304 ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
ROMANS, EPISTLE TO THE
outcome of God's love (5°). Hence it is ' through faith' (3-') that the Deatli of Christ reaches its eU'ect in the justilication of the sinner. It is this fact — even more than the inchision of all alike under sin— that reduces all men to one level in God's sight (3-''). (On this subject see the articles on Faith and Justification in the present work, and a most careful discussion in Sanday-Headlam, pp. 2S-3'J ; also Expositor, March 1899, p. 2U0 tt'. ; Kit.schl, Lckre d. Ucclitfcrtigung, vol. ii. ch. 4, S 36, and all important commentaries on Romans). Justifying faith, then, is not purely 'dogmatic,' be- cause it is trust in a Person. Neither is it purely ' undogmatic,' because it rests upon, and includes the knowledge of, something which that Person has done (1 Co 15^, the germ of an 'Apostles' Creed '). Lastly, justification, to St. Paul, is doubtless one act, the entrance once for all into the state of grace (o"-). But it remains as a root of character ; its connexion with vital holiness is not that of mere succession in time, but as its organic begin- ning. Faith is the abiding sphere of all Christian life (Gal 2^, 2 Co 13"), not a passing emotion, evoked by a single great crisis and subsiding with it.
5. Grace and the moral life. — The act of faith is not meritorious in its character, for this would be open, equally with righteousness by works, to the objection of 4-*-. It must come, that is, from God as its source ; it not only receives God's free gift, but it is God's free gift. In other words, by excluding merit, we seem to deprive man of his responsibility. It may be questioned whether St. Paul had ever formulated in his own mind the problem of ' responsibility without merit,' which is the age-long crux of the doctrine of grace. Both from the consideration of justifying faith, and again from that of Divine predestination to glory (above, 1), the moral responsibility of man seems threatened, if St. Paul's principles are lo^cally developed. But he neither develops them in this way himself, nor does he seem conscious of the need for a reconciliation of the opposed truths. That all human history is in God's hands, and that the sin of man, e.g. the apostasy of Israel in rejecting Christ, is used by God as a step to the fullilment of His will for man, is insisted upon. But the fact is wholly disallowed as an extenua- tion of the sinner's responsibility ; St. Paul re- pudiates with intense indignation (S"") the charge that his teaching encouraged a^y such view. ' Ch. 9 implies arguments which take away free will, ch. 10 is meaningless without the presup- losition of free wUl' (Sanday-Headlam, p. 348). t is to be noted that St. Paul s entire case for the need of redemption (1-3-°) is an indictment of human sin, which loses all force if human responsi- bility is lost sight of. Although by ' works of law no flesh shall be justiiiea, yet God ' will render to each man according to his works' (2*, cf. 14'^). The stress laid by St. Paul upon personal faith and individual renewal as the heart and mainspring of the moral life, gives to his theology of conduct a strongly individualistic character. But no one could be further from individualism in the sense in which tliat term is often used. The personal life of the Christian is one of fellow- ship with the saints through Christ. All the manifestations of the Christian life are condi- tioned by membership of a body (Vl'"-). And in critical questions of moral alternative (ch. 14) the sense of brotherhood is a safe guide. We are to ask not merely 'what does my liberty permit?' but ' how will my conduct help or liinder my brotlier? ' We are to respect the liberty of others (W""), but to be ready to subordinate our own (for the whole chapter, cf. 1 Co 8-10. 13).
An interesting application of St. Paul's general
I
theory of conduct is the attitude inculcated by him towards the civil power ( 13'"'). In a word, hfe spirit is that of good citizenship, idealizing the inaj;istrate as ' tlie minister of God.' This position, natural to a born ' Roman ' (Ac 22^), is very much in advance of the general spirit of the apostle's compatriots, and decidedly in contrast with that of the Apocal3'pse. This is partly to be explained by the circumstances. When St. Paul wrote. Imperial Rome was not yet 'drunk with the blood of the saints' ; on the contrary, the imperial otiicials had more than once protected him against Jewish fanaticism.
6. The Church and its institution.^. — The Roman community does not seem as yet to possess a per- manent organization of 'bishops' and deacons (see Sanday - Hea<llam, Introd. § 3 (3)). The list of ministries (12''^-) must be compared with others of the same kind (see the table in art. 1 Cokinthians, vol. i. p. 490). The irpoiffTaiievos can hardly be a permanent oHicer ; he comes too low on the list, and is apparently on a line with the itu^epniffeis of 1 Cor. There is evidence (16') that the houses of diflerent members of the community formed scat- tered centres for the worshippers of the household or neighbourhood (see Sanday-Headlam, in loc.). Of the sacraments, the Eucharist is not mentioned ; but upon Baptism great stress is laid (6''°). To St. Paul's readers, to believe and to be baptized were, probably in all cases, coincident in time. Faith issued in baptism as its concrete expression and correlative. Baptism was the external means of union with Christ, the closing of the door upon the old and lower self, the openin" of the new life of grace. It does not occur to St. Paul to put faith and baptism in any sort of rivalry. Faith in Christ would involve the desire to join His body by His appointed means. In all probability, the reference to faith and its confession in lO"- is associated with the thought of baptism.