. Calvin thinks there is a sense in which good angels may be said to be redeemed by Christ. On this passage, he says: Nihil tamen impedit, quominus angelos quoque dicamus recollectos fuisse, non ex dissipatione, sed primum ut perfecte et solide adhereant Deo; deinde ut perpetuum statum retincant ... Quis neget, tam angelos quam homines, in firmum ordinem Christo gratia fuisse redactos? homies enim perditi erant, an geli vero non erant extra periculum. Again, on the parallel passage in Colossians, he says: Duabus de causis angelos quoque oportuit cum Deo pacificari, nam quum creaturae sint extra lapsus periculum non erant, non nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati ....

Deinde im hac ipsa obedientia, quam praestant Deo, non est tam exquisita perfectio, ut Deo omni ex parte et extra veniam satisfaciat. . His words are: klhrou~n dicitur, qui alteri dat possessionem, Klhrou~gqai , qui eam accipit. . So Bengel, who explains the expression thus: Pater gloriae, infinatae illius, quae refulget in facie Christi; immo gloriae quae est ipse filius Dei. . Dicit mortuos fuisse: et simul exprimit mortis causam; nempe peccata. — Calvin. . “The word aJmarti>a ,” says Harless, “has, according to the metonymical use of the plurals of abstract nouns, a different sense from the singnlar; viz. manifestations of sin, undetermined however, whether by word or deed or some other way. The assertion of David Schulz that aJmarti>a never expresses a condition , but always an act, deserves no refutation, as such refutation may be found in any grammar.” . In this interpretation commentators of all classes agree. Rueckert, one of the ablest and most untrammelled of the recent German commentators says: “It is perfectly evident from Romans 5:12-20, that Paul was far from being opposed to the view expressed in Psalm 51:7, that men are born sinners; and as we interpret for no system, so we will not attempt to deny that the thought, ‘we were born children of wrath,’ i. e. such as we were from our birth we were exposed to the divine wrath, is the true sense of the words.” Harless, a commentator of higher order, says: “Unless we choose to explain the word cputrel in a senseless and inconsistent manner, we can account for its use only by admitting that Paul proceeds on the assumption of an enmity to God at present natural and indwelling. And since such a native condition is not a fatuity, we can properly acknowledge no other explanation of the fact here incidentally mentioned, than that which in perfect consistency with the whole apostolic system of doctrine, is given in Romans 5th.” . The Rabbins said: Quicunque gentilem appropinquare facit, et proselytum facit, idem est ac si ipsum creasset. Wetstein . The repetition of eijrh>nhn before toi~v ejggu>v , has in its favor many of the Oldest MSS. amd versions, and is adopted by Lachmann, Meyer, and others. . Unus Deus omnes populos condidit, sic etiam nunc omnes ad se vocat.

Beza. . The MSS. A. B. C. 17. 67, the Coptic-Ethiopic, and Vulgate versions, and many of the Fathers omit the words tou~ Kuri>ou hJmw~n ’ Ihsou~ Cristou~. As however important external anthorities and the context are in their favor, the majority of recent ediltions and commentators retain them. . The Text here varies considerably. The Uncial MSS., A and C, several of the later ones, the Coptic and Vulgate, Jerome and Pelagius read, ejn th|~ ejkklhsi>a| kai< ejn Cristw|~ ’ Ihsou~ ; D, F, G invert the order and read, ejn Cristw|~ ’ Ihsou~ kai< ejn th|~ ejkklhsi>a|. The majority of editors retain the common Text. . O si animis nostris insideret haec cogitatio, hanc legem nobis esse propositam, ut non magis dissidere inter se possint filii Dei, quam regnum coelorum dividi, quanto in colenda fraterna benevolentia essemus cautiores? quanto nobis horrori essent ommes simultates, si reputaremus, ut decet, cos omnes se alienare a regno Dei, qui a fratribus se disjungunt? sed nescio qui fit, ut secure nos esse filios Dei gloriemur, mutuae inter nos fraternitatis obliti. Discamus itaque ex Paulo, ejusdem hereditatis minime esse capaces, nisi qui umum corpus sunt et unus spiritus. — Calvin . Calvin in his comment on this verse, says: Apostolis proximi erant Evangelistae , et munus affine habebant; tantum gradu dignitatis erant dispares; ex quo genere erant Timotheus et similes. Nam quum in salutationibus illum sibi adjungit Paulus, non tamen facit in apostolatu socium, sed nomen hoc peculiariter sibi vindicat. Ergo, secundum Apostolos, istorum subsidiaria opera usus est Dominus. — And in his Institutes IV:3, 4, he says: Per Evangelistas eos intelligo, qui qumm in dignitate apostolis minores, officio tamen proximi erant, adeoque vices eorum gerebant. Quales fuerunt, Lucas, Timotheus, Titus, et reliqui similes. . The ministry is to continue until katanth>swmen we (all) shall have attained to unity of faith. . See Dr. J. A. Alexander’s Commentary on the Psalms. . The common text has ejste but the evidence in favor of i]ste is so strong that it is adopted by all recent editors. . The common text has here pneu>matov instead of fwto. The latter reading is now universally adopted as the correct one on the authority not only of the MSS. but of the context. . The common text reads Qeou~ , but the anthority of the MSS. and versions is so decidedly in favor of Cristou~ that it is now universally adopted. . Sicuti Christus ecclesiae suae praeest in ejus salutem, ita nihil esse mulieri utilius nec magis salubre, quam ut marito subsit. Perire igitur affectant quae renuunt subjectionem, sub qua salvae esse poterant.— Calvin . The idea that all love, and therefore all holiness, is benevolence, and is proportioned to the capacity of its object, is one of those absurdities into which men inevitably fall when they give themselves up to the guidance of the speculative understanding, and disregard the teachings of the heart and of the conscience. A mother loves her infant, in every true sense of the word love, a hundred-fold more than she loves a stranger, though he may be the greatest man who ever lived. . Participium Graecum kaqari>sav est praeteriti temporis, ac si dicas:

Postquam mundarit. Verum quia apud Latinos nullum est tale participium activum, malui tempus negligere, quam vertendo Mundatum pervertere quod erat longe majoris momenti, nempe ut soli Deo relinquatur mundandi officium. . Quod Baptismo nos ablui docet Paulus, ideo est, quod illic nobis ablutionem nostram testatur Deus, et simul efficit quod figurat. Nisi enim conjuncta esset rei veritas, aut exhibitio, quod idem est, impropria haec loqutio esset. Baptismus est lavacrum animae. Interea cavendum, ne quod unius Dei est, vel ad signum, vel ad ministrum transferatur; hoc est, ut minister censetur ablutionis auctor, ut uqua putetur animae sordes purgare; quod nonnisi Christi sanguini convenit. Denique cavendum, ne ulla fiduciae nostrae portio vel in elemento, vel in homine haereat. Quando hic demum verus ac rectus sacramenti usus est, recta nos ad Christum manu ducere, et in ipso sistere. Quod autem aliqui in hoc baptismi elogio magis extenuando sudant, ne signo nimium tribuatur, si vocetur animae lavacrum; perperam faciunt. Nam primum apostolus non docet signum esse, quod mundet sed asserit solius Dei esse opus. Est ergo Deus qui mundat; nec transferri hoc honoris ad signum fas est, aut signo communicari. Verum signo Deum tanquam organo uti, non est absurdum; non quia virtus Dei inclusa sit in signo, sed quia nobis eam pro imbecilitatis nostrae captu tali adminiculo distribuat. Id quosdam male habet, quia putant Spiritui sancto auferri, quod est ejus proprium et quod illi scriptura passim vindicat. Sed falluntur; nam ita Deus per signum agit, ut tota signi efficacia nihilominus a Spiritu suo pendeat. Ita nihil plus signo tribuitur, quam ut sit inferius organum, et quidem a seipso inutile, nisi quatenus aliunde vim suam mutuatur. Quod praeterea verentur ne liberatas Dei sit alligatur, frivolum est. Neque enim affixa est signis Dei gratia, quin citra adminiculum signi libere eam distribuat, si velit, deinde multi signum recipiunt, qui tamen gratiae non fiunt participes, quia signum omnibus est commune, hoc est, bonis indifferenter ac malis; Spiritus autem nonnisi electis confertur; acqui signum, ut diximus, absque Spiritu est inefficax. — Calvin . The common Text reads aujthauthority of the MSS. ABDFG, has, since Griesbach, been almost universally adopted. . These words are omitted in MSS. AB 17, and in the Coptic and Ethiopic versions, and are left out of the text by Lachmann and Tischendorf. The other Uncial MSS., the Syriac version, the Fathers, are in their favor. They are required by the context, and their omission is easily accounted for. Even Mill and Griesbach retain them, as do all other editors, and the commentators almost without exception. . Diese Form des Ausdrucks ist Reminiscenz von Genesis 2:23, wo Adam die Entstehung der Eva aus seinem Gebeinen und aus seinem Fleische ausspricht, welcher Enstehung das genetische Verhaltniss der Christen zu Christo analog ist, naturlich nicht physich, sondern im geistlichen, mystischen Sinne, in so fern die christliche Dasein und Wesen der Christen, aus Christo originirt, in Christo sein Principium essendi hat, wie physicher Weise Eva aus Adam herruhrte . — Meyer. . Dicit nos esse ejus membra, ex carne et ossibus. Primum non est hyperbolica loquutio, sed simplex; deinde non tantum significat Christum esse naturae nostrae participem, sed altius quiddam exprimere voluit, kai< ejmfatikw>teron. Refert enim Mosis verba, Genesis 2:24. Quis ergo exit sensus? quemadmodum Heva ex Adae mariti sui substantia formata est, ut esset quasi pars illius; ita nos ut simus vera Christi membra, substantiae ejus communicatione nos coalesecre in unum corpus. Denique eam nostri, cum Christo unionem hic Paulus describit, cujus in sacra coena symbolum et pignus nobis datur . . . Panlus nos ex membris et ossibus Christi esse testatur.

Miramur ergo si corpus suum in coena fruendum nobis exhibet, ut sit nobis vitae aeternae alimentum? ita ostendimus nullam nos in coena repraesentationem docere, nisi cujus effectus et veritas hic a Paulo praedicatur. — Calvin.