It is not strange, moreover, that some of these should become σeßópeval or proselytes; as Josephus relates of Fulvia μία τῶν ἐν ἀξιώματι γυναικών, i. e. a noble-woman. By degrees the men also, as was natural, began to frequent the assemblies of these once despised foreigners. Juvenal, at the close of the first century, pours out his contempt and indignation at this, in the following bitter words :

"Quidam sortiti metuentem Sabbata patrem,

Nil præter nubes, et cœli Numen adorant;
Nec distare putant humanâ carne suillam,
Quâ pater abstinuit: mox et præputia ponunt;
Romanas autem soliti contemnere leges,

Judaicum ediscunt, et servant, ac metuunt jus.

Tradidit arcano quodcunque volumine Moses."

I suppose the poet must here refer, however, to those who had a Roman mother and a Jewish father. In regard to Nil præter nubes et cœli numen adorant,' I take it to refer to the fact, that the Jews had no temple at Rome, and that they addressed and worshipped God as dwelling in heaven, i. e. above the clouds; in both which respects they differed from the heathen.

Seneca also, (fl. a. D. 64), about the time when Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, says, in a fragment preserved by Augustine (De Civit. Dei, VII. 11), that "so many Romans had received the Jewish [he means by this the Christian] religion, that per omnes jam terras recepta sit, victi victoribus leges dederunt." Tacitus, in his Annals, likewise represents the "exitiabilis superstitio" (Christian religion) as breaking out again after being repressed, and spreading non modo per Judæam, sed per urbem [Romam] etiam.

When to these testimonies respecting the Jews at Rome, we add that of the epistle before us respecting Gentile converts, no doubt can be left that the church at Rome was made up of Gentiles as well as Jews. Let the reader compare Rom. i. 16—32. ii. 6—11. iii. 9—19, 29. ix. 24, 30. xi. 13–25. xiv. 1—xv. 13, and no doubt can possibly remain in his mind relative to this point. The general strain of the whole epistle is such, as that it can best be accounted for by the supposition that the church at Rome consisted of both Jews and Gentiles, and that each party were endeavouring to propagate or to defend the peculiar views respecting certain points, which they respectively entertained. But of this, more in the sequel.

§ 3. Of the time and place, when and where the epistle was written.

We have a kind of stand-point here, with which the epistle itself furnishes us. It could not have been written before the decree of the emperor Claudius was published, by which the Jews were banished from the city of Rome. In Acts xviii. 2, we have an account of Paul's first acquaintance with Aquila and Priscilla, who had recently quitted Rome and come to Corinth, because of the decree of Claudius banishing the Jews from the imperial city. Now as Paul salutes these same persons, in Rom. xvi. 3, 4, and speaks of them as having risked great dangers in his behalf, it follows, of course, that his epistle must

have been written subsequent to the decree of Claudius; which was probably in A. D. 52, or as some say (improbably however) in a. D. 54.

It must probably have been written after the time when the first epistle to the Corinthians was written, which was during the last visit Paul made to Ephesus, and near the close of that visit, i. e. about a. D. 56. In Acts xviii. 19, we are told that Paul left Aquila and Priscilla at Ephesus. After this he made another circuit through the churches of Palestine, Syria, and Asia Minor, (Acts xviii. 20—23), and returned again to Ephesus, xix. 1. There he spent two years or more (xix. 8—10); and near the close of this period, in writing to the Corinthians, he sends the salutation of Aquila and Priscilla who were still at Ephesus, 1 Cor. xvi. 19. Now as Paul sends a salutation, in his epistle to the Romans, to Aquila and Priscilla at Rome, it would seem probable that it must have been written after he left Ephesus, and after they had removed from this city to the metropolis of the Roman empire.

Other circumstances concur, to render the matter still more definite. When Paul wrote his epistle, he was on the eve of departure to Jerusalem, whither he was going to carry the contributions of the churches in Macedonia and Achaia, Rom. xv. 25, 26. When he should have accomplished this, he intended to make them a visit at Rome, Rom. xv. 28, 29. In what part of his life, now, do we find the occurrence of these circumstances? Acts xix. 21, compared with xx. 1—4, gives us a narration of exactly the same thing. Paul, at the close of his last abode at Ephesus, purposing to make a charitable collection in Macedonia and Achaia, first sent on Timothy and Erasmus to Macedonia in order to forward it there, (Acts xix. 22); afterwards he himself went into Achaia, passing through Macedonia, Acts xx. 1, 2. That he came, on this occasion, to the capital of Achaia, i. e. Corinth, there can be no reasonable doubt. Here most probably he abode three months (Acts xx. 3); and then set out on his contemplated journey to Jerusalem, where he was made a prisoner, and sent (A. D. 59 or 60) to Rome, in order to prosecute his appeal to Cesar. From a comparison of this account in the Acts, with Rom. xv. 25-29, it follows of course that the epistle to the Romans must have been written about A. D. 57; although some chronologists put it later. Counting the time which Paul's journey to Jerusalem must have occupied, and adding the two years of his detention as a prisoner at Cesarea (Acts xxiv. 27), and the time necessarily taken up in going to Rome, we must assign to the epistle to the Romans the date above given, on the supposition that Paul came to Rome (as is most probable) about the beginning of the year 60.

As to the PLACE where it was written, there can be no doubt. In xvi. 1, Phebe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea, is commended to the Romish church, who probably either had charge of the epistle, or accompanied those who did carry it; and Cenchrea was the port of the city of Corinth, some seven or eight miles from that place. In xvi. 23, Gaius is spoken of as the host of Paul, and this Gaius was baptized by Paul at Corinth, 1 Cor. i. 14. Paul speaks also of Erastus, the chamberlain of the city, Rom. xvi. 23. The city, then, was a well known one, i. e. the capital of Achaia; and moreover, we find this Erastus spoken of in 2 Tim. iv. 20, as abiding at Corinth.

D

From all these circumstances, we must conclude that the place of writing the epistle to the Romans was Corinth; and that the time was that in which Paul made his last visit there, and near the close of it, i. e. about the latter part of A. D. 57.

§ 4. Of the genuineness of the Epistle.

This has been so generally acknowledged at all times, and in all ages since it was written (excepting the two last chapters which have recently been disputed), that it seems to be unnecessary to make any quotations here from the early writers for the sake of proving it. It is true, indeed, that some early sects, viz. the Ebionites, Encratites, and Cerinthians rejected it; as appears from Irenæus ad Hæres. I. 26. Epiphan. Hæres. XXX. Hieronym. in Matt. xii. 2. But as this seems to have been purely on doctrinal grounds, i. e. because they could not make the sentiments of Paul in this epistle to harmonize with their own views, it follows of course that no weight can be attached to their opinions. The question whether Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, is of a historical, not of a doctrinal nature.

The reader who is curious to see an exhibition of early testimony respecting this epistle, may find it amply detailed in Lardner's Credibility; and in Schmidii Historia et Vindiciæ Canonis Sac. &c. The circumstantial evidence which evinces its genuineness, he will find admirably exhibited in Paley's Horæ Paulinæ.

Those who do not possess the first two of these works, may consult Polycarp, Epist. ad Philipp. cap. 6; Clemens Rom. Ep. ad Cor. cap. 35; both in Cotelerii Patres Apostolici. See also Theoph. ad Autolyc. I. 20. III. 14. Epist. Ecc. Vienn. et Lugd., in Euseb. Hist. Ecc. V. 1. Irenæus cont. Hæres. III. 16. § 3. Clem. Alex. Strom. III. p. 457, and I. p. 117, edit. Sylburg. Tertull. adv. Praxeam, cap. 13; de Corona, cap. 6. Cypr. Ep. LXIX. It is needless to cite later testimonies.

$5. Of the genuineness of chaps. XV. XVI.

The genuineness of these chapters, at least as a part of the proper epistle to the Romans, has been called in question, and is still doubted by some. Heumann has advanced a peculiar hypothesis respecting chap. xvi. He thinks that the proper original epistle of Paul ends with chap. xi., and excludes from it all the hortatory part, i. e. chaps. xii.—xv. Chapter xvi., he supposes, was originally attached to the end of chapter xi.; and that the sequel of the epistle is a kind of postscript or second letter, added by Paul after some delay in transmitting the first letter. This hypothesis, indeed, does not really deny the genuineness of any part of the epistle; but it advances what seems to be very improbable. What could be more natural than for Paul, after he had completed his doctrinal discussions, to caution the church at Rome against various evils to which he knew them to be particularly exposed? Is not this his manner elsewhere? And does not the ovv (chap. xii. 1) necessarily import a connexion between the sequel and the preceding context? In a word, the

whole theory is so gratuitous, that it does not seem to be entitled to any serious contradiction.

Semler, however, has advanced much further than Heumann. In his Dissert. de dupl. appendice ep. Pauli ad Rom., he advances the supposition, 'that chap. xv. was not addressed to the Romans, but to those who had charge of Paul's epistle to them, which consisted of chap. i.—xiv., with the doxology in xvi. 25-27.'

But let any one, now, without any reference to such a hypothesis, sit down and carefully read chap. xv., and I will venture to predict, that he will never once even think of its being addressed to any other persons, than those to whom the preceding part of the epistle is addressed. In particular; how can he help feeling that vs. 1-13 do very closely cohere with chap. xiv., as the opeiroper dé at the beginning indicates? And in the remaining part of the chapter, what is there which is incongruous with the condition and relation of Paul in respect to his readers? Compare vs. 15, 23 with i. 13; and also xv. 28 with Acts xix. 21, the latter of which passages shews the actual condition of Paul, when he wrote the epistle. I am entirely unable to see why Paul should have given personally to the bearers of his letter to the Romans, such hints as chap. xv. contains; nor can I imagine what inducement Semler had to suppose this. But,

Chap. xvi. is more exposed to attack; because it consists of matter in general which is easily dissociated from the rest of the epistle. If the whole of it be omitted, the epistle is still, in all important respects, the same; if it be retained, the matter added consists chiefly in the expression of personal civilities. Moreover, the concluding part of chap. xv. would make a very probable and analogical close of the epistle; in particular if the 'Auv at the close of ver. 33 be retained.

Probably grounds such as these first occasioned doubts concerning the genuineness of this chapter in particular. Semler advances a supposition respecting it, which (I had almost said) none but a man of such visionary phantasies could have advanced. He supposes that all the persons to whom greetings are sent, in vs. 1—16, are those whom the bearers of the epistle expected to visit, on their way to Rome; and of course, that none of these were to be found in Rome itself. Consequently, according to him, this part of the epistle was a mere letter of commendation or introduction, designed for the bearers of the epistle, and not for the church at Rome.

According to this, then, the first stage of the journey of the letter-carriers was only to Cenchrea, some seven or eight miles from Corinth, to the house of Phebe. But the singularity of Paul's recommendation is, that instead of commending them to her hospitality, he commends her to the hospitality of those whom he addresses: συνίστημι δὲ ὑμῖν Φοίβην ... ἵνα αὐτὴν προσδέξησθε, κ.τ.λ. Semler felt the incongruity of this, and referred προσδέξησθε to receiving into communion. Did Phebe then, living within a couple of hours' walk from Corinth, and famous as she was for being a πроσтáris todλŵv (ver. 2), need a written recommendation of Paul, in order that the bearers of his letter might admit her to church communion? But besides this, the word

рoσdéέnode, in such a connexion, does not admit of such a sense. Comp. Phil. ii. 29, and also (as to general meaning) 3 John, ver. 6.

Thus much for the outset of this journey. Nor is the progress more fortunate. Aquila and Priscilla are next recommended to the letter-carriers. But the last which we know of them, before the writing of this letter, is that they are at Ephesus, Acts xviii. 18, 19, 26. But Semler provides them with a house at Corinth; and this, probably, because it would not be very natural for those who were to travel westward toward Rome, to go some hundreds of miles eastward, i. e. to Ephesus, in order to get to the capital of the Roman empire. But how is the matter helped by this process? What have we now? A letter of introduction (so to speak) from Paul, directing his messengers to greet Priscilla and Aquila on their journey, while these same persons lived in the very town from which they started! Hug has well expressed his views of this matter. After speaking of the first stay of Aquila and Priscilla at Corinth (Acts xviii. 2), and of a second at Ephesus (Acts xviii. 18, 19), he thus proceeds: "Whence now this third or Semlerian house at Corinth I know not," Einleit. II. p. 397. ed. 3. But lastly, what are we to do with vs.-17-20, on the ground of Semler? Were the bearers of the letter so divided, as is there described; and was their obedience (vπакоń) so celebrated as is there hinted? Above all, what is to be done with vs. 21-24? Would Paul send written salutations from those who were with him at Corinth, to the bearers of his epistle, who set out from the same place? Did they not confer with Paul himself, and did not his friends as well as himself see and converse with them? And what shall we say to ver. 16, which directs Paul's messengers to salute one another? But enough of this. Let us briefly examine some of the external evidences which Semler adduces, against the genuineness of chap. xvi. (a) 'Marcion, as Origen testifies, excluded chaps xv. xvi. from the epistle.' But according to Ruffin's translation of Origen (the original here is lost), the words of this writer are: "Caput hoc [i. e. xvi. 25-27], Marcion, a quo Scripturæ evangelicæ et apostolicæ interpolata sunt, de hac epistola penitus abstulit; et non solum hoc, sed et ab eo ubi scriptum est: Omne autem quod non ex fide est, peccatum est' [Rom. xiv. 23], usque ad finem totius epistolæ, cuncta dissecuit." From this nothing more can be gathered, than that Marcion wholly omitted the doxology in xvi. 25—27, and separated (dissecuit) chaps. xv. xvi. from the rest of the epistle. There is an evident distinction here, between penitus abstulit and dissecuit. This separation Marcion might make, as others have done, because of the diverse matter contained in these chapters. And even if Marcion omitted the whole, he stands convicted before the world of such notorious falsifications of the sacred writings, that it would weigh nothing.

(6) Euthalius, in his Elenchus capitulorun, leaves out chap. xvi.'

True; but Euthalius, in his Elenchus, mentions only those chapters which were publicly read; and chap. xvi. was usually omitted in the public reading of the epistle. That he did not acknowledge this chapter as a part of the epistle, is altogether improbable; since, in reckoning the orixot of the whole epistle, he includes those of chap. xvi.