Imatges de pàgina
PDF
EPUB

(Acts xvi. 9—xviii. 18). But we may conjecture with some probability that the desire to visit Rome had been first kindled by St. Paul's intercourse with Aquila and Priscilla when they had lately come from Italy to Corinth (Acts xviii. 1), and fostered by constant association with them during the journey from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 26; xix. 1, 10; 1 Cor. xvi. 19). The distinct purpose therefore of visiting Rome could hardly have been formed before St. Paul's abode at Ephesus, nor could the statement in Rom. i. 10-13 have been made before the latter part of that period, a considerable lapse of time being implied in the words "oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, but was let hitherto."

Again, by comparison with the contents of the Corinthian Epistles it may be clearly proved that the Epistle to the Romans must have been written after 2 Corinthians (see Bp. Lightfoot, 'Galatians,' p. 48): that is to say, after the latter part of the year 57. Thus we are brought very close to the time indicated in Rom. xv., xvi., and have found an independent proof of the correctness of the dates given in those chapters.

§3. LANGUAGE,

Salmeron (Proleg. I. 35) supposed the Epistle to have been originally composed in Latin, because it was addressed to Latins, written by an amanuensis who bore a Latin name, Tertius, and dictated by an Apostle who must have known Latin, as having the gift of tongues. Cornelius à Lapide discusses this fanciful notion, and modifies it by suggesting that St. Paul's Greek autograph was translated into Latin by Tertius and the translation sent to Rome. The error arose from ignorance of the fact, now well established, that for a considerable part of the first three centuries" the Church of Rome, and most if not all the Churches of the West, were, if we may so speak, Greek religious colonies. Their language was Greek, their organisation Greek, their writers Greek, their Scriptures Greek' (Milman, Latin Christianity,' I. i.).

[ocr errors]

Accordingly, in the Epistle itself we find St. Paul classifying mankind as "Greeks and Barbarians" (i. 14) or "Jews and Greeks" (i. 16; ii. 9, 10; iii. 9; x. 12); and in the salutations in ch. xvi. the names both of Jewish and Gentile converts are nearly all Greek.

4. JEWS IN Rome.

When we pass from the author to his readers, our thoughts turn first to the origin of the Jewish colony in Rome. The first embassy sent from Jerusalem to Rome by Judas Maccabæus, B.C. 161, obtained from the Senate a treaty of mutual defence and friendship, which was renewed successively by Jonathan, B.C. 144, by Simon, B.C. 141, and by John Hyrcanus, B.C. 129: see 1 Macc. viii. 17, xii. 1, xiv. 24; and Josephus, Antiq.' xiii. 1.

Of the Jews who came to Rome in the train of these frequent embassies some would certainly settle there, for the commercial advantages of residence in the great capital would not be neglected by the enterprising race which was rapidly spreading over all the civilised world.

The first notice in Latin literature of the Jews in Rome seems to be the wellknown passage in Cicero's defence of L. Valerius Flaccus (c. 28), where we learn that the Jews were accustomed to send gold every year from Italy to Jerusalem, and formed in Rome itself a faction so numerous and formidable that the great orator points to them as thronging at that moment the steps of the Aurelian tribunal, and lowers his voice in pretended terror lest they should overhear his words. These wealthy and influential Jews must have been settled in Rome long before the captives whom Pompey brought from Jerusalem to adorn his triumph only two years before the date of Cicero's oration, B.C. 59.

But Pompey's captives were in course of time set free by those who had bought them for slaves (Philo, Jud. de Legat.' c. 23), and the Jewish community in Rome was thus greatly increased. Julius Cæsar treated them with singular favour, and expressly sanctioned their worship

[ocr errors]

in their synagogues (Jos. Antiq.' xiv. c. 10, 8), and the same privileges were continued by Augustus and Tiberius (Philo, ib.). "The great division of Rome which is on the other side of the Tiber was occupied by the Jews" (Philo), and so numerous were they, that when Archelaus came to Rome (A.D. 2) to secure the succession on the death of Herod, 8000 of the Jews dwelling in Rome took part against him (Jos. 'B. J.' ii. 6; 'Antiq.' xvii. c. 11, 1).

The favour of the Cæsars was in marked contrast to the contempt and hatred with which the Romans in general looked upon the Jews. Cicero calls them a nation "born for slavery" (De Prov.' c. 10), and their religion a barbarous superstition, abhorrent to the ancestral institutions of Rome and to the glory of its empire (Pro Flacco,' c. 28). Horace refers to their proselytising zeal (1 'Sat.' iv. 143), their seeming credulity (v. 100), and the mingled contempt and fear with which their religious rites were regarded (x. 69-72). Josephus ('Antiq.' xviii. 3, 5) tells how the fraud which four Jewish impostors practised on one of their female converts moved Tiberius to expel all Jews from Rome and send 4000 of them to serve as soldiers in Sardinia. But neither exile nor persecution, though repeated under successive Emperors, could drive the Jews permanently from Rome. They soon returned, and their power so increased that, in Seneca's words (August. 'de Civ. D.' vi. 11), "the conquered race gave laws to its conquerors."

§ 5. CHRISTIANS IN ROME.

If we ask at what time and by whom the Gospel was first preached at Rome, we have to consider sundry answers presented by ecclesiastical tradition.

son a certain one standing in a public place cried and said, "Men of Rome, hearken. The Son of God is come in Judæa. proclaiming eternal life to all who will, if they shall live according to the counsel of the Father, who hath sent Him" (c. 7).

These statements of the PseudoClement are of course purely fictitious.

Another marvellous story is recorded by Tertullian ('Apologeticus,' c. 5): " Tiberius, accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought the matter before the Senate, with his own decision in favour of Christ. The Senate, because it had not given the approval itself, rejected his proposal."

The tale bears on its face all the marks of untruth (Neander, ‘Church History,' i. 128), and Tertullian, who was no critic, had probably been deceived by some of the many spurious "Acts of Pilate."

We come next to two traditions, perfectly distinct in their origin, which ascribe the foundation of the church at Rome to St. Peter.

A. The former of these traditions, which represents St. Peter as preaching at Rome in the reign of Claudius, arose as follows:

(1) Justin Martyr in his first Apology, addressed to Antoninus Pius, writes thus (c. 26): "There was one Simon, a Samaritan, of the village called Gitton, who in the reign of Claudius Cæsar, and in your royal city of Rome, did mighty feats of magic by the art of dæmons working in him. He was considered a god, and as a god was honoured among you with a statue, which statue was set up in the river Tiber between the two bridges, and bears this inscription in Latin :

First we are told in the Clementine Homilies that in the reign of Tiberius tidings came to Rome "that a certain one in Judæa, beginning in the spring which is, season, was preaching to the Jews the kingdom of the invisible God," and working many wonderful miracles and signs (Hom. i. c. 6).

"Simoni Deo Sancto;'

'To Simon the holy God.'" The substance of this story is repeated by Irenæus ('adv. Hær.' I. xxiii. 1), and "In the same year in the autumn sea- by Tertullian ('Apol.' c. 13), who re

proaches the Romans for installing Simon Magus in their Pantheon, and giving him a statue and the title “Holy God."

In A.D. 1574 a stone, which had formed the base of a statue, was dug up on the site described by Justin, the island in the Tiber, bearing an inscription: "Semoni Sanco Deo Fidio Sacrum," &c. Hence it has been supposed that Justin mistook a statue of the Sabine God, "Semo Sancus," for one of Simon Magus. See the notes in Otto's Justin Martyr and Stieren's Irenæus.

On the other hand Tillemont (Mémoires,' t. ii. p. 482) maintains that Justin in an Apology addressed to the emperor and written in Rome itself cannot reasonably be supposed to have fallen into so manifest an error.

Whichever view we take of Justin's accuracy concerning the inscription and the statue, there is nothing improbable in his statement that Simon Magus was at Rome in the reign of Claudius. Only we must observe that Justin says not one word about St. Peter's alleged visit to Rome and his encounter with Simon Magus.

(2.) Papias, "a man of very small mind" (Euseb. 'Eccl. Hist.' iii. 39) says that the Presbyter John used to say that Mark, "the interpreter of Peter," recorded his teaching accurately.

Here there is no mention of Simon Magus, nor of the time and place of St. Peter's preaching.

(3.) Clement of Alexandria (c. A.D. 200), quoted by Eusebius ('E. H.' vi. 14), repeats "a tradition from the elders of former times," that "after Peter had publicly preached the word in Rome," Mark at the request of the hearers wrote what he had said, and so composed his gospel.

Here again the time of Peter's preaching at Rome is not mentioned.

Before we pass on it is most important to observe that these traditions preserved by Papias and Clement have not the slightest connexion of persons, time, or place, with Justin Martyr's story of Simon Magus.

[ocr errors][merged small]

Martyr's story about Simon Magus (E. H.' ii. c. 13), and then, without referring to any authority, goes on to assert (c. 14) that "immediately in the same reign of Claudius divine Providence led Peter the Great Apostle to Rome to encounter this great destroyer of life," and that he thus brought the light of the Gospel from the East to those in the West.

As the date of this visit to Rome Eusebius in the' Chronicon' gives A.D. 42, and says that Peter remained at Rome twenty years (see Canon Cook's article "Peter" in the 'Dictionary of the Bible').

This arbitrary and erroneous combination of traditions, which had no original connexion, may possibly have been suggested to Eusebius by the historical connexion between Simon Magus and St. Peter in Acts viii., or more probably he may have borrowed it from the strange fictions of the 'Clementine Recognitions' and 'Homilies,' and 'Apostolic Constitutions.' (See Recognitions,' iii. 63-65; 'Homilies,' I. xv. lviii.; Epistle of Clement to James,' c. i.; 'Apost. Constit.' vi., viii., ix.)

That St. Feter was not at Rome, and had not previously been there, when St. Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, may be safely inferred from its silence concerning him, and from the fact that there is not a particle of trustworthy evidence in favour of any earlier visit.

B. The other tradition, which represents the Roman Church to have been founded by St. Peter and St. Paul jointly, rests on the following authorities.

(1.) Irenæus III. c. I : "Matthew published a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, at the time when Peter and Paul were preaching the Gospel at Rome and founding the Church. But after their departure (or according to a various reading, after Matthew's publication) Mark also the disciple and interpreter of Peter handed down to us in writing what was preached by Peter." Eusebius ('Eccles. Hist,' v. 8) cites this passage without noticing that it is inconsistent with his own statements in ii. 15 concerning the earlier foundation of the Roman Church by St. Peter, inasmuch as it expressly ascribes

the foundation (eμeλcouvτwv) of that church to the simultaneous preaching of the two Apostles, which cannot possibly be assigned to that earlier date in the reign of Claudius.

(2.) Irenæus III. c. iii. 2: "The greatest and most ancient and universally known Church, founded and established in Rome by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul."

Id. III. c. iii. 3. "Having therefore founded and built up the Church the blessed Apostles entrusted its episcopal ministration to the hands of Linus."

(3.) Euseb. Eccl. Hist.' ii. 25: "Paul is related to have been beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter likewise to have been crucified in his (Nero's) time. And the story is accredited by the appellation of Peter and Paul having prevailed up to the present time on the tombs there (κοιμητηρίων)."

(4.) Ibid. Dionysius of Corinth writing to the Romans calls both their Church and that of Corinth a joint plantation of Peter and Paul, and adds that "having gone to Italy and taught together there they died as martyrs at the same time."

The tradition embodied in these passages clearly refers to the time of Nero's persecution, six or seven years later than the Epistle to the Romans, and throws no light upon the origin and earliest organisation of the Roman Church.

The Epistle itself, compared with the narrative in Acts, is the only trustworthy source of information on these points.

From i. 8-13 and xv. 23 it is certain that there had been for" many years" in Rome a considerable body of Christians whom St. Paul had a great desire to visit in person, but had hitherto been hindered.

This desire to visit them, and to have some fruit among them (i. 13), combined with his declared unwillingness to build on another man's foundation (xv. 18-24), and with his boldness in admonishing them (xv. 15) by virtue of his Apostolic authority, forbids us to suppose that the Roman Church had been founded by any other Apostle.

We may however assume, almost with certainty, that the rise of the new faith

in Jerusalem, and the great events by which it had been ushered in, must have been quickly known in Rome. Tacitus in fact expressly asserts this in his account of Nero's persecutions of the Christians, 'Annals' xv. 44: "The name was derived from Christ, who in the reign of Tiberius suffered under Pontius Pilate, the procurator of Judæa. By that event the sect of which he was the founder received a blow which for a time checked the growth of a dangerous superstition; but it revived soon after, and spread with recruited vigour not only in Judæa the soil which gave it birth, but even in the city of Rome, the common sink into which everything infamous and abominable flows like a torrent from all quarters of the world."

There was constant intercourse between the two great cities, and "some who had gone forth from Rome as Jews may well have returned thither as Christians" (Fritzsche). It is not improbable that some of the "strangers of Rome," i. e. Romans resident in Jerusalem, who witnessed the wonders of the day of Pentecost (Acts ii. 10) may have been among the first to bring back the good tidings to the capital.

M. Godet (Introduction,' p. 63) is unwilling to admit this explanation of the origin of the Church of Rome, as seeming to prove that the Gospel was spread in the city by means of the Synagogue. But the clear and positive statement of Tacitus, that Christianity soon after the death of its Founder spread even to the city of Rome, cannot be set aside for fear of any inferences that may be drawn from it.

Nor does it by any means follow that the Synagogue must have been the sole or chief channel through which a knowledge of the Gospel was diffused in Rome. If the first believers were Jews and Proselytes, to these there would soon be added Gentile Christians, who being either provincials had brought their new faith to Rome, or being Romans had learned it in the provinces; here a faithful centurion, and there a devout soldier of the Italian cohort, would bear witness at Rome of the things which he had seen and heard in Jerusalem.

The number of believers would rapidly increase as the first teachers of the Gospel were driven forth by persecution, or by their own missionary zeal, beyond the bounds of Palestine (Acts viii. 1, 4; xi. 19; xii. 17; xiii. 3), every province that was traversed by an Apostle, every city in which a Christian church was founded, would help to swell the number of Christians drawn together in Rome from all parts of the empire.

But believers, few or many, scattered over a great city do not constitute a Church such as those which the Apostles founded. Did such a Church, duly organised, exist in Rome when St. Paul wrote this Epistle? No trace of such organisation is found either in the Epistle itself, or in the narrative of St. Paul's subsequent residence at Rome (Acts xxviii.).

If we put aside the circular letters, "Ephesians" and "Colossians," we find that in all St. Paul's Epistles addressed to Churches which are known to have been fully organised there is some mention of "the Church" (i. ii. Thess., i. ii. Cor., Gal.), or of "the Bishops and Deacons” (Phil. i. 1). But in "Romans" there is nothing of the kind, either in the address, or in the body of the letter, or in the final salutations.

The only "Church" mentioned is the little assembly in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (xvi. 5): the only reference to ecclesiastical ministers, teachers, or rulers is in xii., 4-8, a statement of the general principles of Church order, which proves the need rather than the existence of such an organisation in the Christian community at Rome as would secure the well-regulated exercise of individual gifts.

The whole tone of the exhortations in chapters xii., xiv., and especially in xii. 10, seems to imply a community of Christian brethren, in which none had yet been invested with superior authority.

The evidence thus furnished by the Epistle itself is too strong to be set aside by mere conjecture. We cannot agree with Meyer's opinion (p. 20, E. Tr.) that the existence of "a Church formally constituted may be gathered from the

general analogy of other Churches that had already been long in existence:" much less with his further assumption, "Especially may the existence of a body of Presbyters, which was essential to Church organisation (Acts xiv. 23), be regarded as a matter of course."

The formal organisation of a Church, and the existence of a body of Presbyters, can be inferred from the analogy of other Churches, only in a case where it is known that Apostolic authority has been exercised. Meyer himself thus writes (p. 22) concerning the Roman community at an earlier period: "Individual Christians were there, and certainly also Christian fellowship, but still no organised Church. To plant such a Church there was needed, as is plain from the analogy of all other cases of the founding of Churches with which we are acquainted, official action on the part of teachers endowed directly or indirectly with Apostolic authority."

Meyer evidently argues in a circle:

'Other Churches, namely those which had been founded by Apostles, were formally organised:

Therefore we infer, by analogy, that Rome was formally organised: Therefore Rome must have been Apostolically founded.'

Setting aside such precarious inferences from an unproved analogy, we gather from the Epistle itself that the Christians at Rome were not as yet a Church fully and formally organised. Rather they were a large and "mixed community of Jew and Gentile converts," well described by Bishop Lightfoot ('Phil.' p. 13) as "a heterogeneous mass, with diverse feelings and sympathies, with no well-defined organisation, with no other bond of union than the belief in a coinmon Messiah; gathering, we may suppose, for purposes of worship in small knots here and there, as close neighbourhood or common nationality or sympathy or accident drew them together; but, as a body, lost in the vast masses of the heathen population, and only faintly discerned or contemptuously ignored even by the large community of Jewish residents."

We may gather from the Epistle that

« AnteriorContinua »