The Epistle to the Romans claims our interest more than the other didactic epistles of the apostle Paul, because it is more systematic, and because it explains especially that truth which became subsequently the principle of the Reformation, viz., righteousness through faith. At the period when the apostle wrote the Epistle to the Romans, he had passed through a life full of experience. Paul was at this time between fifty and sixty years old. After having spent two years and a half at Ephesus, he planned a journey to Macedonia, Achaia, Jerusalem, and Rome (Acts xix. 21). Having spent about three months in travelling, he arrived at Corinth, where he remained three months (Acts xx. 2); and during this second abode at Corinth he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 1-3, and 2 Cor. ix. with Rom. xv. 25). He despatched this letter by a Corinthian who was then travelling to Rome (xvi. 1), and sent greetings from an inhabitant of Corinth (xvi. 23; comp. 1 Cor. i. 14). The data in the life of the apostle depend upon the year in which his conversion took place. Some think that this event occurred as early as A.D. 35 or 41; but it is by far more probable that the epistle was written about the year A.D. 58 or 59. The congregation of Christians at Rome was formed at a very early period, but its founder is unknown. Paul himself mentions two distinguished teachers at Rome, who were converted earlier than himself. According to Rom. i. 8, the Roman congregation had then attained considerable celebrity, as their faith was spoken of throughout the whole world. From chap. xvi. we learn that there were a considerable number of Christian teachers at Rome; from which we infer that the congregation had existed there for some time; and it is most likely that the Jews at Rome were first converted to Christianity. Under Augustus there were so many Jews at Rome that this emperor appointed them quarters beyond the Tiber. These Jews consisted mostly of freedmen, whom Pompey had carried to Rome as slaves; and some of the early Christians at Rome followed mercantile pursuits. At the time when this epistle was written, there were also Gentile Christians in the Roman church; and from passages like xii. 13; xv. 16; i. 7 and 13; we learn that the Gentile Christians were then more numerous than the converted Jews. It is well known that in those times many heathens embraced Judaism (Tacitus, Annal. xv. 44; Juvenal, Sat. xiv. 96). These converts to Judaism were mostly women. Among the converts from Judaism to Christianity, there existed in the days of Paul two parties. The congregated apostles had decreed, according to Acts xv., that the converts from paganism were not bound to keep the ritual laws of Moses. There were, however, many converts from Judaism who were disinclined to renounce the authority of the Mosaic law. The opinions concerning the occasion and object of this letter to the Romans differ according to the various suppositions of those who think that the object of the letter was supplied by the occasion, or the supposition that the apostle selected his subject only after an opportunity for writing was offered. In earlier times the latter opinion prevailed, as, for instance, in the writings of Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Melanchthon, Calvin. In more recent times the other opinion has generally been advocated, as, for instance, by Hug, Eichhorn, and Flatt. Many writers suppose that the debates mentioned in ch. xiv. and xv. called forth this epistle. Hug, therefore, is of opinion that the theme of the whole epistle is the following—Jews and Gentiles have equal claim to the Kingdom of God. According to Eichhorn, the Roman Jews being exasperated against the disciples of Paul, endeavoured to demonstrate that Judaism was sufficient for the salvation of mankind; consequently Eichhorn supposes that the polemics of St Paul were not directed against Judaizing converts to Christianity, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, but rather against Judaism itself. This opinion is also maintained by De Wette (Einleitung ins Neue Testament, 4th ed. § 138). According to Cremer (Einleitung, § 141), the intention of the apostle was to render the Roman congregation favourably disposed before his arrival in the chief metropolis, and he therefore endeavoured to show that the evil reports spread concerning himself by zealously Judaizing Christians were erroneous. This opinion is nearly related to that of Dr Baur who supposes that the real object of this letter is mentioned only in ch. ix. to xi. The journey of Phoebe to Rome seems to have been the external occasion of the epistle: Paul made use of this opportunity by sending the sum and substance of the Christian doctrine in writing, having been prevented from preaching in Rome. The apostle had many friends in Rome who communicated with him; consequently he was the more induced to address the Romans, although he manifested some hesitation in doing so (xv. 15).

Contents of the Epistle to the Romans.—It belongs to the characteristic type of St Paul's teaching to exhibit the gospel in its historical relation to the human race. In the Epistle to the Romans, also, we find that peculiar character of St Paul's teaching which induced Schelling to call the apostle's doctrine a "philosophy of the history of man." In the Epistle to the Romans Paul commences by describing the two great divisions of the human race, viz., those who underwent the preparatory spiritual education of the Jews, and those who did not undergo such a preparatory education. The chief aim of all nations, according to St Paul, should be the δικαιοσύνη τῶν ὅλων, righteousness before the face of God, or absolute realization of the moral law. According to St Paul, the heathen also have their νόμος, law, as well religious as moral internal revelation (Rom. i. 19, 32; ii. 15). The heathen have, however, not fulfilled that law which they knew, and are in this respect like the Jews, who also disregarded their own law (ii.). Both Jews and Gentiles are transgressors, or by the law separated from the grace and sonship of God (Rom. ii. 12; iii. 20); consequently if blessedness could only be obtained by fulfilling the demands of God, no man could be blessed. God, however, has gratuitously given righteousness and blessedness to all who believe in Christ (iii. 21-31). The human race has gained in Christ much more than it lost in Adam (v. 12, 21). If some of the Jews are left to their own obduracy, even their temporary fall serves the plans of God, viz., the vocation of the Gentiles. After the mass of the Gentiles shall have entered in, the people of Israel also, in their collective capacity, shall be received into the church (xi.)

The Authenticity and Integrity of the Epistle to the Romans.—The authenticity of this epistle has never been questioned. The Epistle to the Romans is quoted as early as the first and second century by Clemens Romanus and Polycarp. Its integrity has lately been attacked by Dr Baur, who pretends that chs. xv. and xvi. are spurious, but only, as we have observed above, because these chapters do not harmonize with his supposition, that the Christian church at Rome consisted of rigid Judaizers. Schmidt and Reiche consider the doxology at the conclusion of ch. xvi. not to be genuine. In this doxology the anacolouthical and unconnected style causes some surprise, and the whole has been deemed to be out of its place (ver. 26 and 27). We however observe, in reply to Schmidt and Reiche, that such defects of style may be easily explained from the circumstance, that the apostle hastened to the conclusion, but would be quite inexplicable in additions of a copyist who Romans had time for calm consideration. We find an analogous instance in Ephes. iii. 20, 21, where a doxology occurs after the mystery of salvation had been mentioned; we are therefore of opinion that the doxology is rightly placed at the conclusion of ch. xiv., and that it was in some codices erroneously transposed to the conclusion of ch. xiv., because the copyist considered the blessing in xvi. 24 to be the real conclusion of the epistle. In confirmation of this remark we observe that the same codices in which the doxology occurs in ch. xvi. either omit the blessing altogether, or place it after the doxology.

Interpreters of the Epistle to the Romans.—Chrysostom is the most important among the fathers who attempted to interpret this epistle. He enters deeply, and with psychological acumen, into the thoughts of the apostle, and expounds them with sublime animation. Among the Reformers, Calvin is distinguished by logical penetration and doctrinal depth. Beza is distinguished by his grammatical and critical knowledge. Since the period of rationalism the interest about this epistle has been revived by the Commentary of Tholuck, the first edition of which appeared in 1824. It was translated into English in 1834-36. No other book of the New Testament has, since that period, been expounded so frequently and so accurately. From 1824 to 1844, there have been published as many as seventeen learned and critical commentaries on it; and, in addition to these, several practical expositions. In the Commentar, von Ruckert, 2d ed., 1839, 2 vols., we find copious criticisms of the various interpretations, and a clear and pleasing, although not always carefully-weighed, exposition. The Commentar von Fritzche, 1836 to 1843, 3 vols., exhibits a careful critique of the text, combined with philological explanation, but the true sense of the apostle has frequently been missed. The Commentar of Olshausen, 2d ed., 1840, generally contains only the author's own exposition, but presents a very pleasing development of the doctrinal contents. It has been translated into English in 1850. De Wette manifests on the whole a correct tact (3d ed., 1841); however, his book is too comprehensive, so that the contents of the epistle do not make a clear impression. Lately there has been published in French also an interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans, worked out with much diligence and ingenuity, by Hugues Oltramare.

The principal English works on the Epistle to the Romans are—Willet, Hexapla, or a Sixfold Comment on the Epistle to the Romans, 1611; Taylor's Paraphrase and Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, 1747; Jones, The Epistle to the Romans analyzed, from a development of the circumstances by which it was occasioned, 1801; Cox, Horae Romanae, 1824 (translation, with notes); Turner, Notes on the Epistle to the Romans, New York, 1824 (exegetical, for the use of students); Terrot, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, 1828 (Greek text, paraphrase, notes, and useful prolegomena); Stuart, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Andover, U.S., 1832, is undoubtedly the greatest work on this epistle which has been produced in the English language; Hodge (also an American author) On the Romans; Pele, Annotations on the Epistles, 1850; Knight, A Critical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, London, 1854; Purdie, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Dublin, 1855; Davidson, An Introduction to the New Testament, London, 1848; Brown's Epistle to the Romans, 1857.

a town of France, in the department of Drôme, in a picturesque situation on the right bank of the Isère, here crossed by a handsome bridge communicating with Peage on the opposite side, 10 miles N.E. of Valence. It is still partially inclosed by its ancient walls and towers; and entered by five gates. There are no buildings in it of any note except the theatre, and the curious Gothic church of St Antoine. Silk, hosiery, woollen fabrics, serge, and leather are manufactured here; and there is much trade in wool, hemp, linen, silk, wine, and other produce of the surrounding country. Romans has a court of commerce, chamber of manufacture, and ecclesiastical seminary. Pop. 7228.

ROMANUS I., Leopodus, Emperor of the East, was admiral of the fleet on the Danube in 919, when he determined to seize the supreme power during the reign of the young prince Constantine VII. Sailing forthwith to Constantinople, he executed his enterprise with great success. The influence of the dowager empress was gained; his daughter was married to the emperor; and he himself soon afterwards assumed the title of imperial colleague, and the real authority of sole sovereign. Romanus long enjoyed the undisturbed possession of his ill-gotten power. Several predatory inroads of the wild Bulgarians were the only events that at all endangered his security for nearly five-and-twenty years. It was not until 944 that his dissolute conduct provoked a conspiracy. In that year, during the stillness of a winter noon, the two sons of Romanus seized their father in his palace, smuggled him away to a monastery on a small island in the Propontis, and that it might not be lawful for him to resume the sceptre, lost no time in shaving his head. Thus hopelessly dethroned, he commenced the quiet life of a monk, invited his unnatural sons to share his herbs and water, when they were soon afterwards exiled to the same place, and died within the convent in 948.

ROMANUS II., Emperor of the East, succeeded his father Constantine VII. in 959. The beauty and excellences of his person made him a gymnast and a sportsman. His days were spent in the circus, in the tennis-court, and in hunting the wild boar on the Asiatic side of the Bosphorus. The welfare of his government was left to the mercy of those unprincipled times. Accordingly, in 963 his wife Theophano, a remorseless wretch, poisoned him.

ROMANUS III., Argyrus, Emperor of the East, was living in 1028 an unambitious and married life, when a strange fortune called him to the throne. One day in the midst of his conjugal felicity a mandate came to him from the dying Constantine VIII., commanding him to repair to the palace, in order that he might be made the husband of the princess Zoë, and the successor of the emperor. He refused to leave his present spouse; but the alternative of losing his eyes was held up to him. He then preferred to suffer that penalty; but his self-sacrificing wife prevailed upon him not to forego his own welfare for her sake. The crown thus forced upon Romanus was the cause of nothing but evil. A repulse which the Arabs gave him in Syria produced a discontent among his subjects. The repeated successes of his generals against the same foe increased his unpopularity. Taking advantage of the public feeling, his faithless wife formed a conspiracy against him. At length, in 1034, she poisoned him, and gave her hand and the empire to her paramour Michael the Paphlagonian.

ROMANUS IV., Diogenes, Emperor of the East, was raised to the purple in 1067 by a very romantic incident. He had been sentenced to death for treason against the Empress Eudoxia. On the eve of his execution that princess ordered him to be brought into her presence. The manly beauty of the ill-fated felon immediately won her heart. His sentence was repealed; and in a few days afterwards he found himself the husband of the empress. Romanus wore the crown worthily. Taking the field soon after his coronation, he boldly attacked the Turks, who, under the able Sultan Alp-Arslan, had encroached as far westward as Phrygia. His movements became rapid, precise, and energetic. The scattered hordes of the enemy felt themselves checked and driven back at every point. Defeat was followed by defeat, until, at the end of the third campaign, they were swept beyond the River Euphrates. The fourth campaign, however, in 1071, was ruinous to Romanus. His plans were disconcerted at the outset by the dexterous manoeuvres of Alp-Arslan. He was forced to fight at a disadvantage on the banks of the Araxes. There, after struggling during a long autumn day, his troops were completely cut to pieces. He himself, fighting like a lion among the slain bodies of his attendants, was overpowered by numbers, and taken prisoner. It is true that his brave foe treated him generously, and released him under certain conditions. But on returning to his dominions he found that his subjects had rebelled. In vain did he employ force to regain his crown. He was twice defeated, was compelled to surrender, and was at last put to death with most diabolical cruelty. (See Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.)