of shorter copies of the Epistle, containing only fourteen chapters with or without the doxology, in early times."

"The theory, by which I sought to combine and explain these facts, was this; that St. Paul at a later period of his life re-issued the Epistle in a shorter form with a view to general circulation, omitting the last two chapters, obliterating the mention of Rome in the first chapter, and adding the Doxology, which was no part of the original Epistle (Journal of Ph.' 1871, No. 6, p. 203). The theory was subjected to a friendly but keen and searching criticism by Professor Hort ('Journal of Ph.' 1870, No. 5), and defended in the following number by Bp. Lightfoot.

It is almost needless to say that the views of both writers are set forth with consummate skill, and the three papers are of great and permanent value to every student of the Epistle.

Professor Hort tries to prove, but as we venture to think unsuccessfully, that Marcion (as represented by Origen in the original reading of his comment) omitted only the Doxology, and not the two whole chapters: he attaches no great importance to the absence of quotations in Tertullian, Irenæus, and Cyprian and thinks that the Doxology may have been transferred from the end of the Epistle to the position which it now holds in some Greek MSS., after xiv. 23, because chapters xv., xvi. were not much used in the Church lessons, "and yet some Church, for instance that of Alexandria, may have been glad to rescue the striking Doxology at the end for congregational use by adding it to some neighbouring lesson. . . Scribes accustomed to hear it in that connexion in the public lessons would half mechanically introduce it into the text of St. Paul (i. e. after xiv. 23). . . Then in the course of time it would be seen that St. Paul was not likely to have written the Doxology twice over in the same epistle, and it would be struck out in one place or the other" (p. 72).

This alternative hypothesis is rejected by Bp. Lightfoot as "devoid alike of evidence and probability." He maintains that the capitulation of the codex

Amiatinus has no trace of being intended for lectionary use (p. 202), that it was framed originally for a short copy of the Old Latin, yet maintained its ground as a common mode of dividing the Epistle, until it was at length superseded by the present division into sixteen chapters in the latter half of the 13th century."

Bp. Lightfoot upholds his theory simply as "the most probable explanation of the facts, until a better is suggested" (p. 194): and it is certainly less difficult to suppose that St. Paul himself at a later period of his life adapted the letter in a shortened form to general circulation (p. 214), than to accept M. Renan's complicated theory of four or five original editions addressed to different Churches, all at last brought together and compounded into our present Epistle.

But even this hypothesis of a shorter recension issued by the Apostle himself, put forth at first by Rückert and since so ably advocated by Bp. Lightfoot, seems to involve some serious difficulties.

(1) The capitulations are supposed to have been formed originally from a Latin copy of the Epistle ending with ch. xiv. : yet no other trace whatever of such an abbreviated Latin codex now exists.

(2) If the abbreviated recension were made by St. Paul himself, and the Doxology added to it, and this at Rome, as Bp. Lightfoot suggests (p. 214), it is strange and almost unaccountable that no copy of this genuine abbreviated recension has been preserved, and that no known Latin codex contains the slightest trace of the position of the Doxology after xiv. 23.

The blank space in the Latin, corresponding to that in the Greek of G proves nothing, as the Latin is interlinear.

(3) The assumption that the Doxology was originally placed after ch. xiv., and thence transferred to the end of the Epistle, is opposed to the evidence of the primary Uncials, &, B, C, of Origen's express statement concerning Marcion, of all Latin MSS., and of the Latin fathers; these all agree in placing the Doxology at the end of the Epistle, and there only.

(4) When St. Paul is represented as

converting his original Epistle to a new purpose by "omitting the last two chapters, obliterating the mention of Rome in the first chapter, and adding the Doxology," the process seems hardly in keeping with the truthful simplicity of the Apostle's character. There is truth in what Meyer says on this point: "Rückert's conjecture, that Paul himself may have caused copies without the local address to be sent to other Churches, assumes a mechanical arrangement in Apostolic authorship, of which there is elsewhere no trace, and which seems even opposed by Col. iv. 16."

(5) Bp. Lightfoot suggests (p. 213) that Marcion, who is known to have resided for many years in Rome, may have fallen in with a copy of the short Recension, and welcomed it gladly.

When we take into consideration Origen's express statement that Marcion himself expunged and cut away the last two chapters, it seems much more probable that the incomplete documents, from which the Capitulations were framed, were nothing else than copies of Marcion's own mutilated text, with the Doxology added. A mutilated Recension, known to be the work of an arch-heretic, was much more likely to have disappeared altogether, than an abbreviated Recension known as the genuine work of St. Paul himself.

(6) If, as Origen states, Marcion mutilated the Epistle by cutting off chapters xv., xvi. entirely, he would have a motive for removing ev Púμn also in i. 7, 15 for a letter addressed by St. Paul to the Christians at Rome, in whom he was so deeply interested, could not possibly end so abruptly as at xiv. 23, without a single allusion to his own personal state or theirs, without a single greeting, without even his usual Apostolic Benediction. Marcion therefore is much more likely than St. Paul to have obliterated the mention of Rome in the 1st chapter.

Another possible explanation is suggested by Meyer, that "perhaps some Church, which received a copy of the Epistle from the Romans for public reading, may for their own particular Church-use have deleted the extraneous

But on this supposition we should expect to find some of the Lectionaries omitting the words, whereas they all, apparently, contain them.

On the whole we cannot but admit the force of Lucht's conclusion (pp. 65, f.) that if the Doxology was written by St. Paul himself, its original place must have been at the end of the Epistle, and not after xiv. 23.

(e) The Benedictions. According to the received Text there are three concluding formulæ, the Apostolic Benediction at xvi. 20 ( xápis K. T. λ.), the same Benediction repeated at xvi. 24, and the Doxology.

The Benediction at xvi. 20 is undoubtedly genuine, being omitted only in those MSS. (D FG) which also omit the Doxology at the end, and leave the Benediction at xvi. 24 as the conclusion of the Epistle, the motive of these changes evidently being to reduce the Epistle to the accustomed form.

The Benediction at xvi. 24 is omitted in the chief uncials (N A B C), in Amiat. Fuld. and other MSS. of the Vulgate, in the Coptic and Aethiopic Versions, and in Origen.

It is found in this place in D, F, G, L, 37, 47, the Vulgate (Demid. Tol. and other codices), the Syriac (Harclean), and the Gothic, and in most of the Greek Commentators. It is put after the Doxology in P, 17, Syriac (Schaar), Arm. Aeth.

Upon this evidence the Benediction at xvi. 24 is rejected by Lachmann, Tregelles, and in his last edition (8) by Tischendorf. Bp. Lightfoot, and Professor Hort reject it, but it is retained by Meyer, Fritzsche, Lange, Hofmann, Lucht (p. 82), Hilgenfeld (Einleit.' p. 326), Reuss, Volkmar, as well as by older interpreters generally. The question therefore of its genuineness must be regarded as still under discussion.

Our own belief is that the Benediction is genuine in both places, and that in v. 20 it forms the conclusion of a later letter to the Church at Rome, of which

III. INTERNAL EVIDENCE.

(a.) The Doxology. Objections to the genuineness of the Doxology drawn from its special character are directed either against its form, its phraseology, or its ideas.

(1) The Form. It is alleged that the beginning and the end (τộ dè dvvaμévų vuâs στηρίξαι . . . . μόνῳ σοφῷ Θεῷ διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, ᾧ ἡ δόξα κ. τ. λ.) show that there is a mixture of two different forms of Doxology. The whole difficulty lies in the superfluous Relative (), and its position. This relative is omitted in the Vatican Codex and two cursives (33, 72), in f, the Latin of F, in Schaaf's Syriac, and by Origen (or Rufinus) in his commentary on the passage. Dr. Hort (Journal of Philol.' No. 5, p. 57) thinks that" is probably an intrusion, notwithstanding the presumption in favour of an irregular construction." Godet thinks that when St. Paul began the sentence, he did not mean it to end thus-"to him be glory "—but with some such thought as-" to him I commend you" (ovvior vuâs, Glöckler).

He adds "We give glory to him who has done the work; but in regard to him who is able to do it, we look to him to do it, we claim his help, we express our confidence in him and in his power." But this reasoning is at once refuted by a glance at Eph. iii. 20, тộ dè dvvaμévy .... αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα κ. τ. λ.

Meyer joins διὰ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ with rope, "God who through Jesus Christ has shown himself the only wise," the object of this harsh connexion being to avoid the supposed necessity of referring to the person last named, Jesus Christ, and so ascribing the glory to Him. This necessity is neither more nor less than in Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11, where see the notes.

Ewald translates as if the order were

We can accept his translation as rightly expressing what St. Paul meant, but not his explanation of the unusual order, which is the main difficulty.

Upon the whole we are disposed to agree with Dr. Hort that " is probably an intrusion," though of a very early date. We must admit that with so great a preponderance of external authority & ought to be retained in the text now, whatever may have been its origin. But on the other hand the authorities for the omission are varied and of considerable value: while the intrusion might very easily have been caused by the presence of in the parallel passages Gal. i. 5; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. II. Rückert rejects, and Reiche, in his Critical Commentary, concludes that the writer of the Doxology borrowed it from Heb. xiii. 21 or Jude 25.

The objection that St. Paul does not end his Epistles with a Doxology comes with little force from those who, like Baur and Lucht, count only three Epistles, besides Romans, to be genuine.

That the last clause of the Doxology is characteristic of St. Paul is seen in its close resemblance to xi. 36; Gal. i. 5; and its difference from 1 Pet. iv. 11;

V. II.

When Lucht urges that Doxologies forming long and complete sentences are not found in St. Paul's Epistles, but only in Eph. iii. 20, 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17; 2 Pet. iii. 18; Jude 24, 25; we can only reply that the three Epistles first named are to us St. Paul's, and as such they help by their many points of resemblance to the Doxology in Romans to confirm its genuineness.

Other objections to the length of the Doxology, to its numerous intermediate clauses, and to the mixture of strong emotion with profound doctrinal statements, are refuted by a due appreciation of the peculiar character of the Epistle. "The whole Epistle could hardly have a fitter close than a Doxology embodying the faith from which its central chapters proceed" (Hort, p. 56).

"The leading ideas contained in the whole Epistle, as they had already found in the introduction (i. 1-7) their preluding key-note, and again in xi. 33 ff., their preliminary doxological expression, now further receive, in the fullest unison of inspired piety, their concentrated outburst for the true final consecration of the whole" (Meyer).

(2) Diction. Lucht acknowledges that every single expression in the Doxology (except σeorymuévov) may be found in St. Paul's genuine Epistles, by which he means Romans, Corinthians, and Galatians.

The Passive σiyaoba is found nowhere else in the N. T. or LXX: but St. Paul's use of σeσtynμévov is fully justified by such passages as Eurip. 'Iphigenia in Tauris,' 1076, Távra oiynθήσεται, Pindar, Ol. ix. 156, σεσιγαμένον Oй σкαιÓτEроν Xpîμ' éκaσтov, and many others.

The objection that the several words and phrases of the Doxology, though found in the four great Epistles, are there used only in other meanings or connexions, will for most readers be sufficiently answered by Lucht's further objection, that the Doxology in all these points agrees with what he calls nonPauline writings, the Epistles to the Ephesians, Colossians, Timothy, and Titus.

These points of agreement are indicated in our foot-notes: and it is only necessary to add that the expression "everlasting God" (aivios eós), to which Lucht objects, is fully justified by the usage of the LXX not only in Job xxxiii. 12, αἰώνιος γάρ ἐστιν ὁ ἐπάνω Bporŵv, but also in the very striking passage Gen. xxi. 33, éπekaλéσaro ni τὸ ὄνομα Κυρίου, Θεὸς αἰώνιος. Here "Jehovah is called the everlasting God as the eternally true, with respect to the eternal covenant which He established with Abraham xvii. 7" (Keil & Delitzsch). So remarkable a title must have been familiar to St. Paul, and its use here in reference to the same eternal covenant is so appropriate that the supposed objection is really a strong argument for St. Paul's authorship.

(3). Ideas.-Lucht's attempt to prove

that the Doxology has a Gnostic tendency, and must therefore be of a postApostolic date, is rightly dismissed by Meyer as based only upon misinterpretation and a pre-supposition that all except the four greater Epistles of St. Paul are spurious.

(b.) Chapters xv., xvi. The objections brought by Baur, and the extreme partisans of his School, against the genuine ness of these two whole chapters can have little weight except for those who accept his general theory of the purpose of the Epistle, which we have already examined in § 7 and found untenable. Assuming the preponderance at Rome of a Judaizing party to whom the earlier portion of the Epistle would have been distasteful, Baur sees in the last two chapters the work of a later "Paulinist writing in the spirit of the Acts of the Apostles, seeking to soothe the Judaists, and to promote the cause of unity, and therefore tempering the keen anti-Judaism of Paul with a milder and more conciliatory conclusion to his Epistle" ('Paulus,' i. p. 365.

Lucht, less bold than Baur, does not venture to treat the two chapters as wholly spurious: admitting that the original Epistle could not have ended at xiv. 23, he thinks that portions of the genuine conclusion are still to be found in chapters xv. and xvi. His theory is that the Roman clergy, fearing lest offence might be given by the Apostle's treatment of ascetic scruples as "the infirmities of the weak" (xv. i.), withheld the conclusion of the letter from public use, and laid it up in their archives together with a letter to the Ephesians which by mistake had been brought to Rome; and that these genuine Pauline materials were worked up by a later writer into the present form of the last two chapters.

According to Volkmar (pp. 129–132) the latter part of the genuine letter was either lost or purposely suppressed, and in the 2nd Century two attempts were made to supply a fitting conclusion to xiv. 23: in the Eastern Church the Doxology was added (xvi. 25-27), in the Western Church the greater part of the last two chapters, namely xv. 1–32, xvi.

3-16, and 17-20. Afterwards both additions were combined in various ways, and under this "Catholic conglomerate of conciliatory matter lay the genuine conclusion long hidden, yet accurately preserved in two passages xv. 33-xvi. 2, and xvi. 21-24.

To all these arbitrary hypotheses we may apply the remark of Hilgenfeld (Einleitung,' p. 323): "What is here regarded as un-Pauline only shews, according to my conviction, that since Marcion's time there has been a onesided picture of St. Paul, to which some still desire to make the true Paul correspond." Compare in this Commentary the Introduction to 1 Peter, § 3.

As regards the xvth Chapter we may confidently say that the result of modern criticism has been to prove beyond reasonable doubt that it is both the genuine work of St. Paul and an original portion of the Roman Epistle. "It is undeniable that xv. 1-13 belongs to xiv. and that xv. 14-33 forms the conclusion of the Epistle" (De Wette, Kurze Erklärung,' p. 204). Pfleiderer ('Paulinism,' ii. 41, note) expressly maintains with Hilgenfeld, "in spite of Baur, Lucht, and Lipsius," that the chapter is genuine. The opposite opinion has now few advocates even in Germany.

In regard to Chapter xvi. the case is rather different. According to the conjecture of Schulz, adopted by Ewald, Renan, Reuss, Farrar and others, the greater part of the chapter belonged to a genuine letter of St. Paul addressed, not to Rome, but to Ephesus.

In considering this theory it will be convenient to examine each portion of the chapter separately.

vv. 1, 2. The Commendation of Phabe.

It is objected that St. Paul could not have written this commendation of Phoebe to a distant Church, because he had shortly before expressed a disparaging opinion of commendatory letters (2 Cor. iii. 1). But if the Apostle in vindicating his authority asserts that he has no need of "epistles of commendation," it by no means follows that he thought them unnecessary for all persons. A woman

undertaking a journey to a distant city might well need to be commended to the care of the Christian community, especially if she was (as is generally supposed) the bearer of the Apostle's own Epistle: compare the commendation of Timothy in 1 Cor. xvi. 10, 11.

Another objection is brought against the description of Phoebe as being "a servant (diákovos) of the church which is at Cenchreae," on the ground that the office of "deaconess" was of later origin. The objection would have had some force if the title (dakóvioσa), which was of later origin, had been used. We read in 1 Cor. xvi. 15 that the household of Stephanas had devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints (eraέav kavroùs eis diakovíav Toîs άyíos): and such self-dedication to a special work, though quite consistent with a formal designation to the office, would even without it have been sufficient to justify the application of the general term diákovos as descriptive of Phoebe in her work at Cenchreae. See our note on the passage.

In whatever way Phoebe had been "a succourer (Tрoστáris) of many," and of St. Paul himself also, there is nothing in such service inconsistent with his frequent assertions that he had not accepted any maintenance from the Churches of Achaia, for these assertions are all of an earlier date (1 Cor. ix. 15-18; 2 Cor. xi. 7-12; xii. 13-18).

For the opinion that this commendation was addressed to the Church of Ephesus, not to Rome, we can discover no reason at all the suggestion that from Cenchreae she would be sailing towards Ephesus and away from Rome is sufficiently answered by saying that she may have been sailing not from Cenchreae, but from Lechaeum, the port on the Corinthian Gulf, and in that case would pass through Corinth on her way. Legal business would be more likely to take her to Rome than to any other city.

vv. 3-5 Salutation sent to Aquila and Priscilla.

We learn from Acts xviii. 1, 2 that these persons being Jews of Pontus were driven from Rome by the edict of