example, assuming that & must be equivalent to og tort, says that the interpretation which refers the words to Christ is the only one "which can, with the least regard to the rules of construction, be maintained." (Comm. in loc., p. 472.)

Dr. Dwight, whose article is in general so admirable for the fairness, clearness, and moderation of its statements, has expressed himself here in such a way that I cannot feel perfectly sure of his meaning. He says, speaking of the connection of with ptorós, "This construction of , in cases similar to that which is here presented, is the almost universal one both in the New Testament and in other Greek." If "cases similar to that which is here presented" means cases in which (or any participle with the article) is preceded by a noun to which it may be easily joined, while it also admits of being regarded as the subject of an independent sentence, and it is affirmed that in such grammatically ambiguous cases it almost invariably does refer to the preceding subject, the argument is weighty, if the assertion is true. But not even one such case has ever, to my knowledge, been pointed out. Till such a case, or rather a sufficient number of such cases to serve as the basis of a reasonable induction, shall be produced, I am compelled to consider the statement as resting on no evidence whatever. Yet that this is what is meant by "similar cases" seems necessarily to follow from what is said further on (p. 24) about "the peculiarity of Rom. ix. 5." Cases in which, grammatically considered, can only refer to a preceding subject, are certainly not "similar cases to that which is here presented," in which, as Dr. Dwight admits, "there is, at the most, only a presumption in favor of this construction of the clause as against the other" (p. 25).

But if Dr. Dwight's statement means, or is intended to imply, that with its adjuncts, or, in general, the participle with the article, almost universally forms a descriptive or a limiting clause referring to a preceding subject, while its use as the independent subject of a sentence is rare, the assertion is fatally incorrect. The latter use is not only very common, but in the New Testament, at least, is more frequent than the former. We have (a) & v, or of res, in the nominative, as the subject of an independent sentence, Matt. xii. 30; Mark xiii. 16 (text. rec.); Luke vi. 3 (t. r., Tisch.); xi. 23; John iii. 31; vi. 46; viii. 47; ix. 40; Acts xxii. 9; Rom. viii. 5, 8. Contra (b), referring to a preceding subject, and forming, as I understand it, an appositional clause, John i. 18; iii. 13 (text. rec.); (Acts v. 17;) 2 Cor. xi. 31; Rev. v. 5 (t. r.); a limiting clause, John xi. 31; xii. 17; Acts xi. 1. To these may be added 2 Cor. v. 4; Eph. ii. 13, where the clause is in apposition with or describes us or ipsis

expressed or understood; and perhaps John xviii. 37 (màs ó Ŏy x. T. 2.). *

It is uncertain whether Col. iv. 11 belongs under (a) or (b); see Meyer in loc. For the examples of I have relied on Bruder's Concordance, p. 255, No. VI. But as there is nothing peculiar in the use of this particular participle with the article, so far as the present question is concerned, I have, with the aid of Bruder, † examined the occurrences of the participle in general, in the nominative, with the article, in the Gospel of Matthew, the Epistle to the Romans, and the First Epistle to the Corinthians. I find in Matthew 86 examples of its use (a) as the subject, or in a very few cases (9) as the predicate, of a verb expressed or understood, and only 38 of its use (b) in a descriptive or limiting clause, annexed to a preceding subject; in the Epistle to the Romans 28 examples of the former kind against 12 of the latter; and in the First Epistle to the Corinthians 39 of the former against 4 of the latter, one of these being a false reading. ‡

In general, it is clear that the use of the participle with the article, as the subject of an independent sentence, instead of being exceptional in the New Testament, is far more common than its use as an attributive. Nor is this strange; for properly signifies not "who is," but "he who is." The force of the article is not lost. § While

as belong perhaps z. . . is the subus only strengthens

*The examples of 5 and other participles with quite as properly under (a). Without as, the & ject of the sentence, and the meaning is the same; the. See Krüger, Gr. Sprachlehre, 5te Aufl. (1875), 8 50. 4. Anm. 1. Concordantiae, etc., p. 586, No. 2; p. 598, No. VII. 1; comp. p. 603, No. VIII.; 604, No. IX.

In this reckoning, to prevent any cavil, I have included under (b) all' the examples of πᾶς ὁ or πάντες οἱ, of which there are 8 in Matthew, 2 in Romans, and I in 1 Cor.; also the cases of the article and participle with sú or úμeis as the subject of the verb, expressed or understood, of which there are 4 in Matthew and 7 in Romans. I have not counted on either side Rom. viii. 33, 34, and ix. 33; the first two, translated according to the text of the Revised Version, belong under (a), according to its margin, under (6); Rom. ix. 33, if we omit nas, with all the critical editors, would also belong under (a).

?" Participles take the article only when some relation already known or especially noteworthy (is qui, quippe qui) is indicated, and consequently the idea expressed by the participle is to be made more prominent."-Winer, Gram. 7te Aufl., 20, 1. b. a. c. p. 127 (p. 134 Thayer).

in some of its uses it may seem interchangeable with &s tort, it differs in this, that it is generally employed either in appositional or in limiting clauses, in distinction from descriptive or additive clauses, while is with the finite verb is appropriate for the latter. For examples of the former, see John i. 18; xii. 17; of the latter, Rom. v. 14; 2 Cor. iv. 4. To illustrate the difference by the passage before us: if ó › here refers to ó porós, the clause would be more exactly translated as appositional, not "who is," &c., but "he who is God over all, blessed for ever," implying that he was well known to the readers of the Epistle as God, or at least marking this predicate with special emphasis; while & èore would be more appropriate if it were simply the purpose of the Apostle to predicate deity of Christ, and would also be perfectly unambiguous.

There is nothing, then, either in the proper meaning of , or in its usage, which makes it more easy and natural to refer it to óptorós, than to take it as introducing an independent sentence. It is next to be observed, that there are circumstances which make the latter construction easy, and which distinguish the passage from nearly all others in which 6, or a participle with the article, is used as an attributive. In all the other instances in the New Testament of this use of or of res in the nominative, with the single exception of the parenthetic insertion in 2 Cor. xi. 31 (see above, page 94), it immediately follows the subject to which it relates. The same is generally true of other examples of the participle with the article. (The strongest cases of exception which I have noticed are John vii. 50 and 2 John 7.) But here is separated from porós by Tò zarà cáρza, which in reading must be followed by a pause, a pause which is lengthened by the special emphasis given to the zarà cápza by the ; and the sentence which precedes is complete in itself grammatically, and requires nothing further logically, for it was only as to the flesh that Christ was from the Jews. On the other hand, as we have seen (p. 88) the enumeration of blessings which imme

* I ὁ χριστός were placed after κατὰ σάρκα, the ambiguity would not indeed be wholly removed, but it would be much more natural to refer the to Christ than it is now. Perhaps the feeling of this led Cyril of Alexandria to make this transposition, as he does in quoting the passage against the Emperor Julian, who maintained that "neither Paul dared to call Christ God, nor Matthew, nor Luke, nor Mark, à 6 zenotùs 'lways." (See Cyril cont. Julian. lib. x. Opp. vi. b. p. 328 b ed. Aubert.) In two other instances Cyril quotes the passage in the same way; Opp. v. b. pp. 118 a, 148 e; though he usually follows the order of the present. Greek text.

diately precedes, crowned by the inestimable blessing of the advent of Christ, naturally suggests an ascription of praise and thanksgiving to God as the Being who rules over all; while a doxology is also suggested by the 'Aur at the end of the sentence.* From every

point of view, therefore, the doxological construction seems easy and natural. The ellipsis of the verb art or en in such cases is simply according to rule. The construction numbered 6 above (see p. 90) is also perfectly easy and natural grammatically; see 2 Cor. i. 21; v. 5; Heb. iii. 4.

The naturalness of a pause after aapza is further indicated by the fact that we find a point after this word in all our oldest MSS. that testify in the case, namely, A B C L, and in at least eight cursives, though the cursives have been rarely examined with reference to their punctuation. †

It has been urged (see above, p. 24), that if the writer did not intend that should be referred to Christ, he would have adopted another construction for his sentence, which would be exposed to no such misapprehension. But this argument is a boomerang. Mr. Beet in his recent Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (2d ed., p. 271 f.) well says, on the other hand:

"Had Paul thought fit to deviate from his otherwise unvarying custom and to speak of Christ as God, he must have done so with a serious and set purpose of asserting the divinity of Christ. And if so, he would have used words which no one could misunderstand. In a similar case, John i. 1, we find language which excludes all doubt. And in this case the words & tot, as in i. 25, would have given equal certainty . . . Moreover, here Paul has in hand an altogether different subject, the present position of the Jews. And it seems to me much more likely that he would deviate from his common mode of expression, and write once God be blessed' instead of 'to God be glory,' than that in a passage which does not specially refer to the nature of Christ, he would assert, what he nowhere else explicitly

*In 15 out of the 18 instances in the N. T., besides the present, in which 'Aur at the end of a sentence is probably genuine, it follows a doxology; viz.: Rom. i. 25; xi. 36; xvi. 27; Gal. i. 5; Eph. iii. 21; Phil. iv. 20; 1 Tim. i. 17; vi. 16; 2 Tim. iv. 18; Heb. xiii. 21; 1 Pet. iv. 11; V. II; (2 Pet. iii. 18.) Jude 25; Rev. i. 6; vii. 12.-Contra, Rom. xv. 33; Gal. vi. 18; (Rev. i. 7.)

†The MSS. DF G cannot be counted on one side or the other; respecting K we have no information. For a fuller statement of the facts in the case, see Note A at the end of this article.

asserts, that Christ is God, and assert it in language which may either mean this or something quite different."

Many writers, like Dr. Gifford, speak of that construction which refers & &c., to Christ as "the natural and simple" one, "which every Greek scholar would adopt without hesitation, if no doctrine were involved."-It might be said in reply, that the natural and simple construction of words considered apart from the doctrine it involves, and with reference to merely lexical and grammatical considerations, is by no means always the true one. For example, according to the natural construction of the words ὑμεῖς ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς Tod diaẞókov šote (John viii. 44), their meaning is, "you are from the father of the devil," and probably no Greek scholar would think of putting any other meaning on them, if no question of doctrine. were involved. Again, in Luke ii. 38, "she gave thanks unto God, and spake of him to all them that were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem," how unnatural, it may be said, to refer the "him" to any subject but "God," there being no other possible antecedent mentioned in this or in the three preceding verses! But I do not make or need to make this reply. We have already considered the grammatical side of the question, and have seen, I trust, that the construction which makes y &c. the subject of a new sentence is perfectly simple and easy. I only add here that the meaning of words often depends on the way they are read; on the pauses, and tones of voice. (If we could only have heard Paul dictate this passage to Tertius!) And it is a matter of course, that when a person has long been accustomed, from whatever cause, to read and understand a passage in a particular way, any other mode of reading it will seem to him unnatural. But this impression will often be delusive. And it does not follow, that a mode of understanding the passage which was easy and natural in the third and fourth centuries, or even earlier, when it had become common to apply the name sós to Christ, would have seemed the most easy and natural to the first readers of the Epistle. I waive here all considerations of doctrine, and call attention only to the use of language. When we observe that everywhere else in this Epistle the Apostle has used the word cós of the Father in distinction from Christ, so that it is virtually à proper name; that this is also true of the Epistles previously written, those to the Thessalonians, Galatians, Corinthians; how can we reasonably doubt that if the verbal ambiguity here occasioned a momentary hesitation as to the meaning, a primitive reader of the Epistle would naturally suppose that the word 0:ó designated the being everywhere else denoted by this name in the Apostle's writings, and would give the passage