the sense of xríoua; and properly denotes a created thing, a creature. "Neither is there any creature that is not manifest in his sight." Heb. 4: 13. The same use occurs in Rom. 8: 39, 2 Cor. 5: 17, 1 Pet. 2: 13, Mark 16: 15; and also, we think, in Col. 1: 15, 23, Gal. 6: 15, Rom. 1: 25. The use of nãoα in verse 22 is worthy of notice. If xríos denotes the creation in general, nãoα is employed merely to give emphasis to the expression, and this verse is to be regarded as little more than a repetition of the preceding context. But if xzíois designate an individual object, and zãoα xzioís denotes the whole community* to which it belongs, we can account for the different expressions. The compound form of the verbs employed in verse 22 ought not to be overlooked. The argument of the apostle appears to be this: The xríois (the particular xzios alluded to) is at present" subjected to vanity," and is "waiting for" deliverance: nor is this surprising; "for we know that every xríois-in common-is groaning and travailing in pain until now."

2. The xríos is destined to experience a renovation at the resurrection. A careful examination of the passage will make this perfectly obvious.

3. The xríois has a personal interest and participation in the glory of the saints. It is represented as awaiting, not merely a renovation coincident with, and similar to "the manifestation of the sons of God," but the same manifestation. Besides, the apostle directly asserts that the xrious "shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption, into the liberty of the glory of the children of God."

4. The xríos is an object possessing life and sensation. It is represented as longing-waiting-willing-groaning-travailing in pain. These expressions can hardly have been used in reference to a senseless and inanimate object. None but the strongest reasons should lead us to adopt such an interpretation.

5. There is a manifest distinction between the xzíois and the Christian. The simple expression xai avr xríois, even the creature itself, is sufficient to show that it is distinguished from the sons of God, and is something inferior to them. A comparison of verses 22 and 23 will place the fact beyond dispute.

Πᾶσα is here taken, not in the sense of έκαστος, each, every one indifferently, but as denoting an entire class—the whole in distinction from a part. See Butt. 127: 6. Comp. Mark 16: 15, Phil. 1: 3, Eccl. 3: 17.

We are now prepared to inquire into the particular application of this term. In what are these conditions fulfilled? We cannot understand by xríos, the human race, men in general. This collective sense cannot be reconciled with the supposition that it designates an individual object. And such an explanation is inconsistent with the fact that the xrious is looking forward to the resurrection for its deliverance; and is destined to participate in the glory of the saints. Will all men, indiscriminately, be "introduced into the liberty of the glory of the children of God?" And is it true that men in general are not willingly subjected to vanity?

For similar reasons, we cannot understand by xvious the material universe, the inanimate creation. The opinion, that the material universe will finally be renovated, is more a matter of conjecture than of revelation. The only passage which can be urged with any confidence in favor of this sentiment, is 2 Pet. 3: 13. But, the apostle's particular conception of a new heaven and a new earth, we are unable to determine. Yet, no one can imagine the actual participation of inanimate nature in the glory of the children of God. And not only the description of the xríois as a sensitive object, but the peculiar subjection to which it is doomed, shows conclusively that the material universe cannot be intended. In what way the various elements and objects of nature are subjected to vanity—τῇ ματαιότητι—in any authorized sense of that term, has never been shown. Vanity, however, is not the only evil to which the xríos is subjected. Bondage and corruption pertain to its present condition. But how can inanimate nature be regarded as in bondage-especially in the bondage of corruption? Is the fact that the ground was cursed for man's sake, so as not spontaneously to yield its productions, a sufficient reason for applying to it the expressive language of the apostle?

Is there any object, then, within the range of our knowledge, in which the necessary conditions of the xríois are fulfilled? Such an object, we think, is the animal part of the human constitution-the body (the Christian) regarded as the subject of instinct and sensation.. To maintain this interpretation, it is necessary simply to show, that the proposed application of xzíois is natural and authorized, and that it meets the exigencies of the passage.

I. Is this sense of xríois natural and authorized? It will be admitted, we presume, this use of the term is not unnatural in

itself. To distinguish the animal from the spiritual part of man, and to speak of them as distinct, is common to profane and sacred writers. The apostle frequently represents the body and the spirit as possessing desires and performing actions peculiar to themselves. He speaks expressly of the outward man or animal nature, as distinguished from the inward man or the spiritual nature. 2 Cor. 4: 16. The body, thus distinguished from the spirit, may very fitly be styled the creature. If the material part of the universe may be designated xríos, may we not suppose a similar usage in relation to the material part of man? În perfect accordance with this suggestion, the body of man is the only part of his constitution which God is represented as having properly created. Gen. 2: 7. A sufficient reason for this use of xrious may be found in the likeness of our animal nature to the brute creation. In mere physical constitution there is no essential difference.

But is this use of xríos sustained by other examples? This question it is not necessary to decide. If it can be shown that this application of the term is natural, and not inconsistent with its acknowledged signification, the exigency of the passage will bear us out. Does any one mistake the force of oixía in 2 Cor. 5: 1, because no instance of a similar use can be found in the New Testament, or, perhaps, in the language? Does not xríois itself, in 1 Pet. 2: 13, properly denote an ordinance or institution?-a sense unusual, if not elsewhere unknown? The apostles employed the language of common life. This use of xtios, though it may be confirmed by no Greek author whose writings are extant, might have corresponded with the "usus loquendi" at that time. A usage may have prevailed among Christians similar to that which is common at the present day in relation to the English term "creature."

II. Do the exigencies of the passage require or sustain this sense of xrious? The sentiment of the passage appears to be closely connected with the preceding context. In verses 10 and 11, the apostle assures his brethren that even their bodies, though doomed to death because of sin, shall be restored to life and immortality, by virtue of the resurrection of Christ and the indwelling of the Spirit. In verse 13, he reminds them, that, by mortifying the deeds of the body through the Spirit, they shall live, in the sense just explained-in their entire nature. Comp. John 11: 25, Col. 3: 4, 5, 1 Cor. 15: 22, 1 Thess. 5: 10. He then adds: For as many as are led by the Spirit of God,

they are the sons of God. Having paused to prove this assertion, he completes his argument in verse 17: "If children (or sons), then heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." With a vivid conception of the privilege of being glorified with Christ, the apostle exclaims: For I reckon that the sufferings of the present time are of no weight in comparison with (ngós) the glory which is to be manifested upon us. This sentiment he wishes deeply to impress on the minds of his brethren. He is anxious to satisfy them, that, although in a suffering condition, they are destined to attain to those glorious privileges which, as the children of God, they had been encouraged to expect. The time of their "manifestation" has not yet arrived; the enjoyment of their promised inheritance is beyond the present life. Comp. 1 Pet. 1: 3-9; 4: 12, 13; James 5: 7; Gal. 6: 9; Heb. 12: 1, et seq.

The apostle proceeds to show that the inheritance of the saints is yet to be revealed; from the present condition of their animal nature; which, though destined to participate in their glorification with Christ, is still subjected to degradation and suffering. "The earnest expectation of the creature is awaiting the manifestation of the sons of God." Their animal nature, as it instinctively shrinks from suffering, may be represented as looking and longing for deliverance: and as its redemption is necessarily involved in being glorified with Christ, its present condition is anevidence that "the manifestation of the sons of God"-theexhibition of their real character and the revelation of theirglory-is to be waited for-is to be realized only in a future state. "For the creature has been subjected to vanity." The animal constitution is doomed to remain, during its present state of existence, in degradation and misery-to experience the ef

fects of sin.

It has been usual to connect ἐπ' ελπίδι, in hope, with ὑπετάγη, has been subjected, and to regard the intervening expression as a parenthesis; but the harshness of this construction, arising especially from the unnatural repetition of xríos, seems to forbid its admission. By connecting in λnidi immediately with vzorážavra, him who subjected it, these difficulties are avoided, and an apposite sense is secured. Adopting this construction, thus express the sentiment of the passage: The creature has been subjected to vanity, not willingly indeed—not without desires and indications of release, but in consequence SECOND SERIES, VOL V. NO. I.

we may

17

of one who has subjected it in hope-who has placed it in a hopeful as well as suffering condition-hope that* even the creature itself shall be liberated from the bondage of corruption-that even the animal nature shall be delivered from its present infirmities and afflictions, yea, even from the confinement and corruption of the grave-into the liberty of the glory of the children of God.

In verse 22, the apostle, to confirm his argument, appeals to a fact universally known and acknowledged: "For we know that every creature in common groans and travails in pain until now." He has just said that the creature is at present subjected to vanity; and this subjection is involuntary. The former position is sustained by the fact that all creatures alike are in a suffering condition; the latter by their groans and pangs in this state of subjection. Πᾶσα ἡ κτίσις may denote all men considered merely as sensitive beings, and need not include the brute creation. We know, says the apostle, that all creatures in common-the saints in their animal nature as well as others -are groaning under infirmity and affliction even to the present time. The full liberty of children-" the manifestation of the sons of God"-has not yet been realized.

The state and feelings of Christians, as rational and spiritual beings, are next appealed to as proof that their inheritance is future. "And not only so, but even we ourselves, though we have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of our body.” Καὶ αὐτοὶ and καὶ ἡμεῖς αὐτοὶ ἐν ἑαυτοῖς, we suppose, were designed to distinguish Christians, not so much from the nãoα n xríos, as from their own animal nature. This supposition, indeed, is the only satisfactory explanation of this peculiarly emphatic repetition. Not only is the creature-the animal part of our constitution, subjected to vanity and waiting for deliverance, but even we ourselves we in our proper persons, though partakers of the renovating influence of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for our adoption our manifestation as the children of God--the resurrection and glorification of our bodies.

The passage, as thus explained, is invested with a peculiar

* Should the reader prefer to follow our English version in rendering because, it will accord equally well with this interpretation.