construction of i, of very serious consideration. It passes the burden of proof over to the opposite view.

We cannot but regard the probabilities developed thus far in the discussion as cumulative. If what has been said (in Section I.) of ó is of weight, the probability that the clause beginning with those words stands in a certain contrast to to zarà cápza is strengthened by this fact.

III. The next point which demands our attention is the position in the sentence of the word εὐλογητός. This word occurs just where we should expect to find it, provided the clause is descriptive of Aporós, but it does not have the place in the order of the sentence which it regularly holds in doxologies. A new probability in favor of making the clause a descriptive relative one is derived from this fact.

To say, indeed, as many authors have done in the discussion of this verse, that this word, borrós, cannot possibly stand anywhere in a doxological sentence of this character except at the beginning, is to take an extreme position. It requires much boldness, as it seems to us, to affirm, in respect to such a matter, what a writer must say, or to declare what does not fall within the limits of possibility. Language rises above rules at times. In some cases the form of expression may depend, even to the violation of ordinary principles, on the peculiar shade of thought or point of view which characterizes a writer's mind at the moment. Especially may this be the case where the question is one of emphasis, and where emphasis is connected closely, as it is in the Greek language, with the arrangement of words. But, setting aside the question of absolute impossibility in any conceivable case, the ordinary rule of the language undoubtedly is, that, in doxologies of an exclamatory character, and of this form, the doxological word has the first place. This rule is observed by all the writers in the New Testament and Old Testament, and in the O. T. Apocryphal books, who use such sentences at all, and, among others, by St. Paul himself. This rule seems, also, to be founded in reason, for it is in the very nature of such a sentence to put the exclamation at the beginning. The fact of the rule, (or custom, if so it be called), and of its reasonableness will scarcely be questioned, and therefore need not be proved. The only point to be determined is, whether there are exceptions, which show that, after all, the whole matter is dependent on mere chance emphasis in each particular case -so that the doxological word may have any position; but ordi

narily has the first simply because, in ordinary cases, the main emphasis rests upon it.

The only exceptional case which is cited from the Scriptures by most writers, is Psalm lxvii. 20, in the Septuagint Version. We are convinced that this passage constitutes no proper exception to the rule, and that it has no bearing upon Rom. ix. 5. We do not say this, indeed, because of the reason which is urged by many; namely, that the LXX. translators misinterpreted the Hebrew. This we regard as no satisfactory account of the matter. They may have failed to understand the Hebrew, but they were familiar, doubtless, with Greek usage respecting such sentences; and their arrangement of the words is a thing wholly within the domain of the Greek language. The fact remains that, in a Greek sentence, they have put eùloryzós in another than the first place.* But when we examine this passage closely, we find that it differs from ordinary doxologies in an important particular. It is a two-fold sentence, having a double or repeated doxology, such as does not occur elsewhere, either in the Old Testament or the New. The verse reads in the LXX., κύριος ὁ θεὸς

*The peculiarity of this verse in the Septuagint is supposed by Schultz, who favors the reference of Rom. ix. 5, to Christ, and is admitted by Grimm, who opposes this reference, to be due to a misunderstanding of the Hebrew after the following manner. The Hebrew suggests as the true translation, Thou hast gone up to the high place, thou hast captured a captivity, thou hast taken gifts among mankind and even among rebels, to dwell as Jah, God. Blessed be the Lord day by day. The LXX. translators, not comprehending the meaning, rendered the words with a slavish literality and adherence to the Hebrew order, zaì yàp ἀπειθοῦντες τοῦ κατασκηνῶσαι κύριος ὁ θεὸς εὐλογητός—κύριος ἡμέραν za0 pav. Being unable, with this reading of the sentence, to connect the phrase zúptos & 0eó with what precedes, they concluded that it must be connected with eλoryrós as a doxology; and, accordingly, they inserted another cùloryzós to meet the necessity of a verbal word for the second ziptos. This explanation is, perhaps, the most satisfactory one which can be given. But, if it be adopted, we must notice that it involves the supposition that the LXX. translators, when they failed to understand the verse in the original, considered with some carefulness what they could do with it, and only after such consideration inserted the second doxological word. They, thus, deliberately arranged a Greek sentence in this order; and, accordingly, we must hold that they felt the order to be not forbidden by the rules of the language. For this reason, as it appears to us, the mere statement that the Seventy misinterpreted the Hebrew is not sufficient to account for their arrangement of the words in this verse of the Psalms.

εὐλογητὸς, εὐλογητός κύριος ἡμέραν καθ' ἡμέραν. In double sentences of this kind, there is an altogether peculiar rule of emphasis, which conflicts with, and may overpower, the rule prevailing in single exclamatory clauses. The rule to which we refer is, that, in such cases, the two parts of the sentence are so arranged that the corresponding or contrasted words are placed either at the end of the first and beginning of the second part; or at the beginning of the first and end of the second. The frequency with which this rule is observed by Greek writers will not have escaped the notice of any one who is familiar with their works. It is observed, as we may not doubt, by the LXX. translators here. Their desire was to set forth the emphasis on borró in this passage in the strongest way. How could they best accomplish this end? How could they, in the twofold. sentence with its parallel clauses, give to the doxological words that prominence which in a single exclamatory sentence is secured by placing it at the beginning? Evidently, by arranging the clauses precisely as they have done. For this reason, as we may believe, they adopted this method; and, in adopting it, they sought to bring out what in single clauses they attained in another way. If they had translated the Hebrew accurately, with only one doxology, they would, doubtless, have expressed the emphasis as the Hebrew does in this verse, and as they themselves do everywhere else in the Psalms, by placing lornós at the beginning. So far, then, from being an exception which proves that the doxological word may stand after the subject of the sentence, as Winer and others maintain, this verse from the Septuagint, in our judgment, strengthens the opposite view, inasmuch as it shows that, even in this peculiar case, this word is made to have the greatest possible prominence.*

* In contrast with those who would make Ps. lxvii. 20, Sept., a case in proof of the application of borrós in an exclamatory doxology to a subject which precedes it, Lange and Canon Farrar hold that St. Paul, in our present verse, is only echoing the passage from the Psalms and using it to set forth the exaltation of Christ. They found their opinion on the fact that, in Eph. iv. 8, the Apostle cites a part of the next preceding verse, (Thou hast ascended on high, &c.), in reference to him. "Do we not plainly hear the reecho of this passage," says Lange, “in the ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων? And since we know that Paul applies this passage to the glorification of Christ, is it not clear that he immediately adds that ascription of praise in the Psalm? His expression occupies the middle ground between the LXX. and the Hebrew text." This reasoning seems to be inconclusive. The apostle, undoubtedly, uses the words of Ps. lxvii. 19, Sept., in the Epistle to the Ephesians, with reference to

One or two passages additional to this one from the Psalms have been cited, for a similar purpose, by individual writers who have discussed the subject. Thus Prof. Grimm, in an article in the Zeitschrift fur Wissenschaftliche Theologie for 1868-9, refers to the Apoc. Psalms of Solomon, viii. 40, 41, where we find aberos xúptos ἐν τοῖς κρίμασιν αὐτοῦ ἐν στόματι ὁσίων, καὶ σὺ εὐλογημένος Ἰσραὴλ ὑπὸ zupíov els tòv alava. Gen. xxvii. 29 is mentioned in a note appended to Prof. Andrews Norton's Statement of Reasons. Here the words are ὁ καταρώμενός σε ἐπικατάρατος· ὁ δὲ εὐλογῶν σε, εὐλογημένος. It will be observed that, in both of these cases, we have double sentences, and consequently sentences in which we may discover peculiarities as distinguished from simple ones. The former of the two, though not precisely similar to Ps. lxvii. 20, may be explained in the same way. There is, indeed, a kind of chiasmus here. As for the second, the same idea is repeated several times in the Old Testament, e. g. Gen. xii. 3, εὐλογήσω τοὺς εὐλογοῦντάς σε, καὶ τοὺς καταρωμένους σε καταράσομαι, Ps. cviii. 28, LΧΧ., καταράσονται αὐτοὶ καὶ σὺ εὐλογήσεις, Num., xxiv. 9, οἱ εὐλογοῦντές σε ευλόγηνται καὶ οἱ καταρώμενοί σε κεκατήρανται. The examination of these verses will show that the writers seem to labor, in all possible ways, to bring out what we may call the compound emphasis. The object, in all this effort, is the same which, in a single clause, is reached in one way only. The compound sentence, therefore, ceases to be a parallel to the simple one. It involves other and peculiar elements, and hence may be subject to special rules appertaining to itself alone.

As a case where, in a single clause, the usual order is reversed, Gen. xxvi. 29, has been referred to. The reading here in the common text of the LXX. is καὶ νῦν εὐλογημένος σὺ ὑπὸ κυρίου, but according to some of the manuscripts it is où eλorrós. The correct text is so uncertain as to make the evidence to be derived from it somewhat doubtful. But, accepting the reading which places the subject first, Christ. But there we find an evident citation. Here, on the contrary, there is nothing to remind us of the precise words of the Psalm. Can we infer from the fact that in another letter, written four or five years afterwards to another Church, there is an application of a particular Psalm to our Lord, that there is, also, such an application in this letter, when the Psalm itself is not quoted? St. Paul, in addressing the Ephesians, is speaking of another subject, he is presenting the exaltation of Christ with reference to another end, he is employing different expressions, he is calling the attention of his readers directly to the O. T. words. The argument derived from what he says to them can scarcely be of much force as bearing upon his language here.

we think it may be questioned whether the sentence is an exclamatory one, pronouncing Isaac blessed, and is not rather an affirmative one, giving a reason why the speakers had come to him for the purpose of making a covenant. If it is to be interpreted in the latter way, it does not belong in the doxological class.

We will not dwell upon the supposed exceptional cases further. To prove that there is not even a single one within the limits of the Greek language, may be difficult. But certainly the search for them has not been an easy task, and, when the search has seemed to be rewarded by a discovery, the passage which is found has some peculiar characteristics rendering it hardly serviceable for the end in view. We may say, at least, that the cases are so exceedingly rare, that, when we are moving in our argument, as we are now, within the region of probabilities, and not affirming certainties, they afford little strength as opposing the ground which we have taken.

Winer (see his N. T. Grammar, p. 551, Am. ed.) sets aside this whole matter of seeking for exceptional cases or denying their existence. He says, "Only an empirical expositor could regard this position as an unalterable rule; for when the subject constitutes the principal notion, especially when it is antithetical to another subject, the predicate may and must be placed after it, cf. Ps. Ixvii. 20, Sept. And so in Rom. ix. 5, if the words, , &c., are referred to God, the position of the words is quite appropriate, and even indispensable." Other writers have maintained substantially the same ground. It will be convenient, in continuing our discussion, to make these remarks of Winer the starting point for a few suggestions.

(a.) We may admit that the rule of arrangement is that of emphasis. But the question before us is, in fact, this: Whether in such doxological passages, having an exclamatory character, the doxological word is not necessarily the emphatic one. The decision of this question may not, indeed, be reached by the mere empirical expositor. But, if not, is he not, after all, working along a line of examination which ought to be followed? Is not the determination of universal usage a most important, not to say the conclusive, thing? If all writers pursue the same course, does not their unanimous action carry with it the greatest weight, and show that there must be some ground in the nature of things for their unanimity?

(6.) But, passing this point, let us look at Winer's more particular positions. These are that the doxological word may, and that it even must, stand after the subject, provided the subject constitutes the principal notion, and especially when it is antithetical to another subject. That the word must, in this statement, cannot be sustained, is, we