adjective human; and the very insertion of it would imply, that the writer or speaker was of the opinion, that the bare words every creature, were not certainly limited to human creatures, but would most obviously be taken in a greater extent.-This text therefore is so far from a proof, that " #aσa xlicis, every creature, is never used in all the New Testament (except in one disputed text) to signify more than all mankind;" that it is a clear proof, that it does naturally "signify more than all mankind,” and to make it signify no more, must be limited by arApawn, human.

After all, the very drift of the apostle shows, that in 1 Pet. ii. 13, he was so far from meaning all mankind by the expression ar apax, that he meant either not one of the human race, or at most but very few; that he meant either human laws and constitutions, or human magistrates, the king as supreme, governors who are sent by him, &c.

Now let the reader judge, whether rara 1015 be never used in all the New Testament to signify more or less than all mankind; and whether of the four instances in which it occurs, beside this of Rom. viii. it do not in every one signify either more or less than all mankind; excepting Mark xvi. 15. And it is equally against Dr. C's argument from Rom. viii. whether it be used in other places to signify more, or to signify less than all mankind. If it signify more in other places, it may signify more in Rom. viii. If it signify less in other places, it may signify less in Rom. viii.: and when the apostle says, "the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God," he may mean that only believers and true Christians, or the true church in all ages, as distinguished from the apostle, and first converts, who had the first fruits of the Spirit, are thus waiting, &c,

It is further to be observed, that is, creature or creation, without rara, is in the whole New Testament used ten times, beside the use of it in Rom. viii.; in no one of which does it mean mankind. The places in which it is used are all noted in the margin, that the reader may examine them for his own satisfaction.*

In the Septuagint version of the Old Testament, occurs but three times: 2 Chron. xiv. 15, where it is translated cattle: Ezra viii. 21; where it is translated substance and Psal. civ. 24, where it is translated riches.

In the Apocrypha it is used nine times; and not once to signify all mankind and not more or less.†

But it is time we attend to Dr. C's other reason for understanding the creature to mean all mankind; or at least to include all mankind, if it mean any thing more. The reason is,

3. That "it would be highly incongruous, to give this style" [the whole creation] "to the inferior or less valuable part, wholly leaving out the most excellent" part, mankind. But is there more propriety in calling a small part, though it be the most excellent part, the whole creation; than in calling by far the greater part the whole creation, though it be not so excellent? The learned men in any nation, are, in some respects, the most excellent part of the nation. But would it be more proper to call them, to the exclusion of all the unlearned, the whole nation, than to call all the unlearned, to the exclusion of the few learned, the whole nation? The few truly virtuous and holy persons who love God supremely and their neighbour as themselves, and who find the

*Mark x. 6; xiii. 19; Rom. i. 20, 25; 2 Cor. v. 17; Gal. vi. 15; Heb. iv. 13; ix. 11; 2 Pet. iii. 4; Rey. iii. 14.

The places are, Judith ix. 12; xvi. 14; Wisd. ii. 6; v. 17; xvi. 24; xix. 6 Eccl. xvi, 17; xliii. 25; xlix. 16.

+ Page 98.

strait gate, are undoubtedly the most excellent part of any nation. But would it be more proper to call them alone the whole nation, than to call the rest alone, the whole nation? Those of the apostolic age, who had the first fruits of the Spirit, were, without doubt the most excellent of that generation. But would it therefore be more proper to call them as distinguished from the rest of men, that whole generation; than to call the rest of men as distinguished from them, that whole generation? -Beside; propriety or congruity of language depends wholly on use. If the words creature, creation and whole creation be frequently in scripture used without any reference to mankind; then there is no incongruity in the same use of the same words, in this eighth chapter of Romans: and that this is the use, I appeal to the texts before quoted, which are all the texts in which the words here translated creature, and the whole creation, are to be found in all the scriptures.

II. We are to inquire into the meaning of the expression," manifestation of the sons of God."-These words, "The earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God;" are thus paraphrased by Dr. C. "The creature, the rational creature, mankind in general, waits for the time when it shall be revealed, that they are the sons of God."* He here takes it for granted, that the word creature means mankind. Whether this be a supposition justly founded, is now submitted to the reader who has perused what has been offered on this subject.

But even on the supposition that the creature does mean mankind, how strange it is that the waiting of this creature for the manifestation of the sons of God, should mean that this creature is waiting to be itself manifested to be

* Page 92.

the sons of God! Would it not be strange arguing, to say, that because the Jews waited for the manifestation of the Messiah, therefore they waited to have it manifested, that they were the Messiah! or that because Simeon waited for the manifestation of the consolation of Israel; therefore he waited to have it made apparent, that he was the consolation of Israel! Yet either of these expressions as naturally imports the sense which I have now given, as the expression, the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God, imports, that the creature" or race of creatures is waiting to have it "revealed that they are the sons of God."

66

III. The meaning of the word "vanity” next requires our attention. By this word Dr. C. understands “ mortality and all other unavoidable unhappiness and imperfection of this present weak, frail, mortal state."* Again, mankind were subjected to vanity or mortality." "God subjected mankind to vanity, i. e. the infelicities of this life." According to Dr. C. then, the vanity here spoken of is a natural evil. But it may at least be made a question, whether he be not mistaken, and whether it be not a moral evil. The same word, μx7a7ns, is used twice more in the New Testament; Eph. iv. 17, "That ye henceforth walk, not as other gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind, having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God," &c.; and 2 Pet. ii. 18, "For when they speak great swelling words of vanity." In these two, the only instances of its use in the New Testament, beside the text under consideration, it manifestly means not a natural but a moral evil, either positive wickedness or at least a sinful deficiency. Is not this a ground of presumption at least, that also in Rom. viii. 20, it means a moral evil?

In the same sense malas the adjective from which μalans is derived, is used Jam. i. 26, "This man's religion is vain:" and 1 Pet. i. 18, "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things-from your vain conversation." Malasqa is also used in the same sense, Rom. i. 21; "Became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened." Vain and vanity in none of these instances signify "mortality" or "infelicity;" but either positive sin or sinful deficiency.

Besides; the very nature of the case shows, that vanity in this instance was not used by the apostle, in Dr. C's sense. According to his sense of vanity, the apostle under the influence of the Holy Ghost, advances this proposition; The human race was made subject to "mortality, unavoidable unhappiness and imperfection," not willingly. But who ever supposed that the human race was made subject to these things willingly? or that any man, or any intelligent being, ever chose to be subject to mortality and unhappiness? This is a proposition too insignificant to be advanced by so sensible and grave a writer as Paul, and under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost too. The Doctor seems to have been aware of this objection to his construction of vanity, and therefore supposes the word willingly means, not what is naturally understood by it, a voluntary consent of the heart; but

that it means, 66 through some fault," "by a criminal

choice." Therefore

IV. We are to inquire into the meaning of 'the word willingly. Is it not at first blush a little extraordinary, that willingness must certainly mean a fault, a criminal choice? Suppose an historian should say, that Hugh Peters and others who were executed at the restoration of Charles the second, were executed not willingly; must we understand him to mean, that they were not executed in consequence of any fault of their own?-The ori