_________________________________________________________________

   Title: Commentary on Romans
   Creator(s): Calvin, John (1509-1564)
   (Alternative)
   (Translator)
   Rights: Public Domain
   LC Call no: BS491
   LC Subjects:

   The Bible

   Works about the Bible
     _________________________________________________________________

   COMMENTARIES ON THE
   EPISTLE OF PAUL THE APOSTLE
   TO

   THE ROMANS


   BY JOHN CALVIN



   TRANSLATED AND EDITED

   BY THE REV. JOHN OWEN,

   VICAR OF THRUSSINGTON, LEICESTERSHIRE



   CHRISTIAN CLASSICS ETHEREAL LIBRARY
   GRAND RAPIDS, MI

   [1]http://www.ccel.org
     _________________________________________________________________

   TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE

   On no portion of The New Testament have so many Commentaries been written as
   on The Epistle To The 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 Œcumenius 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 Strasbourg 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 [1] 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,
   particularly those of Bellarmine, the acutest, the subtlest and the most
   learned of all the Jesuits of his own age, and 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 Protestants. 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
   doctrine of Calvin had somewhat degenerated in his time, though the work on
   the whole takes the side of orthodoxy. It yet shows a leaning to those
   views, which commonly issue its sentiments subversive of the essentials of
   true Christianity.

   The first Commentary published in this country, composed 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 delivered from the pulpit. [2] His style is
   that of his age, and appear quaint now; but his thoughts are often very
   striking and truly excellent, and his sentiments are wholly in accordant
   with those of the Reformers.

   Since that time until this century, no work of any note has appeared
   separately on this Epistle. But within the last thirty years several
   Commentaries have been published. Besides those of Flatt and Tholuck in
   Germany, three at 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 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 philosopher’s 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
   unequaled.

   All these works have their peculiar excellencies, adapted to different
   tastes and capacities, and no doubt they have their defects. The 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 main 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 occasionally 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 learning. 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 to render it clearer
   and more prominent. There has been indeed 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 have been
   naturally expected from the writers, brought up, as 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. [3]

   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 the 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, 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 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 AD 35. 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; AD 66.

   Paul’s first coming to Rome was in the spring of the year 61. He continued
   there as a prisoner for two years. [4] 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. [5] 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 Savior’s cross, Mark 15:21. It is not improbable, that
   these were afterwards assisted by such as 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. Irenœus and Tertullian were the first 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.
   [6]

   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 suppose, 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, is evident from the
   second Epistle to Timothy; for he makes no mention of Peter, and what he
   says of Christians there, that they “all forsook him,” would have been
   highly discreditable to Peter, if he was there. So that we have the
   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. [7] But the first tradition, or the first
   account, given by Irenœus and Tertullian, refers only to a co-operation: and
   yet this co-operation 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 9; and three years after this — that is, in the year 38, Galatians 1:8.
   He was in Judea in the year 45, when he was imprisoned by Herod, Acts 12,
   and in 49, fourteen years after Paul’s conversion, Acts 15, Galatians 2:1-9.
   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,
   Galatians 2:11. If it be asked, where did he afterwards exercise his
   ministry? 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 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. [8]

   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 blemishes. 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 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, 1-11.; and hortative, 12-16.:
   but the latter divides it into three parts — doctrinal, 1-8.; answers to
   objections, 9-11.; and hortatory, 12-16. The analysis of Professor Hodge,
   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 9, 10,
   11, 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; 1:1-18.

   II. Justification,

   1. A proof of its necessity — the sin and guilt of both Gentiles and Jews,
   1:18-3:21

   2. Its Nature and Character — Examples, Abraham and David, 3:21-4

   3. Its Effects or Fruits — Peace and Fullness of Grace, 5.; Death unto Sin
   and Eternal Life, 6.; Immunity from The Law and The Reigning Power of Sin,
   7. Holiness, The Spirit’s help, Patience in Afflictions, Perseverance, 8.

   III. God’s Dealings Vindicated —

   l. Election and Reprobation, 9

   2. Unbelief and Faith, 10

   3. The Rejection of the Jews, The Adoption of the Gentiles, The Restoration
   of the Jews, 11

   IV Christian Duties

   1. Devotedness to God, Proper Use of Gifts, Love, Doing Good, 12.

   2. Obedience to Authority, Love to all, Purity, 13.

   3. Forbearance towards Weak Brethren, 14.

   4. Help to the Weak, Unanimity, Christ the Savior of Jews and Gentiles,
   15:1-13.

   V. Conclusion, —

   1. Paul’s Labours and Purpose to Visit Rome, 15:13

   2. Salutations, Avoiding Disturbers, Promise of Victory, Praise to God, 16

   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 been 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 plain and decisive language,
   especially of this Epistle, and the clear and conclusive reasoning which it
   exhibits, that any 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 proves. 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 Scribes and Rabbins
   were blind leaders of the blind, when even babes understood the mysteries of
   the kingdom of God: and no better than 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 as long
   as he is under its 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 salable and a transferable commodity,
   gained ground in the world. A notion of this kind is too gross and absurd to
   be entertained by any who acknowledge God’s Word as the only umpire in
   religion; and yet what is not essentially different has often been
   maintained; for to say that salvation 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, Romans 11:6.

   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
   sacrifices, austerities, and mechanical devotions were their merits; they
   were the works by which they expected to obtain happiness. God favored 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 Savior, 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, etc., 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.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [1] His original name was Wangler, but he Grecised it, as Erasmus had done,
   and as others did in that age.

   [2] This work must have been published before the year 1615, for his patron
   died in that year. The copy seen by the writer is the third edition and was
   published in 1633.

   [3] “The writers of the New Testament, or rather (with reverence be it
   Spoken!) the Holy Spirit, whose penmen they were, wisely chose, in
   expressing evangelical notions, to employ such Greek terms as had been long
   before used for the same purposes by the Greek Translators of the New
   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 New Testament, and will be regarded in this
   view as long as sound judgment and real learning shall continue among
   men.” —ParkHurst.

   [4] It was while a prisoner at this time at Rome that he wrote his Epistles
   to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Philemon, and the Hebrews also,
   as it is generally supposed.

   [5] See Horne’s Introduction, volume 4 part 2 chapter; 3 section 1.

   [6] The inconsistencies of what the retailers of this tradition say, are
   quite palpable. Irenœus affirms, that “the Church at Rome was founded and
   constituted (fundata et constituta) by the two Apostles, Peter and Paul.”
   Epiphanius says, that they were the first “Bishops” at Rome, as well as
   Apostles, while Irenœus declares, that they both “delivered the episcopal
   office into the hands of Linus;” and it is said in what are called the
   Apostolic Constitutions, that “Linus was ordained bishop by Paul, and
   Clement after the death of Linus by Peter.” — see Dr. Barrow on the Pope’s
   Supremacy, pages 127-129.

   [7] But this cannot be admitted, as the same informant, Tradition, tells us,
   that Peter and Paul suffered martyrdom at the same time. The only thing
   which Peter appears to have had to do in forming and founding a church at
   Rome, was 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 had been the founder of that church. Less
   occasion has often produced tales of this kind.

   [8] 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 so
   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 — Irenœus 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 Rome. There is no good historical evidence of the fact;
   and there is much probability against it.” —P. 87.
     _________________________________________________________________

   THE EPISTLE DEDICATORY

   JOHN CALVIN TO SIMON GRYNÆUS, [9]

   A MAN WORTHY OF ALL HONOR

   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 wanders
   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, some one would be found, who would study plainness, and
   endeavour to avoid the evil of tiring his readers with prolixity. I know at
   the same time that this view is not taken 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
   live 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.

   Philip 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, equaled 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. [10]

   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 favor 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 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. Philipp 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 prevent others to
   examine them. Bucer 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 many 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
   favored 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 by any ambition, but
   constrained by necessity alone, and by 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 view.

   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 1539.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [9] The account given of Grynæus 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 he became Rector
   of the school at Baden, but was thrown into prison for espousing the
   Lutheran doctrines. However, he recovered his liberty, and went to
   Heidelberg, afterwards to Basil, and, in 1531, he visited England. 1536 he
   returned to Basil, and died there in 1540.” It is somewhat singular, that in
   the same year, 1540, another learned man of the same name, John James
   Grynæus, was born at Berne, and was educated at Basil, and became
   distinguished for his learning — Ed.

   [10] 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 writer 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 1568. It is rather remarkable
   that there was no commenter among our English Reformers, while on the
   Continent there were a great many commentators. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

   THE ARGUMENT

   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 is engaged to the end of the fifth chapter.

   The subject then of these chapters may be stated thus, — man’s only
   righteousness is through the mercy of God in 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 workman in his extraordinary
   work: nay, when they were constrained to acknowledge him, they did not duly
   honor his majesty, but in their vanity profaned and dishonored 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 became
   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 convicted as guilty. He chiefly urges
   on the Jews that from which they took their defense, even the written law;
   and as they were proved to have transgressed it, they could not free
   themselves from 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 favor 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 incapable 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 declares 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
   afterwards 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 quem in
   Christi participationem initiamur;) and in it we are buried together with
   Christ, so 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 how 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
   testifies 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 Jesus 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 is, 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. Besides, 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
   favor 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, he 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 favor 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 God
   would gather all Israel to himself.

   The 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 next 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 1
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:1-7

   1. Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto
   the gospel of God,

   1. Paulus, servus Iesu Christi, vocatus Apostolus, selectus in Evangelium
   Dei,

   2. (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)

   2. Quod ante promiserat per Prophetas suos in Scripturis Sanctis,

   3. Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of
   David according to the flesh;

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

   4. And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of
   holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:

   4. Declaratus Filius Dei in potentia, per Spiritum sanctificationis, ex
   resurrectione mortuorum, Iesu Christo Domino nostro:

   5. By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the
   faith among all nations, for his name:

   5. Per quem accepimus gratiam et Apostolatum, in obedientiam fidei inter
   omnes gentes, pro nomine ipsius;

   6. Among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ:

   6. Inter quas estis etiam vos, vocati Iesu Christi:

   7. To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you
   and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.

   7. Omnibus qui Romæ estis, dilectis Deo, vocatis sanctis: gratia vobis, et
   pax a Deo Patre nostro, et Domino Iesu Christo.
     _________________________________________________________________

   1. Paul, etc. [11] — 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 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
   13:7, 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 (parvulum [12] ) 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; [13] they would not have this honor, 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 was 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 labored 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, etc. — 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 — first, by asserting his call to the
   Apostleship; [14] 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, [15] ) 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 honor, far exceed all others. But the choosing for the
   gospel, etc., 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 title of an Apostle, he put himself before others; but as no
   authority is due to him who willfully 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 follows 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 Galatians 1:15, 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 honor to himself. [16]

   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. [17] 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.

   2. Which he had before promised, etc. — 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. [18]

   3. Concerning his own Son, etc. — 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 center. 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
   hand, that they who seek to be wise without Christ, are not only foolish,
   but even completely insane.

   Who was made, etc. — 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 1:14.) That he specially notices
   the descent and lineage of Christ from his ancestor David, is not
   superfluous; for by this he calls back 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.

   4. Declared [19] the Son of God, etc.: or, if you prefer, determined
   (definitus); as though he had said, that the power, by which he was raised
   from the dead, was something like a decree by which he was proclaimed the
   Son of God, according to what is said in Psalm 2:7, “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
   together, and to reduce these three things to one, in this manner — that
   Christ was declared the Son of God by openly exercising a real celestial
   power, that is, the power of the Spirit, when he rose from the dead; but
   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 declared 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 Corinthians 13:4) 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 14:17)

   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 2:19;)

   “No man taketh it from me,” etc.; (John 10:18)

   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, etc. — 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. By mentioning grace and apostleship apart, he
   adopts a form of speech, [20] which must be understood as meaning,
   gratuitous apostleship or the favor of the apostleship; by which he means,
   that it was wholly through divine favor, not 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,
   labors, 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
   favor. If you prefer to say, “I have received grace that I should be an
   Apostle,” the sense would be the same. [21]

   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,” etc. (2 Corinthians 5:20.) 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 3:23.) And Paul
   is said to have been a chosen vessel, to carry the name of Christ among the
   Gentiles. (Acts 9:15.) On account then of his name, which means the same, as
   though he had said, that I might make known what Christ is. [22]

   For the obedience of faith, etc. — 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 otherwise 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 sentence, “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 6:7. Faith is properly that by which we
   obey the gospel. [23]

   Among all nations, etc. 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 in the number of the nations, to whom he had been given
   as a 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, etc. 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. [24]

   7. To all of you who are at Rome, etc. 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 favor and love; and
   then that he has called us; and thirdly, that he has called us to holiness:
   but this high honor 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 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 themselves with the
   number of the faithful, except they feel assured that the Lord is gracious,
   however unworthy and 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 Thessalonians 4:7.) As the Greek can be
   rendered in the second person, I see no reason for any change.

   Grace to you and peace, etc. 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 favor of God, by which we enjoy true and solid prosperity,
   and by which also our salvation is promoted even when we are in adversities.
   [25] 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 honor rendered to him, who is
   not only the administrator and dispenser of his Father’s bounty to us, 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. [26]

   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 favor of God, which not only alone brings to us eternal
   felicity but is also the source of all blessings in this life.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [11] “The inscription of the Pauline Epistles,” says Turrettin, “is
   according to the manner of the ancients, both Greeks and Romans. They were
   wont to prefix their name; and to those to whom they wrote they added their
   good wishes.” We have an example in Acts 23:26. — Ed.

   [12] Thereby expressing the meaning of Paulus, which in Latin is little.
   “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 had a
   very small voice,” which is thought to have been objected to him in 2
   Corinthians 10:10 — Ed.

   [13] Most writers agree in this view, regarding Saul as his Hebrew name and
   Paul as his Roman name. — Ed.

   [14] “A called Apostle — vocatus apostolus — klētos apostolos;” our version
   is, “called to be an Apostle”. Most consider “called” here in the sense of
   chosen or elected, “a chosen Apostle.” Professor Stuart observes, that
   klētos 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 1 Corinthians 1:1, 2; 1 Corinthians 1:24; Romans 1:6, 7; Romans 8:28;
   compared with Galatians 1:15; Jude 1:1; Hebrews 3:1; Romans 11:29; Ephesians
   4:1 He was an Apostle by a call, or as Beza renders it, “by the call of God
   — ex Dei vocatione apostolus.” The meaning is the same as what he himself
   expresses it in Galatians 1:1. Turrettin renders it, “Apostolus vocatione
   divina — an Apostle by divine vocation.” The difference between “a called
   Apostle” and “called to be an Apostle,” is this, that the first conveys the
   idea that he obeyed the call, and the other does not. — Ed.

   [15] Aphōrismenos separated, set apart; “segregatus,” Vulgate; “separatus,
   Beza. “The Pharisees,” says Leigh, “were termed aphōrismenos we may English
   them Separatists: they separated themselves to the study of the law, in
   which respect they might be called aphōrismenos eis ton nomon, separated to
   the law. In allusion to this, saith Drusius, the Apostle is thought to have
   styled himself, Romans 1:1, aphōrismenon eis euangelion, 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 Doddridge and Macknight, as
   well as by our own version. — Ed.

   [16] Some combine the four separations. “Set apart in the eternal counsel of
   God, and from his mother’s womb, Galatians 1:15, and by the special
   commandment of the Holy Ghost, Acts 13:2, confirmed by constitution of the
   Church, Acts 13:3; Galatians 2:9.” — 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 requires; for to do so only
   tends to create confusion. — Ed.

   [17] Moses, Joshua, David, Nehemiah, etc., where, in a similar sense, called
   servants; and also our Savior. They were officially servants. — Ed

   [18] The verb is proepēngeilato only here; it comes from epangellomai, which
   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 Macknight
   have retained our version, with which that of Beza agrees. — Ed.

   [19] “Declaratus,” horisthentos. Some of the ancients, such as Origen,
   Chrysostom, Cyril, and others, have given to this verb the meaning of is
   “proved — deichthentos;” demonstrated — apophanthentos;” “exhibited —
   apodeichthōntos;”etc. But it is said that the word has not this meaning in
   the New Testament, and that it means, limited, determined, decreed,
   constituted. Besides here, it is found only in Luke 22:22; Acts 2:23; Acts
   10:42; Acts 11:29; Acts 17:26; Hebrews 4:7. 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 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 well 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 thing he had previously declared? The Revelation 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 David; 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, etc. But the words, “according to the Spirit of Holiness”
   — kata pneuma hagiōsunēs, 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
   Corinthians 15:45; 2 Corinthians 3:17; Hebrews 9:14, 1 Peter 3:18 Doddridge,
   Scott, and Chalmers, consider The Holy Spirit to be intended. The last gives
   this paraphrase: — “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, ‘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
   work of the resurrection. ‘Put to death in the flesh,’ says Peter, and
   ‘quickened by the Spirit.’ We have only to do with the facts of the case. He
   was 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 17:32 The idea deduced by
   Calvin, that he is called here “the Spirit of Holiness,” on account of the
   holiness he works in us, seems not well-founded, though advanced by
   Theodoret and Augustine. — Ed.

   [20] “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.

   [21] If this view be taken, the best mode would be to render kai, even
   “favor, even the apostleship.” But, as Wolfius says, “both words would
   perhaps be better rendered separately, and “grace” or favor be referred to
   the conversion of the Apostle himself, and “apostleship” to his office. See
   1 Timothy 1:12-14, and Acts 9:15, Acts 13:2; Acts 22:21. — Ed

   [22] 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. “Pro nomine ipsius,” — huper tou onomatos autou; “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 honor 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 apostleship: it was received for two purposes — that there
   might be the obedience of faith, and that the name of Christ might be
   magnified. — Ed.

   [23] It might be rendered, “that there might be the obedience of faith,” or,
   “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 6:7, is a different form of expression:
   the article is prefixed there, it is the faith, meaning the gospel. — See 2
   Thessalonians 1:8. Professor Stuart and Haldane, agree in this view. The
   latter refers to Romans 10:3, 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, “for Esaias saith, Lord, who hath believed
   our report?” Then to believe the gospel is in an especial manner to obey it.
   — Ed.

   [24] “The called of Jesus Christ,” i.e., the called who belong to Christ.
   Klētos means, not only those to whom the external call of the gospel has
   been addressed, but those who have been also internally called.” — Stuart.
   The same author renders the words klētois hagiois, in the next verse,
   “chosen saints,” or, “saints effectually called.” — Ed.

   [25] “The ancient Greeks and Romans,” says Turrettin, “wished to those to
   whom they wrote, in the inscription of their epistles, health, joy,
   happiness; but Paul prays for far higher blessings even the favor of God,
   the fountain of all good things, and peace, in which the Hebrews included
   all blessings.” — Ed.

   [26] “From God our Father, — if God, 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 these we cannot
   be saved; from Christ, for he is anointed with grace and peace, John
   1:16.” — Parr
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:8-12

   8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith
   is spoken of throughout the whole world.

   8. Primum quidem gratias ago Deo meo per Iesum Christum super vobis omnibus,
   quia fides vestra Prædicatur in universo mundo.

   9. For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his
   Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

   9. Testis enim mihi Deus, quem colo in spiritu meo in Evangelio Filii
   ipsius, ut continenter memoriam vestri faciam;

   10. Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous
   journey by the will of God to come unto you.

   10. Semper in orationibus meis, [27] rogans, si quomodo prosperum iter
   aliquando mihi, obtingat per voluntatem Dei, veniendi ad vos.

   11. For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift,
   to the end ye may be established;

   11. Desidero enim videre, vos, ut aliquod impertiar vobis donum spirituale
   ad vos confirmandos;

   12. That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith
   both of you and me.

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

   8. I first [28] indeed, etc. 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 honored 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; 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, [29]
   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 things, 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 Hebrews 13:15; inasmuch as in his name we seek and
   obtain mercy from the Father. — I observe in the last place, that he calls
   him his God. This is the faithful’s special privilege, and on them alone God
   bestows this honor. There is indeed implied in this a mutual relationship,
   which is expressed in this promise,

   “I will be to them a God;
   they shall be to me a people.” (Jeremiah 30:22.)

   I prefer at the same time to confine this to the character which Paul
   sustained, 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.
   (Isaiah 37:4.) So also he is called in an especial manner the God of Daniel.
   (Daniel 6:20.)

   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, etc. He proves his love by its effects; for had he
   not greatly loved them, he would not have so anxiously commended them to the
   Lord, and especially he would not have so ardently desired to promote their
   welfare by his own labors. 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 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; which Paul expresses elsewhere in these words,

   “God is a witness to my soul.” (2 Corinthians 1:23.) [30]

   Whom I serve with my spirit, etc. It is usual with profane men, who trifle
   with God, to pretend his name, no less boldly than presumptuously; but the
   Apostle here speaks 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 as many falsely pretend to be the worshippers
   of God, and outwardly appear to be so, he testifies that he, from the heart
   served, God. [31] 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 Philippians 3:3,

   “We are the true circumcision, who in spirit serve God,
   and glory not in the flesh.”

   He then glories that he served 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 how much sacredness and sincerity
   belonged to an oath, and that 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. [32]

   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 labor 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.

   That continually, etc. He still further sets forth the ardor 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 pantote, “always;” as though it
   was said, “In all my prayers,” or, “whenever I address God in prayer, I join
   a mention of you.” [33] 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, etc. As it is not probable that we from the
   heart study his benefit, whom we are not ready to assist by our labors, 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 by 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 means, etc. By saying, A prosperous
   journey by the will of God he shows, not only that he looked to the Lord’s
   favor 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. For 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 gifts [34] he calls those
   which he possessed, being either those of doctrine, or of exhortation, or of
   prophesy which he knew had come to him through God’s favor. 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 Romans 12:3; and 1 Corinthians 12:11

   To confirm you, etc. 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.
   (Ephesians 4:13.)

   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 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 dissemblingly, 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 consolatim;
   for it agrees better with the former part. [35]
     _________________________________________________________________

   [27] Margin, “in all my prayers.”

   [28] “It does not mean here the first in point of importance, but first in
   the order of time.” — Stuart. The same author thinks that men here has its
   corresponding de in Romans 1:13, Ou thelō de humas, etc., — Ed

   [29] “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 the principal thing, the very basis of religion. Hebrews 11:6. — Ed.

   [30] The passage in Matthew 5:33-37, has been often wholly misunderstood.
   That oaths in common conversation are alone prohibited, is quite evident
   from what the passage itself contains. In solemn oaths there was no swearing
   by “heaven,” or by “God’s throne,” or by “the earth,” or by “Jerusalem,” or
   by “the head.” such forms were only used in conversation, as similar ones
   are still used: and these kinds of swearing are alone condemned by our
   Savior. — Ed.

   [31] “Sincerè et verè — sincerely and truly,” Wolfius, “not merely
   externally, but cordially,” Hodge.

   [32] en tō euangeliō tou huiou autou “by the preaching of the gospel,
   etc.” Stuart. “In predicando evangelio — in preaching the gospel,” Beza. “I
   serve God, not in teaching legal rites, but a much more celestial
   doctrine,” Grotius

   [33] The order of the words, as arranged by Calvin, is better than that of
   our version; he connects “always in my prayers,” 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 spirit in the gospel of his Son,
   that I unceasingly make mention of you, always requesting in my prayers, 10.
   That by some means now at length I 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, “in preaching the gospel.” Hodge prefers the first. The
   particle ei clearly means “that” in this connection. That it is used in this
   sense in the New Testament there can be no doubt; see Acts 26:8, 23; Hebrews
   7:15

   [34] The words, ti charisma pneumatikon, some spiritual gift, or benefit,
   seem to be of general import. Some, such as Chalmers and Haldane, have
   supposed that a miraculous power is intended, which the Apostles alone
   conveyed, 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:
   charisma, in the plural number, is used to designate miraculous powers. 1
   Corinthians 12:9; and ta pneumatika mean the same, 1 Corinthians 14:1. 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.

   [35] The verb is sumparaklēthōnai, which Grotius connects with epipothō 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.” “Ut
   percipiam consolationem — that I may receive consolation,” Piscator; — “Ut
   unà 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 solatio invicem nos erigamus atque
   firmemus — that by mutual comfort we may console and strengthen one
   another,” Schleusner The verb with the prefix, sum, is only found here; but
   the verb parakaleō 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 comfort,” says Professor Hodge, “means
   to invite, to exhort, to instruct, to console, etc. 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 two verses may be thus rendered: — 11. For I
   desire much to see you, that I may impart to you spiritual 12. benefit, so
   that you may be strengthened: this also is what I desire, to be encouraged
   together with you, through the faith which is in both, even in you and in
   me. Grotius observes, “en allēlois impropriè dixit pro in utrisque, in me et
   vobis. Dixit sic et Demosthenes, ta pros allēlois — Ed
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:13-15

   13. Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed
   to come unto you, (but was let hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among
   you also, even as among other Gentiles.

   13. Nolo verò vos ignorare, fratres, quod sæpe proposui venire ad vos, et
   impeditus sum hactenus,ut fructum aliquem haberem in vobis, sicut et in
   reliquis gentibus.

   14. I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise,
   and to the unwise.

   14. Et Græcis et Barbaris et sapientbus et stultis debitor sum.

   15. So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are
   at Rome also.

   15. Itaque quantum in me est, paratus sum vobis quoque qui Romae estis
   Evangelizare.

   13. I would not that you should be ignorant. What he 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 James 4:13.

   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 loss 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, etc. 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 forth fruit,
   and that your fruit may remain.” (John 15:16.)

   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. I am a debtor both to the Greeks and to the Barbarians, etc. 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, however
   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.
   [36]

   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
   would not have deigned before to take as their scholars; and then that the
   unlearned are by no means to be driven away from 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 themselves to the capacities of the ignorant and
   unlearned. Hence it will be, that they will be able, with more evenness of
   mind, to bear with many absurdities and almost innumerable things that may
   disgust them, by which they might otherwise be overcome. They are, however,
   to remember, that they are not so indebted to the foolish, as that they are
   to cherish their folly by immoderate indulgence.

   15. I am therefore ready, [37] etc. He concludes what he had before said of
   his desire — that as he knew it to be his duty to spread the gospel among
   them, in order to gather fruit for the Lord, he was anxious to fulfill
   God’s calling, as far as he was allowed to do so by the Lord.
     _________________________________________________________________

   [36] 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 wise 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.

   [37] to kat eme prothumon, literally, “As to me there is readiness;” or,
   according to Stuart “There is a readiness so far as it respects me.” But,
   “I am ready,” or “I am prepared,” conveys the meaning sufficiently, without
   the other words, “As much as in me is.” By saying that he was prepared, he
   intimates that the event depended on another, even on God. — Ed.
     _________________________________________________________________

   Romans 1:16-17

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

   16. Non enim pudet me Evangelii Christi, quandoquidem potentia est Dei, in
   salutem omni credenti, Iudæoprimum, deinde Græco.

   17. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as
   it is written, The just shall live by faith.

   17. Nam justitia Dei in eo revelatur ex fide in fidem, sicut scriptum est,
   Justus ex fide sua vivet.

   16. I am not indeed ashamed, etc. This is an anticipation of an objection;
   for he declares beforehand, that he cared not for the taunts of the ungodly;
   and he thus provides a way for himself, by which he proceeds to pronounce an
   eulogy on the value of the gospel, that it might not appear contemptible to
   the Romans. He indeed intimates that it was contemptible in the eyes of the
   world; and he does this by saying, that he was not ashamed of it. And thus
   he prepares them for bearing the reproach of the cross of Christ, lest they
   should esteem the gospel of less value by finding it exposed to the scoffs
   and reproaches of the ungodly; and, on the other hand, he shows how valuable
   it was to the faithful. If, in the first place, the power of God ought to be
   extolled by us, that power shines forth in the gospel; if, again, the
   goodness of God deserves to be sought and loved by us, the gospel is a
   display of his goodness. It ought then to be reverenced and honored, since
   veneration is due to God’s power; and as it avails to our salvation, it
   ought to be loved by us.

   But observe how much Paul ascribes to the ministry of the word, when he
   testifies that God thereby puts forth his power to save; for he speaks not
   here of any secret revelation, but of vocal preaching. It hence follows,
   that those as it were willfully despise the power of God, and drive away
   from them his delivering hand, who withdraw themselves from the hearing of
   the word.

   At the same time, as he works not effectually in all, but only where the
   Spirit, the inward Teacher, illuminates the heart, he subjoins, To every one
   who believeth. The gospel is indeed offered to all for their salvation, but
   the power of it appears not everywhere: and that it is the savor of death to
   the ungodly, does not proceed from what it is, but from their own
   wickedness. By setting forth but one Salvation he cuts off every other
   trust. When men withdraw themselves from this one salvation, they find in
   the gospel a sure proof of their own ruin. Since then the gospel invites all
   to partake of salvation without any difference, it is rightly called the
   doctrine of salvation: for Christ is there offered, whose peculiar office is
   to save that which was lost; and those who refuse to be saved by him, shall
   find him a Judge. But everywhere in Scripture the word salvation is simply
   set in opposition to the word destruction: and hence we must observe, when
   it is mentioned, what the subject of the discourse is. Since then the gospel
   delivers from ruin and the curse of endless death, its salvation is eternal
   life. [38]

   First to the Jew and then to the Greek. Under the word Greek, he includes
   all the Gentiles, as it is evident from the comparison that is made; for the
   two clauses comprehend all mankind. And it is probable that he chose
   especially this nation to designate other nations, because, in the first
   place, it was admitted, next to the Jews, into a participation of the gospel
   covenant; and, secondly, because the Greeks, on account of their vicinity,
   and the celebrity of their language, were more known to the Jews. It is then
   a mode of speaking, a part being taken for the whole, by which he connects
   the Gentiles universally with the Jews, as participators of the gospel: nor
   does he thrust the Jews from their own eminence and dignity, since they were
   the first partakers of God’s promise and calling. He then reserves for them
   their prerogative; but he immediately joins the Gentiles, though in the
   second place, as being partakers with them.

   17. For [39] the righteousness of God, etc. This is an explanation and a
   confirmation of the preceding clause — that the gospel is the power of God
   unto salvation. For if we seek salvation, that is, life with God,
   righteousness must be first sought, by which being reconciled to him, we
   may, through him being propitious to us, obtain that life which consists
   only in his favor; for, in order to be loved by God, we must first become
   righteous, since he regards unrighteousness with hatred. He therefore
   intimates, that we cannot obtain salvation otherwise than from the gospel,
   since nowhere else does God reveal to us his righteousness, which alone
   delivers us from perdition. Now this righteousness, which is the groundwork
   of our salvation, is revealed in the gospel: hence the gospel is said to be
   the power of God unto salvation. Thus he reasons from the cause to the
   effect.

   Notice further, how extraordinary and valuable a treasure does God bestow on
   us through the gospel, even the communication of his own righteousness. I
   take the righteousness of God to mean, that which is approved before his
   tribunal; [40] as that, on the contrary, is usually called the righteousness
   of men, which is by men counted and supposed to be righteousness, though it
   be only vapor. Paul, however, I doubt not, alludes to the many prophecies in
   which the Spirit makes known everywhere the righteousness of God in the
   future kingdom of Christ.

   Some explain it as the righteousness which is freely given us by God: and I
   indeed confess that the words will bear this sense; for God justifies us by
   the gospel, and thus saves us: yet the former view seems to me more
   suitable, though it is not what I make much of. Of greater moment is what
   some think, that this righteousness does not only consist in the free
   remission of sins, but also, in part, includes the grace of regeneration.
   But I consider, that we are restored to life because God freely reconciles
   us to himself, as we shall hereafter show in its proper place.

   But instead of the expression he used before, “to every one who
   believeth,” he says now, from faith; for righteousness is offered by the
   gospel, and is received by faith. And he adds, to faith: for as our faith
   makes progress, and as it advances in knowledge, so the righteousness of God
   increases in us at the same time, and the possession of it is in a manner
   confirmed. When at first we taste the gospel, we indeed see God’s smiling
   countenance turned towards us, but at a distance: the more the knowledge of
   true religion grows in us, by coming as it wer