Page images
PDF
EPUB

serve.

in

tual nature, after his resurrection phrase, “his holy spiritual nafrom the dead."

ture,” by no ingenuity can be Mr. Stuart's notes, in defence twisted to express his glorified conof his version, are very copious, dition, and must express, by the and have great show of critical antithesis of the sentence, what is inquiry and knowledge. Let the contrasted with his human nature. following very brief observations Permit me now to say a few

words on the translation of the The clause, his holy spiritual word ogrodevtoS, declared " in nature,"

,” is not a version, but a our version, constituted comment. Our version is per- Mr. Stuart's. Mr. Stuart, in his fectly correct, and Mr. Stuart notes, grants that our version has cannot dispute its correctness. the authority of Chrysostom and He has not the shadow of au- other the best Greek scholars on thority for rendering verla by its side. From them he dissents, the words “

a spiritual nature.' on the plea that our version is not His view of the meaning of Paul justified by the classic use of the may

be right or wrong, but a ver- word. Mr. Editor, I had long sion is not a comment. The thought that among enlightened other part of the sentence deserves critics, the classical use of a word special investigation- “ Consti- was not the first law of interpretuted the Son of God after his tation as to the Greek of the New resurrection from the dead." | Testament, when the meaning Here the two versions are opposed. could be fixed either from the For, apart from comments, the ob- Septuagint, or from the New vious meaning of our version is, Testament itself. But, even in that Christ's resurrection mani- this matter, Mr. Stuart is not quite fested, or pointed him out, or de confident, for Elsner advances signated him, to all, as the Son of (as Mr. Stuart allows) one proof God; of Mr. Stuart's version, that from the classics to the point. Christ was made the Son of God Why then should not Mr. Stuart by divine power, after his resur- be satisfied ? I have examined, rection. If Mr. Stuart be correct on this word, Stephens, Hesychius, here, the apostle puts an end to Schleusner, Hedericus, Schrevea controversy which has long lius, Parkhurst, Bengelius, and agitated the church, but in a way, others. Stephens refers for the most probably, as unpleasant to precise meaning of the word to the gaining as to the losing party. Cicero's definition of it in his

Let us first, Mr. Editor, admit Divination, book ii., chap. 44. Mr. Stuart's version. Mr. Stuart My examination of these writers holds the two natures, the divine confirms me in the view which I and human, in the one person of have held, increasingly, for years, Christ. If Mr. Stuart's version of the scholarship of the men who be just, Paul says that our Lord effected our common version. If is David's seed, or David's son, the meaning of the word were obto his human nature, and is con- scure, I would bow to their austituted or made the Son of God, thority in preference to Mr. in his Divinity, after his resurrec- Stuart's. But Mr. Stuart objects tion. This theory does require a to our version of " declared to be comment, and at once puts down the Son of God by his resurrecevery view which Trinitarians have tion from the dead,” on theotaken of Christ's Sonship.

The logical grounds. He asserts that

as

the resurrection of Christ did not his confession at the loss of his prove him to be the Son of God. life. “He hath spoken blasphemy, And he boldly asks “ how it could what need we any further witness ?” show him to be divine, when La- The hinge, therefore, of the whole zarus and others were also raised, controversy between Jesus and and when their resurrection bore his enemies turned on his resurno testimony to their dignity ?rection. “Destroy this temple,

Mr. Editor, is Mr. Stuart so and in three days I will build it ignorant of gospel history, and so again.” But his resurrection for ignorant of the economy of re- ever decided the question in his demption, as not to know how favour. He was designated, Christ's resurrection is the demon-marked out, defined to be the Son stration of his being God's only of God, by God's own powerful begotten and beloved Son? Can hand, in his resurrection from the a Professor of sacred literature dead. in a Christian college be so igno- Mr. Editor, is such a writer rant of the “ Deistical contro- qualified to translate the Romans versy,” as to put a question which and comment on St. Paul ? This sets aside one of the strongest is not all, Sir. The resurrection proofs of Christ's mission to which may be viewed in a still higher our best writers have had re- light, namely, its peculiar place in course ? Surely there is an essen- the economy of redemption. Jetial difference between the resur- sus died as our surety, to pay our rection of Christ and that of La- debt, to liquidate the claims of a zarus, or Jairus's daughter, or any broken law on its transgressors. other. Christ rose by his own And his resurrection is the proof power. Christ predicted his resur- which the Father has given to rection in the presence of his foes. angels and men of his having ac"This deceiver said, while alive, cepted the atonement or satisfacafter three days I will rise again.

tion of Jesus his Son. Christ's resurrection then decided resurrection, our surety was lehis truth, and demonstrated him gally and judicially liberated. He to be no deceiver. Christ claimed, was then “ justified by the Spirit," in the presence of his enemies, and raised from the dead by the again and again, to be the Son of God of peace. God. This claim gave the Jews I should now proceed to a the greatest offence, so that they large class of texts, in all of which charged him with blasphemy in I am of decided opinion that Mr. making himself equal with God, Stuart has mistranslated the aposand took up stones to stone him. tle; texts in which he has put jusChrist persisted in his claim. They tification for righteousness. But I refused to admit it, and asked å forbear to animadvert on any of sign from heaven, in addition to them till I first say a few words on all his miracles. His reply was

some of the opinions which he has memorable : “ No other sign shall advocated in his notes. be given to this generation but 1st. Mr. Stuart rejects the that of Jonas the prophet,” &c: doctrine of original sin, as stated Christ's resurrection was then the in the creeds of the reformed sign, the very seal of heaven, churches, and as received among placed on his claim. In advanc- the maintainers of evangelical ing this claim before the tribunal principles. The able defence of of the high-priest, Jesus witnessed it by President Edwards, of Ame

[ocr errors]

By his

rica, has very little commendation The blessing itself, the ground from Mr. Stuart. As it would be on which it is bestowed, and the tedious to follow him through his way in which we enjoy it, are the windings in the notes and the three parts into which it divides “ Excursus ” which he has devoted itself. to his theory, it may be best to The blessing consists in absoluput his conclusions down in a tion from guilt and restoration to narrow compass.

God's favour. The ground of the “That Adam's sin is not imputed sentence is righteousness, either to any; that our connexion inherent or imputed. Inherent is with him has involved us only out of the question, for all have in the consequences of his guilt ; sinned and none is righteous. that we are created without the Imputed righteousness, in other image of God, but have no connate words, the obedience and satisfacdisposition to evil; that guilt and tion of Jesus Christ, as the sinner's punishment attach only to per- substitute, to the demands of the sonal transgressions; and that law, is the ground of justificawe all need to be pardoned and tion. Believing, or faith in Christ, renewed, before we can be taken is the way of our being interto heaven.” Mr. Stuart depreca- ested in it. In Scripture, especialting all the names by which un- | ly in the Galatians and the Romannerly disputants in former mans, this glorious method of a days were wont to mark each sinner's acceptance is stated and other, courtesy forbids me to call elucidated, defended, vindicated, his system by its proper appella- and commended.

A man's own tion in the theological nomencla- doings or works are excluded, ture; and it is no part of my again and again, from being, in present design to enter into the part or in whole, the righteousness merits of the question itself. for which he is justified. The

2d. Mr. Stuart applies the work, the obedience, the atonewell-known description of spiri-ment of Jesus, is explicitly adtual warfare, in Romans vii. 7 to duced as the sole ground of parthe end, to an unregenerate man. don and acceptance. Faith is He admits an internal struggle in described and proved to be the the Christian, and denies the pos- only way in which this righteoussibility of perfect freedom from ness becomes ours. sin in this life, while he labor- dicted that Messiah should make iously and patiently explains reconciliation for iniquity, and away the only passage in the New bring in an everlasting righteousTestament in which the inward ness, that his name should be struggle of a Christian is laid open. called “ Jehovah our Righteous

3d. I am constrained, by the ness,” that in gospel times sinners topic, to enter a little into his should say, " in Jehovah have I translation and notes, as affecting righteousness and strength.” At the method of a sinner's acceptance last God sent his Son in the form with God. Among Protestants, of a servant, made under the law. who own the fallen state of man, He became obedient even unto the spirituality and immutability death; he loved righteousness and of God's law, the evil of sin, and hated iniquity. Hence his priestthe justice of God, the question hood is not after the order of of justification may be brought Aaron, but of Melchisedec,“ king within a narrow compass.

of righteousness.” By the obedi

It was pre

ence of one are many made right- it, as with a distinguishing seal. eous ; because He who knew no Let two specimens suffice : the sin was made sin for us, that we first is from the confession of the might be made the righteousness Church of Scotland :-of God in him. And Paul joins “ Them God freely justifieth, with David in pronouncing the by imputing to them the obedience blessedness of the man to whom and satisfaction of Christ; they “God imputeth righteousness receiving and resting on him and without works, even that right- his righteousness, by faith.” The eousness, witnessed by the law doctrine of the English Church is and the prophets, which is unto as precise : “ We are accounted and

upon all who believe.” This righteous before God only for the is the righteousness through merit of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the abundance of grace faith, and not for our own works." reigns by Christ even unto eter- Mr. Stuart does not impugn, in nal life.

his notes, this doctrine, but dwells Under the law, the fact of a much on “gratuitous" justificasinner's justification was made tion, and justification by faith. known, and God's mercy in the This is truth, but not the whole remission of sin was most dis- | truth. Faith is the means on our tinctly announced. But it is the part, and grace is the fountain on glory of the Gospel to reveal the God's part ; but the very essence way, the method, by which God is of the truth lies in the meritorious just in justifying the transgressor, basis of Christ's obedience, on and righteous in the pardon of sin. which the sentence rests. Now, All hangs on the ground or basis Sir, I complain of obscurity on a on which the act of absolution point where the light should shine rests ; let this be veiled, and the brightest in the notes of a Promethod of justification is obscured, testant divine. and obscured dangerously. By 1st. I do not find the imputathis plan, the provision of a Re- tion of a Saviour's righteousness deemer's obedience and death, brought forward in his notes to the law is honoured in all its de- throw any light on the text. At mands, God's perfections of holi- least I have not found it, after a ness and mercy, of justice and very careful search. The atonegrace, of majesty and love, are ment of Christ is owned, I

grant; harmonized in the justification of but the obedience, the vicarious the undeserving, and all the wants cbedience of Christ, as a surety to of the contrite penitent heart are the law, is not advocated, as far fully met and fully satisfied. I can ascertain.

This tenet is the glory of 2d. The translation of Mr. Christianity, and the corner-stone Stuart hides this doctrine by of Protestantism. If it be set substituting “justification " for aside, the glory is departed ; if “ righteousness,” the act or senobscured or veiled, the brightnesstence of acquittal for the ground of the glory is tarnished, and an of it. avenue opened for the admission I have the following objections of another gospel. · Luther laid to his version. every stress on its purity; our 1st. The proper meaning of the first Reformers trod in his steps; word ôixavogurn is not justificaand the standard creeds of the tion, but righteousness itself. Protestants are all stamped with 2d. There is another and proper word for justification, Sixar-, the great Protestant doctrine, wors, used by the apostle. why does he not say so? Let the

3d. There are many texts where reader peruse carefully the pasdizaioguin cannot be rendered sage in his “ Excursus” on the at all by “justification,” and harmony of Paul and James on some of these are rendered as in this tenet (page 506); a passage our version by Mr. Stuart. which sums up Mr. Stuart's views

4th. Mr. Stuart is not correct on the momentous subject. in rendering the same Greek word Now let the reader peruse the by“ justification” in some texts, following texts in the common and by “righteousness” in others, version, which is unexceptionable, as if these English words, justifica- and compare them with Mr. tion and righteousness, were con- Stuart's, and then judge if the vertible terms.

learned Professor does not intro5th. My great objection to his duce his own views. version of these texts is, the veil- Romans i. 16, 17. Rom. iii. ing of the proper ground of a sin-21—27. Rom. ix. 30, to the ner's acceptance.

end. Rom. x. 1-1l. In a word, if Mr. Stuart holds

[New Version.] Rom. i. 16, 17. For [Old Version.] Rom, i, 16, 17. For lam not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ, since it is the power of God unto the for it is the power of God unto salvation salvation of every one that believeth; to to every one that believeth; to the Jew the Jew first, and then to the Greek. first, and also to the Greek. For therein For the justification which is of God, is is the righteousness of God revealed revealed by it (justification) by faith, in from faith to faith : as it is written, order that we may believe, as it is writ- The just shall live by faith.” ten : "The just shall live by faith.”

[New Version.] Rom. iii. 21–27. [Old Version.] Rom. ii. 21–27. But But now the justification which is of now the righteousness of God without God without law is revealed; to which the law is manifested, being witnessed testimony is given by the law and the by the law and the prophets; even the prophets; a justification, moreover, righteousness of God which is by faith which is of God by faith in Jesus Christ, of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all (offered) to all and (bestowed) on all them that believe; for there is no differwho believe ; for there is no distinc- ence. For all have sinned and come short tion. For all have come short of the of the glory of God; being justified glory which God bestows, being justi- freely by his grace through the redempfed freely by his grace through the re- tion which is in Christ Jesus; whom demption which is in Christ Jesus ; God hath set forth to be a propitiation whom God hath set forth as a propitiary through faith in his blood, to declare his (sacrifice) by faith in his blood, in order righteousness for the remission of sins to declaré his justification with respect that are past, through the forbearance of to the remission of sins formerly com- God; to declare, I say, at this time his mitted during the forhearance of God; righteousness; that he might be just, in order to declare his justification at and the justifier of him which believeth the present time; so that he might be in Jesus. just, and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus."

[New Version.] Rom. ix. 30, to the [Old Version.] Rom. ix. 30, to the end. What shall we say then ? That end. What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, who did not seek after justi- the Gentiles which followed not after fication, have obtained justification, righteousness, have attained to righteven that justification which is by faith ; eousness, even the righteousness which but Israel, who sought after a law of is of faith. But Israel, which followed justification, have not attained to a law after the law of righteousness, hath not of justification. Why? because (they attained to the law of righteousness,

« PreviousContinue »