1848.] De Wette's Commentary on Rom. 5: 12—19. 263 ARTICLE III. DE WETTE'S COMMENTARY ON ROMANS 5: 12-19. Translated by M. Stuart, Professor at Andover. Introductory Remarks. [IT may be proper to state some reasons, why a portion of Commentary by De Wette on Rom. 5: 12-19 has been translated, and is here inserted. Every one conversant with theology or exegesis knows what importance has been attached to the passage of Scripture in question. It is appealed to beyond all others, as peculiarly exhibiting the condition of fallen man, and the connection of his depravity and guilt with the fall of the first human pair. The doctrine of original sin, or (as the Germans call it) inherited sin (Erbsünde), has been regarded, by a large portion of evangelical theologians, as having its most ample and solid basis in the passage before us. Of course, their opponents have made every possible effort to show, that the passage has been misunderstood and misinterpreted by them. The contest has been going on, in respect to this subject, ever since the days of Augustine and Pelagius, and even from a period still more remote. It would form a library of no small extent, were all that has been written on this subject embodied and published. Nor can we well wonder at this. The subject is one of the deepest interest. Men of sober thought and reflection will be prone to ask: What is our present native condition as moral and accountable beings? If corrupt and depraved, how has this been brought about, inasmuch as we naturally expect everything which comes from the hands of the Creator to be good? Can sin, or a sinful state or condition, be propagated? How far are we accountable for a state or condition, which we did not contribute in any way originally to form or introduce? How far are we, or can we reasonably be, accountable for the acts of others? These and many more of the like questions must give a high degree of interest to Rom. 5: 12-19; for it is here, either directly or consequentially, that material is found by the mass of theologians who are of the stricter cast, for the solution of such questions. Hence the animated attacks upon what is called the orthodox exposition of this passage, and the equally animated defences of that exposition. Of late, some distinguished critics and theologians in Germany have renewed, in an animated way, the discussion of these matters. Pamphlets, monogramms, small volumes, excursus appended to commentaries, etc., have been issued almost every year, until, as one would naturally suppose, the subject has been presented in nearly every possible light. In circumstances such as these, and after all the improvements made in sacred philology, it seems desirable that the theologian and the interpreter among us should have access to some abridged and summary view of what has been achieved by discussion; and such an one is presented in the pages of De Wette, a translation of which follows the present remarks. What has just been stated is the leading reason for publishing the exegesis of De Wette. But there are other reasons, at which we will merely glance. No living writer in the province of theology, sacred archaeology, and Hebrew and Greek philology and exegesis, can lay claim to more distinction in regard to extent and accuracy of knowledge acquired by study, than De Wette, though in particular departments men of greater ability may be found. It is a matter of the most unfeigned regret, on the part of all who are acquainted with his writings, and are at the same time the friends of evangelical sentiment, that his critical views are mostly of the neological cast, and his theological ones, in many respects, deeply tinged with the philosophy of the day. Still he is different, in not a few important particulars, from most of the distinguished writers of the neological school. He never rails. He employs no sarcasm or bitterness. He does not purposely misrepresent the views of those from whom he differs. He never exhibits levity, or indifference to religion. In feeling, he is understood and extensively believed to be nearer to the orthodox party than to the other. Those of evangelical sentiment, at least many of them who are acquainted with De Wette, even regard him as cherishing substantially the views and feelings of a Christian. His head, they say, has been turned by speculative philosophy, and is not in a right position, but his heart beats truly, at least it often does so, and responds to the hearts of others who love and believe the truth. One thing, at least, can be truly said of De Wette as a commentator, especially as he appears in his latest works of interpretation. This is, that he rarely introduces anything but the simple principles of exegesis and philology, in order to establish his views of the meaning of Scripture. All creeds and confessions are left out of sight, and the text, and context, and tenor of discourse, and peculiarities of idiom, and matters of antiquity that have respect to various objects and opin 1848.] Character of De Wette as a Commentator. 265 ions and circumstances, are ever resorted to as the only reliable guides on which an interpreter can depend. Impartially, for the most part, has he dealt with all these exegetical subsidiaries. And that he brings to the decision of any exegetical question, a rare skill in detecting the nicer shades of language, a highly cultivated aesthetical feeling, and great discrimination in judging of the real and logical course of thought, no intelligent reader of him can deny or even doubt. In one respect De Wette has some advantage over those who come to the investigation of Scripture with all their opinions formed and settled beforehand. The latter are often found in the attitude of pugnacious reasoners, now explaining away this, then introducing that, just as they wish to defend or to build up their own doctrinal structure. The paramount authority of the Scriptures they acknowledge, and hence the strenuous effort to make them speak what they themselves believe. De Wette is apparently free from any strong bias in this way. He is virtually a serious, sober Naturalist, (if I may so characterize him). He believes in the divine origin and authority of the Scriptures in the same sense in which he believes in the divine origin of all that is rational and moral in man, and of all that is good and beautiful in the world of nature around us. He regards the scriptural writers as well meaning, honest, sincere men, with the best intentions and most laudable purposes in view. But he also regards them as liable to mistakes, both as to matters of fact and of doctrine. He moreover believes them to have been too credulous, and thinks that they were somewhat tinctured with the superstitions of their age and country. Of course he attributes no binding authority to their decisions; and he is, in this way, placed as it were in a state of indifference, whether this or that statement or sentiment of the scriptural writers is correct or erroneous. So it comes about, almost as a matter of course, that he has no strong bias toward finding in the Scriptures this or that particular sentiment. We may easily conceive, that a scholar, in such a position, might investigate the Bible simply in a philological way, without any serious concern what the result of his investigation may turn out to be. The translator of the following piece is very far from believing such a state of mind to be, on the whole, the most promising as to the real discovery of moral and religious truth. But he must think, that to such a man there is comparatively little embarrassment, in the way of striving to obtain the simple results of philology. Of all the essays which the translator has read on Rom. 5: 12—19, he knows of none which have carried out simple hermeneutical principles in exegesis so entirely and exclusively as De Wette. This is VOL. V. No. 18. 23 another reason for presenting the translation that follows. It cannot fail to be a matter of interest to all earnest inquirers, to know what are the fair results of such a process as De Wette has instituted. This process, from the hand of such a critic as he, deserves, and should elicit, the serious study of all who wish to arrive at the conclusions to which a purely philological discussion will lead them. There is another consideration of some importance to many of the readers of the Bibliotheca Sacra. De Wette has nearly finished an Exegetical Manual, i. e. a brief synoptical interpretation, of the whole New Testament. His work, although not yet extensively known and used among us, will doubtless, ere long, be in the hands of many readers. Those who have had no opportunity to consult it, so as to know the manner and value of it, may learn, from the specimen now to be submitted to them, what they have to expect from the writer in question. It is easy to see, that a commentary on the plan of De Wette must be exceedingly compressed and terse. Single words are made to speak whole sentences; single sentences, a whole paragraph. Hence the difficulty of reading and understanding De Wette's critical notes. Indeed, it must be rare, that the beginner in exegesis can be able to take in and fully understand the whole course of thought. De Wette supposes his readers to be already familiarly acquainted with all or most of the best critical works, including commentaries, literary introductions, and monogramms on particular passages. Hence he adverts to such works by a single word, or short sentence, leaving the reader to fill out what is lacking by his own knowledge. His abridgments of words, almost without number, are also very embarrassing to the unexperienced reader. So far as it regards proper names, this difficulty is mostly obviated in the following pages, by fully writing out the names which might occasion difficulty to many or most readers in our country. Beyond this the translator has not thought it best to go, because it is a part of his design to present De Wette as he isterse, compressed, not to say abrupt, nearly beyond example. The translator does not pledge himself as having in every case presented the exact shades of De Wette's meaning; for in fact he is almost untranslatable. Another language must fail to hit off some of the light and shade of his German sketches. But the aim has been, to be as nearly literal as the matter would bear, so far as our language would furnish the means. This is purposely done with the design of presenting De Wette as he is, or at least of coming as near to an exact likeness as may be. The question is frequently asked: Why not present the whole of De Wette's Commentary in an English translation? An answer to 1848.] Reasons for not translating De Wette. 267 this may perhaps be found, in the specimen of it now to be subjoined. If not, then I would say, (1) Because our public are not prepared to receive and profit by it. His circle of references is mainly beyond our circle of reading and knowledge. His work makes demands on the reader, which most readers among us are not prepared to meet. Of course, much of his book would remain unintelligible, and therefore unprofitable. His trees are planted in a foreign soil and climate, and they will not bear transplanting without either stinting their growth, or rendering them fruitless. (2) Because the general tendency of his work leads on to mere Rationalism, and to a denial of the divine authority, consistency, and excellence of the Scriptures. If the reader of the following exegesis expects to be interested in it, or to profit by it, he must do this by dint of real study, not of cursory perusal. A page or two will satisfy him of this. But if he will submit to patient labor and study, and has the power of appreciating what the author has done, he will find that there is scarcely a question of importance in respect to philology, that is not brought under examination. Various readings, points of grammar, matters of idiom, connection of thought, relation of parts to each other and to the whole, different opinions of respectable critics, different doctrinal views-in a word, everything which can fairly come within the compass of interpretation, is touched upon by De Wette, and his opinion, with the reasons for it, is summarily expressed. So much is crowded into a compass so small, that it can be duly understood and appreciated only by severe and intelligent effort. Both parties in the contest among us about original sin, will be surprised, it is probable, at the results which De Wette presents. Those who contend for the views of the Westminster Catechism, would little expect from such latitudinarianism as that of De Wette, a result which differs only in some minor respects from their own. Those who are opposed to such views, will be disappointed at finding De Wette approach so near to the other party; inasmuch as they naturally, and perhaps confidently, expected very different conclusions from such a man. On v. 12 he says: "The apostle teaches the spread of sin, as well as death, among all men, in and through Adam. But the way and manner of this he does not particularly explain." In respect to the spread of sin, he also declares, that "in part it comes through the natural and organic propagation of a sinful inclination;" in part "through our social relations and connections ;" and, "as the basis of both these, the apostle teaches the native likeness of all men, by virtue of which the sin of Adam becomes the sin of all. Still the sin that is propagated or inherited is finally the free act of all, for |