St. Paul had before his mind all the chief elements of this mixed community of Christians, as well as the unconverted Jews and heathens among whom they lived.

There were Jews of the Synagogue to whom the Gospel had not yet been preached, or by whom it had been long since rejected, and who appear three years later to have been still wrapped up in contemptuous ignorance of "this sect," which "is everywhere spoken against" (Acts xxviii. 22). As in St. Luke's narrative the Apostle's first care within three days after his arrival in Rome is to call "the chief of the Jews together," and to expound unto them "the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus:" so in the Epistle he writes (i. 16), "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation t every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek."

Again when he writes, "Oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles: I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians" (i. 13, 14), it is clear that he hopes to preach the Gospel to Gentiles at Rome who had not yet heard it.

Within the Christian community itself there were many various sections: Jews of Palestine, some of whom, like Andronicus and Junias, Paul's kinsmen and fellow-prisoners, were of note among the Apostles in Jerusalem, and were also in Christ before Paul himself (xvi. 7): Jews of the Dispersion, like Aquila of Pontus and his wife Priscilla, Paul's chosen disciples and devoted friends: proselytes of Rome, now turned to Christ: Gentile Christians, of whom some, like the wellbeloved Epænetus the first-fruits of Asia unto Christ (xvi. 5) had been St. Paul's own converts; others, like Amplias, Urban, Stachys, his helpers in Christ or friends beloved in the Lord; others again unknown by face, whom yet he salutes by name as "chosen in the Lord," or approved in Christ," while of the great majority he only knew that their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world.

§ 6. OCCASION OF WRITING. Dean Alford has justly observed that in answering the question, with what object was the Epistle written? critics have not sufficiently borne in mind that "the occasion of writing an Epistle is one thing, the great object of the Epistle itself, another."

The distinction is in the present case most appropriate, for while the determination of the main object of the Epistle is one of the most disputed problems of modern criticism, the immediate occasion of writing is clearly stated by the Apostle himself. He had heard the faith of the Roman Christians everywhere spoken of (i. 8), and for many years had felt a longing desire to visit them (i. 11; xv. 23): he had often definitely purposed to do so (i. 13), and had been as often (rà Toλá, xv. 22) hindered.

A year before, when at Ephesus, he had purposed in the Spirit to go through Macedonia and Achaia, and thence to Jerusalem (Acts xix. 21), “saying, After I have been there, I must also see Rome." He had completed that portion of his journey which brought him nearest to Rome, and was now turning back from Corinth to the far East, going bound in the Spirit to Jerusalem, and already foreseeing that danger awaited him there from the unbelieving Jews (xv. 31).

He still longs and hopes to see Rome (i. 10), but already he is looking beyond it to the distant West: Rome is to be, as he hopes, a resting-place for brief sojourn on his way to Spain (xv. 24, 28).

The cause of this change or extension of his plan is not stated, but it probably sprang from the great conflict of the past year against Jews and Judaizing Christians, the records of which are his Epistles to the Corinthians and Galatians. Hitherto he had preached the Gospel everywhere to the Jews first, but their general rejection of it was now an established fact (ix. I; x. 3), over which he mourned, but in which he saw an intimation of God's will that he should now devote himself more exclusively to his own sphere of Apostolic labour, and go far off unto the Gentiles.

His visit to Jerusalem with the alms of the Gentiles might be perhaps intended as a farewell token of his love (Gal. ii. 10). A considerable time must elapse before he could reach Rome, and then his stay must be short: an Epistle would be useful for the present needs of the brethren there, and by preparing the way for his personal ministration would render his short sojourn more profitable. Phoebe, a servant or deaconess of the Church in Cenchreæ, had business to transact in Rome (xvi. 1), and to her charge the Epistle would naturally be entrusted.

7. THE PURPOSE OF THE EPISTLE. In comparing the Epistle to the Romans with the Epistles addressed by St. Paul to other Churches, we perceive at once that it is distinguished from them all as containing a more general and systematic statement of Christian doctrine. It is quite natural that this most striking peculiarity should have been the first object of attention to any who were seeking to discover the chief aim and purpose of the writing.

In the Muratorian Fragment, which contains the earliest extant catalogue of the books of the New Testament, written about 170 A.D., the author thus describes the four greater Epistles of St. Paul: "First of all he wrote to the Corinthians forbidding party schism, next to the Galatians forbidding circumcision; but to the Romans he wrote at greater length concerning the plan of the Scriptures, showing at the same time that their foundation is Christ." (See Hilgenfeld, Einleitung in d. N. T.,' pp. 88-107; Routh, Rell. Sacr.'i. 394 sqq.; and Westcott on the Canon of the New Testament, p. 241.)

We observe that this earliest of Critics, while assigning to the Corinthian and Galatian letters special motives arising out of the particular circumstances of those Churches, attributes none but a perfectly general didactic purpose to the Epistle to the Romans.

Origen, in the preface to his Commentary, notices the difficulty of the Epistle, its indications of St. Paul's

progress towards Christian perfection, and the time and place of writing; but not the purpose.

Chrysostom observes that St. Paul wrote to different Churches from different motives and on different subjects, and finds the motive of this Epistle in his desire' to embrace the whole world in his ministry and to instruct the Romans, "because saith he, of the grace that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister of Jesus Christ" (xv. 15).

Theodoret says that "the inspired Apostle offers in this letter varied doctrine of all kinds."

Ecumenius, after noticing the personal introduction (i. 1-15), says "for the rest he makes his Epistle didactic."

Luther says in his Preface to the Epistle, that it contains in itself the plan of the whole Scripture, and is a most complete epitome of the New Testament or Gospel, which Gospel it exhibits in the briefest and clearest manner."

Calvin writes: "The whole Epistle is so systematic, that even the exordium itself is composed according to the rules of art." He then gives an outline of the contents, in which he regards "justification by faith as the principal question of the whole Epistle," and the destiny of Israel (ix.—xi.) as a subordinate subject.

The Epistle is described in like manner by Melanchthon as a compendium of Christian doctrine," and by Grotius as "addressed specially to the Romans, but containing all the defences (munimenta) of the Christian religion, in such wise that it well deserved that copies should be sent to other Churches."

Reiche in his Commentary on the Epistle, p. 84, abides "by the view that the Epistle to the Romans is to be regarded according to its material aim as a universal, popular representation, adapted to the time, of the necessity, glory, and divine excellence of the Christian method of salvation, with reference to manifold objections especially of the old Theocracy, combined with a brief exhibition of genuine Christian feeling and conduct; but that its formal aim must be held to be

establishment in Christian faith and Christian virtue."

Tholuck also, in his earlier editions, regards the design of the Epistle as "universal and not founded on the peculiar circumstances of the Roman Church."

St. Paul, he thinks, undertakes an exposition of the entire scheme projected by the Divine Being for the salvation of mankind according as it is revealed to us in the Gospel; and afterwards, as an appendage to this, which is the larger portion of the letter, proceeds to the peculiar circumstances of the Church, so far as they were known to him.

Some of these statements are evidently exaggerated; but we must not on that account reject the truth which they contain. The Epistle does not "contain in itself a plan of the whole Scripture," nor is it "a complete epitome of the Gospel"; for there are whole provinces of revealed truth on which it scarcely touches. The range of its dogmatic teaching is rightly indicated in Melanchthon's question: "Is it not in reality on the Law, on Sin, and on Grace, that the knowledge of Christ depends?" And when Tholuck writes that St. Paul" wished to show how the Gospel, and the Gospel alone, fully answers to the soul's need of Salvation, a need which neither Paganism nor Judaism could satisfy," we can accept this representation as true in itself, but not as a complete or sufficient account of the whole purpose of the Epistle. It is, as all must admit, more didactic, methodical, and universal in its teaching than most of St. Paul's Epistles; and no statement of its purpose can be satisfactory which does not give full importance to this characteristic feature. Baur himself regards the Epistle "as a systematic work, dealing with a massive body of thought," and contrasts it with the Epistle to the Galatians, "the one being the first sketch of a bold and profound system as conceived in its characteristic and essential features, the other the completed system, developed on all sides, and provided with all necessary arguments and illustrations." ('Paul,' i. 309).

But this dogmatic system is not the only element that must be taken into consideration. What lies before us is not a manual of Christian doctrine nor a theological treatise, but a letter; and it is of the very essence of a letter that it arises out of special relations between the writer and his readers, by which its purpose is in great measure determined. In regard to this Epistle it has been too lightly assumed that a special motive is inconsistent with a general didactic purpose.

"The question," writes M. Godet, "stands thus: If we assign a special practical aim to the Epistle, we put ourselves, as it seems, in contradiction to the very general and quasi-systematic character of its contents. If on the contrary we ascribe to it a didactic and wholly general aim, it differs thereby from the other letters of St. Paul, all of which spring from some particular occasion, and have a definite aim." (i. p. 80).

We cannot regard this as a correct statement of the case: the supposed dilemma is purely fictitious. There is no necessary or natural opposition between a more general and a more special purpose: the two become opposed only when it is arbitrarily assumed that either of them is the complete and exclusive purpose; and to suggest an opposition which has no real existence is only to create an imaginary difficulty for the sake of refuting it.

The real difficulty lies not in the co-existence of a general and a special purpose, but in determining the exact nature of each, their respective limits and mutual relations.

We pass on then to consider the views of other interpreters who have endeavoured to discover the special circumstances which influenced the Apostle in writing this Epistle, in other words to determine its historical origin and purpose. We have seen already in

5 that the Christians at Rome must have formed a community of diverse elements drawn from various nations and creeds, in which we may well believe that every variety of Christian thought and feeling found a place. We have

also seen that in comparison with St. Paul's other letters "the great character of the Epistle is its universality" (Bishop Wordsworth).

But this very character of universality, both in the letter and in the Community to which it is addressed, makes it more than usually difficult to determine the mutual relations of the different classes of Christians at Rome, and the special motive and purpose of the letter.

Another circumstance which adds to this difficulty is that St. Paul had not yet been at Rome, and consequently we have none of those life-like pictures and graphic strokes which set so vividly before our eyes the inner life of those Churches to which his earlier Epistles were addressed, Thessalonica, Corinth, and Galatia.

In such circumstances speculation has free scope, and theories are more easily formed than refuted. By exaggerating some features and disregarding others, it is easy to give an air of plausibility to very different views of the prevailing tendencies of thought and practice in the Christian Community at Rome, and of the corresponding purpose of the Epistle.

There is however one historical circumstance to which a primary importance is almost universally conceded. The great religious difficulty of the time was unquestionably “the relation of Judaism and Heathenism to each other, and of both to Christianity" (Baur, Paulus' i. 316), and more especially the fact that contrary, as it seemed, to God's promises, His chosen people were superseded by Gentiles (p. 317). No one can read the sections i. 18-iv. and ix.-xi., without perceiving that they have this as their common subject, treated in different ways. Olshausen, of whom Baur speaks as exhibiting "the extreme point of the purely dogmatic view" (p. 312) finds in the Epistle to the Romans a purely objective statement of the nature of the Gospel, "grounded only on the general opposition between Jews and Gentiles, and not on a more special opposition in the Church itself between Judaizing and non-Judaizing Christians " ('Commentary,' p. 47).

This view, which is very similar to De Wette's, seems to err in insisting that the general question of the opposite relations of Jew and Gentile to the Gospel is the only historical ground of the Epistle, and in allowing even to this too little influence upon its main purpose.

Baur, by whom their views are keenly criticised, puts forward an entirely dif ferent theory, in support of which he is obliged "to advance a view of the occasion and purpose of writing the Epistle, which is radically different from the common one" ('Paul,' i. 310).

Although Baur's theory has not been accepted even by his own followers without great and essential modifications, it has formed the starting point of nearly all subsequent treatment of the subject, and must therefore be at least briefly examined.

(1) The three chapters ix.-xi. are "the germ and centre of the whole, from which the other parts sprang; and we should take our stand on these three chapters in order to enter into the Apostle's original conception, from which the whole organism of the Epistle was developed, as we have it especially in the first eight chapters. For this purpose we have first to examine the contents of chapters ix.-xi.”

This assumption is by no means selfevident. At first sight it would appear at least more probable that to trace out the Apostle's line of thought correctly we should follow the order in which he has himself presented it and if, in order to understand his discussion in i. 17—viii. 39, any indication of the occasion and purpose of his writing is necessary, it must certainly be right to seek that preliminary indication in i. 8-16, rather than in ix.—xi.

It is obvious also that by this mode of interpretation Baur, the professed champion of historical criticism, has justly incurred the charge brought against him by Schott (p. 4), that he has entirely ignored the historical method, and constructed the history out of his own dogmatic interpretation.

(2) The contents of ix.-xi. having been briefly and fairly stated, Baur rightly

concludes that the subject treated by the Apostle "is both the relation of Judaism and heathenism to each other, and the relation of both to Christianity" (p. 316). He adds, "It certainly appears that he cannot have devoted so large a part of his Epistle to answering this question without some special outward reason prompting him to do so, such as may have arisen out of the circumstances of the Church at Rome."

The words which we have emphasized mark, as we believe, the prime fallacy of Baur's theory. He confuses the occasion of the letter with its main object: he seeks a special and local cause, when a general one is needed: he fails to distinguish a reason for addressing the letter to Rome, from the reason for writing a full and systematic discussion of a great question by which the whole Christian Church was at that time agitated, and which was and ever must be of the deepest interest to all Christians alike.

(3) The error in principle, which we have just noticed, leads to an ill-founded and, as we believe, mistaken view of the actual condition and circumstances of the Christian Community at Rome.

"I think," he writes (i. 331), "we are entitled to take it for granted that the section of the Roman Church to which the Epistle is addressed must have been the preponderating element in the Church; and if this be so, then the Church consisted mainly of Jewish Christians."

This being a point of chief importance not only in estimating Baur's theory, but in forming any correct view of the purpose of the Epistle, we must briefly examine the evidence which bears upon it.

In i. 2, 3 Baur thinks that "Old Testament ideas are studiously introduced, which show that the Apostle had JewishChristian readers in his eye when he addressed himself to the composition of the Epistle."

That a portion of St. Paul's readers were Jewish Christians is admitted by all on much surer evidence than is contained in these verses: but if the introduction of Old Testament ideas is

supposed to prove that the Jewish Christians were the preponderating element, it might as well be argued, on the same ground, that the Churches of Corinth and Galatia must have consisted mainly of Jewish Christians.

The meaning of the passage i. 5, 6 (ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν, ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ) is keenly discussed.

It is claimed on the one side as proving decisively that the majority of the readers addressed were Jewish Christians.

"In respect of the Jewish Christians, he speaks of the universality of his calling; it extended to all nations alike, and the Jewish Christians of Rome were not beyond its scope. In order to meet the objection that he was an Apostle of the Gentiles and had nothing to do with Jewish Christians, he speaks of the Jews as one people under the general term of the Ovn (the nations). He shows his credentials with regard to the Jewish Christians, to justify the Epistle which he is going to write" (Baur, 'Paul,' i. p. 333).

Volkmar (Paulus Römerbrief,' p. 141) supports the same view :

66

1-14. I seem indeed to be merely a Gentile-Apostle, but through the Christ have I been called to bring nonGentile Christians (Messianer) also to the religious obedience which consists in faith in Christ, and thereby to help towards the establishment of peace even in a Church which is a stranger to peace."

This view, untenable as it really is, has unfortunately been attacked on the wrong points.

The rendering "among all nations," which is that of our A.V., is not only admissible, but in this context even preferable to that which is proposed instead of it," among all the Gentiles." See the note on the passage. Those who, like M. Godet, would affix to the words "a definite, restricted, and quasitechnical sense, the nations in opposition to the chosen people," seem to forget that they themselves acknowledge that there were some Jewish Christians among the readers addressed. Which meaning then