this epistle on the subject; and from no mention being made of the fact in any of the letters written from Rome by Paul during his imprisonment. The tradition that Peter ever was at. Rome rests on very uncertain authority. It is first mentioned by Dionysius of Corinth in the latter half of the second century, and from that time it seems to have been generally received. The account is in itself improbable, as Peter's field of labour was in the east, about Babylon; and as the statement of Dionysius is full of inaccuracies. He makes Peter and Paul the founders of the church at Corinth, and makes the same assertion regarding the church at Rome, neither of which is true. He also says that Paul and Peter suffered martyrdom at the same time at Rome, which, from the silence of Paul respecting Peter during his last imprisonment, is in the highest degree improbable.* History, therefore, has left us ignorant of the time when this church was founded, and the persons by whom the work was effected.

The condition of the congregation may be inferred from the circumstances already mentioned, and from the drift of the apostle's letter. As the Jews and proselytes were very numerous at Rome, the early converts, as might be expected, were. from both these classes. The latter, however, seem greatly to have predominated, because we find no such evidence of a tendency to Judaism, as is supposed in the Epistle to the Galatians. Paul no where seems to apprehend that the church at Rome would apostatize as the Galatian Christians had already done. And in chapters 14 and 15, his exhortations imply that the Gentile party were more in danger of oppressing the Jewish, than the reverse. Paul, therefore, writes to them as Gentiles (ch. 1: 13), and claims, in virtue of his office as apostle of the Gentiles, the right to address them with all freedom and authority (15: 16). The congregation, however, was not composed exclusively of this class; many converts, originally Jews, were included in their numbers, and those belonging to the other class were more or less under the influence of Jewish opinions. The apostle, therefore, in this, as in all his other epistles addressed to congregations similarly situated, refutes those doctrines of the Jews which were inconsistent with the gospel,

• See Eichhorn's Einleitung, Vol. 3, p. 203, and Neander's Geschichte der Pflanzung, &c. p. 456.

and answers those objections, which they and those under their influence were accustomed to urge against it. These different elements of the early churches were almost always in conflict, both as to points of doctrine and discipline. The Jews insisted, to a greater or less extent, on their peculiar privileges and customs, and the Gentiles disregarded, and at times despised the scruples and prejudices of their weaker brethren. The opinions. of the Jews particularly controverted in this epistle are, 1. That connexion with Abraham by natural descent and by the bond of circumcision, together with the observance of the law, is sufficient to secure the favour of God. 2. That the blessings of the Messiah's reign were to be confined to Jews and those who would consent to become proselytes. 3. That subjection to heathen magistrates was inconsistent with the dignity of the people of God, and with their duty to the Messiah as king. There are clear indications in other parts of scripture, as well as in their own writings, that the Jews placed their chief dependence upon the covenant of God with Abraham, and the peculiar rites and ordinances connected with it. Our Saviour, when speaking to the Jews, tells them, "Say not, we have Abraham to our father; for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham," (Luke 3: 8). It is clearly implied in this passage, that the Jews supposed, that to have Abraham as their father was sufficient to secure the favour of God. The Rabbins taught that God had promised Abraham that his descendants, though wicked, should be saved on account of his merit. Justin Martyr mentions this as the ground of confidence of the Jews in his day. "Your Rabbins,” he says, "deceive themselves and us in supposing that the kingdom of heaven is prepared for all those who are the natural seed of Abraham, even though they be sinners and unbelievers." (Dialogue with Trypho.) They were accustomed to say, "Great is the virtue of circumcision; no circumcised person enters hell." And one of their standing maxims was, "All Israel hath part in eternal life."*

The second leading error of the Jews was a natural result of

* See Raymundi Martini Pugio Fidei, P. III. Disc. 3, c. 16. Pococke's Miscellanea, p. 172, 227. Witsii Miscellanea, P. II. p. 553. Michaelis Introduction to the N. T. vol. 3, p. 93.

the one just referred to. If salvation was secured by connexion with Abraham, then none who were not united to their great ancestor could be saved. There is no opinion of the Jews more conspicuous in the sacred writings, than that they were greatly superior to the Gentiles, that the theocracy and all its blessings belonged to them, and that others could attain even an inferior station in the kingdom of the Messiah only by becoming Jews.

The indisposition of the Jews to submit to heathen magistrates arose partly from their high ideas of their own dignity, and their contempt for other nations, partly from their erroneous opinions of the nature of the Messiah's kingdom, and partly, no doubt, from the peculiar hardships and oppressions to which they were exposed. The prevalence of this indisposition among them is proved by its being a matter of discussion whether it was even lawful to pay tribute to Caesar; by their assertion that, as Abraham's seed, they were never in bondage to any man; and by their constant tumults and rebellions, which led first to their banishment from Rome, and, finally, to the utter destruction of their city. The circumstances of the church at Rome, composed of both Jewish and Gentile converts; surrounded by Jews who still insisted on the necessity of circumcision, of legal obedience, and of connexion with the family of Abraham in order to salvation; and disposed on many points to differ among themselves, sufficiently account for the character of this epistle.

Time and place of its composition.

There are no sufficient data for fixing accurately and certainly the chronology of the life and writings of the apostle Paul. It is, therefore, in most cases, only by a comparison of various circumstances that an approximation to the date of the principal events of his life can be made. With regard to this epistle, it is plain, from its contents, that it was written just as Paul was about to set out on his last journey to Jerusalem. In the 15th chapter he says, that the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia had made a collection for the poor saints in Jerusalem, and that he was on the eve of his departure for that city (v. 25). This same journey is mentioned in Acts 20, and occurred most probably in the spring (see Acts 20: 16) of the year 58 or 59.

This date best suits the account of his long imprisonment, first at Cesarea and then at Rome, of four years, and his probable liberation in 62 or 63. His subsequent labours and second imprisonment would fill up the intervening period of two or three years to the date of his martyrdom, towards the close of the reign of Nero. That this epistle was written from Corinth appears from the special recommendation of Phebe, a deaconess of the neighbouring church, who was probably the bearer of the letter (ch. 16: 1); from the salutations of Erastus and Gaius, both residents of Corinth, to the Romans (ch. 16: 23); compare 2 Tim. 4: 20, and 1 Cor. 1: 14; and from the account given in Acts 20: 2, 3, of Paul's journey through Macedonia into Greece, before his departure for Jerusalem, for the purpose of carrying the contributions of the churches for the poor in that city.

Authenticity of the Epistle.

That this epistle was written by the apostle Paul, admits of no reasonable doubt. 1. It, in the first place, purports to be his. It bears his signature, and speaks throughout in his name. 2. It has uniformly been recognised as his. From the apostolic age to the present time, it has been referred to and quoted by a regular series of authors, and recognised as of divine authority in all the churches. It would be requisite, in order to disprove its authenticity, to account satisfactorily for these facts, on the supposition of the epistle being spurious. The passages in the early writers, in which this epistle is alluded to or cited, are very numerous, and may be seen in Lardner's Credibility, Vol. II. 3. The internal evidence is no less decisive in its favour. (a) In the first place, it is evidently the production of a Jew, familiar with the Hebrew text and the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, because the language and style are such as no one, not thus circumstanced, could adopt; and because the whole letter evinces such an intimate acquaintance with Jewish opinions and prejudices. (b) It agrees perfectly in style and manner with the other epistles of this apostle. (c) It is, in the truth and importance of its doctrines and in the elevation and purity of its sentiments, immeasurably superior to any uninspired production of the age in which it appeared. A comparison of the genuine apostolic writings with the spurious productions of the

first and second centuries, affords one of the strongest collateral evidences of the authenticity and inspiration of the former. (d) The incidental or undesigned coincidences, as to matters of fact, between this epistle and other parts of the New Testament, are such as to afford the clearest evidence of its having proceeded from the pen of the apostle. Compare Rom. 15: 25-31, with Acts 20: 2, 3. 24: 17. 1 Cor. 16: 1-4. 2 Cor. 8: 1-4. 9: 2. Rom. 16: 21-23 with Acts 20: 4. Rom. 16: 3, et seqq. with Acts 18: 2, 18-26. 1 Cor. 16: 19, &c. (see Paley's Horae Paulinae). 4. Besides these positive proofs, there is the important negative consideration, that there are no grounds for questioning its authenticity. There are no discrepances between this and other sacred writings; no counter testimony among the early fathers; no historical or critical difficulties which must be solved before it can be recognised as the work of Paul. There is, therefore, no book in the bible, and there is no ancient book in the world, of which the authenticity is more certain than that of this epistle.

Analysis of the Epistle.

The epistle consists of three parts. The first which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of the doctrine of justification and its consequences. The second, embracing chapters 9, 10, 11, treats of the calling of the Gentiles, the rejection and future conversion of the Jews. The third consists of practical exhortations, and salutations to the Christians at Rome.

THE FIRST PART the apostle commences by saluting the Roman Christians, commending them for their faith, and expressing his desire to see them, and his readiness to preach the gospel at Rome. This readiness was founded on the conviction that the gospel revealed the only method by which men can be saved, viz. by faith in Jesus Christ, and this method is equally applicable to all mankind, Gentiles as well as Jews, ch. 1:1-17. Paul thus introduces the two leading topics of the epistle.

In order to establish his doctrine respecting justification, he first proves that the Gentiles cannot be justified by their own works, ch. 1: 18-39; and then establishes the same position in reference to the Jews, ch. 2. 3: 1-20. Having thus shown