Page images

as assigned to him by the Father. It was, perhaps, understood in a similar manner by Novatian, who has twice quoted the passage,* but who clearly did not believe Christ to be the Supreme Being. Tertullian says: "We never speak of two Gods or two Lords, but, following the Apostle, if the

grounded philological objection, but agrees admirably with the rapid, earnest style of the Apostle Paul. The ellipsis of the substantive verb when Ocós forms the predicate of the sentence, is certainly in accordance with his usual manner.

There is another method, however, of understanding the passage, proposed by Erasmus, and since adopted by many distinguished scholars, according to which the last part of the sentence in question forms a doxology, a period or colon being placed after σápka, as by Mr. Norton. It may be observed, that, although in a question of punctuation manuscripts are of no authority, we actually find a point placed after σápka in this passage in several Greek manuscripts, among them the celebrated Codex Ephræmi. This punctuation is also followed by two of the most eminent critical editors, Lachmann and Tischendorf. The words may then be rendered, “He who is over all (or, He who was over all), God, be blessed for ever!" or, "God, who is over all, be blessed for ever! Amen." This construction is adopted by Whiston, Semler, Böhme, Paulus, Reiche, Glöckler, Winzer, Köllner, Meyer, Fritzsche, Rückert (in his second edition, though strongly opposing it in his first), Schrader, and Krehl. (Many of these names are given on the authority of Meyer and De Wette.)

It has been very confidently asserted by Stuart and others, that this construction is forbidden by the laws of grammar, and wholly inadmissible, on the ground that, in forms of doxology in the New Testament and the Septuagint, the word evλoynrós always precedes the subject, as we commonly say in English, "Blessed be God!" and not," God be blessed!" The answer to this is, in the first place, that the usage referred to is not invariable in the Septuagint. In Psalm lxvii. 20 (al. lxviii. 19), in the first instance in which it occurs the subject precedes: Κύριος ὁ Θεὸς εὐλογητός, εὐλογητὸς Κύριος

* [De Trinitate, cc. 13, 30.]

Father and Son are to be named together, we call the Father, God, and Jesus Christ, Lord." "But when speaking of Christ alone, I may call him God, as does the same Apostle: Of whom is Christ, who is God over all blessed for ever. For speaking of the sun by itself, I may call it the sun;


a ray

[ocr errors]

ἡμέραν καθ ̓ ἡμέραν. See also Genesis xxvii. 29, ὁ καταρώμενός σε ἐπικατάρατος, ὁ δὲ εὐλογῶν σε εὐλογημένος, " Cursed be he that ó dè curseth thee, and blessed be he that blesseth thee." Attempts have indeed been made to get rid of the passage in Psalm lxvii., by asserting that the reading is corrupt. But for this there is no critical authority. See Holmes and Parsons's edition of the Septuagint. All that can be said is, that the Septuagint here, as often elsewhere, does not literally correspond with the Hebrew, which in this passage the translator probably misunderstood. In the second place, the question whether the predicate or subject shall precede in Greek is determined, not by any arbitrary rule, but by the comparative emphasis which the writer intends to give the one or the other, and by its connection with other words in the sentence. To write in Greek, εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεὸς ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, as Koppe and others assert would be necessary if Paul had intended to close the sentence with a doxology, would be as unnatural as to say in English, "Blessed be God who is over all for ever," to say nothing of the ambiguity thus created. On a grammatical point like this there is no higher authority than Winer, who, after mentioning the fact that in the doxologies of the Old Testament the predicate usually precedes, goes on to remark: "But only empirical interpreters could regard this position as an unalterable rule; for where the subject forms the leading idea, particularly where it stands in contrast with another subject, the predicate may and will be placed after it, comp. Ps. lxvii. 20. And so also in Romans ix. 5, if the words ó ŵv éñì távtwv Ðeòs evλoynτós, etc. are referred to God, the position of the words is altogether suitable, and even necessary." (Gram. des neutest. Sprachidioms, § 65. 3, p. 636, 5te Aufl.) The Trinitarian Olshausen also says: "Rückert's remark, that evλoynrós, when applied to God, must, according to the idiom of the Old and New Testament, always precede, is of no importance. Köllner rightly observes, that the position of the words is altogether [everywhere] not a mechanical thing,

but when I mention at the same time the sun, from which this ray proceeds, I do not then give that name to the latter."

But it is to be observed that some of the earlier Fathers, especially the Greek Fathers, expressly denied that Christ is "the God over all." This title was applied to him by the Sabellians, and was considered as a distinguishing mark of their

but is rather determined, in each particular conjuncture, by the connection, and by the mind of the speaker." (Comm. on Romans, p. 326, note, Engl. Transl. published in Clark's Foreign Theol. Libr.) It may be mentioned that some critics, placing the colon or period after Távτwv instead of σápka, refer the words "who is over all" to Christ, and make the remainder of the verse a doxology. So Locke, Wetstein, Oertel, Justi, Stolz, Ammon, Baumgarten-Crusius, and De Wette in his German translation (3d ed., 1839), though in his Commentary (4th ed., 1847) he appears more inclined to the construction just remarked upon. But this latter mode of understanding the passage seems to make the doxology too abrupt, and is exposed to other objections.

It is not the purpose of this note to discuss the question of the comparative merits of Mr. Norton's interpretation, and that which regards the words ó âv éñì ñávτwv, etc., as forming a doxology. It is enough if it has been shown that neither is open to any valid philological objection, and that the pretence that the "laws of grammar" require us to understand the latter part of the verse as referring to Christ is groundless. The impartial reader will place a proper estimate on the language of such writers as Haldane, who speaks of " the awful blindness and obstinacy of Arians and Socinians in their perversions of this passage" as "more fully manifesting the depravity of human nature, and the rooted enmity of the carnal mind against God, than the grossest works of the flesh." (Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans, Amer. reprint of the 5th Edinb. ed., p. 454.)]

"Solum autem Christum potero deum dicere, sicut idem Apostolus, Ex quibus Christus ; qui est, inquit, deus super omnia, benedictus in ævum omne. Nam et radium solis seorsum, solem vocabo; solem autem nominans cujus est radius, non statim et radium solem appellabo." Advers. Praxeam, c. 13.

heresy. There is no one of the Fathers more eminent than Origen. "Supposing," says Origen in his work against Celsus, "that some among the multitude of believers, likely as they are to have differences of opinion, rashly suppose that the Saviour is the God over all; yet we do not, for we believe him when he said, 'The Father who sent me is greater than I.'"* Even after the Nicene Council, Eusebius, in writing against Marcellus, says: "As Marcellus thinks, He who was born of the holy virgin, and clothed in flesh, who dwelt among men, and suffered what had been foretold, and died for our sins, was the very God over all; for daring to say which, the church of God numbered Sabellius among atheists and blasphemers." Now it is incredible that the text in question should have been overlooked. But the early Fathers, in making these, and a multitude of other similar declarations, concerning the inferiority of the Son to the Father, never advert to it. It evidently follows from this, that they had not the same conception as modern Trinitarians have of the meaning of the passage. They had read the words of the Apostle in which he speaks of "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is

Opp. I. 752.

Origen. cont. Cels., Lib. VIII. § 14. † Euseb. Eccles. Theol., Lib. II. c. 4. This, and the passage from Origen, are given by Wetstein in his critical remarks on the text, with other authorities to the same purpose. See also Whitby, Disquisitiones Modestæ, passim, but particularly pp. 26, 27, p. 122, and p. 197, ed. secund. - For placing a period after σáoka, Griesbach quotes the authority of "many Fathers who denied that Christ could be called 'the God over all."


blessed for evermore"; and the mystery of the Trinity being as yet but ill understood, they had not made such an advance in Orthodoxy as to believe that Jesus Christ was the same being as his God and Father.

WE pass to Hebrews i. 10-12. It is unneces sary to give the words at length. This passage belongs to the present class. The words were originally addressed by the Psalmist (Psalm cii. 25) not to Christ, but to God, and are so addressed by the author of the Epistle.†

2 Cor. xi. 31.

"Here we may

†The following are the remarks of Emlyn: — observe, that the tenth verse, And thou Lord, &c., (though it is a new citation,) is not prefaced with, And to the Son he saith, as ver. 8, or with an again, as ver. 5, 6, and so chap. ii. 13, but barely, And thou Lord. Now the God last mentioned was Christ's God, who had anointed him; and the author thereupon, addressing himself to this God, breaks out into the celebration of his power, and especially his unchangeable duration; which he dwells upon, as what he principally cites the text for; in order, I conceive, to prove the stability of the Son's kingdom, before spoken of: Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; God, thy God, has anointed thee; and thou, Lord, i. e. thou who hast promised him such a throne, art he who laid the foundation of the earth, and by thy hands made the heavens, which, though of long and permanent duration, yet will at length perish; but thou remainest, thou art the same, thy years shall not fail. So that it seems to be a declaration of God's immutability made here, to ascertain the durableness of Christ's kingdom, before mentioned; and the rather so, because this passage had been used originally for the same purpose in the 102d Psalm, viz. to infer thence this conclusion, ver. ult.: The children of thy servants shall continue, and their seed be established before thee. In like manner it here proves the Son's throne should be established for ever and ever, by the same argument, viz. by God's immutability; and so was very pertinently alleged of God, without being applied to the Son; to show how able his God, who had anoint

« EelmineJätka »