6

Commentary, yet it is manifest from some remarks on this text, and also on some portions of the ninth chapter, that he still holds fast to the main pillar of that doctrine; namely, the eternal decree of election, from which he infers the certain perseverance of all who have ever believed in Jesus Christ with a heart unto righteousness,' and from which all the other objectionable parts of that system seem to us necessarily to follow. That he should have involved himself in this manifest inconsistency, is a lamentable proof of the ill effects of early embracing a system which is incompatible with the dictates of sound reason and the plain testimony of sacred Scripture. When the professor loses sight of this doctrine of absolute decrees, and follows the convictions of his own mind, he gives us a delightful view of God's general plan of redemption and salvation, of the responsibility of man, of the universal atonement of Christ, and of the nature of Christian experience, justification and sanctification, and the obligation and extent of holy obedi

ence.

After stating a variety of opinions on Romans viii, 29, he says:—' I prefer a sense of polyvw, different from any yet mentioned; and this merely from the philology of the passage. It is well known in respect to ywvwxw, that it sometimes means, volo, constituo mecum, I will, I wish, I determine with myself, I resolve or determine or decide.' And after citing some authorities from Josephus and other authors in support of this interpretation of ywvwoxo, he adds :—

'That poyiwow may have the like sense, is clear from 1 Peter i, 20; where προεγνωσμένου πρὸ καταβολής κόσμου (said of Christ) means plainly, before decreed, before constituted or determined. In the like sense (as many think) is it used in Rom. xi, 2, God hath not cast away his people ov posyvw, whom he chose to be his or constituted his, viz. before the foundation of the world; comp. 1 Pet. i, 20; Eph. iii, 11; 2 Tim. i, 9. And in accordance with this, póyvwois is used; e. g. Acts ii, 24, where it is the equivalent of prouevn Bouan. So also in 1 Pet. i, 2; and it is the same as pódeσis, in 2 Tim. i, 9; Eph. iii, 11,’ (p. 356.)

From these extracts it is manifest that the professor understands polyva, in Romans viii, 29, to mean the same as to decree, or to determine. Now without, at present, attempting to invalidate the authority of his verbal criticism in its general application, we think that it will hardly hold good here. The whole text reads thus : Οτι ους προεγνω, και προωρισε συμμορφούς της εικόνος του υιου αυτου—whom he (προεγνω,) did foreknow, he also (powpios,) did predestinate, to be conformed to the image of his Son. If we read this according to the rendering of Professor Stuart, it will read thus:--whom he did foredecree, or foredetermine, he did also foredecree, or foredetermine, or predestinate,—an unmeaning tautology of which the great apostle to the Gentiles would

προς

hardly have been guilty. That the latter word, which comes from before, and opiw, to define, to limit, to decree, signifies to decree before, to predetermine, or predestinate, will be admitted on all hands; and therefore to say that the former word, posy vw, which literally and grammatically signifies to foreknow, has the same meaning, is, in our apprehension, to torture the passage from its legitimate meaning, and, as before remarked, to impute a tautology to the apostle which he could not have adopted, unless we suppose him to have been inexcusably negligent in the use of language.

In the predestination of which the apostle speaks, there is an object mentioned which was designed to be accomplished, namely, they were predestinated to be conformed to the image of the Son of God; that is to say, it is the unalterable purpose, determination, or decree of God, that all those who shall finally become heirs of glory, shall be first qualified for that inheritance, by being made conformable to the suffering, patient, and submissive image or mind of Jesus Christ: and hence all those, whom God foreknew would believe in Jesus as their almighty Deliverer, were predestinated to pass through this medium in order that they might be qualified to inherit that glory. Now suppose we were to read the passage as it must be read according to the professor's construction, and we shall see at once that it makes nonsense :--Whom he did foredetermine or foredecree, he did also foredetermine or predestinate whom he did foredetermine, or foredecree to what? If there be any object at all to the decree first spoken of, it must be precisely the same as that mentioned in the latter clause of the sentence; i. e. to be conformed to the image of his Son; in this case the passage must read, Whom he did foredecree to be conformed to the image of his Son, he did also foredecree to be conformed to the image of his Son!' Surely the inspired apostle never used such language as this.

Now let us take the interpretation we have put upon the words, in connection with the general scope and design of the apostle in writing this masterly Epistle, and we shall have, we think, a clear and consistent meaning. Among other things of high importance which the apostle designed to establish in his Epistle to the Romans, one most manifestly was to answer the objections of the captious Jews, to this declaration of the apostle ;-that God had called the Gentiles to be joint inheritors with the believing Jews to the blessings of the Gospel; and that He had cast away, or was about to reject, the Jews as a nation from being His covenant people. To this declaration, so mortifying to the pride of the Jews, they objected, that God would, in doing so, be unfaithful to the promises which he had made to Abraham, and afterward frequently renewed by the prophets; and that if he cast away the Jews entirely as a nation, he would be unjust, as it was manifest

that many of them had even believed in Jesus as their promised Messiah. To this objection the apostle furnishes an answer at large, particularly in the latter part of the eighth, in the whole of the ninth, tenth, and eleventh chapters. In the eleventh chapter, ver. 2, he says, in answer to this objection, God hath not cast away his people which he (poɛyvw,) foreknew,'-using the same word here which he had done in chapter viii, 29; evidently meaning to say, that those among the Jews whom he foreknew as believers in Christ he had no more rejected than he had the believing Gentiles: both the one and the other were equally included in the predestination of God, namely, that they should all be conformed to the image of Christ; or, in other words, become holy believers in Him, in order to be qualified to enter into the kingdom of God in glory.

Allowing this to have been the meaning of the apostle, we may paraphrase the passage in the following manner :-Whom he did foreknow among the Jews or Gentiles as κλητοι, the called, κατα προθεσιν, according to his purpose, i. e. those whom he foreknew would believe in Christ and love God he did also predestinate, or before determine should be conformed to the image of Jesus Christ, or should pass through the fiery trial mentioned in the subsequent verses, in order to be qualified to enter into glory. The opposite interpretation most evidently involves the absolutum decretum, which Professor Stuart himself seems very desirous to avoid, and which, we may hereafter see, is totally incompatible with what he has advanced on the doctrine of atonement and the freedom which he ascribes to man.

But even allowing the professor the full benefit of his construction as contained in the following paraphrase, whom he had before chosen or constituted his xλnro,' (the called,) it does not help the matter any by removing the difficulty. Whom he had before chosen or constituted his people he did also predestinate-to what? Not to eternal salvation, for this is not the apostle's argument; but they were predestinated to a certain course of life, of obedient, patient suffering in the cause of Christ, that they might be qualified for endless happiness. The contrary supposition involves all those theological difficulties which originate from the doctrine of absolute predestination; for allowing that the resolution of the Deity to constitute a certain definite number of the Jews to be his people, without any regard to their character as believers, was made before the foundation of the world, then they were so constituted unconditionally. But certainly the apostle was not speaking here of such a decree of election; but he was showing that xλnro, (the called,) must pass through a certain process in order to become the people of God, and be entitled to the heavenly inheritance; and their submission to this process was the very condition on

which this inheritance was to be finally bestowed upon them. To say that this was an involuntary submission, is to contradict not only the uniform testimony of Scripture, but also the theory of Professor Stuart himself, in which he has strongly contended for the free responsible agency of man. Let us take the whole passage in connection, and see if this is not the genuine sense of the apostle : :-'And we know that all things shall work together for good to them that love God; to them who are the called according to his purpose.' Now what is the purpose of which the writer here speaks? This is answered in the next God purposes, commands, decrees, or predestinates, that all those who love him, and for whom all things shall work together for good, shall be conformed to the image of his Son. Is this a mere passive, or is it a willing, voluntary conformation? If the professor should say it is passive, then he contradicts that part of his theory for which he has so successfully contended in other portions of his Commentary, respecting the free, voluntary services which God requires of his intelligent creatures. If he says it is voluntary, then he must allow that it may fail to be complied with; and consequently that the calling here spoken of is not a calling that results from absolute predestination.

verse.

We might here urge other consequences which manifestly result from the professor's construction of the passage; and as these consequences are such as he labors to show do not belong to his creed, could he be convinced that they necessarily result from his exegesis of Rom. viii, 28, 29, he certainly would be induced to review this portion of his Commentary. But we cannot pursue this subject farther in this place.*

Let us now examine those passages of sacred Scripture to which the professor refers us for a justification of his construction of the text under consideration. The first is 1 Pet. i, 20, where it is said poɛyvωσμένου μεν προ καταβολης κοσμου, which is thus rendered in our version ; was foreordained before the foundation of the world; but we can see no necessity, from the connection of the passage, or for the purpose of maintaining a sound theological truth, of rendering posyvwoμsvou, foreordained; but the contrary. The apostle was evidently speaking of

It might be farther remarked, that the verbs here used are all in the past tense; whom he did foreknow, he did predestinate, he called, he justified, he glorified; from which we may infer that the apostle was speaking of what God had already accomplished, and not merely describing the general process by which he saves sinners. Whom he foreknew among the Jews and Gentiles he had already called, or invited to the blessings of the Gospel Church; and those who had obeyed the call, and come into the Church, had been justified in so doing, and were glorified also with all those ennobling privileges which the Gospel of Jesus Christ confers—that is, they were exalted to the dignity of being heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ-a glory this of which the disobedient Jews, who had rejected Jesus Christ, were deprived, being disgraced by being put under the decree of reprobation.

the manifestation of Jesus Christ, in these rwv χρόνων δι υμάς, last times or ages for us, for the salvation of the world; and says, that though not manifested in the flesh until then as a lamb without blemish, to shed his blood for the sin of the world, yet the event was foreknown to God before the foundation of the world. Here προ καταβολής κόσμου, before the foundation of the world, contrasts very strongly and beautifully with Twv Xpovwv, these days or ages. We allow indeed that God, foreseeing the sin and fall of man, and the consequent ruin brought upon the human family, moved thereto by his boundless compassion, did foreappoint and determine that Jesus Christ should be manifested in the flesh and die for the sins of the world; and moreover that it is his unalterable decree that all who receive him in this character, embrace him by the faith that works by love, and follow him through good and evil report, should be saved; and that all this is done in perfect view of the foresight of the Deity, unto whom are known all his works from the foundation of the world. But allowing all this to be true in a strict theological sense, there is no necessity, in order to support it, to construe any word, much less the above word, ywvwoxw, contrary to its true grammatical meaning. We may therefore understand the apostle as saying in the above text :-Though Jesus Christ has been but recently manifested among you in the flesh as your atoning sacrifice, yet the whole transaction was perfectly known unto God, and approved of by him, and is in strict conformity to the design he formed for the salvation of the human race, even before the foundation of the world.

This eternal purpose, we grant, is alluded to in Eph. iii, 11, to which the professor has referred his readers for a justification of his interpretation of the text before us. But it should be remarked that it is quite another word used here from that used in either Romans viii, 29, or 1 Pet. i, 20. In Eph. iii, 11, the apostle says, narα πрolεow Twv αIWV WV, which our translators have rightly rendered, according to his eternal purpose; which supports the sentiment above advanced, that it was God's eternal purpose to redeem mankind by Jesus Christ; and that this eternal purpose was formed in full view of the voluntary moral aberration of Adam and Eve, and the consequent ruin of their unfortunate descendants. This text therefore yields no support to the verbal construction of Professor Stuart. 2 Tim. i, 9 may be disposed of in the same way, as the words are, xara idiav πpotsoi xas xapı, according to his own purpose and grace; that is, the methods by which God saveth us, are not according to a plan or purpose of our own, but according to God's plan and purpose; he laid the plan, and furnishes and gives efficiency to the means by which sinners are saved.

As to Acts ii, 24, (23 we presume,) the commentator is very unhappy in supposing that poyvwds, can be rendered foreordained. The