to neglect. In pursuing this method, regard is had, first, to the nature and faculties of the soul of man, in which the understanding is to lead the way, and the will, affections, and active powers are to follow; and, secondly, to the nature of religion in general, which is a reasonable service, teaching us that we are not to be determined by superstitious fancies, nor by blind passions, but by a sound judgment, and a good understanding of the mind and will of God; and also showing us the necessary union of faith and practice, of truth and holiness. The pious, affectionate, and faithful manner in which the apostles admonish, reprove, exhort, or offer consolation, can only be adequately appreciated by him, who, by patient and diligent study, is enabled to enter fully into the spirit of the inspired authors. V. Explicit as the Epistles unquestionably are in all fundamental points, it is not to be denied that some parts of them are more difficult to be understood than the Gospels. The reason of these seeming difficulties is evident. In an Epistle many things are omitted, or only slightly mentioned, because they are supposed to be known by the person to whom it is addressed; but, to a person unacquainted with such particulars, they cannot but present considerable difficulty. The affairs discussed by Saint Paul were certainly well known to the persons to whom he wrote; who consequently would easily apprehend his meaning, and see the force and tendency of his discourse. As, however, we who live at this distance of time, can obtain no information concerning the occasion of his writing, or the character and circumstances of the persons for whom his Epistles were intended, except what can be collected from the Epistles themselves, it is not strange that several things in them should appear obscure to us. Further, it is evident from many passages, that he answers letters sent, and questions proposed to him, by his correspondents; which, if they had been preserved, would, have illustrated different passages much better than all the notes of commentators and critics. To these causes of obscurity which are common to all the writers of the Epistles, we may add some that are peculiar to Saint Paul, owing to his style and temper. Possessing an ardent, acute, and fertile mind (as we have seen in the preceding section), he seems to have written with great rapidity, and without closely attending to method. Hence arise those frequent parentheses which occur in his Epistles. In the course of his argument he sometimes breaks off abruptly, in order to pursue a new thought that is necessary for the support of some point arising from the subject, though not imme 1 The following remark of a late excellent writer, on the Scriptures in general, is particularly applicable to Saint Paul's Epistles." Difficulties indeed there are, but the life-directing precepts they contain are sufficiently easy; and he who reads the Scriptures with an unprejudiced mind, must be convinced, that the whole end they have in view is to lead mankind to their truest and best happiness, both here and hereafter. They inform our reason, they guide our consciences; in short, they have the words both of temporal and eternal life." Gilpin's Sermons, vol. iv. p. 335. See also Mrs. More's Essay on Saint Paul, vol. i. pp. 59–72. diately leading to it; and when he has exhausted such new idea, he returns from his digression without any intimation of the change of topic, so that considerable attention is requisite in order to retain the connection. His frequent changes of persons and propositions of objections, which he answers without giving any formal intimation, are also causes of ambiguity. To these we may add, 1. The modern divisions of chapters and verses, which dissolve the connection of parts, and break them into fragments; and, 2. Our uncertainty concerning the persons addressed, as well as the opinions and practices to which the great apostle of the Gentiles alludes, sometimes only in exhortations and reproofs.1 Other causes of obscurity might be assigned, but the preceding are the most material; and the knowledge of them, if we study with a right spirit, will enable us to ascertain the rest without difficulty. The most useful mode of studying the epistolary writings of the New Testament is, unquestionably that proposed and recommended by Mr. Locke; which, having been already noticed when treating on the doctrinal interpretation of the Scriptures, it is not necessary again to repeat.2 ed. SECTION III. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. I. Date, and where written.-II. Genuineness and authenticity of this Epistle. III. The church at Rome, when and by whom foundIV. Occasion. -V. Internal state of the church at Rome. -VI. Scope. VII. Synopsis of its contents. - VIII. Observations on this Epistle. - I. THE Epistle to the Romans, though fifth in order of time, is placed first of all the apostolical letters, either from the pre-eminence of Rome, as being the mistress of the world, or because it is the longest and most comprehensive of all Saint Paul's Epistles. Various years have been assigned for its date. Van Til refers it to the year 55; Langius, Bishop Pearson, Drs. Mill and Whitby, Fabricius, Reineccius, and others, to the year 57; Baronius, Michaelis, Lord Barrington, Drs. Benson and Lardner, and Bishop Tomline, to the year 58; Archbishop Usher and our Bible chronology, to the year 60; Dr. Hales to the end of 58, or the beginning of 59; and Rosenmüller to the end of the year 58. The most probable date is that which assigns this Epistle to the end of 57, or the beginning of 58; at which time Saint Paul was at Corinth, whence he was preparing to go to Jerusalem with the collections which had been made by the Christians of Macedonia and Achaia for their poor brethren in 1 Locke's Essay for the Understanding of Saint Paul's Epistles, (Works, vol. iii.) p. 275. et seq. See also Dr. Graves's Essay on the Character of the Apostles and Evangelists, pp. 146-163., for some useful remarks on the obscurity of Saint Paul's Epistles. 2 See Vol. II. p. 662. Judæa. (Rom. xv. 25-27.) The Epistle was dictated by the apostle in the Greek language? to Tertius his amanuensis (xvi. 22.) and was sent to the church at Rome by Phœbe, a deaconess of the church at Cenchrea (xvi. 1.), whose journey to Rome afforded Saint Paul an opportunity of writing to the Christians in that city. That he wrote from Corinth is further evident from Romans xvi. 23. where he sends salutations from Erastus the chamberlain of Corinth (which city, we learn from 2 Tim. iv. 20. was the place of his residence), and from Gaius, who lived at Corinth (1 Cor. i. 14.) whom Saint Paul terms his host, and the host of all the Christian church there. II. That this Epistle has always been acknowledged to be a genuine and authentic production of Saint Paul, is attested not only by the antient Syriac and Latin versions, but by the express declarations and quotations of Irenæus,3 Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and by all subsequent ecclesiastical writers. It was also cited or alluded to by the apostolic fathers, Barnabas, Clement of Rome,10 Ignatius," Polycarp,12 and by the churches of Vienne and Lyons.13 III. The Scriptures do not inform us at what time or by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome. Those who assert that the church in that city was founded by Saint Peter, can produce no solid foundation for their opinion: for, if he had preached the Gospel there, it is not likely that such an event would have been left unnoticed in the Acts of the Apostles, where the labours of Peter are particularly related with those of Paul, which form the chief subject of that book. Nor is it probable that the author of this Epistle should have made no reference whatever to this circumstance, if it had been true. There is still less plausibility in the opinion, that the church was planted at Rome by the joint labours of Peter and Paul, for it is evident from Romans i. 8. that Paul had never been in that city previously to his writing this Epistle. As, 1 This opinion is satisfactorily vindicated, at considerable length, by Dr. J. F. Flatt, in a dissertation, De tempore, quo Pauli epistola ad Romanos scripta sit (Tubing, 1789); reprinted in Pott's and Rupertis' Sylloge Commentationem Theologicarum, vol. ii. pp. 54-74. 2 Salmeron imagined that this epistle was written in Latin, but this notion is contradicted by the whole current of Christian antiquity; and John Adrian Bolten, a German critic, fancied that it was written in Syriac, but he was amply refuted by Griesbach. Viser, Herm. Sacr. Nov. Test. pars ii. p. 354. Rosenmüller, Scholia, vol. iii. p. 359. That Greek was the original language we have already proved, supra, Vol. II. pp. 15-20. 3 Lardner's Works, 8vo. vol ii. pp. 163-165.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 368, 369. 4 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 195-199.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 385-388. 5 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 222-224.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 400-402. 6 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 266-272.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 424-428. 7 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 375-377.; 4to. vol. i. pp. 482-484. 8 Ibid. 8vo. vol. ii. pp. 471-472.; 4to. vol. i. p. 535. however, the fame of this church had reached him long before he wrote the present letter (xv. 23.), the most probable opinion is that of Dr. Benson, Michaelis, Rambach, Rosenmüller, and other critics, viz. that the Gospel was first preached there by some of those persons who heard Peter preach, and were converted at Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost for we learn from Acts ii. 10. that there were then at Jerusalem strangers of Rome, Jews, and proselytes. These Roman Jews, on their return home, doubtless preached Christ to their countrymen there, and probably converted some of them: so that the church at Rome, like most of the churches in Gentile countries, was at first composed of Jews. But it was soon enlarged by converts from among the religious proselytes to Judaism, and in process of time was increased by the flowing in of the idolatrous Gentiles who gave themselves to Christ in such numbers, that, at the time Saint Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, their conversion was much spoken of throughout the world. (i. 8.) IV. The occasion of writing this Epistle may be easily collected from the Epistle itself. It appears that Saint Paul, who had been made acquainted with all the circumstances of the Christians at Rome by Aquila and Priscilla (Rom. xvi. 3.), and by other Jews who had been expelled from Rome by the decree of Claudius (Acts xviii. 2.), was very desirous of seeing them, that he might impart to them some spiritual gift; but, being prevented from visiting them, as he had proposed, in his journey into Spain, he availed himself of the opportunity that presented itself to him by the departure of Phobe to Rome, to send them an Epistle. Finding, however, that the church was composed partly of Heathens who had embraced the Gospel, and partly of Jews who, with many remaining prejudices, believed in Jesus as the Messiah; and finding also that many contentions arose from the Gentile converts claiming equal privileges with the Hebrew Christians (which claims the latter absolutely refused to admit unless the Gentile converts were circumcised), he wrote this Epistle to compose these differences, and to strengthen the faith of the Roman Christians against the insinuations of false teachers; being apprehensive lest his involuntary absence from Rome should be turned by the latter to the prejudice of the Gospel. V. In order fully to understand this Epistle, it is necessary that we should be acquainted with the tenets believed by those whose errors the apostle here exposes and confutes. It is clear that he wrote to persons, who had been either Gentiles or Jews, and that his grand design was to remove the prejudices entertained by both these descriptions of persons. The greater part of the GENTILES, who lived in gross ignorance, did not trouble themselves much concerning the pardon of their sins, 1 At this time there were great numbers of Jews at Rome. Josephus relates that their number amounted to eight thousand (Antiq. Jud. lib. xvii. c. 12.): and Dion Cassius (lib. xxxvii. ç. 17.) informs us that they had obtained the privilege of living according to their own laws. 2 Rom. i. 8-13. xv. 14. xvi. 19. 3 Rom. xvi. 1, 2. or the salvation of their souls; and the rest believed that their virtues deserved the favour of their Gods, either in this world or in the next, if there were any thing to expect after death. They also thought that their vices or sins were expiated by their virtues, especially if they were truly sorry for the crimes they had committed; for they declared a man to be innocent who repented of his fault. In order to expiate the most atrocious crimes, they had recourse to purifications and sacrifices, and sometimes offered human victims; but the wisest among them maintained that nothing was more fit to appease the Divinity than a change of life. The JEWS, on the other hand, divided all mankind into three classes. The first was composed of righteous men whose righteousness exceeded their sins: the second comprised those whose righteousness was equal to their sins; and the third contained wicked men, whose sins were more in number than their good deeds. They thought, however, that there was no person so righteous as not to stand in need of pardon: but they believed that they should obtain it by repentance, by confession of their sins, by almsgiving, by prayer, by the afflictions which God sent them, by their purifications, sacrifices, and change of life, and above all by the solemn sacrifice which was annually offered on the great day of atonement; and if there yet remained any thing to be pardoned, every thing (they said) would be expiated by death. Further, the most zealous among the Jews entertained various erroneous opinions relative to their justification, to the election of their nation, and to the Roman government, which it is important to consider, as Saint Paul has refuted them at considerable length in this Epistle. 1. The Jews assigned three grounds of justification, by which they were delivered from the guilt and punishment of sin; viz. (1.) The extraordinary piety and merit of their ancestors, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and the twelve patriarchs, and the covenant God made with them; for the sake of which piety, as He had promised to bless their posterity, they thought that this covenant obliged Him to forgive their sins. This error is confuted by Saint Paul in the ninth chapter, where he shows that God's promises were made only to the faithful descendants of Abraham; and in the latter part of the fifth chapter, which confirms his assertion in chapter iii. 29, 30, that God was alike the God of the Jews and Gentiles; and that the covenant, broken by their common father Adam, should be restored to both by the common Head of the new covenant, Jesus Christ. (2.) Their knowledge of God through the law of God, and their diligence in the study of that law: which they estimated so highly as to make it a plea for the remission of their sins. In opposition to this notion, Saint Paul proves, in the second chapter, that man is justified, not by the knowledge, but by the observance of the law. (3.) The works of the Levitical law, which were to expiate sin, especially circumcision and sacrifices; whence the Jews inferred that the Gentiles must receive the whole law of Moses, in order to be justified and saved, - in other words, that there was no salvation out of the Jewish church. In opposition to this erroneous tenet, Saint |