general principle of suum cuique, which, however, should find its Christian extension and deepening in the universal love for one's neighbour as a free fulfilling of the law. An exhortation, enforced by a reference to the nearness of the Parousia, to lay aside the evil customs of heathenism and to walk worthily, as befits the newly-risen day of the Christian religion, and especially to earnest self-discipline in restraining sensuous impulses, brings this section to a close, on the same note of moral principle with which it opened (xiii. 8-14).

The next section (xiv. 1-xv. 13) is chiefly occupied with an exhortation to mutual forbearance in view of the different parties in the church. Especially are the more liberal-minded, as being "the strong," exhorted not to give offence to their weaker brethren, who are still limited to the legal and ascetic standpoint, but in the use of their justifiable Christian freedom to allow themselves to be guided by the restraints of a considerate love. As motives to this patient bearing with the weaker brethren are assigned the general example of Christ, and more especially the condescending mercy with which Christ had redeemed them, the heathen, although He belonged by race and by promise to the Jews. For this reason the Gentile Christians have the more reason for gratitude. The hope of the prophets will be fulfilled in the united strain of praise rising to God from Jew and Gentile (therefore, neither have the Jewish Christians a right to look with disfavour on the Gentiles, nor the latter to exalt themselves above the former). The main body of the epistle closes with an aspiration for the growth of the church in joy, peace, and hope.

The conclusion (xv. 14-33) consists of personal explanations as to the justification and the purpose of this letter, as to the intention of the apostle to visit Rome soon and to travel on to Spain, as to his immediate journey to Jerusalem to convey the gifts of the Gentile churches, and as to his anxiety regarding the reception which awaited him there.

In this chapter, the genuineness of which has been called in question, but without sufficient grounds, only verses 19-24, with the closing words which belong to them in verse 28, give rise to serious critical difficulties. The assertion that Paul had so fully preached the Gospel from Jerusalem and its neighbourhood right to Illyria, that there remained in those regions nothing more for him to do (19 and 23) is very surprising, for neither had he (according to Gal. i. 18-24; Acts ix. 28, it is true, gives a different account) begun his missionary activity in and near Jerusalem, nor did he ever go into Illyria, nor could he, after merely establishing a few churches in Asia and Greece, regard his missionary activity there as so thoroughly completed that he must now turn his glances towards the farthest west (Spain). Further, the resolution expressed in verses 20-24 to visit Rome only in passing on his way through to Spain, and not to work there for any length of time because he did not wish to work in another's territory, is obviously a contradiction with i. 13-15, where Paul connects his purpose of proclaiming the Gospel at Rome also with his duty as apostle of the Gentiles, and never implies by a single syllable that he regards the Roman church as "foreign territory," which he would only venture to touch upon as a passing guest.

Of the proposed journey to Spain there is no mention elsewhere, either in the Pauline or deutero-Pauline Epistles, or in Acts, nor is there any discoverable reason why Paul should have purposed a lengthened activity in the western outskirts of the empire, instead of at its centre. It would be much more intelligible that at a later period, when the name of Peter had begun to outshine the name of Paul at Rome, someone might have had an interest in representing the Roman church as foreign territory for Paul, to which he had only ventured to make a passing visit. I hold it therefore to be very probable that verses 19-24 and 28 have been either bodily interpolated or very much modified by a Roman bishop of the second century, who wished by this correction to limit Paul's relations with Rome and thereby to give scope to the Roman Peter-legend which was growing up in his time.1 Of chap. xvi. only verses 21-24 seem to have originally belonged to the epistle, and to have formed its genuine conclusion. The long list of greetings in xvi. 3-16 would be very surprising in a letter to a church to which Paul was personally a stranger. The married couple who stand first, Prisca and Aquila, were, according to Acts xviii. 18 and 26, 1 Cor. xvi. 19, resident in Ephesus, and had there gathered round them a Christian "house-church"; that this couple should in the short time since 1 Cor. xvi. not only have migrated from Ephesus to Rome, but have there again become the centre of a church, is improbable. We may suppose,

1 In confining the critical doubt to this section I follow Lipsius (Handkomm., ii. 2, p. 86 f.); in the explanation of the interpolation I agree with Baur (Paulus, second edition, p. 397 ff.).

then, that all the greetings in verses 3-16 are not addressed to Rome but to Ephesus, the occasion being probably a letter of recommendation for the bearer, the Deaconess Phoebe, who no doubt travelled from Cenchræa, the port of Corinth, to Ephesus (verse 1 f.). Verses 17-20 may also be explained as a portion of this short letter to Ephesus; their sharp polemic, similar to that of Philippians, is directed against Judaising disturbers of the peace who cause divisions in the church and endeavour to deceive the simple with fair speeches, but amid these assaults the church had preserved its obedience to the faith (verse 19). This polemic differs so entirely from the prevailing tone of the Epistle to the Romans that it cannot in any case have belonged to it. It is possible that it belonged to the short letter of Paul to the Ephesians,' but it is probable that it has been added to the Epistle to the Romans by a later hand, in order to put into the mouth of the apostle a condemnation of the Gnostic heretics who were troubling the Roman church in the second century. Finally, the doxology, 25-27, is doubtless in thought and style deutero-Pauline, and it is wanting in some MSS. How and whence it came here we do not know. That the close of the Epistle to the Romans fell into disorder and confusion at an early date is shown by the several-times repeated closing formula (xv. 33, xvi. 20, 24).

1 Cf. Jülicher, Einleitung, second edition, p. 86 f. (= Eng. trans., p. 110 f.).

THE WRITINGS OF PAUL

CHAPTER XI

THE LETTER TO THE PHILIPPIANS

IN the Epistle to the Philippians, the apostle, imprisoned at Rome, holds friendly converse with the church at Philippi-the earliest of his European churches-with which he stood in especially intimate relations. It had recently given him a new evidence of sympathy by sending him, through Epaphroditus, a sum of money for his support. Epaphroditus had fallen seriously ill in Rome, and desired to return to his own country. Paul then gave him this letter to take with him, in which, as was natural in the conditions under which it was composed, personal feelings, anxieties, and hopes largely preponderate over the doctrinal element, though this is not, indeed, quite unrepresented even here. It does not, moreover, follow a definite order of subjects, but passes quite freely from one theme to another, as is natural in a friendly letter, especially if, as was probably the case, it was not written continuously.

Paul begins with the assertion of his thankful joy over the happy condition of the church at Philippi, and then pictures his own present condition, which was not to be regretted, since the cause of the Gospel