there is the same general form of construction, and, except in the one last cited, a very close resemblance in language, It may seem somewhat remarkable that, while the Father and Son are in every instance referred to, no mention is made of the Holy Spirit, the third person in the adorable Trinity. It may be a reason for this that, as the Spirit of inspiration, the Holy Ghost conveys these salutations, by apostolic agency, from God the Father and his Son Jesus. Christ to the churches. Or perhaps prominence is intended to be given to the great economical fact in the plan of redemption, that it is God the Father who sends, and God the Son who is sent to achieve human salvation, while it is the office-work of God the Spirit to apply truth to the hearts of men, and make it effectual to their regeneration and sanctification. "Grace, mercy, and peace" may then be said to come from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, and, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, to rest upon all who are embraced in the covenant of redeeming love. But whatever weight may be given to these conjectural reasons for the omission of the name of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic salutations, no valid argument can be drawn from this omission against either the personality of the Spirit or his equality with the Father and the Son.

In the apostolic benedictions, we find greater diversity of form. In Romans, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, and the Apocalypse, the simple form is ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. In first Corinthians, μŵv and πáντwv are omitted. In 2 Corinthians we find the form which is generally designated the apostolic benediction: ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, καὶ ἡ ἀγάπη τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ ἡ κοινωνία τοῦ ̓Αγίου Πνεύματος μετὰ πάντων ὑμῶν. The benediction in Galatians is changed from the usual perà πάντων ὑμῶν το μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί. In Ephe sians the form suffers a still greater change, eipývn toîs ådeλφοῖς καὶ ἀγάπη μετὰ πίστεως ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The form in Colossians is simply ἡ χάρις μeð vμŵv. In 2 Timothy, the benediction is addressed first to Timothy and then to the church of which he was bishop:

ὁ Κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστὸς μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματός σου ἡ χάρις μεθ' ipov. A similar form of benediction closes the letter to Philemon: ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν, the plural ὑμῶν referring not only to Philemon, but also to the persons embraced in the salutation, vs. 1, 2. In Titus and Hebrews, it is ʼn xápis μetà πávтwv vμôv. The benediction is omitted in the epistle of James. The form in Peter's first epistle is εἰρήνη ὑμῖν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐν Χριστ TO 'Inσoû. In his second letter, a doxology takes the place of the benediction. No benediction is found in the first and second epistles of John. In his third epistle it is briefly εἰρήνη σου. Jude's epistle closes with a doxology instead of a benediction.

We see from this inspection that the apostles did not confine themselves to any one form of benediction, and that in some instances they omitted it altogether. The inference is obvious, that, as now employed in the dismission of Christian assemblies, the minister who pronounces the benediction is under no obligation to use one form to the exclusion of the rest, nor to seek variety by introducing forms of his own composing. It would seem preferable, however, to adhere strictly to scripture language, and avoid a monotonous repetition of the same form by a variety of selection, reference being always had to the character of the religious services which the benediction is intended to close. No stress should be laid upon the use of “the” or our," before the words" Lord Jesus Christ." Some of the benedictions have μov; in some it is omitted. Even where the pronoun is omitted, we may read "our Lord Jesus Christ," inasmuch as the article, according to the Greek usage, often supplies the place of an unemphatic possessive pronoun.

66

From this survey we also see how marked is the correspondence of form and sentiment between the apostolic salutations and benedictions. Were it not for their difference of position, the one class introducing and the other closing the epistles, so far as their sense and grammatical construction are concerned, they might all be denominated benedictions. But whatever appellation may be given them,

to distinguish the one from the other, they ought never to be regarded as independent or isolated, but as possessing such a mutual relationship, that the full sense of the one cannot be reached, except through the medium of the other. The salutations refer to the origin or source of the grace of the gospel, the benedictions, to its perfected fulness in Christ's forgiving love. The prepositional construction, ảπò Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, finds in the benedictions its counterpart in the subjective genitive, μv Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The preposition ἀπό in the salutations, by the constructio pugnans, imparts to the omitted verb the idea of motion, away from. Χάρις, ἔλεος, καὶ εἰρήνη are announced as proceeding from God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, and resting upon all who are embraced in the covenant of redemption. This notion of origin or source is left out of the benedictions, and the permanent indwelling of grace in the soul of the believer is that which is alone expressed.

In all his epistles recorded in the New Testament, Paul first announces his official relation to the churches, as an apostle of Jesus Christ, by virtue of which office, he proceeds to declare, in the terms of the salutation, that the grace and favor of God rest upon all true believers. This intimate relationship between the announcement of his apostleship and the salutation, imparts to the latter a depth of meaning, which is not reached by regarding it as a wish or prayer for the descent of spiritual blessings upon the churches addressed. Such a sense is also forbidden by the context which follows. Why is the salutation in every instance, and in such express terms, limited to the saints in Christ, the elect of God? Would it not have comported with his abundant labors as a missionary of Jesus Christ, for Paul to have invoked God's forgiving love to descend upon all, both converted and unconverted? Must it not have been the all-absorbing, controlling desire of his heart, that grace, mercy, and peace, with all the sanctifying influences of the Holy Spirit, should descend upon the Gentile world, to which in a special sense he was set apart as an

apostle? Did he not aver that his heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel was that they might be saved? Could they not have been embraced in the comprehensive sweep of these salutations, regarded simply as the expression of a strong desire for the descent of spiritual blessings? Why were these apostolic greetings in every instance so fully limited to those who were true believers?

To this there can be but one answer. It is because they were not mere wishes or prayers, embracing all in their benevolent scope, but declarative of blessings actually conferred upon Christ's followers, to which unbelievers had no claim, and were in no respect whatever the recipients. Let a few citations suffice to show in what express terms all others than true believers are excluded from the blessings conveyed in these salutations. In Romans, the salutation is addressed to the "beloved of God called to be saints;" in Ephesians, " to the saints and faithful in Christ Jesus;" in Philippians, " to all the saints in Christ Jesus with the bishops and deacons ;" in Colossians, " to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ," and so throughout the epistles. It was not enough that this limitation was indicated by the words" to the church of Christ at Corinth," or to the church at Ephesus, but it was rendered still more emphatic and explicit by the appended clauses just cited. This shows that these salutations are not to be regarded as mere wishes or prayers. They refer manifestly to the bestowal of a blesing which belongs only to God's people, and in which men in a state of impenitence and unbelief have no share.

From this point of view, let us examine the benedictions with which these same epistles are closed. Upon whom were they pronounced? To what class of persons does ὑμῶν πάντων refer? Most unquestionably to the same believers in Christ to whom the salutation had been previ ously addressed. The form varies somewhat from that of the salutation, but the sense is substantially the same. There was no necessity of repeating ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. The divine source of the grace of the gospel having been affirmed in the salutation, and proved

and illustrated throughout the whole epistle, there was a peculiar appropriateness in closing with the more tender and informal, ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ Távτwν iμôv. Are we not justified, then, in attaching to the benediction as weighty a significance as to the salutation? Nay, more, might we not have inferred that the great idea of the salutation would be repeated with more enlarged signification after the manifold grace of God in the work of redemption had been descanted upon in the epistle? These salutations and benedictions, when regarded as a solemn and formal announcement of the grace of God resting upon all his people, very appropriately introduce and close the apostolic letters. But how comparatively frigid and meaningless are they, when considered simply as prayers or desires for the descent of blessings upon the churches.

The argument for this exegesis gathers strength from the grammatical construction of the passages under consideration. In every instance, with a single exception, the verb is omitted. The ellipsis is beyond all doubt to be supplied by some form of eiui, the verb of existence. Commentators, however, are not agreed as to what this form shall be. If these salutations and benedictions are to be interpreted as wishes or prayers, we must suppose an ellipsis of eễn, the 3 sing. optat. present. We will not go so far as to pronounce such an ellipsis in a sentence, independent of some preceding clause containing the optatative, a grammatical absurdity, but it is so improbable that we would not venture to build an exegesis on so slight a foundation.

Winer cites several passages in the New Testament, where he would supply the optative ein. But a reference to some of these passages will show that the ellipsis of this mood is quite doubtful. One of them is John xx. 21, eipým ipiv, peace to you. But when we take into consideration the personage who employed this salutation, and the time and circumstances in which it was uttered, we cannot but attach to it a higher significancy than that of a simple wish that peace might rest in the troubled minds of the disciples. Another passage which Winer cites as containing the ellipsis