Claudius (A.D. 52); they were joined by St. Paul at Corinth, and thence sailed with him to Ephesus in the spring of the year 54, where they remained (Acts xviii. 19), and established "a church in their house" (1 Cor. xvi. 19). From Ephesus they sent a salutation to Corinth in St. Paul's 1st Epistle about April A.D. 57. Ten or twelve months later St. Paul, according to Rom. xvi. 3, sends a salutation to them "and to the church that is in their house" at Rome. In answer to M. Renan's objection that this would assign to them "too nomadic a life," Bp. Lightfoot asks with good reason, "Is there any real difficulty in supposing that they returned to Rome in this interval of a year more or less, and that St. Paul should have been made acquainted with their return, seeing that his own travels meanwhile had lain mainly on the route between Ephesus and Rome" ('Journal of Philology,' 1869, p. 276). In answer to the further objection that Aquila and Priscilla appear again at Ephesus (2 Tim. iv. 19) the Bishop asks with equally good reason, "Is it at all improbable that after an interval of nearly ten (eight?) years they should again revisit this important city? They were wanderers not only by the exigencies of their trade, but also by the obligations of their missionary work" ('J. of Phil.' p. 277). So far as the internal character of the passage is concerned it might have been addressed either to the Church of Ephesus or to Rome: in favour of the latter destination a prima facie presumption is raised by its appearance in the Epistle to the Romans. It contains no indication of the time at which it was written. v. 5 b. It does not follow from the description of Epaenetus as "the first fruits of Asia unto Christ" that this greeting was sent to him in Asia, i.e. in Ephesus. Being named in immediate connexion with Aquila and Priscilla it is very probable that he, like Apollos, had been instructed by them and had attached himself to their company, whether at Ephesus or at Rome. Of the 22 other persons named in vv. 6-15 not one can be shewn to have been at Ephesus, but it is assumed that only at Ephesus could St. Paul have had so many friends as are here saluted. Against this assumption we have to set several unquestionable facts. (1) "Urbanus, Rufus, Ampliatus, Julia and Junia are specifically Roman names" (Lucht, p. 137). (2) Besides the first four of these names ten others, Stachys, Apelles, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Hermes, Hermas, Patrobas (or Patrobius), Philologus, Julia, Nereus, are found in the sepulchral inscriptions on the Appian way as the names of persons connected with "Caesar's household" (Phil. iv. 22) and contemporary with St. Paul. Bp. Lightfoot in his most interesting essay on the passage has pointed out that while some of these names are too common to afford any safe ground for identifying the persons, others (Stachys, Tryphaena, Patrobas, Philologus, Nereus) are comparatively rare, and yet are found on the monuments of the imperial household at this period. The household of Aristobulus and the household of Narcissus could be only at Rome. "A combination such as Philologus and Julia," writes Bp. Lightfoot, "affords [more] solid ground for inference: and in other cases, as in the household of Narcissus, the probable circumstances suggest a connexion with the palace. If so, an explanation has been found of the reference to members of Caesar's household in the Philippian letter. At all events this investigation will not have been useless, if it has shewn that the names and allusions at the close of the Roman Epistle are in keeping with the circumstances of the Metropolis in St. Paul's day for thus it will have supplied an answer to two forms of objection; the one denying the genuineness of the last two chapters of this letter, and the other allowing their genuineness, but detaching the salutations from the rest and assigning them to another epistle." : The answer seems to be conclusive both as to the genuineness of the salutations, and as to the place to which they were addressed, namely, Rome and not Ephesus. But it does not remove what is after all the chief difficulty of the chapter, that at the time of writing his Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul cannot easily be supposed to have had such an intimate knowledge of so many of the Christians at Rome. In the Journal of Philology,' 1869, No. 4, p. 274, Bishop Lightfoot, in reply to M. Renan, has suggested another explanation: "Will not a man studiously refrain from mentioning individual names where he is addressing a large circle of friends, feeling that it is invidious to single out some for special mention, where an exhaustive list is impossible? On the other hand, where only a limited number are known to him, he can name all, and no offence is given." In support of this explanation, it is urged that in other Epistles of St. Paul the number of names mentioned is in inverse proportion to his familiarity with the church to which he is writing: to Corinth, Thessalonica, and Philippi no salutations properly so called are addressed. "On the other hand, in the Epistle to the Colossians, whom the Apostle had never visited, certain persons are saluted by name." When we turn, however, to Colossians, we find only one salutation properly so called, i.e. addressed to a particular person by name: Nymphas and the church which is in his house." The example is therefore no parallel to the Roman salutations in which, including Aquila and Priscilla, twenty-four persons are saluted by name, besides several households. This serious difficulty, and some others, are wholly removed, if, as we believe, the whole passage xvi. 3-20, belonged originally to a second letter addressed by St. Paul to the Roman Church after his release from his first imprisonment at Rome. On that supposition, the unusual number of salutations is at once explained, and the indications of intimate personal knowledge of so many members of the Church, some of whom seem to have belonged to "Caesar's household," not only raise no difficulty, but become the strongest proofs of a genuine letter. In that case, Aquila and Priscilla may well be thought to have either preceded or followed St. Paul to Rome, and there to have alleviated his wearisome im prisonment, and even risked their lives for his sake Andronicus and Junia (v. 7), being as kinsmen of St. Paul, Jews by birth, well known to the other Apostles, and "in Christ" before St. Paul himself, must have been converted elsewhere than in Rome, most probably in Jerusalem. But when were they fellow-prisoners of St. Paul? If this description was written before his first imprisonment at Rome, we are left to conjecture that they may have shared some one of his many imprisonments, of which nothing more is known. But how much more forcible and appropriate is the description, if after his release and departure from Rome, he sent this salutation to two of those who had been his fellow-captives there. The word itself (ovvaixualúrovs) confirms the conjecture, for it is used nowhere else in the N.T., except concerning Aristarchus (Col. iv. 10), and Epaphras (Philem. 23), both of whom were Paul's fellow-captives in Rome. It has been thought a difficulty that none of the persons named in vv. 3-16, are mentioned in the Epistles written from Rome during the first imprisonment. "How is it" (asks Dr. Farrar), "that not one of these exemplary twentysix are among the three Jewish friends who are alone faithful to him, even before the Neronian persecutions began, and only a few years after this letter was despatched (Col. iv. 10, 11)?” The answer is easy, if the passage (vv. 3-16), was addressed to Rome after the first imprisonment. For in Philippians, the salutations are only general: "The brethren which are with me greet you. All the saints salute you, chiefly they that are of Caesar's household" (iv. 21, 22); in Colossians and Philemon, the persons named as sending salutations are St. Paul's companions and fellow-labourers, and there is not the slightest reason to believe that any one of them was a permanent inhabitant of Rome. It was not likely, therefore, that St. Paul, writing from a distance to Rome, should send them greeting: they probably left Rome when he did, if not before. In like manner, it will be found, that most of the difficulties felt in regarding vv. 3-16 as written at Rome in A.D. 58, are easily removed, if we suppose it to have been written after his first imprisonmeut. The accumulation of names, the endearing epithets, the characteristic descriptions of so many of the Roman Christians, no longer present any difficulties, but are, on the contrary, most natural after the Apostle's long imprisonment, with its many opportunities of gaining converts to the faith, of forming intimate friendships, and of receiving much necessary help and kindness. The warning against false teachers (vv. 17-20) is not merely consistent with this supposition of a later date, but adds much to its probability. For during his imprisonment at Rome St. Paul writes to the Philippians (i. 1517), "Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of love." It is evident that the warning (Rom. xvi. 17-20) is much more natural and forcible, if written after St. Paul had quitted Rome, leaving these false Teachers behind him. If this theory, that Rom. xvi. 3-20 is part of a letter written to Rome after St. Paul's imprisonment there, be accepted as in itself probable, it will help to confirm the tradition of a second imprisonment, and the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles. 1 § 9.1 AUTHORITIES FOR THE TEXT. (1) Uncial Greek Manuscripts. (a) The same as for the Gospels and Acts. Codex Sinaiticus contains the Pauline A. Codex Alexandrinus: wants 2 Cor. iv. 13— xii. 6. B. Codex Vaticanus: Heb. ix. 14-xiii. 25 by a later hand. C. Codex Ephraem Syri : wants the following passages, Rom. ii. 5-iii. 21; ix. 6—x. 15; xi 31— xiii. 10. For references in the notes to § 9 for discussions on "The Law," and "The Flesh," see Appendix to this Introduction. 1 Cor. vii. 18-ix. 6; xiii. 8—xv. 40. Eph. i. 1-ii. 18; iv. 17-Phil. i. 22. I Thess. ii. 9-2 Thess. iii. 18. 1 Tim. i. 1-iii. 9; v. 20-vi. 21. For notices of these famous Uncial MSS. see Scrivener, 'Introduction to the Criticism of the N. T.' 2nd ed., pp. 83-109, Tischendorf, 7th ed., Prolegomena cxxxv.-cli., and 'N. T. Graece, ex Sin. Cod.,' 1865. Compare also the Introduction to St. John's Gospel, pp. lxxxix.-xciv., and the Introduction to Acts, pp. 345, 346. (b) The following MSS. are not the same as those which are known by the same letters in the Gospels. D. Codex Claromontanus, a very important MS. of the 6th century, Greek and Latin. It contains St. Paul's Epistles entire, except Rom. i. 1-7; also in Rom. i. 24-27 the Latin only, in Rom. i. 27-30 both Greek and Latin, and in 1 Cor. xiv. 13-22 the Greek only are supplied by later hands. See Scrivener, p. 151, Tischendorf (7th ed.), p. clxxxi. E. Codex Sangermanensis, a mere transcript of D, made by some ignorant scribe: "the Greek is manifestly worthless, and should long since have been removed from the list of authorities" (Scrivener, p. 153). The Latin (e) is thought to be a little better. F. Codex Augiensis, Greek and Latin, of the 9th century, at Trinity College, Cambridge, edited by Scrivener, 1859. "The Epistles of St. Paul are defective in Rom. i. 1-iii. 19; and the Greek,alone in I Cor. iii. 8-16; vi. 7-14; Col. ii. 1-8; Philem. 21-25." In the Epistle to the Hebrews the Greek is wholly lost. See Scrivener, p. 154; Tisch. (7), p. clxxxv. G. Boernerianus, at Dresden, part of the same volume as ▲ of the Gospels, Codex Sangallensis, of the 9th century. The Greek text of 13 Epistles of St. Paul is from the same source as F, both being probably derived from a stichometrical MS. much older than themselves. The interlinear Latin is the Itala much altered. See Scrivener, p. 157; Tisch. (7), p. clxxxviii. It wants Rom. i. 1-5; ii. 16-26; and in the other Pauline Epistles the same passages which are wanting in F. K. Mosquensis, a MS. of the 9th century, at Moscow, containing the Catholic Epistles entire, and St. Paul's Epistles, except Rom. x. 18, 1 Cor. vi. 13, and 1 Cor. viii. 7-11. Scrivener, p. 149. L. Codex Angelicus, formerly Passionei, of the 9th century, contains Acts (beginning at viii. 10), the Catholic Epistles, St. Paul's, and Hebrews as far as xiii. IO. P. Codex Porfirianus, a palimpsest of the 9th century, edited by Tischendorf in the 5th and 6th volumes of his 'Monumenta Sacra Inedita." It contains Acts, all the Epistles, and the Apocalypse, but is defective in the following among other passages: Rom. ii. 15-iii. 5; viii. 33 ix. II; xi. 22-xii. I. See Scrivener, p. 150. The readings of all the MSS. hitherto mentioned, are quoted by Tischendorf (8), and of all except E, by Tregelles. The letters F, H, I, M, indicate certain ancient and valuable fragments of uncial MSS., of which notices will be found in Scrivener, pp. 154-160. (2) Of Cursive Greek MSS. there are for St. Paul's Epistles, nearly 300: the following are cited by Tregelles throughout his text, and frequently by Tischendorf. 17 (= Evang. 33), on parchment, of the 11th century, at Paris. 37 (Ev. 69), of the 14th century, at Leicester. 47, in the Bodleian, of the 11th century. Tischendorf also names 67* ** as containing remarkable readings, very similar to B. (3) Versions. The most ancient versions, especially the Latin, are of great importance for the criticism of the Greek text, being credible witnesses of its form at a time one or two centuries earlier than the oldest extant MSS. The Old Latin, or Itala (it), dating from the 2nd century, is represented in St. Paul's Epistles chiefly by the Latin versions (d, e, f, g), attached to the Greek Uncials D, E, F, G. Tischendorf also quotes (gue) certain fragments of the 6th century, attached to the Gothic version of the Wolfenbüttel palimpsests (Codex Guelferbytianus), which contain Rom. xi. 33-xii. 5; xii. 17-xiii. 1; xiv. 9-20; xv. 3-13. A few fragments (r), have also been found on the covers of the Frisingen MS. at Munich, containing parts of Rom. xiv., xv., and other passages of St. Paul's Epistles enumerated by Tischendorf (7), Proleg. p. ccxlvi. The Vulgate, or Latin version corrected by Jerome, is best represented by the two following MSS. of the 6th century. Codex Amiatinus (am), edited by Tischendorf, and adopted by Tregelles as the basis of his Latin text, was formerly in the Monastery of Monte Amiatino, but is now at Florence. "It was written about the year 541, by the Abbot Servandus" (Tisch. 8, p. ccxlvii.). Codex Fuldensis (fu), in the Abbey of Fulda, in Hesse Cassel, was written in 546, by order of Victor, Bishop of Capua, and corrected and dated with his own hand. It is remarkable for the peculiar system of capitulation prefixed to the Epistle to the Romans, on which see above, § 8, p. 22. On the Syriac, and other ancient versions used for criticism of the Text, the reader is referred to Tischendorf, Scrivener, or the Introductions to the N. T. by Tregelles, Bleek, and Hilgenfeld. (4) Fathers. Among the Greek Fathers, Origen stands pre-eminent as "the prince of ancient Critics" (Tischendorf). In his Commentary on the Romans, various readings are often expressly discussed, and in such cases his testimony is indisputable. Next to him Tischendorf ranks Clement of Alexandria, and Irenæus: the work of the latter 'Against all Heretics,' is extant for the most part only in a very ancient Latin translation; but an illustration of its great value will be found in our Additional Note on Rom. v. 6. Chrysostom's Homilies on all the Pauline Epistles are often useful to the critic of the text, as well as invaluable to the interpreter. The earliest Latin Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles is that which is found in the works of St. Ambrose, and usually ascribed to Hilary the Deacon (Ambrosiaster), who is supposed to have lived at the close of the 3rd century. On the value of the Fathers as witnesses to the Text, see Tischendorf (7) pp. cclv.-cclxix. 10. CONTENTS AND ARGUMENT. The main Divisions of the Epistle are clearly marked: I. The Introduction, i. 1-15; II. The Doctrine, "The Righteousness of God by Faith," i. 16-viii. .; III. The Doctrine reconciled with Israel's unbelief, ix. xi. ; IV. Exhortation to Christian Duties, general and special, xii. 1—xv. 13; V. Conclusion, xv. 14—xvi. 27. I. THE INTRODUCTION: (a) Address of the Epistle (i. 1-7); (b) The Writer's Motives (8-15). (a) THE INTRODUCTION is marked throughout by an earnest desire to win for himself and for his Gospel the confidence and goodwill of an important Christian community to which as yet he was personally unknown. This motive is seen in the threefold description of the official character which gives him the right to address them, as being Christ's servant, duly called to the Apostleship, and set apart as a chosen vessel to carry a message of glad tidings from God (v. 1). In that message God's promises to His ancient people are fulfilled in Him who was both born of the seed of David to be Israel's Messiah, and proved by the Resurrection to be that Son of God who giveth life unto the world and hath all the Heathen for His inheritance. The Apostle of One who is thus manifested as the Saviour of the world must speak in His name to “all nations," and therefore to those at Rome also who by a Divine calling are already His (vv. 2-6: see above, pp. 12, 13). To all such who are in Rome, whether Jew or Gentile, beloved of God as partakers of His holy calling, Paul the Apostle sends this greeting: "Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ" (v. 7). (b) To make his Apostolic claims the more acceptable St. Paul expresses his personal interest in the welfare of his readers, in thanksgiving for their faith (v. 8), in prayer that he may be permitted to see them (vv. 9-12), and in an assurance that he has long desired and still is eager to fulfil the duty of preaching the Gospel at Rome (vv. 13-15). II. THE DOCTRINE: "THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD BY FAITH:" (a) The Theme (i. 16, 17); (b) The universal need of Righteousness (i. 18-iii. 20); (c) The Universality of Righteousness by Faith (iii. 21-v.); (d) The Sanctification of the Believer (vi.—viii.). (a) THEME OF THE EPISTLE. The mention of the Gospel, which St. Paul would fain have preached at Rome in person, leads naturally to a description of it as the great Theme of his Epistle (vv. 16, 17). In this brief statement of the subject we discern already the leading thoughts and main scope of the treatise which follows. The Gospel is no mere word of man, but (1) a “power of God" directed to man's salvation; a power which can not only do "what the Law could not do” (viii. 3), save from sin, but also create and impart a new life of righteousness. 66 (2) This "power of God unto salvation" is universal in its purpose, being needed and intended for every one; and in this universality "the Jew" is expressly included by name with "the Greek" or Gentile world. The priority assigned to the Jew in the received reading (πpŵτov) does not mean that he is to have a preference and advantage, but only that the salvation long promised to the Fathers is to be offered to him first its condition is the same for him and for the Gentile: God's salvation is (3) for "every one that believeth." This definition of the Gospel as bringing salvation to every believer is confirmed in v. 17, on which see the notes. (b) THE UNIVErsal need of RightEOUSNESS is seen in the unrighteousness of all, first of the Gentile (i. 18-32), and then of the Jew (ii. 1-iii. 20). The foundation which St. Paul lays in this section (i. 18-32) is too broad and deep for an argument intended only to serve some occasional purpose arising out of the peculiar circumstances of the |