in distinction from Christ, to 'Melito p. 413 Otto,' i. e. to his Apol. fragm. 2; comp. Routh, i. 118 ed. alt.

I

WE will now dismiss the Fathers, and notice some facts belonging to the more recent history-of the interpretation of our passage.* notice the different constructions in the order in which they are numbered above, pp. 89, 90.

The three most important recent discussions of the passage outside of the commentaries, before that of Dr. Dwight, are by Dr. Hermann Schultz, in the Jahrbücher f. deutsche Theol., 1868, pp. 462-506, who defends constructions Nos. 1-3, with a slight preference for No. 1 (p. 483); Dr. C. L. Wilibald Grimm, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol., 1869, pp. 311-322, who adopts No. 5; and Pastor Ernst Harmsen, ibid. 1872, pp. 510-521, who adopts No. 7. There is a brief discussion of the passage by Dr. G. Vance Smith, Canon Farrar, and Dr. Sanday, in The Expositor for May, 1879, ix. 397-405, and Sept., 1879, x. 232-238. There was a more extended debate in The Independent (New York) for Aug. 12, Oct. 14, 21, 28, and Nov. 18, 1858, in which Dr. John Proudfit (anonymously), the Rev. Joseph P. Thompson (the editor), Dr. Z. S. Barstow, and E. A. took part. 1-3. It would be idle to give a list of the supporters of Nos. 1-3, who refer the clause in question to Christ. Among the commentators, perhaps the more eminent and best known are Calvin, Beza, Hammond, Le Clerc, Limborch, Bengel, Michaelis, Koppe, Flatt, Tholuck, O'shausen, Stuart, Hodge, Philippi, Lange (with Schaff and Riddle), Hofmann, Weiss, Godet, Alford, Vaughan, Sanday (very doubtfully), Gifford. That the Roman Catholic commentators, as Estius, Klee, Stengel, Reithmayr, Maier, Beelen, Bisping (not very positively), Jatho, Klofutar (1880), should adopt this explanation, is almost a matter of course. This construction of the verse is accepted by all the Fratres Poloni, who did not hesitate to give the name God to Christ, and to worship him, recognizing of course the supremacy of the Father, to whom they applied the name God in a higher sense;

*Literature. The older literature is given by Wolf (Curae) and Lilienthal (Biblischer Archivarius, 1745). For the more recent, see Danz, and especially Schultz in the article so often referred to; also among the commentators, Meyer and Van Hengel. E. F. C. Oertel (Christologie, Hamb. 1792, p. 216 ff.) gives a brief account of the controversy excited by Semler (1769-71); see also the works named by Schultz, especially Hirt's Orient. u. exeg. Bibliothek, 1772, 1773. The name Bremer (Schultz, p. 462, note 2) is a misprint for Benner.

so Socinus,* Opp. ii. 581, 582, 600 a; cf. ii. 377 f.; John Crell, in loc. Opp. i. 147; also Respons. ad Grotium, Opp. iv. 230 b; De Uno Deo Patre, p. 23 a; De Deo ejusque Attrib., p. 35 b; Eth. Christ., p. 348 a; Schlichting (Lat. Slichtingius), Comm. post. i. 254; Wolzogen, Opp. i. 710, 712; ii. 301; iii. 5; Sam. Przipcovius or Przpkowsky in loc., P. 51. So also the Racovian Catechism, §§ 159, 160.

With a singular disregard of these historical facts, Dean Burgon holds up his hands in holy horror at the marginal renderings of the Revised New Testament at Rom. ix. 5, ascribed to "some modern Interpreters," and stigmatizes them as "the Socinian gloss"! (Quar. Rev., Jan., 1882, p. 54.) The Italics are his. He seems throughout his article to imagine himself to be writing for readers who will take an opprobrious epithet for an argument. The real "Socinian gloss" is adopted, and the arguments for it are repeated, as we have seen, by the latest prominent defender of the construction which Mr. Burgon himself maintains; among English commentators compare Macknight on the passage.

A slight qualification, or supplement, of the above statement is, however, required. Schlichting, though he does not object to the common construction, misled by Erasmus, is inclined to suspect the genuineness of the word 05. It is important in reference to the history of the interpretation of this passage, to observe that the statement of Erasmus in regard to the omission of this word in the quotations by some of the Fathers, led many astray, among others Grotius, who also incorrectly represents the word God as wanting in the Syriac version. Schoettgen misrepresented the case still worse, saying, by mistake of course, "Hoc verbum quamplurimi Codices, quidam etiam ex Patribus, non habent."

Schlichting also suggests, as what "venire alicui in mentem posset," the somewhat famous conjecture of & for & é», but rejects it. It was taken up afterwards, however, by a man far inferior in judgment, Samuel Crell (not to be confounded with the eminent commentator), in the "Initium Ev. S. Joannis restitutum" (1726), published under the pseudonym of L. M. Artemonius. Its superficial

*Socinus speaks of the punctuation and construction proposed by Erasmus, a believer in the deity of Christ, which makes the , etc., a doxology to God, the Father, and says:-" Non est ulla causa, cur haec interpretatio, vel potius lectio et interpunctio Erasmi rejici posse videatur; nisi una tantum, quam Adversarii non afferunt; neque enim illam animadverterunt. Ea est, quod, cum simplex nomen Benedictus idem significat quod Benedictus sit, semper fere solet anteponi ei, ad quem refertur, perraro autem postponi."

Some of those who are so shocked at what they call "Socinian glosses," might perhaps learn a lesson of candor and fairness from this heretic.

plausibility seems to have fascinated many, among them Whitby (Last Thoughts), Jackson of Leicester (Annot. ad Novat. p. 341), John Taylor of Norwich, Goadby, Wakefield (Enquiry), Bishop Edmund Law (Wakefield's Memoirs, i. 447), Belsham (Epistles of Paul), John Jones, and David Schulz (so says Baumgarten-Crusius). Even Doddridge and Harwood speak of it as "ingenious," and Olshausen calls it "scharfsinnig." It does not deserve the slightest consideration. Among the writers on Biblical Theology, Usteri (Paulin. Lehrbegr., 5te Ausg., 1834, p. 324 f.) refers the clause in question to Christ, but strongly expresses his sense of the great difficulties which this involves. He is influenced especially by Rückert (1831), who afterwards changed his mind. Messner (1856, p. 236 f.) regards this reference as probable, though not certain; somewhat more doubtful is C. F. Schmid (2d ed., 1859, p. 540 f., or p. 475 f., Eng. trans.). Dorner in his recent work, System der chirstl. Glaubenslehre (1879), i. 345, only ventures to say that the reference to Christ is "the most natural." Schott, August Hahn, De Wette, Reuss, Ritschl, are sometimes cited as supporting this construction; but later they all went over to the other side. See below, under No. 7.

For the most elaborate defences of the construction we are considering, besides those which have already been mentioned, one may consult Dr. John Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, 5th ed. (1859), vol. ii. pp. 370-377, 401-405; and the commentaries of Flatt (from whom Prof. Stuart has borrowed largely) and Philippi.

4. Construction No. 4 has already been sufficiently noticed. (See above, p. 130.)

5. The construction which puts a colon or a period after navy, making the clause beginning with @ós a doxology to God, seems to have been first suggested by ERASMUS in the Annotations to his 3d. edition of the Greek Testament (1522), repeated in the 4th (1527). In his later writings, and in the note in his last edition (1535), while recognizing the possibility of this construction, he gave the preference to No. 7.* It was adopted by LOCKE in his posthumous Paraphrase, etc. (Lond. 1705, and often):-"and of them, as to his fleshly extraction, Christ is come, he who is over all, God be blessed for ever, Amen." Locke's construction was preferred by WETSTEIN in the important note on the passage in his Greek Testament, vol. ii. (1752), and was adopted by Prof. L. J. C. JUSTI in Paulus's Memorabilien, 1791, St. i. pp. 1-26; treated more fully in his Vermischte Abhandlungen, 2te Samml., 1798, pp. 3c9-346; also by E. F. C.

*Erasmi Opp., Lugd. Bat. 1703 ff., vol. vi. 610 f.; ix. 1002 f., 1045 f.

OERTEL, Christologie (1792), p. 209 f. He has a pretty full discussion of the passage (pp. 195-218). So by G. L. BAUER, Bibl. Theol. des N. T., Bd. iv. (1802), pp. 10-14; and by C. F. AMMON, for though in his Bibl. Theol., 2te Ausg. (1801), pp. 220-222, he does not decide between constructions No. 5 and No. 7, he favors the former in his note on the passage in the third edition of Koppe on Romans (1824). J. J. STOLZ adopts it in the 4th ed. of his Uebersetzung des N. T. (1804) and the 3d ed. of his Erläuterungen (1808), iii. 170-191. He gives there an interesting extract from Semler's Hist. u. krit. Sammlungen über die sogenannten Beweisstellen in der Dogmatik, St. ii. pp. 284-287. SO DE WETTE in the text of the 3d ed. of his German translation of the Bible (1839), though he gives constructions Nos. 1 and 7 as alternative renderings; in the note in the 4th and last edition of his commentary on the Epistle (1847), though undecided, he seems on the whole rather inclined to No. 7. This construction (No. 5) is supported also by BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, a scholar to be spoken of with high respect, in his Comm. on the Epistle (Jena, 1844), comp. his Grundzüge der bibl. Theol. (1828), p. 385 f., and his Exeget. Schriften zum N. T., II. i. (Jena, 1844) p. 266, the latter cited by Ernesti. So by SCHUMANN in his Christus (1852), ii. 545, note; H. Fr. Th. L. ERNESTI, Vom Ursprunge d. Sunde nach paulin. Lehrgehalte, i. (1855) pp. 197-204; MARCKER (cited by Meyer), whose work I have not seen, and REUSs, Les Epitres pauliniennes (1878), ii. 88.

The best defence of this view, perhaps, is to be found in the article of Grimm, referred to above.

6.

7.

On construction No. 6 see above, p. 132.

ERASMUS in his translation renders the words of the last part of our verse thus et ii, ex quibus est Christus quantum attinet ad carnem, qui est in omnibus deus laudandus in secula, amen," which he perhaps intended for an ambiguous rendering, as est might be supplied after laudandus. His paraphrase also seems ambiguous.* Be this as it may, in the note in his last edition (1535), and in his later writings, he clearly indicates his preference for construction No. 7.†

*" At Christus sic est homo, ut idem et Deus sit, non huius aut illius gentis peculiaris, sed universorum Deus, et idem cum patre Deus, qui [Christus? pater? or Pater cum Christo?] praesidet omnibus, cuiusque inscrutabili consilio geruntur haec omnia, cui soli debetur laus" &c. One suggestion of Erasmus is that the word "God" in the last clause may denote the whole Trinity.

See especially his Apol. adv. monachos quosdam Hispanos (written in 1528), Opp. ix. 1043-47:-"Ego coram Deo profiteor mihi videri Paulum hoc sensisse, quod modo significavimus, nec hunc sermonem proprie ad Christum pertinere, sed vel ad Patrem, vel ad totam Trinitatem" (col. 1045): comp. Resp. ad Juvenem Gerontodidascalum (writ

BUCER (or Butzer) in loc. (1536?) as quoted by Wetstein, suggests this construction as an alternative rendering. CURCELLAUS (Courcelles) in his edition of the Greek Testament published in 1658 (also 1675, 85, 99) notes that "Quidam addunt punctum post vocem Gápza. quia si id quod sequitur cum præcedentibus connecteretur, potius dicendum videatur ὅς ἐστι, vel ὃς ὤν, quam ὁ ὤν

Others who have adopted or favored this construction are WHISTON, in his Primitive Christianity Reviv'd, vol. iv. (1711), p. 13 ff.; Dr. Samuel CLARKE, in his Scripture Doctrine of the Trinity, Lond. 1712, 3d ed., 1732, p. 85 ff. He gives also as admissible constructions No. 5 and No. 2, but places No. 7 first. He was, as is well known, one of the best classical scholars of his day, as well as one of the ablest metaphysicians and theologians. So John JACKSON of Leicester, in his Annot. ad Novatianum (1727), p. 341, though captivated by the specious but worthless conjecture of 6; WETSTEIN, as an alternative rendering, but rather preferring to place the stop after

(see the end of his note); SEMLER, Paraph. Ep. ad Rom. (1769), p. 114 ff., and in many other writings; on the literature of the Semler controversy see the references given above, p. 141. Semler was not so well acquainted with the writings of the later, as with those of the earlier Fathers, and in this part of the field of debate his adversaries had the advantage. But he gave a stimulus to a freer and more impartial treatment of the question. ECKERMANN adopted the construction we are now considering in the second edition (1795) of his Theologische Beyträge, Bd. I. St. iii. pp. 160-162, though in the first edition he had opposed it.

Coming now to the present century, we find this construction adopted by the commentators C. F. BOEHME (Lips. 1806), and H. E. G. PAULUS, Des Apostels Paulus Lehr-Briefe an die Galater- und Römer-Christen (Heidelb. 1831), where he translates (p. 102): "Der über alle (Juden und Heiden) seyende Gott sey gepriesen auf (alle) die Zeitalter hinaus"; by Prof. J. F. WINZER of Leipzig in a Programma on Rom. ix. 1-5 (Lips. 1832), which I have not seen, but find highly praised; and Karl SCHRADER, Der Apostel Paulus, Theil iii. (1833), p. 75, and Theil iv. (1835), p. 355. He translates, "Der über Allem Seiende (der welcher über Allem ist,) Gott, gelobt (sei gelobt) in Ewigkeit!" It is adopted in three commentaries of remarkable independence and ability which appeared in 1834, namely

ten 1532), col. 1002:-"ipsa res loquitur, verba Pauli nullum sensum evidentius reddere quam hunc: Deus, qui est super omnia, sit benedictus in secula. Cui precationi accinitur, Amen." See also above, under

No. 5.