Romans Ix. 5.

mentions in the order of time all the privileges of Israel (the fathers being by the way [incidentally] joined with Christ). He therefore mentions Christ, as He was manifested [last in order of time] ; but it was not necessary that that should be in like manner mentioned of God. Moreover, Christ was in singularly near relationship to the Israelites ; but God was also the God of the Gentiles, ch. iii. 29 : and it was not God, but Christ, whom the Jews rejected more openly. What? In the very root of the name Israel , and therefore of the Israelites , to which the apostle refers, ver. 4, 6, the name El , God , is found. He objects, III. The style of the Fathers disagrees with this opinion : nay, the false Ignatius [pseudoignatius] reckons among the ministers of Satan those, who said, that J esus Himself is God over all. Ans. By this phrase, he has some- what incautiously described the Sabellians, and next to them he immediately places the Artemonites in the same class. In other respects the fathers often apply the phraseology of Paul respect- ing Christ to the Father, and by that very circumstance prove the true force of that phraseology [as expressing Divinity] ; and yet the apostle is superior to [should have more weight than] the fathers. Wolfius refutes Artemonius at great length in vol. ii. Curar. ad N. T., p. 802, etc. — ini nuvrwv, over all) The Father is certainly excepted, 1 Cor. xv. 27. Christ is of the fathers , accord- ing to the flesh ; and at the same time was , is , and shall he over all , inasmuch as He is God blessed for ever . Amen ! The same praise is ascribed to the Father and the Son, 2 Cor. xi. 31. Over all, which is antithetic to, of whom , shows both the pre-existence (tfpo-jvapfyv) of Christ before the fathers, in opposition to His des- cent from the fathers according to the flesh, and His infinite majesty and dominion full of grace over Jews and Gentiles ; comp, as to the phrase, Eph. iv. 6 ; as to the fact itself, John viii. 58 ; Matt. xxii. 45. They are quite wrong, who fix the full stop either here [after vavruv], (for the comma may be placed with due respect to religion) ; for in that case the expression should have been, ev?.oyrjrbg 6 Ssog [not 6 — 3gos suXcy^rogJ, if only there had been here any peculiar occasion for such a doxology ; or [who fix a full stop] after <sdpxa ; for in this case rb xara cdpxu would be without its proper antithesis [which is, u who in His divine nature is God over all”]. — 0s os, God) We should