And yet the expressions quoted from the first chapter, and other passages, such as (xi. 13) 'I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office,' and the general tone of the Epistle in many parts, forbid our supposing that he was writing merely or mainly to Jews. How then are we to account for this fact, that in this particular Epistle there is so much reference to Jewish matters, more than in all his other Epistles put together, unless St Paul wrote also the Epistle to the Hebrews? How is it to be explained that, addressing himself here distinctly to 'Gentiles,' 'Men of the Nations,' Christians of Roman birth, he yet all along assumes in his readers such a perfect knowledge of Jewish matters, such a strong sympathy with the Jewish mind and feelings?

In order to give the answer to this question, we must consider what light the Scripture records throw upon the origin of the Roman Church. And here we shall come at once upon this inquiry, namely, Was there, in fact, any Christian Church at Rome at all, at this time, distinct and definitely marked off from the Jewish community? There would seem to have been none whatever, for the following reasons:

(1) It is certain that no apostle had as yet been at Rome, or taken any prominent part in founding such a Church, or setting in order its affairs. Had it been otherwise, St Paul must have made some reference to him in this Epistle. And, besides, he tells these very Romans (xv. 20), that he 'strove so to preach the Gospel, not where Christ was already preached, lest he should be building on another man's foundation.'

(2) Among the numerous salutations in the last chapter, in which twenty-eight persons are named, and others indicated, to whom, as believers at Rome, the Epistle must be considered to be especially addressed, there is no reference to any kind of Church government as existing among them, to any ruling power in the Christian community, to any presiding or officiating person, whether bishop, presbyter, or deacon. It would

have been so natural, in chapter xiii., where he enjoins obedience to the higher civil powers, though these were heathen, to have thrown in a word or two, as to their duty also to submit themselves to those, who had the 'rule over them' in spiritual matters, who were 'set over them in the Lord'—if any such there were. It may be said, indeed, that there would appear to be some reference to duly ordained ministers, pastors, and teachers, in the following words (xii. 6-8), Having then 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 us wait on our ministering, or he that teacheth, on teaching, or he that exhorteth, on exhortation: he that giveth, let him do it with simplicity, he that ruleth, with diligence, he that sheweth mercy, with cheerfulness.' And, certainly, some of these expressions might be understood to refer to Christian ministers, if there were any other sufficient reason for supposing that there were such at Rome at this time, if there were any trace of them in any other parts of the Epistle. But it seems almost impossible that St Paul, who knew by name so many of the believers at Rome, should not have saluted by name among the rest the presbyters of the Church, if, indeed, there were any to be saluted. Had he named only two or three persons in the last chapter, we might have inferred, perhaps, that these were saluted by him as prominent in official position; just as in Col. iv. 17, he writes, 'Say to Archippus, Take heed to the ministry, which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' But the very fact that he salutes so many, and makes no particular mention of any one of them having office or authority among them, implies that he knew of none such. Nor is it easy to see how any could have been appointed, if the city of Rome had never as yet been visited by an Apostle. It seems, therefore, more reasonable to explain the words quoted above, as referring to the mutual services which the 'members of one body' should render to one another, each according to the gift he has received, in their religious communion, or common every-day

intercourse, and not to the duties of ordained ministers. Indeed, it is most unlikely that, if the expression, he that ruleth or presideth,' is meant to refer to the presiding presbyter, it should be brought in at the close of the sentence, as above.

(3) But the most decisive proof of the non-existence of a definite Christian community or Church at Rome at this time, is the account given in the last chapter of the Acts, of the circumstances which attended St Paul's first visit to Rome.

For this first visit of St Paul to Rome took place subsequently to his writing the Epistle; inasmuch as in it (i. 10, 11, 13, 15) he distinctly implies that he was 'longing' indeed to 'see them' at Rome, but was still a 'debtor' to them, and had been hindered hitherto,' having not yet found the answer to his request that by some means now at length he might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come unto them.' If, therefore, we find reason to believe that, on his thus coming among them in person, he found no distinct organized Church, we may conclude, a fortiori, that there was none at the time when he wrote the Epistle.

6

Now, we are told in St Luke's narrative (Acts xxviii. 14), that at Puteoli he found 'brethren.' What this expression means will depend on the view we take of the same language, when applied, in the following verse, to the believers at Rome. For 'from Rome,' we read, when the brethren heard of us, they came to meet us, whom when Paul saw, he thanked God, and took courage.' The article is important here 'the brethren.' We should infer from this expression that, if not the whole, yet at all events the great body of the believers at Rome came out to meet the Apostle. And if the number had been large, we should surely have had some plainer intimation of the fact, than is given by the simple words, the brethren.' And when he reaches Rome, we do not hear of any gathering of the Church, or of any visit made to the Apostle by the pastors or teachers of the Church, by any presbyter or deacon. The whole tenor of

the narrative in Acts xxviii. 17-31, clearly implies that there was nothing of the kind. St Paul calls together the chief of the Jews, not the elders of the Christian Church; he tells them that for the hope of Israel he is bound with this chain.' They answer that they had heard no evil about him from any quarter, which would not surely have been the case, if controversies such as those, which arose in every other Church between St Paul and the 'party of the circumcision,' had broken out here. And yet the same difficulties must have arisen in Rome, as elsewhere, between the Jewish community and the 'sect' of Christians, if there had been at this time any distinct and anti-Jewish development of Christian principles in the Imperial City. But the 'chief of the Jews' at Rome tell St Paul, that 'they desire to hear what he thinks; for, as concerning this sect, we know that it is everywhere spoken against.' This sect,'-here is the expression which gives us the clue to their present state of feeling, with regard to those who professed to believe in Jesus. They regarded them only as 'a sect' of the Jews. And they do not seem to have had much personal knowledge of 'this sect' at all. They speak as men who had heard more about it than they had seen-who had no proof before their eyes of the corrupt and dangerous teaching, as they would consider it, which in other places was doing so much mischief, and caused the 'sect' to be so much spoken against.' In other words, they had evidently no knowledge of a Christian Church, existing in their very midst, at Rome. There were, doubtless, believers there of a certain kind, of the nature of whose belief something shall be said presently. But, whatever they believed, they had not yet broken loose from the Church of their fathers, they had not yet forsaken the Jewish faith. They had not yet separated themselves from the great body of the Jews in Rome, nor formed themselves into any distinct community.

Let us go on next to consider what the belief of these Christians at Rome was likely to be.

There is no doubt that this Epistle was written at Corinth, during St Paul's second visit to that city, included in the expression (Acts xx. 2, 3) he came into Greece, and there abode three months.' On his first arrival in Corinth (Acts xviii. 2, 3) he found there a certain Jew, named Aquila, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla, (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome,) and came unto them. And because he was of the same craft, he abode with them and wrought; for by their occupation they were tentmakers.' And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them' (Acts xviii. 11). From the above we may infer that during those eighteen months St Paul abode still with Aquila and Priscilla; and we find that when at last he sailed thence for Syria' (Acts xviii. 18), Priscilla and Aquila went with him.

Now what is meant by the expression, 'he found a certain Jew named Aquila'? We know that at some time or other, Aquila and Priscilla became eminent as Christian believers ; and it would be hard to suppose that St Paul could have lived so long, in such intimate connexion with them, if they were rigidly fixed in the principles of Judaism. Are we to understand, then, these words, 'a certain Jew,' only to refer to Aquila's Jewish birth?- as when St Paul said to St Peter (Gal. ii. 14), 'If thou, being a Jew, &c.,' when yet they were both Apostles of Christ. But in that case, would not St Luke have written a 'certain believing Jew?' The argument, of course, is not conclusive. But, certainly, the expression used would incline one to suppose that Aquila, when St Paul first 'found' him at Corinth, was a Jew, indeed, still by outward act and profession, and as such, associating freely with his Jewish brethren, but one with a strong tendency to Christianity, which St Paul himself, by his long close intercourse with him, was the means under God of fostering into a downright, earnest, genuine, profession of the Christian faith. Was not, in short, Aquila a specimen of the kind of Christianity, which at that time existed in Italy,