and building up of the universal Church” (Hort), about to visit Jerusalem at once, and Rome, if he can, immediately afterwards, his desire is to win and to unite all.
From this point of view it is possible to form a conception of the purpose the epistle which will do something like justice to it as a whole. \ lt is an epistle, not a book. Paul wrote to Rome, not simply to clear up his own mind, not as a modern writer might do, addressing the world at large; he wrote to this particular community, and under a particular impulse. He knew something about the ‘Church, as chaps. xiv. and xv. show ; and while he might have acquired such information from members of it whom he met in Corinth, Ephe- sus, or elsewhere, it is quite probable, from chap. xvi., that he had friends and correspondents at Rome itself. He wrote to the Roman
- Christians because it was in his mind to visit them; but the nature of his letter is determined, not simply by consideration of their necessities, but by consideration of his own position. The letter is “ occasional,” in the sense that it had a historical motive—to inti- mate and prepare for the coming visit ; but it is not occasional in the sense in which the first Epistle to the Corinthians is so. It is not a series of answers to questions which the Romans had pro- pounded; it is not a discussion, relevant to them only, of points either in doctrine or practice which had incidentally come to be of critical importance in Rome. Its character, in relation to St. Paul’s mind, is far more central and absolute than this would imply. It is in a real sense a systematic exposition of what he distinctively calls “my gospel”’ (ii. 16), such an exposition as makes him thoroughly known to a community which he foresaw would have a decisive importance in the history of Christianity. It is not an impromptu note, nor a series of unconnected remarks, each with a motive of its own ; it is the manifesto of his gospel, by means of which the Apostle of the Gentiles, at a great crisis and turning point in his life, establishes relations with the Christian community in the capital of the Gentile world. It can be dated, of course, but no writing in the New Testa- ment is less casual ; none more catholic and eternal. It is quite true that in expounding his gospel Paul proceeds by a certain dialectical process ; he advances step by step, and at every step defines the Christian truth as against some false or defective, some anti- Christian or infra-Christian view ; in this sense it is controversial. But we have seen already the limitations under which alone a , controversial character can be ascribed to it; Paul is not so | much controverting anybody in particular as vindicating the truth he expounds against the assaults and misconstructions to which he had found it give rise. There is no animosity against the