able that in exλéyev is couched a reference to others not chosen, and that therefore the discourse is of a prædestinatio sanctorum, but without asserting, at the same time with that, a reprobatio impiorum, or a gratia irresistibilis. (See remarks on Rom. ix. 1.) The addition ἐν αὐτῷ, i. e., Χριστῷ, defines ἐκλογή more accurately. God sees in his election by grace, man in Christ, so that, as Adam was the representative of natural humanity, so Christ is the representative of spiritual humanity. (Ka0óc unites ver. 4 as an explanation to ver. 3, "praised be God, who hath blessed us, as he indeed hath chosen us, i. e., since he has chosen us." See 1 Cor. i. 6.) The object of the election is, however, that men should be. holy and unspotted. (In Col. i. 22 ȧvéykλŋtoç also stands along with both expressions.) It is self-evident, finally, from what follows, that this is no self-elaborated holiness and blamelessness, attained by our own righteousness, but Christ's holiness, which is imputed to faith, but manifests itself likewise in the believer, though only as the result of the experience of grace, as an actual state.

Ver. 5.-The connecting of ev dуánŋ with ¿§ɛλéğaтo is too decidedly opposed by its position. But it seems uncertain whether ev ȧyány should be joined with what precedes or what follows. The thought, "to be holy and unspotted in love," is not intrinsically incongruous, since love, as the ultimate root of the disposition, determines holiness itself. Nor can anything be objected to the conjunction aμwμos ¿v åɣáяŋ, blameless in love, for designating pure love; at 2 Pet. iii. 14 we read domiλoι кaì àμúμηтоi ev eipývn, Jude ver. 24, ẵμwμoç év åyaλhiáo. But, first, critical authorities favour decidedly the connexion with what follows, as well as the fact that Paul generally uses ayıоi kai apoμor without any addition. (See Eph. v. 27; Col. i. 22.) 'Eν ауáпη прооpíoas nuas, therefore, connects itself with eλésaro as a stricter definition; God's election manifested itself in the gracious predestination to adoption, i. e., God predestined us for children of God. (On Tроopičev, also, which appears in ver. 11, joined to κατὰ πρόθεσιν, and on υἱοθεσία, as on ἐκλογή, what was needful has been already observed at Rom. viii. 15, ix. 1.) Since the possibility of sonship is effected entirely through Christ's atonement, the addition dià 'Inoov Xptorov explains itself; but els avrov is difficult, though we should, with Lachmann and Harless, prefer it to the aúróv of Griesbach, as the latter perhaps arose merely from the wish to mark more definitely the reference to the Father. No other reason, doubtless, can be assumed for this added eiç avrov, than the design of Paul to designate Christ as him who leads men to God, through whom we come to the Father, according to the words in John, "No one cometh to the Father but through me;" so that we might paraphrase the sentence thus: "God has in love predestinated us unto adoption, that we might through

Jesus come to him, and be led back to him out of our lost state, in accordance with his gracious will." The annexed katà tìv ɛvdokiav τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ might seem to argue against the connexion of ἐν ἀγάπῃ with προορίσας. For, as εὐδοκία involves the conception of love and benevolence, not that of mere decree (see Harless on this passage), εὐδοκία τοῦ θελήματος seems exactly = ἀγάπη. But, whilst ἀγάπη designates the proper essence of God, as love, εὐδοκία τοῦ Oελýμaros renders prominent the benevolence of the individual act of the will in the election and predestination of believers, so that there is no tautology.

Ver. 6. As the object of this benevolent Divine will, the praise of God's grace, to which man was meant to be thereby incited, and with which Paul had set out in ver. 3, is then brought forward. We need not explain the added dósa Tis xápiros, which serves to strengthen the expression, by supposing it = xápis čvdošos, or by referring it to · χάρις a Hebraism. (See the pertinent remarks on this passage in Harless.) In what immediately follows (vers, 12, 14), we read again εiç ἔπαινον τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ without χάριτος. (See on the import of xápis, i. e., the unmerited expression of God's love towards his creatures, the remarks on Rom. iii. 21. Xápıç is never used of Christ and the Holy Ghost. So far the structure of Paul's sentences proceeds regularly; but from ¿v ý ¿xapíτwoɛv, as far as ver. 14, the discourse proceeds entirely by means of relatives, which link themselves to the substantive which stands last, and thus form, as it were, a coronet of isolated clauses, without any regular period. Similar passages are found Col. i. 9-20; 1 Pet. i. 3-12; and in our epistle at i. 20, seq., which directly follows, a similar circle of propositions occurs, which are all united by Kaí. But the separate propositions themselves thus connected with each other by relatives, all issue naturally from one another by the law of association. This structure of his discourse thus only shews Paul's fulness of ideas, which thronged forward, without allowing him. time to range the isolated propositions into periods. This unperiodic style, arising from exuberance of ideas, extends into the fourth chapter of our epistle: it shews itself, however, here most strikingly. As to the words vexapíτwσev μãs, the reading s has, it is true, important vouchers, especially A. and G., and accordingly Lachmann has received it into the text. But the preponderating number of the manuscripts for ev, and the facility of the alteration, on account of the preceding xápiros, render the latter reading preferable. The grace of God is described in the words: vexapiTwoεv uaç as the means by which he has made man acceptable to himself; and, indeed, as it was said in verse 4 iv avr, so here it is έv τ yaлnuévw, by which, as the gloss vi avrov in D.E.F. G. correctly explains, Christ is designated, in that he, the archetype of holiness, is Kar' ¿oxiv the object of God's love, and through

himself first makes everything worthy of God's love. Ver. 7 clearly shews that xapirów relates to the work of Christ, in whom God views the elect. The use of the aorist xapírwoe is, therefore, not to be explained by the assumption that Paul means to say, "God had already made him (Paul himself), with his believing contemporaries, acceptable to himself, because they were inwardly reconciled, and had appropriated grace;" this proposition, on the contrary, holds good also of all future generations; Paul utters the music in the name of all believers forever. As in ver. 4 ¿seλéšaro denotes the eternal decree of redemption, so here exapírwoɛ denotes the objective fact of the same, which holds good, not merely for those then living, but for all mankind. God has in Christ, once for all, had mercy on mankind, received them into favour, and made them acceptable to himself. But ev must not be confounded with diá; Christ is rather, as already remarked at ver. 4, to be understood as the real representative of humanity, in whom all exist after the new man, Christ in us, as they exist in Adam after the old man. (The form χαριτόω is found in the New Testament but once more, Luke i. 28; elsewhere it occurs also Sir. ix. 8, xviii. 17, and in Symmachus, Ps. xviii. 26. In profane Greek it is found only in very late writers, as Libanius.)

Ver. 7.-Now, as regards Christ, Paul brings redemption through his blood into prominence, and designates it more closely as peor τῶν παραπτωμάτων, remission of trespasses. In the words ἐν ᾧ ἔχομεν, in whom we have, Christ is conceived as the living fountain of redemption; that is to say, although it was actually effected by his death, still it, in his intercession (see at Rom. viii. 34), works on incessantly as a living power. His work is inseparable from his person; we have not redemption in his work without his person, but in his person, with which his work forms a living unity. The import οἱ ἀπολύτρωσις and the phrase διὰ τοῦ αἵματος αὐτοῦ, have already been treated at length Rom. iii. 25. The epexegetic Tv apeau Twv τὴν ἄφεσιν τῶν параптшμáτшν only requires a remark here. The phrase, which is often found in the Gospels and the Acts, occurs in Paul here only, and in Col. i. 14 the synonymous peσiç t☎v åμagtiõv. In Rom. iii. 25 Táρεσiç ȧμаρτημárov means something quite different; see at that passage. In the Epistle to the Hebrews ix. 22, x. 18, apɛoiç is found alone. The phrase denotes, in its literal sense, forgiveness of sins, i. e., of their guilt, therefore the effect of the atonement (Karaλλayn) for man. Too much stress is not to be laid on the form лаρалTúμaтa, ȧpapтía, trespasses, sins, for not merely sinful deeds, but also sinful conditions, innate sinfulness, are considered as pardoned. Тà паρапτóμаτа denotes absolutely everything sinful, in whatever form it may present itself. Since, now, redemption (àñоλúтрwols) and reconciliation (karaλλay), are only designations of the same

idea, taken from different points of view (see at Rom. iii. 25), and ἄφεσις τῶν παραπτωμάτων explains more nearly and defines the ἀπολύTowσs, it follows that the phrase designates especially the negative side of Christ's work, which regards sinful man as pardoned by God for the sake of Christ's merits. But the appropriation of this forgiveness of sins cannot be regarded as a fact, without the transformation of man proceeding from it as its consequence.

Ver. 8. In the forgiveness of sins established through Christ Paul sees again the riches of grace, which he has caused to abound towards man. But it is a question here, whether ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει is to be joined to ἐπερίσσευσεν, or to γνωρίσας. We must be guided in our decision on that point by the fact, that neither πᾶσα σοφία, * nor φρόνησις, nor φρόνιμος, φρονίμως, can fitly be said of God. The joining it with yvwpíoaç is, therefore, inadmissible, because, according to it, both words must necessarily be referred to God. True, Grotius, Baumgarten, and others, have chosen to refer the ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει to God, even when joining it with ἐπεpíooɛvoɛ; but, besides the above-cited general reason, a comparison with Col. i. 9, where ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ συνέσει πνευματικῇ must be referred to man, should have withheld them from that interpretation. Therefore, the clause in ver. 8 is to be paraphrased thus: ἧς ἐπερίσσευσεν εἰς ἡμᾶς, ἵνα ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ καὶ φρονήσει περιπατῶμεν. But the definition of the words σοφία, φρόνησις, and the kindred σύνεσις (Col. i. 9), which we will here consider at the same time with them, is not without difficulty.. Zopía, related most closely to yvos, seems in the language of the New Testament to be the result of the rightly applied vous, i. e., of the faculty by which we perceive that which is eternal. But, whilst yvwois refers only to knowledge, there is constantly couched in oopía a reference to the practical application of knowledge, as in the Hebrew, whilst yvwous answers to On the other hand, opóvnois and ovveos are expressions of the rightly applied opéves, i. e., of the understanding. They answer to our prudence and understanding." Both words have also a practical reference, like oopía, but with the difference, that in the latter the practical aim is directed more to great and comprehensive

* Harless remarks very justly that one may say indeed, "God has wisdom," or "in him is all wisdom," but not, "he does anything in all wisdom," because God possesses all attributes absolutely. But the phrase "all wisdom" is here relative, as it must be thus paraphrased: "All the wisdom which, under existing circumstances, is imaginable, which one can suppose in men."

We have spoken already on 1 Cor. xii. 8 of copía and yvwois, but as of charismata, which cannot be meant here (see on ver. 17), not as of natural faculties, which can be cultivated even without the influences of the Holy Ghost, or awakened through them. But certainly the Divine Spirit ever attaches himself to the human spirit, whence the like names for the certainly related, but yet different, gifts. There cannot be, from the nature of the thing, a χάρισμα of φρόνησις, or of σύνεσις, because these are faculties of the soul.

relations, opóvnois and oúveois, on the contrary, relate to special and individual cases. As wisdom takes earthly relations in their totality, and thus estimates them in their reference to the eternal, there can be no false application of wisdom; false wisdom is only seeming wisdom; wisdom is always rightly applied. Prudence, on the contrary, can, just because it has to do with individual cases, be, it is true, entirely what it is, viz., a sagacious use of present circumstances, and yet be applied to ungodly ends. Therefore Paul, at Col. i. 9, pertinently adds: év ovvéσεi пvevμatikõ, in order to distinguish real prudence, which is applied to spiritual ends, from the worldly prudence (φρόνησις σαρκική οι τοῦ κόσμου), of which the Scriptures say that the children of the world distinguish themselves by it more than the children of light. (Luke xvi. 8, οἱ υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου φρονιμώτεροι ὑπὲρ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ φωτός εἰσι.) But σύνεσις and φρόνησις seem distinguished only as σύνεσις denotes rather the power of the understanding, poóvnois the application of that power. It may be said, God has implanted the vous in the spirit, and oúveots in the soul, but not poóvnois (as neither did he implant yvwois and oopía in the vouc), because the latter depends on the faithful application of the power of the ovvεois. But from this relation between them it is comprehensible that they can be used quite synonymously, just as our words, understanding and prudence. (Compare on this point my essay de naturæ humanæ Trichotomia in my Opusc. Theol. p. 158, seq. I still perfectly approve of the definition given there, γνῶσις ἐν τῷ νοί, πίστις ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ, only I would modify the proposition : σοφία ἐν ταῖς φρεσίν, to the extent of saying that the copía also belongs to the department of the vous, as complement of the γνῶσις.)

Ver. 9.—The rich manifestation of Divine grace is further more accurately defined by the γνωρίσας ἡμῖν τὸ μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος, K. T. 2., making known to us the mystery of his will, etc. By this connexion with repiooevoer it will be clear enough that yvwpíšev is not to be understood of a mere external making known, but of such a making known, by which he, to whom anything is revealed, receives at the same time the essence of the thing, here of the mystery of the Divine will. For that the μυστήριον τοῦ θελήματος, mystery of his will, is here Christ's incarnation, and the work of redemption which depended on it, is clearly shewn by what follows. This was known as about to happen through the prophecies of the Old Testament from even Adam downwards, but the aorist (yvwpioac) points to something actual, and, as such the realization of the prophecies presents itself to us; by this that mystery was first made really known, which even the angels desired to look into (1 Peter i. 12). It remains to be said, that we find here Oéλnua and evdokíu separate, whereas in ver. 5 they were fused into one idea. Karà TÒP

VOL. V.-3