COMMENTARIES

on

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

TO

THE ROMANS.
  COMMENTARIES

on the 

EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE


TO

THE ROMANS.

BY JOHN CALVIN

TRANSLATED AND EDITED

BY THE REV. J0HN OWEN,

Buswell Memorial Library
Wheaton College
Wheaton, Illinois 60187

WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

 GRAND RAPIDS 1948 MICHIGAN
 INTRODUCTION

BY PROF. LOUIS BERKHOF

AMERICAN EDITION
First Printing, 2,000 copies, November, 1947
Second Printing, 3,000 copies, September, 1948~

PRINTED IN THE UNITED-STATES OF AMERICA

 The second quarter of the nineteenth century was a stirring time for Calvinism and Presbyterianism in Scotland, a time of religious unrest. There were so-called Moderates in the Church, who placed far greater emphasis on science and culture than on doctrinal teachings, and Neonomianism again began to rear its head in an alarming manner. John McLeod Campbell created quite a stir by propagating the doctrine of universal atonement and that of vicarious repentance, and several of the ministers soon followed him in his universalism Moreover, lay patronage again reared its ugly head and threatened to rob the congregations of the right to choose their own pastors, a privilege for which the Church had fought an age-long battle. The disputes, first carried on with little effect, finally led to the secession of 1843, which gave birth to the Free Church of Scotland under the leadership of such illustrious men as Thomas Chalmers, Robert S. Candlish, William Cunningham, and other eminent scholars. It was a time of the recrudescence of Calvinism in Scotland.
 During that controversial period, in which the thoughts were again centered on the teachings of the great Genevan Reformer, John Calvin, an event occurred which proved to be a great blessing for the theological world. The Calvin Translation Society was formed, and enriched the English speaking world with a valuable translation of the works of Calvin, including his Institutes, his Commentaries, and his smaller Tracts and Letters. This was a work of giant proportions, comprised of fifty-two volumes, which were published during the years 1844-1855.
 It is now a century ago that this translation was in process of preparation, and during that period it has proved invaluable for thousands who were not able to read the works of Calvin in the original. It opened for them a veritable gold mine, and an arsenal from which they could draw offensive and defensive weapons. Throughout the English speaking world it occupies a prominent place in theological libraries, and many a preacher boasts of it as one of his most prized possessions .
 During the first part of the present century it was still comparatively easy to acquire this excellent translation of Carvings works, but now it has become rather scarce. They who are eager to possess a set find it difficult to obtain one, and especially one that looks respectable and does not have that dilapidated appearance which testifies to hard and constant usage In view of this fact the English speaking world, and especially those who glory in their Reformed heritage 
 may well rejoice in the fact that Mr. William B. Eerdmans 
 who has distinguished himself by the publication of many 
works on Reformed theology, conceived the idea of republishing the Institutes and Commentaries of Calvin, and is
now ready to begin this important work, the completion of
which will require several years. For practical reasons it was considered best to issue the Epistles of Paul first of all.
* * *
 This undertaking is a very encouraging sign, especially for the spiritual progeny of Calvin, and calls for their hearty appreciation. It is a venture of faith on the part of the publisher, and clearly testifies to the fact that, despite the many adverse currents of the present time, he believes in the future of Calvinism in the English speaking world. We share his judgment that there is a crying need just at the present time, now that the signs of a revival of Calvinism are multiplying, to issue anew the English translation of Calvin's works. There are still several denominations, whose official standards are soundly Reformed, but who in their preaching and teaching, and even in their practical Christian life, fail to take their Calvinism seriously. It may well be of great benefit to them that, in the form of this republication, they are reminded of the admonition of the prophet Isaiah: "Look unto the Rock whence ye were hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye were digged." Isa. 51:1. They have exchanged the sure foundation on which Calvin built for the shifting sands of human philosophy. In their desire for modernity they have turned away, to a rather alarming degree, from the solid system of the truth handed down by Calvin, and have vainly struggled to rear for themselves a better structure. But all they have been able to offer the world is a flimsy piece of patchwork, concocted of various and often divergent philosophical ideas, which has not been able to survive a single century.
 In their present plight it would be well for them to build anew on the foundation laid by John Calvin and founded on the Word of God, rather than to pin their hopes once more on some passing philosophy. Calvin proved himself to be one of the greatest theologians of all ages, and one of the most outstanding leaders of the Reformation. He was first of all a man of letters, a man of great literary ability, who was able to write with equal elegance in both French and Latin. But he also made a thorough study of law and of theology, which fitted him eminently for the task to which he was finally called, and enabled him to become the great systematic genius of the Reformation. Though he was a man of courage and conviction, he at first hesitated to under   take the important task of bringing Geneva under the bond   of the gospel. It required the pleadings and even adjurations   of Farel to make him conscious of, and obedient to, the   divine call. History proves that, while Luther was very   definitely the divine instrument to begin the work of the   great Reformation, Calvin was just as clearly the man to   carry it forward, to develop its principles, and to exhibit   their bearing on life in all its relations. The various epithets   applied to him clearly testify to the many-sidedness of his   work. Melanchthon called him "the theologian"; Stevenson   represents him as "the statesman"; Walker sees in him "the   organizer"; and Farrar calls him "the greatest exegete of   the Reformation 
  * * *
  The Institutes of the Christian Religion constitute the   most important work of Calvin, and it is especially as the   writer of this remarkable work that he was called "the theologian." It is worthy of special notice that the first edition   of this work was published in 1536, when the author was   but twenty-seven years old, and that throughout the various   editions the fundamental principles remained exactly the   same. Calvin kept enlarging the work as time went on, until   at last the so-called "definitive" edition appeared in 1559. It   has been remarked that in this work Calvin did not show   himself to be an original thinker, since its teachings are   based on those of the early Church Fathers. But it should   be borne in mind that it was not Calvin's ambition to present   new and unknown truth, but to state anew and with added   emphasis the old truth, revealed in the Word of God and   taught by the Church of the first centuries. He presented   this truth in a new form, that is, he not only elaborated it,   but also organized and integrated it, so that it appeared   as a unified structure. In fact, he reared in this work a   real cathedral to the truth. In derogation of this work it is   sometimes said that Calvin's presentation of the truth is   cold and philosophical, but such a charge can only be made   by one who has no moral scruples or has never read the   Institutes. Competent scholars testify to the fact that, as a   systematic presentation of the Christian religion, it is superior to any work that appeared, up to the time of its publication, in the Protestant world. Many even speak of its   publication as an unique event in the theological world. Joseph   Scaliger a brilliant scholar and an acute critic, who was a contemporary of Calvin, is said to have cried out: "Oh, what a good book Calvin's Institutes is; Oh, what a great man! There is none of the ancients to compare with him." (Quoted by Warfield in his Calvin and Calvlinism, p. 376.) Dr. William Cunningham, one of the greatest Scottish theologians of the previous century, spoke of the Institutes as "the most important work in the history of theological science." (The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation, second edition, 1866, p. 295.) And coming down to more recent times, Dr. Warfield, who was also a great student of Calvin, wrote: "It was Calvin's Institutes which, with its calm, clear positive exposition of the evangelical faith, gave stability to wavering minds, and confidence to sinking hearts, and placed upon the lips of all a brilliant apology, in the face of the calumnies of the enemies of the Reformation."* 
***

 Calvin could not have written the Institutes as a work which is based throughout on Holy Writ, if he had not at the same time been a diligent student of the Word of God. He surpassed all the other Reformers in his true grasp of exegetical principles, and in his aversion to the allegorical method and to all excessive typology. Diestel writes of him in his Geschichte des Alten Testaments in der Christlichen Kirche: "Johannes Calvin ragt ebensowohl durch den Unfang seiner exegetischen Arbeiten wie durch eine seltene Genialitat in der Auslegung hervor; un-ubertroffen in seinem Jahrhundert, bieten seine Exegesen fur alle folgenden Zeiten noch bis heute einen reichen Stoff der Schrifterkentniss dar" (p. 267). One simply marvels at the fact that a man so trail could, within the space of about twenty-five years, prepare commentaries on nearly all the books of the Bible, even when one takes into consideration that some of them were published as they were taken down by students.
 Calvin himself says in The Epistle Dedicatory, which serves to introduce his Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, that he and someone with whom he was conversing both came to the conclusion "that the chief excellency of an expounder consists in lucid brevity," and that it was his ideal to practice that virtue. Not only did he omit most of the critical material that was available in his day, but also generally refrained from giving the opinions of others, and sought to give what he considered the best interpretation, in order that the readers might not feel lost in a labyrinth
*Warfield. B., Calvin and Calvinism, Copyright, 1931, Oxford University Press, New York, p 373

of conflicting interpretations and at last become confused. We may be grateful for the fact that the great Reformer did not do as some modern commentators, who devote more time and energy to the discussion of all the critical questions pertaining to the text of the Bible than to the contents and to the meaning of what the Bible says. Calvin does not seek to comment on every word, but seeks to grasp and to reproduce clearly and briefly the general thought of the sacred writers.
 The Commentaries of Calvin are still held in high esteem, not only by those who are spiritual descendants of Calvin, but also by many who differ with him fundamentally. Modern commentators often deem it worthwhile to acquaint their readers with Calvin's interpretation, and in many instances give preference to his comments. Dean Farrar, who was very far from being a Calvinist, yet speaks of him as the greatest exegete of the Reformation, and pays him the following tribute: "The neatness, precision, and lucidity of his style, his classic training and wide knowledge, his methodical accuracy of procedure, his manly independence, his avoidance of needless and commonplace homiletics, his deep religious feeling, his careful attention to the entire scope and context of every passage, and the fact that he has commented on almost the whole Bible, make him tower above the great majority of those who have written on Holy Scripture." (History of Interpretation, p. 343 f.)
***
 It can hardly be denied that for a long time Arminianism has had the upper hand in our country, and that even Pelagianism has found entrance in many of the churches in the form of Modernism. We thank God for the Churches which, often against tremendous odds, carried the banner of the Reformed truth forward in The Netherlands and in Hungary, in South Africa and in Australia, in Scotland and in our own country. And we are still more grateful for the fact that in recent years there have been numerous signs that point to a renewed interest in Calvinism on a wider scale. The theology of crisis, whatever may be said about it on other scores, has certainly served to direct the attention once more to Calvin and his work, so that many now speak of it as Neo-Calvinism. A book like that of Paul I. Fuhrmann God-Centered Religion, is particularly instructive on this point. Books on Calvin and Calvinism, and on the Reformed faith, have issued from the presses in goodly numbers and are now exercising a leavening influence. Calvinistic Conferences are held in several parts of the world, including our own country, and inspire many with a new zeal for our Calvinistic heritage. And now, to cap it all, there is the republication of Calvin's work, heartily welcomed and highly acclaimed in the religious press, in which we see, not only a clear evidence of the fact that Calvinism is still very much alive, but also a mighty potential agency to accelerate the coming of a real Calvinistic revival.
 All these things are more significant, since they occur at a time when Modernism is in an impasse. In fact, more than one of its votaries has openly declared that the Modernism of the last half century is dead. Walter Horton, who is professor of systematic theology at Oberlin, is one of these. In his work on Realistic theology he says, however, that we cannot very well go back to Calvinism, which has just been discarded. But two years later he penned the following significant words, which are found in his work, Contemporary English Theology: "That pre-war liberalism -call it Modernism if you will-with its excessive trust in human science and human cooperative endeavor, is not able to weather the gale of the present stormy era of social change and catastrophe, I take for granted. The steady growth of conservatism since the World War (World War I), both in England and on the Continent, foreshadows the inevitable trend of events in America, by a law which has never failed throughout our history. Divine revelation and divine grace, as the ultimate ground of all human hope, are concepts which are destined to rise to new power in our thought and life. Pelagianism is going out; Augustinianism is coming in. I am saying to all my friends in the Presbyterian and Reformed churches that this is a poor time for any of them, who indent the Augustinian and, Calvinistic faith in the sovereignty of God, to abandon it because of the rational paradoxes which it involves." (Italics mine, L. B.)*
 We welcome the new venture of the republication of Calvin's work. May the King of the Church richly crown this great work with His divine blessing, and may it prove to be a blessing for the cause of Christ in all the world.

L. BERKHOF.

Grand Rapids, Mich. October 1, 1947

Horton, W., Contemporary English/w Theology, Harper & Brothers, New York, pp. 172-3

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE.

ON no portion of THE NEW TESTAMENT have so many COMMENTARIES been written as on THE EPISTLE TO TEE ROMANS. We have indeed no separate Comment extant by any of the Fathers on this Epistle; though it has been explained, together with other parts of Scripture, by Origen in the third century; by Jerome, Chrysostom, and in part by Augustine, in the fourth; by Theodoret in the fifth; by OEcumenius in the tenth; and by Theophylact in the eleventh century. But since the Reformation, many separate Expositions have been published, beside a learned Introduction by Luther, and Notes or Scholia by Zuingle and Melancthon.
 The first complete COMMENTARY, as it appears, was written by Bullinger; the second by Bucer, a Professor of Theology at Cambridge for a short time in the reign of Edward the Sixth; and the next in order of time was this Work by CALVIN, composed at Strasburg in the year 1539. The fourth was by Peter Martyr; and this was translated into English in the year 1568. Another was afterwards published by Rodolph Gualter, Minister at Zurich.
 Early in the next century the learned Pareus delivered lectures on this Epistle, as Professor of Theology in the University of Heidelberg-a work of great learning and of great merits though written in a style too scholastic to suit the taste of the present day. His special object was to rebut the arguments and expose the sophistries of Popish writers,

 ' His original name was Wangler, but he Grecised it, as Erasmus had done, and as others did in that age.
 
particularly those of Bellarmine, the acutest, the subtlest and the most learned of all the Jesuits of his own age, an( perhaps of any in after ages. There is hardly a subject in any measure connected with the contents of this Epistle which Pareus does not discuss: at the end of every chapter a number of questions are stated and answered, especially such as refer to the disputes between Papists and Protest ants. He also controverts the perversions of Socinianism.
 The next work that requires particular notice is that of Turrettin, a Professor of Theology in the University of Geneva It was published about the commencement of the last century; the author died in the year 1737. The doctrines of Calvin had somewhat degenerated in his time, though he work on the whole takes the side of orthodoxy. It ye shows a leaning to those views, which commonly issue it sentiments subversive of the essentials of true Christianity.
 The first Commentary published in this country, compose in English, was by Elnathan Parr, B.D., Rector of Palgrave in Suffolk. He was, as it appears the personal friend of Sir Nathaniel Bacon,, an elder brother of Lord Bacon. He dedicated his work to Sir Nathaniel, and speaks of him a having been a hearer of what he published when deliverer from the pulpit.l His style is that of his age, and appear quaint now; but his thoughts are often very striking an truly excellent, and his sentiments are wholly in accordant with those of the Reformers
 Since that time until this century, no work Of any not has appeared separately on this Epistle. But within the last thirty years several Commentaries have been publishes Besides those of Flatt and Tholuck in Germany, three s least have appeared in this country, and three in America The authors in America are Moses Stuart, M.A., Professor of Sacred Literature at Andover in Massachusetts, the Rev Albert Barnes, and Charles Hodge, Professor of Biblical Literature at Princeton. Those in this country are the Rev F. Fry, Rector of Desford, Leicestershire, Robert Haldane

 ' This work must have been published before the year 1615, for g patron died in that year. The copy seen by the writer is the third edition and was published in 1633.
Esq., and Dr Chalmers. The doctrine held by Calvin is essentially maintained in all these works, and in most of them in its fullest extent.
 Of our American brethren, the most learned and the most versed in criticisms is Professor Stuart; the fullest and the minutest expositor is the Rev. A. Barnes; and the acutest and the most concise commentator is Professor Hodge. The two first seem, in some instances, like Turrettin, to deviate somewhat from what may be considered strict orthodoxy, at least in their mode of explaining some subjects: the last is liable to no charge of this kind.
 Respecting our own countrymen, there is a more perfect unanimity, though they belonged to different Churches. The Lectures of the Rev. J. Fry are those of a strict Predestinarian, and yet replete with remarks, both experimental and practical. The layman, R. Haldane, Esq., has displayed very high qualifications as an expositor; he is strictly and even stiffly orthodox, and can brook no deviation from what he regards as the truth. Of Dr. Chalmers' Lectures, comprised in four volumes, 12mo, it is difficult to pronounce an opinion. They are the productions of a philosophers and one of the highest grade, who, at the same time, possessed the heart and the experience of an humble Christian. He expatiates over the whole field of truth with the eye of an eagle, and with the docility of a child, without ever overleaping the boundaries of revelation. He was evidently a man by himself, taller by his shoulders than most men, either in this or in any other age, having a mind as sound as at was vigorous, an imagination as sober as it was creative, and a capacity to illustrate and to amplify quite unequalled.
 All these works have their peculiar excellencies, adapted to different tasks and capacities, and no doubt they have their defects he same must be said of Calvin's work. But as a concise and lucid commentator he certainly excels. He is not so much an expounder of words, as of principles. He carries on an unbroken chain of reasoning throughout, in a brief and clear manner. Having well considered the Lain drift of a passage, he sets before us what it contains, by a brief statement or by a clear process of reasoning; and often by a single sentence he throws light on a whole passage: and though his mind possessed more vigour of intellect and sound good sense, than what is called imagination; yet there are some fine thoughts occasional r occurring, beautifully expressed, to which that faculty must have given birth. There is also a noble grandeur and dignity in his sentiments, rarely to be found in other writers.
 Professor Stuart has justly characterized this Work by saying, that it contains " fundamental investigation of the logic and course of thought contained in the Epistle ;" and that it embraces " very little verbal criticism. Many a difficulty is solved without any appearance of effort, or any show of teaming. Calvin," he adds, " is by far the most distinguished of all the Commentators of his times."
 It was mainly to supply the defect named above, the want of verbal criticism, that NOTES have been added in the present Edition. They are also designed to furnish the reader with such expositions as have been suggested by posterior critics and commentators And as we are generally desirous of knowing the names of authors, they have been for the most part given. Much light is thrown on a passage by conveying the full meaning of the original This has been done partly by giving such different versions as seemed most entitled to approbation, and partly by referring to other passages where such words occur: so that a common reader, unacquainted with the original, may, to a certain extent, have the advantage of one well versed in the Greek language.
 Variety of meanings given to words, and also to passages, has been deemed by some to lessen the certainty of truth, but without any solid reason; for this variety as found in the works of all sound and judicious critics, seldom or ever affects any thing important, either in doctrine, experience, or practice, and tends often to expand the meaning and tar render it clearer and more prominent. There has been in deed sometimes a pruriency in this respect, an unholy ambition for novelty, a desire for new discoveries, an indulgence of mere curiosity, which have been very injurious. Much of this sort of mania prevailed among some of the German divines in the last century, as Wolfius clearly shows in his works, in which he notices and disproves many vagaries assuming the name of critical expositions; and much of a similar kind of spirit seems to prevail still in that country. It is a mania for criticism, for its own sake, without any concern or solicitude for the truth: and ingenious criticism has often been resorted to by the oppugners of vital Christianity as means for supporting heterodoxical sentiments. But there is a palpable difference between men of this character, the mere gladiators of criticism, and those who embrace the truth, and whose object it is faithfully to explain it in consistency with the general tenor of what is revealed, and who have what is indispensably necessary for such a work, a spiritual experience, which often affords better assistance than any critical acumen that can ever be possessed. The man who has seen a thing has a much better idea of it than the man who has only heard it described.

 Attempts have been made by various authors to show and prove, that the STYLE OF THE EPISTLES, especially those of PAUL, is consonant with that of classical writers. Blackwall laboured much to do this in this country, as well as many German divines, particularly in the last century. In common with some of the Fathers, they thought to recommend In this way the Apostolic Writings to the attention of literary men. But it was a labour not wisely undertaken, as it must have necessarily proved abortive: for though some phrases may be classical, yet the general style is what might Eve been naturally expected from the writers, brought up, S they had all been, in the Jewish religion, and accustomed, as they had been, to the writings of the Old Testament. Hence their style throughout is Hebraistic; and the meaning of many of the Greek words which they use is not to be sought from the Classics, but from the Greek Translation of the ancient Scriptures, and sometimes from the Hebrew itself, of which that is a translation.l

 'k" The writers of the New Testament, or rather (with reverence be it Spoken.) the Holy Spirit, whose penmen they mere, wisely chose, in 

 Much evil and no good must result from a claim that cannot be supported: nor is it at all necessary to make such a claim. It has been long ago repudiated, and repudiated by Paul himself Writers have often ascribed to Paul what he himself distinctly and entirely disclaimed, and never attempted to attain or to practice, and that on principle, " Lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect." It was not by " excellency of speech" that he courted the attention of the classical and refined Grecians, that he recommended She gospel to them; it was not by the tinsel of mere eloquence that he succeeded in his preaching, nor by the elegance and beauty of his diction; but by something much higher, much greater, much more powerful and efficient. We ought to follow his example, and stand on his high ground, and not to descend to that which is no better than a quagmire. It is a happy thing, and no doubt so designed by God, that the shell should not be made of fine materials, lest men's minds should be attracted by it and neglect the kernel God might, if he chose, have easily endued his Apostles with eloquence more than human, and enabled them to write with elegance more than Grecian;, but He did not do so, and Paul expressly gives us the reason, " that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."

 It is generally agreed, that the EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS was written at CORINTH}I, and about the end of the year 57, or at the beginning of the year 58, and that it is the fifth Epistle in order of time; the two Epistles to the Thessalonians, the Epistle to the Galatians, and the first to the Corinthians, having been previously written. Then followed the second Epistle to the Corinthians, the Epistles to the

 pressing evangelical notions, to employ such Greek terns as bad been long before used for the same purposes by the Greek Translators of the Near Testament: and thus the Septuagint version, however imperfect and faulty in many particulars, became in this respect, not to the first age of the Church only, but also to all succeeding generations, the connecting link between the languages of the Old and Near Testament, and will be regarded in this view as long as sound judgment and real learning shall continue among men."-ParkHurst.
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews, the first to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, and the second to Timothy.
 The common date assigned to Paul's conversion is A.D. 3a He wrote his first Epistle, that is, the first to the Thessalonians, in 52, seventeen years after his conversion. His second Epistle to Timothy, his last, was written from Rome in 65. So that he wrote his fourteen Epistles during these thirteen years. The whole extent of his ministry seems to have been about thirty years; for it is not supposed that he long outlived the date of his second Epistle to Timothy Tradition says, that he was beheaded at Rome, June 29;
A.D. 66.
 Paul's first coming to ROME was in the spring of the year 61. He continued there as a prisoner for two yearly When he was released, most writers are of the opinion, that he returned early in 63 to Judea, in company with Timothy, and left Titus at Crete; that he visited the Churches in Asia Minor, then the Churches in Macedonia; that he wintered at Nicopolis, a city of Epirus, in 64; that afterwards he proceeded to Crete and also to Corinth; and that early in 65 he again visited Rome, was taken prisoner, and beheaded in the following year.2 This account clearly shows that he did not accomplish his purpose of visiting Spain, as tradition has recorded.
 The first introduction of the Gospel into Rome is involved in uncertainty The probability is, that some of the " strangers of Rome," present at the day of Pentecost, were converted, and at their return promoted the spread of the Gospel. Paul mentions two, " Andronicus and Junia," as having professed the faith before him, and as having been noted among the Apostles. He makes mention, too, of another eminent Christian, " Rufus" whose father, as it is Supposed carried our Saviour's cross, Mark xv. 21. It is not improbable) that these were afterwards assisted by such as

t ' It \vas while a prisoner at this time at Rome that he wrote his Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippiagu, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews
, as it! is generally supposed.
See Horne's Introduction, vol. iv. part ii. ch; iii. sect. 1.
 
had been converted under the ministry of Paul; for he speaks of some of those whom he salutes at Rome as being "beloved," and as having been his " fellow-workers."
 What some of the Fathers have related was in the first instance a tradition, as there was nothing recorded on the subject before the latter part of the second century, except what has been ascribed to Dionysius of Corinth, preserved by Eusebius. Irenoeus and Tertullian were the fir8t retailers of the tradition, that Peter, in conjunction with Paul, was the founder of the Church at Rome. This tradition increased considerably by the time of Jerome, who, in the fourth century, says, that Peter had been bishop of Rome for twenty-five years ! But this account is so clearly inconsistent with what we learn from the Acts of the Apostles respecting Peter, that some of the most reasonable of the Papists themselves have given it up as unworthy of credit.l
 It appears next to a certainty that Peter was not at Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle in 57 or .58, for he sends no salutation to Peter:-And also that he had not been there previous to that time; for it is wholly unreasonable to sup pose, that, had he been there, Paul would have made no reference to his labours. It further amounts almost to a certainty, that Peter was not at Rome when Paul was for two years a prisoner there, from 61 to 63; for he makes no mention of him in any way, not even in the four or five Epistles which he wrote during that time: And that Peter was not at Rome during Paul's last imprisonment in 65 and 66, i evident from the second Epistle to Timothy; for he males no mention of Peter, and what he says of Christians there that they " all forsook him," would have been highly die creditable to Peter, if he was there. So that we have the

 l The inconsistencies of what the retailers of this tradition say, are quite palpable. Irenoeus affirms, that Ad the Church at Rome was founded so constituted (fundata et constituta) by the two Apostles, Peter and Paul." Epiphanius says, that they were the first {' Bishops" at Rome, as well Is Apostles, while Irenoeus declares, that they both Ad delivered the episcopal office into the hands of Linus ;" and it is said in what are called the Apostolic Constitutions, that 4~ Linus was ordained bishop by Paul, and Clement after the death of Linus by Peter."-See Dr. Barrow on the Poll Supremacy, pp. 127-129.

strongest reasons to conclude, that Peter had no part in forming and establishing a Church in Rome during Paul's life, whatever share in the work he might have had afterwards l But the first tradition, or the first account, given by Irenisu8 and TertuJlian, refers only to a cooperation: and yet this cooperation is wholly inconsistent with what has been stated, the force of which no reasonable man can resist.
 The learned Pareus proceeds in a different way to prove that Peter was never at Rome. He shows from different parts of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Galatians, that Peter was in Judea at the time when tradition declares that he was at Rome. Peter was in Judea when Paul was converted, Acts ix.; and three years after this-that is, in the year 38, Gal. i l8. He was in Judea in the year 45, when he was imprisoned by Herod, Acts xii
and in 49, fourteen years after Paul's conversion, Acts xv, Gal. ii. 1-9. Had he been to Rome during this time, some account of such a journey must surely have been given. After this time we find that he was at Antioch, Gal. ii. 11 If it be asked, where did he afterwards exercise his minis try ? Where more likely than among the Jews, as he had hitherto most clearly done; for he was the Apostle of the Circumcision, and among those to whom he sent his Epistles. The dating of the first at " Babylon," has led some to conjecture that it was a figurative term for Rome; but why not for Jerusalem, or for Antioch ? for Christians were at that time treated everywhere like captives or aliens, and especially in the land of Judea.
 What then are we to say as to this tradition ? The same, according to the just remark of Pareus, as what we must say of many other traditions of that age, that it is nothing

 But this cannot be admitted, as the same informant, Tradition, tells us , that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. The only I, a Peter appears to have had to do in forming and founding a the den at Rome, Divas to have been the instrument in the conversion, at the day of Pentecost, of those who in all probability were the first who introduced the gospel into Rome: and it is probable that it was this circumstance which occasioned the tradition, that he bad been the founder of that
Less occasion has often produced tales of this kind.

but a fable, which, like many others, would have passed away, had it not been allied to a growing superstition With respect to what Eusebius says of the testimony of a presbyter, named Caius, that about the beginning of the third century he saw the graves of Peter and Paul at Rome, it may be easily accounted for: it was the age of pious fraud, when the relics of saints could be found almost everywhere; and, in the next century, the wood and the nails of the Cross were discovered ! Those who can believe these things, may have a credulity large enough to swallow up the testimony of Caius.l
 The most probable account, then, of the commencement of a Christian Church at Rome, is what has been already stated. The condition of that Church, when Paul wrote to it, we may in a great measure learn from the Epistle itself It had a high character, viewed in a general way; but there were some defects and blemished Its faith had been widely reported: there were at the same time some contentions and divisions among its members, arising especially from the prejudices of the Jewish believers. To remove the causes of this dissension, was evidently one of the main objects of Paul in this Epistle.

 THE ORDER AND ARRANGEMENT OF THE EPISTLE have been somewhat differently viewed by different authors. Pareus includes the whole in this brief summary-" The Jews and

 s Let it not be supposed, that by discrediting some things, we discredit every thing said by the Fathers. They ought to be treated as all other historians. What we find on examination to be unfounded, ought to be 80 viewed: and what we have every reason to believe to be true, ought to be so received. Even such a man as Dr. Lardner seemed unwilling to reject this tale, from fear of lessening the credit of history; evidently mistaking the ground on which history has a title to credit. The many authorities adduced respecting Peter being at Rome may be reduced almost to two-Inlets and Tertullian. They were the first to stamp as it were a kind of authority on this report, and also on others to which no credit is given even by those who would have the Fathers to have been almost infallible
 The learned Dr. Copleston, the present Bishop of Landaff, in his pamphlet on the Errors of Romanism, justly says, "It is even a matter of serious doubt whether St. Peter was ever at home. There is no good historical evidence of the fact; and there is much probability against it. _P. 87.

Gentiles are equally guilty; they are equally justified freely by faith in Christ, without works; they are equally bound to lead a holy life, to be humble, and to love one another." Stuart says, that the whole of what the Epistle contains may be expressed in a single brief sentence-" Christ our justification and sanctification."
 In giving a more specific view of the contents of this Epistle, the former author divides it into two parts-doctrinal, i.-xi.; and hortative, xii-xvi.: but the latter divides it into three parts-doctrinal, i.-viii.; answers to objections, ix.-xi.; and hortatory, xii.-xvi. The analysis of Professor dodge, who takes the same view with Professor Stuart is the following:- }
 " The Epistle consists of three parts. The first, which includes the first eight chapters, is occupied in the discussion of The Doctrine of Justification and its consequences. The second, embracing chapters ix., s., xi., treats of The Calling of the Gentiles, The Rejection and Future Conversion of the Jews. The third consists of Practical Exhortations and Salutations to the Christians at Rome."

A more particular ANALYSIS may be thus given:-
I. ADDRESS-A desire to visit Rome-a brief View of The
Gospel; i. 1-18.
II. JUSTIFICATION,
l. A proof of its necessity-the sin and guilt of both Gentiles and Jews, i., from ver. 18; ii., iii, to ver. 21.
2. Its Nature and Character-Examples, Abraham and David, iii., from ver. 21, iv.
3. Its Effects or Fruits-Peace and Fulness of Grace, v.; Death unto Sin and Eternal Life, vi.; Immunity from The Law and The Reigning Power of Sin, vii. Holiness, The Spirit's help, Patience in Afflictions Perseverance, viii.
III. GOD'S DEALINGS VINDICATED-
l. Election and Reprobation, ix.
2. Unbelief and Faith, x.
3. The Rejection of the Jews, The Adoption of the Gentiles, The Restoration of the Jews, xi.


IV CHRISTIAN DUTIES,-
1. Devotedness to God, Proper Use of Gifts, Love, Doing Good, xii.
2. Obedience to Authority, Love to all, Purity, xiii.
3. Forbearance towards Weak Brethren, xiv.
4. Help to the Weak, Unanimity, Christ the Saviour of Jews and Gentiles, xv., to ver. 13.
V. CONCLUSION,-
]. Paul's Labours and Purpose to Visit Rome, xv., from ver. 13.
2. Salutations, Avoiding Disturbers, Promise of Victory, Praise to God, xvi.

 We have set before us in this Epistle especially two things, which it behoves us all rightly to understand-the righteousness of man and the righteousness of God-merit and grace, or salvation by works and salvation by faith The light in which they are exhibited here is clearer and brighter than what we find in any other portion of Scripture, with the exception, perhaps, of the Epistle to the Galatians Hence the great value which has in every age been attached to this Epistle by all really enlightened Christians; and hence also the strenuous efforts which have often been made to darken and wrest its meaning by men, though acute and learned, yet destitute of spiritual light. But let not the simple Christian conclude from the contrariety that is often found in the expositions on these two points, that there is no certainty in what is taught respecting them. There are no contrary views given of them by spiritually-minded men Though on other subjects discussed here, such men have had their differences, yet on these they have ever bees found unanimous: that salvation is from first to last by grace, and not by works, has ever been the conviction of really enlightened men in every age, however their opinion may have varied in other respects.
 It may seem very strange, when we consider the plait and decisive language, especially of this Epistle, and the clear and conclusive reasoning which it exhibits, that ant attempt should ever be made by a reasonable being, acknowledging the authority of Scripture, to pervert what it plainly teaches, and to evade what it clearly proven But a right view of what human nature is, when unrenewed, as exhibited in God's Word, and as proved by history and made evident by observation, enables us fully to account for what would otherwise remain an enigma No truth is more fully confirmed by facts (and it ought ever to be remembered) than that " the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," and that he " cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned." This declaration clearly accounts for the fact, that men of great learning have often misunderstood many things in Scripture, and such things as are plain enough even to the unlettered when spiritually enlightened. The learned Bribes and Robbing were blind leaders of the blind, when even babes understood the mysteries of the kingdom of Clod: and no better then the Scribes are many learned men, professing Christianity, in our day.
 There is indeed a special reason why, on these points, unenlightened men should contrive means to evade the obvious meaning of Scripture; for they are such things as come in constant contact with a principle, the strongest that belongs to human nature in its fallen state. Other doctrines may be held as speculations, and kept, as it were, at a distance; but when we come to merit and grace, to work and faith, man's pride is touched; and a8 long as he is under id prevailing influence, he will be certain, in some way or another, direct or evasive, to support merit in opposition to grace, or works in opposition to faith When the authority of tradition supplanted the authority of Scripture, the doctrine of merit so prevailed, that the preposterous idea, that merits were a saleable and a transferable commodity, gained ground in the world. A notion of this kind is too gross arid absurd to be entertained by any who acknowledge (3w8 Word as the only umpire in religion; and yet what is not essentially different has often been maintained; for to say that salvage Lion is partly by faith and partly by works, is really the same thing) inasmuch as the principle of merit is thereby admitted Man naturally cleaves to his own righteousness; all those who are ignorant are self-righteous, and all the learned who understand not the gospel; and it is wonderful what ingenious evasions and learned subtleties men will have recourse to in order to resist the plain testimony of Scripture. When they cannot maintain their ground as advocates of salvation alone by merits, they will attempt to maintain it as advocates of a system, which allows a part to grace and a part to works-an amalgamation which Paul expressly repudiates, Rom. xi. 6.
 But it is remarkable how the innate disposition of man has displayed itself in this respect. Conscious, as it were, in some measure of moral imperfections, he has been striving for the most part to merit his salvation by ceremonial works. This has been the case in all ages with heathens: their scarifies, austerities, and mechanical devotions were their merits; they were the works by which they expected to obtain happiness God favoured the people of Israel with the rituals of religion, which were designed merely as aids and means to attain and preserve true religion; but they converted them to another purpose, and, like the heathens, regarded them as meritorious performances, and expected God's acceptance for the very religious acts which they exercised: and in order to make up, as it were, a sufficient quantity of merit, they made additions to those services which God had appointed, as though to multiply acts of this kind was to render their salvation more certain. The very same evil crept early into the Christian Church, and still continues to exist The accumulation of ceremonies is of itself a sufficient proof, that salvation by faith was in a great measure lost sight of: we want no other evidence; it is what has been ever done whenever the light of truth has become dim and obscure. We see the same evil in the present day. Outward privileges and outward acts of worship are in effect too often substituted for that grace which changes the heart, and for that living faith which unites us to the (saviour, which works by love and overcomes the world. The very disposition to over-value external privileges and the mere performances of religious duties, is an unequivocal evidence, that salvation by faith is not understood, or very imperfectly understood, and not really embraced.
 The only remedy, as means for this evil, is that which we find employed by Paul in this Epistle. He begins by showing what every man, Jew and Gentile, is by nature; he proves by the clearest evidence, that all have sinned and become guilty before God. And having done this, he discloses the way of salvation which God himself has planned and revealed; and he teaches us, that it is altogether by grace and through faith that we can be saved, and not by works In order cordially to embrace this latter truth, it is necessary to know the first, that we are sinners under condemnation. It is impossible, according to the very constitution of man's mind, that he Should really and truly accede to the one, without a real and deep knowledge of the other. The whole need not a physician, but the sick. It is only he who is really convinced of sin and who feels its guilt and its burden intolerable, that ever will, or indeed ever can, really ]lay hold on that free salvation which God has provided. And when this free salvation is really known, all other things compared with it will be deemed as nothing; and then all outward privileges will be viewed only as means, and all outward acts of religion only as aids and helps; and then also all our works, however great and self-denying, will be regarded in no way meritorious, but imperfect and defective, and acceptable only through the merits of our High Priest at God's right hand
 It has not been deemed necessary to give in this Edition any specimens of title-pages, &c., from former Editions, either In Latin or in English; as they are to be found in the Old Translation already in the hands of the subscribers.

J. O.


 COMMENTARIES

on

THE EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE

TO

THE ROMANS.
 
THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY.

J O H N C A L V I N

TO

SIMON GRYNAEUS

A MAN WORTHY OF ALL PRONOUN

I REMEMBER that when three years ago we had a friendly converse as to the best mode of expounding Scripture, the plan which especially pleased you, seemed also to me the most entitled to approbation: we both thought that the chief excellency of an expounder consists in lucid brevity. And, indeed, since it is almost his only work to lay open the mind of the writer whom he undertakes to explain, the degree in which he leads away his readers from it, in that degree he goes astray from his purpose, and in a manner venders from his own boundaries Hence we expressed a hope, that from the number of those who strive at this day to advance the interest of theology by this kind of labour, dome one would be found, who would study plainness, and endeavour to avoid the evil of tiring his readers with prolixity. I know at the game time that this view is not taken
 ' The account given of Grynaeus by Watkins in his Biographical Dictionary, taken from Moreri, is the following:-" A learned German, born at Veringen, in Hohenzollern, in 1493. He studied at Vienna, after which e became Rector of the school at Baden, but alas thrown into prison for Fusing the Lutheran doctrines. However, he recovered his liberty, and went to Heidelberg, afterwards to Basil, and, in 16S1, he visited England. 1636 he returned to Basil, and died there in 1640." It is somewhat singular, that in the same year, 1640, another learned man of the same R em John James art, leas born at Berne, and was educated at Basil, and became distinguished for his learning-Ed. 
<page n=XXiV>
by all, and that those who judge otherwise have their reasons; but still I cannot be drawn away from the love of what is compendious. But as there is such a variety, found in the minds of men, that different things please different persons, let every one in this case follow his own judgment, provided that no one attempts to force others to adopt his own rules. Thus it will be, that we who approve of brevity, will not reject nor despise the labours of those who are more copious and diffused in their explanations of Scripture, and that they also in their turn will bear with us, though they may think us too compressed and concise.
 I indeed could not have restrained myself from attempting something to benefit the Church of God in this way. I am, however, by no means confident that I have attained what at that time seemed best to Us; nor did I hope to attain it when I began; but I have endeavoured so to regulate my style, that I might appear to aim at that model. How far I have succeeded, as it is not my part to determine, I leave to be decided by you and by such as you are.
 That I have dared to make the trial, especially on this Epistle of Paul, I indeed see, will subject me to the condemnation of many: for since men of so much learning have already laboured in the explanation of it, it seems not probable that there is any room for others to produce any thing better. And I confess, that though I promised to myself some fruit from my labour, I was at first deterred by this thought; for I feared, lest I should incur the imputation of presumption by applying my hand to a work which had been executed by so many illustrious workmen. There are extant on this Epistle many Commentaries by the ancients, and many by modern writers: and truly they could have never employed their labours in a better way; for when any one understands this Epistle, he has a passage opened to him to the understanding of the whole Scripture.
 Of the ancients who have, by their piety, learning, holiness, and also by their age, gained so much authority, that we ought to despise nothing of what they have adduced, I will say nothing; and with regard to those who lye at this day, it is of no benefit to mention them all by name: Of those who have spent most labour in this work, I will express my opinion
 Philipp Melancthon, who, by his singular learning and industry, and by that readiness in all kinds of knowledge, in which he excels, has introduced more light than those who had preceded him. But as it seems to have been his object to examine only those things which are mainly worthy of attention he dwelt at large on these, and designedly passed by many things which common minds find to be difficult. Then follows Bullinger, who has justly attained no small praise; for with learning he has connected plainness, for which he has been highly commended. In the last place comes Bucer, who, by publishing his works, has given as it were the finishing stroke. For in addition to his recondite learning and enlarged knowledge of things, and to the clearness of his mind, and much reading and many other excellencies, in which he is hardly surpassed by any at this day, equalled by few and excelled by still fewer-he possesses, as you know, this praise as his own-that no one in our age has been with so much labour engaged in the work of expounding Scripture.'
 As then it would have been, I know, a proof of the most presumptuous rivalry, to wish to contend with such men such a thing never entered my mind; nor have I a desire to take from them the least portion of their praise. Let that favour and authority, which according to the confession of all good men they have deserved, be continued to them. This, however, I trust, will be allowed-that nothing has been done by men so absolutely perfect, that there is no room left for the industry of those who succeed them, either to polish, or to adorn, or to illustrate. Of myself I venture not to say any thing, except that I thought that my labour

1 There were at least two other Reformers who had written on the Epistle to the Romans: but whether they were published at this time the writier is not able to say. There is by Luther an Introduction to it, which has been much praised, and has attained the name of the golden preface. Peter Martyr wrote a large comment on this Epistle, which was translated into English early in Queen Elizabeth's reign, in the year 1668.  It is rather remarkable that there was no commenter among our English Reformers, while on the Continent there were a great many commentators. -Ed.
  
would not be useless, and that I have undertaken it for no other reason than to promote the public good of the Church.
 I farther hoped, that by adopting a different plan, I should not expose myself to the invidious charge of rivalry, of which I was afraid in the first instance. Philips attained his object by illustrating the principal points: being occupied with these primary things, he passed by many things which deserve attention; and it was not his purpose to pre vent others to examine them. Buyer is too diffuse for men in business to read, and too profound to be understood by such as are simple and not capable of much application: for whatever be the subject which he handles, so many things are suggested to him through the incredible fecundity of his mind, in which he excels, that he knows not when to stop. Since then the first has not explained every passage, and the other has handled every point more at large than it can be read in a short time, my design has not even the appearance of being an act of rivalship. I, however, hesitated for some time, whether it would be better to gather some gleanings after these and others, by which I might assist humbler minds-or to compose a regular comment, in which I should necessarily have to repeat many things which have been previously said by them all, or at least by some of them. But as they often vary from one another, and thus present a difficulty to simple readers, who hesitate as to what opinion they ought to receive, I thought that it would be no vain labour, if by pointing out the best explanation, I relieved them from the trouble of forming a judgment, who are not able to form a judgment for themselves; and especially as I determined to treat things so briefly, that without much loss of time, readers may peruse in my work what is contained in other writings In short, I have endeavoured that no one may justly complain, that there are here mans things which are superfluous.
Of the usefulness of this work I will say nothing; men
not malignant, will, however, it may be, have reasons to
confess, that they have derived from it more benefit than I
can with any modesty dare to promise. Now, that I some
times dissent from others, or somewhat differ from them, it
is but right that I should be excused. Such veneration we ought indeed to entertain for the Word of God, that we ought not to pervert it in the least degree by varying expositions; for its majesty is diminished, I know not how much, especially when not expounded with great discretion and with great sobriety. And if it be deemed a great wickedness to contaminate any thing that is dedicated to God, he surely cannot be endured, who, with impure, or even with unprepared hands, will handle that very thing, which of all things is the most sacred on earth. It is therefore an audacity, closely allied to a sacrilege, rashly to turn Scripture in any way we please, and to indulge our fancies as in sport; which has been done-by many in former times.
 But we ever find, that even those who have not been deficient in their zeal for piety, nor in reverence and sobriety in handling the mysteries of God, have by no means agreed among themselves on every point; for God hath never favoured his servants with so great a benefit, that they were all endued with a full and perfect knowledge in every thing; and, no doubt, for this end-that he might first keep them humble; and secondly, render them disposed to cultivate brotherly intercourse. Since then what would otherwise be very desirable cannot be expected in this life, that is, universal consent among us in the interpretation of all parts of Scripture, we must endeavour, that, when we depart from the sentiments of our predecessors, we may not be stimulated by any humour for novelty, nor impelled by any lust or defaming others, nor instigated by hatred, nor tickled y any ambition, but constrained by necessity alone, and y the motive of seeking to do good: and then, when this is done in interpreting Scripture, less liberty will be taken in the principles of religion, in which God would have the minds of his people to be especially unanimous Readers will easily perceive that I had both these things in

But as it becomes not me to decide or to pronounce any thing respecting myself, I willingly allow you this office; to whose judgment, since almost all in most things defer, I ought in everything to defer, inasmuch as you are intimately known to me by familiar intercourse; which is wont somewhat to diminish the esteem had for others, but does not a little increase yours, as is well known among al the learned. Farewell.

STRASBURGH, 18th October 1639.

is EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

I

T H E A R GU M E N T.

 WITH regard to the excellency of this Epistle, I know not whether it would be well for me to dwell long on the subject; for I fear, lest through my recommendations falling far short of what they ought to be, I should do nothing but obscure its merits: besides, the Epistle itself, at its very beginning, explains itself in a much better way than can be done by any words which I can use. It will then be better for me to pass on to the Argument, or the contents of the Epistle; and it will hence appear beyond all controversy, that besides other excellencies, and those remarkable, this can with truth be said of it, and it is what can never be sufficiently appreciated-that when any one gains a knowledge of this Epistle, he has an entrance opened to him to all the most hidden treasures of Scripture.
 The whole Epistle is so methodical, that even its very beginning is framed according to the rules of art. As contrivance appears in many parts, which shall be noticed as we proceed, so also especially in the way in which the main argument is deduced: for having begun with the proof of his Apostleship, he then comes to the Gospel with the view of recommending it; and as this necessarily draws with it the subject of faith, He glides into that, being led by the chain of words as by the hand: and thus he enters on the main subject of the whole Epistle justification by faith; in treating which he i8 engaged to the end of the fifth chapter.
The subject then of these chapters By be stated thus,-
man's only righteousness is through the mercy of God in

<page n=xxx> THE ARGUMENT.

 Christ, which being offered by the Gospel is apprehended by faith
 But as men are asleep in their sins, and flatter and delude themselves with a false notion about righteousness, so that they think not that they need the righteousness of faith, except they be cast down from all self-confidence,-and further, as they are inebriated with the sweetness of lusts, and sunk in deep self-security, so that they are not-easily roused to seek righteousness, except they are struck down by the terror of divine judgment,-the Apostle proceeds to do two things-to convince men of iniquity, and to shake off the torpor of those whom he proves guilty.
 He first condemns all mankind from the beginning of the world for ingratitude, because they recognized not the work man in his extraordinary work: nay, when they were constrained to acknowledge him, they did not duly honour his majesty, but in their vanity profaned and dishonoured it Thus all became guilty of impiety, a wickedness more detestable than any thing else. And that he might more clearly show that all had departed from the Lord, he recounts the filthy and horrible crimes of which men everywhere be came guilty: and this is a manifest proof, that they had degenerated from God, since these sins are evidences of divine wrath, which appear not except in the ungodly. And as the Jews and some of the Gentiles, while they covered their inward depravity by the veil of outward holiness, seemed to be in no way chargeable with such crimes, and hence thought themselves exempt from the common sentence of condemnation, the Apostle directs his discourse against this fictitious holiness; and as this mask before men cannot be taken away from saintlings, (sanctulis-petty saints,) he summons them to the tribunal of God, whose eyes no latent evils can escape. Having afterwards divided his subject, he places apart both the Jews and the Gentiles before the tribunal of God. He cuts off from the Gentiles the excuse which they pleaded from ignorance, because conscience was' to them a law, and by this they were abundantly convicts as guilty. He chiefly urges on the Jews that from which they took their defense, even the written law; and as then were proved to have transgressed it, they could not free themselves front the charge of iniquity, and a sentence against them had already been pronounced by the mouth of God himself. He at the same time obviates any objection which might have been made by them-that the covenant of God, which was the symbol of holiness, would have been violated, if they were not to be distinguished from others. Here he first shows, that they excelled not others by the right of the covenant, for they had by their unfaithfulness departed from it: and then, that he might not derogate from the perpetuity of the divine promise, he concedes to them some privilege as arising from the covenant; but it proceeded from the mercy of God, and not from their merits. So that with regard to their own qualifications they were on a level with the Gentiles. He then proves by the authority of Scripture, that both Jews and Gentiles were all sinners; and he also slightly refers to the use of the law.
 Having wholly deprived all mankind of their confidence in their own virtue and of their boast of righteousness, and laid them prostrate by the severity of God's judgment, he returns to what he had before laid down as his subject-that we are justified by faith; and he explains what faith is, and how the righteousness of Christ is by it attained by us. To these things he adds at the end of the third chapter a remarkable conclusion, with the view of beating down the fierceness of human pride, that it might not dare to raise up itself against the grace of God: and lest the Jews should confine so great a favour of God to their own nation, he also by the way claims it in behalf of the Gentiles.
 In the fourth chapter he reasons from example; which he adduces as being evident, and hence not liable to be cavilled at; and it is that of Abraham, who, being the father of the faithful ought to be deemed a pattern and a kind of universal example Having then proved that he was justified by faith, the Apostle teaches us that we ought to maintain no Other way of justification. And here he shows, that it follows from the rule of contraries, that the righteousness of works ceases to exist, since the righteousness of faith is introduced. And he confirms this by the declaration of David, who, by making the blessedness of man to depend on the mercy of God, takes it away from works, as they are in capable of making a man blessed He then treats more fully what he had before shortly referred to-that the Jews had no reason to raise themselves above the Gentiles, as this felicity is equally common to them both, since Scripture de dares that Abraham obtained this righteousness in an uncircumcised state: and here he takes the opportunity of adding some remarks on the use of circumcision. He after. wards subjoins, that the promise of salvation depends on God's goodness alone: for were it to depend on the law, it could not bring peace to consciences, which it ought to confirm, nor could it attain its own ;fulfillment. Hence, that it may be sure and certain, we must, in embracing it, regard the truth of God alone, and not ourselves, and follow the example of Abraham, who, turning away from himself, had regard only to the power of God. At the end of the chapter, in order to make a more general application of the adduced example, he introduces several comparisons.
 In the fifth chapter, after having touched on the fruit and effects of the righteousness of faith, he is almost wholly taken up with illustrations, in order to make the point clearer. For, deducing an argument from one greater, he shows how much we, who have been redeemed and reconciled to God, ought to expect from his love; which was so abundantly poured forth towards us, when we were sinners and lost, that he gave for us his only-begotten and beloved Son. He afterwards makes comparisons between sin and free righteousness, between Christ and Adam, between death and life, between the law and grace: it hence appears that our evils, however vast they are, are swallowed up by the infinite mercy of God.
 He proceeds in the sixth chapter to mention the sanctification which we obtain in Christ. It is indeed natural to our flesh, as soon as it has had some slight knowledge of grace, to indulge quietly in its own vices and lusts, as though it had become free from all danger: but Paul, on the contrary, contends here, that we cannot partake of the righteousness of Christ, except we also lay hold on sanctification. He reasons from baptism, by which we are initiated into a participation of Christ, (per Deem in Christi participationem initiamur;) and in it we are buried together with Christ, 80 that being dead in ourselves, we may through his life be' raised to a newness of life. It then follows, that without regeneration no one can put on 'his righteousness He hence deduces exhortations as to purity and holiness of life, which must necessarily appear in those who have been removed from the kingdom of sin to the kingdom of righteousness, the sinful indulgence of the flesh, which seeks in Christ a greater liberty in sinning, being cast aside. He makes also a brief mention of the law as being abrogated; and in the abrogation of this the New Testament shines forth eminently; for together with the remission of sins, it contains the promise of the Holy Spirit.
 In the seventh chapter he enters on a full discussion on the use of the law, which he had pointed out before as it were by the finger, while he had another subject in hand: he assigns a reason why we are loosed from the law, and that is, because it serves only for condemnation. Lest, however, he should expose the law to reproach, he clears it in the strongest terms from any imputation of this kind; for he shows that through our fault it is that the law, which was given for life, turns to be an occasion of death. He also explains ho v sin is by it increased. He then proceeds to describe the contest between the Spirit and the flesh, which the children of God find in themselves, as long as they are surrounded by the prison of a mortal body; for they carry with them the relics of lust, by which they are continually prevented from yielding full obedience to the law.
 The eighth chapter contains abundance of consolations, in order that the consciences of the faithful, having heard of the disobedience which he had before proved, or rather imperfect obedience, might not be terrified and dejected. But that 'the ungodly might not hence flatter themselves, he first textiles that this privilege belongs to none but to the regenerated in whom the Spirit of God lives and prevails. He unfolds then two things-that all 'who are planted by the Spirit in the Lord begun Christ, are beyond the danger or the chance of condemnation, however burdened they may yet be with sins; and, also, that all who remain in the flesh, being without the sanctification of the Spirit, are by no means partakers of this great benefit. He afterwards explains how great is the certainty of our confidence, since the Spirit of God by his own testimony drives away all doubts and fears. He further shows, for the purpose of anticipating objections, that the certainty of eternal life cannot be intercepted or disturbed by present evils, to which we are subject in this life; but that, on the contrary, our salvation is promoted by such trials, and that the value of it, when compared with our present miseries, renders them as nothing. He confirms this by the example of Christ, who, being the first-begotten and holding the highest station in the family of God, is the pattern to which we must all be conformed And, in the last place, as though all things were made secure, he concludes in a most exulting strain, and boldly triumphs over all the power and artifices of Satan.
 But as most were much concerned on seeing the Jews, the first guardians and heirs of the covenant, rejecting Christ, for they hence concluded, that either the covenant was transferred from the posterity of Abraham, who disregarded the fulfilling of the covenant, or that he, who made no better provision for the people of Israel, was not the promised Redeemer-he meets this objection at the beginning of the ninth chapter. Having then spoken of his love towards his own nation, that he might not appear to speak from hatred, and having also duly mentioned those privileges by which they excelled others, he gently glides to the point he had in view, that it to remove the offence, which arose from their own blindness. And he divides the children of Abraham into two classes, that he might show that not all who descended from him according to the flesh, are to be counted for seed and become partakers of the grace of the covenant; but that, on the contrary, aliens become his children, when they possess his faith. He brings forward Jacob and Esau as examples. He then refers us back here to the election of God, on which the whole matter necessarily depends. Be sides, as election rests on the mercy of God alone, it is in vain to seek the cause of it in the worthiness of man. There is, on the other hand, rejection (rejectio), the justice of which is indubitable, and yet there is no higher cause for it than the will of God. Near the end of the chapter, he sets forth the calling of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews as proved by the predictions of the Prophets.
 Having again begun, in the tenth chapter, by testifying his love towards the Jews, he declares that a vain confidence in their own works was the cause of their ruin; and lest they should pretend the law, he obviates their objection, and says, that we are even by the law itself led as it were by the hand to the righteousness of faith. He adds that this righteousness is through God's bountiful goodness offered indiscriminately to all nations, but that it is only apprehended by those, whom the Lord through special favour illuminates. And he states, that more from the Gentiles than from the Jews would obtain this benefit, as predicted both by Moses and by Isaiah; the one having plainly prophesied of the calling of the Gentiles, and the other of the hardening of the Jews.
 The question still remained, " Is there not a difference between the seed of Abraham and other nations according to the covenant of God ?" Proceeding to answer this question, ho first reminds us, that the work of God is not to be limited to what is seen by our eyes, since the elect often escape our observation; for Elias was formerly mistaken, when he thought that religion had become wholly extinct among the Israelites, when there were still remaining seven thousand; and, further, that we must not be perplexed by the number of unbelievers, who, as we see, hate the gospel. He at length alleges, that the covenant of God continues even to the posterity of Abraham according to the flesh, but to those only whom the Lord by a free election hath predestinated. He then turns to the Gentiles, and speaks to them, lest they should become insolent on account of their adoption, and exult over the Jews as having been rejected since they excel them in nothing, except in the free favour of the Lord, which ought to make them the more humble; and that this has not wholly departed from the seed of Abraham, for the Jews were at length to be provoked to emulation by the faith of the Gentiles, so that (hod Would gather all Israel to himself
 Tile three chapters which follow are admonitory, but they ! are various in their contents. The twelfth chapter contains
general precepts on Christian life. The thirteenth, for the; most part, speaks of the authority of magistrates We may hence undoubtedly gather that there were then some unruly persons, who thought Christian liberty could not exist without overturning the civil power. But that Paul might not appear to impose on the Church any duties but those of love, he declares that this obedience is included in what love requires. He afterwards adds those precepts, which he had before mentioned, for the guidance of our conduct. In the gent chapter he gives an exhortation, especially necessary in that age: for as there were those who through obstinate superstition insisted on the observance of Mosaic rites, and could not endure the neglect of them without being most grievously offended; so there were others, who, being convinced of their abrogation, and anxious to pull down superstition, designedly showed their contempt of such things. Both parties offended through being too intemperate; for the superstitious condemned the others as being despisers of God's law; and the latter in their turn unreasonably ridiculed the simplicity of the former. Therefore the Apostle recommends to both a befitting moderation, deporting the one from superciliousness and insult, and the other from excessive moroseness: and he also prescribes the best way of exercising Christian liberty, by keeping within the boundaries of love and edification; and he faithfully provides for the weak, while he forbids them to do any thing in opposition to conscience.
 The fifteenth chapter begins with a repetition of the general argument, as a conclusion of the whole subject that the strong should use their strength in endeavours to confirm the weak. And as there was a perpetual discord, with regard to the Mosaic ceremonies, between the Jews and the Gentiles, he allays all emulation between them by removing the cause of contention; for he shows, that the 
salvation of both rested on the mercy of God alone; on which relying, they ought to lay aside all high thoughts of themselves and being thereby connected together in the hope of the same inheritance, they ought mutually to embrace one another. And being anxious, in the last place, to turn aside for the purpose of commending his own apostleship, which secured no small authority to his doctrine, he takes occasion to defend himself, and to deprecate presumption in having assumed with so much confidence the office of teacher among them. He further gives them some hope of his coming to them, which he had mentioned at the beginning, but had hitherto in vain looked for and tried to effect; and he states the reason which at that time hindered him, and that was, because the churches of Macedonia and Achaia had committed to him the care of conveying to Jerusalem those alms which they had given to relieve the wants of the faithful in that city.
 The last chapter is almost entirely taken up with salutations, though scattered with some precepts worthy of all attention; and concludes with a remarkable prayer.

COMMENTARIES

ON THE

EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.

CHAPTER I.

 1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
 2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)
 3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh
 4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
 5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations for his name
 6. Among whom are ye also the celled of Jesus Christ:
 7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of Gkod, called to be saints: Grace to you, and peace, from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Chfist.

 l. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, selectus in Evange]ium Dei,
 2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis,

 3. De Filio suo, qui factus est e semine David secundum carnem,

 4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per Spiritum sanctificationis, ex resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro:
 6. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum, in obedientiam fidei inter omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius;
 ¥ 6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu Christi:
 7. Omnibus qui Romae estis, dilectis Deo, vocatis sanctis: gratis vobis, et pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu Christo.

 1. Paul, &c.1--With regard to the word Paul, as it is a subject of no such moment as ought to detain us, and as nothing can be said which has not been mentioned by other

. "' The inscription of the Pauline Epistles," says Turrettin, 'a is according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They severe wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their good wishes." We have an example in Acts xxii. 26.-Ed.
 <page n=40> 
expounders, I should say nothing, were it not proper to satisfy some at small expense without being tedious to others; for the subject shall be despatched in a very few words.
 They who think that the Apostle attained this name as a trophy for having brought Sergius, the proconsul, to the faith of Christ, are confuted by the testimony of Luke, who shows that he was so called before that time. (Acts xiii. 7, 9.) Nor does it seem probable to me, that it was given him when he was converted to Christ; though this idea so pleased Augustine, that he took occasion refinedly to philosophize on the subject; for he says, that from a proud Saul he was made a very little (parvulum1) disciple of Christ. More probable is the opinion of Origen, who thought that he had two names; for it is not unlikely to be true, that his name, Saul, derived from his kindred, was given him by his parents to indicate his religion and his descent; and that his other name, Paul, was added, to show his right to Roman citizenship ;2 they would not have this honour, then highly valued, to be otherwise than made evident; but they did not so much value it as to withhold a proof of his Israelitic descent. But he has commonly taken the name Paul in his Epistles, and it may be for the following reasons: because in the churches to which he wrote, it w as more known and more common, more acceptable in the Roman empire, and less known among his own nation. It was indeed his duty to avoid the foolish suspicion and hatred under which the name of a Jew then laboured among the Romans and in their provinces, and to abstain from inflaming the rage of his own countrymen, and to take care of himself.
 A servant of Jesus Christ, &c.-He signalizes himself with these distinctions for the purpose of securing more authority to his doctrine; and this he seeks to secure by two things

 s Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little. Ad Paul," says the quaint Elnathan Parr, as signifies little, and indeed not unfitly, for he is reported to have been low in stature, and to have bad a very small voice, which is thought to have been objected to him is 2 Cor. x. 10-Ed.
 s Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name old Paul as his Roman name.-Ed.
<page n=41>
first, by asserting his call to the Apostleship 1 and secondly, by showing that his call was not unconnected with the Church of Rome: for it was of great importance that he should be deemed an Apostle through God's call, and that he should be known as one destined for the Roman Church. He therefore says, that he was a servant of Christ, and called to the office of an Apostle, thereby intimating that he had not presumptuously intruded into that office. He then adds, that he was chosen, (selectum--selected,2) by which he more fully confirms the fact, that he was not one of the people, but a particular Apostle of the Lord. Consistently with this, he had before proceeded from what was general to what was particular, as the Apostleship was an especial service; for all who sustain the office of teaching are to be deemed Christ's servants, but Apostles, in point of honour, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the gospel, &e., which he afterwards mentions, expresses the end as well as the use of the Apostleship; for he intended briefly to show for what purpose he was called to that function. By saying then that he was servant of Christ, he declared what he had in common with other teachers; by claiming to himself the

1 "A called Apostle-vocatus apostolus-   xxX1x~5 eSrer~Xas ;8~ our version is, is called to be an Apostle. Most consider a called " here in the sense o chosen or elected, a chosen Apostle.' Professor Stuart observes, that tA"ra; in the writings of Paul has always the meaning of efficient calling and signifies not only the invited, but the effectually invited. He refers to I for i. 1, 2; i. 24; Rom. i. 6, 7; viii. 2s; compared with Gal. i. 15; Jude 1. 1; Heb. iii. l; Rom. xi. 29; Eph. iv. 1.
He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, is by the call of God-ex Dei vocatione apostolus." The meaning is the same as what he himself expresses it in gal. i. 1. Turrettin renders it, Apostolus vocatione divina-- Apostle by divine vocation."
 he difference between Ad a called Apostles and is called to be an Apostle, s is this, that the first conveys the idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not.-Ed.
2 Av^~e~fzlt@¢~ separated, set apart; ~4 segregatus," Vulgate; " separatus, Beza. Ad The Pharisees," says- Leigh, As were termed ^spe@erefzlte~s f we may English them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study w, in which respect they might be called 2<De~s~=L~; ¥;; ¢@V separated to the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have styled himself, Rom. i. 1, e~¢~t~eysw~t s;; leo~9z9tEAFewx separated unto the Gospel, when he was called from being a Pharisee to be a preacher of the Gospel." Separated is the word adopted both by Dodridge and Macknight, as well as by our own version.-Ed.
 <page n=42>
title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no authority is due to him who wilfully intrudes himself, he reminds us, that he was appointed by God.
 Then the meaning is,-that Paul was a servant of Christ not any kind of servant, but an Apostle, and that by the call of God, and not by presumptuous intrusion: then fol. lows a clearer explanation of the Apostolic office,-it was ordained for the preaching of the Gospel. For I cannot agree with those who refer this call of which he speaks to the eternal election of God; and who understand the separation, either that from his mother's womb, which he mentions in Gal. i. 15, or that which Luke refers to, when Paul was appointed for the Gentiles: but I consider that he simply glories in having God as the author of his call, lest any one should think that he had through his own rashness taken this honour to himself
 We must here observe, that all are not fitted for the ministry of the word; for a special call is necessary: and even those who seem particularly fitted ought to take heed lest they thrust themselves in without a call. But as to the character of the Apostolic and of the Episcopal call, we shall consider it in another place. We must further observe, that the office of an Apostle is the preaching of the gospel It hence appears what just objects of ridicule are those dumb dogs, who render themselves conspicuous only by their mitre and their crook, and boast themselves to be the successors of the Apostles !
 The word, servant, imports nothing else but a minister for it refers to what is official.2 I mention this to remove
the mistake of those who too much refine on this expression and think that there is here to be understood a contrast between the service of Moses and that of Christ.
 ' Some combine the four separations. is Set apart in the eternal counsel of God, and from his mother's womb, Gal. i. 15, and by tile special commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts xiii. 2, confirmed by constitution of the Church, Acts xiii. 3; Gal. ii. 9."-Parr. But the object here seems to have been that stated by Calvin: nor is it just or prudent to connect any other idea with the word except that which the context quires; for to do so only tends to create confusion.-Ed. D
 ' Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, &c., where, in a similar sense . ca servants; and also our Saviour. They were officially servants.-Ed
<page n=43>
 3. Which he had before promised, Ac.-As the suspicion of being new subtracts much from the authority of a doctrine, he confirms the faith of the gospel by antiquity; as though he said, " Christ came not on the earth unexpectedly, nor did he introduce a doctrine of a new kind and not heard of before, inasmuch as he, and his gospel too, had been promised and expected from the beginning of the world." But as antiquity is often fabulous, he brings witnesses, and those approved, even the Prophets of God, that he might remove every suspicion. He in the third place adds, that their testimonies were duly recorded, that is, in the Holy Scriptures.
 We may learn from this passage what the gospel is: he teaches us, not that it was promulgated by the Prophets but only promised. If then the Prophets promised the gospel, it follows, that it was revealed, when our Lord was at length manifested in the flesh. They are then mistaken who confound the promises with the gospel, since the gospel is properly the appointed preaching of Christ as manifested in whom the promises themselves are exhibited.'
 3. Concerning his own Son, &c.-This is a remarkable passage, by which we are taught that the whole gospel is included in Christ, so that if any removes one step from Christ, he withdraws himself from the gospel. For since he is the living and express image of the Father, it is no wonder, that he alone is set before us as one to whom our whole faith is to be directed and in whom it is to centre. It is then a definition of the gospel, by which Paul expresses what is summarily comprehended in it. I have rendered the words which follow, Jesus Christ our Lord, in the same case; which seems to me to be most agreeable with the context. We hence learn, that he who has made a due proficiency in the knowledge of Christ, has acquired every thing which can be learned from the gospel; and, on the other

 1 The verb is <¢FSf">>fxs.f,~ only here; it comes from ¥fUy>gss~,~ Schleusner says, means in the middle voice, to promise. "Which he had before promised." is then the proper rendering, and not "Which he formerly published," as proposed by Professor Stuart. Both Doddridge and Mackinght have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. -Ed.

<page n=44> 

hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish, but even completely insane.
 Who was Blade, &;c.-Two things must be found in Christ, in order that we may obtain salvation in him, even divinity and humanity. His divinity possesses power, righteousness, life, which by his humanity are conveyed to US. Hence the Apostle has expressly mentioned both in the Summary he gives of the gospel, that Christ was manifested in the flesh- and that in it he declared himself to be the Son of God. So John says; after having declared that the Word was made flesh, he adds, that in that flesh there was a glory as of the only-begotten Son of God. (John i. 14.) That he specially notices the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not superfluous; for by this he calls hack our attention to the promise, that we may not doubt but that he is the very person who had been formerly promised. So well known was the promise made to David, that it appears to have been a common thing among the Jews to call the Messiah the Son of David. This then-that Christ did spring from David-was said for the purpose of confirming our faith.
 He adds, according to the flesh; and he adds this, that we may understand that he had something more excellent than flesh, which he brought from heaven, and did not take from David, even that which he afterwards mentions, the glory of the divine nature. Paul does further by these words not only declare that Christ had real flesh, but he also clearly distinguishes his human from his divine nature; and thus he refutes the impious raving of Servetus, who assigned flesh to Christ, composed of three untreated elements.
+. Declaredl the Son of God, 85C.: or, if you prefer, deter

 I " Declaratus," ;¢¢^#stT@f. Some of the ancients, Such as Origen, Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, hare given to this verb the meaning of is proved
 alFX8s~<<¢ a" "demonstrated-~er~¢at#;~q@f ;9^ " exhibited-dslrctsjxShfo ;s &c. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed, constituted. Be sides here, it is found only in Luke xxii. 22; Acts ii. 23; x. 42; x~. 29i xvii. 26; Heb. iv. 7. The word, determined, or constituted, if adopted here, would amount to the same thing, that is, that Christ was visibly determined or constituted the Son of God through the resurrection, or by that event. It was that which fixed, settled, determined, and manifestly
<page n=45>

mined (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he it as raised from the dead, seas something like a decrees by Which he waS proclaimed the Son of God, according to what is said in Ps. ii. 7, " I have this day begotten thee:" for this begetting refers to what was made known. Though some indeed find here three separate evidences of the divinity of Christ-" power," understanding thereby miracles-then the testimony of the Spirit-and, lastly, the resurrection from the dead-I yet prefer to connect them

exhibited him as the Son of God, clothed and adorned with his own power.
 Professor Stuart has conjured a number of difficulties in connection with this verse, for which there seems to be no solid reason. The phrase, the Son of God, is so wed known from the Usage of Scripture, that there is no difficulty connected with it: the full phrase is the only-begotten Son. To say that Christ's resurrection was no evidence of his divine nature, as Lazarus and others had been raised from the dead, appears indeed very strange. Did Lazarus rise through his own power? Did Lazarus rise again for our justification ? Was his resurrection an attestation of any thong he had previously declared ? The Rev. A. Barnes very justly says, that the circumstances connected with Christ were those which rendered his resurrection a proof of his divinity.
 Professor Hodge gives what he conceives to be the import of the two verses in these words, " Jesus Christ was, as to his human nature, the Son of ])avid; but he was clearly demonstrated to be, as to his divine nature, the Son of God, by the resurrection from the dead." This view is taken by many, Such as Pareus, Beza, Turrettin, &c. But the words, ' according to the Spirit of Holiness "_xa~c twlufza ~ylSfUV";, are taken differently by others, as meaning the Holy Spirit. As the phrase is nowhere else found, it may be taken in either sense. That the divine nature of Christ is called Spirit, is evident. See 1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. iii. 17; Heb. ix 14, 1 Pet. iii. 18. Doddridge, Scott, and Chalmers, consider
 e Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives this paraphrase:-is Declared, or determinately marked out to be the Son of God and with power The thing was demonstrated by an evidence, the exhibition of which required a putting forth of power, which Paul in another place represents as a very great and strenuous exertion, s According to the working of his mighty power when he raised him from the dead.'-The Spirit of Holiness, or the Holy Spirit. It was through the operation of the Holy Spirit that the divine nature was infused into the human at the birth of Jesus Christ; and the very same agent, it is remarkable, was employed in the ¡' of the resurrection s Put to death in the flesh,' says Peter, 4 and quickened by the Spirit.' We have only to do with the facts of the case. 8 . v as demonstrated to be the Son of God by the power of the Holy Spirit having been put forth in raising him from the dead." As to the genitive case after "resurrection," see a similar instance in Acts xvu.32

The idea deduced by Calvin, that he is called here is the Spirit of Holiness, on account of the holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by Theodoret and Augustine.-Ed.

<page n=46>

 together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this | manner-that Christ was declared the Son of God by openly I exercising a real celestial power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; lout that this power is comprehended, when a conviction of it is imprinted on our hearts by the same Spirit. The language of the Apostle well agrees with this view; for he says that he was decked by power, because power, peculiar to God, shone forth in him, and uncontestably proved him to be God; and this was indeed made evident by his resurrection. Paul says the same thing in another place; having stated, that by death the weakness of the flesh appeared, he at the same time extols the power of the Spirit in his resurrection; (2 Cor. xiii. 4 ) This glory, however, is not made known to us, until the same Spirit imprints a conviction of it on our hearts. And that Paul includes, together with the wonderful energy of the Spirit, which Christ manifested by rising from the dead, the testimony which all the faithful feel in their hearts, is even evident from this-that he expressly calls it the Spirit of Holiness; as though he had said, that the Spirit, as far as it sanctifies, confirms and ratifies that evidence of its power which it once exhibited. For the Scripture is wont often to ascribe such titles to the Spirit, as tend to illustrate our present subject. Thus He is called by our Lord the Spirit of Truth, on account of the effect which he mentions; (John xiv. l 7.)
 Besides, a divine power is said to have shone forth in the resurrection of Christ for this reason-because he rose by his own power, as he had often testified: " Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up again," (John ii l9 ;) " No man taketh it from me," tic.; (John x. 18.) For he gained victory over death, (to which he yielded with regard to the weakness of the flesh,) not by aid sought from another, but by the celestial operation of his own Spirit.
 5. Through whom we have received, &c.-Having completed his definition of the gospel, which he introduced for the recommendation of his office, he now returns to speak of his own call; and it was a great point that this should be proved to the Romans. Bar mentioning grace and apostles

<pgae n=47>

ship apart, he adopts a form of speech,l which must be understood as meaning, gratuitous apostleship or the favour of the apostleship; by which he means, that it was wholly through divine favour, 110t through his own worthiness, that he had been chosen for so high an office. For though it has hardly any thing connected with it in the estimation of the world, except dangers, labours, hatred, and disgrace; yet before God and his saints, it possesses a dignity of no common or ordinary kind. It is therefore deservedly counted a favour. If you prefer to say, " I have received grace that I should be an Apostle," the sense would be the same.2
 The expression, on account of his name, is rendered by Ambrose, " in his name," as though it meant, that the Apostle was appointed in the place of Christ to preach the gospel, according to that passage, " We are ambassadors for Christ," &c. (2 Colt v. 20.) Their opinion, however, seems better, who take name for knowledge; for the gospel is preached for this end-that we may believe on the name of the Son of God. (John iii. 23.) And Paul is said to have been a chosen vessel to carry the name of Christ among the us: tiles. (Acts ix. 15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is.3

 1 "Hypellage," a figure in grammar, by which a noun or an adjective is put in a form or in a case different from that in which it ought grammatically to be.-Ed.

 ' If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render raw, even " favour, even the apostleship." But, as Wolfius says, is both words would perhaps be bitter rendered separately, and " grace" or favour be referred to the conversion of the Apostle himself, and " apostleship" to his office
See 1 Tim. i. 12-14, and Acts ix. 15, Xiii. 2; xxii. 21.-Ed
 ' He has taken this clause before that which follows, contrary to the order Of the text, because he viewed it as connected with the receiving of the apostleship.
 " Zero aU~)~Iil1e i~>sius,"-Katie rot OkS'I,DLUfCS OLUfOLR; " ad nominis ejus gloriam -to the glory of his name," Turrettin; " for the purpose of magnifying his name," Chalmers. Hodge observes, " Paul was an apostle that all nations might be obedient, to the honour of Jesus Christ, that is, so that his name may be known ." Some, as Tholuck, connect the words with " obedience to the faith", as they render the phrase, and, in this sense, " that obedience might be rendered to the faith among all nations for the sake of His' name." But it is better to connect the words with the receiving of the apostle
P It vas received for two purposes-that there might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be magnified.-Ed.
<page n=48>
 For the obedience of faith, &;c.-That is, we have received a command to preach the gospel among all nations, and this gospel they obey by faith. By stating the design of his calling, he again reminds the Romans of his office, as though he said, " It is indeed my duty to discharge the office committed to me, which is to preach the word; and it is your duty to hear the word and willingly to obey it; you Will other. wise make void the vocation which the Lord has bestowed on me."

 We hence learn, that they perversely resist the authority of God and upset the whole of what he has ordained, who irreverently and contemptuously reject the preaching of the gospel; the design of which is to constrain us to obey God. We must also notice here what faith is; the name of obedience is given to it, and for this reason- because the Lord calls us by his gospel; we respond to his call by faith; as on the other hand, the chief act of disobedience to God is unbelief, I prefer rendering the sentences " For the obedience of faith," rather -than, " In order that they may obey the faith ;" for the last is not strictly correct, except taken figuratively, though it be found once in the Acts, vi. 7. Faith is properly that by which we obey the gospel.l

 Among all nations, &c. It was not enough for him to have been appointed an Apostle, except his ministry had reference to some who were to be taught: hence He adds, that his apostleship extended to all nations. He afterwards calls himself more distinctly the Apostle of the Romans, when he says, that they were included ill the number of the nations, to whom he had been given as a

 I It might be rendered, 4' that there might be the obedience of faith,' or, 's in order to produce," or, " Promote the obedience of faith.' The obedience is faith. The command is, "believe," and the obedience must correspond with it. To obey the faith, as in Acts vi. 7, is a different formÇ of expression: the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning t ,~ gospel-See 2 Thess. i. 8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The latter refers to Rom. x. 3, where the Israelites are charged for not submitting to God's righteousness; and, in verse 16, it is said, that they had not all obeyed the gospel, 4' for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed our report ?" Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it.-Ed.
<page n=49>
minister And further, the Apostles had in common the command to preach the gospel to all the world; and they were not, as pastors and bishops, set over certain churches But Paul, in addition to the general undertaking of the apostolic function, was constituted, by a special appointment, to be a minister to proclaim the gospel among the Gentiles It is no objection to this, that he was forbidden to pass through Macedonia and to preach the word in Mysia: for this was done, not that-there were limits prescribed to him, but that he was for a time to go elsewhere; for the harvest was not as yet ripe there.

 Ye are the called of Jesus Christ, Ac. He assigns a reason more nearly connected with them-because the Lord had already exhibited in them an evidence by which he had manifested that he had called them to a participation of the gospel. It hence followed, that if they wished their own calling to remain sure, they were not to reject the ministry of Paul, who had been chosen by the same election of God. I therefore take this clause, " the called of Jesus Christ," as explanatory, as though the particle " even" were inserted; for he means, that they were by calling made partakers of Christ. For they who shall be heirs of eternal life, are chosen by the celestial Father to be children in Christ; and when chosen, they are committed to his care and protection as their shepherd.l

 7. To all of you who are at Rome, tic. By this happy arrangement he sets forth what there is in us worthy of commendation; he says, that first the Lord through his own kindness made us the objects of his favour and love; and then that he hag called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness: but this high honour only then exists, when we are not wanting to our call

 Here a rich truth presents itself to us, to which I shall briefly refer, and leave it to be meditated upon by each individual: Paul does by no means ascribe the praise of our

1 "The called of Jesus Christ ' i.e., the called who belong to Christ <Greek> means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has been addressed, but those who have been also internally called" -Stuart. " by me author renders the words XAXT0I; Gyms, m the next verse, saints," or, " saints effectually called."-Ed.
<page n=50>
salvation to ourselves, but derives it altogether from the fountain of God's free and paternal love towards us; for he makes this the first thing-God loves us: and what is the cause of his love, except his own goodness alone ? On this depends our calling, by which in his own time he seals his adoption to those whom he had before freely chosen. We also learn from this passage that none rightly connect them selves with the number of the faithful, except they fed assured that the Lord is gracious, however unworthy anal wretched sinners they may be, and except they be stimulated by his goodness and aspire to holiness, for he hath not called us to uncleanness, but to holiness. (1 Thess. iv. 7.) As the (}reek can be rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change.

 Grace to you and peace, &c. Nothing is more desirable than to have God propitious to us, and this is signified by grace; and then to have prosperity and success in all things flowing from him, and this is intimated by peace; for however things may seem to smile on us, if God be angry, even blessing itself is turned to a curse. The very foundation then of our felicity is the favour of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity, and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities And then as he prays to God for peace, we must understand, that whatever good comes to us, it is the fruit of divine benevolence. Nor must we omit to notice, that he prays at the same time to the Lord Jesus Christ for these blessings. Worthily indeed is this honour rendered to him, who is not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father's bounty to use but also works all things in connection With him. It was. however, the special object of the Apostle to show, that through him all God's blessings come to us.2

 1 " The ancient Greeks and Romans," says Turrettin, " wished to those to whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, Wealth, joy, happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings yen the favour of Go l the fountain of all good things, and Race, in Which the Hebrews included all blessings."-Ed.
 s "From God our Father,-if Good, then able; if our Father. then willing to enrich us with his gifts: and from our Lord Jesus Christ, from our Lord, who has purchased them for us; from Jesus, for without

<page n=51>

 There are those who prefer to regard the word peace as signifying quietness of conscience; and that this meaning belongs to it sometimes, I do not deny: but since it is certain that the Apostle wished to give US here a summary of God's blessings, the former meaning, which is adduced by Bucer, is much the most suitable. Anxiously wishing then to the godly what makes up real happiness, he betakes himself, as he did before, to the very fountain itself, even the favour of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this life.

 8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.
 9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with ma spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;
 10. Making request (if by any means now at length I might have B prosperous journey by the will of God) to come unto you.
 11. For I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;
 12. That is, that I may be comforted together With you, by the mutual faith both of you and me.

 8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum super vobis omnibus, quia fides vestra praedicatur in universo mundo .
 9. Testis enim mihi Deus, quem colo in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii ipsius, ut continenter memoriam vestri faciam;

 10. Semper in orationibus meis,l rogans, si quomodo prosperum iter aliquando mihi, obtingat per voluntatem Dei, veniendi ad vos.
 11. Desidero enim videre, vos, ut aliquod impertiar vobis donum spirituale ad vos confirmandos;

 12. Hoc est. ad cohortationem mutuo percipiendam in vobis per mutuam fidem, vestram atque meam.

 8. I first2 indeed, Ac. Here the beginning commences, altogether adapted to the occasion, as he seasonably prepares them for receiving instruction by reasons connected with himself as well as with them. What he states respecting them is, the celebrity of their faith; for he intimates that they being honoured with the public approbation of the churches) could not reject an Apostle of the Lord, without disappointing the good opinion entertained of them by all;

these we cannot be saved- from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, John. i. 16."-Parr.
' Margins s; in all my prayers."

2 ' It does not mean here the first in point of importance, but first in it e Order of time,"-Stuart. The same author thinks that ,"1t here has its corresponding as in verse 13, or #sAs 3~ U&MSs &C--Ed
 
<page n=52>

and such a thing would have been extremely uncourteous and in a manner bordering on perfidy. AS then this testimony justly induced the Apostle, by affording him an assurance of their obedience, to undertake, according to his office, to teach and instruct the Romans; so it held them bound not to despise his authority. With regard to himself, he disposes them to a teachable spirit by testifying his love towards them: and there is nothing more effectual in gaining credit to an adviser, than the impression that he is cordially anxious to consult our wellbeing.

 The first thing worthy of remark is, that he so commends their faith,' that he implies that it had been received from God. We are here taught that faith is God's gift; for thanksgiving is an acknowledgment of a benefit. He who gives thanks to God for faith, confesses that it comes from him. And since we find that the Apostle ever begins his congratulations with thanksgiving, let us know that we are hereby reminded, that all our blessings are God's free gifts. It is also needful to become accustomed to such forms of speaking, that we may be led more fully to rouse ourselves in the duty of acknowledging God as the giver of all our blessings, and to stir up others to join us in the same acknowledgment. If it be right to do this in little thirsts, how much more with regard to faith; Which is neither a small nor an indiscriminate (promiscua) gift of God. We have here besides an example, that thanks ought to be given through Christ, according to the Apostle's command in Heb. xiii. 15; inasmuch as in his name we seek and obtain mercy from the Father.-I observe in the last place, that he calls him has God. this is the faithful's special privilege, and on them alone God bestows this honour There is indeed implied in this a mutual relationship, which is expressed in this promise, " I will be to them a God; their shall be to me a people." (Jer. XXX. 22.) I prefer al the same time to confine this to the character Which Paul sus

 I B Faith is put here for the whole religion, and means the same as your piety. Faith is one of the principal things of religion, one of its first requirements, and hence it signifies religion itself."-Barnes. It is indeed to e principal thing, the very basis of religion. Heb. xi. 6.-Ed.

<page n=53>

tained, as an attestation of his obedience to the end in the work of preaching the gospel So Hezekiah called God the God of Isaiah, when he desired him to give him the testimony of a true and faithful Prophet. (Is. XXlVii. 4.) So also he is called in an especial manner the God of Daniel (Dan. vi. 20.)

 Through the whole world. The eulogy of faithful men was to Paul equal to that of the whole world, with regard to the faith of the Romans; for the unbelieving, who deemed it detestable, could not have given an impartial or a correct testimony respecting it. We then understood that it was by the mouths of the faithful that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed through the whole world; and that they were alone able to judge rightly of it, and to pronounce a correct opinion. That this small and despised handful of men were unknown as to their character to the ungodly, even at Rome, was a circumstance he regarded as nothing; for Paul made no account of their judgment

 9. For God is my witness, &c. He proves his love by its effects; for had he not greatly loved them, he would not have 80 anxiously commended them to the Lord, and especially he would not have so ardently desired to promote their welfare by his own labours. His anxiety then and his ardent desire were certain evidences of his love; for had they not sprung from it, they would never have existed And as he knew it to be necessary for establishing confidence in his preaching, that the Romans should be fully persuaded of his sincerity, he added an oath-a needful remedy, whenever a declaration, Which ought to be received as true and indubitable vacillates through uncertainty. For since an oath is nothing else but an appeal to God as to the truth of what we declare, most foolish is it to deny that the Apostle used here an oath. He did not notwithstanding transgress the prohibition of Christ.

 It hence appears that it was not Christ's design (as the Superstitious Anabaptists dream) to abolish oaths altogether, but on the contrary to call attention to the due observance of the law; and the law, allowing an oath, only Condemns perjury and needless Swearing. If then we would use an
 <page n=54>
oath aright, let us imitate the seriousness and the reverent manner exhibited by the Apostles; and that you may understand what it is, know that God is So called as a witness, that he is also appealed to as an avenger, in case we deceive j which Paul expresses elsewhere in these words, " God is a witness to my soul." (2 Cor. i. 28.)1

 Whom I serve with my spirit, &;c. It is usual with profane men, who trifle with God, to pretend his name, 110 less boldly than presumptuously; but the Apostle here squeal; of his own piety, in order to gain credit; and those, in whom, the fear of God and reverence for his name prevail, will dread to swear falsely. At the same time, he sets his own' spirit in opposition to the outward mask of religion; for a many falsely pretend to be the worshippers of God, and outwardly appear to be so, he testifies that he, from the heart served God.2 It may be also that he alluded to the ancient ceremonies, in which alone the Jews thought the worship of God consisted. He then intimates, that though he retained not observance of these, he was yet a sincere worshipper of God, according to what he says in Phil. iii. 3, " We are the true circumcision, who in spirit serve God, and glory not in the flesh." He then glories that he sewed God with sincere devotion of heart, which is true religion and approved worship.

 But it was expedient, as I have Said, in order that his oath might attain more credit, that Paul should declare his piety towards God; for perjury is a sport to the ungodly!' while the pious dread it more than a thousand deaths; inasmuch as it cannot be, but that where there is a real fear of God, there must be also a reverence for his name. It is then the same thing, as though Paul had said, that he knew hole much sacredness and sincerity belonged to an oath, and that

 l The passage in Matt. v. 33-37, has been of Zen wholly misunderstood. That oaths in common conversation are alone prohibited, is quite evident from what the passage itself contains. In solemn oaths there 9'g no swearing by " heaven," or by " God's throne," or by 4' the earth,'' (' by " Jerusalem," or by " the head." Such forms were only used in conversation, as similar ones are still used: and these kinds of swearing art alone condemned by our Saviour.-Ed.
 s " Sincere et vere-sincerely and truly," Wolfius, " not merely externally, but cordially," Hodge.

<page n=55>

he did not rashly appeal to God as a witness, as the profane are wont to do. And thus, by his own example, he teaches us, that whenever we Swear, we ought to give such evidence of piety, that the name of God, which we use in our declarations, may retain its sacredness. And further, he gives a proof, even by his own ministry, that he worshipped not God feignedly; for it was the fullest evidence, that he was a man devoted to God s glory, when he denied himself, and hesitated not to undergo all the hardships of reproach, poverty, and hatred, and even the peril of death, in advancing the kingdom of God.'

 Some take this clause, as though Paul intended to recommend that worship which he said he rendered to God, on this account,-because it corresponded with what the gospel prescribes. It is indeed certain that spiritual worship is enjoined on us in the gospel; but the former interpretation is far the most suitable,-that he devoted his service to God in preaching the gospel. He, however, makes at the same time a difference between himself and hypocrites, who have something else in view rather than to serve God; for ambition, or some Such thing, influences most men; and it is far from being the case, that all engage cordially and faithfully in this office. The meaning is, that Paul performed sincerely the office of teaching; for what he says of his own devotion he applies to this subject.

 But we hence gather a profitable doctrine; for it ought to add no little encouragement to the ministers of the gospel, when they hear that, in preaching the gospel, they render an acceptable and a valuable service to God. What, indeed, is there to prevent them from regarding it an excellent service, when they know that their labour is pleasing to God, and is approved by him ? Moreover, he calls it the gospel of the Son of God; for Christ is in it made known, who has been appointed by the Father for this end,-that he, being glorified, should also glorify the Father.

St 1> Orb lv¢>>lxf~ srov v;ov fcvrovs " by the preaching of the gospel &c.
Stuart- " In predicando evangelio-in preaching the gospel," Beza. *' I serve God, not in teaching legal rites but a much more celestial doctrine,"
<page n=56>
 That continually, &;c. He still further sets forth the ardour of his love by his very constancy in praying for them It was, indeed, a strong evidence, when he poured forth no prayers to the Lord without making mention of them. That the meaning may be clearer, I render 7rarroTe, " always ;" as though it was said, "In all my prayers," or, " whenever I address God in prayer, I join a mention of you."1 Now he speaks not of every kind of calling on God, but of those prayers to which the saints, being at liberty, and laying aside all cares, apply their whole attention to the work; for he might have often expressed suddenly this or that wish, when the Romans did not come into his mind; but whenever he had previously intended, and, as it were, prepared himself to offer up prayers to God, among others he remembered them. He then speaks peculiarly of those prayers, for which the saints deliberately prepare themselves; as we find to have been the case with our Lord himself, who, for this purpose, sought retirement. He at the same time intimates how frequently, or rather, how unceasingly he was engaged in such prayers, since he says that he prayed continually.
 10. Requesting, if by any means, &C. AS it is not probable that we from the heart study his benefit, whom we are not ready to assist by our labours, he now adds, after having said that he was anxious for their welfare, that he showed by another proof his love to them, as before God, even be requesting that he might be able to advance their interest. That you may, therefore, perceive the full meaning, read the words as though the word also were inserted, requesting also, if by any ~ no, &C. By saying, A prosperous journey

 ' The order of the words, as arranged by Calvin, is better than t hat or our version; he connects " always in my prayerful or, " in all my prayers," with " requesting." The simpler rendering would be as follows:-
9. My witness indeed is God, whom I serve With my spilt in tie
10. gospel of his Son, that I unceasingly make mention of you, always requesting in my prayers, that by some means now at length may, through the will of God, have a free course to come to you
 " In the gospel," may either mean " according to the gospel," or, "1: preaching the gospel." Hodge prefers the first. The particle go clearly means " that " in this connection. That it is used in this sense in the Near Testament there can be no doubt; see Acts xxvi. 8, 23; Heb. vii. 1;

by the will of Gods he shows, not only that he looked to the Lord's favour for Success in his journey, but that he deemed his journey prosperous, if it was approved by the Lord. According to this model ought all our wishes to be formed.
 11. No? I greatly desire to see you. He might, indeed, while absent, have confirmed their faith by his doctrine; but as advice is better taken from one present, he had a desire to be With them. But he explains what his object was, and shows that he wished to undertake the toil of a journey, not for his own, but for their advantage.-Spiritual giftsl he calls those which he possessed, being either those of doctrine, or of exhortation, or of prophet which he knew had come to him through God's favour. He has here strikingly pointed out the Use of gifts by the word, imparting: for different gifts are distributed to each individual, that all may in kindness mutually assist one another, and transfer to others what each one possesses. See chap. xii. 3; and 1 Cor. xii. 11.
 To confirm you, &c. He modifies what he had said of imparting, lest he should seem to regard them such as were yet to be instructed in the first elements of religion, as though they were not hitherto rightly taught in Christ. He then says, that he wished so to lend his aid to them, that they who had for the most part made a proficiency, might be further assisted: for a confirmation is what we all want
until Christ be fully formed in us. (Eph. iv. 13.)
 12. Being not satisfied With this modest statement, he qualifies it, and shows, that he did not so occupy the place of a teacher, but that he wished to learn also from them
as though he said, " I desire so to confirm you according to
the measure of grace conferred on me, that your example

  ' The words, fW X^el¢,~# 5rWIV~#fAX;t, some spiritual gift, or benefit, seem  to be of general import. Some, such as Chalmers and Haldane, have   at a miraculous power is intended, which the Apostles alone  t ye, such as the power of speaking with tongues: but most Commentators agree in the view here given. The phrase is not found in any other place: x~e.~fce, In the plural number, is used to designate miraculous powers. 1 Cor. xii. 9; and me ~>s>fi=X¢/X# mean the same, I Cor. xiv. 1. But here, no doubt, the expression includes any gift or benefit, whether miraculous or ordinary, which the Apostle might have been made the means of conveying.-Ed.
<page n=58>
may also add courage (alacritatem-alacrity) to my faith, and that we may thus mutually benefit one another."
 See to what degree of modesty his pious heart submitted itself, so that he disdained not to seek confirmation from unexperienced beginners: nor did he speak dissembling for there is no one so void of gifts in the Church of Christ, who is not able to contribute something to our benefit: but we are hindered by our envy and by our pride from gathering such fruit from one another. Such is our high-mindedness, such is the inebriety produced by vain reputation, that despising and disregarding others, every one thinks that he possesses what is abundantly sufficient for himself I prefer to read with Bucer exhortation (exhortationem-encouragement) rather than consolation; for it agrees better with the former part.1

13. Now I would not have you  ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes  I purposed to come unto you, (but  
13. Nolo vero vos ignorarc, fra. tres, quod sxepe proposui venlre ad vos, et impeditus sum hactellus,u 


 ' The verb is su,etveaxAt;t9es, which Grotius connects with .7,78#~ in the preceding verse; and adds, " He softens what he had said, by showing: that he would not only bring some joy to them, but they also to him,
" At percipiam consolationem-that I may receive consolation," Piscator: -" At una recreemur-that we may be together refreshed," Castelio. "Ad communem exhortationem percipiendam-in order to receive common exhortation," Beza; " Ut gaudium et voluptatem ex vobis precipiam: -that I may receive joy and pleasure from you ;" vel, " Ut mutuo solartio invicem nos erigamus atque firmemus-that by mutual comfort we may console and strengthen one another," Schleusner.
 The verb with the prefix, cur, its only found here; but the verb fJes xeA;i frequently occurs, and its common meaning is, to beseech, to exhort to encourage, and by these means to comfort.
 With regard to this passage, Professor Stuart says, " I have rendered the word, comfort, only because I cannot find any English word which will convey the full sense of the original."
 " The word rendered to comport," says Professor Hodge, " means to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, &C. Which of these senses is to be preferred here, it is not easy to decide. Most probably the Apostle intended to use the word in a wide sense, as expressing the idea, that he might be excited, encouraged, and comforted by his intercourse with his Christian brethren."-The too verses may be thus rendered:-
11. For I desire much to see you, that I may impart to you sense
12. ritual benefit, so that you may be strengthened: this also is what I desire, to be encouraged together with you, through the fait h >1': is in both, even in you and in me.
 Grotius observes, " it aAArAe~f improprie dixit pro in utrisque, ill not vobis. Dixit sic et Demosthenes, f1 feos vAArke~¤.aX-Ed.
<page n=59>

was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.
 14. I am debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, both to the wise and to the unwise. 
 15, So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

fructum aliquem haberem in vobis, sicut et reliquis gentibus.
14.  Et Graecis et Barbaris et sapientbus et stultis debitor sum.
15. Itaque quantum in me est, paratus sum vobis quoque qui Romae estis Evangelizare.
fructum aliquem Sabered in vobis, sicut et in reEquis gentibus.

 13. I would not that you should be ignorant. What be has hitherto testified-that he continually requested of the Lord that he might visit them, might have appeared a vain thing, and could not have obtained credit, had he neglected to seize the occasion when offered: he therefore says, that the effort had not been wanting, but the opportunity; for he had been prevented from executing a purpose often formed.
 We hence learn that the Lord frequently upsets the purposes of his saints, in order to humble them, and by such humiliation to teach them to regard his Providence, that they may rely on it; though the saints, who design nothing without the Lord's will, cannot be said, strictly speaking, to be driven away from their purposes. It is indeed the presumption of impiety to pass by God, and without him to determine on things to come, as though they were in our own power; and this is what James sharply reprehends in chap. in. 13.
 But he says that he was hindered: you must take this in no other sense, but that the Lord employed him in more urgent concerns, Which he could not have neglected without 1088 to the Church. Thus the hinderances of the godly and of the unbelieving differ: the latter perceive only that they are hindered) when they are restrained by the strong hand of the Lord, so as not to be able to move; but the former are satisfied With an hinderance that arises from some approved reason; nor do they allow themselves to attempt any thing beyond their duty, or contrary to edification.
 That I might obtain some fruit, &c. He no doubt speaks of that fruit, for the gathering of which the Lord sent his Apostles, " I have chosen you, that ye may go and bring rib fruit, and that your fruit may remain." (John xv. 16.)
 <page n=60>
Though he gathered it not for himself, but for the Lord, he yet calls it his own; for the godly have nothing more as their own than the work of promoting the glory of the Lord, with which is connected all their happiness. And he records what had happened to him With respect to other nations, that the Romans might entertain hope, that his coming to them would not be unprofitable, Which so many nations had found to have been attended With so much benefit.

 14. 1 am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, 85C. Those whom he means by the Greeks and the Barbarians, he afterwards explains by adding, both to the wise and to the foolish; which words Erasmus has not rendered amiss by " learned and unlearned," (eruditos et rudes,) but I prefer to retain the very words of Paul. He then takes an argument from his own office, and intimates that it ought not to be ascribed to his arrogance, that he thought himself in a manner capable of teaching the Romans, hoe ever much they excelled in learning and wisdom and in the knowledge of things, inasmuch as it had pleased the Lord to make him a debtor even to the wise.l

 Two things are to be here considered-that the gospel is by a heavenly mandate destined and offered to the wise, in order that the Lord may subject to himself all the wisdom of this world, and make all variety of talents, and every kind of science, and the loftiness of all arts, to give way to the simplicity of his doctrine; and what is more, they are to be reduced to the same rank With the unlearned, and to be made so meek, as to be able to bear those to be their fellow-disciples under their master, Christ, whom they WOUND not have deigned before to take as their scholars; and then that the unlearned are by no means to be driven away front

 l Chalmers paraphrases the text thus-" I am bound, or I am under obligation, laid upon me by the duties of my office, to preach both to Greeks and Barbarians, both to the Rise and the unwise."
 In modern phraseology, the words may be rendered, " Both to the civilized and to the uncivilized, both to the learned and to the unlearned, am I a debtor." The two last terms are not exactly parallel to the two first, as many unlearned were among the Greeks, or the civilized, as well as among the Barbarians.-Ed.

<page n=61>

this school, nor are they to flee away from it through groundless fear; for if Paul was indebted to them, being a faithful debtor, he had doubtless discharged what he owed; and thus they Will find here what they will be capable of enjoying. All teachers have also a rule here which they are to follow, and that is, modestly and kindly to accommodate them