Slip “Ὁ συῶν κα Ὁ ἀα ea trae a bat ee Fn MC BEB eS tree Ne ΝΣ MOR SRE κα με am 7 ᾿ aeieek ape ον ae ΨΥ sens ee atau oP Fhe ναι τις ie 4 Bate I OG bapvalas te se δύ ἘΝ Ὁ. Fate εἶ ᾿ " bo ee Σ ὦ Ls ie rei hee fee ey Te - ἌΝ: να - δ: τ : y 3 ᾿ Pah Aa aa ON eel oP Tn ee ermpatyed ED es WN τ αν κε αν shat ἀρ αν ἐν τον μα pe encanta ¢ eats ees Senet : eer Ct (eh as Soe ix ae ee Soar om iP a Ian na rm ot a arena one σον am an ae A οι a es VEOLOGICAL sent BS 2695 .N48 1860 Newland, Henry, 1804-1860. A practical and exegetical commentary on the Epistle r ἣν i ᾿ ᾿ hy My A nf Wis ἡ: a Ὧν ᾿ ἡ iat ait) a ἣν ὯΝ we us i” ᾿ Mi ἐν 4 ὧν πείυ Catenx ov St. Paul's Epistles, A PRACTICAL AND EXEGETICAL Commentary ON ΦΗΜΙ. ΟΕ PAUL TO THE EPHESIANS: IN WHICH ARE EXHIBITED THE RESULTS OF THE MOST LEARNED THEOLOGICAL CRITICISMS, FROM THE AGE OF THE EARLY FATHERS DOWN TO THE PRESENT TIME. EDITED BY THE REV. HENRY NEWLAND, M.A., VICAR OF ST. MARY CHURCH, DEVON, AND CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF EXETER. ‘¢ Erudite Lector, in hoc libro si aliquid tibi supervacaneum visum fuerit, id minus eruditis relinque.”’ Oxford and Londo: e He dep Jas. PARKER. 1860. “ ad Na: ΄ res ts ea hare, ge clés 5 τ ον TF ἡ 4 J a os hs 1) ᾿ ἜΣ 4 ᾿ ἌΡΗ ‘ ΡΥ bony Ξ /. aly τὴ ‘} ; nay 1 39 Ψ Aa νῆς ER, CORNMARKET, OXFORD. EDITORS PREFACE. Or the Nature and Attributes of God, His Word and His Will, man of himself can know nothing. Whatever he does know, therefore, be it much or little, he has been made acquainted with by God’s Own voluntary revelations of Himself. But these revelations are not made continually, and day by day, nor to each individual man separately. They have been made at certain times predetermined by God; they have been recorded by men inspired for the purpose, and have been handed down for the Spl- ritual enlightenment of subsequent ages. These recorded revelations we call the Holy Scrip- tures. ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things ne- cessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation?.” Whatever knowledge, therefore, man possesses, either of his spiritual state here, or of his hopes of salvation hereafter, he draws from these Holy Serip- tures, which are the only rule of life vouchsafed to him, the only measure either of his faith or of his duty. But the reducing of this incontrovertible truth to the practice of ordinary life, involves two elements,— the revelation made by God, and the apprehension of it by man. , is Jaa lv EDITOR’S PREFACE, It is evident, that when God gave to man the reve- lation of His Own Word, that Word could have had but one single meaning, and that it was in this sense that the inspired writers received it, recorded it, and handed it down to us. It is evident also that this meaning is incapable of further development, that it must be, from the very nature of the case, as un- changeable as the God Who gave it, the same in all times and in all places. But it does not follow that every man’s apprehen- sion of it should be that one undivided, unchangeable meaning which God placed upon it, and in which the inspired writers recorded it; and yet upon man’s right interpretation of God’s Word depends every single step that he takes in the way of salvation. It is evident, therefore, if the revelation of God is to be of any practical use in the salvation of those to whom it was given, not only that the Scriptures them- selves must be infallible, but that man should pos- sess an infallible guide to the right comprehension of them. Such an infallible guide he does possess. The Scriptures, no doubt, were given to Christ’s Church once and for all, but the Holy Ghost abides in it always. He it is who guides us into all truth. There can be no doubt of this. Our Lord Jesus Christ has promised the help of the Holy Ghost to all believers. But that is not the question. ‘I'he question is, How does the Holy Ghost operate on men’s minds? is it individually, or collectively ? Nothing is more certain than that the help of the Holy Ghost is the spiritual birthright of every bap- tized Christian individually, that in right of his adop- tion he is endowed with this portion of his father’s goods which thereby falleth to him; but were it EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vv vouchsafed to every faithful Christian to interpret an infallible book by the help of an infallible guide, it would follow of necessity that every man’s private interpretation was itself infallible. Now this is manifestly impossible. From the times of Arius to the present day there has not arisen a heresy, a schism, a sect of any kind, that has not claimed the Bible and the Bible only as its authority and sole foundation. It is impossible that all can be right ; and how, upon this theory, is any man to determine where to find this right interpretation on which his own salvation depends ? Upon what grounds can we claim for the Fathers of the Church an infal- libility which we deny to the fathers of heresy? or, in other words, which is heresy and which is the Church ? If this were the right conception of that infalli- bility which is the work of the Holy Ghost on the minds of men, the God of all wisdom must have given to the creatures whom He willed to save a revelation altogether inadequate to the purpose for which He gave it, since after the death of those to whom it was originally entrusted, who alone were capable of ex- plaining the sense in which they received it, the Law of God, like half the laws of the Saxons and Normans at this present day, would in a very short space of time become a mere dead letter. But this is impossible. There must, then, be a fallacy somewhere in this conception of individual inspiration: and it lies in this. No doubt, as St. John says, “He Whom God hath sent,” that is to say, our Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom, in His human capacity, the revelation was given, ‘speaketh the words of God,” gives us the inspired words in their inspired meaning; “for God giveth not the Spirit by V1 EDITOR’S PREFACE. measure unto Him»,.” But unto us, His creatures, the Spirit 7s given by measure. ‘To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to another faith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by the same Spirit; to another the working of miracles ; to another prophecy (preaching); to another discern- ing of spirits; to another divers kinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but all these worketh that One and the self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will*.” Whensoever, therefore, a man dares to take upon himself the interpretation of God’s Word by the sole light of his own private judgment, he thereby arro- gates to himself the unmeasured inspiration and Di- vine Mediatorship which are the exclusive attributes of his Lord and Master; he mistakes the nature of his union with Him through Whom alone the Spirit is sent, which is not that of equal with equal, but that . of members with their Head, each one discharging those functions, and those alone, which have been committed to it. If, therefore, infallibility is to be found anywhere on earth, (and we have seen already that it must be found somewhere, if successive generations of men are to continue in the comprehension of God’s will and God’s word, ) it does not reside in any single Christian individually, but in all Christians collectively, that is to say, in the Church. And we may remember that the union of the Church with Christ is not described as the union of a member with its head, but as that of a wife with her husband, implying a community of goods and a community of privileges. The Church, b St. John iii, 34. ¢ 1 Cor. xm 8—11. EDITOR’S PREFACE. Vil therefore, as the Bride of Christ, is infallible, and she is so in virtue of her union, as Spouse, with Him to Whom is given the Spirit without measure. Therefore, not only is ‘all Scripture given by inspiration of God‘,” but “the Church also is a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ*.” Both these propositions are necessary to man’s salvation. The keeper and witness must be as infallible as the Word kept, or man could feel no assurance that he even pos- sessed the letter of God’s Word, still less that he had not perverted it by his own gloss, or rendered it of none effect by his own tradition. Hence it is that, as the condition of our salvation, we profess to believe not only in God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, but also in the Holy Catholic Church. We are saved dy the Father through the Son, with the instrumentality of the Holy Ghost, and in the Catholic Church. This is the revealed plan of our salvation, and whatever other means God may, in His inscrutable wisdom, see fit to make use of, He has never revealed them to man. Theoretically, therefore, we believe in the Holy Catholic Church. But believing in anything, that is, so believing that we regulate thereby our daily steps towards salvation, must mean believing in its infal- libility. Still, when we come to reduce this theory to prac- tice, there arises this difficulty. We know, and that from inspiration itself, the historical. fact that the Churches of Asia did err. We believe the same of the Eastern and Roman Churches; neither do we see any reason to expect greater infallibility in the Church a 2 Tim, iii. 16. ΘΑ REX: Vill EDITOR’S PREFACE. of England. If we refer to history, there is no age of the Church in which we do not trace human pas- sions, and motives, and interests, and prejudices at work; there is no Council on record, the proceedings of which are not tainted with them; there is no time, no, not during the lives of the inspired Apostles themselves, in which heresy, and that of an alarm- ing kind, did not abound in the Church; there is no single Doctor or Father on whose word we can im- plicitly rely. But these are the elements which, taken in the aggregate, we call the Church; and if these elements be every one of them fallible, how can the aggregate be infallible ? Thus, therefore, though we acknowledge theoreti- cally the infallibility of the Church, as indeed we must if we acknowledge the Apostles’ Creed, yet, practically, we are unable to avail ourselves of it; we are unable to apply the doctrine to our daily needs. We are perplexed, let us suppose, as to the right interpretation of any given text, to what Father or Doctor, to what Synod or Council, to what age of the Church, are we to appeal for the solution of a question on which, it may chance, our right appre- ciation of a vital doctrine may depend. The answer is, to none, but to the Church. The operation of the Holy Ghost does not consist in in- spiring infallibility into any one individual, or col- lection of individuals, whether Pope, or Synod, or Council; there is no particular age of the Church which may be appealed to as the infallible referee. The Divine agency is evidenced in the nice arrange- ment of those fallible materials which together com- pose the ‘‘ Body of Christ,” so that as soon as any error or heresy of any kind shall at any time raise its EDITOR'S PREFACE. , ix head, some champion of the faith shall at the same time be raised up to overthrow it. This champion is himself no more infallible than the heretic he has overthrown; he is no more individually inspired than those who have gone before him; in overthrowing one error, he may be, and frequently is, the founder of another‘; but whenever this occurs it is perfectly certain that the Holy Ghost will raise up some other champion, whose mission will be to correct the par- ticular error of his immediate predecessor. The whole, therefore, is a system of compensation, similar to that which, in the pendulum of an astro- nomical clock, or the balance of a chronometer, so ad- justs its materials that the imaccuracy of every one shall in all cases correct the inaccuracy of every other, thus producing, from elements all of them imperfect, a perfect and equable whole. The minds of men, though all fallible, are not all fal- lible alike; each has its own bent: one man is devout and contemplative, one is practical, one is demonstra- tive, and another poetical. Truth will strike each of them in a different light; each from the same truth will involuntarily draw into prominence that cha- racter of doctrine to which the habit of his.own mind inclines him, and will unconsciously follow out the line of thought and of life to which it points. Each one of these also will have his own peculiar weakness, from which others will be exempt, and, therefore, will experience his own peculiar temptations to error. No man can read the history of the Church, and the f This is notably the case in | of Christ, had it not been for his the rise of the Eutychian heresy. | antagonism to Nestorius, who There can be no doubt but that | maintained not only that there Eutyches would never have fal- | were two Natures in Christ, but len into the error of confounding | two Persons, the Eternal Word the Divine and Human Nature | and the Man Jesus. x EDITOR’S PREFACE. biography of its champions and leaders, comparing their peculiar sentiments and line of teaching, and their natural cast of character, with the requirements of the times in which they lived, without seeing that the Hand of God was as evidently over His Church in the days of the Roman Emperors, and of the middle ages, as it was in the days of the Judges and Kings of Israel, and that the learned and poetical Origen, the firm and judicious Athanasius, the fiery and impe- tuous Cyril, and the fearless but somewhat obstinate Chrysostom, were as evidently raised up by God, and selected for their peculiar work, as the courte- ous and conciliatory Gideon, the brave but rash Jephtha, and the compassionate but stern and im- movable Samuel. As with the opinions of individual Fathers, so also with those more solemn and authoritative documents, the Acts of the Councils and Synods of the Church. Some of their decisions were, beyond doubt, intended by Divine Providence to endure to all ages as the perpetual rule and guide of the Church; some, of partial and local application only, were destined not to survive the occasion which called them forth; while some were absolutely erroneous and heterodox. That which has enabled us, in this nineteenth century, to distinguish each one of these classes from the others, is, simply and solely, the consent of the universal Church; and by this we mean not merely the Church which was militant on earth in that particular age, but the Church of all ages, the Church universal in time as well as in space ®. When we speak of those six Councils which we call (icumenical, whose sentences have ever been received by Christendom as the infallible voice of the Catholic & See remarks of St. Augustine in Commentary, pp. 100, 101. EDITOR’S PREFACE. ΧΙ Church, what is it that has stamped upon our minds the Divine authority of their acts? It is not the unanimity of the Church then upon earth, for their decisions invariably left a large minority of dissen- tients; it is not the wisdom and discretion of the individual speakers, for many of them were indiscreet and intemperate in the highest degree; it is not that their acts were never called in question, for it is no- torious not only that they were not acquiesced in at the time, but that most of them have been impugned, and for the time reversed, by national and provincial synods; it is not that they were implicitly obeyed, even by those who received them, for, to go no further, we find even St. Peter withstood and rebuked by St. Paul for acting against the decree of the very first of them*. We do not for one instant doubt that the de- cisions of all the Gicumenical Councils were made under the direct inspiration of the Holy Ghost, resting upon them collectively, and guiding their jarring ele- ments into all truth; but the question is, How has this fact become appreciable to us ? The operations of the Holy Ghost are seen only in their effects. That which has conveyed to our senses the fact that the acts of these Councils are “ the faith once delivered to the saints’,’”’ is the universal consent and acceptance of from fifteen to eighteen centuries. Opposition may have been raised up, and that suc- cessfully ; their authority may have actually been set aside for the time ; but no weapon formed against them has prospered, every dissentient voice has long ago been silenced, every opposing sentence has been for- gotten or condemned, and the acts of the Councils have outlived them all. ® Gal. ii, 11, and foll. i Jude ὃ. ΧΙ EDITOR’S PREFACE. It is, then, the witness of History that has stamped their value. But if this is the case with the @cumenical Coun- cils, far more is it the case with Provincial Synods, because the guidance of the Holy Ghost, which is the birthright of the Church collectively, has nowhere been promised to detached portions of it. In these there is nothing supernatural; they are assemblies of theologians, the most learned, the most able, the most pious of their day, no doubt, but still fallible men, men acted on by the same passions and party spirit which have actuated divines of every age and of every land. But neither has history dealt with these as it has with the General Councils; some of their acts it has confirmed as wise and truce, some it has reversed as unnecessary or inexpedient, some it has pronounced heterodox, some positively heretical. In all cases, therefore, that which alone places the seal of universal authority to any act of the Church is the acceptance, not only of its own, but of subsequent ages. The decisions of General Councils are testi- monies of what was held in their times, the decisions of local Councils are testimonies of what was held in their portion of the Church, and as such they have all of them their weight; but if we would know for certain whether they are or are not the Catholic Faith, ‘which except a man believe faithfully he cannot be saved!” we must in all cases appeal to the history of the Church. It will very much simplify our idea of the nature of the Church’s authority as the witness and keeper of Holy Writ, if we regard the Church itself in the ὁ Ath. Creed. EDITOR’S PREFACE. Xl light in which it was foretold by the Prophets, and announced by its Divine Founder. It is not a little remarkable that our Lord Himself seldom speaks of ‘“‘the Church” under that name; what He calls it is “the kingdom of God,” or “the kingdom of heaven.” The idea, therefore, that He would convey to our minds is that of a kingdom; but when we realize to ourselves what we mean by this word, we find that it is a body of men, bound together by a government, a constitution, a history, a code of laws. Such, then, is the Church of Christ militant on earth; it is a kingdom like any other kingdom, except that its government, its charter, and its laws are, like its King, eternal and unchangeable *. This charter and these laws are recorded in the Bible, they were perfect and infallible when they were delivered to the keeping of the Church, and if they have come into our possession unchanged, they must be perfect and infallible now. All that we have to ascertain, therefore, is that no change has taken place in them. Regarding the Bible in this light, it is ‘evident that in all doubtful points we must arrive at the true meaning, precisely in the way in which a judge arrives at the true meaning of the laws which he is called upon to administer: he consults authorities, and looks into precedents; he does not consider any one of his predecessors more infallible than himself, but he examines their decisions in an historical point of view; he enquires into the objections taken by opponents, he sees how those objections have been * « And in the days of these | other people, but it shall break kings shall the God of heaven | in pieces, and consume all these set up a kingdom, which shall | kingdoms, and it shall stand for never be destroyed; and the | ever.”—Dan, ii. 44. kingdom shall not be left to X1V EDITOR’S PREFACE. over-ruled; he allows for any disturbing elements that might have existed in the popular feelings of the day, ascertaining from independent sources what those feelings were; he compares the decision of one century with that of another, and at length arrives at a right appreciation of the subject before him by means of facts, not of opinions. It is on the testi- mony of centuries, not on the opinions of those who lived in those centuries, that we base our judgment. It is the ‘‘ ALWAYS, EVERYWHERE, AND BY ALL.” In precisely the same manner do we arrive at a right conception of the Bible generally, or of any particular text or portion of it that we are consider- ing. Our business is not to take our Church from the Bible, which in practice amounts to trying whether its texts can be squared to meet our own preconceived ideas of the doctrine or discipline of the Church, but to ascertain simply what was the intention of the writer when he wrote the text we are considering. We take as an admitted fact the personal and special inspiration of the Prophet, or Evangelist, or Apostle. We know for certain that at the time he wrote that particular history, or prophecy, or Gospel, or Epistle, he had but one meaning, and that this was the real and orthodox meaning,—the meaning that God placed upon it, the meaning that it must bear in our day. We know that at the time it was written it was understood in that one and orthodox meaning by those who received it, and that those persons built their faith and grounded their salvation upon it. All that we have to determine now is whether the in- terpretation that we now put upon these words is the same as that which they bore when they were written, or whether at any time during the eighteen centuries of their existence they have been changed. EDITOR’s PREFACE. XV For this purpose we call witnesses. Those witnesses are the recorded opinions of the Fathers and the acts of the Councils which have been preserved to us. We attach weight to these even as the private opi- nions and the acts of men in authority: but that is not their main value; their main value is as wit- nesses; we want to establish that such was the in- terpretation put upon such and such a text by the Church in those days: reasonings are fallible, opi- nions are fallible, decrees are fallible, but facts are infallible. One fact was sufficient to confound all the arguments of Arius: ‘It was never heard before our days,” said the Council; ‘‘we have no such custom, nor the Churches of God.” The real Gicumenical Council, that of which it may be predicated that it never errs or can err, is the Council which is not called together by the com- mandment and will of princes, it is the Council of the Cuurcu UniversaL: not the Church of the fourth, or of the fifth, or of the tenth, or of the nineteenth century, any more than of the Church of Rome or of Alexandria. The Church of which we acknow- ledge the infallibility is the Church of all time, as well as of all space. The Council that we appeal to is that in which Chrysostom with Theophylact arrange with Augustine and Remigius, hefore Andrewes and Leighton, the boundaries of Faith and Duty, recon- ceiling man’s works with God’s omniscience; where Cyril lays down to Caietan and Zanchius on the one hand, and Beza and Vorstius on the other, his theory of the Divine Presence; while Bingham stands by and weighs the authorities in his honest and impartial balance. Men may be fallible, General Councils may err: this is a Council which cannot err, whose canons are fixed and infallible. ΧΥΪ EDITOR’S PREFACE. It is upon this principle that the idea of this pre- sent work has been conceived. Our business is now with the Church Catholic with respect to time; we bring together, and, as it were, assemble in council, the minds of consecutive ages. The Church, with respect to time, may be divided into five distinct periods: (1) that of the Persecu- tions ; (2) that of the Councils ; (3) that of the School- men; (4) that of the Reformation; (5) that of Modern times. All these periods are distinct the one from the other; each possesses its own characteristics, and each discharges its own office in the conservation, as well as the tradition, of doctrine. In the first of these, the type of which may well be the Apostles’ Creed, we may trace every vital doctrine of religion, not perhaps in all cases very clearly defined, but in all cases broadly and dogma- tically laid down. In those days of rebuke and per- secution, men had not learnt to define. They might not understand those doctrines, on the faith of which a man might dare to die; but they /e/¢ them, and what they felt strongly they asserted distinctly. - But when the Providence of God had fixed, and, as it were, burnt in upon the mind of the Church these essential doctrines, a new element was intro- duced. When Persecution ceased, and the Empire became Christian, the seat of it was removed from Italy to Constantinople, and thus the acute and philosophical mind of Greece was brought to bear upon the doctrines which had been so firmly esta- blished. It is a very remarkable fact that every C(icumenical Council had its seat in the Hast, and that every question discussed arose from that quarter. During that period which produced the Nicene Creed, men learned to define what hitherto they had learned EDITOR’S PREFACE. XVil to believe. There are very few texts in the whole Bible, we might almost say none, involving doctrine, which may not be interpreted through the Fathers of these two periods; and thus the limits of doctrine became so firmly established, that henceforward heresy must be wilful, no one could wander into it unawares. The type, as well as the production, of the third period, is the Athanasian Creed. It is the period of the Schools, and also of the Commentators. That much of the theology of those times was overlaid and disfigured by aimless disputations, puerile criti- cisms, and worthless quibbles, we need no more deny than we would that the age preceding it had been disturbed by human pride and unchristian rancour. Still this very disputatiousness had its own office in the further tradition of God’s Word, and we may be thankful that these Commentators wrote under pressure of the severest criticism, that every phrase, every turn of expression, was accurately weighed and valued, that words began to acquire a fixed technical and theological meaning, independent of any sub- sequent variation of custom or language. The Com- mentators were but the recorders and classifiers of better times and greater men, but they learned to chronicle them in technical and accurate language. The third period effected for words what the second had effected for ideas, and thus theology became a science. Of the remaining periods less need be said. It is a great error to imagine that the Reformation was confined to that section of the Church which now bears the name of Reformed. ‘There was not one theologian of the period who was not painfully aware that the Church, having sunk from its primitive purity, required reform of some kind. What that C XVili EDITOR’S PREFACE. reform ought to be, and how it was to be effected, were subjects on which men differed according to their political and theological bias, and it pleased God—possibly in punishment for the short-comings of His Church—to sharpen those differences into dis- pute and final disruption; but even the Council of Trent was intended for, and in many respects was, a Council of Reformation. We may consider, therefore, generally, the writings of this period as a revision of doctrine under pressure of extreme partizanship, and those of the subsequent period as a reconsideration of them, made under similar conditions, but in calmer and more peaceful times. But it must be observed that in both these cases alike, the limits of the whole controversy had been already fixed and determined by the affirmations of the first period, the definitions of the second, and the technicalities of the third. These three periods, therefore, had become to those which succeeded them the safeguards of sound doctrine, enabling us of the present day to accept from every writer of every school that which is catholic in time and place, while we reject from all alike whatever is contrary to our custom and that of the Churches of God. Whenever, therefore, any particular text of Scrip- ture has borne two or more interpretations, distinct from or inconsistent with each other, we take that to be the true meaning which has been asserted in the first of these periods, defined in the second, and has surviyed the criticism of those subsequent to them. We have obtained, therefore, all that we have sought. We have been vouchsafed an infallible Book ; we possess also’an infallible interpreter, the great EDITOR’S PREFACE. X1x (Ecumenical Council of all nations and all ages of Christendom. Its canons le open before us; we have but to read them. And if it be asked whether even to read and analyse what lies open before us does not involve the exercise of private judgment, and this judgment fallible, we admit it, we admit it fully. We know that God has given us no single faculty of mind or body that is not to be used in His service, far less that noblest faculty of all, human reason. And if human reason be found in the path of duty, we know that it will be enlightened by Divine Wisdom, which is denied to it only when it refuses to walk in that path. All that we have said is that God does not deliver the Bible to each individual man to work out from it his own salvation; and that when human reason is so employed, it must not expect Divine blessing or assistance. The faith was once for all delivered to the saints. The Bible is presented by the Church to each man individually. No doubt, when it is legiti- mately presented and received, it depends upon man himself how he will receive it; but when man is walking in those paths which God has appointed him to walk in, it is God Himself Who gives him all things necessary to enable him to walk in them rightly. “For now what things sounding strangely in the Scripture were wont to offend me,” says St. Augustine, “having heard divers of them expounded satisfac- torily, I referred to the depth of the mysteries; and its authority appeared to me the more venerable, and more worthy of religious credence, in that while it lay open to all to read, it reserved the majesty of its mysteries within its profounder meaning, stooping xx EDITOR’S PREFACE. to all in the great plainness of its words and lowli- ness of its style, yet calling forth the intensest ap- plication of such as are not light of heart; so that it might receive all in its open bosom, and through narrow passages waft over towards Thee some few, yet many more than if it stood not aloft on such a height of authority, nor drew multitudes within its bosom by its holy lowliness!.” The general theory of salvation is the union of the Godhead and the Manhood through the Incarna- tion of Christ, and this union shews itself in us by the co-operation of God’s energy and man’s works. But this, which is the theory of salvation in general, is the theory also of everything that conduces’ to it. It is God through Christ Who gives the necessary means, but it is always optional with man whether he works with them or neglects them. God gives to man His Own purity, by baptism He renders him capable of receiving it, but whether he will appropriate it or not is at man’s own option. God gives to man the power of continuing in Him through the Body and Blood of Christ. He renders him capable of making this power his own; but the rendering himself fit for its reception is left to man’s own will. “Τὴ the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread ™,” is applicable to the spiritual as well as the temporal condition of man: thou shalt have what is necessary for thee, but thou shalt earn it; it is a blessing and a consolation, not a curse; in all things God makes man as it were His fellow-labourer. And not less so in the giving and receiving of God’s Holy Word: it is still the co-operation of God’s ' Aug. Confess., lib. vi. s. 8. m Gen. ili. 19. EDITOR’S PREFACE. ΧΧῚ energy and man’s work, The Word is from God direct, it is given under direct inspiration, and is therefore in its own nature eternal and infallible. This Word, divine in its own nature, is communicable to man; that is to say, the nature of man, of itself unable to comprehend it, has been so enlightened, sanctified, strengthened, and exalted, by its union with the Godhead, as to be capable of receiving it, in all ages of the Church alike, pure and infallible as God gave it. But whether he will receive it or not is still at man’s own option. The communication between God and man is impeded by obstacles arising from man’s corruption, but which, by the energy of the Godhead, man has power to roll away; these are pride, pre- judice, obstinacy on the one hand; sloth, negligence, wilful ignorance on the other. And as, generally, it is man’s labour that works out his own salvation, so also, in particular, it 1s man’s labour that works out his comprehension of God’s Word. Man works, but it is in the way which God has pointed out, and with the means which God has communicated to him. The way which He has pointed out is the Church; the means which He has commu- nicated through the man Jesus are, “the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and ghostly strength, the spirit of knowledge and true godliness, and the spirit of holy fear *.” Or, to put the same idea in modern terms, no man can expect to comprehend fully the revelation which God made, not to mankind at large, but to His Church, if he seek it elsewhere than where it was given, and if he bring not to the search these special gifts of the n The Order of Confirmation. XXi1 EDITOR’S PREFACE. Holy Ghost, apprehension, discrimination, teachable- ness, strength of mind to resist prejudice and precon- ception, learning, godliness, and, above all, reverence. ᾿ς “T resolved, then,” says St. Augustine, “to bend my mind to the Holy Scriptures, that I might see what they were. But behold, I see a thing neither understood by the proud nor laid open to children, lowly in access, in its recesses lofty, and veiled with mysteries ; and I was not such as could enter into it, or stoop my neck to follow its steps; ... for my swelling pride shrank from the lowliness of them, nor could my sharp wit pierce the interior thereof. Yet were they such as would grow up in a little one. But I disdained to be a little one; and, swoln with pride, I took myself to be a great one°.” This is the real stumbling-block to every human creature when he applies his reason to the compre- hension of God’s Word. We have an open Bible; it is accessible to all; all are bidden to approach it; but it is, and ever must be, a sealed book to those who approach it otherwise than in a lowly spirit and in the way of God’s Own appointment. Ir formed part of the original design of this book to give a list of authors, arranged according to the five periods of the Church mentioned in page xvi. of the Preface, together with an account of their lives, and the relative value of their theological labours. For the present, however, the idea has been abandoned, chiefly on account of the dimen- sions which this volume has already attained. This has not been done without regret, for it is believed that such a comparative list would be of service to ° Aug. Confess., lib. 11]. s. 9. EDITOR’S PREFACE. XXL the divinity student, whose labour is often lost for want of timely direction as to authors, and their value. No attempt, therefore, will be made upon this occasion minutely to describe the sources from whence materials have been collected for this volume. It will be enough to say that in a great number of cases references have been given, and the authors speak for themselves; but still there are many whose names do not occur (as far as we are able to remember) in the course of the Commentary, but whose works have been freely used. The Fathers, of course, form the foundation of the book, and, where practicable, it has always been endeavoured to give the inter- pretation in their words. This will account for some lengthy extracts from their writings, which might otherwise have been dispensed with. Many of these passages also will be found to have a practical bearing upon the matter in hand, which would be drawn out by their very words being quoted, better than by any deductions which could be made from them. It was thought that these extracts might assist those who would wish to use the Commentary for homiletical purposes. The Schoolmen also have been laid under contribution. Among Commentators who have been largely used may be mentioned Primasius (of Utica), Sedulius, Haymo (of Halberstadt,) Caietan (Cardinal), Aretius (Professor of Theology at Marpburg, sixteenth century), Gagneus (a French divine, died 1549), Estius, Gorranus, Justinian, Piscator (of Herborn), Gregorius (of the Order of Preachers, sixteenth cen- tury), Bence, Cornelius a Lapide, Marloratus, Poli Synopsis, ὅθ. The works of modern German and other theologians have also been consulted, and much valuable assistance has been gained from them. The above remarks may help the reader to form XX1V EDITOR’S PREFACE. some idea of the pains that have been taken to collect materials for this Commentary. In judging of its merits or demerits it should be remembered, not in order to disarm fair criticism, but in extenuation of faults which longer time and labour might have removed, that this volume was begun, and has by God’s mercy been completed, amid the cares of a parochial clergyman’s life. H. N. St, Mary Cuurcu, Devon, Lent, 1860, SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. THE ninth century, in other respects uneventful in the history of the Church, is remarkable for the solution (so far as solution is possible) of those very difficult doctrines relating to predestination which are treated of in St. Paul’s Epistles to the Ephesians and Romans. We say, so far as is possible, for nothing can be more evident than that a complete and satisfactory explanation of these difficulties is altogether beyond the grasp of the human intellect. So long as we remain in this life we must be content with be- lieving, and acting upon independently, all the propositions laid down in Holy Scripture, treating each one of them as a revelation complete in itself, and, as such, an article of faith, but leaving the reconciliation of their apparent incompati- bilities to those times when we shall see no more as through a glass darkly, but shall know even as we are known. The difficulties attending the particular subject of pre- destination may be thus briefly stated. Man, through the Fall, had lost both the will and the power to do good. Christ, by the act of taking fallen humanity on Himself, re-created it, giving back to man both the will and the power. But in so doing Christ has been pleased to leave him the complete exercise of his free-will. Therefore man, so strengthened by his union with God, has power to choose between good and evil, and, having that power, will be dealt with according as his work shall be. As God is omniscient, it is evident that He can foresee who will and who will not avail himself of the means of grace placed within his power; or, in other words, He can foresee who will and who will not be damned. But as God is omnipotent also, it is equally evident that He could, if He so pleased, influence and excite the wills of B 2 SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. those whom He now foresees will be damned to such an extent as to induce them then to avail themselves of the sufficient means of grace which He has placed within their power, and so work out their salvation. If He does not, being able to do it, then it may be said that He wills their damnation. If He does, then it may be said that He takes away their free-will. The answer clearly is, that God, even because He is omni- potent, has power, if He so pleases, to set limits to Himself, and that by the act of creation He does please to limit Him- self to abide by those unchangeable laws which He then was pleased to establish. Still we must admit that this answer, when reduced to a practical form, leaves a wide uncertainty as to the extent of divine influence on the one side and of human free-will on the other. In this respect, therefore, the question must be treated as an open one, and has always been regarded as such by the Church, subject, however, to the limitations placed upon it on either hand by the Predestinarian and semi- Pelagian heresies. On this question, therefore, we may be said to arrive at orthodoxy by the exhaustive process. The Church has de- fined clearly and distinctly what she means by Predestina- rianism, and what she means by semi-Pelagianism. These, then, are forbidden boundaries; and between these les the space in which her children are at full liberty to exercise their private judgment, and to act on it without danger of falling into heresy. It is a very remarkable point that none of those difficulties, which perplexed the consciences of the medizval Fathers, appear to have presented themselves to the mind of the Church before the beginning of the fifth century. They seem to have been first suggested by the arguments made use of in refutation of the doctrines of Pelagius, which about that time had acquired some hold on the Church. It is true that this heresy never expanded into a schism, and that, in its original form, it had but little effect on the Church at large: so startling, so manifestly unscriptural, ee Ss ae eee SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. 3 were the doctrines of its founder (when he asserted broadly that sin was not the cause of death, and that though our being was of God, our being just was of ourselves, and that our peace and justification proceeded from our own merits,) that in their literal and unqualified sense it was utterly im- possible for them to maintain a hold on the minds of men, Nor did they. The heresy was nipped at once by the decrees of Carthage and Milevum, it was rejected in Britain and in Gaul by councils, and in Rome it was reprobated by imperial edicts, till it received its final condemnation at the Council of Ephesus. But connected with and resulting from this broad heresy, were doctrines of a more qualified nature, involving just enough of truth to make them dangerous. These, under the name of semi-Pelagianism, obtained a firm footing in the Gallican Church, and from this, as a centre, extended to all parts of Christendom. It was from the controversies occasioned by this that the Predestinarian heresy first arose, much in the same manner as Eutychianism may be said to have sprung from Nestorianism. At that time, and for some centuries after, there existed a strange anomaly in the Gallican Church, which for many years continued to be the fruitful cause of dissensions. Cassian, who had been the deacon of St. Chrysostom, after the banishment and death of that prelate had gone to Rome, and from that city had migrated to Marseilles, in the neigh- bourhood of which he laid the foundations of that nest of monasteries which afterwards had so great an influence, not only on the Gallican Church, but also, through Augustine, on our own. As Cassian had been educated in St. Jerome’s great monastery of Bethlehem, it is not surprising that his Gallican foundations should retain traces of their parentage, and in their peculiar doctrines and usages should bear a much closer resemblance to the Eastern than they did to the Western Church. To this we may trace much of the parti- zanship which disfigured the Gallican Church during the eighth and ninth centuries; but we owe to it likewise the controversies which so thoroughly sifted the subject of pre- destination, and which, by the moderation of Hinecmar on + SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. the one side and Remigius on the other, were brought to so satisfactory a termination. Cassian’s monasteries, however, in the fifth century were the cradle of semi-Pelagianism, as afterwards, from a natural re-action, they became the stronghold of the opposite heresy. Admitting that man had no power of himself to carry out the promptings of his own will, the semi-Pelagians main- tained that he had inherently the power of willing what was good. Obedience, or acting up to our belief, might be thus admitted to be the gift of God; but man had in himself the power of believing or disbelieving. The necessity of divine grace they allowed, but practically they confused grace with those accidents, external and internal, which disposed the mind towards good. They acknowledged that our blessed Lord had died for all mankind, but inasmuch as it was evident that all mankind were not saved, they asserted that those only could be saved who believed on Him of their own accord, and by their faith merited the assistance or saving grace of God to lead them to obedience; so that the pre- destination, whether of the good to heaven or of the wicked to hell, was nothing more than the foreknowledge of God that particular persons would by their own conduct merit either the one or the other. All this, though containing a large proportion of truth, and not altogether incapable of a satisfactory qualification, might very easily be so interpreted, and in actual fact was so interpreted, as to controvert the orthodox idea of a pre- venting as well as an assisting grace, which had been so strongly insisted on by Augustine and so uniformly held by the Church; neither is it very clear that grace itself, ac- cording to the semi-Pelagian acceptation of the word, could in any way be distinguished from the ordinary and unen- lightened operation of conscience. These sentiments, though to some extent endorsed by Cassian himself, do not appear to have met with universal acceptance even in the Church from which they sprung; and notice of them was sent to Augustine, who was then nearly at the end of his life, and at the very height of his reputation. SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. ὃ It was upon this occasion that St. Augustine’s works on the “ Predestination of the Saints” and the “Gift of Per- severance’? were written. These are by far the most valu- able of his works on this particular subject. In his earlier treatises against Pelagius he had been led away by heat of argument to express himself incautiously, and almost here- tically, on the subject of predestination ; so much so, indeed, as to have rendered it necessary for him to retract, or, at least, qualify much that he had asserted. In these treatises we have the matured decisions of his old age. In them he admits honestly the difficulty of the subject; he allows that it is impossible for us to say why the gift of perseverance is granted to one man and is not granted to another, but at the same time he defines and separates those doctrines which semi-Pelagianism had confused; distinguishing first between predestination and grace, of which he defines the first to-be the preparation of which the second is the accomplishment, but more especially and carefully distinguishing between foreknowledge and predestination, extending the former term to all things whatever, but confining the latter to such things as God does directly and of Himself. That all na- tions should be blessed through the seed of Abraham, is predestination, for God not only knew it, but worked it; that all to whom salvation would be offered would not re- ceive it, is indeed foreknowledge, for God foresaw what would happen, but is not predestination, for he took no part in producing it; that the righteous should go into life ever- lasting, is predestination, since God had prepared it for them; that the wicked should go into the fire prepared, is foreknowledge, but not predestination, since it was prepared by God not for them, but for the devil and his angels. In a word, God predestines to life, but does not predestine to death, though He foreknows it; in opposition to the Pre- destinarians, as they now began to be called, who maintained that God predestined both to the one and to the other. This, under the term ‘double’ and ‘single’ predestination, became in after years the root and spring of the whole controversy. The propositions which Cassian and his party asserted to 0 SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. be the doctrines of the Predestinarians, though indignantly denied by Prosper, and certainly not to be found in the writings of Augustine, whom he professed to follow, seem nevertheless to have had some footing in the Church, even during the fifth century, of which we are speaking; and certainly in after years they formed the basis of the Pre- destinarian heresy. As we have before laid down the semi-Pelagian limit to the doctrine of predestination, so these may be considered as their boundary on the predes- tinarian side. 1. According to this theory, predestination is a fatality compelling men to sin. 2. Baptism does not in all cases wash away original sin, but only in the predestinated. 3. A holy and religious life is of no service towards salvation, though it may be considered a mark of election. 4. There is no such thing as a man working out his own salvation, inasmuch as free-will has no share in a work in which predestination does every thing. 5. The predestinated alone are objects of God’s mercy, and consequently it cannot be said that Christ died for all mankind. 6. Asa punishment for sin, God forces men into further sin. St. Augustine’s definitions could hardly be expected to satisfy the semi-Pelagians, though they seem to have been sufficient to restrain them within the bounds of orthodoxy. For many years afterwards there remained two distinct par- ties in the Church of Gaul, styling each other Predestinarians and semi-Pelagians, each accusing the other of heresy, but each sufficiently a check upon its adversary to prevent him from actually running into it. On the one side were Prosper and Hilary the layman, on the other the far greater names of Cassian, Hilary of Arles, and Vincent of Lerins. Nearly half a century elapsed before the controversy was openly renewed, during which time the Augustinians, as they were sometimes called, who were from the first in the minority, departed more and more from the doctrine of Augustine, and approached nearer and nearer to that of the propositions which they had originally disclaimed. SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. ¥ The immediate cause of the renewal of open dispute was a work written by a presbyter of the name of Lucidus, nomi- nally in defence of Augustine, really for the purpose of putting forward views of his own. His principal points seem to have been,—1. that the prescience of God is the cause of death to the wicked, and 2. that those who perish fall because they have not received from God grace sufficient for salvation. These views were first condemned by Faustus, Abbot of Lerins, and were afterwards brought before the Council of Arles, held in the year 475, and there pronounced to be here- tical. Lucidus himself retracted, but there is little doubt but that his followers maintained their heresy, and that it prevailed to a considerable extent, at least so far as France was concerned, during the remainder of the fifth and the beginning of the sixth centuries, for we find that in the second Council of Orange, held in the year 529, an anathema was pronounced against all those who maintain that any persons are predestinated to death. It is somewhat remarkable that this council was presided over by Cesarius, Bishop of Arles, who had been denounced by the opposite party as an Augustinian. His sentence, therefore, so recorded, may be considered as a witness that in the opinion of even that party predestination to death was not a doctrine to be derived from the works of that great father, upon whose dicta both parties seem to have taken their stand. We are not to imagine that questions on the subject of predestination, though originating in Gaul, were by any means confined to that Church. Between the dates of the Councils of Arles and of Orange the same questions had been raised in Africa, where Fulgentius, Bishop of Ruspina, had made use of the very expression subsequently condemned at the Council of Orange, and in his comments on Augus- tine had spoken of ‘predestination to eternal death.” This he appears to have done inadvertently, for he distinguishes very accurately between the two kinds of predestination that he mentions, asserting strongly that men are not predesti- nated to sin, which was the point insisted on by the Predes- 8 SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. tinarian heretics, but to the punishment which is the. due reward of a sinful life. Nevertheless, though the real senti- ments of Fulgentius appear to have been orthodox, his ex- pressions are sufficiently obscure and doubtful to render him a favourite authority with Predestinarian writers. So great indeed are the difficulties connected with this subject, that it need not be a matter of surprise that in those times, before the complete discussion of it had taken place, the most orthodox of doctors should have written incau- tiously. Gregory himself is not free from some imputation, not indeed of heterodoxy, for his general writings fully dis- prove it, but of carelessness; for when he says that in God’s treatment of the wicked in this life a greater sin is sometimes the fit punishment for a lesser, he lays himself fully open to the conclusion that under certain circumstances God pre- destines men to sin. Up to this date, however, we may consider the theory of predestination, as determined by the Councils of Arles and Orange, and generally accepted by the Church, to be com- prised within the following propositions :— 1. That God foreknows all things. 2. That God can condemn none but the guilty. 8. That God has willed all to be saved, and consequently that Christ died for all mankind. 4. That God has predetermined to save, through Christ, all who believe. 5. That none can either believe, or will, or do, without God’s free and unmerited grace. It may be observed that these articles are not altogether conclusive of the subject, nor absolutely reconcilable among themselves. Still, as abstract canons of belief, each indepen- dently capable of Scriptural proof, they seem to have settled the question for nearly two hundred years, during which time the opposing heresies of semi-Pelagianism and Pre- destinarianism appear to have sunk to rest. But though the controversy itself was at rest, this was by no means the case with the jealousy which existed between the Northern and Southern portions of the Gallican Church, so that when the question broke out again in the ninth cen- SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. 9 tury, we find the same opponents in the field, only now arranged on different sides. The revival of learning generally, and of theology in par- ticular, which had taken place in the Empire in the days of Charlemagne, produced, as an almost inevitable consequence, the revival of religious controversy. The immediate cause was the preaching of one Goteschal- cus, a monk of Orbais, who, having devoted himself to the study of St. Augustine’s works, again took up the questions which had been set at rest by the Councils of Arles and Orange, and revived the Predestinarian heresy in its most objectionable form. What that form was we learn from his letter to Rabanus, Archbishop of Mayence, by whom he had been accused of promulgating heretical opinions. He there states that the goodness of Almighty God has predestined to life and has willed to be saved indefectibly those sinners only whom God the Son came to redeem by the shedding of His blood, but that there were and are other sinners for whom He neither took a human body, nor offered up prayer, nor shed His blood, because in His omniscience He foreknew they would be irre- claimably wicked. These, he asserts, God has from the be- ginning predestinated to sin and to eternal punishment; so that in no sense it can be said that He wills such to be saved. And as a necessary corollary to this, he maintained that all those who are thus predestined to sin and death, though they be outwardly baptized, yet are not washed in baptism with the Blood of Christ. On the receipt of this letter, Rabanus, at the command of King Louis, summoned a synod, which condemned these and other propositions of Goteschalcus, who was warned to re- tract them. On his refusal, he was transferred to his own metropolitan, Hinemar, Archbishop of Rheims, the most learned man of his time, who for many years had been coun- sellor to the King, and, in fact, leader of the Church in France. The propositions of Goteschalcus were again brought for- ward before a provincial council, assembled for the purpose, at Quiercy, under Hincmar’s presidency. By this council ο 10 SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. they were pronounced heretical, and their author again re- fusing to retract them, was somewhat harshly condemned to scourges and imprisonment. There can be no doubt that, even politically and on its lowest grounds, this was a false step. Measures like these re-act invariably upon those who resort to them. If any- thing could have brought into favour the monstrous and heretical tenets which Goteschalcus had set forth, and had to the last refused to qualify or explain, much less to retract, it must be ascribed to the confusion which invariably starts up in the minds of men between sympathy for the suffermgs of the individual persecuted, and sympathy for the doctrines for which he suffers persecution. No sooner was the judgment of Quierey made known, than a host of controversialists started up from all sides to question its canons; and these not obscure individuals, like the monk of Orbais, whose sufferings form his principal claim to his- torical celebrity, but men of learning and piety, whose names have been handed down to posterity on far higher ground than their somewhat factious opposition to the canons of a provincial council. Among the first of these was the learned Ratramn, cele- brated for his controversy with Paschasius Radbert on the subject of transubstantiation. He wrote a treatise of some length in defence of Goteschalcus, in which he en- deavoured, though with no great success, to trace back to Augustine the theory of double predestination. He was followed by John Scot, generally known as Erigena, who was at that time master of the palace school, and represented what would now be called the Broad Church, or philosophical school of divinity. A far greater man was Florus, whose treatise eventually proved the means of setting the question . at rest, inasmuch as it formed the basis of the canons set forth by the Council of Valence, and accepted by the great Council of Tullum. To these may be added the great names of Prudentius and Lupus, the latter of whom, though now in some sense the apologist of Goteschalcus, had been the first to warn him of the dangerous tendency of his teaching. These desultory attacks upon Hincmar and his school SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. 11 were soon combined into a formal Church party or school of theology under the leadership of Remigius, who had some- what unexpectedly succeeded to the see of Lyons, which for the last three hundred years had been the jealous rival and perpetual opponent of that of Rheims. Still not one of the numerous controversialists adventured themselves into the heresies of the earlier Predestinarians. They adopted, indeed, the language of Goteschalcus, but were all alike so careful to qualify and explain it, that it is by no means easy to distinguish between their statements when divested of their peculiar phraseology, and those of Hinemar himself and the Council of Quiercy. They maintained in- deed, with Goteschalcus, that God did really and truly pre- destine certain men to eternal death, but they followed this startling proposition by the qualification that by predestina- tion to death they implied simply a determination on the part of God to punish the wicked,—which even Hincmar would have hardly denied. That God willed the destruction of some, while He determined the salvation of others, might sound heretical, but the heresy lost its pomt when it was explained that by the “ will of God” they meant that working and efficacious will which certainly no man could expect God would exert for the benefit of those who rejected Him; and when they asserted that “Christ did not die for all mankind,” the most orthodox could hardly object to the doctrine since they who held it affirmed that what they meant by it was that, if the death of Christ meant the benefits of eternal life, the unrepentant could not expect to profit by it. The conclusion which we must draw from this is, that on the actual doctrine of predestination there had ceased to be any dispute whatever, and that, after two hundred years of probation, the decisions of Arles, of Orange, and of Carthage had been in substance accepted by the whole Church. The question had been reduced to one of words only. It was not whether the doctrines of the older Predestinarians, which Goteschalcus had revived, were heretical, that was universally admitted, but whether certain expressions adopted by a pecu- liar school of theology did or did not logically involve those who used them in a heresy which all alike professed to 12 SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. abjure. This is evident from the cessation of all opposition between the schools of Hincmar and Remigius after the Council of Tullum, and from the fact that, while the acts of that Council were in a manner accepted, the cause of Gotes- chaleus was abandoned, he alone having utterly refused to qualify his statements by those explanations which had been resorted to by those who had nominally adopted his cause. The views of the two schools may be summed up by the decisions of the Councils or Synods of Quiercy and Valence respectively. The school of Hincmar maintained, as set forth in the canons of Quiercy,— 1. That there is but one predestination, whether of grace or punishment, and that though it may be said that God predestinates punishment to the impenitent, He does not pre- destinate death to any individual. 2. That free-will, which had been lost at the Fall, has been restored through the Incarnation, by preventing and assisting grace. 3. That God wills all men to be saved, though, from their own resistance to God’s grace given, some fall short of sal- vation. 4, As a consequence of this, that the blood of Christ is shed for all alike, whether they do or do not choose to avail themselves of it. In opposition to this, the canons of the Council of Valence, which may be considered as representing the tenets of the school of Remigius, affirm— 1. That Christ did not die for those who remain in their unbelief, and who therefore are punished eternally, but that He died for those, and those only, who believe in Him. 2. That the canons of the Councils of Carthage and Orange may not be added to or altered. This last, no doubt, was intended to impugn the assertion of Hinemar’s school, that “free-will was restored absolutely by the Incarnation,” a doctrine which was a considerable advance in the direction of Pelagianism from the position assumed by the former councils, “that none can believe, SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. 13 will, or do, except by the operation of God’s free and un- merited grace;” but at the same time it implied the re- cognition of all those canons which in earlier times had restrained the Predestinarians within the bounds of reason and orthodoxy. There can be no doubt, from internal evidence, that the proceedings of the Council or Synod of Valence had been founded on the Epistle which Florus had written, nominally in defence of Goteschalcus, but really for the purpose of stating the views of the moderate party. And as this Epistle is strictly orthodox, Florus having distinctly stated that by the death of Christ he intended to signify the benefits pro- cured by His death, it is evident not only that the grounds of the original controversy had already been considerably narrowed, but that the great question of predestination was rapidly drawing on to a settlement. As this Epistle may fairly be considered the basis upon which both parties practically laid aside their differences, we shall afford the best idea of the question as it existed in the ninth century by giving it entire’. At the command of King Charles the whole subject was brought before a General Council of the Gallican Church, held at Tullum, under the presidency of Remigius, Hincmar being present. At this Council the acts of the preceding synods were recited, and the whole was submitted by the ® Hincmar in his treatise strongly condemns this Epistle of Florus, which at first sight seems inconsistent ; since, though Florus was a follower of Re- migius, the sentiments which this copy contains are almost identical with his own as expressed in the very treatise which seems to condemn it; but it is evident that what Hincmar possessed then was the garbled and interpolated copy which was first sent him, not without the connivance of Ebo, to whose care Florus had committed it. It is impossible to fix the precise time when he received the true copy, “si- cut est de Eboni scrinio sumptus,” but we may easily imagine that it was not till after the Council of Tullum. The title under which it is here pub- lished, though it does not absolutely implicate Ebo in the fraud, alludes plainly to some other copy from which this letter differed. This may account for the sudden cessation of disputes following the Council of Tullum, which had promised no such happy results. Hinemar might readily lay aside his opposition to the party of Remigius when he received the true production of Florus, and discovered that the ar- ticles of the Council had been based upon a letter which, in its original form, and as it left its author’s hands, might almost be said to express his own opinions. This, of course, is little else than conjecture, but the fact that a false copy of the Epistle had been sent to Hinemar is historical. 14. SKETCH OF THE PREDESTINARIAN THEORY. king to the judgment of Hincmar, who was desired to con- fer with Remigius and to return an answer. This answer is contained in his celebrated treatise on pre- destination, which is still extant, and which forms by far the best authority we possess upon the subject. It contains, in- deed, but little original matter, and is anything rather than an argument or thesis on the subject of predestination ; it is, in fact, a string of quotations involving necessarily much repetition ; but this is in reality its principal excellence, that it does not express the opinions of the author only, or of his school, or of his age, but that it is a complete catena of everything that had been written on the subject ar- ranged and commented upon by the most learned divine of his age. It is not surprising that from that time forward we hear no more of predestination; the subject had been practically set at rest, and remained so for the next five hundred years, till the almost forgotten heresies of Goteschaleus were again revived and presented to the world by the far more acute and subtle theologian, Calvin. SERMO FLORI DE PREDESTINATIONE, SICUT EST DE EBONIS SCRINIO SUMPTUS. Axmicuty God, since He is most truly the true and only God, has by His own eternal and unchangeable knowledge foreknown all things before they were done, as the Scripture testifies, saying, “Eternal God, who understandest secret things, who knowest all things before they are done.” He foreknew, therefore, without doubt, both the good deeds that the good would do, and the evil which the wicked would do: in the good He wrought by His grace that they should be good, but in the case of the wicked He did not cause that they should be wicked (which be far from Him!) but merely foreknew that they would be such through their own fault. For the foreknowledge of God has not imposed upon them such a necessity that they could not be otherwise than wicked; but only what they would be of their own free- will; this He, as God, foresaw by virtue of His Omnipotent Majesty. Whence the Scripture, pointing out to us His spotless justice, says of Him, “He hath commanded no one to act wickedly, neither hath He given to any man licence to sin.” So that inasmuch as unrighteous men act wickedly, and turn the space of this life, which God has given them to use for good purposes, to evil pursuits, the fault is not God’s, but their own, and so they are rightly damned by His justice. Moreover, the same Almighty God foreknew that the damnation of those would be eternal, whom He foresaw would persist in their own wickedness ; but that this would be in consequence of their own deserts, and not (which be far from Him) from His own injustice, Who has ordained nothing contrary to justice, and who will reward every man according to his works; that is to say, He will give to those who do good works, eternal blessings, and to those who do evil, eternal misery. Therefore in regard of 16 LETTER OF FLORUS. the good, He altogether foreknew both that they would be good by His grace, and by the exercise of the same grace would receive eternal rewards; that is, that both in the present life they would live rightly, and in the future would be rewarded blessedly,—but both from the gift of the mercy of God. Whence the Apostle calls them vessels of His mercy, saying, “ That He might shew the riches of His grace on the vessels of mercy which He hath prepared for glory.” On the contrary, however, He both foreknew that the wicked - would be wicked through their own depravity (maditia), and would be punished with eternal vengeance by His justice. Just as He foreknew concerning the traitor Judas, that “it was he who should betray Him,” as the Gospel says, “ when he was one of the twelve,” for He foreknew his eternal dam- nation when He said, ‘“ Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man shall be betrayed. It were good for him if that man had not been born.”” And so in the ease of the wicked Jews, He undoubtedly foreknew what their impiety would be, of which He spoke beforehand in the Psalm,—‘ They gave Me gall to eat, and in My thirst they gave Me vinegar to drink.” He foreknew also their subsequent damnation, concerning which He added in the same Psalm,—“ Let them be wiped out of the book of the living, and not be written among the righteous.” But in their case, as in the case of all the ungodly, wickedness arises from their own depravity, and then condemnation follows from the Divine justice. In this manner we must think of the predestination of God, because in the case of the good He has predestinated both their goodness which should spring from the gift of His grace, and their eternal reward for the same goodness; that by His gift they should be made good, and by His gift should be rewarded. Whence the Apostle says, ‘“‘ Who hath predestinated us to the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to Himself ;” and in another place, “Whom He foreknew He also predestinated to be conformed to the image of His Son.” He has therefore predestinated His elect, both that now they should be received into the adoption of sons of God by the grace of baptism, and hereafter be made con- formable to the image of the Son of God. He has pre- LETTER OF FLORUS. 17 destinated altogether that both here they should be good, not of themselves, but through Him; and that there they should be blessed, not by themselves, but by Him. In either case, therefore, He foreknew and predestinated His future blessings in them and concerning them; but in the wicked and impious, Almighty God did not predestinate wickedness and impiety, that is, that they should be wicked and impious, and that they could not be otherwise: but those whom He foreknew and foresaw would be wicked and impious through their own fault, He predestinated to eternal damnation by just judgment; not because they could not be otherwise, but because they would not. They themselves are therefore the cause of their own damnation, but God is the just Judge and Orderer of the damnation itself; for He has not predestinated what is unjust, but that which is just. He has predestinated therefore crowns for the righteous, and punishment for the ungodly, since each is just. And the Apostle, commending this justice to us, says, “15 God unjust who taketh vengeance ? God forbid.” Almighty God is not then the cause of death or perdition to any man, but the wicked procure for themselves death and perdition by their own deeds and words, while by acting wickedly, and more wickedly persuading others, they bring damnation both on themselves and others; while, loving the way of iniquity and perdition, they turn aside from the right path, and hasten as it were with their hands joined, with a like consent in wickedness, to everlasting damnation ; and being confederate with death, and enemies of eternal life, themselves, according to their hardness and impenitent heart, treasure up for themselves wrath against the day of wrath. In which day of the just judgment of God, because every one receives according to his works, no one is con- demned by a foregone judgment (prejudicio) of God, but by the desert of his own iniquity. For He has not predestinated that any one should be wicked, but He has predestinated with regard to every wicked man that he should not go unpunished; because also every just law has not a fault (crimen), lest it should be unjust, and yet it punishes the D 18 LETTER OF FLORUS. guilty (criminosum), that it may be truly just. He, there- fore, who says that they who perish are predestinated to perdition, and that therefore it cannot be otherwise, must likewise affirm this in the case of the righteous also, as if they are therefore saved, because, being predestinated to sal- vation, they could not be otherwise than saved. He, therefore, who talks so confusedly and foolishly, takes from the one the merit of damnation, and from the other the merit of salva- tion. And so what else is his meaning, but that, according to him, since the necessity of perdition is imposed on those who perish, so on those who are saved is imposed the necessity of salvation? And so neither can the one be damned with justice, because they could not be righteous; nor the other rewarded with justice, because they were not able to be any- thing but righteous. So that in either case both perdition and salvation does not result from the judgment of their own actions, but from the fore-judgment ( prejudicio) of the Divine pre-ordination. And then, where will be that ‘who will render to every one according to his works?” and again, “Ts God unjust who taketh vengeance? God forbid?” For the cause of the perdition of those who perish is openly re- ferred to God, if He has so predestinated them to destruction that they are not able to alter their condition. But to think or speak this is horrible blasphemy. But the faith of the Catholic Church, of which we ought to be the sons and fol- lowers, thus commends itself to us to be most firmly held, as we have briefly pointed out above according to the autho- rity of Holy Scripture, viz., that Almighty God foreknew in the case of the wicked their wickedness, because it is of them- selves, but did not predestinate it, since it is not of Him; but their punishment He both foreknew, because He is God, and predestinated, because He is just, so that in themselves lies the deserving of their own damnation, and in Him the power and judgment of justly condemning. For God does not pre- destinate anything but what He designs to do; but He fore- knows many things which He does not design to do, as all the wickednesses which wicked men do, and not He. Also, that the wicked themselves do not therefore perish because they could not be good, but because they would not be good, LETTER OF FLORUS. 19 and through their own fault arrived at the condition of vessels of wrath fitted for destruction, and continued in the mass of damnation, either by original or actual deserving of it. In the case of the good, however, Almighty God, as it has been sufficiently shewn above, both foreknew and pre- destinated that in the present life they should by His grace be good, and in the future also happy. For of each kind of their good, that is, both of their present and future, He Himself is the Author and Giver, and therefore without doubt, of each the Foreknower and Predestinator ; since they themselves by themselves not only cowld be otherwise, but also were otherwise, before that they were made righteous, from being unrighteous, by Him who justifies the ungodly. So that, whether in those who are saved or in those who perish, their own free-will is rewarded and their own free- will is condemned, But in the one, since by the grace of God our Saviour the will is healed, so that from wicked and depraved it becomes good and right, there can be no doubt that it is most worthily rewarded. But in the others, since the will does not submit to receive healing by the Saviour, most justly by the same Judge will it feel eternal damnation. And this in few words is the whole, which, according to the truth of the Catholic Faith, must be held concerning free-will. That is to say, that God has constituted every man capable of free-will; but because by one man sin en- tered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon all men, since all have sinned, so the free-will, belonging to the whole human race, being vitiated and corrupted by the fault of his sin, is so blinded and weakened that it suffices man for evil doing, that is, for the ruin of iniquity, and can be free to this alone; but to well-doing, that is, for the exer- cise of virtue and shewing forth the fruit of good works, in no way can it rise or be strong, unless by the faith of the one Mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus, and the gift of the Holy Spirit, it be restored, illuminated, and healed, as the Saviour Himself promises in the Gospel, saying, “Tf the Son shall set you free, then shall ye be free indeed.” And the Apostle says, ‘‘ Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” And that the human will is freed, illuminated, 20 LETTER OF FLORUS. and healed by this grace of Christ, and the Spirit of Christ, let that joyful exclamation of the Psalmist testify, “The Lord is my light and my salvation, whom then shall I fear?” Let him, therefore, who desires to receive this grace of liberty, so that he may become truly free to live piously and righteously, not presume on his own strength, but commit himself faithfully to Him to be healed and strengthened, concerning Whom the same Psalmist says, “‘Order my steps in Thy word, and so shall no wickedness have dominion over me.” COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. Tuts Epistle presents many and great difficulties, as most of those who have written upon it have confessed, on ac- count of the sublimity of the doctrines with which it deals. The language, particularly in the earlier chapters, is much involved, and requires the closest attention to unravel its meaning. The following excellent remarks from Alford’s Prolegomena may help to shew some of the difficulties that a commentator has to contend against in approaching this Kpistle. He says, following Sedulius®, that it is “by far the most difficult of all the writings of St. Paul. Else- where, as in the Epistle to the Romans, Galatians, and Co- lossians, the difficulties lie for the most part at or near the surface; a certain degree of study will master, not indeed the mysteries of redemption which are treated of, but the contextual coherence, and the course of the argument: or if not so, wili at least serve to point out to every reader where the hard texts lie, and to bring out into relief each point with which he has to deal: whereas here the difficulties lie altogether beneath the surface; are not discernible by the cursory reader, who finds all very straightforward and simple... . . All on the surface is smooth, and flows on un- questioned by the untheological reader; but when we begin to enquire why thought succeeds to thought, and one cum- brous parenthesis to another, depths under depths disclose themselves, wonderful systems of parallel allusion, frequent and complicated underplots. Every word, the more we search, approves itself, as set in its exact logical place ; we see every phrase contributing, by its own similar organization and a “Inter omnes Pauli Epistolis vel maxime et verbis et sensu involuta est.”— Sedulius, Introduction. 22 COMMENTARY ON articulation, to the carrying out of the organic whole. But this result is not won without much labour of thought, with- out repeated and minute laying together of portions and expressions, without bestowing on single words and phrases, and their succession and arrangement, as much study as would suffice for whole sections of the more exoteric Epi- stles.”’ The following argument is taken from St. Chrysostom :— “‘ Hphesus is the metropolis of Asia. It was dedicated to Diana, whom they worshipped there in an especial manner as their great goddess. Indeed so great was the superstition of her worshippers, that when her temple was burnt they would not so much as divulge the name of the man who burnt it. “The blessed John the Evangelist spent the chief part of his time there: he was there when he was banished, and there he died. It was there, too, that Paul left Timothy, as he says in writing to him, ‘As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus ».’ “ Most of the philosophers also, those more particularly who flourished in Asia, were there; and even Pythagoras himself is said to have come from thence; perhaps because Samos, whence he really came, is an island of Ionia. It was the resort also of the disciples of Parmenides, and Zeno, and Democritus, and you may see a number of philosophers there even to the present day. “These facts I mention, not merely as such, but with a view of shewing that Paul would needs take great pains and trouble in writing to these Ephesians. He is said indeed to have entrusted them, as persons already well instructed, with his profoundest conceptions ; and the Epistle itself is full of sublime conceptions and doctrines. “He wrote the Epistle from Rome, and, as he himself informs us, in bonds: ‘Pray for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the Gospel, for which I am an ambassador in bonds®.’ It abounds with sentiments of EU Limenions: © Ephes. vi. 19, 20. ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE ΤῸ THE EPHESIANS. pA] overwhelming loftiness and grandeur. Thoughts which he scarcely so much as utters anywhere else, he here plainly declares ; as when he says, ‘ To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the Church the manifold wisdom of God’ And again, ‘He hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places*.’ And again, ‘ Which in other places was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto His holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be fellow-heirs, and partakers of His in- heritance in Christ*’ ” It is satisfactory to know that the authorship of this Epistle was never called in question until very recent times, it having been universally ascribed to St. Paul. Some moderns, however, as De Wette and Bauer, have maintained that St. Paul was not the author. The former sees in it nothing but an expansion of the Epistle to the Colossians, written probably by some disciple of the apostles; while the latter imagines that he can trace in it the ideas and phrase- ology of Gnostic and Montanistic times. It is needless to say that such theories, however ingeniously framed, are worth- less as opposed to the consentient voice of the Church. But though there can be no doubt as to the authorship of the Epistle, much question has been raised as to whom it was addressed. In consequence of the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ & being a disputed reading, many have thought that it was not addressed to the Ephesians. Those, however, who main- tain this opinion, have not been able to agree as to whom it was addressed. Some, including Grotius, Hammond, Mill, Venema, Wetstein, Paley, &c., follow the idea started by the heretic Marcion, and think that the Epistle was written to the Church at Laodicea, and that we have here the Epistle addressed to that Church which is mentioned Col. iy. 16, and which is generally supposed to have been lost.. Arch- bishop Usher and others maintain that this was a circular Epistle, addressed to no Church in particular, but belonging 4 Ephes. iii. 10. colby ai, ΡΤ ΡΣ 66: & tb. 1.1. 24 COMMENTARY ON equally to all in the district to which it was sent. This opinion has been stoutly defended by Michaelis. It may be well briefly to mention the reasons which have led so many writers of eminence to deny that the Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians :— 1. On account of the passage in Tertullian adv. Marcionem, lib. v. c. 17, where he writes, ‘“ Ecclesize quidem veritate (i.e. testimonio Kcclesiz fide digno) epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos; sed Mar- cion ei titulum (inscriptionem) aliquando interpolare gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator.” And again, chap. xi.: ‘“ Preetereo hic de alia epistolA quam nos ad Ephesios perscriptam habemus, hewretici autem (Marcionite) ad Laodicenos.” But since the reason is not stated why Marcion affirmed that this Epistle was written to the Lao- diceans, it is plain that his mere assertion is valueless, as opposed to common consent. 2. Because in some old codices the words ἐν ’Edécw" are omitted. Reference is made to St. Basil adv. Eunom., lib. ii. c. 19, where he quotes Ephesians i. 1 thus, τοῖς ἁγίοις οὖσι, καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ *Inood, and adds, “ οἱ ὄντες are men united with τῷ ὄντι, with Him who is, i.e. with God. He calls these τοὺς ὄντας, κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν, as God is κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν called 6 dv. So also those who were before us handed it down, and we have found it in ancient codices.” It is evi- dent, however, that this is nothing more than play of the fancy. And it may be added that St. Basil, in what has gone before, has spoken of the Epistle as having been written to the Ephesians; he merely omitted the words ἐν ᾿Εφέσῳ in ver. 1. Let it be granted also that in some ancient codices these words are omitted, yet nothing follows from this but that those codices which omit the words may possibly be traced to Marcionite sources. 3. On account of some internal evidence which is thought to prove that the Epistle could not have been written to the Ephesians. These arguments are summed up by Conybeare and Howson}, and may be given as follows :— h Ephes. i. 1. 1 Life and Epistles of St. Paul, vol. ii. p. 405. ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 25 1. It would be inexplicable that St. Paul, when he wrote to the Ephesians, amongst whom he had spent so long a time, and to whom he was bound by ties of such close affec- tion/, should not have a single méssage of personal greeting to send. Yet none such are found in this Epistle. 2. He could not have described the Ephesians as a Church whose conversion he knew only by report*. 8. He could not speak to them as only knowing himself (the founder of their Church) to be an apostle by hearsay’, so as to need credentials to accredit him with them™. 4. He could not describe the Ephesians as exclusively Gentiles", and so recently converted®. It would occupy too much space to reply to these objec- tions. They are met and triumphantly refuted by Alford in his Prolegomena to the Epistle. It will be enough to say, in concluding this branch of the subject, that St. Ignatius», Clemens Alex.4, and Origen’ affirm that this Epistle was addressed to the Ephesians, and that it will be safest and wisest to adhere to this view. St. Paul was a prisoner when he wrote this Epistle’, and it is generally believed that it was written during his imprison- ment at Rome. Dr. Lardner fixes the date of it a.p. 61. It may, however, have been written any time between 61 and 63. Its object is so fully treated of in the observations which follow, that it will only be necessary to say here that it did not arise out of any circumstances peculiar to the Ephesian Church, but must be regarded as general in its character. CHA Ps 1. Ver. 1. Paul, an Apostle of Jesus Christ St. Paul uses this high title to shew, 1, that he is not acting under a mere earthly authority; and, 2, that he is not in league with the powers of darkness, as the false apostles were. 2 Acts xx. 17. p Epistle to the Ephesians. k Ephes. i. 15. 4 Ped. i. 5, and Strom. iv. p. 364, 1 Ib. ii. 2. edit. Sylb. m Tb. ili. 4. τ Cont. Cels., p. 122, edit. Spence. Tb, ii, 113 iv, 17. 5. Ephes. iii. 1; iv. 1; vi. 20. ΒΟΉ 1 159. Ὁ 135) ve 8. 26 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. I. This assertion of the true nature of his commission would be specially needed in dealing with people who, like the Ephe- sians, were conversant with magical arts‘. by the will of God, Understand the Father: (cf. 1 Cor. i. 1; 2 Cor. 1. 1; Col. 1.1; see also Gal. i. 1;) i.e. called to the apostleship by the will and command of God, not by my own merits. The use of this expression does not imply any inferiority of the Son to the Father, as the Arians maintained ; for, as St. Chrysostom says on verse 10, “ The Father willed, the Son wrought. But neither does it follow, that because the Father willed, the Son is excluded from the working, nor because the Son wrought, that the Father is deprived of the willing. But tothe Father and the Son all things arecommon. ‘For all Mine are Thine,’ saith He, ‘and Thine are Mine.’ ” The use of this expression is calculated to teach us how highly the doctrine of St. Paul should be prized; and we may also learn by inference the dignity of those who are rightly called to the ministerial office. to the saints which are at Ephesus, For the meaning of the word ‘saint,’ see observations on Phil. 1. 1. Cicumenius says,—“ Consider how great was the virtue of that time, that he addresses even men of the world as saints and faithful.” And St. Chrysostom, lamenting the degeneracy of his flock, exclaims, “ How great must the abun- dance of virtuous men then have been, (i.e. at Ephesus,) when even secular men could be called ‘saints’ and ‘ faithful.’ ” and to the faithful in Christ Jesus. Πιστοὺὴ, in other places, are simply of πιστεύοντες, but in this place they seem to be those who abide in the faith". The use of this word is remarkable, following so closely upon ἅγιοι, and involves the notion of perseverance. Cf. Rev. xvii. 14: καὶ ot μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ κλητοὶ καὶ ἐκλεκτοὶ καὶ πιστοί. It is as if he were not content with merely calling them ‘saints,’ * Acts xix. 19. ἃ Rosenmiiller. ver. I, 2. ] 27 ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. since “the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband*,” and in a certain sense the vessels used in the service of the temple, and the victims slain in sacrifice, were holy; there- fore he adds the title ‘ faithful,’ because, as St. Jerome says, ‘Faith proceeds from the will of one’s own mind, but sanc- tification is sometimes received from the bounty of the sanc- tifier, apart from our own willy.” The addition of the words, ‘in Christ Jesus,” is to be observed. ‘Many are faithful, but not ‘in Christ;’ for example, if one punctually restore a pledge. Therefore he set down, ‘in Christ,’ by way of distinction*.”” St. Jerome has nearly the same. St. Cyril*, speaking of the dignity of those who are about to be transferred from the order of Catechumens to that of the faithful, dwells with great force on the solemn character of this word. ‘ For as God,” he says, “is called Faithful, thou lkewise receivest this title, receiving in it a great dignity. For as God is called Good, Just, Almighty, the Artificer of the universe, so also is He called Faithful ; think, then, to how great a dignity thou art rising, being on the eve of sharing a title of God.” And again»: “ Think not it is a trifle thou receivest; thou, a wretched man, receivest the Name of God: for hear the words of Paul, ‘God is Faithful ;? and another Scripture, ‘God is Faithful and Just.’ ”” 2. The Apostle’s salutation. Cf. Rom.i. 7; 1 Cor. i. 3; 2Cor.i.2; Gal.i.3. Χάρις and εἰρήνη are connected together = 1 Cor. vii. 14. over, especially as it seems to have y Alford, quoting from Stier, says that in the use of these two expressions, ‘saints’ and ‘faithful, may be noticed already atrace of the two great divisions of the Epistle——God’s grace towards us and our faith towards Him. The re- mark is a good one. This, in all probability, is the dis- tinction which the Apostle meant to convey by the words ἅγιοι and πιστοί. There is, however, another interpreta- tion which has been put upon these words, which must not be passed received some countenance from Bing- ham. ἽΑγιοι, as opposed to πιστοί, is sometimes used to signify ‘the con- secrated,’ or the ‘clergy,’ as distin- guished from those of the laity who were also communicants, which last were called generally πιστοί. The reading, under this supposition, would be, “ Paul, &c., to the clergy and laity at Ephesus.” z Sedulius. 8. Lecture v. 1. Ὁ Introd. Lect. 4. 28 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. 1. as cause and effect, for χάρις is the cause of peace. These words may be referred alike to the Father and the Son, or they may have reference to each individually ; so that, as St. Jerome says, “ Grace may relate to God the Father, while peace is assigned to the Sone.” “He justly commenced with grace; for by grace both God is the Father of men, and by grace the Son also gave Himself a Ransom for τ. Hemmingius well says that “this prayer of the Apostle embraces the sum of the benefits of the Gospel.” St. Jerome makes use of this verse to shew the unity of the Father and the Son. Although there is here no special mention of the Holy Ghost, yet His agency must be understood as being implied*; for when the Apostle said, “Grace be to you,’ he included the Person of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as we receive grace, that is, the remission of sins, through the gift of the Holy Ghost. 3. Blessed be the God, Xe. Εὐλογητὸς ὁ Θεός, scil. €orw,—“ laudandus est Deus,”—let the highest praises be given to Him by me, by you, and by all; for, as far as man is concerned, to bless God is to praise Him; for we must remember that the word εὐλογητός, ‘ well spoken of,’ is not adequately rendered by our word ‘bless,’ which generally implies to wish happiness to another ἡ, EvAoyntés is a Hebrew form of expression, cf. Luke i. 68; Rom. i. 25, ix. 5; and even when standing by itself, without the addition of ὁ Oeds, is in the New Testament a title of God. Thus Mark xiv. 61: Σὺ εὖ ὁ Χριστὸς, ὁ vids τοῦ εὐλογητοῦ. It is to be observed that St. Paul begins his Epistle with the praise of God, as is the case with nearly all his other Epistles, that to St. Titus forming an exception; a lesson to us to preface all our undertakings with thanksgiving, and “to offer God the firstlings of our good deeds and words},” “ “χάρις recte Deo Patri tribuitur, | telligitur in extremis. Vel intelligitur tanquam Fonti bonorum, contra pax | in donis sibi appropriatis, qua sunt Christo, quia Pacificator noster est.”— | gratia et pax.”—G@orranus, in loc. Aretius. £ Johnson. 4 (cumenius. & 2 Cor. i. 3. © “Spiritum Sanctum non nominat, 4 Chrys., Hom. ii, in Rom. quia cum sit nexus Patris et Filii in- VER. 2,3.] ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 29 for it has been well said, ‘‘Gratice cessat decursus ubi gra- tiarum recursus'.” the God and Father i. e. God who is Father; distinguishing Him by a most feli- citous form of speech from the gods of the Gentiles. ‘“ Deus per essentiam Divinitatis; Pater per proprietatem genera- tionis*.” Of. Rom. xv. 6; 2 Cor. i. 3, and xi. 31; Col. 1. 3. See also John xx. 17, “I ascend unto My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God,” whence, as Alford suggests, it is not improbable that the expression took its rise. Bp. Andrewes! calls this “the style of the New Tes- tament.” of our Lord Jesus Christ, Through whose Incarnation alone all spiritual blessings are communicated to us. Who hath blessed ὁ εὐλογήσας. It here happens, as is not unfrequently the case in St. Paul’s writings, that the same word occurs, with scarcely any interval, in a different sense. EvXoyeiv above was laudare, ‘to praise;’ it is here ornare beneficiis, ‘to load with blessings,’ as Job xlii. 12. “Thus,” says Aretius, “God blessed Abraham and the other patriarchs; that is, He adorned them with various benefits; He enriched them; He made them terrible to their enemies; He gave them favour in the sight of men, and long life,’ &c. Gregorius well reminds us that ‘God dlessed us, though we were cursed through our own demerits.” Alford very properly objects to rendering εὐλογήσας ‘hath blessed,’ as the English ver- sion, preferring ‘who blessed,’ the historical fact in the counsels of God being thought of throughout the sentence. There is something very striking in the use of the past in- stead of the future tense in this verse. It is to shew the fixed character of God’s blessings, “ Not as though He does i « A Jaudibus Dei incipit, qui talia k Gorranus. eis donaverit que inferius continen- 1 Serm. xi., Of the Resurrection. tur.”—Primasius, i loc. 30 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. 1. not every day bestow upon us many benefits, but as shewing that they all derive their origin from the decree of eternal predestination, for all things which in the passage of time are wrought by God were before all eternity performed in His predestination™.” The fact is, that it is impossible to render this passage into English without losing the peculiar value of the aoristic form: it certainly is not ‘hath blessed,’ as if it were past, nor is it exactly as Alford says, ‘ who blessed,’ which has also a preterite signification, but it is ‘who blessed and blesses still,’ without any limit of time. us i.e. all the baptized members of Christ. It has been thought, however, that this word must be understood as referring to St. Paul, and, apparently, to the other apostles, while “ye also,” ver. 13, addresses the readers, as distinguished from the writer". The former interpretation, however, seems to be the best, as harmonizing more completely with what fol- lows in ver. 4, “that we should be holy,” and in ver. 5, “having predestinated us unto the adoption of children,” &c., each of which expressions must be understood as extending further than the apostles. with all Quantum ad animam, quantum ad corpus°—“ possible and exhaustive?.” This is evidently a Hebrew form of expression, (the preposition ἐν, ‘with’ or ‘in,’ being redundant,) im- plying, as Estius says, “ perfection rather than universality.” “And rightly he says in all; for thou hast become immortal, without sin, the son and brother of God, a fellow-heir with Him. And thy First-fruits is adored by the Cherubim %.” “He blessed us not with one benediction, but with all; not so that we may all obtain all, but so that while each of us obtains either single or several blessings from the whole, we may possess all through each’.’ So that each Christian man m Justinian, in loc. P Alford, Greek Test. Ὁ Conybeare and Howson, Life and 4 G@cumenius, in loc. Epistles of St. Paul, in loc. * St. Jerome, in loc. o Gorranus, in loc. ᾳ«ῳ- a VER. 3.] ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 31 may be truly said to have a Benjamin’s portion, a goodly heritage. spiritual blessing Εὐλογία πνευματική means blessings which do not relate to this transitory life, but belong to the immortal soul’. The use of the singular (ἐν πάσῃ εὐλογίᾳ πνευματικῇ) in this place is worthy of remark. With all, and yet but one blessing ; as if to shew that all spiritual blessings, of what kind soever, are so inseparably knit together as to make up but one blessing, so that where God gives one, He gives all, provided the blessing so given be turned to a right account. Cf. Phil. i. 6. The spiritual blessing which the Apostle speaks of in this place must be regarded as in direct contrast with the earthly blessings which God promised to the Jews, Levit. xxvi. 3—13; Deut. vil. 12, and following; xxviii. i. 14+ “ Not with blessings which pertain to earth, but with spi- ritual. For there are such earthly blessings as for one to have children, to have abundance of riches, to rejoice in honour and sound health; which kind of earthly blessing reaches even to beasts without reason, Gen. i. 22%.” But higher blessings than these are in store for Christians, “ For God has bestowed upon us the gifts of the Holy Spirit; He has given the hope of the resurrection, the promises of im- mortality, the promise of the kingdom of heaven, and the dignity of adoption to be sons*.” in heavenly places Ἔν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις, scil. τόποις: to shew that the per- fection of happiness which Christ promises to His faithful people will not be in the land of Canaan, but in the highest heaven. Alford remarks that this word occurs only five times in this Epistle, and nowhere else, and that it can only mean ‘in the heavenly places.’ Our country (πολίτευμα) * Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Ep. ad | rena abundantia.”—Primasius, in loc. ph. u St. Jerome, in loe. τ « Non carnali prosperitate, nec ter- * Theodoret, in loc. 32 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. 1. is in heaven, Phil. iii. 20; there are our treasures, Matt. vi. 20, 21, and our affections, Col. 111. 1; there our hope is laid up, Col. i. 5, our inheritance is reserved, 1 Pet.i.4; and there, in that place, and belonging to that state, is the ev- λογία, the gift of the Spirit, Heb. vi. 4, poured out on those who τὰ ἄνω φρονοῦσιν. Materially we are yet in the body ; but in the spirit we are in heaven, only waiting for the re- demption of the body to be entirely and literally there. St. Chrysostom interprets in the same way. ‘“ What, again,” he enquires, “is spiritual blessing in heavenly places? It is not upon earth, he means, as was the case with the Jews.” And then he quotes Matt. v. 8, 8, 11, 12; Phil. i. 20; Col. ii. ὃ. Aretius explains the expression thus, “ Ut spiritus carni opponitur, sic ceelum terre. Ccelestia sunt et spiritu- alia spes, fides, vera invocatio, constantia sub cruce, vera dilectio, cognitio Filii Dei, verus intellectus Scripturz, quo- rum omnium caput est vita eterna. His bonis nos benedixit Deus Pater.” Many writers, following him, have referred τὰ ἐπουράνια to heavenly things rather than places; but the sense which is thus obtained is weak and unsatisfactory. The expression “in heavenly places” must be connected with what goes before in this way,—By means of which spiritual blessing we are exalted to the regions of heaven, where our Head is even now seated at the Right Hand of God. Theo- doret gives the following as a reason for the introduction of this word: “Because some thought that the preaching (of the Gospel) was a new thing, and despised it as being of later date than the form of government under the law (τῆς νομικῆς πολυτεία5), of necessity he teaches something concerning this also.”’ in Christ: Some read Xpicr@, without the preposition, but the sense is the same; others would connect ἐπουρανίοις Χριστῷ, “Christi coelestibus,” 1. e. ccelestibus et ad Christum perti- nentibus. Of. 2 Cor. x. 7, δυνατὰ τῷ Θεῷ, “ Dei potentia,” i.e. having divine power. The expression means through Christ and His salutary VER. 8, 4.] 57. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 33 doctrine’, for on Christ rests the spirit of wisdom, &c., Isa. ΧΙ. 2, not merely for His own use, but so that He may com- municate it to His members’, and may become to us what Jeremiah, xxiii. 6, foretold He should be, “The Lord our Righteousness*.” It is probable that St. Paul introduced these words with special reference to Simon Magus and his fol- lowers, who feigned that there were more mediators than one. See Estius on this verse, and also Justinian. St. Chrysostom says, “in Christ Jesus.” “That is to say, this blessing was not by the hand of Moses, but by Christ Jesus; so that we surpass them (the Jews) not only in the quality of the blessings, but in the Mediator also. As moreover he saith in the Epistle to the Hebrews, (iii. 5, 6,) ‘And Moses verily was faithful in all his house as a servant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after; but Christ as a Son over His own house, whose house are we.’” And Ccu- menius in loc.: “ All things are by the Son, the good-will of the Father not being withheld”; for in nothing whatever is the will of the Father severed from His beloved Son.” “For our benediction is through Christ, and not through one of the prophets, as it was to the Jews through Moses°.” Bp. Andrewes? has the following excellent remarks on this verse. After saying that God’s blessing is real, and ours but verbal, he continues, “ His cum effectu ever; ours, if it be but cum effectu, that is all. His operative, ours but optative.”’ 4. According as Καθώς explains and expands the foregoing, shewing wherein the εὐλογία consists as regards us and God’s work- ing towards us.° q. d. Because God has so highly blessed us, (i.e. the saints and faithful) and not others, with all spiritual blessings, it must not be supposed that He has y Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Ep. ad | zpos. ph. © Hemmingius says of this verse,— Piscator in loe. ‘““Vide quam multa et quam divina * “ In Christo, i.e. merito Christi, | paucissimis verbis complexus est Apo- vel Christo operante.”— Gregorius, in | stolus.” loc. 4 Serm. xi., Of the Resurrection. > τῆς εὐδοκίας συμπαρούσης τοῦ πά- © Alford, Greek Test. F 94 COMMENTARY ON [CHAP. I. done this lightly, or at hazard, much less that it is on account of any merits of our own; for, as Piscator well remarks upon this place, “Since God chose us in Christ to life eternal before the foundations of the world were laid, it follows that no one by his own works merits of God that he should be chosen.” Cf. Rom. ix. 11. He hath chosen éfexéfaro—Alford renders “selected”? in preference to ‘elected,’ as better giving the middle sense—‘ chose for Hin- self’—and the ἐξ he considers as signifying that it is a choosing out of the world. “Exdéyeo@ar-has various mean- ings in the Holy Scriptures. In the Old Testament it means election to the possession of the promised land—to the knowledge of the law—to the kingdom—to the priest- hood, &c. In the New Testament also it bears several dif- ferent senses—election to the apostleship, diaconate, or any special office. It often signifies the approval of those who believe the Gospel. See James ii. 5. Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28; 2 Thess. 11. 13, and many well-known passages in the Epistle to the Romans. We shall, perhaps, best arrive at the meaning of the ex- pression ἐν αὐτῷ ἐξελέξατο by comparing it with εὐλογήσας ἐν Χριστῷ, in the preceding verse, with which it is closely connected. If there were any doubt about this, the use of the word καθώς (exegetical and expansive) would remove it. The connexion, then, will run thus: God d/essed us in Christ, according as He chose us in Christ!—i. e. His actual present blessing is correspondent to what He decreed before the foundation of the world. Now the subject matter of our blessing is a holy and blameless conversation, good works, Christian obedience, &c.—; and this is the general matter of the e/ection here spoken of; not salvation and eternal bliss m a future state, but holiness and obedience here. Estius says, “God bestows us in fime benefits through Christ, which from eternity He decreed He would give us through Him.” f «He by whom He hath blessed us is the same by whom He hath also chosen us.”—S¢. Chrys. in loc. vER. 4.7 51. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 35 us The Apostle himself, the Ephesian Casa and the faithful of every time and place. in Him i.e. Christ; q.d. God from eternity decreed Christ as the One Way of salvation, in which sense He is His Elect, so that all who in ¢éme should be united to Him by Sacra- ments, should be partakers of the election. It is important that this should be clearly apprehended, since there is no such thing as election apart from Christ. God’s election is in Him, and the benefits of it flow down to us through a living union with Him. As long as this union is preserved we are elect; but when it is broken we cease to be so, and become reprobate; not, indeed, through any decree of God which assigns us a place among the lost,*but e# necessitate rei, because there is no such thing as salvation disjoined from Hin. St. Augustine’ after quoting 1 John ii. 1, 2, proceeds to say in explanation of the words, “but also of the whole world,” “The Church is the whole world . . . but this world, which God in Christ reconcileth to Himself, and which is saved through Christ, and which through Christ hath all its sin forgiven, is elected out of the world which is at enmity, condemned, contaminated.” This extract accurately de- scribes God’s election, shewing it to be a corporate election of the whole Church, and not a personal election of individual believers. Hooker has some excellent remarks on this sub- ject. ‘We are in God through Christ eternally, according to that intent and purpose whereby we were chosen to be made His in this present world, before the world itself was made; we are in God through the knowledge which is had of us, and the love which is borne towards us from everlast- ing. But in God we actually are no longer than only from the time of our actual adoption into the body of His true Church, into the fellowship of His children. For His Church § Hom. Ixxxvii. in Joh. h Weel. Polit., Book v. lvi. 36 COMMENTARY ON ; [CHAP. I. He knoweth and loveth; so that they which are in the Church are thereby known to be in Him. Our being in Christ by eternal foreknowledge saveth us not without our actual and real adoption into the fellowship of His saints in this present world. For in Him we actually are, by our actual incorporation into that society which hath Him for their Head, and doth make with Him one Body.” This is all that it concerns us to know, and it is our wisdom not to enquire further, being mindful of the advice of holy Bishop Andrewes', “that we are not curiously to enquire and search out of God’s secret touching reprobation or election, but to adore it.” before the foundation of the world, Πρὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου. This expression is peculiar to ‘this place, (we have ὠπὸ καταβολῆς κόσμου, Matt. xiii. 35 ; » Luke xi. 50; Heb. iv. 3, in the sense of ab eterno), and is evidently borrowed from building. Καταβολή is a highly expressive word, indicating the very first beginning of any- thing, specially of a house, and at once dispels the dreams of the Manichees and others*; for “ Paul desiring to shew that God made all things out of nothing, referred to Him not the building, nor the creation and workmanship, but the κατα- βολήν, that is, the beginning of the foundation !.” For similar forms of expression see Eph. 11. 3—d; Col. 1.26; 1 Cor. 1.7; 2 Tim.i. 9, compared with Matt. xxv. 34. St. Augustine on Ps. xxxiil. 11, says, “ Before the creation of the world He saw us, He made us, He healed us, He sent unto us, He redeemed us. This His counsel standeth for ever, these His thoughts to all generations.” In using these words St. Paul intended to shew the superi- ority of the Christian over the Jewish Dispensation. The Jews dated their election from Abraham; but in the Divine counsel Christ, in whom Christians are elected, was long before Abraham™. ‘ And this is a point which he is anxious to prove in almost all his Epistles, that ours is no novel * Serm. xi., On the Lord’s Prayer. increata,—Cornelius ἃ Lapide. * «Hoe addit contra Platonicos di- 1 St. Jerome, in loc. centes Deum creasse omnia non ex m John viii. 58. nihilo, sex ex materia sibi cowterna et VER. 4. | ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 37 system, but that it had thus been figured from the very first, that it is not the result of any change of purpose, but had been in fact a Divine Dispensation ordained from the beginning, and that as such it is matter of providential care®.” *“ And beautiful is that word ‘foundation,’ (καταβολή), as though he were pointing to the world as cast down from some vast height. Yea, vast indeed and ineffable is the height of God, so far removed, not in place, but in incommunicableness of nature; so wide the distance between creation and Creator ! A word which heretics may be ashamed to hear®.”” And so (Ecumenius, in loc.:—‘‘ For the word ‘foundation’ (κατα- βολή) shews that from a certain height of the Divine Power the world was cast down.” It must not be concluded from this passage, as some have hastily done, that because God from eternity decreed that Christians should become partakers of the election in Christ, He therefore decreed the fall of man and its consequences. It is one thing to ordain, another to foreknow. God or- dained the creation of man in His Own Image, that he should be just, holy, pure and good; and it was His Paternal will that he should continue so. God indeed foreknew that man, being deceived by the devil, would fall from this state of in- nocence ?; but this was not to ordain the fall. Nay rather (if it may be said with reverence) the fall was in direct vio- lation of the ordinance of God. He foreknew the malignant nature of the disease which would be entailed by the fall, and therefore, in ineffable love and mercy, He ordained a remedy, viz. the election of fallen man in Christ Jesus. So that the foreknowledge of God was not the cause of the fall, but rather the fall the cause of the foreknowledge. Non enim pendet res a scientid, sed scientia a re. that we should be Εἶναι ἡμᾶς--τ-οο fine ut essemus’. Before εἶναν we must 1 St. Chrysos., in loc. P “Cui (Deo scil.) omnia futura ° St. Chrysos., in loc. These last | prasentia facta sunt.”—Sedulius. words refer to the Manichees, and per- 4 Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Ep. ad haps the Arians. | Eph. 98 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. 1. supply eis τὸ, or πρὸς τὸ, or ὥστε, or ἕνεκα. He here ex- plains the effect of election; not, indeed, the whole, but that which we attain to in this life. Elsewhere he mentions “salvation ” as the final end of election. See 2 Thess. ii. 13. It is to be observed that the Apostle does not say God chose us because we were holy, or because in His prescience He knew that we should be holy, but that we should be holy* ; lest, on the one hand, with Origen, who followed the Plato- nists, we should suppose that souls, before they were enclosed in bodies, had done something in another life, on account of which they were chosen; or, on the other, conclude with Pelagius that men are chosen by God on account of their merits which He foresaw *. Cornelius ἃ Lapide remarks on this place that God did not choose us that we should remain holy, (since if it were so it would be difficult to account for the falling away of so many of the baptized,) but that should Je holy; the first grace of election being signified, and nothing being said or implied about the indefectibility of the grace so given. holy and without blame Alford calls this the positive and negative sides of the Christian character. “‘Holy’ as of the general positive category, ‘without blame’ as of the non-existence of any exception to it.”” Christians must be ‘holy,’ for as those who are mentioned Acts xxvii. 31 could not come safe to land if they left the ship, so no man can reach heaven but by abiding x «Non quia prescivit nos futuros bonos; sed quia Ipse preescivit se nos bonos facturum.”—Giregorius, in loc. “Non guia sancti essemus; sed wt sancti essemus.”— Gorannus, in loc. “Non ait Paulus elegit nos ante constitutionem mundi cum essemus sancti et immaculati, sed eligit nos ut essemus sancti et immaculati, hoc est, qui sancti et immaculati ante non fuimus, ut postea essemus.”—St. Je- vome, in loc. 5 St. Aug. Hom. Ixxxvi. in Joh.speak- ing of the words “ Not ye have chosen Me,” says, “ Here at any rate there is no room for the vain presumption of those who uphold God’s foreknowledge against His grace, and say that the ground of our being elected before the foundation of the world was this, that God foreknew that we should be good, not that He would make us good. Not this, saith He, who saith ‘Not ye have chosen Me.’ For if He chose us on this ground, that He foreknew that we should be good, He would at the same time have foreknown that we should first choose Him.” And again, in thesame Hom., “ We were evil, and were elected that we might be good through the grace of Him that elected us.” ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE ΤῸ THE EPHESIANS. 39 in holiness. Cyrus was moved to restore the captivity by finding himself fore-appointed to this glorious work 170 years before he was born, (Isai. xliv. 28,) and should not Christians much more be stimulated to good works by re- membering that they were elected to them? vER. 4. | without blame Under the Old Law the rams and oxen which were offered to God were required to be ἄμωμοι, Exod. xxix. 1; Levit. i. 3,10, &c. Under the New Law Christians are bound to offer themselves, Rom. xii. 1, there- fore it is right and proper that they too should be ἄμωμοι. See chap. v.27; Phil. ii. 15; Col. i. 22; 2 Pet.iu.14; Jude 24; Rey. xiv. 5. In this sense Christians are said not to sin, 1 John iii. 6. 9. No doubt some allusion is here intended to the followers of Simon Magus; 4. d. God has not chosen us to practise the impurities which they commit under the name of religion, but to lead holy and self-denying lives. before Him Κατενώπιον αὐτοῦ, so as always to remember that the inmost recesses of our mind are open to God, which will be - the surest cure of hypocrisy’. Alford understands this ex- pression as being thoroughly penetrated with the Spirit of holiness, bearing His searching eye, (see chap. v. 27), but at the same time implying an especial nearness to His presence, and dearness to Him, and carrying with itself a foretaste of the time when the elect shall ‘“‘ serve Him day and night in His temple and He that sitteth on the throne shall dwell among them.” Rev. vii. 15. apomor—sine vitio. t Bence explains these words thus integro corpore nullum fecere pecca- —“ Sancti sumus per remissionem tum, et tamen non sancti, quia sancti- peccatorum ; immaculati, seu irrepre- hensibiles per observationem manda- torum.” St. Jerome, in loc., draws the fol- lowing distinction between the words: —“Inter sanctum et immaculatum hoc interest, quod sanctus et immacu- latus quoque intelligi potest; imma- culatus vero non statim et sanctus. Parvuli quippe immaculati sunt, quia tas voluntate et studio comparatur.” Haymo observes the same distine- tion, considering that a person be- comes immaculatus at baptism, but “ sanctus’ by the gradual develop- ment of the spiritual life in the soul. « Rosenmiiller, Scholia in Ep. ad Eph. vy «Non in hypocrisi, coram homi- nibus.”—Sedulius, in loc. 40 COMMENTARY ΟΝ [CHAP. I. “For there are holy and blameless characters who yet are esteemed as such only by men, those who are like whited sepulchres, and like such as wear sheep’s clothing. It is not such, however, He requires, but such as the Prophet speaks of, (Ps. xviii. 24): ‘And according to the cleanness of my hands.’ What cleanness? That which is so ‘in His Eye- sight.’ He requires ¢hat holiness on which the Eye of God may look ’.” It is not easy precisely to fix the meaning of this phrase, for besides signifying collectively what has already been said, it may mean either (1) in an especial or surpassing degree, in which case it would be equivalent to ἐναντίον, see Gen. x. 9, » (LXX.) ‘He was a mighty hunter before the Lord’—=an ex- ceeding great hunter; and then the use of the phrase in this place would denote the intensity of our holiness. Or (2), for ever—‘ The children of Thy servants shall continue, and their seed shall stand fast in Thy sight,” Ps. cii. 28, shewing the perpetuity of the Christian’s holiness. Or (8), before the tribunal of God. Of all the simple senses this, which makes κατενώπιον equivalent to coram, is decidedly the best—before Him as a Judge. It is this ultimate vindication of his righteousness before the bar of God, which is ever uppermost in the Christian’s mind, while, on the other hand, “ the un- godly shall not be able to stand in the judgment *.”’ in love: There is much variety of opinion as to the position and rendering of these words: Cicumenius refers them to ἐξελέ- ξατο in the preceding verse, understanding thereby the love of God towards us’. St. Chrysostom, Theodoret, and Theophy- lact, join them with προορίσας which follows, making the meaning run thus, “ Who, through the love wherewith He loved us, predestinated us to the adoption of sons.” There is a great deal to be said in favour of this interpretation, since Holy * St. Chrysos., in loe. Bengel.—‘We join ἐν ἀγάπῃ with SEG τσ, verse 5. ‘For in His love He pre- y “In charitate, id ex mera sui | destined us to be adopted among His charitate qua nos dilexit et sancti- | children,” ἄς, Conybeare and How- ficat.”— Gregorius. son. 2 “In amore predestinans nos.” VER. ὅ.] 8ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 41 Scripture everywhere assigns our election and ultimate salva- tion to the love of God,—“‘ For God so loved the world *,” &c. Upon the whole, however, it seems best to take these words as they occur in the English Version. God chose us, that we should serve Him in holiness and purity of life; and this not from fear of punishment, but from love, “so that the love of God should make our conversation holy. Jor no one obeys another better than he who serves from love”.”? Alford has some excellent remarks on this word. He says the qualifica- tion ἐν ἀγάπῃ is in the highest degree solemn. “Ayaan —that which man lost at the Fall, but which God is, and to which He restores man by redemption,—is the great element in which, as in their abode and breathing place, all Christian graces subsist, and in which emphatically all perfection before God must be found. And so when, in chap. iv. 16, the Apo- stle is describing the glorious building-up of the Church, he speaks of it as increasing εἰς οἰκοδομὴν ἑαυτοῦ ἐν ἀγάπῃ: and it is his practice in this, and the parallel Epistle (that to the Colossians), to add ἐν ἀγάπῃ as the completion of the idea of Christian holiness. See chap. i. 18, v. 2; Col. i. 2. Ver. 5. The Apostle repeats and strengthens what he has already said, both because he is full of the remembrance of the overwhelming love of God in electing fallen and de-: graded man to eternal salvation ; and because this election, although its purpose is one, involves many things; as, for example, holiness, friendship with God, adoption to sonship, inheritance in heaven, &c.; for strictly speaking, it is one thing to be holy, another to be a son of God, another to be His friend, and so on; and God might, if He so had willed, have chosen us to holiness of life, and yet not have adopted us to be His sons, much less have given us an inheritance co-extensive with that of His Own Son in heaven. Before entering upon the consideration of this and the following verse, it will be well to observe that they divide themselves into six distinct portions :— SE EE — EEE a τ ἝὕὈςςς-ςς---- aaa a St. John iii. 16. > St. Ambrose, in loc. So also St. Anselm. G 42 COMMENTARY ΟΝ [ CHAP. I. 1, The stebadl act,—“ a price ane 2. the temporal object,—“ us” 3. the present good,—“ unto the adoption of children” 4. the future fruit,— to Himself,” 5. the gratuitous way of bringing this about,—“ according to the good pleasure of His will,” 6. the ultimate issue,—‘ to the praise of the glory of His grace.” Having predestinated IIpoopifewv means ‘to define beforehand, and to circum- scribe within certain local limits; and the use of the word in this place shews that God from eternity fixed certain boundaries within which His Church should have its action and develope itself, and commensurately with which His de- cree of predestination should extend. The word occurs only in Acts iv. 28, Rom. viii. 29, 1 Cor. τὶ. 7, and Eph. i. 5, 11. St. Ambrose, én Joc., says, ‘God decreed that those who be- lieve in Christ should be adopted into the relationship of sons by God, so that Christ, the true Son of God, should be their Head.” He did not indeed ordain the number of believers, (though of course He foreknew this,) much less did He place an irresistible decree of election and reprobation in the way of any man’s free-will; He simply determined that the bene- fits of His eternal predestination should be enjoyed within certain limits, and that those limits should be the boundaries of His Church, out of communion with which (as far as Re- velation goes,) salvation is not to be obtained. It is well worthy of remark that so early a writer as Hermas, in his Book of Visions, constantly speaks of the “elect” as identical with the Church; and Professor Browne’ remarks, “ We even find language which seems to prove that Hermas considered the elect as in a state of probation in this world, which might end either in their salvation or in their con- demnation ἃ. ¢ Exposition of the Thirty-nine Ar- | usque in hodiernum diem, et si toto ticles, p. 395. corde suo egerint pcenitentiam, et ἃ “Tune remittentur illis pec- | abstulerint a cordibus suis dubi- cata, que jam pridem peccaverunt, | tationes. Juravit enim Dominator et omnibus sanctis qui peccaverunt | Ile, per gloriam suam, super electos VER. 0.] ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 43 It is, of course, well known to all students of ecclesiastical history that predestination and election have, from compara- tively early times, been a most fruitful source of discord among Christians, and that at least six interpretations of the doctrine comprised in these words have been vindicated with more or less ingenuity by different distinguished theologians. Holy Scripture, Fathers, and Councils have successively been ap- pealed to by a long array of writers; and so gigantic have the proportions of the controversy become (involving, as it does, the collateral doctrines of original sin, free-will, and final perseverance,) that it would be impossible to review it, even in the briefest way, in this place. It may, therefore, suffice to say that though, in ascending the stream of anti- quity, it is difficult to ascertain with precision what was the teaching of the apostolic Fathers on this important matter, yet it may confidently be affirmed that no expression can be found in their writings at variance with what has been given above as the teaching of the Catholic Church. It is also certain that as we approach later times, when philosophy had given a fixedness to the language of theology, the judgment of all the Fathers of best repute is in favour of corporate election in the Church. There is, however, one notable exception, whom all contending parties have been eager to claim,—St. Augustine of Hippo. It is not without reason that he has been suspected of holding doctrines closely allied to what may be called particular redemption (personal election) and final perseverance. But great as his authority undoubtedly is, it must not be forgotten with what disfavour his opinions on predestination were received even in his own day ; and the vigorous protest of the Gallican clergy, with St. Hilary at their head, is the plainest evidence of what the feeling of the Church then was on the subject. Not, how- ever, that St. Augustine’s doctrine was without its supporters, some of whom (as is often the case under similar cireum- stances,) outdid their master; and so, in the controversies which arose after his death, we meet with the names of Lucidus, condemned at the Synod of Arles, a.p. 475, where, suos, preefinita ista die, etiam nunc | illum salutem.” — Hermas, lib. i. Si peccaverit aliquis, non habiturum — vis. ii. 2. 44 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. I. however, he retracted, and Goteschaleus, a Benedictine monk of the diocese of Soissons, a.p. 840°, both of whom went far beyond their great master in their views of predestination. It was reserved, however, for Calvin to systematize and finish the work which the disciples of Augustine had been carrying on with but indifferent success durmg many gene- rations. It was he who gave to the doctrine of predestina- tion a logical precision such as it had never borne even in the days of St. Thomas Aquinas, and such as may safely be affirmed would have astonished the illustrious Father who was asserted to have been its apostle. The doctrine of pre- destination, as it left the hands of Calvin, appears to have been to the effect that not only are the elect saved by an irreversible decree, but that the reprobate are also damned by a like irreversible decree; that the fall of man was or- dained, and that the elect are called in such a way that they cannot by any perverseness of their own entirely fall away from grace given and fail of eternal glory. This doctrine, as might have been expected, has found many favourers, and has been a prolific source of evil living. us 1.6. the baptized. See verse 4. unto the adoption of children Eis vioOeciav. The Apostle here indicates the aim and object of predestination, viz., that we should be called, and should be, the sons of God by adoption. This predestina- tion may be regarded in a twofold light: (1), that which is begun in this life; and (2), that which is completed in the next. It is to the first of these that the Apostle here alludes, as appears from verse 4, where he speaks of the Ephesians, not as being elected to glory in a future state, but to holiness of life in this; and the whole structure of the Epistle requires the adoption of this interpretdtion, since St. Paul does not deal with Christians as being secure of salvation, but as needing much watchfulness and perseve- € See Introductory Sketch of the Theory of Predestination and Letter of Florus. VER. 5.] ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE ἸῸ THE EPHESIANS. 45 rance for the attainment of it. See especially chap. vi. 10, and following. The word viofecia accurately describes our relation to God. We are indeed His sons, but adopted sons, Christ being His only natural Son; for, as Aretius well remarks, “Christus Filius est φύσει, non autem θέσει, 1.6. adop- tione’:” and Sedulius, “Nam Salvator Ejus natura Filius est, non verd adoptione.” <“ According to this, that He is the Only-begotten, He hath not brethren; according to this, however, that He is the First-begotten, He hath deigned to call brethren all who after and through His First-born-ship (primatum) are born again unto the grace of God through the adoption of sons, as the apostolic teaching instructs us. The Son by nature, therefore, of the very substance of the Father, was He the only one born, being that which the Father is, God of God, Light of Light; but we are not by nature the Light, but are enlightened by that Light, that we may be able to shine with wisdom®’.” “Though Scripture testifies that our Lord Jesus Christ is the only Son of God, it says that the brethren and coheirs whom He hath vouchsafed to have, are made so by a kind of adoption through Divine grace*.” “We are sons whom He hath made sons by His Own will, not begotten, as sons of His Own nature... . begotten by the favour of His adoption, not by nature’.” See also the whole of St. Augustine’s 108th Homily on the New Testament, against the Pelagians. by Jesus Christ Not regarded simply as God, but as Θεάνθρωπος, the Mediator, the Head of the predestinated, in whom elemen- tally and instrumentally our adoption consists*, and in Whom F “ἐ υἱοθεσία, proprié ‘adoptatio in s St. Augustine, de Fide et Sym- filium.’? Die Aufnahme an Kinder- | bolo, 6. statt, admission into a state of h St. Augustine, Hom. i. in Nov. filiation. Adoptati Grecis viol θετοὶ | Test. 28. (xviii.) dicebantur, monente Schol. ad Pind. i St. Augustine, Hom. Ixxxix. in Ol. ix. 95. Hesych. υἱοθεσία' ὅταν tis | Nov. Test. i. θετὸν υἱὸν AauBaver—NSchleusner, im k Rom. viii. 29. verb. 40 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. I. we have all things. ‘Id est, meritis, Jesu Christi, tanquam totalis causa qué participiemus totalem effectum preedestina- tionis, qui est ipsa essentialis beatitudo!.”” “Do you observe how that nothing is done without Christ? nothing without the Father? The one hath predestinated, the other hath brought us near. For great indeed are the blessings be- stowed, yet are they made far greater in being bestowed through Christ; in that He sent not any servant, though it was to servants He sent, but the Only-begotten Son Him- selfm.”” “Tt is great indeed to have been brought to the adoption of God, but it is greater that this should have ac- crued to us as a matter of mediation through the Son. But to what kind of adoption? That, he says, which conducts to God. Himself™.”’ to Himself, Some read εἰς αὐτὸν, others εἰς αὑτὸν, if the former is adopted the meaning will be in ipsum, 1.6. Christ; viz., that we should be members of Him, and shewing that our adop- tion to be sons of God, and whatever grace or glory is con- ferred on men, tends towards Christ, or Christ’s honour and glory, as the final cause of our predestination. If, on the other hand, εἰς αὑτὸν is received, the meaning will be ad sese, 1.6. the Father; ‘“sese Ipsum spectans unum°:” so that we should become partakers of the Divine nature. Lither inter- pretation gives a good sense, but it must be remembered that αὐτὸν has the authority of Theodoret, who says, ‘“ Now this expression (εἰς αὐτὸν) means ‘the Father,’ instead of, ‘that we should be called His sons.’” It is evident that if he had read εἰς αὑτὸν there would have been no need for him to go out of the way to tell us the expression referred to the Father. Rosenmiller says εἰς αὑτὸν is put for the dative, after the manner of the Hebrew $5; so that it may be rendered ‘to His honour,’ or, ‘for His own sake,’ (Cf. Rom. xi. 36, com- pared with Heb. 11. 10), 1.6. so that God may be acknow- ledged, and may be therefore worshipped. ! Gregorius, in loc. m §t. Chrys., in loc. Ὁ (Hcumenius, in loe. ° Justinian, in loc. VER. ὅ.] 51. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS, 47 according to Le. In pursuance of. the good pleasure, Xe. St. Chrysostom understands this to mean, “because He earnestly willed it; that is, as one might say, His earnest desire.” ‘“ What he means to say, then, is this, God earnestly aims at, earnestly desires, our salvation.” And so Theodoret, “For this He willed, this was pleasing to Him, for Scripture is wont to place εὐδοκίαν, that is, ‘ good pleasure,’ for the de- termination of affecting with kindness.” “Εὐδοκία is a word peculiar to the sacred writings, and was first coined as an equivalent to the Hebrew Ratson. It has two meanings, beneplacitum and benevolentia, (the simple placitum of St. Jerome falling short of the sense,) and the context must determine which is to be adopted. The mean- ing is, God has predestinated us, not being moved thereto by any merits or works on our part, but by the mere good pleasure of His will. “For all this He wrought towards us, for no other reason, indeed, except that He willed and earnestly desired to save by grace those who are upon the earth, so that thereby the holy glory of His grace should be praised and magnified?.”’ Bengel very properly cautions us not to go beyond this beneplacitum of God, in prying into the grounds of either our own salvation or of any of the Divine operations. Rosenmiller (very much to the weakening of the dees makes a hendiadys between the two substantives, ‘ good. pleasure,’ and ‘will;’ “pro libero et benevolo consilio suo.” It is better to interpret with Haymo, “Secundum quod dis- posuit in voluntate sui%.” P @cumenius, in loc. “ @¢Anua | ac voluntas Dei; non autem aliquid generale est, significans voluntatem | ex parte voluntatis nostra previsum & tam gratie quim ire; sed εὐδοκία Deo; licet inter effectus predestina- solum gratie est voluntas.’”—Aretivs. | tionis ordo sit, secundum quem unus 4 “Nam ut annotat S. Thomas, causa | ad alterum, ut gratia ad gloriam, tan- preedestinationis nostra est purusamor | quam meritum ad mercedem ac pra- 48 [cuap. 1. COMMENTARY ON Ver. 6. He here describes the final cause of our predesti- nation, viz., that the glory of God’s grace may be displayed and extolled’. Rosenmiiller makes δόξα τῆς χάριτος in this verse equi- valent to χάρις ἔνδοξος, ‘beneficium gloriosum ;’ but every reader must feel that such a hendiadys as ‘ glorious grace,’ gives a most unsatisfactory sense, and entirely destroys the breadth and beauty of the Apostle’s language. The meaning of the expression is, God has predestinated us to such exalted dignity, so that He Himself may be praised and glorified for the very magnitude of the benefit conferred upon us; and that not merely by us, but by angels also, who sing “ Glory to God in the highest*;” “for the surpassing greatness of the benefit moves the tongues even of the thankless to giving of thanks*.”’ “That we should praise the glory of His justice and mercy which He conferred on us who were undeserving”.” Haymo, in Joc., makes ‘glory’ refer to our redemption (i.e. Christ’s death upon the cross, whereby He redeemed us) and ‘ grace’ to the remission of our sins in baptism. wherein He hath made us accepted Ἔν 7 ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς---ἐν 4, scil. χάριτι. There is an- other reading, 7s, but it is very common to find a cognate substantive added to a verb, and ἐν χάριτι χαριτοῦν would not be an unusual form of expression. In Latin we meet with morte mori—servitutem servire, &c.; and in chap. ii. 4, διὰ THY πολλὴν ἀγάπην αὑτοῦ ἣν ἠγάπησεν ἡμᾶς. ᾿Ζιχαρίτωσεν cannot mean (as Calvin translates in order to support his doctrine of imputed righteousness) gratiosos vel acceptos habuit, but gratiosos fecit—gratificavit,—i.e. by im- parting His grace to us’. The sense of this passage is given mium referatur. Sed ipsius gratiz, τ “Quzeri poterat cur tandem Deo que est primus effectus przedestina- tionis, non potest, inquit, aliqua ratio assignari ex parte hominis, quid sit ratio predestinationis; hoc enim esset ponere quod principium boni operis sit in homine ex seipso, et non per gratiam, quod est heresis Pelagiana, que dicit principium boni operis esse ex parte nostra.”—LZstius, in loe. placuit nos in Christo adoptare in filios P Resp. in eo se respexisse lau- dem gratiz suz.”—Aretius, in loc. § Luke ii. 13, 14. τ Theodoret, in loc. ἃ Primasius, in 106. Y “Gratificavit nos, quia gratia et veritas, &e., John i. 17.”?—Gorranus, im loc. VER. 6.7] 51. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 49 with great. force by St. Chrysostom: ‘“ Wherewith,” he says, “ He hath made us gracious; that is to say, He hath not only released us from our sins, but hath also made us meet objects of His love. It is as though one were to take a leper, wasted by distemper and disease, by age, and poverty, and famine, and were to turn him all at once into a graceful youth, sur- passing all mankind in beauty, shedding a bright lustre from his cheeks, and eclipsing the sun-beams with the glances of his eyes; and then were to set him in the very flower of his age, and after that array him in purple, and a diadem, and all the attire of royalty. It is thus that God hath arrayed and adorned this soul of ours, and clothed it with beauty, and rendered it an object of His delight and love. Such a soul angels desire to look into, yea, archangels, and all the other powers. Such grace hath He shed over us; so dear hath He rendered us to Himself.” in the beloved. i.e. Christ, who is God’s ‘beloved,’ κατ᾽ ἐξοχήν. See Matt. im. 17; John ii. 16; 1 John iv. 9—11; see also Isa. v. 1. The expression as it stands is far more emphatic than if ‘Son’ were added to it, as has been sometimes done. ‘In’ may be taken as signifying (1) in union with whom, Le. by actually being made a part of Him ; which is the highest and noblest sense; or (2) on account of His merits; so that as God is said in the Old Testament to have blessed the Jews on account of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, &c., so in the New Testament is He said to bless us through (on ac- count of) Christ. St. Jerome thinks that the word ‘beloved’ does not describe the Father’s love for the Son, but means that He’ is the object of all men’s affection. For, he says, if Christ is Wisdom, Righteousness, Peace, Purity, &c., all men love these names of virtues, even though they do not for the present imitate them, consequently all men love Christ. This interpretation seems to have been followed by Sedulius; but it must be confessed to be eminently unsatisfactory*. Bishop Andrewes’ well remarks on the expression, “to the x Bp. Andrewes (Serm. vi. on Na- 1 through His beloved Son.’ tivity), ἐχαρίτωσεν ἡμᾶς ἐν τῷ ἠγαπη- y Serm. ix. on Lord’s Prayer, μένῳ, ‘He brought us in grace again H δ0 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. I. praise of the glory, &c.,”—“ Not that God is desirous of vain glory, He is not to receive anything from us, (but contrari- wise, as He is good, so He is desirous to communicate His goodness to us,) but the care that He hath for the sanctifying His Name ariseth from the duty which man oweth unto Him ; in which regard such as have been most religious in all times have reared up altars, and set up temples in honour of God’s Name.” 7. In whom 1.6. in Christ, and in Him alone. we have Ἔχομεν, 1.6. at the present time, and do not merely regard salvation as a question of expectancy. redemption ᾿Απολύτρωσις is plenissima liberatio, ‘the very fullest dis- charge.’ The primary signification of the word is ‘the ransoming of captives taken in war;’ and then it comes to mean any kind of deliverance which is accompanied by the payment of a price, (λύτρον). There are three senses in which this word is used in the New Testament, each, however, pre- serving the original idea of deliverance: (1) from perils and persecutions, Luke xxi. 28; Heb. xi. 35: (2) from the body which is weighed down by cares and distresses, Rom. vill. 23 ; Eph. i. 14, iv. 30: (3) from the guilt and punishment of sin, Rom. ii. 24; Heb. ix. 15; and this verse, where ἀπολύ- τρωσις and ἄφεσις τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν occur as cognate terms. The use of the article before ἀπολύτρωσιν must be ob- served, — ‘“‘ the redemption,’ —the well-known redemption effected by Christ, when He gave His own life as the λύτρον. Matt. xx. 28; 1 Tim. ii. 6. through His blood, For as under the old law pardon could not be obtained without the blood of a victim, so under the new covenant the application of the blood of Christ to the soul is needed in order to secure remission of guilt and punishment. See Rey. ν Ὁ I Pet. 1. 48; 49% vER. 6, 7.] 51. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 51 “Not only is there this marvel, that He hath given His Son, but yet further, that He hath given Him in such a way, as that the beloved One Himself should be slain! yea, and more transcendent still, He hath given the Beloved for them that hated Him. See, how high a price He sets upon us! If, when we hated Him, and were enemies, He gave the Beloved, what will He not do now, when we are reconciled by Him through grace?!” the forgiveness of sins, Exegetical of ‘redemption.’ This expression means de- liverance, not merely from the present dominion of sin, but from all the penalties and evils which are the consequence of sin. This David counted his crown, and prized it above his royal diadem*. “The death of the Lord made us worthy of love. For by that having laid aside the stains of our sins, and being de- livered from the slavery of the tyrant, we recovered the like- ness of the Divine Image”.” “He obtains a twofold grace, because He both redeemed us with His blood, and imputed not our sins to us; that is, He redeemed us, and set us free, (manumisit) °.” according to the riches of His grace ; “For He opens the fountains of mercy, and waters us with these streams‘.”’ St. Paul here mentions what was the moving cause that led God to give Christ to die for us,—not any merits on our part, but the exceeding love wherewith He loved us; and he uses the term ‘riches,’ as Justinian says, for the sake of strengthening his meaning, and shewing the depth of the divine beneficence. Conybeare and Howson translate this verse thus :—“ For in Him we have our redemption through His Blood, even the forgiveness of our sins in the riches of His grace,” St. Chrysostom® has some forcible remarks illustrative of z St. Chrys., in loc. © St. Ambrose, in loc. ® Ps, cil. 3, 4. 4 Theodoret, in loc. > Theodoret, in loe. © Hom. xiv. in Joh, 52 COMMENTARY ON [ CHAP. I. the ‘riches’ of God’s grace. ‘ What I possess,” he says, “is by participation (for I received it from another), and is a small portion of the whole, as it were a poor rain-drop com- pared with the untold abyss or the boundless sea; or rather, not even can this instance fully express what we attempt to say, for if you take a drop from the sea, you have lessened the sea itself, though the diminution be imperceptible. But of that Fountain we cannot say this; how much soever a man draw, It continues undiminished. We, therefore, must needs proceed to another instance,—a weak one also, and not able to establish what we seek, but which guides us better than the former one to the thought now proposed to us. Let us suppose that there is a fountain of fire; that from that fountain ten thousand lamps are kindled, twice as many, thrice as many, ofttimes as many; does not the fire remain at the same degree of fulness even after its impart- ing of its virtue to such numbers? It is plain to every man that it does.” For some excellent remarks concerning the words ‘ ransom’ and ‘remission of sins,’ see Thorndike, “ Οὐ the Covenant of Grace,” chap. xxvii. 8. Wherein ἧς for δὲ ἧς, or ἡ He hath abounded ᾿Επερίσσευσεν. “He,” either (1) the Father, or (2) better, the Son ; not, however, excluding the operation of the Father. ΠΕερισσεύειν is often taken in a neuter sense, ‘to abound.’ Sometimes, however, it is taken transitively (as here), ‘to make to abound.’ Cf. 2 Cor. ix. 8. Not content with having used the word πλοῦτον just before, St. Paul adds περισσεύειν, in order to impress as strongly as possible upon our minds the magnitude of God’s mercy towards us, “They are both ‘riches,’ and ‘they have abounded,’ that is to say, were poured forth in ineffable measure. It is not possible to represent in words what blessings we have in fact received. For riches indeed they f Theophylact paraphrases ἐπερίσσευσεν,--- ἀφθόνως ἐξέχεε. VER. 7, 8. ST. PAUL’S EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. 53 3 are, abounding riches; riches not of man, but of God; so that on all hands it is impossible that they should be ex- pressed 8.” The use of the word περισσεύειν, then, in this place, is full of the sweetest comfort, for it teaches us the inexhaustible nature of the Fountain of grace: it bursts forth like a deluge, and can be restrained within no bounds; a flood which, when at last it overwhelms the ungodly", will bear the ark on its bosom up towards heaven. toward us Gorranus supposes that this refers to the Apostles, and says that St. Paul, having previously mentioned the blessings which belong to Christians generally, now proceeds to de- scribe those which belong to the Apostles specially. But to say the least, this gives a very strained and unnatural sense to words, which properly relate to the whole body of believers. in all wisdom and prudence ; This may be explained in two ways: either (1) that God did all this in infinite wisdom and prudence towards us; or (2) that He did it so as to make us wise and prudent. The latter seems the best interpretation; and so St. Chrysostom takes it :—‘‘ Making us wise and prudent in that which is true wisdom, and that which is true prudence.” “Hither wisely and prudently He has made this known to us; or, having made us wise and prudent, He has thus made known to us the mystery of His will'.” ‘Wisdom’ is, according to Gorranus, the knowledge of divine things, ‘ prudence’ the knowledge of human. So also St. Jerome. Aretius, however, makes ‘wisdom’ embrace the virtues of contemplation, such as the true knowledge of God, re- ligious worship, &c.; while ‘prudence’ relates to practical virtues, such as constancy under persecution, &c.; and so Hemmingius *. 5. St. Chrysos., in loc. et presenti, de his que Deus facit ; h 2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. φρονήσει, ‘prudentiad,’ de futuro, de 1 (cumenius, in loc. his que nos faciamus.”— Bengel. k ἐς σοφίᾳ, ‘sapientid,’ de praterito δ4 COMMENTARY ΟΝ [0ΗᾺΡ. I. 9. Having made known Rosenmiiller makes γνωρίζειν -- ἀποκαλύπτειν. Γνωρίσας is, of course, connected with ἐπερίσσευσεν in verse 8. The same word occurs chap. i. 3, 5, 10, vi. 19. unto us Not the apostles (as some suppose), but Christians generally. the mystery of His will, TO μυστήριον TOD θελήματος αὑτοῦ, Sacramentum voluntatis sue = consilium arcanum,—that which even angels could not, penetrate. 1 Pet..1. 12: cf. Rom. xvi. 25; Col. i. 26: see also Rom. xi. 25. «