The Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Romans

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

TO THE

THESSALONIANS, GALATIANS, ROMANS.

WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND DISSERTATIONS.

VOL, II.

THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL

TO THE

THESSALONIANS, GALATIANS, ROMANS.

WITH CRITICAL NOTES AND DISSERTATIONS

BY THE REV. BENJAMIN JOWETT, M.A.

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF GREEK IN THE UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD.

IN TWO VOLUMES.—VOL. II.

Second Edition,

LONDON
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1859

The right of translation is reserved.

her oo +

yh
@ ior

pe

be:

CONTENTS

OF

THE SECOND VOLUME.

THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Page
INTRODUCTION . : f : : : pth ‘ ; 3
Subject of the Epistle F . , ' ; Sibir ee
‘Time and Place . ’ P y ; : ; A ‘ os ae
Cuapter I. ; : ; ; : rivee }
On the Connexion of sreasiee and ldohétry ° ‘ ; Ge iog 3
On the State of the Heathen World . ‘ : ; ‘ ergy f |
Cuarter II... ‘ : ‘ . ; ‘ ee
On the Abstract Ideas of the New Peakenient: in connexion with
Romans, I. 17. . ; ‘ ‘ «OG
On the Modes of Time and Place i in Busiptare . ; : « BO
Cuarter Ill. . ; ; : ; : : : ‘ ; a DES
CuarpTer IV... ‘ . ; ; 3 . ; ; : hee ©
The Old Testament . : ; ‘ ‘ : ‘ ; » 156
CuarTer VV... ‘ ; ; : ; . 160
On the Imputation of the Sin of Jidies ; ; . : . 180
Cuapter VI... : , ‘ ; pesos : ; : . 188
CuaptTer VII. , ‘ : : ‘ ; . 204
On i cave and Clink of Charaster ; : : ‘ ;. 223
Cuaprer VIII. . ‘ ‘ ’ ; : ; ; ; ‘ + 250
Cuarpters IX.—XI.. - ; , : ; : . ; . 268
Contrasts of Prophecy : : : : 4 , ; . 318
Cuarters XII —XVI._. ; . : . ; ; : ~ 837

CuHaAprTerR XIII. : ‘ : ; ; eee Nak - : ~ 956

V1 CONTENTS OF THE SECOND VOLUME.

Page

CuapTer XIV. . : ; : ; : ‘ ‘ . ; - 868
Casuistry . ; eee ‘ , ‘ ‘ ‘ ° . 384
CHAPTER XV. . ; ‘ . P ‘ ; ‘ ‘ “ - 408
CuHapTer XVI. . : ; ; : , P . . - 422
Natural Religion . ‘ ‘ : ; ‘ : . 430
The Law as the Strength of Sin ; ‘ . . ‘ ; ~ 495
On Righteousness by Faith : ; ‘ ’ : ‘ ; - 523
On Atonement and Satisfaction - ‘ : ‘ ‘ / . 547

On Predestination and Free-will ‘. ; ; ; ‘ ; . 4596

THE EPISTLE

TO

THE ROMANS.

VOR, IL B

THE

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

INTRODUCTION.

Tue Epistle to the Romans has ever been regarded as first in
importance among the Epistles of St. Paul, the cornerstone of that
Gospel which he preached among the Gentiles. Not only does it
present more completely than other parts of Scripture the doctrine
of righteousness by faith, but it connects this doctrine with the
state of mankind in general, embracing Jew and Gentile at once in
its view, alternating them with each other in the counsels of Pro-
vidence. It looks into the world within, without losing sight of the
world which is without. It is less than the other Epistles concerned
with the disputes or wants of a particular Church, and more with
the greater needs of human nature itself. It turns an eye backward
on the times of past ignorance both in the individual and mankind,
and again looks forward to the restoration of the Jews and to the
manifestation of the sons of God. It speaks of the law itself in
language which even now “ that the law is dead to us and we to the

>

law,” still pierces to the dividing asunder of the flesh and spirit.
No other portion of the New Testament gives a similarly connected
view of the ways of God to man; no other is spread over truths so
far from us and yet so near to us.

It is not, however, this higher and more universal aspect of the
Epistle to the Romans with which we are at present immediately con-

B 2

4. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

cerned. Our first question is a critical and historical one: What was
the Roman Church, and in what relation did it stand to the Apostle ?
The difficulty in answering this question partly arises from the very
universality of the subject of the Epistle. The great argument takes us
out of the accidents of time and place. We cannot distinctly recognise
what we but remotely see, the particular and individual features of
which are lost in the width of the prospect. Could the Apostle
himself have had, and therefore is it to be expected that he could
communicate to us, the same vivid personal conception of the Church
at Rome as of Churches whose members were individually known
to him, whom, in his own language, he had himself begotten in the
Gospel? In an Epistle written from a distance to converts un-
known to him by face, it is not to be supposed that there will be
found even the materials for conjecture which are supplied by the
Epistles to the Galatians and Corinthians. Naturally the personality
of the writer, and still more of those whom he is addressing, falls
into the background. He writes upon general topics which are
equally applicable to almost all Churches, which fail, therefore, to
throw any light on the particular Church to which the Epistle is
addressed. Nor can this dimness of the critical eye receive any
assistance from external sources. With the exception of the well-
known command of Claudius to the Jews to depart from Rome about
fifteen years previously, to which we may add the faint traces of a
Christian Church which was apparently distinct from the Jews, in
Acts, xxviii. 15., and the separate mention of Christians in Tacitus
and Suetonius, nothing has come down to us which throws any light,
however uncertain, on the beginnings of the Roman Church.

It is natural that this deficiency of real knowledge should produce
many different theories respecting the general scope of the Epistle
and the elements out of which the Roman Church was composed.
That it was addressed to Jews, that it was addressed to Gentiles,
that it was addressed to a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles,
that it is a doctrinal treatise, that it arose out of. the circumstances
of the converts themselves, that it was written rather from the

INTRODUCTION. 5

Apostle’s own mind than adapted to the thoughts or state of those
whom he is addressing, — are all of them opinions which find some
degree of support from passages in the Epistle itself. While to some
the Epistle to the Romans appears like an enlarged edition of that
to the Galatians, containing the same opposition of Jew and Gentile,
there are other minds who think they find in it a nearer analogy
and resemblance to the Epistle to the Hebrews, or even to the
Corinthians. Nor is the inquiry on which we are entering really
separable from the larger inquiry into the general state of the Apos-
tolical age. The manner in which the transition was effected from
- Judaism to Christianity, —the steps by which men were led to reflect
the light of the world upon the Law and the Prophets,— the degree of
opposition which existed between the old and new,— are questions
which, though far from being absolutely determined, must never-
theless be taken into consideration in any attempt to define the posi-
tion and character of the Roman Church.

The interest that attaches to the origin of that great ecclesiastical
dominion which was to cover the world, though connected by little
more than a name with the earlier Greek community which is the
subject of our investigation, and the yet stronger interest in
“oathering up the fragments that remain, that nothing be lost,”
respecting the great Epistle of the Gentile Apostle, will justify our
lingering awhile around the probabilities and points of view which
have been suggested by commentators, No pains can be too great
to illustrate even the least words that bear upon the history of the
Apostolical age. Small as the result may be, yet the inquiry will be
fruitful. Nor need we be afraid of multiplying uncertainties. The
light of theory seems to be needed to make us observe facts. The
opinions of almost all have probably contributed something to the
increasing clearness and distinctness with which we are able to
determine the limits of our knowledge on this subject. |

The Epistle to the Romans has been regarded as a sort of theo-
logical treatise on the great question of Jewish and Gentile differ-

ences ; addressed, it has been sometimes said, to the metropolis of

B 3

6 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the world, as the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed to the Jewish
nation generally. In support of such a view may be urged the
continuity of the Epistle itself, in which a single theme is worked
out at great length and in many points of view; also, the com-
parative absence of personal allusions, which are confined to the
first and the two last chapters. All the earlier Epistles of St. Paul
overflow with expressions of feeling and interest; they are full of
himself and of his converts, abounding in hopes and fears, in joys and
anxieties. He constantly refers in them to what he has been told,
and has much to say in return to those to whom he is writing. It
is otherwise with the Epistle to the Romans. We have only to cut
off from the main body of the Epistle its commencement and con-
clusion, to be aware of its great difference from the Galatians and
Corinthians. It is an Epistle of which the admiring readers might
still say, “His letters are weighty and powerful,” and in writing
which the Apostle would become increasingly conscious of the new
source of influence which had opened to him; but it is also an
Epistle unlike his earlier ones,—more methodical in its arrange-
ment, arising out of no previous information conveyed to him from
the Church itself, and referring to no circumstances that imply any
precise knowledge of its actual state.

Yet we have reason to hesitate before we ascribe to the Apostle a
treatise on Justification by Faith, because the expression itself
introduces associations inconsistent with the simplicity of the Apos-
tolical age. ‘The Epistles of St. Paul were not to the first disciples
what time has made them to us. They were a part of his ministry,
in style oral rather than written, and very unlike a regular literary
work. He who lived inwardly the life of all the churches did not
sit down at a desk to compose a book. Even the change which has
been alluded to was probably unobserved by himself. What he
wrote was the accident of what he was; the expansion of an
ordinary letter into the only topics which had any interest for
himself or the first believers, in which the common things of life
had become absorbed and extinguished, that the hidden things

INTRODUCTION. 7

might be revealed. ‘There is no reason to suppose that he wrote to
the Christians in Rome with any peculiar feeling of the dignity of
the imperial city ; or that its greatness roused in him any new sense
of his high calling as the Apostle of the Gentiles. Amid that vast
multitude of all countries and nations, and in all that varied scene
of power and magnificence, his only concern was with those few
brethren, the report of whom had reached him in Greece and Asia,
who were called by the name of Christ, with whom he desires to
make acquaintance by letter, not without a hope that he may one
day see them.

But if the Epistle is not to be regarded as a treatise, if it be
written as a man writes to his friends, not without reference to
their feelings and circumstances, the question from which we digressed
again arises, “ What was the origin of the Roman Church, and what
were the elements of which it was composed?” Was it Jewish or
Gentile, or made up equally of Jews and Gentiles? or a Church of
which the majority were one or the other, or one which, though of
Jewish origin, was gradually opening the door wide to the Gentiles,
or which, consisting originally of Gentiles, was Jewish in its prac-
tice and teaching, as being founded by the party of the circumcision,
resting on “those who seemed to be pillars” (Gal. ii. 9.), the
Apostles, as they are described by St. Paul, that “were in Christ
before him” (Rom. xvi. 7.)? The Gentile Apostle is often “ fearful
of building upon another man’s foundation.” Who are they whom
he nevertheless addresses, and to whom he stands in a sort of per-
sonal relation, though not his own converts? Only an imperfect
answer can be given to these questions, the materials for which
must be sought mainly in the character and tendency of the Epistle
itself, An examination of some of the principal opinions on the
subject will be aconvenient way.of bringing together the facts which
bear upon it. |

1. Neander is of opinion that the Epistle to the Romans was
addressed to a Church consisting mainly of Gentile Christians ; “ to
whom,” he says, “the Gospel had been published by men of the

B4

8 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Pauline School, independently of the Mosaic Law, and to whom
Paul, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, felt himself called upon to
write.”. The Roman Church had grown up without him, but seemed
to have a claim upon him to receive from his lips that Gospel which
he preached among other Gentiles. Though at a distance from him,
it was his proper field of labour. The Christians at Rome would
not have been addressed by him had they been Jews. Least of all
would he have included his own countrymen in the general term
“ other Gentiles” (i. 5.). But if so, we are compelled to admit that
the Epistle could not have been addressed to a Church composed of
Jewish Christians.

Other subsidiary proofs may be urged on the same side of the
argument : — First, Tacitus’ brief notice of the Neronian persecu-
tion, in which the Christians are spoken of as a distinct body and
known by a separate name, which would not have been the case had
they been of Jewish origin. Such a mention of them, at any rate,
falls in with the supposition of a Gentile rather than a Jewish
Church. To which may be added, secondly, the argument of
Olshausen, that the discrepancy between the last chapter of the Acts
and the Epistle to the Romans can be reconciled only by supposing
that the Jews at Rome must have been widely separated from the
Roman Church, the fame of which even before St. Paul’s visit “is
known throughout the world.” (Rom. i. 8.) For in the narrative, at -
the end of the Acts, of St. Paul’s visit to Rome, he appears as
introducing himself to the Jews, who had heard nothing of the
proceedings against him in Judea, and desired him “to instruct
them concerning that way which was everywhere spoken against.”
Must they not have been strangers to the Christians at Rome,
if they had not heard of these things ? and could that have been a
Jewish Christian Church which was unknown to the Jews in the
same city ?

On the two latter of these arguments little stress can be laid. The
mention of the Christians under their proper name in the Neronian

persecution, by a writer who lived nearly fifty years afterwards, can

INTRODUCTION. 9

hardly be taken as a proof that in the reign of Nero the Christians
were already looked upon as a distinct body from the Jews; still
less can the further deduction be admitted that they could not have
been so regarded at Rome, unless they had been of Gentile origin.
In reference to the second argument from the comparison of the last
chapter of the Acts, it may be observed, that to assume a fact in
order to reconcile a discrepancy between two writers is an extremely
precarious mode of reasoning — “ it must be so, not because either the
Acts or the Epistle says so, but because otherwise there will be a dis-
agreement between them.” These circuitous reconcilements do more
than discrepancies to sap the historical foundations of Christianity.
In the present instance, even after the assumption of Olshausen,
the difficulty remains nearly where it was. It is singular, though
not perhaps impossible, that the Jews should know nothing of the
Christians residing in the same city ; whether the latter are Jews or
Gentiles makes little difference. These arguments, however, are not
the real strength of Neander’s case. Their weakness cannot invali-
date the express statement of St. Paul, that he is writing to Gen-
tiles; and by Gentiles he could never have meant Jews. When he
says that he longed to see them, that he might have fruit among them,
even as “among other Gentiles ” (i. 13.), or that he “had received
grace and Apostleship for obedience to the faith among all the Gen-
tiles for his name, among whom are ye also the called of Jesus
Christ ” (ver. 5, 6.), we are no longer resting on doubtful inferences,
but on the express language of the Apostle himself.

2. On the other hand, a strong case may be made out from the
Epistle itself in proof of the position that it was written not for
Gentiles, but for Jews. The critic by whom this view of the subject
has been most ably maintained is Baur of Tubingen. The Epistle
to the Romans, he argues, like all the other Epistles, must have
arisen out of circumstances. There must have been something
personal and occasional, which might naturally furnish the subject
of a letter. But the whole Epistle would have the vaguest possible

connexion with those to whom it was addressed, if it was written to

10 - EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

a Gentile Church. How inappropriate, how discouraging, to be
perpetually reminding them that the Jews were first called, after-
wards the Gentiles; how unlike the manner of him who was “all
things to all men!” What interest could the question of the resto-
ration of the Jews have for Gentiles? We do not naturally express
passion to those who do not themselves feel it, nor would the
Apostle have poured forth his “ heart’s desire for Israel,” in a strain
like that of the Psalmist, “if I forget thee, Jerusalem,” to cold and
uninterested listeners.

The minute references throughout the Epistle to the Law and the
Prophets may be taken asa further proof that the Apostle is speaking
to Jews. We can scarcely imagine a Gentile Church so completely
passing over into the Jewish point of view as to recognise in the
Gospel a fulfilment of promises made to the Patriarchs, of whose very
names a few years previous they had been ignorant. The argument
of the seventh chapter of the Romans seems to presuppose not only a
passing knowledge of the writers of the Old Testament, but a sort
of traditional acquaintance with it, and experience of its practical
influence. How could those who, a few years before, had not even
heard of the Law, be now feeling it as a burden on the conscience ?
Though, as Baur admits, the Apostle in addressing Gentiles does
sometimes use illustrations from the Prophets; that is, speaks to them
from what we should conceive to have been his point of view
rather than theirs, this is very different from the use of the Law in
the Epistle to the Romans, which carries us into another world, and
presupposes states of mind and feelings common to the Apostle and
those to whom he is writing, which are inconceivable in Gentiles.
Unless he is using unmeaning words to them, they must be supposed »
to have had a minute verbal acquaintance with the Law and the
Prophets ; and even with the text of the LXX.

But if we can assume that we are addressing a Jewish community,
we have only to invert the order of the Epistle to find an appropriate
meaning and occasion for it. St. Paul has begun with the universal

principle, righteousness by faith without the deeds of the Law; ad-

INTRODUCTION. 11

mission of Jew and Gentile alike to the communion and fellowship
of Christ. But what in writing to the Jewish Roman Church was
nearest his heart, was not the admission of the Gentiles, but the
restoration of the Jews. The offer of salvation, through Christ, was
made to the Jew first, and afterwards to the Gentile; yet facts
seemed, as it were, to disprove this, for the Jews were being rejected
and the Gentiles received. With strange feelings the early Jewish
Church must have watched the glory departing from their race, and
the door of the tabernacle opening ever wider for the admission of
the Gentiles. Some, perhaps, there were who acknowledged that the
hand of God was against them; others, possibly, like the author of
the Hebrews, acquiesced in the spiritual meaning of the tabernacle
and the sacrifices; few, if any, like St. Paul, were ready to acknow-
ledge that God was the God of the Gentiles equally with the Jews.
To minds in such a state as this, St. Paul seeks to justify the ways of
God, not so much by an appeal to the eternal principles of truth and
justice, as by the language of the Old Testament, and. the analogy of
God’s dealings with the chosen people.

The arguments that he uses to them are twofold. First, that the
Jews are rejected by their own fault; and, secondly, that their re-
jection was just like the punishment of their fathers. It is singular,
that throughout the Prophets we have the double consciousness ;
first, that they are the chosen people of God, and also (as it has
been expressed) that “ they were never good for much at any time.”
The same double consciousness is traceable in the Epistle to the
' Romans, especially in the tenth and eleventh chapters. To make his
view appear reasonable to them, the Apostle enters into the depth
of the mystery, which aforetime had not been revealed. Without
going into the whole scheme of Divine Providence, they could neither
comprehend the reason for the rejection of their brethren nor the hope
of their restoration. They must begin by acknowledging that God
had superseded the Law, or they could not possibly understand how
their brethren could be punished for holding fast to it. 'Uhe latter

had gone the wrong way, seeking to establish their own righteousness,

Tz EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and had missed salvation. It was a necessary consequence of a new”
revelation being given, that those who did not receive it were ex-
cluded from its benefits. And yet, when it was remembered that
that revelation was a revelation of mercy; that the Jews were re-
jected not to narrow, but to widen, the way of salvation; there
might seem to be a good hope that mercy would yet rejoice against
judgment, and the way be made wider still for Jew as well as
Gentile to enter in. “And so God concluded all under sin that he
might have mercy upon all.”

In such a view of the Epistle it may be remarked that there is an
analogy between St. Paul’s treatment of the case of the individual
believer and that of the Jewish people. The believer must first be
made conscious of his sin before he can receive the gift of grace; so -
the Jewish nation must be rejected before it can be received ; and
the believing Jew be made sensible that the Law has passed away
before he can see the hope of his countrymen’s restoration. He who
has begun the good work will carry it on to the end. He who gave
his Son to die for mankind, while yet sinners, how shall He not,
when they are now reconciled, freely give them all things? He
who inverted his natural order, and placed the Gentile before the
Jew, shall He not much more restore the Jew to his original pri-
vileges ? 7

A few other points may be adduced in support of Baur’s views.
Such are the inculcation of obedience to the powers that be, in the
xiiith chapter, which may be thought to be more appropriate to a
Jewish than a Gentile Church. In a Jewish community only
should we be likely to find the “ fifth-monarchy ” men of that day,
whether zealots for the Law or expectants of a Messiah’s kingdom.
Gentile Christians we might expect rather to present the innocent,
peaceful image which we gather of the believers from Pliny’s
letters, who could have needed no such warning. <A further indica-
tion which may be thought to connect the Epistle in the same

manner with a Jewish rather than a Gentile Church, is the allusion

INTRODUCTION. 13

to the seruple respecting meats and drinks, and the opinions on the
observance of days.

When weighed in the scales of criticism, it must be admitted that
much stress cannot be laid on the two last arguments. The utmost
we can concede to them is, that the allusions referred to in the
Epistle agree rather better with the hypothesis of a Jewish than of
a Gentile community. Yet more shadowy seem the proofs derived
from the Clementine Homilies and the Shepherd of Hermas; which,
even if it be granted that they were written by members of the
Roman Church, yet, being the work of a century later and appearing
in a time of transition, cannot be adduced to support the view that
the first believers at Rome were Jews, still less that the earliest
spirit of the Roman Church was of a Jewish Gnostic character.

Omitting then, on either side, the weaker arguments, and confining
ourselves to strong and simple grounds, we seem at first sight to come
to two utterly irreconcilable and contradictory views: the Epistle
was addressed to Gentiles, because St. Paul expressly says so; the
Epistle was addressed to Jews, because its contents are suited only
to a Jewish habit of thought and education. Our object must now
be to find some middle term which will reconcile the two opposing
theories, —which will admit of the Roman Church being partly
Jewish and partly Gentile, or, in a certain sense, Jewish, in another,
Gentile.

The old belief was, that the Roman Church consisted partly of
- Jews and partly of Gentiles, and that the Epistle was written with
the intention of adjusting the disputes that had arisen between them.
The latter part of this statement finds no support from the Epistle
itself, and appears to be nothing more than an arbitrary assumption
suggested by the analogy of the Corinthians and the Galatians.
The former part need not be wholly denied: for in every
Christian Church there were probably some Jews and some Gentiles.
Yet it does not follow from this that the community was divided be-
tween them, or that both were numerous enough to form separate

14 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

parties. The Epistle affords no intimation of such parties existing
side by side, whether peaceably or otherwise, in the Roman commu-
nion. St. Paul never speaks of Jew and Gentile as in actual contact,
disputing about circumcision, or purification, or meats and drinks,
or sabbath days. The relation which he supposes between them is
wholly ideal ; that is, in the purposes of God, not in their assemblies
or daily life. They divide the world and time; they have nothing
to do with each other as individuals. Nor does the theory that the
Roman Church was a half Jewish, half Gentile community agree
with either of the facts stated above—the fact that the name
Gentiles is applied to all, while the tone and style of the Epistle are
wholly Jewish.

It is more reasonable, as well as far more in accordance with the
indications of the Epistles, to regard the Churches planted by the
Apostles, not as divided into two sections of Jew and Gentile,
circumcision and uncircumcision, but as always in a state of trans-
ition between the two, dropping gradually their Jewish customs,
and opening the door wider and wider to their Gentile brethren,
slowly, but at length entirely, convinced that it was not “at
this time the kingdom was to be restored to Israel.” Such must,
at any rate, have been the case with the Churches not founded »
by St. Paul. It was long ere the curtains of the tabernacle were
drawn aside, or the veil rent in twain, or the earthly and visible
temple exchanged for that building in the heavens, the house not
made with hands. Disputes about the outward rite of circumcision
would be succeeded by another stage of controversy respecting the
inward obligation of the Law on the conscience, and the authority of
St. Paul and the Twelve. There were cases, also, in which an
idealised or Alexandrianised Judaism had been the soil in which the
Gospel was originally planted. Here the transition would be more
rapid ; the faith of the earliest believers would linger less around the
weak and beggarly elements ; they would more easily harmonise the
old and new; they would more readily comprehend the length and
breadth of the purposes of God. The change required of them

INTRODUCTION. 15

would be in their ways of thought rather than in their habits of life ;
and the latitude which such converts allowed themselves would
react on the stricter Jewish communities.

Changes like these may be supposed to have been passing over the
Roman Church. At the time St. Paul wrote to them, there was no
question of circumcision ; that, if it had ever been, was now left be-
hind. But ina more general way the same difficulty still pressed upon
them. What was the obligation of the Law? And, as they looked
upon the passing scene, and saw the chosen race becoming a spectacle
to the world, to angels, and to men, they could not but ask also,
“ What God intended respecting it?” Whether were they to melt
away among the Gentiles, or to preserve their name and heritage?
While men were pondering such thoughts in their hearts, of the
Law and its sabbaths, and ceremonies, and sacrifices, of the con-
solation of Israel, and the restoration of the kingdom, we may con-
ceive the Apostle to have written this Epistle with a view of meeting
their doubts, and adjusting their thoughts, and vindicating the ways
of God to man, and revealing the way of salvation. He gave them
the full truth for the half-truth, the day for the twilight, and es-
tablished their faith in Christ, not by drawing back, but by going
further than they had imagined, and resting the Gospel on an immu-
table moral foundation (Rom. ii. 11. ; iii. 29).

Such we conceive to have been the state of feeling in the Roman
Church, because such is the state of feeling to which the words of
the Apostle are appropriate. Neither the earlier one, in which
men said, “except ye be circumcised ye cannot be saved,” and an
Apostle himself withdrew and refused to eat with the Gentiles ; nor
the later one, in’ which it was clearly understood that all such
differences were done away in Christ, are suitable to the argument
of the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostle was still seeking to
teach a Jewish Church the great lesson of the admission of the
Gentiles more perfectly. So far the hypothesis of Baur affords a
good key to the interpretation of the Epistle. But still the ex-
pression in the fifth verse of the first chapter has not been disposed

16 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of. In what sense could they be said to be Gentiles? For sup-
posing the Roman Church to have consisted of Jews gradually passing
into the state of Gentiles, we have an explanation of the frequent
dwelling on the Law, and the relation of Jew and Gentile, but none
of the term, “other Gentiles,” under which the Apostle comprehends
them. No gradual change in their opinions and circumstances could
have justified him in calling those Gentiles who were originally Jews.
Nor, however much he might “ magnify his office,” would he have
included the chosen people under the common name, which he every-
where opposed to them. The very meaning of the Apostle of the
Gentiles would have been lost had the term “nations” extended
itself to them.

The attempt to solve this difficulty runs up into the general
question of the state and circumstances of the early Church: our
inquiry respecting which must, however, be restricted to the single
point which bears upon the present subject; viz. how far the
Gentile Churches were originally in feeling Jewish,—whether to the
Gentiles also the gate of the New Testament was through the Old?
For if it could be shown that Jewish and Gentile Christianity were
not so much opposed as successive —that the Gospel of the
Jewish Apostles was the first, and that of St. Paul the subsequent,
stage in the history of the Apostolic Church,—then the difficulty of
itself disappears, and the double aspect of the Epistle to the
Romans is what we should expect.

Our conception of the Apostolical age is necessarily based on the
Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul. It is in vain to
search ecclesiastical writings for further information ; the pages of
Justin and Ireneus supply only the evidence of their own defi-
ciency. Confining ourselves, then, to the original sources, we cannot
but be struck by the fact, that of the first eighteen years after the
day of Pentecost, hardly any account is preserved to us in the Acts,
and that to this scanty record no addition can be made from the
Epistles of St. Paul. Isolated facts are narrated, but not events in
their order and sequence : there is no general prospect of the Chris-

INTRODUCTION. 17

tian world. Churches are growing up every where: some the
result of missions from Jerusalem, others of unknown origin; yet
none of them standing in any definite relation to the Apostles of the
circumcision. It seems as if we had already reached the second
stage in the history of the Apostolic Church, without any precise
knowledge of the first. That second period, if we terminate it with
the supposed date of the Apostle’s death, extends over about fourteen
or fifteen years,—years full of life, and growth, and vicissitude.
Could the preceding period have been less so, or does it only appear
to be so from the silence of history? Is it according to the analogy
of human things, or of the workings of Divine power in the soul
of man, that during the first part of its existence, Christianity
should have slumbered, and after fifteen years of inaction have sud-
denly gone forth to conquer the world? Or, are we falling under
that common historical illusion, that little happened in a time of
which we know little ?

And yet how are we to supply this lost history out of the single
verse of the Acts (xi. 19.), “ They which were scattered abroad upon
the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice
and Cyprus and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the
Jews only.” What reply is to be made to the inquiry respecting
the origin of the Christian Church in the two cities which in after-
ages were to exercise the greatest influence on its history, Alex-
andria and Rome? We cannot tell. Our slender materials only
admit of being eked out by some general facts which do not fill up
the void of details, but are of the greatest importance in illustrating
the spirit and character of the earliest Christian communities.
Foremost among these facts is the dispersion of the Jews. The
remark has been often made that the universality of the Roman
Empire was itself a preparation for the universality of the Gospel,
its very organisation throughout the world being the image, as it
may have been the model, of the external form of the Christian
Church. But not less striking as an image of the external state of

the earliest Christian communion is the dispersion of the ten tribes

VOL. II. C

18 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

throughout the world, and not less worthy of observation as it was
an inward preparation for Christianity is the universal diffusion
of that religion, the spirit of which seemed at the time to be most
narrow and contracted within itself, and at first sight most hostile
to the whole human race. Of all religions in the world it was pro-
bably the only one capable of making proselytes,— which had the force,
as it had the will, to draw men within its circle. Literally, and not
only in idea, “the Law was a schoolmaster to bring men to Christ.”
The compassing sea and land “to make one proselyte” was not
without its results. Seneca, who did not know, or at least has not
told anything of the Christians, says of the Jews, “ Victoribus victi
leges dederunt.” The Roman satirists were aware of their festivals,
and speak of them in a way which implies not only converts to
Judaism, but a degree of regard for their opinions. They had
passed into a proverb in Horace’s time for their zeal in bringing men
over to their opinions. (1 Sat. iv. 143.) Philo mentions the suburb
beyond the Tiber in which they were domiciled by Augustus, the
greater number of the inhabitants of which are said to have been
freedmen: Leg. ad Caium, 23. Tacitus’s account of their origin
is perhaps an unique attempt in a Roman writer to investigate the
religious antiquities of an Eastern people, implying of itself, what
it also explicitly states, the tendency towards them. No other
religion had been sustained for centuries by contributions from the
most remote parts of the empire to a common centre ; contributions
the very magnitude of which is ascribed to the zeal of numerous
converts. (Tacitus, Hist. v. 5.; Cicero pro Flacco, c. 28.) According
to Josephus, whole tribes in the neighbourhood of Judea had sub-
mitted to the rite of circumcision. (Ant. xiii. 9. 1.; 11. 8.; 15. 4.)
The women of Damascus in particular are mentioned as not trusted
by their husbands in a massacre of the Jews, because they were
“favourable to the Jews’ religion.” The Jews in Alexandria
occupied two of the five quarters into which the city was divided :
and the whole Jewish population of Egypt was rated by Philo at
a million. Facts like these speak volumes for the importance and
influence of the Jews.

INTRODUCTION. 19

In one sense it is true that the Jewish religion seemed already
about to expire. To us, looking back from the vantage ground of
the Gospel, nothing is clearer than that it contained within itself
thé seeds of its own destruction. “The Law and the Prophets were
until John, and now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and
the violent take it by force.” Before Christ — after Christ — this is
the great landmark that divides Judaism from Christianity, while
for a few years longer the devoted nation, already within the coils
of its own destiny, lingers about its ancient seat. It was otherwise
to its contemporaries. To them the Jewish people was not declining,
but growing. There seemed to be no end to its wealth and influ-
ence. The least of all peoples in itself, it was a nation within a
nation in every city. In the wreck of the heathen religions,
Judaism alone remained unchanged. Nor is there anything strange
in its retaining undiminished this power over the human mind,
when its own national glory had already departed. Its objects
of faith were not lessened, but magnified by distance. It contained
in itself that inward life which other religions were seeking for, and
for the want of which they expired. It could not but communicate
to others the belief in the unity of God, which had sunk for ages
into the heart of the race;—to the educated Greek “one guess
among many,”—to the Israelite a necessary truth. It formed a sort
of meeting point of East and West, which in the movement of
either towards the other naturally exercised a singular influence.
Many elements of Greek cultivation had insensibly passed into the
mind of the Jewish people, as of other Asiatic nations, before the
reaction of the Maccabean wars; cities with Greek names covered
the land: even after that time the rugged Hebrew feeling was
confined within narrow limits. The Gospel as it passed from the
lips of our Lord and the Twelve had not far to go in Palestine itself
before it came in contact with the Greek world. In other countries
the diffusion of the Greek Version of the Old Testament is a proof
that a Hellenised Judaism was growing up everywhere. The
Alexandrian philosophy offered a link with heathen literature and

c 2

20) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

mythology. Judaism was no longer isolated but wandering far
and wide. Clinging to its belief in Jehovah and abating nothing
of its national pride, it was nevertheless capable of assuming to
itself new phases without losing its essential character, of dropping
its more repulsive features and entering into and penetrating the
better heathen mind both of East and West.

The heads of many subjects of inquiry are summed up in these re-
flections, which lead us round to the question from which we started,
“ Whether to the Gentiles also the gate of the New Testament was
through the Old?” And they suggest the answer to the question,
that “so it was,” not because the minds of the first teachers were
unable to rise above the “rudiments of the Law,” but because the
soil for Christianity among the Gentiles was itself prepared in
Judaism. It was the natural growth of the Gospel in the world
as it then was. The better life of the Jewish people passed into the
earliest Christian Church; the meaning of prophecy was lost to
the Jew and found to the believer in Christ. And the facts re-
corded in the Acts of the Apostles represent the outward side of
this inward tendency : it was the Jewish proselyte who commonly
became the Christian convert. Such were Cornelius and the Ethi-
opian eunuch, and the deputy Sergius Paulus, who “of his own
accord desired to hear the word of God.” The teachers themselves
wore the habit of Jews, and they came appealing to the authority
of the Old Testament. That garb and form and manner which we
insensibly drop in thinking of the early teachers of Christianity,
could not have failed to impress its Jewish character on their first
hearers. It would be their first conception of the Gospel, that it
was a kind of Judaism to which they were predisposed by the
same kind of feelings which led them towards Judaism itself.

The question receives the same answer when reconsidered from
another point of view, in connexion with the general narrative of
the first propagation of the Gospel, in the Acts and the Epistles of
St. Paul. Read them on any other hypothesis and they become

unintelligible. For they imply that there was a time when the

INTRODUCTION. 21

Gospel was preached to Jews only, when the disciples were not
called Christians, if indeed they ever were so at Jerusalem, when
the preaching of the truth was mainly in the hands of the Apostles
of the circumcision. They imply further, that another Gospel
was taught by the Apostle St. Paul, yet still taught through the
Old Testament, to those who heard and desired to be under the Law ;
often with doubtful success, so widely spread and deeply rooted
were the doctrines of the circumcision, so strong the tendency to
relapse into them. Only at Lystra in Lycaonia, and at Athens, the
Apostle appears to have preached,—with what result the narrative
of the Acts does not clearly inform us,— to pure heathens. And it
is remarkable as falling in with these facts, that in some of the
Epistles, as, for example, the Thessalonians and Galatians, we are in
a degree of uncertainty whether the persons to whom the Apostle is
writing are Jewish or Gentile converts.

The earlier Jewish aspect of Christianity has passed away, now
that we are dead to the Law. We can scarcely imagine a time when
all the heathen converts were in the position of proselytes of the gate,
the only question being, whether they were to proceed to the further
stage of initiation into Judaism and become proselytes of righte-
ousness. We cannot conceive the feelings with which the Old
Testament was regarded by those to whom it was not only half, but
the whole of the word of God, — to whom the danger was not that
they would reject it, but that they would remain too exclusively
within its circle. Numberless as are the indications of Judaising
tendencies in the Epistles, no vestige is discernible of any repug-
nance to the Mosaical law, or any unwillingness to admit its
Divine authority. Such feelings of antagonism to the Law as are
observable in Marcion and some of the early heretics, do not belong
to the Apostolical age. St. Paul does not hold the balance between
those who gave it too much and too little honour; he himself is the
centre of the opposition to it; few probably went as far in the same
direction. The weight and sacredness of the Apostle’s name were
not to the rebellious Corinthians or Galatians what they are to us.

c3

22 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Nor must his influence on the Jewish Christian Church be measured
by the proportion which his writings bear to the rest of the New
Testament or their effect upon the world in after ages. Those are
mournful words which he utters at the end of his life (2 Tim. i. 15.),
“Thou knowest that all they which are in Asia are turned away
from me.”

But besides the constant tendency of the converts to relapse into
Judaism, the manner in which the Apostle argues with them out of
the Old Testament in four at least of his Epistles, as well as in the
greater number of his discourses in the Acts, is a further
evidence of the close historical connexion between Judaism
and the Gospel. Such appeals, it will be readily acknowledged,
imply a profound faith in the Apostle’s mind, in the Divine
origin of the religion of his fathers, which in another point of view
he yet regards as the “weak and beggarly elements,” nay, even
as “the strength of sin.” But more than this, they imply also the
certainty that those to whom he was writing would understand the
force of his appeals. For we cannot suppose that the Apostle, in
quoting texts out of the Law, was uttering unmeaning sounds, was
speaking from his own mind what was unintelligible to those whom
he is addressing. Without one word of preface or explanation, he
repeats again and again the language of the Old Testament, the very
sacredness of which consisted in the familiarity of its sound, the
point of which lay in the novelty and spirituality of the interpreta-
tion given to it. Must he not be speaking to those whe lived in the
same world with himself, who, like Timothy, had long known the
Holy Scriptures, who were brought up in the same traditions, and in
all points — circumcision only excepted — though Gentiles in name
and origin, were really Jews.

Now if the history of Judaism in the Augustan age, no less than
the indications of the New Testament itself, leads to the inference
that the first disciples, even in Gentile cities, were commonly Jewish
converts, or, at any rate, such as were acquainted with the Law
and the Prophets, and were disposed to receive with reverence
Jewish teachers, the difficulty in the Epistle to the Romans is solved,

INTRODUCTION. ~ 23

at the same time that the fact of its solution is an additional confirm-
ation of the view which has been just taken. The Roman Church
appeared to be at once Jewish and Gentile; Jewish in feeling,
Gentile in origin. Jewish, because the Apostle everywhere argues
with them as Jews; Gentile, because he expressly addresses them
by name as such. In this double fact there is now seen to be no-
thing strange or anomalous: it typifies the general condition of
Christian Churches, whether Jewish or Gentile; whether founded
by St. Paul, or by the Apostles of the circumcision. It was not
only in idea that the Old Testament prepared the way for the New,
by holding up the truth of the unity of God; but the spread of
that truth among the Gentiles, and the influence of the Jewish
Scriptures, were themselves actual preparatives for the Gospel.

To those who were Gentiles by birth, but had received the Gospel
originally from Jewish teachers, the subject of the Epistle to the
Romans would have a peculiar interest. It expressed the truth on
the verge of which they stood, which seemed to be peculiarly re-
quired by their own circumstances, which explained their position
to themselves. It purged the film from their eyes, which prevented
them from seeing the way of God perfectly. Hitherto they had
acquiesced in the position which public opinion among the heathen
assigned to them, that they were a Jewish sect: and they had
implicitly followed the lives as well as the lessons of their first
instructors in Christ. Buta nobler truth was now to break upon
them. God was not the God of the Jews only, but of the Gentiles
also. And this wider range of vision involved a new principle, not
the Law, but faith. If nations of every language and tongue were
to be included in the Gospel dispensation, —barbarian, Scythian,
bond and free,—the principle that was to unite them must be supe-
rior to the differences that separated them. In other words, it
could not be an institution or a Church, but an inward principle,
which might belong alike to all mankind. This principle was faith,
the view of which in St. Paul’s mind is never separated from the

redemption of mankind at large.

c 4

a EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

It may be remarked, as confirmatory of what has been said, that
no allusion occurs in the Epistle to the Romans to the question of
circumcision. There could hardly have failed to have been such
allusions had the Church been divided between two parties of Jew
and Gentile, or had it been originally a Jewish Church ever open-
ing the door wider to the Gentiles. The absence of such allusions
is, however, perfectly consistent with the fact that it was addressed
to a community, the majority of whose members had not undergone
the rite of circumcision.

The reference to disputes respecting meats and drinks, and the
whole aspect of the Law as a burden on the conscience, would have
at least as much meaning to Gentiles against their nature brought
up in its observance as to Jews themselves. The burden which
neither the Jews of that day nor their fathers were able to bear,
would be still heavier, more unmeaning, and more perplexing, when
pressing upon the necks of Gentiles. They would at once under-
stand the Apostle’s reasoning respecting it, and at the same time
their own admission to the privileges of the Gospel would be the
highest internal witness to the truth which he taught. What they
knew and felt respecting themselves, they would know and feel also
was the grace of God to all mankind. Christian humility, as well
as Christian charity, was ready to assent to the universal redemption
of all nations. And, as in the alternations of thought, they came
round to the case of the Jew, they would sympathise with St. Paul’s
feelings, as, if not Israelites themselves, having received the Gospel
from Israelites.

As a test of the above argument, it is thought desirable to bring
together before the reader, in one view, the passages in the Epistle
which throw a light on the state of the Roman Church.

Chap. i. 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for
obedience to the faith among all Gentiles, for his name. Among whom
are ye also the called of Jesus Christ.

14, That I might have fruit among you also, as among other
Gentiles.

INTRODUCTION. 25

16. For I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ: for it is the
power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth ; to the Jew
first, and also to the Gentile.

The two first are the passages alluded to in the preceding Essay,
which make it impossible for us to suppose that the Epistle to the
Romans was addressed to a purely Jewish Church.

The third may seem to warrant no inference. Yet it is improbable
that a writer of such tact as St. Paul would have placed in the fore-
ground of his Epistle the announcement “ to the Jew first, and also to
the Gentile,” had he been writing to a purely Gentile Church, or to
one unable to enter into the privileges of the Jew. Comp. c. ii. 9, 10. ;
also, ii. 14. “For when the Gentiles, which have not the Law, do by
nature the things contained in the Law, these, not having the Law,
are a Law unto themselves.” The Gentiles are here spoken of in the
third person, as atc. iii. 1. the Jews. There was nothing in the
doctrine here laid down, any more than in the words of our Saviour,
“ Many shall come from the east and west,” which was new to the
Jews, who, as appears from Philo, acknowledged that the sinful Jew
would be condemned by the believing Gentile.

Chap. ii. 1. 17. “ Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever
thou art,” &c. — “ But if thou art called a Jew and restest in the Law
and makest thy boast of God,” &c. Among the slighter indications of
the truth of the view urged above, may be mentioned the more covert
way in which the Jew is attacked in comparison with the Gentile.
In the latter part of the chapter, St. Paul is not immediately ad-
dressing the Roman Church, but speaking of Judaism in the
abstract.

Chap. iii. 1—17. This passage is so full of quotations from the
Old Testament, and has a tone of thought so peculiar, that it isimpos-
sible to suppose it would have been addressed to those who had not
received a Jewish education. Is it likely that a Gentile convert
would have understood that peculiar Jewish difficulty respecting the
ways of God to man? See notes and introduction to e. iii.

19. “ Whatsoever things the Law saith, it saith to them that are

26 EPISTLE TO° THE ROMANS.

under the law.” It has ever been a difficulty with commentators on
this passage, how St. Paul could have brought Gentile as well as Jew
under the imprecations of the Law. The true point of this difficulty
seems to be, not that it is an unfair argument to apply passages of
the Old Testament to a use for which they were not at first ap-
parently intended (for this we must grant to be the case with regard
to many other of St. Paul’s quotations), but that the Gentile should
have been brought to admit that they were applicable to his case.
But if we try to put ourselves in the position of a Gentile who had
received the Gospel at the hands of Jews, —who had been accustomed
to appropriate to himself the words of the Law, — the difficulty dis-
appears. The Law was a witness that the Gentile who had received
a Jewish education would be no more disposed to reject than the
Jew himself.

21. But now the righteousness of God without the Law is mani-
fested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.

Chap. iv. The argument from Abraham and David, familiar to
the Jew, would be unintelligible to Gentile Christians.

Chap. v. affords another instance of the intimate acquaintance
with the Old Testament, presupposed in those whom the Apostle is
addressing.

Chap. vii. The same acquaintance with the Law is implied in
the instance of the woman who has lost her husband; as is also
a practical experience of its influence on the human heart, in the
latter part of the chapter.

Chap. ix.—xi. are almost entirely based on the words of the pro-
phets, and the analogy of God’s dealings with the Jews. No Gentile
Christian could have taken the warm interest.in the subject of these
chapters, which is evidently required by the interest St. Paul him-
self exhibits in them. St. Paul is at first earnest to prove that the
Jews are rejected, and then, again, that they are restored. Neither
the first nor the last would seem an appropriate theme if addressed
to Gentiles.

Chap. xi. 13. “For Ispeak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the

INTRODUCTION. 27

Apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” St. Paul is not in
these words addressing the Roman Church, but apostrophising the
Gentile, as at ii. 17. the Jew.

Chap. xiii. 1. Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained
of God.

Chap. xiv. 1. Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to
doubtful disputations. For one believeth that he may eat all things:
another, who is weak, eateth herbs.

_ 5. One man esteemeth one day above another ; another esteemeth
every day alike.

14. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is
nothing unclean of itself.

Chap. xv. 8. Now I say that Jesus Christ was a minister of the
circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to
the fathers. And that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy;
as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee among the
Gentiles, and sing unto thy people.

15. I have written the more boldly unto you in some sort, as
putting you in mind, because of the grace that is given unto me.

16. That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles,
ministering the Gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles
might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.

20. Yea, so have I strived to preach the Gospel, not where Christ
was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.

Chap. xvi. Out of twenty-four names of persons who are sa-
luted, only one, Mary, is a Jewish name.

3. 5. Greet Priscilla and Aquila, and the Church that is in their
house.

The above passages imply, that the persons addressed were
Gentiles, on whom, as the Apostle of the Gentiles, St. Paul had
a claim, who were, however, converted by others, and therefore
occasioned the Apostle a delicacy in extending his sphere of

labour to them. They were intimately acquainted with, and

28 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

capable of being convinced by arguments from, the Law; they were
apparently, though Gentiles, ignorant of God’s purposes to the
Gentile world at large, and they were capable of feeling an interest
in the future fortunes of the Jewish people. They were scrupulous
about meats and drinks, and a lengthened admonition to obey the
powers that were was not considered by the Apostle as inappro-
priate or superfluous. All these facts no other theory seems ade-
quate to explain, but the one here offered, —that they were a Gentile
Church but Jewish converts,—a theory which is supported by the
reason of the thing, as well as by the analogy of other Christian

communities,

29

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE.

Tue Gentile origin and Jewish character of the Roman Church are
a sufficient explanation of the style and subject of the Epistle to the
Romans. The condemnation of the Jew first, and afterwards of the
Gentile,—the justification of the Jew first, and afterwards of the
Gentile,—the actual fact of the rejection of the Jews, and the hope
of their restoration,—are all of them topics appropriate to what we
may conceive to have been the feeling of the Roman converts, in
whom a Jewish education had not obliterated a Gentile origin, and
whom a Gentile origin did not deprive of the hope of Jewish pro-
mises. ‘The Apostle no longer appears to be speaking to the winds
of heaven, what, after being borne to and fro upon the earth, might
return to the profit of the Church after many days, but what had
an immediate interest for it, and arose naturally out of its actual
state. |

Assuming the results of the preceding essay, we may consider the
structure of the Epistle, with the view of tracing the relation of the
parts to each other and to the whole. What was primary, what
secondary, in the Apostle’s thoughts? Is the order of the compo-
sition the same as the order of ideas? Do we proceed from without
inwards,—that is, from the admission of the Gentiles to the justifica-
tion of the individual believer? or from within outwards,—that is,
from the individual believer to the world at large? Is the episode
of the restoration of the Jews subordinate or principal,—a correction
of the first part of the Epistle, or, as Baur supposes, the kernel of
the whole? ‘These are subtle and delicate inquiries, respecting which
it is not possible to attain absolute certainty, and in the prosecution

of which we are always in danger of attributing to the Apostle more

30 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of method and plan than he really had. Such inquiries can only be
made by a comparison of other writings of the Apostle, and an
accurate examination of the Epistle itself.

We may begin by asking, “ Whether there is any subject which
the Epistle to the Romans has in common with the other Epistles,
which is specially identified with the life and working of the
Apostle?” There is. While the doctrine of righteousness by faith
without the deeds of the Law is but slightly referred to in the other
Epistles of St. Paul, and is but once mentioned in the Acts of the
Apostles, there is another truth, which is everywhere and at all
times insisted upon by him, and everywhere connected with his
name, which recurs in almost every one of his Epistles, and is
everywhere dwelt upon in the Acts as the result of his Apostleship,
—the admission of the Gentiles. He speaks of himself, and is always
spoken of, as the Apostle of the Gentiles; his conversion itself is
bound up with this labour of universal love; in “ the beginning of
the Gospel” he stands up for their rights, among “the Apostles
that were before him;” all through his life he is proclaiming in
a more or less spiritual manner, “God hath made of one blood
ail nations of the earth.” (Acts, xvii. 26.) “Is he the God of the
Jews only, is he not also of the Gentiles?” (Rom. iii. 29.) All
are one in Christ, in whom “ neither circumcision nor uncircumcision
avail any thing, but a new creature” (Gal. iii. 28., vi. 15.); or,
according to another form of expression, “in whose circumcision
the Gentiles also are circumcised.” (Col. ii. 11.) Compare 1 Cor.
xii. 13. ; Eph. i. 10., iii. 3—6.

Such repeated reference to the same subject justifies our regarding
it as the leading thought of the Apostle’s mind, the great truth
which the power of God had inspired him to teach. Yet, itself
had ‘a twofold aspect, for the differences of Jew and Gentile were
done away with, not on the ground of any abstract equality of the
human race in the sight of God, but as they became one in Christ.
It is union with Christ which breaks through all other ties of race
and language, and knits men together into a new body which is His

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 31

Church. So while looking at the external world we seem almost at
once to pass inward, and to blend the assertion of the general prin-
ciple with the experience of the individual soul. The chord of
love which encircles all men has its beginning too in the believer's
heart. “There is neither barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free,”
not on any speculative grounds of morality, but because his own
spiritual instinct tells him that all these differences are done away
in Christ.

But with this outward aspect of Christianity is connected also
another thought, which follows it as the shadow does the light, “ the
times of that ignorance which God winked at,” “the passing by of
past sins” (Rom. iii. 25.), “which was kept secret since the world
began ” (Rom. xvi. 25.), “which in other ages was not made known
— that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body ”
(Eph. iii.6.). It was strange to look at the world around, and see
the Gentiles also pressing into the Kingdom of Heaven. But it was
not less, but perhaps even more strange, to think of the Gentiles
in past times who seemed to have so little relation to the God
who made them; in the world of darkness and silence, on which
the eye could rest, but which it could not pierce. Nor was the same
thought inapplicable to those who were under the Law. They too,
though with many “advantages,” were still subject to ordinances,
shut up in prison until the time appointed. The prior states of
Jew and Gentile were not wholly dissimilar: the Law was the glass
which might be held up to both to convict them of sin; in which,
world within world, mirror within mirror, the Jew was first seen,
afterwards the Gentile. Jew and Gentile, the times before and the
times after, are the outlines or divisions of the book in the volume of
which are contained the purposes of God.

Such is the external aspect of the Apostle’s teaching so far
as it can be separated from the inward life, which penetrates
the individual and the Church alike. But there is a world
within as well as a world without, nor can we view one except
through the medium of the other. The knowledge which the

oO

O2 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Apostle himself has of the works of God, is transferred to the
heathen ; the consciousness which he feels of his own union with
Christ is the living proof of the acceptance of all mankind; the re-
membrance of his struggle under the Law, is the image of the state
of those under the Law. Though the thought comes upon him daily
of his mission to the Gentiles everywhere, he does not look’ upon
them as they appear in the pages of ancient authors, or on their
modes of worship, as they present themselves to the student of
mythology. He is not writing a philosophy of history, but a re-
ligion of history. He does not, in modern phraseology, put himself
in the position of the heathen, or even of the Jew, but retains his
own. Nor must we, in our interpretation of the Epistle, endeavour
to force his words, from this simple and natural point of view, into
one more in accordance with our tastes and feelings.

An illustration from heathen philosophy may serve to indicate
the peculiar nature of this transition from the individual mind to
the world at large. All modern commentators on Plato admit that
in the Republic the individual and the state pass into one another.
The virtues, duties, distinctions of one are also those of the other;
the consideration of the one seems to lead the philosopher on to the
deeper and more enlarged consideration of the other. Not alto-
gether unlike this is the manner in which the individual conscience
in the Epistles of St. Paul is the reflection not only of itself, but of
the world at large; and in which the thought of the world at large,
and the Church, of which he is a member, re-acts upon the inmost
feelings of the believer. The kingdom of God is not yet separated
into outward and visible, and inward and spiritual; nor election into
that of nations and individuals.

As the Apostle looks upon the face of the world, he sees all men,
by the light of revelation in himself, returning, through Christ,
into union with the God who made them. There is no distinction
of Jew or Gentile, circumcision or uncircumcision. Soon he passes
over into another point of view, “setting the world in their hearts.”

Two dispensations are in the bosom of every man who comes to the

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 33

knowledge of the truth; these are symbolised by two words, the Law
and Faith. The one is slavery, the other freedom; the one death,
the other life; the one strife, the other peace; the one alienation
from God, the other reconciliation with him. Not at once does the
one dispensation take the place of the other. There is a period of
natural life first; the Law enters and plants the seeds of mortal
disease. Will and knowledge, the common sources of human
action, begin to decompose, the will to evil struggling with
the knowledge of good. The creature is made powerless to act by
his consciousness of sin; the Law only terrifies—he dies at the very
sight of it: it is a dry “eye” turning every way upon his misery.
The soul, hanging between good and evil, is in a state of paralysis,
doing what it would not, and hating itself for what it does.. But,
again, the soul is persuaded by many arguments that “the Law is
dead ;” it throws away the worser half, and clings to its risen Lord.
Faith is the hand by which it is united to Him —the instrument
whereby it is accepted, renewed, sanctified — the sense through which
it looks up to God, revealing Himself in man, and around on creation.

These two, the Law and Faith, are so inseparable, that they seem
each to derive their meaning from the other. Faith is not the Law;
the Law is not Faith. Whatever is not Faith is the Law ; whatever is
not the Law is Faith. The Law, no less than Faith, is an inward
feeling —a tablet of stone, yet written also on fleshly tables of the
heart. Yet the Apostle’s manner of speaking of both is such as, at
first sight, prevents our perception of this. ‘Through a great portion
of the Epistle he drops their subjective character, and represents
them to us as powers, almost as persons—the symbols of the past and
present—of the followers of Moses and Christ, arrayed against each
other in the battlefield of the world and the human heart; blended
in the example of Abraham; typified in the first and second Adam ;
the figures of two kinds of death, in sin and to sin.

In the course of the Epistle we pass more and more inward to the
dividing asunder of the flesh and spirit, until darkness takes the
place of light, and death of life. More than once the shadow of

VOL. IT. D

34 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

peace rests upon us in passing, but we must first enter into the
depths of human nature, and take part in the struggle, ere we can
attain finally to that rest which is in Christ Jesus. At length the
body of death slips from us: the law of the spirit of life prevails
over the law of sin. And yet the fleshly body, though dead to sin,
still cleaves to us: it has ceased to strive against the spirit, but is
not yet adopted into the fellowship of Christ. But, though groaning
within ourselves, we have the inward witness of the Spirit ; we know
that all things are working together for good: we ask in triumph,
“Tf God be for us, who can be against us ?”

Thus far we have proceeded from without inwards, —that is to say,
from the relation of the Gospel to Jew and Gentile, and its place in
the history of the world, to its influence on the heart and conscience.

At this point the former aspect of the Epistle re-appears. The —

question of salvation is-no longer personal, but national. All man-
kind have been included under sin; all mankind, even as Abraham,
are righteous by faith: “As in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall
all be made alive.” Thence the Apostle digressed to guard against
practical inferences ; to describe the inward need of pardon as before
the outward. But still there was one exception to the offer of
universal salvation. All the world was included; but the favoured
nation seemed by its own act to exclude itself from the’ gracious
circle. As a nation the Jews had rejected the Gospel ; and to them
the Apostle returns, first, to justify their rejection, secondly, to
prophesy their restoration.

It has been remarked above that Baur considers these chapters as
the substance of the Epistle, and views the eight previous ones as a
mere introduction. It is certainly true that St. Paul is writing ona
subject of the deepest interest to himself, as we may gather from the
very vehemence of his tone, and, as we should naturally infer, not
less interesting to those whom he is addressing. The chapters which
speak of the restoration of the Jews are not a mere digression from:
his previous subject ; without them the scheme of Providence would
be incomplete, and the elder dispensation unmeaning and unex-

plained ; the hope of universal redemption, too, at variance with the

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 35

fact. They are an integral portion of the Epistle, and connect with
the early chapters, in which the same objections which are there met
struggle vainly for utterance (c. iii.). But it disturbs the whole
balance and proportion of the Epistle to maintain that all the great
subjects that have preceded meet in one point, which is contained in
a few verses of the eleventh chapter. For it must be observed that
the greater part even of the three chapters themselves is taken up
with the justification of the rejection of the Jews, and a small section
only with their restoration. The restoration of the Jews themselves
is not a mere isolated act of the grace of God, but an enlargement of
the whole scheme, in which the Gentiles also are to have part. “So
then God concluded all under sin that he might have mercy upon all.”

The remainder of the Epistle is a practical exhortation to Christian
graces and moral virtues; commencing with a general invitation to
a holy life, or, as the Apostle expresses it in language borrowed from
the Law, to present the body a living sacrifice. The ground of this
‘invitation is the mercy of God, as set forth in the scheme of Provi-
dence: —“ So then God concluded all under sin that he might have
mercy upon all;” “I beseech you, therefore.” ‘Thence the Apostle
passes onwards, as towards the conclusion of several Epistles, to a
series of practical precepts, some of which have a peculiar reference
to the state and circumstances of the early Church. Here the
connexion with the main subject of the Epistle appears to drop, and
the very want of connexion leads us to remark that the separate
duties are not regarded by the Apostle as absorbed in the single
truth of righteousness by faith, but are stated by him independently
of it. Throughout the twelfth, thirteenth, and fourteenth chapters
there is scarcely the least reference to the preceding portions of the
Epistle. Thence the Apostle digresses still further to a personal
narrative, in which, as towards the conclusion of the Epistle to the
Galatians, in a few pregnant verses, the main subject of the Epistle
is again introduced; whence he returns once more to himself and
his intended visit, and his mission to Jerusalem, and concludes with
salutations of the brethren.

D2

36 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

TIME AND PLACE.

Tue time and place of writing the Epistle to the Romans are dis-
tinctly marked in the fifteenth chapter. The Apostle is on his way
to Jerusalem, “ministering to the saints,” xv. 25., in accordance
with his half-expressed intention in 1 Cor. xvi. 4. He is carrying
up the contributions of Macedonia and Achaia, for the poor at Jeru-
salem, ver. 26. Having completed his labours in Asia Minor and
Greece, xv. 23. (compare 2 Cor. x. 13.), when his mission to Jeru-
salem is accomplished, ver. 28., he hopes to visit the Roman converts
on his way to Spain, ver. 22.; a purpose which he has often enter-
tained, xv. 22., but never -fulfilled, i. 12. (Compare Acts, xix. 21.)
The mention of Cenchrea, the port of Corinth, on the Saronic Gulf,
in xvi. 1., agrees with the other circumstances, in indicating his
second visit to Corinth as the time and place of writing the Epistle.
In reference to these allusions it may be remarked : — (1.) That the
Apostle, though on his way to Rome, has no intention of making
Rome the resting-place from his labours. He is the Apostle
of the whole world, hastening onward, ere his sun sets, “to the
extreme west” of Clement. His preference of Spain above other
countries might be suggested by the circumstance that the Gospel
had not yet spread there, and that he went to plant it. Or,
more probably, considering the definite manner in which he
speaks of his intention, he was led to choose Spain rather than
Africa or Italy, from some acquaintance with, or invitation from,
Jews or Christians already settled there. As there is no reason
to suppose that the journey was ever accomplished, it is useless
to speculate further on the motive of it. (2.) It is observable
also that he wrote the Epistle to the Romans from Corinth, or

TIME AND PLACE. 37

its neighbourhood, and therefore after the second Epistle to the
Corinthians, which already indicates that a reaction had taken place
in the Corinthian Church in favour of the Apostle; a change of
feeling which might probably be confirmed by the Apostle’s visit.
Supposing this to have been the case, the Apostle, though in the
midst of that city of factions, was writing the Epistle to the Romans
at a time when their violence was abated. This agrees with the
conciliatory tone of the Epistle, as pointed out in the two preceding
essays, which also harmonizes with the immediate occasion of his
journey to Jerusalem. For (8.) at the very time of writing, the
Gentile Apostle was engaged in carrying up alms to the Jewish
Church at Jerusalem, much after the manner that other Jewish pil-
grims brought gifts from distant parts of the Empire for the service
of the Temple. He was fearful of the violence of his countrymen
in Judea, and not without apprehension of the feeling with which
the Church might regard him, xv. 31. Yet “his heart’s desire to-
wards Israel” was not dead within him, notwithstanding his fears
and sufferings. He had been for a long time previously gathering
the alms in Asia, 1 Cor. xvi. 1., as well as in Greece, according to an
agreement which he had entered into with the Apostles at Jerusalem
on a previous visit, Gal. ii. 10. Speaking after the manner of men,
may we not say that no one could be long employed in such mission
of charity, without feeling his soul melt towards those who were its
_ objects? What had never been personal hostility to the Church at
Jerusalem, must soon have given way, in a mind so sensitive as St.
Paul's, to the liveliest sympathy with them. In his own words to
the Corinthians it might be said : — “ His heart is enlarged towards
them; they are not straitened in him, but in themselves.” Nor
could this insensible change have occurred, without drawing ~
his thoughts to their place in the scheme of Providence. The feel-
ings of his own mind would inevitably cast a distant light and shade
on the Jewish and Gentile world.

The Epistle to the Romans is naturally compared with the

D3

38 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Epistle to the Galatians ; the subjects are the same, or nearly so, the
illustrations often similar, and minute resemblances of language sur-
prisingly numerous. Yet the Epistle to the Galatians would have
been in great measure unintelligible to us, but for the larger growth
and fuller development of the same truths in the Epistle to the
Romans. The first mentioned Epistle is personal and occasional ; it
has much of passion and sadness ; it bears the impress everywhere of
the struggle which agitated the Galatian converts, and could only have
been written to a Church which was known by face to the Apostle.
On the other hand, the Epistle to the Romans, except in one or two
passages, has a tone of calmness and deliberation : it is spiritual and
ideal; the distance at which the Apostle places himself from the
strifes of the Church, enabling him to take a more extended
survey of the purposes of God. The difference between the two
Epistles is further analogous to the difference between proselytes of
the gate, and the so-called proselytes of righteousness. The
question in the one case is “ circumcision,” the outward symbol of
the Jewish law, which affected the minds of the converts much,
we may suppose, as that of caste would occupy the minds of the
Hindoos at the present day, or as some ritual or legal question might
prevail over the better religious feeling among ourselves. The other
Epistle never touches on the subject of circumcision, as an obligation
to be enforced. or not enforced; but only as the seal of God’s
mercy to all mankind, in the instance of the Father of the faithful,
Rom. iv. The mind of the writer is absorbed in the contemplation
of the world as divided into Jew and Gentile, past and present, the
Law and Faith. The beginnings of this contemplation are discernible
in the Epistle to the Galatians; but more as a feeling or spiritual
instinct, less as a system or scheme of Providence. “In Christ
Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision,
~ but a new creature.” But there is a height not yet attained to, at
which every obstacle disappears, and the ways of God are justified
finally, the circumcision accepted through faith, and the uncireum-

cision ; the circumcision again returning to God in Christ, and the

TIME AND PLACE. 39

length and breadth of Divine love made manifest. This is only
reached in the Epistle to the Romans.

No certain inference respecting the length of time by which the
Epistle to the Romans is separated from the Epistle to the Galatians
can be drawn from these considerations. It is of more importance
to remark, that in reading the Epistle to the Romans, we have already
advanced in the series of Epistles a step onward towards the

Epistles of the Imprisonment.

as | A
Yass

se :
Caton

f eel Sa fe

: beh Ae

&

if ;
ae ae Rag

42

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

IIPOS> ‘PQMAIOTS.

ITATAOY S00 dos *Inood xpiorov, kdytos amdatoNos apwpt- 1

, > 3 , Puck , \ “A
opevos eis evayyéuov Oeod, d rpoeTnyyethato dua THY Tpopy- 2

J. 1—7. The introduction
to the Epistle to the Romans is
marked by two striking charac-
teristics of the Apostle: (1.) a
rhetorical one, the aggregation
of clauses, which seems to arise
out of the inadequacy of the
Apostle’s language to master or
contain his thought ; (2.) a con-
sciousness (which is character-
istic also of the whole Epistle,
and of all St. Paul’s writings)
of the continuousness of the
work of Providence, in the Old
and the New dispensations, in
Christ and in the Apostle him-
self. ,

dovrAoc *Incod yptorov, the ser-
vant.| The servant of Christ,
“who is the Lord of all,” as
Moses and David, in the Old
Testament, are called the ser-
vants of God; and in a more
spiritual sense, the servant of
Christ, as expressing devotedness
and humility; as opposed to the
pleaser of men (Gal. i.10.: “For
if I yet pleased men, I should
not be the servant of Christ” );
and, lastly, with an allusion to
his ministerial duty and labour
of love in the Gospel, “ your ser-
vant for Jesus’ sake ” (2 Cor. iv.
5.). The alteration in the mean-
ing of the word may remind us
of the change through which the
Greek language had itself passed,
and of the still greater change

which it was destined to pass
through, as “the weak things of
this world began to confound the
strong.” Compare John, xii. 15.;
1 Cor, vii. 22.

KAnroe Grdcrodoc, called an
apostle.| ‘The two words are to
be taken together, as below, cAn-
toicg aytotc. In such expressions
the predicate does not necessarily
define the subject (as though the
Apostle had intended to contrast
himself with other Apostles, who
were not called), but only de-
scribes it, or draws out an idea
already involved in it. The other
mode of construing the phrase,
according to which kdAnroc is
made a substantive, as in v. 6.,
and separated from damdarodXos,
does not suit either the rhythm
or sense of 1 Cor.i. 1., Tlatdoc
kAntoc amdarorog “Inaov yxpiorov'
or the use of KAnroic &yiowe, im-
mediately after ty:acpévorc, in
ver. 2.; and cannot, therefore,
be adopted here.

agwpiopévoc, separated.| In
the same sense as in Gal. 1. 15. ;
[6 Sed | 0 apopioac pe Ek KowNlag
pntpdc pov (where, however, the
meaning is modified by the con-
text, because the Apostle is de-
scribing the separation as it
existed from his very birth in
the purposes of God), and as in
Acts, xiii. 2., where the Holy
Ghost says— “Separate me”

Ver. 1, 2.)

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

43

' ROMANS.

1 Pavr, a servant of Jesus
2 separated unto the gospel

(ahopicare O% por) Barnabas and
Saul for the work.

cic evayyéAuov, to the Gospel. |
Either to be a believer of the
Gospel, or to be a preacher of
the Gospel, or both. As the two
ideas are inseparable in the Apo-
stle’s mind, as in the earliest
ages it was hardly possible to be
a believer, and not a preacher of
the Gospel, and as the word itself
was not yet strictly defined in
use, it is not necessary for us
to attempt to distinguish them.
evayyéAvoy, in the sense of preach-
ing the Gospel, occurs also in
2 Cor. ii. 12.: —’ ENO o€ cic ripv
Tpwada sic TO svayyédov Tov
xpiorov: and x. 14.— dype yap
Kal bpdv epOacaper ev ro evayye-
Nig.

Sov, of God.| The meaning
of the genitive case (whether in
Greek or English makes no dif-
ference) is especially difficult to
determine in the New Testament,
where it refers to God or Christ :
evayyéduov Seov may either mean
the Gospel about God or the
Divine Gospel, or the Gospel of
which God is the author. The
same difficulty occurs respecting
the parallel expression evayyéduov
xpiorov, in 2 Cor. xi. 7. In both
places the genitive may be con-
sidered as implying all the rela-
tions in which God or Christ
stands to the Gospel, whether as

Christ, called* an apostle,

of God, which he had pro-

author, teacher, or subject.
Compare Matt. iv. 23., evayyé-
Ato ripe Baowrelac Tov Oeov; Eph. i.
13., ro evayyédLov Tij¢ owrnpiac ;
2 Cor. iv. 4., ro evayyéuoy Tijc
ddéne rov xprorov; yet the word
“of” is plainer than any ex-
planation can make it.

The indefiniteness of the lan-
guage of the New Testament
harmonises with the infinity of
the subject. It has not the pre-
cision of Attic Greek; but could
the precision of Attic Greek
have expressed the truths of the
Gospel? would it have correctly
represented the imperfection of
human knowledge respecting Di-
vine things? We cannot imagine
an individual separated from his
age; no more can we imagine
the truths of Christianity sepa-
rated from the time at which
they appeared, or from the stage
of language in which they came
to the birth. It may be truly
said that, as the style of Plato
corresponds to the bloom of
Greek philosophy, so does the
imperfection of the style of the
New Testament correspond to
our imperfect conception of
whatis above us. With “stam-
mering lips and another tongue”
the Gospel spoke to the child
and to the simple.

0 mpoernyyeidaro, which he
promised before.| The drift of

Ad

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

“ A la b) ~ A
TOV AUTOU EV ypadhals wyiats TEpL TOV VLOV AUTOV, TOU YeE-
ld pee , x
vowevou €k oméppatos Aaveld Kata odpKa, TOD opicberTos
A ‘a , 4
viod Deod ev Suvdper Kata VEDA wywovrys EE avacTa-

this parenthetical allusion js not,
as elsewhere, to call the prophets
as witnesses of the Gospel, or
even to show that God had pre-
pared the way for it long before,
a thought which also occurs in
Gal. iii. 8., and in several other
passages, but simply to set forth
the majesty of the Gospel. It is
a part of its greatness that it was
heralded by prophecy.

dua THY Tpopynrar. | “'The Pro-
phets” include Moses in Luke
xxiv. 27., and Samuel in Acts
ili, 24; xiii. 20., not only those
to whose writings the term is
commonly applied.

év ypagaic aylac.| For the
use of ypad? without the article,
compare Tim. iii. 16. ; with words
like ypagh, Sedc, rvevpa, vdpoc,
the article is omitted or retained,
without affecting the sense. Like
proper names, they aresufliciently
defined by themselves, as we say
in English indifferently “Scrip-
ture” or “the Scripture.”

2—6. The marks of paren-
thesis in the English Version are
better omitted. The series of re-
lative clauses which are inserted
between them, delay the sense,
rather than interrupt it.

3. wept Tov viov adrov, concern-
ing his Son.| These words may
be connected, either with evayyé-
hwov Seov in the first verse, or
with spoexrnyyeiAaro in the
second; either the Gospel of
which Christ the Son of God is
the subject, or the Gospel which
God by the prophets promised
before respecting his Son. The
last is the more natural order.

The verses that follow are some
of the most difficult in the Epi-
stles of St. Paul; we cannot ex-
press their meaning adequately,
we can only approach it. This
difficulty arises partly from the
dimness of the thought as it pre-
sents itself to our minds com-
pared with its intensity to St.
Paul; partly from the inversion
of modes of thought, so that what
is with us the effect is to the
Apostle the cause, or conversely ;
and also from the imperfect and
fragmentary character of the anti-
thesis, which is begun, but not
carried out fully, and in which
it is vain to look for the corre-
spondence of the different mem-
bers, as it breaks off almost as
soon as we observe it.

kara oapxa, according to the
fiesh,| opposed to the words in
the following verse, “according
to the spirit of holiness,” as yevo-
Hévov &k orépparoc Aaveld to dpi-
o8évroc viot Seov. The nature of
the opposition will be seen by
a comparison of other passages.
oapé is opposed to wvevpa, as the
outward, human, perishable to the
invisible and eternal. Thus in
Gal. iv. 29., Ishmael, the type of
the law, is card odpxa; Isaac,
the child of promise, is kara
xvevua. Abraham is spoken of
in Rom. iv. 1. as a “ progenitor
according to the flesh,” or as
“ having found benefits ” accord-
ing to the flesh, and the Apostle
speaks of himself as having once
known “Christ according to
the flesh,” that is, probably, as
a temporal Messiah (2 Cor. v.

Ver, 3, 4.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

45

mised afore by his prophets in the Holy Scriptures,
3 concerning his Son, who* came of the seed of David
according to the flesh; appointed* to be the Son
of God with power, according to the spirit of holi-

16.). In the two latter passages
is implied a latent allusion to
circumcision, the sign of which
was “outward in the flesh”
(Eph. ii. 11.). By a further de-
velopment capé is used for the
corruption of the flesh, as rvevua
for the communion of the Spirit
of God. It is difficult to cir-
cumscribe exactly the associa-
tions of the expression card cap-
ka in this passage; the clause
may be paraphrased, “concern-
ing his Son, who by fleshly de-
scent in His outward human
nature, and in relation to the
Jewish dispensation, was of the
seed of David.” Compare ix. 3—
5; also, for the general meaning,
John i. 14.,6 Adyoe caps éyévero.

Antithesis is a favourite figure
in the writings of St. Paul; almost
(may we not say?) the very form
in which he conceives the Gospel
itself. ‘There are times before
and times after, a first Adam
and a second Adam, the Law and
Faith, the flesh and spirit, the
old man and the new man, death,
life, burial, resurrection, the

identity and difference of the.

believer and his Lord: “All
things are double one against the
other.” Even the same truths
have two aspects; what is death
when looked at from one side is
life from another. This opposi-
tion is traceable in the least
things as well as in the greatest,
not only in the essential anti-
theses of the Gospel, but also in
turns of thought and forms of

speech It is the dialectical
frame in which the ideas of the
Apostle are arranged; it is the
grammatical frame in which his
sentences are cast. Comp. Rom.
4,:32;'; iv..26.; x. 10.

4. dpicbévroc viov Seov.| The
translation of these words in the
English version rather evades
their difficulty ; the Greek dép:-
o8évroc meaning determined, ap-
pointed, and not “ declared.” But
how could Christ have been made
or appointed to be the Son of God
by the resurrection from the
dead, who was so, as St. Paul
himself declares, eternally? (Col.
i. 16.) We may answer in the
Apostle’s own words, “he is speak-
ing as a man” from a human
point of view, as the truth ap-
peared to the disciples who fol-
lowed the successive stages of
our Lord’s ministry.

Contrasted with this language
of time, is another mode under
which the Apostle sometimes
describes the great facts of the
Gospel, which may be termed in
the language of philosophy “the
contemplation of them under the
form of eternity ;” that is, the
conception of them as they are
anticipated in the purposes of
God. Examples of this opposite
usage are such expressions as
God choosing men before the
foundation of the world, Eph. i. 4.;
also ver. 3. 5.; Rev. xiii. 8.; Mic.
v. 2. But human language and
thought do not easily sustain
themselves at this height ; hence

46

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

A > A A A , e A & > e 2\ ,

cews vexpav, Inood ypiaTov Tov Kupiou HMaV, Ov ov Eda.
\ r¢ nw

Bopev ydpw Kal dtrootohny eis UTaKonY TiaTEws Ev TATW

the Apostle sometimes mingles
both modes of speech,—some-
times falls into the opposite, as
in this passage.

év duvdpet.| Opposed, together
with cara mrvevpa aywovrne, to
kara odpka: and answering to é
dvactacewe vexpor, the symbol
everywhere of the great power
of God.

Kara rredpa dywovrne, accord-
ing to the spirit of holiness.|

The simple antithesis would have -

been cara ctpxa and cara rvevpa:
the latter member is expanded
by St. Paul into cara mvevpa

dywwovrnc. What is rvetpa ayw-

cvyne? and how is it connected
with Christ being appointed to
be the Son of God? By rvetpa
dytwovrne is not meant the Holy
Spirit, in that more precise sense
in which this term is used in
other passages of Scripture, and
still less in the yet more defined
one of the creeds; but that invi-
sible power or principle, whereby
Christ holds communion with the
Father and with His Church, as
odpé is the principle of frailty or
humanity, by which he is linked

to human nature and to the Jew- |

ish dispensation. So in 1 Peter,
iii. 18. it is said: “Christ hath
once suffered for our sins, being
put to death in the flesh, but quick-
ened inthe Spirit.” So in1 Tim.
iii. 16.: —“God was manifest in
the flesh, justified in the Spirit;”
and in Rom. vi. 10. the same
double order of things is implied,
though differently expressed —
“Tn that he died, he died unto
sin once; in that he liveth, he
liveth unto God ;” as itis further
extended in Rom. viii. 11, 12. to
the Christian who is in the image

of Christ, as well as to Christ
himself — “But if Christ be in
you, the body is dead, because of
sin; but the spirit is life, because
of righteousness;” and the re-
surrection, as in this passage, is
connected with the indwelling
Spirit of Christ —“But if the
Spirit of him that raised up Jesus
from the dead dwelleth in you,
he that raised up Christ from
the dead shall also quicken your
mortal bodies by his Spirit that
dwelleth in you.”

The ideas of Christ, life, the
Spirit, holiness, are essentially
connected, and hardly separable
in Scripture. So Acts, ii. 27.:—
“Thou wilt not suffer thy holy
one to see corruption.” Eternal
life is also spiritual life, as phy-
sical death is nearly allied to
spiritual death. But the parti-
cular order in which the links
of the chain succeed each other,
is accidental and uncertain. It
might have been said of Christ,
that He was Holy, because He
was the Son of God, and there-
fore rose from the dead; or that
He was made the Son of God by
the resurrection of the dead, be-
cause He was holy. ‘The very ar-
bitrariness of relations of thought
when applied to Divine things,
is of itself a limit in the ex-
planation of this passage, which,
as far as we can analyse it, ap-
pears to unite two thoughts. St.
Paul speaks of Christ as raised
up by holiness to His Divine
estate, as he might also have
spoken of Him as quickened by
the Spirit. The two expressions
meet in the words “Spirit of
holiness,” with which agrees
(xara) the fact that he was “ ap-

Ver. 5.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

47

ness, by resurrection* of the dead, Jesus Christ our
Lord*; by whom we* received grace and apostle-

pointed to be the Son of God.”
Following the trains of thought
which have been suggested by
the previous remarks, we may
paraphrase the passage thus :—
“Concerning Christ who _ be-
longed to two worlds, a former
and a latter one: the first, earth-
ly, human, Jewish ; the other,
spiritual and invisible: the Son
of David appointed to be the
Son of God, as He was holy, and
had the Spirit of God dwelling
in Him.” All this is not fully or
definitely expressed in this pas-
sage; but is yet so closely con-
nected with it, that the attempt
to explain the several words be-
comes almost unmeaning without
such a prolongation of them.

é& dvacrdcewe vexpor, by resur-
rection of the dead. | Still another
“ cause,” as it were, of Christ’s di-
vinity. The English translation
“by the resurrection from the
dead,” obliges us to understand éx
before vexpwy, which is said to be
omitted, in consequence of the éx«
preceding with avacrdacewc. But
the words avdorace vexpwy occur
fourteen times in the New Testa-
ment, and always in the ordinary
sense of the resurrection of the
dead; we cannot therefore as-
sume a new one for them, in this
passage. Christ is appointed to
be the Son of God, not after or
in consequence of His own resur-
rection, but by resurrection of
the dead, in which He and man-
kind are thought of as united:
“He is the firstfruits of them
that sleep.” — Yet how can the re-
surrection, either of Himself or
of mankind in general, be re-
garded as the cause of His eternal
being? We mustadmit that our

order of thought would have been
different. Often there are cases,
as metaphysicians tell us, in
which ideas of cause and effect
seem to run up into one another,
especially in the spiritual world
to which the very notion of
cause and effect is hardly ap-
plicable. So little consequence
is it which comes first, that here
language not only identifies, but
transposes them. Whatare acts
become attributes; and the at-
tributes of Christ or God, causes
or instruments. We should have
begun with speaking of the di-
vinity of Christ, as witnessed by
His resurrection ; and of our ris-
ing again because He had risen.
Here the course of the thought
is the very reverse. The resur-
rection is not a state which He
passes through, but a power em-
bodied in Him, in the same way
as life or the spirit might be
described as embodied in Him,
nearly as Christ Himself says
(John, xi. 25.):—“I am the re-
surrection and the life.

éx denotes the cause, or, more
precisely, the point of origin, not
the proof; as in Herod. ii. 63.:
atoOvijcxovow &k TOV TPwWLaTwY 3
James ii. 18., deiEw éx roy Epywv
pov Thy ziorey ; in which latter the
idea of proof is not derived from
the preposition, but from the verb.

5. dv ot ha Poperv.] The Apostle
uses the plural when speaking of
himself alone, as 1 Thess. ii. 17, 18.
The aorist is not put for the
perfect; though here, as else-
where in the New Testament, it
is employed in a way of which
the English idiom hardly admits.
The Apostle might equally well
speak of his reception of the

48 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cars ¥,

A y e \ et hg 3 A > 2 4 ae A
TOUS eOverw vTrep TOU OVOMATOS QUTOV, EV OLS EOTE KQL ULES

\ 9 A A a A > oe , 5)
KAntot Inoov ypiotov, Tacw Tos ovoew ev Poyy ayary-.

A A an C258 4 em \ > , tee 0 A
Tots Jeov KyTois ayiows. ydpis vu Kat ElpyVvy aad Heov
TATpoOs Nav Kal Kupiov Inoov xpioTod.

la la > la)
IIparov pev evyapict@ TO. Oe@ pov dua “Inoov xpiotov

Apostleship as aorist or perfect ;
that is, with or without reference
to his present state. Compare
v. 13.

elc UTaKONY TlOTEWC EY TAL TOILE
éOveotv.| vmaxol is used abso-
lutely, for obedience or reception
of the Gospel, in Rom. xv. 18.
Here the addition of ricrewe con-
trasts the obedience of the Gos-
pel with the obedience of the Law.
The simplest way of taking the
words év raow roic é0veouv is with
éXaouev . . « « GmooroAny.
“Through whom we received
grace and the office of an Apostle
among the Gentiles, to the in-
tent that they might receive the
faith.” Compare xvi. 25.:—
pevornpiov sig vraxony miorEewc
cic Tavra Ta EVN yrwprobérroc.

Urep TOU dvépuaroc avrov, for his
name. | “ For the setting forth of
his name,” may depend either on
éXafouey or ON trakojy TicTEewe.
For asimilar ambiguity or double
order of words, compare ver. 3. and
5., and the preceding note. As
in the Old Testament, in the name
of God is implied the remem-
brance of what He had done for
His people Israel; so in the name
of Christ is summed up what
He had done and was, what the
Christian ever bore in mind, the
seal which marked him, the name
wherewith he was named.

6. KAnroi Incot ypiorov.] «An-
Toc is a substantive; not called
of Jesus Christ, but called ones
who are Jesus Christ’s, like cAnrot
tov ’Adwrviov in 8 Kings, 1. 47.
déapuoc “Incot yxprorov, Phil. 1.

The calling of men in Scripture,
as the initiative act, is not at-
tributed to Christ, but to God,
Rom. xi. 29.; Gal. i.6.; 2 Thess.
iv. 7.

7. &yarnroic Jeov KAnroic ayi-
owe, beloved of God, called saints. |
Could the Apostle, who was un-
known by face to the Christians
of Rome, speak thus confidently
of them? It may be answered,
that he uses the language of hope
and charity; he conceives of them
in idea, in reference to the new
state into which they had passed,
and the privileges of which they
are made partakers. What is
said of them would have been
said by the Apostle of all Chris-
tains, who had passed from death
into life, by the very fact of their
separating themselves from the
Jewish or Gentile world. Yet
stronger language of apparent
commendation in the first Epistle
to the Corinthians, is not incon-

sistent with the imputation of

grave delinquency to the whole
Church. Like the chosen people
of old, even amid sins and infir-
mities they are the elect of God.

xapic .... Kal eipnyyn.| See
1 Thess. i. 1.

The preceding verses may be
regarded as an amplification of
TlavAoc ‘Pwyaiore xaipev. Butin
this simple form, the Apostle has
inserted his own office and autho-
rity to preach the Gospel, the
subject of the Gospel which is
Christ, who is not only the Mes-
siah of the Jews, but the ap-
pointed Son of God, who made

ea a ee Fe

Ver. 6—8.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

49

ship, for obedience to the faith among all the Gentiles
6 for his name: among whom are ye also the called of
Jesus Christ: to all that be in Rome, beloved of God,
called * saints: Grace to you and peace from God our
Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you

him an Apostle, and gave him
the Gentiles for his field of la-
bour, among whom they are in-
cluded who dwell at Rome, to
whom, returning to his exordium,
he wishes health and peace, “ not
as the world giveth” (John, xiv.
27.), but as one believer would to
another, from God the Father
and the Lord Jesus Christ.

8, 9. It is characteristic of the
Apostle, that all his Epistles, with
the exception of the Galatians,
begin with language of concilia-
tion. As in ordinary life we
first address one another with
courteous salutation, so does the
Apostle introduce himself to his
readers, with the words of Chris-
tian charity. He lingers for an
instant around that pleasant im-
pression of a Church without
spot, such as it never will be
in this world, before he passes
onward to reprove and exhort
those whom he is addressing. It
is an ideal Church that he con-
templates, elect, spiritual, heaven-
ly, going on to perfection, the
image of which seems ever to
blend with, and to overshadow
those who bear its glorious
titles.

mporov pey,| as in iii, 2. and
elsewhere, with no “secondly.”

7 Qe@ pov.| Compare Acts,
xxvii. 23.—“ The angel of God,
whose I am, and whom I serve.”

dua “Inood xpiorov.| A general
Christian formula. “I give

VOL. ie

thanks, as I do all things, through
Christ.” In the introductions to
the Epistles the language of com-
mon life is idealised and spiri-
tualised. The manner is Eastern,
a circumstance which, from our
familiarity with the New Testa-
ment, we often fail to recognise ;
it is also that of the Apostle and
his time. Were we to translate
verses 8—10. into common words,
they might be expressed as fol-
lows: —“I rejoice to hear of
your faith everywhere, for I so-
lemnly declare that I never forget
you; itis one of my first prayers
to come to you.” But, partly
from the intensity of his feelings,
partly from the style of the age
and country in which he wrote,
most of all from the circumstance
that the ordinary events of life
come to him with a Divine power,
and seem, as it were, to be oc-
curring in a spiritual world, his
words fall into a different mould.
He employs language, according
to our sober coloursof expression,
too strong for the occasion; as
where he says that their faith is
spoken of throughout the whole
world; or where he calls God to
witness of his desire to come to
them, though there was no reason
for them to doubt this. So
again in 1 Thess. i. 8.: — “ For
from you sounded out the word
of the Lord, not only in Mace-
donia and Achaia, but also in
every place your faith to God-

50 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. I.

TEpt TAVTOV VLOV, OTLN TLETLS ULV KaTtaryyeheTau €V Oh@
TO Koop@. pdptus yap pou éoTlv 6 Oeds, G hatpevw ev
TO Tvedpati pov év TO evayyedw TOD viod adTod, ws ddia-
hetaTws pvetav tov Tovodpmar wavToTe emi TOV TPOTEVXOV
pov Sedpevos, el Tas HON ToTe evOSwOjcopar ev TO Oedy-
pate Tov Oeod édOetv mpds tpas. emuT0dd yap Welw vpas,
Va TL METAOD YApLopa viv TVEvpaTLKOY Eis TO OTNPLXON-
vat buas, Toute S€ éotw cupmapakhynOnvas ev vu dua TIS

1 inép.

ward is spread abroad; so that we
need not speak any thing.” Yet,
at the time of writing these
words, the Apostle could hardly
have travelled beyond the limits
of Macedonia and Achaia.

Comp. Phil. i. 8. as an instance
of the same affection towards
those “ unknown tohim by face;”
and, as an example of the same
intensity of language, Gal. i. 20.,
where he calls God to witness that
“he lies not” about the details
of his visits to Jerusalem.

Ore 4 ior ULoY, that your
JSaith.| No commentary could
throw half as much light on the
Epistle as a knowledge of the
state of those whose faith is
thus described. Had the Roman
Church long ago or recently
been converted to the Gospel ?
May we suppose that the news
of it was carried thither by
the “strangers of Rome” who
about twenty-five years previ-
ously had been present at the
day of Pentecost? Is it possible
that the name of Christ himself
had reached the metropolis of the
world during his life-time? Had
Priscilla and Aquila any ac-
quaintance with the Gospel be-
fore they met with St. Paul at
Corinth? Who were those bre-
thren whom the prisoner Paul

found at Puteoli, or who came
to meet him at Appii forum? No
answer can be given to these
questions, yet the statement of
them is not without interest.
There were many in the Roman
Church whose names were known
to the Apostle; some whom he
describes as of note among the
Apostles who were before him.
Comp. Acts. xxviii. 15—31. Rom.
Xvi.

© darpetw, whom I serve. |
“The God whom I serve” is an
Old Testament expression, Dan.
vi. 16. év rd rrvevpari pov, that
is, in my inmost soul, which is
also my spiritual being.

we advadeizrwe.| The balance
of the clauses is best preserved
by taking these words with pivelav

VLD TOLOUPLAL, and TAVTOTE with
dedpuevoc: how unceasingly Imake
mention of you, ever praying for
you.

10. et twe Hon ore evodwOHao-
par| et two, if as I hope; on,
now; woré, at length; «ebodwif-
coat, I shall prosper, or have
a prosperous journey. ‘The de-
rivation of s«bodwhjoopa, from
ddoc, does not commonly enter
into its meaning. (1 Cor. xvi. 2.;
3 John, 2.; Jer.ii.387.) Yetthereis
noreason why St.Paul, whose style
is so full of plays of language,

ll

10

11 journey by the will of God to come unto you.

12

Ver. 9—12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 51

all, that your faith is spoken of in *all the world. For
God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the
gospel of his Son; how without ceasing I make mention
of you, always in my prayers making request, if by
any means now at length I may have a prosperous
For I
long to see you, that I may impart unto you some
spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established ; that is,
that I may be together comforted in * you by the mutual

should not have revived its ety-
mological sense, which occurs in
Tobit, v.18. 21. év r@ OeAfjpare:
for the use of évy compare Thu-
eydides, i.77.: év roic époiote vopore
Tac Kpioerc tonoarrec. In such ex-
pressions the preposition, though
conveniently translated “by,”
really expresses a closer relation,
the action being regarded in a
figure as inhering or consisting
in the object.

11. xdpiopa vpiv rvevparcxor. |
Not a miraculous gift, as ap-
pears from the following verse.
Compare 2 Cor.i. 15.: — “I was
minded to come unto you, that
ye might have a second benefit”
(devrépay xapey Exnre); and Rom.
xy. 29.

12. rovro dé éoriv. | Not wishing
to “Lord it over their faith ;”
but rather, to “be a helper of
their joy ;” the Apostle corrects
his former expressions. “My
desire is to instruct you, and do
you good; that is, for us to in-
struct and do one another good,
In giving I shall also receive.”
Compare, for the feeling, what
may be termed the circle of
Christian sympathy, in 2 Cor. i.
4—8., and, for a similar correction
ofa word, with rodré gor, Rom.

vii. 18.
cuprapaxdyOjvat, comforted. |

The English Version has a slight
inaccuracy in the words “to-
gether with you ;” for which may
be substituted, “that I may be
together comforted in you.”
The meaning of the word zapa-
kadeiy, as Of wapax\nroc, Wavers
between consolation and exhor-
tation, or includes both. In the
LXX., the former sense is the
prevailing one; here both are
combined. What the progress
of language and the analysis of
Christian feelings have separated
into two, was, in the age of the
Apostles, one idea and one word,
with a scarcely perceptible diver-
sity of meaning. The idea,of
* consolation ” implied in it does
not, however, refer to comfort or
sympathy in any particular sor-
row, but rather to the conscious
communion of Christians in this
present evil world. Nor is there
implied in the notion of exhorta-
tion the bringing forward of state-
ments or precepts respecting the
Christian faith, but the imparting
of a new spirit or temper of mind.
If, allowing for the great difference
between our own and the Apo-
stolic times, we could imagine a
person who had listened to a
preacher, or received the counsel]
of a friend, who exactly touched
the chords of his soul, such a

E 2

52 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. I.

év addyhots TigTEews, YU@Y TE KAL ELOV. ov Oéddrw dé vas
dyvoeiv, aded\poi, dtu modddKis mpoeeunv EOev mpos
jas, Kal €xotvOnv axpe Tod Sevpo, va Twa KapTOV + TX@
Kat év vulv Kalas Kati év Tots hourois EOverw. “EAnow
te kat BapBdpous, codots Te Kat avorjrous dperrerns Etpct’
otra To Kar éue tpdOvpoy Kal vu Tots ev “Papy ev-
ayychicacba, od yap erate Vvopat TO Evaryyedov 2.
Svvapis yap Jeod éotiv cis TwTyNplay TavTL TO TLTTEVOVTL,

s
*Iovdalw te [mpatov] Kal "Eh\nvu* Sucavoovvn yap Geov

1 apwdv Tia.

one might express himself in one
word as comforted and instructed ;
that word would be zapaxaXei-
ofa. For a similar connexion
of zapaxaXeiy and ornpifery, com-
pare 1 Thess. iii. 2.; 2 Thess. ii.
17.

ipov re kai éuov,] is an ep-
exegesis of évy a&AAfhAouc, that is,
“T by your faith, and you by
mine.”

13. ob Sétw O€ vac ayroeiv. |
“But I would not have you
ignorant ;” “but I want to tell
you;” a common formula with
St: Paul, 1 Cor. xii. 1.; 2 Cor. i.
8.; 1 Thess. iv. 13.

kat ékwdvOnv.| “I purposed
to come and I could not ;” a more
natural mode of expression would
have been, “though I could not.”
As in many other places, the
Apostle uses adversative parti-
cles where the English idiom re-
quires only the copulative con-
junction; so here he uses the
copulative conjunction where the
English prefers the adversative
particle. It is not necessary on
this ground to assume a paren-
thesis, which would spoil the em-
phasis; for what the Apostle
wishes the Romans to know, is
not only that he was intending to

2 Add tov xpicro,

come to them, but also that he was
hindered. Compdre Acts, xvi.
6.; Rom. xv. 24. ; 2 Cor. xiii. 1.;
1 Thess. ii. 18., as illustrating
what may be termed the uncer-
tainty of times and seasons in the
Apostle’s journeys. He was hin-
dered, either “because Satan
hindered him,” 1 Thess. ii. 18. ;
or because the spirit suffered him
not, Acts, xvi. 6, 7. ; or because
he had a feeling of delicacy, such
as he speaks of in Rom. xv. 22.,
2 Cor. x. 15., in intruding on
another’s field of labour, or, for
anything that appears to the con-
trary, because his time had been
taken up with preaching the Gos-
pel in other places. Rom. xv.
23.
14. ogeidérne eipi. | “T owe it
to all the world that I should
preach the Gospel, to the civi-
lised as well as the uncivilised ;
the wise as well as the foolish.”
We need not raise the ques-
tion which some interpreters
have discussed, “in which half
the Romans are to be placed.”
The world in which the Apo-
stle lived was not Roman, but
Greek.

It is not, in the Apostle’s view,
a matter of choice, or freewill,

14.

15
16

17

13

14

15

16

Ver. 13—17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. dd

faith both of you and me. Now I would not have you
ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come
unto you,* and was let hitherto, that I might have some
fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. I
am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians ;
both to the wise, and to the unwise. So, as much as in
me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are
at Rome also. For I am not ashamed of the gospel’;

- for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one

17

that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek ;
for. therein is the righteousness of God revealed from

1 Add of Christ.

2

whether he shall preach the Gos-
pel or not; but a debt which he
owes to himself, mankind, and
God. Compare 1 Cor. ix. 16. :—
“‘ Necessity is laid upon me, and
woe is me, if I preach not the
gospel.” He will not allow him-
self to consider it as voluntary ;
he delights to increase the obliga-
tion, claiming the Romans by a
sort of right, as Apostle of the
Gentiles, to be included in his
labours, ver. 6.

15. otrw 70 Kar’ Eve rpdbvupor, So
as much as in me is. | Either “So
ready am I;” or better and more
in accordance with the Apostle’s
style with a pause after otro,
“ Kven so, Iam ready,” that is, as
owing a debt to you as well as
them. The two ways of taking
the passage may be further modi-
fied by connecting or separating
TO Kar éue and zpdOupor, either
“T am ready,” or, “ touching
myself there is readiness.”

“T am ready to preach the
Gospel in Rome, for I glory in it,
for it is not weak, but mighty, a
Divine power to save.” The Apo-
stle exults in the greatness of his

mission. He is to preach the
Gospel at Rome, before the wise,
in that great city.

dvvayuc Yeov, a Divine power,
like dicatoovvn Seov below.

17. Passing onward to the
height of his great argument, the
Apostle involves reason within
reason, four times in three succes-
sive verses. Such is the over-
logical form of Hellenistic Greek.
“T preach the Gospel, for I glory
in it; for it is not weak but
strong, a power to save to him
that has faith, for it is a revela-
tion of the righteousness of God
through faith; for the times of
that ignorance God no longer
winks at,” &c. The repetition of
yap does but represent the dif-
ferent stages and aspects of the
Apostle’s thought.

ducatcoovvn yap Seov.| Viewing
these words by the light of later
controversy, interpreters have
asked whether the righteousness
here spoken of, is to be regarded
as subjective or objective, in-
herent or imputed, as revealed
by God or accepted by man.
These are the “after-thoughts”

E 3

54.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cai

> 5 gt r , 5 4 > , 0 \ ,

év abvT@ amokahi’mretar ex miotews els TiaTW, Kalas yé-
e \ / b) YA “4

ypamtat O d€ dixauos ek Tictews Cyoerau

of theology, which have no real
place in the interpretation of
Scripture. We cannot define
what is not defined by the Apo-
stle himself. But if, leaving later
controversies, we try to gather
from the connexion itself a more
precise meaning, another uncer-
tainty remains. For the righte-
ousness of God may either mean
that righteousness which existed
always in the Divine nature, once
hidden but now revealed; or may
be regarded as consisting in the
very revelation of the Gospel it-
self, in the world and in the heart
of man.

The first step to a right con-
sideration of the question, is to
place ourselves within the circle
of the Apostle’s thoughts and
language. The expression dccaco-
civn Seov was familiar to the
Israelite, who, without any re-
ference to St. Paul’s distinction
of faith and works, used it in a
double sense for an attribute of
God and the fulfilment of the
Divine law. Compare James, i.
20. : — dpyi) yap avdpoc duxacoovrny
Seov ovK karepyagerar, Rom. x.
3.:—ayvoouvrec yap Tv Tov
SJeod Sixavocvyny, cal rH idiay fy-
TOUYTEC OTIjTaL, TH OuKaloavYN TOU
Seov oby trerdynoay. The law,
the fulfilment of the law, and the
Divine Author of the law, pass
into each other; the mind is car-
ried on imperceptibly from one
to the other. The language of
all religion, consisting as it must
in mediation between God and
man, or in the manifestation of
God in man, is full of these and
similar ambiguities, which we

should only gain a false clearness
by attempting to remove. Such
expressions in the phraseology
of philosophy necessarily involve
subject and object, a human soul
in which they are made con-
scious, a Divine Being from whom
they proceed, and to whom they
have reference. It is generally
confusing to ask to which of these
they belong. Christianity is the
communion of God and man in
Christ, and, therefore, the words
which are used to express its
leading thoughts are neither here
nor there, neither in the soul of
man nor in the nature of God;
nor yet are they mere abstract
terms, denoting as they do the
joint working of both. And
so the expression “righteousness
of God,” instead of being con-
fined to one abstract point of
view or meaning, seems to swell
out into several: the attribute
of God, embodied in Christ, ma-
nifested in the world, revealed
in the Gospel, communicated to
the individual soul; the right
eousness not of the law, but of
faith.

aroxahvrrera, revealed.| The
idea of “revelation” is oppos-
ed in Scripture to porhpror: it is
the day that follows the night, the
knowledge of God that supersedes
“the times of that ignorance.”
Compare Rom. xvi. 25 — 26.:—
“Now to him that is of power
to stablish you according to my
gospel, and the preaching of
Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery, which
was kept secret, since the world
began, but now is made manifest,

Ver. 17.)

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

55

faith to faith: as it is written, But * the just shall live

by faith.

and by the scriptures of the pro-
phets, according to the command-
ment of the everlasting God,
made known toall nations for the
obedience of the faith.” For simi-
lar trains of thought, see also
Acts, xiv. 15, 16. ; xvii. 30.; Col.
i. 26, 27. To the first believers
of Christianity, the thought of
“revelation” was ever associated
with the thought of the world
that had preceded, and of the
world that still surrounded them
lying in darkness. It was con-
tinuous with another revelation,
that of the sons of God, in com-
parison of which it was, as it
were, darkness, as the night of
ages had been darkness in com-
parison with the Gospel. Not
that the outward face of man-
kind was changed; the light
was within, the revelation in the
soul itself.

éx misrewo eic rior, from
JSaith to faith.| Either: (1.) be-
ginning and ending in faith (like
2 Cor. iii. 18., changed from glory
to glory, amd ddéne cic ddgar:
or Psalm Ixxxiii. 7., going from
strength to strength) ; springing
from faith, and producing faith,
going from one stage of faith to
another ; whether that first faith
be regarded as the faith of the
Gentile who was a law to him-
self; or the faith of the Old Tes-
tament, such as Abraham’s was,
or such as is described in the
passage from the prophet Ha-
bakkuk ; or the faith of him who
said, “ Lord, I believe, help thou
mine unbelief:” or, (2.) the
words cic rior, “ to faith,” may
be considered as a repetition of

TayvTl Tr» meorevorre in the preced-
ing verse, to them that believe.
“The righteousness of God is
revealed by faith to those that
have faith.” Compare 2 Cor, ii.
15, 16.:—6re ypiorov ebweia éo-
pEV TO Jeo Ev Tole owlopévore Kal év
Toic amokXupeévote, oi¢ fev Oop)
Savarov sic Savaroy, oi¢ dé dopi}
Cwiic cic Swhv. Compare also our
Lord’s words, “ Whoso hath, to
him shall be given.” Or, (38.)
lastly, the repetition of the word
with cic (compare with this way
of taking the words, also 2 Cor.
ii. 16.) may denote a purpose,
as in Rom. vi. 19.:—eorep yap
TapeoThkare Ta pede vuwy CovAa ™)
axabapcia Kat rh dvopia sic Thy
avopiar, 7. e. with the intent to
work iniquity, —to produce faith,
an explanation of these pas-
sages, which, though it has less
point, is more in accordance with
the style of St. Paul than the
preceding ones, and may be de-
fended by the quotation from
Habakkuk, which shows that the
real stress of the passage is not
on ei¢c rioriy, but on ék riarewe.
kaQwco yéypurra, as itt its
written.| Scarcely any of the
quotations from the Old Testa-
ment which occur in the New,
are taken precisely in their ori-
ginal sense and connexion. They
may be classed, in general, under
three heads: (1.) Those which
have an analogous meaning, like
the words which follow from
the prophet Habakkuk, in which
a particular faith in God is
identified with that faith in
Christ which is the general con-
dition of the Gospel, or, as in

E 4

56

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. I.

"AtrokahvmreTat yap épyn Meod a amr a ss emt TAC AV

doéBevav Kat adixiay avOpdtav Tov THY ahjDeLay Ev du

the quotation respecting the faith
of Abraham, in chap. iv., where
every one will admit that “the
New Testament lies hidden in
the Old.” (2.) Verbal allusions,
such as Matth. i. 15. 17., “ Out
of Egypt have I called my son;’
‘Rachel weeping for her chil-
dren.” (8.) Passages from the Old
Testament taken figuratively and
typically, such as 1 Cor. ix. 9.:—
“Thou shalt not muzzle the ox
that treadeth out the corn,” or
Gal. iv. 25., where Agar and
Sinai are the image of the two
covenants. In this class of in-
stances there is often a connected
symbolical meaning, as in 1 Cor.
x. 1—11., where the temptations
of the Israelites in the wilder-
ness shadow forth the tempta-
tions of the Corinthian Church.
The Epistle to the Hebrews fur-
nishes a system of such sym-
bols derived from the history
and ceremonial of the Old Testa-
ment.

Most of the quotations in the
Epistles of St. Paul belong to the
first of these three classes, a few
of them to the third. Like the
other writers of the New Testa-
ment, the Apostle detaches them
from their context. He seems
hardly to have thought of the
connexion in which they ori-
ginally occurred. He quotes as
persons in the present day might
quote, who are unaccustomed to
the critical study of Scripture.
His aim is to seize the common
spirit of the Old Testament and
the New; to bring forward that
side of the Old Testament which
is the anticipation of the New.
Hence he rarely dwells on simi-

larity of words, but on passages
which speak of forgiveness of
sins, of the nearness of God to
man, of faith counted for righ-
teousness.

The age in which St. Paul

wrote was remarkable for its
fragmentary use of ancient writ-
ings. The Rabbis quoted single
verses from the Old Testament,
without regard totheir connexion ;
and a similar mystical use was
made of Homer and Hesiod by the
Alexandrian writers, who cited
them in single lines as authorities.
In modern times the force of a
quotation is, in like manner, sup-
posed to consist in the authority
that is adduced. It is an appeal
to a revered name.

But another notion of the force
of a quotation must also be al-
lowed. A striking passage from
Shakspeare appositely cited does
not necessarily impress us with
any weight of authority ; if the
words themselves are appro-
priate, no matter in what con-
nexion they occur. Soin quaint
usages of Scripture in the writ-
ings of Bacon, Fuller, or any
of our old divines, it may be
often rather the dissimilitude
than the resemblance of the ori-
ginal and adopted meaning that
gives them their true force. One
of the most striking uses of an-
cient sayings is their adaptation
to express new thoughts; and
the more familiar the old sense,
the more striking and, as it
were, refreshing the new one.

Something of this kind is true
of modern no less than of ancient,
of sacred as well as of profane
writings. It is an element that

18

Ver. 18.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

57

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against
all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder

must be allowed for in the inter-
pretation of Scripture. When
men heard the truths of the
Gospel drawn forth from the
treasury of the Psalms and the
Prophets, their feeling must have
been one of surprise ; they would
greet the familiar sound and
marvel that they, for the first
time, saw its meaning. The
words which they had so often
repeated, which, like the cere-
monies themselves, had been a
mere ceremonial, had a new life
breathed into them. The mode

in which this new truth was -

drawn out and elicited was not
analogous to any critical or
intellectual process; rather it
might be compared to the manner
in which the poor appropriate
to themselves the warnings or
promises of Scripture, led by
some hidden law of association or
spiritual influence which makes
them wiser than the learned.
The evidences or reasons by
which men were induced to
accept the truths veiled to them
in “dark sayings of old,” might
be summed up in one —the
witness of their own spirit. For
a fuller discussion of this subject,
see “Essay on the Quotations in
the Writings of St. Paul from
the Old Testament.”

6 O€ dixatoc éx miatewc, but the
just. | The LXX. have é« risrewe
pov. Hab. ii. 4. Heb. by his faith.
The English Version translates,
“The just shall live by faith,”
which is the natural mode of
connecting the words in the ori-
ginal passage. It is not, how-
ever, quite certain, and not very
important to determine whether

here and in the parallel passage,
Gal. iii. 11., the Apostle intends
the words éx wisrewc to be taken
with ofcatoe or with Choerat,
whether the just by faith shall
live, or the just shall live by faith.
Whether Zjcerac would be used
thus absolutely may be doubted.
Compare Gal. iii. 12.

The theme of the Epistle has
been already stated in the quota-
tion from Habakkuk. In the
eighteenth verse we enter on its
first division, the subject of which
is the world as it existed before
the revelation of the righteousness
which is of faith and also co-
exists with it. It is subdivided
into two parts, the Gentile and
Jewish world, which here as
elsewhere (compare iii. 19.) are
not precisely separated. Through-
outthe first chapter the Apostle is
speaking of the Gentiles ; but it
is not until the seventeenth verse
of the next chapter, that we are
made clearly aware that he has
been speaking of the Jews. To
both he holds up the law as
the mirror in which the human
race should see itself, as he had
himself learned to condemn him-
self by its dictates.

The point of view in which
the Apostle regards the heathen,
is partly inward and partly out-
ward; that is to say, based on
the contemplation of the actual
facts of human evil which he saw
around, but at the same time
blending with this, the sense
and consciousness of sin which
he felt within him. The Apostle
himself had been awakened sud-
denly to the perception of his
own state: in the language of

58

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

4 4 4 \ .' A a) 4 3 3
Ki KATEXOVT@V, OLOTL TO yuWaTOV TOV Heod pavEepov ExT EV

3 A ¢€ n ‘\ 5 ~ > ld
avtois' 6 eds yap avtots éepavépwoer.

this chapter,“ the wrath of God
from heaven ” had been revealed
in him; “the righteousness of
God, which is by faith ” in Jesus
Christ, had been also revealed
in him.’ Alive without the law
once, he had become conscious
of sin and finally sensible of de-
liverance. Andnow transferring
the thoughts of his own heart
to an evil world, he tries it in
like manner by the law of God
and nature: it seems to him to
be in the first stage of the great
change, to have knowledge and
to beself-condemned. The know-
ledge of God it always had latent
in the works of creation; and
now it has fallen below itself
and is convicted by itself. It is
true that the Apostle, like all
other teachers, supplies from
within what did not consciously
exist in the mind of man. What
he sees before him, might have
seemed to another as nothing
more than a dead inert mass of
heathenism and_licentiousness.
But there are two lights by
which he regards it: first, the
light ofhis own experience, which
seems to stir and quicken it into
life ; secondly, the light of God’s
law, by which, when brought
near to it, it is condemned, and
thus enters, as it were, on a new
epoch, condemned and forgiven
at once.

18. yap, for.| Hither: (1.) as
proving the whole by the part,
for one aspect of the righteous-
ness of God, or of the prepara-
tion for the kingdom of heaven,
is revealed in the anger of God
and self-condemnation of men;
or, (2.) with stress on azoxahv-

\ \ 27
Ta yap a20paTa

mrevrat, for “ God no longer suf-
fers every man to walk in his
own way.”

ax’ ovpavov, from heaven.| Ei-
ther, “because the Lord’s house
is in heaven,” or with an allusion
to the suddenness of lightning; or
better, a figure of speech, partly
taken from the Day of Judgment,
“the Son of man coming in the
clouds.” Matth. xxiv. 29.; 1 Thess.
iv. 16.

maoav.| Perhaps intended to
comprehend both Jew and Gen-
tile, althoughin whatimmediately
follows the Apostle is speaking of
the Gentiles only. Compare the
stress laid on wae in Rom. ii. 9.,
ii. 20., x. 11, 12.

kareyovtwy.| The word xaré-
xev 1s used in the New Testa-
ment in two senses: (1.) in that
of “keep, hold fast,” as in 1 Cor,
xi. 12.; 1 Thess. v. 21.5 or, (2.)
in that of “hinder, restrain,” as
in Luke iy. 42.; 2 Thess. ii. 6.
So in this passage we might say,
either upon all unrighteousness
of men who hold the truth, or
who hinder the truth, in unrigh-
teousness. ‘The first explanation
would seem to agree with the
context, as the Apostle is speak-
ing of men sinning, not against,
but with light and knowledge.
But the word xaréyew rather
means to hold fast than merely
passively to retain, and it would

be unmeaning to say of the hea-

then that they “held fast the
truth in unrighteousness.” We
might say, “ hold fast that which
is good,” 1 Thess. v. 21.; “hold
fast the traditions,” 1 Cor. xi. 2.;
‘hold fast the confession,” Heb.
x. 23.3; but not hold fast that

20

Ver. 19, 20.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

59

the truth in unrighteousness ; because that which * is
known of God is manifest in them; for God* manifests

it unto them.

which was only held passively
and uncertainly. The simpler
interpretation is better, “ of those
who hinder the truth by unrigh-
teousness.” The words thus be-
come an epexegesis merely of éxi
macay aduiay avOperwr.

19. dudre TO yvworoy, because
that which is known | Where
there is no law, says the Apostle,
there is no transgression. In like
manner it might be said, that
where there is no knowledge of
God, there is excuse. But this
is not the case of the heathen.
What can be known of God is
manifested in them, for God him-
self makesit manifest. égavépwaer,
Aorist in a general statement.

The heathen knew the truth,
and did not know it. They had
the elements of knowledge, but
not knowledge itself. As the
laws of nature, though unknown
to man, existed from the first ; so
did the God of nature, though un-

- known to man, exist before the

worlds. Yet how can that be
termed knowledge which was ig-
norance ?

The Apostle is speaking, not
from within the circle of the
heathen world, but from with-
out. He is describing what he
felt respecting them, not what
the heathen felt respecting them-
selves. Yet the strain which he
adopts, might have received con-
firmation from the writings of
“their own prophets,” and have
found an echo in the better mind
of the age itself. He brings them
into the presence of nature, “ the
heavens declaring his glory, and

For the invisible things of him from the

the firmament shewing his han-
diwork,” and condemns them be-
fore it. There was a witness in
the world, that might have taught
them, and seemed intended to
teach them, which contrasted with
the human idols of Greece, and
with the winged and creeping
things of Egypt and the East. It
does not follow, that individuals
among them could separate them-
selves from the ties of habit and
education, and read the lesson
spread before them. Yet even
thus, it was a condemnation of the
existing polytheism.

20. ra yap adpara abrov, xk. Tr. X.,
Sor the invisible things, &c.]
may be taken in four different
ways: either, (1.) his attributes,
which, since the creation of the
world, are invisible, are seen by
his works; a thought, however,
contrary to the usual language of
Scripture, in which the works of
creation are regarded as the mani-
festation, not as the concealment
of the Divine glory ; or, (2.) bet-
ter, like the expression in xvi.
25.2 puorhpioy ceovynpévov xpovotc
aiwviowc, the things unseen “ from
the beginning,” without any ex-
press reference to the creation of
the world having concealed them;
or, (3, 4.) azo Krivewe kdopov may
be taken, not with ddpara, but
with cafuparat, and balanced with
Toig¢ §=ToUpacw voovpeva, ard
marking either the time or the
source whence the invisible
things are seen either by or ever
since the creation of the world.
Compare Arist. de Mundo, ch.
6.: macy Synth vce yevdpevog

60

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. I.

~ , aA , 4
QUTOU GTO KTIOEWS KOT POV TOLS TOLnMATLY VOOUMEVa Ka~
ot ia oh aA , \ / > . ae
Ooparar, 7 TE didios adTov S¥vapis Kat Hevorns, Els TO Elvat
> ‘\ > , 4 / \ 0 « 2 ¢ 0 A
avTovs avatrohoyyTous, dudtt yvovtes TOV Veov ovy ws Veov

abewpnroc am abrév Tay Epywy
Sewpetrac 6 Sede.

voovpeva kafoparat. | The things
that are unseen are seen by know-
ledge of his creatures ; seen “in
the mind’s eye,” by creation.
Compare ii. 1. for a similar play
of words.

ei¢ TO eivat avTove davato\oyi-
rouc. | They were without excuse,
because they were confronted by
this knowledge. Compare John,
ili. 19. :—“ This is the condemna-
tion, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness
rather than light, because their
deeds were evil.” The knowledge
which the Apostle attributes to
the heathen in the following
verse, is in some degree a figure
of speech: without them were
the means of knowledge, but
within the eye was darkened, that
seeing they should not see, and
hearing they should not under-
stand. Knowledge and action,
reason and will, are to ourselves
fundamental distinctions which
have permanently impressed
themselves on human thought
and speech. But there was a time
in the earlier stage of Greek
philosophy, in which virtue was
said to be knowledge, and vice
ignorance. <A similar inversion
of our ordinary modes of thought
occurs also in Scripture. Know-

ledge and obedience, light and:

life, are sometimes distinguish-
ed from each other, at other
times identified. Hence it is
not surprising that a degree of
ambiguity should arise in the
Scriptural use of the word know-

ledge, when employed to signify
two ideas so different as know-
ledge, or the possibility of know-
ledge in the abstract, as in this
passage, and knowledge unto
life.

The sense in which they knew
and did not know, admits of
another illustration from the
workings of conscience, which
may further remind the student
of Aristotle’s Ethics, of the dis-
cussion which is entered upon
by the great master, of another
form of the Socratic opinion.
There are moral as well as spi-
ritual truths, which we know
and we do not know; know at
one moment and forget the next;
know and do not know at the
same instant; for our ignorance
of which we cannot help blam-
ing ourselves, even though it
were impossible that we should
know them; and which, when
presented to us, work conviction
and sorrow for the past. And
so if St. Paul be judging the
heathen from his own point of
view rather than theirs, he is
also holding up before them a
picture, the truth of which, as
they became Christians, they
would themselves recognise.

It is natural to ask of whom
St. Paul is speaking in this de-
scription? What class among the
heathen had he in his thoughts
when he said, they knew God,
and worshipped him not as God?
He is not speaking of the vulgar
certainly, nor yet of the educated
in the highest sense ; that is, not
of the true wisdom of heathen

21

21

Ver. 21.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

61

creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead ; so that they are without excuse: because that,

antiquity, but of the sophist, the
mystic, the Athenian ever desi-
rous to hear some new thing; the
Greek in the cities of Asia; the
Alexandrian Jew mingling all
opinions, human and divine, in
his system of knowledge, falsely
so called ; the half-educated, on
whom the speculations of Stoics
or Epicureans exercised a kind
of secondary influence; the tra-
ditional lore of Egypt, enhanced,
doubtless by the fame of its
new learning, which seemed so
strangely to contrast with the
meanness and grotesqueness of
its superstition. These were the
forms of heathen life and philo-
sophy with which the Apostle
must generally have come in con-
tact, which it is, therefore, rea-
sonable to suppose that he had in
view in this description.

It is a further question, how
far St. Paul was acquainted with
those master-pieces of heathen
learning which have exerted so
great power on the thoughts of
men. Had he read Plato, or
Aristotle, or the writings of the
Stoics? Can we suppose him to
have heard of Seneca, with
whom his name is connected by
an ancient and widely received
forgery? Is it of these that he
says: “affirming they were wise,
they became fools?” There is
no reason to suppose that St.
Paul was skilled in any Greek
learning but the Alexandrian
philosophy, and that rather as a
current mode of thought of his
time than as a system which he
had especially cultivated. But

as little reason is there to suppose
that unless he had ceased to be
himself, he would have viewed
these great classical works in
any other way than he regarded
heathen literature in general,
or have received them in the
spirit of the later Fathers, as
semi-inspired works, or have re-
cognised in them the simplicity
or grand moral lesson which has
preserved them toour time. Sa-
cred and profane literature fly
from the touch of each other;
they belong to two different
worlds. Nor is it likely that
the first teachers of Christianity
would have sought to connect
them, nor conceivable to us how
the Gospel could have converted
mankind, if, in its infancy, it
had to come into collision with
the dialectics of Plato, or the se-
vere self-control of the Stoic. It
must gain a form and substance
of its own, ere it could leaven
the world. Afterwards it might
gather into itself the elements
of good in all things. Nor is
there reason to ‘think that it
could have drawn to itself the
nobler spirits of heathen anti-
quity, any more than it could
have taken from them. Had
Tacitus known ever so much
of that “exitiabilis superstitio,”
is it natural, humanly speaking,
to suppose that he would have
bowed at the foot of the cross ?
21 dure yvdvreg rov Sedr, be-
cause when they knew God, | is a
repetition in the concrete of
what had been previously stated
in the abstract in verse 19. The

62

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

eddfacav 7 nvxapiotnoay, a\N euatawOnoav €v Tots
Suadoyurpots aitav, Kal éokoticOn 1 aovvetos avTav
, 4, “y ba , AP
Kapdia. paoKovtes civar cogpot euwpavOnoar Kat y\d\akav
Tv dd€av Tod adbOdprov Oeod év duorwpati eixkdvos POap-
Tod avOpwmov Kal meTewv Kal TeTpaTTddwV Kal EpTrETar.
5151 rapédaxev avtovs 6 Oeds ev Tats emifuplats TOV Kap-

1 Add kat.

same thought is heightened in
ver. 23. 25. 28. 32. as the conse-
quences are also thrice repeated
in ver. 24. 26. 27. 29—31. A
similar “ antistrophic” structure
is traceable in vii. 7—24. and
viii. 1—11., and elsewhere.

épwarawOnoar, | were made fool-
ish, or were made nought, not
merely erred. 2Sam. xxiv. 10. ;
Judith, vi. 8. Comp. v. 22.

duadoyropoic, | conceits, as com-
monly in the LXX. in a bad
sense, Ps, xxiii. 11., cxxxvii. 19.

éoxoriaOn i) aovvEeroc a’Twy Kap-
dia. | Either their heart was dark-
ened so that it became foolish, as
in Sophocles, ray cay adépxrwr
duparwy rnr@pevoc ; or Matt. xii.
13., awoxareoraOn (1) yelp) vyuje
ac 7 d\An: or better, their foolish
heart was yet further dark-
ened.

The senselessness of the hea-
then religions and their worship-
pers, was an aspect of them far
more striking to contemporary
Jews or Christians than to our-
selves. We gaze upon the frag-
ments of Phidias and Praxiteles,
and fancy human nature almost
ennobled by the “form divine.”
Our first notions of patriotism
are derived from Marathon and
Thermopyle. The very anti-
quity of heathenism gives it a
kind of sacredness to us. The
charms of classical literature add

agrace. It was otherwise with
the Jews and first believers.
They saw only “cities wholly
given to idolatry,” whose gods
were but stocks and stones, de-
scribed in the sarcasm of the
prophet, “ The workman maketh
a graven image.”

22. odoxorrec eivat codol, pro-
JSessing to be wise,| is a con-
tinuation of the idea already im-
plied in dtadoyeapoic. Comp.
1 Cor. iii. 20. : — cipwoe yevooxer
Touc diadoyiopove THY aopay, Gre
eiot para, which are quoted
from Ps. xciv. 11., where, how-
ever, the two words rwv coger do
not occur in the original. The
Scripture isever repeating to man
the lesson that the wisdom of this
world is foolishness with God.
It is a part of the contrast which
the Gospel presents to the ex-
perience of mankind. ‘The rich
are poor, the learned ignorant,
the strong weak, the living dead,
the things that are as though they
were not in the sight of God.
The more they assert their exist-
ence, the less have they a true
existence before him. There is
an irony in sacred as well as
profane writings, which inverts
the order of things, and, with-
drawing from the world around,
places itself above human opi-
nions by placing itself below
them.

22
23

24

Ver. 22—24. ] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 63

when they knew God; they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their imagi-
nations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Pro-
fessing * to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore * God gave them
up to uncleanness in* the lusts of their own hearts, to

1 Add also.

adOdprov Yeov, | contrasted with
p0aprov avOpwrov.

23. év dpuowpar.] So in Ps.
ev. 20. #AAdEavro év Opowpare
In such passages the use of the
preposition ¢v may be explained
by aconfusion of rest and motion
(i\Aakay bore evar éy dpompare) 5
or better, the object may be re-
garded as that in which the
change consists. Compare v. 25.

pOaprov avOpwrov... Kal Epré-
twy.| The former words refer
to the Greek anthropomorphism,
such as we may imagine the
Apostle gazing upon from Mars
Hill; the latter to the symbolism
of Egypt and the East, the wor-
ship of the ibis, apis, serpents,
crocodiles.

24. du rupéewxev.| The same
connexion between the blindness
of the understanding, and fieshly
sins, occurs in Eph. iv. 18, 19.
* Having the understanding dark-
ened, being alienated from the
life of God through the ignorance
that is in them, because of the
blindness of their hearts: who,
being past feeling, have given
themselves over unto lascivious-
ness, to work all uncleanness with
greediness.”

mapédwker, gave them up.| Ori-
gen and several of the Fathers

soften the meaning of the word,
mapédwker, by interpreting ciacer,
permitted to be given over, rather
than delivered over. Such ex-
planations are not interpretations
of Scripture, but only adaptations
of it to an altered state of feeling
and opinion. They are “ after-
thoughts of theology,” as much
as the discussions and definitions
alluded to above, designed, when
the question has begun to occupy
the mind of man, to guard against
the faintest supposition of a con-
nexion between God and evil.
So in modern times we say God
is not the cause of evil: he only
allows it; it is a part of his
moral government, incidental to
his general laws. Without con-
sidering the intimate union of
good and evil in the heart of man,
or the manner in which moral
evil itself connects with physical,
we seek only to remove it, as far
as possible, in our language and
modes of conception, from the Au-
thor of good. The Gospel knows
nothing of these modern philoso-
phical distinctions, though revolt-
ing, as impious, from the notion
that God can tempt man. The
mode of thought of the Apostle
is still the same as that implied
in the aphorism : — “ Quem Deus

64 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. I.

~ b) ~ b ] b) , A 5 4 A \ ,
diay avTav eis akafapoiay Tov atyalerVar TA TopaTa
~ y QA 5 , lal “a
avtav év avtots', oirwes meTnAa€av THY adjOerav Tod Peod
2y TO Wevd L eoeBaoO i €dd av TH KTiOEL
ev TO Wevder Kat eoeBaaOynoay Kal Ehatpevoav TH
b) X\ b ] ‘\ ,”A
Tapa TOV KTicavTa, OS €aTW EvVAOYNTOS Els TOUS aldvas,
> , \ A 4 e ‘\ e @ , > Ai,
apnv. ua Tovto mapédmKev avtovs 0 Oeos eis Ttafy
a , \ \
atrystas* al Te yap Ondreva adrav perp rdakav Hv putucny
an \ \ e »~
xpnow eis THY Tapa dvow, cpoiws SE Kat ol apaeves
> , \ \ A A A X , > 50 >
adévtes THY pvoikny ypnow THs Ondreias eLexavOnoar &v
“~ > 4 > “A 3 3 l4 A 3 + \
™ dpé€er avTav eis addr hous, apoeves EV apoeow THY
\ \ , a
doxynwortyyy Kkatepyalopevor Kal THY avTyLicOiay Hv eeu
Lal wn . lal
THs TAdVNS avTa@V ev EavTots aToapBavovtes. Kal KaOas
ovK edokipacay Tov Oedv exew ev emiyvdoe, TapédwKev
“A \ \
avTovs 6 Beds eis dddKYOV VOU, Toe TA fy KAOHKOVTA,

1 €qurots.

vult perdere, prius dementat.” To
preserve this is essential, or we
shall confuse what the Epistles do
- say, and what we suppose that
they ought to have said; the
words used to express the opera-
tion of the Divine Being, and the
general impression of Divine good-
ness which we gather from Scrip-
ture as a whole.

év raic ércOupiacc, in their state
of lust; compare év rh dpéte, Vv.
27.

cic axabapoiay rov armalecBar. |
Not to the uncleanness of disho-
nouring which would require rijy
before dxafapciay; in the lan-
guage of the old grammarians,
xXapiv, or éveka, may be supplied
or to speak more correctly the
genitive is used to signify the
remoter object which, at the same
time, is an explanation of dcaOap-
siav. For the word dripaZecbar,
in this sense, compare the expres-
sion which occurs in ] Thess. iy.
4., kraaBat oxevoc év rit.

The general question, how far

God is spoken of in Scripture as
the Author of evil, will be dis-
cussed on Rom. ix. One remark

may, however, be made by way

of anticipation, that while we
reject the distinction of God
causing and permitting evil as
unsuited to Scripture, a great dif-
ference must, nevertheless, be
admitted between sin as the pe-
nalty of sin, or, as we should say,
the natural consequence of sin,
and sin in its first origin. In the
latter sense the authorship of evil
is no where attributed to God;
in the former, it is. God makes
man to sin, in the language of
Scripture, only when he has al-
ready sinned, when, to the eye of
man, he is hopelessly hardened.
In this point of view, the meta-
physical difficulty, which is not
here entered upon, still remains ;
but the practical one is in a great
degree removed.

21— 28. are worth observing,
as illustrative of the style of St.
Paul, consisting as they do of a

26

26

27

28

Ver. 25—28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 65

dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who
changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped
and served the creature rather* than the Creator, who
is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God gave
them up unto vile affections : for* their women did
change the natural use into that which is against
nature: and likewise also the men, leaving the natural
use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly
and receiving in themselves that recompence of their
error which was meet. And* as they did not like to
retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to
a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not con-

thrice repeated statement of the
sin of the heathen, and their pu-
nishment. 21—24.: They knew
God, but worshipped idols, there-
fore God punished them with
unnatural lusts. 25—27.: They
turned the truth of God into a
lie; therefore men and women
alike were given over to sensual
abominations. 28. to the end:
They would not know God; there-
fore God took away from them
the sense of knowledge. Then
follows the description of their
state in its last aggravation.

25. oirivec pernAagay. | A new
aspect of idolatry ; it changes the
truth that God teaches about
Himself (ad7j0ea Seov) into a
lie.

Tapa Tov kricavra, | and not the
Creator. The preposition rapa
is here used in the sense of
“rather than,” as frequently
with comparative expressions,
such as, dAdoc, Erepoc. So 1
Cor. iii. 11., Oeuédcoy GAXov mapa
TOV Keipevor.

b¢ éorwv evdoynroc. | The doxo-
logy expresses the antipathy of

VOL. Il.

St. Paul to what has preceded.

-At the mention of such things,

he utters a hymn of praise, lest
the honour of God should seem
impaired. Compare iil. 5., for a
similar feeling ; also ix. 5.

26. OfjAevac and dpoevec rather
than drdpec. and yvvaixec, be-
cause of the relation of sex in
which the Apostle is speaking of
them. «ic raOn ariiac, to affec-
tions of dishonour, with an allu-
sion to ariafeoGac which has
preceded.

27. dpotwe d& Kat ot apoevec. |
These words may be connected,
either with what follows or with
what. precedes; either as in the
English translation ; or, “And so
the men ; leaving the natural use
of the women, they burned in
their lust,” &c.

THY dyryucbiay iy ee THe
mwAavnc,| not a recompense of
their sin with one another, but of
their error respecting God.

28. xabwc ovk édoxipracay.| The
original meaning of the word
doxiuaZecvis : (1.) to try as metals,
or, in a figurative sense of public

66

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

{Cu. I.

/ 4 LO , , , 4 1
TeTnpwLevous TATH AdiKia, KaKia., ToVNpia, TEovetial jrE-
atovs dUdvov, pdvov, epidos, Sddov, Kakonfeias WuOupioTas,

, “~ e \ e , b] ,
Katahadous, Jeoorvyets, uBpiotas, UTepnpavous, ahalovas,

bY A A > A
epevpeTas KaK@V, yovevow aeleis, aruveTous, davvOerous

p) , 2 2 " , Y \ § , A A>
ATTOPYOVUS » AVEAENMOVGAS, OLTLWES TO LKOL@ La TOU Peov €77 l=

9 4 aA 4
YvOvTeEs, OTL OL TA TOLAVTA TpadacaorTes aévoL Oavarov cio iy,

1 Add mopveig, and read kaxle after mAcovetia.

2 Add aomdvidous.

officers ; (2.) to approve on trial ;
(3.) to determine, think fit, as in
Thucyd. ii. 35., and more common-
ly, and with less idea of the ori-
ginal signification, in later Greek.
In the present passage it may be
translated, — “ Who did not think
fit.” There is also a rapovopacia
with addxioc, which in English
is hardly translatable. Not ap-
proving to have God in their
knowledge, they become repro-
bates ; or, because they did not
discern to have God in know-
ledge, God gave them over to an
undiscerning mind. Other in-
stances of rapovouacia in the
Epistle are, ii. 1., iii. 27., and,
above, v.26. So-Christ himself,
Matt. viii. 22., xvi. 12.

29. rexdnpwpévouc racy douia,
... wovnpia.| For similar lists of
sins, compare Gal. v. 19. ; 2 Tim.
iii. 8.; the order in which they
are placed, seems sometimes to
follow associations of sound,
sometimes of sense.

movnpia | may be distinguished
from xaxig, as the stronger and
more exact expression from the
weaker and more general one, as
villany from evil and vice.

m\eoveéia, | perhaps here, as in
Ephes. v. 3., Col. iii. 5., in the
sense of lust.

kaxonOelac, malignity, | implies
secret, inveterate evil in a man’s
nature.

30. WOupiordc, | secret, as op-
posed to kara\dXove, open slan-
derers.

Seoorvyeic, hated of God.| The
use of the word in classical Greek,
as well of the analogous word
{poroorvyhe, requires the passive
sense. To thisit is objected, that
it is unmeaning to single out a
particular class as hateful to God,
because allsinnersare so. With
the view of avoiding this dif-
ficulty, it has been proposed to
render the word actively after
the analogy of Seopione in Arist.
Aves, 155.

pice & dravras Tovs Seovs, &s olo0d ov,
vh Tov Al kel Snta Yeoulons Epus.

Compare also the word Seocey Apia
in Arist. Vesp. 418. and Oedavd0¢
in Philo, vol. ii. 642. ; also Rom.
viii. 7. Notwithstanding this de-
parture from ordinary use, the
word is still somewhat pointless.
It is safer, with such a writer as
St. Paul, or rather with all writers,
to take language in its usual sense,
of which we are much more cer-
tain, than we can ever be of the
intention of awriter ina particular
passage. Here, either the active
or passive sense is deficient in
point; yet a fair meaning may
be given to the passive usage.
Seoorvyie¢ does not signify hateful
to God in the same degree that
all sinners may be said to be so,

29
30

31
32

Ver. 29—32.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 67

venient ; being filled with all unrighteousness, evil, wick-
edness !, villany*, covetousness ; full of envy, murder,
debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, hated*
of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil
things, disobedient to parents, without understanding,

-covenant-breakers, without natural affection”, unmerciful:

who knowing the judgment of God, that they which

1 Add fornication.

but more than this, “ reprobate,”
“ marked with the seal of the
Divine wrath,” in a special sense
and pre-eminently above other
men “ hated of God.”

vEpiorde, brutal and injurious
to others.

trepnpavove, haughty.

adaovac, vain boasters,| the
Gnathos and Thrasos of the
comic writers.

30. épevperac kaxoy, inventors
of new forms of evil. Compare
kax@v evperai in Philo, Lib. in
Flac. 520.

douvérovc, without under-
standing, | in the Hebrew sense
implying moral degradation. Ps.
xci. 6.

aardpyouc, without natural af-
fection, | e. g. mothers who ex-
posed their children, emperors
or satraps who put to death their
brothers.

aovvGérove, perfidious. | Jer.
iii. 8. 11.

[aordrvdove, in the Textus Re-
ceptus, is probably spurious, per-
haps a gloss on dovvérove. |

32. The Apostle concludes the
long catalogue of sins as he had
begun it, with a reference to the
fact that men committed them
in the face of knowledge ; they
could not otherwise have had the
nature of sin. It has been some-

2 Add implacable.

times thought that a higher de-
gree of guilt was intended to be
intimated by cuvevdoxovary, “ have
pleasure in them,” than by zpao-
cover, “do them.” To encourage
evil in others without the in-
centive of passion in a man’s self,
might seem to denote a higher
degree of moral depravity than
any mere licentiousness which
was the gratification of passion.

It may be objected to the sug-
gested interpretation that the
thought is too subtle, and also
that a stronger meaning is as-
signed to the word ovvevdoxovar
than it will fairly bear. There
is a considerable difference be-
tween passively assenting to or ap-
proving, and encouraging or tak-
ing delightin. The climax breaks
down if we translate the words .
in their legitimate sense, “ who
not only do, but assent to those
who dothem.” Nor is the climax
appropriate at all in this place,
nor can it be maintained, as a ge-
neral proposition, that it is worse
to approve than to do evil.

The difficulty has led some in-
terpreters to propose a change
of reading,which has considerable
manuscript authority. The va-
rious readings are as follow : —

olrivec TO duckaiwpa TOV Seow ért-
yvovrec, [émeywwaoxorrec, B.]

F 2

68

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. I.

b] , - A b] \ \ 5 “A “a
OV pOVvov avTa Towovclw, ad\d\a Kal GuUVEVOOKOVOW TOUS

Tparcovow,

[Add ot« événoay, AGfgv. Cypr.
Lue.| Gre ot ra Toavra mpac-
sovrec btor Savarov eiciv, ov povor
avra rowvowv, ACAG [ rovovy-
rec, Bfgv|, adda Kai ovvevdoxod-
ow ACAG [ cuvevdoxodyrec | ToIc
mpaccovotv. If we combine the
alteration of B with the addi-
tion of AG, the sense will be as
follows :— ‘Who, knowing the
judgment of God, do not perceive
that they who do such things are
worthy of death, not only in that
they do them themselves, but in
that they consent to those who
do them.” The feebleness of the

last clause, and the deficiency of
MS. authority, are sufficient ob-
jections to such a mode of evad-
ing the difficulty.

Another explanation has been
offered of the original text. cvyv-
evdoxovary, it has been thought,
is not intended to express any
higher degree of guilt than zo-
ovao.v, but merely that the Gen-
tiles do evil, and judge favourably’
of evil. This it is sought to
connect with the first verse of
the next chapter : — “ Therefore
thou art inexcusable, O man,
whosoever thou art that judgest,

Ver. 32.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

69

commit such things are worthy of death, not only do
the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

and thy judgment of another
is a condemnation of thyself ;
for thou judgest and doest too.”
But the transition of meaning
from cvvevooxetvy to xpivery is not
defensible.

It has been already remarked,
that the form of St. Paul’s writ-
ings is often more artificial and
rhetorical than thethought. May

-not this be the explanation of
the passage which we are con-
sidering? The opposition is
really one of particles, not of
‘ideas. The Apostle does not

mean to say “ who do them, and,
more than that, have pleasure in
those that do them,” but simply
“who do them, and assent to
those who do them.” (Compare
2 Cor. viii. 10., otrivec ob povoy
TO Twomoa, adAa Kal ro Sédewv
mpoevnpiacbe ard mwépvot, Which
is probably to be explained in
the same way, and where the
commentators have recourse to
similar forced interpretations.)
He is aggravating the picture by
another, but not necessarily a
deeper shade of guilt.

F 3

70 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ON THE CONNEXION OF IMMORALITY AND
IDOLATRY.

“An idol is nothing in the world,” says the Apostle; “yet he
that commits fornication sins against his own body.” It is foolish-
ness to bow to an idol; but immorality and licentiousness are real
and essential evil. No mere outward act can make a man different
from what he was before, while no inward act can leave him the
same after as before its performance. <A belief about Jupiter or
Hades is not necessarily inconsistent with truth and purity of life.
The evils, whether of a heathen or of a Christian country, are not
always associated with the corruptions of religion. Whence, then,
the connexion often spoken of by theologians, and not unfelt by the
heathen themselves, between immorality and idolatry ?

It is first to be sought for in their origin. As the Christian
religion may be regarded as the great pillar and rock of morality,
so the heathen religions sprang up in an age prior to morality.
We see men in the dawn of human history just raised above
the worship of stocks and stones, “making themselves gods to go
before them.” Like children they feed upon the creations of their
own minds; they live in a world of their own and are satisfied.
No thought occurs to them of the higher laws of human life; they
have no sense of shame or its opposite; the abstract terms for
“right and wrong” have not yet been heard in their vocabulary.
The Gods who have possession of the heart of man are half-physical,
half-magical, and in part also human, beings, not purely evil any
more than man himself, but leaning to the worse rather than to the
better side of man’s nature, of which they are the vacant and mag-
nified images. The deities of the Homeric poems are not better
than men, but rather worse; compared with heroes, they have a
fainter sense of truth and justice, less certainly of moral greatness.

After ages felt that the Homeric gods were unworthy of a civi-

CONNEXION OF IMMORALITY AND IDOLATRY. 71

lised race. And yet it might have been fortunate for mankind
had no deeper leaven of evil ingrained itself in the religions of
the ancient world; for mythology at a later, or in some nations
at an earlier, stage, dived into a gulf below, out of which rose
powers of evil—furies pursuing the homicide, inevitable destiny,
capricious vengeance, wild justice for imaginary crimes. Human
nature grew and human beings spread over the earth; but they
carried with them, wherever they went, the traditional load of
superstition, with which their separate existence as a nation seemed
to be bound up. Far otherwise would it have been if the good of
states, or the dictates of natural feeling and affection, had been made
the standard to which religion was to conform. And accordingly it
has everywhere happened, that as reflection has gained ground, or
civilisation spread, mankind have risen up against the absurdities
and barbarities of early mythology, either openly disowning them or
secretly explaining them away; and thus in either case bearing
witness that idolatry is not on a level with man’s reason, but below
it. In the case of the Greeks, especially, many of the grosser forms
of réligion disappeared from the light of day into the seclusion of
the mysteries.

The whole civilised world in modern times are worshippers of an
unseen God; the whole civilised world in ancient times were idola-
ters. The vastness and uniformity of this latter fact lead us to look
upon idolatry as rooted in a natural instinct. It is not an error
into which men reason themselves, or a lesson propagated by false
teachers, or the trick of priests imposing on the credulity of man-
kind ; a lower stage of human nature is implied in it. Its birth and
origin we scarcely see; most of the effects which are commonly
attributed to it being an after-growth of civilised and historical
times. And this of itself was an element of immorality; it con-
tinued in a world which had lost its first meaning, whose convictions
of right and truth gradually became opposed to it, whose very ideas

of decency were inconsistent with its grosser forms. In old times

F 4

72 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

man had wondered at his own power of bringing into being a
creature in his own image; religious awe had blended with the
sensual impulse ; at shrines and sacred places “ the people had come
together to eat and to drink, and risen up to play.” And, ever
after, sensual love remained as a pervading element of the Pagan
religions, consecrated by antiquity, in later ages graced and half-
concealed by art. The introduction of the Bacchanalia at a com-
paratively recent epoch in the history of Greece, and the attempted
introduction of them at Rome, indicate the reawakening of the same
religious passions when older modes of faith failed to satisfy them.
Yet more monstrous forms of evil arose when in things not to be
named men seemed to see a likeness to the operations and powers
of nature. The civilised Greek and Roman knew well that there
were frenzies of religious licentiousness unworthy of a rational
being, improper and dangerous for a government to allow. As East
and West met and mingled, the more did these strange rites spread
themselves, passing from Egypt and Phoenicia to Greece, from the
mountains of Phrygia to the streets and temples of Rome.

But, besides this direct connexion between idolatry and forms
of moral evil, there is also an indirect and general influence which it
exercised, even in its better aspect, adverse to morality. Not from
religion, but from philosophy, come the higher aspirations of the
human soul in Greece and Rome. Idolatry detains men in the -
world of sight; it offers an outward form to the eye and imagery
to the fancy ; it draws the many-coloured veil of art over the cor-
ruption of human nature. It heals the strife of man with himself
superficially. It takes away the conscious want of the higher life, but
leaves the real need. But morality has to do with an unseen world:
it has no form nor comeliness, when separated from the hope which
the Gospel holds out ; it issevere and stoical in its demands. It tells
men to look within; it deepens the battle with self. It presents
duty almost as an abstraction which in the face of death they must
pursue, though there be no reward here, though their name perish
for evermore. The spirit of all idolatry is the very opposite of this ;

CONNEXION OF IMMORALITY AND IDOLATRY. 73

it bids men rest in this world, it pacifies them about another. The
nature of God, who is the ideal and perfection of all morality, it
lowers to the level of man; the virtue which is above, the truth
which is beyond us, it embodies in the likeness of the human form,
or the wayward and grotesque fancies of the human mind. It bids
us seek without for what can only be found within.

There remains yet a further parallel to be drawn between immo-
rality and idolatry in the age in which St. Paul himself lived, when
the ancient religions had already begun to be discredited and ex-
plained away. At this time they had become customs rather than
beliefs — maxims of state rather than opinions. It is, indeed, impos-
sible to determine how far in any minds they commanded respect, or
how much of the reverence that was refused to established modes of
worship was accorded to the claims of newly imported deities. They
were in harmony with the outer world of the Roman Empire — that is,
with its laws, institutions, traditions, buildings; but strangely out of
harmony with its inner life. No one turned to the mythology of
Greece and Rome to find a rule of life. Perhaps no one had ever
done so, but now least of all. Their hold was going or gone; there
was a space in the mind of man which they could no longer fill up,
in which Stoic and Epicurean philosophers were free to walk; the chill
darkness of which might receive a ray of light and warmth from the
Alexandrian mystic ; where, too, true voices of philosophy and ex-
perience might faintly make themselves heard, and the heart ask
itself and find its own solution of the problem, “ What is truth?” In
all this latter period the relation of morality to religion might be said
to be one of separation and antagonism. And, upon the whole, this
very freedom was favourable to right and truth. It is difficult to
determine how far the spectacle of a religion which has outlived its
time may corrupt the moral sense, how far the necessary disbelief of
an existing superstition tends to weaken and undermine the intellec-
tual faculties of mankind; but there can be little doubt that it does
so less than if it were still believed and still ministered to the sensu-
ality or ignorance of the world.

74 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ON THE STATE OF THE HEATHEN WORLD.

Nort to dwell at length on a subject from which the Christian gladly
turns away, it will not be without use, as an illustration of the pre-
ceding chapter, to sum up briefly a few of the leading features which
distinguish the heathen from the Christian world; most of which
have never existed in Christian times, and which we have no rea-
son to think ever will or can exist again as prevailing practices

in a Christian or civilised society.

1. Iladepaoréa and in general unnatural crimes.
2. Exposure of offspring.
3. Licentiousness of religious worship, as shown —

-i, In the representations of the theatre, where the worst parts
of the heathen mythology were publicly performed.

ii. In the mysteries, especially those of Cybele and of Ceres
and Bacchus, which consisted partly of a frantic licen-
tiousness, partly of a consecration of those things which
are done in secret by mankind.

iii. In the religious ceremonies of Egypt and the East, espe-
cially the worship of Cotytto, Astarte, Isis, and Mendes.

4, Cruelty, as shown not merely in maxims or practices of war or
the crimes of individuals, but in the offering of human sacrifices,

which continued to the age of the Emperor Adrian.

To which may be added, as less revolting characteristics of
ancient times,—
1. Slavery ;
_.2. Condition of women: both of which are gradually ameliorated
by Christianity.

STATE OF THE HEATHEN WORLD. 75

The picture suggested by these features is not equally true of the
heathen world in all ages, nor of Greece and the East, nor of Rome
and Greece, nor of Rome itself in the earlier years of the republic
and under the emperors. In the Iliad and Odyssey the fouler
Greek vices are found, if anywhere, only among the Gods: while the
Greek Lyric and Elegiac poets are deeply infected with them. Old
Italian life was simpler and better. It could hardly have been the
mere fond recollection of the past that made the Roman tell of the
Sabine morals of his ancestors, or of the dignity of Roman matrons,
or of the lessons of truth and virtue to be gathered from the examples
of consuls and dictators. Itis probable that Rome was long preserved
from the impurities of Greece and the East, yet, as it seems, only
reserved for a deeper contamination and pollution. To see the old
world in its worst estate we turn to the age of the satirists and of
Tacitus, when all the different streams of evil coming from east,
west, north, south, the vices of barbarism and the vices of civili-
sation, remnants of ancient cults and the latest refinements of luxury
and impurity, met and mingled on the banks of the Tiber. What
could have been the state of society when Tiberius, Caligula, Nero,
Domitian, Heliogabalus were the rulers of the world? Toa good
man we should imagine that death itself would be more tolerable
than the sight of such things coming upon the earth.

Strange it seems, at first sight, that anything of good, or patriotism
or noble feeling, anything of purity in women or manliness in men,
should have subsisted side by side with shameless indecency and
impurity. Living, mingling, acting in this world below nature, were
men like Seneca, Tacitus, or Agricola, of whom it might be truly
said, “these not having the law are a law unto themselves.” The
explanation of this anomaly is, perhaps, to be sought in the fact, that
in the worst of times good men are better and more entirely separated
from the vices of their age. At the same time it can hardly be
supposed that they could have regarded the sins which the Apostle
describes with that natural horror that they would awaken among
ourselves. The feeling which makes the perpetrator of such sins an

76 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. -

outcast and an exile upon the earth had as yet no existence: shameful
as they were admitted to be, they could still be made the subject of a
jest or of a poetical allusion. Nor must the extreme confusion be
overlooked which religion had introduced into the natural sense of
mankind respecting them, consecrating them by the example of gods
and heroes, and representing even the worst of them as religious
mysteries. Least of all would the increase of refinement tend to their
diminution. It was not to the elegant and luxurious senator such
abominations were peculiarly odious, but to the antique Roman, rude
in speech and knowledge, hating the contamination of foreign
manners, lingering in thought around the liberties of the republic.

Two reflections naturally append themselves on this subject. The
first, that as St. Paul tells us that the Gentiles knew or might have
known the truth of God, so there never was a time —at least in the
history of Greece and Rome, with which we are best acquainted —
in which nature and reason did not bear witness against these im
purities. Plato and Socrates in their way, and Aristophanes in his,
alike protested against the degrading vices of their age ; the first by
endeavouring to give a nobler and more spiritual character to that
which to Christian ideas is absolutely incapable of being associated
with anything true or spiritual; the latter, while admitting the uni-
versality of such vices, by making them subjects of ridicule and
satire, and also to a certain extent claiming for himself the praise
of greater decency than his contemporary comic writers. In the
times of the emperors the lash of the satirist gave no quarter to the
depravity of the age; while the historian, and better men generally,
remembered the tradition of a time when purity and decency of
manners had not yet been lost, and the Stoic philosopher, if his
stoicism were not a mere mask, stood apart, naturally compelled
to an austere virtue by the vices of all mankind.

The other is a sad reflection, which we would feign conceal from
ourselves, and yet cannot avoid making, when contemplating the
glorious Athens, its marvels of art and beauty, its deeds of patriotism,

its speculations of wisdom and philosophy ; not, perhaps, without the.

STATE OF THE HEATHEN WORLD. ts

thought flashing across our minds that there was a phase of human
life in that old Paganism which in Christianity has never been deve-
loped in equal perfection, and from which truly Christianity may be
said to have borrowed something which it has incorporated with
itself. The reflection is this :— That if the inner life had been pre-
sented to us of that period which in political greatness and in art is
the most brilliant epoch of humanity, we should have turned away
from the sight with loathing and detestation. The greatest admirer
of old heathen virtues, the man endowed with the finest sensibilities
for beauty and form, would feel at once that there was a great gulf
fixed between us and them, which no willingness to make allowance
for the difference of ages or countries would enable us to pass. ‘There
are vices which have existed in modern times to afar greater extent
than in ancient; there were virtues in ancient times which have
never been exceeded ; but there were vices also which are not even
named among us. It is a sad but useful lesson, that the noblest

simplicity in art may go along with
“ Rank corruption mining all within.”

Neither is it untrue to say, that there was a thread by which they
were linked together.

78 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP. II.

Tue second chapter of the Romans has often been regarded as con-
taining the exclusive condemnation of the Jew for hypocrisy, as the
first chapter contains the condemnation of the Gentile for sins below
nature. This statement, however, is not quite exact. That the
Apostle intended to include both Jew and Gentile under sin, may
be inferred from chap. iii. 9.; the two heads of the proof do not,
however, precisely correspond to the divisions of the chapters. The
course of his thought may be traced as follows :— He has been speak-
ing of the inhuman and unnatural vices of the Gentiles, and now.
passes on to another class of sins —hypocrisy and deceit, —in which
he loses sight of the Gentiles, and addresses man in the abstract.
Assuming that all mankind are guilty before God, the judgment of
others is a condemnation of self. | But whence is this assumption ?
Not strictly deducible from the preceding chapter, in which the
Apostle has been speaking only, or chiefly, of the Gentiles, yet in |
spirit agreeing with it; for the judgment of others is a higher
degree of that knowledge of God which “hinders the truth in un-
righteousness.” Still there is a link wanting. We must allow the
Apostle to make a silent transition from the Gentile to mankind in
general, just as in chap. iii. 19. he has included the Gentile under
the condemnation of the Jew. Full of the general idea of the univer-
sal sinfulness of man, he follows his own thought without looking
back at the connexion. There would have been no difficulty had he
spoken first of the sinfulness of the Gentile and then of the sinful-
ness of the Jew; and, thirdly, of the additional guilt incurred by
either in hypocrisy and judgment of others. But the sinfulness of

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 79

the Jew being greatly increased by or mainly consisting in this last,
he has sunk the mention of other sins, leaving them to be inferred or
suggested from the general description that preceded.

_ With the first verse of the second chapter the style changes ; the
contemplation of the heathen world is ended, and the Apostle pro-
ceeds to reason with an imaginary opponent, whom he draws within
the circle of human evil and will not allow him to escape, under the
pretence of judging others, which does but aggravate his guilt. Such
a one is trying to deceive God, but only deceives himself. Gradually
we approach the Jew. In the third verse there is a glimpse of the
notion that God would judge the heathen but spare the sons of
Abraham ; in the fourth and fifth verses is presented to us a picture,
like those in the Old Testament, of the rebellious spirit of the Jew,
and the long-suffering of God towards him; in the tenth and eleventh
verses occurs a declaration of God’s equal justice to all; in the
twelfth and thirteenth the spirit of the law is opposed to the letter,
and the believing Gentile to the unbelieving Jew; until at last, in
v. 17., the Apostle turns to make the direct attack on the Jew, for
which, in the previous verses, he has been indirectly preparing :
“But if thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law and gloriest
in God.” )

Throughout this paragraph, as elsewhere, the connexion is in a
great measure formed by the repetition of words -in the successive
- verses and clauses. Thus zpdocovrac and xpiua connect verses 1.
and 2.; rove ra rovadra mpdooorrac is taken up from v. 2. in v. 3.;
in the latter part of v. 4. 70 ypynoroy rod Seov is a repetition of rot
movrou rijc xpnordrnroc in the former part of the verse; 0¢ drodwoe,
k.7A., in y. 6. is an expansion of the word d:cacoxpioiag in v. 5. ;
ddéa dé cai re), in the tenth verse, is aresumption of the same words
in the seventh. |

80 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. II.

Aw dvatoddyntos et, & avOpwre Tas 6 Kpivwv' ev @
yap Kpives Tov erepov, TeavTOV KaTaKplveEls’ TA yap avTa
mpacoes 6 Kpivav. otdaney 5é dri TO Kpipa Tod Deod
éotly Kata adyOevay emt Todvs Ta TOLadTAa TpPATCOVTAS *
hoyiln Sé rodro, & avOpwre 6 Kpivwv Tovs Ta ToLvadTa
mpaccovtas Kal Tomy avTd, OTL ov Expevdsy TO Kpiwa TOD
Oeod ; 4 Tod wovrou THs ypnoToTHTOS aVTOV Kat THS avo-
xs Kal THs paKpoOvpias Karadpoveis, ayvowy oT TO

Aw] appears to have a double
reference in the context: —first,
to what has preceded, “ Because
of this revelation of wrath and
mercy, because of this universal
sinfulness, because of this just
judgment of God;” secondly, to
what follows, “therefore thou art
without excuse, because in con-
demning others you are con-
demning yourself.” A conclusion
which is bound up by a further
link: “For thou that judgest
doest the same things.” For a
similar use of di0 . . . iva, as here,
du... €v o yap, comp. Heb.
Xili, 12.:—06.00 kai “Incove iva
aytaon dua Tov idiov aiparoc tov
Aaoyv, ébw rie wiAnce éexaber.
Comp. i. 20. for advamoddynroc ;
for the play on xpivecc and xara-
kpivecc, CV. 16. Kpiwa é& évdc eic
Karaxpipa.

2. oldapey dé.| But although
you judge others and deceive
yourself, God will judge you as
you really are. dé implies an
antithesis to the general idea of
the preceding verse, “ You are a
hypocrite, but you cannot deceive
God.”

kara adnOeiay,| not according
to their judgment of themselves,
but according to truth.

3. d€ again adversative to the
preceding verse: “But do you
think this, O man, that your

judging others will give you a
claim of exemption from the Di-
vine judgments? That would
not be according to truth. Do
you suppose that you will be
judged by anything but what
you are?”

Hypocrisy is almost always
unconscious; it draws the veil
over its own evil deeds, while it
condemns its neighbours ; it de-
ceives others, but begins by de-
ceiving the hypocrite himself.
It is popularly described as “ pre-
tending to be one thing, and do-
ing, thinking, or feeling another ;”
in fact, it is very different. No-
body really leads this sort of unna-
tural and divided existence. A
man does wrong, but he forgets
it again; he sees the same fault in
another, and condemns it; but no
arrow of conscience reaches him,
no law of association suggests to
him that he has sinned too. Hu-
man character is weak and plastic,
and soon reforms itself into a de-
ceitful whole. Indignation may be
honestly felt atothers by men who
do the same things themselves ;
they may often be said to relieve
their own conscience, perhaps,
even to strengthen the moral sen-
timents of mankind by their ex-
pression of it. ‘The worst hypo-
crites are bad as we can imagine,
but they are not such as we

3

4

Ver. 1—4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 81

Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever
thou art that judgest : for wherein thou judgest another,
thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest
the same things. But we are sure that the judgment
of God is according to truth against them which commit
such things. And thinkest thou this, O man, that
judgest them which do such things, and doest the same,
that thou shalt escape the judgment of God? Or de-
spisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance
and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of

imagine. The Scribes and Phari- as though the contrast was pre-
sees, “hypocrites,” were unlike sent and conscious to himself.
what they seem tous; muchmore We cannot follow the subtle
would they have regarded their mazes through which he leads
own lives in another light from himself; we see only the palpable
that in which our Lord has pic- outward effect. Secondly, the
tured them. Theirhypocrisy,too, notion that hypocrisy is self-
might be described as weakness deception or weakness, is inade-
and self-deception, only height- quate to express our abhorrence
ened and made more intense by of it. Thirdly, our use of lan-
the time and country in which guage is adapted to the common
they lived. It wasthehypocrisy opinions of mankind, and often
of an age and of a state of so- fails of expressing the finer
ciety blinder, perhaps, and more _ shades of human nature.
fatal for this very reason, but 4, ij row wXovrov. | Or is it that
less culpable in the individuals youopenly defy God? The con-
who were guilty of it. Those nexion with the previous verse
who said, “we have alaw,and by may be traced as follows: —What
our law he ought todie,” werenot account do you give of yourself,
without “a zeal for God,” though Oman? Do you expect to es-
seeking to take away him in cape? or is it that his mercy
whom only the law was fulfilled. hardens your heart? It is this
Butalthoughexperienceofour- mercy in delaying to punish, that
selves and others seems to show gives you the opportunity of self-
that hypocrisy is almost always deception. How different are
unconscious, such is not the idea your feelings to Him from His to
that we ordinarily attach to the you! Comp. Rom. ix.22.: “What,
word “hypocrite.” This sin- if God, willing to shew his wrath,
gular psychological phenomenon and make his power known, en-
is worth our observing. ‘The dured with much longsuffering
reason is, first, that the strong the vessels of wrath fitted for
contrast we observe between destruction!” The thought of
the seeming and the reality, Divine wengeance in both pas-
between the acts and words of sages, shades off into that of mer-
the hypocrite, leads us to speak cy. Inthe Apostle’s view, it is not

VOL. II. G

82

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. Il.

\ A ~ r) , , »” \ So ‘
XPHTTOV TOU Jeov ELS PETAVOLAV OE AaYEl ; KATH O€ THV

,
okhypdotyta cov Kal duetavdntoy Kapdiay Onoavpices

Po 9 eae 3 e , 3 ~ \ > 4 ts
ceavT@ dpynv ev Huépa dpyns Kal amoKahvyews duKa.o-

, A la) A > ya e 4 “ x ¥
Kpisias TOU Oeov; Os droddoE EKAoTw KaTa TA Epya
b J ww ~ QA — e A ¥ > 6 w PS , %
avtov, Tots pev Kal” wropovnv epyov ayalov ddgav Kat
AQ . > "3 “~ ‘ > 7 r “A be 5
Tyny Kal adlapaiav (yrovaow Canv aimviov' Tots d€ e€

God’s severity that punishes, but
his goodness that for a time puts
off the punishment. Comp. for
the language, Phil. Leg. Alleg. p.
46., tiv wrepbodjy Tov movrov
kal rij¢ dyabornroe avrodv.

5. Once more, dé is adversative,
though the opposition is too faint
to be exactly expressed by any
corresponding particle in English.
The impenitence and hardness of
man’s heart is contrasted with
the goodness and gentleness of
God. The contrast may be car-
ried out, either with or without
a question. “And as thou art
hardened and unrepenting, thou
treasurest up for thyself (or dost
thou treasure up for thyself?)
wrath in the day of wrath.” The
present is used for the future
(comp. below, ver. 16.); or rather
the day of judgment is thought
of as already present. ‘The idiom
is similar in the words of our
Saviour, Matt. vi. 20.: Sncav-
pilere. buiv Inaavpove év ovpay@.
The word SnoavpiZere in the pas-
sage we are considering, contains
an allusion to rov mXovrov rijc
xpynorornroc.

droxahtWewe ducatoxpioiac. The
wrath of God and the righteous-
ness of God are already revealed,
i. 16, 17., iv. 25.; but there is
yet a further stage of revelation
in which the sons of God are to be
manifested, Rom.viii. 19., and the
justice of God finally vindicated.

dc aTodwaereKdory, k.t. dX. These
words are an epexegesis of ducaco-

kpusiac; they are almost an exact
quotation from Psalm lxii. 12.,
Prov. xxiv. 12.,and are repeated
in the New Testament in Matt.
xvi. 27., xxv. 31.

It has been asked, what does
the Apostle mean by saying that
we shall be judged by our works,
when the whole tenor of the
Epistle goes to prove that we are
to be justified by faith ?

Many answers may be given
to this question: — First, the
Apostle has not yet taught the

doctrine of righteousness by

faith, and therefore cannot pro-
perly adopt what in modern times
might be termed the language of
Pauline theology. He is speak-
ing exoterically, it might be said,
in words borrowed from the
Old Testament, on the level of
Jews, or heathens, not of Chris-
tians, from the same point of
view as in 9, 10. Secondly,
the words rd gpya in this pas-
sage are not opposed to faith, but
to pretensions, self-deceptions,
and may be paraphrased in the
expression that follows: troporiy
épyov ayafov. But thirdly, the
Apostle needs these excuses to
make him consistent, not with
himself, but with some of his in-
terpreters. He says, indeed : —
“ We are justified by faith with-
out the deeds of the law.” But
he uses other language also: —
* Now abideth faith, hope, love ;
and the greatest of these is love.”
Nor does the expression “ righte-

ee ee pa eee ee

a et” eh a

——— ee a ee

Ver. 5—8.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

83

God leadeth thee to repentance ? But after thy hard-
ness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself
wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God ; who will render to every
man according to his deeds: to those who patiently *
endure in a good work, seeking for * eternal life, glory
and honour and immortality: but unto them that are

ousness by faith” occur at all
in several of his Epistles. We
may not “ straiten” the Apostle
where he is not “straitened” in
his own writings. ‘There are oc-
casions on which we can conceive
him using the language of St.
James as a corrective to the abuse
of his own. A subject so vast
and various as the salvation of
man, cannot be bound within the
withs of logic. As with our Lord,
so with his Apostles the mes-
sage is, first—“ Believe, and thou
mayest be saved ;” but secondly,
— “The hour is coming, and now
is, when they that are in the
graves shall hear his voice.”

It is the strongest presumption
that the difficulty is not a real
one, that the Apostle himself is
wholly unconscious of it: we
cannot imagine him discussing
whether faith in Christ, or
the love of Christ, or the in-
ward life of Christ, are the
sources of justification. Is it
irreverent to say, that disputes
of this kind would hardly have
been intelligible to him? No
more can we conceive him re-
garding the case of the heathen,
after, as well as before, Chris-
tianity, in any other spirit than,
“ God is no respecter of persons.”

7. There are three possible
ways of construing this passage :

(1.) As in the English transla-

tion, “ To those who by patient
continuance in well doing, seek
for glory and honour and im-
mortality, he will render eternal
life.” This is favoured by the
order of the Greek, but seems
open to the objection of an an-
ticlimax. It is hardly good
sense to say — “God will give
eternal life to those who ask him
for the greatest conceivable bless-
ings;” but rather— “God will
give the greatest conceivable
blessings to them that ask for
eternal life.” The stronger ex~
pression has a false emphasis, un-
less it refers, not to what man
asks, but to what God gives.

Or (2.) the order of the words
may be varied by taking égpyov
dyafov either with tropor)y or
ddéav. Itis better, however, to
take it with vzoporjy, as the
expression ddfav épyov dyalot
is singular, and the words ép-
you aya8ov cannot be connected
equally with riuny cal apOapsiar.

(3.) To those who by patient
endurance in a good work seek
for eternal life, he will render
glory and honour and immortality.
This mode of taking the passage,
notwithstanding the inversion of
the order, is on the whole pre-
ferable, and is favoured by the re-
petition of dd£a cai riph, in ver. 10.

8. rotc oe & épleiac.] ~The
word épi0eia is derived, not from

a 2

84

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. IT.

, 4 \ ‘a
épibeias Kai ameWovor! 7H ddyfeia, weopévors S€ TH
a) ‘ , SEN A
dduxia, dpy7n Kat Ovjds.” Odapus Kat TevoXwpia emt Taay
Ld ‘\
Wuynv avOpdrov Tob Karepyalomevov To Kaxdr, “Iovdaiov

Te mpatov Kat “Eddnvos*

dda Se Kal Tint Kal eipyvy

> 4 b ) 4 Lal X
mavtt TO éepyalopévm 7d ayaldv, “Iovdaig~ te mpaTov Kat

"EA.

A
Ov ydp éotw mpocwrodnWia Tapa TO Deo.

1 dreiBovor mer.

pic but from zgpcfoc, and its ori-
ginal meaning signifies labour for
hire. A secondary signification
is hence obtained of “intrigue
for hire;” and in Aristotle’s
Politics, v. 2. 6., the word has ac-
quired a further sense of “ party,”
“faction.” This last has been
probably modified in the New
Testament by the supposition of
a second derivation from épic, as
we should be inclined to infer
from the juxta-position in which
the word occurs in Gal. v. 20.
perc, Enrol, Supol, e~pieiar, 2
Cor. xii. 20., James iii. 16.

dreOover rh adnOeig.] By the
truth is meant the law of right,
and the will of God generally.
The ideas of truth and right are
not separated in Scripture, as they
are in our way of.speaking, or in
the forms of thought of the Greek
Philosophy. There isno “divi-
sion of the soul,” in Aristotle’s
language, into moral and intel-
lectual. Hence, knowledge in
Scripture is often spoken of as
a moral quality, and with the
word “truth” are associated ex-
pressions denoting acts and states
of the will rather than of the in-
tellect. See i. 20.

The construction is changed,
perhaps, because the words épy
and Supo¢ did not suit the previ-
ousverb. This change occasions

Y
oo ou
2 Suds Kad dpyh.

the Apostle to repeat another
parallel clause in the tenth verse.
Supoc is distinguished from dpy?
by some of the lexicographers, as
the more transient from the more
permanent feeling. But the last
thing that the Apostle thought
of when accumulating words, is
the precise shade of meaning by
which one may be distinguished
from the other. The second is
really a rhetorical strengthening
of the first, as two words, even if
synonymous, always mean more
than one.

meBouévorc O&€ TH dodkia,| who
disobey the law of God and make
unrighteousness their law. Com-
pare 1 Cor. xiii. 6. for a similar
contrast of clauses.

9. Srte Kal orevoxwpia. | Com-
pare 2 Corinth. iv. 8. SdEd-
pevot, arAN ov orevoxwpovpevor :
where the words are opposed,
as a less degree of tribulation
to a greater.

The parallelism of the clauses
is best preserved by arranging
them with Lachmann in four
members, with a full stop af-
ter Supudc. Here, as elsewhere,
repetition adds emphasis; the
thought which is first conceived

in ver. 7, 8., is fully and dis-

tinctly enunciated in 9, 10.
Wuxiv | may be used here, either
as the seat of the feelings, as in

10

11
12

VER. 9—12.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

85

contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey un-
righteousness, indignation, and wrath. Tribulation and
anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the
Jew first, and also of the Gentile; but glory, honour,
and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew
first, and also to the Gentile.

For there is no respect

our Lord’s words “My soul is
exceeding sorrowful even unto
death,” Mark, xiv. 34. ; or simply
for “person” as in Rom. xiii. 1.
“Let every soul be subject to the
higher powers.”

*lovdaiov re mparov Kal “EX
Anvoc.| The Jew as the type
of the world, is the first recipient
of God’s mercies and of his judg-
ments.

11—15. In the verses which
follow, the Apostle involves reason
within reason, asatver. 17. ofch. i.
All men shall have their reward,
(1.) for God is no respecter of
persons ; (2.) for with or without
law the wicked shall alike perish ;
(3.) for not the hearers, but the
doers of the law shall be righte-
ous with God; (4.) for the Gen-
tiles, if they be doers of the law,
shall be approved in the day of
the Lord. (1.) is a general truth
which is the foundation of what
has preceded, and of which (2.)
may be regarded as the conse-
quence in fact, and the proof to
us; (3.) is a negative statement
of it and a proof of so much of
(2.) as relates to the Jew, and (4.)
a further proof by contrast of so
much of (2.) as relates to the
Gentile, and a strengthening of
the general principle by a parti-

- cular instance.

11. ob yap ory rposwrodnvia. |
Compare Acts, x. 34., where, in
reference to the admission of the

of persons with God. For

Gentiles, Peter says: “Ofa truth
I perceive God is no respecter of
persons. But in every nation
he that feareth him and work-
eth righteousness, is accepted of
him,” Eph. vi. 9.3; Col. iii. 25.,
where the same truth is applied
to the relative duties of masters
‘and slaves.

It was one of the first ideas
that the Israelite had of God, that
he was no respecter of persons :
Deut. x. 17.; 2 Chron. xix. 7.;
Job, xxxiv. 19. But this dis-
regard of persons was only in his
dealings with individuals of the
chosen people. St. Paul used the
expression in the wider sense of
not making a difference of per-
sons between Jew and Gentile,
circumcision or uncircumcision,
bond or free, just as he adapted
the words “there is one God” to
the meaning of God one and the
same to all mankind, in iii. 30.
and elsewhere. Nothing could be
less like the spirit of his country-
men than this sense of the uni-
versal justice of God. Still it
might be asked of the Apostle
himself, how the fact of their ever
having been a privileged people,
was consistent with the belief of
this equal justice to all mankind.
Like many other difficulties, we
can answer this by parallel diffi-
culties among ourselves. Though
living in the full light of the Gos-
pel, there are many things which

G 3

86 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. II.
yap avons Huaptov, dvouas Kal daohodyTaL’ Kal GooL
év vow nuaptov, dua vouov KpioycovTar
> \ , 1 OL . lal @ a IAN ¢ a
aKpoatat vopnouv' dikavor mapa [7a] Dew addX ot towtat
vouov” dixawOnoovrat (oTav yap eOvyn Ta py) VOMOV ExovTa
3, ovTOL Vopsov fp ExXOVTES

5) \ ¢
OU Yop Ou

pvoe Ta TOV vosov TOLWWaW
EavTots eloly vomos, olTWes EVOEiKVUYTAL TO Epyov TOU
vouov ypamTov év Tals Kapdlais avToVv, TVppapTUpOvaNsS
aVTOV THS TUVELOnTEws Kat pweTAEV GAAHnov TAV hoy~o Pav
KaTyyopovvTav 7 Kai amohoyoupévav) ev Huépa H* Kpwet O

1 rod vduov, 2 Tov vomou.
to us also “God hath put in his
own power,” and which we believe
rather than know to be recon-
cilable with his justice. What to
us the heathen are still, standing
apparently on the outskirts of
God’s moral government, that to
St. Paul and the believers of the
first age were “the times of that
ignorance that God winked at.”
Are we not brought by time to a
later stage of the same difficulty?

12. édcou ydp avopwe fpaproy. |
For God will deal alike with all ;
He will punish without law those
that sinned without law, and
judge by the law those that sin-
ned under the law. Not “he
that knew not his Lord’s will,
shall be beaten with few stripes : ”
this though true is not to the
point here, but “the soul that
sinneth it shall die.”

év vopy.| The preposition
may be equally well rendered in
English, “in,” “with,” “ under ; ”
none of these, however, precisely
give its meaning, which is rather
‘in the state or sphere of thelaw ”
a metaphorical use of év derived
from the original local one.

13. For not every one who
says Lord, Lord, the hearer of
the law, boasting his descent from

8 mown. 4 Gre.
Abraham, is just before God, but
the doers of the law shall be jus-
tified. The future, here and in
ver. 12., is used like the present
in ageneral statement, as in Matt.
iv. 4. ov« éx’ dprw povw Choera 6
avOpwroc; as in English, “he who
does so will suffer punishment ;”
or, perhaps, as expressing the in-
tention of Providence or nature.

The Apostle here speaks of
the doers of the law as to be jus-
tified, and yet a few verses after-
wards, he himself intimates that
by the deeds of the law no flesh
shall be justified. Again, this
contradiction may be illustrated
by an analogous way of speaking
among ourselves. ‘The heathen,
we say, are without the pale of
salvation, and yet we acknow-
ledge that individual heathens
are nevertheless saved.

14—16. are commonly inclu-
ded, as by Lachmann, in a paren-
thesis, which, for reasons that will
be stated at ver. 16., is not here
admissible; ver. 14. is closely
connected with ver. 13., of which
it forms an indirect proof. “It
is not the hearers, but the doers
of the law who are justified, for
the Gentiles are sometimes jus-
tified who know not the law.”

13

14

15

16

‘
Ne ee ee ee ee =

13

14

15

16

Ver. 13—16.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 87

as many as sinned* without law shall also perish
without law: and as many as sinned* in the law
shall be judged by the law; for not the hearers
of the law are just before God, but the doers of
the law shall be justified; for when the Gentiles,
which have not the law, do by nature the things con-
tained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law
unto themselves: which shew the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing
witness, and thoughts accusing or else excusing them

one with another *;

gvoe] may either be taken
with zowo.w asin the English
Version, or with vduoy éxorra.
“When the Gentiles who have
not the law by nature or origi-
nally.” The latter mode of con-
struing the passage is in some
degree confirmed by Gal. ii. 15.
peice pboe “lovdaio.: Eph. ii. 3.
Téxva gvoee opyic: and v. 27.
i) éx voewe akpobvoria, On, not
“ Gentiles,” but “ the Gentiles,”
as in ch. xi. 12, 13., and else-
where. |

éEavrotc eioly vduoc.| Compare
Arist. Eth. iv. 14.: — 6 d€ yapiece
Kal éXevOépioc ovrws Eket oloy vo-
poc Oy éauro.

15. oirivec, which show.| Who
manifest the reality of the law ;
or who manifest the law not in
word, but in act; which, un-
written though it be, is written
on their hearts. Compare 2 Cor.
ili.2. ‘ Yeare our epistle written
in our hearts, known and read of
all men.” oiriveg = quippe qui.

ouppaprupovone, | sc. TO vopw,
ovvevoyoewe. The act rather than
the faculty of conscience in the
sense in which the term is used
by moral philosophers.

peraéd.| Not asin the Eng-

in the day when God shall judge

lish Version, “ meanwhile,” but
with ddAAnAwy, “one with an-
other,” as in Matt. xviii. 15.:—
péragy cov cal avrov povov. adXij-
dwyv refers, not to A\oytopov, which
would be too violent a personifi-
cation, but to atror.

7) kat] is well translated in the
English Version “or else;” it
merely expresses the connexion
of the two alternatives.

The 14th and 15th verses con-
tain an analysis of the natural
feeling of right and wrong, in
three states or stages. First,
the unconscious stage, in which
the Gentiles not having the law,
show its real though latent ex-
istence in their own hearts; of
which, secondly, they have a
faint though instinctive percep-
tion in the witness of conscience ;
which, thirdly, grows by reflec-
tion into distinct approval or
disapproval of their own acts and
those of others.

“Blessed are they, who fall
into the hands of this accuser,”
say the Rabbis; “blessed also
are they, who fall not into his
hands,” quoted from Sohar, Exo-
dus, fol. 67. col. 266., by Schett-
gen, vol. i. p. 496.

a4

88

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. Il.

, Q
eds Ta KpuTTa Tov avOpaTaV Kara Td edayyéhiov pov Sua
ox. A mi Ce Se 1 ‘\ °F 5 Py 2 iC Le -

noov xpioToD. ei dé! od “Iovdatos Erovonaly kat erava
Tavy voww? Kal kavyacat ev ed Kal ywooKes TO Oehnpa
4,
Kat doxiudles Ta SuabepovTa, KaTNXOVMEVOS EK TOU VOLO,
, , Q e * > al la A os
Téemods Te GeavTov ddnydov civas TUPra@v, Pos THY EV
»
CKOTEL, TaLdeuTHY adpdvav, SiddoKadov vyTiov, EXoVTA

1 i5é,

16. A difficulty occurs in the
construction of this verse, the
future 7 xpwet being joined
with the present évdeixkvuvra:, or
as some interpreters think with
Karnyopovyvtwy and doXoyoupé-
vwy. The English Version has
inclosed ver. 13—15. in a par-
enthesis, to escape the difficul-
ty; an expedient which it has
frequently adopted, as at ch. v.
13—18.; Eph. iv. 9, 10., but
which is peculiarly unsuited to
the unravelling of the tangle of
discourse, in such a writer as
St. Paul. The thread of any
broken construction may in this
way be resumed; yet unless the
parenthesis really had a place in
the author’s mind, our supposed
explanation will be a mere gram-
matical figment like the “ word
understood,” in explanation of
a difficult construction. <A real
parenthesis is the insertion of a
clause, or of a thought, between
two points of a sentence, the
meaning of which should be
clearly broken off at its begin-
ning, and clearly resumed at its
conclusion. ‘The parenthetical
thought, as it is hurried over in
discourse, should be really an
afterthought, yet necessary to the
comprehension of the sentence.
The present passage does not
come within this rule, and there-
fore a parenthesis has no place
here. It is far more probable

2 7G voug.

that, as elsewhere, St. Paul wrote
without perfect sequence, than
that he suspended his meaning
through several verses, and re-
sumed it unimpaired.

We will take the words, there-
fore, in their plain but ungram-
matical construction with évdsi-
kvvyra., * which shew the work of
the law ...in the day which is
to come.” The day which is to
come is not only future, but pre-
sent; anticipated in the heart
and conscience of every man, as
well as in the history of the
world. It is “the day that is

coming and now is,” John, v. 25., -

the presence (zapovoia) of Christ.
And the Apostle passes from one
tense to the other, unconscious of
the solecism.

For a parallel union of dis-
similar times compare above 3n-
caupilere ceavT@ dpynv ev tpépg
épyic. 2 Cor. i. 14.: cave cai
éréyvwre Hpac aro pépove, Ore
Kavynpa tev éopev Kadarep kal
bpeic hav év TH Hpépg Tov Kvptov
"Incov. Eph, i. 3.: EvdAoynroc 6
Sede Kal marip Tov Kupiov uov
"Inoov xpiorov, 6 evroyioac tpdc
év maon evdoyia mvevparuh ev
Toic émoupaviow év xpiorm. See
note at the end of the chapter
on the modes of time and place
in Scripture.

Kara To evayyédudy prov, accord-
ing to my Gospel.| 'The Apostle
means to express that the fact of a

17
18
19
20

20

Ver. 17—20.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

89

the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gos-
pel. But if! thou art called a Jew, and restest in the law,
and gloriest in God, and knowest his will, and approyest
the things that are more excellent, being instructed
out of the law; and art confident that thou thyself art
a guide of the blind, a light of them which are in dark-
ness, an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of babes,
1 Behold.

judgment of the world by Christ
(Rom. xiv. 10.) was in accord-
ance with his Gospel, not that
his Gospel would be the rule of
judgment. It is a fancy of several
of the Fathers that he is appeal-
ing in these words to a written
Gospel of his own or to St. Luke’s.

17—29. From this point to
the end of the chapter, the Apo-
stle exerts all the force of his elo-
quence to unmask the Jew. All
the imaginations with which he
flatters himself, all the titles that
he. delights to heap upon himself,
are suggestive of the contrast be-
tween what he is and what he
seems, which is further height-
ened by the previous mention of
the Gentile who knew not the
law and did by nature the things
contained in the law, and pointed
at the conclusion by a verse from
the Old Testament. At ver. 26.
the Gentile reappears and the
order is finally inverted, uncir-
cumcision which fulfils the law
taking the place of circumcision
which transgresses the law, and
the idea of the Jew in spirit form-
ing a middle term between Jew
and Gentile.

17. ci oé, A.B.D.E.K.] ide is a
correction, the object of which is
to avoid the anacoluthon. The
English translation should there-
fore run: —“ But if thou art
called a Jew.” The apodosis of

the thought is sufficiently express-
edin ver. 21., though the length
of the sentence and the rheto-
rical accumulation of clauses have
prevented the Apostle from resu-
ming the thread of the grammar.

de indicates a subdued con-
trast with what has preceded :
“There are Gentiles who fulfil
the law; and [but] dost thou,
who hast all the feelings of a Jew
and all the pride of thy race,
break it?” The latter thought
the Apostle expands into six
verses, from 17. to 23.

kavydoar év Seo, gloriest in
God.| For the feeling expressed
in these words comp. Deut. iv. 7. :
“For what nation is there so
great, who hath God so nigh unto
them, as the Lord our God is in
all things that we call upon him
for?” and Psalm exlvii. 19, 20.:
“He sheweth his word unto
Jacob, his statutes and his judg-
ments unto Israel. He hath not
dealt so with any nation.”

18. yivmoxete 70 SéAnpa. | Comp.
Rom. xii. 2.:— ic rd doxydZerv
bpae ri 7d SéAnpa rod Seod,

Kat doxaerc ra Scagéporra. |
Not “discernest the differences of
things,” but approvest, or knowest
by proof, the things that aremore
excellent. Compare Philip. i. 10.
gig TO doKyaley tude ra diage-
povra; Rom. xii. 2., where the
word doxyaZew occurs in the

90

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. IL.

tiv pophwow Ths yrorews Kal THs ahyeias ev TO vope,
6 ovy SiddoKwv Erepov ceavTov ov SiddoKeELs ; 0 KNPYTTOY
pr) KAérTew KETTELS ; 6 A€ywv pu) moryeveW potxeveErs ; O
BSe\voadpevos Ta eldwha iepoovdels ; Os EV VOU KaVYACaL,

‘\ ~ , ~ 4, x ‘\ b] 4 he ‘
dua THS TapaBdcews TOD Vdpov Tov Hedy aTysalers ; TO yap
A nw aw A A Yy
dvona TOU Geod Sv tas Braodypeirar ev Tois eOverw,

Kabos yéypamrar.

same sense; and Wisd. ii. 19.,
where it is used as here, inter-
changeably with yivwoxe.y.

20. éxovra tiv popdwov.| In
that thou hast rv popdworr, not
as in 2 Tim. iii. 5., the form as
opposed to the substance, but the
substance itself in an outward
form, the visible presence of
knowledge and truth in the law.

21. At length the Apostle turns
to strike: the thought for which
throughout the chapter he had
been preparing, is now uttered
with its full force. He cuts
short the apodosis with a ques-
tion, which is also an inference:
Is the result of all this that
thou who judgest doest the same
thing? “Dost thou,” we might
repeat in the language of the
Gospels, “ whoart paying tithe of
mint, of rue, and of cumin, devour
widows’ houses? Art thou, who
castest stones at others, free from
the sin of adultery thyself?”

6 Bdehvoodpevoc, thou who ab-
horrest.| But “how could a
Jew commit sacrilege?” And
what opposition is there between
“ committing sacrilege” and “ ab-
horring idols?” The last diffi-
culty might be removed by con-
sidering the words “ Dost thou
who abhorrest idols ?” as equiva-
lent to “Dost thou who art zeal-
ous for God?” (Compare the de-
scription in Joseph. Ant. xviii.
3. 1., of the horror of the Jews

‘ ‘ ‘ 3 A 3N 4
TEpiTopn pev yap wadedet, €av VvopLoV

at Pilate commanding the Roman
standards to be brought into Je-
rusalem, and upon his refusal to
remove them, their laying their
necks bare to his soldiers; the
passionate detestation of idols
shown on this and similar occa-
sions might fairly be considered as
zeal for God.) But the other in-
quiry is still unanswered :— How
could a Jew rob atemple? Va-
rious instances are brought for-
ward of alleged sacrilege, such as
the dedication of property by say-
ing Corban, to evade the duty of
supporting parents; or the buy-
ing and selling in the Temple,
which made the Lord’s house a
house of merchandise; or, lastly,
embezzlement of the Temple re-
venues, as in the case of Fulvia,
mentioned in Josephus, Antiqq.
xviii. 3.5. But these offences,
though in a metaphorical sense
they might be termed sacrilege,
give a feeble and inadequate op-
position in the present passage.
The most literal mode of taking
the words is also the freest from
objections : — “ Dost thou who
abhorrest idols, rob theidol’s tem-
ple?” Such an offence might
be very possibly committed by a
Jew, whom no “religio loci”
would restrain ; andit would oc-
cur to St. Paul, as an inhabitant
of a Gentile city, to mention it.
This explanation is confirmed by
the use of the word tepootAove in

21

22

23
24

25

Ver, 21—25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 91

which hast the form of knowledge and of the truth in
the law—thou therefore which teachest another, teachest
thou not thyself? thou that preachest a man should
not steal, dost thou steal? thou that sayest a man
should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery ?
thou that abhorrest idols, dost * thou rob temples ? thou
that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the
law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is
blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is
written. For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep

Acts, xix. 37., curiously trans-
lated in the English Version
“robbers of churches” (compare
2 Mace. iv. 42., where it is simi-
larly translated, though referring
to the Jewish temple), and by the
remarkable interpretation of Exo-
dus, xxii. 28., in Joseph. Ant. iv.
8. § 10.— “ Let no one blaspheme
those gods whom other cities
esteem such, nor any one steal
what belongs to strange temples ;
nor take away the gifts that are
dedicated to any God.”

23. The sum of all these ques-
tions is: — “ Are you who are
glorying in the law, dishonour-
ing God by the transgression of
the law?” For the language
compare Eccles. xxxix. 8. ev
vopo duabhkng Kuplov Kavyioerat

24. It is not only I who say
this; you are described in the
Old Testament. With the ex-
ception of the connecting particle
yap, the words of the quotation
correspond exactly with Isaiah
lii. 5., according to the version of
the LXX., which has received a
different impress from the origi-
nal. The words, however, both of
the LXX. and the Hebrew refer
alike to the dishonour done to
God, by the oppression of the
Israelites under their enemies.

The spirit of the passage, accord-
ing to either version, is different
therefore from the spirit in which
it is here quoted. The thought
which the Apostle has elicited
from it— ‘The name of God is
blasphemed, because of the wick-
edness of his worshippers” is |
expressed elsewhere, though not
with so near a correspondence
of language, 2 Samuel, xii. 14. ;
Nehem. vy. 9.; Ezek. xxxvi. 23.
Jt is a sarcasm on the chosen race
that they who are glorying in the
law are themselves the cause of
God’s name being evil spoken of.
25. meptropy pev yap wedel,
Jor circumeision profiteth.| Ido
not say that circumcision is vain,
if you havealso “the other circum-
cision of the heart.” Comp. iii.
11. (As we might argue, the sacra-
ment is a means of grace to those
that receive it faithfully.) But
to you, and such as you, it is vain.
This is one of that class of
questions which, in ancient as
well as modern times, is seldom
brought to the distinct issue of
the Apostle. The Rabbi would
have hesitated to say that a
wicked Jew had a part in Mes-
siah’s kingdom, or that the vir-
tuous heathen was necessarily
excluded fromit. The Christian,

92

TPAToNs *

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. Il.

3S \ , * => e , :
eav O€ tapaBdrns vomov Hs, 7 TEpiToUH Gov

> 4 4 5N Ss RS 4 \ ,
dxpoBvatia yéyover. ev ody 7 axpoBvaTia Ta SiKawdpara
la , , b) e > ms 5 A 5 \ :
Tov vopou gurtdcoy, ovx 7 akpoBvaTia avTOU Els TEpLTOUND
A 4 > 7 \
oyicOjoerar, Kal Kpwet y ex hvaEews axpoBvoTia Tov
A \ a
vopmov Te\ovca oe TOV Sid ypappaTos Kal TeEpLTOMNS

TapaBarnv vdomov; ov yap
3 b) \ ¢ > “ A
€oTW, OVdE T EV THY Pavep@

e 3 ~ “A > laud
6 €&v T@ havep@ *Iovdatds

>

\ ‘ > »" e
€v OAapKt TEpLToMH, AAAG O

> A A oF § fa \ \ Sf > a
cv TM KPUTT@ OU avos, KGL TEPLTOKY Kap las €&V TWTVEVU

in modern times at least, would
shrink from affirming that an
unbaptized infant is “a child of
wrath,” or that the baptized could
hardly, if in any case, fail of sal-
vation at the last. But many
even among Christians would
gladly, if possible, turn away
from the inquiry: they would
wish to be allowed to hold pre-
mises without pushing them to
their conclusions; to take issue
upon a word, and not to deter-
mine the point of morality or
justice.

This is what the Apostle has

not done. With him circumci-
sion becomes uncircumcision, if
it transgress the law. Uncir-
cumcision becomes circumcision,
if it keep the law.

It is true that the spiritual
meaning of circumcision was im-
plied in the law itself, and oc-
casionally taught by the doctors of
the law. (Deut. x. 16.; Philo, ii.
258.) But the habitual feeling of
the Jew was the other way. To
him circumcision was the seal of
the covenant; the charm which
protected him from the wrath of
God; the sign which had once
been characteristic of the nation,
and was still appropriated to the
individuals who composed it. Like
the old prophets in spirit, though
in form logical and antithetical,
the Apostle answers him by assert-

ing the superiority of the moral to
the ceremonial law; he repeats
the universal lesson which the
whole current of Jewish history
tended to obliterate, the same
which was once heard in other
words from the Saviour’s lips,
“Think not to say with your-
selves we have Abraham to our
Father.”

The following passage, quoted
from Scheettgen’s Hore He-
braicz, vol. i. 499., is a singular
instance of an attempt to recon-
cile the privileges of circumci-
sion with the moral law : — Dixit
R. Berechias, “Ne heretici et
apostate et impii ex Israelitis
dicant, quandoquidem circumcisi
sumus in inferiora non descendi-
mus.” The Rabbi answers the
difficulty in a different spirit from
St. Paul: — “Quid agit Deus,
sanctus, benedictus? Mittit an-
gelum et preputia ipsorum at-
trahit ita ut ipsi in infernum
descendant.”

26. éav ovr, if then,| is a co-
rollary of the preceding verse : —
“If the transgressor of the law
passes into the state of uncir-
cumcision, it follows by an easy
transition that the fulfiller of the
law passes into the state of cir-
cumceision.”

27. kal kpwvet €x dicewc aKpo-
Evoréa.| And shall not uncir-
cumcision, which is by nature,

26

27

Ver. 26—29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 93

the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy cir-
cumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the
uncircumcision keep the* judgments of the law, shall not
his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And
shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil
the law, judge thee, who with* the letter and circum-
cision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew,
which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision,
which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew, which
is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of the heart,

if it fulfil the law, judge you? a
further step in the inversion of
the order of the world ; not only
shall the Gentile take the place of
the Jew, but shall condemn him.

Compare Ezekiel, v. 7, 8. for
an approach to the same thought :
— “Because ye multiplied more
than the nations that are round
about you, and have not walked
in my statutes, neither have kept
my judgments, neither have done
according to the judgments of
the nations that are round about
you; Therefore, thus saith the
Lord God, Behold, I, even I, am
against thee, and will execute
judgments in the midst of thee
in the sight of the nations.”

éx ovoewe, like gice in ver. 14.,
admits of two constructions: ei-
ther “the uncircumcision which
is by nature fulfilling the law,”
like fyeic pioee “Lovdaio, Gal. ii.
15.; or the uncircumcision which
by nature, and without the law,
fulfils the law.

GE TOY Ou ypapuaroe Kal TEpLTo-
pig mwapabarny vduov;| dia the
state, or better, the instrument :
* You whom the letter and circum-
cision only make a transgressor of
the law ;” “you who with all your
advantages do but transgress the
law.”

28. This verse may be regarded
as the reason of what has pre-
ceded: ‘ The Jew shall be con-
demned by the Gentile ; for such
a Jew as I have been describing
is not the true Jew.” Or equally
as an inference from what has
preceded, or a repetition of it in
a slightly altered form. The
simplest way of construing the
passage is to make "Iovdatoc and
mepitroun predicates of the sen-
tence “For not he that is one
outwardly isaJew.” éy capi is
an explanation of év ro pavepg.

29. The Apostle uses in a new
sense the expression familiar to
all. Compare our Lord’s words
“an Israelite indeed ;” and St.
Paul in the Epistle to the Gal. vi.
16.: “Peace be upon them, and
mercy, and upon the Israel of
God.” Such expressions are used
not merely because the Jewish
Church was the type of the Chris-
tian, but because to the first
believers they were the natural
mode of describing the new elect
people of God.

The expression zeptrop?) Kxap-
diac occurs in Deut. x. 16., xxx.
6.3; Jer. iv. 4.

év rvevpart, | intheinward man,
not in the written letter. Comp.
2 Cor. ili. 6.: —“ Who hath made

94 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. I.

PaTL OV ypdppatl, OU 6 emawos ovk e€ avOpdrev adr’ éx
Tov Geov.

us able ministers of the New _ ceding chapters to bring Jew and ~
Testament, not of the letter, but Gentile under the same condem-
of the spirit; for the letter killeth, nation. It has been also the object
but the Spirit giveth life.” of the Apostle to contrast the Jew
It is the object of the two pre- with the Gentile, and to bring

Ver. 29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 95

in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not

of men, but of God.

him to a perception of the moral
law, by the supposition of its
fulfilment in the person of a Gen-
tile. But if the Gentile can, and

the Jew does not, fulfil the law,
what profit is there in circum-
cision? That is the question.
See Introduction to Chap. III.

96 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ON THE ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT, IN CONNEXION WITH RO-
MANS, I. 17.

ReEtiGiIon and philosophy have often been contrasted as moving in
different planes, in which they can never come into contact with
each other. Yet there are many meeting points at which either
passes into the circle of the other. One of these meeting points is
language, which loses nothing of its original imperfection by being
employed in the service of religion. Its plastic nature is an element
of uncertainty in the interpretation of Scripture ; its logical structure
is a necessary limit on human faculties in the conception of truths
above them; whatever growth it is capable of, must affect also the
growth of our religious ideas ; the analysis we are able to make of
it, we must be able also to extend to the theological use of it. Religion
cannot place itself above the instrument through which alone it
speaks to man; our true wisdom is, therefore, to be aware of their
interdependence.

One of the points in which theology and philosophy are brought
into connexion by language, is their common usage of abstract words,
and of what in the phraseology of some philosophers are termed
‘mixed modes,” or ideas not yet freed from associations of time or
sense. Logicians speak of the abstract and concrete, and of the for-
mation of our abstract ideas: Are the abstractions of Scripture the
same in kind with those of philosophy? May we venture to analyse
their growth, to ask after their origin, to compare their meaning in
one age of the world and in another? The same words in different
languages have not precisely the same meaning. May not this be

the case also with abstract terms which have passed from the Old

Testament into the New, which have come down to us from the

Se Oe eee
Se eS aS

Ee, See Oe en ee

er lle ‘a

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 97

times of the Apostles, hardened by controversy, worn by the use of
two thousand years? ‘These questions do not admit of a short and
easy answer. Even to make them intelligible, we have to begin some
way off, to enter on our inquiry as a speculation rather of logic
than of theology, and hereafter to return to its bearing on the inter-
pretation of Scripture.

It is remarked by a great metaphysician, that abstract ideas are, in
one point of view, the highest and most philosophical of all our ideas,
while in another they are the shallowest and most meagre. They have
the advantage of clearness and definiteness; they enable us to con-
ceive and, in a manner, to span the infinity of things; they arrange,
as it were, in the frames of a window the many-coloured world of
_ phenomena. And yet. they are “mere” abstractions removed from
sense, removed from experience, and detached from the mind in
which they arose. Their perfection consists, as their very name im-
_ plies, in their idealism: that is, in their negative nature.

For example: the idea of “happiness” has come down from the
Greek philosophy. To us it is more entirely freed from etymological
associations than it was to Aristotle, and further removed from any
particular state of life, or, in other words, it is more of an abs-
traction. Itis what everybody knows, but what nobody can tell.
It is not pleasure, nor wealth, nor power, nor virtue, nor contempla-
tion. Could we define it, we seem at first as if we should have found
out the secret of the world. Butour next thought is that we should
only be defining a word, that it consists rather in a thousand unde-
finable things which, partly because mankind are not agreed about
them, partly because they are too numerous to conceive under any
single idea, are dropt by the instinct of language. It means what
each person’s fancy or experience may lead him to connect with it ;
it is a vague conception to his own mind, which nevertheless may be
used without vagueness as a middle term in conversing with others.

It is the uniformity in the use of such words that constitutes their
true value. Like all other words, they represent in their origin
things of sense, facts of experience. But they are no longer pictured

VOL. Il. H

98 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

by the sense, or tinged by the affections ; they are beyond the circle
of associations in which they arose. When we use the word happi-
ness, no thought of chance now intrudes itself; when we use the
word righteousness, no thought of law or courts; when the word
virtue is used, the image no longer presents itself of manly strength
or beauty.

The growth of abstract ideas is an after-growth of language itself,
which may be compared to the growth of the mind when the body
is already at its full stature. All language has been originally the
reflection of a world of sense; the words which describe the faculties
have once referred to the parts of the body; the name of God him-
self has been derived in most languages from the sun or the powers
of nature. It is indeed impossible for us to say how far, under these
earthly and sensual images, there lurked among the primitive peoples
of mankind a latent consciousness of the spiritual and invisible ;
whether the thought or only the word was of the earth earthy. From
this garment of the truth it is impossible for us to separate the truth
itself, In this form awhile it appears to grow; even the writers of
’ the Old Testament, in its earlier portion, finding in the winds or the
light of heaven the natural expression of the power or holiness of
Jehovah. But in process of time another world of thought and ex-
pression seems to create itself. The words for courage, strength,
beauty, and the like, begin to denote mental and moral qualities ;
things which were only spoken of as actions, become abstract ideas,
the name of God loses all sensual and outward associations ; until at
the end of the first period of Greek philosophy, the world of abstrac-
tions, and the words by which they are expressed, have almost as
much definiteness and preciseness of meaning as among ourselves.

This process of forming abstractions is ever going on —the mixed
modes of one language are the pure ideas of another; indeed, the
adoption of words from dead languages into English has, above all
other causes, tended to increase the number of our simple ideas,
because the associations of such words, being lost in the transfer,

they are at once refined from all alloy of sense and experience.

nht-ontt ee . ,
E> we Ti eee. eee

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 99

Different languages, or the same at different periods of their history,
are at different stages of the process. We can imagine a language,
such as language was, as far as the vestiges of it allow us to go back,
in its first beginnings, in which every operation of the mind, every
idea, every relation, was expressed by a sensible image ; a language
which we may describe as purely sensual and material, the words of
which, like the first written characters, were mental pictures: we
can imagine a language in a state which none has ever yet reached,
in which thé worlds of mind and matter are perfectly separated from
each other, and no clog or taint of the one is allowed to enter into
the other. But all languages which exist are in reality between these
two extremes, and are passing from one to the other. The Greek
of Homer is at a different stage from that of the Greek tragedians ;
the Greek of the early Ionic philosophers, at a different stage from
that of Plato; so, though in a different way (for here there was
no advancement), the Greek of Plato as compared with the Neo-
Platonist philosophy. The same remark is applicable to the Old
Testament, the earlier and later books of which may be, in a similar
way, contrasted with each other; almost the whole of which (though
here a new language also comes in) exhibitsa marked difference from
the Apocrypha. The structure of thought insensibly changes, This
is the case with all languages which have a literature — they are ever
becoming more and more abstract —modern languages, more than
ancient ; the later stages of either, more than the earlier. It by no
means follows that as Greek, Latin, and English have words that
correspond in a dictionary, they are real equivalents in meaning,
because words, the same, perhaps, etymologically, may be used with
different degrees of abstraction, which no accuracy or periphrasis of
translation will suffice to express, belonging, as they do generally,
to the great underlying differences of a whole language.

Another illustration of degrees of abstraction may be found in the
language of poetry, or of common life, and the language of philo-
sophy. Poetry, we know, will scarcely endure abstract terms, while

they form the stock and staple of morals and metaphysics. They are

H 2

160 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the language of books, rather than of conversation. Theology, on
the other hand, though its problems may seem akin to those of the
moralist and metaphysician, yet tends to reject them in the same
way that English tends to reject French words, or poetry to reject
prose. He who in paraphrasing Scripture spoke of essence, matter,
vice, crime, would be thought guilty of a want of taste; the reason
of which is, that these abstract terms are not within the circle of
our Scripture associations. ‘They carry us into another age or
country or school of thought — to the ear of the uneducated they
have an unusual sound, while to the educated they appear to involve
an anachronism or to be out of place. Vice, they say, is the moral,
sin the theological term; nature and law are the proper words in a
treatise on physiology, while the actions of which they are the ima-
ginary causes would in a prayer or sermon be suitably ascribed to
the Divine Being.

Our subject admits of another illustration from the language of the
Fathers as compared with that of Scripture. Those who have ob-
served the circumstance naturally ask why it is that Scriptural ex-
pressions when they reappear in the early patristic literature slightly
change their signification? that a greater degree of personality is
given to one word, more definiteness to another, while a third has
been singled out to be the centre of a scheme of doctrine? The
reason is, that use, and reflection, and controversy do not allow
language to remain where it was. Time itself is the great innovator
in the sense of words. No one supposes that the meaning of con-
science or imagination exactly corresponds to the Latin “ conscientia”
or “imaginatio.” Even within the limits of our own language the
terms of the scholastic philosophy have acquired and lost a tech-
nical signification. And several changes have taken place in the
language of creeds and articles, which, by their very attempt to define
and systematize, have slightly though imperceptibly departed from
the use of words in Scripture. .

The principle of which all these instances are illustrations leads to

important results in the interpretation of Scripture. It tends to show,

a

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 101k

that in using the same words with St. Paul we may not be using them
in precisely the same sense. Nay, that the very exactness with which
we apply them, the result of the definitions, oppositions, associations,
of ages of controversy, is of itself a difference of meaning. The mere
lapse of time tends to make the similarity deceitful. For if the
language of Scripture (to use an expression which will have been
made intelligible by the preceding remarks) be really at a different
stage of abstraction, great differences in the use of language will
occur, such as in each particular word escape and perplex us, and
yet, on a survey of the whole, are palpable and evident.

A well known difficulty in the interpretation of the Epistles is the
seemingly uncertain use of dicaoovvn, adHOera, ayarn, wiartc, ddéa, &C.,
words apparently the most simple, and yet taking sometimes in the
same passage different shades and colours of meaning. Sometimes
they are attributes of God, in other passages qualities in man;
here realities, there mere ideas, sometimes active, sometimes
passive. Some of them, as apapria, wiortc, have a sort of personality
assigned to them, while others, as rvedua, with which we associate
the idea of a person, seem to lose their personality. They are used
with genitive cases after them, which we are compelled to explain in
various senses. In the technical language of German philosophy,
they are objective and subjective at once. For example: in the first
chapter of the Romans, ver. 17., it is asked by commentators, “ Whether
the righteousness of God, which is revealed in the Gospel,” is the
original righteousness of God from the beginning, or the righteous-
ness which he imparts to man, the righteousness of God in himself
orinman. So again, in ch. v. ver, 5., it is doubted whether the words
Ore ty aydrn tov Seod éxxéxurac év raic xapdiac, refer to the love of
God in man, or the love of God to man. So zvevpa Seod wavers
in meaning between a separate existence, or the spirit of God, as we
should say the “mind of man,” and the manifestation of that spirit
in the soul of the believer. Similar apparent ambiguities occur in
such expressions as wioric “Incov yxpiorov, tropovy yxprorov, adjOera
Yeod, ddfa Seov, copia Yeov, and several others,

H 3

102 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

A difficulty akin to this arises from the apparently numerous senses
in which another class of words, such as vépoc, Gun), Savaroc are used
in the Epistles of St. Paul. That vduo0¢ should sometimes signify the
law of Moses, at other times the law of the conscience, and that it
should be often uncertain whether fw referred to a life spiritual or
natural, is inconceivable, if these words had had the same precise and
defined sense that the corresponding English words have amongst
ourselves. The class of expressions before mentioned seems to
widen and extend in meaning as they are brought into contact with
God and the human soul, or transferred from things earthly and
temporal to things heavenly and spiritual. Thesubtle transformation
which these latter words undergo, may be best described as a meta-
phorical or analogous use of them: not, to take a single instance, that
the meaning of the word “law” is so widened as to include all “ law,”
but that the law of Moses becomes the figure or type of the law
written on the heart, or of the law of sin and death, and fw, the
natural life, the figure of the spiritual. Each word is a reflector of
many thoughts, and we pass from one reflection of it to another in
successive verses.

That such verbal difficulties occur much more often in Scripture
than in any other book, will be generally admitted. In Plato and
Aristotle, for example, they can be hardly said to exist at all. What
they meant by ¢iéoc or ovata is hard to conceive, but their use of the
words does not waver in successive sentences. ‘The language of the
Greek philosophy is, on the whole, precise and definite. A much
nearer parallel to what may be termed the infinity of Scripture is to
be found in the Jewish Alexandrian writings. There is the same
transition from the personal to the impersonal, the same figurative
use of language, the same tendency to realise and speak of all things
in reference to God and the human soul. The mind existed prior
to the ideas which are therefore conceived of as its qualities or at-
tributes, and naturally coalesced with it in the Alexandrian phraseo-
logy.

The difficulty of which we have been speaking, when considered in

fs eg

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 103

its whole extent, is its own solution. It does but force upon us the
fact, that the use of language and the mode of thought are different in
the writings of the Apostle from what they are amongst ourselves.
It is the difficulty of a person who should set himself to explain the
structure of a language which he did not know, by one which he
did, and at last, in despair, begin to learn the new idiom. Or the
difficulty that a person would have in understanding poetry, who
imagined it to be prose. It is the difficulty that Aristotle or Cicero
found in understanding the philosophers that were before them.
They were familiar with the meaning of the words used by them, but
not with the mode of thought. Logic itself had increased the diffi-
culty to them of understanding the times before logic.

This is our own difficulty in the interpretation of Scripture. Our
use of language is more definite, our abstractions more abstract, our
structure more regular and logical. But the moment we perceive and
allow for this difference in the use of language in Scripture and among
ourselves, the difficulty vanishes. We conceive ideas in a process of
formation, faillng from inspired lips, growing in the minds of men.
We throw ourselves into the world of “ mixed modes,” and seek to
recall the associations which the technical terms of theology no longer
suggest. We observe what may be termed the difference of level
in our own ideas and those of the first Christians, without disturb-
ing the meaning of one word in relation to another.

The difficulty while it is increased, is also explained by the personi-
fying character of the age. Ideas in the New Testament are relative
to the mind of God or man, in which they seem naturally to inhere
so as scarcely, in the usage of language, to have an independent exist-
ence. There is ever the tendency to speak of good and virtue and
righteousness as inseparable from the Divine nature, while in evil
of every sort a reflection of conscience seems to be included. The
words d:caocivn, adHOea, ayarn, are not merely equivalent to
righteousness, truth, love, but connect imperceptibly with “the
Author and Father of lights.” There is no other righteousness or
truth but that of God, just as there is no sin without the consciousness

H 4

104 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of sin in man. Consequently, the two thoughts coalesce in one, and
what are to us ideas, which-we can imagine existing even without
God, are to the Israelite attributes of God himself. Still, in our
‘mixed modes” we must make a further step; for as these ideas
cannot be separated from God, so neither can they be conceived of,
except as revealed in the Gospel, and working in the heart of man.
Man who is righteous has no righteousness of his own, his righteous-
ness is the righteousness of God in him. Hence, when considering
the righteousness of God, we must go on to conceive of it as the revela-
tion of his righteousness, without which it would be unknown and
unmeaning to us. The abstract must become concrete, and must
involve at once the attribute of God and the quality in man. This
“concrete” notion of the word righteousness is different from the
abstract one with which we are familiar. Righteousness is the
righteousness of God; it is also the communion of that righteousness
with man. It is used almost with the same double meaning as we
attribute to the will of God, which we speak of actively, as intending,
doing, and passively, as done, fulfilled by ourselves.

A part of this embarrassment in the interpretation of Scripture
arises out of the unconscious influence of English words and ideas
on our minds, in translating from Hellenistic Greek. The difficulty.
is still more apparent, when the attempt is made to render the Scrip-
tures into a language which has not been framed or moulded on
Christianity. It is a curious question, the consideration of which is
not without practical use, how far the nicer shades either of Scrip-

tural expression or of later theology are capable of being made

intelligible in the languages of India or China.

Yet, on the other hand, it must be remembered, that neither
this nor any of the other peculiarities here spoken of, is a mere
form of speech, but enters deeply into the nature of the Gospel.
For the Gospel has necessarily its mixed modes, not merely be-
cause it is preached to the poor, and therefore adopts the ex-
pressions of ordinary life; nor because its language is incrusted
with the phraseology of the Alexandrian writers; but because its

ee ee a ee eae ee

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 105

subject is mixed, and, as it were, intermediate between God and
man. Natural theology speaks clearly, but it is of God only; moral
philosophy speaks clearly, but it is of man only: but the Gospel is,
as it were, the communion of God and man, and its ideas are in a
state of transition or oscillation, having two aspects towards God
and towards man, which it is hard to keep in view at once. Thus,
to quote once more the example just given, the righteousness of God
is an idea not difficult to us to comprehend, human justice and good-
ness are also intelligible ; but to conceive justice or righteousness as
passing from heaven to earth, from God to man, actu et potentia at
once, as a sort of life, or stream, or motion, is perplexing. And yet
this notion of the communion of the righteousness of God being
what constitutes righteousness, is of the very essence of the Gospel.
It was what the Apostle and the first believers meant and felt,
and what, if we could get the simple unlettered Christian, receiving
the Gospel as a little child, to describe to us his feelings, he would
describe.

Scripture language may thus be truly said to belong to an inter-
mediate world, different at once both from the visible and invisible
world, yet partaking of the nature of both. It does not represent
the things that the eye sees merely, nor the things that are within
the veil of which those are the images, but rather the world that is
in our hearts; the things that we feel, but nobody can express in
words. His body is the communion of His body; His spirit is the
communion of His spirit; the love of God is “loving as we are
loved ;” the knowledge of God is “ knowing as we are known; ” the
righteousness of faith is Divine as well as human. Hence language
seems to burst its bounds in the attempt to express the different
aspects of these truths, and from its very inadequacy wavers and
becomes uncertain in its meaning. The more intensely we feel and
believe, and the less we are able to define our feelings, the more shall
we appear to use words at random; employing sometimes one mode
of expression, sometimes another; passing from one thought to

-another, by slender threads of association ; “ going off upon a word,”

106 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

as it has been called; because in our own minds all is connected,

and, as it were, fulfilled with itself, and from the abundance of the .

heart the mouth speaks. To understand the language of St. Paul
it is necessary, not only to compare the uses of words with one
another, or to be versed in Alexandrian modes of thought, but to
lead the life of St. Paul, to have the mind of St. Paul, to be one
with Christ, to be dead to sin. Otherwise the world within becomes
unmeaning to us. The inversion of all human things of which he
speaks, is attributed to the manner of his time, or the peculiarity
of his individual character ; and at the very moment when we seem
to have attained most accurately the Apostle’s meaning, it vanishes
away like a shadow.

No human eye can pierce the cloud which overhangs another
life ; no faculty of man can “by understanding find out” or express
in words the Divine nature. Yet it does not follow that our ideas
of spiritual things are wholly indefinite. There are many symbols
and images of them in the world without and below. There is a
communion of thoughts, feelings, and affections, even on earth, quite
sufficient to be an image of the communion with God and Christ, of
which the Epistles speak to us. There are emotions, and transitions,
and passings out of ourselves, and states of undefined consciousness,
which language is equally unable to express as it is to describe
justification, or the work of grace, or the relation of the believer to
his Lord. All these are rather intimated than described or defined
by words. The sigh of sorrow, the cry of joy or despair, are but
inarticulate sounds, yet expressive, beyond the power of writing, or
speech. ‘There are many such “still small voices” of warning or
of consolation in Scripture, beyond the power of philosophy to
analyse, yet full of meaning to him who catches them aright. The
_ life and force of such expressions do not depend on the clearness
with which they state a logical proposition, or the vividness with
which they picture to the imagination a spiritual world. They gain
for themselves a truth in the individual soul. Even logic itself

affords negative helps to the feebleness of man in the conception of

A ‘
ee eee ee ee ee ee Ree

ABSTRACT IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 107

things above him. It limits us by our own faculties; it guards us
_ against identifying the images of things unseen with the “very
things themselves ;” it bars remote inferences about terms which
are really metaphorical. Lastly, it helps us to define by opposition.
Though we do not know what spirit is, we know what body is, and
we conceive of spirit as what body is not. “ There is a spiritual
body, and there is a natural body.” We imagine it at once both
like and unlike. We do not know what heaven, or the glory of
God, or his wisdom, is; but we imagine them unlike this world, or
the wisdom of this world, or the glory of the princes of this world,
and yet, in a certain way, like them, imaged and symbolised by what
we see around us. We do not know what eternity is, except as the
negative of time; but believing in its real existence, in a way
beyond our faculties to comprehend, we do not confine it within the
limits of past, present, or future. We are unable to reconcile the
power of God and the freedom of man, or the contrast of this world
and another, or even the opposite feelings of our own minds about
the truths of religion. But we can describe them as the Apostle has
done, in a paradox : 2 Cor. iv. 12., vi. 8—10.

There is yet a further way in which the ideas of Scripture may
be defined, that is, by use. It has been already observed that the
progress of language is from the concrete to the abstract. Not the
least striking instance of this is the language of theology. Embodied
in creeds, it gradually becomes developed and precise. The words
are no longer “living creatures with hands and feet,” as it were,
feeling after the hearts of men; but they have one distinct, un-
changing meaning. When we speak of justification or truth, no
question arises whether by this is meant the attribute of God, or the
quality in man. ‘Time and usage have sufficiently circumscribed the
diversities of their signification. This is not to be regarded as a
misfortune to Scriptural truth, but as natural and necessary. Part
of what is lost in power and life is regained in certainty and definite-
ness. The usage of language itself would forbid us, in a discourse

or sermon, to give as many senses to the word “law” as are attri-

108 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

buted to it by St. Paul. Only in the interpretation of Scripture, if
we would feel as St. Paul felt, or think as he thought, it is necessary
to go back to that age before creeds, in which the water of life was
_ still a running stream.

The course of speculation which has been adopted in this essay,
may seem to introduce into Scripture an element of uncertainty. It
may seem to cloud truth with metaphysics, and rob the poor and
uneducated of the simplicity of the Gospel. But perhaps this is
not so. Whether it be the case that such speculations introduce
an element of uncertainty or difficulty into Scripture or not, they
introduce a new element of truth. For without the consideration
of such questions as that of which a brief sketch has been here
attempted, there is no basis for Scriptural interpretation. We are
ever liable to draw the meaning of words this way or that, ac-
cording to the theological system of which we are the advocates ; to
fall under the slavery of an illogical logic, which first narrows the
mind by definitions, and then wearies it with far-fetched inferences.
Metaphysics must enter into the interpretation of Scripture, not for
the sake of intruding upon it a new set of words or ideas, but with
the view of getting rid of metaphysics and restoring to Scripture its
natural sense. |

But the Gospel is still preached to the poor as before, in the same
sacred yet familiar language. They could not understand questions
of grammar before ; they do not understand modes of thought now.
It is the peculiar nature of our religious ideas that we are able to
apply them, and to receive comfort from them, without being able to
analyse or explain them. All the metaphysical and logical specula-
tions in the world will not rob the poor, the sick, or the dying of the
truths of the Gospel. Yet the subject which we have been con-
sidering is not without a practical result. It warns us to restore the
Gospel to its simplicity, to turn from the letter to the spirit, to with-
draw from the number of the essentials of Christianity points almost
too subtle for the naked eye, which depend on modes of thought or

Alexandrian usages, to require no more of preciseness or definition

eS ee Pe ee ee ee eee

ABSTRACT: IDEAS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. 109.

than is necessary to give form and substance to our teaching. Not
only the feebleness of human faculties, but the imperfection of lan-
guage itself will often make silence our truest wisdom. ‘The saying
of Scaliger, taken not seriously but in irony, is full of meaning : —
“Many a man has missed of his salvation from ignorance of
grammar.”

To the poor and uneducated, at times to all, no better advice can
be given for the understanding of Scripture than to read the Bible
humbly with prayer. The critical and metaphysical student requires
another sort of rule for which this can never be made a substitute.
His duty is to throw himself back into the times, the modes of thought,
the language of the Apostolic age. He must pass from the abstract
to the concrete, from the ideal and intellectual to the spiritual, from
later statements of faith or doctrine to the words of inspiration which
fell from the lips of the first believers. He must seek to conceive
the religion of Christ in its relation to the religions of other ages
and distant countries, to the philosophy of our own or other times ;
and if in this effort his mind seems to fail or waver, he must win
back in life and practice the hold on the truths of the Gospel which

he is beginning to lose in the mazes of speculation.

110 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

OF THE MODES OF TIME AND PLACE IN
SCRIPTURE.

oitives évSelxvevtar Td Epyov Tod vduov ypamrov ev Tais Kapdlas abTay, cuupaptu-
povons abtay THs cuverdncews Kal weTakd GAATAY TAY AoYyioTMaY KaTHYyopovYTwY i) Kal
dmrodoyounevar, ev Nucpa t Kpivet 6 Jeds Ta KpuTTa TaY dvOpamwy Kata Td evaryyéALdv

fou 5a Inood xpiorod, — Rom. ii. 15, 16.

Tue change in the tense of xprvet causes a difficulty in the explana-

tion of this passage, which some have endeavoured to remove by a
parenthesis, extending from ob yap or dicawOijcovra to dtodoyoupérwr,
and carrying back the sense of the 16th verse to the end of
the 12th or 13th (either as many as sinned in the law shall be
judged by the law in the day, &c.; or the doers of the law shall be
justified in the day). Such a parenthesis is a fiction. Nor does the
attempt succeed better to separate ovppaprupovence from érdeixkvurrat
and connect it with éy jjpépa, as thus : — “ Who shew the word of the
law written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing them
witness in the day of judgment.”

The only other way of taking the passage is, as the order of the

words suggests, to connect év hépa with évdetxvuvra. Nothing ap-

parently can get over the grammatical solecism, involved in the change
from the present to the future. For the doing and manifesting forth
the works of the law is in this present life; but the day in which
God shall judge is future — the day of judgment.

Can we say that the Apostle, in the same way that he sometimes
adopts one meaning of the law, sometimes another, so also glances from
past to present, from earth to heaven? This assumed confusion of
times and places can only be justified, if at all, by the production of
parallel passages, and the general consideration of the modes of time

and place in Scripture,

ee ee

pw Pst Cukor cn oe RARE RomceeenaeERRE SS

MODES OF TIME AND PLACE IN SCRIPTURE. lll

How there can be more than one mode of conceiving time and
place may be illustrated as follows: — :

A child is perfectly well aware that to-day is different from yester-
day, evening from morning. It has an idea also of duration of time.
But it does not follow from this that it has an idea of past time,
such as has elapsed from the time of William the Conqueror to the
present day, or from the Flood to the Christian era. Nor again of
future time, even of the threescore years of its own future life, or of
another person’s, still less of time in history, or of a continuation of
time to the end of the world. Its ideas of time are almost exclusively
present.

So with respect to place. It is not wholly ignorant of place and
distance, but it has no idea of the immensity of the world; it is
rooted on its own little spot, and conceives of other places as much
nearer to its home than they really are. If it speaks of the world, it
has not the vaguest conception what is implied in this; the world
is to it a sort of round infinity.

So the ancients may be said to have a very different idea of time
and space from the moderns, barbarous people from civilised, Hindoos
from Englishmen,

So we can conceive a state in which the past was unknown, “a
mystery ” kept secret, thought of only in some relation to the present,
in which the future too seemed to blend with and touch the present,
and this world and the next met in the inward consciousness of the
believer. To us, it is true, there is a broad line of demarcation
between them. But we can imagine, however unlike the fact, that
we too, like children, might be living under the influence of pre-
sent impressions, scarcely ever permitting ourselves to dwell on the
distant and indistinct horizon of the past or future.

Something like what has been described was really the case with
the first believers. Their modes of time differed in several respects
from our own.

First : — In the very idea of the latter days. The world seemed to

be closing in upon them: 1 Cor. x. 11. They had no conception

112 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of posterity, or of new kingdoms, or of a vista of futurity: 6 Kaipoc
ovveorahpevoc. Now was the day of salvation ; now was their sal-
vation nearer than when they believed. Rom. xiii. 11.

Secondly : — In the conception of the duration of time. Living, as
they did, in the daily expectation of the coming of Christ, seeing the
face of the world change in the few years of their own life, time to
them was crowded with events. A moment was sufficient for the
greatest act of life; another moment would be sufficient for the act
of judgment. There is no idea of gradually growing up from
heathenism to the Gospel, but always of sudden conversion, in an
instant, in the twinkling of an eye. This is why even the shortest
periods of time seem so filled with changes and experiences ; why a
few short months are sufficient for the conversion and the lapse of
whole Churches. Time was to them at once short and long ; short,
absolutely ; long, in reference to the events that hurried by.

Thirdly : — In relation to this life and a future, which to ourselves
are set one against the other, divided by the gate of death. To them
another life was one with, and the continuation of this. Both were
alike embraced in the expression “eternal life.” They were “ wait-
ing for the revelation of the Lord” (1 Cor. i. 7.) ; and yet the things
“ that eye had not seen, nor ear heard,” had already been revealed
to them through the Spirit (1 Cor. ii. 4.). So in reference to a

future judgment. It was at once present and future. So far as it

resembled the judgments of Sinai, it was future; so far as it was

inward and spiritual, it was present. Compare John, v. 24, 25.: —
“He that believeth on me hath everlasting life, and cometh not into
condemnation, but is passed from death unto life. Verily, verily, I
say unto you, the hour is coming, and mow is, when the dead shall
hear the voice of the Son of God, and they that hear shall live.”

Fourthly : — In reference to past time, a difference is observable in :

its being less vivid and distinct than to ourselves. This seems to

be the reason why in many passages of Scripture the divinity of

Christ dates from his manifestation on earth. The first believers i

did not uniformly think of Christ as existing from all eternity,

Bite Set oy Rta ene 4

3
4

2

MODES OF TIME AND PLACE IN SCRIPTURE. 113

They conceived Him as they had seen Him on earth at last entering
into His glory, “ ordained to be the Son of God with power.” It
was not settled by the language of any creed that He was the only-
begotten of the Father, begotten before the worlds. The question
had not been asked, the doubt had not arisen. So little did the idea
of time enter into their conception of His existence, that they could
speak of Him at once as “ ordained to be the Son of God with power,”
and also as “the firstborn of every creature,” as “speaking by the
prophets,” and yet also as contrasted with them and following them,
Heb. 1. 2.

The general result of our inquiry thus far is, that the modes of
time in the New Testament converge towards the present moment.
Not, of course, that there is no past or no future; but that they meet
in the ré\y roy aiwywy, which are at once the revelation of both.

Hence, however great the grammatical irregularity, the passage
from the present to the future, which, like the unseen, was present
and realised by faith. The transition was natural from the judgment
of conscience here to the day of the Lord hereafter.

Compare the following : —

SnoavpiZerc ceauro dpyhv év tyépg opyig Kat aroxadvpewe dukawo-
Kptoiac rou Seov. Rom. ii. 5.

6 evoyijoac hdc év Taon evroyig wvevparuh ev Toi¢ érovpaviole
év xpiorm. Eph. i. 3.

In the first of these passages, there is nearly the same confusion of
times as in Rom. ii. 16.:— You are treasuring up for yourself
something future in the day of judgment.”

In the second, the confusion seems to be precisely parallel, if it be
not rather one of place than of time:—‘“ Who hath blessed us here
present upon earth with all future and heavenly blessings.”

So 1 Thess. ii. 19.:—riéc yap hpoy édrle 7} xapa i} orépavoc Kavyt-
gewc, 7} ody? Kal dpeic, Eurpocberv Tov Kupiov uay "Inood év Th avrou
mapovoia; 1 Cor. i. 8.: b¢ Kal BeBawwoer bude Ewe rédove aveyKAHrove
Ev TH Hpépg Tov Kupiov juoyv “Inoov. Xprorov ; 2 Cor, i. 14.; KaOwe cat
éméyvwre hdc ard pépouc, bre Kavynpa buwr éopey kaOarep Kai ipete

VOL. II. I

114 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

hpay év rit hepa rou Kvpiov [fay] Incod; Col. iii. 6., for a weaker
expression of the same.

These latter passages are sufficiently parallel with the one which
we are considering, to justify the grammatical irregularity of con-
necting évdeikyuyrac with év juéoa rov Kxvpiov. We say, the sen-
tence of conscience anticipates a higher tribunal. To the Apostle
the testimony of conscience enters within the vail, and is already in
the presence of God. His thoughts are so transferred to the day of
judgment, that in that, and through that only, he measures all things,

Parallel to the modes of time, though less important, are what may
be termed the modes of place in the New Testament.

First :—JIn reference to the word aiwy, which is at once a period of
time, and also the world which is to subsist in that period. aiwy
ovroc and aidy 6 pé\\wy originally mean the times before and after
Messiah’s coming; but are also opposed, not merely as we should
oppose this life and a future, but as this world and another.

Secondly :—In the indistinctness of the idea of heaven, which is at
once a different place from the earth, and co-existing with it in the
same sense that the stars and the sky co-exist with it; and also the
kingdom of God within the spiritual dwelling-place in which ideas
of time and place are no more. Thus it is said,— “I beheld Satan
as lightning fall from heaven,” Luke, x. 18.: and again, “ The
heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon

the Son of man,” John, i. 51., in which a sort of pictorial image is

presented to the mind. So2 Cor. xii. 2.:— “I knew a man in Christ
above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body or out of the body I
cannot tell,) such an one caught up into the third heaven.” But, on
the other hand :—“ We have our conversation in heaven,” or, “who
hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly (places),”
év roic érovpaviowe, Eph.i. 3., where heaven cannot be thought of as a
distinct place from earth.

Thirdly :— There is a certain degree of indistinctness in the ideas of
place as applied only to the earth. As the ends of the world seem
to meet in the present moment in the consciousness of the believer,

coupe’

REA BS aie aed cian eee materiale Bs Metis: a dial aw

Bi ei RS ene el aati ch

MODES OF TIME AND PLACE IN SCRIPTURE. 115

so also the idea of the earth itself is narrowed to that spot in which
the struggle is going on, which is all the world to him. A vivid
consciousness of past time was, we saw, different from that general
and undefined conception of the “ages of ages” which we find in
Scripture. So also a geographical idea of all the countries of the
earth, with their peoples, climates, languages, is quite different from that,
shall we say, spiritual notion of place which occurs in the Epistles.
Here, where the Apostle himself is, is the scene of the great struggle ;
the places which he has visited, are the whole world, in which the
powers of good and evil are arrayed against one another ; a small spot
of ground, like a small period of time, is fraught with the fortunes of
mankind; the more earthly measure of place and distance is lost.
This spiritual notion of time and place is not possible to ourselves,
but only to an age which has an imperfect conception of past history,
and an indistinct knowledge of the countries of the world. To the
Apostle it was natural. In this way, allowing also something for
Oriental modes of speech, we are to account for such expressions as
the following :—“I thank my God that your faith is made known in
the whole world,” Romans, i. 8.; or, the salutation of 1 Cor. i. 2.,—
“ Unto the Church of God which is at Corinth, sanctified in Christ
Jesus, chosen saints, with all that call upon the name of our Lord
Jesus Christ, in every place both their’s and our’s ;” where “in every
place” is probably to be interpreted by the first chapter of the second
epistle, év 6An ri ’Axaig. Compare also, 1 Thess. i. 8.:—“For from you
hath sounded forth the word of the Lord, not only in Macedonia and
Achaia, but in every place your faith to Godward is spread abroad,
so that we have no need to say any thing.” And yet the Apostle, at
the time of writing this, could hardly have been anywhere but in
Macedonia and Achaia.

These mixed modes of time and place are no longer mixed to us,
but clear and distinct. We live in the light of history and of nature,
and can never mingle together what is inward and what is without
us. We cannot but imagine everywhere, and at all times, heaven to
be different from earth, the past from the future and present. No

12

116 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

inward conscience can ever efface the limits that separate them. No
“contemplation of things under the form of eternity ” will take us
from the realities of life. We sometimes repeat the familiar language
of Scripture, but always in a metaphorical sense. If we desire to
understand, and not merely to explain it away, we must throw our-
selves back to the age of the Apostle, and gather his meaning from

his own words.”

* «
TA er NP iad Se Ma ease ge art aks Ber tk Ratatat cay

Ith.

CHAP. III.

Tue force of the Apostle’s argument in the first verses of the
following chapter, may be illustrated by a parallel which comes home
to ourselves. We may suppose a person enlarging, in a sermon or
in conversation, on the comparative state of the heathen and
Christian world, dwelling first of all on the enormities and unnatural
vices of India or China, and then on the formalism and hypocrisy
and conventionality of Christians throughout the world, until at last
he concludes by saying that many heathen are better than most
Christians, and that at the last day the heathen may judge us; and
that as God is no respecter of persons, it matters little whether we
are called Christians or not, if we follow Christ. Christian or
heathen, “he can’t be wrong,” it might be said, “ whose life is in the
tight.” Then would arise the question, What profit was there in
being a Christian if, as with the Jews of old, many should come
from the East and the West, and sit down with Christ and his
Apostles in the kingdom of heaven, while those bearing the name of
Christians were cast out? To which there would be many answers ;
first, that of St. Paul respecting the Jews, “because that unto us
are committed the oracles of God;” and above all, that we have a
new truth and a new power imparted to us. Still difficulties would
oceur as we passed beyond the limits of the Christian world.
Passages of Scripture would be quoted, which seemed to place the
heathen also within the circle of God’s mercies; and again, other
passages which seemed to exclude them. It might be doubted
whether in any proper sense there was a Christian world; so little
did there seem to be anything resembling the first company of
believers ; so faint was the bond of communion which the name of
Christian made amongst men; so slender the line of demarcation

13

118 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

which mere Christianity afforded, compared with civilisation and
other influences. Suppose, now, a person, struggling with these and
similar difficulties, to carry the question a stage further back, and
to urge that Christianity, failing of its end, this is of itself an im-
peachment of the truth and goodness of God. For if there were any
who did not accept the Gospel, then it could not be said that an
Omnipotent Being who had the power, and an Omniscient Being who
knew the way, had also the will that all mankind should be saved.
Why should the Unchangeable punish men for sins that could not
affect Himself? Why should He execute a vengeance which He was
incapable of feeling? And so he would lead us on to the origin of
evil and the eternal decrees, and the everlasting penalty. Speaking
as a philosopher, he might say, that we must change our notion of a
Divine Being, in the face of such facts. Those who were arguing
with him, might be unable or unwilling to discuss speculative diffi-
culties, and might prefer to rest their belief on two simple founda-
tions: first, the truth and justice and holiness of God; and, secondly,
the moral consequences of the doctrine of their opponents. It makes
no difference whether we suppose the argument carried on between
disputants, or whether we suppose a religious sceptic arguing with
himself on the opposite aspects of those great questions, which in
every age, from that of Job and Ecclesiastes, have been more or less
clearly seen in various forms, Jewish as well as Christian, as pro-
blems of natural or of revealed religion, common alike to the Greeks
and to ourselves, and which have revived again and again in the course
of human thought.

The train of reflection which has been thus briefly sketched, is not
unlike that with which St. Paul opens the third chapter. The Jew
and the Gentile have been reduced to a level by the requirements of
the moral law. The circumcision of the heart and the uncircum-
cision of the letter take the place of the circumcision of the letter
and uncircumcision of the heart. Such a revolution naturally leads
the Jew to ask what his own position is in the dispensations of Pro-
vidence. What profit is there in being sons of Abraham, if of these

SUBJECT OF THE EPISTLE. 119

stones God was raising up children unto Abraham? To which the
Apostle replies, first, that they had the Scriptures. But it might be
said, “they believed not.” Such an objection is suggested by the
Apostle himself, who draws it out of the secret soul of the Jew, that
he may answer it more fully. Shall their unbelief make the pro-
mise of God of none effect.” Such promises are “ yea and amen ;”
but they are also conditional. God forbid that they should be called
in question, because man breaks their conditions. Imagine all men
faithless, yet does God remain true.

Still the objector or the objection returns, in the fifth verse, from
another point of view, which is suggested by the quotation which
immediately precedes, “ that thou mayest be justified in thy sayings,
and mayest overcome when thou art judged.” In any case then God
is justified ; why doth He yet punish? If we do no harm to Him,
why does He do harm to us? We are speaking as one man does of
another; but is not God unjust? To which the Apostle replies
(according to different explanations of rév xécuor), either, “ shall not
the Judge of all the earth do rightly ?” or, how can you, who are a
Jew, suppose that the God whose attribute it is “to judge among
the heathen ” is one who may be called unjust? In this question is
contained the answer to those who say, “ My unrighteousness com-
mends the righteousness of God, and therefore Ged has no right to
take vengeance on me.” Still the objection is repeated in a slightly
altered form, not now, “If my unrighteousness commends the righ-
teousness of God;” but, “If my falsehood abounds to the glory of
- His truth, why am I still judged as a sinner?” To which St. Paul
replies, not by dwelling further on the truth or justice of God, but
by ironically stating the consequence of the doctrine, “Let us do evil
that good may come, let us sin to the glory of God, let us lie to
prove his truth ;” and, then dropping the strain of irony, he adds
seriously in his natural style, “ whose damnation is just.”

The chief difference between this argument and the one which, for
the sake of illustration, is prefixed to it, is that the great questions
which are suggested in the first, are here narrowed to the Jewish

14

120 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

point of view. The objector does not find any general difficulty in
justifying the ways of God to man, but in harmonising the rejection
of the Jews with the privileges of the chosen race. What seemed to
him injustice, was justice to all mankind. He is animated by a sort
of moral indignation at being reduced to the same level as the rest of
the world.

The substance of the Apostle’s argument is the same as that of
chap. ix. 19, 20., in which he again assumes the person of an objector :
—‘“ Thou wilt then:say unto me, ‘ Why does He yet find fault, for who

hath resisted His will?’ Nay, but O man, who art thou that repliest |

against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it,
why hast thou made me thus?” It is an anticipation of the subject
of chapters ix., x., xi., the passing thought of which is intimated in
the word #edei, in ver. 25. of the preceding chapter (compare
ver. 1. ric 4 @péXe:a), Which stands in the same relation to chap. iii.
ver. 1—8., as the conclusion of the second chapter to what follows
in the third.

Bo tee a eee

ee ee ew ee oe a

a ee

A 8

let

it a eee ane

ere - tee eis wait

cial
gd er ey : . hint

BS. eae “hes oan . ¥

ee ine
\, fe L

122 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. IIL.

, > N N A939 , ry , e939 A
Ti ovv TO TEpiaaov Tov Iovdaiov, H Tis n apédeva THS
~ 4
TEPLTOMNS ; TOAD KaTa TavTa TpdTOV. Tpa@Tov' wey OTL
la ‘al , \ 3 b , ,
emuaTtevOnoav Ta hdyia TOV Feodv. TL yap Ee HriaoTHoaY
\ A la

TWES ; LN Y ATLOTLA AVT@V THY ToT TOD Heod KaTapyyoel;
pe) yevoito *
, \ 4 4 x ~ > A
wevaTns, Kalas yéypamtar “Oras av SixawwOyns €v Tots

ywéobw dé 6 Beds adn Oys, Tas 5€ advOpwiros

, \ , > ‘al , , > Se ¢ 25 ,
hoyous Oov Kal VUKYONS ev T@ Kpiveo Bai Oe €b OF 7) A LKLQ

1 wey yap.

2. kara wavra TpoToy, in every
way.| The Apostle mentions one
way, and is entangled in a new
series of thoughts.

xparov per, first.| Thereis no
“secondly;” not that St. Paul
breaks off, as Olshausen suggests,
because he felt that, in the single
point of the knowledge of the
Scriptures, he had included all.
The irregularity is a matter of
style. Compare i. 8., p@rov pév
evyaptoTe@ ércorevOnoay, sc. ot lov-
daiot, as in 1 Cor. ix. 17., oixovo-
pilav werlorevpat

ra Noyta Tov Seov, the oracles
of God,| applied in Numbers,
xxiv. 15. ( dxovwyv Adyra Bod) to
the prophecy of Balaam ; in Acts,
xviii. 38. to the ten command-
ments and to the law; here, rather
to the Scriptures generally.

In what follows, “Is the Apo-
stle speaking of himself, or in the
person of some other man?”
Both, or neither; in one sense
he is, in another he isnot. That
is to say; partly from defect in
power of expression, partly also
from the imaginative cast of his
mind, which leads him to place
vividly before himself the oppo-
site view to his own, he seems
to desert his original standing
ground, and to alternate between
the two sides of his own mind.
Especially is this the case where

_ to the objection.

the very elements of his former
and present life are in conflict.
He almost goes over into the
enemy’s camp, and then revolts
from it. Though not really
objecting, he assumes the person
of an objector, and repeats what
he would have said himself and
what he had heard others say.
Comp. vii. 7—25., ix. 14—22.;
1 Cor. x. 28—32.

3. Ti yap ei Ariornoay TivEc;
Sor what if some did not believe ?)}
Not the objection, but the answer
You will per-
haps say, “ they did not believe ;”
that makes no difference. But
the objection is not yet crushed ;
it reappears in the next clause,
suggested by the word jziornoay
itself. The very question I mean
to ask is, whether “their unbelief
will make the grace of God of
none effect.”

py is used in the New Testa-
ment indifferently, either in ques-
tions intended to have an affirm-
ative answer, or implying an
inclination to the opposite (Luke,
vi. 39.), or in mere doubts
(John, viii. 22.). That in this
passage the answer would have
been an affirmative, follows from
/) yévorro in the next verse, which
deprecates the intended assent.
Though the two questions follow
one another, the tone of them is

VER. 2—4.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

123

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit

2 is there of circumcision ?

Much every way: chiefly,

because* they were entrusted with the oracles of
3 God. For whatif some did not believe ? whether * shall
their unbelief make the faith of God without effect ?

4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar;

as itis written, That thou mightest be justified in thy
sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

different. The first, ri yap ei jrio.,
is intended to have a negative
answer. “It makesno difference;
if some did not believe what of
that?” But the second conveys
an objection to the first, to which
the Apostle for a moment gives
way, which is followed up and
finally answered by po) yévo.ro in
the following verse.

i amcoria, unbelief.| The un-
belief here referred to might con-
sist, either in the rebellion of
the Jews in the wilderness, or
in their rejection of Christ ; or
better, the former may be a figure
of the latter, as in Rom. ix.; and
1 Cor. x. 7—10.

tiv wiorw tov Jeov, the faith
of God,| like diaocvvn Seod
above. The play of words is
hardly translateable in English.
“Shall their want of faith make
of none effect the good faith of
God.” From the sense of “the
faith” which men have in God,
mlaTic passes into the meaning of
the faith which God exercises
towards men. (Comp. dyarn
Seov, ver. 5.)

Thus we leave the first stage
of the objection. May not the
unbelief of man mar the faithful-
ness of God? The second being
But if their unbelief es-
tablished the righteousness of
God, ver. 5. The third — But

if their untruth reflected the
glory of God.

4. hy yévorro. God forbid. |
That be far from us. Be it ours
rather to affirm that God is true,
though every man be a liar.
The paronomasia on yévorro and
ytvéaOw was probably intentional.
Comp. above, 2, 3. értorevOnoav
and #riarnoay; also admoria and
WLOTLY.

To argue against this mode of
explaining the passage that the
Apostle could not have meant
seriously to wish that every man
should be a liar, is the error of
“rhetoric turned logic.” See in
chap. ix. 38. It is needless, with
the view of avoiding this objec-
tion, to translate y.véo0w, “let it
be according to the saying,” let
the words of Scripture be ful-
filled, “God is true, though
all men are liars,” —a_ sense
which is not sufficiently sup-
ported by 1 Cor. xv. 34., where
the position of the word is dif-
ferent.

év T@ KpivecOai oe, when thouart
judged.| xpivecOa is used in a
passive as well as active or
middle sense, both in the Old
Testament and in the New. For
the first compare Lam. iii. 36.,
1 Cor. vi. 2.; for the second
Judges, xxi. 22., 1 Cor. vi. 1.; in
the latter use with the meaning

124

e “A A a
npav Oeod Sikaootvnvy ovviorno., Ti epodpev; py

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. IT.

10 € 0 A € .3 , \ > , Ay 0 id
aduKos 0 Geos 0 emuhێpwr THv Opynv ; Kata avOpwrrov heya.

Le) yévowto *

b \ “~ 2 . X\ 4 b ] .
ETT EL TWS KPULVEel O Geds TOV KOO [LOV > €b yap
€ iN. 44 lal 0 A 93 aA 93 A 4 Ss 4 5
9 adynleva Tov Geov ev TH Eumw evo pPaTL ETEPiTTEVTEY ELS

‘ Py / 3 lal 47» 5 4 e ¢ » id \
THY dd€ay avrod, Ti ETL KaYa GS GpapTwhds Kpivomar ; Kal
\ ‘ 4 \ ‘\ , |
Bn Kabas Bracdnpotpcla Kat Kabas dhaciv twes ynyas
héyew OT TOIT wOpE TA KaKa Wa EMOn TA Ayala ; dv Td

lal y 4 3
KPlia EVOLKOV COT.

not precisely of judging but
rather of going to law, or enter-
ing into judgment.

If we translate “that thou

mightest overcome when thou
art judged,” the sentence gains
anew point. The word xpivecOa
refers to the previous objection :
“that thou mightest overcome
when (as had just been done)
thou art judged.” The parallel-
ism of the clauses, on the other
hand, is better preserved by the
active —“ when thou enterest
into judgment.”
- Itis a favourite figure of the
Old Testament Scriptures to re-
present impiety rising up against
God and challenging His ways.
The wicked are allowed to assert
themselves against Him that they
may be crushed by His might.
There is a terrible irony in the
way in which Almighty power
is described, as playing with them
for a while, and then launching
upon them its vengeance.

5. Notwithstanding the recoil
of the Apostle, the objector re-
turns to the charge, finding ma-
terials for a new objection in the
answer to the previous one. But
if, as you say, nothing can impair
the truth or holiness of God, if
our unrighteousness does but es-
tablish it, if in any case God is
justified, is He not unjust for

bringing wrath upon us? if He

cannot be harmed of any, why
should He harm us ?

pu) &dexoc, | See note on ver. 3.
Here ,») implies in the answer the
belief that this is so, and the pre-
tended wish that it were not so.

kara avOpwrov Aéyw.| I use a
human figure of speech. I do
but speak as I can imagine men
speaking. The Apostle apologises
for the mere hypothesis which he
has put into the mouth of an-
other, of injustice in God.

6. pr) yévocro, forbid it.| “For
how shall God, if he be unjust,
judge the heathen?” (roy cdcpor).
The Jews drew a distinction be-
tween the judgment of themselves
and the heathen, which has been
sometimes thought to have a
place in this passage. It was
founded upon such passages as
“ He shall judge among the hea-
then ;” whence it was inferred,
that the heathen were to be
judged, but not the chosen people:
just as it is sometimes said among
Christians, the wicked are to be
judged, the elect not. It agrees
better, however, with the spirit
of St. Paul to take rov xéopor for
the whole world, without dis-
tinction of Jew or Gentile ; asin
Rom. iii. 19. the whole world is
spoken of as becoming subject to
the just judgment of God. The

IO

pe ee re ee

mere Mowatt

~~ ie tatin
ee ee eee

Se VAD med: dc eat: Ni Sa ae ri

Ir

Ver. 5—8-] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 125

But if our unrighteousness commend the righteousness
of God, what shall we say? Is not * God unrighteous
who taketh vengeance? (I speak as a man) God forbid,
for then how shall God judge the world? For if the
truth of God hath more abounded through my le unto
his glory; why notwithstanding * am I still judged as a
sinner ? and not rather, (as we be slanderously reported,
and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that

good may come ? whose damnation is just.

general meaning will be the same
as that expressed in Gen. xviii.
25.:— Shall not the judge of
all the earth do right?”

7. Still unsatisfied, the ob-
jector, or St. Paul in the person
of the objector, repeats the ob-
jection of ver. 5, in a slightly
altered form; not “if my un-
righteousness establishes the
righteousness of God,” but “if my
untruth abounds to the glory of
His truth, why am I still judged
as a sinner ;” cal, not “why am I
as well as the Gentile?” or, “why
am I, even though I bea sinner?”
but simply, “why am I still?”
In such expressions cai is a soft-
ened way of saying, “in spite of
that fact ;” why am I, over and
above contributing to the glory
of God, which should be set down
to my credit, to be punished too?
Comp. the use of caiin 1 Cor. xv.
29., ci CXwe vexpol ovK éyelpovTat,
ri cat Barrilovrat brép abroy ;

8. And why not draw the
wicked and absurd conclusion,
“Let us do evil that good may
come, ‘pecca, fortiter pecca,’ to
the glory of God?”

kabwc Pracgypovpefa, Wecan
only conjecture who they were,
who charged the Apostle with
doing evil that good may come.

From the Epistle of St. James
it may be inferred, that there
were among the Jews those
whom we should term anti- -
nomians; who preached faith
without works; who, as Philo
informs us, held it sufficient to
keep the spirit of the law with-
out conforming to its ceremonies
or other requirements. (De Migr.
Abrah. Mangey, i. 450.) In the
teaching of St. Paul, there was
sufficient to form the groundwork
of such an accusation. That he
was sensitive to the charge, and
apprehensive of the abuse of his
doctrine, is evident from chap.
vi...

The construction seems to
arise out of a confusion of ri ju)
Troujowpev, Why should we not do?
and roujowper, let us do, the word
ért, which has slipped in from the
attraction of Aéyev, being the
cause of a wavering between the
oratio recta and obliqua.

9—27. At this point the Apo-
stle leaves the digression into
which he had been drawn, and
returns to the main subject; de-
scribing, in the language of the
Old Testament, the evil of those
who are under the law, that is,
of the whole former world; and
revealing the new world in which

126 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. IT.

Ti ovv ; mpoexopeba ; od TavTas* mpoytiacdpcla ya
SP ee CPE OR ST POL Cer ae
9 , , 9 , eyo? e s =
Tovdaiovs te kai “EAnvas tavras vp apaptiay elva,
Kalas yéypamtTa, OTL OvK EaTW SikaLos OvdE Els, OVK EOTW
, 1 b) ¥ e > an \ 0 4 . /, 9¢°.4 r
cvviov ', ovk ext [6] exlntav Tov Oeov mavtes eێxduvar,
apa nxpemOnoav’ ovK EOTW TOLAV YpNOTOTHTA, OVK ETTW

9 oe.
€WS EVOS.

4, > ld a 4 ee A ,
Taos avewypevos 6 hapuy& avTav, Tats yhoo-

5 A 5 wn SN > 7 e \ . 7 3 A
CALS AUT@V EdO\LOVaAY, LOS AOTLOWY UTS TA yeihyn avTav «

a \ , , A oF \ , ,
@V TO OTOLA [adrorv | aApas KQUL TUK Plas VEEL.

d€els ob

, 5 A 5 , & A \ , >
TTOOES QUT@MV EKKEQL ALLA, OVVT PLLA KAL TahaiTwpia eV

A e A soa Y 3QN Bs 3 Ey)
Tals 6d0is avTa@v, Kal dddv Elpyvys OUK eyvacar.

>
OUK

1 6 cuviwyr.

God manifests forth his righ-
teousness in Christ Jesus. In
the previous chapter, he had not
distinctly denied the privileges
of the Jew; or had, at least,
veiled the purely moral principle
for which he was contending,
under the figure of “the Jew
inwardly,” and “ circumcision of
the heart.” At the commence-
ment of the third chapter, he
brought forward the other side
of the argument, from which he
is driven by the extravagance of
the Jew. At length, dropping
his imperfect enumeration of the
advantages of the Jew, he boldly
affirms the result, that the Jew is
no better than the Gentile, and
that all need the salvation, which
all may have.

9. Té ody; mpoeyopeba; | Like ri
obv; dpaprhowper; vi. 15. “ What
then? are we better than they?
No, by no means.” This way of
taking the passage gives the best
sense, and does the least violence
to the language. The objection
to it is that the middle, which
would ordinarily have the signi-
fication of “to hold _ before,”
“put forward as a pretext,” is
here used’ like the active in the

sense of “ surpass,” “excel.” The
mode of taking the passage which
connects ri ovy with rpoeydpeba ;
either in the sense of what pre-
text do we allege? or what ad-
vantage have we? furnishes no
proper sense for od rayrwe, and is
open to the further objection that
no other instance occurs of ri
ovv being used where ri is the
remote object of a verb, in the
writings of St. Paul. The em-
phatic use of zpoeydueba in the
sense of “have we a pretext?”
is still more contrary to analogy
than the confusion of the middle
and active voice.

The Apostle had previously
spoken of the Jews in the third
person. Now he is about to utter
an unpalatable truth. Is it an
over refinement to suppose that
he changes the person to soften

the expression by identifying

himself with them? Compare
1 Cor. iv. 6. “These things I
have transferred in a figure to
myself and Apollos, for your
sakes.”

ov ravrwe, no surely.| Comp.
the use of ravrwe in 1 Cor. v. 10.,
ix.10. The Apostle is not think-

ing of wodv kara wavra rpdror,

12

13

414
+15
16
(7

i 18

Ver. 9—18.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

127

What then? are we better than they? No, in no
wise: for we have before proved both Jews and Gen-
tiles, that they are all under sin; as it is written, There

is none righteous, no, not one:

there is none that

understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.
They are all gone out of the way, they are together
become unprofitable; there is none. that doeth ead,

no, not one.

is under their lips:
bitterness.

Their throat is an open sepulchre; with
their tongues they have used deceit ;
whose mouth is full of cursing and
Their feet are swift to shed blood, afflic-

the poison of asps

tion* and misery are in their ways, and the way of

peace have they not known.

which has preceded in ver. l.,

but of the general condemnation -

which is to follow.

mavrac, | not a mere hyperbole,
or put, as Grotius supposes, for
“most,” but as in ver. 12. 19.

10. seGire yéypanmrat, as it is
written.| In what follows the
Apostle quotes different passages
of Scripture; descriptive either
of the enemies of the psalmist,
or containing denunciations of
the prophets against the iniqui-
ties of Israel at particular times
to illustrate the sinfulness of men
in general.

The words dre obk Eoriy déxaroc
ovde cic may be either an intro-
duction of the Apostle’s own, in
which he gives the substance of
the following quotations, or an
imperfect recollection of the first
verse of Psalm liii., ob« éore Towy
ayadoy, or of Ps. xiv., ov« gore
TOWY KpnoroTnra.

- The eleventh verse is slightly
altered in sense from the second
verse of Psalm xiv.in the LXX.:
—kipiocg ék Tov ovpavod déxvver
éml rove vio trav avOpwrwy Tov

There is no fear of God

idety et EoTt ovviwy i exlnte@y TOY
Seov.

12—17. have been inserted
from this passage in the Alexan-
drian MS. of the LXX. at Ps.
xiv. 3.

13. quoted from the LXX. Ps.
v. 9. down to édo\wteav. The
meaning is, that men fallinto their
snares as into open graves among
the rocks. Comp. Ps. vii. 15.

ioc... avrov. Ps, exl. 3.

14. slightly altered from the
LXX. Ps, x. 7.

15—17. quoted, not after the
LXX., from Isaiah, lix. 7., where
the prophet is describing the de-
praved state of Israel.

18. From the LXX. of Psalm
xxxvi. 1. What does the Apo-
stle intend to prove by these
quotations? ~ That at various
times mankind have gone astray,
and done evil; that in particular
cases the prophets and psalm-
ists energetically denounced the
wickedness of the Jews, or of
their enemies. This is all that
can be strictly gathered from
them, and yet not enough to sup-

128

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. Il

extw bdBos Geod arevarts TOV 6bOadpav avTav. oidapev
de 4 4 e / 4 A > A / Xr X ool a
€ OTL Goa 6 Vopmos héyer TOls EV TR VOUM adel, Wa TAY
oTdépa ppayyn Kal Urddukos yévnTat TAS 6 Koos TO Hew.
la ad
didte €€ epywv vopov ov Sixawwbnoera Taca Taps éEvaTrov

port what is termed the Apo-
stle’s argument. From the fact
that the enemies of David were
perfidious and deceitful, that the
children of Israel, in the time of
the prophet Isaiah, were swift to
shed blood, we can draw no con-
clusions respecting mankind in
general. Because Englishmen
were cruel in the times of the
civil wars, or because Charles
the First had bitter and crafty
enemies, we could not argue that
the present generation, not to
say the whole world, fell under
the charge of the same sin. Not
wholly unlike this, however, is
the adaptation which the Apo-
stle makes of the texts which he
has quoted from the Old Testa-
ment. He brings them together
from various places to express
the thought which is passing
through his mind; and he quotes
them with a kind of authority, as
we might use better language
than our own to enforce our
meaning. In modern phraseo-
logy, they are not arguments, but
illustrations. ‘The use of them
is exactly similar to our own
use of Scripture in sermons,
where the universal is often in-
ferred from the particular, and
precepts or events divested of
the particular circumstances
which accompany them, or the
occasions on which they arose,
are made to teach a general les-
son. It was after the manner
of the Apostle’s age, and hard-
ly less after the manner of our
own. |

19. otdaper dé dri, but we know. |
Is St. Paul referring here to the
Jews or to mankind in general ?
If the former, there arises a diffi-
culty respecting the meaning of
the words, “every mouth,” “ all
the world,” which seem coex-

If

tensive with “those under the —

law.” ;

(1.) We may suppose that the
Apostle, having alreadyconcluded
the Gentiles under sin in the first
chapter, is using these texts
against the Jews, to complete the
proof against men in general.
“ We know that whomsoever
these words out of the law touch,
they must touch the Jew, who is
under the law, so that he forms
no exception, and the whole world
including the Jew, come under
the judgment of God.” Or, (2.)
The Jew is regarded by him as
the type of the Gentile; and
having convicted the one, he as-
sumes, @ fortiori, the conviction of
the other.

It cannot be denied, that either
of the two explanations is far-
fetched, and also ill-suited to the
connexion. For in the 9th verse
which introduced these passages,
nothing was said of their special
application to the Jews. “For
we before proved all both Jews
and Gentiles to be under sin, as
it is written.” But (38.) if the
words roic év r® vouw cannot be
confined to the Jew, their mean-
ing must extend to mankind in
general. The law of Moses, it
may be said, is with the Apostle
the image of law in general, and

19

20

Ver. 19, 20.]

before their eyes.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

129

Now we know that what things

soever the law saith, it saith to them who are under the

law :

that every mouth may be stopped, and all the

world come into judgment before God. Because* by
the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in

mankind have been already spo-
ken of as having a law written on
the heart. According to this

view, the meaning of the pas-

sage might be:—‘“‘ We know
that whatsoever things the law
or the prophets say, they say to
those who in any sense are under
the law.”

Considering the numerous tran-
sitions of meaning which occur
in the use of the word vopoe
(comp. Rom. vii. 21., viii. 1—4. ;
and the use of zvevpa, in 1 Cor.
ii. 10.), it cannot be held a fatal
objection to this interpretation
that it explains the word vopos
in different senses in successive
lines. There is nothing incon-
sistent in this with the style of
St. Paul. But still those “who
are under the law” would be an
abrupt and obscure expression,

for “those who have the law

written on their hearts.” Andin

this instance there is an absolute

unmeaningness and want of point
in saying ‘we know that what-
soever things the written law
saith, it saith to them who have
not the written law.”

Another (4.) and more pro-
bable point of view, in which the
explanation that applies roic éy
7? vou» to all mankind, may be
regarded, is the following :—The
Apostle has found words in the
law which describe the sinfulness
of man, who, from this very cir-
cumstance, may be said to be

VOL. II.

under or in the law. He does
not mean to say that the law
speaks to those who are under
the law, but that those to whom
the law speaks are under the
law. All those who are thus
described, are drawn within the
law, and belong to the prior dis-
pensation. Or, more simply :—
The law in saying these things
speaks to persons over whom it
has authority (comp. vii. 1., 6
vomoc Kuptever TOU avOpwrov) ; it is
not a mere abstraction.

This interpretation, though dif-
ficult, is in accordance with the
style and spirit of the Apostle.
As, in the first chapter, he spoke
of the Gentiles as knowing God,
and condemned by their know-
ledge, so in this passage, he re-
gards all mankind as under the
sentence of the law of Moses. It
is further rendered necessary and
confirmed by the following verse,
as well as by what has preceded.
For not only in the verse which
precedes the citation from the
Old Testament, has the Apostle
made no distinction between Jew
and Gentile, but in ver. 20. he
expressly speaks of Gentile as
well as Jew, as incapable of jus-
tification by the deeds of the
law.

20. dure && Epywv vopov, be-
cause by the deeds of the law.]
Is this to be understood of the
ceremonial or of the moral law ?
It would be arbitrary to narrow

130

ou \ \ , eat € ,
QUTOV' Ova Y2p VO}LOU ETLYVOOLS ALAPTLAaS.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. Il.

A A A
vuvi de Xwpls 2

vopov Sixaoctvyn Oeod mepavépwrat, mapTvpovpern vT0

the meaning of these words to
the ceremonial law, even if we
were not prevented from doing
so by the universality of the ex-
pression waoa oapé, which in-
cludes the Gentiles, who had
nothing to do with the cere-
monial law.

The object of Arminian and
Romanist divines has ever been
to confine the “works of the
law” to the ceremonial law,
thereby gaining a supposed im-
munity for the doctrine of justi-
fication by works in another
sense. Calvinists and Lutherans,
with a truer perception of the
Apostle’s purpose, have affirmed
that the moral law could, as
little as the ceremonial, be made
the groundwork of acceptance
with God. They have truly
urged, that there is no indication
in the writings of St. Paul of the
existence of such a distinction.
The law is to him one law, the
whole law, the figure, indeed, of
many things, but never sepa-
rated into the portion that re-
lates to ceremonies, and the
portion that relates to moral pre-
cepts.

Ié may be further maintained,
not only that there is no such
distinction in the mind of the
Apostle, but that, consistently
with the modes of thought of his
age, there could not have been
such. It is what has been termed
before an afterthought of theo-
logy, which would naturally
arise when the ceremonial law
had died away—a sort of sepa-
ration of body and soul when life
is extinct. Not that to St. Paul,
or the Jews who were his con-

temporaries, all the precepts of
the law seemed of equal im-
portance. The prophets had
constantly opposed the blood of
bulls and goats “to the doing

justice, and loving mercy, and

walking humbly with God.” But
it does not follow from this, that —
the moral and ceremonial law
were separated from each other
in such a sense, that the Scribes
and Pharisees placed some pre-
cepts under the one head and
others under the other. Rather,
they were blended together in
one, like Ethics and Politics in
the early Greek philosophy.
When a Jew spoke of the law,
it never occurred to him to ask
whether he meant the moral or
ceremonial law; or when he
spoke of sin, to distinguish whe-
ther he intended moral evil or
ceremonial impurity.

ov dxawOjoera raca capé. | No
flesh shall be justified : ov . . rac
with a verb interposed has the
force of a universal negative, the
ov adhering to the verb; as in ©
Luke i. 37.; 1 Cor. xv. 29. The
two words when following one
another are usually (but not

' always) taken in the sense of a

particular “not all.” Compare,
however, Apoc. ix. 4., and above, —
ov TayTwe.

The expression ov . . race in the
first sense is not altogether
strange to classical Greek. Comp.
Plat. Pheed. 91. E.: worepov eqn,
mavrac Tove Eumpoobev AOyouc ovK
dmovéxec0e H rove pev roug 0’ ov;
It is fuller and more direct than —
ovdcic, and therefore more em.
phatic. The passages in which
mac or etc comes first, such as

21

Ver. 21.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

131

his sight ; for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But
now the righteousness of God without the law has been*

Apoce. xxii. 3.: wav caraQepa obk
gorae ere; or Matt. x. 29.: év ef
avray ov weceira, are the best il-
lustrations of the nature of the
usage.

The whole clause is taken from
Ps. exliii. 2.: dre ov dtxawwOyoerac
évwnuv cov mac Zev, for which
latter words the Apostle substi-
tutes taoa odpé, not without an
allusion to the weakness of the
flesh in the presence of God.
Comp. Matt. xxiv. 22.: ot« ay
éaw0n taca oapé.

due yap vdopov, for by the law. |
We naturally ask why “for?”
What connexion is there between
the inference and the reason as-
signed to it? To us the know-
ledge of sin would seem like the
first step to justification, not op-
posed to it.

For the answer to this question
see Essays on “Justification,”
and on the “ Law as the Strength
of Sin,” in which the antagonism
is pointed out between the law
as the knowledge of sin, and the

after sense of acceptance and

forgiveness. Comp. Rom. vii. 7.,
8.: — “I had not known sin, but
by the law: for I had not known
lust, except the law had said,
Thou shalt not covet. But sin,
taking occasion by the command-
ment, wrought in me all manner
of concupiscence. For without
the law sin was dead.”

“ Without the law there is no
transgression;” or, as we might
say—‘“ Without conscience there
is no sin.” No man, therefore,
can be justified by the law or con-
science; for this is what makes
sin to be what it is. The nature
of sin arises out of the knowledge

of sin, which is derived from the
law.

21—23. But now, independent
of the law, yet not without wit-
ness from the law, the righteous-
ness of God has been manifested
forth — a righteousness of God
unlike that of the law, through
faith in Jesus Christ, unto all
who have faith; for there is no
difference, for all have the same
need, all alike are freely justified.

21. vuvi dé. ] Ithas been argued
that vvvt does not here refer to
time, because in what has pre-
ceded there is no express mention
of past time. Yet what the
Apostle has been saying pre-
viously does refer to the prior
dispensation.

Although it is true that voy
and vuvi are frequently used by
St. Paul to express the conclusion
of an argument or the summary
of a previous statement, yet it is
more probable that in this passage
he is referring to time. Itisa
thought ever present to his mind,
that now is the age of the Gospel,
the time of fulfilment, not of an-
ticipation ; the latter days which
all former times pointed to, in
which the truth is living, present,
and mighty among men. He
loves to oppose roré pev —vvvt 0€,
as they had followed in his own
life, and as they seemed to follow
in the dispensations of God to
man. And where, as in this
passage, the contrast of wore pev
is omitted, still the thought of
the Gospel as neither past nor
future, but present andimmediate,
remains. Compare below, ver. 26.
év T@ viv Kaypg: V. 11. de ob vor
Thy KaradAayhy éhabouey: XVI.

K 2

132

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Ca. III.

TOU vo“ov Kal TaV mpodynTav, Sukavocvvyn SE Heod Sid

TLOTEWS xpiarou |

4
, €lS TAVTAS2 TOUS TMLOTEVOVTAS.

ov yap

€oTW SiacTorAn* TaVTES Yap HUAapTOV Kal VETEpOdVTaL THS

ddEns Tod Deod, Sixavotvpevor Swpedy TH avToV yapitr dia

TS amokuTpdcews THS EV ypLaT@ “Incov, ov mpoebe-
e ‘ ¢ la 5 A 7 8 > “~ > A 4
To 0 Oeds ihacrypiov dia Tiatews® Ev TH avTOU aipa-

1 "Inoov xpiorov.

26., pvornpiov xpdvote aiwviole oe-
ovynpévov pavepwlévroc O€ vir.
mepavépwrat, has been mani-
fested.| ‘This righteousness no
longer resides only in the bosom
of God, “a mystery since the
world began ; ” it has been called
forth into light and may be seen
of men; cf. chap. xvi. 25. ; Eph.
iii. 8,9. The perfect marks the
continuance of the manifestation:
it is not only a point in past time,
but living and present.
paprupoupérvn, witnessed. | Comp.
chap. i. 2. 17.; Acts, x. 43.

The Gospel is independent of
the law, and yet the law and the
prophets bear it witness. They
speak of justification by faith,
Gen. xv. 5, 6., of the just who
live by faith, Hab. ii. 4., of for-
giveness of sins, Ps. xxxiii. 1, 2.,
of the nearness of God to man,
Deut. xxx. 14., of the remnant
who were to besaved, Isai. x. 23.,
of the deliverer out of Sion, Isai.
lix, 20.; but these scattered rays
are very different from the truth
of Christ, taught by St. Paul.

tnd rod vopuov, | forms a verbal
antithesis to ywpic vopov.

22. ducacociyn oé.] But a
righteousness of another kind,
of God through faith in Christ,
unto all that believe.

muorevovrac| answers to da
TLOTEWC, AS TAaYTAC tO THC 6 KOopMOE,
in ver. 19. The latter is further

2 Add nad ém) mayras.

3 ris wioTews,

emphasised by the clause od yap
éoriv duaorodn (Comp. chap. x, 11,
12.), the reason of which universal
need of salvation is, in ver. 23.,
laid in the universal sinfulness
of the prior dispensation, the
statement of which again serves
as a kind of support of the truth
with which it alternates, in ver.
24., the free gift of the grace of
God.

[eig mavrac kal én Tavrae. |
Though the addition cai éri rav-
rac of the Tex. Rec. is supported
by insufficient MS. authority
(A.C. fig. v.), and may have arisen
from a double reading of cic and
éxt noted in the margin («al ézt
Tavrac), the repetition is not
unlike the manner of St. Paul.
Of the two prepositions, cic re-
presents the more internal and
spiritual relation of the Gospel
to the individual soul, as é7i, its
outward connexion with man-
kind collectively. ]

23. ijpaprov, have sinned.| In
classical Greek, and still more
often in the Greek of the New
Testament, the aoristis used with-
out any precise notion of time,
where in English the perfect
would be employed to mark the
connexion of a past event with
present time, or the present to
express a general statement.
Compare zpoéfero, v. 25.; é&e-
KAelaOn, Vv. 27.

| 22

23
24
25

Ver. 22—25.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

133

manifested, being witnessed by the law and the pro-
phets ; even the righteousness of God which is by faith
of! Christ unto all them ? that believe: for there is no
difference: for all have sinned, and come short of the
glory of God; being justified freely by his grace
through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom
God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith’,

1 Add Jesus.

ric ddéne tov Seov.| Not the
image of God in which man was
created, an interpretation which
is supported in some degree by
1 Cor. xi. 7.:—avijp ... eixwy
kai Oda Seov: nor the praise or
approval of God, for which latter
sense comp. John, v. 44., xii.
43.; but rather a higher spi-
ritual state, an ideal which shall
one day be realised,—the king-
dom of heaven, the manifestation
of the sons of God, presented
under another aspect. Comp. 2
Cor. iii. 18.:—“ But we all,
with open face beholding as in a
glass the glory of the Lord, are
changed into the same image
from glory to glory ; also, Rom.
vy. 2.—‘“ This grace wherein we
stand and rejoice in hope of the
glory of God.” For torepotvyrat
comp. Heb. xii. 15.:—ypi rec
vorep@v aro Tie yXapiTrog Tov
Seov.

24. dixarovpevor dupeay. | Some
regard this as the principal
clause, expressed by a participle,
instead of a verb: — “ Having
fallen short of the glory of God,
they are justified freely.” It is
better to lay the emphasis on
dwpedy, and take ducacovpevor with
an allusion to éucavoovvn, in ver.
22.:—“ There is no difference,
for all are sinners, and fall short
of the kingdom of heaven, and

2 Add and upon all,

in that they are justified they are
so freely by the grace of God.”

azo\urpwoews, redemption, | as
of a captive from slavery. Comp.
Gal. iii, 15.:—yprordc spac
éEnyopacev, and our Lord’s own
words, Matt. xx. 28.: “ The Son
of Man came not to be minis-
tered to, but to minister and to
give his soul aransom for many.”

25. Ov mpoéero, | = exhibited,
set forth to view, as in Ps. liii.
3.,and Thue. ii. 34., ra pev do-
ra mporibevrar Tw aroyevopevwr.
Comp. cic évdekiy and repavépw-~
rat: also Gal. iii.:—oie kar’
6¢0arpovg "Incove yxpiord¢ mpoe-
ypagn Ecravpwpéevoc.

iiaorhpioy | has three senses
given it by commentators on this
passage : — First, as in Heb. ix.
5., “mercy-seat,” a meaning
of the word supposed to have
arisen from a misconception of
the LXX. respecting the Hebrew
n7B3, the covering of the ark,
which they wrongly connected
with 155, to expiate or cover
sin. This interpretation is too
obscure and peculiar for the pre-
sent passage :—(1.) it would re-
quire the article; (2.) it is in-
appropriate, because St. Paul is
not here speaking of the mercy,
but of the righteousness of God;
(3.) the image, if used, should
be assisted by the surrounding

Kk 3

134

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. II.

$ ¥ 5 A 5 , > a by \ X ,
Tl, Els EvdeEW THS SiKaocvvNS adToOv, Sid THY Taperw
TOV TPOyEyovoTaY apapTnaTwY ev TH avoxn Tov Oeod,
mpos THY! evderEw THs SuKavoavyS avTOD EV THO VV Kapa,

1 Om.

phraseolory. Two other expla-
nations offer themselves: —either
(1.) tAaorfpwov may be a mascu-
line adjective in apposition with
év, “whom God set forth as pro-
pitiatory,” or better, (2.) a neuter
adjective, which has passed into
a substantive,—whom God has
set forth as a “ propitiation,” like
owrip.or, Ex. xx. 24.; cf.xxix. 28.

Ova wiorewe év T@ QUTOU aipart. |
No such expression occurs in
Scripture as faith in the blood,
or even in the death of Christ.
Nor is ziaric followed by év
in the New Testament, though
faith, like all other Christian
states, is often spoken of as ex-
isting in Christ. ( Gal. iii. 26.)
The two clauses should there-
fore be separated, “ through faith
— by his blood.”

cic Evdetkwy rite Sucaoovyne ad-
rov.| There are three ways in
which this manifestation may be
conceived:—(1.) as the life and
death of Christ are an example
to all mankind; (2.) as His
death was the penalty for sin;
(3.) as He is the sum of that
revelation which the Apostle
terms “the righteousness of God
through faith by his blood ;” the
latter words being an explana-
tion from the objective side of
what ova tiorewc expresses from
the subjective, and connecting
with iNaorhpwyv as dua riorewc
With dccacovpevor. Comp. v. 9.:
— dikatovpevor Ev TO aipare.

dud Tv Tapeoiy THY TpOYyEYo-
vorwy apaprnuarwy, because of
the letting go of sins that are
past.| These words are trans-

Thy.

lated in the English Version
“for the remission of sins that
are past.” To this it may na-
turally be objected : — “ Why of
sins that are past, rather than
of sins in general.” Sins are
past to the individual when they
are forgiven ; but St. Paul is not
here speaking of individuals, but
of the world, in which they are
ever going on. The words of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, ix.
15. : —eic awodvrpwow roy éxl TH
mpwth siabjxyn tapabacewr, offer
an apparent rather than a real
parallel. Nor is there any trace
of the word zapeowe (which is
not found in the New Testa-
ment except in this passage) oc-
curring elsewhere in the sense
of “ forgiveness.”

The natural translation of the
words is :— “ Because of the let-
ting go or omission of past sins.”
That is the reason why God
manifests forth his righteous-
ness, because formerly he had
hidden himself, and seemed not
to observe sin. “The times of
that ignorance God winked at,
but now commands all men
everywhere to repent.” There
was a moral necessity which
made the old dispensation the
cause of the new one. God was
not willing that men should be for
ever ignorant of his true nature.

On the other side it has been
argued, that when past sins are
spoken of, it is not necessary to
think of them as the sins of a
past world, ora prior dispensa-
tion. The Apostle is laying
stress on the fact that “at this

2€

QS I Ras

Babe yh

i 26

Ver. 26.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

135

by his blood, to declare his righteousness because of the
letting go* of sins that are past through the forbearance
of God, for the declaration of his righteousness* at

very time a new revelation was
made to man.” Those who re-
ceived this new revelation re-
garded their sins as past in refer-
ence to it; and so the Apostle
himself regards them. According
to this view, the sense of the
passage could be brought out

more clearly if the clause dia rjy

Tapecw TaY TpoyeyovdTwy apap-
rnparwy were translated “for
the remission of their past sins,”
the article referring back to the
23rd and 24th verses. The word
mapeoic is rendered dgeorc by He-
sychius, and occurs in the Epis-
tles of Phalaris in the sense of
remission of a debt.

Once more, to resume the other
side of the argument, it may be
truly urged that the words éy rij
avox7 Tov Oeov, v. 26., agree better
with the thought that God had
passed over the former sins of
the world “in his long-suffer-
ing,” than to his having forgiven
them. Long-suffering is not the
word to apply to the forgive-
ness of sins, but rather to the
period before they were forgiven,
or to the delay in taking ven-
geance for them. And on the
whole it seems better to sup-
pose that St. Paul refers, though
obscurely, to that “mystery
which was kept secret since the
world began,” Rom. xvi. 26., of
which he elsewhere speaks, than
that he uses words without point
or in doubtful significations.

26. év rH avoxn Tov Seov, by
the long suffering of God.| These
words are closely connected with
what precedes; “the overlooking

of sin” was an act of mercy.
Comp. ix. 22., where the delay
of appointed vengeance is also
spoken of as mercy :—“ But if
God, willing to manifest forth
his wrath, and to make his
power known, endured with
much long suffering the vessels
of wrath appointed unto destruc-
tion.”

TpOc THY Evoekty Tie CiKatoovYYC
avrov, for declaration of His
righteousness.| Not, as in the
English Version, a mere resump-
tion of the previous ¢ic Evdeécr,
“for the manifestation, I say, of
his righteousness at this time.”
The words zpodc rijv Evoekw ric
dukatoovrne are in juxtaposition
with év ri avoyq Tov Seov, and
closely connected with dia rv
TapEeciv, AS Ev TH VUY KaLp® COr-
responds to zpoyeyovdrwy dpap-
Tnuarwyv. It was partly owing
to the long suffering of God, that
he “winked at” past sins; but
there was likewise a further ob-
ject, that he should set forth
His righteousness at the time
appointed. He hid himself that
He might be revealed. The ma-
nifestation of His righteousness
was the counterpart of His
neglect and long suffering.
When the évderécc was first men-
tioned this point of view was
not touched upon ; it is now in-
dicated by the article. Comp.
for a similar mode of connecting
the two halves of the dispensa-
tion, ver. 20.: “The law came
in that sin might abound, but
where sin abounded, grace did
much more abound.”

K 4

136 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. II.

9 Q > ae , Q A Ny 3 , E
€LS TO ELWOAL AVTOV OLKQLOV KOU OLUKGLOUYTAa TOV EK TTLOTEWS

’Inoov.
A Ss / /
IIod ovv H kadbynou ; eEexdeicOn. Sua oiov vopov ;
la) y t | / > \ \ , rd /
TOV epywv; ovyi, G\Aa Sia vopov Tiatews. oyilopefa
an ‘ 4 SK
yap Sixaodoba ticte avOpwirov' xwpis Epywv vomov. 7
> , 4 iu! , > \2 4M > A ‘\ s 20) A
Iovdaiwv 6 Peds pdvov, ovyt” Kai eOvav; vat Kat evar,
el mep® els 6 Beds bs SiKaudoe TepiTounY eK TidTEWS Kat

1 doyifducda obv, moter Sixaodc0c &vOpwrop.

cic TO elvae abrov dixator. |
That he may vindicate his
ways, and be the justifier of him
that believes,—an epexegesis of
mpoc Thy évoekeyv, “ that his own
righteousness may be clear, and,
as a further step, that he may
clear the believer in Christ.”

27. Ilov ody } Kavynowc, where
then is boasting?| Comp. 1 Cor.
i. 31.:——“ He that glorieth, let
him glory in the Lord.” The
boasting of the Jew has no room
left for it; it has been excluded
by faith.

éLexeioOn, it has been excluded. |
Such is the result of the argu-
ment which preceded. ‘‘ Upon
what principle?” the Apostle
further asks, applying the word
vopoc in & new sense to ioric as
well as ipya. The ‘law of
faith” is another name for the
Gospel, as the “Jew inwardly ”
for the believer, and the “ Israel
of God” for the church. For the
paronomasia compare vii. 21., —
evpioxw dpa Tov vopov T@® Iédovre
Epot woutvy TO Kadov, Ore émol TO
Kakov wapdakera: ii. 14., — dray
22+ yap Evy Ta TOU vOpoU TOLw-
Ov, OVTOL vOmoy pu) ExoVTEC Eau-
Toc cioiy vouoc: and viii. 2., — 6
yap vomoc TouTvevparoe Tig Cwijc.

28. Aoy.GopeOa ody, we consider
then.| Let us hear once more
the conclusion of the whole

2 Add 6¢. 3 éreimep,
matter: —‘“ We consider that
man is justified by faith, with-
out the deeds of the law.”

When the expression “without
the deeds of the law” is used,
does this mean without the deeds
of the ceremonial or the moral
law, or without the fruits of faith,

27
28
29

30

or without love, or without holi- —

ness ? or, when the Apostle says
“justified,” does he mean thereby
to distinguish “justified” from
“ sanctified,” or a first from a se=
cond justification, or to identify
justification with baptism or with
conversion? On such questions,
in past times, have hung the fates
of nations and of Churches. May
we venture to supply the Apo-
stle’s answer to them? He might
have replied, that he meant
only that men were justified from

within, not from without ; from —

above, not from below; by the
grace of God, and not of them-
selves; by Christ, not by the
law ; not by the burden of ordi-
nances; but by the power of an
endless life. Comp. “Essay on
Righteousness by Faith.”

29. ij lovcaiwy 6 Sede povov; —

Is he the God of the Jews only ?|
As in chap. iv., where the fact of
Abraham’s being justified by faith
is immediately coupled with the
other fact, that he was justified
in uncircumcision, that he might

ECO

27
28

29

30

Ver. 27—30. ] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

137
this time: that he might be just, and the justifier of him
which believeth in Jesus. .

Where is boasting then? It has* been excluded.
By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of
faith. For! we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law. Is he the God of the Jews
only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the
Gentiles also: seeing it is one God, which shall justify
the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through

1 Therefore.

be the father of all them that have
faith; as in Gal. iii. 25—28.;
when faith comes, all mankind
are one in Christ Jesus; as in
the discourse on Mars’ hill, Acts,
Xvii. 26., the unity of God in-
sensibly leads on the Apostle to
speak of the unity from man; so
in the present passage, the other
aspect of the great theme flashes
suddenly upon the Apostle’s
mind. He had already said, that
the righteousness of God was
revealed unto all them that be-
lieve. Now, he expressly in-
cludes the Gentile in the circle
of the faithful.

80. ei wep cic 6 Sedc.] For
God, as the law said, is one
God (Deut. vi. 4.); one in another
sense too, knowing no distinction

of circumcision or uncircumci-

sion, barbarian, Scythian, bond
or free.

d¢ duawoe, who will justify. |
The future is used with reference
to the day of judgment; or better,
more generally with a view to
the completion of a work, which
in this world was but beginning,
whether in each individual or in
mankind generally.

ék Tiorewe and dua rife TiOTEWC. |
What distinction can be made

between the uses 6f these two
prepositions? We can hardly
believe that the Apostle uses them
ironically, as some have sup-
posed; as though he said, the
difference between the gift of

salvation to Jew and Gentile is

about as great as the difference
between the prepositions é« and
dud. It may be suggested, that
éx miotewc be taken with the
substantive, and dia rice riorewe
with the verb, ‘“‘ There is one God
who will justify the circumcision
that is of faith (2. e. not that cir-
cumcision which is outward in
the flesh), and the uncircumcision
through faith;” or, in other
words, “ Who will justify faithful
Israel and the Gentiles equally
through faith.” The expression,
TEptTONY ék TioTewc, is thus made
a sort of paronomasia, like vépoc
miorewc. Comp. Col. ii. 11.:—
TeptTopy TOV xptorov. Conjectures
may also be hazarded that the
Apostle has employed é« riorewe
to denote the natural inward
connexion of faith and circum-
cision, which did not equally
exist in the case of uncircumci-
sion ; or as a better antithesis to
é& eoywv, which (and not ov gpywr)
would have expressed the tenet

[Cu. I.

138 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

3 ‘4 \ ae vd 4 > “A \
akpoBvatiav Sia THS TicTEws. Vowov ovV KaTapyoUpeV Sia 31

“A "d \ , > \ 4 e 4
TNS TIOTEWS ; [YN yEevolTO, AAA VOLOY LaTaVOLeED.

against which he is contending
(cf. iv. 2.), and which he may be
supposed to have in his mind.

It is perhaps safer to discard
such refinements and say only
that we have a similar awkward-
ness of expression to that which
occurs in chap. v. ver. 7., where,
as here, different words appear
to be used where we should ex-
pect the same (t7ép duxaiov, tep
Tov ayafov). Compare, as in
some degree parallel, Gal. ii. 16.:
elddreg Ore ov OuKaodtra dvOpw-
moc && pywv vopov, édy pH dia
atorewc “Inoov xpiorov.

31. Dowe then make void the
law through faith? That be far
from us. Nay: we establish the
law. But how so? We might
reply, in the same sense that our
Saviour said, “I do not come to
destroy the law, but to fulfil; ”
to establish the law by requiring
obedience to a higher law, and
making obedience to the law in
any degree possible. The con-
text, however, requires us to
narrow our interpretation: either
(1.) with reference to vopoc rijc
méorewc in ver. 27., we establish
the law, in that we have a new

' 3i

Ver. 31.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

139

faith. Do we then make void the law through faith ?
God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

law instead of an old one, a law
of faith instead of a law of
works; or, as it is further de-
veloped hereafter, “ Christ, the
end of the law to every one that
believes.” Or, (2.) with reference
to what follows: —“ We establish
the law, in that the law says,
that Abraham our father was

justified by faith and not by |

works.” Neither of these para-
phrases suits the connexion. The
first lays too much stress on the
words vépoc rij¢ miorewc, which
are but a passing expression, too
far off to explain the allusion in

vopov toravopev. ‘The second is
inconsistent with the adversative
ri ovv, of the next Chapter. Most
probably, the Apostle is either
referring to the commencement
of the chapter, in which he had
proved all men to be under sin
from the law, or following a
similar train of thought. In
this sense we establish the law,
because we appeal to it to con-
vict men of sin; and this con-
viction of sin is an integral part
of the dispensation of mercy,
both in the individual and in the
world. Comp. ver. 21.

140 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

els 6 Seds 8s Sixardoet, — iii, 30.

Let us turn aside for a moment to consider how great this thought
was in that age and country; a thought which the wisest of men had
never before uttered, which at the present hour we imperfectly
realise, which is still leavening the world, and shall do so until the
whole is leavened, and the differences of races, of nations, of castes, of
religions, of languages, are finally done away. Nothing could seem aless
natural or obvious lesson in the then state of the world, nothing could
be more at variance with experience, or more difficult to carry out
into practice. Even to us it is hard to imagine that the islander of
the South Seas, the pariah of India, the African in his worst estate,
is equally with ourselves God’s creature. But in the age of St. Paul
how great must have been the difficulty of conceiving barbarian
and Scythian, bond and free, all colours, forms, races, and languages
alike and equal in the presence of God who made them! The origin
of the human race was veiled in a deeper mystery to the ancient
world, and the lines which separated mankind were harder and
stronger; yet the “love of Christ constraining” bound together in
its cords, those most separated by time or distance, those who were
the types of the most extreme differences of which the‘human form
is capable.

The idea of this brotherhood of all mankind, the great family on
earth, implies that all men have certain ties with us, and certain
rights at our hands. The truest way in which we can regard them
is as they appear in the sight of God, from Whom they can never
suffer wrong ; nor from us, while we think of them as His creatures

equally with ourselves. There is yet a closer bond with them as our

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 141

brethren in the Gospel. No one can interpose impediments of rank
or fortune, or colour or religious opinion, between those who are one
in Christ. Beyond and above such transitory differences is the work
of Christ, “making all things kin.” Moreover, the remembrance of
this brotherhood is a rest to us when our “light is low,” and the
world and its distinctions are passing from our sight, and our thoughts
are of the dark valley and the solitary way. For it leads us to trust:
in God, not as selecting us, because He had a favour unto us, but as
infinitely just to all mankind. It links our fortunes with those of
men in general, and gives us the same support in reference to our
eternal destiny, that we receive from each other in a narrow sphere
in the concerns of daily life. To think of ourselves, or our church,
or our country, or our age, as the particular exceptions which a
Divine mercy makes, whether in this life or another, is not a thought
of comfort, but of perplexity. Lastly : —It relieves us from anxiety
about the condition of other men, of friends departed, of those
ignorant of the Gospel, of those of a different form of faith from
our own; knowing that God who has thus far lifted up the veil,
“ will justify the circumcision through faith, and the uncircumcision
by faith ;” the Jew who fulfils the law, and the Gentile who does by
nature the things contained in the law.

142 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP, TV.

AGAtn the Apostle appears as at the commencement of the third
chapter, either in the person of an objector, or as ready to answer the
objections of others, and puts a question which has, however, no
direct answer. He had asked above, “ What advantage, then, had the
Jew, if Jew and Gentile are alike concluded under sin?” This ques-
tion in the previous chapter was shortly disposed of, as the Apostle
was hurrying on to enforce his main thesis, “that all mankind were
under sin.” Now it returns upon us again in an altered form, no
longer asked in reference to the Jew whose prerogative is admitted
to have passed away, but to Abraham the father of the Jewish race.
It might be that the Jew had no advantage, but that Abraham had—
what shall we say then?

At the end of the second chapter the Apostle had almost declared
that Jew and Gentile were both alike; of this he stopt short and
spoke in a figure of the spiritual Israelite. In the same way in the
fourth chapter, he answers the question which he himself raises, by
putting the spiritual in the place of the fleshly Abraham. ‘“ What
shall we say that Abraham found, our progenitor according to the
flesh? or what shall we say, that Abraham our progenitor found
according to the flesh?” The intended answer according to either
way of reading the question is “nothing ;” for what he found was not
an advantage of that kind for which the Israelite hoped ; it was an
advantage not according to the flesh, but according to the spirit.
But St. Paul avoids the harshness of this inference by a digression
in which he points out that the blessedness of Abraham was not of
works, but of faith. In this digression he takes up a thread of the

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 143

argument at the conclusion of the last chapter in which glorying is
excluded. “If Abraham were justified by works, he would have
whereof to glory :” this, however, is impossible, and expressly con-
tradicted by the words of Scripture, which says, “ Abraham believed
God, and it was counted to him for righteousness.” This is the in-
direct answer to the question, “ What shall we say that Abraham
found, our progenitor according to the flesh ?”

Subordinate to this assertion of the general principle in the person
of Abraham, is the minor question respecting the time of which the
words were spoken “ not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision,” in
which little fact the Apostle read their universal import. Circum-
cision came afterwards ; it had nothing to do with the faith or with
the promise that had preceded ; it only conveyed through Abraham
the privileges of which it was the seal to the faithful everywhere.
(Compare Gal. iii. 17.) The sign of circumcision was but the
accident of that higher relation in which the Patriarch stood already
to God and man. As in the last chapter the words, “a man is jus-
tified by faith without the deeds of the law ” (ver. 28.), were quickly
followed by the declaration (ver. 29.), that ‘God was the God of the
Gentiles also ;” so here the statement that Abraham “believed God,
and it was counted to him for righteousness,” leads the Apostle in-
stantly to think of him as the “ heir of the world,” a title with which
- the pride of the Israelite delighted to invest him. Is he the father
of the Jews only, is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes; both aspects
of the Gospel are seen in him. And the narrative of the birth of
Isaac — the calling of the living out of the dead — is repeated by
the Apostle with a kind of triumph as a lesson of new and universal
interest.

144

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. IV.

, > 3 A e a 3 ‘\ ‘ "8 e lal
Ti ovv Epodpev evpynKkéevat ABpaay Tov TpoTaTopa Auav
‘\ vA 1 > \ 3 \ ) y > , 4
Kata cdpKa’; eb yap ABpadp &€ epywv edicadOy, exer 2
ae 4 b) > > \ RS) , \ e \ ,
Kavxnpa, aX’ ov mpos Oedv.? ti yap 4 ypady éye ;
‘Eriotevoey 5€ “ABpadm TO Oem, Kai eoyicOy aite@ eis
Sixaoovynv. TO S€ Epyalouevm 6 picbds ov oyilerar

1 gpodmev "ABpadu Toy waTépa Huey edpykéva KaTda odpKa.

IV. How then do we meet the
ease of Abraham? The Apo-
stle replies by giving a spiritual
meaning to the narrative in Ge-
nesis and to other passages of the
Old Testament.

ri ovv is adversative, not “ what
then if the case be so with the
law, shall we say that Abraham
hath found,” but a resumption of
the train of thought with which
the third chapter commenced, ri
oby 70 wéptacov Tov lovdaiov, which
was suppressed in what followed,
and again resumed at v. 9. and
suppressed. The Apostle once
more takes up the same point, but
in a softened tone, and is about
to show that Abraham the father
of the faithful is a middle term
between the old and new, as “ the
Israelite indeed ” was at the end
of chap. ii.

kara oapxa, | by some opposed
to kara Tvevpa, comp. i. 3.4.; what
then shall we say that Abraham
found, not according to the spirit
but according to the flesh ? comp.
Gal. iv. 29. Without introduc-
ing the idea of this opposition,
the meaning will be nearly the
same, “ What then shall we say
that Abraham found, as the por-
tion of his fleshly inheritance,”
or “as receiving the sign out-
ward, in the flesh,” comp. Eph.
ii. 11. xara odpxa may be also
taken with rov zpordropa jjpwr,
comp. 2 Cor. v. 16., ypiard¢ kara
cdpxa: which of the two con-

2 rov Sedv,

structions we adopt depends
partly upon the order of words
in the manuscripts, which is it-
self doubtful.

2. ei yap ’Abpacdp 2 Epywy eoe-
kawOn, exec kavynpua, for if Abra-
ham were justified by works, he
hath whereof to glory.| These
words refer to the 27th verse of
the previous chapter, in which
glorying is excluded, not by the
law of works, but of faith: as if
the Apostle had said — “ What
shall we say that Abraham found,
our progenitor according to the
flesh? For we are in danger of
contradicting ourselves if we
maintain that Abraham was
justified by works; he would then
have whereof to glory. But in his
relation to God this is impossible,
for the Scripture expressly says,
‘he was justified by faith.’” Here
are two arguments to show that
Abraham was not justified by
works: —(1.) from what pre-
cedes, because he would have had
whereof to glory ; which is con-
firmed (2.) by the statement of
Genesis which is to follow.

GN’ ob mpoc SJeov, but not
before God.| This clause may
be taken in three ways : — (1.)
We may place a stop after cav-

xnpa, and suppose what followsto

be an ejaculation, the very
abruptness of which gives em-
phasis to the denial of the Apo-
stle. ‘ For if Abraham was jus-
tified by works, he hath some-

a
as) hal ted Tl ata i bk, ae in bles ae

bo

oo

Ver. 1—4.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

145

What shall we then say that Abraham hath found,
our progenitor according to the flesh ?' For if Abraham
were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but

not before God. For what saith the scripture ?

But *

Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him

for righteousness.

Now to him that worketh is the

1 Our father as pertaining to the flesh hath found.

thing according to the flesh, he
hath whereof to glory.” Nay,
says the Apostle, half forgetful
that the impossibility is already
implied; before God this is im-
possible. Comp. éxw xavynowv
év xptor@ “Inood ra mpoc roy Yedr,

Rom. xv. 17. Or (2.) The words ©

ov mpdc Sedv may be taken with
éduxaww0n. But no, it was only
an external justification that
Abraham or any man could have;
not a justification mpoc Yedy if it
was by works. Compare the
opposition of idia ducacoovyn and
tov Oeov ducawovvn, in x. 3. Or,

(3.) the last two clauses of ver. 2. -

may be taken as one, and the ad-
versative a\Ad regarded as an
abrupt and imperfect expression
for “although.” The Apostle
would say :—“For if Abraham
was justified by works he had
whereof to glory in himself, al-
though it is admitted not before
God.” The latter words thus
become a qualification of the ob-
jection rather than an answer to
it. For a similar wavering be-
tween two opposite statements,
comp. chap. ili. 3. 5., v. 13. (which
also contains an attempt to meet
an objection arising out of a pre-
vious train of thought), vii. 25.
The chief difficulty according to
this mode of taking the passage
is the failure of connexion with the
words that follow, which must
then be referred back to ver. 1.

VOL. II.

L

ri yap h ypagy A€yer; for what
saith the scripture?| Gen. xv.
6. from the LXX. oé€ a part of
the quotation, but also adversa-
tive, as in Rom. i. 17.

The faith of Abraham was not
first adduced by St. Paul. It is
enlarged upon by Philo, and was
familiar to the Jews. Though
not the same with a faith in
Christ, it was analogous to it : —
(1.) as it was a faith in unseen
things, Heb. xi. 17—19.; (2.) as
it was prior to and independent
of the law, Gal. iii. 17—19.;
and, (3.) as it related to the pro-
mised seed in whom Christ was
dimly seen, Gal. iii. 8.

4, 7@ de epyalopévo, now to him
that worketh.| A play upon the
word épywy in ver. 2.; “ but it is
otherwise with him that works,”
&c. dé is adversative to the pre-
vious verse. The Apostle is pre-
paring to show -that Abraham
did not “work.” He lays down
an axiom drawn from common
life: — “The worker has his
hire, of debt not of favour.”
But this was not the case with
Abraham; he belonged to the
other class, of those who have
faith without works.

That the stress of the Apostle’s
argument falls partly upon doyi-
Zerac seems to follow from the
threefold recurrence of the word,
as also from its signification of
“counted,” “reckoned.” Faith

146 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. IV:

‘ wn
KaTa yap, dd\dA\a Kata ddethynpal te dé py Epyalouevo,
, \ s- S \ la \ > lan rd e
TisTevovTe O€ emt TOV SiKaLovvTa TOV aoeBy, hoyileTar 7

TLOTLS AVTOV Els OuKaloc vy. Kabarep Kat Aavetd héeyet

X X “ 5 4 ae, \ ,
TOV pakapiapov TOD avOpamov @ 6 Heds oyieras SuKato-

, \ yy 4 & > 4 © 22 , \
ovrnv xwpis epywv, Makdpior av adpeOnoay at avopiat Kat
av érexaidOnoay at dpaptiar’ yakdpios avnp @ ov pA
hoyionrat KUpLos apapTiav.

‘ v4 x g We baa BS 3 , , \
THY TEPLTOUHY, 7) Kal Ext THY aKpoBvoTiav; héyomev yap

4 ) , a , e , > ,
[ore] edoyicOn TO *ABpadp H Tiotis eis SiKatocvvyy.
Tas ovv éhoyiaOn ; ev TEepiToMy ovTL, Y ev aKxpoBvoTig ;

] 3 “~ 3 3 > b] , X\ wn
ovK év mepitouy, GN’ &v axpoBvotia, Kat onpetov €da-
Bev wepitonns, odpayioa THs Suxavocvvyns THs TicTEws
THs & TH akpoBvoTia, eis TO eivay avTOv TaTépa Tap-

1 7d Og,

was counted, reckoned, to Abra-
ham for righteousness. But it
cannot be said that reward is
“counted” of grace to him that
doeth works; it is his due. A
slight obscurity arises from the
inaccurate use of the same word
in both cases, the real meaning
being, cik édoyicbn Kara ydpuy,
adAa gore Kar’ dpeiAnua. The ex-
pression is a Hebraism ; it occurs
also in Ps. evi. 31 (said of Phine-
has, éLoyioOn abr@ cic diKacoovrny),
and elsewhere. |

5. The case of Abraham is lost
sight of in the case of mankind
generally. As elsewhere, faith
and works are diametrically op-
posed to each other. The Apo-
stle does not mean to say that it
is to him who partly or imper-
fectly works that faith is imputed.
But he conceives the state of
faith and of works as antithetical
‘and mutually exclusive of each
other. Comp. xi. 6.:—ei oé
xXapirt, odKére EF Epywr, éwel yapte
ovKeTe yiverae Xaple.

6—8. Similar to this is the
language which David uses of

the blessedness of him to whom

God imputes righteousness with-
out works, of the forgiveness of
sins, the covering of sins, the
non-imputation of sins, Psalm
xxxii. 1, 2. The similarity is
not in the words, but in the
thought; justification and for-
giveness of sins being two dif-
ferent aspects of the same idea.
This is the true harmony of the
Old Testament and the New,
consisting not in minute coinci-
dences of words or events, but in
communion of spirit; David and
Isaiah saying at one time:—

> oe te
O MAKAPLO[LOS OU OUTOS ETL g

“Blessed is the man to whom }
the Lord will not impute sin;” —

and, “Though your sins were as
scarlet, they shall be white as
snow.” And our Saviour and

St. Paul at another time :—

“ Believe, and thy sins shall be
forgiven thee ;” and, “ Being jus-

tified freely by his grace, through _
the redemption of Jesus Christ.”

9. 0

prakapiopoc, | not this

blessedness, but this declaration of

blessedné$s ; this word blessed, is
it applied to the circumcised only
- :

il

Ver. 5—11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 147

reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt. But to
him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justi-
fieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the
man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without
works, saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are
forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the
man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. This de-
claration® of blessing is it to the circumcision only that
it is spoken, or to the uncircumcision also? for we say
that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
How was it then reckoned? when he was in circumcision,
or in uncircumcision ? Not in circumcision, but in un-
circumcision. And he received the* mark of circumci-
sion, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he
had in his * uncircumcision : that he might be the father

or to the uncircumcised also?
ef. Gal. iv. 15. The Apostle
“goes off upon a word,” which
he makes a stepping-stone to his
former subject. He might have
said, “All this applies to all
mankind, Jew as well as Gen-
tile.” But he prefers to reason
out his argument from the case
of Abraham in the Old Testa-
ment. What more shall we say
of this blessedness? does it be-
long to the uncircumcision or to
the circumcision only? For, not
to lose sight of our former in-
stance, we assert that faith was
reckoned to Abraham for righ-
teousness. Let us ask the fur-
ther question: —“ How was it
reckoned to him?” The answer
is, not in circumcision, but uncir-
cumcision.

The argument may seem slight
to us ; it was forcible to the Jew.
The state which was odious and
almost loathsome to him, was the

state in which the father of the
faithful found favour of God.
Abraham too was once uncir-
cumcised.

11,12. And circumcision came
afterwards, as the effect not the
cause, the seal not the instru-
ment, of the faith which Abra-
ham had had in a previous state.
The object of this was that he
might be the spiritual parent of
all those who like him have faith,
yet being uncircumcised, that the
righteousness that was sealed in
him might be counted to them.
There was a further object, that
he might link together in one
circumcision and uncircumcision,
and be a father of circumcision
to those who walk in the foot-
steps of the faith, which he had
in his prior state. oneioy, like
oppayic, refers to the outward
mark of circumcision, which is
also a sign of the promise. ic
TO elvat...e€ic¢ TO ANoyes., Not in the

L 2

148 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. IV.

~ , \ b] , b \
Twv Tov TioTevdvTwy dia aKpoBvoTias, Els TO oye
Lan) “ A ~ A
oOjvat avtots' TH SuKatocvyny, kat TatTépa TEpLTOUNS, TOUS
nN A an
OvK €K TEpLTOUNS MOVOV, GAAA Kal TOLS TTOLYOVTW ToS
¥ A > 5 Fee
iyveow THS EV aKpoBvoTia

"ABpadp.
, 3 A \ nN / 38, > 4 3 IANC
OTEPLATL AVTOV, TO KAnpovopov avTov Eivar KOTpOV”, ahha

ov yap dua vopou H éerayychia TO ABpadpy TO

1 nal adrots.

thoughts of Abraham, but in the
purpose of God.

THY OtKatoourvny is a resumption
of oppayida rijc dixavoovyne at the
commencement of the verse, as
THY TioTevovTwY dia axpoEvoriac,
and rije év axpobvoria wiorewe in
ver. 12. of the words rife wicrewe
Tic év Th axpobvorig, which pre-
cede, Ou’ adxpobvoriac is not mate-
rially different from év dxpobvoria.
The notion of the mean or in-
strument passes into that of the
state or circumstance.

marépa Teptropnijc, | t. e. a father
conveying the benefits of circum-
cision. Comp. the nearly pa-
rallel expressions, Eph. i. 17.: 6
marnp tie Odénce, 2 Cor. i. 8.: 6
Tarip T&Y oikrippe@y, and the pa-
rallel thought in Rom. xv. 8, 9.:
“Now I say that Jesus Christ
was a minister of the circumci-
sion for the truth of God, to con-
firm the promises made to the
fathers; and that the Gentiles
might glorify God for his mercy.”

It is not quite clear whether
the words a\Aa Kal rote arotyod-
ow refer to believing Jews, or to
believers in general, whether
Jew or Gentile. If the first,
they are a limitation on the pre-
ceding clause: — “A father of
circumcision to those who are
not only circumcised but be-
lieving, who, like Abraham, have
the sign in the flesh, and also
walk in the footsteps of the faith
which he had when uncircum-

2 éy th dnpoBvoria.

8 Tov KooMov.

cised.” This mode of taking
the passage has the advantage of
retaining the words roic ov« in
their natural order.
point, however, is felt in the
clause “which he had when uncir-
cumcised.” Foralthough the faith

TiTTEWS TOU TATPOS MOV

13

A want of

of Abraham might be generally _

regarded as a source of blessing
equally to Jew or Gentile, “the
faith which he had when uncir-

cumcised ” had no peculiar signi-

ficance for the Jew. The roic be-

fore crovxovory is also against this

way of explaining the clause.

And, notwithstanding the inac-

curacy of expression, the form of

the first clause, roi¢g ovK €x wEpiTo=

pijc povor, is so similar as to lead to ©
the inference that it must have —
the same meaning with ov ro ék ©

~ / , °
Tov vojov povoy, in ver. 16.

It is simpler and better to re-

fer &dAa Kai Toic orotxovary to the
Gentiles.

The meaning of the ©

latter part of ver. 11, 12. will ©
then be as follows: — That he ~

might as he had faith himself 4

be the father of those who had
faith ; and as he was circumcised —
himself, be a father conveying ©
the benefits of circumcision to —
those who walk in the footsteps —
of the faith which he had when ~

Or,

uncircumcised.

in other ©
‘words, that he might be the father —

of the faithful, whether Jew or
Gentile, and convey to them the

privileges of Jews.
It does not follow that the

12

Ver. 12, 13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 149

of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised,
that the* righteousness might be imputed unto them’,
and the father of circumcision* not to them who are of

_the circumcision only, but to them also who walk in the

13

steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he
had being yet uncircumcised. Tor the promise,
that he should be the heir of the world, was not
to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but

1 Add also.

class represented in the first
member of the division (rote ov«
&k TEpiTopije povoy) are excluded
from the second; any more than
in Gal. vi. 16., “As many as
shall walk according to this rule,
peace be on them, and mercy,
and upon the Israel of God,” it
follows that the Israel of God
can be distinguished from those

mentioned in the first part of the

sentence. The division of the
Apostle is not logical, but spiri-
tual ; that is, it is a division, not
of persons, but of the aspects
under which they may be re-
garded. In the present passage
the importance of the second
clause has obscured the first.
Comp. for a similar imperfect
division the passage quoted above,
Rom. xv. 8, 9., and below, ver. 16.

13. The Apostle had been ar-
guing that Abraham received
the gift of righteousness, not in
circumcision, but in uncircumci-
sion. He proceeds to gene-
ralise his previous statement.
The words that follow, that it
‘was not “through the law, that
the promise was made to Abra-
ham that he should be the heir
of the world,” we may regard
either as the ground of what has
preceded, or a deduction from it.
That would be inconsistent with

the universality of the promise,
and with the express words of
Scripture, that “ Abraham was
justified by faith.” The reason
is partly gathered from what
precedes, partly repeated in what
follows; the purport of which is
to show the diametrical opposi-
tion of faith and the law, in their
nature and in their effects.

matépa totic muorevove.. | As in
Apocal. xxi. 7.: écopat air@ Oedc.
Toic txveowy, dat. of place.

TO KAnpovépov abrov eivae Tov
kdopov.| The Apostle is alluding
to Gen. xv. 7.: éyw 6 Sede 6 éfa-
yaywv os &k xwpac XadCaliwy wore
Covvai cot Thy viv TavTnY KAnpovo-~
pijoat. Compare also Gen. xvii.
5.: marépa tod\dAGv eOvav réDeka
oe; and xili. 15.: 6re waoay ry
yiv iv ov opae cot dwow abriy
kal to oréppari ov Ewe aidvoc,
The Rabbis extended this pro-
mise to the whole earth. So
Mechilta, upon Exodus, xiv. 31.,
quoted by Tholuck, “ Our father
Abraham possesses the world
that now is, and that which is to
come, not by inheritance, but by
faith.”—In this passage the
Apostle has similarly enlarged
it. The expression may be re-
garded either: (1.) as a hyper-
bole, as Jerusalem is said in the

Psalms to be “the joy of the
L3

150 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. IV?

‘ ¢ id > ‘ we ,
dua SuKaocvvyns TicTEws. Ei yap OL Ex VOLoU KAnpoVOpoL,
KEKVOTAL Y TloTIs Kal KaTHpynTal n emayyeias 6 yap
vomos opynv Katepyalerau. ;

‘ if \ la ) 4 a \ 4, > %
TmapdaBaci. dia TOUTO ek TlaTEWS, Wa KaTa yapw, Eis TO
elvar BeBaiav thy emayyediay TavTL TO OTEpaTl, OV TO EK

a) , / > \ \ a > '¢ > 4 4 >
TOU Vopov pOvor, G\Na Kal TO Ex TiaTEws ABpadp, Os éoTW

2 \ > 2 \ , 2QN
ob d€ ox) EaTW vopmos, Ode

1 06 yap ovK.

whole earth,” or as darkness is
said to have “come over the
whole earth” at the Crucifixion ;
or (2.) the promised land may be
taken as the type of the world.
On the one hand, it must not be
forgotten, in the explanation of
this and similar expressions, that
the world: did not present to the
ancients the same distinct idea
and conception as to ourselves;
nor, on the other hand, that the
thought of the promised land
was inseparable to the true Is-
raelite from the thought of a
world to come. The words of
the book of Genesis themselves
might seem to the Apostle to
promise more than had been or
could be fulfilled in this world.
He was fixing his mind on some-
thing higher than the occupation
of the promised land by the Is-
raelites. It was this which gave
the promise to Abraham a new
meaning.

14. ei ydp oi éx vopov KAnpovo=
po, for if they of the law be
heirs.| When it is said that
Abraham is the heir of the
world, is it his descendants under
the law, who are to be regarded
as heirs with him? That cannot
be, as faith would then be no
longer faith, and the promise no
longer a promise. What may be
termed the substratum of the
Apostle’s argument, is the mutu-
ally exclusive character of faith

and the law, separated as they
were by time, belonging to two
orders of ideas and opposed in
their effects on the heart of man?
In the third chapter of the
Epistle to the Galatians, a simi-
lar opposition is drawn out be-
tween the promise, as a blessing,
and the law, as a curse; and the
promise is, in like manner, iden-
tified with the Gospel. The ar-
gument from time is again used,
as showing the priority of faith.

15. For the law is the very
opposite of grace and faith and
the promise ; it works wrath not
mercy; it takes men away from
God instead of drawing them
to him; it makes transgressions
where they were not before.

ov 0€ ovK Early vouoc, and where
there is no law.| Comp. ver. 20.

of the preceding chapter: “There- _

fore, by the deeds of the law shall
no flesh be justified in his sight,
for by the law is the knowledge
of sin.” So here: —“ The law

worketh wrath, and where there —
is no law there is no transgres- —

sion.”
ov d& ov« éorwy, | seems like agloss
at first sight. It is not really so,

however, its apparent want of

point only arising from the form
of the sentence, which is more
adversative than its meaning.
Comp. Rom. xiii. 1.
paraphrased, “and makes trans-
gressions.”

ae

It may be q

1

~

~ 15

16

Ver. 14—16.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

151

through the’righteousness of faith. For if they which
are of the law be heirs, faith is made void, and the
promise made of none effect: for* the law worketh
wrath: and‘! where no law is, there is no transgression.
Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to
the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not
to that only which is of the law, but to that also which
is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all,

1 For.

For a fuller explanation of
these passages, the reader is re-
ferred to the Essay on the

Strength of Sin is the Law.

The real difficulty respecting
them arises from the state with-
out law being an imaginary one.
We readily admit that, if any-
where there is no knowledge and
no conscience, as in the case of
a child, a savage, or a madman,
there it is impossible there can
be transgression. Of such we
should say that they were not to
be judged by our standard ; that
what to our moral notions was
an offence was no offence to
them; that in their case the
laws of civilised countries did
not apply. Our difficulty is to
conceive the same absence of re-
sponsibility in rational beings.
The truth is, that there is no
absence of responsibility, except
in that imaginary state of which
the Apostle is speaking; a state
without knowledge and without
law, and, therefore, conceived of,
as without evil and without
crime. This the Apostle de-
scribes in the words — “ Where
there is no law there is no trans-
gression ;” or, “sin is not im-
puted where there is no law.”
Only the law of which he is

speaking is not a mere external
rule, but within and without at
once, piercing “even to the di-
viding asunder of the soul and
spirit.” Hence it works wrath,
not merely in inflicting penalties
for sin, but as itself the punish-
ment of the poor human creature
who falls under its influence.

16. Again the Apostle gathers
up in a conclusion the links of
his argument, not without allu-
sion to his former statements
in ver. 4. 11. 12. :— therefore,
that is, because it was not and
could not be of the law, the
promise was of faith, that it
might be according to grace, and
stand firm to all his spiritual
children, circumcised as well as
uncircumcised; to all, that is,
who have the faith of Abraham,
who is the father, not of the Jew
only, but of us all.

éx miorewc.| Either 4 «Xnpo-
vopia may be supplied from what
precedes, or 4 éxayyedia from
what follows, or, better still, the
ambiguity may remain, as in E.
V. tva and eic ro waver in
meaning between “result” and
“object.” card yap: etn is omit-
tedon account of the following
eivat. TarTi re oréppart, that is, to

the children of the faith of Ai ies

L 4 ‘

152

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. IV.

A 4 e A . yd yy 4 nw
TaTnp TavTav Huav (Kabws yéypamTat OTL TaTEpa TONY 17
eOvav rébeKka oe) KaTévavTt ov érioTevoEY Oeovd, Tov
CwomrovovvTos Tovs veKpovs Kal KaAOVYTOS TA MA OVTA WS
¥ a > 3 , 999-3 4 SF > XQ ,
ovTa. Os Tap é\rloa ed é\rlou eri TEV EY, ELS TO yevér Oat

5 Q\ , ~w be J ~ 2. Q 5 Fs y y
avTov Tatépa Tohhav €Ovav Kata TO eipnuevov OvtTas ExTat

1" , \ \ b] “ , 4
TO OTEppa Gov. Kal py acbernoas TH TidTEL KaTEVONT RN

1

TO éavTod capa [Hon] vevexpwpévov, ExaTovTaéTys Tov
UTAPXoV, Kal THY veKpwoW THS pATpas Dappas, eis de THY
> , ~ A > , FX D , > >. »

erayyehiav Tov Oeov ov SiexpiOy TH amirtia, GAN evedvva-

1 od KaTevonoe.

ham as well as tothe children of
circumcision, the whole seed spo-
ken of in verse twelve (comp. Gal.
ili. 16., where rg oréppart is appli-
ed not to believers, but to Christ).
TO &k wéorewc: either ro oT éppare
Tov APpadpeéx mloTEewc, OF TO oTép-
Hare é« wlorewe Tov 'AGpadp.

17. Even as the Scripture im-
plies that Abraham was not the
father of one nation only, but of
many, Gen. xvii. 5. quoted lite-
rally from the LXX.

Karévayte ov eriorevaey Seo, be-
Sore God whom he believed.| ka-
révayre has been sometimes taken
in the sense of “like” God whom
he believed, as though Abraham
the father of the Jewish race,
were to be regarded as the type
of “the God and Father of us
all.” But such a parallel be-
tween the creature and the Cre-
ator is unlike the language of
Scripture, and the word karé-
vayrt, in six other passages where
it occurs, has always the mean-
ing of “over against,” “opposite
to.” It is the genuine reading
in 2 Cor. ii. 17. (karévarre eov),
where it can only have the sense
of “before,” “in the presence
of,” which must therefore be its
meaning in the present passage.
Hither we may suppose that a
particular reference is intended

to the fact that these nations had
as yet no existence but in the
presence of God, who calleth
“the things that are not as
though they were;” or the ex-
pression may be merely designed
to set forth the solemnity of the
occasion and the reality of the
promise, as the angels of children
are said ever “to behold his
face,” Matt. xviii. 10.; or as in
Eph. i. 4., the Church is said to
be holy and blameless in his pre-
sence. As if to realise it, St.
Paul transfers the scene of the
promise to the presence of God.
_ ov éxiorevoey. | Attraction com-
monly takes place only when the
relative would otherwise be in
the accusative case: here, and in
other comparatively rare in-
stances, for the dative.

rou CwomowvyrToe rove VEKPOUL,
who quickeneth the dead,| con-
tains a threefold allusion, (1.) to
the resurrection of Christ, cf.
ver. 24.; (2.) to the quickening
of Sarah’s womb; (3.) to the
new birth of the Gentiles.

Kadovvroc Ta py OvTA we ovra. |
Not “God calls things that are
not into being;” the expression
is stronger—God calls things
that are not, as though they
were —indifferently things that
are not, and things that are.

18

17

18

19

Ver. 17—20.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 153

(as it is written, I have made thee a father of many
nations,) before him whom he believed, even God,
who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things
which be not as though they were. Who against
hope believed in hope, that he might become the
father of many nations, according to that which was
spoken, So shall thy seed be. And not as one weak in
faith! he considered his own body now dead when he
was about an hundred years old, and the deadness of
Sarah’s womb: he staggered not at the promise of God
through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory

1 And being not weak in faith he considered not,

The words refer primarily to the
creation, which is a figure of the
admission of the Gentiles. The
same God who called the world
out of nothing, made Abraham
the father of a spiritual Israel,
when as yet there was none of
them. Comp. 1 Cor. i. 28.:—
eEedebaro 6 Sede Tu pu) Ovra, iva 7a
dyra Karapyion.

18. 0¢ wap’ éhrida é’ EAridt éxi-
orevoer, who against hope believed
in hope.| Who believed in hope
beyond or against hope, whose
faith supplied hope when there
was no hope. Abraham consi-
dered not the grounds of hope or
of despair, but simply believed.

eic TO yevécOa avrov, that he
might become. | This was, strictly
speaking, the result (“and the
consequence was that he be-
came”), but in the language of
the New Testament it is de-
scribed as the object. Comp. v.16.

ovrwe éora.| Compare Gen.
xv. 4.: “And he brought him
forth abroad and said, Look now
toward heaven and teil the stars
if thou be able to number them.
And he said unto him, So shall
thy seed be.”

19. kat pn aoOer, rh wioret KareEr,

A. B. C.; ob carevdénaer, A, G. f. g.
The first reading has far greater
manuscript authority; it is urged,
however, that it is a correction
taken from Gen. xvii. 7. It
may be replied that the remem-
brance of this passage (‘Afpadu
eivey év TH Ovavoig adrov, \éeywr, Et
TO) EKATOVTUETEL yEVvhaETas IOC;
kat ei ) Lappa évvevfixovra éerdv
réEerac;) is as likely to have been
in the Apostle’s mind as in the
corrector’s. For the general
meaning, compare Heb. xi. 12.:
“Therefore sprang there even
of one, and him as good as dead,
so many as the stars of the sky
in multitude, and as the sand
which is by the sea shore innu-
merable.”— And ver. 19.: “ Ac-
counting that God was able to
raise him up, even from the
dead; from whence also he re-
ceived him in a figure.” The
strangeness of the birth of the
Gentiles is parallel with the im-
probability of the birth of Isaac.

20. cic b&€ rv érayyeNiay rov
Seov, but at the promise of God. |
These words are best taken after
éveduvapnw0n 7H wiore, or rather
after the one idea presented by
the contrast of ob dtexpiOn ry

154

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. IV.

BOOn TH TiaTeL, Sods SdEav TO Oe@ Kai TnpopopyGels ort 6
ermyyedtat Suvatds €oTw Kal Tounoat. 51d [Kat] ehoyicOn
avT@ eis SuKatoovyynv. ovdK eypddn dé Sv’ adrov pdvor, Ort
ehoyiaOn avT@, adda Kat du’ nyas, ots péedrer oyiler Oa,
Tols TioTevovow emt TOV eyelpavTa “Incovy Tov KUpLov
NOV ex vexpav, ds TapeddOyn Sia TA TapaTTdaTa Hav
Kat HyEpOn Sia THY SuKaiwow Hav. —

amvoria, Ad évedvvapwOn TH rlorEL.

dove ddéay ro Yeo, giving glory
to God,| as though the blessing
were already received.

22. Therefore his faith was
counted to him for righteousness.
The stream of the Apostle’s dis-
course ends as it began.

23. And this passage in the
history of Abraham is intended
to be a lesson for us, who, like
him, are justified by faith. For
the meaning compare 2 Peter i.
20.: taoa mpopyreia ypagic idiac
émtdkvaewe ov yiverac: that is, all
Scripture has a universal and
spiritual meaning; and 1 Cor. ix.
9, 10.: “ Doth God take care for
oxen? Or saith he it altogether
for our sakes?” Compare the
Rabbinical Commentary Beres-
chit Rabba, quoted by Tholuck:
— “What is written of Abraham,
is written also of his children; ”
also the expression in Gal. iv.
24., dria éorev addAnNyopovpera.
St. Paul drew no distinction
such as is familiar among our-
selves, between the application
of Scripture and its original
meaning. To him its first and
original meaning was the great
truth of the Gospel.

24. roig mtorevovo.v, in the
English version, “ #f we believe.”
Rather, who do believe, the be-
lievers in God who raised up
Christ from the dead. The pa-
rable of Abraham “receiving
Isaac from the dead in a figure,”
is slightly alluded to.

24. For the use of the word
mapeod0n, compare | Cor. xiii 3.,
Rom. viii. 30., Gal. ii. 20., Eph.
Vp me

A difficulty arises in reference
to this verse, from the division
of the clauses. There would be
nothing to require explanation in
such a form of expression as
* Who died and rose again for
our sins and our justification.”
But why “died for our sins and
rose again for our justification ?”
May not our justification equally
with our sins be regarded as the
object or cause of Christ’s death?

We might answer that St.
Paul often employs an antithesis
of words, where there is no anti-
thesis of meaning. Compare, for
example, Rom. x. 9, 10.: —“ If
thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and be-
lieve in thy heart that God
raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved. For with the
heart it is believed unto righ-
teousness, and with the mouth
confession is made unto salva-
tion.” In this passage, were we
to transpose the words righteous-
ness and salvation, the meaning
would be unaltered. There is
no real opposition between them,

“any more than there appears to

be here between “dying for our
sins, and rising for our justifica-
tion.”

Yet there is a certain analogy
on which the Apostle proceeds
in the last-mentioned expression.

21
22
23
24

25

A ans gee Ra,

24

25

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

155

to God; and being fully persuaded that, what he has*
promised, he is* able also to perform. And therefore

it was imputed to him for righteousness.

But it was

not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to
him; but for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, who
believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the
dead; who was delivered for our offences and was raised

again for our justification.

The Christian is one with his
Lord, and his life, like that of
Christ, falls asunder into two di-
visions, death and life, condem-
nation and justification. Comp.
Rom. vi. 5, 6.:—‘“For if we
have been planted in the like-
ness of his death, we shall be
also in the likeness of his resur-
rection: knowing this, that our
old man is crucified with him,
that the body of sin might be
done away.” So in ver. 10, 11.:
— “For in that he died, he died
unto sin once: but in that he
liveth, he liveth unto God.
Likewise reckon ye also your-
selves to be dead indeed unto
sin, but alive unto God through
Jesus Christ our Lord.” A still
nearer parallel is afforded by
viii. 10. : —“ But if Christ be in
you, the body is dead because of
sin; but the spirit is life because
of righteousness. But if the
spirit of him that raised up
Christ from the dead dwell in
you,” etc. Comp. also a more
subtle trace of the same thought,
in Rom. viii. 34., where caraxpirwy
is opposed to éyepOeic.. It would
not be in accordance with St.
Paul’s usual language to invert
the order of these terms, or to
say, “who died for our justifica-
tion and rose again for our sins.”
Sin and death, justification and
renewal or resurrection, whether

in the believer or Christ, are
the parallel or cognate ideas.

Had the Apostle said, “ Who
by his death was one with us in
our sins, by his resurrection one
with us in our renewal,” in such
a mode of expression there would
have been nothing contrary to
his usual language. But, as has
been already remarked, in de-
scribing the work of salvation,
forms of thought are fluctuating,
because they are inadequate;
that which is sometimes the
cause being equally, from another
point of view, the effect, as in
the present instance, the cause is
not a cause, but a mode of ex-
pressing a more general con-
nexion between two ideas. (See
note on i. 4.) _ We should err in
defining exactly that which is in
its nature inexact; better to lose
sight of the precise terms in the
general meaning. It is a slight
transition in the language of St.
Paul from the form “who rose
again for our justification,” to the
other form, “who was one with
us in his resurrection.” This
slight change is the source of
our difficulty.

25. dua ra raparTwpara hpor. |
(1.) as he bore our sins, (2.) as
he died by the hand of sinners,
(3.) as he died to do away the
law which was the strength of
sin, and death its penalty. |

156 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

THE OLD TESTAMENT.

‘Hyika & by emorpédn mpos Kvpiov, epraipetrar Td KdAvpo.—2 Cor, iii. 16.

Tus we have reached another stage in the development of the
great theme. The new commandment has become old; faith is
taught in the Book of the Law. “ Abraham had faith in God, and
it was counted to him for righteousness.” David spoke of the for-
giveness of sins in the very spirit of the Gospel. The Old Testa-
ment is not dead, but alive again. It refers not to the past, but to
the present. The truths which we daily feel, are written in its
pages. There are the consciousness of sin and the sense of accept-
ance, There is the veiled remembrance of a former world, which is
also the veiled image of a future one.

To us the Old and New Testaments are two books, or two parts
of the same book, which fit into one another, and can never be
separated or torn asunder. ‘They are double one against the other,
and the New Testament is the revelation of the Old. To the first

believers it was otherwise: as yet there was no New Testament; nor

is there any trace that the authors of the New Testament ever ex- .

pected their own writings to be placed on a level with the Old. We
can scarcely imagine what would have been the feeling of St. Paul,
could he have foreseen that later ages would look not to the faith of
Abraham in the law, but to the Epistle to the Romans, as the highest
authority on the doctrine of justification by faith; or that they
would have regarded the allegory of Hagar and Sarah, in the Epistle
to the Galatians, as a difficulty to be resolved by the inspiration of
the Apostle. Neither he who wrote, nor those to whom he wrote

x ; ft pe
Shan pe -Uy
ti) Get Pe 4° Db?

THE OLD TESTAMENT. ~ 157

could ever have thought, that words which were meant for a parti-
cular Church, were to give life also to all mankind; and that the
Epistles in which they occurred were one day to be placed on a
level with the Books of Moses themselves.

But if the writings of the New Testament were regarded by the
contemporaries of the Apostle in a manner different from that of later
ages, there was a difference, which it is far more difficult for us to
appreciate, in their manner of reading the Old Testament. To them
it was not half, but the whole, needing nothing to be added to it or
to counteract it, but containing everything in itself. It seemed to come
home to them ; to be meant specially for their age ; to be understood
by them, as its words had never been understood before. “ Did not
their hearts burn within them?” as the Apostles expounded to them
the Psalms and Prophets. The manner of this exposition was that of
the age in which they lived. They brought to the understanding of it,
not a knowledge of the volume of the New Testament, but the mind
of Christ. Sometimes they found the lesson which they sought in the
plain language of Scripture; at other times, coming round to the
same lesson by the paths of allegory, or seeming even in the sound
of a word to catch an echo of the Redeemer’s name. Various as are
the writings of the Old Testament, composed by such numerous au-
thors, at so many different times, so diverse in style and subject, in them
all theyread only—the truth of Christ. They read without distinctions
of moral and ceremonial, type and antitype, history and prophecy,
without inquiries into the original meaning or connexion of passages,
without theories of the relation of the Old and New Testaments.
Whatever contrast existed was of another kind, not of the parts of a
book, but of the law and faith; of the earlier and later dispensations.
The words of the book were all equally for their instruction ; the
whole volume lighted up with new meaning.

What was then joined cannot now be divided or put asunder.
The New Testament will never be unclothed of the Old. No one
in later ages can place himself in the position of the heathen con-
vert who learnt the name of Christ first, afterwards the law and the

158 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

prophets. Such instances were probably rare even in the first days
of the Christian Church. No one can easily imagine the manner in
which St. Paul himself sets the Law over against the Gospel, and at
the same time translates one into the language of the other. Time
has closed up the rent which the law made in the heart of man;
and the superficial resemblances on which the Apostle sometimes
dwells, have not the same force to us which they had to his contem-
poraries. But a real unity remains to ourselves as well as to the
Apostle, the unity not of the letter, but of the spirit, like the unity
of life or of a human soul, which lasts on amid the changes of our
being. The Old Testament and the New do not dovetail into one
another like the parts of an indenture; it isa higher figure than this,
which is needed to describe the continuity of the Divine work. Or
rather, the simple fact is above all figures, and can receive no addition
from philosophical notions of design, or the observation of minute
coincidences. What we term the Old and New dispensation is the
increasing revelation of God, amid the accidents of human history :
first, in Himself; secondly, in His Son, gathering not one nation
only, but all mankind into His family. It is the vision of God Him-
self, true and just, and remembering mercy in one age of the world;
not ceasing to be true and just, but softening also into human gen-
tleness, and love, and forgiveness, and making his dwelling in the
human heart in another. The wind, and the earthquake, and the
fire pass by first, and after that “the still small voice.” This is the
great fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets in the Gospel. No
other religion has anything like it. And the use of language, and
systems of theology, and the necessity of “giving ideas through
something,” and the prayers and thoughts of eighteen hundred years,
have formed another connexion between the Old and New Testament,
more accidental and outward, and also more intricate and complex,
which is incapable of being accurately drawn out, and ought not to
be imposed as an article of faith; which yet seems to many to supply
a want in human nature, and gives expression to feelings which
would otherwise be unuttered.

THE OLD TESTAMENT. 159

It is not natural, nor perhaps possible, to us to cease to use the
figures in which “holy men of old” spoke of that which
belonged to their peace. But it is well that we should sometimes
remind ourselves, that “all these things are a shadow, but the body is
of Christ.” Framed as our minds are, we are ever tending to confuse
that which is accidental with that which is essential, to substitute
the language of imagery for the severity of our moral ideas, to
entangle Divine truths in the state of society in which they came
into the world or in the ways of thought of a particular age. “ All
these things are a shadow;” that is to say, not only the temple and
tabernacle, and the victim laid on the altar, and the atonement
offered once a year for the sins of the nation; but the conceptions
which later ages express by these words, so far as anything human
or outward or figurative mingles with them, so far as they cloud the
Divine nature with human passions, so far as they imply, or seem to
imply, anything at variance with our notions of truth and right, are
as much, or even more a shadow than that outward image which
belonged to the elder dispensation. The same Lord who compared
the scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven to a householder who
brought forth out of his treasure things new and old, said also in a
figure, that “new cloth must not be put on an old garment” or “new
wine into old bottles.”

160 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP. VY.

Every pause in the Epistle may be made the occasion for taking a
glance backward, and surveying the whole. In the construction of
the work we observe that the same threads again and again reappear,

tangling the web of discourse, and are never finished and worked

off. Thus the commencement of the fifth chapter is but the antici- —

pation of the eighth : —
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through
our Lord Jesus Christ.
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in
Christ Jesus.
Compare again the following : —
(1.) ch. iii. 1. What advantage then hath the Jew?
9. What then are we better than they ?
27. Where then is boasting ?
iv. 1. What shall we say then that Abraham hath found, our
progenitor according to the flesh ?
(2.) ch. vi. 1. What shall we say then ? are we to continue in sin that
grace may abound ?
15. What then shall we sin, because we are not under the
law, but under grace ?
vii. 7. What shall we say then? is the law sin.
(3.) Also the first verse of ch, ix., x., xi.
ix. 1. I say the truth in Christ in that I have great sorrow
for Israel.
x. 1. Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for Israel
is, that they might be saved.
xi. 1. I say then, hath God cast aside his people ?
where the Apostle thrice returns to the same point in his argu-
ment, and begins again with the same theme.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 161

Similarities of form and repetitions of thought may also be noted
in successive verses.

Compare : — —
vy. 8—10. : “ But God commended his love to us in that, while we

were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. Much
more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be
saved from wrath through him. For if, when we were
enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his
Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by
his life.” These words are followed by the favourite
“not only so,” which has already occurred at the begin-
ning of ver. 3.
~ Compare also verses 15., 17, 18, 19., and i. 24., 26., 28. ; vii. 15., 19.;
17., 22.; as instances of a structure in which the same ideas are re-
peated rather than developed, and in some of which the form of the
first sentence prescribes the form of the second.

Many slight inaccuracies appear on the surface when we look at
the Epistle to the Romans through a microscope. It will be often
found that the successive clauses are not logically connected, or that
qualifications are introduced which are not duly subordinated to the
principal thought ; or the latter end of asentence may seem to forget
the beginning of it, or for an instant the Apostle may hesitate
between two alternatives. But flaws of this kind disappear when
we remove to a little distance; the irregularity of the details is
lost in the general effect. It might be said of the Apostle in his
own language that he is not speaking with “the persuasive words of
man’s wisdom, but with demonstration of the spirit and with power.”
It does not impair the force of what he says that he repeats a word,
or that he uses a particle where it is not needed, or that he has so
framed a particular clause thatits bearing on the next clause is doubtful.
It does not interfere with the unity of his writings that they have
not the symmetrical character of a modern composition. We often
speak of his style; according to modern notions he can hardly be
said to have a style. He uses the rhetorical forms of his age because

VOL. II. M

162 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

he cannot help doing so: they are his only way of expressing him-
self. He is not free to mould language with the hand of a master.
Yet, in general, his meaning is perfectly clear. If, following
Locke’s rule, we read the Epistle through at a single sitting, the
broken thoughts come together, and a new kind of unity begins
to arise; the unity not of a whole with many parts aptly dis-
posed, but of a single idea, appearing and reappearing every
where. The stream is one, though parting into two branches — the
universality of salvation, and the doctrine of righteousness by faith.
To the end of the eleventh chapter there is nothing irrelevant,
nothing that does not bear on one or other of these two aspects of
the great truth. Imagine the writer full of these two thoughts, yet
incapable of mastering the language in which he wrote, incumbered
with formulas and modes of speech ; eager to declare the whole coun-
sel of God, yet conscious of the way in which men might wrest it
to their own destruction ; seeking “to entwine the new with the old,
and to make the old ever new ;” and you would expect a composition
similar in texture to the Epistle to the Romans. 3
The Epistle is full of repetitions, yet the repetitions carry us
onward. The revelation of righteousness by faith is first made in the
seventeenth verse of the first chapter. Then, after the necessity for

it has been shown from the self-condemnation of the world, it is

repeated at the twenty-first verse of the third chapter. Here it

might seem as if the Apostle’s task was over. But another link has
yet to be wrought into the chain. Is it the Apostle only who is

saying these things? Saith not the law also? Yes; the doctrine

of justification and forgiveness of sins is contained in the book of the
law. Abraham as well as ourselves was justified by faith, and not by
works. ‘Then the Apostle states his doctrine once more’ in the form

of a conclusion to an argument, and proceeds to display it as

embodied in the type and antitype, the first and second Adam. Still ©

he has to guard against inferences that might be deduced from
it, such as the antinomianism at which he had before hinted, “ Let us

continue in sin that grace may abound, let us do evil that good may

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.’ 163

come.” Then he returns to the same note which he had struck
_ before, the confirmation of his doctrine from the book of the law.
Lastly, he fights the battle over again; not now in the world at
large, but in the narrower sphere of the individual soul ; he describes
the last state of paralysis and death, until at length the agony is at
its height and the victory is won; and, having now turned to view
the scheme of redemption in every aspect—in reference to the
former state of the world, divided between Jew and Gentile, in refer-
ence to the patriarchs, in reference to human nature itself, in refer-
ence to possible consequences as well as the inward experience of
the soul, he repeats the conclusion which in chap. v. had been
already anticipated, chanting, as it were, the hymn of peace after
victory, “ There is, therefore, now no condemnation to them which

are in Christ Jesus.”

164

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. V.

re >. 9 , pie » N x ‘
Aikawbevres ovv €x TiaTEws Eipyvnv Exomev Tpos TOV Hedv 5

dua TOV Kupiov Huav Inoov xpioTod, dv ob Kal THY TpoTa-
yoyny éoyykapey [TH TioTe] eis THY xapw TavTnv & FH

e , % , - / a 4 a otis
éoTHKapev, Kal Kavyomela er edrids THS SdEns Tod Oeod.
ov povoy O€, ad\Aa Kal Kavyaucla ev Tats Oriibeow, €iddres

V.1. Atcaw@évrec otv éx ric-
tewc, Therefore, being justified
by faith.| ‘Therefore, 7. e., as an
inference from what has been
said of the sinfulness of Jew and
Gentile, of the revelation of
Christ, of the witness of Abra-
ham, and the Old Testament.

eiphyny éxoper, | B. G. we have
peace ; txwpev, let us have peace,
A.C.A. f.g.v. Neither the MS.
nor the sense offers a sufficient
criterion to enable us to decide
between the two. We may say
with equal propriety, “Therefore
being justified by faith we have
peace with God,” as though peace
were already involved in justi-
fication (compare chap. viii. 1.):
or peace may be regarded as a
further stage in the consciousness
of what God has done for us.
“Therefore being justified, let
us go on to be at peace.” cipiyny,
peace after strife, the opposite of
the state described in Romans,
vii. 7—25., mpoc rov Oedyv, with
God. Soin classical Greek, ciphyny
diyerv, woretoBar mode riva, Plat.
Rep. 465. B.; Alcib. I. 107. D.

mpooaywyn. | Cf. 1 Peter, iii. 18.:
iva pac mpocayayyn to Oeg, not
with any idea of admission at a
court. €oxiKapev, not we have,
but we have had. éorjxaper, in
which we stand, z. e. not merely
in which we are, but in which we
stand fast, as in Rom. xi. 20., and
commonly in the Epistles to de-
scribe the perseverance of the
believer.

2—13. In the verses that
follow, the truth of justifi-
cation by faith is brought home
to the feelings of the individual
believer. It is the source of all
that varied experience of joy
and sorrow, hope and love, which
each one is conscious of, which
arises out of the thought that
Christ died for us in our weak
estate, which is accompanied by
a yet stronger assurance, that He
who has begun the good work
in us will continue it unto the
end. At ver. 13. the external
and universal aspect of the work
of redemption is resumed, and
displayed, as it were, on the
theatre of the world in the
persons of the first and second
Adam.

2. dv ov Kal ry Tpocaywyiy éo-
xhxapev, by whom also we have
had the access.| This clause may
be explained in two ways :—(1.)
by connecting 7)v rpocaywyhy
and «ic ryv xapw ravrny, “by
whom we have (or rather have
had) access [by faith] unto this
grace wherein we stand,” as in
the English version ; or (2.) the
word zpocaywy?), as in Ephesians
ili. 12., may be taken absolutely
and explained by zpocaywyijy
mpoc Tov tarépa, which occurs in
ii. 18. of the same Epistle: —

“Through whom we have had the ~ ¢ |

access by faith,” the words eic rnv
Xap rabrny év H Eorhxapey being
regarded as the result or effect of
what has preceded, (so as to at-

.

bo

©

Ver. 2, 3.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

165

Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with
God through our Lord Jesus Christ: by whom also we
have had the * access by faith into this grace wherein
we stand, and rejoice in hope of the glory of God. And
not only so, but we rejoice* in tribulations also: know-

tain) unto this grace wherein
we stand.
Kat kavywpueba, and rejoice, |

or glory, not “ of work,” iv. 2.,

nor in ourselves, but in God.
Compare 2 Cor. xi. 30., xii. 1.
These words may be connected
either with éyoper or with dv’ ob
eTXHKaper, or better with év 7
cor hKaper.

ém’ édride tite Sdéne Tov eod,
in hope of the glory of God.]
Compare iii. 23. : vorepovyrat rij¢
ddEne rou Seov, and Romans vii.
19, :—“ For the earnest expecta-
tion of the creature waiteth for
the manifestation of the sons of
God; ” and ver. 24., “ For we are
saved by hope, but hope that is
seen is not hope.” Adéa rov Seov
is the fuller revelation of God,
exceeding not merely the glory
of the old covenant, but the pre-
sent manifestation of the Gospel.
Compare 2 Cor. iii. 8.: — 7c
ovxt padrov Svaxovia Tov mvev-
prarog gota év Oden.

3. And not only so, but the
element of sorrow which is in this
present life cannot countervail
our joy. kKxavyapeba év, we re-
joice not “among,” but “in,” as
in Gal. vi. 14., answering to é7’
éArriou.

Tn the life of Christ, as well as
of his followers, is traceable the
double character of sorrow and
joy, humiliation and exaltation,
not divided from each other by
time, but existing together, aa

drawn out alternately by the ex-
ternal circumstances of their
lives. Christ himself said, “ I,
if I be lifted up from the earth,
shall draw all men after me.”
And just before he suffered, “The
hour is come that the Son of man
should be glorified.” So he told
his disciples, Matt. v. 12.: ‘In
the day of persecution rejoice
and be exceeding glad.” And
St. Paul, at the commencement of
the second Epistle to the Corin-
thians, speaks asif sorrow brought
its own joy and consolation with
it; you can hardly tell whether he
is sorrowful or joyful, so quickly
is his sorrow turned into joy.
There is the same mixed feeling
of triumph in affliction in the
remarkable words, 1 Cor. iv. 9.:
“1 think that God hath set forth
us the apostles last, as it were
appointed unto death: for we are
made a spectacle to the world, to
angels, and to men.”. And even
where external afflictions are
wanting, the mere _ conscious
ness of this “present evil world,”
“the whole ereation groaning
together until now,” the remem-
brance of having once felt the
sentence of death in himself, will
make the believer rejoice with
trembling for what he feels within
or witnesses in others. Compare
the aphorism of Lord Bacon,
“Prosperity is the blessing of the
Old Testament, PaReeney # of the
New.”

M3

166

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. V.

OTe h Oddbis Wropovny Karepyalerat, 7 S€ bropovy Soxiyuyp,
n O€ Soxiuy édrrida: 7 S€ EAtis Od KaTaLoXUVEL, OTL WyamN 5
Tov Oeod exxéxuTas ev Tats Kapdiais Huav Sia mVvEevpaTos
ayiov Tod Sofvtos Hui. ere yap ypioTos OvT@V HuaV ao Oe-
vav eri Kata Karpov brép aoeBav arébaver (pddis yap brép
ducaiov Tis dmobavettav vreép yap Tod ayalod Taya TIS

1 Om. ér1.

4. The circle of Christian
graces comes round at last, from
hope, through the chastening of
sorrow, to hope again.

Tribulation, patience, expe-
rience, hope never failing be-
cause it is absorbed in love, are
the grades and stages of Christian
life. Or, in other words, we suf-
fer and are patient, and this very
patience assures us of our faith,
and this assurance changes the
attitude of our mind from patience
to hope.

doxiyuy, | passively for proved-
ness, confidence in self after trial.
Comp. 2 Cor. ii.9.: iva yv@ rijv éo-
Kyujv vor; andJames i. 3., where
the same words are used in a dif-
ferent order: 70 dokijuov tpwr rife
mlorews KaTEepyacerar VTOMOVyY.

For a “golden chain” of the
same kind, compare the following
quotation from Schcettgen, i. 511.
“R. Pinchas filius Jair dixit,
‘ Alacritas nos perducit ad inno-
centiam, innocentia ad pietatem,
pietas ad Spiritum Sanctum, Spi-
ritus Sanctus ad resurrectionem
mortuorum, resurrectio mortuo-
rum ad Eliam prophetam.’”

5. ovr Karaoybvet, | literally,“does
not put to the blush,” a Hebraism
for “fail.” Compare Wis. ii. 10.
and Ps. cxix. 116.: pu) caraucxvrne
pe AO THe TpocdoKiac prov.

dre ) ayarn.| These words
follow caracyvve. Hope never

faileth, because it has so strong
and ever diffused a motive in
love. Compare 1 John, ii. 5.,
1 Cor. xiii. 8.: “ij ayamn ovdérore
winre. i ayanry tov Seov may
either mean the love of God
towards us, or our love towards
God; or rather both “ because
we love him, and he loves us.”
Compare Essay on the Abstract
Ideas of Scripture.

It may be asked, why should
hope never fail, because the love
of God is diffused in our hearts,
any more than because the

righteousness of God, or the

belief in God, is shed abroad in
us? The only answer to this
question is that love expressed
the feeling of the Apostle at the
time; because dwelling on the
love of God, which showed itself
in the death of Christ (v. 8.), he
found a never failing support.
It may be truly said, in the in-
terpretation of the New Testa-
ment, that those “who ask a
reason for all things destroy
reason.” The same association of
love and the Spirit occurs, though
in a different order, in 1 John,
iv. 12, 13.: “If we love one
another, God dwelleth in us, and
his love is perfected in us.

Hereby know we that we dwell

in him, and he in us, because he
hath given us of his Spirit.”
_ 6. There is great variation of

- :

Ver. 4—7.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

167

4 ing that tribulation worketh patience; and patience,
5 experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh
not ashamed; because the love of God is shed abroad in
our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.
6 For when we were yet without strength, yet’ in due
7 time Christ died for the ungodly. For scarcely for a

righteous man will one die:

yet peradventure for the*

1 Omit yet.

reading in the first word of this
verse. All the principal MSS.
and versions agree in the second
ért, Which is omitted in the Tex-
tus Receptus: while the first is
supported by A.C.D; «i yap, v.;
eic te yep, G. f. g. v. Iren. 207.3; «i
ye, B. It may be argued that the
occurrence of the second éru is
against the genuineness of the
first, or, on the other hand, that
it has been the cause of the other
corrections.

It is not improbable that <i yap,
et ye, or ei de may be the true
reading, which, as in c. ii. 17.,
may have been altered to avoid
the anacoluthon, the real apodosis
being v. 9., as the apodosis of
v. 12. is v. 19. The word ér
can hardly have been repeated
twice in the same clause.

ert yap xpiordc.| Compare 1
John, iv. 10.: “Herein is love,
not that we loved. God, but that
he loved us.”

yap.] For this is the proof
of the love of God; or this is
_ the reason why we should love
God.
OvTwy por aobeva@v ert, when we
were yet without strength.| The
point of these words is, not that
while we were yet sinners Christ
died for us, but rather that the
love of God, like that of a parent
to a child, was called forth by
our helplessness.

kara Kaypov, in due time.| The
time of Christ’s coming into the
world is everywhere spoken of as
“the appointed time.” It is the
fulness of time, the meeting point
of the ends of the world.

7. This verse has been taken
in four ways :—

(1.) Christ died for the ungodly:
this was a great instance of
love; for hardly for a just
man will one die; yet per-
adventure, for that exalted
character, the good man,
some one may even dare to
die; or,

(2.) Yet, peradventure, for the
beneficent man, some would
even dare to die; or,

(3.) Yet, peradventure, for the
good in the abstract, some
would even dare to die.

The distinctions between 0i-
katog and a&yadc, which are re-
quired by the first two modes of
explanation, are really assumed
to avoid the difficulty of the pas-
sage. It is singular that the
word dyafoc used of a person
occurs nowhere else in the writ-
ings of St. Paul. To the third
explanation there are many ob-
jections: (1.) the Apostle could
hardly have used odcucaiov of a
person, and rov dyafov of a
thing ; (2.) it is doubtful whether
the neuter ro &yaf0v would have
been used in the sense of moral

mM 4

168

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. V.

\ A 3 la) , \ \ e a ,
Kal Toma arofave) cuvicotnow dé THY EavTOv ayarnv

> Cc oA ec , 9 »” e A cy) ec. \
Els Nas O Oeds, OTL ETL GpapTWrAV OVT@V NUa@V \KpLOTOS
e \ Cc oA 5 , A > A , an
virep nuov améBavev' mo\N@ ody paddov SiKkawHevTes VOY

2 nA ¢ a 6 , fa 5 oe ae, ee Sen, a ae a
CV TM ALLATL AVTOV OW NTOMEVUA OL AVTOV ATO T7)S Opy”)s:

El yap €yOpoi ovres KaTnd\Adynpev TO Oe@ dia TOD Pavarou

TOV VLOV aVTOV, TOAA@® paddov KaTahrAayertes T@OnodpeOa

A \ A
ev TH Cwn avTov, ov povov dé, adda Kal KavY@mevor EV TO

good; (3.) the notion of dying
for an abstract idea is entirely
unlike the language of the New
Testament, or of the age in which
the New Testament was written,
nor does it give the opposition
which the Apostle requires.

(4.) The remaining explanation
of dicaiov and rov dyafov makes
them synonymous. The Apo-
stle corrects his former expres-
sion, — “ For Christ died, when
we had no power to help our-
selves, for the ungodly.” But
this is unlike what men do for one
another ; for hardly will one die
for a righteous man. Admitting
that this statement requires cor-
rection (which the word pordrc¢
already seems to imply), say, that
for the good man some one may
even dare to die, still the case is
different, for it was while we
were yet sinners that Christ died
for us. It is not necessary to
suppose any opposition between
ducaiov and rov ayaGov; the clause
vrép yap tov ayafov may be re-
garded, not as subordinate to the
previous clause, but as parallel
with it, and dependent on the
preceding verse. The use of a
different word, though without a
distinction in meaning, may arise
either from a slight sense of the
awkwardness of retracting what
had just gone before, or from the
wish to avoid tautology. Com-

pare John xvi. 21.: f yur) érav
riktn, AUTy Exel, Gray de yevvhoy
TO watdiov OVK ETL pyNpovEdvEr THC
OX\ibedc, for a similar repetition,
and for the thought, Rom. ix. 3.,
where the Apostle offers himself
to be accursed from Christ for
his brethren’s sake.

8. But the case is otherwise
with the love of God to man;
while we were yet sinners Christ
died for us.

A singular various reading
occurs in ver. 8, 9.; Gre ei Er, in
ver. 8. G. f. Cyp. Hil., with which
is connected the omission of
ovr, in v. 9 A. G.f. g. v. Iren.
Cyp. Hil. The present cvviornat
and the sense would be much a-
gainst this reading even were the
weight of MS. authority in its
favour.

9. If God took the first step,

much more will he complete the

good work in us. We could
hardly have expected that Christ
would have died for us; but now
that he has died we may feel as-
sured that he will save us from
the future penalty. The Apostle
is not distinguishing between jus-

10°

ll

tification and sanctification; but —

passing onward in thought from
this world to the next. He is
expressing the natural feeling of
the believer, which admits of no
separation between the present
consciousness of the grace of

10

11

Ver. 8—11.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 169

good man some would even dare to die. But God*
establishes his love toward us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being
now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him. For if, when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more,

being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

God and the assurance of final
salvation. :
év 7@ aipart, | not by the sprink-
ling of his blood, nor by his
death, but by the shedding of his
blood. |

amo rie épyiic. | Cf. 1 Thess. 1.
10.: rov puvdpevoy tac amo Tije
Opyiic Tie épxopévne: the punish-
ment in the world to come—opyn,
(1.) the wrath of God; (2.) its
effect; that is, the punishment
which it inflicts (as in Rom. iii. &.).

8—ll. Here is another and
another instance of the Apostle’s
tendency to reduplication of his
thoughts. The 10th verse is a
repetition of the 9th, the 8th of
the 6th, the 11th is a composi-
tion of the 2nd and the 10th.

10. “We are reconciled to
God” (here and 2 Cor. v. 20.), or
(2 Cor. v. 18.) “God reconcil-
ing us to himself through Jesus
Christ,” or “God in Christ’ re-
conciling the world to himself”
(2 Cor. v. 19.), are the modes of
expression in Scripture used to
describe the work of redemption.
God is unchangeable; it is we
who are reconciled to Him, not
He to us. (Compare the use of
Katad\accec8ar, applied to the
woman who is reconciled to her
husband in 1 Cor. vii.11.) But,
on the other hand, the first spring
and motive of redemption comes

not from ourselves: but from
Him.

And not

Much stress, it is true, cannot
be laid on the precise use of
language ; for the Apostle might
have spoken in a figure of God
being angry with us and of us
as hated by Him. And this may
seem to be implied in the word
éx$poc in the present passage.
But the comparison of Coloss. i.
21. : axnAXorpiwpévouc Kai éyOpove
TH dvavoig.... wapaorijoar, shows
that éyOpove may have an active,
as well as passive meaning.

duc TOU Savarov... év rH Ewip. |
Here, again, as at iv. 24., the
state of the Christian parts
asunder into two heads, corre-
sponding to the death and life of
Christ. There it was said, “ He
died for our sins and rose again
for our justification.” Here the
partition of Christian life is
somewhat different, “ We were
reconciled by his death and shall
be saved by his life.” It is un-
necessary to suppose that the
Apostle meant further to say, “If
he was mighty in his death much
more will he be so in his life.”

11. ob povoy €, AAG Kal Kavyo-
pevo, and not only so, but we also
joy.| One way of taking these
words is to supply éopév: or
Kavx@pevo. may be regarded as a
more advanced stage of ckara\\a-
yévrec, “we shall be saved, not
only reconciled but rejoicing.”
These explanations save the gram-
mar at the expense of the sense.

170

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. V.

0 A 5 \ A , Re *T A la) be a A \
EM OLA TOV KUPLOV NUWVY LNTOVU XPtaToOv, OL OV VUV TYP

Katahhaynv éhaBopev.

wn ry e € 4
Ava TovTo aomep Su Evds avOpdrov n apaptia Els TOV

For the Apostle’s meaning is, “not
only shall we be saved, but we
shall rejoice in our salvation.”
An exactly similar failure of con-
struction occurs in 2 Cor. viii.
18, 19.: — ovverépaper dé per’
avrov rov adedgdy, ov 6 Eratvoc
évy T@ Evayyeriw ova Tay THY
éxkAnow@v ov povoy o&, GAA Kai
xeEporovnOeic umd TawY éxkAnoLwy
cuvéxonpoc iueyv, where no verb
follows. Compare also 2 Cor. v.
12.; in neither place can the pre-
ceding verb be appropriately re-
peated.

For the thought comp. ver. 3.,
of which it is an echo, ov pdvoy
dé, GANA Kal Kavywpeba Ev Toic
Sribeow. ryv Karadd\ayy, re-
ferring to caradAayévrec, in ver.
11. vvv, opposed to the future
owlnodpcba.

12—21. As a preface to the
following passage, every verse and
almost.every particle of which

bears the traces of theological .

warfare in the pages of commenta-
tors, it-will be convenient to state
very briefly the chief points in dis-
pute in the Pelagian controversy.
Other controversies, it may be
truly said, pass away with the age
that gave birth to them. This, as
involving the first question of the
relation of God to man, must in
some form or other last as long
as the world itself.

The hinge of the Pelagian con-
troversy is the free agency of
man. Is human nature, of itself,
capable of refusing evil and choos-
ing good? Can the will, by its
unaided power, accept and appro-
priate the work of salvation? Re-

specting what God and Christ
have done for man, there is, be-

tween Pelagian and Augustinian, __

Protestant and Catholic, no dif-
ference of opinion. The question
is, at what point man himself is
to be introduced as a party : whe-
ther, in the chain let down from
heaven to earth, he is a separate
link, or whether, to continue the
same figure, he is not a link in
the chain at all, but a weight
attached to it, ever sinking to-
wards his native element.

Pelagius would have said that
man was free, independent, iso-
lated, needing nothing for his
salvation but his own free will
and better mind, requiring nei-
ther grace preventive nor grace
co-operative, but relying on him-
self for acceptance with God,
according to the terms of the
Gospel.

The Calvinist, on the other
hand, consistently denies the free
agency of man. Grace is with
him the beginning, middle, and
end of the work of salvation. Man
is as far as possible gone from
original righteousness, without
power even to lay hold on the gift
of God.

Two modifications of these
views may be further mentioned:
—(1.) The view according to
which human nature is not re-
garded as absolutely and neces-
sarily evil; but yet, even in the
state of childhood and innocency,
as guilty before God because of
the sin of Adam, which is im-
puted to it. This imputation of
the sin of Adam, the Protestant

Ver. 12.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

171

only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus

Christ, by whom we have now received the reconciliation.*

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,

theologian considers as done away
by the imputation of the merits
of Christ, which are apprehend-
ed and appropriated by faith,

while, according to Catholic theo-

logians, it is purged away, with
the other consequences of original

sin, by the waters of baptism.

(2.) Another view, while agree-
ing with the former in maintain-
ing the partial corruption of
human nature, denies the doctrine
of imputation. Human nature
is sinful: this we know as a fact,
nor can we imagine how it could
be otherwise. But the fact which
we feel to be deep-seated within
us we have no sufficient reason
to connect with any single act of
an individual man.

It is between these two last-
mentioned views of doctrine that
the interpretations of this portion
of the Epistle to the Romans
chiefly oscillate; the main point
of difference being whether the
sin and the righteousness spoken
of as flowing from the person of
Adam and of Christ, are to be
regarded as imputed or inherent.
When the Apostle said—“ Death
came upon all men for that all
sinned,” did he mean sinned in
Adam or sinned in themselves ?
When he spoke of those “who did
not sin after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression,” does he
mean who did not, like Adam,
violate an express command, or
who were unlike Adam, in not
committing actual sin ?

Prior to the inquiry, which of
these two modes of interpretation
is the true one, is another, “ Were

either of them in the Apostle’s
mind?” Did he not conceive the
subject in a more general way,
in which the distinctions of Cal-
vinist and Arminian, Pelagian
and Catholic, were not yet drawn
out? The threads of later con-
troversy are too fine for the Apo-
stolicalage; theybelong to another
stage of human thought and cul-
ture. To entangle ourselves with
them in the interpretation of
Scripture can never help us to
enter into the true meaning
of the Apostle, the living ele-
ments of whose thgughts can
only be traced in the writings of
himself and his contemporaries.

12. Ard rovro.| The principal
meaning of this latter portion of
the chapter may be summed up
in the words of 1 Cor. xv. 22.,
«“ As in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.”
The latter clause, however, is not
regularly expressed. After the
words, “As by one man sin en-
tered into the world,” we expect
that there will follow, “even so
by one man righteousness entered
into the world.” Instead, how-
ever, of this regular parallel-
ism between Adam and Christ,
the Apostle, in the 13th verse,
turns aside to answer a difficulty
arising from his previous state-
ment, that ‘“‘where thereis no law
there is no transgression ;” and,
while stopping to meet the sup-
posed inconsistency, loses sight
of the construction required by
the preceding sentence.

Various expedients have been
proposed for completing the con-

172

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. V.

4, b “A \ ‘ “~ € , c , \
Koopov cionOer, Kai dua THS apaptias 6 Yavatos, Kat

ouTws eis mavtas avOpwmovs 6 Odvatos dunOer, ef @

4 + \ / ¢ / > > 4
TAVTES NMAPTOV — AYpL Yap VOMOV auapTia HV EV KOT Ma,

struction :—First, The device of
a parenthesis extending from
ver. 13. to ver. 18.: the last expe-
dient which should be resorted
to in a writer so irregular in his
syntax as the Apostle. Secondly,
The missing apodosis has been
sought for in ver. 12. itself, either
in the words did rjc apapriac 6
Sdvaroe, or in the clause which
follows, either: — |

“ As by one man sin entered
into the world ;”

“Death also came by sin:”
or,

“ As by one man sin entered

into the world, and death by

sin ;”

“ Even so death came upon all
men.”

Both these explanations, how-
ever, do violence to the language
in the meaning which they give
to kai — Kal ovrwe, and are also
inconsistent with the general drift
of the passage, which is not to
show that “as sin came into the
world,” death followed in its
train, but that “as in Adam all
died, even so in Christ shall all
be made alive.”

If, disregarding the grammar,
we look only to the sense, the
missing apodosis is easily sup-
plied both from what has pre-
ceded, and from what follows:
“Therefore we receive reconci-
liation by Jesus Christ, as by
one man sin entered into the
world.” Comp. di ot and dv Evdc
avOpwrov, in the 11th and 12th
verses. It is further hinted at
in the words 6¢ éortv rumo¢g Tov
pédAovros at the end of the 14th

verse ; it is indirectly supplied
in ver. 15. and involved in the
whole remainder of the chap-
ter.

Admitting the irregularity of
the construction, letus dismiss the
grammar to follow the thought.
The Apostle is about to speak of
Adam, the type of sin, as Christ
is the type of righteousness. The
sin of Adam is the sin of man,
as the righteousness of Christ is
the righteousness of man. But
how is the fact of sin reconcile-
able with the previous statements
of the Apostle :— ‘‘ Where there
is no law there is no transgres-
sion”? Such is the doubt which
seems to cross the Apostle’s
mind, which he answers; first,
by saying, that there “ was sin in
the world before the giving of
the law” (though he had said be-
fore, “ where there is no law there
is no transgression”), and then, as
if aware of his apparent inconsis-
tency, he softens his former ex-
pression into — “sin is not im-
puted where there is no law.”
An-indirect answer is also sup-
plied by the verse that follows:
— “Howbeit death reigned from
Adam to Moses,” 2. e. men died
before the time of Moses, and
therefore they must have sinned.

The difficulty of this as of some —

other passages (Rom. iii. 1—8., —

ix. 19—23.) arises out of the con-
flict of opposite thoughts in the
Apostle’s mind. Suppose him to
have said, “ As by one man sin
entered into the world and death
by sin (for this is_ possible
though there was no law —when

13

Ver. 13.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

173

and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for
that all have sinned * — for until the law sin was in the

I said, ov dé ovK gore vdpoc ove€
rapapacic, I only meant that
sin is not imputed, but that it
exists is proved by the fact of
death reigning over all before
the time of Moses). But long
before we have arrived at this
point the thread of the main sen-
tence has been lost. The Apostle
makes an attempt to recover it in
the words O¢ éore ruTuc TOU péd-
Aovroc, andmore regularly repeats
the parallel in ver. 15. 17.

}) Gpapria ciondOe. | Comp. Gal.
iii. 23.:— pd rov dé édXOeiv rijv
ator, for a similar personifica-
tion. In Rom. vii. 9.:—7# apap-
ria ave<noevy. In 2 Cor. xi. 3.
the Apostle speaks of Eve being
deceived by the serpent. An
inconsistency is alleged between
these words, and still more be-
tween 1 Timothy ii. 14. (“ And
Adam was not deceived, but the
woman, being deceived, trans-
gressed,”)and the present passage.
It is hardly worth while meeting
the supposed inconsistency with
the answer that the Jews reck-
oned their genealogies by men,
or that the female sex was so
looked down upon in ancient
times as to be thought unworthy
to bring sin into the world. It
was natural for the Apostle to
oppose Adam and Christ, but not
Eve and Christ.

dapria,| neither original sin
nor actual, nor the guilt of sin
as distinguished from sin itself
(for such differences had no ex-
istence in the Apostle’s age), nor,
like dudprnpa, confined to the act
of sin. Though not absolutely
excluding this last meaning ; as
its plural use shows, cpapria de-

scribes sin rather as a mental
state or in relation to the mind
(compare ddikia, adixnua). It is
often the power of sin, or sin col-
lectively, sometimes, as here, the
personification of it.

kal dua Tij¢ dpapriac 6 Savaroe,
and death by sin.| ‘The Apostle
plainly states that “Sin brought
death into the world; ” but what
death, spiritual or physical, or
whether he has always distin-
guished the two, is a question not
so easily determined.

That the sin of Adam was
the cause of the death of Adam
was the common belief of the
Jews in St. Paul’s time. The
oldest trace of this belief is found
in the Book of Wisdom, ii. 24.:
“For God created man without
corruption, and made him after
the image of his own likeness.
Nevertheless, through envy of the
devil, came death into the world,
and they that hold of his side
prove it.” The death of Adam,
and of all mankind in him, is
again referred to by the Apostle
in 1 Cor. xv. 21.; respecting
which latter passage two things
are observable: first, that the
Apostle makes no allusion to the
sin of Adam as the cause of his
death — rather this is a conse-
quence of his and of other men’s
earthly nature, 1 Cor. xv. 48. €0.;
and, secondly, that the death
spoken of is plainly, from the
contrast, not spiritual, but phy-
sical.

And such it is commonly sup-
posed to be in the present passage.
Such an interpretation is clear
and definite, and one with which
most readers will be satisfied.

174

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. V.

apaptia S€ ovK E\NoyeEtTaL 47) OVTOS Vomov, AN EBacihevoer
e , De NS) ee % 4 , \ ae \ \
0 Bavatos amo “Adam péypt Mavoéws Kat emt tods py

Yet it may be doubted whether,
from the mere difference of modes
of thought in his time and our
own, we do not give it a greater
degree of definiteness than it
possessed to the Apostle himself.
To us sin and death have no
natural connexion. So far as
they are united, we regard them
as united by an act of God. But
the Apostle joins them together
in the same way that we might
join together disease and death,
or lifeand health. The flesh and
the body are to him the natural
seats both of physical and moral
corruption.

It must be allowed that in
other passages St. Paul as dis-
tinetly speaks of death for spiri-
tual death, as he is here supposed
to do for physical death. Com-
pare vii. 9, 10.— “Sin revived,
and I died ;” and ver. 13.—“ Was
it then that which was good that
became death unto me.” In other
passages, again, Savaroc has an
equally distinct meaning of spi-
ritual and physical death at once.
For example, in Rom. vi. 21., the
word appears, at first sight, to
refer only tospiritualevil; but the
parallel of eternal life in the next
clause, shows that physical death
is not excluded. In like manner
it may be fairly argued that St.
Paul does not connect sin and
death in this chapter in any other
sense than he connects life and
righteousness. But as he could
not have meant that the continu-
ance of existence after death de-
pended on the righteousness of
Christ, so neither can he mean
that temporal death depended on
Adam’s sin.

Nor can it be left out of sight
that in the 15th chapter of the
1 Cor. the Apostle makes no refer-
ence to a prior state of innocence
from which Adam fell. “The first
man is of the earth, earthy: the
second man is the Lord from
heaven. As is the earthy so are
they that are earthy; as is the
heavenly so are they also that
are heavenly.” Adam and Christ
are here contrasted, not in refer-
ence to any act performed by
Adam, but to their own nature.
It would surely be an error to lay
stress on the precise points of
view taken by the Apostle in this
chapter, considering that a differ-
ent view occurs in the parallel
passage.

These considerations lead us
to doubt how far St. Paul dis-
tinctly recognised the interpreta-
tions which later ages have given
to his words. Could the conse-
quences which have been drawn
from them have been present to
his mind, he might have told us
that “these things are an alle-
gory,” like the bondwoman and
the freewoman, or the baptism of
the Fathers unto Moses in the
cloud and in the sea.

The two clauses that follow are
parallel to the two preceding ones,
though the order is inverted : —

“As by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin,”

“ And in like manner, as all
men sinned, so all men died.”

éy’ wavrec tuaprov, because
all have sinned.| Does this
mean that all men sinned in
Adam’s sin? (Compare ver. 19.,
Ova Tij¢ Wapakoye Tov Evoc avOpw-
mov dpaprwrot KarecraOnoay ob

14

Ver. 14.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

175

world: but sin is not imputed where there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even

wo\Xol), in the same way that
“Levi paid tithes in Abraham ; ”
and as it is said in 2 Cor. v.
15., “If one died for all then all
died;” or that death was the
penalty of actual sin, as in the
ease of Adam, so of all mankind.
The last way of taking the pas-
sage gives the most point to the
following verse. For if St. Paul
had been speaking of “sinning
in Adam,” it would have been
hardly necessary to guard against
the inconsistency of sinning with-
out law; and throughout the
epistle he has spoken not of im-
puted, but of actual sin. Com-
pare iii. 9. 23. ép’ © has been
translated “ under the idea that,”
a meaning of the words, which

somewhat softens the harshness

of the first of the interpretations
given above, “All men died
under the idea that all sinned in
Adam.” This explanation is in-
sufficiently confirmed by the pas-
sages adduced in support, such
as 2 Cor. v. 4.; Phil. iii. 12.
Again we must ask, had so subtle
a difference any existence in the
mind of the Apostle ?

13. &ype ydp vopov, for until
the law.| Butsin is inseparable
from the law, as has been re-
peated above, “where there is
no law there is no transgression.”
How was it, then, that in the in-
terval between Adam and Moses
men could have sinned? We
answer this difficulty by chang-
ing the form of our expression
without materially altering its
meaning; not, “where there is
no law there is no transgression,”
but, “sin is not imputed where

there is no law.” Sin, in other
words, was not exceeding sinful ;
it did not abound or show itself
in its true nature, yet it existed
still. Comp. ver. 20.

It is true in the abstract to say
that, without knowledge or con-
sciousness there is no transgres-
sion; or, in other words, that an
irrational being is incapable of
sin ; but, in proportion as the idea
of vouoc is narrowed to the Jew-
ish law or even the commandment
of God in general, the statement
must be qualified.

The words c&apria de ob« é\Xo-
yeirar py Ovrog vomov are con-
nected both with what follows
and what precedes. On the one
hand, they are the answer to the
objection, that without law there
could be no sin. On the other
hand, the adversative aa, in the
next verse, implies that they are
opposed to what follows, “ sin is
not imputed where there is no
law ; but [that it really exists is
proved by the fact that] death
reigned from Adam to Moses.”
Or the three clauses together may
be connected as follows :—“TI say
all men died because all men sin-
ned. For there was sin before
the law, but unimputed. But
this non-imputation of sin is no
proof of its non-existence. As
there was death during the in-
terval, there was also sin.” Or,
once more, the argument may be
expressed in the form of a syllo-
gism as follows : —

‘vy. 1. All who died sinned.
But those to whom sin
is not imputed died.

-*. They sinned.

176 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. V.

e , ‘Be “ook, 2 4 la , 3 , ,
AMAapPTHTAVTAS ETL TH OpordpaT. THS TapaBacews “Addp,
4 > nde ~ re 5 > = J e X\ ,
Os €oTW TUTOS TOU pédNOVTOS. GAN’ OVY WS TO TAPATTaLE
OUTWS Kal TO YapLopa. El yap TO TOV Evds TapaTTopaTi
e A .3 4 ~ “~ e 4 “~ ee bee
ol 7oAAot amébavov, ToMA@ wahdov H xapis TOV Heod Kai H
Swped ev xapiTL TH TOV Evds avOpaTroV "Inoov yxpioTod eis
% ‘\ > , \ 5 e 3 €:% e ,
Tous ToAdovs ErepiaoevoTev. Kal ody ws Su EvdS apapTy-
WavTos TO Sdpnpa’ TO pev yap Kpiwa e€ Evds Eis KaTa-
Kpy.a, TO O€ xXaplowa EK TOAA@V TapaTTwpdTwV eis
ducaiopa. ea yap [ev' 7@] &t Tapamtopmate 6 Odvaros

1 Om. év.

For similar instances of ambi-
guous clauses, comp. Gal. ii. 4.,
Rom. iii. 3.

For the general meaning of
the passage, comp. Acts xvii. 30. :
“The times of that ignorance
God winked at.” Rom. iii. 25. :
dua THY TapEecLY TOY Tpoyeyovorwy
dpaprnpuarwy. John, xv. 22.: If
I had not come and spoken to
them they had not had sin.”

diypt is used in its ordinary sense
of duration of time up to a point,
“until,” “up to the time of.”
Yet the expression is inaccurate,
because the point of time here
mentioned, the giving of the law,
is not the limit of the continu-
ance of sin. That the idea of
“after” cannot be excluded is
also shown by péyprc, in the next
verse, in the use of which there is
a similar inaccuracy.

14. éxt pu rove apaprioavrac,
over them that had not sinned, | is
commonly interpreted, according

as what may betermed the Augus-

tinian or Pelagian view of the pas-
sage is preferred, either, who did
not commit actual sin like Adam,
but only inherited Adam’s im-
puted sin; or, who did commit
actual sin, but not like Adam

against a positive law or com-
mandment.

A third way of explaining the
words, though it necessitates what
may be termed the Augustinian
interpretation, is worthy of atten-
tion. él ro dpowpare may be
connected with é€acidtevoey, as
a further explanation of éi rove
py Gpaprhcarvrac. “ But death
reigned from Adam to Moses
upon those who had not sinned,
because of the likeness of the sin
of Adam”—the “likeness” only,
if, where no law is, there is no
direct imputation of sin. Comp.
ch. vi. 5.: —ei yap obpouroe
yeyovapev T~ Opowwpare Tov
Savdrov avrov, dda Kal rie ava-
oracewc éooueOa. All men are
thus identified with the sin of
Adam, as they are to be identi-
fied with the righteousness of Him
that was to come. Better than
any of these subtle modes it is to
take the passage in a more gene-
ral sense : — “ But death reigned
from Adam to Moses even upon
those who had not sinned ex-
pressly and consciously, to whom
sin therefore could not be im-
puted in the same sense as it was
to Adam.” Compare verse 13.

15

KER:

15

~—«i16

17

Ver. 15—17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 177

over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was
tocome. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift.
For if through the offence of one many died*, much
more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is
by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.
And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift:
for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the
free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if
by one* offence death reigned through* one; much more

and Christ.

dc gory TUTOc, | who is the figure
or image of the second Adam; or
of whom Christ is the antitype.
Compare for the use of rioc, Acts,
vii. 44.: kara roy rior dy éwpacer,
and the corresponding word ayv-
tituroc, Which occurs in | Pet. iii.
21.3: 0 Kai hpacavrirumoy viv owlee
Parriopa.

15. “But the case is different
with the offence and with the
free gift.” These words are
the theme of what follows in the
four next verses.

The common antithesis in
St. Paul’s Epistles is between
the law and the promise, faith
and works. Here the same oppo-
sition is stated more objectively
and universally between Adam
The law is for the
present lost sight of in the more
general point of view now taken.

oi ToAXO/, Not many as opposed
to all, but a number of men as
opposed to one.

TOAXN padrov, much more. | If
God is just, much more is he
merciful. Comp. above ver. 10.:
“If while we were enemies we
were reconciled, much more being
reconciled shall we be saved.”
xi 24.: If the Gentile is grafted
on the good olive, how much

VOL. I.

more the Jew on the olive that
is his own.

i) xdpic Kai } wped, the grace
of God and the gift which goes
with it. ézepiocevoey : abounded
unto many, or abounded in that
it came to many. 3

16. The Apostle goes on to
show that the balance is yet
further on the side of mercy. He
has already said that many died
through the act of one man, and
much more that the grace of God
by one man abounded unto many.
He has now to contrast the effect
of the offence and the effect of
the free gift — condemnation in
the one case, justification in the
other. He also draws out fur-
ther the opposition of the one
and many. One man’s offence
brought condemnation on many,
but many offences return to one
act of pardon. From one to many,
from many to one, is the reckon-
ing of the justice and mercy of
God. -

17. is a heightening of v. 15.:
“Tf by the offence of one man
many died, —if by one offence
death reigned—much more shall
grace abound unto many—much
more shall they, which partake
of grace, reign in life through

178

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. V.

eBacirevoey dia Tod Evds, TOAN@ padov ot THY Tepicoeiay
‘an ® ‘au la lal

THS xapitos Kat [THs Swpeas] THs Suxarvoovvys NapPBavovtes
ev lon Baoevocovow dia Tod Evds "Incod ypioTod. dpa
ovv ws Ov evds TapaTTdpatos eis Tavtas dvOpdaovs eis
KATAKPILA, OUTWS Kat Ou Evds SiKaLdparos cis TaVTAS aD-
Oparrovs eis duxaiwow Cans: womep yap dua THs Tapa-
. ~ PEs & b) 4 c \ , - 4 4
Kons Tov evds avOpatrov aapTwdot KateaTAOnoay ot TodXol,
ovTws Kal dua THS VraKkons Tov évds Sikator KaTacTa-
Ojoovrat ot Tohdot. vopos d€ TapeonhOer, wa treovdoy
ov d€ eredvacev 1H apapTia, Dmrepemepio-

¢ "e ¥ y > / iyi 2 / 3 A
ceveer 7 xapis, Wa wotrep EBacilevoey % apaptia ev TO

ld
TO TAPATTO|LA *

18

19.

20
21

Oavatw, ovtws Kai 7» ydpis Bacievon dia Sikavoovvns eis

X i. ae lal Aw lat A
Conv aidviov dia ‘Inood xpiorov Tov Kupiou nar.

one.” Compare, for a similar

repetition, ch. vii. 16, 17. 19,
20.

18. cic ducaiwow Cwijc, to jus-
tification of life.| Compare Curvy
aiwvioy, below, and fw) and drcar-
oovvn, in the previous verse. Out
‘of the two latter the expression is
constructed, in accordance with
that analogy by which St. Paul
speaks of justification as a resur-
rection with Christ (ch. vi. 4—
8.). The whole verse may be re-
garded as a repetition of v. 16.,
into which a new thought has
found its way from the words éy
fwh Baorevooverw, which have
preceded; it also contains a sum~
ming up of the whole argument.

20. From the more universal
point of view the Apostle re-
turns to the more particular. He
repeats what he had _ before

touched upon at ver.13. Itwas
not that there was, strictlyspeak- __
ing, no sin where there was no
law; there was sin, but it was
notimputed. Now, thelawcame

in that the offence might abound;

or, as we might express it, that

men might awaken to their real
state. The same thought is ex-

pressed in Gal. iii. 19.—“ Where- —

fore then serveth the law?” it —

was added because of transgres-

sions: and below, Rom. vii. 13. —
—“Sin, that it might appear sin, —
working death unto me through ~

18

| 19

20

21

Ver. 18—21.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 179

they which receive the* abundance of graceand of the gift
of righteousness shall reign in life through * one, Jesus
Christ. Therefore as by one* offence judgment came
upon all men to condemnation; even so by one act of
righteousness the free gift came upon all men unto justi-
fication of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many
were made sinners, so by the obedience of. one shall
many be made righteous. But™ the law came in be-
sides, that the offence might abound. But where sin
abounded, grace did much more abound: that as sin*

reigned in* death, even so might grace reign through

righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

that which is good, that sin might
become exceeding sinful.”

ov d& érdedvacev.| But here,
too, mercy overbalanced justice.

21. There was yet, however,
a higher purpose for which the
law came in, as the other half of
a scheme of mercy, in which the
reign of sin and evil was first to
be made manifest, that the reign
of grace and righteousness might
also begin.

The leading thought of the
preceding section has been, “ As
in Adam all die, even so in
Christ shall all be made alive.”
But there is a great difference
between the act of sin and the
act of justification. If many
died through the first, much more

shall they be redeemed by the
second ; if there was one offence
to condemn, there are many
offences to be forgiven: where
death and condemnation are,much
more there are life and grace ; as
one comes to all men through
one, so likewise the other. The
five verses from 15—19. consist
almost wholly of a repetition of
the same thought, in the form
either of a parallel between the
act of Adam and of Christ, or of
a climax in which the grace of
Christ is contrasted in its effects
with Adam’ssin. The law came
to increase the sum of trans-
gressions, but grace still exceeded.
The law came in with this very
object, that as sin had triumphed,
grace might triumph also,

180 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ON THE IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF ADAM.

THAT so many opposite systems of Theology seek their authority in
Scripture is a fair proof that Scripture is different from them all. |
That is to say, Scripture often contains in germ, what is capable of
being drawn to either side; itis indistinct, where they are distinct ;
it presents two lights, where they present only one; it speaks in-
wardly, while they clothe themselves in the forms of human know-
ledge. That indistinct, intermediate, inward point of view at which
the truth exists but in germ, they have on both sides tended to ex-
tinguish and suppress. Passing allusions, figures of speech, rhetorical ‘ |
oppositions, have been made the foundation of doctrinal statements, |
which are like a part of the human mind itself, and seem as if they : )
could never be uprooted, without uprooting the very sentiment of :
religion. Systems of this kind exercise a constraining power, which __
makes it difficult for us to see anything in Scripture but themselves.
For example, how slender is the foundation in the New Testament

ha a ee
,

for the doctrine of Adam’s sin being imputed to his posterity —two %
passages in St. Paul at most, and these of uncertain interpretation.
The little cloud, no bigger than a man’s hand, has covered the ©

heavens. To reduce such subjects to their proper proportions, we
should consider : — First, what space they occupy in Scripture; Se-
condly, how far the language used respecting them is literal or figu-
rative; Thirdly, whether they agree with the more general truths of

Scripture and our moral sense, or are not “rather repugnant there-

See SE ep 5 A otra Series rae

to;” Fourthly, whether their origin may not be prior to Christianity, or 3
traceable in the after history of the Church; Fifthly,whether thewords __
of Scripture may not be confused with logical inferences which are . |

IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF ADAM. 181

appended to them; Sixthly, in the case of this and of some other
doctrines, whether even poetry has not lent its aid to stamp them in
our minds in a more definite and therefore different form from that
in which the Apostles taught them; Lastly, how far in our own day
they are anything more than words.

The two passages alluded to are Rom. v. 12—21., 1 Corinthians,
xy. 21, 22. 45—49., in both of which parallels are drawn between
Adam and Christ. In both the sin of Adam is spoken of, or seems to
be spoken of, as the source of death to man: “ As by one man’s trans-
gression sin entered into the world, and death by sin,” and “ As in
Adam all die.” Such words appear plain at first sight; that is to say,
we find in them what we bring to them: let us see what considera-
tions modify their meaning. If we accept the Pelagian view of the
passage, which refers the death of each man to actual sin, there is an
end of the controversy. But it does not equally follow that, if what
is termed the received interpretation is given to the words, the
doctrine which it has been attempted to ground upon them would
have any real foundation.

We will suppose, then, that no reference is contained in either pas-
sage to “actual sin.” In some other sense than this mankind are
identified with Adam’s transgression. But the question still remains,
whether Adam’s sin and death are merely the type of the sin and
death of his posterity, or, more than this, the cause. The first expla-
nation quite satisfies the meaning of the words “ Asin Adam all die;”
the second seems to be required by the parallel passage in the Romans:
“As by one man sin came into the world,” and “ As by one man many
were made sinners,” if taken literally.

The question involves the more general one, whether the use of
language by St. Paul makes it necessary that we should take his
words literally in this passage. Is he speaking of Adam’s sin being the
cause of sin and death to his posterity, in any other sense than he
spoke of Abraham being afather of circumcision to the uncircumcised?
(chap. iv.) Yet no one has ever thought of basing a doctrine on
these words. Or is he speakin& of all men dying in Adam, in any

nN 3

182 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

other sense than he says in 2 Cor. v. 15., that if one died for all, then
all died. Yet in this latter passage, while Christ died literally, it
was only in a figure that all died. May he be arguing in the same
way as when he infers from the word “seed” being used in the sin-
gular, that “thy seed is Christ”? Or,if we confine ourselves to the
passage under consideration : — Is the righteousness of Christ there
imputed to believers, independently of their own inward holiness?
and if so, should the sin of Adam be imputed independently of the
actual sins of men?

I. A very slight difference in the mode of expression would make
it impossible for us to attribute to St. Paul the doctrine of the
imputation of the sinof Adam. But we have seen before how varied,
and how different from our own, are his modes of thought and
language. Compare i. 4.,iv. 25. To him, it was but a slight trans-
ition, from the identification of Adam with the sins of all mankind,
to the representation of the sin of Adam as the cause of those sins.
To us, there is the greatest difference between the two statements.
To him, it was one among many figures of the same kind, to oppose
the first and second Adam, as elsewhere he opposes the old and new
man. With us, this figure has been singled out to be made the
foundation of a most exact statement of doctrine. We do not remark
that there is not even the appearance of attributing Adam’s sin to
his posterity, in any part of the Apostle’s writings in which he is not
drawing a parallel between Adam and Christ. |

II. The Apostle is not speaking of Adam as fallen from a state of
innocence. He could scarcely have said, “ The first man is of the
earth, earthy,” if he had had in his mind that Adam had previously
existed in a pure and perfect state. He is only drawing a parallel
between Adam and Christ. The moment we leave this parallel, all
is uncertain and undetermined. What was the nature of that
innocent life? or of the act of Adam which forfeited it? and how
was the effect of that act communicated to his posterity? The minds
of men in different ages of the world have strayed into these and
similar inquiries. Difficulties about “fate, predestination, and free- 2 |

IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF ADAM. 183

will” (not food for angels’ thoughts), cross our path in the garden
of Eden itself. But neither the Old or New Testament give any
answer to them. Imagination has possessed itself of the vacant spot,
and been busy, as it often is, in proportion to the slenderness of
knowledge.

Ill. There are other elements of St. Paul’s teaching, which are
either inconsistent with the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity,
or at any rate are so prominent as to make such a doctrine if held
by him comparatively unimportant. According to St. Paul, it is not
the act of Adam, but the law that

° “ Brought sin into the world and all our woe.”

_And the law is almost equivalent to “the knowledge of sin.” But

original sin is, or may be, wholly unconscious —the fault of nature in
the infant equally with the man. Not so the sin of which St. Paul

speaks, which is inseparable from consciousness, as he says himself:
—“T was alive without the law once,” that is, before I came to the
consciousness of sin.

IV. It will be admitted that we ought to feel still greater re-
luctance to press the statement of the Apostle to its strict logical
consequences, if we find that the language which he here uses is that
of his age and country. From the circumstance of our first reading
the doctrine of the imputation of Adam’s sin to his posterity in the
Epistles of St. Paul, we can hardly persuade ourselves that this is not
its original source. The incidental manner in which it is alluded to,
might indeed lead us to suppose that it would scarcely have been
intelligible, had it not been also an opinion of his time. But if this

inference should seem doubtful, there is direct evidence to show that

the Jews connected sin and death, and the sins and death of man-

kind, with the sin of Adam, in the same way as the Apostle. The

earliest trace of such a doctrine is found in the apocryphal Book

of Wisdom, ii. 24.: “ But God created man to be immortal, and made

him to be an image of his own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy

of the devil came death into the world; and they that do hold of
n 4

184 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

his side do find it.” And Eccles. xxv. 24.: “Of the woman came the
beginning of sin, and through her we all die.” It was a further re-
finement of some of their teachers, that when Adam sinned the whole
world sinned ; because, at that time, Adam was the whole world, or
because the soul of Adam comprehended the souls of all, so that
Adam’s sin conveyed a hereditary taint to his posterity. It was a
confusion of a half physical, half logical or metaphysical notion,
arising in the minds of men who had not yet learnt the lesson of our
Saviour—“ That which is from without defileth not a man.”
That human nature or philosophy sometimes rose up against such
inventions is certainly true; but it seems to be on the whole ad- ’
mitted, that the doctrine of Augustin is in substdhce generally —
agreed to by the Rabbis, and that there is no trace of their having
derived it from the writings of St. Paul. Compare the passages
quoted in Fritzsche, vol. i. pp. 293—296. and Scheettgen.

But not only is the connexion of sin and death with each other,
and with the sin of Adam, found in the Rabbinical writings; the — |
type and antitype of the first and second Adam are also contained 1
in them. In reading the first chapters of Genesis, the Jews made
a distinction between the higher Adam, who was the light of the
world, and had control over all things, who was mystically referred
to where it is said, they two shall be one flesh; and the inferior
Adam, who was Lord only of the creation; who had “the breath
of life,” but not “the living soul.” Scheettgen, i, 512—514,,
670—673. By some, indeed, the latter seems to have been iden-
tified with the Messiah. By Philo, on the other hand, the Noyoe is
identified with the zp@roc ’Acay, who is without sex, while the
ivOpwroce xotxoc is created afterwards by the help of the angels.
De Creat. Mund. p. 380. It is not the object of this statement to
reconcile these variations, but merely to indicate, first, that the idea
of a first and second Adam was familiar to the Jews in the time of —
St. Paul, and that one or other of them was regarded by them as the
Word and the Messiah. '

Y. A slighter, though not less real foundation of the doctrine has

IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF ADAM. 185

been what may be termed the logical symmetry of the imputation of
the righteousness of Christ and of the sin of Adam. The latter half
is the correlative of the former; they mutually support each other.
We place the first and second Adam in juxtaposition, and seem to
see a fitness or reason in the one standing in the same relation to the
fallen as the other to the saved.

VI. It is hardly necessary to ask the further question, what mean-
ing we can attach to the imputation of sin and guilt which are not our

own, and of which we are unconscious, God can never see us other

than we really are, or judge us without reference to all our circum-

stances and antecedents. If we can hardly suppose that He would
allow a fiction of mercy to be interposed between ourselves and Him,
still less can we imagine that He would interpose a fiction of ven-
geance. If He requires holiness before He will save, much more, may
we say in the Apostle’s form of speech, will He require sin before He
dooms us to perdition. Nor can anything be in spirit more contrary
to the living consciousness of sin of which the Apostle everywhere
speaks, than the conception of sin as dead unconscious evil, originating
in the act of an individual man, in the world before the flood.

VIL. A small part of the train of consequences which have been
drawn out by divines can be made to hang even upon the letter of
the Apostle’s words, though we should not take into account the
general temper and spirit of his writings. Logical inferences often
help to fill up the aching void in our knowledge of the Spiritual

' world. They seem necessary; in time they receive a new support

from habit and tradition. They hide away and conceal the nature
of the original premisses. They may be likened to the superstruc-
ture of a building which the foundation has not strength to bear ;
or, rather, perhaps, when compared to the serious efforts of human
thought, to the plaything of the child who places one brick upon
another in wondering suspense, until the whole totters and falls, or
his childish fancy pleases itself with throwing it down. So, to apply
these remarks to our present subject, we are contented to repeat the

simple words of the Apostle, “ As in Adam all die, even so in Christ

186 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

shall all be made alive.” Perhaps we may not be able to recall all the
associations which they conveyed to his mind. But neither are we
willing to affirm his meaning to be that the sin of one man was the
cause of other men’s sins, or that God condemned one part of the
human race for a fault not their own, because He was going to save
another part; or that original sin, as some say, or the guilt of original
sin, as is the opinion of others, is washed away in baptism. There
is a terrible explicitness in such language touching the realities of a
future life which makes us shrink from trusting our own faculties
amid far-off deductions like these. We feel that we are undermining,
not strengthening, the foundations of the Gospel. We fear to take
upon ourselves a burden which neither “ we nor our fathers are able.
to bear.” Instead of receiving such statements only to explain them
away, or keep them out of sight, it is better to answer boldly in the
words of the Apostle, “God forbid! for how shall God judge the
world.”

On the whole, then, we are led to infer that in the Augustinian
interpretation of this passage, even if it agree with the letter of the
text, too little regard has been paid to the extent to which St. Paul
uses figurative language, and to the manner of his age in interpre-
tations of the Old Testament. The difficulty of supposing him to be
allegorising the narrative of Genesis is slight, in comparison with the
difficulty of supposing him to countenance a doctrine at variance
with our first notions of the moral nature of God.

But when the figure is dropped, and allowance is made for the
manner of the age, the question once more returns upon us—
«¢ What is the Apostle’s meaning?” He is arguing, we see, car’
évOpwror, and taking his stand on the received opinions of his time.
Do we imagine that his object is no other than to set the seal of his
authority on these traditional beliefs? The whole analogy, not
merely of the writings of St. Paul, but of the entire New Testament,
would lead us to suppose that his object was not to reassert them,
but to teach, through them, a new and nobler lesson. The Jewish
Rabbis would have spoken of the first and second Adam ; but which

IMPUTATION OF THE SIN OF ADAM. 187

of them would have made the application of the figure to all man-
kind? Which of them would have breathed the quickening Spirit
into the dry bones? ‘The figure of the Apostle bears the impress of
his own age and country; the interpretation of the figure is for
every age, and for the whole world. <A figure of speech it remains
still, an allegory after the manner of that age and country, but
yet with no uncertain or ambiguous signification. It means that
“ God hath made of one blood all the nations of the earth;” and
that “he hath concluded all under sin, that he may have mercy
upon all.” It means a truth deep yet simple,—the fact which we
recognise in ourselves and trace everywhere around us— that we
are one in a common evil nature, which, if it be not derived from
the sin of Adam, exists as really as if it were. It means that we
shall be made one in Christ, by the grace of God, in a measure here:
more fully and perfectly in another world. It means that Christ is
the natural head of the human race, the author of its spiritual life.
It shows Him to us as he enters within the veil, in form as a man, the
“first fruits of them which sleep.” It is a sign or intimation which
guides our thoughts in another direction also, beyond the world of
which religion speaks, to observe what science tells us of the interde-
pendence of soul and body —what history tells of the chain of
lives and events. It leads us to reflect on ourselves not as isolated,
independent beings;— not such as we appear to be to our own
narrow consciousness; but as we truly are—the creatures of ante-
cedents which we can never know, fashioned by circumstances over
which we have no control. The infant, coming into existence in a
wonderful manner, inherits something, not from its parents only, but
from the first beginning of the human race. He too is born into a
family of which God in Christ is the Father. There is enough here
to meditate upon—“a mystery since the world was ”—without the
“weak and beggarly” elements of Rabbinical lore. We may not
encumber St. Paul “with the things which he destroyed.”

188 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP VI.

THERE are some errors in religion which are ever attendant on the

truths connected with them. Not only have men blessed with the
grace of God greater powers and responsibilities than others, but
they have also dangers, if not greater, yet peculiar to them, and

seeming from the very constitution of the human mind itself to be ;

inseparable from their religious state. There are faults, delusions,
prejudices, tendencies to evil, to which they are liable, and which
religion itself seems to foster in the weakness of human nature.
One of these tendencies is antinomianism, or the tendency to rest in
feeling, without knowledge or action. It is a corruption not pecu-
liar to Christianity, but common to all religions which have had
anything of spiritual life or power; in the case of individuals often
exercising a subtle influence among those who disavow it in words.
It already existed among the Jews in the time of St. Paul, as we
may gather from the Epistle of St. James, and are informed by
Philo. De Migr. Abrah. Mangey. i. 450.

Against this corruption the Apostle sets himself in the present
chapter. There was nothing more natural if grace abounded, than
that men should continue in sin, that it might yet more abound.
Experience sadly proves that there is a faith without works, hope
of forgiveness without repentance, final assurance without moral
goodness. There are religious states in which the eye of the soul
seems to lose its clear insight into right and truth, and even ob-
sctres with the consolations of the Gospel its sterner sense of the
holiness of God. In the hour of death especially, nature herself
seems to assist in the delusion. In the first ages, as in all other

times of religious excitement, such a delusion was more than ordi-

A a a ee a ac a

a

7 Bn i
Se rc aia

SEPP sR

Bieta:

risk
*

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 189

marily likely to prevail. It was a charge made against the Apostle
himself that he said: “ Let us do evil that good may come.” ;

At this point, therefore, in his great argument, when the abun-
dance of Divine grace has been already developed, the Apostle pauses
to guard against the dangerous inference. His manner of doing so
is characteristic of his view of the doctrine itself. He does not seek
to test the Christian state by external acts, but to exalt our inward
notion of it. He does not say, a true faith ts that which brings
forth good works, or that which is known like a tree by its fruits.
To him, the very idea of Christian life is death to sin, and death
with Christ. In the previous chapter no language seemed too strong
to express the fulness and freedom of the grace of God. That
might tempt us to continue in sin. But no, we are dead to sin.
The state of grace itself is a state of union with Christ, in which we
follow Him through the various stages of His life. When we think
of it as death, sin dies within us; when we think of it as life, we are
risen with Him.

An analogy may be traced between this chapter and the com-
“mencement of chap. iii., which may be said to be directed against
Jewish, as this against Christian antinomianism. They both treat
of the same subject considered under different points of view, as the
error of the Jew, relying on the promises to Abraham and the non-
interference of God with the evil from which he is himself exempt ;
secondly, as the error of the believer in Christ, whose soul is ab-
sorbed in the thought of His grace, Which he nevertheless regards,
like the Jew, as the imparting of an outward gift or privilege, not of
an inward spirit. | 7

Besides this general parallelism with the third chapter, other
parallelisms occur also in the structure of the sixth chapter itself.
It is divided into two leading sections, which correspond to each
other, the text of the first of which is—‘“ We may not sin, because
we are dead to sin;” of the second—‘“ We may not sin, because if
we do we shall become the servants of sin.” In each of these sec-
tions are several reduplications. The eighth verse answers to the

190 - EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

fifth, the ninth to the sixth; the tenth stands in the same rela-
tion to the ninth as the seventh to the sixth; the eleventh corre-
sponds to the tenth, the fifteenth to the first; the nineteenth isa
composition of the sixteenth and thirteenth. There is also a some-
what less obvious connexion between the eighteenth and fourteenth
verses. In the earlier half of the chapter, verses three and four cor-
respond respectively to the two members of verse two; five is a fur-
ther confirmation of three and four; six and eight are confirmations
of five; nine and eleven are a hortatory statement of verse five.

SUSUR dat ee ae = a ‘ erat "
Rye Ne : 4 at oye oe Boe cat : : : ‘
iis f r
/ : ‘

en ie ee

ee

192

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VI.

, Ss “A “ , 4
Ti ovv epovpev ; Eripevopev' TH apapTia, wa y xapis

TAEOVATY ; fy) "yevolTo.

Y , A
oitwes amrefavonev TH apapTia,

ais ae , 9 ee ee A Y 9 3 ,
Tas ere Cyoopev ev avTH; 7 ayvoetTe OTL Oot EBarric Onwev

> ‘ \ 3 A 3 \ , 3 A 9 ,
els xptaTtov Inaovy, Ets TOV Odvatov avtov éBarric One; |

1 ripevotmer,

VI. 1. Ti otv égpotpev; What
shall we say, then ?| What shall
we say, then ? if this be the case
with the law, are we to continue
in sin that grace may abound?
The connexion of the thought is
with the whole previous chapter,
and especially with ver. 20. If
“ the law came in that the offence
might abound, and so grace yet
more abound,” there might seem
to be a sort of “doing evil that
good may come” in the purposes
of Providence. The Apostle
shows that this law of “ bringing
good out of evil” does not apply
to the lives of men. In chapter
iii. a similar suggestion had in-
truded :—“ Why if my sin re-
dounds to the glory of God, am I
still judged as a sinner?” which
is suppressed as impious and im-
moral. Here in the same way
the thought that the law was in-
tended to increase sin, might lead
to the conclusion that what God
wanted was the increase of sin.
Sin as much as you can, yet God’s
grace will still exceed. To which
the Apostle replies, “That be
far from us.” The state of grace
into which we have passed, is a
state of death unto sin. How
can we still live in it?

2. ameOavopey TH apaptig is
said like {nv rj adpaprig, from
which the form of the expression
is borrowed; just as below, v.
20., éAevOepor Ti Omawovrvy re-
ceives its meaning from opposi-

tion to dovrAo0vc8ar 7 ducacoobyy.

Compare Gal. ii. 20., du vduou —

vouw atéBavov iva Oep Chow; 1
Pet. ii. 24., iva raic apapriace
amoyevopevot Oe@ Chowpev. The
Apostle is speaking of the ge-

neral state of Christians being

one of death to sin. The symbol
of this is baptism, as he explains
in the following verse.

3. 7) ayvoetre;| Know ye not
that as many of us as were baptized

into Christ, were baptized into

his death?

BanrigecOa eic.| So the Is-—
raelites cic rov Mwiofnv, 1 Cor.

x. 2.3; cic dpeow apapriov, Mark
i. 4.3 80, ei¢ 70 Iwavvou Barriopa,
Acts xix. 3.; ei¢ rd 6voua Tlavdov,
1 Cor. i. 13.3 ig TO Ovopa Tov

Tlarpéc, kat rov Yiov, cal rod aytov
IIvevparoc, Matt. xxviii. 19.
Compare dpuvivar cic ‘lepocodupa.

cic cannot be explained in these

passages as meaning “with the ©
thought of” or “looking to:” the
relation expressed is purely ob-
jective, and not always the same.
cic tov Mwiofv means “before —

Moses,” or “at the command of —
In the words cic dgeow

Re

dpaprioyv, eic signifies the result —

Moses.”

or object; so probably in eic¢ ro ~

"Twavvov Parriopa.

ParrilecOar —
cic Ovoua only differs in the mode ~

of thought from ParrifecOar éxi —
dvopart, both meaning to be bap=- —

tized “in the name of,” with a

,

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 193

Ver. 1—4.]

WHAT shall we say then? Are we to’ continue in
sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall
we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know
ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into® Christ

Jesus were baptized into his death ?

1 Shall we.

reference to the baptismal for-
mula.

The expression in the text is
somewhat different from any of
these.

To be baptized into Christ is
to be baptized so as to be one
with Christ, or to become a mem-
ber of Christ by baptism. Com-
pare 1 Cor. xii. 13., cic Ev cGpa
éCarricOnoay, between which and
the present passage a connecting
link is formed by Rom. vii. 4.:
GavarwOnre TH vopw Cid TOU owpa-
toc tov xptorov. So the Apostle
says: “By being baptized into
Christ we were baptized into a
common death.”

Philosophy, as Plato says in
the Phzedo, is death ; so the Apo-
stle says that Christian life is
death. It is a state in which we
are dead to the temptations of the
world, dead to all those things
which penetrate through the
avenues of sense, dead to the
terrors of the law, withdrawn
from our own nature itself,
shrunk and contracted, as it
were, within a narrow space,
hidden with Christ and God. It
is death and life at once, —death
in relation to earth, and life in
relation to God.

4. From the death of Christ,
the Apostle passes on to the
burial of Christ, which is again
the link of transition to his re-
surrection. The second member

VOL. II.

Therefore we

2 Jesus Christ.

of ver. 2. is here taken up:—
“We are dead to sin, and can
no longer live in it;” for two
reasons, (1.) because we are bap-
tized into the death of Christ, and
(2.) because the resurrection of
Christ is the type of our new life.

The meaning of this verse
will be more clearly brought out
if we recall the picture of Bap-
tism in. the apostolic age, when
the rite was performed by im-
mersion, and Christians might
be said to be buried with Christ ;
and the passing of the Israelites
through the cloud and the sea
(1 Cor. x. 1, 2.), and even the
Deluge itself (1 Pet. iii. 21.),
seemed no inappropriate types of
its waters. Imagine not infants,
but crowds of grown up persons
already changed in heart and
feelings ; their “life hidden with
Christ and God,” losing their per-
sonal consciousness in the laver
of regeneration; rising again
from its depths into the light of
heaven, in communion with God
and nature; met as they rose
from the bath with the white
raiment, which is “the righteous-
ness of the saints,” and ever after
looking back on that moment as
the instant of their new birth, of
the putting off of the old man,
and the putting on of Christ.
Baptism was to them the figure
of death, burial, and resurrection
all in one, the most apt expres-

194

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VI.

4 > 3 Lal A ~ la 3 X
cuvetadypey ovv avt@ dua Tov Bamticopatos els Tov
Oavarov, wa womep jyepOn ypiotos ex vexpov Sua THs

A 9 A 4 &
ddEns TOU TaTpds, OVTwS Kal Hwets Ev KaWVOTYHTL CwNs TeEpt-
TATHTMMEV. EL YAP TVMPUTOL YEYOVALEV TH OMOLWpLaTL TOU
Javarov avrod, dd\d\a Kal THs dvactdcews Eodpea, TOUTO

YWOOKOVTES, OTL O Tadalds HuUaV avOpwiros TvverTavpoOMn,

sion of the greatest change that
can pass upon man, like the sud-
den change into another life
when we leave the body.

The Apostle introduces the
word “buried” instead of “died,”
to recall and assist the image of
baptism.

For similar allusions, compare
Gal. iii. 27.:—é001 yap sig ypws-
tov ébanrioOnre ypioroy évedvoa-
ofe, and Coloss. ii. 12.: cvvragév-
rec aire év ro Parriopaty év @
cai ouvnyépOnre; also 1 Cor. xii.
13.: &v mvevpa éxorioOnpev, in
which there is a trace of the same
imagery.

sic Tov Savaroy is to be taken
with dua rov Barrioparoc, as in
the preceding verse, cic rov Sa-
varov avrov éCamricOnper.

dua tie €dEne Tov warpdc.| Not
“in the glory of God the Fa-
ther,” as though Christ rose up
in the Divine presence and sud-
denly became irradiated with its
glory; but “through the glory
of the Father,” which, as in other
places “the power of the Father,”
is here spoken of as an instru-
ment. This is a simpler way of
taking the words, than as a
pleonastic expression for the Fa-
ther himself. We have before
remarked, that St. Paul speaks
of that as an instrument which
we should consider as a mode.
Nor can it be wondered at, that

language should be peculiarly .

wavering and uncertain on sub-

jects that altogether transcend
language. Compare Col. i. 11.:
év Taon dvvdpier Ovvapoupevor Ka~
Ta TO Kparoc Tijc OdEne adrov. .

ovrwe kai fete. As in Rom.
xiii. 11—14., 1 Thess. v. 5—
11., John, v. 24—28., the Apo-
stle passes from resurrection to
renewal, from the coming of
Christ (wapovoia) to his presence
in the soul of man.

or

5. ovpouro, united with him.| —

May either be taken absolutely,
if we have been united with him
by the likeness of his death,” or
* ynited with the likeness of his
death.” In the first way of con-
struing the passage, ovpourot To
dpowwpare is equivalent to cipgu-
To. T® Spor eivar, “if we are
united with Him, by being like
Him in his death.” According
to the second explanation we are
said to be united not with Him,
but with the likeness of His
death; that is, with the death to
sin, which is the image of the
death of Christ. “ Planted toge-
ther” in the English version is
too strong a translation for cvp-
gurot, which has lost the idea of
piw. dda kat is emphatic, and
is equivalent to “immo etiam.”
Compare two other usages of
add kat, which afford together
the nearest trace of this use of
itin the apodosis: with ov povor,
as Phil. i. 8.3 ob pdvoy dé yaipw
ara kal yaphoopa:; and at the
commencement of sentences, as

—

Ver. 5, 6.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

195

were * buried with him by baptism into death: that like
as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of
the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of

life.

For if we have been* united with him by the

likeness of his death, we shall be also* by the likeness
of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is
crucified with him, that the body of sin might be de-

in Luke xxiv. 22.: adda «ai
yuvaikéc rivec, “nay and” or
“nay but.”

Tig dvacracews, | sc. TH dpow-
pate.

éoopuea, we shall be.| In the
eleventh verse, the Apostle speaks
of our living through Christ in
this present world. Hence it has
been supposed that in this pas-
sage he is blending in one the
resurrection which is present, or
the renewal that he mentioned
just before, and the resurrection
which is to come. And it is
true that in the Apostle’s mode
of thinking they are always
nearly connected. But here it
seems rather as though he were
dwelling on the resurrection that
is to come, as a motive for re-
newal here. As though he said:
—‘“We are dead with Christ,
therefore let us be dead to sin;
we shall rise with Christ here-
after, therefore let us walk in
newness of life.’ Compare 1
Cor. xv. 49., “ And as we have
borne the image of the earthly,
we shall also bear the image of
the heavenly ;” and Phil. iii. 9—
11., “ And be found in Him, not
having mine own righteousness,
which is of the law, but that
which is through the faith of
Christ, the righteousness which

_isof God by faith: that I may

know Him, and the power of His

‘resurrection, and the fellowship

of His sufferings, being made
conformable unto His death: if
by any means I might attain
unto the resurrection of the
dead.” So 1 Thess. v. 4, 5.

6. rovro ywwokovrec, knowing
this, | “and we know this.” Com-
pare 2 Pet. i. 20., iii. 3.

6 madawe tpwy avOpwroc. |
The image of the Christian, as
one with Christ, is still carried
on. Man falls asunder into two
parts corresponding to the two
divisions of Christ’s life, and
leaves one of those parts hang-
ing upon the cross. 6 maXdavoc¢
}uov avOowroc—our former self.
Compare: azoléo0ar vudg Kara
THY Tporépay cvacrpopiy Tov ma-
Aawy avOpwrov . . . Kal €vdvaa-
o8ac tov Kawvov avOpwrov, Eph.
iv. 22—24.; 6 vedc G1 Opwroc, Col.
iii. 10.; Wuyexde avOpwroc, 1 Cor.
ii. 14.; also for the general sense
2 Cor. v. 17., “ Therefore if any
man be in Christ, he is a new
creature: old things are passed
away; behold, all things are
become new.” Coloss. ii. 14.,
“ Having blotted out the hand-
writing of ordinances that was
against us,. .. and nailed it to
his cross.” ‘The figure is some-
what varied : our death to sin, v.
3, 4., is blended with the death of
sin, in y. 6., represented under the
image of the old man who is left
behind on thecross. ‘The other as-
pect of the figure returns in ver. 7.

0 2

196

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VI.

iva kaTapynOn 7d capa THs apaptias, TOD pyKeTe Sovrevew

NaS TH apapTia
apapTias.

VEKpOV ovKeTL aTOOVHAC KEL.

e A 5 QA 4 5 A ~
6 yap amolavav SedikalwTar ad THS
b J A , A “~ 4 Y
et O€ ameOdvopey ody ypLaT@, TLTTEVOMEV OTL
\ , BS) “A b) , Y X > A >
Kal cuvljoomwey avT@, elddTes OTL ypioTos eyepUeEls EK

,
Odvatos avTOU OVKETL KUPLEVEL.

0 yap amVaver, TH apaptia améOaver épama€. 6 dé Lh, |

TO cHpa Tie apapriac has been
taken in four ways: —

(1.) The mass of sin.

(2.) The sinful body, the body
which is of sin, belongs to sin,
like oda rij¢ capxdéc, in Col. ii.
1]. the fleshly body.

(3.) Sin which adheres to men
as a body, like Rom. vii. 24.,
“the body of this death,” accord-
ing to its most probable explana-
tion. Or,

(4.) The body of sin may be a
continuation of the figure of the
old man who is identified with
sin, and has a body attributed to
him.

The last of these interpreta-
tions is most in accordance with
the symbolism of the passage,
while the first two are plainly
repugnant to it.

Tov pnKére Oovevery tude] ex-
presses in the concrete, what had
previously been expressed in the
abstract, in the words iva xcarap-
ynOn TO copa Tic dpapriac.

7. 6 yap aroOavwr dedixaiwrar,
he that is dead has been justi-
fied.| The legal terms right and
wrong no longer apply to him.
it is a principle of the law itself
which the Apostle is adducing.
Compare vii. 1.:—“ The law
hath power over the man as long
as he liveth.” There is also an
allusion in the word ded:caéwrac
to the doctrine of righteous-
ness by faith, which is height-
ened by the associations of the
previous yerse:— “Not only he

that is dead sins no more, but
he has left his crimes behind
him, and paid the last penalty for
sin.” .

10

It is not quite clear whether —

these words refer only to Christ,
or to the believer who is in his
image also. The latter is most
agreeable to the context. The
nerve of the Apostle’s argument
was: “How shall we who are
dead to sin live any longer
therein?” Continuing _ this
thought, he says: “ We are dead
and buried with Christ, and
therefore should rise with him
to newness of life. We have
left the old man on the cross
with him, that the body of sin
may be done away. For death is
the quittance of sin.” “How then
shall we any longer live in it?”
— is still the Apostle’s inference ;
not only “how shall we who are
dead to sin,” but, “ how shall we
who are justified by death.”

dukatovobar aro Tije cpapriag, |
not to be justified, and so sepa-
rated or freed from sin, structura
pregnanti, as it is termed, but
like dccawOjvat aro tavrwr, Acts,
xiii. 39.

8. A repetition of ver. 5. in a
slightly altered form, a new turn
being given to the words by their
juxtaposition with the previous
clause. As the dead is justified,
we believe that, as we are dead,
we shall rise again. The con-
nexion which is here latent be-

tween resurrection and justifica-_

o mw

Ver. 7—10.]

stroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.
he that is dead has been justified * from sin.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

197

For
But * if

we be dead with Christ,* we believe that we shall also
live with him: knowing that Christ being raised from
the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion

over him.

tion is more clearly brought out
in iv. 25., v. 18.

In ver. 4., the Apostle had
been chiefly speaking of walking
in newness of life; here the
words miorevouev dri imply that
he is referring to another life, as
in 2 Tim. ii. 11, 12.; Col. i. 5.

9. We hope to be partakers
of his resurrection, knowing that
he dies no more. Sin and death
are connected together: he that
is dead is freed from sin, there-
fore death hath no more dominion
over him. Such appears to be
the under current of the Apo-
stle’s thought, which is more
fully drawn out in the following
verse.

10. 5 yap aréOaver, in that he
died.| The first question re-

specting these words is, how we

may assign a uniform sense to
the dative in both members of
the sentence. A near parallel to
them occurs in Soph. Aj. 1106.
Sede yap éxowler pe, Twde 0 ovxo-
pa, which might be translated
into the New Testament Greek,
rede TéOvnka, C@ Yep. “In rela-
tion to sin, or as far as sin is
concerned, he died, in relation to
God he lives.” Compare 2 Cor.
xiii. 4.: ei éoravpwOn é& aode-
veiac, Ada CH EK Ouvapewc Sov.

The construction of 6 may be
explained either by supposing it
to be the case after avé0avey or
in apposition with it: “for the
death which he died, or in that

~ death.

For in that he died, he died unto sin once:

he died;” either way passing
into a conjunction.

But what is the meaning of
dying unto sin, or in relation to
sin, so far as sin is concerned,
once? Sin and death are con-
ceived of as inseparably con-
nected with each other, and as
both appertaining to Christ on
earth. Sin is the sin of man by
whom he suffered, the sins of
mankind with which he united
himself, the terrors of the law,
according to which he fell under
the curse ; sin in every sense in
which figuratively or ideally it
can be applied to Christ (ch. iv.
25.: compare Oc rapedd0n du ra
TapanTwpara uay Kat HyépOn due
Ti dkaiwory hor). Of all this
he was quitted and cleared by
His death was but a
single, momentary act (épazaé),
which gave death, that -king of
terrors, no real dominion over
Him. It was but a death unto
sin, the laying aside of a certain
relation in which He had stood to
a former dispensation. But His
life is infinitely real, He lives in
communion with God. Compare
Luke xx. 38.: “For all live
unto Him.” We might para-
phrase the passage as follows: —

Death hath no more dominion
over Him.

For His death was but the ne-
gation of sin and death. His
life is a communion with the
source of life.

o 3

198 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. VI.

lal A Y bee ‘a , e ‘\ .." \ A
T@ Deg. ovTws Kal vpets Noyilea Oe EavTovs veKpods pev TH
3 / - A de a ma »® a> A > ‘\ oy
dpaptia’, Cavras 6€7@ Dew ev xpiaT@ Inco.” py obv Bact-

lat nw 4
NeveTo7 apaptia ev TO OVNTO VpOVv TwWpaTL Els TO VITAKOVEW*

A 5 4 > Aw \ 4 X\ 4 ,« nw Y
Tats eriOvupiais avTOD, WHOSE TAPLOTAVETE TA WEAN VLOV Oma
> 4 ao ce , 3 \ la c \ w A
ddukias TH apapTia, a\Aa TapacTHoate EavTovs TO Hed

a aA \ a
aoe ék vexpaov Covtas Kal TA méAN VaV OTra SiKavoovvns

TO Oe.

e ‘\ / > ‘ e \ 4,
vTO vojov, ahha vio yap.

apapTia yap vua@v ov KupLevoEL* OV yap EoTE

, > ¢ , 4 9 > b] \ e X , 3 \
Ti otv; apapTnowpev “, OTL OVK ETMEV VTO VOpov adda

e_\ , N , > ¥ Y @
bro ydpw; py yévouro. OvK oldaTEe OTL @

1 elvau. 2 +@ kupl@ nuar,
Throughout this passage the
Apostle is identifying Christ and
the believers; and conceptions,
primarily applicable or more in-
telligible in reference to the one,
are transferred to the other. We
shall better apprehend his mean-
ing, by beginning in a different
order. “For in that we die, we
die unto sin; in that we live, we
live unto God.” Our death with
Christ is the renunciation of sin
once for all, and the opening of a
new life unto God. Under this
figure of what the believer feels
in himself, the Apostle describes
the work of Christ. Death and
life are one but yet two in the
individual soul—the negative
and positive side of the change
which the Gospel makes in him
—so they are also in Christ. =
11. As He dies and lives for
evermore, so also consider that
ye are dead, indeed, unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus

Christ. éy, instrumental, as in
ver. 23.

12. The Apostle had said
above : — “ How shall we who

are dead to sin, live any longer
therein?” He now says: — “Let
not sin reign in your mortal

TApLOTaveETE

t

8 air év. 4 Guaprioouer,

body.” We should rather have
expected : —“ Let not sin reign
in your body, which is already
dead.” Various modes have been
adopted of avoiding the diffi-

-culty: (1.) Let not sin reign in

your flesh ; or, (2.) in your body,
which is appointed to die,—of
which it is a solemn reflection
that it shall one day die; or,
(3.) in which death is a figure of
a death unto sin.

The same use of the word
Synroc occurs in two other pas-
sages: 6 éyeipac xproror ['Inoovy ]
ék vexpov Cworojoe ta Svnra owe-
para vpor, Rom. viii. 11.; and in
2 Cor. iv. 11.: dei yap tpete ot
Cwvrec etc Sdvarov mapadiddpeba
dud "Inoovy, iva kcal 4 fw) row
Inoov pavepwOn év ri Svnrq capt
jpov. In neither of these pas-
sages can the sense be “ liable to
death, mortal.” The Apostle is
speaking of a state, not of pos-
sible, but of actual death. Your
“corrupt” bodies, or your bodies
which are in a state of death,
would be a more exact translation.

So in the passage we are con-
sidering, the word itself has
acquired a new meaning, from
the different point of view in

11
12

138

14

15
16

11

12

13

14

15
16

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 199

VER 11—16. |

but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. Likewise
reckon ye also yourselves* dead indeed unto sin,
but alive unto God through Jesus Christ.? Let not
sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should
obey® the lusts thereof. Neither yield ye your members
as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield
yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the
dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness
unto God. For sin shall not have dominion over you:

for ye are not under the law, but under grace.
What then? are we to sin*, because we are not under

the law, but under grace?

1 Add to be. 2 Add our Lord,
which the Apostle regards death.
Let not sin reign in your “dead
body,” or your “ body which is in
a state of death unto sin,” is his
meaning. The figurative use of
Syyr@ is exactly parallel with
Synrn oapki, in 2 Cor. iv. 11.

13. pndé tapiaravere.| Comp.
1 Cor. v. 16.:— “Shall I take the
members of Christ and make
them the members of an harlot?”
Rom. xii. 1.:—apaorijou ra ow-
para tor Suciay Gooar.

14. Itmight seem, at first sight,
tautology to say, “Letnotsinreign
over you, for sin shall not reign
over you.” A slightly different
turn restores the meaning. Do
it, as we might say, for you are
able to do it. Present yourselves
to God as those who are alive
from the dead; who were dead
once, but now alive; under the
law once, but under grace now.
Instead of the outward and posi-
tive rule, you have the inward
union with Christ; for thestrength
of sin, the consciousness of for-
giveness ; for fear, love; for bon-
dage, freedom ; for slavery, son-

God forbid.

Know ye not,

8 Add it in. * Shall we sin.
ship ; for weakness, power. Such
an enlargement of the words of
the Apostle may be gathered from
other places. The yap expresses
the ground of motive and encou-
ragement.

15. Thus far the Apostle has
argued, that we cannot continue
in sin because we are dead with
Christ. Going off upon the words
of the last verse, he now puts the
same argument in another point
of view: “ We cannot serve two
masters.” His servants we are
to whom we render our service,
of sin unto death, or of obedience
unto righteousness.

What then? because we have
the promise that sin shall not
prevail over us, because we are
not bound merely by an exter-
nal obligation, but endowed with
an inward power, shall we sin?
Not so; we cannot sin without
being the servants of sin ; whether
we choose for our masters sin or
righteousness, we are their ser-
vants.

16. It seems like tautology to
say: — ‘‘ Whose servants ye make

04

200

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VI.

e \ 4 3 e , a) , 3 = e , '
Eavtovs SovAovs els vraxonv, Sodvd\ot eote @ ViaKoveTE, —

+ e / b ] , x e nw b 4,

nToL apaptias eis Odvatov % vraKons eis SiKaloovvnp ;
tous O€ T@ Yew, OTL ATE SOVAOLTNS a las, vrTnKovoare

apis D Jew, OTe ATE SovOLTHS ApapTias, vINKOVTATE

dé ex Kapdias els Ov TapEddOnTe TUTOV Sidayyns* EevEpw-

, \ > X “~ e , b) 4, “~ ,
Oévtes 5€ amd THS apaptias ESovldOnTE TH SiKatocvyy. —
5 , , ‘\ ‘ 3 4 A X e nw
avOpémwov héyw Sia THY acb&vaav THs TapKds pov.

Y ‘ 4 ‘\ e la lal ~ 3
ooTEep yap TapeoTHoatTe TA peln Duav Sovr\a TH aka-

, Clas , > \ p) , Y A ,
Gapaia KQL TY) AVOMLA ELS TYV AVOMLLAV, OVUTW VUV TAPACTY-

\ , € ~ A ~ , > c / 4
TaTETA MEAN Var Sodha TH Sixaocvvy Eis ayiaapoV. OTE

yourselves, his servants ye are.”
Accordingly, Lachmann, in his
preface, has given up the word 4,
and conjectures wc. It may be
objected that the emendation is
weak, and that the words as
they stand are very much after
the manner of St. Paul. They
admit, moreover, of a sufficient
sense, even supposing the Apostle
to have meant nothing more than
an emphatic repetition :—“ Know
ye not that what ye are, ye are.”
But what he says is not precisely
this, but—‘“ Know ye not that
whatye make yourselves, ye are?”
the first clause expressing a vo-
luntary and temporary act, and the
second its permanent conse-
quence. “To whomsoever ye
offer yourselves as slaves, his
slaves ye are, and will not cease to
be.” There is a line drawn be-
tween the two services of sin and
righteousness which you cannot
ass.

As if unable to find another
word, the Apostle repeats tzaxoy
in the latter part of the sentence
in a new sense. The antithesis
of ducacocbvy and Oavaroc belongs
to the form rather than the mean-
ing. Comp. Rom. x. 10.

In Greek we often find a par-
ticiple where, in a modern lan-

guage, a verb would be employed,

and a sentence made independent.
In the Greek of the New Tes-
tament the opposite, however,
sometimes happens ; we have a
verb used where a participle
would be more natural. ‘Thus,
in the present passage, the mean-
ing is: —“ Thanks be to God,
that having been the servants of
sin, ye became the servants of
righteousness,” — “that ye were
and became,”—the two clauses
being regarded as one. Compare
Eph. v.8.: ire yap wore oxdroc, viv
d€ pwc év Kupiy.

17. imncovoare sic Ov mapedd-
Onre rovov didayhc = IayKovoareE
TO TUTY dLdayiis Eic Ov wapEeddOnre.
The singularity of this attraction
of the antecedent into the case of
the relative, consists in the cir-
cumstance that the dative is thus
resolved. Comp. Rom. iv. 17. ;
Acts xxi. 16., a&yovrec rap’ Q Ee~
vicdduev Mvadowm, where, not-
withstanding the attempt of Winer
(§§ 31, 2.) to show that dyer may
govern a dative, the inverted at-
traction is far more natural.

18. Ye were freed from sin and
made the servants of righteous-
ness.

19. dvOpemvov Aéyw = kar y=
bowrov Aéyw.| Iuse human lan-
guage. Sometimes, as in 1 Cor.
ix. 8., opposed to the words of the

2¢

17

18
19

20

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 201

Ver. 17—20.]

that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his
servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of sin unto
death, or of obedience unto righteousness? But God be
thanked, that ye were the servants of sin, but ye have
obeyed from the heart that form of doctrine whereto ye
were delivered *; and* being made free from sin, ye
became the servants of righteousness. I speak after the
manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh.
For as ye have yielded your members servants to un-
cleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity; even so now
yield your members servants to righteousness unto
* sanctification. For when ye were the servants of sin,

law, 7) kar’. dvOpwrov ratra ado 7

Kat 6 vopoc ravra ov XaXe7; OF as

in Rom. iii. 5., used as a sort of
apology for a seemingly profane
mode of speech; or, as in Gal.
iii, 15., adeXgol, cara a&yvOpwrov
Aéyw. Guwe avOpwrov Kexvpwperv ny
CabhKnv ovdeic dOErEt 7} Exicrarac-
oerat, where it means simply, “I
use a human figure of speech,”
as in this passage, in reference to
the expression, “slavery to right-
eousness.” -

bud riv dobéveay rijc capKoc
vporv.| I speak of a service
after the manner of men; because
your flesh is still weak, and there-
fore with you to be righteous, is
to be the servant of righteous-
ness; or because ye are slow of
understanding (compare Heb. vy.
11, 12.), and therefore I speak of

your present state under a figure

derived from your former one.
Comp. viii. 20.:— “For the
creature was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but by rea-
son of Him who hath subjected
the same in hope, for the crea-
ture itself also shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption

into the glorious liberty of the
children of God.”

TH avopia Eig THY avopiayr. |
With no other end but lawless-
ness.

20, 21. The connexion of these
two verses has been traced as
follows: — there was a time when
you were in the opposite state,
when you were the slaves of sin,
and had a seeming freedom from
righteousness. Compare the two
states. What.does your expe-
rience tell you of the fruit of
sin? Things of which you are
now ashamed, for the end of those
things is death.

Adopting Lachmann’s punctu-
ation, it must be admitted that,
according to this way of taking
the passage, the point of rd per
yup Tédo¢ éxeivwv Savaroc is lost
in some degree ; for these words
supply a good answer to the ques-
tion, “ What fruit had ye?” but
are an inappropriate reason “ for
their being ashamed of these
things.”

It may be objected also that
the relative clause is a harsh and
abrupt answer to the question.

[Cu. VI.

202 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

\ } A 9 ~ e ‘4 3 , > ~ 5 4
yap Sovhou Are THS apaptias, ElevOepor HrE TH SuKavocvyy.
Tiva ovv Kapmov etyeTe TOTE; Ef ois VV erratoyver Oe:

N » Fae \ , b) , a , \ de 2 @ bg
TO pev' yap Tédos Exeivav Odvatos: vuvi de ElevOepwbevres
> N A ec , , \ A A » .
amd THS apaptias, Soviwb&res Sé TO Oew, EveTE TOV
KapTOV vpav els ayiacpor, Td Sé Tédos Cwyv aidmor.
Ta yap opdvia THS apaptias Odvatos, 76 S€ ydpiopa
Tov Oeod lw) aidvios év xptoT@ Incov T@ Kupio yuar.

1 Omit per.

It is better to take the words
ép oi¢ viv éracoyvvecbe neither as
the answer to the question, nor
as a part of the question, but as
a parenthesis thrown in by the
way.

As though the Apostle had
said : —“‘ For when you were the
servants of sin, you were not the
servants of righteousness. What
fruit had you then of those
things ? (which I cannot mention
without telling you that you are
now ashamed of them).” The

answer is implied in what fol-
lows: “ You had no fruit, for
the end of those things is death.
But now ye are the servants of
righteousness, and not the ser-
vants of sin, you have a fruit, the
end of which is not death, but
eternal life.” There is an exact
parallelism between ver. 20, 21,
and 22., with the exception that
the words of the question riva
ovv Kaproy elyere ; are exchanged
for éxere tov kaprov buoy in the
succeeding verse.

22

23

Ver. 21—23.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

203

ye were free* as touching* righteousness. What fruit
had ye then? things whereof ye are now ashamed; for
the end of those things is death. But now being made
free from sin, and become servants to God, ye have your
fruit unto sanctification *, and the end everlasting life.
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is
eternal life in* Jesus Christ our Lord.

éXevOepot 7H ducaroovry. | Right-
eousness was not your master ;
you were freeas far as she was con-
cerned. The dative may be ex-
plained either by the parallelism
of dovAoc or as a dative of relation.

23. The evil that we receive
at the hand of God is deserved,

but the good undeserved. Sin

has its wages, and yet eternal life
is a free gift. How can we main-
tain this paradox, which is, more-
over, a form of expression natural
to us?

It is quite true that the good
and evil which we receive at the
hands of God is exactly propor-
tioned by his justice and wisdom
to our deserts. But what we
intend to express by such forms
of speech is: —(1.) Our feeling
that he is, in a special sense, the
author of our salvation as well
as of all good; (2.) That what-
ever may be our deserts in his
eye, they would lose their very
nature if we regarded them as
deserts.

204 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP. VII.

Ver, 1—7.

In the same way that in 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10., the Apostle argues

from the verse in the law — “ Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that

treadeth out the corn,” adding that—“ this was written for our sakes,” —

he proceeds, at the commencement of this chapter, to argue from a
principle of the law which we have observed to have been already
in his thoughts in ver. 7. of the chapter preceding. Such an
argument, although by ourselves it would be regarded as a figure
of speech or an illustration, was after the manner of those times,
and came home with peculiar force to the mind of the Jew. The
form of authority with which he introduces it, does not allow us to
suppose that he intended it himself as an illustration. It would be
more true to say that such a distinction as that between “ illus-
tration” and “argument” had no existence in the mind of the
Apostle.

According to the similitude which the Apostle here uses, the
_ relation of the Jew to the law is likened to the case of a wife who has
lost her husband. As a widow the law, of course, said that she
might marry again; her husband had no claim on her. Even so
the law itself was dead, and the Jew was free to marry again to
Christ, who was not dead, but risen from the dead.

There is, however, a difficulty in the application of the similitude
in ver. 4, 5, 6. This arises from the believer being regarded in
two points of view. In the figure he is compared to the wife, while
in the application he seems to change places, and become identified
with the husband, who, in a certain sense, as well as the wife, is
freed from the law ; for “he that is dead, has been freed from sin.”
For this change there seem to be two reasons : — First, In working
out the figure, the resemblance of the Christian to the husband as

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 205

well as to the wife, strikes the Apostle; for as the husband is dead,
so also is the Christian dead to the law. Secondly, The change may
be regarded as a sort of euphemism to Jewish ears. The Apostle
avoids the harshness of saying that “the law is dead,” by substi-
tuting “ye are dead to the law.”

“The wife is dead to the law ” in reference to a single point ; that
is, “she is loosed from the law of the husband ” (ver. 2.), “she may
marry again” (ver. 3.).

So also the chain is snapped by which the believer is bound to the
law itself; he may marry again to “ Him that is raised from the dead.”

Instead, however, of drawing out further “the death of the law,”
the Apostle turns the figure round, and compares the believer no
longer to the living wife, but to the dead husband (read aroavérrec,
in ver. 6.).

“The husband is dead to the law” in general; it has no more
dominion over him: he is quit of it not in one point but in all.
The dead husband, in ver. 4, 5, 6., equally with the surviving wife, in
ver. 1, 2, 3., is an image of the relation in which the Christian stands
to the law, as dying to it, although he survives it. See notes.

Besides the slighter verbal connexion of this passage with ver. 7.
of the previous chapter (6 yap aro0avwy Sedukaiwrat aro rij¢ ayapriac),
which has been already mentioned, there is a deeper connexion also
with the whole of the preceding subject.

In the previous chapter the believer had been described as dead
unto sin, but alive unto righteousness. “Sin,” said the Apostle,
“shall have no more dominion over you; for ye are not under the
law, but under grace.” This thought he carries out further in the
present passage, illustrating it by the particular case of the woman
and the husband, which, in the language of the Epistle to the
Galatians, shows, in a figure, “that the law is dead to us, and we
to the law.” The only difference is that in the last chapter what
the Apostle was speaking of was a “death unto sin ;” here rather
of what in his view is so closely connected as to be almost identical
with it, “a death unto the law.” It is the close connexion between
them that leads him to ab in verse 7., against the possible in-
ference that “the law is sin,”

206 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. VII.

xn 3 “54
H ayvoeire, ddeddot, (ywoeokovow yap vdpov add)

Y a
OTL O VOMOS KupLever TOV avOparrov ef’ daov xpdvov Lh;

X 9 5 \ A a ° 5 \ béo 4 Pi .Y
yap umavdpos yurn TO Cavri avdpt déderat vow édv Se
3 4 ¢ b) l4 2? lal nA
aTolavy 6 avyp, KaTHpyyTat ard Tod vdépov Tod avdpds.
ȴ > Aw lal
apa ovv Cavtos Tov avdpos powyadls xpymarioes, eav yévy-

Tau avopl érépw éav dé aroldvy 6 dvip, éhevOépa éotiv dard

lal , A \ > + Ee 3.” 4 I b) +
TOV Vopov, TOD py Eval avTHY porxadida, ‘yevouerny avdpt
ETep@. WoTE, AdeAGol pov, Kal tpets EavardOnte TO vopa
ua TOD THparos TOD YpLaTOD, Els TO yever Oat twas Erépy,

n 93 nw 3 , v , A A
T® €k vexpav éyepI&Ti, wa Kaptodopyoapey TO Ded. bre

‘ > > “~ , ‘\ a“ lal
yap huey &v TH oapKi, TA TaPHpata TOY apapTiov Ta Sid
TOU VomOU evypyetTo Ev Tols pédeoW HMaV Eis TO KapToO-

VII. The Apostle begins by
asserting the general principle,
and illustrates it by a particular
case. He reminds the Roman
Church that they knew the law
(a passing allusion not without
interest and importance to us.
See Introduction). Now the
power of the law, as they also
knew, did not extend beyond life ;
the proof of this being the fami-
liar case of the dissolution by
death of the relations of husband
and wife.

1. rov avOpwrov, of the man. |
Not the husband, but the subject
of the law.

é~’ Stov xpovoy f.| Not “so
long as the Jaw liveth ” (which, if
the expression were itself tole-
rable, would be a self-evident
and unmeaning proposition); but,
“so long as he, that is, the man
liveth, who is the subject of the
law.”
— «Oéderat, Karipynra, “has been
and is,” the perfect expressing
the continuance of the state of
bondage or freedom from the
law. The word xarapyeic@at, “ to
be set at nought, made void,” is
here used structura pregnanti;

that is, it is followed by azo as
though some other verb had pre-
ceded.. Compare Gal. v.4.: xa-
TypynOnre amo TOU xproTod.
xenpartCey,in its earlier sense,
means to do business, to give
audience: hence its two mean-
ings in the New Testament:
(1.) simply to be called or have a
title, as Polybius (v. 57. 2.) uses
the expression, Jaciréa ypnpari-
Cecv, and here poryadic ypnparioet;

Acts xi. 26., ypnuarioa xprore- ©

avovc: (2.) in the passive xpnua-

viCeaBar, to be warned, or receive

an answer or intimation, as in
the phrase XenpariaBete Kar’ ovap,
Matt. ii. 22.

4. dare bueic éBavarwOnre. | The
Apostle changes the figure. The
words é@avarwOnre and arobavdr-
recc are too strong to allow us to
suppose that he-is still describing
the death of the believer to the
law under the image of the wife ;
who is not dead, but only freed
by death. This latter image,
however, reappears in the next
words, eic ro yevéoOar vpdc ETEPWe
For a similar change, comp. ch.
vi. 5, 6, 7.3; 1 Thess. v. 2. 4.

\ ~ ~ ~
Cid TOU owyarog Tov xpLorad. |

1

or

Ver. 1—5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 207

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that
know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a
man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath
an husband is bound by the law to her husband* that
liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from
the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband
liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be
called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is
free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though
she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren,
ye also are become dead to the law by the body of
Christ; that ye should be married to another, to him who
is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit
unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions
of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members

These words have been para- kod\dA\AWpevoc TH Kupiy tv TvEevpa
phrased by some interpreters: — éarwv.

“Through the body of Christ. kuptogopicat, | here and in v.5.,
which is the substance of which is an allusion to the word xapzéc,
the law is the shadow,” as in in ver. 21, 22., of the previous
Col. ii. 17.: 6 gory oxida Toy peAX- chapter.

hévtwy, TO 6€ owWya TOU xpLOTOU. 5. Goes back a step to contrast
Here, however, cwpaisonly used the previous with the present
for substance, in opposition to state; ydp is explanatory :—“For
oxut. In our present passage, when we were in the state of
it is better to understand did rod sinful flesh, that is, when we
gWwLaATOG TOU ypLoTOv, AS Meaning were under the law, the sinful
“by the death of Christ,” which affections which the law created,
is thus signified by his mortal wroughtin our members to bring
part, in opposition to éyepév7.. forth fruit unto death.”

The word coua may have been The Apostle here takes the
chosen instead of Savaroc, to same view of the relation of the |
express the accessory idea of a law and sin as in the following
communion of many members’ paragraph. Death is not the
in one body, as in Col. i. 24., consequence of sin, but rather
“The body of Christ which is the joint result of sin and of the
the church.” Comp. above vi. law.

3., EPanricOnre cic rov Sadvaror ; ra raOjpara roy d&paprior. |
and the Christian use of the The affections which spring from
figure of marriage, Eph. v. 32., sins or which cause sins; or
“This is a great mystery, but better, more generally, which be-
I speak concerning Christ and long to sins. Compare 746n ém-
the church ;” alsol Cor. vi.17., 6 Oupias.

208

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VIL

A ~ Q , 3 \ de +0) } Jee, A ,
dhopjoa TO Oavatw: vuvi dé KatnpyyOnuev amo Tod vé-
pov, amobavdvtes! ev @ KaTerxducla, wdote Sovdevew
[nas] év Kawornte mvEevpmatos Kat ov TadaLoTHTL ypap-

p-aros.

1 @mroavdyTos.

rd dia Tov vopov| not “in the
state of the law,” but “ of which
the law is the instrument.”
Comp. ver. 8. and ch. v. ver. 19.

6. vuvi dé KarnoyiOnpev aro
Tov vopou, atoVavdvroc TOU Savarov
év & xarerxdpeba, A. G. f. g. v.

yuvt oe KarnpynOnuev dro rou
vopov arobavdvrec év @ Kareryd-
peda, A. B. C.

The latter reading, which is
adopted by Lachmann, is probably
the true one. It is sometimes
translated “Being dead to that
wherein we were held.” It is
simpler to connect év » with
dnd rov vopov. “But now, by
dying, we are separated from the
law in which we were held.”

wore dovrevery Hude. | Comp. vi.
22. The moral and the positive,
the written and the unwritten,
the letter that killeth and the
Spirit that giveth life, are con-
trary the one to the other.

7—25. The question which
naturally arises in reading the
following passage, is that of the
Eunuch to Philip: — “ Of whom
saith the Apostle this, of himself
or of another?” or, in other
words : — “ Is he speaking of the
regenerate or of the unregenerate
man?” Accordingly as we an-
swer this question, the doctrine
of the Epistle assumes a different
character. If we say “of him-
self and the regenerate man,”
might we not add in his own
words ? — “ Your faith is vain,
ye are yet in your sins.” The
Gospel has done nothing more

than strengthen and déepen the
consciousness of sin. By the
Gospel, no less than by the
law, shall “ no flesh be justified ;”
“for,” as we may reason with
the Apostle (ili. 20.), “by the
gospel is the knowledge of sin.”
Then is the believer “of all men
most miserable ;” for, assuredly,
the heathen is not subject to that
distraction of nature, which is
here described. He has passed
into a state in which he is not
one but two; instead of being
reconciled with God, he is at
war with self. The light of
peace is not within him, but at
a distance from him; seen, for
a moment only, revealing the na-
ture of the struggle.

Nothing but the exigencies of
controversy would have induced
Augustine, against his better

mind and the authority of the -

earlier Fathers, to refer this pas-
sage to the condition of the re-
generate man. He was led to
this interpretation, as others have
been, by the equal, if not greater,
difficulty of referring the descrip-
tion of the Apostle to the unre-
generate.

The latter interpretation is

plainly repugnant to the spirit of
the passage; for whom shall we
conceive the Apostle to be de-
scribing ? or, rather, which is the
same thing, whom do we ourselves

mean by the term unregenerate?

Is it the Jew, or the heathen, or
the hypocrite, or the sensualist ?
To none of these characters will

me
=

Ver. 6.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

209

to bring forth fruit unto death. But now, being dead,

we are delivered from the law! wherein we were held ;
and so * we serve in newness of spirit, and not in the old-

ness of the letter.

1 Omit “being dead,” and add “that being dead ” after “ the law.”

such a description refer. They
know of no struggle between the
things they would and would
not; they live in no twilight
between good and evil; their
state is a lower and less con-
scious one. Who would speak
of the unregenerate heart of
Cesar or of Achilles? Language
itself teaches us the impropriety
of such expressions. And the
reason of the impropriety is, that
_ we feel with the Apostle, though
our point of view may be some-
what different, that the guilt of
sin is inseparable from the know-
ledge of sin. Those who never
heard the name of Christ, who
never admit the thought of Christ,
cannot be brought within the cir-
cle of Christian feelings and as-
sociations.

There have been few more
frequent sources of difficulty in
theology, than the common fal-
lacy of summing up inquiries
under two alternatives, neither of
which corresponds to the true
nature of the case. We may
admit the logical proposition
that all things are animal or not
animal, vegetable or not vege-
table, mineral or not mineral.
But we cannot say that all men
arecivilised or uncivilised, Chris-
tian or unchristian, regenerate
or unregenerate. Such a mode
of division is essentially erro-
neous. It exercises a false in-
fluence on the mind, by tending
to confuse fixed states and trans-
itions, differences in degree with

VOL. II.

differences in kind. All things
may be passing out of one class
into another, and may therefore
belong to both or neither. The
very attempt to classify or divide
them may itself be the source of
an illusion.

Obvious as such a fallacy is, it
is only by the light of experi-
ence that theology can be freed
from it. From “the oppositions
of knowledge falsely so called,”
we turn to the human heart itself.
Reading this passage by what we
know of ourselves and other
men, we no longer ask the ques-
tion: — “ Whether the Apostle
is speaking of the regenerate or
unregenerate man?” — That is
an “after-thought,” which has
nothing to correspond to it in
the world, and nothing to justify
it in the language of the Apostle.
Mankind are not divided into re-
generate and unregenerate, but
are in a state of transition from
one to the other, or too dead and
unconscious to be included in
either. What we want to know is
the meaning of the Apostle, not
in the terms of a theological pro-
blem, but in the simpler manner
in which it presented itself to his
own mind.

He is speaking of a conflict in
the soul of man, the course of
which, notwithstanding its sud-
den and fitful character, is never-
theless marked by a certain pro-
gress. It commences in childish
and unconscious ignorance —
(“I was alive without the law

210

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VII.

> A / \ , a b) %

Ti ovv Epodpev; 6 vdpmos apaptia; py ‘yevo.to" ahha

‘ / , ‘\

THY Gpaptiay ovK eyvev ei py Sia Vvopov. THY TE ‘yap
> , > * > A Se / aN Ou > 0 / >
em Oupiay ovk Woe, El 7) 0 Vomos Eheyev, OvK EeriOupynoes
> ‘ \ a) f 4.€ , 8 \ ‘a > \n ,
adoppnvy dé \aBovoa 7 apapTtia Ova THs EvTOANS KaTELpya-

once”), which is succeeded by
the deep consciousness of sin,
which the law awakens, and so
hovering between death and life,
passes on to the last agony and
final deliverance. The stages of
this contest are not exactly
defined. In the earliest of them
is an element of reason and of
good; in the latest, we seem only
to arrive at a more intense con-
viction of human misery. The
progress is not a progress from
works to faith, or from the law
to grace, but a growing separa-
tion and division, in which the
soul is cut in two—§into the
better and the worse mind, the
inner and the outer man, the
flesh and the Spirit. The law is
the dividing principle, “ sharper
than any two-edged sword,”
which will not allow them to
unite. On the one side remains
the flesh, as it were, a decom-
posing body of death; on the
other, the mind and spirit flutter
in lawless aspirations after good
which they have no means or in-
struments to attain. The extre-
mity of the conflict is the moment
of deliverance ; when completely
in the power of sin, we are al-
ready at the gate of heaven.

In this spiritual combat, in the
description of which he adopts the
first person, is he really speaking
of himself or of some other man?
The question with which we be-
gan has been already answered.
The description which has just
been given, could not have been
meant as an epitome of his own

daily experience. It may describe
the struggle of Luther at a par-
ticular crisis of his life, not the
habitual temper of St. Paul. We
cannot imagine him daily “doing
the things that he would not, and
not doing the things that he
would.” Least of all can we sup-
pose him to say this of himself
just after the words which have
preceded, in which he has been
contrasting the present service of
the believer
Spirit,” with oldness of the letter.
One might ask further, which of
the many states which are des-
cribed in this passage (vii. 7—
viii. 17.) is the state of the Apo-
stle himself? On the other hand,
it is true that the use of the first
person is not merelyrhetorical. It
seems as though the Apostle were
speaking partly from recollec-
tions of his former state, partly
from the emotions of sin, which
he still perceived in his mem-
bers, now indeed pacified and
kept under control, yet suffi-
ciently sensible to give a liveli-
ness to the remembrance, and
make him feel his dependence
on Christ. So much of the
struggle continued in him as he
himself describes in such passages
as 2 Cor. i. 9, 10., or xii. 7. He
who says, “without were fight-
ings, within fears ” (2 Cor. v. 7.),
who had “ the sentence of death
in himself,” and “ a messenger of
Satan to buffet him,” could not
have lived always in an unbroken
calm of mind, any more than we
can imagine him to have been

“in newness of.

Ver. 7, 8.]

What shall we say then?

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

211
God

Is the law sin?

forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for
I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou

shalt not lust.*

constantly repeating, “O wretched
man that I am!” Further, we
may remark, that the combat, as
it deepens, becomes more ideal, —
that is, removes further away
from the actual consciousness of
mankind; the Apostle is de-
scribing tendencies in the heart of
man which go beyond the expe-
rience of individuals.

7. Ti ody épovpev; What shail
we say then?| If the law was
the instrument whereby the mo-
tions of sins worked in our mem-
bers (ver. 5.), if we are freed
from sin by being dead to the
law (ver. 6.), what shall we say?
“Ts the law sin?” It has been
nearly identified in what pre-
cedes, it is all but sin in what
follows. There is reason for us
to pause before going further.

6 vdpuoc, the law.| But what
law? the Mosaic, or the law writ-
ten on the heart? We can only
gather from the passage itself,
which leads us rather to think of
a terrible consciousness of sin,
than of questions of new moons,
and sabbaths. “ What shall we
say then,” we might paraphrase,
“is conscience sin ? ”

To shift the meaning of vdoe,
or to assign remote and different
significations to the word in suc-
cessive verses, may seem like a
trick of the interpreter. Whether
it really be so or not, must depend
on the fact of how St. Paul uses
the word, and on the general use
of language in his age. Compare
Col. ii. 16—23. for three distinct
uses of the word cepa; also vii.

But sin, taking occasion by the com-

21—viii. 4. for several changes
in the sense of voduoc, and viii.
19—22. for similar changes in
the sense of kxrioce.

py yévorro.| If by being freed
from the law, we are freed from
sin what shall we say? “Is the
law sin?” It comes indeed very
near to being so, because sin is in-
separable from the consciousness
of sin which, considered objec-
tively, is the law. But on the
other hand, such is the para-
doxical nature of the law, that in
another point of view it delivers
us from sin. Without the law
there is no sin, and no possibility
of avoiding sin. We feel its evil,
we cannot also avoid acknow-
ledging its truth. dd\dA\ad em-
phatically introduces an adverse
fact, “ nay; so far is the law from
being sin—JI should never have
known of sin but for the law.”
ovK éyvwy: av is omitted, as in ix.
3. and with ov« joey, the omission
adding force, as, in English, “ I
had” is a stronger expression
than “TI should have had.”

rhy re yap érOupiay,| has no
reference to particular precepts.
The Apostle means to say, “I had
never known lust, which is the
parent of sin (cf. James i. 15.),
but for the law: lust would not
have been lust to me but for the
general command of the law,
‘Thou shalt not lust.’” #dev and
éyvwy, inthe sense of acquaintance
with a person.

8. In this verse the Apostle
turns to the other side of the ar-
gument. The extremes meet.

Pp 2

212

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. VII.

A i» bs’ 4 e ,

cato ev enol Tacay éeriupiay. Yopls yap voHov apapTia
4 ot de y b, | 4 Lan e\bovo be Th

vexpa, eyo dé eLwv xwpis vomou ToTE nS nS
b] ~ e € , > , > ‘ de > ‘Q ‘\ e “()

evTodns H apaptia avélnoe, éyw oe ameVavov, kat evpeln
gy ¢ \ e ,

pou H evTOdy 7 eis Cwyv, ary eis Oavatov’ yap apapria

> ‘\ “A 5 ‘ A > \n ef vd 4 \ Psy >
adoppnv NaBotoa dua THs EvTOANS ELNTATHTEV ME Kab OL
a ¢ a4 eve - \

abrns daréxTewev. GWOTE O MEV VOMOS alos, Kal N EVTOAy

The law forbade me to sin, and
yet sin took its occasion and origin
through the law. For sin with-
out the law is dead, non-existent,
not sin at-all.

The law is sin, for without the
law sin could not exist.

The law is not sin, for the law
itself says ——“ Thou shalt not
commit sin.”

So far as sin is inseparable
from the consciousness of sin, the
law is the strength of sin.

So far as the knowledge of sin
is the first step to amendment,
the law is the opposite of sin.

It may be asked, How can the
law increase the temptation to
sin? It may not make men better;
how does it make them worse?
Human nature errs under the in-
fluence of passion, from propen-
sions, as Bishop Butler terms
them, towards external objects,
not because there is a law which
forbids them. For a fuller answer
to this difficulty the reader is re-
ferred to the Essay on the Law
as the Strength of Sin, the heads
of which may be summed up as
follows: —

First, By sinthe Apostle means
the consciousness of sin, consci-
entia peccati, not any mere ex-
ternal act vicious or criminal.
This consciousness of sin is the
reflection of the law in the mind
of the subject. The law =the
consciousness of sin; the con-
, sciousness of sin= sin, 7. e. the

law is almost sin. But secondly,
It must not be lost sight of that,
by the law, the Jewish law is
also partly meant, with its ever
increasing burden of ordinances,
which in an altered world it was
impossible to obey, seeming by
its hostility to the preaching of
the Gospel to be an element of
discord in the world, like the
consciousness of evil in the soul
of man. Thirdly, The state which
the Apostle describes in the fol-
lowing verses, is in some degree
ideal and imaginary. It begins
with absolute ignorance (I was
alive without the law once), and
ends with the utter disruption of
the soul between will and know-
ledge. But these extreme cases
do not exist in fact, though they
may be truly used to exhibit ten-
dencies in human nature. If we
imagine Adam in a state of inno-
cence, a child not yet in the sim-
plicity of its nature come to a
knowledge of right and wrong,
and at the other extreme a sinner
plunged in the recklessness of
despair by the contrast of his
life and the holiness of God, and
at some point of this progress the
law coming in that the offence
may abound, there will be less
difficulty in comprehending the
Apostle’s meaning; the real dif-
ficulty being to fix the point of
view from which the description
is drawn.

9. xwpic yap vopov gives a second

113

12

11

12

Ver. 9—12.]

mandment, wrouglit in me all manner of lust.*

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

213
For

without the law sin was dead, and* I was alive without
the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died. And the commandment, which
was to life, I found to be unto death. For sin, taking
occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it

slew me.

reason why “I had not known
sin,” which is the first expressed
over again in a negative form:
“For the commandment quick-
ened sin; for, without the law, sin
was dead.” éyw& dé is opposed to
dpapria, as avélnoe to éfwy, and
amre0avoy to avélnoe.

Sin and the law came into ex-
istence in me at once. “There
was a time before the law when
I was alive.” Perhaps, in child-
hood, as the Apostle says in
1 Cor. xiii. 11., “When I was a
child, I thought as a child;” or,
without any particular reference,
“T was alive when I was uncon-
scious of the law,” whether the
state of unconsciousness be that
of childhood, or of what we some-
times term the childhood of the
human race, ere the law was
given.

“But when the commandment
came, sin revived, andI died.” The
Apostle is not speaking of his
committing actual sin and suffer-

-ing death asa penalty. What is

here termed death is the state
which he is about to describe, in
which the soul has no harmony
either with the natural or the
spiritual world.

10. And the commandment
which was to life, was found
by me to be unto death.

An illustration may assist us
in realising the Apostle’s mean-
ing. Suppose a person liable to

Wherefore the law is holy, and the command-

two bodily disorders of a different
kind. Heis weak, but the means
taken to restore health and
strength raise a fever in his veins.
If we could keep him weak, he
might live; as it is, he dies. So
it might be said of the law, that
it is too strong a medicine for
the human soul.

ll. é&nrarnoev, deceived me. |
The passions of men’s nature
carry them away from the service
of God and virtue. But the law
has a further operation ; it is the
instrument of deception which is
employed in the service of sin.
(Compare 2 Cor. xi. 3.: “As the
serpent deceived Eve.”) We may
figure sin pointing to the law;
it says, “Lo! this is what God
requires of thee. Sin boldly, for
thou canst notobey.” The soul,
taught out of the law, knows the
truth of this. It cannot answer
the reasonings of sin, which has
found an occasion against it out
of the law itself. Compare v. 13.

The difficulty of the verse
arises from its figurative charac-
ter. In plain language, the Apo-
stle means generally what he had
said before, that the law made
sin to be what itis. The word
éEnrarnse only implies further,
that the law causes the insidious-
ness of sin; it makes sin to be
sin and also deception.

12. is connected with the whole
of the preceding passage. “Is

P 3

214

> b) \ > * > ,
dyla cat Sixaia Kal aya}: 70 ody ayalov euol eyévero

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VIL

1

y nA e ,
Odvatos; pi) yévouto, GAN 7H apaptia, wa pavy apaptia,
A , Y ,

Sia Tod dyalod pou katrepyalopévyn Oavarov, wa yevntas
e ‘ e Xe e€ e , 5 ‘\ wn 3 hn

Kal trepBohjv dpapTwhos H apapTia Out THS EVvTOANSs.
¢ \ \ ,

olSapev yap ort 6 vopos TVEevpaTiKds EoTW, eyo O€ odp-

1 yéyove.

the law sin?” After balancing
the two sides of this question, the
conclusion at which the Apostle
arrives is, that the law is “holy,
just, and good.” It was the law
that made sin to be what it was,
and it is true that this comes very
near to the law being itself sin.
But the other side has also to be
put forward. Sin is the active
cause, the law only the occasion,
the deceiver being human nature
itself, and the law forbidding sin
at the moment it seems to create
it. So that the law, in itself, is
no more polluted than the sun in
the heavens by the corruption on
- which it looks. The obscurity in
this, as in many other passages,
arises from the Apostle, in the
alternation of thought, dwelling
too long on that side of the ar-
gument, which, for the sake of
clearness, should have been sub-
ordinate. In this instance, he has
said so much of the commandment
being found unto death and the
occasion of sin, that he is obliged
to make a violent resumption of
the thought with which he com-
menced.

13. But a person might ask,
How can I call it good? Did that
which was good, become death
untome? The answer admits of
being taken in two ways: — (1.)
Not so; but sin, that it might
appear sin, was working death to
me through the good (sup. jv); or,
(2.) Not so ; it was not the good,
but sin that became death, that

it might appear, as it really was,
working death through the good.

The first and second iva admit
of being construed in three ways:
either they may be co-ordinated
so that the secondis the epexegesis
of the first, as thus ,“ Sin, that it
might appear sin, that it might
become more sin;” or the second
iva may be made subordinate and
regarded as carrying the thought
a step further, “ Sin, that itmight
appear sin, and by appearing be-
come yet more sin,” —a thought
which seems to be much after
the manner of St. Paul; or, lastly,
the second iva may be connected
with the clause immediately pre-
ceding, as follows : —

i) Gpapria [éyévero Savaroc}
iva pari Gpapria.

dud rov dyabod porxarepyalopmery
Savaroy, iva yévnra xa’ iépbo-
Anv apaprwdoe.

We can imagine a state of

mind in an individual, or a con- -

dition in society, in which vice
loses “half its grossness,” and
some of its real evil, either by
the veil of refinement beneath
which it is concealed, or by the
very naturalness to the human
mind of vice itself. Suppose
the person or society here spoken
of, to wake up on a sudden to a
consciousness of the holiness of
God and the requirements of his
law ; suppose further, they were
made aware of the contrast be-
tween their own life and the
Divinerule, yet were powerless to

14

rary eis tT

Spgs ha hale nn P
ena Ta eke :
.

SEL Pay A ae eens Be ae

Sir gs

LY DNS! CED Gas aoe tae *

peg ows

13

14

Ver. 18, 14.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

215

ment holy, and just, and good; was then that which is

good made death unto me?

God forbid. But sin, that

it might appear sin, working death to* me by that
which is good; that sin by the commandment might

become exceeding sinful.

change, knowing everything, yet

able to accomplish nothing, sen-
sitive to the pangs of conscience,
yet “unequal to the performance
of any duty ;” of such it might
be said, ina figure — “ Sin became
death that it might appear sin,
working death to us through that
which is good, that sin might be-
come exceeding sinful.”

Thus far in tracing the pro-
gress of the spiritual conflict, the
Apostle has employed the aorist ;
at ver. 14. he introduces the
present. ‘This has led some com-
mentators, who agree in the view
that it is neither of the regene-
rate nor of the unregenerate the
Apostle can be speaking exclu-
sively, to suppose further that
the change of tense which he
here adopts, is an indication of
the transition from one to the
other. ‘This change, however, is
more probably attributable to
liveliness of style; at any rate,
it is sufficiently accounted for by
the greater reality which the
Apostle gives to the latter part
of his description.

The progress of which St. Paul
is speaking may be arranged in
six stages : —

(1.) The state of nature: “I was
alive without the law once.” ver. 9.

(2.) The awakening of nature
to the requirements of the law,
and the death ofsin. ver. 9—11.

(3.) The growing consciousness
of right and severance of the
soul into two parts, as the sense
of right prevails. ver. 15—23.

p 4

For we know that the law is

(4.) Sin, which was originally
a mere perversion, strengthening
into a law which opposes itself
to the law of God. ver. 23, 24.

(5.) Laying aside of the worse
half of the soul, that is, justifica-
tion. ver. 25.

(6.) Peace and glory. viii. 1.

It would be unlike the manner
of St. Paul to draw out these
stages in perfectly regular order.
Here, as elsewhere, he goes to
and fro, and returns upon his
former thought. Inchapter viii.,
for example, when the soul has
already entered into its rest, he
again casts his eye upon the
believer’s state from his earthly
side, “ groaning within himself,
waiting for the redemption of the
body.”

14—23. In what follows the
Apostle deepens the opposition
between the law and self, or
(what is nearly the same) be-
tween the better and the worse
self, as they belong to two orders
of things, and are of two natures,
the one spiritual, the other fleshly ;
the proof (yap) that man falls
under the latter being his very
distraction with self, which is a
witness to the truth of the law,
and which seems almost to trans-
fer his actions from himself to
the sin which is personified in
him; for (yap) this is the whole
man, nothing more of him re-
maining, but the scarcely sur-
viving will to do what is right.
v. 18—20. Both these princi-
ples may be recognised under the

216

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VIL.

\ e , a ‘ ,

Kwos' ele Tempapevos UTO THY ayapTiay. 0 yap KaTepya-

b] , b) % aA @ \ la) , AN aA

Copar, ov ywodoKw: ov yap do Géhw, TovTo Tpacow, ahd 6
A A A A ra ,

pucG, TOUTO TOLm. et S€ 6 ov Gedo, TOUTO TOLW, TUPLE

2 VO STL KANOS*
T@ VOM® OTL S

“A Ve J?
GANG 7 OiKOvTG ev E“ol apapTia.

\ \ bd 4 > \ 4 > ,
VUVL d€ OUKETL EYW KaTepyacomat QavuTO,

> \ Y ry >. A
otoa Yop OTL OUK OLKEL

> > - 4 Bb) a / > 0 / ‘ ‘ 0 \

EV EOL, TOUTEOTLW EV TH TDApPKL ov, ayalov. TO yap VEehew
, 4 XS QA , 6 \ he ¥9 > \

TapaKetat 4.01, TO O€ Katepyaler Var TO Kahov ov.” ov yap

1 oa KiKds,

form of a law: the law of sin
dwelling in its fleshly seat, which

corresponds to the first of them ;

the law of God, which is the law
of the mind, which corresponds
to the latter.

14. For we know that there is
a contrariety between me and the
law — the law is spiritual, I am
carnal. yap contains the proof
of the goodness of the law, and
also the reason for its being an
element of discord.

The language of the New Tes-
tament does not conform to any
received views of psychology.
It is the language partly of the
Old Testament, but still more
of the Alexandrian philosophy,
which is defined neither by po-
pular nor by scientific use. In
modern times we do not divide
the soul into its better and worse
half, but into will, reason, con-
sciousness, and other faculties
which, for the most part, belong
equally to good and bad. Such
is, however, the fundamental di-
vision of the Apostle. There is
a heavenly and earthly, a higher
and a lower principle; the first,
whereby we hold communion
with God himself, the Spirit; the
second, the flesh, or corrupt soil
of sin, scarcely distinguishable
from sin itself. These two do
not correspond to mind and body,

* Add ciptoxw,

which are only the figures under
which they are expressed.

15. 0, yap xarepyafopa, for
what I do.| Not, “I do not ap-
prove what I do;”—-a meaning
which the word yrvwexw does not
admit, — but simply, “I know
not what Ido.” In the state of
which the Apostle is speaking,
the mind knows not, from very
distraction, what it does. It is
darkened as in the confusion of
a storm, or the din and cloud of
a battle. This is the proof that
he is sold under sin, a blind slave.

It may be argued that this ex-
planation is inconsistent with
what follows. For in the next
clause it is not defect of know-
ledge that is touched upon; but
rather defect of power to do what
he desired, and therefore knew to
beright. Such an analysis is too
minute to catch the true spirit of
the Apostle. He is only present-
ing successive images of the dis-
traction of the soul, first, in not
knowing what it did; secondly,
in doing what it would not. No
one would feel that there was
a contradiction if, in describing
a scene of hurry and confusion,
some one were to say, “I knew
not what I was about. I did
the very opposite of what I in-
tended.”

Sw is emphatic, as is seen by

—

5

1%

ie Pith hdr 3 Sn
TE OM SEL OR SEO!ON OUT TRL Rp!

15

16
17

18

19

Ver. 15—19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 217

spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin. For what * I
do I know * not: for what I would, that do I not; but
what I hate, that doI. If then Ido that which I would
not, I consent unto the law that it is good: and now *
it is no more | that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth
no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how
to perform that which is good,’ not. For the good that

1 Add I find.

its opposition to ;uwoe in the fol-
lowing clause; not what I will,
but what I wish. The Apostle
is describing astate, notin which
the better mind is passive and
the worse mind active, but in
which they are both together
active; in which for every bad
act which a man does, conscience
rebukes him and makes him feel
that it has a pain equal to its
pleasures. For illustration of
such a state comp. Xenoph. Cyr.
vi. 1.: Avo yap capac exw Wuyac’
ov yap Oo} pia ye ovoa dua ayadh
ré €oTt KL KaKh, OVO Ga Kado TE
Kal aioypor tpywy épg, Kal ravra
dijua Povrerai re kal ob Povderac:
also the axparjc of Aristotle’s
Ethics, and the fine figure of the
soul being like the palsied limbs,
in the first book; and Plato, Rep.
iv. p. 43.

16. This very unwillingness to
do wrong is a witness to the law.
The law, it is true, is the occa-
sion of sin; and yet this very sin
done against the admonitions of
the law, is a witness to that which
occasioned it. ‘The law made me
sin and made me acknowledge
the sin at once.

17. vuvi dé, and now.| That
is, considering this, I may fairly
say it is no more I that do it, but
sin that dwelleth in me. First

came the state of death, that is,
of absolute discord; secondly,
the consciousness of this; thirdly,
a dim light of salvation springs
up from the sense that it is not
ourselves, but the infirmity of sin
that does the evil. It is not I
that do it; but sin, my master,
takes up his abode with me, and
carries me whither I would not.
In this passage, between ver.
14. and 25., the Apostle may be
said three times to change his
identity :—First of all, he is one
with his worse nature, which,
as having the power to turn the
balance of his actions, claims to
be the whole man; secondly, with
his better nature, which makes
a perceptible though ineffectual
struggleagainst the power of evil;
and, thirdly, he separates himself
from both, and overlooks the
strife between them, ver. 21—23.
18. Here is a further change
in the personality of the speaker :
—‘“T know that in me,” which is
explained to mean “in my flesh,”
there is, as it were standing by
my side, the wish for the good,
but not the accomplishment of the
good. ovy evpicxw, the reading of
the Text. Recep.and of A. G.f. g.
v., if genuine, is a continuation of
the figure of rapdxe:rac; cf. ver. 21.
19, 20. A repetition, with

[Cu. VII.

918 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

la , , o /
5 Oédw Tow ayaldv, aN’ 6 ov Géhw kakov, TOVTO Tpacow.
3 A= 8 > , 1 al la Pe 2 iC
et 5¢ & ov Béd\w!, TodTO TOLd@, OVKETL Eyw KaTEepyalomat
Sy ae 5¢ > A > b] Asse / ee 4 + N
avTd, dN’ H oikovoa ev EOL ApapTia. EUPLOKW apa TOV
/ A / b] \ ‘a ‘ Wes v > ‘ \ XN
vopov TO OédovTe eot Tovey TO Kahov, OTL EMOL TO KAKO
\ A , A a \ N
TapdKerar: ouvjdopar yap TO vow@ Tod Heod Kara Tov
¥ » , S2 Y , > A >. ,
éxw avOpwrov, Bréra Sé ETEpov Vvopov Ev ToLs MEET Mov
wn A , \ > ,
GVTLTTPATEVS[LEVOY TH VOMM TOU VOOS [OV Kal aixypahwri-
, a e , na» > A , ,
Lovrd Pe TO VOMM THS apapTias TH OVTL EV TOLS pEheoLV

d oom! ¥ 4 ce? > lal
pov. Tadaimwpos eyo avbpwios: Tis me pUoeETat Ex TOU

1 Add eyé.

slightly altered phraseology, of
15, 16., “If Ido it not;” it is
now said, not I agree to the
law that it is good—but “sin
that dwelleth in me doeth it.”
Compare Gal. ii. 20. for a simi-
lar personification.

21. The various interpretations
of this verse, accordingly as drt
is rendered by “that” or “be-
cause,” may be divided into two
classes. First, with 67, in the
sense of because: “I find out, or

am made conscious of the law,
- because evil is present with me.”
The thought thus elicited is not
unlike the manner of St. Paul,
but the use of eipiocw is indefen-
sible. We are thus driven to
the other interpretation of érz,
“that;” the clause dependent on
which may be explained in two
ways :—either, “I find then when
I desire to do well, that the law as
the evil is present with me;” or,
what seems better and more in
accordance with the words ro
Séhev rapdcerac in the eigh-
teenth verse, “I find then the
law (like the law in the members
below) that when I desire to do
well, evil is present with me.”
The slight play in the expression
is analogous to the vdpoc rife

niorewe in the third chapter, and
the vouoc rij¢ adpapriac in the
eighth.

22. For if I may make a dis-
tinction in myself of the inner
man and outer man (compare 1
Pet. ili. 4.: 6 xkpumroc rij¢ Kapdiac
dvOpwroc. Eph. iii. 16.: xparac-
wOfjvar dua Tov mvEevpaTog abrov
cic Tov Eow avOpwrov), “in my
heart of hearts” I rejoice in the
law of God. Withdraw man
from the flesh, from the passions
and their objects, and there is
something within which acknow-
ledges the supremacy of right,
whether we term it reason, or
the inner man, or the true self.
No one loves evil for its own sake.

ovvyoopa, according to Hesy-
chius, is sometimes put for épf-
doar: the case which follows
is also said by grammarians to be
governed of the verb, not of
the preposition. It is more
natural to suppose a double
construction, ovy expressing con-
sciousness, as in obvola, oup-
paprups : “Conscious of the law
I delight in it.”

23. In the short space between
the twenty-first and the twenty-
this death which clings to me as
a body ? |

20

21

22

23

24

eG SS epties Leroi

Ver. 20—24.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 219

I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that
Ido. Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that
do it, but sin that dwelleth in me. I find then the*
law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:
but I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to
the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched
man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of

third verses there occur five mo-
difications of the word vduoc : —
(1.) The play of words alluded
to above, “the law that evil is
present with him.” (2.) The
law of God, that is, the law of
Moses “in the Spirit,” not “in
the letter ;” or, as we might ex-
press it, “idealised.” (3.) The
same law presented under a dif-
ferent aspect, as vdpuoc rov vodc,
or conscience. (4.) vdpoc év
TOtg peNeoty. (5.) vomog Tie apap-
riac. Borrowing the language
of philosophical distinctions, we
may arrange them as follows :—
: Subject.
vopoc TOU voOC.
vopoc év TOIg péhEoLy.

: Object.
vopoc TOU SEov.
vopmoc Tig dpapriac.

See on ver. 7.

The 23rd verse describes a fur-
ther progress in the conflict. At
first the two “laws” are opposed
to each other; but at length the
worse “law” gets the better, and
the soul passes on to consider
evil as a sort of internal neces-
sity to which it is by nature li-
able. The érepoc vopoc is only
distinguished from the vopoe rijc
cyapriac, as the wavering emo-
tion of the will from the settled

inward principle. The first is
the temptation of the natural
desires; the second, the law of
despair.

The Gospel is often opposed
to the law, as the inward to the
outward. Here the law of sin
is equally figured as internal;
though within, that is, in the
fiesh and the members, it is still
incapable of harmonising with
our better life. We might il-
lustrate its relation to the soul,
by the example of those poisons
whose introduction into the body
is said to destroy life because
they never become a part of the
human frame.

aixpadwrifovra. | For the figure
compare wezpapévoc, ver. 16.

24. At last we arrive at the
crisis : — “ O wretched man that
I am! who shall deliver me from
the body of this death?” Of the
last words, rot cwparoe rod Savd-
rov rovrov; no less than four ex-
planations may be given : —

(1.) Who will deliver me from
this mortal body? or,

(2.) Who will deliver me from
this mass of death? or,

(3.) Who will deliver me from
this frame or structure of death,
of which, as it were, my mem-
bers are parts? or,

(4.) Who will deliver me from

220

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. VII.

A 4 ~ A \ 3 A
odpatos Tod Oavdrov tovrov ; yapis' TO Hed Sia *“Inood
a aA > 3.9% 2 A oc. rs
XploTOv TOU KUpiov HuaV. apa OY AUTOS EYM TH LEV Vol
A / lal ~ \ XN / ec ,
Sovrevw vou Oeod, TH SE TapKl VOU@ apapTias.

ebxapioTa,

No. 1. is ill suited to the con-
nexion; (2.) c#pa does not mean
a mass ; (3.) the idea of the mem-
bers which occurs in the previous
verse may possibly be included ;
(4.) is most in accordance with
the style of St. Paul. As in
Rom. vi. 6. sin, so here death is
itself the body, death in this pas-
sage being nothing more than the
last stage of sin. The two ex-
pressions “body of sin,” “body
of death,” may be regarded as
precisely parallel. A remote al-
lusion is probably intended to the
words év roi¢ péAeouv, which pre-
cede. ‘This, however, should not
be taken as if the body consisted

of the members. For while it is
natural to speak as in 1 Cor. vi.
15. of the members of the body
of Christ, it is not so to speak of
the members of “the body of
death.”

25. xapic TO Yeg.]. A great
variety of readings occur at these
words, which have probably arisen
from the difficulty of explaining
the text as it stands in the best
manuscripts. We are expecting
an answer to ver. 24., and the
Apostle gives no other answer
but such as is implied in the
doxology itself. “Thanks be to
God through Jesus Christ our
Lord.”

25

25

Ver. 25.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

221

this death? Thanks be to God! through Jesus Christ
our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the
law of God; howbeit with the flesh the law of sin.

1 T thank God.

This is one of the many pas-
sages in the Apostle’s writings,
which lead us to conclude that
he dictated rather than himself
wrote. Such a slip in the con-
struction could hardly have oc-
curred to any one with the writ-
ten page before him.

dp’ ovy | contains the summing
up of the whole previous passage.

avroc éyw | has been variously
explained: either (1.) I by my-
self or L in my unaided state; or
(2.) I myself as well as others,
both of which are inconsistent
with the connexion; or (3.), I,
the same person, which is con-
trary to the language, and would

require éyw 6 aivréc; or, lastly
(4), as seems best, I, “ myself,”
that is, “in my true self,” serve
the law of God; the remainder
of the sentence may be regarded
as an afterthought, in which the
Apostle checks his aspiration, dé
being exactly expressed in En-
glish by “howbeit.” Compare
ver. 8.: adoppjy dé NaBovca. This
is not the grammatical form of
the sentence, in which, of course,
dé answers to pev. Thatitis the
order of the thought, however, is
inferred, from the difficulty in
connecting the words ri dé capkt
vdu» apapriac either with advroc
éy® or with what follows.

222 EPISTLE TO THE. ROMANS.

ON CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF
CHARACTER.

Tuus have we the image of the life-long struggle gathered up in a
single instant. In describing it we pass beyond the consciousness of
the individual into a world of abstractions; we loosen the thread by
which the spiritual faculties are held together, and view as objects
what can, strictly speaking, have no existence, except in relation to
the subject. The divided members of the soul are ideal, the combat
between them is ideal, so also is the victory. What is real that cor-
responds to this, is not a momentary, but a continuous conflict, which
we feel rather than know,—which has its different aspects of hope
and fear, triumph and despair, the action and reaction of the Spirit
of God in the depths of the human soul, awakening the sense of sin
and conveying the assurance of forgiveness.

The language in which we describe this conflict is very dif-
ferent from that of the Apostle. Our circumstances are so
changed that we are hardly able to view it in its simplest elements.
Christianity is now the established religion of the civilised portion
of mankind. In our own country it has become part of the law of
the land; it speaks with authority, it is embodied in a Church, it is
supported by almost universal opinion, and fortified by wealth and
prescription. Those who know least of its spiritual life, do not deny
its greatness as a power in the world. Analogous to this relation
in which it stands to our history and social state, is the relation in
which it stands also to the minds of individuals. We are brought
up in it, and unconsciously receive it as the habit of our thoughts
and the condition of our life. It is without us, and we are within its

circle ; we do not become Christians, we are so from our birth. Even

CONVERSION AND CITANGES OF CHARACTER 223

in those who suppose themselves to have passed through some sudden
and violent change, and to have tasted once for all of the heavenly
gift, the change is hardly ever in the form or substance of their
belief, but in its quickening power; they feel not a new creed, but a
new spirit within them. So that we might truly say of Christianity,
that it is “the daughter of time;” it hangs to the past, not only
because the first century is the era of its birth, but because each suc-
cessive century strengthens its form and adds to its external force,
and entwines it with more numerous links in our social state. Not
only may we say, that it is part and parcel of the law of the land,
but part and parcel of the character of each one, which even the worst
of men cannot wholly shake off.

But if with ourselves the influence of Christianity is almost
always gradual and imperceptible, with the first believers it was
almost always sudden. There was no interval which separated the
preaching of Peter on the day of Pentecost, from the baptism of the
three thousand. The eunuch of Candace paused for a brief space on
a journey, and was then baptized into the name of Christ, which a few
hours previously he had not so much as heard. ‘There was no period
of probation like that which, a century or two later, was appropriated
to the instruction of the Catechumens. It was an impulse, an inspi-
ration passing from the lips of one to a chosen few, and communicated
by them to the ear and soul of listening multitudes. As the wind
bloweth where it listeth, and we hear the sounds thereof; as the
lightning shineth from the one end of the heaven to the other; so
suddenly, fitfully, simultaneously, new thoughts come into their
minds, not to one only, but to many, to whole cities almost at once.
They were pricked with the sense of sin; they were melted with the
- love of Christ ; their spiritual nature “came again like the flesh of a
little child.” And some, like St. Paul, became the very opposite of
their former selves; from scoffers, believers; from persecutors,
preachers; the thing that they were, was so strange to them, that they
could no longer look calmly on the earthly scene which they hardly
seemed to touch, which was already lighted up with the wrath and

224 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

mercy of God. There were those among them who “saw visions
and dreamed dreams,” who were “caught up,” like St. Paul, “into
the third heaven,” or, like the twelve, “spake with other tongues as the
Spirit gave them utterance.” And sometimes, as in the Thessalonian
Church, the ecstasy of conversion led to strange and wild opinions,
such as the daily expectation of Christ’s coming. The “round world”
itself began to reel before them, as they thought of the things that
were shortly to come to pass.

But however sudden were the conversions of the earliest believers,
however wonderful the circumstances which attended them, they were
not for that reason the less lasting or sincere. Though many preached

“ Christ of contention,” though “Demas forsook the Apostle,” there —

were few who, having once taken up the cross, turned back from
“the love of this present world.” They might waver between Paul
and Peter, between the circumcision and the uncircumcision ; they
might give ear to the strange and bewitching heresies of the East ;
but there is no trace that many returned to “those that were no
gods,” or put off Christ; the impression of the truth that they had
received, was everlasting on their minds. Even sins of fornication
and uncleanness, which from the Apostle’s frequent warnings against
them we must suppose to have lingered, as a sort of remnant of
heathenism in the early Church, did not wholly destroy their inward
relation to God and Christ. Though “their last state might be worse
than the first,” they could never return again to live the life of all
men after having tasted “the heavenly gift and the powers of the
world to come.”

Such was the nature of conversion among the early Christians,

the new birth of which by spiritual descent we are ourselves the

offspring. Is there anything in history like it? anything in our own —

lives which may help us to understand it? That which the Scripture
describes from within, we are for a while going to look at from a
different point of view, not with reference to the power of God, but
to those secondary causes through which He works, —the laws which
experience shows that he himself imposes on the operations of his

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 225

spirit. Such an inquiry is not a mere idle speculation; it is not
far from the practical question, “ How we are to become better.”
Imperfect as any attempt to analyse our spiritual life must ever be,
the changes which we ourselves experience or observe in others,
compared with those greater and more sudden changes which took
place in the age of the Apostle, will throw light upon each other.

In the sudden conversions of the early Christians we observe
three things which either tend to discredit, or do not accompany, the
working of a similar power among ourselves. — First, that conversion
was marked by ecstatic and unusual phenomena; secondly, that,
though sudden, it was permanent; thirdly, that it fell upon whole
multitudes at once.

When we consider what is implied in such expressions as “not many
wise, not many learned” were called to the knowledge of the truth, we
can scarcely avoid feeling that there must have been much in the
early Church which would have been distasteful to us as men of edu-
cation ; much that must have worn the appearance of excitement and
enthusiasm. Is the mean conventicle, looking almost like a private
house, a better image of that first assembly of Christians which met
in the “large upper room,” or the Catholic church arrayed in all the
glories of Christian art? Neither of them is altogether like in spirit
perhaps, but in externals the first. Is the dignified hierarchy that
occupy the seats around the altar, more like the multitudes of first
believers, or the lowly crowd that kneel upon the pavement? If
we try to embody in the mind’s eye the forms of the first teachers,
and still more of their followers, we cannot help reading the true
lesson, however great may be the illusions of poetry or of art. Not
St. Paul standing on Mars’ hill in the fulness of manly strength, as
we have him in the cartoon of Raphael, is the true image; but such
a one as he himself would glory in, whose bodily presence was weak
and speech feeble, who had an infirmity in his flesh, and bore in his
body the marks of the Lord Jesus.

And when we look at this picture, “ full in the face,” however we

might by nature be inclined to turn aside from it, or veil its details

VOL. II. Q

226 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

in general language, we cannot deny that many things that accom-
pany the religion of the uneducated now, must then also have accom-
panied the Gospel preached to the poor. There must have been,
humanly speaking, spiritual delusions where men lived so exclusively
in the spiritual world; there were scenes which we know took place
such as St. Paul says would make the unbeliever think that they
were mad. The best and holiest persons among the poor and ignorant
are not entirely free from superstition, according to the notions of the
educated ; at best they are apt to speak of religion in a manner not
quite suited to our taste ; they sing with a loud and excited voice;
they imagine themselves to receive Divine oracles, even about the
humblest cares of life. Is not this, in externals at least, very like the
appearance which the first disciples must have presented, who obeyed
the Apostle’s injunction, “Is any sad? let him pray ; is any merry ?
let him sing psalms”? Could our nerves have borne to witness the
speaking with tongues, or the administration of Baptism, or the
love feasts as they probably existed in the early Church ?

This difference between the feelings and habits of the first Chris-
tians and ourselves, must be borne in mind in relation to the subject
of conversion. For as sudden changes are more likely to be met
with amongst the poor and uneducated in the present day, it certainly
throws light on the subject of the first conversions, that to the poor
and uneducated the Gospel was first preached. And yet these sud-
den changes were as real, nay, more real than any gradual changes
which take place among ourselves. The Stoic or Epicurean philoso-
pher who had come into an assembly of believers speaking with
tongues, would have remarked, that among the vulgar religious
extravagances were usually short-lived. But it was not so. There
was more there than he had eyes to see, or than was dreamed of
in a philosophy like his. Not only was there the superficial ap-
pearance of poverty and meanness and enthusiasm, from a nearer
view of which we are apt to shrink, but underneath this, brighter
from its very obscurity, purer from the meanness of the raiment in
which it was apparalled, was the life hidden with Christ and God.

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 227

There, and there only, was the power which made a man humble
instead of proud, self-denying instead of self-seeking, spiritual instead
of carnal, a Christian instead of a Jew; which made him embrace,
not only the brethren, but the whole human race in the arms of his
love.

But it is a further difference between the power of the Gospel
now and in the first ages, that it no longer converts whole multitudes
at once. Perhaps this very individuality in its mode of working
may not be without an advantage in awakening us to its higher
truths and more entire spiritual freedom. Whether this be so or
not; whether there be any spiritual law by which reason, in a measure,
takes the place of faith, and the common religious impulse weakens
as the power of reflection grows, we certainly observe a diminution
in the collective force which religion exercises on the hearts of men.
In our own days the preacher sees the seed which he has sown gra-
dually spring up; first one, then another begins to lead a better life ;
then a change comes over the state of society, often from causes over
which he has no control; he makes some steps forwards and a few
_ backwards, and trusts far more, if he is wise, to the silent influence
of religious education than to the power of preaching ; and, perhaps,
the result of a long life of ministerial labour is far less than that of a
single discourse from the lips of the Apostles or their followers.
Even in missions to the heathen the vital energies of Christianity
cease to operate to any great extent, at least on the effete civilisation
of India and China ; the limits of the kingdoms of light and darkness
are nearly the same as heretofore. At any rate it cannot be said
that Christianity has wrought any sudden amelioration of mankind
by the immediate preaching of the word, since the conversion of the
barbarians. Even within the Christian world there is a parallel
retardation. ‘The ebb and flow of reformation and counter-reforma-
tion have hardly changed the permanent landmarks. The age of spi-
ritual crises is past. The growth of Christianity in modern times may
be compared to the change of the body, when it has already arrived at
its full stature. In one half-century so vast a progress was made, in

Q 2

228 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

a few centuries more the world itself seemed to “have gone after
Him,” and now for near a thousand years the voice of experience is
repeating to us, “Hitherto shalt thou go, but no further.”

Looking at this remarkable phenomenon of the conversion of whole
multitudes at once, not from its Divine but from its human aspect
(that is, with reference to that provision that God himself has made in
human nature for the execution of his will), the first cause to which
we are naturally led to attribute it, is the power of sympathy. Why
it is that men ever act together is a mystery of which our individual
self-consciousness gives no account, any more than why we speak a
common language, or form nations or societies, or merely in our phy-
sical nature are capable of taking diseases from one another. Nature
and the Author of nature have made us thus dependent on each other
both in body and soul. Whoever has seen human beings collected |
together in masses, and watched the movements that pass over them,
like “ the trees of the forest moving in the wind,” will have no diffi-
culty in imagining, if not in understanding, how the same voice might
have found its way at the same instant to a thousand hearts, without
our being able to say where the fire was first kindled, or by whom
the inspiration was first caught. Such historical events as the
Reformation, or the Crusades, or the French Revolution, are a suffi-
cient evidence that a whole people, or almost, we may say, half a
world, may be “drunk into one spirit,” springing up, as it might
seem, spontaneously in the breast of each, yet common to all. A
parallel yet nearer is furnished by the history of the Jewish people,
in whose sudden rebellion and restoration to God’s favour, we recog-
nise literally the momentary workings of, what is to ourselves a figure
of speech, a national conscience.

In ordinary cases we should truly say that there must have been
some predisposing cause of a great political or religious revolution ;
some latent elements acting alike upon all, which, though long smoul-
dering beneath, burst forth at last into aflame. Such a cause might
be the misery of mankind, or the intense corruption of human society,

which could not be quickened except it die, or the long-suppressed

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 229

yearnings of the soul after something higher than it had hitherto
known upon earth, or the reflected light of one religion or one move-
ment of the human mind upon another. Such causes were actually
at work, preparing the way for the diffusion of Christianity. ‘The
law itself was beginning to pass away in an altered world, the state
of society was hollow, the chosen people were hopelessly under the
Roman yoke. Good men refrained from the wild attempt of the Gali-
lean Judas; yet the spirit which animated such attempts was slum-
bering in their bosoms. Looking back at their own past history, they
could not but remember, even in an altered world, that there was One
who ruled among the kingdoms of men, “beside whom there was no
God.” Were they to suppose that His arm was straitened to save?
that He had forgotten His tender mercies to the house of David? that
the aspirations of the prophets were vain ? that the blood of the Mac-
_cabean heroes had sunk like water into the earth? This wasa hard
saying ; who could bearit? It was long ere the nation, like the indi-
vidual, put off the old man—that is, the temporal dispensation — and
put on the new man — that is, the spiritual Israel. The very misery of
the people seemed to forbid them to acquiesce in their present state.
And with the miserable condition of the nation sprang up also the feel-
ing, not only in individuals but in the race, that for their sins they were
chastened, the feeling which their whole history seemed to deepen
and increase. At last the scales fell from their eyes ; the veil that was
on the face of Moses was first transfigured before them, then removed;
the thoughts of many hearts turned simultaneously to the Hope of
Israel, “ Him whom the law and the prophets foretold.” As they
listened to the preaching of the Apostles, they seemed to hear a truth
both new and old; what many had thought, but none had uttered ;
which in its comfort and joyousness seemed to them new, and yet,
from its familiarity and suitableness to their condition, not the less
old.
Spiritual life, no less than natural life, is often the very opposite of
the elements which seem to give birth toit. The preparation for the

Q@ 3

2350 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

way of the Lord, which John the Baptist preached, did not consist in
a direct reference to the Saviour. The words “He shall baptize you
with the Holy Ghost and with fire,” and “He shall burn up the chaff
with fire unquenchable,” could have given the Jews no exact concep-
tion of Him who “did not break the bruised reed, nor quench the
smoking flax.” It was in another way that John prepared for Christ,
by quickening the moral sense of the people, and sounding in their
ears the voice “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.”
Beyond this useful lesson, there was a kind of vacancy in the preach-
ing of John. He himself, as “he was finishing his course,” testified
that his work was incomplete, and that he was not the Christ. The
Jewish people were prepared by his preaching for the coming of
Christ, just as an individual might be prepared to receive Him by the
conviction of sin and the conscious need of forgiveness.

Except from the Gospel history and the writings of Josephus and
Philo, we know but little of the tendencies of the Jewish mind in the
time of our Lord. Yet we cannot doubt that the entrance of Chris-
tianity into the world was not sudden and abrupt; that is, an illusion
which arises in the mind from our slender acquaintance with con-
temporary opinions. Better and higher and holier as it was, it was
not absolutely distinct from the teaching of the doctors of the law
either in form or substance; it was not unconnected with, but gave
life and truth to, the mystic fancies of Alexandrian philosophy. Even
in the counsels of perfection of the Sermon on the Mount, there is
probably nothing which might not be found, either in letter or
spirit, in Philo or some other Jewish or Eastern writer. The pecu-
liarity of the Gospel is, not that it teaches what is wholly new,
but that it draws out of the treasure-house of the human heart

things new and old, gathering together in one the dispersed fragments

of the truth. The common people would not have “heard Him

gladly,” but for the truth of what He said. The heart was its own
witness to it. The better nature of man, though but for a moment,
responded to it, spoken as it was with authority, and not as the
scribes; with simplicity, and not as the great teachers of the law;

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 231

and sanctified by the life and actions of Him from whose lips it came,
and “Who spake as never man spake.”

And yet, after reviewing the circumstances of the first preaching
of the Gospel, there remains something which cannot be resolved
into causes or antecedents ; which eludes criticism, and can no more
be explained in the world than the sudden changes of character in the
individual. There are'processes of life and organisation about which
we know nothing, and we seem to know that we shall never know
anything. “That which thou sowest is not quickened, except it
die;” but the mechanism of this new life is too complex, and yet
too simple for us to untwist its fibres. The figure which St. Paul
applies to the resurrection of the body, is true also of the renewal of
the soul, especially in the first ages of which we know so little, and
in which the Gospel seems to have acted with such far greater
power than among ourselves.” |

Leaving further inquiry into the conversion of the first Christians
at the point at which it hides itself from us in mystery, we have
now to turn to a question hardly less mysterious, though seemingly
more familiar to us, which may be regarded as a question either of
moral philosophy or of theology,—the nature of conversion and
changes of character among ourselves. What traces are there of a
spiritual power still acting upon the human heart? What is the
inward nature, and what are the outward conditions of changes in
human conduct? Is our life a gradual and insensible progress from
infancy to age, from birth to death, governed by fixed laws; or is it
a miracle and mystery of thirty, or fifty, or seventy years’ standing,
consisting of so many isolated actions or portions knit together by
no common principle ?

Were we to consider mankind only from without, there could be
no doubt of the answer which we should give to the last of these
questions. The order of the world would scarcely even seem to be
infringed by the free will of man. In morals, no less than in physics,
everything would appear to proceed by regular law. Individuals
have certain capacities, which grow with their growth and strengthen

Q 4

932 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

with their strength ; and no one by taking thought can add one cubit
to his stature. As the poet says:— “The boy is father to the man.”
The lives of the great majority have a sort of continuity: as we
know them by the same look, walk, manner; so when we come to
converse with them, we recognise the same character as formerly.
They may be changed ; but the change in general is such as we ex-
pect to find in them from youth to maturity, or from maturity to
decay. There is something in them which is not changed, by which
we perceive them to be the same. If they were weak, they remain
so still; if they were sensitive, they remain so still; if they were
selfish or passionate, such faults are seldom cured by increasing
age or infirmities. And often the same nature puts on many
veils and disguises; to the outward eye it may have, in some instances,
almost disappeared ; when we look beneath, it is still there.

The appearance of this sameness in human nature has led many
to suppose that no real change ever takes place. Does aman from a
drunkard become sober? from a knight errant become a devotee ?
from a sensualist a believer in Christ? or a woman from a life of
pleasure pass to a romantic and devoted religion? It has been main-
tained that they are the same still; and that deeper similarities re-
main than the differences which are a part of their new profession.
Those who make the remark would say, that such persons exhibit
the same vanity, the same irritability, the same ambition; that sen-
sualism still lurks under the disguise of refinement, or earthly and
human passion transfuses itself into devotion.

This “ practical fatalism,” which says that human beings can be
what they are and nothing else, has a certain degree of truth, or
rather, of plausibility, from the circumstance that men seldom change
wholly, and that the part of their nature which changes least is the
weakness and infirmity that shows itself on the surface. Few, com-
paratively, ever change their outward manner, except from the mere
result of altered circumstances; and hence, to a superficial observer,
they appear to change less than is really the fact. Probably, St.
Paul never lost that trembling and feebleness which was one of the

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 233

trials of his life. Nor, in so far as the mind is dependent on the
body, can we pretend to be wholly free agents. Who can say that
his view of life and his power of action are unaffected by his bodily
state? or who expects to find a firm and decided character in the
nervous and sensitive frame? The commonest facts of daily life
sufficiently prove the connexion of mind and body; the more we
attend to it the closer it appears. Nor, indeed, can it be denied that
external circumstances fix for most men the path of life. They are
the inhabitants of a particular country ; they have a certain position
in the world; they rise to their occupations as the morning comes
round ; they seldom get beyond the circle of ideas in which they have
been brought up. Fearfully and wonderfully as they are made,
though each one in his bodily frame, and even more in his thoughts
and feelings, is a miracle of complexity, they seem, as they meet in
society, to reunite into a machine, and society itself is the great
automaton of which they are the parts. It is harder and more con-
ventional than the individuals which compose it ; it exercises a kind
of regulating force on the wayward fancies of their wills; it says to
them in an unmistakable manner that “they shall not break their
ranks.” The laws of trade, the customs of social life, the instincts of
human nature, act upon us with a power little less than that of
physical necessity. ,
If from this external aspect of human things, we turn inward,
_ there seems to be no limit to the changes which we deem possible.
We are no longer the same, but different every hour. No physical
fact interposes itself as an obstacle to our thoughts any more than to
our dreams. The world and its laws have nothing to do with our
free determinations. At any moment we can begin a new life; in
idea at least, no time is required for the change. One instant we
may be proud, the next humble; one instant sinning, at the next
repenting ; one instant, like St. Paul, ready to persecute, at another
to preach the Gospel; full of malice and hatred one hour, melting
into tenderness the next. As we hear the words of the preacher,

there is a voice within telling us, that “now, even now, is the day

234 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of salvation ;” and if certain clogs and hindrances of earth could
only be removed, we are ready to pass immediately into another state.
And, at times, it seems as though we had actually passed into rest, —
and had a foretaste of the heavenly gift. Something more than
imagination enables us to fashion a divine pattern to which we con-
form for a little while. The “new man” unto which we become
transformed, is so pleasant to us that it banishes the thought of
“the old.” In youth especially, when we are ignorant of the com-
pass of our own nature, such frames of mind are perpetually recur-
ring ; perhaps, not without attendant evils; certainly, also, for good.

But besides such feelings as these, which we know to be partly
true, partly illusive, every one’s experience of himself appears to
teach him, that he has gone through many changes and had many
special providences vouchsafed to him; he says to himself that he has
been led in a mysterious and peculiar way, not like the way of other
men, and had feelings not common to others; he compares different
times and places, and contrasts his own conduct here and there, now
and then. In other men he remarks similarity of character; in him-
self he sees chiefly diversity. ‘They seem to be the creatures of
habit and circumstance ; he alone is a free agent. The truth is, that
he observes himself; he cannot equally observe them. He is not
conscious of the inward struggles through which they have passed ;
he sees only the veil of flesh which conceals them from his view.
He knows when he thinks about it, but he does not habitually re-
member, that, under that calm exterior, there is a like current of in-
dividual thoughts, feelings, interests, which have as great a charm
and intensity for another as the workings of his own mind have for
himself. |

And yet it does not follow, that this inward fact is to be set aside
as the result of egotism and illusion. It may be not merely the
dreamy reflection of our life and actions in the mirror of self, but the
subtle and delicate spring of the whole machine. To purify the
feelings or to move the will, the internal sense may be as necessary to

us as external observation is to regulate and sustain them. Even to

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 235

the formula of the fatalist, that “freedom is the consciousness of
necessity,” it may be replied, that that very consciousness, as he terms
it, is as essential as any other link in the chain in which “he binds
fast the world.” Human nature is beset by the contradiction, not
of two rival theories, but of many apparently contradictory facts.
If we cannot imagine how the world could go on without law and
order in human actions, neither can we imagine how morality could
subsist unless we clear a space around us for the freedom of the will.

But not in this place to get further into the meshes of the great
question of freedom and necessity, let us rather turn aside for a mo-
ment to consider some practical aspects of the reflections which
precede. Scripture and reason alike require that we should entirely
turn to God, that we should obey the whole law. And hard as this
may seem at first, there is a witness within us which pleads that itis
possible. Our mind and moral nature are one; we cannot break our-
selves into pieces in action any more than in thought. The whole
man is in every part and in every act. This is not a mere mode of
thought, but a truth of great practical importance. “Easier to
change many things than one,” is the common saying. LEasier, we
may add, in religion or morality, to change the whole than the part.
Easier because more natural, more agreeable to the voice of con-
science and the promises of Scripture. God himself deals with
us as a whole; he does not forgive us in part any more than he
requires us to serve Himin part. It may be true that, of the thousand
hearers of the appeal of the preacher, not above one begins a new
life. And some persons will imagine that it might be better to make
an impression on them little by little, like the effect of the dropping
of water upon stone. Not in this way is the Gospel written down on
the fleshly tables of the heart. More true to our own experience of self,
as well as to the words of Scripture, are such ideas as renovation,
renewal, regeneration, taking up the cross and following Christ,
dying with Christ that we may also live with him.

Many a person will teaze himself by counting minutes and pro-
viding small rules for his life, who would have found the task an

236 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

easier and a nobler one, had he viewed it in its whole extent, and
gone to God in a “large and liberal spirit,” to offer up his life to
Him. To have no “arriére pensée” in the service of God and virtue
is the great source of peace and happiness. Make clean that which
is within, and you have no need to purify that which is without.
Take care of the little things of life, and the great ones will take care
of themselves, is the maxim of the trader, which is sometimes, and
with a certain degree of truth, applied to the service of God. But

much more true is it in religion that we should take care of the

great things, and the trifles of life will take care of themselves. “If

thine eye be single, thy whole body will be full of light.” Christi-
anity is not acquired as an art by long practice; it does not carve
and polish human nature with a graving tool; it makes the whole
man ; first pouring out his soul before God, and then “ casting him in

amould.” Its workings are not to be measured by time, even though

among educated persons, and in modern times, sudden and momen-

tary conversions can rarely occur.

For the doctrine of conversion, the moralist substitutes the theory
of habits. Good actions, he says, produce good habits; and the
repetition of good actions makes them easier to perform, and “ for-
tifies us indefinitely against temptation.” There are bodily and
mental habits — habits of reflection and habits of action. Practice
gives skill or sleight of hand ; constant attention, the faculty of abs-
traction; so the practice of virtue makes us virtuous, that of vice,
vicious. ‘The more meat we eat, to use the illustration of Aristotle,
in whom we find a cruder form of the same theory, the more we are
able to eat meat; the more we wrestle, the more able we are to
wrestle, and so forth. If a person has some duty to perform, say of
common and trivial sort, to rise at a particular hour in the morning,
to be at a particular place at such an hour, to conform to some rule
about abstinence, we tell him that he will find the first occasion
difficult, the second easy, and the difficulty is supposed to vanish by
degrees until it wholly disappears. If a man has to march into a
battle, or to perform a surgical operation, or to do anything else

shove se

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 237

from which human nature shrinks, his nerves, we say, are gradually
strengthened ; his head, as was said of a famous soldier, clears up at
the sound of the cannon; like the grave-digger in Hamlet, he has
soon no “ feeling of his occupation.”

From a consideration of such instances as these, the rule has been
laid down, that, “as the passive impression weakens, the active habit
strengthens.” But is not this saying of a great man founded on
a narrow and partial contemplation of human nature? For, in
the first place, it leaves altogether out of sight the motives of
human action; it is equally suited to the most rigid formal-
ist, and to a moral and spiritual being. Secondly, it takes no
account of the limitation of the power of habits, which neither in
mind nor body can be extended beyond a certain point; nor of the
original capacity or peculiar character of individuals; nor of the
different kinds of habits, nor of the degrees of strength and weakness
in different minds; nor of the enormous difference between youth and
age, childhood and manhood, in the capacity for acquiring habits.
Old age does not move with accumulated force, either upwards
_ or downwards; they are the lesser habits, not the great springs
of life, that show themselves in it with increased power. Nor can
_ the man who has neglected to form habits in youth, acquire them in
mature life; like the body, the mind ceases to be capable of receiving
a particular form. Lastly, such a description of human nature agrees
with no man’s account of himself; whatever moralists may say, he
knows himself to be a spiritual being. ‘“ The wind bloweth where it
listeth,” and he cannot “tell whence it cometh, or whither it goeth.”

All that is true in the theory of habits seems to be implied in the
notion of order or regularity. Even this is inadequate to give a
conception of the structure of human beings. Order is the beginning,
but freedom is the perfection of our moral nature. Men do not live
at random, or act one instant without reference to their actions just
before. And in youth especially, the very sameness of our occupa-
tions is a sort of stay and support to us, as in age it may be described
as a kind of rest. But no one will say that the mere repetition of ac-

238 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

tions until they constitute a habit, gives any explanation of the higher
and nobler forms of human virtue, or the finer moulds of character.
Life cannot be explained as the working of a mere machine, still
less can moral or spiritual life be reduced to merely mechanical
laws.

But if, while acknowledging that a great proportion of mankind
are the creatures of habit, and that a great part of our actions are
nothing more than the result of habit, we go on to ask ourselves about
the changes of our life, and fix our minds on the critical points, we
are led to view human nature, not only in a wider and more generous
spirit, but also in a way more accordant with the language of
Scripture. We no longer measure ourselves by days or by weeks ;
we are conscious that at particular times we have undergone great
revolutions or emotions ; and then, again, have intervened periods,
lasting perhaps for years, in which we have pursued the even current
of our way. Our progress towards good may have been in idea an
imperceptible and regular advance ; in fact, we know it to have been

otherwise. We have taken plunges in life; there are many eras

noted in our existence. The greatest changes are those of which we

are the least able to give an account, and which we feel the most
disposed to refer to a superior power. That they were simply mys-
terious, like some utterly unknown natural phenomena, is our first
thought about them. But although unable to fathom their true na-
ture, we are capable of analysing many of the circumstances which
accompany them, and of observing the impulses out of which they
arise.

Every man has the power of forming a resolution, or, without
previous resolution, in any particular instance, acting as he will.
As thoughts come into the mind one cannot tell how, so too motives
spring up, without our being able to trace their origin. Why we
suddenly see a thing in a new light, is often hard to explain; why
we feel an action to be right or wrong which has previously seemed
indifferent, is not less inexplicable. We fix the passing dream or
sentiment in action ; the thought is nothing, the deed may be every-

ae :

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 239

thing. That day after day, to use a familiar instance, the drunkard
will find abstinence easier, is probably untrue; but that from once
abstaining he will gain a fresh experience, and receive a new strength
and inward satisfaction, which may result in endless consequences,
is what every one is aware of. It is not the sameness of what
we do, but its novelty, which seems to have such a peculiar power
over us; not the repetition of many blind actions, but the per-
formance of a single conscious one, that is the birth to a new life.
Indeed, the very sameness of actions is often accompanied with a
sort of weariness, which makes men desirous of change.

Nor is it less true, that by the commission, not of many, but
a single act of vice or crime, an inroad is made into our whole
moral constitution, which is not proportionably increased by its
repetition. The first act of theft, falsehood, or other immorality, is
an event in the life of the perpetrator which he never forgets. It
may often happen that no account can be given of it; that there is
nothing in the education, nor in the antecedents of the person, that
would lead us, or even himself, to suspect it. In the weaker sort of
natures, especially, suggestions of evil spring up we cannot tell how.
Human beings are the creatures of habit; but they are the crea-
tures of impulse too; and from the greater variableness of the
outward eircumstances of life, and especially of particular periods
of life, and the greater freedom of individuals, it may, perhaps, be
found that human actions, though less liable to wide-spread or sud-
den changes, have also become more capricious, and less reducible
to simple causes, than formerly.

Changes in character come more often in the form of feeling than
of reason, from some new affection or attachment, or alienation of
our former self, rather than from the slow growth of experience, or a
deliberate sense of right andduty. The meeting with some particu-
lar person, the remembrance of some particular scene, the last words
of a parent or friend, the reading of a sentence in a book, may call
forth a world within us of the very existence of which we were pre-
viously unconscious. New interests arise such as we never before

240 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

knew, and we can no longer lie grovelling in the mire, but must be
up and doing ; new affections seem to be drawn out, such as warm
our inmost soul and make action and exertion a delight to us. Mere
human love at first sight, as we say, has been known to change the
whole character and produce an earthly effect, analogous to that
heavenly love of Christ and the brethren, of which the New Testa-
ment speaks, Have we not seen the passionate become calm, the
licentious pure, the weak strong, the scoffer devout? We may not
venture to say with St. Paul, “ This is a great mystery, but I speak
concerning Christ and the Church.” But such instances serve, at
least, to quicken our sense of the depth and subtlety of human
nature.

Of many of these changes no other reason can be given than that
nature and the Author of nature have made men capable of them.
There are others, again, which we seem to trace, not only to particular
times, but to definite actions, from which they flow in the same manner
that other effects follow from their causes. Among such causes none
are more powerful than acts of self-sacrifice and devotion. A single
deed of heroism makes a man a hero; it becomes a part of him, and,
strengthened by the approbation and sympathy of his fellow-men,
a sort of power which he gains over himself and them. Something
like this is true of the lesser occasions of life no less than of the
greatest; provided in either case the actions are not of such a kind
that the performance of them is a violence to our nature. Many
a one has stretched himself on the rack of asceticism, without on the
whole raising his nature; often he has seemed to have gained in
self-control only what he has lost in the kindlier affections, and by
his very isolation to have wasted the opportunities which nature
offered him of self-improvement. But no one with a heart open to
human feelings, loving not man the less, but God more, sensitive
to the happiness of this world, yet aiming at a higher, —no man of
such a nature ever made a great sacrifice, or performed a great act
of self-denial, without impressing a change on his character, which
lasted to his latest breath. No man ever took his besetting sin, it

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 241

may be lust, or pride, or love of rank and position, and, as it were,
cut it out by voluntarily placing himself where to gratify it was im-
possible, without sensibly receiving a new strength of character. In
one day, almost in an hour, he may become an altered man; he may
stand, as it were, on a different stage of moral and religious life;
he may feel himself in new relations to an altered world.

Nor, in considering the effects of action, must the influence of im-
pressions be lost sight of. Good resolutions are apt to have a bad |
name; they have come to be almost synonymous with the absence
of good actions. As they get older, men deem it a kind of weakness
to be guilty of making them; so often do they end in raising
“pictures of virtue, or going over the theory of virtue in our minds.”
Yet this contrast between passive impression and active habit,
is hardly justified by our experience of ourselves or others. Value-
less as they are in themselves, good resolutions are suggestive of
great good; they are seldom wholly without effect on our con-
duct; in the weakest of men they are still the embryo of action.
They may meet with a concurrence of circumstances in which they
take root and grow, coinciding with some change of place, or of
pursuits, or of companions, or of natural constitution, in which they
acquire a peculiar power. ‘They are the opportunities of virtue,
if not virtue itself. At the worst they make us think; they give us
an experience of ourselves ; they prevent our passing our lives in total
unconsciousness. A man may go on all his life making and not
keeping them ; miserable as such a state appears, he is perhaps not
the worse, but something the better for them. The voice of the
preacher is not lost, even if he succeed but for a few instants in
awakening them.

A further cause of sudden changes in the moral constitution is the
determination of the will by reason and knowledge. Suppose the
case of a person living in a narrow circle of ideas, within the limits of
his early education, perplexed by difficulties, yet never venturing
beyond the wall of prejudices in which he has been brought up,
or changing only into the false position of a rebellion against

VOL. II. R

P42 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

them. A new view of his relation to the world and to God is
presented to him; such, for example, as in St. Paul’s day was the
grand acknowledgment that God was “not the God of the Jews
only ;” such as in our own age would be the clear vision of the truth
and justice of God, high above the clouds of earth and time, and of
his goodwill to man. Convinced of the reasonableness of the
Gospel, it becomes to him at once a self-imposed law. No longer
does the human heart rebel; no longer has he “to pose his under-

standing” with that odd resolution of Tertullian, — “certum quia
impossibile.” He perceives that the perplexities of religion have
been made, not by the appointment of God, but by the ingenuity of
man. .

Lastly. Among those influences, by the help of which the will of
man learns to disengage itself from the power of habit, must not be
omitted the influence of circumstances. If men are creatures of
habit, much more are they creatures of circumstances. These two,
nature without us, and “the second nature” that is within, are the
counterbalancing forces of our being. Between them (so we may
figure to ourselves the working of the mind) the human will inserts
itself, making the force of one a lever against the other, and seeming
to rule both. We fall under the power of habit, and feel ourselves
weak and powerless to shake off the almost physical influence which
it exerts upon us. The enfeebled frame cannot rid itself of the ma-
lady ; the palsied springs of action cannot be strengthened for good,
nor fortified against evil. Transplanted into another soil, and ina
different air, we renew our strength. In youth especially, the cha-
racter seems to respond kindly to the influence of the external world.
Providence has placed us in a state in which we have many aids in

the battle with self; the greatest of these is change of circumstances.

We have wandered far from the subject of conversion in the early
Church, into another sphere in which the words “ grace, faith, the

spirit,” have disappeared, and notions of moral philosophy have taken

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 243

their place. It is better, perhaps, that the attempt to analyse our
spiritual nature should assume this abstract form. We feel that
words cannot express the life hidden with Christ and God; we are
afraid of declaring on the housetop, what may only be spoken in the
closet. If the rites and ceremonies of the elder dispensation, which
have so little in them of aspiritual character, became a figure of the
true, much more may the moral world be regarded as a figure of the
spiritual world of which religion speaks to us.
There is a view of the changes of the characters of men which
begins where this ends, which reads human nature by a different
light, and speaks of it as the seat of a great struggle between the
powers of good and evil. It would be untrue to identify this view
with that which has preceded, and scarcely less untrue to attempt to
interweave the two in a system of “moral theology.” No addition
of theological terms will transfigure Aristotle’s Ethics into a “Summa
Theologiz.” When St. Paul says—“O wretched man that I am, who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?” “I thank God
through Jesus Christ our Lord;” he is not speaking the language
of moral philosophy, but of religious feeling. He expresses what
_ few have truly felt concentrated in a single instant, what many have
deluded themselves into the belief of, what some have experienced
accompanying them through life, what a great portion even of the
better sort of mankind are wholly unconscious of. It seems as if
Providence allowed us to regard the truths of religion and morality
in many ways which are not wholly unconnected with each other,
yet parallel rather than intersecting; providing for the varieties
of human character, and not leaving those altogether without law,
who are incapable in a world of sight of entering within the veil.
As we return to that “hidden life” of which the Scripture speaks,
our analysis of human nature seems to become more imperfect, less
reducible to rule or measure, less capable of being described in a
language which all men understand. What the believer recognises
as the record of his experience is apt to seem mystical to the rest of
the world. We do not seek to thread the mazes of the human soul,

R 2

244 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

or to draw forth to the light its hidden communion with its Maker,
but only to present in general outline the power of religion among
other causes of human action.

Directly, religious influences may be summed up under three
heads: — The power of God; the love of Christ; the efficacy of
prayer.

(1.) So far as the influence of the first of these is capable of ana-
lysis, it consists in the practical sense that we are dependent beings,
and that our souls are in the hands of God, who is acting through
us, ‘and ever present with us, in the trials of life and in the work of
life. The believer is a minister who executes this work, hardly the
partner in it; it is not his own, but God’s. He does it with the
greatest care, as unto the Lord and not to men, yet is indifferent as
to the result, knowing that all things, even through his imperfect
agency, are working together for good. The attitude of his soul
towards God is such as to produce the strongest effects on his power
of action. It leaves his faculties clear and unimpassioned ; it places
him above accidents ; it gives him courage and freedom. Trusting
in God only, like the Psalmist, “he fears no enemy ;” he has no want.
There is a sort of absoluteness in his position in the world, which can
neither be made better nor worse; as St. Paul says: —“ All things
are his, whether life or death, or things present or things to come.”

In merely human things, the aid and sympathy of others increase
our power to act: it is also the fact that we can work more effec-
tually and think more truly, where the issue is not staked on the
result of our thought and work. The confidence of success would
be more than half the secret of success, did it not also lead to the
relaxation of our efforts. But in the life of the believer, the sym-
pathy, if such a figure of speech may be allowed, is not human but
Divine; the confidence is not a confidence in ourselves, but in the
power of God, which at once takes us out of ourselves and increases
our obligation to exertion. The instances just mentioned have an
analogy, though but a faint one, with that which we are considering.

They are shadows of the support which we receive from the In-

Ria Alan: ere

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 245

finite and Everlasting. As the philosopher said that his theory of
fatalism was absolutely required to insure the repose necessary for
moral action, it may be said, in a far higher sense, that the con-
sciousness of a Divine Providence is necessary to enable a rational
being to meet the present trials of life, and to look without fear on
his future destiny.

(2.) But yet more strongly is it felt that the love of Christ has this
constraining power over souls, that here, if anywhere, we are unlock-
ing the twisted chain of sympathy, and reaching the inmost mystery
of human nature. The sight, once for all, of Christ crucified, recalling
the thought of what, more than 1800 years ago, he suffered for us,
has ravished the heart and melted the affections, and made the world
seem new, and covered the earth itself with a fair vision, that is, a
heavenly one. The strength of this feeling arises from its being
directed towards a person, a real being, an individual like ourselves,
who has actually endured all this for our sakes, who was above us,
and yet became one of us and felt as we did, and was like ourselves
a true man. The love which He felt towards us, we seek to return
‘to Him ; the unity which He has with the Divine nature, He com-
municates to us; His Father is our Father, His God our God.
And as human love draws men onwards to make sacrifices, and
to undergo sufferings for the good of others, Divine love also leads
us to cast away the interests of this world, and rest only in the
noblest object of love. And this love is not only a feeling or senti-
ment, or attachment, such as we may entertain towards a parent, a
child, or a wife, in which, pure and disinterested as it may be, some
shadow of earthly passions unavoidably mingles; it is also the
highest exercise of the reason, which it seems to endow with the force
of the affections, making us think and feel at once. And although it
begins in gentleness, and tenderness, and weakness, and is often sup-
posed to be more natural to women than men, yet it grows up also
to “the fulness of the stature of the perfect man.” The truest note
of the depth and sincerity of our feelings towards our fellow crea-

R 3

946 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

tures is a manly, — that is, a self controlled — temper : still more
is this true of the love of the soul towards Christ and God.

Every one knows what it is to become like those whom we
admire or esteem; the impress which a disciple may sometimes
have received from his teacher, or the servant from his Lord.
Such devotion to a particular person can rarely be thought to open
our hearts to love others also; it often tends to weaken the force of
individual character. But the love of Christ is the conducting
medium to the love of all mankind; the image which He impresses
upon us is the image not of any particular individual, but of the Son
of Man. And this image, as we draw nearer to it, is transfigured
into the image of the Son of God. As we become like Him, we see
Him as He is; and see ourselves and all other things with true
human sympathy. Lastly, we are sensible that more than all we
feel towards Him, He feels towards us, and that it is He who is
drawing us to Him, while we seem to be drawing to Him ourselves.
This is a part of that mystery of which the Apostle speaks, “of the
length, and depth, and breadth of the love of Christ,” which passeth
knowledge. Mere human love rests on instincts, the working of
which we cannot explain, but which nevertheless touch the inmost
springs of our being. So, too, we have spiritual instincts, acting
towards higher objects, still more suddenly and wonderfully cap-
turing our souls in an instant, and making us indifferent to all
thingselse. Such instincts show themselves in the weak no less than
in the strong; they seem to be not so much an original part of our
nature as to fulfil our nature, and add to it, and draw it out, until
they make us different beings to ourselves and others. It was the
quaint fancy of a sentimentalist to ask whether any one who remem-
bers the first sight of a beloved person, could doubt the existence of
magic. We may ask another question, Can any one who has
ever known the love of Christ, doubt the existence of a spiritual
power ?

(3.) The instrument whereby, above all others, we realise the
power of God, and the love of Christ, which carries us into their

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 247

presence, and places us within the circle of a Divine yet personal
influence, is prayer. Prayer is the summing up of the Christian life
in a definite act, which is at once inward and outward, the power of
which on the character, like that of any other act, is proportioned
to its intensity. The imagination of doing rightly adds little to our
strength ; even the wish to do so is not necessarily accompanied by a
change of heart and conduct. But in prayer we imagine, and wish,
and perform all in one. Our imperfect resolutions are offered up
to God; our weakness becomes strength, our words deeds. No
other action is so mysterious; there is none in which we seem,
in the same manner, to renounce ourselves that we may be one with
God.

Of what nature that prayer is which is effectual to the obtaining of
its requests is a question of the same kind as what constitutes a
true faith. That prayer, we should reply, which is itself most of an
act, which is most immediately followed by action, which is most
truthful, manly, self-controlled, which seems to lead and direct,
rather than to follow, our natural emotions. That prayer which
is its own answer because it asks not for any temporal good, but for
union with God. That prayer which begins with the confession,
“We know not what to pray for as we ought;” which can never
by any possibility interfere with the laws of nature, because even
in extremity of danger or suffering, it seeks only the fulfilment of
His will. That prayer which acknowledges that our enemies, or
those of a different faith, are equally with ourselves in the hands of
God; in which we never unwittingly ask for our own good at the
expense of others. That prayer in which faith is strong enough to
submit to experience; in which the soul of man is nevertheless con-
scious not of any self-produced impression, but of a true communion
with the Author and Maker of his being.

In prayer, as in all religion, there is something that it is impos-
sible to describe, and that seems to be untrue the moment it is ex-
pressed in words. In the relations of man with God, it is vain to
attempt to separate what belongs to the finite and what to the infinite.

R 4

248 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

We can feel, but we cannot analyse it. -We can lay down practical
rules for it, but can give no adequate account of it. It is a mystery
which we do not need to fathom. In all religion there is an ele-
ment of which we are conscious ;—which is no mystery, which
ought to be and is on a level with reason and experience. There is
something besides, which, in those who give way to every vague
spiritual emotion, may often fall below reason (for to them it becomes
a merely physical state); which may also raise us above ourselves,
until reason and feeling meet in one, and the life on earth even of
the poor and ignorant answers to the description of the Apostle
“ Having your conversation in heaven.”

This partial indistinctness of the subject of religion, even indepen-
dently of mysticism or superstition, may become to intellectual minds
a ground for doubting the truth of that which will not be altogether
reduced to the rules of human knowledge, which seems to elude
our grasp, and retires into the recesses of the soul the moment we
ask for the demonstration of its existence. Against this natural
suspicion let us set two observations: first, that if the Gospel had
spoken to the reason only, and not to the feelings—if “the way to
the blessed life ” had to be won by clearness of ideas, then it is impos-
sible that “to the poor the Gospel should have been first preached.”
It would have begun at the other end of society, and probably re-
mained, like Greek philosophy, the abstraction of educated men:
Secondly, let us remark that even now, judged by its effects, the
power of religion is of all powers the greatest. Knowledge itself
is a weak instrument to stir the soul compared with religion ; mora-
lity has no way to the heart of man; but the Gospel reaches the
feelings and the intellect at once. In nations as well as individuals,
in barbarous times as well as civilised, in the great crises of history
especially, even in the latest ages, when the minds of men seem
to wax cold, and all things remain the same as at the beginning,
it has shown itself to be a reality without which human nature
would cease to be what it is. Almost every one has. had the wit-
ness of it in himself. No one, says Plato, ever passed from youth

ey ee ee

CONVERSION AND CHANGES OF CHARACTER. 249

to age in unbelief of the gods, in heathen times. Hardly any
educated person in a Christian land has passed from youth to age
without some aspiration after a better life, some thought of the
country to which he is going.

As a fact, it would be admitted by most, that, at some period of
their lives, the thought of the world to come and of future judgment,
the beauty and loveliness of the truths of the Gospel, the sense of
the shortness of our days here, have wrought a more quickening and
powerful effect than any moral truths or prudentialmaxims. Many
a one would acknowledge that he has been carried whither he knew
not; and had nobler thoughts, and felt higher aspirations, than the
course of his ordinary life seemed to allow. These were the most im-
portant moments of his life for good or for evil; the critical points
which have made him what he is, either as he used or neglected
them. They came he knew not how, sometimes with some outward
and apparent cause, at other times without, —the result of afiliction
or sickness, or “ the wind blowing where it listeth.”

And if such changes and such critical points should be found to
occur in youth more often than in age, in the poor and ignorant
rather than in the educated, in women more often than in men, — if
reason and reflection seem to weaken as they regulate the springs of
human action, this very fact may lead us to consider that reason,
and reflection, and education, and the experience of age, and the force
of manly sense, are not the links which bind us to the communion of
the body of Christ; that it is rather to those qualities which we
have, or may have, in common with our fellow-men, that the Gospel
-is promised ; and that it is with the weak, the poor, the babes in
Christ, —not with the strong-minded, the resolute, the consistent,—
that we shall sit down in the kingdom of heaven.

250

A 5 as A
Ovdsev dpa viv KaTaKpiwa Tots ev xptaTY Inoov

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. VIII.

** 6 yap

la ‘a la 3 “a > or 9 ,

vomos TOD mvevpatos THs Cans ev xpiaT@ Inood Hdevde-
os an 4 . “A 4, A

pwoér pe Grd TOU Vépov THs Gpaptias Kal TOV Oavatov. Td
aA . | / \ “A \ e

yap aSvvarov Tod vopov, ev @ nobéver Sia THs Tapkos, 6

1 Add: uh xara odpka meprmarotow GAG KaTd Tvetwa.

VII. 1—15. The struggle
has passed away, and the con-
queror and the conquered are side
by side. The two laws men-
tioned in the last chapter, have
changed places, the one becoming
mighty from being powerless,
the other powerless from being
mighty. The helplessness of the
law has been done away in Christ,
that its righteous requirement
may be fulfilled in us, who walk
not after the flesh but after the
spirit. The Apostle returns upon
his former track that he may
contrast the two elements, not, as
in the previous chapter, in con-
flict with each other, hopelessly
entangled by “occasion of the
commandment,” but in entire se-
paration and opposition. These
two, the flesh and the spirit, stand
over against one another, as life
and death, as peace and enmity
with God. Do what it will, the
flesh can never be subjected to
the law of God. And this an-
tagonism is not an antagonism of
ideas only, but of persons also.
It is another mode of express-
ing the same thought, to say
that they that are in the flesh
cannot please God. “ But ye,”
the Apostle adds, “ are notin the
flesh, but in the Spirit, which is
the Spirit of God and Christ, and
have the body dead, and the
Spirit that is in you life; and as
God raised up Christ from the
dead, he will raise you up, be-
cause you have His Spirit dwell-

ing in you. Are we not debtors
then to live according to the Spi-
rit, which is the only source of
life and immortality, under the
guidance of which, too, we are
no longer the servants but the
sons of God?”

1. dpa.] To those, then, who
are dead with Christ, who strug-
gle against sin, who with the
mind serve the law of God, there
is therefore now no condemna~
tion. The connexion is with the
whole of the previous subject.

voy.| At this point of our ar-
gument we may say. Compare
vuvi, vii. 17.

Toic €v xptoT~,| may be com-
pared with of daydi TAdrwva,
IlvOaydpay, and the like. Yet
the preposition év expresses, also,
the different relation in which
the disciple of Christ and of a
heathen philosopher stood to their
master.

The accidental division of the
chapter seems to correspond, in
this passage, with the actual
break in the sense. ‘The crisis
has passed not again to return,
and the soul, though in its earthly
state, is, nevertheless, at rest.

[The words, p17) kara capxa we-
purarovowy adhAa Kara rrvedpa, are
omitted in B. C. D. F.G. They
have been introduced into the
text from ver. 4. perhaps to
correct the apparently antino-
mian tendency of the Apostle’s
doctrine. |

2. The Gospel has been some-

Ver. 2, 3.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

251

There is therefore now no condemnation to them

which are in Christ Jesus.

For the law of the Spirit

of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law
of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in

1 Add who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit.

times represented as a law, some-
times as a spirit; as a rule to
which we must conform, and also
as a power with which we are en-
dowed. Both aspects are united
in the expression, “the law of
the Spirit of life,” which is a
kind of paradox, and may be
compared with “the law of faith,”
at the end of the third chapter.
Strictly speaking, in the language
of St. Paul, sin stands on the one
side, and the Spirit of God on
the other; they answer respec-
tively to the worse and the better
element of human nature; while,
between the two is placed the
straight and unbending rule of
the law. But the law is used in
two other senses also, first, for
the rule of sin to which man has
subjected himself, and, secondly,
for the growth of the higher life,
the spirit which becomes a law,
the habit which strengthens into
a second and better nature. Law,
in the first of these two senses, is
buta figure to express the strength
and uniformity of the power of
. evil ; in the second, it is the har-
mony of human things in commu-
nion with God and Christ: the
first is the law under which the
first Adam fell: the second, the
law, by the fulfilment of which
the second Adam redeemed man-
kind.

2. vopov rij¢ apapriac Kal rod
Savarov, the law of sin and
death.| But what law is thus
characterised ? ‘The strength of

the language would not be a
positive proof that the Apostle is
not here speaking of the law of
Moses, if we may take the ex-
pressions in Gal. iii. and iv. 3.,
and 1 Cor. xv. 56., where he
seems to speak of the law as
synonymous with “elements of
the world,” and even as “the
strength of sin,” as a measure of
his words. Such a view of the
words would also agree with the
following verse, which speaks of
the powerlessness of “the law
through the flesh,” an expression
hardly suitable to the “law in
the members” that preceded,
which was not powerless, but
simply evil. Nor can we sup-
pose that in the “law of sin and
death,” no allusion is implied to
the law of Moses, even if the two
be not absolutely identical. Still
it is less liable to objection, to
take the law of sin and death in
the same general sense in which
the law of sin and the body of
death were spoken of in the pre-
ceding chapter. It is the law of
Moses, and what the law of Mo-
ses in its influence on the heart
and conscience has grown up
into and become, the law which
is the strength of sin, which is al-
most sin, which was made death.

3. Td yap advvaroy rod vopov,
Sor what the law, §e.| (1.) For
God condemned sin in the flesh,
which was a thing that the law
could not do, ro advvaroy rov vé-
pov being in apposition with

252

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VIII.

beds Tov EavTod vidv Téurbas ev 6powdpaTL TapKos apap-
vias Kal mept dpaptias KaTéxpwev THY apaptiay ev TH
oapki, wa Td Sikalwpa TOV vopov TynpwOp E&Y Hel Tots
pu) KaTa Oapka TepiTaTovaw ada KaTa TVEVMA. Oo yap
KaTad odpKa ovTEs TA THS GapKos Ppovovow, ot d€ Kara
TVEdLa Ta TOD TVEpaTOS* TO yap Ppdvnwa THS TapKds

karéxpuve, k.7.A.3 or (2.) making 70
advvaroy independent, for touch-
ing the powerlessness of the law,
in that it was weak through the
flesh, &c. This mode of taking
the passage sacrifices the gram-
mar to the meaning. For ro
advvarov tov vdpuou begins one
sentence, and is met by 6 Qe0c,
k.7.A., Which begins another. Sim-
plicity is, however, a better guide
to the order of words in St. Paul
than classical refinement of con-
struction.

To pass on to the sense. The
law was powerless, not in itself,
but because it was without in-
struments for the service of God.
The weakness of the flesh could
never fulfil the requirements of
the law ; it seemed rather to jus-
tify disobedience. But God sent
His own Son, in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin, and con-
demned sin in the flesh. The
sinless life of Christ showed that
even in the flesh sin was not na-
tural or necessary. So we might
speak in a figure of the life or
conduct of another convicting or
condemning ourselves ; he might
show, that is, some virtue or
self-denial to be possible which
would otherwise have seemed
impossible. Some such analogy
as this is working in the Apostle’s
mind. The other mode of taking
the words which refers them to the
death of Christ, regarded either
as a sacrifice for sin, or as the

punishment for sinful flesh, is in-
consistent with rd ddvvaroy rov
vouov. ‘There is also an allusion
in the word xaréxpivev to karaxpipa,

in ver. 1., “ There is no condem-

nation, because God condemned
sin in the flesh.’

The meaning of the clause de-
rives some additional light from
the words that follow. In Serip-
ture Christ is often said to be in
all points like ourselves ; and all
that we are, and are not, and
might have been, is transferred
to Him, either to be done away
with in us, or to be imparted to
us. Thus, in the language of
St. Paul, He died, that we might
be saved from death ; He became
a curse, to free us from the curse
of the law ; He condemned sin in
the flesh, that to us there might
be no condemnation. (Compare
ver. 1. and dca rov broragavra, in
ver. 20.) Also he condemned
sin that we might condemn it too;
or, in other words, that the righ-
teousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us, who walk not after
the flesh, but after the spirit
(ver. 4.): what is expressed in
the words xaréxpivey THY apapriay
év 7H capki is another aspect of
iva TO Oucvaiwpa Tov vopnov TAnpwHi.

év duowpart,| in the likeness,
that is, the outward form or
figure of, as in Rev. ix. 7. odpé
apapriac, flesh of sin, @.e. which
belongs to sin, is identified with
sin.

ei

Ver. 4—6.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

253

that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own
- Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned
sin in the flesh: that the righteousness of the law might
be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after
the Spirit. For they that are after the flesh do mind
the things of the flesh; but they that are after the

Spirit the things of the Spirit.

rept apapriac.| Better in the
general sense of “ for sin” than as
in Heb. x. 4. “for a sin offering.”

Compare for the sense Heb. iv.

15.: wereipacpevov O€ KaTa Tayra:

cal? Gpoidryra xwpic dpapriac.

4. iva ro dtkaiwpa rov vépov. |
“That the righteous require-
ment of the law may be fulfilled
in us, who walk not after the
flesh but after the spirit.” These
words have received three inter-
pretations. They may be supposed
to refer :—(1.) to Christ’s fulfil-
ment of the law, which is trans-
ferred to us ; or, (2.) to our parti-
cipation in his fulfilment of the law
by union with him ; or, (3.) to our
fulfilment of the law by the holi-
ness which he imparts to us. In
other words, they may relate :—
(1.) to an external righteousness ;
or, (2.) to a righteousness, exter-
nal, but imparted ; or, (3.) to in-
herent righteousness. Instead of
selecting one of these interpre-
tations, the meaning of any of
which is defined by its antago-
nism to the other two, we must
go back to the predoctrinal age
of the Apostle himself, ere such
distinctions existed. The whole
Christian life flows with him
from union with Christ. Whe-
ther this union is conscious or
unconscious, whether it gives or
merely imputes the righteousness
of Christ, is a question which he
does not analyse. But in think-

For the mind of the

ing of it, he perceives a sort of
balance and contrast between the
humiliation of Christ and the
exaltation of the Christian. The
believer seems to gain what his
master has lost. He throws on
Christ the worse half of self, that
the better half may be endued
with the spirit of life.

5. In the fifth verse the Apo-
stle expresses in the concrete
what in the sixth he repeats in
the abstract.

For they that walk according
to the flesh, have the mind and
do the deeds of the flesh, and
therefore cannot fulfil the law.
Their being in the flesh is no
mere imaginary state ; it implies
having the wishes and desires of
the flesh.

6. ppovnpa rijc capxoc. | “ Which
some do expound the wisdom,
some sensuality, some the affec-
tion, some the desire of the
flesh.” Art. ix.

“The mind” in the sense of
“will, intention,” more nearly
answers to the Greek than any
of these.

In this and the following
verses the Apostle, as in vii. 8.,
returns upon the track of the
preceding chapter. He is speak-
ing of the struggle which is now
past, the elements of which no
longer exist together in the same
human soul, but are the types of
classes of men living in two dif-

254 ‘EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Ca. VIII.

Oavaros, TO O€ ppovnyia TOU mvEbpaTos Cor) Kat eipyv7.
Sut TO ppovnpa 7s oapKos éxOpa eis Oeovs To yap :
voy Tov Oeod ody brotdaceTat, ovdE yap Sévetrat ol 8
Se & capki dvres Oe dpéoa ob SdvavTar. wpeis dE 9
obk éoté &v capki aN & mvevpati, el TEp Tredpa
Beod oixe év tpiv. ei Sé TIS TVEdWa XpLOTOU oOvK EXEL,
ovTos ovK eoTW avTov. el S€ ypioTos EV vp, TO MeV 10
coua vexpov Sid dpaptiav, 70 dé mvetpa Lon dia
Sucawoctvyv. e dé TO veda TOU EyElpavTos TOY 11
"Incovv ék vexpov oiket ev vp, 0 eyelpas xpioTov'
[’Incodv] é« vexpdv Cworoujoe Kat Ta OvyTa oodpara

1 chy Xp. Om. *Iyodur.

ferent worlds. In ver.6.wehave as arising out of the general op-

what may be termed a further
epexegesis of ver. 5., as ver. 5.
was of ver. 4., both being con-
nected by the favourite yap. As
in ver. 5. he took up the words
cipt and rvevpa from ver. 4., so
here he takes up the word gpoveiy
from ver. 5.

Savaroc.| Not physical, but
spiritual death, the state of dis-
cord which he had described in
the preceding chapter, which in
the next verses he describes as
enmity against God, opposed to
the state of life and peace.

7. For the mind of the flesh is
that state which we have de-
scribed above of “ enmity against
God ;” for it is not subject to the
law of God, for it cannot be: it
involves, as we should say, a
moral, almost a physical impossi-
bility, for it to pontorrs. to arule.
Compare above, vii. 18. :—“ForI
know that in me (that i is, in my
flesh) dwelleth no good thing.”

8. of b€ év oapKt ovrec. | The
dé in this passage may be re-
garded either as a mere connect-
ing particle, or may be explained

position of oapé and rvedpa which
runs through the passage.

9. ei wep . . . tiv. | Compare
John, xiv. 23.:—“My father
will love him, and we will come
unto him and make our abode
with him.”

As in chapter vi. St. Paul
spoke of the Christian as being
dead with Christ, so in this he
speaks of his living with Him.
These are the two stages of the
believer’s being, which have many
names and aspects :— slavery,
freedom, strife, peace ; the flesh,
the spirit, death, resurrection,
suffering, glory.

The spirit is spoken of in
Scripture indifferently as the
Spirit of God or of Christ, Phil.
i. 19.; or of the Son, Gal. iv. 6.;
sometimes under the more ge-
neral term of the Spirit of the
Lord, as in 2 Cor. iii. 17, 18.
Here the Apostle makes a sudden
transition from the Spirit of God
to that of Christ, and returns
again in the eleventh verse to
speak of “the Spirit of Him that
raised up Christ from the dead.”

bath foristowe

7

11

Ver. 7—11.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

255

flesh* is death; but the mind of the Spirit* is life and

peace.

Because the mind of the flesh* is enmity against

God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither in-
s deed can be; and* they that are in the flesh cannot
9 please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the
Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you.
Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none
10 of his. But* if Christ be in you, the body is dead be-
- cause of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteous-

ness.

But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from

the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ Jesus!

1 Om, Jesus.

The change is not accidental ;
it is designed to give point to the
words ovroc ovk Eorivavrov. But if
aman have not that spirit, which
(being the Spirit of God) is also
that of Christ, he is not Christ’s.

10. “But if Christ be in you,
the body is dead because of sin ;
but the Spirit is life, because of
righteousness.” The same ques-
tion which was asked at chap. iv.
ver. 25. again recurs, “ What is
the meaning of the antithesis ?”
and must again receive the same
answer, that the antithesis be-
longing rather to the form than
to the substance of the Apostle’s
thought, must not be too closely

pressed. There is no difficulty

in the second member of the sen-
tence, which may be paraphrased:
— “The Spirit is life, because of
the righteousness imputed to it
and inherent in it, its own and
Christ’s.” It is not clear, how-
ever, in what sense the body can
be said to be dead because of sin.
Hither, it may be, (1.) dead be-
cause sin would otherwise live, of
which the body is the seat (comp.
ver. 13.), or (2.), dead because
sin is its destroying power—“sin
revived and I died,” as described

in the preceding chapter; or (3.),
dead because the sinful body has
no element of immortality in it-
self. but will be hereafter raised,
not of itself, but by the Spirit
which dwells in it. According
to either of the two last ways of
taking the passage, the death
of the body is not looked upon
as a good, but as an evil, which
is compensated for by the quick-
ening of the Spirit. For a time
the body is dead either in a
spiritual or a natural sense ;
either inert and incapable of the
service whether of God or sin, or
devoid of the seed of a future life.
But God will revive it whether
to natural or spiritual life or
both : if the Spirit which raised
up Christ is the Spirit which also
dwells in us.

11. The spiritual resurrection
suggests the thought of the ac-
tual resurrection, as in John, vy.
25. In this world the quicken-
ing Spirit and the mortal body
exist separate from each other ;
but hereafter the Spirit shall re-
animate the body, as it is the
Spirit of Him who raised up
Christ from the dead ;— who will
do as much for us as he did for

[Cu. VII.

256 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

A ~ 4 > €. 3oM&
opéav Sua Tov! évouKodvTOS avTOU TVEDLATOS <Y VEL.
dpa ovv, adeddot, dperheran eo pev ov TH OapKl TOU KaTa
odpka hv. eb yap Kara oapke. inte, peddere aro-
ei Sé mvevmate tas mpdgers TOV TaparTos
doo. yap mvedpatt Deod ayovrat,

> \ > , A 8 ,
ov yap ehaBeTe mvevpa dovdetas

OvyoKew *

Bavarodte, Lyoeo Oe.

@ La)

obTou viol eiow GOeod.
nw e e

addw eis pdBov, adda ehadBere mvetpa viobecias, ev @

Kpalopev ‘ABBa 6 6 TaTNHp.

Abtd TO TVEdpLA ouppaptupe: TO TVEVLATL HUOV, OTL

éopev tékva Oeov. ei Sé Téxva Kat Kdnpovopot:

1 +d évoixotvy . .

Christ. ra Svnra owpara, your
bodies that would die were it
not for His quickening Spirit.
Compare vi. 12.

cca TO évotkovy avrou mvevpa,
has a large majority of patristic,
as Ou Tov évomkovyTog avrov TvEU-
paroc of MS. authority in its fa-
vour. It makes little difference
whether we look upon the Holy
Spirit as the cause, or as the in-
strument of the resurrection, the
mode of which so far transcends
human language and thought.

12. Knowing that the body is
dead, because of sin, and the
Spirit is life, because of righteous-
ness, and looking forward to the
resurrection of the dead, ought
we to live according to the flesh?

Thethoughtis the same, though
less strongly expressed than in
chap. vi. 2.:—“ How shall we, who
are dead to sin, live any longer
therein ?” which is worked out
in a similar manner in the follow-
ing verses; ‘‘ That as Christ rose
from the dead in the glory of the
Father, so we also may walk in
newness of life.”

13. The Apostle returns upon
ver. 6., repeating, as his manner

TyEvLG.,

K\npo-
2 eioly viol Geod,

is, in the concrete what he had
thrice said in the abstract, and
alluding again to the actual death
and resurrection, the thought of
which had been introduced in
ver. 11.: “ For if ye live accord-
ing to the flesh, that is not only
present but future death ; but if
ye by the Spirit put to death the
deeds of the body, ye shall live.”

Comp. Gal. v. 24., “ And they
that are Christ’s have crucified
the flesh with the affections and
lusts ;” and Col. iii. 5., “ Mor-
tify, therefore, your members
which are upon the earth.”

14. The Apostle proceeds to
describe the relation of the re-
generate to God by a yet nearer
figure ; they are the sons of God
as Christ is, they are the mem-
bers of his family, they feel to-
wards him as a Father, they are
the heirs of His glory. In their
love to him, and in his to them,
in the forgiveness of their offen-
ces, in the rest of their eternal
home, they are conscious that
they are his children

yap expresses the ground of
CnocoOe: “You shall live, for
you are the sons of God, for the

12 =
13 ©

14

15

16
1%

BO 5 a

12
13

14

15 ©

16
17

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 257

Ver. 12—17.]

from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by
his Spirit that dwelleth in you. Therefore, brethren, we
are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For
if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall
live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they
are the sons of God. for ye have not received the
spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received
the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that
we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs;

Spirit which you have received
is the Spirit of adoption.”

This new relation between God
and man is introduced by the
Gospel. It is not literally true
that, in the Old Testament, the
children of Israel are not spoken
of as the sons of God, but only
as his subjects and servants ; but
it is true that in their essential
character the law and the Gospel
are thus opposed, as the spirit of
bondage again to fear, and the
Spirit of adoption, whereby we
acknowledge God as a father.

15. The Apostle brings home
to the Roman converts the na-
ture of the Gospel by an appeal
to their own experience. For a
similar appeal, compare Gal. iii.
2.: é& tpywr vopov To IIvedpa éda-
Pere i} €& axone riorewe. The
repetition of é\aéGere is empha-
tic, as in Heb. xii. 8.; Eph.
il. 17. 19. Compare, again, for
this and the following verse,Gal.
iv. 6, 7.:— Ore O€ éore vioi, é&a-
méoTenrev 6 Sede TO TvEvpA TOU ViOv
avroveic rac Kapdiac Huay, Kpalov
"ABBG 6 warhp. wore ovKért Ei Sod-
Roc, GAAM vide* Ei dé Vide, Kal KAN-
povdpoc dua Seov. The two words
mean the same. “Aa is the
vocative. The origin of the

VOL. Il.

common formula in which they
were both retained is uncer-
tain.

16. Abro ro rvetpa, the Spirit
itself.| The Spirit has been
spoken of already as the Spirit of
adoption (vy. 15.), as the Spirit
of God, in v. 9., also as the Spirit
of Christ, and, v. 11., the Spirit
of them that raised up Christ
from the dead. It now becomes
more abstract and _ personal ;
comp. 1 Cor. ii. 11. ; 2 Cor. iii.
17. We may conceive of two
Spirits, the dwelling-place of
both being the human soul: the
first a higher, which is the Spirit
of God, and a lower, which is
our own ; the one bears witness
with the other that we are the
children of God. For cvppap-
tupet comp. 1 John, v. 10., “He
that believeth in the Son of
God hath the witness in himself;”
and below, ver. 26. ; also, ix. 1.,
*“* My conscience also bearing me
witness in the Holy Spirit.”
The Spirit is essentially the com-
munion of the spirit and the
conscious witness of itself.

_ 17. The Apostle follows the
train of thought suggested by
the human figure, which he has
just employed :— “If we be the

258

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. VIII.

~ 4 . A ¥
vopor pev Oeov, ovyKdnpovdpor Se XploTOV, EL TEP
A 4 \
cuprdcyoper, va Kat ocvvdofacbaper. oyilopar yap
a an n x \
ére ovk aéia Ta TaOnpatTa Tov VUY Kalpov Tpos THY
/ / 3 Xr On 3 e “ e \ b)
udd\rovcay Sd€av amoxadvpOyjvar eis Nas. y yap amo-
aA A en a
Kapadokia TS KTiTEws THY amokdhuib TOV viov TOU
A “ / e a e £3
Oeod amexdéxeTau. TH yap PATALOTYHTL N KTioLS UTETAYY,

sons of God, we are his heirs,
and partakers of the inheritance
of Christ, as in His sufferings so
also in His glory.” Comp. John,
xvii. 22., Rev. iii. 21.; also, Col.
iii. 4, 5., 2 Tim. ii. 12., 1 Peter,
iv. 13.

The new thought is carried on
to a climax, and then surrounded
with the imagery in which the
Apostle habitually describes the
relation of the believer to Christ.

18. AoyiGopar yap, for [reckon. |
Expressive, not of doubt, but of
reflection :— “ For when I speak
of our present sufferings and our
future glory, I consider that
there is no comparison between
them.”

In Scripture, the glory of the
saints is sometimes spoken of as
future, sometimes as. present ;
sometimes as at a distance, at
other times upon the earth; some-
times as an external state or con-
dition ; at other times as an
inward and spiritual change, to
be revealed in them as they are
transformed from glory to glory.
In the writings of St. Paul it is
the spiritual sense of a future life
which chiefly prevails, as in this
passage. He does not paint
scenes of the world to come: he
is lost in it ; “whether in the
body or out of the body he can-
not tell.”

19. aroxapadoxia, | Phil. i. 20. ;
amoKkapacokei’, TH Kepary mpobdé-
nev, Ktym. Mag. : “ For this re-
velation of the sons of God is
what shall be, and what the in-

tense desire of the creature wait-
ing for it intimates.”

As we turn from ourselves to
the world around us, the pro-
spect on which we cast our eyes
seems to reflect the tone and colour
of our own minds, and to share
our joy and sorrow. ‘To the re-
ligious mind it seems also to re-
flect our sins. Wecannot, indeed,
speak of the misery of the brute
creation, of whose constitution
we know so little; nor do we
pretend to discover in the love-
liest spots of earth, indications of
a fallen world. But when we
look at the vices and diseases of
mankind, at their life of labour
in which the animals are our
partners, at the aspect in mo-
dern times of our large towns, as
in ancient of a world given to

idolatry, we see enough to give

a meaning to the words of the
Apostle. The evil in the world
bears witness with the evil and
sorrow in our own hearts. And
the hope of another life springs
up unbidden in our thoughts, for
the sake of ourselves and of our
fellow creatures.

The exact meaning of the
word xriove, in ver. 19. 22., has
been a subject of great difference
of opinion among commentators.
Some have referred it, (1.) to
the inanimate, others (2.) to the
brute creation ; while others have
thought they saw in it (3.) the
Gentile as opposed to the Jewish
world. The first two of these
three interpretations have little

20

ee Se nn ee eee ey ee ose

Ver. 18—20.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

259

heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; since* we
suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time
are not worthy to be compared with the glory which

shall be revealed unto” us.

For the earnest expectation

of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons
of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity,

except, perhaps, poetical figures
to support them, common to all
nations ; while the last of them
seems narrow as well as inap-
propriate to the present passage,
in which the acceptance of the
Gentiles having been the subject
of the whole Epistle, could not
be spoken of as a distant aspira-
tion, but as an actual and present
fact. Considering the various
uses which we have already ob-
served of the words, 1d0c, rvev-
pa, &c., in successive verses, there
would be nothing extravagant in
supposing that the word xrioce,
which occurs four times, was not

to be taken in each of the four

verses in which it is used, in pre-
cisely the same sense. It may
refer to the creature considered
from within, in which sense it is
a personified capt, which is the
best explanation of it in ver. 19.;
or to the creature considered
from without, as the figure of a
former dispensation, which is the
sense to which it inclines in ver.
20, 21.; or to the creation col-
leetively, of which man is, never-
theless, the principal part, as in
ver. 22. That even this last is
not to be pressed too strictly, we
shall see in considering ver. 23.,
the form of which seems to ex-
clude the believer from the circle
of creation.

20. paracdrnrt, vanity, nothing-
ness, what is afterwards termed

dovAsia rij¢ P0opac. The connexion
of this verse with the preceding
is as follows: — “The creature
desires redemption ; for though it
is subject to vanity, it was not
of its own will that it became
subject.”

It never fell, we may para-
phrase, to the level of the brutes,
but had always a wish for bet-
ter things, a monitor which wit-
nessed of its better state.

GAG Ova TOY brordéavra, but by
reason of himwho hath subjected. |
These words can scarcely be sup-
posed to refer to Adam, who, “as
in him all died,” might indeed
indirectly be considered as the
cause of salvation. But the
meaning of the word vrordacety is
ill-suited to express this indirect
effect ; nor is it likely that 6 imo-
rafac, used thus generally, could
refer to any but God or Christ.

It is not quite clear, however,
whether it is to God or Christ
the words are to be referred.
The Apostle is speaking here, as
elsewhere, of the double cha-
racter of the scheme of Provi-
dence, consisting, as it did, of two
parts, one of which had a refer-
ence tothe other. As afterwards
he says (xi. 32.) — “ God con-
cluded all under sin that he might
have mercy upon all ;” so here—
The creature was made subject
to evil against its will, and with
the hope of restoration, because

s 2

260

> 4 9
oby Exodoa adda Sia Tov broTaavTa €m é€Xmridu, OTL
- Se, | e , b) 0 4, ee ~ & X ,
ait 9 KTiows elevdepwOyoeTar amo THS OovAEtas
P A “ 4
dbopas eis THY edevOepiay THs Sofys TY TEKYOV

A ,
Ocod. oidamer yap OTL Taca H KTiots GvoTevaler

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VIII.

4
Kat
or
TNS
TOU

*
Kat

wn la b) % ‘ 3 ..

ouvodiver dypt ToD viv' ov povov dé, ahha Kal avrol

s ¥ ee ep Pe

Thy dmapynv Tod mrvedpatos ExovtTes [jpets]* Kat avrol ev
ro ld ‘ 5 ,

éavrots orevdloper viobeciav amrexdex Opevot, THV aTrOhUTPO-

A , € A aA \ 2X. id > 56 ‘ 2. \ de

TW TOD THPATOS HUOV. TH yap Ediidr ErwOnpev* Edis OE

1 Kal quets avrol.

of him who subjected the same;
or the creature was made subject
because of him who subjected the
same, in hope that, ete. Connect-
ing é’ éAridc with the following
clause, “ the creature,” we might
paraphrase, “had no love for this
helpless state. He was subjected
to it because of him that sub-
jected him, in the hope that
grace might yet more abound.”
But who is “he who subjected ?”
First, Christ, on account of whose
special work the creature was
made subject tovanity. (The pre-
position dua has no proper mean-
ing, if the word vmordéac is re-
ferred exclusively to God.) He
subjected the creature as he con-
demned sin in the flesh in his own
person, by subjecting Himself.
And yet though the work of re-
demption be attributed to Him, it
seems inappropriate to regard
Him also as the author of the
fallen condition of man. There
is the same impropriety in such a
mode of expression as_ there
would be in saying “ Christ con-
cluded all under sin thathe might
have mercy upon all.” In the
language of St. Paul, he is the
instrument of our redemption,
not its first author. More truly,
in the word vzordfavra God
and Christ seem to meet. “God
in Christ reconciling the world

to Himself :” as the Creator con-
sidered as the Author and Ap-
pointer of all His creatures ; as
the Redeemer, the final cause and
end of their sinful state. In de-
fence of this twofold meaning of
vroradéac, compare the transition
from God to Christ in ver. 9.11.3
also Col. i. 15.

éx’ éhridu|refers partly to what
precedes and also to what follows.

21. dr,| either “because” or
“in hope that.” If the latter
sense is adopted, the meaning will
be either—“It was subjected be-
cause of him that subjected it in
hope that ;” or “it was subjected
in hope that.” It is, however,
more in accordance with the
idiom of the Apostle to put a stop
after éx’ edxids (which may be
connected either with irerayn or
with vrorafavra), and to regard
the clause dependent on ér: as a
further explanation from the ob-
jective side of what édmec ex-
presses subjectively.

eic Tv éXevd. is put in what is
termed a pregnant construction
after éXevOepwhjoerar: ripe dSdéne
parallel with rij¢ @Bopaic. Com-
pare Gal. iv. 26.: “But the
Jerusalem that is above is free.”

The creation is to those who
have the first fruits of the Spirit,
as the body to the soul. As the
first shall partake of the glorious

21

22

Ver, 21—24.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 261

not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected
the same in hope, because* the creature itself also shall
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the
liberty of the* glory of the children of God. For we
know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in
pain together until now. And not only they, but our-
selves also which have the first-fruits of the Spirit, even
we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adop-
tion, to wit, the redemption of our body. For we are
saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for

liberty of the sons of God, so also
the body shall be redeemed in
the sons of God themselves. For
their sonship is not yet attained ;
like the rest of creation, they are
waiting for it.

22. For we know how great is
the contrast of its present state
which yet continues. dype rod
voy contains .an allusion to the
speedy termination of this state.

23. Tv amapyny Tov mvebpa-
toc éxovrec.| ‘These words may
bear four different meanings :—
either, (1.) we who have the gift
of the Spirit ; or, (2.) who have
the first fruits of the Spirit, as
being first called ; or, (3.) who
have the first fruits, in the sense

of the choicest gifts of the Spirit;

or, (4.) who have the earnest or
anticipation of the Spirit. The
last explanation is the best, the
very idea of first fruits implying
an earnest: “Even we who
have here on earth the begin-
nings of that Spirit, with which
we shall have a fuller commu-
nion in glory.” Comp. appabwr
zou wvevparoc, 1 Cor. i. 22. 5 ap-
pabay rij¢ KAnpovopiac, Eph.i. 14.

For the thought compare the
passages in which St. Paul speaks
of the contradiction of the Chris-

tian life, 2 Cor. v. 4.:— “For
we that are in this tabernacle
do groan, being burdened: not
that we would be unclothed,
but clothed upon, that mortality
might be swallowed up of life.”
avrot...| pete |kal abroiéy Eavrote,
we ourselves.| We believers; the
repetition of avrot ... fete abrot is
not intended to confine the words
to the Apostles, but to emphasize
the consciousness of this sadness
in the believer’s soul. It will be
said, if all creation is compre-
hended in the previous verse, how
can the believer be excluded ?
Must we not confine the meaning.
of radoa } Kriote to the world in
opposition to the elect? We
have seen before, in Gal. vi. 16.
and Rom. iv. 12., that it is not
necessary to regard the rules of
logic to the injury of the sense.
In this passage the Apostle first
thought of the whole world in a
general manner, and then singled
out a particular class, which to
the spiritual eye “ was not in the
world,” without remembering that
he had previously included it.
arodvTpwouc, K.T. r.,| not “re-
demption from the body ” (which
is not to the Apostle’s present
purpose (v. 21.), and is also in-

s3

262 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. VII.

° , b , 3
Breropévn obk €otw eds: 6 yap Bdéren 71s, Tu EdariLer ; eb
A b] 4
Se 8 od Bréropev edariLoper, OV bropovys darexdexoueba.
‘Acatvtws S€ Kal TO Tvedpa ovvavTrapBaverar TH
Sobeveia Huave To yap TL tpocevE@pcba Kabd Set ovK
doBeveig, par.’ 70 yap Tl mp pet "
oldapev, GAN’ avTO TO TVEUPLA UTEPEVTUYKXAaVEL” TTEVAYLOLS
‘5 , e de 5] lal \ OL 76 , X ,
Gdahyrous' 6 O€ épevvav Tas Kapdtas older TL TO Ppovnpa
Tov mvevpatos, OTL KaTa Oedv evtvyyaver UTEP ayiwr.
oldapev S€ OT Tots ayam@ow TOV Oedv TavTA TuUVEpyEel
e 6 a ee aA 63 ~ \ 5A r rn >
6 Oeds* eis Td ayaldv, Tots KaTa Tpdleaw KANTOLS OvoW.
OTL OVS TPOeyVH, Kal TPOdpioEV TUEpOphous THS €LKOVOS

1 ri Kal, 2 rats dobevelaus, 8 im, drip Huar. 4 Omit 6 dSeds.

consistent with the active mean-
ing of the word arodtrpworc), but
“redemption of the body.”

24. For what we are saved by
is hope, which is not yet swal-
lowed up insight ; and (dé) there
would be no meaning in it, if it
were. yap implies that our sal-
vation is not inconsistent with
this sorrowing expectation.

25. The very mode of our re-
demption implies patient expec-
tation. dmexdexopeba alludes to
amekdexomevot, in ver. 23.

23—380. The connexion of
these verses may be traced as
follows : —

(1.) We walk feebly by hope
and not by sight, waiting for the
redemption of the body. 23—25.

(2.) But this feebleness the Spi-
rit helps, and ever makes earnest
intercession for us. 26, 27.

(3.) And there is another side
to this view of creation groaning
together ; viz. that in all things
God is working together for good
to them that love Him ; there are
many steps in the ladder of God’s
Providence—foreknowledge, pre-
destination, vocation, justifica-
tion, glory.

The use of the particle dé five
times in as many verses, is almost

as difficult to analyse as in other
places the still more favourite yap.
In ver. 24, 25. the repetition of
dé is slightly adversative. “But
we must not suppose that hope is
sight.” “But we must not expect
immediate fruition of what we
hope for.” In ver. 26, 27, 28. the
cé, which is three times repeated,
is also adversative. In all three
cases dé is best taken coordinately ;
they express the other side of the
Apostle’s argument which is also
the confirmation of what has pre-
ceded.

26. ‘Qoaitrwe, likewise.| That
is, the movement of the Spirit of
God corresponds and coincides
with this patient expectation in
ourselves [comp. above ver. 16. :
the Spirit beareth witness with
our Spirit]. “ We are saved by
hope, not by sight, and with this
our imperfect condition it agrees
well that we have the Spirit for
our help.” For in our very
prayers we know not what to
ask as we ought; but when
language fails, the Spirit utters
for us a cry inexpressible : comp.
Eph. vi. 18., “ Praying always
with all prayer and supplication
in the Spirit ;” and 1 Cor. ii. 11.
quoted above.

25

26

27

28

29

ee ee ee ee oe eee

25

26

27

28

29

Ver. 25—29.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 263

what a man seeth, why doth he! hope for? But if we
hope for that we see not, we with patience wait for it.
Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity ?:
for we know not what we should pray for as we
ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession? with
groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that
searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the
Spirit, that* it* maketh intercession for the saints
according to the will of God. And we know that * in all
things God works together for good to them that love
God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be

1 Add yet. 2 Infirmities, 8 Add for us. * All things work together.

kara Sedv|=according to the

aobeveig.| Comp. 2 Cor. xii.
will of God. Comp. cara rpd0ecry,

5.: “ For myself I will not glory

-part in all our acts.

except in mine infirmities.”

ro yap. The article includes
under it the words that follow
(ri... éet), which may be regarded
as its substantive.

brepevrvyxavet, makes request. |
In this passage only used for
évruyxave, see ver. 27. and xi. 2.

adadhroce, unutterable. | Comp.
1 Peter, i. 8., dvexdarnrog 3 2
Cor. xi. 15., dvexduhynroe.

It sounds strangely to us at
first, that the Spirit should be
spoken of as “uttering cries.”
But the Spirit of God bearing
witness with our spirits takes
It is we
who cry aloud for help to God,
and God knows this is the cry of
those who are moved by his
Spirit.

27. Comp. 1 John, iii. 21.: —
* Beloved, if our heart condemn
us, God is greater than our heart
and knoweth all things.”

drt, k. 7. A.| not because, but
“that ;” the clause following ex~
plains ri ro gpdvnua rot rvebparoe.

ver. 28., and éAurhOnre xara Seedy,
2 Cor. vii. 9. 28.

28. Not only have we hope,
and patience, and the gift of the
Spirit ; but we know that in all
things God works together for
good with them that love Him ;
or, according to the reading of
the Textus Receptus (the au-
thority for which is nearly evenly
balanced), “but we know that
all things work together for good
to them that love God ;” who
moreover are chosen according
to His purpose. In these latter
words the Apostle indicates a
further ground of hope and com-
fort.

29. dri ove mpoéyvw Kai mpow-
pisev, whom he did foreknow. |
This verse is a further explana-
tion of the previous words roic
kara mpo0ec.v KAnroig ovary.

About the meaning of zpoéyvw,

which from its use in this pas-
sage has become a sort of key-
note in theology, commentators
are disagreed. Three principal

s 4

264

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. VII.

= , b) A
TOD VOD AUTO, Els TO Elval AVTOV TPwTOTOKOY EV TOADS

A ‘\ 4, X
ade pots * os d€ mpowpicer, TOUVTOUS Kal eKaANEedeVv* Kat

A 4
ods EKAAET EV, TOUTOUS Kal COLKALWOED «

\ 4
TOUTOUS Kal Ed0kac eV.

aA Oe ,
os O€ CdLKaiwoer,

, 5 3 a X A 3 e Q X e XN e A
Ti ovv é€potwe pos TavTa; eb O Veos vmEep nuov,
, > e ~ Y “A tou cA 5 5 -

tis KaO’ Hpov; os ye Tov Wiov vod ovK edeioaTo,

3 Q e Q e A , , b} , A ee X

OANO UTEP NLOV TAVTOV TApeowKev QUTOV, THMS OVKXL Kab

significations have been assigned
to it: —(1.) Whom he fore-de-
termined ; or (2.) whom he fore-
approved; or, (3.), whom he
fore-knew,—he fore-determined.
As the first explanation may be
used to support predestination
irrespective and absolute, so the
third may be appealed to in sup-
port of that view of predestina-
tion which makes it conditional
and dependent on fore-know-
ledge. Accordingly, the Cal-
vinistic and Arminian commen-
tators have respectively supported
these two lines of interpretation.
The use of the word zpogyrvw is
sufficiently uncertain to afford
some ground on which to main-
tain either.

In most passages of the New
Testament where poywwoxev
and cognate words occur, as Rom.
xis 2.5 1 Pete: 16:12:41: 204: Acts
li. 23., the meaning of “prede-
termined, fore-appointed,” is the
more natural. “God hath not
cast off his people whom he fore-
appointed ” (ove tpogyvw). “ By
the determinate counsel and
fore-appointment of God” (ri
wpispévy PBovrdAy Kal mpoyvwoer).
Yet, on the other hand, Acts, xxvi.
5., 2 Pet. iii. 17., admit only of
the meaning of “know before-
hand,” but not in reference to the
Divine or prophetic fore-know-
ledge, and have, therefore, no
bearing on the present passage.

‘translate fore-knoweth

The idea of fore-knowledge,it may
be observed, as distinct from pre-
destination, is scarcely discernible
in Scripture, unless, perhaps, a
trace of it be found in Acts, xv.
18. :—‘ Known unto God are all
his works from the beginning.”
The Israelite believed that all
things were according to the
counsel and appointment of God.
Whether this was dependent on
his previous knowledge of the
intentions of man, was a question
which, in that stage of human
thought, would hardly have oc-
curred to him. The theories of
predestination, which have been
built upon the words in the La-
tin or English version of them,
“whom he did fore-know, them
he did predestinate,” are an after-
thought of later criticism.

We are thus led to consider
the interpretation of fore-ap-
pointed, fore-acknowledged, as
the true one. We might still
in the
sense in which God is said to
“know ” them that are His. There
might be a degree of difference in
meaning between zpoéyvw, “fore-
knew,” as the internal purpose of
God, if such a figure of speech
may be allowed, and “ predes-
tined,” as the solemn external
act by which He, as it were, set
apart His chosen ones. Such a
distinction would be in keeping
with the gradation of the words

30

hi nik Samara ercan ote peut Serine HO aes SS,

a

is
St

LASSER IETS:

30.

3l
32

Vir. 30-—32. | EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

265

conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the
firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he
did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he
called, them he also justified: and whom he justified,

them he also glorified.

What shall we then say to these things? If God

be for us, who can be against us?

He that spared

not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all,

that follow; it might also be
gained in another way, by taking
mpowpicer Closely with ovppopgove:
either “ whom he fore-determined
them he _ fore-appointed ;” or
“whom he fore-determined he
fore-determined to be like his
Son.” rovro dé cieivperapopac ear
eizeiy avOpwrivac. ‘The Apostle
is overflowing with the sense of
the work of God: what he chiefly
means to say is, that all its acts
and stages are His, now and here-
after, on earth and in heaven.

cic TO eivat,| the end being
that Christ should not be the only-
begotten Son of God, but the
first-begotten among many.

apwrdroxov.| As in Col. i. 15.
Christ is called the firstborn of
every creature, a figure which
in Col. i. 18. is also applied to
his resurrection — rpwrdroxoc ék
TOV VEKNWY.

30. To predestine refers to the
act, on God’s part, external to

~ man, as to call to the act in man

by which the Divine presence is
first signified to him. To justify
is the completion of the work
of God upon earth, when the
spirit of man no longer strives
with him, as to glorify is its final
fulfilment and accomplishment in
the kingdom of heaven.

31—39. All creation is groan-
ing together; but the Spirit

helps us, and God has chosen us
according to His purpose, and in
all things God is working with
us for good. The Lord is on our
side ; and as He has given us
His Son, will give us all else as
well. Is it God that justifies
who will accuse? Is it Christ
who intercedes that will condemn?
On the one side are ranged perse-
cution, and famine, and sword, and
nakedness ; on the other, the love
of Christ, from which nothing
in heaven or earth, or the changes
of life or death, can us part.

Compare Is. 1.8, 9., the thought
of which words seems to be
passing before the Apostle’s
mind : érréyyiler 6 dikaiwoac pe"
Tic O Kpivomevdg pol; ayTioTHTW
prot Gua" Kal Tic O KptvOmevdc pot ;
éyytoarw por idovd Kipioc BonOyoet
prow’ Tic Kakwoet pe; Kk. T. Xr.

b¢ ye Tov idiov viod obK Epetoaro. |
idéov is used as a term of endear-
ment ; as in John, iii. 16., itis said
— “God so loved the world that
he gave his only-begotten Son.”

In ver. 33—35. the chief doubt
relates to the punctuation. The
rhythm of the passage may be
brought out by either of the two
following arrangements : —

(1.) 81. i 6 Sede brép fporv —
tic ka?’ Huey ;

32. 6¢ ye Tov idiov viov oiK
épeioaro, kK. T. Nu — THC Ody! Kal

266 EPISTLE TO TIIE ROMANS. (Cu. VIII.

‘ Bee, BS re 2. gn , , 3 X , b
ovv avT@O Ta TaVTA Huy XapioeTat; Tis eyKadeoeL Kara.
Exdextav Oeod; Beds 6 Sukaiav; Tis 6 Katakpwov!;

la A \
xpiatos [’Incovs] o amofaveév, waddov dé? éyepOeis, ds
lal la la) \

[Kat] eorw év deEue rod Oeod, Os Kal evTvyxaver vrép
wn aw la b 4 a) ~
Hav ; Tis Nas Xapioe amo THS a hati dle seetiveoet
Odius n orevoxepta 7 Suaryp0s n duos n yupvdrns
} Kivduvos 7) pdxaipa; Kalas yéypamra. OTL eveKev OU
Oavatovpeba odnv THY huépav, EhoyicOnpev ws mpdBara
ohayns. Gad év tovTos TAacW viTEpViKOyey Sid TOD
dyamnoavTos nas. TémeTpmat yap ott ovte Odvaros
¥ , ¥ » ¥ > 73 ¥ > A ¥
oute CwH, ovTe ayyedou ovTE apxai®, ovTe EveaoToTa OUTE

, ¥ , y) y ¥ , ¥
peddovta, ovTe Suvdpes ovTEe viswpa ouvre Ballos ove Tis
Ktiows éTépa SuvyoeTar Has yYwpioat ard THS aydmns

A A A “a> A Aw , e A
Tov eov THs EV xptaT@ Inoov TH KUpio Hpor.

1 karaxplyvov, 2 8 Kal,

ovy air@ Ta Tavra piv yxapice-
Ta;

33. Tic éyKahéoet KaTa EKAEKTOY
Seod ;—Sedce 6 dixarov.

34. ric 6 KarakpivOy ;—xptaroc
6 amoBavwy, kK. T. A.=xpLoTog O
évTUyXavwr”.

35. ric fac xXwpioe aro Tic
ayarne Tov xpiorov; Sikec Fj
arevoxwpia, K. T. r.

(2.) Differs in the arrange-
ment of verses 33, 34. by making
the latter clauses questions :—

Who shall lay anything to the
charge of God’s elect? |

Is it God that justifies?

Who is he that will condemn ?

Is it Christ who died and in-
tercedes for us?

The last mode which agrees
with the text of Lachmann is
adopted in the following remarks
as the more pointed and forcible.

33. Who shall lay anything to
the charge of God’s elect? Is
God who justifies, their accuser?
Does he justify and accuse at

8 ofre Surguers post dpxal,

once? It were a contradiction
to suppose this.

34. Who is he that condemn-
eth? Is the condemner Christ
who ever lives to intercede for
us? Comp. Heb. vii. 25., “ Who
ever liveth to make intercession
for us;” and 1 John, ii. 1., “ We
have an advocate with the Fa-
ther.”

6 aroBavwy, who died, or more
truly rose again, of whom we
now speak rather as of one passed
into the heavens. ‘The words
padXov Oé, or paddAoy dé kal, fur-
ther intimate the inconsistency
of Christ condemning us, not
only because he died for us, but
also, which is an additional rea-
son, because he rose again “ for
our justification,” iv. 25.; and
what is a yet further reason,
because he is our advocate.

35. ric better than ri, as a con-
tinuation of the questions : Who
shall separate us from the love of
Christ ? Who shall make us give

33

34

35

36

37
38

39

33
34

35

36

37

38

39

Vrr. 33—39.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 267

how shall he not with him also freely give us all
things ? Who shall lay any thing to the charge of God’s
elect? Shall* God that justifieth? Who is he that
will condemn?! Will Christ that died,? rather, that
is risen again, who isalso at the right hand of God, who
also maketh intercession for us? Who shall separate
us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress,
or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed
all the day long: we are accounted as sheep for the
slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than
conquerors through him that loved us. For I am per-
suaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor things present, nor things to come,
nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor any other crea-
ture, shall be able to separate us from the love of God,

which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

1 That condemneth.

up Christ, or Christ give up us ?
Not afflictions of any sort. In
verses 34. and 39. Christ’s love
to us, rather than ours to Him,
seems spoken of; in ver. 35. ours
towards Him. Yet there is no
occasion, in either place, to sepa-
rate one from the other. We
love Him as we are loved of
Him: we know Him as we are
known of Him.

36. The quotation is taken lite-
rallyfrom the LXX. Ps. xliv.22.

37. adr év rovroe raor.] We
conquer far through his love to
us.

38. For I am persuaded that
neither life, nor death, nor evil
angels, nor principalities, nor
things present nor future, nor
powers, nor the height of heaven,
nor depths of hell, nor any other
created thing, can separate us
from the love of Christ.

2 Add yea.

To ask the exact meaning of
each of these words, would be
like asking the precise meaning
of single expressions in the line
of Milton :—

* Thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues,
powers.”’

The leading thought in the
Apostle’s mind is that “nothing
ever at any time or place can
separate us from the love of
Christ.” Of the signification of
the particular words we can only
form a notion, by attempting to
conceive the invisible world, as
it revealed itself by the eye of
faith to the Apostle’s mind, as
inward, and yet outward ; as pre-
sent, and yet future; as earthly,
and yet heavenly. Compare 1
Peter, iii. 22.: d¢ éorw év detia
Tov Oeov, mopevdeic eic ovpayor b7o-
Tayévrwy are ayyédwy Kal éfov-
oy Kal duvapewr.

268 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

CHAP. IX.—XI.

Tue chapters that have preceded have been connected with each
other by a sort of network, some of the threads of which have never
ceased or been intermitted. At this point we come to a break in the
Epistle. What follows has no connexion with what immediately
precedes. The sublime emotion with which chapter viii. concludes
is in another strain from that with which chapter ix. opens. We
might almost imagine that the Apostle had here made a pause, and
only after a while resumed his work of dictating to “Tertius who
wrote this Epistle.” It is on a more extended survey of the whole
that order begins to reappear, and we see that the subject now intro-
duced, which was faintly anticipated at the commencement of the
third chapter, has also an almost necessary place in the Apostle’s
scheme.

The three chapters [IX.—XI. have been regarded by an eminent
critic as containing the true germ and first thought of the Epistle.
Such a view may be supported by various arguments. It may be
said that a letter must arise out of circumstances, and that this por-
tion of the Epistle only has an appropriate subject ;—-that we can
imagine the Apostle, though unknown by face to the Church which
was at Rome, writing to Jewish Christians on a topic in which they,
as well as he, were so deeply interested as the restoration of their
countrymen ; but that we cannot imagine him sitting down to com-
pose a treatise on justification by faith ;—that to explain the deal-
ings of God with his people, it was necessary for him to go back to
the first principles of the Gospel of Christ, and that this mode of

overlaying and transposing what to us would seem the natural order

eee aan

ee ee

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 269

of thought is quite in accordance with his usual manner. (Com-
pare, e.g. the structure of 1 Cor.x.) It may be urged, that in seve-
ral passages, as, for example, at the commencement of the third and
fourth chapters, he has already hinted at the maintenance of the
privileges of the Jews. All such arguments, ably as they have been
stated by Baur, yet fail to convince us that what is apparently pro-
minent and on the surface, and also occupies the greater part of the
Epistle, is really subordinate, and that what is apparently subordi-
nate and supplementary, held the first place in the Apostle’s thoughts.
See Introduction.

The theory of Baur is, however, so far true, as it tends to bring into
prominence, as a main subject of the Epistle, the admission of the
Gentiles. To the Apostle himself and his contemporaries, this was
half, or more than half, the whole truth, not less striking or absorb-
ing than the other half, of “righteousness by faith only.” It is with
this aspect of the doctrine of St. Paul that the portion of the Epistle
on which we are now entering is to be connected. “Is he the God
of the Jews only ? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gen-
tiles also.” But granting this, innumerable difficulties and perplexi-
ties arose in the mind of the Israelites or of the reader of the Old
Testament. What is the meaning of a chosen people? What advan-
tage hath the Jew? and above all, whatis to be his final end? When
the circle of God’s mercy is extended to the whole world, is he to be
the only exception? Thrice the Apostle essays to answer this ques-
tion ; thrice he turns aside, rather to justify God’s present dealings in
casting away His chosen, than to hold out the hope with which he
* concludes, that all Israel shall be saved.

We have seen elsewhere (chap. iii. 1—8., v. 12—21., vii.7—11.) that
in many passages the Apostle wavers between the opposite sides of a
question, before he arrives at a final and permanent conclusion. The
argument in such passages may be described as a sort of struggle in his
own thoughts, an alternation of natural feelings, a momentary conflict
of emotions. The stream of discourse flows onward in two channels,

occasionally mingling or contending with each other, which meet at the

270 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

last. There are particular instances of this peculiarity of style in the
chapters which follow, ix. 19.,x.14. But the most striking illustration
of it is the general character of the whole three chapters, in which
the Apostle himself seems for a time in doubt between contending

feelings, in which he first prays for the restoration of Israel, and then

reasons for their rejection, and then finally shows that in a more -

extended view of the purposes of God their salvation is included. He
hears the echo of many voices in the Old Testament, by which the
Spirit spoke to the Fathers, and in all of them there is a kind of unity,
though but half expressed, which is not less the unity of his own
inmost feelings towards his kinsmen according to the flesh. He is
like one of the old prophets himself, abating nothing of the rebel-
lions of the house of Israel, yet still unable to forget that they are
the people of God. Asan Israelite and a believer in Christ, he is full
of sorrow first, of consolation afterwards; two opposite feelings
struggle together in his mind, both finally giving way to a clearer
insight into the purposes of God towards the chosen nation.

When the first burst of his emotion has subsided, he proceeds to
show that the rejection of Israel was not total, but partial, and that
this partial rejection is in accordance with the analogy of God’s deal-
ings with their fathers. The circle of God’s mercy to them had ever
been narrowing. First, the seed of Abraham was chosen; then Isaac
only ; then Jacob before Esau, and this last quite irrespective of any
good or evil that either of them had done. ‘There was a preference
in each case of the spiritual over the fleshly heir. Shall we say that
here is any ground for imputing unrighteousness to God? He Him-
self had proclaimed this as His mode of dealing with mankind. The
words of the law are an end of controversy. He does it, therefore it
is just ; he tells it us, therefore it is true. Who are we that we should
call in question His justice, or challenge His ways? The clay might
as well reason with the potter, asman argue against God. And, after
all, this election of some to wrath, others to mercy, is but justice in
mercy delayed, or an alternation of mercy and justice. The rejection
of the Jews is the admission of the Gentiles. And to this truth the

ee ee ee ee ee ee Pe eh a

\

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 271

prophets themselves bear witness. They speak of “a remnant,” of
“another people,” of “a cutting short upon the earth,” of “a rock
of offence.” The work that God has done is nothing unjust or unex-
pected, but a work of justice and mercy upon the house of Israel,
of which their own prophets witness ; of which they are themselves
the authors, as they sought to establish their own righteousness,
‘and rejected the righteousness that is of faith.

But the subject of God’s dealings with the Jews isnot yet finished ;
it is, indeed, scarcely begun. The first verses of the ninth chapter
gave an intimation that this would not be the final course of the Apo-
stle’s thought. Israel had sought to establish their own righteousness,
and rejected the righteousness that was of faith. But this very rejec-
tion, which was their condemnation, was not without excuse, in that
it arose from a mistaken zeal for God. That mistake consisted in
their not perceiving the difference between the righteousness of
the law and the righteousness of faith ; the one a strait and un-
bending rule ; the other, “very nigh, even in thy mouth and thy
heart,” and extending to all mankind. “But,” we expect the Apo-
stle to say at the end of the contrast, “ notwithstanding this, Israel
may yet be saved.” The time for this is not yet come. In what
follows, to the end of the chapter, he digresses more and more ; first,
as at ver. 14—19. of the previous one, to state the objections of the
Jew ; secondly, to show that those objections are of no weight, and
are disproved by the words of their own prophets.

Nowhere does the logical control over language, that is, the power
of aptly disposing sentences so as to exhibit them in their precise rela-

. tion to each other, so fail the Apostle as at the conclusion of the tenth
chapter. We see his meaning, but his emotions prevent him from
expressing it. At the commencement of the eleventh chapter, finding
that he is so far away from his original subject, he makes an effort to
regain it. “Hath God then cast away his people?” The Apostle is
himself a living proof that this is not so. Though Israel “hath not
obtained it,” the elect, who are part of Israel, who are the true Israel,
have obtained it. The fall of the rest is but for a time, and is itself

272 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

an argument for their final restoration. The rejection of the Jews is
the admission of the Gentiles, and the admission of the Gentiles comes
round in the end to be the restoration of the Jews. And besides,
and beneath all this, amid these alternations of thought and vicis-
situdes of human things, there is an immutable foundation on which
we rest in the promises of God to Israel. The friend of the patriarchs
cannot forget their children ; the Unchangeable cannot desert the
work of His hands.

ep RSS TE

4 eC;
&
ad
; 4
eae «

rhe

sti nets

Na PSS

: er fA er} po

Lee eat

: iit eae e

,* 7~- ae ~ »
~ fre
* = oe Ps
+ y + N ~
4 »
i '
> -
a ee |
a
‘
z= " =
* .
4 =
& 27
A +
bai : ;
; ft ahk
4 ifs oat t -
sou ae
’ J .
. ‘ 4 \ <
& i P ;
} ¥ x
4 £3 = rT .
to, > % 2 ‘
-
OKathe iy y : nm ‘
Pe A q re 5
z - 7 . ad ‘
get ng > ¥ $7 it
3s y ¥ , * ; 5 sd “ Ld
r ‘ . ¢
erry the 9 os + b4 2 sire Fe
re ES ba ‘
t . ‘
, 2 “J kv * . “%
‘ ¢ . ‘7 ‘ 7 ¢ .
wee As regs Lea! pag Yi 2F +
Pr
+
wae
eee
4 7 ie ce ~
‘ ra xt Coat sur
t
4 % ‘ * , ‘ oe a
j 7 ye Hates alts ee, (
< Le , 4
j ‘ Lia
* oe yee
(2 ip bara Be ts vF
‘Vous. G2? oe ee
; & > ea"
ys f
+s Peery
*
, 7 ~ F
aoe abe oc >
Wied i 8 |
rc.
¢ emreiy ¥ as Ss
+) + Sa
he <= *, ~ .
t ky hs sts ees

ahd ag
4 rays cs baie? F ie oe
aS yet id

2% ‘ 3 ¥
43 ie Sa

w Takeg. eas at 3

rl

- hs APT SRS ays ye Lis #0 af ihe
uy Ne Hd ai Hee or

b gbbeieg 22 A PRREN ES
aeene Beast iy
ta Shes Pout H LO alt Ox
sage oh beni ae tte KR
= gaan | lg rare Re dos
pe HAE fe . ‘SS
a cde ene fale as

$4 ea 5
ol ts ;

~

oe We NA 4, Oe

ae
Ps

ane
*

hile
md
Nets

274

"A\nOeav éyw & xploT@, ov Wevoouar, ocvppap- 9

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cars ES.

TUpovaNs [LOL THS TVVELOHTEGS pou eV TVEvpaTL ayio,
Oru hbayn pol éoTw peydhn Kat dduideuttos ddtvy TH
Kapdia pov nuyouny yap avdbepa eivar avTos eyw* aad
TOU xpioTod brép TOY ddeAPOv pov, TOV oVyyevaY pov
Kata odpka, oltwes eiow “IopanXira, Gv 7 violecia Katy

1 aitds eyw dvdbeua eivat.

IX. 1. ddnOecav Aéyw, I say
the truth.| In the language of St.
Paul, everything that the Chris-
tian is and does is said “to be
in Christ.” Christ is the element
in which his soul moves, as he
says in Gal. ii. 20.: “ Yet not I,
but Christ within me.” To speak
the truth in Christ is not a form
of adjuration, but an expression
of the same kind as “to be in
Christ.”

ouppaprupovenc flo. THC ouUvEl-
djoewc, mY conscience witnesses
that I speak the truth.) Comp.
ii. 15., “ Who show the work of
the law written on their hearts,
their conscience also bearing them
witness ;” and viii. 16., “The Spi-
rit itself also beareth witness with
our spirit that we are the children
of God.” So here conscience
witnesses to the truth of his
words, but it is a conscience
which passes out of itself, and
is identified and lost in the Spirit
of God. |

It may be asked why should
St. Paul asseverate with such
warmth what no one would doubt
or deny. Such is his manner in
other passages, as in Gal. i. 20.,
“Now the things which I write
unto you, behold, before God, I lie
not ;” although the things that he
wrote merely related to his jour-
neys to Jerusalem. But there
was a matter behind, which was
of vital importance to himself

and the church, viz. his claim to
independence of the other Apo-
stles. Hence the strong feeling
which he shows. Compare also
2 Cor. xi. 81.: “The God and
Father of our Lord Jesus Christ
knoweth that I lie not ;” viz. in
the narrative of his sufferings.
So here the intensity of his lan-
guage expresses only the strength
of his feelings, not the suspicion
that any one would doubt his
words. In the first part of the
Epistle it might perhaps have
been argued that he had lost
sight of his own people; he re-
turns to them with a burst of
affection. —

2. No such ties ever bound to-
gether any other nation of the
world, as united the Jews. Pa-
triotism is a word too weak to
express the feeling with which
they clung to their country, to
their law and their God. And St.
Paul himself, although, to use his
own words, “his bowels had been
enlarged” to include the Gentiles,
comes back to the feelings of his
youth, as with the vehemence of
a first love. He sorrows over his
people, like the prophets of old,
not without an example in the
Saviour himself, Luke, xix. 42.:
“Tf thou hadst known, even thou,
at least in this thy day, the things
which belong unto thy peace! but
now they are hid from thine eyes.”

3. Great ingenuity has been

no

_ oS Por a ee ee ,

VER. 1—4.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

275

I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also
bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost, that I have great

heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

For [

could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for
my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: who
are Israelites; whose * is the adoption, and the glory,

exercised to evade the natural
meaning of this verse, in conse-
quence of the supposed impiety
of St. Paul’s devotion of himself
to everlasting damnation. Hence
the words ava0epa aro Tov xpr-
orov have been regarded as signi-
fying “set apart by Christ,” in
violation both of grammar and
sense, and niydpunv has been made
to refer tothe state of the Apostle
before his conversion, “For I
used to pray that I might be
what I now call anathema from
Christ.” Tosuch expedients the
interpreter is obliged to resort,
when he begins by laying down
' the principle that St. Paul could
not have bartered his eternal
salvation for the good of others.
This is the error of “ rhetoric
turned logic ;” that is to say, the
error of explaining the language
of feeling, as though it were that
of reasoning and reflection. The
Apostle is not thinking of everlast-
ing damnation. He means only
to express in the strongest man-
ner his affection for his kinsmen,
and his willingness to make any
sacrifice, if he might save some of
them. As Moses says, Exod.
Xxxli. 32. — “ Blot me, O Lord,
out of the book that thou hast
written ;” as David says, 2 Sam.
xviii. 33. — “Would God I had
died for thee, my son, my son ;” so
St. Paul, absorbed in asingle feel-
ing, and hardly considering the
strength of his own words, is for a

moment willing to be accursed
from Christ, that he might be
exchanged for them; an impos-
sible prayer it may be, but to be
regarded only as an instance of
the devoted love and zeal of the
Apostle.

TopanXira.| The name re-
fers us back to the Father of the
Jewishrace,who was called Israel,
that is, Striver with God, by God
Himself, Gen. xxxii. 28. Comp.
xi. 1., also 2 Cor. xi. 22. :-—“ Are
they Hebrews? so am I. Are
they Israelites? so am I. Are
they the seed of Abraham? so
am I ;” and Acts, xxii. 3.

4. } viobecia. | Comp. Deut. xiv.
1.:— “Ye are the children of
the Lord your God ;” and for a
contrast, Gal. iv. 1.:—“‘But I
say that the heir, so long as he is
a child, differeth nothing from a
servant, though he be Lord ofall.”

The sonship of the Israelite
has sometimes been contrasted
with the sonship of the believer,
as an external with a spiritual
adoption. ‘The one had the name
of son; the other the feeling
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
In this passage, however, no such
opposition is justified, because
the Apostle is speaking of the
adoption of the Israelite in
its first idea and origin —
“whose great privilege it was
to be called the sons of God,”
—whose was the Shechinah, or
visible presence of God, the

7 2

276

,
Sd€a Kat 7 SvabyjKy! Kat % vopobecia Kat n NatpeEta kal ai

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. IX.

a ‘ N N \
érayyedtar, @Y ot marépes, Kal €€ GY O XpLOTOS TO KaTa

odpka.

en S Yeseo 4 ‘ > ‘ > ‘ 7A
6 av emt ravtwv eds evhoynTos Els TOUS alovas.

a e , lal A Py
dpyv. ovx otov S€ dtu exéttwKev 6 hoyos TOU Deov. ov

1 af dradjKa.

“angel of his presence,” as it is
termed in other passages. Comp.
the expression: —6 Sede rijc ddéne,
Acts, vii. 2.; 6 marhp rii¢ ddéne,
Eph. i F453 xepovbiu rijc ddéne,
Heb. ix. 5.; also, 2 Cor. iii. 7.,
where ddéa is used for the glory
on Moses’ face, which is contrasted
with the higher glory of the new
dispensation; also its use in Rom.
ili. 23., v. 2., where, as elsewhere,
it is applied to the glorified state
of which the believer is hereafter
to be a partaker.

i Narpeia. | The service of the

temple and tabernacle.

érayyedia. | Comp. Rom. xv.
8., ai émayyediae TeY TaTépwr*
in Gal. iii. 16. opposed to the law.

5. dv ot warépec. | 'To whom be-
long Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob,
whose God is the God of Israel.
Comp. Exod. iii. 13. :— “ The
God of your fathers hath sent
me unto you.”

TO kara capa. | Comp. 1—3.

6 wv éxi ravrwyv, who is over
all.| It is a question to which
we can hardly expect to get an
answer unbiased by the inter-
ests of controversy, whether the
clause, 6 @y éxt wavtwy Sedc cd-
oynroc Eig rove ai@vac, is to be
referred to Christ, “of whom is
Christ according to the flesh,
who is God over all blessed for
ever ;” or, as in Lachmann, to be
separated from the preceding
words and regarded as a doxo-
logy to God the Father, uttered
by the Apostle, on a review of

God’s mercy to the Jewish people.

The emendations of the text,
such as the suppression of Sede,
and the inversion of 6 @&y into
wy 6, have no authority. Neither
can tradition be of -any real
value, except so far as it pre-
serves to us some fact or mean-
ing of a word which we should
not otherwise have known. Where
it is repugnant to the style and
phraseology of an author, it is
in error ; where it agrees with
them, it hardly affords any ad-
ditional confirmation.

Against those who refer the
ambiguous clause to God and
not to Christ it is argued :—

(1.) That the doxology thus
inserted in the midst of the
text is unmeaning.

(2.) That here, as in Rom.
i. 3., the words xara odpka
need some corresponding clause
expressive of the exaltation of
Christ.

(3.) That the grammar is de-
fective and awkward.

It is replied to the first ob-
jection, that the introduction of
such doxologies in the midst of
a sentence is common in Jewish
writers. See Schoettgen on 2
Cor. xi. 31., though the passages
there quoted do not justify the
abrupt introduction of the doxo-
logy where the name of God has
not preceded.

To the second it is answered,
that St. Paul is not here con-
trasting the humiliation and ex-

Ver. 5, 6.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

277

and the covenant, and the giving of the law, and the
service of God, and the promises; whose are the fathers,
and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came. God,

who is over all, is* blessed for ever.

Amen. Not as

1 Covenants.

altation of Christ, which would
be out of place in this passage,
but simply declaring the fact that
“Messiah was of the Jews.”

To the third, which is the
strongest objection, that the omis-
sion of the verb is usual in such
formulas : —

Itmay beadded: (1.) That the
language here applied to Christ is
stronger than that used elsewhere,
even in the strongest passages ;
Titus, ii. 13. (1 Tim. ii. 16.,
where 6c, and not Ode, is the true
reading) ; Col. ii. 9.

_ Had St. Paul ever spoken

of Christ as God, he would many
times have spoken of him as
such, not once only and that by
accident.

(2.) That in other places the
Apostle speaks of one God, as in
1 Cor. viii. 4., Eph. iv. 6., and in 1
Tim. ii. 5., of one God and one
Mediator between God and man.

(3.) That nearly the same ex-
pression, 6 Oy... evAoynroc eic Touc
ai@vac, occurs also in 2 Cor. xi.
31.; but that it is applied, not to
Christ himself, but to “the God
and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” So in Rom. i. 25.

(4.) That the introduction of
the doxology, if it be referred to
Christ, is too abrupt a transi-
tion, in a passage the purport of
which is, not to honour Christ,
but to recount the glories of the
Jewish race, in the passionate re-
membrance of which the Apostle
is carried on to the praises of God.

(5.) That in the phraseology
of St. Paul, cara cdpxa is not
naturally contrasted with Yedc,
but always with é érayyedéac,
kara mvevpa, and is often used
without contrast.

(6.) That the word eidoynroc,
is referred in the New Testament
(as the corresponding word in
Hebrew) exclusively to God the
Father, and not to Christ. Mark,
xiv. 61.; Luke, i. 68.; Rom. i. 25.

Patristic authority is in favour
of referring the words in dispute
to Christ. Wetstein has led him-
self and others into error, by as-
suming that the fathers who
denied that the predicate 6 emi
mavrwy Bed¢ could be applied to
Christ, would have refused to ap-
ply to Him the modified form,
6 wy ext wavrwy Oedc. The evi-
denee of Iren. adv. Her. iii.
16. 3.; Tertull. adv. Prax. 13.;
Origen and Theodoret on this
passage ; Athanasius, Hilary, and
Cyril (Chrysostom is uncertain),
shows clearly the manner of read-
ing the words in the third or
fourth century. But the testi-
mony of the third century can-
not be set against that of the
first, that is, of parallel passages
in St. Paul himself.

According to a third way of
taking the passage, the words
6 @yv éxt mwavrwy are separated
from the remainder of the clause,
“of whom came Christ, according
to the flesh, who is over all ;”
upon which follows the doxology

T 3

278

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Ca. TR

yap mavres ot €& “Iopanr, obrou “Ioparjd* ov’ ore eioly
oréppa ABpadp, ravres Téxva, GN ’Ev “Ioaak kyOyjoerat

COL OTEPLA..

\ , ~ , A
TOUTEOTW, OV TA TEKVA THS TAPKOS, TAUVTA

réxva ToD Beod, adda TA TEKVA THS Erayyedias hoyilerat

els OTEppa.

3 , \ e , ” \ Q

erayyedias yap 0 hoyos ovTos, Kata tov
Q nA > , A ee ~ 4 cs

KaLpoVv TOUTOV ElEVTOMAL Kal ETTAL TH Zappa vios.

5)
OU

peovov bé, aAdAa Kal “PeBéxKa €€ Evds KoiTnVv Exovaa IcadK

as the conclusion of the whole : —
‘God is blessed for ever.”

6. For the construction com-
pare Phil. iv. 11., ob« érc Kad’
vorépnow éyw. In the present
passage, ody oiov d€=o0b rowidrov
dé Aéyw olov Ort éxwéxrwxey 6
Adyoe Tov Seov.

For the meaning compare the
beginning of the third chapter :—
“For what if some did not be-
lieve ; that makes no difference
in the steadfastness and truth of
God.” So here: “The Jews are
the heirs of all the promises, and
yet the word of God has not
failed. For the promises were
made only to the true Israel.”
And “He is not a Jew who is
one outwardly, nor is that cireum-
cision which is outward in the
flesh.”

7—13. Two lines of argument
run through the following pas-
sage:—(1.) There wasaspiritual
as well as a fleshly heir. (2.)
God chose according to his own
free will. aria éorev &dAnyopod-
peva, the history of the patri-
archs is a figure of the Gospel.

7. ob@ bre eioty oréppa, nei-
ther because they are the seed.]
The Apostle had just said, that
not every Israelite was an Is-
raclite indeed. Here he repeats
the same thing. The Old Testa-
ment used the word xcAnOjoerar,
in speaking of the seed of Isaac:

=

— “In Isaac shall thy seed be
called ;” meaning that the line
of Isaac shall be called by the
name ‘seed of Abraham.” To
this word (kAn6ijcerar) the Apo-
stle here gives an evangelical
sense, as he did to AoyiZopat, in
chap. iv. The restriction of the
promises to the seed of Isaac
seemed to him exactly to repre-
sent what was taking place before
his eyes. |

8. rovréoriv, that is.| The
meaning of this is, that the chil-
dren of the promise, not the chil-
dren of the flesh, are the seed of
God. The contrast is carried
out further in Rom. iv. and Gal.
iv. There were many circum-
stances that marked Isaac out as
the type of the spiritual. He
was (like the Gentile) born out
of due time; he was the true
heir of the promises, the son, not
of the bondwoman, but of the
free.

The promise is the anticipation
of the Gospel. It is in the Old
Testament what grace and for-
giveness are in the New. Com-
pare Gal. iii. 18., Rom. iv. 13, 14.

In the passage which follows
the Apostle is speaking, accord-
ing to the Calvinist interpreter,
of absolute, according to his op-
ponents, of conditional predesti-
nation. The first urges that he
is referring to individuals ; the

Ver. 7—10.]

though the word of God hath failed.*

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 279

For they are

7 not all Israel, which are of Israel: neither, because they
are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In
Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are
8 the children of the flesh, these are not the children of
God: but the children of the promise are counted for
a™* seed. Jor this is the word of promise, At this time

9 will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
10 this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even

second, to nations; the first dwells
on the case of Pharaoh, as stated
by the Apostle; the second returns
to the language of the Old Testa-
ment, which says not only “ the
Lord hardened Pharaoh’s heart,”
but “ Pharaoh hardened his own
heart.” The former, it has been
observed, takes chap. ix. separate
from chap. x. and xi., which speak,
not merely of the rejection, but
of the sins of Israel; while the
latter confines his view to chap.
x. and xi.,and appears to do away
with the election of God in chap.
ix.

What we aim at in modern
times in the consideration of such
questions is “ consistency ;” and
the test which we propose to
ourselves of the truth of their
solution, is whether they involve
a contradiction in terms. No-
thing can be moreunlike the mode
in which the Apostle conceives
them, which is not logical at all:
Sometimes he is overpowered by
the goodness and mercy of God ;
at other times he is filled with
a sense of the deservedness of
man’s lot ; now, as we should say,
for predestination, now for free-
will; at one time only forbidding
man toarraign the justice of God,
and at another time asserting it.

And not only

Logically considered, such oppos-
ing aspects of things are incon-
sistent. But they are true prac-
tically ; they are what we have
all of us felt at different times,
and are not more contradictory
than the different phases of
thought and feeling which we ex-
press in conversation. ‘There are
two views of these subjects, a phi-
losophical and a religious one : the
first balancing and systematising
them and seeking to form a whole
of speculative truth; the latter
partial and fragmentary, speak-
ing to the heart and feelings of
man. ‘The latter is that of the
Apostle.

9. For the word of promise is
that which speaks particularly of
the son who was to be born to
Sarah.

10 ov povoy oé.| And not only
so ; there is the yet stronger case
of Jacob and Esau, who were the
legitimate sons of Isaac and Re-
becca. The words adda kai ‘Pe-
ێxxa have no verb; the con-
struction being changed to é66¢6y
avr in ver. 12.

é& évdc.| etic here unemphati-
cally, for ric, as with substan-
tives, Matt. viii. 19., and else-
where. To make a contrast be-
tween the one husband of Rebecca

T 4

(Ca. IX.

280 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

A A , \ ,
TOD TATpdS HUaV* hy} Tw yap yervnervTaVv pnd TpagavTwv
A > \ 4 a
ti dyabov 4 daddov', wah Kar éxhoynv” mpofects Tod
PS la A pe i
Jeod pévn, ovK €€ epywv GN ék TOU KadovrTos, eppeOn
b] an ¢ e / 4 ~ aN 4, Ae ,
abt btu 6 peilov Sovevoes TO ELao oor, Kalas yeypamTa
la) /
Tov “IaxaB yyarnoa, Tov 6€ "Hoad epionoa.
= A ‘ a A N ,
Ti obv épodpe ; pi) ddicia Tapa To Dew; py yevorto.
3 Moon yap? héyer Edejow ov Gv €deO, Kal olxTeupHnow
7 Moon yap® héye “Ehenow 0 + Kat olurenpyyd
a » > b) A nA ,
dy ay oiKTEipw. apa ovv ov Tov Héovros ovdE TOD TpE-
iANa TOU ehe@vTos Deov. éyer yap 7H ypadi) TO
.xXovTos, GAAG TOD EEGVTOS . éyer yap » ypadr 74
Dapaw ore eis avTd TovTo e&yyeipa oe, OTws EevdeiEwpar
5 A A , , , & ~ i we , 5
€v gol THY Svvapiv pov Kal oTws SuvyyeAH TO GvOUa jLov EV

1 Kakov.

and the two wives of Abraham is
ridiculous.

It is characteristic of Jewish
history that the younger is pre-
ferred to the elder. “ And not
only this,” we might say with the
Apostle, “ but Ephraim, and Mo-
ses, and David, and Samuel, and
Abraham himself” were all in-
stances of the same preference.

11. The Apostle expressly
points to the fact from which we
should naturally have withdrawn
our minds, that as it were to
preserve the prerogative of God
intact, the election of Jacob took
place, before there could be any
ground for favour arising out of
the actions of either. It was not
of works, though in this case it
could not be of faith, but of Him
that calleth.

i) kar’ éxdoyhv mpdbeorc.| The
purpose of God according to
election, that is, the purpose of
God irrespective of men’s actions
(comp. oi card mpdeov KAnroé,
vill. 28.). jévy refers either to
the establishment of the belief in
election, “might stand firm and
be acknowledged ;” or merely to

2 Tov Seov mpdd.

3 7G yap Mwo7.

the firmness of the Divine pur-
pose. Comp. Heb. xii. 27.

12. Gen. xxv. 23. Where,
however, the words (which are
here exactly quoted from the
LXX.) refer not to Jacob and
Esau, but to the two nations
who were to spring from them.

13. These words are exactly
quoted from the LXX., with a
very slight alteration in their
order. Their meaning must be
gathered from the connexion of
the Apostle’s argument, not from
any preconceived notion of the
attributes of God. In the pro-
phet: (Mal. i. 2, 3.) God is intro-
duced as reproaching Israel for
their ingratitude to Him, though
he had “loved Jacob and hated
Esau.” Here no stress is to be
laid on the words “loved” and
“hated,” which are _ poetical
figures, the thought expressed by
them being subordinate to the
prophet’s main purpose. It is
otherwise in the quotation ; there
the point isthat God preferred one,
and rejected another of his own
free will. As of old, he preferred
Jacob, so now he may reject him.

1l

16

17

Ver. 11—17.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 281

by our father Isaac; for the children being not yet
born, neither having done any good or evil, that the
purpose of God according to election might stand, not
of works, but of him that calleth: it was said unto her,
that * the elder shall serve the younger. As it is written,
Jacob * I loved, but Esau* I hated.

What shall we say then? Is there not* unrighteous-
ness with God? God forbid. For he saith to Moses, I
will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will
have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So
then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that run-
neth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture
saith unto Pharaoh, that * for this same purpose I have
raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and

Any further inference from the
unconditional predestination of
nations to that of individuals,
does not come within the Apostle’s
range of view.

14, 15. What shall we say
then ? is not God unjust for this
arbitrary election ? The Apostle
answers the objection which he
himself suggests by an appeal to
the book of the law, as the end
of allcontroversy. “So far from
being unjust, it is the very rule
of action which God announces
to Moses.” Beyond this circle,
he does not at this time advance.
Yet the three chapters taken to-
gether imply a further answer.

The quotation is from Ex.
xxxiii. 19., taken word for word
from the LXX. It refers in the
original passage to the favour
shown by God to Moses when
he made “his glory to pass be-
fore him.”

16. And so it is proved, not
that God is unjust, but that man
neither wills, nor does, and that
all is the work of Divine mercy.

17. The Apostle passes on to
a yet stronger instance in which
God raised up a monument, not
of his merey, but of his ven-
geance.

The quotation must be inter-
preted with a reference to the
connexion, and not with a view
to the refutation of Calvinistic
excesses. And the connexion
requires, not that “God _per-
mitted Pharaoh’s heart to be
hardened,” or that “ Pharaoh
hardened his own heart,” but
that “God hardened Pharaoh’s
heart.” The words do not pre-
cisely agree with the LXX., in
which the first is changed into
the second person. Exod. ix.
16.:—évexey rovrov dternphOne iva
évoeiEwpat év cot riv ioyby pov Kai
oTrwe ovary yehn TO Ovouda pov év
Taon TH YN-

or ouernpi9ng the Apostle
substitutes the stronger expres-
sion ééfyeipa, which agrees with
the Hebrew in the person, though
neither dternpy Onc (thou wast pre-
served alive), nor ééjyeupa (raised

282 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. IX

A A 5 ; A A&A \
Trion TH yp. apa ovv dv Oéde édeet, Ov d€ Oder oKdy-
, > ‘a > fi: ae » sf , 2 A Q
pve. épets pou ovv Ti ovv et’ pewpetar; To yap Bov-
la > + lal
Anpat. avtod tis avOdoTnKe; ® avOpwre, pevodv ye?
5 a ee Se ee ,
ov Tis el 6 avTatoKpwopmevos TO Dew; py EpEel TO TAGT PAO
Lal 4 , | , 4 x > ¥ > 4
TO mrdoavts Ti pe eroinoas ovTwsS; 7 OvK exer Efovoiay
A A la A 4 A
6 Kepapeds TOU THAOv, Ex TOD avTOU pupapaTos ToUoaL
a \ > \ A a de 3 > / - > de bdr e
O pev els TYULNVY TKEvOS, 0 O€ Els aTipiav; EL O€ Dédwy 6
\ b] , ‘ 5 ‘\ \ P A 5 ‘ b) n
Beds evdeiEacOar THY dpynv Kat yrwopioat TO OvvaToY avTOU

1 épets oby mot Ti ert.

thee up, brought thee into exist-
ence), is an exact translation of
the word used, which means
“made to stand, “established.”

18. In the word oxdAnpove,
‘“‘hardens,” a trace again appears
of the Old Testament narrative
respecting Pharaoh. Compare
Exodus, ix. 12., éoxAfpurve Kxiproc
THY Kapdiay Papaw. 1x. 34., Papaw
éCdpuvey avrov Thy kapdiay. 36.,
éoxAnpvvOn fy Kapdia Papaw. ‘The
inference is drawn partly from
the word éyepa, but chiefly
from the clause that follows :—
The words in which God speaks
of raising up Pharaoh, to display
his power in him, are a proof that
He does what He will with His
creatures.

Can we avoid the fatal conse-
quence that God is here regarded
as the author of evil ? It may be
replied that throughout the pas-
sage St. Paul is speaking, not of
himself, but in the language of
the Old Testament, the line drawn
in which is not precisely the same
with that of the New, though
we cannot separate them with
philosophical exactness. It was
not always a proverb in. the
house of Israel, that “ God tempt-
ed no man.” In the overpower-
ing sense of the Creator’s being,
the free agency of the creature

2 uevoovye © &vO.

was lost, and it seemed to the
external spectator as if the evil
that men did, was but the just
punishment that he inflicted on
them for their sins. Comp. Ezek.
xiv. 9,

The portions of the New Tes-
tament which borrow the lan-
guage or the Spirit of the Old
must not be isolated from other
passages, which take a more
comprehensive view of the deal-
ings of God with man. God
tempts no man to evil who has
not first tempted himself. This
is the uniform language of both
Old and New Testament; the
difference seems to lie in the
circumstance that in the Old Tes-

18
19
20

21

22

tament, God leaves or gives a —

man to evil who already works
evil, while the prevailing tone of
the New Testament is that evil
in all its stages is the work of
man himself. (See Essay on the
Contrasts of Prophecy, at the
end of chap. xi.)

19. Again, as in the 3rd chap-
ter, human nature seems to rise
up against so severe a statement
of the attributes of God. We
trace the indistinct sense of the
great question of the origin of
evil:—ri Ere kayw we aphor ion
kpivopar 5 iii. 7.

Ti ody ere pépperac;| The

18
19

20

21

22

VER. 18—22.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 283

that my name might be declared throughout all the
earth. So* then he hath mercy on whom he will, and
whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why then! doth he yet find fault? For who hath
resisted his will? Nay rather, O man, who art thou
that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say
to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto
dishonour?* And if God, willing to shew his wrath,

1 Om. then.

thought will insinuate itself into
the soul that He who can pre-
vent, ought not to punish evil.
But such thoughts must be put
down with a strong hand.

20. pevoty ye, nay but,| is
used to corrector oppose an asser-
tion (Rom, x. 18. ; Luke, xi. 18.),
as in classical writers, though in
the latter not placed at the be-
ginning of a sentence. The an-
swer to the objection is of the
same kind as at ver. 15.: “ Rather
Oman, who art thou to bandy
words with God?” Without
maintaining the justice of God,
the Apostle denies the right to
impugn it. He appeals to the
single consideration that he is the
Creator. “ Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why
hast thou made me thus?” He
does not do it, because it is just ;
it isjust, because he does it. The
words ju) €pet down to ovrwe are
taken, with some verbal altera-
tion, from Isaiah, xxix. 16.

_ 21. The conception of God as
the potter, and his creatures as
the clay, occurs in several pas-
sages of the Old Testament, as
Jer. xviii. 83—10., where the pro-
phet goes down to the potter’s

house and sees the vessel which
he had in his hands marred
(ver. 4., kal éxece TO dyyeioy 6
avrog émoler év Traic yepaiv avrov
kal waduv avrog éxoinoey avro ay-
yeiov ~Erepoyv), and another vessel
put on the wheel, threatening in
a figure the destruction of Israel;
also in another spirit, Isaiah, lxiv.
8.:— “But now, O Lord, thou
art our Father; we are the clay
and thou our potter, and we all
are the work of thy hands.”
The first of these quotations has
probably suggested the words of
this passage, the second more
nearly resembles the tone of the
following verses, which seem to
say :— “We are his, therefore he
has an absolute right over us ;
therefore, also, as we acknowledge
his right over us, will he have
mercy upon us.” Compare
Isaiah, xlv. 9.

22. The construction of this
passage involves an anacoluthon.
As in ii. 17., ei d& ov “Iovdatoc
ETOvOMacN, there is no apodosis to
ei dé. The thread of the sentence
is lost in the digression of verses
23, 24,25. The corresponding
clause should have been, What is
that to thee? or, Who art thou

284 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. LX,

nveyKev ev TOMAH pakpoOvpia oKEvN Opyns KaTHpTiCpEeva

cis amd\evav, Kal Wa yvwpion Tov wovTov THs Sdéns

3 Ph BN As aN ie a , 3 PS) , a \

avTov él oKevn édéous, & Tpontoipacer eis Od€av; ods Kat

“nw 5 X Y nw
éxdeoev Nas ov povov e€ “Iovdaiwv adda Kat €€ eOvar,
la 3
as Kal ev TO None eyes Kah€ow Tov ov adv pov hadv ov
Vd \ » a

Kal THY OVK HYATNMEVYNY HYATHLEVHV * Kal ETTAL EV TH TO-
DY eppeOn [adrots] Ov ads pov vets, Exel KAnOH

Tw ov EppeOn [ avrots S MOU ULES, nOynoovrar

a Aw f, e A>

viot Jeod lavros. "Hoaias dé kpaler virep Tov ‘Iopanh *Eav
#2 5 aq “A ca >] \ e Ne ~ 4

7 0 apiOuos Tav viav ‘Iapand ws Hn appos THs Oatdoons,

\ la)
70! uToheypa TwOyoerar’ Adyov yap avvTEehov Kal ouV

1 KaTdAeimma.

who hast an answer to God?
There is, however, a further com-
plexity in the passage. ‘The
simple thought would have been
as follows: — But if God shows
forth his righteous vengeance on
men, what is that to thee ?—
But side by side with this creeps
in another feeling, that even in
justice he remembers mercy. —
“He punishes, and you have no
right to find fault with Him for
anything which he does.” Still itis
implied that he only punishes those
who ought to have been punished
long before. There would have
been no difficulty in the passage
had the Apostle said :— “He
punishes some and spares others.”
But he has given a different turn
to the thought —“ He spares
those whom he punishes.” “ May
not God,” he would say, “be like
the potter dashing in pieces one
vessel, and showing his mercy
to another ; merciful even in the
first, which he puts off as long as
he can, and only executes with
a further purpose of mercy to
others.” dé, adver.: “ The potter
does this, AND may not God do
it?”

23. iva yvwpion, | may be taken
either as parallel with Séd\wy, or

with évdei~acbar, or with yrw-
pica. The last verse implied

23
24

25
26

27

28

that in judgment He remembered |

mercy. But now the further pur-
pose of God is unfolded, that
mercy should alternate with jus-
tice, mercy to the Gentiles,
with judgment on the House of
Israel. As is more explicitly re-
peated in chap. xi., the Jew was
rejected that the Gentile might
be received. As in chap. v.
20, 21., or in viii. 3, 4., the two
parts of His work must be taken
as one.

tov mrovroy THe ddénc. | Odea is
the glory of God revealed to man.
Compare Eph. iii. 16.; Rom.ii. 4.,
Tov tOUTOU THE KpnoTornroc: Col.
i. 11., ro xparog rhe Cokne abrov:
or the still more complicated ex-
pression, 6 wAovroc tHe Sdéne Tov
fivoTnpiov Tovrov év Totc eOveour,
i. 27. The word zrdotro¢ occurs
againin Rom. xi. 12., in reference
to the admission of the Gentiles.
So here the thought of ver. 24.,
a&dAa kai é& é0véyv is dimly anti-
cipated in it.

ode Kat éxaddecev Hudc.| As
which persons He hath also called
(as well as prepared) us. Compare
Vili. 30.: ove mpowpioey TovToug Kai
ExaNEGEY.

ee ees :

23

24

25

26

27

28

Vir, 23—28.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 285

and to make his power known, endured with much long-
suffering* vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: and
that he might make known the riches of his glory on
the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared
unto glory? Even us, whom he hath called, not of the
Jews only, but also of the Gentiles, as he saith also in
Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my
people ; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And
it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said
unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be
called the children of the living God. Esaias also crieth
concerning Israel, Though the number of the children
of Israel be as the sand of the sea, a remnant shall be
saved. For the Lord will accomplish his word finish-

25, 26. The passages here
quoted from Hosea are as follows
in the LXX.:—

11. 23.: kai orep@ abriy
éml The yn¢ Kal ayarhow
Hyarnpévnvy Kat é9@ To
prov, Aade pov ef ov.

i. 10.: kat ora év TO Térw ov
éppé0n adroic ov ade pov wpEi¢
KAnOhoovrat Kat adroit viol Oeov
févroc. The prophet is speaking
of the rejection and acceptance of
the ten tribes.

In the quotation it is not ne-
cessary to give the words éy r@
tom & precise meaning. There
is no point in saying, with some
interpreters, that in Palestine
also the Gentiles should be called
the Sons of God.

27, 28. The quotation is from
Isa. x. 22, 23., and in the “ Textus
Receptus ” agrees almost exactly
with the LXX. The latter verse
is, however, entirely . different
from the Hebrew text, the mean-
ing of which, according to Gese-
nius and Ewald, is as follows :—

épauT@
THY OUK

7 ~
ov aw

“The extermination is deter-
mined; it streams forth, bring-
ing righteousness, for the Lord
God of Hosts executeth the
appointed destruction in all the
land.” The great difference be-
tween the Hebrew and the LXX.
is supposed to have arisen from
a mistranslation of Hebrew
words.

It was not only in accordance
with the prophecies of the Old
Testament that Israel should be
rejected. ‘They spoke yet more
precisely of a remnant being
saved. If any one marvelled at
the small number of believers of
Jewish race, it was “ written for
their instruction ” that “a rem-
nant should be saved.”

’"Hoaiac dé. | 6é marks the tran-
sition to another prophet ; izép
either “respecting” or “ over.”

28. The two best MSS., A. and
B., omit év ducacocvvn .. . ovvter-
pnpevory. As they occur in the
LXX., it may be justly argued
that they are more likely to have

[Cu. IX.

286 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

la ‘a \ \ /
téuvov Touoer! Kvpios emt THS yns. Kal KaDas TpoElpynKer
- e€ ~ 4
"Hoatas, Ei py Kipios caBawd eyxarehurey uw omeppa,
e / x > Aa, Pe 2, , a8 Py e 50
ws Sddopa dv éyerHOnpev Kat ws Topoppa av oporwOnper.
Ti obv épodpev; ote COvyn Ta pH SidKovta Suxaoovvyy
, , , $3 wer ,
katéhaBev Suxavocvyyny, Sukavorvvyv O€ THY EK TiCTEWS,
Iopanr S€ Sidkwv vdpov Sucaoovvns els vopov” ovK épOa-
‘ , 4 b] 3 , IAA e 3 ¥ 3 ,
cev. Sia Ti; OTL ovK ex TigTEws, GAN ws €€ Epywr ® tpoce-
4 wn , A , Ae ~ , "18 X\
Kopart TO NiOw Tod TpoTKompatos, KaOas yéypamrat, [dod
4 > \ , / ‘ 4 4,
TOnr ev Sov NiPov tooo Koppatos Kat TéeTpav oKaVdd)ov,

\5 £ , SS ee eee, Ad
KQL" O TLOTEVWY ET AVTW OV KATOLO\UV YORTal.

1 Add &y dinatootyyn ort Adyov cuvreTunpévoy.
4 Add ydp.

3 Add védpov.

been inserted as a correction
than omitted in this passage.
If the words are retained, as in
the Textus Receptus, Tischen-
dorf, and several MSS. and Ver-
sions, éo7c must be supplied with
ouyTeh@y and ovyrépvwr.

The passage of Isaiah taken in
the sense in which it was under-
stood by the Apostle, may be
paraphrased as follows :— Isaiah
lifts up his voice in regard to Is-
rael, and says,“ Though the house
of Israel be as the sand of the sea,
the remnant only shall be saved.
For God is accomplishing and
cutting short his work, for a short
work will God make upon the
earth,” or (according to Lach-
mann’s reading), “ For God will
perform his work, accomplishing
and cutting it short upon the
earth.” The application of this
to the present circumstances of
the house of Israel is, that few
out of many Israelites should be
saved, for that God was judging
them as of old he had judged
their fathers. They were living
in the latter days, and the time
was short.

~ gion ?

2 Add Seasebres
5 Add was.

29. In their original connexion
these words have a different bear-
ing. The prophet is describing
the desolation of the land in which
all but a few had perished. He is

-not speaking of those who are

saved, but of those who are lost.
The succeeding verse is — Give

ear now, O ye rulers of Sodom ;

hear the word of the Lord, ye
people of Gomorrah.

30. What then is the conclu-
That the Gentile who
sought not after righteousness,
attained righteousness, but the
righteousness that is of faith.
But Israel, who did seek after it,
attained not to it. What was
the reason of this ? because they
sought it not of faith, but we &£
épywy, under the idea that it might
be gained by works of the law
they stumbled at the rock of of-
fence. We are again upon the
track of chap. iii.

31, rdpov dc«aoovrync.| Like
vopoc TOU mvevparoc THE CwHe, in
ch. viii. Compare also Gal. ili.
21., “If there had been a law
given which could have given life,
verily righteousness should have

29

30

29

30
31
32

33

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Ver 29—33.] 287

ing and cutting it short upon the earth.'’ Andas Esaias
said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a
seed, we had been as Sodoma, and been made like unto
Gomortrha.

What shall we say then? That the Gentiles, which
followed not after righteousness, have attained to righte-
ousness, but* the righteousness which is of faith. But
Israel, which followed after the law of righteousness,
hath not attained to the law.2, Wherefore? Because
not * of faith, but as it were of works® they stumbled
at the* stumblingstone; as it is written, Behold, I lay in
Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and he who*
believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 For he is finishing the work, and cutting it short in righteousness ; because

a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.

2 Add of righteousness. 8 Add of the law. For. * Whosoever.

been by the law.” The Apostle (in the LXX. AéOov rpookdpupare).

means that the Israelites did not
succeed in attaining true right-
eousness by the law. This he ex-
presses by saying, that Israel,
pursuing after a law as the source
of righteousness, or as belonging
to righteousness, failed in attain-
ing to thislaw. ov«épOace, arrived
not at ; the sense of anticipation
is lost.

32. dua ri,x. r. r.] In the
words that follow it is most con-
venient to take the first clause,
ovx ék mlarewc, with some idea
gathered from what has pre-
ceded, “‘ Because they did it, @. e.
pursued the law of righteousness,
and not of faith.” The words
we & égpywy have probably a
double relation, they form an
antithesis with ov« é« ricrewe, and
are also joined with zpocéxo War.

The expression \i0~ zpooKkdp-
uaroc is taken from Isa. viii. 14.

The remainder of the passage is
from Isa. xxviii. 16., the words
of which are as follows :-— idod
éyw eubadrrw cic rd Sepéia Le-
wy iBov wodutedn EkAEKTOv, aKpo-
ywviatov, Evryov eic Ta Sepédia
: ¢ a ‘ e / > \
QuTynCo KaL O TWLOTEVWY OV PN KaT=
acoxuv On.

While following the spirit of
this latter passage, the Apostle has
inserted the words \iOor rpocképu-
praroc, so as to give a double no-
tion of the Rock, which is at once
a stone of stumbling and rock of
offence, and a foundation stone on
which he who rests shall not be
made ashamed. Compare Luke,
xx. 17, 18. for a similar double
meaning :— iOov by amedoxipa-
cay oi oixodopovyrec, ovTog éye-
vnOn eic Kepadynv ywriac. mac 6
jweowy ew éexeivoy tov AiBoyv our-
Oracbijcerae ép’ dv 0 ay wéon
Akphoet avrov.

288

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. X,

"Aderdol, h péev evdoxia THs Euns Kapdias Kai y déyors!

\ ‘ \ ae 2m le
T POs TOV bedv UTEP AVTWV

cis TwTNplav. MapTUP yap

avtots Ott Ghdov Beod exovow, aN ov kat ériyvwow:
dyvoodvTes yap THY TOD Heod Sikavoovvyny, Kat THY tay
(ntodvtes oTnoat, TH SuKavoovyyn TOV Beod ovK vieETa-
ynoav. Tédos yap vopov xpLioTos Eis OiKaLoaUYnY TavTt TO

1 Add 7.

X. The commencement of this
chapter, as well as of the one
which follows, affords a remark-
able instance of a sudden tran-
sition of feeling in the mind of
the Apostle. At the end of the
previous chapter, he had passed
out of the sorrowful tone in
which he began, to prove that
very truth over which he sor-
rowed — the rejection of Israel.
But at this point he drops the
argument, and resumes the strain
which he had laid aside. The
character of the passage may be
illustrated by the parallel passage
in chap. iii. 1—8. There he had
been arguing that the Gentiles
were better than the Jews, or at
least as good ; because they, not
having the law, were a law unto
themselves. ‘Then to correct the
impression that might have arisen
from what he had been saying,
he goes on to point out that the
Jew too had advantages. Now,
a similar contrast is working in
his mind. There was something
that the Jew had, though not the
righteousness of faith. He was
not a sinner of the Gentiles, he
had a zeal for God, he had the
mark of distinction which it has
been said made Jacob to be pre-
ferred to Esau ; “he was a reli-
gious man.” But almost before
the thought of his heart is fully
uttered, the Apostle returns to

® rod "lopahaA éotiv.

_ his former subject —“ the right-

eousness of faith, Christ the end
of the law to every one that be-
lieveth ;” and gathers fresh proof
from the prophecies that the re-
jection of Israel was but accord-
ing to the will of God.

1. pév answers to a suppressed
dé, Which is indicated in v. 3.,
* But they would not ;” or “ But
it was not the will of God.”

cic owrnpiay|is equivalent to
iva ow0wo. Comp. ei¢ traxory
miorewc, ch. i. 5., cig duxaroovrny,
ver. 4.; also i. 16.

2. fijkov Seov, zeal for God. |
Compare 2 Cor. xi. 2., (nA@ yap
bpac Seov CfHdw, and the Apostle’s
description of himself in Gal. i.
14., meptaoorépwe Cyrwri¢ b7rap-
xwyv. The word zeal is peculiarly
appropriate to the Jewish people,
“all zealots for the law,” Acts,
xxi. 20.; “ Ready to endure death
like immortality rather than suf-
fer the neglect of the least of
their national customs,” Philo,
Leg. ad Caium, 1008. They were
not like the Gentiles indifferent
about religion ; it was not the
power, but rather the truth of the
law that had died away. Many
of them were ready to compass
sea and land to make one prose-
lyte. If religion did not include
morality, there would have been
no nation more religious.

ov kar’ éxiyvwow, not accord-

10

10

ee)

Ver 1—4.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 289

Brethren, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for
them! is, that they might be saved. For I bear them
record that they have a zeal of God, but not according
to knowledge. For they being ignorant of God’s right-
eousness, and going about to establish their own right-
eousness, are not subject * unto the righteousness of
God. For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness

) For Israel.

ing to knowledge.| ‘These words
are not added to extenuate their
fault, as though St. Paul said —
“They have a zeal for God, but
know not their Lord’s will ;” but
are merely an explanation of how
they could have a zeal for God,
and yet be rejected. In what
follows he explains in what this
ignorance consists.

3. Their ignorance consisted
in not obeying the righteousness
of God, and in setting up their
own righteousness in its place.

Three questions arise on this
verse :—(1.) What is meant by
the righteousness of God? The
righteousness of God plainly
means the righteousness of faith,
the new revelation of which the
Apostle spoke, Rom. i. 17., which
is the power of God unto salva-
tion to every one that believeth.
(2.) What is meant by their own
righteousness? Either the word
idvoc may simply indicate oppo-
sition to eov, “their own” as
opposed to God’s; or it may have
a further meaning of private in-
dividual righteousness, consisting
only in a selfish isolated obedience
to the law, not in communion with
God or their fellow-creatures.
But, (3.) what is meant by ody
vreraynoay? Not something en-
tirely different from dyvoodrrec
in the first clause; only as that
expressed their wilful blindness

VOL. II.

in not recognising the Gospel,
this indicates the effect on their
life and conduct. ‘The expression
is analogous to wraxol miorEews,
xpiorav, adnbeiac.

4. rédoc vopou, the end of the
law. | Either the aim of the law, or
the termination of the law, or the
fulfilment of the law; the law
itself meaning either the law of
Moses, or that higher law which
was reflected in it. These diffe-
rent senses of the two words
insensibly pass into each other,
and there is nothing unreason-
able in supposing that all of them
may have been intended by the
Apostle ; that is to say, that the
expression which he has em-
ployed, when analysed, may in-
clude these various allusions. It
was Christ to whom the law
pointed, or seemed to point, who
was its fulfilment and also its
destruction. It was of Him
* Moses in the law, and the pro-
phets spoke ;” it was He who
was the body of those things of
which the law was the shadow.
It was He who was to “ destroy
this temple, and raise up another
temple, not made with hands.”
It was He who came to fulfil the
law, in all the senses in which
it could be fulfilled.

It has been said by those who
confine the idea of the word
tédoc to the sense of end or ter-

290

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. X

motevovtt. Mavons yap ypade thy Sikatoovyny rHv
éK a vojov, éte 6 Toinoas [avTa] avOpurros Gjoeran év
auri. % 8é &« Tictews SuKaocdvyn ovTHS NEY Et My lrg
&v ™) Kapoig, cov Tis avaByoerat eis TOV Ovpavdv; TOUT
coTW Xpuorroy kararyaryely” H Tis karaBryoeran eis THY

aBvocov ; TOUT

eOTW Xplarov €K VEKP@V avayaryew,

~ oe A ,
ddA Ti héyer; "Eyyvs vou 7d pyya eoTw, ev TO TTOpmaTi

1 avrots,

mination, that in the Apostle’s
view the law and Christ are
in extreme opposition to each
other. This is true. But it is
not true that this is his only view,
as is shown by such passages as
Romans, iv. 25., Gal. ili. 26., 1
Cor. x. 1., and the context (ver.
6—8.) in this place.

For the meaning of the word
réXoc, compare Eccles. xii. 13.:
rédoc Adyou 70 way axove; Rom.
vi. 22.: ro d€ rédXoc, Cwhy aiwrvor ;
1 Tim. i. 5.: 70 dé réXog rij¢ wap-
ayyediac; and for a similar
ambiguity in its use, 2 Cor. ili.
13.:—od Kabamep Mwvone érider
kéhuppa ért ro mpdowmov abvrou
mpos TO pa arevioat rove viove
"Topana eic To TéXog TOU Karapyoupe-
vou’ which may be construed
either to the intent that the
children of Israel should not look
to the reality or fulfilment of
what was being done away (that
is, to the glory behind), or that
they should not look to the pass-
ing away or termination of it.

yap. | For this is the righteous-
ness of God, Christ the end of
the law; or, For the true notion of
righteousness is that the law is
done away in Christ, working the
effect of righteousness in every
one that believeth.

5. yap. | “ For Moses describes
legal righteousness in one way,

and righteousness by faith in
another.”

As in Gal. iii. 10—13., the
Apostle contrasts the nature of
the law and faith, as characterised
in the law itself. The words
which he first quotes (from Lev.
xviii. 5.) imply external acts:
** He who has done the command-
ments of the law, shall have life
in the righteousness of the law ”
(from the LXX., in which the
word aira refers to the statutes
and judgments that have pre-
ceded). Compare 1 Tim. iv. 8.:
—*Godliness is profitable unto
all things, having the promise of
the life that now is, and of that
which is to come.” Jyoera, as
elsewhere, used by the Apostle
in a fuller sense than its original
one.

6—8. The language of Deut.
xxx. 13. (the book of Moses, which
has been regarded almost as an
evangelization of the law, and as
standing in the same relation to
the other books of Moses as the
Gospel of St. John to the three
first Gospels,) is far different.
There our duty to God is not
spoken of, as outward obedience
or laborious service. There the
word is described as “ very nigh
to us, even in our mouth and in
our heart.” Surely this is the
righteousness that is of faith.

~1

Ver. 5—8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 291

to every one that believeth. For Moses describeth the
righteousness which is of the law, That the man which
doeth those things shall live in it! But the righteous-
ness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not
in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven ? (that is,
to bring Christ down from above:) or, Who shall de-
scend into the deep ? (that is, to bring up Christ again
from the dead). But what saith it? The word is nigh

} By them.

The Apostle quotes this pas-
sage in a manner which is in
several ways remarkable :—(1.)
As there is no word in the pas-
sage itself which exactly suits
the meaning which he requires ;
it is the spirit, not the letter,
which he is quoting, as in Rom.
iv. 6. (2.) To each clause he
adds an explanation, “ Who shall
ascend up into heaven? (that
is, to bring down Christ from
above:) or, Who shall descend
into the deep? (that is, to bring
up Christ from below.)” Comp.
ix. 8.; Gal. iv. 25.; 2 Cor. iii.
17. (38.) He has altered the
words, so as to suit them to the ap-
plication which he makes of them.
Compare ix. 17.; infra, ver. 11.
Lastly, he puts them into the
mouth of righteousness by faith,
who speaks as a person in the
words of Moses; ef. ver. 5.

The principal difference be-
tween the passage as quoted by
St. Paul, and as it occurs in the
LXX., from which the Hebrew
very slightly varies, is, that in
ver. 7. we have ric xarabjoerar
cic tiv abvocoyv; instead of ric
duarrepdcer Ftv ic ro Tépay Tic
Sadacone, in the LXX. Much
ingenuity has been expended in re-
conciling these variations. Some
have referred the words, eic ro

mépay Tij¢ Sadaaone, to,a heathen-
ish notion of Islands of the Blest,
“beyond the Western wave ;”
while others have supposed that
some copy of the LX X. or some
other version of the Scriptures
may have read eic rv abvacor,
in the meaning of “the sea,”
which has had another sense
put upon it by the Apostle.

It would not be inconsistent
with sound criticism to admit
even very improbable conjectures,
to account for the Apostle’s in-
accurate quotation, if we found
such quotations occurring in a
single instance only. But as they
occur many times, sound criti-
cism and true faith require equally
that we should admit the fact,
and acknowledge that the Apostle
quotes without regard to verbal
exactness, apparently because he
is dwelling rather on the truth
that he is expounding, than on
the words in which it is conveyed,
not verifying references by a
book, but speaking from the ful-
ness of the heart.

The truth seems to be that the
parallel required in the words,
“to bring up Christ from the
dead,” has led the Apostle to alter
the text in Deuteronomy, so as to
admit of his introducing them.
The general meaning of ver. 6. to

2

292

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[CueXi

“A , a >+-Yy \ At.An wn ,
Gov Kal €v TH Kapodia WoVv. TOUT EDTW, TO PHA THS TicTEwS
é 24 > an , ,
Oo KnpvooopEr, OTL Eav Opohoynaons EV TO TTOMaTL Tov

, > lal \ 4 > “ 8 4 ¢ A
KUplovV Inoovyr, KQL TLOTEVONS €V TY) KAapOLa GOV OTL O Jeds

avTov nyepev Ex veKpOv, TwOHoN* Kapdia yap miaTEvETaL 10

> , , An @ a > ,
ELS duKavoo vv yy, OTOLaATL de opohoyetTat €lS OWT) PLav.

, ‘\ e l4 Ta c , 3.9 > A Ss
héyer yap n ypady Ilas 0 mictevwv eT avT@ ov KaTat-

oxuvOnoerat.

8. is as follows : —“ The right-
eousness of faith uses a different
language. Itsays, ‘Deem it not
impossible ; do not ask the unbe-
liever’s question : who shall go
up into heaven, by which I mean
to bring down Christ from above ;
or who shall descend into hell,
by which I mean to bring up
Christ from below ?’ But what
saith it ? the word is nigh unto
thee, even in thy mouth and in
thy heart. And by the word I
mean, the word of faith which
we preach.”

It was doubtless the last verse
which induced the Apostle to
quote the whole passage: “The
word is within thee, ready to come
tothylips.” Hereis a description
of faith. To the words which
precede the Apostle has given
a new tone. In the book of
Deuteronomy they mean: “ The
commandment which I give youis
not difficult or afar off; it is not
in the heaven above, nor beyond
the sea.” Here they refer, not to
action, but to belief. They might
be paraphrased in the language
of modern times : —

“Do not raise sceptical doubts
about Christ having come on
_ earth, or being risen from the
dead: there is a Christ within
whom you have not far to seek
for.”

Compare Eph. iv. 9, 10.: “Now
that he ascended, what is it but

that he also descended first into
the lower parts of the earth? He
that descended is the same also
that ascended;” which is in like
manner based on Psalm lxviii. 18.:
“'Thou hast ascended on high, thou
hast led captivity captive, and re-
ceived gifts for men.”

9. As in ver. 8. the Apostle
had given an explanation of the
word pia, he proceeds to give a
similar explanation of orduarcand
kapdig. The word pia means
pipa tic tiorewc, and the words
ordua and xapoia refer to the con-
fession with the lips of the Lord
Jesus, and the belief with the
heart of his resurrection. Com-
pare | Peter, i. 24, 25. : é&npayvOn
0 xdproc, Kal ro &yvOog abrow ékére-
ev" TO O€ Phua Kupiou pévec eic TOY
aidva, ToUTO O€ EaTLY pid TO Evay-
yertober ic vpdc.

10. The Apostle adds a further
explanatory clause:—“ For by the
heart we believe, and with the
mouth we confess.” Various at-
tempts have been made to pre-
serve the opposition. (1.) The
words cic éuxaoovrvny have been
supposed to refer to justification ;
cic owrnpiay, to final salvation.
But itmay be answered, that con-
fession has no special connexion
with final salvation ; if it had,
the confession of the lips would
be more important than the be-
lief of the heart. Or, (2.) The
words dt«awsivn and owrnpia

11

ov yap eotw Siactody “Iovdatov Te Kat 12

ee ee ee

PS ee ee) aly oe gtd 2 ee ene ge

Il
12

Ver. 9—12.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

293

thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word

. of faith, which we preach; that if thou shalt confess with

thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine
heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto
righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made
unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever be-
lieveth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no
difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same

have been opposed, as inward
justification and outward mem-
bership of the Church. “For
by the heart we are justified, and
by the confession of the lips we
are made members of the Church.”
This offers a good sense, but the
meaning given to owrnpia is not
justified by such a use of the
word owlopévove, aS occurs in
Acts, ii. 47.

Instead of adopting explana-
tions so forced, it is better to
acknowledge that the antithesis
of dukatcoovvn and owrnpia is one
of style, as at iv. 25., which
need not be insisted upon. The
Apostle means only “that the
heart and lips agree together, in
faith and confession, and their
end righteousness and everlasting
life.”

_ 11. The link of connexion is
again a word, morevwy. The

‘Apostle had explained a passage

from the Old Testament, 6—29.,
the words of which he had fur-
ther drawn out in ver. 10.; he
adds now anew confirmation. For
the Scripture says :—“ Forevery
one that believeth on him shall
not be ashamed.” 6 morevwy
seems to refer to the first of the
preceding clauses ; 0b karatoxvy-

O@noera, tothesecond: “ Forevery
one that believeth on him shall
not be made ashamed in the day
of the Lord.”

The citation is slightly altered
from Isa. xxviii. 16. as it stands
in the LXX., 6 muorevwy ob pu}
karacoxuvvOy, where it is remark-
able that the word zac, by which
St. Paul connects this with the
verse following, does not occur.

The addition, however, is not
inconsistent with the general
sense of the original ; the Apostle
has only emphasised the thought
which was already implied with-
out it. The alteration was pro-
bably suggested by the words
of Joel, which are quoted in y.
13.

12. As the tenth and eleventh
verses, so also the eleventh and
twelfth, hang together by a word.

The Scripture says “every
one,” meaning hereby to include
Jew and Greek. For there is
the same Lord, rich in mercy to
all who call upon Him. As at
ch. iii. 29., we have already
passed from the inward truth of
righteousness by faith to the cor-
relative which was never wanting
to it in the Apostle’s mind, —
“admission of the Gentiles.”

uv 3

294 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. X.

4 , ee 3 4
"Eddnvos: 6 yap adres KipLos TaVTwV, ThovTMY Els TaVTAS
a BS’ a a 2 ,
Tovs émrukahoupevous avrov. Ilas yap 6s av emikahéeontat
TOS ovV ETiKaheowvTat | Eis

8 r ,
TO Ovopa Kuptov, TwOnoeETaL.
a ¥
2 ov OVK HKOVC-AD ;

la) \ ,
dv ovK erioTevoay ; TAS O€ TLIOTEVTWTW
A 6 \ , ” \ 4
Tas 88 dxovowow? ywpis Knpvaoortos ; Tas dé Knpvgw-
A \ , e € “A e
ow, éav py atoataiaow ; Kaas yéypamtar Qs wpatot ot

1 émrikadécovrai.

6 yap avroc Kuptoc.| Whether
by xvptoc is meant God or Christ
is uncertain. Compare Phil. ii.
1]. : taca yOooa eLoporoyhonrat
dre Kvptog “Inacovc, where the title
is given to Christ in a similar
connexion; also, xipeov “Inoovr,
in v. 9. It may be God or
Christ, or God in Christ re-
conciling the world to himself,
who is in the Apostle’s mind.
The application to Christ is sup-
ported by the reading ypuaroi,
which Lachmann has received
into the text in ver. 17.

13. Again the connecting link
is a word which is taken up b
a quotation from the Old Tes-
tament, Joel, ii. 32. (kai ora d¢ adv
erikahéonrat TO dvox.a Kupiov owOh-
eerac), Which, as if well known,
the Apostle does not formally cite
(so ix. 7., and infra, v. 18.). The
same passage is quoted by St.
Peter on the day of Pentecost,
as referring to the times of Christ.
In the place where it originally
occurs, it contains no reference
to the Gentiles.

14-21. The passage which
follows is, in style, one of the
most obscure portions of the
Epistle. The obscurity arises
from the argument being founded
on passages of the Old Testa-
ment. The structure becomes dis-
jointed and unmanageable from
the number of the quotations.
Some trains of thought are car-

* mortevcouow, axovoovoty, Knpvitovow,

ried on too far for the Apostle’s
purpose, while others are so
briefly hinted at as to be hardly
intelligible. Yet if, instead of en-
tangling ourselves in the meshes
of the successive clauses, we
place ourselves at a distance and
survey the whole at a glance,
there is no difficulty in under-
standing the general meaning.
No one can doubt that the Apo-
stle intends to say that the pro-
phets had already foretold the
rejection of the Jews and the
acceptance of the Gentiles. But
the texts by which he seeks to
prove or to express this, are in-
terspersed, partly with difficulties
which he himself felt ; partly,
also, with general statements
about the mode in which the
Gospel was given.

Going off from the word ém-
kadovpévove and émicahéonra, he
touches first on an _ objection
which might naturally be urged:
“No one has preached the Gos-
pel to them.” His mode of rais-
ing the objection is such that we
are left in uncertainty whether
this is said by him in the person
of an objector, or in his own
(cf. iii. 1—8., v. 18, 14., ix. 20,
21.). From one step in the rhe-
torical climax he passes on to
another, until the words of the
prophet are brought by associa-
tion into hismind. “ How beau-
tiful are the feet of those who

15

13

14

15

Ver. 18—15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 295

Lord* is over all, rich unto all that cail upon him. For
whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be
saved. How then are they to call’ on him in whom they
have not believed? and how are they to” believe in him*
whom they have not heard ? and how are they to” hear
without a preacher ? and how are they to? preach, except
they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the

1 Shall they call.
preach good tidings!” He is
now far away from his original
point. Atver. 16. he returns to
it, and answers the question,
“ How are they to call?” &c., by
saying that there had been a
hearing of the Gospel, but some
had not obeyed what they heard.
This was implied in the words
of the prophet, “who believed
our report ?” the inference from
which is “that faith cometh by
hearing ;” and (we may add)
hearing by the word of God.
After this interpretation the Apo-
stle returns to his first thought :
— “How shall they believe on
him whom they have not heard ?”
The answer is :—“ Nay, but they
have heard.” All the world has
heard. I repeat the question
that it may be again answered,
“Did not Israel know?” Moses
and the prophets told them in
the plainest terms that the Is-

_raelites should be rejected, and

another nation made partakers of
the mercies of God.

mec ovv émkartowvrac; How
are they to call?| ‘The conjunc-
tive in questions expresses doubt
or deliberation under some pre-
vious supposition.

14. It is remarkable that St.

Paul should state the objection
in so animated and forcible a
manner, while the answer given

2 Shall they.

to it is so fragmentary and im-
perfect : and also that here, as in
ch. ili., he should interweave his
own thoughts with the objection.
The whole of the passage is an
amplification of the thought —
“How can they call upon God,
except they be taught?” But
in the words éav py arooradGou,
and in the quotation which fol-
lows, the Apostle is thinking of
himself and the other ministers
of the Gospel as appointed by
God “Apostles of the Churches.”
ov ovK iKovcay;| “whom they
have not heard ?” as in Eph. iv.
21., it is said ei ab’rév Axovcare,
as in Acts, iii. 22., avrov dxov-
ceo0e ; not “about whom they
have not heard,” which, though
supported by Iliad, Q. 490., cé6ev
fwovroc axovwy, is only a poetical
construction of the Genitive.

15. The passage in Isaiah (lii.
7.) is suggested by the thought
of the preachers’ going forth,
and the Apostle is led to quote
it from association. It has, how-
ever, a bearing on his argument,
as it implies that there must be
those who are to preach the Gos-
pel. In this passage the LXX.
has @¢ wpa éxi rv dpéwy, we TOES
evayyediGopévov axojy eipyync, we
evayyedtlopevoc ayaba. The He-
brew, according to Ewald, is as
follows: — ‘How lovely upon

u 4

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

296 [Cu,

< oe , eo
moses TV edayyedilouevar ! dyad. ahd ov TavTES UTTH-
D ev io. "Hoatas yap éyer Kupue, tis emi-
KOVOQV TM EVAYYEAL. oatas yap Aey ples
wn ‘a A , > > ‘al € ae \
oTevoen TH AKON hav ; apa Tiatis E€ axons, 7 d€ akon
aA g ‘ > ¥ la)

Sud. Pyjparos ypirrov.” dda. heya, by OVK NKOVETAY ; MEVOUY
> la \ ‘al Fg gin € , 2A A. 22 %
ye Eis racav thy ynv e&p bev 6 Pboyyos avtTav, Kal els TA
Tépara THS oiKoupérys TA prypata avTav. adda héyo,
pr Iopand ovk eyvw®; mpetos Mavons héyer Eyo wapa-
iprdco tuas em ovk eOvea, ext ever acvvéTo Tapopyw
bas. “Haatas dé doto\ua Kat héyer EvpeOny | €v]* rots

a Q fa) > \ > / > ~ + s--
ewe pn Cytovow, éudharyns eyevounv [eév] Tots eye pr) erre-

lal ‘ s \ > \ / 7 \ e /
potaow. mpos 6€ Tov “Iapand héyer “Ohnv THY Hpépav
1 Add eiphyny trav ebaryyeACoudvwy Td. 2 Jeod.
* Om. &.

3 uh odk eyvw 'lopana,

the mountains are the feet of
him that proclaimeth joy !”

The citation in the New Tes-
tament is rather nearer to the
Hebrew than to the LXX., which,
however, as the Apostle has
changed the number and omitted
the beautiful figure ért tov dpéwr,
it is not certain that he is quoting.
See Essay on Quotations, vol. i.

16. But here is an explanation
of our difficulty. It was not that
they were without the glad tidings
of the Gospel, but that they re-
fused to listen to them. (Comp.
ch. ili. 8.:—- “For what if some
did not believe?”) This, too, was
shadowed forth in the words of
prophecy. When the prophet
says, “ Who hath believed our
report?” he clearly implies that
some did not believe. There the
link was wanting, not in the
preaching of the Gospel (comp.
txiorevoev), but in the belief of
the hearer.

17. The words of Isaiah are
made the ground of a further in-
ference, which is also the answer
to the question which was started

in ver. 14.: “ How are they to
believe him whom they have not
heard?” So far, at any rate, we
may conclude that “Faith cometh
by hearing,” to which the Apostle
adds, as if led on by verbal asso-
ciation, and “hearing comes by
words, the word of Christ.”

18. Again the Apostle pursues
the word dxoy in a different di-
rection. How faith comes in
general we know; but did it
come to them? To which the
Apostle replies, by an abrupt ex-
clamation—“ But I say, have
they not heard?” adda is a pas-
sionate adversative. He had been
previously speaking of Jews;
here he includes Jews and Gen-
tiles. We may answer, he says,
in the words of the Psalmist, —
“ Their sound is gone out into all
lands, and their voice unto the
ends of the earth.” Ps. xix. *.
from the LXX.

20

21

19. But I say (to put the

case more precisely), Did not
Israel know? Did not know,
what ?— the Gospel, or the word
of God in general, or the rejection

16
17

18

19

20

21

Ver. 16—21.] _ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 297

feet of them! that bring glad tidings of good things!
But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Esaias
saith, Lord, who hath believed our report? So then
faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of
Christ.? But I say, Have they not heard? Nay rather*,
their sound went into all the earth, and their words
unto the ends of the world. But I say, Did not Israel
know? First Moses saith, I will provoke you to jealousy
by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation [

will anger you.

But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I

was found in® them that sought me not; I was made

manifest in*® them that asked not after me.

? Add That preach the gospel of peace and.

of the Jews in particular? The
latter agrees best with the words
which follow :— “First, Moses
prophesies of the Jews being pro-
voked to anger by the Gentiles.”
But, on the other hand, what the
previous context requires is, not
the rejection of the Jews, but the
Gospel or the Word of God in
- aesitek nor would the laws of
anguage allow us to anticipate
what follows as the subject of
éyvw. “But I say, did not Israel
know of the rejection of the
Jews, of which I am about to
speak?” The truth seems to be,
that what was to be supplied after
éyvw, was not precisely in the
Apostle’s mind. He was think-
ing of the Gospel; but with the
Gospel the rejection of the Jews
was so closely connected, that he
easily makes the transition from
one to the other.

mpatoc Mwvoije. | First, that is,
before all others, Moses, as after
him the prophets. The words
which follow, are quoted from

But to

2 God. 3 Unto.

the LXX. (Deut. xxxii. 21.),
which differs in reading airove
for tpdac.

rapacnrwow.| Comp. xi. 13.

20. ’Hoatac dé. | Moses speaks
first obscurely ; but afterwards
Ksaias freely and boldly, and, as
it were, without fear of the Jews,
says, “I was found of them that
sought me not.”

etpéOnv.| What is already
past, in the language of the pro-
phet, is made present in the
application by the Apostle.

21. But to the Jews far diffe-
rent is his language. In address-
ing them he says:—“AlIl day
long I stretched forth my hands
to a disobedient and gainsaying
people.” Both passages are taken
from Isa. Ixv. 1, 2., with slight
variations from the version of
the LX X., which is as follows : —
Eppavijc eyevnOny rote Ee jun) EwEpw-
Toow, evpEeOny Tolg Ene py Syrovorr’
el@a, toov eipu TO EOvEL, of OK EKa-
Aeoav pov TO bvopa. éeberéraca
Tug YE~pag prov GAny Thy hpéepay

298

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cas X.

9 , \ A+ \ ‘ 9 A a6
e€eTeTAoa TAS XELPas Pou T POs Naov amrevOovvra KQUL AVTL-

héyovra.

mpoc Nady areBovvra Kal ayriré-
yovra. Here it is obvious that
the nation referred to is in both
verses the same, viz. the Jews.
The Apostle was perhaps led by
the sound of the word z@voc to
apply the first verse to the Gen-
tiles.

Such is the mode in which the
Apostle clothes his thoughts.

The language of the Old Testa-
ment is not the proof of the
doctrine which he is teaching,
but the expression of it. He
sees the great fact before him
of the acceptance of the Gentiles
and the rejection of the Jews,
and reads the prophecies by the
light of that fact. The page of
the Old Testament sparkles be-
fore his eyes with intimations of

Ver. 21.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

299

Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my
hands unto a disobedient and gainsaying people.

the purposes of God. There is
an analogy between the circum-
stances of Israel, now and for-
merly, dimly visible. To the
mind of the Apostle this analogy
does not present itself as to the
mind of the author of the He-
brews, as embodied in the whole
constitution and history of the
Jewish people, but in particular

events or separate expressions.
Hence, when passing from the
law to the Gospel, he is like one
declaring dark sayings of old.
And his language appears to us
fragmentary and unconnected,
because he takes his citations in
unusual senses, and places them
in a new connexion.

[Cu o aus

500 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Adyw obv, ph amacato 6 Oeds Tov hadv avTov, [* dv mpoe-
, > , 3
yvo ;| pn yevouto: Kal yap éyo Iopanhirns cit, ex omép-
’ , A , + 3.1 e N
patos "ABpadu, dudrns Bervapeiv. ovk amwoato 0 eds
Tov Nady avToOd, dv Tpodyvw. } OvK oldaTe ev “Hie. Ti héyer

nw ~ a> ‘
ypadyn; as evtvyyxdver TO Oe@ Kata Tov “Iopanh*, Kupre,

TOUS TpOPyTAas Tov aATEKTEWAV

1 Om. dy mpoeyva.

XJ. The whole of the three
chapters viii., ix., x. may be re-
garded as the passionate struggle
of conflicting emotions in the
Apostle’s mind,—zdre pev vuvi ce
—of his present and former self.
Are Israel saved, or not ? They
must be, for I also am one of
them. At last, the purpose of
God respecting them clears be-
fore his eyes. That they are
rejected is a fact ; but it is only
for a time, that the Gentiles may
be received. Hitherto he has
been occupied with laying the
broad foundation of a universal
Gospel. Is he the God of the
Jews only ? is he not also of the
Gentiles ? Yes ; of the Gentiles
also; and of the Gentiles ex-
clusively it seemed, but for the
remnant who are saved. Such
was the impression to which his
own reception would naturally
have led the Apostle, as he went
from city to city, finding no
hearers of the word, but Gentiles
only. Of the two divisions of
mankind, he seemed to lose one,
and gain the other. The medita-
tion of this fact had revealed to
him anew page in God’s dealings
with mankind. But now a fur-
ther insight into the purposes of
God breaks upon him. In the
order of Providence came the
Jew first, and afterwards the
Gentile ; and the Jew last re-

2 Add Aéywr.

3 \ fa iresan
» TA VVOLADTYNPLA DOV Ka-

® Add kat,

turning to the inheritance of his
fathers. ‘The erring branch that
has twined with the briars cf the
wilderness, is brought back to
its own olive, and the tree covers
the whole earth.

1. The prophets spoke in pa-
rables of the acceptance of the
Gentiles, and of the rejection of
the Jews. What is the inference
that we are to draw from this ?
That God has cast off his peo-
ple? The Apostle starts back
from the conclusion which, up to
this point, he has been seeking to
illustrate and enforce :—“I say,
God forbid! for I also am one
of them.” ;

azwoaro contains an allusion
to the ninety-fourth Psalm, from
which the Apostle has borrowed
the expression, é7t otk arwcerat
Kvptog rov Naoy avrov, ver. 14.

dv mooéyvu, A.A.f., om. B. C. G.
g.v. It has probably been in-
serted from v. 2. Compare viii.
1. for an instance of a similar
insertion.

kat yap éyw, For I also.| The
Apostle feels that the future of
his countrymen is bound up with
his own; as if he said, “ They
cannot be cast off, for then I
should be rejected; and they
will be accepted, because I am
accepted.” He recoils from the
one consequence, and is assured
of the other. He whom God

11

EE Ec

11

2 foreordained*]? God forbid.
of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Ver. 1—3.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

S01

I say then, Hath God cast away his people [’ which he

For I also am an Israelite,

God

hath not cast away his people which he foreordained.*
Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias ? how he
maketh intercession to God against Israel”, Lord, they

have killed thy prophets ’*,

1 Omit which he foreknew.

chose to be the Apostle to the
Gentiles could not be a cast-
away. ‘This is one way of draw-
ing out his thought. More simply,
and perhaps truly, it may be
said, that he is expressing the
feeling as of a parent over a
prodigal son, that “he cannot be
lost,” the true ground of which
is the affection which will not
bear to be separated from him.

For a similar particularity of
statement respecting his own
claim as an Israelite, compare
Phil. iii. 5.

2. God has not cast off his
people ; but, as heretofore, has
fulfilled his purpose towards a
remnant. The words dAaoyv oy
mpoéyvw have been translated
“which he foreknew,” in the
English Version, in accordance
with the signification of the word
mpoywwokev in some other pas-
sages (Acts, xxvi. 5.,2 Pet. iii.
17.). This, however, affords no
good opposition to adrwoaro, if it
can be said to have any meaning
at all. The clause is better ex-
plained ‘which he foreordained,”
or “respecting which he had a
purpose.” So in 1] Pet. i. 20., our
Saviour is called “a Lamb fore-
ordained before the foundation of
the world.” The Apostle means to
intimate that all which related to
Israel was predetermined. It is
a reason for believing that they

digged down thine altars ;

? Add saying. $ And,

are not rejected, that nothing hap-
pens to them which is not wpr-
opévyn Bovdry Kal rpoyvacer Tov Seod.
The consolation is of the same
kind as is implied in the words
of the heathen poet :—“ Non hee
sine numine divum eveniunt.”

év ‘Hiig,] in the place about
Elias (1 Kings, xix. 10.). This
is an instance of a common cus-
tom among the Jews of using
proper names as landmarks for
passages of Scripture ; so,in Ga-
briele, Dan. ix. 21., that is, in
the passage about Gabriel. The
quotation which follows is a-
bridged from the LXX.

évrvyxave,| “goes to God”
against Israel; evrvyyavw, accord-
ing to the analogy of dvrouat, and
other Greek words, from the sense
of “meeting with,” “going to,”
acquires in the later and ecclesi-
astical Greek a secondary notion
of “ prayer, supplication to.”

3, 4. Is it only I that say this?
Does not the Scripture say so
too? Elias comes to God as a
man might do now, and complains
that all Israel are rejected, and
that there is but one godly man
left. And the answer of God
gives him the same consolation
that we now have: “ Yet have
I left to myself seven thousand
men that have not bowed the
knee to Baal.”

It is doubtful with what de-

[Cu. XI¥.

302 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

‘\ ~ ~ la

Téokarbay, Kayo vredeiPOnv povos, Kat Cnrovaew Thy puynv
> \ , he > “~ € 4 . K aN

pov. adda Ti héyer avT@ O ypypatiopos; KareéAurov

a 4 > ¥ . 4,

€“avT@ emTakioyidious avdpas, olTwes OVK Exaprpay youu

ry > A A A lal >

7 Bdad. ovtws ody Kat & T@ viv Kailp@ heimpa KaT
4 > ¥

exhoynv xaputos yéyovey’ ei S€ xa puTi, ovKEeTL Ef Epywr,

, > a al

erel Xapis OvKETL yiverar yapis.' Ti obv; 6 emulyret

> 4 “ v4 > > 4 © de > X X > a ‘ ¢

Iopand, TodTo” ovk erérvxev ; 7 OE Exhoyn EmeTuXeEV* Ot

1 Add ef 5 é& %pywv, obk &rt ear) xdpis* éwel Td Epyov ox Eri early Epyor.

gree of precision the Apostle
would have applied the details of
the prophecy to the Jews of his
own day. He may, perhaps, be
thinking of himself as answering
to the person of Elias in the
words “I only am left alone ;” he
may possibly intend an allusion
to “those who killed the Lord
Jesus,” in the words “ Lord they
have slain thy prophets; ” whether
such analogies were present to
his mind or not, his main pur-
pose is clear, that purpose being
to inculeate the general lesson
that, when once before Israel had
been rejected, the oracle of God
said that a remnant should be
saved. :

4. dxpypariapdc.| The oracu-
lar response in the passage of 1
Kings, xix. 12. the “still small
voice.” The quotation which
follows is designedly altered, to
give point to the Apostle’s words.
In the original it does not come
immediately after the complaint
of the prophet, but is introduced
in connexion with the cruelties
of Jehu and Hazael, 1 Kings,
xix. :

Ver. 17. “And it shall be, that
him that is saved from the sword
of Hazael Jehu shall slay : and
him that is saved from the sword
of Jehu shall Elisha slay.”

Ver. 18. “ And thou shalt leave

2 rotTow,

in Israel 7000 men, all the knees
which have not bowed the knee
to Baal, and every mouth which
hath not kissed him.”

It is remarkable that the
number 7000 occurs in the next
chapter as the number of the
valiant men of Israel. The Apo-
stle is citing from memory; he is
not likely to have turned to the
original passage to select what
would suit his purpose.

tH Baax. | (1.) Older interpret-
ers explain the feminine article
before Baad, by supposing the
word eixovt to be understood, but
no other example is adduced of
such an omission. (2.) It has
been thought by Gesenius that the
feminine is here used as a mode
of contempt, as in some other
instances in Hebrew. It is doubt-
ful, however, how far such an
idiom, if it exist in any precisely
parallel case in Hebrew, would
be transferred to the Hellenistic
Greek. Would a Jew have said
i) Zeve by way of contempt ? (3.)
A more probable supposition is,
that there was a goddess, as well
as a god Baal; like Lunus and
Luna, in Latin. This feminine
occurs in several passages of the
LXX. :—

Judges, ii. 13. éddrpevoay rij
BaaX xai raic *"Aoraprace.

Judges, x. 6. éAdrpevoay rai¢

Ver. 4—8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 303

and I am left alone, and they seek my life. But what
saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to
myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the
knee to Baal. Even so then at this present time also
there is a remnant according to the election of grace
And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise
grace is no more grace.’ What then? hath not Israel’
obtained that which he seeketh for? But the elec-
tion hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded (accord-

1 Add But if it be of works, then it is no more grace: otherwise work is

no more work.

Baddeye cal raic ’Aoraprate.

So Hosea, ii. 10.; Jer. xi. 13.;
Tob. i. 5.

5. So now, at the present time,
God has chosen a remnant. In
the days of Elias there were more
worshippers of the true God than
any one could have imagined, in
Israel. Even so now, from the
Jews themselves, there are agreat
company of believers.

Kar’ éxNoyny xaptros, | according
to the election which grace
makes; gen. of the subject.

6. As in many other passages,
the Apostle is led back by the
association of words to the great
antithesis. Compare chap. iv 4.,
tp O€ épyalopévy 6 puaboc ov do-
yigerat kara xapev, xT. d.3 Eph.
li. 9., ov« €& Epywy iva ph Tee Kav-
xhonra. “But if of grace, not
as the Jews suppose by obedi-
ence to the law ; for grace ceases
to be grace, when we bring in
works.” In these words the
Apostle is already taking up the
other side of the argument, that
is, he is showing why Israel was
rejected, not why a remnant was
spared.

Inthe Textus Receptus is added
the parallel clause, resting on

* Israel hath not,

very inferior though ancient MS.
authority, and even thus requir-
ing help from emendation, —
ei de €& Epywr, ovK Ere €oTi yapic,
ETEL TO Epyoy ovKETe eoTivy Epyor.
It is not necessary to argue
whether or not this clause is
in character with the style of
St. Paul, on which ground pro-
bably no fair objection could be
raised to it, when the want of
external evidence _ sufficiently
condemns it.

7. réovv ;| What is the conclu-
sion then? The Apostle checks the
digression which was once more
carrying him away. Is Israel
saved? Is Israel lost? Neither,
exactly. It has not attained what
it is seeking for, but a portion of
Israel has attained it.

Such is the way of taking the
passage according to the Textus
Receptus and the English version,
against which, as the question
is only one of a stop, manu-
script authority cannot be set in
the scale.

The connexion will have
to be drawn out somewhat
differently if, with Lachmann,
we place a note of interrogation
after émérvyev. “What is the

304

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. XI.

>”
Sé Aourot érwpdOynszar, Kalas yéypartar Edaxev adrots 6
la) la) \
beds mvedpa KataviEews, 6f0adpovs Tov ph Bdrérew Kal

> A g la 4, e /
@TA TOD [7 GKOVELV, EWS THS TONMEPOV NMEpPAS.

A
Kat Aavetd

la / \
héyer, TevnPytw 7 tpdmrela adrav eis wayida Kat eis Oypav
Kal els oKdvdoadov Kal els avTaTddoma avrots, oKoTiaOn-
C0 ‘\ b] “A ~ ‘\ / \ ‘\ lal
tocav ot obOarpot ad’tav Tod py Br€TEW, Kal TOY VvaTOV

> “A \ \ ,
avTav dua TaVvTOs TVyKaprpor.

conclusion then? Has not Israel
obtained what it seeks for? It
may be, not. This makes no dif-
ference; the election has obtained
it, and the hardness of heart of
the rest only fulfilled the pre-
dictions of prophecy.” Accord-
ing to this way of punctuating
the passage, the question is tenta-
tive, as in Rom. iii. 3.

éni¢nret, | which has far greater
MS. authority in its favour than
the imperfect éreZhre, G. fi g. v.,
may be explained by supposing
a reference to the expectation of
the Messiah among the Jews in
the days of the Apostle.

8. As in chap. iv., Moses and
the Psalmist are quoted in suc-
cession, to illustrate the Apostle’s
statement. ‘This was only what
Moses said —“ God gave them the
spirit of torpor, eyes that they
should not see, and ears that they
should not hear unto this day”
(as was then said, and we still
repeat).

The quotation is taken, though
not precisely as it stands, from
Deut. xxix. 4., where the last
words occur with a slight change;
probably there is also a recol-
lection of the passage so often
quoted in the Gospels and Acts,
Isaiah, vi. 10. The expression
Tvevna Karavviewe is introduced
from Isaiah, xxix. 10.

Kkaravvéce is derived from kara-
vucow, to pierce, wound. Both

words are used in a metaphorical
sense, the substantive meaning
“sadness,” the verb “ to arouse sad-
ness.” ‘They acquire in the LXX.
a further sense of “torpor,” “to
cause torpor,” as in Ps. lx, 5., Is.
xxix. 10., analogous to the tran-
sition of ideas in the words smit-
ten or stricken in English ; “tor-
por” is the meaning of cardvviic
in this passage.

9, 10. And David (in Ps. Ixix.
23.) uses the same language: —
“ Let their table be made a snare
unto them, and a gin and an
offence and a retribution. Let
them have the evils of old age,
blindness and bent limbs.”

St. Paul quotes this passage,
not in its original sense of a
malediction against the enemies
of God, but as a proof of the re-
jection of the Jews. The original

passage is one of those which in ~

all ages have been a stumbling-
block to the readers of Scripture,

in which the spirit of the Old —

Testament appears most unlike
the spirit of the New. With the
view of escaping from what is
revolting to Christian feelings, it
has not been uncommon to con-
strue the imperative moods as
future tenses. The Psalmist or
prophet is supposed to be predict-
ing, not imprecating, the destruc-
tion of his enemies. But the
spirit of these passages cannot
be altered by a change of tense

10

40

VER. 8—10.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

305

ing as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of
torpor*, eyes that they should not see, and ears that
they should not hear ;) unto thisday. And David saith,
Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a
stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them: let their
eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down

their back alway.

or mood ; neither is it consistent,
in such a psalm, for example, as
the Ixviii., to read the first por-
tion of the psalm as a prayer or
wish, and refuse to consider the
remainder as an imprecation. It
is better to admit. what the words
of the passage will not allow us
to deny, that the Psalmist is im-
precating God’s wrath against
his own enemies. But first his
enemies are God’s enemies, so
that his bitter wordsagainst them
lose the character of merely pri-
vate enmity. Secondly, thestate
of life in which such a prayer
could be uttered by a “man after
God’s own heart,” is altogether
different from our own. It was
a state in which good and evil
worked with greater power in
the same individual, and in which
a greater mixture of good and
evil, of gentleness and fierceness,
existed together than we can
easily imagine. The Spirit of
God was working “in the un-
tamed chaos of the affections,”
but also leaving them often in
their original strength and law-
lessness. David curses his ene-
mies, believing them to be the
enemies of God. The Christian
cannot curse even the enemies of
God, still less his own. This
contrast we need not hesitate to
admit ; if the writers of the Old
Testament did not scruple to dis-

VOL. ITI.

own “the visitation of the sins of
the fathers upon the children ;”
neither need werefuse tosay with
Grotius, “Eis ex spiritu legis
optat Davides paria.”

9. i rparefa.| Let their table,
spread with the banquet, be a
snare to them. We need not
think, with some commentators,
of the table of the Lord, which
is a snare to the unworthy par-
takers of it, or of the Paschal
Lamb, which may be said, in a
certain sense, to have ensnared
the Jews at the destruction of
Jerusalem ; still less of the tables
of the money-changers, and least
of all of the Temple, which is re-
garded as synonymous with the
altar of the Temple, and this with
the table here spoken of. The
meaning is better illustrated by >
the words of Shakespeare : —
“Poison be their drink. Gall,
worse than gall, the daintiest that
they taste.”

Comp. the preceding verse of
the psalm: “They gave me gall
for my meat, and in my thirst
they gave me vinegar to drink.”

ei¢ Shpay, | either “for a cause
of their becoming a prey,” or pro-
bably, in Alexandrian Greek, for
a trap or gin.” Such appears to
be the meaning of the word in
Ps. xxxiv. 8., 4 Spa iy expuve,
where as here rayic has preceded.

10. rov vérov abrév.] Bow

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XI.

306

EV OUV, [L1) & U f ; pn yevouTo* ahha
Aéyw odv, py erTacay Wa TETWTW ; PN Y
A “4 A 4 b X
TQ avTdav TapaTTopat. Y TwTHpLA TOLS eOverw els TO
la , 3. Le ‘a
Tapalyhocat avtTovs. ei O€ TO TAPATTOPLA AUTWY aovTos
yg lal lad A ‘ l4 A
KOG[LOV Kal TO ATTHLA avTOV TAOVTOS EOVaY, TOT badov
N , 2A £ ty Bet dé 0 972 9
7d TAApopa adtav. tptv Sé' heyw Tois veow. Ep ovov
ae lal \ 6
pev odv®? eipi éya eOvadv dmdatodos, THY Siakoviay pov
\ , \ rd
So€dlw; a twos Tapalnhdcw pov THY Gapka Kal Twow
ae 2 A p) \ “es \ 2 A . ,
Twas €€ avTav. ei yap 7 amoBo\n avTav Katahhayy Koo-

1 yap.

down their neck, either with old
age or slavery.

11. Language like this would
seem to imply that Israel has
fallen. The cup of God’s wrath
must be full against those of
whom such things are said. But
the Apostle has not forgotten the
other side of his argument, from
which he digressed for a mo-
ment. Is their stumble a fall?
he asks (the very word éxraay
prepares the way for the con-
clusion at which he is aiming) ;
or. (if we take the words érra:cay
and wéowowv in a metaphorical
sense), have they erred so as
utterly to fall away from grace ?
The Apostle, with the words of
Moses, which he had quoted in
the previous chapter, still in his
mind, replies: “Not so;” their
fall was but a Divine economy,
in which the Gentiles alternated
with the Jews. ‘The temporary
precedence of the Gentiles was
intended to have, and may have,
_ the effect of arousing them to
jealousy. As in other passages,
the Apostle recovers the lost
theme by repeating the same
formula with which he com-
menced — Aéyw ody.

}) cwrnpia, | the salvation which
answers to this fall or which is
given to the Gentiles ; rote é0veor,

2 Om, ody.

a possessive dativeafter } cwrnpia,
or more probably after a verb un-
derstood. The word zrapalni\oow
alludes to the passage from Deut.
(xxxii. 21.), which has been al-
ready referred to (x. 19.)

12. rdovro¢g Kéopov,| the en-
richment of the world. The word
kdopo¢g is general, though here
the connexion shows the Gentiles
to be chiefly inthe Apostle’s mind.

kal ro Wrrnua avrov.| Their
inferiority, being #rrovec, frro-
plevot, 18 opposed to zAovroc EOv er,
and also ro tAfpwpa, their ful-
ness. In the latter word is in-
cluded the fulfilment of God’s
purposes (a secondary thought,
which enters also into the mean-
ing of rAjpwpya Tov xpdvov, Ter
kap@v), as well as the filling up
of the numbers of the elect.
Israel may be said to be filled up
when all Israelites are included
and there is no more room left in
the measures of Providence. |

13. tyity d& A~yw Tote eOvecey. |
But in saying this, I am as one
addressing those who are without.
I speak not to the Jews them-
selves, but to you Gentiles. As
though he said, “ Judge ye what
I say, who are spectators of this
work of God, and know what
blessings you have received by
the partial rejection of the Jews.”

ll

12

13

14
15

_

11

Ver. 11—15.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 307

I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall ?
God forbid: but rather through their fall is salvation

- unto the Gentiles come, for to provoke them to jealousy.

12
13
14

15

Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and
the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how
much more their fulness? But! to you Gentiles I speak,
nay rather **, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gen-
tiles, I magnify mine office: if by any means I may
provoke to emulation them which are my flesh, and
may™* save some of them. For if the casting away of
them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the re-

1 For.

ép dooy pev ovy eit eyw.| Itis
better, with Lachmann,to separate
these words by a full stop from
the preceding. ‘The Apostle is
beginning anew thought, in which
he applies the argument which
has been just used, to his own
position as Apostle of the Gen-
tiles. He “goes off” upon the
word Gentiles. “Nay, I do not
hide but rather magnify mine
office of Apostle of the Gentiles,
in the hope that I may rouse my
kinsmen to jealousy, and save, I
will not venture to say all, but a
few of them.” The name of apo-
stleship of the Gentiles was odious
to the Jews. The Apostle does
seek to mitigate this hatred or
put away the odious name. His
hope mounts higher that:a whole-
some shame at the conversion of
the heathen may bring back his
countrymen to the truth. Com-
pare zapaZnAGoa: in ver. 11.

According to another way of
taking the passage, the Apostle is
supposed to say—“ As the Apostle
of the Gentiles, I magnify mine
office to include the Jews; the
term £0yy is ambiguous and com-

2 Om. nay rather.

prehends both.” This is more
than is contained in the text, and
destroys the point of the words,
Ed Ocov pév ovy Eipt éyw EeOvwv
amdéoroXoe.

According to a third view the
Apostle is excusing himself to
the Gentiles for the honour he
may be supposed to have done to
the Jews in the preceding words,
in extenuation of which he pleads
that it is the glory of his office as
Apostle of Gentiles to rouse the
Jews to jealousy as this would be
the enrichment of the Gentiles,
and of all mankind. ‘Too much
has here also to be supplied ; and
the connexion, though more con-
tinuous, is obscure and laboured.

15. Neither is it a merely vi-
sionary hope that some of them
shall be saved. “For as I said
above, so say I now again ; if the
casting away of them be the re-
concilement of the world, what
shall the receiving of them be but
life from the dead.” In more
senses than one, it might be said,
that the casting away of the Jews
was the reconciliation of the world,
(1.) as they were simultaneous ;

x 2

308

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XI.

A 5 a > ,
pou, Tis 7 Tpdadyprpis et pH Cot) ex vexpGv; el SE Y aarapy7
¢ , \ * , ‘\ >. he e7 e 4 ‘ € ». LO >
ayia, Kai TO dvpapa: Kal ei H pila ayia, Kal ol KAaOoL. Eb

la re) x
dé TwWes TOV KAddav e€exdcOnoav, od Sé aypLédatos Ov
A X ~ e7 \ A
evexevtpia Ons ev adTois Kal ovyKOWwVOs THs pilyns Kal THS
TioTHTOS THS eAatas eyevov, PH KaTaKavy® TOV Khddwv:
> \ A > ‘ \ cs 4 IAA: e
ei O€ KaTakavxaoat, ov ov THY pilav Baotales, add’ y

(2.) as without the doing away
of the law of Moses, the Gentiles
could not have been admitted.

The words {wy ex vexpov have
had more than one meaning as-
signed to them :—(1.) Life out of
death ; the house of Israel who
are dead, shall be alive again.
Compare chap. iv. 17—20. But
the connexion requires that the
benefit should be one in which
Gentiles as well as Jews are par-
takers. There would be a
want of point in saying, “If
their casting away be reconcile-
ment to the world, what shall
their acceptance be, but the
quickening of the Jews into life ?”
(2.) It is better, therefore, to take
fw éx vexpov of some undefined
spiritual good, of which Gentile
and Jew alike have a share, and
which, in comparison of their
former state may be regarded as
resurrection ; the thought, how-
ever, of their prior state, is sub-
ordinate. Least of all in a cli-
max, should the meaning of each
word which the Apostle uses be
exactly analysed. Words fail
him, and he employs the strongest
that he can find, thinking rather
of their general force than of
their precise meaning.

16. The last argument might
be described in modern language
as an argument from analogy ;
this which follows, as an argu-
ment from tendencies. As the
beginning is, so shall the comple-

tion be ; as the cause is, so shall
the effect be ; as the part, so the
whole. In a similar way the
Apostle argues in the 1 Cor. vii.
14., that “the unbelieving hus-
band is sanctified in the wife,”
that children are holy if their
parents are so; that “if while we
were yet sinners Christ died for
us, much more being justified we
shall be saved” (Rom. v. 9.) 3
that “ he which hath begun a good
work will perform it until the
day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. i. 6.).
The figures dzapyf and piZa seem
intended to express two different
phases of the Apostle’s argument.
"Arapyh = the firstfruits of the
Gospel ; gvpaya, the mass from
which the firstfruits are taken,
and which is consecrated by their
oblation (Num. xy. 21.). The
image is a favourite one with St.
Paul, occurring in 1 Cor. v. 6,
Gal. v. 9., as well as here.
Stripped of its figure, the mean-
ing of the clause will be: — As
some Jews are believers, all Jews
shall one day become so; the
“ firstfruits” of the Gospel con-
secrate the nation to God. The
word piZa, on the other hand, may
have several associations. It may
either mean the patriarchs (cf.
below, verse 28., “beloved for
the fathers’ sakes”); or the Jew-
ish dispensation generally ; or the
Christian Church, which was the
stock, new yet old, from which
the branches were broken off.

18

16

17

18

Vr. 16—18.]

ceiving of them be, but life from the dead?

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

309
And* if the

firstfruit be holy, the lump is also holy: and if the root

be holy, so are the branches.

But* if some of the

branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree,
wert graffed in among them, and with them becamest *
partaker of the root and fatness of the olive tree; boast
not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest

This last interpretation best pre-
serves the parallelism of the
clauses, and is most in keeping
with ver.18. For the use of the
word ayia, comp. ch. vii. 12. : —
“So then the law is holy, and
the commandment holy, and just,
and good.”

17. ei dé revec.] The Apostle
anticipates an objection, “ that
some of the branches were broken
off.” It is the ever recurring ré
ydp ei hriornoay tiveg (ili. 3.)
in a new form. In the words
ayptéhaiog and ovyKowwvoe rife
pifn¢ the Apostle is preparing
his answer.

The paronomasia in kAddo and
éEexhacOnoay, which is repeated
in v. 19., is hardly translatable
in English: “If some of the
branches ceased to be branches,”
&c.; comp. ii. 1., xii. 3., 1 Cor. xi.
31, 32., and many other passages
for similar plays of words, in
which the Apostle is said to have
a peculiar delight, or rather
which he often seems to employ
from a defect of expression.

The olive tree, like the vine, is
used in the Old Testament (Jer.
xi. 16.) asa figure of the house of
Israel. No image could be more
natural to an inhabitant of Pales-
tine. The relative dignity rather
than the fruitfulness of the cul-
tivated and wild olive is here the
point of similarity. Those who
are acquainted with the subject

x 3

of grafting trees, observe that
the comparison fails, because it is
not the new which derives strength
from the old, but the old from the
new. Such an observation may
be placed on a level with the re-
mark which is sometimes thought
to reflect light on the meaning of
the parable of the wheat and
tares, “ that wheat is only another
kind of tares.” Our Lord and
St. Paul speak not as botanists
or men of science, but in the
familiar language of ordinary
life.

18. ei déxarak.... piace. | But
if you do boast, remember this: it
is you who are dependent on the
root, not the root on you. The
Apostle is not speaking of the
Old Testament as the root of the
New, but of the Christian Church,
the spiritual Israel, which is old
and new at once, the root on
which the Gentiles are ingrafted
branches, and from which the
Jews are broken off.

19. The thought already latent
in ver. 17. is distinctly brought
out; “therefore you will say : —
I was put in their place.” They
were broken off that I might be
grafted in. :

20. I grant it. [St. Paul has
already said the same in other
words at ver. 11.] But it is
another and a more practical les-
son I would have you learn from
the same fact. They were broken

310 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XI.

a , Y 9 A
pila oé. épets obv "E€exkdoc Onoav" Khddot, Wa eya éyKev-
la a ef 3 , b r , @ \ de al ,
tps. Kahds. TH amuotia exdacOnoav, ov d€ TH TiaTeL
a. la) > \ c \
eaTnkas- py wiyndrodpove, dhda poBovd. ei yap 6 Oeds Tov
la) , +
Kata piow Kradwv ovdK éfeioato, ovdé cov dhetoera.” ide
obv ypnoToryTa Kal daroTopiay Geod. emt pév TOs TEcdv-
by) A Be ih Nh de X / 0 A4 3S > ,
Tas amotopmia®, émt dé o€ yxpyatoTys Oeod*, €ay emipeivys
,
Th xXpnotorynte émel Kal OV ExkoTHOY. KaxKetvor dé, Eav
lal 3

ph eryseltvrorow TH amiotia, eyKevtpicOncovrar: Svvatods
yap eotw 6 Oeds mahw eyKevTpioat avTovs* eb yap od
> lal A 4 > “4 > 4 \ ‘ ,

ex THS KaTa piow eeKdmys aypiehaiov Kal mapa dvow
5 , > , , na a : N
evexevtpla Ons eis Kah\u€haLov, TOow paddov OUTOL OL KATA

ra > , ‘a Lou > ,
pvow eykertpicOyoovTa. TH Loig Edata.

2 unmws ovde... pelonrat

1 Add oi.

off because of unbelief, and you
stand by the faith which they
had not. Be humble and fear
for yourselves.

Th aroria. | Comp. ver. 30. ri
rourwy ameWeia. ‘They are datives
of the reason or cause, as in Soph.
Antig. 387. : oxoNi y av ee
devp’ ay ébnvxovy éy® raic caic
amettaic,

21. What was true of them is
still more true of you. The ori-
ginal branches had a sort of
claim on God, and yet he did not
spare them. No, and he will not
spare you.

ovde cov deicerat.| Two other
readings, one of which is that of
the Textus Receptus, pjrwc ovde
700 deionra, and phmw¢ oOvde cod
geloerat, express, with different
degrees of emphasis, the same
meaning.

Let us cast a look over the
connexion of the last ten verses.
At ver. 12. the Apostle had
spoken of the “diminishing of
the Israelite” being the “ enrich-
ment of the Gentile.” This led
to the thought of the still greater

3 groroulay, 4 xpnorétynTa, Om. Seov,

gain which was to accrue to the
Gentile from the restoration of
the Israelite. Therefore also the
restoration of Israel naturally
formed a part of that Gospel
which he preached among the
Gentiles. And that Gospel he
would make much of and thrust
forward, if only that it might
react upon his countrymen.
For that Israel would be
restored was as true as that
the firstfruits consecrated the
lump, or that the root implied
the tree. And the Gentile should
remember that he was not the
original stock, but the branch
which was afterwards grafted in.
Still the Apostle observes a loop-
hole in the argument through
which Gentile pretensions may
creep in. He may say, Granted;
Iam not the root only the branch,
but it was they who gave place
to me ; they were cut off that I
might be grafted in. Good, says
the Apostle, learn of them but
another lesson. Not “they were
cut off that I might be grafted
in;” but “I may be cut off too.”

19
20

21
22

23

24

19
20

21
22

23

24

Ver. 19—24.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 311

not the root, but the root thee. Thou wilt say then,
The branches were broken off, that I might be graffed
in. Well; because of unbelief they were broken off,
and thou standest by faith. Se not highminded, but
fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take
heed lest he also spare not thee. Behold therefore the
goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, seve-
rity; but toward thee, goodness, the goodness of God!
if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also
shalt be cut off. And they also, if they abide not in
unbelief, shall be graffed in: for God is able to graff
them in again. For if thou wert cut out of the olive
tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary
to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall
these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into

1 Om. of God.

22. Behold, a twofold lesson:
mercy and severity ; mercy to
you, severity to them. And yet
this lesson is one that may make
you rejoice with trembling ; for
you may yet change places.

Like dicaocivn, yapic, OéAXnpa,
and other words, ypnordrn¢ is
used in this passage, for the ef-
fect as well as the cause ; for the
state produced in man, as well as
for the goodness of God, which
produces that state. “ Mercy if
you abide in his mercy,” is said
in the same way as grace if you
abide in his grace. See Essay on
Abstract ideas of the New Tes-
tament, at the end of ch. ii.

For the change in construc-
tion from the accusative to the
nominative, compare chapter ii.
7, 8.

éret kai ov.| Since, if you do
not ; an elliptical form of expres-
sion in which the protasis is

supplied from the connexion.
Comp. v. 6. érel } ydpic ovKére
yiverat yapre.

23. You shall change places ;
you shall be cut off, and they, if
they cease from unbelief, shall
be grafted in. For it is only
their unbelief, and not any defect
in the power of God, that pre-
vents their being again en-
grafted.

Comp. 2 Cor. iii. 15, 16., “ But
even unto this day, when Moses
is read, the veil is upon their
heart. Nevertheless, when he
shall turn to the Lord, the veil
shall be taken away.”

24. is an amplification of 23.,
“God is able to graft them in
again.” Itis an easier and more
natural thing to restore them to
their own olive, than to graft
you into it. It is uneertain, and
is of no great importance, whe-
ther ot is the article or the re-

x4

312

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XT.

la A / \ 4, A
Ov yap Dero bas dyvoety, adedfol, TO wYTTHpLOV TOUTO,
> A 4 4 > ‘\ 4
iva pi) ATE Tap EavTots Ppdvipor, OTL TAPWOLS ATO LEpoUs
A » @ Ns , nA on A >
TO "Iopand yéyovev axpis 00 TO Tjpopa Tav eOvav eic-

g lal \ , \ ,
Oy. Kat ovtws was Iopaid cwbjoera, Kaas yeypa-
> , b] , > ‘\
ara. H&e éx Yuav 6 pudpevos,' amoarpeer aveBelas amo

1 Add kal.

lative ;. whether, that is, the
last clause is to be translated,
‘How much more shall these
who are the natural branches be
engrafted in their own olive ?”
or, “How much more shall
these (%. e. be engrafted), who
will be engrafted according to
nature in their own olive ?”

25. For I would have you
know, brethren, that this is the
secret purpose of God.

Comp. Eph. iii. 3—6.: “ How
that by revelation he made
known unto me the mystery ;
. .. which in other ages was
not made known unto the sons
of men, as it is now revealed
unto his holy apostles and pro-
phets by the Spirit; that the
Gentiles should be fellow heirs,
and of the same body.”

pvorhproy, | in reference to the
heathen mysteries, is a revealed
secret, a secret into which a
person is admitted, not one from
which they are excluded. Ana-
logous to this is the use of
pvorhproy in the New Testament.
It is applied to a secret which
God has revealed, known to
some and not to others, mani-
fested in the latter days, but
hidden previously. Thus the
Gospel is spoken of in Matt.
xiii. 11. as the mystery of the
kingdom of God. So Rom. xvi.
25.: “ Now to him that is able
to stablish you according to my
Gospel, and the preaching of

Jesus Christ, according to the
revelation of the mystery, which
hath been kept silent through
endless ages.” In Eph. v. 2.
the rite of marriage is spoken
of as a great mystery, typifying
Christ and the Church. So
“the mystery of godliness,” 1
Tim. iii. 16.; the mystery of
iniquity, 2 Thess. ii. 7.; “the
mystery of the seven stars,” Rev,
i. 20.; “Mystery Babylon the
great,” xvii. 5. In all these pas-
sages reference is made : —(1.)
to what is wonderful ; or, (2.) to
what is veiled under a figure ;
or, (3.) to what has been long

concealed or is so still to the

multitude of mankind; and in
all there is the correlative idea
of revelation. The use of the
word pvarfpiv in Scripture, af-
fords no grounds for the popu-
lar application of the term
“mystery” to the truths of the
Christian religion. It means
not what is, but what was a se-
cret, into which, if we may use
heathen language, the believer
has become initiated, which there
is no purpose to conceal from
mankind; rather which he “ would
not have other men ignorant of: ”
so far as it remains a secret it is
so because it is spiritually dis-
cerned, and some Christians, or
those who are not Christians,
have not the power of discern-
ment.

iva py are wap’ Eavroic gpdve-

25

26

Tn a ey -

"35

26

Vir. 25, 26.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

313

their own olive tree? For I would not, brethren, that
ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be
wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is
happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be
come in. And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is
written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer ;* he

1 "And,

pot.| The present position of the
Gentiles in relation to the Jews
was temporary and accidental ;
it was not to be made a ground
of boasting for any.

Twpwoi aro Hépoug, | a partial
hardening of theheart. Whether
the Apostle means “a hardening
of heart” which came over a
part of Israel, or a degree of har-
dening of heart coming over the
whole people, is not expressed.
The Apostle is arguing against
the Gentiles being puffed up, and
at the same time extenuating the
fault of his countrymen. “ For
I would wish you to know,
brethren, that this rejection of
the Jews is not total, but partial ;
it is but for a time, until the
number of the Gentiles is filled
up.”

TrANpwpa trav éOvoyr,| the full
number of the Gentiles, all that
were contained in the purposes
of God; like tAjpwpa Tov xpévov,
Gal. iv. 4.

eiaéhOn. | Compare Heb. iii. 19.
where, as here, the word is used
absolutely. The first portion of
ver. 25. is closely connected with
ver. 26.; the mystery was not so
much the partial rejection of
Israel as their final salvation.

26. mac “Iopand,| ¢%. e. the Is-
raelites who are hardened, as
well as those who believe.

It is evident, by the opposition
to the Gentiles that St. Paul is
here speaking, not of the spi-
ritual, but of the literal Israel.
His words should not, however,
be so pressed as to imply uni-
versal salvation, which was not
in his thoughts. ‘The language
of prophecy, and the feelings of
his own heart, alike told him that
Israel should be saved. But he
is thinking of the nation which
is to be accepted as a whole, not
of the individuals who composed
it. It may be said that even in
this modified sense the words of
the prophecy or aspiration have
not been fulfilled. We must an-
swer, no more has the Apostle’s
belief in the immediate coming
of Christ; it was the near wish
and prayer of his heart, but in
its accomplishment far off, and
to be realised only in the final
victory of good over evil.

Modern criticism detaches the
meaning of the Apostle from the
event of the prophecy. It has
no need to pervert his words,
from a determination as it may be
called, such as Luther expresses,
that the Jews shall not be saved,
or with Calvin to transfer them
to the Israel of God, because the
time seems to have passed. for
their literal fulfilment. Happy
would it have been for the for-

314 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XI.

"IaxdB* Kat avrn avrots h Tap E“ov diabyKy, OTav ddé-
awa TAS dpapTias avTOY. KaTa MeV TO Evayyéedov éxOpol
50 tuas, Kara dé tiv exoynv ayamytot dua Tods Tatépas *
dperapedrynta yap Ta xapiopata Kal n KAjows TOD Deod.
domep yap! tpuels Tote HreOyoate TH Oew, viv dé Hrey-
Onre th TovTwr amebeig, OVTwS Kal ObTOL viv Hrel\Onoay

ne , 7 y ees es a eee A ,
TO bpetépw ed€ct, Wa Kat avtot [viv]? éhenOdow: ovvé-
Kheoev yap 6 Beds ToUs mavras eis dmeiOevav, tva Tovs

1 Add kal,

tunes of the Jewish race and the
honour of the Christian name
had they never been wrongly
applied! (See on ver. 32.)

yéypanra. | The words quoted
are from Isaiah, lix. 20., a Mes-
sianic prophecy. ‘The citation is
not exact, as in the LXX. we
read, instead of é Luv, Evexev
Xwyv. In the Hebrew the dif-
ference is greater, the meaning
being, ‘“ The Redeemer shall
come to Zion and unto them
that turn from transgression in
Jacob.”

27. The remaining clause, éray
agéXwpat rac dpapriag av’ror, is
taken, with the alteration of a
letter, from Isaiah, xxvii. 9., the
former part of which verse nearly
resembles the quotation which
precedes:—0dua rovro agatpebh-
cera dvopia laxwP, Kai rovr6d éoruy
i) evrdoyia abrov, drav apéAwpae
TV dpapriavy avrov. Aiurn is ex-
plained by the words éray ag@é-
Awpa, “This,” viz., “when or
that I take away their sins;” cf.
1 John, v. 2.

28. Their case, the Apostle
says, may be looked at in two
ways. In reference to the Gos-
pel, they are rejected (éxOpoi),
and this you must regard as a
part of the mercy of God to you;
but they are still elect for the

2 Om. viv,

sake of their fathers, whom God
loved.

Compare Philo (De Justitia,
ii. 866. Mangey), where he says
that God will always show mercy
to the Jewish people, because of
the virtues of the patriarchs;
and (De Exsec. ii. 436.), that
God will receive their prayers
for their descendants.

29. aperapédynra yap Ta yxapi-
opara kal f KAjowg Tov Seov.| In

the same spirit in which the -

Apostle says, “ He that hath be-
gun a good work in you, will
continue it to the end ;” he says,
also, in reference not to indi-
viduals, but to nations, “ God is
unchangeable, what He has once
given, He cannot take back ;
those whom He has once called,
He will not cast out.” We know
what the Apostle teaches else-
where, that the gifts and calling
of God are not irrespective of
our acceptance and obedience.
But in this passage he makes
abstraction of the condition ; he
thinks only of the purpose of God,
whois not a man that He should
change His will arbitrarily, and
be one thing one day, and another
thing another, to the objects of
His favour. He feels that God
cannot desert the work of His
hands. Neither need we stop to

27
28

29
30

31

32

Ver. 27—32.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 315

shall turn away ungodlinesses* from Jacob: and* this is
my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their
sins. As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for
your sakes: but as touching the election, they are be-
loved for the fathers’ sakes. For the gifts and calling
of God are without repentance. For as ye in times
past have disobeyed* God, yet have now obtained mercy
through their disobedience*: even so have these also
now not believed through mercy to you*, that they
also now! may obtain mercy. For God shut* up all
together in unbelief, that he may* have mercy upon
all.

1 Om. now.

reason whether or in what way
this is reconcilable with the Di-
vine justice. The whole relations
of man to God and nature can

never be perceived at once: we -

see them “in part” “through a
glass,” under many aspects, of
which this is one.

30. God has inverted the order
of things ; you were once disobe-
dient, and now He has made their
disobedience a source of mercy to

ou.

31. “So they are disobedient (1.)
by reason of the mercy shown to
you, that they also may themselves
receive mercy ;” or (2.) “that they
may receive mercy by reason of
the mercy shown to you.” The
latter way of construing gives

the most point to the passage ;

the former agrees best with the
order of words and the paral-
lelism of the previous clause.

32. ovvéxXevser, | shut up: the
ovy is emphatic. Compare Gal.
ili. 22., ouvéxreev f) ypagy ra
mavra vp dpapriay. verse 23.
EppoupovvTo ovyKAELopmevot.

Such is the conclusion of the
doctrinal portion of the Epistle.

God concluded all under sin, as
was shown in the first chapters,
“that he might have mercy upon
all.” The steps by which the
Apostle has arrived at this con-
clusion, might be termed in mo-
dern language, “an argument
from analogy.” In the Old Tes-
tament the younger was preferred
to the elder, and God seemed to
deal with men irrespective of
their. actions, and in the utter
subversion of the true religion a
remnant was still preserved. We
may argue from the ways of God
then, to the ways of God now.
But, again, the very rejection of
the Jews is a kind of argument
from analogy for their acceptance:
what they were, the Gentiles are;
therefore, what the Gentiles are,
they will hecome. And if the
chosen are rejected, “ a fortiori”
shall they be again accepted. ‘They
have in them the root, the germ,
the firstfruits of holiness, in the
patriarchs who are their fathers,
and in the true Israel who have
already received the Gospel. It
is in accordance with the prin-
ciple formerly laid down by the

316

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

> , \ rs
mavtas édenoy. ® Babos mrovTOV kat Godias Kal yvarews

‘a ~ 3
Oeod, ws dve€epevvnta Ta KpiwaTa avTod Kat avegixviacTou

A a / X ,
at 6d0l avTov. Tis yap eyvw vovv Kupiov; 7 Tis avp-

b) a 3 rea x / 6 3 “A ." >
BovXos avrov eyeveTo ; 1 Tis TPOEOWKEV AUTM, KAL aVTA-

4 So y > b) A \ 5 > 3 A % b]
modoOnoeras avT@; OTL E€ avTOV Kal OL avTOU Kal Els

28 \ , 29 A € S4 > ‘ 2A a
QUTOV TA TAVTA* AVTW 1) o€a ELS TOUS ALWVAS, ALY.

Apostle, “where sin abounded,
grace did much more abound,”
that their rejection should be the
hope of their salvation.

And yet it will be urged, and
cannot be denied, that the Jewish
people are as they were ; in the
language of the Apostle, “even
unto this day when Moses is read
the veil is upon their hearts”
(2 Cor. iii. 15.). Judging hu-
manly, might we not say that
every century, if it has not in-
creased their animosity to the
Gospel, has rendered more inve-
terate those differences of thought
and habit, which to nations as to
men become a second nature, and
cannot be laid aside? How is
this to be reconciled with the
language of the Apostle ? Rather
let us admit that it is not to be
reconciled, and yet that the truth
of the Gospel may remain with
us still. It is “I,” not the Lord,
who am speaking, as an Israelite
of Israelites, within the circle of
the Jewish dispensation, after
the manner of the time, accord-
ing to the received mode of in-
terpreting prophecy in the schools
of Philo and the Rabbis. “I
cannot but utter what I hope and
feel.” There is no irreverence in
supposing that St. Paul, who
after the lapse of a few years

looked, not for the coming of
Christ, but rather for his own
departure to be with Christ,
would have changed his manner
of speech when, after eighteen
centuries, he found “all things
remaining as they were from the
beginning.” His spirit itself bids
us read his writings not in the
letter but in the spirit. He who

felt his views of God’s purposes”

gradually extending, whoread the
voice within him by the light of
daily experience, could never have
found fault with us for not at-
tempting to reach beyond the ho-
rizon Within which God has shut
us up.

33. is wrongly translated in the
English Version,—‘“O the depth
of the riches, both of the wisdom
and knowledge of God.” There is
no meaning in the word “ both,”
because there is no opposition
between “ the wisdom and know-
ledge of God.” The expression
movroe Yeov, in the attempt to
get rid of which the mistransla-
tion has probably arisen, is suffi-
ciently defended by Phil. iv. 19.,
6 €& Yedc pov mAnpwoe Tacay
xpeiav Uuoy Kara TO wovTOC av-
tov. Compare rdovro¢c e0vwy for
the metaphorical use of the word
m)ovroc, Which may be well ap-
plied to God, who is “the author

[Ccu. XI

33

33

34

35
36

Ver. 33—36.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 317

O the depth of the riches and* the wisdom and
knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judg-
ments, and his ways past finding out! For who hath
known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his
counsellor? or who hath first given to him, and it shall
be recompensed unto him again? For of him, and
through him, and to him, are all things: to him* be

glory for ever. Amen.

of every good and perfect gift,”
and ‘who giveth to all men libe-
rally, and upbraideth not.” As
codia and yv@or.g are connected
with ver. 34., so wAovroc with
ver. 35.
copia and yvior.e are opposed
chiefly as the more or less abstract
and generalterms. Besides this,
copia may be described as the
intellectual quality most akin to
moral ones ; the word yvéetc im-
plying the idea of acquired in-
formation, or of knowledge not
naturally known. sogia Seov may
be referred to the general provi-
dence of God ; yvéare, to the know-
ledge which he possessed of all
his works from the beginning :
the first answers to o ipbovdoc,
the second to vov¢ xvpiov, in the
34th verse. Compare Theodoret
(quoted by Fritsche): ra TpiaTravra
mpoc Ta Tpia reUerke, TOV mAovrov
kal mv oopiay Kat mY yvwou* TO
pey tic éyve vouV Kuplov m™poc THY
yoo, TO 0€ ric adpovdoc avrov
éyévero m™poc ld oopiay, TO oe tic
mpoedwxey aire kal avrarocobn-
oETat a’T@ Tpde TOY TodTOY.
At chapter ix. ver. 5., when
contemplating the former mercies

of God to Israel, he burst forth
into a doxology; now, as_ be-
holding the circle of his provi-
dence complete, he is lost in
ecstasy. Jew and Gentile are
alike concluded under sin, that
they may be alike saved, and the
one takes the place of the other
for a season, only that the other
may be in turn restored. Who,
looking at the present state, or at
the past history of the. world,
could have imagined this? But
such are the ways of God, as set
forth to us by the prophet. (Is.
xl. 13., which is again quoted in
1 Cor. ii. 16.)

36. é£ avrov,| from Him all
things spring ; ov airov, by Him
they are maintained ; cic airdyr,
to Him they all tend. As if the
Apostle has said :— He is the
beginning, middle, and end of all
things ; the source whence they
proceed ; the mean by which
they are wrought; the end at
which theyaim. Thisis the reason
why no man “ hath first given to
him ;” for all things are his.
Comp. -1 Cor. viii. 6.:— é od
Ta TATA Kal Hueic Eig avror.

318 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY.

Every reader of the Epistles must have remarked the opposite and
apparently inconsistent uses, which the Apostle St. Paul makes of the
Old Testament. This appearance of inconsistency arises out of the
different and almost conflicting statements, which may be read in the
Old Testament itself. The law and the prophets are their own wit-
nesses, but they are witnesses also to a truth which is beyond them.
Two spirits are found in them, and the Apostle sets aside the one,
that he may establish the other. When he says that— “the man that
doeth these things shall live in them,” x. 5., and again two verses
afterwards—“ the word is very nigh unto thee, even in thy mouth
and in thy heart,” he is using the authority of the law, first, that
out of its own mouth he may condemn the law ; secondly, that he
may confirm the Gospel by the authority of that which he condemns,
Still more striking are the contrasts of prophecy in which he
reads, not only the rejection of Israel, but its restoration ; the over-
ruling providence of God, as well as the free agency of man ;
not only as it is written, “ God gave unto them a spirit of heaviness,”
but, “ who hath believed our report ;” nor only, “ all day long I have
stretched forth my hand to a disobedient and gainsaying people,”
but ‘there shall come out of Sion a deliverer and He shall turn away
iniquities from Jacob.” Experience and faith seem to contend toge-
ther in the Apostle’s own mind, and alike to find an echo in the
two voices of prophecy.

It were much to be wished that we could agree upon a chrono-
logical arrangement of the Old Testament, which would approach

more nearly to the true order in which the books were written, than

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 319

that in which they have been handed down to us. Such an arrange-
ment would throw great light on the interpretation of prophecy.
At present, we scarcely resist the illusion exercised upon our minds
by “four prophets the greater, followed by twelve prophets the less ;”
some of the latter being of a prior date to any of the former. Even
the distinction of the law and the prophets as well as of the Psalms
and the prophets leads indirectly to a similar error. For many
elements of the prophetical spirit enter into the law, and legal pre-
cepts are repeated by the prophets. The continuity of Jewish
history is further broken by the Apocrypha. The four centuries
before Christ were as fruitful of hopes and struggles and changes of
thought and feeling in the Jewish people as any preceding period
of their existence as a nation, perhaps more so. And yet we piece
together the Old and New Testament as if the interval were blank
leaves only. Few if any English writers have ever attempted to
form a conception of the growth of the spirit of prophecy, from its
first beginnings in the law itself, as it may be traced in the lives and
characters of Samuel and David, and above all, of Elijah and his
immediate successor ; as it reappears a few years later, in the writ-
ten prophecies respecting the house of Israel, and the surrounding
nations (not even in the oldest of the prophets, without reference to
Messiah’s kingdom) ; or again after the carrying away of the ten
tribes, as it concentrates itself in Judah, uttering a sadder and more
mournful cry in the hour of captivity, yet in the multitude of
sorrows increasing the comfort ; the very dispersion of the people
widening the prospect of Christ’s kingdom, as the nation “is cut
short in righteousness,” God being so much the nearer to those who
draw near to Him.

Other reasons might be given why the study of the prophetical
writings has made little progress among us. It often seems as if the
only thing which could properly be the subject of study,—namely, the
meaning of prophecy, as it presented itself to the prophet’s own mind—
had been wholly lost sight of. There has been a jealousy of attempts

to explain by contemporary history what we would rather regard as a

320 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

light from heaven shining on some distant future. We have been
unwilling to receive any help, however imperfect, toward the better
understanding of the nature of prophecy, which might be drawn
from the comparison of “the religion of the Gentiles.” No account
has been taken of prophecy as a gift of the mind, common to early
stages of the world and of society, and to no other. The material
imagery which was its mode of thought (“I saw the Lord high and
lifted up, and his throne also filled the temple”), is resolved into
poetical ornament. The description in the prophecies themselves, of
the manner in which the prophet received the word of the Lord,
whether by seeing of the eye or hearing of the ear, and in which he
wrote it down and uttered it, has also been little considered. The
repetitions of the earlier prophets in the later ones have been noted
only as parallel passages in the margin of the Bible. Principles of
interpretation have been assumed, resting on no other basis than the
practice of interpreters. The fulfilment of prophecy has been sought
for in a series of events which have been sometimes bent to make
them fit, and one series of events has frequently taken the place
of another. Even the passing circumstances of to-day or yester-
day, at the distance of about two thousand years, and as many
miles, which are but shadows flitting on the mountains compared with
the deeper foundations of human history, are thought to be within the
range of the prophet’s eye. And it may be feared that, in attempt-
ing to establish a claim which, if it could be proved, might be made
also for heathen oracles and prophecies, commentators have some-
times lost sight of those great characteristics which distinguish
Hebrew prophecy from all other professing revelations of other
religions : (1.) the sense of the truthfulness, and holiness, and loving-
kindness of the Divine Being, with which the prophet is as one
possessed, which he can no more forget or doubt than he can cease
to be himself ; (2.) their growth, that is, their growing perception of
the moral nature of the revelation of God to man, apart from the com-
mandments of the law or the privileges of the house of Israel.

It would be a great external help to the perception of this increasing

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 321

purpose of prophecy, if the study of the prophetic writings were
commenced with an inquiry into the order in which the books of the
Old Testament follow one another. Yet, in the present day, how
could we come to an understanding about the first principles upon
which such an inquiry ought to be conducted? Not the prophecies
only, but the superstructures of interpreters of prophecy, would be
considered. Nor does criticism seem equal to the task of arranging,
on grounds often of internal evidence alone, not merely books, but
parts of books, in their precise order. Even the real arguments that
might be urged in favour of a particular arrangement, arising out of
doubtful considerations, or considerations of a kind which, however
certain, are hardly appreciable to any but critical scholars, could not
be expected to prevail when weighed in the balance against religious
feelings or the supposed voice of antiquity or agreement of the
Christian world.

The difficulty of arranging the prophecies of the Old Testament
in an exact chronological order, need not, however, prevent our
recognising general differences in their spirit and structure, such as
arise, partly out of the circumstances under which they were written
at different periods of Jewish history, partly also out of a difference
of feeling in contemporary prophets; sometimes from what may be
termed the action and reaction in the prophet’s own mind, which even
in the same prophecy will not allow him to forget that the God of
judgment remembers mercy. There are some prophecies more
national, of which the fortunes of the Jewish people are the only
subject; others more individual, seeming to enter more into the
recesses of the human soul, and which are, at the same time, more
universal, rising above earthly things, and passing into the distant
heaven. At one time the prophet embodies “these thoughts of
many hearts” as present, at another as future; in some cases as
following out of the irrevocable decree of God, in others as depen-
dent on the sin or repentance of man. At one moment he is looking
for the destruction of Israel, at another for its consolation; going

from one of these aspects of the heavenly vision to another, like

VOL. II. Y

322 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

St. Paul himself in successive verses. And sometimes he sees the
Lord’s house exalted in the top of the mountains, and the image of
the “ Wonderful Counsellor, the Mighty Prince, the Everlasting God.”
At other times, his vision is of the Servant whom it “ pleased the Lord
to bruise,” whose form was “marred more than that of the sons of
men,” who was “led as a lamb to the slaughter.”

National, individual, —spiritual, temporal, — present, future, —re-
jection, restoration, — faith, the law, — Providence, freewill,— mercy,
sacrifice,— Messiah suffering and triumphant,—are so many pairs of
opposites with reference to which the structure of prophecy admits
of being examined. It is true that such an examination is nothing
more than a translation or decomposition of prophecy into the modes
of thought of our own time, and is far from reproducing the living
image which presented itself to the eyes of the prophet. But, like
all criticism, it makes us think ; it enables us to observe fresh points
of connexion between the Old Testament and the New; it keeps us
from losing our way in the region of allegory or of modern history.
Many things are unlearnt as well as learnt by the aid of criticism ;
it clears the mind of conventional interpretations, teaching us to
look amid the symbols of time and place for the higher and universal
meaning.

Prophecy has a human as well as a divine element : that is to say,
it partakes of the ordinary workings of the mind. There is also
something beyond which the analogy of human knowledge fails to
explain. Could the prophet himself have been asked what was the
nature of that impulse by which he was carried away, he would
have replied that “the God of Israel was a living God” who had
“ordained him a prophet before he came forth from the womb.” Of
the divine element no other account can be given ;—“ it pleased God
to raise up individuals in a particular age and country, who had a
purer and loftier sense of truth than their fellow men.” Prophecy
would be no longer prophecy if we could untwist its soul. But the
human part admits of being analysed like poetry or history, of which

it is a kind of union; it is written with a man’s pen in a known

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 323

language; it is cast in the imaginative form of early language itself.
The truth of God comes into contact with the world, clothing itself
in human feelings, revealing the lesson of historical events. But
human feelings and the lesson of events vary, and in this sense the
prophetic lesson varies too. Even in the workings of our own minds
we may perceive this; those who think much about themselves and
God cannot but be conscious of great changes and transitions of
feeling at different periods of life. We are the creatures of impres-
sions and associations; and although Providence has not made our
knowledge of himself dependent on these impressions, he has allowed
it to be coloured by them. We cannot say that in the hours of
prosperity and adversity, in health and sickness, in poverty and
wealth, our sense of God’s dealings with us is absolutely the same;
still less, that all our prayers and aspirations have received the
answer that we wished or expected. And sometimes the thoughts of
our own hearts go before to God; at other times, the power of God ©
seems to anticipate the thoughts of our hearts. And sometimes, in
looking back at our past lives, it seems as if God had done every-
thing ; at other times, we are conscious of the movement of our own
' will. The wide world itself also, and the political fortunes of our
country have been enveloped in the light or darkness which rested
on our individual soul.

| Especially are we liable to look at religious truth under many
aspects, if we live amid changes of religious opinions, or are wit-
nesses of some revival or reaction in religion, or supposing our lot to
be cast in critical periods of history, such as extend the range and
_ powers of human nature, or certainly enlarge our experience of it.
Then the germs of new truths will subsist side by side with the
remains of old ones ; and thoughts that are really inconsistent, will
have a place together in our minds, without our being able to per-
ceive their inconsistency. The inconsistency will be traced by pos-
terity ; they will remark that up to a particular point we saw clearly ;
but that no man is beyond his age — there was a circle which we
could not pass. And some one living in our own day may look into

x¥ 2

324 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the future with “eagle eye;” he may weigh and balance with a sort
of omniscience the moral forces of the world, perhaps with some-
thing too much of confidence that the right will ultimately prevail
even on earth; and after ages may observe that his predictions were
not always fulfilled or not fulfilled at the time he said.

Such general reflections may serve as an introduction to what at
first appears an anomaly in prophecy,—that it has not one, but many
lessons ; and that the manner in which it teaches those lessons is
through the alternations of the human soul itself. There are failings
of prophecy, just as there are failings in our own anticipations of the
future. And sometimes when we had hoped to be delivered it has
seemed good to God to afflict us still. But it does not follow that
religion is therefore a cunningly devised fable, either now or then,
Neither the faith of the people, nor of the prophet, is shaken in the
God of their fathers because the prophecies are not realised before
their eyes ; because “ the vision,” as they said, “is delayed ;’ because
in many cases events seem to occur which make it impossible that it
should be accomplished. A true instinct still enables them to sepa-
rate the prophets of Jehovah from the numberless false prophets
with whom the land swarmed; they are gifted with the “same
discernment of spirits” which distinguished Micaiah from the 400
whom Ahab called. The internal evidence of the true prophet we
are able to recognise in the written prophecies also. In the ear-
liest as well as the latest of them there is the same spirit one and
continuous, the same witness of the invisible God, the same character
of the Jewish people, the same law of justice and mercy in the deal-
ings of Providence with respect to them, the same “ walking with
God” in the daily life of the prophet himself.

“ Novum Testamentum in vetere latet,” has come to be a favourite
word among theologians, who have thought they saw in the truths
of the Gospel the original design as well as the evangelical applica-
tion of the Mosaical law. With a deeper meaning, it may be said
that prophecy grows out of itself into the Gospel. Not, as some
extreme critics have conceived, that the facts of the Gospel history

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 325

are but the crystallisation of the imagery of prophecy. Say, rather,
that the river of the water of life is beginning again to flow. The
Son of God himself is “ that prophet ”—the prophet, not of one nation
only, but of all mankind, in whom the particularity of the old pro-
phets is finally done away, and the ever-changing form of the
“servant in whom my soul delighteth” at last finds rest. St. Paul,
too, is a prophet who has laid aside the poetical and authoritative
garb of old times, and is wrapped in the rhetorical or dialectical one
of his own age. The language of the old prophets comes unbidden
into his mind; it seems to be the natural expression of his own
thoughts. Separated from Joel, Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Isaiah by
an interval of about 800 years, he finds their words very near to
him “even in his mouth and his heart; ” that is the word which he
preached. When they spoke of forgiveness of sins, of non-impu-
tation of sins, of a sudden turning to God, what did this mean but
righteousness by faith ? when they said “I will have mercy, and not
sacrifice,” here also was imaged the great truth, that salvation was
not of the law. If St. Paul would have “no man judged for a new
moon or sabbath,” the prophets of old time had again and again
said in the name of Jehovah “ Your new moons and sabbaths I can-
not away with.” Like the elder prophets, he came not “to build up
a temple made with hands,” but to teach a moral truth; like them he
went forth alone, and not in connexion with the Church at Jeru-
salem. His calling is to be Apostle of the Gentiles ; they also
sometimes pass beyond the borders of Israel, to receive Egypt and
Assyria into covenant with God.

- It is not, however, this deeper unity between St. Paul and the
prophets of the old dispensation that we are about to consider
further, but a more superficial parallelism, which is afforded by the
alternation or successive representation of the purposes of God
towards Israel, which we meet with in the Old Testament, and which
recurs in the Epistles to the Romans. Like the elder prophets, St.
Paul also “ prophesies in part,” feeling after events rather than see-

ing them, and divided between opposite aspects of the dealings of

¥3

326 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Providence with mankind. This changing feeling often finds an
expression in the words of Isaiah or the Psalmist, or the author of the
book of Deuteronomy. Hence a kind of contrast springs up in the
writings of the Apostle, which admits of being traced to its source
in the words of the prophets. Portions of his Epistles are the dis-
jecta membra of prophecy. Oppositions are brought into view by
him, and may be said to give occasion to a struggle in his own mind,
which were unobserved by the prophets themselves. For so far from
prophecy setting forth one unchanging purpose of God, it seems
rather to represent a succession of purposes conditional on men’s
actions ; speaking as distinctly of the rejection as of the restoration
of Israel; and of the restoration almost as the correlative of the re-
jection; often too making a transition from the temporal to the spi-
ritual. Some of these contrasts it is proposed to consider in detail
as having an important bearing on St. Paul’s Epistles, especially
on the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and on chapters x.—xii. of
the Epistles to the Romans.

(1.) All the prophets are looking for and hastening to “ the day of
the Lord,” the “ great day,” “which there is none like,” “the day
of the Lord’s sacrifice,” the “day of visitation,” of “the great
slaughter,” in which the Lord shall judge “in the valley of Jehosha-
phat,” in which “they shall go into the clefts of the rocks and into
the tops of the ragged rocks for fear of the Lord, and for the glory
of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth.” That
day is the fulfilment and realisation of prophecy, without which it
would cease to have any meaning, just as religion itself would cease
to have any meaning to ourselves, were there no future life, or retri-
bution of good and evil. All the prophets are in spirit present at
it; living alone with God, and hardly mingling with men on earth,
they are fulfilled with its terrors and its glories. For the earth isnot
to go on for ever as it is, the wickednesses of the house of Israel are
not to last for ever. First, the prophet sees the pouring out of the
vials of wrath upon them ; then, more at a distance, follows the vision

of mercy, in which they are to be comforted, and their enemies, the

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 327

ministers of God’s vengeance on them, in turn punished. And evil and
oppression everywhere, so far as it comes within the range of the
prophet’s eye, is to be punished in that day, and good is to prevail.
In these “ terrors of the day of the Lord,” of which the prophets
speak, the fortunes of the Jewish people mingle with another vision
of a more universal judgment, and it has been usual to have recourse
to the double senses of prophecy to separate the one from. the other,
an instrument of interpretation which has also been applied to the
New Testament for the same purpose. Not in this way could the
prophet or apostle themselves have conceived them. ‘To them they

> or

were not two, but one; not “double one against the other,’
separable into the figure and the thing signified. or the figure is
in early ages the mode of conception also. More true would it be
to say that the judgments of God on the Jewish people were an an-
ticipation or illustration of his déalings with the world generally. If
a separation is made at all, let us rather separate the accidents of
time and place from that.burning sense of the righteousness of God,
which somewhere we cannot tell where, at some time we cannot tell
when, must and will have retribution on evil; which has this other
note of its divine character, that in judgment it remembers mercy,
pronouncing no endless penalty or irreversible doom, even upon the
house of Israel. This twofold lesson of goodness and severity speaks
to us as well as to the Jews. Better still to receive the words of
prophecy as we have them, and to allow the feeling which it utters
to find its way to our hearts, without stopping to mark out what
was not separated in the prophet’s own mind and cannot therefore
_be divided by us.

Other contrasts are traceable in the teaching of the prophets
respecting the day of the Lord. In that day the Lord is to judge
Israel, and he is to punish Egypt and Assyria ; and yet it is said also,
the Lord shall heal Egypt, and Israel shall be the third with Egypt
and Assyria whom the Lord shall bless. (Is. xix. 25.) In many of the
prophecies also the judgmentis of two kinds; it is a judgment on Is-
rael, which is executed by the heathen ; it is a judgment against the ©

YT 4

328 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

heathen and in favour of Israel, in which God himself is sometimes
said to be their advocate as well as their judge “in that day.” A

singular parallel with the New Testament is presented by another
contrast which occurs in a single passage. That the day of the Lord is

near, “it cometh, it cometh ;” is the language of all the prophets ; and
yet there were those who said also in Ezekiel’s time, “ The days are
prolonged, and every vision faileth ; tell them, therefore, thus saith
the Lord God; I will make this proverb to cease, and they shall no
more use it as a proverb in Israel, but say unto them, The days are at
hand, and the effect of every vision.” (xii. 22.) (Compare 2 Pet. iii. 4.,
“ Where is the promise of his coming?”) On the other hand, in the
later chapters of Isaiah (xl. seq.) we seem to trace the same feeling
as in the New Testament itself: the anticipation of prophecy has
ceased ; the hour of its fulfilment has arrived ; men seem to be con-
scious that they are living during the restoration of Israel as the
disciples at the day of Pentecost felt that they were living amid the
things spoken of by the prophet Joel.

(2.) A closer connexion with the Epistle to the Romans is fur-
nished by the double and, on the surface, inconsistent language of
prophecy respecting the rejection and restoration of Israel. These
seem to follow one another often in successive verses. It is true that
the appearance of inconsistency is greater than the reality, owing
to the lyrical and concentrated style of prophecy (some of its greatest
works being not much longer than this “cobweb”* of an essay) ;
and this leads to opposite feelings and trains of thought being pre-
sented to us together, without the preparations and joinings which
would be required in the construction of a modern poem. Yet, after
making allowance for this peculiarity of the ancient Hebrew style,
it seems as if there were two thoughts ever together in the prophet’s
mind: captivity, restoration,— judgment, mercy, — sin, repentance,
—“the people sitting in darkness, and the great light.”

There are portions of prophecy in which the darkness is deep and
enduring, “darkness that may be felt,” in which the prophet is

* Carlyle.

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 829

living amid the sins and sufferings of the people ; and hope is a long
way off from them,—when they need to be awakened rather than com-
forted ; and things must be worse, as men say, before they can become
better. Such is the spirit of the greater part of the book of Jere-
miah. But the tone of prophecy is on the whole that of alternation ;
God deals with the Israelites as with children; he cannot bear to
punish them for long; his heart comes back to them when they are
in captivity ; their very helplessness gives them a claim on him.
Vengeance may endure for a time, but soon the full tide of his
mercy returns upon them. Another voice is heard, saying, “Comfort
ye, comfort ye, my people.” “Speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem,
and say unto her that she hath received of the Lord’s hand double
for all her sins.” So from the vision of God on Mount Sinai, at the
giving of the Law amid storms and earthquakes, arises that tender
human relation in which the Gospel teaches that he stands, not
merely to his Church as a body, but to each one of us.

Naturally this human feeling is called forth most in the hour of
adversity. As the affliction deepens, the hope also enlarges, seeming
often to pass beyond the boundaries of this life into a spiritual world.
Though their sins are as scarlet, they shall be white as snow;
when Jerusalem is desolate, there shall be a tabernacle on Mount
Sion. The formula in which this enlargement of the purposes of
God is introduced, is itself worthy of notice. ‘It shall be no more
said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of
the land of Egypt; but, The Lord liveth, that brought up the
children of Israel from the land of the North, and from all the lands
whither he had driven them.” Their old servitude in Egypt came
back to their minds now that they were captives in a strange land,
and the remembrance that they had already been delivered from it —
was an earnest that they were yet to return. Deeply rooted in the
national mind, it had almost become an attribute of God himself
that he was their deliverer from the house of bondage.

With this narrower view of the return of the children of Israel

from captivity, not without a remembrance of that great empire

330 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

which had once extended from the River of Egypt to the Euphrates,
there blended also the hope of another kingdom in which dwelt
righteousness — the kingdom of Solomon “become the kingdom of
Christ and God.” The children of Israel had been in their origin
“the fewest of all people,” and the most alien to the nations round
about. The Lord their God was a jealous God, who would not
suffer them to mingle with the idolatries of the heathen. And in
that early age of the world, when national life was so strong and
individuals so feeble, we cannot conceive how the worship of the
true God could have been otherwise preserved. But the day had
passed away when the nation could be trusted with the preservation
of the faith of Jehovah ; “it had never been good for much at any
time.” The prophets, too, seem to withdraw from the scenes of poli-
tical events ; they are no longer the judges and leaders of Israel ; it
is a part of their mission to commit to writing for the use of after
ages the predictions which they utter. We pass into another country,
to another kingdom in which the prospect is no more that which
Moses saw from Mount Pisgah, but in which the “ Lord’s horn is
exalted in the top of the mountains and all nations flock to it.”

In this kingdom the Gentiles have a place, still on the outskirts,
but not wholly excluded from the circle of God’s Providence. Some-
times they are placed on a level with Israel, the “ circumcised with
the uncircumcised,” as if only to teach the Apostle’s lesson, “ that
there is no respect of persons with God.” Jer. ix. 25, 26.; compare
Rom. ii. 12—28. At other times they are themselves the subjects
of promises and threatenings. Jer. xii. 14—17. It is to them that
God will turn when His patience is exhausted with the rebellions of
Israel; for whom it shall be “more tolerable” than for Israel and
Judah in the day of the Lord. They are those upon whom, though 3
at a distance, the brightness of Jehovah must overflow ; who, in the
extremities of the earth, are bathed with the light of His presence.
Helpers of the joy of Israel, they pour with gifts and offerings
through the open gates of the city of God. They have-a part in
Messiah’s kingdom, not of right, but because without them it would

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. | 331

be imperfect and incomplete. In one passage only, which is an
exception to the general spirit of prophecy, Israel “ makes the third”
with Egypt and Assyria, “whom the Lord of Hosts shall bless.”
Is. xix. 18—25.

It was not possible that such should be the relation of the Gentiles
to the people of God in the Epistles of St. Paul. Experience seemed
to invert the natural order of Providence — the Jew first and after-
wards the Gentile. Accordingly, what is subordinate in the prophets,
becomes of principal importance in the application of the Apostle.
The dark sayings about the Gentiles had more meaning than the
utterers of them were aware of. Events connected them with the
rejection of the Jews, of which the same prophets spoke. Not only
had the Gentiles a place on the outskirts of the people of God,
gathering up the fragments of promises “under the table ;” they
themselves were the spiritual Israel. When the prophets spoke of
the Mount Sion, and all nations flowing to it, they were not expect-
ing literally the restoration of the kingdom to Israel. They spoke
of they knew not what — of something that had as yet no existence
upon the earth. What that was, the vision on the way to Damascus,
no less than the history of the Church and the world, revealed to
the Apostle of the Gentiles.

(3.) Another characteristic of Hebrew prophecy is the transition
from the nation to the individual. That is to say, first the nation
becomes an individual; it is spoken of, thought of, dealt with, as a
person, it “makes the third” with God and the prophet. Almost a
sort of drama is enacted between them, the argument of which
- is the mercy and justice of God; and the Jewish nation itself has
many parts assigned to it. Sometimes she is the “adulterous
sister,” the “ wife of whoredoms,” who has gone astray with Chaldean
and Egyptian lovers. In other passages, still retaining the same
personal relation to God, the “daughter of my people” is soothed
and comforted ; then a new vision rises before the prophet’s mind,
—not the same with that of the Jewish people, but not wholly
distinct from it, in which the suffering prophet himself, or Cyrus

$32 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the prophet king, have a part, —the vision of “the servant of
God,” “the Saviour with dyed garments ” from Bosra ; — “he shall
grow up before him as a tender plant;” “he is led as a lamb
to the slaughter.” Isaiah, liii. 2. 7.; compare Jer. xi. 19. Yet
there is a kind of glory even on earth in this image of gentleness
and suffering. ‘A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking
flax shall he not quench, until he hath brought forth judgment unto
victory.” We feel it to be strange, and yet it is true. So we have
sometimes seen the image of the kingdom of God among ourselves,
not in noble churches or scenes of ecclesiastical power or splendour,
but in the face of some child or feeble person, who, after overcoming
agony, is about to depart and be with Christ.

Analogies from Greek philosophy may seem far-fetched in refer-
ence to Hebrew prophecy, yet there are particular points in which
subjects the most dissimilar receive a new light from one another.
In the writings of Plato and Aristotle, and the philosophers who
were their successors, moral truths gradually separate from politics,
and the man is acknowledged to be different from the mere citizen :
and there arises a sort of ideal of the individual, who has a responsi-
bility to himself only. The growth of Hebrew prophecy is so
different ; its figures and modes of conception are so utterly unlike ;
there seems such a wide gulf between morality which almost ex-
cludes God, and religion which exists only in God, that at first
sight we are unwilling to allow any similarity to exist between
them. Yet an important point in both of them is really the same.
For the transition from the nation to the individual is also the more
perfect revelation of God himself, the change from the temporal to
the spiritual, from the outward glories of Messiah’s reign to the
kingdom of God which is within. Prophets as well as apostles
teach the near intimate personal relation of man to God. The
prophet and psalmist, who is at one moment inspired with the feelings
of a whole people, returns again to God to express the lowliest sor-
rows of the individual Christian. The thought of the Israel of God
is latent in prophecy itself, not requiring a great nation or com-

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. 333

pany of believers; “but where one is” there is God present with
him.

There is another way also in which the individual takes the place
of the nation in the purposes of God; “a remnant shall be saved.”
In the earlier books of the Old Testament, the whole people is
bound up together for good or for evil. In the law especially, there
is no trace that particular tribes or individuals are to be singled
out for the favour of God. Even their great men are not so much
individuals as representatives of the whole people. They serve God
as a nation; as a nation they go astray. If, in the earlier times of
Jewish history, we suppose an individual good man living “ amid an
adulterous and crooked generation,” we can scarcely imagine the re-
lation in which he would stand to the blessings and cursings of the
law. Would the righteous perish with the wicked? That be “far
from thee, O Lord.” Yet “prosperity, the blessing of the Old
Testament,” was bound up with the existence of the nation. Gra-
dually the germ of the new dispensation begins to unfold itself;
the bands which held the nation together are broken in pieces; a
fragment only is preserved, a branch, in the Apostle’s language, cut
off from the patriarchal stem, to be the beginning of another Israel.

The passage quoted by St. Paul in the eleventh chapter of the
Romans is the first indication of this change in God’s mode of
dealing with his people. The prophet Elijah wanders forth into
the wilderness to lay before the Lord the iniquities of the people:
“The children of Israel have forsaken thy covenant, thrown down
thine altars, and slain thy prophets with the sword.” “But what,”
_ we may ask with the Apostle, “saith the answer of God to him?”
Not “They are corrupt, they are altogether become abominable,”
but “ Yet I have seven thousand men who have not bowed the
knee to Baal.” ‘The whole people were not to be regarded as one ;
there were a few who still preserved, amid the general corruption,
the worship of the true God.

The marked manner in which the answer of God is introduced,

the contrast of the “still small voice” with the thunder, the storm,

334 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and the earthquake, the natural symbols of the presence of God in
the law, —the contradiction of the words spoken to the natural bent
of the prophet’s mind, and the greatness of Elijah’s own character
—all tend to stamp this passage as marking one of the epochs of
prophecy. ‘The solitude of the prophet and his separation in “the
mount of God,” from the places in which “men ought to worship,”
are not without meaning. There had not always “ been this proverb
in the house of Israel ;” but from this time onwards it is repeated again
and again. We trace the thought of a remnant to be saved in cap-
tivity, or to return from captivity, through a long succession of
prophecies, — Hosea, Amos, Micah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel ;— it is
the text of almost all the prophets, passing, as a familiar word, from
the Old Testament to the New. The voice uttered to Elijah was
the beginning of this new Revelation.

(4.) Coincident with the promise of a remnant is the precept, “ I will
have mercy and not sacrifice,” which, in modern language, opposes
the moral to the ceremoniallaw. It is another and the greatest step
onward towards the spiritual dispensation. Moral and religious
truths hang together ; no one can admit one of them in the highest
sense, without admitting a principle which involves the rest. He
who acknowledged that God was a God of mercy and not of sacrifice,
could not long have supposed that he dealt with nations only, or
that he raised men up for no other end but to be vessels of his wrath
or monuments of his vengeance. For a time there might be “ things
too hard for him,” clouds resting on his earthly tabernacle, when he
“saw the ungodly in such prosperity ;” yet had he knowledge
enough, as he “ went into the sanctuary of God,” and confessed him-
self to be “a stranger and pilgrim upon the earth.”

It is in the later prophets that the darkness begins to be dispelled
and the ways of God justified to man. Ezekiel is above all others
the teacher of this “new commandment.” The familiar words,
“when the wicked man turneth away from his wickedness, and doeth
that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive,” are the
theme of a great part of this wonderful book. Other prophets have

CONTRASTS OF PROPHECY. $35

more of poetical beauty, a deeper sense of divine things, a tenderer
feeling of the mercies of God to his people; none teach so simply
this great moral lesson, to us the first of alllessons. On the eve of the
captivity, and in the midst of it, when the hour of mercy is past, and
no image is too loathsome to describe the iniquities of Israel, still the
prophet does not forget that the Lord will not destroy the righteous
with the wicked : “ Though Noah, Daniel, and Job were in the land,
as I live, saith the Lord, they shall deliver neither son nor daughter ;
they shall deliver but their own souls by their righteousness (xiv. 20.).
Yet, behold, therein shall be left a remnant ; and they shall know that
I have not done without cause all that I have done, saith the Lord.”
ver. 22.

It is observable that, in the Book of Ezekiel as well as of
Jeremiah, this new principle on which God deals with mankind, is
recognised as a contradiction to the rule by which he had formerly
dealt with them, At the commencement of chap. xviii., as if with
the intention of revoking the words of the second commandment,
“ visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children,” it is said: —

“ The word of the Lord came unto me again, saying, |

* What mean ye, that ye use this proverb concerning the land of
Israel, saying, The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s
teeth are set on edge? |

“ As I live, saith the Lord Gop, ye shall not have occasion any
more to use this proverb in Israel.

“Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the
soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die.”

Similar language occurs also in Jer. xxxi. 29., in a connexion
which makes it still more remarkable, as the new truth is described
as a part of that fuller revelation which God will give of Him-
self, when he makes a new covenant with the house of Israel.
And yet the same prophet, as if not at all times conscious of his own
lesson, says also in his prayer to God (Lam. v. 7.), “ Our fathers have
sinned and are not, and we have borne their iniquities.” The truth

which he felt was not one and the same always, but rather two

336 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

opposite truths, like the Law and the Gospel, which, for a while,
seemed to struggle with one another in the teaching of the prophet
and the heart of man.

And yet this opposition was not necessarily conscious to the pro-
phet himself. Isaiah, who saw the whole nation going before to
judgment, did not refrain from preaching the lessons, “If ye be
willing and obedient,” and “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the
unrighteous man his thoughts.” Ezekiel, the first thought and
spirit of whose prophecies might be described in modern language as
the responsibility of man, like Micaiah in the Book of Kings, seemed
to see the false prophets inspired by Jehovah himself to their own
destruction. As in the prophet, so in the Apostle, there was no sense
that the two lessons were in any degree inconsistent with each other.
It is an age of criticism and philosophy, which, in making the
attempt to conceive the relation of God to the world in a more
abstract way, has invented for itself the perplexity, or, may we
venture to say, by the very fact of acknowledging it, has also found
its solution. The intensity with which the prophet felt the truths
that he revealed, the force with which he uttered them, the desire
with which he yearned after their fulfilment, have passed from the
earth; but the truths themselves remain an everlasting possession.
We seem to look upon them more calmly, and adjust them more
truly. They no longer break through the world of sight with un-
equal power; they can never again be confused with the accidents
of time and place. The history of the Jewish people has ceased to
be the only tabernacle in which they are enshrined; they have an

independent existence, and a light and order of their own.

337

CHAP. XIL—XVI.

TuHE last five chapters may be considered as a third section of the
Epistle to the Romans, in which, as in the latter portion of the Ga-
latians, Colossians, Ephesians, Thessalonians, exhortation takes the
place of doctrinal statement, and the imperative mood becomes the
prevailing form of sentence. There is less of plan than in what has
preceded, and more that throws light on the state of the Church. At
_ first sight, it seems as if the Apostle were dictating to an amanuensis
unconnected precepts, which his experience, not of the Roman con-
verts, to whom he was unknown by face, but of the Church and the
world in general, led him to think useful or necessary.

Yet these fragments, including in them ch. xii. 1—xv. 7., at
which point the Apostle returns briefly to his main theme, and cons
cludes with a personal narrative, are not wholly deficient in order,
especially that recurring order which was remarked in the intro-
duction to the fifth chapter, and which consists in the repetition, at
certain intervals, of a particular subject. The great argument is
now ended; what follows is its practical application: — “ For God
concluded all under sin, that he might have mercy upon all;” the
_ inference from which is not, “ Let us continue in sin that grace may
abound,” but rather, ‘‘ How shall we, who are dead to sin, live any
longer therein?” which the Apostle expresses once more in language
borrowed from the law: —~ “I beseech you, therefore, brethren, by
the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living sacrifice,”
Leaving this thought, he passes on at ver. 3. to another, which
can hardly be said to be connected with it in any other than
that general way in which all the different portions of Christian

VOL. II. Z

338 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

truth or practice are connected with each other, or in which the
part may be always regarded as related to the whole. This new
thought is Christian unity, which is introduced here much in the
same manner as love of the brethren in the Epistle to the Thessa-
lonians. The ground of this unity is humility, each one retiring
into his own duties, that the whole may be harmonious, remembering
that he is a member of the body of Christ, in which there are
diversities of gifts, which the members of that body are severally
to use. Thence the Apostle goes on to the mention of Christian
graces, apparently unconnected with each other, among which, at
ver. 16., the first thought of humility, which is the true source of
sympathy, reappears, with which peace and forgiveness of injuries
meet in one. At the commencement of chap. xiii. what may be
termed the key-note of this portion of the Epistle returns,—the order
of the Church, not now considered in reference to the members of
the same body, but to those that are without the Church — the
heathen rulers with whom they came into contact, whom they were
to obey as to the Lord and not to men. The remainder of this
chapter stands in the same relation to the former part as the
latter portion of chap. xii. to the commencement; that is to say,
it consists of precepts which arise out of the principal subject; here
honesty in general, out of the duty of paying tribute, which leads,
by a play of words, to the endless debt of love, which is the fulfil-
ment of the law; all which is enforced by the near approach of
the day of the Lord, corresponding to the argument of the preacher
from the shortness of life among ourselves. |
The remaining section of the Epistle, from chap. xiv. to xv. 6.,
is taken up with a single subject, —the treatment of weak brethren,
who doubt about meats and drinks and the observance of days.
This subject is distinct from what has preceded, and forms a whole
by itself; yet, in the mode of handling it, vestiges of former topics
reappear. It is a counsel of peace, to show consideration to the
doubters; and for the doubters themselves, it is a proper humility

not to judge others, chap. ii. 1.: and in our conduct towards the

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 339

weak brethren, it must be remembered how awful a thing is the
conscience of sin, which is inseparable from doubt, “for whatever is
not of faith, is sin.” And here we come back once more to our
original text, —“ Be of the same mind one with another.”

At this point, the Apostle returns from his digression to.the main
subject of the Epistle, which he briefly sums up under the figure of
Jesus Christ a minister of the circumcision to the Gentiles, and
once more clothes in the language of the prophets. Yet a certain
degree of difference is discernible between his treatment of it in this
and in the earlier portions of the Epistle. It is less abstract and
more personal. He seems to think of the truths which he taught
more in connexion with his own labours as Apostle of the Gen-
tiles. A similar image to that of Christ the minister of the cir-
cumcision he applies to himself, — the minister of Christ, the offerer
up of the sacrifice of the Gentiles. Still, Apostle of the Gentiles as
he is, he is careful not to intrude on another man’s labours. He has
fulfilled his mission where he is, and does but follow the dictates of
natural feeling in going first to Jerusalem, and then to the Christians
of the West; for the success of which new mission he desires their
prayers, that it may be acceptable to his friends and without danger
from enemies, and may end in his coming to them with joy.

The last chapter consists almost entirely of salutations. Among
these are interspersed a few of the former topics, some of which
occur also at the end of other Epistles, such as peace and joy at
the success of the Gospel. There are names of servants of God,
among whom are Aquila and Priscilla, and others of whom no re-
cord has been elsewhere preserved. One expression raises without
satisfying our curiosity, “distinguished among those who were
Apostles before me.” The Epistle, as it began with a summary of
the Gospel, concludes with a thanksgiving —in which the subject
of the Epistle is once more interwoven — to God the author of the
Gospel, which was once hidden, but now revealed that the Gentiles
also might be obedient to the faith.

z2

340

Tlapaxaho ody tyas, adeddot, Sua THY oiKTIippaY Tod JQ

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XII.

i ~ la ¥, a ¢€ 7
Qeod, Tapactica Ta cdpata tov Ovotay Cacay ayiav
nw A ‘\ rf e A \ ‘\
ebdpectov TO Hed, THY oyiKnY haTpeiay Vor, Kal pA)

XII. The last chapter ended
with a doxology. All the world
was reconciled to God, and Jew
as well as Gentile included in the
circle of His grace. Therefore
the Apostle did not refrain him-
self from uttering a song of tri-
umph at the end “of his great
argument.” Now he proceeds to
draw the cords of divine love
closer about the hearts and con-
sciences of individual men.

At the commencement of the
Epistle we were led to regard
mankind, not as they appeared,

but as they were in the light of ©

the new revelation. We were
spectators of the human race
looking far and wide on Jew and
Gentile, backwards and forwards
on Adam and Christ. The vic-
tory over the law was won; the
banished Israelite restored to the
favour of God. And now we
return from this wider view of
the counsels of Providence to our-
selves again. It is the individual
rather than the world, which is
first in the Apostle’s thoughts :
— “Seeing, then, all these things,
what manner of persons ought
we to be?” This connexion is
indicated in the word oixrippay,
which refers to ver. 32. of the
preceding chapter : — “I exhort
you through the mercies of that
God who has mercy upon Jew
and Gentile alike, who concluded
all under sin that he might have
mercy upon all.”

The latter part of the chapter

is remarkable for the irregularity .

of its construction and the want
of connexion in its clauses. It

would be a mistaken ingenuity
to invent a system where no sys-
tem is intended, Precepts occur
to the Apostle’s mind without
any regular sequence, or with
none that we can trace. In some
instances he appears to go off
upon a word, without even re-
membering the sense of it. Thus,
in ver. 13. of this chapter, he
passes from riv girokeviay bw-
kovrec, to evoyeire Tove dwwKorTac
vpdc, Which we might have been
disposed to regard as an acci-
dental coincidence, were it not
that a nearly similar instance
occurs in ver. 7, 8. of the follow-
ing chapter: —’Azddore oty wa&ot
rac opetac, and pdéve pnoev
Opeidere Ei poy TO AyaTay addijAove,
x. 7 A. Such passages are in-
structive, as showing how little
the style of St. Paul can be re-
duced to the ordinary laws of
thought and language, how en-
tirely we must learn to know him
from himself.

[lapaxado.] Rather exhort
than beseech, as appears from the
tone of ver. 3.:— “But I say
unto you through the grace given
unto me.”

ovr, therefore.| Thatis, seeing
the mercy of God to Jew and
Gentile alike.

dea. | Probably, in its ordinary
sense, to mark the instrument.
The mercies of God are in a
figure the instrument or medium
of the Apostle’s exhortation, as in
2 Cor. x. 1.:—Adroe 0€ éyw
IlavAoc wapaxakd vpdc dua ripe
mpavTnrog Kal érceckeiac Tod ypl-
orov. dra is not found with verbs

12

Ver. 1.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

O41

I exnort* you therefore, brethren, through* the
mercies of God, to* present your bodies a living sacri-
fice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your worship*

of swearing ; which leads to the
inference, in this and similar pas-
sages, that it is not used as asign

of adjuration, and necessitates ©

the translation, though harsh in
English of “ through.”
mrapaorica, to present,| has
no sacrificial allusion here, any
more than in other passages in
which it occurs in the New Tes-
tament: Rom. vi. 13. 16. 19.;
2 Cor. xi. 2., &c. The idea of

’ gacrifice is introduced in what

follows.

Tu owpara tpor,| not “ your-
selves,” but “your bodies,” as
opposed. to the mind. Compare
ver. 2.:—7y dvaxauwwoe 700
vodc. In ch. viii. 10. the body
was described as “dead because
of sin,” but the spirit “life be-
cause of righteousness;” and in
ver. 23. the believer was said to
be “ waiting for the redemption
of the body.” Here the image
is different: the body though
offered to God is still alive.
And yet the Apostle would have
us add in the language of Gal.
ii. 20.: “It is not I that live
but Christ liveth in me; and the
life that I now live in the flesh
I live in faith of the Son of
God.”

Suvoiav Gocay, a living sacri-
fice.| Comp. for a similar play
of words, 1 Cor. xy. 44., copa
avevparicoy 3 1 Pet. ii. 5., mvev-
poariky Suoia; and AoyrK) Aarpeia
below. The sacrifice is dead, but
the believer is alive, like his
Lord suffering on the cross; the
image is yet stronger in Gal. ii.

-20., “Lam crucified with Christ.”

Z

The body of the Christian is
called a sacrifice, first, because in
one sense it is dead, as the Apostle
says in the expression just now
quoted; and, secondly, as it is
wholly dedicated to God. As he
is one with Christ in His cruci-
fixion, death, burial, resurrection,
he is also like Him in being a
sacrifice, not because of the sins
of others, but to put an end to
sin in himself, Eph. v. 2.

dyiay evapeoroy ro Jem. | Such
an offering might in a new sense
be termed holy, acceptable, such
as the Levitical law required, —
a sacrifice like that of Christ
himself, who was “the lamb
without spot;” 1 Pet. i. 19.

Tv doyuchy arpelavy vor,
which is your worship in thought, |
in apposition with the preceding
sentence, as in the well-known
classical instance, ‘“EXévny kra-
vwpev Mevédew AvTHy wexpar : that
is to say, the reasonable service is
not the living sacrifice, but the
offering up of the body as a living
sacrifice. The translation, “ rea-
sonable service,” in the English
version, is not an accurate ex-
planation of AoyK) Aarpeia, Which
is an oxymoron or paradoxical
expression, meaning “an ideal
service, a@ ceremonial of thought
and mind.” The word dAarpeia
signifies a service which con-
sists of outward rites, which in
this case is doy), that is, not
outward, but in the mind, the
symbol of a truth, the picture of
an idea. In the Epistle to the
Hebrews the whole Mosaic law
may be said to pass into a Aoyen)

=»
oO .

842

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XI.

, > \ la)

ovoxnpartiler Oar! tO aidve TovTw, GANA peTapopPov-
~~ , la > ‘\ 4 ¢ a ,

cba? TH dvakawedce Tod vods*, eis TO SoKyalew vpas TL

1 ouoxnuariferbe,

Aarpeia, a law which, from being
ceremonial, became ideal.

Compare the following parallel
passages : —

avevpariac Svoiac evrpoodéK-
rove TH Sey, 1 Pet. ii. 5. of ay-
yedot mpoogépovar Kupiw dopmijv Ev-
woiac, oyiKjy Kal avaipaKxroy
mpoopopay, Test. XII. Patriarch.
ch. 3. 6 peév oby rovroe dvaKeKxoo-
pinpévoc irw Sappav sic oixecdrarov
abvr@ Tav ved Evovaitnua TaYTwY
ciptorov tepetoy émiderkdpevocg eav=
tov, Philo de Victimis, 849. rapa
Sep pop ro wAHO0¢ THY KarabvopE-
vw iva Tipioy, dhAa TO KaBapw-
Tatoy Tov Svovroe mvevpa oyt-
cov, 850. Qui justus est sacri-
ficium est Dei sancti benedicti,
non vero sic etiam injustus. Syn-
opsis Sohar. p. 94.
_ The words doy) Aarpeta and
the use which St. Paul makes in
other places of ceremonial lan-
guage (Rom. xv. 8. 16. and else-
where), suggest the inquiry, “In
what way the rites and cere-
monies of the Mosaic law became
appropriated to the truths of the
Gospel? Had the Israelite of old
seen in them anticipations of
Him who was to come? had any
before the times of the Apostles
made a similar application of
them? There is no reason to
think that Simeon and Anna, or
any of those who were waiting
for the consolation of Israel, saw
in the ritual of the Temple-wor-
ship anything which led their
minds to a knowledge of the
Gospel. Nor is there any indica-
tion of a spiritual use of the ce-
remonies of the law in other

2 weTapoppovade,

3 Suov.

periods of Jewish history. Moses
gave the law without comment
or explanation: its hidden mean-
ings were the discoveries of after
ages, to whom the original one
had become unsuited. That
meaning was in the earliest times
inseparable from its use; not
“ allegory, but tautegory,” in the
quaint language of Coleridge.
In process of time many meanings
sprang up, but those meanings
were not the fruit of antiquarian
research, such as we find in some
modern works on this subject:
nor were they based on ancient
tradition; they were fanciful as-
sociations of words and things.
The parallel of Philo throws
light on the question we are con-
sidering, because it shows how
readily the human mind could
find in the law that which in
reality it brought to the law.
New truths were to be taught;
new thoughts were to be given;
and they must be given through
something. The revelation of
the Gospel was not a mere blaze
of light; it contained objects to
be distinguished, new relations
between God and man to be ex-
plained, a scheme of Providence to
be set forth. Some tongue of men
or angels must be the medium of
communion between heaven and
earth. Accordingly, the sacred
things of the Israelites became,
by a sort of natural process, the
figures of the true; the Old Tes-
tament was the mystery of the
New, the New the revelation of
the Old. They were not con-
nected by any system of rules ;

Ver. 2.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 543

mn thought. And not to be’ conformed to this world:
but to be? transformed by the renewing of the?

1 Be ye not.

out of the fulness of the heart
the mouth spoke. The mind
needed not to be taught, but
taught itself the new meaning of
old words. Often the believing
Israelite must have stood by the
altar and seen the priests moving
to and fro in the courts of the
temple, and thought of that other
altar which they had no right to
partake of who served the taber-
nacle, and of the priest not after
the order of Aaron, and of the
holy place, that holiest of all, not
yet revealed to his longing eyes.
His attention would no more
dwell, if it had ever done so, with
minute particularity on the de-
tails of the ritual; he might lift
up his heart to the truths which
he associated with it,—the cir-
cumcision of the heart, the build-
ing not made with hands, the
everlasting priesthood, the living
sacrifice. Such may have been
the thoughts of James, the Bishop
of Jerusalem, the Nazarite from
his mother’s womb, as described
in the narrative of Hegesippus,
kneeling daily in the temple,
“until his knees became as hard
as a camel’s,” praying for the
sins of the people.

Yet it must be remarked also,
that the application of the cere-
monies of the law to the thoughts
of the Gospel is not so much
an application of what men saw
around them — the practice of
Judaism at that day, as of the
words of Scripture. Thus the
author of the Hebrews argues
almost solely from the descrip-
tion of the temple and tabernacle

® Be ye.

3 Your.

which he found written. The
words rather than the ceremonies
of the law were the links which
connected the Old and New Tes-
tament; and the more entirely
the minds of men became pos-
sessed with the new truth, the
slenderer was the thread of asso-
ciation by which they were ena-
bled to connect them.

2. Kal po) ovoxnparilecba, and
not to be conformed. | Dependent
on tapaxado. I exhort you, bre-
thren, not to be conformed. Comp.
1 Cor. vii. 31., ro oxjpa rou Kdo-
lov TouTov.

T@ ai@re ToUTYy, this world, | con-
tains an allusion to the Jewish
distinction between 6 aiwy ovroc
and 6 aiwy épydpevoc, pédduy,
&c., as the times before and the
times after the Messiah; expres-
sions which are continued, for
the most part in the same sense,
in the New Testament, or with
only such a modification of mean-
ing as necessarily arises from the
new nature of Messiah’s kingdom.
That kingdom was not merely
future; it was opposed to the
present state which the believer
saw around him, as good to evil,
as the world of those who rejected
Christ to the world of those who
accepted him. This present world
(6 viv aiwy, 2 Tim. i, 10.) was
to the first disciples emphatically
an aiwy movnpdc (Gal. i. 4.),
which had a god of its own, and

children of its own (2 Cor. iv. 4.),

and was full of invisible powers
fighting against the truth. Hence
it is in a stronger sense than we
speak of the world, which in the

z4

344

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XI.

A A \
7d Oddnpa Tod Oeod 7d dyabdy Kai ebdpertov Kal TEéheLoy.

A A N nA
Néyw yap Sia THs xdputos THs SoGeions pou TavTL TH OVTL
év iptv, ph trepppovelv trap 6 Set ppoveiv, aha ppovew
al > ad 4 ,
cis TO cwdpovelv, ExdoT@ ws O Oeds Eucpirey peTpOV TH-
, \ b) eb , ra aN 1 ¥»
crews. Kabdmep yap év Evi copa. ToAha pEedyn” EXOMEr,

1 wéAn TOAAG,

language of modern times has be-
come a sort of neutral power of
evil, that the Apostle exhorts
his converts not to be conformed
to this world, which is the king-
dom, not of God, but of Satan.
Comp. note on Gal. i. 4.

GANA perapoppovscba, but to be
transformed.| No more reason
can be given why the Apostle
should have changed the word,
than if we were to say, “and not
to be conformed to this world, but
to be transfigured by the renewal
of your minds.” (Comp. the
change of d/kawe into ayabdc in
Rom. v. 7.) The words which
follow, rH avaxawe@oe Tov voog
vuay, are opposed to the first
verse : “I exhort you to sacrifice
the body; but renew the mind.”
The same opposition occurs in
Eph. iv. 22, 23.: “That ye put
off concerning the former conver-
sation the old man, which is cor-
rupt according to the deceitful
lusts, and be renewed (avaveotc0e)
in the spirit of your minds.”

vovc is here opposed to body,
as elsewhere to wvevpa, 1 Cor.
xiv. 14. Like the English word
“mind,” it is a general term, and
includes the will. (Eph. iv. 17.)
It is idle to raise metaphysical
distinctions about words which
the Apostle uses after the fleeting
manner of common conversation,
or to search the index of Aristotle
for illustration of their meaning
which the connexion in which

they occur can alone supply.
Compare note on 1 Thess. v. 23.

cic TO doxkipage tude, that you
may prove.| doxacew signifies,
first, to try, examine; secondly,
to have experience of, know,
approve: “Be so unlike the
world, that the will of God may
be its own witness to you” —
“that ye may know by expe-
rience what the will of God
working in youis.” Yet, in the
words that follow, the “ will of
God” is supposed to be active
rather than passive. It is what
God wills, not what we perform,
which is described as the good, the
acceptable (to God), the perfect.

It has been shown in other
places, that such a confusion of
the objective and subjective is
quite in harmony with St. Paul’s
style. ‘Those who deny that the
same word can have two different
senses in the same passage, find
no better means of explaining the
words ri ro 0éAnua rov Yeo than
by taking them in the sense of
“what God wills you to do, the
thing which is good, acceptable,
and perfect (comp. 1 Thess. iv. 3.,
Touro yap gore SéAnpa Tov Seow o
aylacpog busy); or, construing
Sé\npa as a verbal, “respecting
the thing that is good.”

The clause cic 70 doxyaev
vpac has a further connexion, first
with the previous verse through
the repetition of evapecror, which
recalls the thought of the accept-

Ver. 3, 4.)

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

345

mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and accept-
able, and perfect will of God. For I say, through the
grace given unto me, to every man that is among you,
not to think of himself more highly than he ought to
think ; but to think unto* sobriety, according as God

hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

For as

we have many members in one body, and all members

able sacrifice, and also with ver.
34. of the former chapter, “‘ Who
hath known the mind of God?”
which is referred to here in
the words, “Be ye renewed in
the spirit of your minds, that ye
may have practical experience of
what the mind of God is.” Com-
pare 1 Cor. ii. 11. 16., for a si-
milar transition of thought from
the incomprehensibility of the
Divine nature to the knowledge
of it.

3. For I say, though not of
myself, but by the grace given
unto me (comp. the still more
‘ pointed expressions, 1 Cor. vii.
25., yvopny de didwu we rEnpé-
voc urd Kupiov maroc eivac), to
every one that is among you, “if
there be any who seems to be
somewhat,” not to think of him-
self too much, beyond what he
ought, but to have thoughts of
himself only with the view of
thinking soberly of himself, ac-
cording as God has given to each
one a measure of faith or spiritual
capacity.

yap, for.| Why “for”? One
of the greatest moral impediments
to this renewal is spiritual pride,
the desire to appropriate in an es-
pecial sense to self, the grace com-
mon to all believers. Hence the
Apostle argues from the part to
the whole: “I exhort you to be
transfigured ; for I tell you as a
part of this that ye must be hum-

ble.” Comp. droxadtrrerae yap,
in Rom. i. 17. In both passages
the Apostle uses yap rather from
an instinct of the connexion than
an express consciousness of it.
gpovety cic TO owhpoveiy, to think
unto sobriety.| “To let modera-
tion in thought be the limit or
end of your thought,” or as the
paronomasia may be turned
rather more loosely, to be minded
to be of a sound mind. Comp.
2 Cor. x. 13.: ob« cic ra aperpa
Kavxnoopeba, dAG KaTa TO péTpOY
TOU KavOvoc, Ov Epéptoey Huty 6 Sede
pérpov. Eph. iv. 7. .
érpov wiorewe, the measure of
faith.| All things are done by
faith ; but faith itself is given
in different proportions to dif-
ferent men. As in temporal
things we say, “do not be strain-
ing after things beyond your
power,” so St. Paul says, “be
not ambitious after things beyond
your spiritual power, and remem-
ber that this too is not your
own, but given you by God.”
Even “ the stature of the perfect
man,” who is the image of the
Church (Eph. iv. 13.), is not
without measure.

4. The connexion of this
verse with what has preceded is
as follows. Let us not be high-
minded, but all keep our proper
place, according to the measure
which God has given us. For
we are like the body, in which

316

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XII.

“w Y €
ra Sé pen wdvta ov THY adTHy exer TPAasw, OVTwS ol 5

«@

A a \ > > ,
moot ev capa eopev ev yptoT@, TO 5€ Kal” cist GAATA@Y
\ A
pédry. exovtes S¢ xapiopara Kata THY yapw THY Sobeioay 6
aA \ \ 4 ‘a
Ap Suddopa, cite mpopytetav, Kara THY avaoyiay THs

1 6 5& Kabets.

there are many members with
different offices. Compare 1 Cor.
xii. 14.31., also Phil. ii. 3, 4.: “Let
nothing be done through strife or
vainglory, but in lowliness of mind
let each esteem other better than
themselves. Look not every man
on his own things, but every man
also on the things of others.”
Where there is the same con-
nexion between thinking of others
and not thinking of ourselves, a
connexion which we may trace
in our own lives and characters
as well as in the words of Scrip-
ture. For “egotism” is the
element secretly working in the
world, which is the most hostile
to the union of men with one
another, which destroys friendly
and Christian relations.

5. Where the Churchis spoken
of as a body, three modes of ex-
pression may be noted. Itis the
body of which Christ is the head,
as in Col. ii. 19.; or simply the
body of Christ, as in 1 Cor. xii.
27., Eph. iv. 12. (comp. Eph. i.
22, 23., where both points of view
are united, the church, of which
He is the head, being also spoken
of as “ His body, the fulness of
Him which filleth all in all”); or,
lastly, we are one body in Christ,
in the same sense that as Chris-
tians we are all things in Christ.

To ce Kal’ cic, and in what
concerns each. | 76 xa’ eic=quod
attinet ad singulos, Mark, xiv.
19. The form ro cad’ eie¢ rarely
if ever occurs elsewhere even in

Hellenistic Greek; it is, however,
the reading of the principal manu-
scripts, and is supported by the
analogy of ro ca’ iyuépay, ro Kare
pvory, &c., the use of the nomina-
tive having probably arisen out
of a confusion of the other for-
mula, cic kal’ eic.

The general meaning of the
verse is as follows: For as the
body has many members, which
have each of them distinct offices,
so we, being many, are one body
in Christ, diverse and one too,
interdependent members of each
other. Compare 1 Cor. xii. 27,
28., Eph. iv. 11—16., where the
same thought is still more fuily
worked out with a similar refer-
ence to the different offices and
gifts of the Church.

An organised being has been
described, in the language of me-
taphysical writers, as a being in
which every means is an end,
and every end is a means, or in
which the whole is prior to the
part. ‘The Apostle has another
form of speech of a very different
kind, but not less expressive of
close and intimate union: “ We
are baptized into one body; we
are drunk of one spirit.”

6. Exovrec O& yapiopara. But
having gifts.| These words are
sometimes joined with what pre-
cedes, “ Weare one body in Christ,
and individually interdependent
members, howbeit, with divers
gifts.” In this way, however,
the long sentence, which must be

Ver. 5—7.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

347

have not the same office: so we, being many, are one
body in Christ, and every one members one of another.
But* as we have gifts differing according to the grace
that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy
according to the proportion of faith ; or ministry, let*

continued to the end of ver. 18.,
greatly drags, and the hortatory
tone of the first part of the
chapter is dropped, and only re-
sumed again at ver. 18. Further,
the opposition implied by dé to
the ty cpa éoper év xproro, is
already anticipated in the clause,
ro 6€ Kal? éic.

A better way of explaining the
passage is, to oppose éxovrec Ceé
to the previous exhortation in
ver. 3. “Let us not be high-
minded, for we are the members
of one body; but as we have
different gifts, let us seek to use
them according to the measure
of grace and faith which we
have.” The words, éxorrec dé ya-
piopara, carry on the thought of
ver. 8. The imperative which is
required in what follows may
also be supplied from ver. 3., the
recollection of which is recalled
at ver. 6. in the words, cara rij
avadoyiay rij¢ wiorewc, Which an-
swer to the clause, éxdoTw we 6
Sede éuépioe pétpov wicrewc. “But,
as we have diverse gifts, accord-
ing to the grace given unto us,
it may be prophecy, let us have
it according to the proportion of
faith, or the gift of ministering,
let us have it for use in the mi-
nistry ; or, if aman bea teacher,
let him use his gift in teaching ;
or an exhorter, let him use his
gift in exhortations.” That is to
say, “ We have divers gifts, let
us have them, not beyond, but
within measure, to be used not

to exalt ourselves, but in that
whereunto they are appointed.”

Philosophy, as well as religion,
Plato and Aristotle, as well as
St. Paul, speak of “ a measure in
all things; of one in many, and
many in one; ” of “ not going be-
yond another ;” of gpdvnore and
owppoovry ; of a society of another
kind, “ fitly joined together,” in
which there are divers orders,
and no man is to call anything
his own, and all areone. Asthe
shadow to the substance, as words
to things, as the idea to the
spirit, so is that form of a state
of which philosophy speaks, to
the communion of the body of
Christ.

The construction is twice va-
ried. Instead of saying, etre
mpopnreiayv, etre diaxoviay, Ele
mapakAnoy, etre didayny, Kara
THY avadoylay Tij¢ miorewce, the
Apostle adds in the second clause,
évy Th dvaxovia (which indirectly
implies the same thought — “let
him confine himself to his office”),
and further changes the person
in the words 6 diWaccwr. For a
parallel omission of the verb,
compare 1 Pet. iv. 11., «% ree
Aaret we Adyta Oeod, ei Tic Staxovet
we & ioyboc je yop yet 6 Oedc: also
2 Cor. viii. 13.

mpopyrsiay, prophecy.| The
gift of prophecy, common to the
new, as well as to the old dispen-
sation; not simply teaching or
preaching, but the gift of extra-
ordinary men in an extraordinary

348

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XII.

, cy) , 3 na 5 V4 ¥ € 8 § ,
miotews, etre Suakoviay, €v TH OtaKovig, ELTE O OLOATKY)Y,
y A , ¥ e XG > “~ » , e
€v TN dwacKadia ELTE O TAPAKAAWY, EV TI) TAPAKANGEL, O

ee , al
petadidovs év amhdoTynTL, 0 TpolaTapevos €v oTOVdH, 6
éheav év ihapdryti. 4 aydan avuTOoKpLTOS. amooTuyoUrTES
an 4 A A
TO Tovnpov, KONA@ EVOL T@ ayabe, TY) prriadeddia, Eis
lal A > ,
GdAyjdouvs dildatopyo., TH TY4N ahdAynAroUS TpoHyovpevoL,

age. It was the gift of the Apo-
stles and their converts, more
than any other characteristic of
the first beginnings of the Gos-
pel, the utterance of the Spirit in
the awakened soul, the influence
and communion of which was
caught by others from him who
uttered it; not an intellectual gift,
but rather one in which the in-
tellectual faculties were absorbed,
yet subject to the prophets, higher
and more edifying than tongues,
failing and transient in compa-
rison with love (1 Cor. xii., xiii,
xiv.). Compare note.

Kara THY dvadoylay Tie TiaTEWC. |
Let him have it according to that
proportion of faith which makes
a man a prophet; ze. let him
prophesy as he has faith for it;
or, let him prophesy in propor-
tion to the degree of his faith.

7. dvaxoviay may (1.) either
relate to the general duty of a mi-
nister of Christ; just as mioric
occurs in 1 Cor. xii. among spe-
cial gifts ; it is not necessary here
any more than there, or in Eph.
iv. 11, 12., that the meaning of
each word should be precisely
distinguished: or (2.) may refer
to the office of a deacon in its
narrower sense, of which we
know nothing, and cannot be cer-
tain even that it was confined to
the object of its first appointment
mentioned in Acts, vi. 1., viz.,
the care of the poor, and the ad-
ministration of the goods of the

Com-
év ToUTOLC

Church. év rH dvaxovig.
pare 1 Tim. iv. 15.,
toe.

6 ddoxwy.] The teacher or
preacher, as distinct from the
prophet.

8. rapakAnoce is distinguished,
as sympathy and exhortation,
from instruction (d.dax%).

Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 4., dcatpécece
d€ yapioparwy eiciy, TO O€ avro
xvevpa, and Eph. iv. 11, 12., cat
avroce ECwKEY TOVE pEV arooTdAOUE,
Tove O€ mpopirac, Tove dé evayye-
Auarae, Tove dé Toupévac Kad d.dac-=
Kadouc, TPO0G TOY KaTapTiopoY TeY
tuyiwy, eic Epyor duaxoviac, ic oiKo-
Sopijv Tov gwparog TOU xpLoTOU.

év a)éryrt.| Not, liberally,
but, in singleness of heart, “as
unto the Lord, and not unto
men,” with no other thought than
that of pure love.

6 mpotordperoc.| Not the pa-
tron of strangers, but the ruler
of the Church, or any one who
bears authority overothers. Com-
pare 1 Thess. v. 12.

év orovdyn-| In the spirit of
those who do whatsoever their
hand finds to do with all their
might.

6 éeGv év idaporyti, he that
showeth mercy, with cheerful-
ness.| Let aman find pleasure in
doing good to the unfortunate.
There should be a contrast be-
tween the cheerfulness of his de-
portment and the sadness of his
errand,

10

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Ver. 8—10.] 349

us use our gift in ministering: or he that teacheth, in
teaching; or he that exhorteth, in exhortation : he that
giveth, let him do it with simplicity; he that ruleth,
with diligence; he that sheweth mercy, with cheerful-
ness. Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that
which is evil; cleave to that which is good. Be kindly

affectioned one to another in* the love of the brethren;

All these exhortations may be
summed up in the general pre-
cept which follows :

9. f} ayarn avurékpiroc.| Let
love be real, and not merely put
on. The words which follow
amroorvyouvrec TO Tovnpdy, KO\NW=
pevot TO aya0e, are in no con-
struction. It has been proposed
to connect them with dyardre a\-
AfAove, understood in 4 dayar)
avuréxptroc. But while the gram-
mar is not much helped, the sense
is greatly injured by this mode
of taking them. As they are
unconnected in construction, it
is better to disconnect them in
meaning, and take the several
clauses as so many detached pre-
cepts, dictated by the Apostle
to an amanuensis, perhaps with
many pauses, as they occurred to
him. |

It may be questioned whether
these words are an imperative or
an indicative. In point of sense
the indicative is equally good,

and the omission of the indicative

verb éori much more common
than of the imperative; but in
this passage, as imperatives pre-
cede and follow, it might be
argued that the imperative sense
is more naturally continued.
Yet the imperative sense can
hardly be continued through all
three verses. The truth seems
to be, that the Apostle, who had
never distinctly expressed the

imperative mood, has here lost
sight of it altogether, and passed
from exhortation to description.
Nor is there much difference be-
tween them. For every descrip-
tion of the Christian character
is also an exhortation to Chris-
tians.

10. rn giradedgia.| Not, as in
the English version, with brother-
ly love, but (as in 1 Thess. iv. 9.)
“in your love to the brethren,
affectionate one toward another.”
girdaropyo, as of parents to chil-
dren or of children to parents.

TH Ten AAAFAovE Tponyoupervor. |
Not, in honour preferring one
another (as in Phil. ii. 3., rj ra-
Tevvoppocuyn aAHAove Hyoupevor
trepéxorvrac Eavroy), in defence of
which something may be urged
on the ground of the Apostle
having made an _ etymological
adaptation of the word (cf. zpoe-
ypagn, Gal. iii. 1.), and the rarity,
if it is ever found, of the construc-
tion with the accusative case —
but as Theophylact and some of
the ancient versions, “ going be-
fore or anticipating one another
in paying honour :” “leading the
way to one another,” like zporo-
pevopevor,” and the Latin “ an-
teire.”

Th orovdn jy dKxvnpot.| Not
wanting in the energy of action.

TO wvevpare Céovrec, fervent in
spirit, | opposed to what preceded,
as the inward to the outward:

350

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XII.

aA ~ Lal ,
™ oToven py oKvynpol, TO Tvevpat. Céovtes, TO Kupio
, ~ > , , ~ , € ld
SovAevortes, TH eAmidu yalpovtes, TH Oder viropévorTes,

aw ~ ~ “A , ~
Th Wporevypn TpoaKkapTEepovrtes, Tals YpElars TOV wyiwv

A ,
Kowwvoorvtes, THY iro€eviay SudKovTes.
na a \ \ A
SudKovtas vpas* evroyeiTe, Kal pn KaTapacOe.
peTa yaipovTwv, Kraiew peta KavovT@r.

5 A Q\
evAoyetTeE TOUS
Xatpew

AX 5 \ 5
TO QUTO Els

addydous hpovodrtes, py TA Via Ppovovrtes, GAA Tots

1 Kap.

“energetic in act,- fervent in
soul.”

7) Kupiy dovdEvovrec, Serving
the Lord.| Considerable weight
of MS. authority attaches to
the. reading caipo dovAevorrec (A.
G.f.g.); either, “adapting your-
selves to the necessities of the
time,” which comes in strangely
among precepts to simplicity
and zeal, though, if a good mean-
ing be put upon the words, not
unlike the spirit of the Apostle in
other places, Acts, xvi. 3, 1 Cor.
ix. 20.; or (2.) in a higher sense,
“serving the time;” because the
time is short, and the day of the
Lord is at hand :—an interpreta-
tion which, like the former one,
connects better with what follows,
than with what precedes. Later
editors, however, agree with the
Textus Receptus in reading ro
kupiw dovdsvovrec, Which, on the
whole, has the greater weight of
external evidence (A. B. yv.) in
its favour. Nor can any ob-
jection be urged on internal
grounds, except that of an ap-
parent want of point, the slight-
est of all objections to a read-
ing or interpretation in the writ-
ings of St. Paul. And even this
is really groundless, if we regard
St. Paul as summing up in these
words what had gone before:
— “Be diligent, zealous, doing

2 Add kat.

all things unto the Lord, and not
unto men. Remembering in all
things that you are the servants
of Christ.” The difficulty is, in
any case, no greater than that
& xdpispa mwisrewc should occur
among other special graces in
Cor. xii., or that the word %eo-
orvysic should be found in a long
catalogue of particular sins.
Rom. i. 30.

12. rij éAride yalpovrec. | With
joy in time of hope and prosperity,
with patience in time of affliction.
ri! Shier might be a dative after
vropévovrec, “constant to afilic-
tion,” but is probably an ablative
— “constant in affliction ;” the
construction of the previous
clause being continued.

13. raic ypeiate TY dyiwy Ko.vw-
vovvrec. | Not, having a portion in
the needs of the saints; but, im-
parting to the saints who have
need. Compare Acts, xx. 34.,
Gal. vi. 6., Rom. xv. 20. The
variation in the text, raic prvetace
Tov ayiwy Kowwvoorrec, A. a. fi gu,
holding communion with the me-
mories of the saints, is a curious
instance of a reading supported
by ancient authorities, in which
ideas of the fourth or fifth century
are transferred to the first.

THY ptrogeviay Cwxeovrec. In
the same strain as in the pre-
ceding clause, the Apostle con-

15
16

Ver. 11—16.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 351

in honour leading* the way one to another; not back-
ward in diligence; fervent in spirit; serving the Lord;
rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing
instant in prayer; distributing to the necessity of
saints; given to hospitality. Bless them which perse-

cute you: bless, and curse not.
that do rejoice’, weep with them that weep.
the same mind one toward another :

Rejoice with them
Be of

minding*™ not

1 Add and.

tinues : — “ Relieving the wants
of the saints, and given to re-
ceiving them hospitably.” The
connexion leads us to suppose
that the Apostle is speaking of
hospitality specially to Christians,

perhaps pilgrims at Rome, and

not to men in general.

14. evdoyeire rove dwKovrac
hyde, bless them that persecute
you,| remind us of our Lord’s
words recorded in Matt. v. 44.:
— “Bless them that curse you.”
The similarity is, however, not
close enough to be urged as
a proof that St. Paul was ac-
quainted with our Gospels. The
word dwkovrec in the preceding
verse, appears to have suggested
the thought which the Apostle,
as his manner is, expresses first
positively and then negatively.

15. It is proposed by some in-
terpreters to connect kAalew pera
khavovrwy with the preceding
verse, so as to give the following
sense :— “ Bless them that per-
secute you: bless and curse not,
so that ye may be able to sym-
pathise with all their good and
ill fortune, thinking of one an-
other with like thoughts.” This
is another instance of the sacri-
fice of sense to an attempt at
grammar and connexion. To
say : — ‘‘ Bless your enemies, that
you may weep with them that

weep,” is extremely far-fetched.

The infinitive is better taken
for the imperative, as in Phil.
iii. 16., Luk. ix. 3., that is to say,
the construction is changed, and
the sentence proceeds as if Aéyw
mapaxadw, or a similar word, had
gone before.

16. 7rO avro.|] Either with cic
addnrove, (1.) Thinking of your-
selves as you would have others
think of you—the reverse of
placing yourselves above one
another (x1) ra tna gpovodtrrec) ;
or with ¢poveiy preserving the
ordinary sense of 70 airo gpoveiv
in other passages (cf. 70 abr
ppovety év adAfdac). (2.) “Be
of the same mind one with ano-
ther,” a counsel not of humility,
but of unity, of which humility
is also a part. Compare ver. 4.

adAd Tole Taretvoic ovvarayo-
pevot.| It is doubted whether in
this passage ravewoic is neuter
or masculine: the word twnvdd,
which precedes, would incline
us to suppose the former; the
common use of razvevoc is in
favour of the latter. Let us
suppose the first, and take
rameivoc in the sense in which it
is most opposed to vWyddc, not
“miserable,” as in James, i. 10,
but “lowly.” Then, amid pre-
cepts of sympathy and humility,
or unity, the Apostle may be

352

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XM.

A % , , 7%

Tamewors ovvaTrayomevor. py yiverUe hpovipor Tap Eav-

A lal 4 y
Tos. pindevt Kakov avti KaKod amod.OovTes, Tpovoovpevor
Q - ae la A \1 + Ee th Fae Ape A , ‘ >
Kaha [évdmvov tod Geod Kat'] evomiov Tav" avlpaTov: Et

A > 4
Suvardv, To €€ tuav peta TavToOV avOpaToV cipnvevorTes,
\ ¢€ ‘ b) 5 A 3 , IANO 8 , , a
ph Eavtovs exduKovrtes, ayamytol, GAAa OoTE TOTOY TH

2ovn vevOaTTaL yao Ejmot eKolknaots, eya avTaTOOwoe
opyn’ Y*EYP Yop SP Hou, ey ,

1 Om, évwr .. Kal,

supposed to proceed as follows:
“ Thinking of yourselves as on a
level with one another, minding
not high things, not struggling
against lowly ones;” or with
ramewvoic as a masculine, “ Mind-
ing not high things, but de-
scending to be with the lowly.”
The two opposed clauses thus
serve as a new expression of the
general thought, 70 avro cic GAAH-
Aove PpovourTec, which is again
resumed in ver. 17.: “Be on a
level; there are vdnAad and
rameiva or rarevol ;— do not seek
to rise to one, or strive against
descending to the other.” So far
all is clear. The difficulty is how
to insert the notion of “force”
or “constraint” which is con-
tained in the word ovvarayopievot.
It may possibly be nothing more
than the misuse or exaggeration
in the use of a word which arises
from an imperfect command over
language; but it may also be
fairly explained as referring to
the struggle in our own minds,
or the violence we do to our own
feelings. The Apostle might
have said roie ramewvoic ovvoplt=
Novyree OF ovy Tole TamEtvoic
rarewvounevor. Remembering that
the human heart is apt to be in
rebellion against lessons of hu-
mility, he uses, not with perfect
clearness, the more precise word
ovvarTayepevot

2 advTwr,

pu) yiveobe dpdvipot rap Eavroic,
be not wise in your own opinions. |
These words are a short summary
of what has preceded; they have
also a reference to what follows.
As above the Apostle connected
lowly thoughts of ourselves with
consideration of others, so pride
leads in its train retaliation; it
will not hear of the Gospel pre-
cept, “If any man smite you on
the right cheek, turn to him the
other also.”

mpovoovpevoe kada.| It is a
favourite thought of the Apostle
that the believer should walk
seemly to those that are without,
careful of the sight of man no
less than of God. Comp. 2 Cor.
viii. 21., where, speaking of the
collection to be made for the
poor saints, the Apostle says that
he had one chosen to go up with
him to Jerusalem with the alms :
Tpovoovpey ‘yap Kaka ov povoy
évwmwov Kupiov, ad\Aa Kat Evwrvoy
avOpw7wy: as in this passage.
Cf. Prov. iii. 4., cal zpovood cada
évwTioy Kupiov Kal avOpwrwyr.

18. «i duvardy, ro é tpor.| If
it be possible, live peaceably with
all men. To which the Apostle
adds, as a limitation, ro é§ vuor:
if other men will not, yet, as far
as you are concerned, live peace-
ably; at any rate, it is possible
for you.

19. ddre rérov rh Opyh, give

17
18

19

tod

Ver. 17—19.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 003

high things, but going along* with the lowly. Be not
wise in your own conceits. Recompense to no man
evil for evil. Provide things honest! [in the sight of
God and] in the sight of? men. If it be possible, as
much as lieth in you, be* at peace with all men.
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give
place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine;

! Om. in the sight of God and.

place to wrath.| These words
havereceived three explanations:
—(1.) Make room for the wrath
of your enemy, ¢. e. let the wrath
of your enemy have its way ; or,
(2.) Make room for your anger
to cool, “date spatium ire,” give
your anger a respite; or, (3.)
Make way for the wrath of God.
The second of these explanations
is equally indefensible on grounds
of language and sense. Itisonly
as a translation of a Latinism we
can suppose the phrase to have
any meaning at all, and the
meaning thus obtained, “ defer
your wrath,” is poor and weak.
According to the first and third
explanations the words ddre rérov
are taken
(which also occurs in Eph. iv. 27.
— poe didore rérov To diabddro),
the doubt being whether the word
dpyy refers to the wrath of our
enemy or of God. The latter is
supposed to be required by the
context, “Give place to the wrath
of God, who has said, Vengeance
is mine.” The last clause, how-
ever, may be equally well con-
nected with the words, avenge
not yourself; nor is it easy to
conceive that if the Apostle had
intended the wrath of God, he
would have expressed himself so
concisely and obscurely as in the
words rij dpyn. The first ex-

VOL. II.

in the same sense.

2 Add all.

planation is, therefore, the true
one. ‘“ Dearly beloved, avenge
not yourself, but let your enemy
have his way.” It has been ob-
jected that common _ prudence
requires that we should defend
ourselves against our enemies.
This is true, and yet the fact,
that the same objection ap-
plies equally to the words of
our Saviour in the Gospel
(Matt. v. 34—48.), is a sufficient
answer ;—0 duvdpevog ywpetv
KwpEeiTw.

yéyparrac yap.-| The words
that follow are from Deut. xxxii.
35. The spirit in which they are
cited by the Apostle, is somewhat
different from that in which they
occur in the Old Testament; not,
“avenge not yourself, for God
will avenge you, and so your
enemy will not escape free;” but,
“avenge not yourself, because
you are intruding on the office
and province of God.” |

The principle here laid down
may be sometimes a counsel of
perfection ; that is to say, a prin-
ciple which, in the mixed state of
human things, it is impossible to
carry out in practice. But it is
worthy of remark thatit is also a
maxim acted upon by civilised
nations in the infliction of penal-
ties for crime. There is no vin-
dictivenessin punishment,neither

A A

354

héyeu KUptos.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XII.

Gia ’Eav! rewd 6 €xOpds cov, Wopile

A \ A ¥
avtov' éav Suba, motile adTdv. TOvTO yap ToLwY avOpakas
‘ 4 92% ‘ ‘ > “~ \ we . A
Tupos Tapevorers ETL THV KEPahHy AVTOV. [A VLKM VITO TOV
: ‘a “~ ~ ‘ 4
KaKOD, GANA vika ev TO ayal@ TO KaKor.

1 Om aaAdd: add odv after édv.

retaliation for the injury done to
the individual nor to the state,
nor, if so be, for the impiety
against God. The preservation
of society is its only object.
Human law begins by acknow-
ledging that God alone is the
judge; it is not even the execu-
tioner of his anger against sin,
much less of man’s wrath against
his fellows. Conscious of its own
impotence and of the awful re-
sponsibilities which surround it,
it only seeks to accomplish, in a
superficial and external manner,
what is barely necessary for self-
defence.

[éar ody. If ody were genuine,
this and the preceding verse
might be connected as follows :
— Therefore seeing you have no
right to avenge yourself, do good
only to yourenemy. ‘There is no
need, however, to invent a con-
nexion in a passage the general
character of which is so abrupt,
more especially as the particle
ovv is probably spurious. ]

The words which follow, rotro
yup wowv avOpaxag rupd¢g owpev-

cece Ext THY Kedardjy abrod, “for
in so doing thou shalt heap
coals of fire upon his head,” are
a well-known difficulty. It must
not be overlooked that they are
a quotation from Prov. xxv. 21.,
taken verbatim from the LXX.,
which, however, has an addi-
tional clause, 6 dé Kupiog avraro-
dwoe oor. ayafa. The meaning
of the words, in their original
connexion, has been thus given :
— “Do good to your enemies, for
so you shall undo them with grief
and indignation at themselves,
but God shall reward you.” To
this it may be objected that the
adversative particle dé (6 d€ Ku-
ptoc) has no force, and also that
the expression, “ thou shalt heap
coals of fire on his head,” is an
image of destruction, and cannot
be distorted into the metaphor of
destroying another with grief and
indignation.

But, secondly, the context in
the New Testament in which the
expression occurs, has reference
to the forgiveness of injuries, and
in some way or other a meaning

20

21

Ver. 20, 21.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

395

I will repay, saith the Lord. Rather “if thine enemy
hunger, feed him; if he thirst, give him drink: for it* is
by doing this that thou shalt heap coals of fire on his
head.” Be not overcome of evil, but overcome evil with

good,

1 Therefore.

must be found for the words,
“thou shalt heap coals of fire
upon his head,” which is in ac-
cordance with this precept. The
explanation, “thou shalt melt
thine enemy like wax,” may be
at once set aside as inconsistent
with the words. Nor is the other
interpretation, “thou shalt make
his soul burn with remorse,” really
more defensible. What appro-
priateness is there in the expres-
sion, “ heaping coals of fireon the
head,” to express inward remorse
and indignation? or how would
the desire even to excite remorse
in an enemy be consistent with
Christian forgiveness? Itis im-
possible to harmonise such an in-
terpretation with what precedes
or follows. Better, therefore, to
take the words in their literal
sense as an image of destruction,
which is, however, ironically ap-
plied by the Apostle, in the spirit
of the New Testament, rather
than of the Old, so as to reverse

the meaning. “ Instead of aveng-
ing yourselves, say rather (with
them of old time), if thine enemy
hunger, feed him; if he thirst,
give him drink, for this is the
right way of undoing and de-
stroying him; this is the true
mode of retaliation ; this is the
Christian’s revenge.” There is an
emphasis on rovro: “In so doing
thou shalt inflict on him the true
vengeance.” The omission of the
final words (but the Lord shall re-
ward thee), which would be in-
appropriate, if the first part of
the passage is to have this turn
given to it, is a strong argument
that the suggested interpretation
is the correct one.

21. The explanation just given
is further confirmed by the verse
which follows. He has just said,
“Destroy your enemy with deeds
of merey.” Following out the
same thought he adds, “Do not
be carried away by his evil, but
carry him away by your good.”

aa Ss

356 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP. XIII.

Is the previous chapter the Apostle had spoken of the unity of the
Church, and of the offices of its members. He had gone on to scatter
admonitions, following each other in order sometimes of sound, some-
times of meaning, which, like the precepts of the sermon on the Mount,
went beyond the maxims of heathen virtue, or the sayings of “them
of old time.” Men were to think humbly of themselves, to return
good for evil, to feed their enemies, to live peaceably with all. Con-
tinuing in the same spirit, he adds, “they are to be obedient to the
powers that be.” This isa part of the Christian’s duty, which he will
more easily fulfil if he regards the magistrate as he truly is, as “ the
minister of God for good.”

The earnestness with which St. Paul dwells upon his theme, as
well as the allusions to the same subject in other passages of the
New Testament (Tit. iii. 1., 1 Pet. ii. 13—18.), are proofs that he
is guarding against a tendency to which he knew the first believers
to be subject. He is speaking to the Christians at Rome, as a bishop
of the fourth or fifth century might have addressed the multitudes
of Alexandria ; preaching counsels of moderation to “the fifth
monarchy men” of that day. They were more in the eye of the
Christian world than believers elsewhere, more likely to come into
conflict with the imperial power, perhaps in greater danger of being
led away with the dream of another kingdom. The spirit of rebel-
lion, against which the Apostle is warning them, was not a mere
misconception of the teaching of the Gospel ; it lay deep in the cir-
cumstances of the age and in the temper of the Jewish people. It
is impossible to forget, however slight may be their historical ground-

Odi itetiets

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 357

work, the well-known words of Suetonius, Claud. c. 25., “ Judzxos
impulsore Chresto assidué tumultuantes Roma expulit.” (Acts, xviii.
_ 2.) The narrative of Scripture itself affords indications of similar
- agitations, so far as they can be expected to cross the peaceful path
t of our Saviour and his disciples. The words of the prophecy, as it is
___ termed, of Caiaphas respecting our Lord, however unfounded, imply
- a political fear more than a religious enmity. The question of the
Pharisees, “Is it lawful to give tribute to Cesar,” and the argument
a with which the Jews wrought on the fears of Pilate, are also not with-
3 out significance. The account of Judas the Gaulonite, in Josephus,
e “who rose up about the time of the taxing,” and whom Josephus terms
; q “the founder of the fourth philosophy of the Jews,” Ant. xviii. ¢. 1.
§§ 1. 6. is a more explicit evidence of the spirit of insubordination.
That “philosophy” consisted in an inviolable attachment to liberty,
_ and “in calling no man Lord” but God himself (§ 6.), a principle
__ which was maintained by its adherents with indescribable constancy.
_ The author of the movement was no ordinary man, and the move-
_ ment itself so far from being a transient one, that it continued through
above half a century, and is regarded by Josephus, as “laying the
foundation of the miseries” of the Jewish war. (xvii. ¢. 1. § 1.)
4 The account of Josephus himself, unwilling as he is to do them
_ justice, shows that in their first commencement the Zealots were
_ animated by noble thoughts, their testimony to which they were
_ ready to seal by tortures and death. Many of these “ Galileans”
_ (for in this country they were chiefly found) were probably among
_ the first converts. Like the Essenes, they stood in some relation
‘ that we are unable to trace to the followers of John the Baptist and
_ of Christ. We cannot suppose that in all cases the temper of the
_ Zealot had died away in the bosom of the Christian. A very slight
_ misunderstanding of the manner in which “the kingdom was to be
restored to Israel” might suffice to rekindle the flame. If our Lord
himself had said, — Peace I leave with you, He had also said, I come
. not to bring peace on earth, but a sword; if He had commanded
q _ Peter to put up his sword into the sheath, He had also commanded

aa 3

+?) EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

them each to sell his garment and buy one; if He had paid tribute, He
had also declared that the children of the kingdom were free from the
tribute. We could hardly wonder if those who heard His words some-
times mistook the result for the object, or confused the Jewish belief of
the kingdom of heaven upon earth with the kingdom of God that is
within. The after history of the Church teaches how near such a
confusion lay to the truth itself. Not once only, nor during our
Lord’s lifetime only, there have been those who have “taken him by
force to make him a king.” |

The words “the powers that be are ordained of God” have been
made the foundation of many doctrines of passive obedience and
non-resistance. Out of the Apostle’s “counsels of moderation” have
developed themselves the Divine right of government, however exer-
cised and under all circumstances, and even of particular forms of
government. The party feelings of an age have been clothed in the
language of Scripture, and established on the ground of antiquity.
If the first Christians were to obey the heathen emperors, how
can we ever be justified in shaking off the yoke of a Christian
sovereign? If St. Paul said this under Nero, how much more is it
true of the subjects of King Charles I. ?

Such arguments are two-edged; for as many passages may be
quoted from Scripture which indirectly tend to the subversion, as can
be adduced for the maintenance, of order or of property. The words
of the psalmist, “to bind their kings in chains, their nobles in fetters
of iron,” are in the mouth of one class; “shall I lift up my hand
to slay the Lord’s anointed?” of another ; and in peace and pro-
sperity men turn to the one, in the hour of revolution to the other.
Many are the texts which we either silently drop or insensibly
modify, with which the spirit of modern society seems almost
unavoidably to be at variance. The blessing on the poor, and the
“hard sayings” respecting rich men, are not absolutely in accordance
even with the better mind of the present age. We cannot follow the
simple precept, “ Swear not at all,” without making an exception
for the custom of our courts of law. We dare not quote the words,

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 359

“ Go sell all thou hast and give to the poor,” without adding the
caution, “ Beware, lest in making the copy thou break the pattern.”
We are not so often exhorted “to obey God rather than man,” as
warned against the misapplication of the words.

These instances are sufficient to teach us how moderate we should
be in reasoning from particular precepts, even where they agree with
our preconceived opinions. The truth seems to be that the Scripture
lays down no rule applicable to individual cases, or separable from the
circumstances under which it is given. Still less does it furnish a poli-
tical or philosophical system— “My kingdom is not of this world,”
which it scarcely seems to touch. No one can infer from the passage
that we are considering that St. Paul believed it wrong to rise against
wicked rulers in any case, because they were the appointment of God,
any more than from his speaking of wrestling against principalities and
powers we can conclude that he supposed, with some of the Ebionitish
sects, that all power was of the devil. It never occurred to him that the
hidden life which he thought of only as to be absorbed in the glory of
the sons of God, was one day to be the governing principle of the civi-
lised world. Though “he has written this in an epistle,” he would
not have us use it “altogether” without regard to the state of this
world. Only in reference to the time at which he is writing, looking
at the infant community in relation to the heathen world, he exhorts
them to suffer rather than oppose ; and if ever the thought rises in
their minds that those whom they obey are the oppressors of God and
His Church, to remember that without His appointment they could
not have been, and that, after all, it is for their own faults they them-
selves are most likely to endure evil even at the hands of Gentile
magistrates.

Aa 4

360

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. XIII.

- 4
Tlaca Wuyi éEovatas trepexovous vrotacaéabu. ov
A 3S e A
yap éatw é€ovaia ei pr bd) Oeod, at dé obras Vd Beod?

b ] ,
TETAYPEVAL ELL.

y ¢ 3 4 ~ 5 4 “A
@oTE 6 avTiTacadpmevos TH Efovoia TH

wn A ate 4 e de b) Q , e A
Tov Oeov duatayy avOléornkey’® ou 0€ avVeaTyNKOTES EaUTOLS

Kpia AyprpovTat.

dyale epyw, adhAA TO Kaka.

e ‘ ¥ b) > \ / A
ol yap apyovtTes ovK claw poBos To
3

Béreus 5é pn hoBeto Oar THY

> , a. \ , han OF ¥ > 2A
e€ovoiav ; TO aryabov WOvLEL, KQL e€eus €7T OLVOV é€ QvUT71s °

Geov yap SuaKoves €oTW ToL Els TO ayaldv.

€av O€ TO

XQ laa la) > x 2. & > 4 “A
Kakov Touns PoBov: ov yap ElKH THV payaipay oper”
Beod yap Sidkovds éoTw ExduKos eis Spynv TO TO KaKOV

1 Gm, 2 éovotas bd Tov Seod.

raoa Wuyh, every soul, | is used
here as the word soul or body in
English, simply for “ person.”
Compare 1 Pet. iii. 20. dxkra Ww-
xal.

éLovaiaie vrepexovoae, to pow-
ers above them.| Comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 18. :— broraynre waon avOpw-
mivn KTiog Ova Tov KipLoy, Etre Ba-
oUNEl, WC UTEPEXOVTL, ElTE HyEUdoLY,
we Ov avrov TreuTopEévote.

ov yap éoruv édovoia, k.T. Ay for
there is no power. | “ For there is
no power but has a Divine source,
and those that exist are appointed
by God.” The second clause is
not a mere repetition ; it gives
emphasis ; what in the first clause
was a principle, is a fact in the
second. ‘ All power is of God ;
those which exist among us, un-
der which we live, are his express
appointment.” Thesame thought
occurs in the Wis. of Sol. vi. 1
—3., “Hear, O yekings.....
for power is given you of the
Lord and sovereignty from the
Highest, who shall try your
works and search out your coun-
sels.”

The MS. authority is nearly e-
qually balanced between azo Yeou,

3 ray ayabay Epywv GAAG TOY KaKdr.

the reading of the Textus Recep-
tus, in the first clause, and ve
Sov, which is Lachmann’s. The
former of the two readings gives
the best sense, as it agrees best
with the generality of the first
clause. As ovca corresponds to
éorwv, 80 UToraccéoOw to reraypevat,
which latter paronomasia is car-
ried on in the next verse by av-
riracoopevoc and duarayy. It may
be rendered in English — “ Let
every one be in his place under
the powers above him, for they
have their place from God him-
self.”

2. So that he who arrays him-
self against the power, opposes
the appointment of God, a con-
sequence of the previous verse ;
and (dé slightly adversative=and
whatever they may think) they
that oppose, shall receive to
themselves condemnation. From
whom? From the magistrate
apparently. Yet St. Paul does
not merely mean that they shall
suffer temporal punishment. As
in Matth. v. 21, 22., the punish-
ment of the magistrate is the
symbol of a higher penalty which
they are to suffer, because he has

13

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 361

Ver. 1—4.]

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers.
For there is no power but of God: the powers that be
are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers
are not aterror to the good work’, but to the evil. And*
wilt thou not be afraid of the power? do that which is
good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: for he is
the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do
that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the
sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger

1 Good works.

the authority of God. By some
commentators the second verse
is connected with what follows :
—“ Thou shalt be punished ; for
rulers are a terror, not to good
works, but to evil, which is a
proof that your resistance to au-
thority is evil.” This is far-
fetched ; the latter words are
better taken in connexion, not
with the clause of d¢ av@eornkdrec,
but with the general sense of the
two previous verses.

3. of yap &pyorrec, for rulers. |
The dative (ro gpyw), which is
supported by a great prepon-
derance of MS. authority, is the
true reading. ‘The Apostle goes
on to give another reason why it
is our duty to obey magistrates,
besides their being divinely ap-
pointed, because they are a terror,
not to the good work, but to the
evil. And would you be with-
out fear of the magistrate ? Do
well, and he shall praise you as
a good citizen. :

It may be observed:—(1.) That

_St. Paul cannot have intended to

rule absolutely the question of
obedience to authority, if for no

other reason than this, that the
only case he supposes is that of a
just ruler. (2.) That the man-
ner in which he speaks of ru-
lers, is a presumption that the
Christians at Rome could not
have been at this time subject
to persecution from the autho-
rities ; whence it may be in-
ferred also that it was in re-
ference to the temper of the
early Christians rather than to
any systematic persecution likely
to arouse it, these precepts were
given.

4. He will praise you, if you
do well, for he is the minister of
God to you (se. if you do well)
for good. But if thou doest ill,
be afraid ; for he does not bear
the sword without purpose. For
he is the minister of God, an
avenger to execute wrath on him:
that does evil.

Is the Apostle speaking of
rulers of this world as they are,
or as they ought to be? Of nei-
ther, but of the feeling with which
the Christian is to regard them.
In general, he will be slow to
think evil of others ; in particu-

362 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XIII.

4 4 3 , e , Q b , 5 A 4A
TpaoOOvTl. 510 dvaykn vrotaccer Oat, ov pOvoy Ova THY 5
- , 5 A A 7 A (8 8 \ wn A A
dpynv, adda Kat dua THY ouveldnow. dua TOUTO yap Kat

~ a QA ww
popous TedetTE’ hevroupyot yap Qeov e€iatly eis avTo TOUTO
wn ‘ A A , A a
T POO KApPTEPOUVTES. dmddore! Tacw Tas ddetas, TH TOV
w~ ww QA
opov Tov Popov, TO TO TéXos TO TEAOS, TH TOV POBov TOV
, w~ A \ \ 4 5 A de ap ir TE él
hoBov, TO THY TYLHY THY TYLNV. pNOEVL pNdEV OpedrcTe,
wn . 5 aw A 9Y ,
pn? 7d dA ous ayaTav. O yap ayaa TOV ETEpoV VOMOV
4 A A b , >] 4 5 2 4
TETAHPWKEV* TO YAP OV MOLXEVTELS, OV povevorets, ov K)éE-
8 > 3 ) , NS a ce , 5 X 4 5 A ¥ A
weis®, ovK eriOupynoets, Kal El TUS ETEPA EVTOAH, EV TH Loy@

—
TOUT@

1 Add od»,
8 Add ob Wevdouaprupyjces.

lar, of rulers. His temper will
be that of submission and mode-
ration. He will acknowledge that
almost any government is toler-
able to the man who walks in-
nocently, and that the govern-
ments of mankind in general have
more of right and justice in them
than the generality of men are
apt to suppose. And lastly, he
will feel that, whatever they do,
they are in the hands of God, who
rules among the children of men ;
and, in general, that his relations
to them, like all the other relations
of Christian life, are to God also.

5. Therefore we must obey, not
only from fear of punishment, but
for conscience sake. Comp. 1 Pet.
ii. 13., broraynre aon avOpwrivy
krige: dud Tov kupiov. In obeying
the magistrate, you are obeying
God ; you are “in foro consci-
entiz,” and you cannot disobey
without “the conscience being
defiled.” 1 Cor. viii. 7.

opyn, punishment, as in iii. 5.,
iv. 15., like the English word
“vengeance,” including the act
of execution as well as the feel-
ing which prompts it.

6. dua rovro, therefore,| is at
once the proof and the conse-

b] ~ > A > / A ,
dvakehadavovtat, [ev TH] ayamyoets TOV TANTIOV

2 7d dyandy ddAnAous,
4 év tolTw TE Adyy.

quence of what has preceded, and
may be referred to ver. 5., “ Be-
cause you must be subject for
conscience sake ;” or better, to
the whole preceding passage,
* Because of the Divine appoint-
ment of rulers,’ which is again
repeated in the next clause.

The same remark which was
made in ver. 4. holds good here.
We are not to conceive St. Paul
as arguing absolutely that Cesar
had a right to tribute, but only
setting forth one side of the ques-
tion, that is, the feeling with which
a religious man should regard the
exactions of a heathen govern-
ment. As though he had said :—
‘When you see the tribute ga-
therer sitting at the receipt of
custom, restrain the feelings that
might arise in your mind, with
the thought that he too is the
minister of God. ‘Render unto
Cesar the things that are Czsar’s,’
because in so doing ye are ren-
dering unto God the things that
are God’s.”

eic avro rovro| may either be
explained (1.) by cig ro Aetroup-
yeiv r@ Yeo, understood in de-
roupyut Seov, or (2.) referred to
what precedes— “for the very

8

Ver. 5—9.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

363

to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore
ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also
for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute
also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually
for* this very thing. Render‘ to all their dues: tri-
bute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom;
fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no
man any thing, but to love one another: for he that
loveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this, Thou
shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou
shalt not steal”, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be
any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in
this®, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy-

1 Add therefore.

purpose of receiving tribute ;”
the point is, that the Divine au-
thority of magistrates is brought
home to the rebellious spirit in
the vulgar case of their receiving
tribute.

7. The Apostle goes on to
comprehend the particular in-
stance of duty to magistrates
under a general head. [ov»,
which would imply an inference,
is probably corrupt.] ro ror
gdpov is governed of some pas-
sive verb understood in dgeAdc.
For the omission, comp. 2 Cor.
viii. 15.

8. The precept of the previous
verse is repeated in a stronger
negative form : — “ Owe no man
any thing.” To whichthe Apostle
adds, but “to love one another.”

Some have taken the word
ogeidere in different senses in the
two clauses. ‘“ Owe no man any
thing, only ye ought to love one
another.” It is simpler, without
such a paronomasia, to explain

® Add thou shalt not bear false witness.

8 Add saying.

the words of the endless debt of
love: “Owe no man anything,
but to love one another ;” that
debt, we may add, which “owing
owe’s not” and is alway due.

6 yap ayarwy tov Erepoy.| For
to owe this debt is the payment
of all debts. He that loveth his
neighbour, hath fulfilled the law.
Comp. Matt. xxii. 37, 38.

9. The Apostle, quoting ap-
parently from Exodus, xx. 13.,
Deut. v. 18, 19., not according
to the Hebrew, but according to
copies of the LX X., which Philo
must have had (De Decalogo,
§ 12. 24. 32.), like him, places
the seventh commandment be-
fore the sixth. The same order
is observed in the quotation of
the Evangelists, Luke, xviii. 20.,
Mark, x. 19.; the places of the
seventh and eighth being also
transposed in the Vatican MS.
of the LX-X.

ei ruc Erépa évroAy.| The ninth
commandment is omitted.

364

COU WS GEAUTOP:

Cera: mypwpa ody vouov 7} ayamy.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XIII.

Ae TR n N , \ > 5 ,
7] ayamry TQ 7 10 LOV KQKOV OUK cpya-

. Lat 5 ,
KL TOUTO ELOOTES

9 la 4 “~ lal *:
Tov Kaupdv, dT @pa dy Duas! e€ varvov eyepOnvar * viv yap

A KX 4 > rd
eyyUTEpov Huav 7 TwTHpia 7 OTE EMLaTEVTApeE.

mpoékowber, H Se nucpa nyyikey* aroddpue0a obv Ta epya

A 4 A
Tov okdTous, evdvadpela” Sé Ta Ora TOV hwTos.

e >
@MS €&V

Auepa evoYNLOVaS TEPLTATHTMMEV, LI) KOpoLs Kat peas,
\ , \ > 7 \ y \ , 3 > 5 ,
py Kolraus Kal doedyelaus, my Epidr Kat Cyrm add’ évdv-

1 Spa nuas Hdy.

10. Or to come to the conclu-
sion in a different way. Love
works no ill to our neighbour;
that is to say, it breaks none of the
commandments of the law which
have been just mentioned, there-
fore, in other words, love fulfils
the law. (11—13.) What follows,
the Apostle has clothed in an
allegory. ‘The night is far spent,
the day is at hand. It is mid-
night still, and yet he seems
to see the morning light. He
has been awake, while others
slept. Surely the night is far
spent, he says, it cannot be so
long as it was.

11. cat rovro, and this too. |
1 Cor. vi. 6—8. ; Eph. ii. 8. °

It has been remarked that in
the New Testament we find noex-
hortations grounded on the short-
ness of life. As if the end of
life had no practical importance
for the first believers, compared
with the day of the Lord. Like
one of the old prophets, St. Paul
already seems to see “ the morn-
ing spread upon the mountains.”
The night has endured long
enough, and the ends of the
world are come. Comp. 1 Thess.
v. 1—5., and Essay in Vol. I.
On Beliefin the Coming of Christ.

viv yap éyytrepoy iypor h owo-

2 Kal évdvoe,

tnpia, for now our salvation is
nearer than when we believed. |
So much time has elapsed since
we first received the Gospel, that
he cannot long delay his coming.
Yet the very consciousness of
this is not unlike the feeling
expressed in 2 Peter, iii. 4.: —
“Where is the promise of his
coming ? for since the fathers
fell asleep, all things continue as
they were from the beginning of
the creation.”

Comp. Ezekiel, xii. 22, 23.:
“ Son of man, what is that pro-
verb that ye have in the land of
Israel, saying, The days are pro-
longed, and every vision faileth ?

“Tell them therefore, Thus
saith the Lord God, I will make
this proverb to cease, and they
shall. no more use it as a proverb
in Israel; but say unto them,
The days are at hand, and the
effect of every vision.’

hay may be taken either
with 4 owrnpia, Eph. i. 13., Phil.
i. 12., or with éyyurepor.

But why should the Apostle
address the Roman Christians in
such startling language? Had
they been asleep like the heathen
around them? It is the language
of the preacher now and then,
and in the old time before that

9 v0

13

14 |

10
11

12

13

14

Ver. 10—14.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 365

‘self. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore

love is the fulfilling of the law. And this,* knowing the
time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for
now is our salvation nearer than when we believed. The
night is far spent, the day is at hand: let us therefore
cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the
armour of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day;
not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and

wantonness, not in strife and envying.

— “Awake thou that sleepest,
and arise from the dead,” which,
however often repeated, finds
men sleeping still.

12. i vd wpoexober, the night
is far spent.| The night is far
spent ; let us lay aside the gar-
ment of the night, that is, the
deeds of darkness. The idea of
a garment is contained in a7o0w-
peda, which is opposed to évdv-
cowpea in what follows. “And
let us put on the armour of light ;”
compare Eph. vi. The Greek
Fathers give several reasons why
in the first clause the Apostle
should have used the word épya,
and in the second érAa. If any

- reason is necessary, it may be

said to arise from the latter word
being more appropriate to express
the position of the Christian in
this world, arrayed for the con-

flict against evil.

13. As in the face of day, let
us walk decently. Two figures
of speech here blend. Let us
walk as in the light of day, let
us walk as in the day of the
Lord ; let us walk as men com-
monly do in the eyes of their
fellow-men, remembering that we
are walking in the eye of God.

py KOpote . +. py Koirac.| On
what analogy are these cases to

But put ye on

be explained ? Those who re-
gard them as datives of relation,
say that they are governed of the

idea of Zoey contained in the

words evoynpovwe repirarhowper.
But datives of relation cannot be
assumed at pleasure, and although
Cnv Oep, or even Cnv Koiraic, may
be Greek, it does not follow
that wepirareiv kolrarc, in the
sense of to walk for, or in re-
ference to, something, will be an
allowable expression, unless as-
sisted by some similar use of the
dative with another verb in a
parallel clause. Some other ex-
planation of the cases in question
is required. It is not, however,
necessary that the grammarian
should confine himself to any —
single way of conceiving the re-
lation expressed by them. Either
they follow the analogy of 660
mepirareiv, or év is omitted (a
mode of speech which may be
fairly used where év is commonly
inserted), or they are datives of
the rule as it is termed, like rove
€0eou wepirareiv, in Acts, xxi. 21.,
or grammar fails, and, as often in
Sophocles, an obscure sense of two
or three imperfect constructions
may make up a good one.

14. évdtcacbe, put on.| Com-
pare Gal. iii. 27., where the word

366 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XIII.

” A wn :
cacbe Tov Kvpiov *Incovv xpioTov, Kal THS Tapkos Tpd-
vouay pn trovetobe eis eriOvupias.
occurs, as perhaps also here, with clothed after coming up out of

an allusion to the garment in the water;—“For as many of
which the baptized person was you as were baptized into Christ,

Ver. 14.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS, 367

the Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the
flesh, unto™ the lusts thereof.

have put on Christ.” Compare result and object; as elsewhere,
notes on 1 Thess. v. 1—10. ‘which thing tends to lust,”
gic érOupiac.| Confusion of

368 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

CHAP XIV.

Ir has been already stated, that we hardly know anything of the
Roman Church. Hence the illustrations of the present chapter
must rather consist in references to the floating opinions of the
time than to precise facts. Even in regard to what we may
seem to gather from the Epistle itself, it is not quite certain whether
St. Paul is speaking from a knowledge of the circumstances of a
Church which he had never visited, or from what he knew of the
state of other Churches and of general tendencies in the mind of the
first believers, or in the age generally. He may have had among
his numerous acquaintances (xvi.) some who, like the household of
Chloe at Corinth, brought him news of what passed among the
Christians at Rome. On the other hand, it may be remarked that a
mention of similar observances to those here spoken of, recurs
in the Epistle to the Colossians; and that a like scrupulosity of
temper appears to have existed among the converts at Corinth.

The practices about which the first believers had scruples and on
which the Apostle here touches, were — the use of animal food, and
the observance of special days. The most probable guess at the
nature of these scruples is that they were of half-Jewish, half-Oriental
origin; similar practices existed among Jewish Essenes or Gentile
Pythagoreans. Abstinence from animal food may be regarded
as one among many indications of the ever-increasing influence
of the East upon the West; unnatural as it seems to us, like
circumcision it had become a second nature to a great portion
of mankind. Fancy represented the eating of flesh as a species
of cannibalism, and the Ebionites declared the practice to be an

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 369 —

nvention of evil demons (Clem. Hom. viii. 10—16.). And with
those who were far from superstitions of this kind, the fear of eating
things offered to idols, or forbidden by the Mosaic law, operated so
as to make them abstain where there was a danger of contact with
Gentiles. Instances of such scruples occur in the book of Daniel
and the Apocrypha. It was the glory of Daniel and the three holy
children that they would “not defile themselves with the portion of
the King’s food ;” Dan. i. 8. So Tobit “kept himself from eating
the bread of the Gentiles;” i. 10, 11. Judas Maccabeus and nine
others, living “in the mountains after the manner of beasts, fed on
herbs continually, lest they should become partakers of the pollu-
tion ;” 2 Macc. v. 27. Such examples show what the Jews had
learned to practise or admire in the centuries immediately preceding
the Christian era. So John the Baptist, in the narrative of the
Gospels, “fed on locusts and wild honey.” A later age delighted to
attribute a similar abstinence to James the brother of the Lord
(Heges. apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 23.); and to Matthew (Clem. Alex.
Pied. ii. 1. p. 174.): heretical writers added Peter to the list of these
encratites (Epiph. Her. xxx. 2., Clem. Hom. xii. 6.). The Aposto-
lical canons (li. liii.) admit an ascetic abstinence, but denounce those
who abstain from any sense of the impurity of matter. See passages
quoted in Fritsche, vol. iii. pp. 151, 152.

Jewish, as well as Alexandrian and Oriental influences, combined
to maintain the practice of abstinence from animal food in the first
centuries. Long after it had ceased to be a Jewish scruple, it
remained as a counsel of perfection. In earlier ages, it was the
former more than the latter. Those for whom the Apostle is urging
consideration are the weak, rather than the strong ; not the ascetic,
delighting to make physical purity the outward sign of holiness of
life — against him it might have been necessary to contend for the
freedom of the Gospel, — but “ the babe in Christ,” feeble in heart
and confused in head, who could not disengage himself from opinions
or practices which he saw around him; for whom, nevertheless,
Christ died.

VOL. II. BB

370 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Respecting the second point of the observance of days, we know
no more than may be gathered from Gal. iv. 9, 10. 17., “How turn
ye again to the weak and beggarly elements whereunto ye again
desire to be in bondage? ye observe days, and months, and times,
and years ;” where the Apostle is writing to a Church entangled
in Judaism, which he therefore thinks it necessary to denounce :
and Col. ii. 16., “Let no man therefore judge you in respect of

> where the

' an holyday or anew moon, or of the sabbath days :’
Apostle also reproves the same spirit as inconsistent with the
close connexion or rather identity of the believer with his Lord.
Whether in the Epistle to the Romans he is alluding to the Jewish
observance of the Sabbath is uncertain ; his main point is that the
matter, whatever it was, should be left indifferent, and not determined
by any decision of the Church. Superstitions of another kind may
have also found their way among the Roman as well as the Colossian
and Galatian converts. Astrology was practised both by Jew and
Gentile ; nor is it improbable that something of a heathen mingled
with what was mainly of a Jewish character ; the context of the two
passages just quoted (Col. ii. 18. 20., Gal. iv. 9.), would lead us to
think so. It is true that the words, d¢ pév xpiver ipépay rap’ jpépar,
O¢ O€ kpives Tacay huépay (ver. 5.), probably mean only that “one
man fasts on alternate days, another fasts every day.” But the ex-
pression 6 gpovay rhyv juépay, in ver. 6., implies also the observance of
particular days. 7

It has been already intimated, that this chapter furnishes no sure
criterion that the Roman converts were either Jews or Gentiles.
If it be admitted that it has any bearing at all on the state of
the Roman converts, it tends to show that they were, not simply
Gentiles converted from the ancient religion of Rome to Judaism or
Christianity, but persons into whose minds Oriental notions had pre-
viously insinuated themselves, who with or before Christianity had
received distinctions of days, and of meats and drinks, which in St.
Paul’s view were the very opposite of it. If, on the other hand, we
suppose St. Paul to have written without any precise knowledge of

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 371

_ the state of the Roman Church, we may regard this chapter, and part
of that which follows, as characteristic of the general feeling in the
_ Churches to which the Apostle preached.

The subject recurs in the eighth and tenth chapters of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians. Here, as there, the Apostle knows
but one way of treating these scruples and distinctions which
-were so alien to his own mind. It may be shortly described
as absorbing the letter in the Spirit. When you see the weak
brother doubting about his paltry observances, remember that
the strength of God is sufficient for him ; when you feel disposed to
judge him, consider that he is another’s servant, and that God will
judge both him and you ; when you rejoice in your own liberty, do
not forget that this liberty may be to him “an occasion of stum-
bling.” Place yourself above his weaknesses by placing yourself
below them, remembering that your very strength gives him a claim

on you for support.”

B B2

372 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XIV.
wa ~ v4 A ]

. Tov 8€ dcbevotvta TH Tricte TpoohapBaverbe pm Eis

A , A , €

Siaxpicers Siaroyurpav. os pev mioTeder aye TaVTA, O

re A re I] , af \ . oe Ai XN

S¢ dabevav Ndxava éobia. 6 EOiwv Tov py EoOiovTa pH

e€ovbeveirw, 6 S€ pH eobiwv! Tov éEoOlovta py KpweTo*
e X ‘ et , ‘ 4 ¢ Fae tg >

6 Oeds yap avtov mpocehaBeto. ov Tis ci 0 Kpivwr ad-

an , , x ,
Adrpiov oiKernv; TH idio Kupio oTHKe 7H TitTer* oTaby-
aera dé, Suvvatet yap” 6 KUpios OTHOaL avToV. Os pEV
a a
[yap *] Kpiverjuepay Tap juepay, os O€ Kpiver Tacav Hpé-

1 Kal 6 ph écblwr,

XIV. 1. rov aobevotvra 7H
niorer, him that is weak in the
faith.| These words do not mean
him that has a half-belief in
Christianity, but him that doubt-
eth, him that has not an enlight-
ened belief, who has not “ know-
ledge,” whose “ conscience being
weak,” is liable “to be defiled.”
Comp. 1 Cor. viii. 1. 7.

poy sic duaxploetc cradoyto-
pov, not to gudge his doubtful
thoughts. | From the word d:axpé-
veoOa in ver. 23. being used for
to doubt, it is inferred in the
English version, that the word
duaxpiore may be used in the sense
of doubtings, “not to doubtful
disputations.” This is the fallacy
of paronymous words ; the real
meaning of dudxptore is “ discern-
ing, determining.” “ Receive
him that is weak, not to determi-
nations of matters of dispute.”
“Receive him that is weak,” says
the Apostle; but then occurs
the afterthought, “do not deter-
mine his scruples; that might
be injurious to the Church, and
narrow its pale by excluding
others who have another kind of
seruple.”

2. 0¢ pev miorever, one man be-
lieveth.| Not as in the English
Version, one man believeth that
he may eat all things, but in the
same sense as afaric of the pre-

2 Suvards yap éoriy,

3 Om. yap.

ceding verse — “one man has
faith so that he eats all things.”
The play of words in wéorte and
misreve. is confirmed by num-
berless similar instances in St.
Paul’s writings. Compare ver.
22., ov miorw ExeLc.

6 dé dobevay. | “ But the weak,
of whom I spoke before ;” not
opposed to d¢ pév, but referring
to ver. I.

3. 6 éoOiwy, let not him that
eateth.| If the clause in which
these words are contained refers
to what immediately precedes, 6
éoOiwy must have Adyava sup-
plied after it. “Let not him that
eateth herbs, despise him that
eateth all things ;” or, in other
words, does not maintain the
same ascetic purity as himself.
But then what is to be made of
what follows?—* Let not him that
eateth not herbs (specially) judge
him that eateth.” For we should
expect that the more scrupulous
should judge the less so, not the
reverse.

It is better to take the words
generally, without reference to
preceding Adyava éobie. The
Apostle means to distinguish two
classes, those who eat and those
who abstain; the characteristic
which he feared in the former
class being contempt of others; in
the latter censoriousness. This

eo wo

Ver. 1—5.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 373

Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, not to judge*
his doubtful thoughts. For one has* faith to eat all
things: but* he that is weak, eateth herbs. Let not

* him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let

not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God
hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another’s
servant? to his own Lord* he standeth or falleth.
And holden up he shall be*: for the Lord is able to
make him stand. One man approves* every other day :
another approves every day. Let every man be fully

is expressed in the opposition of
étovleveirwand xpivérw. Narrow-
minded scrupulous men judge
others by their own petty stan-
dard; men of the world are hardly
less intolerant in despising scru-
ples.

& Sede yap abrov mpoceddEsro. |
For it isnot you who receive him
into the Church, but God. Strictly
speaking, these words refer only
to the preceding clause, but they
may be applied by analogy to the
previous one. Compare xv. 7:—
du) mpoodapbavecbe a&AHXove, Ka-
Owe Kal dxproroc tpocedabero ipdic
cic dokav Tov Seov.

4. The Apostle speaks gene-
rally, intending to include both
the cases mentioned in the pre-
vious verse. As he argued in
the last chapter — “ You ought
to pay tribute, for it is a debt to
God ;” so here he urges, that to
judge our brother in matters in-
different, is taking a liberty with
another man’s servant. “Who
art thou who judgest the servant
of another man? It is no con-
cern of yours ; not to you but to
his own Master is he accountable,
whether he stand or fall.” And
then, as if it were a word of ill
omen even to suggest that he

should fall, he adds, but he shall
stand, as we may in faith believe,
for God is able to make him
stand. He is a weak brother,
I speak as a man, therefore he is
likely to fall. But, believing in
the omnipotence of God, I say he
is so much more likely to stand
also, for “my strength is per-
fected in weakness.” Compare
James, iv. 12., “ There is one
lawgiver who is able to save and
to destroy ; who art thou that
judgest another ?” and Rom. ix.
20.

5. b¢ pev Kplver fpépay wap’
Huepay, one man approves every
other day,| is parallel to the
second verse. The Apostle takes
up the subject in reference to
another scruple. The words have
been explained, (1.) one approves
alternate days, another every day;
or, (2.) one judges one day before
another, another judges every
day to be the same ; or, (3.) one
man approves alternate days
[for eating flesh], another every
day.

The third of these interpreta-
tions gives a good sense, but re-
quires too great an addition to
the words of the original, xpivec
(se. éoBiew), to be admissible. The

BB3

o7v4 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XIV.
pav: exagros ev TG idiw vol mrnpodopetaba. 0 ppovav
Thy hpepav Kupto dpovel.t Kat 6 écOiwv Kupi éobie
ebyapioTel yap TO Hed’ Kai 6 wn Eobiwr Kupie ovK éo Bier
Kal evxapioTel TO Oe@. ovdels yap Hav cavT@ Cy, Kal
ovdels Eavtd dmoOvycKe édv Te yap Caper, TH Kupi@
(Oper, édv te aroOnocKopev®, TO Kupio damroOvicKope.
éav Te ovv Lda édv Te atroOvioKoper, TOV Kupiov eoper.
eis TODTO yap ypioTos améVaver Kal eLyoev®, wa Kal veKkpav

1 Add kal 6 uh ppovay Thy nuépav Kupip od ppover.

2 drobynoKkwuer.

second also gives a good sense,
and agrees with the style of St.
Paul in the play upon the word
kpiver, Which has its meaning in
the first clause carried on in the
second. As we might say, ‘ one
man sets apart a seventh portion
of time for a sabbath, another
makes every day a sabbath.”

No authority can, however, be
adduced for wap’ jjépay in the
sense of “before another day,”
while the phrase jpépay map’
}épay is common in the sense of
alternate days. We are there-
fore compelled to adopt the first
interpretation. One man selects,
approves, distinguishes alternate
days ; another man selects every
day. The meaning of xpivec in
the first clause is played upon in
the second. A further play on
the word Kpive occurs in ver. 13.

éxaoroe év TM loiw voi.| Let

each be satisfied in hisownmind,
not compelled by some external
rule. This individual liberty of
conscience is with the Apostle an
essential part of the Gospel, a
law for ourselves, and to be re-
spected in others.

6. Whether we eat flesh and
observe days or not, we are all
Christians ; we do not disagree
in the main point, which is doing

3 dvéotn Kat aveZnoev.

all to the glory of God. He who
eats, and he who abstains, agree
in giving God thanks.

As our Lord answers the diffi-
culties put to him by the Phari-
sees by stirring higher and deeper
questions, as St. Paul himself
concludes the discussion on mar-
riage, by carrying it into another
world, “It remaineth, that they
that have wives be as though
they had none,” 1 Cor. vii. 29. ;
as touching meats offered to idols
he allows the rule of Christian
charity to weaker brethren to be
superseded by the wider and more
general principle, “ Whether ye
eat or drink, do all to the glory
of God,” 1 Cor. x. 3l.: as the
possibility of the Christian “ liv-
ing in sin that grace may abound,”
is dispelled by the thought of
union with Christ ; so too, scru-
ples respecting meats and drinks
are lost in the sense of our rela-
tion to Christ and God, which
furnishes the practical rule for
our treatment of them. ‘The re-
membrance of this common rela-
tion is also an assurance both to
the lax and the strict, that the
brethren whom they judge or
despise are believers equally with
themselves.

7 and 8. “For in discussing

a

Ver. 6—9.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. d75
persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the
day, regardeth it unto the Lord.’ He that eateth,
eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he
that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth
God thanks. For none of us liveth to himself, and no
man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live
unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the
Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the
Lord’s. For to this end Christ both died, and lived?,

that he might be Lord both of the dead and living.

' Add and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord doth not regard it.
2 Rose. Add and revived.

dative, which precedes. We live
and die to Him, and therefore are

these questions we are insensibly
led on to higher thoughts. No

one of us liveth unto himself, and
none of us dieth unto himself.
Whether we live, or whether we
die, it is unto the Lord, whose we
are. It is observable that the two
expressions éavrg 67 and éauro

- aroOvioxe are not taken in pre-

cisely the same sense, but with
a difference similar to that in
chap. vi. 10., rij dyaprig awé0avey
épavag.... Cn T@ Seo.

What doall these things matter
to him whose life is hid with
Christ in God, who feels that
nothing can separate him from

“Christ, who thinks of them in
connexion only with the life of
Christ ?

8. As men and women may be
said to live for one another, as
Christ is said to live unto God,
so the believer is said to live unto
Christ. Compare 1 Cor. vi. 19.,
ov« éaTe Eavtwy, “ ye are not your
own ;” and 1 Thess. v. 10., “Who
died for us, that whether we wake
or sleep, we should be the Lord’s.”
The genitive expresses a closer
and more intimate relation of
Christ to the believer than the

His: neither life nor death can
make us cease to be so.

9. Here, as in ch. iv. ver. 25.,
there is a correspondence be-
tween the life of Christ and that
of his followers — “ We live and
die unto the Lord, and this was
the reason why Christ died and
lived ;” to which is added a
further statement of the same
reason, “that he might be our
Lord in life and death.” The
order of the words aréOavev xat
é¢noe shows that the life here
spoken of is the resurrection.
Hence the word “lived” is not
taken in precisely the same sense
as “the living ” in the following
clause.

It is argued that we cannot:
suppose the Apostle to have
meant that Christ died that he
might rule the dead, and rose
again that he might rule the
living ; but that the two clauses
must be taken as one ; “ Christ
died and rose again that he
might be the ruler over all.”
The remarks made on iv. 25. are
applicable here.. The distribution

BB 4

[Cu. XIV.

376 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

b 4,
kat Cévtov kupieton. od dé Ti Kpivers TOV adeApov Gov;

10

, ‘\ ;
H Kal ov th eEovbevets Tov ddehpov Gov; TavTes yap Ta-

4, “ , lal Q “ 1 , 4, VA a

pactnodpela TO Bywater Tod Oeod.' yéypamtar yap Zw
¢ “A 4 N >

éyd, héyer Kvpuos, OTe uot Kdpaber wav ydvu, Kal eopo-

be a A rn » y e oA

oynjoetar Taca yoooa” TO Hew. apa® ExaoTos Nav
A nw lal > ee

Tept EavTod Adyov aroddce* [Te Hew]. pyKere obv adhy-

hous Kpivwpev, a\\a TOTO Kpivate waddov, TO pn TIHEvae

TPOTKOMPLA TO AOEAPO 7) oKavdador.

1 xpiorou,

of the clauses in the present in-
stance is to our mode of thought
unnatural, but it was natural to
St. Paul, who divides and sub-
divides Christ’s life analogously
to the life of the believer.

There appeared to the Apostle
a certain fitness in Christ being
like us, tempted in all points like
as we are, and therefore able to
succour them that are tempted ;
crucified, even as we are to cru-
cify the lusts of the flesh ; dying,
that we may die with Him ; rising
again, that we may rise with Him.
Itis not simply that He once over-
came death for us, or was offered
up a sacrifice for sin. The Apo-
stle’s view is more present and
lively, though from its not having
passed intothe language of creeds
and articles, and perhaps also
from something which we feel in
it that belongs to another age, it
has fallen out of daily use. Not
only is Christ the source of the
believer’s acts, but He is the
image of him in the different parts
of his life. The believer is trans-
formed into His likeness, not
merely by putting on Christ,
that is, by being clothed with
His holiness, orinvested with His
merits, but by going through the
stages of His existence. We can-
not precisely analyse what the

2 raoa yA@oou étduor,

0l0a Kal TéTELT aL

3 Add ody. 4 Sdce,
Apostle meant by this “iden-
tity,” the superficial form of
which is due to the peculiar
rhetorical character of the age.
the deeper and hidden thought
being that, both inwardly and
outwardly, as He was, so ought
we to be,—so are we in this
world.

kuptevon. | Comp. xupuoe, ver. 8.

10. ov d€ ri kpiverc ;| “But why
dost thou judge thy brother ?”
As in other passages, the Apostle
recapitulates his former thought
(comp. ver. 4. and Rom. iii. 1.,
iv. 1.), the relation in which we
all stand to Christ, on which he
has been dwelling in the previous
verses, being a new reason for
abstaining from judging others.

dé.| “But seeing that we are
to live, not for ourselves, but
for Christ, who also lived and
died for us, why dost thou judge
another?” The déalso anticipates
an opposition to the clause follow-
ing. Thewords, xpivey and éfov-
Oeveiv, are repeated from ver. 3. ;
they differ from each other as
the spirit of cavilling or censo-
riousness from contempt. Com-
pare the words of Christ, Matth.
xviii. 6. 10, 11., “‘ Whosoever shall
offend one of these little ones
which believe in me, it were bet-
ter for him that a millstone were

11

12
13

14

- Ver. 10—24.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

377

10 But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost
thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand
11 before the judgment seat of God.* For it is written,
As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me,
12 and every tongue shall confess to God. So then every
13 one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us
not therefore judge one another any more: but judge
this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an
14 occasion to fall in his brother’s way. I know, and am

1 Christ.

hanged about his neck, and that

: pai n in the original passage. But
e were cast into the sea.

here, as often elsewhere, the

In ver. 4. the Apostle had said
— “Who art thou who judgest
another man’s servant ;” here he
gives a new aspect to the thought
—“Why dost thou judge thy
brother? for he and you alike, and
all of us, have another judge.”
Compare 2 Cor. v. 10., whence
the various reading xporov is
probably derived.

11. The prediction of a future
judgment the Apostle further
confirms from Isaiah, xlv. 23.,
which he quotes according to the
Alexandrian MS. of the LXX.
The 6érc is dependent on the idea
of asseveration contained in 60
Ey.

éLoporoynoerat, Shall confess, |
but whether their sins, or the

truth that God is God, is not
_ precisely stated. The connexion
favours the first sense ; the pa-
rallel passage of Phil. ii. 11. tends
to confirm the second. “ Every
tongue shall confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord, to the glory of
God the Father.” The LXX.
use dpodoyeiobac almost exclu-
sively in the sense of “giving
praises,” “returning thanks to.”
And such is probably its meaning

meaning of the original is not a
guide to the meaning of the ap-
plication; the connexion espe-
cially with ver. 12. shows that the
word is taken, as commonly in
the N. T., in the sense of “con-
fess.”

12. So then it will not be about
others, but about himself that each
one of us will have to give an ac-
count. The emphasis is on epi
EavTOvV.

13. Let us not, therefore, per-
sist any longer in determining
that this man is right, and that
man wrong; but let us rather
determine not to put a stumbling-
block in our brother’s way.

For the latter sense given to
kpivw in the paronomasia, comp.
2 Cor. ii. 1., Expeva d€ éuaur@ rov-
TO 70 py TaALY Ev Aun mpoc vpdc
éOciv.

7) oxavdador | is an explanation
of zpdoxoppa.

14. The Apostle goes on to
explain the feeling under which
he says all this ; not that he dis-
agrees with the stronger brethren
who suppose that all these things
areindifferent. Indeed as a Chris-
tian (év kupio ’Inood) he knows as

378 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XIV.

g 3 a
év Kupio “Inood dt. oddév Kowdv dv avtov', et py TO
> > , ld 3 * \
hoyilopevy Te Kowdv eivat, Exeiv@ Kowov. eb yap? dia
la ¢ b) l4 A > , \ > ,
Bpapa. 6 ddehpds cov duzetrat, odKEeTL KaTa GyamyY Tept-
A x A , , 2 A ae ey e
wares. py TO Bpopati cov Exewov amoddve, vrép ob
pester 4 \ 4 2M e A > Weep ,
xprotos amreBaver. wn Pr\acdnpeta Ow obv tmav 76 ayabdv.
b) 4, b) e / A 0 A A \ / b] X
ov yap eoTW 7 Bactdrela Tov Ceov Bpacts Kal Togs, a\Aa

1 équrov.

well as they do, that the distinc-
tion of clean and unclean meats
is a mere superstition. ‘“ Not
that which goeth into a man
defileth a man.” He says so
broadly and generally, but his
object is to show that this makes
no difference in the case of an-
other. ‘Your conscience cannot
judge for him, your knowledge
will not pluck the seruple from
his soul.” Therefore, however
much he knows all this, he will
not act upon it; the right use of
his strength is to support his
brother’s weakness.

The words év kxvpiw "Incov do
not mean as one taught by
Christ, as one who has received
a revelation from Christ. They
are simply the form in which St.
Paul expresses his living and
doing all things in Christ, as in
language colder and more na-
tural to our time, we might say
as “a Christian.”

dv avrov, not “through Christ,”
but “in itself ;” a meaning of the
words which does not require
avrov any more than it is required
in such expressions as airol car’
avrwy, &c., in the Tragic writers.
The reading is frequently un-
certain. But there is nothing
contrary to the genius of the
Greek language, in such a use of
the demonstrative, which is not
uncommon, especially in Homer,
and may be compared with the

? 8é,

English reflexive use of the word
* self.”

15. “For reasoning with you
I say that, if you pain your
brother, you violate the law of
love.” ‘That he may be so pained
has been already intimated. in
the words, éxeivy Kowdrv. yap,

which is not the reading of the

Textus Receptus, but of the far
greater number of MS., may also
be referred back with more pre-
cision to ver. 13., “ For if you do
put an offence in your brother’s
way, you violate the rule of love.”

The Gospel is the law of free-
dom, and cannot by any possibility
admit scruples respecting meats
and drinks. But when we have
not our own case to consider, but
that of our brethren, when (to
bring the precept home to our-
selves) the difference between us
is the question of a sabbath day,
the very same principle of free-
dom leads us to avoid giving
offence by our freedom. Our
brother sees strongly the sin and
guilt of what we nevertheless
know to be our Christian liberty,
and love must induce us to
abridge our rights for his sake.
We must not take him by force,
and compel him to witness what
he supposes to be our evil; still
less must we induce him to follow
our example and defile his con-
science. Yet we cannot say that
we must give up everything

15

16
17

15

16

17,

Ver. 15—17.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

879

persuaded in* the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing
unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing
to be unclean, to him it is unclean. For’ if thy brother
be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not chari-
tably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ
died. Let not then your good be evil spoken of: for the

1 But.

that offends our brother. Such
a rule would be impracticable,
and if not impracticable, often
full of evil. It was not the rule
which St. Paul himself adopted
with the Judaizers, “to whom he
gave way, no, not for an hour.”
It is not the rule which he en-
joins when matters of import-
ance are at stake ; and the most
indifferent things cease to be
indifferent the moment an at-
tempt is made to impose them
upon others. Only in reference
to the particular circumstances
of the Church, and to the pas-
sions of men ever prone to exag-
gerate their party differences, the
rule of consideration for others
is the safer side.

4) TO Bpwpar, | se. by the eat-
ing flesh, comp. ver. 21. Either
by being induced against his
conscience to imitate the exam-
ple set him; or more probably,
by the antagonism which would
be aroused in his bosom, towards
his brethren.

UTép ov xptoroc aréaver. | De-
stroy not him with thy meat,
whom Christ thought of so much
importance that he died for him ;
“Ne pluris feceris cibum tuum
quam Christus vitam suam.”—
Bengel.

16. po) PAacdnpeioOw oby busy
70 ayaboy, let not then your good
be evil spoken of.| Either the
precept is general, “let us live
innocently so as to give no place

to reproach,” or, with more point,
the words may be referred to
the case of the stronger brethren.
Let not that good or superiority
which we have in our Christian
freedom be a matter of reproach
with others In this latter case,
if we read tuory, the Apostle is
addressing the stronger brethren;
if jor, he is identifying himself
with them.

It is a good thing, we might
say, to know that Christ does not
require of us the observance of
the Jewish sabbath ; it is a good
thing to know that, without form
of prayer or set times and places,
“neither in Jerusalem nor on this
mountain,” we can worship the
Father ; to know that there is
no rite or ceremony or ordinance
that God cannot dispense with ;
or rather, that there is none
which we are required to observe,
except so far as they tend to a
moral end. It isa good thing to
know that Revelation can be in-
terpreted by no other light than
that of reason; it is a good thing
to know that God is not extreme
to mark human infirmities in our
lives and conduct. But all this
may serve for a cloak of licenti-
ousness, may be a scandal among
men, and humanly speaking, the
destruction of those for whom
Christ died.

17. ov yap éorw } Baoireia Tob
Oeov Ppwore cat moorc.| For the
kingdom of God does not consist

[Cu. XIV.

380 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Suxaoavvn Kal eipyvy Kal xapa ev mvedpate ayivs 6
yap év tovtw! Sovledov ypioTt@ evdpertos TO Oe@ Kat
Sdkiyos Tots avOpwmo.s. dpa ovv Ta THS ElpyVys OwW-
KOpEV Kal Ta THS OlKOOoMHS THS Els GAdydovs. py
every Bpopatros Katddve TO epyov tov Oeod, TavTa
pev Ka0apd, adda Kakdv TO aVOpaT@ TO Ova TPOTKOp-
patos éoiovte: Kadov TO pn dayely Kpéa pyndé metv
olvov pnde ev @ 6 addeAdds Gov TpoaKdTTE 7) TKavda-

hilerar aobevet.
1 rovrots,

of sensual goods, but of Christian
graces. ‘The kingdom of heaven
of which the Apostle is speaking
is the kingdom of God that is
within, the life hidden with
Christ and God ; not the visible
Church, or the doctrine which
Christ and his Apostles taught.

GANG Oukavoovrvn, kK. T.A.] In
these words the Apostle de-
scribes generally the inward and
moral character of the kingdom
of God, with an allusion to the
subject of their differences in the
word peace.

xapa.| The Christian cha-
racter naturally suggests ideas of
sorrow, of peace, of consolation;
not so naturally to ourselves the
thought of joy and glorying
which constantly recurs in the
writings of the Apostle. These
seem to belong to that circle of
Christian graces, of which hope
is the centre, which have almost
vanished in the phraseology of
modern times. éy rvevpare dyin,
a holy joy, like all the other feel-
ings of the Christian, seeking for
its ground in some power beyond
him, that is to say, in communion
with the Spirit of God.

18. év rovrw, | not év rovrore, is
the true reading, though the more

2 Om. hv.

‘ , a 9 ¥ 3 \ \
OU TLOTW YV" EXELS KATA OEAVTOV

3 exes;

difficult to explain. It canscarcely
be referred to anything, except
éy Trevpareayiy, Which precedes.
For he who is the servant of
Christ, not in the performance of
external rites, but inwardly in
communion with the Holy Spirit,
is acceptable to God and ac-
counted worthy among men. The
last two expressions have refer-
ence to “ the kingdom of God,” in
ver. 17. ; and to the precept not
to let our good be evil spoken of,

in ver. 16.: “For he who in the ©

Spirit serves Christ, has entered
into the kingdom of God, and is
not ill spoken of among men.”

19. dpa ovy ra rie eiphyns Ow-
KW MEV Kal TH THE oixodopijc THe €ic
&dAfhrove.| So then, we pursue
the things which tend to peace,
and to the building up of one
another in the faith. Compare
1 Cor. iii. 9.

20. is in part a repetition of
ver. 15. with the addition of ro
épyoy row Jeov, which latter words
may either be taken in connexion
with the preceding (ra Tic Elonvnc
and ra rij¢ oikocopic), aS Meaning
the Christian life, which consists
in peace and edifying, or better
and more in St. Paul’s manner,
in reference to the weak brother

18

19
20

21

22

18

19

20

21

22

Ver. 18—22.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 381

kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteous-
ness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For
he that in this! serveth Christ is acceptable to God,
and approved of men. Let us therefore follow after
the things which make for peace, and things where-
with one may edify another. For meat destroy not
the work of God. All things indeed are. pure; but
it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It
is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor
any thing whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is of-
fended, or is made weak. The faith which thou hast

1 These things.

himself, who, as other believers, others. We are therefore led to

might be termed the work of

God. 70 tov Seov Epyor thus be-
comes also a repetition of éxeivor,
in ver. 15.

As in ver. 14. the Apostle
admitted the objections which
he himself put into the mouth
of those who held meats and
drinks to be indifferent, and re-
plied to them, so here, he again
expresses his agreement in prin-
ciple with the stronger party,
only to state with more force his
precepts about the weaker bre-
thren. “Itis true that all things
are pure, but woe to him who
eateth with offence.”

dt tpookdpparoc. | With offence
to whom ? to himself, or to others?
If we say to himself, the words
will refer to the weak brother,
who is induced to eat from seeing
others eat; and his conscience
being weak, is defiled ; an inter-
pretation which agrees with ver.
14. and with the parallel passage
in 1 Cor. But the verses which
follow, have plainly a reference
to the offence given, not to a
man’s own conscience, but to

take the words as equivalent to
év @& 6 adeAPde cov mpooKdrrTeEt,
in ver. 21. ‘The opposite view
might, however, be confirmed by
observing that the Apostle re-
turns to the other side of the
subject in ver. 23.

21. It is good not to eat meat,
nor to drink wine, nor (to eat or
drink) anything whereby thy
brother stumbleth, or is entan-
gled, or made weak.

The Apostle is using the ex-
pression to eat meat, or to drink
wine generally, neither with par-
ticular reference to any customs
of Nazarites or Essenes, nor to
luxurious and dainty fare. He
merely means — “Itis good not to
eat or drink anything whatever
that will give offence to our bre-
thren.”
év » is best explained by the
repetition of gayeiv and mei.

22. Of the two readings, od
niorw exec, With an interrogative,
ov mioriw iv exec, without an
interrogative, the latter has the
greater MS. authority, the former
is more like St. Paul. Hast

382

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

(Cu. XIV.

¥ ae A A 4 e \ , e \ 3
eve evatriovy TOU Oeov. pakapios O py KpPLYwOV EavTOV eV
po leu: 6 ded SLevos eay Puyy KATAKEKPLTAL, OTL
@ Soxysaler* 0 d€ dvaKpLvopLevos yn PLT OL,

lal , e See 7
ovK €k TiadTEws* Tav € 6 OVK EK TITTEWS, apapTia EoTiv.

thou faith, keep it to thyself.
“ Blessed is he who judgeth not
himself in that which he allow-
eth.” It is a happy thing not to
have a scrupulous conscience. I
admit your superiority, J am not
saying that you are not better
than he. Only keep it to your-
self and the presence of God.
Compare 1 Cor. xiv. 28., éaurg@
dé AaXeirw kal ro eq.

23. The Apostle adds a reason
for the stronger respecting the
scruples of the weaker. But

the case of the weaker brother
is very different, he is con-
demned if he doubts, because
doubt is inconsistent with faith,
and whatever is not of faith
is sin.

It has been often remarked
that St. Paul’s conception of sin
is inseparable from the conscious-
ness of sin. <A trace of the same
thought occurs in the present
passage. He who is not confident
of what is right has not faith, and
is therefore a sinner. As above,

23

Ver. 23.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

383

have to thyself! before God. Happy is he that con-
demneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth.
And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he
eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

1 Hast thou faith ?

faith delivered men from the law
of sin and death ; so here, where
the sense of sin is, faith is want-
ing, and sin reassumes its former
power. The law in one of its
many forms returns, saying, not
“thou shalt not covet,” but “thou
shalt not eat meats offered to
idols ;” introducing doubt and
perplexity into the soul. That
which makes sin to be what it is
is the law ; what in this parti-

Have it to thyself.

cular instance makes the thing
wrong, is the sense that it is so.
As above, the law and faith were
opposed, and the law was re-
garded as almost sin; so here,
sin and faith are the antagonists.
See Essay on the Law as the
Strength of Sin.

For the doxology which in
some MS. occurs in this place,
see the end of the Epistle.

38k EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS

CASUISTRY.

Reticion and morality seem often to become entangled in circum-
stances. The truth which came, not “to bring peace upon earth,
but a sword,” could not but give rise to many new and conflicting
obligations. The kingdom of God had to adjust itself with the
kingdoms of this world ; though “ the children were free,” they could
not escape the fulfilment of duties to their Jewish or Roman gover-
nors ; in the bosom of a family there were duties too; in society
there were many points of contact with the heathen. A new element
of complexity had been introduced in all the relations between man
and man, giving rise to many new questions, which might be termed,
in the phraseology of modern times, “ cases of conscience.”

Of these the one which most frequently recurs in the Epistles of
St. Paul, is the question respecting meats and drinks, which appears
to have agitated both the Roman and Corinthian Churches, as well as
those of Jerusalem and Antioch, and probably, in a greater or less
degree, every other Christian community in the days of the Apostle.
The scruple which gave birth to it was not confined to Christianity ;
it was Eastern rather than Christian, and originated in a feeling
into which entered, not only Oriental notions of physical purity and
impurity, but also those of caste and of race. With other Eastern
influences it spread towards the West, in the flux of all religions,
exercising a peculiar power on the susceptible temper of mankind.

The same tendency exhibited itself in various forms. In one form
it was the scruple of those who ate herbs, while others “had faith ”
to eat any thing. The Essenes and Therapeute among the Jews,
and the Pythagoreans in the heathen world, had a similar feeling
respecting the use of animal food. It was a natural association

which led to such an abstinence. In the East, ever ready to connect,

CASUISTRY. 385

or rather incapable of separating, ideas of moral and physical im-
purity, where the heat of the climate rendered animal food unne-
cessary, if not positively unhealthful ; where corruption rapidly in-
fected dead organised matter ; where, lastly, ancient tradition and
ceremonies told of the sacredness of animals and the mysteriousness
of animal life, —nature and religion alike seemed to teach the same
lesson, it was safer to abstain. It was the manner of such a
scruple to propagate itself. He who revolted at animal food could
not quietly sit by and see his neighbour partake of it. The cere-
monialism of the age was the tradition of thousands of years, and
passed by a sort of contagion from one race to another, from Pagan-
ism or Judaism to Christianity. How to deal with this “second
nature” was a practical difficulty among the first Christians. The
Gospel was not a gospel according to the Essenes, and the church
could not exclude those who held the scruples, neither could it
be narrowed to them; it would not pass judgment on them at all.
Hence the force of the Apostle’s words: “Him that is weak in the
faith receive, not to the decision of his doubts.”

There was another point in reference to which the same spirit of
ceremonialism propagated itself, viz. meats offered to idols. Even
if meat in general were innocent and a creature of God, it could
hardly be a matter of indifference to partake of that which had been
“sacrificed to devils;” least of all, to sit at meat in the idol’s
temple. True, the idol was “nothing in the world ”—a block of
stone, to which the words good or evil were misapplied ; “a graven
image ” which the workman made, “ putting his hand to the hammer,”
as the old prophets described in their irony. And such is the
Apostle’s own feeling, 1 Cor. viii. 4., x. 19. But he has also the
_ other feeling which he himself regards as not less true (1 Cor. x.
20.), and which was more natural to the mind of the first believers.
When they saw the worshippers of the idol revelling in impurity,
they could not but suppose that a spirit of some kind was there.
Their warfare, as the Apostle had told them, was not ‘against

VOL. II. : ote ©

386 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against
the rulers of the darkness of this world.” Evil angels were among
them; where would they more naturally take up their abode than
around the altars and in the temples of the heathen? And
if they had been completely free from superstition, and could have
‘regarded the heathen religions which they saw enthroned over the
world simply with contempt, still the question would have arisen,
What connexion were they to have with them and with their wor-
shippers? a question not easy to be answered in the bustle of Rome
and Corinth, where every circumstance of daily life, every amuse-
ment, every political and legal right, was in some way bound up
with the heathen religions. Were they to go out of the world? if
not, what was to be their relation to those without? It was a
branch of this more general question, the beginning of the difficulty
so strongly felt and so vehemently disputed about in the days of
Tertullian, which St. Paul discusses in reference to meats offered to
idols. Where was the line to be drawn? Were they to visit the
idol’s temple ; to sacrifice like other men to Diana or Jupiter? That
could hardly be consistent with their Christian profession. But
granting this, where were they to stop? Was it lawful to eat
meats offered to idols? Butif not, then how careful should they
be to discover what was offered: to idols? How easily might they
fail into sin unawares? ‘The scruple once indulged would soon
gather strength, until the very provision of their daily food would
become difficult by their disuse of the markets of the heathen.

A third instance of the same ceremonialism so natural to that age,
and to ourselves so strange and unmeaning, is illustrated by the
words of the Jerusalem Christians to the Apostle, — “ Thou wentest
in unto men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them;” a scruple so
strong that, probably, St. Peter himself was never entirely free from
it, and at any rate yielded to the fear of it in others when withstood
by St. Paul at Antioch. This scruple may be said in one sense to
be hardly capable of an explanation, and in another not to need one.
For, probably, nothing can give our minds any conception of the

CASUISTRY. 38

nature of the feeling, the intense hold which it exercised, the con-
centration which it was of every national and religious prejudice,
the constraint which was required to get rid of it as a sort of
“horror naturalis ” in the minds of Jews ; while, on the other hand,
feelings at the present day not very dissimilar exist, not only in
Eastern countries, but among ourselves. There is nothing strange
in human nature being liable to them, or in their long lingering and
often returning, even when reason and charity alike condemn them.
We ourselves are not insensible to differences of race and colour, and
may therefore be able partially to comprehend (allowing for the
difference of East and West) what was the feeling of Jews and
Jewish Christians towards men uncircumcised.

On the last point St. Paul maintains but one language : — “ In
Christ Jesus there is neither circumcision nor uncircumcision.” No
compromise could be allowed here, without destroying the Gospel
that he preached. But the other question of meats and drinks, when
separated from that of circumcision, admitted of various answers
and points of view. Accordingly there is an appearance of incon-
sistency in the modes in which the Apostle resolves it. All these
modes have a use and interest for ourselves; though our difficulties
are not the same as those of the early Christians, the words speak to
us, so long as prudence, and faith, and charity are the guides of
Christian life. It is characteristic of the Apostle that his answers
run into one another, as though each of them to different individuals,
and all in their turn, might present the solution of the difficulty.

Separating them under different heads, we may begin with 1 Cor.
x. 25., which may be termed the rule of Christian prudence : —
“ Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question
for conscience sake.” That is to say : — “Buy food as other men
do; perhaps what you purchase has come from the idol’s temple,
perhaps not. Do not encourage your conscience in raising scruples,
life will become impossible if you do. One question involves an-
other and another and another without end. The manly and the
Christian way is to cut them short; both as tending to weaken the

cc 2

388 EPISTLE .TO THE ROMANS.

character and as inconsistent with the very nature of spiritual
religion.”

So we may venture to amplify the Apostle’s precept, which
breathes the same spirit of moderation as his decisions respecting
celibacy and marriage. Among ourselves the remark is often made
that “extremes are practically untrue.” This is another way of
putting the same lesson : — If I may not sit in the idol’s temple, it
may be plausibly argued, neither may I eat meats offered to idols ;
and if I may not eat meats offered to idols, then it logically follows
that I ought not to go into the market where idols’ meat is sold.
The Apostle snaps the chain of this misapplied logic: there must be
a limit somewheré ; we must not push consistency where it is prac-
tically impossible. A trifling scruple is raised to the level of a
religious duty, and another and another, until religion is made up
of scruples, and the light of life fades, and the ways of life narrow
themselves.

It is not hard to translate the Apostle’s precept into the language
of our time. Instances occur in politics, in theology, in our ordinary
occupations, in which beyond a certain point consistency is impos-
sible. Take for example the following: — A person feels that he
would be wrong in carrying on his business, or going to public
amusements, on a Sunday. He says: If it be wrong for me to
work, it is wrong to make the servants in my house work; or if it
be wrong to go to public amusements, it is wrong to enjoy the re-
creation of walking on a Sunday. So it may be argued that, because
slavery is wrong, therefore it is not right to purchase the produce
of slavery, or that of which the produce of slavery is a part, and so on
without end, until we are forced out of the world from a remote
fear of contagion with evil. Or I am engaged in a business which
may be in some degree deleterious to the health or injurious to the
morals of those employed in it, or I trade in some articles of com-
merce which are unwholesome or dangerous, or I let a house or a
ship to another whose employment is of this description. Number-

less questions of the same kind relating to the profession of a clergy-

CASUISTRY. 389

man, an advocate, or a soldier, have been pursued into endless con-
sequences. Is the mind of any person so nicely balanced that “every
one of six hundred disputed propositions” is the representative of
his exact belief? or can every word in a set form of prayer at all
times reflect the feeling of those who read or followit? There is no
society to which we can belong, no common act of business or
worship in which two or three are joined together, in which such
difficulties are not liable to arise. Three editors conduct a news-
paper, can it express equally the conviction of all the three? Three
lawyers sign an opinion in common, is it the judgment of all or of
one or two of them? MHigh-minded men have often got themselves
into a false position by regarding these questions in too abstract a
_ way. The words of the Apostle are a practical answer to them which
may be paraphrased thus: “Do as other men do in a Christian
country,” Conscience will say, “He who is guilty of the least, is
guilty of all.” In the Apostle’s language it then becomes “ the
strength of sin,” encouraging us to despair of all, because in that
mixed condition of life in which God has placed us we cannot fulfil
all.

In accordance with the spirit of the same principle of doing as
‘other men do, the Apostle further implies that believers are to.
accept the hospitality of the heathen. (1 Cor. x. 27.) But here
a modification comes in, which may be termed the law of Chris-
tian charity or courtesy: —Avoid giving offence, or, as we might
say, “Do not defy opinion.” Eat what is set before you; but if
a person sitting at meat pointedly says to you, “ This was offered
to idols,” do not eat. “ All things are lawful, but all things are not
expedient,” and this is one of the not expedient class. There ap-
pears to be a sort of inconsistency in this advice, as there must
always be inconsistency in the rules of practical life which are
relative to circumstances. It might be said: “ We cannot do one
thing at one time, and another thing at another ; now be guided by
another man’s conscience, now by our own.” It might be retorted,
* Ts not this the dissimulation which you blame in St. Peter?” To

cc 3

390 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

which it may be answered in turn: “ But a man may do one thing
at one.time, another thing at another time, ‘ becoming to the Jews a
Jew,’ if he do it in such a manner as to avoid the risk of miscon-
struction.” And this again admits of a retort. ‘Is it possible to
avoid misconstruction ? Is it not better to dare to be ourselves, to
act like ourselves, to speak like ourselves, to think like ourselves ? ”
We seem to have lighted unawares on two varieties of human dispo-
sition ; the one harmonising and adapting itself to the perplexities of
life, the other rebelling against them, and seeking to disentangle itself
from them. Which side of this argument shall we take; neither
or both? The Apostle appears to take both sides ; for in the abrupt
transition that follows, he immediately adds, “‘ Why is my liberty to
be judged of another man’s conscience? what right has another
man to attack me for what I do in the innocence of my heart?” It
is good advice to say, “ Regard the opinions of others ;” and equally
good advice to say, “Do not regard the opinions of others.” We
must balance between the two; and over all, adjusting the scales, is
the law of Christian love. :

Both in 1 Cor. viii. and Rom. xiv. the Apostle adds another prin-
ciple, which may be termed the law of individual conscience, which
we must listen to in ourselves and regard in others. “He that
doubteth is damned; whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” All things
are lawful to him who feels them to be lawful, but the conscience
may be polluted by the most indifferent things. When we eat, we
should remember that the consequence of following our example
may be serious to others. For not only may our brother be offended
at us, but also by our example be drawn into sin; that is, to do
what, though indifferent in itself, is sin to him. And so the weak
brother, for whom Christ died, may perish through our fault; that
is, he may lose his peace and harmony of soul and conscience void
of offence, and all through our heedlessness in doing some unne-
cessary thing, which were far better left undone.

Cases may be readily imagined, in which, like the preceding, the
rule of conduct here laid down by the Apostle would involve dis-

CASUISTRY. 391

simulation. So many thousand scruples and opinions as there are
in the world, we should have “to go out of the world” to fulfil it
honestly. All reserve, it may be argued, tends to break up the
confidence between man and man; and there are times in which
concealment of our opinions, even respecting things indifferent,
would be treacherous and mischievous; there are times, too, in
which things cease to be indifferent, and it is our duty to speak out
respecting the false importance which they have acquired. But,
after all qualifications of this kind have been made, the secondary
duty yet remains, of consideration for others, which should form an
element in our conduct. If truth is the first principle of our speech
and action, the good of others should, at any rate, be the second.
“If any man (not see thee who hast knowledge sitting in the idol’s
temple, but) hear thee discoursing rashly of the Scriptures and the
doctrines of the Church, shall not the faith of thy younger brother
become confused? and his conscience being weak shall cease to
discern between good and evil. And so thy weak brother shall
perish for whom Christ died.”

The Apostle adds a fourth principle, which may be termed the
law of Christian freedom, as the last solution of the difficulty :—
“ Therefore, whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God.”
From the perplexities of casuistry, and the conflicting rights of a
man’s own conscience and that of another, he falls back on the
simple rule, “ Whatever you do, sanctify the act.” It cannot be said
that all contradictory obligations vanish the moment we try to act
with simplicity and truth; we cannot change the current of life and
its circumstances by a wish or an intention; we cannot dispel that
which is without, though we may clear that which is within. But
we have taken the first step, and are in the way to solve the riddle.
The insane scruple, the fixed idea, the ever-increasing doubt begins
to pass away; the spirit of the child returns to us; the mind is
_ again free, and the road of life open. “Whether ye eat or drink,
do all to the glory of God ;” that is, determine to seek only the will
of God, and you may have a larger measure of Christian liberty

cc 4

392 EPISTLE TO TIE ROMANS.

allowed to you; things, perhaps wrong in others, may be right
for you.

The law, then, of Christian prudence, using that moderation
which we show in things pertaining to this life; or the law of
Christian charity, resolving, and as it were absorbing, our scruples
in the love of other men; or the law of the individual conscience,
making that right to a man in matters in themselves indifferent
which seems to be so; or the law of freedom, giving us a spirit,
instead of a letter, and enlarging the first principles of the doctrine
of Christ; or all together,—shall furnish the doubting believer with
a sufficient rule of faith and conduct. Even the law of Christian
charity is a rule of freedom rather than of restraint, in proportion
as it places men above questions of meats and drinks, and enables
them to regard such disputes only by the light of love to God and
man. For there is a tyranny which even freedom may exercise,
when it makes us intolerant of other men’s difficulties. ‘“ Where
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty;” but there is also a liberty
without the Spirit of the Lord. To eat with unwashen hands
defileth not a man; but to denounce those who do, or do not do so,
may, in St. Paul’s language, cause not only the weak brother, but
him that fancieth he standeth, to fall ; and so, in a false endeavour to
preach the Gospel of Christ, men ‘‘ may perish for whom Christ died.”

The general rule of the Apostle is, “ Neither circumcision
availeth anything, nor uncircumcision ;” “neither if we eat not are
we the better, neither if we eat are we the worse.” But then “all
things are lawful, but all things are not expedient,” even in re-
ference to ourselves, and still more as we are members one of ano-
other.. There is a further counsel of prudence, “ Receive such an
one, but not to the determination of his doubt.” And lastly, as the
guide to the spirit of our actions, remember the words: “I will
eat no meat as long as the world standeth, lest I make my brother
to offend.”

Questions of meats and drinks, of eating with washen or un-

CASUISTRY. 393

waslien hands, have passed from the stage of religious ordinances to
that of proprieties and decencies of life. Neither the purifications of
the law of Moses, nor the seven precepts of Noah, are any longer
binding upon Christians. Nature herself teaches all things neces=
sary for health and comfort. But the spirit of casuistry in every
age finds fresh materials to employ itself upon, laying hold of some
question of a new moon or a sabbath, some fragment of antiquity,
some inconsistency of custom, some subtilty of thought, some
nicety of morality, analysing and dividing the actions of daily
life; separating the letter from the spirit, and words from things;
winding its toils around the infirmities of the weak, and linking
itself to the sensibility of the intellect. Out of this labyrinth of
the soul the believer finds his way, by keeping his eye fixed on that
landmark which the Apostle himself has set up :— “ In Christ Jesus
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but a
new creature.”

There is no one probably, of any religious experience, who has
not at times felt the power of a scrupulous conscience. In speaking
of a scrupulous conscience, the sense of remorse for greater offences
is not intended to be included. These may press more or less hea-
vily on the soul; and the remembrance of them may ingrain it-
self, with different degrees of depth, on different temperaments ;
_ but whether deep or shallow, the sorrow for them cannot be
brought under the head of scruples of conscience. There are “many
things in which we offend all,” about which there can be no mis-
take, the impression of which on our minds it would be fatal to
weaken or do away. Nor is it to be denied that there may be customs
almost universal among us which are so plainly repugnant to mo-
rality, that we can never be justified in acquiescing in them;
or that individuals of clear head and strong will have been led on
by feelings which other men would deride as conscientious scruples
into an heroic struggle against evil. But quite independently of
real sorrows for sin, or real protests against evil, most religious

persons in the course of their lives have felt unreal scruples

394 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

or difficulties, or exaggerated real but slight ones; they have
abridged their Christian freedom, and thereby their means of doing
good ; they have cherished imaginary obligations, and artificially
hedged themselves in a particular course of action. Honour and
truth haveseemed to be at stake about trifles light as air, or conscience
has become a burden too heavy for them to bear in some doubtful
matter of conduct. Scruples of this kind are ever liable to in- ©
crease: as one vanishes, another appears; the circumstances of the
world and of the Church, and the complication of modern society,
have a tendency to create them. The very form in which they come
is of itself sufficient to put us on our guard against them ; for we
can give no account of them to ourselves ; they are seldom affected
by the opinion of others; they are more often put down by the ex-
ercise of authority than by reasoning or judgment. They gain hold on
the weaker sort of men, or on those not naturally weak, in moments
of weakness. They often run counter to our wishor interest, and for
this very reason acquire a kind of tenacity. They seem innocent,
mistakes, at worst, on the safe side, characteristic of the ingenuousness
of youth, or indicative of a heart uncorrupted by the world. But
this is not so, Creatures as we are of circumstances, we cannot
safely afford to give up things indifferent, means of usefulness, in-
struments of happiness to ourselves, which may affect our lives and
those of our children to the latest posterity. There are few greater
dangers in religion than the indulgence of such scruples, the conse-
quences of which can rarely be seen until too late, and which affect the
moral character of a man at least as much as his temporal interests.
Strange as it may appear, it is nevertheless true, that scruples
about lesser matters almost always involve some dereliction of duty
in greater and more obvious ones. A tender conscience is a con-
science unequal to the struggles of life. At first sight it seems as if,
when lesser duties were cared for, the greater would take care of
themselves. But this is not the lesson which experience teaches.
In our moral as in our physical nature, we are finite beings, capable
only of a certain degree of tension, ever liable to suffer disorder

CASUISTRY. 395

and derangement, to be over-exercised in one part and weakened
in another. No one can fix his mind intently on a trifling scruple
or become absorbed in an eccentric fancy, without finding the great
principles of truth and justice insensibly depart from him. He has
been looking through a microscope at life, and cannot take in its
general scope. The moral proportions of things are lost to him ;
the question of a new moon or a Sabbath has taken the place of
diligence or of honesty. There is no limit to the illusions which he
may practice on himself. There are those, all whose interests and
prejudices at once take the form of duties and scruples, partly from
dishonesty, but also from weakness, and because that is the form in
which they can with the best grace maintain them against other men,
and conceal their true nature from themselves.

Scruples are dangerous in another way, as they tend to drive men
into a corner in which the performance of our duty becomes so
difficult as to be almost impossible. A virtuous and religious life
does not consist merely in abstaining from evil, but in doing what is
good. It has to find opportunities and occasions for itself, without
which it languishes. A man has a scruple about the choice of a pro-
fession ; as a Christian, he believes war to be unlawful; in familiar
language, he has doubts respecting orders, difficulties about the law.
Even the ordinary ways of conducting trade appear deficient to his
nicer sense of honesty; or perhaps he has already entered on one of
these lines of life, and finds it necessary to quit it. At last, there
comes the difficulty of “how he is to live.” There cannot bea
greater mistake than to suppose that a good resolution is sufficient in
such a case to carry a man through a long life.

But even if we suppose the case of one who is endowed with every
earthly good and instrument of prosperity, who can afford, as is
sometimes said, to trifle with the opportunities of life, still the
mental consequences will be hardly less injurious to him. For he
who feels scruples about the ordinary enjoyments and occupations of
his fellows, does so far cut himself off from his common nature.
He is an isolated being, incapable of acting with his fellow-men.

396 EPISTLE. TO THE ROMANS.

There are plants which, though the sun shine upon them, and the
dews water them, peak and pine from some internal disorder, and
appear to have no sympathy with the influences around them. So
is the mind corroded by scruples of conscience. It cannot expand
to sun or shower ; it belongs not to the world of light ; it has no in-
telligence of or harmony with mankind around. It is insensible to
the great truth, that though we may not do evil that good may come,
yet that good and evil, truth and falsehood, are bound together on
earth, and that we cannot separate ourselves from them.

It is one of the peculiar dangers of scruples of conscience, that the
consequence of giving way to them is never felt at the time that
they press upon us. When the mind is worried by a thought secretly
working in it, and its trial becomes greater than it can bear, it is
eager to take the plunge in life that may put it out of its misery ;
to throw aside a profession it may be, or to enter a new religious
communion. We shall not be wrong in promising ourselves a few
weeks of peace and placid enjoyment. The years that are to follow
we are incapable of realising ; whether the weary spirit will require
some fresh pasture, will invent for itself some new doubt; whether
its change is a return to nature or not, it is impossible for us to
anticipate. Whether it has in itself that hidden strength which,
under every change of circumstances, is capable of bearing up, is a
question which we are the least able to determine for ourselves.
In general we may observe, that the weakest minds, and those least
capable of enduring such consequences, are the most likely to indulge
the scruples. We know beforehand the passionate character, hidden
often under the mask of reserve, the active yet half-reasoning intel-
lect, which falls under the power of such illusions.

In the Apostolic Church “ cases of conscience ” arose out of reli-
gious traditions, and what may be termed the ceremonial cast of the
age; in modern times the most frequent source of them may be said
to be the desire of logical or practical consistency, such as is irre-
concilable with the mixed state of human affairs and the feebleness
of the human intellect. There is no lever like the argument from

CASUISTRY. 397

consistency, with which to bring men over to our opinions. A par-
ticular system or view, Calvinism perhaps, or Catholicism, has taken
possession of the mind. Shall we stop short of pushing its premises
to their conclusions? Shall we stand in the midway, where we are
liable to be overridden by the combatants on either side in the
struggle? Shall we place ourselves between our reason and our
affections ; between our practical duties and our intellectual con-
victions? Logic would have us go forward, and take our stand at
the most advanced point — we are there already, it is urged, if we
were true to ourselves, — but feeling, and habit, and common sense
bid us stay where we are, unable to give an account of ourselves,
yet convinced that we are right. We may listen to the one voice,
we may listen also to the other. The true way of guiding either is
to acknowledge both; to use them for a time against each other,
_ until experience of life and of ourselves has taught us to harmonise
them in a single principle.

So, again, in daily life cases often occur, in which we must do as
other men do, and act upon a general understanding, even though
unable to reconcile a particular practice to the letter of truthfulness
or even to our individual conscience. It is hard in such cases to lay
down a definite rule. Butin general we should be suspicious of any
conscientious scruples in which other good men do not share. We
shall do right to make a large allowance for the perplexities and
entanglements of human things; we shall observe that persons of
strong mind and will brush away our scrifples ; we shall consider that
not he who has most, but he who has fewest scruples approaches
most nearly the true Christian. The man whom we emphatically
call “honest,” “able,” “upright,” who is a religious as well as a
sensible man, seems to have no room for them; from which we are
led to infer that such scruples are seldom in the nature of things
themselves, but arise out of some peculiarity or eccentricity in those
who indulge them. That they are often akin to madness, is an
observation not without instruction even to those whom God has
blest with the full use of reason.

398 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

So far we arrive at a general conclusion like St. Paul’s: —
‘Whether ye eat or drink, do all to the glory of God ;” and,
‘“‘ Blessed is he who condemneth not himself in that which he allow-
eth.” “Have the Spirit of truth, and the truth shall make you
free;” and the entanglements of words and the perplexities of
action will disappear. But there is another way in which such dif-
ficulties have been resolved, which meets them in detail; viz., the
practice of confession and the rules of casuistry, which are the
guides of the confessor. When the spirit is disordered within us,
it may be urged that we ought to go out of ourselves, and confess
our sins one to another. But he who leads, and he who is led, alike
require some rules for the examination of conscience, to quicken or
moderate the sense of sin, to assist experience, to show men to them-
selves as they really are, neither better nor worse. Hence the ne-.
cessity for casuistry.

It is remarkable, that what is in idea so excellent that it may be
almost described in St. Paul’s language as “holy, just, and good,”
should have become a by-word among mankind for hypocrisy and
dishonesty. In popular estimation, no one is supposed to resort to
casuistry, but with the view of evading a duty. The moral instincts
of the world have risen up and condemned it. It is fairly put
down by the universal voice, and shut up in the darkness of the
tomes of the casuists. A kind of rude justice has been done upon
the system, as in most cases of popular indignation, probably with
some degree of injustice to the individuals who were its authors.
Yet, hated as casuistry has deservedly been, it is fair also to admit
that it has an element of truth which was the source of its influence.
This element of truth is the acknowledgment of the difficulties
which arise in the relations of a professing Christian world to the
church and to Christianity. How, without lowering the Gospel, to
place it on a level with daily life is a hard question. It will be
proper for us to consider the system from both sides — in its origin
and in its perversion. Why it existed, and why it has failed, furnish
a lesson in the history of the human mind of great interest and im-
portance. ;

CASUISTRY. 8399

The unseen power by which the systems of the casuists were
brought into being, was the necessity of the Roman Catholic Church.
Like the allegorical interpretation of Scripture, they formed a link
between the present and the past. At the time of the Reformation
the doctrines of the ancient, no less than of the Reformed, faith
awakened into life. But they required to be put in a new form,
to reconcile them to the moral sense of mankind. Luther ended the
work of self-examination by casting all his sins on Christ. But the
casuists could not thus meet the awakening of men’s consciences and
the fearful looking for of judgment. They had to deal with an altered
world, in which nevertheless the spectres of the past, purgatory, pe-
nance, mortal sin, were again rising up; hallowed as they were by
authority and antiquity they could not be cast aside ; the preacher of
the Counter-reformation could only explain them away. If he had
placed distinctly before men’s eyes, that for some one act of immora-
lity or dishonesty they were in a state of mortal sin, the heart true
to itself would have recoiled from such a doctrine, and the connex-
ion between the Church and the world would have been for ever
severed. And yet the doctrine was a part of ecclesiastical tradition ;
it could not be held, it could not be given up. The Jesuits escaped
the dilemma by holding and evading it.

So far it would not be untrue to say that casuistry had originated
in an effort to reconcile the Roman Catholic faith with nature and
_ experience. The Roman system was, if strictly carried out, horrible
and impossible ; a doctrine not, as it has been sometimes described, of
salvation made easy, but of universal condemnation. From these
_ fearful conclusions of logic the subtilty of the human intellect was
now to save it. The analogy of law, as worked out by jurists and
canonists, supplied the means. What was repugnant to human jus-
tice could not be agreeable to Divine. The scholastic philosophy,
which had begun to die out and fade away before the light of clas-
sical learning, was to revive in a new form, no longer hovering
between heaven and earth, out of the reach of experience, yet below
the region of spiritual truth, but, as it seemed, firmly based in the life

400 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and actions of mankind. It was the same sort of wisdom which de-
fined the numbers and order of the celestial hierarchy, which was
now to be adapted to the infinite modifications of which the actions
of men are capable.

It is obvious that there are endless points of view in which the
simplest duties may be regarded. Common sense says, — “A
man is to be judged by his acts,” “there can be no mistake about.
a lie,” and soon. The casuists proceed by adifferent road. Fixing
the mind, not on the simplicity, but on the intricacy of human action,
they study every point of view, and introduce every conceivable dis-
tinction. A first most obvious distinction is that of the intention
and the act: ought the one to be separated from the other? ‘The
law itself seems to teach that this may hardly be; rather the inten-
tion is held to be that which gives form and colour tothe act. Then
the act by itself is nothing, and the intention by itself almost inno-
cent. As we play between the two different points of view, the act
and the intention together evanesce. But, secondly, as we con-
sider the intention, must we not also consider the circumstances of
the agent? For plainly a being deprived of free will cannot be re-
sponsible for his actions. Place the murderer in thought under the
conditions of a necessary agent, and his actions are innocent; or
under an imperfect necessity, and he loses half his guilt. Or sup-
pose a man ignorant, or partly ignorant, of what is the teaching of
the Church, or the law of the land, — here another abstract point of
view arises, leading us out of the region of common sense to difficult
and equitable considerations, which may be determined fairly, but
which we have the greatest motive to decide in favour of ourselves.
Or again, try to conceive an act without reference to its conse-
quences, or in reference to some single consequence, without regard-
ing it as a violation of morality or of nature, or in reference solely
- to the individual conscience. Or imagine the will half consenting
to, half withdrawing from its act; or acting by another, or in
obedience to another, or with some good object, or under the

influence of some imperfect obligation, or of opposite obligations.

CASUISTRY. AQI

Even conscience itself may be at last played off against the plainest
truths.

By the aid of such distinctions the simplest principles of morality
multiply to infinity. An instrument has been introduced of such
subtilty and elasticity that it can accommodate the canons of the
Church to any consciences, to any state of the world. Sin need no
longer be confined to the dreadful distinction of mortal and venial
sin; it has lost its infinite and mysterious character ; it has become
a thing of degrees, to be aggravated or mitigated in idea, according
to the expediency of the case or the pliability of the confessor. It
seems difficult to perpetrate a perfect sin. No man need die of
despair; in some page of the writings of the casuists will be found a
difference suited to his case. And this without in any degree inter-
fering with a single doctrine of the Church, or withdrawing one of
its anathemas against heresy.

The system of casuistry, destined to work such great results, in
reconciling the Church to the world and to human nature, like a
torn web needing to be knit together, may be regarded as a science
or profession. It is a classification of human actions, made in one
sense without any reference to practice. For nothing was further from
the mind of the casuist than to inquire whether a particular distinc-
tion would have a good or bad effect, was liable to perversion or not.
His object was only to make such distinctions as the human mind was
capable of perceiving and acknowledging. As to the physiologist
objects in themselves loathsome and disgusting may be of the deepest
interest, so to the casuist the foulest and most loathsome vices of
mankind are not matters of abhorrence, but of science, to be arranged
and classified, just like any other varieties of human action. It is
true that the study of the teacher was not supposed to be also open
to the penitent. But it inevitably followed that the spirit of the
teacher communicated itself to the taught. He could impart no high
or exalted idea of morality or religion, who was measuring it out by
inches, not deepening men’s idea of sin, but attenuating it ; “ mincing
into nonsense” the first principles of right and wrong.

VOL. II. DD

402 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The science was further complicated by the “doctrine of pro-
bability,” which consisted in making anything approved or approv-
able that was confirmed by authority; even, as was said by some,
of a single casuist. ‘That could not be very wrong which a wise
and good man had once thought to be right, —a better than ourselves
perhaps, surveying the circumstances calmly and impartially. Who
would wish that the rule of his daily life should go beyond that of a
saint and doctor of the Church? Who would require such a rule to
be observed by another? Who would refuse another such an escape
out of the labyrinth of human difficulties and perplexities? As in
all the Jesuit distinctions, there was a kind of reasonableness in the
theory of this; it did but go on the principle of cutting short scruples
by the rule of common sense.

And yet, what a door was here opened for the dishonesty of man-
kind! The science itself had dissected moral action until nothing
of life or meaning remained in it. It had thrown aside, at the same
time, the natural restraint which the moral sense itself exercises in
determining such questions. And now for the application of this
system, so difficult and complicated in itself, so incapable of receiving
any check from the opinions of mankind, the authority not of the
Church, but of individuals, was to be added as a new lever to over-
throw the last remains of natural religion and morality.

The marvels of this science are not yet ended. For the same
changes admit of being rung upon speech as well as upon action, until
truth and falsehood become alike impossible. Language itself dis-
solves before the decomposing power ; oaths, like actions, vanish into
air when separated from the intention of the speaker; the shield of
custom protects falsehood. It would be a curious though needless
task to follow the subject into further details. He who has read one
page of the casuists has read all. There is nothing that is not
right in some particular point of view, — nothing that is not true
under some previous supposition. |

Such a system may be left to refute itself. Those who have

strayed so far away from truth and virtue are self-condemned. Yet

CASUISTRY. 403

it is not without interest to trace, by what false lights of philosophy
or religion, good men revolting themselves at the commission of evil
were led, step by step, to the unnatural result. We should expect
to find that such a result originated not in any settled determination
to corrupt the morals of mankind, but in an intellectual error; and
it is suggestive of strange thoughts respecting our moral nature, that
an intellectual error should have had the power to produce such con-
sequences. Such appears to have been the fact. The conception of
moral action on which the system depends, is as erroneous and im-
perfect as that of the scholastic philosophy respecting the nature of
ideas. The immediate reduction of the error to practice through
the agency of an order made the evil greater than that of other
intellectual errors on moral and religious subjects, which, spring-
ing up in the brain of an individual, are often corrected and puri-
fied in the course of nature before they find their way into the
common mind.

1. Casuistry ignores the difference between thought and action.
Actions are necessarily external. The spoken word constitutes the
lie ; the outward performance the crime. The Highest Wisdom, it is
true, has identified the two: “He that looketh on a woman to lust
after her hath already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
But this is not the rule by which we are to judge our past actions,
but to guard our future ones. He who has thoughts of lust or passion
is not innocent in the sight of God, and is liable to be carried on to
perform the act on which he suffers himself to dwell. And, in looking
forward, he will do well to remember this caution of Christ; but in
looking backward, in thinking of others, in endeavouring to esti-
mate the actual amount of guilt or trespass, if he begins by placing
thought on the level of action, he will end by placing action on the
level of thought. It would be a monstrous state of mind in which
we regarded mere imagination of evil as the same with action;
hatred as the same with murder; thoughts of impurity as the same
with adultery. It is not so that we must learn Christ. Actions are
one thing and thoughts another in the eye of conscience, no less than

Dp 2*

404 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of the law of the land; of God as well as man. However important
it may be to remember that the all-seeing eye of God tries the reins,
it is no less important to remember also that morality consists in
definite acts, capable of being seen and judged of by our fellow-
creatures, impossible to escape ourselves.

2. What may be termed the frame of casuistry was supplied by
law, while the spirit is that of the scholastic philosophy. Neither
afforded any general principle which might correct extravagancies
in detail, or banish subtilties, or negative remote and unsafe in-
ferences. But the application of the analogy of law to subjects of
morality and religion was itself a figment which, at every step, led
deeper into error. The object was to realise and define, in every
possible stage, acts which did not admit of legal definition, either
because they were not external, but only thoughts or suggestions
of the mind, or because the external part of the action was not
allowed to be regarded separately from the motives of the agent.
The motive or intention which law takes no account of except
as indicating the nature of the act, becomes the principal subject
of the casuist’s art. Casuistry may be said to begin where law
ends. It goes where law refuses to follow with legal rules and
distinctions into the domain of morality. It weighs in the balance
of precedent and authority the impalpable acts of a spiritual being.
Law is a real science which has its roots in history, which grasps
fact ; seeking, in idea, to rest justice on truth only, and to reconcile
the rights of individuals with the well-being of the whole. But
casuistry is but the ghost or ape of a science; it has no history and
no facts corresponding to it ; it came into the world by the ingenuity
of man; its object is to produce an artificial disposition of human
affairs, at which nature rebels.

3. The distinctions of the casuist are far from equalling the subtilty
of human life, or the diversity of its conditions. It is quite true
that actions the same in name are, in the scale of right and wrong,
as different as can be imagined; varying with the age, tempera-
ment, education, circumstances of each individual. The casuist is

CASUISTRY. 405

not in fault for maintaining this difference, but for supposing that
he can classify or distinguish them so as to give any conception
of their innumerable shades and gradations. All his folios are
but the weary effort to abstract or make a brief of the individuality
of man. The very actions which he classifies change their mean-
ing as he writes them down, like the words of a sentence torn
away from their context. He is ever idealizing and creating dis-
tinctions, splitting straws, dividing hairs; yet any one who re-
flects on himself will idealize and distinguish further still, and think
of his whole life in all its circumstances, with its sequence of
thoughts and motives, and, withal, many excuses. But no one can
extend this sort of idealism beyond himself; no insight of the
confessor can make him clairvoyant of the penitent’s soul. Know
ourselves we sometimes truly may, but we cannot know others, and
no other can know us. No other can know or understand us in the
same wonderful or mysterious way; no other can be conscious of
the spirit in which we have lived; no other can see us as a whole
or get within. God has placed a veil of flesh between ourselves and
other men, to screen the nakedness of our soul. Into the secret
chamber He does not require that we should admit any other judge
or counsellor but Himself. Two eyes only are upon us, —the eye
of our own soul—the eye of God, and the one is the light of the
other. That is the true light, on the which if a man look he will
have a knowledge of himself, different in kind from that which the
confessor extracts from the books of the casuists.

4, There are many cases in which our first thoughts, or, to speak
‘more correctly, our instinctive perceptions, are true and right; in
which it is not too much to say, that he who deliberates is lost.
The very act of turning to a book, or referring to another, enfeebles
our power of action. Works of art are produced we know not how,
by some simultaneous movement of hand and thought, which seem
to lend to each other force and meaning. Soin moral action, the true
view does not separate the intention from the act, or the act from the
circumstances which surround it, but regards them as one and abso-

DD 3

406 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

lutely indivisible. In the performance of the act and in the judgment
of it, the will and the execution, the hand and the thought are to be
considered as one. Those who act most energetically, who in difficult
circumstances judge the most truly, do not separately pass in review
the rules, and principles, and counter principles of action, but grasp
them at once, in a single instant. Those who act most truthfully,
honestly, firmly, manfully, consistently, take least time to deliberate.
Such should be the attitude of our minds in all questions of right_
and wrong, truth and falsehood: we may not inquire, but act.

5. Casuistry not only renders us independent of our own convic-
tions, it renders us independent also of the opinion of mankind in
general. It puts the confessor in the place of ourselves, and in the
place of the world. By making the actions of men matters of sci-
ence, it cuts away the supports and safeguards which public opinion
gives to morality ; the confessor in the silence of the closet easily
introduces principles from which the common sense or conscience of
mankind would have shrunk back. Especially in matters of truth
and falsehood, in the nice sense of honour shown in the unwilling-
ness to get others within our power, his standard will probably
fall short of that of the world at large. Public opinion, it is true,
drives men’s vices inwards; it teaches them to conceal their faults
from others, and if possible from themselves, and this very conceal-
ment may sink them in despair, or cover them with self-deceit.
And the soul—whose “ house is its castle”—has an enemy within,
the strength of which may be often increased by communications
from without. Yet the good of this privacy is on the whole
greater than the evil. Not only is the outward aspect of society
more decorous, and the confidence between man and man less liable
to be impaired ; the mere fact of men’s sins being known to them-
selves and God only, and the support afforded even by the unde-
served opinion of their fellows, are of themselves great helps to a
moral and religious life. Many a one by being thought better than
he was has become better; by being thought as bad or worse has

become worse. ‘To communicate our sins to those who have no

CASUISTRY. 407

claim to know them is of itself a diminution of our moral strength.
It throws upon others what we ought to do for ourselves; it leads
us to seek in the sympathy of others a strength which no sympathy
can give. It is a greater trust than is right for us eommonly to
repose in our fellow-creatures; it places us in their power; it may
make us their tools.

To conclude, the errors and evils of casuistry may be summed up
as follows:—It makes that abstract which is concrete, scientific which
is contingent, artificial which is natural, positive which is moral,
theoretical which is intuitive and immediate. It puts the parts in
the place of the whole, exceptions in the place of rules, system in
the place of experience, dependence in the place of responsibility,
reflection in the place of conscience. It lowers the heavenly to the
earthly, the principles of men to their practice, the tone of the
preacher to the standard of ordinary life. It sends us to another for
that which can only be found in ourselves. It leaves the highway
of public opinion to wander in the labyrinths of an imaginary sci-
ence; the light of the world for the darkness of the closet. It is to
human nature what anatomy is to our bodily frame; instead of a

moral and spiritual being, preserving only “a body of death.”

pp 4

408

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XV.

3 , ~ >
ddethouey Sé ets of Svvatoi Ta aoleryjpata Tov adv-

, 4 2. ‘\ c A > /
vatov Baotalew Kat pn EavTolsS apEeoKeELy.

4 1
E€KAOTOS

‘uOVv TO TANclov apecKeTH Eels TO AyaloV Tpds oiKOdo-
OP f y

pay.

\ \ e xX > ¢ Ar. > ‘\ \
Kal yap 6 xpioTos ovX EavT@ Npever, ada Kallas

yéypamtar Ot dvewdurpot Tav dvedilovTwr oe eTeTETaV

. Me 4
ET EME.

doa yap mpoeypady, els THY HuETepay OiacKa-

1 Add ydp.

The commencement of this
chapter is closely connected with
the preceding. “‘ He who doubts
if he eats, is condemned.” But
we who are strong and do not
doubt, ought to bear the weak-
nesses of others. As Christ
pleased not himself, so neither
ought we to please ourselves.
The words of the prophets, which
speak of the reproaches that fell
on Him, may still instruct us.
They were written beforehand,
to teach us to be of one mind,
that we should receive others,
even as Christ received us. At
ver. 8. the argument takes a new
turn. While exhorting the Ro-
man Church to unity, the other
subject of discord arises in the
Apostle’s mind, not the disputes
of strong and weak about meats
and drinks, but the greater and
more general dispute about Jew
and Gentile, the old and the new,
the law and the Gospel. He re-
turns upon the former theme,
and repeats language of reconci-
liation, which he had used before.
Christ came not to destroy the
prophets, but to fulfil; the mi-
nister of the circumcision to the
uncircumcision ; the performer of
the promises made to the patri-
archs—to all mankind. The Gen-
tiles and the Jews rejoice to-
gether ; the root of Jesse is the
hope of both. The Apostle then
passes on to matters personal: an

apology for writing so boldly; his
intended journeys to Rome, Spain,
and Jerusalem ; the contribution
for the poor saints; with the al-
lusions to which, however, he
blends religious thoughts and
feelings.

dpeidouev Oé,| but we ought.
dé is closely connected with the
preceding chapter. “And it is
our part to take upon ourselves
the infirmities of the weak, as
they may lead them into sin.” dé
expresses the practical result of
the former statement, viewed from
another aspect in reference to
ourselves.

The division of the chapters is
obviously unnatural. Yet that
of Lachmann is not much better,
who includes the first verse of
XV. in the previous chapter, and
thereby separates r@ wAnaioy in
the second verse, and éavr® in the
third, from éavroie in the first.
In a style like that of St. Paul,
in which the divisions of the
subject are irregular, the distri-
bution into chapters of conve-_
nient length is necessarily arti-
ficial, and often bears no relation
to the breaks in the sense.
Chapter and verse are only marks
in the margin to facilitate re-
ference.

A better break occurs at ver.
8. and at ver. 14.

huetc of Suvarot.| The Apo-
stle identifies himself with the

15

Ver. 1—4.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

409

Now* we that are strong ought to bear the infirmi-

ties of the weak, and not to please ourselves.

Let every

one of us please his neighbour for his good to edi-

fication.

For Christ too* pleased not himself; but, as

it is written, The reproaches of them that reproached

thee fell on me.

stronger party, to give force to
his words. As if he said:—
“You and I, who are strong and
enlightened, should bear the in-
firmities of others. My side is
that of the strong, not against
but for the weak ; we who are
whole should take care of those
who are sick.” It is a stage of
the Gospel to know that “that
which goeth into a man defileth
not a man ;” it is a higher stage
to know it and not always to act
upon it. PaoraZery, more precise
than ¢épery, as “ to carry ” is more
precise than “to bear.” Compare
Gal. vi. 2., dAAjAwY ra Bapyn Ba-
oracere.

kal pa) Eavroic dpéoxey.| The
Apostle touches upon selfishness
as the root of these differences
with each other. Above he had
said —“ We are not our own, but
Christ’s ;” in a similar strain he
continues, we ought not to please
ourselves, for Christ pleased not
himself.

eic TO ayabdv, for good.| Of
which mpdc oixodouyy is a more

‘exact explanation ; — “for good,

with a view to edifying.” To
this interpretation it is objected
that oixodouyy should have had
the article, as well as dyaddv,
and, therefore, that it is better to
give the words, cic ro ayafdy the
explanation, “touching the good.”
The awkwardness of such a use
of cic, where a simpler construc-
tion is possible, is a greater ob-
jection to this mode of taking the

For whatsoever things were written

passage than can be urged against
the other, from the want of pa-
rallelism in the clauses. 76 dya-
Oov may have the article, either
as an adjective turned into a sub-
stantive by the addition of the
article, or as implying a reference
to what has preceded, or to the
idea of good in the mind of the
person addressed.

Here, as elsewhere, oikodopy
is the practical principle which
is to determine questions and dis-
putes. Comp. 1 Cor. xiv. 26. ;
2 Cor. x. 8.

3. For in doing this we are
but imitating the example of
Christ, who pleased not himself.
For ye know the grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ, that though
he was rich, yet for our sakes he
became poor. Comp. 2 Cor. viii.
9., and Phil. ii. 6. As was said
of him in Psalm lxix. (in the
latter part of the ninth verse),
“The reproaches of them that
reproached thee, O God, are
fallen upon me.” That is, Christ
pleased not himself, but endured
all the reproaches of the enemies
of God which were heaped upon
him. <A similar application of
the former words of the same
verse to Christ is made in John
li. 17., “The zeal of thy house
hath eaten me up.”

doa yap mpoeypagn, for whatso-
ever things were written afore-
time.| It is observable that in
quotations from the Old Testa-
ment, St. Paul does not say “ this

ALO EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XV.

hiav éypady', wa Sua THs dropovys Kal dua” THs Tapa-

, al lal \ > 4 ¥ € \ ‘\ lal
K\yoews TOV ypapav THY edida Exopev. 6 dé Oeds Tis
bropovys Kal THS Tapakhyoews O@N Vp TO avTO dpovely
> > / ‘ X > A Y € \ b] ey
év addyj\ous Kata ypiorov “Incovv, wa opobvpaddov ev evi
aotopaty do€alynte Tov Oedov Kat Tatépa Tod Kupiov Hyov
"Inaov xpiorov. 610 tpoohapBaverbe addArdovs, Kalas

A ‘4 . nN , ¢ ~ 3 > 6 4 AA wn
Kal 6 xploTos mpooeddBeTo vuas® eis Sd€av Tov* Oeod.
héyo yap” xpiorov didKovov yevérbar Tepitropns wep

1 mpoeypann.
4 Om, Tod,

is the original meaning of these
words,” but rather, ‘“ hence we
are to learn this lesson.” ‘ Doth
God take care for oxen ? or saith
he it altogether for our sakes ?”
1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.

We may ask, “But did the
Apostle suppose that words like
these were intended to bear this
and no other meaning ? and that
they were understood in this
sense by their original authors ?”
The answer to these questions is
that the Apostle never asked
them. The last thought that
would have entered into his
mind, would have been what in
modern language we should term
the reproduction to himself of
the life and circumstances of the
writers. He read the Old Tes-
tament, seeing “Christ in all
things, and all things in Christ.”

4, dua rijg bropovitg Kai dua ripe
rapakAnoews Tov ypapor, through
patience and through comfort of
the Scriptures, | may mean, either
“by the examples of patience
and consolation which the Scrip-
tures afford ;” or rather, “by
patiently meditating and receiv-
ing consolation from the Scrip-
tures ;” the genitive case denot-
ing, either origin, or a more
general idea of relation and con-

2 Om. did.

5 5é,

3 juas,
Add *Inaotv,

nexion. Such words would de-
scribe those who, like Simeon and
Anna, were waiting “for the
consolation of Israel,” suggested
by the Psalms and the prophets.

The reading of Lachmann, who
inserts a second éa, has a con-
siderable preponderance of MS.
authority in its favour. Internal
evidence is on the other side, as
the connexion of the verses pre-
ceding and following shows that
vropovh as well as wapdxAnorc is
to be joined with ray ypadar.
The insertion of 6:4 is, therefore,
unnecessary and rather awkward.

5. But when I speak of pa-
tience and consolation, I would
add a prayer that God, who is
the author of every good and
perfect gift, and of those in par-
ticular, may give you the spirit
of unity.

Kara xpioroy ‘Inaovv, accordin
to Jesus Christ. | either like Christ
or according to the will of Christ.
Comp. xara ’Ioaak, Gal. iv. 28.,
“That we may love one another
as Christ also loved us ; that we
may show such a spirit as Christ
showed in submitting to his
Father’s will.” Comp. ver. 3.
and 7.

tov Sedov cai warépa, the God

and Father.| Not God, eyen

o

Ver. 5—8.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. All

aforetime were written forour learning, that we through
patience and through' comfort of the scriptures might
have hope. Now the God of patience and consolation
grant you to be likeminded one toward another according
to Christ Jesus: that ye may with one mind and one
mouth glorify the God* and Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ. Wherefore receive ye one another, as Christ also
received us* to the glory of God. For? I say that+
Christ was a minister of the circumcision for the truth

* Omit through. s, 5 0t.

the Father of our Lord Jesus
Christ, as in the English Ver-
sion; a translation which appa-
rently arises out of a fear of
calling God, the God of our
Lord Jesus Christ; but, “the
God and Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ,” as in Gal. i. 4.
God is called, “our God and
Father ;” and in Ephes. i. 17.,
* That the God of our Lord
Jesus Christ may give you the
spirit of wisdom.” Cf. John, xx.
17., “My God and your God;”
1 Cor. xi. 38., “the head of Christ
is God ;” and Heb. i. 9., “ God
even thy God ;” also 2 Cor. xi.
31.

7. Wherefore receive one an-
other, the weak the strong, and
the strong the weak; the Jew the
Gentile, and the Gentile the Jew;

. as Christ also received you to the

glory of God.

The seventh verse is connected
with both the sixth and eighth.
“ Be of one mind, that ye may
glorify God, and receive one an-
other as friends, as Christ also
received you to the glory of God.”
For I say that he has received
both Jew and Gentile.

8. Aéyw yap, for I say.| This
verse has been explained as fol-

3 Now. * Add Jesus.

lows : — “ For (or if we read dé,
now) I say that Christ is the
minister of the circumcision, that
is, the minister of the Jews, for
the truth of God, to establish the
promises made unto the fathers,
and that the Gentiles may glorify
God for His mercy ;” in other
words, *“* Christ has received the
circumcision into His glory, as
he has also received the Gen-
tiles.” According to this way of
taking the words, there would
have been no difficulty in the
construction, had the order been
different, or if the words xca@we
mpooedabero Tra Orn sic ddéay, or
iva dokacwor tov Ody, had fol-
lowed, so as to recall the words
mpooed aero tude which preceded.

A strong objection to this
mode of explaining the passage
is the use of the word zep:ropy,
without the article, for the Jews.
Even supposing the grammatical
difficulty to be removed, the lan-
guage is still unlike that of St.
Paul, whose tone is not that there
were two Gospels, one for the
Jew, another for the Gentile, or
that Christ was the minister of
the circumcision to the Jew, and
of the uncircumcision to the Gen-
tile, but that he is the medium

412 EPISTLE TO TIE ROMANS. [Cu. XY.

“A ww , ~
adnbetas Jeod eis 75 BeBardoar Tas emayyehias TOV Taté-
pov, Ta dé Evy virEep e€ous do€dcat Tov Bedv, Kabas yé-
ypamrat Aid TodTo e€opohdoyyjoomat oor ev EOverw, Kai TO
Kal madw éyer EvdpavOynte eOvn

\ , , wee koe , \
Kat Tadw héyer” AweEiTe TaVTA TA
2

6vopati cov Wado.
pera TOV aov avToU.
¥ ‘\ , \. 9 4 , om" 4 e ,
eOvn Tov KUpLoV, Kal éTawerdTwoay* avTOV TavTES ot haot.
of 4 / a> , ‘
Kai wahw Hoaias héyer Eora yn pila tov Ieooat, kat 6
3 , y+ > A 9 > ay +) A ¢ \
dvirTtdpevos apxew Over, ém atta eOvyn éhriovow. 6 de
A , A \ > 4
Beds THs Edrridos TANPOO AL Vas TAOS Kapas Kal ElpHVNns
“ > 4 A Aw
ev TO TLOTEVEW, Els TO TEPLTTEVEW Vas ev TH Ehmids EV

4 e ,
Ouvaprer TVEVMATOS wytov.
1 Om, Aéyer.

of communion with the Jewish
dispensation, whereby the privi-
leges of the Jew are extended to
all mankind. As Abraham is
called a father of circumcision to
all them that are uncircumcised,
so Christ, “ born under the law,”
is the minister of the circum-
cision to the Gentiles. The re-
ception of the Gentiles was itself
included in the promise to Abra-
ham, according to St. Paul’s in-
terpretation of it. . Hence the se-
cond clause, ra 6€ éOvn, is only a
more distinct enunciation of what
is already implied in the first.
St. Paul “asserts” that Jesus
Christ is the minister of circum-
cision, to establish the promises
made to the fathers, in the same
sense that it is said that he was
to build the Temple, or to fulfil
the law ; another aspect of which
ministration is that the Gentiles
should glorify God for the mercy
which they have obtained of him.
Compare the introduction to ce.
iv., and note on iv. 12.

vrep adnbeiac Oeor, for the truth
of God,| “to make good the
truth of God,” the meaning of

Leg. Aive?re roy xbpiov mdyta.

22 r
ETALVEO ATE.

which is explained by the words
immediately following ; “to con-
firm the promises made unto the
Fathers.” Compare iv. 16., ic
TO eivae PeBaiay thy émayyediav
mavTi T@ OTEppaTt, OV TW EK TOU
vowov povoy, and, as a remoter
parallel, Rom. iii. 26., eic¢ ro
eivat avTov dikaor.

cic TO PeBawoa.| It is not
certain whether, in these words,
St. Paul is referring to the ful-
filment of the promises to the
Jews (see ¢. xi.), or to the trans-
fer of them which he had made
in the fourth chapter to the
Gentiles. Either would in his
view have been a true perform-
ance of them.

ra o€ €0vn,| governed of éic:
dé intimates the new aspect under
which this fulfilment is regarded :
‘ Howbeit that the Gentiles,” ete.

9. Ava rotro éoporoyhoopat,
therefore I will give thanks.
These words, which are exactly
quoted from the LXX., Ps. xviii.

49., are in their original meaning ©

an expression of triumph after a
victory, for which the victor says
he will give thanks among the

9

11

12

13

Ver 9—13.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 413

of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers:
and that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy ;
as it is written, For this cause I will confess to thee
among the Gentiles, and sing unto thy name. And
again*™ it saith, Rejoice, ye Gentiles, with his people.
And again, it saith’, Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles ;
and let all the people laud him.? And again, Esaias
saith, ‘‘There shall be the* root of Jesse, and he that shall
rise to reign over the Gentiles; in him shall the Gentiles
hope.* Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and
peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through

the power of the Holy Ghost.

1 On, it saith.

subject people. In the applica-
tion made of them by St. Paul,
they are supposed to be uttered
by a Gentile, and the word <0
receives, as elsewhere, a new
sense.

10. cai waduy Aéyer, and again
it saith.| sc. } ypagh, “ the Scrip-
ture,” as in Rom. ix. 17. and else-
where. ‘The words which follow
are taken from Deut. xxxii. 43.,
in which passage Moses exhorts
the heathen to sing the praises
of God for his dealings with the
Jewish people. The verse in
the LXX. is greatly interpolated,
and in the midst of the interpo-

_ lation exhibits the words here

quoted.

ll. Aivetre mavra ra e0vn rov
kvpiov.| These words are taken,
with a slight change in their
order, from Ps. exvii. 1. As in
the previous verse, the word
é0vn has received a new meaning.
The writer meant to say, “ Praise
the Lord, all ye nations, for His
goodness to Israel His people.”
The application which St. Paul

® Laud him all ye people.

makes of the words is, “ Praise
the Lord, O ye Gentiles, for he
has given you a share in his
mercies to the house of Israel.”

12.”Eorat,x.7.d. | The quotation
is from the LXX., which reads :
—Eorau év Th ipepa éxeivy h pica
Tov Tecoai kat 6 avicrdpevoc ape
éOvav, éx ara eOvn éXrwvor,.
(Is. xi. 10.) These words are
not, however, an exact translation
of the Hebrew, which is as fol-
lows :—“ And in that day shall the
shoot of Jesse, which is set up for
a banner, be sought of the Gen-
tiles.”

13. But says the Apostle, go-
ing off upon the word éAriovoy
of the previous verse, as at ver. 5.
on the words vropovh and rapa-
kAnowc, May the God of hope,
who is the hope of the Gentiles,
fill you—he adds, not without
reference to his previous exhor-
tations to unity—with joy and
peace, in believing; that you
may have yet more of that hope,
by the instrumentality of His
Holy Spirit!

[Cu. XV.

414 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Tléreuopar dé, adeddhoi pov, Kal avTos ey@ TeEpl Vuav
OTL Kal avTol peotol éate adyalwovryns, TeT\ynpwpevor
TaonsS yvooens, Suvvdpevor Kat addAyjdous vovbereiv: Tod-
pnpotepov dé eypawa' tiv amd pepous, ws eravapipvy-
okay vpas dia THY xdpw THY SofEtady por Vd TOD Heod
els TO elvai pe NevTOvpyov ypLaTOv "Incod” eis Ta eOvy,
iepoupyouvta 76 evayyéhuov TOU Oeod, va yeryTa 7 Tpoc-
dopa tav eOvav evapdadextos, Hyvacpen ev mrevdpate
ayiw. exw ovv THY® Kavynow €év xpioT@ Incod Ta Tpds
Tov Oedv od yap Tolunow Tu Ladew* Gv ov KaTEpydoaTo

1 &deApor. 2 *Incod xpiortod. 3 Om. TH. 4 Dadrely TL,

14.— xvi. 27. is a resumption
of the personai narrative. The
Apostle began by offering com-
mendation ; he concludes in the
same spirit by apologising for
giving advice. The salutation
with which he opened, like the
doxology with which he ends,
contained in few words a-sum-
mary of the Gospel.

“But I know, brethren, that
you need not these words of
mine.” I myself, who give this
advice, am persuaded that you are
able too (xaé) to advise one another.

15. But I have taken this
liberty, brethren, to a certain
extent, as an Apostle of Christ.
These last words St. Paul softens
by a periphrasis oc éravape-
pvioKcwr bpdc Ova rv Xapwy Oobeiaay
pool, as one who has “received
grace and apostleship,” and who
ventures not to teach, but to call
to remembrance things that you
know, and this not of myself but
by the grace given tome. For the
feeling, compare 1 Cor. vii. 25. :
— yvopny Cé didwpt we HrAENMEVOE
tro Tov Kupiov mioTO¢ eivac: and
Rom. i.5. Such withdrawing of
self reminds us of the quaint ex-
pression of Coleridge, “ St. Paul

was a man of the finest manners
ever known.”

amo pépove, | “in some degree,”
(1.) may be either taken with rod-
pinporepoy Eypawa, “I have taken
this liberty, to a certain extent,
and with the object of reminding
you,” ete.: or, (2.) with we érava-
pupyvhjocwy, “I have taken this
liberty : my object partly is to
remind you of what you know ;
and this only because I have re-
ceived grace.”

due ry xapiy—eic TO eiva. |
Compare i. 5., dc ob édaGoper
Xap. Kal arooToNhy.

16. The whole passage, from
we ETAVAPLLVHOKWY Upac down to
rvevpare ayia, may be summed
up in two words, “as the Apostle
of the Gentiles.” The simple
thought is “transfigured” into
the language of sacrifice, in which
the Apostle describes himself and
his office. Elsewhere he loves
to identify the believer and his
Lord ; here he applies the same
imagery to his own work, which
is elsewhere applied to the work
of Christ, partly because the use
of such figures was natural to
him, and partly, also, because
such language was intelligible

14

15

16

17
18

14

15 ledge, able also to admonish one another.

17

Ver. 14—18.]

EPISTLE TO THE

ROMANS. 415

And I myself also am persuaded of you, my brethren,
that ye also are full of goodness, filled with all know-

Nevertheless,

brethren, I have written the more boldly unto you in
some sort, as putting you in mind, because of the grace
i6 that is given to me of God, that I should be the minister
of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, doing the work of a priest
of * the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gen-
tiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy

Ghost.

I have therefore * my glorying through Jesus

is Christ in those things which pertain to God. For I

and expressive to those whom
he is addressing.

iepovpyovvra, | performing the
priestly office in relation to the
Gospel.

iva yévnra.| That the Gen-
tiles offered as a sacrifice, may
be acceptable, consecrated not by
man, but by the Holy Spirit.

. The whole passage, retaining
the figure throughout, may be
paraphrased as follows :—

I speak to you by the grace
which God has given me, the in-
tent of which is, that I should
be the minister of Christ, the
priest of the Gospel to the Gen-
tiles, that the Gentiles who are
presented to God as an offering,
may be acceptable to him, conse-
crated in the Holy Spirit. —Or,
dropping the figure :—

I speak to you as the Apostle
of the Gentiles, whom I present
to God, sanctified by the Spirit.

17, 18. Ihave then my glory-
ing (rv Kavynow) in Christ
Jesus. Compare 2 Cor. xi. 30.
The article signifies “ the glory-
ing which belongs to me, or the
glorying which I have as a minis-
ter of Christ.”

The train of thought in the
Apostle’s mind seems rather to

carry him back to his opponents
at Corinth, where he was then
staying, than to be directed to
those whom he is addressing.
The delicate alternations of feel-
ing in the verses which follow,
and the transition from hesitation
to boldness, remind us of several
passages in the Epistles to the
Corinthians. 2 Cor. x. 15, 16.
There, too, he had been careful
to guard against appearing to
intrude in another’s vineyard.
Here his object is to assert in the
gentlest manner possible, as in
the Epistle to the Galatians in
the strongest, his Apostleship of
the Gentiles ; at the same time
making a similar disclaimer. In
the two preceding verses he had
said,—I wrote to you the more
boldly, because of the grace of
God which made me a minister
of Christ unto the Gentiles.

I am not wrong, therefore, in
using this boldness, for I have
the glorying which belongs to me
as the minister of God.

For I will not be bold to speak
of anything whieh Christ has not
wrought by me to make the Gen-
tiles obedient.

Thus éxw ... kadynory connects
with rodpnpdrepoc, “I am bold

416

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XV.

\ PS) > > ~ b] e \ 20 A Xr / , bd] 8
xXpiaTos du €uov els Uraxony eOvav, hoyw Kat Epy@ Ev Ov-
voper onpelwv Kal Tepdtav, év Suvdaper TVEdpaTOS ayiov'
y b) ae \ ‘\ , re “a > a)
@oTe pe ao "Iepovoadyp Kat KUKA@ péxpL TOV IhdvpiKov
ouTws dé ido-

A 2 b] WA Q > 4 > , Q ,
TyLodpat” evayyehiler Oar, ovY oTOV @Vopacln ypLOTOS,

TeTANpwKevat TO EvayyéhLov TOD KpLOTOD.

iva pr ém adddtpiov Oepédiov oixodopo, adda Kalas yé-
ae 5) B , \ b) a + \ aA 3

ypamta. Ois ovK avnyyedn Tept avTov, oovTat, Kal Ol OUK

aknkoacw cuvyoovow. 610 Kal evexomTounv modddKus®
A S A X\ e lal 4 \ , / ¥ BJ A

Tov éOety mpds vas, vuvi dé pynKeTe Tomov Exav ev TOLS

AB

1 Seovd.

and have whereof to be bo!d,”
which is again taken up in the
roApnow of ver. 18.:— “For I
will not go beyond the sphere
which Christ has appointed me;”
or a little expanded, “For though
I have used the word ‘bold’ in
speaking of myself, I will not
have the boldness,” ete. The
17th verse is further connected
by the words ra mpdg roy Yedy, “in
my relation to God,” with ver.
15, 16.; and the 17th and 18th
verses are in a similar way con-
nected with each other by év ypus-
7 Inoov, and the words re AaXeiv
Ov ov KaTEpyaoaro xpLaTog Ou Epov.

18. The Apostle means to say,
“JT will not glory when I ought
not, in speaking of things,” either
(1.) of which Christ did not
make me his minister; or, (2.)
which I did by myself, and not
of Christ.

19. The tone is changed, and
the construction of the preceding
verse forgotten. The Apostle is
speaking, not of what Christ did
not do, but of what He did, and
by his means ; “I will only speak
of what Christ did, and what he
did was,” etc. Comp. 2 Cor. xii.
12.; “Truly the signs of an

2 pidoTimovmevoy.

3 Ta TOAAG,

Apostle were wrought among you
in all patience, in signs and won-
ders, and mighty deeds.”

év dvvaper onueiwy refers to the
working of miracles, such as the
casting out of devils, and the re-
storation of Eutyches mentioned
in the Acts; év dura pet TVEVLATOC
ayiov, to the power of the Apo-
stle’s preaching over the hearts
of men. Compare 1 Cor. ii. 4.

metAnpwxévat, huve fulfilled, |
has received seven, or even a
greater number of interpreta-
tions : —(1.) have preached; (2.)
have widely preached ; (3.) have

successfully preached ; (4.) have

completed preaching ; (5.) have
fulfilled the duty of preaching ;
(6.) have fully preached ; (7.)
have supplied what was lack-
ing ; (8.) have provided. Either
4. or 5. is the true one.

KuKdy, going round.| So that
from Jerusalem, and round about
as far as Illyricum, I had fulfilled
the preaching of the Gospel. We
need not suppose by the .word
xuxdw the whole space enclosed in
the circle is intended. Ilyricum
itself lay without, not within the
Apostle’s missionary labours,
unless we assume journeys to

19

20

19

Ver. 19—23.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

AIT

will not dare to speak of any of those things which
Christ hath not wrought by me, to make the Gentiles
obedient, by word and deed, through mighty signs and
wonders, by the power of the Holy Spirit!; so that from
Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully
preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived
to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest
I should build upon another man’s foundation: but as it
is written, To whom he was not spoken of, they shall
see: and they that have not heard shall understand.
For which cause also I have been much hindered from
coming to you. But now having no more place in these

1 Spirit of God.

have been undertaken by him
which are unrecorded in the
Acts. Compare Acts, xx. 1, 2.:
—‘“‘And after the uproar was
ceased, Paul called unto him the
disciples and embraced them,
and departed for to go into Mace-
donia. And when he had gone
over those parts, and had given
them much exhortation, he came
into Greece.”

20, 21. But though eager to
preach the Gospel, this is the
condition that I impose upon my-
self, that it should not be where
the name of Christ is known.
ovrwe is explained by ovy ézov;
dé, but though I have preached
in this wide circuit ; adAd, still

‘adversative, to the words “build

upon another man’s foundation :”
— But that instead of doing
so, I may fulfil the prophecy,
“They shall see to whom it was
not told, and they shall under-
stand who have not heard.” Isa.
lii. 15., quoted as it stands in the
Alexandrian manuscript of the
LXX.

22. Ad,| and this was the

VOL. Il.

EE

4

reason, viz., my preaching to
those who knew not the Gospel,
in fulfilment of the prophecy of
Isaiah, why I was hindered those
many times in coming to you.
Compare chap. i. 13. — ékwAvOny
dxpt Tov Cevpo.

23. But now, having exhausted
those countries, no longer finding
any place in them in which
Christ is not preached, and hav-
ing for many years past a desire
to come unto you (1 will come)
whenever I go into Spain.

If we follow the authority of
nearly every MS., in omitting
éXevoopa pd Dude, the sentence
must be regarded as an anaco-
luthon (parallel to chap. v. 12.)
of which the apodosis is im-
plied, ver. 28. The Apostle
meant to say,—* I have longed to
see you for many years, and in-
tend to pay you a passing visit,
on my way to Spain, which will
not be yet, for I am now going
to carry the contributions to
Jerusalem.” As in some other
passages, the conflict of emotions
in the mind of the Apostle may

ru

418 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XV.

A 5 A A e Lal
kripace Tovrous, emutobiay Se éxwv [Tov] éhOetv wpos vpas
a an > ‘ , >
dard ToMGv érav, ws dv! Topevapas eis THY Sraviav?, (€é)-
, \ , , fa eon \ 99938 € A
milo yap Siamopevopevos Oedoacbar vpas Kat ap * vuwv
A A a) A > , 3
mpotempOnvar eKel, Eav UUOY TPWTOV amo péepous EfL-
“A XN \ , > e ‘\ PS) “A A
myno0d) vuvi 5 ropevopmas eis “Iepovaahnp duakovar Tots
e 4 b 4 % 5 / \ 3 & ,
dyio. «vddKnoav yap Maxedovia Kai “Axyata kowwviar
\ A "4 A ¢
Twa Tonoac bat Eis TOUS TTWXOUS TOV wyiwY TOV ev Iepov-
4 > l4 , ‘\ 3 r 4 3 \ > las 4 >
calyp. evddknoav yap, Kal dpevérar eiow avTav* et
yap Tols TVEVPATLKOLS avTaV exowdrnaay TA EOvy, Opel-
ovew Kal ev Tots TapKiKOls evTOUPyHoaL avTOIs. TOUTO

> 4 A be : \ A
ovv émitehéoas Kal oppayloapevos AUTOS TOY KapTOV TOU-

1 day,

have led to the anomaly in the
construction. He may have felt
a slight embarrassment in ex-
pressing that he was only mak-
ing them a passing visit: many
thoughts were in his mind at
once ; the longing that he had
for them, the apparent inconsist-
ency of this with the shortness
of his stay amongst them, the
present intention of going to Je-
rusalem, the distant journey to
Spain.

If the Apostle fulfilled this
last-mentioned intention, no trace
of hisjourney has been preserved.
His long imprisonment at Rome
and Cesarea may have hindered
its accomplishment; or the stream
of tradition, setting in another
direction, has obliterated the me-
mory of it. Could it be esta-
blished that by the words, ézi
TO Téppa THe dvcewc éXOWy, in the
famous passage of Clement, 1 Ep.
ad Cor. v., the Pillars of Hercules
were meant, we might suppose
that the true and more ancient
tradition had disappeared before
the later one. If we could re-
cover a Chronicon of the end of
the first century, there would be

2 Add @Actoouat mpds buts,

_Apostle’s coming,

8 iq’. 4 adrap eiow.
no reason for surprise in our find-
ing mention of the martyrdom of
St. Paul in Spain. So slender
is the authority by which any
other tradition of his death is
supported, so inextricably blend-
ed in the very earliest accounts
with fables respecting himself
and St. Peter. Dionys. Cor.
apud Euseb. H. E. ii. 25.

éadv vey Tpw@rov amo pépove
éutAnode.| “If I be first of all
filled with you in my love, in
some degree ;” ze. not so much
as I wish, yet as long as I am
able. The rhetoric of Chrysos-
tom adds a fine touch, which is
hardly, however, contained in the
original words, — ovdele yap pe
xpdvocg éutdijoar dvvarat, ovd éu-
Toujoal por Kopoy Tij¢ ovvovaiag
UO.

25. But at present I go to
Jerusalem, ministering to tbe
saints. These words are meant
to defer the expectation of the
which they
might have gathered from the
previous verses.

26. For the singular evidence
which this passage affords of the
genuineness of the Epistle, and

24

25
26

Q7

28

Ver. 24—-28.]

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

419

parts, and having a great desire these many years to
24 come unto you; whensoever I take my journey into
Spain'—(for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be
brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be
25 somewhat filled with your company). But now I go

9, unto Jerusalem to minister unto the saints.

For it

hath pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a
certain contribution for the poor among™ the saints
27 which are at Jerusalem. It hath pleased them verily ;
and their debtors they are. For if the Gentiles have been
made partakers of their spiritual things, their duty is also

2s to minister unto them in carnal things.

When therefore

I have performed this, and have sealed to them this fruit,

1 Add I will come to you.

what is more important, as it
has been impugned, of this chap-
ter in particular, see Paley’s
Hore Pauline, chap. ii. No. 1.
27. evddcnoav yap.| “ For they
were pleased to do it; and their
debtors they are.” Who are the
debtors? and of whom? First,
let us suppose the Apostle to
mean that the Churches of Judea
are the debtors of those in Mace-
donia. This thought certainly
agrees with the repetition of the
evodknoay, and with the cai; and
agrees also with the gracious
manner of St. Paul, but is incon-
sistent with what follows, which
~requires, not that the Churches
in Judea shouldbe the debtors
of those in Macedonia, but that
they should have a claim on the
Churches in Macedonia for tem-
poral things, in return for their
spiritual things. On the other
hand, if we translate — “ And
they,” z.e. the Macedonians, “are
their debtors,” we get a sense
somewhat ungracious in so cour-
teous a writer as St. Paul, and

inconsistent with the relation ex-
pressed by cai. Reading over
the two clauses in English, we
perceive that, if such is the in-
tended connexion, the copula is
faulty : the words dgeAérar eioty
avro are logically, that is in idea,
prior to evddcnoavy. We can
only escape the dilemma by sup-
posing that the clause «i yap rotc
mvevparixotc avrwy, though sug-
gested by the sound of the word
dperérar, is not really connected
with what has preceded, but with
a thought latent in the Apostle’s
mind; and that, in a similar
way, ddeiNovary is a false echo of
dpechérat. Compare ver. 19. for
a similar confusion and for the
suggestion of a thought by a
word, xii. 13, 14. ; also observe
that the idea of ver. 27. occurs
nearly in the same words in
1 Cor. ix. 11., ei jpete vpiv ra
mvevparika éomreipaper, péya sl
hpetc Yor Ta capkikd Oepiooper ;
oppaytodpevoc.| * Having set
my seal upon;” jg.e. having
given the seal of my Apostolical

EE 2

[Cu. XV.

420 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

A > A 3
Tov amekevoopar Sv tpuav eis! Yaaviav. oida d€ ort €p-
a a 3 ,
xopevos TpOs Buds ev whypdpate eddroyias® xpioTov Edev-
la a ete: LO r e Psy ‘ A , e a“
Towa. Tapakah@ dé vas, ddedol, dua TOU KUplov HMO
"Inood xpirtod Kal dia THS aydarns TOU mVEdpaTOS, TUVE-
A al \ \
yovicacbat pou év Tals mpocevyats vTép €u4ov pos TOV
fa 4 %
Jedv, va pucO@ amd tav dareOotvtav év TH Iovdata Kat
» Swpodopia pov 7 & “Iepovaahjp® edvapdadextos Tots
e 4 ld 4 y 3 7” erO \ a 8 \ A X: 4, §.
aylous yevynTa.*, iva ev xapa Ew pds vas dia Heya

Tos Kupiov ‘Incod.°
vpov | aun].

1 Add tyv.

3 fva 74 Siaxovia mou 7 eis ‘lepovcaAju.
Add @c00 ka ovvavaratowuo dpiv,

5 Om. kup. "Ino.

authority to this fruit they have
borne; or, having completed and
put the finishing stroke to the
fruit which they offer. For the
use of the word xaprd¢g comp.
Phil. iv. 17.—oby ére éxcgnro ro
dopa, AXN éxclynr@ rov Kaprov Tov
weovagovra sig AOyov Uuer.

29. év mAnpwpare evdAoyiac
xptorov. | I know that coming to
you I will come in the fulness of
the blessing of Christ.

These words naturally carry us
back to the first chapter, in which
he says, “I desire to come unto
you, that I may impart some spi-
ritual gift.” So in this passage
he is thinking that he will richly
endow them, even as God has en-
dowed him. Yet how can we
free the words from a sort of ego-

6 b€ Oeds THs eipyvyns peta TavT@V

2 Add rod evayyeAiov Tov.
4 yévntat Tots aylots.

tism ? First inasmuch as he him-
self tells us that all his graces are
inseparably bound up in his union
with Christ, and his glorying no
man can make void, because he
glories in the Lord ; and secondly
as the thought of the good he
will do them is quickened by
his affection for them. Compare
2 Cor. xi. 30., xii. 1.

30, 31. dua rife ayarne Tov
mvevparoc,| through the love
which the Spirit creates in us; as
in Gal. v. 22., love is numbered
among the gifts of the Spirit.

ovvaywricaciat. | Comp. Col. vi.
12. dywrilopevoc vrep tay év raic
mpocevxaic. The words treép épot
may be taken either with suvayw-
vigeoOae or with zpoaevyaic.

Here, as in Acts, xx. 22, 23.,

29

30

31

32
33

29

30

31

32
33

Ver. 29—33.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 421

I will come by you into Spain. And Iam sure that,
when I come unto you, I shall come in the fulness
of the blessing’ of Christ. Now I beseech you, bre-
thren, for the Lord Jesus Christ’s sake, and for the
love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me
in your prayers to God forme; that I may be delivered
from them that do not believe in Judea; and that the
offering of my gift at Jerusalem” may be accepted of.
the saints; that I may come unto you with joy by the
will of the Lord Jesus.? Now the God of peace be with
you all. Amen.

1 Add “ of the Gospel.”
2 My service which I have for Jerusalem.

8 Of God, and may with you be refreshed.

to the elders of Ephesus, in -ac-
cordance with the warning of
Agabus, xxi. 11. (comp. 1 Thess.
ii. 14.), and on other occasions
(2 Tim. iv. 18.), the Apostle an-
ticipates the evil coming upon
him at the hands of the Jews,
whose temper he well knew.

31. The Apostle seems to fear
not only the violence of those who
did not believe, but also the un-
willingness of the brethren to re-
ceive offerings at his hands. The
words, iva } Owpogopia prov. . €v-
mpoocextog Toi¢ ayiow, imply a
difference between himself and
the Church of Jerusalem, such
as made it possible that they

_might not receive the offerings

that he brought. Why else
should he doubt, or even pray,

that the collection of alms which
he had undertaken at the request
of Apostles “who seemed to be
pillars” might be acceptable ?
Compare the account in Acts,
xxi., in which a slender line of
demarcation appears to be drawn
between the multitude of Jews
that believe, all zealous for the
law, and the rest of the nation.

32. iva év yapa edOw, | that I
may come to you and be joyful ;
that no circumstance may take
away the joy that I feel in com-
ing to you.

33. 0 d€ Sede rife eipyync.| As
elsewhere, not without an allusion
to the counsels of peace which he
has given in this and almost every
Epistle.

422

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[Cu. XVI.

A ‘ e a >
Suviornus é byiv PoiByv tHv adeddyv nuav, odoav
, A 3 Md a..9 K > 5 , a)
SudKovov THS exkAnoias THs ev Keyyxpeats, wa tpoadéenobe
aitnv! &v Kupie a&iws Tov ayiwv Kal TapacTHTE avTH év @
la) \ ‘te!
dv buav xpyln mpdypate: Kal yap avTn TpooTatis TOMOv

> , \ 2 ~ 3 nf 9
eyernOn Kat E4ov avTov.

*Aonacacbe Ipickav®

\ 93 , ‘ 4
Kat Axviav Tovs cuvepyovs Lov

3 laure) a Y e \ A lol \ ec Qn
&v xpioT@ Incov, oitwes uTep THS Wuyys mou Toy EavT@V
, e / @ > > =A # > an > X ‘
Tpaxnrov vrebynKay, ols OVK EyY@ OVOS EVYAPLTT@ GANA Kat
a aA A \ \ > la)
Tao. at exk\noia, TOV eOvav, Kat THY KaT OlKOVY avTOV

Ss ’
exkAnotav.

> 3 ‘\ ~ > , 4 b) ,
EoTW amTapyn THS Actas” Els KpLOTOP.

5 , > 4 \ >] 4, 4
actacacbe “Ezatverov Tov QYAMTNTOV [LOV, OS

4
aoTmacacbe Ma-

piav, ntis Toa exoTriacey eis Umas.” domdoacbe Avdpo-

. >? , ‘ A \ ,
viukov Kat lovviav Tovs o VYYVELS POV KQL O VV ALK LANWTOUS

1 avtny mpoodetnabe,

XVI. 1. Phebe, probably the
bearer of the Epistle.

‘To the name of deaconess of
the Church in the New Testa-
ment can only be added the con-
jecture, that the institution came
from the desire to avoid the scan-
dal which would be occasioned by
the admixture of men and women
in some of the offices of the
Church. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5. :—
“Have we not power to lead
about a sister, a wife,...as the
brethren of the Lord, and Ce-
phas.”

év Keyypeaic.| The port of
Corinth on the Saronic Gulf, dis-
tant from Corinth itself, accord-
ing to Strabo, about 70 stadia,
or rather less than 9 miles.

2. That ye may receive her to
you in the Lord: déiwe, (1.) in
the way ye ought to receive the
saints; or, (2.) in the way ye as
the saints ought to receive others,
and assist her in whatever she
may need of you ; for she herself
hath been the patroness of many,
yea, and of myself also.

2 Kal abvTov euov,

8 TplomaAAav. 4 °Axatas. »* pas.

3. [ Priscilla, the reading of
the Textus Receptus, is the di-
minutive of Prisca, like Drusilla,
Livilla, Quintilla.]

4. olrwec timep ripe Wuxiic pov,
who laid down their necks. | Per-
haps in the tumult to which the
Apostle is probably referring
when he says, “ after the manner
of men I fought with beasts at
Ephesus,” 1 Cor. xv. 32., Acts
xix.; or on the occasion, if it be
not the same, mentioned in 2
Cor. i. .

5. “The Church that is in
their house :” either, (1.) their
family which by a figure of speech
might be so termed ; or, (2.) an
assembly of Christians which
they permitted to be held under
their roof, as at Ephesus, 1 Cor.
xvi. 19., where they had been
helpers of the Apostle not more
than a year previously. In the
second Epistle to Timothy they
are again at Ephesus, iv. 19.,
though originally dwellers at
Rome, whence they were driven
by the command of Claudius

_ Ver. 1—7.]

16

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 423

I commend unto you Phebe our sister, which is a
servant of the church which is at Cenchrea: that ye re-
ceive her in the Lord, as becometh saints, and that ye
succour * her in whatsoever business she hath need of
you: for she too* hath been a succourer of many, and

3 of my own™ self. Greet Prisca * and Aquila my helpers

in Christ Jesus: who have for my life laid down their
own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also -
all the churches of the Gentiles. Likewise greet the
church that is in their house. Salute my wellbeloved

6 Epenetus, who is the firstfruits of Asia? unto Christ.

Greet Mary, who bestowed much labour on you.? Salute
Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-

1 Priscilla.

(Acts, xviii. 2.) to Corinth, where
they first met with the Apostle,
who joined them in their occupa-
tion of tentmaking.
Epenetus the firstfruits. So
in 1 Cor. xvi. 15., Stephanas is
mentioned as the firstfruits of
Achaia, whence the very ancient
various reading ‘Ayatac has pro-
bably crept into this passage.
Ewald, who admits the genuine-
ness of the fifteenth chapter, sus-
pects that the sixteenth has been
inserted from a lost Epistle to the
Ephesians. It must be admitted
that the number of persons who
are supposed to be acquaintances

- of St. Paul at Rome ; the mention

of Prisca and Aquila, who are at
Ephesus both before and after
the time at which the Epistle
was written; also of Epenetus
the firstfruits of Asia, and of
others who had been fellow-
workers with St. Paul in Asia
or Greece, two of whom are
also called his fellowprisoners at
a time when he himself was not
in prison, and all of whom are

2 Achaia.

3 Us.

now at Rome, where we should
not expect to find them, lends
countenance to the suspicion.
Whether Ewald be right or not
is a matter of slight import-
ance. It is impossible either to
prove or disprove the conjec-
ture.

6. ijrt¢ | marks the reason, “ for
she.”
_ eic¢ vac. | Introduced by Lach-
mann into the Text. But the
Apostle could not say appropri-
ately, Salute Mary, who laboured
much for you. Better with B. cic
Hpac.

7. Salute Andronicus and Ju-
nia, my fellowprisoners. The
latter (Iovviay) is the name of
awoman. Priscilla, Junia, the
household of Chloe, the sisters
who accompanied Paul and the
brethren of the Lord and Cephas,
the Athenian woman named Da-
maris, Phebe, Dorcas, the women
who followed Christ and minis-
tered to him of their substance,
besides others who are mere
names to us, show the part which

EE 4

424 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (Cu. XVI.

Y- b] A > / aA \ \
pov, olTwes elow Eetionmorev TOs aTooTONOLS, Ol Kat TPO
A lal , > , \ 3
E00 yeyovay év ypioT@. aondoaobe “Apmiav Tov aya-

> \ \ \
aytov pov ev Kupio. daomdcacbe OvpBavov Tov ouvepyov
nw \ > l4 > ,
Amav ev Kupio!, Kal Irayuv Tov ayarnrov pov. aowa-
Oe "Areddjv Tov SdKyrov ev xyploT@. aotacacbe TOUS
cacbe > Aredjv TOV SOKYL XpPloT@.
lal 4
éx Tov “ApiatoBovXov.
la b) , \ b] A 7 X ¥
yern pov. aomdcacbe tovs éx TOV Napkiogov Tovs ovTas
> 4 , ‘ la \
aomacacbe Tpidawav Kai Tpvdocav Tas

aomacacbe ‘“Hpwoiwva tov ocvy-

év KUpio.
, > , > a @ i ‘\ > ld
KoTiaaas ev Kupio. [aomdoacbe Iepoida thy ayarytyp,
Y » ee | , 3 , 5 , fa > a X
NTLS TOAAG EKOTLAC EV EV Kupio. | aomacacbe Povdov Tov
ExheKTOV EV KUPLO, Kal THY UNTEPA AVTOV Kal Eov. aoTd-
~ > la
cacbe "Aovykpitov Pdéyovta “Epynv TatpoBav *Eppav
\
Kal TOUS GUY avToLs adehpovs. aomacacHe Siddoyor Kat
"Iovhiav, Nynpéa kat tHv adedpyy adrov, Kat “OdvpTar,
\ 2 \ RS , 7 > , p) ,
Kal TOUS GUY avTOLS TavTas aylouvs. acmacacbe adhi-
> v4 ¢ , > 4 e aA e 5 3
hovs ev dilypati ayiw. aomalovTar vas at exKkdynotar
nw “w
? TOU KpLoToU.
Ilapaxada d€ vuas, adedgol, oKorety Tods Tas StyooTa-
, XN \ , bs,’ \ \ aA ¢ “~ > /
clas Kal Ta oKavOara Tapa THY Sidayny Hv vpeis eudbere
TowovvTas, Kal ExKWaTe aT avToV* ol yap ToLOvTOL TO
4 e “ 3 “A > } nN 4 JAN A € lal i
Kupl@ Nav? xpLaT@ ov dovAEvovaW, GAA TH EavTaY KOL

TACAL

1 xpirT@. 2 Om. raéca. 3 Add "Inaov.

women took in the first preach-
ing of the Gospel.
rouc avyyeveic.| Literally, my

might be quoted his own words
in 1 Cor. xv. 8., “ Last of all he
was seen of me ”); or whether he

kinsmen. There appears nothing
improbable in Paul having had
such at Rome. Comp. ver. 11. 21.

olriwéc siow érionpor, who are
distinguished. | These words form
one of the very few references
that we find to the state of the
Church, prior to the preaching
of St. Paul.

It is uncertain whether by
those who were Apostles before
him, St. Paul means the Twelve
(an opinion in favour of which

is using the term Apostle in its
more general sense.

Amplias contracted from Am-
pliatus, like Lucas, Silas, from
Lucanus and Silvanus.

10. The name Apelles occurs
in the well-known line, Hor. i.
Sat. v. 100.: “Credat Judzus
Apella.”

Touc éx Twv ’AptorobodvXov, | t. €.
the Christians of Aristobulus’s
household.

11. Herodion, a name formed

10

Il

12

13
14

15

16

17—

18

17

18

Ver. 8—18.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. 425

prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also
were in Christ before me. Greet Amplias my beloved
in the Lord. Salute Urbane, our helper in the Lord’,
and Stachys my beloved. Salute Apelles approved in
Christ. Salute them which are of Aristobulus’ house-
hold. Salute Herodion my kinsman. Greet them that
be of the household of Narcissus, which are in the Lord.
Salute Tryphena and Tryphosa, who labour in the Lord.
[Salute the beloved Persis, which laboured much in the
Lord.] Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother
and mine. Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Pa-
trobas, Hermas, and the brethren which are with them.
Salute Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and
Olympas, and all the saints which are with them. Salute
one another with an holy kiss. All? the churches of
Christ salute you.

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which
cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine
which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they
that are such serve not our Lord? Christ, but their

1 Christ. 2 Om. All. 3 Add Jesus.

from Herod, like Cesarion from

Cesar. Narcissus may have been
the freedman of Claudius.

13. Rufus may have been the
son of Simon the Cyrenian men-
tioned in Mark, xv. 21.

TV pnrépa adrov Kal épuod, | his
mother whom I love as mine.
Compare our Lord’s words : —
* Son, behold thy mother,” John

xix. 26, 27.

14, Hermas, erroneously iden-
tified with Hermas the brother of
Pius, bishop of Rome about A. p.
150, and the author of the Shep-
herd. Origen ad hune locum.
EKuseb. H. E. iii. 3.

Patrobas, a name occurring in

Martial, ii. 32. 3.; it is a short-
ened form of Patrobius.

16. aordcaade adXtXove Ev GAH-
pare dyiy, | with the mystic kiss,
the kiss that is the seal of bro-
therly love as in 1 Peter, v. 14. ;
or merely the kiss usual in the
assembly of the saints.

16. “ All the churches of Christ
salute you.” Insert taoa:, which
has been omitted by the copy-
ists, apparently because they
could not understand how St.
Paul could express the feeling
of all Churches to the Roman
Church. Compare 1 Corinthians,
18.

17, 18. Compare Phil. i. 15.

426 [Cu. XVI.

EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

, \ ‘\ A , N 3 , b] A
hia, kat dua THS xpnaToNoyias, Kal evroyias eLaTaTdow
‘\ , A \ e€ al € ‘ > 4
Tas Kapodlas TOV akKdKaV. 1 yap VLOV VITAKON Els TaVTAs
> , S09 28 > v 1 bér de Se Se \ 9 >
apikeTo* ep vw ovv xaipw', Oéd\w O€ Vas Godous* eivat
b ] X\ 3 / 3 / \ 3 A / e A x
eis TO ayaldv, akepaiovs dé eis TO KaKov. 6 O€ Oeds
la A ¢ A la
THs cipHvyns ouvTpibe. TOY GaTavay VO TOUS TOdas VLOV
€V TAXEL.
H xdpis Tov Kupiov nuav “Inaov xpiotov pe? var.
3 rf 3 e A T 5A € l4 \ A ,
Aondlerar® vas Tydfeos 6 ouvepyds pov, Kat AovKtos
Kat Idowv Kal Swotrarpos ot cvyyevets pov. aomalopar
e “~ b] \ “d e , \ > \ 3 , > ,
vpas eyo Téprios 6 ypawas THY emiaToNny ev KUpio. ao7Td-
e a fee e la ‘\ 4 ~ > “af 4
Cera vas Tdios 6 E€&vos pov Kal dns THS ExKAnoias
~ ¥y wn
aomalerar tuas “Epactos 6 olKovomos THs Toews, Kat

Kovaprtos 6 adeddos.”

To dé duvapevaw tuas oTynpi€ar KaTa TO evayyédLov pov
D 8¢ Swapér spas ornp yyeNisy

1 yalpw obv Td ed’ Suir.
3 gomdfovTa.

2 Add pév.
4 ris éxxAnotas dAns.

5 Add 7 xdpis Tod Kuplov ju@y "Inood xpioTOD meTa TayTwY Kuar.

(written from Rome a few years
later): —‘‘Some indeed preach
Christ even of envy and strife ;
and some also of goodwill: the
one preach Christ of contention,
not sincerely, supposing to add
affliction to my bonds.”

18. Comp. again Phil. iii. 19.,
ov © Sede f Kowa,

19. The connexion of this
verse with the preceding is ob-
scure. ‘The Apostle may either
mean: (1.) “ They deceive the
hearts of such as you, for you are
known throughout the world to
be simple and guileless (dxakor) ;
or, (2.) “ Avoid these deceivers,
for otherwise you will mar that
good fame which is gone out re-
specting you into all the world;”
or, (8.) the Apostle may be harp-
ing back on the word doctrine
(didayy), in ver. 17. He adds:
“Therefore I rejoice; howbeit I
would have you wise ‘as ser-
pents’ in reference to what is

good, while you retain your in-
nocence and purity in relation to
its opposite.”

20. Compare above, ¢. xv. ver.
33., where there seems to be a si-
milar reference to their divisions.
“ But the God of peace shall
shortly bruise Satan, who is the
author of these divisions, under
your feet.”

21. Timotheus, Acts, xvi. 1.,
xx.4. See 1 Thess. i. 1.

Jason of Thessalonica, Acts,
xvii. 5.; Sosipater of Berea,
Acts, xx. 4.

22. That St. Paul dictated his
Epistles appears from this pas-
sage, which may be compared
with 1 Cor. xvi. 21., where he
adds, “ The salutation of me Paul
with mine own hand.” Gal. iv.
11.: “Ye see in what large let-
ters I have written to you with
mine own hand.” Coloss. iv. 18.:
“The salutation by the hand of
me Paul.” 2 Thess. iii. 17.: “ The

20

245
22
23

24
25

19

20

21
22

23

24
25

Ver. 19—25.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. A427

own belly; and by good words and fair speeches
deceive the hearts of the simple. For your obedience
is come abroad unto all men. I am glad therefore on
your behalf: but yet I would have you wise unto that
which is good, and pure concerning evil. And the
God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet
shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with

you. Amen.

Timotheus my workfellow, and Lucius, and Jason,

and Sosipater, my kinsmen, salute you.

I Tertius, who

wrote this epistle, salute you in the Lord. Gaius mine

host, and of the whole church, saluteth you.

Erastus

the chamberlain of the city saluteth you, and Quartus

a brother.!

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according

1 The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all,

salutation of Paul with mine own
hand, which is the token in every
epistle : so I write.”

éyw Tépric.] Who Tertius
was is unknown. Not the same
with Silas, as some fancied, in
consequence of the similarity of
sound in the Hebrew numeral for
three, as Silas is but a shortened
form of the Latin Silvanus.

23. “Gaius mine host, and of
the whole church.” Comp. above
the same turn of expression —
“his mother and mine.”

Erastus, “the chamberlain of

the city,” the same, probably,

who accompanied St. Paul in his
travels. Grotius remarks, “ Vi-
des jam ab initio, quanquam pau-
cos, aliquos tamen fuisse Chris-
tianos in dignitatibus positos.”
Kovaproc the brother, ze. the
disciple.

_ 24, Farewell, and again fare-
well. The grace of our Lord
Jesus Christ be with you all, and

again I repeat, “ The grace of our
Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.”

25. ro de duvapévy.| The con-
struction may be supplied by
some such word as evyaptoroper ;
or, more probably, was intended
to terminate with 7 ddéa. Owing
to the length of the sentence, the
latter end has forgotten the be-
ginning ; and consequently,
ddéa is inserted in a relative
clause.

arnpiéa, | in reference to their
divisions and weaknesses.

Kard To evayyéddy pov.| Ac-
cording to the Gospel which has
been committed to me to preach.
Comp. Rom. ii. 16., and 2 Tim.
iv. 17.:— iva ov god 70 Kiipuypa
™AnpopopnOn Kat axovon TavTa Ta
evn.

kat TO Khpvypa "Incod xprorod |
is an explanation of 70 evayyé-
Avoy pov ; as though he had said
too much in calling it his Gospel,
he adds, according to the preach-

428 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. [Cu. XVI.
Kal TO KHpvypa Inoov ypiorov, Kata aroKadupw pvorn-
piov ypdvois aiwvios ceovynpevov, pavepwbevros de vov
Oud Te ypadhav mpopytiuKav Kat eritaynv Tod aiwviov Heod
eis UTaKony TlaTEws eis TAaVTA TA EOVy yvwpiobErToOS, Love

o

nw a A la) aS / > ‘ 2A
code bee, Sia *Inood xpiorod, @ 7 dd€a eis Tods aidvas

lon Cd * b) 4, v4
TMV ALWVYOWY , ALYY.
1 Omit Tév aidvwr.
2 Add pds ‘Pwmatous éypapn amd KopivOov di bol6ys Tis Siaxdvov ths év
Keyxpeais éxxAnotas,

ing of Christ, that is, according
to the Gospel of Christ preached
by me.

kard,| in the same sense as
above. This clause may be re-
garded as in apposition with the
preceding. “According to the
Gospel of Christ, according to
the revelation of the mystery
which was kept silent since the
world began.”

The best commentary on this
verse is the lst chapter, in which
the Gospel is set forth as a reve-
lation of righteousness and of
wrath to a world lying in dark-
ness. In several other places
St. Paul speaks of the mysterious-
ness of the past, the times of
that ignorance which God winked
at. Comp. 1 Cor. ii. 7.:—“We
speak the wisdom of God in a
mystery, even the hidden wisdom
which God ordained before the
world unto our glory ;” and Col.
i, 26.:— “ Even the mystery
which hath been hid from ages
and from generations, but now is
made manifest unto the saints.”
As we sometimes ask the ques-
tion, not without a certain strange-
ness, what God “has reserved for
the heathen,” so in these passages
the Apostle seems to indicate a
similar feeling respecting the
ages that are past.

26. gavepwhévroc O& viv cia TE
ypapay.| But now made manifest

through the writings of the pro-
phets also. That is to say, the
Gospel which had been concealed,
was now made manifest, and re-
ceived also a light and illustra-
tion from the prophets.

27. pdvy coop Seg. | Theonly
wise God as revealed in Jesus
Christ.

@ | refers to God, not to Christ.
In addition to the arguments
urged below, we may mention
the anacoluthon of the doxolo-
gy, as itself affording a proof
of genuineness. ‘There can be
little inducement imagined for
inventing these three verses, each
of which (xara ro evayyéAuov pov,
Kat TO Khpvypa Inood yptorov .. .
aiwriov Yeov... pdvy copy ed)
bears special marks of the hand
of St. Paul.

The great majority of early
authorities (B.C.D., Clement, Ori-
gen) place the doxology at the
end of the Epistle. A. has it
here, and at the end of chap. xiv.
as well; in which latter place G.
leaves a space for it, also insert-
ing it at the end. There are
several other traces of this varia-
tion, being as old as the fourth
century. The antiquity of the two
traditions renders it impossible
to determine certainly which of
them is the true one.

26

F

Ver. 26, 27.] EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

429

to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, accord-
ing to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept
secret since the world began, but now is made manifest,
and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the
commandment of the everlasting God, made known to
all nations for the obedience of faith: to God only wise,
be glory through Jesus Christ for ever and ever.’ Amen.?.

1 Omit and ever.

2 Add Written to the Romans from Corinth, and sent by Phebe
servant of the church at Cenchrea.

The doubt respecting the posi-
tion of the doxology, and the cir-
cumstance mentioned by Origen
that Marcion ended the Epistle at

the 28rd verse of the fourteenth

chapter ; also certain minute co-
incidences, which are observed
chiefly between Rom. xv. 25—
29., and 1 Cor. ix. 11., 2 Cor.
viii. 4., ix. 1. 5.; lastly, the
mention of the great number of
persons resident at Rome, who
were known to the Apostle, and
in particular of his kinsmen and
fellowprisoners, have led to a
suspicion of the genuineness of
the last two chapters. To such
a suspicion it may be replied: (1.)
that, if spurious, they would bea
forgery without a motive; (2.)
that they have every mark of
genuineness which characteristic
thought and language can supply
(observe xv. 8, 9. 14, 15. 20, 21.
23., compared with 2 Cor. x. 13.
16.; xvi. 13. 23.) ; (3.) that they
present at least one minute co-
incidence with the history ; (4.)
that the occurrence of the doxo-
logy at the end of chap. xiv. is
no proof that this was the end of
the Epistle; the Apostle, after
intending to finish, may have
begun again, as in the Epistle to
the Galatians, as in fact he has

added a postscript at ver. 21. of
the sixteenth chapter, and made
a conclusion at the end of chap.
xv.; (5.) that the close connex-
ion of the last verse of chap. xiv.
and the beginning of chap. xv.,
is a presumption that the doxo-
logy has slipped into that place
from some accidental cause ; (6.)
that the evidence of Marcion is
inconclusive, unless his edition,
whatever may have been its ob-
ject, was based on earlier docu-
ments than the received version,
an assumption of which there is
no proof; lastly, that the ex-
tremely close and minute resem-
blances between the Ephesians
and Colossians, or between the
Galatians andthe Romans (which
latter are both admitted by Baur
himself to be genuine writings of
the Apostle), destroy the force
of the presumption derived from
a few similarities, nowhere ex-
tending to a whole verse, against ~
the two last chapters of the
Epistle to the Romans.

None of these arguments, it
will be observed, afford any
answer to the view of Ewald,
who maintains, not the spurious-
ness, but the misplacement of
chap. xvi. See above on ver. 5.

430 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

NATURAL RELIGION.

Tue revelation of righteousness by faith in the Epistle to the
Romans, is relative to a prior condemnation of Jew and Gentile,
who are alike convicted of sin. If the world had not been sitting in
darkness and the shadow of death, there would have been no need of
the light. And yet this very darkness is a sort of contradiction, for
it is the darkness of the soul, which, nevertheless, sees itself and God.
Such “darkness visible” St. Paul had felt in himself, and, passing
from the individual to the world he lifts up the veil partially, and
lets the light of God’s wrath shine upon the corruption of man.
What he himself in the searchings of his own spirit had become con-
scious of, was “written in large letters” on the scene around. To
all Israelites at least, the law stood in the same relation as it had once
done to himself; it placed them in a state of reprobation. Without
law, “they had not had sin,” and now, the only way to do away with
sin, is to do away the law itself.

But, if “sin is not imputed where there is no law,” it might seem
as though the heathen could not be brought within the sphere of the
same condemnation. Could we ‘suppose men to be like animals,
“nourishing a blind life within the brain,” “the seed that is not
quickened except it die” would have no existence in them. Common
~ sense tells us that all evil implies a knowledge of good, and that no
man can be responsible for the worship of a false God who has no
means of approach to the true. But this was not altogether the case
of the Gentile ; “ without the law sin was in the world ;” as the Jew
had the law, so the Gentile had the witness of God in creation.
Nature was the Gentile’s law, witnessing against his immoral and

degraded state, leading him upward through the visible things to the

NATURAL RELIGION. | : 431

unseen power of God. He knew God, as the Apostle four times
repeats, and magnified him not as God; so that he was without
excuse, not only for his idolatry, but because he worshipped idols in
the presence of God Himself.
- Such is the train of thought which we perceive to be working in
the Apostle’s mind, and which leads him, in accordance with the
general scope of the Epistle to the Romans, to speak of natural
religion. In two passages in the Acts he dwells on the same sub-
ject. It was one that found a ready response in the age to which
St. Paul preached. Reflections of a similar kind were not un-
common among the heathen themselves. If at any time in the
history of mankind natural religion can be said to have had a real
and independent existence, it was in the twilight of heathenism and
Christianity. “Seeking after God, if haply they might feel after
Him and find Him,” is a touching description of the efforts of philo-
sophy in its later period. That there were principles in Nature
higher and purer than the creations of mythology was a reflection
made by those who would have deemed “the cross of Christ foolish-
ness,” who “mocked at the resurrection of the dead.” The Olympic
heaven was no longer the air which men breathed, or the sky over
their heads. The better mind of the world was turning from
“dumb idols.” Ideas about God and man were taking the place of
the old heathen rites. Religions, like nations, met and mingled.
East and West were learning of each other, giving and receiving
spiritual and political elements; the objects of Gentile worship
fading into a more distant and universal God; the Jew also travel-
ling in thought into regions which his fathers knew not, and begin-
ning to form just conceptions of the earth and its inhabitants.
While we remain within the circle of Scripture language, or think
of St. Paul as speaking only to the men of his own age in words
that were striking and appropriate to them, there is no difficulty in
understanding his meaning. The Old Testament denounced idolatry
as hateful to God. It was away from him, out of his sight; except
where it touched the fortunes of the Jewish people, hardly within

432 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the range either of His judgments or of His mercies. No Israelite;
in the elder days of Jewish history, supposed the tribes round about,
or the individuals who composed them, to be equally with himself
the objects of God’s care. The Apostle brings the heathen back
before the judgment seat of God. He sees them sinking into the
condition of the old Canaanitish nations. He regards this corruption
of Nature as a consequence of their idolatry. They knew, or might
have known, God, for creation witnesses of Him. This is the hinge
of the Apostie’s argument: “If they had not known God they had
not had sin;” but now they know Him, and sin in the light of
knowledge. Without this consciousness of sin there would be no
condemnation of the heathen, and therefore no need of justification
for him,—no parallelism or coherence between the previous states of
Jew and Gentile, or between the two parts of the scheme of re-
demption.

But here philosophy, bringing into contrast the Scriptural view
of things and the merely historical or human one, asks the question,
“How far was it possible for the heathen to have seen God in
Nature?” Could a man anticipate the true religion any more than
he could anticipate discoveries in science or in art? Could he pierce
the clouds of mythology, or lay asidé language as it were a garment?
Three or four in different ages, who have been the heralds of great
religious revolutions, may have risen above their natural state under
the influence of some divine impulse. But men in general do as
others do; single persons in India or China do not dislocate them-
selves from the customs, traditions, prejudices, rites, in which they
have been brought up. The mind of a nation has its own structure,
which.receives and also idealises in various degrees the forms of
outward Nature. Religions, like languages, conform to this mental
structure; they are prior to the thoughts of individuals; no one is
responsible for them. Homer is not to blame for his conception of
the Grecian gods; it is natural and adequate to his age. For no
one in primitive times could disengage himself from that world of

sense which grew to him and enveloped him; we might as well

NATURAL RELIGION. 438

imagine that he could invent a new language, or change the form
which he inherited from his race into some other type of humanity.

The question here raised is one of the most important, as it is
perhaps one that has been least considered, out of the many questions
in which reason and faith, historical fact and religious belief, come
into real or apparent conflict with each other. Volumes have been
written on the connection of geology with the Mosaic account of the
creation, —a question which is on the outskirts of the great diffi-
culty,—a sort of advanced post, at which theologians go out to meet
the enemy. But we cannot refuse seriously to consider the other
difficulty, which affects us much more nearly, and in the present day
almost forces itself upon us, as the spirit of the ancient religions is
more understood, and the forms of religion still existing among men
become better known.

It sometimes seems as if we lived in two, or rather many distinct
- worlds,—the world of faith and the world of experience,—the world
of sacred and the world of profane history. Between them there is
a guiph; it is not easy to pass from one to the other. ‘They have a
different set of words and ideas, which it would be bad taste to
intermingle; and of how much is this significant? They present
themselves to us at different times, and call up a different train of
associations. When reading scripture we think only of the heavens
“which are made by the word of God,” of “the winds and waves
obeying His will,” of the accomplishment of events in history by
the interposition of His hand. But in the study of ethnology or
geology, in the records. of our own or past times, a curtain drops
over the Divine presence ; human motives take the place of spiritual
agencies; effects are not without causes; interruptions of Nature
repose in the idea of law. Race, climate, physical influences, states
of the human intellect and of society, are among the chief subjects
of ordinary history; in the Bible there is no allusion to them; to
the inspired writer they have no existence. Were men different,
then, in early ages, or does the sacred narrative show them to us
under a different point of view? The being of whom scripture gives

VOL. II. FF

434 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

one account, philosophy another, —who has a share in Nature and
a place in history, who partakes also of a hidden life, and is the
subject of an unseen power,— is he not the same? This is the
difficulty of our times, which presses upon us more and more, both
in speculation and practice, as different classes of ideas come into
comparison with each other. The day has passed in which we could
look upon man in one aspect only, without interruption or con-
fusion from any other. And Scripture, which uses the language and
ideas of the age in which it was written, is inevitably at variance
with the new modes of speech, as well as with the real discoveries
of later knowledge.

Yet the Scriptures lead the way in subjecting the purely super-
natural and spiritual view of human things to the laws of experience.
The revocation in Ezekiel of the “old proverb in the house of
Israel,” is the assertion of a moral principle, and a return to fact and
Nature. The words of our Saviour,—“Think ye that those eighteen
on whom the tower of Siloam fell, were sinners above all the men
who dwelt in Jerusalem?” and the parallel passage respecting the
one born blind, —“ Neither this man did sin, nor his parents,” are
an enlargement of the religious belief of the time in accordance with
experience. When itis said that faith is not to look for wonders ;
or “the kingdom of God cometh not with observation,” and
“neither will they be persuaded though one rose from the dead,”
here, too, is an elevation of the order of Nature over the miraculous
and uncommon. ‘The preference of charity to extraordinary gifts is
another instance, in which the spirit of Christ speaks by the lips of
Paul, of a like tendency. And St. Paul himself, in recognising a
world without the Jewish, as responsible to God, and subject to His
laws, is but carrying out, according to the knowledge of his age,
the same principle which a wider experience of the world and of
antiquity compels us to extend yet further to all time and to all
mankind.

It has been asked: “ How far, in forming a moral estimate of an

individual, are we to consider his actions simply as good or evil; or

NATURAL RELIGION. 435

how far are we to include in our estimate education, country, rank
in life, physical constitution, and so forth?” Morality is rightly
jealous of our resolving evil into the influence of circumstances: it
will no more listen to the plea of temptation as the excuse for vice,
than the law will hear of the same plea in mitigation of the penalty
for crime. It requires that we should place ourselves within certain
conditions before we pass judgment. Yet we cannot deny a higher
point of view also,—of “ Him that judged not as a man judgeth,” in
which we fear to follow only because of the limitation of our facul-
ties. And in the case of a murderer or other great criminal, if we
were suddenly made aware, when dwelling on the enormity of his
erime, that he had been educated in vice and misery, that his act
had not been unprovoked, perhaps that his physical constitution
was such as made it nearly impossible for him to resist the provoca-
tion which was offered to him, the knowledge of these and similar
circumstances would alter our estimate of the complexion of his
guilt. We might think him guilty, but we should also think him
unfortunate. Stern necessity might still require that the law should
take its course, but we should feel pity as well as anger. We should
view his conduct in a larger and more comprehensive way, and
acknowledge that, had we been placed in the same circumstances, we
might have been guilty of the same act.

Now the difference between these two views of morality is analo-
gous to the difference between the way in which St. Paul regards
the heathen religions, and the way in which we ourselves regard
them, in proportion as we become better acquainted with their true
nature. St. Paul conceives idolatry separate from all the circum-
stances of time, of country, of physical or mental states by which it
is accompanied, and in which it may be almost said to consist. He
implies a deliberate knowledge of the good, and choice of the evil.
He supposes each individual to contrast the truth of God with the
error of false religions, and deliberately to reject God. He conceives

all mankind, “ creatures as they are one of another,” and
“ Moving all together if they move at all,”

FFQ2

436 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

to be suddenly freed from the bond of nationality, from the customs
and habits of thought of ages. The moral life which is proper to
the individual, he breathes into the world collectively. Speaking
not of the agents and their circumstances, but of their acts, and
seeing these reflected in what may be termed in a figure the
conscience, not of an individual but of mankind in general, he passes
on all men everywhere the sentence of condemnation. We can
hardly venture to say what would have been his judgment on the
great names of Greek and Roman history, had he familiarly known
them. He might have felt as we feel, that there is a certain impro-
priety in attempting to determine, with a Jesuit writer, or even in
the spirit of love and admiration which the great Italian poet shows
for them, the places of the philosophers and heroes of antiquity in
the world to come. More in his own spirit, he would have spoken
of them as a part of “the mystery which was not then revealed as
it now is.” But neither can we imagine how he could have become
familiar with them at all without ceasing to be St. Paul.
Acquainted as we are with Greek and Roman literature from
within, lovers of its old heroic story, it is impossible for us to regard
the religions of the heathen world in the single point of view which
they presented to the first believers. It would be a vain attempt to
try and divest ourselves of the feelings towards the great names of
Greek and Roman history which a classical education has implanted
in us; as little can we think of the deities of the heathen mythology
in the spirit of a Christian of the first two centuries. Looking back
from the vantage ground of ages, we see more clearly the pro-
portions of heathenism and Christianity, as of other great forms or
events of history, than was possible for contemporaries. Ancient
authors are like the inhabitants of a valley who know nothing of
the countries beyond: they have a narrow idea either of their own
or other times ; many notions are entertained by them respecting
the past history of mankind which a wider prospect would have
dispelled. ‘The horizon of the sacred writers too is limited ; they
do not embrace the historical or other aspects of the state of man to

NATURAL RELIGION. | 437

which modern reflection has given rise ; they are in the valley still,
though with the “light of the world” above. The Apostle sees the
Athenians from Mars’ Hill “wholly given to idolatry:” to us, the
same scene would have revealed wonders of art and beauty, the loss
of which the civilised nations of Europe still seem with a degree of
seriousness to lament. He thinks of the heathen religions in the
spirit of one of the old prophets; to us they are subjects of philo-
sophy also. He makes no distinction between their origin and their
decline, the dreams of the childhood of the human race and the
fierce and brutal lusts with which they afterwards became polluted ;
we note many differences between Homer and the corruption of later
Greek life, between the rustic simplicity of the old Roman religion
and the impurities of the age of Clodius or Tiberius. More and
more, as they become better known to us, the original forms of all
religions are seen to fall under the category of nature and less under
that of mind, or free will. ‘There is nothing to which they are so
much akin as language, of which they are a sort of after-growth,—
in their fantastic creations the play or sport of the same faculty
of speech ; they seem to be also based on a spiritual affection, which
is characteristic of man equally with the social ones. Religions,
like languages, are inherent in all men every where, having a close
sympathy or connection with political and family life. It would
be a shallow and imaginary explanation of them that they are
corruptions of some primeval revelation, or impostures framed by
the persuasive arts of magicians or priests. ‘There are many other
respects in which our first impressions respecting the heathen world
- are changed by study and experience. There was more of true great-
ness in the conceptions of heathen legislators and philosophers than
we readily admit, and more of nobility and disinterestedness in their
character. The founders of the Eastern religions especially, although
indistinctly seen by us, appear to be raised above the ordinary level
of mortality. The laws of our own country are an inheritance
partly bequeathed to us by a heathen nation; many of our philoso-
phical and most of our political ideas are derived from a like source.

FF 3

438 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

What shall we say to these things? Are we not undergoing, on a
wider scale and in a new way, the same change which the Fathers of
Alexandria underwent, when they became aware that heathenism was
not wholly evil, and that there was as much in Plato and Aristotle
which was in harmony with the Gospel as of what was antagonistic
to it.

Among the many causes at present in existence which will influ-
ence “the Church of the future,” none is likely to have greater
power than our increasing knowledge of the religions of mankind.
The study of them is the first step in the philosophical study of
revelation itself. For Christianity or the Mosaic religion, standing
alone, is hardly a subject for scientific inquiry: only when compared
with other forms of faith do we perceive its true place in history,
or its true relation to human nature. The glory of Christianity is
not to be as unlike other religions as possible, but to be their per-
fection and fulfilment. Those religions are so many steps in the
education of the human race. One above another, they rise or grow
side by side, each nation, in many ages, contributing some partial
ray of a divine light, some element of morality, some principle of
social life, to the common stock of mankind. The thoughts of men,
like the productions of Nature, do not endlessly diversify ; they work
themselves out in a few simple forms. In the fulness of time, philo-
sophy appears, shaking off, yet partly retaining, the nationality and
particularity of its heathen origin. Its top “reaches to heaven,” but
it has no root in the common life of man. At last, the crown of all, the
chief corner-stone of the building, when the impressions of Nature
and the reflections of the mind upon itself have been exhausted,
Christianity arises in the world, seeming to stand in the same rela-
tion to the inferior religions that man does to the inferior animals.

When, instead of painting harsh contrasts between Christianity
and other religions, we rather draw them together as nearly as truth
will allow, many thoughts come into our minds about their relation
to each other which are of great speculative interest as well as of

practical importance. ‘The joyful words of the Apostle: “Is he the

NATURAL RELIGION. 439

God of the Jews only, is he not also of the Gentiles?” have a
new meaning for us. And this new application the Apostle himself
may be regarded as having taught us, where he says: “ When the
Gentiles which know not the law do by nature the things contained
in the law, these not having the law are a law unto themselves.”
There have been many schoolmasters to bring men to Christ, and
not the law of Moses only. Ecclesiastical history enlarges its
borders to take in the preparations for the Gospel, the anticipations
of it, the parallels with it; collecting the scattered gleams of truth
which may have revealed themselves even to single individuals in
remote ages and countries. We are no longer interested in making
out a case against the heathen religions in the spirit of party,— the
superiority of Christianity will appear sufficiently without that,—
we rather rejoice that, at sundry times and in divers manners, by
ways more or less akin to the methods of human knowledge, “ God
spake in the past to the fathers,” and that in the darkest ages, amid
the most fanciful aberrations of mythology, He left not Himself
wholly without a witness between good and evil in the natural
affections of mankind.

Some facts also begin to appear, which have hitherto been un-
known or concealed. They are of two kinds, relating partly to the
origin or development of the Jewish or Christian religion; partly
also independent of them, yet affording remarkable parallels both to
their outward form and to their inner life. Christianity is seen to
have partaken much more of the better mind of the Gentile world
than the study of Scripture only would have led us to conjecture:
_ it has received, too, many of its doctrinal terms from the language
of philosophy. The Jewish religion is proved to have incorporated
with itself some elements which were not of Jewish origin; and the
Jewish history begins to be explained by the analogy of other nations.
The most striking fact of the second kind is found in a part of the
world which Christianity can be scarcely said to have touched, and is

of a date some centuries anterior to it. That there is a faith * which

* Buddhism.

FF4

440 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

has a greater number of worshippers than all sects of Christians put
together, which originated in a reformation of society, tyrannised
over by tradition, spoiled by philosophy, torn asunder by caste, —
which might be described, in the words of Scripture, as a “ preaching
of the Gospel to the poor ;” that this faith, besides its more general
resemblance to Christianity, has its incarnation, its monks, its saints,
its hierarchy, its canonical books, its miracles, its councils, the whole
system being “full blown” before the Christian era ; that the founder
of this religion descended from a throne to teach the lesson of equality
among men—(“ there is no distinction of” Chinese or Hindoo, Brahmin
or Sudra, such at least was the indirect consequence of his doctrine) —
that, himself contented with nothing, he preached to his followers
the virtues of poverty, self-denial, chastity, temperance, and that
once, at least, he is described as “ taking upon himself the sins of
mankind :”—these are facts which, when once known, are not easily
forgotten ; they seem to open an undiscovered world to us, and to
cast a new light on Christianity itself. And it “harrows us with
fear and wonder,” to learn that this vast system, numerically the most
universal or catholic of all religions, and, in many of its leading
features, most like Christianity, is based, not on the hope of eternal
life, but of complete annihilation.

The Greek world presents another parallel with the Gospel, which
is also independent of it; less striking, yet coming nearer home, and
sometimes overlooked because it is general and obvious. That the
political virtues of courage, patriotism, and the like, have been
received by Christian nations from a classical source is commonly
admitted. Let us ask now the question, Whence is the love of
knowledge? who first taught men that the pursuit of truth was
a religious duty? Doubtless the words of one greater than Socrates
come into our minds: ‘For this end was I born, and for this cause
came I into the world, that they might know the truth.” But the
truth here spoken of is of another and more mysterious kind ; not
truth in the logical or speculative sense of the word, nor even in its

ordinary use. The earnest inquiry after the nature of things, the

NATURAL RELIGION. 44]

devotion of a life to such an inquiry, the forsaking all other good in
the hope of acquiring some fragment of true knowledge,—this is
an instance of human virtue not to be found among the Jews, but
among the Greeks. It is a phenomenon of religion, as well as of
philosophy, that among the Greeks too there should have been
those who, like the Jewish prophets, stood out from the world
around them, who taught a lesson, like them, too exalted for the
practice of mankind in general; who anticipated out of the order
of nature the knowledge of future ages; whose very chance words
and misunderstood modes of speech have moulded the minds of men
in remote times and countries. And that these teachers of mankind,
“as they were finishing their course” in the decline of Paganism,
like Jewish prophets, though unacquainted with Christianity, should
have become almost Christian, preaching the truths which we some-
times hold to be “foolishness to the Greek,” as when Epictetus spoke
of humility, or Seneca told of a God who had made of one blood all
nations of the earth,—is a sad and touching fact.

But it is not only the better mind of heathenism in east or west
that affords parallels with the Christian religion: the corruptions of
Christianity, its debasement by secular influences, its temporary
decay at particular times or places, receive many illustrations from
similar phenomena in ancient times and heathen countries. The
manner in which the Old Testament has taken the place of the
New; the tendency to absorb the individual life in the outward
church ; the personification of the principle of separation from the
world in monastic orders; the accumulation of wealth with the pro-
' fession of poverty ; the spiritualism, or child-like faith, of one age,
and the rationalism or formalism of another; many of the minute
controversial disputes which exist between Christians respecting
doctrines both of natural and revealed religion;—all these errors
or corruptions of Christianity admit of being compared with similar
appearances either in Buddhism or Mahomedanism. Is not the half-
believing half-sceptical attitude in which Socrates and others stood

to-the “orthodox” pagan faith very similar to that in which philo-

442 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

sophers, and in some countries educated men, generally have stood
to established forms of Christianity? Is it only in Christian times
that men have sought to consecrate art in the service of religion?
Did not Paganism do so far more completely ? or was it Plato only
to whom moral ideas represented themselves in sensual forms? Has
not the whole vocabulary of art, in modern times, become confused
with that of morality? The modern historian of Greece and Rome
draws our attention to other religious features in the ancient world,
which are not without their counterpart in the modern,—“ old
friends with new faces,”—-which a few words are enough to sug-
gest. The aristocratic character of Paganism, the influence which
it exerted over women, its galvanic efforts to restore the past, the
ridicule with which the sceptic assails its errors, and the manner in
which the antiquarians Pausanias and Dionysius contemptuously
reply; also the imperfect attempts at reconcilement of old and new,
found in such writers as Plutarch, and the obscure sense of the
real connection of the Pagan worship with political and social life,
the popularity of its temporary hierophants; its panics, wonders,
oracles, mysteries,— these features make us aware that however un-
like the true life of Christianity may have been even to the better
mind of heathenism, the corruptions and weaknesses of Christianity
have never been without a parallel under the sun.

Those religions which possess sacred books furnish some other cu-
rious, though exaggerated, likenesses of the use which has been some-
times made of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. No believer in
organic or verbal inspiration has applied more high-sounding titles
to the Bible than the Brahmin or Mussulman to the Koran or the
Vedas. They have been loaded with commentaries—buried under
the accumulations of tradition; no care has been thought too great
of their words and letters, while the original meaning has been
lost, and even the language in which they were written ceased to be
understood. Every method of interpretation has been practised
upon them; logic and mysticism have elicited every possible sense ;
the aid of miracles has been called in to resolve difficulties and re-

NATURAL RELIGION. 443

eoncile contradictions. And still, notwithstanding the perverseness
with which they are interpreted, these half-understood books exer-
cise a mighty spell; single verses, misapplied words, disputed texts,
have affected the social and political state of millions of mankind
during a thousand or many thousand years, Even without reference
to their contents, the mere name of these books has been a power in
the Eastern world. Facts like these would be greatly misunderstood
if they were supposed to reduce the Old and New Testament to the
level of other sacred books, or Christianity to the level of other
religions. But they may guard us against some forms of superstition
which insensibly, almost innocently, spring up among Christians ;
and they reveal weaknesses of human nature, from which we can
scarcely hope that our own age or country is exempt.

Let us conclude this digression by summing up the use of such
inquiries ; as a touchstone and witness of Christian truth ; as bearing
on our relations with the heathens themselves.

Christianity, in its way through the world is ever taking up and
incorporating with itself Jewish, secular, or even Gentile elements.
And the use of the study of the heathen religions is just this: it
teaches us to separate the externals or accidents of Christianity from
its essence ; its local, temporary type from its true spirit and life.
These externals, which Christianity has in common with other reli-
gions of the East, may be useful, may be necessary, but they are not
the truths which Christ came on earth to reveal. The fact of the
possession of sacred books, and the claim which is made for them,
that they are free from all error or imperfection, if admitted, would
_not distinguish the Christian from the Mahomedan faith. Most of
the Eastern religions, again, have had vast hierarchies and dogmatic
systems; neither is this a note of divinity. Also, they are witnessed
to by signs and wonders; we are compelled to go further to find
the characteristics of the Gospel of Christ. As the Apostle says:
“And yet Ishow you a more excellent way,”—not in the Scriptures,
nor in the church, nor in a system of doctrines, nor in miracles,

does Christianity consist, though some of these may be its necessary

444 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

accompaniments or instruments, but in the life and teaching of
Christ.

The study of “comparative theology” not only helps to distin-
guish the accidents from the essence of Christianity; it also affords
a new kind of testimony to its truth; it shows what the world was
aiming at through many cycles of human history— what the Gospel
alone fulfilled. The Gentile religions, from being enemies, became
witnesses of the Christian faith. They are no longer adverse posi-
tions held by the powers of evil, but outworks or buttresses, like the
courts of the Temple on Mount Sion, covering the holy place.
Granting that some of the doctrines and teachers of the heathen
world were nearer the truth than we once supposed, such resem-
blances cause no alarm or uneasiness; we have no reason to fable
that they are the fragments of some primeval revelation. We look
forwards, not backwards; to the end, not to the. beginning; not to
the garden of Eden, but to the life of Christ. There is no longer
any need to maintain a thesis; we have the perfect freedom and real
peace which is attained by the certainty that we know all, and that
nothing is kept back. Such was the position of Christianity in
former ages; it was on a level with the knowledge of mankind. But
in later years unworthy fear has too often paralysed its teachers:
instead of seeking to readjust its relations to the present state of
history and science, they have clung in agony to the past. For the
Gospel is the child of light; it lives in the light of this world; it has
no shifts or concealments; there is no kind of knowledge which it
needs to suppress ; it allows us to see the good in all things; it does
not forbid us to observe also the evil which has incrusted upon itself.
It is willing that we should look calmly and steadily at all the facts
of the history of religion. It takes no offence at the remark, that it
has drawn into itself the good of other religions; that the laws and
institutions of the Roman Empire have supplied the outer form, and
heathen philosophy some of the inner mechanism which was neces-
sary to its growth in the world. No violence is done to its spirit by

the enumeration of the causes which have led to its success. It

NATURAL RELIGION. 445

permits us also to note, that while it has purified the civilisation of
the West, there are soils of earth on which it seems hardly capable
of living without becoming corrupt or degenerate. Such know-
ledge is innocent and a “creature of God.” And considering how
much of the bitterness of Christians against one another arises from
ignorance and a false conception of the nature of religion, it is not
chimerical to imagine that the historical study of religions may be
a help to Christian charity. The least differences seem often to be
the greatest; the perception of the greater differences makes the
lesser insignificant. Living within the sphere of Christianity, it
is good for us sometimes to place ourselves without; to turn away
from “the weak and beggarly elements” of worn-out controversies
to contemplate the great phases of human existence. Looking at
the religions of mankind, succeeding one another in a wonderful
order, it is hard to narrow our minds to party or sectarian views
in our own age or country. Had it been known that a dispute
about faith and works existed among Buddhists, would not this
knowledge have modified the great question of the Reformation ?
Such studies have also a philosophical value as well as a Chris-
tian use. They may, perhaps, open to us a new page in the
history of our own minds, as well as in the history of the human
race. Mankind, in primitive times, seem at first sight very unlike
ourselves: as we look upon them with sympathy and interest, a like-
ness begins to appear; in us too there is a piece of the primitive
man; many of his wayward fancies are the caricatures of our errors
or perplexities. Ifa clearer light is ever to be thrown either on the
nature of religion or of the human mind, it will come, not from
analyses of the individual or from inward experience, but from a
study of the mental history of mankind, and especially of those ages
in which human nature was fusile, still not yet cast in a mould, and
rendered incapable of receiving new creations or impressions.

The study of the religions of the world has also a bearing on the
present condition of the heathen, We cannot act upon men unless

we understand them; we cannot raise or elevate their moral cha;

446 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

racter unless we are able to draw from its concealment the seed of
good which they already contain. It is a remarkable fact, that
Christianity, springing up in the East, should have conquered the
whole western world, and that in the East itself it should have
scarcely extended its border, or even retained its original hold.
“ Westward the course of Christianity has taken its way;” and
now it seems as if the two ends of the world would no longer meet ;
as if differences of degree had extended to differences of kind in
human nature, and that we cannot pass from one species to another.
Whichever way we look, difficulties appear such as had no existence
in the first ages: either barbarism, paling in the presence of a
superior race, so that it can hardly be kept alive to receive Chris-
tianity, or the mummy-like civilisation of China, which seems as
though it could never become instinct with a new life, or Brahmin-
ism, outlasting in its pride many conquerors of the soil, or the nobler
form of Mahomedanism ; the religion of the patriarchs, as it were,
overliving itself, preaching to the sons of Ishmael the God of
Abraham, who had not yet revealed himself as man. These great
systems of religious belief have been subject to some internal
changes in a shifting world: the effect produced upon them from
without is as yet scarcely perceptible. ‘The attempt to move them
is like a conflict between man and nature. And in some places
it seems as if the wave had receded again after its advance, and
some conversions have been dearly bought, either by the violence of
persecution or the corruption or accommodation of the truth. Each
sect of Christians has been apt to lend itself to the illusion that the
great organic differences of human nature might be bridged over,
could the Gospel of Christ be preached to the heathen in that pre-
cise form in which it is received by themselves; “if we could but
land in remote countries, full armed in that particular system or way
after which we in England worship the God of our Fathers.” And
often the words have been repeated, sometimes in the spirit of delu-
sion, sometimes in that of faith and love: “ Lift up your eyes, and
behold the fields that they are already white for harvest,” when it

NATURAL RELIGION. 447

was but a small corner of the field that was beginning to whiten, a
few ears only which were ready for the reapers to gather.

And yet the command remains: “ Go forth and preach the Gospel
to every creature.” Nor can any blessing be conceived greater than
the spread of Christianity among heathen nations, nor any calling
nobler or higher to which Christians can devote themselves. Why
are we unable to fulfil this command in any effectual manner? Is it
that the Gospel has had barriers set to it, and that the stream no
longer overflows on the surrounding territory ; that we have enough
of this water for ourselves, but not enough for us and them? or that
the example of nominal Christians, who are bent on their own trade
or interest, destroys the lesson which has been preached by the
ministers of religion? Yet the lives of believers did not prevent
the spread of Christianity at Corinth and Ephesus. And it is hard
to suppose that the religion which is true for ourselves has lost its
vital power in the world.

The truth seems to be, not that Christianity has lost its power,
but that we are seeking to propagate Christianity under circum-
stances which, during the eighteen centuries of its existence, it has
never yet encountered. Perhaps there may have been a want of
zeal, or discretion, or education in the preachers; sometimes there
may have been too great a desire to impress on the mind of the
heathen some peculiar doctrine, instead of the more general lesson of
“righteousness, temperance, judgment to come.” But however this
may be, there is no reason to believe that even if a saint or apostle
could rise from the dead, he would produce by his preaching alone,
without the use of other means, any wide or deep impression on
India or China. To restore life to those countries is a vast and com-
plex work, in which many agencies have to co-operate,— political,
industrial, social ; and missionary efforts, though a blessed, are but a
small part; and the Government is not the less Christian because it
seeks to rule a heathen nation on principles of truth and justice only.
Let us not measure this great work by the number of communicants
or converts. Even when wholly detached from Christianity, the

448 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

true spirit of Christianity may animate it. The extirpation of
crime, the administration of justice, the punishment of falsehood,
may be regarded, without a figure of speech, as “the word of the
Lord” to a weak and deceitful people. . Lessons of purity and love
too flow insensibly out of improvement in the relations of social life.
It is the disciple of Christ, not Christ himself, who would forbid us
to give these to the many, because we can only give the Gospel to a
very few. For it is of the millions, not of the thousands, in India
that we must first give an account. Our relations to the heathen are
different from those of Christians in former ages, and our progress in
their conversion slower. ‘The success which attends our efforts may
be disparagingly compared with that of Boniface or Augustin; but
if we look a little closer, we shall see no reason to regret that Provi-
dence has placed in our hands other instruments for the spread of
Christianity besides the zeal of heroes and martyrs. The power to
convert multitudes by a look or a word has passed away; but God
has given us another means of ameliorating the condition of mankind,
by acting on their circumstances, which works extensively rather than
intensively, and is in some respects safer and less liable to abuse.
The mission is one of governments rather than of churches or indi-
viduals. And if, in carrying it out, we seem to lose sight of some of
the distinctive marks of Christianity, let us not doubt that the
‘increase of justice and mercy, the growing sense of truth, even the
progress of industry, are in themselves so many steps towards the
kingdom of heaven. ‘

In the direct preaching of the Gospel, no help can be greater than
that which is gained from a knowledge of the heathen religions.
The resident in heathen countries readily observes the surface of the
world; he has no difficulty in learning the habits of the natives ;
he avoids irritating their fears or jealousies. It requires a greater
effort to understand the mind of a people; to be able to rouse or
calm them; to sympathise with them, and yet to rule them. But it
is a higher and more commanding knowledge still to comprehend

their religion, not only in its decline and corruption, but in its origin

NATURAL RELIGION. 449

and idea, —to understand that which they misunderstand, to appeal
to that which they reverence against themselves, to turn back the
currents of thought and opinion which have flowed in their veins for
thousands of years. Such is the kind of knowledge which St. Paul
had when to the Jews he became as a Jew, that he might win some;
which led him while placing the new and old in irreconcilable op-
position, to bring forth the new out of the treasure-house of the old.
No religion, at present existing in the world, stands in the same
relation to Christianity that Judaism once did; there is no other
religion which is prophetic or anticipatory of it. But neither is
there any religion which does not contain some idea of truth, some
notion of duty or obligation, some sense of dependence on God and
brotherly love to man, some human feeling of home or country. As
in the vast series of the animal creation, with its many omissions and
interruptions, the eye of the naturalist sees a kind of continuity, —some
elements of the higher descending into the lower, rudiments of the
lower appearing in the higher also,—so the Christian philosopher,
gazing on the different races and religions of mankind, seems to see
in them a spiritual continuity, not without the thought crossing him
that the God who has made of one blood all the nations of the earth
may yet renew in them a common life, and that our increasing
knowledge of the present and past history of the world, and the
_ progress of civilisation itself, may be the means which He has
provided, working not always in the way which we expect,—“that
his banished ones be not expelled from him.”

2
Natural religion, in the sense in which St. Paul appeals to its wit-
ness, is confined within narrower limits. It is a feeling rather than a
philosophy ; and rests not on arguments, but on impressions of God in
nature. The Apostle, in the first chapter of the Romans, does not rea-
son from first causes or from final causes ; abstractions like these would
not have been understood by him. Neither is he taking an historical

survey of the religions of mankind; he touches, in a word only, on

VOL. II. GG

450 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

those who changed the glory of God into the “likeness of man, and
birds, and four-fodted beasts, and creeping things” (Rom. i. 23.), as
on the differences of nations, in Acts xviii. 26. More truly may
we describe him in the language of the Psalmist, the very vacancy
of which has a peculiar meaning: “ He lifts up his eyes to the hills
from whence cometh his salvation.” He wishes to inspire other men
with that consciousness of God in all things which he himself feels :
“in a dry and thirsty land where no water is,” he would raise their
minds to think of Him “who gave them rain from heaven and
fruitful seasons ;” in the city of Pericles and Phidias he bids them
turn from gilded statues and temples formed with hands, to the God
who made of one blood all the nations of the earth, “who is not far
from every one of us.” Yet it is observable that he also begins by
connecting his own thoughts with theirs, quoting “their own poets,”
and taking occasion, from an inscription which he found in their
streets, to declare “the mystery which was once hidden, but now
revealed.” |
The appeal to the witness of God in nature has passed from the
Old Testament into the New; it is one of the many points which the
Epistles of St. Paul and the Psalms and Prophets have in common.
“The invisible things from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made,” is another way
of saying, “ 'The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firma-
ment showeth His handywork.” Yet the conception of the Old
Testament is not the same with that of the New: in the latter we
seem to be more disengaged from the things of sense; the utterance
of the former is more that of feeling, and less of reflection. One is
the poetry of a primitive age, full of vivid immediate impressions ;
in the other nature is more distant,—the freshness of the first vision
of earth has passed away. The Deity Himself, in the Hebrew
Scriptures, has a visible form: as He appeared “with the body of

?

heaven in his clearness ;” as He was seen by the prophet Ezekiel
out of the midst of the fire and the whirlwind, “full of eyes

within and without, and the spirit of the living creature in the

NATURAL RELIGION. 451

wheels.” But in the New Testament, “no man hath seen God at
any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,
He hath declared Him.” And this difference leads to a further
difference in His relation to His works. In what we term nature,
the prophet beheld only the , covering cherubim that veil the face of
God: as He moves, earth moves to meet Him; “He maketh the
winds His angels,” “the heavens also bow before Him.” His voice,
as the Psalmist says, is heard in the storm: “The Highest gives
His thunder ; at Thy chiding, O Lord, the foundations of the round
world are discovered.” The wonders of creation are not ornaments
or poetical figures, strewed over the pages of the Old Testament by
the hand of the artist, but the frame in which it consists. And yet in
this material garb the moral and spiritual nature of God is never
lost sight of : in the conflict of the elements He is the free Lord over
them ; at His breath—the least exertion of His power— “they come
and flee away.” He is spirit, not light,—a person, not an element
or principle ; though creating all things by His word, and existing
without reference to them, yet also, in His condescension, the God
of the Jewish nation, and of individuals who serve Him. The
terrible imagery in which the Psalmist delights to array His power
is not inconsistent with the gentlest feelings of love and trust, such
as are also expressed in the passage just now quoted: “I will love
Thee, O Lord, my strength.” God is in nature because He is near
also to the ery of His servants. The heart of man expands in His
presence ; he fears to die lest he should be taken from it. There is
nothing like this in any other religion in the world. No Greek or
Roman ever had the consciousness of love towards his God. No
other sacred books can show a passage displaying such a range of
feeling as the eighteenth or twenty-ninth Psalm—so awful a con-
ception of the majesty of God, so true and tender a sense of His
righteousness and lovingkindness. It is the same God who wields
nature, who also brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt; who,
even though the mother desert “her sucking child,” will not “ forget
the work of His hands.”

eoe.2

452 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

But the God of nature in the Old Testament is not the God of
storms or of battles only, but of peace and repose. Sometimes a
sort of confidence fills the breast of the Psalmist, even in that land
of natural convulsions: “He hath set the round world so fast that it
cannot be moved.” At other times the same peace seems to diffuse
itself over the scenes of daily life: “The hills stand round about Jeru-
salem, even so is the Lord round about them that fear him.” “He
maketh me to lie down in green pastures: He leadeth me beside the
still waters.” Then again the Psalmist wonders at the contrast
between man and the other glories of creation: “ When I consider
the heavens, the work of Thy hands, the moon and the stars that
Thou hast ordained ; what is man that Thou art mindful of him? or
the son of man that Thou visitest him?” Yet these “glories” are
the images also of a higher glory; Jerusalem itself is transfigured
into a city in the clouds, and the tabernacle and temple become the
pavilion of God on high. And the dawn of day in the prophecies,
as well as in the Epistles, is the light which is to shine “for the
healing of the nations.” There are other passages in which the
thought of the relation of God to nature calls forth a sort of exult-
ing irony, and the prophet speaks of God, not so much as governing
the world, as looking down upon it and taking His pastime in it:
“Tt is He that sitteth upon the circle of the heavens, and the inhabi-
> or “He measureth the waters
in the hollow of His hand;” or “He taketh up the isles as a
very little thing ;” the feeling of which may be compared with the

tants thereof are as grasshoppers ;’

more general language of St. Paul: “ We are the clay and He the
potter.” The highest things on earth reach no farther than to sug-
gest the reflection of their inferiority: “Behold even the sun, and
it shineth not; and the moon is not pure in His sight.”

It is hard to say how far such meditations belong only to particu-
lar ages, or to particular temperaments in our own. Doubtless, the
influence of natural scenery differs with difference of climate, pur-
suits, education. ‘The God of the hills is not the God of the
valleys also ;” that is to say, the aspirations of the human. heart are

NATURAL RELIGION. 453

roused more by the singular and uncommon, than by the quiet land-
scape which presents itself in our own neighbourhood. The sailor
has a different sense of the vastness of the great deep and the
infinity of the heaven above, from what is possible to another.
Dwellers in cities, no less than the inhabitants of the desert, gaze
upon the stars with different feelings from those who see the ever-
varying forms of the seasons. What impression is gathered, or
what lesson conveyed, seems like matter of chance or fancy. The
power of these sweet influences often passes away when language
comes between us and them. Yet they are not mere dreams of our
own creation. He who has lost, or has failed to acquire, this
interest in the beauty of the world around, is without one of the
greatest of earthly blessings. ‘The voice of God in nature calls us
away from selfish cares into the free air and the light of day. There,
as in a world the face of which is not marred by human passion, we
seem to feel “that the wicked cease from troubling, and the weary
are at rest.”

It is impossible that our own feeling towards nature in the
present day can be the same with that of the Psalmist; neither is
that of the Psalmist the same with that of the Apostle; while, in
the Book of Job and Ecclesiastes we seem to catch the echo of a
strain different from either. To us, God is not in the whirlwind
nor in the storm, nor in the earthquake, but in the still small voice.
Is it not for the attempt to bring God nearer to us in the works of
nature than we can truly conceive him to be, that a poet of our own
age has been subjected to the charge of pantheism? God has
.removed Himself out of our sight, that He may give us a greater
idea of the immensity of His power. Perhaps it is impossible for
us to have the wider and the narrower conception of God at the
same time. We cannot see Him equally in the accidents of the
world, when we think of Him as identified with its laws. But there
is another way into His presence through our own hearts. He
has given us the more circuitous path of knowledge; He has not

closed against us the door of faith. He has enabled us, not merely

ac 3

454 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

to gaze with the eye on the forms and colours of Nature, but in a
measure also to understand its laws, to wander over space and time
in the contemplation of its mechanism, and yet to return again to
“the meanest flower that breathes,” for thoughts such as the other
wonders of earth and sky are unable to impart.

It is a simpler, not a lower, lesson which we gather from the
Apostle. First, he teaches that in Nature there is something to draw
us from the visible to the invisible. The world to the Gentiles also
had seemed full of innumerable deities; it is really full of the
presence of Him who made it. Secondly, the Apostle teaches the
universality of God’s providence over the whole earth. He covered
it with inhabitants, to whom He gave their times and places of
abode, “that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel
after him, and find him.” They are one family, “ His offspring,”
notwithstanding the varieties of race, language, religion. As God
is one, even so man is one in a common human nature,—in the
universality of sin, no less than the universality of redemption. A
third lesson is the connection of immorality and idolatry. They
who lower the nature of God lower the nature of man also. Greek
philosophy fell short of these lessons. Often as Plato speaks of the
myths and legends of the gods, he failed to perceive the immorality
of a religion of sense. Still less had any Greek imagined a brother-
hood of all mankind, or adispensation of God reaching backwards
and forwards over all time. Its limitation was an essential principle
of Greek life ; it was confined to a narrow spot of earth, and to small
cities ; it could not include others besides Greeks ; its gods were not
gods of the world, but of Greece.

Aspects of Nature in different ages have changed before the eye
of man; at times fruitful of many thoughts; at other times either
unheeded or fading into insignificance in comparison of the inner
world. When the Apostle spoke of the visible things which
“witness of the divine power and glory,” it was not the beauty of
particular spots which he recalled; his eye was not satisfied with

seeing the fairness of the country any more than the majesty of

NATURAL RELIGION. 455

cities. He did not study the flittings of shadows on the hills, or
even the movements of the stars in their courses. The plainest
passages of the book of nature were, equally with the sublimest, the
writing of a Divine hand. Neither was it upon scenes of earth that
he was looking when he spoke of the “whole creation groaning
‘together until now.” Whatever associations of melancholy or pity
may attach to places or states of the heavens, or to the condition of
the inferior animals who seem to suffer for our sakes; it is not in
these that the Apostle traces the indications of a ruined world, but in
the misery and distraction of the heart of man. And the prospect
on which he loves to dwell is not that of the promised land, as
Moses surveyed it far and wide from the top of Pisgah, but the
human race itself, the great family in heaven and earth, of which
Christ is the head, reunited to the God who made it, when “there
shall be neither barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free, but all one in
Christ,” the Apostle himself also waiting for the fuller manifesta-
tion of the sons of God, and sometimes carrying his thoughts yet
further to that mysterious hour, when “the Son shall be subject to
him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.”
When thoughts like these fill the mind, there is little room for
reflection on the world without. Even the missionary in modern
times hardly cares to go out of his way to visit a picturesque country
or the monuments of former ages. He is “determined to know one
thing only, Christ crucified.” Of the beauties of creation, his chief
thought is that they are the work of God. He does not analyse them
by rules of taste, or devise material out of them for literary dis-
. course. The Apostle, too, in the abundance of his revelations, has
an eye turned inward on another world. It is not that he is dead to
Nature, but that it is out of his way; not as in the Old Testament,
the veil or frame of the Divine presence, but only the background of
human nature and of revelation. When speaking of the heathen, it
comes readily into his thoughts; it never seems to occur to him in
connection with the work of Christ. He does not read mysteries in the

leaves of the forest, or see the image of the cross in the forms of the

Ga 4

456 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

tree, or find miracles of design in the complex structures of animal
life. His thoughts respecting the works of God are simpler, and
also deeper. The child and the philosopher alike hear a witness in
the first chapter of the Romans, or in the discourse of the Apostle
on Mars’ hill, or at Lystra, which the mystic fancies of Neopla-
tonism, and the modern evidences of natural theology, fail to convey:
to them.

§ 3.

In the common use of language natural religion is opposed to
revealed. That which men know, or seem to know, of themselves,
which if the written word were to be destroyed would still remain,
which existed prior to revelation, and which might be imagined to
survive it, which may be described as general rather than special
religion, as Christianity rationalised into morality, which speaks of
God, but not of Christ,—of nature, but not of grace, — has been
termed natural religion. Philosophical arguments for the being of
a God are comprehended under the same term. It is also used to
denote a supposed primitive or patriarchal religion, whether based
on a primeval revelation or not, from which the mythologies or
idolatries of the heathen world are conceived to be offshoots.

The line has been sometimes sharply drawn between natural and
revealed religion ; in other ages of the world, the two have been
allowed to approximate, or be almost identified with each other.
Natural religion has been often depressed with a view to the exalta-
tion of revealed; the feebleness of the one seeming to involve a
necessity for the other. Natural religion has sometimes been re-
garded as the invention of human reason; at other times, as the
decaying sense of a primeval revelation. Yet natural and revealed
religion, in the sense in which it is attempted to oppose them, are
contrasts rather of words than of ideas. For who can say where
the one begins and the other ends? Who will determine how many
elements of Scriptural truth enter into modern philosophy or the

opinions of the world in general? Who can analyse how much,

NATURAL RELIGION. 457

even in a Christian country, is really of heathen origin? Revealed
religion is ever taking the form of the voice of nature within;
experience is ever modifying our application of the truths of Scrip-
ture. The ideal of Christian life is more easily distinguishable
from the ideal of Greek and Roman, than the elements of opinion
and belief which have come from a Christian source are from those
which come from a secular or heathen one. Education itself tends
to obliterate the distinction. The customs, laws, principles of a
Christian nation may be regarded either as a compromise between
the two, or as a harmony of them. We cannot separate the truths
of Christianity from Jewish or heathen anticipations of them; nor
can we say how far the common sense or morality of the present day
is indirectly dependent on the Christian religion.

And if, turning away from the complexity of human life in our
own age to the beginning of things, we try to conceive revelation in
its purity before it came into contact with other influences, or min-
gled in the great tide of political and social existence, we are still
unable to distinguish between natural and revealed religion. Our
difficulty is like the old Aristotelian question, how to draw the line
between the moral and intellectual faculties. Let us imagine a first
moment at which revelation came into the world; there must still
have been some prior state which made revelation possible: in other
words, revealed religion presupposes natural. The mind was not a
tabula rasa, on which the characters of truth had to be inscribed ;
that is a mischievous notion, which only perplexes our knowledge of
the origin of things, whether in individuals or in the race. If we
_ say that this prior state is a Divine preparation for the giving of the
Law of Moses, or the spread of Christianity, the difference becomes
one of degree which admits of no sharp contrast. Revealed religion
has already taken the place of natural, and natural religion extended
itself into the province of revealed. Many persons who are fond of
discovering traces of revelation in the religions of the Gentile world,
resent the intrusion of natural elements into Scripture or Chris-

tianity. Natural religion they are willing to see identified with

458 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

revealed, but not revealed with natural; all Nature may be a
miracle, but miracles are not reducible to the course of Nature. But
here is only a play between words which derive their meaning from
contrast ; the phenomena are the same, but we read them by a
different light. And sometimes it may not be without advantage to
lay aside the two modes of expression, and think only of that
“increasing purpose which through the ages ran.” Religious faith
strikes its roots deeper into the past, and wider over the world,
when it acknowledges Nature as well as Scripture.

But although the opposition of natural and revealed religion is an
opposition of abstractions, to which no facts really correspond, the
term natural religion may be conveniently used to describe that
aspect or point of view in which religion appears when separated from
Judaism or Christianity. It will embrace all conceptions of religion
or morality which are not consciously derived from the Old or New
Testament. The favourite notion of a common or patriarchal
religion need not be excluded. Natural religion, in this compre-
hensive sense, may be divided into two heads, which the ambiguity
of the word nature has sometimes helped to confuse. First, (i.) the
religion of nature before revelation, such as may be supposed to
have existed among the patriarchs, or to exist still among primitive
peoples, who have not yet been enlightened by Christianity, or de-
based by idolatry ; such (ii.) more truly, as the religions of the Gentile
world were and are. Secondly, the religion of nature in a Christian
country ; either the evidences of religion which are derived from a
source independent of the written word, or the common sense of
religion and morality, which affords a rule of life to those who are
not the subjects of special Christian influences.

i, Natural religion in the first sense is an idea and not a fact.
The same tendency in man which has made him look fondly on a
golden age, has made him look back also to a religion of nature.
Like the memory of childhood, the thought of the past has a strange
power over us; imagination lends it a glory which is not its own.

What can be more natural than that the shepherd, wandering over

NATURAL RELIGION. 459

the earth beneath the wide heavens, should ascend in thought to the
throne of the Invisible? There is a refreshment to the fancy in
thinking of the morning of the world’s day, when the sun arose pure
and bright, ere the clouds of error darkened the earth. Everywhere,
as a fact, the first inhabitants of earth of whom history has left a
memorial are sunk in helpless ignorance. Yet there must have been
a time, it is conceived, of which there are no memorials, earlier still ;
when the Divine image was not yet lost, when men’s wants were few
and their hearts innocent, ere cities had taken the place of fields,
or art of nature. The revelation of God to the first father of the
human race must have spread itself in an ever-widening circle to
his posterity. We pierce through one layer of superstition to an-
other, in the hope of catching the light beyond, like children digging
to find the sun in the bosom of the earth.

The origin of an error so often illustrates the truth, that it is
worth while to pause for an instant and consider the source of this
fallacy, which in all ages has exerted a great influence on man-
kind, reproducing itself in many different forms among heathen
as well as Christian writers. In technical language, it might be
described as the fallacy of putting what is intelligible in the place
of what is true. It is easy to draw an imaginary picture of a
golden or pastoral age, such as poetry has always described it. The
mode of thought is habitual and familiar, the phrases which delineate
it are traditional, handed on from one set of poets to another, re-
peated by one school of theologians to the next. It is a different
task to imagine the old world as it truly was, that is, as it appears
‘to us, dimly yet certainly, by the unmistakable indications of language
and of mythology. It is hard to picture scenes of external nature
unlike what we have ever beheld: but it is harder far so to lay aside
ourselves as to imagine an inner world unlike our own, forms of
belief, not simply absurd, but indescribable and unintelligible to us.
No one, probably, who has not realised the differences of the human
mind in different ages and countries, either by contact with heathen

nations or the study of old language and mythology, with the help

460 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of such a parallel as childhood offers to the infancy of the world,
will be willing to admit them in their full extent.

Instead of this difficult and laborious process, we readily conceive
of man in the earliest stages of society as not different, but only less
than we are. We suppose him deprived of the arts, unacquainted
with the truths of Christianity, without the knowledge obtained
from books, and yet only unlike us in the simplicity of his tastes and
habitudes. We generalise what we are ourselves, and drop out the
particular circumstances and details of our lives, and then suppose
ourselves to have before us the dweller in Mesopotamia in the days
of Abraham, or the patriarchs going down to gather corn in Egypt.
This imaginary picture of a patriarchal religion has had such charms
for some minds, that they have hoped to see it realised on the wreck
of Christianity itself. They did not perceive that they were de-
luding themselves with a vacant dream which has never yet filled
the heart of man.

Philosophers have illustrated the origin of government by a picture
of mankind meeting together in a large plain, to determine the rights
of governors and subjects; in like manner we may assist imagination,
by conceiving the multitude of men with their tribes, races, features,
languages, convoked in the plains of the East, to hear from some
inspired legislator as Moses, or from the voice of God Himself, a
revelation about God and nature, and their future destiny; such
a revelation in the first day of the world’s history as the day of
judgment will be at the last. Let us fix our minds, not on the Giver
of the revelation, but on the receivers of it. Must there not have
been in them some common sense, or faculty, or feeling, which made
them capable of receiving it? Must there not have been an appre-
hension which made it a revelation to them? Must they not all
first have been of one language and one speech? And, what is
implied by this, must they not all have had one mental structure,
and received the same impressions from external: objects, the same
lesson from nature? Or, to put the hypothesis in another form,

suppose that by some electric power the same truth could have been.

NATURAL RELIGION. 46}

made to sound in the ears and flash before the eyes of all, would
they not have gone their ways, one to tents, another to cities; one
to be a tiller of the ground, another to be a feeder of sheep; one to
be a huntsman, another to be a warrior; one to dwell in woods and
forests, another in boundless plains; one in valleys, one on moun-
tains, one beneath the liquid heaven of Greece and Asia, another in
the murky regions of the north? And amid all this diversity of
habits, occupations, scenes, climates, what common truth of religion
could we expect to remain while man was man, the creature in a
great degree of outward circumstances? Still less reason would
there be to expect the preservation of a primeval truth throughout
the world, if we imagine the revelation made, not to the multitude
of men, but to a single individual, and not committed to writing for
above two thousand years.

ii. The theory of a primitive tradition, common to all mankind, has
only to be placed distinctly before the mind, to make us aware tliat
it is the fabric of a vision. But, even if it were conceivable, it would
be inconsistent with facts. Ancient history says nothing of a general
religion, but of particular national ones; of received beliefs about
places and persons, about animal life, about the sun, moon, and
stars, about the Divine essence permeating the world, about gods in
the likeness of men appearing in battles and directing the course of
states, about the shades below, about sacrifices, purifications, ini-
tiations, magic, mysteries. These were the religions of nature,
which in historical times have received from custom also a second
nature. Early poetry shows us the same religions in a previous
stage, while they are still growing, and fancy is freely playing
around the gods of its own creation. Language and mythology carry
us a step further back, into a mental world yet more distant and
more unlike our own. That world is a prison of sense, in which
outward objects take the place of ideas ; in which morality is a fact
of nature, and “wisdom at one entrance quite shut out.” Human
beings in that pre-historic age seem to have had only a kind of
limited -intelligence; they were the slaves, as we should say, of

462 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

association. ‘They were rooted in particular spots, or wandered up
and down upon the earth, confusing themselves and God and nature,
gazing timidly on the world around, starting at their very shadows,
and seeing in all things a superhuman power at the mercy of which
they were. They had no distinction of body and soul, mind and
matter, physical and moral. Their conceptions were neither here
nor there; neither sensible objects, nor symbols of the unseen.
Their gods were very near; the neighbouring hill or passing stream,
brute matter as we regard it, to them a divinity, because it seemed
inspired with a life like their own. They could not have formed an
idea of the whole earth, much less of the God who made it. Their
mixed modes of thought, their figures of speech, which are not
figures, their personifications of nature, their reflections of the indi-
vidual upon the world, and of the world upon the individual, the
omnipresence to them of the sensuous and visible, indicate an intel-
lectual state which it is impossible for us, with our regular divisions
of thought, even to conceive. We must raze from the table of the
mind their language, ere they could become capable of a universal
religion.

But although we find no vestiges of a primeval revelation, and
cannot imagine how such a revelation could have been possible con-
sistently with those indications of the state of man which language ©
and mythology supply, it is true, nevertheless, that the primitive
peoples of mankind have a religious principle common to all. Re-
ligion, rather than reason, is the faculty of man in the earliest stage
of his existence. Reverence for powers above him is the first prin-
ciple which raises the individual out of himself; the germ of political
order, and probably also of social life. It is the higher necessity of
nature, as hunger and the animal passions are the lower. “The clay”
falls before the rising dawn; it may stumble over stocks and stones ;
but it is struggling upwards into a higher day. The worshipper is
drawn as by a magnet to some object out of himself. He is weak
and must have a god; he has the feeling of a slave towards his
master, of a child towards its parents, of the lower animals towards

NATURAL RELIGION. 463

himself. The Being whom he serves is, like himself, passionate and
capricious ; he sees him starting up everywhere in the unmeaning
accidents of life. ‘The good which he values himself he attributes
to him; there is no proportion in his ideas; the great power of
nature is the lord also of sheep and oxen. Sometimes, with childish
joy, he invites the god to drink of his beverage or eat of his food ;
at other times, the orgies which he enacts before him, lead us seriously
to ask the question “whether religion may not in truth have been
a kind of madness.” He propitiates him and is himself soothed and
comforted; again he is at his mercy, and propitiates him again.
So the dream of life is rounded to the poor human creature: inca-
pable as he is of seeing his true Father, religion seems to exercise
over him a fatal overpowering influence; the religion of nature
we cannot call it, for that would of itself lead to a misconception,
but the religion of the place in which he lives, of the objects which
he sees, of the tribe to which he belongs, of the animal forms which
range in the wilds around him, mingling strangely with the witness
of his own spirit that there is in the world a Being above him.

Out of this troubled and perplexed state of the human fancy the
great religions of the world arose, all of them in different degrees
affording a rest to the mind, and reducing to rule and measure the
wayward impulses of human nature. All of them had a history in
antecedent ages; there is no stage in which they do not offer indica-
tions of an earlier religion which preceded them. Whether they came
into being, like some geological formations, by slow deposits, or, like
others, by the shock of an earthquake, that is, by some convulsion and
settlement of the human mind, is a question which may be suggested,
but cannot be answered. The Hindoo Pantheon, even in the
antique form in which the world of deities is presented in the Vedas, ~
implies a growth of fancy and ceremonial which may have continued
for thousands of years. Probably at a much earlier period than we
are able to trace them, religions, like languages, had their distinc-
tive characters with corresponding differences in the first rude con-

stitution of society. As in the case of languages, it is a fair subject

464 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of inquiry, whether they do not all mount up to some elementary
type in which they were more nearly allied to sense; a primeval
religion, in which we may imagine the influence of nature was
analogous to the first impressions of the outward world on the
infant’s wandering eyesight, and the earliest worship may be com-
pared with the first use of signs or stammering of speech. Such a
religion we may conceive as springing from simple instinct; yet an
instinct higher, even in its lowest degree, than the instinct of the
animal creation ; in which the fear of nature combined with the asser-
tion of sway over it, which had already a law of progress, and was
beginning to set bounds to the spiritual chaos. Of this aboriginal
state we only “entertain conjecture ;” it is beyond the horizon, even
when the eye is strained to the uttermost.
But if the first origin of the heathen religions is in the clouds,
their decline, though a phenomenon with which we are familiar in
history, of which in some parts of the world we are living witnesses,
is also obscure to us. The kind of knowledge that we have of
them is like our knowledge of the ways of animals; we see and
observe, but we cannot get inside them; we cannot think or feel
with their worshippers. Most or all of them are in a state
of decay; they have lost their life or creative power; once adequate
to the wants of man, they have ceased to be so for ages. Naturally
we should imagine that the religion itself would pass away when its
meaning was no longer understood; that with the spirit, the letter
too would die ; that when the circumstances of a nation changed, the
rites of worship to which they had given birth would be forgotten.
The reverse is the fact. Old age affords examples of habits which
become insane and inveterate at a time when they have no longer
an object; that is an image of the antiquity of religions. Modes of
worship, rules of purification, set forms of words, cling with a greater
tenacity when they have no meaning or purpose. The habit of a
week or a month may be thrown off; not the habit of a thousand
years. ‘The hand of the past lies heavily on the present in all
religions ; in the East it is a yoke which has never been shaken off.

NATURAL RELIGION. 465

Empire, freedom, among the educated classes belief may pass away,
and yet the routine of ceremonial continues; the political glory of a
religion may be set at the time when its power over the minds of
men is most ineradicable.

One of our first inquiries in reference to the elder religions of the
world is how we may adjust them to our own moral and religious ideas.
Moral elements seem at first sight to be wholly wanting in them:
In the modern sense of the term, they are neither moral nor im-
moral, but natural; they have no idea of right and wrong, as
distinct from the common opinion or feeling of their age and
country. No action in Homer, however dishonourable or trea-
cherous, calls forth moral reprobation. Neither gods nor men are
expected to present any ideal of justice or virtue; their power or
splendour may be the theme of the poet’s verse, not their truth or
goodness. The only principle on which the Homeric deities reward
mortals, is in return for gifts. and sacrifices, or from personal attach-
ment. A later age made a step forwards in morality and backwards
at the same time; it acquired clearer ideas of right and wrong, but
found itself encumbered with conceptions of fate and destiny. The
vengeance of the Eumenides has but a rude analogy with justice ;
the personal innocence of the victim whom the gods pursued is a
part of the interest, in some instances, of Greek tragedy. Higher
and holier thoughts of the Divine nature appear in Pindar and
Sophocles, and philosophy sought to make religion and mythology
the vehicles of moral truth. But it was no part of their original
meaning: |

Yet, in a lower sense, it is true that the heathen religions, even in
their primitive form, are not destitute of morality. Their morality
is unconscious morality, not “man a law to himself,” but “man
bound by the will of a superior being.” Ideas of right and wrong
have no place in them, yet the first step has been made from sense and
appetite into the ideal world. He who denies himself something,
who offers up a prayer, who practises a penance, performs an act,
not of necessity, nor of choice, but of duty ; he does not simply follow

VOL. II. HH

466 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the dictates of passion, though he may not be able to give a reason
for the performance of his act. He whose God comes first in his
mind has an element within him which in a certain degree
sanctifies his life by raising him above himself. He has some
common interest with other men, some unity in which he is com-
prehended with them. There is a preparation for thoughts yet
higher; he contrasts the permanence of divine and the fleeting nature
of human things; while the generations of men pass away “like
leaves ;” the form of his God is unchanging, and grows not old.
Differences in modes of thought render it difficult for us to
appreciate what spiritual elements lurked in disguise among the primi-
tive peoples of mankind. Many allowances must be made before we
judge them by our own categories. They are not to be censured for
indecency because they had symbols which to after ages became
indecent and obscene. Neither were they mere Fetish worshippers
because they use sensuous expressions. Religion, like language, in
early ages takes the form of sense, but that form of sense is also the
embodiment of thought. The stream and the animal are not adored
by man in heathen countries because they are destitute of life or
reason, but because they seem to him full of mystery and power.
It was with another feeling than that of a worshipper of matter
that the native of the East first prostrated himself before the rising
sun, in whose beams his nature seemed to revive, and his soul to be
absorbed. ‘The most childish superstitions are often nothing more
than misunderstood relics of antiquity. There are the remains of
Fetishism in the charms and cures of Christian countries; no one
regards the peasant who uses them as a Fetish worshipper. Many
other confusions have their parallel among ourselves; if we only
knew it. For indeed our own ideas in religion, as in everything
else, seem clearer to us than they really are, because they are our
own. ‘To expect the heathen religions to conform to other modes of
thought, is as if the inhabitant of one country were to complain of
the inhabitant of another for not speaking the same language with
him. Our whole attitude towards nature is different from theirs :

NATURAL RELIGION. AGT

to us all is “law ;” to them it was all life and fancy, inconsecutive
asadream. Nothing is more deeply fixed to us than the dualism of
body and soul, mind and matter; they knew of no such distinction.
But we cannot infer from this a denial of the existence of mind or
soul; because they use material images, it would be ridiculous to
describe the Psalmist or the prophet Isaiah as materialists; whether
in heathen poets or in the Jewish scriptures, such language belongs
to an intermediate state, which has not yet distinguished the spheres
of the spiritual and the sensuous. Childhood has been often used as
the figure of such a state, but the figure is only partially true, for the
childhood of the human race is the childhood of grown up men, and
in the child of the nineteenth century there is a piece also of the
man of the nineteenth century. Less obvious differences in speech
and thought are more fallacious. The word “God” means some-
thing as dissimilar among ourselves and the Greeks as can possibly
be imagined; even in Greek alone the difference of meaning can
hardly be exaggerated. It includes beings as unlike each other as the
muscular, eating and drinking deities of Homer, and the abstract
Being of Parmenides, or the Platonic idea of good. All religions of
the world use it, however different their conceptions of God may
be — polytheistic, pantheistic, monotheistic: it is universal, and also
individual; or rather, from being universal, it has become individual,
a logical process which has quickened and helped to develope the
theological one. Other words, such as prayer, sacrifice, expiation,
in like manner vary in meaning with the religion of which they are
the expression. The Homeric sacrifice is but a feast of gods and
men, destitute of any sacrificial import. Under expiations for sin
are included two things which to us are distinct, atonement for
moral guilt and accidental pollution. Similar ambiguities occur in
the ideas of a future life. The sapless ghosts in Homer are neither
souls nor bodies, but a sort of shadowy beings. A like uncertainty
extends in the Eastern religions to some of the first principles of
thought and being: whether the negative is not also a positive ;
whether the mind of man is not also God ; whether this world is not

Bae 2

468 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

another ; whether privation of existence may not in some sense be
existence still.

These are a few of the differences for which we have to allow in 4
comparison of our own and other times and countries. We must
say to ourselves, at every step, human nature in that age was unlike
the human nature with which we are acquainted, in language, in
modes of thought, in morality, in its conception of the world.
Yet it was more like than these differences alone would lead us to
suppose. The feelings of men draw nearer than their thoughts ; their
natural affections are more uniform than their religious systems.
Marriage, burial, worship, are at least common to all nations. There
never has been a time in which the human race was absolutely with-
out social laws; in which there was-no memory of the past ; no reve-
rence for a higher power. More defined religious ideas, where the
understanding comes into play, grow more different; it is by com-
parison they are best explained; like natural phenomena, they derive
their chief light from analogy with each other. Travelling in thought
from China, by way of India, Persia, and Egypt, to the northern shores
of the Mediterranean Sea, we distinguish a succession of stages in
which the worship of nature is developed ; in China as the rule or form
of political life, almost grovelling on the level of sense ; in India rising
into regions of thought and fancy, and allowing a corresponding
play in the institutions and character of the people; in Egypt
wrapping itself in the mystery of antiquity, becoming the religion of
death and of the past; in Persia divided between light and dark-
ness, good and evil, the upper and the under world; in Pheenicia,
fierce and licentious, imbued with the spirit of conquest and
colonisation. ‘These are the primary strata of the religions of
mankind, often shifting their position, and sometimes overlapping
each other; they are distinguished from the secondary strata, as the
religions of nations from the inspirations of individuals. Thrown into
the form of abstraction, they express the various degrees of distinct-
ness with which man realises his own existence or that of a Divine
Being and the relations between them, But they are also powers

NATURAL RELIGION. 469

which have shaped the course of events in the world. The secret
is contained in them, why one nation has been free, another a
slave; why one nation has dwelt like ants upon a hillock, another
has swept over the earth; why one nation has given up its life
almost without a struggle, while another has been hewn limb from
limb in the conflict with its conquerors. All these religions contri-
buted to the polytheism of Greece; some elements derived from
them being absorbed in the first origin of the Greek religion and
language, others acting by later contact, some also by contrast.
“ Nature through five cycles ran,
And in the sixth she moulded man.”

We may conclude this portion of our subject with a few remarks
on the Greek and Roman religions, which have a peculiar interest
to us for several reasons: first, because they have exercised a vast
influence on modern Europe, the one through philosophy, the other
through law, and both through literature and poetry; secondly,
because, almost alone of the heathen religions, they came into contact
with early Christianity; thirdly, because they are the religions of
ancient, as Christianity is of modern civilisation.

The religion of Greece is remarkable for being a literature as well
as areligion. Its deities are “nameless” to us before Homer; to
the Greek himself it began with the Olympic family. Whatever dim
notions existed of chaos and primeval night—of struggles for ascen-
dency between the elder and younger gods, these fables are buried
out of sight before Greek mythology begins. ‘The Greek came forth
at the dawn of day, himself a youth in the youth of the world, drink~
-ing in the life of nature at every pore. The form which his religion
took was fixed by the Homeric poems, which may be regarded as
standing in the same relation to the religion of Greece as sacred
books to other forms of religion. It cannot be said that they aroused
the conscience of men ; the more the Homeric poems are considered,
the more evident it becomes that they have no inner life of morality
like Hebrew prophecy, no Divine presence of good slowly purging
away the mist that fills the heart of man. What they implanted,

HH 3

470 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

what they preserved in the Greek nation, was not the sense of truth
or right, but the power of conception and expression— harmonies of
language and thought which enabled man to clothe his ideas in forms
of everlasting beauty. They stamped the Greek world as the world
of art; its religion became the genius of art. And more and more
in successive generations, with the co-operation of some political
causes, the hand of art impressed itself on religion; in poetry, in
sculpture, in architecture, in festivals and dramatic contests, until
in the artistic phase of human life the religious is absorbed. And
the form of man, and the intellect of man, as if in sympathy with
this artistic development, attained a symmetry and power of which
the world has never seen the like.

And yet the great riddle of existence was not answered: its
deeper mysteries were not explored. ‘The strife of man with himself
was healed only superficially; there was beauty and proportion
everywhere, but no “true being.” The Jupiter Olympius of Phidias
might seem worthy to preside over the Greek world which he sum-
moned before him; the Olympic victor might stand godlike in the
fulness of manly vigour; but where could the weak and mean
appear? what place was found for the slave or captive? Could
bereaved parents acquiesce in the ‘ sapless shades” of Homer, or the
moral reflections of Thucydides? Was there not some deeper intel-
lectual or spiritual want which man felt, some taste of immortality
which he had sometimes experienced, which made him dissatisfied
with his earthly state ?

No religion that failed to satisfy these cries of nature could become
the religion of mankind. Greek art and Greek literature, losing
something of their original refinement, spread themselves over the
Roman world; except Christianity, they have become the richest
treasure of modern Europe. But the religion of Greece never really
grew in another soil, or beneath another heaven; it was local and
national: dependent on the fine and subtle perceptions of the Greek
race; though it amalgamated its deities with those of Egypt and
Rome, its spirit never swayed mankind. It has a truer title to per-

NATURAL RELIGION. 471

manence and universality in the circumstance that it gave birth to
philosophy.

The Greek mind passed, almost unconsciously to itself, from poly-
theism to monotheism, While offering up worship to the Dorian
Apollo, performing vows to Esculapius, panic-stricken about the
mutilation of the Herma, the Greek was also able to think of God
as an idea, Oedc not Zevc. In this generalised or abstract form
the Deity presided over daily life. Not a century after Anaxa-
goras had introduced the distinction of mind and matter, it was
the belief of all philosophic inquirers that God was mind, or
the object of mind. The Homeric gods were beginning to be out of
place; philosophy could not distinguish Apollo from Athene, or
Leto from Here. Unlike the saints of the middle ages, they suggested
no food for meditation; they were only beautiful forms, without
individual character. By the side of religion and art, speculation
had arisen and waxed strong, or rather it might be described as the
inner life which sprang from their decay. The clouds of mythology
hung around it; its youth was veiled in forms of sense ; it was itself a _
new sort of poetry or religion. Gradually it threw off the garment of
sense; it revealed a world of ideas. Itis impossible for us to conceive
the intensity of these ideas in their first freshness: they were not ideas,
but gods, penetrating into the soul of the disciple, sinking into the
mind of the human race; objects, not of speculation only, but of faith
and love. To the old Greek religion, philosophy might be said to
stand in a relation not wholly different from that which the New Tes-
tament bears to the Old; the one putting a spiritual world in the place
of a temporal, the other an intellectual in the place of a sensuous ;
and to mankind in general it taught an everlasting lesson, not indeed
that of the Gospel of Christ, but one in a lower degree necessary for
man, enlarging the limits of the human mind itself, and providing the
instruments of every kind of knowledge.

What the religion of Greece was to philosophy and art, that the
Roman religion may be said to have been to political and social life,
It was the religion of the family; the religion also of the empire of

HH 4

472 --EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the world. Beginning in rustic simplicity, the traces of which it ever

afterwards retained, it grew with the power of the Roman state, and

became one with its laws. No fancy or poetry moulded the forms of
the Roman gods; they are wanting in character and hardly distin-

guishable from one another. Not what they were, but their worship,

is the point of interest about them. ‘Those inanimate beings occa-

sionally said a patriotic word at some critical juncture of the Roman

affairs, but they had no attributes or qualities ; they are the mere

impersonation of the needs of the state. They were easily identified.
in civilised and literary times with the Olympic deities, but the

transformation was only superficial. Greece never conquered the

religion of its masters. Great as was the readiness in later times to

admit the worship of foreign deities, endless as were the forms of
private superstition, these intrusions never weakened or broke the

legal hold of the Roman religion. It was truly the “established ”

religion. It represented the greatness and power of Rome, The

deification of the Emperor, though disagreeable to the more spiritual

and intellectual feelings of that age of the world, was its natural

development. While Rome lasted the Roman religion lasted; like

some vast fabric which the destroyers of a great city are unable

wholly to demolish, it continued, though in ruins, after the irruption

of the Goths, and has exercised, through the medium of the civil

law, a power over modern Europe.

More interesting for us than the pursuit of this subject into further
details is the inquiry, in what light the philosopher regarded the
religious system within the circle of which he lived; the spirit of
which animated Greek and Roman poetry, the observance of which
was the bond of states. In the age of the Antonines, more than six
hundred years had passed away since the Athenian people first
became conscious of the contrariety of the two elements; and yet the
wedge which philosophy had inserted in the world seemed to have
made no impression on the deeply rooted customs of mankind. The
everflowing stream of ideas was too feeble to overthrow the intrench-

ments of antiquity. The course of individuals might be turned by

NATURAL RELIGION. 473

philosophy; it was not intended to reconstruct the world. It looked
on and watched, seeming, in the absence of any real progress, to lose
its original force. Paganism tolerated; it had nothing to fear.
Socrates and Plato in an earlier, Seneca and Epictetus in a later age,
acquiesced in this heathen world, unlike as it was to their own
intellectual conceptions of a divine religion. No Greek or Roman
philosopher was also a great reformer of religion. Some, like Socrates,
_ were punctual in the observance of religious rites, paying their vows
to the gods, fearful of offending against the letter as well as the
spirit of divine commands; they thought that it was hardly worth
while to rationalise the Greek mythology, when there were so many
things nearer home to do. Others, like the Epicureans, transferred the
gods into a distant heaven, where they were no more heard of ; some,
like the Stoics, sought to awaken a deeper sense of moral responsi-
bility. There were devout men, such as Plutarch, who thought with
reverence of the past, seeking to improve the old heathen faith, and
also lamenting its decline; there were scoffers, too, like Lucian, who
found inexhaustible amusement in the religious follies of mankind.
Others, like Herodotus in earlier ages, accepted with child-like faith
the more serious aspect of heathenism, or contented themselves, like
Thucydides, with ignoring it. The world, “ wholly given to idolatry,”
was a strange inconsistent spectacle to those who were able to reflect,
which was seen in many points of view. The various feelings with
which different classes of men regarded the statues, temples, sacri-
fices, oracles, and festivals of the gods, with which they looked
upon the conflict of religions meeting on the banks of the Tiber, are
not exhausted in the epigrammatic formula of the modern historian :
“ All the heathen religions were looked upon by the vulgar as equally
true, by the philosopher as equally false, by the magistrate as equally
useful,”

Such was the later phase of the religion of nature, with which
Christianity came into conflict. It had supplied some of the needs
of men by assisting to build up the fabric of society and law. It had
left room for others to find expression in philosophy or art. But it

A474. EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

was a world divided against itself. It contained two nations or
opinions “struggling in its womb;” the nation or opinion of the
many, and the nation or opinion of the few. It was bound together
in the framework of law or custom, yet its morality fell below the
natural feelings of mankind, and its religious spirit was confused and
weakened by the admixture of foreign superstitions. It wasa world
of which it is not difficult to find traces that it was self-condemned.
It might be compared to a fruit, the rind of which was hard and
firm, while within it was soft and decaying. Within this outer rind
or circle, for two centuries and a half, Christianity was working; at
last it appeared without, itself the seed or kernel of a new organisa-
tion. ‘That when the conflict was over, and the world found itself
Christian, many elements of the old religion still remained, and re-
asserted themselves in Christian forms; that the “ ghost of the dead
Roman Empire” lingered “ about the graye thereof ;” that Christi-
anity accomplished only imperfectly what heathenism failed to do at
all, is a result unlike pictures that are sometimes drawn, but sadly in
accordance with what history teaches of mankind and of human

nature.

§ 4, 5.

Natural religion is not only concerned with the history of the
religions of nature, nor does it only reflect that “light of the Gen-
tiles ” which philosophy imparted; it has to do with the present as
well as with the past, with Christian as well as heathen countries.
Revealed religion passes into natural, and natural religion exists
side by side with revealed; there is a truth independent of Chris-
tianity ; and the daily life of Christian men is very different from
the life of Christ. This general or natural religion may be com-
pared to a wide-spread lake, shallow and motionless, rather than to
a living water,—the overflowing of the Christian faith over a pro-
fessing Christian world, the level of which may be at one time
higher or lower; it is the religion of custom or prescription, or
rather the unconscious influence of religion on the minds of men.

NATURAL RELIGION. 475

_ ingeneral ; it includes also the speculative idea of religion when taken
off the Christian foundation. Natural religion, in this modern sense,
has a relation both to philosophy and life. That is to say (4.), itis a
theory of religion which appeals to particular evidences for the
being of a God, though resting, perhaps more safely, on the general
conviction that “this universal frame cannot want a mind.” But it
has also a relation to life and practice (5.), for it is the religion of
the many ; the average, as it may be termed, of religious feeling in
a Christian land, the leaven of the Gospel hidden in the world.
St. Paul speaks of those “who knowing not the law are a law unto
themselves.” Experience seems to show that something of the same
kind must be acknowledged in Christian as well as in heathen coun-
tries; which may be conveniently considered under the head of
natural religion.
_ Arguments for the being of a God are of many kinds. There are
arguments from final causes, and arguments from first causes, and
arguments from ideas; logical forms, as they appear to be, in which
different metaphysical schools mould their faith. Of the first sort
the following may be taken as an instance :—A person walking on
the sea shore finds a watch or other piece of mechanism; he ob-
serves its parts, and their adaptation to each other; he sees the
watch in motion, and comprehends the aim of the whole. In the
formation of that senseless material he perceives that which satis-
fies him that it is the work of intelligence, or, in other words, the
marks of design. And looking from the watch to the world around
him, he seems to perceive innumerable ends, and innumerable actions
tending to them, in the composition of the world itself, and in the
‘structure of plants and animals. Advancing a step further, he asks
himself the question, why he should not acknowledge the like marks
of design in the moral world also; in passions and actions, and in
the great end of life. Of all there is the same account to be given—
“the machine of the world,” of which.God is the Maker.
This is the celebrated argument from final causes for the being of

a God, the most popular of the arguments of natural religion, partly

A476 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

because it admits of much ingenious illustration, and also because it
is tangible and intelligible. Ideas of a Supreme Being must be
given through something, for it is impossible that we should know
Him as He is. And the truest representation that we can form of
God is, in one sense, that which sets forth his nature most vividly ;
yet another condition must also be remembered, viz. that this repre-
sentation ought not only to be the most distinct, but the highest
and holiest possible. Because we cannot see Him as He is, that is
no reason for attributing to Him the accidents of human personality.
And, in using figures of speech, we are bound to explain to all who
are capable of understanding, that we speak in a figure only, and to
remind them that names by which we describe the being or attri-
butes of God need a correction in the silence of thought. Even
logical categories may give as false a notion of the Divine nature in
our own age, as graven images in the days of the patriarchs. How-
ever legitimate or perhaps necessary the employment of them may
be, we must place ourselves not below, but above them.

(a.) In the argument from final causes, the work of the Creator is
compared to a work of art. Art is a poor figure of nature; it has
no freedom or luxuriance. Between the highest work of art and
the lowest animal or vegetable production, there is an interval which
will never be spanned. The miracle of life derives no illustration
from the handicraftsman putting his hand to the chisel, or antici-
pating in idea the form which he is about to carve. More truly
might we reason, that what the artist is, the God of nature is not.
For all the processes of nature are unlike the processes of art. If,
instead of a watch, or some other piece of curious and exquisite
workmanship, we think of a carpenter and a table, the force of the
argument seems to vanish, and the illustration becomes inappropriate
and unpleasing. The ingenuity and complexity of the structure,
and not the mere appearance of design, makes the watch a natural
image of the creation of the world.

-(8.) But not only does the conception of the artist supply no
worthy image of the Creator and his work; the idea of design

NATURAL RELIGION. . 477

which is given by it requires a further correction before it can be
transferred to nature. The complication of the world around us is
quite different from the complexity of the watch. It isnota regular
and finite structure, but rather infinite in irregularity ; which in-
stead of design often exhibits absence of design, such as we cannot
imagine any architect of the world contriving ; the construction of
which is far from appearing, even to our feeble intelligence, the best
possible, though it, and all things in it, are very good. If we fix
our minds on this very phrase “the machine of the world,” we be-
come aware that it is unmeaning to us. The watch is separated and
isolated from other matter ; dependent indeed on one or two general
laws of nature, but otherwise cut off from things around. But
nature, the more we consider it, the more does one part appear to
be linked with another ; there is no isolation here; the plants grow
in the soil which has been preparing for them through a succession
of geological eras, they are fed by the rain and nourished by light
and air; the animals depend for their life on all inferior existences.

(y.) This difference between art and nature leads us to observe
another defect in the argument from final causes—that, instead of
putting the world together, it takes it to pieces. It fixes our minds
on those parts of the world which exhibit marks of design, and with-
draws us from those in which marks of design seem to fail. There
are formations in nature, such as the hand, which have a kind of
mechanical beauty, and show in a striking way, even to an un-
educated person, the wonder and complexity of creation. In like
manner we feel a momentary surprise in finding out, through the
_ agency of a microscope, that the minutest creatures have their
fibres, tissues, vessels. And yet the knowledge of this is but the most
fragmentary and superficial knowledge of nature; it is the wonder
in which philosophy begins, very different from the comprehension
of this universal frame in all its complexity and in all its minute-
ness. And from this elementary notion of nature, we seek to
form an idea of the Author of nature. As though God were in the
animal frame and not also in the dust to which it turns; in the

478 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

parts, and not equally in the whole ; in the present world, and not
also in the antecedent ages which have prepared for its existence.

(6.) Again, this teleological argument for the being of God gives
an erroneous idea of the moral government of the world. For it
leads us to suppose that all things are tending to some end; that
there is no prodigality or waste, but that all things are, and are
made, in the best way possible. Our faith must be tried to find
a use for barren deserts, for venomous reptiles, for fierce wild beasts,
nay, for the sins and miseries of mankind. Nor does “there seem to
be any resting place,” until the world and all things in it are
admitted to have some end impressed upon them by the hand of
God, but unseen to us. Experience is cast aside while our medita-
tions lead us to conceive the world under this great form of a final
cause. All that is in nature is best; all that is in human life is
best. And yet every one knows instances in which nature seems
to fail of its end,—2in which life has been cut down like a flower,
and trampled under foot of man.

(e.) There is another way in which the argument from final causes
is suggestive of an imperfect conception of the Divine Being. It
presents God to us exclusively in one aspect, not as a man, much
less as a spirit holding communion with our spirit, but only as an
artist. We conceive of Him, as in the description of the poet, stand-
ing with compasses over sea and land, and designing the wondrous
work. Does not the image tend to make the spiritual creation an
accident of the material? For although it is possible, as Bishop
Butler has shown, to apply the argument from final causes, as a
figure of speech, to the habits and feelings, this adaptation is unna-
tural, and open even to greater objections than its application to the
physical world. For how can we distinguish true final causes from
false ones? how can we avoid confusing what ought to be with what
is—the fact with the law ?

(g.) If we look to the origin of the notion of a final cause, we
shall feel still further indisposed to make it the category under
which we sum up the working of the Divine Being in creation. As

' NATURAL RELIGION. 479

Aristotle, who probably first made a philosophical use of the term,
says, it is transferred from mind to matter; in other words, it
clothes facts in our ideas. Lord Bacon offers another warning
against the employment of final causes in the service of religion:
“they are like the vestals consecrated to God, and are barren.”
They are a figure of speech which adds nothing to our knowledge.
When applied to the Creator, they are a figure of a figure; that is
to say, the figurative conception of the artist embodied or idealised
in his work, is made the image of the Divine Being. And no one
really thinks of God in nature under this figure of human skill. As
certainly as the man who found a watch or piece of mechanism on
the sea-shore would conclude, “ here are marks of design, indications
of an intelligent artist,” so certainly, if he came across the meanest
or the highest of the works of nature, would he infer, “this was not
made by man, nor by any human art.” He sees in a moment that
the sea-weed beneath his feet is something different in kind from the
productions of man. What should lead him to say, that in the same
sense that man made the watch, God made the sea-weed? For the
sea-weed grows by some power of life, and is subject to certain
physiological laws, like all other vegetable or animal substances.
But if we say that God created this life, or that where this life ends,
there his creative power begins, our analogy again fails, for God
stands in a different relation to animal and vegetable life from what
the artist does to the work of His hands. And, when we think
further of God, as a Spirit without body, creating all things by His
word, or rather by His thought, in an instant of time, to whom the
plan and execution are all one, we become absolutely bewildered in
the attempt to apply the image of the artist to the Creator of the
world.

These are some of the points in respect of which the argument
from final causes falls short of that conception of the Divine nature
which reason is adequate to form. It is the beginning of our know-
ledge of God, not the end. It is suited to the faculties of children
rather than of those who are of full age. It belongs to a stage of

480 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

metaphysical philosophy, in which abstract ideas were not made the
subject of analysis; to a time when physical science had hardly
learnt to conceive the world as a whole. It is a devout thought
which may well arise in the grateful heart when contemplating the
works of creation, but must not be allowed to impair that higher
intellectual conception which we are able to form of a Creator, any
more than it should be put in the place of the witness of God within.

Another argument of the same nature for the being of a God is
derived from first causes, and may be stated as follows:—All things
that we see are the results or effects of causes, and these again the
effects of other causes, and so on through an immense series. But
somewhere or other this series must have a stop or limit ; we cannot
go back from cause to cause without end. Otherwise the series will
have no basis on which to rest. Therefore there must be a first
cause, that is, God. This argument is sometimes strengthened by
the further supposition that the world must have had a beginning,
whence it seems to follow, that it must have a cause external to
itself which made it begin; a principle of rest, which is the source
of motion to all other things, as ancient philosophy would have ex-
pressed it,—hovering in this as in other speculations intermediate
between the physical and metaphysical world. |

The difficulty about this argument is much the same as that re-
specting the preceding. So long as we conceive the world under
the form of cause and effect, and suppose the first link in the chain:
to be the same with those that succeed it, the argument is necessary
and natural ; we cannot escape from it without violence to our rea-
son. Our only doubt will probably be, whether we can pass from
the notion of a first cause to that of an intelligent Creator. But
when, instead of resting in the word “cause,” we go on to the idea,
or rather the variety of ideas which are signified by the word
“cause,” the argument begins to dissolve. When we say, “ God is
the cause of the world,” in what sense of the word cause is this? Is
it as life or mind is a cause, or the hammer or hand of the workman,

or light or air, or any natural substance? Is it in that sense of the

NATURAL RELIGION. A81

word cause, in which it is almost identified with the effect? or in
that sense in which it is wholly external to it? Or when we endea-
your to imagine or conceive a common cause of the world and all
things in it, do we not perceive that we are using the word in none
of these senses; but in a new one, to which life, or mind, or many
other words, would be at least equally applicable? “God is the life
of the world.” That is a poor and somewhat unmeaning expression
to indicate the relation of God to the world; yet life is a subtle and
wonderful power, pervading all things, and in various degrees
animating all things. “God is the mind of the world.” That is
still inadequate as an expression, even though mind can act where
it is not, and its ways are past finding out. But when we say,
“God is the cause of the world,” that can be scarcely said to express
more than that God stands in some relation to the world touch-
ing which we are unable to determine whether He is in the world
or out of it, “immanent” in the language of philosophy, or “tran-
scendent.”

There are two sources from which these and similar proofs of the
being of a God are derived: first, analogy ; secondly, the logical
necessity of the human mind. Analogy supplies an image, an illus-
tration. It wins for us an imaginary world from the void and form-
less infinite. But whether it does more than this must depend
wholly on the nature of the analogy. We cannot argue from the
seen to the unseen, unless we previously know their relation to each
other. We cannot say at random that another life is the double or
parallel of this, and also the development of it; we cannot urge the
temporary inequality of this world as a presumption of the final
injustice of another. Who would think of arguing from the vegeta-
ble to the animal world, except in those points where we had already
discovered a common principle? Who would reason that animal
life must follow the laws of vegetation in those points which were
peculiar to it? Yet many theological arguments have this funda-
mental weakness; they lean on faith for their own support; they

., VOL. II. . If

482 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

lower the heavenly to the earthly, and may be used to prove any-
thing.

The other source of these and similar arguments is the logical
necessity of the human mind. A first cause, a beginning, an infinite
Being limiting our finite natures, is necessary to our conceptions.
“We have an idea of God, there must be something to correspond
to our idea,” and so on. ‘The flaw here is equally real, though
not so apparent. While we dwell within the forms of the under-
standing and acknowledge their necessity, such arguments seem
unanswerable. But once ask the question, Whence this necessity ? —
was there not a time when the human mind felt no such necessity ?
is the necessity really satisfied? or is there not some further logical
sequence in which I am involved which still remains unanswerable ?
the whole argument vanishes at once, as the chimera of a metaphy-
sical age. The 17th and 18th centuries have been peculiarly fertile
in such arguments ; the belief in which, whether they have any —
value or not, must not be imposed upon us as an article of faith.

If we say again, “that our highest conception must have a true
existence,” which is the well-known argument of Anselm and Des
Cartes for the being of God, still this is no more than saying, in a
technical or dialectical form, that we cannot imagine God without
imagining that He is. Of no other conception can it be said that it
involves existence; and hence no additional force is gained by such
a mode of statement. The simple faith in a Divine Being is cum-
bered, not supported, by evidences derived from a metaphysical
system which has passed away. It is a barren logic that elicits the
more meagre conception of existence from the higher one of
Divinity. Better for philosophy, as well as faith, to think of God at
once and immediately as “ Perfect Being.”

Arguments from first and final causes may be regarded as a kind
of poetry of natural religion. There are some minds to whom it
would be impossible to conceive of the relation of God to the world
under any more abstract form. They, as well as all of us, may

ponder in amazement on the infinite contrivances of creation. We

NATURAL RELIGION. 483

are all agreed that none but a Divine power framed them. We
differ only as to whether the Divine power is to be regarded as the
hand that fashioned, or the intelligence that designed them, or an
operation inconceivable to us which we dimly trace and feebly
express in words.

That which seems to underlie our conception both of first and
final causes, is the idea of law which we see not broken or inter-
cepted, or appearing only in particular spots of nature, but every
where and in all things. All things do not equally exhibit marks of
design, but all things are equally subject to the operation of law.
The highest mark of intelligence pervades the whole ; no one part
is better than another; it is all “very good.” The absence of
design, if we like so to turn the phrase, is a part of the design.
Even the less comely parts, like the plain spaces in a building, have
elements of use and beauty. He who has ever thought in the most
imperfect manner of the universe which modern science unveils,
needs no evidence that the details of it are incapable of being framed
by anything short of a Divine power. Art, and nature, and science,
these three,—the first giving us the conception of the relation of parts
to a whole; the second, of endless variety and intricacy, such as no
art has ever attained; the third, of uniform laws which amid all the
changes of created things remain fixed as at the first, reaching even
to the heavens,—are the witnesses of the Creator in the external
world.

Nor can it weaken our belief in a Supreme Being, to observe that
the same harmony and uniformity extend also to the actions of men.
_Why should it be thought a thing incredible that God should give
law and order to the spiritual, no less than the natural creation ?
That human beings do not “thrust or break their ranks ;” that the
life of nations, like that of plants or animals, has a regular growth ;
that the same strata or stages are observable in the religions,
no less than the languages of mankind, as in the structure of the
earth, are strange reasons for doubting the Providence of God. Per-
haps it is even stranger, that those who do not doubt should eye

11 2

484 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

with jealousy the accumulation of such facts. Do we really wish
that our conceptions of God should only be on the level of the
ignorant ; adequate to the passing emotions of human feeling,
but to reason inadequate? That Christianity is the confluence of
many channels of human thought does not interfere with its Divine
origin. It is not the less immediately the word of God because
there have been preparations for it in all ages, and in many
countries.

The more we take out of the category of chance in the world
either of nature or of mind, the more present evidence we have of
the faithfulness of God. We do not need to have a. chapter of
accidents in life to enable us to realise the existence of a personal
God, as though events which we can account for were not equally
His work. Let not use or custom so prevail in our minds as to
make this higher notion of God cheerless or uncomfortable to us.
The rays of His presence may still warm us, as well as enlighten us.
Surely He in whom we live and move and have our being is nearer
to us than He would be if He interfered occasionally for our benefit.

*‘ The curtain of the physical world is closing in upon us :” What
does this mean but that the arms of His intelligence are embracing
us on every side ? We haveno more fear of nature ; for our know-
ledge of the laws of nature has cast out fear. We know Him as He
shows Himself in them, even as we are known of Him. Do we
think to draw near to God by returning to that state in which
nature seemed to be without law, when man cowered like the ani-
mals before the storm, and in the meteors of the skies and the
motions of the heavenly bodies sought to read the purposes of
God respecting himself? Or shall we rest in that stage of the
knowledge of nature which was common to the heathen philosophers
and to the Fathers of the Christian Church ? or in that of two
hundred years ago, ere the laws of the heavenly bodies were dis-
covered ? or of fifty years ago, before geology had established its
truths on sure foundations ? or of thirty years ago, ere the investi-

gation of old language had revealed the earlier stages of the history

NATURAL RELIGION. 485

of the human mind, At which of these resting-places shall we
pause to renew the covenant between Reason and Faith ? Rather
at none of them, if the first condition of a true faith be the belief in
all true knowledge.

To trace our belief up to some primitive revelation, to entangle it
in a labyrinth of proofs or analogies, will not infix it deeper or ele-
yate its character. Why should we be willing to trust the convic-
tions of the father of the human race rather than our own, the faith
of primitive rather than of civilised times? Or why should we use
arguments about the Infinite Being, which, in proportion as they
have force, reduce him to the level of the finite ; and which seem to
lose their force in proportion as we admit that God’s ways are not as
our ways, nor His thoughts as our thoughts. The belief is strong
enough without those fictitious supports ; it cannot be made stronger
with them. While nature still presents to us its world of unex-
hausted wonders ; while sin and sorrow lead us to walk by faith,
and not by sight ; while the soul of man departs this life knowing
not whither it goes ; so long will the belief endure of an Almighty
Creator, from whom we came, to whom we return.

Why, again, should we argue for the immortality of the soul from
the analogy of the seed and the tree, or the state of human beings
before and after birth, when the ground of proof in the one case is
wanting in the other, namely, experience. Because the dead acorn
may a century hence become a spreading oak, no one would infer
that the corrupted remains of animals will rise to life in new forms.
The error is not in the use of such illustrations as figures of speech,
but in the allegation of them as proofs or evidences after the failure
of the analogy is perceived. Perhaps it may be said that in popular
discourse they pass unchallenged ; it may be a point of honour that
they should be maintained, because they are in Paley or Butler.
But evidences for the many which are not evidences for the few are
treacherous props to Christianity. They are always liable to come
back to us detected, and to need some other fallacy for their
support.

11 3

486 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Let it be considered, whether the evidences of religion should be
separated from religion itself. The Gospel has a truth perfectly
adapted to human nature ; its origin and diffusion in the world have
a history like any other history. But truth does not need evidences
of the truth, nor does history separate the proof of facts from the
facts themselves. It was only in the decline of philosophy the
Greeks began to ask about the criterion of knowledge. What would
be thought of a historian who should collect all the testimonies on
one side of some disputed question, and insist on their reception as ©
a political creed ? Such evidences do not require the hand of some
giant infidel to pull them down; they fall the moment they are
touched. But the Christian faith is in its holy place, uninjured by
the fall ; the truths of the existence of God, or of the immortality
of the soul, are not periled by the observation that some analogies
on which they have been supposed to rest are no longer tenable.
There is no use in attempting to prove by the misapplication of the
methods of human knowledge, what we ought never to doubt.

“There are twe things,” says a philosopher of the last century ;
“of which it may be said, that the more we think of them, the more
they fill the soul with awe and wonder,— the starry heaven above, and
the moral law within. I may not regard either as shrouded in dark-
ness, or look for or guess at either in what is beyond, out of my
sight. I see them right before me, and link them at once with the
consciousness of my own existence. The former of the two begins
with place, which I inhabit as a member of the outward world, and
extends the connection in which I stand with it into immeasurable
space ; in which are worlds upon worlds, and systems upon systems;
and so on into the endless times of their revolutions, their beginning
and continuance. ‘The seeond begins with my invisible self ; that is
to say, my personality, and presents me in a world which has true
infinity, but which the lower faculty of the soul can hardly scan ;
with which I know myself to be not only as in the world of sight, in
an accidental connection, but ina necessary and universal one. The

first glance at innumerable worlds annihilates any importance which

NATURAL RELIGION. 487

I may attach to myself as an animal structure ; whilst the matter out
of which it is made must again return to the earth (itself a mere
point in the universe), after it has been endued, one knows not how,
with the power of life for a little season. The second glance exalts
me infinitely as an intelligent being, whose personality involves a
moral law, which reveals in me a life distinct from that of the
animals, independent of the world of sense. So much at least I may
infer from the regular determination of my being by this law, which
is itself infinite, free from the limitations and conditions of this
present life.”

_ So, in language somewhat technical, has Kant described two great
principles of natural religion. ‘There are two witnesses,” we may
add in a later strain of reflection, “of the being of God ; the order
of nature in the world, and the progress of the mind of man. He is
not the order of nature, nor the progress of mind, nor both together ;
but that which is above and beyond them ; of which they, even if
conceived in a single instant, are but the external sign, the highest
evidences of God which we can conceive, but not God Himself. The
first to the ancient world seemed to be the work of chance, or the
personal operation of one or many Divine beings. We know it to be
_ the result of laws endless in their complexity, and yet not the less
admirable for their simplicity also. The second has been regarded,
even in our own day, as a series of errors capriciously invented by
the ingenuity of individual men. We know it to have a law of its
own, a continuous order which cannot be inverted ; not to be con-
founded with, yet not wholly separate from, the law of nature and the
will of God. Shall we doubt the world to be the creation of a Divine
“power, only because it is more wonderful than could have been con-
ceived by ‘them of old time ;’ or human reason to be in the image
of God, because it too bears the marks of an overruling law or
intelligence ? ”

§ 5.

Natural religion, in the last sense in which we are to consider it,

carries us into a region of thought more practical, and therefore

11 4

488 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

more important, than any of the preceding ; it comes home to us; it
takes in those who are near and dear to us; even ourselves are not
excluded from it. Under this name, or some other, we cannot refuse
to consider a subject which involves the religious state of the
greater portion of mankind, even in a Christian country. Every
Sunday the ministers of religion set before us the ideal of Christian
life; they repeat and expand the words of Christ and his Apostles ;
they speak of the approach of death, and of this world as a pre-
paration for a better. It is good to be reminded of these things.
But there is another aspect of Christianity which we must not
ignore, the aspect under which experience shows it, in our homes
and among our acquaintance, on the level of human things; the
level of education, habit, and circumstances on which men are,
and on which they will probably remain while they live. This latter
phase of religion it is our duty to consider, and not narrow ourselves
to the former only.

It is characteristic of this subject that it is full of contradictions ;
we say one thing at one time about it, another thing at another.
Our feelings respecting individuals are different in their lifetime,
and after their death, as they are nearly related to us, or have no
claims on our affections. Our acknowledgment of sin in the abstract
is more willing and hearty than the recognition of particular sins
in ourselves, or even in others. We readily admit that ‘the world

lies in wickedness ;”

where the world is, or of whom it is made up,
we are unable to define. Great men seem to be exempt from the
religious judgment which we pass on our fellows; it does not occur
to persons of taste to regard them under this aspect; we deal
tenderly with them, and leave them to themselves and God. And
sometimes we rest on outward signs of religion; at other times we
guard ourselves and others against trusting to such signs. And
commonly we are ready to acquiesce in the standard of those around
us, thinking it a sort of impertinence to interfere with their religious
concerns; at other times we go about the world as with a lantern,

seeking for the image of Christ among men, and are zealous for the

NATURAL RELIGION. 489

good of others, out of season or in season. We need not unrayel
further this tangled web of thoughts and feelings, which religion, and
affection, and habit, and opinion weave. A few words will describe
the fact out of which these contradictions arise. It is a side of the
world from which we are apt to turn away, perhaps hoping to make
things better by fancying them so,instead of looking at them as
they really are.

It is impossible not to observe that innumerable persons—shall
we say the majority of mankind ?—who have a belief in God and
immortality, have nevertheless hardly any consciousness of the
peculiar doctrines of the Gospel. They seem to live away from them
in the routine of business or of society, “the common life of all
men,” not without a sense of right, and a rule of truth and honesty,
yet insensible to what our Saviour meant by taking up the cross and
following Him, or what St. Paul meant by “being one with Christ.”
They die without any great fear or lively faith ; to the last more
interested about concerns of this world than about the hope of
another. In the Christian sense they are neither proud nor humble;
they have seldom experienced the sense of sin, they have never felt
keenly the need of forgiveness. Neither on the other hand do they
value themselves on their good deeds, or expect to be saved by their
own merits, Often they are men of high moral character; many of
them have strong and disinterested attachments, and quick human
sympathies ; sometimes a stoical feeling of uprightness, or a peculiar
sensitiveness to dishonour. It would be a mistake to say they are
without religion. They join in its public acts; they are offended at
- profaneness or impiety ; they are thankful for the blessings of life,
and do not rebel against its misfortunes. Such persons meet us at
every turn. They are those whom we know and associate with;
honest in their dealings, respectable in their lives, decent in their
conversation. The Scripture speaks to us of two classes represented
by the Church and the world, the wheat and the tares, the sheep
and the goats, the friends and enemies of God. We cannot say in
which of these two divisions we should find a place for them.

490 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The picture is a true one, and, if we turn the light round, some
of us may find in it a resemblance of ourselves no less than of other
men. Others will include us in the same circle in which we are in-
cluding them. What shall we say to such a state, common as it is
to both us and them? The fact that we are considering is not the
evil of the world, but the neutrality of the world, the indifference of
the world, the inertness of the world. There are multitudes of men
and women everywhere, who have no peculiarly Christian feelings,
to whom, except for the indirect influence of Christian institutions,
the life and death of Christ would have made no difference, and who
have, nevertheless, the common sense of truth and right almost
equally with true Christians. You cannot say of them “there is
none that doeth good ; no, not one.” The other tone of St. Paul is
more suitable, —“ When the Gentiles that know not the law do by
nature the things contained in the law, these not knowing the law
are a law unto themselves.” So of what we commonly term the
world, as opposed to those who make a profession of Christianity,
we must not shrink from saying, —“ When men of the world do by
nature whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are lovely,
whatsoever things are of good report, these not being conscious of
the grace of God, do by nature what can only be done by His
grace.” Why should we make them out worse than they are? We
must cease to speak evil of them, ere they will judge fairly of the
characters of religious men. ‘That, with so little recognition of His
personal relation to them, God does not cast them off, is a ground of
hope rather than of fear, — of thankfulness, not of regret.

Many strange thoughts arise at the contemplation of this inter-
mediate world, which some blindness, or hardness, or distance in
nature, separates from the love of Christ. We ask ourselves “what
will become of them after death ?” “For what state of existence can
this present life be a preparation?” Perhaps they will turn the
question upon us; and we may answer for ourselves and them,
“that we throw ourselves on the mercy of God.” We cannot deny

that in the sight of God they may condemn us; their moral worth

NATURAL RELIGION. 491

may be more acceptable to Him than our Christian feeling. For
we know that God is not like some earthly sovereign, who may be
offended at the want of attention which we show to him. He can
only estimate us always by our fulfilment of moral and Christian
duties. When the balance is struck, it is most probable, nay, it is
quite certain, that many who are first will be last, and the last first.
And this transfer will take place, not only among those who are
within the gates of the Christian Church, but from the world also
into the Church. There may be some among us who have given the
cup of cold water to a brother, “ not knowing it was the Lord.”
Some again may be leading a life in their own family which is “ not
far from the kingdom of heaven.” We do not say that for ourselves
there is more than one way; that way is Christ. But, in the case of
others, it is right that we should take into account their occupation,
character, circumstances, the manner in which Christianity may
have been presented to them, the intellectual or other difficulties
which may have crossed their path. We shall think more of the
unconscious Christianity of their lives, than of the profession of it on
their lips. So that we seem almost compelled to be Christian and
Unchristian at once: Christian in reference to the obligations of
Christianity upon ourselves ; Unchristian, if indeed it be not a
higher kind of Christianity, in not judging those who are unlike
ourselves by our own standard.

Other oppositions have found their way into statements of Chris-
tian truth, which we shall sometimes do well to forget. Mankind
are not simply divided into two classes; they pass insensibly from
. one to the other. The term world is itself ambiguous, meaning the
world very near to us, and yet a long way off from us; which we
contrast with the Church, and which we nevertheless feel to be one
with the Church, and incapable of being separated. Sometimes the
Church bears a high and noble witness against the world, and at
other times, even to the religious mind, the balance seems to be even,
and the world in its turn begins to bear witness against the Church.

There are periods of history in which they both grow together.

492 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Little cause as there may be for congratulation in our present state,
yet we cannot help tracing, in the last half-century, a striking
amelioration in our own and some other countries, testified to by
changes in laws and manners. Many reasons have been given for
this change: the efforts of a few devoted men in the last, or the
beginning of the present, century ; a long peace; diffusion of educa-
tion ; increase of national wealth; changes in the principles of
government ; improvement in the lives of the ministers of religion.
No one who has considered this problem will feel that he is
altogether able to solve it. He cannot venture to say that the
change springs from any bold aggression which the Church has made
upon the vices of mankind; nor is it certain that any such effort
would have produced the result. In the Apostle’s language it must
still remain a mystery “why mankind collectively often become
better ;” and not less so, “ why, when deprived of all the means and
influences of virtue and religion, they do not always become worse.”
Even for evil, Nature, that is, the God of Nature, has set limits ;
men do not corrupt themselves endlessly. Here, too, it is, “ Hitherto
shalt thou go, but no further.”

Reflections of this kind are not a mere speculation; they have a
practical use. They show us the world as it is, neither lighted up
with the aspirations of hope and faith, nor darkened beneath the
shadow of God’s wrath. They teach us to regard human nature in
a larger and more kindly way, which is the first step towards
amending and strengthening it. They make us think of the many
as well as of the few; as ministers of the Gospel, warning us against
preaching to the elect only, instead of seeking to do good to all men,
They take us out of the straits and narrownessés of religion, into
wider fields in which the analogy of faith is still our guide. They
help us to reconcile nature with grace ; they prevent our thinking
that Christ came into the world for our sakes only, or that His
words have no meaning when they are scattered beyond the limits
of the Christian Church. They remind us that the moral state of
mankind here, and their eternal state hereafter, are not wholly

NATURAL RELIGION. 493

‘dependent on our poor efforts for their religious improvement; and
that the average of men who seem often to be so careless about their
own highest interest, are not when they pass away uncared for in
Hiis sight.

Doubtless, the lives of individuals that rise above this average are
the salt of the earth. They are not to be confounded with the many,
because for these latter a place may be found in the counsels of Pro-
vidence. ‘Those who add the love of their fellow-creatures to the
love of God, who make the love of truth the rule of both, bear the
image of Christ until His coming again. And yet, probably, they
would be the last persons to wish to distinguish themselves from
their fellow-creatures. The Christian life makes all things kin; it

does not stand out “angular”

against any part of mankind. And
that humble spirit which the best of men have ever shown in refer-
ence to their brethren, is also the true spirit of the Church towards
the world. Ifa tone of dogmatism and exclusiveness is unbecoming
in individual Christians, is it not equally so in Christian communi-
ties? There is no need, because men will not listen to one motive,
that we should not present them with another; there is no reason,
because they will not hear the voice of the preacher, that they should
be refused the blessings of education; or that we should cease to act
upon their circumstances, because we cannot awaken the heart and
conscience. We are too apt to view as hostile to religion that
which only takes a form different from religion, as trade, or politics,
or professional life. More truly may religious men regard the
world, in its various phases, as in many points a witness against
themselves. The exact appreciation of the good as well as the evil
of the world is a link of communion with our fellow-men; may it
not also be, too, with the body of Christ? There are lessons of
which the world is the keeper no less than the Church. Especially
have earnest and sincere Christians reason to reflect, if ever they see
the moral sentiments of mankind directed against them.

The God of peace rest upon you, is the concluding benediction of
most of the Epistles. How can He rest upon us, who draw so many

494 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

hard lines of demarcation between ourselves and other men; who
oppose the Church and the world, Sundays and working days, reve-
lation and science, the past and present, the life and state of which
religion speaks and the life which we ordinarily lead? It is well
that we should consider these lines of demarcation rather as repre-
senting aspects of our life than as corresponding to classes of man-
kind. It is well that we should acknowledge that one aspect of life
or knowledge is as true as the other. Science and revelation touch
one another: the past floats down in the present. We are all mem-
bers of the same Christian world; we are all members of the same
Christian Church. Who can bear to doubt this of themselves or of
their family? What parent would think otherwise of his child ?—
what child of his parent? Religion holds before us an ideal which
we are far from reaching; natural affection softens and relieves the
characters of those we love; experience alone shows men what they
truly are. All these three must so meet as to do violence to none.
If, in the age of the Apostles, it seemed to be the duty of the believers
to separate themselves from the world and take up a hostile position,
not less marked in the present age is the duty of abolishing in a
Christian country what has now become an artificial distinction,
and seeking by every means in our power, by fairness, by truthful-
ness, by knowledge, by love unfeigned, by the absence of party and
prejudice, by acknowledging the good in all things, to reconcile the
Church to the world, the one half of our nature to the other; draw-
ing the mind off from speculative difficulties, or matters of party and
opinion, to that which almost all equally acknowledge and almost
equally rest short of —the life of Christ.

495

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN.

“The strength of sin is the law.” —1 Cor. xv. 56.

THESE words occur parenthetically in the fifteenth chapter of the
First Epistle to the Corinthians. They may be regarded as a sum-
mary of the seventh chapter of the Romans. The thought contained
in them is also the undercurrent of several other passages in the
Epistles of St. Paul, as, for example, Rom. v. 20., xiv. 22, 23.; Gal.
ii, 17—21.; £ol. ii. 14. The Apostle is speaking of that prior state
out of which he passed into the liberty of the Gospel. When he
asked himself what preceded Christ in his own life and in the dis-
pensations of Providence, what he had once felt within warring
against his soul, what he saw without contending against the cross,
the answer to all was given in the same word, “the Law.”

But the singular description of the law as the strength of sin goes
further, and has a deeper meaning; for it seems to make the law the
cause of sin. Here is the difficulty. The law may have been defective
—adapted, as we should say, to a different state of society, enforcing
in some passages the morality of a half-civilised age, such as could
never render the practisers thereof perfect, powerless to create a
. new life either in the Jewish nation collectively, or in the individuals
who composed the nation; yet this imperfection and “ unprofitable-
ness” of the law are not what the Apostle means by the strength of
sin. If we say, in the words of James, quoted in the Acts, that it
was a burden too heavy for men to bear, still language like this falls
short of the paradox, as it appears to us, of St. Paul. There is no
trace that the law was regarded by him as given “because of the
hardness of men’s hearts,” as our Saviour says; or that he is speak-

496 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ing of the law as corrupted by the Pharisee, or overlaid by Jewish
traditions. The Apostle is not contrasting, as we are apt to do,
Moses and the prophets with the additions of those who sat in Moses’s
seat. ‘The same law which is holy, and good, and just, is also the
strength of sin.

There is another kind of language used respecting the law in
Scripture which is very familiar, and seems to be as natural to our
preconceived notions as the passage which we are now considering is
irreconcilable with them. The law is described as the preparation
of the Gospel; the first volume of the book, the other half of Divine
Revelation. It is the veil on the face of Moses which obscured the
excess of light, as the Apostle himself says in the Epistle to the
Corinthians; or the schoolmaster to bring men to Christ, as in the
Galatians; or the shadow of good things to come, as in the Hebrews.
But all these figures of speech can only be cited here to point out
how different the conception in them is from that which is implied
in such words as “ The strength of sin is the law.” In these latter
we have not the light shining more and more unto the perfect day,
but the light and darkness; that is, the Gospel and the law opposed,
as it were two hemispheres, dividing time and the world and the
human heart.

Nor, again, if we consider the law in its immediate workings on
the mind, as it might seem to be struggling within for mastery over
the Gospel, as we may imagine Catholicism and Protestantism in the
mind of Luther or of a modern convert, do we make a nearer ap-
proach to the solution of our difficulty. Even Luther, when denounc-
ing the Pope as Antichrist, would not have spoken of the Catholic
faith as the strength of sin. Still less would he have one instant
described it as “holy, just, and good,” and in the next as deceiving
and slaying him. The struggle between one religion and another, |
or, even without any conflict of creeds, between hope and despair,
may trouble the conscience, may enfeeble the will, may darken the
intellect; still no sober-minded man would think of attributing his

sins to having passed through such a struggle.

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 497

Once more, parallels from heathen authors, such as “ Nitimur in
vetitum semper,” and the witness of the heart against itself, “that
it is evil continually,” have been quoted in illustration of the verse
placed at the beginning of this Essay. The aphorisms alluded to are
really metaphorical expressions, intended by satirists and moralists
to state forcibly that men are prone to err, not that law is provocative
or the cause of sin. Mankind offend in various ways, and from
different motives,—ambition, vanity, selfishness, passion, —but not
simply from the desire to break the law, or to offend God. So, again,
as we multiply laws, we may seem to multiply offences: the real
truth is, that as offences multiply the laws multiply also. To break
the law for the sake of doing so, is not crime or sin, but madness.
Nor, again, will it do to speak of the perversity of the human will,—
of men, like children, doing a thing because, as we say in familiar
language, they are told not to do it. This perversity consists simply
in knowing the better and choosing the worse, in passion prevailing
over reason. The better is not the cause of their choosing the
worse, nor is reason answerable for the dictates of passion, which
would be the parallel required.

All these, then, we must regard as half-explanations, which fail to
reach the Apostle’s meaning. When we ask what he can mean by
saying that “the law is the strength of sin,” it is no answer to reply,
that the law was imperfect or transient, that it could not take away
sin, that it had been made of none effect by tradition, that its cere-
‘monial observances were hypocritical and unmeaning; or that we,
too, use certain metaphorical expressions, which, however different
in sense, have a sound not unlike the words of the Apostle. We
require an explanation that goes deeper, which does not pare away
the force of the expression, such as can be gathered only from the
Apostle himself, and the writings of his time. The point of view
from which we regard things may begin to turn round; to under-
stand the meaning of the law, we may have to place ourselves within
the circle of its influences; to understand the nature of sin, we may

be compelled to imagine ourselves in the very act of sinning: this

VOL. Il. K K

498 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

inversion of our ordinary modes of thought may be the only means
of attaining the true and natural sense of the Apostle’s words.

We are commencing an inquiry which lacks the sustaining interest
of controversy, the data of which are metaphysical reasonings and
points of view which cannot be even imagined without a consider-
able effort of mind, and which there will be the more indisposition
to admit, as they run counter to the popular belief that the Bible is
a book easily and superficially intelligible. Such feelings are natu-
ral; we are jealous of those who wrap up in mystery the Word of
life, who carry us into an atmosphere which none else can breathe.
We cannot be too jealous of Kant or Fichte, Schelling or Hegel,
finding their way into the interpretation of Scripture. As jealous
should we be also of any patristic or other system which draws away
its words from their natural meaning. Still the Scripture has diffi-
culties not brought but found there, a few words respecting which
will pave the way for the inquiry on which we are entering.

The Bible is at once the easiest and the hardest of hooks. The
easiest, in that it gives us plain rules for moral and religious duties
which he that runs can read, an example that every one can follow,
a work that any body may do. But it is the hardest also, in that it
is fragmentary, written in a dead language, and referring to times
and actions of which in general we have no other record, and, above
all, using modes of thought and often relating to spiritual states,
which amongst ourselves have long ceased to exist, or the influence
of institutions which have passed away. Who can supply the
external form of the primitive Church of the first century, whether
in its ritual or discipline, from the brief allusions of the Gospels and
Epistles? Who can imagine the mind of the first believers, as they
sat “with their lamps lighted and their loins girded,” waiting for
the reappearance of the Lord? Who describe the prophesyings or
speaking with tongues, or interpretation of tongues? Who knows
the spirit of a man who consciously recognises in his ordinary life
the inward workings of a Divine power? The first solution of such
difficulties is to admit them, to acknowledge that the world in which

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 499

we live is not the world of the first century, and that the first
Christians were not like ourselves.

Nor is this difficulty less, but greater, in reference to words which
are common to us and to them, which are used by both with a
certain degree of similarity, and with a sort of analogy to other
words which puts us off our guard, and prevents our perceiving the
real change of meaning. Such is the case with the words church,
priest, sacrifice, and in general with words taken from the Mosaic
dispensation ; above all, with the word “law.” Does not common
sense teach us that whatever St. Paul meant by law, he must have
meant something hard to us to understand, to whom the law has no
existence, who are Europeans, not Orientals? to whom the law of
the land is no longer the immediate direct law of God, and who can
form no idea of the entanglements and perplexities which the attempt
to adapt the law of Mount Sinai to an altered world must have
caused to the Jew? Is it not certain that whenever we use the
word “law” in its theological acceptation, we shall give it a meaning
somewhat different from that of the Apostle? We cannot help doing
so. Probably we may sum it up under the epithet “ moral or cere-
monial,” or raise the question to which of these the Apostle refers,
forgetting that they are distinctions which belong to us, but do not
belong to him. The study of afew pages of the Mischna, which
mounts up nearly to the time of the Apostles, would reveal to us
how very far our dim indefinite notion of the “law” falls short of
that intense life and power and sacredness which were attributed to
it by a Jew of the first century; as well as how little conception he
had of the fundamental distinctions which theologians have intro-
duced respecting it.

But the consideration of these difficulties does not terminate with
themselves ; they lead us to a higher idea of Scripture ; they compel
us to adapt ourselves to Scripture, instead of adapting Scripture to
ourselves. In the ordinary study of the sacred volume, the chief
difficulty is the accurate perception of the connection. ‘The words
lie smoothly on the page; the road is trite and worn. . Only just here

KK 2

500 ‘EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and there we stumble over an impediment; as it were a stone lying
not loose, but deeply embedded in the soil; which is the indication
of a world below just appearing on the surface. Such are many
passages in the Epistles of St. Paul. There is much that we really
understand, much that we appear to understand, which has, indeed,
a deceitful congruity with words and thoughts of our own day.
Some passages remain intractable. From these latter we obtain the
pure ore; here, if anywhere, are traces of the peculiar state and
feelings of the Church of the Apostles, such as no after age could
invent, or even understand. It is to these we turn, not for a rule of
conduct, but for the inner life of Apostles and Churches; rejecting
nothing as designedly strange or mysterious, satisfied with no ex-
planation that does violence to the language, not suffering our minds
to be diverted from the point of the difficulty, comparing one diffi-
culty with another; seeking the answer, not in ourselves and in the
controversies of our own day, but in the Scripture and the habits of
thought of the age; collecting every association that bears upon it,
and gathering up each fragment that remains, that nothing be lost;
at the same time acknowledging how defective our knowledge really
is, not merely in that general sense in which all human knowledge
is feeble and insufficient, but in the particular one of our actual
ignorance of the facts and persons and ways of thought of the age
in which the Gospel came into the world.

The subject of the present Essay is suggestive of the following
questions: —“ What did St. Paul mean by the law, and what by
sin?” “Ts the Apostle speaking from the experience of his own
heart and the feelings of his age and country, or making an objec-
tive statement for mankind in general, of what all men do or ought
to feel?” “Is there anything in his circumstances, as a convert from
the law to the Gospel, that gives the words a peculiar force?” And
lastly, we may inquire what application may be made of them to
ourselves: whether, ‘ now that the law is dead to us, and we to the
law,” the analogy of faith suggests anything, either in our social

state or in our physical constitution or our speculative views, which

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 5OlL

stands in the same relation to us that the law did to the first
converts ?

First, then, as has been elsewhere remarked, the law includes in
itself different and contradictory aspects. It is at once the letter of
the book of the law, and the image of law in general. It is alive,
and yet dead; it is holy, just, and good, and yet the law of sin and
death. It is without and within at the same time; a power like
that of conscience is ascribed to it, and yet he who is under its
power feels that he is reaching towards something without him
which can never become a part of his being. In its effect on indi-
viduals it may be likened to a sword entering into the soul, which
can never knit together with flesh and blood. In relation to the
world at large, it is a prison in which men are shut up. As the
Jewish nation is regarded also as an individual; as the kingdom of
heaven is sometimes outward and temporal, sometimes inward and
spiritual, used in reference either to the spread of the Gospel, or the
second coming of Christ; as the parables of Christ admit of a similar
double reference ; in like manner, the law has its “double senses.” It
is national and individual at once ; the law given on Mount Sinai, and
also a rule of conduct. It is the schoolmaster unto Christ, and yet
the great enemy of the Gospel; added to make men transgress, and
yet affording the first knowledge of truth and holiness; applying to
the whole people and to the world of the past, and also to each living
man; though a law, and therefore concerned with actions only,
terrible to the heart and conscience, requiring men to perform all
things, and enabling them to accomplish nothing.

This ambiguity in the use of the word “law” first occurs in the
Old Testament itself. In the prophecies and psalms, as well as in
the writings of St. Paul, the law is in a great measure ideal. When
the Psalmist spoke of “meditating in the law of the Lord,” he was
not thinking of the five books of Moses. The law which he delighted
to contemplate was not written down (as well might we imagine that
the Platonic idea was a-treatise on philosophy); it was the will of

God, the truth of God, the justice and holiness of God. In later

KK 3

502 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ages the same feelings began to gather around the volume of the law
itself. The law was ideal still ; but with this idealism were combined
the reference to its words, and the literal enforcement of its pre-
cepts. That it was the law of God was a solemn thought to those
who violated the least of its commandments; and yet its command-
ments were often such as in a changed world it was impossible to
obey. It needed interpreters before it could be translated into the
language of daily life. Such a law could have little hold on practice ;
but it had the greatest on ideas. It was the body of truth, the
framework of learning and education, the only and ultimate appeal
in all controversies. Even its entire disuse did not prevent the
Rabbis from discussing with animosity nice questions of minute
detail, In Alexandria especially, which was far removed from
Jerusalem and the scenes of Jewish history, such an idealising ten-
dency was carried to the uttermost. Whether there was a temple or
not, whether there were sacrifices or not, whether there were feasts
or not, mattered little; there was the idea of a temple, the idea of
feasts, the idea of sacrifices. Whether the Messiah actually came or
not mattered little, while he was discernible to the mystic in every
page of the law. The Jewish religion was beginning to rest on a
new basis which, however visionary it may seem to us, could not be
shaken any more than the clouds of heaven, even though one stone
were not left upon another.

This idealising tendency of his age we cannot help tracing in St.
Paul himself. As to the Jew of Alexandria the law became an ideal
rule of truth and right, so to St. Paul after his conversion it became
an ideal form of evil. As there were many Antichrists, so also there
were many laws, and none of them absolutely fallen away from their
Divine original. In one point of view, the fault was all with the
law; in another point of view, it was all with human nature; the
law ideal and the law actual, the law as it came from God and the
law in its consequences to man, are ever crossing each other. It
was the nature of the law to be good and evil at once; evil, because
it was good; like the pillar of cloud and fire, which was its image,

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 503

light by night and darkness by day,—light and darkness in succes-
sive instants.

But, as the law seems to admit of a wider range of meaning than
we should at first sight have attributed to it, so also the word “sin”
has a more extended sense than our own use of it implies. Sin with
us is a definite act or state. Any crime or vice considered in refer-
ence to God may be termed sin; or, according to another use of it,
which is more general and abstract, sin is the inherent defect of hu-
man nature, or that evil state in which, even without particular
faults or vices, we live. None of these senses includes that peculiar
aspect in which it is regarded by St. Paul. Sin is with him insepa-
rable from the consciousness of sin. It is not only the principle of
evil, working blindly in the human heart, but the principle of discord
and dissolution piercing asunder the soul and spirit. He who has
felt its power most is not the perpetrator of the greatest crimes, a
Caligula or Nero; but he who has suffered most deeply from the
spiritual combat, who has fallen into the abyss of despair, who has
the sentence of death in himself, who is wringing his hands and cry-
ing aloud in his agony, “O wretched man that I am!” Sin is not
simply evil, but intermediate between evil and good, implying always
the presence of God within, light revealing darkness, life in the cor-
ruption of death; it is the soul reflecting upon itself in the moment
of commission of sin. If we are surprised at St. Paul regarding the
law —holy, just, and good as it was—as almost sin, we must remember
that sin itself, if the expression may be excused, as a spiritual state,
has a good element in it. It is the voice of despair praying to God,
Who shall deliver me from the body of this death?” It approxi-
mates to the law at the very instant in which it is repelled from it.

There are physical states in which the body is exquisitely sensitive
to pain, which are.not the sign of health, but of disease. So also
there are mental states in which the sense of sin and evil, and the
need of forgiveness, press upon us with an unusual heaviness. Such
is the state which the Scriptures describe by the words, “they were
pricked to the heart,” when whole multitudes in sympathy with each

KK 4

504 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

other felt the need of a change, and in the extremity of their suffer-
ing were saved, looking on the Lord Jesus. No such spiritual ago-
nies occur in the daily life of all men. Crimes and vices and horrid
acts there are, but not that of which the Apostle speaks. That —
which he sums up in a moment of time, which may be compared to
the last struggle when we are upon the confines of two worlds, of
which we are so intensely conscious that it is impossible for us per-
manently to retain the consciousness of it, is “ Sin.”

As there could be no sin if we were wholly unconscious of it, as
children or animals are in a state of innocence, as the heathen world
we ourselves regard as less guilty or responsible than those who
have a clearer light in the dispensation of the Gospel, so in a certain
point of view sin may be regarded as the consciousness of sin. It
is this latter which makes sin to be what it is, which distinguishes
it from crime or vice, which links it with our personality. The first

state described by the Roman satirist —

“ At stupet hic vitio et fibris increvit opimum
Pingue; caret culpa; nescit quid perdat,” —

is the reverse of what the Apostle means by the life of sin. In
ordinary language, vices, regarded in reference to God, are termed
sins ; and we attempt to arouse the child or the savage to a right
sense of his unconscious acts by so terming them. But, in the Apo-
stle’s language, consciousness is presupposed in the sin itself; not
reflected on it from without. That which gives it the nature of sin
is conscientia peccati. As Socrates, a little inverting the ordinary
view and common language of mankind, declared all virtue to be
knowledge; so the language of St. Paul implies all sin to be the
knowledge of sin. Conscientia peccati peccatum ipsum est.

It is at this point the law enters, not to heal the wounded soul,
but to enlarge its wound. The law came in that the offence might
abound. Whatever dim notion of right and wrong pre-existed ;
whatever sense of physical impurity may have followed, in the lan-
guage of the Book of Job, one born in sin; whatever terror the

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 505

outpouring of the vials of God’s wrath, in the natural world, may
have infused into the soul,—all this was heightened and defined by
the law of God. In comparison with this second state, it might be
said of the previous one, “Sin is not imputed where there is no
- Jaw,” and man “was alive without the law once; but when the law
came sin revived, and he died.” The soul condemned itself, it
‘was condemned by the law, it is in the last stage of decay and
dissolution.

If from the Apostle’s ideal point of view we regard the law, not
as the tables given on Mount Sinai, or the books of Moses, but as the
law written on the heart, the difficulty is, not how we are to identify
the law with the consciousness of sin, but how we are to distinguish
them. They are different aspects of the same thing, related to each
other as positive and negative, two poles of human nature turned
towards God, or away from Him. In the language of metaphysical
philosophy, we say that “the subject is identical with the object ;”
in the same way sin implies the law. The law written on the heart,
when considered in reference to the subject, is simply the conscience.
The conscience, in like manner, when conceived of objectively, as
words written down in a book, as a rule of life which we are to
obey, becomes the law. For the sake of clearness we may express
the whole ina sort of formula. “Sin=the consciousness of sin=the

law.”

From this last conclusion the Apostle only stops short from
the remembrance of the Divine original of the law, and the sense
that what made it evil to him was the fact that it was in its own

“nature good. .

Wide, then, as might at first have seemed to be the interval
between the law and sin, we see that they have their meeting point
in the conscience. Yet their opposition and identity have a still
further groundwork or reflection in the personal character and life
of the Apostle.

J. The spiritual combat, in the seventh chapter of the Epistle to
the Romans, which terminates with the words, “O wretched man

that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death? I

506 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

thank God through Jesus Christ our lord,” is the description, in a
figure, of the Apostle’s journey to Damascus. Almost in a moment
he passed from darkness to light. Nothing could be more different
or contrasted than his after and his former life. In his own lan-
guage he might be described as cut in two by the sword of the
Spirit ; his present and previous states were like good and evil, light
and darkness, life and death. It accords with what we know of
human feelings, that this previous state should have a kind of terror
for him, and should be presented to his mind, not as it appeared at
the time when he “thought, verily, that he ought to do many things
against Jesus of Nazareth,” but as it afterwards seemed, when he
counted himself to be the least of the Apostles, because twenty years
before he had persecuted the Church of God; when he was amazed
at the goodness of God in rescuing the chief of sinners. The life
which he had once led was “the law.” He thought of it, indeed,
sometimes as the inspired word, the language of which he was
beginning to invest with a new meaning ; but more often as an ideal
form of evil, the chain by which he had been bound, the prison in
which he was shut up. And long after his conversion the shadow
of the law seemed to follow him at a distance, and threatened to
overcast his heaven; when, with a sort of inconsistency for one
assured of “the crown,” he speaks of the trouble of spirit which
overcame him, and of the sentence of death in himself.

II. In another way the Apostle’s personal history gives a peculiar
aspect to his view of the law. On every occasion, at every turn of
his life, on his first return to Jerusalem, when preaching the Gospel
in Asia and Greece, in the great struggle between Jewish and Gen-
tile Christians,—his persecutors were the Jews, his great enemy the
law. Is it surprising that this enmity should have been idealised by
him? that the law within and the law without should have blended
in one? that his own remembrances of the past should be identified
with that spirit of hatred and fanaticism which he saw around him?
Not only when he looked back to his past life, and “the weak and
beggarly elements” to which he had been in bondage, but also when

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 507

he saw the demoniac spirit which, under the name of Judaism,
arrayed itself against the truth, might he repeat the words—“ the
strength of sin is the law.” And, placing these words side by side
with other expressions of the Apostle’s, such as, “ We wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against spiritual wickedness in heavenly places,” we can understand
how heretics of the second century, who regarded the law and the
Old Testament as the work of an evil principle, were induced to
attach themselves specially to St. Paul.

Ill. The Gospel of St. Paul was a spirit, not a law; it nowhere
enjoined the observance of feasts and sacrifices, and new moons and
sabbaths, but was rather antagonistic to them; it was heedless of
externals of any kind, except as matter of expediency and charity.
It was a Gospel which knew of no distinction of nations or persons ;
in which all men had the offer of “grace, mercy, and peace from
the Lord Jesus Christ ;” which denounced the oldness of the letter ;
which contrasted “the tables of stone with fleshly tables of the
heart ;” which figured Christ taking the handwriting of ordinances
and nailing them to his cross ; which put faith in the place of works,
and even prohibited circumcision. Such a Gospel was in extreme
antagonism to the law. Their original relation was forgotten ; the
opposition between them insensibly passed into an opposition of
good and evil. And yet a new relation sprang up also. For the
law, too, witnessed against itself; and, to the Apostle interpreting
its words after the manner of his age, became the allegory of the
Gospel.

IV. Once more: it has been observed elsewhere (see note on the
Imputation of the Sin of Adam), that the place which the law
occupies in the teaching of St. Paul is analogous to that which the
doctrine of original sin holds in later writings. It represents the
state of wrath and bondage out of which men pass into the liberty
of the children of God. It is the state of nature to the Jew; it is
also a law of sin to him; he cannot help sinning, and this very

impotency is the extremity of guilt and despair. Similar expres-

508 | EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

sions respecting original sin are sometimes used among ourselves ;
though not wholly parallel, they may nevertheless assist in shadow-
ing forth the Apostle’s meaning.

V. It is not, however, to the life of the Apostle, or to the circle
of theological doctrines, that we need confine ourselves for illustra-
tion of the words, “the strength of sin is the law.” Morality also
shows us many ways in which good and evil meet together, and
truth and error seem inseparable from each other. We cannot do
any thing good without some evil consequences indirectly flowing from
it; we cannot express any truth without involving ourselves in some
degree of error, or occasionally conveying an impression to others
wholly erroneous. Human characters and human ideas are always
mixed and limited; good and truth ever drag evil and error in their
train. Good itself may be regarded as making evil to be what it is,
if, as we say, they are relative terms, and the disappearance of the
one would involve the disappearance of the other. And there are
many things, in which not only may the old adage be applied, —
“Corruptio optimi pessima,” but in which the greatest good is seen
to be linked with the worst evil, as, for example, the holiest affec-
tions with the grossest sensualities, or a noble ambition with crime
and unscrupulousness ; even religion seems sometimes to have a dark
side, and readily to ally itself with immorality or with cruelty.

‘Plato’s kingdom of evil (Rep. I.) is not unlike the state into which
the Jewish people passed during the last few years before the taking
of the city. Of both it might be said, in St. Paul’s language, “ the
law is the strength of sin.” A kingdom of pure evil, as the Greek
philosopher observed, there could not be; it needs some principle of
good to be the minister of evil; it can only be half wicked, or it
would destroy itself. We may say the same of the Jewish people.
Without the law it never could have presented an equally signal
example either of sin or of vengeance. The nation, like other nations,
would have yielded quietly to the power of Rome; “it would have
died the death of all men.” But the spirit which said, “ We have a

Jaw, and by our law he ought to die,” recoiled upon itself; the in-

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 509

tense fanaticism which prevented men from seeing the image of love
and goodness in that divine form, bound together for destruction a
whole people, to make them a monument to after ages of a religion
that has outlived itself.

VI. The law and the Gospel may be opposed, according to a
modern distinction, as positive and moral. ‘ Moral precepts are dis-
tinguished from positive, as precepts the reasons of which we see
from those the reasons of which we do not see.” Moral precepts
may be regarded as the more general, while positive precepts fill up
the details of the general principle, and apply it to circumstances.
Every positive precept involves not merely a moral obligation to
obey it so far as it is just, but a moral law, which is its ultimate
basis. It will often happen that what was at first just and right
may in the course of ages become arbitrary and tyrannical, if the
enforcement of it continue after the reason for it has ceased. Or, as
it may be expressed more generally, the positive is ever tending to
become moral, and the moral to become positive; the positive to
become moral, in so far as that which was at first a mere external
command has acquired such authority, and so adapted itself to the
hearts of men, as to have an internal witness to it, as in the case of
the fourth commandment ; the moral to become positive, where a law
has outlived itself, and the state of society to which it was adapted
and the feelings on which it rested have passed away.

The latter was the case with the Jewish law. It had once been
moral, and it had become positive. Doubtless, for the minutest
details, the colours of the sanctuary, the victims offered in sacrifice,
-there had once been reasons; but they had been long since forgotten,
and if remembered would have been unintelligible. New reasons
might be given for them; the oldness of the letter might be made
to teach a new lesson after the lapse of a thousand years; but in
general the law was felt to be “a burden that neither they nor their
fathers were able. to bear.” Side by side with it another religion
had sprung up, the religion of the prophets first, and of the zealots
afterwards; religions most different indeed from each other, yet

510 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

equally different from the law; in the first of which the voice of God
in man seemed to cry aloud against sacrifice and offering, and to
proclaim the only true offering, to do justice and to love mercy, and
to walk humbly with God; while in the second of them the national
faith took the form of a fanatical patriotism. And yet the law still
remained as a body of death, with its endless routine of ceremonial,
its numberless disputes, its obsolete commands, never suffering the
worshipper to be free, and enforcing its least detail with the curses
of the book of the law and the terrors of Mount Sinai.

Much of this burden would have been taken off, had there existed
among the Jews the distinction which is familiar to ourselves of a
moral and ceremonial law. ‘They would then have distinguished
between the weightier matters of the law and the “tithe of mint,
anise, and cumin.” Such distinctions are great “ peace-makers ;”
they mediate between the present and the past. But in Judaism all
was regarded as alike of Divine authority, all subjected the trans-
gressor to the same penalty. ‘ He who offended in one point was
guilty of all;” the least penalty was, in a figure, “death,” and there
was no more for the greatest offences. The infringement of any
positive command tortured the conscience with a fearful looking for
of judgment; the deepest moral guilt could do no more. Such a
religion could only end in hypocrisy and inhumanity, in. verily
believing that the law demanded His death, in whom only “ the law
was fulfilled.”

Let us imagine, in contrast with this, the Gospel with its spiritu-
alising humanising influences, soothing the soul of man, the source of
joy, and love, and peace. It is a supernatural power, with which the
elements themselves bear witness, endowed with a fulness of life, and
imparting life to all who receive it. It is not a law to which the will
must submit, but an inward principle which goes before the will; it
is also a moral principle to which the heart and conscience instantly
assent, which gives just what we want, and seems to set us right
with the world, with ourselves, and with God. Yet, in a figure, it

is a law also; but ina very different sense from that of Moses: a

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. ‘IT

law within, and not without us; a law of the Spirit of life, not of
death ; of freedom, not of slavery ; of blessing, not of cursing ; of
mercy, not of vengeance: a law which can be obeyed, not one to
which, while it exacts punishment, obedience is impossible. When
we look upon this picture, and upon that, is it strange that one who
was filled with the mind of Christ should have regarded the law as
the strength of sin? :

Of what has been said, the sum is as follows:—When St. Paul
speaks of “the law as the strength of sin,” he uses the term law
partly for law in general, but more especially for the burden of the
Jewish law on the conscience; when he speaks of sin, he means chiefly
the consciousness of sin, of which it may be truly said, “ Where there
is no law, there is no transgression; and sin is not imputed where
there is no law.” Thirdly, he speaks of the law from his own spiri-
tual experience of “fears within, and of fightings without;” and from
a knowledge of his own countrymen, who “please not God, but are
contrary to all men.” Fourthly, he conceives the law as an ideal
form of evil, analogous to original sin in the language of a later
theology. Lastly, if there be anything apparently contradictory or
to us unintelligible in his manner of speaking of the law, we must
attribute this to the modes of thought of his age, which blended
many things that are to us separate. Had St. Paul distinguished
between the law and conscience, or between the law and morality,
or between the moral and ceremonial portions of the law itself, or
between the law in its first origin and in the practice of his own
age, he would perhaps have confined the law to a good sense, or
restricted its use to the books of Moses, and not have spoken of it
in one yerse as “holy, just, and good,” and in the next as being the

means of deceiving and slaying him.

In another sense than that in which the Apostle employs the words,
“the law is dead to us, and we to the law.” The lapse of ages has
but deepened the chasm which separates Judaism from Christianity.

512 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Between us and them there is a gulf fixed, so that few are they who
pass from them to us, nor do any go from us to them. The question
remains, What application is it possible for us to make of that which
has preceded? Is there anything in the world around standing in
the same relation to us that the law did to the contemporaries of
St. Paul?

One answer that might be-given is, “the Roman Catholic Church.”
The experience of Luther seems indeed not unlike that struggle
which St. Paul describes. But whatever resemblance may be found
between Romanism and the ancient Jewish religion,—whether in
their ceremonial or sacrificial character, or in the circumstance of
their both resting on outward and visible institutions, and so limiting
the worship of Spirit and truth,—it cannot be said that Romanism
stands in the same relation to us individually, that the law did to the
Apostle St. Paul. The real parallels are more general, though less
obvious. The law, St. Paul describes as without us, but not in that
sense in which an object of sense is without us: though without us
it exercises an inward power; it drives men to despair; it paralyses
- human nature; it causes evil by its very justice and holiness. It is
like a barrier which we cannot pass; a chain wherewith a nation is
bound together; a rule which is not adapted to human feelings, but
which guides them into subjection to itself.

It has been already remarked that a general parallel to “the law
as the strength of sin” is to be found in that strange blending of
good and evil, of truth and error, which is the condition of our
earthly existence. But there seem also to be cases in which the
parallel is yet closer; in which good is not only the accidental cause
of evil, but the limiting principle which prevents man from working
out to the uttermost his individual and spiritual nature. In some
degree, for example, society may exercise the same tyranny over us,
and its conventions be stumbling-blocks to us of the same kind as
the law to the contemporaries of St. Paul; or, in another way, the
thought of self and the remembrance of our past life may “ deceive
and slay us.” Asin the description of the seventh chapter of the

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 513

Romans:— “ It was I, and it was not I; and who can deliver me from
the influence of education and the power of my former self?” Or
faith and reason, reason and faith may seem mutually to limit each
other, and to make the same opposition in speculation that the law
and the flesh did to the Apostle in practice. Or, to seek the diffi-
culty on a lower level, while fully assured of the truths of the Gospel,
we may seem to be excluded from them by our mental or bodily con-
stitution, which no influences of the Spirit or power of habit may be
capable of changing.

I. The society even of a Christian country — and the same remark
applies equally to a Church — is only to a certain extent based upon
Christian principle. It rests neither on the view that all mankind
are evil, nor that they are all good, but on certain motives, supposed
to be strong enough to bind mankind together; on institutions handed
down from former generations; on tacit compacts between opposing
parties and opinions. Every government must tolerate, and there-
fore must to a certain degree sanction, contending forms of faith.
Even in reference to those more general principles of truth and jus-
tice which, in theory at least, equally belong to all religions, the
government is limited by expediency, and seeks only to enforce
them so far as is required for the preservation of society. Hence
arises a necessary opposition between the moral principles of the
individual and the political principles of a state. A good man may
be sensitive for his faith, zealous for the honour of God, and for
every moral and spiritual good; the statesman has to begin by con-
sidering the conditions of human society. Aristotle raises a famous
question, whether the good citizen is the good man? We have
rather to raise the question, whether the good man is the good citi-
zen? If matters of state are to be determined by abstract prin-
ciples of morality and religion,—if, for the want of such principles,
whole nations are to be consigned to the vengeance of heaven,—if
the rule is to be not “my kingdom is not of this world,” but, “we
ought to obey God rather than man,”—there is nothing left but to

supersede civil society, and found a religious one in its stead.

FOL, 31. . LL

514 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

It is no imaginary spectre that we are raising, but one that acts
powerfully on the minds of religious men. Is it not commonly said
by many, that the government is unchristian, that the legislature is
unchristian, that all governments and all legislatures are the enemies
of Christ and his Church? Herein to them is the fixed evil of the
world; not in vice, or in war, or in injustice, or in falsehood; but
simply in the fact that the constitution of their country conforms to
the laws of human society. It is not necessary to suppose that they
will succeed in carrying out their principles, or that a civilised nation
will place its liberties in the keeping of a religious party. But,
without succeeding, they do a great deal of harm to themselves and

to the world. For they draw the mind away from the simple truths

of the Gospel to manifestations of opinion and party spirit; they .

waste their own power to do good; some passing topic of theo-
logical controversy drains their life. We may not “do evil that
good may come,” they say; and “what is morally wrong cannot ke
politically right;” and with this misapplied “syllogism of the con-

science” they would make it impossible, in the mixed state of human

affairs, to act at all, either for good or evil. He who seriously be- |

lieves that not for our actual sins, but for some legislative measure
of doubtful expediency, the wrath of God is hanging over his
country, is in so unreal a state of mind as to be scarcely capable of
discerning the real evils by which we are surrounded. The reme-
dies of practical ills sink into insignificance compared with some
point in which the interests of religion appear to be, but are not,
concerned.

But it is not only in the political world that imaginary forms of
evil present themselves, and we are haunted by ideas which can
never be carried out in practice; the difficulty comes nearer home to
most of us in our social life. If governments and nations appear
unchristian, the appearance of society itself is in a certain point of
view still more unchristian. Suppose a person acquainted with the
real state of the world in which we live and move, and neither mo-

rosely depreciating nor unduly exalting human nature, to turn to the

Pe ee ee ee ee ee

ee ee

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 515

image of the Christian Church in the New Testament, how great
would the difference appear! How would the blessing of poverty
contrast with the real, even the moral advantages of wealth! the
family of love, with distinctions of ranks! the spiritual, almost su-
pernatural, society of the first Christians, with our world of fashion,
of business, of pleasure! the community of goods, with our meagre
charity to others! the prohibition of going to law before the heathen,
with our endless litigation before judges of all religions! the cross
of Christ, with our ordinary life! How little does the world in
which we live seem to be designed for the tabernacle of immortal
souls! How large a portion of mankind, even in a civilised country,
appears to be sacrificed to the rest, and to be without the means of
moral and religious improvement! How fixed, and steadfast, and
regular do dealings of money and business appear! how transient
and passing are religious objects! Then, again, consider how society,
sometimes in self-defence, sets a false stamp on good and evil; as in
the excessive punishment of the errors of women, compared with
Christ’s conduct to the woman who was a sinner. Or when men are
acknowledged to be in the sight of God equal, how strange it seems
that one should heap up money for another, and be dependent on him
for his daily life. Susceptible minds, attaching themselves, some to
one point some to another, may carry such reflections very far, until
society itself appears evil, and they desire some primitive patriarchal
mode of life. They are tired of conventionalities; they want, as
they say, to make the Gospel a reality; to place all men on a reli-
gious, social, and political equality. In this, as in the last case,
“they are kicking against the pricks;” what they want is a society
which has not the very elements of a social state; they do not per-
ceive that the cause of the evil is human nature itself, which will not
cohere without mixed motives and received forms and distinctions,
and that Providence has been pleased to rest the world on a firmer
basis than is supplied by the fleeting emotions of philanthropy, viz.
self-interest. We are not, indeed, to sit with our arms folded, and ac-

quiesce in human evil. But we must separate the accidents from the

> a ae 4

516 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

essence of this evil: questions of taste, things indifferent, or cus-
tomary, or necessary, from the weightier matters of oppression,
falsehood, vice. The ills of society are to be struggled against in
such a manner as not to violate the conditions of society; the precepts
of Scripture are to be applied, but not without distinctions of times
and countries; Christian duties are to be enforced, but not identified
with political principles. To see the world,—not as it ought to be,
but as it is,x—to be on a level with the circumstances in which
God has placed them, to renounce the remote and impossible for what
is possible and in their reach ; above all, to begin within,—these are
the limits which enthusiasts should set to their aspirations after social
good. It is a weary thing to be all our life long warring against the
elements, or, like the slaves of some eastern lord, using our hands in
a work which can only be accomplished by levers and machines.
The physician of society should aid nature instead of fighting against
it; he must let the world alone as much as he can; to a certain
degree, he will even accept things as they are in the hope of better-
ing them.

II. Mere weakness of character will sometimes afford an illus-
tration of the Apostle’s words. If there are some whose days are
“bound each to each by natural piety,” there are others on whom
the same continuous power is exercised for evil as well as good ; they
are unable to throw off their former self ; the sins of their youth lie
heavy on them; the influence of opinions which they have ceased
to hold discolours their minds. Or it may be that their weakness
takes a different form, viz., that of clinging to some favourite resolve,
or of yielding to some fixed idea which gets dominion over them, and
becomes the limit of all their ideas. A common instance of this may
be found in the use made by many persons of conscience. What-
ever they wish or fancy, whatever course of action they are led to
by some influence obvious to others, though unobserved by them-
selves, immediately assumes the necessary and stereotyped form of
the conscientious fulfilment of a duty. To every suggestion of what

is right and reasonable, they reply only with the words— “ their

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 517

consciences will not allow it.” They do what they think right;
they do not observe that they never seem to themselves to do other-
wise. No voice of authority, no opinion of others, weighs with
them when put in the scale against the dictates of what they term
conscience. As they get older, their narrow ideas of right acquire
a greater tenacity ; the world is going on, and they are as they were.
A deadening influence lies on their moral nature, the peculiarity of
which is, that, like the law, it assumes the appearance of good, dif-
fering from the law only in being unconscious. Conscience, one
may say, putting their own character into the form of a truth or
commandment, “‘ has deceived and ‘slain them.”

Another form of conscience yet more closely resembles the prin-
ciple described in the seventh chapter of the Romans. There is a state
in which man is powerless to act, and is, nevertheless, clairvoyant of
all the good and evil of his own nature. He places the good and
evil principle before him, and is ever oscillating between them. He
traces the labyrinth of conflicting principles in the world, and is yet
further perplexed and entangled. He is sensitive to every breath of
feeling, and incapable of the performance of any duty. Or take
another example: it sometimes happens that the remembrance of
past suffering, or the consciousness of sin, may so weigh aman down
as fairly to paralyse his moral power. He is distracted between what
he is and what he was ; old habits and vices, and the new character
which is being fashioned in him. Sometimes the balance seems to
hang equal ; he feels the earnest wish and desire to do rightly, but
cannot hope to find pleasure and satisfaction in a good life ; he de-
sires heartily to repent, but can never think it possible that God
should forgive. “It is I, and it is not I, but sin that dwelleth in

” “T have, and have never ceased to have, the wish for better

me.
things, even amid haunts of infamy and vice.” In such language,
even now, though with less fervour than in “the first spiritual chaos
of the affections,” does the soul cry out to God—“ O wretched man
that I am, who shall deliver me from the body of this death ?”

III. There is some danger of speculative difficulties presenting

LL 3

518 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the same hindrance and stumbling-block to our own generation, that
the law is described as doing to the contemporaries of St. Paul. As
the law was holy, just, and good, so many of these difficulties are
true, and have real grounds: all of them, except in cases where they
spring from hatred and opposition to the Gospel, are at least
innocent. And yet, by undermining received opinions, by increas-
ing vanity and egotism, instead of strengthening the will and fixing
the principles, their promulgation may become a temporary source
of evil; so that, in the words of the Apostle, it may be said of them
that, taking occasion by the truth, they deceive and slay men.
What then? is the law sin? is honest inquiry wrong? God forbid!
it is we ourselves who are incapable of receiving the results of
inquiry ; who will not believe unless we see ; who demand a proof
that we cannot have; who begin with appeals to authority, and
tradition, and consequences, and, when dissatisfied with these,
imagine that there is no other foundation on which life can repose

but the loose and sandy structure of our individual opinions.

Persons often load their belief in the hope of strengthening it ; they

escape doubt by assuming certainty. Or they believe “under an
hypothesis ;” their worldly interests lead them to acquiesce; their
higher intellectual convictions rebel. Opinions, hardly won from
study and experience, are found to be at variance with early educa-
tion, or natural temperament. Opposite tendencies grow together
in the mind; appearing and reappearing at intervals. Life becomes
a patchwork of new and old cloth, or like a garment which
changes colour in the sun.

It is true that the generation to which we belong has difficulties
to contend with, perhaps greater than those of any former age;
and certainly different from them. Some of those difficulties arise
out of the opposition of reason and faith; the critical inquiries of
which the Old and New Testament have been the subject, are a
trouble to many; the circumstance that, while the Bible is the
word of life for all men, such inquiries are open only to the few,

increases the irritation. ‘The habit cf mind which has been formed

Poh Ie Oe A ae et TN Re SO

i A i.

ST ee
CR a el le aden Pe

="

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. 519

in the study of Greek or Roman history may be warned off the
sacred territory, but cannot really be prevented from trespassing;
still more impossible is it to keep the level of knowledge at one
point in Germany, at another in England. Geology, ethnology,
historical and metaphysical criticism, assail in- succession not the
Scriptures themselves, but notions and beliefs which in the minds
of many good men are bound up with them. The eternal strain to
keep theology where it is while the world is going on, specious
reconcilements, political or ecclesiastical exigencies, recent attempts
to revive the past, and the reaction to which they have given birth,
the contrast that everywhere arises of old and new, all add to the
confusion. Probably, no other age has been to the same extent
the subject of cross and contradictory influences. What can be more
unlike than the tone of sermons and of newspapers ? or the ideas of
men on art, politics, and religion, now, and half a generation ago?
The thoughts of a few original minds, like wedges, pierce into all
received and conventional opinions and are almost equally re-
moved from either. The destruction of “shams,” that is, the realisa-
tion of things as they are amid all the conventions of thought and
speech and action, is also an element of unsettlement. The excess
of self-reflection again, is not favourable to strength or simplicity
of character. Every one seems to be employed in decomposing the
world, human nature, and himself. The discovery is made that
good and evil are mixed in a far more subtle way than at first sight
would have appeared possible ; and that even extremes of both meet
in the same person. The mere analysis of moral and religious truth,
_the fact that we know the origin of many things which the last
generation received on authority, is held by some to destroy their
sacredness. Lastly, there are those who feel that all the doubts of
sceptics put together, fall short of that great doubt which has in-
sinuated itself into their minds, from the contemplation of mankind
—saying one thing and doing another.

It is foolish to lament over these things; it would be still more
foolish to denounce them. They are the mental trials of the age

L234

520 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

and country in which God has placed us. If they seem at times
to exercise a weakening or unsettling influence, may we not hope
that increasing love of truth, deeper knowledge of ourselves and
other men, will, in the end, simplify and not perplex the path of
life. We may leave off in mature years where we began in youth,
and receive not only the kingdom of God, but the world also, as
“little children.” The analysis of moral and religious truth may
correct its errors without destroying its obligations. Experience of
the illusions of religious feeling at a particular time should lead us
to place religion on a foundation which is independent of feeling.
Because the Scripture is no longer held to be a book of geology or
ethnology, or a supernatural revelation of historical facts, it will not
cease to be the law of our lives, exercising an influence over us,
different in kind from the ideas of philosophical systems, or the
aspirations of poetry or romance. Because the world (of which we
are a part) is hypocritical and deceitful, and individuals go about
dissecting their neighbours’ motives and lives, that is a reason
for cherishing a simple and manly temper of mind, which does not
love men the less because it knows human nature more; which
pierces the secrets of the heart, not by any process of anatomy, but by
the light of an eye from which the mists of selfishness are dispersed.

IV. The relation in which science stands to us may seem to bear
but a remote resemblance to that in which the law stood to the
Apostle St. Paul. Yet the analogy is not fanciful, but real. Traces
of physical laws are discernible everywhere in the world around
us; in ourselves also, whose souls are knit together with our bodies,
whose bodies are a part of the material creation. It seems as if
nature came so close to us as to leave no room for the motion of our
will: instead of the inexhaustible grace of God enabling us to say,
in the language of the Apostle, “I can do all things through Christ
that strengtheneth me,” we become more and more the slaves of our
own physical constitution. Our state is growing like that of a
person whose mind is over sensitive to the nervous emotions of his

own bodily frame. And as the self-consciousness becomes stronger

THE LAW AS THE STRENGTH OF SIN. a21

and the contrast between faith and experience more vivid, there
arises a conflict between the spirit and the flesh, nature and grace,
not unlike that of which the Apostle speaks, No one who, instead
of hanging to the past, will look forward to the future, can expect
that natural science should stand in the same attitude towards
revelation fifty years hence as at present. The faith of mankind
varies from age to age; it is weaker, or it may be stronger, at one
time than at another. But that which never varies or turns aside,
which is always going on and cannot be driven back, is knowledge
based on the sure ground of observation and experiment, the regular
progress of which is itself matter of observation. The stage at
which the few have arrived is already far in advance of the many,
and if there were nothing remaining to be discovered, still the
diffusion of the knowledge that we have, without new addition,
would exert a great influence on religious and social life. Still
greater is the indirect influence which science exercises through the
medium of the arts. In one century a single invention has changed
the face of Europe: three or four such inventions might produce a
gulf between us and the future far greater than the interval which
separates ancient from modern civilisation. Doubtless God has
provided a way that the thought of Him should not be banished from
the hearts of men. And habit, and opinion, and prescription may
“last our time,” and many motives may conspire to keep our minds
off the coming change. But if ever our present knowledge of
geology, of languages, of the races and religions of mankind, of the
human frame itself, shall be regarded as the starting-point of a goal
which has been almost reached, supposing too the progress of science
to be accompanied by a corresponding development of the mechanical
arts, we can hardly anticipate, from what we already see, the new
relation that will then arise between reason and faith. Perhaps the
very opposition between them may have died away. At any rate
experience shows that religion is not stationary when all other
things are moving onward.

Changes of this kind pass gradually over the world ; the mind of

522 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

man is not suddenly thrown into a state for which it is unprepared.
No one has more doubts than he can carry; the way of life is not
found to stop and come to an end in the midst of a volcano, or on
the edge of a precipice. Dangers occur, not from the disclosure
of any new, or hitherto unobserved, facts, for which, as for all
_ other blessings, we have reason to be thankful to God; but from our
concealment or denial of them, from the belief that we can make
them other than they are; from the fancy that some @ priori
notion, some undefined word, some intensity of personal conviction,
is the weapon with which they are to be met. New facts, whether
bearing on Scripture, or on religion generally, or on morality, are
sure to win their way; the tide refuses to recede at any man’s
bidding. And there are not wanting signs that the increase of
secular knowledge is beginning to be met by a corresponding progress
in religious ideas. Controversies are dying out; the lines of party
are fading into one another; niceties of doctrine are laid aside.
The opinions respecting the inspiration of Scripture, which are held
in the present day by good and able men, are not those of fifty years
ago; a change may be observed on many points, a reserve on still
more. Formulas of reconciliation have sprung up: “ the Bible is not
a book of science,” “ the inspired writers were not taught super-
naturally what they could have learned from ordinary sources,”
resting-places in the argument at which travellers are the more ready
to halt, because they do not perceive that they are only temporary.
For there is no real resting-place but in the entire faith, that all true
knowledge is arevelation of the will of God. In the case of the poor
and suffering, we often teach resignation to the accidents of life;
it is not less plainly a duty of religious men, to submit to the pro-
gress of knowledge. That is anew kind of resignation, in which
many Christians have to school themselves. When the difficulty may
seem, in anticipation, to be greatest, they will find, with the Apostle,

that there is a way out: “The truth has made them free.”

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH.

No doctrine in later times has been looked at so exclusively through
the glass of controversy as that of justification. From being the
simplest it has become the most difficult; the language of the
heart has lost itself in a logical tangle. Differences have been
drawn out as far as possible, and then taken back and reconciled.
The extreme of one view has more than once produced a reaction in
favour of the other. Many senses have been attributed to the same
words, and simple statements carried out on both sides into endless
conclusions. New formulas of conciliation have been put in the
place of old-established phrases, and have soon died away, because
they had no root in language or in the common sense or feeling of
mankind. The difficulty of the.subject has been increased by the
different degrees of importance attached to it: while to some it is an
“ articulus stantis aut cadentis ecclesie,” others have never been able
to see in it more than a verbal dispute.

This perplexity on the question of righteousness by faith is partly
due to the character of the age in which it began to revive. Men
felt at the Reformation the need of a spiritual religion, and could no
_longer endure the yoke which had been put upon their fathers.
The heart rebelled against the burden of ordinances ; it wanted to
take a nearer way to reconciliation with God. But when the
struggle was over, and individuals were seeking to impart to others
the peace which they had found themselves, they had no simple or
natural expression of their belief. They were alone in a world in
which the human mind had been long enslaved. It was necessary

for them to go down into the land of the enemy, and get their

524 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

weapons sharpened before they could take up a position and fortify
their camp.

In other words, the Scholastic Logic had been for six centuries
previous the great instrument of training the human mind; it had
grown up with it, and become a part of it. Neither would it have
been more possible for the Reformers to have laid it aside than to
have laid aside the use of language itself. Around theology it lingers
still, seeming reluctant to quit a territory which is peculiarly its
own. No science has hitherto fallen so completely under its power ;
no other is equally unwilling to ask the meaning of terms; none has
been so fertile in reasonings and consequences. The change of which
Lord Bacon was the herald has hardly yet reached it; much less
could the Reformation have anticipated the New Philosophy.

The whole mental structure of that time rendered it necessary
that the Reformers, no less than their opponents, should resort to
the scholastic methods of argument. The difference between the two
parties did not lie here. Perhaps it may be said with truth that
the Reformers were even more schoolmen than their opponents,
because they dealt more with abstract ideas, and were more con-
centrated on a single topic. The whole of Luther’s teaching was
summed up in a single article, “ Righteousness by Faith.” That was
to him the Scriptural expression of a Spiritual religion. But this,
according to the manner of that time, could not be left in the simple
language of St. Paul. It was to be proved from Scripture first, then
isolated by definition ; then it might be safely drawn out into remote
consequences.

And yet, why was this? Why not repeat, with a slight alteration
of the words rather than the meaning of the Apostle, Neither justifi-
cation by faith nor justification by works, but “a new creature”?
Was there not yet “a more excellent way” to oppose things to words,
—the life, and spirit, and freedom of the Gospel, to the deadness,
and powerlessness, and slavery of the Roman Church? So it seems
natural to us to reason, looking back after an interval of three

centuries on the weary struggle ; so absorbing to those who took part

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 525

in it once, so distant now either to us or them. But so it could not
be. The temper of the times, and the education of the Reformers
themselves, made it necessary that one dogmatic system should be
met by another. The scholastic divinity had become a charmed
circle, and no man could venture out of it, though he might oppose
or respond within it.

And thus justification by faith, and justification by works, became
the watchword of two parties. We may imagine ourselves at that
point in the controversy when the Pelagian dispute had been long
since hushed, and that respecting Predestination had not yet begun ;
when men were not differing about original sin, and had not begun
to differ about the Divine decrees. What Luther sought for was to
_ find a formula which expressed most fully the entire, unreserved,
immediate dependence of the believer on Christ. What the Catholic
sought for was so to modify this formula as not to throw dishonour
on the Church by making religion a merely personal or individual
matter ; or on the lives of holy men of old, who had wrought out their
salvation by asceticism ; or endanger morality by appearing to under-
value good works. It was agreed by all, that men are saved through
Christ ;—not of themselves, but of the grace of God, was equally
agreed since the condemnation of Pelagius ;—that faith and works
imply each other, was not disputed by either. A narrow space is
left for the combat, which has to be carried on within the outworks
of an earlier creed, in which, nevertheless, great subtlety of human
thought and the greatest differences of character admit of being
displayed. |

On this narrow ground the first question that naturally arises is,
how faith is to be defined ? is it to include love and holiness, or to
be separated from them? If the former, it seems to lose its appre-
hensive dependent nature, and to be scarcely distinguishable from
works; if the latter, the statement is too refined for the common sense
of mankind; though made by Luther, it could scarcely be retained
even by his immediate followers. Again, is it an act or a state ? are

we to figure it as a point, oras a line? Is the whole of our spiritual

526 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

life anticipated in the beginning, or may faith no less than works,
justification equally with sanctification, be conceived of as going on
to perfection? Is justification an objective act of Divine mercy, or
a subjective state of which the believer is conscious in himself? Is
the righteousness of faith imputed or inherent, an attribution of
the merits of Christ, or a renewal of the human heart itself? What
is the test of a true faith? And is it possible for those who are
possessed of it to fall away ? How can we exclude the doctrine of
human merit consistently with Divine justice? How do we account
for the fact that some have this faith, and others are without it,
this difference being apparently independent of their moral state?
If faith comes by grace, is it imparted to few or to all? And in
what relation does the whole doctrine stand to Predestinarianism
on the one hand, and to the Catholic or Sacramental theory on the
other f

So at many points the doctrine of righteousness by faith touches
the metaphysical questions of subject and object, of necessity and
freedom, of habits and actions, and of human consciousness, like a
magnet drawing to itself philosophy, as it has once drawn to itself the
history of Europe. ‘There were distinctions also of an earlier date,
with which it had to struggle, of deeper moral import than their
technical form would lead us to suppose, such as that of congruity
and condignity, in which the analogy of Christianity is transferred
to heathenism, and the doer of good works before justification is
regarded as a shadow of the perfected believer. Neither must we
omit to observe that, as the doctrine of justification by faith had a
close connection with the Pelagian controversy, carrying the decision
of the Church a step further, making Divine Grace not only the
source of human action, but also requiring the consciousness or
assurance of grace in the believer himself: so it put forth its roots
in another direction, attaching itself to Anselm as well as Augustin,
and comprehending the idea of satisfaction ; not now, as formerly,
of Christ offered in the sacrifice of the mass, but of one sacrifice,

once offered for the sins of men, whether considered as an expiation

Set ie pace egg ical ae tema ri etal: St hes -

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 527

by suffering, or implying only a reconciliation between God and
man, or a mere manifestation of the righteousness of God.

Such is the whole question, striking deep, and spreading far and
wide with its offshoots. It is not our intention to enter on the in-
vestigation of all these subjects, many of which are interesting as
phases of thought in the history of the Church, but have no bearing
on the interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistles, and would be out of
place here. Our inquiry will embrace two heads: (1.) What did
St. Paul mean by the expression “ righteousness of faith,” in that
age ere controversies about his meaning arose ; and (2.) What do we
mean by it, now that such controversies have died away, and the
interest in them is retained only by the theological student, and the
Church and the world are changed, and there is no more question of
Jew or Gentile, circumcision or uncircumcision, and we do not be-
come Christians, but are so from our birth. Many volumes are not
required to explain the meaning of the Apostle; nor can the words
of eternal life be other than few and simple to ourselves.

There is one interpretation of the Epistles of St. Paul which is
necessarily in some degree false; thatis, the interpretation put upon
them by later controversy. When the minds of men are absorbed
in a particular circle of ideas they take possession of any stray
verse, which becomes the centre of their world. They use the words
of Scripture, but are incapable of seeing that they have another
meaning and are used in a different connection from that in which
they employ them. Sometimes there is a degree of similarity in the
application which tends to conceal the difference. Thus Luther and
“St. Paul both use the same term, “justified by faith ;” and the strength
of the Reformer’s words is the authority of St. Paul. Yet, observe
how far this agreement is one of words: how far of things. For Luther
is speaking solely of individuals, St. Paul also of nations; Luther of
faith absolutely, St. Paul of faith as relative to the law. With St.
Paul faith is the symbol of the universality of the Gospel. Luther ex-
cludes this or any analogous point of view. In St. Paul there is no

opposition of faith and love; nor does he further determine righteous-

528 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ness by faith as meaning a faith in the blood or even in the death of
Christ; nor does he suppose consciousness or assurance in the person
justified. But all these are prominent features of the Lutheran doc-
trine. Once more: the faith of St. Paul has reference to the evil of
the world of sight ; which was soon to vanish away, that the world in
which faith walks might be revealed; but no such allusion is
implied in the language of the Reformer. Lastly; the change in
the use of the substantive “righteousness ” to “justification” is the
indication of a wide difference between St. Paul and Luther; the
natural, almost accidental, language of St. Paul having already
passed into a technical formula.

These contrasts make us feel that St. Paul can only be interpreted
by himself, not from the systems of modern theologians, nor even
from the writings of one who had so much in common with him as
Luther. It is the spirit and feeling of St. Paul which Luther repre-
sents, not the meaning of his words. A touch of nature in both
“makes them kin.” And without bringing down one to the level of
the other, we can imagine St. Paul returning that singular affection,
almost like an attachment to a living friend, which the great Re-
former felt towards the Apostle. But this personal attachment or
resemblance in no way lessens the necessary difference between the
preaching of Luther and of St. Paul, which arose in some degree
perhaps from their individual character, but chiefly out of the dif-
ferent circumstances and modes of thought of their respective ages.
At the Reformation we are at another stage of the human mind, in
which system and logic and the abstractions of Aristotle have a
kind of necessary force, when words have so completely taken the
place of things, that the minutest distinctions appear to have an
intrinsic value.

It has been said (and the remark admits of a peculiar application,
to theology), that few persons know sufficient of things to be able to
say whether disputes are merely verbal or not. Yet, on the other
hand, it must be admitted that, whatever accidental advantage

theology may derive from system and definition, mere accurate state-

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 529

ments can never form the substance of our belief. No one doubts
that Christianity could be in the fullest sense taught to a child or a
savage, without any mention of justification or satisfaction or pre-
destination. Why should we not receive the Gospel as “little
children?” Why should we not choose the poor man’s part in the
inheritance of the kingdom of heaven? Why elaborate doctrinal
abstractions which are so subtle in their meaning as to be in great
danger of being lost in their translation from one language to
another? which are always running into consequences inconsistent
with our moral nature, and the knowledge of God derived from it?
which are not the prevailing usage of Scripture, but technical terms
which we have gathered from one or two passages, and made the
key-notes of our scale? The words satisfaction and predestination
nowhere occur in Scripture; the word regeneration only twice, and
but once in a sense at all similar to that which it bears among our-
selves; the word justification twice only, and nowhere as a purely
abstract term.

But although language and logic have strangely transfigured the
meaning of Scripture, we cannot venture to say that all theological
controversies are questions of words. If from their winding mazes
we seek to retrace our steps, we still find differences which have a
deep foundation in the opposite tendencies of the human mind, and
the corresponding division of the world itself. That men of one
temper of mind adopt one expression rather than another may be
partly an accident; but the adoption of an expression by persons of
marked character makes the difference of words a reality also. That
can scarcely be thought a matter of words which cut in sunder the

Church, which overthrew princes, which made the line of demar-
cation between Jewish and Gentile Christians in the Apostolic
age, and is so, in another sense, between Protestant and Catholic
at the present day. - And in a deeper way of reflection than this, if
we turn from the Church to the individual, we seem to see around
us opposite natures and characters, whose lives really exhibit a

difference corresponding to that of which we are speaking. The

VOL. Il. MM

530 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

one incline to morality, the other to religion; the one to the sacra-
mental, the other to the spiritual; the one to multiplicity in outward
ordinances, the other to simplicity; the one consider chiefly the
means, the other the end; the one desire to dwell upon doctrinal
statements, the other need only the name of Christ; the one turn to
ascetic practices, to lead a good life, and to do good to others, the
other to faith, humility, and dependence on God. We may sometimes
find the opposite attributes combine with each other (there have
ever been cross divisions on this article of belief in the Christian
world; the great body of the Reformed Churches, and a small
minority of Roman Catholics before the Reformation, being on the
one side; and the whole Roman Catholic Church since the Refor-
mation, and a section of the Protestant Episcopalians, and some lesser
communions, on the other); still, in general, the first of these cha-
racters answers to that doctrine which the Roman Church sums up
in the formula of justification by works; the latter is that temper
of mind which finds its natural dogmatic expression in the words
“ We are justified by faith.”

These latter words have been carried out of their original circle
of ideas into a new one by the doctrines of the Reformation. They
have become hardened, stiffened, sharpened by the exigencies of con-
troversy, and torn from what may be termed their context in the
Apostolical age. To that age we must return ere we can think in
the Apostle’s language. His conception of faith, although simpler
than our own, has nevertheless a peculiar relation to his own day ;
it is at once wider, and also narrower, than the use of the word
among ourselves, —wider in that it is the symbol of the admission of
the Gentiles into the Church, but narrower also in that it is the
negative of the law. Faith is the proper technical term which
excludes the law; being what the law is not, as the law is what
faith is not. No middle term connects the two, or at least none
which the Apostle admits, until he has first widened the breach
between them to the uttermost. He does not say, “ Was not Abraham
our father justified by works (as well as by faith), when he had

tnt etek eos
SAIS

ee ae ee en ee eas ae) Eee

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 531

offered up Isaac his son on the altar?” but only, “ What saith the
Scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him for
righteousness.”

The Jewish conception of righteousness was the fulfilment of the
Commandments. He who walked in all the precepts of the law
blameless, like Daniel in the Old Testament, or Joseph and Nathanael
in the New, was righteous before God. “ What shall I do to inherit
eternal life? Thou knowest the Commandments. Do not commit
adultery, do not steal, do not bear false witness. All these have I
kept from my youth up.” This is a picture of Jewish righteousness
as it presents itself in its most favourable light. But it was a
righteousness which comprehended the observance of ceremonial
details as well as moral precepts, which confused questions of a new
moon or a sabbath, with the weightier matters of common honesty
or filial duty. It might be nothing more than an obedience to the
law as such, losing itself on the surface of religion, in casuistical
distinctions about meats and drinks, or vows or forms of oaths, or
purifications, without any attempt to make clean that which is
within. It might also pierce inward to the dividing asunder of the
soul. Then was heard the voice of conscience crying, “All these
things cannot make the doers thereof perfect.” When every external
obligation was fulfilled, the internal began. Actions must include
thoughts and intentions,— the Seventh Commandment extends to the
adultery of the heart; in one word, the law must become a spirit.
(See “ Essay on the Law as the Strength of Sin.”)

But to the mind of St. Paul the spirit presented itself not so much
as a higher fulfilment of the law, but as antagonistic to it. From
this point of view, it appeared not that man could never fulfil the
law perfectly, but that he could never fulfil it at all. What God
required was something different in kind from legal obedience.
What man needed was a return to God and nature. He was bur-
dened, straitened, shut out from the presence of his Father,—a
servant, not a son; to whom, in a spiritual sense, the heaven was

become as iron, and the earth brass. ‘The new righteousness must

MM 2

532 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

raise him above the burden of ordinances, and bring him into a
living communion with God. It must be within, and not without
him,—written not on tables of stone, but on fleshly tables of the
heart. But inward righteousness was no peculiar privilege of the
Israelites ; it belonged to all mankind. And the revelation of it, as
it satisfied the need of the individual soul, vindicated also the ways
of God to man; it showed God to be equal in justice and mercy to
all mankind. | :

As the symbol of this inward righteousness, St. Paul found an
expression—righteousness by faith—derived from those passages
in the Old Testament which spoke of Abraham being justified by:
faith. It was already in use among the Jews; but it was the Apostle
who stamped it first with a permanent and universal import. The
faith of St. Paul was not the faith of the Patriarchs only, who
believed in the promises made to their descendants; it entered
within the veil—out of the reach of ordinances—beyond the evil
of this present life; it was the instrument of union with Christ, im
whom all men were one; whom they were expecting to come from
heaven. The Jewish nation itself was too far gone to be saved
as a nation: individuals had a nearer way. The Lord was at
hand; there was no time for a long life of laborious service. As at
the last hour, when we have to teach men rather how to die than
how to live, the Apostle could only say to those who would receive
it, “ Believe; all things are possible to him that believes.”

Such are some of the peculiar aspects of the Apostle’s doctrine of
righteousness by faith. To our own minds it has become a later
stage or a particular form of the more general doctrine of salvation
through Christ, of the grace of God to man, or of the still more
general truth of spiritual religion. It is the connecting link by
which we appropriate these to ourselves, —the hand which we put
out to apprehend the mercy of God. It was not so to the Apostle.
To him grace and faith and the Spirit are not parts of a doctrinal
system, but different expressions of the same truth. “ Beginning in

the Spirit” is another way of saying “ Being justified by faith.” He

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 533

uses them indiscriminately, and therefore we cannot suppose that he
could have laid any stress on distinctions between them. Even the
apparently precise antithesis of the prepositions év, du varies in
different passages. Only in reference to the law, faith, rather than
grace, is the more correct and natural expression. It was Christ or
not Christ, the Spirit or not the Spirit, faith and the law, that
were the dividing principles: not Christ through faith, as opposed
to Christ through works; or the Spirit as communicated through
grace, to the Spirit as independent of grace.

Illusive as are the distinctions of later controversies as guides to
the interpretation of Scripture, there is another help, of which we
ean hardly avail ourselves too much,—the interpretation of fact.
To read the mind of the Apostle, we must read also the state of the
world and the Church by which he was surrounded. Now, there
are two great facts which correspond to the doctrine of righteousness
‘by faith, which is also the doctrine of the universality of the Gospel:
first, the vision which the Apostle saw on the way to Damascus;
secondly, the actual conversion of the Gentiles by the preaching of
the Apostle. Righteousness by faith, admission of the Gentiles,
even the rejection and restoration of the Jews, are—himself under
so many different points of view. ‘The way by which God had led
him was the way also by which he was leading other men. When
he preached righteousness by faith, his conscience also bore him
witness that this was the manner in which he had himself passed from
‘darkness to light, from the burden of ordinances to the power of an
endless life. In proclaiming the salvation of the Gentiles, he was
_ interpreting the world as it was; their admission into the Church
had already taken place before the eyes of all mankind; it was a
purpose of God that was actually fulfilled, not waiting for some
future revelation. Just as when doubts are raised respecting his
_Apostleship, he cut them short by the fact that he was an Apostle,
and did the work of an Apostle; so, in adjusting the relations of
Jew and Gentile, and justifying the ways of God, the facts, read
aright, are the basis of the doctrine which he teaches. All that he

MM 38

534 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

further shows is, that these facts were in accordance with the Old
Testament, with the words of the Prophets, and the dealings of God
with the Jewish people. And the Apostles at Jerusalem, equally
with himself, admitted the success of his mission as an evidence of
its truth.

But the faith which St. Paul preached was not merely the evidence
of things not seen, in which the Gentiles also had part, nor only the
reflection of “the violence” of the world around him, which was
taking the kingdom of heaven by force. The source, the hidden
life, from which justification flows, in which it lives, is— Christ. It
is true that we nowhere find in the Epistles the expression “ justifi-
cation by Christ” exactly in the sense of modern theology. But, on:
the other hand, we are described as dead with Christ, we live with
Him, we are members of His body, we follow Him in all the stages
of His being. All this is another way of expressing “ We are
justified by faith.” That which takes us out of ourselves and links
us with Christ, which anticipates in an instant the rest of life, which
is the door of every heavenly and spiritual relation, presenting us
through a glass with the image of Christ crucified, is faith. The
difference between our own mode of thinking and that of the Apostle
is mainly this, —that to him Christ is set forth more as in a picture,
and less through the medium of ideas or figures of speech; and that
while we conceive the Saviour more naturally as an object of faith,
to St. Paul He is rather the indwelling power of life which is
fashioned in him, the marks of whose body he bears, the measure of
whose sufferings he fills up. _

When in the Gospel it is said, “ Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,
and thou shalt be saved,” this is substantially the same truth as
“We are justified by faith.” It is another way of expressing,
“ Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through
our Lord Jesus Christ.” Yet we may note two points of difference,
as well as two of resemblance, in the manner in which the doctrine
is set forth in the Gospel as compared with the manner of the

Epistles of St. Paul. First, in the omission of any connexion between

ay,

ON. RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 539

the doctrine of faith in Christ, and the admission of the Gentiles.
The Saviour is within the borders of Israel; and accordingly little
is said of the “sheep not of this fold,” or the other husbandmen who
shall take possession of the vineyard. Secondly, there is in the

words of Christ no antagonism or opposition to the law, except so

far as the law itself represented an imperfect or defective morality,

or the perversions of the law had become inconsistent with every
moral principle. Two points of resemblance have also to be remarked
between the faith of the Gospels and of the Epistles. In the first
place, both are accompanied by forgiveness of sins. As our Saviour
to the disciple who affirms his belief says, “Thy sins be forgiven

thee;” so St. Paul, when seeking to describe, in the language of

‘the Old Testament, the state of justification by faith, cites the words

of David, “ Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute

sin.” Secondly, they have both a kind of absoluteness which raises

them above earthly things. There is a sort of omnipotence attributed
to faith, of which the believer is made a partaker. ‘“ Whoso hath
faith as a grain of mustard seed, and should say unto this mountain,

‘Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea, it shall be done unto

him,” is the language of our Lord. “I can do all things through
Christ that strengtheneth me,” are the words of St. Paul.

Faith, in the view of the Apostle, has a further aspect, which is
freedom. That quality in us which in reference to God and Christ
is faith, in reference to ourselves and our fellow-men is Christian
liberty. “‘ With this freedom Christ has made us free ;” “where the
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” It is the image also of the

communion of the world to come. “The Jerusalem that is above is

free,” and “the creature is waiting to be delivered into the glorious
liberty of the children of God.” It applies to the Church as now no
longer confined in the prison-house of the Jewish dispensation ; to
the grace of God, which is given irrespectively to all; to the indi-
vidual, the power of whose will is now loosed; to the Gospel, as
freedom from the law, setting the conscience at rest about questions

of meats and drinks, and new moons and sabbaths; and, above all

MM 4

536 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

to the freedom from the consciousness of sin: in all these senses the
law of the spirit of life is also the law of freedom.

In modern language, assurance has been deemed necessary to the
definition of a true faith. There is a sense, too, in which final
assurance entered into the conception of the faith of the Epistles.
Looking at men from without, it was possible for them to fall
away finally ; it was possible also to fall without falling away; as
St. John says, there is a sin unto death, and there is a sin not unto
death. But looking inwards into their hearts and consciences, their —
salvation was not a matter of probability; they knew whom they
had believed, and were confident that He who had begun the good
work in them would continue it unto the end. All calculations
respecting the future were to them lost in the fact that they were
already saved; to use a homely expression, they had no time to
inquire whether the state to which they were called was permanent
and final. The same intense faith which separated them from the
present world, had already given them a place in the world to come.
They had not to win the crown,—it was already won: this life,
when they thought of themselves in relation to Christ, was the next;
as their union with Him seemed to them more true and real than
the mere accidents of their temporal existence.

A few words will briefly recapitulate the doctrine of righteousness
by faith as gathered from the Epistles of St. Paul.

Faith, then, according to the Apostle, is the spiritual principle
whereby we go out of ourselves to hold communion with God and
Christ; not like the faith of the Epistle to the Hebrews, clothing
itself in the shadows of the law; but opposed to the law, and of a
nature purely moral and spiritual. It frees man from the flesh, the
law, the world, and from himself also; that is, from his sinful nature,
which is the meeting of these three elements in his spiritual con-
sciousness. And to be “justified” is to pass into a new state; such
as that of the Christian world when compared with the Jewish
or Pagan; such as that which St. Paul had himself felt at the

moment of his conversion; such as that which he reminds the

ON. RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 537

Galatian converts they had experienced, “before whose eyes Jesus
Christ was evidently set forth crucified ;” an inward or subjective
state, to which the outward or objective act of calling, on God’s
part, through the preaching of the Apostle, corresponded ; which,
considered on a wider scale, was the acceptance of the Gentiles and
‘of every one who feared God; corresponding in like manner to the
eternal purpose of God; indicated in the case of the individual by
his own inward assurance ; in the case of the world at large, testified
by the fact ; accompanied in the first by the sense of peace and for-
giveness, and implying to mankind generally the last final principle
of the Divine Government, —“ God concluded all under sin that He
might have mercy upon all.”

We acknowledge that there is a difference between the meaning of
justification by faith to St. Paul and to ourselves. Eighteen hundred
years cannot have passed away, leaving the world and the mind of
man, or the use of language, the same as it was. Times have altered,
and Christianity, partaking of the social and political progress of
mankind, receiving, too, its own intellectual development, has in-
‘evitably lost its simplicity. The true use of philosophy is to restore
this simplicity ; to undo the perplexities which the love of system or
past philosophies, or the imperfection of language or logic, have
made ; to lighten the burden which the traditions of ages have im-
posed upon us. ‘To understand St. Paul we found it necessary to
get rid of definitions and deductions, which might be compared to
a mazy undergrowth of some noble forest, which we must clear
away ere we can wander in its ranges. And it is necessary for
ourselves also to return from theology to Scripture; to seek a
truth to live and die in,—not to be the subject of verbal disputes,
which entangle the religious sense in scholastic refinements. The
words of eternal life are few and simple, ‘“‘ Believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ and thou shalt be saved.”

Remaining, then, within the circle of the New Testament, which
we receive as a rule of life for ourselves, no less than for the early

Church, we must not ignore the great differences by which we are

538 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

distinguished from those for whom it was written. Words of life
and inspiration, heard by them with ravishment for the first time,
are to us words of fixed and conventional meaning ; they no longer
express feelings of the heart, but ideas of the head. Nor is the
difference less between the state of the world then and now; not
only of the outward world in which we live, but of that inner
world which we ourselves are. ‘The law is dead to us, and we to
the law ; and.the language of St. Paul is relative to what has passed
away. The transitions of meaning in the use of the word law tend
also to a corresponding variation in the meaning of faith. We are
not looking for the immediate coming of Christ, and do not anticipate,
in a single generation the end of human things, or the history of a
life in the moment of baptism or conversion. ‘To us time and
eternity have a fixed boundary, between them there is a gulph
‘which we cannot pass; we do not mingle in our thoughts earth and
heaven. Last of all, we are in a professing Christian world, in
which religion, too, has become a sort of business ; moreover, we see
a long way off truths of which the first believers were eye-witnesses.
Hence it has become difficult for us to conceive the simple force of
such expressions as “ dead with Christ,” “if ye then be risen with
Christ,”— which are repeated in prayers or sermons, but often
‘convey no distinct impression to the minds of the hearers.

The neglect of these differences between ourselves and the first
disciples has sometimes led to a distortion of doctrine and a per-
version of life; where words had nothing to correspond to them,
views of human nature have been invented to suit the supposed
meaning of St. Paul. Thus, for example, the notion of legal righte-
ousness is indeed a fiction as applied to our own times. Nor, in
truth, is the pride of human nature, or the tendency to rebel against
the will of God, or to attach an undue value to good works, better
founded. Men are evil in all sorts of ways: they deceive themselves
and others; they walk by the opinion of others, and not by faith;
they give way to their passions; they are imperious and oppressive
to one another. But if we look closely, we perceive that most of

ON. RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 539

their sins are not consciously against God; the pride of rank, or
wealth, or power, or intellect, may be shown towards their brethren,
but no man is proud towards God. No man does wrong for the
sake of rebelling against God. The evil is not that men are bound
under a curse by the ever-present consciousness of sin, but that sins
pass unheeded by: not that they wantonly offend God, but that they
know Him not. So, again, there may be a false sense of security
towards God, as is sometimes observed on a death-bed, when mere
physical weakness seems to incline the mind to patience and resigna-
tion; yet this more often manifests itself in a mistaken faith, than
in a reliance on good works. Or, to take another instance, we are
often surprised at the extent to which men who are not professors
of religion seem to practise Christian virtues; yet their state, how-
ever we may regard it, has nothing in common with legal or self-
righteousness.

And besides theories of religion at variance with experience,
‘which have always a kind of unsoundness, the attempt of men to
apply Scripture to their own lives in the letter rather than in the
spirit, has been very injurious in other ways to the faith of Christ.
Persons have confused the accidental circumstances or language of
the Apostolic times with the universal language of morality and
truth. They have reduced human nature to very great straits;
they have staked salvation upon the right use of a word; they have
enlisted the noblest feelings of mankind in opposition to their
“ Gospel.” They have become mystics in the attempt to follow the
Apostles, who were not mystics. Narrowness in their own way of
life has led to exclusiveness in their judgments on other men. ‘The
undue stress which they have laid on particular precepts or texts of
Scripture has closed their minds against its general purpose; the
rigidness of their own rules has rendered it impossible that they
should grow freely to “ the stature of the perfect man.” They have
ended in a verbal Christianity, which has preserved words when
the meaning of them had changed, taking the form, while it quenched
the life, of the Gospel.

540 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Leaving the peculiar and relative aspect of the Pauline doctrine,
as well as the scholastic and traditional one, we have again to ask
the meaning of justification by faith. We may divide the subject,
first, as it may be considered in the abstract; and, secondly, as per-
sonal to ourselves.

I. Our justification may be regarded as an act on God’s part. It
may be said that this act is continuous, and commensurate with
our whole lives; that although “known unto God are all His works
from the beginning,” yet that, speaking as men, and translating what
we term the acts of God into human language, we are ever being
more and more justified, as in theological writers we are said also to
be more and more sanctified. At first sight it seems that to deny
this involves an absurdity; it may be thought a contradiction to
maintain that we are justified at once, but. sanctified all our life
long. Yet perhaps this latter mode of statement is better than the
other, because it presents two aspects of the truth instead of one
‘only ; it is also a nearer expression of the inward consciousness of
the soul itself. For must we not admit that it is the unchangeable
will of God that all mankind should be saved? Justification in the
mind of the believer is the perception of this fact, which always

was. Itis not made more a fact by our knowing it for many years or

‘our whole life. And this is the witness of experience. For he who

is justified by faith does not go about doubting in himself or his
future destiny, but trusting in God. From the first moment that he
turns earnestly to God he believes that he is saved; not from any
confidence in himself, but from an overpowering sense of the love of
‘God and Christ. ; |

II. It is an old problem in philosophy, — What is the beginning
of our moral being? What is that prior principle which makes
good actions produce good habits? Which of those actions raises
us above the world of sight? Plato would have answered, the con-
templation of the idea of good. Some of ourselves would answer, by
the substitution of a conception of moral growth for the mechanical

theory of habits. Leaving out of sight our relation to God, we can

Vid Se See

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 5AT

only say, that we are fearfully and wonderfully made, with powers
which we are unable to analyse. It is a parallel. difficulty in reli-
gion which is met by the doctrine of righteousness by faith. We.
grow up spiritually, we cannot tell how; not by outward acts, nor
always by energetic effort, but stilly and silently, by the grace of
God descending upon us, as the dew falls upon the earth. When
a person is apprehensive and excited about his future state, straining
every nerve lest he should fall short of the requirements of God,
overpowered with the memory of his past sins,—that is not the
temper of mind in which he can truly serve God, or work out his
own salvation. Peace must go before as well as follow after; a
peace, too, not to be found in the necessity of law (as philosophy
has sometimes held), but in the sense of the love of God to his
creatures. He hasno right to this peace, and yet he has it; in the
consciousness of his new state there is more than he can reasonably
explain. At once and immediately the Gospel tells him that he is
justified by faith, that his pardon is simultaneous with the moment
of his belief, that he may go on his way rejoicing to fulfil the
duties of life; for, in human language, God is no longer angry
with him. | |

Ill. Thus far, in the consideration of righteousness by faith, we
have obtained two points of view, in which, though regarded in the
abstract only, the truth of which these words are the symbol has
still a meaning; first, as expressing the unchangeableness of the
mercy of God; and, secondly, the mysteriousness of human action.
As we approach nearer, we are unavoidably led to regard the gift
_of righteousness rather in reference to the subject than to the object,
in relation to man rather than God. What quality, feeling, temper,
habit in ourselves answers to it? It may be more or less conscious
to us, more of a state and less of a feeling, showing itself rather in
our lives than our lips. But for these differences we can make
allowance. It is the same faith still, under various conditions and
circumstances, and sometimes taking different names.

IV. The expression “righteousness by faith” indicates the per-

542 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

sonal character of salvation; it is not the tale of works that we do,
but we ourselves who are accepted of God. Who can bear to think
of his own actions as they are seen by the eye of the Almighty?
Looking at their defective performance, or analysing them into the
secondary motives out of which they have sprung, do we seem to
have any ground on which we can stand; is there anything which
satisfies ourselves? Yet, knowing that our own works cannot abide
the judgment of God, we know also that His love is not proportioned
to them. He is a Person who deals with us as persons over whom He
has an absolute right, who have nevertheless an endless value to
Him. When he might exact all, he forgives all ; “the kingdom of
heaven” is like not only toa Master taking account with his Servants,
but to a Father going out to meet his returning Son. The symbol
and mean of this personal relation of man to God is faith; and the
righteousness which consists not in what we do, but in what we are,
is the righteousness of faith.

V. Faith may be spoken of in the language of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, as the substance of things unseen. But what are the
things unseen? Not only an invisible world ready to flash through
the material at the appearance of Christ ; not angels, or powers of
darkness, or even God Himself “sitting,” as the Old Testament
described, “ on the circle of the heavens ;” but the kingdom of truth
and justice, the things that are within, of which God is the centre,
and with which men everywhere by faith hold communion. Faith
is the belief in the existence of this kingdom; that is, in the truth
and justice and mercy of God, who disposes all things—not, perhaps,
in our judgment for the greatest happiness of His creatures, but
absolutely in accordance with our moral notions. And that this is
not seen to be the case here, makes it a matter of faith that it will
be so in some way that we do not at present comprehend. He that
believes on God believes, first, that He is; and, secondly, that He is
the Rewarder of them that seek Him.

VI. Now, if we go on to ask what gives this assurance of the
truth and justice of God, the answer is, the life and death of Christ,

“e a

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 543

who is the Son of God, and the Revelation of God. Weknow what
He Himself has told us of God, and we cannot conceive perfect
goodness separate from perfect truth ; nay, this goodness itself is the
only conception we can form of God, if we confess what the mere
immensity of the material world tends to suggest, that the Almighty
is not a natural or even a supernatural power, but a Being of whom
the reason and conscience of man have a truer conception than
imagination in its highest flights. He is not in the storm, nor in the
thunder, nor in the earthquake, but “in the still small voice.” And
this image of God as He reveals Himself in the heart of man is
“ Christ in us the hope of glory;” Christ as He once was upon
earth in His sufferings rather than His miracles,—the image of
goodness and truth and peace and love.

We are on the edge of a theological difficulty ; for who can deny
that the image of that goodness may fade from the mind’s eye after
so many centuries, or that there are those who recognise the idea and
may be unable to admit the fact ? Can we say that this error of the
head is also a corruption of the will? The lives of such unbelievers
in the facts of Christianity would sometimes refute our explanation.
And yet it is true that Providence has made our spiritual life de-
pendent on the belief in certain truths, and those truths run up into
matters of fact, with the belief in which they have ever been asso-
ciated; it is true, also, that the most important moral consequences
flow from unbelief. We grant the difficulty: no complete answer
can be given to it on this side the grave. Doubtless God has pro-
vided a way that the sceptic no less than the believer shall receive
his due; He does not need our timid counsels for the protection of
the truth. If among those who have rejected the facts of the Gospel
history some have been rash, hypercritical, inflated with the pride of
intellect, or secretly alienated by sensuality from the faith of Christ,
—there have been others, also, upon whom we may conceive to rest a
portion of that blessing which comes to such as “have not seen and
yet have believed.”

VII. In the Epistles of St. Paul, and yet more in the Epistle te

544 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the Hebrews, the relation of Christ to mankind is expressed under
figures of speech taken from the Mosaic dispensation: He is the
Sacrifice for the sins of men, “the Lamb of God that taketh away
the sins of the world ;” the Antitype of all the types, the fulfilment
in His own person of the Jewish law. Such words may give comfort
to those who think of God under human imagery, but they seem to
require explanation when we rise to the contemplation of Him as
the God of truth, without parts or passions, who knows all things,
and cannot be angry with any, or see them other than they truly are.
What is indicated by them, to us “ who are dead to the law,” is, that
God has manifested Himself in Christ as the God of mercy; who is
mcre ready to hear than we to pray; who has forgiven us almost
before we ask Him; who has given us His only Son, and how will
He not with Him also give us all things? They intimate, on God’s
part, that He is not extreme to mark what is done amiss; in human
language, ‘‘ He is touched with the feeling of our infirmities:” on
our part, that we say to God, “Not of ourselves, but of thy grace
and mercy, O Lord.” Not in the fulness of life and health, nor in
the midst of business, nor in the schools of theology; but in the sick
chamber, where are no more earthly interests, and in the hour of
death, we have before us the living image of the truth of justification
by faith, when man acknowledges, on the confines of another world,
the unprofitableness of his own good deeds, and the goodness of God
even in afflicting him, and his absolute reliance not on works of
righteousness that he has done, but on the Divine mercy.

VIII. A true faith has been sometimes defined to be not a faith in
the unseen merely, or in God or Christ, but a personal assurance of
salvation. Such a feeling may be only the veil of sensualism; it
may be also the noble confidence of St.Paul. “I am persuaded that
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor
things present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any
other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God
which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.” It may be an emotion, resting

on no other ground except that we believe; or, a conviction deeply

ON RIGHTEOUSNESS BY FAITH. 545

rooted in our life andcharacter. Scripture and reason alike seem to
require this belief in our own salvation: and yet to assume that we
are at the end of the race may make us lag in our course. What-
ever danger there is in the doctrine of the Divine decrees, the danger
is nearer home, and more liable to influence practice, when our faith
takes the form of personal assurance. How, then, are we to escape
from the dilemma, and have a rational confidence in the mercy of
God? ,

IX. This confidence must rest, first, on a sense of the truth and
justice of God, rising above perplexities of fact in the world around
us, or the tangle of metaphysical or theological difficulties. But
although such a sense of the truth or justice of God is the beginning
of our peace, yet a link of connexion is wanting before we can
venture to apply to ourselves that which we acknowledge in the
abstract. The justice of God may lead to our condemnation as well
as to our justification. Are we then, in the language of the ancient
tragedy, to say that no one can be counted happy before he dies, or
that salvation is only granted when the end of our course is seen?
Not so; the Gospel encourages us to regard ourselves, as already
saved; for we have communion with Christ and appropriate His
work by faith. And this appropriation means nothing short of the
renunciation of self and the taking up of the cross of Christ in daily
life. - Whether such an imitation or appropriation of Christ is
illusive or real,—a new mould of nature or only an outward and
superficial impression, is a question not to be answered by any further
theological distinction but by an honest and good heart searching
into itself. Then only, when we surrender ourselves into the hands
of God, when we ask Him to show us to ourselves as we truly are,
when we allow ourselves in no sin, when we attribute nothing to
our own merits, when we test our faith, not by the sincerity of an
hour, but of months and years, we learn the true meaning of that
word in which, better than any other, the nature of righteousness
by faith is summed up, — peace.

“And now abideth faith, hope, and love, these three; but the

VOL. II. NN

546 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

greatest of these is love.” There seems to be a contradiction in love
being the “ greatest,’ when faith is the medium -of acceptance.
Love, according to some, is preferred to faith, because it reaches to
another life; when faith and hope are swallowed up in sight, love
remains still. Love, according to others, has the first place, because
it is Divine as well as human; it is the love of God to man, as well
as of man to God. Perhaps, the order of precedence is sufficiently
explained by the occasion; to a Church torn by divisions the Apostle
says, “that the first of Christian graces is love.” Another thought,
however, is suggested by these words, which has a bearing. on our
present subject. It is this, that in using the received terms of
theology, we must also acknowledge their relative and transient
character. Christian truth has many modes of statement; love is
the more natural expression to St. John, faith to St. Paul. The
indwelling of Christ or of the Spirit of God, grace, faith, hope, love,
are not parts of a system, but powers or aspects of the Christian
life. Human minds are different, and the same mind is not the
same at different times; and the best of men nowadays have but a
feeble consciousness of spiritual truths. We ought not to dim that
consciousness by insisting on a single formula; and therefore while
speaking of faith as the instrument of justification, because faith
indicates the apprehensive, dependent character of the believer's
relation to Christ, we are bound also to deny that the Gospel is con-
tained in any word, or the Christian life inseparably linked to any
one quality. We must acknowledge the imperfection of language
and thought, and seek rather to describe than to define the work of
God in the soul, which has as many forms as the tempers, capacities,

circumstances, and accidents of our nature.

i a le pee al Se Oa FSA indy,

d47

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION.

“ Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not . .. then said I, Lo, I come to do
thy will, O God.”—Ps. xc. 6—8.

Tue doctrine of the Atonement has often been explained in a way
at which our moral feelings revolt. God is represented as angry
with us for what we never did; He is ready to inflict a dispropor-
tionate punishment on us for what we are; He is satisfied by the
sufferings of His Son in our stead. The sin of Adam is first imputed ©
to us; then the righteousness of Christ. The imperfection of
human law is transferred to the Divine ; or rather a figment of law
which has no real existence. The death of Christ is also explained
by the analogy of the ancient rite of sacrifice. He is a victim laid
upon the altar to appease the wrath of God. The institutions and
ceremonies of the Mosaical religion are applied to Him. He is fur-
ther said to bear the infinite punishment of infinite sin. When He
had suffered or paid the penalty, God is described as granting him
the salvation of mankind in return. 3

I shall endeavour to show, 1. that these conceptions of the work
of Christ have no foundation in Scripture; 2. that their growth
may be traced in ecclesiastical history; 3. that the only sacrifice,
atonement, or satisfaction, with which the Christian has to do, is a
moral and spiritual one; not the pouring out of blood upon the
earth, but the living sacrifice “to do thy will, O God;” in which
the believer has part as well as his Lord; about the meaning of
which there can be no more question in our day than there was in
the first ages,

wn 2

548 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

ea.

It is difficult to concentrate the authority of Scripture on points
of controversy. For Scripture is not doctrine but teaching ; it arises
naturally out of the circumstances of the writers; it is not intended
to meet the intellectual refinements of modern times. The words of
our Saviour, “ My kingdom is not of this world,” admit of a wide
application, to systems of knowledge, as well as to systems of govern-
ment and politics. The “bread of life” isnot an elaborate theology.
The revelation which Scripture makes to us of the will of God, does
not turn upon the exact use of language. (“Lo, O man, he hath
showed thee what he required of thee; to do justly and to love
mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.”) The books of Scripture
were written by different authors, and in different ages of the world;
we cannot, therefore, apply them with the minuteness and precision
of a legal treatise. The Old Testament is not on all points the
same with the New; for “ Moses allowed of some things for the
hardness of their hearts ;” nor the Law with the Prophets, for there
were “ proverbs in the house of Israel” that were reversed ; nor does
the Gospel, which is simple and universal, in all respects agree with
the Epistles which have reference to the particular state of the first
converts ; nor is the teaching of St. James, who admits works as a
coefficient with faith in the justification of man, absolutely identical
with that of St. Paul, who asserts righteousness by faith only; nor
is the character of all the Epistles of St. Paul, written as they were
at different times amid the changing scenes of life, precisely the
same; nor does he himself claim an equal authority for all his precepts.
No theory of inspiration can obliterate these differences; or rather
none can be true which does not admit them. The neglect of them
reduces the books of Scripture to an unmeaning unity, and effectually
seals up their true sense. But if we acknowledge this natural
diversity of form, this perfect humanity of Scripture, we must, at
any rate in some general way, adjust the relation of the different

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 549

parts to one another before we apply its words to the establishment
of any doctrine.

Nor again is the citation of a single text sufficient to prove a
doctrine ; nor must consequences be added on, which are not found
in Scripture, nor figures of speech reasoned about, as though they
conveyed exact notions. An accidental similarity of expression is
not to be admitted as an authority; ndér a mystical allusion, which
has been gathered from Scripture, according to some method which
in other writings the laws of language and logic would not justify.
When engaged in controversy with Roman Catholics, about the
doctrine of purgatory, or transubstantiation, or the authority of the
successors of St. Peter, we are willing to admit these principles.
They are equally true when the subject of inquiry is the atoning
work of Christ. We must also distinguish the application of a
passage in religious discourse from its original meaning. The more
obvious explanation which is received in our own day, or by our own
branch of the Church, will sometimes have to be set aside for one
more difficult, because less familiar, which is drawn from the context.
Nor is it allowable to bar an interpretation of Scripture from a
regard to doctrinal consequences. Further, it is necessary that we
should make allowance for the manner in which ideas were re-
presented in the ages at which the books of Scripture were written
which cannot be so lively to us as to contemporaries. Nor can we
deny that texts may be quoted on both sides of a controversy, as for
example, in the controversy respecting predestination. For in
religious, as in other differences, there is often truth on both sides.

The drift of the preceding remarks is not to show that there is
any ambiguity or uncertainty in the witness of Scripture to the
great truths of morality and religion. Nay, rather the universal
voice of the Old Testament and the New proclaims that there is one
God of infinite justice, goodness, and truth: and the writers of the
New Testament agree in declaring that Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is the Saviour of the world. There can never, by any pos-
sibility, be a doubt that our Lord and St. Paul taught the doctrine

Nwxw 3

550 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

of a future life, and of a judgment, at which men would give an
account of the deeds done in the body. It is no matter for regret
that the essentials of the Gospel are within the reach of a child’s
understanding. But this clearness of Scripture about the great
truths of religion does not extend to the distinctions and develop-
ments of theological systems ; it rather seems to contrast with them.
It is one thing to say that “ Christ is the Saviour of the world,” or
that “we are reconciled to God through Christ,” and another thing
to affirm that the Levitical or heathen sacrifices typified the death
of Christ; or that the death of Christ has a sacrificial import, and is
an atonement or satisfaction for the sins of men. The latter posi-
tions involve great moral and intellectual difficulties ; many things
have to be considered, before we can allow that the phraseology of
Scripture is to be caught up and applied in this way. For we may
easily dress up in the externals of the New Testament a doctrine
which is really at variance with the Spirit of Christ and his Apostles,
and we may impart to this doctrine, by the help of living tradition,
that is to say, custom and religious use, a sacredness yet greater than
is derived from such a fallacious application of Scripture language.
It happens almost unavoidably (and our only chance of guarding
against the illusion is to be aware of it) that we are more under the
influence of rhetoric in theology than in other branches of know-
ledge; our minds are so constituted that. what we often hear we
are ready to believe, especially when it falls in with previous con-
victions or wants. But he who desires to know whether the state-
ments above referred to have any real objective foundation in the
New Testament, will carefully weigh the following considerations :—
Whether there is any reason for interpreting the New Testament by
the analogy of the Old? Whether the sacrificial expressions which
occur in the New Testament, and on which the question chiefly
turns, are to be interpreted spiritually or literally? Whether the
use of such expressions may not be a figurative mode of the time,
which. did not necessarily recall the thing signified any more than

the popular use of the term “Sacrifice” among ourselves? He will

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 551

consider further whether this language is employed vaguely, or
definitely? Whether it is the chief manner of expressing the work
of Christ, or one among many? Whether it is found to occur equally
in every part of the New Testament ; for example, in the Gospels, as
well as in the Epistles? Whether the more frequent occurrence of it
in particular books, as for instance, in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
may not be explained by the peculiar object or circumstances of
the writer? Whether other figures of speech, such as death, life,
resurrection with Christ, are not equally frequent, which have
never yet been made the foundation of any doctrine? Lastly,
whether this language of sacrifice is not applied to the believer as
well as to his Lord, and whether the believer is not spoken of as
sharing the sufferings of his Lord ?

J. All Christians agree that there is a connexion between the
Old Testament and the New: “Novum Testamentum in vetere
latet ; Vetus Testamentum in novo patet:” “I am not come to de-
stroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil.” But, respecting the
nature of the revelation or fulfilment which is implied in these
expressions, they are not equally agreed. Some conceive the Old and
New Testaments to be “double one against the other;” the one being
the type, and the other the antitype, the ceremonies of the Law, and
the symbols and imagery of the Prophets, supplying to them the
forms of thought and religious ideas of the Gospel. Even the his-
tory of the Jewish people has been sometimes thought to be an anti-
cipation or parallel of the history of the Christian world; many
accidental circumstances in the narrative of Scripture being like-
wise taken as an example of the Christian life. The relation
between the Old and New Testaments has been regarded by others
from a different point of view, as a continuous one, which may be
described under some image of growth or development; the facts
and ideas of the one leading on to the facts and ideas of the other ;
and the two together forming one record of “ the increasing purpose
which through the ages ran.” This continuity, however, is broken
at one point, and the parts separate and reunite like ancient and

NN 4

552 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

modern civilisation, though the connexion is nearer, and of another
kind; the Messiah, in whom the hopes of the Jewish people centre,
being the first-born of a new creation, the Son of Man and the
Son of God. It is necessary, moreover, to distinguish the connex-
ion of fact from that of language and idea; because the Old Testa-

ment is not only the preparation for the New, but also the figure
and expression of it. Those who hold the first of these two views,

viz. the reduplication of the Old Testament in the New, rest their
opinion chiefly on two grounds. First, it seems incredible to them,

and repugnant to their conception of a Divine revelation, that the

great apparatus of rites and ceremonies, with which, even at this

distance of time, they are intimately acquainted, should have no
inner and symbolical meaning; that the Jewish nation for many
ages should have carried with it a load of forms only; that the
words of Moses which they “still hear read in the synagogue every
Sabbath Day,” and which they often read in their own households,
should relate only to matters of outward observance; just as they
are unwilling to believe that the prophecies, which they also read,
have no reference to the historical events of modern times. And,
secondly, they are swayed by the authority of the Epistle to the
Hebrews, the writer of which has made the Old Testament the
allegory of the New.

It will be considered hereafter what is to be said in answer to the
last of these arguments. The first is perhaps sufficiently answered,
by the analogy of other ancient religions. It would be ridiculous to
assume a spiritual meaning in the Homeric rites and sacrifices ;
although they may be different in other respects, have we any more
reason for inferring such a meaning in the Mosaic? Admitting the
application which is made of a few of them by the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews to be their original intention, the great mass would
still remain unexplained, and yet they are all alike contained in the
same Revelation. It may seem natural to us to suppose that God
taught his people like children by the help of outward objects. But
no @ priort supposition of this kind, no fancy, however natural, of

a symmetry or coincidence which may be traced between the Old

ee eee ae

Belge.

Sg en ee

ee ee

we ete eM

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 553

Testament and the New, nor the frequent repetition of such a theory
in many forms, is an answer to the fact. That fact is the silence of
the Old Testament itself. If the sacrifices of the Mosaical religion
were really symbolical of the death of Christ, how can it be ac-
counted for that no trace of this symbolism appears in the books of
Moses themselves? that prophets and righteous men of old never
gave this interpretation to them? that the lawgiver is intent only on
the sign, and says nothing of the thing signified? No other book is
ever supposed to teach truths about which it is wholly silent. We
do not imagine the Iliad and Odyssey to be a revelation of the Pla-
tonic or Socratic philosophy. The circumstance that these poems
received this or some other allegorical explanation from a school of
Alexandrian critics, does not incline us to believe that such an ex-
planation is a part of their original meaning. The human mind does
not work in this occult manner ; language was not really given men
to conceal their thoughts ; plain precepts or statements do not contain
hidden mysteries.

It may be said that the Levitical rites and offerings had a meaning,
not for the Jews, but for us, “on whom the ends of the world are
come.” Moses, David, Isaiah, were unacquainted with this meaning;
it was reserved for those who lived after the event to which they
referred had taken place to discover it. Such an afterthought may
be natural to us, who are ever tracing a literary or mystical con-
nexion between the Old Testament and the New ; it would have
been very strange to us, had we lived in the ages before the coming
of Christ. It is incredible that God should have instituted rites and
. ceremonies, which were to be observed as forms by a whole people
throughout their history, to teach mankind fifteen hundred years
afterwards, uncertainly and in a figure, a lesson which Christ taught
plainly and without a figure. Such an assumption confuses the ap-
plication of Scripture with its original meaning ; the use of lan-
guage in the New Testament with the facts of the Old. Further, it
does away with all certainty in the interpretation of Scripture. If
we can introduce the New Testament into the Old, we may with

equal right introduce Tradition or Church History into the New.

554 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The question here raised has a very important bearing on the use
of the figures of atonement and sacrifice in the New Testament. -
For if it could be shown that the sacrifices which were offered up in
the Levitical worship were anticipatory only; that the law too
declared itself to be “‘a shadow of good things to come;” that Moses
had himself spoken “of the reproach of Christ ;” in that case the
slightest allusion in the New Testament to the customs or words of
the law would have a peculiar interest. We should be justified in
referring to them as explanatory of the work of Christ, in studying
the Levitical distinctions respecting offerings with a more than anti-
quarian interest, in “ disputing about purifying ” and modes of expia-
tion. But if not; if, in short, we are only reflecting the present on
the past, or perhaps confusing both together, and interpreting Chris-
tianity by Judaism, and Judaism by Christianity ; then the sacrificial
language of the New Testament loses its depth and significance, or
rather acquires a higher, that is, a spiritual one.

II. Of such an explanation, if it had really existed when the
Mosaic religion was still a national form of worship, traces would
occur in the writings of the Psalmists and the Prophets; for these
furnish a connecting link between the Old Testament and the New.
But this is not the case ; the Prophets are, for the most part, uncon-
scious of the law, or silent respecting its obligations.

In many places, their independence of the Mosaical religion passes
into a kind of opposition toit. The inward and spiritual truth asserts
itself, not as an explanation of the ceremonial observance, but in
defiance of it. The “undergrowth of morality” is putting forth
shoots in spite of the deadness of the ceremonial hull. Isaiah i. 13.:
‘Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me;
the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away
with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.” Micah. vi. 6.:
« Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, or bow myself before the
high God? shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves
of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of rams, or

with ten thousands of rivers of oil.” Psalm 1. 10.: “ All the beasts

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 555

of the forests are mine, and so are the cattle upon a thousand hills :
If I were hungry I would not tell thee.” We cannot doubt that in
passages like these we are bursting the bonds of the Levitical or
ceremonial dispensation.

The spirit of prophecy, speaking by Isaiah, does not say “I will
have mercy as well as sacrifice,” but “I will have mercy and not (or
rather than) sacrifice.” In the words of the Psalmist, “ Sacrifice and
offering thou wouldest not; then said I, Lo, I come to do thy will,
O God;” “The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit:” or again,
“A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not
quench ; he shall bring forth judgment unto truth: ” or again, accord-
ing to the image both of Isaiah and Jeremiah (Is. liii. 7.; Jer. xi.
19.), which seems to have passed before the vision of John the
Baptist (John i. 36.), “ He is brought as a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb.” These are the points
at which the Old and New Testaments most nearly touch, the
(rvrot) types or ensamples of the one which we find in the other,
the pre-notions or preparations with which we pass from Moses
and the Prophets to the Gospel of Christ.

IIL. It is hard to imagine that there can be any truer expression
of the Gospel than the words of Christ himself, or that any truth
omitted by Him is essential to the Gospel. “The disciple is not
above his master, nor the servant greater than his Lord.” The phi-
losophy of Plato was not better understood by his followers than by
himself, nor can we allow that the Gospel is to be interpreted by the
Epistles, or that the Sermon on the Mount is only half Christian and
needs the fuller inspiration or revelation of St. Paul, or the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews. There is no trace in the words of
our Saviour of any omission or imperfection; there is no indication
in the Epistles of any intention to complete or perfect them. How
strange would it have seemed in the Apostle St. Paul, who thought
himself unworthy “to be called an Apostle because he persecuted the
Church of God,” to find that his own words were preferred in after

ages to those of Christ himself!

556 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

There is no study of theology which is likely to exercise a more
elevating influence on the individual, or a more healing one on divi-
sions of opinion, than the study of the words of Christ himself. The
heart is its own witness to them; all Christian sects acknowledge
them ; they seem to escape or rise above the region or atmosphere
of controversy. The form in which they exhibit the Gospel to us is
the simplest and also the deepest; they are more free from details
than any other part of Scripture, and they are absolutely independent
of personal and national influences. In them is contained the ex-
pression of the inner life, of mankind, and of the Church ; there, too,
the individual beholds, as in a glass, the image of a goodness which
is not of this world. To rank their authority below that of Apostles
and Evangelists is to give up the best hope of reuniting Christendom
in itself, and of making Christianity a universal religion.

And Christ himself hardly even in a figure uses the word “ sacri-
fice ;” never with the least reference to His own life or death. There
are many ways in which our Lord describes His relation to His
Father and to mankind. His disciples are to be one with Him, even
as He is one with the Father; whatsoever things He seeth the
Father do He doeth. He says, “ I am the resurrection and the life ;”
or, “I am the way, the truth, and the life ;” and, “ No man cometh
unto the Father but by me;” and again, “ Whatsoever things ye
shall ask in my name shall be given you;” and once again, “I will
pray the Father, and he shall give you another comforter.” Most
of His words are simple, like “a man talking to his friends ;” and
their impressiveness and beauty partly flow from this simplicity.
He speaks of His ‘decease too which he should accomplish at
Jerusalem,’ but not in sacrificial language. “And now I go

?

my way to him that sent me;” and, “Greater love hath no man
than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” Once
indeed He says, “The bread that I give is my flesh, which I
give for the salvation of the world;” to which He himself adds,
“The words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are

truth,” a commentary which should be applied not only to these

> no tel ah Soe

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 557

but to all other figurative expressions which occur in the New Tes-
tament. In the words of institution of the Lord’s supper, He also
speaks of His death as in some way connected with the remission of
sins. But among all the figures of speech under which He describes
His work in the world, the vine, the good shepherd, the door, the
light of the world, the bread of life, the water of life, the corner
stone, the temple, none contains any sacrificial allusion.

The parables of Christ have a natural and ethical character.
They are only esoteric in as far as the hardness or worldliness of men’s
hearts prevents their understanding or receiving them. There is a
danger of our making them mean too much rather than too little,
that is, of winning a false interest for them by applying them mys-
tically or taking them as a thesis for dialectical or rhetorical exer-
cise. For example, if we say that the guest who came to the
marriage supper without a wedding-garment represents a person
clothed in his own righteousness instead of the righteousness of
Christ, that is an explanation of which there is not a trace in the
words of the parable itself. That is an illustration of the manner in
which we are not to gather doctrines from Scripture. For there is
nothing which we may not in this way superinduce on the plainest
lessons of our Saviour.

Reading the parables, then, simply and naturally, we find in them
no indication of the doctrine of atonement or satisfaction. They
form a very large portion of the sayings which have been recorded
of our Saviour while He was on earth; and they teach a great
number of separate lessons. But there is no hint contained in them
_of that view of the death of Christ which is sometimes regarded as
the centre of the Gospel. There is no “difficulty in the nature of
things” which prevents the father going out to meet the prodigal
son. No other condition is required of the justification of the
publican except the true sense of his own unworthiness. The
work of those labourers who toiled for one hour only in the vine-
yard is not supplemented by the merits and deserts of another.
The reward for the cup of cold water is not denied to those who

558 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

are unaware that he to whom it is given is the Lord. The para-
bles of the Good Samaritan, of the Fig-tree, of the Talents, do not
recognise the distinction of faith and works. Other sayings and
doings of our Lord while He was on earth imply the same un-
consciousness or neglect of the refinements of later ages, The
power of the Son of Man to forgive sins is not dependent on the
satisfaction which He is to offer for them. The Sermon on the
Mount, which is the extension of the law to thought as well as
action, and the two great commandments in which the law is
summed up, are equally the expression of the Gospel. The mind
of Christ is in its own place, far away from the oppositions of
modern theology. Like that of the prophets, His relation to the law
of Moses is one of neutrality ; He has another lesson to teach which
comes immediately from God. “The Scribes and Pharisees sit in
Moses’s seat —” or, “Moses, because of the hardness of your
hearts, —” or, “Which of you hath an ox or an ass, —” or, “ Ye
fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which
is within.” He does not say, “ Behold in me the true Sacrifice ;” or,
“TI that speak unto you am the victim and priest.” He has nothing
to do with legal and ceremonial observances. There is a sort of
natural irony with which He regards the world around him. It was
as though He would not have touched the least of the Levitical com-
mandments; and yet “not one stone was to be left upon another”
as the indirect effect of His teaching. So that it would be
equally true: “Iam not come to destroy the law but to fulfil;” and
‘“‘ Destroy this temple and in three days I will raise it up again.”
“ My kingdom is not of this world,” yet it shall subdue the king-
doms of this world; and, the Prince of Peace will not “ bring peace
on earth, but a sword.” |

There is a mystery in the life and death of Christ; that is to say,
there is more than we know or are perhaps capable of knowing.
The relation in which He stood both to His Father and to mankind
is imperfectly revealed to us; we do not fully understand what

may be termed in a figure His inner mind or consciousness. Ex-
pressions occur which are like flashes of this inner self, and seem

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 559

to come from another world. There are also mixed modes which
blend earth and heaven. There are circumstances in our Lord’s
life, too, of a similar nature, such as the transfiguration, or the
agony in the garden, of which the Scripture records only the out-
ward fact. Least of all do we pretend to fathom the import of
His death. He died for us, in the language of the Gospels, in the
same sense that He lived for us; He “ bore our sins” in the same
sense that “He bore our diseases.” (Matt. viii. 17.) He died by
the hands of sinners as a malefactor, the innocent for the guilty,
Jesus instead of Barabbas, because it was necessary “that one man
should die for that nation, and not for that nation only ;” as a
righteous man laying down his life for his friends, as a hero to
save his country, as a martyr to bear witness to the truth. He
died as the Son of God, free to lay down His life ; confident that He
would have power to take it again. More than this is meant; and
more than human speech can tell. But we do not fill up the void of
our knowledge by drawing out figures of speech into consequences
at variance with the attributes of God. No external mode of
describing or picturing the work of Christ realises its inward
nature. Neither will the reproduction of our own feelings in a
doctrinal form supply any objective support or ground of the
Christian faith.

IV. Two of the General Epistles and two of the Epistles of
St. Paul have no bearing on our present subject. These are the
Epistles of St. James and St. Jude, and the two Epistles to the
Thessalonians. Their silence, like that of the Gospels, is at least
a negative proof that the doctrine of Sacrifice or Satisfaction is not
a central truth of Christianity. The remainder of the New Tes-
tament will be sufficiently considered under two heads: Ist, the
remaining Epistles of St. Paul; and, 2ndly, the Epistle to the
Hebrews. ‘The difficulties which arise respecting these are the
same as the difficulties which apply in a less degree to one or two
passages in the Epistles of St. Peter and St. John, and in the book
of Revelation.

It is not to be denied that the language of Sacrifice and Sub-

560 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

stitution occurs in the Epistles of St. Paul. Instances of the
former are furnished by Rom. iii. 23. 25., 1 Cor. v. 7.; of the latter
by Gal. ii. 20., iii. 13.

Romans iii. 23—25.; “For all have sinned and come short of the
glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the re-
demption that is in Christ Jesus; whom God hath set forth to be a
propitiation through faith by His blood, to declare His righteous-
ness.”

1 Cor. v. 7.: “Christ our passover is sacrificed [for us]; therefore
let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven
of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity
and truth.”

These two passages are a fair example of a few others. About
the translation and explanation of the first of them interpreters
differ. But the differences are not such as to affect our present
question. For that question is a general one, viz. whether these,
and similar sacrificial expressions, are passing figures of speech,
or appointed signs or symbols of the death of Christ. On which it
may be observed : —

First: That these expressions are not the peculiar or character-
istic modes in which the Apostle describes the relation of the be-
liever to his Lord. For one instance of the use of sacrificial language,
five or six might be cited of the language of identity or communion,
in which the believer is described as one with his Lord in all the
stages of His lifeand death. But this language is really inconsistent
with the other. For if Christ is one with the believer, He cannot
be regarded strictly as a victim who takes his place. And the stage
of Christ’s being which coincides, and is specially connected by the
Apostle, with the justification of man, is not His death, but His
resurrection. Rom. iv. 25.

Secondly: These sacrificial expressions, as also the vicarious ones
of which we shall hereafter speak, belong to the religious language
of the age. They are found in Philo; and the Old Testament itself
had already given them a spiritual or figurative application. There

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 561

is no more reason to suppose that the word “sacrifice ” suggested
the actual rite in the Apostolic age than in our own. It was a
solemn religious idea, not a fact. The Apostles at Jerusalem saw
the smoke of the daily sacrifice ; the Apostle St. Paul beheld victims
blazing on many altars in heathen cities (he regarded them as the
tables of devils). But there is no reason to suppose that they led
him to think of Christ, or that the bleeding form on the altar sug-
gested the sufferings of his Lord.

Therefore, thirdly, We shall only be led into error by attempting to
explain the application of the word to Christ from the original meaning
of the thing. That is a question of Jewish or classical archeology,
which would receive a different answer in different ages and countries.
Many motives or instincts may be traced in the worship of the first
children ofmen. The need of giving or getting rid of something;
the desire to fulfil an obligation or expiate a crime; the consecration
of a part that the rest may be holy ; the Homeric feast of gods and
men, of the living with the dead; the mystery of animal nature,
of which the blood was the symbol; the substitution, in a few
instances, of the less for the greater; in later ages, custom adhering
to the old rituals when the meaning of them has passed away ;—
these seem to be true explanations of the ancient sacrifices.
(Human sacrifices, such as those of the old Mexican peoples, or the
traditional ones in pre-historic Greece, may be left out of considera-
tion, as they appear to spring from some monstrous and cruel per-
version of human nature.) But these explanations have nothing to
do with our present subject. We may throw an imaginary light
back upon them (for it is always easier to represent former ages
’ like our own than to realise them as they truly were); they will
not assist us in comprehending the import of the death of Christ, or
the nature of the Christian religion. They are in the highest
degree opposed to it, at the other end of the scale of human develop-
ment, as “ the weak and beggarly elements” of sense and fear to the
spirit whereby we cry Abba Father; almost, may we not say, as
the instinct of animals to the reasoning faculties of man. For

VOL. II. 00

562 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

sacrifice is not, like prayer, one of the highest, but one of the lowest
acts of religious worship. It is the antiquity, not the religious
import of the rite, which first gave it a sacredness. In modern
times, the associations which are conveyed by the word are as far
from the original idea as those of the cross itself, The death of
Christ is not a sacrifice in the ancient sense (any more than the
cross is to Christians the symbol of infamy); but what we mean by
the word “sacrifice” is the death of Christ.

Fourthly: This sacrificial language is not used with any definite-
ness or precision. The figure varies in different passages; Christ
is the Paschal Lamb, or the Lamb without spot, as well as the sin-
offering ; the priest as well as the sacrifice. It is applied not only to
Christ, but to the believer who is to present his body a living
sacrifice; and the offering of which St. Paul speaks in one passage
is “the offering up of the Gentiles.” Again, this language is every-
where broken by moral and spiritual applications into which it
dissolves and melts away. When we read of “sacrifice,” or “ puri-
fication,” or “redemption,” these words isolated may for an instant
carry our thoughts back to the Levitical ritual. But when we
restore them to their context,—a sacrifice which is a “ spiritual sacri-
fice,” or a “spiritual and mental service,” a purification which is a
“ purging from dead works to serve the living God,” a redemption
“by the blood of Christ from your vain conversation received by
tradition from your fathers,”— we see that the association offers no
real help; it is no paradox to say that we should rather forget than
remember it. All this tends to show that these figures of speech
are not the eternal symbols of the Christian faith, but shadows only

which lightly come and go, and ought not to be fixed by definitions, °

or made the foundation of doctrinal systems.

Fifthly : Nor is any such use of them made by any of the writers
of the New Testament. It is true that St. Paul occasionally, and
the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews much more frequently, use
sacrificial language. But they do not pursue the figure into details
or consequences; they do not draw it out in logical form. Still

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 563

less do they inquire, as modern theologians have done, into the
objective or transcendental relation in which the sacrifice of Christ
stood to the will of the Father. St. Paul says, “ We thus judge that
if One died, then all died, and He died for all, that they which live
shall not henceforth live to themselves, but unto Him which died
for them and rose again.” But words like these are far indeed from
expressing a doctrine of atonement or satisfaction.

Lastly: The extent to which the Apostle employs figurative lan-
guage in general, may be taken as a measure of the force of the
figure in particular, expressions. Now there is no mode of speaking
of spiritual things more natural to him than the image of death.
Of the meaning of this word, in all languages, it may be said that
there can be no doubt. Yet no one supposes that the sense which
the Apostle gives to it is other than a spiritual one. The reason
is, that the word has never been made the foundation of any doctrine.
But the circumstance that the term “sacrifice” has passed into the
language of theology, does not really circumscribe or define it. It
is a figure of speech still, which is no more to be interpreted by the
Mosaic sacrifices than spiritual death by physical. Let us consider
again other expressions of St. Paul: “I bear in my body the marks
of the Lord Jesus.” “Who hath taken the handwriting of ordi-
nances that was against us, and nailed it to His cross.” “Filling
up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for
His body’s sake, which is the Church.” The occurrence of these
and many similar expressions is a sufficient indication that the
writer in whom they occur is not to be interpreted in a dry or
. literal manner.

Another class of expressions, which may be termed the language
of substitution or vicarious suffering, are also occasionally found in
St. Paul. Two examples of them, both of which occur in the
Epistle to the Galatians, will indicate their general character.

Gal. ii. 20.: “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in
the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me and

00 2

564 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

gave himself for me.” iii. 18.: “Christ hath redeemed us from the
curse of the law, being made a curse for us.

This use of language seems to originate in what was termed
before the language of identity. First, “Iam crucified with Christ,”
and secondly, “ Not I, but Christ liveth in me.” The believer,
according to St. Paul, follows Christ until he becomes like Him.
And this likeness is so complete and entire, that all that he was or
might have been is attributed to Christ, and all that Christ is is
attributed to him. With such life and fervour does St. Paul paint
the intimacy of the union between the believer and Christ: They
two are “One Spirit.” To build on such expressions a doctrinal
system is the error of “rhetoric turned logic.” The truth of feeling
which is experienced by a few is not to be handed over to the head
as a form of doctrine for the many.

The same remark applies to another class of passages, in which
Christ is described as dying “for us,” or “for our sins.” Upon
which it may be further observed, first, that in these passages the
preposition used is not avri but trép; and, secondly, that Christ is
spoken of as living and rising again, as well as dying, for us; whence
we infer that He died for us in the same sense that He lived for us.
Of what is meant, perhaps the nearest conception we can form is
furnished by the example of a good man taking upon himself, or, as
we say, identifying himself with, the troubles and sorrows of others.
Christ himself has sanctioned the comparison of a love which lays
down life for a friend. Let us think of one as sensitive to moral
evil as the gentlest of mankind to physical suffering ; of one whose
love identified him with the whole human race as strongly as the
souls of men are ever knit together by individual affections.

Many of the preceding observations apply equally to the Epistle
to the Hebrews and to the Epistles of St. Paul. But the Epistle to
the Hebrews has features peculiar to itself. It is a more complete
transfiguration of the law, which St. Paul, on the other hand, applies
by way of illustration, and in fragments only. It has the interest

of an allegory, and, in some respects, admits of a comparison with

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 565

the book of Revelation. It is full of sacrificial allusions, derived,
however, not from the actual rite, but from the description of it in
the books of Moses. Probably at Jerusalem, or the vicinity of the
actual temple, it would not have been written.

From this source chiefly, and not from the Epistles of St. Paul,
the language of sacrifice has passed into the theology and sermons
of modern times. The Epistle to the Hebrews affords a greater
apparent foundation for the popular or Calvinistical doctrines of
atonement and satisfaction, but not perhaps a greater real one. For
it is not the mere use of the terms “sacrifice” or “blood,” but the
sense in which they were used, that must be considered. It is a
fallacy, though a natural one, to confuse the image with the thing
signified, like mistaking the colour of a substance for its true nature.

Long passages might be quoted from the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which describe the work of Christ in sacrificial language. Some of
the most striking verses are the following :—ix. 11—14.: “ Christ
being come an High Priest of good things to come, by a greater
and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say,
not of this building ; neither by the blood of goats and calves, but
by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having
obtained eternal redemption for us. For if the blood of bulls and
of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth
to the purifying ef the flesh; how much more shall the blood of
Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot
to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living
God.” x. 12.: “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins,
. for ever sat down on the right hand of God.”

That these and similar passages have only a deceitful resemblance
to the language of those theologians who regard the propitiatory
sacrifice of Christ as the central truth of the Gospel, is manifest
from the following considerations :—

1. The great number and variety of the figures. Christ is Joshua,
who gives the people rest, iv. 8.; Melchisedec, to whom Abraham
paid tithes, v. 6., vii. 6.; the high priest going into the most holy place

00 3

566 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

after he had offered sacrifice, which sacrifice He himself is, passing
through the veil, which is His flesh.

2. The inconsistency of the figures: an inconsistency partly
arising from their ceasing tobe figures and passing into moral notions,
as in ch. ix. 14.: “the blood of Christ, who offered Himself without
spot to God, shall purge your conscience from dead works ;” partly
from the confusion of two or more figures, as in the verse following:
“And for this cause He is the mediator of the New Testament,”
where the idea of sacrifice forms a transition to that of death
and a testament, and the idea of a testament blends with that of a
covenant.

3. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews dwells on the out-
ward circumstance of the shedding of the blood of Christ. St. Paul
in the Epistle to the Galatians makes another application of the Old
Testament, describing our Lord as enduring the curse which befell
“One who hanged on a tree.” Imagine for an instant that this
latter had been literally the mode of our Lord’s death. The figure
of the Epistle to the Hebrews would cease to have any meaning;
yet no one supposes that there would have been any essential differ-
ence in the work of Christ.

4. The atoning sacrifice of which modern theology speaks, is
said to be the great object of faith. The author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews also speaks of faith, but no such expression as faith
in the blood, or sacrifice, or death of Christ is made use of by him, or
is found anywhere else in Scripture. ‘The faith of the patriarchs is
not faith in the peculiar sense of the term, but the faith of those who
confess that they are “strangers and pilgrims,” and “endure seeing
him that is invisible.”

Lastly: The Jewish Alexandrian character of the Epistle must be
admitted as an element of the inquiry. It interprets the Old Tes-
tament after a manner then current in the world, which we must
either continue to apply or admit that it was relative to that age
and country. It makes statements which we can only accept in a
figure, as, for example, in ch. xi., “ that Moses esteemed the reproach

<) aetat

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 567

of Christ greater riches than the treasures of Egypt.” It uses lan-
guage in double senses, as, for instance, the two meanings of cuabijcn
and of zpwrn in ch. viii. 13., ix. 1.; and the connexion which it esta-
blishes between the Old Testament and the New, is a verbal or
mystical one, not a connexion between the temple and offerings at
Jerusalem and the offering up of Christ, but between the ancient
ritual and the tabernacle described in the book of the law.

Such were the instruments which the author of this great Epistle
(whoever he may have been) employed, after the manner of his age
and country, to impart the truths of the Gospel in a figure to those
who esteemed this sort of figurative knowledge as a kind of perfection,
Heb. vi. 1. ‘ Ideas must be given through something ;” nor could
mankind in those days, any more than our own, receive the truth
except in modes of thought that were natural to them. The author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews is writing to those who lived and
moved in the atmosphere, as it may be termed, of Alexandrian
Judaism. Therefore he uses the figures of the law, but he also
guards against their literal acceptation. Christ is a priest, but a
priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec; He is a sacrifice, but
He is also the end of sacrifices, and the sacrifice which He offers is
the negation of sacrifices, “to do Thy will, O God.” Everywhere he
has a “how much more,” “how much greater,” for the new dispen-
sation in comparison with the old. He raises the Old Testament to
the New, first by drawing forth the spirit of the New Testament
from the Old, and secondly by applying the words of the Old Testa-
ment in a higher sense than they at first had. The former of these
two methods of interpretation is moral and universal, the latter
local and temporary. But if we who are not Jews like the persons
to whom the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, and who are
taught by education to receive words in their natural and prima
facie meaning, linger around the figure instead of looking forward to
the thing signified, we do indeed make “Christ the minister” of
the Mosaic religion. For there is a Judaism not only of outward

ceremonies or ecclesiastical hierarchies, or temporal rewards and

00 4

568 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

punishments, but of ideas also, which impedes the worship of spirit
and truth.

The sum of what has been said is as follows : —

Firstly: That our Lord never describes His own work in the lan-
guage of atonement or sacrifice.

Secondly: That this language is a figure of speech borrowed from
the Old Testament, yet not to be explained by the analogy of the
Levitical sacrifices ; occasionally found in the writings of St. Paul;
more frequently in the Epistle to the Hebrews; applied to the
believer at least equally with his Lord, and indicating by the variety
and uncertainty with which it is used that it is not the expression of
any objective relation in which the work of Christ stands to His
Father, but only a mode of speaking common at a time when the
rites and ceremonies of the Jewish law were passing away and
beginning to receive a spiritual meaning.

Thirdly: That nothing is signified by this language, or at least
nothing essential, beyond what is implied in the teaching of our
Lord himself. For it cannot be supposed that there is any truer
account of Christianity than is to be found in the words of Christ.

§ 2.

Theology sprang up in the first ages independently of Scripture,
This independence continued afterwards ; it has never been wholly
lost. There is a tradition of the nineteenth century, as well as of
the fourth or fourteenth, which comes between them. The mystical
interpretation of Scripture has further parted them; to which may
be added the power of system: doctrines when framed into a
whole cease to draw their inapitddion from the text. Logic has
expressed “the thoughts of many hearts” with a seeming necessity
of form; this form of reasoning has led to new inferences. Many
words and formulas have also acquired a sacredness from their
occurrence in liturgies and articles, or the frequent use of them in
religious discourse, ‘The true interest of the theologian is to restore

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 569

these formulas to their connexion in Scripture, and to their place in
ecclesiastical history. The standard of Christian truth is not a
logical clearness or sequence, but the simplicity of the mind of
Christ.

The history of theology is the history of the intellectual life of
the Christian Church. All bodies of Christians, Protestant as well
as Catholic, have tended to imagine that they are in the same stage
of religious development as the first believers. But the Church has
not stood still any more than the world; we may trace the progress
of doctrine as well as the growth of philosophical opinion. The
thoughts of men do not pass away without leaving an impress, in
religion, any more than in politics or literature. The form of more
than one article of faith in our own day is assignable to the effort of
mind of some great thinker of the Nicene or medieval times. The
received interpretation of texts of Scripture may not unfrequently
be referred to the application of them first made in periods of con-
troversy, Neither is it possible in any reformation of the Church
to return exactly to the point whence the divergence began. The
pattern of Apostolical order may be restored in externals; but the
threads of the dialectical process are in the mind itself, and cannot
be disposed of at once. It seems to be the nature of theology that
while it is easy to add one definition of doctrine to another, it is
hard to withdraw from any which have been once received. To
believe too much is held to be safer than to believe too little, and
the human intellect finds a more natural exercise in raising the
superstructure than in examining the foundations. On the other
_hand, it is instructive to observe that there has always been an
under-current in theology, the course of which has turned towards
morality, and not away from it. There is a higher sense of truth
and right now than in the Nicene Church — after than before the
Reformation. The laity in all Churches have moderated the ex-
tremes of the clergy. There may also be remarked a silent correc-
tion in men’s minds of statements which have not ceased to appear

in theological writings.

570 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The study of the doctrinal development of the Christian Church
has many uses. First, it helps us to separate the history of a doc-
trine from its truth, and indirectly also the meaning of Scripture
from the new reading of it, which has been given in many instances
by theological controversy. It takes us away from the passing
movement, and out of our own particular corner into a world in
which we see religion on a larger scale and in truer proportions,
It enables us to interpret one age to another, to understand our
present theological position by its antecedents in the past; and per-
haps to bind all together in the spirit of charity. Half the in-
tolerance of opinion among Christians arises from ignorance; in
history as in life, when we know others we get to like them. Logic
too ceases to take us by force and make us believe. There is a
pathetic interest and a kind of mystery in the long continuance and
intensity of erroneous ideas on behalf of which men have been ready
to die, which nevertheless were no better than the dreams or fancies
of children. When we make allowance for differences in modes of
thought, for the state of knowledge, and the conditions of the eccle-
siastical society, we see that individuals have not been altogether
responsible for their opinions; that the world has been bound
together under the influence of the past ; moreover, good men of all
persuasions have been probably nearer to one another than they
supposed, in doctrine as well as in life. It is the attempt to preserve
or revive erroneous opinions in the present age, not their existence
in former ages, that is to be reprobated. Lastly, the study of the
history of doctrine is the end of controversy. For it is above con-
troversy, of which it traces the growth, clearing away that part
which is verbal only, and teaching us to understand that other part
which is fixed in the deeper differences of human nature.

The history of the doctrine of the atonement may be conveniently
divided into four periods of unequal length, each of which is marked
by some peculiar features. First, the Patristic period, extending
to the time of Anselm, in which the doctrine had not attained to
a perfect or complete form, but each one applied for himself the

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 571

language of Scripture. Secondly, the Scholastic period, beginning
with Anselm, who may be said to have defined anew the con-
ceptions of the Christian world respecting the work of Christ,
and including the great schoolmen who were his successors.
Thirdly, the century of the Reformation, embracing what may be
termed the after-thoughts of Protestantism, when men began to
reason in that new sphere of religious thought which had been
called into existence in the great struggle. “Fragments of the
great banquet” of the schoolmen survive throughout the period,
and have floated down the stream of time to our own age.
Fourthly, the last hundred years, during which the doctrine of
the atonement has received a new development from the influ-
ences of German philosophy*, as well as from the speculations
of English and American writers.

1. The characteristics of the first period may be summed up as fol-
lows. All the Fathers agreed that man was reconciled to God through
Christ, and received in the Gospel a new and divine life. Most of.
them also spoke of the death of Christ as a ransom or sacrifice.
When we remember that in the first age of the Church the New Tes-
tament was exclusively taught through the Old, and that many of
the first teachers, who were unacquainted with our present Gospels,
had passed their lives in the study of the Old Testament Scriptures,
we shall not wonder at the early diffusion of this sort of language.

Almost every application of the types of the law which has been
- made since, is already found in the writings of Justin Martyr. Nor
indeed, on general grounds, is there any reason why we should feel
_surprise at such a tendency in the first ages. For in all Churches,
and at all times of the world’s history, the Old Testament has tended
to take the place of the New; the law of the Gospel ;—the handmaid
has become the mistress; — and the development of the Christian
priesthood has developed also the idea of a Christian sacrifice.

The peculiarity of the primitive doctrine did not lie here, but in

* In the following pages I have derived great assistance from the excellent work
of Baur iiber die Versdhnungs-lehre,

572 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the relation in which the work of Christ was supposed to stand to
the powers of evil. In the first ages we are beset with shadows
of an under world, which hover on the confines of Christianity.
From Origen downwards, with some traces of an earlier opinion of
the same kind, perhaps of Gnostic origin, it was a prevailing though
not quite universal belief among the Fathers, that the death of Christ
was a satisfaction, not to God, but to the devil. Man, by having
sinned, passed into the power of the evil one, who acquired a real
right over him which could not be taken away without compensation.
Christ offered himself as this compensation, which the devil eagerly
accepted, as worth more than all mankind. But the deceiver was in
turn deceived; thinking to triumph over the humanity, he was himself
triumphed over by the Divinity of Christ. This theory was cha-
racteristically expressed under some such image as the following:
“that the devil snatching at the bait of human flesh, was hooked by
the Divine nature, and forced to disgorge what he had already
swallowed.” It is common in some form to Origen, Augustin, Am-
brose, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Great, Isidore of Seville, and
much later writers; and there are indications of it in Irenzus.
(Adv. Her. v. i. 1.) The meaning of this transaction with the devil
it is hardly possible to explain consistently. For a real possession
of the soul of Christ was not thought of; an imaginary one is only
an illusion. In either case the absolute right which is assigned to
the devil over man, and which requires this satisfaction, is as re-
pugnant to our moral and religious ideas, as the notion that, the
right could be satisfied by a deception. This strange fancy seems
to be a reflection or anticipation of Manicheism within the Church.
The world, which had been hitherto a kingdom of evil, of which the
devil was the lord, was to be exorcised and taken out of his power
by the death of Christ.

But the mythical fancy of the transaction with the devil was not
the whole, nor even the leading conception, which the Fathers had of
the import of the death of Christ. It was the negative, not the
positive, side of the doctrine of redemption which they thus ex-

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 573

pressed ; nobler thoughts also filled their minds. Origen regards
the death of Christ as a payment to the devil, yet also as an offering
to God; this offering took place not on earth only, but also in
heaven ; God is the high priest who offered. Another aspect of the
doctrine of the atonement is presented by the same Father, under
the Neo-Platonist form of the A\dyo¢ (word), who reunites with God,
not only man, but all intelligences. Irenzus speaks, in language
more human and more like St. Paul, of Christ “coming to save all,
and therefore passing through all the ages of man; becoming an
infant among infants, a little one among little ones, a young man
among young men, an elder with the aged (?), that each in turn
might be sanctified, until He reached death, that He should be the
first-born from the dead.” (ii. 22, 147.) The great Latin Father,
though he believed equally with Origen in the right and power of
the devil over man, delights also to bring forward the moral aspect
of the work of Christ. “ The entire life of Christ,” he says, “was an
instruction in morals.” (De Ver. Rel. c. 16.) ‘ He died in order that
no man might be afraid of death.” (De Fide et Symbolo, c. 5.)
“The love which He displayed in his death constrains us to love Him
and each other in return.” (De Cat. Rud.c. 4.) Like St.Paul, Augus-
tine contrasts the second Adam with the first, the man of righteousness
with the man of sin. (De Ver. Relig. c. 26.) Lastly, he places the
real nature of redemption in the manifestation of the God-man.
Another connexion between ancient and modern theology is
supplied by the writings of Athanasius. The view taken by Atha-
nasius of the atoning work of Christ has two characteristic features :
First, it is based upon the doctrine of the Trinity ; — God only can
reconcile man with God. Secondly, it rests on the idea of a debt
which is paid, not to the devil, but to God. This debt is also due
to death, who has a sort of right over Christ, like the right of the
devil in the former scheme. If it be asked in what this view differs
from that of Anselm, the answer seems to be, chiefly in the circum-
stance that it is stated with less distinctness ; it is a form, not the
form, which Athanasius gave to the doctrine. In the conception of

574 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the death of Christ as a debt, he is followed, however, by several of
the Greek fathers. Rhetoric delighted to represent the debt as
more than paid; the payment was “even as the ocean to a drop in
comparison with the sins of men.” (Chrys. on Rom. Hom. x. 17.)
It is pleasing further to remark that a kind of latitudinarianism was —
allowed by the Fathers themselves. Gregory of Nazianzen (Orat.
xxxiii. p. 536.) numbers speculations about the sufferings of Christ
among those things on which it is useful to have correct ideas, but
not dangerous to be mistaken. On the whole the doctrine of the
Fathers of the first four centuries may be said to oscillate between
two points of view, which are brought out with different degrees of
clearness. 1. The atonement was effected by the death of Christ;
which was a satisfaction to the devil, and an offering to God: 2.
The atonement was effected by the union in Christ of the Divine
and human nature in the “logos,” or word of God. That neither
view is embodied in any creed is a proof that the doctrine of atone- .
ment was not, in the first centuries, what modern writers often make
it, the corner stone of the Christian faith.

An interval of more than 700 years separates Athanasius from
Anselm. One eminent name occurs during this interval, that of
Scotus Erigena, whose conception of the,atonement is the co-eternal
unity of all things with God; the participation in this unity had
been lost by man, not in time, but in eternity, and was restored in
the person of Christ likewise from eternity. The views of Erigena
present some remarkable coincidences with very recent speculations ;
in the middle ages he stands alone, at the end, not at the beginning,
of a great period; — he is the last of the Platonists, not the first of
the schoolmen. He had consequently little influence on the centuries
which followed. ‘Those centuries gradually assumed a peculiar
character; and received in after times another name, scholastic, as
opposed to patristic. The intellect was beginning to display a new -
power ; men were asking, not exactly for a reason of the faith that
was in them, but for a clearer conception and definition of it. The

Aristotelian philosophy furnished distinctions which were applied

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 575

with a more than Aristotelian precision to statements of doctrine.
Logic took the place of rhetoric ; the school of the Church ; figures
of speech became abstract ideas. Theology was exhibited under a
new aspect, as a distinct object or reality of thought. Questions
on which Scripture was silent, on which councils and Popes would
themselves pronounce no decision, were raised and answered within
a narrow sphere by the activity of the human mind itself. The
words “sacrifice,” “satisfaction,” “ransom,” could no longer be used
indefinitely ; it was necessary to determine further to whom and for
what the satisfaction was made, and to solve the new difficulties
which thereupon arose in the effort to gain clearer and more con-
nected ideas.

2. It was a true feeling of Anselm that the old doctrine of satis-
faction contained an unchristian element in attributing to the devil
aright independent of God. That man should be delivered over
to Satan may be just; it is a misrepresentation to say that Satan
had any right over man. Therefore no right of the devil is
satisfied by the death of Christ. He who had the real right is God,
who has been robbed of His honour; to whom is, indeed, owing on
the part of man an infinite debt. For sin is in its nature infinite ;
the world has no compensation for that which a good man would
not do in exchange for the world. (Cur Deus Homo, i. 21.) God
only can satisfy Himself. The human nature of Christ enables Him
to incur, the infinity of his Divine nature to pay, this debt. (ii. 6,7.)
This payment of the debt, however, is not the salvation of man-
kind, but only the condition of salvation ; a link is still wanting in

the work of grace. The two parties are equalised; the honour of
“which God was robbed is returned, but man has no claim for any
further favour. ‘This further favour, however, is indirectly a
result of the death of Christ. For the payment of the debt by the
Son partakes of the nature of a gift which must needs have a
recompense (ii. 20.) from the Father, which recompense cannot be
conferred on Himself, and is therefore made at his request to man.
The doctrine ultimately rests on two reasons or grounds; the first a

576 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

noble one, that it must be far from God to suffer any rational
creature to perish entirely (Cur Deus Homo, i. 4., ii. 4.); the second
a trifling one, viz. that God, having created the angels in a perfect
number, it was necessary that man, saved through Christ, should
fill up that original number, which was impaired by their fall.
And as Anselm, in the spirit of St. Paul, though not quite con-
sistently with his own argument, declares, the mercy of God was
shown in the number of the saved exceeding the number of the
lost. (Cur Deus Homo, i. 16, 18.)

This theory, which is contained in the remarkable treatise “ Cur
Deus Homo,” is consecutively reasoned throughout ; yet the least
reasons seem often sufficient to satisfy the author. While it escapes
one difficulty it involves several others; though conceived in a
nobler and more Christian spirit than any previous view of the
work of Christ, it involves more distinctly the hideous consequence
of punishing the innocent for the guilty. It is based upon analogies,
symmetries, numerical fitnesses; yet under these logical fancies
is contained a true and pure feeling of the relation of man to God.
The notion of satisfaction or payment of a debt, on the other hand,
is absolutely groundless, and seems only to result from a certain
logical position which the human mind has arbitrarily assumed.
The scheme implies further two apparently contradictory notions ;
one, a necessity in the nature of things for this and no other means
of redemption; the other, the free will of God in choosing the
salvation of man. Anselm endeavours to escape from this difficulty
by substituting the conception of a moral for that of a metaphysical
necessity. (ii. 5.) God chose the necessity and Christ chose the
fulfilment of His Father’s commands. But the necessity by which
the death of Christ is justified is thus reduced to a figure of speech.
Lastly, the subjective side of the doctrine, which afterwards became »
the great question of the Reformation, the question, that is, in what
way the death of Christ is to be apprehended by the believer, is
hardly if at all touched upon by Anselm.

No progress was made during the four centuries which intervened

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. iar Bis

between Anselm and the Reformation, towards the attainment of
clearer ideas respecting the relations of God and man. The view
of Anselm did not, however, at once or universally prevail; it has
probably exercised a greater influence since the Reformation (being
the basis of what may be termed the evangelical doctrine of the
atonement) than in earlier ages. The spirit of the older theology
was too congenial to those ages quickly to pass away. Bernard and
others continued to maintain the right of the devil: a view not
wholly obsolete in our own day. The two great masters of the
schools agreed in denying the necessity on which the theory of
Anselm was founded. They differed from Anselm also respecting
the conception of an infinite satisfaction; Thomas Aquinas dis-
tinguishing the “infinite” Divine merit, and “abundant” human
satisfaction ; while Dun Scotus rejected the notion of infinity al-
together, declaring that the scheme of redemption might have been.
equally accomplished by the death of an angel or a righteous man.
Abelard, at an earlier period, attached special importance to the
moral aspect of the work of Christ; he denied the right of the
devil, and declared the love of Christ to be the redeeming principle,
because it calls forth the love of man. Peter Lombard also, who
retained, like Bernard, the old view of the right of the devil,
agreed with Abelard in giving a moral character to the work of re-
demption.

3. The doctrines of the Reformed as well as of the Catholic Church
were expressed in the language of the scholastic theology. But
the logic which the Catholic party had employed in defining and
‘distinguishing the body of truth already received, the teachers
of the Reformation used to express the subjective feelings of
the human soul. Theology made a transition, such as we may
observe at one or two epochs in the history of philosophy, from the
object to the subject. Hence, the doctrine of atonement or satisfac-
tion became subordinate to the doctrine of justification. The
reformers begin, not with ideas, but with the consciousness of sin ;
with immediate human interests, not with speculative difficulties; not

VOL. II. ; ig

578 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

with mere abstractions, but with a great struggle; “ without were
fightings, within were fears.” As of Socrates and philosophy, so it may
be also said truly of Luther in a certain sense, that he brought down
the work of redemption “ from heaven to earth.” The great question
with him was, “how we might be freed from the punishment and
guilt of sin,” and the answer was, through the appropriation of the
merits of Christ. All that man was or might have been, Christ
became, and was; all that Christ did or was, attached or was
imputed to man: as God, he paid the infinite penalty ; as man, he
fulfilled the law. The first made redemption possible, the second
perfected it. The first was termed in the language of that age, the
“obedientia passiva,” the second, the “ obedientia activa.”

In this scheme the doctrine of satisfaction is far from being pro-
minent or necessary ; it is a remnant of an older theology which was
retained by the Reformers and prevented their giving a purely moral
character to the work of Christ. There were differences among
them respecting the two kinds of obedience; some regarding the
“ obedientia passiva” as the cause or condition of the “ obedientia
activa,” while others laid no stress on the distinction. But all the
great chiefs of the Reformation agreed in the fiction of imputed
righteousness. Little had been said in earlier times of a doctrine of
imputation. But now the Bible was reopened and read over again
in one light only, “justification by faith and not by works.” The
human mind seemed to seize with a kind of avidity on any distinc-
tion which took it out of itself, and at the same time freed it from
the burden of ecclesiastical tyranny. Figures of speech in which
Christ was said to die for man or for the sins of man were under-
stood in as crude and literal a sense as the Catholic Church had at-
tempted to gain from the words of the institution of the Eucharist.
Imputation and substitution among Protestant divines began to be
formulas as strictly imposed as transubstantiation with their oppo-
nents. To Luther, Christ was not only the Holy One who died for the
sins of men, but the sinner himself on whom the vials of divine wrath

were poured out. And seeing in the Epistles to the Galatians and

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 579

vu

Romans the power which the law exercised in that age of the
world over Jewish or half-Jewish Christians, he transferred the
state which the Apostle there describes to his own age, and imagined
that the burden under which he himself had groaned was the same
law of which St. Paul spoke, which Christ first fulfilled in his own
person and then abolished for ever.

Jt was not unnatural that in the middle ages, when morality had
no free or independent development, the doctrine of the atonement
should have been drawn out on the analogy of law. Nor is there
any reason why we should feel surprised that, with the revival of the
study of Scripture at the Reformation, the Mosaic law should have
exercised a great influence over the ideas of Protestants. More
singular, yet an analogous phenomenon, is the attempt of Grotius to
conceive the work of Christ by the help of the principles of
political justice. All men are under the influence of their own
education or profession, and they are apt to conceive truths which
are really of a different or higher kind under some form derived
from it; they require such a degree or kind of evidence as their
minds are accustomed to, and political or legal principles have often
been held a sufficient foundation for moral truth.

The theory of the celebrated jurist proceeds from the conception of
God as governor of the universe. As such, he may forgive sins
just as any other ruler may remit the punishment of offences
against positive law. But although the ruler possesses the power
to remit sins, and there is nothing in the nature of justice which
would prevent his doing so, yet he has also a duty, which is to
- uphold his own authority and that of the laws. To doso, he must
enforce punishment for the breach of them. This punishment,
however, may attach not to the offender, but to the offence. Sucha
distinction is not unknown to the law itself. We may apply this to
the work of Christ. There was no difficulty in the nature of things
which prevented God from freely pardoning the sins of men ; the
power of doing so was vested in his hands as governor of the
world. But it was inexpedient that he should exercise this power

Pp 2

580 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

without first making an example. This was effected by the death
of Christ. It pleased God to act according to the pedantic rules
of earthly jurisprudence. It is useless to criticise such a theory
further ; almost all theologians have agreed in reprobating it; it
adopts the analogy of law, and violates its first principles by consi-
dering a moral or legal act without reference to the agent. The
reason which Grotius assigns for the death of Christ is altogether
trivial. |

4, Later theories on the doctrine of the atonement may be divided
into two classes, English and German, logical and metaphysical ;
those which proceed chiefly by logical inference, and those which
connect the conception of the atonement with speculative philo-
sophy.

Earlier English writers were chiefly employed in defining the
work of Christ; later ones have been most occupied with the
attempt to soften or moderate the more repulsive features of the
older statements; the former have a dogmatical, the latter an
apologetical character. The nature of the sufferings of Christ,
whether they were penal or only quasi penal, whether they were
physical or mental, greater in degree than human sufferings, or dif-
ferent in kind; in what more precisely the compensation offered
by Christ truly consisted; the nature of the obedience of Christ,
whether to God or the law, and the connexion of the whole
question with that of the Divine decrees:—these were among the
principal subjects discussed by the great Presbyterian divines of the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Continuing in the same
line of thought as their predecessors, they seem to have been un-
conscious of the difficulties to which the eyes of a later generation
have opened.

But at last the question has arisen within, as well as without, .

the Church of England: “ How the ideas of expiation, or satis-
faction, or sacrifice, or imputation, are reconcilable with the
moral and spiritual nature either of God or man?” Some

there are who answer from analogy, and cite instances of vica-

—_— ae i i nt a

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 581

rious suffering which appear in the disorder of the world around
us. But analogy is a broken reed; of use, indeed, in pointing out
the way where its intimations can be verified, but useless when ap-
plied to the unseen world in which the eye of observation no longer
follows. Others affirm revelation or inspiration to be above criti-
cism, and, in disregard alike of Church history and of Scripture,
assume their own view of the doctrine of the atonement to be a
revealed or inspired truth. They do not see that they are cutting
off the branch of the tree on which they are themselves sitting.
For, if the doctrine of the atonement cannot be criticised, neither
can it be determined what is the doctrine of the atonement; nor, on
the same principles, can any true religion be distinguished from any
false one, or any truth of religion from any error. It is suicidal in
theology to refuse the appeal to a moral criterion. Others add a
distinction of things above reason and things contrary to reason; a
favourite theological weapon, which has, however, no edge or force, so
long as it remains a generality. Others, in like manner, support their
view of the doctrine of the atonement by a theory of accommodation,
which also loses itself in ambiguity. For it is not determined whether,
by accommodation to the human faculties, is meant the natural sub-
jectiveness of knowledge, or some other limitation which applies
to theology only. Others regard the death of Christ, not as an
atonement or satisfaction to God, but as a manifestation of his
righteousness, a theory which agrees with that of Grotius in its
general character, when the latter is stripped of its technicalities.
This theory is the shadow or surface of that of satisfaction; the
human analogy equally fails; the punishment of the innocent for
the guilty is not more unjust than the punishment of the innocent
as an example to the guilty. Lastly, there are some who would
read the doctrine of the atonement “in the light of Divine love
only ;” the object of the sufferings and death of Christ being to
draw men’s hearts to God by the vision of redeeming love (compare
Abelard), and the sufferings themselves being the natural result of
the passage of the Saviour through a world of sin and shame. Of

9

| i sek

582 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

these explanations the last seems to do the least violence to our
moral feelings. Yet it would surely be better to renounce any
attempt at inquiry into the objective relations of God and man, than
to rest the greatest fact in the history of mankind on so slender a
ground as the necessity for arousing the love of God in the human
heart, in this and no other way. ¢
German theology during the last hundred years has proceeded by
a different path; it has delighted to recognise the doctrine of the
atonement as the centre of religion, and also of philosophy. This
tendency is first observable in the writings of Kant, and may be
traced through the schools of his successors, Fichte, Schelling,
Hegel, as well as in the works of the two philosophical theologians
Daub and Schleiermacher. These great thinkers all use the language
of orthodoxy ; it cannot be said, however, that the views of any of
them agree with the teaching of the patristic or medieval Church,
or of the Reformers, or of the simpler expressions of Scripture.
Yet they often bring into new meaning and prominence texts on
this subject which have been pushed aside by the regular current of
theology. The difficulties which they all alike experience are two:
first, how to give a moral meaning to the idea of atonement;
secondly, how to connect the idea with the historical fact.
According to Kant, the atonement consists in the sacrifice of the
individual ; a sacrifice in which the sin of the old man is ever being
compensated by the sorrows and virtues of the new. This atone-
ment, or reconcilement of man with God, consists in an endless pro-
gress towards a reconcilement which is never absolutely completed
in this life, and yet, by the continual increase of good and dimi-

nution of evil, is a sufficient groundwork of hope and peace.

Perfect reconcilement would consist in the perfect obedience of a

free agent to the law of duty or righteousness. For this Kant sub-
stitutes the ideal of the Son of God. The participation in this
ideal of humanity is an aspect of the reconcilement. In a certain
sense, in the sight of God, that is, and in the wish and resolution
of the individual, the change from the old to the new is not gradual,

Se ee ee eee _

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 583

but sudden: the end is imputed or anticipated in the beginning.
So Kant “rationalises” the ordinary Lutheran doctrine of justi-
fication ; unconscious, as in other parts of his philosophy, of the
influence which existing systems are exercising over him. Man
goes out of himself to grasp at a reflection which is still —himself.
The mystical is banished only to return again in an arbitrary and
imaginative form ;— a phenomenon which we may often observe in
speculation as well as in the characters of individuals.

Schleiermacher’s view of the doctrine of the atonement is almost
equally different from that of Kant who preceded him, and of
Hegel and others who were his contemporaries or successors: it is
hardly more like the popular theories. Reconciliation with God he
conceives as a participation in the Divine nature. Of this partici-
pation the Church, through the Spirit, is the medium; the individual
is redeemed and consoled by communion with his fellow-men. If
in the terminology of philosophy we ask which is the objective
which the subjective part of the work of redemption, the answer of
Schleiermacher seems to be that the subjective redemption of the
individual is the consciousness of union with God ; and the objective
part, which corresponds to this consciousness, is the existence of the
Church, which derives its life from the Spirit of God, and is also the
depository of the truth of Christ. The same criticism, however,
applies to this as to the preceding conception of the atonement, ‘viz.
that it has no real historical basis. The objective truth is nothing
more than the subjective feeling or opinion which prevails in a
particular Church. Schleiermacher deduces the historical from the
ideal, and regards the ideal as existing only in the communion of
Christians. But the truth of a fact is not proved by the truth of
an idea. And the personal relation of the believer to Christ, instead
of being immediate, is limited (as in the Catholic system) by the
existence of the Church.

Later philosophers have conceived of the reconciliation of man
with God as a reconciliation of God with Himself. The infinite

must evolve the finite from itself; yet the true infinite consists in the

Pp 4

584 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

return of the finite to the infinite. By slow degrees, and in many
stages of morality, of religion, and of knowledge, does the individual,
according to Fichte, lay aside isolation and selfishness, gaining in
strength and freedom by the negation of freedom, until he rises into
the region of the divine and absolute. This is reconcilement with
God; a half Christian, half Platonic notion, which it is not easy to
identify either with the subjective feeling of the individual, or with
the historical fact. Daub has also translated the language of Scrip-
ture and of the Church into metaphysical speculation. According
to this thinker, atonement is the realisation of the unity of man with
God, which is also the unity of God with Himself. “Deus Deum
cum mundo conjunctum Deo manifestat.” Perhaps this is as near
an approach as philosophy can make to a true expression of the
words, “ That they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I
in thee, that they also may be one in us.” Yet the metaphysical
truth is a distant and indistinct representation of the mind of
Christ which is expressed in these words. Its defect is exhibited
in the image under which Fichte described it, — the absolute unity
of light; in other words, God, like the being of the Eleatics, is a
pure abstraction, and returning into himself is an abstraction
still.

It is characteristic of Schelling’s system that he conceives the
nature of God, not as abstraction, but as energy or action. The
finite and manifold are not annihilated in the infinite; they are the
revelation of the infinite. Man is the son of God; of this truth
Christ is the highest expression and the eternal idea. But in the
world this revelation or incarnation of God is ever going on; the
light is struggling with darkness, the spirit with nature, the uni-
versal with the particular. That victory which was achieved in the
person of Christ is not yet final in individuals or in history. Each
person, each age, carries on the same conflict between good and evil,
the triumphant end of which is anticipated in the life and death of
Christ.

Hegel, beginning with the doctrine of a Trinity, regards the
atonement as the eternal reconciliation of the finite and the infinite

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 585

in the bosom of God himself. The Son goes forth from the Father,
as the world or finite being, to exist in a difference which is done
away and lost in the absoluteness of God. Here the question arises,
how. individuals become partakers of this reconciliation? The
answer is, by the finite receiving the revelation of God. The con-
sciousness of God in man is developed, first, in the worship of
nature; secondly, in the manifestation of Christ; thirdly, in the
faith of the Church that God and man are one, of which faith the
Holy Spirit is the source. The death of Christ is the separation of
this truth from the elements of nature and sense. Hegelian divines
have given this doctrine a more Pantheistic or more Christian
aspect ; they have, in some instances, studiously adopted orthodox
language ; they have laid more or less stress on the historical facts.
But they have done little as yet to make it intelligible to the world
at large ; they have acquired for it no fixed place in history, and no
hold upon life.

Englishmen, especially, feel a national dislike at the “things
which accompany salvation” being perplexed with philosophical
theories. They find it easier to caricature than to understand
Hegel; they prefer the most unintelligible expressions with which
they are familiar to great thoughts which are strange to them.
No man of sense really supposes that Hegel or Schelling is so
absurd as they may be made to look in an uncouth English trans-
lation, or as they unavoidably appear to many in a brief summary of
their tenets. Yet it may be doubted whether this philosophy can
ever have much connexion with the Christian life. It seems to
reflect at too great a distance what ought to be very near to us. It
is metaphysical, not practical ; it creates an atmosphere in which it
is difficult to breathe; it is useful as supplying a light or law by
which to arrange the world, rather than as a principle of action or
warmth. Man is a microcosm, and we do not feel quite certain
whether the whole system is not the mind itself turned inside out,
and magnified in enormous proportions. Whatever interest it may
arouse in speculative natures (and it is certainly of great value to a

few), it will hardly find a home or welcome in England.

586 _ EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

§ 3.

The silence of our Lord in the Gospels respecting any doctrine
of atonement and sacrifice, the variety of expressions which occur in
other parts of the New Testament, the fluctuation and uncertainty
both of the Church and individuals on this subject in after ages,
incline us to agree with Gregory Nazianzen, that the death of Christ
is one of those points of faith “ about which it is not dangerous to
be mistaken.” And the sense of the imperfection of language and
the illusions to which we are subject from the influence of past ideas,
the consciousness that doctrinal perplexities arise chiefly from our
transgression of the limits of actual knowledge, will lead us to
desire a very simple statement of the work of Christ; a statement,
however, in accordance with our moral ideas, and one which will not
shift and alter with the metaphysical schools of the age ; one, more-
over, which runs no risk of being overthrown by an increasing study
of the Old Testament or of ecclesiastical history. Endless theories
there have been (of which the preceding sketch contains only a
small portion), and many more there will be as time goes on, like
mystery plays, or sacred dramas (to adapt Lord Bacon’s image),
which have passed before the Church and the world. To add
another would increase the confusion; it is ridiculous to think of
settling a disputed point of theology unless by some new method.
That other method can only be a method of agreement ; little pro-
gress has been made hitherto by the method of difference. It is not
reasonable, but extremely unreasonable, that the most sacred of all
books should be the only one respecting the interpretation of which
there is no certainty; that religion alone should be able to perpetuate
the enmities of past ages; that the influence of words and names,
which secular knowledge has long shaken off, should still intercept
the natural love of Christians towards one another and their Lord.
On our present subject there is no difficulty in finding a basis of
reconciliation ; the way opens when logical projections are removed,
and we look at the truth in what may be rightly termed a more pri-

ve ee See? eee ee ee

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 587

mitive and Apostolical manner. For all, or almost all, Christians
would agree that in some sense or other we are reconciled to God
through Christ ; whether by the atonement and satisfaction which
He made to God for us, or by His manifestation of the justice of God
or love of God in the world, by the passive obedience of His death
or the active obedience of His life, by the imputation of His righteous-
ness to us or by our identity and communion with Him, or likeness
to Him, or love of Him; in some one of these senses, which easily
pass into each other, all would join in saying that “ He is the way,
the truth, and the life.” And had the human mind the same power
of holding fast points of agreement as of discerning differences, there
would be an end of the controversy.

The statements of Scripture respecting the work of Christ are
very simple, and may be used without involving us in the determina-
tion of these differences. We can live and die in the language of
St. Paul and St. John; there is nothing there repugnant to our
moral sense. We have a yet higher authority in the words of Christ
himself. Only in repeating and elucidating these statements, we
must remember that Scripture phraseology is of two kinds, simple and
figurative, and that the first is the interpretation of the second. We
must not bring the New Testament into bondage to the Old, but
ennoble and transfigure the Old by the New.

First ; the death of Christ may be described as a sacrifice. But
what sacrifice? Not “the blood of bulls and of goats, nor the ashes
of an heifer sprinkling the unclean,” but the living sacrifice “to do
Thy will, O God.” Itis a sacrifice which is the negation of sacrifice ;
“Christ the end of the law to them that believe.” Peradventure, in
a heathen country, to put an end to the rite of sacrifice “some one
would even dare to die;” that expresses the relation in which the
offering on Mount Calvary stands to the Levitical offerings. It is
the death of what is outward and local, the life of what is inward
and spiritual: “I, if I be lifted up from the earth, shall draw all men
after me;” and “Neither in this mountain nor at Jerusalem shall
ye worship the Father.” It is the offering up of the old world on

588 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

the cross ; the law with its handwriting of ordinances, the former man
with his affections and lusts, the body of sin with its remembrances of
past sin. It is the New Testament revealed in the blood of Christ,
the Gospel of freedom, which draws men together in the communion
of one spirit, as in St. Paul’s time without respect of persons and
nations, so in our own day without regard to the divisions of Christen- —
dom. In the place of Churches, priesthoods, ceremonials, systems, it
puts a moral and spiritual principle which works with them, not
necessarily in opposition to them, but beside or within them, to re-
new life in the individual soul.

Again, the death of Christ may be described as a ransom. It is
not that God needs some payment which He must receive before He
will set the captives free. The ransom is not a human ransom, any
more than the sacrifice is a Levitical sacrifice. Rightly to compre-
hend the nature of this Divine ransom, we must begin with that
question of the Apostle: “ Know ye not that whose servants ye yield
yourselves to obey, his servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of
sin unto death, or of obedience unto righteousness? ” There are
those who will reply: “ We were never in bondage at any time.”
To whom Christ answers: “ Whosoever committeth sin is the servant
of sin;” and, “ If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.”
Ransom is “deliverance to the captive.” There are mixed modes
here also, as in the use of the term sacrifice — the word has a tem-
porary allusive reference to a Mosaical figure of speech. That
secondary allusive reference we are constrained to drop, because it
is unessential; and also because it immediately involves further
questions—a ransom to whom ? for what ?— about which Scripture
is silent, to which reason refuses to answer.

Thirdly, the death of Christ is spoken of as a death for us,
or for our sins. The ambiguous use of the preposition “ for,”
combined with the figure of sacrifice, has tended to introduce
the idea of substitution; when the real meaning is not “in our
stead,” but only “in behalf of,” or “because of us.” It is a

great assumption, or an unfair deduction, from such expressions,

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 589

to say that Christ takes our place, or that the Father in looking
at the sinner sees only Christ. Christ died for us in no other
sense than He lived or rose again for us. Scripture affords no
hint of His taking our place in His death in any other way than He
did also in His life. He himself speaks of His “ decease which He
should accomplish at Jerusalem,” quite simply: “greater love hath
no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The
words of Caiaphas, “It is expedient that one man should die for
this nation,” and the comment of the Evangelist, “and not for that
nation only, but that he should gather together in one the children
of God that are scattered abroad,” afford a measure of the mean-
ing of such expressions. Here, too, there are mixed modes which
seem to be inextricably blended in the language of Scripture, and
which theology has not always distinguished. For the thing signified
is, partly, that Christ died for our sakes, partly that He died by the
hands of sinners, partly that He died with a perfect and Divine
sympathy for human evil and suffering. But this ambiguity (which
we may silently correct or explain) need not prevent our joining in
words which, more perhaps than any others, have been consecrated
by religious use to express the love and affection of Christians to-
wards their Lord.

Now suppose some one who is aware of the plastic and accommo-
dating nature of language to observe, that in what has been written of
late years on the doctrine of the atonement he has noticed an effort
made to win for words new senses, and that some of the preceding
remarks are liable to this charge; he may be answered, first, that
.those new senses are really a recovery of old ones (for the writers
of the New Testament, though they use the language of the time,
everywhere give it a moral meaning); and, secondly, that in
addition to the modes of conception already mentioned, the Scrip-
ture has others which are not open to his objection. And those
who, admitting the innocence and Scriptural character of the ex-
pressions already referred to, may yet fear their abuse, and therefore
desire to have them excluded from articles of faith (just as many

590 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Protestants, though aware that the religious use of images is not
idolatry, may not wish to see them in churches) ;— such persons
may find a sufficient expression of the work of Christ in other modes
of speech which the Apostle also uses. (1.) Instead of the language
of sacrifice, or ransom, or substitution, they may prefer that of com-
munion or identity. (2.) Or they may interpret the déath of Christ
by his life, and connect the bleeding form on Mount Calvary with
the image of Him who went about doing good. Or (38.) they may
look inward at their own souls, and read there, inseparable from the
sense of their own unworthiness, the assurance that God will not
desert the work of His hands, of which assurance the death of Christ
is the outward witness to them. There are other ways, also, of
conceiving the redemption of man which avoid controversy, any of
which is a sufficient stay of the Christian life. For the kingdom of
God is not this or that statement, or definition of opinion, but
righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. And the
cross of Christ is to be taken up and borne; not to be turned into
words, or made a theme of philosophical speculation.

1. Everywhere St. Paul speaks of the Christian as one with
Christ. He is united with Him, not in His death only, but in all
the stages of His existence; living with Him, suffering with Him,
crucified with Him, buried with Him, rising again with Him, re-
newed in His image, glorified together with Him; these are the
expressions by which this union is denoted. ‘There is something
meant by this language which goes beyond the experience of ordi-
nary Christians, something, perhaps, more mystical than in these
latter days of the world most persons seem to be capable of feeling,
yet the main thing signified is the same for all ages, the knowledge
and love of Christ, by which men pass out of themselves to make
their will His and His theirs, the consciousness of Him in their
thoughts and actions, communion with Him, and trust in Him.
Of every act of kindness or good which they do to others His life is
the type; of every act of devotion or self-denial His death is the
type ; of every act of faith His resurrection is the type. And often
they walk with Him on earth, not in a figure only, and find Him

ws

‘
ee ee eee ee eS

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 591

near them, not in a figure only, in the valley of death. They expe-
rience from Him the same kind of support as from the sympathy
and communion of an earthly friend. That friend is also'a Divine
power. In proportion as they become like Him, they are reconciled
to God through Him; they pass with Him into the relationship of
sons of God. There is enough here for faith to think of, without
sullying the mirror of God’s justice, or overclouding His truth.
We need not suppose that God ever sees us other than we really
are, or attributes to us what we never did. Doctrinal statements,
in which the nature of the work of Christ is most exactly defined,
cannot really afford the same support as the simple conviction of
_ His love.

Again (2.), the import of the death of Christ may be interpreted by
His life. No theological speculation can throw an equal light on
it. From the other side we cannot see it, but only from this. Now
the life of Christ is the life of One who knew no sin, on whom the
shadow of evil never passed ; who went about doing good; who had
not where to lay His head; whose condition was in all respects the
reverse of earthly and human greatness; who also had a sort of
infinite sympathy or communion with all men everywhere; whom,
nevertheless, His own nation betrayed to a shameful death. It is
the life of One who came to bear witness of the truth, who knew
what was in man, and never spared to rebuke him, yet condemned
him not; Himself without sin, yet One to whom all men would
soonest have gone to confess and receive forgiveness of sin. It is
the life of One who was in constant communion with God as well
as man; who was the inhabitant of another world while outwardly
in this. It is the life of One in whom we see balanced and united
the separate gifts and graces of which we catch glimpses only in the
lives of His followers. It is a life which is mysterious to us, which
we forbear to praise, in the earthly sense, because it is above praise,
being the most perfect image and embodiment that we can conceive
of Divine goodness.

And the death of Christ is the fulfilment and consummation of His

life, the greatest moral act ever done in this world, the highest ma-

592 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

nifestation of perfect love, the centre in which the rays of love con-
verge and meet, the extremest abnegation or annihilation of self. It
is the deith of One who seals with His blood the witness of the truth
which He came into the world to teach, which therefore confirms our
faith in Him as well as animates our love. It is the death of One, who
says at the last hour, “ Of them that thou gavest me, I have not lost
one,”— of One who, having come forth from God, and having finished
the work which He came into the world to do, returns to God. Itisa
death in which all the separate gifts of heroes and martyrs are
united in a Divine excellence,—of One who most perfectly foresaw
all things that were coming upon Him—who felt all, and shrank
not,—of One who, in the hour of death, set the example to His
followers of praying for,His enemies. It is a death which, more even
than His life, is singular and mysterious, in which nevertheless we
all are partakers, —in which there was the thought and conscious-
ness of mankind to the end of time, which has also the power of
drawing to itself the thoughts of men to the end of time.

Lastly, there is a true Christian feeling in many other ways of re-
garding the salvation of man, of which the heart is its own witness,
which yet admit, still less than the preceding, of logical rule and pre»
cision. He who is conscious of his own infirmity and sinfulness, is
ready to confess that he needs reconciliation with God. He has no
proud thoughts : he knows that he is saved “not of himself, it is the
gift of God;” the better he is, the more he feels, in the language of
Scripture, “that he is an unprofitable servant.” Sometimes he
imagines the Father “coming out to meet him, when he is yet a
long way off,” as in the parable of the Prodigal Son; at other times
the burden of sin lies heavy on him ; he seems to need more support—
he can approach God only through Christ. All men are not the
same; one has more of the strength of reason in his religion;
another more of the tenderness of feeling. With some, faith

partakes of the nature of a pure and spiritual morality; there

are others who have gone through the struggle of St. Paul or |

Luther, and attain rest only in casting all on Christ. One will

—_ "

Race EL Eg at

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 593

live after the pattern of the Sermon on the Mount, or the Epistle of
St. James. Another finds a deep consolation and meaning in a closer
union with Christ; he will “put on Christ,” he will hide himself in
Christ ; he will experience in his own person the truth of those words
of the Apostle, “I am crucified with Christ, nevertheless I live; yet
not I, but Christ liveth in me.” But if he have the spirit of mode-
ration that there was in St. Paul, he will not stereotype these true,
though often passing feelings, in any formula of substitution or satis-
faction ; still less will he draw out formulas of this sort into remote
consequences. Such logical idealism is of another age; it is neither
faith nor philosophy in this. Least of all will he judge others by the
circumstance of their admitting or refusing to admit the expression
of his individual feelings as an eternal truth. He shrinks from as-
serting his own righteousness ; he is equally unwilling to affirm that
the righteousness of Christ is imputed to him. He is looking for for-
giveness of sins, not because Christ has satisfied the wrath of God,
but because God can show mercy without satisfaction: he may have
no right to acquittal, he dare not say, God has no right to acquit.
Yet again, he is very far from imagining that the most merciful
God will indiscriminately forgive; or that the weakness of human
emotions, groaning out at the last hour a few accustomed phrases,
is a.sufficient ground of confidence and hope. He knows that the
only external evidence of forgiveness is the fact, that he has ceased
to do evil; no other is possible. Having Christ near as a friend
and a brother, and making the Christian life his great aim, he is no
longer under the dominion of a conventional theology. He will not
be distracted by its phrases from communion with his fellow-men.
‘He can never fall into that confusion of head and heart, which
elevates matters of opinion into practical principles. Difficulties
and doubts diminish with him, as he himself grows more like
Christ, not because he forcibly suppresses them, but because they
become unimportant in comparison with purity, and holiness, and
love. Enough of truth for him seems to radiate from the person of

the Saviour. He thinks more and more of the human nature of

VOL. II. QQ

594 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

Christ as the expression of the divine. He has found the way of
life ; — that way is not an easy way — but neither is it beset by the
imaginary perplexities with which a false use of the intellect in re-

ligion has often surrounded it.

It seems to be an opinion which is gaining ground among thought-
ful and religious men, that in theology, the less we define the better.
Definite statements respecting the relation of Christ either to God
or man are only figures of speech; they do not really pierce the
clouds which ‘round our little life.’ When we multiply words we
do not multiply ideas; we are still within the circle of our own
minds. No greater calamity has ever befallen the Christian Church
than the determination of some uncertain things which are beyond
the sphere of human knowledge. A true instinct prevents our en-
tangling the faith of Christ with the philosophy of the day; the
philosophy of past ages is a still more imperfect exponent of it.
Neither is it of any avail to assume revelation or inspiration as a
sort of shield, or Catholicon, under which the weak points of theology
may receive protection. For what is revealed or what inspired
cannot be answered “a priori;” the meaning of the word Revelation,
must be determined by the fact, not the fact by the word.

If our Saviour were to come again to earth, which of all the
theories of atonement and sacrifice would he sanction with his
authority? Perhaps none of them, yet perhaps all may be con-
sistent with a true service of Him. ‘The question has no answer.
But it suggests the thought that we shrink from bringing con-
troversy into His presence. ‘The same kind of lesson may be
gathered from the consideration of theological differences in the face
of death. Who, as he draws near to Christ, will not feel himself
drawn towards his theological opponents? At the end of life, when
a man looks back calmly, he is most likely to find that he exaggerated .
in some things; that he mistook party spirit for a love of truth.
Perhaps, he had not sufficient consideration for others, or stated

the truth itself in a manner which was calculated to give offence.

ON ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION. 595

In the heat of the struggle, let us at least pause to imagine polemical
disputes as they will appear a year, two years, three years hence ;
it may be, dead and gone—certainly more truly seen than in the
hour of controversy. For the truths about which we are disputing
cannot partake of the passing stir; they do not change even with
the greater revolutions of human things. They are in eternity ;
and the image of them on earth is not the movement on the surface
of the waters, but the depths of the silent sea. Lastly, as a measure
of the value of such disputes, which above all other interests seem
to have for a time the power of absorbing men’s minds and rousing
their passions, we may carry our thoughts onwards to the invisible
world, and there behold, as in a glass, the great theological teachers
of past ages, who have anathematized each other in their lives, rest-

ing together in the communion of the same Lord.

@:-0.%

596

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL.

Tue difficulty of necessity and free will is not peculiar to Christianity.
It enters into all religions at a certain stage of their progress ; it
reappears in philosophy and is a question not only of speculation but
of life. Wherever man touches nature, wherever the stream of
thought which flows within, meets and comes into conflict with
scientific laws, reflecting on the actions of an individual in relation
to his antecedents, considering the balance of human actions in many
individuals; when we pass into the wider field of history, and trace
the influence of circumstances on the course of events, the sequence
of nations and states of society, the physical causes that lie behind
all; in the region of philosophy, as we follow the order of human
thoughts, and observe the seeming freedom and real limitation of
ideas and systems; lastly in that higher world of which religion
speaks to us, when we conceive man as a finite being, who has the
witness in himself of his own dependence on God, whom theology
too has made the subject of many theories of grace, new forms
appear of that famous controversy which the last century dis-
cussed under the name of necessity and free will.

I shall at present pursue no further the train of reflections which
are thus suggested. My first object is to clear the way for the con-
sideration of the subject within the limits of Scripture. Some pre-

liminary obstacles offer themselves, arising out of the opposition

which the human mind everywhere admits in the statement of this —

question. These will be first examined. We may afterwards
return to the modern aspects of the contradiction and of the recon-
cilement. |

:
%
oe
Mie
a
te

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 597

§ 1.

In the relations of God and man, good and evil, finite and infinite,
there is much that must ever be mysterious. Nor can any one ex-
aggerate the weakness and feebleness of the human mind in the
attempt to seek for such knowledge. But although we acknowledge
the feebleness of man’s brain and the vastness of the subject, we
should also draw a distinction between the original difficulty of our
own ignorance, and the puzzles and embarrassments which false
philosophy or false theology have introduced. The impotence of
our faculties is not a reason for acquiescing in a metaphysical fiction.
Philosophy has no right to veil herself in mystery at the point
where she is lost in a confusion of words. That we know little is
the real mystery; not that we are caught in dilemmas or sur-
rounded by contradictions. These contradictions are involved in
the slightest as well as in the most serious of our actions, which is a
proof of their really trifling nature. They confuse the mind but not
things. To trace the steps by which mere abstractions have ac-
quired this perplexing and constraining power, though it cannot
meet the original defect, yet may perhaps assist us to understand the
misunderstanding, and to regard the question of predestination and
free will in a simpler and more natural light.

A subject which claims to be raised above the rules and require-
ments of logic, must give a reason for the exemption, and must itself
furnish some other test of truth to which it is ready to conform.
The reason is that logic is inapplicable to the discussion of a ques-
_ tion which begins with a contradiction in terms: it can only work
out the opposite aspects or principles of such a question on one side
or the other, but is inadequate to that more comprehensive concep-
tion of the subject which embraces both. We often speak of lan-
guage as an imperfect instrument for the expression of thought.
Logic is even more imperfect ; it is wanting in the plastic and mul-
tiform character of language, yet deceives us by the appearance of

a straight rule and necessary principle. Questions respecting the

ag 3

598 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

relation of God and man, necessity and free will, the finite and the
infinite — perhaps every question which has two opposite poles of
fact and idea — are beyond the sphere of its art. But if not logic,
some other test must be found of our theories or reasonings, on these
and the like metaphysical subjects. This can only be their agree-
ment with facts, which we shall the more readily admit if the new
form of expression or statement of them be a real assistance to our
powers of thought and action.

The difficulties raised respecting necessity and free will, partake,
for the most part, of the same nature as the old fallacies respecting
motion and space, of Zeno and the Eleatics, and have their “solvitur
ambulando” as well. This is the answer of Bishop Butler, who
aims only at a practical solution. But as itis no use to say to the lame
man, “rise up and walk,” without a crutch or helping hand, so it is
no use to offer these practical solutions to a mind already entangled
in speculative perplexities. It retorts upon you “I cannot walk: if
my outward actions seem like other men’s; if I do not throw myself
from a precipice, or take away the life of another under the fatal
influence of the doctrine of necessity, yet the course of thought
within me is different. I look upon the world with other eyes, and
slowly and gradually, differences in thought must beget differences
also in action.” But if the mind, which is bound by this chain, could
be shown that it was a slave only to its own abstract ideas,—that it
was below where it ought to be above them, —that, considering all
the many minds of men as one mind, it could trace the fiction,—
this world of abstractions would gradually disappear, and not merely

in a Christian, but in a philosophical sense, it would receive the

kingdom of Heaven as a little child, seeking rather for some new

figure under which conflicting notions might be represented, than
remaining in suspense between them. It may be as surprising to a
future generation that the nineteenth century should have been
under the influence of the illusion of necessity and free will, or that
it should have proposed the law of contradiction as an ultimate test
of truth, as it is to ourselves that former ages have been subjected to

the fictions of essence, substance, and the like.

Tere Se 4 ae te

.
ee ee ee ee ee

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 599

The notion that no idea can be composed of two contradictory
conceptions, seems to arise out of the analogy of the sensible world.
It would be an absurdity to suppose that an object should be white
and black at the same time; that a captive should be in chains and
not in chains at the same time, and so on. But there isno absurdity
in supposing that the mental analysis even of a matter of fact or an
outward object should involve us in contradictions. Objects, con-
sidered in their most abstract point of view, may be said to contain a
| positive and a negative element: everything is and is not; is in itself,
and is not, in relation to other things. Our conceptions of motion,’of
becoming, or of beginning, in like manner involve a contradiction.
The old puzzles of the Eleatics are merely an exemplification of the
same difficulty. There are objections, it has been said, against a
vacuum, objections against a plenum, though we need not add, with
the writer who makes the remark, “ Yet one of these must be true.”
How a new substance can be formed by chemical combination out of
two other substances may seem also to involve a contradiction, e. g.
water is and is not oxygen and hydrogen. Life, in like manner, has
been defined a state in which every end is a means, and every means
anend. And if we turn to any moral or political subject, we are
perpetually coming across different and opposing lines of argument,
and constantly in danger of passing from one sphere to another; of
applying, for example, moral or theological principles to politics, and
political principles to theology. Men form to themselves first one
system, then many, as they term them different, but in reality oppo-
site to each other. Just as that nebulous mass, out of which the
heavens have been imagined to be formed, at last, with its circling
motion, subsides into rings, and embodies the “ stars moving in their
courses,” so also in the world of mind there are so many different
orbits which never cross or touch each other, and yet which must be
conceived of as the colours of the rainbow, the result of a single
natural phenomenon.

It is at first sight strange that some of these contradictions should

seem so trivial to us, while others assume the appearance of a high

ag ¢

600 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

mystery. In physics or mathematics we scarcely think of them,

though speculative minds may sometimes be led by them to seek for

higher expressions, or to embrace both sides of the contradiction in

some conception of flux or transition, reciprocal action, process

by antagonism, the Hegelian vibration of moments, or the like. In ~

common life we acquiesce in the contradiction almost unconsciously, .

merely remarking on the difference of men’s views, or the possibility
of saying something on either side of a question. But in religion the
difficulty appears of greater importance, partly from our being much
more under the influence of language in theology than in subjects
which we ean at once bring to the test of fact and experiment, and
partly also from our being more subject to our own natural constitu-
tion, which leads us to one or the other horn of the dilemma, instead
of placing us between or above both. As in heathen times it was
natural to think of extraordinary phenomena, such as thunder and
lightning, as the work of gods rather than as arising from physical
causes, so it is still to the religious mind to consider the bewilder-
ments and entanglements which it has itself made as a proof of the
unsearchableness of the Divine nature.

The immoveableness of these abstractions from within will further
incline us to consider the metaphysical contradiction of necessity
and free will in the only rational way ; that is, “historically.” ‘T'o
say that we have ideas of fate or freedom which are innate, is to
assume what is at once disproved by a reference to history. In the
East and West, in India and in Greece, in Christian as well as heathen
times, whenever men have been sufficiently enlightened to form
a distinct conception of a single Divine power or overruling law, the
question arises, How is the individual related to this law? The
first answer to this question is Pantheism; in which the individual,
dropping his proper qualities, abstracts himself into an invisible
being, indistinguishable from the Divine. God overpowers man;
the inner life absorbs the outer; the ideal world is too much for
this. The second answer, which the East has also given to this

question, is Fatalism; in which, without abstraction, the individual

a are OT PS

aia a nad aa a

yeh y ate

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 601

identifies himself, soul and body, in deed as well as thought, with
the Divine will. The first is the religion of contemplation ; the
second, of action. Only in the last, as the world itself alters the
sense of the overruling power weakens; and faith in the Divine

will, as in Mahometan countries at the present day, shows itself, not

-in a fanatical energy, but in passive compliance and resignation.

The gradual emergence of the opposition is more clearly traceable
in the Old Testament Scriptures or in Greek poetry or philosophy.
The Israelites are distinguished from all other Eastern nations —
certainly from all contemporary with their early history — by their
distinct recognition of the unity and personality of God. God, who
is the Creator and Lord of the whole earth, is also in a peculiar
sense the God of the Jewish people whom he deals with according to
his own good pleasure, which is also a law of truth and right. He
is not so much. the Author of good as the Author of all things,
without whom nothing either good or evil can happen; not only the
permitter of evil, but in a few instances, in the excess of His power,
the cause of it also. With this universal attribute He combines
another, “the Lord our God, who brought us out of the land of
bondage.” The people have one heart and one soul with which they
worship God and have dealings with Him. Only a few individuals
among them, as Moses or Joshua, draw near separately to Him. In
the earliest ages they do not pray each one for himself. There is a
great difference in this respect between the relation of man to God
which is expressed in the Psalms and in the Pentateuch. In the
later Psalms, certainly, and even in some of those ascribed to David,
there is an immediate personal intercourse between God and His
servants. At length in the books of Job and Ecclesiastes, the human
spirit begins to strive with God, and to ask not only, how can man
be just before God? but also, how can God be justified to man ?
There was a time when the thought of this could never have entered
into their minds; in which they were only, as children with a father,
doing evil, and punished, and returning once more to the arms of
His wisdom and goodness. The childhood of their nation passed

602 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

away, and the remembrance of what God had done for their fathers
was forgotten ; religion became the religion of individuals, of Simeon
and Anna, of Joseph and Mary. On the one hand, there was the proud
claim of those who said, “ We have Abraham to our Father ;” on
the other hand, the regretful feeling “that God was casting off Israel,”
which St. Paul in the manner of the Old Testament rebukes with
the words, “ Who art thou, O man?” and “‘ We are the clay, and He
the potter.” :

We may briefly trace the progress of a parallel struggle in Grecian
mythology. It presents itself, however, in another form, beginning
with the Fates weaving the web of life, or the Furies pursuing the
guilty, and ending in the pure abstraction of necessity or nature.
Many changes of feeling may be observed between the earlier and
later of these two extremes. The fate of poetry is not like that of
philosophy, the chain by which the world is held together; but an
ever-living power or curse—sometimes just, sometimes arbitrary, —
specially punishing impiety towards the Gods or violations of nature,
In Homer, it represents also a determination already fixed, or an ill
irremediable by man; in one aspect it is the folly which “leaves no
place for repentance.” In Pindar it receives a nobler form, ‘ Law
the king of all.” In the tragedians, it has a peculiar interest, giving
a kind of measured and regular movement to the whole action of the
play. The consciousness that man is not his own master, had
deepened in the course of ages; there had grown up in the mind
a sentiment of overruling law. It was this half-religious, half-
philosophical feeling, which Greek tragedy embodied; whence it
derived not only dramatic irony or contrast of the real and seeming,
but also its characteristic feature — repose. The same reflective
tone is observable in the “ Epic” historian of the Persian war; who
delights to tell, not (like a modern narrator) of the necessary con-
nexion of causes and effects, but of effects without causes, due
only to the will of Heaven. A sadder note is heard at intervals of
the feebleness and nothingness of man; wav éorw dvOpwroc cupdopi.

In Thucydides, (who was separated from Herodotus by an interval

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 603

of about twenty years) the sadness remains, but the religious element
has vanished. Man is no longer in the toils of destiny, but he is
still feeble and helpless. Fortune and human enterprise divide the
empire of life.

Such conceptions of fate belong to Paganism, and have little in
common with that higher idea of Divine predestination of which the
New Testament speaks. The fate of Greek philosophy is different
from either. The earlier schools expressed their sense of an. all-
pervading law in rude, mythological figures. In time this passed
away, and the conceptions of chance, of nature, and necessity became
matters of philosophical inquiry. By the Sophists first the question
was discussed, whether man is the cause of his own actions; the
mode in which they treated of the subject being to identify the
good with the voluntary, and the evil with the involuntary. It is
this phase of the question which is alone considered by Aristotle.
In the chain of the Stoics the doctrine has arrived at a further stage,
in which human action has become a part of the course of the world.
How the free will of man was to be reconciled either with Divine
power, or Divine foreknowledge, was a difficulty which pressed upon
the Stoical philosopher equally as upon the metaphysicians of the
last century; and was met by various devices, such as that of the
confatalism of Chrysippus, which may be described as a sort of
identity of fate and freedom, or of an action and its conditions.

Our inquiry has been thus far confined to an attempt to show, first,
that the question of predestination cannot be considered according
to the common rules of logic; secondly, that the contradictions

which are involved in this question, are of the same kind as many
other contrasts of ideas ; and, thirdly, that the modern conception
of necessity was the growth of ages, whether its true origin is to be
sought in the Scriptures, or in the Greek philosophy, or both. If
only we could throw ourselves back to a prior state of the world,
and know no other modes of thought than those which existed in
the infancy of the human mind, the opposition would cease to have

any meaning for us; and thus the further reflection is suggested,

604 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

that if ever we become fully conscious that the words which we use
respecting it are words only, it will again become unmeaning. His-
torically we know when it arose, and whence it came. Already we
are able to consider the subject in a simpler way, whether presented
to us (1.) in connexion with the statements of Scripture, or (2.) asa

subject of theology and philosophy.

§ 2.

Two kinds of predestination may be distinguished in the writings
of St. Paul, as well as in some parts of the Old Testament. First,
the predestination of nations; secondly, of individuals. The former
of these may be said to flow out of the latter, God choosing at
once ‘the patriarchs and their descendants. As the author of the
Epistle to the Hebrews expresses it, “By faith Abraham offered up
Isaac; and therefore sprang there of one, and him as good as dead,
so many as the stars of heaven in multitude.” The life of the
patriarchs was the type or shadow of the history of their posterity, .
for evil as well as good. ‘Simeon and Levi are brethren ; instru-
ments of cruelty are in their habitations; Joseph is a goodly
bough ;” Moab and Ammon are children of whoredom; Ishmael is a
wild man, and soon. There is also the feeling that whatever ex-
traordinary thing happens in Jewish history is God’s doing, not
of works nor even of faith, but of grace and choice: “He
took David from the sheep-folds, and set him over His people
Israel.” So that a double principle is discernible ; first, absolute
election; and, secondly, the fulfilment of the promises made to the
fathers, or the visitation of their sins upon the children.

The notion of freedom is essentially connected with that of indi-
viduality. No one is truly free who has not that inner circle of
thoughts and actions in which he is wholly himself and independent
of the will of others. A slave, for example, may be in this sense free,
even while in the service of his lord; constraint can apply only to
his outwards acts, not to his inward nature. But if, in the language

of Aristotle, he were a natural slave, whose life seemed to himself |

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 605

defective and imperfect, who had no thoughts or feelings of his own,
but only instincts and impulses, we could no more call him free than
a domestic animal which attaches itself to a master. So, in that
stage of society in which the state is all in all, the idea of the indi-
vidual has a feeble existence. In the language of philosophy the
whole is free, and the parts are determined by the whole. So the
theocracy of the Old Testament seems to swallow up its members.
The Jewish commonwealth is governed by God Himself; this of
itself interferes with the personal relation in which He stands to the
individuals who compose it. Through the law only, in the congre-
gation, at the great feasts, through their common ancestors, the
people draw near to God; they do not venture to think severally of
their separate and independent connexion with Him. They stand
or fall together; they go astray or return to Him as one man. It
is this which makes so much of their history directly applicable to
the struggle of Christian life. Religion, which to the believer in
Christ is an individual principle, is with them a national one.

The idea of a chosen people passes from the Old Testament into
the New. As the Jews had been predestined in the one, so it ap-
peared to the Apostle St. Paul that the Gentiles were predestined
in the other. In the Old Testament he observed two sorts of pre-
destination ; first, that more general one, in which all who were cir-
cumcised were partakers of the privilege — which was applicable to
all Israelites as the children of Abraham; secondly, the more par-
ticular one, in reference to which he says, “ All are not Israel who
are of Israel.” To the eye of faith “all Israel were saved ;” and
. yet within Israel, there was another Israel chosen in a more special
sense. The analogy of this double predestination the Apostle trans-
fers to the Christian society. All alike were holy, even those of
whom he speaks in the strongest terms of reprobation. The Church,
like Israel of old, presents to the Apostle’s mind the conception of a
definite body, consisting of those who are sealed by baptism and
have received “the first fruits of the Spirit.” They are elect ac-
cording to the foreknowledge or predisposition of God; sealed by

606 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

God unto the day of redemption ; a:peculiar people, a royal priesthood,
taken alike from Jews and Gentiles. The Apostle speaks of their
election as of some external fact. The elect of God have an offence
among them not even named among the Gentiles, they abuse the
gifts of the Spirit, they partake in the idol’s temple, they profane
the body and blood of Christ. And yet, as the Israelites of old, they
bear on their foreheads the mark that they are God’s people, and
are described as “chosen saints,” “ sanctified in Christ Jesus.”

Again, the Apostle argues respecting Israel itself, “Hath God
cast off his people whom he foreknew?” or rather, whom He before
appointed. They are in the position of their fathers when they
sinned against him. If we read their history we shall see, that what
happened to them in old times is happening to them now; and yet in
the Old Testament as well as the New the overruling design was not
their condemnation but their salvation—“ God concluded all under sin
that He might have mercy upon all.” They stumbled and rose again
then ; they will stumble and rise again now. Their predestination
from the. beginning is a proof that they cannot be finally cast off;
beloved as they have been for their father’s sakes, and the children
of so many promises. There is a providence which, in spite of all
contrary appearance, in spite of the acceptance of the Gentiles, or
rather so much the more in consequence of it, makes all things work
together for good to the chosen people.

In this alternation of hopes and fears, in which hope finally pre-
vails over fear, the Apostle speaks in the strongest language of the
right of God to do what He will with his own ; if any doctrine could
be established by particular passages of Scripture, Calvinism would
rest immoveable on the ninth chapter of the Romans. It seemed to

him no more unjust that God should reject than that He should ac-

cept the Israelites; if, at that present time He cut them short in,

righteousness, and narrowed the circle of election, He had done the
same with the patriarchs. He had said of old, “ Jacob have I loved,
and Esau have I hated:” and this preference, as the Apostle ob-
serves, was shown before either could have committed actual sin.

ee

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 607

In the same spirit He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I
will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have
compassion.” And to Pharaoh, “ For this cause have I raised thee
up.” Human nature, it is true, rebels at this, and says, “ Why does
He yet find fault?” To which the Apostle only replies, “ Shall the
thing formed say unto him that formed it, Why hast thou made me
thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay?” Some of the
expressions which have become the most objectionable watchwords
of predestinarian theology, such as ‘‘ vessels of wrath and vessels of
mercy,” are in fact taken from the same passage in the Epistle to the
Romans. *

It is answered by the opponents of Calvinism, that the Apostle is
here speaking not of individual but of national predestination. From
the teaching of the Old Testament respecting the election of the
Jewish people we can infer nothing respecting the Divine economy
about persons. ‘To which in turn it may be replied, that if we admit
the principle that the free choice of nations is not inconsistent with
Divine justice, we cannot refuse to admit the free choice of persons also.
A little more or a little less of the doctrine cannot make it more or
less reconcilable with the perfect justice of God. Nor can we argue
that the election of nations is a part of the Old Testament dispensa-
tion, which has no place in the New; because the Apostle speaks of
election according to the purpose of God as a principle which was at
that time being manifested in the acceptance of the Gentiles.

Yet the distinction is a sound one if stated a little differently, that
is to say, if we consider that the predestination of Christians is only
_ the continuance of the Old Testament in the New. It is the feeling
of a religious Israelite respecting his race; this the Apostle enlarges
to comprehend the Gentiles. As the temporal Israel becomes the
spiritual Israel, the chosen people are transfigured into the elect.
Why this is so is only a part of the more general question, “ why
the New. Testament was given through the Old?” It was natural
it should be so given; humanly speaking, it could not have been

otherwise. ‘The Gospel would have been unmeaning, if it had been

608 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

“tossed into the world” separated from all human antecedents; if
the heaven of its clearness had been beyond the breath of every
human feeling. Neither is there any more untruthfulness in St.
Paul’s requiring us to recognise the goodness of God in the election
of some and the rejection of others, than in humility or any act of
devotion. The untruth lies not in the devout feeling, but in the
logical statement. When we humble ourselves before God, we may
know, as a matter of common sense, that we are not worse than
others ; but this, however true (“ Father, I thank thee I am not as
other men”), is not the temper in which we kneel before Him.
So in these passages, St. Paul is speaking, not from a general con-

sideration of the Divine nature, but with the heart and feelings of an

Israelite. Could the question have been brought before him in an- |

other form,—could he have been asked whether God, according to
His own pleasure, chose out individual souls, so that some could not
fuil of being saved while others were necessarily lost,—could he
have been asked whether Christ died for all or for the chosen
few,—whether, in short, God was sincere in his offer of salvation,
—can we doubt that to such suggestions he would have replied
in his own words, “God forbid! for how shall God judge the
world ?”

It has been said that the great error in the treatment of this sub-
ject consists in taking chap. ix. separated from chaps. x. xi. We
may say mere generally, in taking parts of Scripture without the
whole, or in interpreting either apart from history and experience.
In considering the question of predestination, we must not forget
that at least one-half of Scripture tells not of what God does, but of
what man ought to do; not of grace and pardon only, but of holiness.
If, in speaking of election, St. Paul seems at times to use language
which implies the irrespective election of the Jews as a nation; yet,
on the other hand, what immediately follows shows us that conditions
were understood throughout, and that, although we may not chal-
lenge the right of God to do what He would with His own, yet that
in all His dealings with them the dispensation was but the effect of

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 609

their conduct. And although the Apostle is speaking chiefly of
national predestination, with respect to which the election of God
is asserted by him in the most unconditional terms; yet, as if he
were already anticipating the application of his doctrine to the indi-
vidual, he speaks of human causes for the rejection of Israel; “ be-
cause they sought not righteousness by the way of faith ;” “because
they stumble at the rock of offence.” God accepted and rejected
Israel of His own good pleasure ; and yet it was by their own fault.
How are we to reconcile these conflicting statements? They do not
need reconciliation; they are but the two opposite expressions of a
religious mind, which says at one moment, “ Let me try to do right,”
and at another, “ God alone can make me do right.” The two feel-
ings may involve a logical contradiction, and yet exist together in
fact and in the religious experience of mankind.

In the Old Testament the only election of individuals is that of
the great leaders or chiefs, who are identified with the nation. But
in the New Testament, where religion has become a personal and
individual matter, it follows that election must also be of persons.
_ The Jewish nation knew, or seemed to know, one fact, that they
were the chosen people. They saw, also, eminent men raised up by
the hand of God to be the deliverers of His servants. It is not in
this “historical” way that the Christian becomes conscious of his
individual election. From within, not from without, he is made
aware of the purpose of God respecting himself. Living in close
and intimate union with God, having the mind of the Spirit and
knowing the things of the Spirit, he begins to consider with St. Paul,
“ When it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb,
to reveal His Son in me.” His whole life seems a sort of miracle to
him; supernatural, and beyond other men’s in the gifts of grace
which he has received. If he asks himself, “‘ Whence was this to
me?” he finds no other answer but that God gave them “because
He had a favour unto him.” He recalls the hour of his conversion,
when, in a moment, he was changed from darkness to light, and
from the power of Satan unto God. Or, perhaps, the dealings of

VOL. II. RR

610 - EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

God with him have been insensible, yet not the less real; like a
child, he cannot remember the time when he first began to trust
the love of his parent. How can he separate himself from that love
or refuse to believe that He who began the good work will also
accomplish it unto the end? At which step in the ladder of God’s
mercy will he stop? ‘ Whom He did foreknow, them He did predes-

tinate; whom He did predestinate, them He also called; whom He

called, them He justified ; whom He justified, them He also glorified.”

A religious mind feels the difference between saying, “God chose
me; I cannot tell why; not for any good that I have done; and I
am persuaded that He will keep me unto the end;” and saying,
“God chooses men quite irrespective of their actions, and predestines
them to eternal salvation;” and yet more, if we add the other half
of the doctrine, “ God refuses men quite irrespective of their actions,
aud they become reprobates, predestined to everlasting damnation.”
Could we be willing to return to that stage of the doctrine which
St. Paul taught, without comparing contradictory statements or
drawing out logical conclusions, —could we be content to rest our
belief, as some of the greatest, even of Calvinistic divines have
done, on fact and experience, theology would be no longer at
variance with morality.

“ Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is

God that worketh in you both to do and to will of His good pleasure,” -

is the language of Scripture, adjusting the opposite aspects of this
question. The Arminian would say, “ Work out your own salva-
tion;” the Calvinist, “ God worketh in you both to do and to will
of His good pleasure.” However contradictory it may sound, the
Scripture unites both; work out your own salvation with fear and
trembling; for it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do

of His good pleasure.

pigs fie

Ec in. Ee eee Te Reg a

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 611

§ 3.

I. We have been considering the question thus far within the limits
of Scripture. But it has also a wider range. The primary relations
of the will of man to the will of God are independent of the Chris-
tian revelation. Natural religion, that is to say, the Greek seeking
after wisdom, the Indian wandering in the expanse of his own
dreamlike consciousness, the Jew repeating to himself that he is
Abraham’s seed; each in their several ways at different stages of
the world’s history have asked the question, “ How is the freedom of
the human will consistent with the infinity and omnipotence of
God?” ‘These attributes admit of a further analysis into the power
of God and the knowledge of God. And hence arises a second form
of the enquiry, ‘‘ How is the freedom of the human will reconcileable
with Divine omniscience or foreknowledge?” To which the Chris-
tian system adds a third question, “ How is the freedom of the human
will reconcileable with that more immediate presence of God in the
soul which is termed by theologians Divine grace?”

1. God is everywhere; man is nowhere. Infinity exists continuously
in every point of time; it fills every particle of space. Or rather,

these very ideas of time and space are figures of speech, for they have

a “here” and a“ there,” a future and a past— which no effort of
human imagination can transcend. But in God there is no future
and no past, neither “ here nor there ;” He is all and in all. Where,
-then, is room for man? in what open place is he permitted to live
and move and have his being ?

God is the cause of all things ; without Him nothing is made that
is made. He is in history, in nature, in the heart of man. The
world itself is the work of His power; ‘the least particulars of
human life are ordained by Him. “Are not two sparrows sold for
one farthing, and yet your heavenly Father feedeth them ;” and “the
hairs of your head are all numbered.” Is there any point at which

RR 2

612 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

this Divine causality can stop? at which the empire of law ceases?
at which the human will is set free?

The answer is the fact; not the fact of consciousness as it is some-
times termed, that we are free agents, which it is impossible to see or
verify ; but the visible tangible fact that we have a place in the
order of nature, and walk about on the earth, and are ourselves
causes drawing effects after them. Does any advocate of freedom
mean more than this? Or any believer in necessity less? No one
can deny of himself the restrictions which he observes to be true of
others; nor can any one doubt that there exists in others the same
consciousness of freedom and responsibility which he has himself.
But if so, all these things are as they were before; we need not differ
about the unseen foundation whether of necessity or free will, spirit or
body, mind or matter, upon which the edifice of human life is to be
reared. Just as the theory of the ideality of matter leaves the world
where it was—they do not build houses in the air who imagine
Bishop Berkeley to have dissolved the solid elements into sensations
of the mind—so the doctrine of necessity or predestination leaves
morality and religion unassailed, unless it intrude itself as a motive
on the sphere of human action.

It is remarkable that the belief in predestination, both in

modern and in ancient times, among Mahometans as well as Chris-

tians, has been the animating principle of nations and bodies of ©

men, equally, perhaps more than of individuals. It is characteristic
of certain countries, and has often arisen from sympathy in a
common cause. Yet it cannot be said to have been without a per-
sonal influence also. It has led toa view of religion in which man
has been too much depressed to form a true conception of God
Himself. For it is not to be supposed that the lower we sink
human nature in the scale of being, the higher we raise the Author
of being; worthy notions of God imply worthy notions of man also.

“God is infinite.” But in what sense? Am I to conceive a space
without limit, such as I behold in the immeasurable ether, and apply
this viewless form to the thought of the Almighty? Any one will
admit that here would be a figure of speech. Yet few of us free our

acct OL ES Sens ee

5.
aig

> hae

tie
APSA

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 613

notions of infinity from the imagery of place. It is this association
which gives them their positive, exclusive character. But conceive
of infinity as mere negation, denying of God the limits which are
imposed upon finite beings, meaning only that God is not a man or
comprehensible by man, without any suggestion of universal space,
and the exclusiveness disappears; there is room for the creature side
by side with the Creator. Or again, press the idea of the infinite to
its utmost extent, till it is alone in the universe, or rather is the uni-
verse itself, in this heaven of abstraction, nevertheless, a cloud begins
to appear; a limitation casts its shadow over the formless void.
Infinite is finite because it is infinite. That is to say, because infinity
includes all things, it is incapable of creating what is external to
itself. Deny infinity in this sense, and the being to whom it is attri-
buted receives a new power; God is greater by being finite than by
being infinite. Proceeding in the same train of thought, we may
observe that the word finite is the symbol, to our own minds as to
the Greek, of strength and reality and truth. It cannot be these
which we intend to deny of the Divine Being. Lastly, when we
have freed our minds from associations of place and from those other
solemn associations which naturally occur to us from its application
to the Almighty, are we sure that we intend anything more by the
“Infinite ” than mere vacancy, the “ indefinite,” the word “not?”

It is useful to point out the ambiguities and perplexities of such
terms. Logic is not to puzzle us with inferences about words which
she clothes in mystery ; at any rate, before moving a step she should
explain their meaning. She must admit that the infinite overreaches
itself in denying the existence of the finite, and that there are some
' “limitations,” such as the impossibility of evil or falsehood, which
are of the essence of the Divine nature. She must enquire whether
it be conceivable to reach a further infinite, in which the opposition
to the finite is denied, which may be a worthier image of the
Divine Being, She must acknowledge that negative ideas, while
they have often a kind of solemnity and mystery, are the shallowest
and most trifling of all our ideas,

RR 3

614 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

So far the will may be free unless we persist in an idea of the
Divine which logic and not reason erroneously requires, and which
is the negative not only of freedom but of all other existence but its
own. More serious consequences may seem to flow from the
attribute of omnipotence. For if God is the Author of all things,
must it not be as a mode of Divine operation that man acts? We
ean get no further than a doctrine of emanation or derivation.
Again, we are caught unwittingly in the toils of an “ illogical ” logic.
For why should we assume that because God is omnipotent He
cannot make beings independent of Himself? A figure of speech is
not generally a good argument; but in this instance it is a sufficient
one, what is needed being not an answer but only an image or
mode of conception. (For in theology and philosophy it constantly
happens that while logic is working out antinomies, language fails
to supply an expression of the intermediate truth.) The carpenter
makes a chair, which exists detached from its maker ; the mechanician
constructs a watch, which is wound up and goes by the action of a
spring or lever; he can frame yet more complex instruments, in
which power is treasured up for other men to use. The greater the
skill of the artificer the more perfect and independent the work.
Shall we say of God only that He is unable to separate His creations
from Himself? That man can produce works of imagination which
live for ages after he is committed to the dust; nay, that in the
way of nature he can bring into existence another being endowed
with life and consciousness to perpetuate His name? But that God
cannot remove a little space to contemplate His works? He must
needs be present in all their movements, according to the antiquated
error of natural philosophers, “ that no body can act where it is not.”

(2.) Yet although the freedom of the will may be consistent with
the infinity and omnipotence of God, when rightly understood and
separated from logical consequences, it may be thought to be really
interfered with by the Divine omniscience. “ God knows all things;
our thoughts are His before they are our own ; what I am doing at this

moment was certainly foreseen by Him; what He certainly foresaw

Pee ee ee ee Beem

SS an

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 615

yesterday, or a thousand years ago, or from everlasting, how can I
avoid doing at this time? To-day He sees the future course of my
life. Can I make or unmake what is already within the circle of
His knowledge? The imperfect judgment of my fellow-creatures
gives me no disquietude—they may condemn me, and I may

reverse their opinion. But the fact that the unerring judgment of
"God has foreseen my doom renders me alike indifferent to good and
evil.”

What shall we say to this? First, that the distinction between
Divine and human judgments is only partially true. For as God
sees with absolute unerringness, so a wise man who is acquainted
with the character and circumstances of others may foretell and
assure their future life with a great degree of certainty. He may
perceive intuitively their strength and weakness, and prophesy their
success or failure. Now, here it is observable, that the fact of our
knowing the probable course of action which another will pursue has
nothing to do with the action itself. It does not exercise the smallest
constraint on him ; it does not produce the slightest feeling of con-
straint. Imagine ourselves acquainted with the habits of some animal ;
as we open the door of the enclosure in which it is kept, we know that
it will run up to or away from us; it will show signs of pleasure or
irritation. No one supposes that its actions, whatever they are, de-
pend on our knowledge of them. Let us take another example, which
is at the other end of the scale of freedom and intelligence. Conceive
a veteran statesman casting his eye over the map of Europe, and
foretelling the parts which nations or individuals would take in some
coming struggle, who thinks the events when they come to pass are
the consequences of the prediction? Every one is able to distinguish
the causes of the events from the knowledge which foretells them.

There are degrees in human knowledge or foreknowledge pro-
ceeding from the lowest probability, through increasing certainty,
up to absolute demonstration. But as faint presumptions do not
affect the future, nor great probability, so neither does scientific

demonstration. Many natural laws cannot be known more certainly

RR 4

616 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

than they are ; but we do not therefore confuse the fact with our
knowledge of the fact. The time of the rising of the sun, or of the
ebb and flow of the tide, are foretold and acted upon without the
least hesitation. Yet no one has imagined that these or any other
natural phenomena are affected by our previous calculations about
them.

Why, then, should we impose on ourselves the illusion that the
unerring certainty of Divine knowledge is a limit or shackle on
human actions? The foreknowledge which we possess ourselves
in no way produces the facts which we foresee ; the circumstance
that we foresee them in distant time has no more to do with them
than if we saw them in distant space. So, once more, we return from
the dominion of ideas and trains of speculative consequences to rest in
experience. God sits upon the circle of the heavens, present, past,
and future in a figure open before Him, and sees the inhabitants of
the earth like grasshoppers, coming and going, to and fro, doing or
not doing their appointed work : His knowledge of them is not the
cause of their actions. So might we ourselves look down upon some
wide prospect without disturbing the peaceful toils of the villagers
who are beneath. They do not slacken or hasten their business
because we are looking at them. In like manner God may ‘look
upon mankind without thereby interfering with the human will or
influencing in any degree the actions of men.

(3.) But the difficulty with which Christianity surrounds, or rather
seems to surround us, winds yet closer ; it rests also on the Christian
consciousness. ‘The doctrine of grace may be expressed in the
language of St. Paul: “I can do nothing as of myself, but my
sufficiency is of God :” that which is truly self, which is peculiarly
self, is yet in another point of view not self but God. He who has
sought most earnestly to fulfil the will of God refers his efforts to
something beyond himself; he is humble and simple, seeming to
fear that he will lose the good that he has, when he makes it his
own. 7

This is the mind of Christ which is formally expressed in theology

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 617

by theories of grace. Theories of grace have commonly started from
the transgression of Adam and the corruption of human nature in
his posterity. Into the origin of sin it is not necessary for us to
enquire ; we may limit ourselves to the fact. All men are very far
gone from original righteousness, they can only return to God by His
grace preventing them ; that is to say, anticipating and co-operating
with the motions of their will. (1.) God wills that some should be
saved, whom He elects without reference to their deserts ; (2.) God
wills that some should be saved, and implants in them the mind of
salvation ; (3.) God calls all men, but chooses some out of those
whom He calls ; (4.) God chooses all alike, and shows no preference
to any ; (5.) God calls all men, even in the heathen world, and some
hear His voice, not knowing whom they obey. Such are the possible
gradations of the question of election. In the first of them grace is
a specific quality distinct from holiness or moral virtue ; in the second
it is identical with holiness and moral virtue, according to a narrow
conception of them which denies their existence in those who have
not received a Divine call; in the third an attempt is made to re-
concile justice to all men with favour to some; in the fourth the
justice of God extends equally to all Christian men ; in the fifth we
pass the boundaries of the Christian world and expression is given
to the thought of the Apostle, “‘ Of a truth I perceive that God is no
respecter of persons, but that in every nation he that feareth God
is accepted of Him.”

All these theories of grace affect at various points the freedom of
the will, the first seeming wholly to deny it, while all the others
attempt some real or apparent reconcilement of morality and religion.
The fourth and fifth meet the difficulties arising out of our ideas of
the justice of God, but fall into others derived from experience and
fact. Can we say that all Christians, nominal and real, nay, that the
most degraded persons among the heathen, are equally the subjects
of Divine grace? Then grace is something unintelligible ; it is a
word only, to which there is no corresponding idea. Again, how

upon any of these theories is grace distinguishable from the better

618 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

consciousness of the individual himself? Can any one pretend to
say where grace ends and the. movement of the will begins? Did
any one ever recognise in himself those lines of demarcation of which
theology sometimes speaks ?

These are difficulties in which we are involved by “oppositions of
knowledge falsely so called.” The answer to them is simple—a
return to fact and nature. When, instead of reading our own hearts,
we seek, in accordance with a preconceived theory, to determine the
proportions of the divine and human—to distinguish grace and
virtue, the word of God and man — we know not where we are, the
difficulty becomes insuperable, we have involved ourselves in artificial
meshes, and are bound hand and foot. But when we look by the
light of conscience and Scripture on the facts of human nature, the
difficulty of itself disappears. No one doubts that he is capable of
choosing between good and evil, and that in making this choice he
may be supported, if he will, by a power more than earthly. The
movement of that Divine power is not independent of the movement
of his own will, but coincident and identical with it. Grace and
virtue, conscience and the Spirit of God, are not different from each
other, but in harmony. If no man can do what is right without the
aid of the Spirit, then every one who does what is right has the aid
of the Spirit.

Part of the difficulty originates in the fact that the Scripture
regards Christian truth from a Divine aspect, “God working in you,”
while ordinary language, even among religious men in modern times,
deals rather with human states or feelings. Philosophy has a third
way of speaking which is different from either. Two or more sets
of words and ideas are used which gradually acquire a seemingly
distinct meaning ; at last comes the question—in what relation they
stand to one another? The Epistles speak of grace and faith at the
same time that heathen moralists told of virtue and wisdom, and the
two streams of language have flowed on without uniting even at our
own day. The question arises, first, whether grace is anything more

than the objective name of faith and love; and again, whether

‘ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 619

these two latter are capable of being distinguished from virtue and
truth? Is that which St. Paul called faith absolutely different from
that which Seneca termed virtue or morality? Is not virtue, zpdc
Oeoy, faith? Is faith anything without virtue? But if so, they are
not opposed at all, or opposed only as part and whole. Christianity
is not the negative of the religions of nature or the heathen ; it
includes and purifies them.

Instead, then, of arranging in a sort of theological diagram the
relations of the human will to Divine grace, we deny the possibility
of separating them. In various degrees, in many ways, more or less
consciously in different cases, the Spirit of God is working in the soul
of man. It is an erroneous mode of speaking, according to which
the free agency of man is represented as in conflict with the Divine
will. For the freedom of man in the higher sense is the grace of
God ; and in the lower sense (of mere choice) is not inconsistent
with it. The real opposition is not between freedom and predes-
tination, which are imperfect and in some degree misleading ex-
pressions of the same truth, but between good and evil.

II. Passing out of the sphere of religion, we have now to examine
the question of free agency within the narrower limits of the mind
itself. It will confirm the line of argument hitherto taken, if it be
found that here too we are subject to the illusions of language and
the oppositions of logic.

(1.) Every effect has a cause ; every cause an effect. The drop
of rain, the ray of light does not descend at random on the earth.
In the natural world though we are far from understanding all the
_ causes of phenomena, we are certain from that part which we
know, of their existence in that part which we do not know. In
the human mind we perceive the action of many physical causes ;
we are therefore led to infer, that only our ignorance of physiology
prevents our perceiving the absolute interdependence of body and
soul. So indissolubly are cause and effect bound together, that
there is a mental impossibility in conceiving them apart. Where,

then in the endless chain of causes and effect can the human will be

620 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

inserted, or how is the insertion of the will, as one cause out of
many, consistent with the absolute freedom which we ascribe to it ?

The author of the “Critic of pure Reason” is willing to accept such
a statement as has been just made, and yet believes himself to have
found out of time and space, independent of the laws of cause and
effect, a transcendental freedom. Our separate acts are-determined
by previous causes ; our whole life is a continuous “effect,” yet in
spite of this mechanical sequence, freedom is the overruling law
which gives the form to human action. It is not necessary to analyse
the steps by which Kant arrived at this paradoxical conclusion. Only
by adjusting the glass so as to exclude from the sight everything
but the perplexities of previous philosophers, can we conceive how a
great intellect could have been led to imagine the idea of a freedom
from which the notion of time is abstracted, of which nevertheless
we are conscious in time. For what is that freedom which does not
apply to our individual acts, hardly even to our lives as a whole,
like a point which has neither length nor breadth, wanting both
continuity and succession ?

Scepticism proceeds by a different path in reference to our ideas
of cause and effect ; it challenges their validity, it denies the neces-
sity of the connection, or even doubts the ideas themselves. There
was a time when the world was startled out of its propriety at this
verbal puzzle, and half believed itself a sceptic. Now we know that
no innovation in the use of words or in forms of thought can make
any impression on solid facts. Nature and religion, and human life
remain the same, even to one who entirely renounces the common
conceptions of cause and effect.

The sceptic of the last century, instead of attempting to invalidate
the connection of fact which we express by the terms cause and
effect, should rather have attacked language as “unequal to the
subtlety of nature.” Facts must be described in some way, and
therefore words must be used, but always in philosophy with a latent
consciousness of their inadequacy and imperfection. The very phrase,

“ cause and effect,” has a direct influence in disguising from us the

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 621

complexity of causes and effects. It is too abstract to answer to any-
thing in the concrete. It tends to isolate in idea some one ante-
cedent or condition from all the rest. And the relation which we
deem invariable is really a most various one. Its apparent necessity
is only the necessity of relative terms. Every cause has an effect,
in the same sense that every father has a son. But while in the
latter case the relation is always the same, the manifold application
of the terms, cause and effect, to the most different phenomena has led
to an ambiguity in their use. Our first impression is, that a cause is
one thing and an effect another, but soon we find them doubling up,
or melting into one. The circulation of the blood is not the cause
of life, in the same sense that a blow with the hammer may be the
cause of death ; nor is virtue the cause of happiness, in precisely
the same sense that the circulation of the blood is the cause of life.
Everywhere, as we ascend in the scale of creation, from mechanics to
chemistry, from chemistry to physiology and human action, the relative
notion is more difficult and subtle, the cause becoming inextricably
involved with the effect, and the effect with the cause, “every means
being an end, and every end a means.”

Hence, no one who examines our ideas of cause and effect will
believe that they impose any limit on the will; they are an imperfect
mode in which the mind imagines the sequence of nature or moral
actions ; being no generalization from experience, but a play of
words only. The chain which we are wearing is loose, and, when
shaken will drop off. External circumstances are not the cause
of which the will is the effect; neither is the will the cause of
which circumstances are the effect. But the phenomenon intended
to be described by the words “ cause and effect” is itself the will, whose
motions are analysed in language borrowed from physical nature.

The same explanation applies to another formula: “ the strongest
motive.” The will of every man is said to be only determined by
the strongest motive : what is this but another imaginary analysis of
the will itself? For the motive isa part of the will, and the strongest
motive is nothing more than the motive which I choose. Nor is it

622 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

true as a fact that we are always thus determined. For the greater
proportion of human actions have no distinct motives ; the mind does
not stand like the schoolmen’s ass, pondering between opposite
alternatives. Mind and will, and the sequence of cause and effect,
and the force of motives, are different ways of speaking of the same
mental phenomena.

So readily are we deceived by language, so easily do we fall un-
der the power of imaginary reasonings. The author of the “Novum
Organum” has put men upon their guard against the illusions of words
in the study of the natural sciences. It is true that many distinctions
may be drawn between the knowledge of nature, the facts of which
are for the most part visible and tangible, and morality and religion,
which run up into the unseen. But is it therefore to be supposed
that language, which is the source of half the exploded fallacies of
chemistry and physiology, is an adequate or exact expression of
moral and spiritual truths? It is probable that its analysis of
human nature is really as erring and inaccurate as its description of
physical phenomena, though the error may be more difficult of
detection. ‘Those “inexact natures” or substances of which Bacon
speaks exist in moral philosophy as in physics ; their names are not
heat, moisture, form, matter and the like, but necessity, free will, pre-
destination, grace, motive, cause, which rest upon nothing and yet
become the foundation-stones of many systems. Logic, too, has its
parallels, and conjugates, and differences of kind, which in life and
reality are only differences of degree, and remote inferences lending
an apparent weight to the principle on which they really drag, which
spread themselves over every field of thought and are hardly cor-
rected by their inconsistency with the commonest facts.

Ill. Difficulties of this class belong to the last generation rather
than to the present ; they are seldom discussed now by philosophical
writers. Philosophy in our own age is occupied in another way.
Her foundation is experience, which alone she interrogates respecting
the limits of human action. How far is man a free agent? is the

question still before us. But it is to be considered from without

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 623

rather than from within, as it appears to others or ourselves in the
case of others, and not with reference to our internal consciousness
of our own actions.

The conclusions of philosophers would have met with more favour
at the hands of preachers and moralists, had they confined themselves
to the fact. _ Indeed, they would have been irresistible, like the con-

‘clusions of natural science, for who can resist evidence that
any one may verify for himself? But the taint of language
has clung to them; the imperfect expression of manifest truths
has greatly hindered the general acceptance of them even among
the most educated. It was not understood that those who spoke
of necessity meant nothing which was really inconsistent with
free will; when they assumed a power of calculating human
actions, it was not perceived that all of us are every day guilty of
this imaginary impiety. The words, character, habit, force of cir-
cumstances, temperament and constitution imply all that is really
involved in the idea that human action is subject to uniform laws.
Neither is it to be denied that expressions have been used equally
repugnant to fact and morality ; instead of regularity, and order, and
law, which convey a beneficent idea, necessity has been set up as a
constraining power tending to destroy, if not really destroying, the
accountability of man. History, too, has received an impress of
fatalism, which has doubtless affected our estimate of the good and
evil of the agents who have been regarded as not really responsible
for actions which the march of events forced upon them.

According to a common way of considering this subject, the

_ domain of necessity is extending every day, and liberty is already
confined to a small territory not yet reclaimed by scientific enquiry.
Mind and body are in closer contact ; there is increasing evidence
of the interdependence of the mental and nervous powers. It is
probable, or rather certain, that every act of the mind has a cause
and effect in the body, that every act of the body has a cause and
effect in the mind. Given the circumstances, parentage, education,
temperament of each individual ; we may calculate, with an ap-
proximation to accuracy, his probable course of life. Persons are

624 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

engaged every day in making such observations ; and whatever un-
certainty there may be in the determination of the future of any
single individual, this uncertainty is eliminated when the enquiry is
extended to many individuals or to a whole class. We have as good
data for supposing that a fixed proportion of a million persons in a
country will commit murder or theft as that a fixed proportion will
die without reaching a particular age and of this or that disease
under given circumstances. And it so happens that we have the
power of testing this order or uniformity in the most trifling of
human actions. Nor can we doubt that were it worth while to make
an abstract of human life, arranging under heads the least minutiae of
action, all that we say and do would be found to conform to numerical
laws.

So, again, history, is passing into the domain of philosophy. Na-
tions, like individuals, are moulded by circumstances; in their first rise,
and ever after in their course, they are dependent on country and
climate, like plants or animals, embodying the qualities which have
dropped upon them from surrounding influences in national tempera-
ment; in their later stages seeming to react upon these causes, and
coming under a new kind of law, as the earth discloses its hidden
treasures, or the genius of man calls forth into life and action the
powers which are dormant in matter. Nature, which is, in other words,
the aggregate of ail these causes, stamps nations and societies, and
creates in them a mind, that is to say, ideas of order, of religion, of
conquest, which they maintain, often unimpaired by the changes in
their physical condition. She infuses among the mass a few great
intellects, according to some law unknown to us, to “instrument this
lower world.” Here is a new power which is partially separated
from the former, and yet combines with it in national existence, like
body and soul in the existence of man. Partly isolated from their
age and nation, partly also identified with them, it is a curious
observation respecting great men that while they seem to have more
play and freedom than others, in themselves they are often more
enthralled, being haunted with the sense of a destiny which controls
them. The “heirs of all the ages” who have subjected nature to

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 625

the dominion of science are also nature’s subjects; the conquerors
who have poured over the earth, have only continued some wave or
tendency in the history of the times which preceded them, From the
thin vapour which first floated, as some believe, in the azure vault,
up to that miracle of complexity which we call man, and again from
man the individual to the whole human race, with its languages and
religions, and other national characteristics, and backwards to the
beginning of human history, in the works of mind too as well as in
the material universe, there is not always development, but order,
and uniformity, and law.

It is a matter of some importance in what way this connexion or
order of nature is to be expressed. For although words canaot alter
facts, the right use of them greatly affects the readiness with which
facts are admitted or received. Now the world may be variously
imagined as a vast machine, as an animal or living being, as a body
endowed with a rational or divine soul. All these figures of speech,
and the associations to which they give rise, have an insensible in-
fluence on our ideas. The representation of the world as a machine
is a more favourite one, in modern times, than the representation of
it as a living being; and with mechanism is associated the notion of
necessity. Yet the machine is, after all, a mere barren unity, which
gives no conception of the endless fertility of natural or of moral
“life. So, again, when we speak of a “soul of the world,” there is no
real resemblance to a human soul; there is no centre in which this
mundane life or soul has its seat, no individuality such as charac-
terises the soul of man. But the use of the word invariably recalls
thoughts of Pantheism :

“ deum namque ire per omnes terrasque tractusque maris, celumque profundum.”

So the term “law” carries with it an association, partly of compul-
- sion, partly of that narrower and more circumscribed notion of law, in
which it is applied to chemistry or mechanics. So again the word
“necessity ” itself always has a suggestion of external force.

All such language has a degree of error, because it introduces

VOL, II. ss

626 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

some analogy which belongs to another sphere of thought. But
when, laying aside language, we consider facts only, no appearance
of external compulsion arises, whether in nature, or in history, or in
life. The lowest, and therefore the simplest idea, that we are capable
of forming of physical necessity, is of the stone falling to the ground.
No one imagines human action to be necessary in any such sense as
this. If this be our idea of necessity, the meaning of the term
must be enlarged when it is applied to man. If any one speaks of
human action as the result of necessary laws, to avoid misunderstand-
ing, we may ask at the outset of the controversy, “In what degree
necessary?” And this brings us to an idea which is perhaps the
readiest solution of the apparent perplexity —that of degrees of
necessity. For, although it is true, that to the eye of a superior or
divine being the actions of men would seem to be the subject of laws
quite as much as the falling stone, yet these laws are of a far higher
or more delicate sort; we may figure them to ourselves truly, as
allowing human nature play and room within certain limits, as re-
gulating only and not constraining the freedom of its movements.
How degrees of necessity are possible may be illustrated as follows :
The strongest or narrowest necessity which we ever see in experience
is that of some very simple mechanical fact, such as is furnished by
the law of attraction. A greater necessity than this is only an ab-
straction; as, for example, the necessity by which two and two make
four, or the three angles of a triangle equal two right angles. But
any relation between objects which are seen is of a much feebler
and less absolute kind; the strongest which we have ever observed
is that of a smaller body to a larger. The physiology even of plants
opens to our minds freer and nobler ideas of law. The tree with its
fibres and sap, drawing its nourishment from many sources, light,
air, moisture, earth, is a complex structure: rooted to one particular
spot, no one would think of ascribing to it free agency, yet as little
should we think of binding it fast in the chains of a merely mecha-
nical necessity. Animal life partaking with man of locomotion is

often termed free ; its sphere is narrowed only by instinct; indeed

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 627

the highest grade of irrational being can hardly be said, in point of
freedom, to differ from the lowest type of the human species. And
in man himself are many degrees of necessity or freedom, from the
child who is subject to its instincts, or the drunkard who is the
slave of his passions, up to the philosopher comprehending at a
glance the wonders of heaven and earth, the freeman ‘‘ whom the
truth makes free,” or the Christian devoting himself to God, whose
freedom is “obedience toa law ;” that law being “the law of the
Spirit of life,” as the Apostle expresses it; respecting which, never-
theless, according to another mode of speaking (so various is
language on this subject), “ necessity is laid upon him.” And be-
tween these two extremes are many half freedoms, or imperfect neces-
sities: one man is under the influence of habit, another of prejudice,
a third is the creature of some superior will; of a fourth it is said,
that it was “impossible for him to act otherwise ;” a fifth does by
effort what to another is spontaneous; while in the case of all,
allowance is made for education, temperament, and the like.

The idea of necessity has already begun to expand ; it is no
longer the negative of freedom, they almost touch. For freedom,
too, is subject to limitation ; the freedom of the human will is not
the freedom of the infinite, but of the finite. It does not pretend to
escape from the conditions of human life. No man in his senses
imagines that he can fly into the air, or walk through the earth; he
does not fancy that his limbs will move with the expedition of thought.
He is aware that he has a less, or it may be a greater, power than
others. He learns from experience to take his own measure. But
this limited or measured freedom is another form of enlarged neces-
sity. Beginning with an imaginary freedom, we may reduce it
within the bounds of experience; beginning with an abstract
necessity, we may accommodate it to the facts of human life.

Attention has been lately called to the phenomena (already
noticed) of the uniformity of human actions. The observation
of this uniformity has caused a sort of momentary disturbance in

the moral ideas of some persons, who seem unable to get rid of the

ss 2
-

628 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

illusion, that nature compels a certain number of individuals to act
in a particular way, for the sake of keeping up the average. Their
error is, that they confuse the law, which is only the expression of
the fact, with the cause; it is as though they affirmed the universal
to necessitate the particular. The same uniformity appears equally
in matters of chance. Ten thousand throws of the dice, “ ceteris
paribus,” will give about the same number of twos, threes,
sixes : what compulsion was there here ? So ten thousand human
lives will give a nearly equal number of forgeries, thefts, or other
extraordinary actions. Neither is there compulsion here ; it is the
simple fact. It may be said, Why is the number uniform? In the
first place, it is not uniform, that is to say, it is in our power to alter
the proportions of crime by altering its circumstances. And
this change of circumstances is not separable from the act of the
legislator or private individual by which it may be accomplished,
which is in turn suggested by other circumstances. The will or the
intellect of man still holds its place as the centre of a moving world.
But, secondly, the imaginary power of this uniform number affects no
one in particular ; it is not required that A, B, C, should commit a
crime, or transmit an undirected letter, to enable us to fill up a tabu-
lar statement. The fact exhibited in the tabular statement is the
result of all the movements of all the wills of the ten thousand
persons who are made the subject of analysis.

It is possible to conceive great variations in such tables ; it is pos-
sible, that is, to imagine, without any change of circumstances, a
thousand persons executed in France during one year for political
offences, and none the next. But the world in which this phenome-
non was observed would be a very different sort of world from that
in which we live. It would be a world in which “ nations, like indi-
viduals, went mad; ” in which there was no habit, no custom; almost,
we may say, no social or political life. Men must be no longer dif-
ferent, and so compensating one another by their excellencies and
deficiencies, but all in the same extreme ; as if the waves of the

sea in astorm instead of returning to their level were to remain

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 629

on high. The mere statement of such a speculation is enough to
prove itsabsurdity. And, perhaps, no better way could be found of
disabusing the mind of the objections which appear to be enter-
tained to the fact of the uniformity of human actions, than a dis-
tinct effort to imagine the disorder of the world which would arise
out of the opposite principle.

But the advocate of free will, may again return to the charge, with
an appeal to consciousness. “ Your freedom,” he will say, “is but
half freedom, but I have that within which assures me of an abso-
lute freedom, without which I should be deprived of what I call
responsibility.” No man has seen facts of consciousness, and there-
fore it is at any rate fair that before they are received they shall be
subjected to analysis. We may look at an outward object which
is called a table; no one would in this case demand an examination
into the human faculties before he admitted the existence of the
table. But inward facts are of another sort ; that they really exist,
may admit of doubt; that they exist in the particular form attributed
to them, or in any particular form, is a matter very difficult to prove.
Nothing is easier than to insinuate a mere opinion, under the disguise
_of a fact of consciousness.

Consciousness tells, or seems to tell, of an absolute freedom ; and
this is supposed to be a sufficient witness of the existence of such a
freedom. But does consciousness tell also of the conditions under
which this freedom can be exercised ? Does it remind us that we are
finite beings? Does it present to one his bodily, to another his
mental constitution ? Is it identical with self-knowledge ? No one
imagines this. To what then is it the witness? Toa dim and un-
real notion of freedom, which is as different from the actual fact as
dreaming is from acting. No doubt, the human mind has or seems
to have a boundless power, as of thinking so also of willing. But
this imaginary power, going as it does far beyond experience,
varying too in youth and age, greatest often in idea when it is
really least, cannot be adduced as a witness for what is incon-

sistent with expericnce.

630 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

The question, How is it possible for us to be finite beings, and yet
to possess this consciousness of freedom which has no limit ? may be
partly answered by another question: How is it possible for us to
acquire any ideas which transcend experience? The answer is, only,
that the mind has the power of forming such ideas; it can conceive
a beauty, goodness, truth, which has no existence on earth. The
conception, however, is subject to this law, that the greater the
idealisation the less the individuality. In like manner that im-
perfect freedom which we enjoy as finite beings is magnified by us
into an absolute idea of freedom, which seems to be infinite because
it drops out of sight the limits with which nature in fact everywhere
surrounds us; and also because it is the abstraction of self, of
which we can never be deprived, and which we conceive to be
acting still when all the conditions of action are removed.

Freedom is absolute in another sense, as the correlative of
obligation. Men entertain some one, some another, idea of right,
but all are bound to act according to that idea. The stan-
dard may be relative to their own circumstances, but the duty
is absolute; and the power is also absolute of refusing the evil
and choosing the good, under any possible contingency. It is a
matter (not only of consciousness but) of fact, that we have such
a power, quite as much as the facts of statistics, to which it is
sometimes opposed, or rather, to speak more correctly, is one of
them. And when we make abstraction of this power, that is,
when we think of it by itself, there arises also the conception of
an absolute freedom. }

So singularly is human nature constituted, looking from without
on the actions of men as they are, witnessing inwardly to a higher
law. ‘ You ought to do so; you have the power to do so,” is con-
sistent with the fact, that in practice you fail to do so. It may be
possible for us to unite both these aspects of human nature, yet
experience seems to show that we commonly look first at one
and then at the other. The inward vision tells us the law of
duty and the will of God; the outward contemplation of ourselves

ON PREDESTINATION AND FREE WILL. 631

and others shows the trials to which we are most subject. Any
transposition of these two points of view is fatal to morality. For
the proud man to say, “I inherited pride from my ancestors ;” or
for the licentious man to say, “It is in the blood,” for the weak man
to say, “ I am weak, and will not strive;” for any to find the excuses
of their vices in their physical temperament or external circum-
stances, is the corruption of their nature. ;

Yet this external aspect of human affairs has a moral use. It
is a duty to look at the consequences of actions, as well as at
actions themselves; the knowledge of our own temperament, or
strength, or health, is a part also of the knowledge of self. We
have need of the wise man’s warning, about “age which will not
be defied” in our moral any more than in our physical constitu-
tion. In youth, also, there are many things outward and indifferent,
which cannot but exercise a moral influence on after life. Often
opportunities of virtue have to be made, as well as virtuous efforts ;
there are forms of evil, too, against which we struggle in vain by
mere exertions of the will. He who trusts only to a moral or re-
ligious impulse, is apt to have aspirations, which never realise
themselves in action. His moral nature may be compared to a.
spirit without a body, fluttering about in the world, but unable to
comprehend or grasp any good.

Yet more, in dealing with classes of men, we seem to find that we
have greater power to shape their circumstances than immediately
to affect their wills. The voice of the preacher passes into the air ;
the members of his congregation are like persons “ beholding their
natural face. in a glass;” they go their way, forgetting their own like-
ness. And often the result of a long life of ministerial work has
been the conversion of two or three individuals. The power which
is exerted in such a case may be compared to the unaided use of
the hand, while mechanical appliances are neglected. Or to turn to
another field of labour, in which the direct influence of Christianity
has been hitherto small, may not the reason why the result of mis-

sions is often disappointing be found in the circumstance, that we

632 EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS,

have done little to improve the political or industrial state of those
among whom our missionaries are sent? We have thought of the
souls of men, and of the Spiritof God influencing them, in too naked
a way; instead of attending to the complexity of human nature, and
the manner in which God has ever revealed himself in the history
of mankind. 3

The great lesson, which Christians have to learn in the present
day, is to know the world as it is; that is to say, to know themselves
as they are; human life as it is; nature as it is ; history as it is.
Such knowledge is also a power, to fulfil the will of God and to
contribute to the happiness of man. It is a resting-place in specu-
lation, and a new beginning in practice. Such knowledge is the true
reconcilement of the opposition of necessity and free will. Not that
spurious reconcilement which places necessity in one sphere of
thought, freedom in another ; nor that pride of freedom which is
ready to take up arms against plain facts; nor yet that demonstra-
tion of necessity in which logic, equally careless of facts, has bound
fast the intellect of man. The whole question when freed from
the illusions of language, is resolvable into experience. Imagina-
tion cannot conquer for us more than that degree of freedom which
we truly have; the tyranny of science cannot impose upon us any
law or limit to which we are not really subject; theology cannot
alter the real relations of God and man. The facts of human nature
and of Christianity remain the same, whether we describe them by
the word “necessity” or “freedom,” in the phraseology of Lord

Bacon and Locke, or in that of Calvin and Augustine.

THE END.

vA C
LONDON:

PRINTED BY SPOTTISWOODE AND CO.
NEW-STREET SQUARE,

vd
Bh Ae
eee

Sey
THT Mh