readers. They have felt much indebted for many valuable contributions, which have appeared, in the progress of the volume, and to which may be referred much of that favourable acceptance which it has received. Nor have they been insensible to those expressions of approbation which have been communicated with the evident intention of animating their endea vours. The Editors request permission to state, that they are anxious, they trust commendably, that the relief afforded to the widows of their brethren, should be amply supplied; that their columns should afford an enlarged measure of evangelical instruction and consolation to all who peruse them; and that, thus, their service may, in some degree, be subordinated to the advancement of the Divine glory. THE BAPTIST MAGAZINE. JANUARY, 1834. STRICTURES ON STUART'S TRANSLATION, &c., To the Editor of the Baptist Magazine. AN American work, a new ver- | sion of the Epistle to the Romans, and a comment, by Professor Moses Stuart, of Andover, has lately been reviewed, and highly commended, in your pages. editing of the book, by these most deserving ministers and eminent scholars, is a high commendation of it to the world. Much deference is due to the editors; but Truth has higher claims, and her interests appear to me to demand that some of Mr. Stuart's opinions I had perused the work before, but these commendations excited me to peruse it anew, and to ex-be placed before the public. amine it with care. The task required both time and labour, as the volume is large and closely printed, and the writer has thrown his ideas over a large surface. The result of my second perusal is very painful to myself, and leads me to what may be painful to your Reviewer. It would give me great sorrow to misunderstand or misrepresent any writer, especially Mr. Stuart, whose work has been edited by Dr. Smith and Dr. Henderson. These editors stand deservedly high for their piety, literature, and zeal. And their sanction of the work will confer on it celebrity, and introduce it into many hands. Öf the translation I would say nothing, did not Mr. Stuart make it in some places rather a comment than a version, and depart from the authorised English version even where it is verbally correct, and fairly and fully conveys the apostolic meaning. Dr. Smith, it is true, has expressed, in the preface, his dissent from some of Mr. Stuart's views. Dr. Henderson, also, has modified his commendation. But the very VOL IX. 3rd SERIES. Let me then very briefly specify some instances where Mr. Stuart's version appears to be faulty. xv. 13. "Now may the God of hope fill you with joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope through the influence of the Holy Spirit.' Our common version is correct, for power and influence are not convertible terms. Mr. Stuart also commits an offence against an established rule in a faithful translation (if Newcome and Campbell are good authorities), when he renders duvaus by "influence" in this B V. 1. "By whom we have obtained access unto this state of verse, and the same word by "power" in the nineteenth verse of the same chapter. No unneces-grace in which we stand." Here sary departure from uniformity should be indulged in conveying the words of inspiration. xi. 31. is substantially the same in our version. But as a new version should be an improved one (otherwise it is quite unnecessary), I expected the antithesis in the Greek, and which is lost in Mr. Stuart's version, to be brought out to view. The verse may be rendered thus: "For as ye formerly disbelieved God, but now have obtained mercy by their disbelief, so also these now have disbelieved your mercy, that they also may obtain mercy." Let the Greek scholar judge. viii. 10. "But if Christ be in you, the body indeed is mortified because of sin, but the spirit liveth because of righteousness." The common version is correct, and Mr. Stuart has given us his comment on St. Paul's meaning instead of a version. vii. 6. "But now we are freed from the law, by which we were held in bondage, inasmuch as we have become dead to it, so that we must serve God in newness of spirit, and not in the old and literal manner." The latter clause is a paraphrase, not a version; and a paraphrase which, in my judgment, while it does not express the apostolic meaning, most assuredly destroys the beautiful antithesis in the Greek, and which is retained in our version--"newness of spirit oldness of the letter." we have a common theological phrase introduced in place of a faithful version. What right has Mr. Stuart to put his construction of meaning into the text? Let him permit the Witness to use his own words, and let him in his notes explain them as he judges best, but let him not interfere with the testimony itself. v. 2. "Knowing that tribulation produceth patience, and patience approbation.' The word doxin is found in five other places, and has the well-known signification of proof or trial; approbation may or may not be the result. Aoxun refers not to the effect, but to the trial itself. Here again Mr. Stuart puts his conjecture for the common established use of the word. ii. 20. "A teacher of little children, one having the representation of true knowledge in the law." Mr. Stuart's version here: may convey a precise meaning to others; it does not do so to me. Does true knowledge mean real knowledge, in opposition to pretended; or knowledge of truth, in opposition to falsehood? Why did not Mr. Stuart render Paul's words, as they are in our old translation, having a form of knowledge and of truth in the law?" 66 i. 3, 4. Our common version of this important passage is, "Concerning his Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead." Mr, Stuart translates it thus: "Concerning his Son, who was of the seed of David as to the flesh, and was constituted the Son of God with power, as to his holy spiri tual nature, after his resurrection from the dead." Mr. Stuart's notes, in defence of his version, are very copious, and have great show of critical inquiry and knowledge. Let the following very brief observations serve. The clause," his holy spiritual nature," is not a version, but a comment. Our version is perfectly correct, and Mr. Stuart cannot dispute its correctness. He has not the shadow of authority for rendering veμa by the words " a spiritual nature. His view of the meaning of Paul may be right or wrong, but a version is not a comment. The other part of the sentence deserves special investigation-"Constituted the Son of God after his resurrection from the dead." Here the two versions are opposed. For, apart from comments, the obvious meaning of our version is, that Christ's resurrection manifested, or pointed him out, or designated him, to all, as the Son of God; of Mr. Stuart's version, that Christ was made the Son of God by divine power, after his resurrection. If Mr. Stuart be correct here, the apostle puts an end to a controversy which has long agitated the church, but in a way, most probably, as unpleasant to the gaining as to the losing party. Let us first, Mr. Editor, admit Mr. Stuart's version. Mr. Stuart holds the two natures, the divine and human, in the one person of Christ. If Mr. Stuart's version be just, Paul says that our Lord is David's seed, or David's son, to his human nature, and is constituted or made the Son of God, in his Divinity, after his resurrection. This theory does require a comment, and at once puts down every view which Trinitarians have taken of Christ's Sonship. The as phrase, "his holy spiritual nature," by no ingenuity can be twisted to express his glorified condition, and must express, by the antithesis of the sentence, what is contrasted with his human nature. Permit me now to say a few words on the translation of the word givros, "declared" in our version, "constituted in Mr. Stuart's. Mr. Stuart, in his notes, grants that our version has the authority of Chrysostom and other the best Greek scholars on its side. From them he dissents, on the plea that our version is not justified by the classic use of the word. Mr. Editor, I had long thought that among enlightened. critics, the classical use of a word was not the first law of interpretation as to the Greek of the New Testament, when the meaning could be fixed either from the Septuagint, or from the New Testament itself. But, even in this matter, Mr. Stuart is not quite confident, for Elsner advances (as Mr. Stuart allows) one proof from the classics to the point. Why then should not Mr. Stuart be satisfied? I have examined, on this word, Stephens, Hesychius, Schleusner, Hedericus, Schrevelius, Parkhurst, Bengelius, and others. Stephens refers for the precise meaning of the word to Cicero's definition of it in his Divination, book ii., chap. 44. My examination of these writers confirms me in the view which I have held, increasingly, for years, of the scholarship of the men who effected our common version. the meaning of the word were obscure, I would bow to their authority in preference to Mr. Stuart's. But Mr. Stuart objects to our version of "declared to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead," on theɔlogical grounds. He asserts that If the resurrection of Christ did not prove him to be the Son of God. And he boldly asks "how it could show him to be divine, when Lazarus and others were also raised, and when their resurrection bore no testimony to their dignity?" his confession at the loss of his Mr. Editor, is such a writer qualified to translate the Romans and comment on St. Paul? This is not all, Sir. The resurrection may be viewed in a still higher light, namely, its peculiar place in the economy of redemption. Jesus died as our surety, to pay our debt, to liquidate the claims of a broken law on its transgressors. And his resurrection is the proof which the Father has given to angels and men of his having accepted the atonement or satisfaction of Jesus his Son. By his resurrection, our surety was legally and judicially liberated. He was then "justified by the Spirit," and raised from the dead by the God of peace. Mr. Editor, is Mr. Stuart so ignorant of gospel history, and so ignorant of the economy of redemption, as not to know how 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 ignorant of the "Deistical controversy," as to put a question which sets aside one of the strongest proofs of Christ's mission to which our best writers have had recourse? Surely there is an essential difference between the resurrection of Christ and that of Lazarus, or Jairus's daughter, or any other. Christ rose by his own power. Christ predicted his resurrection in the presence of his foes. "This deceiver said, while alive, after three days I will rise again.' Christ's resurrection then decided his truth, and demonstrated him to be no deceiver. Christ claimed, in the presence of his enemies, again and again, to be the Son of God. This claim gave the Jews the greatest offence, so that they charged him with blasphemy in making himself equal with God, and took up stones to stone him. Christ persisted in his claim. They refused to admit it, and asked a sign from heaven, in addition to all his miracles. His reply was memorable: "No other sign shall be given to this generation but that of Jonas the prophet," &c. Christ's resurrection was then the sign, the very seal of heaven, placed on his claim. In advancing this claim before the tribunal of the high-priest, Jesus witnessed I should now proceed to a large class of texts, in all of which I am of decided opinion that Mr. Stuart has mistranslated the apostle; texts in which he has put justification for righteousness. But I forbear to animadvert on any of them till I first say a few words on some of the opinions which he has advocated in his notes. 1st. Mr. Stuart rejects the doctrine of original sin, as stated in the creeds of the reformed churches, and as received among the maintainers of evangelical principles. The able defence of it by President Edwards, of Ame |