25. But the object of our hope being future, we do patiently wait for it.

25. But if we hope for that which we do not see, we patiently wait for it.

1. In assigning reasons for giving to rios the meaning which I have done, I admit that the term has not precisely the same shade of meaning in any other passage. It is used with considerable latitude in the New Testament, and in each case takes its peculiar phase or signification from its connexion. Beyond doubt, in Mark 16: 15, Preach the Gospel to naon η ziosi, and Col. 1: 23, ¿v naoŋ TMy ztios, it means mankind in general. Equally clear is it that, in 2 Cor. 5: 17, and Gal. 6: 15, it denotes, with the adjective zawy, one brought into a right state of feeling and acting; that is, a Christian. But in 1 Pet. 2: 13, πᾶσα ἀνθρωπίνη κτίσει, I agree with the translators of our version that it means "ordinance"-every human institution, viz. of government. While in Rom. 1:20, 25. 8: 39. Heb 4:13. Mark 10: 6. 13: 19. 2 Pet. 3: 4. Col. 1: 15. Rev. 3: 14, it means the act of creating, the thing created, the universe, different orders of intelligent beings. And in Heb. 9: 11, it seems to mean the visible material creation, in distinction from that which is invisible.

Let not the meaning which I have given to the term rivis be discarded, on the ground that it is not supported by the usus loquendi. If asked why I use the word out of its usual signification, or differently from its use in any other instance, the answer is, the exigency of the passage demands it. Why do we say that in Mark 16: 15, "preach the Gospel to every creature," лάon τ ziσ, the word means mankind, or the whole human family; and not the act of creating, as in Rom. 1: 20, or the visible material creation, as in Heb. 9: 11? and why render Heb. 9: 11, Tavins is riosos, this visible material creation? Has the word precisely such a meaning in any other passage? Why not render it mankind, as in Mark 16: 15, or "ordinance," as in 1Pet. 2: 13? Would such a meaning be incongruous with the connexion? would it convey a foolish or absurd sense? and would this be an adequate reason for not giving such a meaning to the term? So in the passage in debate, the scope and connexion, exigentia loci, seem to demand this meaning, and to admit of no other. As to the usus loquendi of zrious, who shall determine it, amid such a variety of significations? or who shall say it cannot have the meaning which I assign to it if this passage, because it has not precisely the same in any other? After all, there is no great departure from the more common signification of the term. Its prevailing meaning is a created thing; sometimes

men, sometimes the whole universe, or a part; as used with xairn, it means Christians. But in the passage under examination, it means Christian men, as possessed of a frail, corporeal nature. So that the term in this place combines the various significations of it in other passages, rather than assumes one entirely

new.

2. But in proof that the exigency of the passage requires the meaning which I have given to xrious, let us attend to the logical argument of it; or to the design and object which the apostle had in view. On this point, I concur with Prof. Stuart, that the apostle's theme is contained in verse 18: 'I count not the sufferings of the present time, as worthy of comparison with the glory which is to be revealed to us;' i. e. I regard the present sufferings of Christians as hardly deserving of notice, because of the unspeakable glory to which they are coming, and which will be heightened by their present trials." Verse 25, "contains the practical conclusion deduced from the whole;" which is, "that Christians in the midst of sufferings and trials ought not to faint or be discouraged," but patiently wait for the glory which is to be revealed.

Now to see the bearing of the intermediate verses, 19-24, upon the premises and conclusion, we must mark the emphasis laid on "the sufferings of the present time," sufferings in the body, v. 18, which is so forcibly contrasted with "the redemption of the body," v. 23. The logical argument runs thus: 'Our present sufferings are nothing in comparison with the glory which we shall enjoy hereafter. For this frail and perishing body in which we suffer now, is waiting for a great and glorious deliverance. God has appointed our lot; but we are cheered with hope that we shall be delivered from all the trials and sorrows to which we are subject;-yea, the groanings and anguish of all believers will come to an end, when that period arrives, which is called the "manifestation of the sons of God," "the adoption," even the "redemption of the body." Be not therefore disheartened, but amid all "the sufferings of the present time," rejoice in hope of the glory which is to come.'

The logic of the passage, viewed in the light here presented, is clear and convincing. But if xrious means mankind in general, and verses 19-24 are an "illustration and confirmation of the truth that there is a world of rich and everlasting enjoyment" to Christians, then I must confess that, to me, the apostle's logic is weak and inconclusive. For how could the desire of immortality in mankind illustrate and confirm the Christian's hope of "the manifestation of the sons of God, or their "filiation-the redemption of the body?" Especially, as the desire of immor

tality, which is said to characterize the human race, does in fact amount to no more than a desire of continued existence, or a dread of annihilation? It is wholly unlike the Christian's hope of future glory;-how then can it confirm that hope? Besides, considering the opinions which prevailed respecting the immortality of the soul, at the time when the apostle wrote, is it probable that he would introduce such a topic, to confirm Christians in their belief of a "world of rich and everlasting enjoyment?" Did he not know that the whole sect of Sadducees believed that the soul died with the body, and that there is no future state,—' neither angel nor spirit;' that the doctrine of metempsychosis, or transmigration of souls, was the prevalent belief among philosophers, and the common people too, so far as they had any belief; and that this belief prevailed to some extent among the Jews also? See John 9:1-4. Matt. 16: 14. Luke 9: 19. Considering how vague and inconsistent the opinions of both Jews and Gentiles were on this subject, can it be considered sound logic in the apostle thence to argue the certainty of the Christian's hope of glory?

3. But further, what is predicated of xxious, is true of Christians only, and can in no just sense be applied to mankind in general. In support of this position I shall go at once into an examination of these predicates.

us.

(1.) Την αποκάλυψιν των υιών του θεον, the manifestation of the children of God, v. 19, evidently correspond with μékhovoar δόξαν αποκαλυφθῆναι v. 18, the glory which is to be revealed to This manifestation is to be made at the period when Christ shall appear to judge the world, and to bestow eternal rewards upon his followers. 1Cor. 1: 7. 2Thess. 1: 7, 10. 1Pet. 1:7, 13. 4: 13. 5: 1, 4. "Waiting for the coming tv dлozáhver, of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall confirm you unto the end, blameless, in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." "Rest-when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven év 1 dлoxalvчs with his mighty angels to be glorified in his saints and to be admired in all them that believe." "That the trial of your faith, might be found unto praise and honor and glory at the appearing & anоzakóчɛi of Jesus Christ." "Hope to the end, for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the appearing ev dлoxok yer of Jesus Christ." "Rejoice that when his glory shall be revealed, &v tñ áлozakýчɛi ins dóns, ye may be glad also with exceeding joy." "A partaker of the glory that shall be revealed” αποκαλυπτεσθαι; “when the Chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away."

ἐν

Clearly, from the foregoing passages, "the manifestation of the sons of God" is, when Christ shall come in glory to bestow end

less rewards upon his followers. Then they shall be manifested to the intelligent universe in all the excellence of their character; "shall be rewarded openly;" and "shall shine forth in the kingdom of their Father." Then shall the declaration of the apostle John be fulfilled: "It doth not yet appear what we shall be ; but we know that when he shall appear we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is." 1 John 3: 2. Also, that of Paul, "when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory." Col. 3: 4.

(2.)" In hope, that the aver ions shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the glorious liberty of the children of God," v. 21. "The bondage of corruption" dovke ia îηs pooga's evidently corresponds with the "vanity," TuaraιórηT to which the xtiois was made subject, v. 20. It is the bondage of a frail and perishing state, which belongs to our corporeal nature. The apostle seems to have the same thought in view, when he speaks of "our vile body," Phil. 3: 21, and of the body being "sown in corruption." 1 Cor. 15: 42.

"The glorious liberty of the children of God," ɛis tηv élɛv0ygiav zs dons, into which the xrious shall be brought, is the antithesis of "the bondage of corruption," and the meaning of it is already explained by what has been said of the "manifestation of the glory of the children of God," v. 19; and if possible, is still more clearly elucidated by verse 23, "waiting for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." On this point, no exposition can be more lucid and satisfactory than that given by Prof. Stuart. The Tious shall be freed from its frail and perishing condition, and be introduced into the liberty of the glory of God's children at the period of "the redemption of the body." Then, groaning and anguish and all the sufferings of the present time will come to an end. This frail and corruptible "body will be made like unto Christ's glorious body." "This mortal will put on immortality." "The children of God," exulting in their 'glorious liberty,' will be made "like unto the angels-being children of the resurrection." Phil. 3: 21. 1 Cor. 15:53. Luke 20: 36.

Such being the predicates of zivis, I ask, are these things true of mankind at large? Is there an "earnest expectation" on their part of" the manifestation of (that glory which Christ will bestow upon) the children of God?" Though true, that mankind, in general, are subjected to frailty and suffering; is it true that they shall be delivered from their bondage, and be brought into the glorious liberty of God's sons? Do they in fact "hope" for this, in any such sense as the term en ɛnidi v. 20, means? For though Prof. Stuart has given it the lowest meaning possible, so as to make it somewhat agree with fact; yet manifestly it has

the same force in this passage, as in verse 24, and is equivalent to the aлoxagadoxia earnest expectation in verse 19. On this point I may turn the language of Prof. Stuart to my advantage. "It has even been a matter of difficulty to my mind, to know how the apostle could speak of [mankind in general] as earnestly expecting or looking for the revelation of the sons of God, or as looking to be freed from [their] state of bondage, and brought to enjoy the glorious liberty of the children of God." And I must confess that, as it seems to me, nothing which he has said, at all removes this difficulty.

For, first, such a sentiment has 'no parallel in any part of the Scriptures. It is a perfect anomaly in Scripture doctrine, not having, as I can find, or as any expositor that I am acquainted with has attempted to show, a shadow of support in any other passage in the Bible. Even the rhetorical exclamation of Cicero does not warrant such a sentiment. "O præclarum diem, cum ad illum divinorum animorum concilium cœtumque proficiscar, cumque ex hac turba et colluvione discedam!" Or if this warrants the sentiment; let Cicero, not Paul, have the honor of it!

Not only has this doctrine no support in Scripture; it is directly contrary to it. For mankind in general, including of course the unconverted, who probably constitute the greater part, are represented as hating the children of God; having no fellowship with them; not knowing them; having no hope; without God in the world. They are averse to holiness, and have no relish for that spiritual happiness which the children of God will forever enjoy. At the revelation of Jesus Christ, they shall wail because of him;" shall "come forth to shame and everlasting contempt;" and "shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his power." See John 15: 18, 19. 1 John 3: 1. 1 Cor. 2: 14. Eph. 2: 1-3, 12. Rom. 8: 5, 7, 8. 2 Thess. 1: 6-10. John 5: 29. Rev. 1: 7, et passim. How these things, which are true of mankind in general, certainly of all the unconverted, can be consistent with their earnest expectation of the glory which is to be revealed to the regenerate children of God, or how they can be said "to hope" for the glorious liberty of God's sons, I am at a loss to determine.

But further, what is predicated of xrious is preeminently true of Christians of Christians with respect to their corporeal part, which is subjected to frailty and death. So evident is this, that every Christian heart spontaneously responds to the language, when thus interpreted; and the difficulty of appropriating it to others is so palpable, that no reasoning can remove it. "I acknowledge," says Prof. Stuart," that if one insists on construing