at last to be put, by skilful philologists, upon the particles of the Greek language. After all, the student must not depend on any lexicon to give him true skill in respect to the knowledge of them. Nothing but the most minute, distinguishing, and long continued practical observation of them, will answer the end in question. The reader will pardon this digression for the sake of those who are young in the study of sacred philology. It is for those, in particular, that I am writing. Μαθήματα τοῦ νῦν καιροῦ means suffering, such as Christians were then called to endure, or sufferings such as all men are exposed to endure, in the present life. The latter seems to be the preferable sense; because the reasoning of the apostle, in the context, has respect not to time then present only, but to the whole period of the present life down to its close, when a glorious reward succeeds a life of sorrow. The latitude in which the genitive case is employed should be noted from the phrase before us. The sufferings of the present time surely does not mean, the sufferings which time endures as the subject of them, but those which Christians endure while they continue in the present world. The genitive here, as often elsewhere, is the genitivus temporis, i. e. it marks the time belonging to the noun which precedes it, the designation of which is intended to qualify that noun. Ovx ağa, non aequiparanda sunt, are not to be put on a level, or are not to be reputed, not to be counted or regarded. The first seems rather the more apposite sense; and then noós, which follows in the construction, may be rendered in its usual sense, with. But if the second sense be preferred, viz. reputed, regarded, then noós has the sense of compared with, in comparison of So this preposition is sometimes used; e. g. Ecclus. 25: 19, Every evil is small ngos xaxíav yuvaixos, compared with the malignity of a woman. Joseph. cont. Apion. II. 22, All matter is worthless noos eixóvα zηv toútov, compared with the image of this [god]. The phrase τὴν μέλλουσαν δόξαν ἀποκαλυφθῆναι, is equivalent to αποκαλυφθησομένην. The Greek could use his regular future without a helping verb; or he could, as here, use the verb uέ and the infinitive, instead of a regular future. The word doğa, which here signifies future happiness, is used by the New Testament writers in a sense quite different from the classic one, which is, opinion, fame, reputation, etc. But the New Testament meaning of doga is borrowed from the Hebrew i or, splendour, magnificence, excellence. The idea of doğa in the presence of God, seems to be founded upon being there in the light or splendour of his presence. Hence light is used so often in the Bible as the image of happiness. Hence too, we may see something of the plenary meaning which doğa has, when used to describe a state of future happiness. In the present world, "eye hath not seen;" but when another world bursts upon the vision of Christians, after death shall have rent away the veil of mortality, there," in God's light they will see light;" there too, they shall enjoy "everlasting light, for God will be their glory." Verse 19. Here we have another yao, which sustains a relation to the preceding verse, like that which yάo in verse 18 sustains to verse 17. The apostle in verse 18 has introduced, as an object of attention, the glory which is to be revealed. That there is such a glory he now proceeds to shew, or at least to adduce reasons why Christians should confidently expect it. Γάρ, therefore, is in verse 19 prefixed to a clause added by way of confirming the sentiment of the preceding assertion. Anozagadoxia, earnest expectation, the German Ahndung. The etymology favours this meaning; for the word comes from anó, and xapa head, and doxeva to observe, look after. The Etymologicum Magnum explains it by τῇ κεφαλῇ προβλέπειν, to thrust forward the head and see, i. e. to look with anxiety or eagerness; like the Hebrew in. The same sense the word has in Phil. 1: 20. Ernesti observes, that the word is not intensive in the New Testament (Inst. Interpr. I. §2); but in this he seems to be plainly mistaken, if we may judge either from the composition of the word itself, or from the nature of the passages in which it stands. We come now to the principal word, on which very much of the difficulty of the passage before us turns, viz. xrisis. In order to proceed in a satisfactory manner with the investigation of it, I shall consider, in the first place, its meaning in the other passages of the New Testament where it occurs, and as compared with the corresponding Hebrew words; and then, in the second place, I shall propose and examine in order the various meanings which have been assigned to the word in this place, and endeavour to vindicate that sense to which the preference seems to belong. I. In regard to the meanings of xrious, in all the other pas sages of the New Testament where it is found, excepting the one before us, they may be distributed into two classes; viz. 1. It means the act of creation, creating. In such a sense it is generally conceded that it is employed in Mark 10: 6. 13: 19. Rom. 1: 20. 2 Pet. 3: 4. But the two first and the last of these significations might well be referred to no. 2, which follows. This is the proper and primary meaning of the word, according to the usual principles of the Greek language, in which words of this class commonly denote the act of doing any thing, they being what grammarians call nomina actionis. So in the Greek classics, the sense of making, constructing, building, creating, etc. is the one attached to this word. But in the majority of examples in which zvíσis occurs in the New Testament, the meaning is different from this. 2. It means creature, created thing, any product of creating power, creation as an existing thing. Such a deflection from the primary meaning of a word, is very common, not only in the Greek, but in all other languages; the abstract (nomen actionis) passing, as grammarians say, into the concrete sense; i. e. the word which denoted action, being also used to denote the consequences or effects of that action. So here, xrious, the act of creating, is more commonly employed in the New Testament to signify the effects of this action, viz. a thing created, res creata. But this second signification being in its own nature generic, is either used generically, or is also employed to designate any of the several species of meanings that may constitute a part of the generic one. a) It is used in its generic sense, i. e. as meaning created things, creation, any created thing, in Rom. 1: 25. 8: 39. Col. 1: 15. Heb. 4: 13. Rev. 3: 14, perhaps also in Mark 10: 6. 13: 19, and 2 Pet. 3: 4. In a sense very nearly allied to this, it is used in Heb. 9: 11 to designate the material creation as such, in distinction from the spiritual one. This distinction, however, results rather from the exigency of the passage, and the distinction made here by the word tautns, than from the force of κτίσις. b) Krious is also used in a specific sense, and means the rational creation, man, men, the world of mankind. Thus in Mark 16: 15, Go preach the gospel nάon tỷ xríos, to all men, to every man. Col. 1:23, which [gospel] has been preached iv nάon in arios, among all nations, or to every man. 1 Pet. 2: 13, Be subject then nάon avdownivy xriou, to every man, to every human being, for the Lord's sake, i. e. out of regard to the Lord Christ. What the meaning of this is, the explanation immediately subjoined informs us; viz. eïte ßaoiβασι λεῖ, ὡς ὑπερέχοντι· εἴτε ἡγεμόσιν, ὡς δι' αὐτοῦ κ.τ.λ. i. e. ‘Be subject to every man placed in authority, whether he be a king who has preeminence, or a governor appointed,' etc.These examples make it clear, that xrious is employed to designate a specific class of created beings, as well as created things in general. c) The word is then sometimes employed in a more specific and limited sense still, viz. to designate the new rational creation, those who are created anew in Christ Jesus, Christians. Such is the meaning in 2 Cor. 5: 17, If any one be in Christ, he is naivǹ xriois, a new creature. Gal. 6: 15, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails any thing, but xaιvy xtiois. This rather seems to mean, a new act of creating, the power of the Spirit in renovating the soul. But in both of these cases, the special meaning depends on xawn, rather than upon κτίσις. These are all the cases in which xrious occurs in the New Testament, excepting those in the passage under examination. From these we gather the conclusion, that the usus loquendi allows us to assign to xrious either of the three meanings ranked under no. 2, i. e. it may be interpreted as meaning things created or the natural creation, men or mankind, or lastly, Christians. But this last meaning is made, as we have seen, by the addition of the epithet καινή. I have only to add here, as a confirmation of the above meanings assigned to xrious, (which however are not altogether peculiar to the New Testament, see Judith 9: 12. 11: 14. Wisd. 2: 6. 16:24. 19: 6), that the Chaldee and the Rabbinic Hebrew coincide with the usage just exhibited. The words in these languages which correspond to xrios, are 77, 7 72, 73, which all mean creatio, creatura, res creata, i. e. the act of creating, and the thing created, just in the same way as ztiois does. Moreover, in Rabbinic Hebrew, the plural form ni sometimes means homines, men, specially the heathen. All this, we see, corresponds with the New Testament use of xrious, and explains it when a reference to the Greek classics would not. In regard to the last particular of all, viz. that ni sometimes means the heathen, by way of degrada tion or contempt, it is singular that we have adopted, into vulgar English, the very same meaning of the word creature, and applied it in a derogatory sense to human beings; e. g. ‘the creature refused to obey.' II. We have seen what meanings are assigned to xrious by the writers of the New Testament, and what belonged to the corresponding Chaldee and Hebrew words. Which of all these, now, shall be applied to xrious in the passage before us? That the reader may see how variously this question has been answered, I will lay before him the different interpretations given to it. These are, 1. The angels. 2. The souls (the animating principle) of the planetary worlds. 3. Adam and Eve, because they were the immediate work of creative power. 4. The souls of believers, in distinction from their bodies., 5. The bodies of believers, i. e. their dead bodies, in distinction from their souls. 6. Christians in general. 7. Christians in particular, i. e. either Jewish Christians, or Gentile Christians. 8. Unconverted men in general. 9. Unconverted men in particular, i. e. either unconverted Jews, or unconverted heathen. 10. The material creation, inanimate and animate, exclusive of rational beings. 11. The rational creation or men in general, mankind. The mere enumeration of these opinions is enough to shew, that the passage before us has indeed been a locus vexatissimus. According to the plan proposed, they must all be examined. But we may make short work with most of them, without incurring the danger of being charged with any presumption. 1. The angels. But as the xrious here mentioned is made subject to a frail and dying state (μaralóτnre), and is represented as longing after τὴν ἀποκάλυψιν τῶν υἱῶν τοῦ Θεοῦ, it cannot be good angels; for they are not subject to such a state, and are already in possession of the glory which is to be revealed. It cannot be evil angels; for neither are they mortal, nor do they wait for (anexdéyera) the glory of the future world, since they know it is impossible they should ever be made partakers of it. 2. The souls of the planets. This hardly seems to be worth an attempt at confutation. Yet no less a writer than Origen has gravely advanced this idea. It is, at least, worth something as a matter of curiosity, to see how the ancient fathers could philosophize. "This vanity (uatαióτns)," says Origen, |