ESSAY IV.

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

THOUGH first in the order of the Epistles, the letter to the Romans is not probably the first in time. The Apostle is supposed to have written more than half of his epistles to the churches before this date. But the reasons of its being placed in the forefront were, that it was addressed to the Christians in the chief city of the world, that it was the longest one, and the most important in doctrine and exhortation. So highly, indeed, was it valued in the history of the Church, that it was called the Marrow of Divinity, the Key of the New Testament, the Christian Church's Confession, the Most Divine Epistle of the Most Holy Apostle.

This Epistle was undoubtedly written at Corinth, because Gaius, who is here spoken of as his host (Romans xvi. 23), was baptized by Paul at Corinth (1 Corinthians i. 14), and because Phoebe, who is commended to the Roman church, and was probably the bearer of the letter to Rome, was deaconess of the church of Cenchrea (Romans xvi. 1), the port of Corinth, and a few miles distant from that city. The Apostle also mentions Erastus as the chamberlain of the city (Romans xvi. 23; compare 2 Timothy iv. 20), and Corinth was a city of high rank, and the capital of Achaia.

The Apostle made two separate visits at Corinth, the first of about a year and a half in duration (Acts xviii. 1, 11), and the second of about three months (Acts xx. 2, 3). By as accurate a comparison of the dates of his journeys as can well be made at the present day, in the absence of a specific

chronology, Paul is conjectured to have written the Epistle to the Romans about the year 58 of our Lord.

There is no valid ground for the belief of the Roman Catholics, that the church at Rome was founded by the Apostle Peter, or for the inference from it, that, because Christ said to Peter, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," and "Upon this rock I will build my Church," therefore the Church of Rome is entitled to hold supremacy over the other churches of the world, which may be far superior to her. For where Peter is spoken of in Eusebius, as the founder of the church, it is conjointly with Paul, and the probability is, that in both cases it is to be understood of the subsequent establishment and enlargement of the Church rather than of the original foundation.

Who was the real founder of the church at Rome, is a question to which no confident answer can now be given. "The strangers of Rome," spoken of in Acts ii. 10, may have carried the knowledge of Jesus to the capital of the world. The Christian brethren and sisters spoken of so affectionately by Paul (Romans xvi. 3-16) were no doubt actively engaged in promoting the cause of Christianity, if they were not the prime movers. But that the Church of Rome was not originally founded by an Apostle is strongly to be inferred from Romans xv. 20-22, where Paul expressly lays it down as one of the fixed principles upon which he proceeded in his apostolic labors and missions, not to interfere with another man's work, or build on another man's foundation.

The genuineness of this Epistle as the writing of the Apostle Paul rests upon the following testimonies. It purports to be his work, and has his name attached to it. The voice of antiquity, both historical and traditional, pronounces Paul as the author. Then the internal evidences

are

numerous and conclusive that he wrote the Epistle.

The style, cast of thought, moral characteristics, all belong to him. The undesigned coincidences between the history of Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, and the allusions in the Epistle, have been developed in a very convincing argument by Paley, in his Hora Paulinæ. The authorship of the Epistle has never been seriously questioned.

It is difficult now to reënter into that world of physical, intellectual, social, political, and religious relations in which Paul was living, and from which he wrote this Epistle. But warm-hearted as he was, he naturally contracted, chameleon-like, the color of the circumstances around him, and while he was faithful to the lofty landmarks of Christianity, he taught the new religion with adaptation to the men of that period. He doubtless learned from Priscilla and Aquila (Romans xvi. 3) the state of things in the imperial city, and having an opportunity, in an age when there were no mails or telegraphs, to send a letter to Rome by Phebe, he writes the following Epistle. As he was soon to take another journey to Jerusalem, to carry the contributions of the churches to relieve the poor disciples there, and expose himself to great danger, he may be supposed to write under a quickened sense of responsibility, and with the utmost anxiety to guard the Roman church from the heresies which were creeping in.

If we divide the Epistles into three classes, the Doctrinal, the Ecclesiastical, and the Pastoral, we shall place the Epistle to the Romans in the first division.

We find in it, indeed, no new doctrines, no positive additions to the Gospels, except in the way of argument, illustration, and application. But Paul had a twofold problem, requiring great delicacy, address, pith, and eloquence to solve; namely, to wean the Gentile part of the Church from their fondness for the Grecian philosophy, and to withdraw them from their Pagan practices; and also to lead the Jew

ish converts to conform to the faith and obedience of the Gospel, instead of the laws of Moses. We are prone to forget in what a crude and formative state were these early churches, how lately they had been converted from old creeds and customs, how truly they were babes in Christ, and needed the sincere, pure milk of the Word. We are, therefore, under an illusion when we look back to the primitive Church as the golden age of Christianity. We learn enough from the New Testament, and still more from the early church histories, to convince us that abominable customs and monstrous heresies were found at an early day in the churches founded by the Apostles themselves. (1 Corinthians v. 1; vi. 5, 6, 18; xi. 21; xv. 12; Ephesians v. 18; 1 John iv. 2-4; Revelation ii. 6, 15.) The real golden age of Christianity is buried in a remote future, not in a traditional past.

It has sometimes been asserted that Paul raised as many questions as he laid, that his writings are the debatable land of theology, and the grand armory of the theological warfare, from which every combatant may pick out the weapon that pleases him best. But it is plain that Christianity came to arouse dormant human nature, and it is but natural that the first exhibitions of its activity should be somewhat irregular. Jesus said, he came to bring, not peace, but a sword. Discussion, argument, controversy, are inseparable concomitants to the progress of truth. We may deprecate justly the angry jars of the conflict, but we cannot help being gratified with the victories of truth, and hailing its champions as among the most illustrious benefactors of mankind. Paul has indeed awakened much controversy, but it has resulted from misinterpretation of his writings, from preconceived theories, and stubborn prejudices, and philosophy, falsely so called, and we cannot but rejoice to see these slowly yielding the field to the mighty prevalence

of truth. "The Conflict of Ages" has not been in vain, and the Apostle, though quoted too long on the wrong side of the question, is truly the Achilles of the host. He was the sublime vindicator of spiritual freedom in his day, and he is the legitimate father and forerunner of Luther, who has led the way to civil and religious independence in our age. Paul and Luther have many spiritual features alike, but not less did the mission they came to perform in ages wide apart bear a kindred resemblance.

The single key, in few words, we conceive, which will unlock the Epistles of Paul to the Romans and the Galatians, is not, as has been stated, "justification by faith," as if the great question were, how a man is judged or estimated on the side of God, but "righteousness by faith," faithrighteousness, or how a man really is in his own character, on the side of himself. The Apostle shows conclusively, that neither Grecian wisdom nor Hebrew law could be trusted as adequate to produce this superior, spiritual faithrighteousness; that, in fact, they had both been tried, and found wanting, but that religion of Jesus was chartered, treasured, and energized with powers adequate to achieve the grand result. It was the wisdom of God, and the power of God unto salvation.

To meet the successive points of this high argument, and vindicate for so lowly an instrument as the Gospel of the Crucified One an entire right to lead the most civilized nations, to command Greece, Rome, or whatever else was most refined or powerful in the ancient world, nay, to take the children of Revelation themselves under its tutelage, and to fulfil the faith of Abraham, the Law of Moses, the hope of David and Isaiah, was the programme of these Epistles. For we can understand that the righteousness, which was based upon knowledge, philosophy, wisdom, and thus connected only with things seen and temporal, the Grecian