circumstance that in Rome the number of Gentile Christians was much greater than that of the converted Jews, and he explains how this was consistent with the counsel of God. He endea yours to re-establish peace between the contending parties; consequently he had to produce many arguments which might_be_couverted into polemics (Polemik) against the Jews; but it does by no means follow that such polemics were the chief aim of the apostle. CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. It belongs to the characteristic type of St. Paul's teaching to exhibit the Gospel in its historical relation to the human race, In the Epistle to the Romans, also, we find that peculiar character of St. Paul's teaching, which induced Schelling to call St. Paul's doctrine a philosophy of the history of man. The real purpose of the human race is in a sublime manner stated by St. Paul in his speech in Acts xvii. 26, 27; and he shows at the same time how God had, by various historical means, promoted the attainment of his purpose. St. Paul exhibits the Old Testament dispensation under the form of an institution for the education of the whole human race, which should enable men to terminate their spiritual minority, and become truly of age (Gal. iii. 24, and iv. 1-4). In the Epistle to the Romans also, the apostle com Aquinas, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin. In more recent times the other opinion has generally been advocated, as, for instance, by Hug, Eichhorn, and Flatt. Many writers suppose that the debates mentioned in ch, xiv, and xv. called forth this epistle. Hug, therefore, is of opinion that the theme of the whole epistle is the following-Jews AND GENTILES HAVE EQUAL CLAIM TO THE KINGDOM OF Gov. According to Eichhorn, the Roman Jews being exasperated against the disciples of Paul, endeavoured to demonstrate that Judaism was sufficient for the salvation of mankind; consequently Eichhorn supposes that the polemics of St. Paul were not directed against Judaizing converts to Christianity, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, but rather against Judaism itself. This opinion is also maintained by De Wette (Einleitung ins Neue Testament, 4th ed. § 138). According to Credner (Einleitung. § 141). the intention of the apostle was to render the Roman congregation favourably disposed before his arrival in the chief metropolis, and he therefore endeavoured to show that the evil reports spread concerning himself by zealously Judaizing Christians were erroneous. The opinion is nearly related to that of Dr. Baur, who supposes that the real object of this letter is mentioned only in ch. ix. to xi. According to Dr. Baur, the Judaizing zealots were displeased that by the instrumentality of Paul such numbers of Gentiles entered the king-mences by describing the two great divisions of the dom of God, that the Jews ceased to appear as the Messianic people. Dr. Baur supposes that these Judaizers are more especially refuted in ch. ix. to xi., after it has been shown in the first eight chapters that it was in general incorrect to consider one people better than another, and that all had equal claims to be justified by faith, Against the opinion that the apostle, in writing the Epistle to the Romans, had this particular polemical aim, it has been justly observed by Rückert (in the second ed. of his Commentar.), Olshausen, and De Wette, that the apostle himself states that his epistle had a general scope. Paul says in the introduction that he had long enter tained the wish of visiting the metropolis, in order to confirm the faith of the church, and to be himself comforted by that faith (ch. i. 12). He adds (i. 16), that he was prevented from preaching in the chief city by external obstacles only. He says that he had written to the Roman Christians in fulfil tment of his vocation as apostle to the Gentiles. The journey of Phoebe to Rome seems to have been the external occasion of the epistle: Paul made use of this opportunity by sending the sum and substance of the Christian doctrine in writing, having been prevented from preaching in Rome. Paul had many friends in Rome who communicated with him; consequently he was the more induced to address the Romans, although he manifested some hesitation in doing so (xv. 15). These circumstances exercised some influence as well on the form as upon the contents of the letter; so that, for instance, its contents differ considerably from the Epistle to the Ephesians, although this also has a general scope. The especial bearings of the Epistle to the Romans are particularly manifest in ch. xiii. to xvi.; Paul shows to both Jews and Gentiles the glory of Christianity as being absolute religion, and he especially endeavours to confirm the faith of the converts from Judaism (iv.); Paul refers to the human race, viz., those who underwent the preparatory spiritual education of the Jews, and those who did not undergo such a preparatory education. We find a similar division indicated by Christ himself (John x. 16), where he speaks of one flock separated by hurdles. The chief aim of all nations, according to St. Paul, should be the dikaloσúvη évýmiov Toû Beaû, righteousness before the face of God, or absolute realization of the moral law. According to St. Paul, the Leathen also have their vóμos, law, as well religious as moral internal revelation (Rom. i. 19, 32; ii. 15). The heathen have, however, not fulfilled that law which they knew, and are in this respect like the Jews, who also disregarded their own lave (i.). Both Jews and Gentiles are transgressors, or by the law separated from the grace and sonship of God (Rom. ii. 12; iii. 20); consequently if blessedness could only be obtained by fulfilling the demands of God, no man could be blessed. God, however, has gratuitously given righteousness and blessedness to all who believe in Christ (iii. 21-31); the Old Testament also recognises the value of religious faith (iv.): thus we freely attain to peace and sonship of God presently, and have before us still greater things, viz., the future development of the kingdom of God (v. 1-11). The human race has gained in Christ much more than it lost in Adam (v. 12, 21). This doctrine by no means encourages sin (vi.): on the contrary, men who are conscious of divine grace fulfil the law much more energetically than they were able to do before, having attained to this knowledge, because the law alone is even apt to sharpen the appetite for sin, and leads finally to despair (vii.); but now we fulfil the law by means of that new spirit which is given unto us, and the full development of our salvation is still before us (viii. 1-27). The sufferings of the present time cannot prevent this development, and must rather work for good to them whom God from eternity has viewed as faithful believers; and nothing can separate such believers from the eternal love of God (viii. 28-39). It causes pain to behold the Israelites themselves shut out from salvation; but they themselves are the cause of this seclusion, because they wanted to attain salvation by their own resources and exertions, by their descent from Abraham, and by their fulfilment of the law: thus, however, the Jews have not obtained that salvation which God has freely offered under the sole condition of faith in Christ (ix.); the Jews have not entered upon the way of faith, therefore the Gentiles were preferred, which was predicted by the prophets. However, the Jewish race, as such, has not been rejected; some of them obtain salvation by a selection made not according to their works, but according to the grace of God. If some of the Jews are left to their own obduracy, even their temporary fall serves the plans of God, viz., the vocation of the Gentiles. After the mass of the Gentiles shall have entered in, the people of Israel also, in their collective capacity, shall be received into the church (xi.). ON THE AUTHENTICITY AND INTEGRITY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.-The authenticity of this epistle has never been questioned. The Epistle to the Romans is quoted as early as the first and second century by Clemens Romanus and Polycarp. Its integrity has lately been attacked by Dr. Baur, who pretends that chs. xv. and xvi. are spurious, but only, as we have ob served above, because these chapters do not harmonise with his supposition, that the Christian church at Rome consisted of rigid Judaizers. Schmidt and Reiche consider the doxology at the conclusion of ch. xvi. not to be genuine. In this doxology the anacolonthical and unconnected style causes some surprise, and the whole has been deemed to be out of its place (ver. 26 and 27). We, however, observe, in reply to Schmidt and Reiche, that such defects of style may be easily explained from the circumstance, that the apostle hastened to the conclusion, but would be quite inexplicable in additions of a copyist who had time for calm consideration. The same words occur in different passages of the epistle, and it must be granted that such a fluctuation sometimes indicates an interpolation. In the Codex i, in most of the Codices Minusculi, as well as in Chrysostom, the words occur at the conclusion of ch. xiv. In the Codices B.Č.Ů.E., and in the Syrian trausla tion, this doxology occurs at the conclusion of ch. xvi. In Codex A it occurs in both places; whilst in Codex D**, the words are wanting entirely, and they seem not to fit into either of the two places. If the doxology be put at the conelusion of ch. xiv., Paul seems to promise to those Christians weak in faith, of whom he had spoken, a confirmation of their belief. But it seems unfit (unpassend) in this connection to call the Gospel an eternal mystery, and the doxology seems here to interrupt the connection between chs. xiv. and xv.; and at the conclusion of ch. xvi. it seems to be superfluous, since the blessing had been pronounced already in ver. 24. We, however, say that this latter circumstance need not have prevented the apostle from allowing his animated feelings to burst forth in a doxology, especially at the conclusion of an epistle which treated amply on the mystery of redemption We find an analogous instance in Ephes. xxiii. 27, where a doxology occurs after the mystery of salvation had been mentioned: we are therefore of opinion that the doxology is rightly placed at the conclusion of ch. xvi., and that it was in some codices erroneously transposed to the conclusions of ch, xiv., because the copyist considered the blessing in xvi. 24 to be the real conclusion of the Epistle. In confirmation of this remark we observe that the same codices in which the doxology occurs in ch. xvi. either omit the blessing altogether, or place it after the doxology. INTERPRETERS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.-Chrysostom is the most important among the fathers who attempted to interpret this epistle; he enters deeply, and with psychological acumen, into the thoughts of the apostle, and expounds them with sublime animation. Among the reformers Calvin is distinguished by logical penetration and doctrinal depth. Beza is distinguished by his grammatical and critical knowledge. Since the period of rationalism the interest about this epistle haseen revived by the Commentary of Tholuck, the first edition of which appeared in 1824. No other book of the New Testament has, since that period, been expounded so frequently and so accurately. From 1824 to 1844, there have been published as many as seventeen learned and critical commentaries on it; and, in addition to these, several practical expositions. In the Commentar von Rückert, 2d ed., 1839, 2 vols., we find copious criticisms of the various interpretations, and a clear and pleasing, although not always carefully weighed, exposition. The Commentar von Fritzsche, 1836 to 1843, 3 vols., exhibits a careful critique of the text, combined with philological explanation, but the true The Commentar of Olshausen, 2nd ed., 1840, sense of the apostle has frequently been missed. generally contains only the author's own exposi the doctrinal contents. De Wette manifests on the tion, but presents a very pleasing development of whole a correct tact (3rd ed., 1841); however, his book is too comprehensive, so that the contents of the epistle do not make a clear impression. Lately there has been published in French also an interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, worked out with much diligence and ingenuity, by Hugues Oltramare; the first part contains chs. i. to v. 11, and was published at Geneva, 1843.—A. T. [The principal English works on the Epistle to the Romans are-Willet, Hexapla, or a Sixfold Comment on the Epistle to the Romans, 1611; Taylor's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, 1747; Jones, The Epistle to the Romans analyzed, from a development of the circumstances by which it was occasioned, 1801; Cox, Hora Romana, 1824 (translation with notes); Turner, Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, New York, 1824 (exegetical, for the use of students); Terrot, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1828 (Greek text, paraphrase, notes, and useful prolegomena). Stuart's Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Andover, U. S., 1832, is undoubtedly the greatest work on this Epistle which has been produced in the English language, and may be regarded as next in importance to the admirable Commentary by the writer of the above article (Dr. Tholuck), a translation of which, by the Rev. R. Menzies, has been given in the Edinburgh Biblical Cabinet. cisely the same as that which was at any period covered by the ancient city: the change of locality being towards the north-west, the city has par ED.] tially retired from the celebrated hills. About ROME, the famous capital of the Western two-thirds of the area within the walls (traced by World, and the present residence of the Pope, Aurelian) are now desolate, consisting of ruins, stands on the river Tiber, about fifteen miles from gardens, and fields, with some churches, con its mouth, in the plain of what is now called the vents, and other scattered habitations. OriginCampagna (Felix illa Campania, Pliny, Hist. ally the city was a square mile in circumference. Nat. iii. 6), in lat. 41° 54' N., long. 12° 28′ E. In the time of Pliny the walls were nearly twenty The country around the city is not a plain, but a miles in circuit; now, they are from fourteen sort of undulating table-land, crossed by hills, to fifteen miles round. Its original gates, three while it sinks towards the south-west to the marshes in number, had increased in the time of the elder of Maremma, which coast the Mediterranean. Pliny to thirty-seven. Modern Rome has sixIn ancient geography the country, in the midst of teen gates, some of which are, however, built up. which Rome lay, was termed Latium, which, in Thirty-one great roads centered in Rome, which, the earliest times, comprised within a space issuing from the Forum, traversed Italy, ran of about four geographical square miles the through the provinces, and were terminated only country lying between the Tiber and the Numi- by the boundary of the empire. As a starting cius, extending from the Alban Hills to the sea. point a gilt pillar (Milliarium Aureum) was set having for its chief city Laurentum. Here, on the up by Augustus in the middle of the Forum. Palatine Hill, was the city of Rome founded by This curious monument, from which distances were Romulus and Remus, grandsons of Numitor, and reckoned, was discovered in 1823. Eight prinsous of Rhea Sylvia, to whom, as the originators cipal bridges led over the Tiber; of these three of the city, mythology ascribed a divine parent- are still relics. The four districts into which age. The origin of the term Rome is in dispute. Rome was divided in early times, Augustus Some derive it from the Greek 'Pun, strength, increased to fourteen. Large open spaces were considering that this name was given to the place set apart in the city, called Campi, for asas being a fortress. Cicero (De Repub. ii. 7) semblies of the people and martial exercises, as says the name was taken from that of its founder well as for games. Of nineteen which are menRomulus. At first the city had three gates, ac- tioned, the Campus Martius was the principal. cording to a sacred usage. Founded on the It was near the Tiber, whence it was called Palatine Hill, it was extended, by degrees, so as Tiberinus. The epithet Martius was derived to take in six other hills, at the foot of which ran from the plain being consecrated to Mars, the god deep valleys that, in early times, were in part of war. In the later ages it was surrounded overflowed with water, while the hill-sides were by several magnificent structures, and porticos covered with trees. In the course of the many were erected, under which, in bad weather, the years during which Rome was acquiring to citizens could go through their usual exercises. herself the empire of the world, the city under- It was also adorned with statues and arches. went great, numerous, and important changes. The name of Fora was given to places where Under its first kings it must have presented a the people assembled for the transaction of busivery different aspect from what it did after it ness. The Fora were of two kinds-fora venalia, had been beautified by Tarquin. The destruc-markets;' fora civilia, law courts,' &c. Until tion of the city by the Gauls (u.c. 365) caused a thorough alteration in it; nor could the troubled times which ensued have been favourable to its being well restored. It was not till riches and artistic skill came into the city on the conquest of Philip of Macedon, and Antiochus of Syria (u.c. 563), that there arose in Rome large handsome stone houses. The capture of Corinth conduced much to the adorning of the city: many fine specimens of art being transferred from thence to the abode of the conquerors. And so, as the power of Rome extended over the world, and her chief citizens went into the colonies to enrich themselves, did the master-pieces of Grecian art flow towards the capital, together with some of the taste and skill to which they owed their birth. Augustus, however, it was, who did most for embellishing the capital of the world, though there may be some sacrifice of truth in the pointed saying, that he found Rome built of brick, and left it marble. Subsequent emperors followed his example, till the place became the greatest repository of architectural, pictorial, and sculptural skill, that the world has ever seen; a result to which even Nero's incendiarism indirectly conduced, as affording an occasion for the city's being rebuilt under the higher scientific influences of the times. The site occupied by modern Rome is not pre the time of Julius Cæsar there was but one of the latter kind, termed by way of distinction Forum Romanum, or simply Forum. It lay between the Capitoline and Palatine Hills; it was eight hundred feet wide, and adorned on all sides with porticos, shops, and other edifices, on the erection of which large sums had been expended, and the appearance of which was very imposing, especially as it was much enhanced by numerous statues. In the centre of the Forum was the plain called the Curtian Lake, where Curtius is said to have cast himself into a chasm or gult, which closed on him, and so he saved his country. Ou one side were the elevated seats or suggestus, a sort of pulpits from which magistrates and orators addressed the people—usually called Rostra, because adorned with the beaks of ships which had been taken in a sea-fight from the inhabitants of Antium. Near by was the part of the Forum called the Comitium, where were held the assemblies of the people called Comitia Curiata. The celebrated temple, bearing the name of Capitol (of which there remain only a few vestiges), stood on the Capitoline Hill, the highest of the seven : it was square in form, each side extending about two hundred feet, and the ascent to it was by a flight of one hundred steps. It was one of the oldest, largest, and grandest edifices in the city. Founded by Tarquinius Priscus, it was at several times enlarged and embellished. Its gates were of brass, and it was adorned with costly gildings; whence it is termed 'golden' and glittering, aurea, fulgens. It enclosed three structures, the temple of Jupiter Capitolinus in the centre, the temple of Minerva on the right, and the temple of Juno on the left. The Capitol also comprehended some minor temples or chapels, and the Casa Romuli, or cottage of Romulus, covered with straw. Near the ascent to the Capitol was the asylum [CITIES OF REFUGE]. We also mention the Basilicæ, since some of them were afterwards turned to the purposes of Christian worship. They were originally buildings of great splendour, being appropriated to meetings of the senate, and to judicial purposes. Here counsellors received their clients, and bankers transacted their business. The earliest churches, bear ing the name of Basilica, were erected under Con stantine. He gave his own palace on the Cæliar. Hill as a site for a Christian temple. Next in antiquity was the church of St. Peter, on the Vatican Hill, built A.D. 324, on the site and with the ruins of temples consecrated to Apollo and Mars. It stood about twelve centuries, at the end of which it was superseded by the modern church bearing the same name. The Circi were buildings oblong in shape, used for public games, races, and beast-fights. The Theatra were edifices designed for dramatic exhibitions; the Amphitheatra (double theatres, buildings in an oval form) served for gladiatorial shows and the fighting of wild animals. That which was erected by the Emperor Titus, and of which there still exists a splendid ruin, was called the Coliseum, from a colossal statue of Nero that stood near it. With an excess of luxury, perfumed liquids were con veyed in secret tubes round these immense structures, and diffused over the spectators, sometimes from the statues which adorned the interior. In the arena which formed the centre of the amphitheatres, the early Christians often endured martyrdom by being exposed to ravenous beasts. The connection of the Romans with Palestine caused Jews to settle at Rome in considerable numbers. On one occasion, in the reign of Tiberius, when the Jews were banished from the city by the emperor, for the misconduct of some memhers of their body, not fewer than four thousand enlisted in the Roman army which was then stationed in Sardinia (Sueton. Tib. 36; Joseph. Antiq. xviii. 3. 4). These appear to have been emancipated descendants of those Jews whom Pompey had taken prisoners in Judæa, and brought captive to Rome (Philo, De Leg. ad Cai.. p. 1014). From Philo also it appears that the Jews in Rome were allowed the free use of their national worship, and generally the observance of their ancestral customs. Then, as now, the Jews lived in a part of the city appropriated to themselves (Joseph. Antiq. xiv. 10. 8), where with a zeal for which the nation had been some time distinguished, they applied themselves with success to proselytising (Dion Cass. xxxvii. 17). They appear, however, to have been a restless colony; for when, after their expulsion under Tiberius, numbers had returned to Rome, they were again expelled from the city by Claudius (Suet. Claud. 25). The Roman biographer does not give the date of this event, but Orosius (vii. 6) mentions the ninth year of that emperor's reign (A 1. 59). The precise occasion of this expulsion history does not afford us the means of determining. The words of Suetonius are, Judæos, impulsore Chresto, assidue tumultuantes, Roma expulit- He expelled from Rome the Jews continually raising disturhances under the impulse of Chrestos.' The cause here assigned for their expulsion is, that they raised disturbances, an allegation which, at first view, does not seem to point to a religions, still less to a Christian, influence. And yet we must remember that the words bear the colouring of the mind of a heathen historian, who might easily be led to regard activity for the diffusion of Christian truth, and the debates to which that activity necessarily led, as a noxious disturbance of the peace of society. The Epicurean view of life could scarcely avoid describing religious agitations by terms ordinarily appropriated to martial pursuits. It must equally be borne in mind that the diffusion of the Gospel in Romethen the very centre and citadel of idolatry-was no holiday task, but would call forth on the part of the disciples all the fiery energy of the Jewish character, and on the part of the Pagans all the vehemence of passion which ensues from pride, arrogance, and hatred. Had the ordinary name of our Lord been employed by Suetonius, we should, for ourselves, have found little difficulty in understanding the words as intended to be applied to Jewish Christians. But the biographer uses the word Chrestus. The us is a mere Latin termination; but what are we to make of the root of the word, Chrest for Christ? Yet the change is in only one vowel, and Chrest might easily be used for Christ, by a Pagan writer. A slight difference in the pronunciation of the word as vocalised by a Roman and a Jew, would easily cause the error. And we know that the Romans often did make the mispronunciation, calling Christ Chrest (Tertull. Apol. c. 3; Lactant. Inst. iv. 17; Just. Mart. Apol. c. 2). The point is important, and we therefore give a few details, the rather that Lardner has, under Claudius (vol. i., 259), left the question undetermined. Now in Tacitus (Annal. xv. 41) Jesus is unquestion ably called Chrest (quos per flagitia invisos vulgus Christianos appellabat. Auctor nominis ejus Chrestus) in a passage where his followers are termed Christians. Lucian too, in his Philopatris, so designates our Lord, playing on the word Xonorós, which, in Greek, signities 'good' these are his words: el Túxo Ye Xpηords Kal èv čoveσt, K.T.A., since a Chrest (a good man) is found among the Gentiles also.' And Tertullian (ut supra) treats the difference as a case of ignorant more readily introduced from the fact that, while Christ was a foreign word, Chrest was customary: lips therefore that had been used to Chrest would rather continue the sound than change the vocalisation. The term Chrest occurs on inscriptions (Heumann, Sylloge Diss., i. 536), and epigrams in which the name appears may be found in Martial (vii. 55; ix. 28). In the same author (xi. 91.) a diminutive from the word, namely Chrestillus, may be found. The word assumed also a feminine form, Chresta, as found in an ancient inscription Hoc, virtus, fatique decus et amabile nomen, We Credam te satis esse liberalem. There can therefore be little risk in asserting that Suetonius intended to indicate Jesus Christ by Chrestus; and we have already seen that the terms which he employs to describe the cause of the expulsion, though peculiar, are not irreconcilable with a reference on the part of the writer to Christians. The terms which Suetonius employs are accounted for, though they may not be altogether justified by those passages in the Acts of the Apostles, in which the collision between the Jews who had become Christians, and those who adhered to the national faith, is found to have occasioned serious disturbances (Kuinoel, Acts xviii. 2; Rorsal, De Christo per errorem in Chrest. Comm., Groning. 1717). This interpretation is confirmed by the fact that a Christian church, consisting of Jews, Proselytes, and Pagan Romans, had at an early period been formed in Rome, as is evident from the Epistle of Paul to the Romans; which Christian community must have been in existence a long time when Paul wrote (about A.D. 59) that epistle (see Rom. i. 813); and Meyer (Commentar der Brief an die Römer Einleit., § 2) is of opinion that the foundations of the Church in Rome may have been laid even during the lifetime of our Lord. It is also worthy of notice that Luke, in the book of Acts (xviii.-2), when speaking of the decree of Claudius as a banishment of all the Jews from Rome, adverts to the fact as a reason why two Christians, Aquila and Priscilla, whom we know (Rom. xvi. 3) to have been members of the Roman church, had lately come from Italy: these the apostle found on his arrival at Corinth in the year A.D. 51. Both Suetonius and Luke, in mentioning the expulsion of the Jews, seem to have used the official term employed in the decree; the Jews were known to the Roman magistrate; and Christians, as being at first Jewish converts, would be confounded under the general name of Jews; but that the Christians as well as the Jews strictly so called were banished by Claudius appears certain from the book of Acts; and, independently of this evidence, seems very probable, from the other authorities of which mention has been made. The question, Who founded the church at Rome? is one of some interest as between Catholic and Protestant. The former assigns the honour to Peter, and on this grounds an argument in favour of the claims of the papacy. There is, |