come on
aU men. Besides, every one here recognizes the common Hellen-
istic construction of ei<; with the accusative after verbs, signifying
to he, to hecome, to regard, instead of the nominative. The sen-
tence was to condemnation, is, therefore, the same as saying the
sentence icas condemnation, or, as Professor Stuart correctly
renders it, •' a condemning sentence." This condemning sentence
is said to be, hy, or for, one offence. What is the natural mean-
ing of such an expression ? Is it, that the offence was the oc-
casion of men's sinning ? Or, that it was the ground of the
sentence ? Surely, tlie latter.
But secondly, in tliis i)lace we have the idea of pardon on the
one hand, which supposes that of condemnation on tlie other.
If, as Professor Stuart says, the latter part of the verse means,
we arc pardoned for many offences, the former must mean we are
condemned for 07ie. Hence, thirdly, we remark, that the whole
point, meaning, and truth, of the passage is lost, unless this in-
terpretation be adopted. The antithesis in this verse is evi-
dently between the one offence ^ and the many offences. • To make
STUART ON THE ROMANS. 73
Paul, therefore, say that the offence of Adam was the occasion
of our being involved in a multitude of crimes, from all of which
Christ saves us, is to make the evil and the benefit perfectly
tantamount. Adam leads us into offences, from which Christ
saves us. Where, then, is the contrast, if the evil incurred
through Adam is identical with the evil from w^hich Christ saves
us ? Paul evidently means to assert, that the evil from which
Christ saves us is far greater than that which Adam has brought
upon us. He brought the condemnation of one ofience only ;
Christ saved us from many.
Fourthly ; this interpretation is so obviously the correct one,
that Professor Stuart himself fully admits it. It is involved in
the translation of the verse, which we just quoted from him,
"the condemning sentence was by reason of one offence ;" and
stUl plainer on page 226, "The condemnation which comes upon
us through Adam, has respect only to one offence ; while the
justification effected by Christ, has respect to many offences."
To say that our condemnation "has respect to one offence," is to
say, we are condemned for one offence. And again, on the same
page, he tells us, that "verse 16 repeats the same sentiment,
{i. e., with 15th verse,) but in a more specific manner." What
is, according to Professor Stuart, the sentiment of verse 15 ?
Not that Adam's offence was the occasion, but the ground, of
our being subject to -ddvarog, i. e., condemned.' Of course, then,
verse 16, which repeats this sentiment in a more specific man-
ner, must mean that the one offence is the ground of our con-
demnation.
We may remark here, as the words under consideration will,
in their connection, admit of no other interpretation than that
just given, so the idea which they express being the same as
that contained in verses 12, 15, 17, 18, 19, may fairly be applied
to explain the equivalent clauses in those verses, which, in them-
selves, may be less definite and perspicuous. To exj^lain, there-
fore, verse 12 as teaching either that the corrupt nature derived
from Adam, or the actual sins which he was the occasion of
our committing, are the ground of death, or condemnation, com-
ing upon us, is inconsistent with the plain and admitted meaning
of this clause, which asserts that the ground of condemnation
' "We shall show directly, that Professor Stuart admits, that heing suhject to death
for Adam's sin, and being condemned on, account of it, are equivalent expressions.
74* STUAKTONTHEROJIANS.
here contemplated is neither our corrupt nature, nor our actual
sins, bat the one offence of Adam. Consequently, the interpre-
tation given above of verses 12, 13, and 14, is the only one which
can be carried consistently through.
We must here pause to notice as remarkable an example of
inconsistency, on the part of Professor Stuart, as we remember
ever to have met with. On page 230, he tells us, KQiim elg Kard-
K^Lfia means •"' a condemning sentence," and on the next page,
after remarking that Kpiixa means either a sentence of condemnOf-
tion or punishment, he asks, how the phrase is to be understood
here ? " The very expression," he says, " shoAvs that fcpiim is to
be taken as explained above, viz., as meaning the evils injlicted
by Adam's sin ;" and then adds, whether this evil be loss of
original righteousness, or a disposition in itself sinful, "it is true
in either case, that the Kpijxa, the evil inflicted or suffered, is of
such a nature as to lead the way to KardK^ina, condemnation, i. e.,
â– davarog, in its highest and most dreadful sense." That is, on one
page, we are told the words mean " a sentence of condemnation/'
and on the next, " certain evils which lead to condemnation" —
two inconsistent and opposite interpr.etations. Need this be
proved ? Need it be argued, that a sentence of condemnation
is one thing, punishment another ? If uQiiua here means the
former it cannot here mean the latter It is surely one thing to
say, that a sentence of condemnation has come upon us for
Adam's sin, and a very different one to say, that certain evils
have come upon us which lead the way to our incurring condem-
nation ourselves. Let it be remembered, that this is one of the
most important clauses in this whole passage ; one on which,
perhaps more than any other, the interpretation of the whole
depends ; and we think our readers will share our surprise, that
Professor Stuart's views should be so little settled as to allow
him to give such opposite views of its meaning in two consecu-
tive pages. This surprise will be increased, when they observe
on page 235, when speaking of the 18th verse, he reverts to his
first interpretation, and makes it mean, a sentence of condemna-
tion. This too is the interpretation of Tholuck, Flatt, Koppe
(verse 15), Turrettin, and, in fact, of almost all commentators.
The verse 17 either contains an amplification merely of verse
15, or peculiar emphasis is to be laid on the word Xan(idvovrec, or,
as Flatt and Professor Stuart suppose, it expresses the idea,
STUAKTONTHEROMANS. 75
that Clirist not only secures the pardon of our many offences, as
stated in verse 16, but confers upon us positive happiness and
glory. " The sentiment," Professor Stuart says, " runs thus :
' for if all are in a state of condemnation by reason of the oifence
of one, much more shall tho
and pardoning grace are shown, be redeemed from a state of.
condemnation, and advanced to a state of happiness.' " Here,
we wish the reader to remark, 1st. That Professor Stuart says,
the phrase " death reigns," designates a state of condemnation.
This is expressly asserted on page 233. 2d. That all are brought
into this state of condemnation, by the offence of one. The first
clause of the verse he thus translates, "For if by the offence of
one, death reigned by means of one." By this he means, not that
the offence of Adam was the occasion merely of death reigning
over all, or of all being brought into a state of condemnation, but
that this offence was the ground of their condemnation, antece-
dent to any act of their own. This must be his meaning ; for he
thus explains the words " by the offence of one many die," in
verse 15 ; and he can hardly maintain that the words, " by the
offence of one death reigns," express a different idea. Besides,
he tells us expressly, that this verse (verse 17) repeats the senti-
ment of verse 15 — see page 226. We wish the reader, 3d. To
remark, that if verse 17 expresses the sentiment, ' all men are in
a state of condemnation on account of the offence of Adam,' and
if it rejDeats the sentiment of verses 15, 16, and if verse 18 (con-
taining the identical w^ords and expressing the same idea with
vei'se 16) repeats the sentiment of verse 12, then does verse 12,
by Professor Stuart's own showing, express the idea that all men
are condemned on account of Adam's sin, antecedent to any act
of their own. Thus we have our interpretation of that verse con-
firmed, and Mr. Stuart's overthrown by the Professor himself.
4th. The reader should notice, that Mr. Stuart was led to the
correct, though, for him, inconsistent, interpretation of verso 17,
by objecting to Tholuck's rendering duiaioavvTj holiness, instead of
justification. He very properly remarks, that such an interpreta-
tion is inconsistent with "the antithesis to the state of condem-
nation indicated by 6 '^dvarog ifiaaiXevoe in the preceding clause."
He insists, very reasonably, that the two parts of the sentence
should be made to correspond. If the former speaks of c<:ndem-
nation, the latter must of justification. This obvious principle
76 STUART ON THE KOMANS.
of interpretation, the reader will find Professor Stuart forgets,
when he comes to the 19th verse. There is another important
admission which must he noticed, and that is, that the all who
suffer for Adam's sin, are not the all who are benefited by
Christ ; the two classes are not necessarily coextensive. " If all
are in a state of condemnation by reason of the offence of one,
much more shall those towards whom abundance of mercy and
pardoning grace are shoivn, be redeemed from a state of con-
demnation, and advanced to a state of happiness." All are not
thus redeemed from condemnation, and advanced to a state of
happiness. This, too. Professor Stuart, it will be seen, forgets.
VERSES XVIII., XIX.
We come now to those verses in which, as we have already
seen, the comparison, commenced in verse 12, is resumed, and
canied through. Professor Stuart thus translates the 18th verse :
''Wherefore as by the offence of one (sentence) came upon all
men unto condemnation ; so also by the righteousness of one (the
free gift) came upon all unto justification of life." Does it re-
quire any argument to prove, that this verse means, ' As men
are condemned on account of the offence of one man, so they are
justified on account of the righteousness of one man ?' We
hardly know how the aj)Ostle could have spoken in plainer terms.
To make him here say, that the offence of Adam was the mere
occasion of our condemnation, is to do the most obvious violence
to the passage ; because, 1. We have shown that this cannot be
the meaning of these identical words, as they occur in the 16th
verse. 2. Because, such an interpretation is inconsistent with
the whole scope and design of the passage. 3. Especially, be-
cause it violates the pointed antithesis in this verse, or forces us
to suppose that Paul teaches that the righteousness of Christ
was the mere occasion of men becoming holy. Surely, if 6id ex-
presses the occasional cause in the one member of the sentence,
it must in the other. But, if we are not prepared to admit that
Christ's righteousness is the mere occasion (and\iot the gTound)
of our justification, then we cannot maintain that Adam's sin is
the mere occasion of om- condemnation. 4. We may remark, ad
hominem, that Professor Stuart admits that the corresponding
clauses in the preceding verses, express the idea, that the oftence
of Adam was the ground of the condemnation of men. On ac-
STUART ON THE ROMANS. 77
count of that offence, antecedent to any act of their own, death
reigns over them, or they are (as he expresses it), " in a state of
condemnation." Of course, then, he cannot be permitted to turn
round, and say that the same words, in the same connection,
teach here a different doctrine. There is no escaping the phxin
meaning of this verse. The very form of introduction proves
that Paul is repeating an idea previously presented and estab-
lished, ^^ Wherefore as;" and this idea, as we have abundantly
shown. Professor Stuart himself admits, is, that all men die, all
are condemned, on account of Adam's sin.
The expression 'â– ^justification of Ife" Professor Stuart justly
remarks, means, that "justification whiqh is connected with eter-
nal life."
It need hardly be stated, that to say, "justification comes on
all men," is equivalent to saying, " all men are justified," or,
"all are constituted righteous." The apostle, therefore, does
here assert, that, " as all are condemned for Adam's sin, so all
are justified on account of the righteousness of Christ." To say,
as Professor Stuart says, that the latter clause of this verse
means that salvation is merely provided and offered to all, is to
give all exegesis to the winds. When it is affirmed, that a man
is condemned, or that he is pardoned, how can this mean that he
is not condemned, or not pardoned, but merely that an oppor-
tunity is offered, or an occasion presented, for the one or the
other ? At this rate, we may say that all men are condemned
for murder, as all have opportunities to secure this result. "What-
ever, therefore, "justification of life" may mean, Paul does assert
that all men (of whom he is speaking) do receive it. It is at
utter variance with all Bible, and all common usage, to make
the words mean any thing else. Who ever announces to a con-
gregation of sinners, that they are all justified— they are all con-
stituted righteous — they all have the justification of eternal life ?
No one. Neither does Paul.
But does not this necessarily make the apostle teach universal
salvation ? Must not the all men of the second clause, be coex-
tensive with the all men of the first ? We confidently answer.
No. And it is a matter of surprise how Professor Stuart can
urge such an objection, when he knows it admits so easily of a
complete refutation ; and that, too, by his own admission. The
plain meaning of the passage is, ' as all connected with Adam
7*8 STUAKT ON THE ROMANS.
are condemned, so all connected with Christ are justified.' The
first all includes all the natural descendants of Adam (Christ,
who was a man, is not included) ; the second all includes the
people of Christ, all connected with him hy faith. Is this incon-
sistent with usage ? Look at 1 . Corinthians, xv. 21 — ' As in
Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made partakers of a glori-
ous resurrection,' as the last clause there confessedly means. Is
the second all, in this case, coextensive with the first ? Certainly
not. ' All connected with Adam die ; all connected with Christ
live.' How can any man, who admits, as Professor Stuart does
(see page 524), that Paul, in this passage, is speaking only of
Christians, and, consequently, that the all of the second clause
must be confined to them, be serious, in objecting to the same in-
terpretation in the perfectly analogous passage before us ? But,
secondly, Paul himself clearly intimates, or rather states in so
many words, that the all men who are justified by Christ, are the
all " who receive the abundance of mercy and pardoning grace,''
verse 17. This, as we understand him, Professor Stuart admits ;
for he surely does not mean to say, that all men absolutely do re-
ceive this gift, and do reign in life with Jesus Christ. Finally, it
is impossible to carry the opposite interpretation through. There
are two classes opposed, or contrasted, in verses 15, 16, 17, 18,
and 19, and these are the same throughout. Now, is it true,
that the grace of God abounds to all men absolutely, in the
meaning of verse 15 ; that all are gratuitously pardoned for their
many oifences, as asserted in verse 16 ; that all reign in life with
Christ, as is said in verse 17 ; that all are justified with the
justification of eternal life, as stated in verse 18 ; that all are
" constituted righteous," that is, as Professor Stuart explains it,
"justified, pardoned, accepted, and treated as righteous," as
taught in verse 19 ? This is plainly out of the question. Neither
Professor Stuart, nor any other man, except a Universalist,
can say all this. We are persuaded, there must be an end to all
inter^^retation of Scripture, and to all understanding of language,
if we are to be made to believe, that, being forgiven for many
offences, being justified, being regarded and treated as righteous,
mean merely, that the ofier and opportunity of salvation is af-
forded to all men. AYe may as well shut up the Bible at once,
and go bow at the footstool of the Pope, if tliis be exegesis. Is
it not clear, then, the objection to the con}mon view of these pas-
STUART ON THE ROMA-NS. 79
sages cannot be sustained, unless violence be done to every just
principle of language.
We have arrived at last at verse 19 — " For as by the disobe-
dience of one man, the many were constituted sinners, so by the